BX 6217 .G5 1773a v. 2
Gill, John, 1697-1771.
A collection of sermons and
tracts
COLLECTION
O F
SERMONS AND TRACTS:
f
IN TWO VOLUMES.
CONTAINING,
V O L. I.
I. ANNUAL SERMONS.
II. OCCASIONAL SERMON'S.
III. FUNERAL SERMONS.
VOL. U.
I. ORDINATION SERMONS.
II. .POLEMICAL TRACTS.
III.- DISSERTATIONS.
Several of which were never before Printed.
By the late. Reverend and Learned
JOHN GILL, Z). r>.
To which are Piciixcd,
MEMOIRS
OF THE
LIFE, WRITINGS, and CHARACTER of the Author.
VOL.
n.
LONDON:
Printed for GEORGE KEITH in Gracechurch-Sirett. .
M Dcc Lxxiii. "^^ Of Pf^"''Cf ;^
NOV X. 2000
V
.^Cn. /^«.«.. oClA\v>^>'
ADVERTISEMENT,
IT may be necefTary to appiife the Reader, that feveral of the
Doctor's Tra(5ls are not included in this colle6lion : namely,
His " Diflertation concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew-
Language, Letters, Vowel-Points and Accents j The Do6lrine of
the Trinity ftated and vindicated ; The Dodrine of the Refurre6lion
ftated and defended ; The Do£lrine of Juftification by the Righte-
oufnefs of Chrift, flated and maintained ; The Do6lrine of God's
everlafting Love to his Ele£l, and their eternal Union with Chrift ;
together with fome other Truths, ftated and defended, againft Dr
Taylor; The Do6lrine of the Saints' final Perfeverance, aflerted and
vindicated ; The Doftrine of Predeftination ftated, and fet in a
Scripture-Light, againft Mr Wefley ; The Prophecies of the Old
Teftament refpefling the Meftiah confidered, and proved to be literally
fulfilled in Jefus j containing an Anfwer to the Author of The
Scheme of Literal Prophecy, &c. Two annual Difcourfes on the
Duty of Prayer and Singing of Pfalms ; An Efl'ay on the Original of
Funeral Sermons, Orations and Odes ; A brief Confefllon of Faith,"
&c. The reafon why thefe Trails are omitted, is, becaufe moft of
thofe fubjefts are fully treated of in his Body of Divinity. Either
of the above Tra6ls may be had feparately, and if encouraged, will be
colle6fed into a volume, like the two already publiflied.
The Editor takes, likewife, this opportunity of requefting the
candor of the learned Reader to excufe any literary miftakes, which
may occur in any of the quotations from the dead languages : an
apology, which there would have been no reafon for offering, had
thefe two volumes undergone the Doftor's laft revifal.
THE
THE
CONTENTS.
VOLUME II.
I. .^J. Sermon at the Ordination of the Rev. George Braithwaite, M. A. i
II. A Sermon at the Ordination of feveral Minijlers, 14
in. A Sermon at the Ordination of the Reverend Mr John Da.vis, - - 30
IV. A Sermon at the Ordination of the Reverend Mr John Reynolds, - 49
V. Truth Defended : in Anfwcr to a Pamphlet on the Supralapfarian Scheme, 65 ,
VI. An Anfzcer to the Birmingham Dialogue-lFriter, Parti. - - . . 107
VII. An Anfwer to the Birmingham Diakgue-lVriter, Part II. - - - 135
VIII. The Moral Nature and Fitnefs of Things, Confidered, - - - - 162
IX. The NeceJ/ily of Good ll'^orks unto Salvation, Ccnjldered, - "- - - iSi
X. The Ancient Alode of Baptizing, Maintained and Vindicated, - - iy6
XI. A Defence of ditto, - - 2^b'
XII. The Divine Right of Infant- Baptifm, Examined and Dijproved, - 259
XIII. Ihe Argument from Apojiolic Tradition, in favour- of Infant- Baptifm,
wUh others advanced in a Pamphlet, called. The Baptifm of Infants
a reafonable Service, i^c. Confidered; and alfo An Anfwer to a
Welch Clergyman's Twenty Arguments for Infant-Baptifm. To
which are added. The DiJJenters Reafons for feparating from the
Church of England, ------- 317
XIV. Antip.cdebaptifm ; or, Infant-Baptifm an Innovation, - - - - 382
XV. A Reply to a Defence of the Divine Right of Infant-Baptifm ; with
\ Strihurcs en MrBo^mcWs Vindication of Infant-Baptifm, - - 407
i XVI. The Scriptures -the only Guide in Matters of Religion, - - - - 479
1 XVII. Baptifm a Divine Commandment, - - - - --.-. 4^7
X^Ul. Infant-Baptifm, a Part and Pillar of Popery, 511
XIX. A Dijfertation on the Eternal Sonfhip of Chrifl, ----- 534
XX. A Difjertation on the Rife and Progrefs -of Popery, - . - - 565
XXI. Dying Thoughts, 5S3
ERRATA.
Page 264. Line 1. sdminiftration ordinances, read of ordinances.
324. II. inliead of aa(Hrm> r. aErm.
389. 12. for hut, r. but.
413. 8. for being immiDcat, r. being immaneoL.
462. 14. for thidg, r. ihiog.
II ■ 11 - ., _,
.
ORDINATION SERMONS.
SERMON XXXVII.
The Duty of XI Pajlor to his People.
Preached at the Ordination of the Reverend George Braithwaite, M.A.
March 28, 1734.
- 2 ,T I M O T H Y JV. .16.
'Take heed unto thyfelf, and unto thy doElrine ; for in doing this, thou
JJiUlt both fave thyfelf and them that bear thee..
TH E part of -the work of this day afligned to me, is to give a word of
exhortation to you, my Brother ; who have been at this time folemnly
ordained a paftor or overfeer of this church. Your long ftandino-, and
Ufefulnefs in the miniftry, might juftly excufe every thing of this kind, did not
cuftom, and the nature of this day's fervice, feem to require it. You will there-
fore fufFer a word of exhortation, though it comes from a junior minifler, fince
^ou know in what fituation we are; our fenior minifters aj-e gone off the ftage
tDf this world, who ufed to fill up this place, and whoTc years bed became it :
Out fathers^ where are they? and the prophets, do they live for e'verf Give me
leave to addrcfs you in the words of the great apoftle of the Gentiles to Timothy,
Take heed unto thyfelf, and unto thy doHrine; for in doing this, thou fhalt both fave
thyfelf, and them that hear thee \ fince this epiftle was written, not for his fake
Only, but for the ufe and fervice alfo of other minifters of the gofpel in fuc-
ceeding ages ; that they might know how they ought to behave themfclves in the
houfe of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth.
In it the apoftle gives a large account of the proper qualifications of the officers
Vol. II. B of
^ A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
of churches, bifhops, and deacons-, and in this chapter defcends to fome par-
ticular advice and direftions to 'Timothy, and which are defigned for the benefit
and advantage of otlier preachers of the word, and paftors of churches. I fhall
not take any notice of them here, feeing I fliall have occafion to make ufe of
them in fome parts of the following difcourfe ; and fhall therefore immediately
attend to the words of my text, in which may be obferved,
I. A charge or exhortation given to Timothy.
II. Some reafons to fupport it, and engage his regard unto it.
I. Here is a charge or exhortation given, which confifts of three parts r
Firjl, To take heed to himfelf.
Secondly, To take heed to his doflrine.
Thirdly, To continue therein.
Firjl, The apoflle exhorts Timothy to take heed to himfelf. This is not to he
underftood of him merely as a man, that he fliould take care of his bodily
health, his outward concerns of life, 6r make provifion for his family, if ha
had any -, not but that thefe things are to be equally regarded by a minifter of
the gofpel, as by any other perfon. - Though he ought to be diligent in his
ftudies, laborious \n his work, and preach the gofpel in feafon and out offafan;
yet he bught to be careful of the health of his body, and not deftroy his natural
conftitution. The words of the wife man are applicable to our prefent purpofe,
be not righteous over-much, neither make thy f elf over-wife, why fhouldeft thou deflroy
thyfelf^? The apoftle Paul, in this cpiftle, zdis\{tiTimothy to take care of himr
.felfin this fen fe, feeing he had much work upon his hands, and but of a weakly
conftitution ; he exhorts him^ that he would drink no longer water, but ufe a lit-
tle wine, for his flomacb's fake^ and his often infirmities " j and it is alike true of
a-minifter as of any other man» what is elfewhere faid, If any provide not for
his own, and effe daily for thofe of his own houfe, be hath denied the faith, and is
wcrfe than an infidel". But this is not what the apoftle has here in view, when
he fays take heed to thyfelf.
Nor is this- exhortation given to Timothy under the charafter of a believer, or
private chriftian. There are fome things which are common to minifters, and
private chriftians ; their cafes, in fome refpefts, are alike, and cautions to them,
are equally necefTary : they have the fame corruptions, are fubjedl to the fame
temptations, and liable to the fame daily failings and infirmities ; and therefore
fuch, whether minifters or people, who think they ftand, fhould take heed left
they fall. Unbelief, and diftruft of divine providence, prefence, power, and
affiftance^
« Ecdes. vii. i6. *■ i Tim. v. aj. f i Tim. v. 8.
Serm. z-]. of the Rev. GEORGE BRAITHWAITE, M.A. 3
afTiftance, have a place in the hearts of minifters as well as others, and fomet-mts
rife to a confiderable pitch, and do very much prevail ; when fiich advice as
this muft be needful, take heed, brethren, left there be in avy of you an evil heart
cf unbelief, in departing from the living Cod. There are many inftances which
might be produced, in which this exhortation would appear to be fuitable to
Timothy, and fo to any otlier gofpel miniftcr, confidercd as a believer and achrif-
tian.
But I apprehend, that the apoflle regards him -in his minifterial capacity, as
a preacher of the word ; and is defirous, that he would take heed to himfelf,
as a minifler, and to the miniftry which he had received in the Lord, that he fulfil
it. It becomes a minilter of the gofpel to take heed to his gifts beftowed upon
him, by which he is qualified for his work, that he does not lofe, but ufe and
improve them -, to his time, that he fpends it aright, and does not fquander it
away ; of the errors and hcrefies which are in the world, that he is not infedled
by them -, to his fpirit, temper, and pafTions, that he is not governed by them ;
to his life and converfation, that it be exemplary, becoming his office, and
makes for the glory of God; and to the flock committed to his care, which is
the other part of himfelf.
I. A minifter ought to take heed to his gifts beftowed upon him, whereby
he is qualified for the.work of the miniftry. JefusChrift, when he afcended on
high, received gifts for men, fuch as were proper to furnifti, and fit them for
minifterial fervice ; and he has given them to men, he gave fome apeftles, and
fame -prophets, and fome evangelifts, and fome paftors, and teachers ' : that rs, he
gave gifts, to qualify them for thcfe feveral offices -, and he ftill continues to
give gifts to fome, by which they become capable of difcliarging the work and
office of paftors of churches j and where thefe are given, they ought to be taken
care of.
Now, a minifter of the gofpel fhcnild take heed to his gifts, that he does not
lofe them. The gifts and calling of God are wilhout repentance ^ Gifts of fpecial
and faving grace are irrevcrfible ; God never repents of them, or revokes them,
or calls them in -, where they are once beftowed, they are never taken away ; but
gifts fitting men for public work and ufefulnefs, as they may be where true
grace is not, fo thdy may be removed, when faving grace never will. This'
we may learn from the parable of the talents, where our Lord fays, Take there-'
fore the talent from him, and give it to him -which hath Jen talents. For unto
every one that bath fhall be given, and he fhall have abundance : But from him that
bath not fhall be taken away even that which he hath *. IVo therefore to the Idol
B 2 Shepherd
* Hcb. iii. IX. * Ephei. iv. it. * Rom. xi. 29, t MaU. zzv. 29, 30.
4 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
Shepherd'^, the fhepherd of no account, who is good for nothing-, for an idol
is nothing in the world ; who leavetb the flock, makes no ufe of his gifts, deferts
his ftation, forfakes the flock ; the fword (hall be upon his arm, and upon his
right eye ; bis arm Jhall be clean dried up, and his right eye fball be utterly darkened.
All his light and knowledge, his abilities .and ufefulnefs, fhall b>e taken from
him. Hence the apoftie exhorts T/;«o/Z-'j, to keep by the holyGhofl the good thing
which was committed to him ; by which he means, not grace, but either the gof-
pel, or the gift of preaching it; grace cannot, gifts may be loft.
Moreover, a gofpel minifter fhould take heed to his gifts, that.he ufes them :
^NegleSi not the gift that is in thee, fays the apoftie to Timothy ; which was given
thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the bands of the prefbytery ". A minifter-
may be tempted to negieft, lay afide, and difufe his gifts, for want of fuccefs
in his work, or becaufc of the flight and contempt which may be caft upon him,
or by reafon of the rage, fury, and perfccutions of men ; fomethingof this na-
ture was difcouraging to Timothy in the exercife of his gifts, which occafioned
the apoftie to put him in remembrance, that, iays he, tbou ftir up the gift of God
which is in thee, by the putting on of my hands ; for God bath not given us the fpirit
of fear, but of power, of love, and of a found mind. Be not tbou therefore afhamed
of the teflimony of our Lord, nor of me bis prifoner ; but be thou partaker ef the.
affii5}ions of the gofpel, according to the power of God '. As if he (hould fay,
": Let not that gift which God has beftowed upon thee lie dormant, and be
" neglefted by thee, through a timorous and cowardly fpirit ; but boldly and
'J bravely preach the gofpel of the grace of God, though thou art fure to en-
*.' dure much affli<ftion and perfecution." Wo to that man, who, from any
confideration whatever, wraps up his talent in a napkin, and hides it in the
earth ; fuch an one Chrift, at the great day of account^ will call wicked and
flothful ; and give orders to cajl fuch an unprofitable ftrvant into outer darknefsy
where fhall be weeping and gnajhing of teeth "".
Befides, a minifter ought not only to take heed that he ufes his gifts, but:
alfo that he improves them ; and, indeed, they are generally improved by
ufing. Gifts, like pieces of armour, through difufe, grow tufty", but the
more they are -worn the brighter they are. There are feveral things which have
a. tendency to improve, and, with the bleffing of Guod, do improve fpiritual
gifts, fuch as prayer, meditation, and reading. Thcfe the apoftJc djrefted
Timothy to, fox the improvement of his mind : Till I conu, t^ys he, give aiteiuf-
kZech. xi. 17. iiTim. i. 14. ^ i "^im. iv. 14.
' 2 Tim. i. 6—8. " Matt. xxv. 26, 30. '
h Adde, quod ingenium longarubigine Isefum
Serm. 37. OF THE Rev. GEORGE BRAITHWAITE, M.A. 5
once to reading, to exhortation, to do^rine ° ; meditate upon tbefe things, give thy-
felf wholly to them ^, or, be thou in them; be conftantly intent upon them,
that thy profiting may appear to alh, or in all things, that is, in all parts of ufe-
ful knowledge. It is the duty of minifters to Jlir up the gift of God which is in
them '. Gifts are fometimes like coals of fire, covered and buried in a(hes, to
■which there is an allufion in this pafTage', which muft be ftirred up, or blown
off, that they may revive and be re-inflamed, and fo communicate more light
and heat. It is true, minifters cannot procure gifts for themfelves, nor increafe
them of themfelves ; but God is plcafcd to give to his fervants greater abilities,
more light and knowledge, in the diligent ufe of means, for unto every one that
bbth, that is, that has gifts, and makes ufe of all proper methods tO' improve
them, Jhall ie given, and he fhall have abundance.
2. A minifter ought to take heed to his time, that he fpends it aright, and
does not fquander it away. Time is precious, and ought to be redeemed, and
diligently improved, by all forts of men ; but by none more than the minifters
of the gofpel, who fhould fpend it in frequent prayer, conftant meditation, and
in daily reading the fcripcures, and the writings of good men ; which are tranf-
mitted to pofterity for the benefit and advantage of the churches of Chrift. They
fhould give themfelves up wholly to thefe things, and daily and diligcntly7?«^
to fhew Uiemfelves approved unto God, workmen that need not be afhamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth \ They ought not to fpend their time in an unpro-
fitable manner, or in ncedlefs and unnecefiary vifits. It is a miftake which pre-
vails arrong church-members, that they muft be vifited, and that very often :
if minifters are not continually calling on them they think themfelves negleded,
and are much difpieafcd ; not confideri'ng, that f^ich a frequency of vifits, as is
^fired by them, muft be the bane antl ruin of what might otherwife be a very
valuable miniftry ; and at the fame time furnifhes an idle and lazy preacher with
agoodexcufe to negleft his ftudies, and that with a great deal of peace and
^uietnefs of confciencc, whilft he fancies he is about his minifterial work. I
would not be underftood, as though I thought that vifits were needlefs things,
and that they are no part of a minifter's work : I am fenfible, that he ought to
he diligent to know the Jlate of his fleck; and that it is his bufinefs to vifit the
members of the church, at proper times, and on proper occafions ; what I
eomplain of, is the too great frequency of vifits as is ddircd, and when they are
unnecefTary. . .
3- A
• • iTim.iv. 15. P Ef TBToi*^ K&ai. « Zi vaeru. ' 2 Tim. i. 6,
• Verbum afa^v'mv^^nt etiam modefte eum officii admooec. Significat autem ignera cineribus
teflum txcitare, fopitam favillam in flammam proferre. Aretius in z Tim. i. 6. In the fame
fenfe as here is the word ufed in Marc. Antooio. de fcipfo. 1. 7. f. z. Vid. Gatakci. Annotat,
ia ibid. ; 2 Tim. ii. 15.
6 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
3. A niiniller ought to take heed to himfelf, that he is not infefted with the
errors and herefies which are in the world. There always have been, and ftill
arc, herefies among men, and there muft be ; that they which are approved, are
faithful and approved miniRers ofChrift, might ie made ma ni/eji, to the churches,
and the world, by their zeal for truth, and againft error. And whereas minif-
ters, as well as others, are liable to have their minds corrupted from the fimplicity
that IS in Chrijl, and to be led away with the error of the wuked, and io fall from
their own ftedfafinefs \ it becomes them ihcrefore, to take heed to themfelves.
This was the rcafon of the apoftle's advice to the elders of the church ^lEpbefus,
at his caking his leave of them ; when he faid to them, take heed to yourfelves,
and to all the flock : — for, fays he, I know this, that after my departing, fljall
grie-joiis wolves enter in among you, not fparing the flock \ alfo of your own f elves
fhall vien arife, fpeaking perverje things, to draw away difciples after them. Take
heed, beware tiiereforc, of thefe perverfe men and things. Jell: you alfo be drawn
after them, and be carried away by them. Our Lord Jcfus Chrift thought ic
necefiary to exhort his own difciples, to beware of the doBrinc of the Pharifees
a»d Sadducees ; and to take heed, that they were not deceived by falfe Chrills,
and falfe prophets. Minifters, of all men, ought to be nioft careful to fliun
error, and avoid falfe dodlri^es; fince their fedudion may be the means of a
greater fpread of them, and of the ruin of multitudes of fouls.
4. A miniftcr ought to take heed to his Ipirit, his temper, and his pafTions,
that he is not governed by them. The preachers of the gofpel arc men of like
palTions with others: Some of Chrift's dil'ciplcs were very hot, fiery, iind paf-
fionatc -, they were for calling ior fire from heaven to confume fuch who had
difpleafed them; hence our Lord laid unto them, 7'e know not what manner of
fpirit ye ere of". -One that has the government of his pafTions, and can rule
his own fpirit and temper, is very fit to rule in the church of God. He that is
flow to anger, is better than the mighty ; and he that ruteib bis fpirit, than he that
iakeih a city". Bat if a man is influenced and governed by his padions, he will
be led by them to take indireft and imprudent fleps; and co manage affairs with
partiality, to the prejudice of the church, and members of it.
5. A minifter ought to take heed to his life and converfation, that it be ex-
emplary to thofc who are under iiis care. Private chriftians may, and ought to
be examples one to. another; they fhould be careful to maintain'', or go before
each other \n good works ; but more efpecially, minifters ought to. he examples
to the flock. This is the advice the apoftle gave Timothy; be thou an example of
the believers, in word, in converfation, in charity, in fpirit, in faith, in purity ^.
They
v Aftj XX. 28 — 30. * Luke ix. 55. » Prov. jtvi. 32. '' nfoira<5ai,Tit. iii. 8,
» I Tim. iv. 12.
^
Serm. 37. OF THE Rev. GEORGE BRAITHWAITE, M.jI; 7
They ought to be careful how they behave themfelves in their families, in the
church, and in the world ; that they give no offence in any thing, that the minijlry
be not blamed, and fo become ufclefs and unprofitable. This was what the
apoftle Paul wzs careful of, with refpeft to himfelf, and his miniftry •, I keep
under my body, and bring it into fubje£lion'^ ; I do not indulge, but deny myfelf
all carnal lufts and plealures, lejl that by any means, when I have -preached to others,
I myfelf Jhould be acafi-away ; that is, not one reje6i:ed of God, or a reprobate ;
for he knew whom he had believed, and was perfuaded, that nothing could fepa-
r ate him from the love of God; he had no fearful apprehenfiuns of ~this kind-,
though he was jealous and cautious, left he fhould be guilty of mifconduft in
his outward convcrfation among men -, and fo become aJ.»ift©-, rejedted, and
and difapproved of by men, and be ufclefs in his miniftry. Every chriftian ought
\.o adorn the dooirine of God our Saviour, but more cfpecially the preachers of it i
their lights (houldyi) fhine before men, that they feeing their good works, may glo-
rify their father which is in heaven The name of God, the ways of Chrift, and
the truths of the gofpel, are bkfphemed, and fpoken evil of, through the fcan-
dalous lives of profcflbrs, and cfpecially minifters. Nothing is more abomina-
ble " than that one,, whofc bufinefs it is to inftruft and reprove others, is him-
felf noto, iouft.y culpable ; to fuch a perfon and cafe, the words of the apoftle
are very applicable, Thou therefore that teacbefl another, teachefl thou not thyfelf?
Thou that preachefi, a man fhould not fieal, dofl thou fleal? Thou that fay efl, a man
fhould not commit adultery, dofl thou commit adultery ? Thou that abhorrefl idols,
dofl thou commit facrilege ? Thou that makefl thy boafl of the law, through breaking
the law difhcnoureft thou God ? for the name of God is blafphemed among the Gentiles
through you '.
6. A minifter ought to take heed to the flock committed to his care •, which
is but the other part of himfelf. There is a mutual relation, a clofe union,
between a paftor and a church •, they are in fome fenfe one, and their interefts
are onej fo that a paftor,. by taking heed to himfelf , takes heed to his flock, and
by taking heed to his flock i3k£.% h.ttA to himfelf. Hence thefe two are joined
together in the apoftle's advice to the elders of the church at Ephefus, Take heed
to yourfelves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy Ghofl hath made you cver-
feers, to feed the church^. Paftors of churches IhoulJ be careful that they feed
the famts with knowledge and underftanding ; that they feed the flock, and not
themfelves; that they perform the whole office of faithful fhepherds to them •,
that they ftrengthen the difeafed» heal the fick, bind up the broken, bring again
that
» 1 Cor. ix. 27.
* Quae culpare foles, ea tu ne feceris ipfe ;
Turpe eft doftori, cnm culpa redarguit ipfum. Cato.
• Rom. ii.. 21—24. JAasxx. zS.
E A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
that which was driven away, and feek up that which was loft -, all ivhich they
fhould take diligent heed unto, fince they muit be accountable to the great
Shepherd and Bifhop of fouls, for all thofe who are under their care. But fo
much for the firft branch of the exhortation ; I proceed to confider.
Secondly, The fecond part of the charge, which is to take heed to his doHrine,
that is, to the do6lrinc to which he has attained, which he has a knowledge of,
and ouo-ht to preach to others ; otherwife the dodlrinc is not his own but an-
other's ; as Chrift fays of himfelf as man. My do£irine is not mine, but bis' that
ftnt m:'. Chrill received his dodrine from liis Father, and his minifters receive
it from him, and deliver it to the people. Tiie doctrine which a gofpel minifter
preaches, is in the fame fenfe his, in which the apoftle Paul calls the gofpe!,
t>iy gofpel, OT our gofpel ; not that it was a fyftem of doftrines drawn up, and
compofed by him ; but what was given him by the revelation of Chrift, was
committed to his truft, what he ought to preach, and in which he was made
ufeful to the fouls of many.
Now a minifter ought to take heed to his doftrinc, that it be according to the
fcriptures, all fcripture is given by infpiration of God, and is profitable for do^rine',
True^doftrine fprings from it, is agreeable to it, and may be confirmed and
eftabliflied by it •, therefore if any man fpeak, let him fpeak as the oracles of God*.
He ftiould be careful, that his doftrine has a place in the word of God, that it
takes its rife from it, is confonant to it, and capable of being proved by it : To
ihe laiv, and to the teflimony ; if they fpeak not according to this word, it is becaufe
there is no light in them \ Whatever doftrines do not fpringfrom thcfc fountains
of licrKt and truth, or arc difagrceablc to them, muft be accounted divers and
Jlrange doiJrines.
Care fhould alfo be taken by a minifter of the gofpel, that his doctrine be
the doftrine of Chrift -, that is, fuch as Chrift himfelf preached, which he has
delivered out by revelation to others, and of which he is the fum and fubftancc.
We preach Chrifi crucified, tothejnvsafiumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolifhnefsK
This dodrine is moft likely to be ufeful for the converfion of finners, and com-
fort of faints -, and a man that does not bring this with him is to be difcouraged
and reiefted : IVhofoever tranfgreffeth, and abide th not in the doHrine of Chrijl,
hath not God: He that abidetb in the do51rine of Chrifi, be hath both the Father
and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doifrine, receive him not
into your houfe, tieitber bid him Gcd:-fpeed^.
Moreover, a minifter ftiould take heed that his doftrinc be the fame with that
i)f the apoftles. It was the glory of the primitive chriftians, that they continued
fiedfaflly
»
Johnvii. i6. ' f 2 Tim. iii.i6. « i Peter iv. 1 1 .
>> Jfai. viii. 23. ' 1 Cor. i. 23. ■■ * John 9- '°'
Serm. 37. ., OF THE Rev. GEORGE BRAITHWAITE, M.A. 9
Jledfaflly in the apojlks doSirine ; and it muft be the excellency of a man's minif-
try, that it is agreeable to that faith which was once delivered to the faints. Jefus
Chrift received his doflrine from his Father, which he delivered to his apoQles :
J have given unto them fays he, the words which thou gavejl me, and they have
received them ' ; who alfo were guided by the fpirit of truth into all truth, as it
is in Jefus ;' and under the infpiration of xhe fame fpirit have left the whole of it
in writing to the churches of Chrift; which fhould be the ftandard of a gofpel-
miniftry throughout all generations.
" 'Befides, it becomes a preacher of the Word to be careful that thp doftrine
jie teaches be according to ghdlinefs; that it is not contrary to the moral perfeftions
of God, or has a tendency' to promote a loofe and licentious life ; but that it is
i»grecabl<i to, and may be a rriea hs of increafing, both internal and external ho-
linefs. Sin, as it is a tranfgrefllon of the law, fo it is contrary to found doctrine;
which found doftrine is according to the glorious gofpel of the bltffed God ". The
gofpel no more countenances fin, than the law does ; the grace of God, the doc-
trine of the grace •of God, that'- bringeth falvation, the news of it to finners, hath
appeared to all melt, Centiles as well as' Jews ; teaching us, that denying ungodlinefs
end worldly lufls^ we /kould live fiber ly, right eoufly, and godly in this prefent world.
Whatever doftrines are fubverfivc of true piety, or ftrike at the life and power
of godiincfs, are to be rcjcdted :' t/jw)' man teach otherwife, and confent not to
\vhokfom words, eiitn the words of our Lerdf efus Chrifl ,■ and to the doElrine which
is atcording to godtinefs ; be is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about quejlions, and
Jlrife of words, whereof cometb envy, flrifes, railings, evilfurmiftngs,.&CQ'>.
• Again, it is highly neceflary, that a paftorof a church fhould be careful that
his doftHnebc fach as tnakcs for the edification of the people ; it ought to be
ibVid and fabftaritial, fuited to their capacities, ^nd what is food convenient for
them; he fhould not,' therefore, groe heed to fables, and endlefs genealogies ; he
oughti'in his itiiriiftry, xo Jbun propbane and vain bablings, and oppcfttions of fcience,
falfyfo called. He fliould not Jtrive' about words to no profit, but to the fubvert-
ingof the hearers; and Ihould carefully and diligently avoid foolifh and unlearned
■gue^ions, knowing that they do geiide^ 'flrifes'^. ." ' ,
, .Tri a word, he Ihould take heed, that his doftrine be ToiJnd ind Incorrupt,
pure and upmixed, and that it be all of a piece, and confiftent with itfclf. " He
ought to j5)w^ the things which become found doHrine ; that is,' fuch things as are
agreeable to" it, imd Confifteht with it, and which are wholefom and healthful
to the fouls of merv. In his doftrine he ougirt to ftiew uncorriiptnrfs, gravity,
Jincerity, and u(c found fpeecb, which cannot be condemned '^ ; he fhould not teach
for doSrinesibe ammandmtnts of mtn^ or join, or mix divine .truths with human
• Vol; N. ;•• -C ■' •■> inventions.
1 John xvii. 8. "> i Tim. i. lo, \\. « Titus ii. 1 1, 12.
• 1 Tim. vi. 3 — 5. » t Tira. 1.4. & vi. zo. 2 Tim. ii.i \, 16, 23. "< Tit. ii. i, 7, 8.
lo A SERMON AT TH£ 6RD'INAflON
inventions. The chaff and the wheat fhould be kept fepara'te ; nor fhodd hi
blend law and gofpel, grace and works together ; and Co be like them that cor-
rup: the u-ord ofGcd, xawIl^luo^1(^ t« ^670l t8 em, "adulterate it, by mixing it \\\(k
" their own fancies;" as unfair dealers in liquors, mix water with them, which
is the fenfe of the word here ufed ; but as of firtcer\t)\ hut as of God, in the fight
ef God\ fhould a gofpcl-minifter j^'^'Z^ in Cbrifl. He ought to take heed that
what he preaches is confiftent with itfelf ; that it has no yea and nay, no contra-
diclion in it, and docs not deftroy itfelf; and fo bring a reproach upon him, and
he become ufelefs to his iiearers ; forifjhe trumpet give an uncertain faundt "^^o
fhall prepare himf elf for the battle' ? confiftence, harmony, and conne(Sl;ion of
things with each other, are the beauty and glory of a man's miniftry ; which^
muft needs recommend it, and make it moft ufeful, profitable and pleafant.
It is alfo very advifcable that he take heed that he exprefs his doflrine in the-
bcft manner, and to .the beft advantage. He '^bught to be careful about the-
manner as well as the matter of his miniftry; ,tha( he fpeak plainly, intelligibly, -
and boldly, the gofpel, as it ought to be fpokcn : Elocution, which is a gift
of utterance, a freedom of exprcffionj with propriety of language, is one of the
gifts fitting for public ufefulnefs in the work of the miniftry ; and which may
be improved by the ufe of proper means. The example of the royal preacher
is worthy of our imitation, becaufe the pr.eacber^ivas wife he JUll taught the people
inowledge ; yea, be gave good heed, and fought oat, and fet in order many proverbs :
the preacher fought to find cut acceptable words ; and that which was written was
upright, even words of truth ' ; he not only fought for proper and agreeable
truths, but was careful to exprefs them in the moft acceptable manner. ,
. To conclude this head ;. when a minifter has ufed his c^reand diligence about
his doflrine, that it be according to the fcriptures, agreeable to the idodrine of
Chrift and his apoftles ; that it be according, to godlinefs, and, makes for- the
ufe of edifying ; that it be found and incorrupt, pure and unmixed, and con- ■
fiftent with itfelf;. and that it be exprefTcd in the beft manner, and to the bed':
advantage, he ought to take heed to defend it.whenever.oppofed ; for minifters
are not only fet to preach the gofpel, biit for the.defence of.itV-they ftiould ^f'
found doSrine both exhort and convince gainfayers" -y for whichpurpdfe, they Ihoijld .
ufe the two-eaged fword, the fword of the fpirit, which is the word of God; 'arid
is both an offenfive and defenfive weapon, by which, at 6nce, error is refuted,
and truth. eftablifhed. Leo on to confider, , _..•..
• ■ ■' "■ .-: •; ■ . " ' -tbirdh,
' - » 2 Cor. ii. 17. «a».iXn7o.1n, canponwites fermoncm Dei. WrtipTibra (Utfr^ Wt «b hofpitibos &'
•ttupooancibus, quibus io more eft, vinnm aqua corrumpere. SicGrseci interpretant,dr, na-rriiiivn;
naxivMi To» oiFO», hoc eft, vinura corrumpere, iwnXBi dicuntolim fignificavine oiForvinum. Aretius
jaloc. • iCor. xiy. 8. « Ecdes. xii. 9, 10. . _» Tit. i. 9.
Serm. 37, OF THE ^£v. GEORGE BRAITHWAITE, M.A. i;
- Thirdly, The third part of this exhortation, which is, to continue in them.
Some read the words, Continue with them ', -that is, with the people at Ephefusy
yi\\txt Timothy was, and where the apoftle would have him remain; as appears
from what he fays to him at the beginning of this epiftle, I befougbt thee to abide
ftill at Epbefus \ But I chufe rather to confider them as they are in our cranfla-
tion rendered, continue in them ; that is, in the dodtrines which thou dofl: well
to take heed ynto. Much fuch advice does the apoftle give to Timothy, in his
Second cpiftle to him, continue thou, fays he, in the things which thou haft learned,
■^nd haft been ajjured of, knowing of whom thou haji learned them. It is very unbe-
icoming tninifters of the word, to be like children tojfed to and fro with every wind
i>f do£}ritte.; daily fhiftin^ fides^ and changing fentiments.
He that would be a preacher of the gofpel to others, ought fo to lludy the
/criptures, and learn the doflrines of grace, as to be affured of them, to beat
i. point, at a -certainty concerning them ; that he may be able to fpeak them
boldly, as.they ought to be fpoken -, and when he has fo done, he ought toad-
•here to them, abide by them, and continue in them ; even though a majority
inay be againft: them, for we are not \.o follow a. multitude to do evil''. Truth is
not to be judged of by the number of its admirers -, if this was a fure and fafe
rule to go by, the church oi Rome would have the beft pretenfions to the truth
<jf dodrinc, difcipline, and worfhip -, {or all the world wondered after the beafl^.
It fliould be no difcouragement .to a.gpfpel-miniftcr toobferve, that there are
but few that receive the dodrines of grace. Yea, he fhould abide by themj
•though they are oppofcd by men of learning and reputation. Truth does not
always lie among men of that charafter-, God is ^plcafed to hide the myfteries
-of the gofpel from the -wife and prudent, and reveal them unto^^^^j; and ^ the
fi)olifhnefi of preaching confound the wife, and fave Jhem that believe. It was an
'objcftion to our Lord's miniftry, that not any of ihe rulers or of the Pharifees be-
Jieved on him ; but this pcopk who knewefh not the law are cwfid ''. Miniftcrs of
" the ■gofpel (hould abide by, and continue in the doftrines of it, though it is only
•received by the poor and ignorant, -and oppofcd by the rich ,and wife : Nay,
they ought -to do fo, though there are fome things in them which cannot be
comprehended by -corrupt and -carnal reafon ; this fhould be no objcftion to a
reception of them, or continuance in them. There are fome things in the gof-
•pel v\{\c\\ eye hath not feen, -nor tar beard, neither have entered into ^he heart of
man, that is, -a -natural man, -to conceive of; wherefore it i5.n0 wondcrj ^hat the
"natural man receive th net the things of the fpirit of God, for they are fophfimefs
unto him, neither can he-know them, becaufe they are fpiritually difcerned".
c 2 Nor
-•• .EOT^M,av«n. •* ;Clv>p 1.3. ^ tCh^p. iii. 14. * Exod. xxiii. 2.
f Rev, xiii. 3. *> John vii. 48, 49. « 1 Cor. ii. 9 — 14.
,2 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
Nor fhould the charges and imputations of novelty and licentioufnefs frio-hten
and deter the miniftcrs of Chrill from abiding by the doftrines of grace, fines
ihefe were the very reproaches and caKimnics that the ikxftrines of Chrift and
his apoftks were loaded with, JVbat thing is this ? What new doElrine is this ?
Say fome concerning Chrift's miniftryJ; and fo the Athenians to Paul, May
we know what this new do£frine whereof thou fpeakejl is ? They looked upon the
more fubftantial truths of the gofpel as novelties, upftart notions, fuch as were
never heard of before -, nay, they were accounted by fome as having a tendency
to open a door to all manner of wickcdnefs and loofenefs Qf life ; which OGca-
fioned the apoftlc to fay, y4nd not rather, as we be flanderoujly reported, and as
fome affirm, that we fay. Let us do evil that gvod may cime-i wbofe damnation is
jufl'. _ ' ■ ^" •- .. .
In a word, it becomes Chrift's minifters to abide by, and contimje in thie-
dodtrines of grace, though they ri(k their good name, credit, and reputation,,
are in danger of lofing their outward maintenance, or worldly fubftance, yea,,
life itfelf •, for whofoever will fave bis life, fhall lofe it ; but wbofeever fhall lofe bis-
life for my fake and the gofpel's, the fame fhallfaveit'^ Inow. haften bfiefly tO'
confider,
ir. The reafons given by the apoflle to fupport the whole of this charge or-
exhortation •, and to engage Timolhy'Sy and. lb every other gofpcl-minifter's, re--
gard unto it.
Firfl, His firfl: rcafon is, For in doing this thou- fhalt fave tbyfelf. Jefus Chrift^
is the only efficient and procuring caul'e of falvation : Tbere.is no falvation in any ■
ether ; for there is none other name under heaven, given among men, whereby we ■
mufl be faved^. Minifters cannot fave themfelves. by unj. works of righteoufnefi ■
done by them;, no, not by their minfterial fervices ; it is in vain to expeft fal-'
vation by any, or from any other than Chrift- Jefus : But minifters, by taking,
heed to themfelves, may, through a divine bleffing, and. the influences. of the
■ Spirit of God, fave tbemftlves frony an- untoward gemration, ,zn6. be prcfcryed
from xht: pollutions of the world.; may keep-thc'ir garments, . their outward con-
verfation garments, fo that they do not walk naked, and. othersT^i? their Jbanu. .
By taking heed to their doftrine they may fave themfelves from being infeftcd
with falfe dodlrines, errors and hcrefies -, thoCc rootscf bittenufs, which fpring-
ing up in churches, trouble fome, and defile others. And by continuing in their
doftrines, may fave themfeves from the blood of aU men, with whom they are
concerned. The work of a minifter is an awful, folemn, and weighty one ; if
he does not warn and inftrudt both the righteous and the wicked, their blood
will be required at his hand-, but if he performs his office faithfully, he delivers
his
•I Mark i. t;. Aflaxvii. 19. • Rom. iii. 8. » Mark viii. 35. i Aaj.iv. 12.
Serm. z7. of the Rev. GEORGE BRAITHWAITE, M.A. M
his foul, that is, he faves himfelf from fuch a charge againft him •, as did the
apoltle Paul, who could fay, I am pure from the blood of all men ; for I have not
fhunned to declare unto you all the counfel of God*'. Thus, by a minifter's taking
heed to himfelf and to his dodrine, and continuing therein, he faves himfelf
from alljuft blame in his charafler and office v and may be truly accounted a
good minijler of Jefus Chrijl, nourifhed up in the words of faith ^ and of good doEirine,
tuhereunlo he hath attained '.
Secondly, His other reafon is, thou (halt z\[o fave them that hear thee; that is,
by being an example to them both in word and converfation, thou (halt be the
means of preferving them both from erroneous principles and immoral prac-
tices} or, thou fhalt be. inftru mental in their eternal falvation. Minifters are
inftrumcnts -by whom fouls believe, and fo are faved ; the word preached by
them being, by the grace of the fpirit, an engrafted word, is able to fave them ;
and the gofpcl being attended with the demonflration of the fpirit, is the power of
God unto falvatioKs What can, or does, more ftrongly engage minifters to
take heed to themfelves, to their dodrine, and abide therein, than this ? That
they may be i>fcful in the convcrfion, and^ fo in the faWation of precious- and
immortal fouls, which are of more worth than a world : Ht that convertetb a
finner from the error of bis way, fball fave afoul from- death, andfhall hide a mul-
titude ofj^ns". A hopeful view of this fupports minifters in their work, and
carries thcmchearfully through many difficulties that attend it •, for fuch fouls
whom they have been ufeful to, will be their Joy, and crown of rejoicing, in the
great day of the Lord. Thefe reafons, I truft, will engage you, my Brother,
who have been this day fet apart to-the paftoral office in this church, to take
heed to yourfelf,, your gifts, . time, temper, life and converfation, and to' the
flock now committed to your care : And I conclude, that thefe will alfo engage
you to take heed to your doiftrine ; that it be according to the fcripcures, the
doftrinoof Chrift,, his apoftles, and true godlinefs -, and fuch as will be pro-
fitable to them that hear if, that it be found and incorrupt, pure and unmixed,
and confiftent with itfelf ; that it be delivered out in the beft manner you are
able, and defended to the utmoft of your ability, by which you will abide,
and in which you will continue: In doing this you will be moft Jikely to be
inftrumental in the converfion of Cnncrs, .and edification of faints. God give
, fucccfs to all your miniftrations..
*' Adb XX. 26, 27. '1 Tim. ili. 6. *■ James v. 20.-
S. E R M O N
14 A .CHARGE AT ^HE ORDINATION
S JE R M O N XXXVIII.
7'he Work of a Go/pel -Minijler recommended to Confideration.
A CHARGE delivered at the Ordinations of the Reverend
Mr JOHN GILL,
Mr JAMES LARWILL,
Mr ISAAC GOULD,
Mr BONNER STONE,
AND
Mr WALTER RICHARDS.
^Timothy II. 7.
■Conjider %ohat J/ay, and i he Lor J give thee mderjianding in all things.
THAT part of the fervice of this day, which is afTigned to me, being to
,pive a word of exhortation to the paftor of this church, now appointed and
.^rdained ,to that office, and invefted with it; I have chofen to do it in the words
.(Tead i in which may be obferved,
T .An exhortation of the apoftle Paul x.o Timothy, to confider what he had
faid, was faying, or about to fay to him ; to attend to it, revolve ic
.in his mind, and lay it up in his memory.
II. A prayer, or wi(h for him, that the Lord would give him underftanding,
in all t+iat was, or fbould be faid i and in every thing elfe that might
be fcrviceable and ufeful to him.
I. An exhortation to confider well what had been, or fhould be faid unto him;
for it may refer both to what goes before, and to what follows after; to what
goes before, to the advice given to hi ftrong in the grace that is inCbriJlJifus; to
have recourfe toChrift for gifts and grace to fit -him more and more for his work,
.and carry him through it ; and ftronglyto believe that there is a fulncfs of them
in Chrift, and that he fhould receive a fufficient fupply from him to help him in
every time of need; and alfo to the inftrudlions delivered to him, to commit the
doftrines of the gofpel he had heard of him to faithful men, and fuch as were of
.capacity to teach others ; and likewife to the characters he himfelf bore, as a fol-
dier.
SiRM. 3S. • OF" SE-VERAI> MINISTERS.. .- ss
rfiei', fffoltTun'of JefusGhrift, agood foldiefof" his; and therefore fhould paflendy
arid ^oriftantly endure hardfhips, reproaches, and perfccution, for the fake of him
a-rt'd his gofj^el ; and fhould not unnecefiarihy entangle himfelf wkti the affairs of
this life, but atteTKl to military ones, that fo he might pleafe him that had cho-
ftn him t-o be a foldier -, a-nd as he was a combatant, that he mufl: not exped the
oroWn, urtlefs he ftrove lawfully ; and as a hufbandman, bearing the precioui
fced of the word,, that he muft labour before he could partake of the fruits of
a : th tJiis mty have I'efpecft to ^what follows »ftcr; that he would confider the
fom'aTid fcbftance of the gofpel be was to prCach, and for which the apoftle fuf-
^re'd, '^hich was- a rifen Saviour, and includes his incarnation, obedience, fuf-
fcrings, and death, with all the dodtriries of grace in connedicin with them ; as
alfo t^iat it btcdme him to be very fludious and diligent in the ufe of means,
t'hat he might acquit himfelf with honour in the difcliargc of his miniftcrial work ;
rhdt he might appear approved of God, -a workman not to be adiamed of his
•work,- at all times rightly dividing the word of truth, fbunning every thing
6ontraf'y W faith and holinefs -, likcwife,'that he oughixo flee yaurhful lujis, his
dge inclined unto, and fellow rigbieoufnefs, faith, charity and peace -, and truekly^
io iriflruH ihofe who contradifled themfclvcs and their profcffion, that, if it was
f)o!rible, they might be recovered out of the fnare .they were fallen into; to
fhdfc thii exhortation may refer," with other things that may be obferved in the
torit?xt. What farther improvement I (hall make of it, will be to lay before
5^ou, tht^paftor of this church, for yeur confideration, various things relative
to the work you -have been chofeni -and called unto,, and the office you have
been inveflcd with.-
• 'firfl, Confider the work iffclf, and whst a work it is you are engaged in :
W\% a Work, and not ii^ne-cure, huiz fervice; there is bufiriefs to be done,
and a great deal of bufinefs too 5 it is called /he IVork of theminiflry % ' from the
fobjed- matter of it, the miniftry of the word, aiKl the adminiftratibn of ordi-
nances ; and the ivork of the Lord and of Cbrifi ', from the concern the Lord
5efus Ghrift has init ; he is the fum and fubltance of it, he calls unto it, and
qualifies for it, afhfts in it, and when it is rightly done, it makes for his glory.
■Cenfider that il is- a laborious work j minifttrs (if Cflnlt are not to be loiterers,
but labourers iti his viileyard -, it requires much reading of the fcriptures, fre-
^j^jent prayer ; conftant meditation, and ftudy to prepare for it ; and much fludy
'is- a 'svearinefs to the fiefh' : and in the performance of this fervice, with that
JjNral, fci'vour, and afftdiori, which arc necelTary to it, a man, to ufe the apof-
<^c^ ^hxiik,- may ^end and be fpttit ''•, fpcnd his animal fpLrits until they are quite
'^-■■- exhauftcd •
• Ephe's. rv. 12. ■•> iCor. ivi.lo. Phil. ii. 30.- * EcCles. aii. 12.
* 2 Cor. xii. I J. ■
i€ A CHARGE AT THE ORDINA.TION
cxhaufted and gone -, -for this work, followed with clofe application, will try.
the bcft conftitution in the world, and at length wafte and confume it : Epa-
pbroditus, a faithful and laborious minifter ©f the word, wasw^i unto deaths
fmr^ or through tht work of Cbriji ' : but then confider, for your encouragement,
it is an honourable work -, if a man deftre the office of a bijkop^ be dtjireth a good
work'-: which is pleafantly, profitably, and honourably good^ for what is
more 'honourable than to be the fervancs of the moft high God, and to be em-
ployed in ■fi.ich fervice of his, as to Jhew unto men the way offahation? Than to
be the «mbafladors of Chrift, and (land in his ftead, and J>efeecb men to be recon-
ciled to God ? Than to be Jlewards of the myjleries ofCbriJl, and of the manifold
grace of God? Than to be the lights of the world, ftars in Chrift's right hand,
the melTcngers or angels of the churches, and the glory of Chrift? Moreover,
confider that this work well performed, is deferving of efteem from men ; they
that labour in the word and doSlrine are worthy -of double honour *, of an honoura-
ble-maintenance, and of -honourable pcfpeft •, they are to be received with glad-
nefs, and 'had in tefuitation; and to be known, owned, and acknowJedged by
thofc over whom they are as fathers, guides, and governors : and to be highly
efteemed for their works fake- add to all this, ihat this is a work in which God
hwith his tninifters, and they with him ; for, fays the apoftle ••, we are labour eri
together with God, ye are God's bufbandry, ye are God's iuilding; the, churches
are God's hufbandry, and to be manured and cultivated, planted and wa.tercd ;
Tvhich is a -laborious work, and conftantly to be attended to ; and nothing can
be done to any purpofe, and with any cffcxft, but through the prefencq and
bleding of God -, neither is be that plantetb any thing, neither he that wateretb^
which to do is the work of gofpel-rninifters, biit God that giveth the increafe' -^
and as the people of God, in a church-ftate, are his building, and who are to
be edified and built upon their moft holy faith ; except the Lord build the boufe^
ihey labour in -win that build it ^ i but when his minifters go forth in his name
and ftreng-th, preaching his gofpel, and he grants his gracious prefence and
aftiftance, and he, the Lord, is working with them\ itiey go on in their work
with chcarfulnefs and fuccefs, . : ,
Secondly, Confider the fevcral parts of this work you are called ijnto .and en-
gaged in, which are to be performed by you, and are as follow ; r ' '
1. The miniftration of the word, which is a principal part of the work of
a minifter of Chrift-, the apoftlcs, and firft preachers of the gofpel, befides the
fpiritual, had the fec-ular affairs of the church upon their hands i which lying
too heavy on them, they defired to be eafcd, by appointing proper perfons jo
take
-« Phil.'ii. 30. *■ 1 Tim. iii. I. t t Tim. v. 17. , •" iCoi. iJL 9.
' J £01. iii. 7. * PSi\m cxxvii. 1. ' Mark xvi. zo.
-Serm. 3S- OF SEVERAL MINISTERS. ' j;
take care of the latter ; that fo they might give themfelves up wholly and con-
■ Rinily to prayer, and to the minijlry of the word"' : Now confider what that is,
that is to be minillered, it is the word of God, and not man ; which, as it de-
mands the attention of the hearer, fo the afTiduous application of the preachtrr :
it is the gofpel that is to be preached, the good news and glad tidings of peace,
pardon, righteoufnefs, and falvation by Chrift; it is the gofpel, which is given
in commifiion to preach , it is the glorious gofpel of the blcfTed God, which
minifters are entrufted with ; and there is a wo upon them, if they preach it
not; they are appointed minifters of the new teftament; not of the law, the
killing letter, the miniftration of condemnation and death -, but of the gofpel,
the quickening fpirit, the miniftration of the fpirit, of righteoufnefs and of life :
confider, that only the pure unmixed gofpel of Chrift is to be preached, the
•fincere milk of the word, unadulterated, and clear of all human mixtures -, it
is not to be blended and corrupted with the doftrines of men : the word of God
is not to be handled craftily -, the hidden things of diftionefty are to be re-
nounced, and the manifcftation of the truth is to be made to every man's con-
fcicnce, in the fight of God : and the whole of the gofpel is to be delivered -, no
truth of it is to be dropped, concealed, or kept back, upon any pretence what-
foevcr, though it may be difpleafing to fome ; fuch a qucftion is never to be
admitted and reafoned upon one moment in your private ftudies and prepara-
tions, whether fuch a truth you are meditating upon will be pleafing or difpleaf-
ing i" for if you feck to pleafe men, you will not be the fervant of Chrift ; the
only thing to be confidered is, is it truth ? if it is, fpeak it out, without fear of
man •, and though it may be traduced as irrational, or licentious, and be loaded
with reproach, and charged with dangerous confequences ; yea, it may be
urged, that admitting it to be truth, fince an ill ufe may be made of it, it
fhould not be preached ; but let none of thefe things move you ; preach truth,
every truth, and leave it with the God of truth, who will take care of it, and
ufe it to his own ends and purpofcs. Confider, that Chrift is the fum and fub-
ftance of the gofpcl-miniftry -, and that he, as to his perfon, offices, and grace,
is chiefly to be infifted upon ; we preach not ourfehes, but Chrift Jefus the Lord ";
as the anointed prophet, prieft, and king; as Jefus the alone Saviour ; as tlic
Lord our righteoufnefs, even Chrifl crucified, and (lain for the fins of men ;
Lliough fuch preaching may be a flumbling-block to fome, andfoolifhnefsto others °.
The great apoftle Paul, who well underftood the nature and import of the
gofpel-miniftry, declares, that be determined not to know any thing, that is, not
to make known, or preach any thing, fave Jefus Chrifl, and him crucified ^ ; and
as Chrift is the alpha and omega of the fcriptures, fo he ftiould be of all your
difcourfes and fcrmons ; whatever fubjedt you are*upon, keep Chrift in your
Vol. II. D eye,
." A£li vi. 4. "2 Cor. iv. 5. • i Cor. i. 23. f 1 Cor. ii 2.
,8 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
eye, and let it appear, fomc way or other, it has a conneftion with him, and
centers in him. The gofpel to bt preached, is the gofpel of the grace of God ;
and it is fometimes called the grace of God itfeif; the dodtrines of it are the
doftrines of free grace, and declare, that the falvation of men, from firft to lafl,
and in all the parts of it, is of grace, and not of works; and thefe are to be
faithfully difpenfed, as that the firft ftep to the falvation of men, the choice of
them to it, is of grace, and not of works ; that men are jviftificd freely by the
grace of God, through the redemption that is in Chrift Jefus, and not by the
works of the law ; that the full forgivenefs of fins, though by the blood of
Chrift, is according to the riches of God's grace; and that eternal life is the free
gift of God, through Jcfus Chrift our Lord : Yea, every truth that is contained
in the fcriptures, and is agreeable to them, is to be preached ; for all fcripture
\% profitable for do£Jrine'^; from thence it is to be fetched, and by it to be fup-
ported and maintained; this is tlie ftandard of faith and pradlice ; and as it is
by this the hearers of the word are to try what they hear, and judge whether
things are ri<jht or wrong, they hear; fo this ftiould be the rule to minifters to
preach by ; to the law and to the teftimony, if they fpeak not according to this word,.
it is becaufe there is no light in them'. The dodrinal part of the fcripturc is
more efpecially to be attended to, becaufe that is the food with which the flock,
and church of God is to be fed, by thofe who are the paftors and overCcers o£
it • and therefore, as they fhould take heed to themfelves, and to the flock un-
rder their care, fo to their doftrine; that it be found doftrine, pure, and incor-
rupt ; that it be intirely agreeable to the facred writings ; that it be the dcftrine
of Chrift, which comes from him, and is concerning him ; that it be fuch as
■was preached by his^poftles, and is coruained in their difcourfes and cpiftlcsi
and that it be according to godlinefs: though not the doftrines of the gofpel
only are to be preached, but the duties of religion are alfo to be inculcated in
their proper place and courfe, and to be prefled on believers upon gofpel-prin-
ciples and motives; the churches are to be taught to obferrc all things which
Chrift has commanded, every ordinance of his, and every duty enjoined, both
with refpcfl to God and men ; faints are to be put in mind to be ready to every
good work ; and thofe that have believed in God, are to be charged to be care-
ful to maintain good works for neceflary ufes ; every docflrine and every duty,
in their turns, are to be infifted on, throughout the circle of the evangelic mii-
niftry.
Let controverfy, as little as may be, be brought into the pulpit; controver-
fial ferinons, when bcft .nianaged, are generally uncdifying ones to the people-
in common; tend to damp the true fpirit of religion and. devotion, which it is
ihe defi'^n of preaching the word to cjtcite; and fcrvc to entangle, perplex, and
confound.
* I Tim. iii 16. ' Ifai. viii. 10.
Serm. 38. OF SEVERAL MINISTERS. r^
confound weak minds; objedions are often darted to be folved, which are not
eafily done; by which means captious perfons, and fuch as are difinclined to
receive the truth, are furnifhed with them, who otherwife would not; and fome-
cimes the foiutions of fuch objedions are not quite fatisfaftory to the friends of
truth, and fo rather tend to dagger than to eftablifh : Upon the whole, it is
bed to preach the pure truths of the gofpel in the plained manner, and endea-
vour to illudrace and confirm them by fcripture-tedimonies, and by reafonings
drawn from thence, and leave them with their native evidence uponthe minds
of men.
Now confider, that all this is to be done compleatly, condantly, and con-
fidently ; the gofpel is to be preached /«//>', as it was by the apodle P4ul\
according to the meafure of the gift of grace given ; and when a man preaches
the whole gofpel of Chrid, and delivers out all the doftrines of it, and urges
to all the duties relative to it, and declares the whole counfel of God; then
may he be faid to do the work of an evangclid, and to make full proof of his
minidry, and to fulfil the minidry which he has received of Chrid: and this is
to be done condantly ; tbefi things, fays the apodle, / wilt that thou affirm con-
ftantly ' ; the truths, before fpoken of, concerning the date of God's people in
unrcgeneracy, the loving-kindnefs of God to them in their redemption by
Chrid, the faving them by the wafhing of regeneration, thejudification of them
by the free grace of God, and their heirfhip and title to eternal life, ijpon that ;
the word mud be preached in feafon, and out of fcafon, as often a? opportu-
nity offers ; and the miniders of Chrid mud be Jlidjajl, unwoveaiU-, always
aboHiiding in the "work of the Lord, knowing their labour is not in vain in the Lord :
and care fliould be taken, that this work is done confidently ; that the minidry
h uniform, and all of a piece; that there is no contradidion, no yea and nay
in it; otherwife great confufion will be created in the minds of hearers, and
they will be thrown into the utmod perplexity, not knowing what to believe,
or receive ; for if the trumpet gives an uncertain found, who fhaU prepare himfeif
48 the battle " .?
'2. Another part of the work to be performed by you, is the adminidration
bf gofpel-ordinanccs, and ihey are principally Baptifm and the J_oj-d's fupper :
the adminidration of baptifm goes ak)ng with the minidry of the word; fugh,
who have a commifHon from Chrid to teach and infiruH mzn, in divine tbiogs,
have a ckimmilTion aHb to baptize thofe who are taught and indnuftcd by thcni,
hi the jiame of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghofi ; nor have a.ny other
a right to do it : fome have t-hought that Philip who baptized the eunuch and
others, -wzsFhilip the deacon ; but be it fo, he was an evangclid alfo, a preach-
er of t^ie gofpel, as it is plain he was ; and therefore he baptized, not by vir-
D 2 ■ - tue
• Rom. XT. 10. » Titui Hi. 8. ■ 1 Cor. xiv. 8.
20 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
tue of his office as a deacon, but as a teacher and a preacher of the word of God,
The apoftle Paul indeed fays, Chriji fent me not to baptize^ but to preach the gof-
^f/* ; but then his meaning is, that he was not fent only to baptize, or this was
not the principal part of his miniftry ; it was chiefly to preach the gofpel,
though not to the cxciallon of the admi;iiftration of ordinances ; nor does he fay
this, as thinking, or fpeaking meanly of the ordinance of baptifm ; but becaiife
fome perfons had made an ill ufc of their being baptized by him ; and were
ready to ^oaft of it, as if they were baptized in his name. It is- incu-nbent on.
you, to adminifter this ordinance to the perfons which are defcribed in x.\\e word,
of God, and of which there are examples in it, and in the manner therein di-
Fcftcd to, and praftifcd. The ordinance of the Lord's fupper, being an ordi-
nance in the church, is to be adminiftered by the partor of it •, fuch who break.
the bread cvf life in the miniftry of the word, are to break, the bread in the ordi-
nance of the fupper: the apoUlc Paul broke bread ta the-difcLples, to whom he
preached-, and this ordinance is to be adminiftercd frequernly,^ as is fuggefted
tn thofc words, as often as ye eat this bread, &c. " ; in it. the fufferings of Chrift
fhould be defcribed, and his love fct forth in the moft moving and pathcric
ftrains v and he be reprefented as crucified and flain, in as lively a.manncr, a^
the adminiftrator is capable of.
3. Another part of )OUr work, is to take care of the difcipline of the houfe
ef God •, for though every thing is to be done by the vote and fuffrage of the
church, the power of difcipliQC being lodged In ic by Chrift,. the head of it v yet
the executive part of it will He chiefly upon you v though none are to be admit-
ted to, or excluded fro.m the communion of the church, but according to its
voice, and with its confent: yet it fliould be greaily your concern, to examine
things clofely, whether the perfons are fit so be ncceiued or rejefled ; ^nd to
take care, that nothing be done through fiavour or affedion, and with par-
tiality. Paftors of churches have a rule and government committed to them;
they are fct over others in the Lord v they are not indeed to lord it over God's
beritaoe, to rule them in an haughty and imperious manner, but according to
the laws of Chrift r "which they arc carefully to obferve, and poirrt out to the
church, and fee that they are put in execution ; in doing which their governr
ment chiefly lies-, yoa are theinrfore tatakc car^, that every thing in the church
be done decently, and in order, and according to the ryle of the divine word.:
particularly, care (hould be taken that no cafe indifference, of a private nature;
be brought into the church, before the rule isobfcrvcd, which Chrift has given in
reference to fuch a, cafe ; thai the offended brother fhould firft tell the oflTcnder
«f his fault alone, and endeavour to convince him of it j -and if he .Ihould not
!...-..;; fucccedj
« I Cor. i. 17. * » Cor. xi. 26,
S^RM. 38. OFSEVERAL MINISTERS. 21
fucCeed, then to take one or two more, arrd try by ihem to bring him to' an ac-
knowledgment of it-,.-biu, if afcer all he is obftinate and incorrigible, then
bring it to the church ^ But as for thofe thaty;« openly^ that are guilty of 110-
loriousand fcandalous crimes,- in a public manner, to the great difgrace of re-
ligion, as well as grief of the church, thcfe are to be rebuked before a!!, without
any more to do, that ethers may fear "" : the feveral rules to be attended to, with
refped tO churoh-dircipline, you are to inculcate to the church, at proper times,
and on proper occafions ; as to admonifh pcrlons guilty of immorality and error,
to withdraw from thofe that walk dijorderly, after all methods taken to reclaim,
them are vain and fruitlcfs ; and to reje£l an heretic, after the firfi and fecond ad-
tnomtion *, when without effect.
4. Another part of your work, is to vifit the fcveral members of the church,
as their cafes may require, efpccially when diftrefled, either in body or mind »
then to pray with them, and for them, to fpeak a word of comfort to them,
and give them your bed counfel and advice-, and this will introduce you into
divers famil.es ; but take care not to meddle with family-aff"airs ; what you hear
and fee in one family report it not in another-, this may be. attended with bad
confcqucnces : and whatever differences may arife between one and another,
interfere as little as podible; chufe rather that differences between members be
compofed by other perfons, ihe officers of the church, than by you, that no pre-
judices be entertained againft your miniftry-, and particularly be careful .to avoid
that fcandalous praflice, the difgrace of the pulpit, bringing mauers of diffe-
rence into it, whether between yourfclf or others, or whether between one mem-
ber and another, one fide of which you may incline to take -, for why fhould the
peace and edification of a whole community be deftroyed, through the noife and
din of private quarrels ? As this is a praftice exceeding mean, it is very unbe-
coming the gofpcl of peace, and the m.inifters of it. Moreover, you will be
called upon fbmctimesto vifit fick perfons, who are not members of the church j
and who may be ftrangers to the grace of God» and the way of falvation by
.Chrift ; and who have been either profane perfons, or refting upon their civility
• and morality, plcafing themfcLves, that they have wronged no man, and have
done that which is right between man and man; and now in dying circum-
fiances, hope,, on this account, things wijl be well wiih them ; and whofe re-
latives may be .afraid of your faying any thing to interrupt this carnal peace;.
^et,bc fait:hful, labour to fhew the one and the other their wretched and undone
.Gate, by nature -, the neceffity of repentance towardsGod, and faith in ourLord-
.}cfus Chrift, in his blood, righteoufnefs, and atoning facriiice, for peace,, par-
•don, juftification, and falvation. This is a cafe, 1 allure you, will require a
r= .. : A ..■.' ..■, , . , ■ ■ • g°°'^
Matt, xviii. 15—1;, '« i Tim. v. zo. • 2 Thefs. iii. 6. Tit, iii. \o^
21 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION-
good deal of care, judgment, and faithfulnefs. And now, I doubt not, but
by this time you will be ready to fay, sabo is Sufficient for theje things^? Where-
fore,
Thirdly^ Confider the qtialificationa necelTary to the performance of the mi-
liifterial work ; and what things are requifue and ufeful for the due difcharge of
it : and here let it be obferved, that there are fome things which are fcrviceable
dnd ufeful in it, which, properly fpeaking, are hot the qualifications for it ; as
for iriftance, the grace of God is a pre-requifite to this work; it is highly proper
that thofe who are engaged in it, (hould be partakers of it in truth : yet grace
IS not the miniftcrial qualification ; for this is what all the faints have in cotrv-
nion, the graces of the fpirit, faith, hope, and love^ they all obtain like pre-
cious faith, for nature, kind, and objeft, though not to the fame degree, one
as another; they are all called in one hope of their calling, by the fame grace,
to the fame glory 4 and they are all taught of God to love God, Chrift, and
■ one another -, yet this does not qualify them for minifters ef the word -, if grace
was a minifterial qualification, all the Lord's people would be whatMo/fj witbcd
fhey were, even all iii t\itm profhets. Human learning is very ufeful and ftrr-
■viceable to a minifter of the gofpel ; to have fuch a fhare of it, as to be capable
'Of reading the fcriptures in the original tongues in which they were written;
^nd by means of •Jcnowledge of languages, to be able to read the writings of
■many excellent good men, written therein, to their profit and advantage ; as
JWell as to know the ufc of words, and the propriety of fpeech : and fuch who
;arc£alled to the work of the miniflry, who have not h-ad a liberal education,
^nd yet have time and Jeifare, are not eafily to be cxcufcd, if they do not make
■^jfe of their time, and thofe means that may be had, to improve themfelves in
4.Tfeful knowledge-, and yet, after all, the higheft attainments in human litera-
ture are not minifterial qualifications; for a man may be able to read the Bible
■in the languages in which it was written, and yet not underftand the things
contained in it •, for it is a fealed book, which when put into the hands of a
>earncd man to read and interpret, he cannot, becaufe it is fealed. Good natu-
ral pans are of great fcrvice and ufe to a minlfter of the word ; as to have a
clear tindcrftanding, a folid judgment, a lively fancy, a fruitful invention, and
^ retentive memory ; but thefe a man may have, and y-et not be fit to be a mi-
nlfttr of the gofpel ;' yea, men may have all the above things, grace, learning,
Jand naxuralparts, and not 'be qualified for this work. "The apoftle Paul hcid
all t^ -them-, .he was a man 'of good natural parts, -wiikh his adverfartes per-
<:eivcd and owned; his letters, i^y i\\ry, are mighty and powerful", -wrote iri a maf-
jciiline ftyle, and full of ftrOng teafonings,' and- nervous -arguments-; he bad -a
large (hare of human literature, being brought up at the ket of Gamaliel, in
* 2 Cor. ii. 16. '2 Cor. x. i z.
Serm. 38. OF SEVERAL MINISTERS. , 23
all rhe learning of the Jews, and of other nations-, and he alfo was called by
the grace of God -, yet he does not afcribe his being a minifter of the gofpcl to
eicher, or all of thefe, but to a gift which he had received ; a peculiar gift,
fitting and qualifying him for this important work •, for, fpeaking of the gofpel,
he fays, v/hereof I -was made -a minijier according to the gift of the grace of Cod
given unts we' ; with which agree the vvords of the apoftle Peter, as every one
has received the gift, even fbvtinifier the fame one to another' : in fon^e this gift
may be greater, in others lefs ; but in all where i< is, it more or lefs qualifies
for -the fervice of the miniftry : having then gifts, differing according to ihe.grace:
that is given unto us, whether prophecy. Jet us prophefy according Jo the propor-
tion or analogy ■of faith ' j that is, let us interpret the fcriptures, or preach the
word, agreeable to the tenor of it : Now this gift lies in a competent knowledge
of the fcripiures, and of the things contained in them, and of a faculty of inter-
preting them to the edification of others ; for the work of evangelical paftors or
leachirrs,. is 10 feed the churches -with knowledge and underflavding ^ ; which, unlefs
they have a confidcrable (hare of thcmfelves, they will not be able to do with
any profit and advantage to others : thefe are fpiritual men, who having fpiritual
gifts, arc capable of making-judgment of all things necefiary to be known unto-
tilvation i of this knowledge and of this, gift the apoftle is fpeaking, when he
£iys^ whereby when ye read ye may underjland my knowledge in the myflery of Chrijl ". .
But now, befidcs this ftiarc of knowledge and furniture of the mind, there mufb,
be a capacity of exprefiing it toothers, to make tip the minifterial qualification i
a man muft not only have wherewiih to teach others, or matter to inftruft them
in,, but he mud be capable of doing it in an apt and fuitable manner, that tends
to edification ; which the .apoftle means by utterance, which is a gift, and by
mens being ahle to teach others alfo, and by being apt to teach '; for it fignifies
kittle what a man knows, or how oreat Ibever is the furniture of his mind, or
the largenefs of his ideas, and the compafs of his knowledge, if he is not capable
of clothing his ideas with apt and fuitable words to convey them to the under-
ftanding of others. So then this gift confifts of knowledge and elocution-, and.
on whomfocver this gift is beftowed, whether on a gracious or a gracelcfs perfon,
on a John or zjudas^ ; or whether on a learned or unlearned man, on a. Paul
or-
J Ephej. iii. y^ • i Ptter iv. 10. ' Rom. xK. 6. t Jer. iii. 15,
* Eplws. iii. 4. ' Ephes. vi. 19. eTitn.ii.z. 1 Tim. iii. 21
* ^udas had the fame call and miJion from CKrift to preach the gofpcl wich the reJlof the aportles;
»nd had the fame gifts ordinary and extraordinary qualifying for ic ; and behaved fo weH in bis office,
that the rcH of the difciplcs ratlier dillruftcd thcmfelves th.an him, on Chrift's declaring, one of them
"(houW betray him, faying each, L it 1? *4au.x. i' — 'S. and Xxvi. 21,12. And, though I am of
©pinion, that for the mod part, God gives fpecial grace to thofe on whom he bedows gilts for tlie
minillry, yet not always ; aa the inflances in Matt vii. ii, zj. Phil, i 15, 16. fliew, and is a cafe
the apoftle fuppofes, I Cor. jr. 27. and xiii. i, z. and fcch may be themcans of the converfion and
edification of men : the reafon of which is, it is the word of God they preach, and God can and doc3
mxkf ufc of his own word, to fiich purpofes, by what inil/ameais he pleafes.
ii A CHARGE AT THE ORDIN^ATION
or a Peler ; on a man of good natural parts or one of a meaner capacity ; thac
is it that qualifies for the miniftry ; where indeed grace, learning, and natural
parts all meet together in a man with this gift, they make him a very confider-
-able and diftinguifhed man. Now, there are various things that are requifue,-
in order to the due and regular cxercife of this gift to ufefulnefs.
1. There muft be a call to the exercife of it : befides the inward call or dif-
pofition of the mind to fuch fervice, and which muft be fubmitted to others;
for the ffifit of the prophets h fubje5f Jo the prophets *-\ there muft be an outward
call by the rhurctv : it being notified to it by fome means or another, that fuch
'an one is thought to have a gift for the miniftry, the church calls him to the
cxercife of it, tries his gift, and judges of it -, and upon approbation, fuch are
feparated and fent forth into the miniftry, as Sanl and Barnabas were -, for no
tnodeft man will take this honour to himfeif, or thruft himfelf into this work,
Onlefs he is called to it ; though in this rambling age of ours, there are many
run who were -never fent, and take upon them this work, without having a
gift qualifying them for it, or a call from God or men unto it.
2. Where there is a gift, diligence and induftry muft be ufcd to improve it ;
For otherwrfe it may decline, become lels, and in length of time ufclcfs ; yea,
may "be entirely 4oft or taken away ; for gifcs are not like grace ; grace, though
it may decUnc as to exercife, can never -be loft ; but gifts may, as appears from
the parable of the talents, by which I undcrftand minifterial gifts •, the man that
had one talent wrapped it up in a napkin, and hid it in the earth, that is, he
negledled it, and made no ufe of it •, wherefore orders are given to fake it from
him, and give it toothers; for unto ivery one that hath Jhalt be given, and be
fhall have abundance \ every one that hath a gift, and is diligent and conftant in
the ufe of it, that fhall increafe ; but from him that bath not, who, though he
has a sift, is as if he had none, negle6ting to cultivate it, and make ufe of ir,
fhall be taken a'O^ay even that ivhich be hath'. Gifts, like fome mrtais, unlcfs
frequently ufcd, become rufty and good for nothing-, hence the cxhortanon
of the apoftle to Timothy, not to negleft, but to fir up the gift of God that was
.in him '", as you ftir up coals of fire, that they may give more light and heat ;
fo gifts by ufe become brighter and brighter, and more beneficial.
3. Faithfulnefs is ncccftary to the due cxercife of this gift-, thofe that have
it are, or ftiould be, good fewards of the manifold grace of God; and now ;/ is
required in fe^ards that a man be found faithful" ; to difpenfe the myfteries of
God, of which they are ftewards, unto others ; and ivbenGod has counted a man
faithful, putting him into the minifiry\ he ought to continue faithful to him thac
has
" iCor. jiv. ji. I Matt jtxv. 29. iTim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 6.
" I Pet iv. 10. I Cor. iv. 2. • 1 Tim. i. 12.
Serm. 38. OF SEVERAL MINISTERS. 15
iias put him into it, to the fouls of men committed to his care, and to the gof-
pel, and the truths of it he is entrufted with. For he that bath my word, let him
/peak my word faithfully : what is the chaff to the wheat ? faith the Lord of hofls ^
4. Wifdom and prudence are alfo very rcquifite in the exercife of this gift,
both in the choice of fubjeds, and in the manner of treating them ; a man
that is a fleward mufl: be wife as well as faithful, to give to every one of the
houihold their portion of meat in due feafon "> ; and a man that labours in the
word and dodrine fhould be fkilful in the fcriptures, that he may rightly divide
the word of truth' ; and he that has to do with perfons in various cafes, and
different circumftances, had need to have the undcrftanding and /o;7g-K^o/"/,&?
learned to fpeak a word in feafon to him that is weary '.
5. Minifters of the word ought to be cartful of their lives and converfations ;
or otherwife, let their gifts be what they may, they will become ufelefs and
unprofitable -, they therefore (hould take heed to themfelves', to condu6t and be-
have becoming their work and office ; and fo to walk as to be an example of the
beliroers, in word, in converfation, in charity, infpirit, in faith, inpUrity"; and
to take care they give no offence to the church, nor to the world, that the mi-
nifliy be not blamed" ; for it is a mod fhameful thing, that they which teach
others not to fin, but to guard againft it, fliould be guilty of the fame them-
felvcs ; lee Rom. ii. 23, 24. where the apoftle enlarges on this fubjcft.
Fourthly, Confider the means that are to be made ufe of for the cultivation
and improvement of the minifterial gift ; and for the better difcharge of the
work and office to which you have been called and ordained. The diredtions
the apoftle gives to Timothy on this head, are well worthy of your notice, and
Ihould be clofely purfued ; give attendance to readings to exhortation, to doctrine.
— Meditate on thefe things, give thyfelf wholly to them, that thy profiting may ap-
pear to all'' : in the firft and chief place ftudy the Bible, read that attentively,
compare one paffage with another, fpiritual things with fpiritual, parallel places
together ; and particularly thofe that are more dark and obfcurc with thofe that
are more clear and plain ; that thereby you may know more of the mind of the
Spirit of God and Chrifl in the facrcd pages j for the infpired writings are /ro-
ftabU for doHrine, for reproof, for corre5lion, for inflru5lion in righteoufnefs, that
the man of God may be perfeH, thoroughly furnifhed unto all good works '' ; for thefe
will furnifh out fufficient matter, both for things dodtrinal and prafbical, to be
infiftcd on in the miniflry of the word ; and with whatfoever may be necefTary
for the difcharge of the minifterial office. Read alfo the writings of good men.
Vol. II. E for
P Jer. xxiii. 28. « Lukexii.42. » * Tim. ii. i 5. ' Ifai 1.4.
« Aftjxx. 28. • I Tim. iv. 12. » 2 Cor. vj. 3. » i Tim. iv. 13, 15.
f 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.
»6 A CHARGE AT T'^HE ORDINATION
• for thcfc are not preferved and tranfmicted to pofterity for nothing, but for ufe-,
but then read them with care and caution, as human writings, liable to mil-
takes, and having their impcrfeftions •, compare them with the word of God,
and fo far as they agree with that, and arc confident with themfelvcs, regard
them, and not otherwifr. Meditate much on divine things, on the fcriptuies,
and the doflrines concained in them : it is the charaSer of every go }d man,
that he niedilates in the law % or doftrine of the Lord continuiily •, and he finds
•his account in it -, h\% meditation oi Gq(\, ofChrift, and of fpiritiial thincrs, is
fweet % and delightful to him •, and much more fliDuId it be the conftant work
and employment of a minifter of the word. Luther, as I rem-mber, it is faicl
of him, that he ulcd to fay, "Meditation, temptation, and prayer, make a
*' divine." For prayer is alfo very neceflary to be frequently repeated, fince
this goes along wiih the mini'lry of the word, and is fo very ufeful in refpoft
of it. The apoftlcs defircd to be eafed of the worldly concerns of ilie churji,.
that they might give up ihemielves to prayer, a3 well as to the minijiry of the-
VJord ^ ; and-to the former in order to the latter. Minifters of the gofpel fliould
pray often, not only in public, but in private ; not only for others, but for
themfclves ; that they might be more qualified for their work, as well as be
more fuccefsful in it ; that they might have more fpiritual light, knowledge^
and underftanding, and be more capable of inftrufting and feeding the people
under their care -, that they might have the eyes of their underftandings more
enlightened, to behold the wonderful things that are in the law, or doiflrine of
the Lord ; and be better able to p>oint them oi>t to others.
Fifthly, Confider on the one hand the difficulties and difcouragements that
attend the miniftcriai work ; and on the' other hand^ the encouragements to
proceed on in it.
1. The difficulties and difcouragements that attend it; thefe, I would ob-
ferve, not to diftrefs you in, or deter you from your work -, but that, when
you meet with them, they may not feem as though fomc ftrange or uncommon
thing had happened unto you. There are fome, which come from within a
man's felf ; from in-dwelling fin, from a law in the members warring againjl the
law of the mind ; you will find when you would do good, evil is prefent with
you, as particularly to hinder you in the purfuit of your ftudies -, you will find
a kind of flothfulnefs and difinclination to the work ; nay, fon^etimes when the
fpiril is willing the flefh will be weak % and will make excufcs to put off prepa-
ration for it to another time. Sometimes you will be in darknefs, and under
divine defertions, and be in very uncomfortable frames -, yet ftill you muft go
on, and prepare, in the bcft manner that you can, for inftrufbing and comfort-
ing
" Pfalm i. 2. • Pfalm civ. 34. »• Afls vi. 4. • Matt. ixvi. 41.
5erm. 38. OF SEVERAL MINISTERS. 17
ing others-, this is hard and difficult W-ork, but it mufl; be done: and difficui-
tics and difcouragements fomctimes arifc ^om Satan's temptations, who is very
bufy with all good men, cfpecialiy with miniftcrs of the gofpcl : he defircd to
have Peirr in his hands -, he buffeted the apoflle Paul; he levels his arrows at
thole who are the moft fruitful, flouriiliing, and ufcful -, as the archers that (hot
ttX-Jofrpb, \\\zi fruitful bough by a well, and grieved him, \.\\o\ig\\ bis bo-ju abode
' in flnngth, the arms of his hands bein^ made flrong by the mighty God of Jacob.
You mull: expeft Satan's temptations ; he will tempt you to thit which is uiT-
becoming your charadtcr and office ■, he will tempt you perhaps to entertain
groundlcfs jealoufies of one or other of the members of the churcli -, he will
tempt you to drop your mir.illry, or howevrr, in this place, and to do it in a pet
and humour: thcfe, and fuch like temptations, fhould be guarded againlh
Other difcouragements will arife from the world, and the men of it, from their
revilings and reproaches, wrath, rage, and perfecutions in one fhape or other;
but none of thcfe things fliould move you from your work, or caufe you to de-
Icrt it. Remember you are chofen, and called to be a foldier of Jefus Chrift i
and, as a good one, fhould endure hardncfs, hard words, and iiard ufage, for
his fake: yea, the difficulties and difcouragements of gofpel-miniftcrs are in-
crcafcd by profeflbrs of religion themfelves -, not only by thofe of other commu-
nities, who may traduce and fpeak ill of fuch, who are not altogether of the
fame principles with themfelves, but by the members of the churches over which
they are paftors -, feme of which are very weak and imprudent, and oftentimes
make a minifter very uncomfortable and uneafy by their words and aflions j
though thefe things fhould be confidered as their weaknelTes and infirmities, and
to be bore with ; for we that are firong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak,
and not pleafe ourfehes ^ ; yet thefe muft be reckoned arriong a minifter's difficul-
ties and difcouragements ; but,
2. You are to confider the encouragements to go on in your wprk, notwith-
flanding what may be met with in it which is difficult and difcouraging ; and
which is a fuperabundant counterbalance to tliat. Remember the gracious pro-
mifcs Cbrift has made of his prefence with his minifters, and of his protection
pffhem, and of his affiftance in their work, and of a reward, though not of
debt, yet of grate, that fliaU be given them : he has promifed he will be with
his miniliers in fucceffive generations, unto the end of the world, to fupply and
fiipport them ; he holds them in his right hand, and will not fuffer any to fee
upon them, to hurt them, until they have done the work he has called them to,
and is dcfigncd to be done by them ; his power and grace are Sufficient to bear
E 2 them
^ Rom. IV. I,
28 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
ihem up in, and carry them through whatever fervice he engages them in ; his
ftrength is made perfect in their weakncfs, and as their day is, their ftrength is ;
To he has promifed, and fo he performs. Remember and coafider, that they
that be wife, and teach and inftruft others, fhall7&/«^ as the brightnefs of the fir-
mament in the kingdom-ftate -, and they that turn many to righteoufnefs, or juftify
many, by teaching the dodlrine of jultification, or diredling fouls to the righ-
icoufnefs ofChrift alone for \i,fhall be as the fiars for ever and ever ^ ; that thofc
who have taken good heed to their flocks, over which the Holy Ghofl: hath
made them overkers, and have faithfully fed them, and carefully watched over
them, when the chief fjepherd fhall appear, fkall receive a crown of glory that fadetb
not away' \ and will hear fromChrift, well done, good and faithful fervant, enter
thou into the joy of thy Lord'. But I proceed to obferve,
II. The prayer or wifJi of the apoftle for Timothy, that the Lord would gig.' e hirtt
underjianding in ail things ; and upon this I fhall be very fliort ; only drup a few
things by way of explanation of it : and by all things, in which he defires he
might have an undcrftanding, he does not mean all things natural and civil v
indeed the underftanding of all fuch things comes from God ; every good and
perfect gift in nature, or in providence, as well as in grace, comes /row the Fa-
ther of lights^; all the wifdom and knowledg^e which Bezaleel'zad Aholiab had
for devifing and working curioiis works for the ta.bernacle, were of God -, he
put it into their hearts, and filled them with wifdom, knowledge, and under-
ftanding in thefe things -, yea, even all the underftanding the ploughman has
in ploughing the ground, and breaking the clods, and harrowing them, and in
fowincr his feed, is all from God ; he inftrufts him to difcretion -, this comes
from him who is wonderful in counfel,, and excellent in working^; and fo the fame
may be faid of knowledge of all natural and civil things, of all arts and fciences,.
liberal and mechanic : and. Indeed a minifter of the word had need to be ac-
quainted with all things in. nature and civil life, thoroughly to underftand all
thin<7S contained in the fcripturcs of truth -, fince there are fuch a variety of me-
taphors, and fo many allufions to things natural and civil -, and fuch an ador-
able fulnefs in them, as Tertullian expreffes it. But the apoftle, no doubt,
means underftanding in fpiritual things, in the fcriptures, in the doctrines and
myfteries of grace. The underftanding of man is naturally dark as to thofe
things •, it is the Lord that gives men an underftanding to know them, that
opens their hearts, and enlightens their minds by the fpirit of wifdom and reve-
lation, in the knowledge of them ; for whatever underftanding natural men may
have of natural things, they have none of fpiritual ones; there is none that un~
derjlandetby,
ADan. lii. 4. • I Pet. y. .4. » Matt. xxr. 21. « Jam.i. 17.
* Ifai. nvi.i. j6, 29.
Serm.38. • OF SEVERAL MINISTERS. 29
derjiandetby there is none that feeketh after God''. Now, befides the iinderftand-
ing of fpiritual things, which God gives in common to his people, he gives to
his minifters a larger underftanding of divine things, and of the (criptures and
the truths of them ; he opens their underftandings, as Chrift did his difciples,
that tiiey may underftand the fcriptures ; he gives unto them to know the myf-
tcries of the kingdom of heaven, to a greater degree than he does to others ;
and he enlarges their underftandings, and increafes their gifts, their light, and
knowledge ; which is what the apoftle in a more cfpccial manner prays for here,
on the account ol Timothy \ that he might be better inftrudted in every thing
relative to his office, as an cvangclift and minifter of the word, and know how
10 behave in the church of God, which is the houfe of God, the pillar and
ground of truth -, and which is the principal end of his writing this; and the
former epiftle to him ''. I have only one obfcrvation more to make, and that
is, that the ciaufe may be confidered as an afTcrtion, or a promife, and the hard
will groe thee underjlanding in all things; and fo is ufcd as an encouragement to
confidcr well what had been faid, and to expedl a richer furniture of knowledge,
and a larger meafure of fpiritual light and underftanding; and as Chrift gives
more light to his people, who are made light by him; and there is fuch a thing
as growing in grace, and in the knowledge of Chrift, and of all fpiritual things,
in common chriftians ; and the path of the juft is as the ftiininglight that Opines
more and more unto the perfect day v fo faithful minifters of the word, who arc
diligent and induftrious in their work, may expeft, and be aftured, that God
will give them an enlarged knowledge and underftanding of divine truths, and
of every thing neceflary to the due performance of that facred work they are
called unto, and holy office they are invefted with. I ftiall clofe, as I begun,
with the words of my text, Conjider what Ifay^ or have been faying; confider
the work of the miniftry, that it is a work, and a laborious one, yet honourable
and deferving of cftcem from men; and that God will never leave his fervants
^n it : confider the feveral parts of it, as the miniftration of the gofpel, the ad-
:miniftration of ordinances, the care of the difcipline of Chrift's houfe, and vi-
fiting the afflifted and diftreffcd : confider the neceftary qualifications for it, and
the things that are ufeful to the performance of it: confider the means to be
jnade ufe of to enable for the better and more regular exercife of fpiritual gifts ;
^nd the difficulties and difcouragements tlut, on the one hand, attend this work;
;and, on the other, the encouragen^nts to go on in it; and the Lord give thee
^underftanding in all things ; in all divine and fpiritual things, in the truths of the
.gofpel, and in every thing relative to your office, and the due difcharge of it,
lyou have this day been invefted with. May the blcfting of God reft upon you,
and may you have fuccefs in your work.
SERMON
* Rom. iij. 12. * 1 Tim. Ui. 14, 15.
-^o A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
SERMON XXXIX.
T/x Do5fri?ie of the Cherubim Vpened and Explained.
A SERMON at the Ordination of tVie Reverend Mr John Davis,
at IValtham- Abbey. Preached Augufi 15, 1764.
E Z E K I E I, X. 20.
^his is the living creature, that J Jaw under the God of Ifrael, by the
river of Cbehar ; and I hieiu that they wtVQ the Cherubim,
BEING defired to fay fomething to you, my BrotlKr, on this occafion, re-
lative to the minifterial charadler you bear, and to the work you have been
called to, and to the office you have been at this time inverted with ; my thoughts
have been led to this pafTage of fcripture. This is the living creature ; or crea-
tures, the fino'ular for the plural; for there were four living creatures which
Ezekiel faw in the vifion he refers to ; thefe he faw under the God ef Ifrael, under
a firmament over the heads of thefe creatur-es -, above which was the appearance
of a man in a moft glorious and iliuHrious form ; and who was no other than
the Son of God, who was to be incarnate, and here called the God. of Ifrael; and
which is no inconfiderable proof of our Lord's proper Deity, for the God of
Ifrael muft be the true God : this vifion the prophet had by the rivir of Chehar;
a river in Chaldea, where the captive Jrws alTembled, and Ezekiel with them^
and when he had the vifion, as now repeated to him, the objects in it became
more familiar to him -, and he more wiftly looked at them, and perceived and
was well affured, that the living creatures he faw were the cherubim ; or were
of the fame form and figure with the cherubim In the tabernacle oi Mofes and
temple 0^ Solomon -, for though he was not an high pried, only a common pricll,
and fo could never have fecn the cherubim in the cnoft holy place himfelf, yet
he mioht have had an account of them from an high prieft vrho had fecn them ;
and befides there were figures of the cherubim carved upon the walls of the
temple all around, and upon the doors of it-, v.'hich, as his bofinefs was to be
fre-
Serm. 39- OF THE Rev. Mr JOHN DAVIS. gr
frequently in the temple, he muft have often feen, and full well knew them.
Sfe alio vir. 15. where the fame is affirmed as here.
It may fcem ftrange to you at firft, that I fhould read fuch a pafTage of fcrip-
ture on fuch an occafion -, but it will not appear fo long, when I inform you
lliat mv intention is, by opening and explaining the emblems of the cherubim,
toby before you the qualifications, duties, work, and ufcfulnefs of the minif-
tcrs of the gofpel ; to make way for which, it will be proper to inquire what the
cherubim were, aqd what they fignified -, in order to which we muit look both
backwards and forwards", to the account of them in fcripcure, both before and
after the fe s/\{\on^ oi Ezekiel. The account begins early, proceeds gradqally,
and by degrees becomes more clear, diftinct, and perfedl. The firft mention
of the cherubim is \x\Gen. iii. 24. quickly after the fall of man, and at his expgl-
fwn from the garden of Ed^n ; wiien Jehovah placed at the eaji of the garden of
Eden, cherubim, and a fiamir.g fnord zvkich turned every tsjciy, to keep the way of
the tree of life; but we are not told what thcl'e cherubirji were, whether real cr^'a-
turcs or only figures, nor what their form, nor their number', only their
pofition at the calt oV the garden of Eden, and their ufe, to keep the way gf the
tree of life, the meaning of \Ahich will be given hereafter; only it may be
oblerved, that Mofes calls rtiem the cherubim \ for the word in the original has
the prepofitivc and emphjtic article; as if they were well known, as they were
to Mofes, and might be to the people of Ifrael through him, who could inform
them of them v for the book ot Genefis was written after Mofes had the order
to make the cherubim, and place them with the mercy-feat over the ark in
the holy of holies, as related \n Exodus xw. 18 — 22. from whence we learn,
that the cherubim were figures of winged creatures ; that they were in number
two; that they were made of gold, of the fame mafs with the mercy-feat; that
they ftood at both ends of it, looking to one another and to that, and overfha-
dowed it with their wings ; and were fo placed as to make a feat for the divine
Majefty, who took up his refidence here, and therefore afterwards is often
dcfcribed by him that divsUeth between the cheruhm. The fame figures were fet
in the moft holy place in Solomon's temple ; and where alfo were two others of
a larger fize, made not of gold, but of olive-wood gilded, and whofe wings
Cfctended, and touching each other, reached from one fide of the holy of holies
to the other; but flill we are at a lofs for the exaft form of thefe figures: this
ij fupplied in the vifions of Ezekiel, related in this and in the firft chapter; in
^hich, four living creatures, he alTerts to be the cherubim, are particularly
defcribcd by their faces, their uings, their hands, and their feet, and by the
Ihining
» In the Targumi of Jonathan »nd Jerufalcm on the place, they are fiid to be two.
* a'2 -iDH na.
31 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
fhining appearance of the whole ; but ftill we are left in the dark what thefc
creatures were emblems of, until the gofpel-difpenfation took place, which
brings dark things into light; whtnyobn had a vifion fimilar to thofe of Ezekiel,
with a very little variation, in which he had a more perfedl: view of the livmcr
creatures, and which gives a more exad defcription of them, of their fuuatioa
and employment -, that they were round about the throne of God, were rational
creatures, and fpiritual and conflant worfhippers of the divine Being, or how-
ever, emblems of fuch-, with other marks and circumftanccs, by which it may
be known with fome certainty, who they were, or who are intended by them.
The vifion is related in Rev. iv. 6 — 9. and is the key to the interpretation of
the cherubim. From whence it appears,
Firji, That thefe were not emblems of the divine perfons in the Godhead.
It is a fancy that fome of late have embraced, and are greatly elated with it, as ,
a wonderful difcovery, that the cherubim are an hieroglyphic, the three faces
of the ox, lion, and eagle, of the Trinity of perfons in the Deity, and the face
of a man joined to them, of the incarnation of the Son of God ;. and would
have the word cherubim pronounced ce-rubbim, and tranflated as the mighty ones;
but this is a mere fancy and falfe notion : For,
1. Jc/J'w's four beads, or rather /m«g- creatures,' zs the word fhould be ren-
dered, for that of beafts is an uncomely tranflation, the fame with Ezekiel's
living creatures, and which he affirms to be the cherubim, are reprcfented as
worfhippers of the divine Being, and therefore cannot be emblems of the object
of worfhip. They are faid not only to be about the throne of God, and to
admire and adore the attribute of holinefs, and afcribe it to the almighty Being;
but to give glory, honour, and thanks to him ; to fall down and worfhip God,
yea, to fall down before the Lamb in a worlhipping pofturc, and to give the
lead to others in divine worfhip. See Rev. iv. 8 10. and v. 8, 14. and xix. 4.
2. The cherubim are in many places moft manifeftly diflinguifhcd from the
divine Being; they are reprefented as the feat or throne on which he fits, and
as a vehicle in which he rides ; fo they are defcribed at the firft mention of
them in Gen. iii. 24. where the words may be rendered he, Jehovah, inhabited
the cherubim, or dwelt with, over, or between them ' ; and fo he did in the
cherubim over the mercy-feat, from between which he promifcd to commune
•wMh Mofes ; and therefore, as before obferved, is often defcribed as dwelling
between the cherubim, and on which he is faid to ride. See Exodus xxv. 22.
Pfalm Ixxx. I. and xviii. 10. and here the living creatures in my text are faid
to be undir the God of Ifrael, and fo diftinft from him ; and in John's vifion arc
defcribed as about the throne of God, and as diftinft from him that fat upon
iti
* Vide Texelii Phoenix, 1. 3. c. 7. p. 256, 257.
S£RM.39- OF THE Rev. Mr JOHN DAVfS. .33
it; and tht ferapbim in Ifaiab's Vx^xox), the fame with xhc iberubim here, arc
alfo diftinguifhed from the 'Lord fitting en a tbrone bigb and lifted up; and are
reprefented as attendants on him, and worfhippers of him, Jfai. vi. i — 3.
3. If the cherubim could be thought to be emblems of a plurality in the
Deity, they would be emblems, not of a trinity of perfons, but rather of a
quaternity, fince the cherubim had four faces, each dillinft from one another-,
yea, John's four living creatures were four diftinft animals, each having a dif-
tintt head and face ; and the face of a man, both in his and Ezekiel's livino-
creatures, is as diftindl a face as any of the reft ; and if they were emblems of
perfons, that muft be fo too j whereas the human nature of Chrift, this is faid
to be an emblem of, is no perfon ; Chrift did not take an human pcrfon, but
an human nature into union with his divine perfon, for reafons that might be
given ; much lefs is it a perfon in the Godhead, as this fuppofed emblem would
make it to be. Befides, the human nature in Chrift is his inferior nature,
whereas the face of the man in the cherubim is the fuperior face, the reft being
faces of irrational animals.
4. If the cherubim were an hieroglyphic of the Trinity, this would give a
fimilitude of the divine Being, and of that in him which is the moft incompre-
henfible to us, a Trinity of perfons in the Deity ; and would furnifti with art
anfwer to fuch a queftion, fuggefted as unanfwerable, Towbont tben will ye liken
Cod ? or wkat Ukenefs will ye compare 'u.'ith him ? Ifai. xl. t8, 25. and xlvi. 5. for
then it might be replied, To the cherubim : but there is no likenefs of God, nor
any to be made of him •, though the Son of God often appeared in an human
form, and in the fulnefs of time became incarnate ; and the holy Ghoft once
defcendcd as a dove ; yet the Father's ftiape was never feen at any time, John v.
37. This notion alfo is repugnant to the fecond command, which forbids the
making any likenefs of any thing that is in heaven above, Exod. xx. 4. and therr
moft certainly forbids the making of any likenefs of the divine Being. Sup-
pofing the cherubim at the garden oi Eden were made by God himfelf, as thofe
in the tabernacle and temple were made by his order; yet he would never
make nor order to be made fuch as he forbid, which he muft, if they bore the
fimilitude of him; but the truth is, the cherubim were not a lik-enefs of any
thing above in heaven, nor of any thing on earth ; there never having been feen
nta known by any man on earth, as Jofephus^ affirms, any foch crcaTure whortv
tbcy dcfcribe ; and a certain Jcwifti writer obfervcs % the making of them came
not under the interdifb or prohibition of the fecOnd command ; which if made
iu the likenefs of God it would.
Vol. II. F 5- I'o-
* Antiq. 1. 3. C.6. 5.5. • R.IfaacMofaides apud Selden.de Jure Nat. & Gent. c. 6. p. 183.
34 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
5. To all which may be added, if the cherubim were known emblems of the
Trinity, it can hardly be thought that any man would take the name of Cherub
to himfelf, or impofe it upon any of his family, or (hould be fo called by others ;
yet we find a man with his family of this name, Ezra il 59. Neh. vii. 61. an J
ftill lefs would it be giv-n as it is, toAntichrift, the antitype of the king oiTyre,
the man of fin and Ton of perdition, Ezik. xxviii. 14. where he is called the
anointed cherub •■, which can never be in allufion to the divine Being, and the
perfons in the Godhead ; but may be in allufion to the miniRcrs of the word,
the cherubim are the emblems of, as will be prcfcntly fcen ; fince he is an ecclc-
fiaftical perfon, calls himfelf a Bifhop, an univerfal Bifhop, Chrift's anointed
Vicar, and Head of the church, the fole and infallible interpreter of the facrcd
fcriptures. Nor,
Secondly, Are the angels meant by the cherubim ; though this is a much bet-
ter fenfe than the former, and has been generally received by Jews and Chriftians :
and what has led many to embrace this fenfe is, the fuppofcd allufion to the
cherubim looking to the mercy-feat, 1 Pel. \. 12. where mention is made of
angels being defirous to look into the myftcrics of grace ; though it may be
obfcrved that miniders of the word are fometimes fo called, aad may be there
meant : however, Johns four living creatures cannot be angels, fince they
are fo often diflinguifhed from them •, not only by their names, the one being
called angehy and the other living creatures in the fame place-, but alfo by their
fituation, the living creatures are rcprefented as neareft to the throne of God,
and round about it, then the four and twenty elders next to them, and round
about them, and then the angels as round about both •, but what puts it out of
all doubt is, that thefe living creatures are by themfelves owned to be redeemed
to Cod by the blood of the Lamb, out of every kindred and tongue, people and nation :
which cannot be faid of angels ; for as they never finned, they never llood in
need of the blood of Chrift to redeem them. See Rev. v. S, 9, 1 1. and vii. 1 i.
and XV. 7. Wiierefore,
Tbirdlyy Since the four and twenty elders in the vifions of John are the repre-
fcntatives of gofpel-churches, fo called in allufion to the twenty-four courfcs of
the priefts, and the twenty-four Rations of the Levitcs, fixed in the times of
David; who, as they in turn attended the fcrvicc of the temple, rcprefented
the whole body of the people of Jfrael; fo thefe twenty-four ciders before the
throne, and in the temple of God, reprefcnt the whole Ifrael of God, all the
members of the gofpel-church-ftate from firft to laft ; and fince the four living
creatures are clearly diftinguifhed from them both, by aan^e and by fituation,
and by giving the lead to them in divine worfliip, as minifters of the word do
to the churches j it remains, that the minifters of the gofpel only can be meant
by
1
Serm. 39- OF THE Re^. Mr JOHN DAVIS/ 35
by the living creatures, or the cherubim '. See Rev. iv. 4, 6, 9, 10 and v. 8, 1 i»
14. and vii 11. and by confidering tlie fevcral places where ihey are made
mention of, this will appear to be the truth of the matter. As,
I. Gen. iii. 24. where they are firfl: fpoken of, and are faid to be placed at
4he eajl of the garden of Eden, with a flaming Iword, to keep the way of the tree of
life; I am quite content to have the phrafe rendered, to obferve the way of the
tree of life, as the word is often tranflated by us ^. The flaming fword may be
an emblem of the fword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, and which is
fliarper than a two-edged fword, and has itfelf two edges, law znd gofpel ; by
the one, when it enters and cuts deep, is the knowledge of fin, and of the fad
confequences of ir, and leaves a fenfe of wrath and fiery indignation -, and by
the other, the knowledge of Chrift and falvation by him, and is called the
gofpc! of lalvation ; and the flame of it may denote the light, heat and glory,
which are in the word, when accompanied with a divine influence -, fo the che-
rubim may be an hieroglyphic of the minifters of it ; and it is the fenfe of fome,
both Jews and Chriftians ", that the miniftry of the word is referred to and in-
tended by the whole. When Adam had finned, he was driven out of the garden
oi Eden, to prevent his eating of the tree of life, Icfl: he fliould imagine that by
ihat adion of his, his life was prefcrved and continued, and would be forever;
teaching him thereby, that he was not to expect falvation and eternal life by
any adts and works of his own, nor by any creature, nor by any outward means :
«nd cherubim were placed without the garden, not to guard the way of the tree
of life, literally underftood, or to prevent Adam's acccfs unto it-, that was fuf-
ficiently done by his being driven out of it ; but to obferve and point out to
him, for his comfort and relief, the way to a nobler tree of life than that in the
garden; to the true antitypical tree of life, Jefus Chrift, that tree of life that
(lands in the midft of the paradife of God, the church, of which every over-
comer of fin, Satan and the world, may take and eat. Rev. ii. 7. Chrift, the
"Wifdom and Word of God, who is a tree of life, the author and giver of life
eternal to all thofe that lay hold by faith upon him ; and happy is every one
that fo doing retains him, Prov.W'x. i8. even Chrift the way, the truth, and
the life, the true way to eternal life. Now the cherubim were in this emblems
F 2 of
f I am not alone in this fentiment ; Dr Lightfoot is of the fame opinion, ProfpiQ of ihtTimpte,
c. 38. PfeifFer. Dub. Vexat. cent. 4. loc. 4. p 407. Ofiandcr in ibid, and fo Vitringa on Ifa vi. 2.
though of another mind are, Witfiui in jEgyptiac. 1. i.e. 13. J. jj. and Oecnn. Forder. 1. 4.C. 6.
^. 44. and Marckius, Fifcic. Diflertat. dif. 24. V '7i &c. hot Dr Goodwin, in his cxpoCtion of
the Revelation, p. 5, 6. takes Jobn'i four living creatures to be the officers of the chrilban church.
* IDiyb See Pfalm cvii. 48. Ecdcs. xi. 4. Ifii. xlii. 20. Jonah ii. 8.
* Vide Fagium in loc.
36 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
of minifters of the gofpe!, the fervants of tlx moji high God; wbofe work it is tt
Jhew unio men I he way of life andfahatien by Jefus Chrijl.
And this is the bitfinels that you, my Brother, fhould be conflantly employed
in, in inftrodlmg men that they are not to be favcd by their own v\orks, duties
and fcrvices ; that God laves and calls men, not according to their works, buc
according to his purpofc and grace i that men are to cxpcdt the pardon of fin»
not on the account of their repentance and humiliation, but through the blood
ofChrift, and according to the riches of God's grace -, that ^ the dieds cf th^
law no fle/h living can be jujlificd in the fight of God ; but that a man is juRificd
by faith in the right ecufnefs ef Cbrifl, without the deeds of the law ; chat men are
not faved by the bed works ot righteoufnefs done by them, but by the abun-
dant mercy and free grace of God, through Chrilt. You are to acquaint all
that you are concerned with, that falvation is by Chrift alone; that God has
chofcn and appointed him to be his falvation to the ends of the earth ; and that
he has appointed men to falvation alone by him -, that he has fcnt him into
the world to be the Saviour of them ; this is iht faithful faying, and worthy of
all acceptation, you are to publish and proclaim, xhztC\\r\i\. came into the world
to fave the chief of finners ; and that by his obedience, fufFcrings and death, he
.is become the author of eternal falvation to them ; and that there is falvation in
■him, and in no other; and that there is no other nanie given under heaven a>nsng
tncn whereby they can be faved. SouJs fenfible of fin and danger, and who arc
•crying out, IV hat fhall we do to be faved? you are to obfcrve, and point cut
■Chrift the tree of life unto them ; and fay, as fome of the cherubs did to one
tin fuch circumftances, Believe on the Lord Jefus Chriji, and thou fhalt be faved,
-Adhxvi.gi. Yourworkis to lead men, under a fenfe of fin and guilt, to the
blood of Chrift, £hed for many for the remi/Tion of fin; and in his name you
are to preach the forgivenefs of it to them ; you are to dired: believers, under
your care, to go by faith daily to Chrift the mediator, and deal with the blood
offprinkling for the remifTion of their fins, and the cleanfing of their fools;
■which fprinkled on them fpeaks peace and pardon, purges the confciencc from
dead works, and cleanfes from all fin. You arc to point out the righteoufnefs
of Chrift, as the only juftifying righteoufnefs of men, by whofe obedience only
men are made righteous ; the miniftraiion of the gofpel is a miniftration of righ-
teoufnefs, even of the righteoufnefs of Chrift, which is revealed in it from faith
to faith ; and fuch fiiould be your miniftration. You arc to acquaint men, that
this righteou-fnefs is unto all, and upon all that believe; and that fuch arejuf-
tificd from all things by it, from which they could not be jujlified by the law of
Mafesi and that the acceptance of men with God, is only in Chrift the beloved.
Y'ou are to obferve to men the atoning facrifice of thc^oa of God, and to direft
them.
Serm.39- of the Rev. Mr JOHN DAVIS. SI
them, as one of the cherubs did, pointing to him, and faying, Behold the Lemi
ef God, which taketh erj:ay the fin of the world ! JjDhn i. 29. to bid them view the
fin-bearing and fin-atonrng Saviour, -and look to the Lamb in the midft of the
Throne as though he had been flain -, by whofe (lain facrifice fin is put iway, and
they perfected forever that are fandlified. But more of this may be obfcrved,
2. In the account of the cherubim over the mercy-feat in Exod. xxv. 18, &c.
there they are faid to be two, and were emblems of the prophets of the Old
■Tcftament, and of the apoflles of the New, with their fuccefTors, the minifters
of the word in all generations •, between whom there is an entire harmony and
agreement ; the prophets fpoke of the fufFerings of Chrift, and the glory that
ihould follow-, and the apoftle P^jk/, and the other apnftlcs, faid no other things
than what Alofes and the prophets did fay, that Chrift (hould fuffer, and be the
•firft that (hould rife from the dead ; they both agreed in laying minifterially
Chrift as the foundation, and in direfling men to build their faith and hope
upon him, as well as they themfclves were laid on him •, and therefore he is
■called the fciindation of the apefles and prophets, Ephes. ii. 20. even as the mercy-
feat was the bafis on which the two cherubim ftood, and by which they were
fupported : and it may be obferved, in agn'eement with the number of the che-
rubim, that the fcventy difciplcs of Chrift were fent forth by him two by two to
preach his gofpcl -, and the minifters of the word that prophefy in fackcloth
during the reign of antichrift, arc called th^two witnefTes, Luke x. i. Rev.xl. 3.
-and the addition of two other cherubim of a larger fize in Solomon's, temple, may
fignify the greater perfedion of the gofpel-miniftry, and the larger number of
golpcl-minifters, in the gofpel-church of the New Teftamcnt, of which Solomon's
temple was a type. The maner of which the cherubim over the mercy-feat
were made, was pure gold, and of the fame mafs with the mercy-feat ; denoting
the rich gifts and graces of the Spirit, with which minifters of the gofpel are
qualified for their work ; and which arc of the fame kind and nature with thofe
of Chrift, as man; only in meafure, his without; and the rich trcafure put into
thcfe earthen veflels, and the precious truths of the gofpel, -comparable to gold,
filver and precious ftones, committed to their truft to miniftcr. The vfc of
the cherubim was to overftiadow the mercy-feat, and therefore they are called
the cherubim of glory PadcwtKg the mercy- feat, Hcb. ix. 5. which they did with
cheir wings; denoting in minifters their miniftrations, the readinefs and chear-
fulnefs of them ; the cherubim looked towards one another, and towards the
aiercy-fear, and pointed to that.
And this, my Brother, is a principal part of your work, as one of the ehcrubs,
to dircft to Chrift the mercy-feat, the channel of the grace and mercy of God
10 the fouls of men i as Qto^ fet forth Chriji in his eternal purpofes and decrees
to
38 A SERMON A T T H E O R D Ils^ A T I O N
to be a propitiation, *Xar>i?ioi>, Rom. iii.,25. the fame word the Greek interpreters
ufe for the mercy-feat in Exodus xxv. fo you are to fet him forth in your mini-
ftrations as the propitiation, propitiatory, and mercy-feat : let the mercy-feat
be ever in view; keep in fight in all your miniftrations the doftrine of atone-
ment and fatisfa6l:ion by the blood and facrifice of Chrift; let this be the pole-
ftar by which you fleer the courfe of your miniftry ; diredt fouls to the throne
of grace, to the mercy feat, to God in ChriO, where they may hope to find
grace and mercy to help them in time of need : and, for your encouragement,
obferve the fitaation of the cherubim, tht-y were upon the mercy-feat, at tlie
€nds of it, being beaten out of the fame mafs of gold with that -, denoting the
jiearnefs of minifters to Chrift, their union to him, and dependence on him, and
•fupport by hirn, who holds the ftars in his right hand: and alfo his prefcnce
With them; for between the cherubim, the ihrkinah, or glorious majefty of
God, dwelt ; and Chrift has promifed to be with his minifters unto the end of
ihe world. But I go on,
3. To confider the living creatures in the vifions o^ Ezekiel iLnd John, called
the cherubim ; and who will appear to be proper emblems of the minifters of the
^ofpcl, by confidering their names and number, their form in general, and the
feveral parts by which they arc defcribed in particular.
\Jl, Their names and number.
( I.) What both John and Ezekiel faw are called living creatures ; for the ^-^^
in John's vifionexaftly anfwer to the J~\vn in Ezekiel's, and both fignify animals
that have life and breath : minifters of the word are creatures, both as men and
as minifters ; as men they are the creatures of God, as others; though they
are the ambafladors of God, and ftand in his ftead, yet they arc men and noc
gods, frail, mortal men; the prophets, do they live for ever? no: they are alfo
finful men, as the apoftle Peter, one of the cherubs, owned himfclf to be ;
and men of like paftlons with others, as the apoftle Pau!, another of the che-
rubs, acknowledges ; and therefore allowances muit be made for their weak-
neftcs and infirmities : and they are creatures as minifters, they are made fu,
not by themfclves nor by other men: Paul an apojlle, not of men, neither by man,
but by Jefus Chrijl, and God the Father, Gal. i. 1. he did not thruft himl'elf mto
the miniftry, but God put him into it ; nor did he become a minifter of the
word by his own attainments, not by all the learning he acquired at the feet of
Gamaliel, or elfewhere ; hut he wis made a minijler, as he himfclf fays, accord-
ing to the gift of the grace of God given unto him, Ephes. iii. 6, 7. and fo all that
are made able miniflers of the New Tejlament, arc made fo of God ; for they are
not fufficient of themfclves, but their fufficiency is of God, 2 Cor. iii. 5, 6. And
they arc living creatures, they are regenerated, quickened, and have fpiritual
Jife in them ; and fo fay the things which they have fcen, and heard, and felt;
which.
Serm. 39- OF THE Rev. Mr JOHN DAVIS. 39
which, if unregenerate., they would not be able to do : and it is requifite they
fliould be lively in their miniftrations ; it is mod comfortable to themfelvcs,
and belt for thofe to whom they minifter, when they are lively in their frames,
lively in the exercife of grace, and in the difcharge of duty ; when they are fer-
vent infpirit^ while they are ferving the Lord their God; and under a divine
influence, they are the favour of life urtto life; the inftruments and means of
quickening dead finners, and of reviving and refrefhing drooping faints •, and
happy are thofe that fit under the miniftry of the living creatures, regenerate
men, the living and lively miniftcrs of the gofpel.
(2.) Thelc living creatures are called cherubim. Ezekiel affirms they were the
cherubim, and he knew them to be fo. Many are the etymologies given of this
word, and it is difficult to come at the true meaning of it. I fhall not trouble
you with every thing that is faid ', only what may feem proper, fuicablc, and per-
tinent. And, I. Philo ihe ]ev/ i^iys'', ihs chcruh\m C\gn\{y tfiuch knowleJ^e ; and in
which fcnfc he is followed by many ancient writers', who interpret the word of
large knowledge ; Sind fulnefs of it; but for what reafon, I muft own, I cannot
fee-, but be it fo, this I am furc of, the minifters of the gofpel have need of a
large fbarc of knowledge, both of things natural and fpiritual ; knowledge of
themfelvcs, and of their ftate by nature and by grace, and an experience of the
work of the fpirit of God upon their hearts ; knowledge of Chrifl, his perfon,
offices, and grace-, knowledge of the fcripturcs, which Timothy knew from a child,
which are able to make men wife to falvation, are profitable for do£irine and inflruHion,
and to fit and furnifh minillers for the work they are employed in--, knowledo-e
of the myfterics of grace, ofGod, andofChriftj all which are quite neceflary
for ihem, fince their bufinefs is to feed men with knowledge and underftand-
ir>g, arid to train them up in ir, till they come to the unity of the faith, to a-
pcrfcifl: knowledge of the Son of God, and to the meafure of the flaiicre of the
julnefs of Chrift —2. Others think the word has the fignification of might, poiver,
zn^ flrength ; in which fenfe the root of it is ufed in- the Syriac language":
the minUters of the gofpel are called ftrong ; we that areflrong, Rom. xv. i.
and they have need of all the ftrength they have, as to bear the infirmities of
weak faints, fo the infults, indignities, reproaches and perfecutions of finful
men-,
' The TalmuHirts in Chagigah, fol. 13. 2. iV Succah fjl. 5. 2. fay, the Cherub is as if it was
Ce-rubya, as a yourg man ; in which fo.-m it was commonly fuppofed the Cherubim were; others
AS Ce-rab, as a mailer; others as Ce-rtrb, as » multitude, ore being as a la^ge multitude See
PfcifFer. Dubia Vexat. cen» 1. )oc. 10. p. 17. Hilierus in Onomaftic. Saor. derivei it from a word
which (igniAct to cover, and interpret} Cherub covering. Sec Ezik. X)fviii. 14.
' De Vita Mofis, I 3. p. 668.
' Clement. Alex. Stromal. 1. 5. p. 563. Suidas in voce y^t^viiifi.. Hieron. Paulino, T. 3. fol 3.
F. de Xom. Heb. in Exod. fol. 98. F. & Comment, in Efaiam. c 6. 2. Ifidor. Origin 1. 7. c 5,
Vide Fromme Diflert. de Cherubim-. J. 3.
" Vide Cartel. Lexic Heptaglott. in rad y^2^
40 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
men -, they have need to be ftrong in the grace that is in Chrift, that they may
be able to do the duties of cheir office, and to endure hardnefs as good ibldiers
of Chrift ; they have need to be Jirong in the Lord, atid in the power of his might ;
that they may be able to wreJlU againji principalities and powers, the rulers of the
darknefs of this world; they ought to be ftrong to labour in the word and doc-
trine, to do the work of the Lord as it fhould be done : but who is fufficient for
tkefe things? — 3. Others" obferve that the word Cherub, by a tranfpofuion of
letters, is the fanie with recub, which ^\gW\?ics z. chariot ; in which form the
cherubim are fuppofed to be, hence wc read of the chariot of the cherubim,
1 Chron. xxviii. 18. and nothing is more common in Jewifli writers than the
mereavah, \.ht chinoz oi Ezekiel, meaning the cherubim ; and the living crea-
tures, and the wheels might be in fuch a form as to refcmWe a chariot 5 and
thofe who plead for angels being meant by them, with pertinency enough to
their hypothefis, apply the words \n Pfalm Wv'm. ly. The chariots of Cod are
twenty thcufand, even thoufands of angels, the Lord is among them as in Sinai. But
why may not the cherubim, admitting this fenfe of the word, be applied to
the minifters of the gofpel -, fincc they are reprefented as vehicles, as chofen
veflrls to bear the name of Chrift, to carry and fpread his gofpel in the world ?
and, which conveys the fame fcntimenr, are fignified by the 'white horfc on
vvhich Chrift is faid to fit, and ^o forth conquering and to conquer. Sc^ AHs ix.15.
Rev. vi. 2 But, 4. What I am moft inclined to give into is, that the word
cherubim is derived from Carab, which in fome of the eaftcrn languages fig-
nifies" to plow, and in plowing, oxen were ufcd formerly, and fo they are in-
ifome places at this day : now not only one of the faces of the cherubim is the
face of an ox, but that face particularly is called the face of the cherub, as may
be obfcrved by comparing Ezek, i.io with chap. x. 14. See alfo 1 Kings vii.29.
So that the cherubim feem to have their denomination from this particular face
of theirs : and that oxen were emblems of minifters of Chr'^ft, as will be confi-
dered more particularly hereafter, is evident from the apoftle Paul, who having
' quoted the law concerning not muzzling the ox when it treads out the corn,
adds. Doth God take care for oxen? or faith he it altogether for our fakes ? for the
! fake of us minifters ? /<7r our fakes,, no doubt, this is written: and from oxen
he catches at once the idea of plowing, and applies it to minifters, that he that
ploweth fhould plow in hope, that is, of enjoying the fruit of his labour, i Cor.
ix. 9, 10. There is a prophecy of gofpel-times, and of minifters in them,
which runs thus. Strangers fh all fi and and feed your fkicks, and the fons of the alien
fhall be your plowmen ; that is, Gentiles fliouW be paftors of chriftian churches,
and feed them as flocks are fed ; and that fome of fuch who are aliens from
the
" De Dieu in Gen. iii. 24. GufTct. Commeni. Ebr. p. 401.
■> Chald. Syr. & Ar. vide Cand. ut fupra.
Serm,39' of the Rev. Mr JOHN DAVIS. 41
• the commonwealth oi Ifrael fliould be employed in the Lord's hufbandry, and
be inftruments in breaking up the fallow ground of mens hearts, and of ibwin"-
the feed of the word in them , Ifai. Ixi. 5.
( 3.) To thefc nalncs of the living creatures, the cherubim, may be added that
oi Jeraphim'xn Ifai-ah w\.2. The Jewifh writers ■■ are generally agreed that the
vifions oi Ifaiab and Ezekiel relate to the fame thing; and whoever clofely com-
pares them, will fee a likenefs between them ; and have no doubt remain, bat
that the Cherubim and Seraphim defign the fame perfons : the miniftcrs of the
gofpel may be called by the latter name, which fignifies burning, becaufe of
their minifterial gifts, comparable to coals of fire ; and becaufe of their fervent
•Jove loChrift and the fouls of men, and becaufe of their flaming zeal for the
caufe and intereft of their Mafter.
(4) The number of the living creatures, both in the vifKJns of Ezekiel znd
jfobft, being four, as the four chariots and the four fpirits of the heavens, in the
vifions of Zecbariah, chap. vi. i, 5, may have refpeft to the four parts of the
world; the commifTion of gofpel-minifters being iv go inio all the luorld, and
f reach the -gofpel to every creature.
idly. The form of the living creatures, and the feveral parts by which they
4ire defcTibcd, agree with the minifters of the word. The general form is not
agreed upon on all hands : feme think that it inclined moflly to that of the ox
•or calf ; to which they are induced by what has been obferved, the face of the
•ox and of the cherub being the fame 5 and fome ' fuppofe that the golden calf
made by Jaron, and the calves of Jeroboam, were made after the model of the
cherubim upon the mercy-feat ; but this is without foundation. Others fup-
pofe ' them of a mixed form, and that their faces are not to be undcrftood of
Their faces ftriftly taken, but of their general forms and appearances 5 as that
they had the face of a man, the breads and mane of a lion, the fhoulders and
wings of an eagle, and the feet of an ox or calf", which feems not probable :
Tather the general form of them was human, and mofl: refembled that, except
in the parts which arc otherwife defcribcd -, for it is exprefsly faid, they had the
Ukenefs of a man, Ezck. i, 5, and the miniftcrs of the gofpel are men j they arc
redeemed from among men ; their bufinefs lies with men -, they are fent to teach
all nations of men, to preach the gofpel to every human creature, and to and
•among the Gentiles the unfearcbable riches of Chrijt. But this will more appear
by confidering the feveral parts by which the living creatures or cherubim are
defcribcd.
Vol. II. G (1.) By
f T. Bab. Chagigab, fol. i j. ». Maimon. Moreh Ncvochim, par. 3. c. 6.
s Bocbart. Hierozoic. par. i.col. 4.12. ' Moncscus de Vitulo aureo, 1. t. c. 4. Gaffarcl'i
«Dheard-of Curiofuies, part I . c. i. J. 6, 7. • Pradns and Villalpand. on Eztkiel.
42 A SERMON ATTHE ORDINATION
(i.) By their faces, which are four. i. The face of a mart; intimating, that
the minifters of the word {hould be humane, courteous, and civil to all rr>en
they are concerned with -, pitiful and compaffionate to wounded confciences,
tempted fouls, troubled and diftreflcd minds> as well as to backdiders, in reftor-
ing them ; and be men in tinderflanding, knowing, rational, wife and prudent ;
. and be manly and courageous, quit themfelves like men, and be ftrong and va-
v-jii^nt in the caufe and intereft of their Mafter, — 2. The face of a lion, ihc ftrongefl
among beafts, Prov. xxx. 30. the ftrength of minifters has been hinted at already,
the lion is remarkable for its boldnefs and intrepidity -, the righteous are faid to
be bold as a lion, Prov. xxviii. i. to be bold and intrepid, and not fear the faces
of men, is a proper qualification of the minifters of the gofpel ; fuch v/^rtjobn
and Peter, and the apoftle Paul was not inferior to them in boldnefs and courage ;
though to fhew how neceffary fuch a qualification, was, he defires the Epheftans
to pray for him, that utterance might be given him, that he might open his
mouth boldly to make known the myjlery of the gofpel, and therein fpeak boldly, as be
ought to fpeak, Ephes. vi. 19, 20. Yet this was not wanting in him ; for he
clfewhere fays. We were bold in our God to fpeak the gofpel of God with much con-
■Untion, i Thcfs-ii. 2. — 3. The face of an ox; a creature made for labour, and
■when in good ftate and plight, fit and ftrong for labour, and ufed.to be employed
in plowing the ground and treading out the corn ; and is a fit emblem of gofpcl-
minifters, employed in tilling God's hufbandry, plowing the fallow ground of
mens hearts,, and treading out the corn of the word for their ufe, labouring in
the word and doftrine : and, it may be, an emblem of them not only in labour
but In patience; the ox that is accuftomed to the yoke, patiently bears it-, and
which is fcen not only in bearing the yoke of the miniftry, but the weakncfies
of the faints,- and the reproaches of wicked men -, in meekly injlruiting thofe that
cppofe themfelves, and in waiting for the fruit and fuccefs of their labours.^ — +. The
face of an eagle \ a creature that foars high, has a ftrong and clear fight, andean
look ftedfaftly on the fun ; it efpics its prey at a great dift^nce, fcents the car-
cafs where it is, and gathers itfelf and its young to it •, for wherefoevertbe carcafs
is, there will the eagles be_gathered alfo. Matt. xxiv. 28. and fitly reprefents gof-
pel-minifters, who have a clear fight into the fublime myfterics of grace, and
fee things which eye has not feen, the vulture's eye, the moft fharp-fighted
among carnal men-, and who make it their bufinefs ta preach a flain crucified
Chrift, and direft fouls to him to feed by faith upon him-, we preach Chriji cru-
cified, ^c. I Cor. i. 23. and ii. 2 — 5. Thefe faces were ftretchcd upwards, for
fo the words may be rendered in Ezek. i. 11. thus their faces and their wings were
flretcbed upwards, towards heaven; fignifying that minifters of the gofpel look
upwards to Chrift in heaven for frefh fupplies of gifts and grace, an increafe of
light and knowledge, of wifdom and ftrength, to fit them more for their work,.
and
Serm.39' of the Rev. Mr JOHN DAVIS. 43
and to enable them to perform it •, being fenfible that without him, his grace and
ftrength, they can do nothing-, but through him ftrengthening them they can
doall things, Pi*//, iv. 13.
(2.) The living creatures, who arc the cherubim, are dcfcribed by their eyes-,
particularly in John's viiion of them, where they are faid to he full of eyes, before
and behind, and within. Rev. iv. 6, 8. fee alfo £21?^. x. 1 2. The eye is the light
of the body -, and what the eye is to the natural body, the minifters are to the
church, the body of Chrift ; yea they are the light of the world; and if the eye
he fingle, if minifters be fincere, and have a fingle view to the glory of Chrift
and the good of fouls, the whole body will be full of light, the church will be
illuminated by them, Matt. v. 14. and vi. 22. they are y^rg-cj-like, have many
eyes -, and they have need of all they have to look, into the facrcd fcripcurcs,
■which are a fealed book to learned and unlearned men, deftitute of the Spirit of
Chrift ; only to be looked into fo as to be underftood by fuch who have their
eyes £nlightcncd, their underftandings opened by Chrift, as were the difciples ;
the fcriptures are to be diligently fearched into, and explored for the rich trea-
sure that is in them ; and thofe that fearch into them, as for hid treafure, fliall
find knowledge of great and excellent things -, but thefe efcape the fight of all
but thofe who have fpiritual eyes to fee. Minifters of the gofpel had need to
be full of eyes, to look to themfelves, and to the flocks committed to them;-
to take the overfight of them, and feed them with the words of faith and found
doflrinc; to take heed to themfelves and to their doftrine, that it be wholefom,
pure and incorrupt ; and to their lives and converfations, that they give no of-
fence to Jew nor Gentile, nor to the church of God, that the miniftry may not
be blamed and rendered ufelefs ; and alfo to efpy dangers, and give warning
and notice of them, arifing whether from without or from within ; to look d^\\\-
^ea([y\t:i!i 2,ny root of bitternefs, of error or hcrefy, or of immorality and pro-
fanenefs, fpring up in the churches, and trouble fome and defile others -, and
to watciv againft falfe teachers, and to be careful to keep up the difcipline of
Chrift's houfe. They have, as they ftiould have, eyes before 3.n(\ behind; eyes
behind, to obferve things paft,- the fulfilment of prophecies, promifes, and
types in Chrift ; before, to look to prediftions yet to be fulfilled relating to the
church and kingdom of God -, behind them, to watch againft Satan, ^\iO goes
about feeking whom he may devour, and who comes upon the back of them at
unawares ; and befor£ them, to watch over the flocks they have the overfight
of; behind ihtm, to the twenty-four ciders, the members of the churches to
whom they minifter, fo fituated with refpedt to the four living creatures ; and
before them, to the throne of God and the Lamb, on whom is their dependence,
fromwhom they expeft fupplies, and whofe glory they are concerned for: and they
havjc alfo eyes within, to look into the finfulnefs and corruption of their nature,
c 2 . and
4+ A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION
and which is a means of keeping them humble under all their attainments, crifts
and ufefulncfs ; and into the ftate and cafe of thei/ own fouls, and their inward
experience ; which qualifies them to fpcak to the cafes of others, and by which
they can make better judgment of the truth of do<5lrines, having a witnefs of
them within themfclves ; and to look into the treafure that is put into them, in
order to bring forth from thence things new and old, both for the profit and
pieafure of thofe that hear them,
(3.) The living creatures, or cherubim, arc defcribed by their wings. The
cherubim over the mercy-feat had wings, but how many.is not exprefled ; bur
it is the opinion of fomc', both ancient and modern, that they had fix, ^nd ib
many had the Seraphim in Ifaiah'% vifion, chap. vi. 2. and the fame number had
the living creatures in EzekiePs vifion ; for though they arc (aid to have four,
chap. i. 6. yet not four only ; from ver. 11, 23. it fcems as if they had two more,
and it is certain the living creatures in John's vifion had fix. Rev. iv. 8. and,
1. With two of them particularly they flew, as Ifaiah's Seraphim did ; -which
in ininiftcrs, denote their fwifrnefs, readinefs and chearfulnefe to do the work
of God, to minifter the word, and to adminifter ordinances, to vifit the mem-
bers of churches when needful, and do all good offices for the faints, that lay
in their power. The Greek vcrfion of Ezek. 1. 7. is, ihcir feet were winged;.
cVprelTive of the fame thing, particularly of their readinefs to preach the.gofpel,.
their feet being Jhod with the preparation of the gof[iel of peace; and for the fame
rcafon, a fett of gofpel-minifters are reprefented by an ari-gel flying in the mid ft.
of heaven, having the everlafting gofpel to preach to all nations, Rev. xiv. 6 —
2. With other two wings they covered their faces; minifters, fenfible of the pu-
rity and holinefs of God, ami the fpiriluality of Jiis law, in comparifon of which-
they fee thcmfelves unholy, carnal and fold under fin, blufh at their fins and
imperfeftions, and are confcious of their unworUiinefe to be employed in fuch
fervice, looking upon themfelves to be kfs than the Icaft of all faints, the chief
of finners, and unfit to be rainifters of the word -, and areafhamcd of their poor
performances, and acknowledge that they have nothing but what they have re-
ceived, and therefore have nothing to glory of at beft. — ^.With other two wings-
the living crea'ures covered their feet: however beautiful the feet of gofpel
minifters may appear toothers, to whom they come running witbthe good ti-
dings of peace, life, righteoufncfs». and falvation by Chrift \. yet they, fenfible
of their deficiencies, confefs, that having done all they can, and in the beft.
manner they could, they are but unprofitable fcrvants. So Ifaiah's Seraphim
covered their feet with two of their wings, hMtEzekiel's living creatures covered
their bodies with them, and feem to have made Kifc of four for that purpofe,
cbap. i. II, 23 4. Their wings were ftrctched upwards, ver. 11, fo minifters
look
« Clement. AJei. Stromat. 1. 5. p. 563. FoTtnrat. Scacchi Eleochryfm, par. 2. c. 36. p; 474.
Serm.39' of the Rev. Mr JOHN DAVIS. 45
Jook towards heaven, up towards Chrift, from whence are all their expeftations
of grace to help them to perform their work, and of all fuccefs in it : and their
wines were alfo joined one to another-, that is, the wings of one living creature
to that -of another ; denoting minifters affedion to each other, their giving mu-
tual afTiftance to one another, their concern in the fame work of the Lord, preach-
ing the fame truths, and adminiftering the fame ordinances, having the fame
zeal for the glory of God, love to Chrift and to the fouls of men, and being of
the fame mind and judgment -, and cfpecially they will be fo in the latter day,
when they fhall/cf eye to eye, Ifai. lii. 8 5. The found of their wings is worthy
of notice, and is repeated once and again, that it might be obferved, faid to
be like the noife of great waters ; as the voice of the almighty, when he fpeaketh,
chap. i. 24. iii, 13. and x. 5. which is no other than the gofpel miniftered by
them, a joyful found, a found of love, grace and mercy, peace, rishteoufnefs
and falvation ; and which, like the found of waters, was heard at a diftance,
when by the miniftry of the apoflles it went into all the earth -, the voice of
Chrift, and which is the gofpel alfo, is compared to the fame, Rev. i.15. for its
rapidity and force, under a divine influence; and which is not the voice, found
and word of man, but of God himfelf-, which appears by its powerful effcdls on
the hearts of faints and finners, when attended with a divine energy •, and indeed
it is the Lord God almighty that fpeaks in minifters, and fpeaks powerfully by-
them, I Thefs. ii. 13. 2 Cor. xiii. 3.
{4.) Thefe living creatures, or the cherubim, arc defcribcd, by havincr /i>i?'
hurnds of a man under their wings on their four Jides, Ezek> i. 8. and x. 8. this de-
notes the adtivity of gofpel-minifters, who have not only the theory and know-
ledge of things,, butare men of praftice and bufincfs; they have miKh work,
to do all around them, on every fide -, preaching the gofpel, adminiftering or-
dinances, vifiting their people, praying with them, and giving them counfel?
and advice,, inftruflion and exhortation, when needful ; and they have hands
«o work with and ftrength given them, and which they employ, and 3.rcjiedfafi'
and immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord; and they do it with
judgment, a<5ting like men of underftanding andreafon : and their hands being
under their wings, fhew, that befides their public work they do irruch in private,,
in their ftudics and clofets, in meditation and prayer, where no eye fees them
but the eye of God •, and alfo in private houfes where they pray, inftrudl, coun-
fol and advife, as the nature of cafes that'prefent require; and whatever they do,,
whether in private or public, they do it not to be feen of men ; orin an oftenta-
tious way,. as the Scribes andPharifees; they boaft not of their own performances, .
they afcribe all to the grace of God which is with them, and own that it is by
that they arc what they are, and do what they do ; fuch is their modefty and'
tumility, .which this phrafc is expreflive of. .
(50 The:
46 A SERMON AT THE OR.DINAT.ION
(5.) The living creatures, or cherubim, are defcribed by their /^^Z, which
are faid to be firaight •■, and with them they went every ene .Jiraight' forward, and
they turned not when they went, Ezek. i. 7, 9, 12. they oiade ftraight paths for
their feet, and went not into crooked paths-, tiiey>turned not, neither to the
rioht hand nor the left; their eyes looked right on, and their eyelids right be-
' fore them, ^nd (leered their courfe accordingly : -thus faithful minifters of the
• word walk uprightly, according to the truth of the.gofpel, and go in the paths
of truth and righteoufnefs ; and -neither turn to error on the one hand, nor to
immorality on the other; and having put their hand to the plough of the gof-
pel, neither look back nor turn back; for fuch that do fo, arcnot fit for the
kingdom of God, LAike\x.6i. Moreover, it is faid of the living creatures, the
cherubim, that the foU of their feet was like the fole of a calfs foot ; round, .the
.hoof divided, and fit for treading out the corn, and which is more Jirm and furc
than the fole x>f .a man's foot, which is apt to (lip and turn afide.; and fo may
. denote the firmnefs, fteadinefs, and conftancy of faithful minifters in their work,
particularly in- treading out the corn of the word for the.nourifhmcnt of fouls to
whom they minifter : and it is alfo added of the cherubim, that their fectfparkled
like the colour of humified brafs ; which may not only fignify the itrength and
firmnefs of minifters to fupport under all .the weight of work and fufferings,
exprefTed by brafs ; fo Chrift's/^^/ are faid to be like unto fine brafs, as if they
burned in a furnace. Rev. i. 15. but alfo the brightnefs of their, converfations,
and the (hining purity and holinefe of their lives ; and when the light of their
works, as well as of their doflrines, (liine before men, they look as bright as
polifhed brafs, and become txamples of the believer, in word, in converfation, in
charity, infpirit, iu/ailh, in purity, i Tim. iv. 12. Moreover, the living crea-
tures were diredled by the Spirit, whither the Spirit was to go, they went, £zek.-
i. 12, 20. fo, as the prophets of the Old Teftament fpake as they were moved
by the holy Ghoft, the minifters of the New Teftament are led by the Spirit,
and collided by htm in their miniftrations into all truth as it is in Jcfus ; as well
as they arc influenced by him in their converfations, xo walk as becomes the
gofpel of Chrift ; and as they are qualified by him with his gifts and graces for
the work of the miniftry, fo he difpofes of them where he pleafes, aad makes
them overfcers of fuch and fuch flocks in fuch and fuch places, according to his
will ; and they go as they are led by him, where he lias a work for them to do.
A remarkable inftance of this fee in JSls xvi. 6 — 10 where the apoftles were
forbid by the holy Ghoft preaching in one country; and, afTaying to go into
another, the Spirit fuftVred them not ; but they were dircfted to fteer their courfe
another way, and to another place, where fouls were to be converted, and a
gofpel-church planted. -Once more, when and where the living creatures went,
i.he wliecls went ; and according to the motion and pofition of the one, were the
motion
StRM. 29' OF THE Rev. Mr JOHN DAVIS. 47
motion and pofuiorv of the other : when the living creatures went, the wheels went
hy them ; and when the living creatures were lift up from the earth, the wheels were
lift up ; when tbofe went, tbefe went, and when ihofe flood, tbefe flood, Ezelc. i.
19, 21. and X. 16, 17. the wheels fignify the churches; and where there is the
miniftry of the word by the living creatures, the minifters of the gofpel, there
generally churches are raifed and formed, by them; and as the miniftry of the
word is continued or removed, fo is a church-ftate fixed or changed ; .it is in
this way and by this means that the candleftick is cither continued or removed
out of its place : and it may be obfervcd in John's vifion, agreeably to this, that
when the four living creatures gave glory to God, .the four and twenty elders
fell down before him and worfhipped him, Rev. iv. 9, 10. and v. 14. Minifters
begin the worfbip of God,, move firft in ads of devotion, and then the churches
and the members of them follow and join with them ; and as they receive their
doftrine, and are guided by then^k in matters of worfbip, fo they copy after
them in their converfations : and,, generally fpeaking, as minifters be, churches
are; if minifters have raifed affedions and elevated frames, fo it often is with
the churches, and the members of them, that fit under their miniftrations ; if
minifters arc adive and lively, the churches are fo too; but if dull, indolent,
and inadlivc, fo are church-members ; if minifters are evangelical in their
preaching, fo are the people that hear them; but if they minifter in a legal
manner, of the fame completion, fpirit and temper, will the members and
hearers be.-
(6.) The living creatures, or cherubim, are defcribcd by the appearance of
them, like burning coals, and like lamps, Ezek. i. 13, J4. Minifters of the gofpel
may be thus defcribed, becaufe of their minifterial gifts ; the extraordinary gifts
.of the fpirit are fignified by cloven tongues as of fire. Ads ii. 3. and ordinary gifts
for the miniftry are reprcfcntcd as coals of fire, which are to be ftirred up and
-enflamed, and not lie negleded, disufed, or quenched, 2 Tim.'i. 6. 1 Thefs. v. 19.
And the cherubim or minifters may be fet forth hereby, becaufe of the clear
light of truth that fhines in them, and becaufe of their ardent love to Chrift
and the fouls of men, which is one qualification for the miniftry; hence fays
Chrift to Peter, when he had affirmed once and again that he loved him, and
appealed to his omnifcience for the truth of it, Feed my lamhs, feedmy fheep,
John xxi. 15 — I 7. intimating, that fuch a lover of him was a fit perfon to feed
the flock or church of God; even one whofe love is fo ardent that the coals thereof
are coals of fire, which hath a mcft vehement flame, that mayiy waters cannot quench;
even waters of afflidions, reproaches, perfecutions, and fufferings for the fake of
Chrift and his gofpel : and by coals of fire may they be defcribed, becaufe of their
iL*urning zeal for the glory of God and the intereft of a Redeemer; hence they
are
■48 A SERMON AT THE ORDINATION, &c. •
are called Seraphim, fiery or burning, as before obfcrved ; and it is not unufuat
for minifters of the gofpel to be compared to lamp ; the-apoftles are called the
lights or lamps of the world ; and^oi'W theBaptift was ajhining and burning light
or lamp ; and fo others have been, holding forth the word of light and life to
men : and whereas it is faid that it, the fire, ^went up and down among the living
creatures; this is true of the .word cf,God, compared to fire, Jer. xx. 9. and
5cxiii. 29. by which the minds of minifters arc enlightened, their hearts warmed,
and are filled with zeal for God, and become the means of enlightening and
•warming others ; which /rf was bright^ clear, as the word of God is ; and out
cf the fire went forth lightening ; denoting the quick and penetrating e-fficacy of
the word, and the fudden increafe of the kingdom and intereft ofChriftby ir,
which, like lightening, has been fpread from eaft to weft. Thus I have opened
and explained the dodtrine of the cherubim in the beft manner I could, and have
fhewn the agreement between them and the minifters of the gofpel.
And now, my Brother, from thefe emblems you may difcern what is your
jsrincipal work and bufinefs as a minifter of the gofpel •, ^hat it is to preach fal-
■vation by Chrift:, the doftrines of pardon by his blood, of juftification by his
a-ightcoufnefs, and of atonement and fatisfa<5tion for fin by his facrifice, with
other truths of the gofpel -, that you are to be laborious in this work, diligent
and induftrious, conftant and immoveable in -it j that yoA.i are to be bold and
intrepid in it, not fearing the faces of men ^ and to be watchful over yourfelf
and others that -are your charge; to be tender and companionate to all in-diftrefs,
•whether of body, mind or eftate, and to be humane in your deportment to all ;
that you are to walk uprightly, and be an example to the flock in your life and
<onverfation ; that you are to look up to heaven for fre(h fuppvlies of grace to
•carry you through your miniftrations in all the branches of it^ and through
the whole exprefs fervent love toChrift and the fouls of men, and a zeal for his
•glory : and may you be a thining and burning light in your day and generation,
xind fuccefsful in the work of theLord, and have many to be your joy and crown
■of rejoicing at the coming of Chrift.
SERMON
;<•
SERMON XL.
'the Form of found Wordi to be held fafi.
A CHARGE delivered at the OnDiNATiON of the Rev. Mr John Reytjch-ds.
2 T 1 M OT H Y I. IJ.
Hold fqft the form of found words, which thou hafl heard of me,
in faith and love, which is in Cbrijl fefus.
THAT part of the work of this day, which I have been defiredtotake, is
to give the Charge to you, my Brotlier, who have been at this lime or-
dained paftor of this church ; and which I have chofe to do in the above words
•f the apoftle Paul to timothy, to whom this epiftle is direfted.
The connexion between the apolllc and Timothy was fuch, that befides his
being an apoftle, and an infpired one, it gave him a juft claim to ufc the autho-
rity and freedom he does in giving him this charge ; and was fuch as laid
Timothy under an obligation to pay a regard unto it ; which was this, he had
been an hearer of the apoftle -, and it is obferved in the charge itfelf, which
thou baji btard of me ; and is -^.tfcd as a rcafon and argument why he (hould at-
tend unto it -, he had been inftrucSted by him in the myfteries of grace and
dodlrincs of the gofpel -, and befides, was a fon of his after -the common faith.
Now, though, my Brother, there is no fuch connexion between you and me,
to give me a like claim, and lay you under a like obligation ; yet, what is here
urged and preftcd, being an incumbent duty on every one that is engaged in
the facred work of the miniftry, you will fufFcr this exhortation kindly, and
take it in good part : in which may be obferved,
I. The principa4 thing it Is concerned about, the form of found, words.
II. The exhortation rcfpefiing it, to bold \x.faji,
■III. The manner in which it is to be held, unlefs it fhould be rather a reafon
•why it fhould be held faft, which thsu hafi beard of me, in faith and
love, which is in Chriji fefus.
VoL> II. H J. The
50 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
I. The principal thing this charge is about, the form of found -u^ords. By
•words are not meant mere words, of thefc we (hould not be tenacious, when
one may as well be ufed as another, to exprefs the fenfe and meaning of any
doftrine •, when words are fynonymous, fignify the fame thing, and convey the
fame idea, to wrangle and difpute about them would be vain and trifling > fuch
mere logomachies and drivings about words to no profit, are condemned and
diflluded from, by our apoftle ', Yet when words and phrafes have long ob-
tained in the churches of Chrift, and among the faithful difpenfers of the word ;
ilie fenfe of which is determinate and eftablifhed, and well known, and they
fitly exprefs the meaning of thofe that ufe them ; they fhould not be eafily
parted with, and efpccially unlcfs others and better are fubfl^icuted in their roomj
for there is often truth in that maxim, qtii fingit nova verba, nova gignit dog-
mata, " he that coins new words, coins new doftrincs." Should any man re-
quire of me to drop certain words and phrafes in treating of divine truths, with-
out offering to place others and better in their room •, I could confidcr fuch a
man in no other view, than that he had an intention to rob me, to rob me of
what is more precious than gold and filver, that is, truih. There are certain
words and phrafes excepted to by the adverfarics of truth, becaufe they are not,
as faid, fyllabically expreflcd in fcripture; but be it lb, if what they fignify is
contained in fcripture, they may be lawfully and with propriety ufed, and re-
• taincd in ufe: fome concern the do<ftrine of the divine Being, and others the
jvork of Chrift ; fome relate to the divine Being, as cflcnce, unity, trinity in
unity, and perfon. Effence is no other than that by which a thing or perfon is
what it is, and may with great propriety be attributed to God, who is to o., the
being, who is, exifts, and which his glorious name Jehovah is exprefTive of,
deciphered by the apoftle fohn, who is, and was, and is to come ^ Nor need
we fcruple the ufe of the word unity with, refpedl to him, fince our Lord fays, /
and my Father are one'; one In nature and eflence, though not in perfon; nor
the phrafe trinity in unity, fince the apoftle Johrf fays, there are three that bear
record in heaven, the Father, the f-Fsrd, and the holy Chofl ; and thefe three are
cne* : as for the word perfon, that is ufed in fcripture both of the Father and
of the Son -, the Son is faid to be the exprefs image of his perfon ' ; that is, of the
perfon of God the Father j and the Son rnuft be a perfon too, or he would not
be the exprefs image of his Father's perfon -, befides, the word is ufed of him
alfo, for we read of the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face cfjefus
Chrifi'; or in the perfon of Chrift, and lb the phrafe is rendered in the fame
epiftle, chap. ii. lo. for your fakes forgave lit in^the perfon of Chrifi. Such
phrafes
• I Tim. vi. 4. 2 Tim. ii. i.*. * Rev. i. 4. « John x. 30,
* 1 John V. 7. « Heb. i. 3. ♦ : Cor. ir. 6.
S£.iM.40. OF THE Rev. Mr JOHN REYNOLDS. 5'
phrafcs as concern the work of Chrift objected to, are the imputation of his righ-
teoufncfs to his people, and the imputation of their fins to him, and the facis-
faftion made by him for them ; as for imputed righteoufnefs, that is nearly fylla-
bicaliy exprefTed, even as David a!fo defcribeth the bkjjednefs of the man, unto
Kvbom Cod imputelh right eoufiiifs without v.iarks ^ ; and as for the imputation of
Cn to Chrift, though it is not in fo many fyllablcs exprefled, the thing itfeif
is plain and clear : he hath made him to be fm for us, tfho'knrjj no fin ^ ; that is,'
God made him fin by imputing fin to him, for in no other way could he be
made fin, fincc no fin was inherent in him ; and this agrees with the language of
the Old Teftament, the Lord hath laid on him, or made to meet on him, the iniquity
ef us all^ ; that is, by imputing it to him. And though the y/ord fatisfaSiion
is not ufed of the work of Chrilt in fcripture, yet what is meant by it is plen-
tifully declared in ic -, as that Chrift has done and fufFered in the room and ftead
of his people, every thing with well-plca!cdncfs to God, and to the full content
of law and jufticc ; as when it is faid, the Lord is -well-pleafed for his righteoufnefs
fake"; the rcaibn follows, he will magmfy the law, and make it honourable ; end
alfo thrift hath given himfelf for us, an offering and a facrifice t6 God for a fwtet
fmelling favour ' -, fo that it may be truly laid, God is fully fatisfied with the obe-
dience, righteoufnefs, fuft'erings, death and facrifice of Chrift.
But after all, the apoftle in the charge given docs not defign mere words but
doftrines -, fo the words of our Lordjefus Chrifi"', he fomewhere fpeaks of, are
no other than the doflrines preached by Chrift, or the doflrincs concerning his
pcrfon, offices and grace •, and the words of the apoftles of Chrift, are no other
than their dodtrincs •, their found went into all the earth, and their words, that is,
their dodlrines, unto the ends of the world " ; and thcfc arc the words of faith and
good doctrine, in \vh\ch Timothy was nourifhed° : and thefc are yi;a«^ words or
do(5trincs ; fo we often read oi found doflrine, as, if there be any other thin"-, that
is contrary to found doHrine ; and the time will come, when they will not endure
found doHrine ; and that he may be able by found do5irine to exhort, &c. and fpeak
thou the things which become found do5irine* : and which may be CiUcd found, in
oppofition to the doctrines of falfe teachers, the perverfe difputings of men of cor-
rupt minds, dejlitule of the truth, and reprobate concerning the faith"* ; whofe words
or doflrines eat as doth a canker ', prey upon the vitals of religion ; and arc faid
lo he pernicious, ruinous, and dcftru<5tivc to the fouls of men; and fome of which
the apoftle, without ariy breach of charity, beftows the epithet of damnable
upon ' : and good doctrines may be called /o«;7i, becaufe they are in themfclvcs
H 2 falutary
sRom. iv. 6. •'zCor. V. 2 1. ' Ifal. liii. 6. k Jfai. xliL 21. ,
' Ephes. V. 2. " I Tim. vi. ^. • Rora.x. 18. • iTim.iv. 6. •
P 1 Tim. i. 10. 2TiiD. iv. 3. Tit. i.9. andii. 1.* « 1 Tim. ri. j. 2 Tim. iii. J.
' 2 Tim. ii. 17. • 2Pet. ii. 1, 2.
52 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
lalutary and healthful ; fleajant wordsy as the wife man fays', and fuch evan-
gelical dodrines be j they are as an honey-comb^ fiveet to the foul, and health to
the bones : the words or doftrines of our Lord Jefus Chrift and his apoftles arc
who/e/om ones, falubrious and nourifliing; the words of faith and good doc-
trine have a nutritive virtue in them, under a divine blefTing, to nourilh perfons-
up unto eternal life; they contain milk for babes, the fincere milk of the word^
which they defu-e that they may grow thereby •, and meat for ftrong men,, who
have their fpiritual fenfes exercifed, to difcern between good and evil ; and thefe
being found by believing foub, are eaten, and prove to be -the joy and rejoic-
ing of their hearts, and' are more ellcemed of by iheni than their ncceflary food^
Now there is a form of thefe found words or doctrines : by which may be
meant the form or manner of teaching them •, as the Jew, 'who was an inftrudtor
of others, had his/i?r;B of knowledge and ef truth in the lazv', a method of in-
ftrufting in the knowledge of it, and of teaching the truths contained in it ; fo-
a chriftian teacher has the form of godlinefs ", a form of knowledge of it, and a
method of teaching the myfteries of godlinefs, though fometimes without the-
power of ii: or rather, here it fignifies a brief futnmary or compendium of truths-,
the Jew had his creed, which contained the fix pnnciples, th« beginning of the
doftrine of Chrift, the author of the epiftle to the Hebrews fpcaks of ; which
the believing chriftian was not to ftop at and ftick in, but to go on to perfec-
tion 1 to embrace and profefs doftrines more fublimc and perfefl ". The apoftle
Paul, that complcat, cxafV, and accurate preacher of the gofpel, reduced the
tibjeft of his miniftry and the doftrine he preached, to two heads,, repentance.
towardGod, and faith toward our Lord Jefus Chriji " ; he gives a moft excellent
form of found w^ords, and a fummary of the gofpel in Rom. viii. 29, 30. IVhom
he did foreknow, he alfo did -predefiinate : — moreover, whom, he did predeflinatCy
' them he alfo called; and whom he called y them he alfejuflijed ; and whom he jufli-
fied, them hi alfo glorified ; and which fome, not improperly, have called the
golden chain of man's falvatijon v every link in it is precious, and not to be
parted, and the whole is not to be departed from : the word vsorvrnan, here
ufcd, may fjgnify a />a//tfr«, and fo it is rendered iTim.'i. ]6. the allufion is
thought to be to painters, who firft form a rough draught, or draw the outlines
of their portrait, which is as a. pauern to them, within the compafs of which
they always keep, and beyond which they never go. A.fcheme, a fyftem of
gofpel-truths may be cxtradted from the fcriptures, and ufed as a pattern for
minifters to preach by, and for hearers to form their judgments by, of what
they hear ; which fecms to be what the apoftle calls the analogy or proportion of
faUb,
* Prov. xvi. 24- ' Rom. ii. lo. • J Tim. iii. j.
• See my Comment on Hebrews vi. 1- "-Aftsxx. ai.
I
SERM.40. OF THE Rev. Mr JOHN REYNOLDS." 53
faith % which fhould not be deviated from : if any man teach otherwife, and con-
ftnt not to wbokfom ivords, even the words of our Lord Jefus ChriJ}, and to the
_ doHrine which is according to godlinefs ; be is proud, knowing nothing ^ : and again,
fays the apoftle, though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gofpel unto
yeu, than that which we have preached unto you, and he adds, than that ye have
received, lit him be accurfed^ ; and this is the ti/t®-, ot form of doSlrine'', which
is delivered to the faints, or into which they are delivered, as into a form or
mold, and become evangelized by it -, and according to this they are to form
their judgment of preachers, and fhape their conduct and behaviour towards
them ; for if they bring not the dotlrine of Chrijl with them, they are not to
rtceive- them, nor bid them God-fpeed' : if minifters, when they have* formed
and digelled from the fcriptures a fcheme and fyftem of gofpel-truths, would
be careful to fay nothing contradiflory to it -, there would not be that want of
confiftency fojuftly complained of, in the prefent miniftry in common, nor that-
confufion in the minds of hearers.
I have hitherto dealt chiefly in generals, I fhall now dcfcend to the particulars-
of this form of found words or doflrincs, which you, my Brother, fhould hold~
fafl: •, and ftiall begin,
Firjl, With the dodrine of the Trinity of perfons in one God ; which is the
'foundation of revelation, and of the economy of man's falvation ; it is what
enters into every truth of the gofpel, and without which no truth can be truly
nnderftood, nor rightly explained : it confifls of various branches -, as that there
is but one God, and that there are three didind perfons in the Godhead, Fa-
ther, Son and holy Spirit, and that thefe are equally and truly God. There
is but one God; thi^ is the voice both of reafon and revelatron ; it is the doc-
trine of the Old and of the New Teftament ; it i^ the doftrine of Mofes and the
prophets; hear O Ifrael, the Lard tur God is one Lord ^ : and it is the dodtrine
of Ghrift and his apoftles ; of Chrift, who calls the above words, the firji of all'
the commandments' ; and of the apoftles, who declare, there is one God and one
Mediator ' ; to believe and profcfs this truth is right and well, thi>u believejl that
there is one God, thou dejl well ^ : all profefTing chriftianity are Unitarians in a
fcnfe, but not in the fame fcnfe ; fome are Unitarians in oppofition to a- trinity
of perfons in one God ; others are Unitarians in perfedl' confiftence with that
doftrine. Thofe of the former fort ftand. ranked in very bad company ; for a
Deift who rejefts divine revelation in general, is an Unitarian ; a Jew that rcjefls .
the writings of the New Teftament, and Jcfus of Nazareth being the MefTiah,,
h an Unitarian -, a Mahometan is an Unitarian, who believes in one God, and
ini
y Rom. iii.6. * i Tim. vi.j. • Gal, i. 9, 10. *" Rom. \i.\y. * 2 John '.«..
*■ Dcut. vi. 4, '^Mark xii. 39, f 1 Tim. ii. 5., « Jamei ii. 19,
54 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
in his prophet Mahomet \ a Sabellian js an Unitarian, who denies a diftinflion of
perfons in the Godhead; a Socinian is an Unitarian, who afTcrts that Chrift did
rox exiit before he was born oftiie virgin, and that he is God, not by nature,
but by oifke; an Arian may be faid, in a fenfe, to be an Unitarian, becaufe
he holds one fupreme God ; though rather he may be reckoned a Tritheift,
fince along with the one fupreme God, he holds two fubordinate ones. Thofe
only are Unitarians in a true and found fenfe, who hold a trinity of diftinft per-
fons in one God. This is the do<5trine of divine Revelation, the dodtrine of
the Old and of the New Teftament, the dodlrine of that famous text before
mentioned, hear 0 Ifrael, the Lord cur God is one Lard; the word for our God
is plural, the word ufed is Elohim, a word of the plural number, and expreffive
of a plurality of perfons ; and the fenfe of the words is, and it is the fenfe of
the ancient Jews ", ourGod, Ehbenu, the three divine perfons are ontjekovah,
one Lord ; and with this perfedtly agrees what the apoRle John fays, there are
three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft ; and
thefe three are one\ arc one God. The authenticity of this palfage has been
difputed, but not difproved -, the knowledge and ufe of it may be traced up
to the times ofTertullian, who lived within a hundred years or thereabouts of
the writing of the autograph itfclf by the apoftley^iw; but could it be difproved,
the doftrine is to be defended without it, as it was by the anticnt chrillians
ao-ainft the Arians : the proof of it is abundant ; not to take notice of any other
but the baptifm of Chrift, and the form of the adminiftration of baptifm pre-
fcribed by him-, at the baptifm of Chrift, all the three divine perfons appeared;
there was the Son of God clothed in human nature, fubmitting in that nature
to the ordinance of baptifm, being baptized of Joi^n in Jordan's river; and
there was. the Father, who by a voice from heaven declared, faying, this is my
kekved Son, in whom I am well pleafed^ ; and there was the Spirit of God, who
defcended upon him as a dove ; this was reckoned fo clear a proof of a trinity
of perfons, that the ancients ufed to fay, '■•■Go lo Jordan, and there learn the
" dodrine of the trinity :" and the form of the adminiftration of baptifm pre-
fcribed by our Lord, which was to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son,
find of the Holy Ghofl ' ; is fuch a teftimony of a trinity of peribns in unity, that
the whole herd o{ Jntitrinitarians, of whatfoever name, are notable todeftroy;
0 proof this of the divinity of each perfon, fincc baptifm adminiftcred in their
^ame, is a folcmn aft of religious worfliip, and which otherwiic would be ido-
latry ; and of the equality of each perfon, fince it is ordered to be adminiftered
equally in the name of the one, as in the name of the other; not in the name
cf one fupreme God, and in the name of two inferior ones ; and of the diftinc-
tion
•" Zohir in Gen. fol, I. 3. and in ExoJ. fol. 18. 3. 4. and in Numb. fol. 67. 3.
• I John V, 7. '' Matt. iii. 17. » Matt. xxTiii. 19.
Serm. 40- OT THE Rev. Mr JOHN REYNOLDS. 55
tJon of thefe by the relative properties in the divine nature, paternity, filiation
and fpiration ) and of their unity as the one God, fince the order is to adminif-
ter baptifm not in the names, but in the name of Father, Son and Spirit. And
now it is to be believed and to be held faft, that thefe are equally and truly God :
of the Father there is no difpute ; and of the deity of the Son there need be
no qucftion, fince of the Son of God it is exprefsly faid, ibis is the true God
and eternal life '^ ; and again, unio the Sen, be faith, 7 by -throne, O God, is for
ever and ever"; the divine names he bears, and the divine nature and perfec-
tions, and the fulnefs of them he is poflefied of; the divine works which arc
attributed to him, and the -divine ■'worihip paid him, are full proofs of his true
and proper deity : and that the holy Spirit is truly and properly God, is mani-
feft in that, lying to him is called lying to God : the mmt Jehovah is given him
v»hich belongs only to the moft High -, he is defcribed as a perfon, having un-'
derftanding and will, and to whom perfonal adl ions are afcribcd, and as a divine
perfon, poircfTcd of eternity, immcnfity, omniprcfence, omnifcience, i^c. and
the dodtrine of the deity of thefe perfons fhould be held faft, fince this has aa
irtfruenceon the works afcribed to them, and without which they could not have
been performed by them : and along with this is to be taken the doftrine of the
eternal generation of the Son of God, and which, with the reft, rny Brother,
you are'to hold faft ; fince this is the hinge'on which the doftrine of the trinity
dejjends, without this it cannot be fupported ; take away this, and it falls to
the ground ; this the Antitrinitarians of every name are fcnfible of, and there-
fore bend all their force and fpite againft it, and is a reafon wliy it ftioiild be
held faft by us : that Chrift is the Son of God, is attefted by the divine perfons
themfclves •, and has been acknowledged by angels and men, good and bad ;
but the thing is, in what iimfc he is fo : notin any of theSocinian fenfes -, I fay,
not in any of them, becaufe they are many, which fiiows the wretched puzzle
• and uncertainty they arc at about it-, for there can be but one true fcnfe in which
Chrift is the Son of God : he is not called the Son of God, becaufe offome
Hkencfs in him to God, as they fometimcs iay ; nor becauie of the affcdion of
God to him, as at other times ; nor is he fo by adoption; nor on account of
his miraculous incarnation ; nor of his rcfurrcftion from the dead ; nor of his
mediatorial office : but fince he is faid to be the begotten Son of God, and to be
the only begotten of the Father, and the Father is faid to be his own Father,
his proper Father, and fo not in an improper, figurative and metaphorical fcnfe,
he appears to be the Son of God by the generation of him, who faid, Thou art
my Sen, this day have I begotten tbee ° : how and in what manner the Son is be-
gottei*
» I John r. 20. ■ H«b. i. 8. • Pfalra ii.7.
5$ A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
gotten of the Father, I do not pretend to explain, nor ought any ; but I ErrnVf
believe he is, and that for this very good reafon, becaufe the fcripture aflerrs
it i we beheld bis glory, the glory as of the only hegotten of the Father p.-, we know
but little of our own nature, and ftill lefs of -the nature of God, and {hould be
content with the account which he himfelf has given of it, who bed underftands
it. For -what is his name? that is, his nature, and what is -his Son's name, if
thou canfl telh ? I have faid, ihat " the dodtrine of a trinity of perfons in the
*« unity of the divine eflcnce, depends upon the article of the fon's generation,
" and therefore if this cannot be maintained, the other nuift fall of courfe -," and
for my own part, could J be prevailed upon to part with this article of faith,
J would at once give up .the doftrine of the. trinity, as quite indefenfible -, and
indeed it would be the height of.folly ' to talk of a diftindlion of perfons in the
Deity, when. the foundation of fuchdiftinftion is removed; for we pretend to no
other dillinftion in it, but what arifes from the internal relative properties in
God, as paternity, filiation and fpiration, the ground of which is, the eternal
generation of the Son.; for without that there can be neither father, nor Son,
nor Spirit. The works of God done by him, fuch as thofe of creation, redemp-
tion and grace, and offices bore, ferve to illuftrate the dillindtion made, but
•could ncvcrtnake any : the works of God are ad extra, and are common to the
three perfons, .and therefore do not diftinguiO: them ; for though fome works
.are more. peculiarly. attributed to one than to another, each has a concern in them
all: befidesthey come. too late, they are wrought in time, whereas the nature
■of God, .be it what it may, is eternal ; and if there is any diftindion in it, it
muft betiatural, original and eternal; and indeed the Father was never without
the Son,.nor the Son without thePather, but was the eternal Son of the eternal
father ; -and neither of them without their breath or fpirit, the Spirit which pro-
cecdcth from the Father, and is the Spirit of the Son : befides, as what God
is, and he is what he always was, he is, and was fo ncceflarily ; and if there
-is any diftindion in his nature, it is of neccfTity, and not of will ; whereas the
works ofGod are arbitrary things, which might or might not have been, ac-
.cording to the wUl and pleafure of the divine Being; butGod would have been
what.he.is, and if there is any diftindion in him, it muft have been, if thefe had
never
•f 'John i. 14. ' Prov. xxt. 4.
r Of fuch tbfurdity and inconCflence the l»te Dr Ridglej was guilty ; exploding the doaiine of
rthe generation of the Son of God, and adopting the Socinian notion of Sonfhip by office; and yet at
the fame time declaring for a dininftion of three divine perfons in the Godhead. A flrarge paradox
this! and it is a difgrace to that body of men of whofe denomination theDoflorwaj. that none of
•hn brethren attempted to refute him, though they in general didiked his opinion and diffcnted ftom
him : perhaps they thought the contradiaion was fo glaring, that hii own notions confuted thun-
fcjve* i this ii ;he beft apology 1 can make for them.
Serm.40. of the Rev. Mr JOHN REYNOLDS. ' 57
never had been -, if there never had been an angel created, nor a man redeemed,
nor a finner fan6tified, nor any office iufta'med. by Chrjft as mcd,ia*qr, which is ar-
bitrary alfo. This then being the cat, if the artideief the Son's gcnerat-ion can-
not be maintained, as then there can be no diHindion of, persons, ,w?., mufl: un-.
avoidably fink into the Sabellian foUy ; therefQre, my Brother, holdfaft this
part and branch of the fyrm of found words. ; -
■Secondly, Another part of this form of found words to be held fad, ts the doc-
trine of the everlafting love of the three perfons to the eleft ; the love of the
Rather in chufing them in Chrift, -providing a Saviour for them, and fending
him in the fulncls of time to work out their falvation i (he love ot the Son in
becoming a furety for them, in the afllimption of their nature, and in fufter-
ing and dying in their room and flead, to obtain their eternal redemption-, and
the love of the Spirit in applying grdce unto them, implanting it in them, in
being their Comforter, tlic Spirit of adoption to them, and the earned of thei-r
inheritance,- and thefealcr of theni up unto the day of redemption : this loveis
to be held, and held fall, as being fovcie'gn and free ; not arifing from any
•caufe or caufes in men, from any motives and conditions in them; not from-
their lovcline.'s, being defiled and lothefom a; others, and by nature children of
wrath; nor from their love to God, fince he loved them firft, andwhen they did
not love him ; nor fcom their obedience and good works, fince v/hile they werc^
foolifh and difobcdicnt, the love and kindnels of God the Saviour towards man
appeared ; but froni the will and pleafure of God, who loved them becaufe he
would love them. And this doftrine of the love of God is to be held, and held
fafi-, as being fpccial and difcriminating; not as a love of all, but of fome only ;
for tl'^ugh the eartli is full of the goodnefs of the Lord, and all the inhabitants
of it partake thereof, and fliare the bounties of his providence; his tender mer-
cies are over all his ucrks, and he caulcs lus fun to fiiine, and rain to defccnd
on the juft and unjuft; yet he has a peculiar people whom he has chofen for
himfelf, and to whom he bears a pecuhar love; hence Dnvid defircd', that he
wo-uld remember him ivilh the favour he bore to his oivn people. This IhoulJ
be held, and held faft, as being what commenced froni everlafting, and conti-
nues to e-verlafting; it was taken up in tiK? heart ot God before the world was,
and he rcfis and abides in his love, and nothing is able to feparate from it: it
is as immutable and invariable as himfelf; as he is the Lord that cham^cs no:
fuch is his love, yea, lie himfelf is love^. Cod is love\ the flates aiul conditions
of men are various, but the love of God is the fame in all ; he may change his
difpenfations, but he never changes his love ; when he hides his faCv.-, he fiiJl
Jov.es ; and when he chides, chadifcs and corrects, he does not utterly take av.ay
Vol. JI. I • • ■ nor
' Pfalni £vi. 4. * J Jol.xi iv. j6.
58 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
nor at all take away his loving-kindncfs. This dodlrine in this light is to be held
faft, bccaufe the cverlafting love of God is the bond of union to him, and is the
fource and fprir>gof all the blefilngs of grace, which are exhibited and held forth
in the fcveral dodtrincs of grace.
Thirdly, The doctrine of eternal, perfonal, and particular eleftion, is another
part of the form of found words to be held fafl; as that elc(5lion is eternal, was
from the htginning, as the apoftle tells the Thefialonians " -, not from the begin-
ning of the golpel coming unto them, or from the beginning of their conver-
fion and faith, but from the beginning of time, or before time: for the phrafes,
from (heieginning, znd from tverlajling, are the fame, as appears from Prov. viii. 23.
Bcfides, the apollle exprefsly fjys, this choice was made before the foundation
ef the world, Eph. i. 4. It is alio perfonal and particular; not a choice of pro-
pofitions and chara(5ters, but of perrons, he bath chcfen us, as in the fame place ;
not a choice of whole bodies of men, of nations, and churches, but of particular
pcrfons, known to the Lord byname; the Lord knoxvs them, that are his"" \ I
know whom I have chofen, fays Chrift "^ : they arc as if they were particularly
named: hence x\\t\T names are faid ' to be written in the Lamb's book of life. This-
choice is of pure grace; not on the forefight of faith ; for faith is the fruit of
it, flows from it, and is fecured by it ; as many as were ordained unto eternal life,
believed"^: nor on the forefight of holinefs, or on account of that; for God
chofe his people, not becaufe they were holy, but that they might be fo : he
chofe them through fandlification before time, and therefore calls them to holi-
nefs in time : nor becaufe of their good works ; for the children net being yet born,.
neither having done any good or evil, that the purpofe of God, according to eleHion,.
might fl and, not of works, but of him that calleth'. And here it is called the
eleiJion of grace ^, and ftrongly argued not to be of works, but of the pure fove-
reign grace of God : and it is both to grace and glory, to fpecial blelTmgs of
grace,, of fiaith, and holinefs, to conformiry to the image of Chrift now, and.
to eternal glory and happinefs hereafter, which is enfured by it ; for, whom he
predeflinates, he alfo glorifies. Now, this part of the form of found words is to
be held faft, becaufe it Hands foremofl. in the blefiings of grace,^.and is the ftand-
a.rd and rule according to which God proceeds in difpenfing the reft; for he
blcflcs his people with all fpiritual bleffmgs in Chrifl^ according as he hath chofen.
them in him '.
Fourthly, The doflrine of the covenant of grace is to be held fad, made be-
tween the eternal three, when there were none in being but themfclves ; no crea-
ture,.
• I Thefs. ii. 13. " zTim.ii. 19. * John xiii, j8. ^ Phil. iv. 3.
Rev. xiil. 8. aDdxvii. 8. and XX. 15. * Ails xiii. 48. 'Rom. ix. 14.
* R«ni,ii. 5< 6. * Ephes.i. 3,4-
Serm. 40. OF THE Rev. Mr JOHN REYNOLDS. 59
ture, neither an angel, nor a man, nor the foul of a man ; none but God, Fa-
iher, 5on and Spirk., between whom and them alone the covenant-tranfaftions
were ; even before ihp world was, or any creature whatever in beincr -, hence
k is called an ever lajiaig covenant^, being from everlafting •, as well as it will
continue to everlafting ; which appears fromChrift's being fet up fo early as the
mediator of it, from the provifion of bledings of grace in it- fo early, which were
given to the elc(ft in Chrift, and they were blelTcd with them in him before the
world was ; and from promifes made in it fo early, particularly the promife of
eternal life, which God, thai cannot lie, frcmifed before the world began". It is
abfolute and unconditional; no conditions in it but what were engaged to be
performed, and have been and are performed by the Son of God, and by the
Spirit of God: with relpedl <o tlie perfons on whofe account the covenant was
made ; all the promifes run in this (tile, " I will be their God, and ihey Jhall be
" my people; I ^7// put my fear in their hearts, and they y^j^a// not depart from
♦' me : 1 will take away the ftony heart, and give them an heart of flelli ; a new
" heart and a new fpirit will I give them, and I will put my fpirit within them,
" and caufe ihcm to walk in my ftatutes ; and ihcyjhall keep my judc^ments, and
" do them ^" It is a covenant of pure grace to the elcifb, and is fure, firm,
and inviolable: it ]s ordered in all things and fiirc; its blcITings are the fure mercies
of David, and its promifes are all yea and amen in Chrill '. It is a covenant'
God will not break, and men cannot : it is immoveable, and more fo than rocks
and mountains -, the mountains ftiall depart, and the hills be removed ; but the
covenant of peace fliall never be removed ^ Now the dodtrine concerning tins
is to be held faft, becaufe it is the bafts of the works done by the Son and Spirjt
of God; of the Son's work in redemption, according to his furetyfhip-engage-
Tnents in this covenant ; and of the Spirit's work in fanftiiication, according ta
his own agreement in it.
Fifthly, The doflrine of original fin, which opens and defcribes the (late and
condition of men by nature, is another part of the form of found words to be
held fall; as that all men finned in Jdam, in whom they were federally as their
covenant-head ; in which refpeft he was the figure or type of him that was to
lome'"; that is, of Chrift. Hence the apoftle gives the parallel between tl^efe
rtwo covenant- heads ; the one, as conveying grace, righteoufncfs, and life, to
his feed ; and the OLher, as conveying fin, condemnation, and death, to all his
•pofterity. Befides, all men were in Adam feminally, in like fcnfc as Levi was
•in the loins c^ Abraham, when he paid tithes to Melchiztdik*' : fo all men were
I 2 in
"• 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. « Titu< i. 2. "• Jer. xxxii. 38—40. Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27,
' 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. Ifai. Iv. 3. 2 Cor. i. 2C. ' Ifai. liv. jo. « Rom. v. if.
* Heb. vii. g, jo.
•.6o A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
in the loins of their firft father, and when he finned, finned in him, and were
made, conftituted, reckoned, and aceounted finners, by h-is difobediehce. The
■guilt of his fin is imputed ro them, fo as that judgment comes upon them all
to condemnation; and- death reigns over them, and all die in him, and a cor-
rupt nature is propagated from him to them : they are all, like David, Jhapeii
in iniquity., and conceived injhi : and indeed -how can it otherwife be ? for "ivho
can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ? not one\ Tliere never was but one
inllance of y^jw's race free from his fm, anJ that was the hun>an nature of
Chrift: but then that did not defcend from him by ordinary generation, but was
brought into the world in a fupernatural way, and fo efcaped the contagion of
fjn. Now it is nccefTary that this doclrine fliooW be held faft, fince it accounts
. for the corruption of human nature-, fliews the reafon of mens bciivg fo prone
ro fin, and biafed ta-it ; fo impotent ta tliat which is good, and fo averfe-to it :
and alfo fhews the necefTity of redemption,, regeneration, and fancftification.
Sixthly., The doflrine of redemption by Chrift, is another part of the form
of found words to be held faft -, as that it is fpecial and particular; though
Chrift gave his life a ranfom for many, yet not for all : thofe that are redeemed
by him are redeemed from among men, out of every kindred, tongue, peopU,
and nation : they are Chrifl's fpecial- people he came to fave : his fheep the Ei-
ther gave him, and he undertook the care of, he hid down his life for :■ the chil-
dren of God, that were fcattered abroad, he came to gather together by his
fufFerings and death ; and his church he gave himfclf for, even the general affern-
bly and church of the firfl -horn, which are written in heaven .-and that this rcdemp-
lion is procured by way of fatisfaftion to the juftice of God ; he redeemed his
people by paying a price for it, even his precious blood. Redemption was ob-
'laincd by Chrift through his fufferings, the jtift for the unjuft ; by his being
wounded, bruifed, and ftricken, for the tranfgrcfflons of his people ; by bear-
ing their iniquities, and the punifliment of them ; by his being made fin and
a curfe for them, thereby redeeming them from fm and the curfes of the law-;
and this doflrine of redemption by the blood of Chrift, and atonement by his
•facrifice, fhould be held faft, it being the foundation of a finner's peace, joy,
and comfort.
Seventhly, The doftrine of juftiRcation by the imputed righteoufnefs ofChrift,
is another branch of the form of found words to be held faft : this proceeds from
the free grace of God, through the redemption that is in Chrift ; the matter
of it is what is commonly called the acftive and pafTive obedience of Chrift,
which, with the holinefs of his nature, are imputed for juftification, being what
is
• Job xiv. 4.
Serm. 40. OF THE Rev. Mr JOHiN' REYNOLDS. 6i
is required to it by the holy law of God ; and ht-nce fometimes men are faid to
be made righteous by the obedience of Chrift, and fometimes to be jujiified by b.s
blood^y which is put for his whole fuffcrings and death ; by the one Chrift has
fulfilled the preceptive part of the law ; and by the other has bore the penalty
of it ; and by both has given full fatisfaction to it : the form of it is the imputa-
tion of righteoufnefs without works, by an afl of God's grace: this righteouf-
nefs, is revealed in the gofpel from faith to faitli •, and faith is wrought in the
foul, to lay hold on it, receive ir, and plead it as its juftifying righteoufnefs,
ffom whence much peace and comfort flow. Jullification may be confidered
as a fentence conceived in the divine mind from eternity ■, and as pronounced
on Chrift, the head and furecy,of his peoi)le, when he rofc from the dead, and
■upon them in him -, and as it is again pronounced in the confcience of a believer,
when the righteoufnefs of Ghrill is revealed to him, and received by him-, and
as it will be notified, and be openly and publicly pronounced before anoels and
men, when all the feed of I/rael, or the whole elcdt in a body, fliall be juflified
and (hall glory. This is to be held fad ; for, as Luther called it, it is arliculus
Jiantis vel cadentis eccleJiiC, " the article by which the church ftands or falls."
Eighthly, The doiflrines of pardon, peace, and reconciliation by the blood
of Chrift, are parrs of this form of found v.'ords to be held faft -, that the pardon
of fin is through the blood of Chrid, which, as it was died for the remifTion
of fin, through it we have it, and rhrough that only, and not on account of
repentance, humiliation and confefTion, as meritorious or procuring caufes of
it; and that peace is made by the blood of Chrift, from whence peace of con-
fcience flows •, and that both reconciliation for our fins, and reconciliation of
our perfons to God, is made by the deatli of Chrift -, hence the gofpel which
publifties \.hh\s czWed the word of reconciliation., and ihc gofpel of pesce\ which
therefore fhould be held faft.
Ninthly, The doctrines of regeneration, cffcftual calling, converfion, and
fandlification by the fpirit, power, and grace of God, are parts of the fame
form and fyftem ; the neceffity of regeneration, without which there is no feeing
nor entering into the kingdom of God, muft be aflerted ; and that it is not of
man, of the power and will of man, but of the power and will of God: that
effcftual vocation is by the grace of God, and not according to the works of
men -, that converfion is not of him that wiUeth nor runneth, but of the mighty
power of God, who works in men both to will and to do; that fandification is
abfolutely necelTary to falvation, for without holinefs no man fhall fee thcLord ;
that this is the work of the Spirit of God, and is therefore called ihz fan^ifica^
lion:
* Rom. V. 9, 19. ' zCor. V. 19. Ephes. vi. 15.
-62 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION
tion of the Spirit '", and which he gradually carries on, and will perform until
the day of Chrin. Wherefore,
Tenthly and laftly, and which bring up the rear, the doftrine of the faints
final perfeverance is a part of this form of found words to be held fad ; even
that all that are chofen by the Father, and redeemed by the Soo, and fandti-
fied by the Spirit, fliall perfevere in faith and holinefs to the end •, being incir-
cled in the arms of evcrlafting love, fecureddn the everlafting covenant, united
to Chrift their head, furety, and faviour, built on him the rock of ages, againft
which the gates of hell cannot prevail, and fo are like mount ZioTL, which can
never be removed ; and being in the hands of Chrift, out of whofe hands none
can pluck, and who is able to keep them from falling ; and being kept by the
power of God through faith unto falvation. Thefe are at leaft fome of the
principal things which make up the form of found words, which you, my Bro-
ther, are to hold faft, maintain and publifh in your miniftry.
What remains now to be confidered are the exhortation to hold it faft, and
the manner in wiiich it is to be done, on which 1 fliall not long dwell.
II. The exhortation refpeding the form of found words,, hold fajl. This fup-
pofcs a man to have it, as all fuch exiiortations fuppofe perfons to have what
they are exhorted to hold, and hold faft; and which is fomccimes expreflcd -, as,
Jhat which ye have already, hold faft till l^ome; and again, hold that faft ivhich
thou haft, .that no man take thy crown "-• and Timothy, to whom the exhortation
in the text is given, was in poflcfTion of the form of found words -, it was a fa-
cred dcpofitum committed to his truft. Hence it follows, that good thing,
which was committed unto thee, keep by the holy Ghoft which dwellelh in us ; it was
in his hand, in his head, and in his heart ; the word is nigh thee, .even in thy
mouth. and in thy heart •, .that is, the word of faith which we preach' \ and what
is had (hould be held.; it fhould be held forth, holding forth the word of life',
and the word of light. Minifters are lights, and have light communicated to
them, which fhould fhine forth, and not be put under a bufhel ; what they have "
freely received they fhould freely give; what is told them in private in their
ftudics, they fhould publicly declare, and affirm thofe things conftantly ; they
fliould hold faft the faithful word, as they have been taught, and have taught
others, and tenacioufly abide by it ; fo Timothy was exhorted to do, and which
will ferve more fully to confirm and explain the exhortation here, continue thou
in the Jhings which thou liaft learned, and baft been affured of, knowing of whom
thou haft learned them "".
This exhortation to hold f eft the form of found words, is oppofed to dropping
or departing from it, which may be done by thofe who have had it; men may
receive
-* i Pet. i. 2. ■ Rev. ii. r;. and iii. II. rRom.x.8. pPhil.ii. i6. 12 7101.111.14.
Serm.40. of the Rev. Mr JOHN REYNOLDS. 63
receive the grace of Cod in vain ; that is, the doflrine of the grace of God -, they
may firft receive it with feeming pleafure and fatisfaction, and afcerwards rrjedt
iti they may fail of the grace of God in this fenfe, and fall from it partiAlly or
totally -, fo fuch that feck for and hold juftification by the law, are fallen from
grace ' ; from the do(ftrine of grace, and particularly from the do6trine of jufti-
fication by the grace of God through the righteoufnefs of Chrift: and as pri-
vate profcQbrs may drop and depart from the doiftrines of the gofpcl formerly
received and held by them, fo may minifters of the word drop and depart
from found words and dodlrines they have formerly profeflcd anJ preached.
And it is oppofed to wavering about the form of found words, and infta'oility
in it -, and fuggefts, that fuch who have it fhould not be like children, tofltd
about with every wind ofdodtrine, nor be carried about, like meteors in the
air, with divers and ftrange dodtrines, dodtrines various in themfclves and fo-
reign to the word of God; but fhould affirm conftanily wich boldnefs, confi-
dence and courage, the truths of the gofptl •, for this alfj ftands oppai'ed to
timidity, cowardice and pufillanimity ; when they fhould be valiant for tlie
truth, ftand faft in the faith, quit themfclves like men, and be fbrong •, and
not give way, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gofpel might continue
with the faints.
Moreover this exhortation^ confidered in this light, fuppof.-s that Timothy,
and fo other gofpel-miniflers, may at times be under temptations to let go the
form of found words, or drop the truths of the gofpcl, through fear of men,
and becaufeof the obloquy, reproaches and perfccutions of men, fee v. 7,8, 12.
they may be tempted hereunto, as on the one hand to cfcape being cenfured as
bigots, enthufiafts, narrow-fpirited men, and void of common-fenfe and reafon ;
and on the other hand to obtain the characters of men of fenfe, of moderate
principles, of candor and ingenuity, and of being polite and rational preachers.
And it alfo fuggefts that there might be fuch perfons who fought every oppor-
tunity to wring this form of found words out of the hands oiTimothy, and fo of
any other minifter of the word, as well as of thofe under their miniftry ; men
that lie in wait to deceive, to beguile and corrupt the minds of men from the
fimplicity in Chrift, and therefore to be guarded againft.
III. The manner in which the form of found words is to be held faft;. in faith
and love, which is inCbrifl Jefus : which words may be connefted with the phrafe
vjhich thou bafi heard of vxe. Timothy had heard the apoftle preach thofc found
dodlrines with great faithfulnefs •, for he was a faithful minifter of the gofpel,
who kept hack nothing that was profitable, and fhunned not to declare the whole coun'-
felofCod; he had heard him fpeak the truth in love, with great warmth of
affcflion,.
' aCor, vi. i. Heb. xii. 15. Gal. v, 4.
■'64 A CHARGE AT THE ORDINATION, &c.
affcdlion, with much vehemence and fervency of fpirit-, and he himfelf had heard
and received the word preached in faith, and had mixed it with faith, and digcfted
it by it, and was nouriflied with it -, he had received the love of the truth, and
the truth in the love of it: and the phrafe, viewed in this light, contains a rcafon
why therefore he fhould hold fad the form of found words he had received in
fuch a manner : or they may be confidered as connected with the form of found
iiDcrds ; as if faith and love were the fubjeds of it ; that rt lay in things to be be-
lieved, as the gofpel does; and therefore called the word of faith, the faith of
the gofpel, and the faith once delivered to the faints^; and in duties and ordi-
nances to be obferved from love to God and Chrift -, and fo is a reafon as before,
■why it fhould be held fall : or elfe it is to be connefted wich the exhortation hold
fafi; and fo dire61s to the manner in which it is to be held •, the faithful word,
the word to be believed, is to be held, held forth, and held faft in faithfulncfs;
he that bath my zvord, this form of found words in his head, and in his mouth
and heart, let him f peak my word faithfully ; uihat is the chaff to the wheat ? faith
ihe Lord' \ and this word of truth is to be held fait and fpokcn in love ; in love
to God, to Chrtft, to the word, and to the fouls of men. It follows, which is in
Chrifl Jcftts; cither the form of found words is in him ; all truth is in him, he
is full of that as well as of grace ; all the treafures of wifdom and knowledge, of
the myfteries of grace, are bid in him', and they come from him-, the words
or doftrifies of wifdom and knowledge are given from one fhepherd", Chrift, to
bis under ifhcpherds, to feed his churches with knowledge and underftanding :
or elfe this is to be undcrftood of the graces of faith and love, in the exercife
of which the word is to be preached, heard and held faft •, thefe are originally
in Chrift, and come from him; the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with
faith and love, ivhich is in Chrifl Jefus"; as well as they are cxercifed on him as
the object of them.
Thus have I confidered this charge of the apoftle to Timothy, in the method
.propofcd; and you, my Brother, fliould receive it as if it had been delivered to
you, it being what conc<;rns and is obligatory upon every minifterof the gol'pel :
Ifhall clofe with fonie other branches of the apoftle^s charge, zoTimotby, which
you would do well alfo to advert unto; Be thou an example of the believers, in
I -^.-ord, in converfalion, in charity, in fpirit, in faith, in purity. — Give attendance
I to reading, to exhortation, to doHrine—neglc^ not the gift thai is in thee— meditate
upon thefe things, give th^felf wholly to them, that thy profiting may appear to all.—
Take heed unto thyfelf, and unto the doHrine, continue in them; for in doing this, thou
fhali bolhfnve thyfelf and them that hear thee \ I have done ; G.od give fuccefs
10 vour miniftrations.
^ TRUTH
' Jer. xxiii. 28. " Colofs. ii. 3. • Ecdes. xii. u. " iTim.i. 14-
» j Tim. iv. 12—1.6.
TRUTH DEFENDED:
Being an ANSWER to an Anonymous Pamphlet, intkled,
Some DoSf fines in the Supralapfarian Scheme impartially examined hy
the Word of God.
LATELY came to my hands an anonymous pamphlet, intitled, Sot)ie Doc-
trines in the Supralapfarian Scheme impartially examined by the Word of God.
The author of it is right, in making the word of God the rule and ftandard by
which doftrines and fchemes are to be tried and examined. To the law and to
the tejlimcny ; if n'.^n fpeak not according to this word, it is hecaufe there is no light
in ihem^. He fcts out with large declarations of his regard to the facred writ-
ings, which to I'wcU the performance are too often repeated, even ad naufeam ;
and )ct, in his verv firil paragraph, drops a fcnience not very agreeable to them,
if any fenfe can be made of it : "All opinions and maxims, he fays, that cor-
" rtfpond not with this divine rule, we fliould either entirely rejefl, or at liajl
" rcfiife to admit as articles of our faith ^" But why not entirely rejcdt them,
without any hefitation ? why this disjunftive propofnion ? why this fofcenin"-
tlaufe added ? If it can be thought to be fo, or to convey a different idea from
the former, as it is defigned it fliould •, though I fhould think, to rcfufe to ad-
mit doftrines and maxims as articles of faith, that do not correfpond with the
cUvine rule, is the fame thing as to rejcft them as articles of faitii. The man
Icems to write in the midft: of hurry and furprife. Since he has met with fchemes
and opinions fo exceedingly fhocking and flunning, it would have been advife-
ablc for him to have fat down and waited until he was better come to, and
more'compofcd, before he put pen to paper, and committed his frightful ap-
prehenfions to writing. And indeed one would have thought he has had time
enough to have recovered himfelf from the furprife he has met with, feeincr jt
h uczr four years ago, fince the more moJern pieces he has taken notice of
were publifhed to the world.
I. The examination begins with the foundation-principle of the Supralapfa-
rians, as he calls it, that " God chofc his people without confiderincr them as
*' fallen creatures'." He docs well to begin with their foundation-dodrinc ;
for if he can dcmolifli the foundation, the kiperflrufture nuift fall ; if he can
pjuck up what he fuppofes to be the root of many falfe optnions, the branch^es
Vol. H. K which
' Ifai. viii. 20. b Supralapfarian Scheirc, p. i. « Jd. Ibid. p. 3.
66 TRUTH-DEFENDED.-
which grow from it will die in courfe. But though this received opinion of
theirs, as our author fliles it, is a denomination one, or that from which they
are called Siipralapfarians ; yet it is far from being a foundation-principle, or a
fundamental article of faith with them-, nor do they confider this point, in
which they differ from others, as the principal one in the dodtrine of eleftion :
They and the Sublapfarians are agreed in the main points refpeding that doc-
trine; as, that it is an eternal aft of God ; that it is of certain particular per-
fons ; that it is unconditional, irrefpeftive of faith, holinefs, and good works, as
caufes and conditions of it -, and that it entirely fprings from the good-will and
pleafure of God. The Contra- Remonftrants were not all of a mind concerning
the objeft of predeflination, but did not think it worth their while to divide
upon that account. Nay, fome ^ of them were of opinion that it was not ne-
cefTary to be determined, whether God, in choofing men, confidered them as
idllen, or as not yet fallen -, provided it was but allowed that God in choofing
confidered men in an equal (late, fo as that he that is chofen was not confidered
by God either of himfelf, .or by his own merit, or by any gracious eflimation,
more worthy than he who is not chofen. That famous Supralapfarian, DrTwifs %
declares, that " as for the ordering of God's decrees, upon which only arile " the
" different opinions touching theobjecl of predeflination, it is merely apex logicus,
" a point of logic." The decrees of God may bediftinguiflied into the decree of
the end, and the decree of the means, that they may the better be conceived of by
our finite underftandings •, which arc not able to confider all things at once, and
together, as they lie in the divine mind, but of one thing after another-, and that
without dividing and feparating of God's decrees, or fuppofing any priority or
pofteriority in him. Now the decree of the end muft be confidered before the de-
cree of the means ; and that what is firft: in intention, is lad in execution, and Co
vice verfa. Let then eternal life and glory, or a ftate of everlaifing communioa
with God, be the end of eleflion, as it is with refpeft to man, then the creation,
permiffjon oi Adam'% fall, and the recovery out of it, are the means in order to
that end. It follows, that, in the decree of the end, man could not be con-
fidered as a fallen creature, but as yet not created ; becaufe the creation and
the pcrmifTion of the fall belong to the decree of the means, which is in
order of nature after the decree of the end. For if God firft decreed to create
man, and to permit him to fall, and then decreed to bring him to a ftate of
eternal life and happincfs -, according to this known rule, that what is firft in-
intention is Jaft in execution, this ftrange abfurdity will follow, that man will
be firfl brought into a ftate of eternal life and happinefs, and then created and
permitted to fall. Let the end be the manifeftation of God's glory, which cer-
tainly.
* Vid. Aft. Synod. Dordr. par. i. p. 48.
• Riches of God's Lov*, asainft Hord, par. i. p, 35.
TRUTH DEFENDED. e^
uinly is -the fopreme end of eleflion, then the means are creation, permifTion of
fin, redemption, fanftificacion, and, in a word, compleat falvation ; which,
thouoh they are materially many, yet make up but one formal decree, called
the decree of the means. Now according to the former rule, the intention of
the end mud be firft, and then the intention of the means ; and, confequently,
man cannot be confidered in the decree of the end, the manifcdation of God's
glory, as yet created and fallen •, becaufe the creation and permiflion of fin
belong to the decree of the means, which in order of nature is after the decree
of the end. But if, on the contrary, God firfl: decreed to create man and per-
mit him to fall, and then decreed to manifcft the glory of his grace and mercy,
in his eternal falvation -, according to the above rule, that what is firft in inten-
tion is laft in execution, and fo vice verfa, it will follow, that the glory of
God's grace and mercy are firft manifeltcd in the eternal falvation of man, and
then he is created and fuffcred to fall. Likewife it is to be obferved, that the
feveral things mentioned in the decree of the means, creation, permifTion of fin,
and falvation, are not to be confidered as fubordinate, but as co-ordinate means,
or as making up an entire, compleat medium. We are not to fuppofe that
God decreed to create man that he might permit him to fall, or that he decreed
to permit him to fall, that he might fave him ; but that he decreed to create
him, permit him to fall, and to fave him notwithftanding his fall, that he
might glorify h.is grace and m-ercy. Nor are we to conceive of them after this
manner, that God firft decreed to create man, and then decreed to permit him
to fall -, for it would follow that man, in the execution of thefe decrees, is firfl:
permitted to fall, and then he is created : Nor thus, that God firfl: decreed to
create man, and permit him to fall, and then decreed to fave him; for, accord-
ing to the former rule, man would firft be faved, and then created and permit-
ted to fall. Thefe are fome of the reafonings of the Supralapfarians ; particu-
larly of Dr Tuifs, as may be fcen in h\s Ft udici^, and in his Riches of God's love,
fgaitijl Hord. This poor man, that takes upon him to write againft the Supra-
lapfarians, would do well to try his flx.ill in unravelling and deltroyincr this kind
of reafoning : But alas ! his capacity will never reach it. I am afraid the very
mention of thefe things will increafe his furprife and fright. Howe\'er, fines
he has taken upon him to objcdt to this opinion of the Supralapfarians, i: will
be proper to hear what he has to fay. And,
I. He propofes to fliew, that this doftrine is deftitute of fupport from the
fcripture, and tells us \ he has often wondered what part of facred writ can be
produced to fupport it -, and that he has lieen fearching and trying to know the
language of the divine word concerning eledion -, and fliall therefore mention,
and, in a few words, coinment upon thofe fcripcures, which, fays he, Ijud^c^
K 2 are
f Supral.-ipfarian Scheme, p. 4.
68 TRUTH DEFENDED.
are only tiecejfary to be confidered in this difpute; and thefe are, i Peter \. 2.
Epb. i. 3, 4. Rom. viii. 29. If the man is really ignorant, as I am inclined to
think he is, and does hot know what parts of lacred writ the" Suprahpfarians
have produced to fupport their doctrine, he has aftcd a weak part in meddling
with the controverfy ; if he does know, he has afted a worfc in concealino- of
them. He promifes to mention and comment on thofe fcripcures -which he
judges are enly necefiary to be confidered in this difpute •, but he ought to have
mentioned the fcriptures, which the men he oppofcs judge necefTary to be con-
fvdered in this difpute ; and to have fhewn the mifapplication of them, and that
they are not pertinent to their purpofe : is this impanially to try and examine,
by the word of God, the Supralapfarian fcheme, as his title promifes? every
"one knows, that knows any thing of this controverfy, that the fcriptural part of
it is about the fenfe of the ninth chapter of the epiflle to the Romans ; and the
qucftion is, whether the Sublapl'arian, or the Supralapfarian fcheme, concern-
ing the objefts of cledion and reprobation, is moll agreeable to the fenfe of the
apoftle in that chapter; parCiculaily, whether theSupralapfarian fcheme, ofGod's
chufing fome, and leaving others, confidered as unfallen, as having done nei-
ther good nor evil, does not bcft agree with tlie account the apoftle gives in
vcr. II — 1 3. of the t\e6\.\onoi Jacob., and rejc61ionof Z,,'^// •, and more efpecially
whether Jt does not beft agree witli the fame apoflle's account, in ver. 2 i. of the
potter's making of the jame lump on; -jcjjdunto hoiiour., and another unto dijJoonour ?
This author fhould have mentioned thefe fcriptures, and commented upon
them, and anfwered the arguments of the Supralapfarians from them; in parti-
cular, thofe of that eminent Supralapfarian, Theodore Bcza, in his notes upon
the laft of thefe texts, which I fhall tranfcribe for this man's fake ; and he may
try whether he is capable of anfwering of them. " Thofe who, by the mafs,
'* or lump, fays this great man, underftand mankind corrupted, do not fatisfy
" me in the explanation of this place : for fird, it feems to me, that the phrafe
*' of informed matter, neither fufficiently agrees with mankind, either made
" or corrupted. Moreover, if the apoftle had confidered mankind as corrupted,
" he would not have faid, that fome velfcls were made to honour, and fome to
" difhon«ur; but rather, that feeing all the veflcls would be fit for difhonour,
" fome were left in that diflionour, and others tranfiated from that difhonour to
♦' honour. Laftly, \f Paul had not rofe to the higheft degree, he had not fatisfied
" the queftion objeded •, for it would always have been queried, whether that
" corruption came by chance, or whether indeed, according to the purpofe of
^' God, and therefore the fame difficulty would recur. I fay, therefore, Paul
" ufing this moft elegant fimile, alludes to the creation oi Adam, and rifes up
♦' to the eternal purpofe of Gcd, who, before he created mankind, decreed of
" his
TRUTH DEFENDED. 69
« his own mere will and pleafure, to manifeil tiis glory, both in faving of fome
« whom he knew, in a way of mercy, and in deftroying others, whom he alfo
" knew, in righteous judgment. And verily, unlcfs we judge this to be the
*' cafe, God will be greatly injured •, becaufe he will not be fufficiently wife,
" who firft creates men, and looks upon them corrupt, and then appoints to
•'what purpofe he has created them: nor fufficiently powerful, if, when he
^ has taken up a purpofe concerning them, he is hindered by another, fo that
" he obtains not what he willed -, nor fufficiently conftant, if, willingly and
" freely he takes up a new purpofe, after his workmanfhip is corrupted."
As for the fcriptures mentioned by our author, as oppofing the Supralapfa-
rian fcheme, I fhall not trouble the reader, by obferving the rrungled work
he makes with them, and the low and mean comments he makes upon them -, I
fhall only fay, that it will be readily owned, that fanftification, obedience, and
confonnity to the image of God and Chrirt, are things included in the decree
of ck(5tion : but do thefe things necelTarily fuppofe, that the perfons whom they
concern, were, in that decree, confidercd as impure, unholy, dilobedicnr, and
in a want of conformity to the image of God and Cbrift ? were not the cUrcft an-
gels chofen to fanclification, obedience, and conformity to the image of God ?
will any one fay, that thefe things fuppofed them to be, or that in the decree
of clcflion, they were confidered as impure, unholy, dilobedient, and in a want
of conformity to the image of God ? But, adn-iitting that thefe things, widi
rcfpciS to men, fuppofe them in fuch a cafe-, it fliould be obfervcd, that they
belong TO the decree of the means, and therefore fall fliort of proving that God,
in the decree of the end, or in decreeing men to eternal life and happinefs, for
the glorifying of himfelf, confidered them in fuch a ftate ; fmce the decree of
the end, in order of nature, is before the decree of the means ; unlcfs we can
fuppofe the all-wife being to ad in fuch a manner as no wife man would, name-
ly, firft fix upon the means, and then appoint the end. Now if God firfl de-
creed to create man, permit his fall, and then fanrtify and conform him to the
image of his Son, ijefore he decreed to glorify himfelf in his falvation, the con-
fcquencc will be, that God is firft glorified in the falvation of man ; and afccr
that, man is created, fuffered to fall, is lanftified, and conformed to the image
of Chrift; becaufe, what is firft in intejition, is laft in execution. There is one
thing more I would obferve, and that. is, that this author ^ delivers it as the fet-
tled opinion of the Supralapfarians, "that we were not eleded as holy and obc-
" dicnt beings, but to the end we might be fuch :" And I am much miftakcn,.
if this is not che fettled opinion of all Sublapfarians, except fuch as are in rhe
Arminian fcheme. But what is this mentioned for? why, to ffiew that the Su-
pralapfarians
» Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 5.
7.0 TRUTH D E F E N D E D.
firalapfarians are inconfiftent with themfelvcs, and guilty of fo flagrant a contra-
•didion, as h not to be reconciled by any. ' But where does it lie ? " why, whcre-
^' as they affirm, that we were fiot the almighty's choice, becaufe we were holy ;
*,' but that •fae didchufc us to be made holy, and yet, in that choice, beheld us
»' free from all defilements and deformity." But this author mufl: be told, if
he does not know it, that theSupralapfarians, in confidering men not yet creat-
ed, and fo not fallen, as the objedls of eleftion, fuppofe them neither good nor
bad, righteous or wicked, holy or unholy, but in the pure, that is, in the,
mere mafs of creaturefhip, not yet made, much Icfs corrupted, ;and as having
done neither good nor evil ; .now is tliis Tuch a flagrant contradiftion, never to
be reconciled, that men confidered neither as holy or unholy, as-obedient or dif-
obedient, fhould be chofen to holinels and obedience ?
2. This author ' proceeds to fhew, that " the doftrine of the Supralapfarians is
" repugnant to their own opinion of God's eternal foreknowledge, according to
" which he was pleafed to make his choice." To which I reply ; that the Supra-
lapfarians will readily own, that the omnifcient Jehovah did, at one view, fee,
and pcrfe6lly behold, whatfocver -would come to pafs, throughout all ages of
time; and that he has an univerfal prcfcience of all creatures and things, in their
different ftates and ci^rcumftances', but then they will deny that elccftion pro-
ceeds upon, or -that God has been pleafed to make his choice according to this
his general and eternal prefcience. It is true, that thofe who arc elefted, are
«le(5ted according to the foreknowledge of God the Father ' ; and whom be did. fore-
know, he alfo did fredeflinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. But thefe
paflages are not to be underftood of the univerfal prefcience and foreknowledge
of God ; for then all men would be eledted and prcdeftinated, for whom be did
foreknow, he alfo did predejlinate; but all men are neither conformed to the image
of Chrift, nor predeftinated to be fo : it remains, that the foreknowledge, ac-
cording to which eledtion and predeftination proceed, is God's fpecial foreknow-
ledge of his own people, and which is no other than his cvcrlafting love to them,
vyhich is the fource and fpring of his choice of them -, and the meaning is, that
whom be foreknew, that is, in his eternal mind knew, owned, approved -©f^^
ioved with an cverlafting love ; he cbofe them to falvation, and predeflinated them
CO be conformed to the image of his Son.
■ 3. This writer ^ goes on to obferve, that " this doftrine of God's choofing
" his people without confidering them as fallen creatures, tends co leflcn the
■«' infinite grace and mercy of God in their cleftion." I reply ;, that though- it'
^as been a matter of controvcrfy between the Supralapfarians, and others, -whe-
'" '' '-' -ther
'v. * Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 7. '1 Pet. i. 2. Rom. viii. tg.
* Supralapfarjan Scheme, p, 8. - - -
TRUTH DEFENDEir. 71
tlier ele<flion is an aft of mercy, yet not whether it is an afl of grace -, they,
with the fcriptures ', affirm, that eledtion is of grace, fprings from the fovereigiv
grace and good pleafure of God, and is not influenced by, or to be afcribed to-
thc works of men ; but then they cannot obferve, that it is ever faid to be of
mercy. Regeneration is afcribed to the mercy of God, i Pet. i. 3. fo is forgive-
nefs of fins, Luke i. 77. yea, our whole falvation, Titus iii. 5. but never elcftion;
not that, but _/}z/i>^//(7« ;V faid to be of God, that fheweth mercy, Rom. ix. 15.
Their reafons, among many others ", too many to mention, why it cannot be an
aft of mercy, are, becaufe the angels are elefted, but not of mercy -, the human
nature of Chrift is eledtcd, but not of mercy. They argue, that fuppofing it
fliould be admitted, that election is an aft 6f mercy, it mufl: either be aHus eli-
citus, an aftual will of being merciful, or a£iu5 imperatus, the aft of flTewino-
mercy itfelf : not the latter, becaufe that fuppofes perfons not merely foreknown
as miferable, but in aftual being, and in real mifery, and is a tranfient aft up-
on them •, -whereas eleftion puts nothing in the perfons chofen : if it is an aft of
mercy, it muft be the former, God's aftual. will of being merciful ; but this
does not neceffarily prefuppofe mifery, or miferable objefts, it being internal,
and immanent in God, and the fame with his mercy itfelf; and would have
been the fame, nor would God have been the Icfs merciful, if the world had not
been, and there had never been a miferable objeft on whom to difplay it. The
aft of eleftion does not prefuppofe men finners and miferable, nor indeed can
it; for fliould it prefuppofe fin, it would prefuppofe the decree of the permif-
Con of fin ; and the permiflion of fin would be firfl: in God's intention, than man's
falvation of God's mercy, and confequently would be lafl: in execution; than
which, nothing can be thought of more abfurd. Bcfides, though election is
not an aft of mercy, yet it is far from having any tendency to leflcn the mercy
of God, and does, even according to the Supralapfarian fcheme, abundantly
provide for the glorifying of it ; fince, according to that, the decree of tlie end
is, the glorifying of the grace and mercy ofGod, tempered withjuflice: The
decree of the means provides for the bringing about of this end, which includes
creation, the permi(r:on of fin, the miflion of Chrifl, fanftification, and com-
pleat falvation; fo that the elcft of God may well be czWed vejfels of mercy ; fince
through fuch means, they are brought to eternal life and glory ; though, in
the decree of the end, they are confidered as not yet created and fallen, than
which, nothing can more tend to advance the free grace and mercy of God.
