<^7-5
'7/^ieo/i^^/co^l^ei^ujiiaru
THEOLOGICAL SEMINAKY,
1- Princeton, N- J.
^^^aT^
MacLean, Archibald, 1723-
1812.
The works of Mr. Archibald
M' Lean
3
N
/ Q
THE
IVORKS
OF
MR. ARCHIBALD M'LEAN,
LATE
PASTOR OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH,
EDINBURGH.
WITH A
MEMOIR OF HIS LIFE, MINISTRY, AND WRITINGS,
BY WILLIAM JONES.
IN SIX. VOI.UiyEES.
VOL. III.
LONDON :
PRINTED FOR WILLIAM JONES, LOVELL's COURT,
PATERT^OSTEll ROW.
1823.
J. h addon. Printer, h'inshtny.
WORKS
OF
ARCHIBALD M'LEAN.
VOL. III.
REVIEW OF MR. WARDLAW'S LECTURES.
LETTERS TO MR. GLAS ON INFANT BAPTISM.
A DEFENCE OF BELIEVER'S BAPTISM.
ON THE ARGUMENTS USED IN DEFENCE OF INFANT BAPTISM.
BAPTISM MUST PRECEDE CHURCH FELLOW^SHIP.
STRICTURES ON MR. CARTER'S LETTERS TO MR. RICHARDS OF LYNN.
II-LUSTftATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHECIES RESPECTING
THE SEED OF ABRAHAM.
STRICTURES ON THE WRITINGS OF DR. JAMES WATT AND OTHERS.
LETTERS ON DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.
REVIEW
OF
MR. WARDIiAW'S I^ECTURES
ON THE
ABRAHAMIC COVEMANT.
AND ITS (SUPPOSED) CONNECTION WITH
A
OF
Mr. ward LAW'S LECTURES
ON THE
ABRAKAMIC COVENANT.
Though I have not the pleasure of being person-
ally acquainted with any of the teachers in the Taber-
nacle connection ; yet I am happy to understand that
they seem to be advancing in scriptural knowledge,
and that they admit it as a principle, " That all Chris-
tians are bound to observe the universal and ap-
proved practices of the primitive Apostolic churches
recorded in scripture."* So far as they teach and
practise these things, I do most sincerely wish them
success ; and if in any thing they are otherwise minded,
it is my earnest prayer that God may reveal even this
unto them. Meantime I cannot but observe with regret
how much their views of divine truth are affected by
their attachment to infant baptism, in support of
which they are obliged to adopt such arguments and
interpretations of scripture, as are not very consistent
with their sentiments in other respects, when that
point is out of view. God has, indeed, his elect among
infants, as well as among adults ; but to distinguish
and baptize them as visible members of the kingdom
* Mr. Haldane's View of Social Worship, p. 35.
B
4 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
of heaven, is neither consistent with the spirituality of
that kingdom, as distinguished from the Jewish Theo-
cracy, nor with its true visible appearance in the world,
as in the days of the apostles.
I have perused Mr. Wardlaw's three Lectures on
Rom iv. D — 25. compared with Gal. iii. and find that
his main design is to support infant baptism, and that
too from two chapters where it is never once mention-
ed more than in any other part of scripture, nor does
it appear in the least to have entered into the mind or
view of the sacred writer. But he finds circumcision
there, and the covenant made with Abraham respect-
ing his seed ; and from these, by a long train of ingeni-
ous reasoning, he deduces a warrant for baptizing the
infant seed of New Testament believers.
Reasoners on this subject have often been Teminded,
that it is of such a nature as not to admit of reasoning.
It is undeniable that Christian baptism is a positive
institution, founded entirely in the will of the Instituter,
and therefore cannot, like moral duties, be'deduced or
inferred from any other principle whatever but the Di-
vine will, as made known, either by express precept,
(which is its very institution,) or by the approved ex-
ample of the inspired apostles who were commissioned
to administer it. It is also plain, that baptism is a
positive institution pea*Zicrr to the New Testament, and
therefore cannot be deduced by analogical reasoning
from any Old Testament institution, either as to its
form, subjects, signification, or design. These thingg
we must learn from the New Testament itself, to which""
alone this ordinance belongs, and in which alone we
have any revelation about it. Therefore, in answering
Poedobaptists, we are under no necessity to depart
from the subject, and follow their reasonings back to
On the Abrahamic Covenant. !y
the xviith of Geiiesisj ^here there is not a syllable
about baptism to be found-. The Baptists, hoM'ever,
have never declined to meet them on that ground ; and
though the institution of circumcision is foreign to
that of baptism, and differs essentially from it in many
respects, yet it frequently leads to a discussion of the
Abrahamic covenant, a subject of great importance,
and well worthy of our consideration. As Mr. W.
draws his arguments for infant baptism chiefly from
that covenant, in order to judge of the propriety and
conclusiveness of his reasoning, it will be necessary
first to consider the nature of the covenant itself.
Men have given different views of that covenant.'
Some, both Baptists and Pcedobaptists, differ only in
the mode of stating their view, while they agree in
keeping clear the distinction between the Old and New
Testament state of things ; but others confound that
distinction, except in a few circumstantials, and present
us with a kind of semi-judaical system, which aorees^
neither with the old economy nor with the new. Some
are of opinion that more covenants than one were
made with Abraham, and produce express scripture
for this ; others think that these were only the different
promises of the same covenant. Some consider this
covenant as bearing two asjjects ; one towards Abra-
ham's natural seed in respect of the temporal pro-
mises ; the other towards his spiritual seed by faith,
consisting of Jews and Gentiles, in respect of the spirit-
ual promises ; yet so connected, that the former as-
pect was typical of the latter : But others state ii as
their firm conviction, *' That the promises contained
in the Abrahamic covenant, both the temporal promise
and the spiritual, were made to the same seed, on the
same footing f' and so they make it to be purely and
6 Review of Mr. Wardlaiv's Lectures
altogether the same with what is commonly called the
covenant of grace. Now this last is Mr. Ws view of
that covenant, p. 33, 43, 44. and also that of Mr. Hal-
DANE * and Philalethes, f though they differ in se-
veral particulars from each other.
Before I state my own view of the Abrahamic cove-
nant, permit me to transcribe the opinion of two Poedo-
baptist writers, who seem to have paid a great deal of
attention to that subject, viz. Dr. Owen and Mr. John
Glas. The words of Dr. Owen are, "Two privileges
did God grant unto Abraham, upon his separation to
a special interest in the old promise and covenant.
1st, That, according to the flesh, he should be the
father of the Messiah, the promised Seed, who was the
very life of the covenant, the fountain and cause of all
the blessings contained in it. That this privilege was
temporary, the thing itself doth demonstrate.
" 2dly, Together with this, he had also another pri-
vilege granted unto him, namely. That his faith,
whereby he was personally interested in the covenant,
should be the pattern of the faith of the church in all
generations ; and that none should ever come to be
a member of it, or a sharer in its blessings, but by the
same faith that he had fixed on the Seed that was in
the promise, to be brought forth from him in the
world. On the account of this privilege, he became
the father of all them that do believe : For they that
are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham,
Gal. iii. 7. Rom. iv. 11. and thus he became heir of
of the world, ver. 13. in that all that should believe
throughout the world, being thereby implanted into
* View of Social Worship, Sect. vii. p. 313—341;
* Ediu. Evang. Mag. vol. 3. p. 129—136.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 7
the covenant made with him, should become his
spiritual children."
" Answerable to this twofold end of the separation
of Abraham, there was a double seed allotted unto
him. A seed according to the flesh, separated to the
bringing forth of the Messiah, according to the flesh,
and a seed according to the promise ; that is, such as
by faith should have interest in the promise, or all the
elect of God. Multitudes afterwards were of the
carnal seed of Abraham, and of the number of the
people separated to bring forth the Messiah in the
flesh ; and yet were not of the seed according to the
promise, nor interested in the spiritual blessings of the
covenant, because they did not personally believe as
our apostle declares, Heb. iv. And many afterwards
who were not of the carnal seed of Abraham, nor
interested in the privilege of bringing forth the Messiah
in the flesh, were yet designed to be made his spirit-
ual seed by faith, that in them he might become heir
of the ivorld, and all nations of the earth be blessed
in him."
" Now it is evident, that it is the second privilege
and spiritual seed, wherein the church, to whom the
promises are made, is founded, and whereof it doth
consist ; namely, in them who by faith are interested
in the covenant of Abraham, whether they be of the
carnal seed or no. And herein lay the great mistake
of the Jews of old, wherein they are followed by their
posterity unto this day. They thought no more was
needful to interest them in the covenant of Abraham,
but that they were his seed according to the flesh ; and
they constantly pleaded the latter privilege, as the
ground and reason of the former."
*' It is true, they were the children of Abraham
8 Revieiv of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
according to the flesh ; but, on that account, they can
have no other privilege than Abraham had in the flesh
himself: and this was, as we have showed, that he
should be set apart as a special channel, through
whose loins GcM would derive the promised Seed into
the world. The former carnal privilege of Abraham
and his posterity expired on the grounds before men-
tioned, [having answered its end], the ordinances of
worship which were suited thereunto, did necessarily
cease also. And this cast the Jews into great per-
plexities, and proved the last trial that God made of
them. For whereas both these, namely, the carnal
and spiritual privileges of Abraham's covenant, had
been carried on together in a mixed way for many
generations, coming now to be separated, and a trial
to be made who of the Jews had interest in both, who
in one only ; those who had only the carnal privilege
of being children of Abraham according to the flesh,
contended for a share, on that single account, in the
other also ; that is, in all the promises annexed to the
covenant. But the foundation of their plea was taken
away, and the church unto which the promises belong,
remained with them that were heirs of Abraham's
faith only. The church unto whom all the [spiritual]
promises belong, are only those who are heirs of
Abraham's faith; believing as he did, and thereby
interested in his covenant*."
Now, if Abraham's fleshly seed had no other pri-
vilege in common by that covenant but what was car-
nal and temporary, and which has accordingly ex-
pired and reached its end in the coming of the Mes-
siah in the flesh — and if none, even of Abraham's
* Exercit«t. on Epist. to Heb. vol. 1. p 53, 56, 57.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 9
fieshly seed, were partakers of the spiritual privileges
of that covenant, but only such of them as were heirs
of his faith, and believed as he did— then, it may be
asked, upon what ground are all the fleshly seed of
New Testament believers considered as partakers of
the spiritual privileges of that covenant, and upon
that presumption, baptized in infancy witliout any
appearance of their faith ?
The following are Mr. Glas's sentiments of the
Abrahamic covenant ; '
" God called Abraham, of the seed of Shem, and
gave him the promise of Christ, and separated him
and his seed, Isaac and Jacob, and the children of
Israel, from the nations, till Christ the promised Seed
should come of him.
" We must carefully consider the promise made to
Abraham ; for now the revelation of Christ the Seed
became more clear, and the distinction betwixt the
Old Testament and the New must be understood in a
great measure by the due understanding of this.
" It must be agreed among Christians, that own the
authority of the New Testament, that Christ is that
Seed promised to Abraham, in whom all the nations
of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii. 3. ch. xxii. 18.
compare Gal. iii. 6. So that here the gospel is preached
before unto Abraham, Gal. iii. 8. By the nations in
this promise, we cannot understand all and every one
in the nations ; nor can we consider them as such
political bodies of men in the earth ; but, according to
the New Testament explication, it is " a great multi-
tude of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and
tongues," Rev. vii. 9. and v. 9. — This will be evident,
if we consider, that the blessedness spoken of in this
promise is spiritual and eternal— Gdil. iii. 8, 9, 14.
10 Review of Mr. Wardlaiv's Lectures
" And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel
unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed. So then, they which be of faith are blessed
with faithful Abraham — That the blessing of Abra-
ham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ;
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through
faith." It is manifest no nation of this world can, in
a national capacity, be the subject of justification by
faith ; and of the promise of the Spirit which we
receive through faith. —
"Thus far, then, God's promise to Abraham was
spiritual and eternal. And here lay the object of that
faith whereby Abraham was justified and eternally
saved ; even as his spiritual seed of all nations are
blessed with him, in the faith of the same thing that
was then to be found in the promise, but now in the
accomplishment of that promise, as is declared in the
gospel.
" Yet there was something in this promise peculiar
to Abraham, and not common to hira with all believers ;
and that was, that Christ should come of his seed. Gal.
iii. 16. Ileb. ii. 16. That this might be evidently ful-
filled, it was necessary that Abraham's seed according
to the flesh, of whom Christ was to come, should be
preserved distinct from other people, till the promised
Seed, Christ, should come of them. And of this,
which was peculiar to Abraham in the promise of
Christ, there came another promise, which we may
see Gen. xii. 2. 7. Iivill make of thee a great nation. —
Unto thy seed will I give this land. See likewise Gen.
xiii. 14, 15. chap. xv. from ver. 13. It is evident that
this promise was temporal, as the other is spiritual
and eternal, and fell to be accomplished before that
On the Abraliamic Covenant. 11
«ther. And this temporal promise was given as a
pledge of the accomplishment of the eternal promise,
and carried in it a tj^pe, or earthly pattern, of the hea-
venly things of that promise. For the land of Canaan,
promised as an inheritance to his seed according to
the flesh, was a type of the heavenly inheritance :
and so Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob took it to be, Heb.
xi. 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16. And the seed of Abraham
according to the flesh, that became a nation, and in-
herited Canaan's land, was evidently a type of Abra-
ham's spiritual seed of all nations, the heavenly na-
tion that inherits the heavenly country. And the
difference betwixt these two was typified by Ishmael,
the son of the bond-woman, and Isaac, the son of the
free- woman, in Abraham's family. Gal. iv. 21 — 31.
" This twofold promise laid the foundation of a
twofold relation to God ; the one spiritual and eternal,
betwixt God and them that believed the spiritual
promise, and all the children of Abraham according
to the Spirit, in all the nations of the earth : The other
earthly and temporal, betwixt God and the seed of
Abraham according to the flesh ; which it behoved so
far to continue till Christ came, as the end designed
by it required. Of both these God speaks to Abra-
ham, Gen. xvii. when he gives him the covenant of
circumcision, to be kept by him, and his seed after
him, in their generations. This circumcision was a
sign of Christ's being to come of Abraham's seed
according to the flesh ; and it represented the shedding
of the blood of that promised Seed, and the putting off
the body of the sins of the flesh, and was a seal of the
righteousness of faith to them that believed in the Seed
to come : so that, by the nature of it, it fell to be done
away by the coming of that promised seed : and there-
12 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
lore it belonged to the temporal promise, and the
temporal relation betwixt God and Abraham's seed
according to the flesh, as that promise and relation
was subservient, and had a reference unto the eternal
promise, and the relation arising therefrom. And
thus God made the covenant of circumcision with
Abraham, to be a God unto him, and to his seed after
him, in their generations, (Gen. xvii. 7. — 11, &c.) by
this means separating Abraham and his seed, that
were to be a nation, and inherit Canaan, to be a
peculiar people to him above all people, and enclosing
the promise of Christ among this circumcised people,
till that promised Seed should come.
** When the Lord proceeded to fulfil the temporal
promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to make
their seed a nation, and giye them the promised land,
he did it by means of a covenant, even that which he
made with them when he took them by the hand, to
bring them out of the land of Egypt by the mediation
of Moses, Exod. xix. 3. — 8. This is called the old
covenant, Heb. viii. 13. on account of the temporal
relation between the Lord and that nation, which is
[now] done away. It is also called the law. Gal. iii.
17. Heb. X. 1. because of the law therein given to the
nation of Israel ; and the first testament, Heb. ix. 15.
on account of the typical adoption, and the temporal
inheritance, which was first given before the promise
of the eternal inheritance was fulfilled. And when he
proceeded in the fulness of time, to fulfil that great
spiritual and eternal promise, of blessing all nations
in Christ, he did it by means of another covenant, even
that which he made by the mediation of Jesus Christ
with Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations, redeemed
from spiritual bondage and the wrath to come, by the
On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 10
blood of the Lamb, the true only and heavenly nation.
This is called the new covenant, Heb. viii. because of
the new spiritual and eternal relation betwixt God
and this new nation, made up of all the nations of the
earth. And it is called the new testament, on account
of the true adoption, Gal. iv. 1 — 7. and the eternal
inheritance therein given to as many of all nations as
the Lord calls, now when the first inheritance is done
away, Heb. ix. 15. This is the better covenant ; as
much better, as the sure promises of spiritual and
eternal blessedness ,to all nations in heavenly places
in Christ, upon which it is established, are better than
the promises of temporal blessings in earthly places
to the^nation of Israel, upon which that first covenant
was established ; as much better, as the whole people
within the bond of this covenant, whose sins God
remembers no more, who all of them know him, and
in whose hearts his law is written, that they may never
depart from him, are better than that covenanted
nation, which continued not in that same covenant
whereby it was related to God, and was cast oflf by
him;— and as much better, as the blood of the Son of
God sealiiig this covenant, is better than the blood of
beasts dedicating the first ; and as his mediation is
better than the mediation of Moses. And these are
the two covenants or testaments of which the apostle
speaks. Gal. iv. Heb. viii. and ix. He calls them
tivo covenants; and so they are indeed, as much
distinct as heaven and earth are ; and shows plainly,
that all the covenanted in that first covenant were not
saved, yea, that none were saved but by faith in the
promises of Christ, upon which the new covenant iu
established."*" y
* Glas's Works, yoI. 1. p. 50.— 56, second edit, .
14 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
This statement is much the same with the former^
only he takes notice of circumcision, and having
explained its mystical or typical import, he consider?
it as belonging to the temporal promise, and the tem-
poral relation betwixt God and Abraham's seed ac-
cording to the flesh, as that promise and relation was
subservient, and had a reference to le eternal promise,
and the relation arising from it ; ai d so, by its very
nature, fell to be done away by the coming of the
promised Seed. Thus he classes circumcision in the
flesh made by hands with the rest of the carnal typical
institutions, and views the promise to which it belonged
as of the same temporal nature with the old covenant
at Sinai, which was evidently founded on, and con-
nected with, that promise, and in which God declares
himself to be related to the whole nation of Israel as
their God. And with regard to circumcision being
termed a seal of the righteousness of the faith, he
restricts that to Abraham, and to them that believed
in the Seed to come as he did ; for so the apostle him-
self, (who alone uses that expression, and must have
best known his own meaning) expressly does, Rom.
iv. 11, 12. And indeed, without this restriction, the
apostle's reasoning would be not only altogether
inconclusive, but inconsistent, as shall afterv, ards be
shown.
Now if the foregoing view of the covenant of cir-
cumcision be scriptural, it does not aiford the least
ground for baptizing the infant seed of New Testament
believers, but very much the contrary : For here we
see, that the covenant of circumcision was peculiar to
Abraham's fleshly seed, of whom Christ was to come
according to the flesh ; that it was of a temporal and
typical nature, and accordingly has long ago been don«
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 15
away, with circumcision itself, which was the token
of it. in their flesh, together with the Sinai covenant
which was founded on it, and all the typical and cere-
monial institutions pertaining to it. So that the only
covenant which corresponds with the gospel state of
things is the new and better covenant, which was inti-
mated in the original promise made to Abraham, Gen.
xii. 3. typified by the old covenant, and expressly
mentioned and promised in Jer. xxxi. 31—35. but
did not actually take place till Christ came ; for it was
made through his mediation, and ratified in his blood,
or by his death, Matth. xxvi. 28. Heb. ix. 15 — 18
Now the people who are related to God by this new
covenant are described in the better promises on which
it is established, as having his law written in their
hearts, as all knowing him from the least to the great-
test of them, and as having their sins and iniquities
forgiven, Heb. viii. 10. — 13. None have any interest
in the spiritual blessings of this covenant, by being
either the fleshly seed of believing Abraham, or the
fleshly seed of believing Gentiles. Here no man is
known or acknowledged after the flesh; but only as
being the spiritual seed of Abraham, and that only by
faith in Christ Jesus, 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. Gal. iii. 7, 9,
26, 29. " For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision
availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which
worketh by love, or a new creature. Gal. v. 6. chap,
iv. 15. Therefore to acknowledge any as visible sub-
jects of this covenant upon the ground of the covenant
of circumcision, or indeed upon any other ground what-
ever, short of the scriptural evidence of their personal
faith in Christ, is mere presumption, and of dangerous
consequence. Further, as baptism belongs to the new
covenant, so it cannot be lawfully administered to
16 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
any, be their parents what they may, who do not ap*
pear to be the subjects of this covenant by the profes-
sion of their faith in Christ, as the whole account of
it in the New Testament, both with regard to its insti-
tution and administration, clearly demonstrates.
I do not in the main differ from the state which the
forementioned writers have given of the Abtahamic co-
venant ; but shall only observe, that they seem to\dew
all the promises, both spiritual and temporal, which
were made to Abraham, first and last, as only different
promises and renewals of one and the same covenant,
though they admit that it involved in it two very differ-
ent future covenants, the old and the new ; and in this
light I have treated the subject in my 7th Letter to
Mr. Glas. Yet as the scriptures speak of more cove-
nants than one being made with Abraham, I think it
safest to give place to the express language of scrip-
ture.
I know no difference between a simple promise and
a promissory covenant, but only this, that the latter
was usually confirmed by sacrifice, an oath, or some
other solemn ratification, which gave it a covenant form.
Now the original promise made to Abraham, recorded
in Gen. xii. 3. and which was four hundred and thirty
years before the law, is termed by the apostle, " tJie
COVEN A.NT that was confirmed before of God in Christ,"
Gal. iii. 17. and this was afterwards renewed and
confirmed by an oath. Gen. xxii. 18. . Heb. vi. 13—18.
The promise in this covenant is, " In thee shall all na-
tions be blessed;" which the apostle explains, entirely
in a spiritual sense, as being the gospel which was
preached before to Abraham respecting God's design
of justifying the heathen through faith, Gal. iii. 8. and.
upon this view of it he grounds his argument through-
On the Abrahamic Covenant 17
VAil the rest of that chapter. About eight years after
this original transaction, God made a covenant with
Abraham respecting the inheritance of the land of Ca-
naan, He had promised it to him and his seed before,
but now he puts his promise into the form of a covenant
ratified upon sacrifice, Gen. xv. 9, 10, 17, and so it is
said, " In that same day the Lord made a covenant
Avith Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given
this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river
the river Euphrates," ver. 18. see also Psal. cv. 8 — 12.
About sixteen years after this, God gave him the
COVENANT of circumcision (as it is termed. Acts vii.
8.) in which he renewed the promises of multiplying
his seed, of giving them the land of Canaan, and of
being a God to him and to his seed after him in
their generations, and, as a token of this covenant ia
their flesh, he commanded that every man-child among
them should be circumcised. Gen, xvii. 4 — 15.
Thus we may see that there were different covenants
made with Abraham, and so the apostle speaks of them
in the plural number, calling them the covenants, Rom.
ix. 4. the covenants of promise, Eph. ii. 12. The first
contained the promise of spiritual blessings in Christ
to Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations, Jews and
Gentiles, as the apostle explains it at large. The
other two contained temporal promises to Abraham's
fleshly seed, which were literally fulfilled to the nation
of Israel, served to keep them distinct from all other
nations till Christ should come of them, and at the
same time were types and pledges of spiritual blessings
to the faithful among them.
Having thus stated my view of the original covenant
made with Abraham, and of the covenant of circumci-
sion which was made with him and his seed about
18 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
twenty-four years after, I proceed now to make some
observations on Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures.
On Rom. iv. 11. he observes, "That circumcision is
here represented, first, as a sign, and, secondly, as a
seal. A sign is that which represents ; a seal tliat which
confirms, assures, ot pledges." With reg-ard to the first,
he says, " It was a sign of the spiritual blessings be-
stowed in justification — The taking away of sin both in
its guilt and in its pollution, or justification and sancti-
fication ; the circumcision of the heart ; the putting off
the body of the sins of the flesh." And he also thinks
that circumcision was probably intended as a sign,
that the seed in whom all nations were to be blessed,
should come from the loins of Abraham.'' P. 8, 9, 10.
It is admitted that circumcision, as well as all the
other carnal and typical institutions of the Old Testa-
ment, had a spiritual or mystical meaning, which ap-
plied to all the spiritual seed of Abraham, even as it
had also a plain and literal meaning as applicable
to all his fleshly seed. But this affords no argument
for infant baptism ; for baptism has not a twofold
meaning like circumcision, a letter and a spirit, but it
is a sign of spiritual blessings only, and therefore be-
longs to none but those who appear to be the spiritual
seed of Abraham by faith.
He next considers of what circumcision is here said
to be, a seal. " Abraham received the sign of cir-
cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had, being yet uncircumcised." But he does
not think that it was to Abraham the seal of his own
personal justification, or that it is the manner of God
to seal thus to any their personal acceptance. This
he imagines would be inconsistent witli the future trials
of his faith, and his inheriting the promises through
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 19
faith and patience — and with the exhortation given to
Christians to give diligence to make their calling and
election sure ; and that therefore it was not j)roperly a
seal of Abraham's faith and acceptance, but of justifi-
cation, being by the faith of Abraham. P, 11, 12.
Here I think Mr. W. is in a very great mistake.
Abraham's receiving circumcision as a seal of his own
personal faith and acceptance, was certainly very con-
sistent with the future trials of his faith and patience,
and tended to support him under these trials. Paul
speaks of believers as having the Spirit as the earnest
of the inheritance, and of their being sealed unto the
day of redemption, Eph. i. 13, 14. ch. iv. 30. had they
therefore no more to do with trials of faith and patience?
Peter represents Christians as rejoicing with joy un-
speakable and full of glory, while they were actually
exercised with manifold trials of faith and patience,
1 Pet. i. 6, 7, 8. And why did he exhort them to give
diligence to make their calling and election sure,
2 Pet. 1. 10. if no such certainty was attainable in this
life, or if he thought such attainment inconsistent with
their future trials of faith and patience ?
Do trials of faith consist chiefly in doubts about a
man's state ? If circumcision was not a seal to Abra-
ham of his personal faith and acceptance, how could
it be a " seal to him of justification being by the faith
of Abraham ; or that uncircumcised Gentiles would
be justified by the like faith f The truth is, it was a
.seal to him of his own personal justification by faith,
and consequently of the justification of all who should
afterwards believe as he did, Rom. iv. 23, 24. But
this does not prove that it was such a seal to all his
natural seed, nor indeed to any of (hem at eight days
old.
20 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures
He puts the question, " What was ctrcumcision tc*
those who followed Abraham in the observance of itT
What was it to his seed ?" and answers, " That, as a
sign, it could never change its meaning while it conti-
nued in practice. What a sign is fitted to represent
at first, it is titted from its nature always to represent."
P. 13.
This is nothing to the purpose. The question is..
What was its meaning as administered to Abraham's
natural posterity ? In answer to this he says, " It de-
noted the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh —
the circumcision of the heart — that separation to
God which takes place when faith was counted for
righteousness — and the coming of Christ from the
loins of Abraham." P. 13.
Here he gives us its mystical or typical sense, which
is realized only in Abraham's spiritual seed, and is
applied to New Testament believers; but does not say,
what it was to all Abraham's natural posterity indis-
criminately as such. If it was a sign to them only
of spiritual blessings, it must have been a mere empty
sign to the most of them of what they neither discern-
ed nor possessed. And if it was fitted from its nature
always to represent only the spiritual blessings of the
gospel, as its literal and plain import, how came it to
be set aside ? nay, how came the apostle to represent
it as of the most pernicious consequences to the Gen-
tile converts, declaring, that if they were circumcised,
Christ would profit them nothing ; and that it made
them debtors to do the whole law ? Gal. v. 2, 3, 4.
It should be particularly observed, that circum-
cision had both a letter and a spirit, i. e. a literal and
a mystical meaning, as all the other typical institu-
tions had. The Lord promised to Abraham, that ia
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 21
liim, or in his Seed, all the nations of the earth
should be blessed. Gen. xii. 3. which promise he
confirmed with an oatli. Gnu. xxii. 18. This is that
covenant to which the apostle so often refers, and
says it was confirmed of God in Christ 430 years
before the law, Gal. iii. 17.* But besides this, God
afterwards made another covenant with Abraham in
a subserviency to the former, wherein he promised to
multiply Abrahams seed, to give them the land of
Canaan for an everlasting possession, and to be their
God, Gen. xvii. 6—9. To this covenant, which was
literally with Abraham's natural seed, he annex-
ed the sign of circumcision : " And ye shall circum-
cise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token
of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is
eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every
man-child in your generations — and my covenant shall
be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." Ver. 11,
12, 13. Here we see that circumcision was an indelible
* Tlie covenant referred tcr, being 430 years before tbe giving of
tlie law, must be that gospel promise made to Abraui, Gen. xii. 3.
when he was 75 years of old, ver. 4.
Year*
From thence to the birtii of Isaac, when he was an hundred,
Gen. xxi. 5. is 25
From thence to the birth of Jacob, when Isaac was threescore)
Gen. XXV. 26, is 60
From thence to Jacob's going into Egypt, when he was 130,
Gen. xlvii. 9, is 130
From thence to Israel's deliverance ont of Egypt, and the giving
of the law, is 215
So that the whole time of their sojourning in Egypt and in
the land of Canaan, according to the Seventy, (Exod. xii. 40.
makes • • • • 1 430
■}
22 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
mark in the ilesh of all Abraham's natural seed, partica-
larly in the line of Isaac and Jacob, and it must have
signified to them what was literally imported in the
promises to which it was annexed. It was the token
of God's covenant whereby they were separated from
the rest of mankind to be a peculiar people to
himself, and by which he stood related to them as
their God in the same sense as he declared himself
the God of the whole nation of Israel ; and it also
signified their being heirs of the earthly inheritance
of the land of Canaan, and of its temporal blessings,
which was made over to them by that covenant.
This was the original and literal meaning of circum-
cision, as it belonged to the natural posterity of
Abraham.
But then both circumcision and the temporal pro-
mises to which it was annexed, had also a mystical
or typical sense. As the children of the flesh are not,
as such, the real children of God, but the children of
the promise are counted for the seed, Rom. ix. 8. so
" he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is
that circumcision," i. e. the tiue circumcision, which
is outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew who is one
inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the
spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of
men, but of God,'' chap. ii. 28, 29. Outward circum-
cision in the flesh of Abraham's natural seed, was
only a type of the circumcision of the heart of his
spiritual seed, or of that " circumcision which is made
without hands, in putting ofi" the body of the sins of the
flesh by the circumcision of Christ," Col. ii. II. And
so New Testament believers are termed the circumci-
sion who worship God in the Spirit, &c. Philip, iii. 3.
The true seed of Abraham are only " they who are
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 23
of faith," Gal. iii. 7. — The earthly inheritance of the
land of Canaan was a type of the heavenly country,
Heb. xi. 10, 16. — and the temporal relation in which
God stood to the fleshly seed of Abraham by the
covenant of circumcision, and afterwards by the cove-
nant at Sinai, and which is now done away, was a
type of the spiritual and eternal relation in which he
stands, by the new covenant, to all the children of
Abraham by faith, whether they be Jews or Gentiles,
Gal. iii. 26, 29.
Thus we see that circumcision, and what pertained
to it, had both a letter and a spirit, or a literal sense
in relation to the fleshly seed of Abraham, and a
mystical or typical sense in reference to his spiritual
seed. Much confusion and inconclusive reasoning
has been introduced on this subject from not properly
distinguishing these things.
He observes, "That circumcision retained the
nature of a seal of the righteousness of faith, to
all who were not of the circumcision only, but
also walked in the steps of Abraham's faith."
P. 13.
Granting this, it makes nothing for infant baptism,
but very much against it, unless he could show, that
circumcision retained the nature of a seal of righteous-
ness to all Abraham's natural posterity, whether they
walked in the steps of his faith or not. The apostle,
however, does not say, that circumcision was a seal
of righteousness in its universal application to Abra-
ham's infant seed ; l3ut only that Abraham himself
" received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righ-
teousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision,
that he might be the father of all them that believe
in uncircumcision," i, e. of all believing Gentiles, "that
24 Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures
righteousness might be imputed to them also ; and tl«*
father of the circumcision lo them who are not of the
circumcision only, but also walk in the steps of that
faith of our father Abraham, which he had in imcir-
cumcision." i. e. That he might be a father to such of
his circumcised seed only as imitate his faith. The
design of the apostle is to exclude both circumcision
and the works of the law (which he joins together on
this subject) from having any influence on justifica-
tion ; and therefore, having shown that Abraham was
justified by faith exclusive of works, ver. 2 — 6. he
proceeds here to show, that it was exclusive of cir-
cumcision also, because he was justified before he
was circumcised, ver. 10. and he received circumr
cision afterwards, not to contribute to his justification,
but as a seal that he was justified by faith while in
uncircumcision. If circumcision retained the nature
of a seal of the righteousness of faith to others besides
Abraham, it could be such a seal to those only who,
like him, believed ; and Mr. W. has not yet ventured
to affirm that it was a seal of righteousness to any
but believers.
To show that circumcision retained the nature of
a seal of righteousness, he instances in " Isaac and
Jacob, Abraham's immediate successors in the faith,
in the line from which Messiah was to spring," and
asks, " What was circumcision to them ?" And
having observed that they were heirs with Abraham of
the same promises, Heb. xi. 9. and that the promises
made to Abraham were expressly repeated by God to
them. Gen. xxvi. X — 5. chap, xxviii. 10. he proceeds
thus, " Now I hardly tliink any one will say, that while
circumcision was to Abraham a seal of the righteous-
ness of faith, it was to Isaac and Jacob, these heirs
On the Ahraliamic Covenant. 25
with him of the same promises, a mere mark of their
carnal descent from Abraham, and of their heirship of
temporal blessings. Was it not to them a seal or
pledge of the faithfulness of God to that promise of
which they were fellow-heirs with their father ? that is,
a seal of spiritual blessings, which is the same, in
effect, as a seal of the righteousness of faith — I cannot
think it was less." P. 13, 14.
Isaac and Jacob were heirs with Abraham both of
the temporal and spiritual promises. Of the former
they were heirs by birth as the seed of Abraham, for
these were stipulated to Abraham and his seed after
him. — Of the latter they became heirs by faith in the
promised Seed, and so had righteousness imputed to
them as Abraham had. But why single out Isaac and
Jacob from among the rest of Abraham's circumcised
seed ? Is it because they are a proper specimen of the
whole ? I hardly think he will maintain this. Or is it
to show, that circumcision was something to them at
eight days old which it was not to others 1 If so, then
it may be asked, what was circumcision to the whole
of Abraham's seed to whom it was indiscriminately
administered ? It is certain that the covenant of cir-
cumcision had no regard to any distinction of charac-
ter among Abraham's natural seed, nor was it possible
that it should, because circumcision was to be admin-
istered at eight days old. Circumcision therefore be-
longed to them all alike by their birth as descendants
of Abraham ; for thus the covenant runs, " This is my
covenant which ye shall keep between me and you,
and thy seed after thee; Every man-child amon«-
you shall be circumcised. — And he that is eight
DAYS OLD shall be circumcised among you, every
MAN-CHILD in your generations," Gen. xvii. 10, 12.
26 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
Here it is plain, that every male-infant, descended
from Abraham, had as good a right to circumcision
by the divine command as either Isaac or Jacob had
in infancy. Circumcision in its letter, or proper and
literal sense, was the very same thing to Isaac and
Jacob, in infancy, that it was to all the infant-seed of
Abraham. It was to the whole of them (as has been
shown) a sign of their separation and relation to God
as his typical people, by an external covenant of
which it was a token in their flesh, and of their being
heirs of the eartlily inheritance and its temporal bless-
ings. And with regard to spirituals, their chief ad-
vantage was, that unto them were committed the
oracles of God, Rom. iii. 3. which contained the
revelation of his will, and intimations of good things
to come. Isaac and Jacob were doubtless heirs of
spiritual blessings ; but not by virtue of the covenant
of circumcision, or by being of the circumcision only,
which was common to them with all the natural pos-
terity of Abraham ; but only through the righteousness
of faith, manifested by their walking in the steps of
that faith of their father Abraham which he had while
uncircuracised, Rom. iv. 12, 13. for it is only they
who are of faith that are the children of Abraham,
and are blessed with faithful Abraham, in the sense
of the gospel promise made to him. Gal. iii. 7, 8, 9.
Mr. W. having affirmed that circumcision was to
Isaac and Jacob a seal of spiritual blessings, he adds,
*' Yet if it was so, we have here a seal of spiritual
blessings administered by divine command to infants
of eight days old. And this certainly shows that
there is no absurdity in the thing itself, and no absur-
dity in the idea of circumcison being a seal to all who
should afterwards believe, of the righteousness of
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 27
laith, or of the same blessings which it sealed ori-
ginally ; for what may be in one case may be in ten
thousand." P. 14.
Here he takes it for granted, that circumcision
*' was a seal of the righteousness of faith at eight days
old to all who should afterwards believe." But the
scripture says no such thing. It informs us, that
Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of
the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being
uncircumcised ; but it no where says that infants of
eight days old received it as a seal of their future
faith and acceptance. Mr. W. says, that '' a seal is
that which confirms, assures, or pledges," p. 8. and
does he really believe that circumcision confirmed,
assured or pledged, that all the infants to whom it
was administered would afterwards believe and be
justified ? If it be said, that it sealed the righteous-
ness of faith to them, if they should afterwards be-
lieve, this is only to say, that when administered it was
no seal of righteousness to them, nor till they actually
believed, which, it is likely, might never take place :
and can we term this a divine seal of spiritual bless-
ings as administered to infants of eight days old ? In
the law of circumcision there is no restriction of it to
those infants who should afterwards believe ; for had
it been so restricted it could have been administered to
none in infancy, because such were known to God
only. As therefore the covenant of circumcision
makes no distinction among the male-infants of Abra-
ham's posterity, nor any difference as to what it sig-
nified to some more than to others, it must have been
the same thing, whatever that was, to Isaac and
Jacob in infancy that it was to all the rest, and to
aflSrm the contrary is mere assertion without the least
^ Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
ibundation. Those of them who afterwards believed,
and so became the spiritual seed of Abraham, were
possessed of the righteousness of faith, and the cir-
cumcision of the heart made without hands, and so
had the spirit of circumcision ; but this could not be
anticipated and sealed to them by any outward sign
in infancy, it being then a profound secret in the mind
and sovereign purpose of God. Hence it appears,
that outward circumcision in the flesh must have had
a literal signification, which applied equally to all the
male-infants of Abraham's seed, whether they should
afterwards become real believers or not. The great
body of the circumcised nation of Israel were a carnal
people, uncircumcised in heart and ears ; yet circum-
cision was not misapplied when administered to them
in infancy, but was according to the express command
of God.
He thinks there is nothing in the circumcision of
iiifants that unfits it for being a seal of the righteous-
ness of faith, which would not equally unfit it for being
a seal of temporal blessings. P. 15.
This would be true, if the righteousness of faith de-
volved upon us as heirs to our natural parents. If an
earthly inheritance is by a deed conveyed to a man
and his seed after him in their generations, his children
have a right to it by birth, according to the tenor of
the deed ; and by that same birth they are known to
be heirs, and so may have a token or seal of heirship
(circumcision for instance) impressed upon them in
infancy as well as at any after period. Here its fitness
is obvious, because it is a token or seal of a truth, or
existing title. But if faith, or a second birth, be ne-
cessary to the enjoyment of spiritual blessings, then it
is plain tliat circumcision could not seal the righteous-
On the Abrahamic Covenant. S9
ness ot faith to any of Abraham's seed in infancy, nor
even when adults, except to such of them as believed
as he did. It is only they who be of faith that are
blessed with faithful Abraham. Indeed, we no where
find circumcision termed a seal of the righteousness of
the faith of any but that of Abraham, and that as fa-
ther of the faithful ; and to suppose that circumcision
was administered by divine authority to the whole of
Abraham's natural seed, as a seal of the righteousness
of the faith which they had, would certainly be a very
great absurdity.
Hitherto he has been giving us his sense of the first
clause of verse 11. " And he received the sign of cir-
cumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had yet being uncircumcised ;" and nov<r
proceeds to the words following, viz. " that he might
be the father of all them that believe, though they be
not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed
unto them also ; and the father of circumcision to them
who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in
the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he
had being yet uncircumcised." To illustrate these
words he observes,
" 1. That x\braham on his being justified by faith,
was constituted the father, in a spiritual sense, of all
among mankind, both of his natural descendants and
of the Gentiles, who, to the end of time, should be
justified in the same way."
" 2. Abraham's being justified ivhen in uncircum-
cision, denoted that he should have part of his spirit-
ual family from among the uncircumcised Gentiles :
that he was to be the father of all them that believe,
though not circumcised."
In both these observations he has exactly hit the
30 Review of Mr XVardlaw's Lectures
sense of the apostle, and is perfectly right. Only, in
the second observation, he might have added, that
Abraham's being justified in uncircumcision, denoted
also, that none of his natural descendants were justi-
fied by circumcision, which enters also into the apos-
tle's design. But as neither of these observations
comes up to the point he has chiefly in view, therefore
he adds,
" 3. When Abraham received the sign and seal of
circumcision, he then became, according to the appel-
lation, the father of circumcision. Now observe par-
ticularly to what description of persons he is represent-
ed as holding this relation — to them who are not of
the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps
of his faith." And he thinks, " words could hardly
intimate more plainly, that circumcision was a seal of
this covenant, not merely as to the temporal part of it,
but also as to the spiritual. For surely it must have
been of the same import to the children of circumcision
as it was to the father of circumcision. " P. 16, 17.
He admits that Abraham is here spoken of as a
spiritual father to a believing or spiritual family ; and
he bids us " observe particularly to what description
of persons he is represented as holding this relation —
to them who are not of the circumcision only, hut also
ivalk in the steps of his faith." In this he is certainly
right ; for the apostle, in this passage, is speaking only
of Abraham's spiritual seed. But he seems to forget
that this is the Baptist's argument, and is not aware
that this concession (for so I must call it) overthrows
at once all the arguments for infant baptism drawn
from the covenant of circumcision ; unless he means to
affirm, in express contradiction both to the apostle and
himself. That all who were included in that covenant.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. J^J.
even those who were of the chcuincision only, were
Abraham's believing or spiritual family ; and from that
again to infer, that all the fleshly seed of IS ew Testa-
ment believers are also Abraham's believing or spiri-
tual family, as being included in that same covenant.
I know that to state the matter shortly in this plain
manner would startle some of the most zealous Inde-
pendent Poedobaptists ; but as it is really the point to
which all their arguments tend, and in which they must
issue, if they come to any conclusion at all, they ought
fairly to state and avow it, instead of involving the
subject in so many ingenious and intricate reasonings,
(in which they frequently both affirm and deny the
same thing) which are the sure marks of an untenable
cause when the question relates to a positive divine in-
stitution. But I must attend to his argument.
Abraham is here termed " the father of circumci-
sion to them who walk in the steps of his faith." This,
he says, " plainly intimates, that circumcision was a
seal of this covenant, not merely as to the temporal
part of it, but as to the spiritual. For surely it must
have been of the same import to the children of circum-
cision as it was to the father of circumcision." In an-
swer to this let it be observed,
1. That the covenant of circumcision made no dis-
tinction whatever among the natural seed of Abraham.
All of them without exception, or distinction of cha-
racter, were included in that covenant ; and, being all
circumcised, may be termed the children of circumci-
sion ; yet Mr. W. will not affirm, that circumcision
was of the same import to them all as it was to their
father Abraham ; for if so, they must all have received
it as a seal of the righteousness of their faith.
2. Abraham is here called the father of circmnci-
S2 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
sion, not as being the father either of the covenant of
rite of circumcision, for these were the immediate ap-
pointments of God, but as being the spiritual father
of his believing circumcised offspring, who, in com-
mon with the nation of Israel are denominated the
circumcision ; * but distinguished from the bulk of that
circumcised nation, by their being not of the circum-
cision only, but also by their walking in the steps of
Abraham's faith.
3. The whole drift of the apostle's argument in this
passage is to show, that none were ever justified or
saved either by the covenant of circumcision or the
works of the law, but by faith only. To evince this,
he shows that Abraham was justified by faith long
before he was circumcised, and that he received the
sign of circumcision only as a seal of this : That none
of his circumcised seed were justified, or had Abra-
ham to their father in a spiritual sense, by virtue of
their circumcision ; but only by believing as he did, or
walking in the steps of that faith of their father Abra-
ham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised. And as to
Gentiles, who never had any thing to do with the cove-
nant of circumcision, he shows, that Abraham is the
father of all them that believe, though they be not cir-
cumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto
them also, as it was to him. It is therefore evident
to a demonstration, that the whole of the apostle's
reasoning, particularly from ver. 9, to 17. goes to deny
that either circumcision or the works of the law gave
any title whatever to justification, or the heavenly in-
heritance, to the circumcised Jew more than the uncir-
* Though TTspiTOfxri wants the article in this place, as it does also
in chap. iii. 30. yet it ought to have been translated the circumcision
here as well as there.
. >,
On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 38
euracised Gentile ; and to show that it is only by faith
that either of thera come to be the spiritual children of
Abraham, and to be blessed with him . And the promise
of this blessedness he traces back, not to the peculiar
covenant, of circumcision, but to the original promise
made to Abraham, the covenant that was confirmed
before of God in Christ, which was 24 years before the
covenant of circumcision, and 430 years before the
giving of the law. See Gal. iii. 8, 9, 16, 17. Circum-
cision was indeed very much insisted on by the Judai-
zing teachers in the apostolic age, but the apostle has
sufficiently refuted ail their pleas for it. It therefore
appears very strange to me that uncircumcised Gentile
believers, who never were under the peculiar covenant
of circumcision, and were forbidden to come under it,
should still strenuously plead it as an argument for
administering the new covenant ordinance of baptism
to their infant seed, though expressly restricted to
believers.
He says, " It will, I dare say, be admitted, that they
only can with any propriety be denominated the cir-
cumcision in whom the import of the rite is fulfilled."
P. 17.
This will be either admitted or denied accordinf*
to the sense in which we understand the import of the
rite, which is an ainbiguous expression when applied
to a rite which had both a literal and mystical import,
as has been shown. I suppose, however, that he means
to affirm, that none could with any propriety be deno-
minated the circumcision who were not inwardly cir-
cumcised in heart. But this will not be admitted ; for
the whole circumcised nation of the Jews are frequent-
ly denominated the circumcision, to distinguish them
from the Gentiles. Thus Christ is said to be the min-
D
34 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures
ister oithe circumcision, i. e. of the Jews among whom
he exercised his personal ministry, Rom. xv. 8. To
Peter was committed the gospel of the circumcision —
the apostleship of the circumcision — and it was agreed
that James and he should go unto the circumcision,
and Paul and Barnabas unto the heathen. Gal. ii. 7,
8, 9. Here the circumcision simply means the Jews
without any reference to the circumcision of the heart,
but merely as nationally distinguished from the heathen.
Again, believing Jews are denominated of the circum-
cision, not because they were circumcised in heart, but
to distinguish them as Jews even from believing Gen-
tiles, see Acts x. 45. ch. xi. 2. Col. iv. 11. nay, they are
said to be not of the circumcision only, Rom. iv. 12.
to distinguish them from such Jews as were only of
the circumcision, and so not the spiritual children of
Abraham by faith. Since therefore the Jews are re-
peatedly denominated the circumcision by the sacred
writers, it certainly must have been with great pro-
priety, whether the bulk of them were believers or
not ; nay it is the first, the literal and only proper sense
of that appellation. And though believers in Christ,
whether circumcised or not, are once termed the cir-
cumcision, Philip, iii. 3. yet it is in a secondary or mys-
tical sense, not from the nature of the thing, but by a
figure borrowed from circumcision in the flesh.
Further, he says, " They who, though descended
from Abraham, wanted his faith, are not allowed the
honourable appellation of the circumcision, but de-
graded and proscribed under that of the concision."
We have just seen, however, that they were not only
allowed the appellation of the circumcision, but that
it was repeatedly given to them both by Paul and Luke ;
not because they had Abraham's faith, but because they
were his circumcised offspring, to whom that distin-
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 35
^uishing appellation literally applied as a national
characteristic. And if Paul degraded and proscribed
the Jewish zealots from the honourable appellation
of the circumcision, how came he afterwards to bestow
that supposed honour upon those whom he describes as
unruly, vain-talkers and deceivers, who subvert whole
houses? Tit. i. 10, 11. The whole nation of Israel were
the circumcision, and a type of the true Israel; among
these there were a number who were not of the circum-
cision only, but were also of the faith of Abraham,
circumcised in heart, and so were blessed with faith-
ful Abraham as his spiritual children. And I agree
with him " that the true circumcision or the true Israel
have in every age been the same," though greatly dif-
fering in their degrees of light and spiritual privileges.
Having followed him through the argumentative
part of his first Lecture, I would now ask. What is the
amount of all his reasonings on ver. 11, 12 ? Has he
shown that there was nothing of a temporal or typical
nature in the covenant of circumcision, as it respected
and included all the fleshly seed of Abraham, but that
it is still in force under the gospel ? or has he made it
appear that there was nothing peculiar to the Jews in
it, but what equally applies at this day to the fleshly
seed of New Testament believers ? With regard to the
spiritual sense of circumcision, has he proved that it
vi2iSVi seal of the righteousness of faith to any of Abra-
ham's natural seed but believers ; or even to tbem pre-
vious to their believing 1 or has he shown that Abra-
ham was a spiritual father to any of them but those who
walked in the steps of his faith? No ; he has not as
yet explicitly and directly avowed these particulars ;
yet upon any other principles his arguments come t»
HO conclusion as to the point at issue.
d2
36 Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures
He begins his second Lecture with ver. 13. " For
the promise that he t^hould be the heir of the world,
was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law,
but through the righteousness of faith." Here he takes
notice of three things — The promise — The seed to
whom it is made — and the ground on which it rests.
With regard to the promise that he should be the heir
of the world, he observes,
" 1. That it must be miderstood in a sense not en-
tirely peculiar to Abraham, but made to Abraham and
his seed."
True, Abraham's believing seed are included in this
promise; but still there was something peculiar to
Abraham in it, to whom it was promised, that in him all
the families of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii.3.
and that he should be a father of many nations, Gen.
xvii. 4, 5. that is, of believers throughout the whole
world. Yet this distinguished honour conferred upon
Abraham w^as with a view to Christ, who was to come
of his seed, be constituted heir of all things, and in
whom, not in Abraham personally, all nations were to
be blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. As to the nature and extent
of the promise, he says,
" 2. I agree with those who consider this promise as
of a very extensive import, as inciutiing (he possession
of Canaan — the possession of the whole earth — and
the final possession of the heavenly country itself."
P. 26.
The promise that Abraham should be the heir of the
world is of the same import with his being made the
father of many nations, ver. 17. or with all nations
being blessed in him, or in his Seed, the Messiah, Gal.
iii. 8. It should be kept in view^ that the apostle is
here, as well as in Gal. iii. establishing the doctrine of
On (he Abrahamic Covenant. 37
tVee justification by faith iudependeiit of circumcision
or the works olthe law; that he adduces the justifica-
tion of Abraham himself as an instance of the way in
which God justifies all the believing world of Jews and
Gentiles, that whole world for whose sins Christ is the
propitiation, 1 John ii. 2. And he shows that this pro-
mise of being- heir of the world, " was not to Abraham
or to his seed through the law, but through the righte-
ousness of faith — " to that seed which is of the faith of
Abraham, who is the father of us all," Rom. iv. 13, 16.
It is plain, therefore, that he is speaking of a promise
made to Abraham and his spiritual seed, and to them,
only. Now, if we enquire what kind of blessings are
promised to all this seed, and bestowed upon them ex-
clusively, the same apostle informs us, that they are
" all spiritual blessings in heavenly places (or things)
in Christ," Eph. 1. 3. such as justification, Rom. iv.
23, 24. Gal. iii. 8, 9 — the promise of the Spirit, Gal.
iii. 14. — the adoption of sons, verse 26 chap. iv. 5, 6.
— and the heavenly inheritance, Gal. iii. 18. Heb. ix. 17,
chap. xi. 10, 16. These are all included in the
blessing of Abraham. If therefore the promise under
consideration respects spiritual blessings, which be-
long exclusively to the spiritual seed of Abraham by
faith, as appears from the .>5cope of the whole passage,
I cannot think that it intends the earthly temporal inhe-
ritance of the land of Canaan ; for though that was also
promised to Abraham's seed, and was a type of the
heavenly inheritance, yet it was not peculiar to the
spiritual seed, but common to them with the rest of his
natural posterity who were of the circumcision only ;
nor was it ever promised to, or bestowed on the Gen-
tile part of his spiritual seed, as was the blessing of
Abraham ; but it is expressly said of the promi.se weare
38 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
now speaking of, that " it is of faith that it might be
by grace, to the end that the promise might be sure to
all the seed: not to that only which is of the law," (i. e.
believing Jews), "but to that also which is of the faith
of Abraham, who is the father of us all," both believing
Jews and Gentiles, verse 16.
Nor do I think that this promise signifies, that
Abraham and his spiritual seed shall have the posses-
sion of the whole earth, or that the land of Canaan was
a prelude of this : For though after the destruction of
the beast and false prophet, and the binding of Satan,
we are given to expect a more extensive spread of the
gospel and its effects in advancing the kingdom of
Christ in this world. Rev. xx. 4, 6. yet unless we under-
stand this of a literal resurrection of the saints from the
dead, and their taking possession of the whole earth,
(a sentiment inconsistent with many passages of scrip-
ture), this promise could not respect any of Abraham's
spiritual seed, but such of them as shall live on the earth
at that period ; whereas the promise made to Abraham,
as has been observed, is of faith, and by grace, that it
might be sure to all the seed, which I think must import,
that it will be infallibly accomplished to the whole of
Abraham's spiritual seed, and not merely to that part of
them who inherited the land of Canaan, or that shall per-
sonally enjoy the blessings of the millennial period.
Mr.W. seems aware of this objection to his scheme,
and endeavours to obviate if, by distinguishing be-
tween a right and actual possession. P. 28, 29. But
what is the benefit of a right when there is never any
actual possession ? He thinks the promise of" the pos-
session of the whole earth must be understood of the
seed collectively considered," and for this cites Psal.
Ixvi. 6. 1 Thess. iv. 15. 1 Cor. xv. 51. and he might also
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 39
have cited Rev. v. 10. to show that by a certain mode
of speech men frequently apply that to themselves
which applies only to another part of the collective
body to which they belong ; and from this he concludes,
" So we may with perfect propriety say, that the pro-
mise spoken of, in the view I am now taking of it, is
to lis, because it shall be verified to the seed of which
we are a part." P. 30.
I admit the mode of speech referred to in certain
cases, but not as applicable to the spiritual promise
made to Abraham ; for that is expressly declared to
be sure to all the seed: not as being verified to some
of the collective body, but to every individual of the
spiritual seed; for a promise can with no propriety be
said to be sure to all, which is verified only to a part.
He observes in general, " That all the seed have
the promise of the life that now is, and of that which
is to come." This is certainly true; but he knows that
they may possess the life that now is, though they
should never possess the land of Canaan, nor the much
higher degree of temporal enjoyments which, he sup-
poses, will be enjoyed by those who live in this world
during the millennium ; nay, though they should, like
their Lord and his first followers, suffer many priva-
tions of earthly comforts. He will surely admit, that
godliness with contentment is great gain ; that a man's
life does not consist in the abundance of the things
which he possesses, and that a little that a righteous
man hath, is better than the riches of many wicked.
As to the life to come, he says, " All being finally
put in possession of the heavenly country, may be
said then to inherit the promises in their full extent,
this being their grand sum, their glorious completion."
To this I heartily subscribe ; for this promise is sur«
40 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
to all the spiritual seed, who by faith and patience
during the life that now is, are seeking and desiring^
that better country, as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob did.
He admits that " Moses and Aaron inherited the
promises, although they were sentenced to finish their
course short of the earthly Canaan ;" and he might
have added, that all the saints who have died in the
faith, from the beginning of the world to this day, in-
herit the promises, though they have been appointed
to finish their course short of inheriting the whole
earth during the millennium.
The promise to Abraham has been accomplishing
more or less in all ages of the church, and that as
really, though not so extensively, as when God at the
first did visit the nations to take out of them a people
for his name, or, as we have ground to expect, when
the kingdoms of this world shall become our Lord's
and his Christ's, Rev. xi. 15. But whatever change
we may then suppose will take place as to the pros-
perity, extent, outward peace, and other circumstances
of Christ's kingdom in this world, I have no idea that
it will change its spiritual nature, or become a kingdom
of this world, any more than it was in the days of the
apostles ; nor can 1 see how such a change would be
rery desirable to a spiritual mind.
He next proceeds to consider the seed to whom the
promise is made, and for this he directs us to Gal. iii.
16. " Now to xAbraham and his seed were the pro-
mises made : he saith not, and to seeds, as of many ;
but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." On
this he observes, " that the name Christ is sometimes
used as inclusive of his people, the head being intend-
ed to express the whole body connected with it," and
fer this he produces one instance, viz. 1 Cor. xii. 12.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 41
for as to Gal. iii. 29. it is not to the purpose. I know
that several learned commentators give the same sense
of the name Christ in ver. 16. that he does, understand-
ing it not of Christ personally, but mystically consi-
dered, as including all the believing seed, and that in
this sense they are not many, but one kind of seed.
But though it is true that the seed who make up
Christ's mystical body are not many, but one kind of
seed, viz. believers ; yet, with all due deference to the
judgment and learning of these commentators, I hum-
bly conceive that they have mistaken the meaning of
the name Christ in this passage, and have imposed a
sense upon it very different from what the apostle
means to convey, viz. That the seed of Abraham to
whom the promises had a primary respect, is spoken
of not as MANY, but as one individual person, and
that this person is Christ. This is not only the plain
sense of the words, but agrees best with the scope of
the whole passage, which is to convince the Galatians,
that no sinner can be justified or obtain the inheritance
by the works of the law, ver. 10, 11, 12, 22. but only
by the faith of Christ, the Seed of Abraliam in whom
all nations were to be blessed, ver. G, 7, 8, 9.
The apostle grounds his argument on the original
promise made to Abraham, which, as it was 430 years
before the giving of the law, ver. 17. must be that
which is recorded Gen. xii. 3. and I suppose it will be
admitted, that the words in thee are equivalent to in
thy Seed, as it is afterwards expressed. Gen. xxii. IS.
Nor can it be denied that this Seed is Christ, and no
other ; for in whom else but in Christ alone could all
nations of the earth be blessed ? Besides, this pro-
mise and oath is said to be performed when the God of
Israel raised up an horn of salvation for them in the
42 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
house of his servant David, Luke i. 69, 72, 73. and
when, having raised up his Son Jesus, he sent him to
bless them, in turning away every one of tbera from
his iniquities, Acts iii. 25, 26. This will further appear
if we consider, how the blessing of Abraham comes to
the nations in his seed, which is explained thus ;
** Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us ; for it is written, cursed is
every one that hangeth on a ti-ee ; that the blessing of
Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus
Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith," Gal. iii. 13, 14. Further, the apostle
represents the original promise as a covenant which
was unalterably ratified (eij Xf irov) to, in, or with a view
to Christ ; and therefore could not be disannulled or
rendered inefl'ectual by the law which was afterwards
given to the nation of Israel : " And this I say, that
the covenant that was confirmed before of God in
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty
years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the
promise of none efifect. For if the inheritance be of the
law, it is no more of promise ; but God gave it to
Abraham by promise," ver. 17, J 8. Again, in answer
to the question, " Wherefore then serveth the law ?"
he says, " It w^as added because of transgressions, till
the Seed should come to whom the promise was made,"
&c. ver. 19. The Seed that should come evidently
means Christ ; and if so, we are here expressly told,
that to him the promise was made. It was to this one
Seed of Abraham, as distinguished from the many, or
from all the nations that were to be blessed in him^
that the promise of the inheritance was made ; though
it was made to him as representing them, for they ar«
blessed in him.
On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 43
Mr. W. having stated his view of the extent of the
promise made to Abraham that he should be the heir
of the world, which he understands of the land of
Canaan, the whole earth, and the heavenly country ;
and having also given his view of the seed to whom
the promises here intended were made, which, though
spoken of as one, and explained by the apostle to be
Christ, he understands in a collective sense, as signi-
fying one kind of seed, or Christ's mystical body, he
proceeds thus :
" From these passages, I now state it as my firm
conviction, that the promises contained in the Abra-
hamic covenant, both the temporal promise and the
spiritual, were made to the same seed, on the same
footing. That they were both made to the same seed,
seems to be as plain as a positive declaration from an
inspired apostle can make it : To Abraham and his
seed were the promises made — These are here expressly
said to have been made to the same seed." P. 33.
I own I am at a loss to understand what he means
by saying, that " both the temporal promise and the
spiritual were made to the same seed, on the same
footing." The spiritual seed of Abraham among his
natural posterity were not, as such, the same seed
with the mere children of the flesh ; yet they enjoyed
the temporal promise in common. The apostle says,
that " unto Abraham and his seed were the promises
made ;" but he at the same time explains that seed to
be Christ, as has been shown.
Some, from this and other passages, state it as their
firm conviction, that the promise even of the temporal
inheritance of the land of Canaan was made in the
first instance to Christ the Son of God, and as he was
to spring from the nation of Israel according to the
44 Review of Mr, Wardlaw's Lectures
flesh ; so that nation, by virtue of their fleshly relation
to him, inherited it in his right, as the typical children
of God and joint-heirs of it with him. They also argue
this from its being termed the holy-land. Hag. ii. 12.
as being consecrated to God, \vho therefore claims it
as his peculiar property, calling it my land. Lev. xxv.
23. 2 Chron. vii. 20. Isa. xiv. 25. Jer. ii. 7. chap. xvi.
18. and irora its being expressly termed, thy land O
fmmanuel, Isa. viii. 8. a name peculiar to Christ, who
was to be born of a virgin, chap. vii. 14. Matth. i. 23.
But whatever be in this, if Mr. W. by the same seed,
means only Abraham's spiritual seed, then it is not
true that the promise of the temporal inheritance was
made to them as such ; for as no such distinction of
the seed is mentioned in that promise, so we know that
in fact the possession of it was not restricted to the
spiritual part of Abraham's natural posterity, but was
common to them with the rest of the nation of Israel ;
and I am persuaded he w ill not venture to affirm, that
the whole nation of Israel, nor even the bulk of them
in their successive generations, were the spiritual seed
of Abraham either in reality or appearance. And with
respect to his spiritual seed among the Gentiles, the
promise of this inheritance was never made to them,
nor did they ever possess it.
He says, " There is not the smallest hint given of
the distinction so often contended for, that the tem-
poral promise was made to the fleshly seed as such,
and the spiritual promise to the spiritual seed as such.
No such distinction is to be found in Paul's reasoning.
But the promises of the covenant without difference
are declared to have been made not to seeds as of
many, but as of one — And to thy seed, which is Christ."
P. 33.
Oil the Ahrahamic Covenant. 45
The Baptists indeed do often contend for a dis-
tinction in Abraham's natural posterity, between the
children of the flesh and the children of the promise.
They also distinguish temporal from spiritual pro-
mises ; and they affirm, that the former belonged to
all his natural posterity without diflerence ; but that
the latter belonged only to his spiritual seed : And
does Mr. W. mean to deny that there is the smallest
hint given of such distinctions in Paul's reasoning?
I cannot allow myself to think that this is his mean-
ing, because it would contradict many passages in his
Lectures which seem to admit these distinctions; but
yet I cannot find out any other sense to his words.
Does he mean that none of Abraham's mere fleshly
seed were included in the covenant of circumcision ?
If so, then he must also maintain, that the whole
nation of Israel were Aliraham's spiritual seed ; for it
is certain that they were all expressly commanded to
be circumcised as the token of God's covenantin their
flesh ; and the uncircumcised man-child is threatened
with being cut off from among God's people, as
having broken his covenant, Gen. xvii. 14. which
shows, that all the circumcised seed had an interest
in the covenant of circumcision. But it is clear, that
the apostle, throughout the passages under consider-
ation, constantly distinguishes the spiritual seed of
Abraham from the rest of his circumcised seed by
their being not of the circumcision only, but who also
walk in the steps of Abraham's faith, — believe on him
that justifieth the ungodly — all them that believe — the
seed which is of the faith of Abraham — who believe
on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom. iv. 5, 11, 12, 16, 24. And in his Epistle to the
Galatians, he distinguishes them as they which be of
46 Review of Mr. WardlaWs Lectures
faith — the just who live by faith— who are the chil-
dren of God bij faith in Christ Jesus- heirs according
to the promise — not children of the bond-woman, but
of the free, Gal. iii. 7, 9, 11, 26, 29. chap. iv. 31.
With respect to the promises, though the scripture
does not distinguish them by the words temporal and
spiritual ; yet the nature of the things promised suf-
ficiently distinguish them. Thus we know that the
promise of the land of Canaan, and of the good things
of it, was a temporal promise, and that justification,
the promise of the Spirit, the adoption of sons, and
the eternal inheritance, are all of a spiritual nature,
and so included in the spiritual promise. Now, when
we say, that the temporal promise was made to Abra-
ham's fleshly seed, as such, we mean, that it respected
his natural offspring in common, or without dis-
tinction ; for had it been restricted to the spiritual
part of his natural seed, it would not have been
accomplished to the whole nation of Israel, as we see
it actually was : And if any should affirm, that the
whole nation, or even the bulk of them, were his
spiritual seed, such are not to be reasoned with.
Again, when we say, that the spiritual promise was
made to Abraham's spiritual seed, as such, we mean,
that it did not respect them merely as his natural
seed, but as believers; nor was it restricted to be-
lievers among his natural seed, but extended also to
Gentile believers, who were the natural seed of
heathen idolaters, but became the children of God
and the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ
Jesus, and so heirs according to the promise. Gal.
iii. 26. 28, 29. But as Mr. W. seems to deny that
there is the smallest hint of such a distinction
in all Paul's reasoning, I shall, in addition to what
On the Abrahamic Covenant, ' 47
I have already observed, show, both from Paul's rea-
soning, and other passages of scripture, the grounds
we have for holding the important distinction between
Abraham's natural and spiritual seed, and between
the temporal and spiritual promises made to them.
John the Baptist had his mission to the natural
posterity of Abraham, who were in actual possession
of the temporal promise of the land of Canaan. He
baptized with the baptism of repentance, " saying unto
the people. That they should believe on him that should
come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus." Acts xix.4.
But as many of them imagined, that they were secured
from the wrath to come, and entitled to the favour of
God on account of their being the descendants of
Abraham, he repels all their claims upon that ground,
saying, "Think not to say within yourselves. We
have Abraham to our father ; for 1 say unto you, that
God is able of these stones to raise up children to
Abraham." Mat. iii. 9. Here we see that the natural
seed of Abraham who, according to the covenant
made with him, were circumcised, and enjoyed the
temporal promise, had no right, on these accounts,
either to baptism or tiie spiritual blessings signified
by it ; and therefore, to obtain an interest in these
spiritual blessings, they v/ere called to that faith and
repentance by which men become the spiritual seed
of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise.
And it deserves serious consideration, whether the
present plea for the baptism of infants, founded on
their being the children of believing parents, and their
supposed interest in the covenant of circumcision, be
indeed equally well founded as the old exploded
Jewish boast of having believing Abraham to their
father, and of their being circumcised ia the flesh ac-
48 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
cording to the literal binding terms of tliat peculiar
covenant. If the natural posterity of Abraham, that
illustrious patriarch, were not, as such, interested in
the covenant of grace by virtue of the promise, " I
will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee," it
must be vain and presumptuous in Christian parents
to imagine, that their children are included in the
covenant on account of that promise.
It is said of Christ, " He came unto his own, and
his own received him not. But to as many as re-
ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons
of God, even to them that believe on his name ; who
are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of the will of man, but of God." John i. 11 — 1 4.
The Jews, the natural seed of Abraham, were Christ's
own nation and people. They were peculiarly fa-
voured above all other nations with many distin-
guished privileges. " To them pertained the adoption,
and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of
the law, and the service of God, and the promises ;
and of them, as concerning the flesh, Christ came."
Rom. ix. 4, 5. Cut notwithstanding these external
national privileges, the great body of them did not
receive Christ when he came unto them, but rejected
him ; and so were not the spiritual seed of Abraham
by faith, but were his seed only as being born of blood,
of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, and, as
such, had no title to the spiritual promises contained
in the blessing of Abraham. From these the spirit-
ual seed are distinguished by their receiving Christ,
or believing in his name, and by their being born of
God, and obtaining the dignified privilege of being
his sons. This is that second birth of which our Lord
speaks to Nicodemus, and concerning which he dc-
On the Abrahainic Covenant. 49
(elares that, without it, no man can enter into the
kingdom of God, John iii. 3 — 9. It comes not by
natural generation from believers, no not from be-
lieving Abraham himself; nor did the covenant of
circumcision entail it upon his natural seed ; for it is
a fact, that the bulk of his natural seed were rejected,
while the seed of heathens became the true seed of
Abraham and the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus, Rom. ix. 26, 30, 31. Gal. iii. 26, 20.
Paul expresses his great heaviness and continual
sorrow of heart, on account of the unbelief and rejec-
tion of the bulk of the Jewish nation, who were Isra-
elites, his kinsmen and brethren according to the flesh :
but lest any, from this awful event, should take occa-
sion to impeach the faithfulness of God, or imagine
that the promise which he made to Abraham and his
seed had fallen to the ground, or failed of its accom-
plishment, he proceeds to evince the contrary, by dis-
tinguishing the children of the flesh from the children
of the promise ; and he shows that this distinction was
typically intimated both in the family of Abraham and
of Isaac : " Not as though the word of God had taken
none efl'ect : For they are not all Israel which are of
Israel ; neither because they are the seed of Abraham,
are they all children ; but in Isaac shall thy seed be
called. That is, they who are the children of the flesh,
these are not the children of God ; but the children of
the promise are counted for the seed," Rom. ix. 6,
7, 8. And he illustrates this distinction by what took
place in the family of Abraham. Ishmael was his first-
' born by Hagar ; yet the promise did not respect him,
but was restricted to Isaac, Sarah's son ; " For this is
the w ord of promise — At this time will I come, and
Sarah shall have a son," ver, 9. and the same rcstric-
£
50 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures
tion was intimated in the promise, " In Isaac shall thy
seed be called." But as some might suggest, that this
difference was owing to Ishmael's being the son of the
bond-woman, or perhaps to something more wicked in
his character than in that of Isaac, he shows, that a
distinction of the sam.e kind was also made in the fa-
mily of Isaac, the son of the free-woman and child of
the promise : " And not only this, but when Rebecca
also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,
(for the children being not yet born, neither having
done any good or evil, that the purpose of God accord-
ing to election might stand, not of works, but of him
that calleth,) it was said unto her. The elder shall serve
the younger : As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated," ver. 10 — 14. Now the apostle
l)roduces these instances to show, that, in all succeed-
ing generations, the children of the flesh, or the mere
lineal descendants of Abraham, even in the line of
Isaac and Jacob, are not, as such, the children of God,
or the spiritual seed ; and that, therefore, though a
great part of Abraham's natural seed did not obtain
the spiritual promise, but were rejected as unbelievers,
yet in this there was no failure in the divine promise,
for it was never made to such, but only to Abraham's
seed by faith, who alone are the children of the promise,
and counted for the seed.
With respect to the temporal promise, that was not
restricted to the spiritual seed, as has been shown ; for
the history of the nation of Israel clearly informs us,
that they obtained and possessed the land of Canaan
and its temporal blessings for many ages, according to
the promise of it made to Abraham and his seed after
him. And though it was absolutely necessary to their
peaceable and comfortable possession of it, that they
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 51
*hould acknowledge and worship the true God, and
abstain from idolatry, (which was a breach of the
national covenant whereby he stood related to them as
their God ;) yet they are described in general as a
stiff-necked and rebellious people, not only when en-
tering into the possession of it, Deut. ix. G, 7. but after
they had possessed it near 1500 years, Acts vii. 51, 52,
63. The possession of the land of Canaan, therefore,
being common to the nation of Israel, did not discrimi-
nate the children of the spiritual promise.
I shall only add, on the distinction of the seed, that
Mr. W. would do well to consider attentively what the
apostle means by saying, *' Wherefore henceforth know
we no man after the flesh ; yea, though we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him,
no more. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a
new creature," or, there is a new creation ; " Old
things are past away, behold, all things are become
new," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. To "know no man after the
flesh," is to acknowledge or esteem no man as a child
of God, or a true christian, on account of his carnal
descent or connection with believers, or any carnal
consideration whatever, and particularly those things
which the carnal Jews boasted of, such as their being
the seed of Abraham, of the stock of Israel, circum-
cised the eighth day, &c. all which the apostle after-
w^ards enumerates, and terms the flesh, ch. xi. 18, 22.
Philip, iii. 4 — 7. and declares that, in Christ Jesus,
such things are of no avail, but a new creature, or faith
which worketh by love. Gal. v. 6. ch. vi. 15. He ad-
mits that formerly they made the flesh the rule of their
judgment and ground of esteem, even of the Messiah
himself, as being peculiarly related to them according
t© the flesh, and on account of the worldly expectations
s2
52 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures
they had from him, such as his restoring again the
kingdom to Israel ; but that from henceforth, or from
the time that they were enlightened (o perceive the
glorious ends of Christ's death and resurrection (ver.
14, 15.) and the spiritual nature of his kingdom and
subjects, their regard to him was no longer influenced
by such carnal considerations ; nor did they esteem
any one as belonging to Christ, or of the true Israel of
God, but as being a new creature : See also Gal. tI.
15, 16. By this rule of judging, they acknowledged
none of Abraham's natural oftspring as his spiritual
seed but believers, who were but a remnant of them,
Rom. xi. 5. and, by the same rule, they regarded Gen-
tile believers as the spiritual seed of Abraham though
the natural seed of heathens. Gal. iii 7, 29. If there-
fore none of believing Abraham's natural posterity
were known or acknowledged by the apostles as his
spiritual seed, but those of them who appeared to be
new creatures, and walked in the steps of his faith,
by what rule are we to esteem the infant natural seed
of believers to be the spiritual seed, of whose faith and
regeneration we cannot possibly have the smallest
evidence?
Among many other strange things it has been said,
that the scripture rule is, that we should look upon in-
fants as in the very same state of salvation as their
believing parents are. But there is no such rule to be
found in all the word of God. On the contrary, the
scripture assures us, that, in their first birth, they are
shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, Psal. li. 5.
This is the state which they derive equally from be-
lieving as unbelieving parents. The spiritual birth
does not consist in the faith or character of a proxy
or representative, but in a personal change in the sub-
On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 58
jects of it ; and therefore cannot be known by us till
that change visibly appears in the individuals them-
selves, be their parents what they may. Therefore to
look upon infants as the spiritual seed, because they
are the natural otlspring of believers, is plainly to
know them after the flesh.
Still, however, it is asserted, that the covenant of
circumcision, wherein God promised to be a God to
Abraham and to his seed after him in their genera-
tions, is the same for substance with the new covenant,
or what is commonly termed the covenant of grace,
differing only in some circumstances, relating to the
mode of its sign, and extent of its administration :
And their main proof for this is, that Abraham re-
ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righte-
ousness of the faith which he had in uncircumcision.
But this rather proves, that the covenant of circum-
cision was not the same with the covenant of grace.
The covenant of grace, or new covenant, is that by
which sinners are justified, and in which God promises
to remember their sins and iniquities no more. The
blood of Christ is the blood of that covenant which
was shed for the remission of sins, and men are justi-
fied through faith in that blood. The promise of this
covenant was made to Abraham and confirmed of God
in Christ, when the gospel was before preached to him
concerning God's justifying the heathen through faith ;
in these words, " In thee shall all nations be blessed,"
Gen. xii. 3. compared with Gal. iii. 8, 17. And herein
lay the object of Abraham's faith, through which he
was justified long before he received the sign of cir-
cumcision. Now let us attend to the design of the
apostle in saying, that " Abraham received the sign
of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
h4 Jteview of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
which he had in uncircumcision :" And, whether we
consider the words themselves, or the scope of the
apostle's reasoning, it is evident to a demonstration,
that the apostle's desi;?n is to show, that Abraham
was not justified by the covenant of circumcision, but
altogether independent of it, and while he was in un-
circumcision ; and that he received the sign of cir-
cumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had in his uncirctmicised state ; and on this
he grounds his argument, that neither Jew nor Gentile
are justified either by circumcision or the works of the
law, but only by faith, as Abraham himself was. Nov5'
if Abraham was not justified by the covenant of cir-
cumcision, but previous to, and independent of it,
how can it be the same for substance with the cove-
nant of grace by which alone sinners can be justified 1
The covenant of circumcision was not the same with
the covenant of grace, or the promise of it which ex-
tended to the Gentiles, but was evidently a covenant
peculiar to the natural posterity of Abraham, and was
the beginning and foundation of an intermediate typi-
cal economy, which served as a partition wall to dis-
tinguish and separate the nation of Israel from all
other people till the Seed should come of them to bless
all nations ; and accordingly when the Seed came, and
broke down the middle wall of partition between the
Jews and Gentiles by his death, circumcision was de-
clared to avail nothing, and so was set aside like every
other typical institution, and is represented as belong-
ing to the letter and the flesh, as opposed to the spirit,
Rom. ii. 27, 29. Philip iii. 4, 5. Gal. vi. 12, 13. And
though the Jewish converts were indulge I in circum-
cision for a time after it was virtually set aside by the
death of Christ ; yet it was absolutely prohibited to
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 53
the Gentile converts as of the most pernicious ten-
dency, and is always connected with the law as op-
posed to their justification by faith, and to the liberty
wherewith Christ had made them free. Gal. v. 1, 5.