4. This author" urges, that " this way of fliating eleftion flrikes fcvercly
*' againft the juftice of God, in pafling by the relt of mankind, not included
in
' Rom. xi. J, 6. ™ Vid. Twifs. Vir.diclx, 1. i. p. i. D'gr. iv. c. i &: Di^r. ix. c. i — 4^.
• Sopralapfar'an Schera :, p.. 9.
•Tt TRUTH DEFENDED.
«' in this decree ; for hereby they are rejefted as creatures only, and not as fin-
" ful creatures." It is very ftrange, that election fliould feverely ftrike againft
thejuftice of God, when, according to this way of flatitig it, it is a choice of
perfons to eternal life and happinefsfor the glorifying of the grace and mercy
of God, mixed with his juftice •, and fo as much provides in end and means, for
the honourof divine juftice, as for the glory of grace and mercy : and it is ftrang-
cr ftill, that eleftion fliould be a pafTing by the reft of mankind, not included'
in this decree : I fuppofe he means reprobation ; for he has an extraordinary
hand at putting one thing for another. Now let it be obferved, that though
the Supralapfarians do not confider reprobation as an afl of juftice, but of fovc-
reionty, yet not of injuftice; nor does their way of ftating it at all ftrike at the
juftice of God. They fuppofe, that God, in the aft of preterition, confidcred
theobjedts of it, as not yet created and fallen ; and determined, when created,-
to leave them to their own will, and deny them that grace which he is not oblig-
ed to give : and where is the injuftice of all this ? But then, though they do not
premilc fin to the confideration of the zt\ of preterition, yet they always premife
it to the decree of damnation ; which tiiis author, as is generally done, con-
founds together. They fay, that as God damns no man, but for fin, fo he de-
creed to damn no man, but for fin : and furely this cannot be thought to ftrike
feverely againft the juftice of God. It is true, they do not look upon fin to be
the caufe of the decree of reprobation, quoad aSium vokntis, which can only be
the will of God; but quoad res voliias, the caufe of the thing willed, damnation.
Befides, this way of ftating the decrees of elcftion and reprobation, refpedtin.cr
men, can no more ftrike at the juftice of God, than the way of ftating thefe
decrees, rcfpeifling angels, does ; which cannot be done in another way : for
the elefl angels could never be confidered as fallen ; and therefore the other an-
gels, who were paffed by, and rejefted at the fame time, muft be rejected as
creatures only, and not as finful creatures ; unlefs it can be thought that the an-
gels were not chofen and pafted by at the fame time, nor then confidered in a
like ftate; and that God chofe fome of them upon ilieir forefeen holinefs and
obedience, and rejefted the reft upon tiieir forefeen rebellion and difobedience ;
and iffo, why may not the cleftion and rejeftion of men, bethought to pro-
ceed upon the fame foot ? which none, tliat I know of, will come into, buc
fuch that are in the Arminian fchcme. Tliis theme, our author fays, he ha?
been always cautious of meddling with, left he fliould darken coiinfelfcr wxnt
ef knozvled^e ; and it is pity he meddled with it now, fince he difcovcrs fo much
ignorance of it : who can forbear thinking of the common proverb ? Thushiv-
intr confidered what he calls the foundation doftrinc of the Supralapfarians, he
proceeds,
II. To
TRUTH DEFENDED. ji
II. To examine fome of the doflrines ° which grow .from this root, as the
natural offspring of it, and appear with the fame completion ; and begins,
I. With their doftrine of eternal juftification. What this author fays, I am
perfuaded, will never meet with general credit, "that eternal juftification is the
" natural offspring of the Supralapfarian dodrine, refpedting the objeds of clec-
" tion, not confidered as fallen creatiires." He goes all along, I obferve, upon
a falfe notion, that whatever is thought, or faid to be done in eternicy, is a Su-
pralapfarian dodlrine : whereas, the Sublapfarians themfelves allow eledion to
be from eternity, before the foundation of the world, and fo before the fall of
Adam, though not without the confideration of it; and in this th?y differ from
the Supralapfarians. 1 know a reverend Divine, now living in this city of
London, who, if I miftake not, reckons himfclf among the Supralapfarians, and
fays, that they dig deepeft into the gofpel -, and yet is a ftrenuous oppofer of
juftification from eternity, and even before faith : on the other hand, there have
been fome who have thought, that the objecl of eleiflion is man fallen, and ycc
have been for juftification before faith. For my own parr, I muft confefs, I ne-
ver confidered juftification from eternity, any other than a Sublapfarian doc-
trine, proceeding upon the furetyftiip-engagements of Chrift, and his future
fatisfafiion and rightcourncfs ; upon wliich foot the Old-Teftament-faints were
opcnlyjuftified, and went to heaven long before the fatisfaftion was really made
or thcjuftifying righreoufnefs brought in i and, indeed, if the objcds of juftifi-
cation are iheungodly, as the fcripture reprcfents them to be, they muft be con-
fidered as fallen creatures. However, if the doflrine of eternal juftification is
the natural offspring of the former, and appears with the fain e compleflion, and
is to be maintained with equal force of argument, we have no reafon to be aftiam-
ed of It •, and I am fure we have no reafon to be in any pain on the account of the
oppofition this doughty writer makes unto it : he fays, we have exceeded all the
bounds of revelation in our inquiries after it, and then barely mentions three or
four places of fcriptures, which fpeak of juftification ^>' faith •, and concludes,
that therefore there is no juftification before it •, an extraordinary way of arguing
indeed ! When juftification by faith no ways contradifts juftification before it-,
nay, juftification perceived, known, enjoyed by faith, fuppofes juftification be-
fore it ; for how (hould any have that {cn^e, perception, and comfort of their
juftification by it, if there was no juftification before it.'' He proceeds p to ob-
ferve the order or chain of falvation, \n Romans \\\\. ^o. where calling is rcpre-
fented as prior to juftification ; an objeftion I have formerly anfwered in my Doc-
trine of Juftification'*^ to which I refer the reader, and take the opportunity of.
Vol. II. L obfcrving
' Supra'apfatian Scheme, p. lo. ' Ibid. p. ii. ' Page 70.
74 TRUTH DEFENDED.
obferving, that neither this author, nor any other, have attempted to anfwer the
arguments there made ufe of in favour of juftification before faith : I will not fay
they zre unmifwerabk \ but I may fay, that as yGtx.\\zy 2.rcunanfivered : this au-
thor, if he pleafes, may try what he can do with.them, and it might have been
expected in this his performance •, but inftead of this, h*e fets himfclf, with all
Jiis miglu, againft fome other doftrines, which he reprefents as Supralapfarian,
as calculated to favour the fcheme of eternal juftification, and as branches of it j
as,
I. " That God was eternally reconciled to the eleift ; and that no fcripturc
*' can be produced to prove that the Lord Jefus did come to procure reconcili-
" ation for them -,. and that wherever Chrift is faid to make peace by his blood,
"^ it is to be iinderftood only of his reconciling the finner to God-'." Whether
he refers to any thing that has been publifhed, or dropped in private converfa-
tion, or who the perfons are, that affirm this, I know not: I greatly fear he
tias beth mifreprefented their words and meaning. I m.uft own, I never heard
of any fuch thing as an eternal reconciliation of God to the eleft. Reconciliation
fuppofes former ffiendfhip, a breach of it, and a conciliation of it again; which
is inconfiftent with the everlafling, invariable and unchangeable love of God to
them. Cod was indeed from everlafting r^fo/;c;7;«^, ■ not himfelf to the world,
but she world of his eleft to himfelf' \ that is, drawing the fcheme and model of
their reconciliation by Chrift, or fettling the way and manner in which reconci-
liation, atonement, and fatisfatftion for their fins, fliould be made ; and accord-
ingly made a covenant of peace with his Son, appointed him to be their peace,
and in the fulnefs of time fcnt him to make peace by the blood of his crcfsy and
laid upon him the chaflifement of i\\c\r' peace ; and who has aftually made recon-
ciliation for their fins; and fo they, even when enemies, were actually reconciled;
that is, their fins were aftually expiated and atoned for to God, by the death of
his Son. This is the doftrine of reconciliation the fcriptures fpeak of, and which
I never knew before was ever reckoned a Supralapfarian dodtrine : for furely
reconciliation, atonement, or fatisfaftion for fin, which are fynonymous terms,
cxprefllveof the fame thing, muft fuppofe perfons finners herein concerned. Let
it t>e farther obferved, that God from all eternity loved his eledl with an invari-
able love ; that he never entertained any hatred of them, or was at enmity with
them ; that there is no fuch thing as a change in God from hatred to love, any
more than from love to hatred ; that our Lord Jefus Chrift did not by his aton-
iniT facrifiie procure his Father's love to the cleft, feeing his being a propitiation
for fin was a fruit, cfFeft, and evidence of that love. Agreeably, the fcriptures
never fpeak of God's being reconciled to his cleft either in eternity or in time,
but of their being reconciled to him ; and not fo nnich of the reconciliation of
their
» Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 12. '2 Cor. v. 19.
-TRUTHDEFENDED. 75
their pcrfons, as- of a reconciliation for their fins-, whereby their perfons are
reconciled, not to the love and affcftions of God, which they always (hared in,
but to theya/?;Vtf of God, which infifted upon a fatisfaftion to a broken law;
which being given, both love and jaftice are reconciled logether, righteoufnefs
ar.d peace kifs each other, in the affair of their faliration. Now there is nothing
in this doftrine of reconciliation that is oppofue,.
( I.) To the fin-ofterings and peace-offerings under the law; fince thefe were
made to the God of Ifrael for the people of Ifrael, whom God loved above all
people that were upon the face of the earth, and were typical of that atoning
facrifice, in which indeed were difcovered the fevereft rcfentmentof jufticeagainfl:
ftn, and yet the cleareft evidence of ftrong love and affedions to perfons then
enemies, and defticute of love to God: Herein is love, not that we loved God,
but that he loved us, and fen t his Son to be the propitiation for our fins \ In this
both type and antitype agree, that the reconciliation is not of God to men, but
for men to God ; though this author fays, " it is part all difpute, that the party
" to be reconciled is God " ;" when it is the very thing in difpute between us.
It is no where faid of the facrifices of the law, that God was reconciled by them
to the people oi Ifrael; and it is no where faid of the facrifice of Chrilt, the
antitype of them, that God .is by it reconciled to his eleft; though I am content
that God flioukl be faid to be reconciled to his elcd by the death of Chrili:,
provided no more is meant by it than fatisfying of his juflice, not a conciliating
or procuring his love and favour. The author's reafoning on the denial of this,
that the reconciliation muft be made to the houfc of Ifrael, or for the God of
Ifrael, or with the finner or the fin, is fo ftupid and f&nfclcfs, that it delerves
DO confidcration.
(2.) Nor does this dodrine, which denies that Chrift came to reconcile God
to finncrs, oppofe, as is fuggefted ", what is prophefied of him in the Old
Tcftamenr, or whir is affirmed of his perfornjance in the New; fince though it
was prophefied of him, that God fliould make his foul an offering for fin'' ; and
it is affirmed of him, that he gave himfelf for us, an offering and a facrifice to God -" ;
yet it is neither faid that he fliould, or that he did do this for the elcil, to re-
move any enmity in tlie heart of God againft them, or to turn any hatred of
bis into love towards them, or to purchafc and procure the love and affctflions
of God for them : fo far from this, that becaufc they had a peculiar fhare in
the love and affedions both of the Father and the Son, the Father made the
foul of his Son an offering for them, and the Son ^avc himfelf an offering unto
God on their account. The Old TelUment fays, that the Lord is wellpkafed
for his righteoufnefs fake ; he will magnify the law, and make it honour able "^ ; and
L 2 the
' 1 John iv.io. • SupralapfarUn Scheme, p. 15. * Ibid. p. 15.
' H'ai. liii. 10. 1 Ephes. v. 2. - » Ifai. ilii. 21.
76 TRUTH DEFENDED.-
the New Teftament fays, that Chrift has fo loved his, that he has given blmfelf
for them, an offering and a facrifice to God, for a fweet-fmelling favour * ; but nei-
ther the one nor the other fay, that either God was to be, or that he is hereby
reconciled to his elefl, or they hereby ingratiated into his affeftions. What is
written in Colos.'i. 20. iCor. xv. 3. Hei.n.iy. Colos.u. 1^. Ephes. i.y. per-
feflly agree with the doflrine of reconciliation I am now contending for; nor
does this oppofe that plain fcripture, Rom. v. i. Therefore being jujlified by faith,
'it:e have peace with God, through our Lord Jefus- We have no need to remove
the flop in the text; though how this author dare venture to alter the reading
of it, and render the words peace in Cod, or what is his reafon for it, I know
not. The peace the text fpeaks of, does not defign the peace, reconciliation^
and atonement made by the blood of Chrift, but the effect of it ; even an in-
ward confcience peace, which believers have with God, or God-ward, through.
Chrift the donor of it, fpringing and arifing from faith's apprehending an inte-
reft in the juftifying righteoufncfs of the Son of God.
. (3.) Nor does this docftrine lefTen, or tend to fruftrate the great and importanr
ends of our Saviour's fufferings and death, as this author attempts to prove '.
The ends of his fufferings and death were to bring the elcfl to God, to make re-
conciliation for their_/7;;j, to reconcile them to God ; and accordingly they "U-'ere,
even when enemies, reconciled to God by the death of his Son '. Where does the
fcripture ever reprefent the end of Chrift's fufferings and death to be to recon-
cile God to his elcft ; that is, to remove any enmity in his heart againft them,
or to procure for them his love and favour ? but on the contrary, it reprefents
the fufferings and deathof Chrift as fruits and evidences of his matchlefs and
furprifing love to them. Cod commendetb bis love towards us, in that while we
were yet finners, Chrijl died for us^. The dodrines of reconciliation and jufti-
fication, thus viewed in the light of fcripture, can never clafh with the fatisfac-
tion of Chrift, nor tend to Icffen and fruftrate it ; fince reconciliation is no other
than fatisfaftion and atonement to thejuftice of God, and juftification proceeds
upon the foot of fatisfaftion, and everlafting righteoufnefs. "Nor is there room
or reafon for that ftupid inference and conckjfron, that becaufe Chrift came to
reconcile finners to God, therefore he became an offering to the finner, and not
to God. There is a twpfold reconciliation the fcriptures fpeak of; the one is
obtained by the price of Chrift's blood, the other by the power of his grace ; you
have them both in one text, Rom. v. 10. For if when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more heing reconciled, we fhall he
faved by his life. The meaning of which is-; that if, when the elcft of God
were in a ftate of nature, and fo of enmity to God, atonement was made for
their
• Ephes V. t. * Suprahpfarian Scheme, p. 19.
* t Pet. iii. 18. Dan, Ix. 24. Heb. U. 17. Rom. v. ic. •* Rom. v. 8.
TRUTHDEFENDED. -77
their fins by the facrifice and death of Chrift, which is ftrongly exprefTive of
the amazing love of God to them ■, then much more being by the Spirit and
grace of God reconciled to this way of peace, pardon, atonement, life and fal-
vation, they fhall be faved, through the interceding life of their Redeemer.
(4.) This doftrine, as it has been dated, does not render the offices of Chrifl,
as mediator,. intercelTor and high prieft, needlefs, yea, of none effeft -, unlefs
this author can imagine, according to his own fcheme, that it is the fole work
of the mediator, interceflbr and high pried, to reconcile God to the eleft. This
we indeed fay is no part of his work, in fuch fenfe, as to conciliate the love and
favour of God to them ; but does it follow, from hence, that his office is need-
lefs, and of none effed ? Is it not needful, to reconcile the eledt to God, to
make reconciliation for their fins ? Is he not ufeful, as mediator, to be their
advocate and intercefibr, their way of accefs to God, and acceptance with him,
and of conveyance of all the bleffings of the covenant of grace to them,
whence he is called the mediator of it ? I would alio afk this author, if he
thinks when God is reconciled to the eleft by the death of his Son, or rather
when they believe ; for it fcems there is no reconciliation before faith in Chrid,
the blood, facrifice and death of Chrid will not cffetft it, according to thefe
men, till faith has given the finidving droke : I fay, I afk this author, whether
he thinks that the office of Chrid, as mediator, ceafes ? for, according to his
way of reafoning, it fhould ceafe, when reconciliation is really made. Whereas
Chrid, after believing as well as before, is the mediator between Cod and man,
and ever lives to make intercejfion for us'. We are able to prove that Chrid was
fet up as mediator from everlading ; that his mediation was always neceffary,
and ever will be ; that as he is the medium of all grace now to us, he will be
■ the medium of all glory to all eternity. To conclude this head -, our ''author
feems to be convinced thzijohn iii. 16. exprefics the love of God to his eledc,
antecedent to his giving and fending of his Son to be the propitiatory facrifice -,.
fince he does not attempt to offer any thing againd the expofition, or to give
atnother fenfe of it.
2. " Another branch of their (the Supralapfarians) eternal jufiification, is-
♦' faid « to be their refufing to pray for the pardon of fin, any otherwife than
" the manifedation of it to their confcienccs." Strange ! that pardon of fin
fhould be a branch of eternal juftificatlon, when it is a dillinft bleffing from it-,.
as, I think, I have fufficiently made to appear in my treatife " concernin-T it:
ftranger dill ! that refufing to pray for it Hiould be deemed a branch of it : and
what is of all mod wonderful, is, that this fliould be reckoned a Supralapfarian
poinr,,
« I Tira. ii. 5. Heb. vii. 25. ^ Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 24.
» Ibid. p. 25. ' Do^^rine of JuftificatioD, p. 2—5,
78- T R U T H D E F E N D E D;
point, when pardon of fin fuppofes fin, and fin fuppofes the fall ; and whether
it is to be conceived of as in the divine mind, from eternity, or as pafTing into
fuccefTive ads in time, as men fin, or as manifefled to their confcienccs, the
objefls of it cannot be confidered otherwife than as finncrs, fallen creatures;
and therefore is a Sublapfarian, and not a Siipralapfarian dodtrine. Is this man
qualified to examine the Siipralapfarian fcheme? He proceeds to try this prac-
tice of refufing to pray for the pardon of fin, any otherwife than the manifefta-
tion of it to the confcience, by the example of the holy men of God, and by
the advice and diredion of our bleffed Lord and Saviour. He might have
fpared the pains he has taken in collcdting the Lnftanccs of praying for the par-
don of fin, fince the quefiiion is not, whether the faints, in any fenfe, (hould
pray for it -, for we allow, that they have done it, that they are direfted to it,
and fhould do it; but the queflion is, in what fenfe they have done it, and
fhould do it ? Now we apprehend, that when believers pray for the pardon of
fin, that their fenfe and meaning is not, nor fhould it be, as if the blood of
Chrift fliould be fhed again for the rcmilTion of fin, or as if compleat pardon
was not procured by it, or as though this was to be obtained by their praying,
tears, humiliation, and repentance, or that any new aft of pardon fliould arife
in the mind of God, and be afreQi pafled ; but when they pray in this manner,
their meaning is, either that God would, in a providential way, deliver them
-out of prefent difiirefs, or avert thofe troubles and forrows they might juftly
fear; or, that they might have the fenfe and manifeftation of pardon to their
fouls, frcfli fprinklings of the blood of Jefus, and renewed applications of it to
fheir confcienccs ; and this, we believe, is both their duty and intereft to do
daily, fince they are daily finning againft God, grieving his Spirit, and wound-
ing their own confcienccs '. The inftance of the apoftle's advifing Simon Magus
to pray, is not to pray particularly for the pardon of fin, or that the evil thought
of his hjeart might be forgiven him, as liiis author fuggcfts '' ; but to repent and
pray in general ; and this is added by way of 'encouragement. If perhaps the
thought cf ihine heari may be forgiven thee. However, I will not contend with
him about it, fince nothing in this controverfy depends upon it. He goes ' on
to obferve, that,
3. ■'* The third branch of their eternal juftification is, that God loved and de-
'♦ lighted in the eleft as much while in their finful ftate, and in the height of their
" rebellion againft his laws, as when they are converted, and made obedient to
« his ways." That God loves his ele<ft, and delights in them, as confidered
inChrift, and fo as juftified in him before the foundation of the world, I firm-
Jy believe ; and which is far from being a licentious way of talking, or from be-
ing any contradidion to the holincfs of God : but that his love to them, and
delight
« See my Difcourfe on Prayer, p. 27, 28. '' Page 27. - ' Page 28.
D
TRUTH DEFENDED. 79
delio-ht in them as fuch, fhould be a brancb of tkeir eternal jujiif cation, is what
I confefs I never was acquainted with before -, and what is more news ftill, is,
that ihis/purious tenet, as this authxDr in his great wifdom and modefty calls it, is
built upon eternal union with Chrirt:, which he reprefents as a falfe and fandy
foundation -, whereas the pcrfons he oppofes, confider the everlafting love of
iGod to his eleift as the foundation, yea, the bond of their eternal union. Of
this one would think he could not be ignorant -, but really every page, and al-
moft every line, difcover fuch ftupidity and ignorance, that it is not at all to be
marvelled at. He goes on, in his former way, to confider this tenet of God's
lovins and delightin'^ in his eledl, while in their unconverted eftate with the
reft, as a Supralapfarian point -, and which he calls a common maxim of the
Supralapfarians. 1 intreat this author, that he would never more anempt to
write about Supralapfarian principles, or to try and examine the Supralapfarian
fchcme, until fome of his friends, patrons, or editors, have better informed
him concerning them. What, is this a Supralapfarian tenet, that God loves
and delights in his cleft while in their finful ftate, and in the height of their re-
bellion ? Surely thcfe perfors muft beconfidcred as finners, as fallen creatures;
and therefore as this author has ftated the point, it muft be a Soblapfarian, and
not a Supralapfarian one. Had he indeed rcprefcnied it as our fcnfe, that God
loved and delighted in his ele6t, as in Chrift from all eternity, above t! . fall,
and without any confidcration of it, he had done us morejuftice; and this
would have bid fair to have been deemed a Supralapfarian point: but this
would not have anfwered his wicked defign ; I can call it no other, wiiich is,
to fuggeft to weak minds " that God loves and delights in the fins and rebels
" lions of his elecft, or loves and delights in them confidered as finners, and
" rebellious pcrfons;" things we abhor, as much as he: for what elfe can re-
fiedt diftionour on theChriftian religion, or ftrike at the dodtrine of God's holi-
nefs, or ftand diametrically oppofitc to all praftical godlinefs, or oppofe thofe
fcriptures which fpeakof God as hating fin, and abhorring the workers of ini-
quity ? Not the doftrine of God's loving and delighting in his eleft, as confi-
dered in Chrift, in whom they cannot be confidered otherwife than as holy and
righteous. We know that rnen in an unconverted ftate cannot pleafe God, that
is, do thofe things which are well-plcafing to him ; and yet their perfons may
be acceptable in his fight, not as confidered in themfclves ; for fo they cannot
be, even after converfion, notwithftanding all their humiliations, repentance,
tears, prayers, and fcrvices ; but as confidered in Chrift, in whom, and in
whom alone, they are the objcdls of God's love and delight. But it feems wc
are to hear of this again ; and therefore at prcfent.l fliall take my leave of it,
till we know what he has farther to objcdl.
4. He
«o TRUTH D E F E K D E D.
4. He proceeds " to prove, " that thefe authors (the Supralapfarians) in
^' order to fupport their doflrine of eternal juftiBcation, have very unjuftly
*' afHrmed that our blelFed Saviour was by imputation a firmer; vea, that he
" became very fin." I fhall content myfelf in making fome general obfervations
upon his long harangue on this head, which will fcrVe to difcover his weaknefs
and ignorance.
(i.) I obferve, that as his title-page promifes an examination of fome doc-
trines in theSupralapfarian fcheme, and his aflurance leads him on ; fo, accord-
ing to his ufual way, he affirms that the dodrine of Chrift's being made fin, or
a finner by imputation, or of the imputation of fin to Chrifi, is a doflrine in tlie
Supralapfarian fcheme, or a Supralapfarian notion : whereas imputation of fin
fuppofes fin, and that fuppofes the fall ; wherefore the perfons whofe fins were
imputed to Chrift, and in whofe room and (lead he bore them, muft be con-
fidered as finners and fallen creatures. And hence it appears to be a Sublap-
farian, and not a Supralapfarian dodrine.
( 2.) I take notice of the unfair and difingenuous dealing of this writer. He
firft propofcs to prove, that it is unjuftly affirmed that Chrift was by imputation
a finner, and immediately alters the ftate of the queftion, and reprefents it as
the notion of the Supralapfarians, that Chrifl: was really the finner, and made
truly und properly fin, and made fin, or a finner, in a proper fenfe"; whereas
though, with Dr Crifp, we affirm, that there was a r^/:/ tranfaftion, a real im-
putation of fin to Chrifl, and that he really bore the fins of his people in the
Proteftant fenfe, as oppofed to that of the Papifts, who fneeringly call every
thing imputed, putative, fantaftic and imaginary, with whom our author feems
to join: but then we fay that Chrifl is only the finner by imputation, or was
-only made fin this way ; not that fin was inherently in him, or that it was com-
mitted by him ; in which fenfe only he can be truly, properly, and really the
finner. And this is what Dr Crifp himfelf fays, and that in the very pafiage
this man takes upon him to confute : " Chrifl, fays he, ftands a finner in God's
*' eyes ; though not as the aflor of tranfgrefTions, yet as he was the furety." This
obfervation alone is fufficient to fet afide all the trifling and impertinent reafonings
of this writer on this head. We are not afraid, nor afhamed to fay, that Chrift
was made original and adtual fin in this fenfe ; that is to fay, that original fin,
and the aflual fins of God's people, were imputed to Chrill, and he bore them
and made fatisfadlion to juflice for them : Nor can we obferve any abfurdity in
dcfcendingto particulars, and faying that the fwcaring, the lying, blafphemy,
Cdc. ofGod's eledl, were laid upon him, imputed to him, and he took them upon
him, and bore them away. Nor does this reflefl upon the holinefs of God, as
- this
" ■ Sapralapfarian Scheme, p. 31. 31. * Ibid. p. 33, 37, 48.
TRUTH DEFENDED. 8t
this man ruggefls°, in making his Son by imputation the word thing that ever
was in the world ; fince there never was any one thing in the world which fo
much difcovers the holinefs of God, and flridnefs of his juftice, than his giv-
ing his Son to be the propiiiation for our fins ; which could not be done with-
out the imputation of them to him : Nor does this afl of imputation make God
the author of fin, anymore than the imputation of the righteoufnefs of Chrift
makes the Father the author of that righteoufnefs ; nor does this refleft dillib-
nour, either on the divine or human nature ofChrifl:, fince neither of them
can be defiled with fin ; but, on the other hand, ferves much to exprefs the
wonderous love, grace, and condefcenfion ofChrift, that ,6^ "ivko knew no Jin,
fhould be made fin for us.
(3.) I obferve the rudenefs of the man, in reprefenting the dodlrine of the
imputation of fin to Chrift, or his being made fin by imputation, "as vile and
" ridiculous, and equally as pernicious as Tranfubftantiation ^ ; a fcheme not
" to be freed from inexplicable perplexities, and vile nonfenfc''; callinn- ic
" ridiculous dodrine, fpurious ftufT, yea, blafphemy ' ;" when it is tlie doc-
trine of our reformers, of all found Proteftant divines, never denied by any
but Socinians and Armenians, or fuch as are inclined to tliem : Wherefore had
he thought fit to have rcjefted it, yet for the fake of fo many valuable men who
have efpoufed it, he ought to have treated it with decency. Nor can I pafs
by his rude treatment of DrCiifp undMrHufey; the one he reprcfents as "uilcy
of blafphemy, or fomething like it, and an addle-headed man, thu: kntiu not
'X'bat he wrote' ; and the other, as a ridiculous tvriter' ; when they were both,
in their day and generation, men of great piety and learning, of lono- ftandin"-
and much ufcfulnefs in the church ofChrift; whofe name and memory will be
dear and precious to the faints, when this writer, and his pamphlet, will be
remembered no more,
(4.) I obferve, this author treats the doftrine of Chrift's being a finner by
iniputation, as a novel doftrine ", and embraced by men of a vehement thirft
after novelty. I have already hinted, that this was the dodlrine of the firfl:
reformers, and all found Protefl:ant divines, that our fins were imputed to
Chrill, and Chrift's righteoufnefs imputed to us. This was the faith of the
ancient church, in the .firft ages of chriftianity, as appears from a pafi"ao-e of
Jujlin IVhrtyr", one of the moft early chriftian writers extant: " What elfe,
*' fays he, fpeaking ofChrift, could cover our fins, but his righteoufnefs? In
" whom could we, tranfgrefibrs and ungodly, be juftified, than in the only
Vol. II. M Son
• Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 39, 40. f Ibid. p. 37, jg, jj. t Page 46.
' P»ge 47 — 49. * Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 38, 47, jo. • Ibid. p. 5 j.
" Ibid. p. 37, 49. * Epili ad Diognet. p. 500.
82 TRUTH DEFENDEET. ■
" Son of God? SI VIS yKv)uuaf *c7BM*9iif, " O fweec change!" O unfearchable
" performance ! O unexpefted benefits! Ic* aytfua. (ji.iv ttoWiuc ir c/)»«« in ii(jCti\
" that the tranfgrelTion of many fhould be hid in one righteous perfon ; and
" the righteoufnefs of one juftify many tranfgrelTors." Yea, feme of the an-
cient writers have exprefTed themfclves in terms full as exceptionable as what
T): Cri/p has made ufe of: fo Cbryfojlom'^ ; " Tcr jaf ^kouov iminnf AtutfTaMf -^
" for he hath made that righteous one a finner, that he might make finners
■*' righteous :" indeed he does not only fay fo, A>^' « -zjo^Xa juw^ok nv, " but what
*' was much more-," for he does not exprefs the habit, but the quality; he
" does not fay, he made him a finner, but fin itfclf ; that we might be made,
" he does not fay righteous, but righteoufnefs, even the righteouinefs of God."
So Oecumenius '' ; " Chrifi:, fays he, Hefl-fo/^jt Afxa.flaKQ-j " was the great finner,"
" feeing he took upon him the fins of the whole world, and made them bis own."'
So Jujiin'' ; "He, that is, Chrift, is fin, as we are righteoufnefs; not our
" own, but God's ; not in ourfelves, but in h\m ijicut ipfe peccalum, non fuinn-
" fed nojirum, even as he himfelf is fin ; not his own, but ours ; not in himfelf,.
" but in us." Some of them have been very exprefs, as to Chrifi's bearing
the filth of fin; particularly Grt'_|cry of iVy^a ; "For, fays he ', fpeaking of
" Chrift, m«7b5«( yif «e?f iaxi\ov nv -jay i/Mit cLunfTiiv ft/wf, having tranOatcd to
♦' himfelf the filth of my fins, he imparted to me his own purity, and made me
" a partaker of his beauty." And in another place \ fays he, " the pure and
" harmlefs one, Toe rm AydfaTirnf <pvjia( KitTaAx^l"-' {'■^''tcy, took upon him, or
" received the filth of human nature ; and paffing through all our povert}',
" came to the trial of death itfelf." And elfewhere he fays % " purity was,
" <r TO ti/j-ilifa fowj, in our filth ; but the filth did not touch that purity ;"
meaning, that the holy nature of Chrift was not defiled by it. I fiiall not now
take notice of fome later writers ; perhaps I may hereafter : I hope this will be.
fufficient to clear the doflrine from the charge of novelty.
(5.) I cannot overlook the wretched vanity and ignorance of the man about
tropes and figures. Though I cannot but think his learned friend, or friends^
who had the fupervifal of his performance, have been far from afling the kind,,
faithful, and friendly part, in fuffering him to expofe himfelf as he has done-,
he tells US'*, that " it is very evident, that all the fcriptures that they {Dr Cri/p,
" and others) depend upon as plain proofs that Chrift was made very fin for us,
" are melonomies, which is a figure frequently to be met with in the Bible ; "
and'
« In t Cor. Homil. II. '' In Heb. ix. p. 845. » Enchirid. c. 41..
» In Cant. Homil, 2. p. 491. t> De Beatitud. Orat. 1. p. 767.
• Id Diem. Nat. Cbrift. p. 787, Vol. II. ^ Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 35, 36.
TRUTH DEFENDED. 83
and then by an afterifk, we are direded to the margin, where, for the fake of
the poor, illiterate Supralapfarians, a definition is given of a metonymy, which
is this; " a metonomy is a changing, or putting one thing, or more, for an-
" other:" " and, fays he, in the body of his work, fometimes you have the
" caufe for th-e efFeft, and fometimes the efFcfl put for the caufe •," and among
the inftances, he produces this is one, t\i^i unbelief is put for faith. Now, not
to take notice that a metonymy is a trope, and not a figure, nor of his mifcall-
\ng\x. met oncm)\ m^lczdoi metonytny., which might have been thou^rht to have
been an error of the prefs, but that it is fo often repeated ; I fay, not to take
notice of thefe things; he fays, " a metonomy is a changing, or putting one
" thing, or more, for another;" but furely it is not a changing, or putting any
one thing for another ; it looks as if he thought fo, feeing, among his examples,
he vaakcs unbelief to be put for faith. There is a metonymy of the caufe and
cffed, fubjedt and adjundl, but never of contraries ; as grace and fin, vice and
virtue, faith and unbelief are : this looks more like the figure antiphrq/is, than
the trope metonymy. Our author, by his new figure in rhetoric, will be able,
in a very beautiful manner, to bring off the vileft of creatures, that call evil
good., and good evil; that put darknefs for light, and light for darknefs \ that put
Utter for fweet, and fweet for bitter'. Let me afk this author, fince he has put
this inftance among his examples of a metonymy of the caufe for the effefl, and
of the cffeft for the caufe ; let me, I fay, afk him, whether he thinks unbelief
is the caufe of faith, or faith the caufe of unbelief; and feeing he has got fuch
a good hand at metonymies, we will try what life he can make of them in ex-
plaining the fcripiures in this controverfy.
(6.) The fcriptures made ufe of to prove the imputation of fin to Chrift, or
<hat Chrifl was made fin by imputation, are, aCor.v. 21. Ifai.Y\\\.6. Now
our '' author " hopes to make it plain, that thefe fcriptures are as truly figura-
'■'■ tive texts as thofe are that reprefent Chrift to be a lion, a ftar, a door, a rock,
'■'■ a vine," &c. and obfcrves, that " all the fcriptures depended on as plain
" .proofs, that Chrift was made very fin for us, zrcmelonomies." But hefhould
have obferved, that the fcriptures which fpeak of Chrift as a lion, a ftar, a door,
a rock, a vine, &c. are metaphors, and not metonymies; and could he pro-
duce any, where Chrift is faid to be made a lion, a ftar, a door, a rock, a vine,
.&c. there would appear a greater likenefs between them, and fuch a text which
fays, he was made fin for us : he fancies f the dodtrine of tranfubftanuation is as
well fupported by fcripture as this doftrine ; that the conftrudlions we put upon
the texts in difpute about it, are as grofs as thofe the Papifts put on fuch as they
produce in favour of theirs; which is not very furprifing, fince he feems to have
M 2 an
■• Ifai, V, 20. ' Supra'apfajian Scbemc, p. 35. * Ibid, p. 37.
1
84 TRUTH DEFENDED.
an opinion of popifh docftrines, and to be verging that way, for in one ' part
of this performance of his, he frankly acknowledges, that he has no high opinion
of popifh doflrines, which fuppofcs that he has an opinion of them, and begins,
at leaft, to think a little favourably of them, though not very highly. But let
us attend to the texts in difpute ; the firft is, 2 Cer. v. 21. For he hath made
him to hs fm fcr us, who kneiv no fin, that "x-e might be made the right eotifnefs of
God in him; which, he fays, has been notorioufly wrefted, and obfcrves '', that
*' this text, in both parts of it, is metonomically fpoken, and is the caufe put
" for the efFeft ; and the native language of it is, that God made his dear Son
" a fin-offerincr for us, that we might partake of the promifed bleffings, or the
" rio-hteoufnefs of God in him." Admitting; the words are to be taken in a
metonymical fenfe, yea, that the meaning is, that Chrift was made an offering
for fin ; they are not a metonymy of the caufe for the effedl -, for fin is not the
caufe, though the occafion of a fin-offering; there might have been fin and no
offerino- for it : offering for fin is not an effed: neceffarily arifing from it, but
what purely depended on the wilt and pleafure of God \ but taking the words
in the fenfe of a fin-offering, it is, as P;/ffl/cr ' obferves, Per metonymiam fuhjeEii
eccupantis in veteri Tejiamento ufitatam. Befides, this fenfe of the words is fo
far from dedroyincr the dodtrine of the imputation of fin to Chrift, that it ferves to
confirm it : for as the typical fin-offerings under the law, had firft the fins of
the people put upon them by the prieft, and typically imputed to them, and
were bore by them, Lev. x. 17. before they could be offered for them -, fo our
Lord Jefus was firft made fin, or had the fins of his people imputed to him,.
or he could never have been made an offering for them. I deny, that falv.i
juftitia Dei, confiftent with the jufticc of God, Chrift, an innocent perfon, could
ever bear even the punifhmeat of our fins, or be made a facrifice for them, or
die for them, as he did, according to the fcriptures, if they had not been im-
puted to him; punifiimenf could never have been infliiled on him, if fin had
not been reckoned to him. Though I fee no reafon why Jin, in one and the
lame fentence here, fliould have two different meanings, as it muft have,
according to this fenfe of them, he hath made him to beftn for its, who knew no
ftn : the word Jin, laft mentioned, cannot be meant of an offering for fin; for it
is not true, that Chrift knew no fin-offering, when multitudes had been offered
up under the law ; but the meaning is, that he never was guilty of fin ; and yet
he who never was guilty of fin, was made fo by imputation, that is, had the
guilt of our fins imputed to him ; which well agrees with, and may be con-
firmed by the latter part of the text, that we might be made the righteoufnefs of
Cod in him. Now in the fame way that we are made the righteoufnefs of God,
was
' Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 125. " Ibid. p. 37, 38. ' In loc.
TRUTH DEFENDED. 85
wajChrift made fin : we are made the righteoufnefs of God by imputation, that
is, the righteoufnefs of Chrift, who is both God and man, is imputed to us •,
fo Chrift was made fin by imputation, that is, our fins were imputed to him.
What this author fays " concerning our being made the effedts of God's righte-
oufnefs or faithfulnefs, I own, I cannot, for my life, form any idea of; and
though he has attempted to explain it, he has left it inexplicable-, I choofe not
to ufe his own phrafc, inexplicable nonfenfe. Before I difmifs this text, I would
take notice of one very extraordinary obfervation of this author's"; which is,
that this way of reafoning to prove Chrift a finner, will prove that all men,
that have the righteoufnej's of Chrift imputed to them, are their own faviours ;
his argument is this : " If by the imputation of our condemning fins to Chrift
" he was made a finner, then, by the imputation of his faving righteoufnefs,
" we are made faviours." But, with his leave, this does not follow; but the
truth and force of the reafoning ftands thus : If by the imputation of our con-
demning fins to Chrift, he was made a finner, and condemned as fuch, then,
by the imputation of his righteoufnefs, we are made righteous, and faved as
fuch; for not finner and faviour, but finner and righteous, falvation and con-
demnation, are the antithcfes. Give me leave to fubjoin the fenfe of two or
three of our principal reformers, and found Proteftant divines, of this pafl"age
of fcripture, who wrote long before Dr Crifp\ time. Calvin upon the text fays;
" How arc we righ'teous before God? namely, as Chrift was 3. finner ; for, in
" fome refpedts, he fullained our perfon, that he might become ^«;7/>' in our
" name; and, as a finner, be condemned, not for his own, but the offences
" of others ; feeing he was pure, and free from all fault, and underwent punifii-
" ment due, not to himfelf, but to us :" which agrees with what he fays on
CaLWi. 13. " Becaufe he fuftained our perfon, therefore he was z finner, and
" deferving of the curfe ; not as in himfelf, but as in us." Beza on the place,
has thefe words ; that " the antithefs requires, that rather Chrift ihould be
" faid to be made fin for us, that is, a finner ^ not in himfelf, but on the ac-
•' count oi xht guilt of all our fins, imputed to him; of which the two goats
" were a figure, mentioned Z-^i;. xvi." Pifcator, as well as ^f^j, having men-
tioned the other fenfe of Chrift's being made a fin-off"cring, adds, " rather fin
" here, by a metonymy of the adjunfl, fignifies fumrnum peccalorem" " the
" chief finner; " inafmuch as all the fins of all the eleft were imputed to Chrift;
** which expofition the following antithefis favours, that we might be made the
" rigbtecufnefs of God in bim ; that is, " righteous before God ; namely, by a
" righteoufnefs obtained by the facrifice of Chrift, imputed to us by God."
So that though the words may be wken in a metonymical fenfe ; yet tliey are
not
" Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 41, /^3. ■ Ibid. p. 49.
,^-S6 T R U T H D E F E N D E D.
fiot a metonymy of the caufe for theeffeft, but a metonymy of the adjunfl: fo
/cehis is put for fcelejius, by Latin authors, as here fin for the finner.
I now proceed to what our author has to fay to I/ai. liii. .6. The Lord hath laid
-on him the iniquity of us all. This text, he fays % Dr Crifp makes the founda-
tion of his feveral fermons, to prove that our bleffed Lord was made a finner;
•and fays, that he very injudicioufly affirms, that it is the very faulr, or tranf-
grefTion itfelf, that the Lord laid upon Chrifb; but he purpofes to make it plain,
that he is miftakenin his opinion about this text, and that it was not the crime
or fault, but the puniftiment due to us for our fins, that was laid upon Chrifl,
which, he thinks, is evident from ver. 5, 7. To which I reply; that the pu-
■nifliment due to us for fin, could not have been laid upon Chrift, nor could he
have been wounded few our tranfgrenions, or bruifed forour fins, 0; have been
opprefil'd and afilifted, had he not had our fins laid upon him, that is, imputed
to him : nor is it inconfiftent with the holinefs of God, to take either original
(in, or our adtual fins and tranfgrefTions, even particular fins, and by them upon
Chrift; fince this was done in order to fiiew his infinite holinefs, his indigna-
tion againft fin, and the ftridtnefs and fcverity of hisjuftice in the puniflimenc
of it ; nor is this inconfiftent with the nature of fin, nor any rude and extrava-
gant way of thinking of it, which furely may as truly and properly be put, or
iiid upon Chrift, as the iniquities and iranfgreffions of the children of //risJin
all their fins, which mean thcirvery crimes, were typically put and laid upon
the fcape-goat. This writer '' goes on to obferve, that the prophecy in Ifaiah
liii. 4. Surely he hath home our griefs, and carried ourforrows, was fulfilled by our
Lord's healing the difeafcs of the people. Matt. viii. 16, 17. and argues, that
if the text in Ifai. liii. 4. is to be conftrued in the fame method as the fixth and
eleventh verfes arc, the confeqiience will be, that our Lord bore the palfy of
the Centurion's fervant, and the fever of Peter's wife's mother : this, he thinks,
•will greatly hamper our fcheme, fo that we ftiall not be able to produce any
thing confiftent with it, free from inexplicable perplexities and vile nonfenfe.
But what reafon can 'be given, why the expreftions in the feveral places, fhould
be interpreted in the fame way ? What though our Lord, in his ftatc of incar-
nation, beincr a wan of forrows and acquainted with griefs, is faid to hear the
griefs, and carry the forroijos of men, becaufe he had companion on them, and
I'ympathized with them in their ficknefs, which put him upon healing of them ;
and in fuch fenfe, bore them as a parent bears the ficknefies of a child, or a
.■hun)and bears the infirmities of a wife ; for we have not an high prieji which can-
not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities : does it therefore follow, that this
^uft be the fenfe of Chrift's bearing our fins, when he fuffered for them as our
furety i
-* inpralapfarian Scheme, p 41}. ' Ibid. p. 46.
TRUTH DEFENDED. 87-
fijrety ? Can it bethought that lie fympathized with our fins, or with us on
the account of them, which put him upon fuffering for them, as he is faid to
bear or fympathize with mens fickneflcs and difeafes, or with them upon the
account of them, which put him upon healing of them ?
(7.) The imputation of the filth of fin toChrift, and his bearing of it, would
come next to be confidered ; but our author has not thought fit to make ufe of
any arguments againfl: it, and therefore I do not think myfelf obliged to en-
large upon it ; only would obferve, that filth and guilt are infeparable from
fin; and therefore, if fin Is laid upon Chrifl, and imputed to him, guilt and-
filth muft be likewife : nor can I fee how we can expedl to be cleared of the one
and cleanfed from the other, unlefs Chrift bore them both, when his foul was.
made an- offering for fin, and his blood was (hed to cleanfe from it. This writer
would, indeed, be nibbling at it, but knows not how to go about it; and only
cavils at fome cxprelTions of Mr Biiffey'% concerning it. Whether, in Pfalm c. 7.
there is any allufion to the brook Cedron, or Kidron, over which ourLord went
into the garden, I will not fay ; but I fee not why that black and unclean brook,
or common-fewer, may not be an emblem of the pollutions and defilements of
fin ; which being laid on Chrift when he pafled over that brook, made him fo
heavy and fore amazed in his human nature, as to defire the cup might pafs fronv
him. As to what Mr Hujfey fays of our iniquities being put into this bitter cup,
and of his drinking of ir, and of the torrent of our fins and blacknefics runnino-
into his foul with that wrath ; this is:not to be underftood of fin being inherent
in him, or of his being defiled with it, the contrary to which he folidly proves ;
but only of the imputation of them to him, and of his fufception of them ; for
he fays % " It was not pain or torture abftracftly in the bitter draught, but polki-
** tion, the dregs of our fins, fin being the only impure thing in God's account,
" and fo the fpot of fin, the filth and pollutions of fin, were imputed to him by
" his Father, and put upon Chrift's account, and mingled with his wormwood
" cup, that it made his holy foul to tremble." Nor is the fimile he makes ufe
of a foolifh one, of a drop of ink, or poifon, falling upon a fiery globe of brafs,
without leaving any fullying mark upon it, or receiving any (lain or pollution
by it ; nor does it tend to extenuate the flood of the filthinefs of fin, that has
been running ever £\r\zc Adam; nor is it unfuitable to the imputation and fuf-
ception of it; which is all he means by his drinking of it ; but is defigned to
fet forth the infinitenefs of Chrift, and of his power to refift the infefhion and
ftain of fin ; as may be ken at large' in this valuable writer; who himfelf
frankly owns ', " that the fimilitude is impcrfefl, to fet out the matter in the
** deep myftcrics of this gold tried in the fire, or the perfon of Chrift in his fuf-
fcrings ;
• The £l07 of Chrift unveiled, p. 497. » Ibid. p. ^98.
;83
TRUTH DETENDED.
" ferlngsj the greatefl: of which was, the Father's imputation of our fins to
" him." What our author further obfervcs concerning feme texts of fcripture,
engaged by the Supralapfarians, to fpcak for their opinions of eternal juftifi-
cation and adoption, being what is introduced by him, with reference to a
living author, I leave it to him to anfwer for himfelf -, who, I doubt not, will
make a proper and fuitable reply. 'I proceed, -
Secondly, To defend the doctrine o^ -eternal union, which this author calls ' a
-" branch which grows from the fruitful root of the Supralapfarian tree; which,
*' fays he, they ftile eternal, adtual, union." As this author particularly refers
to myfelf, throughout his performance on the head of union, I take leave to
afk him. Where has he found eternal union in any writings of mine, fliled eter-
nal, diiual uvi\on ? I have carefully avoided calling juftification, or union from
eternity, aflual -, though for no other reafon than this, left any fliould imagine,
that! confidered them as tranfient adls of God upon the eledt, which require
their perfonal and adual exiftence ; for orherwife, as I believe, that eternal
eleftion is adtual, and eternal reprobation is aftual, as they are immanent afls
in God ; fo, 1 believe, eternal juftification is aftual, as it is an immanent aCt
in God that juftifies ; and eternal union is aftual, as it is an adt of God's ever-
laftincr love to his ek6t, whereby he has knit and united them to himfelf. I go
onto afk, where have I faid, or who lias told tiiis man, that a non-entity was
united to an exiftence ? The language wnh which this exprefTion is cloathed,
manifeftly Oiews it to be of his own fhaping. The eleft of God, though they
have not an ejfe a£iu, an a6lual being from eternity -, yet they have an ejj'e repre-
fentatrjum, a reprefentative being inChrift from everlafting, which is more than
other creatures have, whofe future exiftence is certain ; and therefore at leaft
capable of a reprefentative union from eternity, and which has been readily
owned by fome divines, who are not altogether in the fame way of thinking
with myfelf However, it feems eternal union is a branch which grows from
the fruitful root (not from the body) of the Supralapfarian tree. Poor crea-
ture ! it is plain he knows nothing of the Supralapfarian tree, as he calls it, ei-
ther root, body, or branch ; for as he is pleafed to explain the meaning of
eternal, aftual union, it is this, " that they (I fuppofe he means the eledt) had
*<■ aftual union with Chrift, whilft they were in their fins •," and if fo, they mult
be confidered in their union with Chrift, as fallen creatures; and then it will
follow, that this is a branch which grows from the Sublapfarian, and not the
Supralapfarian tree. But pafting thefe things, I (hall now attend to what he
lias to objcft to what I have written " on the fubjeft of union. And,
(i.) Whereas
* Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 74. u In a Letter to Mr Abraham Taylor, p. 29. &c.
TRUTH DEFENDED. 89
■( 1.) Whereas I have undertaken to prove that it is not the Spirit on Chrift's
■part, that is the bond of union to him, I endeavoured to do it by obferving
that the Spirit is fent down, and given to God's eleft, in confequence of an
antecedent union of them to Chrift; and that he, in his perfonal inhabitatior,
operations and influences of grace in them, is the evidence, and not the efficient
caufe of their union. That an elect perfon is firft united to Chrift, and then
receives the fpirit in meafure from him, and becomes one fpirit with hirr, I
thought was pretty evident from i Cor. vi. 17. He that is joined Unto the Lord,
4S one fpirit. From whence I concluded, and ftill conclude, that a perfon's be--
•coming one fpirit with Chrift,'or receiving the fame fpirit Chrift has, though in
meafure, is in confequence of his being joined or united to him -, and not that
Jie firrt; becomes one fpirit, or receives the fame fpirit from Chrift, and then is
joined or united to him. The fenfe of the text is evident, and admits of no
difficulty : But, fays " this writer, " it evidently proves that the Spirit of Chrift
*' dwells in all that are united to him." I grant it, that the Spirit of Chrift
dwells in all that are united to him, fooner or later ; but the queftion is, whe-
ther the indwelling of the Spirit is antecedent to their union, or in confequence
of it ? If it is in confequence of it, then that is not the bond of union : If it
is antecedent to it, it muft be before faith; for, according to this man's fcheme,
union is by faith, and there is none before it: and fo the abfurdity he would fain
leave with me, follows himfelf ; " that the holy Spirit dwells with unbelievers."
To illuftrate this matter, of a perfon's receiving the Spirit from Chrift, in con-
fequence of union to him, I made ufe of a fimile taken from the head and mem-
bers of an human body, and the communication of the animal fpirits from the
one to the other, in confequence of the union between them. This author,
though in his great modefty he owns that he is poorly fkilled in philofophy, a
conceffion he needed not have given himfelf the trouble to make ; yet thinks
himfelf capable to make it appear, that I am not a little wanting in the applica-
tion of my argument : I fuppofe he mea.ns fimiie ; for I am often obliged to
guefs at his meaning. But what is it he fancies is wanting ? In what is it inap-
plicable ? Does it not exa61:ly tally withwhat I am fpeaking of .-' But inftead
of fhewing the want of application, or any difparity in the cafe, which he docs
not attempt, he puts me upon proving *, " that there is any life in the head of
" a body natural, when the members are all dead ; or that the life of the natu-
" ral body is all extindt before the head dies, or that the head can fubfift with-
" out any living members, or that the body natural is deftitute of natural life,
" when united to a living head ■" things I have no concern with, and which are
no part of the fimile I make ufe of; and which is made ufe of by me only to
fhew, that as the animal fpirits from the head are communicated to the mem-
. Vol. II. N bers
" Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 76. ' Ibid. p. 77.
90 TRUTH DEFENDED.
. bers of the body, not antecedent to union between them, or in order to efFe6l: ir^
but in confequence of it : fo the Spirit of Chrift is communicated from him the
head to the members of his body, not antecedent to their union, or in order to ef-
fect it, but in confequence of it : whence it follows, that he cannot be the bond
of this union; and by this I abide. For the proof of the Spirit's bein^ the evidence
of communion, and fo of union, and therefore not the bond of it, I produced
1 Johi iii. 24. and chap. iv. 13. Only the firfl: of thefe fcriptures is taken notice
of by this writer"; who fancies that the former part of this text was difagree-
able to me, and therefore left out by me. I declare I was far from thinkinor ir
to be fo ; and am well concent it fhould be tranfcribed at large, i: being a wit-
nefs for, a;id not againll my new notion, as he is pleafed to call it : /f«i he that
keepeth his commandments dweUcth in him., and he in him ; and hereby we kno-jo that
be abidith in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The meaning of which is,
that thofe perfons, who under the influences of the Spirit of God are enabled
to keep the commandments of God, dwell in him, and he in them-, that is,
they have communion with him, as the effcfl of union to him -, for thefe ads
of indwelling are not uniting afts, but ads of communion, in confequence of
union ; of which the Spirit being given them, is an evidence. Now could it
be proved that Chrifl dwells in his people by his Spirit, though the fcripture
no where fays fo, but that he dwells in their hearts by faith -, yet it does not fol-
low that he is united to them by his Spirit, becaufc this aft of indwelling is an
ad of communion : not this, but his everlafling love, which is the foundation
of his dwelling in them, is the bond of union. That the Spirit is the feal of
covenant-love and of union with Chrift,. will not be denied : But then his being
a feal, is no other than his being a certifying evidence and witncfs of thefe things.
Now from the Spirit's being a witnefs and feal of union, this man fuggelts '
that he mud be the bond of it-, becaufe the party that feals, is the principal of
the bond : where his poor wandering head is running upon z pecuniary bond, a
bond in writing, by which a man is bound to another •,. and in which he moft
miferably blunders ; feeing it is not the principal, or he to whom the bond is
made, but the debtor, or he who obliges himfelf to the other, that figns and
IJcals : Whereas the thing in difpute is, a bond of union between perfons, by
which they are united to each other. Nor will it be denied that the Spirit quic-
kens and regenerates us, begets and maintains fpiritual life in us -, but then all
this is in confequence of union to Chrift : nor is it by this fpiritual life which
he begets and maintains, that we have union with our living head, but we have
this fpiritual life as the efird of that union, and thereby have communion with
him; and though the elcd of God, whilftdead in trefpaflcs and fins, have no
communion with Chrift, yet there is a fenfe in which they are united to him
then ; which union is the ground.and foundation of their being quickened.
(2.) Ihave
» Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 79. 1 Ibid. p. 81.
1
TRUTH DEFENDED. 91
(2.) I have alfo affirmed that faith is not the bond of union to Chrift, and
defired thofe who plead for union by faith, to tell us whether we are united to
Chrift by the habit or aft of faith; and fince there are different afts of it, whe-
ther our union is by the firft, fecond, third, &c. afts of believing ? To which
our author has not thought fit to return any anfwer. I go on to argue, that
if union is by faith as an habit, it is not by faith on our part, becaufe "faith, as
fuch, is the gift of God ; and if it be by faith as an aft of ours, it is by a work,
for faith, as fuch, is a work •, and then not by grace, fince works and grace
cannot be blended. To which this author ' replies : " what if we have union
" with Chrift in that part which lies on our fide the queftion, by afls of ours, '
" unto which we are enabled by the Spirit of God, who works faith in us-, does
" this tend to leflen the exceeding grace of God ? " I anfwer, that what he
fays of the Spirit's working faith in us, is right, but that regards faith as an
habit ; though that there is a part lying on our fide the queftion, to bring about
our union to Chrift by an atl of ours, I utterly deny : Strange ! that an uniting
aft, or a bond of union, muft ht parted, that there ft)0uld ht2.part belon^r to us,
and another to the Spirit of God .? But to his queftion I anfwer, that to afcribe
our union to Chrift in part to afts of ours, though enabled to them by the
• Spirit of God, does leflen the grace of God : and I argue thus, that if to afcribe
eleftion in part to works, to any afts of ours as to faith, though enabled to it
by the Spirit of God, would tend to lefl"en the glory of grace in it ; fo to afcribe
our union to Chrift to any afts of ours, to faith as fuch, though enabled to it
by the Spirit of God, would tend to IcfTcn the glory of that grace and love of
Chrift, which is the alone bond of it. This writer * farther fuggefts, that I
incline to admit the grace of love to be the union-bond ; and argues, that that
being an aft of ours, it muft confequently be efteemed a work, and fo be liable
to the fame difficulty : whereas, though I obferve, that had our divines fixed
upon the grace of love as the bond of union, it would have been more plaufible
and feafible than their fixing upon faith; yet I am far from an inclination to
admit of it, when I affirm, in fo many words, that " it is not our love to
" Chrift, but his love to us, which is alone the real bond of our union to him."
I proceed to obferve, that " faith is no uniting grace, nor are any of its afts
" of a cementing nature." This man ''fancies I am guilty of fuch a flagrant
contradiftion, as is not to be produced in any book befides ; becaufe I add,
" faith indeed looks to Chrift, lays hold on him, embraces him, and cleaves
" unto him ; it expefts and receives all from Chrift, and gives him all the glory."
Thefe fentences, it feems, are clofely united ; and yet an agreement between
them cannot be proved. I own, I am not fo quick-fighted as to fee any con-
N 2 tradiftion,
» Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 82. • Ibid. p. 83. * Ibid. p. S3,
n
92 TRUTH DEFENDED,.
tradidlion, much lefs a flagrant one, in them. Was I fenfible of it, I fhould-
be thankful for the difcovery. I perceive that the afls of laying hold on, em-
bracing and cleaving to, are thought to be uniting acEls. I confcfs 1 never
thought that whatever my hand lays hold on, is united to it, or one with it. L
now lay hold on my pen, and hold it in my hand, make ufeofit, take it up,
and lay it down at pleafure ; I do not find they are one, but two diftindt things;
my pen is not one with my hand, nor my hand v.ith my pen, nor do they both
make one third thing. I never knew that one perfon's embracing another was
an uniting their perfons together, or that any union or relation between them,
commenced upon fuch an aft. When the apofHes exhorted fuch who were par-
takers of the grace of God, to cleave to the Lord with purpofe of heart, it can ne-
ver be thought that their exhortation was to unite themfelvcs to the Lord with
purpofe of heart, fince thefe were perfons already united to him. All thefe atls
of looking to Chrift, laying hold upon him, embracing of him, and cleaving
to him, are afts of faith performed under the influences of the Spirit, in con-
fcquence of union to Chrift; and arc fuch, in which believers have commu-
nion with him. He feems difpleafed with what I fay, that " afoul can no more
" be faid to be united to Chrift by thefe a6ls, than a beggar may be faid to be
M united to a pcrfon, to whom he applies, of whom he expefts alms, to whoni
'^ he keeps clofe, from whom he receives, and to whom he is thankful." This,
he fays ', dcfcrves no anfwer. The reafon I guefs is, becaufe he can give none.
However, I will take his own inflancc, of a diftreflTed beloved child's looking
to, embracing of, cleaving to, and hanging about its tender father, with in-
treaties and expeftations of fupply •, and deny that thefe are uniting adls, or
fuch as unite the father to the child, or the child to the father ; but are all in
confequence of a relation, a relative union, that fubfifted between them, ante-
cedent to thefe acfls.
I farther obferve, that union to Chrift is the foundation of faith, and of all
the afts of believing, or feeing, walking, receiving, i^c. That, faith is tlie
fruit and effeft of union, even of what is commonly called vital union : for as
there muft firfl: be an union of the foul and body of man, before he can be faid
to live, and there muft be life, before there can be reafon ; fo there muft be a
union of the foul to Chrift, before it can fpiritually live : and there muft be a
principle of fpiritual life, before there can be faith. This I thought allb was
fully and fitly exemplified in the fimile of the vine and branches, which muft
firft be in the vine, before they bear fruit; and may be illuftratcd by the in-
grafture of the wild olive-tree into a good one ; and concluded, that union ta
Chrift is before faith, and therefore faith cannot be the bond of union. The
fubftance of what is replied '' to this is, " that though we cannot produce good
_" fruit
* Sopralapfarian Scheme, p. 84. * Ibid. p. 85, 86.
1
TRUTH DEFENDED. 93
•* fruit until we are in union with Chrift the living head, yet there is no abfur-
" dity in faying, that there is life produced in the foul, previous to our union
" with him-, — and that a fpiritual work (an aukward way of talking-, why not
" the Spirit ?) which begets a fpiritual life in us, is neceffary to meten (meeten)
" us for union to him the living head." And though he approves the argument,
yet docs not believe the application of it agreeable to truth ; namely, that becaufe
there is an union of the foul and body of man before he can be faid to live, that
therefore the foul of man muft be united to Chrift before he has fpiritual life.
In a word, though he agrees that there muft be a principle of life, before there
is any cxercife of faith, yet denies that there was union to Chrift, before this
principle was wrought. Now let it be obferved, that the union I am here fpeak-
ing of, is what is commonly called vital union; an union in time, at converfion,
which is no other than Chrijl formed in us; upon which a principle of fpiritual
life is immediately produced : for he that hath the Son, hath life; and then fol-
low faith, and the exercife of it. Therefore this union cannot be by faith, nor
faith be the bond of it, fince it follows upon it : for though, as upon the union
of the foul and body, life is immediately produced -, yet the union, in order of
nature, muft be confidered previous to life. So though, upon the formation of
Chrift in us, called the vital union, the principle of fpiritual life is immediately
produced -, yet the formation of Chrift, or the union of him to us, muft be confi-
dered antecedent to this life. No, fays this man -, there is life produced in the
foul, previous to our union with Chrift, in order to it -, yea, to meeten for it :
whence it muft unavoidably follow, that a man may have a principle of fpiri-
tual life, and yet be "jjithotit Chrijl; be feparate from him, and without union
to him ; contrary to the exprefs words of the apoftle, He that hath not the Son
ef God, hath net life'. Bcfides, does this docftrine give honour to the glorious
head of influence, Chrift Jefus, which teaches that a man may have a principle
cf fpiritual life, without union to him, the living head ; and in order to meeten
for it, and confequently elfcwhere, from another quarter ? What appears moft
plaufible, at firft view, in favour of this prepofterous notion, is the inftance' of-
the fcion, that muft have life previous to its ingrafture. But pray what kind
of life is it, that the fcion of the wild olive-tree lives, before its ingrafture into
the good olive-tree ? it is a life agreeable to its nature ; it is the life of the wild
olive-tree, not of the good olive-tree. So men before converfion, before Chrift
is formed in them, live, not a fpiritual life, a life of grace, but a life of fin ;
there is no principle of fpiritual life, before Chrift is formed in the foul. The
Cmile of the vine and branches, in John xv. 4, 5. he thinks' is of no fervice to
me, but rather againft me-, fince there would be no need of the exhortation,
abide in me, if no a6t or aftsof ours are concerned about maintaining union with
Chrift.:
• 1 John V. 12. 5 Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 89. t Ibid. p. 86, 88.
94 TRUTH DEFENDED.
Chrifl: : and obferves, that abiding inChrift is by faith, and the fame with (land-
ing by faith, Rom. xi. 20. and argues, that if onr {landing and abiding in Chrift
are by faith, then do we hold union thereby -, and whatfoever holds us to union,
is the bond of it. To which I need only reply, that the phrafes of abiding in
Chrift, and ftanding by faith, regard the perfeverance of the faints, in confe-
quence of their union to Chrift. Now though perfeverance is by faith, or faith
is the means of perfeverance, under the powerful influence of grace ; yet it does
not follow that it is the bond of union ; fince both perfeverance, and faith, by
which we perfevere, are the effedls of it. 1 obferved, from the above paOage,
that "faith is a fruit of the Spirit, which grows upon the branches that are in
" Chrift the vine; and that thefe branches muft be firft in the vine, before they
" bear this fruit." This author wonders "' who will attempt to deny it. Very
well; if no body will attempt to deny it, the caufe is given up, the point is
gained: for if perfons muft be firft inChrift the vine, that is, united to him, be-
fore they bear the fruit of faith, that is, believe in him; it follows, that union
is before faith, and that faith is the fruit and effedl, and not the bond of it. The
Cmile of the wild and good olive-trees, he fays', I have borrowed piece-meal,
and have omitted to quote it (the text) in the margin.. I own, I borrowed the
fimile from Rom. xi. 17, ^c. as being an appofite one ; but never thought, nor
do I think now, that thepaffage has any reference to the ingrafture of fouls into
Chrift, but into a vifible church-ftate : For if ingrafture into Chrift is intended,
it will follow, that perfons may be ingrafted into him, that is, united to him,
and yet be broken off from him ; which fuppofes their intire apoftacy from him;
which none will give into, unlefs they are far gone into Arminian principles.
The plain meaning of the pafTage is, that the Jews, who rejeftcd the MefTiah,
were broken off from their vifible church-ftate, or from being the vifible church
of God ; and the Gentiles, that believed, were taken into it; and that the Jews,
when they believed, would be again grafted, or taken into a vifible church-ftate.
Hence the whole of our author's reafoning, about the necefTity of faith, and the
removal of unbelief, antecedent to an ingrafture into Chrift, as founded upon
this fcripture, comes to nothing.
( 3.) Having proved that neither the Spirit on Chrift's part, nor faith on ours,
is the bond of union, I proceeded to fhew that the everlafting love of the Fa-
ther, Son and Spirit, is the bond of the union of the eledl unto them. To this,
not one fyllable is replied : But whereas I obferve that there are feveral things
which. arife from, and are branches of this everlafting love-union, and which I
apprehend make it appear that the clefl are united to Chrift before faith ; this ■
author has thought fit to make fome remarks upon them.
I obferve,
* Supra!apfarian Scheme, p 88. ' Ibid. p. 90.
TRUTH DEFENDED. $5
I obferve, from Ephes. i, 4. that there is an eleftion- union in Chrift from
everlafting : my meaning is, that eleflion is an aft of God's everlafting love, in
which the objefls of it were confidered in Chrift; and how they could be con-
fidcred in Chrift, without union to him, is, what I fay, is hard to conceive.
So that I apprehend, that as eternal eledion is a difplay of God's everlafting
love to his people, it is an inftance alfo of their eternal union to Chrift. No,
fays '' this man; eledtion is a fore- appointing perfons to an union ; as the
choice of ftones for a building, or of a branch for ingrafture. Had the text in
Ephes. i. 4. run thus, according as he hath chofen us to be in him, or that tve
might, or Jhould be in him ; this fenfe of eleflion would have appeared plaufible:
but the words in connexion with the preceding verfe run thus, who bath blejfed
us with allfpiriiual blejfmgs in heaiienly places in Chrijl, according as he hath chofen
us in him ; and therefore will not admit of fuch an interpretation as this, " that
" it was according to the eternal defign of God, to beftow divine and fpecial
" favours upon them, when in Chrijl ; or that they were chofen to divine and
" fpecial blclTings, through Chrift ; " but that they were blefted with thefe di-
vine and fpecial blefTings in Chrift, according as they were chofen in him. I
do not fay that eleflion is the uniting afl, that is, the everlaftino- love of God ;
nor do I fee any abfurdity, in fuppofing union previous to this choice, though
1 think they go together ; but this I fay, that in eleflion men are confidered in
Chrijl, and fo is a proof of eternal union to him; and by this I abide, until
fomething elfe is offered to confront it.
I have alfo faid, that there is a legal union between Chrift and the elefl from
everlafting, the bond of which, is the furetyfliip of Chrift, and fo he and they
are one, in a law-fenfe, as furety and debtor are one : and likewife, that there
is a federal union between them from everlafting ; Chrift being confidered as
head, and they as members with him in the covenant of grace. This ' writer is of
opinion, that the legal and federal union is one and the fame; I am content they
fhould be thought fo : my defign hereby is not to multiply unions, or as though I
thought there were fo many diftinfl ones, believing that God's everlaftinc^ love is
the grand original bond of union, and that thefe are fo many difplays of it,, prov-
ing it; and particularly, that it is before faith, the main thing I had in view. The
relations of furety and debtor, head and members, conveying different ideas 1
thought it proper to confider them apart; however, I am willing they fliould go
together, provided neither of them is loft : but I obferve, the former of thefe'is
entirely funk, by this author, and no notice taken of it : for though they both relate
to one and the fame covenant, yet are to be diftinflly confidered ; and if Chrift is
not to be confidered as the furety of his people, as one with them, in a law-
fenle,,
* Suprabpfarian Scheme, p. 79, 92—95, ' Ibid. p. 78, 92,95.
96 TRUTH DEFENDED.
fenfe, as furety and debtor are one ; what foundation is there for his fatisfaftion
for them ? nay, not only fo, but even the relation of head and members is
dropped by this author, under a pretence that it has been already proved, that
there is no being in Chrift before faith, as members of his body -, and goes on
to confider the relation of hufband and wife, which is not at all mentioned by
me; and calls '" upon the men of the Supralapfarian fcheine, to produce any
text of fcripture that informs us that God, in either of the perfons of the God-
head, calls any of the children of men his fpoufe, or wife, or bride, before
they are made fo by a mutual covenant. The reader will be apt to conclude,
from a large citation out of Dr Goochvin, that it was made by me under the pre-
fent head -, whereas it (lands in another part of my book, and made, together
with fome others, from Dr fVitftus, and Mr Richard Taylor, with no other view
than to obfcrve to the Gentleman I wrote the Letter to, that there was no rea-
fon why the afTertors of eternal union ftiould be treated as ignorant and enthu-
fiaftic preachers, when men of fuch charaders as above, had, in fome fcnfe,
afTcrced it. Now, though I do not think myfclf obliged to take any further
notice of this citation, not being made to vindicate my fenfe of union, yet I
cannot but obferve the rudenefs and pertnefs of the man, in treating fo great a
man as DvGcodivin was, in the manner he does ; and at once pronounce, that
what is faid by him, is not worthy to be efteemed either good divinity, or good
arc^ument. He next falls " foul upon a pafTage of mine in another part of my
book, and upon another fubjefb, where I fay that the gift of God himfelf to
his people, in the evcrlafling covenant, is a gift and inllance of his love to them
before convcrfion. This he denies, and fays, the fcriptures which mention this
gift, evidently prove the contrary; the fcripture he produces, is Heb. viii. lo.
from Jer. xxxi. 33. and obferves, that this covenant is a mutual agreement be-
tween God and converted people ; for you read here, fays he °, that the laws
of God were to be written upon their hearts, and in their minds, before God is
their God, and they are his people. To which I reply; that there is not the
Icaft evidence from any of thefe pafTages, that this covenant is a mutual agree-
ment beiween God and any people, converted or unconverted ; nor is there
any fuch thing as a mutual covenant between God and fallen creatures; the
mutual covenant talked of at converfion, is all a dream and fancy. The cove-
nant here fpoken of, is wholly and entirely on the part of God, and fcems ra-
ther to refpcft unconverted than converted perfons ; fince one branch of it re-
gards the writing and putting of the laws of God in their hearts and minds,
which converted ones have already; nor is this mentioned as the caufe or con-
dition of,his being their God, but rather, his being their God in covenant, is
the
m Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 96. " Ibid p. 99. ° Ibid. p. lOC.
T R U- T H DEFENDED. 57
the ground dnd foundation of this; fi nee this is mentioned in y^r. xxxii. .38.
previous to his promife of giving one heart, and one way, and putting his fear
into them-, all which fuppofe them unconverted. In a word, our author thinks ^
that the covenant of grace is not a uniting covenant, no relation arifing from ic
between God and his people, bciween Chrift and his members ; it is only a fet-
tling the conditions, and laying a fure foundation for a federal union with his
people, that "is, upon the conditions of faith and repentance-, fo that the cove-
nant of grace from eternity, is only a foundation for a covenant. I am concent
he fhould enjoy his own fentiments, without reproaching him with inexplicable
nonfenfe. But fince he has called upon the Supralapfarians to produce a text,
wherein any of the children of men are called by God, in either of the perfor.s
of the Godhead, his fpoufe, wife, or bride, before they are made fo by a mu-
tual covenant, I propofe to his confideration, Ifaiah liv. i, 5, 6. where Chriil
is called the hujlmnd of the Gentile church, and fhe his iiinfe, long, before it was
in being : and even in the text he himfclf mentions, Ephes. v. 23. Chrifl; is faid
to be the head of the church, even as the hufband is the head of the wife; which
includes the whole general affembly and church of the firft-born, even all the
eleift, converted or unconverted.
The next union I mention, is the natural union that is between Chrift and j
his people ; in this, our author fays % is nothing but what agrees with the holy |
fcriptures, and fo it pafles without a ccnfure. The laft 1 take notice of, is a '■
reprefentative one, both from everlafting and in time. This man imagines ' I
have given away the caufe, by acknowledging that the natural union was not in ■;
eternity, fince hereby the notion of an eternal reprefentative union is entirely .i
deftroyed ; for, adds he, it is exceeding remote from all the rules of argument,
to fuppofe that Jefus Chrift reprefented the eleft people as members in him,
when he had no meaner nature than divine. This writer is, no doubt, acquainted
with all the rules of argument: but what does the man mean, when he talks of
Chrift's having no meaner nature than divine .? I hope the reader will excufe my
•warmth, when fuch a horrid reflexion is made upon the divine nature of the
Son of God; no meaner nature! This fuppofes, indeed, the human nature to
be meaner, but implies the divine nature to be mean ; or, where is the degree
of comparifon ? he fuggefts ', that Chrift could not reprefent the t\t£i in eternity
unlefs he had human nature from eternity ; and that there coulJ no: be a real
union of the perfons of the eledt in eternity, without their real exiftcnce. I re-
ply ; that it was not neccftary, in order to Chrift's being the Mediator, Head,
and Reprefentative of the eleft in eternity, that he fliould be then actually man,-
only that he (hould certainly be fo in time: befidcs, there was a federal union
of the human nature to the Son of God from eternity, or the human nature had
'' Vol. II. O aco-
1" Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 101. « Ibid. p. 102. ' Ibid. p. los. • IbiJ. p.103.
98 TRUTH DEFENDED.
v?nanr fubfiftence in the fccond pcrfon from cverlafting. Nor -was the real exlf-
tence of the pcrfons of the eledl neceflary to their real union to-Chrift, only that
they fliould certainly exift : I call their union real, in oppofition to that which
is imaginary ; for furcly the love of Chrift to the cledl, from everlafting, was
real, which is the bond of union, though their perfons, foul and body, did not
really, or aftually exift. He proceeds ' to confider the import of fome other
/?;«■// of fcripture, which, he fays, we are fubjedl to imagine favour our fond
notion of eternal union ; though he confiders but one, and that is 2 Tim, i. g.
IVho hstb faved us, end called us with an holy calling ; not according t& our ivsrksy
hut according to his own purpoje and grace, which was given us inChriftJefus, before
the world began. This grace he fometimes takes for a promife of grace, fome-
times for grace in the covenant iifclf ; yea, he fays, it evidently intends our call-
ing; fo that, according to him, our calling muft be before the world bega-n.
But be it what it will, whether a promife of grace, or a purpofe of grace, or
grace itfelf, it was given to us in Chrift, before the world began, and on that our
argument depends : if we were in Chrift when this grace, or promife of grace^
was given, we were united to him -, for how we could be confidered/w >^/»:,
without union to him, he would do well to acquaint us.
I muft, in juftice to this author, before I conclude this head, acquaint my
reader, that he has quoted " fome, what he calls plain texts of fcripture, to
fhew that the facred book does moft evidently let afide the opinion of eternal
union, yea, or of union before faith: the fcriptures are, Rovt.Mm.^, andxvi.7.
2 Cor. V. 17. all v.'hich I have before taken notice of in the Letter he refers to i
and all that he remarks is", that I will needs have ir» that thefe fcriptures intend
only the evidence of union with Chrift from everlafting; which fenfe "he does
not attempt to fet afide •, only that the phrafe, If a man is in Chrift, he is a new
creature, he fays, fuppoTes that none but new-born fouls are united to him ;
whereas the mcaniag is, that whoever profcflcs himfclf to be in Chrift, ought
to appear to be fo : and yet, after all this, this man has the front to fay ", that
men are not united to Chrift until they believe, has been proved by almofti irt'
numerable fcriptures and argununts \ when he only produces thres fcriptures, and
not one argument from them. This man is refolved to carry his point at any
rate, right or wrong ; he fticks at nothing.
Thirdly, We are now came to a point this author difcovers a great itch, and
eacrer dcGre to be at, namely, the dodrinc of God's love and delight in his ele(5b
before converfion. He has been two or three times nibbling at it before, and
1 have already cxpofed his folly in placing it in the Supralapfarian fcheme, whcQ
it can be no other than a SubJapfarian dodlrinc.
I. In
• Supralapfarian Scbtme, p. 104. " Ibid. p. 77. * Ibid. p. 128.
TRUTHDEFENDED. 99
1. In my Zf/Z^r above referred to, I write concerning the invariable, un-
chancreable, and everlafting love of God to his e\c&, and give inftances of his
love to them, not only in eternity, but in time, and that even while they are
in an unconverted eftate, from Rom. v. 6, 8, 10. ijohrt iv. 10. Epkes. ii. 4, 5.
Titus iii 3 — 6. which this writer thinks fit to pafs by in filence. I tlien men-
tion three gifts of God, which arc inftances of his love to his people before con-
vcrfton, not to be matched by any after it -, namely, the gift of Himfelf, the
gift of his Son, and the gift of his Spirit. This man denies that either of thefe
arc given to the eleft before converfion. 'As to the firft, he fays, " God never
" gives himfclftoany of the children of men until they believe';" and fuggeft-;,
that the fcripture I produce, I 'u.'ill be their God, and they Jhall be my people,
proves it; being, as he thinks, a mutual covenant between God and con-
verted people : but I have fhewn already, that it is not a mutual covenant be-
tween God and others ; and that the promifcs of it fuppofe the perfons it con-
cerns unconverted ; and, indeed, God's being the God of his people, is the firft
ground and foundation-bledrng of the covenant; and the reafon why anycove-
nant-blefTing, and among the reft, converfion, is beftowed upon any of the fohs
of men, is, bccaufe he is their covenant-God and Father; fothat, confequently,
he muft ftand in this relation to them before converfion. Bcfides, if they are his
people before converfion, though not openly to themfclves and others, \Pet.\\. 10.
yet fecretly to him, Pfalm ex. 3. Matt. i. 2 i. he muft be their God before con-
verfion ; for ihefe two relate unto, and fuppofe each other. He does not deny
that Chrift was a gift of God's love before converfion ; but fancies that I have
feccded from what I propofed ; fincc, as it is expreficd by me, he is only given
for ihcm. lanfwcr; My propoficion is, to fhew that there are fuch gifts of
God before converfion, as arc inftances of his love to his people then ; and
furely Chrift being given /itt them, is an inftance of God's love to them, John
iii. 16. He fcems to triumph upon this, and fays'", "could he have proved
" his propofition, he had certainly laid a ftrong, if not an improveable (I fup-
" pofc it ftioukd be immoveable) foundation for his dcxftrine." Well, if this
will do, I am able to prove that Chrift was given to his people in his incarna-
tion, before he was given for them in his fufferings and death ; To us a child is
icrn, to us a fon is given, Ifai. ix. 6. and 1 hope it will be allowed, that the gift
tf Chrift, in his incarnation, extended not only to the believers of that age in
■which he was born, but to all the clefi:, to all the children, for whofe fake he
partook of flefii and Hood. As to the third and laft of thcfe gifts, he judges',
" that the Spirit is not jgiven to any of the children of men till they are converted,
" or at that very inftant ;" and gives broad intimations, as if he thought he was
o 2 not
»' Supralapfarian Scheme, p. no, too. i Ibid. p. in. »Jbid.p. iiz.
100 TRUTH DEFENDED.
not given at all, until he is given as a comforter. The tex-t in John xvi. 8. which
my expreflions refer to, he feems to intimate, does not regard the convidtion
and converfion of men, but the reproving' of the world. I will not contend
with him about the {tn{i:. of the text •, it is -enough to my purpofe, if it will be
but allowed, that the Spirit of God is the author of real convidtion and conver-
fion ; who therefore muft be confidered as fent, and given, antecedent to con-
vidtion and converfion, in order to begin, <arry on, and finifli the work of
grace, when he finds men dead in fin, devoid of all grace, in a (late of nature •,
and therefore, furely, muft be a gift and inftance of God's love to them, whilft
in that ftate.
2. In order to prove that the love of God to his eledt, from everlafting, is a
love .of complacency and delight, I obferve, that his love to his Son, as Me-
diator, is fuch a love; and that whereas God loves his people with the fame
kind of love he loves his Son, which I prove from John xvii, 23. it muft needs
follow, that the love he bears to them, is a love of complacency and delight.
This author ' thinks I have ftrained and forced the text I mention beyond its
real meaning; and that my notion is unfairly inferred from it; he believes f
know the word as is of the comparative degree, and rarely intends equality : if
I do not know. Jam fure he cannot tell me ; it is only his ignorance of the com-
parative degree, that will excule him from defigned blafphemy againft the Son
olGod. His learned revifer and editor fhould have informed him, that.aj, of
itlclf, is of no degree, but is according to the word to which it is joined ; it is
iilcd in forming comparifoiis, and is an adverb of likenefs and equality. He
kenis to be confciOJs, tb.at it fometimes, though rarely, intends equality, and
givis himfclf a ncedkfs trouble to collcdt together feveral texts, where it figni-
fics likencls : 1 could eafily produce others, where it is expreffive of equality;
fee John i. 14. and x. 15. Phil. ii. 8. 2 Cor. x. 7. However, I am content i:
fhould figTify likenefs, and not equality, in the text mentioned; let it be a
likencls ot a very minute or fmall degree, I hope it will be allowed to be of the
fim. kind;-and if this is granted, my argument ftands good; "that if God
" has loved his Son with a love of complacency and delight from everlafting,
" and he has loved his eledt with the fame kind of love from everlafting, with
" a like love, though not to the fame degree; then he muft have loved them
" from everlafting, with a love of complacency and delight."
3. I go on to obferve, that JcfusChrift loved the eledt from everlafting with
a love of complacency and delight, as they were prefented to him in the glafs of
his Father's purpofcs and decrees ; my meaning is, as they were prefented to
liini in all that glory his Father defigned to bring them to ; which I prove from
Pruv. viii. 31. and fee no realbn why the Father's love fliould not be the fame.
This
* Siipralapfarian Scheme, p. 11^, 115.
TRUTH DEFENDED. loi
This man thinks*, that the text in Proverbs refers to the delight Chrifl: had in
the fore-views of his people, having his own, and his Father's beautiful image
imprefied upon them \ or rather, that it refers to a farther view which the Son
of God took of the mod perfedt ftate of his members upon earth, in the king-
dom-crlory, And why may not the thought be carried a little farther, thatChrift
was not only rejoicing in the habiUible fart of bis earth, in the fore-views of his
people dwelling with him, and he with them, hereon earth •, but that his de-
lights were with thefons of men, as fore-viewed by him in all that ultimate glory
they are to enjoy to all eternity ; and then we are agreed ? Now let it be obferv-
ed, that this complacency and delight in them, was taken up from everlafting,
as abundantly appears from the context ; nor could any intermediate ftate, as
that of nature, make any alteration in this love of delight. Chrift loved them
before they were in a ftate of nature, and while they were in it, though not as
confidered as unregenerate and rebellious finners, or becaufe they were fo ;
which is the vile infinuation all along made; but as the whole eletftion of grace
ftood prefented to him a glorious church, without fpot or wrinkle, or anyfucb thing;
juft fuch as he will prelent them to himfelf another day.
■ 4. I farther obferve, that God's choofing his people in Chrift before the foun-
dation of the world, is an afl: of love fpringing from delight in them, even as
his choice of the people of Ifrael (which was an emblem of the choice of the true
and fpiritual Ifrael) was owing to the delight he had in them ; to prove which,
1 citeD(f«/.x. 15. and add, that all the favours and bleflingsGod beftows uponhis
people in time, fuch as bringing them out of a ftate of nature, or out of any
diftrefs or difficulty, in a word, their whole falvation, arife from his delight in
them; for the proof of which, I mention Pf aim xv in. 19. and cxlix. 4. Jer.
xxxii. 41. Zeph. n'l. 17. This writer ' is of opinion, that what I have afTrrted,
that God's choice of his people in Chrift, as an adl of love fpringing from dc-
lioht, requires more proof than I have produced, or than any man is able to
produce. I fuppofe, he will not deny that God's eternal choice of his people
in Chrift is an aft of love •, if he does, let him confider 2 Thefs. ii. 13. though
he may as well deny it to be an aft of love, for the fame reafon that he denies
it fprings from delight, namely, that God has chofe them to be holy, and with-
out blame before him in love ; and from thence conclude, that this early choice
was not the effeft of his love to them, any more than of his delight in them ;
but that they might be objefts of his love, as of his delight, when united to his
Son : But furely, if they were chofen in Chrifl, they muft be confidered in union
with him, and muft be the objefts both of love and delight-, fince Chrift is the
beloved Son of God, in whom he always was, is, and ever will be well pleafcd,
and
* Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 117. 118. « Ibid-, p. nS. ■• Ibid. p. ng.
102 TRUTH DEFENDED.
and with all thofe that are in him. To illuftratc this matter, I mention
the choice of the people of Ifrael, as a reprefentation of the choice of the people
of God, which is owned to be thus far right : but when I affirm that this was
owing to previous delight in them ; it is faid ', this requires more proof than
Deut. X. 15. for it is not faid, that the Lord ddighted in this people, and therc-
fbre he chofe them ; but that he delighted in their fathers to love them, and
chofe their feed After them. I anfweri that the lore with which the Ijord
loved the people of Ifrad, was the fame love with which he loved their fathers j
and therefore if he loved their fathers with a lore of complacency, fo he
loved them the children j which is the ground and foiindation of his choofing
them ; fee Deut. vii. 6, 7. God's bringing his ck:(5t out of a ftate of nature, is
owing to his great love, Ephes. ii. 4, 5. which, furely, it would not be called,
was it feparate from delight; and as that, fo all aftcr-bleffings and favours
fpring from the fame kind of love, for which I produce tlie above fcriptures.
Though my defign there is not to prove by them, that God loves his clcdt with
a love of complacency and delight while in a ftate of nature ; my readers will
not be at a lofs about my defign in producing of them, nor think themfelves
remarkably trifled with -, when they cannot but obferve, that my view is appa-
rently this, that as cle<5ting and regenerating grace fpring from God's love of
delight in his people, fo all the after- bleffings of grace and glory, in one con-
tinued chain, arife from the fame : whence it will appear, that God's love of
complacency in his people, is invariably the fame, through every ftate, of na-
ture, grace and glory.
5. I have obfervcd, that the diftindion of a love of pity and benevolence, and
of complacency and delight, is made by fome popifti fchoolmen, and is fubver-
Tiveofthe nature and perfedtions of God ; and reprefents him fuch an one as
Ourfelvcs, fubjeft to change ; that his love, like ours, alters, and by degrees
increafes, and, from a love of pity and benevolence, pafles into a love of com-
placency and delight. This author fcems difpleafed ' that this diflinSion Ihould
be afcribed to popifli fchoolmen, fince he is apt to believe, that there is (it fhould
be are) very few of that pretended church (of Rome, I fuppofe he means) fo
remote from the groflcft tenets of Arminianifm, as to allow of it. I can tell him
there have been many in that church, more remote from Arminianifm by far,
than he himfelf is-, and flioujd I tell him, that fome of them have been Supra-
lapfarians, it would have equal credit with him : however, be it fo, that this
diftindtion came from them, though he has no high opinion of popifh notions,
which, as I obferved before, fuppofes that he has an opinion of tliem, yet he
Iha,ll not very willingly part with it ; much good may it do him, I do not envy
his
* Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 119. * * Ibid. p. 124, 125.
TRUTH DEFENDED. 103
his pofleflion of icj let him "make the beft ufe of it he can. He fancies^ that
what I have faid concerning Chrift being " the objeft of his Father's love and
♦' wrath, at one and the fame time -, that as he was the Son of God, he was al-
" ways the objeft of his love and delight; but as he was the finner's furety,
*' and wliile bearing the fins of his people in his own body on the tree, he was
" the objeftof his difpleafure and wrath," is as fubverfive of the nature and
pcrfedlions of God, and reprefents him as liable to change as this diftinftion
does ; fince here is a change from delight to the greateft difpleafure, and from
that to delight again. I anfwer, for the farther explanation of what I have faid,
let k be obferved, that I conceive that Chrift was in no other fenfe the objedt of
divine wrath and difpleafure, as the finner's furety, -than as he had the efFefts of
■wrath, that is, punifhment due to fin, inflifted on him, which heTenfibly felt ;
but then, at the fame inftant, God took the utmoft delight and pleafure in him
even as the finner's furety, viewing himftanding in the room and fteadofhis
cledi, with patience, courage, and greatnefs of foul, bearing all that was laid
vpon him, and giving full fatisfaftion to law and juftice. It pleafed the Lord to-
bruife bitn^ Ifai. liii. 10. therefore doth my Father love me, fays Chrift, becaufe
J Isy down my life, John x. 1 7. So that here was no change from delight to dif-
pleafure, even when and while he bore the cffefls of that wrath, or that itfelf^
which was due toothers.
6. I cite a pafTage from Arijlotk, in which that philofophcr affirms, that bene-
volence is properly neither friendfhip nor love ; and that no man can be faid to
love, who is not firft delighted with the form or idea of the obje(5i: : and, for
«iy own part, I add, I cannot fee that that can be love, which is without any
delight in the objed; faid to be loved ; and inftance in fome cxprefTions of a
man to his wife, and a parent to a child, declaring love without delight ; which
feem contradiftory. This man at once falls * foul upon the poor philofopher,.
as having afferted what is contrary to reafon and experience ; and then turnincr.
itimfclf to me, fays, ** I would a(k this gentleman if he never faw an objeft,.
" u-hofc mifcrable cftate engaged his companion, and difpofed him to fliew
" friendfhip, by affording fome relief to the mifcrable creature, though there
•*•'- was no delightful form in the objed, nor any thing but mifery to engage-
"- his kindnefs ? What, is not that love, which difpofes one man to relieve
•' anoihcrjn mifery and necelTity ?" But itfhould be obferved, that the phi-
lofophcr is fpeaking of one thing, and this man of another. Ariftotle is not
fpeaking of «vjj)v?*, bcncfadlion, beneficence, or doing well, relieving a mifcr-
able creature-, but of lu^o/*, benevolence, wifhingwell to another: And I hope-
ttLs will ferve to cool his refentment againft him. Let me, in my turn, aflc
this
* Supralapfaiian Scheme, p. 125, ij6. » Ibid. p. la?..
104 TRUTHDEFENDED.
this man, if, upon the fight of a miferable objedl, my pity is encrao-ed fo far as
to wifh him well, but give him nothing, whether this wifhing well, this bene-
volence of mine, is either love or friendfhip ? Nay, fuppofing it is carried
farther, and my benevolence palTes into beneficence, I relieve the poor object ;
fhoold not this be confidered rather as an aft of humanity, than either properly
of friendfliip or love ? I confefs I never thought, when I have given alms to
a poor objefl, I did it to fliew an afteflion of love, or as any acft of friendfhip
to him ; 1 little thought that a relation of friendfhip between us arofe from fuch
•an aft, or that the poor creature and I commenced friends upon it. Upon the
inflances of love without delight, I afk what kind of love would this be thought
to be ? He anfwers*", why, probably, a love of compafTion and benevolence:
and, as things will be circumftanced, great love too; that is, when the wife is
leud, and the fon rebellious. I reply, that it is very pofTible, and fomecimes
fo it is, when either of thefe is the cafe, that delight in the objeft continues ; fo
that love appears to be great indeed, real, and hearty : But when things are
come to fuch a pafs, that there is no delight in the objeft, I cannot but be of
opinion, that real, hearty love and affection, is gone too. And what may be
faid or done that looks like love, arifes from the relation which ftill fubfifls,
and a fcnfe of duty which that obliges to, and not from real love and affeftion.
But what he thinks is the ftrongeft evidence againft the notion of love being
attended with delight in the objeft loved, is the advice of Chrift to his difciples,
faying. Love your enemies ; blefs them that curfe you ; do good to them that hate
you ; and pray for them which defpitefully ufe you, and perfecute you ' : And I do
not know but it may, and yet fall fliort of proving what it is brought for. I ap-
prehend, the love with which Chrift exhorts his people to love their enemies, is
not to be underltood quoad affeilus, as refpefting the internal afl^eftion of love :
I cannot believe that Chrift requires of me that I fhould love a perfecutor as I do
my wife, my children, my real friend, or brother in Chrift -, but quoad effe^us,
as to the effefts •, that is, I am required to do thofe things as they lie in my way,
and according to my ability, as a man would do to his neighbour, whom he
loves-, that is, feed him when hungry, and give him drink when thirft)'. And
fo arc we taught to underftand this advice ofChrift by the apo(tleP<ja/, xnRomans
xii. 19 — 21. But after all, fuppofing it could be proved that there is a founda-
tion for fuch a diftinction among men, as a love of pity and benevolence, and a
■love of complacency and delight, I would not be over-confident about thefe
things. Though I muft confefs I cannot fee how mere pity can be love, or
barely benevolence, or wifiiing well, is love-, ytt Ifay, fuppofing this, it does
not follow that there is fuch a diftinftion in the love of God, efpecially towards
the
* Supralapfaiian Scheme, p. 1 29. ' Matt. v. 44.
TRUTH DEFENDED.
105
the famcperfons, as they pafs into different eftates •, which is to make the love
of God to change by degrees, as the love of mutable creatures ; and from one
kind of love to pafs into another, and from a lower to an higher degree : A
thought to be abhorred by all thofe who know and believe what he fays to be
true; lam the Lord, I change not. This author next reverts '' to the inftance
which I mention oT a man's faying to his wife, " I love you well, though I can
" take no delight in your perfon, nor pleafure in your company " as a contra-
didlion to his exprefTions of love ; and obfervcs, that I have wounded my no-
tion of God's delighting in his eleft, whilfl: in a (late of nature, unlefs I can
prove that he dwells with, and takes pleafure in the company of thefe his ene-
mies. I reply, that I do not think thatGod loves or delights either in the per-
fons, or in the company of his people, confidered as finners, as unconverted
perfons, as in a ftate of nature, as enemies to him -, but as confidered in Chrift,
and viewed in all that glory he defigns to bring them to. And thus as the de-
lights oi \.\\t Son, fo the delights of the Father, from evcrlafting, before the
earth was, were not only in, but with them : They were not only rejoicing in
them, but delighting themfelves with them, in the fore-views of their dwelling
with each other, and enjoying each other's company to all eternity.
And thus I have gone as far in my anfwer, as this author has in examining
the Supralapfarian doflrines. It is much, when his hand was in, that he did
not take under his examination fome other doflrines handled in the letter he
refers to •, fuch as God's feeing no fin in his people, the non-nccefiity of good
works to falvation, mortification, and the like-i which he might as well have
forced into the Supralapfarian fcheme, as fome others. He has indeed a fling
or two at the docftrine of repentance, feems greatly concerned ' that legal repen-
tance is not to be valued and regarded, and thinks that this refledts upon the
preaching oijohn the Baptill, Chrift, and his apoftles; whereas it was an evan-
gelical repentance, and fruits meet for the fame, which were preached up by
them. He concludes ", that the repentance which I allow finners may be exhort-
ed to, ftands more remote from the power of the creature than legal repentance ;
as though I thought finners were to be exhorted to it, as within thecompafsof
their own power ; whereas my exprefs words are, *' To exhort even to evan-
" gelical repentance, as within the compafs of the power of man's will, and as
'■" a condition of the covenant of grace, and a term of acceptance with God ;
*' and in order to make peace with God, and gain the divine favour, which is
" the rant of fome mens miniftry ; 1 fay, to exhort to repentance with fuch
•*' views, and on fuch confiderations as thefe, is low and mean ftuff; too mean
■ Vol. II. P for,
* Supralapfarian Scheme, p. 131. l Ibid. p. 133, 134. ■ Page 137.
io6 TRUTH DEFENDED.
*' for, below and unworthy of a minifter of the gofpel." One vile reflefiion
upon the doftrine of forgivenefs of fins, through the blood of Chrift, I cannot
omit taking notice of, when he fays ", " I am ready to believe that God, in in-
*' finite wifdom, does require it (legal repentance) as necejfary to forgivenefs^ ia
•' all capable beings." What! is not the blood of Chrift, which was fhed for
the remifTion of fin, fufficient to procure it, without legal repentance being ne-
ccflary to it.'' I obferve this author is very fond of this way of preaching, and
is very defirous that others would engage in it. Was I thought worthy, or ca-
pable of giving advice, my advice to him would be not only to preach repen-
tance towards God upon the gofpel-fcheme, but faith in our Lord Jcfus Chrift i
only I fhould be afraid the man will put unbelief for faith. I ftiould advife him
to content himfelf in making ufe of what talents he has in preaching the word»
and not fcribble in the manner he does : But if he muft needs be an author, let
him write upon moral fubjefts, againft the prevailing vices of the age, open pro-
fanenefs, and impiety, things he may be better acquainted with, than evange-
lical truths, or Supralapfarian principles.
» Page 1 36,
A N
A N
A N
W E
R
TO THE
BIRMINGHAM Dialogue -Writer,
Upon the following Subjects:
The Divinity of CHRIST,
Election,
Original Sin,
Free -Will,
Irresistible Grace,
Imputed Righteousness,
Perseverance, and
Baptism.
HAVING lately met with a pamphlet, intitled, A Dialogue between a Baptift
^«^a Churchman, occafioned by the Baptijls opening a ne-jj Meeting-houfe for
reviving old Calvinijlical doSirines, and fpreading Antinomian, and other errors, at
Birmingham in Warwickfhire, Part I. by a Confiftent Chriftian -, I prevailed
upon myfelf to give it a reading, and makefome remarks upon it. The author
of it has thought fit to write in a dialogue--w2iy, probably for this reafon, that he
might have the opportunity of making the Baptijl fpeak what he pleafes, and
what he thought he was bed able to reply to: So far he has acted wifely, that he
has not made him fay fuch things, he was confcious to himfelf, he was not able
to anfwer. However, this muft be acknowledged, that though he has repre-
fcntcd \.\\c Baptijl in the debate as a very weak man ; yet, as very mild, calm,
and good-natured, and by far a better chriftian, and of a more chriftian fpiric
and temper than himfelf; who, notwithftanding all his pretences to a calm and
charitable religion, cz^s firebrands, arrows, and death''; reproaching, in a very
mean and fcandalous manner, both men and doftrines that are not agreeable to
his own fentiments. One would think his Baptift never attended upon, at lead,
muft not have received any ill imprcfTion, from the wild, furious, and uncha-
ritable preachers at Birmingham ; or elfe that the preachers that come there are
not fuch perfons this writer would have them thought to be.
p 2 I obfcrve,
• Prov. 3CXV). 1 8.
io8 AN ANSWER TO THE
I obierve, that in his running title in page 3. he calls his dialogue, A Dialogue
between a new Baftijl and a Churchman ; what he means by a new Baptift, I am
pretty much at a lofs to know, fince the Baptift, in this difpute, does not ap-
pear to have entertained any different notions about Baptifm than what the-
Baptifts have always held, nor any other doftrines but what the greater part of
the Baptift churches have always aflerted, as is manifeft from their printed con-
feffions of faith, publifhed many years ago. Perhaps he calls Kim fo, becaufe
he is one that has been lately baptized, or becaufe the Baptifts have opened a
ff^^y Mceting-houfe zt Birmingham ; which, itfeems, is the occafion of our au-
thor's writing this dialogue ; at which he is very uneafy, and with the preachers
that come thither; it being opened, as he fays, for reviving eld Cahinijlical
doftrines; by which, if any judgment is to be made by the dialogue, he means
the do(5trines of Chrifl's Divinity, Eleiftion, Originjil Sin, Efficacious Grace,,
Imputed Righteoufnefs, and the Saints Pcrfeverance ; doftrines which our firft
reformers from Popery fet out with, and the reformed churches embraced ;
and which alio the eftabliflied church oi England, of which this writer would
be thouoht to be a member,^ in her Articles maintains; dodlruics which no
church, community, or fet of men under any denomination, have reafon to be
afliamed of;, and it is the glory of the Particular Baplijis, and, what is gready
to their honour, that they are fo zealoufly affccfted to thofe truths, and to the
utmoft of their abilities defend them, in an age,, when there arc fo many apol-
Utes from the faith once delivered to the faints. But, it (cems, this new meet-
InCT ix Birmingham is opened alfo for fpreading AntLnomian, and other errors;
what thofe Antinomian, and other errors are, he does not tell us. He cannot
mean the above dodlrines, fince they are diflinguilhed from them, and beEdes
were never reckoned Antinomian ones ; perhaps we fhall hear of them in the
next fart, for at prefcnt we are only entertained with the /r/?p(7r/ of this mighty
work, CQn{\W.\ngoi forty-four pages. We are to have z, fecond part, and I know
not whether a third, fourth, 2.^6 fifth, or how many more. If this writer goes
on at this rate, we may expcft propofals for printing by fubfcription The [Vorks
of the Conftjlent Chriflian, in Folio. This puts me in mind of what I formerly
have fcen. The Hifiory of Tom Thumb, in Folio, with Dr IFagflaff's notes upon ic
Our author (tiles himfelf a Conftflent Chripati; for my own part, I cannot
help being fo uncharitable (if it muft be reckoned io) as to call in queftion his
Chriilianity ; 1 take him to be a Heathen, and not a Chriflian, much lefs a con-
ftflent one V fince he gives ftrong intimation of his belief of a fupreme and fub-
ordinate Deity, a fuperior God, and an inferior one ; and both as the objedls
of religious worlhip. He fays ", that God the Father b the fiipreme and mofl
high
* Dialogue p. 11.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 109
iiib God, and that Jefus Chrift the Son of God is not fo ; but yet he is a God,
and fuch an one as all men are commanded to worfhip-, and, in confequence,
there muft be two difFerent Gods, two diftinft Deities, the one fuperior, the
other inferior, which are to be worfhipped -, and if we may worfhip two Gods,
we may worfhip two hundred : and if this is not heathenifm, and downright
idolatry, I know not what is. But let him be admitted a Chrijliatu, if it can
be, is he a con/ijlent one ? No -, does the mild, calm and gentle fpirit of chrif-
tJanity appear in him ? His dialogue is a flanding proof againft it. Are his no-
tions confiftent with the doflrines of chriftianity ? This is cafily determined ;
for if there are any dodlrines peculiar to chriftianity, they are thofe he militates
againft. Is he confiflent with his charadter as a churchman ? Far from it, he
contradicts and oppofes the Articles of the Church of England; he is no true
Ibn of the church, but a degenerate planr,, and ought to be rejefted as fuch r
though I am informed, it is greatly fufpet^ed that he is a Prejbyterian preacher;
and if fo, he has fhewn much infincerity and unfaithfulnefs, things not confiflent
with a Chriflian, by taking upon him v\\t Mmz oi 3. Churchman, and talking of
our Church and yon Dijfenten ' : But be he'what he will, a Churchman or a Dif-
fcnter, to me he appears to be z.PoJlnre or Dancing-viajier; he fets up for a judge
of gcflurc and adlion ; he can tell you what motion is_ proper or is not for the
pulpit or tlie flage, and no doubt elfewherc. The geflures of the Baptifi
preachers at Birmingham, it fcems, are not agreeable -, they do not behave
Jccundum artem; he rcprefents them as very ridiculous and antic. One would
imagine, from his account of them, that they have got into the way of the
fakers •,. yea, that their preachers arc women preachers, nay, even that the
tdd Sybils, Pyihonejfes, and Damon Prophettjfes of the Heathens, were rlfen out
ef their graves, and were come to Birmingham^ and there playing their old
pranks. How eafy is it for perfons to put others in an odd and aukward drefs,
and then laugh at them I
Bur, to leave him pofleired of his little diverfions, 1 proceed to confider what
is more ferious, and ought to be treated with more regard and decency than this
author has thought fit to fhew, na.Titly, the doftrines which thefe preachers
aflcrr, and he oppofes. But before he brings them into the debate, he is pleafed
to give us his fenfe of Orthodoxy, and to explain fome pafTages of fcripture,
•which by the help of his Concordance he has collefted together, where the word
found is ufed, as applied to doHrine, fpeech and faith. As to orthodoxy, I can
afTure this writer,, that theBaptifls do not make any confcfTion, catechifm, arti-
cles, or any writings of men, as he fuggefts ^ the ftandard of it, but the Bible
only, and though foundnefs of doftrine and uprightnefs of converfation ought
to
* DiAlogue, p.. 16. * Ibid. p. 7.
no AN ANSWER TO THE
to go together, and the former has a tendency to promote the latter, yet they
are two different things, which this author feems to confound -, nor will the text
in Pfalm cxi. lO. prove them to be the fame : a good underjlanding have all thsy
that do bis commandminis. Doing the commandments of God according to his
will, from a principle of love and gratitude, wi-th a view to -his glory, and with-
out any dependence upon what is done for falvation, is indeed a proof of a man's
having a good underftanding of the will of God, of the way of falvation by
Chrift, and of the do6lrine of grace, which teaches mtniodeny ungodlimfs and
worldly lujis, and to live fob erly, right eoiijly -and godly in this prefent world. But
then, doftrine and praftice, knowledge and obedience, are diftindt things; and
it is polTible for a man to have a conGdcrable fliar€ of fpeculative knowledge
of gofpel-truths, and yet not live uprightly in his life and converfation -, and,
on the other hand, to perform afts -of morality as to outward appearance, and
to be externally upright, fincere and good, and have no good underftanding of
the truths and doftrines of the gofpel.
The paflages of fcripture cited ' out of the epiftles of the apoftiePdw/ to Ti-
mothy and Titus, which i'pea]^. cf found do^rine, fpeecb and faith., are to be un-
derftood of fuch doftrinal truths as are to be found in and gathered out of the
word of God, which have a tendency to influence and promote, and, when at-
tended with the Spirit of God, do really and powerfully influence and promote
praiftical religion ; but then they are difl:in6l from that pradical religion which
they ferve. Sound doElrine, in i Tim.'x. lO. is the fame with the glorious gofpel
cf the blefjed God, which, though it no ways countenances, but is as contrary to
whoring andlewdnefs, lying and dealing, malice and murder, as the law which
is made for and lies againft fuch as commit thefe things ; yet it is diftinft from
the law which forbids thefe things, and condemns perfons that are guilty of
them. A found mind, or rather thefpirit of a found mind, in 2 Tim. i. 7. is fuch
a mind or fpirit, that he who is poflcflrd of it, is not afhamed of the tefiimony of
our Lord, ver. 8. and particularly of that glorious part of it, ver. 9. where our
falvation and vocation of God are faid to be not according to our works, but accord-
ing to hi: own purpofe and grace, which was given us inChriflJefus before the world
began. The form of found words, in ver. 13. is diftinft from faith and love, and
the cxercife of thefe graces, in which it was either heard, or to be held faft. Ic
does not, indeed, mean the Jfj'emblies Catechifm, nor any Church Articles, nor
any words wliich man's wifdom teacheth; yet ihe Articles of the Church of Eng-
land znd tht^emllies Catechifm, fofar as they agree with the words of fcrip-
ture, the words which the Holy Ghoft hath taught, ought each of them to be
cftccmcd a form of found words, .and to be abode by againft all oppofuiooi
though this author rudely fuggefts, that they are what man's folly have taught ;
vwhen,
« Di:Io£"e, p. P, 9.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. iii
vhen, ic is well known they were both of them drawn up by men of great learn-
ing and judgment, gravity and piety. A fine Churchman^ or a pretty Prejby-
terian parfon this! Sound do^rine, in 2 Tim. iv. 3. is the ivord of the gofpel,
which the apoftie exhorts Timothy to preach conftantly, ver. 2. the fame with
the truth, and ft;ands oppofed to faNes, ver. 4. by the conftant preaching of
> which, watching in it, and abiding by it, Timothy would do the work of an evan-
gelijl, and make full proof of his tniniflry, ver. 5. Sound doHrine, m Titus i. 9. is
the faithful word of izlvztion alone by Chrift and his righteoufnefs, which is to
be held fafi in fpite of all gainfayers, unruly and vain talkers, fuch as our author
declares himfelf to be. To he found in the faith, ver. i j. is oppofed to giving
heed lojewifb fables- and commajidmenls of men, ver. 14. to infidelity, and a mind
and confcience defiled with bad principles, ver. 15. which it is no wonder fhould
be attended with bad pracftices, notwithdanding their profeffion of knowingGod
when they have no regard to the Lord Jcfus Chrift, ver. 16. • Sound doHrine, in
TitusW. I. is diftincft from the praftice of virtue and- morality, and the rules
thereof, given to both fcxcs, to young and old, in the following verfes : thefe
are not the found dodrine itfclf, but the things which become it, as this author
might have learnt from the text itfclf. To he found in faith, ver, 2. is firmly to
believe the dodrine of faith ; to he found in charity, is to love theLord, his peo-
ple, truths and ordinances, with all the heart and foul; and to he found in patience,
is chearfuUy and conftantly to bear whatever w^ are called to fuffcr forChrift's
fake and his gofpel. Sound fpeech, ver. 9. is the dodlrine of grace delivered in
the wholefom words of our Lord Jefus, without corrupting the word of God ;
fpeaking it with all faithfulnefs, integrity and finccrity, as in t!ie fight of God.
Upon the whole, it is eafy to obferve that the contexts of thefc feveral texts do
not countenance the expofition this writer has given of them I (hall now at-
tend to what he has taobjed to thofc doflrines which he' undertalces to oppofe
ajid refute ; as».
I. The dodrine of Chrift*'s deiry and equality with the Father. In his debate
on this fubjed, I obferve the following things :
I. That he holds ' that Jefus Chrift is a God, but not the mofi high God. The
reafon why he believes him to be a God, is, becaufe the Father has given him
divine perfedions, univerfal dominion or headdiip, authority to judge, and has
commanded all men to worftiip him ; but he thinks he cannot be the moft high
God, becaufe there is but one moft high God, who is the God and Father of
Chrift ; for both to be fo, appears to him a contradidion, and he cannot be-:
iJevc two contradidory propofitions ; and befides Chrift, before he became man,
came
^ Dialogue, p. n.
1,2 AN ANSWER TO THE
came from the Father, was fcnt and employed by him, he obferves ; •which
would be a thought abfurd and blafphemous, and to be abhorred, if he was
the fuprcme God. To all which I reply, if the Father has given to Chrift di-
vine perfeflions, for which reafon he is God, or a God ; he has either given
him only fome divine perfections, or all divine perfeftions -, if he has only
given him fome divine perfedions, then he k imperfe<5l:ly God, or an imperfeft
one ; if he has given him all divine perfeftions, then he muft be equal to him ;
and, indeed,^// that the Father iath are h\&^ -^ not by feis gift, or as arifing
from and depending upon his will and pleafure, but by necetTjty of nature, as
being his own and only begotten Son. Univerfal dominion, or headfhip and
authority to judge, are indeed given to him, not as the Son of God, but as the
Son of man. Again ; if the Father only is the mod high God, and Chrift is a
God, that is, a God inferior to him, whom he has commanded all men to wor-
fhip •, then there are two diftinfb Gods, objefts of religious worfhip, diredtly
contrary to the exprefs words of the firft command, Thou Jhalt have no other Gods
before me ". Moreover, if the moft High over all the earth is He whofe name
alone is Je^-wvah, and Chrift's name is Jehovah ; if the fame things which prove
the Father to be the moft high God, are faid of the Son, as they are, why may
he not be thought to be the moft high God equally with the Father? To fay,
indeed, that there are two fuprcme or moft high Gods would be a contradic-
tion ; or to fay that the Father is one moft high God, and the Son is another
moft hi"h God, would be two contradifbory propofitions. But who fays fo ?
We fay, that Father, Son and Spirit are the one moft high God •, and to fay
and believe this, is not to fay and believe two contradictory propofitions, for
there is but one propofuion, and no contradiftion in it. Once more; though
Chrift, before his incarnation, came from and was fent by the Father as the
angel of his prefence, to redeem Jfr ad out oi Egypt, to lead them through the
Red fea and wilderncfs into Canaan's land, yet this no ways contradidts his pro-
per deity and equality with the Father; for though he agreed to be fent, as an
equal m?.y by agreement be fent by another, and which may be thought and
faid of tht divine perfons in the Godhead, without abfurdity and blafphemy ;
and though he condefcendcd to take upon him an office for the good of the
.people of Ifrae!; yet he appeared with full proof of proper deity, of his equa-
lity with the Father, from whom he came, and of his being with him the one
moft high God ; for he calls himfelf /i>^ God of Abraham, the God of Ifaac, and
the God of Jacob, Exod. iii. 6. and I am that i am, ver. 14. and Jehovah fays
of him, that his nan:: was in him, chap, xxiii. 2 1. and intimates that he could,
though he would not, pardon iniquity, which none can do but the moft high
Xjod.
2. I
K John xvi. .1;. * Ejtod. jnc j.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. iij
2. I obferve, that he feems to be aware that the paflage of fcripture, Pbil. ii. 6.
where it is faid, that Chrift i/eiag in the form ef God., thought it not robbery to be .
equal with God, ftands in his way, fince it exprefsly aflerts Chrift's equality with
God; and therefore he attempts to remove it, by faying', that that tranOation,
he thinks, is given up by moft learned men, becaufe it correfponds not to the
original Greek. Who thofe learned men are that have given it up he does not tell
us, nor point out in what it does not correfpond to the original Greek, Arians
and Socinians have quarrelled with it, but learned Trinitarians have ftiffly de-
fended it: however, this dialogue-writer^ " thinks it muft be wrong,"
( r.) Becaufe it no way fuits the context, which fpcaks of " the fame perfon
" in the fame image or likenefs of God, as obedient toGod and exalted by him."
But what this author obferves, is a reafon why it ihould be right, and not wrong;
for if Chrift was in the form of God, if (M^^n 5««, in the efTential form of God,
for no other can be intended ; if he exiftcd in the nature and effence of GoJ,
was arrayed with the fame glory and majefty, and pofTcfled of the fame perfec-
tions, he muft be equal to him ; nor could it be thought by Chrift, nor fliould
it by any other, a robbery, to aflert his equality with him ; for, as to be in the
form of a fervant, is to be really and truly a fervant ; to be in the likenefs of a
man, and to be in fafhicn as a man, is to be really and truly man ; fo to be in
the form of God., is to be really and truly God : and if Chrift is really and truly- ,
God, he is equal with the Father. And whereas in the context he is repre-
fcntcd as obedient -unto death, not unto God, as this author inadvertently cx-
prefleth it, and exalted by God ; thefe things arc evidently faid of him as man,
and cxprcfs both his humiliation and exaltation in the human nature; and no
ways contradi£t his equality with the Father in the divine nature.
(2.) Another reafon why this tranflation is thought to be wrong, is, " becaufe
" it is contradidtory to the reafon God has given us, as our higheft guide, to
" conceive that the Son, who was begotten by the Father, came from him,
" has his life, power, dominion, glory, as a gift and reward from him, fhould
" be equal to him." I take no farther notice of this man's great encomium of
reafon, than juft to obferve, that whatever guide reafon is to us in things natu-
ral Mid civil, it is a very poor one in religious affairs, in things which concern
our fpiritual and eternal welfare, being fo wretchedly corrupted by fin : how--
cver, one would think, in matters of revelation, the revelation itfelf, the fcrip-
turcs of truth, fhould be a higher guide to us than reafon, efpecially the Spirit
of God, who in them is promifcd to guide us into all truth. But what contradic-
tion is it even to reafon, to conceive that the Son, begotten by the Father, ftiould
be equal to him.^ Was fuch a thing never known in nature, that a Son was equal
Vol. II. Q^ to
I Dialogue, p. u. " Ibid. p. 12.
114 AN ANSWER TO THE
tp a Father ? And why fhould it be thought contradiftory to reafon, that the
only begotten Son of God, who is the brigbtnefs of his Father's glory, the exprefs
image of his ■perfon, in whom the fulnefs of the Godhead dwells, Ihould be equal to
God ? His coming from God, and having his life, power, dominion and glory
from him, as a gift and reward, and all thofe fcriptiires which fpeak of them
as fuch, are to be underftood of him in his office-capacity and relation, as he
is man and mediator; and not of him as a divine perfon, as God over all,
blefled for ever; who, as fuch, does not derive his being, life and glory from
another, but equally enjoys them with his Father, without derivation.
(3.) A third Tczfon given is, " becaufe it is a fenfe contrary to all thofe plain
*• texts which fpeak ofChrift as theexprefs image of the Father, as commiflioned
" by him, as doing his will, (j?c." I reply, that this fenfe is not at all contrary
to thofe fcriptures which fpeak ofChrift as the image of God, but perfeftly ac-
cords with them; fince Chrift is the cfTential image of God, and as fuch par-
takes of the fame nature, eflence, . perfeflions and glory with his Father, and
therefore muft be equal to him. As for thofe fcriptures which fpeak of him as
commiflioned by the Father, doing his will, feeking his glory, praying to him
for his original glory; and, as appointed by him univcrfal head and judge,
thefe are to be underftood of him as Man and Mediator, and fo are no contra-
diftion to his equality with God in the divine nature. This writer fetshimfelf^
with all his might, againft this great truth of the Son's equality with the Father ;
but is it to be wondered at, when he even poftpones Jefus Chrift to the apoftles
Peter and Paul, and that more than once in this dialogue ? Speaking of the fruits
of the Spirit: " they are, fays he', fuch as we find in the life and fermons of
" St Paul and of his mafter Jefus Chrift." And in another place", " the Jews.
" did fo, that is, fct up their judgment againft their teachers, in following Pf/^r
" and Paul, and Jefus Chrift."
3. Whereas it is obferved to him what Chrift fays, John x. jOv I and the Fa-
ther are one : he replies ", " would you have Chrift contradidl himfelf in the
♦' fame breath, by faying, we two perfons are one perfon, one Being, one God?
" The eafy, natural and juft fenfe, he fays, is, that he and the Father were
" one, as he did the Father's will and adled by commifllon from him, and pur-
" fued the fame end and defign ; and not to be underftood of his unity of eflence,
" for he cannot think that a begotten and an unbegotten eflence are the fame."
To which I anfwer, that though there are two perfons fpoken of in this " text as
being in fome fenfe one, I, as one Perfon, and my Father as another Perfon j
yet we do not fay that the meaning is, that thefe two Perfons are one Perfon,
this would be a contradidion ; but that thefe two Perfons are of one and the
fame
1 Dialogue, p. 6, 7. ■» Ibid. p. 16. " Ibid. p. iz, 13,
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 115
fame nature, which is no contradidlion. This writer thinks, that to underftand
the words of unity of will, or rather of doing the Father's will, beft fuits the
context -, whereas Chrift, in the context, is fpeaking not of unity of will, but
of famenefs of operation, and of his having the fame power the Father has, to
keep his fbeep from perifhing, which he proves from their being one ; and from
whence fhould famenefs of power arife, but from famenefs of nature ? Nor is the
cflence of the Son begotten, and the effence of the Father, as diftindb from that
of the Son, unbegotten, none ever thought or faid fo, that I know of. The
Father, as a divine Perfon, begets; the Son, as a divine Perfon, is begotten in
the divine nature and cfTcnce; but that nature or eflcnce is not begotten, but
in both the fame. Tliis man calls himfelf a Churchman , did he pay any regard,
as he does none, to the Articles of the EJlabliJhed Church, he might obferve this
doctrine, he is militating againfl:, fully cxprefled in them : in the Jirji Article are
thefe words, «' in unity of this Godhead there be three Perfons of onejubjlance,
•' power and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghoft." The begin-
ning of the fecond Article runs thus : " the Son, which is the word of the Father,
*' begotten from everlafting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one fub-
•• fiance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the bleflcd virgin,
" of her fubftance."
4. This writer feems ° very defirous, that " perfons, under a notion of fpeak-
*' ing honourably of the Son, would be careful of eclipfing the glory of the
" Father, and of difhonouring him, by fetting up a rival with him in fupreme
" empire, and of affronting and difpleafing the Son, by belying him, as the
*' Jews did, when they faid he made himfelf equal with God." But what dan-
ger can there be of leffening or fullying the Father's glory by afferting the Son's
equality with the Father ? Nothing is taken from the Father and given to the
Son ; the fame things are faid of the one as of the other ; the fame nature, per-
feflions and glory are afcribed to the one as to the other; nor need we fear af-
fronting and difpleaGng either the Father or the Son, by giving equal honour
to them ; fince as the Son has thought it not robbery to be equal with God^, God
has declared it is his will, that all men fhould honour the Son as they honour the
Father'^; which is done by aflcrting that they are of one and the fame eflcnce,
fubftance and eternity; and are what may be underftood by the words co-effential,
con-fubflantial, co-eternal : though this writer calls them great fwelling words,
hard and unintelligible names '. That the Jews belied Chrift^, when they faid
he made himfelf equal with God, does not appear; our Lord never charged
them with belying him, nor did he go about to convince them of a lie or a
Q^z miftake ;
• Dialogue, p. 13. ' Phil. ii. 6.
1 Johnv. ?3. ' Dialogue, p. 14.]
1,6 AN ANSWER TO THE
miftakc ; but afterv,'ards faid thofe things which were enough to confirm thfm,
and any one elfe, in the truth of his equality with the Father.
5. This man laughs, as thofe of his comple6lion generally do, at myfterics
in religion, and at this doftrine being a myftery, though revealed, and as being
above, though not contrary,- to reafon : he fays ', that " if any dodrine was a
" myftery before, revealing it has made it no longer a myftery." It is true,
that when a thing is revealed, it is no longer a myftery that it is, but may ftill
remain a myftery how it is, what it is : as in the cafe before us, it is no longer
a myftery, now revealed, that the three perfons. Father, Son and Spirit, are
one God ; but bow they are fo, is ftill a myftery. The incarnation of Chrift,
God manifeft in the flefti, is not a thing hidden from us, being revealed ; but
how the word was made flefti, will ever continue a myftery to us. It is .no longer
a myftery, that the living will be changed at Chrift's fecond coming; but how
they will be changed, is a myftery to us. So the refurredion from the dead is
a certain part of revelation ; neverthclefs, it is myfterious to us hvw it will be
brought about -, and our ideas of rifing from the dead, and living again, muft
be oreatly ftiort of the things thcmfclves : though this author fays ', he "very
" well undtrftands what rifing from the dead and living again means, as well
♦' as he does rifing from flcepand living again." I fuppofe he would have faid,
beinf^ awake again, means -, for I hope he does not think that men are dead
when afleep, and come to life again when they rife out of rt. Thefe dbdrrnes
inftanced in are above our reafon, and feera as contrary to our ideas of things, and
the didates of reafon, as what we have been conftdering may be thought to be.
I go on,
II. To confide* what he has to^ fay to the dodrrne of cterrral Eleftion, though
he chiefly militates againft that of Repyfobation. Our aiJthor's harangue upon
this head is mere pi'agiarifm, being ftden out of Dr IVhitby upon the Fivt PoiTifs,
as any one may eafily obferve, by comparing it with the fecond chapter of his
firjl difcourfe concerning EUSlion and Reprobation, and many other pafiages in
that performance ; and fince I have latcl-y confidered the arguments arrd rcafon-
ings of that writer, 1 might at once difmifs this fubjeifl, by referring the reader
to the anfwer I have already given ; but as. that may not be in the hands of
every one to whom this may cotrtc. I choofe to take fome notice oi what is
here advanced. The fum of the charge, againft this doftrine is, that " it is
"• unmerciful, unjuft, infincere, and uncomfortable."
I. It is charged with cruelty and unmercifulnefs; God is faid to be "", accord-
ing to this doctrine, " a moft cruel Being, and more hard-hearted \}mViPharaoh"
but
• Dialogue, p. 15. * Ibid. p. ij. ? Ibid. p. 19, 20.
BIRMINGHAM -DIALOGUE- WRITER, Part 1. 1.7
but I hope it carries no mark of cruelty and unmcrcifulnefs in it to the eleft,
who are vejjeb of mercy afore prepared unto glory : it can only be thought to do
fo to the reft, for whom God has ordained no help; and to raife the idea of
cruelty towards them, they are reprefented ' under the lovely charafters of God's
offspring, his creatures, and his children ; but not a word faid of their rebel-
lions, fins and tranfgrcfTions, or of their being " the children of wrath, the chil-
" dren of hell, and the children of the Devil ;" and to increafe this idea, they
are confidered ' as in diftrefs and mifery, in a perifhing condition, through fomc
misfortune, and not upon the account of any fin or iniquity they have been
guilty of. "With the fame view their number is taken notice of; " the human
'• race is faid to be infinite, and help decreed only for a very few ; whilfl: God
" has rcfolvcd not to help millions of undone creatures, and to torment them
" milliorts of years and ages, for what they could not help ; and this only to
" fhew what his power and wrath can do, or from pure ill nature." But fup-
pofing God had decreed help for none of the infinite race of his fallen offspring,
as this author calls them, but had determined to leave them all, being fallen
to the perverfity of rhcir hearts and ways, and to punifh them for their fins and
iranfgrcfBoTis committed againft his righteous law ; would this have been deemed
cruelty and unmercrfulnefs ? Has he not proceeded in fuch a manner with the
whole body of the apoftate angels, thofe millions of undone perifhing creatures,
whom he has rcfolvcd not to help, and who are equally his offspring, his crea-
tures, and his children, as the fallen race of Adam, fo confidered ? And is this
ever eftcemed fr«^//v, and pure ill nature ? Now if it was not afling the cruel
and tmmerciful part, not to ordain help for any of the fallen angels, it would
rot have been afting fuch a part, had God refolved not ro help any of the fallen
T^zcof Adam; and if it would nor halve been an aft of cruelty to have deter-
mined not to help any of the race of mankind, furely it can be no adl of cruelty
or unmcrcifulnefs to ordain help for/owi? of them, when he could in jufticc have
condemned all. The dodtrine of Eleftion is no unmerciful one, yea, it is more
mercifoi than t1ic contrary fcheme, fince it infallibly fecures the falvarion of
fome ; whereas ttie other does nofafcertain the falvation of any fingie pcrfon, but
leaves it uncerrain, to the precarious and fickle will of man.
2. This dodlrine b charged >" with injuflice, and God is reprefented as " a mofl
" unrighteous Being; fince, according to it, he threatens a feverer damnation,
" if men accept not his offer, which he knows they cannot accept; has decreed
" fo damn millions of men for being fallen in Adam ; a decree, it is faid %
" which none but a Dm/ could make ; and a thoufand times more unjuft than
♦' the decree of Fbaraoh to drown all the male children, becaufe (hey were born
" of
* DTalogoe, p. 17. ' Ibid. p. 18 — 20. J Und, p. 19. * Ibid. p. zl,
iiS AN ANSWER TO THE
*' of Ifraelitijh parents, or were born males; and alfo has decreed to damn men
" for not believing in a Chrift who never died for them, andfor not being con-
" verted, when he has decreed not to convert them." To all which I reply,
that God's aft of cledlion does no injuftice either to the cleft or non elcft ; not
to the eleft, to whom it fecures both grace and glory -, nor to the non-eleft,
or to the reft who are left out of it : for as God condemns no man but for fin,
fo he has decreed to condemn no man but for fin. And where is the unrighteouf--
nefs of Aich a decree? It would have been no unrighteoufnefs in God to have con-
demned all mankind for fin, and would have been none in him, if he had decreed
to condemn them all for fin. If therefore it would have been no injuftice in
him to have decreed to condemn all mankind for fin, it can be none in him to
decree to condemn fome of them for fin, when he could have decreed to have
condemned them all. Herein he Qiews both his clemency and his juftice -, his
clemency to fome, his juftice to others. As to the things particularly inftanced
in, I anfwer, that when this author points out any offers of help in a faving
way God has made to all mankind, or to any to whom he has decreed no faving
help, and then threatens them with a feverer damnation for non-acceptance of
them, I ftiall attend to the charge of unrighteoufnefs. That all men finned in
Adam, and that by his offence Judgment came upon all men to condemnation, the
fcriptures declare ' ; and therefore to fay that God condemns men, or has de-
creed to condemn them for the offence of Adam, or for their finning in him,
and being fallen with him in his firft tranfgreftion, cannot be dilagreeable to
them ; though we do not fay that any of the fons of Adam, who live to riper
years, are condemned only for the fin of Adam, but for their numerous aftual
fins and tranfgreffions^ And as for infants dying in infancy, their cafe is a fecrec
to us ; yet inafmuch as they come into the world children of wrath, ftiould they
go out as fuch, would there be any unrighteoufnefs in God ?. Again -, as God
will not condemn the heathens, who never heard of Chrift, for not believing in
him, but for their fins againft the law and light of nature ; nor fuch as have
heard of him, for not believing that he died for them, nor for not being con-
verted, but for their tranfgrefilons of God's law-, of which condemnation, their
difbelief and contempt of Chrift and his gofpel will be an aggravation, of which
they had the opportunity of being informed : fo we do not fay that God has de-
creed to condemn or damn men for the things mentioned by this writer.
3. The doftrine of God's chufing fome, and leaving others^ is charged '' with
infincerity, and with reprefentingGod as " the moft deceitful and infincere Being;
" yea, as the great ejl 0/ all cheats, when he offers to finners a falvation never pur-
" chafed for them, and which he has abfolutely decreed never to give them ; .
" and when he offers it upon conditions they cannot comply with, without irre-
« fiftibJe
f Rom. T. 12, 18. * Dialogue, p. 191 22, 23.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 119
" fiftible grace, and he has decreed never to give them that grace-, and when
" he threatens a heavier damnation if they do not believe and obey the gofpei, ]
" which he knows they cannot do." To which I anfwer, that falvation is not i
offered at all by God, upon any condition whatfocver, to any of the fons of men, 1
no, not to the eledl : they are chofen to it, Chrift has procured it for them, the
gofpei publifhes and reveals it, and the Spirit of God applies it to them -, much j
kfs to the non-eledl, or to all man'kind ; and confequently this dodrine, or God '
according to it, is not chargeable with ddufion and infult. When this author j
goes about to prove any fuch offers, I fhall attend to them ; and if he can prove !
them, I own, I mufl be obliged to think again. - j
4. This doflrine is reprefented ' as " very uncomfortable, becaufe it leaves I
" the reft of thefe children, and millions of his creatures, inhelplefs mifery for i
" ever; and makes it a hundred to one to a man that he is not elefted, but |
*' muft be for ever damned." But when it is confidered that thofe children are I
rebellious ones, and thofe creatures vile and wicked, who are thus left, it can
give no unlovely and horrid image of God to fuch who know that he is righte-
ous in all his ways, and holy in all bis works "■. Should it be faid, thztfucb are
alfo the men that are chofen v it is very true, and therefore they admire and
adore eledling grace, and receive abundance of fpiritual comfort from it : nor
is it fuch a chance matter or uncertain thing to a man, as a hundred to one,
whether he is elefted or no, to whom the gofpei is come not in word only, but alfo
in power, and in the holy Ghofl \ who from hence may truly know and be com-
fortably affured of his ele5lion of God'. What true and folid comfort can arife
from the univ^rfal fcheme, or from God's univerfal love .'' When nocwithftand-
ing that, and redemption by Chrift, and the general offers of mercy, yea, grace
ilfelf beftowed, a man may be loft and damned.
One would think, that fince this writer takes upon him the name of a Church"
man, he might have been more fparing of, and lefs fevere in, his refledions
upon this doflrine, feeing it is fo expre/sly and in fuch ftrong terms aflerted in
the feventcenth Article of the Church of England, and there reprefented as a very
comfortable doftrine. The Article runs thus : " Predeftinacion to life is the
" cverlafting purpofe of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world
" were laid) he hath conftantly decreed, by his counfel, fccret to us, to deliver
*♦ from curfe and damnation thofe whom he hath chofen in Chrift out of man-
" kind, and to bring them by Chrift to everlafting falvation, as veftels made
" to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with fo excellent a benefit of
" God, be called according to God's purpofe, by his Spirit working in due
" feafon -, they through grace obey the calling; they be juftified freely ; they
*'^ be made fons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of his only
' " begotten.
' Dialogue, p. zi, 23. * PCalm cxlv. 17. « LThefi. i. 4, 5.
D"
,2o AN ANSWER TO THE
" begotten Son Jefus Chrift ; they walk religioufly in good works •, and at
" length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlafting felicity." And then it is
afterwards obferved, that " the godly confidcration of predeftination, and our
" clcftion in Chrift, is full of fweet, pleafant and unfpeakable comfort to godly
" perfons, and fuch as feel in themfelves the working of the Spirit of Chrift,
" mortifying the works of the flefh, and their earthly members, and drawing
" up their minds to high and heavenly things ; &s well becaufe it doth greatly
" eftablifh and confirm their faith of eternal falvation to be enjoyed through
" Chrift, as becaufe it doth fervently kindle their love towards God."
5. Before I quit this fubjeft, I would juft remark the fenfc this author gives
of feveral texts, which plainly aflert a predeftination and cleftion, in the epitlles
of Paul and Peter ; by which, I fuppofc, are meant, Rom. viii. 29, 30. and ix,
J I, 23. and xi. 5-^7. Ephes. i. 4, 5. t Thep. ii. 13. i Ptt. i. 2. The fcnfe of
them, according to his reading and judgment, and according to others, whom
he efteems the beft writers and preachers, is this ' \ " Thofe texts, fays he,
" are to be undcrftood of God's firft eledting and adopting the feed of Abra-
»' bam ; and then, upon their crucifying the Son of God, and rejecting his
«' gofpel, God's choofing, electing or adopting all the fpiritual feed oi Abraham,
«' though amoncrft the Gentiles ; all virtuous and good men, all who believed
«< the gofpel ; and this agreeable to his ancient dcfigns, before he laid the foun-
" dation of the Jewifh ages." But thefe pafTages of fcripture have not one
word, one fyllable, one jot nor tittle in them of God's clefting and adopting
the feed oi Abraham, the natural feed oi Abraham, or the Jewifh nation, as
fuch -, but of fome perfons only from among that nation, and from among
the Gentiles -, and that not upon the Jews' crucifying Chrift, and rejeding his
gofpel, or before the foundation of the Jewifti ages were laid •, but before the
foundation of the world, from the beginning, even from eternity: and though
all the fpiritual feed. of y^3r<j^ijw, whether among Jews or Gentiles, all good
men, all who believe in Chrift, are elcdcd -, yet they were not defied as fuch,
or becaufe they were fo, but that they might be fo ; for fuch who are chofen in
Chrift, arc chofen, not becaufe tliey were, or are, but that \.):yty Jbould be, holy,
and without blame before God in love.
III. The dodrine of original fin, and the concern which the pofterity oi Adam
have in it, is greatly found fault with; it is not, indeed, feparately and diftimfhly
confidered, but dragged into the debate aboutEleftion and Reprobation. And,
I. The Bapiifi, in this Dialogue, is made to fay «, that men loft their ability
to repent, to believe and obey the gofpel in Adam, and by and at the fall ; upon
which,
^ Dialogue, p. 26, 27. * Ibid. p. 24.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 121
which, this writer makes this wife fuppofuion : " I fuppofe the women loft it
" wEve, and the men \t\ Adam." This little piece of drollery DTlVhithy*' has
fuggefted to him, from whom he has borrowed, or rather ftokn, a great many
of his beautiful and mafterly ftrokes in this performance. Adam, in his ftate
of innocence, had a power of doing what is truly good and righteous; but by
finning, loft ir. God made him upright, but he finned, and loft the upright-
nets, the redlitude of his nature ; and this lofs is fuftained by all his pofterity :
for there is ncne righteous, no net one -, there is none that unaerjiandeth, there is
none that feeketh after God ; they are all gone out of the way, they are together be-
come unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no not one''. This man owns ",
that " we fufrer lofs through y^^^m's fall, and have an hereditary difeafe con-
" veyed to us which worketh death ;" which hereditary difeafe cannot be any
one particular corporal difeafe, becaufe no fuch dileafc is hereditary to all man-
Jcind, or conveyed to every individual of human nature. No difeafe but the
difeafe of fin is hereditary, and conveyed to Adam\ whole pofterity, and this
worketh death -, the wages of fin is death, not only corporal, but eternal; as the
antithefis in the following words declares, but the gift of God is eternal Ufi
through Jefus Chrifl our Lord\
' 2. This writer thinks "', " God is not at all angry with us for what Adam did,
" nor that it is juft to condemn his pofterity for what was done by him fo lone
" ago." To which I anfwer, that all men are by nature children of wrath", that
is, deferving of the wrath and difpleafure of God, becaufe they brines a corrupt
nature into the world with them, 'derived from /Idam, and conveyed unto them
by natural generation; they zrt fhapen in iniquity and conceived in fsn°, and as
fuch, muft be difplcafing to God ; whatfoever is bornof the flefhis flefl:)^; that is,
is carnal and corrupt ; and whatfoever is fo, cannot be agreeable to God : and
fince this is the confequence oi Adam's tranfgrefTion, why may not God be
thought to be angry and difpleafed with men on that account, and even punifli
them for it, fince he threatens tovifit the iniquities of the fathers upon the chil-
dren'^ ? It is true, indeed, that in general that- rule holds good, that the fen
■fhaU. not hear the iniquity of the father ' ; though this is not withomr exceptions
to it, and only holds in fuch cafes in which children have no concern with their
parents; whereas the pofterity of yfjijw were not only concerned with him as
their natural, but as their federal and reprefentarive head ; they ftood in him,
and fell with him in his tranfgrefTion. The apoftle cxprefsly fays, that in him
all have finned ; and gives this as a reafon why death hath pajfed upon all men'.
Vol. II. R Bcfides,
" Difcourfe of EleiHion, p. 79. Ed. 2.78. ■ ' Rom. iii. 10 — 1 1. * Dialogue, p. 24.
■ Rom. vi. 23. a Dialogue p. 24. " Ephes. ii. 3. » Pfalm li. 5.
•" John iii. 6. < Exod. ix. c. ' Ezek. xviii. 20. ' Rom. v. 12.
ial AN ANSWER TO THE
feendes, he further obfcrves', that hj ihe tffence of one, judgmtnt cams upon all
tnen to ccndenmation. The plain artd obvious meaning of which is, thac all men
arc condemned through the offence of the firll man, being made finners by his
fin : which is cxprcfsly afierced by the apoftle, when he fays ", by the difahedience
of one many -ivtre madcjinners. But, fays our author ", " thatSc Paul, hw /inner s^
" mtzn% fv.fferers, is plain, not oiily from realbn, for no other fenfe can be true,
'' but from his ov/n explication, in yidam all die.'' This fenfe he has karned
from Dr IVhitby^; but does not pretend to give us one inftince in which this,
word is ever fo ufed. A-Mtfmkoi always fignifies perfons criminal, guilty of
a fault, and frequently fuch who are notoriouily fo. The fenfe he gives is con-
trary to the apoflic's defign in the context, to the diftinftion he all along makes
between fin and death, the one being the caufe, the other the etfecft -, and is to
be difproved by the following part of the text, by ihe obedience of one fhall many
he made righteous : wiiere the cbed.ence of Chrift is oppofed to y^datns difobedience,
righteous to fanners ; and a being made righteous by the one, to a being made fin-
ners h'j the other. Now, by the rule of oppofition, as to be otj^^ r/^/()/(fi7«/ by
Chrift's obedience, is to be conftituted and accounted fo for the fake of his obe-
dience ; fo to be made Jinners hy Adam's difobedience, is to be conftitiited and
reckoned fo on the account of it : and, after all, how is it reconcilcable with
thejuftice of God, that men fliould die \n Adam, fuffer for his difobedience,
if they are in no fenfe guilty of it, or chargeable with it ? But,
3. The imputation oi Adam's fin, the ground of which is the covenant God
made with him as a federal head, is reprefented ' as " an abfurd and unrighteous
" fcheme of divinity ; and what men mud quit their underftandings, and give
" up all the principles of reafon, truth and juftice, to give into." But where
is the abfurdity or jnjuftice of God's fetting up /Idam as a federal head to all his
pofttrity, to fl:and or fall together, who were all naturally in his loins, as Levi
was in the loins of Abraham? Had we be^n in being, had we been admitted
principals, given out our own orders, Jind made our own choice, could we have
made a better choice than God did for us .'' And fince, had he ftood, we fhould
have enjoyed the advantages arifing from his (landing, why fhould we think it
any hardfliip or injuftice done us, that we fhare in the confequences of his fall ?
Was it never known, even among men, that poflerity unborn have been obliged
by covenants, which could not be made by their order, of which they could
have no knowledge, and to which they gave no confcnt } Nay, have not chil-
dren been involved in the crimes of parents, and been fubjeft to penalties, and
have endured them on the account of them, as in the cafe of treafon ? And
have fuch procedures been reckoned abfurd and unrighteous ?
4. TJiis
t Rom. V. 18. " Verfe 19. » Dialogue, p. 25.
* Difcourfe of Eleflion, p. 8j. Ed. z. 84. '' Dialogue, p. 25.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 1.23
4. This author fcems to have no other notion of original fin, but as ir is an
approbation or imitation o{ Adam's tranfgrefTlon ; " if we approve of, fays he%.
" and imitate Adanis tranfgreirion, we may be punifhed for ilich approbation
" and imitation, but not for his tranTgrefTion :" which was the vain opinion of
ihe Pelagians, condemned by that church, to which he would be thouo-hc to
belong, in her ninth Article, and in which flie reprefcnts origmal fin as dcilrrv-
of God's wrath and damnation : it begins thus, " Original Sin ftandeth not in
" the following of Adain, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk) but it is the fault
*' and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of
" the offspring oi Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righ:r-
^« oufncfs, and is, of his own nature, inclined to evil -, fo that the flefh lultcih
" always contrary to the fpirit -, and therefore in every perfon born into this
" world it defcrvcth God's wrath and damnation."
IV. The do(5lrine of man's free-will, and the irrefiftible grace of God in con-
verfion, is next confidered. And under this head our author,
1. Moft bitterly exclaims 'againft the preachers of free grace, and affirms
that they are the greatefl enemies to it in the world, upon their fcheme of pre-
deftination, particular redemption, and the miniftry of the gofpcl ; and afks if
this and that, and the other thing, are grace in God, fome of which arc fup-
pofuions of his own, and were never articles of our faith. And pray let nir afk
this writer, upon the foot of the univerfal fcheme, " what grace is that in God,
" to decree to fave all men conditionally, to fend his Son to redeem all man-
" kind; and yet to millions, even to whole nations, and that for many hundred
" years together, never fo much as to afford the means of grace, the means of
" knowing the way of falvation and redemption by Chrift-, and to multitudes,
*' who enjoy the outward miniftry of the word, he does not vouchfafe his fpiric
," to convince of fin, righteoufnefs, and judgment, or to make application of
*' falvation, but leaves them to go on in fin, and at laft eternally damns them .' "
Whereas, according to the particular fcheme, God choofes fome peremptorily
10 eternal falvation, fends his Son to obtain eternal redemption for them, calls
them effedually by his grace, and at lafl brings them fafe to eternal glory -, in
doing which, are fhewn forth the exceeding riches of his grace, in his kindnefs
towards them.
2. He next proceeds to ftate the notion of free-will, which he himfelf gives
into: " If, fays he \ hy free -willy you mean a faculty or power in man to turn
♦' his thoughts to this fubjefl: or another, to do good or ill aflions, to choofe
" the way of life or death, when both are fet before him, to receive or rejcft
' R 2 " the
'■ Dialogue, p. 24. • Ibid. p. 28. * Ibid. p. 29, 30.
IJ4 AN ANSWER TO THE
" the offers of Chrift, when fairly made-, I cannot but think every man hath
" this fort of free-will." And further obferves % that fuch who *' declaim
" ag:i\n(\. free agency, aft upon this principle as much as other men exhort
" and perfuade to religion and good works, and a6t and live upon the prin-
" ciple of free agency, while in words they deny it." I hope, then, fuch per-
fons are not Antinomians -, and yet this poor inconfiftent man, though he Ililes
himfclf a coijiftettt Chrijlian, immediately obferves: " Thus do Antinomian
" notions in divinity turn mens heads, and quite intoxicate their brains."
We own, that there is a power of free-will in man to perform the natural and
civil anions of life, yea, the external parts of religion, but not any thing that
is fpiritually good ; fuch as to convert and regenerate himfelf, to believe in
ChrifV, and repent of fin in an evangelic manner. God made man at firft up-
right, with a power to do that which is truly good, and under no co-aftive
nccclfitv of finning-, his prefent cafe is not owing to his original make, but to
his fin and fall. Men in an unregcnerate ftate, are only free to do evil, with-
out a power to do good -, which is no fclf-contradiftion -, as appears from the
cafe of the devils, who have no power to do good, are wholly bent upon evil,
and yet do it freely. This freedom, indeed, is no other than fervitude ; men
are overcome by fin, are brought "into bondage through it, and are (laves unto
it. This may be thought, indeed, contrary to the notion of man's prefent
itate, beino- a ftate of trial, and to fome mens way of preaching -, but does not
contradift man's obligation to duty, nor overthrow the dodlrine of a future
judgment. Regenerate perfons are free to do that which is good ; but this
freedom they have not naturally, but from the grace of God, by which they
are made a willing people in the day of \i5 power upon them. No man is or can
be truly converted unto God, but by his powerful, efficacious and irrefiftible
grace. But,
3. To fay a man cannot turn to God without his almighty and irrefiftible
■grace, is reprefented ' as making the gofpel not only an ufelcfs, but a deceitful
inftitution. This muft be denied ; it is not hereby made a deceitful one, fince
that fully and clearly holds forth and exprcflTes this truth, that no man can come
to Chrift except the Father draw him ; nor is it made an ufelefs one, feeing it
is the power of God unto falvaticn to many fouls, agreeable to this doftrine. But
if no man can come to God or Chrift unlefs irrefiftible grace draw him, it is
■ urged ■■, that " then he cannot help turning, then there can be no fault in not
■»' turning, and no virtue in turning to God." This argument, as well as fome
others, is borrowed from Dr PVhitby'. And to it I anfwer, that not to turn to
God,
« Dialogue, p. 31. •■ Ibid. • Ibid.
* Difcourfe of HleftioD, p. 260, 2l)i. Ed. 2. 253. ' _
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 125
God, or to be in an unconverted ftate, is to be in a finful one, and to live in
fin is blameworthy : and though man, by finning, has involved himfclf in a (late
out of which he cannot extricate himfelf •, yet is he not the lefs culpable on that
fcore for living in it, though none will be punifhed for not being eleded or con-
verted, but as finners. And when a man is turned or converted to God, this
is, indeed, no natural virtue in him ; nor is it to be afcribed to any fuch virtue -,
but all the praife and glory of it are to be given to the powerful and efficacious
grace of God, who will follow his own work, of grace with glory, and not to the
free-will of man ; for, as it is exprelfed in the tenth Article of the Church of
England, which I would recommend to theperufaland confiderationof ourC/?'(7rr^-
tnan; " The condition of man, after the fall o( y^d^m, is fuch, that he can-
" not turn and prepare himfelf, by his own natural ftrength and good works,
" to faith and calling upon God : wherefore we have no power to do good works
" pleafant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Chrift prevent-
" ing us ; that we may have a good-will, and working with us when we have
" that good-will."
. 4. This man obferves ^ that " men refifl: the holy Ghoft, and when God would
" heal them, will not be healed, nor come to Chrift for Life." I reply, men
may indeed refift the holy Ghoft, as the Jews did, /liis vii. 51 ; which is what
I fuppofe is referred to : but this is to be underftood of refifting the holy Ghoft
in the external miniftry of the word, of the Jews contempt, rejection and perfe-
cution of the prophets and apoftles ; as appears from the following words, and
not of a refifting the internal operations of his grace-, though we do not deny
that thefe may be refifted, yet not fo, as to be overcome, fruftrared and brought
to nothing i this is our fenfe of irrefiftible grace. As for God's willingnefs to
heal perfons when they would not be healed, I know no fuch expreftion in fcrip-
ture, efpecially as referring to fpiritual healing ; it is faid in Jer. ii. 9. ff'c would
have healed Babylon, hut fhe is not healed. But this dcfigns not the willingnefs of
God, but of the Jews, or fome other people to heal her. This miftake Dr
Whitby^ is guilty of .• It is not always fafe to follow him. It is true, indeed,.
the Jews would not come to Chrift for life, which is an argument not for, but
againfl free-will ; and (hews the weaknefs, wickednefs and obftinacy of the will
of man.
V. Another doftrine militated againft by this Dialogue-vjuier, is, that of the
infufficiency of man's righteoufncfs to juftify him before God, and the imputa-
tion of the righteoufncfs of Chrift for that purpofe. And,
I. He
f Dialogue, p. 52. f Dilcouife of Elcflion, p. 204, 477. Ed. 2. 199, 457.
126 AN ANSWER TO THE
I. He allows ^ that the falfe deceitful outfidc and ceremonial righteoufners
of the fcribes and Pharifees, of Jewifh and Chriftian hypocrites, — may well
enough be compared to filthy rags; but not the righteoufnefs of the faints. But
pray, who were the perfons that acknowledged their righteoufnefs to be as filthy
rags in Jfai Ixiv. 6. the only place of fcripture where this phrafe is ufed ? Were
thefe fcribes or Pharifees, Jewifh or Chrillian hypocrites, who made fuch an in-
genuous and hearty confelTion of the pollution both of their nature and adions ?
No, they were the church of God, a fet of godly perfons in Ifatah'% time, whofe
minds were imprelTcd with a fenfe of the awfulnefs of the divine Majefty, and
of their own vilenefs and unworthinefs •, they were men truly humbled before
God, in a view of the impurity of their nature, -the imperfeftion of their fer-
vices, and their coldnefs and backwardnefs to things divine and fpiritual -, as
the context manifeftly fliews. Can it be thought that fuch words as thefe fhould
be fpoken by hypocrites, we are all as an unclean thing? How ftrong and full
is the following exprelTion ? And all our right toufnejfes are as filthy rags : not only
fome part of our obedience, but all our performances, even the bed of them,
every thing done by us, that can come under the name of righteoufnefs, are fo,
being attended with fo much fin and imperfeflion. What righteoufnefs was that
which the apoftle P<z«/ renounced, Phil. iii. 9. and defired not to be found in?
Says 'this man, his Jewifh righteoufnefs, or conformity to the ceremonial law;
but this he had renounced before, in ver. 4 — 7. and then adds, ver. 8. 2~ea, douht-
lefs, I count all things but lofs for the excellency of the knowledge of Chrift Jefus my
Lord. Now, by all things, he muft mean fomething elfe, over and above,
and befides what he had before renounced, and which at leafl, in part, he ex-
plains of his own righteoufnefs which is of the law, his moral righteoufnefs ; yea,
all the obedience he had been enabled, by the grace of God, to perform, fince
his converfion -, for to underftand it of his ceremonial righteoufnefs, is to make
him guilty of a very great tautology.
2. The imputed righteoufnefs of Chrifi, this author fays '', is a phrafe no where
to be found in God's book, nor is it eafy to be underflood ; wherefore he calls
it unfcriptural and unintelligible doftrine. Imputed righteoufnefs is a phrafe nei-
ther unfcriptural nor unintelligible, nor is the imputed righteoufnefs of Ciuifl
fo. David defcribes the bleffednefs of the man to whom God imputeth righteoufnefs
without wcrks\ Now what righteoufnefs is that which is imputed without
works ? not a man's own righteoufnefs, that cannot pofTibly be imputed without
works; it mufb be the righteoufnefs of Chrifi, which is imputed without the works
of men being joined unto it to make it pcrfcdl. Again : Abraham believedGod,
and it was imputed to him for righteoufnefs '". Not Abraham's own faith, or faith-
ful
I" Dialogue, p. 33. ' Ibid. "^ Ibid. p. 34, 35, ' Rom iv. 6.
"> Verfe 3.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. la;
ful obedience, as fays" this man; but the objeftof his faith, the righteoufnefs
of the Mejfiah, in whom he believed ; for that which was imputed to Abraham,
■was not imputed to him only, but to others, even to believers under the oofpel
difpenfation. l>}ow it vjas not it^ritien, fays the apoftle, for his fake alone, that
it was imputed to him \ hut for us-alfo, to whom it JhaU he imputed, if we helieve
en him that raifed up Jefus our Lord from the dead°. So Chrift is made unto us
righteoufnefs', by the imputation of it, not to himfelf, but to us-, nor is the
meaning, as this author'' would have it, that the dodlrine, example, life and
death of Chrift, are the means of making men righteous; but he himfelf ;V»2«^^
itnto them righteoufnefs, and they are made the righteoufnefs of God in him, through
the imputation of his righteoufnefs to them, as he is made fin for them, through
the imputation of their fins to him '. Add to all this, that in the fame way that
we are made fmners hy the difohedience of one, which is by the imputation of his
difobedience to us, are wcmade righteous by the obedience of one, of Chrift, namely,
by the imputation of his obedience or righteoufnefs to us '.
3. This writer fuggefts ', that the " doftrine of Juftification, by the imputed
*' righteoufnefs of Chrift, is a poifonous dodtrine ; and afierts it to be an cncou-
** ragemcnt to bad men and loofe women to go on in fin, and adifcouragemenC
<« 10 good men to perform duty." To which I need only fay, with the apoftle ",
Do we make void the law through faith ? that is, by the doftrine of juftification
by faith in the righteoufnefs of Chrift, which is the doftrine he was fpeaking of ?
God forbid] yea, wi eflablifb the law. Nothing can lay men and women under
a greater obligation to live foberly, rigbteoufly and godly, or has a greater ten-
-dcncy TO make them tarcful to maintain good works, than this dodrine of grace,
or the confideration of this, that being juflified by grace, they are made heirs ac-
cording (e the hope of eternal tife^. In this, as in other dotftrines, our author,
fhews himfelf to be no true Churchman ; and, for the future, ought to drop that
charadlcr. The doftrine of Juftification is thus expreflrJ in x.\\e eleventh Article oi
thcChurch of England: "Wc are accounted righteous beforeGodonly for the merit
" of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift by faith, and not for our own works or
" defervings ; wherefore, that we are juftified by faith only, is a moft wholcfom
*' doftrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expreficd in the Homily of
" Juftification." Nor did the compilers of this Article reckon this dodlrine a
licentious one, or a difcouragemenc to good works, as appears by the Article
concerning them, which follows upon this.
yj. The
» Dialogoe, p, 3J. • Rom. iv. 23, 24. r \ Cor. I. 30.
1 Dialogue, p. 35. » zQoi.v.ix. • Rom. v. Ig. \ Dialogue, p. 34, 3J.
» Rom. iii, 3U * TiL ii. 1 1 , 12. and iii. 7, 8.
',28 AN ANSWER T O THE ' ' " :' ' :'
VI. The dodrine of Perfeverance is next introduced into the dialogue ; an3
the writer of ir, " ,-...,:.. ,■ . . .
1, Hopes " that every truly good man will perfevere in' his goodnefs ; hvn
'" cannot fay it is impofTiblefor a righteous man to turn from his righteoufnefs,
'" or for one that has tajled the biavenly gift, and has partook of the holy Gboji, to
^' to fall away; elfe, what need of fo many cautions given to perfons and
'" churches: befides, Dau/i and P^/fr did apoftatize and fall away as well as
■" Judas ^" To which I anfwer •, it is well this author has entertained any hope
of a truly good man's perfevering in his goodnefs; but why not believe it?
'fince it is promifed, that the righteous fhall bold on bis way, and be tbat bath clean
bands Jhall be Jironger and Jlronger '' . The apoftle Paul was confident of ibis very
thing, and fo may we, that be which bath begun a good work in the faints, will
■perform it until the day of Cbrifl '. A righteous man, one that is only fo before ■
men, and in his own apprehenfions, who trufts to and depends upon his own
righteoufnefs for juftification before God, fuch an one as is defcribed in the
xviii'" and xxxiii" chapters of Ezekiel ; fuch a righteous man, I fay, may indeed
turn from his own legal righteoufnefs to an open courfe of fin, and die and
■perilh eternally. But this is no proof of a truly righteous man, one that is
■made fo by the obedience of Chrift, who has a principle of grace wrought in
him, in confequenceof which, he lives foberly, rigbteoujly and godly, turning
from his righteoufnefs, and falling into fin, fo as to be loft for ever. For,
"fhould this be, how could the righteoufnefs by which he isjuftified be called
an everlajling one, as it is in Dan. ix. 24 ? Nor could it be faid, with truth,
that whom Cod juflificd, them he alfo glorified, Rom. viii. 30. . So, a man who
has only a tafte, a fuperficial knowledge of the heavenly gift, and has partook
"of the holy Ghoft, either of the ordinary or extraordinary gifts of the Spirit,
may fall away, fo as not to be renewed again to repentance; but this is no in-
■flance of a man's falling away, who has truly eat the flcfh and drank the blood
■ of Chrift by faith, and has been made a partaker of the fpecial ^nd internal
'grace of the Spirit of God. The cautions given to perfons and churches to
' watch and pray, kft they enter into temptation, to bold fafi, to continue in well
■doing, (^c. are not arguments againft, but means which the Spirit of God
; makes ufe of to fccure the perfeverance of the faints. Befides, though true
'believers cannot fall from grace totally and finally-; yet inafmuch as they may
fall fo as to wound their own confcicnccs, ftumble others, and difhonour the
, name of God, there is room and reafon for fuch cautions. Though David ind
Peter fell, yet not as Judas did, which is fuggeftcd ; otherwifc, why are they
put together.'' Judas fell from a profefTion of Chrift, and from his apoftlefhip,
but
■* Dialogue, p. 36. ^ Job xvii. 9. » Phil. i. 6.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 129
but not from the grace of God, which he never had. David and Filer fell
into great fins, but not totally and finally -, there was a principle of true grace
ftill in them, which was revived and excited by the Spirit of God, whereby
they were enabled to turn from their iniquity, and do that which was right.
" Bur, fays this man % as it was pofTible for them to fall into fin, mortal fin ;
" fo it was pofiible for them to have died in the fin they had finned, and how
** they would have fared in that cafe, he leaves us to judge." One would be
tempted to conclude from this pafTage, that our Churchman is rather a member
of the church of Rome, than of the church of England; fincc he feems to give
into the popifli diftindion of fin, ]nio mortal a.nd venial, otherwife, why fhould he
be fo careful to explain fin, by mortal fin? Is not every fin mortal, that is to fay,
dcferving of death ^ And though it was pofTible for David d^nd Peter to fall into
mortal fins, fins deferving of death, as they did -, yet it was not polTible they
fhould die in them, fince it is the will of God that none of his beloved ones, as
David and Peter were, fhould periJJj, hui jhould come to repentance; and fince Chriit
undertook to die for their fins, and their fins were adually pardoned for Chrift's
fake.
2. Under this head, is brought in the dodrine of Qod^% feeing no fin in his
people, as he looks upon them through Chrift, and as clothed with his rightcouf-
nefs i which is reprefented as " a dodlrine immoral and abfurd, unworthy of
♦' God, and fhocking to a pious mind '." But why fhould it be thought to be
fo, when it is cxprtfsly afiertcd in the facrcd writings ? He hath not beheld ini-
quity in Jacob, neither hath he feen pcrverfenefs in Jjrael\ With refpeft to the attri-
bute of God's omnifcicncc, it is freely allowed, that God fees all perfons and
things jufl as they are; he fees the fins of David and Peter, and he fees the fins-
cf all profeflbrs of religion, even of his own people ; and, in a providential way
rcfents them, and chafiifes them for them, though he does not impute them to
them, or punifh them for them. But with refpeft to the article of Juftification
by Chrift's righteoufnefs, and pardon by his blood, God fees no fin in his peo-
ple ; their fins are covered from the fight of juftice, they are all difcharged, for-
given, blotted out, and done away ; fo \.\\z\vjhen they are fought for, there fhall
ienotH, and they fhall not be found*. Now, as this dodrine docs not impeach
the omnifciencc of God, and perfectly accords with hisjuftice, which is fatisfied
by the blood ar>d righteoufnefs -of Clirift, it cannot be abfurd and unworthy of
God ; and fince it leaves room for, and fuppofes God's refentment of fin in his
people, and hb chaftifcment for it, it cannot be an immoral one, or fhocking
to a pious mind.
Vol. II. S 3. The
• DiaJogue, p. j6, 37. ' Ibid. p. 37.
* Numb, xxiii. 31, ^ Jer. 1. »o.
ISO , AN AT^SWER TO THE
3. The abfolute and unconditional promifes of the covenant, mentioned in
Jer. xxxi. 32, 33. and Ez.ek. xxxvi. 26. are produced in favour of the faints per-
feverance; whereas they belong to the dofhrine of efficacious grace in conver-
fion, and under .that head fhould have been placed and confidered : but this au-
thor is pleafed to make K\sBaptiJl fay any thing which he thinks fit, that he may
make him appear weak and ridiculous, and himfelf a match for him. Of this
conduft, his whole Dialogue is a proof. The prophetic texts ufually brought in
favour of the final perfeverance of the faints, are, Ifai. liv. 10. and chap. lix. zr.
Jer. xxxii. 3S — 40. Hof. ii. 19. which this writer was either ignorant of, or per-
haps did not care to mention them, nor meddle with them, as furniOiing out ar-
guments in proof of this dodtrine beyond his capacity to reply to.
Vll. The lad thing confidered in this debate is, the ordinance of Bapiifm ;
and it would have been writing out of charafter, indeed, to have attacked a
Baptijl, and not have meddled with his denomination principle. And,
I. I obferve, " that the controverfy about the, time and mode of baptifm, ap-
" pears to him of no great moment ; feeing baptifm itfelf is an outward ordi-
" nance, or a mere ceremony, though ofChrift's inftitution : nor is it men-
*' tioned in the commifiion given to Sz Paul, who was the apoRie of the Gen-
" tiles'." But pray, were not all the apoftles fent to the Gentiles, Jn(o all the
ivorld, to teach all nations ? And was not the ordinance of baptifm in tlie com-
miTion given to them all ? What, though baptifm is an outward ordinance -,
yet, fince it is ofChrift's inftitution, it muft be of confiderable moment to know
and be fatibfied, who are the proper fubjedts of it, and in what manner it ftiould
be performed. An ordinance of Chrift fhould not be treated as an indifferent
thing, to whom, or how it is adminiftered ; or whether it is attended to or not.
2. This man has many wife reafonings upon the mode of baptifm : " I allow,
" fays he '', that if baptifm with water be efficacious, and -does operate to the
" purifying of the confcience, and clcanfing of the heart, then the more water
" the belter." I do not tranfcribe the fentence that follows, to avoid defiling
of paper with the indecency of his cxpreffions, fince they add no force to his
argunient : would he be concluded by his own reafoning, he, and the reft of
the Pccdcbaptijls, ought to be the laft that ftiould drop the praftice of immer-
fion ; for wiio are they that fay that baptifm is efficacious to internal purpofes ?
Not ihe Baptijis, who infift upon perfons making a profelTion, and giving proof
of their repentance towards God, and faith in Chrift i of ihcir being regene-
rated, and having their hearts and confcicnces cleanfcd and purified by faith
In the blood of Chrift, before they are admitted to this ordinance: But thofe
who
' Dia'ogue, p. 41. ^ Ibid.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part I. 131
who fay, that " by baptifm original fin is taken away, perfons are regenerated,
" made members of Chrift, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven-," who
behave as though they thought there could be no falvation without baptifm ;
when, upon the lead indifpofuion of a new-born infant, they are in a hurry to
fetch the minifler to fprinkleit; thefe, according to this man's reafonino-s,.
and his own principles, ought to plunge it. He goes on : " but if baptifm
" be only declarative zudfignificative, then a handful of water, poured or fprin-
»' kled on the face (the chief part of the body, and the feat of the foul) may an-
" fwer this purpofe as well, if a ferious profeflion of chriftianity go alono- with
" it, as well as fprinkling the whole congregation o{ IfraeU Exod. xxiv." Here
our author entertains us with confiderablc hints: not the heart, asfome-, nor
the brain, as others-, nor the glaftdula pinealls, but the face is the feat of the
foul. He docs not, indeed, tell us what part of the face ; but leaves us to
conclude it muft be the forehead, fince there the fign of the crofs is made in
baptifm : but be it fo, that the face is the chief part of the body, and the feat
of the foul -, and that baptifm is declarative and fignificative, as it is of the fuf-
ferings, death, burial and refurredlion of Chrift, fee /?ow. vi. 3 — 5. Colofs. W. 12.
Not fprinkling or pouring a handful of water upon the face, but immerfion or
covering the whole body in water, only can be declarative and fignificative of
thefe things ; and therefore the. former cannot as well anfwer the purpofes of
baptifm as the latter. Bur, fays this man, " it may'^do as well as fprinkling
*' the whole congregation of I/rael" Very right, provided it was done by
the fame authori;y, and for a like end; but then, this is no inftance of a. pari
being put for the i£;^c/^, or of they?f» put for the thing fignified. This our
author, upon a review of his work when printed off, faw -, and therefore, in his
taile of the errors cf the prefs^ one big enough for di folio volume, and which
might have been ftiU made larger, he has correfted this pafiage-, and would have
it read thus, "as well as fprinkling the twelve pillars, fervcd inflead of fprink-
" ling the whole congregation oi Ifrael." Bat how does it appear, that not
the people, but the twelve pillars, were fprinkled inftead of them ? not one
fyllable is faid of fprinkling the pillars in Exod. xxiv. only the people-, for it is
cxprefsly faid, thnMofes took the bleed and fprinkled it on the people; and the au-
thor of the cpidle to ihc Hebre-iX's cov.hrms n., by faying, that he fprinkled both
the book and all the people^. However, if fprinkling water on the face in bap-
tifm will not do as well as this, it will " as well, fays this writer, as eating one
" morfcl of bread and tafting wine may fignify and declare a perlbn's faitii in
" the death, and the fccond coming of Chrifl, to as good purpofe, as eating a
" meal or drinking a full cup in reraem.brance of him.'' I anfvter, the cafe is
s 2 no:
» Hcb. ix. tg.
•132 ■ AN ANSWER TO THE
not parallel, for biptifm docs not merely fignify and declare a perfon's faith in
the fufFerings,, death, burial and rcfurreftion of Chrift, but the things themfelves;
and therefore, though eating a morfel of bread and tafting the wine may, in the
Lord's Supper, anfwer the purpofe of that ordinance, as well as a full meal or
cup ; yet fprinkling or pouring water on the face in baptifm will not anfwer the
end of that ordinance, as well as immerfion or covering the body in water. After
all, a clogging claufc is put into this argument, which is, that this may do a*
well, *' if a' fcrious profefTion of chriftianity go along with it." And of the fame
kind is the following paragraph, " if there be the anfwer of a good confcience,
" or a fincere profcITion of chriftianity, and a hearty refolution to ferveChrift,
" which is the jjjorrt/, or fpiritual part of baptifm, I do not think our Lord and
" Mafter will be fo fcrupulous as fome of his ,difciples are about the mode."
But where is tbt anfwer of a good conjcitncc, or a fincere profelTion of chriftianity,
or a hearty refolution to ferveChrift, in infants, for that of others for them can
be of no avail, when water is fprinkled or poured upon their faces? We are
■obliged to this man, that he will vouchfafe to own us to be the difciples of Chrifl:,
we dcGre to be followers of him in every ordinance, anc^ in this'; the mode of
which he has taught us, without any fcruple, by his own example. Our author
goes on, and obferves, that " if the waftiing the principal part, inftcad of the
" whole, be a more fafe way for health, and a more decent way upon the rules
" of chaftity, I think it the better way j and that there is room to apply that
" facred proverb, which our Lord applied on another occafion, God will have
*' mercy, not facrifice ; for he always prefers morals to rituals." This is the old
rant, that has been anfwered over and over-, and muft be defpifed and treated
as mere calumny, by all that know the fafety and healthfulnefs of cold bathing,
which now generally obtains-, or have feen with what decency this ordinance is
performed by us. He adds, " If StP^«/made fo little account of the external
*' part of baptifm, i Cor. i. 13 — 17, what would he have faid to a controverfy
" about the mode of ufing it ?" It feems from hence, that baptifm has an in-
ternal part as well as an external one-, though before it is called an outward
ordinance., and a mere ceremony. But what was the little account the apoftle Paul
made of it ? Though he was not fent oily or chiefly and principally to baptize,
but to preach the gofpel -, and he thanks God, that he had baptized no more of
the Corinthians, fince they made fuch an ill ufe of it : yet it docs not appear,
that he at any time, or In any refpeifl, made light or little account of it -, fince
no fooner had he any intimation of it, as his duty, but he fubmitted to it -, as
did Ly^/'a and the Jailor, with their houfholds, and many of the Corinthians, if
not as adminiftered by him, yet by hi^ order, and with his knowledge and con-
fent ; and, was he now on the fpot, would foon put an end to the controverfy
about
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE - WRITER, Part I. 133
about the mode of ic, could he be attended to, though I fear he would be little
regarded by perfons of this man's complexion ; for fince fo little regard is had
to his doftrines, there would be very little fhewn to his fenfe, either of the mode
or fubjefts of an ordinance.
3. The //ot£ of baptifm is next confidered, which, with this writer, is but
another word for the fubjeHs of it •, for we have no controverfy about the precife
lime of baptifm, the queftion with ms, is not whether an infant is to be bap-
tized as foon as born, or at eight days, or when a month old ; but whether it
is to be baptized at all or no ; nor whether adult perfons are to be baptized at
thirty years of age, or whether at I'Vhitfuntide^ or any other time of the year j
but whether believers, and fuch that profefs themfelves, and are judged to be
fo, and ihty only, are to be baptized. This author fays, that " it is certainly
" very proper that parents devote their children to God -, which they may do
" by prayer, without baptizing, for which they have no warrant; and that they
" enter them as infant-difciples in the fchool of Chrift, in order to become iiis
" aftual fcholars as foon as capable " But this is beginning wrong, and per-
verting the order which Chrift has fixed, that perfons fliould firft be taught and
made difciples, and then baptized j and not firft baptized, and then made dif-
ciples. He afks, " Is it not as proper that this be dorte by the vifible ceremony
" of baptifm, as for the Jevvifli children to be entered into their church by cir-
" cumcifion ? " He ought firft to prove, that Jewifli children svere entered
into their church by circumcifion -, and then that it is tlie will of God, or ap-
pointment of Chrift, that infants fliould be entered into the chriftian church by
baptifm ; and that baptifm fucceeds circumcifion, and for fuch a purpofe-, nei-
ther of which can ever be made good. He further aflcs, " If parents make a
" profefTjon of the chriftian faith at the baptifm of their children, and alfo
" enter into public engagements to give tliem a chriftian education, are not
" as good ends, as to pradtical religion, anfwered by the baptifm of chriftians
'• children, as by the baptifm of adult perfons ?" I anfvvcr, tliat parents may
do thefe things if they pleafc, without baptizing their infants ; nor were thefe
ever defigned as ends to be anfwered by baptifm in any-, a profefTion of faith
fhould be made by the party baptized, and that before baptifm. After a little
harangue upon the virtue of wafhing the body with water, intimating, that this
cannot make a perfon one jot holier, or fecure from fin in future life, which
no body ever affirmed, he owns, that " penitent confeftion of fin, profefTion of
" faith in Chrift, and engaigement to a new life, were the conditions of baptifm
" to ail Jews and Gentiles •," which, as we believe they are, we defire to have
them continued fo ; for this we contend.
This Dialogue is concluded with fome diftinftions about zeal, and fome ccn-
fures upon the Particular Baptijls, and their preachers, for their blind, bodily,
immodeft
134 A N A N S W E R, &c.
immodeft and uncharitable zeal ; which, if guilty of, this man is a very im-
proper perfon to be a rebuker, fince he has fhewn fo much intemperate heat
againft men, whom he himfelf owns to be the difciples of Chrift; and againft
dodrines held by all the reformed churches. I wifh he may appear of another
fpirit in h\s feconJ part, which he has given us reafon to expeft.
I would fain perfuade this author, to leave this pamphleteering way of writ-
ing, and appear undifguifed. He fcems to be fond of engaging in a contro-
verfy with the Baptijis upon the above points, which require a larger compafs
duly to confidcr, than he has taken. I am a Baplijl, he may call me, if he
plcafcs, a new Bapiiji, or an old Cahinijlical one, or an Antinomian ; it is a f ery
trifle to me, by what name I go. I have publifhed a (reali/i upon the dodlrine
of the 7r;«/0', another upon the dodtrine oi J ujlif cation by the imputed rightc-
oufncfs of Chrift ; and \zi<:\y three volumes di0 3.\n{\. iht Arminians, and particu-
larly Dr fVbitiy ; in which are confidered the arguments, both from fcripture
and reafon, on both fides of the queftion -, and am now preparing z fourth, in
which the fenfe of the chriftian writers before yfr{/?/« will be given upon the
points in debate : if this Gentleman thinks it worth his while to attend to any,
or all of them, and enter into a fober controverfy on thefe fubjefls, I fhall
readily join him •, and, in the mean time, bid him farewel, till his feeond pari
is made public.
A N
AN ■ -
A N S WE R
TO THE
BIRMINGHAM Dialogue-Writer's Second Part,
Upon the following Subjects:
The Divinity Of CHRIST, I Free -Will,
Election, I Imputed Righteousness,
Original Sin, Perseverance, and
Free-Grace, | Baptism.
THE 5/r;;;/»^/?)/7?j; Dialogue- writer has, at length, thought fit to publiOi the
fecond -part of his Dialogue between a Bapiifl and a Churchman. Never
was fuch a medley of things, fuch a parcel of rambling (luff, coUefted together;
he is refolved to be voluminous at any rate: If he thus proceeds, we may indeed
expedl to fee the works of the Confident Chrijlian xn folio. I could wi(h he had
anfwered to his motto in the title-page, taken from an apccnphal wr'ncr \ Blejfed
is the man that doth meditate ho)ieJl (good) things by (in) hisivifdoui, and that rea-
Joneth of holy things by his underflanding; for the things he has meditated are nei-
ther ^W, nor bonefl, nor holy; unlefs things contrary to the divine perfeftions,
to the honour and dignity of Chrifl, and the dodtrine of the infpired writings;
unlefs to mifreprcfenc an argument, which he frequently does, and mifquote an
author, as he has Nir Millar " particularly, can be thought to be fo. I (hall not
difturb him in his vain mirth, but let him have his laugh out, at the theatrical
Ijehavlour, as he calls it, and geftures of preachers, and at myfteries in religion ;
only let him take care, left he fhould find by experience the truth of that faying
of the wife man. As the crackling of thorns under a pot, fo is the laughter of the
fool : this alfo is vanity', A man of no faitii, ' or whofe faitii is worfc than none,
or good for nothing, may go on to dcfpife Creeds, Catechifms, Confc/Bons and
Articles of Faith : the Riglu of private Judgment will not be difputed ; both
minilJ-ers
• Ecdes, xiv. 20. * Page 65, lot. ' Ecdes. vii. 6.
,3€ AN ANSWER TO THE
minifters and people have undoubtedly a liberry of fpeaking and writing what they
believe to be truth, provided they do not abufe this liberty to the difhonour of
Gof,], the gratification of their own pafTions, and the injury of their neicrhbours.
What I fhall attend unto, will be the following things; the Divinity of Chrift,
Eleflion, Original Sin, Free-will, and Free grace, Imputed Righteoufnefs,
Perfevcrance, and Baptifm •, things that were the fubjefts of the former party
«nd are now brought on the carpet again, and re-confidered in this. I begin,
I. With the Deity. of Chrift. This writer very wrongly diftinguiflies between
true, real, and /iro/)fr Deity, and al'foltitely fupreme Deny ; as if there could be
true, real, and proper Deity, and yet that not be abfolutely fupreme ; whereas
Deity is cither fidlitious or true, nominal or real, proper or metaphorical.
There are many who are called gods, that are not really fo •, there are fuch who
by nature are no gods, fidVitious deities, the idols of the heathens-, and there arc
fuch who are fo only in an improper fenfe, as civil magiftrates : Now none of
thcfe are truly, really and properly gods ; there is but one that is truly, really
and properly God, and who is the only abfolutely fupreme God, Father, Son,
and Spirit. To fay, there are more gods than one, who are really, truly, and
properly fo, is to introduce the Polytheifm of the Gentiles. To affert that the
Father is the abfolutely fupreme God ; that the Son is truly, really, and pro-
perly God, but not the abfolutely fupreme God-, and that the holy Spirit is alfo
really, truly, and properly God, but not the abfolutely fupreme God ; is to
afiert one abfolutely fupreme God, and two fubordinate Gods, who yet are truly
really, and properly fo. The arguments for and againft the fupreme Deity of
Chrift, and his equality with the Father, are as follow.
I. This writer having afferted in his frjl p^rt "y that Chrift is God, or a God,
becaufe the Father hath ^/I'fw him divine perfeftions, the following argument
was formed inanfwcrto it: " If the Father has given toChrift divine perfe(5tionj,
*' for which reafon he is God, or a God, he has either given him only fome
*' divine pcrfeftions, or all divine perfcflions -, if he has only given him fome
" divine perfeflions, then he is imperfeftly God, or an imperfeft one ; if he
" has given him all divine pcrfedlions, then he muft be equal to him'." Now
this was argumentum ad bcminem, an argument formed on his own principles,
and not mine, as any one who has the leaft (hare of common fenfe and undcr-
ftanding will eafily obferve ; and yet this man, cither ignorantly or wilfully
reprefents it as an argument proceeding upon my own principles -, whereas ic
is he, and not I, that fays, the Father has ^/v^« to Chrift divine perfeflions. I
affirm, that all the Father hath are hisj he pofTefTcs and enjoys all divine per-
fect ions.
* Page II. * Anfwer, p. 13, 14.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 137
feftions, not hy gift, but in right, and by necefTity of nature : that no divine
perfeflion is given him as the Son of God ; though all power, dominion, and
authority to judge, are given him as the fonofman. Hence the abfurdity of
communicating any thing to the fclf-exiftent fupreme God, and the fclf-con-
tradiftion of neceflity and gift, are impertinently alledged, and the argument,
as formed on his own principles, ftands unanfwered ; which has brought him
into a dilemma, out of which he knows not how to extricate himfeif: For if
the Father has given him divine perfections, it muft be either fome, or all •,
if only fome, then the fulnefs of the godhiad does not dwell in him, nor can he
be truly, really, and properly God ; if all, and fo no perfection of Deity is
wanting in him, then he muft be equal to the Father.
2. Another argument againft the fubordinate Deity of Chrift, and in favour
of his equality with the Father, is this : " If the Father only is the mofl high
" God, and Chrift is a God, that is, a God inferior to him, whom he has com-
" manded all men toworfhip-, then there are two diftinCt Gods, objefts of religi-
" ousworftiip; dirediy contrary to the exprefs words of the firft command, Tbou
" yZ)j// have no other gods before me\" This is an argument reducing to a mani-
feft abfurdity, and the Dialogue-writer's replies to it fhew him to be in the ut-
moftdiftrefs; he is confounded, and knows not what to fay. Firfi, he fays '',
that " if there be any abfurdity, any contradidtion here to the firft command,
" it falls not direflly on him, but on Chrift and his gofpel, from whence he
" borrowed thefe truths." But does Chrift in his gofpel ever teach, that the
Father is the moft high God, or even the only true God, diftinft from, and
exclufive of the Son; and that the Son of God is a God, inferior and fubordinate
to the Father.'' Next, he obferves ^ that the firft command fpeaksof one per-
fon only to be worfhipped as God fupreme, and not of more perfons than one.
Be it lb. Since then, according to this man's principles, Chrift is a God infe-
rior and fubordinate to the moft high God, he muft be a diftind perfon from
him, and confequently ftandsexcluded from divine worfhip by the firft command;
wherefore the gofpel-doctrine of worftiipping the Son, cannot be taken in con-
fiftency with that: and, on the other hand, if Chrift, a fubordinate God, is one
perfon with the fupreme God, this would deftroy his fubordination, and give
him fupremacy, contrary to this author's notions. If this will not do, he goes
on and tens'" you, "You may fuppofe that God himfeif, in commanding men
" to honour his Son, has repealed fo much of the firft command as is inconfiftent
" with the New-Teftament-command to honour or worftiip his Son." This
is cutting the Gordian knot indeed ! This man, I fuppofe, would not care to
be called an Antinomian ; and yet the grofTeft Antinomian that ever lived upon
Vol. II. T the
t Anfwer, p. 14. f Dialogue-writer, Part II. p. 28. « Page 29. * lbi<l-
138 AN ANSWER T0_ THE
the face of the earth, never ventured upon what this man does, namely, to aflert,
or fuppofe, that any law, or part of a law, relating to the objedl of religious
worfhip, was ever repealed or abrogated. Laftly, He adds', '■'■\.\\2t\ntbe ho-
♦♦ nour paid to Jefus Chrift, God the Father is ultimately honoured, as this is
*' faid to the glory of God theFather." Now not to take notice of the blunder,
the nonfcnfe of this palFage, in \.i[W\nooi honour ht\ns, paid to glory; if the Fa-
ther is ultimately honoured by that fame honour which is given to the Son, as.
to himfelf, then I hope " the charge of robbing God the Father of his peerlefs
" majefty, or of ungoddiog him ''," by aflerting the Son's equality to him, is
weak and groundlcfs.
3. A third argument, proving Chrift to be the moft high God, ftands ' thus t
*' If the Moft High over all the earth is he whofe name alone is Jehovah, and
" Chrirt's name is Jehovah ; if the fame things which prove the Father to be
*' the moft high God, are faid of the Son, as they are •, why may he not be
•' thought to be the moft high God equally with the Father ? " To which is
replied, that " when the Son perfonates Jehovah, he may be called Jehovah, as
an angel that fometimes fpeaks in the peribn of God ; it being ufual for fuch as
deliver mefTages from others, to fpeak after the fame manner thofe perfons
would have done, in whofe name they come : So that no argument can thence
be drawn for his fupreme Deity ; fince that name is given to an angel, when
fpeaking in Jehovah's name. But it ftiould be obferved, that it cannot be proved
that ever any created angel, fpeaking in the name of God, ever calls himfelf
Jehovah, or is fo called ; all the places referred to by this writer, where an
angel is called Jehovah, are to be underftood of the uncreated angel, the Son
of God, as will clearly appear at firft frghr, to any who will take the pains to
infpeft them. The pafTages are Gen. xviii. 13. and xix. 24. and xxii. 15, 16.
Exod. xxiii. 20, 21. Ifai. Ixiii. 9. Mai. iii. i. All which are fo many firm and
landing proofs of the truth of the obfcrvation, that Chrift is called Jehovah ;
a name peculiar to the moft high God, Pya/. Ixxxiii. 18. and therefore muft
conclude his fupreme Deity, and the argument for it from hence, ftands un-
fiiaken and unanfwered. It may be ufual with meflengers to fpeak after the
manner of the perfons in whofe name they come-, but do they ever call them-
felves by their names .'' or are they ever fo called by others ? Did ever any am-
baflador of the king of Great Britain, when fcnt to a foreign court with an am-
bafty, ftile himfelf the king of Great Britain ? or call himfelf by the name of
king George? or was he ever fo called by others ?
The do(5lrine, "that Father, Son, and Spirit, are the one moft high God,
« is charged ° with being a contradidion to reafon, to the whole Bible j to be
" a
• Dialogue writer, Part II. p. 29. * Page 43. [ Anrwer, p. 14.
n» Dialogue, Part II. p. 29, 30. • Ibid. p. 30, 31.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 139
*« a felf-contradidion ; yea, to have many contradiftions in it." To which I
anfwcr : Though rcafon, unafTiftcd by revelation, tells us there is but one felf-
cxiftent, intelligent Creator and Ruler of the univerfe, the Bible makes a clearer
and further difcovery of this matter, and acquaints us that more than one per-
fon were concerned in creation and government. Let us make man, Gen. i. 26.
Let us go down and confound their language. Gen. xi. 7. Remember thy creators,
Eccles. xii. I. Thy makers are thy hujbands, Ifai. liv. 5. Revelation fpeaks of
three perfons as concerned herein ; and of thefe, not as making one perfon, but
as being one God. There are three that hear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the holy Ghojl, and thefe three are one^ i John v, 7. that is, one God.
Now if it is no contradiflion to the Bible, which every where fpeaks conformable
to the voice of right reafon, to fay that Father, Son and Spirit, are one God;
then it is no contradiftion to rcafon, or to the Bible, nor is it any felf-contra-
diflion, or big with others, to fay, that Father, Son and Spirit, are the one
mod high God. But, in confutation of this, we are recommended,
4. To an argument which this writer has borrowed from another perfon,
drawn up in the following form° : " He who is alone the fupreme governor 6f
" the univerfe, is alone the fupreme God ; but the Father is alone the fupreme
" governor of the univerfe." This latter propofition proved. " He who never
" afls in fubjedtion to the will of any other perfon, and every other perfon
♦' whatfoever always adts in fubjeflion to his will, is alone the fupreme governor
" of the univerfe : But theFather never adts in fubjeflion to the will of another
*' perfon, and every other perfon whatfoever always afts in fubjcftion to his
" will; therefore theFather alone is the fupreme governor of the univerfe."
To which I anfwer, by denying the m/wor propofition, that the Father is alone
the fupreme governor of the univerfe; for the Son is with theFather the fupreme
governor of the world : the kingdom is the Lord's, that is, the Lord Chrift's,
for he is fpoken of throughout that whole pfalm ''; and he is the governor among
the nations. My Father, faysChrifl:, worketh hitherto"^-, that is, in the government
of the univerfe, in the adminiftration of providence : and I work; 1 am jointly
concerned with him in thefe things: which made the Jews rightly conclude that
he made himfelf fj«d/ with Gi>^, an equal governor of the univerfe with him.
Hence it is clear, that the Father is not alone the fupreme governor of the uni-
verfe. Moreover, the minor propofition of the argument brought in proof of
this, that the Father is alone the governor of the univerfe, muft alfo be denied ;
I mean that part of it on which the proof depends, that "every other perfon
" whatfoever always afts in fubjedlion to his, the Father's will :" For though
the Son of God always a<5ls in agreement, yet not always in fubje£Iion to his Father's
T 2 will;
• Dialogue, Part 11. p. 30, 31. ' Pfilm xxii. 2$, ' John t. 17.
J40 ANANSWERTOTHE
will; though he always afted in fubjeftion to his Father's will in the human na-
ture, yet not in the divine nature; particularly in the works of creation and
providence; in ihefe there is an agreement with, but not a fubjedlion to his
Father's will ; all things were made by him in agreement, but not in fubjedion
to the will of the Father; by him all things ccnjiji, and he upholds all things by the
WQrd of bis power ' ; agreeable to his Father's will, but not obliged as by any
power or authority fuperior to him.
• 5. This writer, in h\s Jirjl part ', argues againft the fupreme deity of Chrift,
in this manner: " Before the Lord Jefus Chrift became man, he came from the
" Father, was fcnt and employed by him ; therefore it is impoffible he fhould
" be the fupreme God." It is readily granted, that Chrift before his incarna-
tion came, though he is not cxprefsly faid to he/ent, to redeem Ifrael, lead
them through the Red fea and wiidernefs, and bring them to Canaan. And it
has been obferved ', that he appeared with full proof of his equality with the
Father, fince he calls himfelf the God of yfi'r<Ji^JOT, Ifaac, and Jacob, and, lam
that I am, Exod. iii. 6, 14. And Jehovah (lys of him^.My name is in him ; and
that he could, though he would not, pardon iniquity; all which this author
takes no notice of, but catches at the phrafes offending, and being /f«/, which
he thinks fuppofe fuperiority and inferiority ; though it has been obferved to
him, that of two equals, by agreement one may be fent by the other : But this
he thinks, as applied to two perfons, who are the one moft high God, is charge-
able with abfurdity and blafphcmy. Not with abfurdity ; for though he that is
fent is not greater than he that fent him ", he may be equally as great. Nor did he
appear at all inferior to the mofl: high God when he came to redesm Ifrael \ and
even when he was fent to redeem mankind, though the glory of his Deity was
greatly vailed and hid from the eyes of men in his ftate of humiliation, yet he
did not lay afide his authority, or give up his fupremacy and government; he
was then in heaven, and as much one with the Father, and as greatly concerned
with him in the government of the world, as before ; fee Join i. 1 8. and iii. i 3.
and V. 17. Nor is it chargeable with blafphcmy; it is indeed great condefcen-
fion, a wonderful ftoop of Deity ; and the higher the Deity of Chrift is carried,
the more wonderful his condefcenfion appears, whether in coming to redeem
Jfrael before his incarnation, or for the falvation of his people at it. And here
give me leave to correft a miftake of this author's in another place ", in which
he reprefents us as fuppofing that Chrift was begotten, fent, came forth from the
. Father as man, before he was man : Whereas, as man, he never was begotten at
all; and might be faid 10 he fent, and come before he was man, in order to be
•Jolini-3- Colofs. i. 16, 17. Heb. i;3. 'Page 11. • Anfwer, p. 15, 16.
• John xiii. 16. * Dialcgue, Part II. p. 39.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE- WRITER, Part II. 141
fo, with refpedl to his office-capacity, which he voluntarily, and in the mod
condefcending manner, took upon him for the good of men.
6. Whereas the equality of Chrift with the Father is pleaded for, as beincr
ftrongly afTcrted in Phil. ii. 6. John x. 30. thefe pafTages are objefted to. The
firit of thefe, at it ftands in our Bibles, is fo glaring a proof of the Son's equa-
lity with the Father, that the adverfaries of it are not able to withftand it;
wherefore they employ all their wit and learning to deftroy the commonly re-
ceived tranflation, and to eftablifh another ; and inftead oi thought it net robbery
to be equal with God, render Tt, did not affeSl, greedily catch at, or ajfume divinity,
or to appear like a God. The firft after Arius, who embraced and contended for
this vcrfion, was Enjedinus " the Socinian -, and mod of thofe this author men-
tions as giving up our tranflation, are fuch who gave into the Arian or Socinian
fchemes, or were inclinable thereunto, contrary to the fenfe of the far greater
number of learned writers, ancient and modern. I perceive this Diah^ue-writer
is acquainted with a book intitled Fortuita Sacra, written by a perfon of worth
and learning; he would do well to confult that learned writer upon this paflao-e,
who has refuted the tranflation and fenfe this author feems fond of, and has
eltablifhed the commonly received one, in agreement with the context, where
Chrift is faid to be in the form of God; which he fhews to be the eflential form
of God, all that is great and glorious in him, his very nature and Deity, in
which Chrift exifted, and therefore muft be equal to him. This ufe of the
word f^fjn, he proves from ancient writers ''. Nor is this fenfe of it contradic-
tory to right reafon ; for fince in nature a fon may be equal to a father, why
not in the divine eflcnce, for any thing this author has faid to the contrary ?
Begotten, and not derived, is no con trad i (ft ion, confidered in different refpeds.
Chrift is begotten, as a Son, but underived, asGod over all : He is not tu/]»viQ-
Son of himfclf, though «/7c^©-, God of himfelf : He is Son of the Father, but
God of himfelf; his perlonality and fonfhip he has of the Father, his being and
perfections of himfelf: there is no foundation for a diftinction between a becrot-
ten and unbcgotten efTcnce ; not elTence, but perfon is begotten : And falfe it
is, to fay that this is not taken notice of in the Anfwer to the Dialogue ^ More-
over, the fenfe of the pafTage before us we contend for, is no ways contrary to
thofe fcriptures which fpeak of Chrift as commifTioned by the Father, doing his
will, and nothing of himfelf; as not knowing the day of judgment; and that
the Father is greater than he, and he is glorified by him ; fince thefe are fpoken
of him in his office-capacity, and as man and mediator. This phrafe, as man
and mediator, is greatly found fault with by this writer*, as having, by joinincr
thefe
* Explicit. Lot. Vet. & Nov. Ted. p. 323,314. 1 Fortuita S«cra, p. 178, &c.
» See p. JO, 21. » Dialogue, Part II. p. ^,
1142 AN ANSWER TO THE
•thefe words together, a mean fallacy in it, whereas the idea of a mediator com-
prehends the whole perfon of Chrift as God-man, together with his office. But
why may not thefe two be joined together without a fallacy, when the fcripturc
iays, that there is one mediator between God and men, the man Chriji Jefus " ? True
indeed, Chrift is mediator in both natures, human and divine, he having thefe
united in one perfon as God-man ; fo that what is done in, or belongs to any of
thefe natures, may, by virtue of this union, be predicated of his perfon-, and
yet thefe things muft be attributed to the diftinft natures to which they belong;
as for inftance, omnipotence and omnifcience may be predicated of the perfon
of Chrift, and yet thefe belong only to him as confidered in his divine nature:
5o doing nothing of himfelf, and not knowing the day of judgment, maybe
predicated of the Son, when thefe manifeftly belong to him as confidered in the
human nature. This obfervation attended to, will unravel and dcftroy all that
this author has wrote upon this head.
The pafTage in John x. jo. is a clear proof of the Son's equality with the Fa-
ther ; where Chrift fays, / and my Father are one ; not one perfon, but one God,
of one and the fame nature : By which we mean the fame divine elTence and per-
fedions ; for the Son partakes of the fame divine nature, and pofTefTes the fame
divine perfections theFathcr does; he has all the fulnefs of the Godhead in him,
and fo is equal to him. In this fenfe the Jews undcrftood him ; upon which
they charge him with blafphemy, becaufe he made himfelf God ; and to vin-
dicate himfelf, he firft argues from his inferior charadter, as being in office;
that if magiftrates without blafphemy might be c^WtAgods, much more might
he, who was fandlified and fent into the world by the Father : But he does not
Jet the ftrefs of the proof of his deity reft here, but proceeds to prove that he
was truly and properly God, by doing the fame works his Father did. So that
the Jews were not miftaken in his fenfe, nor did they belie him ; though they
wronged him, in charging him with blafphemy on this account. As for John
xvii. 21. where Chrift prays that believers may be one, as he and his Father
are one, it is impertinently alledged, fince thzas there does not exprefs equality,
but likenefs ; for none will venture to fay, not even this author himfelf, that
believers arc, or will be one with the Father and Son, in that felf-fame fenfe, as
ibey are one with another ; there is not the famenefs of power, aftion or opera-
tion, which is acknowledged in the Father and the Son. Upon the whole, the
text in John x. 3. ftands fully againft the fubordination of the Son to the Father,
and is a firm proof of his equality with him in nature and perfc(flions ; by which
dodrine no diftionour is done to the Father, or affront given him ; fince no
pcrfcftion of deity, or any branch of honour and worlhip, are denied him, or
given
* I Tim. ii. 5.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 143
given to a creature^ and fince it is pcrfedlly agreeable to him, that all men
Jhculd honour the Son, ms they honour the Father. I proceed,
II. To the doftrine of eledion and reprobation. The fum of the charge
againft this do<5lrine in the/r/? p^r/, is, that it is unmerciful, unjufb, infincere,
and uncomfortable -, and this b the amount of the whole harangue upon it in
this fart. What I fhall attend unto, will be the exceptions to what has been,
advanced, in order to clear it from this charge. And,
1. Whereas it is charged with cruelty and unmercifulncfs; it has been obferv-
cd ' that it carries no marks of cruelty and unmercifulncfs in it to the cledt,.
who are vejfeli of mercy afore-prepared unto glory ; which mercy this writer calls *
♦' unwife and partial mercy, fuch as we are fure, fays he, God can never be
" guilty of." But pray, does not God fay, I will have mercy on ivhom J will
have mercy ? Upon which the apoftle obferves. So then it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of Cod that fhewtth mercy Therefore hath he mercy
on whom he will have mercy, and zvhom he will he hardeneth'. And will this man
call this mercy, (hewn only to fome, as influenced not by their will and works,
but as arjfing from the fovereign will and pleafure of God, unwife and partial
mercy ? This man himfelf owns, that God's decreeing help for a few, is not
an objedtion to the mercifulncfs of God ; but thequcftion is, he fays', " where
" is the pity of God, his grace, the founding of his bowels over them, for whom
♦' he decreed no help .'"' I anfwer, there is pity, mercy and goodnefs (hown to
thefe, in a general way of providence ; and though none in a fpccial way of
grace, yet no cruelty, fince God is not obliged to help them -, and it is no
cruelly in him to punifli for fin. It has been further obferved *, in order to re-
move this charge, that if it was not aifling the cruel and unmerciful part not to
ordain help for any of the fallen angels, it would not have been ading fuch a
part, had God refolved not to help any of the fallen race of Adam, much lefs to
ordain help {or fome, when he could in juftice have condemned all. This rcpre-
fentation of the cafe is faid •■ to be unfair in itfelf, inconfillent with our princi-
ples, and the iliuftration of it cvafive ; and it is afked, "amongft the fallen an-
** gels did God fhcw mercy to fome, evcrlafting mercy, while he decreed others
" to hell, who were no more guilty than the reft ?" I anfwer, no -, he fhewed
mercy to none of them, but configned them all over to ruin and deflruftion ;
and yet he is not chargeable with cruelty. But fuppofing he had fhewn mercy
to fome, and not to others, as in the cafe of man ; would he have appeared lefs
merciful, by fhewing of mercy to fome, than by fliewing none to any ? And
as for all the other queftions put, whether God fent a proclamation of pardon
to
• Anfwer, p. 24. * Dialogue, Part II. p. 56. « Rom. ix. 15, 16, 18.
* Part II. p. 57. » Aniwer, p. 16. * Part II. p. 56.
»44- AN ANSWER TO THE
to them that were fore-ordained to mifcry, or offered one on conditions not to
be complied with, or exhorted to accept a falvation never purchafed for them,
■or condemned to a heavier damnation for not believing a falfhood, or for not
■doing an impoffibility ; thefe are all impertinent, and are no more applicable
io men, upon our principles, than to angels. The fallen angels are, indeed,
as is obferved, perfonal, voluntary finners, and are, and will be treated accord-
ing to their own fhare of guilt ; and fo are all the adult pofterity of Adam, who
are and will be fo treated either in themfelves or furety •, and, as many of them
as will be condemned, will be condemned, not merely for the fin oi Adam, and
for their fhare of guilt therein, but for t'heir own adual, perfonal, voluntary
fms and tranTgreffions ; and as for the infant pofterity o^ Adam, their cafe is a
ifecret to us, and therefore, we choofe to be filent about it.
Once more, it has been obferved \ that " the doflrne of election is more mer-
*' ciful than the contrary fcheme, fince it infallibly fecurcs the falvation of fome;
" whereas, the other does not afcertain the falvation of any fingle perfon, but
*' leaves it uncertain, to the precarious and fickle will of man." The reply to
ihis is by afking '', which is more honourable to God, and more for the com-
fort of men ? whereas the queftion is, which fhews mofl mercy ? Though one
fhould think, that doctrine which enfures the falvation o^ fome, fhould be more
honourable to God, and more comfortable to man, than that which does not
afcertain the falvation oi ajjy fingle man. This author docs not attempt to dif-
prove the dodtrine of cleftion infallibly fecuring the falvation of fo.me ; and, in
a very feeble manner does he argue, for the afcertaining of falvation to man in
the contrary dodrine -, he aflcs, " is not the falvation of man fufficiently afcer-
" tained by the gofpel's fetting life and death before men, and offering them
" all needful affiftance in the way of life ? " he would have faiJ, furely, by the
lawjfeiling life and death, fince that is the proper bufinefs of the law, and not
the gofpel ; can that be good news which fets death before men .'' Bjt to leave
this. Is moral fuafion fufficient to afcertain man's falvation ? Is the bare minif-
tration even of the gofpel itfelf, enough for this purpofe ? Is this the way God
forefaw falvation would be afcertained to men, and the only one in which Chrifb
and men could define it fhould be enfured to them ? when, where it is ufed in
its utmoft ftrength, it fails in innumerable inftances, and was never fufficient,
of itfelf, in one; and befides, is at mofl made ufe of but with a few, who arc
fo in comparifon of the far greater part of the world, who know nothing of the
gofpel, and the niiniflration of it : how then is falvation afcertained to them
this way }
2. Another charge againfl this dodrine, is injuftice, and that it reprcfents
God as an unrighteous Being : to which has been anfwered ', that " the decree
" of
•^ Anfwer, p. 13, 14. "• Part II. p. 7;. ' Anfwer, p. 27.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II.
14
•*■:?
" of eleflion does no injuftice either to the cleft or non-elefl ; not to the
" former, fince it fecures to them both grace and glory ; nor to the latter, fince
" as God condemns no man but for fin, fo he has decreed to condemn no man
" but for fin i and if it would have been no injuftice in him, to have decreed
" to condemn all men for fin, it can be none to him, to decree to condemn
" fome for fin." The reply to which is"', that this anfwer is evafive and am-
biguous, in regard it -does not tell us, whether God condemns and decrees to
condemn men for their own fin, or for the fin oi Adam. But where is the eva-
fion or (hifc in the anfwer ? If it is for fin, and for fin only, with which men
are chargeable, that God condemns, and has decreed to condemn, let it be
what fin it will, the obfervation is full to the purpofe, and fufRciently clears
God from the charge of unrighteoufnefs; nor is it ambiguous, fince in a follow-
ing paragraph it is plainly intimated and fully proved, that God condemns both
for the fin oi Adam, and for man's own perfonal iniquities -, as the latter will not
be denied, the former (lands fupported by thofe words of the apoftle. By the
cffence of one, judgmetit came upon all men to condemnation" ; which this writer
takes no notice of, and makes no return unto ; and yet the cry of unri'Thteouf-
nefs entirely proceeds upon this point ; though we do not fay that any of the
fons oi Adam who live to adult age, are condemned only for the fin of Adam,
but for their many aftual fins and tranfgrefTions -, and as for infants dyinc in
infancy, it has been obferved, their cafe is a fecret to us; yet inafmuch as they
come into the world children of wrath, fhould they go out as fuch, would there
be any unrighteoufnefs in God ? All which, this author has paficd over in
filcnce : perhaps we may hear more of it under the article of Original Sin.
This man has been told "», that as God will not condemn the heathen for not
believing in Chrift, of whom they never heard, fo neither will he condemn fuch
who have heard of him, for not believing fpiritually and favinoly in him, or
that he died for them, or for not being converted : and yet he fays % not a
word is produced to vindicate God from the charge our fcheme fixes upon him,
of damning men for not believing falOioods, and for not doing impofiibilities.
Men wlio have had the advantage of a divine revelation, may be condemned,
not for not believing that Chrift died for them, but for difbelievincr that Jcfus
is the MefTiah, and other things, which in the revelation are faid of him ; they
may be condemned for their dilbbedience to the golpcl, not for their being not
converted by it, but for their contempt and rejeftion of it, as an impofture and
a fallc report -, and confequently, not for not believing falflioods, and for no't
doing impofilbilities.
Vol. II. U 3. This
■" Part n. p. 5q. " Rom v. 18.
• Anfwer, p. 28. f Part II. p. 65.