It is very remarkable, that while the inspired apostles
of Christ so often cite the original promise made to
Abraham, to show that the blessings of the gospel
were to be extended to the Gentiles, they should never
so much as once mention the covenant of circumcision
in that view : Nor do they give the smallest hint con-
cerning the entail of that covenant upon New Testa-
ment believers and their natural seed, which is now
so much insisted on as the main argument for infant
baptism.
Mr. W. affirms, " That the Sinai covenant is repre-
sented in the apostle's reasoning as quite distinct
from the covenant made with Abraham four hundred
and thirty years before ; and therefore, in forming our
ideas of the latter, the former should be left out of
view. — The scheme of God, revealed in the Abrahamic
covenant, might have gone on to its fulfilment inde-
pendent of the law." P. 41.
The covenant which was made w ith Abraham, and
confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty
years before the law, was not the covenant of circuja-
cision, nor peculiar to Abraham's natural posterity as
that was, but contained the promise of blessing all
nations; see Gen. xii. 3. with Gal. iii. 8. Now though
this covenant was distinct from the Sinai covenant,
yet the law delivered in the latter was subservient to
the promise in the former, by making men sensible of
their need of the promised blessing ; and therefore in
forming our ideas of the original covenant made with
Abraham, the law ought not to be left out of view.
56 Review uf Mr. JVardlaw's Lectures
Nor does it become us to say, that the scheme of God
might have been otherwise fulfilled than it actually
was. But with respect to the covenant of circumci-
sion, which was not made for twenty-four years after
the former, that was not quite distinct from the Sinai
covenant, but was the very foundation of it. Let us
trace the connection ;
When the Lord covenanted to give the land of Ca-
naan to Abraham's natural posterity, he ibretold their
previous afiliction in Egypt and deliverance out of it,
-Gen. XV. 13 — 17. When they had multiplied into a
nation in that kingdom, and were in actual bondage,
the promise made to Abraham of their deliverance
was repeated, Exod. vi. 3 — 7. and the book of Exodus
gives us a clear historical account of the fulfilment of
this, so far as relates to their redemption from Egypt.
In the covenant of circumcision he had promised to
be a God to Abraham's seed after him. Gen. xvii. 7.
This promise was also repeated to Abraham's natural
seed while they were groaning under the bondage of
the Egyptian yoke; " And I will take you to me for a
people, and I will be to you a God ; and ye shall
know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth
you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians,"
Exod. vi. 7. and this was actually and formally accom-
plished, when he took them as a nation into a covenant
relation to himself at Sinai, and declares, " I am the
Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land
of Egypt, out of the house of bondage," Exod. xx. 2.
See the w^hole of that remarkable transaction, Exod.
xix. XX. xxiv. Again, in the covenant of circumcision
the Lord promised to Abraham, " I will give unto
thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou
art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlast-
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 57
ing possession," Gen. xvii. 8. This promise was also
renewed to tliem in E^^vpt ; " I will bring you in unto
the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it
to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give
it to you lor an heritage," Exod. vi. 8. The book of
Joshua gives us a plain historical account of the accom-
plishment of this proxuise, where we are told that " the
Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to
give unto their fathers: and they possessed it, and
dwelt therein," Josh. xxi. 43. If therefore we would
form proper ideas of the covenant of circumcision, we
must take into consideration the renewal of its pro-
mises to the nation of Israel, with the historical facts
in which these promises were actually fulfilled to them,
and consequently explained. But Mr. W. would have
these things left out of view. They indeed plainly
prove that the covenant of circumcision was made
with all Abraham's seed according to the flesh, and
that its promises to them, as a nation, were of a tem-
poral nature; consequently that it is now set aside
under the gospel, together with the Sinai covenant
which was founded on it.
He says, " That none of the promises, either the
temporal or the spiritual, were made to the fleshly
seed of Abraham, merely on the footing of carnal de-
scent." P 35. '
I know not exactly what he means by the footing
of cm rial descent Taking it in connection with what
he says in the preceding page, his meaning seems to
be, that none of the promises, no not even the tempo-
ral, were made to any of Abraham's natural posterity,
but to his spiritual seed alone. And if so, it plainly
follows, that all to whom the temporal promises were
accomplished must have been the spiritual seed of
§8 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
Abraham ! I think I may be excused from making
any reply to this.
He observes, that Israel in the wilderness came
short of the land of Canaan through unbelief. P. 36.
This is fully granted, for the apostle says the same,
Heb. iii. 18, 19. But then Mr. W. conjectures, that
their unbelief did not only respect the promise which
God made of the land of Canaan to Abraham and his
seed after him, and a distrust of his veracity and power,
accompanied with rebellious complaints and murmur-
ings ; but that it implied ignorance and unbelief of the
spiritual import of that promise, and included also ig-
norance and unbelief of the other gospel promises
made in connection with it in the same covenant —
They were unbelievers of the gospel, which was then
revealed in the promises of the covenant made with
Abraham. P. 37.
AVhen we look into the history of Israel in the wil-
derness, we shall find their unbelief manifested on
many occasions ; but the particular instance in view,
was their unbelief of God's promise of the land of
Canaan, distrusting his power and faithfulness to
accomplish it, and being discouraged by the evil
report of the spies ; they murmured and rebelled
against him, notwithstanding the astonishing miracles
he had already wrought on their behalf. This is
what is assigned as the cause why the Lord sware,
that none of the men of that evil generation should see
that good land which he sware to give unto their
fathers : See Num. xiv. Deut. i. 26—40. But we no
where read, either in the Old or New Testament, that
they came short of the earthly rest, because they did
not believe the spiritual import of that promise, or
because they did not understand and believe the
t>n the Abrahamic Covenant. &§
mystical sense of the other promises connected with
it in the covenant of circumcision made with Abra-
ham. Mr. W. has the advantage of the New Testa-
ment revelation, which lays open the spiritual or
mystical sense both of Old Testament promises and
types; but it does not follow that Israel in the wilder-
ness had these things laid open to them, so as that
they might have stedfastly looked to the end of that
which is abolished. If it is not recorded that the
mystical sense of the typical economy was explained
to thera, how can we possibly know that it was ? Or
how can we suppose that they were so severely pun-
ished, and yet the main part of their guilt never once
inentioaed ? The apostle says, " For unto us was the
gospel preached as well as unto them ; but the word
jjreached did not proiit them, not being mixed with
faith in them that heard it," Heb. iv. 2. The words
literally translated are, " For we are evangelized as
well as they were ; but the word which they heard
did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in
them that heard it :" i. e. We Christians are favoured
with the good news of the heavenly rest, as well as
Israel in the wilderness were with the good news of
the earthly rest in Canaan ; but the word which they
heard concerning that rest did not profit them, be-
cause they did not believe it. That this is the sense
is clear from the whole of the apostle's reasoning ;
for the rest which Israel came short of through unbe-
lief was evidently the possession of the land of Ca-
naan ; and the rest which Christians are exhorted to
labour to enter into is the heavenly rest, the rest that
remains for the people of God. It should be observed,
that /aiY/t and its opposite unbelief are not confined
to the spiritual truths said promises of the gospel of
60 Review of Mr, Wardlaw's Lectures
Christ, but respect any truth which God may reveal,
or promise he may make even concerning temporal
things. It is a believing, or disbelieving God in what
he says, whatever be the subject. This is clear with
respect to faith from several instances of it men-
tioned in Heb. xi. and also with respect to unbelief in
the case of those whose carcases fell in the wilder-
ness. I cannot think that Mr. W. will affirm (though
his argument requires it,) that all who died in the
wilderness fell short of the heavenly rest, or that all
who entered the land of Canaan believed to the saving
of the soul.
He returns again to the covenant made with Abra-
ham, and having quoted Gal. iii. 17. he says, " The
expression employed in this quotation to describe the
covenant made with Abraham, that it was confirmed
before of God in Christ, seems most decisively to
establish the view that has been given of it. The
promises of this covenant were made with a prospec-
tive regard to Christ, as their foundation." P. 42, 43.
But the covenant which the apostle refers to in that
passage is not the covenant of circumcision, (which
would have been very foreign to his argument with
the Galatians), but it is the covenant which was con-
firmed of God in Christ four hundred and thirty years
before the law, as I have already noticed, and is
mentioned, ver. 8.
He thinks, *' It will surely be admitted, that there is
but one covenant, the promises of which were made
either to Christ, or in Christ ; but the promises of
the Abrahamic covenant are expressly declared to
have been so made ; whence it appears to follow,
that this covenant was nothing less than the glorious
j^ospel of the blessed God ; his everlasting covenant
of grace." P. 43.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 01
It will not be admitted " that there is but one cove-
iMnt." It has been shown, that there were move cove-
nants than one made with Abraham ; and that from
these sprung other two covenants very different in
their nature, viz. the old covenant at Sinai w^hich
gendereth to bondage, and the new covenant in Christ's
blood, which answereth to Jerusalem which is above,
the free woman, and the mother of all God's children.
Gal. iv. 24 — 27. Does Mr. W. mean to set aside
these distinctions, and to jumble the whole together as
one covenant ? I am sorry to say that the sequel too
clearly manifests that this is his real design : For
having quoted the promise — "I will establish my
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after
thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant,
to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee," Gen,
xvii. 7. he proceeds thus,
" In whatever sense we consider God as promising
to be the God of Abraham, in the same sense we must
consider him as promising to be the God of his seed.
The promise is one. No hint is ever given, of his
being the God of Abraham in one sense, and the God
of his seed in another. Nor does any ground appear
for the distinction made in the meaning of the term
seed, as if he were to be the God of his fleshly seed iu
one sense, and the God of his spiritual seed in another.
The promise, as it stands, is plainly one in its import,
and to one seed in its extent ; even the seed mentioned
Gal. iii. 16. and considered above." P. 43, 44.
It is certain that God was the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob in a spiritual and eternal sense, that
is, as justifying and bestowing eternal life on them,
see Mat. xxii. 32. Luke xiii. 28. Heb. xi. 16. and that
all who are of faith are thus blessed with faithful
02 Review of Mr. Wardlcms Lectures
Abraham, Gal. iii. 9, 29. But must we thereforer
consider God as promising, in the covenant of circum-
cision, to be the God of all the natural posterity of
Abraham in the same sense as he Avas to Abraham
himself? It is clear beyond all dispute, that God
promised in that covenant to be a God to Abraham
and to his seed after him in their generations ; that
the whole of his natural posterity, in the line of Isaac
and Jacob, were included in it, without any distinc-
tion, and that the token of that covenant was by the
divine command to be administered to all of them
without exception, " Every man-child among you shall
be circumcised," ver. 10. Now, will Mr. W. stand to
it, that God was in no other sense the God of Abraham
than that in which he was the God of all his natural
posterity ? Would not this be the same as to affirm^
that all Abraham's natural seed, in their successive
generations, obtained eternal life ? Again, if " there
is no ground for the distinction made in the meaning
of the term seed, as if he were to be the God of hisi
fleshly seed in one sense, and the God of his spiritual
seed in another," why does the apostle make a distinc-
tion among Abraham's natural seed, (though all in-
cluded in the covenant of circumcision) between those
of them who were of the circumcision only, and such
as also walked in the steps of Abraham's faith ? Rom.
iv. 12. Why does he say, " They are not all Israel
who are of Israel ; neither because they are the seed
of Abraham are they all children : — That is, they who
are the children of the flesh, these are not the children
of God ; but the children of the promise are counted
for the seed ?" Rom. ix. 6, 7, 8. Here we find a dis-
tinction made in the meaning of the term seed. It is
applied to Abraham's mere natural ofi'spring, and also
to his spiritual seed by faith as distinguished from
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 68
these ; consequently, there must be an answerable dis-
tinction as to the sense in which God stood related to
them as their God. To the former he was their God
in a typical and temporal sense, to the latter in a spi-
ritual and eternal sense.
But Mr. Ws design is to show, that none were in-
cluded in the covenant of circumcision, or had the
promise that God would in any sense be their God,
but only the spiritual seed of Abraham, " even the
seed mentioned Gal. iii. 16. and considered above."
I have already shown, that the apostle in Gal. iii. is
commenting not on the covenant of circumcision, but
on the original promise made to Abraham, Gen. xii. 3.
which he quotes, ver. 8. and distinguishes it as the
covenant which was confirmed of God in Christ four
hundred and thirty years before the law, ver. 17. He
shows that this covenant included all believers, not
only among Abraham's circumcised natural seed, but
among uncircumcised Gentiles, ver. 14, 28. and that
the promises of this covenant, which are included in
the blessing of Abraham, are redemption from the curse,
justification, the promise of the Spirit, adoption, and
the inheritance, ver. 8, 13, 14, 18, 26, 29. Now,
whether we understand the seed mentioned ver. 16. to
mean Christ, as the apostle declares, or the whole col-
lective body of which Christ is the head, as Mr. W.
explains it, in neither of these senses does it quadrate
with the seed mentioned in the covenant of circum-
cision. It cannot be said that Christ was Abraham's
seed in their generations, Gen. xvii. 10. Nor are its
promises restricted to the spiritual part of his natural
seed, exclusive of the rest ; for no such distinction of
the seed, nor any such restriction of the promises are
ever mentioned in that covenant: On the contrary^
C4 lleview of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures
every man-child, w ithout exception, was to receive the
token of that covenant in his flesh, ver. 11, 1'2. and it
was commanded to be administered to them at eight
days old, which shows that they had a ri^ht to it by
birth as tlie natural seed of Abraham, independent of
regeneration or of faith. As to that part of his spirit-
ual seed which consists of believing Gentiles, they had
nothing to do with the letter of that peculiar covenant,
and so were absolutely forbidden to receive the token
of it in their flesh, as is clear from the epistle to the
Galatians and many other passages; and it is also
certain, that they never had any promise or possession
of the land of Canaan which was stipulated in that
covenant. It is therefore clear beyond all reasonable
dispute, that, in the covenant of circumcision, the seed
of Abraham must be understood to signify literally his
natural offspring or posterity in the line of Isaac and
Jacob. Besides, the facts recorded in the succeeding
history of that people, and the application of the pro-
mises made to Abraham respecting them, demonstrate
abundantly that they were literally the seed with whom
that covenant was made. And thus we may see that
the seed to whom the Lord promised in that covenant
to be their God, turns out in fact to be the nation of
Israel ; and as to the new covenant sense of that pro-
mise, it falls under another consideration.
Mr. W. is of opinion that God was the God of the
nation of Israel in the same sense as he was the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or as he is the God of
all true believers, that is, in the new covenant sense of
that promise, and for this he cites Matth. xxii. 31, 32.
Heb. ix. 13 — 16. Jer. xxxi. 33. ch. xxxii. 38—40.
Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, 30, 31. ch. xxxvi. 25—28. Heb.
Tiii. 10. P. 44—47.
Vn the Abrahamic Covenant. 0S
The two first of these citations show in what sense
lie was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and
indeed of all true believers who follow the steps of their
faith. The rest are promises of the new covenant it-
self, and therefore cannot show in what sense God was
the God of the whole nation of Israel under the old.
When God promises to make a new covenant, he says
it was to be " not according to the covenant which he
made with their fathers, in the day when he took them
by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,"
but entirely of anothepriiature, both in its blessings, and
in the character of the people covenanted, Jer. xxxi.
31 — 35. and so the apostle terms it a better covenant,
which was established upon better promises, Heb. viii.
6. But if the promise of his being their God implied
nothing more than what it did in the former covenant
with old Israel, I cannot see with what propriety it
could be called a better covenant, or be said to bo
established upon better promises.
He states a very proper question on this subject,
viz. " In what sense is it that God calls himself the
God of the nation of Israel ; and in assuming this re-
lation to them, as a nation, declares, that he remem-
bers the covenant made with their fathers — as he does
in Exod. vi. 4 — 8. Lev. xxvi. 12. and in other places ?'*
In answer to this he observes,
" 1. It seems to me a fair general principle, that
when we find a particular view of any subject, ex-
pressly and simply stated by an inspired writer, we
should so far admit this view to be a rule for the ex-
planation of other passages of scripture, as that, when
there are two possible interpretations of any circum-
stance connected with it, that should be held the right
•ue, which harmonizes with, and illustrates it. It ap
F
66 Review of3Ir. Wardlaw's Lectures
pears to me that nothing can be more express and
simple, than what the apostle says in Gal. iii. in con-
nection with the passage before us, that this covenant
made with Abraham, was confirmed of God in Christ,
and that its promises were made to one seed which is
Christ. If the view given of these expressions, with
their connection, is admitted, and 1 conceive it to be
founded on the jjlain and obvious meaning of the
words, it follows, that when God is any where said to
remember his covenant, the expression ought to be un-
derstood in a sense consistent with it." P. 46, 47.
Though this general rule of interpretation were un-
exceptionable, which it is not ; yet, in the present
case, it is inapplicable: because, though the covenant
made with Abraham "was confirmed of God in Christ,"
and its " promises were made to one seed, which is
Christ," yet none of these expressions refer to the co-
venant of circumcision, as has been shown, and so do
not explain the sense in which God declares himself
to be the God of the whole nation of Israel. It is to
the covenant of circumcision, which includes the pro-
mise of being their God, and of his giving them the
land of Canaan, that Gcd refers when about to deliver
them out of Egypt, and to put them in possession of
it, Exod. vi. 4 — 9. We need only to read Psal. cv.
from ver. 8. to the end, to see how God remembered his
covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the whole
series of his dealings with their seed after them, till at
last " he gave them the lands of the heathen ; and they
inherited the labour of the people." No human rule
of interpretation, nor process of reasoning, however
laboured and ingenious, can be sustained as giving the
true sense of scripture promises, when that sense does
not agree with the plain historical facts which the
On the Abrahamic Covenant. ifff,
scripture ifself states as the fulfilment of these pro-
mises. Mr. W 's general principle or rule of interpreta-
tion in the present case, is founded on a mistake which
runs through his whole lectures, namely. That the co-
venant which was confirmed before of God in Christ,
Gen. xii. 3. Gal. iii. S, 17. is the very same with the
covenant of circumcision, Gen. xvii. 7, 8, 10. though
it is plain, that the former included the Gentiles, while
the latter respected the natural descendants of Abra-
ham, and was part of the partition wall which sepa-
rated them from other nations. But he proceeds,
" 2dly, When he is called their God, we are to
view them not as a nation, or civil community, but as
his church, his professing people." P. 47.
But where does the scripture make such a distinc-
tion as this? Where is it declared that God was not
their God as a nation, but only as a church? Was
not the nation of Israel a national church? How then
could he be called their God as his church, and not as
his nation ? Does he not say to that nation, " 1 am
the Lord thy God, which have bionght thee out of the
land of Egypt?" Exod. xx. 2. and " ye shall be unto
me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation, "chap.
xix. 6. Moses uses this aigunient with God on their
behalf, " Consider that this nation is thy people,"
chap, xxxiii 18. It is evident the Psalmist thought
that God was their God as a nation, for he says,
*' Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, and
the people whom he hath chosen for his inheritance,"
Psal, xxxiii. \'2. If Mr. W. could show, that Israel us
a church were Abraham's spiritual seed, but as a nation
tliey were only his carnal seed, this would be doing
something to the purpose ; but a mere verbal distinc-
tion, or the ditference of a name, could never liiake
F 2
68 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
any difference in the nature of the people, or in thei?
relation to God. The government of that nation was
a Theocracy, the government of God himself. He
not only gave them laws respecting the whole form of
their religious worship, but also for regulating their
secular and civil affairs as a state ; so that he was the
very king of that nation even in a political sense; and
hence he was displeased with that people for desiring
a king like the rest of the nations ; and says, " they
have rejected me, that I should not reign over them,"
3 Sam. viii. 7. And though he allowed them a king,
yet that king was to be of his choosing, and to be under
his express command and direction in the matters of
government, and of peace and war ; so that the Lord
still remained the King of that nation, which is included
in the idea of his being their God. Thus he was, dur-
ing that temporal and typical economy, the God of the
whole nation of Israel in such a sense as he never was
to any other nation of this world. With regard to the
spiritual seed of Abraham who were among them, he
was their God in a spiritual and eternal sense ; but
not by virtue of the covenant of circumcision, or the old
covenant founded thereon, which included the whole
nation, but by faith in the promised Seed, by which
they became interested in the new covenant to be
made after those days, and heirs of its spiritual bless-
ings.
But Mr. W. is sensible that this does not suit the
point he has in view, which is the baptism of all the
natural seed of believers ; and therefore he labours to
show, that God was the God of the national church of
old Israel, in the same sense as he is the God of the
true Israel by the new covenant ; and, in short, that
tlie christian church does not difier from that erected
On the Abrahamic Covenant. C9
at Sinai, but is only a restoration of it. To evince
this he observes, That when God made his covenant
with Abraham, his family became " the household of
feith ;" otherwise the adults would not have submitted
to the painful rite of circumcision — That the nation of
Israel became the church of God, when they believed
the message sent to them by Moses, and bowed their
heads and worshipped, Exod. iii. and iv. — That they
kept the passover as a profession of that faith, chap,
xii. — That the reason why the race who came out of
Egypt fell in the wilderness was unbelief, which show-
ed that their former professions of faith were hypo-
critical— That, on entering into Canaan, the generation
then existing, " avouched the Lord to be their God,"
and, on the footing of that profession, were circum-
cised with their little ones, Deut. xxvi. 17, &c. Josh.
V. 2—9. P. 47, 48, 49.
These are his proofs that the family of Abraham,
and the church of Israel, were believers. The family
of Abraham that were born in his house, or bought
with his money, no doubt believed something which
made them submit to be circumcised, and among other
things, they might beheve that, if they did not submit,
Abraham might dispose of them to other masters.
The elders of Israel believed the w ord of the Lord re-
specting their temporal deliverance from slavery : but
they soon after disbelieved it, Exod. v. 21. chap. vi. 9,
12. and whatever faith they professed in keeping the
passover, it seems to have entirely failed them at the
Red Sea, chap. xiv. 11. 12. After they had got safely
through, we are told that " the people feared the Lord,
and believed the Lord and his servant Moses," ver. 31.
yet Mr. W. is obliged to admit, that they fell in the
wilderness through unbelief, and gave abundant eri-
TO Review of Mr. Wardlaufs Lectures
dencc that their professions of faith were hypocritical,
*' coming out of feigned lips." Now, whe.her shall we
consider them, as, upon the whole, believers or unbe-
lievers ? Surely the Lord's judgment of them was
accordinir to truth when he said, " they are a very fro-
ward generation, children in whom is no faith," Deut.
xxxii. :^0. But Mr. W. observes, that, " on entering
into Canaan, the generation then exibting avouched
the Lord to be their God, Deut. xxvi. 17, &c. and oa
the footing of that profession were circumcised with
their little ones," Josh. v. 2—9. Yet the scripture
does not say, that it was on WmA footing they were cir-
cumcised, but because they had not been circumcisi d
by the way, ver. 7. Those who fell in the wilderness
had also avouched the Lord to be their God, Exod.
xix. 8. chap xxiv. 3, 7. but yet they were not true be-
lievers. With regard to those of them who entered
into the land of Canaan and possessed it, the Lord
him.self, and his servant Moses, give a very diiferent
view of then) fiom what Mr. W. .seems to convey, (sec
Deut. xxxi. 16. — :iO) and iheir history fully veriHes
that view ; for very soon after the death of Joshua
they and the rising generation forsook the Lord and
followed other gods, Judg. ii. 11— 14.
He admits that " the church was for many ages in a
state of great corruption;" but then he adds, " Yet
after all, was not the state of Israel of old very
similar to the state of the church of Christ in many
periods after his coming? And to the state oi many
individual churches of the saints ? Take, as an ex-
ample, the case of several of the Asiatic churches to
whom the epistles in Rev. ii. and iii. are addressed by
the Lord. Several of these churches are .severely re-
proved for their corruption. They are called upon to
On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 71
repent ; they are threatened with judgments, and with
destruction if tbey did not. Can any thing, on a small
scale, be more exactly parallel to the state and treat-
ment of the ancient church ?" P. 40, 50.
Here I would ask, what does he mean by the church of
Christ, as distinguished from many individual churches
of the saints ? I know of no church of Christ that
can be thus distinguished from individual churches,
but the general assembly and church of the first-born,
which includes all true believers; and surely he cannot
mean to say, that the corrupt state of the holy catholic
church of Christ was at any period similar to the cor-
rupt state of the Jewish church. As to individual
visible churches, it must be admitted, that the purest
of them, even in the apostolic age, were not without
their evils and imperfections ; and it is also true, that
many of them began very early to degenerate and fall
off from their former attainments, particularly with re-
spect to the state of their rninds, and were admonished
by him who searcheth the reins and hearts. But should
some of these churches depart from the faith and obe-
dience of the gospel, and persist in refusing to lay to
heart Christ's admonitions and warnings, or to comply
with his calls to repentance, 1 cannot think that Mr.
W. would consider such as still possessing the charac-
ter oi churches of the saints, though not more corrupt
than Israel of old ; for he admits " the superior spiri-
tuality of the new dispensation, and the more complete
discrimination of character which was to take place
under it." P. 52. The church of old Israel, notwith-
standing all their corruptions, are termed a holy nation,
a peculiar people, as being externally separated to
God from all other nations, though the greater part of
them were a carnal and irregenerate people; but I
^2 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
■r ■
cannot think that a nation under the New Testament,
similar to old Israel, though it should assume a kincS
of profession of Christianity, would be acknowledged
by Christ, or his apostles, as a christian church, or a
church of saints and faithful brethren. Many, indeed,
plead the evils with which some of the apostolic
churches are blamed, to excuse their continuance in the
corrupt communion of a national church ; but surely
this cannot be Mr. W's motive for stating the corrup-
tions of some of the apostolic churches as exactly pa-
rallel to those of the Jewish church. His design, I
suppose, is to show, that the Old and New Testament
churches are the same.
Havitig cited some prophecies respecting the purg-
ing of the church, such as Zech. xiii. 8. Mai. iii. 2, 3.
and the words of John the Baptist, Matth. iii. 8 — 12.
he observes, that, " It was his own floor that Jesus
thus fanned and purged — it was his own church to
"which he thus proved a refiner's fire and fuller's soap
— it was his own vineyard that he thus cut down with
the axe of his judgments, those rotten trees which cum-
bered the ground." P. 52.
Doubtless the floor, the church, the vineyard were
his own, but what then? JDoes it follow from this
that they were the same with his New Testament floor,
church, or vineyard? The national church and king-
dom of Israel were his own, so that when he came
unto that nation he came unto his own ; yet his own
received him not, John i. 11. The church and king-
dom of Israel was of a worldly constitution. It ad-
mitted the use of the sword in its erection, government,
and defence. Its inheritance was earthly, and its
blessings of a temporal nature. Its sanctuary and
ordinances of diTine worship were worldly and typical^
On the Abrahamic Covenant 73
Hlfid its people in general were carnal, the mere chil-
dren of the flesh. From this worldly establishment
Christ distinguishes his New Testament kingdom or
church in his confession before Pontius Pilate; " My
kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were
of this world, then would my servants fight, that I
should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my
kingdom not from hence :" And he intimates that he
was to promote his kingdom by " bearing witness unto
the truth," and that his subjects are only such as are
of Ihe truth" and " hear his voice," John xviii. 36, 37.
This is termed the kingdom of heaven as distinguished
from the Jewish church or kingdom, which was only an
earthly prefiguration or shadow of it. This kingdom
was pt oclaimed as at hand, or nigh, by John the Bap-
tist, and by Christ himself in the days of his flesh,
Matth. iii. 2. chap. iv. 17. It is founded on Christ's
death and resurrection from the dead, by which he ra-
tified the new covenant with Abraham's spiritual seed
of all nations who are blessed in him, and by which
also he set aside the old covenant with the national
church of Israel, and all the typical and earthly
things pertaining to it ; admitting none of that people
into his new Testament church and kingdom upon the
footing of their descent from Abraham, or of their
being members of the Jewish church, but as being
believers in his name, and born of God, John i. 12, 13.
and these were only a remnant of them according to
the election of grace, Rom. xi. 5. So that though
God had his people in all ages, both before and under
the Jewish economy, who were saved by faith in the
promised Seed ; yet the New Testament church is not
a continuation of the Jewish church, but is of a very
different nature and constitution. He says^
74 Review of Mr. Wardlaivs Lectures
" It is the uniform manner of the prophets to speak
bf the Gentiles as bein^ at a future period to be added,
or brought in to the church of God which existed at
the time they wrote." P. 53.
If by the church which existed at the time when
the prophets wrote, he means the national church of
Israel which was erected at Sinai, he must understand
these prophecies to mean, that the Gentiles were to be
added, or brought in to the national church of Israel :
But does this agree with the apostolic application of
these prophecies, or with the events which took place
at the time when God visited the Gentiles to take out
of them a people for his name ? Far from it. Even the
Jewish converts to Christ were formed into churches
distinct from the national church or the synagogue,
though indulged for a time in some of its usages. As
to the Gentile converts, they were not added to the
Jewish church, but were absolutely forbidden to be
circumcised, or to observe its peculiar institutions.
Still he insists,
*' That the ancient church is represented in pro-
phecy as gloriously restoj?^ at the coming of Messiah,
and as receiving the accession of the Gentiles," Isa.
xlix. 6. Amos ix. 11, 12. P. 54.
To understand these prophecies as referring literally
to the national Jewish church, is to understand them
exactly as the Jews did ; but they were miserably dis-
appointed in their expectations. That national church,
instead of being restored, was then broken off through
unbelief, and, like the bondwoman and her son, cast
out of God's house, Rom. xi. 20. Gal. i v. 22— 31. and,
as I have already observed, nothing but a small rem-
nant of that nation was acknowledged as the true
church of God, and with them, not with the national
On the Abraliamic Covenant. 75
church, were the converted Gentiles incorporated, so
as to become ot" twain one new man in Christ, Eph.ii.
15 and that not according to the covenant of circum-
cision, or the old Sinai covenant; but according to
the original promise made to A.brahani, viz. " In thee
shall all tlie nations of the earth be blessed."
With respect to Isa. xlix. 6. it is a promise to Christ,
not that he should restore the preserved of Israel to
their former state in the Jewish church ; but that he
should convert a number of them to the faith of the
gospel, and turn them from their iniquities to God, as
Acts iii 21. 1 Pet ii. 25. And as to what relates to
the Gentiles in this prophecy, we see how the apostle
applies it, Acts xiii. 47. With respect to Amos ix. 11,
12. where the Lord promises to " raise up the taber-
nacle of David that is fallen down, and to close up the
breaches thereof, and build it as in the days of old,"
it does not signify that he would raise up and restore
the earthly kingdom of David to its ancient glory and
prosperity ; but that he would raise up the spiritual
kingdom of Messiah the Son of David, and bring in
subjects to him from among the Gentiles, as appears
from the application of this prophecy. Acts xv. 14. —
28. where it is used as an argument against circum-
cising the Gentiles who had turned to God. Mr. W.
observes,
** That when the conversion of the Jews, in the lat-
ter days, is spoken of, it is under the idea of reiurnitig,
or restoration ; which could never have been the case,
if the Old Testament church had been entirely differ-
ent from the New ; inasmuch as there would be no
propriety in speaking of their returning, or being re-
stored to a church to which they had never belonged."
For these expressions he cites Isa. xlix. 6. Hos. iii-
4, 5. P. 55.
76 Review of Mr. )Vardlaiv's Lectures
Here he owns that it is the conversion of the Jews
that is spoken of under the idea of their restoration or
returning ; and if so, these expressions must be some-
what figurative ; but is there therefore no propriety in
them ? AVe are sure that the remnant of that nation,
who were converted in the days of the apostles, were
not restored to the Jewish church of which they were
already natural members ; but they were separated
from that church, and added to the Lord and to one
another in the strictest union, Acts ii. 41, 47. Acts v.
14. chap. xi. 24. and were formed into churches of
Christ throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria,
Acts ix. 31. As to Hos. iii. 4, 5. if that prophecy re-
lates to the conversion of the Jews in the latter days, it
cannot mean their returning again to the Jewish
church. The words are, " Afterward shall the children
of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and
David their King :" i. e. Messiah the antitype of
David. This is a clear prophecy of their repentance
towards God, and faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ :
And in what other way can we suppose them to return
in the latter days than as the remnant of them returned
at first, when returning to Judaism, or the Jewish
church, was considered as apostacy ? But he pro-
duces another passage to prove that the Jewish and
Christian churches are the same :
*' Still more apposite and remarkable is the lan-
guage of Paul, Rom xi. 23, 24. And they also, if they
abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in ; for God
is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut
out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert
graffed, contrary to nature, into a good olive tree ; how
much more shall they which be the natural branches,
be graffed into their own olive tree." Were the Old
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 77
and New Testament churches entirely different, it i»
not easy to see with what propriety the Jews, in beings
brought into the latter, can be said to be graffed into
their own olive tree — graffed in again, i. e. into the
same tree from which they had been cut off." P. 55, 56.
Bv the good olive tree he understands the Old Tes-
lament church, otherwise he thinks it could with no
propriety be called their own olive tree ; and he imag-
ines that it is into that church they are again to be
graflfed. The apostle indeed speaks of Israel who
were broken off through unbelief, as again to be graffed
into their own olive tree : But by this tree he does not
mean the nation of Israel, the whole frame of whose
constitution, order and ordinances of worship, as a
church, were settled and established by a peculiar na-
tional covenant ; for he is evidently speaking of that
good olive tree into which the believing Gentiles were
graffed among the natural branches, the believing Jews,
and with them partaking of its root and fatness, ver. 17.
but the believing Gentiles were not graffed into the na-
tional church of Israel, and so that church cannot be
meant by the good olive tree. I apprehend the apos-
tle, by this figure, intends the original promise made to
Abraham, that in his seed all nations of the earth should
be blessed. This seed is Christ, who is the root from
which all the true branches derive fatness. Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob were separated unto God for the sake
of Christ, that seed that was to spring of them, and
bless all nations ; and for his sake also their posterity,
the whole house of Israel, were separated unto God
from all other people, and were favored with many
distinguished privileges. The Jews were naturally re
lated to Christ according to the flesh, and so are termed
the natural branches. But when Christ came unto Ms
78 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
own, and the greater part of them received him not,
their natural relation to him was of no more avail ; as
they had no spiritual connection with Christ, they were
broken off. It was only to those of them that received
him, believing on his name, that he gave power to be-
come the true sons of God, John i. 11, 12. These
"were graffed into Christ by faith, and were branches
in him the true vine, chap. xv. 1 — 6. And it was
amonj; these believing Jews that Gentile converts, who
were of the wild olive, were gralTed in, Vieing made
** fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of
his promise in Christ by the gospel," Eph. iii. (J and
thus partook with them of the root and fatness of the
good olive tree. And so when the natural branches,
which were broken off through unbelief, shall be graffed
in again, it w ill not be into Moses, but into Christ ; nor
into the national church erected at Sinai, but into that
which is built upon the foundation of the apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner
stone. Mr. W. lays much stress upon the w ord again,
as if it meant their being put into their former Jewish
church state. But the word is not always to be taken
in so strict a sense. The Galatians are said to turn
again to the w eak and beggarly elements of the Jewish
law, and to desire again to be in bondage to them,
though they never observed these things before, Gal.
iv. 9. When a man is said to be born again, it does
not signify a repetition of his first birth, but a birth
altogether different; and to be begotten again to a
lively hope, does not signify the restoration of a hope
which we formerly possessed : So when it is said that
the Jews, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be
jfraffed again into their own olive tree, it does not mean
that they shall be put into the same church-state ia
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 79
which the nation of Israel formerly was ; but that they
shall be converted to the faith of the gospel, and par-
take with believing Gentiles of the blessing of Abraham
through Jesus Christ. The reason why Mr. W. con-
tends that the Jewish and Christian churches are the
same, seems to be for the sake of the covenant of cir-
cumcision, from whence he infers the baptism of the
infant seed of New Testament believers. He says,
" That while the promises of the covenant made
with Abraham were made to the spiritual seed, con-
sisting of believers of all ages and nations of the world;
yet there was in them a primary respect to the natural
offspring of Abraham. This observation is of con-
siderable moment on the subject under consideration."
P. 56.
If the subject under consideration be infant baptism,
I see not how this observation is of any moment at all
on that subject, unless it be to Jews ; for neither Gen-
tile believers nor their infants are the natural offspring
of Abraham, and therefore are not the objects of that
primary respect. He explains what he means by a
primary respect.
" That primary respect, which I now speak of, as
being had in the promise to the natural offspring, is a
respect not merely primary according to the order of
time, but according to a peculiarity of regai'd, and
according to what may be termed the natural course
of things. That God does show such regard to children
on account of their parents, we find both intimated and
exemplified in many parts of the scripture history."
For this he refers us to Gen. xviii. 17 — 19. Exod. xx.
5, 6. Jer. xxxi. 31—33. Rom. xi.1,28.
I freely admit that the promises made to Abraham
had a primary respect to his natural offspring, and
80 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
have shown this in another publication.* But on this
subject we must distinguish Abraham's natural off-
spring into the children of the flesh and the children of
the promise, and also the promises themselves into
temporal and spiritual.
1. Abraham had a numerous natural posterity by
Hagar and Keturah, Gen. xxv. and in the line of
Isaac by his grandson Esau, chap, xxxvi. so that he
literally became the father of many nations ; but though
these were the natural offspring of Abraham, and cir-
cumcised, the promises had no primary respect to
them ; they were not heirs with him, nor made any
part of the holy covenanted nation or church of God,
even in a typical sense. This primary respect was
restricted to his natural posterity in the line of Jacob,
the children of Israel, and that, not according to the
natural course of things, or any natural right or excel-
lency in them that might entitle them to a preference,
Deut. ix. 4, 5, 6, 24. but according to the sovereign
purpose of God, who had elected them to be a peculiar
people to himself, Rom. ix. 11 — 14. But here it must
carefully be observed, that even among this selected
part of Abraham's natural posterity, there was a dis-
tinction still more wide and of greater importance than
the former, viz. the distinction between the mere chil-
dren of the flesh, who were of the circumcision only,
or Jews outwardly, and those of them who were not of
the circumcision only, but also walked in the steps of
that faith of their father Abraham, Rom. ii. 28, 29.
chap. iv. 12. The former made up the jjreater part of
the church or congregation of Israel, and, as mere
subjects of the old Sinai covenant, are classed with
* See Defence of Believers' Baptism in this Volnme.
On the Ahrahamic Covenant. 81
the children of Hagar the bond-woman, Gal. iv. 24, 25.
The latter were always but a small remnant in com-
parison of the number of the children of Israel ; and
though by an election of grace, they^ were heirs of the
spiritual promise made to Abraham, yet they were
kept in a state of minority, under the discipline and
tutorage ot the Mosaic law, until Christ came and be-
stowed upon them the full liberty and privileges of
sons. Gal. iii. 24, 25. chap. iv. 1 — 8.
2. In considering the primary respect which the
promises made to Abraham had to his natural pos-
terity, we must distinguish these promises into tempo-
ral and spiritual.
With respect to the temporal promises, these had
not only a primary but peculiar respect to Abraham's
natural offspring, in the line of Jacob, such as their
being multiplied, redeemed from Egypt, put in pos-
session of the land of Canaan, and their enjoyment of
the good things of that land ; and in all these blessings
their infant seed, according to the natural course of
things, must have shared with tiiem ; even as, on the
other hand, they must have suffered with them in their
calamities ; for temporal promises or threatenings are
frequently of such a nature as to aflfect succeeding
generations.
As to the spiritual promises, which are included in
the blessing of Abraham, such as justification, the pro-
mise of the Spirit, the true adoption of sons, &c. these
had also a primary, though not a peculiar or exclusive,
respect to Abraham's natural offspring. That they had
not an exclusive respect to them is clear from the very
words of the covenant with Abraham on which the
apostle's argument is founded, viz. " In thee," or, " m
thy Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,"
G
82 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
which includes Gentiles as well as Jews, Gal. iii. 8,
14, IG, 17, 28. and with this the facts recorded in the
accomplishment of that promise perfectly agree. But,
as 1 said, the spiritual promises had a primary respect
to the natural offspring of Abraham. When the pro-
mised Seed came to bless all nations, he came first
unto his own nation, being sent unto the lost sheep of
the house of Israel, and was a minister of the circum-
cision to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
The gospel was first preached to the Jews both by
Christ himself and his apostles ; and we find Peter
urging and encouraging them to repent and be con-
verted, by the primary concern they had in the cove-
nant which God made with their fathers respecting
Christ, whom he had now first raised up to them, and
sent to bless them. Acts iii. 25, 26. The first church
of the saints was gathered from among them, being be-
gotten with the word of truth, that they might be a
kind of first fruits of his creatures ; and from that
church sounded out the word of God unto the nations,
that the Gentiles might be made partakers of their
spiritual things, Rom. xv. 27. Thus the spiritual pro-
mises had a primary respect to the natural offspring
of Abraham. But as the bulk of that nation rejected
Christ when he came, and persecuted his followers,
neither their being the circumcised seed of Abraham,
nor their national relation to God by the Sinai covenant,
could entitle them to the privileges of free sons and
heirs ; and so they were, like the bond-woman and her
son, cast out of God's house. Gal. iv. 22 — 31. John
viii. 31 — 37. But Mr. W. produces another passage.
" There is an expression also used by Paul re-
specting the Jews in their present state of unbelief,
which appears to me inexplicable, except ou some
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 8^
such principle : — " As touching the election, says he>
tkey are beloved for the fathers' sokes/' Rom. xi. 28.
P. 58.
The apostle is there expressly speaking touching the
election. Now there was a two-fold election of Abra-
ham's natural seed. — 1. There was a national election
of them, whereby they were chosen to be a peculiar
people unto God in distinction from all other nations.
See Deut. iv. 37. chap. vii. 6, 7, 8. chap. x. 14, 15. and
the reasons assigned for this are, because he loved
their fathers and them, and because he would keep the
oath which he had sworn unto their fathers. — 2. There
is an election of grace, as opposed to works, and dis-
tinguished from their national election, it being only a
remnant of that nation who belonged to this election
in the time of the apostles, Rom. xi. 5, 6. so that though
Israel, as a nation, obtained not that which he sought
for, yet the election among them obtained it, and the
rest, who were not of that election, were blinded, ver.
7—11. Now the election mentioned ver. 28. as it re-
spects those of them who are yet to be graffed in, must
be of the same kind with thut election of grace, accord-
ing to which a remnant of that people were saved in
the apostolic age, and who were a kind of first-fruits
or sample of all the true Israel among them. So that
whatever general profession of Christianity, as some
conceive, that nation may yet assume, it will always
hold true, that none of them but the election will ob-
tain ; and that not upon the footing of their ancient
national election, and fleslily relation to the patriarchs,
but purely upon the footing of the same sovereign free
mercy that was shown to the Gentiles. So the apostle
states it : " For as ye (Gentiles) in times past have not
believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through
c2
84 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
their unbelief; even so have these (Jews) also now not
believed, that through your mercy they also may
OBTAIN MERCY. Fof God hath concluded them all
in unbelief," or shut up all, both Jews and Gentiles in
their turns, " in unbelief, that he might have mercy
upon all," ver. 30, 31, 32. That is, that both of them
being upon a level, and equally in a state of guilt and
condemnation, their salvation might appear to be of
the same free sovereign mercy, and not on account
of any thing which distinguished the Jew from the
Gentile.
But how then are the election among the Jews said
to be beloved for the fathers' sakes ? Does not this
imply that the distinguishing love of God towards the
elect among the Jews took its rise from, or was in-
fluenced by, the personal faith or holiness of Abraham,
Isaac, and their other godly fathers ? To this I answer,
that if we understand the words in this sense, it will
not be easy to reconcile them to the scripture doctrine
of divine grace, which is always opposed to any wor-
thiness in the creature, is represented as sovereign and
free to the undeserving, and as leading the objects of it
not to value themselves on any natural advantages, or
even in having Abraham to their father, but to glory
only in the Lord. If they were thus beloved merely
for the sake of tlic godliness of their fathers, Ishmael
and Esau with their posterities, and, at any rate, the
whole nation of Israel, must have had an equal claim
to this peculiarity of divine regard, for they all sprung
from the same godly fathers. Abraham himself sprung
from idolatrous ancestors, and was called out from the
idolatry of his father's house. Josh. xxiv. 6, 14. He
had nothing of himself but what he received of sove-
reign grace. He was justified not by works, but in
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 85
believin;^ on him that justifieth the ungodly, Rom. iv.
1 — 6. All the spiritual blessings promised to him,
either personally or to his spiritual seed, were of pure
grace, througli faith ; and though his faith wrought
with his works, which were approved of God, yet it
was not for the sake of these works that any of his
posterity were beloved and elected to salvation; for
that is an election of grace, not of works, Rom. xi. 5. 6.
I apprehend, therefore, that when the apostle says,
" As concerning the election, they are beloved for the
fathers' sakes," he means for the sake of that which
God promised to their fathers. The promise to Abra-
ham was, " In thee," or " In thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed," Gen. xii. 3. chap,
xxii. 18. This, the apostle informs us, was (he cove-
nant which was confirmed before of God in Christ,
and in which the gospel was before preached to Abra-
ham ; and he explains this Seed in whom the nations
were to be blessed, and to whom the promises were
made, to be Christ, Gal. iii. 8, 16, 17. This promise
was renewed to Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 4, and to Jacob,
chap, xxviii. 14. Now as Christ is the Seed that was
promised to the fathers, and as it is in him that men
are blessed ; so it must be (Jis) through, or for the sake
of this Seed that the fathers themselves, as well as
their elect offspring, are beloved. The Lord, indeed,
says to Abraham, " In thee shall all nations be
blessed," Gal. iii. 8. And so the apostle terras it
" the BLESSING OF ABRAHAM," vcr. 14. But this
manner of speaking is not to be understood as if Abra-
ham himself was to be the original source, procurer or
dispenser of that blessing, or that it was to be be-
stowed for his sake ; but it was a free promise made
to him as father of the faithful, and confirmed to him
S3 Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures
in Christ, v«'ho was to come of his seed according to
the flesh, and m whom, not in Abraham personally
considered, all nations were to be blessed. So that
whatever temporal blessings and outward privileges
were promised to, or conferred on the nation of Israel
for the fathers' sakes ; yet the spiritual blessings of
redemption, which were peculiar to the elect among
them, are promised and bestowed only for Christ's
sake.
It has been observed, that the promises made to Abra-
ham had a primary respect to his natural offspring ;
and from this it follows, that they can have no such
respect to the natural offspring of Gentile believers,
for this plain reason, that they cannot have tivo pri-
mary respects. There is no absolute promise made
to any believer that he shall have a seed, as was made
to Abraham'. No christian parent is constituted the
father of the faithful as Abraham was, but is reckoned
among his children ; for " they which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. None
are the spiritual seed of Abraham, or to be reckoned
such, as being the natural offspring of believers; but
as being themselves believers; for such only are de-
clared to be the children of God and Abraham's seed.
Gal. iii. 26, 29. The graceless children of believers
arc no more in covenant with God than those of unbe-
lievers, and to teach them otherwise is to furnish them
with a presumptuous claim.
Yet if christian parents set a godly example before
their children, and bring them up in the nurture and
admonition oi the Lord, as they are commanded, (and
they deserve not the name of christians who neglect
this,) their children must have advantages greatly su-
perior to those which the children of Jewish parents
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 87
bad, though they were the natural seed of Abraham,
circumcised in infancy, and early instructed in the
letter of the Mosaic law : advantages as much superior,
in respect of outward means, as the light, purity, and
spirituality of the gospel dispensation excel those of
the legal. And though they cannot ensure success to
their endeavours, nor baptize them, according to
Christ's institution, till they are taught, and the effects
of that teaching appear ; yet they have ground to hope,
that the Lord will bless his own appointed means for
their conversion and eternal salvation ; for it is in this
way that he ordinarily accomplishes the purposes of
his grace, though he has not bound himself by any
absolute promise to believing parents, that these means
shall always prove effectual for the salvation of their
children. And here we ought to bow with the deepest
reverence before the sovereign Lord of heaven and
earth, who hath mercy on whom he will, and beware
of binding him down by supposed promises with re-
spect to that wherein he hath left himself free. This
would be high presumption on the one hand, and tend
to infidelity on the other ; for when men observe that,
in many instances, facts do not c^gree with the sense in
which they understand these promises, they are in
danger, instead of relinquishing their error, of sus-
pecting the faithfulness of God.
Mr. W. introduces his third Lecture with what he
calls a favourite maxim with many, viz. " That, in
considering the observances to which we are bound
as christians, we have nothing to do with the Old
Testament scriptures. These must be completely
laid aside. We have no title to interpret them, or to
act on such interpretation. — This principle is very
often brought forward to preclude all arguing as to our
SS Review of Mr. Wardlaw' s Lectures
practice in baptizing cliildren from the nature of the
Abrahainic covenant." P. 68.
The Baptists in general make as much use of the
Old Testament scriptures as others do. They believe
that all the Old Testament scripture is given by inspi-
ration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for re-
proof, for correction and instruction in righteousness ;
and, in short, that whatsoever things were written
aforetime were written for our learning as christians.
But then, they do not think themselves bound, as
christians, to observe all i\ie positive institutions of the
Old Testament, nor indeed any of them as such, how-
ever much the ancient Judaizers insisted on this. Nor
do they think that a positive institution, such as cir-
cumcision is, can, by any process of reasoning w hat-
ever, be converted into a rule, precedent, or warrant for
infant-baptism, concerning which there is not a single
syllable either in the Old or New Testaments. The
baptism of believers is an institution of Christ, and
peculiar to the New Testament dispensation. It is a
positive institution, founded entirely on the express
will of the Instituter, and abstract from the revelation
of his will concerning it, can be deduced from no other
principle, natural or moral, with which we are ac-
quainted ; and therefore all arguments for infant-bap-
tism, drawn from the covenant of circumcision, are
altogether inconclusive and nugatory. That there can
be no positive ordinance of divine worship which
christians are bound, or even warranted, to observe,
without a revelation of the will of God concerning it
by express precept or clear example, is a maxim fully
admitted by all consistent Protestants, when contend-
ing against the superstitious inventions of the church
of Rome, or even the ceremonies of the church of
England. But Mr. W. says.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 89
•' I think this maxim might be fairly and success-
fully combated, as a general principle, upon general
grounds." P. 68. ^
I know not what general grounds he has in view ;
but the subject in hand is a particular positive institu-
tion, which can neither be combated nor defended
upon general grounds, but upon the particular and
express revelation of the will of God concerning it.
This is its only ground, and with this single ground it
must stand or fall. But if Mr. W. could fairly and
successfully overthrow this maxim, as applied to po-
sitive institution, he would do more than all the abet-
tors of clerical authority and superstition have hitherto
been able to do ; for they have been obliged to com-
bat this maxim by asserting that the church, i. e. the
clergy, have a right to enact such religious institutions
and ceremonies as they in their wisdom may think
proper. A sentiment this, which I am fully persuaded
Mr. W. would not adopt, though infant-baptism itself
should be at stake, as in fact it is. But though he
thinks the above maxim might be fairly and success-
fully combated, yet he declines the task as being quite
unnecessary. His words are,
" Yet I am very well pleased that such proof is, in
the present instance, quite unnecessary ; for it happens
most fortunately, that the covenant made with Abra-
ham is a portion of the Old Testament scriptures, as
fully and amply explained in the New as any other to
which reference is made. This I have attempted to
show from the preceding verses, taken in connection
with the third chapter of the epistle to the Galatians.
So that, even upon this limited principle, supposing it
admitted to its full extent, we have an unquestioned title
to understand it, and found arguments upon it." P. 68.
90 Review of Mr. V/ardlaivs Lectures
That the covenant made with Abraham is a portion
of the Old Testament scriptures — that it is explained
in the New — that he has an unquestioned title to xm-
derstand it according- to that explanation, and to found
arguments upon it agreeably to the plain scope and
design of the apostolic explanation, is freely admitted ;
and if these are the things which he has been at-
tempting to show by his lectures on Rom. iv. in con-
nection with Gal. iii. he might have saved himself
much ingenious labour ; for I know no Baptist who
entertains the least doubt as to these particulars. But
what has all this to do with the question about positive
institution, such as baptism is ? There is not a word
about infant-baptism in the Abrahamic covenant; nor
does the apostle in all his reasoning upon it in Rom.
iv. and Gal. iii. give the least hint of infant-baptism,
either directly or indirectly ; the whole scope and de-
sign of his reasoning being to establish the doctrine of
free justification by faith without circumcision or the
works of the law. Though I am persuaded that Mr.
W. is a sincere friend of the doctrine of justification
by grace through faith ; yet I am sorry to observe, that,
throughout his lectures on these two chapters, his
main drift is quite foreign to that of Paul, it being to
establish infant-baptism, a point which the apostle had
not at all in his view. No part of his argument sup-
poses or implies it, nor does it appear to have entered
into his thoughts ; nor indeed can we reasonably sup-
pose that it did, as it is altogether a human invention,
which, so far as it obtains, supersedes and makes void
the commandment of Christ respecting the baptism of
believers. Therefore, though Mr. W. has an unques-
tioned title to understand the New Testament ex-
planation of the Abrahamic covenant, and to found
I
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 91
such arguments upon it as are clearly supported by
that explanation ; yet he has no title to found argu-
ments for infant-baptism on an explanation which has
not the least reference to that subject, a subject which
can have no foundation, but in positive institution.
He gives the substance of his arguments from the
Abrahamic covenant in the following three particulars :
" 1. If it has been proved that the covenant made
with Abraham, was the same in the substance of its
IrDport, with the New Covenant, being confirmed of
God in Christ, then that covenant still exists. It
could not be disanulled by the law which was four
hundred and thirty years after it." P. 69.
Ans. It has been shown, that though circumcision
had a mystical import, as all typical institutions had,
yet the covenant which was confirmed of God in
Christ, recorded Gen. xii. 3. and repeated chap. xxii.
18. was not the covenant of circumcision, which in-
cluded all Abraham's male-Seed without distinction,
and also his slaves born in his house, or bought with
his money ; but it was a gospel promise that believers
of all nations should be blessed in Christ, without re-
gard to circumcision; for so the apostle explains it.
Gal. iii. 8, 9. Rom. iv. 9 — 13. It was therefore a promise
of the new and everlasting covenant which was to be
made long after those days, and ratified in the blood
of Christ.
" 2. 1 have," he says, " endeavoured to prove, from
a variety of passages in the word of God, that the
promises made to the Jewish fathers, had a primary
respect to their natural ofl'spring. — The same thing, in
my judgment, still continues. The same pi'imary re-
spect is still had in the promise, to the seed of believing
parents." P. 70.
9^ Rdview of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
Ans, It has been admitted, that the promises made
to the Jewish fathers had a primary respect to their
natural offspring. The temporal promises had a pe-
culiar respect to them as a nation, as their whole his-
tory proves ; but the spiritual promises had a respect
only to those of them who w^ere of the election of grace.
This is clear both from the doctrine of the New Tes-
taihent on that subject, and from the facts relating to
the accomplishment of these promises. By the pro-
mise Mr. W. chiefly means the spiritual promise, for
lie explains it as containing the spiritual blessings of
justification, sanctification, and the inheritance, P. 70,
72. — By the children to whom this promise has a pri-
mary respect, he intends the natural descendants of
Gentile believers, as such, for to such only does his
argument relate. So that he considers the fleshly ofi-
spring of Gentile believers, in their infancy, or without
any regard to their faith, to be the seed of Abraham,
to whom the spiritual promise has a primary, or, as he
also terras it, a peculiar respect : And this peculiarity
of respect he explains by distinguishing it from God's
rich and sovereign mercy, whereby he progressively
enlarges his family, by bringing in sinners from the
world. P. 72. This distinction appears to me to imply.
That the natural seed of Gentile believers are all born
in covenant with God : That they never were of the
world as others are, but were always the children of
God and of his family ; and so have not the same
need that others have of that rich and sovereign mercy
which is exercised in bringing in uncovenanted sinners
from the world. I wish not, however, to impute such
a sentiment to Mr. W. ; for though the above distinc-
tion plainly imports it, yet it is possible that he was
not aware of this.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. ■ 93
The children of believing parents have indeed many
outward advantages which other children have not,
at least to the same degree. They have the pious ex-
ample, the prayers, the particular care, and religious
instruction of their parents, which the Lord often
blesses to their conversion and salvation : But if they
are by nature the children of wrath even as others,
they are no more in covenant with God, till they are
born again, than the children of unbelievers are. And
though it should be granted that the Lord more or-
dinarily selects a seed to serve him from among the
former than from among the latter ; yet it affords not
the least warrant for baptizing them in their infancy,
or till they become the proper subjects of it by a pro-
fession of their faith in Christ, as the lav^ of baptism
expressly requires, and which, in this respect, differs
essentially from the law of circumcision. He adds,
" 3. I have endeavoured to prove, that the covenant
made with Abraham is one, containing the promises of
temporal, spiritual, and eternal blessings to one seed,
viz. the spiritual. I have endeavoured to prove that
circumcision was connected with this covenant, in this
view of it, as a whole : — that this ordinance was the
sign and seal of the promises of this covenant, to Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to all their believing seed —
signifying or representing to them all the same things,
even the spiritual blessings of justification and sancti-
fication, in connection with the coming of Messiah
from the loins of Abraham," &c. P. 72.
Ans. Poedobaptists, who have considered this sub-
ject, have been obliged to admit, that when all the
promises made to Abraham first and last are collected
into one covenant, they form a mixt covenant, including
in it two future covenants or dispensations, as they
94 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
term them ; that it contains two different kinds of pro-
mises, temporal and spiritual ; and also two different
kinds of seeds, the mere natural seed of Abraham, and
his spiritual believing seed : And they are also obliged
to admit, that circumcision, the token of this covenant,
and the temporal promises of it, belonged in common
to all the natural posterity of Abraham in the line of
Jacob, while the spiritual promises respected only his
spiritual seed by faith. But Mr. W. not content with
throwing all the promises into one covenant, viz. that
of circumcision, has endeavoured to prove, that that
covenant included only one seed, viz. the spiritual;
that all its promises, both temporal and spiritual, were;
made only to that one seed; and that circumcision was
connected with this mixt view of the covenant, as a
whole, signifying to them all the same things,viz. the spi-
ritual blessings of justification and sanctification, &c.
To affirm, that not only the spiritual and eternal, but
also all the temporal blessings were promised only to
one seed, viz. the spiritual, is to deny that the greater
part of Abraham's natural posterity had any interest in
the temporal blessings. His proof for this is Gal. iii.
IG. where the apostle is not speaking of temporal, but
only of spiritual blessings, and of these as promised in
the first place to Abraham's one seed, which is Ch rist,
in whom all the spiritual seed inherit them ; for Ibey
are blessed in him. He connects circumcision w ith his
view of the covenant as a whole, and considers it only
as a sign or seal of spiritual blessings to Abiaham and
all his believing seed : But what did it seal to all the
male-infants of Abraham's seed, for whom it was ex-
pressly appointed, Gen. xvii. 10? Were they all, or
even the greater part of them, Abraham's spiritual
seed ? Did none of Abraham's seed inherit the promise
i
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 95
of the land of Canaan and its temporal blessings, but
those of them who believed to the saving of the soul ?
I have already shown that there were different cove-
nants made with Abraham, as appears from the Mosaic
history, from the apostle's speaking of them in the
plural, Rom. ix. 4. Eph. ii. 12. and from the two very
different covenants which sprung from them, viz. the
old and the new. The first promise made to Abram
Gen. xii. 3. is termed " the covenant which was con-
firmed before of God in Christ," Gal. iii. 17. and con-
tained a promise of blessing all nations, i. e. all Abra-
ham's spiritual or believing seed of Jews and Gentiles.
But the covenant of circumcision did not include the
Gentiles, but was a peculiar covenant with the natural
posterity of Abraham, who were to receive the token
of it in their flesh in infancy, as a people separated to
God from all others, and of whom Messiah was to
spring. Christian baptism, therefore, is not founded
on the covenant of circumcision which was peculiar to
the natural seed of Abraham ; but on that covenant
which extends the blessing of Abraham to his spiritual
seed of all nations: Accordingly, when that ancient
covenant of promise came to be actually ratified in
the blood of Christ, the peculiar covenant of circum^
cision with the fleshly seed of Abraham was set aside,
and baptism was appointed to be administered to all,
whether Jews or Gentiles, who appeared to be his
spiritual seed by faith in Christ, but to none else.
Mr. W. remarks,
*' 1. That there is no absurdity in tJie thing itself—
the administering an ordinance of spiritual import to
children." P. 72.
It is certain there can be no absurdity in any thing
which the Lord appoints, whether we can see the rea-
96 Review of Mr. Wardlaws Lectures
son and propriety of it or not. It was the command
of God that every male-infant of Abraham's seed
should be circumcised at eight days old. This con-
stituted their right to it, and was the warrant for ad-
ministering it to them ; and it was no part of the quali-
fication, or description of its subjects, that they should
understand its mystical import, nor was it suspended
upon this : But the case is altogether diflerent with
respect to baptism, which is appointed only for such
as are first taught and believe the gospel, which is the
same as to understand its import. Therefore to ad-
minister it to infants, is equally absurd as to affirm,
that infants believe, or are made disciples ; nay, it is
worse, it is to alter and misapply that sacred institution.
He observes,
** 2. That circumcision and baptism signify or re-
present the same things ; with this difiierence, that the
former seems to have contained in its import, a notifica-
tion of Messiah as to come, which, of course, at his
coming, ceased to be necessary. And this, as I for-
merly observed, furnishes a good reason for the sub-
stitution of another rite in its place." P. 73.
But if circumcision literally signified tlie same things
as baptism does, I can see no reason for substituting
baptism in its place ; for what is there in the nature of
the rite of circumcision, or in cutting ofi" the foreskin,
which seems more fitly to notify Christ as to come, than
as having already come ? If it signified simply the
shedding of the blood of Messiah, might it not repre-
sent this as well after as before his coming ? If, like
baptism, it represented only the taking away of the
guilt and pollution of sin by the blood and Spirit of
Christ, or the putting oft' the body of the sins of the
flesh, how has the coming of Christ made it unfit to re-
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 9f
present these things any longer ? The fact is, circum-
cision differs essentially from baptism in many im-
portant respects ; and therefore seems altogether unfit
to be continued under the gospel. To mention some
of these differences :
1. Circumcision was appointed for all the male-seed
of Abraham without exception, and even for slaves,
who were his property, by being born in his house, or
bought with his money. Gen. xvii. 10 — 15. But bap-
tism is appointed for none upon any such accounts,
but for those only who believe, or appear personally
to be the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ
Jesus, Mark xvi. 16. Acts viii.l2, 36, 37. Gal. iii. 7,
9, 26, 27. — 2. Circumcision belonged to a peculiar co-
venant with the natural posterity of Abraham. It was
a token of that covenant in their flesh ; a mark of
theirnational distinction and separation from all other
people ; and hence they are denominated the circum-
cision, Kom.i\. 9. But baptism belongs to the new
covenant, which hath set aside the distinction of Jew
and Gentile, and extends the spiritual blessing of
Abraham to his spiritual seed of all nations, Mafth.
xxviii. 19. Rom. iii. 29, 30. chap. x. 12, 13. GaL iii.
13, 14. — 3. Circumcision was restricted to males. Gen.
xvii. 10. But baptism is to be administered to all
who believe, both men and women. Acts viii. 12. for
male and female are all one in Christ, Gal, iii. 28. —
4. Circumcision was annexed to the grant of the earthly
inheritance. Gen. xvii. 8. and was a token of heirship
or of interest in those temporal blessings which were
promised to Abraham and his natural seed. But bap-
tism has no respect to any thing of a secular or tem-
poral nature, but represents or confirms to believers
the spiritual, heavenly, and eternal blessings of th«
H
9S Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
new covenant, amverable to the nature of Christ';?
kingdom, which is not of this world. — 5. Circuracisioii
laid the subjects of it under an obligation to confonn
to the whole system of Judaism as contained in the
Mosaic law. Gal. v. 3. which left all those who sought
to be justified by it under the curse, chap. iii. 10. But
baptism represents the believer's freedom from that
yoke of bondage, Col.ii.l2 — 15. his deliverance from
the curse, and his justification by faith in Christ as
the end of the law for righteousness; while it en-
gages him to die unto sin, and walk in newness of
life, as being under law to Christ, Acts ii. 38. chap,
xxii. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 21. Rom. vi. 3 — 15. Gal. iii. 27.
Though circumcision had a secondary, hidden, or
mystical sense, even as the earthly inheritance, and all
the other types had, which were a shadow of good
things to come ; yet its proper, literal, and direct sense
was not the same with that of baptism ; for the apostle
classes it with the latter, Rom. ii. 27, 29. and with the
flesh. Gal. iii. 3. chap. vi. 12, 13. with which baptism
has no concern, but belongs entirely to the spirit, re-
presenting simply and directly the spiritual blessings
of the new covenant as they are clearly revealed in the
gospel. Those who aihrm that circumcision and bap-
tism signify the same thing, may with equal propriety
affirm, that because the j^aschal lamb typified Christ,
therefore it signified the same thing to the Israelites
that the Lord's Supper does to us, which is contrary
to the express explanation of their different sig-
nifications. See Exod. xii. 24—28. and 1 Cor. xi. 23,
27. Further, he says,
'* 3. If the i^brahamic covenant was confirmed before
of God in Christ, and is the everlasting covenant, under
which we at present are; — if circumcision, the sign
and seal of this covenant of old, was administered by
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 99
God's command to the children of those who professed
the faith of this covenant, I ask, where is any change
in its constitution, in this respect, pointed out ? — When
were children excluded, and by what law? While
there is abundant evidence of a change as to the sign,
there seems to be none of a change, either in the thing
signified by it, or in the extent of its application."
P. 73, 74.
I have repeatedly shown, that the covenant which
was confirmed of God in Christ four hundred and
thirty years before the law, was not the covenant of
circumcision — That the circumcision of infants was
not a seal of the everlasting covenant under which we
at present are ; but the token of a peculiar covenant
with the fleshly seed of Abraham, which is now done
away. As to the question, " Where is any change in
its constitution, in this respect, pointed out ?" I answer,
that though the original promise made to Abraham of
blessing all nations in his seed, which is Christ, has un-
dergone no change, but was fulfilled in the coming of
the promised Seed ; yet the covenant of circumcision,
which included all Abraham's fleshly seed indiscrimi-
nately as such, is not merely changed in its constitution,
but wholly set aside : and this is clearly pointed out,
l.By the abrogation of circumcision itself, which was
the token of that covenant, and could not be dispensed
with by any while that covenant stood, without break-
ing God's covenant, and being cut off from his people.
Gen. xvii. 14. Exod. iv. 24 — 27. for circumcision and
the covenant to which it belonged stood or fell to-
gether. That baptism was substituted in the place of
circumcision, as a seal of the same covenant, is a
groundless conjecture ; for, besides that the believing
Jews were allowed to practise both for a considerable
h2
100 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
time, we no where find the apostles bringing it forward
as an argument lor setting aside circumcision, that
baptism was substituted in its place ; which doubtless
they would have done in their disputes with the Jew-
ish zealots, had they viewed it in that light. — 2. That
the covenant of circumcision itself was set aside, is
also evident from its promises. In that covenant God
stipulated that he would be the God of Abraham's na-
tural seed, and that he would give them the land of Ca-
naan for an inheritance. Gen. xvii. 8. This he actually
fulfilled to them as a nation, during the date of the typi-
cal economy. But now their peculiar national relation
to God is dissolved, their title to the earthly possession
vacated, and they have been long ago disinherited and
cast out of that land : Therefore the covenant itself, by
which they were entitled to these peculiar privileges,
must have come to an end. — 3. As that covenant was
made with Abraham's fleshly seed, so their carnal de-
scent from Abraham, entitled them to the privileges of
it : But under the gospel every claim upon that ground
is rejected, Matth. iii. 9. The apostles knew, or es-
teemed, no man a subject of Christ's kingdom, ac-
cording to his fleshly descent from Abraham, but as
being a new creature, 1 Cor. v. 16, 17. and our Lord
says, " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God," John iii. 3. This shows that the co-
venant of circumcision with the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham has no place under the new covenant ; " For in
Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision, but faith which workcth by love,"
or « a new creature," Gal. v. 6. chap. vi. 15.
With respect to his other question, viz. " When were
children excluded, and by what law?" He should
have mentioned expressly from what it is that the
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 101
Baptists hold them as excluded. Is it from an in-
terest m the original promise made to Abraham of
blessing all nations in his Seed? This is far from
being their sentiment : On the contrary, they believe
that all elect infants are interested in that promise,
whether they are the children of believing or unbe-
lieving parents, and are baptized or unbaptized ;
which is more than many Poedobaptists will admit.
Or does he mean, that the Baptists exclude children
from an interest in the covenant of circumcision?
This is only what the Poedobaptists themselves do
in eifect; for whilst they assert the entail of that
covenant on their children, they administer circum-
cision to none of them, though it be the only token of
that covenant which God hath appointed, and though
the neglect of it is expressly declared to be the break-
ing of that covenant, and to cut them off from any in-
terest in it, Gen. xvii. 14. There is ground to ap-
prehend, that if the covenant of circumcision were
still in force, many of those who now strenuously
contend for it, would not choose to adhere to it, as a
whole, but would find out abundance of arguments for
changing its painful and bloody rite into something
more easy and delicate; even as they have not scru-
pled to change baptism into sprinkling, though the
temptation was not so strong.
But I suppose Mr. Ws question relates to baptism,
and that he means to ask, " When were infants ex-
cluded from baptism, and by what law ?" To this it
might be sufficient to answer, that it is time enough, in
all reason, to show when they were excluded from it,
when it has first been proved from scripture that they
were ever admitted to it, or that it was ever commanded
to be administered to them : Yet it may further be ob-
102 Review of Mr. IVardlaw's Lectures
served, that if infants are not mentioned in the insti-
tution of baptism, or in the commission to baptize — if
the characters by which its subjects are expressly
described, will not apply to infants — and if, in the
whole scripture account of its administration, we
find not a single instance of any infant being admitted
to baptism ; this amounts to a sufficient exclusion of
them from that positive institution. To this I may
add, that they are excluded by the law which forbids
adding to, or diminishing from the word of God, and
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
But what follows demands attention.
*' I now proceed," says he, ** to call your attention
a little to POSITIVE proof. 1 have said, that there
does not seem to be any express evidence of a change,
as to the extent of the application of the sign of the
covenant ; let us now consider, whether there is not to
be found, both in the prophecies which refer to New
Testament times, and in the New Testament itself,
DIRECT EVIDENCE of the Contrary; that matters
remain, in this respect, on their ancient footing."
P. 75.
Positive proof! — direct evidence ! Of what ? That
as to the extent of the application of the sign of the co-
venant, matters remain on their ancient footing. That
is, all the infants of New Testament believers are to
be baptized on the same footing on which all the male
infants of ancient Israel were circumcised. If he can
produce such proof and evidence of this as he here
proposes, it will put an end to the controversy ; for I
hope that the Baptists will not be so obstinate as to re-
ject positive proof and direct evidence when it is laid
before them. It is what they have been always calling
for, but which no Poedobaptist has hitherto been able
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 103
to produce, and many of them do not so much as
pretend to do it.
His first positive proof is from Jer. xxxii. 39, 40.
"And I will give them one heart and one way, that they
may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their
children after them ; and I will make an everlasting
covenant with them, that I will not turn away from
them to do them good." Now, allowing his explanation
of this promise (which in some particulars might be
justly disputed) we want positive proof that their chil-
dren here mentioned signify their infant children ; for
that is not the most ordinary sense of the word in
scripture, though it is the only sense that relates to the
point in hand. Next, we want direct evidence, that
the good promised to them and their children after them
includes their baptism while infants ; or before they
can give any evidence of their believing the gospel.
To the same purpose he adduces Deut. xxx. 6.
" The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and
the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart," &c. This he connects with the fore-
going passage as referring to gospel times, and says,
** It seems to contain an intimation, that the same con-
nection should then continue between the people of
God, and their offspring, which had existed from the
days of Abraham." P. 76.
The connection which subsisted between Abraham
and his natural seed, the nation of Israel, entitled them
to the fleshly circumcision in infancy; yet, notwith-
standing this connection and circumcision, the greater
part of them turned out to be " stiff-necked and uncir-
curacised in heart and ears," Acts vii. 51. And if
christian baptism proceeds on the ground of the same
connection, instead of a spiritual connection in the
104 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
faith, there is little reason to expect that the subjectf
of it in general will turn out much better than the na-
tural seed of believing Abraham did. Their being the
natural seed of believers, is no proper criterion by
which to distinguish the children of God from the
world. The pious example and religious instruction
of their parents may be blessed to the conversion of
many of them, and so may the preaching of the gospel
be blessed to the conversion of the children of unbe-
lievers ; and when this appears, both of them ought to
be baptized ; but this proceeds altogether upon a dif-
ferent ground from the connection pleaded for. It is
said that God hath promised to circumcise the heart
of the natural seed of believers. Be it so : whenever
this appears to take place in any instance, no Baptist
will object to their baptism. But they cannot receive
this as positive proof, that all the natural seed of be-
lievers either are or will be circumcised in heart, or
that any of them should be baptized previous to the
visible evidence that they are thus circumcised.
Another passage which he brings forward as direct
evidence, is Isa. Ixv. 23. " They shall not labour in
vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are the seed
of the blessed of the Lord and their offspring with them."
Which he explains thus : " The seed of the blessed of
the Lord, i. e. the spiritual seed of the fathers, Abra-
ham, Isaac, and Jacob. — And their offspring with them,
i. e. connected with them in the promise of God's
covenant, and partaking with them of his blessing."
P. 77.
If by God's covenant he means the new covenant,
and that their offspring partake with them in its bles-
sings, then he must consider them also as the spiritual
seed. He does not, however, venture to affirm this
On the Abrakamic Covenant. 163
universally, though the consistency of his argument
requires it, but says, " The primary reference of the
promise to the fleshly seed of believers, never implied
the certain salvation of all their children." Well then,
let us suppose that this promise implies, that ma?nj of
the children of believers, perhaps a greater proportion
of them than of other children, shall certainly be saved ;
what positive proof or direct evidence does this aftbrd,
that all of them, or indeed, any of them, should be
baptized in their infancy ? Indeed there does not ap-
pear to me, from all he has advanced, the least colour
of proof for this.
I have now followed Mr. W. throughout his argu-
ments for infant-baptism, drawn from the covenant of
circumcision and other passages of.the Old Testament,
which seem to be his main fort. He next proceeds to
consider the evidence that appears in the New. But
first he cautions us against imagining that the New
Testament is so clear and express upon this subject
as to be properly understood, unless we keep in view
what he has advanced from the Old. His words are,
*' It appears to be of the last importance, in inter-
preting the New Testament, that we should understand
and attend carefully to the state of things previous to
it. The reason is obvious. The language of the New
Testament, we should naturally expect to be, in some
measure, modified by these existing circumstances ;
and the import of a variety of the expressions em-
ployed, we shall be unable rightly to appreciate, with-
out taking into view a reference to what already ex-
isted, and was known ; and the existence and know-
ledge of which rendered greater enlargement and mi-
nuteness unnecessary. Bearing this remark in mind,
along with the preceding passages of tlie Old Testa-
106 Review of Mr, Wardlaws Lectures
ment which relate to gospel times, let us consider a
little the evidence that appears in the New." P. 78.
There are, indeed, many references and allusions
in the New Testament to the state of things under the
Old : but it seldom refers us to the Old Testament as
a key to its own meaning. Both Testaments mutually
throw light on each other, but not to an equal degree.
The Old Testament revelation is compared to a light
shining in a dark place, and is represented as veiled
in a great measure under figures and shadows : while
the New Testament revelation is held forth without a
veil in great plainness of speech, and is represented as
greatly excelling the former in point of light and clear-
ness, with respect to every thing which relates to the
faith and duty of christians ; nay, it is the very expla-
nation of the Old Testament, by which its spirit and
mystical sense is laid open. But Mr. W. seems to
reverse this. He thinks that it is of the last importance,
in interpreting the New Testament, that we should
understand and attend carefully to the state of things
previous to it ; because, he imagines, the New Testa-
ment does not enlarge on things with such minuteness
as to make them sufficiently understood, but refers us
to the Old Testament for an explanation of its sense,
without which we should be unable rightly to appre-
ciate the import of its expressions.