146 AN ANSWER TO THE
. 3. This doftrinc is farther charged with infincerity, or as reprefenting God
as an infincere and deceitful Being-, fincc he offers to finners a falvation never
purchafed for them, and on conditions not to be complied with. The anfwer
to this is % that falvation is not offered at all byGod, upon any condition what-
foever, to any of the fonsof men, eledtor non-eledtj and thereforeGod, accord-
ing to this dodrine, is not chargeable with infincerity and deceit. This occafions
a terrible outcry ' of myjlery of iniquity, an abominable tenet, horrid jcbem;, which
has the image of the devil and the mark of the beafl upon it, and other fuch like
language, which breathe out the fpirit, the very life and foul oi modern charity,
and is a true pifture of it. This author owns, that hereby we are confiftent, in
preaching and writing, with ourfelves and fcheme, and fo not chargeable with
fclf-contradi£bion ; and fince it is of a piece with the reft of our tenets, and is
likely to fliare the fame fate with them, we need not be in much pain about the
confequences of it. But this tenet, that there is no offer of falvation to men in
the miniftry of the gofpel, is faid to be inconfiftent with all tlie didlates of rea-
fon, our ideas of God, and the whole fyftem of the gofpel : not furely with
all the didlatcs of reafon ; for how irrational is it, for minifters to ftand offcrino-
Chrift, and falvation by him to man, when, on the one hand, they have nei-
ther power nor right to give -, and, on the other hand, the perfons they offer
to, have neither power nor will to receive .^ What this author's ideas of God
are, I know nor, but this I fay, it is not confiftent with our ideas of God, that
he fhould fend minifters to offer falvation to man, to whom he himfclf never
intended to give it, which the minifters have not power to bcftow, nor the men
to receive: but, it feems, denying offers of falvation, is inconfiftent with the
whole fyftem of the gofpel •, theBible is hereby knocked down at once, and made
to be the moft delufive, and cheating book in the world -, when the whole Bible
is one ftanding offer of mercy to a guilty world. What ! the whole Bible .? the
Bible may be diftinguifhed into ihefc two parts, bijlorical and doHrinal; the hif-
torical part of the Bible is furely no offer of mercy to a guilty world ; the ac-
count of the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the firft verfe of it, can
hardly be thought to be fo. The doflrinal part of it may be diftinguiftied into
law and gofpel; the law, which is the killing letter, and the miniftration of con-
demnation and death to a guilty world, can be no ftanding offer of mercy to
it : if any part of the Bible is fo, it muft be the gofpel ; but the gofpel is a de-
claration of falvation already wrought out by Chrift, and not an offer of it on
conditions to be performed by man. The minifters of the gofpel are fent to
^f reach the gofpet to every creature'; that is, not to offer, but to preach Chrift,
and falvation by him ; to publifti peace and pardon as things already obtained
by
< Anfwer, y. 29. » Put II. p. 6i> 65. _• Markxvi. 15.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 147
by him. The minifters are kji^vxh, criers or heralds ; their bufinefs is ».r,fv7trnf^ to
proclaim aloud, to publifh fafts, to declare things that are done, and no: to
offer them to be done on conditions ; as when a peace is concluded and finifhed,
the herald's bufinefs, and in which he is employed, is to proclaim the peace,
and not to offer it-, of this nature is the gofpel, and the whole fyftem of it; which
preaches, not offers peace by Chrift, who is Lord of all. As for the texts of
fcripture produced by this writer, feveral have nothing in them refpefting par-
don, life and falvation, and much lefs contain an offer of either; as I have
fhcwn at large in my Jirji part of TheCaufe of God and Truth ; whither I refer the
reader; fuch as Gen. iv. 7. Deut. v. 29. Prov. i. 23. Ezek. xxxiii. 16. Affs iii. 19.
others are gracious invitations to the means of grace, and promifes of pardo.T
and grace to poor fenfible finners ; as Jfai.lv.i, 7. Rev. xxii. 17. A3s u. '^S.
others, exhortations to duty with encouragements to it; zsPfalm]. 23. Mai. iii. 7.
Mali. vi. 5, 6, 15. and vii. 21. i Tim. iv. 8. 2 Ccr. vii. i. Rev xxii. 14.
4. This dodtrine is reprefented as a very uncomfortable one ; fince it makes
it a hundred to one to a man that he is not eledcd, but mufl be for ever damned.
To which anfwer has been made ', it is not fuch a chance matter, or uncertain
thing to a man, as a hundred to one, whether he is elcSed or no ; to whom ihe
gcfpel is come, not in word only, biU alfo in power and in the holy Ghojl ; who from
hence may truly know, and be comfortably affured of h\%de£lion of God This
man has now lowered his number, and made \iten to one, whether a man is
eledled or no, to whom xhc gofpel is preached ; but it is no odds at all to a man
whether he is elefted or no, to whom the gofpel is preached ; and to whom that
is made the power of God unto falvation, or who is converted by it, which is the
inftance given. To which this writer replies °, " then the gofpel is glad tidings
*' to no finner in the world, unlefs he is aftually converted.*' Why, ■truly, it
is not glad tidings to fuch pcrfons, nor is it judged fo by them. It is fo far from
being good news to unconverted finncrs, thntit is difputed, defpifcd, hated arnl
abhoned by them ; jufl as it is by this Dialogue -writer. Thrre is no doftrine
of the gofpel that is really comfortable and truly delightful to a man in a ftatc of
nature : the dodrine of regeneration, delivered by Chrift in thefe words *, except
■a vian be bom again, he cannot fee the kingimn of God, can TKver be comfortable
to an unregenerate man : nor can even any dodlrine in which fuch as call the.Ti-
fclvcs chriflians, -are agreed ; is for inftance, the "dodrine of an univerfal judg-
ment, when all men muft app>ear beforeGod, and be accountable to him for the
«6tions of their lives : this is a doftrioe, to ufe this author's words, that all the
world have rcafon to be affrighted at, and which no foul can pofTibly take any
comfort from, till he doesadually love God, and is irrefiflibl}' drawn to him ;
V 2 ■ but
« Anfwer, p. 30. " Part II. p. 67. ' John Hi. 3.
148 AN ANSWER TO THE
but it is not a whit the lefs true becaufe it is uncomfortable to fuch perfons,
any more than the dodrine of elcdtion, which, however frightful it be to uncorv-
verted finners, yields true peace and comfort to thofe who are born again, and
have ihc faith of God's eUn ; though they take no pleafure in the rejeftion of
others, but wifely leave it to the fovereignty of that God, who does whatfoever
he pleafes. Nor can the univerfal fcheme afford fuch comfort to a converted
man, as that of fpecial grace does -, fince, according to the former, he may be
loft and perifli, when the latter fecures certain falvation to him.
To clofe this head ; it feems, according to this writer", that as the nation of
the Jews are called God's ekSl, in like manner, the kingdom of Chrift, con-
verted ones, have the fame title applied to them, not in iht'w perfonal, hm facial
capacity, as chriftian churches : fo the whole church at Theffalonica are called
God's ekn, not with refpedl to fingle perfons, but on the account of their being
called by the gofpel. But, furely, the calling of the Theffalonians by the gof-
pel, mud he pcrfoiuil, and not facial, or as a chriftian church; and therefore
their elcdion muft be perfonal too, of which their calling was an effedt, fruit
and evidence. And though the nation of the Jews are called God's elefl, or
cbofen, as fuch, and were diftinguifhed by many favours, as a nation, from the
reft of the world ; yet there was a fpecial, perfonal and particular elecflion among
them, a remnant, according to the ekHion of grace '' : nor are all that bare that
name under the gofpel, or in the kingdom of the Meffiah, churches, but par-
ticular perfons : the/fw, Chrift faid, viere. chofen, when many were externally
called by the gofpel, were perfons, and not nations or churches ; thefe are the
eleil, for whofe fake the days of tribulation will be fhortened, whom falfe pro-
phets cannot deceive, and whom the angels will gather from the four winds :
not churches, nor all the members of churches, are the poor of this world,
whom God has chofen, and made rich in faith, and heirs of a kingdom : the ele£}
Lady, and her fifter, and Rufus, chofen in the Lord, and the ele5} flrangerSy
were perfons chofen before the foundation of the world in Chrift, to be hoLy
and happy ^ I go on to confider,
III. The do(5lrine of Adam's fall, and original fin. Under this head our
author endeavours,
I. To prove the entire innocence of infants from fcripture'. The paffages
be produces or refers to, are Jer. ii. 30. and xix. 4. Matt, xviii. 3, 4. the two
firft of thefe feem rather to be underftood of the prophets, as they are by feve-
ral
" Part II. p. 60, 67. r See Rom. ix. 6, 7, 8, 27, 29. and xi. j, 7.
* M*tt. xr. 16. and xxir. 22, 24, ji. Jam. ii. 5. ijohni.jj. R01n.xvi.13. jPct.i.1,2.
Ephcs. i. 4. » Pirtir, p. 73.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE- WRITER, Part II.
149
ral expoficors, than of infants -, the former of them has no apparent reference
to children, and the latter of them diftinguifhes innocents from the fons, or the
children that were burnt with fire, for burnt-offerings to 5<2a/; and both fcem
rather to regard the prophets ; who, though not free from fin, yet were inno-
cent as to any crime for which they fuffcred, and their blood was fhed. And
fuppofing infants were intended, they are only called fo in a comparative fenfe,.
in comparifon of others, who have added to their original guilt and corruption
many actual fins and tranfgrefTions •, and as for the words of our Lord in Matf.
xviii. 3, 4. the meaning Is not, that men muft be perfcdly innocent, and en-
tirely free from fin, or there can be no expe(5tation of entering the kingdom of
heaven ; for then no man could hope to enter there -, but that men muft be born
again, and appear to be fo, and, in a comparative fenfe, muft be holy, and
harmlefs, ircc from pride, ambition, malice and envy. And even his learned
Cicero, to whom he has recourfe, helps him off but very lamely ; for in the very
citation he makes from him, he fays, " We are no fooner born, but we fall into
" a wretched depravity and corruption of manners and opinions ; fo that we
" feem almoft to fuck in error with our mother's milk."
2. This writer endeavours ''to fct afide the proof of the imputation oi Jdamh
Cn to his pofterity, and the corruption of human nature by it, taken from Pfalm
\\. 5. Rom. V. 19. Ephes. ii. 3. by giving different turns to, and falfe glofTes on
thefe padages : As to Pfalm li. 5. he infinuates, that David might be bafe born,
or unlawfully begotten, and fo fhapen in iniquity, and afks, is this a proof that
other men are fo, or that all men are fo ? This is a glofs which is formed at
'the expence of the charadters of David's parents, of whom there is not the leaft
fuggeftion of this nature in the word of God, but the reverfe ; for they are re-
prefentcd as holy and religious pcrfons : this fenfe of them makes David illegi-
timate, who, therefore, muft have been excluded from the congregation of
Jfraely whereas we have no intimation of any fuch exclufion ; but, on the con-
trary, that he frequently went into the houfe of God with company ; befides, he
is not fpeaking of any fin his parents were guilty of, when he was conceived
and fhapen, but of fin and iniquity, in which he was conceived and fhapen ;
nor would it have been agreeable to his defign and view, to expofe the fins of
his parents, whilft he was lamenting his own. Our fenfe oi Romans v. 19. that
all mankind are made finners by the imputation of y/iaw'sdifobedience, is 'faid
to be " contrary to reafon, to the context, to known truths, to other more plain
" fcriptures, to be in injurious to God, and abufive to mankind." It is not con-
trary to reafon ; imputation is not ufed by us in a moral fenfe, as when a man's
own perfonal aftion, good or bad, is accounted to himfelf; but in a forenfic
fenfe,
» Part II. p. 74, &c. • Ibid. p. jS.
J
I50 AN ANSWER TO THE
fenfe, as when the debts of one man are, in a legal way, transferred and placed
to the account of another ; which is neither contrary to reafon, nor the praftice
of men : nor is it contrary to the context, which, this writer fays, leads us, by
Jinners to underftand/Kj7>rfrj, mortal men liable to die, z%ver. 12, i^c. but this
is to make the apoftle a moft miferable reafoner, and guilty of proving the fame
thing by the fame •, the fenfe of whofe words, death pajfed upon all men, for that
ell have finned, mufl: be, according to this interpretation, all men die becaufe
they die, or all men are fufFercrs becaufe they are fufferers -, whereas the apoftle
in thcfe words, and throughout the context, fhews, why death pafied on all men,
•.why many were dead, why death reigned as it did, why judgment came upon
all men to condemnation •, becaufe all finned in /idam, and by his difobedienoe
were made, reckoned, and accounted finners. Nor is this fenfe contrary to
known truths, and other more plain fcriptures ; as to the latter, this author
<3oes not pretend to mention any to which it is contrary ; and as for the former,
though nothing can aft perfonally before it has an adlual perfonal being ; yet as
men may have a reprefcntative being, before they have an adiial one, fo they
•tnay aft in their reprefentative, as Levi paid tithes in Abi-aham before he was
.born 1 and though fin is a perfonal a6t, and a tranfgreffion of a law, yet it may
be transferred to another, by imputation, not in a moral way, but in a judicial
^ne : nor is our fenfe injurious to God, his being and perfeflions, or contrary
to his methods of proceeding, who, in many cafes, has vijited the iniquities of
the fathers upon the children: nor does it abufe mankind, but only reprefents
how mankind are abufed by fin -, to which is owing all the miferies and calami-
tics endured by man in this, or the other world. On the whole, our fenfe of
the paflage before us ftands firm, without giving up any plain rule of interpre-
tation of fcripture, and which is further confirmed by the other claufe in the
text; for as men are made righteous in a forenfick fenfe, or are juftified, and
have a right to life, through the righteoufnefs or obedience of Chrift, which this
author owns, fo they are made finners in a forenfick fenfe, by the difobedience
oi Adam, that is, by imputation ; and this gives light to another paiTageofthe
apoftle's"', in Adam all die \ and fhews a reafon for it, becaufe fl//_y?«nfi in him,
or were made finners by his difobedience. The text in Ephes. ii. 3. And were
hy nature children of wrath, even as others ; is not forgotten by us to be undcr-
ftood of God's clc(ft ; who, confiflent with their being beloved in Chrift with
an evcrlafting love, may, confidered as the guilty and polluted defcendents of-
Adam, be called children of wrath ; that is, deferving of it ; for fo they are by
nature, guilty through the imputation of fin unto them, being the natural pof-
izniy oi Adam, and filthy through a corrupt depraved nature, propagated and
communicated
* 1 Cor. XV. 20.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 151
communicated to them by natural generation •, for whalfoever is born of the fiejh
isflcjh, carnal and corrupt, and not by cuftom or habits of fin, which become
fecond nature.
3. We are called upon to prove that God made a covenant with Adam and
all his pofterity, which is the ground of his imputing fin unto them. That
there was a covenant made with Adam, I fuppofe, will not be denied, fince a
promife of life was made to him upon his obedience, and death was threatened
in cafe of difobedience, to which he agreed in his ftate of innocence ; all which
formally conftitutes a covenant, and is fo called, Hof. vi. 7. They, like men, or
Adam, have tranfgrejfed the covenant. That this covenant was made with Adam
and his pofterity, in which he was jheir federal head and reprefentative, appears
from his being called the figure of him that was to come ' ; which is to be under-
ftood either of all mankind, who were to fpring from him, or of the Lord Jefus
Chrift, who was to come in the fulnefs of time ; if of the former, it proves
that Adam was a type or figure of all his pofterity, that he perfonated them all,
and that they were all reprefented in him and by him, which is the very thino-
it is brought to prove -, if of the latter, that is, of Chrift, Adam could only be a
type or figure of him, as a public perfon and a covenant-head -, and the parallel
between them, as fuch, is clearly run by the apoftle in the context, and in another
place ''•, fhewing that as the one conveys fin and death to all' his pofterity, the
other conveys grace, righteoufnefs and life to all his. Without allowing fuch a
covenant made with Adam and his pofterity, in which they were to ftand or fall
with him ; and without confidering him as a covenant-head, and reprefentative
of them, in whom they finned and fell, it cannot be accounted for, how Adam's
fin ftiouJd " bring death on many, or render them liable to be treated as finners,
♦' or make them more liable to both fin and death, or that they ftiould fliare
" in the fatal confcquences of his difobedience j" all which is acknowledged by
this writer ^.
IV. Free grace and free-wil] come next into debate.
I. This man's notion of free grace is, that it is free and common to all men ;
upon which fcheme he is alked '', what grace is that in God to decree to fave
all men conditionally, to fend his Son to redeem all mankind -, and yet to whok
nations, and that for many hundred years together, does not fo much as afford
the means of grace, of the knowledge of falvation, nor vouchfafes his Spirit to
make application of it to them, but leaves them in their fin, and eternally
damns them .'' To which he anfwers ', " When we are upon the nature of the
" gofpel
* Rom.v. 14. » 1 Cor. XV. » Part II. p. 77, 78. * Anfwer, p. 39, 40.
•Partll. p. 81,
,52 AN ANSWER TO THE
** gofpel and the univerfality of its offers, there is no need to evade the argu-
" menr, by transferring the fcene to the heathen world." I am at a lofs to
know what argument is evaded by putcing the queftion ; for, if grace is free
and common to all men, if God's decree of falvation is univerfal, and reaches
to all the individuals of mankind, and Chrift has died for them all, then, fiirely,
the heathen world has a concern in thefe things ; and it muft feem ftrange, if
all this is true, that the knowledge of falvation, and the means of ir, fhould
not be afforded them, and they left in their fins to perifh without law. Where
is the grace of this fcheme ? What is now become of free, common, and uni-
verfal grace ? And an idle thing it is, to talk of the univerfality of the offers of
t^e gofpel, when the gofpel is not preached to a tenth part of the world, nor
any thing like it ; when multitudes, millions, whole nations know nothing of
it. What this man means by faying that this is equally a difficulty againft God's
government of the world, I know not •, fince this argument does not concern
God's government of the world, but the adminiftration of his grace to the fons
of men.
2. That there is a free-will in man, and that man is a free agent, is not de-
nied by US; the natural liberty of the will, and the power of man to perform
the natural and civil adlions of life, and the external parts of religion, are owned
by us. We affcrt, indeed, that there is no free-will in man of himfelf to do that
which is fpiritually good, nor any power in him to perform it. This is the ac-
count of free-will which we have ^already given, though this author fuggefts,
that we have given no other than he has done, and dare not define it ' : he
thinks that man cannot be free who is under a necejfitating decree to fin -, and,
that if man has no power to do any thing fpiritually good, and yet obliged to
do it, then he is obliged to impoffibilities, and damned for not performing them.
To which may be replied, that whatever concern the decree of God has in the
fins of men, it does not necefTitate or force them to do them -, it does not at all
infringe the freedom of their will, or deftroy their free agency ■, as appears in
the cafes oijofeph's being fold into Egypt, and the crucifixion of Chrift ; which
were both according to the decree and counfcl of God; and stijofepys brethren
and the crucifiers of Chrift, afted as free agents, and with the full liberty of
their wills. The things fpiritually good which man cannot do, have been in-
ftanced in"; as to convert and regenerate himfelf, to believe in Chrift, and to
repent of fin in an evangelical manner;, and thefe are things which he is not
obliged to do of himfelf, and will not be damned for not performing of them.
There are indeed things which man is obliged to, which he now cannot do, as
to keep the whole law ; which impotcncy of his is owing to his fin and fall, by
which
^ Anfwcr, p. 41. ' Part II. p. 84. "■ Anrwer, p. 41.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 153
which we mean the fin and fall of Mam, and of all mankind in him ; and this
author may make what ufc he pleafcs of it. ,
3. An 0_>w iscried, and all men are de fired to attend " ; to what? to this -,
" Writers on your fide have not the courage and honefty plainly to deny that
" that men are in a.Jiate 0/ trial, though a confequence of their principles -, yet
" now and then they craftily infinuate this article of their dark and hideous
" fcheme." That the faints whilft in this life, are in a ftate of trial, that is of
their graces by afflidions, temptations, (dc. is readily owned-, but then all man-'
kind are not in fuch a fi:ate, only converted perfons, who only have grace to be
tried ; but if by a ftate of trial is meant, as I fuppofe it is, that men are upon
probation of their good or ill behaviour towards God, according to which their
ftatc will be fixed as to happinefs or mifery, that being as yet unfixed, fo that
whilft this life lafts it is uncertain whether they will be faved or loft : if this, I fay
is meant, I have had courage and honefty, as this man calls it, plainly' to deny
it years ago, and have publiftied ° my arguments and reafons againft it, which
this writer, if he pleafes, may try if he can anfwer.
4. This writer thinks ' that the drawings oi God are necefiary to converfion •,
but that thefe arc only by moral fuafion, and not by any powerful influence of
divine grace, and fo not irrefiftible. He owns irrcfiftible evidence, illumina-
tions and conviflions j but fuch as may be refifted, and ftifled, and come to
nothing: how then are they irrefiftible ? to ufe his own words, "If they may
" be refifted, then they are not irrefiftible''." We own, indeed, that the grace
of God may be refifted, but not fo as to be ftifled, and come to nothing, to be
overcome, and entirely fruftrated. The inftances given of God's grace being
fruftrated, and of refifting internal operations, are not at all to the purpofe; fincc
the paflages allcdged, Hof. vii. i. Luke xiii. 34. and xix. a^z. A5ls xx'v'ui. 24 — 27.
regard not fpecial grace, and internal operations, but external, temporal things,
or the outward miniftry of the word. It has been urged ', that if no man can
come to Chrift unlefs irrefiftible grace draw him, then there can be no fault in
not turning to him. To which it has been anfwered ', that " to live in fin, is
♦' blame-worthy; and though man, by finning, has involved himfelf in a ftate
*' out of which he cannot extricate himfelf, yet is he not the lefs culpable on
" that fcore, for living in it :" which anfwer ftands good, for any thing this
man has replied to it' ; fincc men are involved in this ftate not merely by ano-
ther's, but by their own fin, and their continuance in it is of their own free-
will. The argument from the offer of help has been fet afide already, by de-
nying there is any. The inftance of a man's drinking himfelf into a fever, and
Vol. II. X continuing
» Partll. p. 3j. 0 The Caure of God and Truth, parti. ' Dialogce. part H. p. 87.
Mbid. p. 89. ' Parti, p 31. • Anfwer, p. 42, 43. « Part II. p. 88.
154 AN • ANSWER TO THE
continuing in it, notwithftanding commands of recovery, and offers of remedy,
is ftupidly impertinent -, fince not continuing in a fever, the confequence of his
drinking, but in the fin itfclf, of which fuch an habit may be acquired he can-
not break, can only have any fhew of agreement with the cafe before us. We
readily allow, that no internal operations are employed, as to thoufands who
hear the gofpel. But then, fays this writer ", fuch cannot believe and obey,
and therefore cannot be juftly punifhed for not believing and obeying. I reply,
that fuch indeed cannot believe with the faith which is of the operation of God,
nor perform new and fpiritual obedience, to which the Spirit of God is neceflary,
and for which he is promifed in the covenant, and therefore will never be pu-
nifhed for not believing and obeying, in this fenfe : but then, without internal
operations, or fpecial grace, fuch as are favriMred with an external revelation,
are capable'of believing the outward report of the gofpel, and of yielding obe-
dience to it ; that is, of attending on the miniflry of the word, and performing
the external parts of religion •, and in failure of thefe, may bejuflly punifhed
for their unbelief and difobedience. I take no notice of our fcheme being called
by this m7iz\ Antichrijiian znd Dial?olical ; I am now pretty well ufed to Tuch lan-
guage, and indeed expedl no other from men of modern charity.
V. The dodlrine of juftification, by the imputed righteoufnefs of Chrifl,
comes next under confideration. And,
I. Some pafTages of fcripture, as Ifai. Ixiv. 6. Phil. iii. 9 jwhich rcprefcnt the
infufficiency of man's righteoufnefs to juflify him before God, a.re brought
under examination. As to Ifai. Ixiv. 6. our author feems to be at a lofs whe-
ther he fhould follow the interpretation ofGroliiUy or Henry "^ However, thac
the prophet fpeaks of a hypocritical people, he thinks is a clear point, for this
wife rcafon ; bccaufe it is faid, at the end of the verfe, we all do fade as a leaf.,
and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away : whereas hypocrites are not fo
free to own their declenfions and tranfgreJTions, and to confefs the impurity of
their hearts, and the imperfetftion of their obedience-, they generally make the
leafl: of their fins, and the mod they can of their righteoufnefs : So that thefe
words are a reafon againft, and not for, his fenfe of the pafTage. St Paul, in
Phil. iii. 8, 9. he fays, only renounced his ceremonial, not his moral righteouf-
nefs. But It is not the righteoufnefs of the ceremonial, but of the moral law,
which the apoflle continually oppofes to the righteoufnefs of faith; be Romans iii.
20 — 22. and iv. 13. and ix. 30, 31. and x. 5, 6. And when we fay, that he
renounced this righteoufnefs, he.knows very well our meaning is, not that
he renounced doing it, or obicdted to the performance of it ; but that he
difclaimed all dependence upon it for juflification before God-, and, in refpcfk
to
• Part II. p. 89 • Ibid. p. 91.
o
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 15
to that, defined only to be found in Chrift : which is not to reprefent the apoftlc
falfly and abfurdly, but perfedily agreeable with himfelf, and his principles.
2. This man has no other notion of imputation, but of accounting that to a
man which is done by himfelf, and not what may be done, or contraded by
another; contrary to the apoftle's fentiments, Romans iv. 6, 1 1, 23,24. Philem.
ver. 1 8. He argues againft the imputation of Chrift's righteoufnefs in this man-
ner " } if no one fingle afl of the righteoufnefs of Chrift is imputed to us, then the
whole of it is not. Very right -, for how indeed fhould the whole be imputed,
if no one part of it is ? But whaciare the particular afts of Chrift's righteoufnefs ?
His Incarnation, Baptifm, Poverty, Fafting, his Viftory over Satan, Preaching,
Miracles, his Confeffion before Pilate, Obedience to death, giving a CommitTion
to his apoftles, his IntercefTion, and governing and judging the World. All
falfe. Not thefe, but the feveral adls of his obedience to the moral law, are
the righteoufnefs of Chrift, by which men are made righteous, and by which
they can only be made fo, by the imputation of it to them; the ground of which
imputation is Chrift's being their head, furety, and reprefentative ; fo that the
righteoufnefs of the law being fulfilled by him, in their room and ftead, it is
all one as if it was fulfilled by them, and is faid indeed to bt fulfilled in them :
which does not exempt them from fervice to God, orobedience to his law, but
lays them under greater obligation in point of gratitude to an obfervance of it,
though not in order to juftification by it.
3. It is ftill infifted on, that there is no text of fcripture to be found, proving
the imputation of the righteoufnefs of Chrift. As for Romans iv. 3. he ftands
to it, that it muft be underftood of y/^rji>itw's faithful obedience, or obeying
faith, and not the objeft of it ; which, he fays '', was the promife of God that
he fhould have a fon, that was imputed to him for righteoufnefs. Now what-
ever may be faid for the imputation of /1brabam'% aft of faith to himfelf for
righteoufnefs, nothing can be faid in favour of the imputation of the aft of faith,
that he fhould have a fon, to us, for righteoufnefs, if we believe on him that
raifed up Jefus our Lord from the dead ; where the apoftle clearly afterts that that
it, which was imputed to Abraham for righteoufnefs, is alfo imputed to all them
that believe. To which this man makes no reply. Nor does he take any no-
tice oi Romans iv. 6. i Cor. i. 30. iCor. v. 21. which were produced as proofs
of the imputation of Chrift's righteoufnefs to his people. He allows that we
are made righteous by the obedience of Chrift, in the fame fenfe we are made
finners by the difobedience oi Adam ; and fince he owns before ', that we are
made righteous by the obedience of Chrift, in a forenfic fenfe, it muft be by
the imputation of it to us.
X 2 .4. This
» Part II. p. 95. r Ibid. p. 98. » Ibid. p. 78.
,56 AN ANSWER TO THE
4. This author having fuggefted that the dodrine of imputed righteoufnefs
was a poifonous one, and tended to licentioufnefs -, the contrary was proved from
Romans Vu. 2^- Titus W. 11,1 z. and iii. 7, 8. which he has palled in filence ;
and inftead of offering any thing in fupport of his former fuggeftion, he runs
to the do6trine of Reprobation, of God's feeing no fin in his eleft, and of irre-
fiftible grace ; to which he adds a teftimony of Bifhop Burnet's, concerning
fome perfons in King Edward the Vr'"s time, who made an ill ufe of the doc-
trine of predeftination. This is no new thing with this writer ; nothing is more
common with him, than to jumble doctrines together; never was fuch a lum-
bering, immethodical piece of work publifhed to the world. It would be
eafy to exculpate the above doftrines, as well as this of juftification, from the
charge of licentioufnefs ; and I have done it already % to which I refer the
reader. I go on to confider,
VI. The dodlrine of the faints perfeverance. Under which article,
1. Some pafTages of fcripture, made ufe of in favour of this doflrine. are re-
prefcnted '' as a fandy foundation to build it upon. It feems that Job xvii. 9.
is not a promife of God, but only the fentiment oi'Job. Be it fo : Since it is
a good one, and God has teftified of him that he fpoke the thing that was right,
it fliould be abode by. Moreover, fince Job fpake under divine infpiration,
why fhould not thcfe words be efteemed a promife of God by the mouth oi
Job ? The good work, mentioned in Phil, i, 6. which the apoftle was confi-
dently perfiiaded, not barely hoped, would be performed until the day of Chrifl',
he intimates, was either planting the church at Phitippi, or an inclination to li-
berality ; he does not know which. What fhould induce him to propofe the
latter fenfe, I cannot imagine; fince there is not the lead hint, in the text or
context, of the liberality of thefe perfons : And as for the former, that can
never be intended; fince planting of a church was a good work external and
vifible among them, and not a good work begun in them, in their hearts, and
that in each of them fingly and feparately, as this was; for the apoftle fays,
1 even as it is meet for me to think this of you all. The everlajling righteoufnefs, fa id
to be brought in by Chrift, Dan. ix. 24. is fuggefl:ed to be a covenant, whofe
terms of acceptance are unalterable. But the covenant of grace never goes by
this name ; and was it fo called, it mufi: be with refpefl to the cverlafting righ-
teoufnefs of Ch rift, which always continues a juftifying one to thofe intereftcd
in it; and therefore they fhall never enter into condemnation, or finally and
totally perifh. Befides, the covenant confirmed by Chrifl, is fpoken of ver. 26.
as
* In a Sermon, called, The Doflrioe of Grace chared from the Charge of Licentioufnefs ; »nd
in another, intitled. The Law eftab i(hed by the Gofpel. * Part II. p. loi, 102,
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 157 !
as diftinft from this righteoufnefs. Once more : If the juftification and glori-
fication of converted Gentiles are infeparably connedted together, Rom. viii. 30. I
then thofe who are truly converted, and arejuftified by the righteoufnefs of |
Chrift, fhall certainly be faved ; and which is a doftrine to be defended, with- j
out cftablifhing the principle of fatality, or ftoical enthufiafm. The prophetic j
texts in Ifai. liv. 10. and lix. 21. Jer. xxxii. 38—40. Hof. ii. 19. in favour of
the faints final perfeverance, are left untouched, and are not meddled with by
this writer.
2. Such pafiages of fcripture as feem to militate againfl; the perfeverance of
the faints, are brought upon the carpet ' ; particularly, we are charged with
giving an abfurd and contradictory turn to Ezek. xviii. 24—26. in fuppofing that
the prophet, by a righteous man's turning from his righteoufnefs, means a hypo-
crite's turning from his hypocrify, from his feigned righteoufnefs. But this is
to give a perverfe turn to our words and fenfe ; for we fay not, that the pro-
phet means an hypocrite turning from a counterfeit and hypocritical righteouf-
nefs to a real one, but a man's turning from an external moral righteoufnefs to
an open, fhameful courfe of finning : All mere outward righteoufnefs is not
hypocrify, as the cafe oi Paul before converfion fhews, A£lsx\\W, i. Phil. iii. 6.
which a man may have, deftitute of the true grace of God, and may turn from
into open fin ; and is no inflance of the apoftacy of a real faint, or a truly jufi
man ; which this man is not faid to be, in the pafTage referred to ; and is elfe-
whcrc defcribed as one thzt trujls to his ozvn righteoufnefs, and ccmmitleth iniquity ''.
The text in //f^. vi. 4 — 6. is only tranfcribed at large, and the reader left to
judge of the meaning of it. The fpiritual meat and drink, i Cor. x. 3 5. the
Ifraelites partook, of in the wildernefs, were the typical manna, and the water
cut of the rock ; which they might do, and not partake of the fpiritual bleffincrs
of grace fignified ^y them : though, no doubt, many of them did ; for the
temporal calamities that befel them in the wildernefs, are no proofs that they
pcrifhed eternally. See Pfalm xcix. 8. To perfevere in grace and holinefs, is
a bleffing of grace beftowed upon truly converted perfons ; to make ufe of
means of enjoying this bleffing, is a duty, fuch as to he Jirong in the Lord, to
watch in prayer, i^c. Ephes. vi. 10, 19. and which the apoftle Paul himfelf made
ufe of: Though, when he fays, Leji J myfelffhould be a cafl-away% the word
oAiuiiJQ-t which he ufes, does not fignify a reprobate, or one rejefled of God,
but one rejeftcd and difapproved of by men ; his concern was not left he ftiould
fall from the divine favour, or come fhort of happinefs, of both which he was
fully perfuaded, Rom.win. 38, 39. iTim. i. 12. which pcrfuafion was not built
upon his own refoluxion and watchfulnefs, but upon the nature of God's love,
and.
« Part II. p. U32, 103, " *■ Ezek. xxxiii. 13. « i Cor. ix. 27..
,58 AN ANSWER TO THE
and the power of Chriftj but left by any conduft of his, his miniftry fhould be
rendered ufelefs among men. The inftances of David- z.nd Peter are no proofs
of the final and total apoftacy of faints, fince they were both recovered from
their falls by divine grace. Judas, indeed, fell from his ele(5tion to an office,
but not from eleiflion to grace and glory, in wh'ch he never had any intereft ;
and alfo from his miniftry and apoftleftiip, which is never denied to be an out-
ward favour, though no inward fpecial grace, and fo nothing to the purpofe.
The chapters referred to, i Cor. x. Hel>. vi. and x. Rev. ii. and iii. Ezek xviii,
2 Peter ii. I have largely cohfidered elfewhere % and have ftiewn that they have
nothing in them repugnant to the faints final perfeverance ; where I have alfo
conGdered the feveral cautions and exhortations given to the faints refpedling
this matter ; and have ftiewn the nature and ufe of them ; to which I refer the
reader.
2. Under this head is again introduced ^ the doftrine of God^s feeing noftn in
his people. In order to fet this do6trine in a proper light, we diftinguifti between
God's eye of omnifcience and of juftice; with the one he does, and with the
other he does not behold the fins of his people, being juftified by the righte-
oufnefs of his Son : we alfo diftinguifh between the corredtion or chaftnfement of
a father, and the punifhment of ajudge j which diftinftion we think might be
allowed, and thought fufficient to keep the door ftiut, and not to open it to all
manner and degrees of immorality, falftiood and lewdnefs, as this man fuggefts " ;
thoufrh we do not diftinguifti, as he fooliftily infinuatcs ', between being cbajlened
and punijhed in hell fire : who ever talked of fatherly chaftifements in hell .'' The
text \nNumb. xxiii. 21. He bath not beheld iniquity injacob, &c. he fays'', is fpo-
kcn of the whole body of Ifrael, all the pofterity of Jacob, who apoftatized,
rebelled fell, and were cut off'through unbelief, and fo no ways ferves ourcaufe.
I anfwer, that that whole body of people were a typical people, typical of all
God's eled, or his fpiritual i/rflf/, and what is fpoken typically of them, is really
true of the other; and as all that people were, on the day of atonement, typi-
cally cleanfcd from all their fins and tranTgrenions, hence God, in refpeft to
that, beheld no iniquity in them; fo the whole fpiritual T/ra^/ of God, or all
God's elefl, being cieanfed from their fins, and having them all really expiated
by the blood and facrificc of Chrift, God fees no iniquity in them to take ven-
geance on them for it. But if this will not do, this man has more to fay, and
that is, that learned men fay, for he is no judge himfelf, that the Hebrew ori-
ginal will juftify another reading, namely, be doth not approve of outrage againfi
tbefoflerity of Jacob, nor vexation againfi Ifrael. I reply, that as our verfion
agrees
f The Ciufe of God and Truth, Parti. » Part II. p. 106.
* Part II. p. 107. ' ItJid. p io5. *■ Page 107, 108.
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. 159
»grces with the context and defign of the writer, fo it entirely accords with the
original Hebrew ', and much more fo than this other reading does ; and is con-
firmed by the Samaritan^ Syriac and Arabic verfions, and by fuch learned men
as Vatablus, Pagnine, Arias Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Druftus, Fagius,
jiinfworth, &c. and could this new tranflation, though it is wholly borrowed
from Gataker^ be juftified, it would be fo far from militating againft, that it
would rather cftablifh the doftrine we contend for ; for, if God difapproves of
outrage and vexation againft his people by others, he himfelf will give them
none ; or^ in other words, he fees no fin in them fo as to punifh them himfelf:
moreover, if this text was out of the queftion, the doftrine we plead for will
ftand its ground, we are not in fuch poverty and diftrefs; for befides Jer. 1. 20.
which has been produced already, though this writer takes no notice of it, we
have many others which contain the fame truth; keP/alm xxxii. i. and Ixxxv. 2.
and 1. 2. and li. 7. i John t. 7. Cant. iv. 7. Ezek. xvi. 14. Ifai. xliii. 25. and xliv.
22. Col. i. 21, 22. and ii. 10. Rev. iii. 18. and xir. 5.
VII. We are now come to the laft thing in the debate, the ordinance of Bap-
tifm. What is faid upon this point may be reduced to thefe two heads, the fub-
^dl;s and the mode.
1. The fubjedbs. The probability of the Jews baptizing the children of Gen-
tile profelytes ; of the apoftles underftanding and executing their commiffion,
in conformity to their Jewifh notions and cuftoms ; and of the early baptifm of
infants in the chriftian church, this writer thinks is ground fufficient for the
pradtice "", that is, of infant-baptifm. But is it probable that there was fuch a
praflice among the Jews, before the coming of Chrift, to baptize their profelytes
and their children? fince there is not the leaft hint of it, nor any allufion to ic
in the writings of the Old Teftament, in which difpenfation this praftice is faid
to obtain •, nor in the apocryphal writings of the Jews ; nor in the writings of
the New Teftament ; nor in thofe of Philo and Jofephus, both Jews, and well
verfed in the cuftoms of their nation ; nor even in the Mi/na itfelf, a colledtion
of their traditions ; the authors and compilers of that have not the leaft fyllable
of this praftice in it. This man, therefore, has either miftook his authors, or
they have milled him: the truth of the matter is, this rite is firft mentioned,
not in the Mifna, but the Gemara, a work later than the other, of fome hundred
years afterChrift: and was this cuftom probable, is the probability of it a fufficient
ground to eftablifti fuch a pradlice upon, as a New-Teftament-ordinance .-' Is it
probable that the apoftles underftood and executed their commilTion according
to their Jewifh notions and cuftoms, though it does not appear, nor is it pro-
bable
' biiiw'2 bay n^-i i<b^ 2py'2 n« taon ab " P"t H- p- »>o-
i6o AN ANSWER TO THE
bable that they had any fuch as this ; and not rather according to the plain
mind and meaning of their Lord and Mafter, who by his example and dodrine
had taught them both how, or in what manner, and whom they fhould bap-
tize ? what probability is there of the early baptifm of infants in the chriftian
church ? and, if there was, is that a fufficient foundation ? Should there not be
a plain proof for what claims the name of an ordinance, a pofitive inftitution,
a part of religious worfhip ? does it appear that any one infant was baptized by
John, by Chrift, or his orders, or by his apoftles, or in the two firfl: centuries ?
There was a talk about infant- baptifm in the /i'/ri century, but it will be diffi-
cult to prove a fingle faft, even in that; and if it could be proved, would this
juftify a pradlice that has neither precept nor precedent in the word of God ? But
it feems it was agreeable to the Jewifh cuftoms, to admit profelytes and their
children by circumcifion, and as foon as capable, to inftrudl them in religion" ;
and that thejewifli children were entered into their church by circumcifion, and
fo baptifm is the only fign of admiffion into the chriftian church. To which I an-
fwcr, as to Jewifh cuftoms, we have feen already what foundation there is for
them, or probability of them ; and as for the Jewifti church, it was national,
and the children of the Jews, as foon as born, before they were circumcifed,
belonged unto it, and therefore were not entered by circumcifion. The inftancc
produced by this man clearly proves it -, for the little children reprefented in
Deut. xxix. II, 12. as entering into God's covenant, and belonging to the con-
gregation oilfnul, were not as yet circumcifed, ktjojhua v. 5. and confequent-
ly could not be entered this way. Nor is baptifm any admiffion, or a fign of
admifilon of perfons, infants, or adult, into a vifible church of Chrift -, perfons
may be baptized, and yet not admitted into a church : what vifible church of
Chrift was the eunuch admitted into, when he was baptized, or his baptifm a
fign of his admiffion into ?
2. The mode of it. That there is any efficacy in baptifm, to regenerate per-
fons, take away fin, or make men more holy, is what is never afTerted by us ;
nor do we think that a quantity of water is of any confequence on that account :
we affirm it to be declarative znd Jignijicaiive of the death, burial, and refurrec-
tion of Chrift -, for which reafon we contend for the mode of immerfion, as be-
ing fo, and only fo. The wafhing a part, the principal part of the body, this
author thinks ° may ftand for the whole. The inftance with which he fupports
this, is in Exod. xxiv. 8. His fenfe of that pafl^age is, that not the people, but
the pillars were fprinkled •, which, he imagines, muft appear to every man in
his fenfes : though, according to his own account, it did not fo appear to fome,
who thought the twelve young men were fprinkled, inftead of the people ; and
though
Part II. p. 113. • Ibid. p. 110, HI.
o
BIRMINGHAM DIALOGUE -WRITER, Part II. ,6i
though rejedled by the learned Rivet, and others; yea, though Mofes, and the
author of the epiftle to iht Hebrews, fay not a word of fprinkling the pillars,
but affirm that the people were fprinkled. And if this man was in his fenfes,
he would have feen which of thefe fenfes would have fcrved his purpofe beft ; for
if not the people, but the pillars were fprinkled in their ftead, then not a parr,
^ principal part, nor any pare of them, were fprinkled; and fo no inftance of
fprinkling or wafhing a part of the body for the whole. He is now brought to
allow that fprinkling, or wafliing the face, does not fignify the death, burial
and rcfurreflion of Chrift ; though dipping the face or head in water, may do
it. But why not go further, and rather fay, dipping the whole body in water
does it? fince we are faid \.obz buried withC\\r\^ in baptijm, Rom.vi. i. Col.ii. 12.
which men of fenfe and learning allow to refer to the ancient mode of baptizino-
by immerfion. Baptifm is never aWcd circumcijion ; nor are perfons in baptifm
faid to be crucified av'/i' Chrift, but to be baptized into his death, and to be buried
with him; and which can be reprefented by no other mode than that of immer-
fion, or covering the whole body in water. But, after all, this way muft ftill
be infinuated to be unfafe, and indecent; and the old rant and calumny conti-
nued, againft the cleareft evidence, and fuUeft conviflions to the contrary.
Thus have I confidered and replied to the material things objedled to the doc-
trines before in debate. One might have expefted, that, in th\s Second Part,
the author would have proceeded on fome new fubjefts. This, to be fure, can-
not be the Second Part he formerly intended. Perhaps his long harangue on
the freedom of fpeech, and liberty of writing, is to pave the way for what he
has farther to communicate. I am very defirous he fhould fpeak out freely,
and write all he has to fay. What it is he has farther in defign, does not yet
appear : we muft wait patiently, and in the mean time bid him adieu, until he
obliges us with his Third Part.
[ Not(, The pages in the foregoing marginal Notes in general refer to the Oftavo Edition, ]
Vol. II. Y THE
liz THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS OF
THINGS CONSIDERED.
Occasioned bt
Some Passages in the Reverend Mr Samuel Chandler's Sermon,
lately preached to the Societies for the Reformation of Manners.
NOTHING is more frequently talked of in this enlightened age, this age
of politenefs, reafon and good fenfe, than the nature and fitnejs of things ;
or, the reafon and nature of things-, phrafcs, which to many, at leaft, that ufc
ihcm,' are unmeaning and unintelligible founds; and ferve only as a retreat,
when they have been fairly beaten out of an argument by thefupetior force and
evidence of divine revelation. It may cafily be obfcrved, how glibly, and wiih
what volubility of fpeech, with what a fagacious look, and an air of wifdom,
thefe words arc pronounced by fome, who, when afked, what things are meant ?
what the nature of them ? and, what the fitnefs which arifes from them ? are at
once filenced and confounded. This mud be underftood of your lower-fized
folks, who take up thefe fayings from others, and ufc them as parrots, by rote.
It muft be prefumed, that their learned mafters, from whom they have received
them, better underftand them, and are capable of explaining the meaning of
them -, among thefe, the Reverend Mr Samuel Chandler makes a very confider-
able figure; whofe Sermon, lately preached to the Societies for the Reformation
of Manners, lies before me; upon which I (hall take leave to make fome few
ftrifturcs. This Gentleman, not content to aflcrt, that the difference between
moral good and evil is certain and immutable, which will be readily granted ;
further affirms, that " this arifes from the nature of things ; is ftriflly and pro-
*' perly eternal; is prior to the will of God, and independent of it; is the inva-
" riable and eternal rule of the divine conduft, by which God himfelf regulates
«' and determines his own will and conduft to his creatures; the great reafon and
" meafure of all his adlions towards them, and is the fupreme original, univer-
" fal, and moft perfcft rule of aftion to all rcafonable beings whatfocver ; and
" that
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. , 5j
«' that there are certain fitnefles and unfitnefles of things arifino' from hence,
" which are of the fame nature with this diftindtion ; and that this difference,
" and thefe ficnefles and unficnefTes are as eafily difcerned by mankind, as the
" differences between any natural and fenfible objcds whatever."
One would be tempted to think, if all this is true, that this fame nature and
ficnefs of things is Deity, and rather defcrves the name of God, than he whom
we call fo ) fince it is prior to, and independent of his will-, is the unerring
rule of adlion to him, and the fupreme, univerfal, and mofl: perfcft rule to all
rcafonable beings whatfoever ; and that itfelf is not diredted and influenced bv
any rule or law from any other. Surely that mufl: be God, which is poffeffed
of fuch perfeftions, as neccffary exiftcnce, eternity, independence, fupreme
power and authority over all reafonable beings. And if this is the cafe, we
ought to worfhip and give homage to this Deity ; this fhould we invoke, blcfs
and adore ; and not him, who, under the Oid-Tcftament-dil'pefifation, went
by the name of the God of Jfrael, or the God oi Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob; and
who, in the New Tcftament, is fliled the God andFatha- of cur LcrdJefusChriJl.
To this eternal and invariable rule fliould we yield a chearful and univerfal obe-
dience, and not to the law and will of God -, unlcfsthat (liall appear to be di-
rc(5tcd and conducted by this fupreme and mod perfcft rule of adlion. But
bclorc we fall down, and proftratc ourfclvcs to this new deity, and pay our de-
voirs to it, it will be proper, firft to examine the feveral magnificent thincrs which
are predicated of it ; and begin with,
I. The original of it. The moral nature and fitnefs of things is reprefented
as fomcthing to be confidered abftrafted from God, and independent of his
will, and fo confequcntly as neceffarily exifling ; for whatever exifls inde-
pendent of the divine will, neceffarily exifts, or cxiRs by ncceffity of nature :
and could this be made out, that the moral nature and fitnefs of things ne-
ceffarily exifls independent of the will of God, it mufl: be allowed to be a deity
indeed ; for nothing exifls by neceffity of nature, independent of the will of
God, but the being and perfc6lions of God : either therefore this nature and
fitnefs of things is fomething in God, orfomething without him; if it is fomc-
tiiing in him, it mufl be a perfeiftion of his nature, it muft be himfelf ; and
therefore ought not to be confidered as abflraded from him, if it is fome-
thing without him, apart from him, which exifls independent of his will, that
is, neceffarily ; then there muft be two neceffarily exifting beings, that is, two
Gods. It is faid ', that " the difference between moral good and evil, virtue
" and vice, as between darknefs and light, and bitter and fweet, is a difference
" not accidental to, hui founded in the nature of the /ij/w^j themfclvcs; not mere-
" ly the refult of the determination and arbitrary will of another, but which
Y 2 . *' the
• Sermon, p. 5.
1^4 THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
" ihe very ideas of the things themfelves do really and necedarily include." Or,
as it is fli'twhere exprefled ^ " the diftindion between moral good and evil doth
" (o arife out of the nature of the things tbemfelves, as not to be originally and
" properly the mere effect of the divine order and will^ fo as that it never would
" have been, had notGoJ willed and commanded it to be." But from whence
do things morally good proceed .'' Do they not come from God, from whom is
every good and perfeSf gift ? As all natural and fupernatural good comes from
him, the fountain of ail goodnefs ; lb all moral good takes its rife from him,
and the moral perfeftion.s of his nature-, which, and not the nature of things,
are the rule of his will, determinations and a6lions. Who puts this nature into
things, by which they are morally good, but the God of nature, of his own
will and pleafure -, and, what fettles the difference between thofe things, and
what are morally evil, but the nature and will of God ? Or the will of God,
which moves not in an arbitrary way, but agreeable to the moral perfeftions of
his nature. As for things morally evil, which lie in a defeft of moral good,
are a privation of it, and an oppofition to it, though they are not of God, nor
does he put that evil nature into them that is in them, for he cannot be the au-
thor of any thing that is finful -, yet thefe things become fo by being contrary
to his nature and will. The difference between moral good and evil lies in, and
the fitneffcs and unfitneffes of thefe things are no other than, the agreement and
difagreement of them with the nature and will of God •, and whatfoever ideas
we have of thefe things, and of their different natures, fitnefles and unfitneffes,
we have from God ; who of his own will and pleafure has implanted them in
us, and in which we are greatly affifted in this prefent ftate of things by his re-
vealed will ; confifting of dodrines and inftruftions, rules and precepts, found-
ed in, and agreeable to the pcrfedions of his own nature. Befides, if the dif-
ference between moral good and evil is founded in, and arifes from the nature
of the things themfclves, and is not originally and properly the effeft of the di-
vine order and will, then it cannot be faid to be, as it is %
2. Striftly and properly eternal-, for thefe things mufl: exift, and this nature
muft be in them, from whence this difference arifes, ere there can be this diffe-
rence •, wherefore if the things themfclves arc not ilriftly and properly eternal,
then the nature of them is not ftriftly and properly eternal •, and confequently
the difference which is founded in, and arifes from that nature, is not ftridly
and properly eternal. Moreover, nothing is ftridly and properly eternal but
God. If the nature and fitnefs of things is eternal -, if there are eternal, cvcr-
lafting, and unchangeable fitneffes of things, thofe fitneffes mufl: bcGod. Should
it be faid, as it b ^ that *• fuppofing the eternal and immutable exiftence of
" God
* Sermon, p. lo. • Sermon, p. 6. * Ibid. p. to.
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. 16
D
" God, the ideas of thefe things (good and evil, virtue and vice) mud have
-»' been the fame in his all-perfeft mind from eternity, as they now are -, and have
" appeared to his underftanding with the fame oppofition and contrariety of
*' nature to each other, as they do now — and of confequence, the diftinftion
" between moral good and evil is as eternal as the knowledge of God himfelf,
" that is, flriftly and abfolutely cternaP; — and that before ever any created
" being received its exiltence, God had within himfelf the ideas oi zW pojfible
"■ futurities; of the nature of all beings that Ihould afterwards have life; of their
" fcveral relations to himfelf, and one another-, and faw what fitneffes, obliga-
" tions and duties, would, and muft rcfult from, and belong to creatures thus
" formed and confl;itutcd^ —which fitne/Tcs orunfitnefrcs were eternally prefenc
" to the all-comprehenfive mind of God, and as clearly difcerned by him, as the
" natural differences of the things themfelves, from whence they flow ^" It will
be allowed, that there is in God an eternal knowledge of all things pofTible and
future; he knows all things poffible in the perfedtion of his almighty power,
who could, if he would, bring them into being; but then this knowledcre of his
does not arife from, and depend upon the nature of the things themfelves, which
may be, or may not be ; but it arifes from his own all-fufficiency. Poffible
futurities, ot pofftble fijall-be's, I do not underftand. "What foever is pofTible may-
be, and it may not be; but what is future (hall be, and fo not barely pofTible,
but certain. A pofTible futurity feems to be a contradidlion. God knows what-
ever is pofTible for himfelf to do ; that is, he knows what his power can do j
and alfo what his will determined to do, or (hall be done : the former is called
poffible, the \ai:er future. God's knowledge reaches to both, but then every
thing that is poflible is not future. All thatGod knows might be accomplilheti
by his power, he has not determined that it fliall be ; and whatfoever he has de-
termined fhall be, is future, and ccafes to be barely pofTible. God fees and
knows all things future, in his own will, purpofes and decrees ; for as it is the
power of God that gives pofTibility to things pofTible ; it is the will of God that-
gives futurity to. things that fhall be. SoGod faw, knew, and had within him-
felf the ideas of the nature of all beings that fhould afterwards have life; their
fcveral relations to himfelf, and one another ; and all fitneffes, obligations, and
duties belonging to them; becaufe he had determined within himfelf to bring
fuch creatures into being, beflow fuch natures upon them, put them into fuch
a relation to himfelf, and others; and make'fuch and fuch duties' fitting for them,
and obligatory upon them.. In this fenfe it will be readily granted, that the
ideas of all things that come to pafs in time, were in his all-perfeft mind from-
eternity, as they now are ; becaufe he determined within himfelf they fhould
come
• Sermon, p. 7. ' Ibid. p. 8. * Ibid. p. 14..
i66 THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
come topafs in the manner they now do. The fitneffes and unfitnefles of things
were eternally prefent to his all-comprehcnfive mind, becaafe he willed they
Ihould be, either by his efficacious or pcrmiffive will. But then the eternity
of thefe things in this fenfe, or the eternal difference of good and evil, as found-
ed upon the eternal knowledge of God, arifing from, and depending upon his
own will, ftrongly militates againft what is further faid of this nature and ficnefs
of things, or of the difference between moral good and evil, as that it is '',
3. Prior to the will of God, and independent of it. By the will of God is
meant either his will of purpofe, and is what the fcripture calls, The counfel of
his will'; or will of precept, which is that fyftem of moral laws, God has given
to rational creatures as the rule of their aftions. The Gentleman I am attend-
ing to, ufes the phrafe fomecimes in one fenfe, and fomecimes in another-, and
fometimes takes in both in one and the fame paragraph -, and plainly fuggefts,
that this difference is prior to the will of God, and independent of it, taken
in either fenfe -, his words are thefe* ; *' this difference did originally and eter-
" nally fubfift in the mind of God, as certainly as the difference between light
•' and darknefs ; and was in idea ever prefent with him, before ever it became
*' the law of bis creatures, and appeared to them as the matter of his command
" and will; and is itfelf that neccffary and invariable rule, by which God him-
*' felf regulates and determines his own will and condufb to his creatures ; and
" which, therefore, as a rule of adtion to himfelf, muft be fuppofcd to be inde-
" pendent of, and prior to, not the exiftence of God, which is abfolutely eter-
*< nal, b\i\. to the will oi iht eternal God, and to be, indeed, the great reafon
" and meafure of all his actions towards his creatures." Now, though it {hould
be admitted, that things are fit and proper, juft and good, antecedent to the
revealed will of God, or his will of command ; and that God wills thefe things,
that is, commands them, becaufe they are fit and proper, juft and good ; and
not that they are fo becaufe he commands them; though one fhould think, what-
ever God commands muft be fit and proper, juft and good, for that very rea-
fon, whether we can difcern any other reafon or no, becaufe he commands it ;
fmce he can command nothing contrary to his nature, and the moral perfcdtions
of it; yet, neverthelefs, thefe muft be fubfequent to the iccret will of God, or
the counfel of his will, as that is within himfelf determining, fettling, conftitut-
ing, or permitting the order and fituation of things, their natures, beings, and
relations to himfelf and others ; from whence the fitneffes and unfirneffcs of things,
and the difference of moral good and evil are faid to arife. Whatever may be
faid for the independency of thefe things on the will of God, they can never be
prior to it: For if the produdion of creatures into being is owing to the will
of
* Sermon, p. 11. ' Ephes. i. 11. * Sermon, p. 10, u.
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. 167
of God, and follows upon it -, if the fcveralxekiions they ftand in to one ano-
ther are folely of his appointment and forming, then furely what is fit, or not
fit to be done, in fuch a fituation, muft be fixed by, and be the reiult of his
own will, as determining them according to the moral perfeftions of his nature;
which determinations of his fecret will being revealed, become the law of his
creatures j and being fo, this law is the fureft rule of judgment to them, with
refpefl to the difference of moral good and evil -, what lays the ftrongeft obli-
gation upon them to do the one and avoid the other; ahd fo muft be the beft
rule of action to them. Mr Chandler himfclf owns ', that " God might have
" formed other creatures than what he hath -, or produced fome, or all of thofe
♦' which now exift, in a different manner from what he aftually hath done ; he
" might, for inftance, have ftockcd our earth with inhabitants at once, and
" formed them in the fame manner as he did our firft parents. And of conl'c-
" quence, as the prefent frame of things is owing to the wifdom, the good plea-
" fure and will of God, fo the fitneffes of things which now aftually take place,
" and that particular fyftem of moral virtue which mankind are obliged to re-
" aard, and conform themfelves to, muft, as far as it is a conftitution of things
" aftually exifting, be relblved into the fame good pleafure and will of God."
Now, as the formation'of creatures, and their produdlion in this or the other
manner, entirely depends on the will of God, and according to the variations
of them the fitncfles of things muft have altered; there would not have been
the fame fitneflcs and unfitncffes, obligations and duties; fo it wholly depend-
ed on the will of God whether he would create any or no; and if he had never
formed any creature, in any manner whatever, as he might not have done, if
he would, where had been this eternal nature and fitnefs of things ? As there-
fore the formation dt creatures follows upon, and is owing to the will of pod,
the nature and fitnefs of things, with rcfpeftto thefe creatures, cannot be prior,
but muft befubfequent to the will of God. Yea, this fame Gentleman fays",
that " the will of God is not any thing diftin£l from the everlafting fitneffes of
" things, but included in them, and indeed a neceflary and cffcntial branch
»' of them." If therefore the will of God is not diftinft from them, is included
in them, and a neceffary and eflential branch of them ; then the nature and fit-
nefs of things is not without the will of God, is not prior to it, and independent
of it. And though this fame writer boldly aflerts in one place", that the cer-
tain and immutable difference of things is entirely independent of the will of
God ; yet in other places he feems to ftagger a little, and fays", that this dif-
tinftion is not originally and properly the mere cffcft of the divine order and will,
and is not merely the refult of the determination and arbitrary will of another;
as
' Sermon, p. 15. ■ Ibid. p. 22. » Ibid. p. 9. * Ibid. p. 10, 5.
._J
'16^ THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
as if ic was fo in pare, or in fome fenfe, though not wholly and entirely fo. He
fcems to be fearful, that if the didindtion of moral good and evil, and the fic-
nefles and unfitncfies of things, are placed to the will of God, and made to de-
pend upon it, the confequencc may be, that thefe things will not continue the
fame''; vice may be virtue, and virtue vice-, "impiety, injuftice, and cruelty,
«' may be fubflituted in the room of piety, juftice, and charity-," and, "that
" there can be no poiTible certainty that God fhall always will that which is now
*« good, in oppofuion to what is now called evil •, but the one or the other, as
" caprice and humour Jhall dire^ him, which immediately becomes either good
" or evil-, and on the contrary, evil or good, for no other reafon, but becaufe
*' he, without reafon^ wills them to be fo." Not to take notice of the inde-
cency, and irreverence of thefe exprefTions -, the infinuations and fuggeftions
of inftability and change in the divine will, are groundlcfs and unrealbnable,
fince the will ofGod is as immutable as himfelf -, and though it is not determined
by the intrinfic difference of things without him, yet it is deterniined mvaria-
bly by the rcdlitude of his nature -, he cannot determine, or do any thing con-
trary to his moral perfections -, he cannot deny himfelf. There is much more
reafon to fear thefe things -may change, if the diftincftion between them lies in
fthe nature and fitnefs of things, of which not only fallible men, but finful men,
men prone to vice, are the only judges; who being either led into a falfe way
of reafoning, or influenced by their interefts and pafTions, may put *' evil for
" good, and good for evil." Moreover, why fhould not the diflindlion of
moral good and evil be attributed to, and confidered as dependent upon the
unalterable will of God, fince all moral good flows from him as the fountain
of it ? Nor could there have been any moral evil withouc^^his permifilve will ;
even as the produdtions of light and darknefs, of bitter and fweet, are the efFcfls
of his will, and plcafure. Light and darknefs are his own formation; I form
the light, and create darknefs; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all
thefe things'*. It was he that faid, by his almighty power, and according to his
own will. Let there be light, and there was light. What difference fhould we
have been capable of difcerning between light and darknefs, if God, of his
own pleafure, had not divided the light from the darknefs, as he did ? Nor have
we any idea of the diftindlion of thefe things, but what that God of his will has
.given to us, who called the light day, and the darknefs night '. As natural light
and darknefs are of God, and the divifion between them is made by him ; fo
moral light and moral darknefs are, the one by his effeftive, the other by his
permiflive will ; and the difference between them fettled by the determinations
of his unchangeable mind, agreeable to the perfeftions of his nature. It is he
that
' Sermon, p. 13, 14. < Ifai. xlv. 7. ' Gen. i. 3, 4.
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. 169
that has made bitter and fweet, and of his own will and pleafure has put thefe
different qualities in things; the fitnefles and unfitneflrs of which are their agree-
ment and difagreement with thofe laws and rules of nature, which God, of his
own will, has placed in fenfitive beings-, and even fo moral fitnefles and unfic-
nefles are their agreement and difagreement with thofe moral laws, which are
the determinations of God's will, according to the rectitude of his nature; which
of his own pleafure he infcribcd on the heart of man in his creation, and has
fince delivered in writing, as the rule of his aftions. To all which I only add,
in oppofition to this notion, that if this diftinflion of moral good and evil, this
moral nature and fitnefs of things, is prior to, and independent of the will of
God, it muft be prior io the firjl caufe, which is a contradiftion in terms ; for
the will of God is the firfl: caufe of all things ; nothing in the whole compafs of
being exifts without the will of God, but his own being and perfedlions ; and
if this is co-eternal with God, and is as independent of his order or will as his
own being, perfeftion, and happinefs ; it muft, as has been already obferved,
ncceflarily exift, and confequently, muft be God ; yea, fupcrior to him whom
wc call fo ; fince,
• 4. It is faid ', that this " is itfclf that necefiTary, invariable, and eternal rule,
" by which God himfcif regulates and determines his own will and conduft to
" his creatures, — is the great reafon and meakire of all his atftions towards his
" creatures,— is the one certain and unerring rule of God himfcif';" than which
nothing is more contrary to divine revelation, which affures us, that our God is
in the beavers ; he bath done 'xhatfoever be f leafed " ; that he works all things after
the counfel 0/ bis own will ' ; and, that he does according to his will in the army of
the heavens, and among the inhabitants of the earth >'. Whereas, according to this
notion, not the will of God, but fomething prior to it, and independent of it,
is the necclfary, eternal, invariable, unerring rule, reafon, and mcafureofall
his actions, towards his creatures. This Icems fomething like the Stoical fate
and ncccftity, which give laws to God and man, and equally bind and oblige
both'; though fometimcs the Stoics" indeed confiJer fate, and the nature of
things, not as things diftindl from God, but as being himfcif, his own will ; in
which their notion is greatly to be preferred to what is now advanced. Be it fo
that the moral nature and fitnefs of things is a rule of aclion to men ; that which
is a rule to them cannot in every thing be thought to be fo to God ; for inftance,
let it be admitted, that it is agreeable to the nature and fitnefs of things, and
to the original difference between moral good and evil, that one man fliould
Vol. II. Z noc
» Sermon, p. 11. t Ibid. p. 19. ■ Pfalm cxv. 3. « Ephes. i. 11.
1 Dan. iv. 35. » Vid. Lipf. Phyfiolog. Stoic. Diflcrt. 12. p. 62.
» Ibid. Differt. 5. p. 23, 24. & Manudua. ad Stoic. Philof. Diflcrt. 16. p 1S6, 187.
170 THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
not take away the life of another, and that law, Thou /halt not kill, is cftablifhed
upon this certain and immutable diftinftion and fitnefs, and fo is a rule of aftion
to men ; yet this is no rule to God, nor any meafure of his aflions ; who, as
he gives, and has power over, the lives of men, can take them away at his
plcafure ; as well by ordering one man to flay another, as Abraham to facrifice
his fon ^, and the Ifraelites to flay " every man his brother, every man his com-
" panion, and every man his neighbours when there fell that day, and in thac
" manner, about three thoufand men •," as by fending a fever, a dropfy, or any
other diftemper. Again, let it be allowed, that it is one branch of this moral
nature and fitnefs of things, that one man fhould not take away the property
of another i and that that law is founded upon it. Thou Jhall not fteal : yet God
is not bound by this law ; for, as the earth is the Lord's, and the fulnefs thereof ^^
he difpofes of it as he plcafes, and takes away that which was one man's property,
and gives it to another; which he has done in ten thoufand inftances of provi-
dence ; and what is more, and full to our purpofe, he could, and did order
the Ifraelites to " borrow of the Egyptians jewels of filver and of gold, and
" raiment," whereby they were fpoiled % and plundered of their property. To
fay no more, if this nature and fitnefs of things is a rule of adlion toGod, it muft
be fomething both before him, and above him ; it muft be his fuperior ; fince
it muft beconfidered as giving laws for the regulation and determination of his
will and condudt to his creatures; though, as this writer well fays', " he hath
•* no fuperior, can receive laws from none, nor have any external power to
*' oblige and conftrain him." And what he further adds is right, " that he
»» hath a reafon and rule of adtion within himfelf, is as evident as that he ever
" a£ts at all ; and as certain, as that he will always aft wifely and well." Upon
which I would obferve then, not any thing without him is'a rule unto him ; not
the nature and fitnefs of things, as of an abftradt confideration from him ; as prior
to, and independent of his will; nor is it, as is fuggcfted, his all-comprehen-
fivc knowledge of the nature of things, the relation beings ftand in to him and
one another, the fitneffes and unfitnefTes which belong to them, the meafure
and degree of their powers and faculties, and all the feveral circumftanccs of
their being ; fince thefe are thfc determinations of his will, and his knowledge
of them arifes from thence; he knows all thefe things will be, becaufe he has
determined that they fhall be. It remains then, that nothing can be a rule to
God but himfelf, his own nature, and the perfeftions of it. In all things of
a moral nature his moral perfcftions within himfelf arc the rule of his will and
conduft. But,
5. Let
* Gen. xxii. 2. « Exod. xxxil 27. * Pfalm xxiv. i. • Exod.jui. 36.
' SeriaOD, p. ig.
• OF THINGS CONSIDERED. 171
5. Let us next examine, whether this difliniflion of moral good and evil, as
founded in the nature of things, together with the original and unalterable fic-
neflcs arifing from it, is the fupreme, original, univerfal, and moft perfed rule
of a(51:ion to all reafonable beings whatfoever, as is alTerted ^. If this be true,
all laws of God and men are to be difregarded -, and indeed, they are all plainly
fuperfeded by it -, for if this is the fupreme, original, and univerfal rule to all
reafonable beings, then all inferior, fubordinate, and particular laws as all the
after-laws of God and men mufl: be thought to be, merit no regard ; at lealt
are no further to be regarded than as they may be thought to acrree with and
are reducible to this grand one -, and if it is the mojl perfeEl rule, then certainly
there is no need of another. Yea, it is affirmed, that " it is impolTible that
" there can be any rule of aftion more excellent in itfclf, or more worthy the
" regard of reafonable beings." What need then have we of the law of God ?
This may lead us to queftion, whether indeed there is any law binding upon
us ; at leaft it tends to weaken our obligation to duty, as arifing from the will
of God. Indeed we are told ", that '■'■the will of God is a rez] znd immiaaile
" obligation upon us, to which we fhould always pay the highefl: deference and
" fubmifTion." What, the i^/g-Zj^/? deference and fubmifTion ? No furely, that mud
be paid to the tnoji perfeSi rule, that rule which regulates and determines the will
of God itftlf. And truly, this real and immutable obligation of the will of God I
AJpon us, is immediately brought under the general notion of the original fit- 1
nefles of things, and is not allowed to be an obligation of a diftinft nature and i
kind from them. So that as all morility is founded in the nature and fitnefs of ;
things, our obligation to it arifes from the fame, and our obedience and dif-
obedience to be confidered as an agreement or difagreement with that fcheme i
of things. Sin was therefore wrongly defined by our forefathers ', who, in j
anfwer to that queftion, " What is fin ? " fay, " Sin is any want of conformity i
" unto, or tranlgrefTion of any Jaw of God given as a rule to the reafonable I
" creature." They fiiould have faid. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or |
tranfgrcfrion of the nature and fitnefs of things, which is the unerring rule of !
God himfclf, and the moft perfeft one to all reafonable creatures. How the I
apoftlc John himfclf will come off, I fee not, who fays, that_/?« is the tranfgrejfion I
cf the law^, unlefs, by fome dextrous management, infteadofthe law, ftiould i
be put the nature and fitnefs of things. But furely, to derive moral obligation \
from the will of God, muft be of more ufe and fcrvice to engage perfons in
(the pradice of moral virtue, than to derive it from the nature and fitnefs of
things, of which men themfclves muft be judges. A rule of fitnefs may be a
z 2 guide
* Sermon, p. 19, 20. * Ibid. p. zi.
• The Aflembly'i larger Catechifm. Queft. 24. '' i John iii. 4.
172 THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
guide in fome cafes -, but the law of a fupcrior, who has a right and power of
enforcing it by fanftions, properly obliges. In the other cafe, there is nothing
to hope for in confequence of agreement with it, and nothing to fear by ftraying
from it J fo that this immutable, and eternal obligation of moral virtue, will
be found to be very little, if any at all, as derived from the nature and fitnefs
of things-, at mod cannot rife higher than mens perception of the nature and
fitnefs of things ; for the nature and fitnefs of things can be no further a guide
unto men, or obliging upon them, than as known by them ; and if God had
not made fome notification of his will, with refpeft to moral good and evil, by
giving us laws' as the rule of moral conduft, our perception of thefe things
would, in many cafes, have been very deficient in the prefcnt ftate of things ;
and confcquently moral fitnefs, as perceivable by us, would have been a defec-
tive rule, and not that univerfal and mod perfeft rule of aftion it is affirmed
to be. But we are told ',
6, That " this difference between moral good and evil, and the fitnefTcs and
« unfitnelTes which they ncceflarily infer, is as eafily and certainly to be dif-
" ccrncd by mankind, as the differences between any natural or fenfible objedl
«» whatever." The natural and fenfible objects particularly referred to, are light
and darknefs, bitter and fweet ; which fuppofe natural and fenfible capacities
and powers, fuitcd to the difcernment of fuch natural and fenfible objefts ;
otherwifc they cannot be eafily and certainly difcerned : A man blind from his
binh, will not be able to diftinguifh between light and darknefs ; and one whofc
natural taftc is vitiated, will not eafily and certainly difcern between fwect and
bitter. So likewife there mufl be moral capacities and powers in men, fuited to
the difcernment of moral good and evil ; if thefe fhould be wanting, or impaired
and corrupted, the difference between moral good and evil will not be fo eafily
and certainly difcerned. Now the moral capacity of man is greatly impaired
and corrupted in the prefent ftate of things; men deftitutc of the light of grace,
arc darknefs itfdf'^; the underjianding of men, even in things moral, is greatly
darkened by fin, and they are alienated from the life of God \ averfe to living
foberly, righteoufly and godly, through the ignorance that is in thenty becaufe of
the blindnefs of their hearts ". The moral light of nature is very dim, and has
(hone out very faintly even in thofe who have made the grcaieft advances in
moral fcience, deftitute of a divine revelation, and without the affiftance of
God's grace. The moral tafte of man is vitiated -, he favours the things of the
fielh; rclilhes fin, which he rolls in his mouth, and. hides under his tongue, as
a fweet morfcl ; fo that through the blindnefs of his heart, and the viciofity of
bis tafte, he is far from a clear difcerning of the difference of moral good and
evil,
' Sermon, p. J J, ■ Ephei. v. 8. ■ EpheJ. iv. i8.
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. ,73
eviJ, of the fitneflcs and unfitnefles of things; of the amiablenefs of virtue, and
the uglinefs of vice. But, man is reprefented in a quite different light, as far
from having his moral powers and capacity in the leaft impaired or corrupted
by fin. It is faid ', that " nature itfelf hath fccmed to have been friendly to
" mankind in thjs refpefl, which hath implanted a kind oi conjlitutional abbor-
" r^«f<r of vice in their minds, an injiin£ijve prejudice sga.\nR it, and fear to com-
" mit it." Who is defigned by nature, whether God, or the nature and fitne/s
of things, I Ihall not ftay to inquire; but go on to obfervc, that unlefs this is to
be underftood of man, as he was created by God, as he was in his ftatc of inno-
cence before his fall, the contrary to it is true ; for though the God of nature
has not implanted it, yet there is in the minds of men, in confequence of the
corruption of human nature by fin, to ufe this author's phrafes, akindofcon-
ftitutional abhorrence of good, and an inftinftive prejudice againft it; or rather
a natural and habitual abhorrence of good and prejudice to it. Man is Jbafen
in iniquity, and conceived inftn ^ ; he is a tranfgrejfor from the womb ' ; the carnal
mind is enmity agaivjl God, and all that is good ; and is not fubje£f to the law of
Cod, nor can it be ' ; there is none that doetb good, no not one ; nor is there any
fear of God before their eyes^. In how many inftances has it appeared, that the
imagination of the thought of man's heart is evil, and that continually ' ? Such
who arc renewed by the grace of God, and are enabled to live fober and reli-
gious lives, yet were fometimes foolifb, difobedient, deceived; ferving divers lufls
and pleafures ; living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another ", Be-
fore their converfion, they walked according to the courfe of this world, according
to the prince of the power of the air, the fpirit that now worketh in the children of
difobedience \ among whc/m they all had their converfation in times pafl, in the lufls
of i\\z\x flefh, fulfilling the defires of the flefh, and of the mind ; and were by nature
children of wrath, even as others *. Their converfion from darknefs to light,
from the power of Satan to God, from fin to holinefs, from ungodlinefs to
godlinefs, does not arifc from any internal principle in themfelves, from any
natural will or power in them ; nor is it brought about by the force of moral
fuafion, but is effedted by the exceeding greatnefs of God*s power, and the
energy of his grace ; which only gives them the maltery of their corruptions^
puts down the old man with bis deeds, dethrones fin, fo as that it fliall not have
dominion over them. Thefe fame perfons, after converfion, find in them a
pronenefs to fin, and are, as Jfrael of old was, bent to backfliding'' ; and are
only preferved from a total one by the power of divine grace. The whole of
this.
• Sermon, p. 26. ' PfsJm li. 5, « iraLxlviii. 8.
' Rom. vlii. 7. • Rom. iii. 12, 18. • Gen. vi. 5.
" Tkus iii. 3. » Ephes. ii. 2, 3. r Hof. xi. 7.
ij'^ THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
T"his is fo clear apoinr, that he mud be a ftrangcrto himfclf, to human nature,
and to divine revelation, who will attempt a confutation of it. We arc indeed
told% that "vice is really a kind of arc that requires fome length of time to
** become dextrous, and grow any confiderablc proficients in." Ethic, or mo-
rality, is indeed by fome defined ', "an art of living well and happily." But
that vice or immorality fhould be an an, or a kind of art, 'to be learned, as arts
ofually are, by a colleflion of rules, a train of reafoning, with application of
thought, and in length of time, I am inclined to believe, was never heard of
before : it looks as if it required fagacity and good fenfe, fome confiderablc
abilities of mind, penetration of thought, diligence and induftry, as well as
time, to be wicked, at leaft to be dextrous proficients in fin ; whereas pcrfons
may be fottifh and foolifii to every thing elfe, and yet wife enough to do evil.
It is eafy to fee with what view fuch exprefTions are ufed ; that they arc calcu-
lated to encourage and fupport the old Pelagian notion, " that fin is only by
"imitation."
After all, fuppofing that the moral powers and capacities of men are not fo
corrupted and impaired, as they arc by fome thought to be ; yet notwithftand-
ing the difference of moral good and evil, with all their fitnefies and unfitnefles,
may not be fo eafily and certainly difcerned, as the difference between light
and darknefs, which is done at once, with a glance of the bodily eye; or as
the diftindlion between fwect and bitter, which is difcerned immediately -, for
moral fcicnce, like other fciences, is not to be learned at once, but by degrees-,
It takes in a very large compafs, it confifiis of various rules, precepts, and in-
ftruftions, concerning difl^erent virtues, which mufl be confidered and examined
with their contrary vices, ere the true diflinftion between them can be clearly
feen. In-order to have a clear and certain difcernment of the difference of moral
good and evil, with all their fitnefTes and unfitnefles, we ought to have a know-
ledge of the feveral beings, God, and the creatures we (land related to, and of
the feveral relations we ftand in to them ; all which require time, application of
thought, and a train of reafoning; but if the difcernment of thefc things is as
cafy and certain, as that of light and darknefs, bitter and fweet, what need of
all that care and pains in the moral education of children ? why fo much folici-
tude to inlVil the notions of virtue into them, and give them an abhorrence of
vice? Since, as they grow up, the perception of the moral nature, fitnefs and
unfitnefs of thefe things, will be as eafy and as certain as their fight and tafte
of natural and fenfible objedts. What need alfo either of the laws of God or
of men ? And indeed, it is faid ^ that "as they (men) need no command, or
" law, to enable them to difcern the natural difference in thefe things (moral
" good
* Sermon, p. 26. » Vid. Mori Enchirid. Eihic. 1. i.e. 1. p. i. * Sermon, p. 25, 26.
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. 175
« good and evil) they as little need them to help them to pafs a true judgment
«« concerning them, or to teach them which, upon the whole, is fitteft for
" them to chufe and refufe." Moreover, what need is there of moral preach-
ing, or the continuance of a moral miniftry ? Why fo much needlefs time and
pains fpent, in opening, inculcating, and enforcing moral duties, and expofing
contrary vices ? Since without all this men cannot fail of oblerving the diffe-
rence of, and of giving the preference to the one above the other ? One (hould
think, that gentlemen who have been concerned in fupporting readers of mora-
lity, fhould, upon fuch a principle as this, put their hands in their pockets, and
at once pay off and difcharge thefe moral preachers, as ufclefs men. Such moral
guides may eafily be fpared ; fince it is affirmed % that as nature and experience
are infallible rules of judgment in natural things ; they " are equally Jure guides in
" things of a moral nature." But to proceed,
That the difference of moral good and evil, with the fitneffes and unfitnefles
of things, has not in fa£t been fo eafily difcerned as is contended for, will ap-
pear from the different fentiments men have entertained of thefe things, in dif-
ferent ages and difpenfations. The moral philofophers among the heathens,
as no one of them ever drew up a compleat fyftem of morality, nor is fuch an
one to be collefted out of all their writings put together; nor vjisM.rWoohiJlcn'i
celebrated performance, called, The Religion of Nature delineated.,, drawn up
without the affiflance of divine revelation ; and, perhaps, is not without its
defeats. So what one of thefe philofophers inculcated, another neglefted, and
what one denied, another affirmed. Some of them taught, that there was no
fin in inccfl and fodomy ; and thought it was lawful for buyers and fellers to
circumvent each other. Plato, a philofopher that made a confiderable figure
in moral fcience, commended community of wives, and brought it into his
commonwealth''. The Stoics, a grave and fliff fett of moralifts, were of opi-
nion, not only that it became a wife man, but in fome cafes it was his duty, to
deftroy himfelf'-, and, perhaps, many of thofe unhappy creatures who have
been guilty of this fin, have not fo clearly feen the evil of it ; but have been
ready to think, that they have a greater power over their own lives, than over
others -, and though they may not take away another man's life, may take away
their own. The apoftle Pak/ condemns fornication, flthinefs, or obfcene lan-
guage, foolifh talking or Jefling, as very unbecoming, inconvenient, not fit to
be praftifed ; yea, as criminal, and highly difpleafing to God. "Whereas for-
nication was thought lawful by many ; and Cicero afks ^ " When was not this
" done?
• Sermoo, p. 25. * Vid. Grotium inEphes. v. 6. Chryfippui allowed of ioctll. Liertiui
in vit» ejui. • Upf. Maoudud. ad Stoic. Phiiof. Diflcrt. 22. p. 365.
' Ephes.v. J, 4. t Verum fiquisefl, qui etiam meretriciij amoribus interdlflum juven-
tuci putet, eft ille quidem valde frveru*— quando enim hoc non faflum eft? quando repreben-
fum ? quando non pcrcaiflum ? Ciceron. orat. 34. pro M. CocliOi p. 940. Ed. Goihof;ed.
176 THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
« done ? when reproved ? when not permitted ?" The Stoics '' not only allow-
ed, but pleaded for the ufe of obfcene words •, and lyTf^mA/*, which is tran-
(Izted je/ling, is reckoned by Arijiotle^ among moral virtues. Polio-amy, or
having more wives than one, was always a moral evil, and is generally under-
ftood tobefo; yet fome have pleaded for it, as not being criminal; and it
was certainly praftifed by good men under theOId-Teftament-difpenfation, who
do not appear to have had any notion of the immorality of it. To come near-
er to our own times, the morality of the fourth command, cfpecially that part
of it which regards the time of worfhip, has been, for many years, difputed,
and is ftill a fubjedl of controverfy -, and the perfons on both fides of the queftion
are men of religion, ferioufnefs and morality -, and to come nearer ftill, Mr
Chandler and I have different fentiments about fome things, whether they are
ftriftly criminal or not. " The many methods that are daily taking to debauch
** the principles, and corrupt the manners of our youth, to infpire them with a
*' love of diverfion and pleafure, to lead them into excefTivc expences, and
*' coftly luxuries -, and, in a word, to prejudice them not only againft the
*' principles of religion, but the plain duties of virtue and fecial life-," fuch
as the entertainments of the theatre, diverfions of mufic, like thofe of Ifrael of
old, J/at. V. 12. when his vices had almoft brought him to his final ruin, cards,
and faniionable games "^ ; thefe, and the like entertainments, "Mr Cbafidler (ays '^
may not hejlri^iy criminal in thcmfclves -, though he owns they tend to corrupt
the manners, and deftroy the diligence, integrity, and virtue of the nation,
and to be a fcnfual kind of life. I, for my part, on the other hand, think
thefe things are ftriflly criminal. M.r Chandler, doubtlefs, has many on his fide
of the queftion, in his way of thinking, men of fuperior genius, and who are
the more polite part of mankind; and I do not at all queftion, but that there
are many of the fame mind with myfelf ; and though they may be of a lower
fize than the others, 1 will venture to fay, they are at leaft equally as ferious,
fober, religious, and of as good morals. I fhall not difpute the point who is
in the right or wrong ; it is enough to my purpofe, and for which I take notice
of it, that the moral nature and fitnefs of things is not of fo cafy and certain a
difcernment.
I had almoft like to have forgot what this author tells us"', " That this no-
" tion of the immutable and eternal obligation of moral virtue, is not one of
" the peculiar difcoveries of the reafon and good fenfe of the prcfent age, but is
*' plainly
'' Vid Ciceron. Epiftol. I. g. ep. 22. Papirio Pato, p. 1166,
• E(hic. 1. 4. c. 14. p. j2. com. i.& magn. moral. I. 1. p 96.
■■ Ofihisfort, I fuppoCe, is the game called Faro, lately advertifed in the public papers, as a
(candalous praflice. and contrary to Aft of Parliament.
' Sermon, p. 46 — 48. "■ Ibid. p. 21.
- OF THINGS CONSIDERED. 177
" plainly taught both in the records of the Old and New Teftaniient." The
paflages in the Old Teftannent are, Pfalm cxix. 142. Thy righteoufnefs is an ever-
lajling righteoufnefs, or, is a righteoufnefs r2b^yh for ever ; that is, it endures fcr
ever; and thy law is the truth. Ver. 144. The righteoufnefs of thy tefiimonies is
<verlafling a'^iy'? is for ever. Ver. 152. Concerning thy tefiimonies I have knoivn
of old; or, as lA: Chandler fays the words (hould be rendered, which I do not
diflike, / have known of old "i>/ny3 from thy tefiimonies, that thou haft founded
them for ever. Ver. 160. Thy word is true from the beginning; or as the words
J~13S 1">2"I til'MT may be rendered, The beginning of thy word is truth, and every
one of thy righteous judgments is for ever. All which indeed clearly prove the
perpetuity of the moral law, its immutable obligation upon us, the veracity
and juftice of God ; which appear in it, and will abide by it, and continue with
it, to defend the rights, and fecure the honours of it -, but, what is all this to
the nature and fitnefs of things ? or. How do thcfe pafTages prove the eternal
and immutable obligation of moral virtue, as prior to, and ind-pendent of the
will of God ? When thePfalmift is only (peaking of the will of God as revealed
in his law and teftimonies ; from whence, and not from the narure and fitn-fs
of things, he had learned of old, many years ago, the truth, righteournefs, and
continuance of thein. The only fingle pafTage in the New T'cftaincnt that is
produced, is, Phil. iv. 8. l-Fhatfoever things are true, whatfoever things are homfl,
■wbafoever things arejufl, what foever things are -pure, whatjoever things are lovely,
whatfoever things are of good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be any
praife ; think on thefe things. That thefc exprefllons neceffarily fuppofe, and
infer, that truth, honedy, juftice, and purity, are eflcntialiy different from their
contrary vices, are lovely in their nature, praifc-worthy in their pradlice, and
which both God and man will approve and commend, will be eafily granted ;
but ftill the queftion returns, what is all this to the nature and fitnefs of things ?
To the immutable and eternal obligation of moral virtue, as prior to, and in-
dependent of the will of God .'' Does , the apoftle make moral fitnefs, in this
fenfe, the rule of adtion, or of judgment, with refpcdt to truth, honefty, juftice,
and purity, and not rather the revealed will and law of God ? The latter feems
to be manifcftly his fenfe, fince he adds, thcfe things which ye have both learned
and received, and heard, and feen in me, do, and the Cod of peace fhall be with you.
Whence it appears, that the things he advifcs them to were fuch as he had
taught them, according to the will of God, and which they had received upon
that foot, and had feen praflifcd by himfclf, in obedience to it.
I conclude with obferving, that this notion of the moral nature and fitnefs
of things, as prior to, and independent of the will of God, feems to have a
tendency to introduce and eftiablifh among us, Polytheifm, Deifm, Antinomianifm^
and Libertinifm.
Vol. II. A a i. Polytheifm^
178 THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
1. Polytbeifm, or the having more gods than one. It feems to favour the
' diftinflion of a fuperior and inferior deity ; for, as has been obferved, if the mo-
ral nature and fitnefs of things is eternal, does ncceflarily exift, is prior to, and
independent of the will of God, and is the fupreme rule of aflion to all rea-
i fonable creatures whatever, it muft be God ; yea, fince it is the unerring rule
of God himfclf, by which he regulates and determines his own will, it muft
be both before, and above him ; it muft be fuperior to him ; he can ena£b no
law but what that is the rule and meafurc of; his will is no obligation of a dif-
tinci kind from it ; he appears to have no power or authority but what is derived
from it. I am forry to obferve, agreeable to this notion, how diminutively Mr
C/t'i3;7^/^r fpeaks of the divine being. You read nothing throughout the whole
dilcourfe of God being a leg'fiator, cnafling laws of his own will and pleafure,
agreeable to the perfeftions of his nature; as armed with power and authority
to enforce them, and as claiming obedience from his creatures to them, as being
his w/ilj, and founded in the reflitude of his nature; but on the other hand, he
is thruft down into the place of a reformer : He is indeed.called " the great re-
former of mankind, and has the honour to be accounted the Head of the Societies
for the Reformation of Manners in England"; though no more is allowed him in
this work of reforming mankind, than what the Societies themfelvcs do; namely
an " endeavouring to promote their happinefs by methods difcouraging their
" vices, and exciting them to the love and practice of univerfal virtue ^" After
this it is no wonder it ftiould be fuggefted, that the great defign of our bleffed
Saviour's coming into the world, and the mifTion of his apoftles into it, were
only the reformation and amendment of mankind ; and that there can be no
other valuable end of a ftanding miniftry in the chriftian church, than to carry
I on the fame defign. This ftrengthens my apprehenfion, that this notion has
i a tendency to introduce,
2. Deifm, or to explode divine revelation, with all the dodrines and ordi-
nances of it. And indeed, if this nature and fitnefs of things is the univerfal
and mojl perfe5i rule of aftion to all reafonabje creatures whatever, then what
necefTity is there, or can there pofTibly be, of a divine revelation ? This is
univerfal, and comprehends every thing fit to be known and praftifed ; it is
r,7oJi perfeH, and therefore nothing can be added to it ; it is as eafily difcemed
as the diftindlion between light and darknefs, fweet and bitter, and therefore
needs no revelation to explain and enforce it. Admitting a revelation ; the
things contained in it muft be brought to this teft and ftandard, the nature and
fitnefs of things, to be tried by, and judged of Let the revelation come ever
fo well fupported, and the evidence of things, as they ftand in it, be ever fo
clear j
* Sermon, p. 40. • Ibid. p. 42, P Ibid. p. 4.0.
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. 179
clear -, yet if poor, fallible, Ihort-fighted men, cannot fee the fitnefs of them,
they muft be at once rejefted, and confequently the revelation icfelf. So if Bap-
tifm and the Lord's Supper,- the peculiar ordinances of the chriftian revelation ;
if the dodlrines of the divine perfons in the godhead ; of the decrees of God -,
of the union of the two natures in Chrift ; of the expiation of fin, in a way of
fatisfaftion ; of juftification by the imputed righteoufnefs of Chrift ; of the refur-
jeftion of the fame body, or any other doftrines of the chriftian religion, how
clearly foever they may be revealed ; yet if men do but once take it into their
heads, that they do not agree with the nature and fitnefs of things, they muft
be exploded ; and the next that follows, is revelation itfelf. Whether the abet-
tors of this notion really defign to encourage and eftablifh Deifm, I know not;
but this I am fure of, the Deifts are capable of improving it greatly to their pur-
pofe.
3. yintinomianifm, or the fctting afide of the law of God as a rule of aftion,
feems to be the neceflary and certain confequencc of this principle. For if the
moral nature and fitnefs of things is the /upreme, original, univerfal, afiJ mcji
perfeSl rule of adlion to all reafonable beings whatfoever, prior to, and inde-
pendent of the will of God, then what need is there of the law of God ? or,
what regard fhould be paid to it ? Since, as it is faid ^ " It is impofiible that
" there can be a rule of adion more excellent in itfelf, or more worthy the regard
" of reafonable beings." Now, to fet afide, and difregard the law of God, as
a rule of life and converfation, or adion, is ftridlly and properly Antinomianifm.
For my part, I have been traduced as zn Antinomian, for innocently aflercing, that
the cflence of juftification lies in the eternal will of God ; my meaning is, that
God in his all-perfefl and comprehenfive mind, had from all eternity, at once,
a full view of all his eledl ; of all their fins and tranfgrelTions -, of his holy and
righteous law, as broken by them, and of the compleat and perfe6l righteouf-
nefs of his Son, who had engaged to be a furety for them •, and in this view of
things he willed them to be righteous, through the furetifhip-rightcoufnefs of
his Son, and accordingly efteemed, and accounted them fo in him -, in which
will, efteem, and account, their juftification lies, as it is an immanent adt in
God. By this way of thinking and fpeaking I no ways fet afide, nor in the
leaft oppofe, the doftrine of juftification by faith; I afllert, that there is no
knowledge of juftification, no comfort from it, nor any claim of inrercft in it,
until a man believes. I abhor the thoughts of fctting the law of God afide as
the rule of vvalk and converfation ; and conftantly affirm, that all that believe
in Chrift for righteoufnefs, (hould be careful to maintain good works, for ne-
ceflary ufes. The cry of Jndnomiani/m, upon fuch a principle as this, muft be
mere noife and ftupidity. But here is a Gentleman that talks of fomething
A a 2 prior
1 Serir.on, p. lo.
i8o THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS
prior to, and independent of the will of God, and antecedent to any law of his,
as the fopreme, original, univerfal, and mod perfeft rule of action to reafonable
beings ; as the immutable and eternal obligation of moral vinue, or from
whence moral obligation is derived ; whereby all authority on God's part, and
all obedience on ours, are at once entirely deftroyed. One fliould think, for the
future, that not 7^/^« G;7/, b\ii Samuel Chandler, muft be reckoned the Antino-
mian.
4. Libertinifm is another confequence, which, it may be juftly feared, will
follow upon this notion-, for if men can once eftablifli fuch a principle, that fome-
thing prior to, and independent of the will ofGod, is the rule of aflion to them,
called the nature andfitnefs of things^ of which they themfelves are the fole judges,
as ihey may in confequence hereof be led on to explode divine revelation, and
fct afide the law of God as a rule of adtion \ fo what through a falfe way of rea-
foning, and the prevalence of their lufls, pafHons and interefts, they may per-,
fuade ihemftlves, that it is moft fitting and agreeable to the nature of things,
that they fliould do what makes mod for their own pleafurc and profit. This
fecms to be the fource of all that wickednefs and licentioufnefs afted by the Jews
in the times oi Ifaiah, which occafioned the words, the fubjeft of Mv Chandler's
diicourfe. They were not the meaner fort of the people, the refufe of the na-
tion ; they were the politer fort among them, that were wife in their own eyes,
and prudent in their own fight ' \ men of reafon and good fenfe, as fuch vain mor-
tals love to flatter one another ; they were men of bold and flrong fpirits, as men
of atheiflical and dciftical principles delight to be called -, in a haughty and dar-
ing manner, they faid ', let him make fpeed and hajlen his work, that we may fee
it i and let the counfel of the holy One of Ifrael draw nigh and come, that we may know
it. They were indeed the Deifis of that generation, the contemners of revela-
tion ; who cafi away the law of the Lord, fct up fomething clfe as prior to it, and
defpifed the word of the holy One of Ifrael; and fo being guided by the falfe rca-
fonings of their minds, and influenced by their own lu(h, called evil good, and
good evil.
I would be far from fuggefting any charge of libertinifm againflMrC/^-aW/^r,
or any others, who are in the fame way of thinking with him-, or that he or
they are abettors of any of the above confequences -, for though principles may
be charged, perfons mufl not on that account. I judge it moft unreafonable
to charge perfons with holding confequences which they themfelves deny,
though thefe confequences may follow never fo clearly from principles held
by them. But I cannot forbear faying, that for Mr Chandler to reprefent ftage-
plays, cards, and other fathionable games and divcrfions, by which the nation
is
' Ifai. V. 21; • Veife 19.
OF THINGS CONSIDERED. i8i
is fo much debauched, as notjiri^ly criminal in themfehej, is ailing out of cha-
rafter as a moral preacher -, unfuitable to a Reformation Sermon ; unferviceable
to the defign of the Societies to whom he preached ; and if thcfe can be thought
to be agreeable to the nature andfitnefs of things, from all fuch fitnefles the Lord
deliver us !
THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS UNTO
SALVATION, CONSIDERED:
OcCAtlOMEO BY lOMK
Reflexions and Mifreprefentatlons of Dr Abraham 'Taylor, in a
Pamphlet of his lately publifhed, called, An Addrefs to young
Students in Divinity, by way of Caution againji fome Paradoxes,
ivbich lead to DoStriftal Antinomianifm.
A'^OyY. fix years ago I fent a printed letter to the Gentleman whofe name
ftands in the title-page to thif, on account of fome ill ufage of myfclf,
and contemptuous treatment of fome doflrines of grace -, to which he never
thought fit to return an anfwer. The imprefTion of that letter quickly went off",
and I have frequently been folicited by my friends to reprint that, and my
Difcourfes on Jufiification ; but could never be prevailed upon to do any thing
of that kind till now : for no other reafon but this ; I faw that he and his friends
were not inclined to enter into a controverfy about thefe things, and I did not
choofe to move it afrefh, or appear forward to it, which I thought re-printing
would look like, or might be fo interpreted ; and therefore I determined to fie
ftill, and only defend myfclf when any attacks were made upon me. In this re-
folution I have perfified, notwithftanding the little, mean, znddifingenuous methods
this Gentleman has made ufe of, to render my charadter odious among men.
The let-tcr above mentioned was not written with any defign to provoke to
wrath
- i
i82 THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS
wrath and anger-, nor is there a fingle fentence, that I can remember, inMt,
that has any tendency that way : But it feems a grudge was conceived, which
has been broiling upon his heart ever fince, and now at this diftance of time he
takes up a fingle phrafe, and inveighs againfl: it with the utmoft wrath and
fury ; whereby he has moft fadly verified that obfervation of the wife man, that
anger rejieth in the hofom of fools.
A controverfy has of late been moved, or at lead revived, by fome minifters
cf the Independent denomination, about the duty of unconverted perfons to believe
in Chrift, or about the nature of that faith which fuch are obliged to ; a con-
troverfy in which I have had no immediate concern : And whereas it has been
given out, that a book publifhcd not long ago, called, A further Enquiry after
Truth, is of my writing, though another man's name ftands to it; I take this
opportunity of declaring to the world, in juftice to the worthy author of it
whofe name it bears, and that I may not take the credit of another man's la-
bours, that there is not one fingle fentence of mine in it ; nor did I fee the au-
thor when he came to town to print, nor his performance, until it was in the
prefs-, who I doubt not will give a proper reply to the notice taken of him. The
Gentleman I am now concerned with, has thought fit to nibble at this contro-
verfy i and which he might have done without meddling with me, fince what
he has broke his gall about, has no relation to that. He tells " the fociety to
whom he dedicates this miferable pamphlet, that he " was glad that an oppor-
«' tunity offered to declare againfl: tenets, which can anfwer no purpofe, but to
" weaken mens obligation to duty and holinefs, and to lead to grofs Antino-
« mianifm." But had he not an opportunity yJx ox f even years ago of declaring
againfl:, not only this fingle tenet he has now taken notice of, but feveral others
which he imagines has the fame tendency, and of attempting a confutation of
them, had he either a head or a heart for fuch a fervice ? For fome months pafl-,
we have been alarmed of this mighty work, that a learned do5lor had conceived,
and that in a fiiort time the mountain would bring forth. But while we were
waiting for, and cxpefting to fee the wondrous birth, out turns z filly moufe,
according to the poet's words i
Parturient mantes, nafcetur ridiculus mus.
The particular tenet, or principle ftruck at, is, " that good works are not
« neceffary to falvation, not in any fenfe ; no, not as the antecedent to the
« confequent." This is called " a filthy dream, a dangerous paradox, an un-
" fcriptural abfurdity ', an extravagant pofition ^ a dangerous tenet, big with
" abfurdity ; a horrible blafphemy ', the fenfelefs paradox ', rude and ignorant
blafphemy;
* Dedication, p. 3, 4. ' Addrefj, ^e. p. 5. '' Page 6-
• P«E«7- ' P»ge9-
UNTO SALVATION CONSIDERED, &c. 183
V blafphemy'^; theblafphcmy invented by oneof the vileft and lewdeft heretics';
" the draff of thofe who turned the grace of God into wantonnefs; and, toclofe
" all, an Antinomian paradox '." When thefe ill names and hard words arc taken
out, there is very little left for me to reply unto. And whether the doftrine
oppofed deferves fuch ill language, will be better judged of, when the terms
of this propofition, " Good works are not neceffary to falvation," and the fenfe
of it, are explained,
"Qy good works are meant, not the work of fandiHcation, a principle of grace
or internal holinefs, which though it is fometimes ftiled the good work ^^ yet is
.not the work of man, but the work of the Spirit of God, and is therefore called
$he fan5iification of the Spirit \ This I firmly believe is abfolutely nccelTary to
eternal happinefs, both in infants and adult perfons, and that without it neither
the one nor the other can ever fce the Lord ; fanfhifying grace being an elTen-
tial and initial part of falvation, or that branch of grace and falvation which the
elcdt of God and redeemed of the Lamb are firft made adually partakers of in
their own perfons, in order to their enjoyment of the heavenly glory. This
man muft be confcious to himfelf that I have exprelTed myfelf to this purpofe
in my letter to him ; and yet he mofl: bafely infinuates that I hold, and repre-
fcms me as laying, that " A conformity to him (Chrift) in holinefs, is not an-
" tecedently neceffary to our reigning with him in light and glory "." If by-
conformity to holinefs, is meant that internal conformity of the foul to Chrifl,
the produce of divine grace in regeneration and fanfbification ; it is a thought
that never entered into my head nor heart, and which I abhor. PafTive holinefs,
or that holinefs of heart which makes a foul like to Chrift, and is no other than
Chrift formed in it, or his image inftamped upon it, in the produdlion of which
it is entirely paflive, is abfolutely neceflary to the everlafting enjoyment of him;
yea, 1 believe that an outward conformity to Chrift in converfation, or adtive
holinefs, external holinefs of life, is abfolutely neceffary to evidence the truth
of holinefs of heart in all that are faved, who are either capable, or have an
opportunity of performing it, and fhewing it forth. This writer almoft all
along takes the liberty of altering the flate of the queftion before us, and in-
ftcad of good works puts holinefs; thereby to fuggeft to his readers that I deny.
the necef^ty of fanftification to complete happinefs ; -which as it is an iniquitous
proceeding, fo it gives us a fpecimen of his fkill in the management of a regular
controverfy he prates about. Nor by good works are to be underftood the inter-
nal afts and exercifcs of grace, as faith, hope, and love ; for though thefe are
our a6ts, under the influence of divine grace, and fo may be called our works.
though
» P«ge 10. * Page 12. • Page ij. ^ Phil. i. 6.
' 1 Pet. i. 2. z The&. ii. 13. » Addrefs, is'c. p. 13.
i84 THE NECESSITY OF GOOD "WORKS
though not with much propriety, and' as fuch good ones ; yet thefc do not
ufually go by the name of good works, either in fcripture, or in the writings
of good men, or in our common way of fpeaking. This I mention to flop the
•mouths of fome filly cavillers, who I perceive arc fond of objefling thefe things.
Though even thefe ads and exercifes of grace cannot be thought to be fo
abfolutely ncceflary to falvatlon, as that it cannot podibly be without them ;
fince infants, as foon as born, though they may be capable of having the prin-
ciples of faith, hope and love, implanted in them, yet I apprehend they can-
not be capable of adling or exercifing thefe graces : If therefore without thefe
'afts and exercifes of grace pcrfons cannot be faved, thefe mufl: Hand excluded
from the kingdom of heaven. By good works, I undcrftand a feries of external
holinefs; not a finglc aftion or two, but acourfe of living foberly, righteoudy,
and godly ; a conftant performance of religious duties and exercifes, in the out-
ward life and converfation : In this fenfe, and in this only, am I to be under-
ftood in the propofition before us, and in all that I have faid, or fliall fay con-
cerning it.
It may be proper next to inquire what is the meaning of the word necejfary, and
in what fenfe good works are fo. That they are neceflary to be done, or ought
to be done, by all that iiope to be faved by the grace of our Lord Jcfus Chrift, is
readily granted ;' but not in point of falvation, in order to that, or with a view to
obtain it. Good works are neceflary to be done, on account of the divine ordina-
tion and appointment; for fuch as arc ihcu^orkmarf/hipofGody are created in Chrijl
Jefus unto good works, ivhicbGod hath before ordained, that they Jhould walk in them".
They are ntct^zry,neceJJitateprecepti{^debiti,on account of the will and command
of God, and of that obedience we owe toGod, both as creatures, and as new crea-
tures. They are neceflary upon the fcore of obligation we lie under to him, and
in point of gratitude for the numerous mercies we receive from him, and that
by-them both we and others may glorify him our Father which is in heaven.
They are neceflary to adorn the doiflrine of God our Saviour, to recommend
religion to others, to tcftify the truth of our faith, and give evidence of the
reality of internal holinefs. They are neceflary for the good of cur neighbours,
and for the flopping of the mouths of our enemies. Thefe things I have more
largely obferved and aflertcd in my letter to this man ; all which he conceals
from his readers, and mod vilely fuggcfts to them, that I have vented the fame
notion, and am of the fame opinion whh Simon Magus, Carpocrates, and their
followers ; who held that falvation was through faith and love, but that other
good works were not neceflary ; but were to be looked upon by men as indif-
ferent in their own nature, being neither good nor evil ; nothing being natu-
rally
» Ephefiansii. lo.
UNTO SALVATION, CONSIDERED, &c. 185
rally evil, and fo might or might not be done : Things I never thought of, and
of whichi have the utmofl. abhorrence and deteflation. With what face or con-
fcience could he infinuate any thing of this kind, when I have fo fully exprefled
myfelf upon the ncccfTity of doing good works ? But what will not a man fay,
intoxicated with pafTion? True indeed, I cannot fay that good works are necef-
fary to falvation, that is, to obtain it; which is the only fenfe in which they
can be faid with any propriety to be necelTary to it, or in which fuch a propo-
fition can be underftood -, and which I charge as a Popifh and Socinian tenet,
and hope I fliall ever oppofe, as long as I have a tongue to fpeak, or a pen to
write with, and am capable of ufing either.
Salvation may be confidered, either in the contrivance of it from eternity,
in the mind and counfel of God; and the defignation of perfons to it; or in
the impetration of it in time by Chrift; or in the application of it in effedlual
vocation by the Spirit of God; or in the entire confummate enjoyment of it
in heaven. In every of thefe views of it, good works are not neceflary to
it : Not to the contrivance of it, and defignation of perfons to it. God,
when in his infinite wifdom he drew the fcheme of falvation in Chrift, fixed
upon him to be the author of it, and appointed men unto it by him, was
not moved hereunto by any works of his creatures, or by any forefight of
them; they were then no moving caufes with God, no conditions of falvation
fixed by him, nor were as the antecedent to the confequent; no, not in
the prefcience or fore-knowledge of God : As they could not go before, fo
they were not fore- viewed by God, as any caufc, condition, motive, or reafon
of his chufing one to falvation, and not another; For the children being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpofe of God according to elec-
tion might Jl and, not of works, but of him that caUetb°. Good works are the con-
fequents and fruits of cledtion to falvation, not antecedent to it. Nor arc they
neceffary to the impetration or obtaining of it in time by Chrift : Thefe did not
move Chrift to engage in this work, they were no ways aftifting to him in it ;
they did not help it forward, or in the leaft contribute to the performance of it,
which was done ericirely and complcatly without them.
Nor was it effcdcd by him on condition of mens performing good works, nor
were they necefTary to it, as the antecedent to the confequent ; they did notan-
tecedc or go before it, no, not in the divine mind or confideration, and in the
view of Chrift ; for men were then confidered, not as having done good works,
but as evil and wicked; ior while we were yet fmners, Chrijl died for hs, and ob-
tained eternal redemption, by his blood ; and when we were enemies, we were re-
conciled to God by the death of his Son '. Good works do not go before, but fol-
low after redeeming grace : Chrift gave himfelf for his people, that ke might re-
VoL. II. B B deem.
• Rom. k. M. ' Rom. v. 8, 10.
lU THE NECESSITY OF GOOD "WORKS
>4ieem them /rem all iniquity, and purify unto bimfelf a peculiar piopk, zealous of
£ood ivorks ''.
Nor are they nccefiary to the application of falvation by the Spirit of God in
cffcdual calling, neither as caufes or conditions, or as the antecedent to the
confequenr ; they can be no moving caufes to it, nor do they come into confi-
deratiSn in the divine mind, as the reafon or condition of it; they are not the
rule and meafure of God's proceedure in this affair; he favcs and calls with an
holy calling, not according to our works, hut according to bis own purpofe and grace %
Bcfides, before regeneration, before effefbual vocation, before a principle of grace
is wrought in the foiil, before the new-creation-work is formed, wbich is the initial
part of falvation, or that branch of it which God's clefl are firft adlually made
partakers of in their own perfons, there are properly fpeaking no good works
done by them, or can be done by them ; and therefore cannot pofTibly be ante-
cedent to falvation viewed in this light, but muft be confcquent to it : IVe are
bis workmanfhip, created in Cbrijl Jefus unto good works '. Nor, laftly, are they
neceffary to the confummate enjoyment of falvation in heaven, no, not as the an-
tecedent to the confequent ; that is, as an antecedent caufe to a coiifequcnt
effeft, which is the eafy, common, and natural fenfe of the phrafe ; for who
can hear of an antecedent to a confequent, unlefs by way of illation, but muft
at once conceive of that confequent as an effect depending upon the antecedent
as a caufe ? Wherefore if good works are antecedent to glorification as a con-
fequent, then glorification muft be, and will be confidered as an effefl; depend-
ing upon good works as its caufe.
And as it will be difKcult to fix any other fenfe upon the phrafe, and perfons
are and will be naturally led fo to conceive of it, this, and this alone, is a fuf-
ficient reafon why it ought to be rejefted and difufed. This man himfelf will
not fay that good works are neceffary as antecedent caufes, or as antecedent
conditions of falvation or glorification : Let him then tell us in what fenfe
they are neceffary, as the antecedent to the confequent. His performance is
An addrefs to young jludents in divinity, and he takes upon him to be a tutor and
director of them in their ftudies ; but leaves them in the dark, and does not
offer to inform them in what fenfe good works are neceffary, as the antecedent
to the confequent. Will he fay they are neceffary as antecedent means of fal-
vation ? This is all one as to fay they are neceffary as antecedent caufes, for
every mean is a caufe of that of which it is a mean. Will he affert that they
are neceffary, as an antecedent mcetnefs or fitncfs for heaven ? This muft be
denied. How can our poor, impure and impcrfeft works, our righteoufneffes,
which arc z% filthy rags, make us meet and fit for the heavenly glory ? No, it
is
« TituJ ii. 14. « 2 Tim. i. 9; • Ephes. u. 10.
UNTO SALVATION, CONSIDERED, &c. iS;
h not works of righteoufnefs done by us, but the Spirit's work of grace within
us, which will be performed until the day of Chrift, which is the faints meet-
nefs for eternal happinefs. Will he fay that good works are fuch neceflary an-
tecedents to falvation, though he does not choofe to fay or cannot fav what, as
that falvationn cannot pofTibly be enjoyed where they do not go before ? I have,
in my letter to him, given inftances to the contrary ; proving that falvation is,
where good works do not go before ; as in the cafe of eledt infants, and of
perfons called by grace in their laft hours, when juft ready to launch into
eternity. . ■ ■ "
If this doflrine is true, that good works are fo abfolutely neceflfary to falva-
tion, that there can be no poffibility of any, where they do not go before •, what
an horrible fcene muft this open to parents of children, who lofe by death many,-
or moft or all of them in their infancy ? fince, upon 'this principle, they muft
for ever defpair of their eternal happinefs. One fliould think that fuch a man
as this I am concerned with, would have cook care to put in a favin" claufe in
favour of infants, efpecialiy when fuggeftcd to him ; who fuppofes that all the
infants of believers are inrerefted in the covenant of grace, and confequently
muft be faved, at Icaft thofe who die in their infancy ; and if faved, they muft
be faved without good works, which they neither do, nor are capable of doing.
Marefms ', I obferve, when treating of the nccefiity of doing good works, for
fuch ends and ufcs as have been already mentioned, and which nobody denies,
adds ; " But this neccfilty is to be rcftrained to adult believers, who are ablt to
" perform outward good works ; for the Infants of believers are faved ivithout them
♦' (even as they were finners without any properly perfonal adt of their own)
" though not without an inclination to them, by the grace and fpirit of rege-
" neration." Moreover, upon this principle, what hope can furviving rela-
tions entertain of their adult deceafed friends -, who though they havea ppeared
to have had full convictions of their loft and mifcrable ftate by nature, clear
views of the exceeding finfulnefs of fin, an abhorrence of it, and repentance for
it ; to have feen the infufficiency of any works of the creature to juftify before
God, and render acceptable to him ; the nccefTity of falvation alone by Chrift -,
and to exprefs fome degree of faith in him, and hope of the heavenly inheritance i
yet becaufc they have not lived a regular life in time of health, have not gone
through a courfe of good works, have not lived foberly, rigbtecufly and godly in
this prefcnt world, muft be therefore cverlaftingly baniflied from the realms of
B B 2 light ?
I Hxc vero oecelljta] reftringeoda ed ad fidelei adultos, qui bona opera externa praeflare polTunt ;
infaotec enim fidelium abfque illis fervantur (ut fine fuo ullo aflu proprie pe fonali erant peccatores)
& n noo abfque inclinatiooe ad ilia per gratiam ic fpiritum regeDcrationis, Maref, CQlIeg.Theolog.
loc. 12. S. 12. p< 315.
i88 THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS
light ? What comfort can a man of this principle be a means of adminiftering ?
or what comfortable words can he fpeak to a poor creature become truly fenfi-
ble of fin, and his loft eftate, of his needofChrift, and falvation by him, on
a deathbed? Can he, though he is fatisfied he has a true and thorough fenfe
of things, encourage him to believe in Chrift, and hope in him for everlafting
life and falvation? No, he cannot; he muft beobliged to tell him that it is too
late to think or talk of ihefe things, there is no hope for him ; for fince he has
lived a vicious life, hell muft be his portion ; for where good works, a religious
life and converfation, do not go before, there can be no confequent happinefs.
Whereas, on the other hand, according to our principle, parents may hope for
the falvation of their infants that die in infancy ; there is at leaft a poffibility of
it, whereas there is none in the other fcheme; furviving relatives may rejoice,
in hope of their deceafed friends being gone to glory, who they have reafon to
believe have been called by grace, though at the laft hour-, miniftersand others
are capable of fpeaking words of peace and confolation todiftrefTed minds, whofe
hearts are pricked and and become contrite on their dying beds : All which is
a full confutation of what this writer afTcrts % that ."it is abfolutely impofTible
" that it" (this tenet, that good works are not neceffary to falvation) " fhould.
" do good to any perfon whatfoever." I readily own, that good works are ne-
ceffary to be performed by all that are walking in the way to heaven, and expedl
to be faved by Chrift, and glorified with him, who are either capable, or have
an opportunity of performing them ; but then they are not neceffary as caufes,
conditions, or means of procuring glory and happinefs for them ■, nor are they
neceffary as the antecedent to the confequent, to pave their way to heaven,
to prepare and make them meet for it •, or to put them into the poffeffion of it :
they do not go before in any fuch fenfe, or for any fuch ufe ; they follow after :
Blejjed are the dead which die in the Lord, from henceforth ; yea, faith the Spirit^
that they may refi from their labours, and their works do follow them '.
It is faid % that it cannot poffibly be for the advantage of a faint or a finner,
to be told that good works are in no fenfe neceffary to falvation, not as the an-
tecedent to the confequent ; and that it may do a great deal of harm and mif-
chief to the one and the other. I have already ftiewn it may be for the advan-
tage, ufc, peace, and comfort of poor fenfible finners on their death-beds, and
of furviving faints : Nor do I fee what harm or mifchief it can do to faints, live-
ly or declining ones, or to profane finners; not to lively judicious chriftians,
who are taught and encouraged by this doftrine to continue zealous of good
works, and diligently to perform them, for many valuable, neceffary ufes,
though
« Addtefj, tec. p. 7. » Rev. xiv» 13. » Addrefs, &c. p. 6.
UNTO SALVATION, CONSIDERED, &c. 189
though not in order to falvation. What, will no motive induce a lively chrif-
tian to do good works, but what is taken and urged from the neceffity of them
unto falvation ? Or can he be a judicious one, that ads from fuch a principle ?
Cannot a declining chriftian be induced to do h\s firjl ivorks, unlcfs he is told
they are abfolutely neceflary to his falvation ? Cannot it be thought that argu-
ments, taken from the command and will of God, from the gbry of God, the.
honour of Chrift, religion and truth, a man's own and his neighbour's good, de-
monftrating the necefTity of doing good works, may be made ufe of as means
to quicken his diligence, to caft off his fpiritual floth and carnal fecurity, with-
out infifting upon the necefTity of them to falvation ? Nor can it tend to harden
Cnners in fin, or put them upon running into greater tranfgreffjons, or induce
them' to harbour fuch a conceit, that they may get to heaven, let them live as
they pleafc ; when they are told, that though good works cannot lave them,
their evil works may damn them, or be the caufe of damnation to them.
As for the texts of fcripture produced by this writer, they are all of them
impertinently alledged, and none of them at all to the purpofe. Some of them
do not relate to good works, but to internal holinefs, the fanftification of the
Spirit, as 2 Tbefs. ii. 13, 14. Heb. xii. 14. which is thai grace God chufes his
people to, in order to their enjoyment of glory ; and without which, and that
as perfedt, for fo it will be made by the Spirit of God, they cannot fee or enjoy
theLord; and therefore it becomes them, by conftant application at the throne
of grace, to follow after a daily increafe of it, and by their lives and converfa-
tions to evidence the truth and reality of it. Others only exprefs the neceffity
ef doing good works to teftify the truth of faith, or contain motives in them to
the performance of them; taken partly from the grace of God beftowed upon
the faints here, and from the confideration of that happinefs and glory they fhall
enjoy hereafter, as the fruits of grace, and not as the fruits and confequents of
their works; zsjamesu. i 7, &c. zPeterm. 10 — \^.Jude 20, 21. iJobn\\\.\—^.
And it is eafy to obfcrve, that the whole current of fcripture, and efpecially the
Epiltles, run this way, to exclude works entirely from having any hand or con-
cern in the juftification and falvation of men. The pafTage out oiCkmerit, I fup-
pofe, is chiefly produced to grace his margin with a large citation in Greek; fines
it only fets forth the duty of thofe to perform good works, who would be found
among the number of fuch who wait for God, and defire to partake ofhispro-
mifed gifts : for certain it is, that Clement did not think that good works were
ncceflTary tojuftification or glorification; feeing he exprefsly excludes them from
either, when he fays '', " All are glorified and magnified, not by themfelves,
or
_J
(«
190 THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS
*' or by their works or righteous aftions which they have done, but by his own
will: So we alfo, being called by his will in Chrift Jefus, are juftifiedv not
" by ourfelves, nor by our wifdom, or underftanding, or piety, or works, which
" we have done in holinefs of heart -, but by that faith, by which the Almighty
*' God hath juftified all from the beginning, to whom be glory for ever and
" ever. Amen."
We are next entertained with the rife and original of this tenet, that " good
«' works are not necefTary to falvation." And it feems, according to our learned
author % that Simon Magus was the firft broacher of it : And we are expofed as
his difciples and followers -, and fome pains are taken to tell an idle, filthy ftory,
of Simon's picking up a whore in a baudy-houfe at Tyre, and committing forni-
cation with her ; no doubt with a view to infinuate to his readers, that our
principles being alike, our practice mufl: be fo too ; or, at lead, that our prin-
ciples have the fame tendency. But if it fhould appear that Simon's tenets and
ours are not the fame, what will become of this little (how of reading, and the
mean artifice made ufe of to expofe us to fcorn and contempt ? As for Simon's
faying that falvation is by grace, and not by works, this was a doftrine he had
from the apoftlcs themfelves ; which he turned into wantonnefs, and abufcd to
vile purpofes ; and is in itfelf never the worfe, nor is it to be thought the worfe
of, for his ill ufe of it : And as for the inference made from this doftrine, that
therefore good works are not neceflary ; this is none of ours, we difclaim it;
there is no agreement between Simon's tenet and ours, about good works -, he
urged they were not necefTary to be done, we plead for the neccffity of doing
them, for the ends before mentioned, and which need not be repeated. Simon,
Carpocrates, and their followers, who are reprefented as being in the famefenti-
ments, held that every thing, befides faith and love, were things indifferent,
neither good nor bad in their own nature, and fo might be done or omitted.
But can this man, with any face or confcience, fay that thele are our fenti-
ments ? We affirm that good works are in themfelves good, cannot be dif-
penfed with, but ought to be performed by all men -, the tenet of thefe men
was, that good works were not necefTary at all in any fcnfe, not necefTary to be
done. Where is the listeners, the agreement ?
Give me leave, on this occafion, to inquire into the rife and original, and
to point out the authors, abetters, and maintainers of the contrary tenet, that
good works are necejfary to falvation. The falfe apoftles in Judea, and other
judaizing
Kxlttpya-carrot «>>>"» J'a th Sl^1)flaT®• ovts' k) ififi; «» Jia SiXiiftaT^ avrs it Xj/rn Iijith kXiiSif-
Ti{, H Ji ia,v\ut in^Ujii^x, nil itx TiJt vfiijlig^ at^ia;, i) vvtiriuf, v iv^iCnx;! >i ifys" •" >u»7«{-
■^iK^7n, u tftiii^a. n; TU< aik»a; Tur at^tut. A^>!>. CkcDcnC. ROd). >d Corinta. Cpifl I. p. "Jl.
Ed. Ojcon. * Addrefs, &c. p. ii.
UNTO SALVATION, CONSIDERED, &c, 191
judaizing profeflbrs, were the firft broachers of this notion ; who taught the
brethren, not only that circumcifion, but that obedience to the law ol Mofes,
the moral as well as ceremonial law, was necelTary tofalvation: kcyi£Jsxv. 1^5,
wliich gave the true apoftlcs and primitive churches a great deal of trouble.
To confute which, the apoftle Paul efpecially greatly laboured in all his writ-
ings, and particularly in his Epiftles to the Romans and Galatians. The Papifts,
the followers of the man of fin, have always been the abetters and maintainers
of this principle ; and fo has Socinus, and his wretched adherents. The firft
among the reformed divines that vented it, was George Major, cotemporary
and familiar w'nh Luther and Melan^bcn : He has been reprefenred by fome,
from whom one fhould not have cxpeded to have had fuch a charadter of him
on this account, z% fatelles Romani Pontificis, a perfon employed by the Pope of
Rome ; a tool of the Popifh party, to create divifions and difturbances among
the Reformed. The Papifts finding they could not maintain with fuccefs their
notion, ihzi good works were meritorious of fahationy inftead of the phrafe, meri-
torious of falvation, fubftituted tlie other phrafe, necejfary to falvation, as being
a fofter one, in order to gain upon incautious minds •, when one and the fame
thing were defigned by both : And this man was thought to be the inftrument
they made ufe of for this purpofe. But however this be ; certain it is, that the
broaching of this doflrine by him gave great offence, and occafioned much
difturbance. The writer of his Life intimates, that the confequences of it gave
Major himfelf fome concern*-, and that he declared, in fo many words, that
♦' whereas he faw that fame were offended, for the future he would no more
" make ufe of that propofition." Among the chief of his oppofers was Nico-
laus Amfdorfius, who in great heat and zeal aflerted, in contradiftion to Major*&
notion, that "good works were hurtful and dangerous to falvation ;" a pofition
not to be defended} unlefs when good works arc put in the room of Chrift,
and are trufted to for falvation : But it is not doing of them, that is, or
can be hurtful to falvation, but depending on them when done. This contro-
verfy raifed great troubles in the churches, and gave MelanSibon a good deal of
uneafinefs -, who at firft was enfnared into the ufe of the phrafe, though he after-
wards rejeded it, as improper and dangerous. Amfdorfius did not deny that good
works were to be done, but could not be prevailed upon to own that they were
neceffary. MelanElbon at length allowed that '* good works were not ncceflary
*' to falvation •" nor did he dare to affert it : " For thefe reafons, fays he, wc
•' teach that good works, or new obedience, are neceffary ; yet this muft not
*« by any means be tacked to it, \)c\z\. good works art neceffary to obtain falvation
«' and eternal life." In his anfwer to the paft^rs ofSaxony, he has thefe words :
" Never-
* Quinimo diferte teRztos e/l, fe propofiiioae ilia, qua rideret allquo) oHeodi, dcincrps bob
■furum. Mclchlor. Adam. Vita Georg. Major, p. 470.
^-,1
i92 THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS
" Neverthelefs, let us not ufe this phrafe, good works are necejjary to falvation^
And, in another place, "Verily I fay, that I do not make ufe of this phrafe,
<' good ivorks are necejfary to falvation; but I affirm, that thefe propofitions are
" true, and properly and without fophiftry thus to be declared ; new obedience
" is necejfary, or good works are necejfary; becaufe obedience is due toGod, ac-
" cording to that faying, Debtors we are ^." Now thefe were the fentiments, .
and which are exadtly ours, of the great MelanHhon, that peaceable man, who
never was charged with running into extremes in controverfy, his greateft faulr,
.and which has been complained of by fome of his friends, who have had a great
regard to him and his memory, was, that he was for compofing differences, .
almoft at any rate, fometimes, as was thought, to the injury of truth, and with
.the hazard of lofing it. ■
I could eafily produce a large Jiumber of learned and holy men, who have
affertcd the fame thing : I ftiall content myfeif with tranfcribing tzvelve argu-
ments, fhewing that good works are not neccfTary to falvation, drawn up by
thatJearned and judicious divine Abraham Caloviits ; who has dcferved much of
all men of learning and true chriftianity, for his learned animadverfions on
Grotius's Annotations on feveral paffages in the Pfahns and Prophets, relating to
;the MefTiah -, and for his laborious confutation of Socinus and his followers, and
Jiis excellent defence of the orthodox faith againft them. They are as follow.
The queftion put is, " IVbether good works are necejfary to falvation ? " The
■Socinians, fays he % affirm this; but this opinion is defervedly reje(fled,
1. Becaufe no fuch thing is ever to be found in the fcriptures, namely, that
good works are necejfary to falvation. But if this was fo principal a part of evan-
gelic truth, as the adverfaries plead, it fhould, upon the foot of the Socinian
iiypothefis, be contained in exprefs words in the fcriptures; fince they afferr,
that all things necelTary to be known for falvation, are contained cxprefsly in
the fcriptures.
2. The
* Propter has caufas docemus, ncce/Taria efTe bona opera, feu novam obedientiam, nequiquam
lamen afTuendum eft, bona opera ad falutem & vitam a:cernam confequendam nece/Taria efle. In
refponfo ad Paflores Saxonicos : Taraen hac phrafi non utamur, bona opera funt necefTaria ad fa-
lutem. Alibi. Plane dico, me non uti hac phraG, bona opera funt neceffaria ad falutem ; fed has
popofitiones affirmo veras effe, & proprie & fine fophidica Cc dici : nova obedicntia eft neceffaria,
vel bona opera funt necefiaria, quia Deo debetur obedientia, juxta didum, debitorei fumus.
Meianflhon ipud Hoornbcck. Surom. Ccmtrov. ]. g. de Lutheranis, p. 523, 524.. \
*■ Utrum bona opera DeccHaria funt ad f^utem ? AfGrmant hoc Socioiani: at fententia ilia 1
me ito reprobatur, i
I. Qua nufpiam tale quid in fcripturis habetur, bona fc. opera ad falutem neceffaria e/fe. Si
Butem ha;c tarn pfaicipua effet evangtlica: veritatis pars, nt contendont adverfarii, expreflis verbis 1
tarn in fcripturis in contineri oporteret, vi hypothcfews Sociniani, qua omnia fcitu necedaria ad
faluem expre/Te in fcripturis contineri aflerint, &c. Calov. Socioifmus Profligatus, Sed. 7. Art. 8.
de bonis Operibu;, Controv. 1. p. 787, 788, ice.
UNTO 'SALVATION, CONSIDERED, &c. 193
" 2. The apoftle treating of the caufes of our falvation, removes good works,
and entirely excludes them; and teaches, that he only has bleflednefs, to whom
God imputeth righteoufncfs without works, Rom. iv, 6. Compare Efhes. ii. S.
7'itus iii. 5. If therefore good works are entirely excluded from the caufes of
ialvation, how will the fame be neceOary to falvation ?
3. That which is not neceflary to our juftification, that is not neceflary to
Ialvation; becaufe there are no other caufes of falvation than of juftification :
But good works are not neceflary to juftification. Ergo,
4. If we are faved by grace, then good works arc not neceflary to falvation;
for the antitheGs remains firm. If of grace, then not of works, otherwife gr^e is
tot grace, Rom. xi.-6. But the former is true, Rom. vi. 2j. Ephes. ii. 8, 9.
therefore the latter alfo.
5. If by the obedience of one Chrift we all obtain juftification of life and
Ialvation, then wc are not faved by our own proper obedience : But the former
is true, Rom. v. 17—19. therefore alfo the latter.
6. "What is afcribed to faich alone, as it is contradiftinguiftied from worlcs,
that is not to be attributed to works : But eternal falvation is afcribed to faith
alone, Jokn iii. 16. Mark xvi. 16. Rom. i. 17. and iv. 6. Gal. iii. 11. Epbes.W.^,
Titus iii. 5. Heb. x. 38. Ergo,
7. What is neceflary to falvation, that, as much as it is neceflary, is pre-
fcnbed and required in the evangelic doftrinc, Rom. i. 16. and iii. 27. But
good works, as neceflary to falvation, are not prefcribcd in the gofpel, which
is not convcrfant about works, but only about faith in Chrift, John iii. t6. and
vi. 40. Rom. I. 17. and iv. 6. feeing the law is the dottrinc of works, the gof-
pel the dodrine of faitii, Rom. iii, 27. GaL iii. 12,
8. Add to this, that this afl!ertion concerning the neccflity of good works to
falvation, has been already rejefted as falfe, in the falfe apoftles, yi£is xv. 5.
where an oppofition is formed to the fcntiment of the apoftles, that wc are faved
by the grace of Jefus Chrift, and that we arc faved by the keeping of the law,
or works, and that the keeping of the law is neceflary to falvation,
9. If good works were neccfl^ary to falvation, we ftiould have whereof to
glory; but theiioly Spirit takes away all glorying from us, and for this very
rcafon excludes good works from hence, Ephes. ii. 8, 9. Rom. iii, 27. and iv.
I, 2. ,
10. If our cledion to falvation is of grace, and not of works, as the apoftle
teaches, Ephes. 1.4 — 6. 2 Tim. i. 9. good works cannot be aflerted to be nccef-
fary to falvation -, for as we are chofen from eternity, fo we are faved in time.
; Vol. II. Cc 11. By
194 THE NECESSITY -OF GOOD "WORKS
11. By whatfocver doftrine t\\e certainty of our falvation is weakened or
deftroycd, that ought to be rejedled : But fuch is -this do<5trine -of the Socinians.
Ergo,
12. Wherever the fcripturc produces reafons for which ^ood works arc ne-
ceflary, it mentions quite others, than that they are necefTary to falvation;
namely, that we ougirt diligently to perform good works, becaiife of God,
becaufe of Chrid, becaufe of the .holy Spirit, becaufe of the holy angels,
becaufe of our neighbour, becaufe of ourfelves, yea, even becaufe of the
devil."
TKus this excellent writer, confuting the Socinian error, that jfWwori^^ tfrf
necefary to falvation, flrongiy defends the contrary ; which ourTheologafter calls
z filthy dream, horrible hlafpkemy, &c. This, it fcems, is one of the paradoxes
which lead to doftrinal Antino.mianifm. But why a paradox? A paradox, in
the antient ufe of the word, fignified a moft certain truth, -at lead, embraced as
fuch by men of wifdom and learning, though contrary to the opinion of the vul-
gar; which being unufual, (truck them with furprife; whence fuch verities were
(bmetimes called wotAl*, and fometimes admirabilia ''. This ufe of the word,
I fuppofe, will-not be allowed to be applicable to this tenet. A paradox, in the
modern ufe of the word, or in common acceptation, defigns a propofition that
carries in it either a real or feeming felf-contradidion. Now the propofition,
good works are not necejfary to falvation, is plain and cafy to be underftood ; and
is cither true or falfe, but no paradox. We need not go far for inftances of para-
doxes, this writer can furni(h us with enow : As when he fays % " Salvation
«' is all of free grace, and good works, the fruits of holincfs, ^ part of falva-
«' tion, are abfolutely neceflfary to fow/i/^/i; (alvation." The -vrord complete, in this
propofition, is fo placed, as that it may be thought to be either a verb of the
infinitive mood ; and then the fenfe is, falvation is all of grace, and yet good
works are abfolutely nccelTary to complete it ; or as an adjedlive to the word falva-
tion ; and then the fenfe is, falvation is all of grace, and good works are abfo-
lutely neceflary to falvation complete without them : Take it cither way, the felf-
contradiftion is manifeft enough. As alfo, when giving the charafter of a de-
•cafcd minifter of the.gofpel, whofe afhcs he mi^ht have fpared; he fays ', " he
*' was
* Ego aatem ilia ipfa, qui vix in gymnafiij & in otio Stoici probant, ludens conjeci in com-
.AQDCU locos ; qaae qaia funt admirabilia, contraque opinionem omnium, ab ipfii etiam ^a^jjola
•ppe'.lantur. Tentare volui poflentne proferri in lucem, id eft, in forum ; !c ita dici, ot probaren-
t«r, an alia quacdam eflet erudita, alia popularis oratio ; eoque fcripfi libeirtiuf. quod mihi ifta
w«(^J.|«, Tjox appdhtntur, maxime vidtKur effa Socratica, longeqoe verilTijna. Ciceron. Paradox.
.p. 2140.
« In an Advertifemcnt at the end of Mr Wallin'j Funeral Sermon. ' Addrefi, &c. 'p. 14.
UNTO SALVATION, CONSIDERED, &c. 2^5
" was a perfon of real piety, but difcoveredyo much pride and wrath in his wric-
" ings and conduft, (By the way, how could a man fo wretchedly guilty of
" thcfe things, write this without (hame and blufliing?) that it n hard to ao
" count for it ; except we allow, that he had a tinElure of entbufiafm." The
firftof thefe inftances is a r^a/ felf-contradiflion, and the other, at lead, z feem-
ing one ; and both paradoxes. Again ; why fhould this propofition, good works
Are not necejfary to fahation, be reprefented as leadir>g to doArinal Antino-
mianifm ? This man ought to have informed his ftudents what doftrinal Anti-
nomianifm is. Since he has not, I will. Doftrinal Antinomianifm, properly
fpeaking, is a denying, or fetting afide the law ofGod, as a rule of life, aftion,
or converfation. Now what tendency has the above propofition to fuch a notion ?
Or how does it appear, that the very quinteffence of doftrinal Antinomianifm is
couched in it, as is fuggefted ^? Though we fay, that good works are not necef-
fary to falvation ; do we fay, that they are not neceflary to any thing clfe ? Do
we fay, that they are not neceflary to be done? Do we fay, that the^ are not
neceflary to be done in obedience to the law of God ? Da we fay, that the com-
mands of the law arc not to be regarded by men ? That they are things indiffe-
rent, that may be done, or not done ? No -, we fay none of thefe things, but all
the reverfe. Do we then make void iht IsWy through this doftrine ? Ged forbid:
2'ea, we ejlablifh the law*', as it is in the hands ofChrift ourLawgiver; to which
we dcfire to yield a chearful obedience ; to fticw our fubjeflion to him as King
of faints, and to teftify our gratitude for the many blefllngs of every kind wc
receive from him. It is not worth my while to take notice of -the flirt ' at the
everlafting love of the divine perfons being on all accounts the fame, yejlerday,
to day, and for ever ; which he knows, in his own confcience, only regards that
love as in the breaft of the divine perfons, and not rhe manifeftations of it -, which
are more or lefs to different perfons, and fo, to the fame perfons at different
times.
c Addrtfi, &c. p. 5, * Rom. iil. 31. ' Addrcfi, ficc. p. 35.
c c 2 THE
19^ THE ANCIENT MODE OF
THE ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING,
B Y
IMMERSION, PLUNGING, or DIPPING into WATER ;
MAINTAINED and VINDICATED;
Againil the Cavils and Exceptions of the Author of a late Pamphlet,
intitled, 'The manner of Baptizing with Water cleared up from the
Word of God and right Reafon^ &c.
ToOETHtR WITH lOUE
Remarks upon the Author's Reasons for the Pradice of a
FREE or mixt Communion in Churches.
C ft A P. I.
SomeRetnarh upon tbel'itk of the Book, and the Author s method of writing.
THE controverfy about Baprifm, both with refpcd to its mode of admi-
niftration, and proper fubjcfts, has been of late fo diligently fearched into,
and thoroughly difcufled, that it may well fccm ncedlefs to trouble the world
with any further writings upon that fubjeft, it being in a great meafure only ac-
tum agcre^ to do the fame thing over again, which has been well done already ;
but thofe of a different perfuafion from us, being continually thrufting their crambe
millies coUa upon us, and repeating the fame things over and over again, though
they have been fulBcicntly anfwcred already, makes it ncceffary for us, in the
defence
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 19'/
defence of truth, and for the honour of Chrift in his ordinance, to reply. A late
anonymous author has thought fit to let the world know what a talent he has in
that part of the controverfy, which concerns the mode of adminiftering this or-
dinance, by publilhing a traft, whofe title page runs thus, The Manner of bap-
tizing with IVater, cleared up from the Word of God, and right Reafon, in a plain
freeDebate upon that fubjeSi, between Mr].'?. andMrB.W. June 6'\ 1726. Pul>-
lifhtdfor infiruSlion in rigbteoufnefs. How he has acquitted himfelf in the manage-
ment thereof, and what improvements and difcoveries he has made beyond others,
is our prefent bufinefs to confider. It feems our author has not thought fit to fay
any thing concerning the fubjefts of baptifm, but has confined himfelf to the
mode of adminiftration of it ; whether it was becaufe he did not care to engage
in that part of the controverfy, or whether he thought that it has been fufficiently
handled already, and this not fo, is what I do not pretend to determine ; there-
fore feeing he has not thought proper to take notice of it, I (hall not think my-
felf concerned to fay any thing about it. From the title page we are given to
cxpeft, that the manner of baptizing with water fhall be cleared up to us ; for it
feems we were all in the dark before about it, or at lead, there were fuch mifts
and fogs beclouding our apprehenfions concerning this ordinance, that there
was no feeing clearly into it, until the publication of this treatife, by which the
author fancies thefe are dinipated, and the affair fet in a clear light; but I hope
to make it appear, before I have done, that inftead of giving more light, he
has darkened counfel by words without knowledge. The title alfo promifes that this
Ihall be cleared up from the word ofGody and right reafon. By the word ofGod^
I fuppofe he means the written word of God, the fcriptures of truth, which indeed
are the only rule of our faith and praflice ; and firom whence, under the conduft
of the blcfled Spirit, all our light in faith and worfhip fprings ; but what he means
by right reafon, needs explaining, and is not fo cafy to determine. If he means
a juft and ftrong way of reafoning, one might juftly cxpeft to find fomewhat of
it in this his performance -, but the cafe being otherwife, I fhall not, at prefent,
farther inquire what clfe he defigned by it ; but only obfervc to him, that we
ought to believe and aft in matters of faith and worfliip, upon the fole credit
and authority of the great God, as he has revealed his mind and will in the fa-
crcd writings.
The method which our author has taken, in order to fet this matter in a clear
light, is dialogue- wife, or in the form of a conference between two pcrfons, or
to ufc his own words, in a plain free debate. What moved him to take this me-
thod does not indeed much concern me to know, but yet I cannot forbear think-
ing, one reafon might be, that he might have the opportunity of making his
antagonift fpcak what he himfelf pleafcd i for it would have betrayed his wcak-
ncfs
1-98 ■ THE ANCIENT M O D ET 03^ .' T
neft yet more, to havt produced fuch argumcBts and objetUons wbicb he pis
not, in his own way, aWe to folve : chough at the fame tinie k is an inftaoceof
hij difingenuity, not fairly to propofe ihofc arguments which arc made ufc of, nor
give them their full weight and force, which he ought to have done in bandlmg
& controvcrfy honeftly and faithfully ; as well as making his friend fpcak fach
weak and ridiculous things as never were, at leaft publicly, made ufe of in thij
controvcrfy. Had be had a mirtd to have made a trial of ht« fkill and bis talents
and abilities this way, why did not he take out the arguments of fomc fuch wri-
ters as Tombs, Danvers, Keacb, Stenrut, or Gale, and fairly propofc' them iti
their own words, and give an anfwer to them? But this would not have anfwercd
his dcfion, -which Teems to be, cxpofing to ridicule and contempt tbc ordinance
ftfBaptifm, by plunging or dipping •, and would, moreover, have been a talk
too difficult and laborious for him. Perhaps be alfo thought, this method bcft
:to conceal himfelf from being known to be the author of it ; but if it is truth
he is in fcarch of, and bearing a teftimony to, why fhould he be afliamcd of it ?
•why did not he put his name to his book ? This is fuch a poor, mean, and coward-
■ ly way of v»riting, as manifeftly betrays either Qiame or fear to appear publicly
In the caufe he has efpoufed ; if he thinks he is fighting tie Lord's battles, why
does not he appear like a man, in the open field, and not lie fcouting behind the
hedges? But perhaps this is to keep off a full blow that he is afraid might be
given to him. But to go on, this debate or conference is reprcfented, as ma-
naged by two pcrfons, under the fidtitious names of Mr J. P. a plunger in waterj
and Mr J9. ^. a bapti2cr with water; for it fecms, according to our author,
ihat plunging rt water, and baptizing with water, are diredly oppofite to each
otheti but onkfs he can tell us, how a perfon can be baptized or dipped into wa-
ter, without being baptized w7i ir, they will not appear fo oppofite as he ima-
gines, bOt of this m6re hereafter. ' • ' '-■ ' ^ ■. V'
■ : ll is fcarcc worth my while to take any notice of the time when thiscont
fcrcncc was held, unlcfs it be juft to remark, that it would have been as wc)I
fot (he credit of the author, the good and peace of the churches of Chrift, an<J
(he^bry of his nahie,'or better, if k bad never been, or *t leaft, if it had
n«ver been publifhcd 4 but it fcems it is pubtijbed for infiruSUon n righiteufnefs \,
but if any are inftrufled by it in that way, in which our blcflcd Lord thought it
became him and his followers to fulfil all rigbteoufnefi, « will be contrary to <he
defign and intention of the author •, though I am credibly informed, that two
perfons liavc been already convinced by reading his book, that plunging or
dipping ihe^hole body in water, is the right way and mode of adminiftering
Baptifm ; fuch i? the force of truth, that it will break out and appear, in fpite
of all oppoQtionmade againft it. . ^ • ■ . -
I have
BAPTIZIIJG BY iMMERSION, &c. apg
,- ~I have nothing more to obfcrve here, but cidy, ^that feeing the author has
Dot thought fit to djfcover his aame, the -reader is -dcfired to obfcrve,. that I
ihalJ call him by the nanfic of -Mr B. W, which is what he-has bcenpkafcd to
afiume to hirafclf ; and fo proceed to the confiderationof this wild, J4Knrbliog,
and confufcd debate, in the beft order and metiiod into which I am <:apable.of
ranging it : Though I (hould hare obferved to the reader, t^e terms or articles
agreed upon in this conference. As, i. *' That whatever was fpoke, flipuld
•' be tried by the written word of God, and that dnly." But 1 -thought from
the title page, that right teafon was to be joined to the word of God, in the
managemenc of this debate ; but perhaps the mode of bapnizing, ^thc thing de-
bated, is to be tried by the one, and cleared up by the ether, a." Tiiat in all
*' they fhould ufe plainncfs of fpeech, without any cunning craftincfs ; grant-
*' ing unto him that fpoke, the liberty of explaining his own words, and mean-
•' ing ; " but if cunning crafunefs is riot made -ufe of, and a btuidling ibe word of
God deceitfully, in this debate, by Mr B. W. I am much miftakcn. 3." " That
*' all be done with thefpirit of mcekncfs, aod.true chriftianity j without paffion,
•' prejudice, bitter reflection, or railing -accufation." How Mr 5. ^. has con-
formed and aded agreeably to this article, may be very eafily obferved, when
he calls baptifm, as adminiftered by plunging, ^ fuperjiitious imfention ; and a
pleading for h, fSthering foolifh lies upon God, p. 23. and , will- wor/hip, p. 24.
The laft article is, " That they both ftiould keep within the bounds of brevity
♦* and civility ; the one muft not be tedious in fpeaking, nor the other croublc-
" fom in interrupting." Which terms being agreed upon, to work they go,
and what they made of if, is now our bufinefe to inquire.
Q n A p. II. ■ . . .
^be Jirft argument for Jipping or plunging in ivaier, as the ri^ght mode of
baptizing, taken from John j .praSice, -and our XjQrd's .auunple^ in
Matt. iii. 1 6. ivitb tbcobjefiions of Mr B. W. tbereunto, confdered.
^k/TR B. W. introduces his atitagonift in p. 6. producing the inftance of Chrift's
being baptized by fobn in "Jordan, infavour of plunging or dipping in
water, ^% the -right and only mode of baptizing : the text cited is, Matt.m. 16.
AndJefuSy'wben he was Jniptized, ivenl up ftraightway out of the water; from
whence he at;gues, that he had been in it, feeing he could never be faid to go
out of that wherein he had not been. To which Mr B. jy. replies :
■ ., -■■'.■■ i. That
^-J
200 - THE ANCIE^STT^MODE £) F :
J. That the words fignify jk) more than that he went up from the water \ as,
fays he, perfons of your judgment have been often told. It is true, it is kind
in fuchJearned Gentlemen as Mr 5. ^. that they will condefccnd to inftruft
fuch poor ignorant creatures as we plungers are commonly reprefented, and as
I fuppofe this author takes us to be; but when they have done their part, we
are left without cxcufe, and cannot fay, that we have not been told to the con-
trary, though it is prodigioufly affronting, that after all the pains they have
taken to inftruft us, yet. that we fhculd ftrcnuoufly infift on the juftnefs of our
tranQation, as we think, to be a little more ferious, we have juft reafon to do.
The reafon of this low criticifm is, becaufe the prepofition «»», and not U., is
here made ufc of, but «n» fignifies out ofy as well z%from, and anfwers to the
Hebrew tD, which alfo is of the fame fignification ; and the rather it fhould be
rendered fo here, not only becaufe it fuits bcft with the fcope of the place, but
agrees with that parallel text in J3s viii. ^(j. where U. is made ufe of : So that
there can be no foundation there for this trifling criticifm. But if Mr B. W.
fliould.qucftion vyhcther the word m.Tm is ever ufed in this fcnfe, let him turn to
thcScptuagint in P/i/w xl. 2, which he fcems to have fome regard for, and
there he will find it, where David fays, the Lord brought him up out of an bor-
. rible fit, ^ tnw a»A« /xu©-, and out of the miry clay. Bur,
.2.>Headds, ♦'Suppofing the tranflation very right, I worfder, fays he, where
•'dipping, overwhelming, or plunging, can be fccn therein !" What a prodi-
gious deal of ftrong reafoning is here ? And I as much wonder too,. }y here wafh-
ing with water, cither by pouring or fprinkJing, can be feen therein. He goes
on, "you fay, he went out of the water, therefore he had been in it; but if
" you had faid, he had been dipped, overwhelmed, or plunged, 1 Ihouid have
" denied the confequence." Itfeems, however, that he is willing to grantj that
Chrift's going into the water, and being there, is a neceflary inference and con-
■fequence, juftly deduced from his coming up out of the water; though he is
unwilling to allow plunging to be fo, for othcrwife 1 doubt not, but that he
would iiave denied the one as well as ihc other; and I hope he will be willing
to grant, that Chrift went down into the water, in order to be baptized, and
that he came up out of it as a baptized perfon ; therefore he is defircd to ob-
serve, that we do not infer plunging merely from Chrift's going down into the
iwater, nor from his coming up out of it, but from his going down into it in
order to be baptized, and from his coming up out of it as a baptized perfon ;
for that a perfon may go into water, and come again out of it, and not be plung-
ed into it, we know as well as he ; but that a perfon fliould go into water, and -
be baptized in it, as Chrift was^ without being dipped or plunged mto it, is
what we deny; and if thofe circumftanccs of John's adminiftering this ordinance
in
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 201
in the river "Jordan^ and Chrift, when baptized, coming up -out of the water,
arc not demonftrative proofs of plunging, yet they are at leaftftrong prefump-
tivcones, and fuch as I challenge him to produce the like, in favour of this
ordinance being adminiftered to Chrift, by wafhing with water, either by pour-
ing or fprinkling. If plunging is not a necejfary inference from what is revealed
concerning Chrift's baptifm, 1 am fure fprinkling or pouring of water can never
be ; and I will leave it to any impartial man of judgmeni^ to ufe his own phrafe,
whether there is not a greater probability, to put it upon no other foot, ofChrift'3
being baptized by immerfion, when he went into the nszx Jordan to be baptized,
and accordingly was baptized there by "Jobn^ than there is of his being baptized
in that river only by an afFufion or fprinkling of water upon him : So chat he
has but little reafon, with that air of alTurance, and in that dogmatical way, to
fay, " that John baptized in Jtrdan is true, but be never dipped nor plunged any
** in bis life" as he does in p. 10. And here I cannot forbear mentioning a
pafiage of thofe excellent divines, 7^'^" ■^*6''^'^"'' '^drew Rivet, /Intbony fV^-
Ittus, and Anthony Thyfius, who at the fame time that they are endeavouring to
have the mode of baptifm, either by plunging or fprinkling, accounted an indif-
ferent thing, acknowledge this inftance of Chrift's baptifm to bean example
of plunging. Their words arc thefe % " W.hcthcr baptifm is to be adminiftered
" by a fingle or a trine immerfion, was always judged a thing indifferent in the
" chriftian church; as alfo whether plunging or fprinkling is to be ufed, feeing
*' noexprefs command is extant concerning it -, and examples of fprinkling as
** wrll as <>f plunging may be found in fcripture ; for as in Matt. i,L Chrift went
** into the water, and came out of it, zaaMo the Ethiopian, Ads viii. So, vmny
* thoufands are faid to be baptized in one day, in the xi^tyoi J erufalem, Afts ii,
" Likcwife many in private houfcs, /i£ls xvi. and xviii. 1 Cor. i. x6. where fuch
« a going into water was fcarccly poffible :" Which, by the way, is a miftake
iti thofe great men, for none of the texts alJcdgcd, though they prove a baptifm
of whole hocfholds, yet they do not prove that it was adminiftered in their houfes -,
for moft of them plainly (hew, that this was performed before the apoftles en-
trance into them-, and if it had been done there, it would be no proof or evidence
that it was done by fprinkling, feeing proper accommodations to baptize by
imtTMrrfion might be had, even in a houfe;" Though there is no reafon, as I have
Vol. II. D D hinted,
* An vero una, ah trini ffitrfione fit ^apbnndum, tndiStretn fempcr judieatam f«1t in e«edelja
chrifliaaa^ qucmadmodum ctiam an immerfionc an vcto lidrperlioae uOendnm, cu«n iliius cxprefiiim
inandataro nullamvKcti <ic clcmpla adiperilonit con minai quam immerGonis ia fcripturis pofljnc
dcprcjiendi, ficmi enim Matt. 3. Chriflutin aquam in^reflus, & ex ea tgrefluj eft, & Ethiops. AO. S.
Sic multa millia ono die in ipfa orbe Jemralem dicunCar falfle bapiizata, j1^ z. item niiilti in domi-
buf privalij, JtS.-it, & l€ ^ Cer,\. 1^. utri rgreffnt ejufeiodi io Bquas »ix effe potuit, Sy^op Pur.
TT^eolog. Difp. 44. TTief. 19.
202 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
hinted, to fuppofe it was done there ; all that I produced this paflao-e for, 1s to
(how, that though thofe valuable writers were fond of thefe inltances, as evi-
dences of fprinkling -, yet they could not but acknowledge, that the baptifm
of Chrift, and of the Eunuch, were examples of plunging. But to return : I
defire, when our autiior infinuates, that ChriR's being plunged by John in the
river 'Jordan, when he was baptized by him, is a human coKJe5iure, which he is
not willing to build his faith upon-, I defire, I fay, that he would confider whe-
ther his fuppofitions thatChrift: went ankle or kme deep into the water, and was
baptized by pouring or fprinklmg water upon him, and that the multitudes bap-
tized by John \n Jordan, went dovinfome Utile way into the water, from whence,
being baptized, without any fuch thing zs Jlripping, znd Jhifting, and plunging, as
his words are, "they ftraightway came up, and went about their bufinefs," are
not human conjeHurcs; and whether, feeing things are {o, he may not bej-uftly
numbered among thofe who build their faith upon human conjeftures, which.
he feems toberefolved againft. And if nothing but conje(5tures can be formed
from Chrift's baptifm, concerning the mode of it, I perfuade myfclf, that to
every thinking and unprejudiced perfon, the conjedlure, if it muft be called fo,
ofChrift's being plunged, when baptized, will appear more probable, and muck
preferable to that of his having water poured or fprinkled on him. As for hia
rejecting the obfervation which fome have made on Mark i. 9. and faying, that
it might as well be let alone, I do not much wonder at it, it no ways agreeing
with his notion of baptifm. The obfervation is this, that whereas it is faid in Mark
i. 9. \.\\2xjejui was baptized oj John in Jordan, it might have been rendered ut ror
hfJktrf, intojordan, as the prcpofition Hi is frequently tranflated. Now to fay,,
that he was poured or fprinkled of John into Jordan, would want fenfe, but to
fay, that he was pJungcd or dipped into Jordan, runs very fmooth, and is very
good fenfe; for a perfon cannot be faid to be baptized, or dipped in a river,
■without being baptized or dipped into it -, and indeed this is the meaning of all
thofe fcriptures which fpeak of John's baptizing \n Jordan, a.s Matt. iii. 6. Mark
i. 5. And whereas he fays, that the Holy Ghoft intends by it a baptizing in Jor-
dan; he ought to obferve, that this cannot be without a baptizing into it; to-
which, I fuppofe, he will readily reply, that this is taking for granted that the
word properly fignifies to dip or plunge ; and he may take it for granted that we
will do fo, until he, or fomebody elfe, can give us an inftance where the word
is othcrways ufed; which I believe he, and greater mafters of theGreek tongue
than himfelf, will never be able to do. But,
3. Mr B. W. not only reprefents plunging, as urged from Chrift's baptifm^
to be a mere non fequitur, and an human conjedture, but alfo attended with
nonfenfe, and very grofs abfurditics ; as when he fays, p. 9. " By the fame way
" of
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 203
" of reafoning, you may as well perfuade an impartial man of judgment, that
" Chrift is under water ftill, becaufe it is faid, that he went into the place where
" 'John at firft baptized, and there he abode, John x. 40." As if Chsifl's
going to Betbahara, a place where John had forrr.trly baptized, and Chrift. had
dwelt in, was a parallel cafe to his going down into the river Jordan, to be bap-
tized by John there. But I am perfuadcd, that the very mention of this, without
making any further remarks upon it, w.ill much more expolc our author to the
fcorn and contempt of every impartial man of judgment, than our way of reafoning,
for plunging, from Chrift's baptifm, ever will do us. He goes on in a trifling
niannrr, to fhew how weak and ridiculous our methoJ. of arguing from^i^'^^'s bap-
tifm is, " they were baptized in Jordan, fays he ; therefore t.'-.ry were plungi-d
" over head and ears-," which he fancies is as abfurd, and as inconfequential,
" as if one fhould fay, the ftaff ftands in the corner, therefore it rains; or be-
" caufe, fays he, it is faid that John baptized in the wilderncfs, therefore in
" baptizing he thrufl: the people into thorns and briars." What he means by
all this ludicrous ftuff I cannot tell, unlefs it be to banter the ordinance of
water-baptifm in general, ^nd fo join torces with the Quakers, utterly to ex-
plode it ; for what he feems here to diredl againft the moJc of baptizing by
immerfion, may be retorted upon any other, and particularly his own -, thus,
they were baptized \r\ Jordan, therefore they went ankle or knee deep into it, and
had water poured or fprinkled on them -, which is equally as filly and ridiculous,
as if one fhould fay, " the ftaff Hands in the corner, therefore it rains-," or
becaufe it is faid, that ^''^^w baptized in the wildernefs, therefore in baptizing,
he put the people knee deep into thorns and briars, and fcratchcd ihcir faces wi;h
them. But away with fuch ridiculous impertinencics as thcfe. Could not the
man diflinguifh between the place where John was preaching the dodrine of
baptifm unto repentance, and the place where he was adminin:ering the ordi-
nance of it, the one being in the wilderncfs, and the other in the river Jordan, as
he might have been informed, if he had more diligently conlulted the text he has
reference to, in Mark i. 4, 5. But what he fancies will moQ: affed us, is, that
John is faid to baptize with water : now fays our author, if " baptizing and
" plunging fignify the fame thing, then John might have faid, I plunge you
" indeed with water;" all perfons, adds our author, but thofe of your judgment,
" would readily conclude, that fuch an exprelTion wanted fenfe;" that is, be-
caufe he looks upon us plungers, as he is pleafcd to call us, no doubt, as per-
fons exceeding illiterate, and who arc altogether unacquainted with language ;
whilft he, and thofe of his perfuafion, muft be confidered as the only men of
fenfe and learning ; but if this penetrating man, this man of fenfe, can tell us,
how a perfon can be plunged in water, without being plunged with it, what a
D D 2 .... . pruiiigious
204 THEANCIENTMODEOF
prodigious difcovery would he make to the world ! and if it would want fenfe
to read the words, " I plunge you indeed -with water -, ". then pray let them be
read, I plunge you indeed \n water ^ and I hope they will not want fenfe then;
aye, " but, fays Mr B. IV. John tells us himfelf, that he baptized them with
♦' water; and, fays he, left: plungers (hould not obferve this, all the four evan-
•* gelifls take notice of it," Matt. iii. ii. Mark i. 8. Luke'xn. i6. John i. 26.
I confcfs I hav^confulted all thofe texts, and find the words to be read thus,
I indeed baptize you, c# vJbt,v, in water, only in Lk-^^ iii. 16. the prepofition U is
omitted, which fome, as Fafor and Scbmidius think, in the other texts, is an
Hebraifm, or an Attic pleonafm, and then the fenfe and reading will be, either
way, the fame as what I have given ; but then here is another prodigious abfur-
dity behind, which thofe of a different perfuafion from us think we are inevitably
thrown into by this reading, and that is, that then we mufl: be obliged to read
the other part of the text thus, he Jhall baptize you in the holy Ghojl and in fire ;
and this our author feems to have regard unto, when he fays, " It is impoffible
" that any impartial man of judgment can fo much as imagine, that by being
" baptized with the holy Ghoft, a being plunged in the holy Ghoft fhould be
" underftood ; for the Lord himfelf tells us, that by baptizing he means
" pouring ;" for the proof of which, he mentions 'Ifai. xliv. 3. and A£}s x. 44.
That the donation of the Spirit is fomctimes cxprefTcd by pouring, fometimes
by fprinkling, I frankly own ; but this which John has reference to, is the ex-
traordinary donation of the Spirit on the day of pentecoji, as is manifeft from
.^iis i. 5. and therefore another word is made ufe of, as being more exprefiive
of the glory and greatnefs of that difpenfation ; and when we confider the ac-
count that is given of it, by the infpired writer, as that there came a found from
heaven, as of a rufhing mighty wind, which filled the houfe where they were fitting ;.
and that cloven tongues, like as of fire, fat upon each of them ; and that they were
all filled with the holy Ghofi ; it will not feem fo very ftrange, incongruous,,
and difagreeable to fay, that they were as if they had been dipped or plunged
all over therein. I am perfuadcd our author will acknowledge the learned
Cafaubon to be 2lX\ impartial man of judgment, and yet he fpeaks of, and explains
this affair much in the fame language. His words are thefe, with which I ffiall
conclude this chapter : " Although, fays he ^ I do not difapprove of the word
*' baptizare being retained here, that the antithefis may be full, yet I am of opi-
" nion,,
* Etfi noa improbo ut hie quoqae retineatur vcrbom baptizare quo plena fit » amSiirK, tamen
habcndam hoc loco proprix fignificalionis rationem cenfeo, gaim^».» enim tanqaam ad tingendum
mergere ert. Atque hoc fenfu vere dicuntur apoftoli ^awli^nrai. Domus enim in qua hoc peraflum
cO, Spiritu farfto fuii replcta, ita ut in earn tanquam in xo^v/iCiOo" quandam apoftoli demerfi fuiflc.
vidcaotur. Cafaub. in A£l. i, 5.
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 205
** nion, that a regard is had in this place to its proper fignification, for ^*-T]t^tiy
" is to immerre, fo as to tinge or dip, and in this fcnfe the apoftles are truly
" faid to be baptized, for the houfe in which this was done, was filled with
" the holy Ghoft, fo that the apoftles feemed to be plunged into it as into a
" filli-pool." And in the fame way, their being baptized or dipped in fire,
may he accounted for, that being expreflive of the fame thing, unlefs our author
fliould think, that this is ftill a much more improper way of fpeaking, but
among the beft Greek, authors, we have this phrafe of dipping in fire made ufe
of, and particularly in Mc/fi>ai '.
c H A P. nr. .
J'be fecond argument in favour of baptifm by immerfion, taken from the
^lace John cbofe to baptize in, and the reafon of that choice, John iii. 23.
•with the weak replies, and foolijh Jhifts and evafons which Mr B. W.
makes thereunto, conjidered.
A/fR B. fV. next introduceshis friend Mr P. in p. 1 1, 12. arguing for immer-
fion, from thofe words in John iii. 26. And 'Johnalfo was baptizing in Enorty
near to Salim, becaufe there was much water there, aifcer this manner -, namely,
" John was baptizing in Enon, becaufe there was much water there ; therefore
" all that were baptized were overwhelmed with water. They^were dipped,
** they were plunged, becaufe there was much water there." But this argu-
ment is not very fairly reprefented ; for w.e do not argue merely from there
being much water there, that they were dipped or plunged, but from their be-
ing baptized in a place of much water, and which was chofe for that very reafon.
We know that there may be much water where no perfon is dipped or plunged
into it ; but that any perfon fhould be baptized in a place of much water, with-
out being dipped or plunged into ir,. is whax we deny. Moreover the reafon-
ablenefs of concluding that baptifm, in thofe times, was performed by immer-
fion, we think may be fairly argued from John's choofing of, and baptizing in
a place where there waS' much water, and we believe it will appear fo to every
thinking and unprejudiced perfon i but let us confidcr what Mr B. fV, has to
reply. And,
ijl. To (hew his learning and fkill in chorography, he inquires what£«o« was,
whether it was a river or no, and feems to call in queftion its being fo, and therefore
tells us, p. 1 3. That fuch a river cannot be found in the bejl accounts we have of the
land
' Idyll. I, M»Ti S17.1? TrXara iu(f, rayxf n-j2< vxnu giJajrlai.
2o6 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
iand o/Ifrael : and adds, and it is very probable, that Enon was either a village,
or air an cf land, where there were abundance offprings and little rivulets of water.
"Whether£«c» is the name of a river, or of a city, town or village, or of a tra<5t
of land abounding with water, does not much affeft our controverfy, if it is but
granted that there was much water there, for which reafon John made choice
of it to baptize in-, and I hope it will be granted, that there was a fufficicncy of
■water to baptize by immerfion, efpecially feeingMr B.IV. tells iis in p. 17. that
for plunging of people there need not be much water. The Arabic verfion divides
the word into two, and calls liAin-Nun, which may be rendered, the fountain of
Nun; as does alfo the 5yr/<7f, Ain-Ton, ^h.\z\\ Junius renders the fountain of the
Dove : And as forSalim, near to which was Enon, and which is the beft direiftion
for the finding where it was -, this was cither Shalem, a city of Shechem, mention-
ed in GfK. xxxiii. 18. as fome think, though this is not very likely, feeing that
was in Samaria, with the inhabitants of which John had nothing to do •, or elfe
it is the fame with Shalim, in i Sam. ix 4. as Junius and others think, though it
feems rather to be that place v^h'ich Arias Montanus'' QzWsSalim juxta torrcntem,
Salim by the brook, which he places in the tribe oi JJfachar, not far from the lake
of Genefaret ; and may be called fo, perhaps, either bccaufe it was near this Enon,
where there was much water, or elfe becaufe it was not far from the place where
the two rivers J abac &nd Jordan mei; as Calvin, from the geographers, obfervcs
upon this place. But fuppofing that our prefent beft accounts of the land of
Jjrael, make no mention of any fuch river as £«;;« -, nor can it be determined
by them what it was, or where it was -, yet I hope it will be acknowledged, that
the account of it in the facred text is juft, and that whether it be a river, vil-
lage, or traft of land, yet there was fWKCi?' water there; for which rea.l'on John
made choice of it as a proper place to baptize in, which is fufficient for our pur-
pofc. But,
2dly, From inquiring into the place itfelf, he proceeds to give us the notation
of the word, or the reafon of its name ; for he fays, the learned tell us, that the
wcrd does fignlfy a place of fprings : And the learned " alfo tell us, that it figni-
fies an eye, as well as a fpring or fountain; and z.\fo foothfaying, and clouds, or a
beclouding; fo that there is not much to be learned from that. And here I can-
not forbear mentioning the obfervation of yfrf//«j, upon this place; though I
fuppofe that Mr B.IV. will think that he might as well have let it alone, who,
after he had faid that it was a town neary(jr</<2«,obfervcs ', that it fignifies affllclion,
humilit), and weeping : I fuppofe he derives it from the Hebrew word r\:iy Anah,
which fometimes fignifies to humble and afHidl; "thereby, fays he, teaching us,
" that
' Amitjii, Jud. 1. 2. c 3. ' Vid. Stephan. Diflionar. Geograph.
* Significat affliflionetn, humilitatem k Actum, admonens nos tales requiri in baptifmo & vera
pceniteotia, Areiiu^ in Job. iii. 23.
BAPTIZING B Y I M M E R S I O N, &c. 207
" that fuch we are required to be in baptifm and true repentance." But to go
on : In order to ftrengthen this fenfe of the word, which Mr B. W. fays is crivea
by the learned, he informs us, that " it is obfervable, that the town called JVirW-
" din^ in Jojhua xv. 61. is called Enon^ by the feventy Greek interpreters of
" theOldTcftament-," whether this is an obfervation of his own, or of the learned
with whom he converfes, he does not tell us -, if of the latter, he might have been
fo kind as to have told us who they were, that we might have confulted them,
and have confidered their proofs of it. By what goes before and after, it feems
as if he meant that it was one of iheir's ; which when one comes to examine, it
looks, according to the order of the text, as if it was Secacab, and uotMiddin,
that is rendered£;7o?;-, the words in y^/?'"^ xv. 61. in the wildernifs, Beth-arabah,
Middin ^ Secacab, are by theSeptuagint thus rendered, £5" Baddargeis^ U Tba-
rabaam, id yEnon ; fo that if a regard is to be had to the order of the words, then
as Baddargeis anfwers to Belh-arabab, fo Tbarabaam to Middin, and yEnon to Se-
tacab ; and if fo, here is a fine piece of critical learning fpoiled : But fuppofing
that £fl^^arg-«j anfwers to Bamidbar, which we render, in the wildernefs; and
Ibarabaam 10 Betb-arabab, and io yEnon loMiddin, becaufe theSeptuagint make
fcven cities here, and in the following verfe, when there are but fix, to what
purpofc is this produced ? or what is gained by it ? or how does this prove that
the word fignifies a place of fprings ? Yes, in Mr B. ff^'s. imagination, it ferves
a very good purpofc, and fufficiently proves this fignification of the word ; but
how ? why ibi-y (the learned) alfo obferve, fays he, " that in Judges v. 10. there
" is mention made of thofe that fit in, upon, or near Middin, we read injudg-
" ment, where immediately \.\\t\\o\y Ghoii izkci noucs oi the places of drawing
" waler ; fo that, if any body would know wherefore Middin is rendered Enon
" by tlie Septuagint, the reafon is ready, becaufe of ihc places of drawing waler."
A fine way of arguing indeed t what, heczufe Middin, in J ojhua xv. 61. is ren-
dered y£"«(7;j by theSeptuagint, and becaufe a word of the fame form and found,
is rendered \r\Judges v. 10. by the fame m Y^ennei^, " upon the judgment-feat •,'*
and we. read in judgment, where the holy Gholt immediately takes notice of the
places of drawing water; therefore the reafon is ready for any body to know
why Aiiddin is rendered by Encn, in the former text, and that is, becaufe of the
places of drawing water." Can any man in the world fee any connexion here ?
and how does this appear to be the ready, plain and eafy reafon of this verfion :
Had either Middin or Enon been in the Septuagint text of Judges v, 10. there
had been fome tolerable colour and pretence for all this, though that would have
fell fhort of proving it to be the reafon of fuch a verfion in Jofhua xv. 61. but
here is not the leaft appearance of either-, though it is true, there are fome in-
terpreters
2o8 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
tcrpreters who think that the word rendered Judgment, is the proper name of a
place either of that city mentioned in Jojhua xv. 6i. or oi z path or road-way
which bore this name •, fo the Mafora, R. David Kimchi, and R. Levi Ben
Gerfom; though theTargiim, Septuagint, R. Solomonjarcbi, R. Ifaiab, under-
ftand it oi judgment, as we do, as well as many other interpreters and expofuors"-,
but granting that the word does fjgnify a place of fountains and fprings, and
was fo called, bccaufe of the places of drawing water, then I hope there was
a plenty of water there, and what was fufficient for the baptizing of perfons by
immerfion of the whole body; for which Tei{on John made choice of it. Bur,
3. He goes on and fays, " You and your friends muft grant, that the words
" of the holyGhoft do not denote much water in one great channel, but many
«' waters, ftreams or rivulets, in a certain trafb or neighbourhood." By the
words of the holy Ghoft, I fuppofe he means otia* uAts, which our tranflators
" have very well rendered much water -, and he fecms in this pafTage to have refe-
rence to that poor low criticifm, which thofc of his perfuafion are often obliged
to have recourfc to, which is, that thefe words are not exp re (five of a large
quantity of water, but fignify only, many little ftreams and rivulets, which are
not fufficient for an immerfion of the whole body, and therefore fhould have
been rendered, not much water, but many waters. We grant that wAtb ^wna*
may be literally rendered many waters j but that they fignify fome little fmall
rtreams and rivulets of water, and not a large quantity thereof, is what we deny.
That John intends a large and not a fmall quantity of water, is manifeft from
his ufe of the phrafe in other of his writings, as for inrtance, in Rev. i. 15. it
is faid of Chrift, \.\\2it his voice \s is as the found, vJkjtiv mtt^m, of many waters ;
but what found does little purling ftreams, and fmall rivulets of water make .-'
And who can imagine the allufion (hould be made to them-, or that thefe ftiould
be exprefTive of the voice of Chrift in the gofpel, efpecially in the miniftry of it
by the apoftles, v/ho[t: founJ went into all the earth, and their words unto the end
bf the world? Again, in Rev. xvii. «. the great whore is reprefcnted as fitting
'ttt itif vJkiar Tvj 'r<»Xay, " upon many waters," by which are metaphorically
hrt forth unto us, tliolc many people, kingdoms, and nations over whom fhe
exercifcd a lawlcfs and tyrannical power, as appears from ver. 15. where the
ingel tells John, that the waters which he faw, where the whore Jitteth, are
peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues : from whence it is manifeft, that
•by this phrafe is intended, not a fmall quantity of people, or fome little petty
nations and kingdoms, which were fubjedt to the fee oi Rome ; but a large
quantity of people, ewen multitudes, and of nations and kingdoms, the chief
and grcAtcft ; bcfides, our author, as well as others, would do well to confider,
that
B APT1ZI:N<5 :BY :IMMERSiON, &c. ^09
that t/Aw TeXA.4 is ^n Hebraifm, and anfwers to DUT D'O Rabbim Mayh»y And
by which the Septuagint frequently render thefe •words ; and that where fmall
ftr^ams and rivulets cannot be intended, but large and great waters are fpoRen
of, nay where indeed, the waters of the fca are plainly meant : As for inftance,
InPfalm Ixxvii. 19., it is faid concerning God's leading his people through the
Red feoy Tby way is in t.he fea., an^ thy path, h vJkn ooKKt/tj in many waters, or
as we juftly read it, in the great waters', for furely the waters of the fea may be
called fo, and I hope that i/Atw-toaa*, here, does not fignify many little ftreams
and rivulets. . Again, in Pfalm cvii. 23. fea-faring pcrfons are thus defcribed,
they that go down to the fea in /hips, that do bufinefs, I0 v/km vthXtit, in many
"waters, that is, in great waters, as the waters of the fca are;- arid I perfuade
ftiyfelf, that nonc<an be fo weak ai 10 imagine, that (hips can fail in fmall
ftrCams and rivulets, or the' bufinefs that -the !P/i/wj//^ fpeaks of, to be -done in
fuch places where there is not a fufficiency of water to dip or plunge into.
Moreover, if this phrafe may not be allowed to be an Hebraifm, it will be hard
to prove that many waters fignify a fmall quantity, and only fome little ftreams
or rivulets : Sure I am, fome perfons, of far fuperior learning to what Mr B. W,
difcovers, have thought the contrary, as Groiius, Pifc^tor^ Lightfoot, and othersv
but if ^hffe hiay not be avowed to be good judges of the Greek tongue, i hope
l^onnus Pan opolit anus miy, who flouriflied about the year 420. was a famous
Greek and Chriftian poet, and turned this gofpel, according lojohn, intoGreek
vcrfc, who not only fays, that the place where 7o/'« was baptizing, was 3i3ww,^p^,
*♦ a place of deep waters," but alfo exprefles uAts tsxaa by «f Socok i/Aif , copiofa
aqua, "a large water, or abundance of water : " But becaufc his vcrfron of the
whole text makes much'for the elucidation of it, I will tranfcribe it from him':
I ■ Hv Ji kJ a.vtS>- _
' " 1 , ' ' ' ' ' - ' n
■ ' ' " . , ' - , .■:,')"
KaGi ya-^ ly^fToyio xvXtiSofLun irolaf-Loio,
.:.•..■ •) . - , . • •. ■ •■ . - - . I ,
Which may be rendered in Englifli thus : "And the d\v\ne John himfelf alfa
V was baptising in water, the ftraying people, who were obedient to God, at
" or in a place of deep waters, near to Salem, becaufe there abundance of wa-
♦| ter, fufBcient for them altogether, flowed in the ever-running ftreams of thc-
^. winding. river, whofe pafTage over is very broad." But fuppofing that much
water in one great channel is not intended, though I muft confers I can fee no
fcafpn.wh^it fhould not, and that many waters, ftreams, or fivufcts arc here
- Vol. II. ■ E E ' • meant;
4IO - ' T H t A N C I £'N Y "M'D t) ST lOF- .^ H
Weant; yet, -who does not know that many of thefe together, cirt not 6n\y fill
large and capacious pools, fufficient enough for ini^merfion, but alfo -frequently
form and feed very great rivers ? fo that I do not fee that this will much help
his caufe, or affe(ft our argument. - (
But Mr B. fV. fays, p. 14. " But what and if the .holy Ghoft intends to give
•' usrhe reafon why the place was called Enon, becaufe there were many waters,
** fprings or rivulets there? what will become of your argument then, and how
♦* win you help yourfelf ?" Where he infim.iates, as if the defign of .the holy
Ghoft in thefe words, becaufe there ivas much "water there, is not to inform us
3si the conve^nJcncy of this place for baptizing, or that it was the reafon why
John made choice of it, but to explain the meaning of the word £«<?«, and to
let us know, that the place was fo called, becaufe there was much water, or
many fprings or rivulets there : How trifling and ridiculous is this ? Does the
holy Ghoft take fuch a method as this in other parts of the Bible, where the
proper names of places ire mentioned ? and what neceffity can there be for ex-
plaining of this any more than there is of others ? and why is not the meaning
of Sali7n as well as Enon given ? Surely we need not be afraid of lofing our ar-
gument from fuch interpretations and fenfes of fcriptures as thefe, which will
(ippear yain and trifling at the firft view, to evety impartial man of judgment-,
nor need we be much folicitous about helping ourfclves, when prefled with fuch
iilly fionfenfe as this. But,
, 4. Mr 5. JV. proceeds to charge the argument for plunging in baptifm, taken
from hence, not only with want of confequence, but as a vain conjefture : hia
words arc thefe ; " Granting, fays he, that Enon was a great river, or a great
*• .water, yet it can never be proved that John plunged pcrfons all over in it ;
*' that is nothing at all but your vain conjedure ;" and then in his ufual, po-
fitive, and dogmatical way, adds, " he baptized them, but he never plunged
** jhcm." Here I need only reafon as I did before, with regard to the baptifm
of Chrift, and others, in Jordan, that if John's pitching upon Enon, as a con-
venient place to baptize in, becaufe there was much water there, and his baptizing
in that place is not a demonftrative proof of his baptizing by plunging, yet at
leaft muft be a ftrong prefumptive one, and fuch an one as he can never produce
ih favour of his baptizing there by an afFufion or fprinkling of water : And again,
if tdfuppofe that John baptized there by immerfion, is a vain and trifling con-
jeflure, I am fure, and I believe it will appear to evei^ unprejudiced perfon,
that to fuppofe that he did it by fprinkling or pouring, is much more fo. And
if we poor ignorant creatures may not be allowed to infer and conclude immerfion
hom hence, without being charged with making vain and trifling conjeftures;
yet I hope he will be a little more fparing of the great Calvin, for \yhom> I do
• , • not
BAPTIZING B Y ,1 M M E R S Ijq N, &c. in,
not doubt, from fbme few hints I have oblerved in this conference, he^as a ya--
lue and refpeft, apd whom } perfuade myfelf he will jiUow tp be ^n imparljfil m(iu
of judgment y and to whofe judgment he will always pay a def<?rtnce; Hjs rw^^.
upon this text, is this ; "Geographers write, fays he, that ih^rfe ;t*o towns,
" Enon znd Salim, were not far from the confluence otjahc and Jer^afi, rvigh
•» to which they phce Scythopolis. . Moreover, from thofe .words we may gather
".that baplifm was pcrforme4 by John andChrift, by a plunging of.ihe w.hple,
" body under water ^j" and I thinic we mayxonclude this very fairly too, wJiaf-;
ever Mr i/./r. may think of it. But, . . •.. ,>-h:;;i
^thiy. Our ingenious author, by a new tyrn and mighty ftretch of thoyghr,
has found our. another reafon, befudes that of conveniency, for baptizing, which^'
made7oi?« fix upon, find determined him in the choice of this place, tl>ftre being
much water thefc, ^nd th^t is, sh^t ihf vaji multitudes which flocked to, and at-
tended upon his miniftry, mjgh.t bf refrr/hed^ as 4lfo ihei;- horfes, or their camels,.
cw whatfopver ^e qi%y fijppofe .mpny<^ tbcm did ride upon •, by which» I foppofe, :
he means <j^T, . 1 canpQC |>ut 9brerye, .(Jiat he fcem? t9 /peak this. with fomc
caution or guardupon himfcU", as he does alfp in p. 17. where he fays, fpeaking
ot the people which flpfked io'Jobns miniftry, " a great number of them, doubc-
" Jcfs, mufl; jravcl oi^ny 0)ilesi and we muft fiippofe, many on foot, and many
" otherwife:">and thisj Q^nnot but attribute to a felf confcioufnefs in him, that
he deferv?d to be numbered among thofe animals, or at lead, to his being aware
that this *vpyld be turned upon him, for iiis fooiifh and ridiculous glofles on-
the facrcd writings. . What fecms the rppft to ftrengthen him in his folly, and
upon which he lays much ftrefs. Is the vaft multitudes of people which followed '
Jfhn^ and attended ppop his miniftry ; and the unwife part John would have
adcd, if he had not chofe places vvhere refrefliment might be had for themfclves'.
ajid their cattle: But furcly the man forgexs hipifelf, or at ieaft, d£»f6 iVJtgiyc.
himfclf time to confidcr, that Jchn y/as now upon the declining hand, wid l«d
not thofe vjft nymbcrs and multitudes followirjg him as formerly he bafi ; the-
crowd was now afterChrift, and notjobn; and though he had fofpe y'hich came
to him, and were baptized, yet they were but few in comparifon pf what he bad
formerly, or what now followed Chrift -, as he might cafily have obferye^, t>y,
reading this phird chapter of John; and therefore there was no nc^d fpr him to
be lo lolicitous for aCQommodatiuns for the people spd their catxl^, 4s inhere
-by pur author intimared j and to mal<;e hjs fcpk gppear ;he morcphufibJe, lie.
• tells us, that *^hy Join's baptizing, we are to undcrftand Ji^^v's preaching,
♦' adminiftcrin^ in his ofBqe, a/id fuLfiUing his courfe;" for which ^ cites,
£ E 2 M''^^-
« Fuifle aoMin duo haec cppida JEiidd k Salitn, con procul a fonflucote JoKi!ani» k JaVoc trf- ■_
dunt geograpbi, quibus viciniam faciunt Scythopolim. Cceterum ex his verbis colligcre licet, bap-
tirmum fttifle celebratum a Joanne & Chrido totius corporis fubmerfione. Calvin in joh. iii. 23.
212 THE ANCIENT MODE OF ' -
Matt. xxi. 25.' J^s X. 47. I: is readily granted, that fometimes by John's bap-
t?fni, we are to underftand his whole ininiftry, and' particularly the doflrine of
baptifm, preached by him, as diftinft from the adminiftration of the ordinance -,
but that by his baptizing here is meant his preaching, muft be denied ; for that
it intends his -adminiftraiion of the ordinance of water-baptifm, not only his adl
of baptizing, but the people's fubmilTion to it •, for the text fays, they came and
were baptized, manifcftly prove it; to fay nothing of the place where it was per-
fohnedj being a place of much water, the thing now in debate. He alfo infi-
nuates, that great part of the land of Judea was Tandy and barren ; but not fo
biircti as his arguments are. *' You may underftand, fays he, what fort of a
♦••country, for. water, a great part of that land was, from the great contentions
*i, between Ifaac\ fervants, and others, about digging, finding, and enjoying
"wells of water 1" 'but thefe contentions did not arife fo much from the fear-
city of water, as from the envy ofihcPbiliJiineson the one hand, and from Ifaac's
fqrvants, iliffly infifting upon their right and property, on the other: Forthoush
pcrfons may have never fuch plenty of things, ytt they are not willino- to be'
defrauded of what is their juft right.
He goes on : " Glad at heart they were when they found plenty of water, for
".their own refrefliment, and the refrcfhment of their cattk." One would be
aJmofttempted to think that the man was defcribing the fandy defcrts of Arabia,
rather than the fcnile land of C<i»<Jd», and reprefenting the travelling companies.
cfDedanim who being almoft fcorched with heat, are thrown into a tranfport
of joy, at the fight of a fpring of water ; but who will it be moft proper to give
credit 10, Mofes, an infpired writer, who told the people oflfrael, that God was
bringing them into i good land, a land ef brooks of water, of fountains and depths,
that fpring out of valleys and hills; or our blundering geographer, who reprefents
it as a dcfcrt and wildcrr>cfs. Moreover, it feems, that there need not be much
water for the plunging of pcrfons, and therefore John need not have chofe this
place upon that account; but I hope, fo much is needful, as will cover the
pcrfons all over. And there is one thing therefore that we need not be afraid
of being prcfled with by our author, as we are by fome, and that is, the fcar-
ciiy of water in fome parts. But what he fays of the praftice of our friends in
London, is entirely falfe, which is, that they plunge in little boles or tubs ; for I
cannot fee, but he muft mean them, and not thofe in other places ; becaufe he.
adds, rather than the Thames, that is juft by. Now thcrd are but two places,
in and about London, that I know of, which are made ufe of for the adminif-
traiion of this ordinance, the one is in the midft of a public meeting-houfe,
and the other in an open place, where there are convcniencies for a large num-
ber of fpeftators ; and it is very rare that this ordinance is adminiftcred by us
in
BAPTIZING BY INTMERSrON, &c. zjj
irn a private ma tine r, is fome other performances commonly are, in a lying-in
■chamber ; and that only in the prefence of a midwife, a nurfc, and two or three
goflipping women.' . '
'As for the inftance of a Certain plunger in the country, performing the ordi-
nance in an borfe-pond, in the middle of a town, I fhall fufpend my thoughts
about' rt, and neither condemn nor commend his pradlice, unlefs I had a better
account of it, with its circumftances, than Mr 'B. W.hzs given -, though I can
fee no great damage in it, as he has related it, provided the water was not dirty
and filthy : But I fuppofe he defigns it as a banter upon us, and a diverfion for
his reader r- much good may do him with it, and let him make the. bed of it he
ean.
■ ';■ ■ 'chap: iv^.
'*■-■-
^he thir J argument injijledon, in favour of plunging or dipping, as the right
mode of baptizing, taken from the practice of the apojlles, and particu-
larly from the injldnce of the Eunuch's baptifm in A6ls viii. 38, 39. ijoith
the ca-jils and exceptions of Mr B.'W. againjl ity confidered..
THE next' argument which our author,, p. iS. produces, as infiftcd on by
us, for the proof of baptifm by immerfion, .and which he excepts againft,
is taken from the pradlicc of the apoftles, and particularly.the inlhnce of Philip's
baptizing the Eunuch, recorded in /f<5Zj viii. 38, 3^ thus; And be commanded
the chariot taJlanAJlill; and th^y werii down both into the water, both Philip and
the Eunuch, end he baptized him. And when they ivere come up eut of the water, &c.
Here I muft again obferve, as I have already, in a parallel cafe, that we do not
from this inftance infer plunging, merely from Philip and the Eunuch's going
xlown into, and coming up out of the water; for we know, as well as he, that
perfons may go hundreds of times into water, as he fays, without any defign of
plunging, or of being plunged ; but we argue from both of them going down
into the water ; the one in order to adm'miftcr the ordinance of water-baptifm,
and the other to fubmit unto it; and from their coming up out of it, as having
'performed it; from whence we think we have fufficient reafon to conclude, that
this was performed by immerfion, or a plugging of the whole body under water;
for to what purpofe fhould they both go down into the water, if the ordinance
was to be performed .any other way ? or what need would there have been of it?
But if plunging cannot be inferred from hence, I am fure it is impoffiblc that
pouring or fprinkling Giould. But let us fee whatMr5. ^. will infer from this
inftance, and has to except againft our argument from hence. And,
. 'A
3214 THE A N C I E N T : M D D E .OP. / •'
' -^fiy FromPbilip and theEuHucFs both ^oing do5v.n int^ the wafer, and comip'r
Tjp oat of it, in a profane and jrrcligipus manhfr, hp itjf?rg, that i)either pf them
were drowned there. ^Does this become a tninifter of the gofpel, to treat the fa-
crcd writings, and the accounts they give of a folemn ordinance qf Ci>rift, after
this manner ? Whatever profane loofe he may give himfclf in his attempts to be
Vitty on the mode of baptizing by-inunerfion, which he fi^ppofes to b? iinfcrip-
'tural, yet, at leaft, he ought to fet bounds to himfelf, and not be lo free in play-
ing Vith, and fe«B«eriBg the yery words of xhe holy Ghoft. But,
'idfy. If that isrejeftcd, why then he infers from hence, that they were both
-f lunged over had and cars in the ^atcr. This, I fuppofc, js defigoed to fhevy
the abfurdity of our way of reafoning, as he imagines : But does not the man
confider, that the one went down as an adminijlrator, the other as 3.fubje£J of bap-
tifm; the one /o'^i2/'//2/, xhtoihex .tc be peptized? But fuppofe the ordinance
was adminidercd by pouring or fprinkling water, might it not be as jullly infer-
red, ihatbecaufe ^hey both went down into the water, one to perform, and the
•other to' have it performed, and came up again out of it, when it was done, there-
'|ore ihcy' both :bad water poured upon them, or were fprinkled with it ? And
then,
^dfyi When heisalked why he could not have concluded, that oni; was plunged
and the ofber not: he replies, -"Why truly, fays he, becaufe I thought it out
*« of the way of all fcnfc, reafon and revelation fo to infer." I hope he will not
\^y that it is out of the way aiallfenfe, reafon, and revelation to infer, that the
pne went downip order to adminifter the ordinance of baptifm, and the other to
have it ^dm.ini.ftered to him -, but I fuppofe he means that it is out of the way of
all fenfe, reafon arid revelation, to infer plunging from hence : But how then
icame the.judicious Ca/i'/w to be fomuch out of the way, to conclude from hence
that plunging was the antient mode of baptizing, as he does, when he fays, " here
" we fee what was the rite of baptizing with the ancients ; for they plunged the
" whol^ body Into water''?" How came this great man to be guilty of making
fuch a vain conje^ure as our author fays it is ? efpecially when he affirms there i$
-not in facred hiftory, the \c2.^Jhadow of a foundation for it. But to proceed,
' ^thly. In order to elude the force of our argument, from their going down
into the water, he obferves, that whofoever goes to any water, efpecially out of
a chariot, mull go down to it. But he is defired to obferve, that it is not faid,
t"hat they both went down to the water, but they both went into it. As for the
text in Pfalm cvii. 23. which fpeaks of perfons going down to the fea in fhips^
1 hope our author does not think that they went by land in (hips to the fca-fide :
If he would know what is meant by this, let him read ver. 26, where the dif-
trefs
* Hie peffpicirauj. quifnam apud veteres baptizandi ritus fuerh : totum enim corpw in aqustn
aiergebant. Calvin in Afl. viii. 38.
BAPTIZING BY. IMMERSION, &c. aig
tfefs t^at icafaring min arc .often in, is thus elegantly and beautifully defcribed,
they mcunt up to the bea'ven^ they go down again to 4bt depths, their foul is melted
hecaufe ef trouble ; and what this means, ihofe who have ufed the feas know full
wdl, when their fliips have been tofled up as it were to the heavens, and then
again plUnged into the depths of the fea, where they have been immeffed in,
and covered Over with the waves thereof for a while, and on a fudden, have
(^rang out from thence. . It is then they fee the wondrous works of the Lord,
in his itmarkablc appearance for them, and providential prefervation of them.
*• -Sf^by M^ '^'^5 ^s» ^^^ " ^^'^ ^^ l^c" in the Eunuch's place, he ftiould not
•* 4jave chofen to have water poured upon him in the chariot, but for fevcral
^ reafons fbould have been entirely for going down to the water.". He does
hot tell us what thcfe reafons are, that we might have confidefcd them ; but
with his ufual air 6f Confidence affirms, that "there was no ftrippintr, nor
♦» plunging, nOr puttifig on change of raiment in the (iafc ;" and all the rcafon
he has to alTign for it, is, becaufe " Philip was direftly c-aught away by the
" -Spirit of the Lord, and the Eunuch immediately went on his way rejoicint^:"
But I hope he will aHow that Philip was come up out of the Water firft, bcfbrc
be was caught away, and that the Eunuch was got into his chariot, before he
•rent on his way j and to fuppofe fo much time as was neceflTary to change their
raiment, is no way contMry to the account in the lacred text, and he would
alfo do well to confidcr, that ihofe words direSily, artd immediately , are not to be
found there. But,
6/i/y, He argues, that if thofe Who Were baptized by the apoftles were
plunged or overwhelmed, " thert what prodigious labour muft the apoftles go
" through, when three thoufand were baptized in one day, yea perhaps in lefs
** than half of i.t 1 " To which I anfwcr ; There docs not feem to be any ne-
cefllty of concluding from ji^iu. 41. that they were all baptized in one day,
but if they were, when ive confider that there were twelve apoftles, and fcventy
difciples, wha were employed iii the miniftry of the word, Luke x. i, and fo
no doubt in baptizing, it will n6t appear fo prodigioufly fatiguing as our author
Intimates; for a fingle pcrfon, without having the ftrength either of //rrfw/w, or
SamfoKy and without much fatiguing himfelf, may baptize, in this way, a con-
■fidcrablc rmmber in a very little time. But then here is another difficulty be-
hind, and that is, " What great trouble muft they be at in ftripping, and fhift-
" ing, and changing apparel ! and what abundance of plunging garments they
" muft have ready ! " To which I reply, no more trouble than a fingle perfoa
has for himfelf, and no more plunging garments to be provided than every one
to provide for themfelves, which is no more trouble than wKcn five or ten per-
foos only arc baptized : and when "wc confid r how much bathing was in ufe
among
-J
21^ . .THE ANCIENT MODE iQF •
among the Jws, it will not fecm-foilrange, -where, and how they ifhould be fo
cafily provided with plunging garments, ^ur objeftor goes on, and adds,
^' In what a poor condition was Pd«/, when he was plunged, having been fo ill,
*' and fo long without eating or drinking ! and after that, how unfit mud P««/
" himfclf be under -his wounds and bruifes, and in the dead of the night, to go
*' into fome.dcfp .water, and take up the jailor and plunge him P'. H^c I cannot
but remarkfthe wretched blunder that our author makes, oc at leaft the inad-
vertency, to fay no worfe of it, that he js guilty of, in talking as if the baptifnr
of Paul and the jailor was in one and the fame night. But if he objefts this is
not his meaning, why did he write in fuch a blundering manner, and many
times with want of fenfe, as when. he .talks oi Paul's taking up the jailor^ and
many fuch like paflages which are to be found in this his performance. But to
ijroceed, that Paul was three days before his baptifm without eating or drinking,
is true, but that he was fo very ///as our author reprefcnts, does not appear fo
oianifcft; however, it is plain, that be was not fo ill, but he was able to an/ir
•and be baptizedy which he need not have done, had it been performed by pour-
in^ or fprinkling water upon him. As to Paul's, unfitncfs, under his wounds
^nd bruifes, to.plunge thejailor, 1 need only afk, how he and Silas were capable
of praying and fioging the praifes of God, and that fo loud as the other prifoners
iieard them? and after that .preached .the gofpel to the jailor and his family,
■which. muft beamuch. more laborious work, and more fpending and fatiguing
to them, than baptizing of them was ; but that fame God who enabled them to
•perform the one, • carried.them through the other.
Again, he fays, " how improperly did Peter fpeak in Cornelius^ houfc, when
" he talked oi Jorbidding. water ! whereas he fliould have faid, can any man ior-
." bid thefe men from goirig to the river to be plunged V to which I anfwcr,
,if there is any impropriety in this text, it is not to be charged upon the words or
fenfeof the holy. Ghoft, but upon our tranflation; fort/JSaf. *' water," ought not
.to be put in conftruflion with lutKvfai, "forbid," but with ^cfr}iSmrou, "to be bap-
" tized v" and fo the whole be rendered thus, "Can any man forbid, that thcfe
" fhould be baptized with water, which have received the holy Ghoft as well
" as we?" and then the fenfe is this; has any man any thing to objeft why thcfe
•who have received the holy Ghoft, even as we, fhould not be admitted to the
ordinance of water- baptifm? for feeing they have received the greater privilege,
why -fiiould they be deprived of the IcfTer ? And this reading and fenfe of the
Avords are confirmed by the learned Erafmus, in his notes upon the text, which
larc thefe, " the Greeks, fays he ', read after this manner, (um uJ^f . ^c. and the
" fenfe
' Grjcci legunt in hone modum ^nrt eJuf. &c. et appartt hunc eflefenfum : nom qnis vetarepoteft,.
.qoo minus aqua bap'Jzeniur ii, qui rpuitum faDdlum acceperunt, ficut & nos ? vtluti plus fit fpTitus
quam
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 217
fenfe appears to be this : Can any man forbid that thefe flioiild be baptized
in water, who have received the holy Ghoft as well as we ? for as the fpirit
is preferable to water, and feeing they have him, it will be no great matter
*' if this be added alfo : Moreover the accufative t« t/Jbf, " water;" either de-
" pends upon the prepofitipn ^^-n, which maybe underftood, or elfe adheres to
" the verb ^aTT/^FcK, "to be baptized;" jufl in the fame form in which we
" fay, p«TT/(^o/za/ ^dT'lia-fM, " to be baptized with a baptifm."
As to what Mr 5. fV. fays, concerning the ufe of plunging garments in bap-
tifm, that therefore the water comes to the body only a filtering, or as it can work,
its way through, which, fays he, at bed is only equivalent to fprinkling. I
need only reply, it is fufficient in baptifm that the whole body be plunged into
and covered under water ; nor does it much concern us, to obferve and know,
how it works its way through to the body. I hope he will acknowledge, that
a corps may be faid to be truly buried, when covered with earth, though it is
wrapt up in a fhroud, or in its funeral clothes, and put up clofe in a coffin, fo
that the earth with which it is covered, does not as yet touch it ; even fo a per-
fon may be truly faid to be baptized, when in the name of the threeDivine Pcr-
fons, he is plunged into, and covered over with water, even though the water
may not be fuppofed to have had time enough to have worked its way through
to his body ; and when it has done fo, how that is equivalent to fprinkling, no
man can devife. But enough of this, I proceed to the next argument.
CHAP. V.
The fourth argument taken from Romans v'l. 4. ColofHans ii. 12. ivlth
J the fenfe given of thofe fcriptures, by Mr B. W. cojfidcrcd.
/^UR next argument for baptifm by immerfion, which Mr 5. ^Z^'. has thought
^-'^ fit to produce in p. 24. and except againft, is taken fromi?ow. vi.4. Cc/.ii.i2.
where this ordinance is took notice of by the apoftle, as a burial, and as repre-
fcnting the burial and refurreflion of Chrift ; which argument may be formed
thus, and not in the loofc rambling way, in which he has reprefcnted it, and
which, no doubt, he thought would beft anfwer his purpofe ; namely, " If the
" end and defign of baptifm are to reprefent the burial and refurrcclion ofChrift,
" then it ought to be performed by plunging into, and overwhelming with
" water; but the end and defign of baptifm, are to reprefent the burial and re-
VoL. II. F F " furreftion
quam aqua, cumque ille contingerit, nihil efTe magni fi hoc accefTerit : Ca:tcrum to viu^ ac^ufativus
aut pendet a pracpofitione fubaudita xaxa, aut adharret verbo ^axlit&iiiai, ea forma qua dicimus,
pawTi^oncii ^xvlia^x. Erafmuj in Aft. x, 47.
2i8 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
" furreftion ofChrift, therefore it ought to be performed by plunging into, and
« overwhelming with water; the reafon is, becaufe no other mode of baptizing
" either by pouring or fprinkling a little water on the face, can anfwer this end."
But let us attend to what Mr B. IV. has to except. And,
1. He feems to deny this to be the end and dcfign of the inftitution of this
ordinance, when he afks, " But did Chrift ever inftitutc baptifm for any fuch
" end ? As for the Lord's Supper, he hath faid, Do this in remembrance of me j
" and it is plain from the word, that in the Lord's Supper we Jhew forth his
" death till he come : but where has he faid, be plunged or baptized, to repre-
" fent my burial or refurreftion ? " To which I anfwer, that though we have
not the end of this inftitution declared, in fo many exprefs words, yet we think
it may be fairly concluded from thofc texts now mentioned, and muft continue
to be of the fame mind, for ought Mr B. tV. has advanced againft it : Nor
are we alone in our fentiments : For that Chrift's burial and rcfur-reflion are
reprefentcd by baptifm, has been acknowledged by many, both ancient and
modern divines, whofc words I forbear to tranfcribe, partly becaufe they have,
been many of them produced by others already, and partly becaufe I would
not fill my book with citations, and therefore fhall only direft the reader to the
reference in the margent ''. Though Mr B. IV. is of opinion, that to infer
this from thofc words, buried with him in baptifm, is very abfurd and inconclu-
five ; and that " we may as well be hanged up againft a tree, to reprefenc
" Chrift crucified, becaufe it is faid, that we are crucified with Chrift." But
can any mortal fee this to be a parallel cafe ? to fay nothing how (hocking this
exprefTion muft be to every ferious mind, and not to be borne with ; no more
than the wretched jargon which follows it, when he fays, " and to make a fair
" end of you, be furc to fee you dead under the earth or under the water ; "
which, I doubt not, to every impartial intelligent reader, will appear to have
as little of argument as it has of fenfe in it. Befides, who does not fee that
all this, whatever he can mean by it, may be levelled as rtiuch againft the or-
dinance of the Lord's-Supper, as that of Baptifm. Moreover, there are other
texts, befides thefe mentioned, which dcmonftrate the rcprefentation of Chrift's
refurrc6lion, which fuppofes his burial to be the end of baptifm-, as for inftance,
1 Peter iii. 21. where baptifm is faid 10 fave us, by the refurreSlion ofjefus Chrift,
But how does it do that, but by reprefcnting the refurreftion of Chrift unto us,
and thereby leading our faith to it, to behold our juftification and difcharge,
by a rifcn Saviour? To which I might alfo add, 1 Cor. xv. 29. where the
apoftle
» C3tPg07 Nazianzen. BafiJ, Chryfollome, Ambrofe, Daille, Fowler, Cave, Towerron, cited
by Mr Stennett, in hii anfwer to Ruflen, p. 144, 145, 147, 156, 157. Sec alfo D: Goodwin**
Chrift fet fwih. Seft. 3. Ch. 7.
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 219
apoftle evincing the truth of the refurreftion of the dead, thus argues, elfe what
/hall they do, which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rife not ? that is,
" Who are baptized into the faith of the refurredlion of Chrift, which is ve-
" prefented thereby, and which is the confirmation of our refurredlion -, " the
thing that is there debated ; and which, if not true, the apoftle argues that
their baptifm, as well as their faith, and his preaching, was in vain. Befides,
if our author removes this end of baptifm, he ought to have fubftituted an-
other, and have told us what was the end and defign of it, which he has not
done ; for all the ordinances of the gofpel are, no doubt, dcfigned for the
comfort and edification of believers, and the confirmation of their faith in the
perfon of Chrift ; and feeing there appears nothing more manifcftly to be the
end of it, than what has been mentioned, we fhall think fit to abide by it. But,
idly. Our author alks, " What there is in your plunging that reprefents
" Chrift's burial and refurredlion;" and to (hew that there is no agreement, he
runs the parallel between them, and obferves, that Chrift was carried to his
grave, where, being dead, he was buried, and lay there three days, and three
nights, and that in the earth, where a grat ftofie was rolled at the mouth of the
fcpukhrc, and when he arofe, it was ly his own power, and thereby declared to
be the Son of God : But as for us, \i/c go ourfelves into the water, are plunged
alive, and that not three minutes, in water; and that our plunger dares not leave
us, nor roll a Jione upon us •, and it is he that puts us in that pulls us out, and we
are declared to he what we are : What would the man have us be declared to be,
what we are not ? and then in a taunting manner fays, " and this is the repre-
*' fcntation and the mighty refcmblancc." Thefe are fome of our author's
mafterly ftrokcs, and when the candor of the reader has fupplied the want of
fcnfe in his cxprefTion, and charitably conjedtured at his meaning, I need only
reply, that the things inftanccd in are only circumftantial, and not eftcntial to
a burial, and therefore unneceflary to be reprefcnted in baptifm •, nay, it would
have been abfurd to have had them : It is enough that the things themfelves
arc, namely, the burial and refurreftion of Chrift, which are fufficiently repre-
ftnted by an immcrfion into water, and an emcrfion out of rtl
But who docs not fee that a Quaker, or any other perfon that denies the
ordinance of the Lord's-Supper, may argue after the fame manner, and fay,
you lliy that this ordinance reprefents a crucified Chrift, and ftiews forth his
drath and lufFerings, but pray how docs it appear ? you take a loaf of bread,
and break it in pieces, and a bottle of wine, and pour it out-, but Chrift, when
be was crucified, was hanged on a tree, his head was crowned with thorns, his
hftrtds and feet were pierced with nails, and his fide with a fpear •, but here are
ho thorns, nails, or fpear made ufe of by you, his real body was treated after
f K 2 this
. I
220 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
this manner, but yours. \s on\)' 2i loaf of bread ; he poured out his blood, you
only wine; " and this is the rcprefentation, and the mighty refemblance." And
I think all this may be faid with as much juftnefs as the other. But,
3. Mr B. /•F. has got another way of getting off the argument taken from
thcfe texts, \n Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. and that is, by aflerting that the bap-
tifm of Chrift's futFerings, and not wacer-baptifm, is intended in them. It would
be endlcfs, and perhaps our author will fay needlefs, to oppofe to him the feve-
ral expofitors and interpreters, who undcrftand, by baptifm, the ordinance of
water-baptifm, in thofe texts-, as well as a large number of them who think the-
allufion is made to the ancient practice of baptizing by immerfion ; as Grotius;
Vorfiius, Paraus, Pifcator, Diodate, zx\di l\\t AJfembly of Divines on Romans v\, j^..
and Zanchy and Davenant on Col. ii. 12. I fuppofe that Mr B. IV. will reply,
that thcfe are but men, and their judgment fallible ; I hope he does not think
that he is more than a man, or that his judgment is infallible; and it will
fcarcely be accounted modcfty in him, to fet himfclf upon a level with them :
Though I confcfs that his fcnfc of the words is not difagreeblc to the analogy of
faith, yet I wonder that he Oiould be fo poficive as to fay that this is the only
meaning of them, as he does in p. j i. As to what he fays with rcfpecl to thole
texts, one of them being produced as an argument to promote holinels in belie-
vers, and the other to ftrengthcn their faith in the doftrine of juftifica^ion ; I can-
not fee, but to undcrftand them of water-baptifm, fuits very well with the fcope-
thereof, however it is ridiculed by our author: For why may not our baptifm,-
wherein we profefs our faith in a buried Chrift, and that wc are dead by him
to the law, the world, and particularly to fin, be urged and made ufeof by the
fpirit ofGod, as an argument why we fhould not live any longer therein. And
are there no force, power and cogency in this argument .'* Again, in baptifm
we profefs our faith in the refurreftion of Chrift, which is rcprefented hereby,
and that we are rifen with him, and therefore are under the higheft obligations
to walk in newnefs of life, as the apoftle himfelf argues. Moreover, what can
have a greater tendency to ftrengthen our faith in the dodtrine of juftification,-
ihan this ordinance has ? by which it is led to fee where our Lord lay, and how
our fins were left in the grave by him ; and he, as our glorious reprefentative,
rifing again for our jujlification, by whom we are acquitted and difcharged from
all fin and condemnation ; and is fuch a way of arguing from hence, to promote
holincfs, and ftrengthen us in the doflrine of juftification, to be wondered at,,
what is meant by it ? But to proceed,
j^tbly, Suppofingthat the baptifm ofChrift's fufferings is intended here, and
that we are buried with him therein, as our head and reprefentative, it muft be
allowed, thatChrift's fufferings are called fo, in allufioh to water-baptifm; and
if
.. J
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 221
if we are faid to be buried with him in them, it mud be in allufion to a perfon's
being buried in water in that ordinance, which cannot be by pourino- or fprink-
ling of water upon him, but by an immerfion into it. So that our argument
for plunging, from hence, is like to lofe nothing by this fenfe of the words.