If he means to apply this remark to the New Tes-
tament in general, he must view it as being, by itself,
a very imperfect revelation ; but if he means it only of
certain expressions, or of some allusions and re-
ferences to the previous state of things under the Jew-
ish economy, how comes he to introduce such a re-
mark on the subject of baptism, and to represent it as
of the last importance in interpreting the doctrine of
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 107
the New Testameut on that head? Do \Ye ever find
either Christ or his apostles referring us to the Old
Testament for an explanation of that ordinance ? In-
deed, it would be very strange if they did, as there is
no such thing to be found there. As to the prophetic
passages which relate to gospel times, these are best
explained by the New Testament itself, and by the
scripture historical facts in which they began to be
accomplished. We have no occasion, therefore, to
bear his remark in mind when consulting the New
Testament as to the proper subjects of baptism. I am
persuaded that if Mr. W. could have found the bap-
tism of infants either commanded or exemplified in all
the New Testament, he would have spared this re-
mark ; nay, I am confident that, on any other subject
but this, he would not differ much from me as to the
superior clearness of the New Testament revelation.
If we enter upon the consideration of the New Tes-
tament evidence on this head, with a preconceived
opinion, that though infant-baptism be not mentioned
there, yet it must certainly be implied, that very
opinion, while it preoccupies the mind, disqualifies us
for judging of the evidence ; for, in that case, we do
not consult the New Testament with a view to be de-
termined by it, or to rest in its decision, but to confirm
the opinion which we have already adopted. So Mr.
W. having formed his opinion upon what he conceives
to have been the state of things under the Old Testa-
ment, particularly with respect to the covenant of cir-
cumcision, and the connection of the children with
their parents in the national blessings of that covenant,
he transfers these ideas into the New Testament state
of things, and explains the passages relating to bap-
tism accordingly : nay, he even explains them by the
108 lievicw of Mr, Wardlaws Lectures
ideas to which the Jews had been previously habitu-
ated. Thus on Acts ii. 38, 39, he says,
*' Peter addressed Jews. Their minds were ha-
bituated to the idea of the connection of their children
witii themselves, in the promise of the covenant. It
was an idea deeply rooted in their hearts. How then
would they understand the apostle's words ? Certainly
in a sense consistent with their previous views, as
intimating the continuance of the same connection."
P. 81.
According to this, the apostle, it seems, gave them
no new information on this subject, but only confirmed
them in their former opinion. Mr. W. therefore must
suppose, that when Peter says, the promise of the
Spirit is '' even to as many as the Lord our God shall
call," he thought it superfluous to add, together with
their infant children^ because the Jews needed no such
information. And when Luke says, "Then they that
gladly received his (Peter's) word were baptized," ver.
41. he thought it needless to add, with their infants,
for the same reason. So likewise when he informs us,
that when the Samaritans believed Philip, " they were
baptized both men and women," Acts viii. 12, he had
no occasion to mention the baptism of their infant
children ; because, it seems, that was a thing of course,
and always to be taken for granted. Thus he may
easily assign a reason why the baptism of infants is
never once mentioned in all the New Testament, by
supposing it to be previously so well understood, es-
pecially by the Jews, that there was no occasion to
take any notice of it ; though, I own, he may have
some difficulty in applying this reasoning to Gentile
converts, as the greater part of them had no previous
knowledge of Jewish principles.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. . lOi)
The whole of his reasonmg from the state of things
under the Jewish constitution, from scripture prophe-
cies relating to gospel times, and from the previous
opinions of the Jews (by all which he would have us
to interpret the plain passages in the New Testament
on this subject, and supply their deficiencies,) is so far
from amounting to positive proof, or direct evidence,
that it does not appear to me to carry any evidence
at all in it of what he wishes to establish. I am of
opinion, that by the same kind of reasoning, it might
with equal plausibility be proved, that the kingdom of
Christ is a kingdom of this world. It might be argued.
That though the kingdom of ancient Israel was a
worldly kingdom, including their carnal seed, it was the
kingdom of God : That the prophecies relating to the
kingdom of Messiah frequently represent it as a
worldly monarchy, like the kingdom of Israel under
the reigns of David and Solomon : That the Jews in
general interpreted these prophecies of a worldly
kingdom ; their minds were habituated to this idea,
and it was an idea deeply rooted in their hearts:
They must therefore have understood John the Bap-
tist, or Christ and his apostles, when preaching that
kingdom, in a sense consistent with their previous
views, as intimating a continuance of the same worldly
kingdom as formerly, but now to be restored to Israel,
and raised to a higher pitch of worldly power and
prosperity than ever.
Now, if what Mr. W. has stated proves that the
connection of parents and children has the same place
in the kingdom of Christ, that it had in the worldly
kingdom of the Jews ; then what I have just now
stated will also prove, that the kingdom of Christ is of a
worldly nature ; for such was the opinion the Jews
110 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
had of it, and such it must be in reality, if it includes
all the natural seed of believers. It may be said, that
Christ expressly declares, " My kingdom is not of this
world — now is my kingdom not from hence." TruC;,
but he has as expressly described his subjects; "Every
one that is of the truth heareth my voice," John xviii.
36, 37. And if raen can get rid of this description of
his subjects by reasoning from the covenant with the
natural posterity of believing- Abraham, they may also
get rid of the account he gives of his kingdom, by ar-
guments drawn from the worldly kingdom of Israel.
Nor is this an ideal supposition; it has been sufficiently
verified in the history of what is called the Christian
church. It has been said by Independent Poedobap-
tists, that though they baptize the children of believers,
yet they admit none of them into church communion
but upon a profession of their faith : But this only
shows their inconsistency ; for, according to the scrip-
tures, none have a right to baptism who do not pre-
viously profess the faith, and are not fit to be the same
day added to a christian church, and to continue in
the breaking of bread. Acts ii. 41 — 43.
Having made some remarks on Mr. Ws key for
interpreting the New Testament on the subject of bap-
tism, I think it needless to follow him in his use of
that key in explaining the different passages ; and the
rather, as I have repeatedly handled these passages
elsewhere.* I shall therefore conclude with a few short
remarks on what remains.
He blames the Baptists for totally disannulling the
connection between parents and their children. By
this he cannot intend their natural connection, or the
* See M'Lean's Works, vol. i. and ii.
On the Abrahamic Covenant. Ill
duties arising from it. He must therefore mean a
supernatural or spiritual connection. But what spi-
ritual connection have children with their believing
parents, if they are not elect or believing children?
And if they are, wherein does their spiritual connec-
tion with their parents differ from that which subsists
between the whole elect of God, who are all connect-
ed with each other by virtue of their union with Christy
their common head ? If he means any other spiritual
connection besides this, it must be something peculiar
to the natural relation, which, unless it be the benefit
of parental instruction, I confess I do not understand.
It is a fact which cannot be denied, that when God at
first visited the nations to take out of them a people
for his name, the children of unbelieving idolaters were
saved through faith in Christ, whilst the children of
believing Abraham were rejected through unbelief. I
cannot therefore see that the children of believers are
saved in any other way, or upon any other ground, than
the children of unbelievers are ; or that they have any
hereditary right to salvation, by virtue of their con-
nection with believing parents, more than other children
have.. It appears to me, that they must be saved en-
tirely of sovereign free grace, through the redemption
that is in Jesus Christ, and that upon the same footing
with others ; and I am of opinion that to instil other
sentiments into their minds must have a very pernicious
eff"ect, so far as they put any confidence in them.
As to the instances of baptizing households, he does
not find himself at all concerned ab«)ut proving to a
certainty, that there were infant children in any of the
families referred to; though he endeavours in a large
note to establish that point as much as he can, p. 84
-^87. which shows, at least, some concern about it.
112 Review of Mr. Wardlaxvs Lecturei
For my own part, I never absolutely denied that there*
might be infants in these houses. The argument does?
not hinge upon this, but upon the accounts given of all
those who were baptized, as being altogether inappli-
cable to mere infants. But Mr. W. places the strength
of his argument from these houses, in the connection
which existed between parents and children in the
Jewish church ; in Gentile proselytes being received
into that church by families or households ; and in
some expressions in the New Testament which he
imagines exactly correspond to the Old Testament
state of things, such as those in Luke xix. 9 Acts xvi.
15, 31, 33. 1 Cor. i. 16. So that he explains these
passages, not by the doctrine of the New Testament,
or the history of facts recorded there, but by " con-
necting them with previous circumstances and pre-
valent ideas," which, he thinks, rendered it needless to
be very minute in specifying particulars, p. 84. This
manner of reasoning, I think, after what I have al-
ready said, renders it equally needless for me to make
any further reply. Only I would ask, whether Mr. W*
receives proselytes into the full communion of his
church by families or households as the Jews did, and
upon the same grounds ?
He thinks " that baptism is denominated by the
apostle, in Col. ii. 11, 12, the circumcision of Christ — .
because otherwise, there is an awkward unmeaning
tautology ; the circumcision made without hands, and
the circumcision of Christ being made of the same im-
port; as if he had said — ye are circumcised with the
circumcision of the heart, in putting off the body of
the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of the heart,"
&c. P. 87, 88.
In this method he might convert many hundred pas •
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 113
sages of scripture into what he calls awkward and
unmeaning tautologies. But would it not be a more
decent treatment of the passage, as well as more
agreeable to the sense, to understand the apostle as
saying, that they were circumcised without hands, by
the spiritual circumcision of Christ, in putting off the
body of the sins of the flesh ? Nothing can be plainer
than that the circumcision made without hands is here
termed the circumcision of Christ. But the ordinance
of baptism is not administered without hands, nor does
it put off the body of the sins of the flesh, though it is
the sign of it. Mr. Ws design in explaining this pas-
sage of baptism, is to show, that baptism is substituted
in the place of circumcision. I have no objection to
the sentiment, that these two ordinances bear some
general analogy to each other, if it is stated thus. That
as, under the Old Testament, circumcision belonged
to all the natural seed of Abraham, who were known
to be such in infancy by their fleshly birth ; so, under
the New Testament, baptism belongs to all the spirit-
ual seed of Abraham by faith in Christ, who are known
to be such by their profession of that faith. His last
argument is from church history :
" To this connected chain of particulars I now add,
as being, to my own mind, an invincible confirmation
of the matter of fact, that infant baptism was prac-
tised in the time of the apostles ; the account we have
in the history of the church of the prevalence of this
practice in the times immediately following." And he
cites Mr. Walker's words, that " We have decisive
historical proof, that little more than a hundred years
after- the death of the apostles, poedobaptism was of
general practice in all the churches." P. 90, 91.
Some of the apostles lived at least till the year of
I
114 Review of Mr. Wardlaiv's Lectures
Christ 97, so that " a little more than a hundred year?
after that" brings it down to the latter end of the se-
cond century or beginning of the third, at which time
it is admitted that we have the first express mention
of infant-baptism by Tertullian, though not in the way
of approbation. But this was not the time immediately
following the apostles' days; and to affirm, that, at
that time, it was of general practice in all the churches,
is not only a gratuitous assertion, but contrary to plain
historical facts. That infant-baptism was practised by
some about the end of the second century, appears
from TertuUian's opposition to it ; but had it been of
general practice in all the churches, what occasion
was there for Cyprian and sixty-six bishops to meet,
about the middle of the third century, to give it the
sanction of a council ? We have evidence that it was
not universally practised even in the fourth and fifth
centuries; Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, Nectarius,
bishop of Constantinople, Gregory Nazianzen, Chry-
sostom, &c. though all born of christian parents, were
not baptized till they arrived at an adult state. And
from such instances we may justly presume, that there
were many more who were not baptized in infancy,
though sprung from christian parents. It is said, that
unless infant-baptism had been practised from the be-
ginning, it could not afterwards have been introduced
without opposition or noise. We find that Tertullian
opposed it, and it also appears that Boniface, bishop
of Thessalonica, in his letter to Augustine, seems to
be far from approving either of infant-baptism or the
business of sponsors. But granting that we had no
account of any opposition being made to it, it does
not follow that it must have been practised from the
beginning. The communion of infants in the Lord's
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 115
Supper was as early introduced, and as extensively-
practised for six hundred years, as their baptism was,
and, I may add, with as much reason ; yet we read of
no opposition made to it ; was it therefore practised
from the beginning? Many superstitious inventions
began very early to creep into the church, and many
more were afterwards added both by the Greek and
Roman churches; but must every one of them to
whose introduction we read of no opposition, be con-
sidered as of divine institution ? He says, " There
are allusions to infant-baptism previous to the time"
of Tertullian, p. 93. But no man can show, with any
certainty, that the figurative expressions of Irenasus,
or of Clemens of Alexandria, have the least allusion
to infant-baptism. I shall only add, that some of the
most learned Poedobaptist writers, and who were well
acquainted with church history, have given it as their
firm opinion, That the two first centuries either knew
nothing at all, or very little, of infant-baptism, and that
Tertullian is the first that mentions it.*
Before I conclude I cannot help remarking, That
though Mr. W. in order to establish infant-baptism,
leads us back to the xvii. of Genesis, and carries us
down through the state of things under the Old Testa-
ment, by the help of which he endeavours to explain
some passages in the New ; yet throughout the whole
of his connected chain of particulars, he never takes
the least notice of Christ's commission to his apostles
on this subject, excepting once that he barely mentions
it: Whether it was that it did not occur to him, or
* Mr. Bootlrbas collected a number of quotations to this purpose
from Poedobjptist writers in his Pcedohaptism Examined. Vol. ii.
chap. ii.
12
116 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
that he thought it was not to his purpose, I will not
take it upon me to say ; but one would naturally think,
that, on the subject of baptism, it could scarcely es-
cape him. He indeed says, " I have lelt unnoticed a
number of the smaller branches of the argument."
But surely he cannot rank the Commission among
these, as it is the very law and rule of that ordinance.
I hope that, should he ever write upon the subject
again, he will take this law of the institution under his
consideration, and explain it (if he thinks it needs ex-
planation) not by the Old Testament, but by the doc-
trine and practice of the inspired apostles to whom it
was immediately delivered, and who were made able
ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but
of the spirit. I am persuaded that, in this method, h«
would find more satisfaction to his own mind than in
all the circuitous arguments he has advanced, to prove
what is no where mentioned in all the word of God.
As to what he says in his Appendix respecting
what is called the mode of baptism, I need make no re-
ply, as I have sufficiently handled that point else-
where ; and especially as I find nothing in his Appen-
dix that in the least invalidates what I have advanced.
He thinks that, while the scriptures seem to place the
import of the ordinance in the nature of the element
employed ; it is by the Baptists placed principally,
and by some of them, indeed, almost exclusively, in
the mode in which the element is used. P. 1:27. But
this is a mistake ; for the Baptists do not place the im-
port of the ordinance, either principally or exclusively,
nor indeed at all, in the mode in which the element is
used ; but in the spiritual thing signified by that mode
of applying water which Christ hath expressly en-
joined, viz. baptizing or ivimersing disciples in it ; and
On the Abrahamic Covenant. 117
which therefore cannot be altered, without altering his
institution. They lay no greater stress on the mode of
baptizing than they do on the mode of receiving the
Lord's Supper, which I am persuaded Mr. W. would
not consider as properly received without eating and
drinking ; nay, I am confident that he would not look
upon it as received at all without this. Some affirm
that baptism may be administered either by sprinkling,
pouring, or immersion, these being only different
modes of the same ordinance ; but where do we find
in all the word of God any solemn positive institution
left so vague as this as to its mode ? Immersion is not
a mode of baptism, but the very thing itself. Pouring
or sprinkling are words never used in scripture in re-
lation to baptism. The generality of Poedobaptists,
who have considered this subject, freely admit, that
immersion was the primitive manner of administering
this ordinance ; and that it was what our Lord enjoined,
and what his apostles practised. Mr. W. thinks he has
an inviolable confirmation of infant-baptism, as a mat-
ter of fact, from church history; let us see then what
account it gives of immersion and sprinkling.
Some time after the death of the apostles, when bap-
tism came to be considered as absolutely necessary to
salvation, the sick who were desirous of baptism, that
they might not die without it, were indulged with
sprinkling on their beds instead of immersion. This,
from the necessity of the case, was considered by
some to be equally effectual with their immersion in
the baptismal font ; but others were of a different opi-
nion, and considered it as imperfect. With this ex-
ception, immersion continued to be the universal
practice in all the churches. In the Greek church it
has continued from the beginning unto this day. Th«
118 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
church of Rome retained it for thirteen centuries, and
then sprinkling was introduced into common use first
in France, and afterwards into other popish countries.
In England sprinkling commenced in the time of
Queen Elizabeth, but came not into common practice
till the reign of James I. The Westminster Assembly
of Divines completed this innovation, by converting the
baptismal font into a bason, which admits of no other
baptism but that of the clergymen's fingers. This, I
am informed, was the first time that ever that im-
plement was used (unless, perhaps, in a case of neces-
sity) either by Papists, or any other denomination of
christians whatever. These arc facts which are re-
corded in church history, and fully admitted by the
most intelligent Poedobaptists, many of whom highly
disapprove of the alteration of immersion into sprink-
ling or pouring.
The reasons assigned for this alteration of Christ's
institution are, coldness of climate — tenderness of in-
fants— the efficacy of the ordinance not depending on
its form — God will have mercy and not sacrifice — the
power of the church to alter ceremonial appoint-
ments— sprinkling more easy, safe, convenient, de-
cent, and modest than immersion, &c. To admit that
immersion was the primitive form of the institution,
and yet to assign such reasons for altering it, is, in
fact, to impeach the Divine Lawgiver himself, as if he
were deficient in wisdom, mercifulness, and propriety
in his appointments.
Mr W. thinks it in the highest degree improbable
that immersion was ever used in the apostle's days,
and he musters up a catalogue of the various incon-
veniencies and troubles which, he conjectures, would
have attended such a practice, and so thinks it incon-
On the Abrahamic Covenant, 119
sistent with Christ's yoke, ivhich is easy. Such obser-
vations require no answer when the question respects
an institution of Christ. Is there nothing in Christ's
yoke so uneasy to flesh and blood as immersion ? But
Mr. W. wishes to cut deep on this subject, and there-
fore says, " It must unquestionably be attended with
risk to the health;" and concludes by observing, **That
the practice of immersion, in many of its occurrences,
cannot but be inconsistent with a due regard to the
feelings of delicacy and decorum. In this light, in-
deed, I look upon the baptism of females, in almost
every instance, in the manner in which it is practised,
by persons of the other sex, in presence of a mixed
company of spectators. But there are particular
cases, not merely supposable, but actually and ne-
cessarily occurring, in which these feelings must be
severely wounded indeed." P. 144, 145.
If the Baptists pay no due regard to the feelings of
delicacy and decorum, but wound them severely in
their manner of baptizing the female sex, they must be
a people who are lost, in a great measure, to all sense
of shame. It is well known that insinuations and as-
persions of this kind will have more weight with many
than the clearest scripture evidence in favour of im-
mersion. To reproach the Baptists with indecency is
but a small matter ; but to represent this indecency as
inseparably connected with immersion, is in fact,
(whatever he may think of it) to throw a slur upon the
sacred institution of Christ. And if he view immersion
in such a dangerous and shameful point of light, what
must he think of circumcision, upon which he founds
his main plea for infant-baptism ? Few Poedobaptist
writers, who have considered this subject, have hitherto
ventured to stake the credit of their judgment and in-
120 Review of Mr. Wardlaw's Lectures
tegrity on a denial that immersion was the original
institution. They, in general, only plead, that sprink-
ling is more safe and convenient, and may answer the
design of the ordinance equally well. I am therefore
obliged in charity to suppose, that Mr. W. is persuaded
to the highest degree of absolute certainty, that no
such thing as immersion was ever instituted by Christ,
or practised either by John the Baptist or the apostles ;
for, upon any other supposition I cannot reconcile his
reproachful manner of treating it with the opinion
which I ever wish to retain of him. I give him great
credit for his abilities, and think he has put as plau-
sible a face upon infant-baptism, as an untenable cause
could possibly admit. And though he has grounded
his arguments chiefly on the principles of the Jewish
constitution ; yet I am persuaded, that, if infant-bap-
tism were out of view, he would not pursue the same
strain of doctrine on any other subject.
LETTERS
ADDRESSED TO
MR. JOHN GLAS,
IN ANSWER TO HIS
DISSERTATION ON INFANT-BAPTISM.
Written in the year 1776.
I O assign reasons, or make an apology
for publishing the following letters, is altogether
needless. If I have truth on my side, the im-
portance of the subject, and the general inatten-
tion paid to it, especially in Scotland, will suf-
ficiently justify me : if I have not, all apologies
are vain.
It is indeed a pretty common observation,
that little benefit or edification results from
religious controversies. This is held as an in-
disputable maxim by those who are settled on
their lees, and wish not to be disturbed ; whose
cool indifferency indicates their having little at
stake, or whose unlimited charity is equally
courteous to truth and error; yet I cannot be
persuaded that this sage maxim admits of no
exception. The most important revolution that
124 PREFACE.
ever happenned in the world, was brought about
by means of controversy, disputes and conten-
tion* ; and afterwards, when Antichrist had
slain the witnesses, quashed the controversy,
and cursed all around him into implicit faith,
these horrid chains of darkness were again burst
asunder by a free enquiry into the scriptures,
and a contending earnestly for the faith once
delivered to the saints.
But whatever may be said of controversy, it
may be presumed, that the person who can
stand neutral in all religious disputes, must
either have no creed at all, or hold it very
cheap.
As the controversy about baptism has been
agitated occasionally in other parts of the world
for these fifteen centuries past, 1 have not the
vanity to imagine that anything advanced in the
following letters will finally decide the matter;
for I am fully persuaded, that there are other
principles of opposition to truth in human na-
ture than simple ignorance.
• Acts ix. 22. xvii. 17. and xix. 8, f ,
PREFACE. 125
A publication in behalf of the scripture or-
dinance of baptism, 1 believe, is a perfect nov-
elty in Scotland. Many tracts have been pub-
lished on the other side of the question in this
country, which one would think were altogether
needless, as hitherto there was no appearance
of opposition. This however may be accounted
for, if we may suppose that these authors were
apprehensive of some defect in the scripture
evidence for infant-baptism, and found it neces-
sary to supply that defect by argument, though
a little reflection might have convinced them
that the only evidence of a positive institution
is the clear expressed will of the institutor.
My present controversy is chiefly with Inde-
pendents, who profess to believe. That Christ's
kingdom is not of this world ; and that the car-
nal birth does not distinguish his subjects, nor
entitle to spiritual privileges : these especially
will discern the propriety of the arguments, and
feel their weight.
As for the national church, I have little
quarrel with her on this head, it being equally
126 PREFACE.
reasonable that the children of the flesh should
be counted for the seed, as that a nation of this
world should be counted a visible church of
Christ. For whilst it is supposed, that the
kingdoms of this world, which assume the name
Christian, do, in some sense, succeed the Jew-
ish Theocracy, and are interested in the cove-
nant of circumcision, it will be hard to convince
them, that the command to circumcise Jewish
infants does not equally warrant the baptizing
of theirs.
I hope the reader will not satisfy himself with
carping at occasional inadvertencies, but can-
didly consider the scope and force of the argu-
ments, and especially the scriptures adduced
in support of them.
If what I have advanced in these Letters
have a tendency to free any of the subjects of
Christ from human inventions, and rouse their
attention to the unerring rule, ray end is gained.
Glasgow, 176G.
LETTER I.
SIR,
It is now a considerable time since I read
and considered your excellent Treatise, entitled. The
Testimony of the Keng of Martyrs, &c. which I
take to be a most judicious and scriptural illustration
of our Lord's good confession, which he witnessed be-
fore Pontius Pilate concerning his kingdom, as distin-
guished from the Jewish Theocracy, the kingdoms of
this world, and the false churches that now bear that
form. Holding the analogy betwixt type and antitype
in your eye, the scripture evidence beams in upon you
from every quarter to support the main point ; whilst
you, unshackled by human systems, admit it in its ge-
nuine and simple meaning.
The reading of this excellent treatise gave me vast
satisfaction, and prepossessed me with a favourable
bias in behalf of your other writings : supposing you
still to ljursue the principles upon which you set out,
I was unwilling to admit any such sense of your
words as seemed to deviate from them.
Thus you may see with what favourable impressions
I proceeded to peruse the rest of your works ; and in-
deed, I was not disappointed in many * of your tracts,
which contain a plain and scriptural view of the doc-
trine, order, and worship of the apostolic churches, till
I arrived at your third volume, where I found a piece
* I sa.y,many, because tlieie are several things exceptionable, and
particularly a little tract in tlie second volume, entitled, SulcafiuJi to
« Believer's House.
128 Letters to Mr. Gtas
on Catholic Charity, and a letter entitled. The Ride
of Forbearance Defended, in both which you seem to
me to confine the apostolic directions respecting for-
bearance, to the peculiar disputes that arose betwixt
the Jews and Gentiles about the lawfulness of meats
and days.
When I compared this with what you had advanced
before on that head, in the Testimony of the King of
Martyrs, ♦ I could not but observe a manifest incon-
sistency betwixt them. However, I was unwilling to
judge rashly in this afi'air, thinking it unlikely you
should publish contradictory principles in one and the
same edition of your works.
But, proceeding to your fourth volume, f I found
A Dissertation on Infant-baptism, which I considered
with care and attention ; and the rather, as I was never
fully satisfied with any thing I had formerly read on
that subject ; and being desirous of further light into
it, T had some hope you would produce such evidence
in its behalf from scripture, as would remove my
scruples, establish me in the received opinion, and
enable me to bring my infants to baptism in faith.
But how great was my disappointment when 1 fomid,
that your main arguments for the baptism of infants
stood in opposition to the scriptures, as well as to the
leading sentiment contended for in the Testimony of
the King of Martyrs !
As the scripture view of baptism has hitherto been
but little attended to in Scotland, and as you have
contributed your part to strengthen the prejudices of
men against it, insomuch, that some of your adherents
* Glas's Works, vol. i. p. ItS, 124, first edit.
t P. 192—210.
On Baptism. 129
have boasted of this Dissertation as unanswerable, I
shall, according to my ability, follow you step by step
through the whole of your arguments, and accom-
modate ray answers to the nature and manner of them,
without either artfully evading their force, or wilfully
perverting their meaning.
I shall conclude this introductory epistle, by stating
what appears to me to be the scripture view of baptism.
And,
1. Baptism is an ordinance, instituted by the Lord
Jesus Christ, under the new and better covenant,
which belongs only to the apparent subjects of that co-
venant, upon the profession of their faith in Christ,
and obedience to him ; being a sign and representation
to them of the cleansing efficacy of his blood, and re-
generating operations of his Spirit, and so of their
having communion with, and conformity to him in his
death, burial, and resurrection, by dying unto sin and
living unto righteousness, Matth. xxviii. 19. Acts viii.
37. Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12.
2. The name into which believers are to be bap-
tized, is that of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
Matth. xxviii. 19.
3. The action termed baptism is immersion, or dip-
ing of the body in water, as appears from the proper
acceptation of the Greek word, and from the circum-
stances of our Lord's baptism, Matth. iii. 16. and
those of the eunuch's. Acts viii. 38, 89. as also from
the allusions made to it as a burial and resurrection,
Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12.
Now, whether infants are the proper subjects of this
ordinance or not, shall be considered in the subsequent
letters. Meantime, I am.
Sir,
K Your, &G.
130 Letters to Mr. Glas
LETTER II.
SIR,
In the Introduction to your Dissertation on
Infant-baptism, you make an observation on several
questions and disputes about baptism. But I have no
concern with any thing there, excepting the last para-
graph, where you observe.
That ** the denying of infant-baptism comes of ma-
king the salvation by baptism to lie in something else
than the thing signified/ even that, whatever it be,
which distinguishes the adult Christian from his
infant: though our Lord expressly declares, that we
must enter his kingdom even as infants enter it. The
first opposition that we hear of to infant-baptism, turn-
ed salvation upon an entire sort of believing, whereof
infants are incapable ; whereas there is not any true
faith, or sincere confession of the faith, but that alone
\vhich acknowledges, that salvation lies only and
wholly in the thing signified in baptism. And, if we
enquire how that thing saves us ? our Lord answers.
Just as it saves our infants. The denial of infant-bap-
tism must have always proceeded from a disbelief of
this."
To this I answer, 1. That if we maintain that in-
fants obtain salvation by the sovereign free grace
of God, through the sufferings, death, and resurrection
of Christ, without regard to any outward ordinance,
how does it follow, that their salvation lies not only
and wholly in the thing signified to the adult in bap-
tism, but in something else ?
On Baptism. 131
2. If we deny infant-baptism, because it is neither
commanded nor exemplified in scripture ; because in-
fants can give no evidence that they are the proper sub-
jects of baptism, and because it cannot be a sign to
them of the thing signified; will it therefore follow,
that when they become visible believers, and can dis-
cern baptism to represent salvation by the death and
resurrection of Christ ; I say, will it then fairly follow,
that their salvation must turn upon something else than
the death and resurrection of Christ, Avliich is repre-
sented to them in that ordinance, or upon any thing
about themselves distinguishing them from infants?
Certainly it will not: that which gives the answer of a
good conscience to the adult believer in baptism, must
be the very same thing with that which saves infants.
3. If an explicit profession of the faith, a discerning
of the thing signified, and an engagement to put off" the
body of the sins of the flesh, be qualifications which
turn the salvation of the adult upon a different footing
from that of infants, or the thing signified in baptism ;
then, by necessary consequence, these things are not
to be required in the adults, either in order to baptism
or the Lord's supper. But if you require these things
in adults, you must either admit that your charge
against the Baptists is groundless, or that you are
guilty of the same thing.
4. Though we own, that the thing signified in bap-
tism saves infants just as it saves adults, yet we deny
infant-baptism; for we distinguish betwixt the thing
signified and the sign signifying ; the former is be-
stowed upon all the elect of God, whether adults or
infants ; the latter belongs to those who appear to be
such, and can discern its meaning, who are only the
adult. Ajjain, w« distinguish betwLxt the objecta of
K 2
152 Letters to Mr. Glas
God's everlasting love and tlie visible subjects of
gospel ordinances; the former are known with cer*
tainty only to God ; the latter are known to men by the
visible personal characters whereby he hath pointed
them out in his word.
To affirm then, that the denial of infant-baptism
must have always proceeded from a disbelief that sal-
vation lies only and wholly in the thing signified in
baptism, is both an uncharitable and groundless as-
sertion.
5. This accusation might with equal colour of rea-
son be retorted upon the Poedobaptists : For they re-
quire the faith and profession of the parent in order to
warrant the baptism of his infant. Baptists require a
■personal profession, while Poedobaptists sustain a vi-
carious one ; but as this last is also something " else
than the thing signified," and which the adult Christian
performs for his infant, so there is the same ground
for the above assertion in this case as in the other.
The only way therefore to get rid of this charge, is to
pay no regard to any profession of faith in order to
baptism.
G. Infant-baptism was at first introduced upon the
supposed necessity of it to salvation, which certainly
was making salvation to lie in the outward ordinance
rather than in the thing signified thereby; at least
it was making the thing signified to be unavailable
without the sign.
But men had not then learned to confine the sal-
vation by baptism to that, whatever it be, which dis-
tinguishes the infants of believers from those of in-
fidels ; though indeed they were at no loss ; for the
ancient necessity of baptism to salvation, is by far a
better argument than the modern covenant holiness.
On Baptism. 133
HT salvation to a believer's house. Nor can I see how
Infant-baptism could ever take place upon such argu-
ments as are mostly used by Protestants in support of
at at this day ; and therefore I think it not very grateful
In modern Pcedobaptists to condemn the original
principle from which their favourite institution received
Us existence. I am.
Sir,
Your, &c.
134 Letters to Mr. Glas
LETTER III.
SIR,
I HAVE been carefully considering the first
section of your dissertation, which contains a scheme
of the controversy, and state of the question about
scripture precept and example. You say,
" The whole plea against infant-baptism comes to
this. That there is neither particular express precept
nor indisputable example for it in the New Testament,
where baptism is inseparably connected with a pro-
fession of the faith, which infants are not capable to
make."
Ans. Though our whole plea came only to what
you mention, it would be sufficient to refute infant-
baptism : for when we consider how particular and
express God's injunctions were, with respect to every
circumstance of the old covenant rituals, we can never
imagine, that such an important ordinance of the new
covenant would be left, as a matter of doubtful dis-
putation, to be gathered only from dark and inconclu-
sive hints, or dubious consequences.
But the truth is, there is neither precept nor exam-
ple, direct nor indirect, particular nor general, ex-
pressed nor implied, in either the Old Testament or
the New, in favour of infant-baptism : so that our
plea against it comes to more than you imagine.
** All this (you say) may be owned, at the same time
that the inference from it is denied."
Here then you give up with express precept and
indisputable example ; but then you deny the inference,
On Baptism. 135
viz. That infants ought not to be baptized ; because
you think, that, by the same argument, we might debar
women from the Lord's Supper : for you say, " We
can no more show, by express particular precept, or
indisputable example, that Christian women are in-
cluded in the precept. Do this in remembrance of me,
and Drink ye all of it, than we can prove, by such
precept or example, that Christian infants are com-
prehended in the precept. Baptizing them." And then
you make no scruple to assert. That we have the same
evidence for infants being members of Christ's body,
as we have of believing women being such. But to
this it may be answered,
1. That Christian women are manifested to be sub-
jects of gospel ordinances by a personal profession
and character, answerable to what the scripture re-
quires ; but infants, as they can make no such pro-
fession, so the fleshly birth, be it of whom it may, can
not denominate them subjects of baptism, any more
than it can evidence their being born again.
2. The scripture expressly tells us. That there is no
distinction of male and female among those who are
one in Christ Jesus, Gal. iii. 28. whilst it makes a very
wide distinction betwixt the natural and spiritual seed,
and shows, that the former, as such, have no right to
the privileges of the latter, Rom. ix. 6, 7. Gal. iii. 29.
Now, if the scripture denies that there is any distinc-
tion of sexes in the one body of Christ, it is certainly
wrong in you to make such an unscriptural distinc-
tion in order to confound a 7'eal one, which still sub-
sists betwixt infants and adult visible believers, with
respect to gospel ordinances, as both the visible cha-
racters required, and the nature and design of these
ordinances show.
135 Letters to Mr. Glas
3. You cannot but be sensible, that the precept. Let
a man examine himself, and so let him eat, &c. (1 Cor.
xi. 28.) includes both sexes ; for the word there trans-
lated Man, is not awf, which is restricted to the male
sex in distinction from the female, but ^av^uTio;, which
is the common gender, and comprehends both male
and female, except where some particular circumstance
in the text restricts the sense. Here then the precept
for eating the Lord's supper is as expressly directed to
Christian women as it is to men. But I might have
spared myself thisjemark ; for I am persuaded that the
weakest woman, that reads her English Bible, can be
at no loss to see, that the word Man frequently com-
prehends both sexes.
" Now (say you) as soon as we begin to seek a war-^
l-ant for any such thing in this manner, we must depart
from the principle that every opposer of infant-bap-
tism sets out upon, viz. That such an express precept,
and such a plain example, is necessary to show the
warrant for it."
Answ. So it seems you are obliged to depart from
precept and example at the very outset of your journey.
I am not at all surprised you should depart from the
principle we set out upon ; but I must observe that in
so doing, you have been obliged also to depart from
the principle which you yourself set out upon when
you left the national church. In your speech before
the Commission of the General Assembly, you give the
following reason for not subscribing the Formula,
viz. " because I cannot see precept or example in
scripture for the government of this national church by
kirk-sessions, presbyteries, provincial and national
synods.— And if it should be my opinion, that it re-
quires precept or example iu God's word for such a
On Baptism < 1S7
government, to warrant me to declare that it is founded
in that word ; — I see no proposition in the public
standards of the church that condemns this."* Now,
Sir, I ask. Why do you depart, in stating the contro-
versy about infant-baptism, from that very principle,
without which (by your own confession) you have
no warrant to declare that it is founded in the word of
God?
You take notice of another troublesome principle of
the Baptists, viz. " That baptism is inseparably con-
nected in the New Testament with a profession of the
faith, which infants are not capable to make."
You might have answered this as the former, by
telling us. That we have no instance in scripture of
women making an express profession of their faith
before their receiving the Lord's Supper ; and why
should we require it of infants before baptism ? But
this would be too bare-faced, and therefore you say,
** It may be owned, that baptism cannot be ad-
ministered to any, but upon a confession by which the
baptized can be called disciples according to the scrip-
tures : for it can well be said, that infants are to be
baptized upon a profession of the faith by which the
scripture warrants us to account them disciples with
their parents, as well as to look on them, with their
believing parents, as holy and of the kingdom of hea-
ven, or the true church, into which all Christians are
baptized."
The necessity of a profession in order to baptism,
it seems, may be owned : but how can it be owned,
without denying baptism to those who cannot make a
profession ? For this you have a curious salvo at hand,
• Glas's Works, vol, i. p. 221.
138 Letters to Mr. Glas
without which you would never have owned it, viz.
Though infants cannot profess the faith, yet their pa-
rents can do it for them ; and tills warrants us to account
them disciples, and baptize them. This is indeed
strange reasoning,
JPisciples are made by teaching :
Believing parents are taught :
Therefore, their children are disciples, and may be
baptized.
But there is no affinity between the conclusion and
the premises, and so it amounts only to a bare asser-
tion or begging of the question.
. However, by granting that a profession is necessary
to infant-baptism, you entirely overthrow what you
charge upon us in the introduction, else you are guilty
of the same thing. For if you will not baptize infants,
without the profession of the parents, then it is evident
that you hold something necessary to baptism whereof
infants are incapable, even that profession which the
parents make in their stead, and that/m7A of which it
is the profession. — May we not then with equal jus-
tice, retort. That the requiring such a profession of
the parent in order to the baptism of his infant, comes
of making the salvation by baptism to lie in something
else than the thing signified ; even in that, whatever it
be, which the adult Christian must perform for his in-
fants, and which gives them a right to baptism in dis-
tinction from the children of infidels. But I must
take notice of your scripture proof for the discipleship
of infants.
" For when the Judaizers sought to have the Gen-
tile Christians circumcised to keep the law, as neces-
sary to their salvation by Christ, Peter said to them,
" Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of
On Baptism 139
the disciples." But the Judaizers were seeking to have
this yoke laid upon the infants of the believing parents;
and therefore Peter, who received the command to
baptize disciples, took that designation to compre-
hend infants, and called them disciples with their
parents."
But though it be granted, that the infants of believing
Gentiles would have been circumcised with their pa-
rents according to the law of circumcision, yet it is by
no means evident, that Peter comprehended these in-
fants in the designation disciples ; for what other man-
ner of expression is it natural to think the apostle
would use, upon this occasion, though infants had
been excepted in that designation? If we look into
the context, we shall find, that those whom he terms
disciples, are characterized in such a manner as will
not apply to infants ; " And certain men which came
down from Judea, taught the brethren," &c. Acts xv. 1.
so they were brethren capable of being taught. '' God
which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us ; and put
no difl'erence between us and them, purifying their
hearts by faith. Now therefore, why tempt ye God to
put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples," &c. ver. 8,
9, 10. Now, can any thing be more plain, than that
the apostle's argument against circumcising the Gentile
disciples, turns upon the evidence of their having re-
ceived the Holy Ghost, and of having their hearts
purified by faith ? The apostle James calls them,
*' those which from among the Gentiles have turned
unto God." If such then be the account given of those
whom the apostle terms disciples, it is plain, that he
did not intend infants in that designation, though, (ac-
cording to the law of circumcision) they might be cir-
cumcised with their parents.
140 Letters to Mr. Glas
Besides, it was not simply circumcision, nor the
keeping of the law of Moses, which Peter calls a yoke
that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear ;
for both they and their fathers had borne this ; and the
infants even of Jewish converts were permitted at that
time to be circumcised ; but it was the " doctrine of its
necessity unto salvation," which was this intolerable
yoke, as appears from ver. 1, 5. It was this which
made the law of Moses a killing letter, a ministration
of death and condemnation. To this doctrine the
apostle opposes '• salvation by the grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ," ver. 11. But this doctrine could be no
such yoke upon the neck of infants, who could not
understand it ; it could neither please nor grieve them.
Therefore it follows inevitably, that infants were not
reckoned by Peter amongst those whom he terms
disciples.
Further, you should consider how our Lord himself
describes his disciples in Luke xiv. 26, 27. John viii.
31. and xiii. 35. and xv. 8. These are characters
without which, he says, no man can be his disciple ;
but these characters will not apply to infants, and
therefore the designation disciples cannot be given
them. Besides, according to the scriptures, disciples
are made by teaching ; for the word, in the original,
signifies a learner, or owe that is taught. But infants
are incapable of being taught ; therefore they cannot
be disciples in the scripture style and way of speaking.
But then you say, " according to the commission in
Mark's Gospel to preach and baptize, infants must
either be reckoned with the believing or the damned.
For as to the believing there connected with baptism,
it is expressly said, " He that believeth not shall be
damned :" and therefore, if we cannot look on the
On Baptism. 141
infants of the faithful, dying in infancy, as damned^
we must look upon them, according to this scripture,
as believing, and so entitled to baptism, here connected
with the believing that includes them in distinction front
the damned,"
Here, it seems, we are laid under a necessity of
judging the states of infants ; if they are children of
believers, we must reckon them with the believing and
saved ; consequently, if they are children of un*
believers, we must, by the same rule, reckon them with
the unbelieving and damned, according to your view
of Christ's commission. And this reckoning must be
of such as die in infancy ; for you own, there may be
occasion for another kind of reckoning with respect to
those of them who arrive at an adult state. But, dear
Sir, are you not as sensible as any, that there is not
one syllable in all that commission, either of the in-
fants of believers or of infidels, dying in infancy, or
otherwise ? So that you must go elsewhere to establish
this notion.
We must either, it seems, own that infants are be-
lievers, or reckon they are damned dying in infancy ;
but what if we should neither own the one nor the
other ? The scripture lays us under no such necessity
of determining their state ; but on the contrary shews,
that the sovereign purpose of God according to elec-
tion will stand with respect to children that have done
neither good nor evil, whether they ever in this life
arrive at a capacity for knowing and believing the
gospel or not ; yea, whether their parents be believers
or not ; so that we rest this matter upon the sove-
reignty and good pleasure of the righteous Judge, who
" hath mercy on whom he will," Rom. ix. 18.
But I beg. Sir, you would consider in what ab-
1-12 Letters to Mr. Glas
surdities and inconsistencies, your judgment of the
state of infants necessarily involves you. As,
1. If you draw the salvation of the infants of be-
lievers from these words, " He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved; you must also, by the same
rule, (as has been observed) infer the damnation of
of the infants of infidels from these other words, " he
that believeth not shall be damned," both being equally
affirmed in this place. Now whether this be not as
harsh and unmerciful a principle, as the popish dam-
nation of unbaptized infants, I leave you to judge.
2. As the scripture informs us, that many of the
adult children of infidels have been saved, it follows
that their salvation turned upon something which they
did in their riper years, since (upon your plan) they
could not be reckoned with the saved had they died in
infancy.
3. Though you affirm the salvation of the children
of believers, dying in infancy ; yet you own, that many
of them fall short of it when they survive that state.*
I ask then, what kind of salvation must that be, which
can only be certainly secured by their dying in in-
fancy ; which may take wing upon their first reflection,
or wear out through length of time 1 Does that which
saves dying infants, lose its whole efficacy on those
of riper years? Or are they saved by free grace in in-
fancy, but conditionally when they grow up, and so
forfeit their salvation by failing in the terms? If so, 1
cannot help thinking, that you still hold a dift'erence
betwixt that which saves infants dying in infancy, and
that which saves those who survive that state.
4. As you ground the salvation of infants upon
* Page3«J.
On Baptism. 148
their connection with their believing parents, I ask,
what kind of connection is it ? If it is the fleshly con-
nection, how can spiritual blessings be derived in this
manner? and if they are, what hinders the children
from reaping the benefit of this connection in their
adult state, seeing they are still the children of be-
lieving parents? But it is evident spiritual blessings
come not by the fleshly relation; for Ishmael was
thus related to believing Abraham ; but was he there-
fore counted for the seed, and a child of the promise
as Isaac was ? Esau was thus connected with believ-
ing Isaac; but was he not hated whilst Jacob was
loved, and that according to God's purpose of election,
before either of them had done good or evil? If the
connection betwixt the believer and his infants be spi-
ritual, how comes this to be dissolved when they grow
up, so that even an Esau or an Absalom may appear
a son of perdition ? Does a spiritual connection, that
entails salvation, wear out through length of time?
And at what time does this connection cease, so that
the children can reap no longer any saving benefit
from it ?
But after all, perhaps you will say, you are only
pleading for that judgment of charity which we ought
to exercise towards the infants of believers, whilst you
do not pretend to judge their real state, as it is in the
sight of God. But it must be observed,
1. That the text from which you form this judgment,
will admit of no distinction of this nature. — It is a real
truth in the sight, purpose, and intention of God, that
he that believeth shall be saved ; so that if the scrip-
ture classes the infants of believers with the believing,
they shall all as certainly be saved, as the scripture
declares it, or as God is true who hath promised it.
144 Letters to Mr. Glas
Though we, who cannot know the hearts, may be de^
ceived by men's professions; yet God will never
deceive us by his open declarations, which will stand
true whether we believe them or not. He docs not
beg our judgment of charity to his veracity; but chal-
lenges our firmest belief upon our highest peril.
2. The judgment of charity respects our fellow men,
goes upon plausible appearances, and implies a pos-
sibility of mistake. Now if God's open declarations^
with respect to infants, be only a foundation for our
judgment of charity ; then, for any thing we know, we
may be mistaken in our judgment from these declara-
tions, and that not only as they respect the state of in-
fants, but as they respect the foundation of our own
faith and hope : for it is absurd to affirm, that the
scripture calls for full assurance of faith, whilst it
gives us no other foundation for it, than what we hav»
for our charitable view of one another, in which, it
shews, we are often deceived. So that you see I must
either consider you as determining the real state of in-
fants, in the sight, purpose, and intention of God, or
as playing fast and loose with the open declarations
of the God of truth
If you should reply. That the scripture enjoins us to
look upon infants in the same light with tlieir parents ;.
so that if we were assured of the salvation of the pa-
rents, we should be equally assured of the salvation of
their children : I answer.
This is contrary to scripture facts. Abraham was
a real believer in the sight of God, and declared to be
so ; yet the scripture never enjoins us to look upon his
son Ishmael in the same light. Isaac was also a true
believer, and an heir with Abraham of the same pro-
mise ; yet we are not allowed to pass the same judg-
On Baptism. 14 J
iiient upon his son Esau. David was a man after
God's own heart ; yet we are oblig^ed to form another
view of his son Absalom.
ft" it be objected, that these did not die in infancy,
and so are foreign to the point : I answer,
1. Does our Lord's commission, in Mark's Gospel,
make any distinction between infants dying in infancy
and those who survive that state ? Does it w arrant us
to believe, that adult unbelievers would have been
saved, had they died in infancy ? Or, does any other
place in all the scripture give the least hint of this ?
Are we not expressly told, that Esau was hated, not
only in his infancy, but before he was born, having
done neither good nor evil?
2. If you believe that the purpose of God according
to election will stand, not of works, but of him that
calleth ; and that infants and adults are saved by the
same thing; how can you ever imagine that their
dying, or not dying, in infancy, makes any difierence
here ?
3. The utmost that can be pleaded upon this point
is, that as scripture does not expressly determine the
state of infants dying in infancy, it is safest to err on
the charitable side. And, if this were all you meant,
I should not dispute it ; though for my own part, I
think it more eligible to leave them entirely to the
judgment of God.
Upon the whole, I cannot perceive the least shadow
of argument in what you advance from our Lord's
commission. For you first take it for granted that in-
fants, and only those of believers, are included in that
commission. Then, by a strange kind of logic, you
convert these infants into believers, or, at least, look
upon them as beluvingt and so entitled to baptism,
L
146 Letters to Mr. Glas
But because not only scripture and common senstf,
but also experience itself often contradicts these
groundless fancies, therefore you are obliged to re-
strict them to such infants as die in infancy. Those
children who survive their infant state, and appear un-
believers, you have nothing to do with, for two reasons j
first, because they did not die in infancy; and se-
condly, because adult children are not the infants of
believing parents, as you inform us afterwards. But
these are mere evasions, and serve only to shew the
weakness of your cause.
Before I conclude this letter, I would beg you seri-
ously to consider. That as we have no warrant from
scripture to reckon particular infants with the be-
lieving or the unbelieving, and so to determine their
state merely from the judgment we form of their pa-
rents; so the scripture is very express, that God, from
all eternity, hath elected some to everlasting life ; and
it is enough for us to know that the elect shall obtain
salvation, whether they die young or old ; have believ-
ing or unbelieving parents ; be baptized in water, or
imbaptized. Salvation is of sovereign free grace, and
takes place not according to our age, situation, or con-
nections in life; but according as we are chosen in
Christ before the world began, and according to the
purpose of him who worketh all things after the coun-
sel of his own will. Thus in the case of Esau and
Jacob, " the children being not yet born, neither hav-
ing done any good or evil, that the purpose of God
according to election might stand, not of works, but
of him that calleth, it was said. The elder shall serve
the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated. What shall we say then? Is
there unrighteousness with God ? Far be it. For he
On Baptism. 147
Saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will
have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I
will have compassion. So then, it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
sheweth mercy," Rom. ix. 11 — 16. Thus it appears
inconsistent with the sovereignty and freedom of di-
vine grace, to hinge the salvation of iiifants upon
tlieir connection with believing parents; as, on the
other hand, to suppose it necessary that the children
of infidels should be adults before they can be subjects
of it, and it is no less inconsistent with this rich grace
to suppose, that any of its objects will ever finally
fall away. With great propriety then may the Chris-
tian sing;
Magnificent free Grace, arise
Outshine the thoughts of shallow man ;
Sov'reign, preventing, all surprise
To him that neither will'd nor ran :
Grand as the bosom whence it flow'd.
Kind as the heart that gave it vent.
Rich as the Gift that God bestow'd.
And lovely like the Christ he sent.
Know then, on no precarious ground
Stands this rich grace and life to men ;
For life now reigns in God's dear Son,
For us by divine justice slain.
Christian Songs, p. 5, 13.
I am your, &o.
h2
l'*^ LsfJers to Mr. Gtas
LETTER IV.
.0^*sO»>9^^
SIR,
Your next argument for infant-baptism \%
drawn from the apostles' baptizing believers and iheif
houses. You say,
The apostles in executing- tlieir commission, preach-
ed salvation in Christ to a man and his ' house/ —
Ansiv. They did so ; for Cornelias said unto Peter,
" We are ALL here present before God, to hear all
things that are commanded thee of God," Acts x. 33.
So Peter preached salvation in Christ to them ALL.
Likewisa, with respect to the Jailer and his house, it
is said, " And they spake unto him the word of the
Lord, and to ALL that were in his house." And they
eould do no less ; for they had a commission to
preach the gospel to every creature. Thus far then
we agree.
— " And, according to this preaching, he that be-
lieved on Christ for his own salvation, believed on him
also for the salvation of his house ; for so his belief
answered to that which was preached." —
Here is appropriation with a witness ! Whatever
improprieties the popular preachers are guilty of in
their calls to the appropriating act of faith, they
never, that I could learn, extended the saving benefit
thereof beyond the person's self; but, according to
you, a man is not only warranted to appropriate sal-
vation to himself, but also to his whole house. If we
look into the subject of the apostles' preaching, we
shall find, that it did not respect any particular man's
On JUupiism. 14^^
person or house ; but was a declaration of the free
grace of God to sinners, through the merits, atonement,
and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ ; and a pro-
mise that whosoever believed this should be saved :
but it was no part of their preaching, that a believer's
house would be saved upon his faith, without believ-
ing themselves ; and therefore, such a belief was not
required of any, nor could it any way answer to that
which was preached.
You endeavour to prove, that the apostles preached
salvation to a nan's house if he alone believed, from
the following scriptures ; — " who shall tell thee words
whereby thou tnd all thy house shall be saved," Acts
xi. 14. " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou
shalt be .sav^d. and thy house," Acts xvi. 31 . Here
you cull out detached Sfnfnnr.eK wiflumt regard to the
connection, and then fix upon the sound of the words
instead of the sense. But we are expressly told that
these houses themselves believed, as well as their
owners.
The first passage relates to Cornelius and his house,
concerning whom we are told, that he was " one that
feared God, with ALL his house. Acts x. 2. He and
ALL his were present to hear Peter's sermon, (ver.
33.) in which there was not the least intimation, that
his house would be saved upon his believing ; but the
apostle having set beiore them Christ's life, death, and
resurrection, he concludes thus ; " To him gave all
the prophets witness, that through his name, whoso-
ever BELIE VETH ON HIM, shall receive remission of
sins," ver. 43. Then it follows ; While Peter yet spake
these words, the Holy Ghost fell on ALL them that
heard the word," ver. 44. Now, what can we gather
irom this, but that remission of sins is granted to all
160 Letters to Mr. Glas
that believe ; and that the household of Cornelius be-
lieved and received the Holy Ghost as well as him-
self? And was not this the exact accomplishment of
what the angel said to Cornelius concerning the words
whereby he and all his house should be saved ?
The other passage relates to the Jailer and his
house. In answer to the question, " What must I do
to be saved? it is said. Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house," Acts
xvi. 31. This by no means implies, that the Jailer's
faith would save his house, or that he was commanded
to believe for the salvation of his house as well as for
his own ; but only, that his house would be saved, as
well as he, believing on Christ; and this sense is
clearly ascertained by what follows : for " they spake
unto him the w^ord of thp. Tjord, and to ALL that were
in his house," ver. 32. But why to ALL that were in
his house, if he could have believed in their stead ?
That all his house, as well as himself, understood and
believed the word which was preached to them, is
clear from ver. 34. — " he set meat before them, and re-
joiced, believing in God with ALL his house." Thus
we see how the Jailer and his house were saved. But
you proceed ;
— " And it is no less evident that they baptized the
believer and his house ; Thus Paul says, 1 Cor. i. 16.
*' And I baptized also the household of Stephanas."
And it is said of Lydia, Acts xvi. 15. " And when she
was baptized and her house ;" and of the Jailer, ver.
33. " he was baptized, he and all his."
It is indeed no less evident that these houses you
mention were baptized, than it is that they believed. But
the point to be proved is, whether infants or others in
these houses were baptized upon the faith of the parent.
On Baptism. 151
Unless you can make this appear, the baptism of these
houses makes nothing for your purpose.
The baptism of the household of Stephanas will not
prove this ; for the apostle, about three years after
their conversion, gives the following account of that
household, " I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the
house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia,
and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry
of the saints) that ye submit yourselves unto such, and
to every one that helpeth with us and laboureth,'*
1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16. Here it is evident that they were
adults, since otherwise they c.uald not minister to the
saints, or help and labour with the apostles. This is
further manifest from their being the first-fruits of
Achaia, concerning which we read, — " and many of
the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized,"
Acts xviii. 8. These three words express the beautiful
order which the apostles observed in executing their
commission ; they first preached, and when those who
heard, believed, they then, and not till then, baptized
them.
The baptism of the household of Lydia makes
nothing at all for your purpose, unless you can make
it appear she had infants, and that they were baptized
upon her believing ; but this, I imagine, you will not
undertake ; nor will the scripture account of her and
her house admit this supposition ; " And a certain
woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of
Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us; whos^
heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the
things which were spoken of Paul. And when she
was baptized and her house, &c." Acts xvi. 14, 15.
From hence it would appear, either that she never
was married, or that her husband was then dead ; for
152 Letters to Mr. Glas
she seems to be chief manager in the business of selling
purple ; besides, it is not usual in scripture to deno-
minate a household by the wife, whilst she is clothed
with a husband : it is more natural then, to think she
had no infant-children to be baptized. But making
the supposition of her havinof a husband, and children
that were infants, (which cannot be proved) is it to be
imagined, she would bring these infants along with her
all the way from Thyatira in Asia, the place of her re-
sidence, to Philippi in Macedonia, where she appears
to have come with the design of selling her purple ? In
ver. 40. it is said, " And they (viz. Paul and Silas)
went out of the prison, ajid entered into the house of
Lydia ; and when they had seen the brethren, they
comforted them and departed." Now as we read of
no brethren in that city, but those of the households of
Lydia and of the Jailer, so their being comforted of
Paul and Silas, shews them to be adults and not
infants.
Nor will the baptism of the Jailer's house avail your
plea ; for as it is said, that believing on the Lord
Jesus Christ, he and his house shall be saved ; and
that " he and ALL his were baptized ;" so likewise we
are told, that " they spake unto him the word bf the
Lord, and to ALL that were in his house," prior to
their baptism ; and that " he rejoiced, believing in
God, with all his house," ver. 32, 34. Now, Sir, can
you tell me why the word ALL may not be as com-
prehensive in the latter as in the former ? If the Jailer
had any infants, they are either excluded from the
ALL that were baptized, or they must be included
in the ALL that heard the word, believed, and rejoiced;
which last, I think, no rational man will affirm.
Here I would ask. What do you mean by a believ-
Vn Baptism. 153
cv's house? Is it made up of infants, or of adults, or
of both ? If it includes both, then a believer's wife and
adult children are saved by his faith, and so may be
baptized upon this ground, as well as liis infants. If
you say, it includes only infants, upon what scripture
do you i^round this distinction ? Did not Abraham's
house include adults as well as infants ; servants as
well as sons ; those bou.^ht with his money, as well as
those sprung from his body ? And was not circum-
cision expressly enjoined, and actually administered
to them all ? Gen. xvii. 12, 13, 24, 25, 26, 27. Does
not the apostle term these adult persons who min-
istered to the samts, the house of Stephanas? Who
would ever imagine, that the saints of Caesar's house-
hold, who sent their salutations to the church at Phi-
lippi, were only a nursery of sucklings ? Phil. iv. 22.
Yet something like this must be supposed, if your ar-
gument have any consistency ; else it will follow, that
adults as well as infants ; infidels as well as believers ;
wife as well as children ; servants as well as sons,
must every one of them be baptized upon the single
profession of the parent or master ; for they are all in-
cluded in the scripture use of the word household.
You conclude your first section by saying, " If we
deny scripture example for the baptizing of infants, we
must first deny there were any infants in these baptized
houses. And as we can plead no foundation in scrip-
ture for that, it is too bold to say, that there is no
scripture example for baptizing infants."
Whether, from what has been said above, it appears
most agreeable to the scope of these scriptures, to say
there were, or were not infants in these baptized
houses, I leave you to consider at your leisure : but
if ever you should attempt to prove there were infants
li>4 Letters to Mr. Glas
in these houses, (which it concerns you much to do)
T hope you will guard against all future objections, by
proving they also believed and were baptized. Mean-
time, I despair of either of these being done in a
hurry, and therefore still aflSrm with boldness, that
there is no scripture example for baptizing infants.
I am,
Sir,
Your, &c.
€)fi Baptism. 155
LETTER V.
SIR,
I NOW proceed to consider your second sec-
tion, which shews, that infants must partake of bap-
iismfrom their having part in the promise of the Holy
Ghost unto which Christians are baptized ; and pro-
ceeds thus ;
" We see in the very first call to those in Jerusalem
to repent and be baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, the promise of
the Holy Ghost, unto which they were baptized, was
to them and to their children ; even them who had
said. His blood be on us and on our children. Peter
said unto them. Acts ii. 38, 39, " Repent and be bap-
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for
the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you (who
are presently called,) and to your children, (who are
connected with you in the condemnation,) and (in like
manner as to you and your children, so also) to all
that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God
shall call." For as that promise of the Holy Ghost
was to as many as the Lord then called in Jerusalem,
and to their children ; so it must be to as many as the
Lord calls afar oflf from thence, and to their children.
Now if they who repent be baptized unto the promise
of the Holy Ghost, Acts xix. 2, 3. and if that promise
unto which they are baptized, be to their children as
well as unto them ; then certainly baptism, as far as it
is connected with that promise, must belong to their
ehildren as well as to them/'
166 Letters to Mr. Glas
It would be a sufficient answer to all this to show,
that this promise of the Holy Ghost was made to their
children just as it was made to themselves, viz. to as
many of them as should repant and be called of the
Lord ; for to such the apostle restricts the promise.
However I shall consider more particularly. The pro-
mise itself: and then enquire, To whom it was made.
1. The promise which Peter had particularly in his
eye, is that in Joel ii. 28, 29, 80, 31, 02. " And it shall
come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit
\\\}o\\ all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy ; your old men shall dream dreams, your
young^ men shall see visions ; and also upon the ser-
vants, and upon thp handmaids in those days will I
pour out my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the
heavens, and in the earth, blood and tire and pillars of
smoke : the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the
moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of
the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that who-
soever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be de-
livered ; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be
deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant
whom the Lord shall call."
This prophecy or promise maybe considered either.
In a limited sense ; or. In a more general and extended
«ense.
■ 1. In its limited sense, it is an Old Testament pro-
mise of the Spirit, which was fulfilled in the apostolic
age ; as is evident from the miraculous signs which
were to attend it, such as their sons and daughters
prophesying, the wonders to be shown in the heavens,
&c. and it was likewise to take place before the great
and terrible day of the Lord came in the destruction
of the Jewish church and state, foretold by our Lord,
Oti Baptism. 157
Matth. xxiv. Mark xiii. and Luke xxi. The apostlt
expressly applies it to that extraordinary effusion of
the Spirit which began on the day of Pentecost, *'This
is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel," Acts
a. 16. and then cites the passage. You may likewise
see how it is applied in The Testimony of the King of
Martyrs, p. 57. near the bottom.
Peter in his sermon proceeds to show, in what man-
ner that promise in Joel came to be accomplished,
ver. 22 — 37. viz. That God having raised that same
Jesus whom they had crucified, (according as it was
foretold by David in the sixteenth Psalm,) and being
by the right hand of God exalted, and having re-
ceived of the Father the promise of the Spirit, he
had shed forth that which they then saw^ and heard.
Now these gifts of the Spirit, Avhich were then seen
and heard by the multitude, were miraculous and ex-
traordinary, and were to ceustj when they had reached
their end, 1 Cor. xiii. 8. And as the promise, in this
sense, will not apply to infants, so the apostle could
mean no more by the words your children, than what
the promise itself plainly expresses, viz. your sons and
your daughters, who should prophesy. Nor is it clear,
that the apostle applies this promise to any other than
the Jews and their children ; for he had not as yet
learned, that the time had come when the Gentiles
should receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
2. We may consider this promise of the Spirit in a
more general and extended sense, viz. That gift of the
Spirit which is absolutely necessary for the regenera-
tion and sanctification of all the people of God in all
ages of the world, and which is bestowed upon all
that are Christ's, Rom. viii. 9. But how will it apply,
in this sense, to all the natural seed of believers ? That
l5S Letters to Mr. Glas
elect infants may receive the Spirit, I make no dotibf ;
but that all the natural seed of believers obtain this^
is manifestly false, and contrary both to scripture and
experience. Even those infants who receive the Holy
Ghost cannot be distinguished from those who do not,
and so cannot be the subjects of baptism, which does
not belong to them immediately as elect, or having the
Spirit, but as evidencing this in the profession of their
faith.
If the promise of the Holy Ghost be made to all the
children of believers, then it will either be accom-
plished, or not. If it be not accomplished, how can
we reconcile this with the character of God, as a God
of truth and faithfulness, with whom it is impossible
to lie ? If this promise be actually made good, then
none of believing Abraham's posterity could ever
have been rejected ; for as he bad the Spirit himself,
so all his natural children, yea, his children's children
to the latest posterity, must also have the Spirit,
otherwise the promise would fail whenever the succes-
sion of this gift was interrupted. But the New Testa-
ment demonstrates that the greater part of Abraham's
natural seed were destitute of the Spirit and rejected,
whilst at the same time it shows, that God's word of
promise to Abraham has taken effect, Rom. ix. 0.
Experience also shows us that the gift of the Spirit is
not hereditary under the New Testament, and that
many godly parents have wicked children, which could
never be the case had God engaged himself by promise
to give them his Holy Spirit. You yourself own,*
that the children " may yet be really irregenerate, and
when adult appear to be so ;" and that " if the children
* Page 201.
On Baptism. 150
become adult, not adhering to the baptismal profes-
sion, they have no more the character of holy." * Now
certainly you will not affirm, that irregenerate and un-
holy persons have the Spirit.
If it should be said, that the promise is conditional,
and so may justly be suspended till the condition be
performed ; then it will follow, that no infants can have
the Spirit, for they cannot perform the condition, and
(supposing the doctrine of free-will) perhaps never
will, even in their adult state. But how, upon this
plan, could the apostle affirm, Tbat the promise is of
grace that it might be sure to all the seed? Rom. iv. 16.
To affirm, then. That this promise belongs to all the
natural seed of believers, as suck, is the same as to
affirm. That all of them have the Spirit, which is con-
trary both to scripture and experience ; or that God
fails in performing his promise, which is blasphemy ;
or that the promise is conditional, and then infants,
while such, can have no interest in it, nor would it thus
be sure even to adults.
It remains then that we consider to whom this pro-
raise was made.
Nothing can be plainer from the text, than that the
apostle restricts the promise of the Holy Ghost to as
many (of the Jews at Jerusalem, and of their children,
and of them that are afar off) as the Lord shall call.
That is, to as many as the Lord shall call effectually :
for those whom he calls according to his purpose, he
also justifies and glorifies, Rom. viii. 30. Those whom
he calls of Jews and Gentiles, are termed " the vessels
of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory,"
Rom. ix. 23, 24.
* Page 203.
ISO Letters to Mr. Gtas
Such as considered the gospel promise made i(f
Abraham as belonging to all his natural seed, could
not but be stumbled at the rejection of the Jews, as if
the word of God had taken none effect : but the apostle
solves the whole difficulty, by distinguishing Abraham's
seed into " the children of the flesh, and the children
of God, or the children of the promise who are counted
for the seed," Rom. ix. 8. This distinction he further
illustrates in his epistle to the Galatians, under the
notion of the children of the bond woman, and the
children of the free ; the former, as Ishmael was, are
horn after the flesh ; the latter, as Isaac was, are by
promise, Gal. iv. 22, 23, 28, 31. Now the gospel pro-
mises were not made to the fleshly seed of Abraham
as such, but only to the spiritual seed chosen in Christ;
and they, being Christ's, are also Abraham's seed,
" heirs according to the promise — blessed with faithful
Abraham — and receive the promise of the Spirit
through faith," Gal. iii. 9, 14, 16, 29. As the promise
respected only the spiritual seed ; so to them it is fully
accomplished, and to none else, be they children of
whom they may ; for natural generation gives no title
here. But you proceed.
"Though the children could not in themselves know
any thing of repentance or remission at the time of
their baptism, as did their parents ; yet they were
even then as capable as they of the renewing of the
Holy Ghost and saving change from whicli repentance
flows ; and as capable as they of justification l)y re-
mission, and by the imputation of righteousness with-
out works," &c.
Answ. If the children cannot in themselves know
any thing of repentance or remission at the time of
their baptism, then, according to the scriptures, they
On Baptism. 161
9.te not capable of baptism ; for the apostle Petev
tells us, that the answer, (or stipulation) of a good
conscience towards God is necessary to baptism, 1 Pet.
iii. 21. But how children can have the answer of
a good conscience in baptism, without knowing any
thing- of repentance or remission, you would do well
to inform us.
That children are capable of the renewing of the
Holy Ghost, justification, &c. I make no doubt; God
both can and will sanctify all his elect, whether in-
fants or adults. But what is this to the purpose ? The
question is not whether infants are capal^Ie of these
things; but whether do all the natural children of be-
lievers appear to be actually justified and sanctified 1
Do they appear to be so either from scripture or ex-
perience 1 Unless you can make this evident, their
capability is no argument at all upon wliich to found
their baptism. After all, are they more capable of
these things than the children of infidels ? Is not " God
able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,"
though the natural branches should be broken off?
The sovereignty of God shines forth in having mercy
upon whom he will have mercy, without regard to any
advantages of natural birth ; and this is plainly exem-
plified in the rejection of a great part of the natural
seed of believing Abraham, and chusing from among
the nations a people for his name of the seed of
heathen idolaters. So that it is but a vain plea for
baptism, we have a believer to our father, Mat. iii .9. for
if Abraham could not save his house by his extraordi-
nary faith, much less can any other believer do it, who
never sustained his public character as father of the
faithful.
Upon the whole, the apostle Peter, in order to en-
162 Letters to Mr. Glas
courage the convicted Jews to repent and be baptized
in the name of Jesus Christ, gives them to understand,
that notwithstanding all they liad done, in rejecting
and crucifying the Messiah, God was still waiting to
be gracious unto them, by granting them the remission
of their sins, and the gift of his promised Spirit. And
as it could not but cut them in their hearts, that they
had not only perpetrated this dreadful action with their
own wicked hands, but also wished his blood upon
their children, the apostle further assures them, that
the promise in Joel respected their children (or SONS
and DAUGHTERS) as well as themselves; even such
of them as should repent and call upon the name of
the Lord, inasmuch as it is promised that " whosoever
shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered :
for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance
as the Lord hath said ;" nor is this deliverance con-
fined to those in Jerusalem ; but extends likewise to
^' all that are afar off, even the remnant whom the Lord
Shall call," Joel ii. 32. compared with Acts ii. 21,39.
This promise was accomplished in the first place
to the Jews, as it is said, " Unto you first God having
raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turn-
ing away every one of you from his iniquities." From
which it appears, that it behoved their children as well
as themselves to be turned from their iniquities, in as
far as the promise or blessing took place upon them.
It may be further noticed, that this promise, as it
respected the children, had no depend ance on or con-
nection with the faith of the parents, any more than
the promise of Canaan to the succeeding generation
had a dependance on the faith of their fathers who fell
in the wilderness through unbelief. So that the in-
fidelity of parents cannot make this promise of non«
effect to the children whom the Lord shall call.
On Baptism. 163
But how any person can suppose, that a spiritual
promise belongs to infants on account of their parents
faith, so as thence to infer their baptism, is indeed
very strange, and as foreign to the scope of the apostle
in quoting the promise, as it is to the promise itself
which he quotes. I am.
Sir,
Your. &c.
M2
l(ji Letters to Mr. Glas
LETTER VI.
SIR,
I HAVE been considering the third section ot
your Dissertation, ^\ herein you endeavour to dear the
argument from 1 Cor. vii. 14. " For the unbelieving
husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified by tiie husband : else were your chil-
dren unclean ; but now are they holy."
" These words (you say) serve to show, that the in-
fants of one believing- parent are members of Christ's
church, for which he gave himself, that he might sanc-
tify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word, which is the only church wliereof they can be
members ; and that therefore they must partake of the
washing of water which belongs to that holy church,
and signifies admission and entrance into it."
Then you anticipate an objection, viz. That as the
children are said to be holy, so the unbelieving party
is said to be sanctified by the other, and by parity of
reason, is also a member of Christ's church. To which
you answer, that the unbelieving wife (for instance) is
sanctified, not to herself, but to, or in her husband, for
the sake of the children, that they may be holy. And
a little below you tell us,
" When Israel after the flesh married strange wives,
it behoved these to be put away ; and likewise, the
children begot upon them by Israelites were to be put
away, as not being members of the commonwealth of
Israel, or as not being a holy seed, or seed of God, but
unclean as other Gentiles then were. But, says the
On Baptism. 165
Jipostle, it is not so in the New Testament church ; for
its members being' joined to aliens in marriage, are
not to be separated from them, \vIio are sanctified to
their use in tliat state; so that their children, begot
with such aliens, are now to be accounted holy, as
well as the children begot by both believing parents ;
and are to be acknowledged as well as they, to be
these little chiUhen whom the Lord declares to belong
to his kingdom in distinction from the world."
Thus you have cleared the argument from this text ;
but I am afraid, that in so doing, you have obscured
other points of greater concern than infant-baptism.
As,
1. If the New Testament require only one parent
to constitute the children members of Christ's true
church, whilst the Old Testament required both
parents to constitute them members of the earlJily ty-
pical church; then it follows, that carnal generation
is now more effectual to produce a true holy seed, than
it was formerly to produce a typical holy seed.
2. If all the infants of believing parents are '* those
little children whom the Lord declares to belong to his
kingdom in distinction from the world ;" then it plainly
follows, that the carnal birth, or that birth after the
flesh, availeth as much, nay more, for the enjoyment
of the privileges of the heavenly kingdom, as it did
formerly for the enjoyment of the privileges of the
earthly kingdom.
In your Testimony of the King of Martyrs * you
clear this doctrine in a quite different way, where you
say, " The earthly birth, or that birth after the flesh,
availeth much in the state of the church erected at
* Glas's Works, p. 53. sect. 2.
166 Letters to Mr. Glas
Sinai, as to the enjoyment of the privileges of it. But
now our Lord says to Nicodemus, " Except a man
be born again (or born from above) he cannot see the
kingdom of God ;" and Gal. iv. 26. " Jerusalem which
is above, is free, which is the mother of us all."
How you can free yourself from inconsistency here,
I cannot conceive ; for unless you maintain that every
one that is born of believing parents, is likewise born
from above, the inconsistency is still glaring. And if
you should endeavour to reconcile matters by making
a distinction betwixt the view we should have of these
infants, in the judgment of charity, and what they may
be really in themselves, I have answered this already ;
and shall only add. That the case of infants is dif-
ferent from that of adults, as to the judgment of cha-
rity we ought to form of them. Adults may impose
upon us by a plausible profession and walk, and as we
cannot judge the heart, we must esteem those to be
brethren that have the apparent characters of such ;
but if we are deceived in infants, they can have no
hand in this deception, and consequently it must land
upon the rule that directs our judgment of them : and
I am rather inclined to attribute such a rule to you than
to the scriptures of truth, as I am sure
" The faithful true witness will never deceive."
3. If all the infants of believers are " members of
Christ's church for which he gave himself, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water, by the word ;" then they shall all certainly be
saved ; for as the church you mention is the same with
the general assembly and church of the first born
which are written in heaven, Heb. xii. 23. and as Christ
gave himself for this church; so none of its members
can ever perish or be plucked out of Christ's hands.
On Baptism. 167
4. But if " those little children whom the Lord de-
clares to belong to his kingdom, in distinction from
the world," fall away in their adult state, as you sup-
pose some of them may,* then a person may be a real
member of Christ for a while, and afterwards a child
of the devil ; enrolled in heaven in the former part of
his life, and, in the latter part of it, blotted out of the
book of life. And if any one of these perish for whom
Christ gave himself, why may not all of them ? Upon
this scheme, what ground has any to hope that all other
blessings will be bestowed in consequence of the gift
of Christ? Does not the apostle argue conclusively
■when he says, " He that spared not his own Son, but
delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him
also freely give us all things? — Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ?" If the people of God must
not look upon the " gift of God as eternal life through
Jesus Christ," what foundation is left for their hope>
unless it be a conceit of something distinguishing
about themselves, and after all who can trust his own
heart?
It might likewise be shown how this scheme militates
against the doctrine of election, effectual calling, the
stability of the covenant, and the faithfulness of God.
And though I am far from thinking you intend any such
thing; yet, upon reflection, you may easily see, that
the shifts you are put to in support of infant-baptism
tend to unsettle every thing.
I shall now consider the scope of 1 Cor. vii. 14.
It is evident from the first verse of this chapter, that
the Corinthians had written to the apostle for a solution
of some doubtful cases, amongst which, by the apostle's
answer, this seems to have been one, viz. Whether it
* Page 203.
168 Letters to Mr. Gtas
was lawful for a believer, joined in marriage with afl
unbelievei-, to continue in that relation ? Whether this
doubt arose from a mistaken regard to Moses' law,.
Deut. vii. 3. and the example in Ezra, chap. x. or
from what he had written to them before, 1 Cor. v. 9,
10. is not material to know. However, the apostle
decides the matter thus, " If any brother hath a wife
that belie vcth not, and she be pleased to dwell with
him, let him not put her aw ay. And the woman which
hath an luisl)and that believeth not, and if l>e be
pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."
Thus the matter stands determined by the apostle ; to
which he adds the following- reason ; " For the unbe-
lieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the un-
believing wife is sanctilied l)y the husband : else were
your children unclean ; but now are they holy, "Ver.
12, 13, 14.
Two things ofi'er themselves here to be considered.
1. The sancilfi cation of the unbelieving party.
2. The lioliness of the children in consequence
thereof.
By the sanctification of the unbelieving party cannot
be meant internal sanctification, or renovation of
mind ; ibr as the heart can only be purified by faith,
the person, in that case, would be no longer an unbe-
liever. Neither can we understand it of typical or ce-
remonial sanctification ; for this belonged only to the
first covenant, which was then made old. There
remain only two senses in which this sanctification of
the unbelieving party can be understood ;
1. Instrumental sanctification ; or sanctified as an
instrument of propagating a holy seed. Or,
1. Matrimonial sanctification, whereby the one is
enjoyed as a chaste yoke-fellow by the other, without
fornication or uncleanness.