That Chrift's fufFerings are called a baptifm, in Matt. xx. 22. Luke xii. 50. as
alfo that by a Synechdoche, they are called the blood of his crofs, is granted ; but
then the fhedding of his blood was not the whole of Chrift's fufFerino-s, but a
part only, and this is called the blood of fprinkling, not with regard to its being
called a baptifm ; but becaufe it is fprinkled upon a believer's confcience, and
being fo, fpeal'LS peace and pardon there ; but when i;he greatnefs and multitude
of Chrift's fufFerings are fet forth, they are rcprefcnted, not by a fprinklincr of
water, but by mighty floods of water, which overflowed him, fo that he feemed,
as it were, to be plunged into them, and overwhelmed v/ith them -, as he fays,
in Pfalm \%\x 2. I am come into deep waters, where the foods overRow me; where
the Scptuagint ufc the word KAnToi^i^a, as they do alfo in verfe 15. which
Mr B. W. in page 45. grants is very proper to exprefs plunging by; and
therefore no wonder then that his fufFerings are compared to a baptifm, and
fiich an one as is adminiftered by immerfion : So that the argument from
hence, notwithftanding all thofe cavils and exceptions, ftands firm and un-
fhakcn. As to the argument taken from the univerfality of Chrift's fufFerings
in every part, of his body, which he makes his antagonift plead in page 32.
he acknowledges it was never made ufe of by the greateft men of our perfua-
fion, why then does he produce it ? If every thing that has been dropt by weak
chriftians, in private converfation on the fubjeft of infant-baptifm, was pub-
liftied to the world, how filly and ridiculous would it appear ?
CHAP. VI.
'The fifth and lajl argument taken from the fgnif cation of the word P*'2J7'C">
•which always fgnif es to dip or plunge, with Mr B. WV. exceptions
to it, confdered..
THE fifth and laft argument ufed by us, for immerfion in baptifm, taken
from the conftant fignification of the word fixrji^v, baptizo, to dip or
plunge, Mr B.py. has thought fit to produce in p. 33. and except againft^,
which we hope, notwithftanding, to make good, however we may be rcpre-
fcnted by our author, as uncapable of reaJing our mother tongue. And,
I. Mr 5. ^F. denies that y«ir7«, hapto, and ^i-ZJi^u, baptizo, fignify one and
the fanie thing ; but the reafon he gives, is not a luflicient one, and that is,
becaufe
222 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
becaufe the holy Ghoft never makes ufe of the former, when this ordinance is
cxprefled, but the latter; for the holy Ghoft may make ufe of what words he
pleafes, without deftroying the fenfe of others ; and by the way, then it may be
obferved, that c?^rv(a, rantizo, and p*T73^», baptize, do not fignify one and the
fame thing; becaufe the holy Ghoft never makes ufe of the former, when the
ordinance is exprelTcd, but the latter. Befides, all the Lexicographers that I
hav€ been able to confult, tell me, that p«T7a and ^a.'/Ji^a do fignify one and
the fame thing ; for they render both by the very fame words, and they are both
promifcuoufly ufed by Greek authors : And indeed, why fhould not ^avji^a,
baptizo, the derivative, fignify the fame as its primitive ? what, is its fignifica-
tion leflened by the addition of a fyllable to it? Dr Gak^ has given inftances
enough of derivatives in {<», which fignify the fame with their primitives. And
indeed, fome have taken the word, under confideration, to be what gramma-
rians call a frequentative, which fignifies more than the derivative does. But,
2. It feems our author will fcarccly allow ^tIo, bapto, to fignify dip ox plungCy
and therefore puts it upon us to prove, that^K^^, when he put his hand in the
difh, thruft it all over in the fauce, Matt. xxvi. 23. where the word t{jiCAT-\.a.<^
embapfas, is ufed ; but he fhould have obferved, that it was not his hand, but
the fop in his hand, by a metonymy of the fubjeft, as PZ/f^/or obferves, which
he dipt into the fauce, as he might have learned, by comparing the text with
JobnxW'x. 26. And in p. 45. he fays, "yea, with refpedl unto ^a.-/}iu itfelf, it
" is very evident that the Greeks did not diredly mean plunging thereby; for
" when the Septuagint tell us in Ban. iv, 33. that Nebuchadnezzar^ body was
" wet with the d«w of heaven, they make ufe of the very word ;" and I would
alfo add, very juftly, itcxaftly anfwered to the Chaldee word yna^' here ufed,
which word always fignifies to tinge or dip, as dyers dip their cloilies in their
vatts, and fo is exprefTive of what a conAmon Nebucbadnezzar'% body was in, he
being as wet with the dew of heaven, as if he had been dipt or plunged all over
in water. But enougli of this ; let us confider,
,3. How we are like to come off with the word ^drrji^o, baptize ; and here our
author in p. 41. tells us, ore rotunda, and with confidence enough, in fo many
words, that " it never docs fignify plunging; waQiing with water by pouring
" or fprinkling, is the only meaning of it." The man has got a good affiirance,
but yet by his writing, he does not feem to have fuch a ftock of learning ; how-
ever what he wants in one, he makes up in the other. It is ftrange that all our
Lexicographers, fo many learned critics, and good divines, fhould be fo much
miftaken, as to render the word to dip or plunge, and allow this to be the proper
fignification of it. I have myfelf confulted feveral Lexicons, as thofe of Suidas,
Scapuloy
' Reflexions on Mr Wall's Hiflory of Infant-baptifm, p- 217.
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 213
Scapula, Hadrian, Junius, Pafor, as alfo another made by Bitdaus, Tufanus,
Gefner, Junius, Conjlantine, Hartung, Hopper, zndXylander, who aJl unanimoufly
render the word by merge, immergo, to plunge or dip into : And though they
afterwards add alfo, al^luo, leve, to wajh, yet it is plain they mean fuch a wafli-
ing, as is by dipping •, and we are very willing to grant it, for we know that
there can be no dipping without wafhing : BiJt had they meant a wafhing by
pouring or fprinkling, they would have rendered it by per/undo, or afperga, to
pour upon, or fprinkle ; but this they never do. And, to thcfe I might add a
Urge number of learned critics, and good divines, who grant, that the word
in its firft and primary fenfe, fignifies 10 dip or plunge only-, and to -waJh only
in a fecondary, remote, and cont'equential one; z% Cafaubon, Camerarius, Gro-
iias'", Calvin", siting", /iljled\ IVendthn'*, and others. But what need I heap
up authors, to prove that which no man of any tolerable learning will deny :
But what will not ignorance, attended with a conf;dcrable fliarc of confidence,
carry a man through ? I might oppofe to him, the ule of the word in many
Greek authors, but this has been done better already than I am capable of doing
it, to which I refer him ', and fhall content myfelf, with juft mentioning that paf-
fcge of Plutarch ', ^xirji^-^f mu/Jiv tn i*\a(raat, which 1 think the author I have
reference to, has took no notice of; and let hi.n try how his fenfe of pouring or
fprinkling will agree with it. I am fure it will found very harfli, to render the
words pour ov fprinkle thyfelfinto the fea, but will read very well to be rendered
thus, plunge tkyfelf into the fea : But I fuppofe he will take this to be a breach
of the firft article agreed upon in this conference; but why the Greek authors
fhould not be allowed as evidences, in the fenfe of aGreck word, I cannot fee:
I am fure this is not very confiltent with right reafon, which the thing in debate
was to be cleared up from, as well as from the word of God. But let us confider
the ufe of the word with the Septuagint, which I fuppofe he will not except
againft, becaufe he has himfelf brought it into the controverfy. And there are
but two places, which I have as yet met with, where the word is ufed by them,
and the firft is in -2 Kings v. 14. where it is faid of Naam an the Syrian, that i>«
vent down, ^ iCortm^it'T*, and baptized or dipped himfelf feven times in Jordan : I
prefume our author will not fay, that this is to be underftood of a wafhing, by
pouring or fprinkling ; efpecially, feeing it anfwers to the Hebrew word ^:jD,
which always fignifies to dip or plunge, and is the word, which is fo often ren-
dered by ^TTfti, kapto, and which, by the way, proves thefe two to be of the
fame
■ All three on Matthew iii. 6. n Inflitut. I. ^, r, 15. f. 19^
• Loc comman. p. 198. & Explic. Catech. p. 311. p Ltxic. Theolog. p. zji, 222.
< Chrifl. Theolog. 1. I. c. 22. ' Dr Ga'e'j RefleQiom on Mr Wall's Hiftor)- cf
lafaot-baptiOni ktterj. • D« Superdiuone.
224 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
fame Cgntfication, feeing they are promifcuoufly ufed by them,' to exprefs one
and the fame word.
The other place is in Jfai. xxi. 4. where what we read, fearfuhefs affrighted
vie, they render* *ce/«« /^i ^*tt/{«, iniquity bath plunged me ; for to tranflacc
the words, iniquity hath wajhed, or poured, or fprinkled me, would be intoler-
able; but both the language and the fenfe are fmooth and cafy, by rendering
them, iniquity hath plunged me ; that is, into the depths of mifery and diftrcfs ;
fo tbatl am overwhelmed with horror and terror : And hereby alfo the fenfeof
the Hebrew word j-iiO, here ufed, is very beautifully exprelTcd. But let us
now confider,
^tbly. What exceptions Mr B. fK makes againft this univerfal fenfe of the
word, and there are three places in the NewTeftament which he oppofes to it.
The firft is in Mark vii. 4. j^nd when they come from the market, except they
jwafh, they eat not, and many other things there be, which they have received to
bold, as the wafhing of cups and pots, brazen veffels, and of tables. Whereupon
Mr B. W. obferves, that the words of the holy Ghoft are, except they firft
baptize themfclves -, and many other fuch things they have, as the baptizing of
tables. Excellent obfervations indeed ! But how does this prove that the
word fignifies only a wafhing, by pouring or fprinkling ? I believe it will ap-
pear, that this is meant of the wafhing of the whole body by dipping, which
mi"ht be done, without their going into a pond or a river before they came
home-, for they had, no doubt, proper conveniencies for immerfion, when they
came home, feeing bathing was in many cafes required of the people, as well
as of the priefls-, and to underfland it of fuch a wafhing, feems better to ex-
prefs their fuperftitious folicitudc to cleanfe themfclves from all impurity they
might contrail by converfing with others in the market ; it fcems to be diftinft
from wafhing of hands in the former verfe, where a different word is ufed.
But fuppofing that wafhing of hands was intended here, does not every body
know, that the ufual manner of doing that, is not by pouring or fprinkling
water upon them, but by putting them into it. And he>e I cannot but take
notice of the obfervation of Bexa ' upon this text ; " ^Afv\iSm, fays he, in this
" place, is more than y^iitir-nif ; for the former feems to refpecl the whole
" body, the latter only the hands, nor does ^a/xv\^f fignify to wafli, but only
" by confequence, for it properly denotes to immcrfe for the fake of dipping."
As for the waQiing or baptizing of cups, pots, &c. it is well known that the
cleanfing of veffels, which were polluted by the falling of any dead creature
that
* PIui autem ell iSairn^dSai, hoc in loco, quam ^i{»nr1«», qaod illud videatur de corpore nni-
verfo, iftud de manibus duntaxat intelligendum. Neque to ^aTTi{«» fignificat lavare, nifi a con-
fequenti, nam proprje declarac tingecdi caufa immergcre. Beza in Marc. 7. 4.
•BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &:c. 225
that was unclean into them, was by putting into the water, and not by pouruig
or fprinkling water upon them. The exprefs command in Z,m/. xi. 32, is, that
;■/ muji be put into the watery or as the Septuagint render it 0ci^iir%',aj, it muft he
dipt into water. Moreover, their fuperftitious waOiing of vefTcls, which our
Lord feems here to mean, and juftly reprehends, of which we read many things
in their Mifnah", or oral law, their book of traditions, was performed this
way, where they make ufe of the word ^ntO to exprefs it by, which always fig-
nifies to dip or plunge. But what need I ufe many words to prove this, when
every old woman could have informed him of the ufual manner of wathing their
vcflc-ls, which is not by pouring or fprinkling water upon -them, but by put-
ting them into it : And if he afks, did the Jewifh women wafh their tables fo ?
There appears no reafon to conclude the contrary ; and if he fliould fay, how
and where could they do it ? I anfwer, in or near their own houfes, where they
had convenicncies for bathing themfelves, and wafhing their garments, at proper
times, without carrying them to a river.
The next place inftanced in by him, \s Heb.'w. io. where the ceremonial
law is faid to ftand only in meats and drinks, and divers wajhings ; it is in the
Greek text, in divers baptifms ; and, fays our author, "it is evident from the
" word of God, that thofe waOiings generally ftood in pouring or fprinklin<' of
" water ;" but that is a miftake of his, for they neither flood in them gene-
rally, norparticularly •, for thofe ceremonial ablutions were always performed
by bathing or dipping in water, and are called «/)«f.f/a, divers, or different, not
becaufe they were performed different ways, as ibme by fprinkling, others bv
pouring, and others by plunging, but becaufe of the different perfons and
things, the fubjedts thereof; as the priefls, Levites, Ifraelites, vefTcIs, gar-
ments, &c. And here it may not be amifs to obfervc what Maimonides " who
was one of the moft learned of the Jewifh writers, fays concernino- this matter
" Wherever, fays he, the wafhing of the flefh or garments is mentioned in the
" law, it means nothing elfe than the wafhing of the whole body-, for if a man
" wafhes himfcif all over, excepting the very tip of his little finder, he is ftill
«« in his uncicannefs." Nay, he fays it is necefTary that every hair of his head
fhould be wafhed ; and therefore the apoftlc might well call thcfe wafhings-
boftifms.
The third and lafl inflance produced by him, is i Cor.x. i, 2. where the
apoflle fays, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and alt paffed throu-h the
Vol. II. Go " j/, .^
" Trafl. Mikvaoth. c. 10. f. I, 5, 6.
* Ubiconqoe in lege meinoratur ablatio carnis aut veflium, nihil aliod vult, quam a'jiutionem
lotius corporis, nam fiquis fe totum abluat, eicepto ipfiffimo apice minimi dipiti ille adhuc in i.-n-
intindiue fua, Maimon. in Mikvaoth. c. 1,4. in Lighifoot Hor. Kebr. in Matt. p. 47.
226 THE ANCIENT M O D E O F
fea \ and were all baptized unto Mofes in the cloudy and in the fea ; wliicli when nur
author has mentioned, he very brifkly afks, " Pray how were our fathers bap-
" tized there ?" to which, I hope, we fhall be capable of returning an anfvver,
without appearing to be {o bitterly, gravelled with this place, as he is pleafrd to
■ make his friend fay we arc. As for the manner in which he repreftnts foine of
our friends accounting for it ; namely, that when the people oi Ifrael pafTed
through theRed fea, they had the waters flood up, both on their right hand, and
on their left, and a cloud over them ; fo that there was a very great refemblance
of a perfon's being baptized, or plunged under water. This, I fay, is not fo
much to be defpifed, nor does it dcferve fo much ridicule and contempt, as he
has pleafed to caft upon it ; and I believe will appear to any unprejudiced per-
fon, a much better way of accounting for ir, than he is capable of giving, con-
fiftent with his way of adminiftering the ordinance : Though I cannot but think
that the Ifraelites were jfr/? baptized in the cloud, and then in the fea, according to
the order ofthe apoftle's words ; and agreeable to the ftory in Exodus xiv. where
we read, that the cloud went from before their face, and flood behind them, and was
between the two camps, to keep off the Egyptians from the Ifraelites. I am
therefore of opinion, with the learned Gataker'', thgt the cloud when it pafTcd
over them, let down a plentiful rain upon them, whereby they were in luch a
condition, as if they had been all over dipt in water ; fo that they were not on-
ly covered by it, but baptized in it : Therefore our author very improperly di-
redls us to Pfalm Ixxvii. i 7. the clouds poured out water, as the better way of re-
folving the cafe; for the^ apoftle does not fay, that they were baptized in the
clouds, but in the cloud which went before them, but now pafllng over them,
in order to ftand behind them, they were, as it were, immcrfed in it. But fup-
pofing that the text in Pfalm Ixxvii. may be adireftion in this cafe, and fcrve
to explain what the apoftle means by baptizing, ic will no ways agree either with
our author's fcnfe of the word, nor his way of adminiftering the ordinance : For
were the Ifraelites baptized under the clouds, by their pouring or fprinklinga
fmall quantity of water upon their faces ? the Hebrew word Dnr here ufed, fig-
nifies an overflow, or an inundation of water : And Ainfworlh reads n Jlr earned
down or gufbed with a tempefl \ fo that they were as pcrfons overwhelmed, and
plunged over head and ears in water ; and therefore the apoftle might well call
it a being baptized.
But now let us confidcr alfo, how they might be faid to be baptized in the fea;
and there arc feveral things, in which the Ifraelites paflage through the Red fea,
refcmbled our baptifm. As for inflance, their following oi Mofcs into it, which
may be meant by their being baptized into him, was an acknowledgment of their
regard
» In Adverfar, Mifcellan. p 30.
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 227
regard unto him, as their Guide and Governor-, as our baptifm is a following
of Chrill as our Prophet, who has taught and led us the way -, as well as a pr j-
feflion of our faith in him, as our Surety and Saviour, and a fubjeftion to hin,
as our King and Governor : Theirs was at their firft entrance upon their iourney
to Canaan, as ours is, when, in a way of profefTion, we publicly begin our
chriftian race : They, when they came out of it, could fing and rejoice, in the
view of all their enemies being dedroyed -, as the believer alfo can in this ordi-
nance, in the view of all his fins being drowned in the fca of Chrift's blood,
witncfs the inftances of the Eunuch and Jailor. But in nothing is there a
greater refemblance between them, than in their defcending into it, and coming
up out of it; which is very much expreffive of the mode of baptifm by immer-
fion. And this I choofe to deliver in the words of the judicious Gataker^.
" The defcent, (that is, of the Ifraelites) fays he, into the inmofl and loweft
" parts of the lea, and their afcent out of it again upon dry land, hath a very
" great agreement with the rite of chriRian baptifm, as it was adminiftered in
*' the primitive times ; feeing in baptizing they went down into the water, and
" came up again out of the fame ; of which defcent and afcent exprefs mention
" is made in the dipping of the EthiopianEunuch, y^i,7j viii. 38,39. Moreover,
" as in the chriftian rite, when they were immbrfed, they were overwhelmed
" in water, and as it were buried ; and in fome meafure, feemed to be buried
*' together with Chrift. And again, when they emerfcd, they feemed to rife,
" even as out of a grave, and to be rifen with Chrift, Roni.vi.^., 5. a.ndCol.u.12.
" So likewife, the waters of the fca (landing up higher than the heads of thofc
*' that pafTcd through it, they might feem to be overwhelmed ; and in fome
*' rcfpedts, to be buried therein, and to cmerfe and rife out again, when they
" came out fafe on the other fide of the fliore."
And having now confidered all thofe exceptions, which our author has made
againft this fenfe of the word, which is contended for, I hope it will appear,
that he has little reafon to make that vain triumph lie does, in p 38. where, he
afks, " Where now is your baptize, that fignifies nothing elfe but plunging and
" overwhelming ?" As for his comparing the paffage of the Ifraelites through
c c 2 the
1 Magnam habet convenientiam ille in marls intima infimaque defcenfus, ex eodem afcenfui
tJenuo in aNdam, cum baptifmi chridiani ritu, prout is primis tcmporibus adminiftrabatur. Si-
quidem inter baptizandum in aquas dcfcendebant, & ex eifdem denuo afcendebanl : Cujus
iLaraZautui i^ <t.txZaa-tui in Eunuchi .£thiopi« tinflione mcntio exprefTa repieriiur, Adl. viii. 38,39.
Quin &, Ccuti in rita chrirtiano, quum immergerentur aquis obruti, & quafi fepuiti &: Chrirto ipfi
confepuiti quodammodo videbantar; rurfufquc cum cmergerent, a fcpulchro quodammodo rcfur-
gere, *c cum Chrifto refufcitare pra: fe ferebant. Rom. vi. 4, ;. Col. ii. 12. Ita maris illius aquis
capitibus ipTis tranfeuntium altius extantibus obruti ac fepuiti quodammodo potcrunt videri Sc emcr-
gerc ac refurgere denuo, cam ad littus objeflum exeuntes evafifTcnt. Gatak. ibid.
Ti28 THEANCIENTMODEOF
the Red fea, to his travelling ioScotland with the Irifh fea on his left hand, -and
theGerman on his right, and to his journeying toCornzval, with theBritifh chan-
nel at fome diftance from him, on his left hand, and the channel of 5r//?i)/ on
his right, I cannot fee it can be of any fervice, unlefs it be to lay afide thelfrael-
ites pafTage throogh the fea as a miracle, and fo furnifh the atheift and deift with
an argument, fuch an one as it is, for their purpofe. As for his fneer upon
plunging in it, I can eafily forgive him, and pafs it by, as well as that of the
plunging of the Egyptians, with the fame contempt in which he delivers them.
Having thus confidered his exceptions to thofe arguments produced for plung-
ing, I fhall in the next chapter, take notice of his reafons againft it.
CHAP. VII.
Mr B. Ws. reafons againji plunging in baptifm, confidered.
TV TR B. W. in the next place, proceeds to give us fome reafons in p. 43. why
he is againft the adminiftcation of the ordinance of baptifm by plunging.
And his
Firfi reafon is, "Becaufe there is not any foundation for it in the word of
" God -, no precept, no example, fays he, no necelTary confequence, no words
" nor found of words to favour it-," and a little lower, " There is not a word,
•' he means of plunging, nor the fhadow of a word ; and therefore I think I
" have good reafon againft it." Words are the ftiadows, reprefentations, and
cxprefTions of our minds ; but what the Jhadow of a word is, I cannot devife,
unlefs he means the leaft appearance of a word, as perhaps he may ; and that
I fuppofe is an initial letter of a word, or an abbreviation, i^c. But the holy
Ghoft does not write in fuch a manner, and therefore we expeft to find whole
words, or none at all. But to proceed, does he want z precept? let him read
Matt, xxviii. 19. or an example? let him take Chrift for one. Matt. iii. 16. and
theEunuch, A5is\\n. 38, 39. And is no neceftary confequence to be deduced
from the places John and the apoftles baptized in ? nor from the circumftances
which attended it, of going down and coming up out of the water ? I hope it
will appear to every thinking, and unprejudiced pcrfon, that it has been proved
that not only the found of words, but the true fenfc of words favour it.
His ether reafon is, " Becaufe it is not only without foundation in the word
" of God, but it is direflly againft it;" but how does that appear? Why, " fup-
" pofe fome poor creatures, fays he, upon a bed of languifhing, under confump-
" lions, catarrhs, pains, fores, and bruifes, be converted, and that perhaps
" in the depth of winter, it is their duty to be baptized, that is true ? but is it
" their
J
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 229
'" their duty to be plunged ? no, to be fure ; for the whole word of God com-
*' mands felf-prefervation -, and therefore it is evident, that plungino- is againft
*' the commands of God." I fuppofe he takes it to be contrary to the fixth
command -, but if it is the duty of perfons to be baptized, it is their duty to
be plunged -, for there is no true baptifm without it ? But what, in the depth of
winter ? why not ? what damage is like to come by it ? Our climate is not near
fo cold as Mufcovy, where they always dip their infants in baptifm, to this very
day ; as does alfo the Greek church in all parts of the world. But what, plunc^e
perfons when under confumptions, catarrhs, &c. ? why not .' perhaps it may be
of ufe to them for the reftoration of health ; and its being performed on a fa-
cred account, can never be any hindrance to it. Whoever reads Sir John Floy er''s
Hijlory of Cold-batbing, and the many cures that have been performed thereby
•which he there relates, will never think that this is a fufficient objeftion againft
plunging in baptifm -, which learned phyfician has alfo of late publi(hedyf«
EJfny to rejlore the dipping of Infants in their Baptifm \ which he arc^ues for, not
only from the fignification of baptifm, and its theological end, but likewife
from the medicinal ufe of dipping, for preventing and curing many diftempers.
If it may be ufeful for the health of tender infants, and is in many cafes now
made ufe of, it can never be prejudicial to grown perfons : He argues from the
liturgy and rubric of the church of England, which requires dipping in baptifm
and only iWows, pouring of water \n cafe of weaknefs, and never fo much as crranted
a permiffion for fprinkling. He proves in this book, and more largely in his
former, that the conftant practice of the church of England, ever fincc the plan-
tation of chriftianity, was to dip or plunge in baptifm; which he fays continued
after the reformation until King Edward the Gxth's time and after: Nay, that
its difuse has been within this hundred years : And here I cannot forbear men-
tioning a pafTage of his, to this purpofe % " Our fonts are built, fays hej with
" a fufficient capacity for dipping of infants, and they have been fo ufed for
" five hundred years in England, both Kings and Common people have been
" dipped ; but now our fonts ftand in our churches as monuments, to upbraid
" us with our change or negle<ft of our baptifmal ifnmerfion." And I wifh he
had not reafon to fay as he docs', that fprinkling was firft introduced by the
AfTcmbly of Divines, in 1643, by a vote of 25 againfl 24, and eftablifhed by an
ordinance of parliament in 1644. Which complaint Mr IVall^ has taken up,
who wrote the laft in this controvcrfy, having ftudicd it for many years; and
has fairly acknowledged, that immerfion is the right mode of baptifm ; for which
tcafon he calls upon his brethren, the clergy, to a reformation in it: As for thofe
who
* EfTay to reftore the Dipping of Infanh in their Baptifm, p. 60. • Ibid. p. 4, 12, jr.
* Defence of the Hiftory of Infjnt-Baprifm, p. i:g, 130, 131, 146, 147.
230 THE A N C I E N T M O D E OF
who would willingly conform to the liturgy, he lays before them the difficul-
ties they muft expeft to meet with ; which, befides the general one of breakincr
an old cuftom, he mentions two more : The one is from thofe who are frejhj-
terianly inclined, who as they were the firft introducers of it, will be tenacious
enough to keep it. And the other is, from midwives and nurfcs, i^c. whofe
pride in the fine drening of the child will be entirely loft. But to return from
whence 1 have digrcfled. Mr B. IV. it fcems, is of opinion, that baptifm by
plunging, is not only againft the fixth, but alfo againft the feventh command,
for which reafon he muft be againft it. To baptize by plunging, he infinuates
is " a pradice contrary to the whole current of Chrift's pure precepts, of an un-
" comely afpeft, and feemingly fcandalous and ignominious to the honour of
" chriftianity -, and that one would think a man would as foon deny all right
" reafon, and religion, as believe Chrift would ever command fuch a pradtice."
But I appeal to any, even our worft adverfaries, that make any confcience of
what they fay or do, who have feen the ordinance adminiftered, whether it is
of fuch an uncomely afpecl, and fo feemingly fcandalous, as tiiis defamer has
xeprefented it. " And, fays he, to ufe the words of a fervant of Chrift, can we
*' therefore imagine, that Chrift's baptifm fhould intrench fo much upon the
" laws of civility, chaftity, and modefty, as to require women and maids to
" appear openly in the light of the fun, out of their wonted habit, in tranfpa-
" rent and thin garments, next to nakednefs, and in that pofture be took by
-" a man in his arms, and plunged in the face of the whole congregation, bc-
" fore men and boys ! " Who this fervant of Chrift is, whofe words he ufes,
and has made his own, he does not tell us. I fliall therefore inform the reader,
they are the words of one Rujfen, an author he might well be afhamed to men-
tion in the manner he does : However I ftiali not be aftiamed to give Mr Stin-
nett's, reply to this paragraph, in his excellent anfwer to that fcurrilous writer,
which I have put in themargent'; and would alfo recommend that book to
the
' Ic does not fhock me fo much, to find Mr R. ufe fuch terms as are fcarce reconcileable to
.good fenfe, as it does to find him ufirg fuch expreffions, and making fuch defcriptions, ai are
hardly confident w th that civility and modefty, for which he would appear to be an advocate.
I can bear with him, when, on this occaCon, he calls thin garments afojluri inftead of a habit, and
tells us of things that are ignominioift to the honour of chriftianity, being now pretty well acquainted
with hisftile. But I muft confefs rayfelf ofi"ended with that air of leviiy, and thofe indecent terms,
in which he condemns the pretended immodefly of others. For the words by which he fometimes
defaibes the vicious afls and inclinations which he cenfures, feem not fo much adapted to excite
horror and averfion in the reader, as to defile his imagination, and to difpofe him to that imprudent
temper of making a mock of fin. And the true reafon why I do not quote Mr R's words at. large
in this place, as I do in many others, is not to evade the force of his argument, but to avoid the
mode of his expreflion, by which he has given too much occafion of ofixnce to virtuous minds, and
perhaps too much gratified thofe that are vlcioufly inclined. Sccnoetc'a Anfw. to RuHcn, p. 137.
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, fee. 231
the readers of our author, but efpecially to hinifelf ; forbad he read it before
he piiblifhed his, perhaps it might have prevenred it, or at lead, have made
him adiamed to quote thole cxprefTions, with fuch a complement upon the
author of them. How does this become one, who calls himfelf a minifler of the
gofpt-l, to be guilty of fuch a fcandal and defamation as this is ? What, did the
man never fee the ordinance adminiftered ? If he lias, his wickednefs in pub-
lilhing this is the greater •, if nor, he ought to have took an opportunity to have
informed himfelf, before he had made fo free with the praftice, as to afperfe it
after this manner. It is well known, that the clothes we ufe in baptifm, are
cither the perfon's wearing apparel, or elfe thofe which are on purpofe provided,
which are made of as thick, or thicker ftuff, than what are ofually worn in the
performance of the mofl fervile work. Thofe who have feen the ordinance
adminiftered, know with what decency it is performed, and with fuch, I am
perfuaded what our author fays will find but little credit. I have nothing elfe,
I think, to obferve now, unlefs it be, his arguing for the preferablenefs of ap-
plying water to the perfon, to any other mode of baptifm, from the application
of grace to us, and not us to that, in p. 46. which 1 fuppofe was forgot in the
conference, or elfe he had not an opportunity to croud it in. To which I need
only reply, that there does not appear to be any nccedity of ufing a mode in
baptifm, that muft be conformable to that; befides, if there was, does not every
body know, that in plunging a perfon, there is an application of the water to
him, as well as an application of him to the water ? For as foon as ever a per-
fon is plunged, the water will apply itfelf to him. As to the vanity which he
thinks we are guilty of, in monopolizing the name oi haptijls to ourfelves, he
may take the name himfelf if he pleafes, feeing he thinks we have nothing to
do with it, for we will not quarrel with him about it: But fince it is neceflary
to make ufe of fome names of diftinftion in civil converfation, he does well to
tell us, what name we (hould be called by, and that is plunders ; but then he
will be hard put to it to fhew the difference between a baptifi and & plunger :
Befides, the old objcdtion againtl the name baptifi being peculiar to John^ or
to an adminiflrator, may as well be objcdled againft this name as the other, be-
caufe we are not i[\ plungers., but by far the greateft part, are only perkns plunged.
However I could wifh, as well as he, that all names were laid afide, efpecially
as terms of reproach, and the great name of Chrift alone exalted.
CHAP.
232 THEANCIENTMODEOF
CHAP. VIII.
Concerning the free or mixt communion of churches.
TV i^R B. W. here and there drops a fentence, fignifying his love and afFe(5lion
■^ to perfons of our perfuafion, as in p. 42. " Chriflians of your perfuafion,
" I hope, I dearly love-," this and fuch like exprelTions, I can underftand no
otherwife than as a wheedling and cajoling of thofe of his members, who are
of a different perfuafion from him in this point, whom he knows he mud have
grieved and offended, by this fha'meful .and fcandalous way of writing. And
at the fame time, when he cxpreflTes fo much love to them, he lets them know,
that he " does not admire their plunging principle, though he does not love
*' to make a great no'hfe about it." I think he has made a great noife about it,
and fuch an one as, perhaps by this time, he would be glad to have laid. He
fignifies his readinefs " to carry on evangelical fellowfhip, in all the acts thereof,
" with chearfulncfs," with thofc who are differently! minded from him. That
thofe of a different perfuafion from us, fliould willingly receive into their com-
munion fuch whom they judge believers in Chrift, who have been baptized by
immerfion j I do not wonder ar, feeing they generally judge baptifm performed
fo, to be valid ; but how Mr £. ^. can receive fuch, I cannot fee, when he
looks upon it to be no ordinance of God, p. 41. and z fuperjlitious invention, p.
23. nay, willworjhip, p. 24. There are two churches in London, which, I
have been informed, will not receive perfons of our perfuafion into their com-
munion j but whether it is, becaufe they judge our baptifm invalid, and fo wc.
not proper perfons for communion, or whether it is a prudential ftep, that their
churches may not be over-run by us, I cannot tell ; I think thofeof our perfuafion
a£l a very weak part in propofing to belong to any fuch churches, who, when they
arc in them, are too much regarded only for the fake of their fubfcriptions, arc
hut noun fuhjlantives therein, and too many like IJJachar's afs, bow down between
two burdens. But to return, Mx B.PV. has thought fit, in the clofe of this con-,
fcrence, to produce " fome few reafons for the equity and neccfiity of com-
*♦ munion with faints as faints, without making difference in judgment about
" water-baptifm, a bar unco evangelical church fcllowfiiip -," which I fhall
now confider.
ijl, " God has received them, and we fhould be followers of God as dear cbil-
" dren. We are commanded to receive one another, as Cbrifl hath received us
" Jo the glory of God." That we fhould be followers of God in all things, which
he
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 233
he has made our duty, is certain, but his, and his Son's reception of p-rlons,
is no rule for the reception of church- members. A lovercign lord may do what
he pleafes himfelf, but his fervants muft aft according to his orders : GoJ and
Chrift have received unconverted fmners, but that is no rule for churches; God
theFathcr has fo received them into his love and affections, as to fet them apart"
for himfelf, provide all bleflings of grace for them, nay, give himfelf in cove-
nant to them, fend his Son to die for them, his Spirit to convert them, and all
previous toit. Chrift alfo hath received them, fo as to become a furety for them,
take the charge both of their perfons and grace, give himfelf a ranfom for them,
and beftow his grace upon them ; for we are firft apprehended by Chrift, before
we are capable of apprehending and receiving him : Muft we therefore receive
• unconverted perfons into church-fcllowftiip, becaufe God and Chrift have re-
ceived them ? It is what God has commanded us to do, and not all that he him-
felf does, that we are to be followers of him in, or indeed can be ; befidcs, the
churches of Chrift are oftentimes obliged, according to Chrift's own rules, to
rejeft thofe whom Chrift has received, and cut them off from church-commu-
nion ; wicnefs the inccftuous perfon j fo that they are not ptrfons merely receiv-
led by Chnft, but perfons received by Chrift, fubjedting themfclves to his ordi-
nances, and to the lawsof his houfe, that we are to receive, and retain in churches.
The text \n Romans xv. 7. which fpeaks of receiving one another, as Chrift hath
received us to the glory of God, can never be underftood of the receiving of per-
fons into church-fcllowfhip. For the perfons who are cxiiorted both to receive
and be received, were members of churches already ; therefore that text only
regards the mutual love and affcdtion which they ftiould have to one another,
as brethren and church-members ; which is enforced by the ftrong love and
affciflion Chrift had to them.
2. " All faints are alike partakers of the great and fundamental privileges of
" the gofpcl." If by the great and fundamental privileges of thegofpel, he
means union toChrift, juftification by him, faith in him, and communion with
him, who denies that faints are partakers of thefc things ? Though in fome of
them, not all alike ; for fome have more faith in Chrift, and more communion
with him, than others have: But what is this argument produced for? or in-
deed, is there any argument in it .'' does he mean that therefore they ought to
partake of gofpel ordinances .'' who denies it? And we would have them par-
take of them alike too, both of Baptifm and the Lord's fupper ; it is the thing
we are pleading for.
3. "Ail believers, though in leffer things differently minded, arc in a capa-
" city to promote mutual edification in a church- ftate." But then their admit-
tance into it, and walk with it, muft be according to gofpcl order, or clfe they
arc like to be of little fervice to promote mutual edification ir. it.
Vol. II. H H 4- "It
234 THEANCIENTMODEOF
4. "it is obfcrvable that the churches for the free communion of faints, are
" the moft orderly and profperous." This obfervation is wrong, witnefs the
churches in Ncrlhamptcrfhire^ where there is fcarccly an orderly or profperous
one of that way ; they having been made a prey of, and pillaged by others, to
whofe capricious Iiumours they have been too much fubjeft.
5. "Many waters fhould not in the leaft quench love, nor fliould the floods
" drown it." This is foolifhly and impertinently applied to water-baptifm: But
what is it that fonie men cannot fee in fome texts of Scripture ?
6. "Behold how good and how pleafant it is !" I think I muft alfo make a
note of admiration too, as wondering what the man means by giving us half a
fentence ! But perhaps this is to give us a fpecimen of vihzt Jhadows of words
are, though I fuppofe he means for brethren to divell together in unity ; it Would
have been no great trouble to have exprefTcd it ; but he is willing to let us know
tiiat he has got a concife way of fpeaking and writing. For brethren to dwell
together in unity, is indeed very pleafant and delightful: But bc-^ cant'^jo ivalk,
or dwell together thus, except they are agreed!
7. " All the faints fh.^11 for ever dwell in glory together." Who denies it ?
But does it from thence follow, that they muft all dwell together on earth >
And if he means that it may be inferred from hence, that they ought to be ad-
mitted, whilft here, to church-fellowftiip, who denies it ? But I hope it mull
be in a way agreeable to gofpel order; and he ought to have firft proved, that
admifTion to church-fellowfhip without water baptifm, is according to gofpel
order. Jefus Chrift, no doubt, receives many unbaptized perfons into heaven ;
and fo he does no doubt, Rich who never partook of the Lord's fupper-, nay,
who never were in church-fellowfhip : But are thefe things to be laid afide by
us upon that account ? We are not to take our meafures of adling in Chrift's
church here below, from what he himfelf does in heaven, but from thofe rules
■which he has left us on earth to go by.
Havinor thus confidered our author's reafons, for the free and mixt commu-
nion of faints, without making water baptifm a bar to it; I fhall take the liberty
to fubjoin fonie reafons againft it, which 1 defire chiefly might be regarded and
confidered by thofe who are of the fame perfuafion with us, wnh refpeft to the
ordinance of water-baptifm. They are as follow :
1. Becaufe fuch a praflice is contrary to Chrift's commifTion, in Matt, xxviii^
19. where Chrift's orders are to baptize thofe that are taught. It is not only
without a precept of Chrift, which in matters of worftiip we fhould be careful
that we do not aft without, (for he has no where commanded to receive unbap-
tized perfons into churches) but it is alfo contrary to one which requires all be-
lievers to be baptized; and this muft be cither before they are church members
or
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 255
or after they are fo, or never. The two latter, I dire fay, will not be afTcrted,
and therefore the former is true.
2. It is contrary to the order and praftice of the primitive churches ; it is
not only without a precept, but without a. precedent : The admifiion of the
firft converts after Chrift's death, refurreftion, and afcenfion, into church fcl-
lowfhip, was after this manner. Firll, they glad'y received the word, then -jccre
baptized, and after that, added to the church, Aifts ii. 41. So the apoftle Paul
firft believed, then was baptized, and after that adhyed to join himfclf to the
difciples, ASIs ix. 18, 26. Who therefore that has any regard to a command
of Chrift, and an apoftolical pradlice, would break in upon fuch a beautiful
order as this ? I challenge any perfon, to give one fingle inftance of any one
that was ever received into thofe primitive churches without being firft bap-
tized.
3. It has a tendency to lay afide the ordinance entirely. For upon the fame
foot that perfons, who plead their baptifm in their infancy, which to us is none
at all, may be received, thofe wlio never make pretenfions to any, yea, utterly
deny watcr-baptifm, may alfo Moreover, if once it is accounted an indif-
ferent thing, that may, or may no: be done-, that it is unnecefTary and unefTcn-
tial to church-communion, to which perfons may be admitted without it, they
will lie under a temptation wholly to omit it, rather than incur the trouble,
fhame, and reproach that attend it.
4. It has a tendency to lay afide the ordinance of the Lord's-Supper, and in-
deed all others. For, fuppofe a perfon fhould come and propofe for commu-
nion, to any of thole churches who are upon this foundation, and give a fatis-
faflory account of his faith and experience to them, fo that they arc willing to
receive him ; but after all, he tells them he is differently minded from them,
with refpecl: to the ordinance of the Lord's-Supper : I am willing to walk with
you, lays he, in all other ordinances but that; and, as to that, I am very
willing to meet when you do, and with you ; to remember Chrift's dying love :
I hope I (hall be enabled to feed by faith, upon his flcfh and blood as well as
you ; but I think to cat the bread, and drink the wine, are but outward cere-
monies, and altoge.her ncedlcfs. I fiiould be glad to know, whether any of
thcfc churches would rcjeift this man ? I am lure, according to their own
principles,' they cannot. Therefore has not this a tendency to lay afide the
ordinance of the Lord's Supper ? For if it is warrantable for one man, it is
fur ten or twenty, and {o on ad infinitum. All that I can meet with, as yet,
that is objected to this, is, that the Lord's-Supper is a church-ordinance, and
cannot be difpcnfed with in fuch a cafe-, but baptifm is not, and therefore
may. But baptifm is an ordinance of Chrift, and therefore cannot be difpenfed
H H 2 with
236 THE ANCIENT MODE OF
with no more than the other : By a church-ordinance, they either mean an or-
dinance of the church's appointing •, or elle one that is performed by pcrfons
when in a church ftate. The former, I prefumc, they do not mean, bccaufe
the Lord's-Supper is not in that fenfe a church-ordinance: And if they mean
in the latter fenfe, that baptifm is not a church-ordinance, then certainly it
ouirht to be performed btrfore tht-y are in a church ftate -, which is the thing
pleaded for. When they talk of baptifm's not being cflential to falvation, who .
fays it is ? but will this tolerate the abufe, neglefl, or omifTion of it ? Is any
thing relating to divine worfh'p clTential to falvation ? but what, muft it all be
laid afide becaufe it is not ? is not this an idle way of talking ?
5. It is a rcje(fling the patlern which Chrift has given us, and a trampling upon
his legiflative power; is this doing all things according to his dircftion, when
we ftep over the firft thing, after believing, that is enjoined us? Is not this
makincr too free with his legiflative power, to alter his rules at pleafurc ? and
what elfe is it, but an attempt to joftle Chrift out of his throne ? It is no other
than an imputation of weaknefs to him, as if he did not know what was beft
for his churches toobfcrve-, and of carelcfsnefs, as if he was unconcerned whe-
ther they regarded his will or no. Let fuch remember the cafe of Nadab and
ylbihu. In matters of worlhip, God takes notice of thofe things that fcem but
fmall^ and will contend with his people upon that account. A power to difpenfe
withChrift's ordinances, was never given to any men, or fet a^ men or churches
upon earth. An ordinance of Chrift does not depend upon fo precarious a foun-
dation, as perfons having, or not having light into it : If they have not, they
muft make ufe of proper means, and wait till God gives them it.
6. We are commanded to withdraw from every brother that walks difordah ;
not only from pcrfons of an immoral converfation, but alfo from thofc who are
corrupt in doftrine, or in the adminiftration of ordinances; if this is not a dilbr-
derly walking, to live in the abufe, or negleifl and omifTion of a gofpcl ordinance,
I know not what is : We are not to fufFer fin upon a brother, but reprove hmi
for it ; bear our tcftimony againft it, left we be partakers of his guilt ; and if
we are to withdraw from iuch difordcrly pcrfons, then we ought not to receive
them.
7. This praftice makes our fcparation from thcEftablifhed church, look more
like a piece of obftinacy, than a cafe of confcience : What, fliall we boggle at
reading theCommon-prayer-book, wearing the furplice, kneeling at theLord's
fuppcr, tff. and can at once drop an ordinance of Chrift? if this is not ftraining
at gnats, and fwallowing of camels, I muft confefs myfelf miftaken.
To all this I might have added alfo, that it is contrary to the conftant and
univcrfal praftice of the churches of Chrift, in all ages of the world. To receive
an
BAPTIZING BY IMMERSION, &c. 237
an nnbaptized perfon into communion, was never once attempted among all t'le
corruptions of the church oi Rome : This principle of receiving only baptized
pcrfons into communion, was maintained by the authors of the glorious Refor-
mation from Popery, and thofe who fucceeded them. As for the prefent praftice
of our Prejbyterians and Independents, they proceed not upon the fame foot as
om Semi-Makers do. They judge our baptifm to be valid, and their own too;
and therefore promifcuoufly receive perfons -, but, according to their own prin-
ciples, will not receive one that is unbaptized. And could we look upon their
baptifm valid too, what we call mixed communion would wholly ceafe, and
confequently the controvcrfy about it be entirely at an end ; therefore the Pref-
iyterians and Independents do not maintain a free and mixt communion in the
fame fenfe, and upon the fame foundation, as fome of our perfuafion do, which
ihofe perfons would do well to confider.
It may be thought neccffary by fome, that before I conclude, I fhould make
an apology for taking notice of fuch a trifling pamphlet as this is, which l!
have been confidering. Had it not been for the importunity of fome of my
friends, as well as the vain ovations, and filly triumphs^ which thofe of a dif-
ferent perfuafion from us arc ready to make upon every thing that comes out
this way, however weak it be, I fhould never have given myfelf the trouble of
writing, nor others of reading hereof. If it fhould be afked, why I have been
fo large in confidering feveral things herein, to which a fhorter reply would,
have been fufRcient ? I anfwer. It is not bccaufe I thought the author deferved
it, but having obfcrved that the arguments and exceptions which he has licked!
up from others, have been, and flill are, received by perfons of far fuperior
judgment and learning to himfclf, and who are better verfed in this controvcrfy
than he appears to be ; it is upon that account, as well as to do juftice to the
truth I have been defending, I have taken this method. But if any fhould
think me blame-worthy, in taking notice of fome things herein, which do not
carry in them the appearance of an argument, I perfuade myfelf they will eafily
forgive me, when they confider how ready fome captious pcrfons would have
been to fay, I had pafTed over fome of his material objccflions. However^ ,
without much concerning myfelf what any one fnall fay of this performance, I.
commit it to the blefllng of God, and the confideration of every impartial;
reader.
A DEFENCE
238 ADEFENCEOFTHE
A
D E F E N C E
Of a BOOK, intitled,
THE ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING
B Y
IMMERSION, PLUNGING, or DIPPING in WATER, &c.
AGAINST
Mr Matthias Maurice's Reply, called,
Plunging into Water no Scriptural Mode of Baptizing, ^c.
CHAP. I.
Some Remarks on Mr M'i entrance to his Work
TLIAVING lately attempted to vindicate the ancient mode of baptizing, bj
immerfion, plunging, or dipping into water, againft the exceptions of an
anonymous pamphlet, intitled, The manner of baptizing with water, cleared up
from the word of God and right reafon, i^c. The author, who appears to be
Mr Matthias Maurice of Rowell in Northamptonfhire, has thought fie to reply.
He feems angry at the treatment he has met with -, but if he thought that his
name would have commanded greater refpect, why did not he put it to his
book?
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING, 239
book ? and why did he refufc to give fatisfaftion to his friends when inquired
of about the author of it ? Would he be treated as a gentleman, a fcholar, or a
chriftian ? he ought to have wrote as fuch. Who is the aggreflbr ? who gave
the firft provocation ? If I have any where exceeded the bounds of chriftianicy,
or humanity, I would readily acknowledge it upon the firft conviftion •, but
who indeed " can touch pitch, without being defiled with it ?" Three or four
pages are filled up with a whining, infinuating harangue, upon the nature of
controverfies, and the difagrecable temper and fpirit with which they are fre-
quently managed ; deGgning hereby to wipe himfelf clean, whilft he is carting
reproach upon others. I would not be an advocate for burlefk and banter in
religious controverfies -, but if he would have them banifhed from thence, why
does he make ufe of them, even in this his performance, which begins with
fuch loud exclainations againft them. As for inftance, how does he pun upon
prefumptive proofs, p. 13. and in p. 27. fpeaking of our baptizing in holes or
tijlerns, as he is plcafed to call them, " Thus, fays he, you have forfook the
" fcriptural way of baptizing with water, and have hewn out unto yourfelves
" cifterns," referring to Jer. ii. 13. befides the frequent fneers with which his
book abounds. Now if burlefk and banter, in general, ought to be laid afide,
much more punning and bantering with the words of fcripture, which are
facred and awful. Is this the man that diredls otliers to "write in the fear of God,
" having the awful Judge, and the approaching judgment in view ; " and yet
takes fuch a liberty as this .'' He fays, p. 7. " I fliall not entertain the reader
" with any remarks upon his performance, as it is ludicrous, virulent and de-
*■' faming : " Which, itfclf is a manifeft defamation, as the reader cannot but
obferve -, it being afierted without attempting to give one fingle inftance wherein
it appears to be fo. With what face can he call it ludicrous-, when he himfelf,
in the debate, has been fo wretchedly guilty that way ^ when he talks, p. 9.
of" Chrift's being under water ftill : and In p. 10. oi John's thrufting the people
" into thorns and briars, when he baptized in the wildernefs -, " as alfo his
concluding from Philip and the Eunuch's coming up out of the water, p. 19,
" that neither of them was drowned there ;" with other fuch like rambling
fluff, which he might have been afhamed to publifli to the world. Moreover,
what defamation has he been guilt)' of, in reprefenting it, as the judgment of
" fome of us " to baptize naked r" p. 22. And in the words of 2.fervant of
Chriji, as he calls him, p. 44. tells the world that we " baptize perfons in thin
*' and tranfparcnt garments j" which, in other cafes, would be accounted
down right lying. Nay even in this his laft performance, p. 44. he has the afTur-
ance to infinuate, as if wc ourfclves thought plunging to be immodcft, becaufe
we put lead at the bottom of our plunging garments ; why could not he as well
have.
240 ADEFENCEOFTHE
have argued from our making ufe of clothes themfelves ? it is (Irange that i
carefolnefs to prevent every thing that looks like immodefty, fhould be im-
proved as an evidence of it : None but a man that is ill-natured and virulent,
would ever be guilty of fuch an infinuation.
What his friends, aiRozvell, may think of his performances, I cannot tell; but
I can affure him, that thofe of his perfuafion at London think very meanly of
them; and, as the mofteffedual way to fecure the honour of their caufe, which
is endangered by fuch kind of writing as his, fay, " he is a weak man that has
" engaged in the controverfy ;" though, perhaps, fome of his admirers may
think that he is one of the mighty men oi Ifrael, who, like inoihtr Samfont
hzs fmote us hip and thigh; but if I (hould fay, that it is with much fuch an in-
ftrumcnt as he once ufcd, I know that I fliould be very gravely and feverely
reprimanded for it, my grace and good manners called in queftion, and perhaps
be pelted into the bargain, with an old mufty proverb or fentence, either in Greek
or Latin ; but I will forbear, and proceed to the confideration of his work, as he
calls it.
His firft attack, p. 8. is upon a fmall fentence of Latin, made ufe of to exprefs
the naufeous and fulfom repetition, of threadbare arguments in this controver-
fy, to which he has thought fit, to give no lefs than three feveral anfwers.
I. He fays theLatin is falfc, becaufe of an erratum oi coHumiox co5la\ which
had I obferved before the laft half fheet had been worked off, (hould have been
infertcd among the errata; whereby he would have been prevented making this
learned remark ; though had it not fallen under my notice, before he pointed it
to me, he (hould have fiad the honour of this great difcovery. He does well in-
deed to cxcufe his making fuch low obfervations, as being beneath the valt de-
fjgns he has in view. I might as well take notice of his Greek proverb, p. 25.
•where ojrjnf, is put for eifnit, 3"<^ charge it with being falfc Greek, though I
fhould rather chufe to afcribe it to the fault of the printer, than the inadvertancy
of the writer. However, he does well to let his readers know that he can write
Greek.; which they could not have come at the knowledge of, by his former
performance. But why does not he give a verfion of hisLatin andGreek fcraps,
-cfpecially feeing he writes for the benefit of the Lord's people, the Godly, and
.■poor men and u-omcn, that cannot look into Diflionaries, and confult Lexicons;
befides, all the wit therein will be loft to them, as well as others be left unac-
quainted with his happy genius for, and (kill in tranflating.
2. He fays, " the application of this fentence is falfe :" But how does it appear ?
why, becaufe at Rowell he and his people are very moderate in the affair of bap-
tifm, they feldom difcourfe of it ; when every body knows, that has read my
book, that the paragraph referred to, regards not the private converfation of
perfons
ANCIENT MODEOF BAPTIZING. 241
perfons on that Tubjeft, but the. repeated writings which have been publifhed
to the world on his fide the queflion. If the.different fentiments of his people,
aboutBaptifm, " make no mannerof difference inaffeftion, church-relation," &c.
as he fays p. 9. why does he give them any difturbance ? what could provoke
him to write after the manner he has done? He knows very well, however mif-
taken they may be about this ordinance, in his apprehenfions, yet that they
arcconfcientious in what they do; why (hould he then fnecr at them, as he does
for their praftice of plunging, and fix upon them the heavy charges of fuper-
ftition and will-worfhip? Is not this man a wife fhepherd, that will give diftur-
bance to his flock, when the (heep are ftill and quiet ?
3. He would have his reader believe, that in ufing this fcntence, I would in-
finuate, that the notions wherein they differ from us about Baptifm are poifon-
ous, when I intend no fuch thing -, nor does the proverb, as exprefTed by me,
lead to any fuch thought, but is ufed for a naufeous repetition of.things, with
which his performance, we arc confidering, very plentifully abounds. We do
not look upon miftakes about the grace of God, the perfon of Chrift, and the
perfon and operations of the Spirit, to be of a leficr nature than thole aboutBap-
tifm, as he reproachfully infinuates -, for we do with a becoming zeal and cou-
rage, oppofe fuch erroneous doflrines in thofe who are of the fame mind with
us, refpedting baptifm, as much as we do in thofe who differ from us therein.
Paoe 10. He feems to be angry with me for calling him an anonymous author ;
what (hould I have called him, fince he did not put his name to his book ? he
afks, "Who was the penman of the epiftleto the HehewsF" Very much to the
purpofe indeed ! and then brings in a fcrap of Greek out of Synejius, with whom,
however he may agree in the choice of an obfcurc life, yet will not in the affair
•f Baptifm; ior Synefius was baptized upon profefFion of his faith, and after
that made bifhop of P/^/mu/V. " Hundreds of precious trafts, he fays, have
" been publifhed without the names of their authors ;" among which, I hope,
he does not think his muft have a place, it having no authority from the fcrip-
ture, whatever clfe it may pretend to ; as I hope hereafter to make appear.
CHAP. II. '
I'he proofs for immerfion, taken from the circum/lances which attended
the Baptifm of John, Chriji, and his Apojlles, maintained : and
Mr M 's demonjlrative proofs, for pouring or fprinkling, confidercd.
THE ordinance of water-baptifm, is not only frequently inculcated in the
NewTcftament, as an ordinance that ought to be regarded; but alfo many
ioftances of perfons who have fubmitted to it, arc therein recorded, and thofe
Vol. II. I I attended
442 .. ' A DEPENCE OF THE • •
Attended with fuch circumftances, as manifeftly fhow, to unprejudiced minds,
in wiiat manner it was performed.
1. The baptifm ofChrift adminiftercd hy John deferves to be mentioned, and
confidercd firft : This was performed in the nver Jordan, Matt. iii. 6, 13. and
the circumftance of iiis coming up out of the waJer, as foon as it was done, record-
ed ver. 16. is a full dcinonftration that he was in it 5 now that he fliould go into
the river Jor,i/<j», to have water poured, orfprinlvled on him, is intolerable, and
ridiculous to fuppofe. MrM in his debate, p. 6. tells us, that "the words
" only Cgnify, that he went up from the water -," to which I replied, that the
prepofuion am fignifies out of, and is juftly rendered fo here. I gave him an
inftanceof it, which he has not thought fit to except againft; yet ftiil he fays,
" the criticifm delivers us from a neceffity of concluding, thatChrift was in the
'• water :" though it has been entirely baffled ; neither has he attempted to de-
fend it. And, becaufe I fay, that " we do not infer plunging, merely from
" Chrift's going down into, and coming up out of the water ;" therefore he
would have the argument from hence, as well as from the fame circumftances
attending the baptifm of the Eunuch, wholly laid afide ; which I do not wonder
ar, becaufe it prefles him hard. He fcems to triumph, becaufe I have not, ia
his pofuivc and dogmatical way, aflerted thofe circumftances, to be demon-
ftrativeproofsof immerfionj as though they were entirely given upas fuch; but
he is more ready to receive, than I am to give. This is a manifeft indication, I
will not fay, of a wounded caufe only, but ofa dying one, which makes him
catch at every thing to fupport himfclf under, or, free himfclf from thofc pref-
tures, which lie hard upon him. We infift upon it, that thofe proofs are de-
monftrativc, fo far as proofs from circumftances can be fo j and challenge
him to give the like in favour of pouring or fprinkling. Is it not a wretched
thing, to ufe our author's words 4 that not one text of fcripture can be produced,
which will vindicate the pra<5ljce of fprinkiirvg in baptifm ; and that among all
the inftances of the performance of the ordinance, which are recorded in fcrip-
ture.; not one fingle circumftanc-e can render it fo much as probable ?
2. We not only read of many others baptized by John, but alfo the places
which he chofc to adminifterit in, which will lead any thinking, and confidering
mind to conclude, that it was performed by immerfion : Now, one of thofe
places, where John baptized a confiderable number, and among the rcftChrift
Jefus, was the v'wcx Jordan, Matt. iii. -6. Mark i. 5, 9. the latter of which texts
Mr M. fays, p. 12. "leads us to no other thought, than that Jefus was bap-
" tized oi J ohmx Jordan; as the prepofuion #<(, he fays, is fomctimcs tran-
»' flated " though he gives us no one inftancc of it. Now in his debate, p. 7.
he fays, " that the holy Ghoft himfclf tdh us, thai nothing elfc is intended by
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 243
«* it than baptizing in Jordan ;" and yet this man takes a liberty to difFer from
him. What will he be at next ? to fuch ftraits are men driven, who oppofe
the plain words of the holy Ghofl, as he is pleafed to fay in another cafe.
Enon was another of thofe places, which John chofe to baptize in ; and the
reafon of his making choice of it was, becaufe there was much water there, John
iii. 23. which was proper and necefTary, for the baptizing of perfons by immer-
fion. MrM. fays, p. 19. *' that the holy Ghofl; does not fay that they were
*' baptized there, becaufe there was much water ; but that John was alfo bap-
*' tizing in Enon becaufe there was much water there -," but what difference is
there ? Why only between John's adminiflering the ordinance, and the perfons
to whom it was adminifl:ered. He fays, p. 21. " that I have granted that the
*' words, he means vJkn «•».«, literally denote, " many rivulets or ftreams -, "
"which is notorioufly falfe -, for I do in exprefs words utterly deny it ; and have
proved from the ufe of the phrafe in the New Teftament, and in the Septua-
■gint verfion of the Old, as well as from Nounus's paraphrafe of the text, that it
fignifies " large waters, or abundance of them : " I do alTure him, that neither
of the editions of iV^5««a/, which he has the vanity to mention, was made ufe
of by me; but if there had been any material difference in them, from what I
have made ufe of, I fuppofe he would have obferved it to me, if he has con-
fulted them •, and I would alfo inform him, that Nonnus has not always a Latin
verfion printed along with it, as he wrongly afferts.
I have confulted Calvin upon the place direfted to by him : the text fays,
that Jefus and his difcipUs came into the land of Judea -, and Calvin upon it fays,
that " he came into that part of the country which was nigh to Enon;" but
neither the text, nor Calvin upon it, fay that they were both at Enon, as our
author infinuates-, fo that from hence there appears noneceffity of concluding
that choice was made of this place for the accommodation of the large number
of people which attended, either upon the minifliry of Chrift or Jci&w ; that fo
both they and their cattle might be refrefhed, as he ridiculoufly enough fug-
geft:s. As to the account he has given of the land of Canaan, it is manifcft,
notwithflanding all his fhifts and cavils, that he did reprcfent it in general as a
land that wanted water, efpecially a great part of it ; now whatever little fpots
(for the land itfelf was not very large) might not be fo well watered, yet it is
certain, that in general it was; and is therefore called a land of trooks 0/ water,
isfc. But fince he acknowledges there was plenty of water at Enon, where John
was baptizing, which is fufficicnt for our purpofe, we need not further inquire
about the land.
3. Another remarkable inftancc of baptifm is that of the Eunuch's, in y^ils
viii. 38. which is attended with fuch circumftances, as would leave any pcrfon,
1 I 2 that
244 A DEFENCE OF THE
that is fcrioudy inquiring after truth, without any fcrupleor hefitation, in what
manner it was performed. In verfe 36 we are told, that they came unto a eer-
tain water, where the Eunuch defiring baptifm, and Philip agreeing to it, after
he had made a eonfcfllon of his faith, it is faid, verfe 38. that they went dozvft
hotb into ibe water; they firft came to it, and then went into it ; which leaves
that obfervation without any real foundation, which fuppofes that their going
down, into the water fignifies no more than the defcent which led to the river^
for they were come thither before, as appears from verfe 36. where a phrafe
is made ufe of different from this in verfe 38. Now though I had obfcrved to
our author, that it was not to, but into the water they went, to which he has
not thought fit to reply ; yet he ftill produces his impertinent inftance oi going
down to the fea injhips ; which is all that can be obtained from him, to fet afide
the force of this evidence ; which, how weak and ridiculous it is, will eafily ap-
pear to every judicious reader.
Now if pcrlbns will but diligently confjder thofe plain inftances of baptifm, ia
an humble and hearty fearch after truth, they will find that they amount to lit-
tle lefs than a full demonftration that it was performed in thofe early times of
John, Chrift, and his apoftles, by an immerfion or plunging of the whole body
under water, as has been fully acknowledged by many greatand excellentdivines.
But now let us confider Mr M's demonftrative proofs for pouring or fprinkling
water in baptifm, produced by him, p. 14.
He fays, " pouring water in baptifm, is a true rcprefentation of tlie donation
" of the Spirit; being, according to God's word, inftituted for that end "." But
the word of God no where expreffes, or gives the leaft intimation, that baptiftn
was inftituted for any fuch end •, it is true, the donation of the Spirit is fometimes
called a baptifm, and foare the fufferings of Chrift ; but do we make ufe of fuch
mediums as thefe to prove the rcprefentation of them to be the end of this ordi-
nance ? though it would with equal flrength conclude the one as the other : Be-
fides, he might as well argue, that the end of baptifm is to reprefent the paffage
of the Ifraclites through the Red fea, becaufe that is called a Baptifm alfo. But
how does pouring of water in baptifm, according to the praftice of our modern
Psdobaptifts, reprefent the donation of the Spirit, when they only let fall a few
drops of water upon the face ? But the Spirit's grace is expreffed by pouring
foods of water upon his people in Ifaiab xliv. 3. one of the texts referred to by
our author. Though I have acknowledged, and ftill do, that the ordinary do-
nation of theSpirit is fometimes expreflcd by pouring, and fometimes by fprink-
lino', yet that it was the extraordinary one which the difciples received on the
day of Pcntccoft, that is particularly called the baptifm of the Spirit and of fire,
by
; Ifai. xliv. 3. Ezek. xxxvi. 25. Matt. iii. it. i Cor. xii. IJ.
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 245
by 'John and Chrift. Now fays Mr M. p. 17. if this was by pouring, tlien you
are undone : perhaps not. But what does he tiiink will undo us? why the pro-
phecy oijoel, cited in Alls ii. 16, 17. Iiuill pour out of my fpiril upon all JleJJj.
-To which I reply, that though this extraordinary inftance of the Spirit's grace
■is exprefled, as well as the more ordinary ones are, by pouring, under the
•Old-Tcftament-difpcnfation, in allufion to thofe frequent libations, er drink-
offerings, which were then ufed ;. yet it need not feem ftrange, that when this
prophecy was nearer accomplifhing, and there was a greater difplay of divine
grace, that another word fhould be ufed which more largely exprefled the abun-
dance of it : It is no wonder that it fhould be more abundant in the exhibi-
tion than in the prophecy •, befides this text, and all others in the Old Tefta-
nient, which exprefs the Spirit's grace in this, or any other form of lancruacre
whatever, can never be looked upon as fufficient proofs of the manner in which
a New-Teftament-ordinance is to be adminiftered, which was never inftituted
with a view to reprefent it. .
2. He fays, //, that is, " pouring water in baptifm, exaftly anfwers to yoi?«'s
" baptifm : ht i2dA ihzt he baptizid with water"." But it feems, according to
him in p. 15. that the phrafe of baptizing ivitb water, regards the ftrength of
the adminiftrator's arms, wbereivitb he performs, and not the mode of baptiz-
ing ; fo that he can pretty cafily tell us wherein and wherewith a perfon may be
plunged, though he dill fays plunging ■av//?' water is an exprefllon without fenfc ;
but he cannot yet inform us how a man can be plunged in it, without being
plunged with it. I urged that in all the evangelifts the words are ic vJk-n-, "in
" water," excepting Luke \\\. 16. where the prepofition is omitted, which has
occafioned fome to think it redundant in the other Evangelifts, which I obferve
no ways hurts our fenfe and reading of the words ^ now he wonders that this
fhould make for our reading, or be of any ufe to us -, when all that I obferve
is, that it does not make againft us •, if it does, let him make it appear. John.
baptized ia water, perfons were baptized by him in the river Jordan^ and not
with it.
3. Another.demonftrative proof of "pouring water in baptifm, is, that it is
*• cxaftly agreeable to the fignification of the word, as the Lord gives it to us
" in thcNcwTeftament '." Which place I fhall more fully confider hereafter,
and make it appear, that it is there to be undcrftood in the fenfe of dipping or.
plunging.
4. His laft proof is, " that it direftly anfwers the promife of what Chrift
*' IBould do, Ifaiah liii. 15. fo Jhall be fprinkle many nations;" to this text he
fays, p. 43.. the commiflion \n Matthew y.X'fYn. 19. refers, which if it does,
though:
* Lnkeiii. i5. * i Gor. x. 21
246 ■ A D E F E N C E OF THE 'A
though I cannot fee it can without a very large ftretch, it mufl: be only in that
part of it which concerns the teaching of the Gentiles by the miniftry of the
apoftles, and not that which refpedts the baptizing of them ; for the word here
rendered _/^nH/t/if, is mni V^V expreffive oi /peaking^ as Kimchi on the place ob-
fcrvcs } and the meaning is, that Chrift (hall fpcak to the Gentiles in the mi-
■niftry of the gofpel by the apoftles, with lb much power, majeftiy, and autho-
rity, thit Kings themselves Jhalljhut their mouths at him; that is, fhall filently
fubmit to the fcepter of his grace, and to the dodrines of his gofpel •, for that
which had not been told them, Jhall they fee ; and that which they had not heard^
Jhall they confider. Moreover, who, in the world, could ever imagine, that
the ordinance of water baptifm, with the mode of its adminiftration, fhould
be intended here ? a man muft have his imagination prodigioufly heated indeed,
and his mind captivated with a mere jingle of words, that can look upon fuch
•proofs as thefe, fetcht out of the Old Tcftament, as demonftrative ones of the
true mode of baptizing under the New. Thus we have had a tajle, as he calls
ir, of his demonflralions of pouring or fprinklmg water in baptifm.
C H A P. III.
A vindication of Erafmus, and of his verfion of A6ts x. 47.
' I 'HE author of the debate in p. 22. urges the impropriety of Peter's fpeech
in Cornelius's houfe, when he talked of forbidding water in baptifm, if
plunging was the right mode of its adminiftration ; to which I replied, that if
there was any impropriety in the text, it was not to be charged, cither upon the
words or fcnfe of the holy Ghoft, but upon our tranflation ; and urged, that the
word water (hould be put in conftruftion with the word to be baptized, and not
with the v/ord forbid, and the whole text be rendered thus. Can any man forbid
that thefe fhould be baptized in water, which have received the holy Ghojl as well
as we ? and produced the teftimony oi Erafmus to confirm ir. Now let us
attend to Mr JVf's animadverfions upon it. And,
I. Within the compafs of four or five lines, he tells two palpable and noto-
rious untruths ; for firft, he affirms that I fa^^ that the words in A51s x. 47. are
hot good fenfe, when it is he that infinuates an impropriety in Peters manner of
fpeaking, fuppofing plunging to be the mode of baptifm ; what I fay, is, that
" //there is any impropriety in it, it is not to be charged upon the words or
" fenfe of the holy Ghoft, but upon our tranflation -," and yet he would have it,
that I afTcrt that the words are not good fenfe ■, where do I fay fo ? It is true,
I think the words are better rendered according to Erafmus' s verfion; and, for
what
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 247
what I can yet fee to the contrary, I fhall abide by it. ' Agaia, he fays, that I
think there is fomcthing wanting in the original. "With what face can he fay fo ?
Or have I attempted a fupplement to any part of it ? How unfair is this ? Yet
this is the man that complains of rank injuftice, wrefting of words and wrack-
ing of fentences in polemical writings. He fays, he fears God ; I hope he does ;
but he has given but very little evidence of it, in his management of this con-
troverfy.
2. He next falls foul upon Erafmus, calling him oldErafmus-, and reprefents
him as difapproved of by the learned ; when almoft every body knows how
much the learned world owes ^o that great man, and what deference is always paid
to him ; but why old Erafmus, and great Beza ? Not that I would go about to
diminifh the praife of Beza, yet I cannot but be of opinion, that to fet Erafmus
upon a level with him, in refped of learning, can be no leflening of him -...but
it feems to me, that the reafon of thofe different epithets which Mr M. has
given to thofe excellent men, is only becaufc the verfion of the one removes the
foundation of his impertinent cavil, and the note of the other, as he imagines,
iiscurcs it to him.
3. He proceeds, in the next place, to find fault with my tranflation of
Erafinns\ verfion ; but if he had had that candour which he would have the
world believe he fliews in the management of this controverfy, he would have
cafily overlooked this, which he thinks is fo much blame-worthy ; cfpecially
when he could not but obfcrve, that in the very fame page, this text is rendered
according to the tranfpofuion of £rj/w;/j, without the negative particle, which
hurts the fenfe : fo that he might cafily have perceived that this did not arife
Irom a want of knowledge in tranflating, but from an inadvertency in wriiino-.
4- As to what Beza fays of this trajcdion, that it is dura oc plane infokns ; I
fhail only fay cum face tanli viri, that the trajeflions in fcripture, which he him-
felf approves of, for which fee his notes on John v-iii. 25. and Ails i. 2. are not
iruM-e cafy or more ufual.
5. The fenfe of the text requires fuch a tranfpofition of the words ; for the
meaning is not, as if Peter thought that any perfon would go about to hinder
xhem of water convenient for the adminiftrationof the ordinance of baptifm ;
for fuch a fenfe of the words would be trifling and jejune, and y^t this ogr ver-
fion feems to incline to ; but that there might be fome who would be difpleafec^
with, and to their utmofl oppofe, the baptizing of thofe Gentiles. Hence Pf/^r
fays, JVbo can forbid that ibefe fbould be baptized in water? Therefore, and what
•will further confirm this fenfe and reading of the words, he commands them
in the next verfe to be baptized : he does not order water to be brought untp
them, but that they be baptized in the name of the Lord. To all which,
6. MJghi^
248 ADEFENCEOFTHE
6. Might be addrd, thac this tranfpofuion of the words has not its confirma-
tion only from the authority, judgment and learning of JEr<j/OT«j, which is not
inconfiderable, but alfo from others ; for, as Cornelius a Lapide has obfervcd,
both the Tjgurine verfion, and that of Pagnine's, read the words the fame way :
fo that however Erafmus may be difapproved of by the learned, as our author
aflcrts, yet it fcems this verfion is regarded by them.
CHAP. IV,
^he end of the injlitutlon of the ordinance of Baptifm, confidered.
AS the ordinance of water- baptifm derives its authority from Chrift, fo it
was inftitutcd by him for fome end or other, which may make for his
own glory, as well as for the comfort, edification, and incrcafe of faith in his
people-, and what that end is, we (hall now inquire.
Mr M. p. 33. fays, " the manifeft. end of it is a reprefentation of the dona-
" tion of the Spirit to us in the new covenant'." As for the former of thefe
proofs, I need only fay, that an OldTeftament-text can never be a proof or
evidence of what is the end of the inftitution of aNew-Teftament-ordinance :
Befidcs, if it could be thought to have any reference to the affair of Baptifm,
it would only regard the mode, and not the end of this ordinance, for which
iie has cited it already, and to what purpofe has been alfo fhown. As for the
two latter texts here produced by him, they only inform us, that the Spirit's
grace is called a Baptifmy and fo are the fufferings of Chrift, Luke xii. 50. the
reprefentation of which he will not own to be the end of baptifm, though every
body will fee that this may be as ftrongly concluded from hence, as what he con-
tends for •, befides, the martyrdom of the faints is called a Baptifm, Matt. xx. 23.
as alfo the pafiage of the Ifraelites through the Red fea, i Cor. x. 2. yet no body
ever thought that the defign of baptifm was to reprefent either of thefe. Now
thefe are what he calls the plain proofs of the manifeft end of baptifm, without
any force upon fcripture. What fort of readers does Mr M. expcfl to have,
that win be impofcd upon by fuch proofs as thefe ? But there are manifeft
proofs which fully difcover to us, that the end of this ordinance is to reprefent
the fufferings, death, burial, and refurrcflion of Chrift Jefus.
Chrift has particularly rnftitutcd two ordinances, Baptifm and the Lord's-
Supper, to be obfervcd by his people; and the end of the one is no lefs evident
than that of the other. It is faid of the Lord's-Supper, As often as ye eat this
iread, and drink this cup, ye do fheiv the Lord's death till be come*. It is alfo
faid
« Ifai xliv. 3. Matt. iii. 11. i Cor. xii. 13. • * i Cor. xi. 26.
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 249
fiid of Baptifm, That fo many of us, as were baptized into Chrijl, were baptized into
bis death '. Did Chrift fay in the celebration of the Ordinance of the Supper ?
This /J my blood of the New T eft amen t, which is Jljcd for many for the remijfion of
Jins\ His difciples in his name have alfo faid, Repent and be baptized every
one of ycu^ in the name of Jefus Chrift, for the remiffton offtns ^ : that is, that their
faith in that ordinance might be led to the blood of Chrifl, by which remifTion
of fins was procured -, to the grave of Chrilt, where they wcre left •, and to a ri-
fen Saviour, where they have a full difcharge from them ; all which, in a very
lively manner, is reprefented in this ordinance of baptifm. There are many
other texts, befides thefe, which would lead any truly ferious and inquirin<-r
mind to obferve this to be the true end of baptifm, as Rem. vi. 4. Ccl. ii. 12.
1 Peter iii. 21.1 Cor. xv. 29. but becaufe thofc texts are excepted aaainft by
MrM.it will be proper more particularly to confider them, and what he is
pleafed to advance againft the commonly received fenfe ot them.
17?, '■'■Rom. vi. 4. Ccl. ii. 12. he fays, are not to be underltood of water-bap-
" tifm, but of the baptifm of Chrill's fufferings, in which his people were con-
" fidcred in him, and with him, as their head and reprcfcntative " I firmly
believe the doftrine of Chrill's being a common head, reprcfcntative, and
furety of all the elt(ft of God ; for which reafon, in my reply, I acknowledged
his fenfe of tliofe texts to be agreeable to the analogy of faith •, on the account
of v.hich he triumphs, as if it fl^one with an unconquerable evidence, as his expref-
fion is, p. 34. when I never owned rt to be the true fenfe of the words -, for a
fcnfe may be given of a text that is agreeable to the aiialogy of faith, which is
foreign enough to the mind of the holy Ghoft therein -, as for inftance, if of
Gen. i 1. In the beginning Cod created the heaven and the earth; a man fhould give
iuch a fcnfe as this, that God chofe a certain number of men in Chrid unto fal-
vation, before he created the heaven and the earth: This is a fcnfe that is a^ree-
ahle enough to the analogy of faith, but none will fay that it is the fcnfe of the
text. But let us a little confider the expofition of thofe texts, fo much boafted
of, and fee how well it will bear. As for Rom. vi: 4. it docs not fay, that we
are buried with him in baptifm, but by baptifm into death: So that according toMr
AVi expofition, it runs thus, " tFe are buried with Chrifi: reprefentatively in
"" t!>e grave, by his fufferings on the crofs, into that death he there fubmit-
" ted to i" in which, how oddly things bang together, every judicious reader
will obfcrvee. As to Col. ii. 12. though we are faid to be buried with him in bap-
tijm, yet it is added, therein alfo you are rifen with him ; but how we can be
faid to be rifen with him in the baptifm of his fufferings, will, I believe, not-bc
very eafy to account for. It is better therefore to underfiand thofe texts, in the
more generally received fenfe both of ancient and modern divines, wiio unani-
VoL. II. K K moufly
• Rom. vi. 3. ' Matt. ixvi. 28. • A ">s ii. 33.
250 A D E F E N C E O F T H E
mouny interpret them of water- baptifm ; in which the death, burial, and refur-
rcdion ofChrift are very evidently reprefcnted, when performed by immerfion.
idly. He fays, i Pet. iii. 2 i. is not meant of water- baptifm, but of the blood
of Chrift fprinkled upon the confcience. That the blood ofChrift, as fprinkled
upon a believtr's confcience, is ever called a Baptifm, I never yet met with ;
and, I will venture to fay, can never be proved. Befides, the baptifm xhzx.Peter
fpeaks of was a figure, a.TvTjv.y, " an antitype" of Nonh's ark, and of the deli-
verance of him and his family by water; which was a kind of refurreftion from
the dead, and did well prefigure our falvation by the refurreftion of Chrift, repre-
fented to us in the ordinance of water- baptifm.
2dly, The fenfe of i Cor. xv. 29. given by me, is alfo objefted againft by Mr
M. p. 32. and another fubftitutedin its room. Let the readers of the contro-
verfy between us judge which is moft agreeable. The text is difficult, and has
employed the thoughts and pens of the moft able and learned men in all ages :
Both the fenfes have their defenders. I fhall only refer the reader to the learned
notes of S\r Norton KnatchbuH, on r Peter iii. 21. where both thofe texts are
confidered by him; and where he has fufficiently proved, from fcripture, fathers,
fclioolmen, and modern interpreters, that the ordinance of baptifm -is a true
figure, and jufl reprefcntaiion of the rcfurreftion ofChrift, and of ours by him,
CHAP. V.
A confulcration of the Jignifcation of the Greek loord ^t-rli^a, and parti-
cularly the ife of it in Mark vii.4. Luke xi. 38. Heb. ix. 10.
T^HAT the proper, primary, common, and natural fenfe of the Greek word
Ptf-rl/^a, is to dip Qx plunge, has been acknowledged by the greateft mafters
of that language ; and it is a rule which {hould be carefully attended to, that
the firft, natural, and common fenfe of a word ought to be ufed in the inter-
pretation of fcripture, unlefs fome very good reafon can be given why it fhouid
be ufed in a remote, improper, and confequential one. Now though the na-
ture, end, and circumftances of the ordinance of Baptifm, manifeftly fhew that
immerfion is the right mode of adminiftering it, and do abundantly confirm
the fenfe of the Greek word, diredling us to the proper and primary ufc thereof;
yet fome have endeavoured to confine it to a more low and remote fenfe, but
none have attempted to do it with more pofitivenefs and confidence than our
author. But what method docs he take to efFed it, and how does he fucceed
therein ?
Why
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 251
Why, 17?, he will exclude all the teftimonies of the ufe of the word among
Greek authors uninfpired, efpecialiy Heathens ; which is unreafonable : If
cur tranflators had confined themfclves to this rule, they would have made
but poor work m their verfion of fome pare of the Bible, where a word is
but once ufcd, or at leaft but very rarely in that fenfe in which it is to be
taken. Now if a controverfy concerning the ufe of a Greek word in fcriprure
arifes, which cannot be determined by it, though I do not fay this is the cafe in
hand, what methods mud be taken ? Will it not be very proper to confulc
Greek authors, either Chrillian or Heatlicn, and produce their teftimonies,
efpecialiy the latter ? who cannot be fufpccfled of perverting the ufe of a word,
having never been concerned in our religious controverfies. But it feems, if
we will make ufe of them, we muil be laid under an obligation to prove that
" they were delivered under the immediate infpiration of the holy Ghoft:" was
ever fuch an unrealonablc demand made in this world before .'' Or was the in-
fpiration of the holy Spirit ever thought necedary to fix and determine the
Icnfe of a word ? But I am willing to lay afide thofe tcltiinonics in this con-
troverfy. And,
2J!y, Be confined, as he would have me, to the ufe of the word in the New
Tellament -, but then 1 nniR-, it leems, be confined to tne uic ot it, as applied
to tlie ordinance of baptifm, which is alfo unreafonable : He fays tlie word,
wiicnevcr applied to the ordinance, fignifies /'c.vr/w^ or y/;r/V/^/;>^ only ; which
is a Hiamcful begging of the queftion -, and if I fhoulJ fay it only fjgnifics
dipving or plunging, whenever applied to it, how mult the controverly be
decided ? Muft we not refer the decifion of it to other texts of fcripture ? It
is true, the circumftanccs, which attend the adminiftration of the ordinance
are futlicient to determine the true fenfe of the word, and 1 am willing to put it
upon that ilfue ; but I know he will not (land to it : Befides, why has he him-
fclf brought other texts of fcripture into the controverfy, where the ordinance
ot baptilm is not concerned.'' z.s Mark vii. 4. Hcb. ix. 10. 1 Ccr.x.z as alio
the Septuagint verfion in Daniel iv. 33. why may not others take the fame
liberty.^ And what miferable replies has he made to my inftances out of the
latter.^ that in 2 Kings v. 14. he fays, difcovers that they, that is, the Septuagint,
undcrdood no more by it than, khu. No more thin khu\ Is not that enough ? Is
not A»» a word that includes in it all kinds of wadiing, efpecialiy bathing of the
w hole body ; and is always uli^d by the Septuagint to exprcfs the Jewifh bathings,
which were always performed by immerfion ; and that Naaman undcrftood the
prophet of fuch a kind of wafhing, is manifeft from his ufe of it-, hz dipped
himfelf in Jordan, ^^tw t« fufot Ea/cb/s, according to ibe -uscrd of Elifoa.
K K 2
As
252 ADEFENCEOFTHE
As for the other in Ifai. xxi. 4. he fays, " it is no wonder they made ufe of
*•• the word, for they knew very well that fin procures ftiowers of divine dif-
" pleafure to be poured upon a perfon, people, and nation." I defire the next
time he pretends to baptize an infant, that he would />c«ryZ'(7a;frj of water upon
it, if he thinks proper, according to this fenfe of the word ^A-rli^a, which
he allows of. But however, though thofc teftimonies mufl: be laid afide, yet,
j^/y, I hope Lexicons may be made ufe of to direft us in the fenfe of the
word, if it is only as it is ufed in the New Teftament. Yes, that will be
allowed of-, for Mr M. himfelf confults Lexicons, though he does well to let
us know fo ; for one would have thought, by his pofitivenefs, that he had
never looked into one in all his life. "Well, but what do the Lexicons fay ?
How do they render the word fitt-jrli^a ? Why by mergo, immergo, to dip or
plunge into; and this they give, as the firfl, and primary fenfe of the word; but
do they make ufe of no other words to exprels it by ? Yes, they alfo ufe alluo^
lavo, to wafi; and they mean fuch a wafhing as is by dipping, but MrM. p. 38.
afks, where do they tell us fo ? I anfwer in their Lexicons. Let Scapula be
confuUed, who thus renders the word jia.'xji^o, mergofeu immergc : Ut qute tingen-
di aiil ahluendi gratia aq^ua immergimus. But,
^hly. Let us now conlider thofe texts where the word is ufed in the New
Teftament; I am willing to be confined to thofe which MrM. himfelf has fixed
upon, and we will begin,
F/r/?, With Mark vii. 4. and when they come from the market, except they ivafh
or baptize {themfelves) they eat not •, which may be underftood either,
1. Of the things they bought in the market, which they did not eat until they
were wafhcd : Thus the Syriac verfion reads the words -, and what they buy in
the market, unlefs it be wajhed, they eat not : The fame way read all the oriental
vcrfions, the /irabic, Ethiopic, indPerJic. Now this muft be underftood of thofe
things that may be, and are proper to be wa(hed, as herbs, tff. . And nobody
will queftion, but that the manner of the wafhing thcfc wasby putting them into
■water. Bur,
2. If the words defign the wafhing of perfons, they mufl: be underftood, ei-
ther of the wafhing of their whole bodies, or elfe of fome part only^ as their
hands or feet: It feems moft: likely, that the wafhing of the whole body is in-
tended, as Grotius", Vatablus, Drufius\ and others think ; becaufe wafhing of
hands is mentioned in the preceding verfe. Befidcs, to underfliand it thus, bet-
ter exprefTes the outward, affefted fanftity of the more fuperftitious part of the
people. All the Jews wafhed their hands and feet before eating-, but thofe
who pretended to a greater degree of holinefs, wafhed their whole bodies, ef-
pecially
» Inloc. \ De tribus Sefl. Jud. lib. 2. c. 15.
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 253
pecially when they came from a market; and of this total ablution of the body
\sLuke xi. 38. to be underftood. And here I cannot forbear mentioning a paflage
of the ^jczt Scaliger^ to this purpofe. "The more fuperftitious part of thejews,
" fays he, not only wafhed their feet, but their whole body. Hence they w>fre
" ca.\\<:dHemerobaptiJls, who every day wafhed their bodies before they fat down
" to food ; wherefore, thePharifee, which had invited Jefus to dine with him,
" wondered that he fat down to meat before he had wafhed his vshole body,
" Luke xi. But thofe that were more free from fuperftition, were contented
" with wafliing of their feet, inflead of that univerfal immerfion. Witnefs the
" Lord himfclf, who being entertained at dinner by another Pharifee, objefted
" to him, when he was fat down to meat, that he had given him no water for
♦' his feet, Luke vii,"
3. If, by this wafliing, we underftand only the wafhing of their hands when
they came from market; then it will be proper to inquire in what manner this
was performed : And it muft be obferved, that whatever was the manner which
they ufcd, it was not ufcd as a national cuftom, or as it was accordino- to the
word of God ; but what was moft agreeable to the traditions of the elders, as is
manifcft from the text itfelf. Now this tradition is delivered in their Mifna in
thcfe words ; "They waflied their hands before they eat common food, by an
" elevation of them; but before they eat the tithes, the offering, and the holy
" flcfli, they wafhed by immerfion '." It is reported in the fame tradl, that Jo-
hanan Ben Gud-Gada, who, they fay, was one of the moft religious in the priefl-
hood, "always eat his common food after the manner of purification for eatino-
" of the holy flefh ;" that is, he always ufed immerfion before eating; and it
is highly reafonable to fuppofe, that the Pharifees, cfpecially the more fuper-
ftitious part, who pretended to a greater ftriftnefs in religion than others, ufed !
the fame method. It defervcs alfo to be remarked, that this tradition, which
fome of the Jews have been fo tenacious of, that they would rather die that*
break it, is by them faid to be founded on Lev. xv. i i. and hath not rinfed his
hands in water ; where the Hebrew word rjto'i' is ufcd, which fignifies a wafhing '
by immerfion : and io Buxtorf renders it. Moreover, in the abovefaid Mryw^j " i
we !
I
^ Judzi vero fuperftitiofiores non pedes tantum, fed i corpus totum intlngebant. Hinc nftijjfaT- '
• Tiro" didli, qui quotidie, ante difcubiiuro, corpus intingebant. Quare Pharifius ille, qui (efum
ad CG:nam invitaverat, mirabatur eum, antequam totum corpus abluifset, difcubuifTe : oti u v^uTot
•Cawlii&ii crjj Tw ixfira. Luc. xi. Puriores vero a fuperftitionc, pro univerfali il!a @aim^N,
contenti crant ir»JoFi7r1f«, hoc eft, pedilavio. Teftis dominus ipfe, qui alii Pharifio, a quo cccna
cxceptus fuerat, objicit, fibi difcubituro aquam ad pedes datam non fuiHe. Luc. vii, vou^ in -rai
«-»Ja! pa «« tiuKa^. Scaliger de Eraend. Temp. lib. vi. p. 571.
' Trad. Chagigah, c. J. J, 5.
" Traft. Yadaim. c. i. J. 1—3. &c. ii. S- 3.
254 A DEFENCE OF THE
we are told many things concerning this tradition, as the quantity and quality
of the water they ufed, the veflels they wafhed in, as well as how far this walliing
reached, which was p-)3 UN by which they meant, either the back of tke hand
or the zvrijl, or clfe the elbow, as Thecphyla^I obf;rves on Mark vii. 3. who in
this is foliowed by Capellus ". Now fome one of theie, the word Tvjyym, intends,
which we tranflate oft. As to their manner of wafhing, ic was cither by taking
water in one hand and pouring it upon the other, and then lifting it up % tiiat
the water might run down to the aforefaid parts, that fo it might not return and
defile them -, or elfe it was performed by an immerfion of them into water; which
latter was accounted the moft effectual way, and ufed by the more fuperfticioiis
part of the Jews. Now thole who contend the mort for a wafhing of hands,
and not the whole body, as Pocock ' and Lightfcot, yet frankly acknowledge that
it mult be underftood of wafhing of them by immerfion., Ligbtfoct's words are
thefe, "The Jews ufed, fays he, an' n'7^:DJ " a wafhing of hands '';" that is, by
" lifting them up in the manner before defcribed; and on' J-i'?'ni2 an imincrfion
" of the hands ; and the word vt-iatTxit ufed by ourEvangelift, feems to anlwer
" to the former, and /54Tl-(a)«r7B/, to the latter." So that from the whole, fup-
pofe wafliingof hands is here intended-, yet the fenfe of thcGreek word, ^atti^u
contended for, is neverthelei's cftcftually fccured :' Nor need we be much con-
cerned at 2 Kings iii. 1 1. being thrown in our way by Mr M. p. 4 i. For,
1. The text does not fay that Elifha poured water upon the hands oi Elijah,
to wafh his hands withal : and if he aflvS what^did he then do it for-, fuppofc I
fhould anfwer, I cannot tell, how will he help himfelf? it lies upon him to
prove that he did it for that end, which he will not find very ealy to do.
2. Some of the Jewith writers ' think, that wafiiing of hands, is not intended,
but fome very great miracle, which followed upon Elifha'% pouring water on
Elijah's, hands, and is therefore mentioned as a thing known, and what would
ferve to recommpd him to the kings oijudab, Ij'rael, znd Edom. But taken
in the other fenfe, the recommendation would be but very inconfidcrable ; be-
fides, they were now in a very great (trait for water, ver. 9. and they might
cxpeft, from his former performance, fome miracle would.be now wrought by
him for their relief, as was ver. 17, 20. But,
3. Suppofe
" Spicileg. in Mar vii. 3.
0 Buxtorf. Synag.Jud. c. 8.^- Lex. Talm. p. 1335. Pocock ror. mifc. p. 37;, 376, 393.
Scaliger. Elenchus TriKxris. Serrar. c. 7. ' Pocock. not. mifc. p. 597, 39?.
1 Adhibuetunt Judael a*T nV^i lotionem manuum, & DH' J~\b^2'i2 immerfioncm manoum
& videtur vocabulum ti-^uAxi, apudEfangeiillam noflram, priori rcfpondcre, & pam^utTai pofte-
ilori. Lightfoot. Hor. Heb. in Mar. vii. 4.
' V.d. R. David Kitr.chi & R. Sol. Jarchi in loc.
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 255
3. Suppofe wafhing of hands is intended, and that this phrafe is expretTive
of EliJJja's being Elijah's, miniftering fervant, and that it was his iifual method
to wadi his matter's hands by pouring water upon them-, it makes nothing
aginft the fenfe of the word in Mark vii. 4. fince that regards the fuperftitious
walhing of hands, as has been obferved, which was performed by an immer-
fion of [hem, and is there juftly reprehended by our Lord.
Secondly, The other text produced by Mr M. in p. 41. is Heb. ix. 10. where
the apoftic fpeaks of divers -jonfoings or baptiftns, which I have aderted to be
performed always by bathing or dipping, and never by pouring or fprinkling.
And I ftili abide by my aflertion, the inftances produced by him being infuf-
ficient to difprove it
1. He mentions //f3. ix. 19. where the aportle fpeaks of M^/fj's fprinkling
the book and people with blood ; but does he fay that they were wafhed there-
with ? or was ever this inftance of fprinkling reckoned among the ceremonial
ablutions ? When only a few drops of blood or water are fprinkled upon per-
fons or things, can they be faid, in any jufl: propriety of fpeech, to be wafhed
therewith ?
2. He inftances in Exodus x<i)f. 4. which fpeaks of the wafhing oi Aaron and
his fons, but not a word either of fprinkling or pouring, fo that it makes no-
thing for his purpofe : Befides, the Septuagint here ufc the word a««, by which
they always exprefs the Jewifh bathings, which were performed by a total im-
mcrfion of the body in water.
3. His next inftance \% Numbers \m. 6, 7. Take the Levites from among the
children of Ifracl, and cleanfe them ; and thus fjaU thou do unto them to cleanfe
them ; fprinkle vsaler of purifying upon them. But why did not he read on ? and
let them flmve all their f.efi.\ and is: afh their clothes, and fo make themfelves clean;
that is, by bathing their whole bodies, which was done, as the Targum of
Jonathan upon the place fays, in forty meafures of zvater. Now, it was thus the
Levites were wafhed. Sprinkling the water of purification, was indeed a cere-
mony ufed preparatory to this bathing, but was itfelf no part of it, as will
more fully appear from,
4, His other inftance in Numbers xix. 18. where it is faid, that tents, vefjels,
ox per fons, that touched a bone, or one flain, or one dead, or a grave, were to be
fprinkled; but why did not he tranfcribe the 19"' verfe? where his readers would
have been informed, that as this fprinkling was to be done on the third and
fevcnth days, fo after that, on the feventh day, the unclean perfon was lo purify
himfelf, and wafh his clothes, and bathe himfelf in ti:ater : So that all thofe afper-
fions before, were but fo many preparations to the general wafhing or bathing
himfelf all over in water, on the feventh day. I fliall therefore ftili abide by
it.
256 • A DEFENCE OF THE
it, that none of the ceremonial wafhings were performed by fprinklinof ; and
indeed, to talk of wafhing by fprinkling, deferves rather to be laughed ar,
than to have a fcrious anfwer ; it being no more reconcilable to good fenfe,
than it is to the juft propriety of language, or univerfal cuftoms of nations.
From the whole it appears, that Maimonides was not miftaken in his obferva-
tion ; and that the word in Hebrews ix. lo. properly fignifies bathings or dip-
pings. And now,
Thirdly, We are come, as he fays, to that great text, i Cor. x. 2. which he
direfls to, as the poor man and woman's Lexicon ; and it is pity but that they
fhould know how to make ufe of it. Here the children oi Ifrael are faid to be
baptized in the cloud, and in the fea. But fince the word is here ufed in a figu-
rative fenfe, it is not very fair in our antagonills 10 urge us with it, nor, in-
deed, -any other place where it is fo ufed ; yet we are not afraid of engaging
with them in the confideration of thofe places, and particularly this; wherein
there is enough to juftify the apoftle in the ufe of the word, and at the fame
time fecure its fenfe on our fide. When we confider, that the cloud in which
they are faid to be baptized, pafiied over them, fo that they were covered there-
with; and if it let down, at the fame time, a fhower of rain upon them, it makes
it dill look more like a baptifm ; which alfo is aptly refembled by their pafTage
through the fea, the waters (landing upon both fides, fo that they feemed to be
buried in them. Which things being confidered, juftifies the apoftle, I fay,
in the ufe of the word, which ftricSlIy and properly fignifies dipping or plunging.
Words, when ufed in a figurative fenfe, though what is exprelTed by them is
not literally true ; yet the literal fenfe is not loft thereby : For inftance, in tlie
word dip. When a perfon has been in a large fhower of rain, fo that his clothes
and body are exceeding wet, we often fay of fuch an one, he is finely dipt ; the
meaning of which is, that he is as wet as if he had been dipt all over in a brook
or river. So likewife of a perfon that has juft looked into a book, controverfy,
art, or fcience ; we fay, that he has juft dipt into it; whereby we mean, that he
has arrived but to a fmall acquaintance with, or knowledge in thofe things. Now
would it not be a vain thing for a man, from hence, to attempt to prove, that
the word dip is not to be underftood in its native, common, and liicral fcnfr, in
which we moftly ufe it. This obfervation will ferve to vindicate my way of ac-
counting for the ufe of the word in the prefent text, as well as for g«V]4>, \nDan.
iv. 33. In fine, from the whole, we may well conclude that Baptilm ought to
be performed by immerfion, plunging, or dipping in water, according to the
pracftice of John, Chrift, and his apofties, the nature and end of the ordinance,
and the true and native fignification of the word ; which mode of baptizing
has been ufed in all ages of the world, and 1 doubt not but will be, notwith-
ftanding all oppofition made againft it.
As
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 257
As to the endangering of health by immerfion, 1 referred the reader to Sir
JohnFloyer'sHiJlory of Cold-bathing. h\x M. infinuates thati have mirreprefenred
him. I only intimate to the reader, that Sir John gives a relation of feveral
cures performed by cold-bathing : And I could cafily fill up feveral pages with
a catalogue of difeafes for which he fays it is ufcful, toj^ether with inftanccs of
cures performed by it. He afks, "Why I do not infor.m my reader ni how
" many cafes Sir J. F. and Dr B. thought cold-bathing inconvenient and dan-
" gerous r" I could, indeed, foon acquaint the reader, ihzx. S'wJ cbn FIcyer
thought it not proper to be ufed when perfons were hot and fweating, nor after
exceflive eating or drinking -, as alfo, that they fhould not flay in it too long,
until they were chilled -, and that if any danger came by it, it was ufually in
fuch cafes : But this will do his caufe no fervicc, nor afFefb ours. I could alfo
have told my reader, that he thinks cold-bathing to be ufcful in Confumptions,
Catarrhs, Is^c. the cafes which Mr M. inftances in ; who cites Dr Cbeyne'z EJfay
on Health, p. 108. where the Do(ftor fays, " that Cold-bathing fhould never be
" ufed under a fit of a chronical diftcmper, with a quick pulfe, or with a head-
" ach, or by thofe that have weak lungs" But why does he not acquaint his
reader that the Doftor in the very fame paragraph, fays, " that cold-bathing
" is of great advantage to health — It promotes perfpiration, enlarges the circu-
" lation, and prevents the danger of catching cold." So that every body will
eafily fee, as all experience teflifics, that there is no force in the argument, taken
from the endangering of health by immerfion. By this time the reader will be
capable of judging whether MrGill is fairly anfu-ercd or no, as Mr M. has ex-
prcfl^ed in his title-page ; though it would have been as well to have left it for
another to have made the remark, and fo took the advice of the wife man. Let
another praife thee, and not thine own mouth; a fir anger, and not thine own lips ' :
But before I conclude, I fhall take liberty to afk Mr.V/. four or five queftions.
I. Why docs he not tell the world who that fervant of Chrifl: is, whofe words
he ufcs ; he fays, I am miftaken in faying that they are the words of Ruffen ;
but I fiill aver, that they are ufed by him -, but whether RiiJ/'en took them from
his fervant of Chrifl, or his fervant of Chrift -from Ruffcn, I cannot tell •, for
that two men, without the knowledge of one another's words, fhould fall into
ihc fame odd, and aukward way of fpcaking, and commit the very fame blun-
ders, is not reafonable to fuppofc ; but however, let hiin be who he will,
Mr Stennetl's reply to Ruffen, which I have tranfcribed, fully dctcds the fin
and folly of thofe indecent exprefilons. As to what Mry^/. fays, p. 44. '< that
" he is very willing that both Siennett and Rufjhi fliould lie dormant;" I be-
VoL. II. L L jieve
• Proverbs xxvii. 2.
258 A D E F E N C E O F T H E
lieve it, for as the latter will never be of any fervice to his caufe, fo the former
would give a confiderable blow to it, was his book more diligently perufed.
2. What does he mean by the word of the Lord, he fo often mentions, when
fpeaking of the fenfe of the Greek word ? Does he mean the original text of
the New Teftament ? That ufes a word in the account it gives of this ordi-
nance, which, as has been made appear, always fignifies to dip or plunge. Or,
by the word of the Lordy does he mean our trandation ; which ufes the word
baptize, thereby leiving the fenfe of the Greek word undetermined, had not the
circumdances, attendina the accounts we have of the adminidration ot this or-
dinance, fufficiently explained it; as will clearly appear to every one who con-
fiders them: Had this rendered it dip, as fome other verfions have done, none,
one would think, would have been at a lofs about the right mode of adminif-
terino- this ordinance ; though in Holland, where they ufe no other word but
dipping to exprefs baptifm by, yet they neverthelefs ufe fprinkling-, nay, as I am
informed, the minifter when he only fprinkles or pours water upon the face of
the infant, fays, " I dip thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
" holy Ghoft." Such a force have prejudice and cuftom on the minds of men,
that it puts them on doing what is contrary to the plain and manifeft fenfe of
words.
3. Why has he dropt his newfound name o^ Plungers, which he feemed to
be fo fond of in his former performance, and thought fo exceeding proper for
us, and revived the old name oi Anabaptijls ? which we cannot be, ncicher ac-
cording to his principles, nor our own-, not according to ours, becaufe we deny
pouring or fprinkling to be baptifm i not according to his, becaufe he denies
dipping or plunging to be baptifm.
4. Why are Dr Owen's arguments for Infants-baptifm publifhed at the end
of his book ? How impertinent is this ? When the controverfy between us, is
not about the fubjedts, but the mode of baptifm : Perhaps his bookfeller did
this, feeing Mr M. fays nothing of them himfelf, nor recommends them to
others; but if he thinks fit to fhew his talent in this part of the controverfy,
he may cxpeft attendance thereto, if what he iTiall offer deferves it.
5. Why has he not defended his wife reafons for mixt communion, and.
made fome learned flriftures upon thofc arguments of mine, which he has been
pleafcd to call/rzV(7/o«j, without making any further reply to them ? He has
very much difappointed many of his friends, who promifed both me and
themfelves an anfwer, to that part of my book efpecially ; but perhaps a more
elaborate performance may be expefted from him, upon that fubjecT, or fome
other learned hand. However, at prefent, I fhall take my leave of him ; but
aot vi'vihProv. xxvi^4- which he has been afkamed to tranfcribe at length, left
his
ANCIENT MODE OF BAPTIZING. 259
his readers fliould compare the beginning and end of his book together -, whereby
they would difcover, how much he defcrves the charafter of aGentleman, aSciio-
lar, or a Chriftian -, as alfo, how well this fuits the whining infinuations, with
which he begins his performance. I (hall add no more, but conclude with the
words of Joh^ Teach me, and I will bold my longue \ and caufe me to underjland
wherein I have erred. How forcible are right words ? But what doth your arguing
reprove ?
THE DIVINE RIGHT OF I NFANT - BAPTISM,
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED;
Being an ANSWER to a Pamphlet, intitled.
A brief lllujlration and Confirmation oj the Div'me Right of Infant- Baptifm.
Printed at BOSTON in NEW - ENGLAND, 1746.
CHAP. I.
T'he hitrodiiBion, obferving the Author^ T!itle, method and occafion of
writing the Pamphlet under confideration.
ATANY being converted under the miniftry of the word in New-England,
and enlightened into the ordinance of believers baptifm, whereby the
churches of theBaptift perfuafion ^zBoJlon and in that country have been much
increafed, has alarmed the pjedobaptifl: minifters of that colony ; who have ap-
plied to omMr Dickenfon, a country minifter, who, as my correfpondent informs
me, has wrote with fome fuccefs againfl the Arminians, to write m favour of
infant fprinkling ; which application he thought fit to attend unto, and accord-
ingly wrote a pamphleton that fubjed; which has been printed in fevera! places,
L L 2 and
26o THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
and feveral thoufands liave been publifhed, and great pains have been taken to
fpread them about, in order to hinder thegrowth of the Baptifl. intercit. This per-
formance has been tranfmitted to me, with a requeft to take fome notice of it
by way of reply, which I have undertook to do.
The running-title of the pamphlet, is The Divine Right of Infant -Bap! i fin; but
if it is of divine right, it is of God-, and if it is ofGod, if it is accordm-- to his
mind, and is inllituted and appointed by him, it muft be notified fomcw h?re
or other in his word ; wherefore the fcriptiires mufl: be fearchcd into, to fee
whether it is fo, or no : and upon the moft diligent fearch that can be made, it
will be found that there is not the lead mencion of it in them ; that there is no
precept enjoining it, or direcfting to the obfervation of it; nor any inftance,
example, or precedent encouraging fuch a praflice ; nor any thing there faid
or done, that gives any reafon to believe it is the will of God that fuch a rite
fhould be obferved ; wherefore it will appear to be entirely an human invention,
and as fuch to be rejeclcd. The title-page of this work promifcs an lllujlration
and Confirmation of the faid divine right; but if there is no fuch thing, as it is
certain there is nor, the author muft have a very difficult tafk to illuftrate and
confirm it; how far he has fuccecded in this undertaking, will be the fubjccl of
our following inquiry.
The writer of the pamphlet under confideration has chofe to put his thoughts
together on this fubjeft, in the form of a dialogue between a minifler and one of
hh parijlioncrs^ or neighbours. Every man, that engages in a controverfy, may
write in what form and method he will ; but a by-ftander will be ready to con-
clude, that fuch a way of writing is chofe, that he may have the opportunity
of making his antagonift fpeak what he pleafes ; and indeed he would have atted
a very Unwife part, had he put arguments and objeftions into his mouth, which
he thought he could not give any tolerable anfwer to ; but, inafmuch as he al-
lows the perfon tiie conference is held with, to be not only a man of piety and in-
genuity, but of confiderahle reading, he ought to have reprcfented him throughout
as anfwering to fuch a charadler ; whereas, whatever /);>/)i is fhewn in this de-
bate, there is very little ingenuity difcovered; fince, for the moft part, he is in-
troduced as admitting the weak reafonings of the minifter, at once, without any
further controverfy ; or if he is allowed to attempt a defence of the caufe and
principles he was going over to, he is made to do it in a very mean and triflino-
manner; and, generally fpeaking, what he offers is only to lead on to the next
thing that prefents itfelf in this difpute: Had he been a man of confiderable read-
ing, or had he read Mr Stennett, and fome others of the Antipxdobaptift au-
thors, as is faid he had, which had occafioned his doubt about his baptifm, he
would have known what anfwers and objeftions to have made to the minifter's rea-
fonings.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 261
fonings, and what arguments to have ufed in favour of aduk-baptifm, and againft
infant-fprinkling. What I complain of is, that he has not made his friend to
aft in charafler, or to anfwer the account he is pleafed to give of him : However
he has a double end in all this management-, on the one hand, by reprefenting
his antagonift as aman of ingenuity and confiderablereading, he would bethought
to have done a very great exploit in convincing and filencing fuch a man, and
reducing him to the acknowledgment of the truth; and, on the other hand, by
making him talk fo weakly, and fo eafily yielding to his arguments, he has acted .
a wife parr, and taken care not to fuffer him to fay fuch things, as he was not
able to anfwer ; and which, as before obferved, fcems to be the view of writing
in this dialogue-way.
C H A P. ir. .
Of the Confequences of renouncing Infant' Bapt fin. .
THE miniftcr, in order to frighten his parifhioner out of his principle of
adult-baptifm, he was inclined to, fuggefts terrible confequences that
would follow upon it; as his renouncing his baptifm in his infancy; vacating
the covenant between God and him, he was brought into thereby ; renouncing
all other ordinances of the gofpel, as the miniftry of the Word, and the facra-
ment of the Lord's-Supper ; that upon this principle, Chrifl, for many ages,
muft have forfaken his church, and not made good his promife of his prefence
in this ordinance ; and that there could be no fuch thing as baptifm in the
world now, neither among Psedobaptifts, nor Antipasdobaptifts.
i_/?, The firfl dreadful confequence following upon a man's efpoufing the
principle of believers baptifm, is a renunciation of his baptifm ; not of the
ordinance of baptifm, that he cannot be faid to rejeift and renounce; for when
he embraces the principle of adult-baptifm, and adls up to it, he receives the
true baptifm, which the word of God warrants and diredls unto, as will be
fcen hereafter : But it fcems it is a renunciation of his baptifm in his infancy j
and what of that ? it fhould be proved firfl:, that that is baptifm, and that it
is good and valid, before it can be charged as an evil to renounce it ; it is right
to renounce that which has no warrant or foundation in the word of God : But
what aggravates this fuppofcd evil is, that in it a pcrfon in his early infancy is
dedicated to God the Father, Son, and holyGhoft; it may beaflced, by whom
is the perfon in his infancy dedicated to God, when baptifm is faid to be admi-
niftered to him ? Not by himfelf, for he is ignorant of the whole tranfaftion ;
it muft be either by the minifter, or his parents : The parents indeed defire
the
262 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
the child may be baptized, and the minifter ufes fuch a form of words, / bap-
tize thee in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the holy Ghofi ; but what
dedication is here made by the one, or by the other ? However, feeing there
is no warrant from the word of God, either for fuch baptifm, or dedication;
a renunciation of it need not give any uneafinefs to any perfon fo baptized and
dedicated.
idly. To embrace adult-baptifm, and to renounce infant-baptifm, is to va-
cate the covenant into which a perfon is brought by his baptifm, page 4. by
which covenant the writer of the dialogue means the covenant of grace, as
appears from all his after-reafonings from thence to the right of infants to
baptifm.
I. He fuppofes that unbaptized perfons are, as to their external and vifible
relation, ftrangers to the covenants of promife ; are not in covenant with God ;
not fo much as vifible chriftians ; but in a ftate of heathenifm ; without hope
of falvation, but from the uncovenanted mercies of God, p. 4, 5, 6. The
covenant of grace was made from everlafting ; and all interefted in it were in
covenant with God, as early, and fo previous to their baptifm, as to their
fecret relation God-wards ; but this may be thought to be fufficiently guarded
ao-ainft by the reftriftion and limitation, " as to external and vifible relation : "
But I afk, are not all truly penitent perfons, all true believers in Chrift, though
not as yet baptized, in covenant with God, even as to their external and vifible
relation to him, which faith makes manifeft ? Were not the three thoufand in
covenant with God vifibly, when they were pricked to the heart, and repented
of their fins, and gladly received the word of the gofpel, promifing the remif-
fion of them, though not as yet baptized ? Was not the Eunuch in covenant
with God ? or was he in a ftate of heathenifm, when he made that confefilon of
his faith, / believe that Jefus Chrifi is the Son of God, previous to his going down
into the water, and being baptized .'' Were the believers in Samaria, or thofe at
Corinth, in an uncovenanted ftate, before the one were baptized by Philip, or
the other by the apoftle /'<j«/.? Wa.s Lydia, whofe heart the Lord opened, and
who atended to the things that were fpoken ; and the Jailor, that believed and
rejoiced in God, with all his houfe, in an uncovenanted ftate, before they fub-
mitted to the ordinance of baptifm ? Are there not fome perfons, that have
never been baptized, of whom there is reafon to believe they have an intereft
in the covenant of grace ? Were not the Old Tcftament faints in the covenant
of crace, before this rite of baptifm took place .'' Should it be faid, that cir-
cumcifion did that then, which baptifm does now, enter perfons into covenant,
which equally wants proof, as this ; it may be replied, that only commenced
at a certain period of time ; was not always in ufe, and belonged to a certain
people
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 263
people only -, whereas there were many before that, who were in the covenant
of grace, and many after, and even at the fame time it was enjoined, who yet
were not circumcifed ; of which more hereafter : From all which it appears,
how falfe that aflcrtion is.
2. That a man is brought into covenant by baptifm, as this writer affirms ;
feeing the covenant of grace is from everlafting •, and thofe that are put into it,
were put into it fo foon ; and that by God himfelf, whofe fole prerogative it is.
Parents cannot enter their children into covenant, nor children themfelves, nor
minifters by fprinkling water upon them ; It is an ad of the fovereign grace of
God, who fays, I will be their God, and tbey Jhall be my peeple : The phrafe of
bringing into the bond of the covenant, is but once ufcd in fcripture; and then it is
afcribed to God, and not to the creature ; not to any aft done by him, or done
to him, Ezekiel XX, 37. and much lefs,
3. Can this covenant be vacated, or made null and void, by renouncing
infant-baptifm : The covenant of grace is ordered in all things, and fure ; its
pro.mifes arc Yea and Amen in Chrift ; its blefTings are the fure mercies of
David; God will not break it, and men cannot make it void; it is to ever-
lafting, as well as from everlafting; thofe that are once in it can never be put
out of it •, nor can it be vacated by any thing done by them. This man muft
have a ftrange notion of the covenant of grace, to write after this rate; he is
faid to have wrote againft the Arminians with fome fuccefs ; if he has, it muft;
be in a different manner from this; for upon this principle, that the covenant
of grace may be made null and void by an a6t of the creature, how will the
election of God ftand fure ? or the promife of the covenant be fure to all the
fced ? What will become of the dodrine of the faints perfeverance ? or of the
certainty of falvation to thofe that are chofen, redeemed, and called ?
2dly, Another confequence faid to follow,' on efpoufing the principle of adulc-
baptifm, and renouncing that of infants, is a renouncing all other ordinances
of the gofpel, as the miniftry of the word, and the facrament of theLord's fup-
per, praftically denying the influences of the Spirit in them, and all ufefulnefs,
comfort and communion by them. All which this author endeavours to make
out, by obferving, that if infant-baptifm is a nullity, then thofe, who have re-
ceived no other, if minifters, have no right to adminifter facred ordinances, be-
ing unbaptized ; and, if private perfons, they have no right to partake of the
Lord's fupper, for the fame reafon ; and fo all public ordinances arc juft fuch
a nullity as infant-baptifm; and all the influences of the Spirit, inconverfion, com-
fort, and communion, by them, muft be pradically denied, p. 5, 6. To which
may be replied, that though upon the principle of adult-baptifm, as necefl"ary
to the communion of churches,, it follows, that no unbaptized perfon is regular-
264 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
' ly called to the preaching of the word, and adminiftration ordinances, or can
be a regular communicant •, yet it does not follow, that a manthat renounces
. infant baptifm, and embraces believers baptifm, muft renounce all other ordi-
nances, and look upon them juft fuch nullities as infant-baptifm is, and deny
•all the comfort and communion he has had in them; becaufe the word may be
truly preached, and the ordinance of the Lord's fupper be duly adminillered,
by an irregular man, and even by a wicked man -, yea, may be made ufeful for
converfion and comfort; for the -ufe and efficacy of the word and ordinances,
do not depend upon the minifter or adtniniftrator ; but upon God'-himfelf, who
can, and does fometimes, make ufe of his own word for converfion, though preach-
ed by an irregular, and even an immoral man ; and of his own ordinances, for
■-comfort,'by fuch an one, to his people, though they may be irregular and defi-
cient in fomc things, through ignorance and inadvertency.
^thly. Another confequence following upon this principle, as fuppofed, is,
that if infant-baptifm is no inftitution ofChrifl, and to be rcjeifted, then the pro-
mifeofChrift, to be with his minifters in the adminiflration of the ordinance of
-baptifm, to the end of the world, Atatt. xxviii 19, 20. is not made good ; fince
•for feveral ages, even from the fourth to the fixtecnth century, infant-baptifm
univerfally obtained, p. 6 — 8. To which the following anfwer may be returned ;
That the period of time pitched upon for the prevalence of infant-baptifm is very
unhappy for the credit of it, both as to the beginning and end; as to the begin-
ning of it, in the fourth century, a period in which corruption in doftrine and
difcipline flowed into the church, and the man of fin was ripening apace, for his
appearance; and likewife as to the end, the time of the reformation, in which
fuch abufes began to be correfled : The whole is a period of time, in which the
true church ofChrift began gradually to difappear, or to be hidden, and at laft
■fied into the wildernefs ; where fhe has hot been forfaken of Chrifl, but is, and
viillbe, ncurified, for a time, and times, and half a time; this period includes
■the grofs darkncfs of popery, and all the depths of Satan ; and which to fufFcr
.was no ways contrary to the veracity ofChrift, in his promife to be with his true
•church and faithful minifters to the end of the world. Chrift has no where pro-
-tnifcd, that his doftrines and ordinances (hould not be perverted ; but, on the
<ontrary, has given clear and ftrong intimations, that there Ihould be a general
falling-away and departure from the truth and ordinances of the gofpcl, to make
fway for the revelation of antichrift ; and though it will be alloAed, that during
this period infant-baptifm prevailed, yet it did not univerfally obtain. There
were witnefTcs for adult-baptifm in. every age ; and Chrift had a church in the
wildernefs, in obfcurity, at this time ; namely, in the valleys of Piedmont ; who
were, from the beginning of the apoftacy, and witnefTed againft it, and bore
their
^EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 2.65
their teftimony againft infant-baptifm, as will be feen hereafter, and with thtfe
his prcfence was ; nor did he promife it to any, but in the faithful miniftration
of his word and ordinances, which he has always made good; and it will lie
upon this writer and his friends, to prove the gracious prefence ofChrift in the
adminiftration of infant-baptifm.
S^hly, It is faid, that, upon thefe principles, rejefiing infant-baptifin, and
efpoufing believers-baptifm, it is not pofTible there fhould be any baptifm at all
in the world, either among Pasdobaptifts or Antipsdobaptifts -, the reafon of
this confequence is, becaufe the madmen of Muujier, from whom this writer
dates the firft oppofition to infant-baptifm j and the firft Antipasdobaptifls in
England, had no other baptifm than what they received in their infancy ; that
adult-baptifm muft firfl: be adminiftered by unbaptized perfons, if infant-bap-
tifm is no ordinance of Chrift, but a mere nullity -, and fo by fuch as had no
claim to the gofpel miniftry, nor right to adminifter ordinances -, and confe-
quently the whole fuccelTion of the Antipajdobaptill churches muft remain un-
baptized to this day ; and fo no more baptifm among them, than among the
PiEdobaptifts, until there is a new commidion from heaven, to renew and reftore
this ordinance, which is, at prcfent, lofl out of the world, p. 6, 8, 9. As for
the madmen oi Munjler, as this writer calls them, and the rife of the Antipn^-
dobaptifts from them, and what is faid of them, I (hall confider in the next
chapter. The Englifli Antipa^dobaptifts, when they were firft convinced of
adult-baptifm, and of the mode of adminiftering it by immerfion, and of the
necefTity of fetting a reformation on foot in this matter, met together, and
confulted about it : when they had fomc difficulties thrown in their way, about
a proper adminiftrator to begin this work -, fome were for fending menencers
to foreign churches, who were the fuccelTors of the ancient l^'aldenfes in France
and Bohemia ; and accordingly did fend over fome, who being baptized, re-
turned and baptized others. And this is a fufBcient anfwer to ail that this
writer has advanced. But others thought that this was a needlefs fcruple, and
looked too much like the popifh notion of an uninterrupted fuccefTion, and a
right conveyed through that tpadminifter ordinances; and therefore judged, in
fuch a cafe as theirs, there being a general corruption as to this ordinance, that
an unbaptized perfon, who appeared to be otherwife qualified to preach the
word, and adminiftcr ordinances, fhould begin it ; and juftificd the.Tifelves
upon the fame principles that other reformers did, who, without any regard to
an uninterrupted fuccefTion, fet up new churches, ordained paftors, and admi-
niftered ordinances : It muft be owned, that in ordinary cafes, he ought to be
baptized himfelf, that baptizes another, or preaches the word, or adminifters
other ordinances j but in an extraordinary cafe, as this of beginning a reforma-
VoL. II. ..Mm tion
i66 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISiM,
tion from a general corruption, where fuch an adminiftrator cannot be had,
it may be done -, nor is it efTcntial to the ordinance that there (hoiild be fuch an
adminiftrator, or otherwife it could never have been introduced into the world
at all at firft ; the firft adminiflrator muft be an unbapcized perfon, as John the
Baptifl: was. According to this man's train of reafoning, there never was, nor
could be any valid baptifm in the world ; ivr John, the firft adminiftrator, be-
ino- an unbaptized perfon, the whole fuccelTion of churches from that time to
this day muft remain unbaptized. It will be faid, that he had a commifTjon
from heaven to becrin this new ordinance; and a like one ftiould be ftiewn for
the reftoration of it. To which I anfwer, that there being a plain di'redtion for
the adminiftration of this ordinance, in the Word, there was no need of a new
commifTion to reftore it from a general corruption ; it was enough for any per-
fon, fenfible of tlie corruption, to attempt a reformation, and to adminifter it in
the rir»ht way, who was fatisfied of his call from God to preach the gofpel,
and adminifter ordinances, according to the word. I fhall clofe this chapter
with the words of Zanchy % a Proceftant Divine, and a Psdobaptift, and a man
of as great learning and judgment, as any among the firft reformers : " It is a
" fifth queftion, he fays, propofcd by Augujlin. contra Parnun. 1. 2. c. 13. coK
" 42. but not folved, whether he that never was baptized may baptize an-
" other ; and of this queftion he fays, that is, Aujlin, nothing is to be affirmed
♦' without the authority of a council. Neverthclefs, Thomas {Aquiruis) takes
" upon him to determine it, from an anfwer of Pope Nicholas, to the inquiries
" of the Dutch, as it is had in Deer, de Cortfec. dift. 4. can. 22." where we thus
read ; " You fay, by a certain Jew, whether a chriflian or a heathen, you know
" not, (that is, whether baptized or unbaptized) many were baptized in your
" country, and you defire to know what is to be done in this cafe -, truly if
" they are baptized in the name of the holy Trinity, or only in the name of
" Chrift, they ought not to be baptized again." And nomas confirms the
fame, by a faying of Jf:dore, which likewifc is produced in the fame diftindtion,
can. 21. where he fays, " that the Spirit of Chrift minifters the grace of bap-
*' tifm, though he be a heathen that baptizes. Wherefore, fays Thomas, if
" there fliould be two pcrfons not yet baptized, who believe in Chrift, and
'' they have no lawful adminiftrator by whom they may be baptized, one may,
*« without fin, be baptized by the other ; the neceftity of death obliging to it.
♦' All this, adds Zanchy, proceeds from hence, that they thought water-baptifcn
" abfolutely necefiary ; but what cannot be determined by the word of God,
« wc ftiould not dare to determine. But, fays he, I will propofe a queftion,
<« which, I think, may be cafily anfwercd ; fuppofing a Turk in a country
*' where
• Quinta quxllio propooicur ab Augaftico, '&c. Explicat. Epift, ad Ephci. c. 5. p. i:^.
n
.. EX AI^.IN.EX) ..AND DISPROVED., 267
" where he could not eafily come at chriftian churches -, he, by reading the
." New Teftament, is favoured with the knowjedge pf Chfift, and with faith -,
" he teaches his family, and converts that to Ch rift, and fo others likewife ;
,^" the queftion is, whether he may baptize them v/hom he has converted to
." ChrifV, though he himfelf never was baptized with water-baptifm ? I do.noc
J'. doubt but he may; and, on the other hand, take care that he himfelf be
," baptized, by another of them that were converted by him ; the reafon is,
\\ becaufe he is a minifter of the Word, extraordinarily raifed up by Chrrili fo
" that fgch a minifter may, with tbem, by the confent of the church, appoint
" a colicgue, and take care that he be baptized by him." The reafon which
Zakchy ^wes, will, I think, hold good in the cafe of the firft Antip^edobaptiils
.in England.
CHAP. III.
Of the Antiquity of hifant - Baptifm ; mhen firjl debated; and concerning
the Waldenfes.
"TPHE minifler, in this dialogue, in order to ftagger his neighbour about the
■ principle of adult-baptifm, he had cfpoufed, fuggcfts to him, that infant-
baptifm did viniverfally obtain in the church, even from the npoftles times;
that undoubted evidence may be had from theantient fathers, tliat it conftantly
obtained in the truly primitive church ; and that it cannot be pretended that
this pra(5lice was called in queftion, or made matter of debate in the church,
till the madmen t)f Mi!/w7?fr fct themfelves againft it; and affirms, that the an-
ticnt /^/''ijWffw/fj being in the conftant pradlice of adult-baptifm, is a mere ima-
gination, a chimerical one, and to be rejefted as a groundlcfs figment, p. 7,^.
I. This writer intimates, that the practice of infant-baptifm univerlally' and
conftantly obtained in the truly primitive church. The truly primitive church
is the church in the times of Chrift and his apoftles : The firft chriftian church
was that at Jerufakm, which confifted of fuch as were made the difciples of
Chrift, and baptized; firft made difciples by Chrift, and then baptized by his
apoftles ; forjefus bimfclf baptized none, only they baptized by his order '. This
church afterwards greatly increafed ; three choufand perfons, who were pricked
to the heart under Pf/^r's miniftry, repented of their fins, and joyfully received
the good news of pardon and falvation by Chrift, were baptized, and added to
it; thefe were adult perfons ; nor do we read of anyone infant being baptized,
while this truly primitive church fubfifted. The next chriftian qhurch was that
M M 2 ' at
■Johniv. 1,2. ^£Ui. 15.
268 THE DIVINE HIGHT OF ' INFANT-BAPTISM,
ziSamaria ; for that there was a church there, is evident from yfi-7jix. 31, This
feems to have been founded by the miniftry of Philip ; the original members of
"it were men and women baptized by Philip, upon a profefiion of their faiih in
the things preached by him, concerning the kingdom of God, and the name
of Jcfus Chrifl.''; nor is there the leaft intimation given that infant-baptifm at
all obtained in this church. Another truly primitive chriftian church, was the
church ztPhilippi; the foundation of which was laid in the two families of Lydia
and the Gaoler, and which furnifliout no proof of infant-baptifm obtaining here,
as we fhall fee hereafter ; for Lydia's houfhold are called brethren, whom the
apoftles vifited and comforted ; and the Gaoler's houfhold were fuch as were
capable of hearing the word, and who believed in Chrift, and rejoiced in God
as well as he ^ So that it does not appear that infant-baptifm obtained in this
church. The next chriftian church we read of, and which was a truly primi-
tive one, is the church at Corinth, and conGfted of perfons who, hearing the
apoflle/'tfw/ preach the gofpcl, believed in Chrift, whom he preached, and were
baptized'' : but there is no mention made of any infant being baptized, either
now or hereafter, in this truly primitive church ftate. Thefe are all the truly
primitive churches of whofe baptifm we have any account in the A5is of the
■apoJiltSy excepting Cornelius, and his family and friends, who very probably
-founded a church ^iCteJarea; and the twelve difciples at £/)i'(?/'wj, who very
.likely joined to the church there, and who are both inftances of adult-baptifm '.
Let it be made appear, if it can, that any one infant was ever baptized in any
of the above truly primitive churches, or in any other, during the apoftolic age,.
either at Anliocb or Tbejjalonica, at Rome, or at Colojje, or any other primitive
church of thofc times. But though this cannot be made out from the writings of
the New Tcftament, we arc told,
II. That undoubted evidence may be had from the antient fathers, that in-
fant-baptifm conftantly obtained in the truly primitive church. Let us a little
inquire into this matter:
I. The chriftian writers of the firft century, befides the evangelifts and apof-
tles, are Barnabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius and Polycarp. As to
the two firft of thefe, Barnabas and Hermas, the learned Mr Stennett ' has cited
fome paflages out of them -, and after him Mr David Rees^; for which reafon,
I forbear tranfcribing them; which are manifeft proofs of adult-baptifm, and
that as performed by immerfion ; they reprefent the pcrfons baptized, the one '
as hoping in the crofs ofChrift, the other' as having heard the word, and being
willing
*> Afli viii. 12. « Afts xvi. 14, ij, 32 — J4, 40. * A£h xviii. 8.
• Afls X. 48. and xix. 1 — 7. ' Anfwer to RufTen, p. 14:, 143.
« Anfwer to Walker, p. 157, &c. * Barnabx EpiA. C. 9. p. 235, 236. Ed, Vofl".
I Hermx Pallor. 1. 1. vif. 3. f. 7. & K jl f, 16.
"EXAMINED -AND -DISPROVED. ■ -169
Willing to be baptized in the name of the Lord; and both as going down into the
water, and coming op out of it. Clemens Romanus wrote an cpiftle to the Corin-
.tiianj, ftii! extant; but there is not a fyllable in it about infant-baptifm. Ignatius
wrote epiftles to fcveral churches, as well as to particular perfons; but makes no
mention of the pradtice of infant-baptifm in any of them : what he fays of bap-
'tifm, favours aduk-baptifm ; fince he fpeaks of it as attended with faith, love
•and patience : "Let your ^baptifm, fays he'', remain as armour; faith as an
.«' helmet, love as a fpear, and patience as whole armour." Polycarp wrote an
epiftle to the Philippians, which is yet in being; but there is not one word in
it about infant-baptifm. So that it is fo far from being true, that there is un-
doubted evidence from the ancient fathers, that this praftice univerfally and con-
■ftantly obtained in the truly primitive church, that there is no evidence at all
that it did obtain, in any refpeft, in the firfl century, or apoftolic age ; and
'which is the only period in which the truly primitive church of Chrift can be
•faid to fubfift;. There is indeed a work called The conjiitutions of the apojlks,
and fomeiimes the conjiitutions of Clemens, becaufe he is faid to be the compiler
of them ; and another book oi Ecclejiaftical Hierarchy, afcribed to Dionyfius the
■ Areopagite, out of which, paflages have been cited in favour of infant-baptifm ;
but thefe are manifeftly of later date than they pretend to, and were never writ-
ten by the perfons whofc names they bear, and are condemned as fpurious by
learned men, and are given up as fuch by Dr Wall,, in.hisHiJiory of Infant-Bap-
' tifr,r\
2. The chriftian writers of the fecond century, which are extant, iLVcJuJlin
Martyr, Athenagoras, Theopbilus of Antioch, Tatian, Minutius Felix, Irenaus,
and Clemens of Alexandria ; and of all thefc writers, there is not one that fays
any thing of infant-baptifm ; there is but one pretended to, and that \s [ren^us,
and but a fingle pafTage out of him ; and that depends upon a fingle word, the
fignification of which is doubtful at befl ; and bcfides the pafTage is only a tran-
flation oi Irenaus, and not exprefled in his own original words; and the chap--
ter, from whence it is taken, is by fome learned men judged to be fpurious;
fince it advances a notion inconfiftent with that ancient writer, and notorioudy
contrary to the books of the evangelifts, making Chrift to live to be fifty years
old, yea, to live to a fenior age : The pafTage, produced in favour of infant-
baptifm, is this; fpeaking of Chrift, he fays", "Sanftifying every age, by
»' that likenefs it had to him ; for he came to favc all by himfelf ; all, I fay,.
" qui per eum renafcuntur inDeum, *' who by him are born ag^in unto God;" in-
*' fants, and.little ones, and children, and young men, and old men; therefore
" he.
^ Ignatii Eplft. ad Polycarp. p. 14. Ed. VofT. ' Part I. c. aj.
" Irenzus adv. Hxicf. 1. 2. c. 39. p. 191. "*
2 70 THE DIVINE illGHT GF INFANT-^APTJSM,
-^' he went through every age, and became an infant, to infants fandifying in-
♦' fants; and to little ones a little one, fanftifying thofe of that age; and like-
" wife became an example of piety, righteoufnefs, and fubjedtion :" Now, the
queftion is about the word renafcuntur, whether it is to be rendered horn a^ain,
.which is the literal fenfe of the word, or baptized; the true fenfe oilrenaus feems
A.Q be this, that Chrift came to fave all that are regenerated by his grace and
.Spirit ; and none but they, according to his own words, John iii. 3, 5. and .that
,by aftuming human nature, and paffin^ through the feveral ftages of life, he
has fanftified it, and fet an example to men of every age. And this now is all
the evidence,- -the undoubted evidence of ijifant-baptifm, from the fathers of
the firft two centuries-, it would be eafy to produce pafTages out of the above
writers, in favour of believersbaptifm ; 1 fliall only cite one out of the firft of
them; the account, that J ujiin Martyr gave to the emperor /intoninus Pius of
■the chriftians of his day -, though it has been cited by Mr Stemett and Mr Rees,
I fhall choofe to tranfcribe it •, becaufe, as Dr f^all fays", it is the moft antient
account of the way of baptizing next the fcripture, " And now, fays JuJ}in°y
•" we will declare after what manner, when we were renewed by Chrift, we de-
'.' voted ourfelves unto God ; left, omitting this, we fhould feem to adt a bad
-" part in this declaration. As many, as are perfuaded, and believe the things,
," taught and faid by us, to be true, and promife to live according to them,
" arc inftrufted to pray, and to afk, fafting, the forgivenefs of their paft fins
" of God, we praying and fafting together with them. After that, they are
" brought by us where water is, and they are regenerated in the fame way
" of regeneration, as we have been regenerated j for they are then waflicd in
" water, in the name of the Father and Lord God of all, and of our Saviour
" Jefus Chrift, and of the holy Spirit." There is a work, which bears the
]name of Jujlin, called Anfwers to the orthodox, concerning fome necejfary quejiions;
to which we are fometimes referred for a proof of infant-baptifm ; but the book,
is fpurious, and none of Jujlins, as many learned men have obferved ; and as
Dr I'Vall allows ; and is thought not to have been written before the fifth cen-
jury. So ftands the evidence for infant-baptifm, from the ancient fathers of
xhe firft two centuries.
3. As to the third century, it will be allowed, that it was fpoken of in it ;
though as foon as it was mentioned, it was oppofed ; and the very firft man that
roentions it, fpeaks againft it ; namely, Terlullian. The truth of the matter is,
that infant-baptifm was moved for in the third century ■, got footing and eftab-
Jiftiment in the fourth and fifth ; and fo prevailed until the time of the reforma-
tion : Though, throughout thcfe feveral centuries, there were teftimonies bore
to
" Hiftory of Infant-Baptifm, part I. c. 2.
• Or TJJTOF it atiBrixaji-ir lavTv;, &C. Juftin. Apolog. II. p. 93, 94. Ed. Parif.
,! -1EXA~M1NED ANt)'I)ISlP'ROVEt>. 271
to adult-baptifm ; and at fcvci'al times, 'teftain perfons rofe op, and oppofed
infant- baptifm ; which brings me, ' • .
"'III. To confidcr what our author affirms, that it cannot be pretended that
this praftice was called in queftion, or made matter of debate in the church,
until the madmen oi Munfier kt themfelves againft it, p. 7. Let us examine
dhis matter, and, . • '- ■
I. It fliould be obferved, that the difturbances in Gijrwflwy, which our Psedo-
ba'ptift wrhers fo often refer to in this controverfy about baptifm, and fo fre-
quently reproach us with, were firft begun in the v?ars of nhe boors, by fuch
as were I'aedobaptlfts, and them only ; firft by the Papifts, fome few years be-
fore the reformation -, and after that, both by Lutherans and Papifts, on ac-
count of civil liberties -, among whom, in procefs of time, fome few of the
people called Anabaptifts mingled themfelves-, a people that fcarce in any thing
agree with us, neither in their civil, nor religious principles; nor even in bap-
tifm itfclf ; for if we can depend on thofe that wrote the hiftory of them, and •
againft them ; they were for repeating aduk-baptifm, not performed among
them; yea, that which was adminiftercd among themfelves, when they re-
moved their communion to another fociety ; nay, even in the fame community,
when an excommunicated perfon was received again i"; befides, if what is re-
ported of them is true, as it may be, their baptifm was performed by fprink-
ling, which we cannot allow to be true baptifm ; it is faid, that when a com-
munity of them was fatisfied with the perfon's faith and converfation, who prp-
pofed for baptifm, the paftor took water into his hand, and fprinkled it on the
head of him that was to be baptized, ufing thefe word?, 1 baptize thee in the
name of the Father, of the Sou, and of the holy Ghofi '' .- And even the difturb-
ances in Munfier, a famous city in IVeJlphalia, were firft begun by Bernard Rot-
man, a Psedobaptift minifter of the Lutheran perfuafion, afTifted by other mi-
nifters of the reformation, in oppofition to the Papifts in the year 1532; and
it was not till the year 1533, that John Matthias of Harlem, and John Bocoldus
oi Ley den came to this place'; who, with Knipperdolling and others, are, I fup-
pofe, the madmen of Munfier this writer means ; and he may call them mad-
men, if he pleafes ; I fliall not contend with him about it ; they were mad
notions which they held, and mad aftions they performed ; and both dif-
avowed by the people who are now called Anabaptifts ; though it is not rea-
fonable to fuppofe, that thefe were the only men concerned in that affair, or
that the number of their followers ftiould increafe to fuch a degree in fo fmall a
time,
' Cloppenburg. Gangnna, p. 366. Spanhem. Diatribe Hill. Sefl. 27.
« BudneuB apud Mcfhov. Hid. Anabapt. 1. 4. p. 96.
» Sleidan.Camment.l.io. p. 267, 269. Spanhem. DiatribeHidor. deOrigineAnabaptift.Sefl.iS.
272 THE. DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
time, as to make fuch a revolution in fo large a city : However, certain it is,
that it was not their principle about baptifm, that led them into fuch extrava-
gant notions and adlions : But what I take notice of all this for, is chiefly to ob-
ferve the date of the confuGons and diftradtions, in which thefe madmen were
concerned; which were from the year 1533 to 1536: And our next inquiry
therefore is, whether there was any debate about the praftice of infant-baptifm
before this time. And, . . .
2. It will appear, that it was frequently debated, before thefe men fet them-
fclvesagainft.it, or afled. the mad part .they did : In the years 1532 and 1528,
there were public difputations at Berne in Switzerlandy between the minifters of
the church there and fomc Anabaptift teachers'; in the years 1529, 1527 and
1525, dffo/awpfli/w had various difputes with people of this name &t Bajil in
the fame country ' ; in the year 1525, there was a difpute at Zurich in the fame
country about Pasdobaptifm, between Zwinglius, oneof thefirfb reformers, and
Y)v Balthafar Hubmeierus"., who afterwards was burnt, and his wife drowned at
Vienna, in the year 1528; oi ^hom Mejhovius ^ , though a Papift, gives this
character; that he was from his childhood brought up in learning; and for his
finoular erudition was honoured with a degree in divinity; was a very eloquent
man, and read in the fcriptures, and fathers' of the church. Hoornbeck ' calls
him a famous and eloquent preacher, and fays he was the firll of the reformed
preachers at IVMJhuts There were fcveral difputations with others in the fame
year at this place ; upon which an edift was made by the fenate at Zurich, for-
bidding rebaptization, under the penalty of being fined a filver mark, and of
being imprifoned, and even drowned, according to the nature of the offence.
And in the year 1526, or 1527, iccon^xng 10 Hoornbeck, Felix Mans, or Mentz,
was drowned it Zurich ; this man, Mejhovius iiys'', whom he calls Felix Mant-
fcher, was of a noble family ; and both he, and Conrad Grebel, whom he calls
Cunrad Grebbe, who are faid to give the firfl: rife to Anabaptifm at Zurich,
were very learned men, and well fkillcd in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew lan-
guages. And the fame writer affirms, that Anabaptifm was fet on foot at ///'/-
tenberg, in the year 1522, hy Nicholas Pelargus, ox Stork, who had companions
with him of very great learning, as Carolojladius, Philip MelanHhon, and others;
this, he fays, was done, whilft Luther was lurking as an exile in the caflle of
JVartpurg in Thuringia; and that when he returned from thence to PVitlenberg,
he baniflied Carolojladius, Pelargus, More, Didjmus, and others % and only re-
ceived
• Spanhem ibid Scft. i ». Melhov. Anabaptift. Hiflor. 1. 3. c. i6, 18.
t Spanhem. Sefl. 13. Mefhovius, ibid. c. 1. " Spanhem. Seft. 1 1. Methov. 1. 2. c. 4.
" Ibid c. 15. ' Summa Controverf. 1. 5. p. 356. y Mefhov. 1. 2. c. 1.
* Mediovius, 1. I. c. 2, 3.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 273
ceivcd MeIan5!bon again. This carries the oppofition to Pasdobaptifm within
five years of the reformation, begun by Luther ; and certain it is, there were
many and great debates about infant-baptifm at the firft of the reformation,
years before the affair of Munjler : And evident it is, that fome of the firft re-
formers were inclined to have attempted a reformation in this ordinance, though
they, for reafons beft known to themfelves, dropped it*, and even Zuinglius
himfelf, who was a bitter perfecutor of the people called Anabaptifts afterwards,
was once of the fame mind himfelf, and againft Pcedobaptifm. But,
3. It will appear, that this was a matter of debate, and was oppofed before
the time of the reformation. There was a fet of people in Bohemia, near a
hundred years before that, who appear to be of the fame perfuafion with the
people, called Anabaptifts ; for in a letter, wmcen by Cojlelecius out of Bohemia
to Era/mus, d^ied O^oi>er 10, 1519*, among other things faid of them, which
agree with the faid people, this is one ; »' fuch as come over to their fed, mult
" every one be baptized anew in meer water-," the writer of the letter calls
them Pyghards ; fo named, he fays, from a certain refugee, that came thither
ninety-feven years before the date of the letter. Pope Innocent the third, under
whom was the Lateran council, A. D. 1215, has, in the decretals, a letter, in
anfwer to a letter from the bifliop oi Aries in Provence, which had reprefented to
him ", that " fome Heretics there had taught, that it was to no purpofe to
" baptize children, fincc they could have no forgivenefs of fins thereby, as
•' having no faith, charity, &c" So that it is a clear point, that there were
fome that fet themfelves againft infant-baptifm in the thirteenth century, three
hundred years before the reformation; yea, in the twelfth century there were
fome that oppofed Pa^dobaptifm. M.T Fox, the martyrologift, relates from the
hiftory of Robert Guijburne % that two men, Gerhardus and Dulcinus, in the reiori
oi Henry the fecond, about the year of our Lord 1158; who, he fuppofes,
had received fome light of knowledge of the Waldenfes, brought thirty with
them imo England; who, by the king and the prelates, were all burnt in the
forehead, and fo driven out of the realm ; and after were (lain by the Pope.
Rapia ^ calls them German Heretics, and places their com\ng\nio England 2l\. the
year 1166: But William of Nezvhury ' calls them Publicans, and only mentions
Gerhardus, as at the head of them; and whom he allows to be fomewhat learned,
but all the reft very illiterate, and fays they came fromGafcoigne; and being con-
vened before a council, held at Oxford for that purpofe, and interrogated con-
VoL. II. N N cerning
" Inter Colomej. Collect, apud WalPs Hiflory of Infant- Baptifra, part II. p. 200.
' Opera Innocent, tertii, torn. II. p. 776. apud Wall, ibid. p. 178.
' Afls and Monoments, vol. I. p. »6j. "^ Hiftory of England, vol. I. p. 233.
* NeubrigenCj de Rebus Anglicanij, 1. 2. c. 13. p. 15J.
274 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
cerning articles of faith, faid perverfe things concerning the divine facraments, de-
teftino- holy baptifm, the eucharift and marriage : And his annotator, out of a ma-
Jiufcript of RaduiphPicardus, the monk, fhews, that the Heretics, called Publi-
cans, affirm, that we muft not pray for the dead ; that the fufFrages of the faints
were not to be afked ; that they believe not purgatory -, with many other
things ; and particularly, ajferunt ijli parvulos non baptifandos donee ad inteUigi-
bilem perveniant atatem; " they aflert that infants are not to be baptized, till
" they come to the age of underftanding'." In the year 1147, Si Bernard
wrote a letter to the earl of SiGyles, complaining of his harbouring Henry, an
Heretic ; and among other things he is charged with by him, are thefe -, " the
" infants of chriftians are hindered from the life of Chrift, the grace of bap-
*' tifm being denied them -, nor are they fuffered to come to their falvation,
" though our Saviour compaffionately. cries out in their behalf. Suffer little
" children to come unto me, &c." and, about the fame time, writing upon the
Canticles, in his 6^'" and 66'^ fermons, he takes notice of a fort of people, he
caWs Jpojlolici ; and who, perhaps, were the followers of //.fMry ; who, fays he,
laugh at us for baptizing infants '' -, and among the tenets which he afcribcs to
them, and attempts to confute, this is the firft, " Infants are not to be bap-
♦' tized : " In oppofition to which, he affirms, that infants are to be baptized
in the faith of the chwch ; and endeavours, by inftances, to fhow, that the
faith of one is profitable to others ^ -, which he attempts from Matt. ix. 2. and
XV. 28. 1 Tim. ii. 15.
In the year J 146, Peter Bruis, andHenry his follower, fet themfelves againfl
infant-baptifm. PetrusCluniacenfis, or Peter the Ahhot of Clugny, wrote againfl;
them-, and among other errors he imputes to them, are thefe: "That infants
" are not baptized, or faved by the faith of another, but ought to be baptized
" and faved by their own faith ; or, that baptifm without their own faith does
" not fave ; and that thofe, that are baptized in infancy, when grown up,
*' fhould be baptized again ; nor are they then rebaptized, but rather rightly
" baptized •■ :" And that thefe men did deny infant-baptifm, and pleaded for
adult-baptifm, MrStennett^ ha.s proved {romCaffander znd Prateolus, both Pas-
dobaptifts: And Dr Pf^all'^ allows thefe two men to beAntipidobaptifts ; and
Jays, they were " the firft Antipcedobaptift preachers that ever fet up a church,
" or fociety of men, holding that opinion againft infant-baptifm, and rebap-
" tizing fuch as had been baptized in infancy ;" and who alfo obfervcs ', that
the
« Not. in ibid. p. 720—723. * Wall, ibid. p. 175, 176.
E Hili. F.ccl. Magdeburg. Cent.XII. c. 5." p. 358, 339. " Ibid. p. 332.
' Anfwer to Ru/Ten, p. 83, 84. " Hiflory of Infant-Baptifm, part II. p. 184.
' iLiid. p. 179.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. - 275
the Z^/CT-^aw council, under Innocent the IP, 1139, did condemn i*^/^r 5r«/j,
and Arnold oi Brefcia, who feems to have been a follower of 5rKiV, for rejefting
infant-baptifm : Moreover, in the year 1140, or a little before it, 'EvervinuSy
of the diocefe of Cologn, wrote a letter to St Bernard; in which he gives him
an account of fome heretics, lately difcovered in that country ; of whom he
fays, " they condemn the facraments, except baptifm only ; and this only in'
" thofe who are come to age ; who, they fay, are baptized by Chrift himfelf,
" whoever be the minifter of the facraments -, they do not believe infant-bap-
" tifm ; alledging that place of the gofpel, he that believeth, and is baptized,
" /hali be favedK" Thefe feem alfo to be the difciples of Peter Bruis, who be-
gan to preach about the year 1126 ; fo that it is out of all doubt, that this was
a matter of debate, four hundred years before the madmen ofMunJler fee them-
felves againft it : And a hundred years before thcfe, there were two men, Bruno,
bifhop of yfngiers, and Berengarius, arc4ideacon of the fame church, who began
to fpread their particular notions about the year 1035; which chiefly refpefted
the facraments of Baptifm and the Lord's-Supper. What they faid about the
former, may be learned from the letter fent by Deodwinus, bifhop of Lie^e, to
Henry I. King of France ; in which are the following words °'^. " There is a re-
*' port come out of France, and which goes through all Germany, that thefc
" two {Bruno and Berengarius) do maintain, that ^he Lord's body (theHoft) is
" not the body, but a fhadow and figure of the Lord's body ; and that they do
»' difannul lawful marriages -, and, as far as in them lies, overthrow the bap-
" tifm of infants :" And from Guimundus, bifhop of Av erf a, who v/rote acrainfl
Berengarius^ who fays, " that he did not teach rightly concerning the baptifm
" of infants, and concerning marriage "." M.x Stennett" relates from Dr y^//a-,
a pafTage concerning one Gundulphus and his followers, \n Italy, divers of whom,
Gerard, bifhop of Cambray and Arras, interrogated upon feveral heads in the
year 1025. And, among other things, that bifhop mentions the followincr
rcafon, which they gave againfl infant-baptifm ; " bccaufe to an infant, that
*• neither wills, nor runs, that knows nothing of faith, is ignorant of its own
" falvation and welfare ; in whom there can be no defire of regeneration, or
" confcfTion ; the will, faith and confcfTion of another feem not in the leaft to
" appertain." 'D:lVall, indeed, reprefents thefe men, the difciples of Gundul-
phus, as Quakers and Manichees in the point of baptifm •, holding that watcr-
baptifm is of no ufe to any : But it muft be affirmed, whatever their principles
were, that their argument againfl infant-baptifm was very flrong. So then we
have teflimonies, that Fsedobaptifm was oppofcd five hundred years before the
N N 2 affair
' Wall, ibid. p. 172. m Apud Wall, ibid. p. 159.
" Hill. Ecd, Magdeburg, Cent. XI. c. 5. p. 116. • Anfwer to Ruflen, p. 84, 8j.
276 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
zPfn\r of Munjler. And if the Pelagians, Donatifts, and Luciferians, fo called
from Lucifer Calaritanus, a very orthodox man, and a great oppofer of the
Arians, were againft infant-baptifm, as feveralPsdobaptift writers affirm; this
carries the oppofition to it ftill higher ; and indeed it may feem ftrancre, that
fince it had not its eftablifhment till the times o{ Aujiin, that there fhoiild be
none to fet themfclves againft it : And if there were none, how comes it to pafs
that fuch a canon fhould be made in the Milevitan council, under pope Inno-
cent the firft, according toCarranza° ; and in the year 402, as fay the Magde-
burgenfian centuriators ' -, or be it in the council at Carthage, in the year 418,
as fays Dr IFalh, which runs thus, " Alfo, it is our plcafure, that whoever
" denies that new-born infants are to be baptized ; or fays, they are indeed to
" be baptized for tlie remifTion of fins ; and yet they derive no original fm
" from Adam to be expiated by the wadiing of regeneration ; (from whence it
" follows, that the form of baptifin for the forgivcnefs of fins in them, cannot
" be underftood to be true, but falfe) let him be anathema :" But if there were
none, that oppofcd tlie baptifm of new-born infants, why Ihould the firft part
of this canon be made, and an anathema annexed to it ? To fay, that it refpedcd
a notion of a fingle perfon in Cyprian^ time, 150 years before this, that infants
were not to be baptized, until eight days old ; and that it feems there were
fome people ftill of this opinion, wants proof. But however certain it is, that
Teriullian', in the beginning of the third century, oppofcd the baptifm of in-
fants, and difluaded from it, who is the firft writer that makes mention of it :
So it appears, that as foon as ever it was fet an foot, it became matter of debate^
and fooner than this, it could not be : And this was thirteen hundred years
before t!ie madmen of Munjier appeared in the world. But,
IV. Let us next confider the pracftice of the ancient Waldenfes, with refpefl
to adult-baptifm, which this author affirms to be a chimerical imagination, and
groundlcfs figment. It fhould be obferved, that the people called Waldenfes,
or the Vaudois, inhabiting the valleys of Piedmont, have gone under different
names, taken from their principal leaders and teachers ; and fo this of the
Waldenfes, from Peter H^aldo, one of their barbs, or paftors-, though fome
think, this name is only a corruption of Vallenfes, the inhabitants of the valleys:
And certain it is, there was a people there before the times of IValdo, and even
from the apoftlcs time, that held the pure evangelic truths, and bore a teftimony
10 them in all agcs,Jand throughout the dark times of popery, as many ' learned
men
" Sumtna Concil. p. 122, 123. i' Cent. V. c. 9. p. 468.
< Hinory, &c. Part II. p. 275. 276. ' De Bapufmo, c. 18.
' Dr Allijt') Remarks on the ancient churches of Piedmont, p. 188, 207, 210, 286. Morland's
.Hi'.lory of the evangelical Churches of the vjlleys of PieJaont, book I. C.3. p. 8, i:fc. EtBezx
Iconcs apud ibid. In rcduflion to thchiftor/, p. 7.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 277
men have obfervcd ; and the fenfe of thefe people concerning baptifm may
be bcft underftood,
1. By what their ancient barbs or paftors taught concerning it. Peter Bruis,
and Henry his fucceflbr, were both, as Morland affirms', their ancient barbs
and paftors ; and from them thefe people were called Petrobruffians and Hen-
ricians ; and we have feen already, that thefe two men were Antipasdobaptifts,
denied infant-baptifm, and pleaded for adult-baptifm. Arnoldus of Brixi'a, or
Brefcia, was another of their barbs, and is the firft mentioned by Morbfid,
from whom thefe people were "called A rnoldifts. Of this man Dr y////.v fays ",
that befides being charged with fome ill opinions, it was faid of him, that he
was not found in his fentiments concerning the facraments of the altar and the
baptifm of infants ; and D'cWall allows *, that theLateran council, under Inno-
cent the fecond, in 1139, did condemn Peter Bruis, and Arnold oi Brefcia, who
fc ems to have been a follower oi Bruis, for rejedling infant-baptifm. LoUardo
was another of their barbs, who, as Morland {zys, was in great reputation with
them, for having conveyed the knowledge of their dodrine \nio Englatid, where
h sdilcij-les were known by the name of Lollards; who were charged with hold-
ing, that the facrament of baptifm ufcd in the church by water, is but a light
matter, and of fmall effeft ; that chrirtian people be fufficiently baptized in the
blood ofChrift, and need no water; and that infants be fufficiently baptized,
if their parents be baptized before them " : All which feem to arife from their
denying of infant-baptifm, and the efficacy of it to take away fin.
2. By their ancient confcfTions of faith, and other writings which have been
pubiifhed. In one of thefe, bearing d.ue A. D. 1120, the 12'" and 13"'
articles run thus '' : " We do believe that the facraments are figns of the holy
" thing, or vifible forms of the invifible grace; accounting it good that the
*' faithful fometimes ufe the faid figns, or vifible forms, if it may be done.
" However we believe and hold, that the abovefaid faithful may be faved with-
" out receiving the figns aforefaid, in cafe they have no place, nor any means
" to ufe them. We acknowledge no other facrament but baptifin and the
" Lord's-Supper." And in another ancient confefTion, without a date, the 7""
article is * : " We believe that in the facrament of baptifm, water is the vifible
*' and external fign, which rcprefents unto us that wliich (by the invifible vir-
«' tue of God operating) is within us; namely, the renovation of the Spirit,
" and the mortification of our members in Jefus Chrift ; by which alfo zee are
*' received into the bo!y congregation of the people of God, there protefling and de-
" daring
• Ilidory, book I. ch. 8. p. 184. " Remarks, i-c. p. i7t, 172.
• Hifl. of Infant-Baptifm, part II. p. 179. » fox's Afls andMonuments, vol. I p.868,.
J' Morlaod'* Hiftory, b'c. bookl. cb. 4. p. 34. *_ Ibid. p. 58.
278 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
" clarin-^ openly our faith and amendment of life." In a traft *, written in the
language of the ancienc inhabitants of the valleys, in the year 1 100, called The
hohli Ledon^ are thefe words -, fpeaking of the apoftles, it is obfervcd of them,
" tiiev ipoke without fear of the doftrine of Chrift ; they preached to Jews and
" Greeks, workino- many miracles, and thofe that believed they baptized in the
" name of Jefus Chrift." And in a treatife concerning Antichrift, which con-
tains many fernions of the barbs, coUeiSted in the year 1120, and fo fpeaks the
fcnfe of their ancient paftors before this time, ftands the following paflage " :
" The third work of aniichrifl: confifts in this, that he attributes the regenera-
" tion of the holy Spirit, unto the dead outward work (or faith) baptizing chil-
" dren in that faith, and teac'hing, that thereby baptifm and regeneration mufl:
" be had, and therein he confers and beftows orders and other facraments, and
" groundeth therein all his chriftianity, which is againft the holy Spirit."
There are indeed two confefTions of theirs, which are faid to fpeak of infant-
baptifm -, but thefe are of a late date, both of them in the fifteenth century -,
and the earlieft is not a confefTion of the fFaldenfes or Vaiidois in the valleys of
Piedmont, but of the Bohemians, faid to be prefented to Ladiflaus king oi Bohemia^
A. D. 1508, and afterwards amplified and explained, and prefented to Ferdi-
nand k\ns, of Bohemia, A.D. 1535-, and it fhould be obferved, that thofe people
fay, that they were falfly called IValdenfes " ; whereas it is certain there were a
people in Bohemia that came out of the valleys, and fprung from the old Wal-
denjes, and were truly fo, who denied infant-baptifm, as that fort of them called
Pygbards, or Picards ; who, near a hundred years before the reformation, as
we have feen by the letter lent to Erafmus out of Bohemia, rcbaptized perfons
that joined in communion with them; and Scultetus^^ in his annals on the year
1328, fays, that the united brethren in Bohemia, and other godly perfons of that
time, were rcbaptized ; not that they patronized the errors of the Anabaptifts,
(mcanincr fuch that they were charged with which had no relation to baptifm)
but bccaufe they could not fee how they could otherwife feparate themfelves
from an unclean world. The other confeffion is indeed made by the minifters
and heads of the churches in the valleys, affembled in Angrogne, September 12,'
1532 '. Now it fliould be known, that this was made after that " Peterj^itxffon
" and George Morell were fent into Germany in the year 1530, as Morldna ' fays,
" to treat with the chief minifters of Germany, namely, Oecolampadius, Bucer,
•' and others, touching the reformation of their churches ; but Peter Maffon
" was taken prifoner at Dijen." However, as" Fox fays ', " Morell efcaped,
" and
» Morland's Hiftory, &c. ch. 6. p. 99, III. * Ibid. ch. 7. p. 142, 14S.
' Moiland's Hiftory, ch.4. p. 43. * Apud Hoornbeck. Summa Controvcrf. I. 5. p. 387.
• Morland, ibid.cb.4. p.39. ' Ibid. ch. 8. p. 185. « A4h & Monuments, vol. II. p. 1 86.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. -279
« and returned alone to Merindol, with the books 'and letters he broucrht with
«' hitn from the churches of Germa^ty ; and declared to his brethren all the
" points of his commifTioni and opened unto them how many and great errors
" they were in -, into the which their old minifters, whom they called Barbs,
»' that is to fay Uncles, had brought them, leading them from the right way of
" true religion." After which, this confefTion was drawn up, fio-ned, and
fwore to: From hence we learn, where they might get this notion, which was
row become matter of great debate in Switzerland &nd Germany ; and yet, after
all this, I am inclined to think, that the words of the article in the faid con-
fefTion, are to be fo underftood, as not to relate to infant-baptifm : They are
thefe " ; " We have but two facramental figns left us by Jefus Chrift •, the one
" IS Baptifm ; the other i^ths Eucbariji, which we receive, to fhew that our
" perfeverance in the faith, is fuch, as we promifed, when we were baptized,
" being little children." This phrafe, i>eing Utile children, as I think, means,,
their being little children in knowledge and experience, when they were bap-
tized ; fincc they fpeak of their receiving the Eucharift, to fhew their perfe-
verance in the faith, they then had promifed to perfcvere in : Befides, if this is
to be underftood of them, as infants in a literal fenfe ; .what promife were they
capable of making, wlien fuch ? Should it be faid, that " they promifed by
" their fureties ;" it fhould be obferved, that the If^alden/es [did not admit of
godfathers and godmothers in baptifm •, this is one of the abufes their ancient
£ari>s complained of in baptifm, as adminiftered by the Papifts '. Befides, in
a brief confeflion of faith, publifhed by the reformed churches of P/fiw;«/, fo-
late as A. D. 1655, they have thefe words in favour of adult-baptifm '' ; "that
■" God does not only inftrudl and teach us by his word, but has alfo ordained
" certain facraments to be joined with it, as a means to unite us ii/ito Cbrijl, and
to make us partakers of bis benefits. And there are only two of them belonging
" in common to all the members of the church under the New Teftament; to wir,
" Baptifm and the Lord's-Suppper ; that God has ordained the facrament of
" baptifm to be a teftimony of our adoption, and of our being cleanfed from
" our fins by the blood of Jefus Chrift, and renewed in holinefs of life:" Nor
is there one word in it of infant-baptifm.
Upon the whole, it- will be eafily ken, what little reafon the writer of the
dialogue under confideration had to fay, that the ancient f^a'denfes, being in
the. conftant praftice of adult-baptifm, is a chimerical imagination, and a.
groundlefs fiflion ; fince there is nothing appears to the contrary, but that they
were in the praflice of it until the fixteenth century, for what is urged againft
it,.
* Morland, ibid. c. 4, p. 41. « Morland, ibid. c. 7. p. 173.
'' Ibid. c. 4. p. 61, 67.
28o THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
it, is fince that time: And even at that time, there were fome, that continued
in the pradice of it ; for Ludovicus Vives, who wrote in the faid century, hav-
ing obferved, that "formerly no perfon was brought to the holy baptiftery,
" till he was of adult age, and when he both underftood what that myftical
" water meant, and defired to be wafhed in it, yea, defired it more than once,"
adds the following words ; " I hear, in fome cities of Italy, the old cuftom is
" ftill in a great meafure preferred '." Now, what people fhould he mean by
fome cities of //<z/y, unlefs the remainders of the Petrobruflians, or Waldenfes,
" asDufVall obferves ",- who continued that praftice in the valleys ofPiedmont:
And it fhould be obferved, that there were different fedls, that went by the name
of Waldenfes, and fome of them of very bad principles ; fome of them were
Manichees, and held other errors : And indeed, it was ufual for the Papifts in
former times, to call all by this name, that diflcnted from them ; fo that it
need not be wondered at, if fome, bearing this name, were for infant-baptifm,
and others not. The Vaudois in the valleys, are the people chiefly to be re-
oarded -, and it will not be denied, that of late years infant-baptifm has obtain-
ed among them : But that the ancient Waldenfes practifed it, wants proof,
CHAP. IV.
'Tbe Argument for Jnfant-Baptifm, taken from the Covenant made with
Abraham, and from Circuvicifion^ the Sign ofit^ confidcred.
T
■"HE minifter in this debate, in anfwer to his neighbour's requiring a plain
fcripture inftitution of infant-baptifm, tells him -, if he would " confider
•' the covenant of grace, which was made with Abraham, and with all his feed,
" both after thc.flefli, and after the Spirit, and by God's exprefs command to
" be fealed to infants, he would there find a fufficient fcripture inftancc for
" infant-baplifm :" And for this covenant he direfts him to G^«.xvii.2,4, 7, lo,
12. He argues, that this covenant was a covenant of grace ; that it was made
with all Abraham's, feed, natural and fpiritual, Jews and Gentiles; that circum-
cifion was the feal of it; and that the fame infticution, which requires circum-
cifion to be adminiQered to infants, requires baptifm to be alfo adminiftcred to
them, that fucceeding circumcifion, p, 10 — 18. Wherefore,
Firjl, The leading inquiry is, whether the covenant made with Abraham,
Gcnefis xvii. was the covenant of grace ; that is, the pore covenant of grace,
in
' Audio in qnibufdamltaliatUrbibus morem veterem magna ex parte adhuc confervari, Comment,
in Aug. de Civ. Dei, Lib. I. c. 27. " Hiflory of Infant-Bapiifm, part II. c. t. p. iz.
/EXAMINED AND DIS]PRt>VED. t8<
in diftinftion from the covenant df works ; which is the fenfe in which it k
commonly ondcrftood, and m which this writer feems to undcrftand this cove-
nant with ylbrabam; for of it, he fays, p- 13. " k was the covenant of grace,
** that covenant by which alone wc can have any grounded hope of falvation :'
But that it was tbt covenant of grace, or a pure covenant of grace, muft be
licnied : For,
I. It is never called the covenant of grace, »or by any name which fhews it
to be fo ; it is called the tovtnant 9/ (ir<umifion^ which God is faid to give to
Ahr^tbam ', but not a covenant of grace ; circumcifion and grace are oppofed
to one another; circumcifKMi is a work of the law, which they that fought to
bcjuftificd by, fell from grace*.
1. It fecms rather to be a covenant of works, than of grace ; for this was a
covenant to be kept by men. Abraham was to keep it, and his feed after him
were to keep it ; fomething was to be done by them j they were to circumcifc
their flclh v and not only he and his feed were to be circumcifed, but all that
were born in his houfe, or bought with his money ; and a fevere penalty was
annexed to it : In cafe of ncgleft, «r difQbediencc, fuch a foul was to " be cut
*' off from his people '.*' All which favour nothing of a covenant of grace,
a covenant by which wccan tiave a grounded hope of falvation, but the con-
trary.
3. This was a covenant that might be broken, and in fome inftances was"*;
but the covenant of grace cannot be broken ; God will not break it % nor man
cannot : It is <i csvetiant ordertd in all things, atui fure j it cannot be moved ; it
ftands firmer than hills, or nwuntains.
4. It muft be owned, that there were temporal things promifed in this cove-
nant, fuch as a multiplication of Abraham'^ natural feed -, a race of kings from
him, with many nations, and a poflefTion of the land of Canaan '. Things
which can have nothing to do with the pure covenant of grace, any more than
the change of bis name from Abram to Abraham, ver. 5.
5. There were fome perfons, included in this covenant made with Abraham,
of whom it cannot be thought they were in the covenant of grace, as JJhmael,
EfaH, and others j and on the other hand, there were fome, and even living at
the time when this covenant was made, and yet were not in it -, who, ncver-
ihclefs, were in the covenant of grace, »s Arfhaxa^, Mtlchizedeky Lot, and
others ; wherefore this can never be reckoned the pure covenant of grace.
6. The covenant of grace was only made with Cbrift, as the federal bead of
k} ani who is the only head of <he covenant, and of the covenant-ones i wbcre-
VoL. II. O o fore,
•♦'Aflivii.*. ^ Gal. V. 2—4. *Gen. xvii. 9 — 14. * Gen. xvii. 14.
• PfiJiaJnBiurrj4. ' Gtt. xvii. 6, i.
i82 THE" DIVINE " RIGHT • "OF <INF ANT-BAPTISM,
fore, if the covenant of grace was made with Abraham, as the federal head of
■his natural and fpiritual feed, of Jews and Gentiles •,- then there muft be two
heads of the covenant of grace, contrary to the nature of fuch a covenant, and
the whole current of fcripture : Yea, this CQwcmnioi Abraham's, fo far as it
refpefled his fpiritual feed, or fpiritual blefTings for them, it and the promifes
were made to Chrift ^ No mere man is capable of covenanting with God, of
iiipulatlon and reftipulation ; for what has man to reftipulate with God ? The
covenant of grace is not made with any fingle man j and much lefs with him oa
the behalf of others : When, therefore, at any time we read afthe covenant of
grace, being made with a particular perfon, or with particular perfons, it muft
always be underftood of making it manifefl to them ; of a revelation of the co-
venant, and of an application of covenant-bleffings to them ; and not of any
original contradl with them i for that is only made with them in Chrift. To-
which may be added,
7. That the covenant of grace was made with Chrift, and with his people,
as confidcred in him, from everlafting; for fo early was Chrift: fet up as the
mediator of it -, the promife of eternal life in it was before the world was -, and
thofc interefted in it, were blelTed with all fpiritual blefTings and grace before the
foundation of it -, now could there be a mediator fo early, a promife of eternal
lifefo foon, and blefTings of grace provided, and no covenant fubfifting ? where-
fore the covenant made with Abraham in time, could not, ftriflly and properly
fpeaking, be the covenant of grace. But,
8. To fhortcn this debate, it will be allowed, that the covenant made with
Abraham was a peculiar covenant, fuch as was never made with any before, or
fince ; that it was of a mixed kind -, -that it had in it promifes and mercies of
a temporal nature, which belonged to his nitural feed ; and others of a fpiritual
^orr, which belonged to his fpiritual feed : The former are more numerous,
clear, and diftinft ; the latter are comprifed chiefly \n Abraham's being /i)/
father of many nations, or of all that believe, and in God being a God to him
and them *■. Which obfervation makes way for the next inquiry.
Secondly, With whom this covenant was made, fo far as it refpefled fpiri-
tual things, or was a revelation of the covenant of grace-, as for the temporal
things of this covenant, it docs not concern the argument. It is allo^'ed. on all
handsj that they belonged to Abraham, and his natural feed : But the queflion
is, whether this covenant, fo far as it maybe reckoned a covenant of grace,
or a revelation of it, or refpefted fpiritual things, was made with all Abraham^
feed after the flefh, and with all the natural feed of believing Gentiles ? Thiij
queftion confift.s of two parts,
■ ■ ' ifl, Whether
I Gal iii. 16. * SeeRom.iv.il, 12, i6, 17. ■ '
-EXAMINED AND. :JD IS P. ROVED..." 283
- i_y?, "Whether the covenant made with Abraham^ fo far as it was a covenant
of grace, was made with z}A Abraham^ % feed, -according to the flefti?. Which
muft be anfwered in the negative, ' For, ; •_ . • , > . '. ■
i. If ii was made with all the natural feed of Abraham, as fuch, it muft be
with his more immediate offspring-, and fo muft be equally made with a mock-
ing and perfecuting IJhmael, -born after the flefh, the fon of the bond-woman, as
with IfaaCy bom after the Spirit, -and the fon of the free-woman ; and yet we find,
that Ifhmael was excluded from having a Ihare in fpiritual bleffings, only tem-
poral, ones were promifed him ; and, in diftindlion and oppofition to him, the
covenant was eftablifhcd with 7/ijjf '. Again, if this was the cafe, it rauft be
equally made with a profane Efau, as with plain-hearted ^flfo^ -, and yet it is
faid, Jacob have I loved, and Efau have I hated*-.
■ 2. If it was made with all Abraham.^ feed according to the flefh,- it muft be
made with all his remote pofterity, and ftand good to them in their moft cor-
rupt cftate ; it muft be made with them who believed not, and whofc carcafcs
fell in the wildernefs, and entered not into reft; it muft be made with the ten
tribes, that revolted from the pure fervicc of God, and yvho worfhipped the
calves it Dan znd Bethel i it muft be made with the people of the Jews in T/'^/c/fi's
time, when they were a fmful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a feed of evil-doers,
children thativere corrupters; whofe rulers are called the rulers of Sodom, zhi the
people the people of Gomorrah ', it muft be made with the Scribes and Pharifees,
and that wicked, adulterous, aTnd hypocritical generation of men in the lime of
our Lord, who were his implacable enemies, and were concerned in, his death -,
who killed him, perfecuted his apoftles, pleafed not God, and were contrary to
all men. What man, that ferioufly confiders thefe thing<;, can think thkt tlie
covenant of grace belonged to t|iefe men, at leaft to all ; and efpecially when
he -o^jfcrvcs, what the apoftle fays, they are not all Ifrael, which 'are of Ifrael;
neither becaufe they are the feed of Abraham, are they all children " ? Yea, ' '
■ 3. If it was made with all that are the feed of Abraham according to the flefti,.
then it muft be made with Ifhmaelites and Edomites, as well as with Ifraelites -,
with his pofterity by Keturah, as iwll as by Sarah ; with the Midianites aad
Arabians -, with the Turks, as well as with The Jews, fince they defcended*d
claim their dcfcent from Abraham, as well as thefe. ' But,
" 4. To fhut up this argument ; this covenant made vj'ith Abraham, be it a
covenant of grace, feeing it could be no more, at moft, than a revelation, ma-
nifeftation, copy, or tranfcript of it, call it which you will ; ic can never be
thought to comprehend more in it than the original contradl, than the eternal
002 covenant
I Gco.xvii. 19, ao, Ji. ' Mai. i. i, :. ' Ifai. i. 4, 6, to. ^ Rom.Lx. 6, 7,
fUy . THE DIVINE RI^HT OF IKFANT^APTISM,
■ ■cerffnant between the Father atid €he Son. ' Kow the 6nly-perfons intereded ir>
the everlaftkig covenant of grace, arc the ^btff^^ if God iu*d fr<cio»i ; whom he
has loved with an everlafting love; gave to hU Son v> bt redeemed by his
' ^ blood i for whom pfovifion is made ift xhe fame covenant for the £anaifkation
. .(".of their nature, for the juftifkation of tbeir peribns, for the pardon of their
'fins, for th^ir perfevftrance in grace, and for their eternal glory and happincfs :
So that all that are in that covenant are chofcn to gntcc here, and glory here-
after, and fhall certainly enjoy both : they are all fccurcd in the hands of Chrift,
and are redeemed from fla, law, hdl, and death, by his precious Hood ; and
fhall be faved in him wish an everlafting falvation ; they have all of them the
laws of God put Into their minds, and written on their hearts ; they have new
hearts and new fpirits given them, and the ftony heart taken away from them-,
they have the righteoufrvefs of Chrift imputed to. them; they have their fins
forgiven them for his fake, and which will be remembered no more ; ihey have
the fear of God put into their hearts, and fhall never finally and totally depart
from him ; bur, being called and juftified, (hall be glorified ".
Now if this covenant was made with all /ihaham''% natural feed, and compre-
hends all of them, then they muft be all cbofen of Ced ; whereas there was only
a remnant anxing them, according to the eUSion of grace "• : they muft be all given
to Chrift, and fecured in his hands ; whereas there were fome of them, that
were not of his fhcep, given him by hisFather, and fodjd not believe in him' ;
they muft be all redeemed by his blood; whereas he laid down his life for his
fhcep, his friends, his church, which all of Abraham's feed could never be faid
to be : In a word, they muft be all regenerated and famSlified, juftified and par-
doned ; muft all havt the grace of God, and pverfevere in it to the end, and be
all eternally faved ; and the fame muft be faid of all the natural feed of believ-
ing Gentiles, if they alfo are all of them in the covenant of grace. But what
man, in his C^nfes, will afiirm thefe things ? And, upon fuch a principle, how will
the doftrines of pcrfonal eleftion, particular redemption, regeneration by effica-
cious grace, not by blood or the will of man, and the faints final perfcverance,
be cftablifhed ?
This Gentleman, whofe pamphlet is before me, is faid to have written with
f6me fucccfs againft the Arminians ; but fure I am, that no man can write with
fuccefs againft them, and without contradiftion to himfelf, that has imbibed
fach a notion of the covenant of grace, as this I am militating againft.
zdly. The other part of the qucftion is, whether the covenant made with
Abraham, fo far as it was a covenant of grace, was made with all the natural
fbcd
» Jer. xxxi. 33, J4. and xxxii, 40. Ezek. xxxri. 15 — 27. Rom. viiL 30.
• fiioin. xi. J. 'JohDX.»6.'
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 285
feed of believing Gentiles ? which alfo muft be anfwered in the negative :
For,
1. It will be allowed, that this covenant refpefls Abraham' i fpiritual feed
among the Gentiles } even all tfue believers, all fuch that walk in the fteps of
his faith -, for he is the Father of all them that believe, whether circumcifed or
wncircumcifed, Jews or Gentiles "i ; but not the natural feed of believinc^ Gen-
tiles. They, indeed, that ar« of iht fmh oi Jhrabam^ are his children in a
fpiritual fenfc, and they are blefled with him with fpiritual blefllngs, and are
fuch, as Chrift has redeemed by his blood ; and they believe in him, and the
blefling oi Abraham comes upon them : But then this fpiritual feed oi Abraham
is the fame with the fpiritual feed of Chrift, with whom the covenant was made
from everlafting, and to them only does it belong -, and to none can fpiritual
bleffings belong, but 10 a fpiritual feed, not a natural one. Let it be proved,
if it can, that all the natural feed of believing Gentiles, are the fpiritual feed
of Abraham, and then they will be admitted to have a claim to this covenant.
But, though it appears, that believing Gentiles arc in this covenant, what
daufc is there in it, that refpefts their natural feed, as fuch ? Let it be fhown,
if it can i by what right and authority, can any believing Gentile pretend to
put his natural feed into Abraham's covenant .? The covenant made with him,
as to the temporal part of it, belonged to hirn^ and his natural feed 5 and with
tcfpctft to its fpiritual part, only to his fpiritual feed, whether Jews or Gentiles ;
and not to the natural feed of either of them, as fuch.
2. The covenant made mih Abraham^ and his fpiritual feed, takes in many of
the feed of unbelicvingGentileSi who being called by grace, and openly believ-
ing Chrift, are Abraham's fpiritual feed, with whom the covenant was made :
That there are many among the Gentiles born of unbelieving parents, who be-
come true bclievei's in Chri^, afld io appear to be in t-he covenant of grace, muft
be allovWd • fince many ar* received as fuch intb the communion of the P^do-
baptifts, as well as others V and, on the- other hand, there are many born of be-
lieving Gentiles, who do not believe in Chrrfti, arc no« pafto'kers of his grace.
Oft whom the fpifitual blefllngs of Abraham do not come; and fo not in his cove-
nant. Wherefore, by what authority do men put in the infant feed of believing
Gentiles, as fuch, into the cote'nant, and reftfainix to them, and leave out the
feed of unbelievingGcntiles; wh«l1, On the contrary, God oftentimes tak-es the
ofiejj and leaves the other ? ~
3. That all the natural fe«d of believing Gentiles cannot be included in the
covenant of grace, is mariifcft, from the reafon above given, againft all the na-
tural feed of Abraham being in it ; flicwing,. that all that arc in it arc the eleft
of-
1 Rora. iv. II, 12, 16.
286 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
of God, the redeemed of Chrilt, are cffeftually called by grace, perrevere to
the end, and are eternally faved; all which cannot be faid of all the natural feed
of believincT Gentiles: And if all the natural feed oi Abraham are not in this
covenant made with him, as it was a covenant of grace, it can hardly be thought
that all the natural ked of believing Gentiles fhould.
4. Seeing it is fo clear a cafe, that fome of the feed of unbelieving Gentiles
are in this covenant, and fome of the feed of believing Gentiles are not in it,
and that it cannot be known who are, until they believe inChrift, and fo appear
to hiAbrabam's fpiritual feed; it mull be right to put off their claim to any pri- |
vileoe fuppofed to arife from covenant intereft, until it appear that they have !
one.
5. After all, covenant interefl: gives no right to ^ny ordinance, without a
pofitive order and dircdion from God. So, for inftance, with refpeft to cir-
cumcifion ; on the -one hand, there were fome perfons living at the time that I
ordinance was inftituted, -who undoubtedly had an intereft in the covenant of
grace, as Sbem, Arphaxad, Lot, and others, on whom that was not injoined,
and who had no right to ufe it ; and, on the other hand, there have been many
that were not in the covenant of grace, who were obliged to it : And fo with
rcfpcct to baptifm, it is not covenant interefl: that gives a right to it; if it could
be proved, as it cannot, that all the infant feed of believers, as fuch, are in the
covenant of grace, it would give them no right to baptifm, without a pofitive
command for it •, the reafon is, bccaufe a perfon may be in covenant, and as
yet not have the prerequifite to an ordinance, even faith in Chrift, and a pro-
feffion of it; which are ncceflary to baptifm and thcLord'sSupper. This leads
me on.
Thirdly, To another inquiry, whether circumcifion was a fealof the covenant
■of grace to Abraham's natural feed ; the writer, whofe performance I am con-
fjdcring, affirms, that it was by God's exprefs command to be fealcd to infants;
and that circumcifion is the feal of it, p. 10, 16. But this muft be denied:
circumcifion was no feal of the covenant of grace ; for,
I. If it was, the covenant of grace, before that took place, muft be without
a feal; the covenant fubfifted fromevcrlafting, and the revelation of it was quick-
ly made after the fall of Adam ; and there were manifeftations of it to particu-
lar perfons, as Noah, and others, before this to Abraham, and no circumcifien
injoined: Wherefore, {torn Adam to Abraham, according to this notion, the
covenant muft be without a feal; nay, there were fome perfons living at the
time it was inftituted, who were in the covenant, yet this was not injoined
them ; as it would, if this had been defigned as a feal of it.
2. Circumcifion
.T TE X cA; TVT1.NET) AND DISTPROVED. 287
* '2, Circumcifion,in the inftitution of ir, is called a fic^n, but not a feal • it
is faid to be j-\Mi Q(h, i Token, or Sign'; but not Qn-in Cbothem, zSeal; ic
was a fign or mark in the flefh, v/hich ^i>rabam's natural feed were to bear un-
■til the prom.ifes made in this covenant were accomplifhed ; it was a typical fion
of the pollution of human nature, propagated by natural generation, and of
cleanfing from it by the blood of Chrift, and of the inward circumcifion of
the heart ; but did not feal or confirm any fpiritual bleffing of the covenant to
thofe on whom this mark or fign was fet ; it is never called a feal throucrhout the
whole Old Teftament; and fo far is therefrom being any exprcfs command, that
the covenant of grace fliould be fealed to infants by it, that there is not the leaft
hint of it given.
• 5- It is indeed in theNewTeftament called a feal of tberighteoufnefs of faith';
but it is not faid to be a feal of the covenant of grace, nor a feal to infants : it
was not a feal to Abraham's natural feed j it was only fo to himfelf The plain
meaning of the apoftic is, that circumcifion was a feal to Abraham, and afibred
him of, or confirmed his faith in this, that he fliould be the father of many
nations, in a fpiritual fcnfe; and that the righteoufiiefs of faith which he had,
when he was an uncircumcifcd perfon, fliould alfo come upon, and be imputed
unto the uncircumcifcd Gentiles : and accordingly, this mark and fign conti-
nued until the gofpel, declaring juftification by the righteoufnefs ofChrift, was
preached, or ordered to be preached to the Gentiles -, and could it be thought
that circumcifion was a feal to others bcfides him, it could at mod be only a
fcal to them that had both faith and righteoufnefs, and not to them that had-
neither-
4. If it was a feal of the covenant of grace to Abraham's natural feed, it muft
be cither to fome or all ; if only to forne, it fliould be pointed out who they are;
and if to all, then it muft be fealed, that is, confirmed, and an intercfl: in it af-
fured of, to a mocWxuolfhmael; to a profane £/}z«-, toKorah, Dathan, andAbiram,.
and their accomplices, whom the. earth fwallowed up alive ; to Achitophd, .that
hanged himfelf; to Judas, that betrayed our Lord ; and to all the Jews con-
cerned in his crucifixion and death; fincc there is reafon to believe they were-all .
circumcifed. But,
5. The covenant made vi'\th Abraham, fo faras it was a covenant of grace, wai
»ot made, as we have feen, with i\\ Abraham's natural feed ; and therefore cir-
cumcifion could not be a feal of it to them. I pafs on,
Fourthly, To another inquiry, whether baptifm fucceeded circumcifion, and
fo became a feal of the covenant of grace to believers, and their natural feed ?.
This muft be anfwered in the negative ; for,^
I. Th&rc
' Gen. xvii. ii. ^ Rom. iv. ti»
288 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
: I. There is no agreement between thcra, in the fubjefts eo whom tbey arc
adminiftcred; circumcilion was adminiftercd to Jews only, or fuch as becanrw
profelytcs -, baptifm both to Jews and Gentiles, without any diftindtion, that
believe in Chrift -, circumcifion was adminiftered to infants, baptifm only to
adult perfons ; circumcifion belonged only to the males, baptifm to male and
female : Seeing then the fubjefts of the one and the othcf are fo different, tkc
one cannot be thought to fuccced the other.
-2.. The ufc of the one and the other h not the fame-, the ufc of circumcifion
was to diftinguifli the natural feed of Abraham from others, tmtil Chrift was
come in the fiefli ; the ufe of baptifm is to be a diftinguiftiing badge of the
fpiritual feed of Chrift, fuch as have believed in him, and put him on -, the
ufe of circumcifion was to fignify the corruption of human nature, the neceflity
of regeneration, of the circumcifion without hands, and of clcanfing by the
blood of Chrift -, the ufe of baptifm is to anfwer a good confcience towards God,
to rcprefcnt the fuffcrings, burial, and rcfurrcdiion oi Chrift, and prtrequires
repentance and faith.
3. The manner of adminiftering the one and the other is very different; the
one is by blood, the other by water ; the one by an incifion made in one part
of the body, the other by an immerfion of the whole body in water j the one
was done in a private houfe, and by a private hand ; the other, for the moft
part, publicly, in open places, in rivers, and before multitudes of people, and
by a perfon in public office, a public minifter of the word. Now, ordinances
fo much differing in their fubjefls, ufe, and manner of adminiftration, the one
can never be thought to come in the room and place of the other. But,
4. What puts it out of all doubt, that baptifm can never be faid to fuctxcd
circumcifion is, that baptifm was in force and ufe before circumcifion was abo-
liftied, and its practice difcontinued, or ought to be difcontinued. Circum-
cifion was not abolifhed till the death of Chrift, when, with other ceremonies
of the law, it was made null and void ; but, unto that time, it was the duty
of Jewiftj parents to circamcife their infants ; whereas fome years before this,
John came preaching thedoftrine of baptifm, and adminiftered it to multitudes;
our Lord himfelf was baptized, three or four years, according to the common
compuution, before his death ; now that which is in force before another is
out of date, can never, with any propriety, be faid to fuccced or come in the
room of that other.
5. It has been proved already, that circumcifion was no fcal of the covenant
cf grace to Abrabam'i natural feed ; and therefore, could it be proved, as it
caanot, that baptifm fucceeds, it, it would not follow that baptifm is a feal of
the covenant of grace ; there arc many perfons who have been baptized, and
■ yet
'"£XAMlN£D AND DISPROVED. 169
ytC not in the covenant of grace, and to whom it was nevet fealed, as Simon
Magus, and others ; and, on the other hand, a perfon may be in the covenant
of grace, and it may t>c fealed to him, and he may be comfortably affured of
his intereft in it, though, as yer, not baptized in water. The author of the
dialogue before. me fays, p. 16 that it is allowed on all hands, that baptifm
is a token or feal of the covenant of grace •, but it is a popular clamour, a vul-
gar miflake, that either that or the Lord's-Supper are feals of the covenant of
grace. The blood of Chrill: is the feal, and the only feal of it, by which its pro-
mifcs and biefTings are ratified and confirmed •, and the holy Spirit is the only
earned pledge, feal, and fealer of the faints, until the day of redemption '. And
fo all that fine piece of wit of our author, about the red and white feal, is fpoil-
ed and'lofl, *p. 17.
Upon the whole, we may fee what fufficient fcripturc inftitution for infant-
baptifm is to be found in the covenant made with Abraham; fmce the fpiritual
part of that covenant did not concern his natural feed, as fuch, but his fpiritual
feed, and fo not infants, but adult perfons, whether among Jews or Gentiles,
that walked in the ftcps of his faith ; and feeing there is not one word of bap-
tifm in it, and much lefs of infant-baptifm -, nor was circumcifion a feal of ir,
nor does baptifm fucceed that, or is i feal of the covenant of grace :
Hence alfo, it will appear, what litile reafon there is for that clamorous out-
cry, fo often made, and is by our author, of lefTening and abridging the privi-
leges of infants under the gofpel difpenfation, and of depriving chcm of what
they formerly had v or for an harangue upon the valuable blefTlng, and great
and glorious privilege they had, of having the covenant of grace fealed unto
them by circumcifion ; or for that demand, how, why, and when, children
were cut off from this privilege? or for fuch a reprefentacion, this being the
cafe, that the gofpel is a lefs glorious difpenfation, with refpefl: to infants, than
the former was, p. 19, 20, 22, 30. Seeing the covenant of grace was never
fealed to infants by circumcifion -, nor was that bloody and painful rite accounted
a rich and glorious privilege ; far from it ; efpecially as it bound them over to
keep the whole law, it was a yoke of bondage, an infupportable one : and it
is a rich mercy, and glorious privilege of the gofpel, that the Jews and their
cliildren are delivered from it j and that Geatilcs and their children are not
obliged to it : And as for the demand, how, why, and when, children were
cut off from it, it is eafily anfwered, that this was done by the death of Chrift,.
and at the time of it, when all ceremonies were abolifhcd ; and that for this rea-
fon, becaufe of the weaknefs, unprofitablcnefs, and burdcnfomenef? of that,
and them: And as for the gofpel-difpenfation, that is the more glorious, for
infants being left out of its church-ftatc; that is to fay, for its being not national
Vol. II. P p and
♦ Heb. xiii. 20. compared with Dan. ix. :;. Ephrr. i. 11. 14. and iv 30.
290 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
and carnal, as before, but congregational and fpiritual ; for its confiding, not
of infants without underftanding, but of rational and fpiritual men, of believers
in Chrift, and profeflbrs of his name; and thefc not in afinglc and fmall coun-
try, as Judta, but in all parts of the world, as it has been, at one time or an-
other, and it will be in the latter day : And as for infants themfelves, their cafe
is as good, and their privileges as many and better, than under the legal dif-
penfation ; their falvation is not at all afFc<5led by the abrogation of circumcifion,.
or through want of baptifm to fucceed it. As the former did not feal the co-.
venant to them, and could not fave them, fo neither could the latter, were it
adminiftered to them : To which may be added, that being born of chriftian
parents, and having a chriftian education, and the advantage of hearing the.
gofpel, as they grow up, and this not in one country, but many, muft exceed,
all the privileges the Jewifh children had under the former difpcnfation.
CHAP. V.
A confideration of the federal texts of fcripture produced in favour- of
Infant -Baptifm.
'"pHE n inifter in the dialogue before me, being prefTed by his neighbour to
^ declare what were the numerous texts of fcripture he referred to, as prov-
ing the continuance of childrens privileges under the gofpel- difpenfation, mean-
ing particularly baptifm, mentions the following.
17?, The pafTage in A£is ii. 39. For the promife is unto you, and to your chil-
dren, and to all that are afar off, even as many as ibe Lord our God Jhall call.
This fcripture is often made ufc of by our author, and feems to be his dernier
refort on all occafions, and the fheet-anchor of the caufe he is pleading for.
The promife fpoken of, he fays, undoubtedly, was' the covenant made with
Abraham ; and was urged as a reafon with the Jews, why they and their chil-
dren ought to be baptized •, and as a reafon with the Gentiles, why they and
their children, when called into a church-ftate, fhould be alfo baptized, p. 1 1,
12. He makes ufe of it, to prove that this promife gives a claim to baptifm,
and that an intereft in it gives a right unto it, p. 15, 16, 18, 29, 30.
I. It is eafy to obferve the contradidlions, that fuch are guilty of, that plead
for infant-baptifm, from the covenant or promife made w'lih Abraham, as this
writer ii. One while, he tells us, that perfons are by baptifm brought into the
covenant of grace-, and what a dreadful thing it is to renounce baptifm in infancy;
whereby the covenant is vacated, and the relation to the glorious God dif-
owned.
1
EXAMINED ANI> DISPROVED. 291
owned, they were brought into by baptifm, p. 4. And yet here we are told,
that intercft in this promife gives a right and claim to baptifm ; but how can it
give a previous right and claim to baptifm, when it is by baptifm, according
to this writer, that perfons are brought into this covenant ?
v.. The promife here oWerved, be it what it will, is not taken notice of, as
what gives a claim and right to baptifm, but as an encouraging motive to per-
dbns pricked in the heart, and in diftrefs, both to repent, and be baptized for
the remiffion of fins, and as giving them hope of receiving the holy Ghofl:,
•fince fucha promife was made; wherefore repentance and baptifm were urged,
jn order to the enjoyment of the promife ; and, confequently, can be under-
llood of no other than adult perfons, who were capable of repentance, and of
a voluntary fubjeftion to the ordinance of baptifm.
3. Thcfhildren, here fpoken of, do not dcfign infants, but the pofterity of
•the Jews, and fuch, who might be called children, though grown up : And
■nothing is more common in fcripture % than the ufe of the phrafe in this fenfe;
and, unlefs it be fo underftood in many places, ftrange interpretations muft be
given of them : wherefore the argument, from hence, for Psedobaptifm, is
given up by fome learned men, as Dr Hammond, and others, as inconclufive-,
but fome men, wherever they meet with the vford cbUdren, it immediately runs
in their heads, that infants muft be meant.
4. The promife, be it what it will, is reftrained to as many as the Lord our
Codjhail call, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, as well as to repenting and
baptizing perfons ; and therefore can furnifli out no argument for infant-bap-
tifm, but muft be underftood of adjjlt perfons, capable of being called wich
an holy calling, of profefTing repentance, and of defiring baptifm upon it; and
of doing this, that their faith might be led to the blood of Chrift, for the re-
miffion of fin.
5. It fcems clear from the context, that not the covenant made vi\x.\\ Abra-
ham, but cither the promife of the Meffiah, and -falvacion by him, the great
promife made in the Old Teftament to the Jews, and their pofterity ; or the
particular promife of remiffion of fins, a branch of the new covenant made with
the houfe of Ifrael, and mentioned in the preceding verfe, and which was calcu-
lated for comfort, and pertinently taken notice of; or of the pouring out of the
holy Ghoft, which is laft mentioned : And indeed all may be included in this
promife, and ufed as a means to comfort them under their diftrefs, and as
an argument to encourage them to do the things they arc prefTed to in the
foregoing verfe.
• p p 2 . ^^b^
'*-See Exod. i. 8, 12. «nd Hi. 23. and xii. 26, 27, 28, 35, 40, 50. ind x\f. 8, 10, 22, 29.
Jcr. I. 4. and a multitude of other places.
292 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
zdfy, To the former is added another fcripture in Matthew x\x. 14. Suffer
little children, and forbid them not to ceme utile me, for of fucb is the kingdom of
heaven. Upon which, it is afkcd, how, and which way, fliould we bring our
little children to Chrift, but in the way of his ordinances ? If they belong to
the kingdom of heaven, they muft have a right to the privileges of that king-
dom, p. 20. To which I anfwer,
1. Thefe little children do not appear to be new-born babes-, the words ufed
by the evangelifts do not always fignify fuch, but are fomecimes ufed of fiich
as arc capable of going alone, yea, of receiving inflrudtions, of underftanding
the fcriptures, and of one of twelve years of age". Nor is it probable that chil-
dren juft born, or within the month, Oiould be had abroad. Moreover, thefe
were fuch as Chrift called unto him % and were capable of coming to him of
themfelves, as thefe words fuppofe ; nor does their being brought unto him, or
his taking them in his arms, contradi(ft this ; fince the fame things are faid of
fuch as could walk of themfelves •*.
2. It is not known whofe children thefe were, whether the children of thofc
that brought them, or of others-, and whether their parents were believers in
Chrift, or not, or whether their parents were baptized or unbaptized ; and if
ihcy were unbelievers and unbaptized perfons, the Predobaptills themiclves
will not allow that their children ought to be baptized.
3. Ceruin it is, that they were not brought toChrifb, to be baptized by hi.m -,
for the ends for which they were brought are mentioned ; Mattheiv fays, they
brought them unto him, that hef].ouldpul ins hands on thenu, and pray ; that is,
ifjx them, and blcfs them -, as was ufual with the Jews to do ' : and it was com-
mon with them to bring their children to venerable perfons, men of note for re-
ligion and piety, to have their blefTmg and their prayers -, and fuch an one the
perfons that brought thefe children might take Chrift to be, though they might
ROt know him'to be the MefTiah. Mark and Luke fay, they were brought to
him, that be u-cu!d touch them*; as he fometimes ufed to do, when he healed
perfons of difcaies ; and probably fome of thefe children, . if not all of them,
were diftaied, and were brought to be cured ; otherwife it is not eafy to con-
ceive what they fliould i>e touched by him for; however, they were not brought
to be baptized : If the perfons that brought them had their baptifm in view, they
would not have brought them to Chrift, but to his difciplcs ; feeing not he but
they baptized the perfons fit for it -, they might have fcen the difciples admi-
nifler that ordinance, but not Chrift; and from hence it is certain, that they
were not baptized by Chrift, fince he never baptized any.
4. This
' Matt, xvili. t. 2Tini.iii, 1;. Marie v. 39, 4?. « Luke xviii. 16.
T Mate. xii. 22. and xvii. i6. Mark ix. 36. f See Gen. xlix. 14 — 16.
» Maik X. 13. Luke xviii. 15,
; EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 293
. 4. This pafiage concludes againft Pjedobaptifm, and not for it; for it feems,
by this, that it had never been the praftice of the Jews, nor oijchn the Baptift,
•nor of Chrift and his difciples, to baptize infants ; for had this been then in ufe,
the apoftles would fcarcely have rebuked and forbid ihofe that brought theie
children, fince they might have concluded they brought them to be baptized -,
but knowing of no fuch ufage, that ever obtained in that nation, neither amono-
thofe that did or did not believe in Chrift, they forbad them; and Chrift's entire
Cknce about the baptifm of infants at this time, when he had fuch an opporcu-
xiity of fpeaking of it to his difciples, had it been his will, has no favourable af-
pefl on fuch a pradlice.
5. This writer's reafoning upon the pafTage, is befide the purpofe for which
he produces it ; if he brings it to prove any thing refpefting baptifm, it muft be
to prove that infants were brought to Chrifl, in order to be baptized by him,
and not to him In the way of his ordinance, or in the way of baptifm : the rea-
fon our Lord gives why they fhould be fuffered to come to him, for of fuch is
the kingdom of heaven, is to be underftood of fuch as were comparable to little
children, for modeQy, mccknefs, and humility, and for freedom from rancour
malice, ambition, and pride ^ And fo the ^yr/ar verfion is, who are as tkefe \
and xh^Per/ic verficn, which is rather a paraphrafe, fhewing the fenfe, "who have
been humble as thefe liLtU children ; and fuch are the proper fubjefts of a gofpcl
church-ftate, fomctimes called the kingdom of heaven, and fhall inherit eternal
happinefs. If the words are to be literally underftood of infant?, and of their
belonging to the kingdom of heaven, interpreted of the kingdom of grace, or
of the gofpel church-ftate, according to this author's reafoning, they will prove
too much, and more than he cares for; naniely, that belonging to that king-
dom, they have a right to the privileges of ir, even to all of them, to the Lord's
flipper, as well as to baptifm; but the kingdom of glory fcems to be dcfigncd :
And we are not unwilling to admit the literal fenfe, for the eternal f^lvation and
happinefs of infants dying in infancy, is not denied by us; and, according to
this fenfe, our Lord's reafoning is ftrong, that feeing he thought fie to fave tiie
fouls of infants, and introduce them into the kingdom of heaven, why fliould
they be forbid being brought to him, to be touched by him, and healed of
their bodily difeafes ? The argument is from the greater to the lefTcr; butfur-
nifhes out nothing in favour of Psdobaptifm.
^dly. The next text mentioned is Matt, xviii. 6. Bafxhofo pall offend one of
ibeje little ones which believe in me, it were better for him, that a millfione were
hanged about his neck, and that be were drowned in the depth of the fca. Upon
which it is obferved, that the little one referred to was in an infant ftate, as ap-
pears
* See Matt, xviii. 2.
2 04 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
j-iears from verfe 2^ and Mark ix. 36. and that little children are reputed, by
i Chrift, believers in him : And fo here is a full anticipation of the common
• objedlion againft the baptifm of infants, and a juftification of their claim to the
feal of the rightcoufnefs of faith-, as well as a ftrong declaration of the awful
danger of offending thefe little ones, by denying them the coveaant privileges,
to which they have a righteous claim, p. 20, 21, 23, 27. But,
1. Though the little child, in verfe 2'*, which our Lord fet in the midft of
his difciples, and took an occafion from thence to rebuke and inftruft them',
was in an infant-ftate, yet thofe our Lord here fpeaks of, were not little ones
in acye ; for how capable foever they may be of having the principle or habit
of faith implanted in them, they cannot be capable of cxercifing it, or of aft-
ing faith, which the phrafe ufed exprefTes -, for if they are not capable of exer-
cifing reafon, though they have the principle of it in them, they cannot be
capable of exercifing faith ; nor indeed of being offended in the fenfe the word
is here ufcd, and to fuch -a degree, that the offenders of them had better have
died a violent death, than to be guilty offuch offence. Bur,
2. The difciples of Chrift are meant, his apoflles, who were contending
among themfcflves who fhould be greateft in the kingdom of heaven ; which
ambition our Lord rebukes, by placing a little child in the midft of them,
ver. I, 2. faying to them. Except ye be convertedy and become as little children, ye
Jhall not enter into the kingdom of heaven ; adding, that whoever humbled him-
fclf as the child before him, fhould be the greateft in it; and that fuch who
received fuch humble difciples of his, received him ; but thofe that offended
them, would incur his refentment, and the greateft danger exprelTed in the words
under confidcration, ver. 3—6. And thefe were fuch, not only who by faith
looked to Chrift, and received him as their Saviour, and made a profefTion of
him •, but preached the doftrine of faith ; who, having believed, therefore /poke ;
and who may be faid to be offended, when their perfons were defpifed, their
miniftry rcjedted, and they reproached and perfecuted ; and, when it would go
ill with them that fliould treat them in this manner. Thefe were fuch, who
were little ones, in their own eftcem, and in the efteem of others.
3. Admitting that infants in age could be meant, and thefe to have the prin-
ciple and habit of faith in them, yet this would not juftify their claim to bap-
tifm, which this writer means, by the feal of the rightcoufnefs of faith ; though
not baptifm, but circumcifion is defigned by that phrafe -, fince afliual faith,
yea, a profcfTion of it, is a neceffary pre-rcquifitc to baptifm ; Jf thou believcfi
-with all thine heart, thou mayeji '.
4. This
' Afls viii. 37.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 295
4.. This -writer feems confcious to himfelf, that faith in Chrift is neceflary to
baptifm, and is that which juftifies a claim unto if, fince he feems glad to lay
hold on this text, and the fenfe he puts upon it, in order to anticipate the ob-
jedlion to infant-baptifm taken from faith in Chrift, being a pre-rcquifue to n-,
which he knows not how otherwife to get rid of, than to fuppofe that infants
have. faith, and that this is a proof of it. But,
; 5. Suppofing this, either all infants have faith, or only fome : If all ; how
comes it to pafs, that there are fo many, when grown up, that are manifeftly
defticute of it: Can the grace be loft ? Is it not an abiding one ? Is not He,
who is the. Author, the Finifhcr of it ? If .only, fome have it, how. can it be
known, who have it, and. who not ? Wherefore, to baptize upon this fuppofed
faith, is to proceed on a very precarious foundation : It feems, therefore, much
more eligible, to defer their baptifm, .till it appears, that they do truly and ac-
tually believe in Chrift.
^hJy, Xhe next paflage of fcripture, produced in favour. of infant-baptifm,
is. I Cor. vii. 14. For the unbelieving hujhand is fan£lified by the wife, and the un-
believing wife is fanliified by the hufband, elfe were your children unclean; but new -
are they holy. Upon which, ouc autJior thusreafons ; '« If either of the parents
'.' be a believer, the children are reputed holy i .that is, they have a covenant
" holincfs,-and Jiave, .therefore, a claim to covenapt-privileges-, — they are holy,
*' by virtue of their covenant.-relaiion to God, .and muft, therefore, have a
" right to have that covenant fealed to them in baptifm, p. 21." But,
1. It oughr to be told, what thefe covenant-privileges arc, that children have
a claim unto, by virtue of their covenant-relation, this writer fo often fpeaks of.
If baptifm is one of them, as it feems to be his intention, that muft be denied,
to be a covenant-privilege, or a. privilege of the covenant of- grace -, for then alL
the covenant ones in all ages, ought to have enjoyed it ; whereas they have not :
And we have feen already, that covenant intereft gives no right to any pofiti-^'e'
inftitutjon, or ordinance, without a divine direftion ; and that baptifm is na .
fcal of the covenant;
2. It ftiould be told, what this covenant is, whether it is a real or imaginary
thing; it feems to be the latter, by our author's way of exprcffing himfelf. Ho
fays, children are reputed holy ; that is, have a covenant- holincfs : So that cove-
rant-holinefs is a reputed holinefs ; but fuch a. holinefs can-never qualify per^ -
fons for a New Tcftament ordinance ; nor has the covenant of grace any fuch .
holinefs belonging to it-, that provides, by way of promife, for real holinefs,
fignified, by putting and writing the laws of God in the heart, by giving new-
hearts and new fpirits, and taking away the ftony heart, and by cleanfing fronr
all impurity -, this is real, inward holinefs, and fhews itfclf in an outward holy ,
converfation : .
296 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
converfation : Where this appears, fuch have an undoubted right to the ordi-
nance of baptifm, fincc they muft have received the holy fpirit, as a fpirit of
fanftification '.
3. A holinefs, appertaining to the covenant of grace, can never be meant,
(Ince it is fuch a holinefs, as unbelievers, yea, as heathens are faid to have ; h
is fuch a holinefs, as unbelieving hufbands, and unbelieving -wives are faid to
have, by virtue and in confequence of their relation to believing wives and
believing hufbands -, and vyhich they have prior to the holinefs of their children ;
and on which their childrens holinefs depends, Now, furcly, unbelievers and
heathens, will not be allowed to be in covenant, of to bepoflcflcd of a covenant
holinefs, by virtue of their yoke-fellows •, arrd yet, theirs, and their childrens
holinefs, muft be of the fame kind and nature. Wherefore,
4. If children, by virtue of this holinefs, have a claim to covenant-privileges,
and to have the covenant fealed to them by baptifm 1 then, much more, their
unbelieving parents, becaufe they arc fanftificd before them, by tlieir believ-
ing yoke-fellows, and they are as near to them, as their children ; and if the ho-
linefs of the one gives a right to baptifm, why not the holinefs of the other ? And
yet, our Pasdobaptifts do not pretend to baptize the unbelieving hufband or
wife, thougli fanflified, whofe holinefs is the more near ; but the children, that
become holy through the fandtification of both, whofe holinefs is the more
remote. For, it fhould be obferved, that the holinefs, fpoken of in the text,
be it what it will, is derived, or denominated, from both parents, believing
and unbelieving; yea, the holinefs of the children depends upon the fanftifi-
cation of the unbelieving parent; for if the unbeliever is not fanftifted, the chil-
dren are unclean, and not holy. Befides, the words are not necefTarily to be
underftood of infants, or young children, but of the pofterity of fuch perfons,
whether of 40, or 50 years of age, or of what age foever ; and muft be unclean
in the fcnfe of the word, here ufcd, if their unbelieving parent is not fandtificd
by, or to the believing one. But,
5. Thefe words are to be underftood of a matrimonial holinefs ; not merely
of the holinefs of marrbge, as it is an inftitution of God, but of the very aft of
marriage, which, in the language of the Jews, is frequently expreffed, by being
fanuHfitd. Innumerable inftances might be given of this ; I have produced one
in my cxpofition of this place, in which the word, np Kadr.Jh, " to fandify,"
is ufcd no lefs than ten times, to efpcufe. And, for the fake of thofe who have
it not, I ftiall tranfcribe the paftage: And it 4s, as follows'; "a man '^*7pD Mc-
" kaddrjh, " fandifies," or efpoufes a wife by himfclf, or by his meffenger; a
" woman, K;"»pn"3 Mithkaddefn, " is fandificd," or efpoufed by hcrfelf, or by
" her
* Afti X 47. ' Mifn. Kiddufhin, c. 2. §. i.
■" EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 29;
" her m-fTrnger -, a man, tnpID Mekaddejh, " landifies," or efpoiirt-s his dan jI.-
" ter, when (he is a young woman, by himlelf, or by his meff,nger: If any one
" fays to a woman, '<iv~\'pr\ri Hitbkaddejhi, " be thou fanftified," or efpoufcrd tu
" me by this date (the fruit of the palm tree) ■'•inpnn ////^-^^^a'i?/?;/, " be thou
" fandified," or efpoufed by this (or any other thing :) If there is in any one
" of thcfe things the value of a farthing, /-iU?"np:2 Mckuddejhcik, " (lie is faniTti-
" fied," -or efpoufed ; and if not, flie is not j- I'^fllp.^ Mekuddejhcth, " fandificd,"
" or efpoufed : If he fays, by this, and by this, and by this -, if there is the va-
" lue of a farthing in them all, rrimpa Mekuddejhcth, "(lie is fanftified," or
" efpoufed; but if not, (he is not, rwr\^^ Mekuddejheth, " fandified," or
" efpoufed: If (he eats one (date) after another, (he is nor, jn^'Tip^ Mckudde-
" fJjeth, "fandtified," or efpoufed, unlefs one of them is the value of a farthing."
In the Mifnah, the oral law of the Jews, there is a whole treatife of vc'TT'p Kid-
dujfjin, " fandifications," or efpoufals -, out of which the above pa(rage is taken:
And in thtGemara is another, full of the difputes of the do(5lors on thislubjefl:
And Mainionides has alfo written a treatife of women and wives ; out of which
might be produced almofl innumerable inftances, jn proof of the obfervation ;
and fuch, as can read, and have leifure to read the faid tracts, may fully fatisfy
themfelves in this matter. And in the fame Icnfe, the apolUe ufcs the word
a.yi.^a here: And the palTagc fhoul.i be rendered thus; the unbelieving buf-
band is efpoufed, or married to the ivife, or rather has been efpoufed ; for it relates
10 the afl of marriage part, as valid ; and the unbelieving v:ife has been efpoufed
to the hufband. The prepofition «r, tranflated by, fhould be rendered to, as it
is in the very next vcrfe, God hath called us, tr n^wn, " to peace." The pa(rage
is introduced, to fupport the advice the apoftle had given to believers mar-
ried to unbelievers, not to depart from them, but live with them, who had had
fome Icruplc upon their minds, whether they ought to cohabit with them, being
unbelievers; he advifes them, by all means, to dwell with them, unlefs the
unbeliever departed, feeing they were duly, rightly, and legally efpoufed to
each other; and, therefore, ought not, notwithftandmg their dilferent fenti-
ments of religion, to feparate from one another; otherwifc, if they were not
truly married to one another, as fuch a departure and feparation would fugged,
this confequence muft necedarily follow, that children, born in fuch a ftate of
cohabitation, where the rrtarriage is not valid, muft be fpurious, and not legi-
timate : which is the fenfe of the next claufe, elfe were your children unclean, but
now are they holy ; that is, they would have been accounted illegitimate, but
now legitimate. And,
6. This fenfc of the words is not novel, nor Angular : It is agreeable to the
minds of feveral interpreter.', ancient and modern ; z.iferom, Ambrcfe, Erafmus,
Vol. II. Q^Qw Camerarius,
298 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF L\FANT-BAPTISM,
Camerarius, Mufculus, and others : which lall writer, and who was a zealous
Precobap'.in, makes this ingenuous confeffjon -, " formerly, fays he, I have
" abufrd (his place againft the Anabaptifts, thinking the meaning was, that
" the children were holy for the parents faith ; which, though true, the pre-
" fent place makes nothing for the purpofe "
Sthfy, To all which, this writer adds the commidion in Matthew xxviii. 19.
Gc, teach all nations, baptizing them, i^c. Concerning which, he fays, that as
the commidion to the facred miniftry enjoined the baptizing oi all nations,
whereof infants are a very great part; it alfo enjoined the baptizing infants, as
a part of the na'ions they were to difciplc and baptize, p. 21. And, elfewhere,
he fays, the words ought to be read. Go, difciple all nations, baptizing them;^
and fhould be underftood, as requiring the miniders of the gofpel to make all
nations difciples by baptizing them,— whereby every one is conftituted a learner
ofChrifl:: And to prove, tliat infants are called difciples, he refers tOyfi-7jxv. 10.
U^hy tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the difciples, 13 c. and to all fuch
fcripturcs, that rci"pedl the education of children, p. 24, 25. But,
J. The commidion does not enjoin the baptizing of all nations, but the bap-
tizing of fuch as are taught ; for the antecedent to tiie relative /i^w cannot be
all nations, fince toi-tii t* hSch, the words for " all nations," are of the neuter
gender-, whereas *uTi(f " them," is of the mafculine; but ^5it/TA(, *' difciplesi"
is fuppofed and contained in the word f^flnTius-uTt, " teach, or make difciples -,"
fuch as are firft taught, or macfc difciples by teaching under the miniftry of the
word, by the Spirit of God, Chrift's orders are to baptize them.
2. If infants, as a part of all nations, were to be baptized, and becaufe they
are fuch •, then the infants of Heathens, Turks and Jews, ought to be bap-
tized, for they are a part of all nations, as well as the children of chriftians,
or believers.
3. We are very willing, the words lhou!d be rendered difciple all nations, or
nake all nations difciples ; that is, difciples of Chrift, which is the fame, as be-
lievers in him; for they are the true difciples of Chrift, that have learned the
way of life, and.falvation by him; that deny themfelves, finful, righteous,
and civil felf, for his fake ; who forfake all, take up the crofs, and follow him;
who bear, and bring forth much fruit, love one another, and continue in the
doflrine of Chrift '. And fuch, and fuch only, are the proper fubjefts of baptifm:
fo, agreeable to this commiffion and the fenfe of it, Chrift firft made difciples,
and then baptized them, or ordered them to be baptized*.
4. Thefe two afts, difcipling and baptizing, are not to be confounded together;
they are two diftinft aAs, and the one is previous to the other, and abfolutely
neccflary
\ Luk« uv. 27, 33. Joha xv. 8. and xiii. 55. and viii. 31. < John iv, i> z.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 299
ueceflary thereunto. Men are not made difciples by baptizing them, as this
writer fuggefls, but they mud be firft difciples, and tlien baptized. Sojerom''
long ago underflood the comminion, who has thefe words upon it -, " firft, they
*' teach all nations, then dip thofe that are taught in water : For, it cannot
" be, that the body (hould receive the facramcnt of baptifm, unlefs the foul has
" before received the truth of faith." To the fame purpofe, Jtbanaftus hy%'\
" wherefore the Saviour docs not fimply command to baptize, but firft fay?,
" teach; and then baptize thus, in ihe name of the Father, and of the Son, and
" of theholyGhoJl; that faith might come of teaching, and baptifm be pcrfcfred."
5. Such a difciple, as this writer fuppofes to be conftituted by baptifm,
namely, a learner ofChrift, cannot agree with an infant. What can a new-born
babe learn ofChrift.? What can it be taught of him, or receive by way of teach-
ing, at the time of its baptifm, or by being baptized .' If learners and difciples
are fynonymous terms, as this author fays, they cannot be difciples before they
are learners; and they cannot be learners ofChrift, unlefs they have learned
fomething of him : And, according to this notion, they ought to learn fome-
thing of him, before they are baptized in his name. But what can an infant
Jearn ofChrift ?
6. The text xnAHsw. 10. is not to be underftood of infants, but of adult
perfons ; even converted Gentiles, who believed in Chrift, and were his difci-
ples-, and upon whom, the falle teachers would have impofcd the yoke of the
ceremonial law -, and, particularly, circumcifion : Which, becaufe it bound
over to the whole law, the apoftle reprefents as an infupportable one; and calls
this jmpofition of it on the believing Gentiles, a tempting of God : And as for
any other pafTages that enjoin the education of children, or fpeak of it, they are
never from thence called the difciples of Chrift, nor any where elfe.
btbly. This writer afierts, that " it is plain that the apoftles thus underftood
«' ourSaviour's meaning, and accordingly baptized Z.;Y//d and her houfliold, and
" thcGaoler and all his"; and the houftiold oi Stephanas'" P. 21. But,
I. Seeing the underftanding of our Saviour's meaning in the commidion,
depends upon thofe inftances of baptifm, and fo the warrant for the baptizing
of infants, the Pxdobaptifts ought to be fure that there were infants in thefe
families, and that they were baptized, or otherwife they muft baptize them, at
nioft, upon a very precarious foundation ; for if the commiffion of itfelf is not
clear for it, and thofe inftances in which the apoftles afted according to the
fommiffion, are not fufficient to vouch it, it muft ftand upon a very bad bot-
q_Q_2 torn,
* Primum docent omnesGentes, deinde doaas intingunt Aqua, Uc. Hieron. io Matt, xxviii. ig.
Athanaf. contr. Arianos. Orat. III. p. 209.
* Aftixvi. 15, 33. ' 1 Cor. i. 16.
300 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
tom, having neither precept nor precedent for it ; and they muft know, that
there are families that have no infants in them, and how can they be fure there
were any in thcle ? And,
2. It lies upon them to prove there were infants in thefe families, and that
thcfc infants were baptized, or the allegation of thofe inflances is to no pur-
pofe; how they can fatisfy themfeives without ic, they belt know ; they ought
not to put it upon us to prove a negative, to prove that there were nOnc, this
is unfair ; and one would think, fhould not fit very eafy upon their minds, to
reft their practice on fo poor a fhift, -and fo unrcafonable a demand. But,
3. We are able to make it appear, that there are many things in the account
of the baptifm of thefe families, which are inconfiftent with infants, and which
make it at Icaft probable, that there were none in them; and certain, that thofe
that were baptized were adult perfons, and believers in Chrift:. As for Lydia,
it is not certain in what ftate of life fhc was, whether fingie or married, whether
maid, widow, or wife; whether fhe had any children, or ever had any; or if
(he had, and them living, whether they were infants or adult ; and if infants,
it does not fcem probable that fhe fliould bring them along with her from her
native place Thyatira to Philippic where fhe feems to have been upon bufinefs,
and fo had hired a houfe during her ftay there ; wherefore, her houfhold feems
to have confifted of menial fervants fhe brought along with her, to afTift her in
her bufincfs ; and certain it is, that thofe that the apoftles found there, when
they entered into it, after they came out of prifon, were fuch as are called bre-
thren, and were capable of being comforted by them ". And as for the Jailer's
houfhold, they were fuch as were capable of having the word of God fpoken to
them, and of rejoicing at it, and in the convcrfation of the apoflles, at what was
faid and done by them ; and are even exprefly faid to believe in God, as the
Jailer did, and together with him; and as for the houfhold oi Stephanas, that
is, by fomc, thought to be the fame with the Jailer's; but, if not, it is cer-
tain it confifted of adult perfons, believers in Chrift, and very ufcful in the
public fervice of religion; for they were the firft-fruits of y^fi^a/t:, and addided
themfeives to the miniftry of the faints". All which, in each of the inftances,
can never be faid of infants. But,
7/i;/y, This writer adds one text more, which, he fays, mufl be allowed to
be decifive in the prefent cafe, and that is Romans xi. 17 — 25. from whence he
thinks it is moft evident, that fince the believing Gentiles are grafted into all
the privileges and fpiritual blefTings of the Jewifh church, they cannot be cut
off from that great blefTing and privilege of having the covenant fealcd to their
infant feed, p. 21. To which I reply, ,
I. It
■ Aftj xvi. 15, 40. » 1 Cor. zTi. 15.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 301
1. It will readily be allowed, that believing Gentiles fliared in all the fpiritual
bkflings and privileges of the Jewifh church, or of believers under the former
difpenfation ; the fame blefTings of imputed righteoufnefs and pardon of fin
came upon the uncircumcifion, as wdl as upon the circumcifion, who walk in
the fteps of the faith of Abraham °y for fuch that are Chriji's, true believers in
him, they are Abraham's feed, his fpiritual feed, and heirs, according to the pro-
mifcy of all fpiritual blelfings and privileges "". Bur,
2. The covenant of grace was never fealed to Abraham'' s, natural feed; ^he
covenant of grace itfelf did not belong to them, as fuch; nor was circumcifion
a fcal of it to them ; nor is baptifm a fcal of the covenant of grace to any; and
therefore it is a great impropriety and impertinence to talk of cutting off from,
that which was never had, and never was.
3. Though believing Gentiles fhare in the fpiritual ble/Trngs and privileges
which th" Jewidi church, or Jewifh believers enjoyed, they never v\'ere orafted
into that church; that church-ftate, with all the peculiar ordinances of it, was
utterly abolifhed by Chrift, fignified by the Jhakir.g of the heavens and the earth,
and removing of thofe things that are fhaken, that thofe which cannot be fhaken
t>iay remain'^. The Jewifh church is not the olive-tree, of whofe root and fa:-
refs the G-ntilcs partake ; they are not grafted into the old Jewifh flock ; the
ax has been laid to the root of that tree ; and it is entirely cut down, and no
cngraftment is made upon it. But,
4. The olive-tree, of whofe root and fatnefs believing Gentiles partake, is
the gofpel church- rtate, out of which the Jews that rejeded Chrifl were left,
and arc the broken branches ; and thofe that believed in Chrift were taken in,
and laid the firlt foundation of it ; thefe are the firft-fruits, and the root, which
being holy, are a pledge of the future converfion and holinefs of that people ;
they of them that received the firft-fruits of the Spirit, were firft incorporated
into a gofpel church-flate ; and then the Gentiles which believed were received
among them, and were engrafted into them ; and this engrafture or coalition
was firft at ^fl/;of/&, where and when, and hereafter, the Gentiles partook of
the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree ; enjoyed the fame privileges, communi-
cated in the fame ordinances, and were fatisfied with the goodnefs and fatnefs
of the houfe of God ; and of this engrafture, and of this only, does this text
fpeak ; fo that it is fo far from being decifive in the prcfent cafe, that there is
not one word, one fyllable about baptifm in it, and ftill lefs can any thing, in
iavour of infant-baptifm, be inferred from it.
I fhall conclude this chapter, and with it the affair of the divine right of infant-
baptifm, which, whether iUuftrated and confirmed in the Dialogue, muft be left
to .
• Rom. iv. 6 — 1 1. f Gal. iii. :9. « Heb. xli. 26, 27.
-302 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
to the judicious reader, by oblcrving, that the minifter in it being required to
■give exprefs New Teftament proof for infant-baptifm, which he was confcious
to himfelf he could notdo, inanfwer to it, requires exprefs New Teftament proof,
'that iromen fhould partake of the Lcrd's iupper, and offers to prove infant-bap-
■tifm by the fame arguments that this fhould be proved. But,
X. We do not go about to prove womens right to partake of the Lord's Sup-
per, by fuch arguments as this writer forms for usj as, by their covenant-intercft,
by their claim to have the covenant fealed to them, and by their being a part
of all nations-, and though we look upon their being believers and difciplcs of
Chrift, proper qualifications for their admiffion to the Lord's fupper, when
thefe can be made to appear to belong to infants, we fhall readily admit them
to baptifm. But,
2. We prove their right to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, by their right
to the ordinance of baptifm ; for they that have a right to one Ordinance, have
to the other; that women believing in Chrift have a right to baptifm, is clear,
from /^^s viii. i z. They were baptized, both men and women, and therefore fhould
•partake of the Lord's Supper. Let it be proved, that infants ought to be bap-
lized, and it will be allowed and infifted upon, that they partake of the Lord's
Supper.
' 3. We prove it by their being church members ; Mary the mother of Jefu?,
with other women, were of the number of the difciplcs that formed the firft
gofpel church at Jerufalem; Sapphira, the wife oi Ananias, was, with her
hufband, of the multitude that believed, and were together^ and bad all things com-
tHon; after whofe awful death, believers were the more added to the Lord, that is,
to the church, both men and women '. There were women in the church at Co-
rinth; concerning whom the apoftle gives rules rcfpefting their condufl '. Now
all thofe ihat are members of gofpel churches, ought to eat the bread and drink
the cup, in remembrance of Chrift'. Women are members of gofpel churches;
and therefore ought to eat and drink in like manner.
4. We prove this by example : Mary, the mother of our Lord, and other
women, being of the number of the difciplcs, which conftituted the gofpel
Church ftate at Jerufalem, as they continued with one accord in prayer and fup-
plication, fo likewife in breaking of bread °.
5. We prove this by a divine direftion, exhortation, and command. Let a
man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat". The word ufed is rtcSjaT©-, a word
of the common gender, and fignifies both men and women; in which fenfe it
muft be often underftood, as in i Timothy ii. 5. for is Chrift a mediator only
between
' Afls i. 14, 15. and iv. 32. and v. 9, 14. • i Cor. xi. 5, 6, 13. and xiv. 34, 35.
« I Cor. zi. 26. ■ Afts i. 14, 15. ind ii. i, 44, 46. " i Cor. xi. zg.
E"XAM1NED and disproved. 30s
between God and men, and not women ? Under the gofpcl difpenfation, in a
gofpel church ftate, there is neither male nor female ; ihey are all one inChriJl, and
enjoy the fame privileges and ordinances \ Let the fame proof, or as good,
be given for infant-baptifm, and we have done-, let it be proved that infants
have a right to any other gofpel ordinance as fuch •, that they are or ought to
be members of gofpel churches-, that there is either precept or precedent for
the baptizing of them, and we (hall readily admit them.
CHAP. VI.
Concernifig the Mode of admlniftering the Ordinance of Baptifm^ 'whether
by i mm erf on or by fpr inkling.
T^HE author of the dialogue under confideration affirms, that there is not one
fingle Lexicographer, or critic upon theGreek language, he has ever feen,
but what agrees, that though the word baptizo fometimes fignifies to dip, yet
it alfo naturally fignifies to wafi 5 and that wadiing, in any mode whatfoever,
is the native fignification of the word baptifmos, p. 3 i. that the words baptize and
baptifm, as ufed in the New Teftament, do not, from their fignification, make
dipping or plunging the necefTary mode of adminiftering the ordinance, p. 33. and.
that one fingle inftance of that mode of adminiftering the ordinance, is not to.
be found in all the New Teftament, p. 34. nor is it probable it fhould be the
mode, p. 38. and that the modcof adminiftering it by fprinkling is a more lively,
emblem of what is fignified and reprefented by it, than dipping or plunging
can be fuppofed, and therefore the moft proper one, p. 39.
Firji, As to the lexicographers, and critics oa theGreek language, they agree
that the word ^4an^ca, fignifies, in its firft and primary fenfe, •' to dip or plunge " '
and only in a fccondary and confequential fenfe, to wajh, but never io pour or
fprinkle; there being no proper wafhing, but what is by clipping ; and for this
we appeal to all the writers of this kind, and even to thofc this author mentions.
Scapula, the firft of them, renders ^xtIi^u, by tnergo, feu immergo, ut qua tin-
geudi, ant, ahluendi gratia aqtoe intnurgimus, " to dip or plunge into, as what
" for the fake of dying or wafhing we dip into water -," item mergo, fubmergo,
ohruo aqua, "alfo to plunge, plunge under, overwhelm in water;" item abluo,
lavo, "alfo to wafti off, wafti;" and 0*Tj7({<v/x<a, he renders, by merger, fubmergcr,
" to be plunged, plunged under-," and oblerves, that it is ufed metaphorically.
for obruor^ to be overwhelmed-, and p«T/»-/ii©-, and ^-metui, he fays, is, merfio,
lotioy .
» Gal. iii. 28.
304 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
lotio, allutio, ipfc immergendi, ilcm leViindi,feu abluendi acJus, " plunging, wafh-
" ing, abknion, the afl icfclf of plunging, alio of walking or ablution." In
all which he nnakcs dipping, or plunging, to be the firfl: and preferable fenfe of
the words.
Stephens gives the fame fcnfe of the words, and fo Schrevelius, who renders
ficf/Ji^o, by baptize, mergo, lave, " baptize, plunge, wafk." Pafor only ren-
ders it baptize, baptize, without determining its fenfe. And Leigh, in his Cri-
tica Sacra, obferves, that " the nature and proper fignification of it, is to dip
■" into water, or to plunge under water ;" and refers to J elm iii. 22, 23. Matt.
iii. 16. A£lsv\\\ 3S. And cites Cafaubon, Bucaniu, BuUinger, and Zanchy, as
agreeing and leltifying to this fenfe of it; and baptijha, he fays, is " dipping
" into water, or wafliing with water." And thefe are the Lexicographers and
Critics our author refers us to; To' which I may add the Lexicon compiled by
Biidtsus, Conjlantine, and otliers, who render the word fitf/li^a, by immergo,
tnergo, intingo, lavacro tingo, ablne, madefacio, lavo, mundo; " plunge, plunge
" into, dip into, dip in a laver, wafh off, make wet, wafh, clcanfe:" And
^x.-r'lifffj.Q-, they fay, is tingendi, bee ejl iKergendi ailio, in quo fignificatu tinJ'ura
dicitur ; " the aftion of tinging, that is, of plunging -, in which lignification it
" is called a tiniture, or dying-," and another by Hadrian Junius, who renders
P*t]/(&>, by immergo, " to plunge into ;" :ind ^it-rlifffi©-, hy immerjie, letie, bap-
tijmus, " inimerfjon, walking, baptifm."
As for other critics on the Greek language, who afTcrr, that the proper fig-
nification of the word baptize, is to dip, or plunge ; they arc fo numerous, that
it would be tedious to reckon them up : I (kail only mention a few of them,
and their words. Calvin ' fays, " Ipfum baptizandi verbum merger e fignijic at, i^
*' mergendi ritum veteri ecclef.iC ebfervatum fuijfe conjlat ;" the word baptize, fig-
" n'lfics to plunge; and, it is plain, that the rite of plunging was obferved in
" the ancient church." Beza, who niufl: be allowed to be a learned critic in
the Greek language, fays, on Markvu-i^.. '■'■ Neque vero to ^t.ifn\tiv, ftgnificat
" lavare nifi a confequenti, nam propric declarat tingendi caufa immergere ; " nei-
" ther does the word baptize, fignify to wajh, unlefs confcquentially ; for it
" properly fignifies, to plunge into, for the fake of tinging, or dying;" and on
Matt. iii. 1 1. he fays, '■'■ fignificat autem t« ^fj]i?^Hr, tingere quum m^^ to P^^tthk,
" dicatur, (J quum tingenda mergantur ; " the word baptize, fignifies to dtp
*' (as Dyers in the vatt) Iceing it comes from bapto, to dip, and feeing things,
«' that are to be dyed, are dipped." Cafaubon, another great critic on the
Greek language, has thefe words on Matt. iii. 6. " Hie enim fuit baptizandi ritus
" ut in aquas immergerentury quod vel ipfo vox ^*wli^Hr, declarat fatis — unde intel-
ligimt'.:
• Inftitut. L. IV. C. 1; ^. 19.
■ EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 305
" ligimus Ttoti ejje ah re, quod jam pridem non nulli difputarant de toto cor pore immer-
" gendo in ceremonia baptifmi; vocem enim ^n-rji^nr, urgehant ;" for this was the
" rite of baptizing, that perfons fliould be plunged into water, which the word
*' baptizo, fufficiently declares — Hence, we underftand, that it was not fo-
" reign from the matter, which fome fome time ago difputed, concerning
" plunging the whole body in the ceremony of baptifm -, for they urged the
" fignification of the word baptizo." And, that this is the proper fignification
of the word, he obferves, in his notes on /i3s i. 5. and ii. 4. To which, I fhall
only add one more critic, and that is Grotius; who, on Mat tkew iii. 6. thus
writes ; " Merfatione autem non perfujione agi folitum bunc ritiim indicat ^ vocis
" proprietas, i^ loca ad eum ritum dek5ia, John iii. 23. Adls viii. 38. ^ alltifiones
" multa apoftolorum quts ad afperfionem referri non pojfunt, Rom. vi. 3. Col. ii. 12.
" that this rite ufed to be performed by plunging, and no: by pouring, both the
" propriety of the word, and the places cholen for this rite, (hew, John iii. 23.
" AHs viii. 38. and the many allufions of the apofcies, which cannot be referred
*' io/prinkling, Rom.vi.3,4. Col.ii. 12." I might have here fubjoined, fome
inftances of the ufe of the word in Greek authors, by which it appea-rs to have
the fenfe of dipping and plunging, and not of pouring, or fprinkling.; but this
has been largely done hyDr Gale, and others. I (hall, therefore, proceed,
Secondly, To confider the ufe of the words, baptize and baptifm, in the New
Teflament; which our author fays, do not, from their fignification, make dip-
ping or plunging, the nece(rary mode of adminiftering the ordinance of bap-
tifm : And the places enumerated by him, in which they are ufed, are as follow.
I. The defcent of the holy Ghoft on the apodles, and on Cornelius, and his
company, is called baptizing, Afts i. 5. and xi. 16. where he obferves, ic cannot
be pretended that there was the lead: allufion to, or refcmblance of dipping, or
plunging, in this ufe of the word. But the learned Cafaubon, a very great cri-
tic in the Greek tongue, before-mentioned and referred to, does pretend, that
there is fuch an allufion and refcmblance, his words on /JHs i. 5. are thefe, " etji
" non improbo, &c. although I do not difapprove of the word baptized, being
" retained here, that the antithefis may be full j yet, I am of opinion, that
" regard is had, in this place, to its proper fignification; for fitrTj^ar, is ta
*' immerfe, fo as to tinge or dip : And, in this fenfe, the apoftles arc truly faid
" to be baptized ; for the houfe, in which this was done, was filled with the
" holy Ghoft : So that the apoftles feemed to be plunged into it, as into Ibr.e
" pool." And the extraordinary defcent of the fpirit in thole inftances, is nni(.h
more ftrongly expreffcd by a word, which fignifies plur.giug, than if it had been
cxprcflcd by a word, that fignifies bare perfufion, and ftill lefs by fprinkling.
Vot. II. R R 2. " ChrilVs
';3o5 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
' 2. <' Chrift's crucifixion is called a baptifm, Markx.^S. but, being buffeted,
*' fpit upon, and lifted up upon the crofs, fays our author, bear no refemblance,
i*' nor can have any allufion to dipping, or plunging. But, it is eafy to ob-
••' ferve, that the fufferings of our Lord, which are compared to a baptifm, in
*' the place referred to, and in Luke xii. 50. becaufe of the greatnefs and abun-
" dance of them, are, fomctimes, cxprefled by deep waters, and floods of wa-
*' tcrs ; and he is reprefcntcd as plunged into them, and covered and over-
*' whelmed with them;" For fo he fays himfclf •, The waters are come into my
foul; I fink in deep mire, where is no ftanding ; I am come into deep waters, where
the floods overflow me, Pfalm Ixix. i, 2. And, therefore, a word fjgnifying /»;-
tnerfion, and a covering of the whole body in water, is a very apt one to exprefs
the multitude of Chrift's fufferings, and the overwhelming nature of them ;
and muft, more fitly, exprefs the fame, than a word, which only fignifies pour-
ing, or fprinkling a few drops of water.
3. The text in Mark vii. 4. is next mentioned •, which fpeaks of the Jews,
when come from the market, not eating, except they wafh {baptizoontai) ; and
oi the wafhing^baptifmous) of cups and pots, brazen veffels, and of tables, or beds,
as the word fignifies. And this, our author thinks, is an unexceptionable in-
ftance of thefe words fignifying wafliing, without dipping, or plunging •, fince
it can hardly be fuppofed, that they dipped themfelves under water, every
time they came from market, or, that they dipped their beds, every time they
fat, or lay upon them. But, in anfwer to this, it fhould be obferved, that our
Lord is here fpeaking of the fuperftition of the Pharifecs, who, when they came
from marker, or any court of judicature, if they touched any common perfons,
or their clothes, reckoned themfelves unclean ; and, according to the tradi-
tions of the elders, were to immcrfe themfelves in water, and did : So that a
fnoft proper word is here made ufe of, to exprefs their fuperftition. And, as
for cups, pots and brazen veffels, what other way of wafhing them is there,
than by dipping, or putting them into water? And, in this way, unclean veffels
were to be wafhed, according to the law. Lev. xi. 32. as well as all that were
reckoned fo by the traditions of the elders; and even beds, pillows and bolfters,
when they were unclean in a ceremonial fenfe, and not, as this author puts it,
every time they lay, or fat upon them, were to be wafhed by immerfion, or
dipping them in water; as I have proved from the Jews oral law, which our
Lord has refpedl to, in my Expofition of this place ; to which, I refer the
reader. Wherefore, the words are here ufed in their primary fenfe, as figni-
fying dipping; and, if they did not fo fignify, they would no: truly reprefent
the fuperftition, they are dcfigned to do.
4. The
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 307
4. The next pafTage produced,' is i Cor. x. i, 2. which fpeaks of the Jewifh
fathers, ht\ng baptized unto Mofes in the cloud, and in the fea. Upon which;
this writer obferves, that he thinks, he need not ferioudy undertake to convince
his friend, he is debating with ; " that the fathers were not dipped in the cloud,
" but that the rain from the cloud bore a much greater refemblance to fprink-
" ling, or affufion, than to dipping." But let us a little examine this matter,
and fee wherein the agreement iay, between baptifm and the Ifraelites pafiage
under the cloud, and through the fea. "Which may be confidered, either to-
gether, or feparately : If together, the agreement between it and baptifm, lay
in this J the Ifraelites, when they paffed through the Red fea, had the waters on
each fide of them, which flood up, as a wall, higher than they, and the cloud
over them ; fo that they were, as perfons immerfcd in, and covered with wa-
ter; and, in this view, it is eafy to fee, that the refemblance is much greater
to immerfion, than to fprinkling, or affufion : or this may be confidered
feparately, as baptized in the cloud, and as baptized in the fea ; in the cloud,
when, as Gataker ', a Pasdobaptift writer, thinks, it paflcd from before the face
of the Ifraelites, and flood behind them, and was between the two camps, to
keep off the Egyptians ; and which, when it pafl"ed over them, let down a
plentiful rain upon them, whereby they were in fuch a condition, as if they had
been dipped all over in water; or, when under the cloud they were all over
covered with it, as a perfon, when baptized by immerfion, is all over covered
with water ; and they might be faid to be baptized in the fea, when, as they
pafTed through it, the waters flanding up above their heads, they feemed, as if
they were immerfed. The refemblance to plunging, therefore, confidered in
either way, muft be nearer, than to pouring, or fprinkling a fmall quantity of
water. To which may be added, that the defcent of the Ifraelites into the fea,
when they feemed as though they were buried in the waters of it; and their
afcent out of it again on the fhore, have a very great agreement with baptifm,
as adminiftered by immerfion ; in which, the petfon baptized, goes down into
the water, is buried with Chrift therein ; and comes up out of it, as out of a
grave, or as the children of Ifrael out of the Red fea.
5. The lall text mentioned, where the word baptifm is ufed, is Heb. ix. 10.
where our author obferves, " the apoftle, fpeaking of the ceremonial difpenfa-
" tion, tells us, that kjlood only in meats, and drinks, and divers ivajhings (bap-
•' tifmous) and carnal ordinances ; and the principal of thefe wafhings, he cx-
" emplifies to us, ver. 13. to be the blood of bulls and goais, and the afhes of an
" heifer, fprinkling the unclean : Here, therefore, the word cannot, with any
" appearance of modefty, be explained in favour of immerfion." To which, I
R R 2 reply,
* Adverfar. Mifcellan. p, 30.
r
.
3o8 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
reply, that the aflies of an heifer, fprinkling the unclean, were fo far from be-
ing the principal part of the Jewiih wafhings or baptifms, that it was no part at
all; nor is this mentioned by the apoftle, as any exemplification of them, who
underftood thefc things better. Sprinkling the afhes of the heifer, and the
wafhing, or bathing of the perfon in water, which was by immerfion, are fpoken
of, as diftinft and feparate things, in the ceremony referred to. Numb. xix. 19.
and indeed, waOiing by fprinkling, is not reconcileable to good fenfe, to the
propriety of language, and to the univerfal cuftom of nations. However, cer-
tain it is, that the priefts, Levites, Ifraelites, veflels, garments, &c. which were
enjoined wafhing by the ceremonial law, and which wafhings, or baptifms, are
here referred to, were done, by putting them into water, and not by pouring,
or fprinkling water upon them. It is a rule with the Jews ', that, " wherc-
" focver, in the law, wafhing of the flefh, or of the clothes is mentioned, it
" means nothing elfe, than j):tr\ ^D n'p^nQ Tebiletb Col hagopb, the dipping of
♦' the zvhok body in a laver — for if any man dips himfclf all over, except the tip
" of his little finger, he is ftiil in his uncleannefs." From the whole, it ap-
pears, that the words, baptize and baptifm, in all the places mentioned, do,
from their fignification, make dipping, or plunging, the necelTary mode of ad-
miniflering the ordinance of baptifm. I now go on.
Thirdly, To vindicate thofe texts of fcripture, which afford inflances of the
mode of adminiflering baptifm by immerfion, from the exceptions of this wri-
ter, who confidently affirms, " that none of thofe texts will necefTarily prove
" that any one perfon was baptized by dipping, by ^^y^K Baptift, ourblcfTed
" Saviour, or his apoftles." P. 34. And,
1. The firfl text brought into the debate, and excepted to, is Matthew iii. 6.
ylnd were baptized by him in Jordan, confejfing their fins. But we do not argue
on this place, from thofe perfons being baptized, to their being dipped, as this
writer makes his neighbour to do, but from their being baptized in the river
"Jordan •, for why (hould John chufe the river Jordan to baptize in, and baptize
in that river, if he did not adminiflcr the ordinance by immerfion ? Dr Ham-
mond, a Paedobaptift, thought that thefe words afford an argument for dipping
in baptifm, though our author will not allow it: His paraphrafe of them is;
" And he received them by baptifm, or immerfion in the water oi Jordan, pro-
" mifing them pardon upon the fincerity of their converfion and amendment,
♦' or reformation of their lives." And in \\\% nott on Matthew ni. i. having
refpeft to this place, fays, '■'■John ^vcizKxng repentance to the Jews in the de-
♦' fert, received all that came unto him as new profelytcs, forfaking their old
*[ relations, that is, their fins, and in token of their refolved change, put them
^' into
« MaimoD. Hilchot. Mikvaot. c. iT 5. 2.
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 309
*' into the water ^ dipped them all over, and fo took them out again; and upon the
" fincerity of their change, promiled them the reminion of their fins, and told
*» them of the Meffiah which was fuddenly to appear among them, and warned
*' them to believe on him." The inftances of wafhing in the pool of 5//o(j;k,
in Solomon's ten lavers, or the hands in a bafon, mentioned by our author, are
very impertinent j and befides, fuch wafhing is not performed without dippincr.
Who ever wafhes his hands without dipping them in the water he wafhes in ?
2. Another text mentioned, is John iii. 23. John was baptizing in Enon near
toSalim, becaufc there was much water there. Upon which this writer obferves,
that " the words in the ovx^xniX zr& many waters; which implies many fprings
" or brooks of water; waters fuited to the necefTity and conveniency of the
•' vaft multitudes that reforted to John, as a fupply of drink for themfelves,
" and for the horfes and camels which they rode upon, as well as for their
•' baptifm. Here is no appearance of dipping in the cafe. — Yiidjohn baptized
*' all thefe multitudes by dipping, he muft have flood almoft continually in
" water, up to his wade, and could not have furvived the employment but
" by miracle." To which I reply,
(i.) Admitting that the words in the original, many waters, imply many
fprings or brooks, this fhews there was a confluence of water there ; and every
body knows, that many fprings and brooks being together, could eafily fill large
pools, fufficient for intmerfion •, and even form and feed great rivers, which is
often the cafe -, and befides, the ufe this author finds for thefe fprings and
brooks, requires a confiderablc quantity of water, namely, for the vaft multi-
tudes of men, and for their horfes and camels -, and furcly, therefore, there
muft be a fufficient quantity to cover a man's body in.
(2.) The words wsM* wAt*, many waters, fignify a large quantity, great
abundance, both in the literal and metaphorical fenfe of the phrafe, as it is ufed
by the evangelift John elfewhere, fee Rev. i. 15. and xvii. i, 15. and by the
Septuagint interpreters, it is ufed even for the waters of the fea, Pfalm lxxvii.19.
and cvii. 23, and anfwers to D''2") CO, Mayim Rabbim, in Cam. viii. 7. many
waters cannot quench love; which furely muft refer not to a fmall, but a large
quantity of water ; and which phrafe there, the Septuagint render by much zi-a-
ter, as we do the phrafe here.
(3.) Thefe words are given as a reafon, not for the conveniency of drink
for men and their cattle, but for the baptizing of men, and the conveniency of
that ; that the men that came to John\ baptifm came on horfes and camels, we
know not -, however, the text afTigns no reafon for the choice of the place upon
the account of convenience for them, but for baptifm only ; and therefore, we
fhould
gio THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
fhould not overlook the reafon in the text, that is certain, and receive one, which,
at moft, is very precarious and uncertain ; befides, John had not, at this time,
fuch vaft multitudes that followed him •, thofe followed Chrift, and not him :
he was decreafing : Chrift made and baptized more difciples than he. See ver.
26, 30. and chap. iv. i.
(4.) Suppofing that vaft multitudes ftill followed him, and were baptized
by him, this affords no argument againft dipping in baptifm ; and efpccially
fincc this was performed in a place where there was much water. Nor was the
baptizing of fuch great multitudes by immerfion fo great an undertaking, as
that he could not furvive it without a miracle ; admit the work to be hard and
laborious, yet as bis day ivas, his Jlrengthwas; according to the divine promife.
We have had inftances in our own nation, in our climate, of perfons that have
baptized great multitudes in rivers, and even in the winter time, and that for
many days fuccefTively, if credit is to be given to our own writers. Mr Fox
the martyrologift, relates", {rom Fabian, thaty/«/?/«, archbifhop of C4«/^r^ary,
baptized ten thoufand in one day, in the river Swale ; and obferves upon ic,
that whereas he then baptized in rivers, it followeth, there were then no ufe of
fonts. And the fame, Ranulpb, the monk oiCheJler affirms, in his hiftory % and
fays, it was on a day in the middle of winter ; and, according to Fox, it was on
aChriJimas-dny. And our Widorhn Bede fays'', thz.t Paulinus, for fix and thirty
days fucceffively, did nothing elfe, than inftruft the people, which from all parts
flocked unto him, and baptized them that were inftrufled in the river G/^«;
and who alfo baptized in one day vaft numbers in the river Treni, King Edwin
being prefent.
(5.) Though, this writer fays, here is no appearance of dipping, in the cafe
referred to in the text, yet there are feveral Psdobaptifts, who are of another
opinion, and think there was. Calvin, on the text, thus writes ; " from thefc
" words, we may gather, that baptifm was performed by John and Chrift, by
" a plunging of the whole body under water." Pifcator, on the place, has
ihefe words; " this is mentioned, to fignify the rite of baptifm ■w\\\c\\Jchn ufed;
" namely, plunging the whole body of the man, ftanding in the river -, hence,
»' Chrift, being baptized oijohn \njcrdan, is faid to come up out of the water,
" Matt. iii. 16. The fame mode PM;/) obferved, A^s viii. 38." Aretius, on
the paflage, writes in the following manner; " but, why did John ftay here ?
" He gives a reafon, becaufe there was much water here ; wherefore penitent per-
" fons might be commodioufly baptized ; and, it feems to intimate, that a
" large
» Afls and Monuments, vol. I. p. 154; » Pol^chronicon, lib. V.c. 10.
T Ecdes. Hid. 1. II. c. 1 ^.. p. 77, & c. 16. p. 79,
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 311
" large quantity of water was nccclTary in baptizing, that they might, perhaps,
" immerie the whole body." To which, I fhall only add the words of Grotius,
on the claufe, much water : " Underftand, fays he, not many rivulets, but, fim-
" ply, a plenty of water-, fuch, namely, in which a man's body could eafily
" be immerfed : In which manner baptifm was then performed."
3. Another text, produced in favour of dipping in baptifm, \sMat(. iii. 16.
Aid Jefus, when be was baptized, went up ftraigbtway out of the water. To
which is objeded, that " there is no more in the original, than that our Sa-
" viour wetit up ftraigbtway <tT», " from the water ;" which Greek prepofition
" always naturally fignifies/ro«;, but never out of, and therefore, this inftance
" can ftand in no Head." But if the prepofition never fignifies o«/ 0/, it is
ftrange that our learned tranflators Ihould fo render it here, as alfo the Vulgate
Latin, Syriac, Perfic, and Etbiopic verfions ; and fo it is rendered in the New
Teftament in fcveral places, as in Mark xvi. 9. Luke iv. 35,41. ASfs ii. 9. and
xvii. 2. and xxviii. 23. and in others. And, moreover, it fhould be obferved,
that this prepofition anfwers to the Hebrew p M/«, which fignifies out of, as
well a.%from; and which r.hz Syria: verfion ufes here: And, as a proof of boih,
\tt Pfalm x\. 2. be confuhed, and the Septuagint verfion of it, where Dci'ii
fays, the Lord brought him up out of an horrible pit, ^ otTo mxk ikvQ-, and out of
the miry clay. And, if our Lord came up out of the water, it is a clear cafe,
that he muft have been in it ; that he went down into it, in order to be bap-
tized ; and that he was baptized in it : And, is it reafonable to think, he fhould
be baptized in the river Jordan, in any other way, than by immerfion ? See
the note of Pifcator, upon the preceding text.
4. A5Is viii. 38, 39. goes in company with the former-, and they went down
loth into the watcr-^and when they were come up out of the water. And the fol-
lowing remark is made-, " there can be no more proved from this text, than
" that Philip and the Eunuch went down to the water, and came up from it.
" The prepofition hi, rendered into, naturally fignifies unto, and is commonly
" fo ufed in the NewTeftament — and the prepofition 1*, rendered out of , pro-
*' perly fignifies /row — fo that there is no evidence from this text, that the
" Eunuch was baptized by dipping." Here our author feems to have in view, a
very falfe piece of criticifm, frequently ufed upon tliis text -, as if the going down
into the water fignified no more, than going down to the bank of the water,
to the water-fide : And, to fupport which, his fenfe of the prepofition »i(, whicli
Jie would have rendered unto, is calculated. But, it fhould be obferved, that
the hiftorian relates in ver. 36. that, before this, they were come to a certain wa-
ter, to the water-fide; and, therefore, this, their going down, mu(l be into it.
Wherefore, as it cannot be denied, but that this prepofition frequently fignifies
into.
312 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
into, it muft have this ngnification here-, and this determines, and fettles the
fcnfe of the other prepofition, and fhews, that that muft be rendered, as it is,
out of; feeing, whereas they went down into the water, when they came up, it
muft be out of it : All which gives evidence, that theEunuch was baptized by
dipping. Cd/v/w thought fo, who, on the text, has thefe words ; " hie perfpi-
" cimus, &c. Here we fee, what was the manner of baptizing with the antients,
*' for they plunged the whole body into water."
5. The laft text, mentioned in the debate, is Romans vi. 4. IFe are buried
with him by baptifm into death. Where baptifm is called a burial ; a burial with
Chrift, a reprefentation and rcfemblance of his ; which it cannot be, unlefs it
is adminiftered by dipping. But this writer obferves, it is alfo faid, we are
baptized into Chrijlls death ; and afks, " What refemblance is there in baptifm to
" Chrift's dying upon the crofs, if we are baptized by dipping ? Was there
" anything like dipping in our Saviour's crucifixion ? — would you have fuch
" a manner of death refembled in baptifm, by drowning men when you baptize
" them ? And affirms, that this text has no reference at all to the imitation ei-
" ther of Chrift's death or burial, or to any particular mode of adminiftering
" that ordinance ; but the fcope is to ftiew us our obligation, by baptifm, unto
♦' a conformity to the death and rcfurredtion of Chrift, by dying unto fin, and
" rifing again unto newnefs of life." But, we have feen already, that there
is a refemblance between the crucifixion and death of Chrift and baptifm, as ad-
miniftered by dipping. The overwhelming fufferings of Chrift are fitly fignified,
by a pcrfon's being plunged into water -, and a great likenefs there is between
the burial of Chrift and baptifm, as performed byimmerfion: And, indeed,
there is no other mode of adminiftering that ordinance, that can reprefent a
burial, but immerfion. And be it fo, that the fcope of the place is to ftiew us
our obligation, by baptifm, unto a conformity to the death and refurreftion of
Chrift, by dying unto fin, and rifing again to newnefs of life ; then that ordi-
nance ought to be fo adminiftered, that it may reprefent unto us, the death and
refurrcflion of Chrift, and our dying unto fin, and rifing unto newnefs of life ;
which are done, in a moft lively manner, by an immerfion into water, and an
cmerfion out of it. And, that there is an alUifion, in this paflage, to the pri-
mitive mode of baptizing by dipping, is acknowledged by many divines and
annotators ; too many to recite : I will juft mention two or three. The
JJfembly of divines, on this place, fay, " in this phrafe, the apoftle feemeth
•' to allude to the ancient manner of baptifm ; which was to dip the parties bap-
" tized, and, as it were, to bury them under the water, for a while-, and then
•' to draw them out of it, and ///; them up, to reprefent the burial of our old
" man,
EXAMINED AND DISPROVED. 31J;
" man, and our refurre£tion to ncwnefs of life." Dr Hammond's pinphnk of
the words, is this ; " it is a thing, that every chriftian knows, that the immer-
" fion in baptifm, refers to the death of Chrift i the putting the perfon baptiz-
" ed into the water, denotes and proclaims the death and burial of Chrift-, and
*' fignifies our undertaking in baptifm, that we will give over all the fins of our
" former lives (which is our being l^uried together with Chrifl, or baptized into
" his death) that fo we may live that regenerate new life (anfwerable to Chrill's
" refurredtion) which confifts in a courfe of all fandtity, a conftant chriftian
" walk all our days." So Pifcator, on the text, " videtur refpicere ad veterem
" ritum, &c. It fcems to. refpeft the antient rite, when, in the whole body,
" they were plunged into water, and fo were, as if they had been buried ; and
" immediately were drawn out again, as out of a grave." Bur,
Fourthly, This writer thinks, it is not probable, from the inrtances of adnii-
niftering this ordinance in fcripture, that it was performed by dipping. And,
I. He obferves, " that in A51s ii. 41. there were three thoufand baptized in
" Jerufalem, in one day -, moft certainly, adds he, towards the clofe of the day -,
" and afks, was there any probability (I had almoft faid poftibility) that they
" ftiould all be baptized by dipping, in fo fhort a time .-' Or, is it probable
"" that they could fofuddenly find. water fufficient in that city, for the dipping of
" fuch a multitude-, efpeciaily while they were fo firmly attached to the cere;iio-
" nial inftitution, which made it unlawful for two perfons to be dipped in the
" fame veffel of water." To which I reply,
(1.) That though three thoufand were added to the church on one and the
fame day, it does not nccefTarily follow from the text, that they were all bap-
tized in one day, the words do not oblige to fuch a fenfe ; I am indeed willing
to allow it, and am of opinion they were baptized in one day; though it docs
not appear that it was moft certainly at the clofe of the day, as this writer af-
firms; for it was but the third hour, or nine o'clock in the morning, when
Peter began his fermon, which does not feem to be a long one -, and when that
was ended, after fome difcourfe with the converted perfons, and exhortations
to them, this ordinance was adminiftered. And if Jujlin, as we have feen from
our hiftorians, could baptize ten thoufand in a ftiort winter's day, it need not
feem improbable, and much Icfs impo(rible,'that three thoufand fliould be bap-
tized, even at the clofe of a day; when it is confidered that there were twelve
apoftles to adminifter baptifm to them, and it was but two hundred and fifty
perfons apiece ; and befides, there were the feventy difciples, who were admi-
niftrators of this ordinance; and fuppofing them all employed, they would
have no more than fix or fcven and thirty perfons apiece to baptize ; and as for
Vot. II. S s the
s
14 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
the difference between adminiftering the ordinance by dipping, and by fprink-
ling, it is very inconfiderable -, for the fame form of words nuifl: be pronounced
in adniiniftering it one way as another ; and a perfon being ready, is very near
as foon dipped into water, as water can be taken and fprinkled or poured on
his face. And,
(2.) Whereas a difficulty is made of finding fuddenly water fufficient in the
city of Jerufalein, for the dipping of fuch a muhitude ; it fiiould be obferved,
that befides ba:hs in private houfes, for purification by immerfion, in cafe
of menftrua's, gonorrh.'ea's, &c. there was in the temple an apartment called
the dipping-room, for the high-prieft to dip himfelf in, on the day of atone-
ment • and there were ten lavers of brafs, each of which held forty baths of
water fufficient for the immerfion of the whole body of a man ; and there was
the molten fea, for the priefts to wa(h in, which was done by immerfion ; and
there were alfo feveral pools in the city, as the pools of Bethefda, SHoam, [jfc.
where pcrfons bathed or dipped themfclves, on certain occafions : So that there
were conveniencies enough for baptifm by immerfion in this place. And,
(3.) As for what this author fiys, that according to the ceremonial inditu-
tion it was unlawful for two perfons to be dipped in the fame velTcl of water :
1 muft own my ignorance of it, till fome proof is given ; the laver in the
temple was in common for the priefts.
2. The narrative of Pisul's baptifm, he fays, makes it appear to be adminif-
tercd in his bed-room, AHs'w. 9, 18. but t,hat he was in his bed-room when
Ananias came to him, is not fo clear ; however, certain it is, that he arofe, and
-was baptized. "Whether he arofe off of his bed, or off of his chair, cannot, be
faid •, but be that as it will, had the ordinance been to have been performed by
fprinklint^ or pouring a little water on him, he need not have rofe up from either;
but he arofe, and went either to a bath that might be in Judas's houfe, fit for
fuch a purpofe, or to fome certain place without doors, convenient for the ad-
miniftration of the ordinance.
2. The words of the text, ASlsY.. 47. Can any man forbid water, that tbefe
fljouU not he baplizid? he fays, feem plainly to contradid the dipping oi Cornelius
and his houdiold. But why fo ? there is nothing in the text contradifts it -, for
iliC fenfe is, " Can any man forbid the ufe of his river or bath, or what conve-
" nicncy he might have, for the baptizing of thole f>erfons ? " Which fhews,
that it required a place of fome quantity of water, fufficient for baptizing
by immerfion-, otherwife it would no: have been in the power of any man 10
hinder them having a little water, to be fprinkled or poured on the face.
And what follows confirms ic ; And he commanded them to be baptized in the na^ne
of
EXAMINED AN D -DISPROVED. 315
of the Lord; befides, the words of the text may be rendered, Can any man
forbid that thefe fhouldbe baptized with water? See Erafmus on the place. Where-
fore, what this writer fays, that the apoftle did not fpeak of forbidding the wa-
ter to run in the river, or to remain in any other receptacle or refervoir of water,
and therefore muft fpeak of bringing water for their baptifm, is very imper-
tinent and ridiculous.
4. He obferves, that " the Gaoler and his houlhold were baptized in the
" dead of the night, in the fame hour of his converfion by the earthquake ;
«' and therefore, there was no probability (nor indeed pofTibility) of their going
" to any depth of water for that purpofe, yiils xvi. 33." But where is the im-
pofTjbility, or improbability of it? Grotius thinks it probable, that there was
a pool in the prifon, where he wafhed the ftripes of the apoflles, and here the
ordinance might be adminiftered -, but, if not, it is not unreafonable to fuppofe,
that they went out of the prifon, to the river near the city, where the oratory,
or place of prayer was, ver. 13. and there adminiftered the ordinance, and then
returned to the prifon again, before morning, unobferved by any : compare
ver. 30. and 34. together.
And now let it be confidered, whether thefe inftances, as our author fays,
are fufficicnt to convince an vinprejudiced perfon, that the ordinance was not
adminiftered by dipping, in the apoftolic times.
5. He concludes, that feeing fprinkling was the greatefl: purification among
the Jews, and the blood of Chrift, and the influences of the holy Spirit, are fre-
quently reprefented by fprinkling, but never by dipping; therefore, it mu.^ be
the mofl proper mode of adminiftration. Bur,
1. It muft be denied, that fprinkling was the greateft purification among the
Jews ; their principal purifications, and which were moft frequently ufed in cafes
of ceremonial uncleannefs, were performed by immerfion, and therefore they
are called wa/hings, or baptifms, in Heb. ix. 10. and even the purification by the
afhes of the red heifer, which this writer inftances in, was not performed with-
out bathing the perfon all over in water, Numb. xix. 19. and which was the clof-
ing and finifliing part of it.
2. Itisnotfaft, that the blood of Chrifl, and the influences of the Spirit, are
never reprefented by dipping. The bloody fufferings of Chrifl:, and the large
abundance of his blood-flied, are called a baptifm, or dipping, Z,tt^^ xii. 50.
And his blood is reprefented, as a fountain opened to wafli in, for fin, and for
uncleannefs, Zech. xiii. i. And the donation of the Spirit, on the day of Pen-
tecojly is alfo called a baptifm, or dipping, JSIs I 5. Bur, it is not on thofc
allufive expreffions, that wc lay the ftrefs of the mode of the adminifliering this
s s 2 ordinance,
3i6 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT-BAPTISM, kc.
ordinance, though they are only fuch, this author attempts to mention, in fa-
vour of fprinkling.
Wherefore, upon the whole, let the reader judge, which is the moft proper
and fignificative rite, ufed in the adminiftration of the ordinance of baptifm ;
whether immerfion, which is the proper and primary fenfe of the word baptifm,
and is confirmed to be the rite ufed, by the places in which baptifm was admi-
nidered ; and by I'everal fcriptural inftances and examples of it, as well as by
allufive expreffions ; and which fitly reprefcnts the death, burial and rcfurreftion
of Chrifl: ; or, fprinkling, which the word baptifm never fignifies ; and is noc
confirmed by any of the faid ways j nor does it reprefent any thing for which
baptifm is adminiftered. Let it be, therefore, ferioufly confidered, what a
daring thing it is to introduce into this ordinance fubjefls which Chrift never
appointed, and a mode of adminiftering it never ufed by him or his apoftles. In
matters of worfhip, God is a jealous God, The cafe of Nadab and Abibu ought
to be remembered by us, who offered ftran^e fire, the Lord commanded not.
In things relating to religious worlhip, as this ordinance of bapti4m is apart of
divine worfliip, we ought to have a direflion from God, either a precept, or a
precedent : And we ought to keep to the rule, both as to matter and manner,
and not dare to innovate in cither, left it fliould be faid to us, who hath required
this at your bands ? and become chargeable with will-wor(hip, and m\\\ teaching
for docirines, the commandments of men.
'V 1 i E
THE
ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
With OTHERS, advanced in a Jate Pamphlet, called,
'The Baptifm of Infants a reafonabk Service ^ ice. confidered ;
AND ALSO
An Answer to a Welch Clergyman's Twenty Arguments for Infant-Baptifm.
To which are add«d,
The Dissenters Reasons for feparating from the Church o^ Engl and 1
Occafioned by the faid Writer.
IT is with reluflance Icnter again into the controverfy about baptifm; not
from any confcioufnefs either of the badnefs or weaknefs of the caufe I am
engaged in; but partly on account of other work upon my hands, which I
chofc not to be interrupted in; and partly becaufe I think there hasbeen enough
written already, to bring this controverfy to an ifTue ; and it is not our fault that
it has not been clofcd long ago ; for there has been fcarce any thing wrote by
us thefejf//)! years part, but in our own defence; our Psedobaptift brethren
being continually the aggrefTors, and firft movers of the controverfy; they feem
as if they were not fatisfied with what has been done on their fide, and therefore
are always attempting cither to put the controverfy upon- a new foot, or to
throw the old arguments into a new form ; and even fay the fame things over
and over again, to make their minds, and the minds of their people cafy, if.
pofHble. If perfons are content to fearch the fcriptures, and form their judg-
ment of this matter by them,, there has been enough pufahflied on both fides.
the.
I
"3 J 8 -XHE -ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLiC, JTRADIXION, :.
the queflion to determine themfelves by, and we are willing things (hould reft
here: but this is our cafe; if we reply to what is written againft us, then we
are litigious perfons, and lovers of controverfy ; though we only rife up in our
own vindication, for which furely we are not to be blamed -, and if we make no
reply, then what is written is unanfwerable by us, and we are triumpht:d over.
No lefs than half a dozen pamphlets have been publilhed upon this fubjeft,
within a very little tinTe-, without any provocation from us, that I know of. Some
of them indeed are like mudirooms, that rife up and die almoft as foon as they
live-, it has been tiie Irtck of the pamphlet before me, to live a little longer »
and wliich is cried op as an unanfwerable one, for no other reafon, that I can
fee, but becaufe it has not )ct been anfwered in form; otherwife the arguments
advanced in it, have been anfwered before it was in being; for there is nothing
new throughout the whole of it. Is there any one argument in it, but whac has
been brought into the controverfy before ^ not one. Is the date of infant-bap-
tifm, as it appears from the writings of the ancients, from antiquity, for which
this performance is moftly boafted of, carried one year, one month, one day,
one hour, or moment higher, than it was before? not one. Is there any one
paffage of the ancients cited, which has not been produced and been under con-
fideration before.'' not one. What then has this Gentleman been doing? juft
nothing at all. However an anfvver would have been made to him before this
time, had not fome things in providence prevented. My late worthy friend,
the Reverend Mr Samue! fFUfon, intended to have drawn up one, as he fignified
tome; for which reafon, I did not give myfelf the trouble to read this pamphlet:
His view was firft to publifh his Manual, and then to take this under confidera-
tion ; but he dying before the publication of the former, prevented his defign ;
nor did he, as I could ever find, leave any'materials behind him relating to this
affjir. Some time after Mr Killingivorth publifhed an anfwer to Dr Fojier on the
fubjeft of communion, and added fome remarks upon this pamphlet; when I
O'dered my BookfcUer to get me that, and the ftridlures on it ; upon reading of
which, I found that Mr Killingworth expe(5ted a formal anfwer to it was prepar-
ing, and would be publifhed by a Gentleman he reprefents as the occafion of
its being written ; which for fome time I have been waiting for : but hearing
nothing of it, and the boafts of the party increafing, becaufe of no anfwer, de-
termined me to take it under examination in the manner I have done; but
whether after all I am not loo forward, I cannot tell ; but if any thing is pre-
paring or prepared by another hand, I hope what I have written will not hinder
the publication of it.
Infant-baptifm is fometimes put upon one footing, and fometimes on another;
as on the covenant of grace ; on circumcifion -, on the baptifm of Jewifh profe-
lytes ;
~ IN FA'TOUR OF I N F A N T . E A P T I S M. 319
Jytes ; otTfcripture confequences •, and by our author ic is refted on apoJloHc tra-
dition. This he fays is an argument of great -weight ' ; and that it is principally
for the fake of this, that his performance appears in the world'-, for which
reafon, 1 fhall chicfiy attend unto it. Whatever weight this argument may be
thought to have in the prefent controverfy, it has none in others; not in the
controverfy with the Papifts, nor with the church of England about rites and
ceremonies, thisGentlcman himfelf being judge; whol underftand is the author
of The dij/enting Gentleman's anfwer to Mr WhiteV Three Letters. In his contro-
verfy with him, Chrift is t\\t only lawgiver and head of the church, and no man
upon earth, or body of men, have authority to make laws, or prefcribe things
in religion, or to fet afide, alter or new-make any terms fixed by him ; and
apoftolical authority, or what is direfted to by the apoftles, as fallible and unaf-
fifted men, is no authority at all, nor obligatory as a law on men, they having
no dominion over their faith and praflice ; and the fcriptures are the only, cotn-
mcn, fufficient z.nA -perfect rule: but in the controverfy about infant-baptifm,
apoftolic tradition is of great weight; if the diipute is about fponfors and the
crofs in baptifm, then fathers and councils ftand for nothing; and the tefti-
monies of the anticnts for thefe things, though clear and indubitable, and about
the fcnfe of which there is noconteft, and are of as early antiquity as any thing
can be produced for infant:baptifm, are not allowed fufficient; but if it is about
infant-baptifm itfelf, then fathers and councils arc called in, and their teflimo-
nies produced, infifled upon, and retained, though they have not one fyllable
of baptifm in them ; and have fenfes affixed to ihcm, ftr-aincd and forced, con-
trived to ferve an hy'pothefis, and what the good old fathers never dreamed of;
is this fair dealing ? can this be faid to bcfmcerity, integrity and honffly ? no furcly.
This Gentleman fhould know that we, who are called Anabaptifts, are Proteftants,
and the Bible is our religion ; and that we rejedl all pretended apoflolic tradi-
tion, and every thing that goes under that name, not found in the Bible, as the
rule of our faith and praftice.
The title of the pamphlet before me is. The baptifm of Infants a reafonahle
fervice, founded upon Scripture, and undoubted Jpofiolic Tradition; but if it is
founded upon fcripture, then not upon tradition ; and if upon tradition, then
• not on fcripture; if it is a fcriptural bufinefs, then not a traditional one; and
if a traditional one, then not a fcriptural one : if it can be proved by fcripture,
that is enough, it has then no need of tradition ; but if it cannot be proved by
that, a cart-load of traditions will not fupport it. — This put me in mind of wliat
I have heard, of a countryman offering to give tlie Judge a dozen rc.ifons why
his neighbour could not appear in court; in ihe frfi place, my Lord, fays he,
be
* Reafonable Service, p. 30. * Preface, p 5.
310 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
he is dead ; that is enough, quoth the Judge, I fhall fpare you the trouble of
giving me the reft : fo prove but infanc-baptifm by fcripture, and there will be
no need of the weighty arguments from tradition. However, by putting the
cafe as it is, we learn that this author by apojlolic tradition, means unwritten
apoflolic tradition, fince he diftinguifhes it from the fcripture ; and not apoftolic
tradition delivered in the fcriptures, which is the fenfe in which fometimes
tradition is ufed, both in the word of God % and in ancient writers ''. So wc
are not at a lofs about the fenfe of it -, it is unzvritten, uninfpired apoftolic tra-
dition-, tradition not /«, but c«/ of the fcriptures ; not delivered by the apoftles
in the facred writings, but by word of mouth to their fuccefTors, or to the
churches.
It is pretty much that infant-baptifm fhould be called an undoubted apoftolic
tradition, fince it has hetn doubted o( by fome learned Psdobaptifts themfelves;
nay, fome have affirmed that it is not obferved by them as an apoftolic tradi-
tion, particularly CurcelUus % and who gives a very good reafon for it : his
words are thefe ; " Psedobaptifm was unknown in the two firft ages after Chrift;
»' in the third and fourth it was approved by a few ; at length, in the fifth and
" following a^es it began to obtain in divers places ; and therefore this rite is
" indeed obferved by us as an ancient cujlcm, but not as an apoftolic tradition"
Biftiop Taylor' calls it a pretended apoftolical tradition-, and fays, that the tra-
dition cannot be proved to be apoftolical, we have very good evidence from
antiquity. Since then the Psedobaptifts difagree about this point among them-
felves, as well as it is called in queftion and contefted by others ; one would
think, this writer fhould not be fo confident as to call it an undoubted apoftolic
tradition.
fiefides, apoftolic tradition, at moft and beft, is a very precarious and uncer-
tain thing, and not to be<lepended on; we have a famous inftance of this, in
the conrroverfy that arofe in the fecond century, about the time of keeping
Eafter ; whether it ftiould be obferved on the 14"' day of the firft moon, let ic
fall on what day of the week it would, or on the Sunday following; the former
was obferved by the churches of y^^, and the latter by the church oi Romt;
both pleaded the cuftom and ufage of their predecefTors, and even ancient apof-
tolic tradition^; the Afiatic churches faid, they had it by tradition from Pbilip
and Ji'i'W ; the Roman church from Peter and Paul; but not being able to fettle
this point, which was in the right, P'i^or, the then b\{\^opoi Rome, excommu-
nicated
' I Cor. XV. 3. 2 Th'f. il. 15. ■• Irenxus adv. Harref. I. 3. c. 4. Cyprian. Ep. 63.
ad Caicilium, p. 146. Atharaf. adAdelph. p. 333. « Inftltut. Rel. Chrift. I. I. c. 12.
^ 4. p. 2j. * Of the liberty of Propherying, p. j20, 321. Ed. 3d.
« Eufeb. Ecd. Hift. I. 5. c. 23—25. Socrat. Eccl. Hill. 1. 5. c. zi. p 285.
IN FAVOUR OF IN FAN T - B APT IS M. ' 321
nicated the other churches that would not fall in with the praftice of him and
his church ; this was in the year 196; and even before this, in the year 157,
this fame controverfy was on foot ; and Polycarp bifhop of Smyrna, who had
been a hearer and difciple of the apoftle yoy^jw, made a journey to Rome, and
converfed mxh Anicetus bifhop of that place, about this matter; they talked it
over candidly, parted friendly, but without convincing each other, both re-
taining their former cuftoms and tradition ^\ if now it was fo difficult a thing
to fix a tradition, or fettle what was an apoftolic tradition, about the middle
of the fecond century, fifty or fixty years after the death of the apoftle John,
and when fome of the immediate fucceflbrs of the apoflles were living ; what
judgment can we form of apoftolic traditions in the eighteenth century ?
Moreover, it is doubtful whether there ever was any fuch thing as apoftolic
tradition; or that ever any thing was delivered by the apofl:les to their fuccef-
fors, or to the churches, to be obftrved by them, which was not delivered in
the facrcd writings; and I defy this Gentleman, and demand of him to give
me one fingle inftance of any apoftolic tradition of this nature ; and if no fuch
inftance can be given, it is in vain to talk o^ undoubted apoftolic tradition ; and
upon what a miferable foundation mull infant-baptifm ftand, that refts upon
this? unwritten apoftolic tradition is 2. non-entity, as the' learned yf///«^ ' calls
it ; it is a mere chimzera ; a refuge of heretics formerly, and of papifts now; a
favourite argument of theirs, to prove by it what they pleafe.
But be it fo, that tlicre is fuch a thing as apoftolic tradition; let it be proved
that infant-bapiifm is fuch ; let t"he apoftles be pointed out that delivered it.
Were they all the apoftles or only fome of them that delivered it ? let them be
named who they were, and to whom they delivered it, and when, and where.
The apoftles Peter and Paul, who were, tiie one the apoftle of the circumcifion,
and the other the apoftle of the iincircumcifion, one would think, fhould be
the mofl likely to hand down this tradition ; the one to th; chriftian Jews, and
the other to the chriftian Gentiles ; or however, to their fucccfTors or compa-
nions : but is there any proof or evidence that they did fo ? none at all ; though
there are writings of pcrfons extant that lived in their times. It Clemens Romanus
was a fucceflur of Peter, as the papifts fay, it might have been expected, that
it would have been delivered to him, and he would have publilTied it; bu:
there is not a word of it in his epiftles ftill in being. Barnabas was a compa-
nion of the apoftle Paul; and had it been a tradition of his, it might be juftly
thought, it would be inet with in an epiftle of his now extant ; but there is no:
the leaft hint of it in it, but on the contrary, fcveral pafTagcs in favour of be-
VoL. II. T T licvers-
i" Enfeb. lb. 1. 4. c. 14. See Bower's Lives of the Popes, vol. I. p 2;, 37.
' Loc. Cooimun. p. 287.
322 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
licvers-baptifm. Perhaps, as 'John was the laft of the apoflles, and outlived
them all, it was left with him to tranfmit it to others -, and had this been the
cafe, it might have been hoped it would have been found In the writings of
Polycarp, a hearer and difciple of the apoftle John ; but not a fyllable of it is to
be found in him. Nay Papias, bifhop of Hierapolis, .one that was a hearer of
Jcbn the elder of Ephe/tts, and a companion of Poly carp, and who had converfcd
with thofc who were familiar with the apoftles, and made it his bufinefs to
pick up fayings and facts, faid or done by the apoftles, not recorded in fcrip-
ture, has not a word of this ; which cbildijh bufinefs would h3\«e been a very
pretty thing for that weak-headed man, as Eu/fiius^ reprefents him, to have
gone prattling about with ; here is an apoftolic tradition then, which no
body knows by v.hom it was delivered, nor to whom, nor when and where :
the companions and fucccfTors of the apoftles fay nothing of ir. The ' Jews
talk of a Mofaic tradition and oral law, delivered from one to another
for feveral thoufand years running ; they tell you by whom it was firft given-
and received ; and can name the perfons to whom it was tranfmitted \n liic-
cecdintT ages ; this is fomething to the purpofe ; this is doing bufinefs roundly;
but here is a tradition no body can tell from whence it comes, nor who received
it and handed it down -, for there is not the leaft mention of ir, nor any pre-
tended to in the firft century or apoftolic age. But let us attend to what evi-
dence is given of it, in. the next or fecond century.
Two paflages arc produced out of the writers of this age, to prove this ««-
doubted apoftolic tradition-, the one out of Jujiin Martyr ; the other out of
Iretiieus. That from JuJlin is as follows "" ; " feveral perfons among us, men
" and women, of fixty and feventy years of age, « ix ■ntSur i^M^Tiv^mv t* Xeiffy,
" who from their childhood were injlru£ied in Cbrijl, remain incorrupt:" for fo
the phrafe on which the whole depends ftiould be rendered, and not difcipled or
profel)ted to Chriji ; which rendering of the words, as it is unjuftifiable, fo it
would never have been thought of, had it not been to ferve a turn -, and is not
agreeable to Jujlin's ufe of the word, who frequently makes ufe of it in the
fenfe of inftrudtion andxcaching; as when he fpeaks of perfons being f^^liu^paij
injlru5ied into divine doftrines ° ; and of others being fi«^7£t/o/Lticoi/<, inJlriiHed in
the name (perfon or doftrine) of Chrift, and leaving the way of error" ; and of
Chrift's fending his difciples to the Gentiles, who by them iyut'ivlnjmY, inJlruHed
them"": nor fhould «» ■a-iwA/c, be rendered ;n ;«/<j«ry, hut from childhood ; and is
a phrafe of the fame fignification with that in i Tim. iii. 15. where Timothy is
faid «To Pft9«, from a child to know the holy fcriptares ; and fufiin\ fenfe is,
that
* Eufeb. ib. 1. 3. c. 39. ' Pirke Abot. c. 1. J. i. ■ Apolog. 2. p. 6z.
• Apolog. I. p. 43. • Dialog, cum Tryph. p. 238. ' Ib. p. 272.
JN FAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 323
that notwuhftanding the ftrid and fevere commands of Chrift in Matthnv v.
28, 29, 2,'^, 44. as they might feem to be, and which he cites-, yet there were
fcveral perfons of the-age he mentions, then living, who had been inftrudted
in the perfon, offices, and doftrines of Chrift, or had been trained up in the
chriftian religion from their childhood, who had p'crfcvered hitherto, and were
incorrupt in their prafticcs, and in their principles; and which is no other than
a verification of what the wife man obferves, Prov. xxii. 6. Train up a child in
the way be fhould go, and when be is old, he will tiol depart from it : and we are
able in our day, to point out perfons of an age that Juftin mentions, who have
been trained up in the chriftian religion from their childhood-, and who in riper
years have made a public profefTion of ir, and have held faft their profeftion
without wavering, and lived unblcmiflicd lives and converfations j and yet ne-
ver were baptized in their infancy. Behold, here the firft proof and evidence
of infant-baptifm being an undoubted apojlolic tradition; when there is not a word
of baptifm in it, much Icfs of infant-baptifm -, nor any hint of it, or reference
unto it. Can the moft fanguine Paedobaptift fit down, and in cool refledlion
conclude, upon reading and confidering this paftage, that it proves infant-bap-
tifm to be an undoubted apojlolic tradition ? furcly he cannot.
The other paftage is out of Jren^us, and ftands thus^; " He (Chrift) came
" to fave all ; all I fay, qui per eum renafcuntur in Deum, who by him are born
" again unto Cod, infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and
♦' old men." For fo the words are to be rendered, and not baptized unto God;
for the word renafcor is never ufcd by Iren^uj, or rather by his tranOator, in
fuch a fenfe; nor had it as yet obtained amony the ancients to ufe the words
regenerated and regeneration, for baptized and baptifm. Likexife, it is certain
that Iren.fus fpeaks elfewhere of regeneration as diftinft from baptifm, as an
• inward fpiritual work, agreeable to the fcriptures ; which never fpcak of it but
as fuch, no not in John iii. 5. Tit. iii. 5. And what rcafon can there be to de- ■
part from the literal and fcriptural fcnfe of the word, and even the fenfc which
Irenaus ufcs it in; and cfpecially, fince infants are capable of regeneration in
fuch a fcnfe of it ^ befides, 10 underftand Irenaus as fpcaking of baptifm, is to
make him at Icaft to fuggeft a dodriiie which is abfolutely falfe •, as if Chrift
came to fave all and only fuch, who arc baptized unto God-, when it is certain,
he came to fave the Old-Teftamcnt-faints, who never were baptized, as well as
New-Teftamcnt-faints j and no doubt many now are faved by him, who never
were baptized with water at all : and on the other hand, nothing is more true
than that he came to fave all and only thofe, who are regenerated by the Spirit
and grace of God, of whatfoevcr age they be. And after all, when it is ob-
T T 2 ferved
* Adv. Hscref. 1. 3. c. 39. '
324 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
ferved that the chapter out of which this paflage is taken, is thoucrht by
foine learned men to be none of Iren^us's, but a fpurious piece -, and if it is his,
it is only a tranflation, as almoft all his works be, and a very foolifh, uncouth
and barbarous one, as learned men obferve; fo that it is not certain that thefe
are his words, or are a true tranflation of them ; what wife and confiderate man
will fay, that this is a proof of infant-baptifm being an undoubted apcjlolic tra-
dition ? feeing the paflage is fo much contefted, and fo much is to be faid againft
it ; feeing, at mod and beft, the fenfe of it is doubtful ; and feeing it is certain
that Iren.'sus ufcs the word regeneration in a different fenfe from baptifm ' -, who
can be fure he ufes it of baptifm here ? Upon the whole, what thoughtful man
will aaffirm from hence, ihat infant-baptifm is an undoubted apoftolic tradition ?
And feeing thefe two teflimonies are the only ones produced in favour of infanr-
baptifm in tlie fccond century; and the latter Dr fVal!' confefTcs, " is the firil
" exprefs mention that we have met with of infants baptized ; " though there
is no mention at all made of it in it, any more than in the former; he muft
have a ftrong faith to believe, and a good afl"urance upon fuch evidence to
aflfert ', " that the baptifm of infants was the undoubted practice of the chriltian
" church in its pureft and firft ages; the ages immediately fucceeding the
" apoflles." Let us now proceed to the third century.
Tertuliian is the firft man that ever made mention of infant-baptifm, that wc
know of; and as he was the firfl that fpoke of it, he at the fame time fpoke
againft it, difTuaded from it, and advifed to defer it; and though he was quire
fmgular, as our author fays, in this his advice ; it fliould be obferved, that he
is alfo <\\.\\it fingular in his mention of the thing itfelf; there being no writings
of any cotemporary of his extant, from which we might learn their fenfe of this
affair. We allow that infant-baptifm was moved in the third century v that it
then began to be talked of, and became matter of debate, and might be prac-.
tifed in the African churches, where it was firfl moved. We do not deny the
probability of the pradlice of it then, though the certainly of it does not appear ;
it is probable it might be praflifcd, but it is not certain it was ; as yet it has
not been proved. Now here we ftick, by this we abide, that there is no men^
tion made of it in any authentic writer before Tertullian's time. And this writer
bimfelf elfewhere "obferves, that " by bis time, it is well known, a great va-
«' riety of fuperflitious, and ridiculous, and foolifh rites were brought into the
«« church." The date of infant-baptifm cannot, we apprehend, be carried
higher than his time; and we require of any of our learned Psedobaptift bre-
thren,
' lb. 1. 1, c 18. ic I. 4. c. 59. & I. 5. c. ij.
• Hiftory of Infant bapiifm, p. i. ch. 3. §.6. » Reafonablc Servicf, p^ 30^
■• The Diflenting Gentleman's Third Letter, &c. p. 32.
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPT I S M. 3.2.5
thren, to produce a fingle pafTage out of any autfientic writer before Tertullian.,
in which infant-baptifm is exprefsly mentioned, or clearly hinted at, or plainly
fuppofed, or manifeftly referred unto. This being the cafe, as we own it began
in this century, and might be pradifed by fbme, it might be needlefs in a good
meafure to confider after-teftimonies ; however, I fhall not think fit wholly to
negledl them.
Origen is next quoted, and ihree pafTages out of him -, fhewing that the bap-
tifm of infants is a tradition of the apoftles, and an ufage of the church for the
remiffion of fins ; but ic fhould be obferved, that thefe quotations are not from
the Greek oi Origen; he wrote much in that language, and there is much ftill
extant in it-, and yet nothing is produced from thence, that can fairly be con-
ftrued in favour of infant-baptifm ; though many things may be obferved from
thence, in favour of adult-bapcifm. The three paflages are quoted out of foma
Latin tranflacions, greatly interpolated, and not to be depended on. His Ho-
milies on Leviticus, and expofition of the epiftle to the Remans, out of which
tii-3 of them are taken, are tranflated hy Ruffi>ius; who with the former, he him-
fclf owns, he ufed much freedom, and added much, and took fuch a liberty in
both of adding, taking away, and changing, that, zs Erafmvs hys'", whoever
reads thefe pieces, it is uncertain whether he rtidsOrigen or Ruffinus; andFoJius
obfcrves % that the former of thefe was interpolated hy Ruffinus, and thinks there-
fore, that tl-.e pafi"age cited was of the greater authority againft the Pelagians, be-
caufe Ruffinus was inclined to them. The Homilies on Luke, out of which is
the other pafiage, were tranflated by Jerom, of whom Bu Pin fays*', that "his
" verfions are not more exact than Rnffinus's." Now both thefe lived at the lat-
ter end of the fourth century, and it looks very probable, that thefe very paflliges,
are additions, or interpolations of thefe men, fince the language agrees with thofe
times, and no other; for no cotemporary of Origen's, nor any writer before him
or after him, until the times ofRuff.nus, Jerom znAAuJlin, fpeak of infant-bap-
tifm as an ufage of the church, or an apoftolical tradition ; in fiiorr, as bifhop
y^j/or obferves % " a tradition apoftolical, if it be not configned with a fuller
" teftimony than of one perfon {Origen,) whom all after-ages have condemned
" of many errors, will obtain fo little reputation an^ongfl: thofe, who know that
" things have upon greater authority pretended to derive from the apoftles, and
" yet falfly ; that it will be a great argument, that he is credulous, and weak,
•' that (hall be determined by fo weak a probation, in a matter of fo great con-
. " cernment."
Cyprian.
"• In Rivet, critici facri, 1. 2. c. 12. p. 202-. * Hift. Pelag. par. i. I. 2. p. t^j,
1 Hift. Ecdes. vol. I. p. ijz. * Libcfty of Prophefjinj;, p. 3:0.
326 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
Cyprian, with Ms council of fixty-fixbifh^ps, are brought as witnefTes of infant-
baptifm, a little afcer the middle of the third century. We allo-w that as infant-
baptifm was moved for inTertullian's time, fo it obtained in the y:^ma« churches
inCyprian's time; but then by Ftdus the country bifhop, applying to the council
to have a doubt rcfalved, whether it was lawful to baptize infants until they were
eight days old; it appears to.be a novel practice; and that as yet it was unde-
termined, by council or cuftom, when they were to be baptized, whether as foon
as born, or on the eighth day, or whether it was to be left to every one's liberty :
and it fliould alfo be obfcrved, that in this age, infant communion was praftifed
as well as infant- baptifm ; and very likely both began together, as it is but rea-
ibnable, that if the one be admitted, the other (hould. But of this more hereafter.
The Clementine Conjlitutions, as they are called, are next produced, as cnjoinincr
infant-baptifm ; but why does this Gentleman call them the Clementine Conjlitu-
tions, unlefs he is of opinion, and which he fuggelts by this title of them, that
Clemens Romanus was the compiler of them from the mouths of the apoftles ?
and if fo, he might have placed the pafTage out of them with greater advantage,
at the head of his teflimonies; but he muft know, that thcfc writings are con-
demned as fpurious, by almoft all learned men, excepting ^\'; Wkijlon ; and
were not heard of till the times oi Epipbanius, in the latter end of the fourtli
century, if fo foon : and it fhould be obferved, tliat thcfe fame Confiitutions,
which dirc(5l to the baptizing of infants, injoin the ufc of godfathers in baptifm;
the form of renouncing the devil and all his works; the confecration of the water;
trine immerfion; the ufe of oil, and baptizing fafiing;; crofnng with the fign of
the crofs in the forehead; keeping the day of Chrift's nativity, Epiphany, the
^adragefiKia or hent ; the feaft of the pafsover, and the feftivals of the apoflles ;
fafting on the fourth and fixth days of the week ; praying for faints departed ;
Cuging for the dead, and honouring their relicks ; with many other things foreign
enough from the Gmplicity of the apoftolic dodrine and pradice. A teftimony
from fuch a work, can be of very little credit to the caufe of infant-baptifm.
And now vre are come to a very remarkable and dccifive tcQiniony, as it is
called, from the writings of Aufiin and Pelagius ; the fum of which is, that there
being a controverfy between thefe two pcrfons about original fin, the latter, who
denied it, was prefled by the former, with an argument taken from the baptifm
of infants for the j-cmifTion of fins; with which Pelagius feemed exceedingly
cmbarafTed, when it greatly concerned him to deny it if he could ; and had it
been an innovation, fo acute, learned, and fagacious a man as he was, would
hare difcovered it ; but on the contrary, when he was charged wTth a denial of
it as the confequencc of his opinion, he warmly difclaims it, and complains of
a flander; and adds, that he never heard that even any impious heretic denied
IN FAVOUR OF IN F A N T - B A P T I S M. 327
itj or rcfufed it to infants j and the fame fays jiujlin, that it never was denied
by any man, catholic or heretic, and was the conftant ufagc of the chorch ; for
all which vouchers are produced. To which may be replied,
1. However errbarafTed Pelagius might be with the argument, it did not lead
to a controverfy about the fubjeft, but the end of baptifm, and aJDOut the lat-
ter, and not the former was the difpute; nor was he under fo great a tempta-
tion, and much kfs neccffity, nor did it fo greatly concern him to deny the
baptifm of infants, en account of his tenet; fmce he was able upon his prin-
ciples to point out other ends of their baptifm, than that of femifTion of fin \
and particularly, their receiving and enjoying the kingdom of heaven •, »nd as
a late writer ' Obferves, this propoficion " baptifm ought to be ddminifttred to
*' children^ as will as to the adult ; was not inconfiftent with, nor repugnant to
" his doctrine -, for though he denied original fin, he allowed baptifm to be
" adminiftered even to children, .but only for their fanftification."
2. It fhould be known and obferved, that we have no writings 0^ Pelagius
extant, at leaft under his name, only fomt pafTages quoted by his adverfaries,
by which we can judge what were his fcniimenrs about infant- baptifm •, and it
is well known that a man's words often are mifquoted, or mifunderftood, or
mifreprcfcnted by an adverfary ; I will not fay that this is the cafe of Pelagius -,
I would hope better things of his adverfaries, particularly Aujlin, and that he
has been ufcd fairly •, I am willing to allow his authorities, thou<^h it would
have been a greater fatisfaiftion to have had thcfe things from himfclf, and not
at fccond hand. Nor,
3. Would I detraft from the charader of Pelagius, or call in queflion his acute-
fiefs, fagacity, and learning; yet two doftors of the age in which he lived, are
divided about him in this relpcft, Aujliu and Jerom; the former fpeaks of him
as a very confiderable man, and of great penetration ; but the latter, as if he
had no genius, and but very little knowledge ' ; it mud be owned, that yiujlin
was the moft candid man, and Jcrctn a four one, who fcldom fpoke well of thofe
he oppofed, though he was a man of the greateft learning, and fo the beft judcre
of it : but however acute, learned, and fagacious Pelagius was, yet falling in
with the ftream of the times, and not feeing himfclf concerned about the fubjeft,
i)ut the end of baptifm, might give himfelf no trouble to inquire into the rife
of it ; bat take it for granted, as ///(/?/« did ; who perhaps was as acute, learned
and fagacious as he, that it had been the conftant ufage of the church, and an
apoftolic tradition ; as he had many other things, in which he was miftaken, as
will foon appear.
4. Though
• Bower's Hiftorj' of Popes, vol. I. J*. 339.
* Bower ibid. p. 329, c. 330.
32 S THE ARGUiMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
4, Though Pelagius complained that he was defamed, and flandered by fomc
who charged him with denying infant-baptifm •, yet this, Jujlin obferves, was
only a fhift of his, in order to invert the ftate of the queftion, that he might
more eafily anfwcr to what was objefted to him, and preferve his own opinion.
And certain it is, according to y^Ky?/;;% that the Pelagians did deny baptifm to
fome infants, even to the infants of believers, and that for this reafon, becaufe
they were holy; what others made a reafon for it, they make a reafon againftit.
5. Pelagius fays no fuch thing, that he never heard, no not even any impious he-
retic, who denied baptifm to infants. His words indeed are ^ vunquam fe vel im-
pium aliquem hareticuvi audijp, qui hoc, quod propofuir, de parvulis diceret; " that
" he never heard, no not any impious heretic, that would fay concerning-infants,
" what he had propofed or mentioned:" the fcnfe depends upon the meaning
of the phrafe, quod propofuit, " what he had propofed or mentioned," of whom,
and what that is to be underftood ; whether of Aujliv, and the ftate of the cafe
us propofed and fet down by him ; fo our author feems to underftand it, fince
by way of explanation, he adds, viz. "that unbaptized infants are not liable to
" the condemnation of the firft man -, and that they are not to be cieanfed by
*' the regeneration of baptifm :" but this gentleman has not put it asyf«(/?.'); has
ftated it, which is thus ; " it is objeflcd to them (the Pelagians) that they v/ill
" not own that unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of the firft
" man ; id in eos tranfijje originale peccatum regeneratione purgandum, and that
•' original fin has pafTcd upon them to be cieanfed by regeneration:" and accord-
ing to this fenfe the meaning cannot be, that he never heard that any heretic
denied baptifm to infants ; but either that he never heard that any one iTiould
fay, that unbaptized infants are not liable to the condemnation of the firft man,
and that original fin had not pafled upon them to be cieanfed by regeneration;
but then this is to bring the wicked heretics as witneftes againft himl'elf, and to
make himfelf worfe than they : or the meaning is, that he never heard that any
of them fiiould fay, that unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of
the firft man, and that original fin has paftcd upon them to be cieanfed by re-
generation, which is moft likely : but then this makes rather againft, than for
the thing for which i: is brought; fince it makes the heretic as never faying
that infants ftood in need of being cieanfed by baptifm : or elfe, quod propofuil^
" v^hat he had propofed or mentioned," refers to Pelagius, and to the ftate of
the queftion as he had put it ; reprefenting that he was charged with promifing
the kingdom of heaven to fome, without the redemption of Chrift -, and of this
he might fay, he never heard the moft impious heretic to fay ; and this feems
to be the Icnfe by what he fubjoins ; " for who is fo ignorant of what is read
in
• De peccator. merit. & reraifs. I. zTc. 2j. ^ lo Aug. de peccator. original!, I. 2. C. 18.
/.IN FAVOUR OP INFANT - BAPTISM. 329
•** in the gofpel, not only as to attempt to affirm it, but even lightly mention
" it, or even imagine it ? Moreover, who fo impious that would exclude in-
*' fants from the kingdom of heaven, dum eos baptizari & in Cbrijio renafci pu-
" tat? whilll he thinks, or is of opinion that they are baptized and regene-
*' rated in Chrift ? " for fo it i^ in my edition 'of ^ujlin; pulai, and not vetut,,
as Dr /F<3//quotes it •, and after him this Gentleman : and Pelagius further adds,
" who fo impious as to forbid to an infant, of whatfoever age, the common re-
" demption of mankind ? " but this, Aujlin (zys, like the reft is ambiguous ;.
■what redemption he means, whether from bad to good, or from good to better :
now take the words which way you will, they cannot be made to fay, that he
had never heard that any heretic denied baptifm to infants, but that they denied
the kingdom of heaven to them ; and indeed every one muft allow, whoever is
of that opinion, that infants are by baptifm really regenerated in Chrift j whicli
was the prevailing notion of thofe times, and the light in which it is put ; that
they muft belong to the kingdom of heaven, and fliarc in the common redemp-
tion by Chrift.
6. yiujlin himfclf does not fay, that he had never heard or read of any catho-
lic, heretic, or fchifmatic, that denied infant-baptifm •, he could never fay any
fuch thing ; he muft know, that Tertullian had oppoicd it ; and he himfelf was
at the council of Carthage, and there prefided, and was at the makincr of that
canon which runs thus ; " alfo it is our pleafure, that whoever denies that
" new-born infants are to be baptized — let him be anathema : " but to what
purpofe was this canon made, if he and his brethren knew of none that denied
infant-baptifm ? To fay that this rcl'pedls fome people, who were ftill of the
fame opinion with F;W«J, an African biftiop, that lived 150 years before this
rime, that infants were not to be baptized until they were eight days old, is an
idle notion o( Dr fVall' : can any man in his fenfes think, that a council, con-
fifting of all the bidiops in /ifricay fhould agree to anatbematizi their own bre-
thren, who were in the fame opinion and pradice of infant-baptifm with thera-
felves 1 only they thought it ftiould not be adminiftered to them as foon as born,
but at eight days old ? Credat "Judaus Apella, believe it who will -, he is capable
of believing any thing, that can believe this. Auji'm himfelf makes mention of
fome that argued againft it, after this manner^ ; " men are ufcd to afk this quef-
'* tion, fays he, of what profit is the facramcnt of chriftian baptifm to infants,
" feeing when they have received it, for the moft part they dje before they know
" any thing of it ?" and as before obferved, he brings in the Pelagians *■ faying, ,
• 1 ... . . J
.'• Ed. Antwerp, by Plantine, 1576. ' Hifl. of Infant bapiifm. part I. ch. 19 J. J7.
t De libero Arbitrio, 1. 5. c. 23. * Dc Pcccator. n crji. I. 2. c. zj.
Vol. II. • ' U u ihat
3-^0 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
that the infants of believers aught not to be baptized: and fo Jerom\ who was
a cotemporary of his, fpeaks of fomechriftians, qui dare noluo'int baptifma, *' wha
" rtfufed to give baptifm to their children ;" fo that though infant-baptifm
greatly obtaijifd in thofe times, yet it was not fo general as this author repre-
4^nts it. ylujlin therefore could not fay what he is made to fay : but what then
does he fay, that he never remembered to have read in any catholic, heretic, or
-fchifmatic writer? why, " that infants were not to be baptized, that they might
" receive the remiflion of fins, but that they might be fandlified in Chrift :" it
is of this the words are fpoken, which our author has quoted, but are not to be
-found in the place he refers to; having through inadvertence miftakenDr^^i//,
from whom I perceive he has taken this, and other things. This, and not in-
fant-baptifm itfclf, was what was tranfiently talked of at Cm-tb.ige, and cur-
forily heard by ylujlin fome little time ago, when he was there : this was the
novelty he was ftartled at, but did not think it feafonable to enter into a debate
about it then, and fo forgot it: for fu rely it will not be faid, that it was the-
denial of infant-baptifm that was defended with fo much warmth againft the
church, as he fays this was; and was committed to memory in writing; and the
brethren were obliged to a(k their advice about it ; and they were obliged to
difpute and write againft ; for this would prove the very reverfe of what this
gentleman produces it for. Now, though ylujiin could not fay that he never
remembered to have heard or read of any catholic, fchifmatic, or heretic, that
denied infant-baptifm ; yet he might fay he never remembered to have heard
or read of any that owned and praflifed infant-baptifm, but who allowed it to
be for the remiffion of fm ; which is widely different from the former : it is one
thing whatyf«/?/» fays, and another, what may be thought to be the confequence
of his fo faying; and in the fame fenfe are we to underftand him, when he fays ",
" and this the church has always had, has always held," "What ? why, that
infants are difcafed ihro\ig\\ Adam ; and ftand in need of a phyfician ; and are
brought to the church to be healed. It was the doftrine of original fin, and the
baptifm of infants for the remiffion of it, he fpeaks of in thefe paflTages; it is true
indeed, he took infant-baptifm to bean ancient andcorfftant ufage of the church
and an apoftolic tradition ' ; which perhaps he had taken up from the Latin
tranflations of Origin by Jerom zodRu^nus before-mentioned; fince no other ec-
dcnaftical writer fpeaks of it as fuch, before thofe times : but in this he was de-
ceived and miftaken, as he was in other things which he took for apoftolic tra-
ditions ; which ought to be equally received as this, by thofe who are influenced
by his authority; and indeed every horjeft man that receives infant-baptifm upon
the
• Ep. ad Lztam, t. I. fol. 19. M. ■■ De verblj Apoftoll, ferm 10. C. 2. .
f De Gcneli, 1. 10. c. 22. De bapcifmo. cootr. Donat, ]. 4. c, 23, 24.
-IN FAVOUR OF IN FAN T - BAPT I SM. r -331
-the foot of tradition, ought to receive every thing elfc upon the fame foot, of
• which there is equally as/«//, -and as early evidence of apoftolic tradition, as of
- this : let it then be obferved,
. . I. That the fame Aujiin that aflerts infant-baptlfm to be an apofiolic tradi-
tion, affirms infant-communion to be fo likewife, as Bi(hop Taylor'^ obferves ;
and thus Aujlin fays", " if they pay any regard to the apoftolic authority, or
.-*' rather to the Lord and Matter of the apoftles, who fays, that they have no
• " life in themfelves, unkfs they eat the flejh of the fon of man^ ani drink his blood,
*' -which they cannot do unlels baptized; will fometimesown that onbaptized
»« infat^ts have not life ;" — and a little after, " no man that remembers that he
*' is achriftian, and of the catholic faith, denies or doubts that infants, not hav-
, " ing the grace of regeneration in Chrift, and without eating his flefh, and drink-
*' ing his blood, have no life in them -, but are hereby liable to everlafting pu-
" nifhment;" by which he means the two facramentsof baptifm, and the Lord's
, fupper; the neceffjty of both which to eternal life he founded upon a miftaken
itnicoijobn iii. 5. and vi. 53. as appears from what he clfewhere fays" -, where
having mentioned the firft of thofe paflages, he cites the latter, and adds -, " let
*' us hear the Lord, I fay, not indeed fpeaking this of the facrament of the holy
»' laver, but of the facrament of the holy table ; whither none rightly come,
*' Unlefs baptized. Except ye eat my flefh, and drink my blocd, ye fhall have no
*' life in you ; what do we feek for further ? what can be faid in anfwer to this,
, *' unlefs one would fet himfclf obftinately againft clear and invincible truth?
" will' any one dare to fay this, that this pafTage does not belong to infants ; and
*' that they can havelife inthemfelves, without partakingof his bodyand blood?"
And of the necefTity of this, as well as of baptifm to eternal life, he fays'" the
African chriftians took to be an ancient and apoftolic tradition.
Innocent the firft, his cotemporary, was alfo of the fame mind; and the giving
of the eucharift to infants generally obtained ; and it continued fix hundred
■ years after, until tranfubftantiation took place; and is continued to this day in
the Greek church : and if we look back to the times before Aufiin, we fliall find
that it was not only the ojpinion of Cyprian, but was pradlifed in his time; he
; tells '' a flory which he himfelf was a witnefs of; how that " a little child being
^ " left in. a fright by its parents with a nurfe, fhe carried the child to the magif-
'" ti-ates, who had it to an idol's facrifice; where becaufe the child could not
\" eat flefh, they gave it bread foaked in wine : Tome time after, the mother
,»' had her child again ; which not being able to relate to her whath'ad p:incd,
u u 2 . . it
t
m Liberty of Prophtfy ing, p. 119. " Ep. ro6. "Bonifacio, contr. Ptiag.
• De Pcccator. merit. & remifs. 1. i.e. 20. f Ibid.c. '■2^.
* Cyprian delapns, p. 244.
332 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
*' it was brought by its parent to the place where Cyprian and the church were
" celebrating the Lord's- fupper; and where it fhrieked, and was dreadfully
" diftrefTcd ; and when the cup was offered it in its turn by the deacon, it (hut
" its lips againft it ; who forced the wine down its throat-, upon which it fob-
«« bed, and threw it up again." Now here is a plain inftancc of infant-com-
munion in the third century, and we defy any one to give a more early inftance,
or an inftance fo early, of infant-baptifm : it is highly probable that infant-
baptifm was now praftifed -, and that this very child was baptized, or otherwife
it would not have been admitted to the Lord's-fupper •, and it is reafonabic to
fuppofe, they both began together ; yet no inftance can be given of infant-
baptifm, fo early as of infant-communion ; wherefore whoever thinks himfelf
obliged to receive the one upon fuch evidence and authority, ought to receive
the other ; the one has as good a chim to apoftolic authority and tradition, as.
the other has.
2. The fign of the crofs in baptifm was ufed by the ancients, and pleaded
for as an apoftolic tradition. Ba/tly who lived in the fourth century obferves ',
that fome things they had from fcripture -, and others from apoftolic tradition,,
of which he gives inftanccs ; and, fays he, " becaufe this is the firft and moft
" common, I will mention it in the firft place ; as that we Ji^r. with tkejign of
♦' the crofs thofe who place their hope in Chrift; and then afks who taught this
" in fcripture ? " Chryfojlom, who lived in the fame age, manifeftiy refers to
it, when he fays ", " how can you think it fitting for the miniftcr to make the
'■'■ fign onits (the chWdh) forehead, where you have befmeared it with the dirt ?"
which CynV' calls the royal feal upon the "forehead.
Cyprian in the middle of the third century relates the cuftom of his times •■ ;
«' what is now alfo in ufe among us is, that thofe who are baptized, are offered
" to the governors of the church •, and through our prayers and impofition of
" hands, they obtain the holy Spirit, zndixc m%At com^\czx.fignaculo Dominico,
" with the feal of the Lord : " and in another place " he fays, " they only can
" cfcape, who arc regenerated and figned mih the fign of Chri_ft." AndTertul-
♦' Ijan, in the beginning of the fame century, fpeaking of baptifm fays % " the
*' flcfti is wafhed, that the foul may be unfpotted •, the flefh is anointed, that
" the foul may be confecratcd ; caro ^gnatur^, " the flefti is figned," that the
" fool alfo may be fortified." Now this ufe of the crofs in baptifm, was as
rarly as any inftance of infant-baptifm that can be produced ; higher than Ter-
tullian's.
» Bafil. de Spiritu Saoft. c. 27. • Homil, I 2. in \ Ep. ad Corinth.
• Citechef 12. i. 4. • Ep. 7}. ad Jubsjanum. p. iS.).. * Ad.Demetriin.. prope fioem.
' Dc rcfurreflione camU. c. 8.
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 333
■ iuUian'% time it cannot be carried : what partiality tlien is it, 1 know to whom I
fpeak, to admit the one upon the foot of traditioa^-and rejed the other ? The
fame Tertullian ^ alfo fpcaks of fponfores, fponfors, or godfathers, in baptifm 1
which this writer himfelf has mentioned, and thus renders ; " what occafion is
" there — except in cafes of nccefTuy, that the fponfors or godfathers be brought
" into danger ;" not to take notice of the C/^«i?»/J«^ CfKy?y/tt//o«j, as our author
. calls them, which enjoin the ufe of them -, and which appear to be as early as
infant-baptifm itfelf ; and indeed it is but reafonable that if infants are baptized,
there fliould be fponfors or fureties for them.
3. The form of "renouncing the devil and all his works," ufed in baptifm,
is alfo by 5fl/// ^ reprefented as an apoftolic tradition ; for having mentioned
feveral rites in baptifm, received upon the fame foot, he adds •, " and the reft
^ " of what is done in baptifm, as to renounce liie devil and his angels, from what
" fcripture have we it? is it not from this private and fecret tradition?" Origen
. before the middle of the third century relates the ufage of his times",; ♦' let every
" oneof the faithful remembcrwhen he firft came to the waters of baptifm; when
" he received the firft feals of faith, and came to the fountain of falvation ; what
" words there he then ufed ; and what he denounced to the devil, nonje ufurum
" pompis ejus, " that he would not ufe his pomps, nor his works, nor any of his
" fervice, nor obey his pleafures :" and Tertullian*' before him ^ "when we
" enter into the water, we profcfs the faith of Chrift, in the words of his law ;
" we proteft with our mouth that we renounce the devily and his pomp, and bis
" angels " and in another place % in proof of unwritten tradition, and that it
ought to be allowed of in fome cafes, he fays ; "to begin with baptifm ;. when
*'.we come to the water, we do there, and fometimes in the congregation under
" the hand of the paftor, proteft that we renounce the devil, and his pomp, and
" angels ; and then we are thrice immerfed ; anfwering fomething more than
■ " the Lord has enjoined in the gofpel :" now this is as early as any thing can be
produced in favour of infant-baptifm.
4. Exorcifms and exfufflations are reprefented by /lujiin \ as rites in baptifm,
prijcce traditionis, "of ancient tradition,." as ufed by the church every where,
throughout the whole world. He frequently preffes the Pelagians with the ar-
gument taken from thence, and fuggefts, that they were pinched with it, and
knew not how to anfwer it ; he obfcrvcs, that things the moft impious and ab-
furd, were the confequences of their principles, and among the reft thefc ' : " that
" they (infants) are baptized into a Saviour, butnotfavedi redeemed byadeli-
" vcrer
1 DeBaptifmo.*. i8. » Ut ftipra. • Homll. i«. in Numeros, fol. 114. D..
* Dc fpeflaculis, c. 4. * De corooa, e. 3.
* De peccato originali, l,i. c 40. de nupt. & concup. L i. c. JO.it I..2. c. 18..
«- Contr. J)JiaD.l. 3. C 5.
g>^ "TSSE 'AUGUMEITT -TROM jILPOSTOLlC TRADITION,
" verer, "faut not delivered j wafhed in the laver of regeneration, but not -wafhtd
*' from any thing ; exorcifed and exfufflated, but not freed from the power of
*' -darknefs :*' and elfewhere he fays '^, that " norwithftandingtheir craftinefs,
'" they know not what anfwer to make to this, ibat infants are exorcifed and ex-
" fuffiated; for this, without doubt, is done in mere fhow, if the dcvij has no
■" power over them ; but if he has power over them, and therefore are notf;^-
*' orcifed and exfufflated in mere fliow, by what has the prince of finners power
'■*' over them, but by fin ?" And Gregory Nazia'nzen before him, as he exhorts
^0 confefTion of fin in baptifm, fo to cxorcifm ; " do not refufe, fays he S the
*' medicine of cxorcifm — for that is the trial of fincerity, with refpedt to that
grace (baptifm)." And fays Optatus of Alikvis ', " every man t!ut is born,
though born of chriftian parents, cannot be without the fpirit of the world,
which muft be excluded and feparated from him, before the falutary laver;
"*' this cxorcifm effedts, by which the -unclean fpirit is driven away, and is caufcd
" to flee to defert places." Cyprian^ in the third century, fpeaking of the effi-
cacy of baptifm to deftroy the power of Satan, relates what was done in his days ';
" that by the exorcift the devil was buffeted, diftrefTcd, and tortured, with an
"" human voice, and by a divine power." AndCornelius bifhop of Rome, a co-
ttmporary of his, makes mention '' of the fame officers' in the church ; and this
■ is alfo as early as the practice of infant-baptifm.
5. Trine immerfion is affirmed to be an apoflolic tradition, nothing is more
"frequently afferted by the ancients than this. Bafil\ among his inftances of
' apoftolic tradition, mentions this ; -" now a man is thrice imnierfed, from whence
♦' is it derived ?" his meaning is, is it -from fcripture or apoftolic tradition ? not
the former, but the latter. Andyfrow", in a dialogue of his, makes one of
the parties fay after this manner, ^hich clearly appears to be his own fenfe^ " and
** many other things which by tradition are obferved in the churches, have ob-
-" tained the. authority of a written law^ as to dip the head thrice in the laver,"
■i^c. And (o Teriullian in the third century as above, in fupport of tradition,
■ mentions " this as a common prafticc-, ^' we are thrice immerfed^" and elfewhere
fpcaking" of the commifTion ofChrifl:, he fays, " he commanded them to dip
■•' into thtFather, and theSon, and the holyGhoft; not into one, for not once,
*-»' "but thHce arc we dipped, at each name, into each perfon ;" and he is the
"ifirft man that makesmention of infant-baptifm, who relates this as the then ufage
'of the church : and Sozomen* the hiftorianobfcrvcs, that it was faid, that "£«-
"-*' nomius^zs\h.t firft that dared toaflert, that the divine baptifm fliould be
" performed
■* Ep.io;. Booifacic, pTOpe finem. "i Oral. 40. p. 6,7. * Ad». Parmenian. 1. 4. p. 92.
' Ep 76. id Magnum. ^ Apud Eufeb. Ecd. Hift. 1. 6. c. 43. ' Ut fupra.
■" Adv. Luciferianoj, fol. 47.-H.t01n, 2. . ■ Dc corona, €.-3. '
' Hift. Eccles. 1. 6. c. 26. -
S
• Adv. Praxeara c. 26.
IN FAVOUR OF I N F A N T - BA P T I S M. 335
" performed by one immcrfion; and lb corrupted the apoftolic tradition, which
*' till now had been every whertobfervcd."
6. The confecration of the waterof baptifni is an ancient rite, and which "Bajil '
derives from apoftolic tradition ; " we confecrate, fays he, the water of baptifm,
*' and the anointing oil, as well as the perfon that receives baptifm, from what
" .Icripture ? is it not from private and fecret tradition ?" by which he means
apodolic tradition, as he in the fame place calls it; which was done, not only
by the prayer of the adminiflrator over the water, but by figning it with the fign
of the crofs -, which rite was in ufe in the times of Aujlin % who fays, " baptifm
"is figned with the fign ofChrift, that is, the water where we are dipped-," and
Amhrcfey who lived in the fame age, relates, that exorcifm was alfo ufed in con-
fecration : he dcfcribes the manner of it thus '' ; " why did Chrift defcend firft,
"and afterwards the Spirit, feeing the form and ufe of baptifm require, that
*' firft the font be confecrated, and then the perfon that is to be baptized, goes-
" down ? for where the prieft firft enters, he makes an exorcifm, next an invo-
cation on the creature of the water, and afterwards prays that the font may be-
" fandtificd, and the aernal Trinity be prefent." Cyprian, in the middle of the
third century, makes mention of this ceremony of confecrating the baptifmal
water ; he fays ', " the water muft firft be cleanfed and /ij;?^?/;??^ by the prieft,
" that it may, by his baptizing in it, wafti away the fins of the man thatis bap-
♦^ tized." And Tertullian before him, though he makes no difference between
the waterof a pool, river or fountain^. fTj^^r or Jordan, yet fuppofes there is a.
fandification of it through prayer-, "all waters, he fays ', from their ancient
" original prerogative, (referring to Genefts i. 2.) obtain the facrament of fanc-
". tjfication, Beo invocato, God being called upon -," for imm.ediately theSpirit
*« comes down from heaven, and rcfts upon the waters, fanflifying them of-
" himfclf; and fo being fanftified, they drink in together the fanftifying virtue.'*'
This alfo is as high as the date of infant- baptifm can be carried..
. 7. Ajiointing with oil at baptifm, is a rite that claims apoftolic tradition.
Bafil' mentions it as an inftance of it, and afks -, "the anointiug oil, what paf- .
"■ fage in fcripture teaches this ?" Aujlin " fpeaks of it as the common cuftom
of th« church in his time-, having quoted that paflagc \nAcls x. 38. <■* how God
" anointed him {Jcfus) with ibt holy Choji ; adds, not truly with vifible oil, but
•♦with the gift of grace, which is fignified by the vifible ointment, quo baptiza-
" tos ungit ecckfia, " with which the church anoints thofe that arc baptized :" fe-
veral parts of the body were wont to be anointed. Ambrofe'' makes mention
of-
• Ut fupra. * De tempore fcrmo, 119. c. 8, * De facrameDtis, J. 1. c. 5.
» Ep. 70. ad Januarium. • De baptifmo, c. 4. « Ut fupra.
»■ Detrinjtate, l.ij. ciS, » Dc £»craiaciitis, ). 3. c. i»
336 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
of the ointment on the head in baptifm, and gives a rcafon for it. Cyril^ fays,
the oil was exorcifed, and the forehead, ear, nofe and breaft, were anointed
w-ith it, and obfervcs the myftical figniScation of each of thefe ; the neceffity
of this anointing is urged hy Cyprian ^ in the third century ; " he that is baptiz-
" -cd muft needs be anointed, that by receiving the chryfm, thatis, the anointing,
•' he may be the anointed of God, and have the grace of Chrift. And Tertul-
lian, in the beginning of the fame century, fays % as before obferved, " the flefh
♦' -is anointed, that the foul may be confecratcd ;" and in another place*, " when
*' we come out of the laver, we are anointed with the blefled ointment, accord-
*' ing to the ancient difcipline, in which they ufed to be anointed with oil out
■•" of the horn, for the priefthood ;" this was the cuftom ufed in the times of
the man that firft fpoke of infant-baptifm.
5. The giving^ mixture of milk and honey to a perfonjuft baptized, is a rite
that was ufed in the churches anciently through tradition -, Jerom " makes men-
tion of it, as obferved upon this footing, and as an indance, among other things
which obtained authority in that way : " as to dip the head thrice in the laver,
■" and when they came out from thence, to lajle of a mixture of milk end boney, to
" fignify the new birth •" and elfewherc he fays ', it was a cuftom obferved in
the wcftern churches to that day, to give w/wf and milk to them that were rege-
nerated in Chrift. This was in ufe in TertuUian's time ; for, fpcaking of the
adminiftration of baptifm, he fays'", "we come to the water — then we are thrice
dipped — then being taken out from thence, we tafte a mixture of milk and honey;
and [his, as well as anointing with oil, he obferves, was ufed by heretics them-
fclves, for fo he fays o^Marcion ' \ " he does not rcjeft the water of the creator,
".with which he wafhes his difciples i ror the oil with which he anoints his
•" own ; nor the mixture of milk and honey,, by which he points them out as new-'
"born babes;" yea, tvcn Barnabas, a companion of the apoftlcP^K/, is thought
to refer to this praflice, in an epiflle of his ftill extant ^ j not to take notice of
the white garment, and the ufe of the ring and kifs in baptifm, mCyprian and
TertuUian's time*.
. Now thefe fcveral rites and ufeges in baptifm, claim their rife from apojlolic
tradition, and have equal evidence of it as infant-baptifm has ; they are of as
early dace, have the fame vouchers, and more •, the ttflimonies of them are
clear and full -, they univerfally obtained, and were practifed by the churches
throughout the whole world ; ^nd even by Jieretics and fchifmatics •, and this
is
» Citechef. myflagog 2. 5- 3- & J. S- 3- '' Ep. 70. ad Janoariam, p 175.
• De refurrefiione carnis, c. 8. » De baptifmo, c 7. ^ Adv. Lucifcrianoi, fol. 47.
* Commeot. in Efaidin. c. ;;. i.fol. 94. E. ' De corona, c. j.
« Adv Marcion, 1. 3 c. 14. ' C. 5. prope finem. « Tertullian de pudic'tia,
c. 9. Cvprian. Ep. 59. ad Fidom, vjd. Aug. contr. 2. Epift. Pelag. 1. 4. c. 8.
IN FAVOUR OF IN F AN T - BAP T I SM. 337
is to be faid of them, that they never were eppofed by any within the time referred
to, whTch cannot be faid of infant- baptifm \ for the very firfl: man that men-
tions it, difluades from it : and are thefe facts which could not but be publicly
and perfeflly Icnown, and for which the ancient writers and fathers may be ap-
pealed to, not as reafoners and interpreters, but as hiftorians and witnefles to
public ftanding fafts ; and all the r^afoning this gentleman makes ufe of, con-
cerning the apoftles forming the churches on one uniform plan of baptifm, the
rearnifs of infant-baptifm to their times, from the teftimony of the anticnts, the
difficulty of an innovation, and the eaGnefs of its dctcflion, may be applied to
;ill and each of thefe rites.
Wherefore whoever receives infant-baptifm upon the foot of apoftolie tradi-
tion, and upon fuch proof and evidence as is given of it, as above, if he is an
honcft man ; I fay again, if he is an honeft man, he ought to give into the prac-
tice of all thofe rites and ufages. We do not think ogrfclves indeed obliged to
regard thefe things ; we know that a variety of fuperftitious, ridiculous, and
foolifli rites, were brought into the church in thefe times ; we are not of opinion,
as is fuggefted, that even the authority of the apoftles a hundred years after their
death, was fufficient to keep an innovation from entering the church, nor even
whilft they were living •, we are well alTured, there never was fuch a fett of im-
pure wretches under the chriftian name, fo unfound in principle, and fo bad m
pradice, as wtre in the apoftles days, and in the ages fuccecding, called tl.e
purejl ages of chriftianity. We take the Bible to be the only authentic, pcrfedl
and fufficient rule of faith and praiftice : we allow of no other head and law-
giver but one, that is, Chrift j we deny that any men, or fet of men, have any
power to make laws in his houfe, or to decree rites and ceremonies to be ob-
Icrved by his people, no not apoftles ihemfclves, uninfpired : and this gentle-
man, out of this (ontraverfy-, is of the fame mind with us, who aflerts the above
things we doi and affirms, without the Icaft hefitation, that what is "ordained
^' by the apoftles, without any precept from the Lord, or any particular direc-
V tion of the holy Spirit, is not at all obligatory as d law upon the confciences
" of chriftians i— even the appjlles h»d no dominien over ihe failh and pra£Iice of
^' chriftians, but what w^s given them by the fpecial prcfcnce, and Spirit of
*' Chxift, the only Lawgiver, Lord, and Sovereign of the church : they were
«* to teach *n(y the things which he (hould command them •, and whatever they
V cnjoifKd under the influence of that Spirit, was to be confidered and obeyed
" as the ifljunilions of Chrift \ but if they enjoined any thing in the church,
" without the peculiar influence and direftion of this Spirit, chat is, as merely
•* fallible and unaffifted men, in that cafe, their injunftions had no authority
" over confcience ; and every man's own reafon had authority to examine and
Vol. II. X X " difcufs
r"
(C
338 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
*' difcufs their injunflions, as they approved themfelves to his private judg-
*' ment, to obferve them or not : Qiould we grant thee what you afk — fays he
*' to his antagonill — chat the church in the prefent age, has the lame authority
" and power, as the church in theapollolic age, confidtred, as not being under
any immediate and extraordinary guidance of the holy Ghoft - what will you
*' gain by it ? This fame authority and power is you fee, Sir, really no power
*' nor authority at all \"
The.controverfy between us and our brethren on this head, is the fame as be*
tween Papifts and Protcftants about tradition, and between the church of Eng-
land and DifTenters, about the church's power to decree rites and ceremonies j
namel<, whether Chrift is the fole head and lawgiver in his church ; or whether
any fet of men have a power to fet afide, alter, and change any laws of his, or
prcfcribe new ones ? if the latter, then wp own it is all over with us, and we
ought to fubmir, and not carry on the difpute any further : but fince we both
profefs to maite the Bible our religion, and that only the rule of our faith -and .
pradlicc ; let us unite upon this common principle, and rejcdl every tradition .
of men, and all rites and ceremonies which Chrift hath not enjoined us ; let us
join in pulling down this prop of Pcpery, and remove th\s fcatidal oi the Protcf-
tant churches, I mean infant-baptifm-, for fure I am, fo long as it is attempted
to fupport it upon the foot of apoftolic tradition, no man can write with fuccefs -
againft the Papifts, or fuch, who hold that the church has a power to decree rites ,
and ceremonies.
However, if infant baptifm is a tradition of the apoftles, then this point muft
be gained, that it is not a fcriptural bufinefs; for if it is of tradition, then not
of fcripture ; who ever appeals to tradition, when a docflrine or pradice can be
proved by fcripture? appealing to tradition, and putting it upon that foot, is
giving it up as a point of fcriptu-re : I might therefore be excufed from confider-
ing what this writer has advanced from fcripture in favour of infant-baptifm, and
the rather, fince there is nothing produced but what has been brought into the
controverfy again and again, and has been anfwered over and over: but perhaps
this gentleman and his friends will be difpleafed, if I take no notice of his argu-
ments from thence; I fhall therefore juft make fomefcw remarks on them. Buc
before I proceed, I muft congratulate my readers upon the blefled times we arc
fallen into ! what an enlightened age ! what an age of good fenfe do we live in !'
what prodigious improvement in knowledge is made! behold! tradition proved
hy fcripture! apojlolic tradition proved hy Abraham' i covenant! undoubted apoJloUc
tradition proved from writings in being hundreds of years before any of the apoflles
were
|» The diflecting Gcntleraan'i Second Letter, tec p. 29, 30."
t:
IN FAVOUR OF I N FAN T - BAPT I S M. 5^9
were born ! all extraordinary and of the marvellous kind ! but let us attend to
the proof of thefe things.
The/r/Z argument is taken from its being an incontejiahk faH, that the infants
of believers were received with their parents into covenant with God, in the
former difpcnfations or ages of thethurch; which is a great privilege, a pri-
vilege ftill fubfifting, .and never revoked ; wherefore the infants of believers,
having ftill a right to the fame privilege, in confequence have a right to bap-
tifm, which is now the only appointed token of God's covenant, and the only
rite of admilTion into it'. To which I reply, that it is not an inconteftabie
fadl, but 2.faa centefled, that the infants of believers were with their parents
taken into covenant with God, in the former difpenfations and ages of the
church ; by which muft be meant, the ages preceding ihcAbrahamic covenant;
fince that is made, to furnifh out a y^fw/J and di(lin(ft argument from thisi
and fo the fcriptures produced are quite impertinent, Gen. \\\\. 7, 10 12.
Deut. xxix. 10 — 12. Ezek. xvi. 20, 21. feeing they refer to the Abrahamic and
Mofaic difpenfations, of which hereafter. l"he firft covenant made with man,
was the covenant of works, with Adam before the fall, which indeed included
all his pofterity, but had t\o peculiar regard to the infants of believers; he (land-
ing as a federal head to all his feed, which no man fince has ever done : and
in him they all finned, were condemned, and died. This covenant, I prefume,
this Gentleman can have no view unto : after the fall oi Adam, the covenant of
grace was revealed, and the way of life and falvation by the MelTiah ; but then
this revelation was only made to Adam and Eve perfonally, as interefted in thel'e
things, and not to their natural feed and pofterity as fuch, as being inrerefted in
the fame covenant of grace with them ; for then all mankind mufl be taken into
the covenant of grace; and if that gives a right to baptifm, they have all an
equal right to unto ir; and fo there is nothing /)ff«//(jr to the infants of believers;
and of whom, there is not the leaft fyllable mentioned throughout the whole acre
or difpenfation of the church, reaching from Adam to Noah ; a length of time
almoft equal to what has run out from the birth of Chrift, to the prefent age.
The next covenant we read of, is the covenant made with Noah after the flood,
which was not made with him, and his immediate ofl^spring C!:lj/; nor were they
taken into covenant with him as the infants of a believer ; nor had they any fa-
crament or rite given them as a token oi Jehovah being their God, and they
his children, and as ftanding in a peculiar relation to him ; will any one dare to
fay this of //aw, one of the immediate {onsofNoah? The covenant was made
with Noah and all mankind, to the end of the world, and even with every living
creature, and all the beads of the earth, promifing them fecurity from an uni-
X X 2 verfal
* Bapcifm of Infants a reafonable Serrice, 5.-C. p. 14, ij.
340 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
verfal deluge, as long as the world (lands; and had nothing in k peculiar to the
infants of believers : and thefe are all the covenants the fcripture inakes men-
tion of, till that tnid^ with AbrahatHy of which irt the next argument.
This being the cafe, there is no room nor reafon to talk of the greatnefs of
this privilege, and of the continuance of it, and of aflcing when it was repealed,
Cnce it does not appear to have been a fadt; nor during thefe ages and difpen-
fations of the church, was there ever zny facrament, ri/e, or ceremony, appointed
for the admiflion of perfons adult, or infants, into covenant with God ; nor was
there ever any fuch rite in any age of the world, nor is there now : the covenant
with Adam, cither of works or grace, had no ceremony Of this kind -, there was
a token, and ftill is, of iVwi^'s covenant, the rainbow, but not a token or rite of
admiflion of pcrfons into it, but a token of the continuance and perpetuity of it
in all generations: nor was circumcifion a rite of admiflion oi Abraham's feed into
his covenant, as vviil quickly appear ; nor is baptifm now an initiatory rite, by
which pcrfons are admitted into the covenant. Let this Gentleman, if he can,
point out to us where it is fo dcfcribed; perfons ought co appear to be in the co-
venant of grace, and partakers of the blefTmgs of it, the Spirit of God, faiih in
Chrift, and repentance towards God, before thiy are admitted to baptifm. This
Gentleman will find more work to fupport his firft argument, than perhaps he
was aware of; thepremifes being bad, the conclufionmuft be wrong. I proceed-
to,
The feccfid argument, taken from xheAbrabamic covenant, which ftands thus :
The covenant God made w^nU Abraham and his feed, Geiuftsxv\\. into which his
infants were taken together with himfelf, by the rit4 of circunuifion, '\% t\\t very
fame we are now under, the fame wi:h that '\x\Gal. iii. 16, 17. ftill in force, and
not to be difannulled, in which we believing Gentiles are included. Remans iv.
9 — 16, 17. and fo being Abraham\ feed, have a right to all the grants and pri-
vileges of it, and fo to the admiflion of our infants to it, by the fign and token
of it, which is changed from circumcifion to baptifm '. But, i. though y^^a-
kam^s feed were taken into covenant with him, which defigns his adult pofterity
in all generations, on whom it was enjoined to circumcife their infants, it does
iiot follow that his infants were ; but fo it is, that wherever the words/^^i, chil-
dren, &c. are ufcd, it immediately runs in the heads of fome men, that infants
nuift be meant, though they are not neceflarily included ; but be it fo, that
Ahrahanis infants were admitted with him, (thoUgh at the time of making this
covenant, he had no infant with him, Ifhmael was then thirteen years of age)
yet not as the infants of a believer; there were believers and their infants then
living, who were left out of the covenant ; and ihofe that were taken in in fuc-
ccfllve
'' Baptifm of I;ifant) a reafonable Ser\'ice, &c. p. 16^19
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 341
celTive generations, were not the infants of believers only, but of unbelievers
^Co; even all the natural feed of the Jews, whether believers or unbelievers
2. Thofe that were admined into this covenant, were not admitted ^ /2»f r/Vf
of circumcifimf, Ahrabam'i female feed were taken into covenant with him, as
well as his male feed, but not by any vifibk rite or ceremony ; nor were his male
feed admitted by any fuch rite, no not by circumcifion-, for they were not to be
circumcifed until the eighth day ; to have circumcifcd them fooner would have
been criminal ; and that they were in covenant from their birth, this gentleman,
I prefume, will not deny. —3. The covenant of circumcifion, as it is called J£is
vii. 8. cannot be the fame covenant we are now under, fincc that is abolifhed,
Cal. V. 1 — 3. and it is a ruw covenant, or a new adminiftration of the covenant
of grace, that we are now under \ the old covenant under the MofaU difpenfa-
tion is waxen old, and vaniflied away, Heb. viii^ 8, 13. nor is the covenant with
Abraham, Ccn.x\\'u the fame with that mentioned in G<2/. iii. 17. which is ftill
in force, and not to be difannulled ; the diftance of time between them does
not agree, but falls ftiort of the apoftle's date, four and twenty years j for from
the making of this covenant to the birth of T/Jar, was one year, C«r. xvii. 1.
and xxi. 5. from thence to the b\x\h of Jacob, fixty years. Gen. xxv. 26. from
thence to his going down to Egypt, one hundred «Bd thirty years. Gen. xlvii. 9.
w-herc the Ifraelitcs continued two hundred and fifteen 'j and quickly after they
came out of Egypt, Was the law given, which was but four hundred and fix
years after this covenant. The^eafon this gentleman gives, why they mud: be
the fame, will not hold good, namely, "this is the only covenant in which
" God ever made and coxjirrmd promifes to Abraham, and to bis feed " fince
God wade a covenant with Abraham before this, and confirmed it to his feed,
and that by various rites, and ufeges, and wonderful appearances, Gen.iiv. 8—18..
which covenant, and the confirmation of it, the apoftlc manifeftly refers to in
Gal. iii. 17. and with which his date cxadly agrees, as the years are computed
by Parous " thus ; from the confirmation of the covenant, and taking Hagar
to wife, to the birth of Jfaac, fifteen years ; from thence to the birth difazob,.
fixty. Gen. xxv. 26. from thence to his going down to Egypt, one hundred
and thirty. Gen. xlvii. 9. from thence to his death, feventcen, Gttu xlvii. 18.-
from thence to the death of Jofeph, fifty three, Gen. 1. 26. from thence to
the birth of Mofes., feventy-five; from thence to the going out of Ifrad from
Egypt., and the giving of t4ie law, eighty years; in all four hundred and thirty
years — 4. It is allowed, that the covenant made mih Abraham, -G^n, xvii. is of
a fnixtd kind, confifting partly of temporal, and partly of fpiritual blefilngs ;
and that there is a twofold fczd of Abraham., to which they frverally belong-,,
the temporal blcffings, to his natural feed the Jews, and the fpiritual blefTings,,
tO'
' See Pool's Acnotatioo on Gal. iii. 17. " lo ibid.
342 THE ARGUMENT -FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
to his fpiritual feed, even all true believers that walk innhe fteps of his faith,
Jews or Gentiles, Rom iv. -i i, 12, 16. believing Gentiles ^tz jAbrabani's fpiritual
feed, but then they 'have a'tight only to the'fpiritual blelBngs of the covenant,
not tort//the grants and privileges of it-, for inftance, not to the land of Canaan:,
and as for their natural feed, thefc have no right, as fuch, to any of the bleffings
of this covenant, 'temporal or fpiritual : for cither they are the natural, or the
fpiritual {ctA- oi Abrab<tm ; not his natural feed, no one will fay that ; not his
fpiritual feed, for only believers are fuch; tbcy it-hlcb are of faith (believers) the
fame are the tbildren of Abraham ; and if ye be Cbriji's,-{f.hu is, believers) then
are ye Abraham's feed, and heirs according -to the prcmife ; and it i» time enough
to claim the promtfe, and the grants and privileges of it, be they what they
will, when they appear to be believers; and as for the natural feed of believing
Gentiles, there is not the leaft mention made -of them in Abraham's covenant.
.—5. Since Abraham's feed were not admitted into covenant with him, by any
vifibic rite or token, no not by circumcifion, which was not a rite of admilTion
into the covenant, but a token of -the continuance of it to his natural feed, and
of their diftinction from other nations, until the Mefllah came ; and fince there-
fore baptifm cannot fucceed it as fuch, nor are the one or the other feals of the
covenant of "race, as I have clfewherc ° proved, and (hall not now repeat it -,
upon the whole, this fecond argument can be of no force in favour of infant-
baptifm : and here, if any where, is the proper time and place for this gentle-
man to afk for the repeal of this ancient privilege, as he calls it % of infants being
taken into covenant with their parents, or to (hew when it was repealed ; to
which I anfwer, that the covenant made with Ah-aham, into which his natural
feed were taken with him, fo far as it concerned them as fuch, or was a national
covenant, it was abolifhed and difannulled when the people of the Jews were
cut off as a nation, and as a church ; when the Mofaic difpenfation was put an
end unto, by the coming, fufFerings, and death of Chrift, and by the deftruc-
tion of that people on their rejeflion of him ; when God wrote a Loammi upon
them, and faid, Te are not my people, and I will not he your God, Hofea i. 9.
when he took his Jlaff, beauty, and cut it afunder, that he might ireak his covenant
he had made with ibis people, Zech. xi. 10. when the old -covenant and old ordi-
nances were removed, and the old church-ftatc utterly dcftroycd, and a new
church-ftate was fet up, and new ordinances appointed ; and for which new
rules were given; and to which none are to be admitted, without the obfervance
of them ; which leads me to
The /Z^/W argument, taken from the commifTion of Chrift for baptifm. Matt.
xxviii. ig. and from the natural and ntcejjary fenfcan which the apoftles would
underftand
• Thedivine rightof Infant-baptifm difproved, p.j6 — 61. * ReafonaWe fcrvice, &c. p. i6.
IN FAVOUR OF J N F A N T - B A P T I S M. 343
underftand it ' ; though this gentleman owns that it is delivered in fuch gene-
ral terms, as not certainly to determine whether adult believers only, or the
infants alfo of fuch are to be baptized ; and if fo, then furely no argument can
be drawn from it for admitting infants to baptifm. And,
I. The rendering of the words, difciple o: profelyte all nations, l/ap/izingibem,
will not help the caufe of infant-baptifm ; for one cannot be a profelyte to any
religion, unlefs he is taught it, and embraces and piofcfles it ; though had our
Lord ufed a word which conveyed fuch an idea, the evangelift Matthew was not
at a lofs for a proper word or phrafe to cxprefs it by ; and doubtlcfs would have
made ufe of another clear and exprefs, as he does in chap, xxiii. 15..^ 2. The
fuppofitions this writer makes, that if, inftead of baptizing them, it had been
faid circumcifing them, theapoftles without any farther warrant would have natu^ i
rally and jufUy thought, that upon profelyting the Gentile parent, and circum-
cifing him, his infants alfo were to be circumcifed : or if the twelve patriarchs
of old had had a divine command given them, to go into Egypt, Arabia, Sec.
and teach them the God of Abraham, circumcifing them, they would have under-
ftood it as authorizing them to perform this ceremony, not upon the parent only, -
But alfo upon the infants of fuch as believed on the God oi Abraham. As thefe
fuppofitions are without foundation, fo I greatly quefiion whether they would
have been fo underftood, without fome inftruftions and explanations; and befides
the cafes put are not parallel to this before us, fince the circumcifion of infants
was enjoined and praflifed before fueh a fuppofed commifTion and command -, .
whereas the baptifm of infants was neither commanded norpradifed before this
commifTion ofChrift; and therefore could n^ot lead them to any fuch thought
as this, whateverthe other might do. — 3. The charaftcrs and circumftances of ■
the apoftles, to whom the commiflion wasgiven, will rrotatall conclude that
they apprehended infants to be aftually included; fonie in which they -are repre-
fcnted being entirely falfe, and others nothing to the purpofe : Jews they were ■
indeed, but men that knewihat the covenant of circumcifion was not ftill in force, .
but abolifhed: men, who could never haveobferved that the infants of believers -
with their parents had ahvays been admitted into covenant, and pafftd under the
fame initiating rite : men, who could not know,- that the Gentiles were to be
taken ihtt) a joint participation of all the privileges of the Jcwifh charch ; but ■
tnuft knowthat both believingJews-andGentiles-wcre to conftitute a ncwchurch, ,
ftate, and to partake of new privileges and ordinances,- which the Jewifh church >
knew nothing of: men, who were utter ftrangers to the baptifm of Gentile pro-
fclytes, to the Jewifli religion, and of their infants; and to any baptifm, but the ■
ceremonial ablutions, before the times of 7ei'« the Baptift : — men, who were .•
not-;
» Aeafonible fervice, &c. p. i9-:-J2. ..
344 THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION,
not tenacious of their ancient rites after the Spirit was poured down upon them
Jit Pentecoft, but knew they were now abolifhcd, and at an end : men, thouoh
they had feen Httle children brought to Chrift to have his hands laid on them,
yet had never feen an infant baptized in their days :— men, who thoucrh they
knew that infants were finners, and under a fentence of condemnation, and need-
ed remiflion of fin and juftification, and that baptifm was a means of leading
the faith of adult perfons to Chrift for them ; yet knew that it was not by bap-
tifm, but by the blood of Chrift, that thefe things are obtained : — men, that knew
that Chrift came to fct up a new church-ftatei not national as before, but con-
gregational; not confifting of carnal men, and of infants without underftanding;
but of fpiritual and rational men, believers inChrift; and therefore could not be
led to conclude that infants were comprehended in the commifTion : nor is Chrift's
filence with refpeft to infants to be conftrued into a ftrong and moft manifeft
prefumption in their favour, which would be prefumption indeed ; or his not
excepting them, a permifTion or order to admit them : perfons capable of mak-
ing fuch conftrudions, are capable of doing and faying any thing. I haftcn to
The/ourlh argument, drawn from the evident and clear confequences of other
pafTages of fcripture ' ; as,
1. From Romans xi. 17. and if feme of the branches' be broken cffy &c. here let
it be noted, that the olive-tree is not the Abrabamic covenant or church, into
which the Gentiles were grafted ; for they never were grafted into the Jewifh
church, that, with all its peculiar ordinances, being abolifhed by Chrift ; figni-
fied by the fliaking of the heaven and the earth, and the removing of things
fhaken ', but the golpel church-ftate, out of which the unbelieving Jews were
left, and into which the believing Gentiles were engrafted, but not in the ftead
of the unbelieving Jews : and by the root zndfatnefs of the olive-tree, are meant,
not the religious privileges and grants belonging tothe Jewifti covenantor church,
which theGentiles had nothing to do with, and are abaliftied; but the privileges
and ordinances of the gofpel-church, which they with the believing Jews joint-
ly partook of, being incorporated together in the fame church-ftate; and which,
as it is the meaning of Romans xi. 1 7. fb of Epbeftans iii. 6. in all which tliere is
not the leaft fyllabie of baptifm ; and much Icfs of infant baptifm ; or of the
faith of a parent grafting his children with himfelf, into the church or covenant-
relation to God, which is a mere chimera, that has no foundation chher in rea-
fon or fcripture.
2. FromAffjr^x. ij,. Suffer Ul tie children tocome untome^ S)ic. zn^JohniW. §. Ex-
<£pt any one is born ofwater^ &c. from thcfe two paflTages put together, it is f*id, the
right
* Reafonable fervict, &c. p. 23-^28, • Heb. xii. 26, 27. ,
• IN FAVOUR OF IN FAN T - BAPTISM. 345
right of infants to baptifm may be clearly inferred; for in one they are declared"
a<5lually to have a place in God's kingdom or church, and yet into it, the other
as exprefsly fays, none can be admitted without being baptized. But fuppofing
the former of thefe texts is to be underftood of infants, not in a metaphorical
fenfe, orof fuch as are compared to infants for humility, tfc. which fenfe fome
verfions lead unto, and in which way fome Pjedobaptifts interpret the words,
particularly Calvin, but literally ; then by the kingdom 0/ God, is not meant the
vifible church on earth, or a gofpel church-ftate, which is not national, but con-
gregational; confi fling of perfons gathered out of the world by the grace of
God, and that make a public profeflion of the name of Ch rift, which infants
are incapable of, and fo are not taken into it : befides, this fenfe would prove
too much, and what this writer would not chufe to give into, viz. that infants,
having a place in this kingdom or church, muft have a right to all the privileges
of it -, to the Lord's fupper, as well as to baptifm -, and ought to be treated in
all refpefts as other members of it. Wherefore it (hould be interpreted of the
kingdom of glory, into which we doubt not that fuch as thefe in the text arc
admitted; and then the ftrength of our Lord's argument lies here; that fincc
he came to fave fuch infants as thefe, as well as adult perfons, and bring them
to heaven, they Ihould not be hindered from being brought to him to be
touched by him, and healed of their bodily difeafes : and fo the other text is
to be underftood of the kingdom of God, or heaven, in the fame fenfe ; but not
of watcr-baptifm as neccfTary to it, or that without which there is no entrance
into it ; which miftaken, fhocking and ftupid fenfe of them, led Aujitn, and the
African churches, into a confirmed belief and praflice of infant-baptifm ; and
this fenfe being imbibed, will juftify him in all his monftrous, abfurd and impious
tenets, as this writer calls them, about the ceremony of baptifmal water, and
the abfolute neceftity of it unto falvation: whereas the plain meaning of the
words is, that except a man be born again of the grace of the Spirit of God, com-
parable to water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, or be a partaker of the
heavenly glory ; or without the regenerating grace of the Spirit of God, which
inTitus in. 5. is called the wafhing of regeneration, and reneiving of the bolyGhofl,
there can be no meetnefs for, no reception into, the kingdom of heaven ; and
therefore makes nothing for the baptizing of infants.
3. A diftindlion between the children of believers and of unbelievers, is at-
tempted from I Cor. vii. 14. as if the one were in a vifible covenant-relation to
God, and the other not; whereas the text fpeaks not of two forts of children,
but of one and the fame, under fuppofed different circumftances ; and is to
be underftood not of any federal, but matrimonial holinefs, as I have (hewn
Vol. II. y y clfewhere.
34^ THE ARGUMENT 3FR0M APOSTOLIC TRADITION, Sec.
elfewhere ', to which I refer the reader. As for the^eries with which the argu-
ment is concluded, they are nothing to the purpofe, vnlefs it could be made
out, that it is the will of God that infants fliould be baptized, and that the bap-
tifm of them would give them the remitTion of fins, and juftify their perfons ^
neither of which are true: and of the fame kind is the barangue'm the iniroduiiicn
to this treatife : and after all a poor, flender provifion is made for the felvation
of infants, according to this author's own fcheme, which only concerns tht infants,
efhelievers, and leaves all others to the uncovenanted mercies of God, as he calls
them -, feeing the former are but a very fmall part of the thoufands of infants.
that every day languifh under grievous dillempers, are tortured, convulfed, and
in piteous agonies give up the ghoft. Nor have I any thing to do with what
this writer fays, concerning the moral purpofes and ufeof infant-baptifm in reli-
gion-, fince the thing itfelf is without any foundation in the word of God; upon
the whole, the baptifm of infants is fo far from being a reafonable fervice, that
it is imojl unreafonabk' one ; fince there is neither precept nor precedent for it in.
the facred writings j and it is neither to be proved by fcripture nor tradition.
• The difine right of Infant. baptifin difprovtd, &c. p. 73 — 78.
A N
A N
A N S W E R
T O A
WELCH CLERGYMAN'S TWENTY ARGUMENTS
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT-BAPTISM,
WITH
Some Strictures on what the faid Author has advanced
concerning the Mode of B A P T I S M.
A Book, fome time ago being publifhed in xheJVekb language, intiiled, " A
"^ " Guide to a faving Knowledge of the Principles and Duties of Religion,
" wz. Queftions and Scriptural Anfwers, relating to the Doflrine contained in
" the Church Catechifm," 6?f . Some extradts out of it refpedting the ordinance
of baptifm, its fubjedl:, and mode, being communicated to me, with a requeft
from our friends in fVales to make fome Reply unto, and alfo to draw up fome
Rea/ons for diflenting from the church of England, both which 1 have undercook,
and (hall attempt in the following manner.
■ I fhall take but little notice of what this author fays, part 5. p. 40. concerning
fponfors in baptifm, but refer the reader to what is faid of them in the Reafons
for diflenting, hereunto annexed. This writer himfclf owns, that the prafticc
of having fureties is not particularly mentioned in fcripturc; only he would have
it, that it has in general obtained in the churches from the primitive times, and
was enafted by the pozvers which Cod has appointed, and whofe ordinances are to
he Submitted to, when they are not contrary to thofc of God"-, and mufl be al-
lowed to be of great fervice, //the fureties fulfilled their engagements. The
anfwertoall which is, thacfince it is not mentioned in fcripturc, it deferves no
regard ; at leaft, this can never recommend it to fuch, who make the Bible the
V y 2 rule
' '*- . _.
• 1 Pet. ii. 13. Rom. xlJi. i, 2. Tit. iii. i, 2.
348 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
rule of their faith and pra<flice •, and as to its obtaining in primitive times, it is
indeed generally afcribed to Pope Hyginus^ as an invention of his ; but the ge-
nuinenefs of the cpiftles attributed to him and others, is called in queftion by
learned men, and are condemned by them as fpurious ; but were they genuine,
neither his office nor his age would have much weight and authority with us,
who are not to be determined by the decrees of popes and councils : the powers
fpoken of in the fcriptures referred to, were Heathen magiftrates, who furely
had no authority to enafl any thing relating to gofpel-worlliip and ordinances j.
nor can it be reafonably thought they fhould ; and fubmifHon and obedience to-
them, are required in things of a civil nature, not ecclefiaftical, as the fcopeof
the paffages, and their context manifeftly fhew, nor has God given power and
authority to any fet of men whatever, to enadl laws and ordinances, of religious
worfhip ; nor are we bound to fubmit to all ordinances of men in religious mat-
ters, that are not contrary to the appointments of God, that is, that are not ex-
prefsly forbidden in his word ; for by this means, all manner of fuperftition and
will-worlhip may be introduced. Oil and fpiltU in baptifm are no where forbid-
den, nor is the baptizing of bells ; yet thefe ordinances of men are not to be fub-
mitted to, and a multitude of others of the like kind : we are not only to take
care to do whatGod has commanded, but to rcjeft what he has not commanded •,
remembering the cafe oi Nadab and Abihu, who offered Jlrangef re to the Lord,,
which he commanded not. And whereas it is fuggefted, that this praitice would
be very ferviceable were the engagements of furci\cs fulfilled, it is not pradicable
they fliould; it is impoffible to do what they engage to do, even for themfelves,
and much jefs for others, as is obferved in the Reafons, before referred to.
But pading thefe things, I (hall chiefly attend to the twenty arguments, which
this writer has advanced in favour of infant-baptifm, page 41 — 45.
The firjl argument runs thus : " Baptifm, which is a feal of the covenant of
" grace, Ihould not be forbid to the children of believers, feeing they are under
" condemnation through the covenant of works ; and if they are left without
" an intcreft in the covenant of grace, they then would be, to their parents great
♦' diftrefs, under a dreadful fentence of eternal condemnation, without any fign
" or promife of the mercy of God, or of an intercft in Chrift j being hy nature
♦' children of wrath as others^ and confequently without any hope of falvation, if
«' they die in their infancy." In which there are fome things true, and others
falfe, and nothing that can be improved into an argument in favour of infant-
baptifm. I. It is true that the infants of believers, as well as others, are by
nature the children of wrath, and under condemnation through the covenant of
works ; fo all mankind are as confidered in Adam^ and in confcquence of his fin
and
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT -BAPTISM. 345
and fall •". But, 2. It is not baptifm that can fave them from wrath and condem-
nation ; a perfon may be baptized in water, and yet not faved from wrath to
come, and ftill lie under the fentence of condemnation, hing notwithftanding
that, in the gall of bitternefs^ and hnd of inquity, as the cafe oi Simon Magus (hews.
Though this writer feems to be of opinion, that baptifm is a faving ordinance,
and that a perfon cannot be faved without it; and indeed he exprefsly fays, p. 27.
that " in general it is necefTary to falvation ;" as if falvation was by it, (which
is a popifh notion) and there was none without it ; but the inftance of the peni-
tent thief, is a proof to the contrary : the text docs not fay, be that is baptized
jhall be faved, but he that believeth and is baptized; nor is it any where fug-
gefted, that a perfon dying without baptifm (hall be damned. It isCnRisx only,
and not baptifm, that faves from wrath and condemnation, 3. Being unbaptized,
-does not leave without an intereft in the covenant of grace, or exclude from the
hope of falvation, or the mercy of God, or an intereft in Chrifl: ; pcrfons may
have an intereft in all thefe, and yet not be baptized. See the ftran^e contra-
didions men run ir>to when deftitute of truth ; one while the covenant of grace
is faid to be made with believers, and their feed, as in the next argument, and
fo their infants being in it, have a right to baptifm; at another time it is baptifm
that puts them into the covenant -, and if they are not baptized they are left without
intereft in it, and, to the great grief of their parents, under a dreadful fentence
of eternal condemnation. But, 4. as the falvation of an infant dying in its infancy
is one oitbeftcret things which belong unto the Lord, a judicious chriftian parent
will leave it with him •, and find more relief from his diftrefs, by hopino- in the
grace and mercy of God through Chrift, and in the virtue and efficacy of his
blood and righteoufnefs, which may be applied unto it without baptifm, than he
can in baptifm ; which he may obferve, may be adminiftered to a perfon,. and
yet be damned. For, 5. baptifra is no feal of the covenantof grace, nor does
it give any perfon an intereft in it, or feal it to them ; a perfon may be baptized,
and yet have no intereft in the covenant, zi Simon Magus and others, and to whom
it was never fealed -, and on the other hand, a perfon may be in the covenant
of grace, and it maybe fca,]ed to him, and he aflTured of his intereft in it, and
not yet be baptized : the blood of Chrift is the feal of the covenant,, and the
Spirit of Chrift is the fealer of the faint's intereft in it. And, after all, 6 if bap-
tifm has fuch virtue in it, as to give an intereft in the covenant of grace, to be
a Cgn and promife of mercy, and of our intereft in Chrift, and furnifli out hope
of falvation, and fecure from wrath and condemnation, why ftiouldnot.com-
paffion be fticwn to the children of unbelievers, who are in the fame ftate and
condition by nature? for, I obferve all along, that in this and the following
arguments,.
* See Rom. v. 12, 18.
Zsso AN ANSWER TO- THE TWENTY TARGl^MENTS
arguments, baptifm is wholly-reftrained to the children of bdievcrs ; uporr the
•whole, the argAjment from the flate of infants to their baptifm is impertinent
and fruitlefs; fince there is no fuch efficacy in baptiim, to deliver them from iff.
The fecotid argument is : " The children of believers (hould be admitted to
*' baptifm, fince as the covenant cjf works, and the feal of it belonged toAdavi
" and his children, fo the covenant of grace, .and the feal thereof belongs,
" through Chrift, to believers and their children ;" to which it may be replied,
1. That it is indeed true, that the covenant of works belonged to Adam and his
-pofterity, he being a federal head unto them; but then it does not appear, that
that covenant had any feal belonging to it, fince it needed none, nor was it pro-
per it fhould have any, feeing it was not to continue. And if the tree of life is
intended, as I fuppofe it is, whatever that might be.a fign of, it was no feal of
any thing, nor did it belong w Adam's children, who wer€ never fufFcred to par-
take of it. 2. There is a great difparity heiween./1dam and believers, and the
relation they ftand in to their refpedive offspring: Adam ftood as a common head
and reprefcntative to all his pofterity ; not fo believers to theirs : they are no
common heads unto them, or reprefentatives of them ; wherefore though the
covenant of works belonged to Adam and his pofterity, it does not follow, that
the covenant of grace belongs to believers and their children, they not ftanding
in the fame relation he did. There never were but two covenant-heads, Adam
and Christ, and between them, and them only, the parallel will run, and in
this form; that as the covenant of works belonged to Adam and his feed, fo the
covenant of grace belongs toChrift and his feed. 3. As it does not appear there
was any feal belonging to the covenant of works, fo we have feen already, that
baptifm is not the feal of the covenant of grace ; wherefore this argument in
favour of infant-baptifm is weak and frivolous ; the reafon this author adds to
firengthen the above argument, is very lamely and improperly expreflTed, and
impertinently urged-, ■^'for we arc not to imagine, that there is more efficacy
" in the covenant of works, to bring condemnation on the children of the unbe-
" lieving, through the fall of Adam ; than there it virtue in the covenant of
•" grace, through the mediation of the fon of God, x.\\t iecondi Adam, to bring
*' falvation to the feed of thofe that believe *." For the covenant of works being
broken by the fall oi Adam, brought condemnation, not on the children of the
unbelieving only, but of believers alfo, even on all his pofterity, to whom he
ftood a federal head ; and fo ^he covenant of grace, of which Chrift the fccond
Adam is the mediator, brings falvation, not to the feed of thofe that believe,
many of whom never believe, and to whom falvation is never brought, nor they
to
* See iiie htroJuShn to iheBaf/i/m ofhfanH a rta/onahliScrvicf, &C. to which this il an anfwer.
^ Rom. V. 15, 18. .
IN FAVOUR -OF wIJs^PAI^T.- BAPTISM. ^51
to that; but toallChrift's fpiritual feed arid offspring, to "whom he ft ands a fede-
ral head •, which is the fenfe of the paffages of fcripiure referred to, and ferves
no ways to ftrengthen the caufe of infant-baptifm. •
-The /i'/W argument runs thus. " The feed of believers are to be baptized
" into the fame covenant with themfelves •, feeing infants, while infants, as na-
*' tural parts of their parents, are included in the fame threatening^, which are
"denounced againft wicked parents, and in the fame promifes as are made to
" godly parents, being branches of one root '." Here let it be obferved, i . that
it is pleaded that infants Ihould be baptized into the fame covenant with their
pArents, meaning no doubt the covenant of grace ; that is, fhould by baptifm
be brought into the covenant as it is expreffed in Argument 7"', or elfe I know
ntkt what is meant by being baptized into the fame covenant ; and yet in the
preceding argument it is urged, that the covenant of grace bclono-s to the infants
of believers, that is, they are in it, and therefore are to be baptized: an inftance
this of the glaring contradicStion before obferved. 2. Thrcatenin^s indeed are
made to wicked parents and their children, partly to fhew the heinoufnefs of
their fins, and to deter them from them ; and partly to cxprefsGod's hatred of
fin, and his punitive juftice; and alfo to point out original fin and the corrup-
tioa of nature in infants, and what they mud cxpeft when grown up if they fol-
low the examples of their parents, and commit the fame or like fins ; but what
iy ill this to Infant-baptifm ; Why, 3. In like manner promifes are made to godly
parents and their children, and feveral paffages are referred to in proof of it -,
fomc of thcfc are of a temporal nature, and are defigned to ftir up and encourao^e
good men to the difcharge of their duty, and have no manner of regard to any
Ipiritual or religious privilege •, and fuch as are of a fpiritual nature, which rc-
fpefl converfion, fandification, (s'c. when thefe take place on the feed of belie-
vers, ihen, -and not till then, do they appear to have any right to Gofpel-ordi-
nances, fuch as baptifm and the Lord's fupper ; wherefore the arounient from
promifes to fuch .privileges, before the things promifcd are beftowcd, is of no
force. ■ ■
The fourth agunment is much of the fame kind with the foregoing, namely,
" There are many examples recorded in fcripture wherein the infants of ungod-
" .ly men are involved with their parents in heavy judgments ; therefore as the
" judgment and curfe which belong to the wicked, belong alfo to their feed,
*', fo the privileges of the faints belong alfo to their offspring, unlefs they rejcfl
" the God of their fathers. The juftice and wrath of God, is not more cxtenfivc
."to
•Rom.xi. 16. Deut. iv. 37, 40. andxtTiii. I— 4. and«x. 6, 19. Pfal. cii. 28. Prov. xi. ei.
indxx.7. Jer. xxxii. 38, 39. Exod. xx. 5. and xixiv. 7. Dfut. xxviii. 15, 18, 45, ^6^
PiaJ. xxi. 10. and cxix. 9, 10. Ui\. xiy. vo, 21. Jer. txii »8. and xxxvi ji.
352 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
" to deflroy the offspring of the wicked, than his grace and mercy is to fave
" thofe of the faithful j therefore baptifm, the fign of th€ promifes of God's
" mercy, is not to be denied to fuch infants ^" The anfwer given to the for-
mer may fuffice for this : to which may be added, i. That the inflifting judg-
ments on the children of fome wicked men, is an inftance of the fovereign jufticc
of God ; and his beftowing privileges on the children of fome good men, is an
inftance of his fovereign grace, who puniflies whom he will, and has mercy on
whom he will : for, 2. God does not always proceed in this method ; he fome-
times beftows the bleffings of his grace on the children of the wicked, and inflidls
deferved punifhment on the children of good men ; the feed of the wicked do
not always inherit their curfes, nor the feed of the godly their bleffings ; where-
fore fuch difpenfations of God can be no rule of condufl to us; and particularly
with refpeft to baptifm. And, 3. Whatfoever privileges belong to the feed of
believers, we are very defirous they fhould enjoy ; nor would we deprive them
of any, let it be (hewn that baptifm belongs to them as fuch, and we will by
no means deny it to them. But, 4. Whereas it is faid that the privileges of
faints belong to their offspring, adding this exceptive claufe, " unlefs they rejeft
" the God of their fathers ;" it feems moft proper, prudent and advifeable,
particularly in the cafe before us, to wait and fee whether they will receive or
rejefb, follow or depart from the God of their fathers.
Tht fifth argument is formed thus: "The children of believers are to be bap-
" tized now, as thofe of the Jews were circumcifed formerly •, for circumcifion
" was then the feal of the covenant, as baptifm is now, which Chrift has appoint-
" ed in lieu thereof. Abraham and his fon IJhmael, and all that were born in
" his houfe, were circumcifed the fame day ; and God commanded all Ifrael to
" bring their children into the covenant with them, to give them the feal of it,
" and circumcife them^." To all which I reply, i. that circumcifion was no
feal of the covenant of grace ; if it was, the covenant of grace from Adam to
Abraham was without a feal. It is called ijign in Genefis xvii. the paffagc re-
ferred to, but not a feal : it is indeed in Romans iv. 11. faid to be a feal of the
righteoufnefs of the faith, not to infants, not to /Abraham's natural feed, only to
himfelf-, affuring him, that he fhould be the father of many nations, in a fpiri-
tual fenfe, and that the righteoufnefs of faith he had, fhould come upon the Gen-
tiles : wherefore this mark or fign continued until the gofpel, in which the righ-
teoufnefs of Cad is revealed from faith to faith, was preached unto the Gentiles, ■
and received by them ; to which may be added, that there were many living
who were interefted in the covenant of grace, when circumcifion was appointed,
and yet it was not ordered to them ; as it would have been, had it been a feal
of
'Namb.xiv.33. 2 Kings V. 17 Jothua vji. 24i 25. Jer. xxii. 18.
I G:n. xvii. DeuC. xxix. 10 — iz. Col. ii. >i, 12.
-IN FAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPTISM. ,35}
tif that covenant; and on the other hand, it was enjoined fuch who had no intereft
in the covenant of grace, and to whom it could not be a feal of it, as IJhmael,
E/au, ^nd others. And, 2. it has been £hewn already, that baptifm is no fcal
of the faid covenant. Nor, 3. is it appointed by Chrift in lieu of circumcifion,
nor does it fucceed it -, there is no agreement between them in their fubjedts,
ufe, and manner of adminiftration ; and what moft clearly fhews that baptifm
-did not come in the room of circumcifion^ is, that it was in force and ufe before
xircumcifion was abolifhed ; which was not till the death of Chrift; whereas,
.years before that, multitudes were baptized, and our Lord himfelf ; and there-
fore it being in force before the other was out of date, cannot with any propriety
be faid to fucceed it.
This writer, p. 28. has advanced feveral things to prove that baptifm came in
the room of circumcifion.
. tjl. He argues from thcLord's fupper being inftead of the pafchal Iamb, that
-therefore baptifm muft be in the room of circumcifion, which is ceafed ; orelie
there muft be a deficiency. But it docs not appear that the Lord's fupper is in
the room of the paflTover -, it followed that indeed, in the inftitution and cele-
bration of it by Chrift, but it was not inftituted by him to anfwer the like pur-
pofes as the paflbver-, nor are the fame perfons admitted to the one as the other •
and bcfides, was the Lord's fupper in the room of the pafibver, it docs not fol-
low from thence that baptifm w;k/? be in the room of circumcifion : but then it
is faid there will be a deficiency •, a deficiency of what ? all thofc ceremonial
rites, the paffover and circumcifion, with fpany others, pointed at Chrift and
have had their fulfilment in him-, he is come, and is the body and fubftance
of them ; and therefore there can be no deficiency, fince he is in the room of
-chem, and is the fulfilling end of them : nor can any other but he, with any
propriety, be faid to come in the room of them. And there can be no defi-
ciency of grace, fince he is full of it, nor of ordinances, for he has appointed
-as many as he thought fit.
idl); This author urges, that it is proper there ftiould be two facraments
under the gofpel, as there were two under the law, one for. adult perfons, the
other for their children, as were the pafchal lamb and circumcifion. But if
every thing that was typical of Chrift, as thofc two were, were facraments, it
•might as well be faid there were two and twenty facraments under the law, as
two; and, according to this way of reaibning, there fliould be as many under
the gofpel. Moreover, of thefe two, one was not for adult perfons only, and
•the other for their children ; for they were, each of them, both for adult per-
:fons and children too ; they that partook of the one had a right to the other;
all that were circumcifcd might cat of the paffover, and none but they ; and if
Vol. II. Z z this
354 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
this is a rule and direftion to us now, if infants have a right to baptifm, they
ought to be admitted to the Lord's fiipper.
^dly, Baprifm, he fays, is appointed for a. like end as circumcifion ; namely,
for the admifTion of perfons into the church, which is not true ; circumcifion
was appointed for another end, and not for that: the Jewifh church was nation-
al, and as foon as an infant was born, it was a member of it, even before cir-
cumcifion J and therefore it could not be admitted by it-, nor is baptifm for
any fuch end, nor are perfons admitted into a vifible church of Chrift by it; they
may be baptized, and yet not members of a church : what church was the eu-
nuch admitted into, or did he become a member of, by his baptifm ?
4/^/)', This writer affirms, that "the holy Spirit calls baptifm circumcifion,
*' that is, ihe circumcifion made without hands, having the fame fpiritual defign ;
" and is termed the cbrijiian circumcifion, or that of Chrift ; it anfwering to
*' circumcifion, and being ordained by Chrifl: in the room of it." To fay that
baptifm is ordained by Chrift in the room of circumcifion, is begging the quef-
tion, nor is there any thing in it that anfwers to circumcifion, nor is it called
the circumcifion of Chrift, in Col. ii. 11. which I fuppofc is the place referred
to; for not that, but internal circumcifion, the circumcifion of the heart is meant,
which Chrift by his Spirit is the author of, and therefore called his ; and the
fame is the circumcifion made without handsy in oppofition to circumcifion ;'»
theflejh; it being by the powerful and efficacious grace of God, without the
affiftance of men ; nor can baptifm with any fhew of reafon, w appearance of
truth, befo called, fince that is made with the hands of men; and therefore can
never be the circumcifion there meant.
Sthly, He infers that baptifm is appointed in the room of circumcifion, from
their fignifying like things, as original corruption, regeneration, or the circum-
cifion of the heart ^; being feals of the covenant of grace '; initiating ordinances,
and alike laying men under an obligation to put off the body of fm, and walk
in newnefs of life'' ; and alfo being marks of diftinftion between church-mem-
bers and others '. But baptifm and circumcifion do not fignify the like things ;
baptifm fignifies the fufferings, death, burial, and refurredlion of Chrift, which
circumcifion did not ; nor does baptifm fignify original corruption, which it
takes not away ; nor regeneration, which it does not give, but pre-requircs it;
nor is baptifm meant in the pafTage referred to, Titus iii. 5. nor are either of
them feals of the covenant of grace, as has been fhewn already ; nor initiating
ordinances, or what enter perfons into a church-ftate: Jewifti infants were church-
members, before they were circumcifcd ; and perfons may be baptized, and yet
not
* Deut. XXX. 6. Tit. iii. j. ' Rom. iv, 11. •■ Roni. vi. 4, 6.
* Ezek. xvi. 21. Matt, xvi. i6.
IN FAVOUR. OF IN FAN T - BAPTISM. 355
OQt be enembers of churches ; and whatever obligations the one and the other may
lay men under to live in newnefs of life, this can be no proof of the one coming
in the room of the other. Circumcifwn was indeed a mark of diftiniftion between
the natural feed oi Abraham and others j and baptifm is a diftinguifhing badge,
to be wore by thofe that believe in Chrift, and put him on, and are his fpiritual
feed; but neither of them diftinguifh church-members from others j the paf-
iages referred to are impertinent. But I proceed to cbnfider
Thzfixih argument in favour of infant-baptifm, taken from " the famcnefs of
the covenant oi grace made with Jews and Gentiles, of which circumcifion was
the feal i from the feal and difpenfation of which, the Jews and their children arc
cut off, and the Gentiles and their feed are engrafted in V In anfwer to which,
let it be obferved, i. That the covenant of grace is indeed the fame in one age,
and under one difpenfation, as another; or as made with one fort of people as
another, whether Jews or Gentiles ; the fame blefiings of ic that came upon
Abraham, come upon all believers, Jews or Gentiles ; and the one are faved
by the grace of our Lord Jefus Chrift, as the other ; but then, 2. The cove-
nant of grace was not made vj\i\\ Abraham and his natural feed, or with all the
Jews as fuch; nor is it made with Gentiles and their natural feed as fuch.;
but with Chrift and his fpiritual feed, and with them only, be they of what
nation, or live they in what age they will. 3. Circumcifion was no feal of the
covenant of grace, nor does Romans iv. 11. prove ir, as has been fhewn already ;
and therefore nothing can be inferred from hence with refpeft to baptifm.
4. The root or ftock from whence the unbelieving Jews were cut off, and into
which the believing Gentiles are engrafted, is not the covenant of grace, from
which thofe who arc interefted in it can never be cut off; but the gofpel
church-ftate, from which the unbelieving Jews were rejedted and left out, and
the believing Gentiles took in, who partook of all the privileges of it ": though
no mention is made throughout the whole of the paffage of the children of
cither; only of fome being broken off through unbelief, and others ftandincy
by faith ; and therefore can be of no fcrvice in the caufe of infant-baptifm.
The fevenib argument is taken from " the extent of the covenant of grace
being the fame under the New Teftan^cnt, as before the coming of Chrifl, who
canie not to curtail the covenant, and render worfe the condition of infants ;
if they were in the covenant before, they are io now; no fpiritual privilege
given to children or others can be made void "." To which may be replied,
I. That the extent of the covenant, as to the conditution of it, and perfons
irucrefted in it, is always the fame, having neither more nor fewer ; but with
z z 2 refpeft
" GaJ. iii. 14. A£bzv. ii. Rom. iv. 1 1 . aod xi. 1 5, 17. • Rom. xi. 17 — zj.
" Rom. zt. 19. Jer. xxx. 20.
356 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
refpeft to the application of it, it extends to more perfons at one time than at
another ; and is more extenfive under the gofpel-difpenfation than before •, it
being applied to Gentiles as well as Jews : and with refped to the blefTino-s and
privileges of it, they are always the fame, arc never curtailed or made void,
or taken away from thofe to whom they belong; which are all Chrift's fpiritual
feed, and none elfe, be they Jews or Gentiles. But, 2. It fhould be proved
that the infant-feed of believers, or their natural feed as fuch, were ever in the
covenant of grace ; or that any fpiritual privileges were given to them as fuch -,
or it is impertinent to talk of curtailing the covenant, or taking away the pri-
vileges of the feed of believers. 3. If even their covenant-intereft could be
proved, which it cannot, that gives no right to any ordinance, or to a pofuive
inftitution, without a divine direction ; there were many who were interefted
in the covenant of grace, when circumcifion was appointed, who yet had no-
thing to do wiih that ordinance. 4. Baptifm not being allowed to infants,
does not make their condition worfe than it was under the former difpenfation-,
ior as then circumcifion could not fave them, fo neither would baptifm, were
it adminiftered to them -, nor was circumcifion really a privilege, but the re-
verfe ; and therefore the abrogation of it, without fubftituting any thing in its
room, does not make the condition of infants the worfe; and certain it is, that
the condition of the infants of believing Gentiles, even though baptifm is de-
nied them, is much better than that of the infants of Gentiles before the com-
ing of Chrift; yea, even of the infants of Jews themfelves ; fince they are born
of chriftian parents, and fo have a chriftian education, and the opportuniry
and advantage of hearing the gofpel preached, as they grow up, with greater
clcarnefs, and in every place ■■ where they are. The lext in Romans x\.2g. regards
not external privileges, but internal grace ; that in Jeremiah xxx. 20. refpedls
not infants, but the pofterity of the Jews; adult perfons in the latter day.
The eighth argument is taken from the everlaftingnefs of the covenant of
grace, and runs thus ; " The example oi Abraham and the Ifraelites in circum-
"• cifing their children according to the command of God, fhould oblige us
" to baptize our children ; becaufe circumcifion was then a feal of the ever-
'• lafling covenant, a covenant that was to lad for ever, and not ceafe as the
" legal ceremonies ; which God hath confirmed with an oath ; and therefore
" can have fufFcred no alteration for the worfe in any thing with refpedt to
♦' infants ■" " The anfwer to which is, i. That the covenant of grace is ever-
lafting, will never ceafe, nor admit of any alteration, is certain ; but the
covenant of circumcifion, which is called an everlafting covenant, Gene/is xvu.y.
was
' This a]fo is ar anAver to what the author of Tf>e bafiifm oflnftnts a rea/onahU Servhi fuggelb in
p. 7, 1:, 16. "< Gen. vii. 17. Heb. vi. 13, 18. Mic. rii. 18, 20. Gal.iii. 8.
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPT ISM. 357
was only to continue during the Mofaic difpenfation, or unto the times of the
Mefliah ; and is fo called for the fame reafon, and juft in the fame fenfe as the
covenant of the priefthood with Phinebas is called, the covenant of an everlajling
friejlbood'. Though the covenant of grace is everlafting, and whatever is in
that covenant, or ever was, will never be altered -, yet it fhould be proved
there is any thing in it with refpcd to infants, and particularly which lays any
foundation for, or gives them any claim and right to baptifm. 3. Though cir-
cumcifion was a fign and token of the covenant made with Abraham, and his na-
tural feed, it never was any feal of the covenant of grace. And, 4. The example
of Abraham and others, in circumcifing their children according to the com-
mand of God, lays no obligation upon us to baptize ours, unlefs we had a com-
rMand for their baptifm, as they had for their circumcifion.
The ninth argument is formed thus-, "Baptifm is to be adminiftered to the
*' feed of believers, becaufe it is certainly very dangerous and blameworthy,
*' to neglefl and defpife a valuable privilege appointed by God from the begin-
"■ ning, to the offspring of his people." But it muft be denied, and fhould
be proved, that baptifm is a privilege appointed by God from the beginning,
to the offspring of his people ; let it be fhcwn,. if it can, when and where it was
appointed by him. This argument is illuflrated and enforced by various obfer-
vations ; as that " that foul was to be cut off that negleded circumcifion -, and
" no juft cxcufe can be given for negleding infant-baptifm, which is ordained
" to be the feal of the covenant infiead of circumcifion:" but we have feen
already, that baptifm does not come in the room of circumcifion, nor is it a feal
of the covenant of grace ; and there is good reafon to be given for the negleft
of infant-baptifm, becaufe it never was ordained and appointed of God. More-
over it is faid, " that the feed of believers were formerly, under the Old Tefla-
" ment, in the covenant together with their parents ; and no one is able to fliew
" that they have been cafl; out under the New, or that their condition is worfe,.
" and their fpiritual privileges lefs, under the gofpcl, than under the law:"
but that believers with their natural feed as fuch, were together in the covenant
of grace under the Old Tcftament, fhould not be barely affirmed, but proved,,
before we are put upon to fhew that they are cafl out under the New ; though,
this writer himfelf, before in the Jixth argument, talks of the Jews and their
children being cut off from the feal and difpenfation of the covenant ; which
can never be true of the covenant of grace ; nor do we think that the condition
of infants is worfe, or their privileges lefs now, than they were before, though,
baptifm is denied them, as has been obfervcd already. It is further urged, that-.
*' it is not to be imagined, without prefumption, that Chrift ever intended to
" CUti
' Numb. ixv. i3(
358 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS '
" cm them off from an ordinance, which God had given them a right untoj"
nor do we imagine any fuch thing; nor can it be proved that God ever gave
the ordinance of baptifm to them. As for what this writer further ebferves,
that had Chrift took, away circumcifion, without ordaining baptifm in the room
of it, for the children of believers ; the Jews would have cried out againft it as
an excommunication of their children ; and would have been a greater objcftion
againft him than any other -, and would now be a hindrance of their €onverfion ;
and who, if they were converted, would have baptifm or circumcifion to be a
feal of the covenant with them and their children, it deferves noanfwer; fince
the clamours, outcries, and objeftions of the Jews, and their praftice on their
legal principles, would be no rule of direftion to us, were they made and gave
into, fince they would be without reafon and truth ; for though Chrift came net
to deftroy the moral law, but to fulfil it ' ; yet he came to put an end to the cere-
monial law, of which circumcifion is a part, and did put an end to it ' : the text
]n Jeremiah XXX. 20. refpcfts the reftoration of the Jews in the Fatter day, but
not their old ecclefiaftical polity, which fhall not be eftabliftied again, but their
civil liberties and privileges.
The fe7itb argument ftands thus; " Children are to be baptized under the
" covenant of grace, bccaufe all the covenants which God ever made with men
" were made not only with them, but alfo with their children;" and inftances
are given in Adam, Noah., Abraham., Ifaac and Jacob, Levi, Pbinehas, and David.
The covenant of works was indeed made with y^^^jw and his feed, in which
covenant he was a federal head to his offspring ; but the covenant of grace was
not made with him and his feed, he was no federal head in that ; nor is that
made with all mankind, as it muft, if it had been made with Adam and his
feed : this is an inftancc againft the argument, and fticws that a// the covenants
that ever God made with men, were not made with them and their feed ; for
certainly the covenant of grace was made with Adam, and made known to him ' ;
and yet not with his feed with him ; nor can any inftance be given of the cove-
nant of grace being made with any man, and his natural feed. There was a
covenant made with Noah and his pofterity, fccuring them from a future de-
luge, but not a covenant of grace fecuring them from cverlafting deftruftton ;
for then it muft have been made with all mankind, fince all are the pofterity
of Ncab ; and where then is the diftindion of the feed of believers and of un-
believers i* Bcfides //<ZOT, one of A^:><jifc's immediate offspring, was not intercfted
in the covenant of grace. As for the covenant made with Abraham, his fon
j?/2)»;a^/ was excluded from it'; and of Jfaac's two fons one of them was rejefled";
and
* Matt. V. 17. • Which may likewire bean anfwer to the fame thing hinted hy the author
of Tie baptifm of Infant I a rtafanabU Sirvice, p. 28. Gen. iii.15.
>• Gen. xvii. 19 — 21. * Rom.ix. lo — 13.
n
IN FAVOUR OF IN F A N T - B APT IS M. 359
and all were not IfraeliWa were of Ifrael, or oi Jacob, ver. 6. The covenant
of the priefthood was indeed made with Levi and Phinebas, and their pofteritv ;
and though it is called an tverlajlitig one, it is now made void -, nor is there
any other in its room with the minifters oF the word and their pofterity \ and
yet no outcry is made of the children of gofpel-miniftcrs being in a worfe con-
dition, and their privileges lefs than thofe of the priefts and Levites : and as
for David, the fad eftatc of his family, and the wicked behaviour of mofl: of
his children, fliew, that the covenant of grace was not made with him and his
natural offspring ; and whatever covenants thofe were that were made with
thefe perfons, they furnilh out no argument proving the covenant of grace to
be made with believers and their carnal feed, and ftill lefs any argument in
favour of infant-baptifm ".
The eleventh argument is -, " The feed of believers ought to be baptized
" under the covenant of grace, otherwife they would be reckoned pagans,
" and the offspring of infidels and idolaters, to whom there is neither a promife
" nor any fign of hope ; whereas the fcripture makes a difference, calling them
'" holy on account of their relation to the holy covenant, when either their
" father or mother believe ', difcipks'^; reckoning them among them that be-
" lieve, becaufe of their relation to the houfhoid of faith * ; flyling them the
'■'■ feed of the bkjjed, and their offspring with them"; accounting rhsm for a
" *' generation to the Lord", as David fays; who, ver. 10. obferves, that God
" was his God from his mother's belly; and alfo calling them the children of
" God^ ; therefore they ought to be dedicated to him by that ordinance which
" he has appointe.d for that purpofe." To all which may be replied, i. Thac
the children of believers arc by nature children of wrath even as others-, and are
no better than others ; and were they baptized, they would not be at all the
better chriftians for it. Though, 2. It will be allowed that there is a difference
between the offspring of believers, and thofe of infidels, pagans and idolaters;
and the former have abundantly the advantage of the latter, as they have a chrif-
tian education ; and confequently as they are brought up under the means of
grace, there is hope of them ; and it may be expefted that the promife of God
to fuch who ufe the means will be accomplifhed. But, 3. the charaflers men-
tioned either do not belong to children, or not for the reafon given ; and thofe
that do, do not furnifh out an argument for their baptifm. Children are faid
lohi holy, born in lawful wedlock'; not on account of their relation to the
holy covenant, but on account of the holinefs of a believing parent, which
furely
» Let this airo be obferved, together with the anfwer to the firll argument of the aothor o(Tbt bap-
lifraof Ihfanli a rtafonabUStrvici, &c. p. 14. 1 1 Cor. vii. 14. * Afli xv. 10.
» Matt, xviii. 6. ' Ifai. Ixv. 23. « Pfal. xxii. 30. * Ezelt. xvi. 20, 2J1,
« -I Cor. vii. 14.
-360 ■ AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUiMENTS
furciy cannot be a federal holinefs, but a matrimonial one j the marriage of a
believer with an unbeliever being valid, or otherwife their children muft be un-
ckaB or illegitimate, and not holy or legitimate. The difciples in ji^is xv. 10.
■ are not young children, but adult perfons, the converted Gentiles, on whom
the falfe teachers would have put the yoke of the ceremonial law, and particu-
larly circumcifion. The little ones reckoned among thofe that believe inChrift,
Matt, xviii. 6. were not infants in age, but the apoRles of our Lord, who were
litde in their own account, and in the account of others, whom to offend was
criminal, highly provoking to Chrift, and of dangerous confequence. The
text, Ifai. Ixv. 23. fpcaks of the fpiritual feed of the church, and not the carnal
feed of believers ''-, and thefe are the fame who are accounted to the Lord for a
generation; even a fpiritual feed that fhall ferve him, Pfat. xxii. 30. and the words
in ver. 10. are the words, not of David, but of Chrift. And the fons and daugh-
ters born to God, and whom he calls his children, Ezekiel xvl. 20, 21.' were
fo, not by grace or by covenant, but by creation. And from the whole there
Is not the leaft reafon why the children of believers fhould be dedicated to God
by baptifm, which is an ordinance that never was appointed by him for any fucli
purpofc.
The tzvelftb argument is ; " The feed of believers are to be baptized, becaufc
♦« church-relation belongs to them, as citizenlTiip belongs to the children of
■*' freemen; and it is by baptifm that they are firft admitted into the vifiblc
"' church; and there is neither covenant nor promifc of falvation out of the
" church; for [he church of Chrift is his kingdom on earth, and Chrift fays
■*' this belongs to children ^" In anfwer to which, i. There is a manifeft con-
iradidion in the argument. Church-relation belongs to infants, that is, they
ar^ related to the church, and members of it, and therefore fhould be bapcized ;
and yet they are firft admitted imo the church by baptifm; what a contradidion
this ! in it, and out of it, related, and not related to it, at one and the fame
lime. 2. Church-memberfhip does not pafs from father to fon, nor is it by
birth, as citizenfhip, or the freedom of cities ; the one is a civil, the other an
ccclefiaftical affair ; the one is of nature, the other of grace ; natural birth gives
a right to the one, but the fpiritual birth or regeneration only iniitles to the
other. 3. Church-memberfhip gives no right to baptifm, but rather baptifm
.to church-memberfhip, or however is a qualification rcquifuc 10 it; perfons
ouoht to he baptized before they are church-members; and if they are church-
.jncmbeis, and not regenerate perfons and believers in Chrift, for fuch maybe
in a church, they have no right to baptifm. 4. To talk of there bejng no cove-
nant or promife of falvation out of the church, fmells rank of popery. The
covenant
♦ Vicfeibid, p. 24. » Mark x 13, 14. .
IN FAVOUR -OF iNFANT - BAPT I SM. 361
covenant and propife of falvation are not made with and to perfons as members
of churches, or as in a vifible church-ftate, but with and to the eled of God in
Chrift, and with perfons only confidercd in him -, who have an intereft in the
covenant and promife of falvation, though they may not be in a vifible church-
Hate-, and doubtlefs many are faved who never were members of a vifible church.
5. The kingdom of God, in Afiir;^ X. 13, 14. be it the church of Chrift on earth,
or eternal glory in heaven, only belongs to fuch perfons who arc like to little
children for their meeknefs and humility, ,and freedom from malice and rancor,
as ver. 15. fhows. 6. Could infants in age, or the feed of believers as fuch be
here meant, and the kingdom of God be underftood of Chrift's vifible church,
and they as 'beionging to it, it would prove more than this writer chufes ;
namely, that they have a right to all church-privileges, and particularly and
efpecially to the Lord's fupper.
The thirteenth argument is -, " Children are the lambs of Chrift's flock and
♦' fheep; and the lambs ought not to be kept out ofChrift's fold, nor hindered
" from the wafliing that is in his blood; he particularly promifes to be their
" fhepherd ; and his Spirit has declared, that little children fliould be brought
" to him under the gofpel, in the arms, and on the (boulders of their parents \"
On which may be obfcrved, i. That there is indeed mention made of the lambs
of Chrift \nlfai. xl. 11. John xxi. 15. which he gathers in his arms, and ordered
Peter to feed ; yet not infants in age are intended in cither place, but adult
perfons, weak believers, who, in comparifon of others, becaufc ot their Ih-iall
degree of knowledge and ftrength, are called lambs-, and are to be gently and
tenderly dealt with -, and fuch as thefe are not kept out ofChrift's fold, but are
received into it, though weak in the faith, but net to doubtful difputaiions; and
are fed with knowledge and underftanding, which infants in age are not capable
of, 2. The infant-feed of believers are no where called the flicep of Chrift, nor
has he promifed to be the fhepherd of them -, let the pafTages be direfted to, if
it can be, where this is faid. 3. Thofe who are truly the iambs and fheep of
Chrift, arc not hindered from the walhing of his blood -, though that is not to
be done, nor is it done by baptifm -, perfons may be walhed with water, as
Simon Magus, and yet not waftied in the blood of Chrift : Canticles vi. 6. does
not intend wafhing in cither fenfe -, but cither the regenerating graceof the fpi-
rit, or the purity of converfation, and refpeds not infants at all. 4. Nor is it
declared by theSpirit of God, that parents fliould bring their children toChrift
in their arms, and on their (boulders -, the pafTage in Ifai. xlix. 22. brought in
fupport of it, fpeaks of the fpiritual feed of the church, and not of the carnal
feed of believers; and of their being brought, not in the arms and on the (lioul-
VoL. II. 3 A ders
^ Ifai. xl. 1 1, and zlix. 22. Cant. vi. 6. John xxi. 1 j.
362 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
ders of their natural parents, but of the Gentiles ; and not toChrift, but to the
church, through the miniftry of the word in the latter day, in which the Gen-
tiles would be very afTifting.
The fourteenih argument runs thus : " The feed of the faithful ought to be
' baptized, becaufe they were partakers of all the former baptifms mentioned
' in fcripture, as the children of Noah in the ark '' ; the Ifraelites at the Red fea,
' and in the cloud ''. Several children were baptized with the baptifm of the
.» Spirit, for feveral were filled with the holy Ghofl: from their mother's womb-,
' all the children of Betb!ehem under two years old, with the baptifm of mar-
' tyrdom ' -, and many children with John's baptifm, fince he baptized the
' whole country." Bur, 1. It unhappily falls out, for the caufe of infant-
baptifm, ihzi Noah's children in the ark were all adult and married perfons "".
2. That [here were children among the Ifraelites when they were baptized in the
cloud, and in the fea, is not denied ; but then it fliould be obferved, thai they
did all eat the fame fpirituat meat, and did all drink the fame fpiritual drink ; and
therefore, if this does not give a fufficient claim to infants to partake of the
Lord's fopper, neither will the other prove their right to baptifm : moreover,
if any arguments can be formed from this and the former inftance, for the ad-
miniftration of baptifm under the New Tcftament, they will clearly fhew, that
it ought to be adminiftered by immerfion; for, as in the former, when the foun-
tains of the great deep were broke up under them, and the windows of heaven
were opened over them, they were as perfons immerfed in water; fo when the
waters of the Red fea flood up on each fide, and the cloud was over the Ifraelites,
they were, as it were overwhelmed in water. 3. Though this writer fays, that
fcveral children were filled with the holy Ghoft from their mother's womb, yet
we read but of one that was fo, John theBaptift, a very extraordinary perfon,
and extraordinarily qualified for extraordinary work, an inftance not to be men-
tioned inordinary cafes; befides, it is a rule in logic, a particular: ad univer-
falem ncn valet confequentia, " from a particular to an univerfal, the confequence
" is not conclufive." Moreover, in what fenfe John was filled with the holy
Ghoft fo early, is not cafy to fay ; and be it what it will, the fame cannot be
proved of the feed of believers in general ; and could it, it would give no right
to baptifm, without a pofitive inftitution; it gave no right lojohn himfelf. 4.
That the infants at Bethlehem were murdered, will be granted, but that they
fuffered martyrdom for Chrift, will not eafily be proved; fince they knew no-
thincr of the matter, and were not confcious on what account their lives were
taken away. 5. That many or any children were baptized vf'wh John's baptifm
we
' I Pet. ili JO. * I Cor. x. I, 2. Exod. xii. 37. ' Matt. iL
■ Gen. vii. 7.
IN FAVOUR OF INFAN T - BAPTISM. 353.
we deny, and call upon this writer to prove ic, and even to give us one fingle
inftance of it j what he fuggefts is no evidence of it, as that the whole country
in general were baptized by him, who could not be all childlefs; but I hope he
does not think, that every individual perfon in the country oijudea was baptized
hyjchn; it is certain, that there were many even adult perfons that were refufcd
by him, and fuchas were baptized by him, were {\ich as confejjed (heir Jins, which
infants could not do": and as to the probability of the difplcafure of Jtrwilh pa-
rents, fuggefted if their children had not been baptized hy John, fince they were
ufed, and under a command of God, to bring their children to the covenant
and ordinances of God •, it dcfcrves no regard, fince whatever probability there,
was of their difpleafure, though I fee none, there could be no juft ground for
it; fince in the inftances given, they had the command of God for what they
did, for this they had none.
The fifteenth argument is : " It is contrary to the apoftlc's praflice, to leave
" any unbaptized in chriftian families ; for they baptized wiiole families when
" the heads of them believed; as the families of Lyi/rt, the Jailor, and Sie-
*' phanas ; and it is evident, that the words, family and houlhold, in fcripture,
" mean chiefly children, fons, daughters, and little ones '." To which I re-
ply, that whatever thefe words fignify in fome places of fcripture, though in
the paflages mentioned they do not chiefly intend new-born infants, but grow*
perfons ; it fliould be proved, that there were infants in families and houfliolds
that were baptized, and that thefe were baptized together with the head of the
family ; for it is certain, there are many families and houfholds that have
no little children in them ; and as for thofc that are inftanced in, it is not pro-
bable that there were any in them ; and it is manifeft, that fuch as were bap-
tized, were adult perfons and believers in Chrift. It is not evident in what
ftation of life Lydia was, whether married or unmarried, and whether (he had
young children or not ; and if fhe had, it is not likely they fhould be with her,
when at a diftance from her native place, and upon bufinefs ; it is moft pro-
bable, that ihofe that were with her, called her houfhold, were her fervants,
xhat alTifted her in her bufinefs ; and it is certain, that when the apoftles entered
her houfe, thofe that were there, and who doubtlcfs are the fame that were
baptized, were called brethren, and fuch as were capable of being comforted'^;
and the Jailor's houlhold were fuch as had the word of God fpoken to them,
and received it with joy, took pleafure in the company and converfation of the
apofllcs, and believed in God together with him, and fo were adult perfons,
3 A 2 believers.
• Matt. ii). J — 7. • Gen. xvii. Deut. xxix. lo, 13. Joel ii. 16.
* Compare Ezod. i, i, 7. w'th Gen. xlvi. ;. and xlv. 18, 19. compare i Sam. xxvi!. j. with
chap. XXX. 6. 1 Tim. iii. 8, Gen. xxx. 30. Numb. iii. 15. ^ Aflsxvi. ij, 4c.
364 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
believers, and very proper fubjefts of baptifm '. Stephanas is by feme thought
to be the fame with the Jailor -, but if he was another perfon, it is plain his
houfhold confifted of adult perfons, men called by grace, and who were made
ufe of in public work ; they were tke firji-fruits of Acbaia, and addided them-
felves to the miniftry of the faints '.
The Jxteenth argument is : " None that truly fear God, can ferioudy and with
*' certainty fay, that there were not many infants among the three thoufand
" baptized by the apofties at once •, for the Jews were not content with any
" ordinances without having their children with them. The apoftle diredts
" thofe who were at age to repent, but he commands every one of them to be
" baptized, and objedls nothing againft their children-, becaufe, as he fays,
" the promifc was unto them and their children alfo •, and this is a plain com-
•' mand for infant-baptifm to all that will judge impartially." But, i. A man
that carefully reads the account of the baptifm of the three thoufand, having
the fear of God before his eyes, may with the greateft ferioufncfs and ftrongeft
affurance affirm, not only that there were not many infants, but that there were
not one infant among the three thoufand baptized by the apofties ; for they
were all of them fuch as were pricked io the heart, and cried -out. Men and bre-
thren what fhall we do ? they gladly received the word of the gofpel, joined to the
c'lurch, znAcontuuicd ftedfajlly in the apofties doofrine, in fellowjhip, and in breaking
oj bread and prayer ; all which cannot be faid of infants. 2. What this author
luggefts, agreeable to wliat he clfewhere fays, that the Jews were not pleafed
with any ordinance unlefs they had their children with them, is without foun-
dation ; what difcontent did they ever fliew at a part of their children being
left out of the ordinance of circumcifion, and no other appointed for them in
lieu of it ? And had they been difcontented, what argument can be formed
Irom it ? 3. The diftindion between thofe that were of age, whom the apoftle
directed to repent, and the every one of tberA whom he commanded to be bap-
tized, has no ground nor reafon for it, yea is quite ftupid and fcnfelcfs ; and
even, according to this writer himfelf, is a diftinftion without any difference,
fince the every one to be baptized are fuppofed by him to have children, and fo
to be at age; fince he adds, "and objedts nothing againft their children."
And a clear cafe it is, that the felf-fame perfons that were exhorted to be bap-
tized, were exhorted to rf/>f«/, and that as previous to their baptifm; and there-
lore jv.uft be adui: perfons, for infants are not capable of repentance, and of
•living eviJ-.-ncc ot it. 4. 1 hofe words, the promife is unto you and to your children,
are fo far fro.r. being a plain command for infant- baptifm, that there is not a
v/ord of baptifm in tiiem, and much Icfs of infant-baptifm ; nor do they regard,
infants, but the pofterity of the Jews, who are often called children, though
grown
' Afls xvi. 32 — 34. • I Cor. xi. 1 5. Let this be obferved, in anf*er to what the au-
thor of I'he baptiim oJ Infjr.ts a reafonable Service, isfc, hai advanced in p. 43.
l'
IN JAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 365
grown up, to whom the promife of the Meffiah, and remiffion of fins by him,
and the pouring out of the holy Ghoft, was made ; and are fpoken for the en-
couragement of adult pcrfons only, to repent and be baptized ; and belong
only to fuch as are called by grace, and to all fuch, whether Jews orGentiies.
The feventeenth argument is-, " The feed of believers fhould be baptized, be-
" caufc the privileges and bleffings which are fignified and fealed in baptifm are
" neccflary to their falvation, and there is no falvation without them -, namely,
" an intereft in the covenant of grace, the remifTion of original fin, union with
" Chrift, fandlification of the holy Spirit, and regeneration, without which
" none can be faved '." The anfwer to which is, i.That the things indeed
mentioned are necefiary to falvation, and there can be none without them -, but
then baptifm is not ncceflary to the cnjoyrhentof thefe things, nor to falvation ;
a pcrfon may have an intereft in thefe blefiings, and be faved, though not bap-
tized j thefe are things neceflary to baptifm, but baptifm is not ncccffary to
them ; and indeed a perfon ought to have an intereft in thefe, and appear to
have one, before he is baptized. Wherefore, 2. Thefe things are not fignified
in baptifm, and much lefs fealed by it ; other things, fuch as the fufl^erings,
death, and the refurreftion of Chrift, are fignified in it ; thefe, as regeneration,
tff- are prerequifites unto baptifm, and are not communicated by it, or fealed
up to perfons in it, who may be baptized, and yet have no fliare and lot in this
matter, witnefs the cafe of Simon Magus.
The eighteenth argument is : " The children of the faithful ought to be bap-
" tized, becaufe this lays them under ftrong obligation to fhun the works ofSa-
" tan-, and many have received much benefit from hence in their youth. Com-
*' fortable fymptoms, or figns of a work of grace, have appeared very early in
»* fevcral, though perhaps bad company has afterwards corrupted them. Befides
*' infant-baptifm keeps up a general profefTion of faith and religion, and makes
" the word and means of grace of more virtue and efficacy, than if men had
" utterly renounced chriftianity, and declared themfclvcs infidels; and further,
" it lays a powerful obligation on their parents and others, to teach them their
" duty, which is a main end of all the ordinances God has inftituted "." But,
I. Is there nothing befides baptifm, that can lay perfons under ftrong obliga-
tion to ftiun the works of the Devil ? certainly there are many things : if fo,
then it is not abfolutely necefiary on this account ; befides, thougli the baptifm
of adult perfons does lay them under obligation to walk in newnefs of life ", yet
the baptifm of infants can lay them under no fuch obligation as infants, and
while they are fuch, becaufe they are not confcious of it, nor can it take any
fuch effedt upon them. 2. What that much benefit or advantage is, that "many
have
» John iii. 5. » Pfalm l;txviii. 5, 6. * Rom. vi. 4.
366 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
have received from infant-baptifm, I am at a lofs to know, and even what
is intended by this writer, unlcfs it be what follows, that figns of a work
of grace have appeared very early in feveral, which may be, and yet not
to be afcribed to baptifm ; baptifm has no fuch virtue and influence, as to
produce a work of grace in che foul, or any figns of it; bcfides, a work of
grace has appeared very early in feveral, and has been carried on in them, who
have never been baptized at all. 3. Infant-baptifm keeps up no public or ge-
neral profeflion of faith or religion, fince there is no profeffion of faith and re-
ligion made in it by the perfon baptized ; nor is it of any avail to make the word
and means of grace powerful and efficacious, which only become fo by the Spi-
rit and grace ofGod ; and a wide difi^crence there is between the difufe of infant-
baptifm, and renouncing chriftianity, and profcffing infidelity j thefe things
are not neceflarily connc(5led together, nor do they go together; perfons may
deny and difufe infant-baptifm, as it is well known many do, and yet not re-
nounce the chriftian faith, and declare themfelves infidels. 4. Parents and
others, without infant-baptifm, are under ftrong obligations to teach children
their duty to God and men, and therefore it is not neccfTary on that account.
The nineteenlb argument is ; " The feed of believers are to be baptized,
" though they have not adual faith, fince Chrift fpeaks not of thefe butot
" adult perfons, Mark xvi. 16. And certain it is they have as much fitnefs
" for baptilhi as for juflification and eternal life, without which they muft all
" pcrifh ; the Spirit of God knows how to work this fitnefs in them, as well
" as in grown perfons : Jeremiah, John the Bapitft, and feveral others, were
♦' fanftificd from their mother's womb '." To which may be returned for an-
fwer, I. That if the text in Mcrk xvi. 16. fpeaks not of infants, but of adult
perfons only, as it certainly does, I hope it will be allowed to be an inftruftion
and dircflion for the baptifm of adult believers, and to be a fufficient warrant
for our pradice. 2. If the infants of believers have no more fitnefs for bap-
tifm than they have forjuftification and eternal life, they have none at all, fince
they are by nature children of wrath, even as others; and therefore can have none,
but what is given them by theSpirit and grace ofGod. 3. We difpute not the
power of the Spirit ofGod, or what he is able to do by the operations of his grace
upon the fouls of infants; we deny not but that he can and may work a work
of grace upon their hearts, and clothe them with the righteoufnefs of Chrifl,
and fo give them both a right and meetnefs for eternal life; but then this (hould
appear previous to baptifm; adlual faith itfelf is not fufficient for baptifm, with-
out a profelTion of it ; the man that has it ought to declare it to the fatisfaftion
of the adminiflrator, ere he admits Jiim to the ordinance''. 4. Of the feveral
childrtn
' John iii. 8, g. Eccles. xi.5. Lukei. ij, 44. Jtr. i. 5. Ifai. xlir 3. Pfal. viii. 2.
■'''viii. 36, 37.
IN FAVOUR OF IN FA N T - B AP T I S M. 367
children faid to be fanftiied from their mother's womb, no proof is given but
of one, John theBaptift, who was filled with the holy Ghoft from thence, which
has been confidered in the anfwer to the fourteenth argument ; as for Jeremiah^
it is only faid of him thathewas/^«if7//ff^, that is, fetaparr, defigned and ordained,
in the purpofe and counfel of God to be a prophet, before he was born -, and
is no proof of internal fandification fo early. Ifaiah xliv. 3. fpeaks of the Spirit
of God being poured down, not upon the carnal feed of believers, but upon the
fpiritual feed of the church ; and Pfalm viii. 2. is a prophecy, not of new-born
infants, but of children grown up, cry'moHofanna in the temple ' : no argument
from a particular inftance or two, were there more than there are, is of avail for
the fanftification of infants in genera! j it (hould be proved, that all the infant-
feed of believers are fanftified by the Spirit of God j for if fiameonly, and noc
ail, how fliall it be known who they are ? let it firft appear that they are faniti-
fied, and then it will be time enough to baptize them.
The twentieth argument is ; " The children of believers arc to be baptized,
*' becaufe their right to the covenant and church of God is ellablifhed from
•' the firft, much clearer than feveral other neceflary ordinances ; there is no
" exprefs command nor example of womcns receiving the Lord's fuppcr ; no
»' particular command in the New Teftament for family-worfhip, and for the
" obfervation of the firft day of the week as a fabbath ; and yet none dare call
" them in queftion •,. and there is no objeftion againft infant-baptifm, but the
" like might formerly have been made againft circumcifion ; and may now
" be objedted againft many other ordinances and commands of God." To
which 1 reply, i. That with refpeft to womens receiving the Lord's fupper, ic
is certain, that not only they were admitted to baptifm ', and became members
of churches ^ but there is an exprefs command for their receiving the Lord's
fupper in i Cor. xi. 29. where a word is ufed of the common gender, and includes
both men and women ; who are both one in Chrift, and in a gofpel church-
ftate, and have a right to the fame ordinances'. 2. As to family-worfhip, that
is not peculiar to the New Teftament difpenfation, as baptifm is; it was com-
mon to the faints in all ages, and therefore needed no exprefs command for ic
under the New; though what clfe but an exprefs command for it is Ephe/ians
vi. 4 ? for can children be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord, without family-worftiip ? 3. As to the obfervation of the firft day,
though there is no exprefs command for it, there are precedents of it ; there
are inftanccs of keeping it '' : now, let like inftances and examples of
infanr-
* See Matt. xxi. 15, 1 6. » Afli viii. 12. * Afls i. 14, 15. and iv 37. and
V. 9, 14. 1 Cor. xi. ;, 6, 13. and xiv.34, 35. « Gal. iii. a8. ' John ax. 19,06..
Afls XX. 7. 1 Cor. xvi. 1,2.
3^8 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTY ARGUMENTS
infant- baptifm be produced if they can: though no exprefs command can
be pointed at, yet if any precedent or example of any one infant bcincr bap-
tized by John, orChrift, or his apoftles, can be given, we fhould think ourfelves
obliged to follow it. 4. That the fame objeftions m|ght be made againft cir-
cumcifion formerly, as now againft infant-baptifm, is moft notorioufly falfe ;
it is objected, and that upon a good foundation, that there is neither precept
nor precedent for infant-baptifm in all the word of God •, the fame could never
be objefted againft circumcifion, fince there was fuch an exprefs command of it
to Abraham, Genefis xvii. and fo many inftances of it are in the facred writino-s •
let the fame be fhewn for infant-baptifm, and we have done. 5. What the
other ordinances and commands of God are, to which the fame objedions may
be made as to infant-baptifm, is not faid, and therefore no reply can be made.
I have nothing more to do, than to take fome little notice of what this wri-
ter fays, concerning the mode of adminiftering the ordinance of baptifm, p. 33,
We are no more fond of contentions and ftrifcs about words, than this author,
and thofe of the fame way of thinking with himfelf can be; but fu rely, modeftly
to inquire into, and attempt to fix the true manner of adminiftering an ordi-
nance of Chrift, according to the fcriptures, and the inftances of it; according
' to the fignification of the words ufcd to exprefs it, andagreeable to the end and
defign of it ; ran never be looked upon as a piece of impertinence, or be tra-
duced as cavil and wrangling. And,
17?, Since this writer obferves, that he does not find that either the facred
fcripture or the church of £«^/ij«i, have exprefsly determined, whether bap-
tifm is to be performed by plunging or fprinkling, but have left the one and
the other indifferently to our choice; 1 hope he will not be difpleafed, that
we choofc the former, as moft agreeable to the facred writings, and the examples
of baptifm in them ; as thofe of our Lord and others \n Jordan' ; and in y£«c;;,
VihcTcJohn was baptizing, becaufe there was much water''; and of the Eunuch^;
and as beft reprefenting the death, burial, and refurreftion of Chrift ""i as well
as beft fuits with the primary fenfe of the Greek word, /Jxtt/^«, which ficrnifies
to plunge or dip. And,
2dly, Since, according to this writer, one mode is not more eftential to the
ordinance than another, but a reverential receiving of the fign ; it may be afl-ced,
what of this nature, namely, a reverential receiving of the fign, the application
of the water to the body, fignifying the fpiritual application of Chrift and his
grfts
• Mntt. iii. 6, r6. fjohniii. 23. « Afls vjii. 36— 38.
'' Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12.
IN FAVOUR OF INFANT - BAPTISM. ^6^
gifts to the foul, can be obferved in an infant when fprinkled, which is -not
confcious of what is done to it ?
2dfyf Whereas, he fays, " it is not improbable but the apoftles baptized by
fprinkling, fince feveral were baptized in their houfcs, J^s ix. 17, 18. and xvi.
33. and others, in former times, fick in their beds:" it may be replied, that it
is noc probable that the apoftle Paul was baptized by fprinkling '; fince had he,
he would have had no occafion to have arofe in order to be baptized, as he is
faid to do, yi^s ix. 18. It is mod probable, that when he arofe off of his bed
or chair, he went to a bath in Judas's houfe ; or out of the houfe, to a certain
place fit for the adminiftration of the ordinance by immerfion ; and fince there
was a pool in the prifon, 3.s Grolius thinks, where the Jailor wafhed the apoftles
ftripes, it is moft probable, that here he and his houlhold were baptized •, or
(ince they were brought out of the prifon, and after baptifm brought into the
Jailor's houfe, ver, 33, 34. it is moft likely they went out to the river near the
city where prayer was wont to be made, and there had the ordinance adminiftered
to them, ver. 13. As for the baptifm of fick perfons in their beds, this was
not in the times of the apoftles, but in after-times, when corruptions had got
into the church -, and fo deferves no regard.
4/i/)', In favour of fprinkling, or pouring water in baptifm, he urges that
" it is a fign of the pouring or fprinkling of the hoIyGhoft, and of the blood of
Chrift ^ :" but it fhould be obferved, that baptifm is not a fign or fignificative
of the fprinkling of clean water, or the grace of the Spirit in regeneration, or
of the blood of Chrift on the confcience of a finner, all which ought to pre-
cede baptifm ; but of the death, and burial, and relurre(5tion of Chrift •, whicli
cannot be reprefcnted in any other way than by covering a perfon in water, or
an immerfion of him. .