On Baptisnt. IW
The former of these senses you hold, in which you
follow Mr. Thomas Goodwin; but that sense will
not at all answer the apostle's purpose, which was to
persuade the l)elieving- Corinthians to abide in their
marriaj^e relation with unbelievers. For,
1. If the unbelieving' wife (for instance) were barren,
then she could have no sanctification ; for as this
sanctification is not for herself, but for the children, in
whom it terminates, how can it exist at all if she has
none ?
2. Thougli the unbelieving wife should bring forth
children ; yet if these children should lose the cha~
racter of holy in their adult state, in what sense can we
understand the unljelieving wife sanctified to bring
forth holy children ? The sanctification is not in
herself, she being an unbeliever ; neither is it In her
children, they being irregenerate. Where then is it to
be found ? Thus, you see, the apostle's argument
would be founded upon something very contingent and
uncertain, and would have left the believing Co-
rinthians, in many cases, at liberty to put away their
unbelieving correlates.
But it is evident the apostle's argument was not
founded upon any thing future or contingent ; but upon
what was certain and present, or rather past, for he
usetli the preter-perfect tense, -hyia^ai, hath been sanc-
tified; so that this sanctification must be prior to, and
independent of her having children, and also of the
holiness of these children.
It may be noticed further, that the unbelieving wife
is not here said to be sanctified by the failh of the
husband; but barely by (to or in) the husband: and
as fakh respects only a spiritual relation, there is no
ground to think it is here given as a reason for the
lawfulness of the carnal relation of marriage; for
170 Letters to Mr. Glas
marriage does not derive its lawfulness from the faitk
of the gospel, but from the ordinance of God ap-
pointing, and the parties mutually agreeing, to be no
more twain, but one flesh. Therefore,
The sanctification here spoken of must be of a vna-
trimonial nature, and opposed to fornication or un-
cleauness. This will appear, whether we consider the
meaning of the word sanctification in several places of
the New Testament, or the scope of the apostle's ar-
gument here.
In 2 Cor. vii. 1. we find holiness or sanctification op-
posed to filthiness of the flesh, as well as of the spirit ;
and when it is said, (I Cor. vii. 34. that she may be
holy in body, must it not be understood of her being
chaste? In 1 Thess. iv. 3 sanctification is opposed to
fornication ; " For this is the will of God, even your
sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication."
And in ver. 4, 5. it is contrasted with the lust of con-
cupiscence ; " That every one of you should know
how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour.
Not in the lust of concupiscence," &c. This sanctifi-
cation and honour agrees with Heb. xiii. 4. " Marriage
is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled ; but
whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
Now if the words sanctification and honour be op-
posed to fornication, the lust of concupiscence, whore-
dom and adultery, they must necessarily signify cJias-
tity. And if marriage be honourable (lawful or chaste)
in all, we may easily see how the unbelieving wife is
sanctified in, by, or to her husband, whilst she ob-
serves the laws of marriage, and keeps the bed un-
defiled. For though she be an unbeliever, yet being
lawfully joined to an husband, she is matrimonially
holy, and sanctified to his use, even as the creatures
he eats and drinks are, 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4, ^. Therefore,
On Baptism. 171
tis these are not to be refused, so she is not to be put
away.
The apostle backs the sanctification of the unbe-
liever with an argument drawn from an absurdity
that would follow upon the contrary supposition ;
Klse were your children unclean ; hut now are they
holy. As if he had said. If the unbelieving party
were not a lawful yoke-fellow, then your children,
being the issue of an impure junction, would be
unclean ; but now are they holy. This leads me
to consider,
2. In what sense the children are said to be
holy. What has been already said on the former
head, leaves nothing to be done here, but formally
to draw the conclusion. No stream can rise higher
than its source, nor can any cause produce an effect
disproportioned to its nature. That which is born of
the flesh, is flesh, and will remain so for any thing
that flesh can do. If therefore, as has been shown,
the unbelieving wife be only sanctified to her husband
matrimonially, so as they may lawfully, chastely,
and honourably dwell together without fornication
or uncleanness ; then all the holiness that can accrue
to the children from this sanctification, is only legiti-
macy, as being lawfully begotten ; and the uncleanness
opposed to this, can only be illegitimacy or bastardy,
as being the issue of an unlawful marriage.*
If it be objected, that this view of the place will
apply as well to unbelievers and their children, as to
believers and theirs, I answer,
* If we were to regard the opinion of learned and jiidicions com-
mentators, such as Camerarius, Melancthon, Muscvlus, Beza, ifc, they
all agree in giving the above view of the place; and Calvin on Mai.
ii. 15. ownetb, that holy seed, or seed of God, ia an Hebraism for legiti-
mate seed.
172 Letters to Mr. Glas
In some respects it will. The apostle here sustains
the lawfulness of those marriages which were consum-
mated while both parties were unbelievers ; for it is
more natural to suppose, that tlicy were married before
their conversion, than that they should afterwards
marry infidels when tliey had scruples about dwelling
with them. Uc likewise sustains the legitimacy, of
such children as were begotten before the conversion
of either parent; for he makes no exception here, and
that they had such children, we need make no doubt.
It may be further objected. That if the sanctification
of the un]>eliever be only of a matrimonial nature,
then the apostle might w itJi equal propriety affirm, that
the believing party w as sanctified to the unbelieving.
To this it may be answered, 1. This was not the
point in question. The apostle is not answering the
scruples of infidels, but of Christians ; who were not
doubting of their own sanctification in that respect,
but of the sanctification of their unbelieving correlates ;
nor of the lawfulness of marriage in general, l)ut only
in the peculiar circumstances mentioned ; for which
they had some colour of reason from the law of Moses.
2. It would not only be improper, but absurd, to say,
that the believing party w as sanctified to the other ;
for the party which the law held unclean was the alien,
not the Israelite ; and so this uncleanness must be
shown to be removed from the party upon which the
law^ and the consciences of the believing Corinthians
had fixed it, and not from the party that was looked
upon as clean already : therefore the apostle says, the
unbelieving wife or husband is sanctified. But then
this sanctification implies no moral change in the un-
believer ; but only a relative change, in respect of a
law that formerly prohibited such a connection, and in
respect of the believer's conscience, ^^hich is now freed
On Baptism. 173
irom that law, and so can dwell with them in sanctifi-
cation and honour. What the apostle says about the
sanctiiication of the meats prohibited under the law,
serves much to illustrate this point ; accordingly he
classes them together when opposing the doctrine of
the false teachers, who forbade marriage, and com-
manded to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be received with thanksgiving. See I Tim.
iv. 3, 4, 5.
In fine, whether we consider the gospel doctrine, the
scope of the apostle's argument, or the sense of the
like expressions in several other places of the New
Testament, all concur in ascertaining this view of the
place, viz. That the unbelieving party is sanctified to
the other, in so far as he or she is a chaste and lawful
yoke-fellow, according to the ordinance of God ap-
pointing them to be one flesh, whom no man ought to
put asunder : and their children are in so far holy, as
they are begotten in lawful wedlock, and not by for-
nication.
You take notice of this sense, and call it a ridiculous
gloss on the text : but add, that " it will bring us back
to the very same thing that this text always sei ved to
demonstrate, viz. That the children of believers, begot
by such aliens, were now to be accounted holy, — and
are to be acknowledged to be those little children
whom the Lord declares to belong to his kingdom in
distinction from the world." That is, in short, if chil-
dren are not illegitimate, but the lawful issue even of
one believing parent, they thereby appear to be born
from above, and consequently must be baptized !
I am,
Sir,
Your, &c.
174 Letters to Mr, Glas
LETTER VII.
SIR,
I INTEND in this letter to try the weight of
your fourth section, which shows Tiow baptism comes
in place of circumcision, and proceeds thus :
The argument for infant baptism from circumcision
has a foundation in these words of the apostle, Col. ii.
11, 12, 13. " In whom also ye are circumcised with
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off
the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision
of Christ : buried with him in baptism, wherein also
you are risen with him through the faith of the opera-
tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And
you being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision
of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him,
having forgiven you all trespasses."
" Here the thing signified in baptism is called the
circumcision made ivithout hands, the same with the
circumcision of the heart whereof the uncircumcised
in their flesh are now made partakers ; and in place
of the circumcision made with hands they are buried
tvith Christ in baptism, and so have the circumcision
of Christ. Now if the apostle gives us baptism with
the thing signified in it, in place of the circumcision of
the flesh, and calls it the circumcision of Christ ; then
baptism must be to the true Israel who are bom of the
Spirit, as circumcision was to the typical Israel who
are born of the flesh." —
This conclusion is expressed in such a manner as
will bear a double meaning. If you mean that bap*
On Baptism. 173
tism is the same thing to the true Israel that circum-
cision was to the typical Israel, this will not be
granted ; for circumcision was to typical Israel an ex-
ternal mark to distinguish them from the Gentiles, and
was typical of internal circumcision ; but the design
of baptism to the true Israel is, to represent the death,
sufferings, and resurrection of Christ, and the saints
likeness to Christ in them, and their participation of
them. Circumcision was hereditary to old Israel, and,
by God's appointment, entailed on their fleshly seed ;
not so baptism to the true Israel. Nor can it be
proved that baptism comes in the place of circum-
cision ; for baptism took place among the believing
Jews a considerable time before circumcision was
abrogated.
But if you mean, that baptism belongs to the true
Israel, even as circumcision belonged to the typical
Israel, I heartily agree with you, provided you keep
clear and consistent the distinction you have men-
tioned between the typical and true Israel, viz. That
the former are born of the flesh, and the latter of the
Spirit. But your very next words confound this dis-
tinction, when you say,
— " And as Peter said to the Jews who were first
called to be baptized unto the promise of the Holy
Ghost, the promise is unto you and to your children,
baptism belongs unto the children of the spiritual
Israel, unto whom that promise is ; even as cir-
cumcision belonged to the children of the fleshly
Israel, who had the promise of Christ to come in the
flesh, and of the earthly inheritance."
In the beginning of this section you told us, the ar-
gument for infant-baptism from circumcision was
founded oa Col. ii. 11, 12, 13. but as that te&t makes
176 Letters to Mr. Glas
no mention of infants, you are ol)ligc<:l to have re-*
course to your former argument from Acts ii. where
you would have us believe the word children signifies
infants such as were circumcised ; and thus by patch-
ing up your premises, you venture to draw your con-
clusion. But as the argument from Acts ii. has been
answered already, I refer you to it, and shall pro-
ceed to consider, what you have advanced from
Col. ii.
The controversy being about infant-baptism, the
main thing to be considered is, whether the infants of
believing parents be the true Israel who arc born of
the Spirit, and so the antitype of Jewish infants, who
were the typical Israel born after the flesh ; and if it
be made to appear that they cannot be viewed in that
light, then, according to your own argument from the
text, baptism does not belong to infants.
In order to clear this matter, it will be necessary to
state more particularly the dift'erence betwixt the
typical and true Israel, or the natural and spiritual
seed of Abraham. This distinction is copiously han-
dled by the apostle Paul in bis epistles to tlie Romans
and Galatians, in which he always recurs back to the
covenant made with Abraham. This covenant was
of a mixed nature, as appears by the promises which
it contained. For,
1. Herein God gave to Abraham the promise of a
seed in whom all nations should be blessed. Gen. xii. 3.
and xxii. 18. and this seed was Christ, Gal.iii. IG. In
this promise the gospel was preached unto Abraham,
ver. 8. and in it lay the object of that faith whereby he
and his spiritual seed among Jews and Gentiles were
blessed with him, ver. 7, 9. This is that promise which
was confirmed of God in Christ, and which the lavr
On Baptism. 177
c^uid not disannul, or make of none efiect, ver. 17.
But because God designed to exhibit by, and among
Abraham's fleshly seed an earthly pattern or examplar
of the heavenly things contained in this promise ;
therefore,
2. He made another promise to Abraham in that
covenant, viz. That he would multiply him exceed-
ingly, and give unto him, and to his seed after him,
the land of Canaan, Gen. xvii. 2, 8. This promise
was temporal, and it behoved to be accomplished
before the other, as it contained the types and pledges
thereof. Canaan typified the heavenly inheritance; so
the patriarchs understood it, Heb. xi. 8 — 15. and
Abraham's fleshly seed typified his spiritual seed of
all nations. Gal. iii. 7, 8, 9. even the children of the
spiritual promise, who walk in the steps of Abraham's
faith. The difference betwixt these two seeds was ty-
pified to Abraham by Ishmael and Isaac in his own
family, even as the two covenants were typified by
Hagar and Sarah, Gal. iv. 21. Now these two pro-
mises laid the foundation of a twofold relation to God ;
the one spiritual and eternal with Abraham's spi-
ritual seed : the other typical and temporal, betwixt
Ood and Abraham's fleshly seed, which behoved to
continue during the period of the typical oeconomy,
and no longer.
3. The ordinance of circumcision belonged only to
the temporal promise, and the temporal typical re-
lation betwixt God and Abraham's seed according to
the flesh : for though the covenant to which it belongs
be called an everlasting covenant, Gen. xvii. 13. yet
this must be understood with the same limitation as
the earthly Canaan, promised therein, is called an
everlasting possessioUj ver. 8. and xlviii. 4. the Aaron-
N
178 Letters to Mr. Glas
ical priesthood, an everlasting priest Jwod, Exod.xl. 15.
and the yearly typical atonement a7i everlasting statute.
Lev. xvi. 34. These temporal types are called ever-
lasting in relation to the antitype, in which this epithet
holds true.
Circumcision is indeed called, a seal of the righ-
teousness of the faith ; but it was a seal only to Abra-
ham of his own faith, even the faith which he had
before circumcision. This seal he received in his pe-
culiar patriarchal capacity, and that only as father of
the faithful ; for the apostle says, Rom. iv. 11, 12.
" He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being un-
circumcised :" for what end? " that he might be the
father (of whom ? of all his fleshly circumcised seed ?
No : but) of all them that believe, though they be not
circumcised ; — and the father of circumcision to them
(of his natural seed) who are not of the circumcision
only, but also walk in the steps of that faith of our fa-
ther Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised,"
i. e. That he might be the father of all that believe,
whether circumcised or uncircumcised. Now if Abra-
ham was not a father to his natural seed, as such, in
that respect wherein circumcision sealed or confirmed
to him the righteousness of his faith ; then circum-
cision was not such a seal to his natural seed ; nor
could it be such a seal to infants at eight days old, w ho
had not that faith before circumcision ; but respected
only the temporal promise and relation, which promise
and relation had a typical reference to the eternal pro-
mise, and the spiritual relation arising from it.
When God proceeded to fulfil the temporal promise,
he did it by means of a covenant, even that which he
made with the whole nation of Israel, when he took
On Baptism. 170
ibem by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, Exod.
xix. 3 — 8. Heb. viii. 9. This is called the old cove-
nant (Heb. viii. 13.) on account of the temporal rela-
tion betwixt the Lord and that nation, which is now
done away. — The law, Heb. x. 1. on account of the
law therein given to them. — And ihe first testament^
(Heb. ix. 15.) on account of the typical adoption, and
the temporal inheritance.
It is evident that this covenant, and all its typical
oeconomy, was founded on the temporal promise made
to Abraham concerning his fleshly seed ; for all the
temporal blessings which Israel enjoyed according to
the tenor of the Sinai covenant, are also ascribed to
that promise. The Lord refers to it when about to
give the typical redemption, Exod. vi. 3 — 8. Their
manifold deliverances from the surrounding nations
are ascribed to it, 2 Kings xiii. 23. Neh. ix. 7, 8. and
pleaded from it, 2 Chron. xx. 7. Yea, their typical re-
lation to God as his people, wherein the very essence
of this covenant consisted, is originally attributed to
that same promise, Deut. xxix. 13. As circumcision
belonged to the temporal promise and fleshly relation,
it was also ingrossed into this covenant, Lev. xii. 3.
and so it behoved to vanish away with the covenant
itself, and all its other typical ordinances.
When the fulness of the time was come, and God
proceeded to fulfil the spiritual promise, he did it by
means of another covenant, (by the mediation of
Christ) with Abraham's spiritual seed of all nations.
This is called the new covenant, (Heb. xii. 24.) in re-
ference to the other, which was made old, and the new
spiritual relation betwixt God and that new nation,
made up from among all nations, kindreds, and
tongues. — The new testament, (Het». ix. 15.) on
N 2
^^ Letters to Mr. Glas
accoJ'"' ^^ ^^^ 'rue adoption and the heavenly inhe-
dtaoce, of >^^^c^ Christ the first-born is both testator
and heir.
These are the two covenants of which the apostle
speaks in Gal. iv. and Heb. viii. and ix. chapters, and
which were both included, by way of promise, in the
covenant made with Abraham. The contrast may be
more fully stated in the following manner :
ABRAHAMIC COVENANT.
Old Covenant,
1. The old covenant was
only a temporal relation
betwixt God and a par-
ticular nation, which is now
done away and come to an
end, Heb. viii. 13.
2. The old covenant was
carnal and earthly :
(1.) In its worship, which
stood only in meats and
drinks, and divers wash-
ings, and carnal ordinances,
Heb. ix. 10.
(2.) In its sacrifices of
bulls and of goats, which
could never take away sin,
or purge the conscience,
Heb. ix. 9. and x. 4.
(3.) In its mediator, piz.
Moses, Gal. iii
ediati
. iST
New Covenant.
1. The new covenant is
an eternal relation betwixt
God and his people from
among all nations, and is
therefore called an ever-
lasting covenant, Heb. xiii.
20.
2. The new covenant is
spiritual and heavenly :
(1.) In its v)orship, which
requires a true heart, faith,
and a good conscience, and
to be performed in spirit
and in truth, Heb. x. 19 —
23. John iv. 23.
(2.) In its sacrifice, w hich
is Christ, and which per-
fects for ever them that art
sanctified, Heb. x. 14.
(3.) In its mediator^ viz.
Christ Jesus, Heb. xii. 24.
On Baptism.
181
ABRAHAMIC
Old Covenant.
(4.) In its priests, viz.
Aaron and his sons, who
were sinful men, and not
suffered to continue by rea-
son of death, Heb. vii. 23,
28.
(5.) In its sanctuary,
which was worldly and
made with hands, Heb. ix.
1. 24.
(6.) In its promises ;
they being worldly bless-
ings in earthly places, and
respecting only a pros-
perous life in the earthly
Canaan, Deut. xxviii. 1 —
15. Isai. i. 19. Josh. xxi.
43, 45. chap, xxiii. 14, J5,
16.
(7.) In its subjects, or
people covenanted ; they
being the fleshly seed of
Abraham, children of the
temporal promise, related
to God as his typical peo-
ple, and to Christ as his
*kinsmen according to the
flesh : which typical and
fleshly relation availed them
much for the enjoyment of
the typical and earthly
COVENANT.
New Covenant.
C4.) In its priest, viz.
Christ, who is holy, harm-
less, &c. and abideth priest
continually, ever living to
make intercession for us,
Heb. vii. 24, 25, 26.
(5.) In its sanctuary,
which is heaven itself,
whereinto our great high-
priest hath entered, having
obtained eternal redemp-
tion for us, Heb. ix. 12.
(6.) In its promises : they
being spiritual blessings in
heavenly places, and chiefly
respecting the life to come,
and the enjoyment of the
heavenly inheritance, Eph.
i. 3. Tit. i. 2. Heb, viii. 6.
and xi. 16.
(7.) In its subjects; they
being the spiritual seed of
Abraham, typified by the
fleshly seed ; being chosen
in Christ before the founda-
tion of the world ; predes-
tinated unto the adoption
of children, and redeemed
by the blood of Christ.
These are the children of
the promise, who, in God's
appointed time, are born.
1S2 Letters to Mr Glas
ABRAHAMIC COVENANT.
Old Covenant. New Covenant.
privileges of this covenant : not of blood, nor of the wiI5
but as Hagar, the bond-wo- of the flesh, nor of the will
man, was cast out with her of man, but of God : being
son born after the flesh ; so born again, not of corrupti-
the covenant itself being ble seed, but of incorrupti-
antiquated, its temporal, ble, even by the word of
typical privileges vanished, God, which liveth and abi-
its subjects were cast out deth for ever : who have
and disinherited ; thefleshly the law of God written in
relation upon which they their hearts, and all know
received circumcision, a- him from the least to the
vailed nothing for their greatest. Through this
partaking of spiritual privi- work of the Spirit, they
leges, nor were they, as believe in the name of the
children of this covenant, Son of God, and by the
admitted heirs with the professionofthis their faith,
children of the free woman, they appear to be the seed
or new covenant, Rom. ix. of Abraham, children of the
4—9. Gal. vi. 15. and iv. free-woman, and heirs ac-
22 — 31. cording to the promise, to
whom belong all spiritual
privileges, and baptism a-
mong the rest, Eph. i. 4, 5.
IPet. i. 18, 19. Johni. 13.
lPet.i.23.Heb.viii.lO,ll.
Gal. iii. 26, 29. and iv. 28,
31. Acts ii. 41, 42.
From this contrast it appears, that the old covenant
made with the whole nation of Israel, and all the
things established thereby, were only earthly patterns
On Baptism. 183
ef things in the heavens, Heb. ix. 23. figures for the
time then present, ver. 9. shadows of good things to
come, chap. x. 1. imposed upon the typical Israel,
until the time of reformation, chap. ix. 10. under which
they were shut up unto the faith that should afterwards
be revealed, Gal. iii. 23. So that, abstract from their
typical reference, there was nothing spiritual or hea-
venly in thera.
And as tliis covenant was typical and earthly ; so
were the covenanted people. Nor was there any ne-
cessity of their being regenerated in order to their par-
taking of its privileges, seeing these privileges were
earthly, and suited to men in a natural state : but it
was requisite they should be the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham, observe the letter of the law, and have the sign
of the covenant in their flesh by circumcision.
Though some of the fleshly Israel were likewise of
the spiritual Israel ; yet they were not so by their
fleshly relation to Abraham, nor by the temporal pro-
mise concerning his natural seed, to which circum-
cision belonged ; nor yet by the peculiar typical cove-
nant at Sinai founded thereon : but by an election of
sovereign grace, and faith in the notable SEED, the
mediator of the new covenant, of which their fleshly
relation and temporal covenant was but a type or
earthly pattern, Rom. xi. 5, 7. Heb. xi. 13, 39, 40.
As type and antitype hold the same proportion with
flesh and spirit, shadow and substance, earth and
heaven, we must always keep this distinction in our
eye, when running the parallel betwixt Abraham's
twofold seed, else we shall be apt to confound those
born only of the flesh, with these born of the Spirit.
And in this, I perceive, your mistake lies : for your
whole argument proceeds upon the supposition^ that
181 Letters lo Mr. Glas
the fleshly seed of New Teslament believers arc a5
really the spiritual seed of Abraham as the infants ot
old Israel were his fleshly seed.
But it is absurd to suppose, that the infant seed of
Abraham, born of the flesh, did typify the infant seed
of believers born likewise of the flesh ; for this would
be only one fleshly seed typifying another fleshly seed,
and so would not answer to the distinction that must
always be held betwixt the type and its antitype. The
beasts sacrificed under the law, were not typical of any
other beasts to be sacrificed under the gospel ; nor did
the old covenant with the fleshly seed, <ypify that the
new covenant should be with another fleshly seed.
Unless then we suppose, that shadow and substance,
sign and thing signified, type and antitype, are of the
same nature and kind, we must of necessity grant.
That the natural seed of Abraham, born of the flesh
according to the temporal promise, typified his spiritual
seed, born of the Spirit according to the new covenant
promise.
As baptism belongs only to the spiritual seed of
Abraham, it remains to be considered, what it is that
distinguishes them from the world, and gives them a
visible light to this ordinance.
The fleshly birth sufficiently distinguished the sub-
jects of circumcision ; for this was a thing visible, and
the highest evidence that could be had of their being
the natural seed of Abraham, to whom that ordinance
belonged ; so that Tsraelitish infants appeared as really
to be the natural seed at their birth, as they could do in
any after period of their lives. But this is far from
being the case with the spiritual seed : for as regenera-
tion is invisible ; so the carnal birth, be it of whom it
may, is no proper index to it, nor can they upon that
ground receive baptism. Because,
On Baptism. 185
1. That which is common both to the natural and
spiritual seed can never distinguish the one from the
other ; but the fleshly birth is common to both ; there-
fore it cannot distinguish them.
2. That which does not amount to the character
of tlie sons of God, cannot denominate the spiritual
seed ; but the being born of blood, of the will of the
flesh, and of the will of man, (as are the infants of
believers as well as others) does not amount to the
character of the sons of God, John, 1, 13. There-
fore, &c.
3. If the spiritual birth hath no necessary, natural,
or foederal connection with the fleshly birth, then from
the fleshly birth we cannot infer the spiritual ; but
being born again — from above — of the Spirit of God,
is neither necessarily, naturally, nor foederally con-
nected with the fleshly birth ; therefore it cannot be
inferred from it. Not necessarily ; for it is the fruit
of sovereign free election. Nor naturally ; for we
are by nature children of wrath. Nor foederally ; for
the new covenant is not made with the natural oflspring
of believers, as the old temporal covenant was with
the fleshly seed of Abraham ; nor are we now per-
mitted to know any man after the flesh, 2 Cor. v. 16.
or to judge of their spiritual state by their fleshly re-
lation to covenanted parents.
4. The natural seed of believers can no more be
counted for the spiritual seed, than the natural seed of
Abraham ; but the apostle tells us, that the children of
Abraham according to the flesh are not, as such, the
children of God, nor counted for the seed.
6. Though some of the children of believers arc the
spiritual seed, it will not follow they should all be
counted such ; any more than it will follow that
186 Letters to Mr. Glas
because some of the fleshly Israel were also the spi-
ritual Israel, therefore they were all of the spiritual
Israel. And if they cannot all be counted for the
spiritual seed, then none of them can be known to be
such while infants ; for, in infancy, there is no visible
distinction between them.
6. If the scriptures demonstrate, that many of the
children of intidels are of the spiritual seed, whilst, on
the other hand, many of the seed of the faithful turn
cut to be infidels, then no rule can be fixed for judging
of the state of infants either from the faith or infidelity
of their parents ; but scripture and experience demon-
strate both these to be facts, as in the case of Ishmael,
Esau, and Absalom, and in the rejection of the Jews,
and conversion of the Gentiles. Therefore, to judge
of the state of infants by the fleshly birth, or by the
faith of their parents, is not a scriptural rule.
These arguments serve to show, that the infants of
New Testament believers cannot be counted for the
spiritual seed, as the infants of old Israel were counted
for the fleshly seed ; and that therefore baptism cannot
be administered to the former, as circumcision was to
the latter, because it proceeds upon the evidence of
the spiritual birth.
I shall only mention one thing more upon this part
of the argument, viz. That there was a particular, ex-
press divine command for circumcising the fleshly seed
at eight days old ; but there is neither command nor
example in all the word of God for baptizing infants,
or any but those who appear, by the profession of
their faith, to be the spiritual seed.
I shall now follow you through the rest of this
section.
— " For they [infants] are as capable of being
On Baptism. 187
bom of the Spirit, as they are of being born of the
flesh :"—
Answ. Their capability is no argument. Do they
all appear to be born of the Spirit ? Does scripture
declare it ? Does experience show it?
— " For who can deny the operation of God upon
them, that raised Christ, and begets the adult to
the faith, to which they contribute as little as their
infants ?"—
Answ. No one can deny, that God can of these
stones raise up children to Abraham; but you yourself
own, that this operation is not actually exerted on all
the infants of believers, just a little below, where you
say, " It is true, they may yet be really irregenerate,
and when adult appear to be so." Scripture and ex-
perience both show, that they are but the fewest
number, even of the children of believers, upon whom
this operation is exerted. How trifling and weak then
is such reasoning, God is able to regenerate infants,
therefore they may be baptized ! According to this
argument, all the human race may be baptized ; for
God is able to regenerate them.
— " When it is asked, how can infants appear to be
of the spiritual seed ? it may then be asked, how does
a parent appear to be such an Israelite upon the very
first profession of his faith, by which he is admitted to
baptism ?" —
Answ. A parent appears to be a true Israelite upon
his first profession, because that afl'ords a credible
ground to believe, that his profession agrees with the
belief of his own heart, and is the index to it: but his
profession can never make his infant appear to be of
the spiritual seed ; because there is no connection be-
twixt his profession and the spiritual state of his child.
188 Letters to Mr. Glas
any more than there is betwixt the fleshly and spiritual
birth. The parent does not profess the faith of his
child, but his own faith ; and it is certain, that nothing
is made visible by a profession, but that which is pro-
fessed in it. There is no such thing either expressed
or implied in the scriptures, as that infants appear to
be the spiritual seed, by their being the natural seed
of believers. Abraham had never this honour with re-
spect to his natural seed, though his faith was tried and
approved of God the searcher of hearts : how then
can we suppose, that professing Gentiles should pro-
pagate spiritual children to Abraham by carnal gene-
ration, and manifest them to be such by professing the
faith in their stead, when he who was the father of the
faithful could do no such thing, unless we count the
children of the flesh for the seed, contrary to Rom. ix.
8. Gal. iv. 29. ? Abraham's spiritual seed walk in the
steps of his faith, Rom. iv. 11, 12. and do the works of
Abraham, John viii. 39. and thus appear to be his
spiritual seed.
You say, " the word of God calls us to acknowledge
them the spiritual seed by the parent's profession."
Yet there is no such call in all the word, but rather the
reverse : " That which is born of the flesh, is flesh,"
John iii. 6. " They are not all Israel which are of
Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham
are they all children," Rom. ix. 6, 7.
As for the parent's profession, it can never make his
infants appear to be the spiritual seed, though it
makes them appear the fleshly seed of a true Israelite :
nor can it make them appear the children of the
promise, who are counted for the seed ; for there is no
particular promise made to believers (as was to Abra-
ham) that they shall have a seed, and much less a
On Baptism. 189
spiritual seed. But as you seem to ground this
assertion upon their being called holy, I refer you
back to what has been already said on that head.
In the next paragraph you endeavour to shew, that
the baptism of infants will not infer their being ad-
mitted to the Lord's Supper :
1. Because they are not by this acknowledged as
members of any visible church, to which that or-
dinance belongs ; but only of Christ's true church ;
his body, which is invisible.
2. Because the examples of baptism in scripture
always preceded adding to a church. And,
3. Because, in short, they must be capable per-
sonally to declare their purpose of heart to cleave
unto the Lord in a church, before they can be ad-
mitted as members.
Now though I agree with you in saying, that the in-
stances of baptism in scripture always preceded
adding to a visible church, to which the supper belongs,
yet your arguments for infant-baptism are as strong for
admitting them to the supper : For if we esteem
infants members of Christ's true church for which he
gave himself, &c. why may they not be admitted as
members of a visible congregation, which is a repre-
sentation in miniature of that true church ? Are they
members of that true church where no unclean thing
■can enter ; and can they not be admitted into a society
where hypocrites have, and still do enter? Do they
all partake of the one New Testament altar, and can
we refuse them the instituted sign of that altar, the
Lord's Supper? Is not this something lik^ "daring
to exclude from the privileges of Christ's kingdom and
church communion those who appear to be of the
truth ?"
190 Letters to Mr. Glas
When it is asked, how can infants appear to be
members of a visible church ? it may then be asked,
how does a parent appear to be such a member, upon
the declared purpose of his heart to cleave unto the
Lord in it, by which he is admitted as one 1 And when
it shall be said. That the word of God calls us to ac-
knowledge him as such by that declaration ; then it
will also be said, (retorting your own argument,) that
the same word calls us to acknowledge his infants as
such, by that same declaration.
But how come you to speak of qualifications in
order to partake of the Lord's Supper, call it a de-
clared purpose of heart, &c. or what you will ? Does
bot " this lead us (according to you) to lay tlie stress
of our salvation upon something that wc do in the de-
claration of our purpose of heart to cleave unto the
Lord, and some holiness about us whereof infants are
incapable ?" p. 198. If once you dispense with that
personal profession which the scripture requires in
order to baptism, you cannot be consistent unless you
likewise give up with that personal declaration re-
quisite to church-fellowship and communion in the
supper, notwithstanding all your distinctions. But
you proceed :
— " Nor if we consider what is now said," (viz.
against reckoning the baptized to be members of a
visible church) " shall we be able to ascribe the cor-
ruption of Christianity to the baptism of Christian
infants, as it may be ascribed to the making of Chris-
tians by baptism."
Aiisw. Your arguments for infant-baptism will
equally hold for their receiving the supper, (as hath
been shown,) both which are a corruption of Chris-
tianity, as there is no foundation for any such practices
On Baptism.. 191
in the scriptures ; and if these infants you would have
baptized be not made Christians by baptism, I am
sure many of them are not made Christians in any
other way, as their after conduct glaringly demon-
strates.
— " The corruption of the Christian religion came
by departing from the scriptural profession of the
faith upon which baptism was administered from the
beginning to a man and his house, and by substituting
another profession in the room of it ; a profession that
cannot entitle the professors to the scriptural brotherly
love as saints and faithful in Christ Jesus ; or as the
spiritual Israel." —
Answ. You say right; for to substitute any pro-
fession in the room of a personal one, as it is not
scriptural, so it can never entitle to brotherly love as
saints, and must consequently introduce great cor-
ruptions into the Christian religion. And I know not
a fitter expedient for corrupting Christianity, or making
nominal Christians, than by administering baptism to
such as can make no personal or scriptural profession
of the faith ; but substitute the profession of another
in its place :
— " Whereas the true primitive profession of the
faith, gives the professor and his house the character
of holy, and admits them to baptism : And we see
unfeigned faith descending from a parent to her child
and grandchild," 2 Tim, 1, 5.
Ansir. I have considered the scripture doctrine
concerning a believer's hoiise already, as also how his
children are said to be holy, and have found that it
makes nothing for your purpose : but to affirm, that
"unfeigned faith descends from a parent to her child
^nd grandchild," is so manifest a wresting of the scrip-
192 Letters to Mr. Glas
tures, that I know not what to think of a point which
requires such conceits to support it. The apostle's
words are, 2 Tim. 1. 5. " When I call to remembrance
the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in
thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice ; and I
am persuaded that in thee also." Here it is evident
the apostle does not mean, that faith descended from
Timothy's grandmother to himself, by virtue of her
being his grandmother (for then it would descend like
an estate, or like hereditary qualities in the blood,) but
only that Timothy was enlightened in the knowledge of
the gospel by the sovereign grace of God, even as his
mother and grandmother were before him ; which
might or might not be the case, notwithstanding their
natural relation to each other, as both scripture and
experience plainly evince.
— '* If the children become adult, not adhering to
the baptismal profession, they have no more the cha-
racter of holy ; but then they are no more the infants
of believing parents." —
Answ. The scripture to which you refer for the cha-
racter of holy, is as applicable to them when become
adult, as when infants, and while unregenerated as
when regenerated : " but then they are no more the
infants of believing parents." Very true. Sir, adults
are not infants ; but pray. Sir, are not adults children
in scripture style, though they are not infants? Whether
does the place you refer to, term them infants or chil-
dren ? Does a believer's house include none but in-
fants in distinction from adult children? And whether
is this a scriptural distinction, or an imagination of
your own ? How came you then, without a scripture
warrant, to divest them of the character of holy upon
any consideration, as long as they are the latvful chil-
dren of believing parents?
On Baptism. 193
But though their adult state should discover your
error as to the nature of that holiness, you are very
far from owning it as yours ; for you say, " according
to the scripture, we must look upon the children of
believing parents, dying in infancy, as dying in the
Lord." Strange ! that you should father such fancies
upon the scriptures of truth, when there is not one
syllable in all that sacred book that makes the least
distinction (with respect to salvation) betwixt those
who die in infancy, and those who arrive at maturity.
But as you were before obliged to use the distinction
of visible and invisible church, to cut off the connection
betwixt baptism and the Lord's Supper : so you are
here forced to use the distinction of infant and adult,
to support the credit of that imaginary holiness, which
you say entitles infants to baptism, but which may
vanish away in their adult state like a morning cloud
which is dispelled by the rising sun.
Upon the whole, had you entirely dropt the apos-
tolic distinction of the two covenants, and adopted
the popular plan of their identity, you might have
handled the argument from circumcision more con-
sistently than you have done.
I am.
Sir,
Your, &c.
1^4 Letters to Mr. Glas
LETTER VIII.
SIR,
I SHALL now proceed to your fifth section,
which shows, that the apostles minding the Lord's ad-
monition as to infants, and primitive Christians long
after them, did not scruple upon baptizing them; and
that it was the practice in the first ages.
In the first part of this section you recapitulate your
former arguments, and take it for granted they are
conclusive ; but as I have answered them already,
1 shall not stay here upon every particular. You
begin thus ;
"If we believe Christ faithful as a Son over his
own house, we must take the revelation of his mind
and will as he is pleased to give it, without prescribing
to him the manner in which he should make his
will known." —
Ansiv. We are willing to take the revelation of
Christ's mind as he has been pleased to give it;
but since infant-baptism has never yet appeared to be
any part of that revelation, you must excuse us though
we do not take it from men as they are pleased to
give it ; for it is Christ's will, and not theirs, that we
chuse to regard in this matter. We maintain that the
revelation of Christ's mind as to the baptism of be-
lievers is clear, express, and particular ; but as to the
baptism of infants who cannot believe, he has said
nothing about it, and therefore it can be no institution
of his ; nor can any reasoning whatever, make it ap-
pear to be such. We may indeed deduce moral duties
On Baptism. 195
from the nature and relation of things ; but positive
ordinances, (such as baptism is,) which depend entirely
on the will of the lawgiver, we know nothing at all
about them, nor to what description of persons they
belong, but from the plain enacting words of such in-
stitutions, or approved examples of their application.
And where both are wanting, there can be no such
thing as a positive institution. But you proceed,
— " When the same temper, from which the scruples
at infant-baptism now proceed, showed itself in his
disciples, he was much displeased at it: The disciples
rebuked those who brought infants to him, and their
reasons for this could be no other but such as are still
used by those who forbid them baptism."
Answ. If Christ's disciples, (who even then bap-
tized more than John did, John iv. 1, 2.) had it in
commission to baptize infants, as, according to you,
must have been the case ; then their reasons could not
be the same with ours, who maintain they had no
such commission. Or if you imagine the disciples
thought infants incapable of Christ's blessing, and so
forbade them to be brought, I hope you will not affirm
that this is any of our reasons for withholding their
baptism. Wherein then do our reasons agree with
those of the disciples?
— "And in the foresight of their self-righteous and
unmerciful principle touching infants, forbidding them
the first sign of union with him and his church, out of
which there is no salvation, and perverting the scrip-
tures that show their church membership, he said,
* Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid
them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Yerily,
l say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the king-
dom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
O 2
30G LeiUrs to Mr. Glas
And he took them up in his arms, put his hands on
them, and blessed them.' Thus he secured the church
membership of infants before his institution of baptism,
and thus he prevented the disputes that have arisen
since about infants ; showing himself as the first patron
of their cause against disciples opposing their being
brought to him."