Stbly, " Water in baptifm, he fays, is but a fign and feal ; a little of it is
" fufficient to fignify the gifts which Chrift has purchafcd, as « fmall quantity of
" bread and wine does in the other facramenr, and as a fmall feal is as much
*' fecurity as a larger one." But as baptifm is no fign of the things before-
mentioned, fo it is no feal, as we have feen, of the covenant of grace ; where-
fore thefe fimilitudes are impertinent to illuftrate this matter : .and though a
fmall quantity of bread and wine is fufficient in the other facrament, to fignify
our partaking of the benefits of the death of Chrift by faith \ yet a fmall quan-
tity of water is not fufficient to fignify his fufferings and death, with his burial
and refurreftion, thcmfelves. And though we do not exped benefit from
the quantity of the water, yet that bcft cxprefl"es the end and defign of the
ordinance. ~
Vol. II. 3B 6/%
• Afl« ix. 17, 18. ^ £«!'. xxxvi. :;. Heb. xii. 94.
370 AN ANSWER TO THE TWENTT. ARGUMENTS, &c.
Bfbiy and lajify, H« obferves, thar " fprinkling of water on the face, a part
of the body, is a fign fufficient for the whole •, fmcc the nature of the foul ap-
pears more in it, and often in -ftrripture fignifies the whole man." But be it fo
that it does ; fprinkling water on the face is not a fufficient fign for the whole ;
for this ordinance reprefents a burial, and fprinkling a little water is not fufficient
for that} the ordinance fo performed cannot be called a burial, or a perfon faid
to be buried in it ; carting a little earth upon the face of a corps, can never be
fufficient for its burial, or be accounted one.
I have now gone through the confideration of the feveral arguments of this
author, with refped both to the fubjefls and mode of baptifm-, fhould he upon
reading this anfwer, and after he has confidcred the advice of the wife man, Prov.
xxvi. 4, 5. which he propofcs to do, think fit to reply, perhaps, upon the like
confideration, a rejoinder may be made to what hefhall hereafter offer.
T K r.
THE
DISSENTERS REASONS
For feparating from the
CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
OCCASION %D B Y
A Le T T £ R wrote by a Welch Clergyman on
the Duty of Catechiftng Children.
Intended chiefly for the ufc of DifTcnters of the Baplijl Denomination in U^ales.
"\A/HEREAS DifTcnters from the church of England ire frequently charged
with ichifm, and their ieparation is reprefented as unrcafonable, and
they are accounted an obftinate and contentious people ; it may be proper to
give fome reafons why they depart from the Eftablifhed church ; by which it
will appear that their feparation does not arife from a fpirit of Angularity and
contention, but is really a matter of confcicnce with them ; and that they have
that to fay for themfelves, which will fufficiently juftify them, and remove the
calumnies that are caft upon them ; and our reafons arc as follow.
I. We diflike the church of England becaufe of its Ccnjiitution, which is
human •, and not divine : it is called The church of England as by law EJlabliJhed ;
not by the law of God, but by the law of man : it is faid to be the beft con-
ftituted church in the world, but we like it never the better for its being con-
ftituted by men: a church of Chrifl: ought to be conftituted as thofe we. read
of in the A5ii of the Afojiles, and not eftablifhed by AHs of Parliament ; as the
articles, worlhip, and difcipline of the church of England be ; a parliamtntary
church we do not undcrftand j Chrift's kingdom or church '\s>not of this fuorld-y
it is not eftablifhed on worldly maxims, nor fupported by worldly power and
policy. /
3 B 2 II. Wc
i ■ .37»„_. T.HE DISSENTERS REASONS FOR SEPARATING
II. We are not fatisfied that the church of England is a true church of Chrift
; bccaufe of ihe form and order of it ; whicli is national, whereas it ought to be
I congregational, as the firft chriftian churches were ; we read of the church at
Jerufalem, and of the churches in Judea befides, fo that there were feveral
churches in one nation -, and alfo of the churches oi Macedonia', and likewife of
Calatta, and of the feven churches of /^<j, which were in the particular cities
mentioned •, yea of a church in an houfe, which could not be national -, there
were alfo the church at Corinth, and another at Cencbrea, a few miles diftant
from it, and a fca-port of the Corinthians. A church of Chrifl is a congrega-
tion of men who are gathered out of the world by the grace of God, and who
fcparate from it and meet together in fome one place to worfhip God ; and to
this agrees the definition of a church in the XIX"" Article of the church of
England, and is this -, " The vifible church ofChrift is a congregation of faith-
" ful men :" which is againft herfelf; for if a congregation, then not a nation;
if a congregation then it muft be gathered out from others ; and if a congre-
gation, then it muft meet in one place, or it cannot with any propriety be fo
called ; as the church at Coriatb is faid to do, i Cor. xi. i8, 20. and xiv. 25.
but when and where did the church of England meet together in one place? and
how is it the vifible church of Chrift .-' where and when was it ever fcen in a body
together.'' is it to be fcen in the King, the head of it ? or in the Parliament, by
whom it was cftablifhed? or in the upper and lower houfes of Convocation, its
rcprefentativcs ? To fay, that it is to be feen in every parifti, is cither to make
a building of ftone the church, which is the ftupid notion of the vulgar people -,'
or to make the parifbioners a church, and then there muft be as many churches
of England as there are parifties, and fo fome thoufands, and not one only.
III. We objeft to th^ matter or materials of the church of England, which are
the whole nation, good and bad-, yea, inafmuch as all ihtt nn\vt% of England
are members of this church, and are fo by birth, they muft in their original
admifTion, or becoming members, be all bad ; fince they are all conceived and
born in fin, and great part of them as they grow up are men of vicious lives and
converfations; whereas a vifible church ofChrift ought toconfift of faithful men,
as the above mentioned Article declares, that is, of true believers in Chrift ;
and fuch were the materials of the firft chriftian churches ; they were made up
of fuch'as were <alted to be faints, fanElified in Chrifl Jefus, and faithful brethren
in him; as were the churches ztRome, Corinth, Ephefus znd Coloje : thefe were
churches of faints \ but the church of England is a church of the world, or con-
fifts for thc'moft part of worldly men •, and therefore wc cannot hold commu-
nion with it.
IV. We
F R p M .THE C:H U R C H O F -, E N G L A N D. 372
, TV,. We are diflatisfied with the dolirine .preached in the church 0^ England,
which generally is very corrupt, and not agreeable to the word of God ; and
therefore cannot be a true church of Chrift, which ought to be the pillar and
ground of tmtb \ for the vlfible church of Chrift, as the XlXth article runs, is
** a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preach-
*^ ed;" of which pure word, thedodrines of grace are a confidcrable part; fuch
as-eternal election in Chrift, particular redemption by him, juftification by his
imputed righteoufnefs, pardon through his blood, atonement and fatisfadlion
by his la£Fifice» and falvation alone by him, and not by the works of men -, the
efficacy of divine grace in converfion, the perfeverancc of the faints, and the
like v but thefe doftrines arc fcarcc ever, or but feldom, and by a very few,
preached in the church oiEngland: Cnce two thoufand godly and faithful minif-
tcrs were turned out at once, Arminianifm has generally prevailed ; and fcarcc
any thing clfe than Arminian tenets and mere morality arc preached, and not
thrift and him crucified,, and the ncceflity of faith in him, and falvation by
him J wherefore we are obliged to depart from fuch a communion, and feek
out elfewhere for food for our fouls. And though the XXXIX Articles of the
church oi England are agreeable to the word of God, a few only excepted ; yet
of what avail are they, fince they are feldom or ever preached, though fworn
and fubfcribed to by all in public office; and even thefe are very defeilive in
many things : There are no articles relating to the two covenants of grace and
-works ; to creation and providence ; to the fall of man ; the nature of fin and
punifliment for it V to adoption, effefbual vocation •, fanftification, faith, repen-
tance,, and the final perfeverancc of the faints; nor to the law of God; chriftian
liberty ; church-government and difcipline ; the communion of the faints ; the
refurredlion of the dead, and the laft judgment.
V. We diflentfrom the church of England, becaufe the ordinances of Baptifm
and the Lord's fupper are not duly adminiftered in it, according to the word, of
God, and lb is not a regular church of Chrift ; for, as ;he above Article fays,,
" The vifible church of Chrift is a congregation of faithful men, in the which
" — the facraments be duly miniftercd, according to Chrift's own ordinance,,
V in all thofe things that of neceffity are rcquifite to the fame :" but the faid
ordinances arc not duly adminiftered in the church of £»^/a»^ according to
the appointment of Chrift; there are fome things which are of neceffity requifite
to the fame, which are not done; and others which are not of neceffity requifite,
which arc enjoined, and with which we cannot comply.
Firjiy The ordinance of Baptifm is not adminiftered in the faid church, ac-
cording to the rule of God's word : there arc fome things ufcd in the adminif-.
•ration of it, which are of human invention, and not of Chrift's ordination ;
■^^ and.
574 "THE DISSENTER^ •REASONS 'ECr' 'SEPARAt^ ^G
and other things abfolutely necefTary to it, which are omitted ; and indeed the
whole adminiflration of it,has nothing in it Agreeable to the inftitution ofChriR,
unlefs it be the bare form of words made ufeof, I baptize thee In ibe name df tie
Father, &c. ■'":,-.
1. The fign of the crofs ufed inbaptifm is entirely Unrcrlptiiral, jtn human in-
vention, a rite and ceremony which thePapifts are very fond of, and afcribemuch
unto; and indeed the church of £«^/jk^ makes a kiftdof a facfament of it, fince
the minifter when he does it fays, that it is done *' in -token, ihat hereafter he
" (the perfon baptized) (hall not be afhamed to confefs the faith of Chrift cru-
" cified, and manfully to fight under his banner againft fin, the world, and
" the devil, and to continue Chrift's faithful foldier unto his life's end:"
this is fuch an hutnan addition to a' divine trdinanct, as by no meairs to'be
admitted. -...•. ,. ..;.•.. .. ..
2. The introdudion of fponfors and foreties, or godfathers and godmothers
is without any foundation from the word of God; it is a device of men, and
no ways rcquifite to the adminiftration of the ordinance : befides, they are
obliged to promife that for the child, which they cannot do for themfelves,
nor any creature under heaven ; as «' to renounce the devil and til his works,
." the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous defires of the fame,
" and the carnal defires of the flelh, fo as not to follow or be led by them ; and
" conftantly believe God's holy word, and obediently keep God's "holy will and
" commandments, and walk in the fame all the days of his life."
3. The prayers before and after baptifm may well be objefted to, fuggefting
that remilTion of fins and regeneration are obtained this way ; and that fuch as
are baptized are regenerated and undoubtedly faved : in the prayer before bap-
tifm are thefe words ; " We call upon thee for this infant, that he coming to
" thy holy baptifm, may receive remiflion of his fms by fpiritual regertera-
" tion ;" and when the ceremony is performed, the minifter declares, " that
« this child is regenerate, and grafted in the body of Chrift's church ;" and in
the prayer after it, he fays, « "We yield thee hearty thanks, moft merciful Fa-
" ther, that it hath pleafcd thee to regenerate this infant with thy holy Spirit :"
and in the rubric are thefe words ; » It is certain by God's word, that children
" which are baptized, dying before they commit adual fin, are undoubtedly
" faved 1" yea in the Catcchifm, the pierfon catechized is inftrufted to fay, that
in his baptifm he " was made a member of Chrift, the child of God, and an
" inheritor of the kingdom of heaven :" which feems greatly to favour the po-
pi(h notion, that the facraments confer grace ex opere operato, upon the deed
done. Thefe are things which give difguft to manyDiflenters, that are for in-
fant-
FROM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 375
fant-baptifm ; but fomeof us have greater reafons than thefe againft the admi-
niftration of baptifm in the church of England; for,
4. The fubjedls to which it is adminiftered are not the proper ones, namely
infants ; we do not find in all the word of God, that infants were commanded
to be baptized, or that ever any were baptized by John, the firft adminiftrator
of that ordinance, nor by Chrift, nor by his apoftes, nor in any of the primi-
tive churches : the perfons we read of, that were baptized in thofe early times,
were fuch as were fenfible of fin, had repentance for it, and had faith in Chrift,
Or profelTcd to have it; all which cannot be faid of infants: nor can we fee, that
any argument in favour of infant-baptifm can be drawn from Abraham\ cove-
nant, from circumcifion, from the baptifm of houfholds, or from any paflagc
either in the Old or NewTeflament. Moreover,
5. We cannot look upon baptifm as adminiftered in the church of England,
to be valid, or true chriftian baptifm ; becaufe not adminiftered in a right way,
that is, by imm'erfion, but either by fprinkling or pouring water, which the
rubric allovis of in cafe ofweaknefsj nor do we underftand, that it is ever per-
formed in any other way, at leaft, very rareiy, whereas we have abundant rea-
fon to believe, that the mode of immerCon was always ufed by John the baptift,
and by the apoftles of Chrift, and by the churches of Chrift for many ages.
Secondly, There are many things in the adminiftration of the Lord's fupper,
which we think we have reafon to objefl unto, and which (hew it to bean un-
due one : and not to take notice of the bread being ready cut with a knife, and
"not broken by the minifter, whereas it is exprefsly faid, that Chrift brake the
bread, and did it in token of his brtken body ; nor of the time of adminiftering
k, at noon, which makes it look more like a dinner, or rather like a breakfaft:,
being taken fafting, tlian a fupp«r ; whereas to adminUler it in the evening bcft
agrees with its name, and the time of its firft Lnftkution and celebration •, but
not to infill on thefe things.
1. Kneeling it the receiving of it is made a neceffary requifite to it, which
Jooks like an adoration of the elements, and feems to favour the dodrine of the
real frefence ; and certain iris, that it was brought in by pope H^«cn«j, and
that for the fake of tranfubftantiation and the real prefcnce, which his prtdc-
ccSor Innocent ihtWV. had introduced; and though the church oi England
difavows any fuch adoration of the elements, and of Chrift's corporal prcfcice
in them ; yet inafmuch as it is notorious that this has been abufed, and ftill is,
to idolatry, "it ought to be laid afide ; and the rather fitting (houid be ufed,
fince it is a table-gefture, and more fuitable to a feaft ; and was what was uftd
by Chrift and his apoftles, and by the primitive churches, until tranfubftantia-
tion obuined ; or however, fince kneeling at moft is but an indifferent rite, it
ought
37^ THE DISSENTERS REASONS FOR SEPARATING
ought not to beimpofed as necefTary, but ihould be left to the Hbcrty of pcr-
fons to ufe it or not. ' '
2. The ordinance is adminiftered to all that defire it, whether qualified for
it or not ; and to many of vicious lives and converfations ; yea the minVfler,
when he intends to celebrate it, in the exhortation, which in the book of
Common Prayer he is direfted to ufe, fays-, " unto which, in God's behalf,
" / bid you, all that are here prefent, and befcech ypu for the Lord Jcfus Chrift's
" fake, that ye will not refufe to come thereto."" Whereas it cannot be thought,
that all prefent, every one in a public congregation, or in a parilh, are fit and
proper communicants ; and there arc many pcrfons defcribed in the word of
God, we are not to eat with, i Cor. v. ii. Yet the rubric enjoins, " that every
" parifhioner fliall communicate, at the leaft, three times in the year j" and
dircdls, " that new-married perfons fhould receive the holy communion at the
" time of their marriage, or at the firfl: opportunity after it ; " though none
furely will fay, that all mar?led perfons are qualified for it.
" 3. This facred ordinance is moft horridly proftituted, and mod dreadfully
profaned, by allowing and even obliging perfons, and thefe oftentimes fome of
the worft of chara£bers, to come and partake of it as a civil Teft, to qualify
them for places of profit and truft ; whereas the dcfign of this ordinance is to
commemorate the fufferings and death of Chrift, and his love therein ; to
ftrengthcn the faith of chriflians, and increafe their love to Chrift and one
another, and to maintain communion and fellowfliip with him and among
ihemfelves.
4. This ordinance is fometimes adminiftered in a private houfe, which took
its rife from faying of private mafs ; and to fick perfons, to whom it feems to
be given as a viaticum^ or a provifion for the foul in its way to heaven •, and
to two or three pcrfons only, and even in fome cafes to a fingle perfon; whereas
it is a church-ordinance, and ought to be adminiftered only in the church, and
to the members of it.
VI. As the church of England his neither the form nor matter of a true
church, nor is the word of God purely preached, and the ordinances of the
gofpel duly adminiftered in it; fo neither is it a truly organized church, it
havinc^ fuch ecclefiaftical officers and offices in it, which are not to be found in
the word of God •, and which is another reafon why we feparatc from it. The
fcripture knows nothing of Archbifiiops and Diocefan Biftiops, of Archdeacons
•and Deans, of Prebends, Chantors, Parfons, Vicars, Curates, i^c. The only
two officers in a chriftian church arcBiftiops and Deacons; the one has the care
of the fpiritual, the other of the temporal affairs of the church ; the former is
the fame with Paftors, Elders, and Ovcrfeers ; and fuch men ought to be Of
found
FROM THE CHURCH OF, ENGLAND. 377
found principles, and exemplary lives and convcrfations ; and moreover ought
to be chofen by the people -, nor ftiould any be impofcd upon them contrary
to their will : this is an hardfhip, and what we cannot fubmit to : and it is a
reafon of our reparation, becaufe we are not allowed to choofe our own paftors.
■ VII. The church of £«^/jW has for hs bend a temporal one, whereas tfie
church of Chrifi; has no other head but Chrift himfelf. That our lawful and
rightful fovereign King GeoIige is head of the Church of England, we deny
not ; he is fo by j^ci of 'Parliament, and as fuch to be acknowledged ; but then
that church can never be the true church of Chrift, that has any other head but
Chriltj we therefore are obliged to diftinguifh between the church of England
and the church of Chrift. A woman may be, and has been head of the church
of England^ but a woman may not be head of a church of Chrift ; fince ftie is
not allowed to fpcak or teach there, or do any thing that fhews authority over
the man *. ;. - . . ■ / • ■' -
VIII. The>yant oi difcipUne in the church of England, if another reafon of our
dilTcnt from it. In a regular and well-ordered church of Chrift, care is taken
that none be admitted into it but fuch as are judged truly gracious perfons,
and of whom teftimony is given of their becoming converfations -, and when
they are in U,. they arc watched over, that thtirwalk is according to the laws
and rules of Chrift's houfe i fuch as fin, are rebuked either privately or pub-
licly, as the nature of the offence is ; ^iforderly, perfons are ccnfurcd and with-
drawn from; profane men are put out of communion, and heretics, after the
tirft and fccond admonition, are.rejedcd : but no fuch difcipline as this is main-
tained m the church of England. She herfclf acknowledges a want of godly dif-
cipline, and wifhes for a reftoration of it ; which is dcKie every Lent fcafon, and
yet no ftep taken for the bringing of it in ; what difcipline there is, is not exer-
cifed by a miniftcr of a parifti, and his own congregation, (hough the offender
is of them, but^in the Bifhop's Court indeed, yet by laymen; the admonition
js by a fct of men called Apparitors, and the fentence of excommunication and
the whole procefs leading to it by Lawyers, and not Minifters of the word.
; IX. The Rites ind Ceremonies ufed in the church of England, are another rea-
son of our feparation from it. Some of them arc manifellly of pagan original ;
(pme favour of Judaifm, and are no other than abolifhed Jewifh rites' revived ;
apd.moft, if not all of them, are retained by tte papifts ; and have been, and
ftill are, abufed to idolatry and fuperftition. Bowing to the eaft, was an ido-
latrous praftice-gf the heathens, and is condemned in fcripture as an abomina-
ble thing V Bowing to the altar, is a relic of popery, ufed by way of adoration
cf -the elements, and in favour and for tlie fupport of trarifubftantiation, and the
.- -Vol. ;II. 7 , . ' 3 ^ . . ^ ' ^"^^l
. ' •• I Cor. xir. 34, 35. i Tim.ii. 1 1, 12. »• Ezek. viii. 15, 16.
1
378 THE DISSENTERS REASONS FOR SEP ARMING
real prefence ; and therefore by no means to be u fed by thofe that difbtlievc
that doflrinc, and muft be an hardening of fuch that have faith in it. Bowingi
when the name of Jesus is mentioned. Is a piece of fuperftition and will-wor-
fliip, and has no countenance from Phil. ii. lo. The words (hould be rendered
<«, and no: at the name of Jefus ; nor is it in the namejefus, but;« the name of
Jefus, and fo dcfigns fome other name, and not Jefus ; and a name given him
after his rcfurreftion, and not before, as the name of Jefus was at his birth;
and befides fome are obliged to bow in it, who have no knees in a literal fenfe
to bow with, and therefore bowing of the knee cannot be meant in any fuch
fenfe. And as for fuch ceremonies which in their own nature are neither good
nor bad, but indifferent, they ought to be left as fuch,. and not rmpofcd as ne-
ceflary; the impofuion of things indifferent in. divine fervice as neceffary, as
if without which it coutd not be rightly performed, is a fufficicnt rcafon why
they ought not to be fubmirted to: fuch and fuch particular garments worn by
perfons in (acred office, confidercd as indifferent things, may be ufed or not ufcd ;
but if the ufeof thefc is infifted on, as being holy and neceffary, and without
which divine worfhip cannot rightly be performed, then they ought to be rejeft-
cd as abominable. Nor can we like the furplice ever the better for being
brouoht in by po^c Adrian, A. D. 796. The crofs in baptifm, and kneeling
at the Lord's-fupper, have been taken notice of before.
X. The book of Common Prayer, fet forth as a rule and dircftory ot divine-
worfhip and fervice, we have many things to objedl to.
J. Inafmuch as it prefcribes certain ftinted fi:t forms of prayer, and ties men
up to the ufe of them : we do not find that the apoftks of Chrift and the firfl:
churches ufed any fuch forms, nor chriftians for many ages; and of whatever
ufe it can bethought to be unto perfons of weak capjacities, furely fuch that
have fpiritual gifts, or the gift of preaching the gofpel, can ftand in no need
of it, and who muft have the gift of prayer; and to be bound to fuch prc-
compofcd forms, as it agrees not with the promifc of the Spirit of grace and
fupplication, fo not with the different cafes, circumftanccs, and frames that
chriftians are fometimes in ; wherefore no: to take notice of the defcctivenefs
of thefc prayers, and of the incoherence and obfcurity of fome of the petitions
in them v the frequent tautologies and repetitions, efpecially in the Litany, fo
contrary to Chrift'i precept in Matt. vi. 7. are fufficient to give us a diftafte of
them.
2. Though we are not againft reading the fcriptures in private and in public,
yet wc cannot approve of the manner the Liturgy direfts unto ; namely, the
reading it by piece-meals, by bits and fcraps, fo mangled and curtailed as the
Gofpels and Epiftles are : wc fee not why aiiy part of fcripturc fliould be omit-
ted ;
FROM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 379
ted ; and the order of ihcfe being an invention of a Pops of Rome^ and the
fixing them to mattins and even-fongs fmelling fo rank of popery, no ways
ferve to recommend them to us : not to take notice of the great impropriety
of calling pafTages oui of I/aiah, Jeretniab, Joel, Malachi, and the A5is of the
apoftles, by the name of Epiftles : but efpecially it gives us much uneafinels
to fee IcflTons taken out of i\\c Apocrypha, and appointed to be read as if of eqoal
authority with the facred fcriptures ; nay not only out of the books of Bariuh,
Wifdom, 2indi Ecclefiajiicus, but out of the hiftories of Tii^//, Judith, Sufanna,
- Bel and the dragon, and fuch leflbns out of them as contain the moft idle and
fabulous ftories.
3. The book of Common Prayer, enjoins the reading of the book of Pfalms
in the corrupt tranflation of the Vulgate Latin, ufed by the papifts -, in which
there are great omilTions and fubtradtions in fome places -, as every where, the
titles of the Pfalms are left out, and in all places thefe words Higgaion and Selab,
and the laft verfe of Pfalm Ixxii. and in others, there are manifcft additions, as
in Pfalm ii. 12. and iv. 8. and xiii. 6. and xxii. i, 31. and xxxix. 12. and cxxxii.
4. and cxxxvi. 27. and cxlvii. 8. and three whole vcrfcs in Pfalr,ix\v. whereas
nothing Ihould be taken from, nor added to the word of God -, fome fentences
are abfurd and void of fenfe, as PfalmWm. 8. and Ixviii. 30, 31. and in others
the fenfe is perverted, or a contrary one given, as in Pfalm xvii. 4. and xviii. 26.
and XXX. 13. and cv. 28. and cvi. 30. and cvii. 40 and cxxv. 3. This tranfla-
tion of the Pfalms (lands in the Englifh Liturgy, and is ufed and read in the
churches in England. »
4. It direfts to the obfcrvation of feveral falls and fcftivals, which are no
where enjoined in the word of God, and for which it provides collefts, gofpels
and epiftles to be read : the fafts are, ^adragefma or Lent, in imitation of
Chrift's forty days faft in the wildernefs, Ember wcclis. Rogation days, and all
the Fridays in the year; in which men are commanded to abftain from meats,
whichGod has created to be received with thankfgiving. The feftivals, befides,
the principal ones, Cbrijlmas, Eafler and IVhitfuntide, are the feveral faints days
throughout the year j which are all ofpopidi invention, and are cither movea-
ble or fixed, as the popidi fcftivals be ; and being the relics of popery makes us
ftill more uncafy and diffatisfied with them.
5. Befides the corruptions before obferved in the ordinances of Baptifm and
the Lord's fuppcr, in the order for the Vification of the Sick ftands a form of
Abfolution, which runs thus; "And by his (Chrift's) authority committed to
" me, labfolvc thee from all thy fins, in the name of the Father, and of the
3 c 2 . " Son,
§8o tHE DISSENTERS REASONS FOR SEPARATING
" Son, 'and of the holy GTiofl -,'* which is a mere popifh device •, Chrift having '
left no fuch power to his church, nor committed any fuch authority to any fet
of men in it; all that the minifters of Chrift have power or authority to do, Is
only minifterially to declare and pronounce, that fuch who believe inChrift fhall
receive the rcmidion of fins, and that their fins are forgiven them ; and that
fuch who believe not fhall be damned.
6. It appoints fome things merely civil, as ecclefiaftical and appertaining to
the miniftry, and to be performed by ecclefiaftical perfons and minifters, and
provides offices for them : as,
1. Matrimony ; which fcems to favour the popifh notion of making a facra-
ment of it; whereas it is a mere civil ctDntradl between a man and a woman,
and in which a minifter has nothing to do ; nor do we ever'read of any prieft
or Levite, that was ever concerned in the folemnization of it between other
perfons, under the Old Teflament, or of any apoftle or minilter of the word,
under the New ; not to fay any thing of the form of it, or of the ceremonies
attending it. " '
2. The Burial of the Dead ; which is a mere civil aftion, and belongs not to
a gofpel-minifter, but to the relations of the deceafed or other neighbours,
fViends or acquaintance ' : nor is there any necelTity for a place to be confe-
crated for fuch a purpofe. Abraham and Sarah were buried in a cave, Deborah
Tnder an oak, Jcjhua in a field, Samuel in his houfe, and Chrilt in a garden ''.
jfor do the fcriptures ever make mention of any fcrvice being read, or of any
'ine worfhip being performed at the interment of the dead ; and was any thing
of this kind ncceflary, yet we mufl: be obliged to objedt unto, nor could we
comply with, the fervice ufed by the church of England on this occafion ; we
cannot in confcience call every man and woman, our dear brother, or our dear
Jifier^ as fome who have lived vicious lives, and have not appeared to have had
true repentance towards God or faith in Chrift, have been called ; or •' cdm-
" mit their bodies to the ground in fure and certain hope of the refurreflion to
" eternal life v" lince we know there will be a refurrcdion to damnation as well
as to eternal life ; nor can we give thanks to God on account of many, "that
«' it has pleafed him to deliver them out of the miferies of this finful world ;"
nor join in the following petition, which feems to favour the popifh notion of
praying for the dead ; " bcfeeching — that we, with, all thofe that are departed in
the true faith of thy holy name, ma.y'have our pcrfeft confummation and blift,
both in body and foul," ^c,
tl. Wc
• Matt. viii. 21, 22. Aft viii. r.
* Gtn. xxiii. 9^ and xxxv. 8. Jp(h, xxiv, 30. 1 Sam. ixv. i. John xir.41.
1
FROM THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. s^t
XI. We cannot commune with the church oi England, becaufc it is of a
perfecuting fpidt; and we cannot thlnlv fuih a chyrch is a true church of Chrift:
that the Puritans were perfecuted by it mQ^tcn Elizabeth's time, and the Dif-
fentcrs in. the reign of King Charles the fecond, is not to be denied ; and though
this fpirit does not now prevail, this is owing to the mild and gentle govern-
ment of our gracious foverfeign King George, the head of this Church, for
which we have reafon to be thankful -, and yet it is not even now quite clear of
pcrfecution, witnefs. the Teft and Corporation-a6ts, by which many free-born
Englifhmen are deprived of their native rights, becaufe they cannot conform tc^
the church of Epgland; IxOdes', thfe reproaches and revilings; which are daily
caft upon us, from the pulpit and the prefs, as well as in converfation, fhew
the fame : and to remove all fuch calumnies and reproaches, has been the in-
ducement to draw up the above Reafons for our dilTent •, and which have beea
chiefly occafioncd by a late Letter, on the duty of Catechizing Children, in which
the author, is not content highly to commend the church of £«_g^/(7wi, as the
pureft church under heaven, but refledts greatly on DilTenters, and particularly
on luch whom he calls rebaptizers ; and repeats the old ftale ftory of iht German-
Anabaptijls, and their errors, madneflefs and diftradtions ; and mod malicioufly
infinuaccs, that the people who now go by this name are tinflured with erro-
neous principles ; fur he fays, they fpread their errors in adjacent countries,,
which are not fully extinguifhed to this day : whereas they are a people that
fcarce agree with us in anything; neither in their civil nor in their religious
principles, nor even in baptifm itfelf; for they were for the repetition of
aduit-baptilm in fome cafes, which we are not : and ufed fprinkling in baptifm,
which we do not : the difference between them and us is much greater than
between the papifls and the church of England; and yet this letter- writer
would think ic very hard and unkind in us, fhould we rake up all the murders
and maflacres com.mitted by Pjedobaptifts, and that upon principle, believing
tha! in fo doing they did God good fcrvice ; I mean the Papirts, who are all
P^dobaptifts ; and yet this might be done with as much truth and ingenuity,
as the former ftory is told : and bcfides, the diflurbanccs in Germany were
begun by Psdobaptifts ; firft by the Papifts before the reformation, and then
by Lutherans after it, whom Lutber- endeavoured to difTuade from fuch prac-
tices ; and even the difturbances in Munjler were begun by Psedobaptift
miniftcrs, with whom fome called Anabaptifts joined, and on whom the whole
fcandal is laid. But what is all this to us, who as much difavow their principles
alid praftices, as any people under the heavens? nor does our different way of
thinking about baptifm any ways tend to the fame.
AN-TL
-582 A N T I P iE D O B A P T I 3 M ; O R,
JNriPMDOBAPXISM^,
XD R,
INFANT-BAPTfSM AN INNOVATION
3J E I N G A
R E p L Y to a late Pamphlet, intitled, P^ d o b a p t i s m ; or,
A Defence of Infant-Baptifm, in point of jintifuity, &c.
A Pamphlet being publifhcd fome time ago by a namclefe author, intitled,
"^^ ne baptifm of Infants a reafonablc Service, &c. I wrote an anfwer to it,
chiefly relating to .the antiquity of infant-baptifm, called. The argument from
^pofiolic tradilion, in favour of Infant-hapifm, (cc. conjidered; and of late another
anonymous writer has ftartcd up in defence of the antiquity of it, from the
exceptions made by me to it -, for it £eems it is not the fame authdr, but an-
other who has engaged in this controveriy.i but be he who he will, it does not
greatly concern me lo know ; though methinks, if they judge they are em-
barked in a good caufe, they ihould not be afhamed of it, or of their names,
and of Jetting the world know who they are, and what fhare they have in the
defence of it : butjuft as they pleafe, it gives me no uneafinefs ; they arc wel-
come to take what method they judge mod agreeable, provided truth and righ-
teoufncfs are attended to.
In my anfwer, I obferve that apoftolic tradition at moft and beft is a very
uncertain and precarious thing, not to be depended upon ; of which I give an
inftance fo early as the fecond century, which yet even then could not be fettled ;
and that it is doubtful whether there is any fuch thing as apoftolic tradition,
not delivered in the facred writings ; and demand of -the Gentleman, whofe
performance was before me, to give me one finglc inftance or it; and if infant-
baptifm is of this kind, to name the apoftJc or apoftlcs by whom it was deli-
vered, and to whom, when, and where i to all which no anfwer is.f^tWncd i
only
JNFAN T - BAPTISM AN I N N OV A T lO N. 383
enly I obferve a deep filence as to undoubted apojlolic tradition, fo much boafted
of before.
The ftate of the controverfy between us and the P;edobaptifts, with refpefl
to the antiquity of infant-baptifm, lies here-, and thequeftion is, whether there
is any evidence of its being praiflifed before the third century -, or before the
times of Tertullian. We allow, it began in the third century, and was then prac-
tifed in the African churches, where we apprehend it was firft moved ; but
deny there was any mention. or praftice of it before that age ; and affirm thar
Terlullian is thefirft perfon known that fpokeof it, and who fpeaks againft it: I
have therefore required of any of our learned Paedobaptifts to produce a fingle
paflage out of any authentic writer before Terlullian, in which infam-baptifm is
cxprcfsly mentioned, or clearly hinted at, or plainly fuppofcd, or manifeftly
referred to : if this is not done, the controverfy muft remain juft in the fame
ftate where it was, and infant-baptifm carried not a moment higher that it was
before;, and whatever elfe is done below this date, is all to no purpofe.. How
far this Gentleman, who has engaged in this controverfy, has fuccceded,. is
our next bufinefs to inquire.
The only chriftian writers of the firft century, any of whofe writings arc
extant, zrc Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Hermas, Pelycar-p, and Ignatius; no-
tiling out oi Barnabas, Polycarp, znA Ignatius, in favour of infant-baptifm, is
pretcndfd to.. " The moft ancient writer that we have (fays this Gentlemanj
" in the words of Mr Bingham) is Clemens Romanus, who lived in the time of
" the aportles •, and he, though he doth not diredlly mention infant-baptifm,
" yet fays a thing that by confequence proves it ; for he makes infants liable
" to original fin,, which is in effeft to fay that they have need of baptifm to
" purge it away,. &c." The palTage or parages in Clemens, in which he fays
this thing, are not produced ; 1 fuppofe they are the fame that are quoted by
Dr fValJ, in neither of which docs he fay any fuch thing; it is true, in the firft
of them he makes mention of a paflage in Job xiv. 4. according to the Greek
vcrfion, no man is free fnm pollution, no not though bis life is but of one day; which
might be brought indeed to prove original fin, but is not brought hy Clemens for
any fuch purpofe, but as a felf-accufation of Job;, fhcwing, that though he had
the charader of a good man, yet he was not. free from fin : and the other only
fpeaks of men coming into the world as out of a grave and darknefs, meaning
out of their mother's womb ; and fcems not to refer to any moral death and
■ darknefs men are under, or to the finful ftate of men as they come into the world :
but be it fo, that in thefe pafl"agcs Clemens does fpeak of original fin, what is
this to infant-baptifm, or the nccefilty of it ? is there no other way to purge
away original fin, but baptifm? nay, is there any fuch virtue in baptifm as to
purge:
S-S4 - . AN T I P ^ D O B A P T I S M; OR, ..
purge it away? .there is not; it is the blood ofChrift, and that only, that purges
away fin, whether original or aftual. Should it be faid that this was the fenfe
of the ancients in feme after-ages, who did afcribe fuch a virtue to baptifm,
and did affirm it was neceflary to be adminiftered, and did adminifter it to infants
for that purpofe, what is this to Clemens ? what, becaufe fome perfons in fome
after-aoes gave into this fnipid notion, that baptifm took away original fin, and
was neceflary to infants, and ought to be given them for that reafon, does it
follow i\\ztCkmens was of that mind? or is there the lealt hint of it in his letter ?
What though he held the dodlrine of original fin, does it follow therefore that
■he was for infanc-baptifm ? how many Antipjedobaptifts are there who profefs
the fame dodlrine ? will any man from hence conclude that they are for and in
the praftice of infant-bapcifm ? It follows in the words of the fame writer ;
*' Hermes fajlor {Hermas I fuppofe it fhould be) lived about the fame time with
"*' Clemens; and hath feveral paflages to fiiew the general necefllty of ^a/fr,
♦' that is, baptifm, to fave men :" the paflages referred to are thofe Dr fVall
has produced. Hermas had a vifion of a tower built on water; inquiring the
reafon of ir, he is told, it was " becaufe your life is, and will be faved by water:"
and in another place, " before any one receives the name of the Son of God,
" he is liable to death ; but when he receives that feal, he is delivered from
*• death, and is afllgned to life ; and that feal is water." Now by ivater Hermas
is fuppofed to mean baptifm-, but furcly he could not mean real material water,
or the proper ordinance of water-baptifm, Hnce he fpeaksof the patriarchs com-
ing up through this water, and bring fcaled with this feal after they ivere dead,
and fo entering into the kingdom of God : but how difembodied fpirits could
be baptized in real water, is not eafy to conceive; it muft furely dcfign fome-
thing myftical ; and what it is, I mufl: leave to thofe who better undcrftand
ihcfe vifionary things : but be it fo, that baptifm in water is meant, falvation
by Jt may be underftood in the fame fenfe as the apoflle Peter afcnbcs falvation
to it, when he fays, that baptifm javes by the refurre^ion of Cbrift from the dead;
that is, by direcling the baptized perfon to Chfift for falvation, who was deli-
vered for his offences, and rofe again for his juflification ; of which refurredlion
■baptifm by inimcrfion is a lively emblem; 2nd Hermas is only fpeaking of adult
perfons, and not of infants, or of their baptifm, or of the neccfTity of it to their
falvation : in another place indeed he fpcaks of fome that were as infants with-
out malice, and fo more honourable than others ; and, adds he, all infants, are
honoured with the Lord, and accounted of firfl: of all ; that is, all fuch infants
as before dcfcribcd: but be it that infants in age are meant, they may be valued
and lovrd by the Lord ; he may fhew mercy to them, chufe, redeem, regene-
rate, and fave them, and yet not order them to be baptized ; nor has he ordered
it:
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 385
jt : however //^rwflj has not a word about the baptifm of them, and therefore
thefe paflages are impertinently referred to.
Now thefe are all the pafTages of the writers of the firfl: century brought into
this controverfy ; in which there is fo far from being any exprefs mention of
infant-baptifm, that it is not in the leaft hinted at, nor referred unto-, nor is
any thing of this kind pretended to, till we come to the middle of the next
age; and yet our author upon the above pafTages concludes after this manner :
♦' thus — we have traced up the praHice of infant baptifm to the time of the
" apoftlesj" when thofe writers give not the leaft hint of infant-baptifm, or
have any reference to it, or the praftice of it. It is amazing what 2i face fome
men have ! proceed we now to
The fecond century. The book of Recognitions, this writer feems to be at a
lofs whereto place it, whether after or before 7/(/7/« -, however, M.r Bingkum
tells him, " it is an antient writing of the fame age with Jujlin Martyr, mcn-
" tioned by Origen in his Philocalia, and by fome afcribcd to Bardefanes Sjriu,
*' who lived about the middle of the fecond century." It is indeed mentioned
by Origen, though not under that name, and is by him afcribcd toClemcns, as
it has been commonly done •, and if fo, might have been placed among the tef-
timonics of ihtfirjl century, but this Gentleman's author fays it is afcribed by
fome 10 Bardefanes Syrus: it is true, there is inferted in it a fragment out of a dia-
logue of his concerning fate, againft yf^jif^j an aftrologer-, but then it fliould
rather be concluded from hence, as Fabricius oblerves % that the author of the
Recognitions, is a later writer than Bardefanes : but be it fo that it is him, who
is ih\s Bardefanes F an arch-heretic, one that firftfell into theValentinian herefy •,
and though he feemed afterwards to change his mind, he was not wholly free,
zsEufeiius fays ", from his old herefy, and he became the author of a new fe6t,
called after his name Bardelanifls ; who held that the devil was not a creature
of God -, that Chrift did not aflume human flcfh ; and that the body rifes not '.
The hook of Recognitions, afcribed to him, is urged by the Papifts, as Mv James
obfcrves % to prove the power of cxorcifts, free-will, faith alone infufficienr,
the chryfm in baptifm, and Pir/fr's fuccefllon ; though the better fort of writers
among them arc afliamed of it. Sixtus Senenfis Cays', that "moll things in
" it are uncertain, many fabulous, and fome contrary to doflrines generally
" received." And Baronius ' has thefe words concerning it : " Away with fuch
*' monflrous lies and mad dotages, which are brought out of the faid filthy
Vol. II. 3D " ditch
• BibHothec. Grace. 1. 5. c. I. f. 12. p. 36. * Eccl. Hid. 1. 4. c. 30.
' hiigius de Herefurchis, feft. 2.C. 6. p.133. Vid. Epipban. Hiref. 56. Auguft. de Hstref. C. 35.
' Corruption of the Fathers, part i. p. 6.
« Apud Rivet. Critic. Sacr. 1. i.e. 7. p. 130. f Ibid.
386 ANTIP^DOBAPTISMj OR,
" d'nch of the Recogni (ions, which go under the name o{ Clemens:" but all
this is no matter, if infant-baptifm can be proved out it ; but how ? " This
" author fpeaks of the neccJTity of baptifm in the fame ftile as Jujlin Martyr
*' did — was undeniably an afTertor of the general neceffity of baptifm to I'alva-
*' tion :" wherever this wretched tenet, this falfe notion of the abfolute necefTuy
of baptifm tofalvation is met with, the Prtdobaptifls prefently fmell out infant-
baptifm, one fal (hood following upon another-, and true it is, that one error
leads on to another ; and this falfe doftrine paved the way for infant-baptifm j
but then the myftery of iniquity worked by degrees-, as foon as it was broached
infant-baptifm did not immediately commence: it does not follow, becaufe that
heretic alTcrted this notion, that therefore he was for or in the practice of infant-
baptifm -, befides this book, be the author of it who will, is not made mention
of before the third century, if fo foon ; for the work referred to by Origen has
another title, and was in another form ; he calls it the circuits of Peter, an apo-
cryphal, fabulous and romantic writing ; and though the pafilage he quotes is
in the Recognitions, which makes fome learned men conclude it to be the fame
with that i yet fo it might be, and not be the fame with it. But I pafs on to
a more authentic and approved writer of the fccond century :
'fujlin Martyr, who lived about the year 150 ; and the firft pafTage produced
from him is this * : " We bring them (namely, the new converts) to fome
" place where there is water, and they are regenerated by the fame way of
" regeneration by which we were regenerated ; for they are wafhed with water
*' in the name of God the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour
" Jefus Chrift, and of the holy Spirit." In this paflage, it is owned, " Jufiin
«' is defcribing the manner of adult baptifm only 5 having no occafion to de-
" fcend to any farther particulars ; nor is it alledged, it is faid, as a proof of
" infant-baptifm dircdly ; but only to fhew, that this ancient writer ufed the
" word regeneration fo as to connote baptifm — yet his words cannot be thought
•' to exclude the baptifm of infants in thefe days :" but if infant-baptifm had
been praftifed in thofe days, it is not confident with that fincerity and impar-
tiality which fuflin fets out with, when he propofed to give the Roman Em-
peror an account of chriftian baptifm, not to make any mention of that ; for
he introduces it thus : " We will declare after what manner, when we were
«» renewed by Chrift, we devoted ourfelvcs unto God, left omitting this we
•' fhould feem to adl a bad part (prevaricate or deal unfairly) in this declara-
■«* tion-," whereas it was not dealing fairly with the Emperor, and not giving
him a full and fair account of the adminiftration of the ordinance of baptifm
to all its proper fubjefls, if infants had ufed to be baptized ; which he could
cafily
« Apolog. :. p. 93, 94.
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 387
eafily have introduced the mention of, and one would think could not have
omitted it : befides, as Dr Gale "■ obferves, he had an occafion to fpeak of it,
and to defcend to this particular, had it been ufed ; fince the chriftians were
charged with ufing their infants barbaroully ; which he might, have removed,
had this been the cafe, by obfcrving the great regard they had to them in de-
voting them to God in baptifm, and thereby initiating them into their religion,
and providing for the falvation of their fouls : but Jujiin is fo far from faying
any thing of this kind, that he leaves the Emperor and every body elfe to
conclude that infants were not the fubjefts of baptifm in this early age •, for as
the above writer obferves, immediately follow fuch words as diredlly oppofe
infant-baptifm -, they are thefe : " And we have been taught by the apoftles
" this reafon for this thing -, becaufe we being ignorant of our firfl: birth, were
" generated by necefTity, i^c. that we fhould not continue children of that
" necelTity and ignorance, but of will (or choice) and knowledge-, and fhould
" obtain forgivenfs of the fins in which we have lived, by water : " fo that in
order to obtain thefe things by water or baptifm, which JuJlin fpeaks of, there
mud be free choice and knowledge, which infants are not capable of: but it
feems the main thing this paflage is brought to prove, is, that the words rege-
nerated and regeneration are ufed for baptized and baptifm \ and this agreeing
with the words of Chrift in John\\\. 5. fhews that this conftruftion of them then
obtained, that baptifm is necefTary to falvation. Now, it fhould be obfcrved,
that the perfons JuJlin fpeaks of are not reprefented by him as regenerated by
baptifm, becaufe they are fpoken of before as converted perfons and believers ;
and it is as clear and plain that their baptifm is diflinguifhed from their regene-
ration, and is not the fame thing ; for JuJlin ufes the former as an argument of
the latter •, which if the fame, his fenfe muft be, they were baptized becaufe
they were baptized; whereas his fenfe, confident with himfelf, and the pradice
of the primitive churches, is; that thefe perfons, when brought to the water,
having made a profcfilon of their regeneration, were owned and declared rege-
nerated perfons; as was manifefl from their being admitted to the ordinance
of water-baptifm; and from hence it appears, that, then no fuch conftrudion of
John iii. 5. obtained, that baptifm is necefTary to falvation: and this now feems
to be the pa/Tage referred to, in which JuJlin is faid to fpeak of the necefTity
of baptifm, in a ftilc the author of t\\t Recog7iitions zgxtt(\ with him in; but
without any reafon.
The next pafTagc out of JuJlin is in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew ; where
he fays that " concerning the influence and effed of Jdam's fin upon mankind,
" which the ancient writers reprcfent as the ground and reafon of infant-
2 D 2 " baptil'm— "
' Refledionj, &c. p. 45>.
388 ANTIP^DOBAPTISM;OR,
" baptifin— " The words, as cited by Dr fVall, to whom our author refers
us, are thefe : Jufiin, fpeaking of the binh, baptifm, and crucifixion of Chrift,
fays*, '« he did this for mankind, which hy Adam was fallen under death, and
*' under the guile of the ferpent ; befide the particular caufe which each man
" had of finning." Now, allowing that this is fpoken of original fin, as ic
feems to be, what is this to infant-baptifm ? I have already expofed the folly
of arguing from perfons holding the one, to the praflice of the other. It is
added by our author, " in the fame book, he (Jujlin) fpeaks of baptifm being
" to chriftians in the room of circumcifion, and fo points out the analof^y be-
" tween thofe two initiatory rites." The paflage referred to is this ' : " We
•" alio who by him have had accefs to God, have not received this carnal cir-
" cumcifion, but the fpiritual circumcifion, which Enoch, and thofe like him,
" have obferved •, and we have received it by baptifm by the mercy of God,
" bccaufe we were finners ; and it is enjoined to all perfons to receive it the fame
" way." Now let be obferved, that this fpiritual circumcifion, whatever Jujlin
means by it, can never defign baptifm ; fince the patriarch Enoch, and others
like him, obferved it: and fince chriftians are faid to receive it ^j baptifm, and
therefore muft be different from baptifm itfelf : nor does Jujlin fay any thing of
the analogy between baptifm and circumcifion. Or of the one being in the room
of the other; but oppofcs the fpiritual circumcifion to carnal circumcifion ; and
fpeaks not one word of infants, only of the duty of adult perfons, as he fup-
pofcs it to te. The laft paflage, and on which this Gentleman intends to dwell
awhile, is this '' ; "Several perfons {hys Jujlin) among us of both fexts, of
" fixty and feventy years of age, e/ •« ira.ti'av jjUrtSKT^t- ansae to Xj/ss), " who were
♦' difcipled to Chrift in their childhood, tfr." which I have obferved (hould be
rendered, " who from their childhood were inftruifted in Chrift ;" and which I
have confirmed by feveral paffages in Jujlin, in which he ufes the word in the
fenfe of inftruftion ; and from whom can we better learn his meaning than
from himfclf .'' all which this author takes no notice of; but puts me off with
a pafl"age out of Plutarch, where Aiitiphon the fon of Sophilus, according to his
verfion, is faid to be difcipled or profelyted to h\s futher : I leave him to enjoy
his own fenfe ; for I do. not underftand it ; and fhould have thought that
^M^^tv3a( A TO mlfiy might have been rendered more intelligibly, as well as
more truly, " inftrufted by his father;" fince, as it follows, his father was an
orator. He thinks he has catched me. off of my guard, and that I fuppofe the
word difciple includes baptifm ; becaufe in my commentary on Aiis xix. 3. I fay,
♦* the apoftle takes it for granted that they were baptized, fince they were not
*' only believers, but difciples; " but had he read on, or tranfcribcd what fol-
lows,
» Dialog, cum Trjpho p, 3J6. Ed. Pirii. ' lb. p. 261. * lb. Apo\og. p. 62.
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 389
lows, my fenfe would clearly appear ; " fuch as not only believed with the
" heart, but had made a profeffion of their faich, and were followers of Chrift:"
nor is the fenle of the word difcipky as including the idea of baptifm, confirmed
by A5lsx\w. 21. where it is faid, when they had preached the go/pel to that city,
iy HA^nvvafTif-, '^ and taught many, or made them dilciples-," which may be
interpreted without tautology, and yet not include the idea of baptifm j fince
the firft word, preached, exprelTes the bare external miniftry of the word ; and
the latter, taught, or made difciples, the influence and effefl of it upon the
minds of men ; the former may be where the latter is not ; and both, where
baptifm is not as yet adminiftercd. The reafon why f« •xatiutj muft be ren-
dered in, and not from their childhood, bccaufe the baptifm of any perfons bcincr
not a continued, hut one fingle tranlient adt, to fpeak of their being baptized
from their childhood would be improper, is merry indeed ; when Jujlin is not
fpcaking of the baptifm of any perfon at all j but of their being trained up in
the knowledge of Chrift, and the chriftian religion from their childhood, in
which they had-perfevercd to the years mentioned. Upon the whole, in all
thefe paffagcs oi Jujlin quoted, there is no exprefs mention of infant-baptifm,
nor any hint given of it, nor any reference unto it. Proceed we now to the
next writer in this century, brought into this controverfy :
Iren^us ; who lived towards the clofe of it, and wrote about the year 180;
the only paflage in him, and which has been the fubjcd of debate a hundred
years paft, is this-, fpeaking of Chrift, he fays ', " he came to fave all, all I
" fay, qui per eum renafcuntur inDeum, " who by him are l>orn again unto God -,"
" infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men." Now
not to infift upon the works of Irenxus we have being moftly a tranflation,
and a very poor one, complained of by learned men •, nor upon this chapter
wherein this pafTage is, being reckoned fpurious by others; which weaken the force
of this teftimony, and will have their weight with confidering perfons ; I fhall only
take notice of the fenfe of the phrafe, born again unto God; and the injury done
to the charadlcr of 7rf«.£'W, to make it fignify baptifm, or any thing clfe bui
the grace of regeneration. Our author begins his defence of this paflage in fa-
vour of infant-baptifm, with a remark of the learned Feuardentius, as he calls
him ; " that by the name of regeneration, according to the phrafe ofChrift and
♦' his apoftles, he {Iren^us) underftands baptifm, clearly confirming the apoC-
«* tolical tradition concerning the baptifm of infants." As for the learning of
this monk, I cannot difcern it, unlefs his lies and impudence againft the refor-
mers, which run through his notes, are to be fo called. Whether our author
is a junior or fenior man, I know not ; by his writing he feems to be the former,
but
' Adv. Hxref. 1. 2.c. 39.
390 ANTIP^DOBAPTISM; O R, -
but the advice of Rivet, who was without doubt a man of learning, K good ;
" only, fays he", I would have the younger, that fhall light on the works of
" Irenicus advifed, to beware of thofc editions, which that moft impudent monk
" Feuardentius, a man of large affurance, and uncommon boldnefs, and of no
" faith nor faithfulnefs, has in many things foully corrupted and defiled with
" impious and lying annotations ;" and a falfe glofs this of his is, which is quot-
ed; forChrift and his apoftles nowhere call baptifm by the mmt oi xht new birth.
I have obferved, that as yet, that is, in Iren^us'% time, it had not obtained
among the ancients, to ufe the words regenerated or regeneration for baptized or
baptifm ; nor is this author able to prove it. The paflage in Jujlin before-men-
tioned falls fhort of it, as has been fliewn -, and the paffages in Tertullian and
Clemens oi Alexandria, concerning being born in water, and begotten of the womb
of water, are too late -, and befide, the one is to be interpreted of the grace of
God compared to water ; this is clearly Tertnllian's fenfc ; for he adds ", " nor
" are we otherwife fafe or faved, than by remaining in water •," which furely
can never be underftood literally of the water of baptifm : and as for Clemens',
he is fpeaking not of regeneration, but of the natural generation of man, as he
comes out of his mother's womb, naked, and free from fin, as he fuppofes ;
and as fuch, converted perfons ought to be.
To have recourfe to heathens to afcertain the name of chriftian baptifm, is
monftrous ; though this, it is faid, there is no need of, " finceyh;^rfl/ chriftian
" writers, who lived with or before Iren^us, fpeak the fame language, as will
" be fcen hereafter :" and yet none are produced hm Barnabas and Juflin; the
latter of which has been confidered already, and found not to the purpofe; and
his rcafoning upon the former is beyond my comprehenfion; for whatever may
be faid for the giving of milk and honey to perfons juft baptized, being a fym-
bol of their being born again, it can be no proof of the words regeneration and
regenerated he'ing ufed for baptifm and baptized; when thcfe words neither the
one nor the other are mentioned by Barnabas ; fo that I have no reafon to re-
trafl what I have faid on that point. And now we are returned to Iren^us him-
fclf ; and two paffages from him are produced in proof of the fenfc of the word
contended for-, and one is where he thus fpeaks % " and again giving the power
" of regeneration unto God to his difciples, he faid unto them. Go and teach
all nations, baptizing ihem, &c." By which power or commifTion is meant, not
the
"> Juniores qui in opera Irenii incident monitos volo, ut caveant ab illis editionlbus qiias impu-
den iiTimus il!e monachus Fcuardentius, homo projefli audaciae, & nu!lius fidei, fxde in multis
corrupic Sc annotationibus impi:r& mendacibus confpurcavit, Rivet. Critic. Sacr, l.z.c.6. p. i SS, i S9.
" Nos pifciculi in aqua nafciir.ur. Nee aliter quam in aqua permanendo falvi fumu', Ter-
tullian. de baptifmo, c i.
• jiuo.Tiat 1. 4. p. 538. Ed. Parii. f Adv. H.-cref. 1. 3. c. (9.
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 391
the commiffion of baptizing, but more plainly the commifTion of teaching the
dodlrine of regeneration by the Spirit of God, and the necefTity of that to fal-
vation, and in order to baptifm ; and which was the firfl: and principal part of
the apoftles commifTion, as the order of the words (hew ; and it is mod reafonable
to think, that he fhould fo call the commifTion, not from its more remote and
lefs principal part, but from the firfl: and more principal one. The other paf-
fage is where Iren^us mentions "^ by name " the baptifm oi regeneration to God :"
but this rather proves the contrary, that baptifm and regeneration are two dif-
ferent things, and not the fame -, jufl: as the fcriptural phrafe, the baptifm of re-
pentance, and which feems to have led the ancients to fuch a way of fpeakinp,
means fomething different from repentance, and no: the fame : baptifm is fo
called, becaufe repentance is a prerequifite to it, in the fubjedls of it; and for
the fame reafon it is called the baptifm of regeneration, becaufe regeneration is
abfolutely necelTary in order to it : to all which I only add, that Irentcus no:
only ufcs the word regeneration in a different fenfe from baptifm clfewhere ', but
mofl clearly ufcs it in another fenfe in this very pafTage -, fince he fays, Chrill
came to fave all who by him are born again unto God ; who are regenerated by
Chrifl^, and not by baptifm j and which is explained both before and after by
h\s fanHifying a\\ forts of perfons, infants, little ones, young men, and old men ;
which cannot be underftood of his baptizing them, for he baptized none; and
therefore they cannot be faid to be regenerated by him in that fenfe : and I fay
again, to underftand Irenaus as fpeaking of baptifm, is to make him fpealc
what is abfolutely falfe ; thatChrilt came to fave all and only fuch who are bap-
tized unto God. It feems Le Clerc is of the fame fentiment with me, an author
I am a ftranger to; whom this-wriier Jets pafs without any reafoning againft him,
only with this chaftizement; "he (hould have underftood (being an ecciefiaflical
" biflorian) the fcntiments and language of the primitive fathers better ;" but
what their language and fentiments were, we have feen already ; and let them
be what they will, Irensus muft exprefs a downright .falfehood, if he is to be
underftood in the fenfe contended for : on the one hand, it cannot be true that
Chrift came to fave all that are baptized ; no doubt but Judas was baptized,
as well as the other apoftles, and yet it will not be faid Chrift came to fave him ;
Simon Magus was certainly baptized, and yet was/« the gait of bitternefs, and bond
of iniquity, and by all the accounts of him continued fo till death ; there were
many members of the church a.t Corinth, who doubtkfs were baptized, and yet
were unworthy receivers of the Lord's fupper, and eat and drank damnation
to themfelves, for which reafon there were many weak, fickly, and afleep ■; and
it is to be feared, without any breach of charity, that this has been the cafe of
thoufands
1 Ibid. 1. I. c. 18. ' Vid. 1. 4. c. S9- and I. 5. c. 15. • i Cor. xL 29, 30.
•392 ANTIP^DOBAPTISMiOR,
thoufands befides : and on the other hand, it cannot be with truth foggefted, that
Chrift came to fave only fuch as are baptized •, he came to die for the tranfgref-
fions that were under the Firft Teftament, or to fave perfons under that difpen-
fation, who never received Chriftian baptifm j he faid to one and to another,
unbaptized perfons, thy fins are forgiven thee ^ \ and no doubt there are many
faved, and whom Chrift came to fave, who never were baptized in water; and
the Psedobaptifts themfelves will ftand a bad chance for falvation, if this was
true-, for they will find it a hard tafk to prove that any one of them, only
fprinkled in infancy, was ever truly baptized-, and yet as uncharitable as we
are faid to be, we have fo much charity to believe that every good man among
them, though unbaptized, fhall be faved. And now fince the words of Iren^us
taken in this fenfe contain a manifeft faldiood, and they are capable of another
fenfe, agreeable to truth, without ftraining them -, as that Chrift came to fave
all that are regenerated by himfelf, by his fpirit and grace, we ought in a judg-
ment of charity to believe that this latter fenfe is his, and not the former ; and
the rather, fince his words in their proper and literal fenfe have this meaning ;
and fince they are expreffcd with fo much caution ; left it fhould be thought
it was his meaning that Chrift came to fave all ja^x\, good and bad, he defcribes
the perfons he came to fave, not by their baptifm, which is a precarious and
uncertain evidence of falvation, but by their regeneration, which is a fure proof
of it -, and fince this fenfe of his words is agreeable to his ufe of the phrafe elfc-
where, and to the context likewife, and is fuited to all forts of perfons of every
age here mentioned -, and indeed to depart from this clear literal fenfe of his words,
which eftablifiies a well-known truth, and fix a figurative, improper one upon
them, which makes him to fay a notorious untruth, to ferve an hypothefis, is
auel ufage of the good old father, and is contrary to all the rules of honour, juf-
tice, truth, znd charily. To put ourLord's words in Mark xvl i6. upon a
level with the falfe fenfe of Iren^us, is mean and ftupid -, they need no qualify-
ing fenfe -, the meaning is plain and eafy -, that every baptized believer fhall be
faved, and leave no room to fuggeft that unbaptized believers (hall not -, but
that every unbeliever, be he who he will, baptized or unbaptized, fiiall be
damned. And now what a wretched caufe muft the caufc of infant-baptifm be,
that requires fuch managing as this to maintain it ? what a wretched caufe is it,
that at its firft fetting out, according to the account of the advocates of it -, for
DrPf^all fays °, " this is the firft cxprefs mention that we have met with of infants
" baptized?" I fay again, what a wretched caufe muft this be, that is connected
with lies and fallhood at its firft appearance, as pleaded for-, is cftabliflied upon
downright injuftice to a good man's charaftcr, and fupported by real injury to
it?
' Mitt. ix. 5. Luke vii. 4?. • Hiftory of Infant-baptifm, parti, c. 3. 5- 6.
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 393
it ? and yet no:withftanding all this, our author has the front to fay, " fo much
*' then for the teftimony, the plain, unexcepdetiable te^imony, of Irenaus, for
V the praftice csf infant-baptifm."
And now we ara come to the clofe of the fecond century ; but before wc
pafs to the next, we muft flop a little, and confider a paflagc our author, after
'DrJVall, has produced out oi Clemens oi Alexandria, who lived at the latter end
of this century, about the year 190 \ and it is this : fpeaking of rings worn on
the fingers, and the feals upon them, advifes againft every thing idolatrous and
lafcivious, and to what is innocent and ufeful •, " let our feals, fays he *, be a
•' dove, or a fifh, or a fhip running with the wind, or a tnufical harp — or a
*' mariner's anchor and if any one is a filherman, Atstcak (UfAnmAi j^ re^r
•' if vJhrQ- traif7ntij.iren T<uJ)ar, •' let him remember the apoftle, and the
♦' children drawn out of the water." This paflage was fent by two Gentlemen
from different places to "D: Wall, after he had publifhed two editions of his
hiftory \ and he feems to have been afhamed of himfclf for not having obfcrved
it, and fancies that this refers to the baptizing of a child, and the caking,
drawing, and lifting it out of the water. Now, though I do nor pretend 10'
fupport my conjefture by any rnanufcript or printed copy, nor do I think it
worth while to fearch and inquire after it, whether there is any various reading
or no, but fhall leave it to others who have more leifure and opportunity ; yet
I pcrfuade myfclf my conjedturc will not be condemned as a groundlefs one
by any man of fenfe and learning, cfpecially out of this controverfy : my con-
jedure then is, that it (hould be read not x«/cft*K,- *' children," but tx^«fr
*' fifhes;" for who ever heard of z. draught of children; when a draught of fijhes
is common ? and why fhould a fifherman, more than any other, remember an
apoftle and a draught of children ? furely a draught of fifhes is more proper to
him : the words I think therefore fhould be read, " let him remember the
" apoftle, and the fifhes drawn out of the water-," and the fenfe is, let him
temember the apoftle Peier, and the draught of fifhes taken by him, recorded
cither in. Ltt/(:^ V. 6, 9. or in y(7i6« xxi. 6,8,11. for the words manifeftly refer
so Pame particular and remarkable fad, which fhould be called to mind, and
not to a thing that was done every day ; which muft be ilie cafe, if infant*
baptifm now obtained : befides, the word ufed cannot with any decency and
prtjpricty be applied to the baptizing of a child; a wide difference there is in
the cxprcffion, between uking and lifting a child out of the font, and a draw*
ingor dragging It out of the water-, the word is cxprcfTive of ftrrngth and
force nccefTary to an adion % and well agrets with the drawing or dragging of
a net full of fiflics. However, if this inftance is continued to be urged, I hope
;V0L. II. 3 E it
* PjtJagog.l. 3.C. 1 1, p. 246, 847. * Loire xir. 15. Afli xi. 10.
394 ANTIP^EDOBAPTISMj OR,
.it will be allowed that baptifm in thofe early times was performed by immer-
•fion ; fince rhcfe children are faid to be drawn cut of the water, and therefore
muft have been in it : moreover, let it be what it will that C/emeas refers unto,
it muft be fomething that was not common to every man^ but peculiar to a
fifherman; as he afterwards fays, a fword or a bow are not proper for thofe
that purfue peace ; nor cups for temperate perfons ; and I infift upon it, that
'it be faid what that is which is peculiar to fuch a one, except it be that which I
•have fuggefted : and after all, he muft have a warm brain, a heated imagina-
tion, and a mind prepoffefTed, that can believe that infant- baptifm is here re-
ferred to. Upon the whole, it does not appear from any authentic writer of
the fccond century, that there is any cxprefs mention of infant-baptifm in ir,
nor any clear hint of ir, or manifcft reference to it; and therefore it muft be
an innovation in the church, whenever it afterwards took place. I proceed
TlOW to
• The third century, at the beginning of which TertuUian lived ; who is the
firft perfon that ever gave any hint of infant-baptifm, or referred unto it, or
made exprefs mention of it, that is known ; and he argued againft it, and that
very ftrongly, from the more ufual delay of the adminiftration of it, according
to every one's age, condition, and difpofition ; from the danger fureties might
be brought into by engaging for infants; from the neceftlty of firft knowino
and underftanding what they were about ; from their innocent age, as it com-
paratively is, not being yet confcious of fin, ftanding in no need of the appli-
cation of pardoning grace, which the ordinance of baptifm leads adult believers
to ; from the propriety of their ftrft aflcing for it ; and from a different method
being taken in worldly afi^airs : his words are thefe, and as they are tranftated
by Dr IVall himfelf ; " therefore according to every one's condition and difpo-
♦' fition, and alfo their age, the delaying of baptifm is more profitable, efpe-
" cially in the cafe of little children ; for what need is there that the godfathers
•* fhould be brought into danger ? becaufe they may cither fail of their pro-
*' mifes by death, or they may be miftaken by a child's proving of a wicked
" difpofition. Our Lord fays indeed. Do not forbid them to come to me : there-
*' fore let them come when they are grown up : let them come when they un-
" dcrftand : when they are Inftrufted whither it is that they come : let them be
♦' made chriftians when they can know Chrift ; what need their guiltlefs age
" make fuch hafte to the forgivenefs of fins ? Men will proceed more warily
" in worldly things ; and he that ftiould not have earthly goods committed to
«♦ him, yet fhall have heavenly. Let them know how to defire this falvation,
" that you may appear to have given to one that afkcth '." It is obferved by
our
» TertuUian. de baptifmo, c. j8.
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 395
our author, zfierDr Wall, that in theclaufe about fponfors, in the older editions,
thefe words come in, ^ non tarn necejfe, which are rendered, except in cafe of ne-
cejftty. But thefe older editions are but oneGagnaus, whofc reading is rejefled by
Kigaltius as a foolifh repetition ; cenfured by Grotius, as affording no tolerable
fenfe''} received by Pamelius for no other reafon that he gives, but becaufe it
foftens the opinion of the author about the delaying of baptifnito infants'; and
it is for this reafon it is catched at by the Pzedobaptifts -, and yet they do not
feem to be quite cafy with it, becaufe of the nonfenfe and impertinence of it -,
" what need is there, except there is a need?" wherefore our author attempts an
emendation, and propofes to read /amen for tarn, which docs not make it a whit
the better, but rather increafcs the nonfenfe ; " what need is there, except not-
" withftanding there is need?" but what is of more importance is, it is faid,
" thefe words of Tertullian feem fidrly to imply that infant baptifm was not only
" moved for, but actually praftifed in his time :" to which I anfwer, that they
neither do imply, nor feem to imply any fuch thing, at lead not neceffarily, for
fuppofing the baptifm of infants moved for, and fureties promifed to be engaged
for them, which fcems likely to be the cafe as foon as mentioned, the better to "
getit received ; Tertullian might fay all that he.does, though as yet not one in-
fant had ever been baptized, or any fureties made ufe of: and indeed it would
have been very ftrange, if nothing of this kind had been faid previous to the
obfervance of them ; the bare motion of thefe things was fufficient to brino- out
the arguments againft them : and what though Tertullian might have fome odd
notions and fingular opinions, about which he talked wrong and weakly, does
it follow that therefore he fo did about thefe points ? Nor is there any reafon
to interpret his words of the infants of infidels, fince he makes no diftindion in
the paflage, nor gives the leafl hint of any ; and what he elfewhere fays of the
children of believers being holy, he explains of their being deftgned for boUnefs ' ;
and fays men are not iorn, but made chriftians '' : nor does he any where allow
of the baptifm of infants, in cafe of necefTity, which is only eftablifhed upon that
impertinent reading before-mentioned : and with refpeft to his notion of the
necefTity of baptifm to falvation, it is fufficient to obferve what he lays ; " if any
" underftand the importance of baptifm, they will rather fear the havincr it,
" than the delaying it : true faith is fecurc of falvation '." And the reafon why
he does not produce infant-baptifm among his unwritten cuftoms, is very cafy
3 s. 2 . to
' SeeDrGile's Refieflions, Seep. 511. * Ex cadem Gagna:o itcrum adjicio, 11 non
tarn necffle : nam iilud mitigac aadorii opiDionem, &c Pamclii. adnot. p. 348.
' Dcljgnatos (anfliiaci, Tertull, de aoima, c. 39.
* Fiunt, non nafcuntur chriltiani, Apologet. c. 18.
' Si qui pondus inteUigant baptifmi, aiagii timebunt confecutionem quam dilationem : fides Inte-
gra ^ecura ell de faluie. Ibid, de baptifino, c» 18.
396 A N T I P ^ D O B A P T I S M ; O R,
to obferve, becaufe as yet no fuch cuftom had obtained, and as yet the apoflo-
lical tradition of it had never been heard of: the firft that fpcaks of that, if he
does at all, is the following perfon -,
Origen, who flourifhed about the year 230, and comes next under confide-
ration : and three paflages arc oftially cited out of him in favour of infant-
baptifm s Ihewing not only that infants fhould be baptized ; but that this was
an ancient ufage of the church, and a tradition of the apoftles. Now thefe
things are only to be met with in the Latin trandations of this ancient writer;,
and though there is much of his dill extant in Greek, yet in thefe his genuine
works thrre is not the lead hint of infant-bapjifm, nor any reference to it»
and much Icfs any exprefs mention of it; and ftill Icfs any thing faid of it,
beintf a cuftom of the church, and an apoftolical tradition : This has juftly
raifed a fufpicion, that he has not been fairly ufed in the trandations of him by
Kuflnus and Jerom : and upon inquiry, this is found to be the truth of the
matter ; and it is not only Erafmus, whom Dr IVall is pleafed to reprefent as
anorilv faying, that a reader is uncertain whether he reads Origen or Ruffinus ;
i'or Scu'telus' fays the fame thing; and it ii the obfervation of many others,
that it was ti.e common cuftom of Ruffinus to interpolate whatever he tranflated.
The learned Hue/itu, who has given us a good edition of all Origen's commen-
taries of the fcripture in Greek, and who was as converfant with his writings,
and undcrftood them as well as any man whatever, was very fenfible of the foul
play he has met with*, and often complains of the perfidy and impudence of
Ruff.nus ; he fays of him, that whatever he undertook to trandate, he inter-
polated ; that he fo diftrclTed and corrupted the writings oi Origen by addi-
tions and detradions, that one is at a lofs to find Origen in Origen : that whereas
he undertook to trandate his commentary on the Romans, at the inftancc of
Heraclius, yet he adcs, with what faithfulnefs did he do it ? namely, with his
own, that is, which is the worft ; and when Huetius produces any thing out of
thefe trandations, it is always with diffidence, as not to be depended upon ;
and fometimes he adds when he has done, " but let us remember again the per-
" fidy of Ruffinus;" and fpeaking particularly of his commentaries on the
Remans, he fays ; " Let the learned reader remember that Origen is not fo
" much to be thought the author of them, as Ruffinus, by whom they are not
«' fo much interpreted, as nev} coined and' interpolated''.'" But what need I
produce
*. Medulla, P*Uum, part i. 1. 6. c. 2. p. 124.
« Inicrpolare enim omnia RufEnus qqicunque fdfcepit interpretinda — folenne habuit. Huetii
Oiigeniana, 1. 2. p. 116. nam ejus fcripu inCerpretaDS, itaadditamentij & detraftionibat vexavit
Sc lOTupit utOrigenem in Origene defideres, ibid. 1; 3. c. i. p. 233. Ruffinus Heradii impulfu vi-
giott tomosfommentarioiun) Uiigcnii in epiftblam «d Romanoj Latins lisguz donandos fufcepic
fcd
INFANT.. BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 397
produce rhefc tcftimonies ? Ruffinus himfelf owns, not only that he ufed great
freedom in tranllatirig the homilies on Leviticus, and added much of his own
to them, as I have obfcrved ; but alfo in his tranflation of the commentary on
the Remans, he grants the charge againft him, " that he added fome things,
" Supplied what was wanting, and (hortened what were too long.*^-, " and it is
from thefe two pieces that the two principal paflages which alTert infant- baptifm
fo be the cuftom of the church, and an apoftolical tradition, are taken : and
BOW of what ufe is this Gentleman's quotation from Marjhall? it is good for
nothing. The other pafTage, which ftands in Jeroni's tranQation of Origeri's
homilies on Luke, fpeaks indeed of the baptifm of infants, and the necefTity of
i it ; but not a word of its being a cuftom of the church, and an apoftolical tra-
dition, as in the other; and befide, his tranflations being no nnore exatfl than
I Rujinus's, and which appears by his other verfions; in which he takes the fame
I liberty as Ruffinus did, are no more to be depended upon than his. And now,
where is his higheft probability and moral certainty, that there are no additions
and interpolations in Origen ? I appeal to the whole world, whether fuch fore
of writings as thefc, fo manifeftly corrupted, fo confefledly interpolated, would
be admitted an evidence in any civil affair in any court of judicature whatever v
*nd if not, then furely thefe ought not to be admitted as an evidence in reli-
gious affairs, refpedling an ordinance of our Lord Jcfus Chrift. But it is faid,
" fuppofing all this, what does it fignify in the prefcnt cafe, unlefs it could be
♦' proved that the particular paflagcs under confideration were additions or
•* interpolations .'' " To which I anfwer ; fince the whole is fo interpolated,
and fo deformed, that it can fcarcely be known, as has been obferved, what
dependence can there be on any part of it ? 1 have obfcrved, that the paftage
in the homilies on Leviticus, is by Vojfms thought to be of the greater autho-
rity againft the Pelagians, becaufe of the interpolations of Ruffinus. This Gen-
tleman fays, 1 have K«/K(ri^i7y obferved this ; I do not fee any unluckinefs in it;.
it is lucky on my fide, that Vofftus, a Pa:dobaptift, fliould fuggeft that this
pafTage is interpolated, however unlucky Ruffinus was in doing it -, and it is no-
unufual thing for a writer to infert that in his works, which makes or may be
improved againft himfelf: befide, what makes thefe very pafTages fufpedcd of
interpolation, is, not only that no cotemporary of Origen's, nor any writer
before
ifcd qua fide ? foa nem'pe, hoc eft, peBima. Ibid. p. 253. Sed Ruffini (amen perfiiijaiii denuore-
cordemur. Ibid. I. z. p. 59. vide etiam, p. 3;. meminerit eruditus leftor con tarn iilorum auflorcin
cxlflimandura efle Origenem quam Ruffiaum, a quo non iim ioterpretaii, quam recufi & incerpo-
laii fuDt. Ibid. p. IC4<
' AddereaJiqua videor, & explere-qas- dcfuRt, antbreviare qux lon^ func. Ruffini PeroratiO'
in-Ep.ad Rooi.^. tzi^C.
39S . . A N T I P .E D O B A P T 15 M; OR,
before him, nor any after him, till the times of Ruffinus indjerom, ever fpeak
of infant-baptifm as a cuftom of the church, or an apoftolic tradition ; but
neither Cyprian who came after him, and pleaded for infant-baptifm, ever refers
to Origen as faying thefe things, or ufes fuch language as he is faid to do; nor
does /iuftin, who made fuch a bluller about infant-baptifm being an apoftolical
tradition, ever appeal to Origen's teftimony of it ; which one would think he
would have done, had there been any fuch teftimony : our author, becaufe I
have faid that many things may be obferved from the Greek of Origen in favour
of adult- baptifm, hectors moft manfully; " the affertion, he fays, is either
" falfe, or very impertinent •" but furely he muft be a little too premature to
pafs fuch a cenfure before the things are produced. I greatly queftion whetlier
he has ever read the writings of Or/ff», cither the Latin tranflations of him, or
his works in Greek ; and indeed there are fcarce any of his quotations of the fa-
thers throughout his whole work, but what feem to be taken at fecond hand from
Dr IVall, or others : I fay more than I fliould have chofe to have faid, through
his infulting language. I am quite content he fhould have all the credit his
performance will admit of; only fuch a writer, who knows his own weaknefs,
ought not to be fo pert and infolent : however, to ftop the mouth of this fwag-
gering blade, whoever he is, I will give him an inftance or two out of the Greek
oi Origen, in favour of adult-baptifm, to the exclufion of infant-baptifm, and
as manifeftly againft it. Now, not to take notice of Origen's ' interpretation of
Matthew x\k. 14. as not of infants literally, but metaphorically; which, ac-
cording to his fenfe, deftroys the argument of the Pjedobaptifts from thence,
in favour of infant-baptifm : " It is to be obferved, (zys Origen, that the four
" evangelifls faying that John confefled he came to baptize in water, only
" Matthew adds unto repentance ; teaching, that he has the profit of baptifm
" who " is baptized of his own will and choice : " Now if the profit of bap-
tifm is tied to " a perfon baptized of his own will and choice," according to
Origen, then baptifm muft be unprofitable and infignificant to infants, becaufe
they are not baptized of their own will and choice: and a little after he fays;
" TheJaver by the water is a fymbol of the purification of the foul waftied
" from all the filth of wickednefs ; neverthclefs alfo of itfelf it is the beginning
" and fountain of divine gifts, becaufe of the power of the invocation of the
" adorableTrinity, " to him that gives up himfelf toGod f;" which laft claufe
excludes infants, fince they do not and cannot give up thcmfelves to God in
that
' Orig. Comment, in Matt. p. 371, 375. Ed. Huet.
t na««Tii{iiTio» it oTi T«» Tiffcrafuir njuxoTvr TO ir v^aTt c^oXoy»a Ivanv iXiXt/Siiai pa^lt^HT,
u,>t<^ MdrSai©- TUTU wgj<r1i9i)Xi To n; ftiraroiar, iiiaaxtif To. in T«r ^ax7ierfutr©- »/^iX«ar
■ Xi^>> T1K vrgyaifiiriui ru ^aili^o^ira, & Paulo port to ita ru i/Jal©- Auly? — i^xafiX'"'* tavT*'
rn 5n*Tn1t — x'»J"'f*''*" ^*"" *fXi ■& •"lyi- Origen. Comment, in Joinnem, p. 124.
1
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 399
that ordinance. Let this Gentleman, if he can, produce any thing out of thofe
•writings of On|^«», in favour of infant- baptifm ; the paflage Dr /^<j//'' refers
to has not a fyllable of it, nor any reference to it ; and though he fuppofes Je-
rom muft fome where or other have read it in his writings, what "Jerom fays '
fuppofes no fuch thing; fmce the paflage only fpeaks of Origen's opinion of fins
in a pre-exiftent ftate, being forgiven in baptifm, but not a word of the bap-
tifm of infants, or of their fins being forgiven them in their baptifm : and now
where is the clear teftimony of the great Origen, not only for the pradice of
infant-baptifm in his own days, but for the continual ufe of it all alontr from
the time of the apoflles ? and where is our author's vaunt of the fuperior anti-
quity of infant-baptifm to infant-communion ? which, as we fhall fee prefently,
began together.
■Cyprian is the next, and the only remaining writer of this century, quoted
in favour of infant-baptifm ; who lived about the middle of it, and is the firft
pleader for it that we know of We allow it was praftifed in his time in the
African churches, where it was firft moved ; and at the fame time infant-com-
munion was praftifed alfo, of which we have undoubted and inconteftable evi-
dence; and it is but reafonable that if infants have a right to one ordinance
they fhould be admitted to the other; and if antiquity is of any weight in the
matter, it is as early for the one as for the other : but though infant-baptifm
now began to be pradifed, it appears to be a novel-bufinefs; not only the time
of its adminiftration being undetermined ; which mzdcFidus, a country bifhop,
who had a doubt about adminiftcring it before the eighth day, apply to the coun-
cil under Cyprian for the refolution of it ; but the exceeding weaknefs of the ar-
guments then made ufe of for baptizing new-born infants, of which the prefent
Psdobaptifts muft be aftiamed, fhcw that Paedobaptifm was then in its rn/ant-
ftate : the arguments ufcd by Cyprian and his brethren for it, were takea from
the grace of God beirfg given to all men ; and from the equality of the gift to
all; and this proved from the fpiritua! equality of the bodies of infants and adult-
perfons ; and both from the prophet Etijha'i ftretching himfelf on the Shuna-
mite's child ; they argue the admiftion of all to baptifm from the words oi Pe-
ter, who fays he was ftiewn, that nothing is to be called common or unclean ; and
fcafon, that infants ought to be more cafily admitted than grown perfons, be-
caufe they have lefs guilt ; and their weeping and crying are to be interpreted
praying ; yea, they fuggeft that baptifm gives grace, and that a perfon is loft
without it: but that it may appear I do not wrong them, I will tranfcribe their
own words ; and that as they are tranflated by Dr M^all., fo far as they relate to
this matter: " All of us judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied
" to
* Comment. inMatt p. J91, jtjz^ * Adv. Pelag. I. 3. fol. ioj. torn. a.
400 .: A N T I P :s: D D B A P T I S M -, O R,
•*' fo no perfori that is born ; for whereas our Lord in his gofpci fays, -the Sen
** of Man came not to dejlroy mens fouls, (or lives) but ta fave them ; as far. as lies
" in us, no foul, if pofTible, is to be loft. The fcripture gives us to under-
" ftand the equality of the divine gift on all, whether infants or grown perfons :
** EUfha, in his prayer toGod, ftretchcd himfelf on the infant-fon oi ihtShuna-
■?' mite woman, that lay dead, In fuch manner, that his head, and face, and
■*' limbs, and feet, were applied to the head, face, limbs, and feet of the child j
" which, if it be underftood according to the quality of eur body and nature,
*' the infant would not hold meafure with that growo man, nor his limbs fit
" to reach to his great ones ; but in that place a fpiritual equality, and fuch
*' as is in the efteemofGod, is intimated to usi by which perfons that are
" once made by God are alike and equal ; and our growth of body by age,
" makes a difference in the fenfe of the world, but not of God; unlefs you
" will think th^t the grace itfelf which is given to baptized perfons, is greater
" or lefs according to the age of thofe that receive it -, -whereas the holy Spirit
" is given, not by different meafures, but with a fatherly affedion and kind-
" nefs, equal to all ; for God, as he accepts no one perlbn, fo not hjs age ;
" but \vith a juft equality (hews himfelf a Father to all, for their obtaining
" the heavenly grace — fo that we judge that no perlbn ia to be hindered from
. ^' the obtaining the grace by the law that is now appointed ; and that the fpi-
*' ritual circumcifion ought not to be rcftrained by the circumcifion that was
*' according to the flefh -, but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Chrift;
^* fince Peter, fpcaking in the ji£is of the /Ipoflles, fays, the Lord has fbewn me,
** that no perfon is to be called common or unclean. If any thing could be an ob-
^» ftacle to perfons againft their obtaining the grace, the adulr, and grown,
»*. and elder men, would be rather hindered by their more grievous fins. If
« then the gracclcfs offender, and thofe that have grievoufly finned aorainfl:
♦'. God before, have, when they afterwards come to believe, forgivenefs of
•s their fins-, and no perfon is kept off from baptifm and the grace; how much
M lefs realon is there to rcfufe an infant, who, being newly born, has no fin,
"- fave the being defcended from Adam according to the flefh : he has from
•> his very birth contrafted the contagion of the death anciently threatened ;
**- who comes, for this rcafon, nx>re cafily to receive forgivenefs of fins, becaufe
•>- they are not his own, but others fins that are forgiven him. This therefore,
»» dear brother, was our opinion in the affcmbly, that it is not for us to hinder
" any man from baptifm and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and
*' affeftionate to all ; which rule, as it holds for all, fo we think it more efpe-
" cially to be obferved in reference to infants, and perfons newly born ; to
** whom our help, and the. divine mercy, is rather to be granted ; becaufe by
♦' their
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. '^tfi
" their weeping and wailing, at their firft entrance into the worid^ they do in-
** timate nothing fo much as that they implore compalTion ''."
Every one that compares what Cyprian and his collegues fay for infant-bap-
tifm, and what Tertullian fays againft it, as before related, will eafily fee a dif-
ference between them, between rfr/«Wa« the Antipsedobaptift, and C>/irfrt;? the
Pjedobaptiftj how manly and nervous the one! how mean and weak the other!
no doubt, as is known, being raifed about iufant-baptlfm at this time, or any
objection made to it, does not prove it then to be an ancient cuftom ; fince the
fame obfervation, which may be made, would prove infant-communion to be
equally the fame. Now as we allow that henceforward infantrbaptifm was prac-
tifed in the African churches, and prevailed in
The fourth century, here the concroverfy might flop : and indeed all that
we contend for in this century, is only that there were fome^perfons that did
call it in qutllion and oppofe it ; and if this will not be allowed, we are not
very anxious about it, and (hall not think it worth while to conteft it.—
This writer would have it obferved, that I have given up the greatejl lights of
the church in this century as vouchers for infant baptifm, and particularly
St Jerom, Ruff.nus, and Augujlin ; they are welcome to them ; they have need
of them to enlighten them in this dark affair : we do not envy their havini^"-
them, efpecially that perfidious interpolater Ruffinus; nor that arch -heretic
Pelagius, whom this Gentleman takes much pains to retain, as ignorant as he
either was, or would be, or is thought to be; as that he never heard that any
one whatever denied baptifm to infants, and promifed the kingdom of heaven
without the redemption of Chrift, or refufed that unto them. This lanorance
of his was either affected or pretended, in order to clear himfelf from the charoe
of thofe things againft him ; as men generally do run into high ftrains and ex-
travagant cxprelTions, when they are at fuch work -, or it was real ignorance,
and who can help that ? It does not follow that therefore none had, becaufe
he had never heard of it •, one would think his meaning rather was, that he had
never heard of any that denied the kingdom of heaven and the common re-
demption to infants, who think they ought to be baptized, dum putat, while he
is of opinion, that in baptifm they are regenerated in Chrift ; but about this I
fhall not contend ; truth does not depend upon his hearing and knowledcre,
judgment and obfervation. I think it is not infiftcd upon that Aujlin ftiould
fay, he never heard or read of any catholic, heretic, or fchifmatic, that denied
infant-baptifm ; however, it feems he could fay it if he did not, and that not-
withftanding the reafons I alledged ; as.
Vol. II. 3 F i- /^Ji'»
* Cyprian, ad Fidum. Ep. 59. p. 317.
402 'ANTIP^DOBAPTISM; OR,
I. Auftin muft know that TtrtuUian had oppofed it. Here our author quit-
bles about the terms oppofing and denying, and diftinguiflies between them ; and
obferves, that whatever Tertullian faid againjl it, he did not properly deny it.
He may fay the fame of me, or any other writer againft infant-baptifm, that
though we fpeak againft it, contradidt and oppofe it, and ufe arguments againft
it, yet we do not deny it. Dr tVall indeed thinks neither /lujlin nor Pelagius had
feen Tertullian'& book of baptifm, or they could not have faid what he thinks
they did.
a. Auftin prefided at the council of Carthage, when a canon was made that
anathematized thofe who denied baptifm to new-born infants'; and therefore
muft know there were fome that denied it. This Gentleman fays, it is demon-
ftrably certain, that thix canon was not made againft perfons that denied infant-
baptifm, becaufe it was made againft Pelagius and Celejliiis. It is true, the lat-
ter part of the caron was made againft them \. but the former part rcfpeflcd a
notion or tenet of fome other perfons, who dehied baptifm to new-born infants.
Dr^j//faw this, and fays, this canon mentions the baptifm of infants, con-
demning two errors about it -, the one rcfpefting the baptifm of new-born in-
fants ; the other the doftrine of original fin, and the baptifm of infants for for-
givcnefs of fins, denied by the Pelagians -, but the former he fuppofes was the
opinion of Fidus, embraced by fome perfons now, which he had vented a hun-
dred and fifty years before, that infants fhould not be baptized till they were-
eight days old; whereas F/W«j is reprefentcd as having been alone in his opinion;
and if he retained if, which is doubtful, it does not appear he had any followers;
nor is there any evidence of there being any of his fentiment in this age '; an J
were there, it is unreafonable to imagine, that a council of all the bifliops in
Africa fhould agree to anathematize them, becaufe they thought proper to defer
the baptizing of infants a few days longer than they did ; and befides, infants
only eight days old may be properly called newly-born infants ; and therefore
fuch could not be faid to deny baptifm to them ; and it would have been a mar-
vellous thing, had they been anathematized for it : though this writer fays,
" wonder who will; a council, confifting of all the bifhops of Africa, did in
" fa6t agree to anathematize their own brethren, who were in the fame opinion
" and praftice of infant-baptifm with themfelves." It is true, they did ana-
thematize the Pelagians, who were in the fame opinion and practice of infant-
baptifm with themfelves in general ; though I qucftion whether they reckoned
them their own brethren ; but then not on account of any difference about the
time of baptifm, a few days odds between them, the thing to be wondered at;
but their denial of original fin, and the baptifm of infants to be on account of
that : -
1 Hiftorj' of Infant- baptifm, p. I. ch. 4. 5- J3«
INFANT - BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. -403
that : and now fince the Pelagians are diftinft from thofe in the canon that de-
nied baptifm to new-born infants; and it is unreafonable to fuppofe any who
were of the fentiments oi Fidus are intended; it remains, that there mufl be
feme perfons different both from the one and the other, who denied baptifm to
babes, and are. by this canon anathematized for ir, which Atijtin muft know.
3. It is obferved by me, that yfw/?/« himfelf makes mention of forhe that ar-
gued againft it, from the unprofitablenefs of it to infants ; fince for the mod
part they die before they have any knowledge of it. Thefe men our author
does not know what to make of; fometimes it is queftionable whether they were
chriftians, and fuggefts that they were men of atheiftical principles ; and then
again they are fuppofed to be chriftians, and even might be Psdobaptifts, not-
withftanding this their manner of arguing. I am content he fhould reckon them
what he pleafes ; but one would think they could not be any good friends to
infant-baptifm, that queftioned the profitablenefs of baptifm to infants, and
brought fo ftrong an objecSlion to it. •
. 4. It is further obferved by me, that according io/lujlin the Pelagians denied
baptifm to the infants of believers, becaufe they were holy. This is reprefented
by this Gentleman as a miftake of mine, underftanding what was fpoken bypo-
tbetically, to be abfolutely fpoken. I have looked over the palTage again, and
am not convinced upon a fecond reading of it, nor by what this writer has ad-
vanced, ofamiftake: the words are abfolutely exprelTed and reafoned upon ;
" but, fays the apoftle, your children would be unclean, but noiv they are holy ;
" therefore, fay they (the Pelagians) the children of believers ought not now to
" be baptized." The obfervation our author makes, though he does not infift
upon it, is very impertinent ; that not infants but children are mentioned, and
fo may include the adult children of believers, and confequently make as much
againft adult-baptifm as infant-baptifm ; fince children in the text, on which
the argument is grounded, are always by themfelves underftood of infants. Auf-
tin wonders that the Pelagians fhould talk after this manner, that holinefs is
derived from parents, and reafons upon it, when they deny that fin is originally
derived from Adam: it is true, indeed, he prefTcs them with an argument this
Gentleman calls ad hominem, taken from their fhutting up the kingdom of God.
to unbaptized infants; for though they believed that unbaptized infants would
not perilh, but have cverlafting life, yet not enter the kingdom of God; abfurd- .
ly diftinguifhing between the kingdom of God, and eternal life. What ihey were
able to anfwer, or did anfwcr to this, it is not cafy to fay ; " it is a difadvantage,
" as our author fays, that we have none of their writings entire, only fcraps ■
" and quotations from them :" Perhaps as they had a fingular notion, that the '
infants of believers ought not to be baptized, though the infants of others fhould;
3 F 2 they J
404 A N T I P iE D O B A P T I S M i OR,
they would, in anfwer to the above argument, fay, that the infants of believers
unbaptized cnicr the kingdom, though the unbaptized infants of others do not.
I only guefs this might be their anfwer, confiftent with their principles : however,
if I am miftaken in this matter, as I think I am not, it is in company with men
of learning I am not afhamed to be among. The learned JDfl;7^z^j fays", " the
•' Pelagians deny that baptifm is to be adminiftered to the children of believers"
having plainly in view this paflage of ^u/lin's; and the very learned Forbejius"
brings in this as an objeftion to hisfenfe of i Corinthians vii. 14. " the Pelagians
" abufed this faying of the apoftle, that they might fay, that the infants of
*' believers ought not to be baptized, as we read in yiugujiin °."
5. The words quoted by me out of Jerom^ I own, are fpoken by way of fuppo-
fition ; but then they fuppofe a cafe that had been, was, and might be again ; and
it Ihould be obferved, that the fuppofition Jerom makes, is not a negleSi of the bap-
tifm of infants, as this Gentleman fuggefts, but z denial of it to them, a refufing to
give it to them; which is expreffive of a rejeftion of it, and of an oppofition to it.
So that from all thefc inftances put together, we cannot but conclude that there
were fome perfons that did oppofc and rejeft infant-baptifm in thofe times, and
think it may be allowed, which is all we contend for-, however, as I have faid
before, we are not very anxious about it. Mx Marjhall^, a favourite writer
of our author's, fays, fome in thofe times queftioned it (infant-baptifm) as
Auguftin grants in his fermons de verbis Afojiol. but does not refer us to the par-
ticular place } it fce(r)S to be \\\% fourteenth fermon on that fubjefl, intitied.
Concerning the baptifm of infants, againfi the Pelagians-, whert Auflin tells us
how he was led to the fubjeft; and though he had no doubt about it, yet
" fome men raifed difputes, which were now become frequent, and endea-
" voured to fubvert the minds of many ■• :" by whom he feems to mean per-
fons diftinft from the Pelagians, fince he rcprefcnts them as having no doubt
about it : and this is further confirmed by a paffage out of the fame difcourfe ;
" that iafants are to be baptized, let no one doubt (which is an addrefs to others,
" and implies, that either they did doubt of infant-baptifm, or were in danger
" of it) fince they doubt not, who in fome refpedt contradift it j" which our
author has placed as a motto in his title-page.
Auflin, we allow, in this age, frequently fpeaks of infant-baptifm as an ancient
ufage of the church, and as an apoftolical tradition ; but what proof does he
give
n Baptifmani parvulis fidelium negant dandam Pelagiani. Danxu) de facramcnds ad calcem AuguH.
de Hzrcf, " Abatebantur hoc Apoftoli didlo, nt dicerent infanres fidelium baptizari minirae
dcberi, ut legimus apud Aug. de ptccator. merit, ic remifl". 1. z. c. 35. Forbef. Inftiuft. Hiftor.
Theiolog. 1 10 c. 10 f. 5. " L. 2, de Peccator. merit. & remiiT. c. 2j.
» Sermon on baptizing of Infantt, p. 5. « Sed difput^tionrs qaorundam, qua: modo ere.
bicfccrc, ic multorum anitnos evettere moliuntur, Aug. dc veib ApOdol. Serm. 14^
INFANT . BAPTISM AN INNOVATION. 405
give of it? what teftimonies does he produce? does he produce any higher
reftimony than Cyprian ? not one j who, ic is owned, fpeaks of infant-baptifm,
but not as an apoftolical tradition; Cyprianx>{ts no fuch language: thofe phrafcs,
'' which were underftood and believed /r<>/» the beginning, and what the church
'.' always though:, ot anciently held," z^t Aujiin's words, and nox. Cyprian's; and
only cxprefs what Aujlin inferred and concluded from him : and befides, his
leftimony is appealed, to, not fo much for infant-baptifm, the thing itfelf, as
for the reafon of it, original fin, which gave rife unto it in Cyprian's time : and
it is for the proof of this, and not infant-baptifm, that yiujlin himfelf refers to
xh(i Tnanifejl faith of an apojile ; namely, to fbew that not the flefh only, bur
the foul would be loft, and be brought into condemnation through the offence
oi Adam, if not quickened by the grace of Chrift, for which he refers to
Rumans y. 18. and yet our author infinuates, that by this he did not confider
the baptifm of infants for original fin as a novel thing in Cyprians time, but
refers it to the authority of an apoftle: and by the way, fince Cyprian, the only
witncis produced by Auflin, fpeaks not of infant-baptifm as ati ancient ufage of
the church, or an apoftolic tradition, there is no agreement between his lan-
guage and that of Origen, he is made to fpcak in his Latin tranflations, as this
author elfewherc fuggcfts ;. and it confirms the proof of his having been dealt
unfairly with, fince Cyprian, coming after him, ufes no fuch language, nor
does AuJUn himfelf ever refer unto liim.
I have obfcrved that there are many other things, which by Auflin, and other
ancient writers, are called apoftolic traditions ; fuch as infant-communion, the
fign of the crofs in baptifm, the form of renouncing the devil-and all his works,
exorciim, trine immerfion, the confecration of the water, anointing with oil in
baptifm, and giving a mixture of milk and honey to the-baptized pcrfons : and
therefore if mfant-baptifm is received on this foot, thcfe ought likewife; fince
there is as early and clear proof of them from antiquity, as of that : and my
further view in mentioning thefc, was to obferve, not only how early, but how
ea/ily thefe corruptions got into the church, as infant-baptifm did.
This writer has thought fit to take notice only of one of ihefe particulars,
namely, infant-communion ; and the evidence of this, he fays, is not fo full
and fo early as that of infant-baptifm. Now, let it be obferved, that there is
no proof of infant-baptifm being praftifed before Cyprian's time; nor does
Aujiin refer to any higher teflimony than his for the praftice of it for original
fin i and in his time infant-communion was in afc beyond all contradidion :
there is an inftance of it given by himfelf, which I have referred to; and that
is more than is or can be given of infant-baptifm, which, can only be deduced
by confequences from that inftance, and from Cyprianznd his collcgues rcafon-
4o6 A "N T I P i?: T) O B A P T 1 S M J OR,
ing about the necefTity of the adminiftration of it to new-born children. He
fuggefts that Aujlin exprefles himfelf differently, when he is fpeaking of the one
and of the other as anapoftolic tradition; but -if he does, it 'is in higher drains
of infant-communion ; for -thus begin the paflages, "-if they pay any reo-ard
" to the apojiolic authority^ or rather to the Lord and Majier of tbt apcjlles, &c.
*' and no man that remembers -that he^istj cbrijliart, and of the catholic faith^
" denies or doubts that infants, without eating his flefli, and drinking his blood,
" have no Jife in them, i^c." The Punici Chrijliani, which jiufiin fpeaks of,
are not to be retrained, as they are by our author, to the chriftians oT Carthage,
but take in other ^r/Va« -chriftians, particularly at Hippo, where yiujiin was
bifhop, and where they fpoke the Punic language, and in many other places:
and furely if yf«/?/« is a good witnefs for an apoftolical tradition, who lived at
the latter end of the /i7Kr;;6 century ; he muft know what was the fenfe of the
African chriftians in his time, among whom he lived, and upon what they ground-
ed their practice of infant-communion; which he fays was upon an ancient and
apoftolic tradition.
The other rites and ufages, he fays, 1 make mention of, are fpoken of hyBa-
ftl as unwritten traditions; and infant-baptifm is not mentioned among them, and
lb was confidered as (landing upon a better evidence and teftimony : now, not
to obfcrve that I produce earlier authorities xhznBaftl, for thefe apoftolical tra-
•ditions fo called, even as early as Tertullian, the firft man that fpoke of infant-
baptifm ; neither are infant-communion, fponfors at baptifm, exorcifm in it,
■ and giving milk and honey at that lime, mentioned by fi<2/;/ among them; does
it therefore follow that .they ftand upon a better foot than the reft ? befides, fince
Apoftolic. tradition is diftinguiftied from Scripture, by the author of iTi^if baptifm
■ of infants a reafonable Service, with whom 1 had to do; -it can be confidered in
the controverfy between us, no other than as an unzvritten tradition. This writer
further obferves, that it does not appear that thefe unwritten traditions were ever
put to the teft, and ftood the trial, particularly in the Pelagian controverfy, as
infant-baptifm : it is manifeft that the exorcifms and exfufflations ufed in bap-
tifm, and theargument.from ihern, as much pinched, puzzled, and confounded
the Pelagians, as ever infant-baptifm did : and it is notorious, that figning with
the fign of the crofs has ftood the teft in all ages, from the beginning of it, and
is continued to this day ; and prevails not only among the Papifts, but among
Proteftant churches. XJpon the whole then, it is clear there is no exprefs mention .
of infant-baptifm in the two firfl centuries, no nor any plain bint of it, new any
manifefl reference to.it; and that there is no evidence of its being praftifed till
the third century ; and that it is owned, it prevailed in the fourth: and fo refts
ahe ftate of the controverfy.
A REPLY
A-
REPLY TO A D E F E N C E
OF. T. H E.
DIVINE RIGHT of INF ANT - B A PTI SM;,
By PETEK CLARK, A,M. Minifter at Sal^m,
IN A
L.E T T E R to a F R I E N D at Boston in New-EnglantL
To which axe added,.
Some STRICTURES on a late TREATISE, called,
yi Fair and Rational Vindication of the Right of Infants to the Ordinance of Baptifm.- .
Written by DAVID B O.ST WICK, y^. M
Late Minifter of the Preftyterian Church in the City of New-Tori,
The P R E F A C R
IT is necefiary. that the reader fhould be acquainted with the reafon of the
republication of the following treatife. In the year 1746, a pamphlet was -
printed ^iBoJlon \nNcw England^ called, " A brief lUuftration and Confir-
*<■ mation.of the Divine Right of Infant-Baptifm," written by Mr Dickinfon; ,
which being induftrioufly fpread about in great numbers, to hinder the growth,
of thcBaptift-Intercft in thofe parts, it was fent over to me by fome of our friends
there, rcquefting an anfwcr to it; which I undertook, and publifhed in the
year 1749, intitled, " The Divine Right of Infant-Baptifm examined and dif-
*«■ proved." Upon vih'ich Peter Clark, A.M. Minifter ziSalem \n New- England,
wasi .
40 8
THE
P "R E F A C E.
was employed to write againft it, and which he did -, and what he wrote was
printed and publifhed zi Bojlon in 1752, called, "A Defence of the Divine
*' Right of Infant-Baptifm." This being fent over to me, I wrote aReply, in
a letter to a friend at Bojicn, in the year 1753, as the -date of my letter fhews,
giving leave to make ufe of it, ^s might be thought fit; and which was printed
and publifhed at ■Bejlon in 1754, together with a Sermon of mine on Baptifm,
presLchcd at Barbican, 1750. The controverfy lying beyond the feas, I chofe
it fhould continue there, and therefore never reprinted and republilhed my Reply
beTCy though it has been folicited; but of late Mr Clark's Defence has been fent
over here, and publifhed, and advcrtifed to be fold -, which is the only reafon
•of my reprinting and repiibUfliing the following Reply ; to which I have added
fome ftriflures on a treatife oiMxBoftz:;ick's on the fame fubjeft, imported from
America, with the above Defence, and here reprinted. The Pfedobaptifts are
ever reftlds and uneafy, endeavouring to maintain and fupport, if pofTible,
their unfcriptural praftice of Infant-Baptifm ; though it is no other than a pillar
•of Popery ; that by which antichrift has fpread his baneful influence over many
nations; is the bafis of national churches, and worldly cftablithments ; that
•which unites the church and the world, and keeps them together; nor can
there be a full feparation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reforma-
tion in religion, until it is wholly removed : and though it has fo long and
laroely obtained, jnd ftill does obtain ; I believe with a firm and unfhaken
faith, that the time is haftening on, when Infant-Baptrfm will be no more prac-
•tifed in the world; when churches will be formed on the fame plan they were
in the times of the apoftles; when gofpel-doftrine and difcipJine will be reftored
to their primitive Juftre and purity ; when the ordinances of baptifm and the
Lord's fupper will be adminiftcred as they were firfl: delivered, clear of all pre-
■'fcnt corruption and fupcrftition; all which will be accomplifhed, when tbeLord
Jball be king over allJhe earth, ^nd there Jhall he une Lord, and his name me.
A REPLY
R E P L Y, &c.
In a LETTER to a Friend.
SIR,
I Acknowledge the receipt of your Letter on the il* of lad March, and with
it Mr Clark's Defence of the Divine Right of hfant-Baptifm, &c. which I
Jiave fince curforily read over-, for I thought it a too great wafte of time- to
give it a y?f(jwj reading. Nor will my engagement in a work of greater im-
portance permit me to write a fet and laboured anfwer to it -, nor am I willin-g
to beftow fo much time and pains as areneceffary to cleanfe that Augean ftable,
and remove all the dirt and rubbifh this writer has colleded together. The
remarks I made in reading, I here fend you. At firft fetting out, 1 foon found
I muft expedt to be dealt rudely and roughly with, and accordingly prepared
myfelf for it j and I aflure you. Sir, I was not difappointed.
The firji chapter of my book, which the above Gentleman has undertook to
anfwer, is fhprt, and only an introdu5lion, obferving the author's .title, method,
and occafion of writing the pamphlet before me. In MrC/ar-t's Reply to which
I obferve ; i. That he is difpleafed at calling the ordinance of baptifm as truly
and properly adminiftered, Believer's-baptifm, and the pretended adminiftration
of it, to infants, Infant- fprinkling -, whereas this is calling things by their pro-
per names: it is with great propriety, we call baptifm as adminiftered to belie-
vers, the proper fubjefts of it, Believer's-baptifm j and with the fame propriety
we call that which is adminiftered to infants, Infant-fprinkling-, from the nature
of the adion performed, and the perfons on whom it is performed. Does this
Gentleman think, we fhall be fo complaifarit to fuit our language and way of
fpeaking to his miftaken notion and praftice ? though indeed we too often do,
through the common ufe of phrafes which obtain. 2. He is unwilling to allow
of any increafe of the Baptift intereft in New England, cither at Boflon or in the
country; whereas I am credibly informed, and you, Sir, I believe, can atteft
Vol. II. 3 G the
4IO A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
the truth of it, that there have been confidcrable additions to theBaptift intereft
az Bojion ; and that many hundreds in the country have been baptized within a
few years. 3. He fays, it is an egregious miftalce, that the miniflers of New-
England applied to Mr Dickinfon (the author of the pamphlet I wrote againft)
to write in favour of Infant-fprinkling -, and he is certain that not one of the
miniftcrs in Bojlon made application to him, (which was never affirmed,) and
is perfuaded it was not at the motion of any minifters in New-England, that
he wrote his Dialogue, but of his own mere motion ; and yet he is obliged to
corredl himfelf by a marginal note, and acknowledge that it was wrote through
minifterial influence. 4. This writer very early gives a fpecimen of his talent
at rcafoning -, from the rejedion of Infant- baptifm, as an human invention, he
argues totlie rejeftion of baptifm itfelf, as fuch; that if Infant-baptifm is intircly
an human invention, and a rite not to be obferved, then baptifm itfelf is an hu-
man invention, and not to be oblcrved : this is an argument drawn up y^fKwiww
arlem, like a mafter of arts ; and to pretend to anfwer fo ftrong an argument,
and fee afide fuch a mafterly way of rcafoning, would be weaknefs indeed ! 5.
It being obferved. of the Dialogue-writer, " that he took care, not to put fuch
♦' arguments and objedftions into the mouth of his antagonift as he was not able
" to anfwer •," this Gentleman rifes up, and bluflers at a great rate, and defies
the moft zealous, learned, and fubtil of the Antipsdobaptifts to produce any
other arguments and objecflions againft Infant-baptifni, for matter or fubftance,
different from, or of greater weight, than thofe produced in the Dialogue ; but
afterwards lowers his topfail, and fays, that the defign of the author of that pam-
phlet was to reprefent in a few plain words, the moft material objeflions againft
Infant-baptifm, with the proper anfwers to them-, and at laft owns, that a great
deal more has been faid by the Antipasdobaptifts.
The fecond chapter, you know. Sir, treats of " the confequences of em-
" bracing Believer's- baptifm ; fuch as, renouncing Infant-baptifm, vacating
" the covenant, and renouncing all other ordinances of the gofpel;" that
Chrift muft have forfaken his church for many ages, and not made good the
promife of his prefcnce, and that there now can be no baptifm in the world.
in M: Clark's Reply to what I have faid on thofe heads, I obferve the follow-
ing things.
The /ry? confcquence is the renunciation of Infant-baptifm ; which confe-
quence, to put him out of all doubt and pain, about my owning or not own-
ing it, I readily allow, follows upon a perfon's being fprinkled in infancy,
embracing adult-baptifm by immerfion; in which he is to bejuftified, the one
being an invention of man's, the other according to the word of God j nor is
there
DIVINE RIGHT OF I N FANT - BAPTISM. 411
there any thing this Gentleman has faid, that proves fuch a renunciation to be
an evi].
1. He is very wrong in fuppofing it muft be my intention, that the age of a
perfon, or the time of receiving baptifm, are eflential to the ordinance. The
Antipsdobaptifts do not confine this ordinance to any age, but admit old or
ycung to it, if proper fubjedls ; let a man be as old as Metbufelah, if he has not
faith in Chrift, or cannot give a fatisfaftory account of it, he will not be admit-
ted to this ordinance by reafon of his age ; on the other hand, if a little child is
called by grace, and converted, and gives a reafon of the hope that is in it, of
which there have been inftances; fuch will not be refufed this ordinance of bap-
tifm. The eflentials to the right adminiftration of baptifm, amongfl: other things,
are, that it -be performed by immerfion, without which it cannot be baptifm ;
and that it be adminiftered upon a profeffion of faith ; neither of which are to
be found in Infant-fprinkling.
2. It is in vain and to no purpofe in this writer to urge, that infants are capa-
ble of baptifm ; fo are bells, and have been baptized by the Papills. But u is
faid, infants are capable of being cleanfed by the blood of Chrilt •, of being re-
generated ; of being entered into covenant, and of having the fcal of it adminif-
tered to them. And what of all this? are they capable of underflanding the
nature, defign, and ufe of the ordinance, when adminiftercd to them ? are they
capable of profefTing faith in Chrift, which is a pre requifuc to this ordinance ?
are they capable of anfwering a good confcicnce towards God in it ? are they
capable of fubmitting to it in obedience to the will of Chrift, from a love to
film, and with a view to his glory .'' they are not. But,
3. It feems, in baptifm, infants are dedicated untoGod ; wherefore to renounce
Infant- baptifm, is for a man to renounce his folemn dedication to God<i and
much is faid to prove that parents have a Right to dedicate their children to
him. It will be allowed, that parents have a right to devote or dedicate their
children to the Lord ; that is, to give them up to him in prayer; or to pray
for them, as Abraham did for IJbmael., that they may live in his figbt ; and it is
their duty to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; but they have
no dircdtion to baptize them, nor warrant to dedicate them by baptilm ; nor
is baptifm an ordinance of dedication, cither of a man's felf, or of others ; a de-
dication ought to be previous to baptifm -, and Believers firft give up themfclves
to the Lord, and then are baptized in his name.
4. After all, a renunciation oT baptifm in infancy muft be a matter of great
impiety, bccaufe witches are folicited by the Devil to renounce it, in order to
their entering into confederacy with them. I thought, Sir, your country of
302 iVfw
412 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
New-England had been cured of thefe fooleries about witchcraft, and diabolica)
confederacies long ago, bat I find the diflemper continues. This arcmment,
I own, is Unanfwcrable by me ; I mull confefs myfclf quite a ftrancrtr to this
dark bufinefs.
5. What the ftory of Mr IVbiJlcn is told for, is not eafy to fay ; fince it feems,
he did not renounce his Infant-baptifm : it looks, by the reference, as if it was
intended to fuggefl-, that an Antitrinitarian could not fo well fhelter himfelf
among a people of any denomination, as the Baptifts ; whereas the ordinance
as adminiftered by them, as ftrongly militates againft fuch a principle, as it does
by being adminiftered by P^dobapcifts : but it may be, it is to recommend a
fpirit of moderation among us, to receive unbaptized pcrfons into our commu-
nion by this example -, but then unhappy for this writer, fo it is, that the con-
gregation Dr Fojier was paftor of, and Mr fVhiJion joined himfelf to, is, and
always was of the P.Tdobaptift denomination, and.have for their prefent minif-
ter one of thr Prclbyterian perfuafion.
They^^-^wi confcqucncc of receiving the principle of adult-baptifm, and afl-
ing up to it, is, vacating the covenant between God and the perfon baptized
in infancy, into which he was brought by his baptifm.
Now you will obferve, Sir, i. That Mr Clark has offered nothing in proof of
infants being brought into covenant with God, by baptifm ; and indeed I can-
not fee how he can confidently with himfelf undertake it; fince he makes
covenant relation to God, the main ground of infants right to baptifm; and
therefore they mud be in it before their baptifm, and confequently are not
brought into it by it; wherefore fince they are not brought into covenant by it,
that cannot be vacated by their renouncing of it.
2. k being obfervcd, that no man can be brought into the covenant of grace
by baptifm, fince it is from everlafting, and all interefted in it were fo early in
covenant, and confequently previous to their baptifm ; this writer fets himfelf
with all his might and main to oppofe this fentiment, that the covenant of
grace was from cverlafting ; this, he fays, is unfcriptural, irrational, and con-
trary to fcripture. But if Chrift was fet up from everlafting as mediator ; for
only as fuch could he be fet up* ; if there was a promife of eternal life made
before the world began, and this promife was in Chrifi, who then exifted as
the federal head and reprefentative of his people, in whom they were chofen
fo early, to receive all promifcs and grace for them " ; and if grace was given
to them in him before the world was, and they were blefled with all fpiritual
bleffings in him fo early'; then, furely, there muft be a covenant tranfaftion
between the Father and the Son on their account fo early ; for could there be
all
• Prov. viii iz, * Titus i, z. 2 Tim. i. i. * 2 Tim. i. g. Eph. i. 3,4.
DIVINE RIGHT OF I NFAN T - BAPTIS M.
413
all this and no covenanc fubfifting ? The diftimftion between a covenant of re-
demption and a covenant of grace, is without any foundation in the word of
God. Nor is this notion irrational ; two parties were fo early exiding, when
the covenant was made; 'Jehovah the Father was one, and the Son of God the
ether, in the name of his people \ who, though they had not then a perfonal,
yet had a rcprefentative being in Chrift their head ; and this was fufficient for
them to have grace given them in him before the world was.
His metaphyfical arguments from eternal afts being imminent, will equally
militate againit eternal eledtion, as againft an eternal covenant •, and perhaps
this writer has as little regard to the one, as he has to the other : nor is this
notion contrary to fcripture -, for though the covenant is called a new ^.nd fecond
covenant, yet only with refpcft to the former adminiftration of it, under the
legal dilpenfation ; and both adminiftrations of it, under the law and under the
gofpcl, are only fo many exhibitions and manifeftations of the covenant under
different forms, which was made in eternity. The fcriptures which promife
the making of a covenant, only intend a clearer manifeftation and application of
the covenant of grace to perfons to whom it belongs ; things are faid in fcrip-
ture to be tnadcy when they are made manifeft or declared ■* : it is a previous
intereft in the covenant of grace that gives perfons a right to the blelTino-sof itj
and the application of thefe blcffings, fuch as pardon of fin, i^c. flows from
this previous interelt : nor does this notion render the miniflry of the word and
the operation of the Spirit for that end ufclefs, and fuperfluous ; but on the
contrary fo early an intereft in the covenant of grace is the ground and reafon
of the Spirit being fent down in time to make the word cfFcdual to falvation.
Nor is the ftate of unregeneracy, theeled of God are in by nature, inconfiftcnc
•with this eternal covenant ; fince that covenant fuppofes it, and provides for,
promifes, and fecures the regeneration and fandtification of'all interefted in it -,
afluring them that the heart of ftone Jha.ll be taken away, and an heart of flejh
given them; a new heart and a new Spirit, yea the Spirit of God fhall be put
into them, and the laws of God written in ih^ir minds.
The text in EphefiansW. 12. defcribes the Gentiles only, who were ftranoers
from the covenants of promife; the covenant of circumcifion, and the covenanc
at Sinai ; covenants peculiar to the Jews ; as well as ftrangers to the fcriptures,
which contain the promife of the McfTiah ; all which might be, and was, and
yet be intercftcd in the covenant of grace. If this is to be an Antinomian, I
am quite content to be called one; fuch bug-bear names do not frighten me.
It is not worth while to take notice of this man's Neonomian rant ; of the terms
and
t See Aflsii. 36.
414 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
and conditions of the covenant ; of its being a rule of moral government over
man in a ftare of unr^rgeneracy, brought hereby into a ftate of probation-,
which turns the covenant into a law, and is what the Neonomians call irermdial
Jaw, (as this wrirer calls the covenant a remedial one) a law of milder terms;
nor of his Arminian fbrokcs in making the endeavours and afls of men to be
the turning point of their falvation, and converGon, as being foreign to the
controvcrfy in hand.
3. This writer makes a diftindtion between a man's being in covenant in
rclpeft of the fpiricual difpenfation of the grace of it, and in refpeA of the ex-
ternal adminiftration of it : by the fpiricual difpenfation of it, I apprehend, he
means the application of fpiritual blelTmgs in the covenant to perfons regenerated
and converted, by which they muft appear to be in it; and in this fenfe, all the
perfons, I have inftanced in, mult be manifeftly in the covenant of grace, pre-
vious to baptifm : and confcquencly not brought into it by ir. By the external
adminiflration of it, I fuppofe, he means the adminiftration of the ordinances
of the gofpel, particularly baptifm ; and then it is only faying a man is not
baptized before he is baptized ; which no body will concert with him.
4. No man, I obferve, is entered into the covenant of grace by himfclf, or
others; this is an aft of the fovereign grace of God, who fays, I will be their
God, and tkey Jhall be my people \ which this writer owns, though not exclufivc
of human endeavours; as if God could not take any into his covenant without
their own endeavours; fuch wretched divinity dcferves the utmoft contempt.
Since the above phrafe, I will be their God, &cc. is a proof of the fovereign
grace of God in bringing men into covenant; he hopes it will be allowed that
a like phrale, Iwill be the God of thy feed, will be admitted as ftrongly to con-
clude the reception of the Infant-children of believers into covenant. I anfwer,
whenever it appears that there is fuch an article in the covenant of grace, that
fo runs, that God will be theGod of the natural Seed of believers as fuch, it will
be admitted -, and whereas I have obferved, that the phrafe of bringing into the
bond of the covenant, which thePsdobaptifts often make ufc of, is but once men-
tioned in fcripturc, and then afcribed to God ; this, as it no ways contradicts
a being in covenant from everlafting, fo it fails not of being a proof of the fove-
rcion >7race ot God in that adt. By the bond of the covenant, is not meant faith
and repentance on man's part ; which fome ftupidly call the terms and condi-
tions of the covenant, when they are parts and bicfTings of it ; but the ever-
lafting love of God, which is the fourcc and fecuricy of it, and which lays men
under oblio-ation to ferve their covenanc-God ; and to be brought into it, is to
be brought into a comfortable view of intcrcft in it, and to an open participation
of
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTI S M. 415
of the blcdings of it j which is all according to, and confident with the eternal
conftitution of it.
5. The covenant of grace can never be vacated, fince it is evcrhfling, ordered
in all things and fur e : this is owned by our author in refpeft of its divine confti-
tution, and of the immutability of the divine promife, to all under the fpiritual
difpenfation of it; but there are others who are only in it by a vifible and bap-
lifmal dedication ; and thefe may make void the covenant between God and
them ; and this it fcems is the cafe of the greateft part of infants in covenant.
Now let me retort this Gentleman's argument upon himfelf, which he makes
ufe of againft the covenant being from everlafling. " Thofe, whom God ad-
" mits into the covenant of grace, have an intereft in the benefits of that cove-
*' nant, pardon of fin, the gift of the Spirit, reconciliation, adoption, (^c. for
" it is a fort of contradiftion to fay, that any man is admitted into the covenant,
" and yet debarred from an intereft in all the privileges of it." Now, either
infants are admitted into the covenant of grace, or they are not-, if they are,
then they have an intereft in the benefits of it, pardon of fin, and the other
bleffings, and fo fhall all certainly be faved wich an everlafting falvation, and
not apoftatize, as it feems the greateft part of them do; for to fay they are in
the external, but not in the fpiritual part of the covenant, is to make a poor
bufinefs of their covenant-intereft indeed. The inftance of Simon Magus, which
he thinks I have forgot, will not make for him, nor againft me; it is a clear
proof, that a man is not brought into covenant by baptifm -, fince though bap-
ufm was adminiftered to this perfon in the pure, primitive way, by an apoftolic
man, yet he was in the gall of hitternefs and bond of iniquity.
2dly, The other three confequences following upon the renouncing oflnfant-
baptilm, as renouncing all other ordinances, the promife of Chrift's prefcnce
not made good, and no baptifm now in the world, are in fome fort given up,
and are allowed not to be clear, at leaft not alike clear ; and are only adverted
to in a general way, and fome expreftions of mine catched at, and remarked upon,
and thefe miftaken or perverted.
I. I obferve, this author repeats his former miftake, that we make age efTcn-
tial to baptifm, which is but circumftantial ; and then ufes an argument from
the leflTcr to the greater, as he thinks, that if a defedt in fuch a circumftance
nullifies the ordinance, then much more the want of proper adminiftrators : but
it is not age that we objedl to, but a want of underftand:ng, and faith, and an
incapacity to make a profedlon of ir, as well as the mode of adminiftrarion ;
things of greater importance in this ordinance ; at leaft they are fo with us.
However, it is kind in this Gentleman to diredl us how we may avoid this
inconvenience his argument has thrown us into, by exercifing a little more
moderation.
4i5 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
moderation and charity for Infant-baptifm •, and upon this foot he feems to be
willing to compound the matter with us.
2. As to the prefence of Chrift with his church and minifters, it is fufficient
to make that good, that he grants it where his Church is, and wherefoever he
has a people, be they more, or fewer, and wherefoever his ordinances are ad-
miniftered according to his diredion ; but he has no where promifed, that he
will have a continued fuccefTion of vifible congregated churches. Certain in-
deed it is, that he will have a number of chofen ones in all ages -, that his in-
vifible church, built on Chrift the rock, fhall not fail ; and he will have a feed
to fcrve him, or fome particular perfons, whom he will referve to himfelf from
a general corruption; but that thefe fliall be gathered always into -a vifible
cTofpel church-ftate, is no where promifed ; and for many hundreds of years it
will be hard to find any one fuch church, unlefs the people in the valleys of
Piedmont are allowed to be fuch.
3. This writer is not willing to admit fuch a fuppofition, that any of the
laws and inftitutions of Chrift have failed, ceafcd, or been annulled in any one
ac^c, and much more for feveral ages together; but, befides the ordinance of
baptifm, which through the change of mode and fubjefts, together with the
impure mixtures of fait, oil, and fpittle, and other fuperftitious rites, which
became quite another thing than what was inftituted by Chrift, and pradifed by
his apoftles ; the ordinance of the Lord's-fuppeh was fo fadly perverted and
corrupted, as to be a mere mafs indeed of blafphemy and idolatry ; in the com-
munion of which the gracious prefence of Chrift cannot be thought, to be en-
joyed: and yet this continued fome hundreds of years; only now and then
lome fingle perfons rofe up, and bore a teftimony againft it, who for a while
had their followers.
4. He fecms to triumph from Dr fVall's account of things, that there never
was nor is, to this day, any national church in the world but Psdobaptifts,
cither among the Greeks, or Roman Catholics, or the Reformed ; anJ that
Antip^dobaptifm never obtained to be the cftablifiied religion of any country
in the world. We do not envy his boaft ; we know that national churches are
good for nothing, as not being agreeable to the rule of the divine word ; on;
fmall church or congregation, gathered out of the world by the grace of God,
according to gofpel-order, and whofe principles and praflices are agreeable to
the word'^of God, is to be preferred before all the national churches in the
world.
5. According to this Gentleman's own account of the Englifh Antip.xdobap-
tifts, there could be none to adminifter the ordinance to them in their way;
fince ihofe that came from Holland, it feems, gained no profelytes, but were
foon
DTVINE'RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPUISM. 417
foon cxtind, being cruelly perfccuted and deftroycd ; fo thar it was neccflary
they ftiould fend abroad for an adminiftrator, or make ufe of an unbaptizec}
one : but which way foever they took, they are able to juftify their baptifm
on as good a foundation as the Reformers are able to juftify theirs received
from the Papifts, with all the fooleries, corruptions, and fuperftitious rites
•attending" it. :.. 5 . ....,..,
o
My third chapter, yoa will remember, Sir, is concerning The Jntiq^uity of
Infant'baptifm, and the praifUcc of the Wiildcnfes. . ,
I. The enquiry is, whether Infant- baptifm conftantly and univerfally obtain-
ed in the truly primitive church, which truly pure and primitive church muft
be the church in the times of Cbrift and his apoftlcs j Gnce towards the clofe of
ihofc times, and in the two following Ages, there arofe fuch a fee of impure men,
both for principle and pradice, under the chriftian name, as never were knowa
in the world : now by an indu(ftion of particular inftances of churches in this
period of time, it does not appear, that Infant-baptifm at all obtained. In Mr
Clark's reply to which, I obferve, i. That he fays, the evidence of Infant-bap-
tifm is not pretended to lie in the hiftory of faft, or in any exprcfs mention of
it in the New Teftament. That the penman of the AHs of the Apojlles did not
dcfccnd tofo minute a particular, as the baptizing of infants, — and that the bap-
tifm of the adult was of the greateft account to be recorded. 2. Yet he thinks
there arc pretty plain intimations of it in moft of the charaflcrs inftanced in,
and particularly in the church zijerufakm \ which he endeavours to make good
by a criticifm on AEls\\. 41, And it ispleafant to obferve, how he toils and la-
bours to find out an antecedent to a relative not exprefled in the text ; for the
words, /p them, are not in the original ; it is only and the fame day there were add-
ed about three tboufand fouls \ or, the fame day there was an addition of about
three thouiand fouls; and all this pains is taken to fupport a whimfical notion,
that this addition was made, not to the church, but to the new converts ; and
by a wild fancy he imagines, that infants are included among the three thou-
find foub that were added : his argument from ver. ^^. and the other inftances
tncniioQcd, as well as fomc other paflages aUedged, fuch as Luke xviii. 16. Ads
XV, JO. I Cor. vii. 14. as they come over in the debate again, are referred to their
proper places. But, 3. It muft not be forgotten, what is faid, that this may
be a reafon why Infant-baptifm is fo fparingly mentioned, (not mentioned at all)
bccaufc the cuilom of the Jews to baptize the children of profclytcs to their re-
ligion with their parents, was well known ; and there can be little doubt, that
the apoftles proceeded by the fame rule in admitting the infants of chriftian
prolclytcs into the chriftian covcnaat by baptifm. This is building Infant-bap-
. . Vou II. 3 H tifm
4i8 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE:
tifm on a bog indeed ; Gnce this Jewifh cuftom is not pretended to be of divine
inftitution ; and fo a poor argument in the Defence of the Divine Right of Infant -
baptifm; and at moft and beft, is only a tradition of the elders, which body
of traditions was inveighed againft by Chrift and his apoftles ; and befides, this
particular jtradition does not appear to have obtained fo early among the Jews
ihemfely^s, as the times of the apoftles, and therefore could be no rule for
therri to proceed by ; and about which the firft reporters of it difagree, the one
affirming there was fuch a cuftom, and the other denying it ; and had it then
obtained, it is incredible the apoftles fliould make this the rule of their proce-
dure in adminiftering an ordinance of Chrift : and after all, was this the cafe,
this would be a reafon for, and not againft the exprefs mention of Infant-bap-
lifm by the divine hiftorian ; fince it is neceffary that in agreement with this
Jewifh cuftom, fome inftance or inftances of chriftian profelytes being baptized
with their children fliould be recorded, as an example for chriftians in fucceed-
ino- ages to go by. Bur, 4. A fuppofuion is made of fome Pasdobaptifts fcnt
into an heathen country to preach, and giving an account of their fuccefs, de-
clarino- that fome families were baptized, fuch a man and all his, fuch another
and his houftiold •, upon which a queftion is aflced, who could raife a doubt whe-
ther any infants were baptized in thofe fevcral families ? To which I anfwcr,
there is no doubt to be made of it, that Psedobaptifts would baptize infants ;
and if the apoftles were Paedobaptifts, which is the thing to be proved, they
no doubt baptized infants too; but if ho other account was given of the baptiz-
ing of houftiolds, than what the apoftles give of them, Infant-baptifm would
ftill remain a doubt. For who can believe, that the brethren in Lydia's houfe
whom the apoftles comforted, and of whom her houftiold confifted, or that the
Jailor's houftiold, that believed and rejoiced with him, or the houftiold oi Ste-
phanas, who addiftcd themfelves to the miniftry of the faints, were infants?
however it feems, as there is no evidence of faft for Infant-baptifm in the New
Tcftament, it is referred to the tcftimony of the ancient fathers ; and to them
then we muft go.
II. The teftimony of the fathers of the three firft centuries is chiefly to be
attended to •, and whereas none in the firft century are produced in favour of
Infant-baptifm, we muft proceed to the fecond. In it, I obfcrve, there is but
one writer, that it is pretended fpeaks of Infant-baptifm, and that is 7««<f mj,
and but one paftage in him ; and this is at beft of doubtful meaning, and by
fome learned men judged fpurious j as when he fays, Chrift " came to fave all,
•' all, I fay, who are regenerated (or born again) unto God ; Infants, and little
" ones, and children, and young men, and old men." Now, admitting the
chapter in which this paftage ftands, is genuine and not fpurious, which yet is
not
1
DIVINE RIGHT OF /INFANT -BAPTISM. 419
not a clear cafe ; it is objedlible to, as being a tranQation, as the moft of this
author's works are, and a very foolilh, uncouth and barbarous one it is, as learn-
ed men obferve -, wherefore there is reafon to believe that juftice is not done
him J and it lies not upon us, but upon our antagonifts that urge this pafTage
againft us, to produce the original in fupport of it : but allowing it to be a juft
tranflation, yet what is there of Infant-baptifm in it ? Not a word. Yes, to be
regenerated, or torn again, is to be baptized; this is the fenfe of the antients, and
particularly of Irenaus, it is faid; but how does this appear.-* HrfVall has given
an inftance of it out of Lib. iii. chap. 19. where this ancient writer fays, " when
*' he gave the difciples the commifTion of regenerating (or rather of regenera-
*' tion) unto God, he faid unto them. Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in
*' the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of theHolyGhofl" where the com-
mifTion of regenerating, addsDr^j//, plainly means the commifllon of baptiz-
ing ; whereas, it more plainly means the commifflon of teaching the docirine
of regeneration by the fpirit, and the nccefilty of that unto faivation, and in
order to baptifm -, and which was the firft and principal part of the apoftlcs
commiffion, as the very order of the words Ihews; and certain it is, that Ire-
naus ufcs the viord Regeneration in a different fenfe from baptifm % as an inward
work, agreeable to the fcriptures ; and befides, fuch a fenfe of his words con-
tended for, is to make him at lead to fuggeft a doftrine which is abfolutely
falfc, as if Chrift came to fave all, and only luch, who are baptized unto God -,
whereas he came to fave baptized and unbaptized ones, Old and New Teda-
ment faints ; and many no doubt are faved by him who never were baptized at
all, and fome baptized not faved -, but on the other hand nothing is more true
than that he came to fave all, and only thofc, who arc regenerated by the fpiric
and grace of God, of whatfoever age ; and which is clearly this ancient writer's
fenfe, and fo no proof of Infant-baptifm.
To fupport this notion of regeneration fignifying baptifm fo early, our author
urges a pafTage cited by me from Jujlin; who, fpeaking of converted pcrfons,
fays, " they are brought by us where water is, and they are regenerated in the
" fame way of regeneration as we have been regenerated ; for they arc then
" wafhed in water in the name of the Father, l^c." Now, it is evident, that
thofe pcrfons are not reprefentcd as regenerated by baptifm ; becaufc they are
Ipoken of before as believers and converted ones ; and it is as clear, that their
baptifm is diflinguiflied from their regeneration, and not the fame thinw ; for
fujlin ufes the former, as an argument of the latter; which, if the fame, his
fenfe muft be, they were baptized, becaufe they were baptized ; which is mak-
ing him guilty of what Logicians call proving Idem per Idem : whereas, Jujlin's
3 " 2 \a\k,
* Vid. Ircnjenm idr. Hzref. 1. 1. c. 18. ind 1. 4. c. 59. and 1. j. c. ly.
420 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
fcnfe, confiftent with himfelf, «nd the prafbicc of tire primkiTe churches, is,
that thofe perfons when brought to the water, having made a profeffion of their
regeneration, were owned and declared regenerated perfons, as is manifc-ft from
their being admitted to the ordinance of water-baptifm : and that Jujiin fpeaks
of the baptifm of the adult, is owned by this writer ; though he thinks it is un-
queftionable, that he fpeaks only of fuch who were converted from Hcathenifm;
and is fure of it, that there were nofte anriong thenn born of chriftian parents -,
this he will find a hard tafk, with all -his confidence, to prove. And he has
ventured to produce a pafiage out of Ju^ht, as giving ftifFrage to Infant-baptifm
-in the fccond cencury •, and it is this from Dr fFalt ; "We alfo, who by hirh
" have had acccfs to God, have not received this carnal circumcifion, but the
" fpiritual circumcifion, which Enecb and rhofe like him obfcrvcd -, and we
" have received it by baptifm, by the mercy of God, becaufe we were finncrs,
" and it is enjoined to all perfons to receive it the fame way." Now let it be
obfcrvcd, that iliis fpiritual circumcifion, whatever Juflin means by it, can
never defign baptifm; fince the patriarch Enoch, and others like him, obfcrvcd
it;- and fince with chriftians it is received by baptifm, he fays; and therefore
mud be different from it : and, after all, not a word of infants in the paffage ;
nor is baptifm called a fpiritual circemcifion ; nor, as oar author clfewlKrc
ftiles it, chriftian circumcifion, \n Colojiuns \\. it. fince the circumcifion there
fpokcn of, is called a circumcifton made witbtut hands, which furely cannot be
Jaid of baptifm. In fliort, I muft once more triumph, if it may be fo called,
and fay, this is aJl the evidence, the undoubted evidence of Infant- baptilni
from the fathers of the two firft centuries. Proceed we to
The third century ; and the fathers of this, brought into the controvcrfy
about baptifm are Tcrtullian, Origen, and Cyfrian The firft: of thefe, is the
firft writer we know of that ever made mention of Infant-baptifm ; and he dif-
Hiadcs from it, and advifcs to defer baptifm to riper years ; and is therefore
claimed on our fide of the qucftion : nor can he be made to unfay what he has
faid 1 and therefore is traduced as a man of heterodox notions, and of odd and
ftrange opinions ; and, it fcems, afterwards turned Montanift ; and all this is
faid, to weaken the credit of his teftimony, when not a word is faid oi Origin's
grofs errors and monftrous abfurdities : the reafon is, becaufe it feems he was
a Paedobaptift, and Tertullian an Antipsdobaptift ; though it is fome comfort
to this writer, that be was not quite fo bad as the prcfent Antipadobaptifts are.
As to Origen, there arc three pafiages quoted out of him ; to which we objeft,
not only, that they arc tranjlations, the fidelity of which cannot be depended
upon, when there is much of this writer ftill extant in the language in which
he wrote, and yet nothing from thence produced; hutthitxhzit zrcittterpolated,
and
1
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 421
and confefledly fo. His homilies on Ltvsticas and expofuion of the cpiftle to
the Romans, from whence two of the paflages are talcen, were tranflated by
Ruffinus, who owns he cook liberty to add of his own to them ; fc that, as
Erafmus ' obferves, it is uncertain whether one reads Origen or Ruffinus -, and
Scultelus ^ fays the fame thing ; and Huetius, who has given us a good edition
of the Greek commentaries of this father, and well undcrftood him, fays', that
" his writings are fo corrupted by him, that you are at a lofs to find Origen in
*' Origen, and fo deformed and unlike the original, they can fcarce be known -,"
and one of thefe particular paflages Vojfius ' takes to be an interpolation, and fo
of the greater force againft the Pelagians, becaufe Ruffinus the trandator and
interpolator was inclined to them : the homilies on Luke, out of which is the
other palTage, are faid to be tranflated by Jcrom, of whom Du Pin fays ^ that
his verfions are not more cxaft than the other's ; fo no credit is to be given to
them, nor are they to be depended on. Cyprian is the next that is produced,
and it will be allowed that Infant-baptifm began to be praftifed in his time in
fome churches, though it fecms to be an upftart notion ; fince it was not till
then determined at what time it Qiould be adminiftered ; and alfo at the fame
time, and in the fame churches. Infant-communion was praftifcd ; of which
Cyprian gives an inftance ; and that is more than is, or can be given of the
praftice of Infant-baptifm fo early; and if his teftimony is of any weight for
the one, it ought to be of the fame for the other ; and if infants are admitted
to baptifm, it is but reafonable they fliould partake of the Lord's-fupper, and
cfpecialiy as there is as early antiquity for the one as for the other.
The quotations out of Gregory Nazianzen, Opiatus, Amhrofe, Cbryfojlom, and
jiujlin, fathers of the fourth century, which Mr Clark has coliedtcd froin
Dr Wall, niight have been fpared ; feeing this docs not come into his own
account of the truly primitive church ; and fince it is not denied, Infant-
baptifm obtained in it; and yet it is certain, there were perfons in this age
againft it, as will be obferved hereafter; nor was Pelagius, in this age, fo prefl"-
ed and puzzled with the argument taken from it in favour of original fin ; fince
it was not contrary to his do(5lrine, who allowed baptifm to be adminiftercd to
them "on account of the kingdom of God, but not for forgivenefs of fin;"
and the controvcrfy did not lead to difpute about ihcfubjec}, but the end of bap-
tifm.
The
' Apod Rive". Critic. Sacr. 1. 2 c. 12. p. 201.
t Medulla Patrum, par. 1. 1.6. c. 2. p. 124.
* Origeniana. I. 2. p. 116. I. j. c. i. p. 233, 253.
• HiiL Ptlag. par. 1. J. 2. p. 147. " Hift. Eccl. vol. i. p. 132.
422 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE -OF THE
The next thing, you will remember. Sir, brought into the controvcrfy, is, whe-
ther the pradlice of Infant- baptifm was called in queftion before the mad-men
ofMunJier fet themfelves againft it. As to the troubles inGermany, and \nMun-
Jler itfelf, it is certain beyond all contradiftion, that they were begun byPsedo-
baptifts, and whilft they were fuch; and as for the German Anabaptifts, as they
are called, who joined with them, they were Sprinklers, and not Baptifts, and
fo belong rather to this writer's party, than to us ; but be this as ic will, no-
thing in the controverfy depends upon that -, the ftate of the cafe is, whether
Infant-baptifm was called in queftion, or made matter of doubt of before thefe
men oppofed it-, and here I obferve, i.That it is allowed there were debates
about Infant-baptifm before the affair oi Munjler, and between that and the re-
formation -, by which it appears that it was quickly oppofed after the reforma-
tion begun. 2. The letter to Erafmus out of Bohemia fhews, that there were
a people there near one hundred years before the reformation, who baptized
anew, in mere water, fuch as came over to their fe£t : this thofe people did, as
our author would have it, not bccaufe they judged baptifm in infancy invalid,
but what was received in the corrupt way of the church of /?om^. This he fays
after Dr f-Vall, (though with the Doftor it is uncertain which was the cafe) in-
clining to the latter. But it ftiould be obfervcd, that there is no proof from
any ancient hiftory, that thefe people, or any Proteftancs and reformers that
retained Infant-baptifm, did, upon leaving the church of Rome, rejeft the bap-
tifm of that church, and receive a new one ; and befides, Thomas Waldenfis\
who lived and wrote at this very time, affirms, that there were a people in Bo-
hemia then, that maintained that " believers children were not to be baptized,
" and that baptifm was to no purpofe adminiftered to them -," to which I would
add the teftimony of Z.«/i'(?r ", who fays, '■'■ ihz IValdenfes \n Bohemia, ground
*' the facramcnt of baptifm upon the perfon's faith ; and for that reafon, they
*' annihilate the baptizing of children ; for they fay, children muft be taught
" before they be baptized."
2. ThisGendeman is not well pleafed with Dr^F^i// in making this concefTion,
that the Petrobrufians were Antipaidobaptifts ; though it is fome comfort to
him, that he tells him, that their opinion feems to have been in a fliort time
cxtinguilhed and forgotten. But this opinion of theirs not only continued
among Henry and his followers, who fucceedcd the Petrobrufians, but among
the people afterwards called Waldenfes ; who to this day own Peter Bruis for
one of their Barbs orPaftors, as will be fecn hereafter. However, that we may
have no credit from thefe people, they are branded as denying the other ordi-
nance of the Lord's Supper i and as faying, it is not to be adminiftered fince
Chrift's time. But whatDr/^a//" afterwards cites from the zhboi oi Clugny,
will
' Tom. iii. tit. J. c. 53. ■ Menfalla Coloqu. c.17. p. 254. » Hift. par.z. c.7. 1.8.
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTI SM. 423
will ferve to explain this, and fhcw,that their meaning is only, that the real pre-
fcnce of Chrift in the fupper, was only at the time when it was adminiftered by
him to the difciples ; who makes them to fay, " the body of Chrift was only
" once made by himfelfat the fupper, before his pafTion, and was only, namely
" at this time, given to his difciples -, fincc that time it was never made by any
" one, nor given to any one ■" or as it is exprefled from the fame popifh writer
by Dr yillix », «'The fourth (article afcribed by the abbot to the Petrobrufians)
" confifted not only in denying the truth of the body and blood of our Lord,
»« which is offered up every day, and continually by the facrament of the church ;
" butalfo in maintainingjthat it was nothing,and ought not to be offered." Upon
which the Doftor makes this remark : " The fourth hcrefy is expreffed in very
" odious terms, and after the popifh manner, who own nothing to be real in
"- the facrament, if the flelh of Jefus Chrift and his blood be not there in kib-
** ftanccj and who do not believe he is prefent at the facrament upon any other
" account, but as he is offered up to God before he is eaten." It was the real
prefence in the fupper, and not that itfelf, thefe people denied; fo that they were
brave champions for the purity of both ordinances, equally rejeftinglnfanc-bap-
tifm and the do£brine of tranfubftantiation.
3. As for the other inftanccs of perfons denying Infant-baptifm after P^/^r
Bruis^ produced by me ; this writer, fromDr fVaH, would fain faften the charge
of Manicheifm upon them, and fo as denying all water-baptifm ; I fay, from
Dr fVall, for what he here fays, and indeed there is fcarce any thing in this
whole chapter about the antiquity of Infant-baptifm, but what is borrowed
from him, this Gentleman having no ftock of his own ; that, in faft, inftead
of anfwering Mr Clark, I am anfwcring Dr fVall. As for thofe Evervinus
v/r'nes of 10 Bernard, about the year 1140, thefe he obfcrves, from D: Wall,
held a tenet which fhews them to be Manichees ; though Evervinus ^ diftin-
guifhcs them from the Manichees, namely, " all marriage they call fornica-
" tion, except that which was between two virgins;" but this was not one of
the principles of the Manichees, who condemned all marriage ; whereas thefe
allowed of the marriage of perfons who had never been married before ; they
only condemned fecond marriage ; a notion which had prevailed with fome of
the chriftian fathers before the Manichees were in being ; and this was the
notion of fome of the apojlolics, and very probably of them all, the fame 5fr-
war^ makes mention of; and who, very likely, as I have obferved, were the
followers oi Henr\\ and againft thefe, this author has nothing of Manicheifm :
Here
• Remarks on the indent churches of the AlbJgenfes, c. 14. p. I aj.
» ApudAl.ix'i Remarks on the ancient church of Piedmont, c. 16. p. 143.
414 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
Here Dr ^all fails him ; and liere it may be remarked what Mexeray fays %
" in the year 1 1 63, there were two forts of heretics ; the one ignorant and
*' loofe, who were a fort of Manichees j the other more learned, and remote
" from fuch filthinefs, who held much the fame opinions as the Calvinifts, and
«' were called Henricians •," fo that the followers of Henry were a diftinft people
from the Manichees ; but as for thofe the Birtiop of /fr/^j takes notice of, our
author's remark upon them is, " it may be faid, thefe heretics might be fome of
*' the Manichean feft-," fine proof indeed! what he farther adds is more
probable, " as perhaps they were fome remains of the Petrobrufians ;" fo that
it appears, that their opinion, which feems to have been in a (hort time cxtin-
guifhed and forgotten, continued however to the year 1215. As for t4ie
Gafcoiners, that came over \nio England \n the year 1158, and aflerted, that
infants ought not to be baptized till they come to the age of underftanding ;
this, our author fays, is no more than what a Manichee might fay /iv«, and a
Quaker now ; though they both difown all water-baptifm. What ! to fay, that
infants ought not to be baptized //// they come to the age of underftanding ? i$
this talking like a Manichee or a Quaker ? Does not this fuppofe that they may
be baptized, when they come to the age of underftanding, and know what they
do ? But this writer adds, it appears that thefe rejefted both the facramcnts of
the New Teftament, detefting holy Baptifm^ and the Euchariji : fo they did,
ihcy detcfted Infant-baptifm as an human invention, and cranfubftantiation as an
idol of the Pope of Rome,
4. To what I have faid concerning Bruno and Berengarsus, and their oppofitioa
to Infant-baptifm 100 years before the Petrobrufians, I would only add ; that
Peter Bruis was not the author of a new feft, though his followers were fo called
by the Papifts, to fuggeft that they were fo ; whereas, they were the fame with
the Berengarians, and held the fame principles as the Berengarians did, both
with refpeft to Baptifm and the Lord's-fupper; and what were their fentiments
concerning thefe are well known.
5. Gundulphus and his followers, another inftancc of pcrfons denying Infant-
baptifm as early as the year 1625, are reprefcnted as Manichees and Q^iakers,
in the point of baptifm-, and both Mr St ennett zn^ myfelf are charged with
great unfairnefs, partiality and difingcnuity, in leaving out what Dryf///Ar has faid
concerning thefe men, namely, " that in the fame examination, being further
«• interrogated, thefe men confelTcd, that they thought water-baptifm of no
•« ufe or necefTity to any one, infants or adult." This is cifcd from Dr tVally
an author not always to be depended upon, and particularly here ; for Dr /iHix
gives
1 Apud AUix'j Remarks on the ancient chorches of the Albigenfes, c. 14. p. 130. c. 10. p. i8g. .
1
DIVINE RIGHT 'OF -INFANT - BAPTISM. 425
gives noaccouritof any further interrogation of thefc men, by Gerard bifKop of
Cambrayy as is fuggefted ; nor are thefe words to be found in him ; for though
the men at their firft, and only interrogation, fpeak of the non-necefnty and
unavailablenefs of baptifm to falvation ; and, as Dr j^llix obferves, faid fome
things nightly of baptifm, in oppofition to the prevailing notions of thofe times,
about the abfolute necefTity and efficacy of baprifm to falvation ; ye: he is quite
clear, ^hat they were for the thing itlelf: "It is cafy to judge, fays he', that
" xhey looked upon baptifm only as a myftical ceremony, the end of which was
" to cxprefs the engagement of him who is baptized, and the vow he makes
" to live holily." Gundulphus, adds he, " feeing ihem, (the popifh priefts)
" aflTerr, that whofoever was baptized could never be damned, falls to an
" indifrerence for baptifm; thinking it fufficient to keep to the eflentials of that
" facramcnt." From whence it is plain, he did not deny it, nor difufe it-, and
upon the whole it is evident, Dr IVall has abufed MrStennett, and this Gentle-
man both him and myfelf.
6. It is obferved, that a large flride is taken by me from the Eleventh to the
Fourth century, not being able in the fpace of more than 600 years to find one
in (lance of an oppofer of Infant-baptifm : this will not ieem fo ftrange to thofe
who know what a time of ignorance this was -, partly through the prevalence of
popery, and partly through the inundation of the barbarous nations, which
brought a flood of darknefs upon the empire; and very few witnefles arofe againft
the fuperftitions of the church o^ Rome; yet there were fome in the valleys of
Piedmont, even from the times of the apoftles, and during this interval, as
learned men have obferved, that bore their teftimony againft corruptions in
dodrine and practice; among which, this of Infant-baptifm muft be reckoned
one ; and whofe fucceflbrs, as we have feen already in the Bcrengarians, and the
Petrobrufians, and will be feen again in the Waldenfcs, bore witnefs againll
this innovation.
7. Though I did not infift upon the Pelagians and others being againfl Infant-
baptifm, which fome have allowed ; this writer is pleafcd to reproach me with
a good-will to admit fuch heretics, as -our predeccflbrs ; and this is not the
only inftanceof this fort of reflcflion ; whereas truth is truth, let it be efpoufed
by whom it will ; and it might be retorted, that Infant-baptifm has been prac--
lifed by the worft of heretics, and retained by the man of fin and his followers
in all the antichriflian ftates ; and this writer thinks it worth his pains to refcue
the above heretics and fchifmatics out of our hands; and yet, after all, fome
of the followers ofPcIagius at leafl argued, that the infants of believers ought
Vol. II. 3 I . . noc
' Remarks 00 the ancient chufch of Piedmont, ch. 11. p.9]'i 100.
425 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE .
not to be baptized ; and that for this reafon, becaufe they were holy, z%' Aufiin
affirms ; and who alfo objerves ', that fome other perfong argued againft it, and
the unprofitablenefs of it to infants, who for the moft part died before they
knew any thing of it ; and Jevom ", his cotemporary, fuppofes it, and reafons
upon it, that fome chriftians rcfufed to give baptifm to their children. So that
even in i\\t fourth century, though Infant-baptifm greatly prevailed, yet it was
pot fo general, as that eoit one man cotemporary with Auftin can be produced,
as fetting himfelf againfl; it, as our author avers j nay SlephsH Mar/hall, a great
ftickler for Infant-baptifm, in his famous fermon on this fubjeft", owns, that
fome in the times of Aujiin queflioned it, and refers to a difcourfe of his in
proof of it J and the canon of the council at Carthage, produced by me, not-
wiihftanding all that this writer fays, is a full proof of the fame. For furely,
no man in ,his fenfes can ever think, that a council confiding of all the bifhops
in Africa, Ihould agree lo anathematize their own brethren, who were in the
fame opinion with them about Infant-baptifm ; only thought it fhould not be
adminiftered to them as foon as born, but be deferred till they were eight days
old ; they that can believe this, can believe any thing ; and befides, is not a
child of eioht days old a child newly born? Laftly, after all, Tertullian, in the
beginning of the third century, as he was the firft we know of that made men-
tion of Infant-baptifm, did oppofe it, and difluade from it; fo that it muft be
once more faid, it was called in queftion, debated and oppofed twelve or thir-
teen hundred years before the madmen oi Murtjier, as well as in fome of the
intervening centuries.
It remains now, Sir, to defend what I have faid concerning the Waldenfcs ;
and itihould be obferved, i. That thefe people had not their name from H^uUuSy
as the firft founder of their feft : this Dr AUix has undertook to make out be-
yond all poffible contradiftion, and he has done it. Thefe people were before
his time called Vaudois, Vallenfes or Wallenfes, from their inhabiting the val-
lies •, which namc;,was afterwards changed to Waldenfes, when the defign was
laid to make men believe that Valdo or (■Faldus'wzs their firft founder, that they
might be taken for a new and upftart people -, whereas they were in being long
before IValdus, who received his light and dofbrine from them, and whofe fol-
lowers joined them; and thisobfervation fets afide the exceptions of our author
to the teftimonies of Pf/^r firK/'j, their confefTion of faith in 1120, and their
noble Icflbn 1 100, as being before the times of the "Waldenfes ; that is, before
the times of Waldo, more properly fpcaking ; and by how much the more
ancient
• De peccator. merit. 1. 2. c. 2j. « De Libero Arbicrio, 1. 2. c 2J.
* Ep. ad Lxcam. I. 1. fol. 19. ' Scrmoo, page 5,
DIVINE RIGHT OF . I NFANT - BAPTISM. 4S7
ancient thcfe teftimonieS are, by fo much the greatef is their evidence in point
of antiquity, as to thefe peoples denial of Infant-baptifm -, and more ftrongly
prove that the ancient Vallcnfcs, afterwards corruptly called Waldenfes, were
againft it, and for adult baptifm. 2. Thcfe people were not divided into vari-
ous feds, but were a body of people of one and the fame faith and pradice,
which they retained from father to fon, as their ufual phrafe is, time out of
mind.
4. It is true, they were called by different names, by their adverfaries -, fome
given them by way of reproach, others from their leaders and teachers, as
Fctrobrufians, Henricians, Arnoldifts, Waldenfians, ^r. fiom Peter Bruis, Henry,
/irnold, IValdus ; but ftill they were the fame people ; juft as the Papifts, at the
Reformation, made as many heads of didinft parties, as there were men of
note in that work. Thus for inflance, the Pctrobrufians were not a diftinft
kc\. of this people, but the very people called Vallenfes, afterwards Waldenfes;
and the fame may be faid of the reft : nor were there any fed among them of
the Manichean principle, or any of them tindured with that herefy, i%V>v/illix
has abundantly proved. The cafe, as he makes it appear, was this ; that there
were Manichees in the places where the Valdcnfes and Albigenfes lived, but
not that joined them ; their enemies took the advantage of this, and called
them by the fame name, and afcribed the fame opinions to them, efpecially if
they could find any thing in them fimilar to them : thus for inftance, becaufe
they denied Infant-baptifm, therefore they were againft all Water-baptifm, and
lo Manichees -, for as Dryillix * obferves, " in thofe barbarous and cruel ages, a
♦' fmall conformity of opinions with the Manichees, was a fufRcient ground to
" accufe them of Manicheifm, who oppofed any dodrine received by the
I ♦' church of Rome : Thus would they have'taken the Anabaptifts for downright
' " Manichees, fays he, becaufe they condemned the baptifm of infants:" and
Mr Clark cannot objcd to this obfervation, fince he himfelf argues from the
denial of Infant-baptifm, to the denial of baptifm itfelf ; and has reprefented
me as a Manichee, or a Qiiakcr, for no other rcafon, but for the denial of
Infant-baptifm > and if his book live? to the next age, and is of any authoHty,
and can find people foolifh enough to believe it, I muft be fct down for a
Manichee or a Quaker. Indeed I muft confefs, I ofice thought, giving too
much credit to Dr IVallt that there were different feds among the Waldenfes,
and fome of them Manichees, and of other erroneous principles, which I now
retrad.
$; It is not true what this writer from Dr fP'all affirms ; " This is certain,
♦' that no one author, that calls the people he writes of Waldenfes, does im-
312- " pu-.e
Remarks on the aocient churcli ofPiednaont, c. i v p. 1 ji-
42S A -REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE •
" pute to them the denial of Infanc-baptifm -, " for Claudius Coujfard, writing
againft them, under this name, gives an extraft of their errors out of Raynirius,
and this is one of them ; " They fay, then firft a man is baptized, when he is
" received into their feft -, fome of them hold that baptifm is of no advantage
" to infants, becaufe they cannot yet aftually believe ; " and concludes this
extraft thus, " from whence you may fee, courteous reader, that this feft of
" the Waldcnfes, and the chief, yea almoft all hcrefies now in vogue, are not
" of late invention, ISC'" and were this true, yet it is a mere evafion, and a
foolifh one; fince the names of Henricians, Arnoldids, Cathari, Apoftolici, fc,
under which they are rcprefented, asoppofers of Infant-baptifm, are the names
of the Waldcnfes, as Ferrin >' obferves, a writer whom our author fays he has
read.
4. It is a mod clear cafe, , that the ancient barbs or pallors of the Waldenfiaa
churches, fo called, were oppofers of Infant-baptifm. S'\t Samuel Aloreland, as
I have obfcrved, reckons Peter Bruis and Henry among their ancient paftors -,
fo docs Perrin likewifc, though he is miftaken in making them to follow I'Faldo j.
and thcfe are allowed to be Antipjedobaptifts by fcveralPxdobaptifts themfelvcs.
yirnoldus, another of their paftors, according to the above writer, from whence
they were called Arnoldifts, was out of all doubt a denier of Infant-baptifm,,
for which he was condemned by a council, as Dr fFall owns. Lollardo was
another of their paftors, according to the fame authors, and from whole name»
Perrin fays, the Waldcnfes were called Lollards ; and fo Kilianus fays % a Lol-
lard is alio called a Waldenfian heretic. Thefe were not the followers of fFickliff,
as our author wrongly afterts ; for they were, as Dr Allix'' obferves, more an-
cient than the Wicklifites; and though this name was afterwards given to the
latter, Lollardo was here in England, and had his followers before IVickliff's
time v and lb he had in Flanders and Germany ; and of the Lollards there, Tri-
ihemius^ fays, they derided the facrament of baptifm; which cannot be under-
ftood of their deriding baptifm in general, but of their deriding Infant-baptifm ;
which was common among the Papifts to fay ; and the fame is the fenfe of the
Lollards in England, who are charged with making light of the facrament of
baptifm. Now fince thefe were the fentiments of the ancient paftors of the
Waldcnfes, it is rcafonable to believe the people themfelves were of the fame
mind with them ; nor are there any confeftions of their faith, which make any
mention of Infant-baptifm ; nor any proofs of its being praflifcd by them until
the fixteenth century, produced by our author, or any other.
5. The
r Hirtory of the Waldenfei, p. 8, 9. -' '■ .
• Apud A'llix's Remarks on the ancient churches of the Albigenfes, c. z;. p. 202.
» Ibid. p. 201. ^ Apud Ailix, ibid. p. aoj.
1
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 429
: ■ 5. The Albigenfes, as Perrin ' fays, differ nothing at all from the Waldenfes,
in their belief; but are only fo called of the country oi Albi; where they dwelt,
and had their firft beginning •, and who received the belief of the "Waldenfes by
means of Peter Bruis, Henry and jirnold; who, as it clearly appears, were all
Antipasdobaptifts; and DxAllix " obferves, that the Albigenfes have been called
Petrobrufians ; owned to be a fed of the Waldenfes, that denied Infant-bap-
cifm : and that the Albigenfes denied it, at lead fome of them, yea the greateft
part of them, is acknowledged by fome Pjedobaptifts themfelves. Chajjanion
in his hiftory of thefe people fays ' ; " fome writers have affirmed, that the
" Albigeois approved not of the baptifm of infants. — I cannot deny that the
" Albigeois for i\\t greateft fart were of that opinion .The truth is, they did
*:' not rejedl this facrament, or fay it was ufelcfs, (as fome, he before obferves,
" aflerted they did) but only counted it unneceflary to infants, bccaufe they are
" not of age to believe, or capable of giving evidence of their faith." Which
is another proof of the ancient Waldenfes being againft Infant-bapcifm, thefe
being the fame with them. Upon the whole, if I have been too modefV, in fay-
ing that the ancient Waldenfes praftifed Infant-baptifm, wants proof, I fhall now
ufe a little more boldnefs and confidence, and affirm, that the ancient Vallenfes,
or as corruptly called Waldenfes, were oppofers of Infant-baptifm •, and that no
proof can- be given of the praftice of it among them till the fixteenth century ;
and that the author of the dialogue had no reafon to fay, that their being in the
pradice of adult baptifm, and denying Infant-baptifm, was a mere chimsera and
a groundlcfs figment.
M.y fourth chapter, you know. Sir, refpefts the argument for Infant-baptifm,
taken from the covenant made with Abraham, and from circumcifion. Here
our author runs out into a large difcuffion of the covenant of grace, in his way -,
in which he fpends about fourfcore pages, which I take to be the heads of fome
old fcrmons, he is fond of, and has taken this opportunity of publifhino them
to the world, without any propriety or pertinence. For, i. not to difpute the
point with him, whether there are two diftinft covenants of redemption and
grace, or whether they are one and the fame, which is foreign to the argument;'
be it that they are two diftindt ones, the fpiritual feed promifed toChrift, or the
people given him in the one, are the fame that are taken into the other ; they
are of equal extent ; there are no more in the one, tlian there are concerned in
the other ; and this writer himfclf allows, " that the falvation of the fpiritual
*' feed o/"Chrift is promifed in both covenants." Now let it be proved, if it
can,
* Hiftory of the Albigenfej, 1. I. c. I. p. I, 2.
* Ut fopr«, c. 14. p. lii. • Apud Stennett, p. 81, 8a
430 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
can, that there arc any in the covenant of grace but xhcfpiritual feed of Cbrifl \
and that the natural feed of believers, and their infants as fuch, are the fpiritual
feed : and if they are, then they were given to Chrift, who undertook to fave
them, and whofe falvation was promifed to him, and to whom in time the
communications of grace according to the covenant are made; then they muft
be all of them regenerated, renewed, and fandified, juftified, pardoned, adopted,
perfcvere in grace, and be eternally faved ; all which will not, cannot be faid
.of all the infants of believers ; and confequently cannot be thought to be in the
covenant of grace.
2. As to what he fays concerning the conditionality of the covenant, it is
all anfwered in one word -, let him name what he will, as the condition of this
covenant, which God has not abfolutely promifed, or Chrift has not engaged
to perform, or to fee performed in his people, or by them. Are the Condi-
tions, faith and repentance ? Thefc arc both included in the nev> heart, and
fpirit, and heart ef ficfh, God has abfolutely promifed in the covenant, Ezekiel
xxxvi. 26. Is new, fpiritual, and evangelical obedience, the condition ? This is
abfolutely promifed as the former, ver. 27. Or is it aflual confent ? Thy people
fhall be willing, Pfal. ex. 3. And after all, if it is a conditional covenant, how
do infants get into it ? Or is it a conditional covenant to the adult, and uncon-
ditional to them ? If faith and repentance are the conditions of it, and thefc
muft be, as this author fays, " the finner's own voluntary chofen adls, before
♦♦ he can have any aftual faving intereft in the privileges of the covenant;" it
follows, that they cannot be in it, or have intereft in the privileges of it, till
they repent and believe, and do thefe as their own voluntary chofen afb ; and
if " man's confent and agreement bring him into covenant with God," as this
writer fays ; it (hould be confidered, whether infants are capable of this con-
fent, or no ; and if they are not, according to this man, they ftand a poor
chance for being in the covenant.
3. Whereas the covenant of grace, as to the eflence of it, has been always
the fame, as is allowed, under the various forms and adminiftrations of it, both
under the Old and New Tcftanicnt ; fo the fubjcds of it have been, and are
the fame, the fpiritual feed of Chrift, and none elfe ; and not the carnal feed of
men as fuch : and if the conditions of it are the fame, faith and obedience, as
our author obfcrvcs, then infants muft ftand excluded from ic, fince they can
neither believe nor obey.
4. That the covenant of grace was made with /ibrabam, or a revelation and
application of it to him ; that the gofpel was revealed to hiin, and he was jufti-
fied in the fame way believers arc now; and that he had ipiritual promifes made
to him, and fpiritual blefTings beftowed upon him j and that gofpeUbelievers.,
be
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPT I S M. 431
be they Jews or Gentiles, who are the fpiritual feed of Abraham, are heirs of
the fame covenant-bleffings and promifes, are never denied ■,— this man is fight-
ing with his own fhadow.
What is denied and fhould be proved, is, that the covenant of grace is made
with Abraham'^ carnal feed, the Jews, and with the carnal feed of gofpcl-
believers among the Gentiles; and that fpiritual promifes are made to them;
and that they are heirs of fpiritual blefTmgs, as fuch : and let it be further ob-
fcrved, that the covenant in Genefu xvii. is not the covenant referred to in
Galatians iii. 17. faid to be confirmed of God in Chriji, and which could not be dif-
annuUed by the law 420 years after ; fince the date does not agree, it falls fliort
twenty-four years ; and therefore mud refer, not to the covenant of circum-
cifion, but to fonrje other covenant, and time of making it.
5. It is falfe, that children have been always taken with their parents inro
the covenant of grace, under every difpenfation. The children of y^iaw were
not taken into the covenant of grace with him, which was made known to him
immediately after che fall ; for then all the world muft be in the covenant of
grace. The covenant made with Noah and his fons, was not the covenant of
grace; fince it was made with the beafts of the field as well as with them ;
vmkfs it will be faid, that they alfo are in the covenant of grace. Nor were
all Abraham's natural feed taken into the covenant of grace with him. Jfhmael
was by name excluded, and the covenant cftablifhed withT/a^jf ; and yet Ifhmael
was in the covenant of circumcifion ; which by the way proves, that, that and
the covenaQt of grace aic two different things : nor were all Abraham's natural
feed in the line of Ijaac taken into the covenant of grace, not Efau ; nor all in
the line of Jacob and Ifrael \ for as the apoftle fays, they are not all Ifrael which
4ire of Ifrael-^ neither becaufe they are the feed of Abraham, are they all children ;
hitt in Ifaac fhall thy feed be called ; that is, they which are the children of the fleflj,
thefe are not the children of Gad, but the children of the fromife are counted for the
feed'. - The covenant at Hcreb was indeed a national covenant, and took in all,
children and grown pcrJbns ; and which was no other than a civil contradl,
and not a covenant of grace, between God and the people of //ra^/; he as King,
and they as fubjefts ; he promifing to be their protedor and defender, and they
to be his faithful fubjedts, and obey his laws ; which covenant has been long
ago abolifhed, when God wrote a Loammi upon them : nor is there any proof
of infants under the New Teftament being taken into covenant with their pa-
rents. Not Ma//, xix. 14. iC^r. vii. 14. which make no mention of any cove-
nant at all, as will be confidered hereafter; nor Heb. viii. 8. fince the houfe of
Ifrael, that new covenant is faid to be made with, are i\\i fpiritual Ifrael, whe-
ther
« Rom. ix. 6 — 8.
432 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE"
ther Jews or Gentiles, even the whole houlhold of faith, and none but them ;
nor are their infants fpoken of, nor can they be included ; for have they all
of them the laws of God written on their hearts ? Do they all know the Lord ?
or have they all their fins forgiven them ? which is the cafe with all thofe with
whom this covenant is made, or to whom it is applied. Nor are there any
predi6rions of this kind in the Old Teftament. Deut.xxx. 6. P/almxxn.^o.
Ifaiab\x.2]. fpeak only of a fucceffion of converted perfons, either in the
gofpcl-church among the Gentiles, or in the fame among the Jews, when that
people fhall be converted in the latter day.
6. The diftindion of an inward and outward covenant, is inUtopian bufinefs,
mere jargon and nonfenfe ; it has no foundation in fcripture, reafon, nor com-
mon fenfe. And here I cannot but obferve what Mr Baxter, a zealous Psdo-
baptift, fays on this fubjeft ^ " Mr 5/aA:(?'s common phrafe is, that they are
" in the outward covenant, and what that is, I cannot tell; in what fenfe is that
" (God's covenant-aft) called outward ? It cannot be, as ifGod did as the dif-
" fembling creature. Ore tenus, with the mouth only, covenant with them, and
*' not with the heart, as they ileal with him. I know therefore no pofTiblc fenfe
*' but this, that it is called outward from the blefTings promifed, which arc out-
" ward ; here therefore, I fhould have thought it reafonable for Mr Blake to
«' have told us what thei'e outward bleflings are, that this covenant promifeth ;
" and that he would have proved out of the fcriptures thatGod hath fuch a co-
" venant diftinft from the covenant of grace. I defire therefore that thofe words
" of fcripture may be produced, where any fuch covenant is contained." And
letMvClark tell us what he means by the OK/w^jr^ covenant, or the outward pare
of it, in which infants are-, if any thing can be collefted from him, as his mean-
in<y, it is, that it dcfigns the outward adminiftration of the covenant by the
word and ordinances: but if it means the outward miniftry of the word, new-
born infants are not capable of that to any profit; if it defigns the adminiftration
of baptifm and the Lord's fupper, then they fhould be admitted to one as well
as the other; and if baptifm only is intended by this outward covenant, or the
outward part, here is the greated confufion imaginable ; then the fenfe is, they
are under the outward adm-nitlration of the covenant, that is baptifm ; and this
gives them a right to be baptized, that is to be baptized again, or in other words
to be made Anabaptifts of; and after all it is a poor covenant, or a poor part
of it afTigned for infants, in the bond of which, as this author fays, are many
rral hypocrites.
7. That covenant-intered, and an evidence of it, give right to the feal of
the covenant, which was circumcifion formerly, and baptifm now, is falfe; and
this
* Baxter's Anfwcr to Blake, Se£l 39.
DIVINE' RIGHT OF INFANT -BAPT I S M. 433
this writer has not proved it, nor infants covenant-intereft, as we have feen al-
ready. He (hould have firll proved that circumcifion was a fcal of the covenant
of grace formerly, and baptifm the feal of it now, before he talked of covenant-
intereft giving a right to either. Admitting that circumcifion was a feal of the
covenant of grace formerly, (though it was not) yet intereft in that covenant
and evidence of intereft in ir, did not give right to all in it to the feal of it, as
ii is called ; fince there were many who had evidently an intereft in the covenant
of grace, when circumcifion was firft appointed, and yet had no right to it ; as
Shem, Arpbaxad, Lot, and others -, and even many who were in the covenant
made v/'iih y^irabam, as this writer himfclf will allow, who had no right to this
fcal, even all his female ofispring : to fay, they were virtually circumcifed in the
males, is falfe and foolifti -, to have a thing virtually by another, is to have it
by proxy, who reprefents another ; but were the males the proxies and rcpre-
fcntativcs of the females ? had they been fo, then indeed when they were cir-
cumcifed, the females were virtually circumcifed with them ; and fo it was all
one as if they had been circumcifed in their own perfons ; which to have been,
would have been unlawful and finful, not being by the appointment of God :
as for its being unlawful for uncircumcifcd perfons to eat of the pafsover, this
muft be undcrftood of fuch who ought to be circumcifed, and docs not afFedl
the females, who ought not, and fo might ear, though they were really uncir-
cumcifed ; nor had the males thcmfelves any right to it till the eighth day; and
fo it was not covenant-intereft, but a command from God, that gave them a
a right; and fuch an order is neceftary to any perfon's right to baptifm.
Again, admitting for argument-fake, that baptifm is a feal of the covenant,
does not this Gentleman alfo believe, that the Lord's-fupper is a feal of it like-
wife ? and if covenant-intereft gives a right to the feals, why not to one feal
as well as the other ? and why arc not infants admitted to the Lord's table, as
well as to baptifm ? Moreover, it is evidence of intereft, this writer fays, that
gives a right to the feal ; and what is that evidence ? Surely if faith and repen-
tance are the conditions of the covenant, as before afTerted, they muft be the
evidence ? and therefore, according to his own argument, it fhould firft appear,
that infants have faith and repentance as the evidence of their covenant-intereft,
before they arc admitted to the feal of it; and fuch only according to the injunc-
tion of Chrift, and the praflice of his apoftles, were admitted to baptifm ; z%
the pafiages below ftiew-*, -which our auchor rctcrs us to.
And now, Sir, after a long ramble, we are come loAbrabam'i covenant itfclf,
and to the qucftions concerning it; as, of what kind it is j with whom made;
• ■ Vol. II. 3 K and
c Malt, xxviii. 19. Mark xvi. 16. Afljii. 38, 39. ii;d x. 47.
434 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
and whether circumcifion was the feal of the covenant of grace; 4nd whether
baptifm is come in its room, and is the fcal of it. Now as to the
I. Firfl: of thefc, of what kind was the covenant mthyiiraham, Genefis xvii ?
I have aflerted, that it was not the pure covenant of grace, but of a mixed kind -,
confifting partly of promifes of temporal things, and partly of fpiritiial onts ;
and you will eafily obferve. Sir, that the exceptions of this writer to the ar^u-
tnents I make ufc of in proof of it, are for the mod part founded on his mif-
taken notions of the conditionality of the covenant of grace, and on that ftupid
and fcnff Icfs diftindtioi^ of the inivard and outward covenant, before exploded -,
wherefore fincc thefc are groundlcfs conceits and fandy foundations, what is built
upon them mufl: ncceffarily fall.
II. The fame may be obferved with refpeft to that part of the queftion,
"Rhich relates to the covenant being made with all Abraham's feed accordino- to
the flefh, as a covenant of grace -, by the help of which unfcriptural and irra-
tional didindion, he can find a place in the covenant of grace for a perfecutincr
JJIjtnael, a profane Efau, and all the wicked Jews in all ages, in all times of dc-
fcdion and apoftacy ; but if he can find t)0 better covenant to put the infants of
believers into, nor better company to place them with, who notwithftandin'^
tlicir covcnant-interefl, may be loR and damned, it will be a very infignificant
thing with coTifnieratc perfons, whether they arc in this Utopian covenantor no.
III. As to that part of the qucflion which relates to the natural feed of be-
lieving Gentiles being in Abraham's covenant, or to that being ma<lc with them
as a covenant of grace, it is by me denied. This writer fays, I add a ftroke,
as he calls it, that at once cuts off all Abraham's natural feed, and all the natural
fctd of believing Gentiles, from having any fhare in the covenant 5 fince I fay,
♦' That ro none can fpiritual blcdjngs belong, but to a fpiritual feed, not a
" natural one." But he might have obfervcd, that this is explained in the
feme page rhus, " r>ot to the natural feed of either of them az fuch" He fays,
" it is not requifitc to a perfon's vifible title and claim to the external privileges
•* of the covenant, that he fhould be truly regenerate, or a fincere believer; "
and yet he clfewherc fays, " that to fepenc and believe muft be the finner's
" own voluntary chofcn acfls, before he can have any aftual faving intereft in
" the privileges of the covenant :" let him reconcile thcfe together. He has
not proved, nor is he able to prove, that the natural feed of believing Gentiles,
as fuch, are the fpiritual feed oi Abraham ; fince only they that are Chrift's, or
believers iti him, or who walk in the fteps of the faith ol Abraham, are his
fpiritual fced ; which cannot be faid of all the natural feed of believing Gen-
files, or of any of them as fuch. That claufe in Abrabani's covenant, A father
of
DIVINE RIGHT OF I NFANT - BAPTISM. 435
ef many nations have I made thee^y is to be underftood only of the faithfal, or
of believers in all nations -, and not of all nations that bear the chriftian name,
as comprehending all in them, grown perfons and infants, good and bad menv
and only to fuch who are of the faith oi Abraham <k)es the apoftle apply it ' j
the ftranger, and his male feed, that fubmitted to circumcifion, may indeed be
faid to be in the covenant of circumcifion ; but it does not follow, that thefc
were in the covenant of grace •, there were many oi Abraham' % own natural feed
that were in the covenant of circumcifion, who were not in the covenant of grace j
and it would be very much, that the natural feed of ftrangers, and even of be-
lieving Gentiles, fhould have a fuperior privilege to the natural feed of Abra-
ham. Thofe, and thofe only, in a judgment of charity, are to be reckoned
the fpiritual feed, who openly believe in Chrift, as I have cxprcfTcd it; about
which phrafe this man makes a great pother, when the fcnfe is plain and eafy ^
and that it dcfii^ns fuch who make avifible profefTion of their faith, and are
judged to be partakers of the grace of the covenant ; which certainly is the bcfl:
evidence of their intereft in it; and therefore it mufl be bed to wait till this
appears, before any claim of privilege can be made; and is no other than what
this writer himfelf fays in the words before referred to. Though, after all, I
ftand by my former aflertion, that covcnant-intereft, even when made out clear
and plain, gives not right to any ordinance without a pofitive order or diredlion
from God ; and he may call it a conceit of mine if he pleafes ; he is right in
ir, that according to it, no perfon living is capable of (that is, has a right unto)
the ordinances and vifible privileges of the church upon any grounds of cove-
nant-iniereft, without a pofitive direftion from God for it; as there was for cir-
cumcifion, fo there fhould be for baptifm ; as, with rcfped to the former, many
who were in the covenant of grace had no concern with it, having no diredion
from the Lord about it ; fo though perfons may be in the covenant of grace,
yet if they are not pointed out by the Lord, as thofe whom he wills to be the
fubjefts of it, they have no right unto it. To fay, that Lot and others were
under a former adminiftration ef the covenant, on whom circumcifion was not
enjoined, is faying nothing ; unlefs he can tell us what that former adminiftra-
tion of it was, and wherein it differed from the adminiftration of it to Abraham
and his feed; to inftance in circumciGon, would be begging the queftion, fince
that is the thing inftanced in ; by which it appears that covcnant-intereft gives
no right to an ordinance, without a fpccial dircdion ; and the fame holds good
of baptifm. His fcnfe of Mark xvi. v6. is, that infants are included in the
profcflion of their believing parents, and why not in their baptifm too ? and
fo there is no necelTity of their baptifm ; the text countenances one as much as
it docs the other, and both arc equally ftupid and fenfelefs.
3 K 2 IV. The
* Gen. xvii. 4, 5. ' Roir. iv. 16.
436 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
IV, The next inquiry is, whether circumcifion was the feal of the covenant
/)f grace to J^raham's natural feed. It is called a token or fign, but not a feal;
■this writer fays, though a token, fimply confidered, does not neccflarily imply
-a feal, yet the token of a covenant, or promife, can be nothing elfe : if it can
be nothing elfe, it does neceffarily imply it; unlets there is any real difference
between a token (imply confidered, and the token of a covenant, which he
would do well to fhew. Circumcifion was nothing elfe but a fign or mark in
the flefl), appointed by the covenant; and therefore that is called the covenant
in their flep ; antf not becaufe circumcifion was any confirming token or feal of
the covenant to any oi Abraham's natural feed : it was a Ggn and feal of the
righteoufnefs of faith to Abraham ; that that righteoufnefs which he had by
faich before his circumcifion, fliould come upon the uncircumcifed Gentiles ;
i)Ut was no feal of that, nor any thing elfe, to any others: and according to
our author's notion of it, it was neither a feal oi Abraham's faith, nor of his
righteoufnefs ; then furely not. of any others ; and yet in contradi(flion to this,
he fays, it is '« a feal of the covenant of grace, wherein this privilege of jufti-
" fication by faith is confirmed and conveyed to believers;" and if to be-
lievers, then furely not to all Abraham's natural feed, unlefs he can think they
were all believers; though his real notion, if I underftand him right, is, that
it is no confirming fign, or feal of any fpiritual blefTings to any ; fince the
fubjcds of it, as he owns, may have neither faith nor righteoufnefs ; but of
the truth of the covenant itfclf, that God has made one; but this needs no
fuch fign or feal; the word of God is fufficient, which declares it and affures ,
of it.
V. The next thing that comes under confideration, is, whether baptifm fuc-
ceeds circumcifion ; and is the feal of the covenant of grace to believers, and
their natural feed. i. This author endeavours to prove that baptifm fucceeds
circumcifion from ColoJJians ii. 1 1. but in vain ; for the apoftle is fpeaking not
of corporal, but of fpiritual circumcifion, of which the former was a typical
refcmblance ; and fo fhewing, that believing Gentiles have that through Chrift
which was fignified by it ; and which the apoftle defcribes, by the manner of
its being effeded, without hands, without the power of man, by the efficacy of
divine grace; and by the fubflancc and matter of it, which lay in the putting
off the body of the fins of the fiefh ; and without a tautology, as this writer fug-
gcfts, by the author of it, Chrift, who by his Spirit effeds it, and therefore
is called the circumcif.on of Chrifl ; and is dillinguifhed from baptifm, defcribed
in the next verfe : and as weak and infignificant is his proof from the analogy
between baptifm and circumcifion; fome things faid of baptifm and circumcifion
are not true ; as that they ai'c facramcnts of admiffion into the church : Not fo
was
DIVINE .RIGHT.- OF'.INFANT . BAPTISM. .437
-was circumciGon ; .not of the Gentiles, w^o had it not, jior were admitted by
it, and yet were in the church ; nor even of the males, for they were not cir-
cumcifed till eight days old, yet were;of the Jewifh church, which was national,
as foon as born ; and perfons may be baptized, and yet not be entered into anv
viGblc church : Nor are they badges of relation to the God oi Ifrael; fince oa
the one hand, perlbns might have one or the other, yet have no fpiritual rela-
tion to God -y and on the other hand, be without either, and yetbe related to
him : nor are either of them feals and figns of the covenant of grace, as before
■fhewn : nor is baptifm abfolutely requifue to a perfon's approach to God with
confidence and acceptance in any religious duty, private or public. Baptifm
fcrves not to the fame ufe and purpofe in many things that circumcifion did ;
U is not the middle wall of partition ; nor does it bind men to keep the whole
law, as circumcifion j and though there may -be fome fceming agreement arou-
ments from analogy are weak and dangerous : fo from the prieft's ofFerino a
propitiatory facrifice, wearing the linen, ephod, and one high pricfl: bcino above
all other priefls, the Papifts argue for a miniftcr's offering a real propitiatory
jacrifice, for wearing the furplice, and for a Pope, or univerfal Biflaop -, and
others from the lame topic argue for tithes being due to minifters, and for the
inequality of bifliops and prcfbyters, there being an high prieft and inferior
ones : and to this tends our author's third argument, that either baptifm fuc-
ceeds circumcifion, or there is nothing ax all infiituted in its room ; nor is there
any necefTity that there fhould, any more than that there fhould be a Pope in
the room of an high prieft, or any thing to anfwer to Eafter, Pentecoft, tfr.
all which, as circumcifion, had their end in Chrift : nor does the Lord's-fuppcr
conic in the room of the pafsover ; what anfwers to that is, Chriji the pafsover
Jacrifced for us ; and did it, by this argument from analogly, infants oucrhc to
be admitted to the Lord's-fupper, as they were to the pafsover : by this way
of arguing, and at this door, may be brought in all the Jewifh rites and cere-
monies, under other names : and after all, what little agreement may be imagined
is between them, the difference is notorious in many things ; fbme of which this
author is obliged to own ; as in thefubjcdls of them, the one being only males,
the other males and femalesj the. one being by blood, the other by water; and
befides they differ as to the perfons by whom, and the places where, and the
ufes for which, they are performed ; wherefore from analogy and rcfeniblance
is no proof of fucccfTion, but the contrary.
My argument from baptifm being in force before circumcifion, to prove that,
the one did not fucceed the other, is fo far from being allowed by our author
aproof of it, that he will not allow it to be a bare probability, unlefs I coulj
prove they had been all along cotemporary : but if I cannot do it, he and his
brethren
43^ A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF^HE
brethren can, who give credit to the Jewifh cuflom of baptizing their profelytcs
and children -, and which they make to be a prafticc, for which the Jews fetch
proof as early as the times ofjacob; and I hope, if he will abide by this, he will
allow that baptifm could no: come in the room of circumcifion.
2. He next attempts to prove that baptifm is a feal of the covenant of grace
to believers and their feed, by a wretched pervcrfion of fcveral paflages of fbrip-
turc^, in which no mention is made of the covenant of grace, and much lefs
of baptifm as a feal of it ; and which only fpeak of believers, and not a fyllable
■of iheir infants-, and all of them dear proofs, that believers, and they only, are
the proper fubjeds of baptifm ; as may cafiiy be obferved by the bare reading of
them.
3. My fcntimentof the ordmances of baptifm and the Lord's fnpper not being
fcals of the covenant of grace, he thinks, is borrowed from theSocinians. Thefe
have no better notion of the covenant of grace than himfelf, nor of the efficacy
of the blood of Chrift for the ratification of it, nor of the fealing work of the fpi-
rit of God upon the hearts of his people. My fentiment is borrowed from the
fcriptures, and is eftablifhed by them -, the blood of Chrift confirms and ratifies
the covenant, the bleffings and promifcs of it, and is therefore called the blocd
of the everlajljng tovenavt ; the bleflcd fpirit is the fealer of believers intcreft in
it, or aflurcs them of it '. So that there are not two feals of the covenant of grace,
as he wrongly obfcrves. The blood of Chrift makes the covenant itfelf fure,
and is in this fenfc the feal of that -, the fpirit of God is the feal of intcreft in it
to particular perfons ; and in neither fenfc do or can ordinances feal.
4. Upon the whole, what has this author been doing throughout this chap-
ter ? has he proved that the natural feed of believers, as fuch, are in the cove-
nant of grace ? he has nor. The covenant he attempts to prove they arc in, ac-
cording to his own account of it, is no covenant of grace. Does it fecure any
one fpiritual blefTing to the carnal feed of believers ? it does not. Does it fecure
regenerating, renewing, fanflifying grace, or pardoning grace, or juftifying
grace, or adopting grace, or eternal life ? it does not. And if fo, I leave it to
be judged of by fuch that have any knowledge of the covenant, if fuch a cove-
nant can be called the covenant of grace; or what fpiritual faving advantage
is to be had from an intcreft in fuch a covenant, could it be proved.
He would have his readers believe, that the covenant, he pleads infants have
an intercft in, is the fame under all difpcnfations, and in all ages : the covenant
of grace is indeed the fame, but the covenant he purs the infant-feed of believers
into, is only an external adminiftration ; and this, he himfelf being judge, can-
not
k See John iii. 33. Mark xvi. i6. MaK. xxvili, 19. 1 Peter iii. n, 1 Cof. xii. 13.
' Heb. ziii. 20. Ephes. i. 13.
J
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTI SM. 439
not have been always the fame. This external adminiftration, according to him-
iclt, was firft by facrifices, and then by circunDcifjon, and now by baptifm ; for
what elfc he means by an external adminiftration, than an adminiftration of
ordinances, cannot be conceived ; and then by infants being in the covenant,
is no other than having ordinances adminiftered to them ; and fo their beinc' in
the covenant now, is no other than their being baptized •, and yet he fays, " the
*' main foundation of the right of infants to baptifm, is their intereft in the co-
♦' v'enant ;" that is, the external adminiftration they are under, or the adminif.
tration of baptifm to them, is the main foundation of their right to baptifm.
They are baptized, therefore they arc and ought to be baptized ; fuch an ac-
' count of covenant-intereft;, and of right to baptifm from it, is a mere begging
the queftion, and proving idem per idem, yea is downright nonfenfe and contra-
didlion : and k, when baptifm is faid to be the feal of the covenant, that is, of
the external adminiftration, which adminiftration is that of baptifm, the fenfe
is, baptifm is the feal of baptifm. This fenfclefs jargon is the amount of all
the rcafonings throughout this chapter : Such myfterious ftufF, fuch glaring
contradiftions, and ftupid nonfenfe, I leave him and his admirers to pleafe
thcmfcJvcs with.
5. From hence it appears, that the clamorous out-cry of cutting off" infants
from their covenant-right, and fo abridging &nd leflcning their privileges, is
all a noilc about nothing ; fmce it is in vain to talk about cutting off" from the
covenant of grace, when they were never in it ; as the natural feed of believers,
15 fuch, never were, under any di'pcnfation whatever ; and even what is pleaded
for, is only an cxieroal adminiftration, which neither conveys grace, nor fecures
any fpiritual blefTings ; wherefore what privileges are infants deprived of by
not being baptized ? 'Let it -be fhewa if it can, -whai fpiritual blcftings infants
faid to be baptized have, which our infants unbaptized have not; to inftance
in baptifm itfclf, would be begging the queftion ; it would ftiU be afked, what
fpiritual privilege or profii comes to an infant by its baptifm .'' If our infants
have as niany, or the fame privileges under the gofpel-difpenfation, without
baptifm, as others have with it ; then their privileges are not abridged or kil-
led, and the clamour muft be a groundlefs one. To fay, that baptifm admits
into the chriftian church, as circumcifion into thejewifti chu:ch, are both faifr,
as has been proved already ; our author, it fcems, did not know, that a national
church was a carnal one ; whereas a national church can be no other, fince all
born in a nation are members of it, and become fo by their birth, which is car-
nal ; for, -wbatfoever is born of J he fiejh is flejh. Whereas a gofpel-church, ga-
thered out of the world, does, or fliouid confift, only of fuch who arc born
again, and have an underftanding of fpiritual things. This writer fcems to fug-
440 'A REPLY TO' A D E F EN C E 6 F T H E -
geft, that if infants are not admitted to this external adminiftration, and feal
b'f the covenant he pleads for, their condition is <lep!orable, and there is no
ground of hope of their eternal falvation -, and does their being admitted into
this external adminiftration make their Condition better with refpefl to ever-
laftin" falvation ? no: at all-, fince, according to our author, perfons may be
in this, and yet not in the covenant of grace, as hypocrites may be; and he
diftinguifhes this vifible and external adminiftration from the fpiritual difpcn-
fation and efficacy of the covenant of grace ; fo that perfons may be in the one,
and yet be everlaftingly loft -, and therefore what ground of hope of eternal fal-
vation does this give ? or what ground of hope does non-admilTion into it de-
prive them of? Is falvation infeparably connedted with baptifm ? or does it en-
fure it to any ? How unreafonable then, and without foundation, is this clamo-
rous outcry ? And now, Sir, we are come to
The fifth chapter of my trcatife, which confiders the feveral texts of fcripture
produced in favour of Infant-baptifm; and the firft is Ails ii. 38, 39. Now, not
to take notice of this author's foolifti impertinencies, and with which his book
abounds, and would be endlcfs to obferve ; for which reafon I mention them
not, that I might not fwell this letter too large, and impofe upon your patience
in reading it -, you will eafily obljrve. Sir, the puzzle and confufion he is thrown
into to make the exhortation to repeai, urged in order to the enjoyment of the
promifc, to agree with infants; and which is mentioned as previous to baptifm,
and in order to it. That this paftage can furnifh out no argument in favour of
Infant-baptifm, will appear by the plain, clear, and eafy fenfeof it; Peter had
charged the Jews with the fin of crucifying Chrift ; their confciences were
awakened, and loaded with the guilt of it; in their diftrefs, being pricked to
the heart, they inquire what they ftiould do, as almoft defpairing of mercy to
be ftiewn to fuch great finners; they are told, that notwithftanding their fm
was fo heinous, yet if they truly repented of it, and fubmicted to Chnft and his
ordinances, particularly to baptifm, the promife of life and falvation belonged
to them, nor need they doubt of an intereft in it : and whereas they had impre-
cated his blood, not only upon themfclves, but upon their poftcrity, more imme-
diate and more reinote, for which they were under great concern -, they are told
this promife of falvation by Chrift reached to them alfo, provided thtry repented
and were baptized ; and which is the reafon that mention is made of their chil-
dren ;_>' if J, even to them 'that were afar off, their brethren the Jews in diftanc
countries, that fliould hear the gofpel, repent and believe, and be baptized ;
or fhould live in ages to come in the latter day, and ftiould look on him whom
they have pierced^ and mourn ; and fo has nothing to do with the covenant with
Abraham
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTIS M. 441
Ahrabam and his natural feed, and much lefs with the Gentiles and theirs : and
be it To, that the Gentiles are meant by thofe afar off, which may be admitted,
fincc it is fometimes a defcriptive character of them ; yet no mention is made
of their children •, and had they been mentioned, the limiting claufe, even as
many as the Lord our GodJJoall call, plainly points at, and defcribes the pcrfons in-
tended ; not among the Gentiles only, but the Jews alfo, as agreeable to com-
mon fenfe and the rules of grammar -, and is to be undcrftood only of the Jews
that are called by grace, and of their children, that are effeftually called, and
of the Gentiles called with an holy calling, as the perfons to whom the pro-
mifc belongs; and which appears evident by their repentance and baptifm, which
this is an encouraging motive to; and therefore can be underftoDd only of
adult perfons, and not of infants ; and of whofe baptifm- not a fylhble is men-
tioned, nor can it be inferred from this pafTige,: or eftablifhtd by it.
II. The next pafiage of fcripture produced in favour of Infant-baprifm, and
to as little purpofe, is Matthew xix. rj. it rs owned by our author, tha: tlitrfe
children were not brought to Chrift to be baptized by him ; and that they were
not baptized by him ; thefe things', he fays, they do not affirm. For what
then is the pafTage produced ^ why, to fhew, that infants become profelytesto
Chrift by baptifm ; and is not this to be baptized ? what a contradidion is this .''
And afterwards another felf-contradiftion follows : he imagines thefe infants
had been baptized already, and yet were commanded to become profclvtfs by
baptifm, and fo Anabaptifts ; but how does it appear that it was the will of
Chrill they (hould become profelytes to him this way .' from the etymology Oi"'
the Greek word, which fignifies /<? few; /^ ; fo, wherever the word is ufcd of
perfons as coming to Chrifl, it is to be underftood of their becoming profelytes
to him by baptifm: it is ufed \n MatthrM xv\. i. ' the Pharifces alfo with the
Sadducees — «c/«x5bc7«<, *' came tempting him." Did they become profelytes" to
him by baptifm? what ftupid ftufF is this? nay the Devil himfclf is faid to
come to him, and when the Tempter — is^nK'^t, came to him, be faid, &c. Mat-
thew iv. 3. our author furely does not think he became a profciytc to him.
That it was the cuflom of the Jews, before the times of Chrifl, to baptize the
children of profelytes, is not a fafb fo well attefled, as is faid ; the writings
from whence the proof is taken, were written fon^e hundreds of years after
Chrift's time; and the very firft perfons that mention it, difpute it; one affirm-
ing there was fuch a cuflom,' and the other denying it ; and were it fo, flnce it
was only a tradition of the elders at befl, and.not a command of God, it is not
credible that our Lord fhould follow it, or enforce fuch a praftice on his fol-
lowers : the coming of thefe children was merely corporal,- whatever it was for,-
and temporary; there is no oth€r way of coming to Chrifl, or becoming profelytes
• -Vol. II. 3 L to
442 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
to him, but by believing in him, embracing his dodlrines, and obeying his com-
mands; and when children are capable of thefe things, and do them, we are
ready to acknowledge chem the profelytesofChrift, and admit them to baptifm :
nor does the reafon given in the text, for offucb is the kingdom of heaven^ prove
their right to bapcifm; for not to infill on the metaphorical fenfe of thefe words,
which yeiCahin gives into; but fuppofing infants litterally are meant, the ki/ig-
dom of heaven cannot be underftood of the gofpel-church-ftate ; which is not
national but congregational, confifting of men gathered out of the world by
the grace of God, and who make a public profefllon of Chrift, which infants
are not capable of, and fo not taken into it ; and were they, they muft have
an equal right to theLord's fupper as to baptifm, and of which they are equally
capable; for docs the Lord's fupper require in the receivers of it a competent
meafure of chriftiar. knowledge, the exercifc of reafon and undcrQanding, and
their aftive powers, as this writer fays, fo docs baptifm. But by the kingdom of
hiiiz-en, is meant the heavenly glory ; and we deny not, that there are infants
that belong to it, though who they are, we know not; nor is this any argu-
ment for their adniirTicn to baptifm ; it is one thing what Chrift does himfclf,
he may admit thcin into heaven ; it is another thing what we are to do, the
rule of which is his revealed will: we cannot admit them into a church-ftate,
or to any ordinance, unlefs he has given us an order fo to do ; and befides, it
is time enough to talk of their admiffion to baptifm, when it appears they have
a right unto, and a meetnefs for the kingdom of heaven.
III. Another pafTage brought into this controverfy is MaUbe'iv xviii. 16. this
is owned to be Icfs convidive, becaufe interpreters are divided about the Icnfe
pfit; fome undcrftanding it of children in knowledge and grace, others of chil-
dren in age, to which our author inclines, for the fake of his hypothelis; though
he knows not how to rcjcfl the former: my objcdlions to the latter fenfe, he
fays, have no great weight in theni ; it fcems they have fome. 1 will add a little
more to them, (hewing that not little ones in a litteral, but figurative fenfe, are
meanr, even the difciples of Chrift, that aftually believed in him: the word
here ufcd is different from that which is ufed of little children, ver. 3. and is
manifeftly ufcd of the difciples of Chrift, Matthew x. 42. and the parallel text
in Mark ix. 41, 42. moft clearly ftiews, that the little ones that believed in
Chrift, which were not to be offended, were his apoftles, that belonged to him ;
quite contrary to what this writer produces it for ; who has moft miferably man-
gled and tortured this paffage: Moreover there was but one little child, Chrift
took and fet in the midft of his difciples, whereas he has regard to feveral littk
ones then prcfent, and whom, as it were, he points unto; one of which to of-
fend, would be rcfentcd; and plainly dcfigns the apoftles then prcfent, who
not
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 443
not only had the principle of faith, but exercifed it, as the word ufcd fionifics ;
and who were capable of being fcandalizcd, and of having ftumbling-blocks
thrown in their way, and taking otFence at them ; which infants in age are not
capable of: that fenfelefs rant of cutting off infants from their right in the cove-
nant of falvaiion, and from the privileges of the gofpel, (I fuppofe he means by
denying baptifm to them) bsingan offence and injury to them, and the whining
cant upon this, are mean and dcfpicable: his reafons, why the apoftles ofChrift
cannot be meant, becaufe contending for pre-eminence, they difcovered a tem- .
per of mind oppofite to little children, has no force in it ; for Chrift calls them
little ones, partly becaufe they ought to be as little children, ver. 3. and in fomc
fenfe were fo ; and partly to mortify their pride and vanity, as well as to exprefs
his tender affection and regard for them, fee ver. 10. and fince infants are not
meant, it is in vain to difpute about their faith, either as to principle or aft, and
what right that gives to baptifm; and efpecially fince profclTion of faith, and
confcnt to be baptized, arc neceffary to the adminiftracion of that ordinance,
and to the fubjedts of it.
IV. Next we have his remarks on the exceptions to the fcnfe of i Corinthians
vii. 14. contended for: the fenfe of internal holincfs derived from parents to
children is rejcdted by him -, but there is another, which he fcems to have a
good will unto : he fays there are fome reafons to fupport ir, and he docs not
objcdl to it ; yet choofes not to adhere to it, though if eftablifhed, would put
an end to the controverfy, and that is, that the ti ord fanilijied fignidcs bap/ized,
and the word holy, chriftians baptized -, and then thefcnfc is, " the unbelieving
" hufband is baptized by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is bap-
" tized by the believing hufband -, clfe were your children unbaptized, but
" now they are baptized chriftiansj" the bare mention of which is confutation
fufficient. The fenfe our author prefers is a vifible federal holincfs : but what
that holinefs is, for any thing he has faid to clear it, remains in the dark :
covcnant-holincfs, or what the covenant of grace promifes, and fecures to all
inteiefted in it, is clear and plain, internal holinefs of heart, and outward holi-
ncfs of life and converfation flowing from that": But arc the infants of believers,
as fuch, partakers of this holinefs ? or is fuch holincfs as this communicated
unto, or does it appear upon all the natural feed of believers ? This will not be
faid ; experience and fafls are againft it ; they are born in fm, and are bj nature
children of wrath, as others; and many of them are never partakers of real
holincfs, and are as profligate as others ; and on the other hand, fomc of the
children of unbelievers are partakers of true holinefs: if it be faid, and v.-hicli
fcems to be our author's meaning, that it is fuch a holincfs the people of tlx
3 I. 2 Jews
■» Ezek. ixxvi, 15 — 27.
444 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
Jews had in diftinflion from the Heathens, and therefore are called an holy feed;
this cannot be, fince the holinefs of the Jcwifh feed lay in the lawful ifTue of a
Jewifh man and ajewifh woman: if ajewidi man married an Heathen woman,
their ifTue was not holy, as appears from Ezra and Nehemiah -, whereas, accord-
ing to the apoftle, if a Chriftian man married an Heathen woman, or a Chriftian
woman an Heathen man, their iflTue were holy : fhould it be faid, as it is fug-
gefted by our author, that fo indeed it was in Ezra's times, according to the
Jewifh law ; but now, fince the coming of Chrift, the national difference is
aboiiflied; which he makes to be the fcnfe of the apoftle, and therein betrays
his ignorance of the apoflie's argun-ient and method of reafoning; for " the
'.' pancicle ncit\ as Beza obfcrvcs, is not in this place an adverb of time, but a
" conjunftion, which is commonly ufed in afTumptions of argument," which
dcftroys our author's argumcnr, and fcts afide his method of reafoning, which
lie fe;ms /ond of, and afterwards repeats: it remains therefore, that only a
nii^tiii onial holinefs is here intended; and furely marriage may be faid to be
lo'y, as ic is by the apofllc hc!iourai>.'e, and for that reafon ", without favouring
flrong of popery, or favouring the notion of marriage being a facramenr, as this
writer infinuates ; who has got a ftrange nofe, and a ftrangcr judgment : whe-
ther he is a finglc or a married man, I know not; he appears to have a bad
opinion O;' marriage. That infants born in lawful wedlock cannot be called
holy, being Jcgitiinatc, without favouring of popery. As he is not able to fct
afide the fcnfe of the word fanSfifieJ given by me, as fignifying efpoufed ; he re-
quires of me to prove that the v/ord holy means legUim.its ; for which I refer him
to Ezra ix. 2. where thofe born of parents, both Jewifh, are called an holy feed;
-that if, a lawful one; in oppofuion to, and in diitinftion from a fpurious and
illegitimate ifTue, born of parents, the one Jewidi and the other Heathen : and
this is the fame with the godly feed, in Mai. ii. 15. which Calvin interprets legi-
timate, in diftinflion from thofe that are born in polygamy : nor will any
oiher fcnfe fuit with the cafe propofcd to the apoftle; nor with his anfwer and
manner of reafoning about it ; who fays not one word of a covenant whereby an
unbelieving yoke-fellow is fandified to a believing one, or of the federal holi-
nefs of the children of both; but argues, that if their marriage, being unequal,
was not valid, which was their fcruple, their children mufl be unclean, as baftards
wcic accounted" ; whereas it being good, their children were legitimate, and
!•) might beeafy, and continue together as they ought,
■ The pafTdge out of theTalmud, which he has at fecond-hand from Dr Ltghtfco:,
f'-.-r.gns by Holinefs, Judaifm, and not Chriftianity, and is quite impertinent to
I'.j purpofe ; nor can it be thought to be alluded to, fince the holinefs the Jews
fpeak
" Hcb. iiii.4. ° Dcut. xxiii. 2.
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTISM. -445
^cak of, refpefts the parents, as both profclytes to Judaifm ; whereas the ■
3poftle's cafe fuppofes one an Heaihcn, and the other a Chriftian : and he |
ciight have obferved by a tradition quoted by the Do(flor, in the fatne place, . j
th:lt fuch a marriage the apofl:)e was confiJering, 1s condemned by the Jews as ]
no marriage, and the iflue of it as illegitimate -, which afTcrts, i\\2.i a fon begotten \
of a Heathen woman is not a fon, hi^s lawful fon ; juft the reverfc of what the
apoftle fuggefted : and after all, our author himfclf .feems to make this holinefs
no other than a civil holinefs, and which fecures a civil relation, by which
«' the unbelieving yoke-fellow is fanflified, fo far as concerns the believing
" party ; that is, for lawful cohabitation, conjugal fociety, and the propaga-
y- tion of a holy covenant-feed ; " for all which purpofcs, lawful marriages
niay be allowed to fandtify, \i on\y \n?iczA oi a holy covenant -feed, a legitimate
feed is put. So that upon the whole, this pafTage does not furni/h out the lead
fliew of argument for Infant-baptifm. Come we to
V. The next pafTage produced in favour of Infant-baptifm, which are the
words of the commiffion in Matthew xwiii. 19, 20. one would think there
(hould be no difficulty in iinderftanding thefc words -, and that the plain and
cafy fenle of them is, that fuch as are taught by the miniftry of the word,
Ihould be baptized, and they only, and if there was any doubt about this, yec
it might be removed by comparing the fame commifTion with this, as differently
cxprefTcd in Mark xvj. 15, \6. from whence it clearly appears, that to teach all
nations, is to preach the gofpel.io every creature; and that the perfons among all
nations, that may be faid to be taught, or made difciples by teaching, are be-
lievers, and being fo, are to be baptized -, be that believetb and is baptized, fiall
be faved. It is obferved by this writer, that the afts of difcipling and baptizing
are of equal extent: it is agreed to, provided it be allowed, as it ought,, that
the word, teach, or make difciples, defcribes and limits the perfons to be bap-
tized ; for fuch only of all nations are to be baptized, who are made dif-
ciples by teaching •, not all the individuals of all nations ; no, not even
where the gofpel comes, and is preached ; for many hear it, and more
might, who are not taught by it -, and even when the feventh trumpet fhall
found, and all nations fhall ferve the Lord, this will not be true of every
individual of all nations, only of fuch, who arc qualified for, and capable of
ferving the Lord ; and fo of adult perfons only, and not of infants at all : and
was this the cafe, that all nations in the commiffion arc under no limitation and
reflridion, then not only the children of Pagans, Turks, and Jev/s, but even
all adult perfons, the moft vile and profligate, fhould be baptized ; wherefore
the phrafe, all nations to be baptized, mufl: be reftrained and limited to thofe
who are made difciples out of all nations -, who are the antecedent to the relative,
them that are to be baptized, and not all nations j and though there is a frequent
change
44^ A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
change of gender in the Greek language, which is owned ; yet as Pifcator, a
learned Pzedobaptift, on the text obferves, "the fyntax {of them) is referred to
*' the fenfe, and not to the word, fincc nations went before ;" and the fame
obfcrvation he makes on the pafTage our author has produced as parallel, Romans
ii. 14, but in order to bring infants to this reftriflive and qualifying charaftcr
for bapiifm, it is faid, they arc made difciples with their parents, when they
become fo, as parts of themfclves : and why may they not be faid to be bap-
tized with them, when they are baptized, as parts of themfelves, and fo have
no need of baptifm ? No doubt, if Chrift had continued the ufe of circumci-
fion under the New-Tcftament, and had bid his apoftles to go and difcipU the
Jiations, ctrcumcijing tbem, they would have needed no dircftion as to infants, as is
fuggeftcd ; and that for this plain rcafon, becaufe there had been a previous
cxprcfs command for the circumcifion of them.-, but there is no fuch command
to baptize infants previous to the commiflion, and therefore could not be un-
derftood in like manner. But it fccms the known cuftom of the Jews to bap-
tize the children of profclytes with them, was a plain and fufficient direftion as
to the fubjcfts of baptifm, and is the reafon why no exprefs mention is made of
them in the commiffion : But it does not appear there was any fuch cuftom
among the Jews, when the commifTion was given -, had it been fo early, as is pre-
tended, even in the times oi Jacob, it is ftrange there fhould be no hint of it in
the Old Tcftament : nor in the apocryphal writings j nor in the writings of the
New Tcftament •, nor in Jofephus % nor in Pbilo the Jew ; nor in the Jewilh
Mjfnab; only in ihe Talmud; which was not compofed till five hundred years
after Chrift ; and this cuftom is at firft reported by a fingle Rabbi, and at the
fame time denied by another of equal credit and authority: and admitting that
this was a cuftom that then obtained, fince it was not of divine inftitution, but
of human invention, had our Lord thought fit (which is not reafonable toftip-
pofe) to take it into his New Tcftament ordinance of baptifm ; yet it would have
been neceftary to have made cxprcfs mention of it, as his will that it ftiould be
cbfervcd, in order to remove the fcruple that might arife from its being a mere
Jewifti cuftom and tradition.
But to proceed : though this writer may be able to find in the fchools within
his knowledge, fuch ignorant difciples and learners, that have learned nothing
at all -, Christ has none fuch in his fchool : Chrift fays, none can be a difciple
of his, but who has learned to deny bimfelf, take up his crofs, and follow bim",
and forfake all for him •, and this man fays, they may be called difciples, that
have learned nothing, and be inrolled among the difciples of Chrift, who are
uncapable of outward teaching : but who arc we to believe, Chrift, or this
ipan ?
Luke liv. 26, 27, 33.
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTI SM. 447 i
man ? He fuggefts, that it would be impradicable to put the commifTion in j
execution, if none but true difcipies and believers are to be baptized, fince the j
heart cannot be infpcded, and man may be deceived 5 and obferves, that the 1
apoftles baptized immediately upon profefllon, and waited not for the fruits of
it, and fome of which are not true difcipies, but hypocrites: this is what he
often harps upon 5 and to which I anfwer, the apoftles had no doubt a greater
fpirit of difcerning, and fo could obferve the figns of true faith and difciplefhip
in men, without long waiting; but they never baptized any whom they did not
judge to be true difcipies and believers, and who profefled themfelves to be
fuch : and though they were in fome few inftances miftaken ; this micrht be
fuffered, that minifters and churches might not be difcouraged, when fuch
inftances fhould appear in following times; and this is fatisfadion enou^^h in
this point, when men keep as clofe as they can to the divine rule, and
make the beft judgment of perfons they are able ; and when, in a judgment of
charity, they are thought to be true difcipies ofChrift, baptize them; in which
they do their duty, though it may fall out otherwife; and in which they are to
be juftified by the word of God ; which they could not, were they to adminifter
the ordinance to fuch who have no appearance of the grace of God, and the
truth of it in them. The text in AHs xv. 10. is far from provincr infants dif-
cipies ; they are not defigncd in that place, nor included in the charadler; for
though no doubt the Judaizing preachers were for having the Gentiles, and
their infants too, circumcifed ; yet it was not circumcifion, the thing itfelf,
tliat is meant by the intolerable yoke, attempted to be put upon the necks of
the difcipies ; for that was what the Jewifh fathers and their children were able
to bear, and had borne in ages paft; but it was the doctrine of the neccfTity of
that, and other ritqs of Afo/fj, tofalvation; and which could no: be impofeJ
upon infants, but upon adult perfons only. Next we proceed to
VI. The pafTages concerning the baptifm of whole houfholds, as an expla-
nation of the commifilon, and of the apoftles underftanding it : Now fince
Infant-baptifm, as we have feen, cannot be eftabliflied by Abraham'^ covenant,
nor by circumcifion, nor by any command of Chrift, nor by his commiffion,
nor by any inftances of infants baptized in the times oi John the Baptift, or of
Chrift ; if any inftances of infants baptized by the apoftles are propofed, they
(hould be clear and plain : Since there is no cxprefs precept, which might juftly
be demanded ; if any precedent is produced, it ought to be quite unexception-
able; if it is expeded, fuch a practice Ihould be given into by thinking people.
Three families or houfholds we read of, that were baptized, and thtf.- are the
precedents propofed ; yet no proof is made of any one infant in thcfe families,
or of the baptifm of any in them ; which ftiould be done, if the'former could
be
443 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
be proved : but inftead of this, the advocates for this praflice are drove to this
poor and mifcrable fhifc, to put us on proving the negative, that there were no
infants in them. Our author thinks it utterly incredible, that in three fuch fa-
milies there (hould be no infants, when, in fo large a country as Egypt, there
was not a family without a child ■■ ; and is fo weak as to believe, or however
hopes to find readers weak enough to believe, that all the firft-born of theE-^yp-
tians that were flain were infants-, whereas there might be many of them twenty,
thirty, or forty years of age ; fo that there might be hundreds and thoufands of
families in Egypt that had not an infant in them, and yet not an houfe in which
there was not a dead perfon.
But let us attend to thefc particular families : as for Lydia and her houfhoIJ,
fo far as a negative in fuch a cafe as this is capable of being proved ; this is cer-
tain, that no mention is made of any infants in her family ; it is certain, that
there were brethren in her houfe, who were capable of being comforted by the
apoflles, and were-, for it is exprefsly faid, that they enter id into the houfe of Lydia,
and comforted the brethren; which is a proof of what, he fays, cannot be proved,
that they faw the brethren at her houfe ; and nothing appears to the contrary,
but that they were of her houfliold ; and if there were any other befides them,
that were baptized by the apoftles, it lies upon thofe that will affirm it, to prove
it; without which, this inftance cannot be in favour of Infant- baptifm. As for
the Jailor's family, it is owned by our author, that there were fome adult perfons
in it, who believed, and were baptized at the fame time with the Jailor; but
he afks, how does this argue that there were no others baptized in it, who were
in the infantile (late ? It lies upon him to prove it, if there were : The word of
God was fpokcn to all that were in his houfe, and all his houfe believed in God,
and rejoiced in the converfation of the apoftles, who muft be all oi them adult
perfons; and>if hecan find perfons in his houfe, befides thofe a// that were irt
it, I willfet him down for a cunning man. Who thofe expofitors are, that ren-
der the words, believing in God, he rejoiced all his houfe over, I know not, any
more than I undcrfland the nonfenfe of it. Erafmtis and Vatablus join the phrafe
withall his houfe, with believing, as we do, and Priceeus makes it parallel with
/iHs xviii. 8. but however, this writer has found a text to prove, that the chil-
dren of believers are in their infancy accounted believers, and numbered with
them, it is in AcJs ii. 44. if he can .find any wife-acres that will give credit to
him. A% \.o [.V.c\\o\i{i\o\<i o^ Stephanas, hcfavs, that it feems probable that it
was large and numerous, which renders if more likely that there were feme in-
fants in it: how large and numerous ifwas, does not appear'; but be thofe of
it more or fewer, it is a clear cafe they were adult perfons, that we have any
' • ■ ■ account
r Exod. xii. 30.
n
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFAN T - B APT I S M.
449
account of ; fince they addiHed tbemfelves to the minijlry of the faints : and now
upon what a tottering foundation does Infant-baptifm ftand, having no precept
from God for it, nor any one fingle precedent for it in the word of God ? Come
we now,
VII. To the lafl; text in the controverfy, Rcmansx'x. 17, 24. and which is the
decifive one, and yet purely allegorical •, when it is an axiom with divines, that
fymbolical or allegorical divinity is not argumentative : there is nothing, fays
DrOw^n'', " fo fottifb, or foolifli, or contradidious in and to itfelf, as may not
" -be countenanced from teaching parables to be inftruftive, and proving in
" every parcel, or exprefTion, that attends them-," of this we have an inftance
in our author, about ingrafting buds w,th the cyon, and of breaking off and
grafting in branches with their buds, which he applies to parents and their
children ; though the apoftle has not a word about it : and indted he is fpeak-
ingofan ingrafture, not according, but contrary to nature; not only of an
ingratture of an olive-tree, which is never done, but of ingrafting a wild cyon
into a good flock -, whereas the ufual way is to ingraft a gojd cjo.i into a wild
ftock. The general fcope and defign of the allegory is to be attended to, whi:h
is to fhew the rejection of the unbelieving Jews from, and the reception of the
believing Gentiles into the gofpel-church •, for though God did not cafl away
the people among the Jews whom he foreknew ; or the remnant according to
the election of grace, of which the apoftle was one ; yet there was a cafling-away
of that people as a body politic and ecclefiaflic, which now continues, and will
till the fulncfs of the Gentiles are brought in ; and then there will be a general
converfion of the Jews, of which the converfion of fome of them in the times of
Chrill and his apollles were the root, firft-fruits, pledge, and earneft; and which
led on the apoftle to this allegorical difcourfe about the oliye-trec ; which I un-
derftand of the gofpel church-ftate, in diflin(ftion from the Jewifh church-ftate,
now dilTolved. This writer will not allow, that the JewilTi church, as to its
cfTencial conflitution, is abolifhed, only as to its outward form of adminiftration :
but God has wrote a Lo-ammi upon that people, both as a body politic and ec-
clefiaftic ' ; he has unchurched them-, he has broke his covenant with them,
and their union with each other in their church flate, fignified by his breaking
his two flaffs, beauty and bands ' ; and if this is not the cafe, the people of the
Jews are now the true church of God, notwithftanding their rejeflion of the
McfTiah ; and if the Gentiles are incorporated in'o that church, the gofpel-
church is, and mufl be national, as that was, and the fame with it; whereas it
differs from it, both as to matter and form, confifliing of perfons gathered out
of the world, and enjoying different ordinances, the former being utterly abo-
VoL. II. . 3 M liOied.
1 On Perfererance, p. 416. ' Ho'ea i. 9. • Zech. xi. 10, 14.
450 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
liflied. Our author objedls to my interpretation of the good olive-tree being
the gofpcl church-llate, from the unbelieving Jews being faid to be broken-off,
and the oljve-tree called their own olrje-tret, and they the natural branches : to
which I anfwer, that the breaking of them off, ver. 17. is the fame with the
carting away of them, ver. 15 and the allegory is not to be ftretched beyond
its fcope. The Jewifh church being difTolved, the unbelieving Jews lay like
broken, withered, fcattered branches, and fo continued, and were not admit-
ted into the gofpel church-ftate, which is all the apoftle means : if I have ufed
too foft a term, to fay they were left out of the gofpel-church, fincc feverity is
exprelTed, I may be allowed to ufe one more harrti and fcvere ; as that they were
caft away and rejefted, they wert cut off from all right, and excluded from ad-
miflion into the gofpel church, and not fuffered to partake of the ordinances of
it: and as to the gofpel church being called their own olive-tree, that is, the
converted Jews in the latter day, of whom the apoftle fpeaks; with great pro-
priety may it be called their own, not only becaufe of their right of admilllon
to it, being converted, but becaufe the firft gofpel-church was fet up wjerufalem,
was gathered out from among the Jews, and confifted of fome of their nation, .
•which were the firft-fruits of thofe converted ones ; and fo in other places, the
firft gofpelchurches confifted of Jews, into which, and not into the national
church of the Jews, were the Gentiles ingrafted, and became fellow-heirs with
jhem, and of , the fame body, partaking of gofpel-ordinances and privileges :
and the natural branches arc not the natural branches of the olive-tree, but the
natural branches or natural feed of Abraham, or of the J/ewifli people, who in
the latter day will be converted, and brought into the gofpel-church, as fome
of them were in the beginning of it. This fenfe being eftablifhed, it is a clear
and plain cafe, that nothing from hence can be concluded in favour of Jnfant-
baptifm ; of which there is not the leafthint, nor any manner of reference to it.
This chapter, you will remember. Sir, is concluded with proofs ofwomens
right to the ordinance of the Lord's fupper : and which are fuch, as cannot be
produced, and fupported, to prove the right of infants to baptifm. It is grant-
ed by our author, that my "• arguments are in the main conclufive, and he
*' muft be a wrangler that will difpute them " and yet he difputes them him-
felf, and fo proves himfelf a wrangler, as indeed he is nothing elfe throughout
the whole of his performance. However, he is confident, there arc as good
proofs of the baptifm of infants -, as, from their being accounted believers and
<lifciplcs ' ; from their being church-members " ; from the probability of fome
infants baptized in the whole houfholds meniioned ; all which we have feen are
weak, foolilh, impertinent, and inconclufiv^. This author does wonderful
feats
« Matt. viii. 6. Afls ii. 44. «nd xv. lo.
• Luke Jtviii. j6, i Cor. vii. 14. Ephes. v. J5, 26.
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTISM, 451
feats in his own conceit, in his knight-errantry way ; he proves this, and con-
futes that, and baffles the other-, and though he brings the fame arguments,
that have been ufcd already ; as he owns, and I may add, baffled too already,
to ufe his own language ; yet he has added fome new illujlration and enforcement
to them, and fuch as have not occurred to him in any author he has feen-, fo that
he would have his reader believe, he is fome extraordinary man, and has per-
formed wonderful well -, and in this vainglorious (hew, 1 leave him to the ridi-
cule and contempt of men of modefty and good fcnfe, as he juftly deferves,
and proceed to
Tht/txtb&nd laft chapter of my trcatife, which is concerning the mode of
adminiftering the ordinance of baptifm, whether by immerfion, or fprinkling ;
and here. Sir, I obferve, i. That our author reprefents the controverfy about
this as one of the moft trifling controverfies that ever was managed : but if it
is fo trifling a matter, whether baptifm is adminiftered by immerfion or fprink-
ling, why do he and his party write with fo much heat and vehemency, as well
as with fo much fcorn and contempt againft the former, and fo heavily load with
calumnies thofe that defend it, and charge them with the breach oiihc/sxth and
fex'entb commands, as it has been often done ? But if it is fo indifferent and trifling
a matter with this writer, it is not fo with us, who think it to be an affair of
great importance, in what manner an ordinance is to be adminiftered ; and who
judge it effential to baptifm, that it be performed by immerfion, without which
ic cannot be baptifm -, nor the end of the ordinance anfwered, which is to repre-
fent the burial of Chrift ; and which cannot be done unlcfs the pcrfon baptized
is covered in water.
2. It is allowed that the word ^(ttm^a, with the lexicons and critics, fignifies to
dip; but it is alfo obferved, that they vtndtr xx. to wajh : which is not denied,
lince dipping neceffarily includes wafhing; whatever is dipped, is wafhed, and
therefore in a confequential fenfe it fignifies wafhing, when its primary fcnfe is
dipping. Our author does not attempt to prove, that the lexicons and critics
ever fay it fignifies to pour or fpr inkle ; which ought to be done, if any thing is
done to purpofe : indeed he fays, with clafllcal writers, it has the fignification
oi perfufion, or fprinkling ; but does not produce one inflance of it. He charges
me with partiality in concealing part of what Mr Leigh fays in his Critica Sacra ;
which I am not confcious of, fince my edition, which indeed is one of the for-
mer, has not a fyllable of what is quoted from him j and even that is more for
us than againft us. Hence with great impertinence are thofe paflages of fcrip-
ture produced, Mark vii. 3, 4. Luke xi. 30. Hel>. ix. 10. which are fuppofed to
have the fignification of wafhing ; fince thefe do not at all miliutc againft the
fenfe of dipping, feeing dipping is wafhing; and to as vain a purpofe are thofe
3 M 2 fcriptures
452 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
fcriptures referred to, Epbes. v. 26. Tit. iii. 5. i Cor. v\. 1 1. 2 Peter i. g. A^j
xxii. 16. which call baptifm a wajhirtg of water, and the wafhing of regeneration,
.&c, evcnfuppoling they arc to be undirrftood of baptifm -, which, at lead in
ieveral of them, is doubtful -, fince nobody denies, that a perfon baptized, may
be faid to be wafhed, he being dipped in water.
4. It is affirmed that we do not read of one inftance of any perfon who re-
paired to a river, or conflux of water, purely on the defign of being baptized
therein. But certain it is, that John repaired to fuch places for the convenient
adminiitration of that ordinance ; and many repaired to him at ihofe places,
purely on a defign of being baptized by him in them ; and particularly it is
faid of Chrifl:, then comet h Jefus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized
of bim" ; and I hope it will be allowed, that he repaired to Jordan, on a pure
defign of being baptized in it ; and though it was in a wildernefs where John
was, yet fuch an one in which were many villages, full of inhabitants, as our
author might have learned from Dr Lightfoot "^ ; where John might have had
the convenience of veflxls for bringing water, had the ordinance been performed
by him in any other way, than by immerfion.
5. The ufe of the words, baptize and baptifm, in fcripture, comes next under
confideration •, and, (i.) the word is ufed in AEls i. 5. of the extraordinary Gifts
of the Spirit to the apoflles on the day of Pentecoft, which is called' a being
baptized with the holy Ghofl ; and the houfe in which the apoftles were, being
filed with it, had in it a refemblance to baptifm by immerfion ; and hence the
ufe of the phrafe. The main objedlion our author makes to this, is, that the
difciples were in the houfe before it was filled with the holy Ghoft ; whereas it
fliould have been firft filled, and then they enter into it, to carry any refemblance
in it to immerfion: but it matters not, whether the houfe was filled before or
after they entered, inafmuch as it was filled when they were in, whereby they
were encompalTed and covered with it ; which is fufficient to fupport the a!lu-
fion to baptifm, performed by immerfion -, or covering the perfon in water : it
is reprcfcnted as diflbnant from common fenfe, to fay, 2'e fhall be plunged with
the holy Gbofl? and is it not as diflbnant from common fenfe to fay, Ye fhall be
poured with the holy Gbofl ?
(2.) The fuScrings of Chrift arc called a baptifm ^ j. and a very apt word is
ufed to cxprefs t\\t abundance of them', as that fignifics an imnierfion into water;
and though the lefier fufferings of men, and God's judgments on them, may
be cxpreflcd by the pouring out of his wrath, and the vials of it on them ; yet
fince the holy Ghofl: has thought fit not to make ufe of fuch a phrafe, but a very
peculiar word to cxprefs the greater fufferings of Chrifl:, this the more confirms
the
« Malt. iii. 13. » Vol. II. p. 1 13, 297. ' Mark x. 38. Luke xii. 50.
J
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFA'NT - BAPTISM. 453
the fcnfe of the word contended for. The phrafein Pfalm xxii. 14. I am poured
cut like water, doth not exprefs the fuffcrings of Chrift, but the effeft of them,
the faintnefs of his fplrits under them. The pafTages in Pfalm Ixix. i, 2. which
reprefent him as overwhelmed with his fufFerings, as in water, do moft clearly
illuftrate the ufe of the word baptifm in reference to t'lem, and ftrongly fupport
theallufion to it, as performed by immerfion, which this writer has not been
able to fet afide.
(3.) Mention is made inA£jr^ vii.4. of the Jews wafhing, or baptizing them-
fclvcs, when they came from market, before they eat; and of the wafhing, or
baptizing of their cups, pots, brazen veflcls, tables or beds; all which was done
by immerfion. This writer fays, I am contradided by the beft mafters of the
Jewifh learning, when I fay, that the Jews upon touching common people, or
their clothes, at market, or in any court of judicature, were obliged by the tra-
dition of the elders to immerfe themfelves in water, and did. To which I reply,
that Vatablus and Druftus, who were great mafters of Jewifh learning, affirm,
that according to tlie tradition of the elders, the Jews wafhed or immerfed the
whole body before they eat, when they came from market; to whom may be
added the learned Crotius, who interprets the words the fame way; and which
feems mofl rcafonabic, fince wafhing before eating, ver. 4. is diflinguifhed from
the wafhing of hands, ver. 3. But not to refl it here; Maimonides'^, that great
maflcr of Jewifh learning, afTures us, that " if the Pharifees touched but the
" garments of the common people, they were defiled, all one as if they had
" touched a profluvious perfon, and needed immerfion," and were obliged to
it : and though Dr Lightfoot, who was a great man in this kind of learning,
yet not always to be depended upon, is of opinion, that the plunging of the
whole body is not here underftood ; yet he thinks, that plunging or immerfioa
of the hands in water, is meant, done by the Jews, being ignorant and uncer-
tain what uncleannefs they came near unto in the market ; and obferves, the
Jews ufed the wafliing of the hands, and the plunging of the hands; and that
the word wajh in the Evangelift, feems to anfwer to the former, and baptize to
the latter ; znd Pococke^ himkM, whom this writer refers to, confefTcs the fame,,
and fays, that the Hebrew word "jn'J) to which ^ATm^iSmi anfwers in Greek, fig-
nifies a further degree of purification, than b'O:^ or ^(mrjtir, (the words ufed
for wafhing of hands) though not fo as neceflarily to imply an immerfion of the
whole body ; Cnce the greatefl and moft notorious uncleannefs of the hands
reached but to the wriH:, and was cleanfed by immerfing or dipping up to it ;
and though he thinks the Greek word ufed in the text does not only and necef-
larily fignify immerfion, which yet he grants, fpeciaily agrees to it, as he thinks
appears,
■ In Mifnah Chagigah, c. 2. 5. 7. » Not. Mifcell. 390, 397.
■454 A REPLY T O A DEF EN C E ' O F THE"
appears from Luke xi. 38. To this may be oppofed what the great Scaliger * fays-,
" the more fupcrftitious part of the Jews, not only dipped the feet but the whole
" body, hence they were called Hemerobaptifts, who every day h>cfore they
" fat down to food, dipped the body -, wherefore the Pharifee, who had invited
" Jefus to dine with him, wondered he. fat down to meat before he had wafhed
•' his whole body, Luke xi." and after all, be it which it will, whether the
immerfion of the whole body, or only of the hands and feet, that is meant in
thefe. paflages ; fince the wafhing of .either was by immerfion, as owned, it is
fufficient to fupport the primary fenfe of the word contended for : and fo all
other things, after mentioned, according to the tradition of the elders, of which
only the text fpeaks, and not of the law of God, were wafhed by immerfion ;
particularly brazen veflels -, .-concerning which the tradition is % " fuch as they
" ufe for hot things, as cauldrons and kettles, they heat them with hot water,
" and fco4.ir them, and dip them, and they are fit to be ufed."
'.This writer fays, I am ftrangely befides my Text, when I add, that " even
" beds, pillows, and bolfters, when they were unclean in a ceremonial fenfe,
" were to be wafhed by immerfion, or dipping them into water;" but I am
able to produce chapter and verfe for what I affirm, from the traditions of
the Jews, which are the only things fpokcn of in the text, and upon which the
proof depends : for beds, their canons run thus ; "abed that is wholly de-
" filed, if a man J;/)j it part by part, it is pure ^" Again, " if he J//>j the bed
•' in it, (a pool of water) though its feet are plunged into the thick clay, (at
•" the bottom of the pool) it is clean '." As for pillows and bolflers, thus they
fay, " a pillow or a bolder of fkin, when a man lifts up the mouth of them
" out of the water, the water which is in them will be drawn ; what fhall we
*' do? he muflJip them, and lift them up by their fringes ^" Thus, accord-
ing to the traditions of the elders, our Lord is fpeaking of, thefe feveral things
mentioned were wafhed by immerfion ; which abundantly confirms the primary
frnfe of the word ufed.
(4.) The pafTage of the Ifraelitcs through the Red-fea, and under a cloud, is
reprcfented as a baptifm, iCcr.x. i, 2. and very aptly, as performed by im-
merfion -, fince the waters ftood up on both fides of them, and a cloud covered
them ; which very fitly reprefented perfons immcrfed and covered with water
in baptifm : but what our author thinks will fpoil this fine fancy, and fome
others, as he calls them, is, that one obfcrvation of Ms/^j often repeated ; that
/be children of Ifrael went en dry ground through the midjl of the fea. To which
I reply, that we arc not under any neceflity of owning that the cloud under
which
* De Emend, temp. I. 6. p. ^71. "• Maimon. Miacolot Afurot, c. «7. 1. 3.
* Jb. Celim, c. 16. S. 14. « Mifoah Mikvaot, c. 7. S. 7. ' lb. S. 6.
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTI S M. 455
which the Ifraelites were, let down any rain : it is indeed the fentiment of a
Paidobaptift, I have referred to, and therefore am not affcfled with this obfer-
vation ; befides, it (hould be confidered, that this equally, at leaft, fpoils the
fine fancy of the rain from the cloud bearing a much greater refemblance to
fpr'mkling or affufion, as is aflerted by- the writer of the dialogue j and our
author fays, there was a true and proper ablution with water from the cloud,
in which the Ifraelites were baptized, -and concludes that they received baptifm
by fprinkling or afFufion -, how then could they walk on dry ground ?
(5.) The laft text mentioned is Heb. ix. 10. which fpeaks o{ diverfe wajh'mgs
or baptifms of the Jews, or different dippings, as-it may be rendered without any.
impropriety, as our author aflerts -, though not to be underftood of different
forts of dipping, as he fooliflily objefts to us ; nor of different forts of wafhing,
fome by fprinkling, fome by affufion, others by bathing or dipping, as he would
have it j but the Jewifh wafhings or baptifms are fo called, becaufe of the dif-
ferent perfons, or things wafhed or dipped, as Grolius on the place fays ; there
was one waftiing of the Priefts, another of the Levitts, and another of the If- .
raelites, when they had contracted any impurity -, and which was done by im-
mcrfio*; nor do any of the inftances this writer has produced difprovc it. Not
Exod. xx'ix. 4.,Jhcu Jhalt wajl:) them with water; but whether by immerfion or
affufion he knows not. The Jews interpret it of immerfion j theTargum ofjo-
nathan is, "thou fhalf<^»/) them in forty meafurcs of living water:" nor Exod. .
XXX. 19. which mentions the wafhing of the prieft's hands and feet at .the brazen
laver of the tabernacle ; the manner of which our author defcribes from Dr
Ligbtfoot, out of ihc Rabbins i but had he tranfcribed the whole, it would have
appeared, that not only wafhing the hands and feet, but bathing of their whole
body, were ncccflary to the performance of their fcrvice; for it follows, "and none
**■ might enter into the court to do the fcrvice there, till he hath bathed ; yea,
" though he were clean, he mull bathe his body incold water before he enter."
And to this agrees a canon of theirs ^j " no man enters into the court for fervice,
*' though clean, ir\\ he has dipped himfelf; the high-priefl dips himfelffive
*' times on the day of atonement." And the Prielts and Levites, before they,
performed any part of the daily fervice, dipped thcmfelyes : nor 2 Chron. iv. 6.
which fays, the molten fca in Solomon's tern pie was for the priejls to wajh in j ,
where they wafhed not only their hands and their feet, but their whole bodies, .
as Dr Ligbtfoot fays "; and for the bathing of which, they went down into the •
vefTel itfelf; and to which agrees l\\c J erufalem Talmud \ which fays, "the
" molten fea was a dipping-place for the pricfls :" Nor Numb. viii. 6, 7. which, ,
had the pafTage been wholly tranfcribed, it would appear, that not only the wa-
ter i
« Mifoah. Yoma, c. 3.^8. 3. * Vol. I. p. 2047^ ' Yoma, fol. 41,.!..
456 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
ter of purifying was fprinkled on theLevites, but their bodies were bathed-, for
it follows: "and let them (have all their fiefh, and wafh their clothes, and fo
«' make themfelves clean -," that is, by bathing their whole bodies, which, as
theTargum on the place fays, was done in forty meafures of water. Sprinkling
the zvater vf -purification was a ceremony preparatory to the bathing, but was
itfelf no part of it-, and the fame is to be obferved of the purification by the ajhes
■of an heifer, on the third and feventh days, Numb. xix. 19. which was only pre-
paratory to the great purification by bathing the body, and wafhing the clothes
on the feventh day, which was the clofing and finifhing part of the fervice ; for
that it was the unclean perfon, and not the prieft, that was to wafh his -clothes,
and bathe himfelf in water, ver. 19. is clear; fince it is a diftinft law, or ftatute,
from that in ver. 21. which enjoins the prieft to wafh his clothes, but not to bathe
himfelf in water-, and indeed, the contrary fenfc is not only abfurd, and inter-
rupts and confounds the fenfe of the words-, but, as Dr Gale alfo obferves, it
cannot be reafonably imagined that the prieft, by barely purifying the unclean,
fhould need fo much greater a wafhing and purification than the unclean him-
-Iclf-, this fprinkling of the afhes of the heifer, therefore, was not part of the
Jewifh wafliings, or baptifms, or any exemplification of them -, fo that from
the whole, I fee no reafon to depart from my conclufion, that " the words bap-
"' tize and baptifm, in all the places mentioned, do from their fignification make
" dipping or plunging the necelTary mode of adminiftcnng the ordinance of bap-
«' tifm." • ' ■
I proceed now, 6. To vindicate thofc pafTages of fcripture, which nccefTarily
prove the mode of baptifm by immerfion. And,
l"he firft pafTage, is \nMatthew\\\. 6. and were baptized of him injordan, con-
fejfwg their ftns. We argue from hence, not merely from thefc pcrfons being
baptized, to their being <///i/)if^ -, though this is an argument that cannot be an-
fwercd, feeing thofe that are baptized, are neceffarily dipped \ for the word bap-
tize fic^nifies always to dip, or to wafh by dipping, and never to pour or fprinkle ;
but the argument is ftiil more forcible from thcfc pcrfons being baptized in the
u^cr Jordan': for cither the pcrfons faid to be baptized were in the river, or
they were not -, if they were not in the river, they could not be baptized in it-,
if they were in it, they went in it in order to be baptized by immerfion -, fince no
other end could be propofed, agreeable to the common fcjifc of mankind : to
fay they went into it to have a little water fprinkled or poured on them, which
could have been done without it, is ridiculous, and an impofition on common
fcnfe -, wherefore this neceffarily proves the mode of baptizing by immerfion;
fince no other mode is compatible with this circumftancc. The int^ances of the
blind
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 457
blind man's wafliing in Siloam, and the lavers of the temple being to wafh in,
■as difproving the neceffity of immerfion, I fay, are impertinent ; fince the word
baptize is ufed in neither of them ; and befides, there is nothing appears to the
contrary, that the blind man dipped himfclf in5z7(?^w, zsNaaman ihc Syrian did
in Jordan ; and the things that were wafhed in the lavers, were dipped there,
fince they held a quantity of water fufficient for that purpofc. The author of
the dialogue afks, " Do not we commonly wafli our face and hands in a bafon of
*' water without dipping in it?" But common prafticc proves the contrary ;
men commonly dip their hands into a bafon, when they wafh either hands or
face; the inftance ofEltJha pouring water on the hands of Elijah, doth not prove
it was common to wafli hands by pouring water on them ; fince this is not faid
to be done to wafh iiis hands with i and fome interpreters have thought that
walliing of hands is not intended, but fome miracle which followed theaflion of
pouring water, which gzvcEHJha a character, and by which he is defcribed.
Thefeccnd paiTage, \%John iii.23. J obn was baptizing in Enon near Salim, becaufe
there was much water there. Here is not the leaft hint of John's chufing of this
place, and being here, for any other reafon, but for baptizing ; not for drink
for men and cattle, as fuggeftcd ; befides, why did he not fix upon a place
where the people could be provided with food for themfelves, and provender
for their cattle ? Why for drink only ? This is a wild fancy, a vain conjecflure.
The reafon of the choice is plain, it was for the conveniency of baptizing, and
that becaufe there was much water, fuitable to the manner of baptizing ufed by
John; and if this reafon given agrees with no other mode of baptizing, but by
immerfion, as it does not, fince fprinkling or pouring requires not much water;
it follows, that this necefTarily proves the mode of baptifm by immerfion.
The third text is Matthew iii. 16. And Jefus, when be was baptized, went up
Jlraightway out 0/ the water. The author of the dialogue fuggefted, that the
Greek prepbfition «»o, always fignifies/rcw, never cut of: our author is obliged
to own, that it may fometimes admit to be rendered out of: a great conde-
fcenfion to the learned tranflators of our Bible ! Well,- if Jefus came up out
of the water, he mufl have been in it, where it is certain he was baptized ;
and the evangelift Mark fays, he was baptized into Jordan; not into the banks
oi Jordan; but into the waters of Jor^aw ; now feeing fuch an expreffion as
this will not fuit with any other mode of baptifm but immerfion, and it
cannot be faid with any propriety, that Chrift was fprinkled into Jordan, or
poured into Jordan, but with great propriety may be faid to be dipped or
plunged into Jordan ; it follows, that this necefTarily proves the mode of baptifm
as adminiftered to our Lord, to be by immerfion.
Vol. II. 3 N The
458 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
. The fourth paffage, is concerning Pbilip's baptizing the Eunuch in yfils viii.
38, 39. they went down both into the watery and he baptized him j and when they
"viere come up cut of the water, &cc. The dialogue-writer would have it that
this proves no more than that they went down to the water, and came /row it ;
but that this was not the cafe, 1 have obferved, that previous to this, they
are faid to come to a certain water, to the water-fide -, and therefore after this
it cannot be underftood of any thing clfe, but of their going into it ; and fo,
confequently, the other phrafe, of their coming out of it. Here our author
has got a new fancy in his head ; that coming to a certain water is not coming
to the water-fide, or to the water itfeif, but to the fight of it ; 'which fenfe he
does not pretend to confirm by any parallel place, either in facred or profane
writings, and is very abfurd, improper and impertinent j fince a perfon may
come to iht fight of a water, when he is at a great diftance from it, and cannot
be faid with any propriety to be come to it : what he thinks will add ftrength
to this fancy, and deftroy the obfervation I made, is, that after this the chariot
is ftill going on, and feveral queftions and anfwers paflcd before it was bid to
ftand ftill : all which is eafily accounted for, fuppofmg them to be come to
the water itfeif; fince the road, they were now in, might be by the water-fide,
and fo they travelled along by it, while the queftions and anfwers pafTcd, till
they came to a proper and convenient place for baptilm, at which they alighted ;
befides, why ftiould i\\e fight of a certain water, or confluence of water, put
the Eunuch in mind of baptifm, if it was not performed by immerfion, of the
mode of which he was doubtlefs acquainted ? It is highly probable, that this
treafurer was provided both with wine and water for his journey, which, mixed,
was the ufual drink of ihofe countries ; and a bottle of his own water would
have done for fprinkling, or pouring, had either of them been the mode of
baptifm ufed ; nor would there have been any occafion for going out of the
chariot and to the water, and much lefs into it, which the text is exprefs for ;
and feeing thefe circumftances of going down into the water, and coming up out
of it, at the adminiftration of baptifm, agree with no other mode than that of
immerfion, not with fprinkling, nor pouring water, it neceflarily proves im-
merfion to be the mode of baptifm.
The laft text is Romans vi. 4. we are buried with him by baptifm into death j where
baptifm is called a burial, a burial with Chrift, and a refemblance of his ; which
only can be made by immerfion : but our author fays, if it is defigned to repre-
fent it, there is no necefllty it fhould be a refemblance of it ; but how it can re-
prcfent it without a refemblance of it, is not eafy to fay : he fuggefts, that though
the Lord's fuppcr reprefcnts the death of Chrift, it is no refemblance of it.
Strange 1 that the breaking of the bread fhould not be a refemblance of the
body
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTI SM. 459
body of Chrift broken, and the pouring out of the wine not a refemblance of
his blood (bed. Baptifm by immerfion, according to our author, is no refem-
blance of the burial of Chrift ; fince his body was laid in a fepukhre cut out of
a rock on high, and not put under ground, or covered with earth : this arifes
-from a miftaken notion of the Jewifli way of burial, even in their fepulchres,
hewed out of rocks; for in every fepukhre of this kind, according to the nature
•of the rock, there were eight graves dug, fome fay thirteen, and which were
dug feven cubits deep'' : in one of thefe graves, within the fepukhre, lay the
body of ourLord. So that it had a double burial, as it were, one in the fepul-
chre, and another in on.e of the graves in it : befides, how otherwife could our
Lord be faid to be three days and nights in t\\c heart of the earth ' ? Again, our
author fays, " there is no more refemblance of a common burial in baptifm by
*' immerfion, than by fprinkling, or pouring on water; fince a corps above
" ground may be properly faid to be buried by having a fufficient quantity of
*» earth caft upon it." True ; but then a corps can never be faid to be buried,
that has a little duft or earth fprinkled or poured on ics face ; from whence it is
evident, that fprinkling or pouring cannot bear any refemblance of a common
burial. In fhort, feeing no other mode but immerfion, not fprinkling, nor pour-
ing, has any refemblance of a burial, this pafiage neceflarily proves the mode
of baptifm by immerfion : and yet, after all, this writer inclines to that opinion,
that both modes were ufed in fcripture-times; though it appears by all acc-ounts
that the manner was uniform, one and the fame word being always ufed in the
relation of it ; and yet he wrangles at every inftance of immerfion, and will not
allow of one ; what muft be faid of fuch a man ! that he muft be fct down for a
mere wrangler ; a wrangler againft light and confcience ; a wrangler againft his
own opinion and fentiment ; and what a worthlefs writer muft this be !
I go on, 7. To conCder the inflances, which, it is faid, fhew it improbable
that the ordinance of baptifm was performed by dipping. Thcfrfi is the bap-
tifm of the three thoufand, j4£Is ii. 41. which, to be done by immerfion, is re-
prefented as improbable; from the fhortnefs of the time, and the want of conve-
nience on a fudden, for the baptizing of fuch a multitude. As to the time, I
fliall not difpute it with our author, whether Pr/^r's fcrmon was at the beginning
of the third hour, or nine o'clock, or at the clofc of it, and about noon : I am
willing to allow it might be noon before the baptifm of thefe perfons came on;
nay, I will grant him an hour longer if he pleafes, and yet there was time enough
between that and night for the twelve apoftles, and fe<'cnty difciples, in all four-
fcore and two, to baptize by immerfion three times three thoufand perfons. . I
pafs over his foolifh remarks on a perfon's being ready for baptifm, as I have
done many others of the fame Ilupid kind, as deferving no notice, nor anfwer i
3 N 2 AlS
^ Mifnah Bava Bathra, c. 6. S. 8. ' Matt. lii.. 40.,
460 A REPLY TO A DEFENCE OF THE
As to the want of convenience for the baptizing fuch a number, I have obferved
the great number of baths in private houfes in Jerufakm, the feveral pools in ir,
«nd the many conveniences in the temple : this writer thinks, the mention of
the lafl; is a piece of weaknefs in me, to imagine that the Jcwifh priefts, in whofe
hands they were, the- mortal enemies of Chrift, fhould be on a fudden fo good-
natured as to grant the ufe of their baths for fuch a purpofe : but how came they
to allow the chriftians the ufe of their temple, where they met daily ? And be-
fides, it is exprefsly faid, they bad favour -with all the people '°.
Tht fecond xn^iincs, is the baptifm of Paul"; here only the narrative is direft-
ed to, as reprefenting his baptifm to be in the houfe ofjudasj but there is no-
thing in the account that neceflarily concludes it was done in the houfe, but
rather the contrary; fince he arofe from the place where he was, in order to be
baptized : and fuppofing it was done in the houfe, it is not at all improbable
that there was a bath in this houfe, where it might be performed -, fince it was
the houfe of a Jew, with whom it was ufual to have baths to wafh their whole
bodies in, on certain occafions : So that there is no improbability of PauPs bap-
tifm being by immerfion ; befides, he was not only bid to ari/e and be baptized,
which would found very oddly, be fprinkkd or poured " ; but fays himfclf, that
he was buried by baptifm >".
The third inftance, is the baptifm of Cornelius and his houfhold ■". The
fenfe of the words given, " can any man forbid the ufe of his river, or bath,
" or what conveniency he might have, for baptizing-," is objected to, as not
being the apoftlc's words, but a ftrained fenfe of them : the fame objtrdlion
may be made to this writer's fenfe, that the phrafe imports the forbidding water
to be brought ; fince no fuch thing is exprefled, or hinted at : the principal
"thing, no doubt, defigned by the apoftle, is, that no one could, or at lead
ou<Tht, to objcft to the baptifm of thofe who had fo manifeftly received the
holy Ghoft : but what is there in all this account, that renders their baptifm
by immerfion improbable, for which it is produced ?
The fourth inftance is the baptifm of the Jailor and his houfhold'; in the
relation of which, there is nothing that makes it probable, much lefs certain,
that it was performed by fprinkling or pouring water on them ; nor any thing
that makes it improbable that it was done by immerfion : according to the
account given, it feems to be a clear cafe, that the Jailor, upon his converfion,
took the apoftles out of prifon into his own houfe, where they preached to him
and his family ', and that after this, they went out of his houfe, and were bap-
tized ; very probably in the river without the city, where the oratory was ', for
ic
■ Afbii. 46, 47. • Afls ir. 18. • Afts xxii. 16. " »" Rom. vi. 4.
* Adsx. 47. 'Aflsxvi. 33. • Ver. 32. « Ver. 13.
1
DIVINE RIGHT OF INFANT - BAPTISM. 461
it is certain, that after the baptifm of him and his houfliold, he brought the
apofties into his houfe, and fet meat before them °, nor is it any unreafonable
and incredible thing, that he with his whole family Aould leave the prifon and
prifoners, who no doubt had fervants that he could truft, or otherwife he muft
have been always little better than a prifoner himfelf : and whether the earth-
quake reached any farther than the prifon, to alarm others, is not certain, nor
any great matter of moment in this controvcrfy to be determined ; and the
circumftances of the whole relation (hew it more likely, that the Jailor and his
family were baptized without the prifon, than in it, and rather in the river
without the city, than with the water out of the vefTel, with which the Jailor
had wafhed the apoftle's ftripes : upon the whole, thefe inflances produced fail
of (hewing the improbability of the mode of baptifm by immerfion •, which
muft appear clear and manifeft to every attentive reader, notwithftanding all
that has been oppofcd unto it.
There remains nothing but what has been already attended to, or worthy of
regard ; but the untruth he charges me with, in faying that " the dialogue-
" writer only attempts to mention allufive exprefTions in favour of fprinkling :"
our author will be afhamed of himfelf, and his abufive language, when he
looks into the dialogue again -, fince the writer of that never mentions the words-
of the inftitution, for any fuch purpofe, and much lefs argues from them ; nor
does he ever Ihew that the word baptize is in the facred pages applied to fprink-
ling, or that it fo fignifies ; nor does he any where argue from the good appear-
ance there is of evidence, that in the apofties times, the mode of fprinkling was
ufed ; he never attempts to prove that the word ^(tir]i(t, fignilies to fprinkle,
or is fo ufed ; nor mentions any one inftance of fprinkling in baptifm ; what he
contends for is, that the fignification of the word, and the fcripcure inftances of
baptifm, do not make ^//)/)/«^ the necelTary mode of adminiftering that ordi-
nance-, and what he mentions in favour of fprinkling, are only refemblances, ,
and allulive exprefTions.
Thefe, Sir, are the remarks I made in reading Mr C/<2r-^'s book ; which I
have caufed to be tranfcribed, and here fend you for the ufe of yourfelf and
friends, either in a private or in a public way, as you may judge neceflary and.
proper.
» Afts xvi. 33, 3<.
London,
July 16, 1753.
/ am with all due refpeHs,
Tours, &c.
JOHN GILL..
j^62 SOME STRICTURES ON Mr BOSTWICK^s
SOME
STRICTURES
O N
.Mr B O S T W I C K 's Fair and Rational Vindication of the
Right of Infants to the Ordinance of Baptifm.
A X.ONG with Mr Clark's Defence of the divine Right of Infant-baptifm, to
which what is written above is a Reply, there has been imponed from
America a treatife, called, A fair and rational Vindication of the Right of Infants
■to the Ordinance of Baptifm ; being the fubftance of fevcral difcoiirfes from
AHs ii. 39. by David Bojlzvick, A. M. late minifter of the Prefbyterian church
in the city o^ Newl'ork, which has been reprinted and publifhed here -, and as
it comes in company with the former, it is but a piece of civility to take fomc
notice of it, and make fome few ftridures upon it, though there is nothing in
it but what is anfwered in the above Reply •, to which I fhall greatly refer the
reader. There is fcarce a fingle thought through the whole of it, that I can
difcern, is new, nothing but crambe repeiita, old dale reafonings and argu-
ments, which have been anfwered over and over ; and yet this, I underftand,
has been cried up as an unanfwerahle performance ; which I do not wonder at,
that any thidc^ that has but an appearance of reafoning, candour, and ingenuity,
.as this will be allowed to have, fhould be fo reckoned by thofe of that party ;
-when the mofl miferable pamphlet that comes out on that fide of the queftion,
:has the fame epithet beftowed upon ic. And,
Firfi, This Gentleman has miftook the fenfc of his text, on which he grounds
his difcourfe concerning the Right of infants to baptifm. Acts ii. 39. for the
promife is unto you, and to your children ; and I0 all that are afar off; even as
snany as the Lord our God fhall call ^ bj which promife, he fays, p. 14, 1.5. mufl:
be
FAIR AND RATIONAL VINDICATION, &c. 463
.be underftood, " the covenant -promife made to Abraham, which gave his
^ infant-children a right to the ordinance of circumciQon ;" when there is not
the lead mention made oiAbrabamy nor of any covcnant-promife made to him in
it; nor was ever any covenant-promife made to him, giving his infant-children
a right to the ordinance of circumcifion, but the covenant of circiimcifion ;
and that can never be meant here by the promife -, fince this is faid to be to
all that are afar off; by whom, according to this Gentleman, Gentiles are
meant; to whom the covenant of circumcifion belonged not; nor did it give
to them any right to the ordinance of circumcifion, except they became pro-
felytes to the Jewifh religion : befides, be the promife here what it may, it is
obferved, not as giving any right or claim to any ordinance whatever; but as
an encouraging motive to perfons in diltrefs under a fenfe of fin, to repent of
their fin, and declare their repentance, and yield a voluntary fubjeftion to the
ordinance of baptifm ; when they might hope that remifiion of fin would be
applied to them, and they (hould receive a larger meafure of the grace of the
Spirit ;. and therefore can only be underft;ood of adult perfons ; and the pro-
mife is no other than the promife of life and falvation by Chrift, and of remif-
fion of fins by his blood, and of an increafe of grace from his Spirit: and
whereas the perfons addrefied had imprecated the blood of Chrift, they had
fhed, upon their pofterity, as well as on themfelves, which greatly diftrefl"ed
them ; they are told, for their relief, that the fame promife would be made
good to. their poflerity alfo, provided they did as they were, directed to do; and
to all their brethren the Jews, in diftant parts ; and even to the Gentiles, fome-
times defcribed as afar off, of the fame charafter with themfelves, repenting
and fubmitiing to baptifm ; yea, to all, in all ages and places, whom God
fhould now, or hereafter call by his grace ; fee my Reply to Mr Clark, p. 50,
51 *. This text is fo far from being an unanfjjerabk argument for the right of
infants to baptifm, as it is faid to be, that there is not. the ieaft mention of
Infant-baptifm in it ; nor any hint of it ; nor any thrng fron> whence it can be ■
concluded. The baptifm encouraged to by it is only of adult perfons convinced
of fin, and who repented of it. The paflTage in A^s iii. 25. brought for the
fupport of the author's fenfe of his text, is foreign to his purpofe ; fince it re-
fers not to the. covenant of circumcifion made fi\\.\\ Abraham, Gen. xvii. but to •
the promife of the JVIefilah of Abraham's feed, and of the bieffing of all nations
in him, Gen. xxii. 18. and which was fulfilled in the mifTion and incarnation of
Chrift, and in the miniftration of his gofpel to Jews and Gentiles; which fame
promife of Chrift, of life and falvation by him, is meant in A^s xiii. 26, 32, 33. .
and which is .alfo a proof, that the children to whom it belongs, are to be •
underftood 1
• -The Oflavo Edit, is referred to nil along.
454 SOME STRICTURES ON Mr B OSTWl C K*s
undcrftood, not of infant-children, but of the adult pofterity of the Jews ; fincc
the apoftlc fays, Gcd bath fulfilled the fame to us their children; for furcly the
apoftle Paul muft not be reckoned an infant-child.
Secondly, The ground on which the right of infants to baptifm is founded by
this author is a falfe one; which is the covenant made with Abraham, that,
which gave his infant-children a right to circumcifion, and is faid to be the
covenant of grace, the fame under which believers now are. This he looks
.upon to be the grand turning point, on which the ifTue of the controverfy very
much depends ; that it is the main ground on which the right of infants to bap-
tifm is aficned ; and he freely confefles, that if this covenant is not the cove-
nant of grace, the main ground of infants right to baptifm is taken away, and
confcquently, that the principal arguments in fupport of the doftrine are over-
turned, .p. I 8, 19. Now that this ground and foundation is a falfe and fandy
one, and will not bear the weight of this Juperftrufture laid upon it, will ap-
pear by obferving,
1. That the covenant of grace gives no rightto any pofitive inftitution, either
circumcifion or baptifm : not to circumcifion; -the covenant of grace was in
being, was made, manifefted, and applied to many, from Adam to Abraham,
•both before and after the flood, who had no right to circumcifion, nor know-
iedgc of it; the covenant of grace did not give xo Abraham himfelf a right to
circumcifion ; he was openly interefted in it, it was made, manifefted, and
applied unto him, many years before circumcifion was enjoined him; and when
it was, it was not the covenant of grace, but the cxprefs command of God,
■that gave him and his male feed a right to circumcifion ; I fay his male feed,
for his female feed, though no doubt many of them were interefted in the
.cavenant of grace, yet their covenant-intercft gave them no right unto it : as
there were alfo many, at the fame time that circumcifion was enjoined Abraham
and his natural feed, who were interefted in the covenant of grace, and yet
had no right to circumcifion ; as Shem, Arphaxad, Lot, and others : and on the
other hand, it may eafily beobferved, that there were many who had a right to
.circumcifion, and on whom it was praftifed, who, without any breach of cha-
rity, it may be concluded, had no intereft in the covenant of grace ; not to
mention particular perfons, as Ifhmael, Efau, &c. many of the idolaters and
•rebels among the Ifraclites in the wildernefs, of thofe that bowed the knee to
Baal in the times of Ahab, and of the worftiippers of feroboam's calves ; thofe
that are called the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah in the times of Ifaiah, and that
worfhipped the queen and hoft of heaven in the times of Jeremiah ; and
(thofe whofe charadtcrs are given in the prophecy oi Malachi, as then living;
with
J
FAIR AND RATIONAL VINDICATION, &c. 465
with the Scribes and Pharifees, who committed the unpardonable fin in the times
of Chrift; thefe cannot be thought to be in the covenant of grace.
In (hort, all were not I/rael that were of Jfrael, and circumcifed : it is there-
fore clear to a demonRration, that intereft in the covenant of grace did not
give right to circumcifion, but the fpecial, particular, and exprefs command
of God: nor does it give right to baptifm -, it gave the Old Teftament-faints
no right unto ir, who were four thoufand years without it, and yet in the cove-
nant of grace ; and fince baptifm is enjoined as an ordinance of the New Tefta-
ment, a perfon may be in the covenant of grace, and yet not known to be fo '
by himfclf or others ; and while he is in fuch a ftate, and in fuch circumftances,
he cannot be thought to have any right to baptifm. It is a command of God,
that thofe that repent and believe, be baptized; the covenant of grace provides
faith and repentance for thofe interefted in it, and beftows them on them ;
whereby they are qualified for baptifm according to the divine command. But
it is not the covenant of grace, nor thefe qualifications, that give the right to
baptifm -, but the command of God to perfons fo qualified, to profefs the fame,
and be baptized : for men may have faith and repentance, yet if they do not
make a profefDon of them, they have no right to baptifm, nor a minifter any
authority to adminiftcr i: to them. No doubt but the apoftle Peier was fatis-
fied that the three thoufand pricked in their hearts were truly penitents ; yet
infixed on the profeffion of their repentance, as antecedent to baptifm ; and
Philip., I make no queftion, was fatisfied of the Eunuch's being a believer in
Chrift by the converfation he had with him; yet required a confeffion of his
faith in him, in order to his baptifm ; for with the mouth confejfion is to be made
unto falvatien. Nor even according to our author's fcntiment does the cove-
nant of grace give a right to baptifm ; fince, according to him, perfons are
not in covenant before they are baptized; for he exprefsly fays, p. 12, 30. that
by baptifm they enter into the covenant, and are taken into the covenant by bap-
tifm ; and therefore baptifm rather gives them a right to the covenant, than the
covenant a right to baptifm, according to this Gentleman : fo far is it from
being true what he elfewere fays, p. 32. that the covenant of grace ^;kst Abra-
ham and his children a right to circumcifion under the law; and that this it is
that gives parents and children a right to baptifm under the gofpel.
2. The covenant of circumcifion, or the covenant which gave Abraham's
infant-children a right to circunicifion, is not the covenant of ^racc; for the
covenant of circumcifion muft be mod certainly, in the nature of it, a covenant
of works, and not of grace. It will be freely allowed, that the covenant of
grace was at certain times made, and made manifcft, and applied to Abrahamy
and iie interefted in it; and that God was the God of him, and of his fpiritual
Vol. II. 3 O feed;
1
466 SOME STRICTURES ON MrBOSTWICK's
feed ; and that the fpiritual feed of y^iraham, both among Jews and Gentiles,
are incerefted in the fame covenant -, bur not his carnal feed, nor theirs as fuch :
and ihnt^irabam was juftified by faith, as believers now are-, and that the fame
gofpel was preached to him as now j and that at the fame time the covenant of
circumcifion was given unto him, there was an exhibition of the covenant of
grace unto him : the account of both is mixed together-, but then the covenant
of circumcifion, which was a covenant of peculiarity, and belonged only to him
and his natural male feed, was quite a diftinft thing from the covenant of grace,
fincc it included fome that were not in the covenant of grace, and excluded others
that were in it : nor is that the covenant that was confirmed of God in Chrift
430 years before the law was -, fince the covenant of circumcifiorw falls 24 years
fhort of that date, and therefore it refers not to that, but to.an exhibition of the
covenant of grace \o Abraham, about the time of his call out of CbalJea -, befides.
the covenant of circumcifion is abolifhcd, but the covenant of grace continues,
and ever will-, fee my reply, p. 35, 36. Now as this covenant, which gave
Abrabam'% infant-children a right to circumcifwn, is not the covenant of grace,
the main ground on which the right of infants to baptifm is affcrccd, is taken,
away, and fo no foundation left for it; and confcqucntly the principal arguments
in fupport of the doflrine are overturned, as this Gentleman freely confclTcs ;
and as every one fhould,. who is in the fame way of thinking and reafoning. If
the covenant of circumcifion is not the covenant of grace, hereofri^ht thecon-
troverfy fhould be clofed, fince this is the turning point on which the ifiue of
it very much depends ; for if this be falfe, all that follows as argued from it,,
muft be fo too •, for.
Thirdly^ If the covenant of circumcifion is not the covenant of grace, then
circumcifion is not the feal of the covenant of grace it is faid to be, p. 22. If
it was,, the covenant of grace muft be without fuch a feal near two thoufand
years, before the covenant of circumcifion was given-, and why not then always
without one i" befides, it muft be with a feal and without a feal at one and fame
time,, which is abfurd ; for there were fome interefted in the covenant of grace
as before obferved, on whom circumcifion was not enjoined, and fo without
this feal, when it was cn]o\ncd on Abraham and his natural feed, and there were
fuch afterwards -, and circumcifwn alfo muft have been the feal of itfelf, which
is another abfurdity. Circumcifion was a token and fign, or mark in the fiefh,
y)h\ch Abraham's natural pofterity were to bear until the coming of theMelTiah;
but is never called a feal throughout the whole Old Teftament ; and much lefs
is it any where faid to be a feal of the covenant of grace : and indeed what blefs-
ing of grace could it feal, aflure of, and confirm, to any of Abraham's natural
feed
^ Romans iv. li.
FAIR AND RATIONAL VINDICATION, &c. 467
feed as fuch, or any other man's natural feed ? It is indeed in the New Tefta-
ment called a feat of the rigbtcoufnefs of the faith which Abraham had, being yet
vncircumcifed ", but then it was no fealofihar, nor of any thing elfe to others,
but to Abraham on]f ; namely, that that righteoufncfs which he had by faith
before he was circumcifed, would come upon, or be imputed to the uncircum-
cifed Gentiles ; and accordingly this mark continued in the flefh of his pofterity,
until the gofpcl, publi(hing juftification by the righteoufnefs of faith, was or-
dered to be preached to the Gentiles '. Wherefore,
. Fourthly, Seeing circumcifion was no feal of the covenant of grace, baptifm,
•which it is pretended was inftituted in the room of it, can be no feal of k nei-
ther, and lo not to be adminiftered as fuch to the children of profefled believers,
as is faid, p. 25. The text In Colojians ii. 1 1. falls fhort of proving that bap-
tifm is inftituted in the room of circumcifion •, fince the apoftle is fpeaking, not
of circumcifion in the flcfli, but in the Spirit ; and by which he means not the
outward ordinance of baptifm, that is dil\inguifhed from it ^ but an inward
work of grace upon the heart; fpiritual circumcifion, caWcd the circum:i/ton of
Chrill: ; which to undcrlland as the fame, is not to make an unreafonabic tauto-
logy; it makes none at all, and much Icfs ncnfenfe, as this writer fugoeds j but
beautifully completes the defcripcion the apoflje gives of'fpiritual circumcifion ;
firft, by the manner of its performance, without hands; then by the matter and
fubftance of it, the putting off the body of the fins of tbefefh; and laftly, by the
author of it, Chrift, who by his fpirit produces it.
The argument from analogy \% weak and infufficient; though fome little agree-
ment between circumcifion and baptifm maybe imagined, and feem to be in
the figiiification of them, yet the difference between them is notorious ; they
differ in their fubjcfts, ufcs, manner of adminiflration, and the adminiflrators
of them-, nor is it true, what is fuggeflcd, that they are both facraments of ad-
milTion into the church ; nor are they badges of relation to God orChrilV, nor
ligns and fcals of the covenant of grace. Nor need we be under any concern
about any ordinance corr.ing in the room of circumcifion, and anfwering to thac
Jcwifh rite. Nor is there any necefTity of any, no more than of a pope in the
room of an high priefl:, or of any feflivals to anfwer to thofe of the pafrover,
pentecoll, and fcaft of tabernacles-, nor does the Lord's fupper anfwer to the
pafTuver, and come in the room of it ; it is Chrift that anfwers to it, and is the
pafTover facrificed for us : but what makes it quite clear and plain, that baptifm
docs not fucceed circumcifion, or come in the room of it, is, that it was in force
and ufe before circumcifion was abolifhed, which was not until the death of
302 Chrift;
* Rom. iv. II,
and the Reply, p. 43.
* See the divine Right of Ipfant-baptifin examined, &c. p 56, ic.
' Ver i:.
468 SOME STRICTURES ON Mr BOSTWICK's
Chrift, whereas "John adminiftered baptifm, and Chrift himfelf was baptized^
and many o;hers, fome years before that time -, and therefore baptifm cannot
be faid, with any propriety, to fucceed circumcifion, when it was in force before
the other was out of date : befides, if it did, it is no feal of the covenant of grace,
nor to be adminiftered to infants for fuch an ufe-, for what fpiritual bleffing,
what bleffing of grace in the covenant, does baptil'm feal, or can feal, aflure of,
4nd fecure unto the carnal feed of believers ? Let it be natncd if it can %
Fifthly^ It is not indifputably evident, as this Gentleman fays, p. 29. but
indifputably falfe, that the apoftles acknowledged and allowed the covenant-
relation and interefl: of children, under the gofpel, as well as under the law-,.
by which I take it for granted he means, their relation and interefl in the cove-
nant of grace : that relation and interefl, the natural feed of Abraham, as fuch,
had not under the law ; nor have the natural feed of believers, as fuch, the
fame under the gofpel. This is not to be proved from his text, as has been
fhewn already : nor from Romans xi. 16, 17. where by the root and branches,
ire not meant Abraham and his pofterity, or natural feed -, nor by the olive-
tree the Jewirti church 1 but the gofpel church-ftate in its firft foundation, out
of which were left the Jews that believed not in Chrifl, meant by the branches
broken off; and which church was conflituted of thofe that believed in him ;
and thefe were the root d^nd firjl-fruits, which being holy, are the pledge and
carneft of the future converfion and holinefs of that people the apoflle is fpeak-
ing of in the context; and into which church-ftate the Gentiles that believed
were received, and are the branches grafted in, which partook of the root and
fatnefs of the olive-tree ; that is, of the goodnefs and fatnefs of the houfe of
God, the ordinances and privileges of it : and in this paflage not a word is
laid of the covenant-relation, and interefl of children under the gofpel ; not a
fyllable about baptifm, much lefs of Infant-baptifm j nor can any thing in
favour' of it be inferred from it'; nor can any thing of this kind be proved
from I Corinthians vii. 14. real internal holinefs is rejefled by our author, as
the fcnfe of this and the preceding pafTage ; but he pleads for a federal holi-
Hcfs ; but what that is, as diftindl from real holinefs, let it be faid if it can :
the only holinefs which the covenant of grace promifes and provides for, and
which only is proper federal holinefs, is real holinefs of heart and life * : no
other than matrimonial holinefs, or lawful marriage, can be meant in the Co-
rinthian text ; it is fuch a holinefs with which the unbelieving parent is fanfti-
fied, hufband or wife ; and if it is a federal holinefs, the unbeliever ought to
be allowed to be in covenant ; and if this gives a right to baptifm, ought to be
baptized,
« See Reply, p. 44—47. ' Sec the Reply, p, 64, 65.
« See Jer. xxxi, 33. Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27.
FAIR AND RATIONAL VINDICATION, &c. 4%
baptized, as well as their carnal ifllie ; and have as good a right to it, furely,
fis they who have their holinefs from them, and which even depends upon the
fanflification of the unbelieving parent. lam able to prove, from innumer-
able inftances in Jewifh writings, that ihtv/ords faniiify znd fanSifiid, are ufed
for efpoufe and efpoufedy and the apoftle, being a Jew, adopts the fame lan-
guage ; and let men wriggle and wrangle as long as they can, no other fcnfe
can be put upon the. words, than of a legitimate marriage and offspring; no-
thing elfc will fuit with the cafe propofed to the apoftle, and with his anfwer
and reafoning about it ; and which fcnfe has been allowed by many learned
Esdobaptifts ; and I cannot forbear tranfcribing, what Lhave clfewhere done,,
ihe honeft confelTion oi Mufculus : "Formerly, fays he, I have abufed this
" place againft the Anabaptifts, thinking the meaning was, that the children
" were holy for the parents faith, which,, though true, the prefcnt place makes
*'- nothing for the purpofe '."
Sixthly, From what has been obferved, it is not proved, as our author aflerts,
p. 32. that the apoftles looked on the children of believing parents as having an
incercft in the covenant of grace ; and falfe is it, to the laft degree of falfhood,.
what he infers from thence, that " then we have undeniable evidence that
" they did in fad baptize the children of all profcfTing believers; and that they
•* underftood their commiffion as authorizing them fo todo,M<J//i'««xxviii. 19."
Let one Cnglc fadt be produced, one undeniable inftance of the apoftles bap-
tizing an infant of any, profcflbr or profane, and we will give up the caufe at
once, and fay no more. Nor did the apoftles, nor could the apoftles under-
ftand the commifllon as authorizing them to baptize infants. "What this Gen-
tleman obferves, that the word teach is in the original to make dilciples,.,or learn :
Be it fo, it is not applicable to new-born babes, who arc not capable of learning
ajiy thing, and much lefs of divine and fpiritual things,, of Chrift and his gof-
pel, and the dodrines of it; of which kind of learning.only can the commillion-
be underftood : nor are the children of believing parents called difciplcs, yiSis xv.
ID. adult perfons are meant; and by the yoke attempted to be put on their necks,.
not circumcifion, which was not intolerable, but the do<5trine of the necellity
of that, and other Mofaic rites,, and even of keeping the whole law in order to^
falvation ; this was intolerable.
This author further obferves, that children muft be included in the words all
nationi, mentioned in the commiftion. If they are included fo as to be baptized,
and if this phrafcis to be underftood without any limitation or reftriflion, then
.not only the children of chriftian parents, but the children of Pagans, Jews, and
Turks;. yea, all adult perfons, be they who they may, ever fo vile and profli-
gate,,
» See ihe divioe Right of Infant-baptifin examined, p. 73—78. apd the Reply, p^ 55-:-sg.-
470 SOME STRICTURES ON Mr BOSTWICK^s
gate, fince thefe are included in all nations-, but the limitation is to thofe that
are taught, and learn to become the difciples of Chrift, and believe in him,
as appears from Alark xv\. 15, 16'. Nor does it appear from the fcripture-
accounts, that there is any probability, and much lefs (be bighejl probability, as
this writer fays, p. 33. that it was the general pradt-ice of the apoftles to baptize
infants, and which he concludes from Lydia, the Jailor, and Stephanas ; which
inftances do not afford the lead probability of it"". To make it probable that
there might be infant-children in thofe families, he obferves, we read, when
God fmotc the firft-born in Egypt, there was not an ■houfe in which there was
i\oiene dead, confequently not an houfe \nEgypt in which there was not a child:
•but he did not confider, that. all the firft-born of £j^/)/ flain, were not infant-
children ; but many of them might be men grown, of twenty, or thirty years
of age, or more ; and of thefe, with thofe under fuch an age, and in infancy,
it is not -ftrange that there fhould be found one in every houfe'. Our author
adds, " fuppofc it had been faid of one profelyted to the Jcwifh religion, that
" he and his houlhold, or that he and all his were circumcifed, would any doubt
" whether his infant-children were circumcifed ? I believe not :" and fo do i
too 1 but not for the reafon given, which is a falfe one; for it never was a prac-
tice, cither before or fmce Jbrabam's covenant, to receive children with their
parents into a covenant-relation, if by that relation is meant relation to, and
intereft in the covenant of grace -, but for this very good reafon, becaufe the
Jews and their profclytes were commanded to circumcife their Infant-children ;
but God has no where commanded any to baptize their Infant-children ; and
therefore when houfliolds are faid to be baptized, this cannot be u'nderllood of
infants, and efpecially when thofe in thefe houfholds are reprefented as hearers
of the word, believers in it, and perfons poffefled of fpiritual joy and comfort.
Seventhly, The evidence this author gives of the praflice of Infant-baptifm,
from thofe that lived in the firft, fecond, and third centuries, p. 34 — 40. comes
next. He produces no evidence from any writer of the firft century, though
there are fcveral whofc writings are extant, as Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Her-
mas, Polycarp, and Ignatius. He begins with Irenus, as he is twice called ;
irffjxus IS meanr, of whom he fays, that he only mentions Infant-baptifm tran-
ficntly -, but he docs not mention it at all : it is not once mentioned in all his writ-
ings, as corrupted as they be-, being fome fpurious, and for the mod part
tranflations, and thefe barbarous, and but few original pieces : the paffage pro-
duced for his ufc, of the word regeneration for baptifm, is not to the purpofe ;
fincc by the command o{ regenerating, Chrifl gave to his difciples, is not meant'
the
^5ee the Reply, p 58, 59, 62. ^ See the Rep!/, p. 63, 64. ' Ibid.
FAIR AND RATIONAL VINDICATION, kc. 471
the command of baptizing, but of teaching the do(5lrine of regeneration, and
the neceffity of it to falvation, and in order to baptifm, the firft and principal
part of the commifTion of the apoftles, as the order of the words {hews. The
other tcftimony which, he fays, is plain for the baptifm of infants, there is not
a fyllable of it ia it : Irenaus. only fays, " Chrift came to fave all; all I fay, that
" are born again unto God ; infants, and little ones, and children, and young
*' men, and old men." Which is moft true; for Chrift came to fave all of every
age that are regenerated, and of which perfons of every age are capable ; but to
interpret this of Chrift's coming to fav« all that are baptized, is falfe; and is to
make this ancient writer to fpeak an untruth : to prove that regeneration is ufed
by him for baptifm, a paflage is produced out oijujlin Martyr, faid to be his co-
temporary, though 7«/Z/» lived before him, in the middle of the fecond century,
and fliould have been firft mentioned ; but will not ferve his purpofe : {orju/lin
is fpeaking of the manner of adult-baptifm, and not a word of infants ; and of
adult perfons, not as regenerated, by or in baptifm ; for he fpeaks of them before
as converted and believers, and confequently regenerated ; and their baptifm
is plainly diflinguiftied from regeneration. Of the fenfe of the pafiages of thefe
two writers, fee more in ihe Reply, p. 16 — 18. The argument /rem apojiolic
Tradition, p. 13, 14. Antipiedobaptifm, p. 9—20.
The next teftimony produced is Origen, placed in the beginning of the third
century, though it was rather towards the middle of it that he wrote and flou-
rifhed in, and fhould have been mentioned after Tertullian, The pafTages
quoted from him are, the firft out of his eighth homily on Leviticus, though
the laft claufe in it does not belong to that, but is in the fourteenth homily on
Luke, aod the other is out of his epiftle to the Romans : Now thefe arc all
taken out of Latin tranflations, full of interpolations, additions, and detrac-
tions ; fo that, as many learned men obferve, " one knows not when he
" reads Origen, and is at a lofs to find Origen in Origen." Now whereas there
are genuine works of his ftill extant in Greek, in them there is not the leaft
hint of Infant-baptifm, nor any reference to it, much lefs any exprefs mention
of it, not even as an apoftolical tradition, as in the laft paftage produced; for
fo it ftiould be rendered, not order^ but tradition ; on which 1 fliall juft obferve
what Biftiop Taylor fays : -" A tradition apoftolical, if it be not configned with
«« a fuller tcftimony than of one perfon {Origen) whom all after-ages have con-
«' demned of many errors, will obtain fo little reputation among thofe, who
«' know that things have, upon greater authority, pretended to derive from
« the apoftles, and yet falDy ; that it will be a great argument, that he is cre-
" dubui.
472 SOME STRICTURES ON Uk BOSTWICR-'s
*« dulous and weak, that (hall be determined by fo weak a probation in t
*' matter of fo great concernment '."
TertuUian is the next writer quoted as giving plain proof that Infant-baptifm
was the conftant praftice of the church in his day : he is the firft perfon knowft
to have made any mention of it •, who, as foon as he did, argued againft it,
and difluaded from it ; and though it will be owned, that it was moved in his
day, and debated ; yet that it was praftifed, and much lefsconftantly praftifed,
has not yet been proved.
The next evidence produced is Cyprian, who lived in the middle of the third
-century; and it will be allowed that it was pra<5lifed in the African churches in
his time, where it was firft moved, and at the fame time Infant-communion
was praftifed alfo -, of the praAice of which we have as early proof as of
Infant-baptifm -, and tlus ■furnifhes with an anfwer to this author's queftions,
p. 42. When Infant-baptifrn was introduced, and by whom ? It was intro-
duced at the time Infant-communion was, and by the fame perfons. As for
the teftimonies of Ambrcft, Aufiin, and Pelegiia, they might have been fpared,
finer they wrote in the fourth century, when it is not denied that Infant-baptifm
very tniKh prevailed; of y^iijiin, and particularly of what Pelagius fays, fee
jirgument from apojlclic tradition, p. 19 — 26. Antipsdohaptifm, p. 33 — l"]. And
from hence it appears, that it is not true what this author fuggefts, p. 42, 51.
that infant-baptifm was the univerfal praftice of the primitive churches in the
three firft centuries, called the pureft times; when it does not appear to have
been praflifed at all until the third century, when fad corruptions were made
.in dofttine and pradlice.
Eighthly^ This author propofes to anfwer ibme of the moft material objcc-
-tions againft Infant-baptifm, p. 43, &c. as, i. " That there is no cxprefs
" command for it in fcripture, and therefore unwarrantable." To which the
anfwer is ; that if there is no cxprefs command, there are virtual and implicit
ones, which arc of equal force with an cxprefs one, and no Icfs than four arc
obfcrved ; one commarvd is enough, this is over-doing it, and what is over-
done is not well done : but let us hear them ; the firft is God's command to
jibrdbam tocirctinncifc his infant-children, which is a virtual and implicit com-
mand to believers to baptize theirs ! The reafon is, becaufe they are Abraham's
fpiritual feed, and heirs according to the promifc ; but the command to /fbraham
only concerned his natural, not his fpiritual feed ; and if there is any force in
the rcafon given, or the command lays any obligation on the latter, their duty
,is not to baptize, but circumcife their children ; fince thefacramcntal rite com-
manded,
n Liberty of prophefying, p. 320. See the Reply, p. ig, 20. Argument from apoftolic Tradition,
p. 16, 47. Antipardobaptifni, p. 24 — 29.
FAIR ATID RATIONAL VINDICATION, &c. 473
manded, k-icems, has never becrt repealed, and ftill remains in full force.
The next yjriual and im{>licit .cprom.and is in Matthew xix. 14. but Chrift'*
permilTion of children tQ eomty or to he hroHght unto him, there fpoken of, was
not for baptifm, .pr to be baptized by hinx, but for him to pray for them, and
touch them, in order to cure them of difeafes ". Another implicit, if not .ex-
prefs command, to baptize infants, is va Matthew xxviii. ,19. This has been
confidered, and difproved already j. fee p. 99. The fourth and lafl implicit
command, the author mentions, js., the e^chortatioii in his text, A5ls ii. 38, 39.
jn which, as has been fhewn,;Hh.ejQ is /lot the .^eaft hint of Infant-bapiifm, nor
(any thing froin-whence.it can fee, condvdcd.
This author obfcrves, that fincc virtual and implicit commands are looked
on as fufficicnt to determine our conduft in other things, then why noc in this ?
foch as keeping the firft-day-fabbath, attendance on public worfhip, and the
admifllon of -women to the Lord's-fupper. To which I reply, he has not
proved any virtual and implicit command to baptize infants; and as to the
cafes xncndoned, -bcfides implications, there are plain inftances in fcrlpturc of
the praftice of them; and let like inftances of Infant- baptifm be produced,
and we (hall think ourfelvcs obliged to praftife it. As to what this author fays
ofan exprcfs, irrcpealablc command to children, to receive the fcal of the cove-
rant, and the iconftant pradlicc of the church to adminifter the feal of it to
thcmi :if by liic covenant is meant the covenant of grace, it never had any fuch
fcal asiBfuggcftrd,which has been proved; nor has it any but the blood of Chrift,
x:9\\c^ she blood /)f the everlafting cvvenant.
2. Another objeftion to Infant-baptifm is; there is no exprefs inftance in all
the hiftory of the New-Tcftamcnt of an Infant-child being baptized, and there-
fore is without any fcripture-example. To which is replied, by obfcrving that
whole houfholds were baptized ; as there were, and which have been already
confidered; and thefe were baptized, not upon the converfion of the parent,
or head of the family, but upon their own faith ; and fo were not infants, but
adult perfons ; though this author thinks that fuch accounts would eafily be
undcrftood to include children, had the fame been faid of circumcifion. They
mighxfo, when. circumcifion was in force and ufe ; for this very good rcafon,
bcciufe there was a previous exprefs command extant to circumcife children,
when there is none to 'baptize infants. He further obfcrves, that from there
being no exprefs mention of Infant-baptifm in theNew Tcftament, it fhou'd not
be concluded there was none, any more than that the churches of Jntioch, Ico-
VoL. II. 3 P niutn,
"rM«t.aix. 13. Mark x, 13. of the fenfe of this text fee the Reply, p. 50 — 52.
474 SOME STRICTURES ON Mr BOSTWICK's
niuM, of the Romans, Galatians, Thcflalonians and Coloffians, were not bap-
tized, becaufe there is no exprefs account of it in the hiftory of the New-Tcfta-
tnent : but of feveral of thofe churches there is mention made of thebapiifm
of the members of them, of the Romans, Galatians and Coloffians, Rom. vi. 3,4.
Gal. iii 27. Col. ii. 12. but what this author might imagine would prefs us hard,
is to give a fcripture-example of our own prefent praflice. Our prefent prac-
tice, agreeable to fcripture-examples, ; is Tiot at all concerned with the parents
of thofe baptized by us, whether believers or unbelievers, chriftians or not chrif.
tians, Jews or Heathens, this comes not into confidcraiion -, it is only concerned
with the perfons thcmfelves to be baptized, ^ what they are. Itfcems, ifwe
give a fcripture-example of our praftice, it muft bcof a perfon born and brought
up of chriftian or baptized parents, that was baptized in adult years ; but our
prefent practice is not limited to fuch perfons. We baptize many whofc parents
we have no reafon to believe arc chriftians, or arc baptized perfons j and be it
that we baptize adult perfons, who arc born and brought up of chriftian or bap.
tized parents, a fcripture-example of fuch a perfon might indeed be required of
us with fome plaufible pretext, if the hiftory of the AUs of the /^ojiles, which this
writer fays continued above thirty years, had given an account of the yearly or of
frequent additions of members to the churches mentioned in it, during that fpace
of time; whereas that hiftory only gives an account of the firft planting of thofe
churches, and of the baptifm of thofe of which they firft confifted j wherefore
to give inftances of thofe that were born of them, and brought up by them as
baptized in adult years, cannot be reafonably required of us : But, on the other
hand, if Infant-children were admitted to baptifm in thofe times, upon the faith
and baptifm of their parents, and their becoming chriftians ; it is ftrange ! ex-
ceeding ftrange ! that among the many thoufands that were baptized in Jeru-
falet?!, Samaria, Corinth, and other places, that there fliould be no one inftance
of any of them bringing their children with them to be baptized, and claiming
the privilege of baptifm for them upon their own faith, or of their doing this
in any ftiort time after-, this is a cafe that required no length of time-, and yet
not a finglc inftance can be produced.
3. A third objeftion is, that " infants can receive no benefit from baptifm,
" becaufe of their incapacity ; and therefore are not to be baptized." To
which our author anfwers; that they are capable of being entered into covenant
with God, of the feal of the covenant, of being deanfed by the blood of
Chrift, and of being regenerated by his Spirit : And be it foi what of all this !
as I have obferved in the Reply, p. 4, Are they capable of underftanding the
nature, dcfign, and ufe of the ordinance of baptifm .' Are they capable of
profcffing
FAIR JVND RATIONAL VINDICATION, ^c. 475
j)rofefring faith in Chrift, which is a prcrcquifnc to it, and of excrcifing it in
it ?- ^Arc .they capable of anfwering a good confcicncc to God in it ? Arc
they capable of fubmitting to it in obedience to the will of Chrift, from
love to him, and with a view to his glory ? They are not: what benefit then
can they receive, by baptifm ? and to what purppfe is it to be adminiftered to
them ? ,If infant? receive any advantage,, benefit, or blefling by baptifm, which
our infants h^ve not without, it, let it be named, if it can j if none, why ad-
minift.ered ?, why all this zeal and jcqntcntion about it ? a mere noife about no-
thing/,; ;.', ...;;:,. :j.. ;_ ,
4. A fourth and moft common objedion, it is faid, is, that " faith and re-
".pentance, or.^ profcQion of them at leaft, arc mentioned in the New Tefta-
.",ment.asthq neceflary prcrcquiCtes of baptifm, of which children are incap-
". able, and ^erefore of the ordinance itfclf." To this it is anfwered -, that
children are capable of the habit and principle of faith : which is not denied,
nor is it in the objeftion 1 and it is granted by our author, that a profcfTion of
/aith is a prcrequifite lo baptifm in adult perfons, who embrace chriftianity •,
but when they have embraced it, and profeflcd their faith, in the apoftles times,
not only themfclves, but their houfholds, and all that were theirs, wefc bap-
tized. It is very true," thofe profeffing their faith alfo, as did the houlhold of
the Jailor, of whom jt is faid, that he was believing in God with all his houfe :
His family believed as well as he, which could not have been known, had they
hot profefTed it. The inftance of a profeffing ftranger embracing the Jewifli
religion, in order to his circumcifion, which, when done, it was always admi-
niftered to his family and children, makes nothing to the purpofe j fince it is
no rule of procedure to us, with refpefl: to a gofpel-ordinancc.
' "Ninthly, The performance under confideration is concluded with obfcrving
many abfurdities, and much confufion, with which the denial of Infant-baptifm,
B3 a divine inftitution, is attended. As,
1. It is faying the covenant qiade with Abraham is riot an everlafting one;
that believers under the gofpel are not Abrabam'i feed, and heirs of his promife;
that the ingrafted Gentiles do not partake of the fame privileges in the church,
from which the Jews were broken pfF; and that the privileges of the gofpcl-
difpenfation are lefs than thofe of the law : all which are faid to be flat contra-
diftions to fcripturc. To all which I reply, that the covenant of grace made
with, and made known to Abraham, is an .everlafting covcnanr, and is fure to
all the feed ; that is, the fpiritual feed; and is not at all affircted by Infanc-
baptifm, that having no concern in it. The covenant of circumcifion, though
called an everlafting covcnanr. Gen. xvii. 7. was only to continue ijnto the times
of the Meffiah ; and is fo called, juft in the fame fcnfc, and for the fame reafon,
302 the
476 S0ME^s¥Ri<:¥yRES-c5R'Mi^6sTwix:k'5
the covenant oFpriefthoo^ w'nh PblMOs'his'ihi: fifiie'fcfrtrhW,'i^<<*3.'Jocv. 13'. be-
lievers under the gofpel are Jfbrabctm'Biph\tii3\ fefetl,'and' heirs of the fame promifc
■of fpiritual things j tat thbfe "fpiritual things', khd-i'h6 promife of t'hem, do not
"belong to their riatural feed asfdch ; "^lic believing 'Gentiles, ingrafted into the
•gofpel chvrrch-1Vate, '■^irta'ke bf dtl the 'p'ri^leges of it, triafn vvhich the yrib'eliev-
•jntr Tews are -tjicloded, bCTne:'for their iitibelief jfeft Out '(5f that'ftafe. The
privileges of tbe goTpcl-'BiFpcnfarion are not ier?,"yea fdl- greate'r ihari fhofe of
the law ; to believers, who -are freed frmrf "the bcrrdenfome rites' afid Ceremo-
nies of the law, have larger meafurcs of grace, a clearer miniftration of the
gofpel, and more fpiritual ordinances; -nor •are they Icfs to their infants, who
are eafcd from the painful rite of circurhcifion," have the advantage of i chrif-
lian education, and of hearing the gofpcT as ilHcy grow up, in a "dearer hianner
than under the law-, whith' are greater privileges than the JewYfh thildren had
under the former difpenfation ; nor are all, nor any of thefc affcfled, or to be
contradifted, by the "denial of Infant-baptifm.
2. It is obfervcd, that to deny the validity of Infaht-ba'ptifm, Ts faying that
" there was no true baptifm in the "church for eleven or, twelve "hundred years
*' aftet Chrift; and that the generality df the prefent p'rcffcnbrs of cbriftlanuy
*' are now a company of unbaprizcd heathens," -p. 52. fo p. 10. To which I
reply, that the true baptifm contrntied in the Church in the firft.two centuries;
and though Infant-baptifm was introduced in the 'third, and prevailed in the
fourth, yet in both thefc centuries there >^ere thofe that oppofed it, and abode
by the true baptifm. Befides, 'in the vallies of Piedmont, as many learned men
have obftrved, there were witneffcs from thfe times of the apoftles, who bore
their teftimony againft roraiptions in doflrine' and praflice, and arrtong whom
Infant-baptifm did not obtain until the fixteerith century v fo that the true bap-
tifm continued in the church till that time, and it has ever fince ; fee the Repfy-y
p. 31, 32. As for the generality of the prefent profelfors of chriflianity,. it lies
upon them to take care of their charaftcr, and remove from it what may be
thought difagrecable ; and clear themfelves of it, by fubmitting to the true
baptifm according to the order of the gofpel. As to the falvation of perfons
in or out of the vifibic church, which is the greater number, this author
fpcaks of, I know notliing of; falvation is not by baptifm in any way, but by
Chrift alone.
3. It is faid, if Infant-baptifm is a divine inflitution, warranted by the word of
God, then they that are baptized in their adult age necefiarily renounce a divine
jnftitution, and an ordinance ofjcfus Chrift, and vacate the former covenant
Ijctween God and them. 1/ it he; but it is not a divine inftitution, nor an
ordinance
. J^AIR A.WI5 RATIO:jIAL TIND I CATION, &c. 477
briJiiraiCJC of Jcfus Chrift, as appetrs from all that "has been faid about it in
th« forcgOHig p»g«st wJierefore it is right to renounce and rcjed it, as an
biioun- invention : and as for any covenant i>ctween God and them vacated
thereby, it will not, it need not give the renounccrs of it any concern-, being
*»hatthey know nothing of, and the whole a chimerical bufineis. Nay, it is
farther obfervcd, that renouncing Infant-baptifm, and raajcing it a nullity, is
-prafticaily faying there are no baptized perfons, no regular tninifters, nor ordi-
:iiainces, in all profcfling churches but their own, and as clfcwhere, p. 41. no
^ofpel-church in the world } and that the adminiftrations of the minifters of
■other churches are a nullity, and the promifc of Chrift to be with his minifters
in the adminiftration of this ordinance to the end of the world, muft have fail-
ed for hundreds of years, in which Tnfiint-baptifm was praftifed. But be it fo :
'to whom is all this owing ? to whofe account muft it be put ? to thofe who are
the corrupters -of the word and ordinances. Is it fuggefted by all this, that " God
*♦ in his providence would never fuffer things to go fuch lengths ?" Let it be
obferved, that he has given us in his word reafon to expedl great corruptions in
doftrineand woifhip; and that though he will always have a feed to ferve him,
roore or fewer, in all ages, yet he has no where promifed that thefe (hall be al-
ways in a regular gofpel-church-ftate ; and though he has promifed his prefencc
in his ordinances to the end of the world, it is only with thofe minifters and peo-
ple among whom the ordinances are adminiftered according to his word ; and
there was for fome hundreds of years, in the darknefs of popery, fuch a corrup-
tion in the ordinances of baptifm, and the Lord's fupper, in the adminiftration
of which theprefenceofGod cannot be thought to be-, nor were there any regu-
lar minifters, nor regular ordinances, nor a regular gofpel-church, but what
were to be found in the vMcs of Piedmont; and with whom the prefcnceof God
may be fuppofed to be ; who bore a-teftimony.againft all corruptions, and among
the reft, againftlnfant- baptifm ^
This writer further urges, that " if Infant-baptifm is a nullity, there can be
*» now no regular baptifm in the world, nor ever will be to the end of it ; and
«' fo the ordinance muft be loft, fince adult baptifm cannot be traced to the apof-
«' ties times, and as now adminiftered, is derived from thofe that were baptized
" in infancy ; wherefore if Infant-baptifm is invalid, that muft befotoo; fo
" in p. 42." To which it may be anfwered, that the firft Englifti Antipsedo-
baptifts, when determined upon a reformation in this ordinance, inaconful-
'tation of theirs about it,' had this difficulty flatted about a proper adminiftrator
to begin the work, when it was propofed to fend fome to foreign churches, the
fucceffors-
*- See Reply, p. ii, ii.
478 SOME STRICTURES ON Mn BOSXWlCICs, fcc.
fucceflbrs of the anticnt Waldenfes in France zndGermarty ;-and iccordingljr did
fend fome, who being baptized, returned and baptized others : though othen
were of opinion this too much favoured of the popifli notion of an uninterrupted
fuccefHon, and a right through that to adminifter ordinances ; and therefore
judged, that in an extraordinary cafe, as this was, to begin a reformation from
a general corruption, where a baptized adminiftrator could not be had, it might
be begun by one unbaptized, otherwife qualified to preach the word and ordi,-
nances V which praflice they were able to juftify upon the fame principles the
<)iher reformers juftified theirs ; who without any regard to an uninterrupted
.fucceffion, fet up new churches, ordained paflors, snd adminiftered ordinances.
Nor is it eflcntial to the ordinance of baptifm, that it be performed by one re-
gularly baptized, though in ordinary cafes itfhould; or otherwife it could. never
have been introduced into the world } the firft adminiftrator of itmuft be an
lunbaptized perfon, as John the Baptift was. All which is a fufficient anfwcr
to what this writer has advanced on this fubjedl '. , . :.'.
H Sec the Divine Right of Infant-baptifm cxaminfd, &c. p. i] — 15. 8v« Edit.
ne
'The Scriptures the only Guide in Matters of Religion.
Being a SERMON Preached at the Baptism of feveral Perfons
in Barbican, Novemher 2, 1750.
Jeremiah VI. 16.
Thus faith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways and fee, and ajk for the old
paths, "where is the good way, and walk therein ; and ye fhall find
refi for your fouls
IN this chapter the deftruflion of Jerufalem by the Babylonians is threatened
and foretold, and the caufes of it affigncd ; in general, the great aboundings
of fin and wickednefs among the people ; and in particular, their negleft and
contempt of the word of God ; the fin of covetoufnefs, which prevailed amonty
all forts ; the unfaithfulnefs of the prophets to the people, and the peoples
impenitence and hardnefs of heart ; their want of fhame, their difregard to all
inftruftions and warnings from the Lord, by the mouth of his prophets, and
their obfl:inate refufal of them -, which laft is cxprefled in the claufe following
the words read •, and which, though an aggravation of it, fhew the tender
regard of the Lord to his people, and may be confidered as an inftrudlion to
fuch who had their doubts and difficulties in religious matters ; who were halt-
ing between two opinions, and like men in bivio, who ftand in a place where
two or more ways meet, and know not which path to take ; and in this light
I fhall confider them ; and in them may be obferved,
I. A direftion to fuch perfons what to do ; to Jland in the ways, and fee, and
aJk for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.
II. The encouragement to take this direflioni and ye Jball find rejl for your
fouls.
r. The
48o THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY GUIDE
■; 1. THe direEtion gi ven to fiand In or on tht vmys^ "Sec to 4o as 4»cn 4o wliefl
they are come to a place where two or more ways meet, make a ftand, and view
the roads, and fee which they fliould take-, they look about them, and confi-
der well what coude they (hoold fteer ; they look up to the way-marks, or
way-pofts, and read the infcriptions on them, which tell them whither fuch a
road leads, and fo judge for themfelves which way they ihould go. Now in
relicrlous matters, the way-maiks or way-pofts to guide and dired men in the
way, are the fcriptures, the "oracles of God, and they orily.
Not education-principles. It is right in parents to do as Abraham did, to
teac"h Ttrdr chiidren to iarp Tie -amy of Tb{±,wd^. Tiic tlireftion of rhe wife
man is an exceeding good one ; Train up a child in the way he Jhould go, and
when he is old, he will not 'di^aff from -it " ; tiiat is, cafily and ordinarily : and
it becomes chriftians under the gofpel-difpenfation to bring up their children
in the narturt and adtnonilicm ef the Lord" \ and a great mercy and blefling it is
'to Nhave a refigious education j but then, as wrong principles may be infufed
as well as right ones, into perfons in their tender years, it becomes them, when
come to years of maturity and difcretion, to examine then^, whether they are
according to the word of God, and fo judge for themfelves, whether they are
to be abode by or rejected. I know it is a grievous thing with fome perfons
to forfake the religion they have been brought up in ; but upon this foot, a
man that is born and brought up a Turk or a Jew, a Pagan or a Papift, muft
ever continue fo. Sad would have been the cafe of the apoftle Paul, if he had
continued in the principles of his education ; and what a (hocking figure did
he make whilft he abode by them ? thinking, according to them, he ought to
do many things contrary to the name of Jefus *.
Nor are the cuftoms of men a rule of judgment, or a direSion which way
men fliould take in matters of religion ; for the cufloms of the people are for the
moft part vain' ; and fuch as are not lawful for us, being chriftians, to receive
or ohferve' ; and concerning which we ihoukl fay. We have no fuch cuflom, nei-
ther the churches of God^. Cuftom is a tyrant, and ought to be rebelled againft,
and its yoke thrown off.
Nor are the traditions of men to be regarded -, the Pharifees were very tena-
cious of the traditions of the elders, by which they tranfgrefTed the command-
nicnts of God, and made his word of no effeft •, and the apoftle Paul, in his
ftate of unregeneracy, was zealous of the fame ; but neither of them are to be
imitated by us : it is right to obferve the cxhorution which the apoftle gives,
when
• Gen. xviii. ig. * Pxov. xxii. 6. * Ephes. vi. 4.
'/ Aflj xnii. 3. 4. and xxvi. 9. « Jer. ix. 3. ' A£U xvi. 21.
t I Cor. xi. 16.
-IN MATTERS O P R E L I G I D N. . 4S1
■wlien a chriftian * j beware left any matt fpoil you through fhilofopby avdvain deceit,
after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Cbrijl.
Take care you arc not impofed upon, under the notion and pretence of an apof-
iolical traction ; unwritten traditions arc not the rule, only the word of God is
the rule of our faith and prafticc.
Nor do the decrees of popes and councils demand our attention and regard ;
-it matters iK)t what fuch a pope has determined, or what canons fuch a council
under iiis influence has made; what have we to do with the man of fin, that
etsalts^himfelf abave all that is called God; v/ho Jits in the temple of Cod, fhewing
himfelf as if be -was God? wc know what will be his fate, and that of his fol-
lowers '.
Nor are the examples of men, no not of the bed of men, in all things to be
copied after by us ; we n)Ould indeed be followers of all good men as fuch, of
ihofe who through faith and patience inherit the promifes ; and cfpecially of fuch,
^ho are or have been fpiritual guides and governors in the church ; who have
made the fcriptures their ftudy, and have laboured in the word and dodlrine-,
\heir faith we fhould follow, confidering the end of their converfation ; how that
iflues, and when it terminates in Chrift, his perfon, truths and ordinances, the
fame to-day, yefierday and for ever ^ : but then we are to follow them no further
than they follow Chrift ; the apoftle P^«/ defired no more than this of his Co-
rinthians with refpeft to himfelf; and no more can be demanded of us; it fhould
be no. bias on our minds, that fuch and fuch a man of fo much grace and excel-
lent gifts thought and pradlifed fo and fo. We are to call no raaTi father or maf-
ter on earth ; we have but one father in heaven, and one mafter, which isChrift,
whofe dodrincs, rules, and ordinances wc fhould receive and obfcrve. We arc
rot to be influenced by men of learning and wealth ; though thefe fliould be on
<hc other fide of the queftion, it (liould be no ftumbling to us ; iiad this been a
Tule to be attended to, chriftianity had never got footing in the world : Have
■any cf the rulers or of the Pharifees believed on him ? But this people, who knoweth
fwt the law, ore eurfed'. It pleafed the Lord, in the firft times of the gofpel, to
i?ide the things of it fr«m the wife and prudent, and reveal them u;tto babes ; and
jco C3II by his grace, 9fit many wife men after thefUfh, not many mighty, not many
noble; .but \.\\t foolifh, weak, and bafe things of the world, and things that are not,
te cctifoitnd the wife /ind migbiy, and bring to nought things that are ; that noflefh
fhould glory in his frjfejue " : nor (hould it concern us that the greateft number
is on the oppofitc fide; wc arc not to follow a multitude to do evil; the whole
world once wondered after the bcaft j Chrift's flock is but a little flock.
Vol. II. 3 0^ The
* C»l. ii. %. '2 Thefs. !i. 4, 5. Rev. XX. 10. and xiii. B. and xir. i.i.
* Heb. vi.iz. and xui.7. ' J»iin »ii.48, 49. *" Man. xi. 25, *6. i Cor, j.i6 — 29.
482 THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY GUIDE
The fcriptures are the only external guide in matters of religion -, they arc
the way-pofls we (hould look up unto, and take our direflion from, and ^ould
fteer our courfe accordingly: To the law and to the teflimcny : if men fpeak mt,
according to this word, it is becaufe there is no light in them ° ; we fliould not be-
lieve every fpirit, but try them, whether they are of God °; and the trial Qiould
be made according to the word of God -, the fcriptures fhould be fearched, as
they were by the noble Bercans, to fee whether the things delivered to confide-
raiion are fo or no ; the infcripuons on thefe way-pofts fhould be read, which
arc written fo plain, that he that runs may read them ; and they direft to a way,
in which men, though fools, fhall not err : if therefore the inquiry is,
ifi. About the way of Salvation; if that is the affair the doubt is concerning,
look up to the way-polls, look into the word of God, and read what that fays -,
fcarch the fcriptures, for therein is the way of eternal life; life and immorta-
lity, or the way to an immortal life, is brought to light by the gofpel. The
■fcriptures, under a divine influence, and with a divine blcffing, are able to make
a man wife unto falvation, and they do point unto men the way of it : it is not
'liie li"ht of nature, nor the law of Mcfes, but the gofpcl-part of the fcriptures
which direft to this ; thefe will fhew you, that God faves and calls men with an
holy calling, not according to their works, but according to his purpofe and
"race; that it is not by works of righteoufnefs done by men, but according to
the mercy of God, that men are faved ; and that it is not by works, but by
•'race, left men fliould boaft ^ That it is a vain thing for men to cxpedl falva-
tion 'this way ; that it is a dangerous one : fuch who encompafs themfehes with
fparks of their own kindling, fjall lie down inforrow : and that it is a very wicked
thincy ; fuch facrifce to their own net, and burn incenfe to their own drag. Thefe
will inform you that Chrijl is the way, the truth, and the life ; that he is the only
true way to eternal life ; that there is falvation in him, and in no other : the lan-
•puaeeof them is. Believe on the Lord Jefus Chr.ifi, and thou fkalt be faved : thefe
words, Salvation alone by Chrifl, falvation alone by Chrifi, are written as with ^
funbcam on them ; juft as the way-pofts, fct up in places where two or more ways
Tier todircflthe manflayer when he was fleeing to. one of the cities of refuge
from the avencrer of blood, had written on them in very legible characters, refuge,
refuge'^.
' idly. If the queftion is about any point of Doftrine ; if there is any hefitation
concernin<7 aay truth of the gofpel, look up to the way-pofts, look into the fcrip-
tures, fearchthem, fee and read what they fay ; for they a^xe profitable for do5lrine ' ;
for finding it out, explaining, confirming, and defending it : thefe will tell you
. whether
• Ifai. viii. 22. • I John iv. I. ' » Tim. i. 9. Tit. iii. 5. Ephes. ii. 8, 9.
4 T. lliwof. Maccot. fol. 31.4. ' tTim. iii. 16.
; J .IN MATTERS O F, R E L I G I O N.i : r ^8'3
whether the thing in debate is {q or no, and will direft you which fide of the quef-
tion to take ; if you feek for knowledge and underjianding'vn gofpel-truths dili»ently
and conftantly, as you would for ft her, and fearch after them as for bid treafures,
then Will you undsrjl and the fear of the Lord, and find the knoTjskdge of Cod'. Thus,
for inltance,
If the inquiry is about the doftrine of the Trinity ; as the light of nature and
reafon will tell you, that there is but one God, and which is confirmed by reve-
lation ; the fcriptures will inform you, that there are three that bear record in
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Spirit, and that thefe three are one ' i
are the one God : look into the firfl: page of the Bible, and you will fee how juft
and right is xhat obfcrvation of thePfalmift ° ; by the word of the Lord were the
heavens made, and all the hofl of them by the breath or fpirit of his mouth; and that
Jehovah, his word and fpirit, were concerned in the creation of all things : yoii
will learn from thence thztCod made the heavens and the earth ; that the fpirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters, and brought the chaos into a beautiful or-
der, as well as garnifhed the heavens ; and that Cod the fiox^faid. Let there he
light, and there was light ; and that thefe three are the us that made man after
their image and likenefs ". This doflrine is frtquencly fuggeftcd in theOldTcfta-
ment, but clearly revealed in the New ; anc^ no where more clearly than in i!ie
coinmifTion for the adminiRration of the ordinance of baptifm-, Co, teach all na-
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of thebohChoji ';
and in the adminlllration of it icfelf to our Lord Jefus Chrift, at which all the
three perfons appeared ; the Father by a voice from heaven, declaring Chrift
his beloved Son -, the Son in human nature, fubmitting to the ordinance ; and
the holyGhoft defcending as a dove upon him''i this was thought to be fo clear
a teftimony for this doflrine, that it was ufual with the ancients to fay, " Go to
" Jordan, and there learn the doftrine of the trinity."
Ifthcqueftion is concerning the Deity of Chrift, his eternal Sonfhip and
diftinft perfonality, look to your way-marks; inquire into the facred records,
and there you will find, that he is the mighty God, God over all, bleffed for ever •,
the great God, the true God, and eternal life ^ ; that all divine perleftions are in
him ; that the fulnefs of the Godhead dwells in him ; that he is the brighlmfs
of his Father'' s glory, and the exprefs image of his perfon; to whom all divine
works are afcribed, and all divine worfhip is given -, that he is the only begotten
of the Father, the firji-born of every creature \ or was begotten before any crea-
ture was in being * ; of whom the Father fays, Thou art my Son, this day have
3 Q_2 I be-
• Prov. ii. 4, J. I t John T. 7. ■ Pfal. xxxiii. 6. " Gcn.j. j — 3, jf-.
• Matt, jciviii.ig. r Matt. iii.i6, 17. * Ifai.u.6. Rom.ir.j. Titusiiij. iJohnv2.\
• Hcb. i. 3. Col. ii, 9. ind i, 1 j.
4«4 TH£ feC^lPtURfeS tHE ONLY GUIDE
/ hegottin thee ^ ; that he is ibe Word ♦rhtch tvas in the heginnittg with God ; and
fnuft be diftinft from hinri with whom he was ; and in fbe fuhefs -of tme iivas
nadeflejh\ w^hich neither the Father nor tht Spirit were 'j and the fame facred
writings will fatisfy you about the deny and perfonalhy, as well as the opera-
tions of the blefled Spirit.
If the doubt is about tlic doctrine of Eleftion, read over the Tiered volumes,
and there you will find, that this is in eternal and fovcreigh a<5t of God the
Father, which was made in Chrift before the foundation of the world ; that it
is to holinefs here, and happlncfs hereafter •, that the means are JanBification of
the Spirit, and belief of the truth; that it is irrefpeftive of faith and good works,
being before perfons had done cither good or evil ; that faith and holinefs flow
from it, and that grace and glory are fecured by it; IVhcm he did predeflinate,
them be alfo called \ and whom he called, them he alfo juflified ; and whom he juf-
tified, them he alfo glorified'^.
If you have any hcfitation about the doftrine of Original Sin, look into your
teible ; there you will fee, that the firll: man finned, and all finned in him; that
judgment, through his ofi^ence, cafne upon all men to condemnation ; and that by
his difobedience many were made ftnners ; that men are conceived in fin, and fhapen
in iniquity; that they are tranfgreffors from the womb, go aflray from thence, fpeai-
ing lyes, and are by nature children of wrath '.
If the matter in debate is the Satisfaftion of our Lord Jefus Chrifl:, read ovw
the epiftles of his holy apoftles, and they will inform you, that he was made
under the law, and became the fulfilling end of it, in the room of his people ;
that he yielded perfefl obedience'^to it, and bore the penalty of ir, that the righ-
teoufnefs of the law might be fulfilled in them ; that he was made fin for them,
that they might be made the righteoufnefs of God in him ; and a curfe for them,
that he might redeem them from the curfe of the law ; that he offered himfelf a fa-
crifice for them, in their room and flcad to God, for a fweet -fmelling favour ;
thzt he fuffered, the jujl for the unjufl, to bring them nigh to God ; and died for
their fins according to the fcriptures, and made reconciliation and atonement
for them '.
If you are at a lofs about the Extent of Chrifi's Death, and know not what
part to take in the controverfy about general and particular Redemption, look
to your way-marks, the fcriptures, and take your direflion from thence; and
there you will obfcrve, thatthofe whom Chrift favcs from their fins orchis own
people,
«> Pfal. ii. 7. • John i. 1, 14.. <i Ephes. i. 4. 2 Tbefs. ii. ij. Rom. \x. ti.
and viii. 30. «Rom. v. 12, iS, ig. Pfal. Ii. j. and Iviii. 3. Ifai. xlviii. 8. Ephes. ii.j.
f Gal.iv.4. Rom viii. 3, 4. and X. 4. zCor. v. 2i. Gal. iii. 13. Ephes. r. e. 1 Peter iii. 18.
I Cor. XV. 3. Heb. ii. 17.
IN MATTERS OFRELIGiON.
485
peopk^ for whofe iranfgreirions he was ftricken j that he gave bis life a ranfom
for many, for all for^s of pcf fons, for all his cleft, Jews and Gentiles •, that
they were his (heep he laul <iawn his life for 1 that be Icved tie church, and
gave bimfelf for it ; and that be tajied death for every one of his brethren, and of
the children the Father gave him ; that thofe that are redeemed by him, arc
redeemed out of every kindred, tongue, people, and nation ^
If the affair before you is the dodrinc of JuftiScation, and the query is,
whether it is by works of righteoufnefs done by you, or by the righteoufnefs of
Chrift imputed txj you, or about any thing relating to it, read over the facred
pages, and efpecially the cpiftlcs of the apoftlc Paul; and you will cafily fee,
that a man cannot be juftified in the Gght of God by the works of the law, or
by his own obedience to the law of works-, that, if righteoufnefs comes by the
law, Chrifi is dead in vain ; that men are jujiified iy faith, without the works of
the law ; that is, by the righteoufnefs of Chrift, received by faith •, that they
3ixe jujiified by the blood of Chrijl, and made righteous by his obedience j that this is
the righteoufnefs which God approves of, accepts, and imputes to his people,
without works ; and which being looked to, apprehended and received by faith,
is produdtive of much fpiritual peace and comfort in the foul ''.
If the difpute is about Free-will or Free-grace, the power of the one, and the
efficacy of the other, in a finner's regeneration and converfion ; turn to your
Bible, and from thence it will appear, that this work is not by the might, or
power of man, but by the Spirit of the Lx)rd of hofts j that men are born again,
not of the will of the ficjh, nor of the will of man, but of God, his Spirit and grace ;
that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that fbewelb
mercy ; that the work of faith is a work of power, of the operation of God, and
is carried on by it, and is even according to the exceeding greatnefs of his ptwer,
who works in man boih to will and Jo do of bis own good pteafure '.
If the demur is about the final Perfeverancc of the Saints, read over the gra-
cious promifes and declarations in the word of God, and they will fcrvc to con-
firm you in it; as that the righteous ffiall hold on his way, and he that hath
clean hands Ihall grow ftronger and ftronger ; that God will put his fear into
the hearts of bis people, and they flull not depart from him ; that they are pre-
fervcd in Chrifi Jefus, and in his hands, out of whofe hands none can pluck
them ; who is able to keep them from falling, and will -, and that they are, and
ftiall- be kept by the power of God through faith unto falvation ''.
To
t Matt. i. 21. aod zz. 28. Johnx.15, Ephes. ». 25. Heb.ii.9— iz. Rev. v. 9-
* Rom. iii. 10, 28. Gal.ii. 16, 11. Rom. v. i, 9, 19. and iv. 6.
■ ' Zach. i».6. John i. 13. and iii. j. Rom. ix. 15, 16. Col. ii. is. 2 Thefi. i. ii, Ephe-.i. ig.
Phil. ii. 13. » Job xvii. 9. Jer. xxxii. 40. John x. 28, 29. Jode i 24. i P«ter i. 5.
486 THE -SC-RiPT-t^RES- THE ONLY: G-U^IDE
"To bbferve no more': if th'd d6ftrine5:of the RefurreAion of tht'dead, and a
future Jiidgmcnr, fhould be called in queftion, read the di\«ine oracles, and
there you are told, that there will be a refurreclion both of the juft and unjuji ;
that the one fliall come forth from their graves to the refurreftion of life, and
the other to the refurredion of damnation ; that there is a judgnnent to come ;
that there is a righteous Judge appointed, and a day fct when juft judgment
will be executed ; and that z\\,.fmall and great, good and had, muji appear be-
fore the judgment -feat of Cbrijl, to receive for the things done in the body, whether
they be good, or whether they he evil^. ■ •' ' ■ ■. ^
^dly. If the inquiry is about Worfhip, the fcripturcs will direft you both as
to the objedl and manner of it, and circumftances relating to it -, they will in-
form you, that God only is to be worfliipped,' and not a creature ; and that
the Deity to be worfhipped is not like to gold, or Jilver, or fione graven by art and
man's device; that God is a fpirit, and mtifi be worpipped in fpirit and in truth :
you will there find the rules for the feveral parts of worfhip, for prayer to him,
finging his praife, preaching his word, and adminiftcring his ordinances, and
how every thing fhould be done decently, and in order '.
4//1/)', If the inquiry is about the nature of a Church, its government, offi-
cers, and dil'ciplinc -, look into the ancient records of the fcripture, and there
you will meet with a juft and true account of thcfe things, the original of them,
and rules concerning them -, you will find thai a church is a focicty of faints
and faithful men in Chrift Jefus, that are joined together in holy fellowfhip ;
that aic incorporated into a vifible church-ftate, and by agreement meet toge-
ther in one place to carry on the worftiip of God, to glorify him, and edify
one another"; that it is not national, provincial, or parochial, but congrega-
tional ; that its offices or officers are only thcfe two plain ones, Bifhops, or
Overieers or Elders, and Deacons " ; where you will find nothing of the rabble
of the Romifh hierarchy ; not a fyllable of archbilhops, archdeacons, deans,
prebends, priefts, chantors, rcflors, vicars, curates, &c. there you will ob-
fcrve laws and rules of Chrifl, the fole head of the church, his own appointing,
for the better ordering and regulating affairs ; rules about the reception and
rejedtion of members, for the laying on or taking off cenfurcs, for admonitions
and excommunications ; all which are to be done by the joint fuffrage of the
diurch.
^thly. If the inquiry is about the Ordinances of the Gofpel, Jland in the ways
ojid fee, and afk for ibe old paths, in which the faints formerly trod -, if it is
about the ordinance of the Lord's-fupper, the fcriptures will inform you of the
original
'' Afli xxiv. 16. John V. 28, 2Q. Afljxvii. 31. Rev. xx. 1 2. 2 Cor. v. 10.
' Roti i. ej. Afls xvii. zq. John iv. 24. 1 Cor. xiv. ^o.
"" liphes. i I. 1 Cor. xi. 20. • Phil. i. i.
■IN MATTEJ^S pF REL-IGION. •] Sffi?
original inftitution of this ordinance by Chrift, of the nature, ufe, and intent
.of it ; that it is to fhcw forth the death of Chrift till he come again ; to com-
mcinorate his .fuff^rings and facrifice, to reprefcnt his body broken, and his
blood fhcd for the fins of his people ; and that if any one is defirous of partak-
ing of it, he fliould firft examine himfclf whether he has true faith in Chrift,
and is capable of difcerning the Lord's body". If it is concerning the ordi-
nance of baptifm, by confulting the facred oracles you will eafily perceive that
this is of.God, and not of man; that it is to be done in water; that the form of
adminiftration is in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy
Ghoft; that the fubjefts of it are believers in Chrift, and the mode by immer-
fion ; and that the whole is warranted by the commiffion and example of our
JLord '. Bur,
- 1. If there is any doubt about the fubje<fts of this ordinance, whether they
-arc infants or adult perfons, Jland in the ways and fee, and ajkfor the old -paths ;
not which fathers and councils have marked out, but which the fcripturcs point
un!o, and in which 'John the Baptift, Chrift and his apoftles, have trod. We
do not decline looking into the three firft centuries of chriftianity, commonly
reckoned the pureft ages of it-, we readily allow, that Infant- baptifm was
talked of in the third century; it was then rhoved \n\\\^ African churches;
but that it was pradifed is not proved. ' I will not fay it is improbable that
any were then baptized ; but this I affirm, it is not certain that any were ; as
yet, it has not been proved : and as for the writers of the two firft centuries, not
a word of it is mentioned by them. And had it, had any thing dropped from
their pens that looked like it, and could by artifice be «wire-drawn to thecoun-
.tcnance of it, we ftiould not think ourfelvcs obliged to embrace it on that ac-
,-oount ; what if IJermaty or Barnaias, or Ignatius^ or Polycarp, or the two Cle-
ments of Rome and Alexandria, ovlr^naus, or Jujlin Martyr, or Tatian, or Theo-
fhilus of Antiocb, or Athexagoras, or Minutius Felix declared it, any one or more
of them, as their opinitJh.-that infants ought to be baptized, (though none of
them have) yet we ftiould not think ourfelves bound to receive it, any more than
the many abfurditics, weak reafonings, and filly notions thefe men gave into;
and even could it be proved, (as it cannot) that it is an inconteftable fad that
Infant-baptifm was adminiftcred by one or more of them, ic would only ferve to
•prove this fad truth, known by other inftances, how foon corruptions in faith
aud pradtice got into the chriftian churches, even prefently after the times of the
apoftles; nay, the myftery of iniquity began to work in their days. Where-
fore, in order to get fatisfaftion in this point.
Look.
• Matt. xzvi. 26 — 28. I Cor. xi. 24 — 2g.
f Matt.xjii. 25. aod iii. 6, 11, 16. aod xxviii. iq.
4ES THE SCRIPTURES THE -ONLY GUIDE
Look ov^ the 8CCOUIK4 of the adminiftratton of the ordinance of baptifm by
yohn, thcfirft adminiftraror of it, and fee if you can find that any infants were
baprtized by him. We are told, that tber^ went mt to himjerufakmy and alljudea,
and all ihe region round about Jordan; that is, the inhabitants of thcfe places,
great numbers of them ■, but furely thefe could not be infants, nor any among
them, that went 6ut to John to hear him preach, or be baptized by him : it is
added, avd were iaptizid of him in Jordan, confeffing their ftns : thefe alfo could
not be infants, but adult perfons, who being made truly fenlible of fin, and hav-
ing true repentance for it, frankly and ingenuoufly confeflcd it ; which infants
are not capable of. John preached the baptiOn of repentance, and required re-
pentance previous to it, and even fruits meet for it, and evidential of it ; and
when the Pharifees and Sadducees came to his baptifm, who alfo could not be
infants, he objeftsto them, becaufe notgoodmen and penitent; and even though
they were capable of pleading that they were the children oi Abraham, and the
feed of that great believer ■". And indeed the notion that is advanced in our day
is a very idle one, that infants muft be baptized, becaufe the feed of believers.
Are not all mankind the feed of believers } Has noiGod made of one man's blood
all nations thai are upon the face of the earth ? Were not Adam and£ff believers
in Chrift, to whom the firft promife and declaration of a Meffiah were made ?
And do not all men fpring from them .-' Or come we lower to Noah, the father |
of the new world, who was a perfcd man, and found grace in the light of God ;
do not all men defcend from him? Turks, Jews, Pagans andPapifts, arc all the
feed of believers, and at this rate ought to be baptized : and as for immediate
believers and unbelievers, their feed by birth are upon an equal foot, and are
in no wife better one than another, or have any preference the one to the other,
or have by birth any claim to a gofpd privilege or bleffing the other has not ;
the truth of the matter is, that they arc equally by nature children of wrath.
Look farther into the account of baptifm asadminillcrcd byChrift, or rather
by his orders, and fee if you can find an infant there. John's difciples con>c to
him, and fay. Rabbi, he that teas with thee ieyondjerdan^ to whom thou bearejl
witnefs, behold the fame baftizetb, and ail men come to him '. Thefe alfo could
not be infants that came to him and were baptized; and bcGdes, who they were
that were baptized by him, or by his orders, we are afterwards told, and their
charadters are given ; Jefus made and baptized more difciples than John ' : firft he
made them difciples, and then baptized them, or ordered them to be baptized,
and a difciple of Chrift is one that has learnt him, and the way of falvation by
him ; who is taught to^deny finful, civil and righteous Mf forChrift; and fuch
were the perfons baptized in the times of Chrift, who muft be adult ones ; and
with
1 Matt, iii, 5 — g. ' johoiil. 26. *• Joho i». 1,
IN MATTERS OF RELIGION. 489
with this his praftice agrees the commifTion he gave in Matthew xxviii. 1 9. where
he orders teaching before baptizing; and fuch teaching as iflues in believing,
with which compare Mark xvi. 16. True indeed, he fays', fuffer little children
to come unto me, and forbid them not ; but they were admitted to come to him,
not to be baptized by him, of which there is not one fyllable, nor the lead inti-
mation, but CO* lay his hands on them and pray, or be touched by him, very
probably to heal them of difeafes that might attend them. However, it feems
reafonable to conclude, that the apoftles knew nothing of any fuch pradlice a^
Infanc-baptifm, enjoined, pradlifed, or countenanced by Chrifl:, or they would
never have forbid the bringing of infants to him v and our Lord faying nothin-T
of it when. fuch. a fair opportunity offered, looks very darkly upon it.
Once more; look over the accounts of the adminiftration of Baptifm by
die apoftles of Chrift, and obferve who' they were that were baptized by them.
"VVc read indeed of houfholds baptized by tlurm ; but inafmuch as there are
many families that have no infants in them, notTiing can be concluded from
hence in favour of Infant- baptifm ; it fhould be firft proved that there were
infants in thefe houQiolds, before any fuch confcquence can be drawn from
them : and bcfidcs, it will appear upon a review of them, that not infants but
adult perfons in the feveral inftanccs are intended. Lydia's houQiold confided
of brethren, whom the apodlcs comforted; who could not be infants, but adult
perfons ; we have no account of any other, no other are named ; if any other
can, let them be named. The Jailor's houfhold were fuch, to whom the word
of God was fpoken, who believed in God, and rejoiced with him. Stephanas^
houfhold, which is the only other that is mentioned, is thought by fome to be
the fame with the Jailor's; but, if not, it is certain that it confided of adult
perfons, fuch who addicted themfclves to the minidry of the faints". It will
be cafy to obferve, that the Brd perfons that were baptized after our Lord's
rcfurredtion and afcenQon, were fuch as were pricked to the heart, repented of
their fins, and gladly received the gofpcl ; fuch were the three thoufand who
were baptized, and added to the church in one day. The Samaritans, hearing
Philip preach the things concerning the kingdom of God, were baptized, both
men and women. The indance of the Eunuch is notorious; this man was a
Jewidi profelyte, a ferious and devout man, was reading in the prophecy of
Ifaiah when Philip joined his chariot ; who, after convcrfation with him, de-
fired baptifm of him, to whc^n Philip replied, that if he believed with all his
heart he might be baptized ; intimating, that if he did not, notwithdanding
his profcfTion of religion, and external ferioufnefs and devotion, he had no right
to that ordinance ; and upon profeffing his faith in Chrid he was baptized,
. Vol. II. 3 R Cornelius
' Matt. xix. 14. ■ Afls xvi. 15, 32-7-34. 40' • Cor. i. 16. and xvi. ij.
49° THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY GUIDE
Cornelius and his family, and iliofe in his houfe, to whom Peter preached, and
on whom the holy Ghofc fell, were ordered by hin-> to be baptized, havincr
received the holy Ghoft,- and for that realbn. And the Corinthians, hearincr
the apoftle Paul, and believing in Chrift he preached, were baptized " : from
all which inftances it appears, that not infants but adult perfons were the only
ones baptized by the apoftles of Chrift. Now, though we might juftly de-
mand a precept or command of Chrifl to be Ihewn, exprefsly enjoining the
baptifm of infants, before we can go into fuch a praflice, fince it is ufed as a
part of religious worfhip; for which we ought to iiave a thus faith the Lord:
yet if but one fingle precedent could be given us, one inftance produced ; or
if it could be proved that anyone infant was ever baptized by John the Baptift,
by Chrift, or by his orders, or by his apoftles, wc ftiould think ourfelves ob-
liged to follow fuch an example ; let this be Ihewn us, and we have done; we
will ftiur up the controverfy, and fay no more. Strange ! that in the fpace of
fixty or fevcnty years, for fuch a courfe of time ran out from the firft adminiflra-
tion of baptifm to the clofe of the canon of the fcripcure, that in all the accounts
of baptifm in it, not a fingle inftance of Infant-baptifm can be given ! upon
the whole, we muft be allowed to fay, and if not, we muft and will take the
liberty to fay, that Infant-baptifm is an unfcriptural pradice; and that there is
lieipher precept nor precedent for it in all the word of God.
2. If the doubt is concerning the Mode of Baptifm, wiiether it is to be per-
formed by immerfion of the whole body, or by fprinkling or pouring a little
water on the face ; take the fame courfe as before, ajk for the old paths; inquire
how this ordinance was anciently adminiftered in the times oijohn, Chrift, and
his apoftles. I Ihall not api>eal unto, nor fend you to inquire the fignificacion
■t>f the Greek word ; though all men of learning and fenfe have acknowledged,
that the primary meaning of the word is to dip or plunge; but this ordinance was
appointed not for men of learning only, but for men and women alio of the
tneancft capacities, and of the moft plain and"fimple underftandings: wherefore
let all inquiring perfons confult
The fcriptural inftances of Baptifm ; read over the accounts of baptifm as ad-
miniftered hy John, and you will find that he baptized \nJordan: afk ycrurfelves
why a n'vfr was chofe, when a bafon of water would have done, had it been per-
formed by fprinkling or pouring; try if you can bring yourfclves to believe that
John was not in the x'wct Jordan, only on the banks of it, from whence he took
water, and poured or fprinkled it ; and if you can ferioufty and in good earneft
conclude (with a grave divine) that if he was in the river, he had in his hand a
fcoop, or fome fuch inftrumcnt, and with it threw the water over the people
as
■» AfU ii. J7, 41, 42. and viii. 12, jf, 38. ini x. 47. aid xviiL ».
IN MATTERS O F R E L I G I O N. ,49;
as they flood on the banks of the river on both fides of him, and To baptized
them in fboals. Look over the baptifm of Chrift by John, and fee if you can
perfuade yourfelves that Chrift went ancle deep, or a little more, into the river
Jordan, and John Uood upon a bank and poured a little water on his head, as
flicnieurs painter and engraver have defcribed them; or whether the moft eafy
end natural fepfe of the whole is not this, that they both went into the river^'f^r- .
dan, ^ndjohn baptized ourLord by immerfion; which when done, he ftraight-
way came yp out of the water, which fuppofes him to have been in it; and then
ihc Spirit defccnded on him as a dove, and a voice was heard from his Father,
faying, This is my beloved Son*. Carefully read over thofe words of the evaji-
gelift '', atidjobn alfo was baptizing in^non near toSaliin., becaufe there was much
water there; and try if you can make much water to fignify little; or many watej'Sy
as the words may be literally rendered, only a little rill, or fome fmaJl rivulets
of water, not fufficient to cover a man's body ; though the phrafe is ufed even
of the waters of the great fea ' ; and perfuade yourfelves, if you c«n, that the
reafon of the choice of this place, becaufe of much water in it, was npt for bap-
tifm, as fays the text, but for the convenience of men, their camels and afles
on which they came to hear John ; of which it fays not pne word. To which
add the inftance of the eunuch's baptifm, in which we are told ', that both Phi-
lip and the eunuch went down into the water ; and that when baptifm was admir
niftered, they came up out of the water : now try whether you can really believ^
that tliis great man, who left his chariot, went down with Pkilip int^ the water
ancle or knee deep, only to have a little water fprinkled and poured upon him
and then came out of it, when in this way the ordinance might as well have been
adminiftered in his chariot; or whether it is not moft reafonablc to believe, from
the bare narrative, from the very letter of the text, that their going dpwn into
the water was in order that the ordinance might be adminiftered by immerfion^
and that when Philip had baptized the Eunuch this way, they both came up out
of the water : as for that poor weak criticifm, .that ihis is to be underftood of
going to and from the water-fide j it may be a/ked what -they Ihould go thither
for, what reafon was there. for it, if done by fprinkling? BeCdcs^ it is entirely
deftroyed by the obfervation the hiftorian niakes before this, that they came un to
a certain water ^i to the water-fide; and therefore when they went down, it muft
be into the water itfelf ; it could not with any propriety be Jlaid, that when they
were come tp the water-fide, after that they went to the watcr-Iide. JBut 10
proceed,
3 R 2 Confider
» Matt, iii. ^, 16, 17. y JoJ»n iii. 23. « Se^H-jn.P&l. lixyji.^p. ^pd cvi|. 13.
• Aas viii. 38, J9. * Vfi^ 36.
492 THE SCRIPTURES THE ONLY GUIDE
Confider the figurative or metaphorical Baptifms memioned in fcripturr.
Baptifm is faid'to be a like figure to Noah's ark, in which eight fouls were
faved by water; there is a iikenefs, an agreement between the one and the
other; now fee if you can make out any Iikenefs between the ark upon the
waters and baptifm, as performed by fprinkling ; whereas it foon appears as
performed by immerfion, in which perfons are covered in water, as Noah and
his family in the ark were, when the fountains of the great deep were broke up
under them, and the windows of heaven were opened above them : think with
yourfelves, whether fprinkling or immerfion bell agrees with this, that baptifm
fhould be called the antitype to it ; to which may be added, that Noah and
his family, when fhut up in the ark, were, as ic were, buried there ; and bap-
tifm by immerfion is a reprcfcntation of a burial. The pafTage of the Ifraelites
through the Red fea is called a being baptized in the eland and in the fea ^ ; but
why (hould it be fo called ? what is there in that account that looks like
fprinkling? There is that rcfembles immerfion; for when the -.vaters of the fea
ftood up on both fides of them, as a wall, and a cloud covered them, they
were as people immerfed in water ; and befides, their going down into the fea»
and pafiing through it, and coming up out of it on the other fide ; if it may
not be litterally called an immerfion, it was very much like an immerfion into
■water, and an emerfion out of it ; and both that and baptifm reprcfent a burial
and rcfurreftion. The fufFerings of our Lord, are called a baptifm; you would
do well to confider whether only fprinkling a few drops of water on the face,
or an immerfion into it, befl: rcprefents the abundance and greatnefs of our
Lord's forrows and fufferings, for which reafon they are called a baptifm ; and
the rather, fince they are fignified by the waters coming into his foul, and by
his coming into deep waters, where the floods overflowed him'. Once more,
the extraordinary donation of the holy Ghoft on the day of Pentecoft is called
a baptifm, or a being baptized with the holy Gbojl, and with fire; which was
done when the houfe in which the apoftles were, was filled with a mighty wind,
and cloven tongues, as of fire, fat upon them ' : it deferves your confideration,
whether this wonderful affair, and this large abundance of the Spirit, is not
better cxprefled by baptifm, as adminiftcred in a large quantity of water, than
■with a httle. To add no more ;
Confider the nature, ufe, and end of Baptifm ; it is a burial; and the ufe
and end of it are, to reprcfent the burial and refurredtion of our Lord Jefus
Chrift i hence the phrafc of being buried -with him in baptifm ' : fee if you can
make any thing like a burial when this ordinance is adminiftered by fprinkling;
can
• I Pet. iii. JO, 21. * 1 Cor. x. i, 2. • Luke xii. 50. Pfalm Ixix. 1, 2-
' Matt. iij. 1 1. Afls i. 5. aod ii. i> 2, 3. ( Rom. vi. 4. Colofs. ii. 12.
-.TN MATTERS O F : R E LI G lO K . 493
can you pcrfuade yourfelves, that a corps is properly buried, when only a little
duft is fprinkled on its face ? on the other hand, you will eafily perceive a
Jively rcprefentation of a burial, when the ordinance is performed by immer--
fion ; a perfon is then covered with water, and when he comes out of it, it
clearly reprefents our Lord's refurreftion, and the believer's rifing again to
rewnefs of life. Upon the whole, having afked for the good eld paths, and
found them, walk herein, abide by this ancient praftice of baptifm by immer-
fion ; a pradtice which continued for the fpace of thirteen hundred years, at
leaft, without any exception, unlefs a few bed-ridden people in the times of
Cyprian *■, who received baptifm on their fick and death-beds, fancying there
was no atonement for fins after baptifm, and therefore deferred it till fuch.
time.
But after all, let me ac^vife you in the words of our text to inquire where is
the good way, or the better way; for though the ordinance of baptifm, and
every other, is a good way, there is a better way. This is a way of duty, but
not of life and falvation ; it is a command of Chrift, to be obeyed by all be-
lievers in him, but not to be trufted in and depended on; it is eflrntial to
church-communion, but not to falvation ; it is indeed no indifferent thing
whether it is performed or no; this ought not to be faid or thought of any
ordinance of Chrifl: ; or whether in this or the other manner, or adminiftered
to this or the other fubjeft. It ought to be done as Chrift has directed it
Ihould ; but when it is beft done, it is no faving ordinance: this I the rather
mention, to remove from us a wicked and a foolilh imputation, that we make
an idol of this ordinance, and place oor confidence and dependence on it, and
put it in the room of the Saviour. I call it wicked, becaufe falfe; and foolifli,
becaufe contrary to an avowed and well-known principle on which we proceed,
namely, that faith in Chrift alone for falvation is a prerequifite to baptifm : can
any man in his fenfcs think that we depend on this ordinance for falvation,
when we require that a perfon Ihould believe in Chrift, and profefs that he
believes in Chrift alone for falvation, before he is baptized; or otherwife we
judge he is not a fit fubjed ? but on the other hand, thofe that infinuate fuch
a notion as this, would do well to confider, if their own condufl does not be-
fpeak fomething of this kind ; or otherwife what means the ftir and buftle
that is made, when a child is ill, and not yet fprinkled .? what means fuch
language as this, " run, fetch the minifter to baptize the child, the child's a
" dying ? " Does it no: look as if this was thought to be a faving bufinefs,
or as if a chikl could not be faved unlefs it is fprinkled ; and which, when
done, they are quite c^fy and fatisfied about its ftatc ? But to leave this, and as
the
» ClUiici.
4?4 THE SCRlt>TURES THfi DKLY GUIDE
•the apollle fays, yit Jhew I unto you a more excellent ivny\ which is Jefus Cbftjl,
.the way, the truth, and the life.
Chrift is the way of falvation, -which thegofpel, and the minifters of ir, point
■out to men i and he is the only way of falvation, there is falvation in him, and
an no othtr -, this is what the whole Bible centers in -, this is the fum and fub-
flance of it-, this is the faithful faying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Chrifl
came into the vcorld to fave the chief of finners. He is the way of acccfs to the
"Father, nor can any come td God but by him ; he is the mediator between
<5od and man, and through him there is accefs with confidence by the faith of
him. He is the way of acceptance with God : we have nothing to render us ac-
ceptable unto God ; we are black in ourfelves with original and aftual fin, and
.arc only comely inGhrift; our acceptance is in the beloved. God is well pleafed
with him, and with all that arc confidered in him-, their perfons and their facri-
■fices are acceptable to God through him. He is the way of conveyance of all
grace, and the blefTings of it to us. All was given originally to him, and to
lis m him ; and from him, and through him wc -receive it, even out of his ful-
nefs, grace for grace; allfpiritual blefllngs are with him, and come to us from
him -, all grace pafTes through his hands -, the firft we have, and all the after-
fupplies of it -, yea, the gift of God, eternal life, is through Jefus Chrifl our Lord.
And he is the way to heaven and eternal happinefs ; he has entered into it with
his own blood aVready, and has opened a way by it for his people, into the ho-
lieft of all ; he is gone beforehand as their forerunner, and has taken poirefTion
of heaven for them-, he is now preparing a place for them there, and will conie
again and take them to himlelf, and introduce them into his kingdom and glory.
And he is a plain, pleafant, and fafe way; plain to him that underftands, and
has a fpiritual knowledge of him, even though but of a very mean capacity ;
for this is a way in which men, Jhough fools, fh all not err; and it is a very delight-
ful one ; what more delightful than to live by faith on Chrift, or to walk by
faith in him, as he hath been received. And a very fafe one, it mud needs be;
none ever pcrifhed that believed in Chrift ; he is the living way, all in this way
live, none in this way die; though it is a ftrait gate and narrow way, yet it furely
and fafcly leads to eternal life; and though it is fometimes called a new way,
yet not becaufe newly contrived, for it is as ancient in this refpefl as the coun-
fcl and covenant of peace; nor newly revealed, for it was made known to Adam
immediately after the fall ; nor newly made ufe of, for all the Old Teftament
faints were direfted in this way, and walked in it, and were faved by the grace
;of our Lord Jefus Chrift, the Lamb llain from the foundation of the world, as
avelUswcj but becaufe it is more clearly manifefted now, and more largely
and
' 4. Cor. x\u }u
1
IN MATTERS OF RELIOropT. 495
«nd frequently walked in : otherwife it is the good old path to beafkedfof;
there never was any other way of falvation, or ever wHl be. I go on,
II. To Gonfider the encouragement given to take the direction, and make the
inquiry as above-, and in this I fliall be very brief j it lies in this claufe, and ye
Jballfijid reji for your fouls.
There is a reft for fouls to be enjoyed in ordinances, when men are arrived
to fatisfadion about them, and fubmit unto them in a becoming manner} when-
a man has carefully and confcientioufly fearched the fcriptures, and is come to
a point about an ordinance, his mind is eafy, which before was diftradled and
confufed ; and he is the more eafy in that he has aftcd the faithful part to him-
felf and truth ; and I cannot fee how perfons can have reft in their minds, who
have not ftood in the ways and looked about them, fearched the fcriptures,.
and inquired for the good old paths ; and in confequence of an honeft inquiry,,
walk therein ; to fuch, wifdom's ways are ways if pleafantnefs, and her paths paths
af peace; there is great peace enjoyed x» them, though not /rc»/« them ; a be-
liever comes to an ordinance, being upon inquiry fatisfied about it, as for in-
ftance, the ordinance of baptifm ; he, J fay, comes to it with delight, pafTcs
through it with pleafure, and goes away from it as the eunuch did, rejoicing.
There is reft for fouls to be enjoyed in dodlrines, which a man does cnjoy»
when upon a diligent fearch after truth, he finds it, and is at a point about it;,
a man that is toHed to and fro with every wind of doftrine, is like a wave of the
fea, always reftlefs and uneafy ; a double-minded man, that halts between two
opinions, and fometimes inclines to one, and fometimes to the other, is unflable
in all his ways, and has no true reft in his mind ; a man that is carried about
with divers and ftrange doftrines, is like a meteor in the air, fometimes here,
and fometimes there ; a good thing it is to have the heart eftablifticd in and
with the dodrines of grace ; and the way to this is 10 fearch the fcriptures, to fee
whether thefe things be fo or no; which when ferioufly and faithfully done, the
iffue is peace of confcience, reft in the mind.
But above all, true reft for the foul is to be had in Chrift, and fuch who afk
for the good and better way find it in him, nor is it to be found in any other j-
Chrift is that to believers, as Noah's ark was to the dove, which could find no
reft for the fole of its feet, till it returned thither : there is reft in Chrift, and
no where clfe, and he invites weary fouls to come to him for it ; his words are '',
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you refl -, take
my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, andyefhall
find r(fi unto your fouls \ which laft claufe is the fame with this in our text, and
our
* Matt. xi. 28, 29.
^9^ THE SCRIPTURES THE'ONLY GUIDE, &c;
;Lord fecms to have had refpeftunto it, and to have took his language from it-
-and what -peace and reft do weary foiuls find inChrift, when their faith is led to
his perfoD, fiilnefs, blood, facrifice and righteoufnefs ? and fuch who are made
partakers of fpiritual reft here, fhall enjoy an eternal one hereafter, for ftill there
remains a rejl to the people of God '.
To conclude ; let us blefs God for the fcriptures, that we have fuch a way-
. -mark to direft us, and point out unto us the way in which we ftiould go -, let
us make ufe of them -, let us fearch the fcriptures daily and diligently, and the
Tather, fince they tcftify of Chrift, of his perfon, offices, of his doftrines and
ordinances. Thdc ztc the wore fure word of prophecy, to which we do well to
take heed, as to a light Jhining in a dark place \ thefe are a larap iinto our feet,
and a light unto our paths, both with refpeft to the way of falvation, .and to the
■way of our duty. Thefe guide us to the old paths, and fhew us where is tlie
good way in which we (hould walk -, and when we are tempted to turn to the
rifht hand, or the left, it is beft to hearken to the voice of the word behind
us, faying,' This is the way, walk in it ". The Bible has the beft claim to anti-
quity of any book in the world ; and the gofpel, and the truths of it, have the
greateft marks and evidences of it upon them. Error is old, 'but truth is more
ancient than that ; the gofpel is the everlajling gofpel; it wa5 even ordained be-
fore the world unto our glory " ; and the ordinances of it, as adminiftered in the
times of Chrift and his apoftles, ftiould be received and fubmitted to, as there
delivered -, and we ftiould walk in them as weliave Chrift and his apoftles for
an example : but above all things, our concern fhould be to walk in Him,
the way •, there is no way better, nor any fo good as he •, feek reft for your fouls
in him, and no where elfe -, not in the law, and the works of it, there is none
there -, not in the world, and the things of it, ibis is not your reft, it is polluted";
but feek it in Chrift, where you will find it here, and more fully enjoy it with
him hereafter.
' Heb. iv. 9. ■» John V. 39. zPet. i. 19. Pfil. cxix. 10;. Ifai. xxx. 21.
•* &<v. xiv. 6. I'Cor.-ii. 7. • Micah ii. le.
'Baptlfts
m
--. - -■£apfij}jj a Diijifie Commandment to be Obferved.
Being a SERMON Preached at Barbican, OHoher g, 1765. at the
Baptism of the Reverend Mr ROBERT CARMICHAEL,
- Minifter of the Gofpel in Edinburgh.
The P R E F a" C E.
nPHE following difcourfe was not dcfigned for the prefs; had it, the fubjeft
-*■ of it would have been a little more enlarged upon -, and, perhaps, might
have appeared in a little better drefs; but as the publication of it is become
necefTary, I chofe to let it go juft as it was delivered, as nearly in the very words
and cxprefTions, as my memory could afTill: me; the fcnfe, I am furc, is no
where departed from -, that it might not be faid, that any thing that was fpoken
is concealed, changed, or altered. The warmeft folicitations of my friends
would never have prevailed upon me to have made it public, being unwilling
to renew the controverfy about baptifm unneceflarily -, and being determined
only to write in felf-defence, when attacked, or wlienever the controverfy is
renewed by others; for I am very fenfible, that the argument on both fides is
greatly exhaufted, and fcarcc any thing new can be expcded, that is ferious and
pertinent : but the rude attack upon the fermon in two letters in a news-paper,
determined me at once to fend it out into the world, as being a fufficient con-
futation of itfelf, without any remarks at all, of the lies and falflioods, calum-
nies, cavils and impercinencies, with which the letters abound ; whereby it will
appear to every reader, how falfly that writer charges me with railing agaiyift my
brethren, and the whole cbrijlian world \ and how injurioufly he reprefents me,
as treating all that differ from me z.% fools, unlearned, ignorant of the fcriptures,
and unclean. It is hard we cannot pra<flife what we believe, and fpeak in vindi-
cation of our praftice, without being abufed, vilified and infulted in a public
news-paper ; is this treating us as brethren, as the writer of the letters, in a
canting way, affefts to call us ? And how does this anfwer to the falfe charafler
of Candidas, he affumes ? I Ihall not let myfelf down fo low, nor do I think it
fitting and decent to go into, and carry on a religious controverfy in a news-
paper, and cfpecially with fo worthlefs a writer, and without a name. This bafc
and cowardly way of writing, is like the Indians manner of fighting ; who let
up an hideous yell, pop off their guns behind bufhes and hedges, and then run
away and hide themfelves in the thickets. However, if the publication of this
djfcourfe fhould be of any fervice to relieve or flrengthcn the minds of any, with
rcfpedi to their duty in the obfervance of the ordinance of baptifm, I am content
to bear the indignities of men, and (hall reckon it an over-balance to all their
reproaches and infults. J. G.
Vol. II. . 3 S Being
498 BAPTISM A DIVINE COMMANDMENT
Being about to ^miniAer the Ordinance of Bj^ptlfm, before we enter
upon the adminiftration of it, I fliall drop a few words on the
occafion, from a paiTage of fcripture you will fimi in
I J o H N V. 3.
,Fcr this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his
commandments are not grievous.
"V^HAT I (hall fay in the following difcourfe, will much depend upon
the fenfe of the word commandments ; by which are meant, not the ten
commandments, or the commandments of the moral law delivered by Mofes to
the children of Ifrael; which, though they are the commands of God, and to
be obferved by chriftians under the prefent difpenfation ; fince we arc not with-
out lazL' to God, but under the la-co to Cbriji ' ; and are to be kept from a principle
of love to God, for the end of the commandment is charity, or love, out of a pure
heart, and of a good confcience, and of faith unfeigned^ ; yet thcfe commands are
not eafy of obfervation, through the weaknefs of the fleOi, or corruption of na-
ture •, nor can they be perfeftly kept by any of y^dam's fallen race ; for there is
not (ijuji man upon earth, that doetb good and finneih not ' ; and he that offends in
one point is guilty of all'' ; and is cxpofed to the curfe and condemnation of the
law, which runs in this tenor, Curfed is every one that continueth not in all things
lubicb are "written in the book of the law, to do them ' ; hence this law in general
is called a fiery law, the letter which kills, and the miniftration of condemna-
tion and death, which make it terrible to offenders ; however, it inay be delight-
ed in by believers in Chrift after the inward man : nor are the commandments
■of the ceremonial law intended, which being many and numerous, were burden-
fom J cfpecially to carnal men, who were frequently ready to fay concerning
them,
• I Cor, ix. 2 1. * I Tim. i. 5. • Eccles. vii. 20. . ' ' ■ .
• Gal. iii. 10.
T O B E O B S E R V E D. 499
them, fVbut a wearinefs is it ? One of its precepts, circumcifion, is called a
yoke, which, fays the apoftlc Ps/^r, neither our fathers nor we were able to hear' ;
•becaufe it bound perfons to keep the whole law, which they could not do-, and
the whole is faid to be zyoke of bondage^, and confequently its commandments
grievous j befides this law was abrogated before the apoftle John wrote this
epiftle, and its commandments were not to be kept ; Chrift had abolijhed this
law of commandments contained in ordinances; and there is now i dif annulling of
the whole of it, becaufe of its weaknefs zndunprofitabknefs^ : rather the com-
mandments of faith and love the apoftle fpeaks of in chap. iii. 23. may be de-
figned ; And this is his commandment, 'that we fhould believe in the name of bis Son
Jefus Chriji, and love one another, as he gave us commandment : thefe were exhor-
tations, injundions and commands of Chrift to his difciplcs, which were to be
kept by them, and were not grievous., Te believe in God, fays he ', believe afo in
tne 1 and again, Anew commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I
have loved you "^ ; but inafmuch as Chrift, as lawgiver in his church, has appoint-
ed fome fpecial and peculiar laws and ordinances to be obferved, and which he
calls his commandments, he that hath my commandments and keepeth them, be it
is that loveth me ' ; very agreeably to our text ; and after he had given his apof-
tles a commifTion to preach and baptize, he adds, teaching them to ohferve all
things whatfoever I have commanded you '^ ; and whereas, among thefe command-
ments and ordinances, baptifm and the Lord's fupper are the chief and princi-
pal, I chufe to underftand the text of them "; and fince we are about to admi-
nifter the firft of thefe at this time, I ftiall confine my difcourfe chiefly to tliar,
and fhall attempt the following things.
I. To fliew that baptifm, water-baptifm, is a command of God and Chrift,
or a divine command.
II. That being a divine command, it ought to be kept and obferved.
III. The encouragement to keep it; it is the love of God, and it is a com-
mandment not grievous.
3 s 2 I. xhc
f Aflj XV. 10. « Gal. V. I. i Ephes. ii. ij. Heb. vii. ig. < John xiv. i.
* Jdhn xiii. 34. * John xiv. ii. " Mate, xxviii. 20.
» Let the contmindnicnts be what they may, -which are chiefly intended in the text ; yet fince
waWr-baptifm U a commandment of God, and allowed tobefuch, and the reft of the command,
merits mentioned ire not denied to be, nor excluded from being the commandmeots of God ; there
can be no impropriety in treating on the commandment of baptifm particularly and fingly from this
pafTage of fcripturej and it might have efcaped, one would have thought, a (heer, though it has
not, of afcurrilous writer, in a late ncwj'paper, referred to Jn the preface.
500 BAPTISM A JDIVINE COMMANDMENT
I. The ordinance of water-baptifm is a divine command. "Jobn^ the fore-
runner of our Lord, was the firft adminiftrator of it, and from thence was
called the Baptijl ; and he did not adminifter it of his own mind and will, but
had a mifTion and commilTion from God to do it; Then was a man fent from
Gcd, ivhofe name was John ; and he was fent by him, not to preach the gofpel
only, but to baptize; for fo he himfclf fays, he that fent me to baptize with
water, the fame faid unto me, &c°. Hence Chrift put this queftion to the chief
priells and ciders of the Jews, the baptifm of John, whence was it ? from heaven
or of men^ ? this brought them into fuch a dilemma, that they knew not what
anfwer to give, and chofe to give none •, our Lord's defign by the queftion was
to fliew that John's baptifm was of divine inftitution, and hot human ; where-
fore he charges the Pharifces and Lawyers with rejeSling the counfelof God againji
them/elves, being not baptized of him ">, that is, of John; and he elfewhere ' fpeaks
cf his baptifm as a part of righteoufnefs to be fulfilled, and was fulfilled by
him. Now John's baptifm and Chrift's were, as to the fubftance of them, the
fame ; John's baptifm was allowed of and approved of by Chrift, as appears
from his fubiniftion to it-, and the ordinance was confirmed by the order he
gave to his apoftles to adminifter it : one of John s difciples faid to his mafter,
Rahhi, be that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou beareft witnefs, behold,
the fame baptizeth, and all men come to him '-, though, as is faid afterwards, J ejus
himfelf baptized not, but his difciples ^ \ that is, they baptized by his orders; and
which were renewed after his refurredion from the dead, faying, Go ye there-'
jore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c". and which orders were obeyed
by his apoftles, as many inftances in the A£li of the Apofiks (hew ; and that it
was water-baptifm they adminiftered, according to Chrift's inftruftions and di-
reiftions.
In matters of worfliip there ought to be a command for what is done; as this
ordinance of baptifm is a folemn aft of worftiip, being performed in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghojl. God is a jealous God, and
cfpecially with refped to the worftiip of him ; nor fliould any thing be intro-
duced into it but what he has commanded ; and careful ftiould we be hereof,
left he ftiould fay unto us, who hath required this at your hands'"? it is not
enough that fuch and fuch things are not forbidden; for on this footing a thou-
fand fooleries may be brought into the worftiip of God, which will be refcnted
by him. When Nadab zndjbihu offered ftrange fire to the Lord, which he com-
manded not, fire came down from heaven and deftroyed them : we fliould have
a precept
• John i. 6, 33. f Matt. xxi. 25, a6. ' Luke vii. 30.
' M.tt, iii. 15. • John iii. j6. ' Johnir. 2.
" Malt, xxviii. 19. • Ifai. i. 12.
TO BE OBSERVED. 501
a precept for what we do, and that not from men, but from God -, left we in-
cur the charge of worjhipping God in vain, teaching for doElrines the command- '
ments of men ', and involve ourfelves in the guilt of fuperftiticn, and will-
worfhip.
Wherefore, the baptifm of infants muft be wrong ; fince there is no com-
mand of God and Chrift for it ; if there was any, it might be expcdted in the
New Tcftament, and in that only -, it is abfurd to fend us to the Old Tefta-
ment for a command to obferve a New Teftament-ordinance -, it is a grofs ab-
furdity to fend us fo far back as to the xvii'" chapter of Genefis ^ for a warrant
for the ordinance of baptifm ; we might as well be fent to the firft chapter of
that book -, for there is no more relating to that ordinance in the one than in
the other. Was there a like precept for the baptifm of infants under the New
Tcftament, as there was for the circumcifion of infants under the Old Tefta-
ment, there could be no objeftion to it; but it is an abfurdity of. abfurdities
to affirm, that baptifm comes in the room of circumcifion -, fince baptifm was
in force and ufe long before circumcifion was abolilhed •,. circumcifion was not
aboliftied until the death of Chrift, when that, with other ceremonies, had an
end in him ; but baptifm was adminiftered many years before to multitudes,
by John, by the order of Ch rift, and by his apoftles ; now where is the good
fenfc of faying, and with what propriety can it be faid, that one thing fucceeds
another, as baptifm circumcifion, when the one, faid to fucceed, was in ufe
and force long before the other ceafed, it is pretended it fucceedcd ?
If there is any precept for Infant-baptifm, it muft be in the New Teftament ;
there only it can be expedled, but there it cannot be found ; not in Matthew
xix. 14. Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of fuch is
the kingdom of heaven ; which is no precept, but a permifTion, or grant, that
little children might come, or be brought unto him -, but for what ? not for
haptifm •, but for that for which they were brought, and which is mentioned
by the evangclift in the preceding vcrfe, that be fhould put bis bands on them,
and
« Matt. XV. g.
y That we are ever referred to this cKap.er, for a proof of rofant-baptifm, it denied, and pro-
nounced a wilful mifreprefcnutioD, by the above mentioned writer, in his fecond letter in the news-
paper. This man muft have read very little in the controverfy, to be ignorant of this. The very
laft writer that wrote in the controverfy, chat I know of, calls the covenant made with Ahraham'x^
that chapter, '• the grand turning point, on uhich the iflue of the controverfy very muth depends;
*' and that if ,firaAa/7i'» covenant, which included his infant-children, and gave them a tight to
•' circumcifon, was not the covenant of grace; then he freely confefTes, \\izix.\\e main grcunj, on.
" v/Wich they zSTcTt the right 'fin/anti to iafti/m, is taken away; and, confequenily, the principal
" arguments in fupport of the doftrine, are overturned." Boftwick'a Fair and Ratioaal Vindi-
cation of the Right of Infant! to the Ordinance of Baptifm, &c. p. 19.
502 BAPTISM A DIVINE COMMANDMENT
and pray, or give them his blefTing -, as it fecms it was ofual in tbofe times,
and with thofe people, as formerly, to bring their children to perfons venerable
for religion and piety, to be bleffed by them in this way ; and fuch an one
they mighc take Jefus to be, though they might not know he was the McfTiah.
Two other evangelifts fay, they were brought unto him that be Jhould touch
■fhem; as he fomctimes touched difeafed pcrfoas when he healed them; and
thefe children might be difeafed, and brought to him to be cured of their dif-
£afes ; however, not to be baptized by Chrift, for he baptized none; they
would rather have brought them to the difciplcs, had it been for fuch a pur-
pofe ; and had it been the praftice of the apoftles to baptize infants, they would
not have refufed them ; and our Lord's intire Glence about Infant-baptifin at
this time, when there was fo.fair an opportunity to fpeak of it, and enjoin it,
had it been his will, has no favourable afpedl on that praftice. The reafon
given by Chrift for the pcrmiffion of infants to come to him, for of fucb is the
kingdom of heaven, is figurative and metaphorical ; and not to be underflood of
the infants themfelvcs, but of fuch as they ; of fuch who are comparable to
th.em for their humble deportment, and harmlefs lives ; or to ufe our Lord's
■words elfcwhere, fuch who are cmverted, and become as little children. Matt.
xviii. 2 ''.
Nor is a command for Infant-baptifm contained in the commifTion to bap-
tize, Matthew wv'nx. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghcjl. It is argued,
that " fince all nations are to be baptized, and infants are a part of them, then,
" accordino- to the command of Chrift, they are to be baptized." But ic
.(hould be obferved, that the commidion is indeed to teach all nations, but not
to
y The above letter-wxiter, in the news-paper, obfcrves, "that the iingJom of bia-ven (igniiies
" either the kingdom, of church of Chrift here, or the kingdom of glory above. If the former,
•«' they are declared, by Chrift himftlf, real fubjeflsof his among men; if the latter, if memberj
•' of the invifible church, why not of the vifible f" But, in fafl, they themfelves are not intended,
only fuch as they ; fuch who are comparable to them for meeknefa and humility ; for freedom from
malice, pride, ind ambiton. But admitting that the words are to beunderftood of infants littcrally,
the kingdom of heaven cannot defign the kingdom, or church of Chrift under the gofpel difpenfa-
tion, which is rot national, but congregational ; confifting of men gathered out of the world, by
the grace ofGod, and who make t public profedion of Chrift, which infants are not capable of, and
fo cannot be real (ubjcfls of it ; and if they were, they muft hive an equal right to the Lord's fup-
p«r, as to baptifm, of which they arc equally capable. The kingdom of glory then being meant,
it is aOced, if members of the invifible church, why not ofihe vilible ? They may be, when it ap-
peirs that they are of the invifible church, which only can be manifcft by the grace of God beflowed
on ihcm; and it is time enough to talk of their baptifm when that is evident; and when it i» clear
they have both a right unto, and meetnefs for the kingdom of heaven.
TO BE OBSERVED. 503
to haftize all nations ;' the antecedent to the relative thtm^ is not aU nations }
the words mtrt. is •^w, all nations^ arc of the neuter gender •, but m-rtu them,
is of the mafculine, and do not agree -, the antecedent is f£«3tT»<, difdplts,
which is underflood, and fuppofed, and contained in the word (xa^nvrnt,
teach, or make difciples -, and the fenfc is, teach all nations, and baptize them
that are taught, or are made difciples by teaching. If the above argument
proves any thing, it would prove too much ; and what proves too much,
proves nothing : it would prove, that not only the infants of chriftians, but
the infants of Turks, Jews, and Pagans, fhould be baptized, fince they are
part of all nations ; yea, that every individual perfon in the world fhould be
baptized, heathens, as well as chriftians, and even the moft profligate and
abandoned of mankind, fince they are part of all nations ^.
^ And as there is no precept for the baptifm of infants, fo no precedent for it
in the word of God. Thpugh there was no clear and cxprefs command for it,
which yet we think is neceflary, and is required in fuch a cafe ; yet, if there
was a precedent of any one infant being baptized, we Ihould think ourfelves
obliged to pay a regard unto ic -, but among the many thoufands baptized by
John, byChrift, or, however, by his order, and by his apoftles, notonefingle
inftance of an infant being baptized can be found. We read, indeed, of
boujholds being baptized -, from whence it is argued, that there might be, and
it is probable there were, infants in them, who might be baptized ; but it lies
upon thofe who are of a different mind, to prove there were any in thofe
houfhokls. To put us upon proving a negative, that there were none there,
is unfair. However, as far as a negative can be proved, we are capable of
it '. There are but three families ufualiy obfcrved, if fo many -, Lydia's, the
Jailor's,
* But our letter-writer fays, " When the apoftles received their commirtion, they could not under-
«■ ftand it otherwife than to baptize the pannti ih^l embraced the faith of Chrift, through their
«' preaching, and all their children with them, as wa* the manner of the miniders of God in pre-
" ceding ages, by circumcilion ;" but if they {a underflood it, and could not otherways underftand
it, it is ftrange they Ihould not praflice according to it, and baptize children with their parents ; of
which we have no one inftance. Uy i\\e miniften of GoJ in prKet/'mg agei, I fuppofe, he means the
pielli and prophets, under the Old TellameiW-difpenfition ; but thefe were not the operators of
circumcifion, which was done by parent! and others : and furely it cannot be faid, it was the
ufual manner of miniftcrs to baptize parents, aid their children with them in thofe ages ; and it is
pretty unaccountable how they (hould baptize riien; by circumcifion, ai is affirmed -, this is fome-
thing unheard of before, and monftroufly ridiculous and abfurd.
» The above writer afiiriiu, that my mannner of " proving the negttive, was by bare!]! ejining
•' there were no children in any of the families, mentioned in the fcriptures, is baptized." The
f^Jfity of which appears by the following defcriptive cbaradlere given of the perfoosin the feveral fa- -
niilies, and the reafoniogs upon them.
504 BAPTISM A DIVINE COMMANDMENT
Jailor's, and that of Stephanas, if not the fame with the Jailor's, as fome think.
As for Lydia's houdiold, or thofe in her houfe, they were brethren ; whom,
afterwards, the apoftles went to fee, and whom they comforted ; and fo not
infants. As for the Jailor's houlhold, they were fuch as were capable of hear-
ing the word preached to them, and of believing it ; for it is faid, he rejoiced,
believing in God with all his houfe ^ : and if any man can find any other in his
houfe, befides all that were in it, he mufl be reckoned a very fagacious perfon.
As for the houfhold oi Stephanas, (if different from the Jailor's) it is faid, that
they addicted thetnfehes to the minijiry of the faints ' : and whether this be under-
ftood of the miniftry of the word to the faints, or of the miniftration of their
fubftance to the poor, they muft be adult perfons, and not infants. Seeing
then there is neither precept nor precedent for Infant-baptifm in the word of
God, of which I defy the whole world to give one fingle precedent, we cannot
but condemn it as unfcriptural, and unwarrantable ''. I proceed,
II. To fhcw that the ordinance of water-baptifm, being a divine command,
it ought to be kept, and obferved, as direded to in the word of God.
Firjt, I fliall fhew, by whom it is to be kept and obferved. i. By fenfible,
rcpcntint^ finners. John's baptifm was called the baptifm of repentance' ; be-
caufe repentance was previous to it ; and the very firfl: perfons that were bap-
tized by him, were fuch who were fenfible of their fins, repented of them, and
ingenuoufly confefled them ; for it is faid, they were baptized of him in Jordan,
confeffmg their ftns -, and whereas others applied to him for baptifm, of whom
he had no good opinion, he required of them, that they would firft bring forth
fruits meet for repentance ; and not to think with thcmfelves, we have Abraham
to
* Afli xvi. 40, 34. * I Cor. i. 16. — xvi. ij.
* Inhi5turn, the writer in the news-paper, " defies me to produce one fcripture precept, orpre-
•< cedent, for delaying the baf>iifm «/" fAiVir/n of chrillian parents j or for baptizing adult pcrfooi,
" born cif fuch parents. On this the controverfy hinges." It is ridiculous to talk of a precept for
delaying that which was not in being ; and of a precedent for delaying that which had never been
praflifed. If a warrant is required for baptizing adult perfon«, believers, it is ready at hand, Mari
xvi. 16. and precedents enough : and we know of no precept to baptize any other, let them be born
of whom they may ; and as for precedents of the baptifm of adult perfon;, born of chridian parent},
it cannot be expefled, nor reafonably required of us j fince the ASii of the Apoftles only give an
account of the planting of the firft churchea; and of the baptifm of thofe of which they firft confifted;
and not of thofe that in a courfe of years were added to them. Wherefore, to demand inftances of
perfons, born of chriftian parents, and brought up by them, as baptized in adult age, which would
require length of time, is nnreafonable ; and if the controverfy hinges on this, it ought to be at an
end, and given up by them. ' Mark i. 4. .
T O B E (D B S E K V E D. 505
to our father' ; fince fuch a plea would be of no avail with him ; and the very
firft perfons that were baptized after our Lord had given to his apoftles the
commiffion to baptize, were penitent ones ; for under the firft fcrmon after
this, three thoufand were priciced in their heart, and cried out. Men and bre-
thren, what fl} all we do? To whom the apoftle Peter gave this inftruflion and
direftion : Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jefus Chrijl s -,
and accordingly, on their repentance, they were baptized. 2. This command
h to be kept and obferved by believers in Chrift; be. that believetb and is bap-
tized, fhall be faved^. Faith goes before baptifm, and is a pre-requifite to it j
as the various inftances of baptifm recorded in the fcriptures fliew. Philip went
down to Samaria, and preached Chrift there to the inhabitants of it -, and when
they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the
name of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized both men and women '. The fame miniftcr
of the word was bid to join himfelf to the chariot of an Eunuch, returning from
ferufalem, where he had been to worfhip, and whom he found reading a pro-
phecy in Ifaiah; and faid unto him, Underftandeft thou what thou readeft ? -To
which he anfwcred. How can J, except fome man fhould guide me? And bein"
taken up into the chariot with him : from that fcripture, Philip preached Jefus
to him, his word, and ordinances, as the fequel fhews ; for when they came to
a certain water, the Eunuch faiJ, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be
baptized ? And Philip faid. If thou believeft with all thine heart, thou ma\eft.
Otherwife not, itfeems; for notwithftanding his religion and devotion, withou:
faith in Chrift, he had no right to that ordinance ; He anfwered and faid, I be-
lieve that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God^ ; upon which profcfTion of his faith, he
was baptized. The apoftle Paul preached the gofpel at Corinth with fucccfs ;
and it is obferved by the hiftorian, that many of ihe Corinthians hearing, believed,
end wer< baptized \ Firft they heard the word, then they believed in Chrift,
the fum and fubftance of the word, and upon the profeftion of their faith, were
baptized. 3. The ordinance of water-baptifm is to be attended to, and obferved
by fuch who are the difciples of Chrift; it is faid ihiijefus made and baptized v:ore
difciples than John". Firft made them difciples, and then baptized them ; that
is, ordered his apoftles to baptize them ; with which his commifTion to them
agrees, Teach all nations, baptizing them; make difciples, and baptize them that
are fo made. Now, what is it to be difciples of Chrift ? Such may be faid to
be fo, who have learned to know Chrift, and believe in him ; who are taught
to deny finful felf, righteous felf, and civil felf, for his fake, and to take up the
crofs and follow him, in the exercife of grace and in the difcharge of duty :
Vol. II. 3 T and,
f Matt. iii. 6—9. e Ad.su. 38. «" Mark xvi, i6. • Aflsviii. 12.
Atts viii. 36, 37. ' AGs xviii. 8. * Johniv. 1.
5o6 BAPTISM A DIVINE COMMANDMENT
and, 4. Such as have received the Spirit of Gcxi, are proper perfons to obfervc
the ordinance of baptifm, and fubmit unto it : Can any man forbid water, that
tbefe Jbould not be baptized, v^bo have received the holy Cbojl as well as we"? as
a Spirit of illumination and convidtion, as a Spirit of fandtification, faith and
confolation, and as a Spirit of adoption.
zdly. Next let us conGdcr in what manner the ordinance of baptifm is to be kept
and obferved : and, i . It fliould be kept in faith ; for without faith it is impoffible
to pleafe God; and wbatfoever is not of faith, is fin, Heb. xi. 6. Rom. xiv. 23.
2. In love, and from a principle of love to Chrift, and which is the end of every
commandment, and of this •, If ye love me, fays Chrift, keep my commandments,
John xiv. 15 3- It fliould be kept as it was at firft delivered and obferved :
the manner in which it is to be performed and fubmitted to, is immerfion, or
coverincT the whole body in water; and which agrees with the primary fcnfe of
the word Co.t7/^*, which fignifics to dtp or plunge, as all learned men know";
and he mult be a novice in the Greek language, that will take upon him to
contradict what has been ingenuoufly owned by fo many men of learning. Had
our tranflacors thought fit to have tranflated the word, which they have not in
thofc
» A£b X 47.
e The letter-writer makes me to Cay, " All the world acknowledge ColtIi^ii, Cgnifies to dip or
«' olunoe, and never to fprmklc or pour water on any thing,'* which is a fiJfe reprelentation of my
words, and of the manner in which they were delivered ; however, this I affirm, that in all ihi
Greek Lexicons I ever faw, and I have feen a pretty many, I do not pretend to have feen «ll that
have been publilhed i yet in what my fmall library furnilhes me with, the word is always rendered
in the firft and primary fenfc by mtrgo, immergo, to aip or f'u/ige inti ; and in a fecondary and con-
fequentia! fcnfe, by abluo. lavo, to ivaff?, becaufe what is dipj ed is wadied i and never by perfun-
do or afpergo, to four o: /frinilt ; as th« Lexicon publithcd hy Conjl amine, BuJa^ui, &c. thofeof
liaj- ian, "Junius, Piantinui, Sc/rpala. Sebrevtlius, and Stotkiui, befides a great number of critics that
fuieht b; menciontd; and if thi» writer can produce any oce Lexicographer of any note, that renders
the word lo Mur or fprinkle, let him came him. This iterant /irili/er pan the following queftioos,
<• Did the Jews plunge their whole bodies in water always before they did eat? Did ihey aip their
• < pot!, brazen vefTels and beds?" He does not fufFer me to anfwer the quedions, but anfwers for
me, " He knows ihe contrary." But if I may be allowed to anfwer for myfelf, I mufl fay, by the
tertiroonics of the le*s themfilves, aod of others, I know ihey did ; that is, when they came from
market, having touched the common people, or their clothes, immerfed themfelvcs in water; fo
fays Maiiaonides in N/lifo. Chagigah. c. a. fefL 7. " If the Pharifces touched but the garments of
•• the common people they were defiled, and needed immerfion, and were obliged to it." And
tcaligtr obferves, de Emend. Temp. 1.6. p. 271. "That the more fuperftiiious part of the Jews,
"" e»ery day befo'e they (at down to meat, dipped the whole body ; hence the Pharifee's admiration
«• at Chriil, Lxii x\. 38." According to the law of Mo/es, Lev xi. }2. unclean veflels were wafhed
■by putting or dipping them into water ; and according to the traditions of the elders, to which oar
Lo d rtferi, Mari vii. 4. not only brazen velTels and tables, but even beds, bolllers and pillows un-
clean, in a ceremonial fenfe, were waftied by immerfion in water. So the Jews fay in the;rMifnah,
or book of traditions, " A bed that is wholly defiled, a man dips it part by pan." Celim, c. z6.
Aa. 14. See alfo Mikvaot, c 7. fe^^. 7.
TO BE OBSERVED. 507
thofe places where the ordinance of baptifm is made mention of, for reafons
cafily to be guelTed at, but have adopted the Greek word baptize in all fuch
places ; had they truly trandated it, the eyes of the people would have been
opened, and the controverfy at once would have been at an end, with refpeft
to this part of it, the mode of baptifm -, however we have proof fufficient that
it was performed, and ought to be performed by immerfion, as appears, i. By
the places where it was adminiftered, as the river Jordan, where John baptized
many, and where our Lord himfelf was baptized; and^noriy near Salim, which
he chofc for this reafon, becaufe there was much water there ' j now if the ordi-
nance was adminiftered in any other way than by immerfion, wliat need was
there to make choice of rivers and places abounding with water to baptize in ?
2. By the inftances of perfons baptized, and the circumftances attending their
baptifm, as that of our Lord, of whom it is faid, JFhen he was baptized, he went
up jlraightway out of the water "^-y which manifeftly implies that he had been in
it, of which there would have been no need, had the ordinance been adniinif-
tered to him in any other way than by immerfion ; -as by fprinkling or pourincr
a little water on his head, as the painter ridiculoufly defcribcs it. The baptifm
of the Eunuch is another inftance proving baptifm by immerfion ; when he
and Philip were come to a certain water, and it was agreed to baptize him, ic
is faid, they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and be
baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the
Lord caught away Philip \ The drcumftances oi going down into the water, and
coming up out of it, manifeftly fhew in what manner the Eunuch was baptized,
namely, by immerfion ; for what reafon can be given why they fhould go into
the water, had it been performed in any other way ' ? 3. The end of baptifm,
which
» Matt. iii. 6, ij. i Matt. iii. i6. ' Aaiviii. 38, jg.
• The above letter-writer aflcs, " How often muft I be told, that the particle «; and « are in
" hundreds of places in the New TeQament rendered unio mi from ?" be it <b ; it follows not, that
ibey mull be fo rendered here. Greek particles or prepofiiions have different fignificacions, accord-
ing to the words and circumftances with which they are ufed ; nor is it as proper or a morejuft read-
ing of the words, " they went down unto the water and came a^ frem it ;" it is neither proper nor
juft i for before this, they are expref>ly faid to ume to a. certain wafer, to the water-fide ; wherefore
when they went down, they went not unto it, if they were there before, bot iato it ; ai it muft be
allowed the prepoCtion fometimes, at leall, iignifies ; and circumftances require that it fliould be
fo rendered here, let it fignify what it may elfewhere ; and this determines tlie fenfe of the other
prepoCtion, that it muft tivd ought to be rendered »«/ tf; for ai they went down into the water,
when they came op, it muft be out of it. What he means by the flrange queftion that follows,
*• What will he make of Chrift's going i»/9 a m^M/fl/*^" I cannot devife, unlefs he thinks the traof-
lition of Lukt vi. 1 a is wrong, or nonfenfe, or both ; but has this wifeacre never heard or read of
• cave in • mountain, into which men may go, and properly be Caid to go Imo the mountain ; and
fuch aj) one it is highly probable our L01.0 went into, to pray alone; fuch as the caveia mount
3 T a Horcb,
5o8 BAPTISMA DIVINE COMMANDMENT
which is to reprefent the burial and refurredlion of Chrift, cannot be anfwercd
any other way than by immerfion •, that it is an emblem of the burial and re-
furreftion of Chrift, and of the burial and refurreflion of believers in him, is
clear from Rom. vi. 4. Colofs. ii. 12. buried with him by baptifm^ and in bapttfm.
Now only an immerfion or covering of the whole body in water, and not pour-
irig or fprinkling a little water on the face, can be a reprefentation of a burial ;
will any man in his fenfes fay, that a corps is buried, when only a little duft or
earth is fprinkled or poured on its face ? 4. The figurative baptifms, or the
allufions made to baprifm in fcripture, fhew in what manner it was adminiftered;
the pafiage of the Ifraelites under the cloud, and through the fea, is calltd a
being baptized in the cloud and in the fea ' ; and with great propriety may it be
called a baptifm, as that is by immerfion ; for the waters (landing up as a wall
on each fide of them, through which, and the cloud over their heads, under which
they pafTed, they were like perfons immerfed in water " : likewife the overwhelm-
ing fuffcrings of Chrift are fitly called a baptifm, in allufion to baptifm by im-
merfion. I have a beptifm to be baptized with, fays he ; and how am JJiraitened
until it be accompUlhed" ? and which fuffcrings of Chrift, in prophetic language,
agreeable to baptifm by immerfion, are thus defcribed -, lam come into deep
waters, where the floods overflow me"^ Once more •, the extraordinary donation
"of the Spirit on the day of Pentecoft, is called a being baptized with the holy
Ghoft ^ •, the emblem of which was a ruflnng mighty wind, which filled all the houfe
where they were fitting'^ \ fo that they were as if immerfed into it, and covered
with
Horeb, into which £/y.i4 went. But hij tip-top tranflation of all is that of 7»i<i's baptizing in
Jcrjjn, which he fuppofes might be rendered, by bap:izing the people tvilhri/ river Jordan, This
is ihe man that reproaches me with very freely finding fault with the tranflators ; my complaint is
only of a non-traaflation, not of a wrong one ; but this man finds fault with the tranflation as wrong,
or however thinks it may be correfted or mended, and that in more places than one.
• I Cor. X. 1,2,
■ The letter- writer I have often referred to, affirms, that «' the learned world univerfally maiofain,
" that the Kraelites were no otherways baptized in the fea, than by being fprinkled with the fpray
" of the toffing waves, agitated by the wind that blew as they pafTed through the channel." Who
the learned world be, that maintain thii whimfical notion, I own, 1 am quite iguorant of, having
never yet met with any learned man that ever alTcited it. It is a mere conceit and a wild imagination,
and contrary to the facred fcriptures, which reprefent the waves of the fea, through which the Ifrael-
)tespafr=d, not as agitated and tofTed about, but ai flanding unmoved, as a wall on each fide of
iKem, whatever was the cafe in that part where the Egyptians were; The floods, fays the infpired
w:\icr, Jiood upright at an heap, and the deptbi •vcert congealed in the heart of the fea, Exod- xv, 8. And
if there was a continual fpray of the tolling waves, as the Ifraelites paiTed through the channel, how
could they pafs through the fea on dry ground? as they are faid to do, Exod. xiv. i6, 22, *9. What
this man fcoff» at, the celebrated Gre/;H;, who isoniverfally allowed to b« a man of learning and fenfe,
expreffes in a note on 1 Cor, x. 2. " were tapiixed, that is, at if they were baptized ; for there
" was fome likenefs in it ; the cloud was over their heads, an J fo water is over them that are bap-
•' t'ized; the fea encompafTed the fides of them, and fo water thofe that are baptized."
• Luke xii. 50. * Pfal. Ixix. \, z, ^ Afts i. 5. * Adls ii. 2.
.-.-■. T O B E OBSERVED. 509
with it, and therefore very properly called a baptifm, in alluGon to baptifm by
imnierfion '. L go on,
III. To obfcrve the incouragement, motives-, and reafons given to keep this
ordinance, as well as others, i. The apoftle fays, this is the love of God; that
is, this {hews love to God ; it is a plain cafe, that a man loves God, when he
keeps his commandments •, this is an evidence, that he loves not in word,
and in tongue only, but in deed and in truth. Others may fay that they love
God andChrift'; but this is the man that truly loves them, even he that bath
my commandments, fays Chrifl; ^ and keepetb them -, he it is that lovetb me : and it
is a clear cafe, that fuch a man has a fenfe of the love of God and Chrift -, the
love of the Father is in him ; and the love of Chrift conftrains him to obfcrve
his ordinances, and keep his commands; and fuch may expedt greater mani-
fcftations of the love of God and Chrift unto them ; for of fuch that keep the
commandments of Chrift, he fays, 1 will love him, andmanifeji myfelf to bim;^-.
and my Father will love him, and we -will come unto him, and make our abode with
him'; which is no fmall inducement and incouragement to an obfervacion of
the ordinances and commands of Chrift, and among the reft this of baptifm.
. 2. Another incouraging motive and reafon is, the commandments of God
and Chrift are not grievous, hard and difficult to be performed. The Lord's
fupper is not ; nor is baptifm. What is baptifm in water, to the baptifm of
fufFcrings Chrift endured for us ? And yet how defirous was he of accomplifhing
it°
•» The fame writer is pleafed to reprefent thii ezplanatioo of the baptifm of the Spirit as ridicu-
lous ; but feme of greater learning than iie can pretend to, have fo explained it, as particularly Dr
Cafaiibcn, famous for his great knowledge of the Greek language; though perhaps this viry illiberal
man will call the learned doiflor a dunce for what he fays ; his words on Acii i 5. are thefe, " though
•' I do not difapprove of the word baptize being retained here, that the aotithefis may be full ; vet
" I am of opinion that regard is had in this place to its proper Ggnificition, for Cairli^eir is to immerfe,
" fo as to tinge or Jip; and in this fenfe the apoftlei were truly faid to be baptized ; for the houfe
" in which this was done was filled with the holy Ghoft, fo that the apoftles feemed to be plunged
" into it as into a pool." In confirmation of which, he makes mention on chap. ii. 2. of an obfer-
vation in a Greek commentary on it, " the wind filled the whole houfe, filling it like a pool ; fince
•' it was promifed to them jthe apoftles) that they fhoold be bafiized •with the Holy Ghojl." It feeiiis
to be the fame commentary, Era/mus on the place, fays went under the name oiCbryfiJiom, in which
»re thefe words, as he gives them, "the whole houfe-waa fo filled with fire, though invififale, as a
'« pool is filled with water." — Our fcribbler, in order to expofe the notion of dipping, as ufed in the
baptifm of the fpifit, and fire, condefcends, for once, to read Jip, iadead of baptize; " y«^r faid
" I indeed dip you uiiih water, but one, mightier than I, cometh, he (hall Jip you "uZ/Athe Koly
" Ghoft, and with/'r^," But not only the word bapiix4(ho^\i be read Jip, but the prepofition i>
fhould be rendered in; rV water; and /» the holy Gholl ; and /« fire; and the phrafe of i/^f^/ffg <«
Jirt, ii nounufual one, both iojewilhand Greek authori; u I have (hewn in my Kzpofition of the.
place, and of Afit ii. 3. * Johnxiv. 21. * Joha xiv. 23,
510 BAPTISM A DIVINE COMMANDMENT, &c.
it ? Lukexn. §o. And therefore why fhould we think ic an hardfliip, or be back-
ward to comply with his will, in fubmitting to the ordinance of water-bapcifm ?
• WhenNaaman was bid by EHJha to dip h\mk\{ in J or dan, and be clean j which
he rcfented as too little and trifling a tiling, and thought he might as well have
ftayed in his own land, and dipped himfelf in one of the rivers oi ^yria ; one of
his fervants took upon him to allay and reprefs the heat of his pafTion and refent-
ment, by obferving, that if the prophet had bid him do fome great thing, which
was hard and difficult to be performed, he would have gone about it readily ;
how much rather then, he argued, fhould he attend to the dircftion of the pro-
phet, when he only bid him wajh in Jordan, and be clean * ? There are many
that will go into baths, and plunge thcmfclves in them for pleafure or profit,
to refrelh their bodies, or cure them of diforders; bu: if plunging in water is
dire<fled to, as an ordinance of God, then it is a grievous thing; and, indeed,
no ordinance is grateful to a carnal mind; but to believers in Chrift, -j.nfdom's
u-ays are ways of pleafantnefs, and her paths -paths of peace. C hrilVs yoke, if it
may be called fo, is eafy, and his burden light. Now coclofe with a few words :
1 . Let none defpife this command of God, the ordinance of baptifm ; remem -
ber it is a command of his ; be it at your peril if you do; it is hard kicking
againft the pricks; it is dangerous to treat with contempt any of the commands
of God, and ordinances ofChrilt; beware, left that fhould come upon yon,
and be fulfilled in you, behold, ye defpifers, and wonder, and perifh\
2. Let fuch who fee it their duty to be baptized, not tarry, but immediately
fubmit unto it; let them make hafte, and delay not, to keep this command ;
remembering the motives, and encouragement to it.
3. Let ihofe that yield obedience to it, do it in the name and (Ircngth of
Chrift } in the faith of him, from love to him, and with a view to his glory.
' jKingjv, 13. • Adbxiii. 40, 41.
INFANT-
INFANT - BAPTISM,
A.
Part and Pillar of POPERY:
BEING
A VINDICATION of a Paragraph in a Preface to a Reply
to Mr Clarke's Defence of Infant - Baptism.
To which is added,
A POSTSCRIPT, containing a full and fufficient Anfwcr to Six Letters
of Candidus, on the Subjcfts and Mode of Baptism, &c.
ID EING called upon, in a public manner, to give proof of what I have faki
concerning Infant- baptifm, in a Preface to my reply to Mr Clarke's Defence,
&c. or to expunge it ; I readily agree to the former, and fhall endeavour to
-explain myfclf, and defend what I have written ; but it will be proper firft to
recite the whole paragraph, which ftands thus : " The Psedobaptifts arc ever
" refllcfs and uneafy, endeavouring to maintain and fupporr, ifpofllble, their
" unfcriptural pradice of Infant-baptiCm ; though it is no other than a pillar
" of Popery-, that by which Antichrift has fpread his baneful influence over
"- many nations ; is the bafis of national churches and worldly eftablifhments ;
•' that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can
*' there be a full feparation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reforma-
*♦ tion in religion, until it is wholly removed : and though it has fo long and
*• largely obtained, and ftill does obtain ; I believe with a firm and unfhaken
" faith, that the time is haftening on, when Infant-baptifm will be no more
" pra(ftifed in the world ; when churches will be formed on the fame plan they
»' were in the times of the apoftles ; when gofpcl-dodrine and difcipline will
" be reftored to their piimitive lullrc and purity ; when the ordinances of bap-
" tifm
512 INFANT - BAPTISM, A PAUT
** tifm and the Lord's fupper will be adminiftercd as they were firft delivered,
" clear of all prefent corruption and fuperftition -, all which will be accom-
" plifhed, when " the Lord fhall be king over all the earth, and there fhall
" be one Lord and his name one?' Now the v/hole of this confifts of fevcral
articles or propofuions, which I fhall re-confider in their order.
I. That "Infant-baptifm is a part and .pillar of Popery ; that by which An-
" tichrift has fpread his baneful influence over many nations :" I ufe the phrafe
Infant-baptifm here and throughout, becaufe of the common ufe of it ; other-
wife the practice which now obtains, may with greater propriety be called In-
fanc-fprinkling. That, unwritten traditions with the Papifts are equally the
rule of faith and praftice, as the holy fcriptures, will not be doubted of by any
converfant with their writings. The council oiTrent afTerts % that " traditions
■" refpeding both faith and manners orally delivered and preferved fuccerTively
" in the catholic church, are to be received with equal afFe(5lion of piety and
*' reverence as the books of the Old andNewTeftamcnt ;" yea the Popifli wri-
ters prefer traditions to fcripturc. Bellarmine fays \ " fcriptures without tradi-
" tion, are neither fimply necefTary, nor fufficient, but unwritten traditions
■*' are necefTary. Tradition alone is fufficient, but the fcriptures are not fuffi-
" cient." Another of their writers afTerts % that " the authority of ecclefiaftic
■*' traditions is more fit than the fcriptures to afcertain any thing doubtful, even
•' that which may be made out from fcripture, fince the common opinion of
■«' the church and ccclcfiaftical tradition are clearer, and more open and truly
" inflexible -, when, on the contrary, the fcriptures have frequently much ob-
■♦' fcurity in them, and may be drawn here and there like a nofe of wax; and,
■*' as a Iraden rule, may be applied to every impious opinion." Bailey the Je-
fuitS thus cxpreflTes himfelf, "I will go further, and fay, we have as much
-" need of tradition as of fcripture, yea more ; becaufe the fcripturc minifters
" to us only the dead and mute letter, but tradition, by mean§ of the miniftry
" of the church, gives us the true fcnfe, which is not had diftinftly in the fcrip-
" ture V wherein, notwithfl:anding, rather confifts the word ofGod than in the
•" alone written ietter^ it is fufficient for a good catholic, if he underltands it
-«' 1s tradition, nor need he to enquire after any thing elfe." And by tradition,
they mean not tradition delivered in the fcripture, but diflindt from it, and
out of it -, unwritten tradition, apoflolical tradition, as they frequently call it,
not delivered by the apoftles in the facred fcriptures, but by word of mouth
to their fucceflTors, or to the churches : that we may not miflake them. Anira-
dias
» Seft. 4. Decret. de canon, fcript. » De Verbo Dei, c. 4. feft. I. 6.
* Pighlusapud Rivet. Cathol. Orthodox. Trafl. \, qo. 6. p. 99. * Apod. ibid. p. 142.
AND PILLAR OF POPERY. 513
dius tells us, " that of ncceffity thofe traditions alfo muft be believed, which
*' can be proved by no teftimony of fcripture :" and Petrus a Soto ftill more
plainly and openly affirms ; " It is, fays he, a rule infallible and catholic, that
" whatfoever things the church of /2(7»j<? believeth, holdeth and ktepeth, and
*' are not delivered in the fcriptures, the fame came by tradition from the apof-
*' ties; alfo all fuch obfervations and ceremonies, whofe beginning, author,
*' and original are. not known, or cannot be found, out of all doubt they
" were delivered by the apoftles'." This is what is meant by apoftolic tra-
dition.
Now the cQentials of Popery, or the peculiarities of it, are all founded upon
this, even upon apoftolic and ecclefiaftic tradition ; this is the Pandora from
whence they all fpring ; this is the rule to which all arc brought, and by which
they are confirmed ; and what is it, be it ever fo foolilh, impious and abfurd,
but what may be proved hereby, if this is admitted of as a rule and tcft ? It
is upon this foot the Papifts aflcrt and maintain the obfervation of Eajler, on
the Lord's-day following the 14"" oi March; the fad of Quadragefimaor Lent;
the adoration of images and relicks ; the invocation of faints ; the worfhip of
the fign of the crofs ; the facrifice of the mafs ; tranfubftantiation ; the abro-
gation of the ufe of the cup in the Lord's-fupper; holy water; extreme undlion,
or the chrifm ; prayers for the dead ; auricular confeflion ; fale of pardons,
purgatory, pilgrimages, monaftic vovws, i^c.
Among apoftolical traditions Infant-baptifm is to be reckoned, and it is upon
this account it is pleaded for. The firft perfon that afTerted Infant-baptifm
and approved it, reprefents it as a tradition from the apoftles, whether he be
Origen, or his tranflator and interpolator, Ruffinus ; his words are, " For this
(that is, for original fin) " the church has received a tradition from the apoftles,
*' even to give baptifm unto infants '." yftt/?/«, who was a warm advocate for
Infant-baptifm, puts it upon this footing, as a cuftom of the church, not to be
defpifcd, and as an apoftolic tradition generally received by the church ^ ; he
lived in the fourth century, the fame Ruffinus did ; and probably it was from
his Latin tranflation oi Origen, Aujlin took the hint of Infant-baptifm being an
apoftolic tradition, fince no other ccclefiaftical writer fpcaks of it before as
fuch ; fo that, as Bifhop Taylor ' obferves, " This apoftolical tradition is but a
" teftimony of one perfon, and he condemned of many errors; fo that, as he
" fays, to derive this from the apoftles on no greater authority, is a great ar-
VoL. II. ■ 3 U . •' gument
« See tke AMraft of the Hiflory of Popery, part z. p. 152, 253.
' Origen. Comment, in Epift. ad Roman. I. 5. fol. 178. 1.
.1 De Genef 1 10. c. zi. & de Bapcifmo contr. Donat. 1. 4. c. 23, 2f.
' Liberty of Prophef/ing, p. 320.
514- INFANT - BAPTISM, A PART
*' gument that he is credulous and weak, that fhall be determ'ip.ed by Co weak
" a probation, in a matter of fo great concernment-," and yet it is by this that
many are determined in this affair: and not only Popifh writers, as Bellarmint
and others, make it to be an apoftolical tradition unwritten ; but fome Pro-
teftant Psedobaptifts Qicw a good-will to place Infant-baptifm among the un-
written fayings and traditions of Chrift or his apoftles, and fatisfy themfelves
therewith. Mr Fuller^ fays, " We do freely confefs that there is neither exprefs
♦' precept nov precedent in the New Teftament for the baptizing of infants;" yet
obferves, that St ^^'^w iaith, chap. xxi. 25. /Ind there are alfo many other things,
which Jefus did, which are not written -, " among which, for ought appears to
" the contrary, the baptizing of thefe infants (thofe whom Chrift took in his
" arms and blcfied) might be one of them." In like manner, Mr l^f^alker^ ar-
gues, " It doth not follow, our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of
" infants, becaufc no fuch precept is particularly expreffcrd in the fcripture -,
" for our Saviour fpoke many things to his difciples concerning the kingdom
" of God, botli before his paflion, and alfo after his refurredtion, which are
" noi written in the f crip lures ; and who can fay, but that among thofe many
" unwritten fayings of his, there might be an exprefs precept for Infant-bap-
' *' tifm ? " And Mr Leigh, one of the difputants in the Port/mouth-dlCpmauon ',
fucgefts, that though Infant-baptifm is not to be found in the writings of the
apoitle Paul extant in the fcriptures, yet it might be in fome writings of his
which are loft, and not now extant -, all which is plainly giving up Infant-bap-
tifm as contained in the facred writings, and placing it up^»n unwritten, apofto-
lical tradition, and that too, conjeftural and uncertain.
Now Infant-baptifm, with all the ceremonies attending it, for which alfo
apoftolical tradition is pleaded, makes a very confiderable figure in Popifh
pageantry -, which, according to pretended apoftolical tradition, is performed
in a very pompous manner; as, by confecration of the water, ufing fponfors,
who anfwer to the interrogatories, and make the renunciation in the name of
the infant ; exorcifms, cxfufflations, crofTings, the ufe of fait, fpittle, and oil.
Before the party is baptized, the water is confecrated in a very folemn manner;
the prieft makes an exorcifm firft; three times, he cxfufflates or breathes into
the water, in the figure of a crofs, faying, " I adjure thee, O creature of water;"
and here he divides the water after the manner of a crofs, and makes three or
four crofllngs ; he takes a horn of oil, and pours it three times upon the water
in the likcncfs of a crofs, and makes a prayer that the font may be fanftified,
and the eternal Trinity be prefent ; faying, " Dcfccnd from heaven and fanflify
" this
"* Infants Advocate, p. 71, i;6. * Modtfl Plea, p. 268.
' Narrative of the Portfinouth-DifputatioD, p. 16 — 18.
AND PILLAR OF POPERY. 515
'* ihis water, and give grace and virtue, that he who is baptized according to
" the command of thy ChriR, may be crucified, and die, and be buried, and
" rife again with him." The fponfors or fureties, inftead of the child, and in
its name, recite the creed and the Lord's-prayer, make the renunciation of the
devil and all his works, and anfwer to queftions put in the name of the child :
the form, according to the Roman order, is this ; " The name of the infant
'.' being called, the prefbytcr muft fay, " Doft thou renounce Satan ? Anfwer,
'.' I do renounce; and all his works ? Aofw. I do renounce ; and all his pomps .^
" Anfw. I do renounce : three times ihefe queftions are put, and three times
" the fureties anfwer." The interrogations are fometimes faid to be made by
a prieft, fometimes by a prcfbyter, and fometimes by an exorcift;, who was one
or the other, and to which the following queftion alfo was added : " Doft thou
" believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, &c ?
" Anfw. I believe." Children to be baptized are firft exfufflated or breathed
and blown upon, and cxorcifed, that the wicked fpirit might be driven from
them, that they might be delivered from the powers of darknefs, and tranftated
into the kingdom of Chrift : the Roman order is, " Let hiin (the minifter,
prieft, deacon, or exorcift) " blow into the face of the perfon to be baptized,
" three times, faying. Go out, thou unclean fpirit, and give place to the holy
" Ghoft, the Comforter." The form, according to St Grfrory, is, " I exorcife
" thee, O unclean fpirit, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
" the holy Ghoft, that thou go out and depart from this fcrvant of God.*' Salt
alfo is put into the mouth of the infant, after it is bleflcd and exorcifed, as a
token of its being feafoned with the fait of wifdom -, and that it might be pre-
fcrvcd frorn the corruption and ill favour of fin : the prieft firft bleflcs the fait
after this manner : " I exorcife thee, O creature of fait ; and then being blefied,
" it is put into the mouth of the infant, faying. Receive the fait of wifdom
" unto life cverlafting." The nofe and cars of infants at their baptifm are
touched with fpittle by the prieft, that they may receive the favour of the know-
ledge of God, and their cars be opened to hear the commands of God; and
formerly fpittle was put upon the eyes and upon the tongue, though it feems
now difufed as to thofe parts ; and yet no longer than the birth of king 'James
the firft, it feems to have been in ufe ; fince at his baptifm his mother fent word
to the archbiftiop to forbear the ufe of the fpittle, faying, " She would not have
" a pocky prieft to fpit in her child's mouth " ; " for it feems the queen knew
that the archbiftiop, who was HamiltoK, Archbiftiop of St Andrews^ then had
the venereal difeafe ". And fo in the times of the martyrs in queen Marf% days ;
3 u 2 for
" Abftraftof the Hiflory of Popery, part i. p. ri4.
• Vid. Ri»et. Animadv. in Grot. Annotat. in CaDander. Confultat. p. 7?.
5i6 INFANT - BAPTISM, A PART
for Robert Smith the martyr, being aflicd by Bonner, in what point do we dif-
fent from the word of God? meaning as to baptilm ; lie anrwered", "'^ Firft,
*• in hallowing your water, in conjuring of the fame, in baptizing children
«' with anointing and fpitting in their mouths, mingled with fait j and many
" other lewd ceremonies, of which not one point is able to be proved in God's
" word." All which he calls a mingle-mangle. Chryfm, or anointing both
beforeand after baptifm, is another ceremony ufed at it ; "the parts anointed
are the bread and flioulders ; the breaft, that no remains of the htent enemy
may refide in the party baptized j and the fhoulders, tliat he' may be' fortified
and ftrengthened to do good works, to the glory of God : this anointing is
made in the form of a crofs ; the oil is pat on the breaft and beneath the
flioiildcrs, making a crofs with the thumb; on rhaking fhe crofs on the fhoulders,
the prieft fays, " Flee, thou unclean fpirit, give honour to the living and true
" God i" and when he makes it on the breaft, he fays, " Go out, thou unclean
" fpirit, give place to the holy Ghoft:" the form ufed in doing it is, »* I anoint
" thee with the oil of falvation, tJut thou mayeft have life everlafting." The
next ceremony is that of figning the infant with the fign of the crofs : this is
made in feveral parts of the body, efpecially on the forehead, to fignify that
the party baptized ftiould not be aftiamcd of the crofs of Chrift, arid not be
afraid of the enemy, Satan, but manfully fight againft him. After baptifm,
in ancient times, honey and milk, or wine and milk, "were given to the bap-
tized, though now difufed ; and infants were admitted to 'the Lord's-fupper ;
which continued fome hundreds of years in the Latin church, and ftrll docs in
the Greek church. Now for the proof of the ufe of thefc various ceremonies,
the reader may confult 7^y<^/'^- Vicecomes, a learned Papift, TuTir Wall dalls him,
in his tJeatife de anliquis baptifmi ritibus at crrtmoniis, where and' by whom they
are largely treated of, and the proofs of them given. All which are rehearfed
and condemned by the ancient "Waldenfes in a trea^ife of theirs, written in the
year 1120''. It may be afked, to what purpofe is this account given of the
ceremonies ufed by Papifts in the admirtiftration (Jf baptifm to infants"by them,
fince they are not ufed by Protcftant Pjedobarptifts ? 1 anfwer, it is to (hew what
1 propofed, namely, what a figure Infant-baptifm, with thefe attending cere-
monies, makes in Popery, and may with propriety be called a part of it -, be-
fides, though all thefe ceremonies are not ufed, yet fome of them are ufed in fome
Proteftant Psedobaptift churches, as furcties, the interrogations made to them,
arnd their anfwers in the name of the infants ; the renunciation of the devil and
all his works, and figning with the fign of the cro:^ i and fince thefe and the
others,
• Fox's Afts and ^fonuments, vol. 3. p. 400.
f See Morland'j Hiftory of the chuchej of Piedmont, f. 173.
: AND PILLAR. OF POPERY. Sij
orfiersy all of them claim apoftoHc authority, and riioft, if not all of them,
have as good and as early a claim to it as Infant-baptifm itfelf -, thofe who ad-
mit that upon this foot, ought to admit thefe ceremonies alfo. See a treatife
of mine, calkd The Argument from Apojiolic tradition in favour of Infant-baptifm
cmfiderecL Moft of the above ceremonies arc mentioned hy Bafth, who lived
in the fourth century, and as then in ufe; and which were had from apoftolic
fradition, as faid, and not from the fcriptures ; and, fays he, " Becaufe this
** is 6rft and mod common, I will mention it in thefirit place, as thacwefign
" with tbtjign of the crofs ;— 'Who has taught this in fcripture ? — We confccrate
V the water of baptifm and the oil of unftion, as well as him who receives bap-
" tifm; from what fcriptures ? Is it not from private and fecret tradition?
" Moreover the anointing with oil, what paflage in fcripture teaches this ? Now
*!* a man is thrice immerfed, from whence is it derived or diredlcd ? Alfo the reft
** of what is done in baptifm, as to renounce Satan and his angels, from what
" fcripture ^ve we it ? Is not this from private and fecret tradition ? " And
fo AuJIin ' fpeaks of exorcifms and exfufflations ufed in baptifm, as of ancient
tradition, and of univerfal ufe in the church. Now whoever receives Infant-
baptifrrt on the foot of apoftolic tradition, ought to receive thofe alfo, fince
they ftand upon as good a foundation as that does.
ThcPapifts attribute the rife of feveral of the above ceremonies to theirPopes,
as fpdnfors, chryfms, cxorcifms, (s^c. though perhaps they were not quite fo
tarly as they imagine, yet very early they were -, and Infant-baptifm itfelf,
though two or three dodtors of the church had aftcrted and efpoufed it, yet it
w^s not determined in any council until the Milevitan council in 418, or there-
^Otrts, a provincial of Africa, iri which vras i canon made for Pa;dobaptifm,
and never till then : So fays bithop Taylor \ with whom Grotiiu agrees', who
calls it the council ofCartbagi; and who fays in the councils no earlier mention
is made of Infant-blptifm than in that council ; the canons of which were fent
to pope innocent the firft °, and confirmed by him : And Aujlin, who muft
write his book againft the Donatifts before this time, though he fays ", the
church always held it (Infant-baptifm) and that ic is moft rightly believed to
be delivered by apoftolic tradition ; yet obferves, that it was not inftituted, or
determined and fettled in or by councils ; that is, as yet it was nor, though it
afterwards was in the above council confirmed' by the faid pope; in which
council.
< De Spiritu Sando, c. 27.
» De Peccat. Orig. 1. i. c. 40. & de nopt. 8c concup. 1. i. c. lo. & 1. 2. c. 18.
• Liberty of Prophefying, p. 320, 321. ' Comment on Matt xix. 14..
• Vid. Centuriat. Magdeburg, cent. 5. c. 9. p. 468, 47J. Epill. Aoguft. Ep 92, 9J.
• De Baptifmo contra Donatifl. 1. 4. c. 24.
5i8 INFANT - BAPTISM, A PART
council /fyjiin himfclf prcfided, and in which is this canon, " AJfo it is our plea-
" furc, that whoever denies that new-born infants are to be baptized, — let him
" be anathema ;" and which is th* firft council that eftablifhed Infant- baptifm,
and anathematized thofc that denied it ; fo that it may juftly be called a part
of popery : beGdes baptifm by immerfion, which continued 1300 years in the
Latin church, excepting in the cafe of theClinicks, and flill does in theGreek
church, was firft changed into fprinkling by the Papifts ; -which is not an in-
different thing, whether performed with much or a little water, as is ufually
confidercd •, but is of the very cflencc of baptifm, is that itfelf, and without
which it is not baptifm ; it being, as Sir John Flayer fays% *' No circumftance,
" but the very ad of baptizing;" who obfervcs % "that afperfion, or fprink-
*' ling, was brought into the church by the popifh fchoolmen ; and our dif-
" fencers, adds he, had it from them-, the fchoolmen employed their thoughts
" how to find out reafons for the alteration to fprinkling, and brought it into ufe
" in the twelfth century :" and it muft be obferved, to the honour of the church
o^ England, that they have not c^2.h\\^td fprinkling in baptifm to this day; only
have permitted />(?«m^ in cafe it is certified the child is weakly and not able tu
bear dipping ; otherwife, by the Rubric, the prieft is ordered to dip the child
warily : fprinkling received only a Prefbytcrian fanftion in the times of the civil
war, by the Aflcmbly of Divines; where it was carried for fprinkling againft
dipping by one vote only, by 25 againft 24, and then cftablifhed by an ordi-
nance of parliament 1644^: and that this change has its rife from the autho-
rity of the Pope, Dr fFall^ himfelf acknowledges, and that the fprinkling of
infants is from popery. " All the nations of chri.ftians, fays he, that do now,
" or formerly did, fubmit to the authority of the bifhop of Rome, do ordina-
*' rily baptize their infants by pouring or fprinkling; and though the Englilh
" received not this cuftom till after the decay of Popery, yet they have fincc
♦' received it from fuch neighbour-nations as had began it in the times of the
" pope's power; but all other chriftians in the world, who never owned the
*' pope's ufurped power, do, and ever did, dip their infants in their ordinary
*' ufe ;" fo that Infant-baptifm, both with refpcft to fubjedt and mode, may
with great propriety be called a part and branch of popery.
But it is not only a part of popery, and fo ferves to ftrengthen it, as a part
does the whole ; but it is 3i pillar of it, what ferves greatly to fupport it; and
which furniflics the Papifts with one of the ftrongeft arguments againft the Pro-
teftants in favour of their traditions; on which, as we have feen, the eflentials of
popery are founded, and of the authority of the church to alter the rites of di-
vine
» Eflay to reftore Dipping. &c. p. 4*. ' Ibid. p. 58. » Ibid. p. 12, 32.
• Hiftorj- of Infaot-baptifm, pan 4. p. 477.
. .AND. PILLAR OF -POPERY. ' 515
vine worfliip: they fadly embarrafs Pasdobaptift proteftants with the affair of
Infant-baptifm, and urge them either to prove it by fcripture, both with rcfpeft
to mode and fubjeds, or allow of unfcriptural traditions and the authority of
the church, or give it up; and if they can allow of unwritten traditions, and
the cuftom and praftice of the church, as of authority in one point, why not
in others ? This way of arguing, as Mr Slennett oblerves "i, is ufed by cardinal
Du Perron, in his reply to the anfwer of king James the firft, and by Mr John
jirnj-worib, againft Mr Henrj Ainfwortb, in the difpute between them, and by
Fijher the Jefuit, againft archbifhop Laud\ a late inftance of this kind, he adds,
we have in the controverfy between Monfieur BoJJ'uet, bifliop of Meaux, and a
learned anonymous writer, faid to be Monfieur de la Roque, late paftor of the
reformed church at Roan in Normandy. The bifhop, in order to defend the
withholding the cup in the Lord's fupper from the laity, according to the au-
thority of the church, urged that Infant-baptifm, both as to mode and fubjcdt,
was unfcriptural, and Iblcly by the authority of tradition and cuftom, with
which the pretended reformed complied, and therefore why not in the" other
cafe ? which produced this ingenuous confeftion from his antagonift, that to
baptize by fprinkling was certainly an abufe derived from the Romifti church,
without due examination, as well as many other things, which he and his bre-
thren were refolved to correft, and thanked the bifliop for undeceiving them;
' and freely confeflcd, that as to the baptifm of infants, there is nothing formal
orexprefs in the gofpel to juftify the neceftity of it; and that the paflages pro-
■duced do at moft only prove that it is permitted, or rather, that it is not for-
bidden to baptize them. In the times of ^iwigCharles the fecond, lived Mr Je-
remiah Ives, a Baptift minifter, famous for his talent at difputation, of whom
the king having heard, fent for him to difpute with a Romifli prieft ; the which
he did before the king and many others, in the habit of a clergyman : Mr Ives
preffed the prieft clofely, fhcwing that whatever antiquity they pretended to,
their dodrine and pradtices could by no n\eans be proved apoftolic ; fince they
are not to be found in any writings which remain of the apoftolic age; the prieft
after much wrangling, in the end replied, that this argument of Mr Ives was
of as much force againft Infant-baptifm, as againft the dodrines and ceremo-
nies of the church of Rome : to which Mr Ives anfwered, that he readily grant-
ed what he faid to be true ; the prieft upon this broke up the difpute, faying,
he had been cheated, and that he would proceed no further; for he came to
difpute with a clergyman of the eftabliftied church, and it was now evident,
that this was an Anabaptift preacher. This behaviour of the prieft afforded
his majefty and all prefent not a little diverfion ' : and as protcftant Psdobap-
tift5-
► Anftver lo Ruflen, p. 173, fi:c. « Crofby's Hia. of ihe Baptills, »ol. 4. p. 24.7, 248..
520 INFANT - 'BAPTISM, A PART
•tifts are urged by this argument to admit the unwritten traditions of thePapifts,
fo difleniers of thePasdobaptift perfuafion are prefled upon the fame footing by
■thofe of the church of England to comply »vith the ceremonies of that church,
retained from the church of Rome, particularly by Dr fVhitby " ; who having
pleaded for fomc condefcenfion to be made to diffeniers, in order to reconcile
them to the church, adds •, "And on the other hand, fays he, if notwithftand-
*' ino- the evidence produced, that baptifm hy immerfion, is fuitable both to the
" inftitution of ourLord and his apoftjes ; and was by them ordained to repre-
" fcnt our burial with Chrift, and fo our dying unto fin, and our conformity
^' to his refurrcftion by newnefs of life ; as the apoftle doth clearly maintain
" the meaning of that rite : I fay, jf notwithftanding this, all our dijfenters
" (that is, who arc Pjcdobaptifts, he mult nrean) do agree to Jprinkk the bap-
*' tized infant -, why may they not as well fubmic to the fignificant ceremonies
*' impofed by our church ? for, fince it is as lawful to add unto Chrift's infti-
♦' tucions a fignificant ceremony, as to diminifli a fignificant ceremony which
*' he or his apofties inftituted,,and ufe another in its ftead, which they never
" did inftitute ; what rcafon can they have to do the latter, and yet refufe fub-
" -mifllon to the former ? and why fiiould not the peace and union of the
■" church be as prevailing with thetn, to perform the one, as is their mercy
■*' to the infant''^ body to ncglc£t the other ?" Thus Infant-baptifm is ufed as
the orznd plea for compliance with the ceremonies both of the church oi Rome
and of the church of England.
I have added, in the preface referred to, where ftands the above claufe, that
Infant-baptifm is " that by which Antichrift has fpread his baneful influence
*' over many nations •," which is abundantly evident, fince by the f/r//?!?*///^ of
children, through baptifm introduced by him, he has made whole countries
and nations chriftians, and has chriftened them by tbt na.mc of Chrijiendom -,
and thereby has inlargcd his univerfal church, over which he claims an abfolute
power and authority, as being Chrift's vicar on earth -, and by the fame means
he retains his influence over nations, and keeps them in awe and in obedience
to him ; aflerting, that by their baptifm they are brought into the pale of the
church, in which there is falvation, and out of which there is none ; if there-
fore they renounce their baptifm, received in infancy, or apofliatize from the
church, their damnation is inevitable -, and thus by his menaces and anathemas
he holds the nations in fubjeftion to him: and when they at any time have cou-
rage to oppofe him, and aft in difobediencc to his fupreme authority, he imme-
diately lays a whole nation under an intcrdid -, by which are prohibited, the
adminiftration of the facraments, ail public prayers, burials, chriftenings, &c.
church
* ProUinant Reconciler, p. 289,
AND PILLAR OF POPERY. 521
church-doors are locked up, the clergy dare not or will not adminifter any of-
fices of their fundion to any, but fuch as for large fums of money obtain fpc-
cial privileges from i?(7ff7^ for that purpofe': now by means of thefe prohibitions,
and particularly of christening or baptizing children, nations are obliged or
comply and yield obedience to the bifliop of Rome ; for it appears mod dread-
ful to parents, that their children (hould be deprived of baptifm, by which they
arc made chriftians, as they are uught to believe, and without which there
is no hope of falvation ; and therefore are influenced to give into any thing for
the fake of what is thought fo very important. Once more, the baneful in-
fluence fpread by Antichrift over the nations by Infant-bapcifm, is that poifon-
ous notk)n infufed by him, that facraments, particularly baptifm, confer grace
ex opere cperato^ by the work, done-, that it takes away fin, regenerates men,
and favcs their fouls ; this is charged upon him, and complained of by the
anticnt Wahdenfes in a trad ' of theirs, written in the year 1 120. Where, fpeak-
ing of the works of antichrift, they fay, "the third "tiork of antichrift confifts
" in this, that he attributes tht; regeneration of the holy Spifit unto the dead,
" outward work of baptizing children in that faith, and teaching that thereby
" baptifm and regeneration muft be had ; and therein he confers and beftows
" orders and other facraments, and groundeih therein all his chriftianity, which
" is againft the holy Spirit :" and which popifti notion is argued againft and
expofed by Robert Smith the martyr*; on Bonner's faying " if they (infants) die
«' before they arc baptized, they be damned ; he afked this queftion ; I pray
'• you, my Lord, fhcw me, arc we faved by water or by Chrift ? to which
•♦ Boruter replied, by both ; then, faid Smith, the water died for our fins, and
** fo muft ye fay, that the water hath life, and it being our fervant, and created
*♦ for us, is our Saviour; this my Lord is a good dod tin e, is it not ?" And
this pernicious notion ftill continues, this old leaven yet remains even in fome
Proteftant churches, who have retained it from Rome; hence a child when bap-
tieed is declared to be regenerate, and thanks are returned to God that it is
regenerate} and it is taught, when capable of being catechized, to fay, that
in its baptifm it was " made a child of God, a member of Chrift, and an inhe-
" ntor of the kingdom of heaven -," which has a tendency to take off all concern
in pcrfoni when grown up, about an inward work of grace, in regeneraiion
and fandific»tion, as a mcetnefs for heaven, and to encourage a prcfumption
in them, rwtwithftanding their apparent want of grace, that they arc members
of Chrift, and ftiall never perifh ; are children and heirs of God, and ftiall cer-
tainly inherit eternal life. Wherefore Dr Ou/f» rightly obferves'', " that the
Vol. IL • 3 X " father
• AbftraS of the Hift. of Popery, part i. p. 463. See Fox'i Afts and MoBumenU, vol. i.p. 32^.
' Apud Morlaad's Hirtory of the churches of Piedmont, p. 148.
Fox's Afts and Monumemi, vol. 3. p. 400. ' Theologoumena, I. 6. c. 3. p. 477.
522 INFANT - BAPTISM, A PART
" father of lies himfelf could not eafily have devifed a dodrine more pernicious,
" or what propofts a more prefcnt and eflFeftual poifon to the minds of finners
^' to be drank in by them."
II. The fecond article or propofition in the preface is, as aflerted by me, that
" Infant-baptifm is the bafis of national churches and worldly eftablifhments ;
" that which unites the church and world, and keeps them togther-," than
which nothing is more evident : if a church is national, it confifts of all in the
nation, men, women, and children -, and children arc originally members of it,
cither fo by birth, and as foon as born, being born in the church, in a chriftian
land and nation, which is the church ; or rather by baptifm, as it is generally
put; fo according to the order of the church of England, at the baptifm of a
child, the minifter fays, "We receive this child into the congregation of Chrift's
«' flock." And by the AfTcmbly of Divines, "Baptifm is called a facrament
" of the New Teftament, whereby the parties baptized are folemnly admitted
" into ihevifible^hurch." And to which there is a ftrange contradiftion in the
following anfwer, where it is faid, that " Baptifm is not to be adminiftercd to any
" that are out of the vifible church ;" but if by baptifm the parties baptized
are folemnly admitted into the vifible church, then before baptifm by which
they are admitted, they muft be out of it : one or other mud be wrong; cither
perfons are not admitted into the vifible church by baptifm, or if they are, then
before baptifm they are out of it, and have baptifm adminiflered to them in
order to their being admitted into it; and Calvin fays, according to whofc plan
of church-government at Geneva, that of the Scotch church is planned, that
baptifm is a folemn introdudion to the church of God '. And Mr Baxter ar-
oucs, " that if there be neither precept nor example of admitting church-
" members in all the New Teftament but by baptifm ; then all that are now
" admitted ought to come in by baptifm ; but there is neither precept nor,
" example in all the New Teftament of admitting church -members but by
" baptifm ; therefore they ought to come in the fame way now." So then in-
fants becoming members of a national church by baptifm, they are originally
of it ; are the materials of which it confifts ; and it is by the baptifm of infants
il is fupplied with members, and is fupported and maintained ; fo that it may
be truly faid, that Infant-baptifm is the bafis and foundation of a national
church, and is indeed the finews, ftrength, and fupport of it: and infants be-
ing admitted members by baptifm, continue fuch when grown up, even though
uf tlie mod diffolute lives and converfations, as multitudes of them are ; and
many, inftead of being treated as church-members, deferve to be fent to the
houfe
' EjiH. Calvin. Ep. ad N. S.. D p. ^41.
AND PILLAR OF POPERY. 523
houfe of corrcftion, as fome are; and others are guilty of fuch flagitious crimes
that they die an infamous death -, yet even thefe die in the communion of the
church ; and thus the church and the world are united and kept together till
death doth them part.
The Independents would indeed feparate the church and the world, according
to their principles; but cannot do it, being fettered and hampered with Infant-
church-memberfhip and baptifm, about which they are at a lofs and difagreed
on what to place it ; fome place it on infants interefl in the covenant of grace ;
and here they fadly contradift themfelves or one another ; at one time they
lay it is intercft in the covenant of grace gives infants a right to baptifm; and
at another time, that it is by baptifm they are brought and entered into the
covenant ; and fometimes it is not in the inward part cf the covenant they arc
intcrefted, only in the external part of it, where hypocrites and gracelefs pcr-
fons may be ; but what that external part is, no mortal can tell : others not
being fatisned that their infant-feed as fuch are all interefted in the covenant of
grace, fay, it is not that, but the church-covenant that godly parents enter
into, which gives their children with them a right to church- memberfhip and
baptifm : children in their minority, it is faid ", covenant with their parent?,
and fo become church-members, and this intitles them to baptifm; for accord-
ing to the o\f\ Independents oi New England, none but members of a vifiblc
church were to be baptized ' ; though Dr Goodwin "is of a different mind :
hence only fuch as were children of members of churches, even of fee mem-
bers "j as they call them, were admitted, though of godly and approved chrif-
tians ; and though they may have been members, yet if excommunicated, tlieir
children born in the time of their excommunication might not be baptized";
but thofc children that are admitted members and baptized, though not co.-i-
■firmed members, as they flile them, till they profefs faith and repentance'';
yet during their minority, which reaches till they are more than thirteen years
of age, according to the example oi IJhmael, and till about fixteen years of age,
they are real members to fuch intents and purpofes, as, that if their parenis
are difmifTcd to other churches, their children ought to be put into the letters
of difmilTion wuh them''; and whilft their minority continues, are under church-
watch, and fubjeft to the reprchenfions, admonitions, and cenfures thereof, for
3x2 their
* Difpatation concerning church-members and their children at Boftoo. p. ii, 13. Hooker'i
Survey of church-difcipiine, part 3. p. 2;, 2;. ' Cotton's Way of the churches in New
England, p. 81. Bonon-difpotation, p. 4 Defence of the Nine Propofiiions, p. 115.
" GoYernmentofthecharchesof Chiirt, p. 377. " Defence of the Nine Propofi ions, p. f 9,
* Cotton's Way, p. 85. Bonon-difputation, p. JJ. Hooker's Survey, part 3. p. 1 8.
* Cotton's Hohnefs of church-members, p. 19. Bofton-difputaiicn, p. 3. ' Ibid. p. i j.
524 INFANT - BAPTISM, A l>ART
their healing and amendment ', as need fhall require; thongh vith refpeft to
public rebuke, admonition, and excommtinication, children in their minority
«re not fubjcft to church-difcipline, only to fuch as is by way of fpiritual watch
and private rebuke '. The ongim] Jmiependenls, by the covenant feed, who
have a right to church-membcrfhip and baptifm, thought only the feed of im-
mediate parents in church-covenant are nieant, and not of progenitors '. Mr
Cotton fays ", ■" Infants cannot claim right unto baptifm, but in the right of one
" of their parents or both ; -where neither of the parents can claim right to the
•• Lord's- fupper, there their infants cannot claim right to baptifm," though
he afterwards fays", " it may be confidered, whether the children may not be
" baptized, where cither the grandfather or grandmother" have made profefTion
" of their faith and repentance before the church, and are ftill living to under-
** take for the chriftian education of the child ; or if thefe fail, what hinders
♦• but that if the parents will rcfign their infant to be educated in the houfe of
" any godly m.-mbcr of the church," the child may be lawfully baptized in the
" right of its houfhold governor." But Mr Hooker, as he afTcrts'', that chil-
dren as children have no right to baptifm, fo it belongs not to any prcdecefTors,
tither nearer or farther off removed from the next parents to give right of this
privilege to their children ; by which predeceflbrs, he fays, he includes and
comprehends all bcfides the next parent j grandfather, great grandfather, (jfc.
So the minifters and melTcngers of the congregational churches that met at the
Sjfir)' declare * i ♦' that not onl/ thofe that do aftually profefs faith in, and
♦' obedience unto Chrift, but alfo the infants of one or both believing parents
" are to be baptized, and thofe only." And the commiffioners for the review
of the Common Prayer, in the beginning of the reign of king Charles the fecond ;
thofe of the Prejbyterian pcrfuafion moved, on the behalf of others, that " there
•• being divers learned, pious, and peaceable minifters, who not only judge it
*• unlawful to baptize children whofc parents both of them are Atheifts, Infi-
•* dels, Heretics, or Unbaptized \ but alfo fuch whofe parents are cxcommuni-
•♦ cate perfons, fornicators, or otherwife notorious and fcandalous finners ; we
•* defire, fay they, they may not be inforced to baptize the children of fuch,
•* until they have made open profeffion of their repentance before baptifm':"
but now 1 do not underftand, that the prefent generation of Diffenters of this
Arnomination, adhere to the principles and practices of their predecefibrs, at
leaft
• CarabruJge PUtfofjn of church government, p. i8. • Bofton-difputation, p 14.
• Bofton-difputation, p. ig. " Cotton'i Way of th« chorcbei, p. 81. • Ibid. p. 1 1 ;.
» Of this fee Epift. Calvin. Ep. Farella, p. 17;. & Salden. Otia, Theolog. Exercitat. 7. feft. ai.
. p. J44. T Survey of charchdifciplioe, part 3. p. ij.
» Dcclaracicn of the Faith and Order. &e. c. 29. p. 48.
• Proceeding} of the CommilTioncr. of both PerfuaHoDi, &c, p. 22.
AND PILLAR OF POPERY., ,525
leaft very few of them ; but admit to bap<ifm, not only the children of mem-
bers of their churches, but of thpfe who are not members, only hearers, or that
appjy to them for the baptifra of their infants, whether gracious or gracckfs
pcrfons : and were only the firft fort admitted, children of members, what are
•they ? No better than others, born in fin, born of the flefli, carnal and cor-
rupt, are of the world, notwithftanding their birth of religious pcrfons, until
they arc called out of it by the cffe(5tual grace of God -, and as they grow up,
appear to be of the world as others, and have their converfation according to
■the courfe of it ; and many of them are diflblute in their lives, and fcandalous
in their converfations : and yet I do not underftand, that any notice is taken of
them in a church-way ; as to be admonifhcd, cenfured, and excommunicated-
but they retain their memberfliip, into which they were taken in their infancy,
and continue in it to the day of their death : and if this is not uniting and keep-
ing the world and church together, I know not what is.
Moreover all the arguments that are made ufe of to prove the church of Chrift
under the gofpel-difpenfation to be congregational, and againft a national church
are all deftroyed by the bapiifm and membcrfhip of infants. It is faid in fa-
vour of the one, and againft the other, that the members of a viGble church
are faints by calling, fuch at in charitable difcretion maybe accounted fo "•
but arc infants who are admitted to memberlhip and baptized, fuch ? The ho-
lincfs pleaded for as belonging to them, is only a federal holinefs, and that is
merely chimerical : are they called to be faints, or faints by effcdual callino .'
Can they, in charitable difcretion, or in rational charity, be thought to be truly
and really holy, or faints, as- the churches of the New Tcftament are faid to
be? And if they cannot in a judgment of charity, be accounted real faints, and
yet are admitted members of churches ; why not others, of whom it cannot be
charitably thought that they are real faints ? Befides, it is faid by the Indepen-
dents, " that members of gofpel-churches are faints by calling, vifibly mani-
fefting and evidencing by their profeflion and walk their obedience to that
call } who are further known to each other by their confeflion of faith wroucrht
in them by the power of God j and do willingly confent to walk together,,
according to the appointment of Chrift, giving up thcmfclves to the Lord
and to one another by the will of God, in profefled fubjcdion to the ordi-
nances of the gofpel ' :" now are infants fuch ? Do they manifeft and evidence
by aprofcfTion and walk their obedience to a divine call ^ And jf they do nor,
and yet are admitted members, why not others, who give no more evidence
than they do ? Do they make a confefiiort of faith wrought in them ? D0c5.it
appcao
\ Cocton'i Way of the chorchei, kc, p. 56. CuotM-idge-Plairorm, c. 3. p. 3.
* Stvoy-Dedaratioo, &c. p. 57.
5i6 INFANT - BAPTISM, A PA*RT
appear that they have fuch a faith ? and in a confeffion made, and fo made as
to be known by fellow-members ? and if 'rot, and yet received and owned as
members, why not others that make no more confefTion of faith than they do.
Do infants confent to walk with the church of Chrift, and give up themfelves
to the Lord and one another, and profefs to be fub)e<fl to the ordinances of the
gofpel ? and if they do not, as mod certainly they do not, and yet are members,
•why may not others be alfo members on the fame footing ? Is it objefted to a
• national church, that perfonsof the worftof charaftcrsare members of it-, and by
this means the church is filled with men very difreputable and fcandalous in their
Jives? and is not this true of infants admitted members in their infancy, who when
grown up are very wicked and immoral, and yet their memberlhip continues ?
and why not then national churches be admitted of, notwithftanding the above
objedion ? So that upon the whole, I think, I have good reafon to fay, " that
" there cannot be a full feparation of the one from the other, that is, of the
" church from the world, nor a thorough reformation in religion, until it (In-
*' fant-baptifm) is wholly removed."
I-II. Inthe faid Preface, I exprefs my firm belief of the entire cenation of
Infant-baptifm, in time to come : my words are, " though it (Infant-baptifm)
" has fo loner and largely obtained (as it has from the fourth century till now,
" and over the greater part who have fince bore the chrillian name) and (till
" does obtain; I believe with a firm and unfhaken faith, that the time is haften-
" ing on, when Infant-baptifm will be no more praftifed in the world." I mean
in the fpiritual reign of Chrift; for in his pcrfonal reign there will be no ordi-
nances, nor the adminiftration of them; and this is explained by what I farther
fay, " when churches will be formed on the fame plan they were in the times of
■" thcapoftles; when gofpel- dodlrine and difcipline will be reftored to their
" primitive purity and luflre; when the ordinances of baptifm and the Lord's
-" fupper will be adminiftered as they were firft: delivered ; all which will
*' be accomplifhed, when " the Lord /hall be king over all the earth, and
*' there fhall be one Lord and his name one ;" that is, when there fhall be
one Lord, one faith, and one baptifm, acknowledged by all chriftians; and
they will be all of one mind with refpeft to the docflrines and ordinances of
the gofpel. And as it becomes every man to give a reafon of the faith and
hope he has concerning divine things, with meekncfs and fear ; the reafons of
my firm belief, that Infant-baptifm will be no more praftifed in the latter day,
and fpiritual reign of Chrift, are fome of them fuggefted in the above para-
graph, and others may be added, as,
FirJI, Becaufe churches in the time referred to will be formed on the plan
churches were in the time of the apoftles ; that this will be the cafe, fee the
prophecies
J AND PILLAR^-OF POPERY. 527
prophecies in Jfai. i. 25, 26. Jer. xxx* 18, 20.- Rev. xi. 19. Now the apoftolic
cliurches coafifted only of baptized believers, or of fuch who were baptized
upon profelTion of their faith ; the members of die-firft chriftian church, which
was at Jerufakmy -were firfl baptized upOn their converfion, and then added
to it V the next chriftian church, at Samaria, confifted of men and women bap-
tized on believing the gofpel .preached by Philip; and the church at Corinth,
of fuch who hearing,' believed and were baptized ; and on the fame plan were
formed the churches zx. Rome, Philijipi, Colojfe, and others; nor is there one
fingle jnfta.nce of Infant-baptifm and of Infant-church-memberQiip in them;
wherefore if churches in the latter day will be on the fame plan, then Infant-
baptifm will be no more pradifed. -
-Secondly, Becaufe then the ordinances of the gofpel will be adminiftered, as
^hey -were firll delivered, clear of all prefent corruption and fuperftition ; this
is what is meant by the temple of God being opened in heaven, on the founding
of the fevench trumpet, i^«;. xi. 19. and xv, 5. which rcfpeds the reftoration
of worfhip, difciphne, dodlrines and ordinances, to the free life of them, and
to their original purity ; when, as the ordinance of the Lord's-fupper will be
adminiftered clear of all corruptions and ceremonies introduced by Papifts and
retained by Projcftants ; fplikewife the ordinance of baptifm, both with refpeft
to fubjcdt and mode ;. which, as it was firft delivered, was only adminiftered to
perfons profefling faith and repcnunce, and that by immerfjon only ; and if
this will be univcrfaliy adminiftered in the latter day, as in the firft ages of
chriftianiry, Infant-fprinlcling will be pradlifed no more.
Thirdly, Becaufe Chrift will then be king over all the earth in a fpiritua) fenfe ;
one Lord, whofe commands will be obeyed with great precifion and exaflnefs,
accordjng toiiis -will revealed In his word; and as baptifm is one of his com-
mands he has prefcribed, as he is and will be acknowledged the one Lord and
head of the church, and not the pope, who will no more be fubmitted to; fo
there will \)t one baptifm, which will be adminiftered to one fort of fubjeds
only, as he has direfled, and in one manner only, by immerfion, of which his
baptifm is an example ; and therefore I believe that Infant-fprink'ing will be
■ no more in ufe. ;
■ Fourthly, At this fame time the hjot^ of Chrift will be one, that is, his religion;
which will be the fame.it was at firft inftituted by him. Now it is various, as
it is profefled and pradifed by different perfons that bear his name ; but in the
latter day, it will be one and the fame, in all its branches, as embraced, pro-
fefled, and exercifed, by all that arc called chriftians ; and ^s baptifm is or.c.
part of it, this will be praflifed in an uniform manner, or by all alike, that
Ihall name the name of Chrift ; for fince Chrift's name, or the chriftian religion.
in.
528 INFANT - BAPTISM, A PART
in all its parts, will be the fame in all the profcflbrs of k j I therefore firmly
beiieve, that baptifm will be praftifed alike by all, according to the primitive
inltitution -, and confeqaently, that Irvfant-baptifra will be no more : for,
Fiftbhf, As at this time, the VBalchmtnwillfet eye to eye^ Ifai. lii. 8. the minif-
ters of the gofpcl will be of one mind, both with refpcft to the dodrines and
duties of chriftianity ; will alike preach the one, and {>raftifc the other-, fo the
people under their miniftrations will be all agreed, and receive the truths of
the gofpel in the love of thctn, and fubmit ta ihc precepts and inftitutions of
it, without any difference among thcmfchres, ftnd without any variation from
the word of God -, and among the reft, the ordinance of baptifm, about which
there will be no longer ftrife ; but all will agree that the proper futgefbs of it are
believers, and the right mode of it immeffion ; and fo Infant-fprrnkling will be
no nwre contended for; faints m this, as tn other things, will fcrve the Lord
wich one cenfent, Zeph. iii. 9.
Sixthly, Another reafbn why I firmly believe Infant -baptifm will hereafter
be no more praftifed, is, becatifc anrichrift will be enth-ely cvnfumedWnh the fpi-
rit or breath of Chrift's mtutb, artd with the brighinefs of his coming, 2 Thcfs. ii.
8. that is, with the pure and powerful preaching of his word, at his coming to
take to himfelf — his power, and reign fpiritually in the chejrches, in a more glo-
rious manner; when all antichriftian doftrines and praftices will be entirely abo-
liflicd and ceafc, even the whole body of anrichriftian worfhip ; not a limb of
antichrift fliall remain, but all fhall beconfumed. Now as I believe, and it has
been (hewn, that Infant-baptifm is a part and pillar of Popery, alimbofanti-
chrift, a branch of fuperftition and wUI-worfhip, introduced by the man of fin,
when he fhall be deftroyed, this fhall be deftroyed with him and be no more.
Seventhly, Though the notion of Infant-baptifm has been embraced and prac-
tifed by many good and godly rrrcn in feveral ages -, yet it is part cjf the wood,
hay, and flubble, laid by them upon the foundation ; is one of thofe works of
theirs, the bright day of the gofpcl fhall declare to be a falfhood ; and which
the fire of the word will try, burn up, and confume, though they themfelvc*
fhall be faved ; and therefore being ntrerly confumed, fhall no more appear in
the world : for,
Eighthly, When the angel fhall defccnd from heaven with great power, and
the earth be lightened witi his glory, which will be at the fall oi Babylon and ruin
of Antichrift, Rev. xviii. i, 2. fuch will be the blaze of light then given, that
all antichriflian darknefs fhall be removed, and all works of darknefs will be
made manifefl and cafl off, apriong which Infant-baptifm is one ; and then tht
earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the fea, Ifai. xi. 9.
even of the knowledge of the word, ways, worfhip, truths, and ordinances of
God,
- AND PILLAR OF POPERY. 529
Xjod, and all ignorance of them vanifh and difappear; and then the ordinance
of baptifni will appear in its former luftre and purity, -and be embraced and
fubmitted to in it ; and every corruption of it be rejefled, of which Infanc-
-bapiifm is one.
Ninthly, Whereas the ordinances of the gofpel, baptifmand theLord's-fupper,
are to continue until the fecond coming of Chrift, or the end of the world,
MaU.xxvin. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi. 26. and whereas there have been corruptions
introduced into them, as they are generally adminiftered, unlefs among fome
few ; it is not reafonable to think, that thofe corruptions will be continued to
theiecond coming of Chrift, but that they will be removed before, even at his
Ipiritual coming, or in his fpiritual reign : and as with refpeft to baptifm par-
ticularly, there muft be a miftake on one fide or the other, both with refpefb
<o fubjedt and mode; and as this miftake I firmly believe is on the fide of the
P.xdobaptifts ; fo, I as firmly believe for the reafon given, that it will be re-
moved, and Infant-fprinkling for the future no more ufed.
Teiiihly, The Philadclphian church-ftate, which anfwers to and includes the
fpiritual reign of Chrift in his churches, is what I refer unto in the preface, as
the time when the praftice of Infant-baptifm will ceafe j in wliich I am con-
firmed, by the charafter^ given of that church and the members of it ; as,
that it ^f/>/ the -^y^^rJ of Chrift v that is, not only the doftrines of the gofpel,
which will be then purely preached and openly profefttrd, but the ordinances
of ir, baptifm and the Lord's-fupper j which have been (particularly baptifm)
fadly corrupted in almoft all the periods of the churches hitherto, exceptincr
the apoftolic one j but will in this period be reftorcd to their priftine purity
and glory -, hence it is promifed to this church, and that it reprefents, that
becaul'e \i kept the word oi Chv\{\.\ patience truly and faithfully, it fhould be
kept from the hour of temptation that fiiould come on all the earth; and is
exhorted to bold faft what ftie had, both the dodlrines and ordinances, as they
were delivered by Chrift and his apoftles, and as fhe now held them in the truth
and purity of tliem. Thefe are the reafons why I believe with a firm and un-
Ihaken faith, that the time is coming, and I hope will not be long, when
Infant-baptifm will be no more pradifed in the world.
Since, now at this time, wc are greatly and juftly alarmed with the increafc
of Popery ; in order to put a ftop to it, let us begin at home, and endeavour
to remove all remains of it among ourfelves ; fo ftiall we with the better
grace, and it may be hoped, with greater fuccefs, oppofc and hinder the fprcad
of it.
Vol. II. 3 Y POST-
,520 INFANT -BAPTISM^ A PART
P OS T S C R I P T. *.
npHE writer who lately appeared in a news-paper, under the name of CaW:'-
dus, having been obliged to quit his mountebank-ftage, on which he held
forth to the public for a few days -, has-, in his great humility, condefcended to
deal out his packets, in a lefs popular way ; under the title of, " The true Scrip-
" ture-Do5}rine of the Mode and SubjeSJs of Chrijlian Baptifm, &c. in fix letters."
It is quite unreafonable that we fhould be put, by every impertinent fcribbler,
to the drudgery ofanfwering, what has been anfwered over and over again in
this controverfy. However I fhall make fhort work with this writer, and there-
fore I have only put him to, and (hall only give him a little gentle correftion at
the cart's tail; to ufe the phrafeof a late learned Profefj'or in one of our univer-
fities, with rcfpedl to the difcipline of a certain Bifbop.
The Jjrjl and feccnd letters of Candidus, in the news-paper, are anfwered in
mart»inal notes on my Sermon upon Baptifm, and pubiiQicd along with it. His
third kacr is a mean piece of buffoonery and fcurrility ; it begins with a trite,
vulfrar proverb, in lovy" language, fit only for the mouth of an Hofikr or a Car-
man 1 and his friends fecm to have fpoiled one or other of thefe, by making him
a Parfon. He goes on throughout the whole of the letter, as one that is in great
lialle, running after his wits, to feck for them, having loft them, if ever he
Iiad any, and it concludes with a poor, pitiful, foolifh burlefk, mixed with,
flander and falfhood, on an innocent gentleman ; quite a ftrangcr to him, and
could never have ofiended him, but by a confcientious regard to what he believ-
ed was his duty. However, by this bafe and inhuman treatment, it appears
that his moral character is unimpeachable, or otherwife it would have been nib-
bled at. His fourth letter begins with reprefentiog the fermon publifhed, as
fo mangled, changed, altered, and added to, that it has fcarce any remains of
its original ; in which he muft be condemned by all that heard it : and he has
mod unluckily charged one claufe as an addition, which, there cannot be one
in ten but will remember it ; it is this, "If any man can find any others in his
«' (the jailor's) houfe, bcfides all that were in it, he muft be reckoned a very
"■ fagaciouj perfon ;" and he himfclf, in his '^r/? letter, publifhed before the
fermon was, has an oblique glance at it; calling me, in a fneering way, "the
" fagacious dodtor." "What he fays in the following part of the letter, concern-
inc the fubjcfts of baptifm, and what he intended to fay concerning the mode
in another letter, which was prevented, I fuppofe are contained in a fet of letters
now publifhed-, and which are addreffcd, not to Mr Printer, who caft him off,
but to a candid Antip.idobaptifl i and indeed the epithet of candid better agrees
with
— ]
i
,AND PILLAR OF POPERY> 531
with that fort of people than with himfelf, of which he feems confcious, if he
has any confcience at all ; for it looks as if he had not, or he could never have
fct out with fuch a mod notorious untruth, and impudent falfhood ; affirming
that I faid in my fermon, that " the ten commandments, ftiled the moral law,
" were not binding onChrift's difciples ;" a greater untruth could not well have
been told : tny writings in general teftify the contrary, and particularly two
fermons I have publilhed, one called, "The Law ejlablijhed by the Cofpel" and
the other, " Tbe Law in the Hand of Chrijl ■" which arc fufficient to juftify me
from fuch a wicked calumny, and the paragraph with which my fermon begins,
attacked by him, and which I declare, are the words I delivered in the pulpir,
that " the ten commandments, are the commands of God, and to be obferved
" by chriftians under theprefent difpenfation;" for which I quoted i Cor. ix. 21.
this I (ay, muft ftare him in the face, and awaken his guilty confcience, if not
feared as with a red-hot iron -, which I fear is his cafe. As for his flincrs at eter-
nal juftification, which he has lugged into this controverfy, and his grand con-
cluding and common argument againft it, that it is eternal nonfenfc, I defpife -,
he has not a head for that controverfy : and I would only put him in mind of
what Dr Owen faid to Baxter, who charged him with holding it, " What would
" the man have me fay ? I have told him, I am not of that opinion -, would he
" have me fwcar to it, that I am not ? but though I am not, I know better and
" wifer men than myfclf that do hold it."
. Some body in the news-paper, obferving that this man was froward and per-
verfc, and fearing he fliould do hurt to religion in general, in order to divc.-t
him from it, and guide him another way ; complimented him with bein" a man
of wit, and of abilities; and the vain young man fancies he really is one : and
being a witty youth, and of abilities, he has been able to produce an inftancc
of Infant-baptifm, about 1500 years before chrifliaa bapdfm was inftituced ;
though he muft not have the fole credit of it, becaufe it has been obferved be-
fore him : the inftacce is of the paflage of the Ifraelites through the fea, ac
which time, he fays, their children were baptized, as well as they : come (ben;
.fa\$ he, in very polite language, this lis one fcripture-inftance; but if he had
bad his wits about him, he might have improved this inftance, and ftrengthened
bis argument a little more; -by obferving that there was a mixed multitude,
th^t came with the Ifraelites out of Egypt, and with them paflcd through the
fea, with ibeir <hildr€n alfo. And fincc he makes mention oi Nebuchadnezzar's
baptifm, it is much he did not try to make out, that his children were baptized
alfo, then or at fomc other time. This is ,the truefcdpturc-dodrine, of the
fubjccls-of chriftian baptifm, according to his title.
3 y 2 That
532 INFANT - BAPTISM, A PART
That the Jews received their profelytes by baptifm, before the times of Chrid,
he fays, I know ; but if I do, he does not. I obfervc, he is very ready to
afcribe great knowledge of things to me, which he himfclf is ignorant of-, I
am much obliged to him : the great names he oppofes to me, do not frighten'
me ; I have read their writings and tcftimonies, and know what they were
capable of producing, and to how little pu/pofe-, though I mufl confcfs, it is
amazing to me, that any men of learning (hould give into fuch a notion, that
chriftian baptifm is founded upon a tradition of the baptifm or dipping of
profelytes with the Jews ; of which tradition there is not the lead hint, neither
in the Old nor in the New Teftamcnt -, nor in the Apocryphal writings between
both-, nor in Jofephus; nor in Pbilo the Jew i nor in the Jewifli Mifnah, or
book of traditions -, compiled in the fccond century, or at the beginning of the
third, whether of the Jerufalem or Babylonian editions. I am content to rific-
that little reputation I have for Jewifh learning, on this fingle point-, if any
paflage can be produced in the Mi/nab, mentioning fuch a tradition of the Jews,
admitting profelytes by baptifm or dipping, whether adult or children. I own
it is mentioned in the Cemara, both Jerufalem and Babylonian, a work of later
times, but not in the Mifnah ; though Dr Gak has. allowed it without examina-
tion. The only paflage in it which Dr fVall refers to from Silden, though not
fully exprcfled, is this*, " a female ftranger, a captive, a maiden, which are
" redeemed and become profelytes, and are made free •, being under (the next
" paragraph is above) three years and one day old, are allowed the matrimonial
*« dowry," that is, at marriage : but not a tittle is here, or any where elfe iiv
\hc Mifnah, of receiving either minors or adult as profelytes by baptifm or dip-
ping: and fuppofing fuch a Jewifh tradition, five-hundred, or three-hundredj
or two-hundred years after Chrifl ; or even fo many years before Chrift, of
what avail would it be ? He muft be ftrangely bigoted to an hypothcfis, to be-
lieve that our Lord, who fo fcverely inveighed againft the traditions of the
Jews, and particularly thofe concerning their baptifms or dippingsj fhould
found his New Teftament-ordinance of baptifm, on a tradition of theirs, with-
out excepting it from the other traditions, and without declaring his will it
(hould be contmued, which he has not done -, and yet this, as Dr Hammond
fuggefts, is the bafis of Infant-baplifm : to what wretched (hifts muft the Pa:do-
baptifts be driven for a foundation to place Infant- baptifm on, to place it on
fuch a rotten one ; a tradition of men, who at other times, are reckoned by
them, themfelvcs, the moft ftupid, fottifh, and defpicable of all men upon
the face of the earth ? For the farther confutation of this notion, fee Sir Norton
Knatcbbull
• Mifnah, Cetubat, c. i. f. 2 — 4.
-.A;ND PILLAR OF POPERY. 533
KnatcbluU on 1 Pet. iii. 20, 2 1. Stennett againft Rtijferj, p. 61. Gale's RefieHions
on lVaW% Hijlory of hfant-baptifm. Letters 9 and 10. Rees on Infant-haptifm,
p. 17—29.
I fhall not purfue this writer any farther, by giving particular anfwers to his
arguments, objeftions, and queries, fuch as they are -, but fhall only refer the
reader to the anfwers that have been already given to them : as^ to the thread-
bare argument, from Abraham's covenant, and from circiimcifion, for Old
Tcftament times and cafes, are- chiefly dealt in, to fettle a New Tcftament-
ordinance; fee £to?r's Answer to Hitchiny Rees zgalnd fF'alker, andmyAn(Vvers
to Dickitifcn, Clarke, and Bojlwick. Of the unreafonablenefs of requiring in- •
llances of the adulc baptifm of children of chriftian parents, in the fcriptures,
fee my Striftures on Bojlwick's Fair and Rational Vindication, &c. p. J 06. Of
the teftimonies of the ancient chrifiian writers in favour of Infant-baptifm, fee
Galfs Reflections, &c. Letters 11, 12, 13. Rees on Infant-baptifm, p. 150, &c.
Some trcacifes of mine •, The Divine Right of Infant-baptifm Examined, Src
p. 20 — 25. The Argument from Apoftolic Tradition, &CC. Antip<edobaptifm. Reply
to Clarke, p. 18— 23. Stri5Iures on Boflwick, p. 100 — 103. 8vo. Edit.
recalled upon this writer, in the^ notes on my Sermon, to name any lexicon
grapher of note, that ever rendered the word CitT?/^*, by perfundo or afpergo,
to pour or fprinkle; and behold ! Leigh's Critica Sacra, is the only book quoted ! '
and he the only lexicographer mentioned, if he may be fo called ! a book which
every one of our illiterate lay- preachers, as they are called, are capable of quot- ■
ing, .and of confronting this writer with it •, by obferving that Leigh fays, that
•• the native and proper fignification of the word, is to dip into water, or to plunge ■
•^ under water, John iii.-22, 23. Matt. iii. 16. Ads viii. 38." In proof of bap-
tifm by immerfion, and of the true fignification of the word, fee Gale's Reflec-
tions, &c. Letters 3 and 4. Rees on Infant-baptifm, p. 121, &c. my trcatife-
of The Ancient Mode of Baptizing, and tiie Defence of it, with The Divine Right
cf Lttfantbaptifm Examined,' tec. p. 90, &c.
I bid this writer adieu : God give him repentance for his fins, and the par-
don of them ; and this I am fure he cannot charge, neither with uncharitable^-
nefs, nor with Antinomianifm.
When the Paedobaptifts write again, it may be expcfled they will employ
a better hand -, or (hould they choofc to fix upon one of their younger forr
again ; let them take care, firft to wring the milk well out of his nofe, before -
they put a pen in his hand.
A DISSER-.
53+ A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
DISSERTATION
CONCERNING
The Eternal S o n s h^i p of C H R I S T j
SHEWING
By whom it has been denied and oppofed, and by whom alTeited
and defended, in all ages of chriftianity. ;
THE eternal Sondiip of Chrift, or that he is the Son of God by eternal ge-
neration,, or that he was the Son of God before he was the fon oi Mary,
even From all eternity, which is denied by theSocinians, and others akin to them,
was known by the faints under the Old Tcftamcnt -, by David, Pfalm ii. 7, 12^'
hy Solomon, Prov. viii. 22, 30. by the prophet AfrVai, chap. v. 2. His Sondiip
was known by Z)^«;V/, from vihomit\s^ro\3a.b\z Nebuchadnezzar ha.6.\t, Dan.'m.i^.
from which it appears he was, and was known to be, the Son of God before he
was born of the virgin, or before his incarnation, and therefore not called fo on
that account. This truth is written as with a fun-beam in the New Tcftament ;
but my dcfign in what I am about is, not to give theproof of this dodrine from
the facred fcripturcs, but to fhcw who firft fet themfelves againft it, and who
have continued the oppofition to it, more or lefs, to this time; and, on the
other hand, to (hew that found and orthodox chriftians, from <hc earlieft rimes
of chriftianity to the prefent, have aficrtcd and defended it. I fliall begin with
I. The firft century, in which the Evangclifts and Apoftles lived; what their
fentiments were concerning this dodrine, is abundantly manifeft from their writ-
ings. The perfons in this age who oppofed the divine and eternal Sonftiip of
Chrift were,
ijl, Simon
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. &c. 535
. iji, SimonMagas, the father of hereGes, as he is juftly called; he firft vented
the notion afterwards imbibed by SabeUius, of one perfon in the Godhead ; to
which he added this blafphcmy, that he was that perfon that fo is. Before he
profeffed hitnfelf a chriftian he gave out that he was [ome great one ; he afterwards
faid, he was the one God himfelf under different names, the Father in Samaria,
the Son tnjudea, and the holy Spirit in the reft of the nations of the world '; or,
as AafitH ^ expreflcs it, he faid that he » mount Sinai gave the law' to Mofis for
the Jews, .in the perfon of the Father -, and in the time oi Tiberius he fcetningly
appeared in the perfon of the Son, and afterwards as the holy Ghoft, came upon
the apoftles in tongues of fire. And according to 7'rij/»' he not only faid, but
wfote it; for itfeems, according to hira, he wrote fome volumes, in which he
faid, >' I am the Word of God, that is, the Son of God." Menander Yi\s 6^k\^\c
■took, the fame charafters and titles to himfelf his mafter did '.
idly, Cirinthtts is the next, who was cotemporary with the apoftle Jehn, of
whom that well known ftory is told % that the apoftle being about to go into a
bath at Ephefus, and ke'mgCerintbus in it, faid to thofe with him, "Let us flee
*' from hence, left the bath fall upon us in which Cerintbus the enemy of truth
«' is :" he afferted thatChrift was only a man, denying his deity ', and in courfe
his divine and eternal Sonftiip; he denied thatjcfus was born of a virgin, which
fcemed to him impofTible ; and that he was the fon of Jofepb and Mary, as other
men are* of their parents. Jerom fays ^ at the requeft of the bifhops of Afia,
- 'John the apoftle wrote his gofpcl againft Cerintbus and other hereticks, and efpe-
cially the tenets of theEbionites, then rifingup, who afterted thatChrift was not
htfoxzMary; hence he was obliged plainly to declare his divine generation; and
■ it may be obfcrved, that he is the only facred writer who in his gofpel and epif-
tles fpeaks of Chrift as the begotten and only begotten Son ofGod, at leaft fpcaks
moftly of him as fuch.
"i^dly, Ebion. What his fcntiment was concerning Chrift, may be learned from
■what has been juft obferved, about the apoftle Jobn'i writing his gofpel to refute
it ; and may be confirmed by what Eufebius ' fays of him, that he held that Chrift
was a mere man, and born as other men are : and though he makes mention of
another fort of them, who did not deny that Chrift was born of a virgin, and of
the holy Ghoft, neverthelefs did not own that heexifted before, being God the
Word and Wifdom. Hence Hilary calls " Pbotinus, Ebion, becaufe of the fame-
nefs.
• Irenacus adv. hacref. I. i.e. 20. ^ De Hxres. e. i.
• Coromem. in Mait. xxix. 5. torn. 9. fol. jj. A. * Tertollian de pracfcript. hz-et. c 46.
• Irenius 8dv. harref, 1. 3. c. 3. ' TertuUian ut fupra, c. 48. « Irenacus ib. 1. 1. c 1;.
»> Catalog, fcrip. eccle.*. c. 19. Gc Irensus 1. 3. c. 1 1. ' Eccles. Hift. 1. 3. c. 27; vid..
TertulliaBde carne Chrift. c. 18, " De 1* initate L 7. p. 81, 82.
.536 A DISSERTATION CONCERNI-NG THE
nefs of their principles, and 7<fro»j fays', Pbolinus endewoured to reftore the
•herefy of Ehion; now it is notorious that the -notion of the Photinians was the
•fame with the Socinians now, who fay, that Chrift was not before Mzry -, and
■ia Alexander bifhop oi Alexandria "^ obferves of /iritis and his followers, who denied
.the natural fonfhip and eternal generation of Chrift, that what they propagated
■were the herefy of Eiion and Artemas.
Befides the infpired writers, partictJlarly the ^^o^\tJdhn, who wrote hrs
■gofpel, as now obferved, to confute the herefies of Ebion and Cerinlbus, and in
vindication of the deity of Chrift, and his divine and eternal generation, there
are very few writings if any in this century extant. There is an epiftle afcribed
to Barnabas, cotemporary with the apoftleP(7«/, in which are thcfe words ", hav-
ing made mention of the brazei) ferpent as a figure of Jefus, he adds, " what
" fi\dMofes again to Jefus the fon of Nave, putting this name upon him, being
•" a prophet, that only all the people might .hear that the Father hath made ma-
" nifeft all things concirrning his Son jelusin the fon of Nave, and he put this
*' name upon him, when he fent him to fpy the land — becaufc the Son of God
" in the laft days will cut up by the roots the houfe of /inialek : behold again
«* Jefus, not the fon of man, but iht Son 0/ God, manifefted in the flefti by a
n type. L.'ikevi\fe David faid, the Lord /aid to my Lord. — See how David calls
•' him "Lord, and theSon ofGod :" by which it appears that he believed that
Chrift was the Son of God before he was manifefted in the flcflo, oriecame in-
carnate; and that he-was the Son of God according to the divine nature, as weH
^s the Son of Dj'L'/^ according to the human nature, which healfo expreftes in
the fame paragraph. And elfewhere he fays°, '■'■ For this end the Son of God
" came in tbefe/h, that the full fum might be made of the fins of thofe who per-
" fccuted the prophets," fo that according to him Chrift was the Son of God
before he came in the flefh or was incarnate.
Clemens Rcmanus was biftiop of Rome in this century, and though the book
.of Recognitions, afcribed to ^im, are judged fpurious, yet there is an cpiftlc
of his to the Corinthians'* thought to be genuine: in which, after fpeakingof
Chrift our Saviour, and the high pricft of our oblations, and the brightnefs of the
magnificence of God, and of his having a more excellent name than the angels,
obferves, that the Lord thus fays of his own Son, Thou art my Sun, this day have
J begotten tbce; thereby declaring his .belief, that Chrift is the proper Son of
God, and begotten by him. Ignatius wis b\fhop of Antiocb in this century,
after the firft biftiop of that place Evodius, and was early in it, if any truth in
ihefe
' Catalog fcrip. eccl. c. 1 1 7. " Apud Theodoret. hift. cedes. I. 1. c 4.
■n Barnib.T epill c. 9. ° Ibid, c 4.
p CIcmeos. ep'.ft. aJ Corinth- p. 84. ed. O.xon. 1 6''g.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 537
t^efe reports that he was the child Chrift took, in his arms, when he rebuked his
•diTciples ; and that he faw Chrift after his reforreflion -, but thouo-h ihek are
things not to be depended on, yet it is certain that he lived in the latter end of
ihefirft century, and lufFcred martyrdom in the beginning of the fecond. Seve-
ral epiftles of his are extant, in which, as well as by words, he exhorted rlie faints
to beware of hcrefies then fpringing up among them, and abounding, as Eufebius
obfcrves''; meaning the herefies of £^/£7« and Cm«/i»«j about the perfon of Chrift :
and fays many things which ftiew his belief, and what was their error. In one
of his epiftles ' he exhorts to decline from fame perfons, as beafts, as ravenous
dogs, biting fccrctly, and difficult of cure ; and adds, " there is one phyfician,
" carnal and fpiritual, begotten and unbegotten, God made flelh, in a true and
>' immortal life, who is both of M^ry and of God." In a larger epiftle to the
fame ', thought by fome to be interpolated, though it cxpreftcs the fame fenti-
ment; "our phyfician is alone the trueGod, the unbegotten and invifiblcLord
" of all, the Father and higetter of the only begotten one; wc have alfo a phyfi-
" cian, our Lord Jefus Chrift, the only begotten Son before the world, and the
♦' word, and at laft man of the virgi nM(7ry;" and afterwards in the fame ' epiftle
ftill more cxprefsly, " the Son of God, who was begotten before the world was,
" and conftitutes all things according to the will of the Fattier, he was bore in
" the womb by Mary, according to the difpenfation of God, of the feed oi David
" by the holy Ghoft." And a little farther \ " be ye all in grace by name, ga-
" thered together in one common faith of God the Father, and of Jefus Clirift
" his only begotten Son, and the firft-born of every creature ; according to the
" flcfli indeed of the family oiDavid: ye being guided by the Comforter." A
plain account, as of the divine Sonfhip andHumaniry of Chrift, fo of tlie doc-
trine of the Trinity. In another epiftle of his *, he fpfaks of JcfusChrift, " who
" was v-ith the Father before the world was, and in the end appeared," that is,
in human nature in the end of the world i and exhorts all to " run to one tem-
" pie of God, as to one altar, as to one Jefus Chrift, who came forth from
" one Father, and being in him and returning to him." And a little lower he
adds, " there is one God, who hath manifcfted himfclf by J^fus Chrift his Son,
" who is his eternal word." And farther on he fays, " ftudy to be eftabliftied
" in thedoflrines of the Lord, and of the apoftlcs, that uhatfoever ye do may
" profper, in flelh and fpirit, in faith and love, in the Son, and in the Fatlier,
" and in tlie Spirit." A full confelTion of tne Trinity, one of the principal
dodlrines he would have them be eftablidied in. All which is more fully ex-r
Vol. II. 3 Z prcfred
« Ecclcs. hid. 1. 3. c. 36. ' Epift. ad Ephes, p. zi. Ed. V'ofj. ' IbiA p. i 2j.
« Ibid. p. 136. " Ibid. p. i 38. ■ Epift. ad M.ignes. p. 33. 34. 37.
538 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
prefTed in the larger epiftle' to the fame perfons : fpeaking of Chrift, he fays,
" who was begclten by the Father before the world was; God the Word, the only
" begotten Son, and who remains to the end of the world, for of his kingdom
" there is r.c end." Again, " there is oneGod omnipotent, who hath manifeft-
« ed himfclf by Jcfus Chrift his Son, who is his Word j not fpoken, but effen-
♦' tial, not the voice of an articulate fpeech, but pf a divine operation, bcgot-
" ten fubftance, who in all things pleafed him that fent him." And farther on,
«« but ye have a plerophory in Chrift, who was begotten by the Father before all
»' worlds, afterwards made of the virgin A/ary without the converfation of men."
And in the larger epiftle'' of his to other perfons, he thus fpeaks of fome here-
ticks of his time-, "they profcfs an unknown God, they think Chrift is unbe-
" gotten, nor will they own that there is an holy Spirit : fome of them fay the
«' Son is a mere man, and that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, are the
« fame: beware of fuch, left your fouls be enfnared." And in an epiftle to
another people' he fays, "there is one unbegotten God the Father, and one
" only begotten Son, God the Word and man, and one comforter the Spirit
•« of truth." And in aa epiftle' afcribed unto him he has thefe words, "there
." is one God and Father — there is alfo one Son, God the Word — and there is
«' one comforter, ihe Spirit-, —not three Fathers, nor three Sons, nor three
•' Comforters, but one Father, and one Son, and one Comforter •, therefore-
" the Lord, when he fent his apoftles to teach all nations, commanded them
" to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghojl ; not
" in one of three names, nor into three that are incarnate, but into three of
«' equal honour and glory." Lucian, tTiat fcoffing, blafphemous heathen, lived
in the times of fTrij/cw, and before, zsSuidas hys, wrote a dialogue " in derifibn-
of the chriftian religion, particularly of the doftrine of the Trinity : which,
dialogue, though it is a feoff at that do6lrine, is a teftimony of ir, as held by
the chriftjans of that age; and among other things, he reprcfcnts them as faying,
that Chrift is (be eternal Sen of the Father, I go on,
II. To the fccond century, in which the fame hcrefies of Ebion and Cerintbus
were held and propagated by Carpocrates, the father of the Gnoflicks % by Valen-
tinus and Tbeodotus the currier, whofe difciples were another Tbeodotus a filver-
fmith, :in6yifclepiodotus iT\AArtemonz\fo, zzcoTd\t\gioEufebius*.
jfi. Carpocrates was of /Alexandria in Egypt, and lived in the beginning of the
fecond century : he and his followers held that Chrift was only a man, born of
Jofcpb
» Page 145. M7, 151. ' Ad TrsllianM, p. i6o. " Ad Philadelph. p. 176.
• Ad Phillipans. p. 100. " Eniitled, Pl>J(<>faJrii. . « EuTeb. hia. ecclej. 1. 4. c. 7.
* Ibid. 1. J. c. a8.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 539
jfcfepb and Mary, of two parents, as other men% only he had a foul fuperior to
others; which, having a'ftrong memory, could remember, and fo could relate,
what he had feen and had knowledge of, when in the circumference (as they cx-
prefs it) and in converfation with his unknown and unbegotten Father; and which
was endowed with fuch powers, that he efcaped the angels, the makers of the
world ; and was fo pure and holy, that he defpifed the Jews, among whom
he was brought up ; and afterwards returned to his unknown Father ; his foul
only, not his body ^ There feems to be fomething fimilar in this notion of the
human foul ofChrift, to what is imbibed by fome in our day.
idly, Valentinns. He came to Rome when Hyginus was bilhop of that place,
flourifhed under P/w, and lived to the time oiAnicetus ^ He and his followers
held, that God the creator fcnt forth his own Son, but that he was animal, and
that his body defcended from heaven, and pafTed through the virgin Mary, as
water through a pipe ; and therefore, as Tertullian obferves ', Valeniims ufed
to fay, that Chrift was born by a virgin, but not of 3. virgin. This is what di-
vines call the heretical illapfe ; which yet thofe difavow, who in our day are for
the antiquity of the human nature of Chrifl: before the world was ; thour^h how
he could be really and aftually man from eternity, and yet take flefh of the
virgin in time, is not cafy to reconcile.
^dly, Artemon, o\ Artemas, who lived in the time of T/^f/or bifliop of i?0OT?.
He held that Chrift was a mere man* ; and pretended that the apoftjes and all
chridians from their times to the times olVicior, held the fame"; than which
nothing could be more notorioufly falfe, as the writings aVjuJlin, Iren,eus, &c.
fhew : and it is faid that by him, or by his followers, tlie celebrated text in i John
V. 7. was erafed and left out in fome copies '.
4/%, Tbeodotus the currier held the fame notion he did, that Chrifl: was a
mere man; for which he was excommunicated hyVi5Ior bifhop of Rome: which
fhews the falfity of what Artemon faid; for if ViSlor had been of the fame opi-
nion, he would never have excommunicated Tbeodotus. Eufibiui fays, this man
was the father and broacher of this notion ", before Artemon, that Chrift was a
a mere man, and denied him to be God. Yea, that he was not only a mere
man, but born of the feed of man ". Though Tertullian fays, that he held
322 that
« Irenaeusadv. hires. 1. i.e. J4.Tertull. de prifcript. har:et. c. 48.
* Irenius ib. Epiphan. contra kzret. hir. 27. Theodotet. bzret. fol. 1. i. c 7. Aug. de hirct. c.j.
t Ireoxui 1. 3 c. 4. * Ibid. I. c. i. Tertull. de prsfcript. c. 49. Epiphan. hxres. 31.
• Adv. Valentin, c. 27. U de carne Chrift. c. 20.
^ Eufeb. Eccles. Hift. 1, 5. c. 25. Tbeodoret. hire t. fol.l. 2. c. 5.
' Wittichii Theolog. pacific, c. 17.^25. " Eufeb. eccles. hift. 1. j. c. 28.
" Epiphan, Harrea. -54.
540 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
that Chrift was only a man, but equally conceived and born of the holy Gholt
and the virgin Mary, yet inferior to Melcbizedeck °.
The contrary to thefe notions was afTerted and maintained by thofe apofto-
lical men, not only Ignatius, who lived in the latter end of the preceding cen
tiiry, and the beginning of this, as has been obferved, huthy Poly carp, Jujlin
Martyr, Irenxtfs, and others.
1. Polycarp, bifhop o^Snyrna, a difciple and hearer of the z^oMzJohi, ufed
to flop his ears when he heard the impious fpeeches of the hereticks of his time.
This venerable martyr, who had ferved his mafterChrift eighty fix years, when
at the (lake, and the fire jufl about to be kindled upon him, witnefTed a good
confefiion of the blefled Trinity in his laft moments, putting up the following
prayer; "O Father of thy beloved and blefl'ed Son Jefus Chrift, by whom we
*' have received the knowledge of thee-, God of angels and of powers, and every
" creature — I praife thee for all things; I blefs thee, I glorify thee, by the
" eternal high prieft JefusChrift thy bclovedSon, through whom, to thee wich
" him in the holy fpirit, be glory, now and for ever. Amen ^"■
2. Jujlin, the philofopher and martyr, in his'firft apology "i for the chriftians,
has thefe words; " TheFather of all, being unbegoccen, has no name — thcSon
" of him, who only is properly called a Son, the Word, begotten and exifting
" before the creatures (for at the beginning by him he created and beautified
*' all things) is called Chrift." And in his fecond apology he fays ', " We pro-
" fefs to be atheifts with refpefk to fuch who are thought to be Gods, but not
" to the irueGod andFather of righteoufnefs, iic. him, and hisSon who comes
" from him, and has taught us thefe things, and the prophetic Spirit, we adore
" and worfliip." Afterwards* he fpeaks of the logos, or word, as ihcfirjl birtb
of God : "which, fays he, we fay is begotten without mixture." And again',
" We fpeak that which is true, Jefus Chrift alone is properly the Son begotten
*' by God, being his Word, and firft-born, and power, and by his will became
" man ; thefe things he hath taught us." And in his dialogue with Trypho the
Jew", wJio is reprefented as objefting to him, "What thou fayeft, that this
*' Chrift cxifted God before the world, and then was born, and became man,
" does not only feem to be a paradox to me, but quite foolifti." To which
Jujlin replies, " I know this feems. a paradox, cfpecially to thofe of your nation,
" — but if I cannot demonftrate, that this is the Chrift of God, and that he
" pre-exiftcd God, the Son of the maker of all things, and became man by
" a virgin, in this only it would be juft to fay, that I am miftaken, but not to
" deny
• De prircript. Haer. c. 53. P Eufeb. 1. 4. c. ij. « Page 44.
« Pa£c 56. • Ibid, p. 66. » Ibid. p. 68. « Page 267.
ETERNAL SONS-RIP OF CHRIST, &c. 541
" deny that this is the Chrift of God, though he may feem to be begotten a man
" of men, and by choice made Chrift, as aflerted by fome •, for there are fome
" of our religion who profefs him to be Chrift, but affirm that he is begotten a
*• man of men ; to whom I do not aflcnt, nor many who are in the fame mind
" with me." In which he plainly refers to the hereticks before mentioned,
who thought that Chrift was born oi Jofeph and Mary. And in another place,
in the fame dialogue, he fays ", " I will prove from fcripture that God firft
" begat of bimfelf, before all creatures^ a certain rational power, which is called
" by the holy Spirit, the Glory of the Lord, fometimes the Son, fometimesWif-
" dom, fometimes the Angel, fometimes God, fometimes the Lord and tlie
»» Word." And then, after obfcrving there is fomething fimiiar in the Worcf
begetting a Word without any rejedion or diminution, and fire kindling fire
Svithout leflening it, and abiding the fame; he proceeds to give his proof from-
the words of Solomon, Prov. viii. where ♦' the word of wifdom tcftifies, that he
" is the God who is begotten by the Father of all, who is the word and wifdom
" and the power and the glory of him that generates." And then obferves,
that "this is the birth produced by the Father, which co-exijlej vj'nh the Father
" before all creatures, and with whom the Father familiarly converfed, as the
" word hy Solomon makes it manifcft, that he the beginning before all creatures
" is the birth begotten by Gcd, which by Solomon is called Wifdom.** And in
.another place % in the fame dialogue, on mention of the fame words in Proverbs
he fays, " Ye muft underftand, ye hearers, if ye do but attend, the Word decFares
" that this birth was begotten by the Father before all creatures, and that which is
*' begetter, is numerically another from him that begets." What can be more ex-
prefs for tlie eternal generation of the Son of God,, and that as a diftinft perfoa
from his Father !
3. Ircnaus, a martyr, and biftiop of Lyons in France, and a difciple of Poly-
carp. He wrote five books againft the herefies oi Vaknlinus and the Gnoftics,
which are ftill extant; out of which many tcftimonics might be produced con-
firming^ the dodlrine of the Trinity, and the deity of Chrift. I (hall only tran-
fcribe two or three pafijges relating to the divine Sonfhtp and generation of
Chrift. In one place he fays \ " Thou art not increated and man, nor didft
" thou always co-exijl with God, as his own word did, but through his eminent
" goodne'fs, haft now had a beginning of beings ; thou fenfibly learneft from
•' the word the difpofitions of God who made thee; therefore obferve the order
" of thy knowledge, and left, as ignorant of good things, thou fliouldeft tran-
" fccncL
• Ibid. p. 284, 28). » Ibid p. 339.
^ A^v. Hicres. 1. I, e. 43.
542 A DISSERTATION -CONCERNING THE
*' fcend God himfelf." And again % " (hould any one fay to us, how is the
" Son brought forth by the Father ? we reply to him, This bringing forth orgene-
" ration, &c. or by whatfoever name it is called ; no man knows his cxifting
" U7ifpeakable gzntrzuon; noi l^akntinus, not Marcion, nor Saturnhius, nor Bafi-
" tides, nor angels, nor archangels, nor principalities, nor powers, only the
" Father, who hath generated, and the Son that \s generated ; therefore feeing
" his generation is ineffable, whoever attempts to declare fuch produdlions
•*' and generations (as the above hereticks did) are not in their right minds, pro-
" mifing to declare thofe things which cannot be declared." And elfewhere,
he fays% "TheSon, the Word and Wifdom, was always prefent with him (God),
• ".and alfoihe Spirit, by whom, and in whom, he made all things freely and
.•" willingly ; to whom he" fpake, faying, Let us make man, &c." And a little
after, " that the Word, that is, the Son, was always with the Father, we have
. " abundant proof i" and then mentions Prov. iii. 19. and viii. 22, &:c.
4. Athenagoras, who flouriQied at Athens, in the times oi Antoninus and Com-
modus, to which emperors he wrote an apology for the chriftians, in which he
has thefe words % " Let not any think it ridiculous in me that I fpeak of God
-" as having a Son, for not as the poets fable, who make their Gods nothing
" better than men, do we think either of God and the Father, or of the Son -,
■" but the Son of God is the Word of the Father, in idea and efficacy, for of
♦' him and by -him are all things made, feeing the Father and the Son are one;
«' fo that the Son is in the Father, and the Father is in the Son, by the union
" and power of the Spirit; the mind and word of the Father is the Son of God;
" now if any through the fublimity of your underftanding would look further
" and enquire what the Son means, I will tell him in a few words, that he is
" the frfl birth of the Father ; not as made, for from the beginning, God being
" the eternal mind, he had the word in himfelf (the X"?^. or reafon) being eter-
" nally rational, (that is, never without his word and wifdom) but as coming
" forth, is the idea and energy of all things." For which he produces as a
proof frci'. viii. 22. and then proceeds, "Who therefore cannot wonder, to
" hear us called atheifts, who fpeak of God theFather, and of God thcSon and
" the holy Spirit, (hewing their power in unity and their diftinction in order ?"
A little farther", he ftrongly exprefles thedodlrine of theTrinity inUnity; "We
" aflert God, and the Son his Word, and the holyGhoft, united indeed accord-
" log to power, the Father, the Son, the Spirit, for the Mind, Word and
-" Wifdom, is the Son of theFather, and the Spirit an emanation, or influence,
■" as light from fire."
5. TheophiluSy
y Ibid. c. 48. » L. 4. c. 37.
* Leg^'io P''°Chriftian. p. 10, 11. * Ibid. p. 27.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 543
5. Thecphilus, h\(hop of Jndoch, fiounfhtd undcrihe evr.peror y^ntoninusVerus :
in a treatife of his ' he has thefe words concerning the Word and Son of God,
** God having his Xoyo> i.oiaSirw, internal word within himfelf, begat htm, when
" he brought him forth with his wifdom ie/ore all /kings; this word he ufed in
** working thofe things that were made by him, and he made all things by him.
♦' — The prophets were not when the world was made; but the wifdom of God,
" which is in him, and the holy word of God, was always prefcnt with him ;" in
proof of which he produces Prov. viii. 27. And in another place \ fpeaking of
the voice Jdam heard, fays, "Whatelfe is the voice, but the word ofGod, who
" is his Son ? not as the poets and writers of fables, who fay, the fons of the gods
»'• are born of copulation i but as the truth declares, the internal Word being al-
" ways in the heart of God, before any thing was made, him he had as his coun-
" fellor, being his mind and prudence, when God would do what he counfelled,
*' he begat the Word, and having begotten the Word, the firft-born of every
" creature, he always converfed with his Word," for which he quotesjobn i. i — 3..
6. Clemens of Alexandria^ flourifhed under the emperors 6'«.'fr«j zndCaracalla,
towards the latter end of the fecond century, he bears a plain teftimony to the
doflrine of the Trinity, concluding one of his treatifes thus% "Let us give
" thanks, praifing the only Father and the Son, both teachers, with the holy
" Spirit, in which are all things, in whom are all things, and by whooi all are
" one, — to whom be glory now and for ever, Amen." He fpeaks' of Chri|t
the perfeft word, as born of the perfeft Father; and fays ^ of the Son of Goo,
" that he never goes out of his watch-tower, who is not divided nor difiecated,
" nor pafTcs from place to place, but is always every where, is contained no
" where, all mind, all paternal lighr, all eye; who fees all things, h^ars all
" things, knows all things by his power, fcarchcs powers, and to whom the
" whole militia of angels and gods (magiftrates) is fubjefl — This is the Son
♦' of God,' the Saviour and Lord whom we fpeak of, and the divine prophecies
" fhew." A little after he fpeaks of him as, '■'■ begotten ivithoul beginning, that
" is, eternally begotten, and who, before the foundation of the world, was the
" the Father's counfellor, that wifdom in whom the almighty God delighted ; for
**■ Son is the power ofGod ; who before all things were made, was the moft antient:
" word of the Father. — Every operation of the Lord has a reference to the al-
" mighty ; and the Son is, as I may fay, a certain energy of the Father." This
antient writer frequently attacks and refutes the Carpocratians, Valentinians,
andGnoftics, and other heretics of this and the preceding age. I proceed.
III. To.
« Ad. Autolog. c. 1. J. p. 88. * Ibid. p. loo. » Pxdagog. 1. 3. p. 266.
' Ibid. 1. I. c. 6. p. 91. » Stiomar. 1. 7. p. 70J, 703.
54+ A t)ISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
III. To the third century. The herefies which fprung up in this age refpeic-
ing the Perfon, Sonfliip, and Deity of Chrift, were thofe oi Beryllus, who revived
that oi j^r lemon, and of the Noecians or Sabellians, fometimes called Patripaf-
Iians, and of the Samofatenians.
!_/?, Beryllus, bifhop of Bojlra in Aretia, who for fome time behaved well in
his office, as Jfroaj fays', but at length fell into this notion, that Chrift was
not before his incarnation •, or as Eufebius ^ cxprelTes it, that cur Lord and
Saviour did not fubfift in his own fubftance before he fojourned among men,
and had no deity of his own refiding in him, but his Father's ; but through dif-
putations he had with fevcral biftiops, and particularly with Origejt, he was
recovered from his error and reftored to the truth.
. 2. The Noetians, fo called from Noelus, and afterwards Sabellians, from
^abellius, a difciple of the former ; thofe held that Father, Son and Spirit, are
one perfon under thefe difiereat names. The foundation of their herefy was
laid by Simon Alagus, as before obferved. They were fometimes called Praxeaiis
and Hermogenians, from Praxtus and Hermogenes, the firft authors of ir, who
embraced the fame notions in this period, and fometimes PatripafTians, becauf?,
in confequence of this principle, they held that the Father might be faid to
fufFer as the Son '.
3. The Samofatenians, fo called from Paul of Samofaie, bifhop of Anticch,
who revived the herefy of Artemon, that Chrift was a mere man. He held that
Airift was no other than a common man -, he refufed to own that he was the
Son of God, come from heaven ; he denied that the only begotten Son and
Word was God of God : he agreed with the Noetians and Sabellians, that there
was but one perfon in the Godhead"; of thefe notions he was convifted, and
for them condemned by the fynod at Antioch".
The writers of this age are but few, whofe writings have been continued
and tranfmitted to us \ but thofe we have, ftrongly oppofed the errors now
mentioned -, -the cliief are TertuUian^ Origen, and Cyprian., bcfides in fome frag-
uicnis of others.
I. Tertullian. He wrote againft Praxeus, who held the fame notion that
J^oelus and Sabellius did, in which work he not only expreflcs his firm belief of
the Trinity in Unity, faying" •, " neverthelefs the oeconomy is prefervcd, which
" difpofcs Unity into Trinity, three, not in ftate (or nature, cffence) but in de-
" grce (or perfon) not in fubftance but in form, not in power but in fpecies, of
" one fubftance, of one ftate,and of one power, becaufe but oneGod, from whom
" thefe
' Cata'03. Script. Ecclcs c. 70. ^ Hift. Ecdes. 1. 6. c. 33.
I Epiplun. Hacrej. 42 Aug de hxres, c 36, 41.
" Eui'eiJ. Eccles Hiil. 1 7.C. 27, 30 Epiphan Hxre-. 6j. Aug. de Hares, c. 44..
« Eufeb. ib. c. 29. • .Adv. Praxeam. c. 2.
ETERNAL SON SHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 545
" thefe degrees, forms and fpecies are deputed, under the name of the Father,
" and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit." • And that he means three diftinft
perfons, is clear from what he afterwards ' fays : " whatfocver therefore was the
" fubftance of the Word, that I call a perfon, and to him I give the name of
" SoHi and whilft I acknowledge a Son, I defend a fecond from the Father."
The diftindion of the Father and Son from each other, and the eternal genera-
tion of the one from the other, are fully exprefled by him : " this rule as ■> pro-
" fcflcd by me, is every where held -, by which I teftify, the Father, Son, and
" Spirit are infcparable from each other -, - for lo I fay, another is the Father
" and another is the Son, and another is the holy Spirit;— not that the Son is
" another from the Father, by diverfity, but by diflribution ; not another by
" divifion, but by diftindtion : — TLuoiheris he thit generates, and another he that
*' IS generated : — a Father mud needs have a Son that he may be a Father, and
" the Son aFather that he may be aSon." And again % he explains the words
in Prov. viii. 22. [The Lord pojfejfed me) of the generation of the Son; and on the
claufe, when be prepared the heavens, I was with him, he remarks, " thereby
" making himfclf equal to him, by proceeding from wliom he became the Son
*« and firft born, as being begotten before all things ; and the only bcfrottcn, as
" being alone begotten of God." On thefe words, Thou art my Son, this day
have J begotten thee, he ohhtvcs' to Praxeas, "if you would have me believe
" that he is both Father and Son, flicw me fuch a pafTage elfcwhere. The Lord
*' /aid unto himfclf, J am my Son, this day have I begotten my I'cU" And in
another work ' of his, he has thcle words, fpcaking of the Word, " chis we
" learn is brought forth from God, and by being brought forth, generated, and
" and therefore called the Son of Cod, and God, from the unity of fubftance ; —
*' fo that what comes from God, is God, and the Son of God, and both one :"
that is, one God.
2. Origen. Notwithftanding his many errors, he is very cxprefs for the doflrinc
of the Trinity, and the dillindion of the Father and Son in it, and of the eter-
nal generation of the Son : he obfervcs ° of the Seraphim, in Ifr.i. vi. 3, that by
faying, " Holy, holy, holy, they preferve the myltcry of the Trinity -, that it
" was not enough for them to cry holy once nor twice, but they take up the
" perfed number of the Trinity, that they might manifeft the multitude of
" the holinefs of God, which is the repeated community of the trine holinefs,
" the holinefs of the Father, the holinefs of the only begotten Son, and of the
" holy Spirit." And eUewliere ', allegorizing the fhew-brcad, and the two
tenth deals in one cake, he an<s, how two tenths beco;nc one lump .? becaufe.
Vol. II. 4 A fjyj
•" Ibid. c. 7. 1 Ibid. c. q, lo. ' Ibid. c. 7.
• Ibid, c II. « Apologci. C.2I. >• In Lfaia.T. iicn;il i.Tol-icc^ A Hca-.i! 4.
fol. 103. 3. " In Lev. Hofnil. 13. fol. Bf. I .
546 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
fiyi be, '• we do not feparate the Son from the Father, nor the Father from
*' the Son, Jcbn xiv. 9. therefore each loaf is of two tenths, and fct in two
" poGtions, that is, in two rows, for if there was one pofition, it would be
" confufed, and the Word would be mixed of the Father and the Son, but now-
" indeed it is but one bread; for there is one will and one fubftance; but there
" are two pofitions -, that is, two proprieties of perfons (or proper perfons) for
*' we call Jlim the Father who is not the Son ; and him the Son who is not
■ " the Father." Of the generation of the Son of God he thus Ipeaks % " Jefus
" Chrift himfelf who is come, was begotten of the Father before every creature
" was." And again ', " it is abominable and unlawful to equal God the Father
". jn tht generation of bis only begotten Son, and in his fubftancc, to any one, men
" or other kind of animals -, butlhere muft needs be fome exception, and fome-
" thing worthy of God, to which there can be no comparifon, not in things
" only, but indeed not in thought : nor can it be found by fenfe, nor can the
*' human thought apprehend, how the unbegottcn God is the Father of the
" only begotten Son: {or generation is eternal, as brightnefs is generated from
*' li"ht, for he is not a Son by adoption of the Spirit cxirinfically, but he is a
" Sen by nature." .' . .
3. Cyprian. Little is to be met with in his writings on this fubjedl. The
following is the molt remarkable and particular "^ ; " the voice of the Father
♦' was heard from heaven, This is my beloved Son, in uhom I am well pleafed,
" hear ye him; ,^\hn i\\\i \o\ze. came from thy paternity, .there is none that
*' doubts-, there is none who dares to arrogate tiiis word to himfelf; there is
" none amono- the heavenly troops who dare call the Lord Jefus his Son. Cer-
" tainly to thee only the Trinity is known, the Father only knows the Son,
" and the Son knows the Father, neither is he known by any unlefs he reveals
" him ; in the fchool of divine teaching, the Father is he that teaches and in-
" ftrufls, the Son who reveals and opens the fecrets of God unto us, and the
" holy Spirit who fits and furnifhes us ; from the Father we receive power,
" from the Son wifdom, and from the holy Spirit innocence. The Father
" choofes, the Son loves, the holy Spirit joins and unites; from the Father is
" given us eternity, from the Son conformity to him his image, and from the
" holy Spirit integrity and liberty ; in the Father we are, in the Son we live,
" in the holy Spirit we are moved, and become proficients ; eternal deity and
♦' temporal humanity meet together, and by the tenour of both natures is made
" an unity, that it is impofTible that what is joined (hould be feparatcd from
«' one another." As for the Expofition of the Creed, which ftands among
Cyprian''^
« »,-, Ajx^"» prsem fo!. 1 1 1. 4. y Ibid. 1. !. c. 2. fol. 114. 4. vid. Pamphn. Apolog.
pro O igcn; inter opere Ilicroroni. torn. 4. fol. 74. M. it fol. 77. A.
» C)pnjr. dc b.iptifmo inter opera ejus, p. 455.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 547
-CyfriarCi works, and is fometimes attributed to him, it was done by Ruffiniis,
and the teftimonies from thence will be produced in the proper place.
4. Gregory oi Neocafarea, fometimes called Tbaumaturgus, the wonder-worker,
lived in this century, to whom is afcribed * the following confedion of faith ;
" One God, theFather of the living Word, of fubfilling wifdom and power, and
*' of the eternal charafter, perfeft begetter of the perfeft One, Fatlier of the only
begottenSon: and God theSon, who is through all. The perfed Trinity, which
in glory eternity and kingdom, cannot be divided nor alienated. Not there,
fore any thing created or fervile is in thcTrinity, nor any thing luperinduced,
nor firft and laft -, nor did the Son ever want a Father, nor the Son a Spirit :
*' but thcTrinity is always the fame, immutable and invariable." And amon:> his
xwclvc articles of faith, with an anathema annexed to them, this is one": " If
*' any one fays, another is the Son who was before the world, and another who
" was in the laft times, and docs not confcfs, that he who was before the
" world, and he who was in the laft times, is the fame, as it is written, let
" him be anathema." The interpolation follows-, " how can it be faid, an-
" other is the Son of God before the world was, and another in the laft days,
*« when the Lord fays, before Abraham was, lam; and becaufe I came for lb
*' from the Father, and am come; and again, I go to my- Father ? "
5. Dionyfius, biftiop of Alexandria, was a difciple of Origen : he wrote
againft the Sabcllians % but none of his writings arc extant, only fome frag-
ments prefcrved in other authors. And whereas Arius made ufe of fome pai-
fages of his, and improved them in favour of his own notions, Atbanafius from
him ftiews the contrary, as where in one of his volumes he exprefsly fays ^ that
" there never was a time in which God was not a Father; and in the following
" acknowledges, that Chrift the Word, Wifdom and Power, always was ; that
« he is the eternal Son of the eternal Father; for if there is a Father, there
" muft be a Son-, and if there was no Son, how could he be theFather of any ?
>' but there are both, and always were — The Son alone always co-exiftcd witli
" the Father God the Father always was : and the Father being eternal, thq
" Son alfo is eternal, and co-exifted with him as brightncfs with light." An4
in anfwcr to another objedtion, made' againft him, that when he mentioned the
Father, he faid nothing of the Son, and when he named the Son, faid nothing
of the Father -, it is obfcrved, that in another volume of h's, he fays', that
" each of thcfe names fpoken of by me, are infeparablc and indivifible from
" one another; when I fpeak of the Father, and before I introduce the Son, I
4 A 2 " fignif'y
» Expof/Fidei inter Optra ejus, p. I. ed. Paris. * ibid, p 4.
« Epift. »d Xydum apud Eufeb. 1. 7. c. 6. & ad Ammonium & Euphraro'. apud Achanafium de
Sent DionyC p. 433, 435. ' * Elench. & .^polog. vol. i. apud Athauaf. ib. p 436, 437.
* Ibid. vol. ». tpud Aihanaf. ibid. p. 437.
£48 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
*' Cgnify him in the Father -, when I introduce the Son, though I have nor
*' before fpoken of the Father, he is always to be underftood in the Son."
6. The errors of Paulus Samofate were condemned by the fynod zr. Antiock,
towards the latter end of this century, by whom a formula or confcfTion of
faith was agreed to, in which are thcfe words ^ " We profcfs that our Lord,
" Jefos CUr\{\ was l>egoUen of fbe Fcthtr before agesy according to the Spirit, and
" in the laft days, born of a virgin, according to the flefli." The word it^osa-nu
confiibjiantial, is ufcd in their creed. Towards the clofe of this century, and at
the beginning of the next, lived Lailantius, (for he lived under Dioclejian, and
to the times of Conjlantinc) who afTerts^ that God, the maker of all things, begat
»' a Spirit holy, incorruptible, and irreprehenfible, whom he called the Son."^
He afics \ " how hath he procreated ? The divine works can neither be known
" nor declared by any, ncverthclcfs the fcripturcs teach, that the Son of God
*♦ is the Word of God." Nothing more is to be obfcrved in this century.
I pafs on,
IV. I'o the foiirt!) century, in which rofc up the Arians and Photinians, and
others. \fl, Tlic Arians, lo called from Arius, a prcfbyter of the church at
Alexandria^ in the beginning of this century, who took occafion from fome
words dropped in dilputation by Alexander his bifhop, to oppofe him, and ftart
the herciy liiat goes under his name; and though the eternal Sonfhip of Chrift
was virtually denied by picceding herccicks, who affirmed that Chrift did not
cxift bcfoTC Mary; in oppofition to whom the orthodox affirmed, that he was
begotten of the Father before all worlds ; yclArius was the firft, who pretended to
acknowledge the Trinity, that adlually and in exprefs words fct himfelf to op-
pofe the eternal Sonfliip of Chrift by generation ; and argued much in the fame
manner as thofe do, who oppofe it now : for being a man who had a good (hare
of knowledge of the art of logic, as the hiftorian obferves ', he reafoned thus,
*• If the Father begat the Son, he that is begotten, muft have a beginning of
*' his exiftence, from whence it is manifeft, that there was a time when the Son
*' was not V and therefore it neccftarily follows, that he had his fubfiftcnce
" from things that arc not;" or was brought out-of a ftatc of non-exiftence into
a ftatc of exiftence. He undcrftood |-(?«fr<j/^i in no other fcnfe than of being
treated or made ; and afTcrted, that he was created by God before lime, and was
the firft creature, and by which he made all others ; in proof of which he urged
Prov. viii. 22. taking the advantage of the Greek verfion, which, inftead of
poffefjed me, reads created me the beginning of bis ways. His fentimcnts will more
fully appear from his own words in his cpiftles to Eufebius of Nicomedia, and to
his
<■ Apod Forbei. Inllrudl. Hin. Theolog. I. I. c 4. p. 10. t De verb. Sap. 1. 4.C. 6.
"li'id. c8. ' Socrat. Hid. Ecd.l. I.e. 5.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 549
his own bi(hop, Alexander of Alexandria ; in his letter to the former, he fays »,
*' Our fentiments and doflrines are, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part
*' of the unbegotten in any manner, njor out of any fubjeft matter, but that by
••' will and counfcl he fubfifted l>efore limes and ages, perfeft God, the only
*' begotten, immutable j and that before he was begotten or created, or decreed
*' or t^3.b\\^c6,he was not, for he was not unbegotten-, we are perfecuted becaufc
" we fay, the Son bad a beginnings but God is without beginning; for this we are
" pcrfecuted, and becaufe we fay, that he is of things that did not exift (that is,
♦' out of nothing-,) fo we fay, that he is not a partofGod, norout of any fubjeft-
" matter; and for this wc are pcrfecuted." And in his letter to his biftiop, he
thus expreiTes himfelf ••, " We acknowledge one God, the only unbegotten ;
*' —that this God begat the only begotten Son before time, by whom he made
" the world, and the reft of things ; that he begot him not in appearance, but
" in reality ; and that by his will he fubCfted, immutable and unalterable, a
" perfect crea'ure, but as one of the creatures, a birth, but as one of the births
" — Wc fay, that he was created before times and ages, by the will of God, and
- *' received his life and being from the Father; fo that the Father together appoint-
" ed glories for him;— The Son without lime was begotten by the Father, and
" was created and cftablilhed before the world was ; he was not before he was
" begotten, but without time was begotten before all things, and fubfifted alone
♦' from the alone Father ; neither is eternal nor co-eternal, nor co-unbegotten
»' with theFathcr, nor had he a being together with theFather." What he held
is alfo manifeft from his creed', which he delivered in the following words,
*' I believe in one eternal God, and in his Son whom he created before the world,
" and as God he made the Son, and all the Son has, he has not (of himfclf,) he
" receives from God, and therefore the Son is not equal to, and of the fame
" dignity with the Father, but comes (hor; of the glory of God, as a work-
" manlhip; and is Icfs than the power of God. 1 believe in the holy Ghoft,
♦» who is made by the Son."
The Arians were fomctimes called Aetians, fromAelius, a warm defender of
the doftrine of Arius, and who ftumbled at the fame thing tliat Arius did ; for
hecould not undcrftand, the hiftorian faysS how that which is begotten could
be'co-ctcrnal with him that begets ; but when Arius diffembled and figned that
form of doftrine in the Nicenc Synod, Aetius took the opportunity of breaking
off from the Arians, and of fetting up a diftinft feft, and himfelf at the head of
them. Thefe were after called Eunomians, from£«»0OT/«.s a difciple ofActius;
. heisfaid' to add to and to exceed the blafphemy of ^rm; he with great bold-
ncfs
t Apud Theodoret. Eccl. Hid. 1. i. c. 5. * Apud Epiphan. Hires. 69.
< ApudAthsnaf.ioNlc.conct.contr.Ariomdifput. p. 81, 8:. ^ Socrat.Eccl.Hin. 1.2. c.35.
' Theodoret. Eccl. Hift. 1. a. c, 29.
n
•'550 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
nels rene Aeci the hercly of Aeiius, who not only after Arius afTeried that the Soh
■ was created out ot nothing, but that he was unlike to the Father".^' Hence the
'followers of thefe men were called Anomoeans. There was another feft called
Nacivitarians, who were a fucker or branch that fprung from the Eunomians,
and refined upon them ; thefe held that the Son had his nativity of the Father,
the beginning of it from time-, yet being willing to own that he was co-eternal
with the Father, thought that he was with him before he was begotten of him,
• that is, that he always was, but not always a Son, but that he began to be a
Son from the time he was begotten. There is a near approach to the fentimcnts
ot thefe in fomc of our days. ...■■..
The Arians were alfo called Macedonians, from Macedonius a violent pcrfecutor
of the orthodox, called Homooufians ", who believed that theSon is of the fame
iubftancc with the Father -, but this man afterwards becoming bifhop oi Conjlan-
titwplcy refufed to call him a creature, whom the holy fcripture calls the Son;
and therefore the Arians rejedted him, and he became the author and patron of
his own fefSt; he denied the Son was confubftantial with the Father, but taught,
that in all things he was like to him that begat him, and in exprefs words called
the Spirit a creature", and tlie denial of the deity of the lioly Spirit is the dif-
tinguifhincr tenet of his followers.
2i/y, The Photinians rofe up much about the fame time the Arians did, for
they arc made men;ion of in the council of Nice, but their opinions differ from
the Arians. Thefe were fometimes called Marcellians, from Alarcellitis of Ancyra,
\f.\\o'it 6\{c\}p\t Pbotinus was, and from him named Photinians. He was bifhop
of Syrmium ; his notions were the fame with Ebion and Paul of Samofate, that
Chrifl was a mere man, and was only of Mary ; he would not admit of the ge-.
neration and exiftence ofChrift before the world was ^ His followers were much
the fame with our modern Socinians, and who are fometimes called by the fame
name. According to Thomas Aquinas'^, the Photinians, and fo theCerinthians,
Ebionites, and Samofatcnians before them, as they held that Chrift was a mere
man, and took his beginning from Mary, fo that he only obtained the honour of
deity above others by the merit of his blcfTcd life ; that he was, like other men,
the Son of God by the Spirit of adoption, and by grace born of him, and by
fome likenefs to God is in fcripture called God, not by nature, but by fomc
participjtion of divine goodnefs.
Thefe herefics were condemned by the feveral councils and fynods held on
account of them, and were refuted by various found and valuable writers who
lived
Sozorren. Eccl. Hid. I 6. c. z5. » Socrat. Eccl. Hirt. 1. 2. c. j8.
» Theodoret. Eccl. Hid. I z c. 6. »" Theodoret. ibid. I. 5. c. 1 1. Socrat. I. 7. c. 32.
SozomcQ. I. 4. c. 6. ^ CooCr. Geotiles, 1. 4. c. 4. p. 610,
'ETERNAL SONSJHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 551
lived inthis century : to produce all their tcftimonies would bccndlefs; I fliall
only take notice of a few, and particularly fuch as refpcfl theSonfhip ofChrift.
; I. The tenets. of ^r/«j were condemned by the council held at Nice in Byihi-
nia^ confining of three hundred and eighteen bifhops, by whom was compofed
thefollowing creed or agreement of faith, , as the hiftorian calls it ' : " We be-
" lieve in one God thef ather Almighty, the maker of all things, vifiblc and
" invifiblev and in one Lordjefus Chrift, the Son of God, the only begotten,
" begotten of the Father, that is, out of the fubftance of the Father, God of
" God, light of light, true God of true God -, begotten not made, confubflan-
" tial (or of the fame eflence) with the Father, by whom all things are made
"which are in heaven and in earth -, who for us men, and for our falvation, de-
" fcended and became incarnate, and was made man and fufFered, and rofe again
" the third day J afcended up into heaven, and will come to judge the quick
'"' and the dead. • And we believe in the holy Spirit. As for thofe that fay,
" there was a time when the Son of God was not, and before he was begottea
" was not, and that he was made of what does not exift (out of nothing), and
" fay, he was from another fubRance, or eflence, or created, or turned, or
" changed i the holy catholic and apoftolic church anathematizes."
2. Aihanafms \i^% a famous champion for the doftrines of the Trinity, the
proper Sonlhip ofChrift, and his eternal generation; to produce all the tefti-
monies from him that might be produced in proof of thofe doftrines, would
be to tranfcribe a great part of his writings; it may be fufficienc to give his
creed; not that which is commonly called the Athanafian creed, which, whe-
ther penned by him is a doubt, but that which ftands in his works, and was
delivered by him in a perfonal difputation with Arius, and is as follows ; which
he calls an epitome of his faith '. " I believe in one God the Father, the al--
" mighty, being always God the Father; and I believe in God the Word, the
" only begotten Son of God, that he co-exifted with his own Father; that
" he is the equal Son of the Father; and that he is the Son of God; of the fame
" dignity; that he is always with his Father by his deity, and that he contains all
♦' things in his eflisnce ; but the Son of God is not contained by any, even as
" God his Father : and I believe in the holy Ghoft, that he is of the eflence of
" the Father, and that the holy Spirit is co-€ternal with the Father ■and with. the
" Son. The Word, 1 fay, was made flefh." After this I would onlyjuft obferve,
ihatyithanajius having faid that the Son was without beginning and eternally be-
gotten of the Father, farther fays ', that he was begotten ineffably and incon-
ceivably ; and clfewhere hefays ", "it is fuperfluous or rather full madnefs to
" call
' Socrat. Hifl.l. I.e. 8. • Coatr Arian. difput. inter opera ejus, vol. I. p. By.
' Expofit. fidei, vol. I. p. 3g(. u Contr, Arian. Orac. 3. p. an, 214.
552 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
" call in queftion, and in an heretical manner to aHc, how can the Son be «er-
♦' nal ? or, how can he be of the fubftance (or eflcnce) of the Father, and not
*' be a part of him ?" And a little farther, *' it is unbecoming to enquire how
*' the Word is of God, or how he is the brightnefs of God, or how God begets,
" and what is the mode of the generation of God : he mud be a madman that
*» will attempt fuch things, fince the thing is ineffable, and proper to the na-
" ture of God only, this is only known to himfclf and his Son."
3. JUxavder, bifhop of Alexandria, whom ^r/»j oppofed, and Ihould have
been mentioned firft, in an epiftle of his to Alexander., bifhop oi Ccnjiantinople ',
acquaints him with the opinion of Arius, that there was a time when the Son of
God was nor, and he that was not before, afterwards exifted, and fuch was he
made, when he was made as every man is ; and thjt the Son of God is out of
things that are not, or out of nothing; he obfcrves to him, that what was his
faith and the faith of others, was the faith of the apoftolic church : " We bc-
" lieve in one unbegotten Father, — and in one Lord Jefus Chrift, the only
" begotten Son of God ; not begotten out of that which is not, but from
" the Father •, that exifts, not in a corporal manner by incifion, or defluflions
" of divifions, as fcemcd to Sabcllius and Valentinus, but in a manner ineffable
" and inexplicable."
4. Epiphcnius wrote a volume againft all herefies, and attempts a confutation
of them: and with refpeft to theArian herefy, he thus writes'; " God exifting,
«' incomprclienfible, has begat him that is incomprchenfible, before all ages and
*' times, and there is no fpace between the Son and the Father, but as foon as
*♦ you underftand a Father, you underftand a Son, and as foon as you naine
" a Father you fhew a Son ; the Son is underftood by the Father, and the Fa-
*' ther is known by theSon ; whence aSon, if he has not aFather? and whence
*' a Father, if he has not begat an only begotten Son ? for when is it the Father
" cannot be called aFather, or the Son, aSon ? Though fome think of a Father
" without a Son, who afterwards comes to a proficiency and begets a Son, and
*' fo after the birth is called the Father of that Son : the Father who is perfeft,
" and never wants pcrfeftion, making a progrefs or proficiency in the deity."
5. Hilary, bifliop of Poitiers in France, wrote againft the Arians, and fays
many things in oppofition to their tenets, concerning the Sonfliip ofChrift, and
his eternal generation; among others, he fays'', "the unbegotten begot a Son
" of himfclf before all time, not from any fubjacent matter, for all things are by
♦' the Son, nor out of nothing, for the Son is from him himfelf. — He begot the
" only begotten in an incomprchenfible and unfpcakable manner, before all
" lime
" ApudTheodortt. Hid. I. i.e. 4. ■ Contr. Hzref. I. 2. tern, z.h.-eref. 6g.
»■ De Triniiate, 1. 3. p. 23, 24. ?id. ibid, dc Unitate filii & patris, p. 65c.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 553
" time and ages, of that which is unbegotten, and fo of the unbegottcn, pcr-
" fcft and eternal Father, is the only begotten, pcrfed and eternal Son."
6. Faufiinus the Y)rc{bytcT, wrotea treatife againft the Arians -, who obfcrvcs,
that they fometimes ufe the fame words and phrafcs the orthodox do, but noc
in the fame fenfc; they fpeak of God theFather and of God the Son, but when
they fpeak of theFather, it is not of one who truly begets, and when they fp;ak
of the Son, it is of him as a Son by adoption, not by nature •, and when they
fpeak of him as aSon begotten before the world was, they attribute a beginning
to him, and that there was a time when he was not; and fo they affert him to
be of things not exiftent -, that is, of nothing ^ He afks % " How is he truly a
" Father, who, according to them, does not beget (truly) ; and how is Chrift
« truly a Son, whom they deny to be generated of him ?" And again *, «' How
" is he the only begotten of the Father, fince he cannot be the only begotten,
" other Sons exifting by adoption ? but if he is truly the only begotten by the
" Father, therefore becaufc he only is truly generated of the Father." And
clfcwhere*, "They fay God made himfclf aSon: if he made him out of nothing,
" then is he a creature, and not a Son. What is he that you call a Son, whom
" you confirm to be a creature, fince you fay he is made out of nothing ? there-
•« fore you cannot call him both a Son and a creature-, for a Son is from birth,
" a creature from being made." And again % " In this alone the Father differs
« from the Son, that the one is a Father, the other a Son ; that is, that the one
" begets and the other is begotten •, yet not becaufc he is begotten has he any
" thi'^g lefs than what is in God the Father, Het. i. 3." Once more -, " God
« alone is properly a true Father, who is a Father without beginning and end,
" for he did not fometimc begin : he is a Father, but he was always a Father,
« having always a Son begotten of him, as he is always the true God, conti-
" nuing without beginning and end."
7. Gregory, bifhop of iVaz/j^zww, gives many teftimonies to the doftrines
of the Trinity and of the Sonlhip and generation of Chrift, againft the Arians
andEunomians; among which are the following-, "We ought, fays he% to
" acknowledge one God the Father, without beginning and unbegotten ; and
" one Son, begotten of theFather-, and oneSpirir, having fubfiftence fromGod,
« yielding to theFather, becaufc he is unbegotten, and to thcSon, becaufc he
" is bcgo°tten ; otherwife of the fame nature, dignity, honour and glory." And
elfewhere he fays', "If you aftc me, I will anfwer you again. When was the
« Son begotten? When theFather was not begotten. When did theSpirit pro-
VOL. II. 4B "ceed?
J De Trinitate contr. Arian c. «.p. 36. I'M p. 4?. ' ^''^- P- 77.
* Ibid.ci. p.92. • Ibid.c. 3. F- •J4- « Ibid. C.7. p. 157- Ed.Oxon.
• Orit. »6.p. 445. ' Or>t. 3 J. p. 563.
554- A DISSERTATION' CONCERNING THE
•' cced? When the Son did not proceed, but Was begotten before time, and be-
" yond expreflion. — How can it be proved, that they (the Son and Spirit) are
" co-eternal with the Father ? From hence, becaiifc they are of him, and not
" after him, for what is without beginning Is eternal." And then he goes on
to anfwer the feveral objeftions made to the generation of theSon by the Euno-
Diians. Again he fays S " Believe the Son of God, the word that was ie/ere
" an ages begotten of the Father before time, and in an incorporeal manner;
" the fame in the lafl: days made the Son of man for thy fake, coming forth
" from the virgin Alary in an unfpeakable manner." And elfewhere he fays •■,
" Do you hear of generation? do not curioufly enquire how it is. Do you
" hear that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father? do not be anxioufly fdli-
" citous how it is : for if you curioufly fearch into the generation of the Son,
j " and the proccfTion of the Spirit, I fhall curioufly enquire into the tempera-
! "• ment of the foul and body, how thou art duft, and yet the image of God?
'.' How the mind remains in thee, and begets a word in another mind ?"
8. Bajil, ciWed the ora:, zrchhilhop of Cicfarea Cappadocia, wrote a treatife
againft Euncmitu, in which he fays', -"As there is one God the Father, always
" remaining tlicFather, and who is forever what he is; fo there is oncSon, born
: " by an eternal generation, who is the true Son of God, who always is whac
" he is, God the Word and Lord; and one holy Spirit, truly the holy Spirit."
Again *=, "Why therefore, O incredulous man, who doft not believe thatGod
' " has an own Son, doft thou enquire how God begets? if truly thou afkeCb
" ofGod how and where alio, as in a place and when as in time; which, if ab-
" furd to afk fuch things concerning God, it will be more abominable not to
♦' believe." And a little after he fays '', "If God made all out of nothing by
" his will, without labour, and that is not incredible to us ; it will certainly be
" more credible to all, that it became God to beget an own Son of himfclf, in
♦' the divine nature, without pafTion, of equal honour, and of equal glory, a
«' counfellor of the fame feat, a co-operator confubftantial with God the Father;
♦' not of a divers fubftance, nor alien from his fole deity ; for if he is not fo,
" neither is he adorable, for it is written thou /halt not worjhip ajlrange God."
a. Gregory, bilhop of TVy/i, the brother of fia/;/, wrote againfl£««o»Jz«/, in
which we have this paffage '. " He {Eunomius) does fay, that he (theSon) was
" truly begotten before the world. Let him fay of whom he was begotten : he
" mufi fay of the Father entirely, if he is not afhamed of the truth ; but from
" the eternal Father there is no feparating the eternity of the Son ; the word
" Father contains a Son."
10. Amhrofey
c Or2f. 40. p. 671. ^ Crat. 29. p. ^93. ' Adv. Eunom.I. ?. c. u.
^ IbiJ.c. 14. ' Bafil ibid. m Contr. Eunom. Oiat. i.p .30.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. SS5
10. Amhrofe, bi(hop of Milav, after having faid many things in oppofition to
jirius^ Sabelliiis, Pbotinus and Eunomrus, obfcrvcs, that " when you fpeak of
" a Father, you alfo dcfign his Son, for no man is a father to himfelf ; and
" when you name a fon, you confefs his father, for no man is a fon to himfelf;
" therefore neither the fon can be without the father, nor the father without the
" fon ; therefore always a father and always a fon." He has alfo thefe words ' :
" You afk me, how he can be a fon if he has not a prior father ? I afk of you
" alfo, when or how you think the Son is generated ? for to me it is impoflible
" to know the fecret of generation; the mind fails, the voice is filent; and not
♦' mine only, but that of the angels ; it is above angels, above powers, above
»' cherubim, above feraphim, and above all ujiderftanding ; if the peace of
" Chrift is above all underftanding, Pbil. iv. 7. muft not fuch a generation be
" above all underftanding ? " And in another place "■, «' God the Father beo-a:
" the Word co-(Jernal with himfelf and co-omnipotent, with whom he produced"
" the holy Spirit ; hence we believe that the fubftance of the Son and of the
" holy Spirit cxifted before any creature, out of all time; that the Father is the
" begetter, the Son is begotten, and the holy Spirit the holinefs and the Spi-
" rit of the begetter and the begotten."
1 1. Jerom the prcfbyter, and a noted writer in this century, fpeakintr of the
Arians fays", " Let them underftand, that they glory in vain of the tcftimony
" in which Wifdom fpeaks of being created in the beginning of the ways of
" God, and begotten and eftablifhed; for if, according to them, he was created
" he could not be begotten or born ; if begotten or born, how could he be'
" eftablifhed and created ? " And a little after he fays, " God, the Father of
" our Lord Jefus Chrift, is a Father according to fubftance (or effcnce), and
" the only begotten is not a Son by adoption, but by nature ; whatfoever we
" fay of the Father and the Son, this we know is faid of the holy Spirit."
Here the creed of Damafus might be taken notice of, in which he fays, " God
" has begot a Son, not.by will nor by necefllty, but by nature;" and in the expla-
nation of it, it is faid, " Not becaufe we fay the Son is begotten of the Father
" by a divine and ineffable generation, do we afcribe any time to him, for
*' neither the Faihcr nor the Son began to be at any time ; nor do we any other
" wife confefs an eternal Father, but we alfo confefs a co-eternal Son." Alfo
Ruffinus's cxpofuion of the apoftles creed, which ftands among Jerom's works,
»« when you hear of a Father, underftand the Father of a Son, the imao-e of
" his fubftance ; but how God begat a Son do not difcufs, nor curioufly in-
*' trude into the depth of this fecret "."
4 B 2 The
J De Fide ad Gratian. c. j. p. 1 19, 1 20.
" Iq Epift. ad Ephcj. fol. 96. A. torn. 9.
™ In fymbolum apoftol. c. 1. p. 87. torn. 4.
Vid. opera Hierom torn. 4. fol. 42. 1 . 44; z.
55^ A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
12. The errors of the Photinians were not only confuted by the feveral above
writers, but Pbotinus himfclf was condemned by the fynod at Syrmium, of which
place he had been bifliop ; and in the formula of faith a<Treed on therein,
among others, are the following articles », " We believe in one God the Father
" almighty, the creator and maker of all things-, — and in his only begotten
" Son our Lord Jcfus Chrift, who was begotten of the Father before all ages;
" and in the holy Spirit:— and as to thofe that fay, that the Son is of things
*' that are nor, (or of nothing) or of another fubftance, and not of God ; and
*' that there was a time or age when he was not, the holy and catholic church
" reckons them as aliens If any one dare to fay, that the unbegotten or a
" part of him was born o{ Mary, let him be anathema : and if any one fay that
" he is the Son oi Mary by prefcience, and not begotten of the Father before
" the world, and was with God by whom all things are made, let him be
« anathema If any one fays, that Chrift Jefus was not the Son of God before
" the world was, and miniftercd to the Father at tlie creation of all things, but
" only from the time he was born oi Mary was called Son and Chrift, and then
" received the beginning of deity, let him be anathema, as a Samofatenian."
13. The formulas, creeds, and confefTions of faith, made by different per-
Ibns, and at different places, bcfides the Kicene creed, and even fome that dif-
fered in other things from that and from one another, yet all agreed in infert-
ing the claufe refpeding their faith in Chrift, the only begotten Son, as begotten
ef the Father before all ages, or the zuorld was ; as at /intioch, Syrmium, Ariminum,
Seleucia, and Conflanlinople ''.
14. Before the Nicenc creed was made, or any of the above creeds, this was
an article of faith with the orthodox chriftians, that Chrift was the eternal
beootten Son of God. From the writings of Cyril, h\[hop of Jerufalem, who
lived in the fourth century, may be coUefled a fymbol or creed containing the
faith of the church, and in which this article is fully cxpreflcd ■• ; that Chrift
*♦ is the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, the
♦' true God by whom all things arc made ■," and which article he ftrongly afTerts
and defends ; and the creed which he explains, is thought to be the ' fame
which the firft and ancient church always profcfled, and from the beginning ;
and perhaps is what Eufebius ' refers unto, who was bidiop of Cafarea in Palef-
tine, when he declared his faith in the council at Nice; our formula, fays he,
which was read in the prefcnce of our emperor {Conjlantine) moft dear to God,
is as we received xifrom the bifhops that were before us; and as when catechized
and
• Socrat. eccl. Hift. 1 2.c. 29, 30. * lb. I. t. c. 10, 18, 19,30, J7. 4°. 4' vM.e^xd.
hrres.73. < Catcches. 4. f. 5. v.xi. f. I. ' Vid. Bulli judicium eccl. catbol. p. 128.
' Apud Socrat. eccl. hif\. 1. i.e. i. and Theodoret hid. 1. i. c. 12.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 557
•and received the laver (that is, were baptized,) and as we learnt from the divine
writings, and is in this manner, "We believe in one God the Father Almighty,
*' — and in one Lord Jcfus Chrift, the Word of God, the only begotten Son,
" the firfl-born of every creature, begotten cf Cod the Father before all worldjy.
" by whom all things are made, &c." Nor indeed was the word of*o«o-i»., con-
fubjlantialy which exprefles the Son's being of the fame fubftance, nature and
cfience with the Father, anew word', devifed in the council of iV/« ; for it
■was in ufe before', &% Athanafius has proved from the fame £a/f^/Kj .• "The
" bifhops, he fays, (that is, thofe afiembled atNice) did not invent thefe words
" of themfelves, but having a teftimony from the Fathers, fo they wrote ; for
*' the ancient bifhops near a hundred and thirty years before, both in the great
" city of Rome, and in our city {Alexandria) reproved thofe that (aid that the Son
" was a creature, and not confubjiantial with the Father;" and this EufebiuSj who
was bifhop of CafareOy knew, who firft gave into the Arian herefy, but after-
wards fubfcribcd to the fyned zt Nue ; for being confirmed, he wrote to his
own people thus, " We find, fays he, fome fayings of the ancient and famous
*' bifliops and writers, who ufc the word coHfubJlan/ial in treating of the deity
" of the Father and of the Son." And certain it is, that it is ufcd by Gregory
of Neoc^farea ', who lived before the council of Nice, and by the fynod at An-
/jcfi in their creed % held A. D. 272.
V. In the fifth century Aiianifm continued and profpered, having many abet-
tors, as well as many who oppofcd it: other herefies alfo arofe, and ibme in
oppoGtion to theSonfhip of Chrift.
jjiy Felicianus, the Arian, argued againft it thus, " IfChrift was born of a vir-
" gin, how can he be faid to be co-eternal with God the Father r" To whom
Aujlin replied, " The Son of God entered into the womb of the virgin, that
" he might be again born, who had been already begotten before, he received
" the whole man (or whole humanity) who had had already perfeft deity from
♦♦ the Father, not unlike was he to the begetter, when being eveilafting he was
" begotten from eternity, nor unlike to men when born of his mother ''."
idfyy Faujlus, iheManichee, afTcrted, that according to the cvangelifts, Chrift
was not the Son of God, only the Son of David, until he was thirty years of
age, and was baptized 1 to which Aujlin replied, " The catholic and apoftolic
" faith is, that our Lord and Saviour Jcfus Chrift, is the Son of God, accord-
" ing to deity, and the Son oi David, according to the flefh ; which we fo
" prove
t Theodoret, ibid. c. 15. ., • In Theodoret ibid. c. 8. ' In ibid, c u.
w In Annuntiat. S. Maiii fermo, 2. p. 75. Sc in S. Theophan. p. 36. icexpof. fidei, p. 101.
» Apud Forbes. inQrufl. Hift.TheoIog. 1. 1. c. 4. p. 10. ^ Aug. contr. Feliciaji. c. 1 1.
558 A T)ISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
•" prove from h;: evangelic and apoftolic writings, as that no man can contra-
" diA our proofs, unlefs he contradifts their cxprefs words '."
3dly, ThcPrifcillianifts afferted thatChrift is called the only begotten Son of
God, becaufe he only was born of a virgin ; to which Leo Magnus makes an-
. fwer, " Let them take which they will, their tenets tend to great impiety,
♦' whether they mean, that the LordChrift had his beginning from his mother,
" or deny him to be the only begotten of God the Father-, fince he was born
" of his mother, who was God the Word, and none is begotten of the Father
♦< but the Word ^"
The writers in this century are many, who have plainly and ftrongly aflerted
the eternal generation and Sonfhip of Chrift; i% Augujiine, Chryfojlom, Proclus
archbifhop of Conjlantinopk, Leo Magnus, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Pau-
linus, Violor, Maximus Taurinenfts *, &c. it may be abundantly fufficient only
to mention the following formulas or confeflions of faith.
I. Oi Auguftine, b\(hop of Hippo, or of Sennadius, prefbyter of Mar/eilles \n,
France, to whom it is fometimes afcribcd ; ♦' Wc believe there is one God, the
*' Father, Son and holy Spirit; the Father becaufe he has a Son, the Son bc-
" caufe he has a Father, the holy Spirit becaufe he is from the Father and the
" Son (proceding and co-cternal with the Father and the Son,) — the eternal
*' Father, becaufe he has an eternal Son, of whom he is the eternal Father ; the
" eternal Son, becaufe he is co-eternal with the Father and the holy Spirit ; the
" eternal holySpirir, becaufe he is co-eternal with the Father and the Son*."
2. Of Flavi anus, bifliop of Conjlantinople, which he delivered in CQnc.ConJlan-
tinop. A. D. 448. approved of by the fynod at Chalcedon, A. D. 451. " Our
♦' Lord Jcfus Chrift, the only begotten Son of God, perfect God and pcrfeft
" man, of a reafonable foul and body ; begotten indeed of the Father, without
" beginning and before the world, according to deity, but in the end, in the laft
" days, the fame was born of the virgin Mary for our falvation, according to
" humanity, confubftantial with the Father, according to deity, confubftantial
" with his mother according to humanity ; for of two natures wc confefs that
*' Chrifl: is after the incarnation in one fubfiftcnce, in one perfon; we confefs one
" Chrift, one Son, one Lord'."
3. Of the council at Chalcedon, confifting of fix hundred and thirty Fathers ;
" Following the holy fathers, fay they, we all harmonioufty teach and confefs
♦' our Lord Jefus Chrift : that he is perfeft in deity and pcrfedt in humanity,
" truly God and truly man, of a rational foul and body -, co-eflential with the Fa-
" ther according to the deity, and co-eflential with us according to the humanity,
" in
y Ibid, contr. Faullum, 1. 23. c. i — j, ■ Leo Magn. Ep. 93. c. 3.
» Vid. Magdeburg, centnriat. cent. 5. p. 7y, &c. * Eccles. Dogm. c. 1 . Appendix, torn. 3.
Aog. operum. ' Apud Forbes. Inflrufl. Hifl. Theolog. I, 2, c, 10. p. 88.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c.
559
•* in all things like unto us, excepting Gn, but iegolten of the Father \efcre the
*' werliL, according to ti»e deity; and in th« lad days, for usand our falvation,
*' was of the VMgm Mary the mother of ourLord, according to the humanity '',
VI. In thefixth century were a fort of hereticks called Bo-o-nofians, who held
that Chrift was not the proper but adoptiveSonj againft whomjujlinian bifliop
of ^fl^ in Spain wrote*; and Arianifm fpread and prevailed under the Gothic
kings in feveral parts. .Fulgentius fpeaks of the tenets of theArians in this time,
that the Word or Son of God was not of the fame fubftance with the Father ^
This author wrote an anfwer to ten objeflions of theirs: to the firft, concerning
vlivcrfity of words and names ufed, he replies, " When Father and Son are
♦♦ named, in tbefe two names a diverfity of words is acknowledged, but nei-
" ther by thofe two different words the nature of both is fignificd, for the
" diverfity of thofe names does not divide the natures, but fhews the truth of
V the generation, as from one true Father, we know that one true Son exifts."
To the fccond objtdiiDn, concerning the ineffability of generation, he obferves,
" becaufe the generation of the Son is unfpeakable, it is not unknowable, nor
" does it follow, becaufe it cannot be declared, that it cannot be known ^"
. Cbilpericus, king oi ihc Franks, endeavoured to revive the Sabcllian herefy,
but was oppoied hy Gregory Furnenfis^ : bcCidcs Fulgentius and Gregory, there were
others Id this age who aiTerted and defended the eternal generation and Sonfhip
ofChrili, z% Fortunatus, Ca£lodorus, Gregorius Magnus, and others ' ; and even
by a fynod fonfilling of Gothic bifhops % in number fixty three. In the fame
century the famous 5c^//aj declares his faith inGod rheFather, in God the Son,
and in God the holy Ghoft ; that theFather has a Son begotten of his fubftance,
and co-eternal with him, whofe generation no human mind can conceive of '.
VII. In the fcvcnth century, towards the beginning of it, rofe up that vile
\n-\}po^or Mahomet, as bitter an enemy to the true, proper and eternal Sonfhip
of Chrift, as ever was, for which he gave the following brutifh and ftupid rea- .
fons ; "becaufe God did not need a Son, becaufe if he had a Son, they might
»' noi agree, and fo the government of the world be difturbed °'." Rcalbns
which require no anfwer. Not to take notice of the feveral councils at Toletum,
held
i Apud ibid. c. 12. p. <)2. • ICdor. Orig. I. 8. c. 5. vid eund. de Script, eccl. c. 20. &
ChronicumGoth. p. 276. f Ad hominum 1. 3. c. I. t Contr.objea. Ariiin. p. 3?, 39.
* Vid. Magdeburg, centur. cent. 6. p. 154. ' Jbid.p. 5 j, 54.&«.
^ Ibid, p 313. ' Confefs. Fidei, p. 173.
» Akreg.Theolog. HilL loc 3. p. 236. vid. Forbes, inftrnft. Hill. Theolog.l.4 c.6.p. 189,190.-
56o A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
held in this century, in which the article of Chrift's eternal Sonfhip was aflerted
and maintained, I would obferve what is faid in a Roman fynod, confiding of
a hundred and twenty fivi bifhops, in which Agatbo the Roman pontiff prefided ;
« We believe, fay they, in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and
" earth, and of all things vifible and invifiblej and in his only begotten Son,
" who was begotten of him before all worlds "."
o
VIII. In the eighth century, the notion that Chrift, though the true, proper,
and natural Son of God according to the divine nature, yet according to the hu-
man nature was only the Son of God by adoption and grace, an adoptive Son,
was propagated by Elipandus and Felix., Spanifh bifhops, but condemned by
the council at Frankfort, called by Charles the great "i and the eternal Sonfhip
and generation of Chrifl was aflerted and maintained by Damafcene^ Bede, Albi-
nus, and others *.
IX. In the ninth, tenth and eleventh centuries, the controverfies were chiefly
about Image-worfhip, Tranfubflantiation, 8fc. yet in ihefc and the following
centuries, we have tcflimonies from various writers to the truth of Chrift's
proper and eternal Sonfhip by generation -, it woulrf be too numerous to pro-
duce them all -, it will be fufficicnt to fay, it was not oppofed by any, but
plainly and flrongly affirmed by Rahanus, Macerus^ and Haymo in cent. 9. by
TheopbiJaii, in cent. 10. by An/elm, in cent. 1 1. by Peter Lombard a.nd Bernard, in
cent, 12. by Thomas yiquinas and Albertus Magnus, in cent 13. but in thcfc and
the following centuries, till the Reformation, Satan had other work to do than
to flir up men to oppofe the Trinity, or any of the divine perfons in it, having
enough to do to fupport the hierarchy o^ Rome, and the peculiar tenets of
Popery, againfl the witnefTcs who rofe up at different times to oppofe them,
and to endeavour to carry the pride and tyranny of the bifhop of Rome to the
higheft pitch pofTible.
X. "When the Reformation began in the fixteenth century, and fpread
throughout many nations in Europe, great evangelical light broke forth among
the Reformers ; and Satan fearing his kingdom would greatly fuffer hereby,
went to his old game again, which he had played with fo much fucccfs in the
firfl ages of chriflianity, namely, to flir up an oppofition to the doftrine of the
Trinity, and the perfon of Chrifl; which was firfl begun hyServetus \a Helvetia,
who
■ Apud ForbeJ. ibid. 1. 5. e. 3. p. 217. ■ Ibi'd. 1. 6. c. I. p. 292, &c.
• Magdeburg, centar. cent. 8. c. 4. p. 51, 52. &c.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, &c. 561
who afterwards came to Geneva and there ended his life"". Blandrata, infefted
-with his principles, went into Poland, and there artfully fpread his poifon in
the reformed churches, alTifted by others, and which at length ifTued in a divi-
fion in thofe churches ; when Faujius Socinus, who had imbibed fome bad no-
tions from the papers of his uncle Lalius about the Trinity, came into Poland,
and joined the Antitrinitarians there, and ftrengthencd their caufe, and where
• the notions of him and his followers took root and flouriChed much: and from
thence have been tranfplanted into other countries. Thofe men, who were men
of keen parts and abilities, faw clearly that could they demolifli the article of
'Chrift's isonfliip by eternal generation, it would be all over with the doftrine
.of the Trinity; and therefore fet themlelves with all their might againlt
it". Socinus himfelf fays " of it, not only that it is error and a meer human
■invention, and which he reprcfents as if it was held to be more animantium ; but
.that it is moft abfurd, moft unworthy of God, and contrary to his abfolute
pcrfcdion and unchangeable eternity ■" ; and afTcrts, that Chrift is not called
■the only begotten Son of God, becaufe generated of the fubftance of God •, and
that there is no other, nor ever exifted any other only begotten Son of God, bc-
.fidcs tiiat man, Jefus of 'Naxaretb: and exprefsly fays, it clearly appears, that the
human nature of Chrift is the perfon of the Son of God ; and ellewhcre 1 makes
the fame objeftion to Sonfhip by generation as l^iahomit did, for he fays,
" Thofe who accommodate the Word brought forth in Prov. viii. 24. to the Son,
■" are not, according to the judgment of the Homooufuns, to be reckoned very
*' diftant from the blafphcmy of the Turks, who when they hear that the Chrif-
*♦ tians fay, God has a Son, a(k, Who is his wife ? " And in this article con-
cerning the Sonfhip of Chrift, and alfo with refpeft to the doflrinc of the Tri-
nity, the Remonftrants ', in the feventeenth century and onwards, feem to agree
iwith them -, but the contrary has been maintained by all found divines and
■evangelical churches, from the Reformation to the prefcnt time, as appears
by their writings and harmony of confefTions: fo that upon the whole it is plear,
"' Servetashii thefeb'afphemouswordj concerningetcrnal generation, 'debuiHeat dicewquod pater
" ce!ebat uxorem quandam fpiritualcm, vel quod folus ipfe mafculo-focmineui, aut Kermaphrodiiuf,
•' /imul erat pattr Sc niater, &c nam ratio vocabuli non paiitur ut quis dicatur fine matre pater."
Servetui deTrinit. error Septen. I. i. A. D. i ;)i . And again, " Si Logos filius erat natuj ex
" patre fine tnatre, die mihi quomodo peperii turn, per ventrem «n per l«ui." Ibid I V. p. Jj. apud
■ Hornbeck Socin confolat. torn. i. p. 17. Servetus would not own Chrill to be the eternal Son of
God, on!/ the Son of the eternal God. Socinus apud Kornbeck IbiJ. p. 20.
» Vid. Ricov. Caiecb. c. i.qu. 17 — 20. Wolzogen de«ni'ntia & natura Dei, c. 9 p. 25, &C.
• Chrift. Relig.Inflitut. inter opera ejus, vol. I p. 655. ' Qood regni Polon c.4. f.2. p. 698,699.
1 Refpons. id Vujekum, c. 7. p. ^7. vol. 2. « Vid. f eltii Herman Remocllr. & Socin.
trtic. 4.pa"gr. 1. 4. p. 15, 19. . .
•• Vol. II. 4 C . that
56i A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
tha: the church of God hts been in the poflcffion of this dodrine of the eternal
generation and Sonfhip of Chrift, from the beginning of chriftianity to the
prefent age, almoft eighteen hundred years \ nor has there been any one mm
who proicflcd to hold the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the three diftinft divine
perfons in the unity of the divine efleDce, that eyer oppofed it, till the latter
end of ihe fevenfeenlh cemary : if any fuch pcrfon in this courfe of time can be
named, let him be named : none but the followers of Simon Magus^ Cerinlhus,
Eiion, Carpocrales, the Gnofticks, (s'c. in the two firft centuries, and then by
the Sabcllians, Samofatenians, Arians, Photinians, Mahometans, Socinians, and
• more lately by the Rcmonftrants, fuch as arc Antitrinitarians. The only two
perfons I have met with who have profefled to hold the dodrine of the Trinity,
as it has been commonly received, that have publicly cxprcfird their doubts
or difTatisfaflion about the phrafe eternal generation, I mean fuch as are of any
•note or character, for as for the trifling tribe of ignorant writers and fcribblers,
who know not what they fay nor whereof they affirm,^ I make no account of
them ; I fay, I have met with only two of this fort. The one is Rcell, a Dutch
ProfcflTor at Franeker, who lived at the latter end of the laft century j this man
profefTcd to believe that there arc three diftin<ft divine perfons, the Father, Son,
and Spirit, and that thefe three are one; that the fccond perfon in the Trinity
was begotten by the Father from all eternity, and that this is the firftand chief
rcafon that he is called a Son ; nor did he objed to the ufe of the phrafe eternal
■generation, nor did he difufe it, but explained it to another fenfc than that in
•which it was commonly taken, that is, that it only fignified the co-exiftence of
the fccond perfon with the firft, and communion of nature with him. But as
the fame may be faid of the firft and third perfons, the phrafe of generation fo
underftood might be faid of them as well as of the fecond -, he therefore was
obliged to have recourfc to the oeconomy of falvation, and the manifeftation of
the three perfons in if. On the whole, he was oppofed by the very learned
Vitringa \ znd his opinion was profcribed and condemned by almoft all the
fynods of the Dutch churches, and he was forbid by the authority of his fu-
prcme magiftrate to propagate it ; and moft of the fynods have decreed, that
the candidates for the mmiftry fhall be examined about this opinion, before
they are admitted into the miniftry ". The other perfon, who has objefted to
the cternai generation of the Son of God, is Dr Thomas Ridgley, Profeflbr of
Drvinity in London, towards the beginning of the prefent century " : who ftrongly
afierts, and contends for the doftrinc of a Trinity of divine diftinft perfons
in
• Vid. Roell. DilTert. de geiieratione fiKi, &c. p. 4* ;• ii> 4^o>
« Difputatio Theolog. & Epilog. Difputat. de generatione filU.
« Maftrift. Theolog. 1, > c 26. f. 17.?. 257. ■ See hUbcdy of divinity, p. 12I, &c.
ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST, fee. 563
in the Godhead, and yet ftrangely adopts the Socinian notion of Sonfliip by
office, and makes the eternal Sonfhip of Chrift to be what he calls his mediato-
rial Sonfhip. There is indeed a third perfon of great fame among us, Dr Ifaac
Watts, who has exprefled his diflatisfaftion with the doftrine of the eternal gene-
ration of theSon ofGod, but then he is not to be reckoned aTrinitarian, being
fo manifeftly in the Sabellian fcheme, as appears by his DiJJertations publifhed
in 1725. infomuch that the celebrated Fred. Adolphus Lampe, who publifhed his
Tbeological Dt/putations . conctrning ihc holy Spirit, two or three years after,
fpares not to reckon him among the groflerSabellians: his words arc % *< Nupe-
" rius novum fyftema Socinianum deTrinitate Anglice J.Wats edidit, additis
" quibufdam diflertationibus cam illuftrantibus, quarnm quinta ex profe/To de
.-" fpiricu S.agit. Exillimatquidem fefb. 2. p. 126. catenusfeaSocinOjSchlidtingio,
" Crellio cfle diftinguatum, quod virtutem in Deo non accidcntaJem, fed ef-
" fcntialem, feu fubftantialem profpiritu S. habeat; hoc tamen ita facit, ut non
" cenfeat hanc notionem conftanter ubique obtinere : nam faepius cum crafTiori-
" bus Sabellianis fpiritum S. cGc Deum ipfum, p. 130. f. 49. defendit."
Upon the whole, fctting afide the faid perfons, the teftimonies for and againfl:
the eternal generation and Sonlhip of Chrift ftand thus :
For Eternax Generatjon, &c.
- Jgnatius,^ Polycarp, Juftin Martyr,
Ircna^us, Athenagoras, Theophilus of
Jntwch, Clemens o{ Alexandria, Tcr-
tullian, Origen, Cyprian, Gregory of
Neocafaria, Dionyfius of Alexandria.,
the three hundred and eighteen Niccne
Fathers ; Athanafius, Alexander bifhop
of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Hilary,
Fauftinus, Gregory of Nazianzum,
Bafil, Gregory of Ny£a, Ambrofe,
Jerom, Ruffinus, Cyril oi Jerufalem,
befides the many hundreds of bifhops
and prcfbyters aflcmbled at different
times and in different places, as, at
Syrmium, Antioth, 'Ariminum, Seleucia,
andConJlantinople, and clfewherc; Au-
guftine, Chryfoftom, Leo Magnus,
Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Pau-
AcAiNST It.
Simon Magus, Ccrinchus, and Ebion,
and their rcfpcftive followers ; Carpo-
<:ratcs and the Gnofticks, Valentinus,
Theodotus the currier, Artemon, and
others their aflbclatesj Beryllus of
Bf/ira, Praxcus, Hermogcnes, Noctius
and Sabellius, the Samofateniaos,
Arians, Aetians, Eunomians and Pho-
tinians, the Prifcillianifts and Bono-
tians ; Mahomet and his followers ;
the Socinians and Rcmonftrants ; and
all Antitrinitarians.
4 c 2
' Lampc dlfp. z. de fpiritu, f. c. j. f. 13 f. u.
linus,
564 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING, &c.
Jinus, ,Flavianus, Vi(5tor, Maximus
Taurienfis, ftx hundred and thirty fa-
thers in the council at Cbalcedon; Ful-
gcntiuSjGrcgoryTurnafis, Fortunatus,
Caffiodorus, Gregorius Magnus, the
many bifhops in the feveral councils
at Toletum, the Roman fynod of a
hundred and twenty -five under Agatho,
Damafccne, Beda, Albinus, and the
fathers in the council of Franckford^
with many others in later times, and
all the found divines and evangelic
churches fince the reformation.
Now fince it appears that all the found and ortiiodox writers have unanimoufly
declared for the eternal generation and Sonfhip of Chrift in all ages, and that
thofe only of an unfound mind and judgment, and corrupt in other things as
well as this, and many of them men of impure lives and vile principles, have
declared againft it, fuch muft be guilty of great temerity and rafhnefs to join
in an oppofuion with the one againft the other ; and to oppofe a doftrine the
church of God has always held, and efpecially being what the fcriptures abun-
dantly bear teftimony unto, and is a matter of fuch moment and importance,
being a fundamental doflrine of the chriftian religion, and indeed what diftin-
guifhes it from all other religions, from thofe of Pagans, Jews andMaliometans,
who all believe in God, and generally in one God, but none of them believe
in the Son of God : that is peculiar to the chriftian religion.
A DISSER-
DISSERTATION
CONCERNING
The Rise and Progress of POPERY.
WHAT is generally meant and underftood by Popery, is well known. As
for the name it matters not from whence and from whom it is, nor .
when it began to be in ufe, nor in what fcnfe the word papa is ufed in heathen
*ind ecclcfiaftical writers. By the latter it was given tochriftian bifhops in com-
mon ; as to Cyprian, Atbanafius, uiujlin, Epiphanius, and others ; until the
bifhops of i2owf afTumed it as peculiar to themfelves : but it is not the name,-
but the thing we arc inquiring after j and as things are before they have a^
name, fo Popery was in being before it bore this name. It did not begin at
Reme, nor was it always confined there; nor did it ceafc at the Reformation in.
the reformed churches; fome of its unholy relics continued with them, and
ftill do, and even in Geneva itfelf. It is commonly believed by Proteftants,
that the Pope oi Rome is Antichrift; and the Roman church, its hierarchy,,
doftrines and praftices, Ancichriftian ; and by Proteftant writers and- interpre-
ters, for the moft part, it is fuppofed that the fame Antichrift is meant in-
2Tbefs.i\.2 — lo. to whom the defcription agrees ; as, the man of fm, the fon-
of perdition, who exalts himfelf above all that is called God, or is worfhipped ; fit-
ting in the temple of God, fhewing himfelf to be God. Now this fame man of fin,
was then in being in the apoftles time, though not arrived to his manhood ; to-
deny this, would be juft fuch good fenfe as to deny that an infant cxifts becaufe
it is not grown up to man's cftate. Antichrift was not then revealed, but was to-
be revealed in his proper time, when that which hindered his being revealed was
taken away, even the Roman empire: he was in being, though he lay hid and
concealed till an apporcunity offered to (hew himfelf. The myftery of iniquity,
which is one of the names of my^\ci\ Babylon, or the Ancichriftian whore of
Rome, Rev. xvii. 5. began to work already, when the apoftlc wrote the above.
prophecy, and gave the above defcription of Antichrift ; and fo the apoftle
John.
J
566 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
y^bn fsrys, that the fpirit of anticbriji, ■7i\v\z\\ JbvM come, even now already /; it
in the world, i John iv. 3. Antichrift was not only in embryo in the times of the
apoftJes, but was arrived to fome bignefs, fo as to be aflivc and operative. Now
P''prry may be confidered in a twofold rftipeft-, both as an hierarchy, an ufurped
juriffiidion, and tyrannical domination over others ; and as a fyflem of antichrif-
tian doflrincs and practices : and in both views it will appear, that what h now
fo cal.ed, had a very early beginnirg.
I. Popery may be confidered as an antichrifbian hierarchy, a tyrannical jurif-
diftion over other churches, gradually obtained by ufurpation ; and though fuch
an affeftation of pre-eminence tnd dominion was forbidden, and condemned by
Chrift, Matt. xx. 26, 27. and chap, xxiii. 8, 11. and by his apoftles, and even
by Peter, whom the pope oi Rome claims as his predeceflbr, 2 Cor. i. 24. x Pet.
V. 3. yet this Diotrephcfian fpirit, or love of pre-eminence, appeared even in
the apoftolic age, 3 Join ix. and though the office of bifhop or overfcer, and of
prcfbyter or elder, and of paftor, is one and the fame, and equal, according to
the fcripture-accounr, A£fsy.x. 27. and there were but two officers in the church,
bifhops and deacons, Phil i. 1. yet we foon hear of the fupcriority of biffiops to
preft>yters, and of the fubjcftion of prcfbyters to bifliops, as well as of deacons
10 both, and of the people to them all ; as appears from the epiftles oi Ignatius,
in the fecond century; and in the third and following, we read of a great variety
of offices, together with others fince added, which make the prefent antichrif-
tian hierarchy •, as will be obferved hereafter.
The bifhops of Rome very early difcovered a domineering fpiric over other
bifhops and churches -, they grafped at power and exercifed it, though they met
with rebuffs in it. In the fecond century there was a controverfy about keeping
Eaftcr. The Afian churches obferved it on the 14"' day of the new moon, let
it fall on what day of the week it might i but the church of Rome, with other
churches, obferved it on the Lord's day following. Viilor, then bifhop of Rome,
being a fierce and bluflering bifhop, threatened at lealt to excommunicate, if
he did not excommunicate, the faid churches, for not obferving Eafler at the
fame time that he did. Eufebius fays *, that he attempted to do it ; from which
Trentcus" of France, endeavoured to difTuade him, though he was of the fame .
mind with him, with rcfpcft to the obfervance of Eafler; but Socrates the hif-
torian fays % he did fend them an excommunication ; which was an inflance of
tyrannical jurifdidion exercifed over other churches. In the middle of the
third century there was a difpute about rebaptizing hereticks who repented and
cane over to the church : the African churches and bifhops, a% Cyprian and
others, '
» Ecd Hid. 1. 5. c. 24. > Apudibid, ' Socrat. Eccl. Hill. 1. 5. c.tz.
J11SE-ANDPROGRE5SOFPOPERY. 5^7
others, were for rcbaptizing them, and did ; but Stephen, bifhop oi Rome, vio-
lently oppofed the baptifm of them, and cut off all the churches in /Ifrics for
the pra(fbice of it; which is another inftance of the power the bifhop of Rome
"thus earljr ufurped over other churches : though indeed it was highly rcfentcd
by the caftcrn churches S and difplays his imperious and impofing temper,
. as if he wanted to make himfclf a bifhop of bifliops '.
In the beginning of the third century, \r\TerttdUan'% time, the bifhop of Rome
had the cities of Pontifex Maximus., and of Epifcopus Epifcoporum ^ Julius I. in
the fourth century, took, upon him to reprove fomc eaftcrn bifhops fordepofing
others, and ordered the reftitution of them ; though they dcfpifed his reproofs,
tand even depofed him for firft communing with Atbanafius and others ^ PU-
t'tna fays ^ that he reproved them for calling a council at Antiocb, without
the leave of the bifhop of Rotm j which he urged, could not be done without
his authority, feeing the church of Rome\\zA the pre-eminence over the reft
cf the churches: but the fame author fays, they confuted his claini with a fneer.
_uldolpbus Lampe, in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory ', obfervcs, that it is thought that
.Mark, Iitting in the Roman chair, A. D. 335. firft arrogated to himfelf the
-tide of univerfal bifhop : and indeed, if the letters oi Atbanafius and the Egyp-
,tian bifhops to him '', and his to them, are genuine, they both gave the title
to him, and he took it to himfclf; their letter to him runs thus, •' To the reve-
■*' rend Mark, pope of the holy Roman and apofVolic See, and of the univerfal
*« church." And his to therri begins thus, " To the venerable brethren Atba-
" nafiuj, and all the bifhops in Egypt, Mark, the bifhop of the holy Roman
.•' and apoflolic See, and of the univerfal church." And in the former, the
iec of Rome is called the tnotber and head of all churches.
Though hiftorians generally agree, that the title of univerfal bifhop was given
by Pbucas to Boniface III. in the year 606. at the beginning of the fcventh cen-
tury, yet an anonymous writer', in an ejfay on fcripture prophecy, p. 104- pub-
lilhed in I724. quotes from Sigonius De occid. Imper. p. 106, and 314. two paP
iages, (hewing, that Valentinian, the third emperor of the wcfl, in A. D. 445.
and Marcion^ emperor of the cafl, in A. D. 450. afilgned fomething like an uni-
verfal power to pope Leo I. which was more than a century and a half before
the times oi Phocas. The title of univerfal bifhop might not be eftablifhed by
authority of the emperor until his time, yet pretenfions were made to it, and
it was claimed by the bifhops of Rome before, and in fome inftances given. And
though.
, * Vid. Cyprian Ep. 75. « Condi. Carthag. inter opera Cyprian, p. 397.
' Tertullian de ptxlicitia, c. i. « Socratc',1. z. c. 15. Sozomen, 1. 3. t 8. it.
" ViL Pontific. p. 44. 45- ' L. 2. c. 5. f. 17. * Athanafii opera.
» Intheabflrad ofthebiflory of popery, p. 1. margia.
568 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
though popt Gregory I. in the fixth century, a little before the time of Phocas, con-
demned Jobn of Conjlantinople as antichrift, for taking upon him the title of
Oecumenical h'\^op, becaufe it intrenched upoti his own power and authority i
yet this hamble pope, who called himfelf fervus fervorum, alTerted, that the
apoftolic fee, meaning the fee of Rome, was the head of all the churches -, and
vehemently inveighed againft the emperor, for taking it to himfelf '. And it
is certain that this pope claimed a jurifdiftion over the churches in Britain, fince
he appointed his legate, Augujline the monk, metropolitan over the whole ifland "" i
who endeavoured to bring the Britilh bifhops and churches to a conformity to
the Roman church, and the rites of it, and to acknowledge the pope's autho-
rity. This was before the time of pope Boniface the third, who obtained of
the emperor the title of univcrfal bifhop.
The primacy of the church oi Rome to other churches, with refpccEt to rank
and order, which made way for primacy of power, was very «arly aficrted^
claimed, and allowed. Several fayings of the antient writers much contributed
to it : from the grandeur and magnificence of the ciry of /?£>OTf, being the me-
tropolis of the empire, an argument was very early ufcd to a fupcrior regard to
the church in it. Irenaus ", who lived in the fecond century, obfcrves, that
" to this church (the Roman church) every church fhould convene (or join in
»' communion -,) that is, thofe every where who arc believers-, propter potentiorer,t
" principalitatem; in which always by them who arc, every where is preferved
" that tradition which is from the apoftles." And Cyprian", in the middle of
the third century, calls it the chair of Peter, and the principal church, from
whence the faccrdotal unity arifcs. Jerom % in the fourth century, writing to
popt Datnafus, calls him his bkjjednejs, and the chair ol Rome, the chair of Peter:
and Optatus"*, in the fame century, fays, the Roman church is the cpifcopal
chair, firft conferred on Peter, in which he fat the head of all the aponies, and
the chair of P;/fr; and earlier in this century the council of Nice wfis held, the
Cxth canon of which gave equal power to the \:>\fhop of Rome, over the bifhops
of his province, as the bifhop of yllexandria had by cuflom ; and by the third
canon of the council zi Conjlantinople, A. D. 381, 382. the bifliop of Conjlan-
tinople had the prerogative of honour after the bifhop of Rome, becaufe Conjlan-
tinople was New Rome'; and this was confirmed by Jujlinian the emperor, in the
fixth century, who ordained, that the pope of Rome fhould have the firft feat,
and after him the avchh\(hop of Conjlantinople. And what ferved to ftrengthen
the primacy of the church of Rome, and incrcafc its power, and which the bilhops
of
' Vid. Magdeburg. Ecclei Hift. cent. 6. p. 217. " «. Bed. Hift. Ecfeb.
• Adv. Hotref. 1. 3. c. 3. " Ep. 55 p. iig. f Opera torn. 2. p. 4^, 45. ,
1 De Schifm. Donatift. 1. 2. p. 35, 37. 40. ' Socrat. Ecc'. Hift. 1. 5. c. 8.
RISE AND PROGRESS OF POPERY. 569
of it failed not to avail themfclvcs of, was the bringing of caufes in difference I
between other bifhops and their churches to them, either to have their advice or '
to be decided by them : and indeed this was done by the order oi' Conjiamim \
himfclf, Who enjoined, that the caufes of contending bifliops fhould be brought j
to the bifhop oi Rome and his coUegues, and there decided ' : and this was ad-
vifed to by Ibme eminent doftors of the church, particularly Ambrofc, who calls
the Roman church the head of the whole Roman world or empire ' ; and advifed
Theopbilus, that what was committed to him by the fynod at Capua, fhould be
referred by him to the prieft of the Roman church (the ponuff} '. And- it is no
wonder ih^tLeo I. in the fifth century, fhould require fuch rcfpeft and obedience
to himfclf, who claim.ed the apoftolical and epifcopal dignity of Pf/^r"; and
fubjeftion to the fee of iicOTf, as to the blefTed apoftle P^/^r " .- yea, he required
oiTheodcftus the criiperor himfelf, that the writings of the bifhop of C(7«/?iJ?7//-
vople might be fent to him -, teftifying that he embraced the true dodlrine,.
and condemned thofc that difTented from it '. In his epiflle to the bifhop of
The][alomca \ he afTcrts his care of all the churches, and the fee oi Home to be
the apoflolic fee; and ordered him, that all matters of difference fhould be
brought to him to decide, according to the pleafure of God. He ordered the
African hereticks who repented, to fend the account of their repentance and
faith to him, that it might appear they were catholic'. He alfo afTumed a
power of calling general councils' : and termed Peter's feat, or the fee oi Rome,
univcrfal '' ; and Peter the Prseful of the fee of Rome, and the primate of all
bifhops'. In the beginning of the fifth century, during the fixth council at
Carthage, which lafted fix years, the popes Zcz/ww, Boniface I. znd C^leJltKUS I.
ftrove with all their might and main to get fome fort of primacy and monarchy
over the other bifhops, though they failed in their attempt ''.
The care of the church of Chrifl at firfl, with refpcfl: both to things tem-
fjoral and fpiritual, lay wholly and entirely in the hands of the apoflies ; but
finding the temporal afl^iirs of the church too burdcnfomc to them, they di-
refted it to choofe a fort of officers called Deacons, to take care of them, JSIs
vi. 1—6. and fo there were two offices, and two only, as before obferved, in
the primitive apoflolic churches, Pbil. i. i. but they were foon increafed, by
diftinguifliing bifhops and prefbyters, making the latter to be a diflinfl office
from and fubfervient to the former: and afterwards offices became numerous;
Vol. II. 4D and
.' Eufeb. Eccl. Hin. I. lo.c. ;. • Ep. 1. «. Ep. 4. t jbiJ. Ep 9.
" Serra. in A^nivers. die Affuirp. p. 9;. • Ep. 89. ad epifcop. Vienn. p. 159.
» Ep. 33. p. 118. r Epill. 8^. 'EpS/.c. 3. »Ep9}.c. 17. /
»• Spanheim. liagog. ad HiA. cedes, p. 221. * In anniverf. die AlTumpt. Serna. 2.
>■ Vid. Aided. Chronolog. p. 360, 408.
570 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
and before the bifhop of Rome had the title of univerfal bifliop by authority ;
and were the fame which now confticute the hierarchy of the church of Rome,
very few excepted ; for even in the third century the following orders are afcribed
to Caius bifhop of Rome, as of his appointment, and as degrees to a bifhoprick;
firft a door-keeper, then a reader, then an cxorcift, an acolyte, a fubdeacon,
a deacon, and a prefbyter, and then a bifhop '' : nor is it improbable that
fuch orders and offices obtained as early, fince Cyprian, in the fame century,
makes mention of an acolyte often % and of readers ; of Jurelius a reader,
and of Saturnus a reader ^ and of Opiatus a fubdeacon, and of cxorcifls ^ :
and Cornelius bifhop of Rome, who lived about the fame time Cyprian did,
writincr to Fabius bifhop of Antiocb, concerning Novatus, fays, That In the-
catholic church were but one bifhop, forty-four prefhyters, feven deacons, and
as many fubdeacons, forty -two acolytes, exorcifts and readers, with door-
keepers, fifty-two ''. All thefc are mentioned together, excepting acolytes, by
Epiphanius in the fourth century '. And Eufebiuj ^ obferves, that in the perfe-
cution under Diode/tan, the prifons were filled with bifhops, prefbyters, deacons,,
readers and exorcifts : that in the council of Nice there were bifhops, prefbyters,
deacons and acolytes. And Jerom', in the fame century, fpeaks of a reader,
an acolyte, and a pfalm-finger : and Wkcv/'ift yfrnbrofe"", fpeaking of the quali-
fications for different offices, one, he fays, is fit to read diflindlly -, another is
more agreeable for finging pfalnis ; another for exorcifing evil fpirics •, and an-
other to take the care of the veftry : all which, he fays, the prielt fhould look.
after, and what every one is fit for, appoint him to that office. Sozsmen " fpeaks
of an archdeacon in the church of Alexandria, whofe office it was to read the
holy Bible -, and Optatus calls Cacilianus an archdeacon «• : and in Perfta,. Sozo-
tnen fays % Simeon was archbifhop of Seleiuia and Ctefiphon, famous cities in it ;
and there were patriarchs appointed over provinces by the fynod at Cpnjlanti-
nople, as Socrates relates '' ; and both he ' and Sczomen ' make mention of Peier,
an arch-prcfbyter of Alexandria, and of Timothy an archdeacon there, in the
fifth century •, fo that long before Popery arrived to its height, there was much
the fame popifh hierarchy as now : that of Cardinals fcems to be the only ex-
ception, yet there were of the name, though.not of the fame office and dignity.
In the fourth century, monkery, celibacy and virginity came much into
^3wooue i the monaflic life was much commended in this, age by B.a^l and his
father,
* Platinz vit. Pontif. p. 34. • Ep. 47. p. 90. Ep. 55. p- i ^4•
* Ep.24. p.50. & Ep 76. p.joi» t Ep.33.p.'i5. b ApudEafeb. Eccl. Hift. I.6.C.43.
» Cotnpend. de fide propc finem. * £ccl. Hid. 1.8. c.6. ' Ad Nepotian. fol. 5. D. torn. i.
■ De officiisl. I.e. 44. » Eccl. Hill. 1. 7. c. 19. o Contra Parmen. 1. 1 . p. 1 8^
' » Eccl. Hift. 1. 2. c. 9. 1 Eccl. Hid. 1. j; c. 8. • * Ibid. 1.6. c. g. ic I. 7. «. 7.,
* Eccl. Hifi, I. 8. c. la.
RISE AND PROGRESS OF POPERY. 571
father, as may be feen in his works. The firft of thefe Monks, Anchorites and
Eremitrs, is faid to be ont Paul oi Thebes, z^Jerom relates'; and their difciples,
in lefs than half an age, were fo multiplied, that the deferts oi Egypt and Arabia
were full of them. Thcfc indeed were men of more ftrift and religious Mves than
thofe of later ages, who go by the name of monks. Even before the time of
Conjlantine, and in it, there were focieties of virgins, profcdlng perpetual vir-
ginity, which he had a great regard unto " ; and fuch Helena found at or near
Jerufalemy in whofe company fhe took great pleafure, and miniftered unto them ".
Arius is faid to infeft with the poifon of his dodrine feven hundred virgins
profefTing virginity '. And Ambroje fays, the virgins came to Milan from va-
rious parts, even from the furtheft parts oi Mauritania, to be confecrated and
veiled ' : fo early were monafteries and nunneries fct up, at leaft the foundation
of fuch inllitutions were fo early laid, and the forms, rules, rites and ceremo-
nies of them prcfcribcd, which now make fo great a figure in Popery.
II. Popery may be confidered as a fyftem of antichriftian doftrines and prac-
tices, feme of the principal of which the apodle Paul has prophetically given
notice of in a few words, i Tim. iv. 1 — 3. l^ow the fpirit fpeaketh exprefsly, that
in the latter times fame Jhall depart from the faith, giving heed to feducing fpirits,
and do£irin£S of devi/s ; fpeaking lies in hypocrify ; having their confcience feared
with a hot iron : forbidding to marry, and commanding to abjlain from meats, which
(Jod hath created to be received with thankfgiving of them which believe and know
the truth. All which are notorious dodtrines and praftices of the Papifts, and
are here plainly pointed at ; and which, with others, are a branch of the myftery
cf iniquity which began to work in the times of the apoftles, and riiore mani-
Jeftly appeared foon after their departure. Very remarkable are the words of
Hegefippus, an ancient hiftorian ^ tcftifying, that " till the times of Trajan (A.D.
" 100.) the church continued a virgin pure and incorrupt; — but after the fa-
*' crcd company of the apoftles ended their lives by various kinds of death,—
" then the confpiracy of impious error began to take place, through the deceit
" ot fdlfc teachers." P'or this branch of popery, or myflery of iniquity, takes
its rife from the herefies of falfe teachers of the firft ages, and from unguarded
cxprcfTions and errors of thofe who have been called fathers of the church ; and
who, in other points, were counted found and orthodox; and which, by de-
grees, grew up to that enormous mafs of antichriftian doiflrincs which are the
4 D 2 peculiars
« AdEuflacli de virginitafe fol. 50. K. & !□ vita Paul Eremiix, fol.Si.K.
u Eufcb. de vita ConftaDiin. 1. 4. c. 28. * Socrat. Eccl. Hid. 1. i. c. 17.
I Epiphao. hajief. 69. r De virginibuj, 1. i. prope fiqera.
» ApodEufeb. Eccl. Hift.I 3 c. 32.
• 572 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
. peculiars of popery : and, to begin with thofe the apoftle foretold in the above
. quoted paflage,
I. Wordiipping of angels and praying to faints departed ; which are meant
by the doEirines of devils, or demons, as Mr Mede thinks, fuch as the heathens
reckoned a fort of mediators between God and men ; as the papifts efteem an-
gels to be mediators of intcrcefiion, though not of redemption ; and therefore
invoke them to intercede for them ; and the papifts are they who are meant in
Rev. ix. 20. faid to worjhip devils, and idols of gold and fiher, &c. And this
do6lrine of worfhipping daemons or angels, was embraced by a hvf, even in the
times of the apoftles ; for the apoftle Paul wirns the Coloflians, that no man beguiled
them in a voluntary humility, and worfhipping of angels. Col. ii. 1 8, This was a tenet
of Simon Magus, the father of herefies, who held, that the world was made by
angels : and this is afcribed to him by Tertullian '. And Theodoret reckons it as
the notion oi Carpocrates, Epiphanes, Prodicus, and the Caiani"; and in his expo-
fition of C(7/. ii. 18. he fays, that this evil notion continued long in Piirj'^/ij and
Pi/Idia : wherefore the fynod which met atLaodicea, the metropolis of Phrygia^
forbad by a law to pray to angels j and he fays, that to his time might be feen
among the people of thofe countries, and thofe that bordered upon them, the
oratories of Sc Michael
In the latter end of the fccond century lived the hereticks Angelici, fo.called
becaufe they worfhipped angels, as fays Jfidore". Origen, who lived about the
fame time, and in the beginning of the third century, gives a form of prayer
to angels : "Come, O angel, receive one in word converted from his former
" error, from the dodrine of devils, from iniquity, fpcaking highly j and receiv-
♦' ing him as a good phyfician, cherifli and inftruft him -, he is a little one, he
" is born to day, an old man growing young again j and receive, retributing
«' to him, the baptifm of the fecond regeneration -y and call to thee other com-
«' panions of thy miniftry, that all ye equally may inftrudt in the faith, who
" were fometimes deceived '." Auflin in the fourth century, and beginning of
the fifth, fcems to favour the fame : quoting Phil. iv. 6. he obferves ', requefts
are not to be underftood " as made known to God, who knows them before
" they were made, but as made known by us to God through patience v or
»» perhaps alfOj they arc made known by angels, who are with God,, that they
«' might in fome fort offer them to God ; and confult concerning them, and
" that they might know what was to be fulfilled ; he commanding, as they
•« ought to know, and bring it to us, cither openly or fecretly -," for which
he quotes, T^ohit yi\\. \^. The angel faid to the man. When thou and Sarjih pray efl,
1 offer up your prayer in the fight of the love of God.
Praying
• Deprzfcrip. Hiref. c. 33. ' Divioar. Decret. Epitome p. 295.
« Origines 1. 7. c. 5^ * Homil. i. in Ezckiel fol. ijj. 4. * Efift. >»l- «• 9*
RISE AND PROGRESS OF POPERY. 573
Praying to faints was ufcd as early ; fo Origin diredls a prayer to Job, in this
manner ; " O blefled Job, living for ever with God, abiding in the prefence of
" the king and lord; pray for us miferable ones, that alfo the terrible majefty
♦' of God may proteft us in all tribulations and deliver us from all the opprefTions
" of the wicked one, and number us with the juft, and write us with them
" who are faved, and make us reft with them in his kingdom, where we may
"' perpetually magnify him with the faints ^" And elfewhere*, "I think, fays
*' he, that all the fathers who died before us, fight with us, and help us by
" their prayers ;" and which he confirms by a Doctor of the church fenior to
him. Cyprian, in the third century, hints the fame, when he fays ^ " If any
" of us go firft from hence, through the celerity of the divine worthinefs, let
*' our love perfevere with God for our brethren and fifters ; and let not our
" prayer for the mercy of the father ceafe." So Bafil, in the fourth century,
in his homily on the forty martyrs, has thefe words; "Here is help prepared
*' for chriftians, namely, the church of martyrs, the army of the triumphants,
"^ the chorus of thofe that praife GoJ ? often have ye ufed means, ofcen have
" ye laboured to find one praying for you ; there are forty fending forth one
*' voice of prayer ; where two or three are met together, &c. but where there are-
♦' forty, who can doubt of the prefence of God ; he who is preffed with any ■
" trouble, let him flee to them ; he that rejoices, let him recur to them ; the
*' one to be delivered from evils, the other to continue in profperity." In the
fame century there are inftances of Nazianzen praying to Cyprian, and to Bajil
dead ', and particularly to the virgin Mary very early was prayer made, and her
intcrccfTion implored. Iren^sus^^ in the fecond century, calls the virgin Mary
the advocate of the \\xg\nEve, which at beft is an unguarded exprellion. Jtha-
nafius, in the fourth century, puts up a prayer to her in this manner', "Hear,
*' O daughter of David and Abraham ; incline thine ear to our prayers, and
*' do not forget thy people and us, who are of the family and houfc of thy fa-
" ther; unto thee we cry, remember us mod holy virgin, who haft remained
« a virgin from the birth, and reward us for thofe fpeechcs with great gifts from
" the riches of thy grace-gift thou art full of — Hail full of grace, the Lord is
" with thee! intercede for us, dame, miftrefs, queen, and mother of God."'
And 'Nazianzen makes mention of ontjujlina, a virgin, in the times ofCypriatt,
who was delivered from a temptation by applying to the virgin Mary". Epipba-
nius ° fpeaks of fome who made aGod of her, and of fome \n Arabia who offered
cakes
' Traa. 2. jn Job in fine. » Homil. i6. in Jofuam fol. i63. 2.
» Epift. 57.P.134. ' Orat. 18. infinet'Orat.zo. in fine. * Adv. Harej. 1. 5. c. "ig^,
» De fanftidiine Dei para prope finem. ■ Orat. 18. in laudem Cyprian.
*.Cpatra Hiref. 1. 3. hai. 78, 73.
57A- A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
cakes to her, and celebrated facred things in her name; and in the fifth century,
PetrusGnaphaus., or the fuller, bifhop oiAntiocb, ordered that the mother of God
fhould be named in every prayer ".
2. Another tenet, and which is apopifh one, the apoflleP<7KJ foretold would
be broached in future time, \% forbidding to marry, \ Tim. iv. 3. fo antichrill:, as
defcribed by the prophet D^k/i?/, is faid not to regard the defire of women, Dan. xi.
'^'j. This was a tenet of the anticnt hereticks ; this branch of the myftery of ini-
quity foon began to operate among them, and was held by them; by thcEbion-
ites, who, Si% Epipkanius fays", magnified virginity, and by the Saturnalians,
who faid, to marry and beget children was of the devil ' -, and that matrimony
was a doflrine of the devil ^ -, and by theScverians, who faid, that a woman is
the work offatan'; and by the Marcionites, who condemned marriage as an
evil and unchaftc bufinefs ' -, and from thefe fprung the Encretites, at the head
of whom was Tatian, who, as thofe before, called marriages, corruptions and
fornications ' : and if the canons afcribed to the apoftles arc theirs, perfons hold-
ing fuch a tenet were in their days, fince the 51" canon runs thus ; " If any bi-
" fhop, prefbyter, or deacon, or whole of the facerdotal lift, abftain from mar-
" riage, flefh and wine, not for exercife, but through abomination of them,
" forgetting that all things are very good, and that God made man male and fe-
*' male; but blafpheming, accufes the workmanfhip of God, either let him be
" correded (amended or fct right -,) or be depofed, and caft out of the church ;
" and fo if a layman." The notion of celibacy, and in disfavour of marriage,
began to obtain early among thofe who were counted orthodox. Dionyftus, bi-
fhop of Athens, fuppofed to be the fame as in A£?s xvii. 34. is faid to write an
epiftle to the GnofTians, ftill extant ", in which he admonifhes Pjnylus, their
bifhop, not to impofe as necefTary the yoke of chaflity or continence upon the
brethren-, but to confider the infirmity which is in moft men -, which fuppofcs
that luch a yoke was attempted to be laid. Athenagoras, in the fecond century,
iecms to /peak too highly of celibacy; "you will find many of us, fays he",
*' of both fexe^, who are become old and arc unmarried, in hope of having more
*' communion with God." And a little after, he fpeaks feverely againft fecond
marriages, condemning them as adultery, and as a tranfgreflion of the law of
God. In the third century, not only fecond marriages were fpoken againfl by
Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, but marriage itfclf was flight ly fpoken of, and
continence,
» Theodori Laflor. Hid. Etcl. 1. 2. p. 566. • Contr. Hatrcs hxr. 30.
• •* Ibid. 1. I. hxr. 23. Jrer.iu! adv. ha;r. I. i.e. it. "i Theodoret. Hxrct. Fab. fab. 4.
*■ Epiphan. hxr. 45. vid. Origen. in Rom. 1. 10. fol. 216. i.
• 1 ertullian adv. Marcion. 1. 1. c. 29, 30 & de piifcript. hiret. c. 33.
t Irenacus 1. 1. c.31. Clement. Stromat. 1. 3. p. 460, 465. Eufeb. Eccl. hitt. 1. 4. c.29. Epiphan.
contr. hxref. I i . hxr. 46. • Apud Eufcb. Ecd. hid. 1. 4. C. 23.
"» Le^at. pro cbriftiao. p. 37.
RISE AND PROGRESS OF POPERY.
575
eontinence, celibacy and virginity, were highly extolled. TertuUian fays%
*' he preferred continence and virginity to marriage, though not forbid, but
" gave the preference to a fuller holinefs." Origen calls virginity the work of
pcrfe(5tion ^; zndCyprian commends chaftity (or the fingle life) as a ftate of an-
gelic quality % and " virginity, he fays ", equals itfelf to angels •, yea, if ye
" diligently examine it, it exceeds, while it ftrivts with the flefh, it carries off
" a vidlory againft nature, which angels have not:" and again'', "though
" marriage is good and infticuted by God, yet continence is better, and virgi-
" nity more excellent, which neither necedity nor command compel to, but
" the choice of perfedion perfuades to it." I have obferved already how the
monaftic life, celibacy and virginity, were in great vogue in the fourth century,;
in the former part of which, the council of Nice was held, in which it was moved
by fomc bithops, that thofe who were married before they were in holy orders,
fliould not cohabit with their wives ; upon which Papbnutius^ a confeflbr, rofe
up and vehemently oppofed it, as putting an heavy burden upon them; alledg-
ing, that all had not fuch ftridl continence, that marriage was honourable, and
that to make fuch a rule might be an occafion of fcandal to them and to their
wives ; and that it was fufRcient to obferve the antient tradition of the churcli,
that thofe who came into holy orders unmarried, fliould not marry afterwards •,
but that thofe who were married before, fhould not be feparatcd from their wives;
to which the fynod affentcd'^ : but then it fliould be obferved, that it had been
an antient tradition that men in holy orders fliould not marry, if not married
before they came into them. Jitanq/ius, in the fame century, fays'* many
things in praife of virginity and continence, "O virginity, never failing opu-
" Icnce : O virginity, a never fading crown. O virginity, the temple of God
•' and the dwelling-place of the holy Spirit. O virginity, a precious pearl, to
" many Inconfpicuous, and found by a few only. O continence, hated by many,
♦* but known and rcfpefted by thy worthy ones: O continence, which makes
»' death and hell to flee, and which is poflefled by immortality ; O continence,
«' the joy of the prophets, and the boaft of the apoflles : O continence, the
" life of angels, and the crown of faints -, bleflcd is he that retaineth thee." Je- .
rem has many things in his writings, too numerous to tranfcribe, in favour of.
virginity and celibacy, and to the difcouragement of marriage. And Jujlin'y .
though he in fome places fpeaks well of marriage, yet he was of the mind, that,
virgins devoted to holinefs have more merit with God than believers who arc
married ; oppofing Jovinian, who denied It. It is eafy to obferve, how much..
thefe..
« Adv. Marcion. 1. 5.C. ij. r Ib Romanl. 10. « De finguUr cleric, p. 532.
» Debonopudicitiac, p. 419. *" De nativiute Chrifl. p. 448.
• Socrat. Ecd. Hid. 1. 1. c. 1 1. Sozomen. ibid. 1. i. c. 2.3. * D« virginiiau in fine.
• D« peccat. merii. 1. 3.. c. 7.
576 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
thefe notions got ground, and monkery obtained, and was eftablifhed in the fifth
and fixth centuries before the man of fin was at his heighth.
3. Another popifh tenet, foretold by the apoftlePjw/ as a part of the apoftafy
which would hereafter come on, is abjlaining from meats, i Tim. iv. 3. and ob-
ferving fafts, fuch as the ^adrage/ihia or Lent, &c. and which quickly took place:
the abovementioned antient hereticks, the Saturnalians, Ebionites, Gnoftics,
Marcionites, andEncratites, who wereagainft marriage, were alfo for abftinence
from meats; as appears from Iren^us, Clemem Akxandrinus, Tertnllian, Origen,
Eufebius, Epiphanius, and Tbeodoret, in the places before referred to. The
Gnofticks obferved the fourth and fifth days of the week as fafl; days -, and who
knew, ^% Clemens oi Alexandria fays', the enigmatical meaning of them, the
one being called the day oi Mercury; and the other the day oi Venus \ and the
.Montanifts are faid to be the firft-that inftitutcd laws concerning fafling, and
who laid the foundation for many anrichriftian pradtices. §xadr/igefuna, or Lent,
■ and fading on Wednefdays andFridays, very early obtained in the church. The
former was differently obferved by the antients. Iren^us, in the fecond century,
fays*, there was a difpute about Eafter day, and of the manner of the fall itfelf,
■that is, which was before it; fome thought they mud fad one day, others two,
others more, fome forty hours, reckoning a night and day for a day, and this
difi^crence was not in this prcfent age, but long before. Socrates relates '', that
tthe fad before Eader was differently kept-, they at Rome faded three weeks be-
.fore it, excepting the fabbath, (faturday) and theLord's day; and they \nlllyria
^nd in all Greece and in Alexandria, faded fix weeks before it ; and that they
■ called Quadragefima. Others began the fad feven weeks before Eader, and
;faded three weeks only, and but five days in a week, neverthclels tiiey called
thisQiiadragefima; but, fays the hidorian, to me it feems wonderful that they
.fliould difagree about the number of days, and yet call it by the fame name : and
to the fame purpofe Soxomen^ fays, "that Quadragefima, in which the people
■*' fad, fome count it fix weeks, as the Illyrians and the wedern nations, all Ly-
" bia znd Egypt, with Palejline; fome feven, as ziCcnJlantinopk, and in all the
" provinces round about \inx.oPbsnicia\ fome, out of thefe fix or feven weeks,
*♦ fad three weeks by intervals ; others only three weeks together before the
" fead ; fome only two, as the Montanids." And Socrates the iiidorian relates '',
that " the antients were not only found to differ about the number of days on
" which they faded, but about the food alfo they abdained from ; fome abdained
*' from animals entirely, others of animals only eat fidi, fome with filhes cat
" fowl alfo, becaufe they are of the water, according to Mofcs ; fome abdained
" from
' Sttomat. 1 7. p. 744. t Apud Eufcb. Eecl. Hiii. 1. 5. c. 24-
* Eccl Hill. 1. 5. c. 22. ' Eccl. hid. 1. 7. c. 19. . "^ Eccl. h"ft. 1. 5. C. jz.
RISE AND PROGRESS oV POPERY. 577
«< from fruits of trees, and from eggs; fomc eat- bread only, and others not
*' that." And Epipbanius obferves ', that the cuiloms of the church were va-
rious, " fome abftained from all flefh, beafts, fowls and filhes, and from eggs
" and cheefe; fome from beafts only, but eat fowls and the reft; fome abftained
" from fowls and ufcd eggs and fifties; others did not eat eggs; and others fifties
" only ; fome abftained from fiflies", but eat cheefe; others did not make ufe of
*' cheefe; others, moreover, abftained from bread; and others abftained from the
" hard fruits of trees, and from nuts, and from things boiled." Wednefdays and
Fridays were kept as faft-days inTertullian's time, by the catholics, whom he calls
Pfychici", he being himfelf then a Montanift. ■ And Origen" fpcaks of thofc
days, and of Lent, as folemn fafts in his time. The canons, common!/ called
the canons of the apojiles, were, according to b\ihop BeveriJge °, collefled before
the end of the third century, and in them is one which runs thus, can. 60. " If
*' any biftiop, or prcfbyter, or deacon, or reader, or finger, does not faft on
" the holy Qiiadragefima of Eafter, nor on the fourth day (of the week), nor on
" the preparation (to the fabbath, Saturday, which preparation was on Friday),
" except he is hindered through bodily weaknefs, let him be depofed ; if a lay-
" man, let him be feparatcd." In the fourth century, Jsrcvi fpeaks of keeping
Lent as an apoftolical tradition ; ''We faft oneQiiadragefima, according to the
" tradition of the apoftles, in the whole year, at the time agreeable to us,; they
" (theMontanifts) make three Quadragefimas in a year, as if threeSaviours fuf-
" fered ^" And in another place % he fays, "TheLord himfelf, the true Jonah,
". being fent to preach the gofpel, fafted forty days, and leaving us an inheritance
" of fafting, prepared our fouls for the eating of his body under this number."
And elfewhere ' he obferves, " fliould any fay, if it is not lawful to obferve days
" and months and times and years, we muft be guilty of a like crime in obferv-
" ing the fourth day of the week, the preparation, and the Lord's day, and the
" faft of Quadragefima, and the feaft of Eafter, and the joy of Pentecoft : "
To which he makes anfwer, Aujlin likewifc not only mentions the faft of
forty days, but thus reafons for it ' : " The Quadragefima of fafts has indeed au-
" thority both in the antient books (the old tcftament,) from the faftings oi Mofes
" and£/;^j; and out of the gofpel, becaufe the Lord fafted fo many days; ftiew-
«« ing that the gofpel does not diftcnt from the law and the prophets." And a
little after, " In what part of the year could the obfervation of the Quadrage-
" fima be fixed more fitly, than near and contiguous to the paftion of the Lord ?"
Ambrofe, in the fame century, has thcfe words, " It is good at all times to faft^
Vol. II. 4 E " but
• Compend de fide prope finem. "" De jejun. c.2.14. " Homil. 1.0. in Levii. foI.8x.4.
• In ibid. 1. i.e. 2. f. 7. p Epifl. ad Marcellam.'adv. Montanirt. torn. 2. fol. 44. B.
« Comment, in Jonam. fol. 57. M. torn, 6. " Comment, in Gala: 4. fol 79. A. ioin.9,
. • Ep. 86.& Ep. iig. c. 15.
578 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
*' but it is better to faft withChrift inQuadragefima (or Lent); for this Qiiadra-
*' gefima the Lord -has confecrated to us by his own fading." And in another
place, " TheLord has fo ordained, that as in his pafllon, and the faft of Quadra-
•' ■gefima, we fhould forrow; fo in his refurredlion, and in the feaft ofQuinqua-
" gefima, (or Pentecoft,) we fliould rejoice '."
4. Popifh fcflivals were obferved very early, long before the Pope of i?^?;^,?
•rrived to the height of his ambition. The feaft ofEafter was' kept in the fecond
century, as the controverfy between Anicetus and Polycarp, and between ViHor
and the Afiatic churches, ihews ; yea in the fifth century, if PclycraUs" is to
be credited, who fays, that " Philip the apoftle who died zxHierapolis^ ^.ndjchn
•' zt Epbefus, Polycarp biftiop of Smyrna, Thrafeas of Eumenia, Sagaris, who
*' died at Laodicea, Papyrius and Melito, all kept Eafter on the iV*" dayvof the
•« month ; and the bifhops of Rome, hcfoTeFiHor, as well as he, kept it on the
" Lord's day following ; fo Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, TeUfpkortis, Xyjlus and
" Soter." And fo did Jrenaus in France ; and thus it contmued to be obferved
by the order of Ctw/?aK//«i? *. The vigils of the pafsovcr, or Eafter-eve, were
very early obferved -, Eufebius " makes mention thereof as in the times of Narcijfus,
patriarch of Jerufa'em, in the fecond century; zndTertullian"' fpeaks of the
whole night- preceding Eafter-day, as very folemn ; and Aujlin, in the fourth
century, mentions Eafter-eve '' as folemn likewife. Pentecoft was obferved as
early as Eafter, and is fpoken of along with it by Terlullian ', hyOrigen '', and by
Jerom ' ; and Amlrofe fays S " Let us rejoice on this holy day as at Eafter ; on
" both days there is the fame and the like folemnity ; at Eafter all the Gentiles
»' ufed to be baptized, and at Pemecoll the apoftlcs were baptized," that is,
with the holy Ghoft.
Chriftmas-day, orChrift's birth-day, was celebrated in the fecond century, on
the 8''' of the calends of January-, as appears from the pafchal epiftle of Tbeo-
philus'. In the times of Dioclefian, and before the council at Nice, AnthimaSy
biftiop of Nicomedia, with fome thoufands, were burnt, by fire being fct to the
place where they were aflrmblcd to keep the feaft of Chrift's birth day '. Baf.l,
in the fourth century, has a fcrmon upon it, in which he calls ic Tbecphania, the
appearance ofGod, and fays, " Let us celebrate the folemnities of a fa'ved worlds
" the birth day of mankind." Ambrofe has feveral fcrmons upon it ; and in one
of them, ferm. lO. fays, "the vulgar ufed to call the Lord's birth-day the new
♦' fun : and foCbryfoJiom in the fifth century.
The
« Serm. 31. & ferm. 60 torn. 5. " Apud Eufeb. Ecd. Hift. 1. 5. c. 4.
" Socrar. Ecd. Hift 1. 5. c. 22. « Ecd. Hift. 1. 6. c. g. lee c 34.
T Ad uxor. 1. 2. Cf 4. * Ep. tg. c. 2. * Coron. mil. c. 3.
* Contr. Celf. 1. 8. p. 392. * Commeirt. in Gal. 4. fol. 79. A.
* Serm. 60. p. 82. torn. 5. ' Vid. Magdeburg. CeoturiaC. cent. 2. p. 89, gOw
f Nicephor. 1. 7. c. 6. apud Seldcn of iKe birth-day of our Saviour, C 4. p. 33.
RISE AND PROGRESS OF POPERY. 579
The feaft of the Annunciation of the virgin Af^ry was obferved by the anticnts.
Gregory of Neoc<efareay called ThaumaturgHS, in the third century, has three fcr-
mons on the annunciation, and calls it a feftival. It is mentioned by ^Atbantrfius
in the fourth century, concerning which he fays, "This is one of the feafts of
" the Lord, and is quite venerable; fo that according to the order of things
" which are preached in the gofpel of Chrift, it ought to be accounted an holy
" day, fince in it we treat concerning the defcent of the Son of God from heaven."
Fealls kept in memory of the martyrs, we read of (till more early. Origers, in
the latter end of the fee ond century, fays \ " We do memory to the faints, our
** parents and friends, who die in the faith j_ we celebrate the religious with
" the priefts, calling together the faithful with the clergy, inviting the needy
♦' and the poor, the fatherlefs and the widow, filling them with food, that our
" feftivais may be done to the memory of reft to the deceafed, whofe memory
" we celebrate." SoTertullian, in the beginning of the third century, affirms',
" We make oblations for the dead, and for their anniverfary birth-days." And
Cyprian, in the middle of it, fays of fome dead S " The days on which they de-
*' part are regiftered by us, that we may celebrate their memories among the
" memories of the martyrs." And even in a fynod ' in his time, notice is taken
" of facrifices and offerings made for perfons after death." In the fourth cen-
tury it was ufual in all churches to obferve them. Eufebius'^ relates, that by the
order of Covjianline, governors of provinces, and thofe under them, not only ob-
ferved the Lord's day, but honoured the feaft-days of the martyrs; alfo the ec-
clcfiaftical feftivities. Sozcmen reports", that the Alexandrians kept with great
pomp a feaft on the day that Peter their bifliop was martyred ; and Theo'doret %
that the church ziAntiocb kept an annual feaft to the honour of the martyrs Ju-
ventinus and Maximinus. Amhrofe has a fermon for the faints throughout the
year, and makes mention ofthefeafts of the apoftles Teter and Paul'; and in
one place he fays % "We forget the birth-days of the dead, but the day on which
" they die we renew with great folemnity ;" and again, " Whofe life we know
" not, their deaths we celebrate." Andy^J^'owobfcrves ', that according to the
variety of countries, different times are appointed in honour of the martyrs.
In the fourth century the relicks of the martyrs came much in vogue, ^zo-
men' makes mention of the relicks of many faints and martyrs being found,
and removed, and laid up with great honour and veneration. And {o dmhrofe^^
of the bodies of St Gervaftus and Protefius, in a letter to his fifter Marcetlina, in
4 E 2 which
t Defanaiflima Dei para, p. 810. ^ Trad. 3. in Job fol 39. i. ' De Coron. mii. c. 3.
» Ep. 37. p. 32. ' ' Concil. Carthag. cit. in Epift. 66. ■» De vita Conftantin 1. 4. c. 23.
n Eccl. Hill. 1. 2.C. 17. » Eccl. Hid. 1. j.c. 15. p Serm. i. p. 129. torn. 5.
' Dc fide Refurrefl. p. 322, 327. ' Comment, in Gal. 4. fol 79. A.
• Eccl. Hill. 1. 2. 13. & 3. 14. Sc 59. & 7. 30. • Epift. I. 7. ep 54.
58o A DISSERTATION CONCERNING THE
■which he gives an account of the finding and tranflation of ihcm, and miracles
done; and concludes, " Let us lay up the holy relicks, and carry them into
" temples worthy of them, and celebrate the whole day with true devotion." In
the fixth century, part of the wood of the crofs on which Chrift was crucified
was found, and the relicks of the martyr Sergius, asEvagrius relates '. And in
the fourth and following centuries, temples were dedicated to the faints, and
images placed in them, with wax" candles and lamps burning.
5. The popifh notions of a Limbus patrum, of purgatory, and praying for the
dead, were embraced long before the pope of Rome was declared an univerfal
bifhop. Clemens q{ AUxandria., in the fecond century, had a notion, that before
Chrift came none were faved, but thofe that lived pioufly were in hell ; and
Chrift, when he came, went thither, and preached to them, and fo did his apof-
tles ; and thereby they were converted and faved"; and of the place of the faints
after deaih, 'Tertullian feems to have fuch a notion, that they were not in heavenly
blifs; "the bofom oijbrabam, he fays", is not celeftial, yet higher than hcl!;
*' and in the mean wliile affords refreftiment to the fouls of the righteous, until
" the confummation of all things at the refurredion." And a little after he fays,
" The bofom oi Abraham is fome temporal receptacle of believing fouls." Pur-
gatory was the opinion of Origen in the third century ; he was the firll, z%l'heo-
fbilusGakiz.'js % that introduced purgatory from the Platonic fchool z.i Alexandria
into the church of God, and gave a great advance to the whole fyftem of papifni
or antichriftianifm. " I think, fays he % the faints, when they depart out of
*' this life, remain in fome place the divine fcripture calls paradife ; and as in
" fome place of learning, zn auditorium, if I may fo fay, or a fchool of fouls, in
" which they may be taught of all thofe things they have feen on earth." And in
fome places he gives plain hints of purgatory; " it is certain, fajs he', there
" remains a fire, which is prepared for finncrs, and we fhall come to that fire,
" in which the fire will prove every one's work, what it is ; and as I think we
" muft all come to the fire, even if any one is a. Paul or z Peter, yet he mull come
" to the fire; but fuch fhall hear, though thcu faffeth through the fire, the fiame
*' Jhall not burn thee; but if any one, like me, is a finncr, he fhall come indeed
" to the fire, as Peter and Paul, but he fhall not fo pafs through as Peter and
" Paul." In another pluce he fays', " Whofe fin is fuch that it is neither for-
" given in the prefent world, nor in that to come ; he pafTcs on in his unclean-
" nefs one and another week, and at the beginning of the third week he is ptirg-
" cd from his uncleannefs." And in another work of his ", he has thefe words,
" To
' Eccl. Hid. 1.4. c. 26, 28. " SfTomat. 1.6. p. 637, 638. * Adv. Marcion, I.4. C.3+.
» Court of the Gentilei, part 3. B. 2. ch. i. p. 134, 135, »2i. De principiis, I. z.
ptopefinem. » Hnmil. 3. in Pf. 36. fol. 45. C. * Homil. 8. in Levit. fol. 75.. C»
^ CooCi'. Celfani, 1. 5. p. 241.
RISE AND PROGRESS OF POPERY. 581
•' To every one of thefe who have need of punifliment by this fire, and together
" alfo of healing, it burns, but does not burn them out, who have no matter
" to be confumed by fire •, but it burns and burns them out, who build on a
" building of adtions, words and thoughts, figuratively called weed, bay, and
" Jlubble." And he has various hints of this kind in other parts of his writings.
LaStantius, in the fourth century, fays'", " When God (hall judge the righteous,
•' he fhall alfo try them by fire: them whofe fins, either in weight or in number,
" have prevailed, they fhall be touched by the fire, and fhall be burnt -, but
" thofe whofe righteoufnefs and virtue are in full maturity, they fhall not per-
" ceive the fire." And a little after, "Let no one think, that fouls are imme-
•' diately judged; after death they are all detained in one co.mmon prifon, until
*' the time comes, that the great judge fiiall make trial of the merits of men."
Jerom exprelTcs his faith in this point, thus ' ; " As we believe the eternal tor-
" ments of the devil, and of all deniers and ungodly perfons ; fo we believe a
" moderate fentence of the judge, mixed with clemency, on finners and un-
" gouly perfons, and yet chriftians, whofe works are to be proved and purged
" by fire." Epiphanius, in the fame century, delivers the faith of chriftians in
this manner ^ " We believe that Chrift came to give pardon to thofe who of
" old knew him, and did not ftray from his deity, though for errors were de-
" taincd in hell •, to them who were then in the world, by repentance -, to them
" that were in hell, by mercy and falvation." And he was of opinion, that
prayers made for the dead profited them, though they did not cut off all fault '.
And of the fame opinion was /Jiijliu', who fays, •' It is not to be denied, that
" the fouls of the dead are relieved by the piety of the living -, fince for them
" the facrifice of the mediator is offered, or al.ms are made in the church ; but
" thefe are profitable to them, who when they lived merited, that they might
" be profitable to them afterwards." More of this may be read in another tra(5l ^
of his. Elfcwhere he fays'", " In the old faints the holy Spirit was not fo, as
" he is now in believers -, becaufe when they went out of the world, they were
" in hell, and it is incongruous that he who goes from hence, having thcSpirit
" of God, fhould be held in hell." And he fcems in one place ', to grant a pur-
gatory ; " That fome fuch thing is done after this life, is not incredible -, and
" whether it is fo, may be enquired ■, that fome believers are either found or hid
" by a certain purgatory-fire, how much the more or Icfs they have loved perifli-
" ing goods, fo much the (lower or fooner they are faved." Gregory NyJ[ene.h\^
of children dying in infancy '', " What (hall we think of fuch, wiio fo die ? fhall
" 'he
* De divino prscmio, I. 7. c. 21. ' Commeni in Efaiam, 1. 18 in fine.
^ Contr. Haeref 1. I. hacr. 46. ' Ibid. l.j. hir. 7 j. * F.nchirid. ad I aurent. c 1 10.
% De cura pro mortuiis. i" Qu.-E'.!iones vet. & nov. Tell. qu. 123. ' Encoirid. c. 60.
'' De lis qui premature abrup. p 754. vol. 2.
5*82 A DISSERTATION -CONCERNING THE
•" the foul ke, thejudge ? fhall it be prefcnted with others before the ttibunal ?
•*• fliall k undergo the judgment of thofe who have lived ? fhall it receive a re-
*' ward according to merit ? or be purged wich fire according to the words of
-*' .the gofpel ? or be refreflied with'the dew of blefTing ?" Boetius, in the fixth
century, is e^prefs for purgatory, his words are, "Are there no punirtiments
" after you leave the body dead ? The anfwer is, yea and gceat ones truly, fome
" are exercifed, I think, with a feyere punifliment, and others with a mild pur-
■*' gatory ''." Gregory I. defended the opinion of purgatory in the fame century.
6. The popifh notion of tranfubftantiation had its rife from the old hereticks,
and was cherilhed and ftrengthened by the unguarded exprellions and erroneous
fentiments-of the ancient fathers, even before the man of fin arrived to his man-
hood. Mark, the heretick, in the fecond century, would have it thought that
}ie changed the wine into blood by invocation upon it ', jufl: as a popifii prjeft
would be thought by pronouncing fome words to change the bread into the body,
and the wine into the blood ofChrift. Irentsus'", in the fame century, has an ex-
prefllon which has too favourable an afpeft on this very abfurd notion-, " when
■'• tl.-c cup mixt, and the bread broken, perceive the word of God, they become the
" cucharift of the blood and body ofChrift." In the third century, the phrafcs
of offering the facrifice of Chrill, and of fanftifying the cup by the prieft, were
ufcd -, as by TerluHian", who calls the adminiltration of the rui)pcr, offering the
facrifice; and by Cyprian", who fpeaks of the Lord's facrifice being celebrated
by a lawful fanftification, and of the prieft's fanftifying the cup ; and fays, that
»' the prieft officiates in the room ofChrift, and imitates that which Chrift did,
" and then offers up a true and full facrifice in the church to God the Father."
Jn the fourth century fcveral unguarded expreffions were ufcd, as by Alhanafius %
that there was nothing of the flcfh and blood ofChrift to be found in the world,
but what was daily fpiritually made by the hands of priefts upon the altar; and
hy Naziat7zen''y who fpeaks of fome defiling the altars with blood, which have
their name from the nioft pure and unbloody facrifice : znd y^mtrofe fpeaks often of
celebrating mafs and offering the facrifice ; and he compofed fome prayers pre-
paratory to it, and he produces examples to prove, that " not that in which
" nature has formed, but which the bleffing hath confccrated, and the grc-:jt-
" er is the force of bleffing than of nature, becaufe nature itfclf is changed by
" the bleffing." And after many inftances of the miracles in£^';5/, heobfcrves',
that, "if human bleffing could do fo much, what ftiall we fay of the divine con-
" fccration itlclf, where the words of the Lord the Saviour operate.'" And a
little
^ De Confoht. Pbilofoph.l. 4. p. lot. ' Irenxas adv. Hires. I. i.e. 9. Epiphan. contr.
hse'cf. I. 1. V.XT. 34. •" Adv. Ilxref. 1. 5. c. 2. » Dc cultu fccmin. I. 2. c. 11.
• Epift. 63. 14R, 149. P Pe ipia^ine Cluifti, c. 7. < Or&t. 4. p. 1 26.
' De ioiiiandis, c. 9.
RISE A N D P R'O G R E S"S OF POPERY. ^^3
little after, he has thefe words ^ this is my body ; before the blefTing of the hea-
»' venly words the fpccies is named, after the confccration, the body of Chrift
" is figniSed, he calls it his cnvn blood. Before the confccration another thing
" is faid, after the confccration it is ciWed bleed. " Cyril of Jerufalem hys',
" The bread and the wine of the cucharift, before the holy invocation of the
" Trinity, are mere bread and wine-, but when the invocation is made, the bread
" becomes the body of Chrift, and the wine the blood of Chrift." Gregory Nyjfen
fays-', "The bread is made tht body of Chrift by facrifrcation-, the bread a liale
.«' before was common bread, but when the myftery has made it holy, '\t\%.made
«' and called the body of Chrift; fo the myftical oil ; fo the wine, .though of-
*' fmall worth before the blefTing, after the fanftification of the Spirit, bot-h- of
" them work differently." And clfewhcrc ', he fays, "I rightly believe that
*' the bread lanftified by the word of God, f»<T<rToit.c&a., is tranjmutcd into the
•' body of God the Word -, for bread was that body, potentially it was faniflified
" by the indw:^lling of the Word, which tabernacled intheflcfhi thence therefore
" the bread tranfmuted in that body, paiTcs into a divine power, by the fame
" now alfo became equal The bread is immediately tranfmuted by the Word
■" into the h>ody, as it is faid by the Word, This is my body." Ckryfoftom., in the
fifth century, fcems to ftrengthen the dodrine of tranfubftantiation, when he
lays ", " Do you fee the bread ? do you fee the wine ? do they go as the reft of
" the food into the privy ? God forbid, that thou ftiouldft fo think ; for as if
♦' wax put to the fire is affimilated to it, nothing of the fubftance remains-,
" fo likcwifc here think that the myftcrics areconfumcd in the fubftance of the
" body." In the fixth century, Grf^or^l.^ fays, it appears that they called theLord's-
fiipper a, viaticum ; and even in the fourth century, it ufed to be given to dying
perfons as fuch. Honoraius, prieft of P'erceit, gave it 10 St .-itnbro/e, who as
icon as he received it died, carrying with him the good viaticum, as Paulinus
in his life relates. And Ambrofe himfclf fays ", that in his time, travellers and
failors ul'ed to carry it with them. Yea, even in the third century, it ufed to be
fent to thofe who were hindered by ficknefs from partaking of it -, there is even
an inftancc of its being fent by a boy, and put into the mouth of a dying man,
upon which he expired \
. The firft inftancc of corruption in baptifm, as to the form of it, and alfo as
to the mode of it, was made by Mark, the heretick, and his followers •,. who
made a mixture of oil and water, and poured it on the head '!. And the next in-
ftancc is in Novalus, who received baptifm on a fick bed by pci\furion (as the
Clinici alfo did}, if he might be faid to receive it, as Corneliw, the then biftiop of
Rome
» Cateches. myftagog. i. f. 4. 'In baptifm- Ch:ifti, »oI. 2 p 802.
t Catechct orat. c 37 p. 53S. vol. 2. ■ De Euchirillia. " Oe obitu fatyr. fiatfil..
» Eufeb. Ecd. Hift. 1. 6. c. 44. 1 Irena:u5 adv. Hsref. 1. 1, c. iS.
^4 ADISSERTATION CONCERNING, &c.
V Rome obferves ^- ; and when he recovered, and got to be made a prefbyter, all
-the clergy and many of the people, judged it was not lawful, .that fuch an one,
who was baptized in that manner, ftiould be admitted among the clergy -, nor
could fuch an one be a prefbyter, according to the lo"" canon of the council
oi Neoc^farea. An innovation with refpedt to the fubjefts began to be made
in the third century, in the African churches, and prevailed much in thefourth,
through the zeal of Aujlin in favour of original Cn, and for the falvation of in-
fants, which he thought could not be faved without it. This ufe of chrifm,
cxorcifm, figning with the fign of the crofs, and other corruprions early intro-
duced, have been obferved in fome former treatifes of mine '. Thus we fee
that the principal things of which the popifli hierarchy confifts, and the chief
principles and praftices which are now reckoned popifh ones, were held and
maintained before the popes of Rome arrived to the full power they had long
±)een aiming at ; and which together make up what we call Popery.
THE COROLLARY
.FROM all this is. That fince it can be no objeflion to the doflrine of
invocation of angels and faints departed, being called a popifh doflrine; nor
to the prohibition of marriage, and abftaining from meats, and keeping divers
fafts and feftivals, being called parts of popery ; nor to the doflrines of purga-
tory andtranfubftantiation being popifh ones, though they werefeverally broached
and embraced ages before the pope oi Rome was declared univerfal Bifhop; it .
can be no objeflion to Infant-baptism being called a part and branch of pope-
ry, though it was introduced into the churches in the /i;/>i and /(7Kr/i> centu-
ries, and fo before the Roman antichrifl arrived to his higheft pitch of grandeur;
it being a tenet held by thePapifls, as founded upon the tradition of the church ;
and being no more agreeable to the word of God, than the other above tenets
held by them are. Truth indeed is mofl ancient ; but error follows clofcly at
its heels, and is nearly as antient ; fo that high pretenfions to antiquity in mat-
ters of faith and worfhip, are no otherwife to be regarded, but as they have the
concurrent evidence and tettimony of the facred fcriptures; they only can be
trufled to with fafety.
* A pud Eufeb. ut fupra, c. 43.
• The ai-gument from apollolical tradition, &:c. and Infant-bap:ifm- a part and pillar of Popery.
DYING
DYING THOUGHTS
CONSISTING OF
A Few Unfinished HINTS,
Written by D r GILL,
A little before his Decease.
nPHE ufe ourLord makes of the doflrin^ of death, is, Matt. xxiv. 44. There-
fore l>e ye alfo ready, for in fuch hour as ye think not, the Son of man comet h :
Either to judgment, or by death : and happy they, who,- with the wife virgins,
are ready to go in to the marriage-chamber, and partake of the marriage-fupper.
Matt. XXV. ID. and it is one great bufinefs of the gofpcl miniflry, under the in-
fluence of the Spirit and grace of God, to make ready a people prepared for the
Lord, Luke i. 17. that is, the eleft of God, whom he has referved for himfelf^
But the great queftion is, wherein lies this readinefs and preparation for death
and eternity ? and this may be confidered.
First, Negatively, what it is not. Many and fatal are the miftakes of perfons
about it; fome placing it in one thing, and fome in another.
(i.) Some think \t \s z well-fpent life -, and that if a man can look back on fuch
a life, he is ready for death, come when it may. But let us confider what this
well-fpent life is. The life of the apoftle Paul was undoubtedly a life as well-
fpent, as, perhaps, any that can be mentioned among men. Before conver-
fion, his life was irreproachable-, as to external morality, he lived in all good
confcicnce before men ; after converfion, his life was devoted to the fcrvicc of
Chrift and his gofpcl ; his gladnefs and ambition were, to fpend and be fpent,
wherever he came, for the good of immortal fouls-, he travelled much, endur-
ed great hardlhips, and laboured more than tlie refl of the apoftlcs -, which he
imputes not to his own goodnefs, induftry and power, but to the grace of God.
And when the time of his departure was at hand, as it was when he wrote his
Vol. II. 4 F cpiftle
586 DYING THOUGHTS: CONSISTING OF"
cpiftle to the Philippians, being then a prifomr ar Roftte; whar did fre feck af--
ter, orjudge to be his readinefs for another world ? not his well-fpent life : no ;
he defired tp he found in Christ, not having bis own rigbteoufnefs •,. in which
muft be included his well-fpent life, and which indeed was the main of it ;
but the rigbteoufnefs which is of God by faith, even the righteoufnefs of Chrift.
Tic forgot the things which were behind; his labours, fer vices andfufFerings for
Chrift, all his attainments and ufefulnefs ; and -prefjed forward, not in a view
of his well-fpent life, but having his eye on the mark, Ghrill and his righteouf-
nefs, for the prize of the high calling of God m him, Pbil. iii. 9 — 13, 14. The
life of a common believer is a well-fpent life, in comparifon of others ; he
lives by faith on Cluift, and gives him the glory of his falvation •, and, from a
principle of love to him, walks in all his commandments and ordinances, and
is very defirous of living a life of holinefs, and of fpiritual and heavenly-mind-
ednefs, and does fo live in fome meafure. Butwhen the believer comes to look
back on his pad life of faith and holinefs, what deficiencies and imperfc5iions in
his faith ! what unbelief in him, at fuch and. fuch a lime will he obfervc ' what
tarnifhes in his life and walk ! and how few the minutes were in which he was
fpiritual and hcavtnly-mindcd ! and how frequently and long was fuch a frame
interrupted with carnal and fcnfual lufts ! The faint, before his convcrfion, is
as other men, being born in fin, and living in it : after converfion, prone to
backdiding •, even in all things he offends, and fins in his moft folcmn and
religious fervices. He muft therefore betray great ignorance of himfclf, who
flatters himfclf, or fufFcrs himfelf to be flattered, with a refleflion on.a well- •
fpent life, as his readinefs and preparation for death and another world.
(2.) Others imagine, becaufe they ■ have ioK^ »o injury to any man's perfon
and property, nay, have done jufiice between man and man, and \\z\e paid_ every
man his own, they are ready for death come when it may. Thefc are all very
good tilings, and ought to be done •, for it is written, owe no man any thing •,
but then they are no other than what fuch a man would chufc to have done to
himfelf, and which he ought to do to others 4 ' and are no other than what ho-
nour, confcience, and the laws of God and man oblige to ; and where is the
merit oi z\\ this ? And what obligation docs this lay upon God ? As Elihu ar-
gues, Job XXXV. 7, 8. If thou be righteous, what givejl thou him? or what re-
ceiveth he of thine hand? Thy wickednefs may hurt a man, as thou art, by injur-
ing his perfon or property ; and thy righteoufnefs may profit the Son of man, by
fair trade and paying juft debts -, but what profit is^this toGod ? And, perhaps,
after all, fuch a man has never thought about the payment of his debts to God,
and how THEY muft be paid, when he owes ten thoufand talents, and has nothing
JO pay, nor to make a compoficion with. How can he think of appearing
before
A FEW UNFINISHED HINTS.
5S7
•before his great creditor, with fuch a charge and load of debts upon him ? may-
he not juflly fear, t;hat he^'ill order him to prifon, there to lie, until the utter-
moft farthing is paid ? The great concern (houki he, to know whether Chrift
is his furety, and has paid his debts for him, cancelled the bond, and blotted
out the hand-writing againft him, and fo his account with God ftands clear
and fair. This is the beft preparation for death and eternity.
(3.) Others think, that by giving alms to the peer, they get a readinefs for death.
To do good and to communicate, to do afts of beneficence from a rio-ht principle,
are facrifices with which God is well pleafcd -, but thefe may be done only to
-be feen of men, and get applaufe from men -, and fuch have their reward in this
world, but not in another. A man may give all his goods to the poor, and
yet not have charity, or true grace, and fo be unfit to die. And very preoof-
xerous and monftroufly abfurd it is, in fome perfons, who ciioofe to five little
away in their lifetime, and leave large eftates for charitable ufes after their
death, as if what was to be done after death could be a preparation for it : than
which nothing can be more ridiculous.
(4.) Someplace readinefs for death \n the mercy of God ; imploring that in
their laft moments: and yet they cannot be fure tlicy (hall have time even to
fay, " Lord have mercy on us." There is mercy with God, and it is a ground
of hope •, but then it muft be applied for by fuch who are fenfible of their fins,
contels them, forfake them, and turn to the Lord •, fuch find mercy. And be-
fides, mercy is only had through Chrift. God, out of Chrift, is a confumino'
fire ; a finner Ihould go to God through Chrift for mercy, faying, as the pub-
lican did. Cod be merciful, or propitious, tome afmncr; that is, through the pro-''
piiiatory facrifice of his Son, Luke xviii. 13.
(5.) Others flatter themfelves that they h2L\tmade their peace tvitb God,' znd
{q are prepared for death whenever it comes. And yet thefe perfons, perhaps,
never faw the flaming fword of juftice brandiflied againfl. fin, nor the heavens
opened, and wrath of God revealed from thence againft all ungodlinefsof men;
nor never heard the vollies of curfes from a righteous law, which pronoun(;es
every man curfed, that continues not in all things written in it do them ; and
were never truly acquainted with what is required to be done in order to make
peace, as fatisfying juftice by -fulfilling the law, through obeying its precepts
and bearing its penalty, with their own inability to do thefe things : they ima-
gine, that their own humiliation, repentance, and imperfect obedience, are to
make peace for them. They fliould know, that Cbrijl onlv is the peace-maker -,
and their concern Ihould be to know that he has made peace ior them by ihc
blood of his crofs, and to lay hold upon him as fuch, Ifai. xxvii. 5.
(6.) Others make their readinefs for death to lie in a little negative holinefs,
and thank God, as the Pharifce did, that they are not as other men are-, not
4 p 2 gfi'l'y
5^8 DYING THOUGHTS: CONSISTING OF
guiliy of fuch grofs and flagitious crimes as feme are •, they have not been guilty
di murder, adultery, theft, and fuch like fins as others have. But this is a very
flender preparation for death -, publicans and harlots, repenting and believing,
go into the kingdom of heaven before fuch.
(7.) Others, with greater plaufibilicy, pleafe themfclves with a /ir(7/>^o« «?/ rf-
^gion they have made and held. They havcconftantly attended on hearing the
word, have fubmitted to baptifm, fat down at the Lord's table, and obferved
every duty of religion. But all this a man may do, and not be ready. " He may
have a form of goilinefs, without the power of it. Some who have heard Chrift
preach, or his miniflcrs, have eat and drank in his prefence, will be bid to de-
part from him, as not known by him. In fliort,
(8.) Net any external righteoufnejs whatever makes a man ready for death
and eternity. For by it he is not juftified before God, and by it he is not fa-
ved. Except he has ^ better righteoufnefs, he will never enter into the king-
dom of heaven. And it fliould be our concern, with the apoftle, to he found
in Chrifl, and in his rightcoufnefs, and not in our own, which will leave us
fliort of heaven and happinefs.
Secondly, Pcfitively, what that is, which conftitutes a readinefs and prepara-
tion for death ; that which is certain, conltanr, and abiding, let a man's frames
and circumftances be what they may ; lies in the following things :
(i.) \n regeneration. Without this, a man cannot fee, nor enter into, the
kingdom of heaven. It is by the wafhing of regeneration God faves men ; and
the life with which a man is then quickened, is conneded with eternal Vife. TKe
grace then implanted is a well of living water, fpringing up into a life that never
dies. As foon as a man is born again, he is prepared tor death, be his rege-
neration fooner or later, and from that moment always continues To.
(2.) In fan^if cation, or a work of grace and holinefs, which takes place im-
mediately upon regeneration -, and without which no man fiiall fee the Lord ;
but where this is begun, it (hall be carried on, and be performed, until tlie day
of Chrift -, and fo furnilhes us with a readinefs for that day. This is that oil of
grace, which the wife virgins had in the vcfTcls of their hearts, befides lamps of
profeQion •, and fo were ready when the bridegroom came.
. (3.) The rightcoufnefs of Chrifi imputed, is a conftant readinefs for death and
eternity. The church is faid to make herfelf ready -, which was done, by putting
on the fine linen clean and white, the rightcoufnefs of Chrift, which made her
ready to meet him. Were it poffible for a man to get into heaven, the mar-
riaoe-chamber, without the nuptial robe, as it is not -, he would be turned our,
as unready and unfit, mih, friend, how camefl thou in hither, net having a wed-
ding
A FEW UNFINISHEt) HINTS.
5h
ding garment ? And he fpeechlefs^ having nothing to ailed ere as a plea for his being
there. Now fuch as are found in Chrift, and cloathed with his righceoufnefs,
will be found, at death, neither naked nor fpeecblefs, but fhall have a ready
and an abundant entrance into Chrift's kingdom and glory.
(4.) A being wajl:cd in the blood of Chrift^ and fo clear from* all o\.\\\i and
charge of it, and condemnation by it, is a fure and lading readinefs for death.
Chrift's blood is a fountain opened to wafh in •, and it has fuch virtue in it, as
to cleanfe from allfm whatever, and leaves none behind -, fo that a perfon once
•wafhed or purged by it, is clear from it, and when death comes, {hall imme-
diately inherit the kingdom of God: which none fhall, but thofe who are wafh-
ed, fanftified, and juftified.
(5.) Spiritual hwivledge ofChriJi, and true faith in him, have eternal life con-
neflcd with them infeparably •, though not always clear, and unbeclouded, and
in lively exercifc, yet the principle itfclf always abides, and is never lofl ;. and
fuch who know in whom they have believed, are faithfully kept by him, to
whom they have committed themfclves, againftthe day of death and judgment.
There is another fort of readinefs which is not always tlie fame, and lies in
ihcfranie and pofture of the foul, and which a faint is defirous of having when
death comes, both for his own comfort and the glory of God-, though he knows
that his fafc:y does not lie in it, yet he wifhes to be found in the lively exercife
of taith, and hope, and love, and patience, and refignation to the will of God :
W be awake, and nut in a flumbering frame ; but watchmg and on his guard
againft the enemy, and expedling his Lord's coming; to be frequently medi-
tating on death, and making it familiar to himfelf, and fo become free from
the fear and dread of it-, and to be in fuch a difpofuion of mind, as to be de-
firous of dea h, and willmg to depart -, and rather choofing it, and longing for
it •, faying, "uhy are his chariol-vcheelsfo long in coming ? And to be fo fearlefs of
death, as to triumph over it, and fay, Dc'^//^, where is thy fling ! Grave, where is
thy victory I Or however, he wilhes to be in a waiting pofture when death comes,
.waiting for the hope or nghtcoufnels by faith, and looking for his Lord's-com-
ing, with his loins girt and his lamp burning; and blejjed indeed are thofe fervanls
whom, when their Lord comes, he fJjall find fo doing, Lukexii. 35 — ij, 43.
II. There are feveral things which may ferve to reconcile men to death,
though it is fo difagreeable to nature ; as, i. The necefTity of death to free them
from fm and forrow, without which they will not be free. Whiift they arc in
this tabernacle they are burdened with fin, and groan under their burden; nor
will they be eafcd till the tabernacle is difTolvcd, or pulled down by death.
Whilfl they are in thii land, the Canaanites are in it, their inbred fins and cor-
ruptions,
1
'SOo DYING THOUjGHTSj C ONS IS Til-NG. O F
juption;:, and thefe arc thorns in their Jides, uuid frlch in .th;u- eyes ; and wiU
continue fucli. But, when they have got through death into the better and
-' heaver>ly country, there will be no prickingbriar, nor grieving thorn, throuoh-
. out the land. 2. Death is no other to faints, than going to their father's and
'Chrift'sfather's houfej where are many manfions provided, and where they fhall
tnjoy the kingdom it is' their father's good pleafure to give, and where thej-
Aall have his prefence for evcFmore. 3. It is in order to be withGhrift, which
is infinitely preferable to being in this world, -and wIltc they fliall be for ever
with him and behold his glor)'. 4. Which, though of ieflcr confideration than
■■the former, yet it has fomethingin it to reconcile to death, that that will intro-
duce them into the prefence and company of pious relations and friends that
are gone before, and died in Ciirifl ; fo Z)<jf/^ took fome fatisfaflion in this,
that though his child was dead, and lliould not return to him, yet he fhould
goto that, 2 Sam. xii. 23. 5. Death is the time of the Lord's in-gathering of
•his people to himfelf; then it is he comes into his garden, and gathers his lilies,
^nd this and the other flower, to put intp his bofom. Heaven is his garner, in-
to which he gathers his wheat ; and this is done at death. Now it is, that he
tn^kcsup bis jewels, his full number of them, one by one, and will lofe none.
6. The death of the faints is precious in the fight of God, Pj'al. cxv. 16. and
if it is precious to him, they Ihould not fhrink at it thenifclves.
Thirdly^ Death is very terrible to nature, and to natural men. The philofo-
pher calls it, the mofi terrible of all terribles \ And the wife man, when he fug-
gefls what is moft grievous, diftrefling, and intolerable, fays, " What is more
" bitter than death?''' Eccl. vii. 26. To Chriftlefs finners, death is the kino-
of terrors J and even fome gracious pcrfons arf, all their lifetime., through fear
of death., fubjen to bondage; but as formidable as it is,, there are fome things
which may icrve to fortify us againrt: the fears of death : as, i. That the Jiing of
death is taken a-way by Chrift; which is fin : and a very venomous fting it is;
and death, thus armed, is to be feared. But, when its fting is taken out, it
is not to be dreaded : any infccl with a fting we are naturally afraid of, but if
its fting is drawn, we have no fear of it, though it flies and buzzes about us ;
the believer may fing and fay. Death where is thy Jling ? and be fearlefs of it.
2. It is a blcfTmg and privilege to a believer, it is reckoned among his privi-
leges, iCor. iii. 22. they are bleffed that die in the Lord; and are more happy than
the faints alive, becaufe free from fin and forrow, fee Rev. xiv. 13. Eccl. iv. 2.
3. Death
* rut ^oCijuir fijJifuTaTor 0 S.niT©-. Ariflot. Ethic. 1. 3. c. g. and no wonder he fhould call it
fo, fifice he adds, according to his opinion, il is the tnJofell tbingi : and toont thai is Otad, then
ii ncUber^ood nor txH. Such a not.on of deach, as being ao excinflion, mull be terrible.
-II WJ ». '-"^rrK^i^nme^^m
A FEW UNFINISHED HINTS.
59^
3. Death is but once, and foon aver; tiie-bitternefs of it is quickly paft, and will
never be repeated •, il is appointed to men once to die, and no more. 4. The
confideration of the refurredion from the dead, may yield comfort in the view
of death ; as it did toyel>, ch. xix. 26, 27. the body, though a vile body as laid
in thcgrave, -urill h raifed, and J-a/bimed Me tv the glorious hdy of Cirijl. Ic
•will be raifed \r\ incorruption : this corruptible Jhall put on incorruptton. It will
be raifed \n glory, like Chrift ; it will be raifed in power, and be durable, and
always remain in a ftate of immortality. It will be raifed zfpiritual body, and
fo more fit for fpiritual fervices than ever, i Cor. xv. 42,.43. fo that the faints
will be jio" looferS,. but gainers, by death ; and need not fear it. 5. Be it that
death is an enemy, as it is contrary to nature •, it is the laji enemy that fhall be
deftroyed v and, when that is conquered, the viiflory will be compleat over
every enemy, fin, fatan, the world, death and the grave, i Cor. xv. 26, 55,
57. - Tbcuiks, therefore:, to God, who giixeth us the victory through our Lord
JefusCbnJl. ' "
N L S.
>7? PubliJl:eJ, ■ ■■ -T-
S C R 1 P. T URAL CHECK
to'
S O C I N I A N I S M:
O R,
The First Chapter of S. JOHN's GOSPEL,
With Dr G I L L's COMMENTARY on it.
To which is prefixed, by another Hand,
A PREFACE,
Recommended to the ferious Confideration of the
Rev. Dr PRIESTLY.
JESUS CHRIST the true GOD and Eternal Life, i John v. 2c!
Denying the only LORD GOD and our LORD JESUS CHRIST, Jude 4.
'Printed for GEORGE KEITH, in Gr acec hurch - Street.
N- B. This is intended as a Specimen of a New Edition of the Author's
COMMENTARY on the whole Bible ; containing a Double Verfion
of theSacredText, the firft by itfclf, the other with the fevcral Tranflations
and Paraphrafcs of the Original Verfions, and large Explanations Critical,
Hiftorical, Doflrinal, and Pradical -, which hath been long dcfircd, and is
now ready for Publication, with his laft Corrections and Improvements.
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries
1 1012 01218 5478
HECKMAN
BINDERY INC.
APR 95
iBoun^.To-PlaK^ N.MANCHESTER
L INDIANA 46962 '
J
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11