Answ. Here you endeavour to represent the Bap-
tists as self-righteous and unmerciful, and that because
they deny baptism to infants : but there can be neither
self-righteousness nor unmercifulness in denying what
was never commanded to be given, and which when
given can be of no advantage to them any more than
the Lord's Supper. However we need not be much
alarmed at»the epithet self-righteous when applied by
you, as it is your common hackneyed term, which you
apply to all serious professors who diifer from you.
As for what you say of our unmercifulness in forbidding
infants the first sign of union with Christ and his church,
out of which tlicre is no salvation ; and of our oppo-
sing their being brought to Christ, though there be not
the least argument in it ; yet it serves to affect and
stimulate the fondly feeling hearts of parents for their
infants, and to secure them by this blind handle to
your cause. You are sensible, that the generality of
people are more influenced by sound than reason,
especially in things that take hold of their passions
and natural afiections ; and here you avail yourself of
this natural feeling of human nature, by alarming
parents with the unmercifulness and cruelty of denying
their infants baptism ; as if it were like dashing them
against the stones, or depriving their souls of salvation.
Methinks I see the fond parent drowned in tears at the
Tery thought. ,
On Baptism, 197
You confidently affirm, that it was in the foresight
of the denial of infant-baptism, that our Lord said,
•** Suffer the little children to come unto me," &c.
whereas our Lord neither enjoins nor exemplifies their
baptism in that place, when there was an opportunity
of doing both. But I shall consider the text more
particularly.
" And they brought young children to him that he
might touch them ; and his disciples rebuked those
that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was
much displeased, and said unto them, Sufitr the little
childten to come unto me, and forbid them not : for
of such is the kingdom of God," Mark x. 13, 14.
Whether those who brought the little children were
their parents or not, is not here said. Their end in
bringing them, we are told here, and in Luke, was,
that he might touch them ; or as Matthew hath it, put
Ms hands on them and pray : but there is no intimation
of a desire that they should be baptized.
Next we have the opposition of the disciples to their
being brought. What their reasons were, we cannot
tell. It is likely they were intent upon our Lord's
discourse of marriage and divorce, and did not chuse
he should be interrupted at that time, being, as they
thought, better employed in teaching the multitude ;
not adverting, that our Lord could instruct by the ex-
ample of a little child, as well as by any other simili-
tude. But whatever were their reasons, our Lord
corrects them, saying, " Suffer the little children to
come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the
kingdom of God, or, of heaven," as Matthew hath it.
By kingdom of God cannot be understood any par-
ticular visible church ; this you will readily grant. It
must therefore be understood of Christ's true church.
19^ Letters to Mr. Glas
for which he gave himself; and that elect infants are
subjects of this kingdom, there can be no doubt; for
no circumstances of age or parentage can hinder that.
But then it must carefully be noticed ;
1. That the children of infidels are as capable of
being the subjects of this kingdom, as the children of
believers are, for any thing contained in this text.
2. All the children of believers are no more the
subjects of this kingdom, than all the children of un-
believers, as has been already shewn; how then can
the subjects of baptism be distinguished among the
children of believers ? This place makes no dis-
tinction of children, either by their parents, or among
themselves.
3. As the children of believers are not all of this
kingdom ; so many of those who are elected to it, are
not actually called in infancy ; but may spend a great
part of their days in the course of this world. Thus
Paul, though he was separated from his mother's
womb ; yet it did not please God to reveal his Son in
him, till he was on his journey to Damascus. Now
baptism does not immediately belong to the elect, as
such, (for these are only known to God,) but as ac-
tually called, and appeaiing to be so.
4. Though Jesus Christ, as the great prophet of
his church, can distinguish his people amongst infants^
as well as amongst adults, and bless them as he
did these children; yet this is no warrant for us to
bring the infants of believers indiscriminately to bap-
tism, as it is to bring them to him for a blessing.
5. Our bringing them to Christ for a blessing, though
a duty ; yet it is his to give or withhold, according to
his sovereign and righteous purpose ; nor can we dis-
tinguish who obtain the blessing in infancy; and
On Baptism. I9.9
though we could, it would be no warrant for their
baptism, without a divine command or example; for
the blessing and baptism are not inseparably connected,
as we may see in this place, where the children were
blessed without being baptized.
But if we look a little better into the text we may
easily see, tliat our Lord by these words, of such is the
kingdom of God, does not only teach us that he blesses
such little children as these, and that of such is the
kingdom of God ; but also that adults must become
as little children in simplicity and humility before they
can enter his spiritual kingdom. This is evident from
the following words, " A'^erily, I say unto you, who-
soever shall not receive the kingdom of God AS a
little child, he shall not enter therein." And this sense
is confirmed by a parallel passage, Matth. xviii. 2, 3.
" Jesus called a little child, and set him in the midst
of them, and said, Verily, I say unto you, except ye
be converted and become AS little children, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." And adds,
" Whosoever therefore shall HUMBLE himself AS
this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom
of heaven : And whoso shall receive one SUCH little
child in my name, receiveth me : And whosoever
shall oflfend one of these little ones which BELIEVE
in me, it were better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in
the depth of the sea."
Here it is evident our Lord styles these little children^
who are converted, and resemble such in humility,
though they be adults in age ; for they are described
to be such little ones as believe in him, and are ca-
pable of being offended, scandalized, or stumbled : and
if we compare this with what the apostle says about
200 Letters to Mr. Glas
offending the weak brother, Rom. xiv. and 1 Cor. viii.
we shall find, that though it will not apply to infants,
yet it is a necessary caution against offending Christ's
little ones, or those who are weak in the faith.
Nor does this sense of the place make our Lord's
phraseology any way uncommon ; for it was his usual
method to convey instruction by similitudes and
metaphors, and to use the sign or metaphor for the
thing signified. Thus he took bread, blessed it, and
said, " This js my body ;" and of the cup, " This is
my blood of the New Testament ;" or " This cup is
the New Testament in my blood :" So here, " Suffer
little children to come unto me ; for of such is the
kingdom of God," i. e. The kingdom of God is not
only of such little children, but they also bear an in-
structive resemblance of that humility and simplicity
which become my subjects. And inasmuch as he
blessed them, we are warranted to bring our children
to him for the same. But there is no more ground here
for the baptism of infants than there is for bringing
them to the Lord's Supper. But you proceed :
" The apostles kept this in mind when they ex-
ecuted his commission to them for setting up his
kingdom in the world :" —
Answ. They kept in mind that his commission to
them was first to teach (or disciple) and then baptize
those who were thus taught.*
* Tbe words, Go ye therefore, and (each all nations, baptizing them,
&c. Mattli. xxviii. 19. is indeed a commission to teach all nations;
but not to baptize all nations ; for baptism is restricted to the relative
pronoun <auT«j them, which is masculine, and does not agree with
wavra ra eSvrj, all nations, which is neuter, but to /ji,a9vrai, disciples,
which is included in the verb fj(,u%JiU(rart, teach, or make disciples.
So the sense is. Teach all nations, laptizirg them that are taught, or
made diteipks by teaching.
On Baptism ^01
— " For they took in the children with the parents,
as we have seen." —
Ahsw. They took in those who professed the faith,
whether children or parents, as we have seen.
— " They preached salvation by Christ to men and
their houses." —
Answ. They preached salvation by Christ to all that
had an ear to hear, even to every creature. But what
is this to the purpose ?
— " They baptized believers and their houses, them,
and all theirs." —
Answ. They did so, when their houses believed aa
well as themselves ; for this was exactly agreeable to
their commission, " He that belie veth, and is bap-
tized," &c.
— " And they left Christian infants as holy, so in
the possession of this privilege of Christ's circum-
cision."—
Answ. They did not leave them holy in your sense
of it ; but argued from the principle of their being
lawful children, that the marriage relation of their pa-
rents (though one of them was an infidel) must have
been lawful also. Nor did they leave them in the pos-
session of the privilege of Christ's circumcision, if by
that you mean baptism ; for as they had not this in
their commission, so we find they did not practise it in
any of the instances we have of baptism in scripture :
neither did they leave any directions about it. And if
you can argue from Phil. i. 1. that there ought to be no
ofiicers in a Christian church but Bishops and Deacons,
you cannot, with any good grace, hinder me to gather
from Acts viii. 12. that none ought to be baptized but
believing men and women.
I have now followed you through all your rea-
202 Letters to Mr. Glas
sonings from scripture for the baptism of infants : But
were I to judge of your real sentiments by your prac-
tice in this matter, I should be led to think, that you
hold infant-baptism independent of any arguments you
have yet advanced. For when you receive members
into your church, you do not object to their baptism,
but sustain its validity though they should have
received it from the national church of Scotland, of
England, or even the church of Rome, all of which
you consider as Antichristian. You are no way con-
cerned about their having been baptized according to
what you yourself esteem the scripture rule. With
respect to their parents, you never inquire whether
they have been believers, or whether they have ever
made the scriptural profession of the faith or not ; so
that all your arguments grounded on the iaith of the
parent, salvation to a believer's house, the promise
being to him and his children, &c. are laid aside in this
case. And as to the persons themselves, you do not
look upon them as having been disciples, believers,
holy, and of the kingdom of God when they were bap-
tized, nor indeed till such time as they personally pro-
fess the faith, and apply for admission into your com-
munion. Here then you at once relinquish all your
arguments for infant-baptism, none of which are ap-
plicable to the present case, which is a common one ;
and therefore since you sustain the baptism of such as
valid, it must be upon some other ground than any
thing you have yet advanced from scripture. Do you
then hold it independently of scripture authority alto-
gether ? If so, it would have been but fair to have
avowed this, as it would bring the controversy to 9
speedy issue. True, indeed, in your first section, you
gave up with express precept or indisputable example.
On Baptism. 203
which was in reality to admit that infant-baptism was
no institution of Christ, for a positive institution cannot
be established by mere inference : But, in the above
case, you practically depart from all the arguments
and inferences on which you ground the baptism of
infants, and so can have no shadow of pretence to any
scripture warrant whatever. I am.
Sir,
Your, &c.
204 Letters to Mr. Glas
LETTER IX.
SIR,
Having followed you through your scripture
authorities for infant-baptism, I shall, in this letter,
make some reply to what you observe from ancient
history. You say,
— " That there was never any scruple moved about
it till the end of the second century." —
Answ. Because it had no being till about that time,
as some of the most learned Poedobaptists ingenuously
confess.*
— " And when we consider the opposition then made
to it, we shall see how much it serves to confirm it.
We shall see that christian infants were then in pos-
session of the privilege of baptism, and that the first
objection made to it arose out of a manifest departure
from what the scripture teaches most plainly about
baptism, as well as from the scripture doctrine of the
grace of God."
Answ. If this manner of arguing be of any weight,
it can easily be retorted, that the ancient arguments
for infant-baptism were founded upon a supposed ne-
cessity of baptism to salvation ; that it washed away
original sin ; that the grace of God must be denied to
none ; and that the sins of infants were easier forgiven
than those of adults, &c.
• See Vansleb's History of the church of Alexandria, Part 1. c. 25.
LudovicKS Fives in his notes on Augustin. de Civitate Dei, Lib. 1. c. 27.
Suicerus in his Thesaur. Ec. sub Voce 1,vvaiig. Curcellcrus in his Relig.
Christian. Imtittit, Lib. 1. c. 12. and in Dissirt, gecunda ie Peccnt, Orig^
Sect. 56.
On Baptism. , 205
" TertuUian, who wrote in the conclusion of the
second century, is the first that moves an objection
against infant-baptisra." —
Aiisw. He was amongst the first that had occasion.
— " And he does this when pleading for the delay
of baptism even to the adult : for he would have the
unmarried professors of Christianity to delay baptism,
whether they be virgins or widows, till they either
marry or be confirmed in their continency. He pleads
for this delay of baptism from the prohibitions to lay
on hands suddenly, and to give that which is holy to
swine ; — and therefore he would have baptism de-
layed, according to the condition, disposition, and age
of each person." —
Answ. It is not my business to defend TertuUian in
all his notions. There was certainly no reason why
the baptism of unmarried professors of Christianity
should be delayed, if they made a scriptural profession
of the faith. ' '
— " And he insists for the delay, especially as to
infants, arguing for it in this manner, * What necessity
is here (says he) for bringing the sponsors into danger,
who, being themselves mortal, may fail of performing
their promises, or may be beguiled by the growth of
an ill disposition ? The Lord indeed says. Forbid
them not to come to me. Let them come when they
grow up ; let them come when they learn ; when they
are taught to what they should come. Let them be
Christians when they shall be capable to know Christ.
Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of
sins ? We would act more cautiously in secular af-
fairs ; that to whom the earthly inheritance is not
given, the divine should be entrusted : Let them know
to seek salvation, that you may appear to have gives
206 Letters to Mr. Glas
it to one that seeks.' And for the delay of baptism in
general, he further says, * If any understood the
weight of baptism, they would rather fear the attaining
of it, than the delay. Entire faith is secure of salva-
tion.*
" Now was not this delay of baptism as expressly
contrary to the scripture example as any thing can be ?
and did then the first opposition that we hear of among
Christians to infant-baptism, arise out of the scriptures,
or out of a plain contradiction to the plainest scrip-
tures? And did not the objection of this forefather of
the forbidders of infants to come to Christ, proceed
upon the denial of original sin, and the need of remis-
sion to infants ? And did it not plainly suppose, that
our salvation lies in that about us which distinguishes
us from our infants ; and that it hinges upon a know-
ledge and a seeking of salvation, and an entireness of
faith whereof infants are incapable ? If it shall be
alleged, that he was not in this a forefather to those
few commonly called free grace Anabaptists, who are
only to be regarded in this question ; may we not then
say. If these indeed believe, that they cannot enter the
kingdom of God, but as the infants enter, he was mor«
consistent with himself than they ?"
Answ. Though I do not intend to justify Tertullian
in every thing ; as it is a question whether the doc-
trine of original sin was clearly understood either by
him or many of his cotemporaries ; yet I cannot help
noticing that you misrepresent his meaning in saying
that he forbids infants to come to Christ, when he only
forbids their baptism. You surely can distinguish be-
tween coming to Christ and coming to baptism ; and
do not suppose that baptism is Christ, or that the pas-
sage you refer to says any thing of baptism. Again
On Baptism. 207
where he says, " Entire faith is secure of salvation,"
you consider him as maintaining, that " our salvation
lies in something about us that distinguishes us from
our infants ;" whereas he is only pleading for the de-
lay of baptism from its not being absolutely necessary
to salvation, (as was then alleged) that being con-
'nected with faith, as we find, Mark xvi. J 6. " He that
believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved ;" in which
place you own,* the stress is laid on believing, and
not on baptism : so that unless you place salvation in
baptism, instead of Christ, and faith in his righteous-
ness, your remark is a mere cavil.
There are others of.Tertullian's arguments which
have never got a satisfying answer to this day ; such
as the danger of the sponsors ; the necessity of first
teaching the persons to be baptized to vthat they
should come, and thus engaging them to desire baptism
and seek for it, before they obtain it ; in which he
seems to refer to our Lord's commission. Mat. xxviii. 19.
But it seems the few commonly called free-grace
Anabaptists, are less consistent with themselves than
Tertullian was. How so ? Because " they believe
they cannot enter the kingdom of God but as the in-
fants enter it," and yet withhold baptism from their in-
fants. But where, in all the world, does this inconsis-
tency lie ? Have you yet shown to these Anabaptists
from scripture, that infants cannot enter the kingdom
without baptism, or have the thing signified without
the sign ? Have you pointed out the particular in-
fants that enter this kingdom in distinciion from those
who do not, and then shown the scriplure precept or
example for baptizing such ? And can you see no con-
* Page 19S.
208 Letters to Mr. Glas
sistency at all in affirming, that many enter the kingdom
of God, who never were proper or visible subjects of
gospel ordinances ? Once more ; Do you think the
profession of faith which the scripture requires in order
to baptism, turns the professor's entry into the kingdom
of God upon another hinge than the entry of infants,
who cannot make that profession ? If you do, then the .
inconsistency lies on your side of the question, in re-
quiring such a profession of the adult. But I refer
you back to my second letter for a fuller answer on
this head.
Now, Sir, as you have been so kind as to point out
to the Baptists their original, it will not be amiss to
draw your attention a little to that of the Pcedo-
baptists.
That infant baptism was very early introduced into
the church, is evident from Tertullian's opposition to
it about the latter end of the second century ; but we
have no authentic or distinct account of the grounds
upon which it was held, till Cyprian's time, about the
middle of the third century, who writes largely in
favour of it in his epistle to Fidus, which epistle was
the resolution of him and QQ bishops gathered together
in council. The reasons for infant-baptism, (and that
too before the eighth day) as exprest in that epistle, are
as follow ;
" That whereas none is to be kept back from bap-
tism, and the grace of God, much less new-born in-
fants, who, in this respect, do deserve more of our aid,
and God's mercy ; because in the beginning of their
birth they presently, crying and weeping, do nothing
else but pray. — The mercy and grace of God is to be
denied to none that are born of man ; for the Lord
sait in the gospel, that the Son of man came not to
On Baptism. 209
destroy men's souls, but to save them ; and therefore,
as much as in us lies, if it may be, no soul is to be lost ;
and therefore all infants, at all times, are to be bap-
tized.— If any thing could hinder from obtaining of
grace, greater sins should hinder men of years from it ;
now if greater sins hinder not men of j^ears from it,
but that they, when they believe, obtain forgiveness,
grace, and baptism, by how much rather is an infant
not to be forbidden, who being newly born, hath not
sinned, except in that being born carnally according
to Adam, he hath contracted the contagion of ancient
death in his first nativity, who, in this respect, comes
more easily to receive remission of sins, because not
his own sins, but another's are forgiven him."
Now, tell me, was not this innovation of infant-bap-
tism as expressly contrary to the scriptures as any
thing can be? And did the first arguments that we
hear of among Christians in its behalf arise out of the
scriptures, or out of a flat contradiction to the plainest
scriptures? Did it not proceed upon the doctrine of
universal grace ; that baptism confers the grace of
God ; that infants deserve this more than adults, as
having no sin of their own, but only Adam's, and
therefore more easily forgiven ; that they are eminent
in devotion, being continually praying in their weeping
and crying, &c.? And what is this, think you, but
placing salvation in something else than in Christ?
If it shall be alleged, that he was not in this a fore-
father to the numerous nations of Protestant Pcedo-
baptists, who are only to be regarded in this question:
may we not then say. If these indeed believe that the
salvation of infants lies only and wholbj in the thing
signified to the adult in baptism, he was more con-
sistent with himself than they. But to proceed ;
P
210 Letters to Mr. Glas
About the latter end of the second century, an
opinion arose, that without baptism there could be no
salvation ; whether this error was founded upon a mis-
taken view of Mark xvi. 16. or John iii. 5. (which were
pleaded afterwards) cannot well be determined. How-
ever, this principle being once admitted, (as appears
from Tertullian's opposition) parents could not but
take the alarm, and press hard for the baptism of
their infants, lest they should die and be lost before
they came to age. But there was one thing that stood
in their way, viz. the inability of infants to make the
scriptural profession of the faith before baptism : but
alas ! their infants might perish ere they were capable
to make this profession, unless some expedient were
found out to supply its place. What then could they
do in this sad dilemma, but substitute cautioners or
sponsors to profess and engage for their children?
These are the sponsors which Tertullian considers as
brought into danger : but the parents were not then
admitted as sponsors for their own children, unless
they abstained from the marriage-bed ever after ; nor
did they as yet baptize all infants, but only such as
appeared weakly and in danger of death.*
About lifty years after this, Cyprian and sixty-six
bishops gave it the sanction of a council : (for it had
then become customary, when any piece of super-
stition was to be established in opposition to the scrip-
ture, to interpose the authority of a council for its
more universal reception, though they wanted the civil
power to put their decrees in execution.) We have
already seen the resolution of this council, and the
strange arguments upon which infant-baptism was
* Gregftry Nazunzea. Oiat. of Bapt.
On Baptism. 211
founded ; and we may be sure they were no way infe-
rior to those used in TcrtuUian's time, when it began
to be introduced: But it is evident that the ariruments
of modern Poedobaptists were not as yet invented, at
least those of them upon which they lay the greatest
stress.
We find likewise that in Cyprian's time they ad-
mitted infants to the Lord's Supper, as appears from
the story he relates of his giving the communion to an
infant : * and this practice continued in the church for
600 years, till it was at last rejected by a council, as is
confessed by Maldonat on John vi. Herein they were
more consistent than the modern Poedobaptists, for
their arguments are equally conclusive for the one as
for the other.
There is little account of infant-baptism, from Cy
prian's time, till the beginning of the fiftli century,
when we find Augustine strenuously maintaining it
upon Cyprian's authority and principles, viz. That in-
fants are damned, by reason of original sin, if they are
not baptized ; that baptism regenerates, &c. But it is
evident he paid no regard to the faith or intention of
those who brought them to baptism ; for he saith, in
his 23d epistle to Boniface, " Neither let that move
thee, that some do not bring little ones to receive bap-
tism with that faith that they may be regenerated by
spiritual grace unto life eternal ; but because they
think by this to preserve or receive temporal health :
for they are not therefore unregenerate, because they
are not offered by them with this intention ; for ne-
cessary ministries are celebrated by them."
Though they admitted sponsors to profess the faith ;
* lu Ills book De Lapsis nienlioned by Augustine, Epist. 23.
P2
212 Letters to Mr. Glas
yet the sponsor was not to profess his own faith, but
the faith of the child itself ; which was done in this
manner : The surety being asked, " Doth the child
believe ?" replied, " He doth believe." Upon which
Boniface iirgeth Augustine to show, how the sureties
could be excused from lying in such an affirmation, and
is answered, " He doth believe, by reason of the
sacrament of faith." By the sacrament of faith he
means baptism, and so this is to affirm, that baptism
communicates faith to an infant, and that too previous
to its being administered ; so that, according to this,
the infant is qualified for baptism by virtue of baptism
itself. Though this is the very height of absurdity,
yet we may gather from it, that the argument from the
parent's faith was not then invented ; that they still
wished to keep up the usual form of a personal pro-
fession of faith, by the expedient of a sponsor who
personated the infant, and obtained baptism for it by
telling lies h\ its name.
Augustine, as well as Cyprian, admitted infants to
the Lord's Supper, and pleaded for it from John vi. 53.*
But after all it would appear, that, even in Augus-
tine's time, infants neither received baptism nor the
Lord's Supper but when they appeared weakly, or in
danger of death, and they were administered as well
for the health of their bodies, as for the salvation of
their souls. Augustine's own baptism was deferred
till he was upwards of thirty years of age, though edu-
cated as a Christian by his mother Monica ; and he
tells us, "that being young, and falling sick, he desired,
and his mother thought to have him baptized, but
upon his recovery, it was deferred."f Nor was his
*L\h 1. de peccat, merit, et remis, c, 20.
t T«m. 1. Confess, Lib, 1, c, 11.
On Baptism. 213
own son baptized till he was fifteen, with many others
that might be mentioned at that time, which shows
that infant baptism came in by degrees, and that it was
a long while before it came to be universally practised.
Whoever considers the authority which those fore-
fathers of the Poedobaptists had in the chuich and the
mysticism, ignorance, and superstition of those times,
needs not wonder that infant-baptism should spread
and be adopted by whole nations ; but it is surprising^
that it should be carried to the ridiculous length of
baptizing whole kingdoms upon the profession and
baptism of their kings, though they still remained bap-
tized infidels. If you say you have nothing to do with
such a practice, I reply, that the baptism of whole
houses upon the profession of the parent's faith, is
perfectly analogous to this, and is nothing but a chip
of the same block.
To conclude : as you have no foundation in scrip-
ture for infant-baptism ; so, though you should search
the whole records of antiquity, you will find little to
support the modern arguments for it, which rest
chiefly upon conceits that have been hatched amongst
Protestant Poedobaptists within these three hundred
years. I am.
Sir,
Your, &c.
214 Letters to Mr. Glas
LETTER X.
SIR,
I NOW proceed to yonr Appendix, which
contains a dissertation on the manner of baptism, and
the scripture sense of the ivord Baptism. Here you
tell us,
" The opposers of infant-baptism contend likewise
for a diiferent manner of baptism from that which is
commonly practised : which according to them cannot
be called baptism ; because it does not at all sij^nify
and represent union and communion with Christ in his
death and burial by immersion, or plunging, or dip-
ping in water ; nor in his resurrection, by emerging or
rising up from under the water : and because it does
not at all answer to the very sense and meaning of the
word Baptism, which signifies dipping, immersing, or
plunging."
Ansiu. I suppose you will not deny that tlie word,
Ba'TTi^co, baptize, primarily and properly signifies to
immerse, plunge under, overwhelm, and also to dip ;
and that where it is put for washing, it is used in a
secondary, consequential, and more improper sense.
If you deny this, you oppose not only the Baptists,
and the best lexicographers, but also (he plain sense
of that word as used in other cases by ancient Greek
writers. But then it seems,
" This cannot appear from scripture to be the very
sense and use of the word Baptism there ;" How so ?
" For the best way to find the sense of this word, as
applied to the case of baptizing Christians, is to ob-
On Baptism. 215
serve how the scripture applies it to other cases ; and
by this way the scripture sense of it is found to be
washing, however that be done ;" and then you pro-
duce instances where you think the ivasldng of hands,
as well as of cups, tables, or beds, &c. is expressed
by the word baptism.
Answ. 1. Here you suppose that in scripture the
word baptism is used in an uncommon sense to signify
any manner oT washin":, however that be done ; but in
this you are very much mistaken ; and as to the wash-
ing of hands, it is expressed by vitttco, not CaTrn^u.
Though baptism is sometimes used for washing, yet
not for every mode of it, but only for such washing as
includes immersion. So that you had best keep by
the primary and proper sense of a word, till some cir-
cumstances in the text lay you under a necessity of
understanding it otherwise ; and this you cannot pre-
tend of Christian baptism.
"2. It is not denied that these things you mention
were washed ; but the question is, whether were they
not baptized or dipped in the act of washing ? if they
were, then the word is properly used still ; and I sup-
pose you will not undertake to prove they were only
washed by sprinkling or pouring.*
3. According to your own rule, baptize must signify
to dip ; for thus the original theme ^arrru, from whence
* " If the Pharisees touched but the garments of the common people
they were defiled, and needed immersion, and were obliged to it.''
Maimonides in Misn. chngiguh. c. 2. sect. 7.
" Tlie more superstitious part of the Jews, every day before they
sat down to meat, dipped the whole body; hence the Piiarisecs admi-
ration at Cluist, Lnkexi. 38." Scaliger de Emend, Temp. Lib. 6. p. 671.
In tiie Jewisli Misr.ah, or book of traditions, it is said, " A bed that
is wholly defiled, a man dij s it part by part." Celiin, c. 26. Sect. 11.
21C Letters to Mr, Qlas
BaTTTi^a is a derivative, is applied in other places of
scripture ; as in Mat. xxvi. 23. " He that, si^^a-^a^^
dippeth his hand with me in the dish, &c." Luke xvi. 24.
" Send Lazarus, that he, $a(pn, may dip the tip of his
fin^^er in water, &c." John xiii. 26. " He it is to whom
I shall give a sop, when I, ^a^^ag, have dipped it."
Rev. xix. 13. " And he was clothed with a vesture,
B£Ca,afjLsvov, dipped in blood,"
Your next argument is. That " in the case of Chris-
tian baptism, washing stands often in the New Testa-
ment as another word for it, and as declaring the im-
port and sense of it," of which you give instances from
Eph. V. 26. Heb. x. 22. Tit. iii. 5. 1 Pet. iii. 21. Acts
xxii. 16. 1 Cor. vi. 11. " From these (you say) it may
appear, that according to the scripture use of the word
baptism, immersion cannot Ijc called baptism, any
otherwise than as it is a mode of washing with water."
Answ. That washing sometimes stands as another
word for baptism may be granted ; for a man is washed
when he is immersed or dipped ; but that washing in
tvhatever manner, is used for baptism, I deny ; for
the body is not washed with pure water by sprinkling
or pouring a little of it on the face, as it is by immersing
ox plunging it in water. So that though immersion be
a mode of washing with water ; yet it is not for that
reason termed baptism ; but because it is that very
mode of washing which is expressed by the Greek
word ^aTTTi^u, and no ether. Washing is a general
word, which includes various modes, and that of dip-
ping among the rest ; but dipping, by which this or-
dinance is expressed, is a particular mode, and cannot
properly include any other.
"The ancients, who added several ceremonies to the
simple institutions of Christ, and found out spiritual
On Baptism, 217
meanings to them, amongst other rites added to bap-
tism, used this of dipping thrice. But they did not
proceed so far, in this way, as to deny, that washing
with water in any other way is baptism : for they used
clinic baptism, and surely baptizing a sick man in his
bed, was not burying him under water. Washing
with water, then, was from the beginning the sign in
baptism, in whatever way, or after whatsoever mode
it was done."
Answ. 1. What reason have you to find fault with
the ancients for clipping thrice, since you think any
manner of washing will do ?
2. Though they likewise used clinic baptism, yet
they did not think it a proper rule for ordinary bap-
tism, as you do ; but excused it by the plea of urgent
necessity;* and they pretended to no evidence for it
from the New Testament, but founded it upon the
ceremonial sprinklings of the law, and the metaphor
used by the prophet Ezekiel, chap, xxxvi. 25. But
still they made a distinction betwixt baptismal washing
and the pouring of water upon the sick.f However,
if you think the ancient superstitious clinic baptism a
sufficient warrant for sprinkling or pouring, it is at
your service, though it be among the other ceremonies
which they added to the simple institutions of Christ.
You tell us, " the common way of baptizing is not
by sprinkling, as has been always falsely alleged in
this controversy, but by pouring water from the hand
of the baptizer on the baptized." A very curious dis-
tinction indeed ! but what does this make for your
purpose ? Why, " if the scripture calls pouring forth
• Cyprian, Epist. 69. ad Magnum.
t Cyprian, Epist, 69. ad Magnum.
SIS Letters to Mr. Glas
the Holy Ghost upon men, baptizing them with the
Holy Ghost, then pouring forth water on men, is bap-
tizing them with water, in the scripture use of the word
baptism."
Answ. So you hold hy pouring for its similitude to
the baptism of the Holy Ghost : (I shall remind you
of this in the sequel;) but, according to this manner
of arguing, filling men with water must be baptism;
for they are said to be filled with the Holy Ghost ; gi-
ving men water must be baptism ; for the Holy Ghost
is said to be given ; and sprinkling with water (not-
withstanding your distinction) must be baptism still ;
for the ordinary baptism of the spirit is by sprinkling
the heart from an evil conscience. Thus baptism with
water may be explained to be any thing, every thing,
or nothing.
" Christ was baptized with a baptism, which was at
his death ; but that baptism was by water and blood
poured forth from his pierced side upon his dead body ;
and there was no dipping there."
Answ, Was it the issuing forth of blood and water
from the pierced side of Christ's dead body, what he
precisely meant by his baptism, and that in distinction
from what he •ndured before he bowed the head and
gave up the Ghost ? If so, it will greatly favour some
ancient instances of baptizing dead bodies. But it is
evident that the baptism wherewith our Lord was bap-
tized at his death, respected all that he suflfered, whether
in the garden or on the cross; which sufferings are
called baptism, not properly, but metaphorically. The
Psalmist useth metaphors of the same import, when
speaking of Christ's sufferings, Psal. Ixix. 1, 2. " Save
me, O God, for the waters are come in into my soul.
I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing : I am
On Baptism. 211f
come into deep waters, where the floods overflow
me." And was there no dipping or immersing here 1
And is not our being buried with Christ by baptism, a
fit representation of communion with him in his death
and burial, and our rising again from under the water,
a proper sign of fellowship with him in his resurrection ?
Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5. Col. ii. 11, 12, 13. But in opposition
to this, you say,
" Our communion with Christ, and conformity to
him in his death, burial, and resurrection, is by the re-
newing of the Holy Ghost," &c.
Answ. True ; but if you argue against the scripture
mode of baptism, because it is not the thing signified ;
you may likewise argue against every mode of it for
the same reason ; and thus you will shake hands with
the Quakers, who deny baptism with water, because
it is not the baptism of the Spirit.
— " But if we look on the will of the institutor ex-
pressed in his word as the sole ground of the relation
betwixt the sign in baptism and the Lord's Supper,
and that which is signified by them ; we will not look
for any such similitude in these instituted signs as we
do in pictures or images,"
Answ. You have not yet shewn that it is not the will
of the institutor there should be a resemhlanceheiwiJit
the sign and the thing signified. On the contrary, you
have endeavoured to shew that there is a resemblance,
when arguing for the mode of pouring, which you
found entirely upon its resemblance to the pouring
forth of the Holy Ghost upon men; but whether you
think it bears the similitude of a picture or image to
this, I will not say. In your argument from Col. ii. 11,
12, 13. you affirm, *' That in place of the circumcision
made with hands, they [Christians] are buried with
220 Letters to Mr. Glas
Christ in baptism ;" and this you distinguish from the
circumcision of the heart, as the sign is distinguished
from the thing signified. Now, if there be a burial in
the sign, in distinction from the renewing of the Holy
Ghost, then that burial must be in water, for the scrip-
ture informs us that the sign is water.
— " Shall we say upon it, that the scripture confines
us so to one manner of washing, that another way of
it cannot be called baptism ?"
Answ. You can go even this length upon other points^
and stand to it with firmness : but here it seems your
right arm is weakened, and you are willing to make a
coalition that will comprehend all the modes of
washing that can be thought on, and unite them in
friendly alliance. The only fault you find with im-
mersion, is its unsociableness and want of charity to its
neighbours. Let me tell you. Sir, this is not agreeable
to your usual manner of writing when conscious of
truth upon your side, which indicates you have some
misgiving of heart about your favourite mode. You
allow immersion to be one mode of washing ; but then
you cannot think to be confined to any one mode of it :
But what have you now made of Christ's simple insti-
tution ? And what can the drift of all your arguments
be, but to throw the scripture manner of baptism into
ambiguity and darkness, that so you may accommodate
the ordinance to the tender state of infants for whom
it was never intended. But what if after all we should
still say upon it, that the scripture has determined the
manner as well as the subjects of baptism ; and that
the scripture manner is baptism in distinction from
any other manner of washing that you may please to
use upon improper subjects ?
" The confidence of some in this matter is the more
On Baptism. 221
unaccountable, that they cannot be ignorant it is im-
possible to shew, from the particular accounts of the
Lord's baptism and the eunuch's, that either of thera
were baptized otherwise than by pouring water on
them from the hands of the baptizers. For if it should
be inferred from the eunuch's going down into the
water, and coming up out of it, (as it is also said our
Lord did,) that he was plunged ; the same also must be
said of Philip the baptizer : for the words are, * They
went down both into the water, both Philip and the
eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they were
come up out of the water.' If these words say any
thing of dipping the baptized, they say full as much of
dipping the baptizer. But to any man that is capable
of understanding words, these words plainly say. That
being baptized with water is another thing than going
down into the water, and coming up out of it."
Answ. This paragraph is of a piece with the rest,
tending to shew, that there is no certain rule in scrip-
ture for the mode of baptism ; and this you do by
throwing dust upon these circumstances by which the
scripture mode is determined, whilst at the same time
you can pretend to no foundation in scripture for the
mode of pouring at all ; so that your argument proves
nothing; but is an attempt to invalidate all proof
whereby the manner of baptism can be determined
either one way or another. But this whole paragraph
proceeds upon a gross mistake ; for we do not affirm,
that going down into the water, is the same with bap-
tism or immersion : Philip and the eunuch might go
to their necks in water, and yet not be baptized ac-
cording to Christ's institution. But I ask, why went
they down into the water ? Was it that the eunuch might
have a little of it poured upon him from the hand of
222 Letters to Mr. Glas
Philip? Certainly not; for this might have been done
at the brink, without wetting^ the soles of their feet ; or
the eunuch might have been thus bantized in his cha-
riot by a small quantity of it in a vessel. It is evident
then that the eunuch was not baptized by pouring of
water from the hand of Philip ; but in such a manner,
whatever it was, as required a depth of water, to
obtain which, we find, they went both down into the
water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and this, though
it was not baptism, yet it was a necessary step in order
to it.
Though Philip went down into the water as well as
the eunuch, yet he was not thereby baptized ; (as he
certainly would, had any manner of washing been bap-
tism) but he went down to perform that action upon
another. What kind of action then must that be
which Philip performed upon the eunuch, and that re-
quired they should go both into a depth of water?
Can we think the Holy Ghost, in relating those cir-
cumstances, had nothing in view but what was in-
cidental and superfluous ? No surely ; they all concur
to ascertain, that the action was immersion, as they
could be requisites to no other mode ; accordingly it
is said i^aTnicriv, lie immersed him. Acts viii. 38. which
action required, that Philip shoi;ld take hold of the
eunuch, bury him in the water, and raise him up again
from under the water. Thus you may see that the cir-
cumstances of the eunuch's baptism, tally exactly
with the sense of the word ^a'Tm^u, to dip, immerse, or
plunge.
Nor were these circumstances any way singular ;
for our Lord was baptized in the river Jordan, having
gone down into it; as is evident from Matth. ii. 16.
Mark i. 10. where we are told that, after his baptism.
On Baptism. 223
he came up out of the water. Baptism, or immersion,
requires much water ; " and John also was baptizing
in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water
there," John iii. 23. Whereas, had he used the mode
of sprinkling or pouring, he had no occasion to make
choice of such a place.
To conclude; the most learned and judicious of the
Poedobaptists, ever since the practice of sprinkling or
pouring took place, have ingenuously confessed Ihat
the scripture mode of baptism is immersion, and the
main plea they have for changing the application of
water into something else than baptism, is to ac-
commodate it to the tender bodies of infants. Thus we
see one deviation from the scripture rule introduces
another, till at last the law of God is made void by
men's vain traditions. I am,
Str,
Your humble Servant.
DEFENCE
OF
AS OPPOSED TO
INFANT SPRINKIiING:
In a ilettev to a jfricnti :
Being an Answer to a Pamphlet, entitled, Remarks on
Scripture Texts relating to Infant-Baptism, toge-
ther with some Strictures on Mr. Huddlestons Let-
ters, and other Writings on that Subject.
Q
About eleven years ago, I wrote an answer
to Mr. Glas's Dissertation on Infant-Baptism,
in a series of Letters addressed to the author.
My chief design was to show the Independents
of this country, that infant-baptism, and the
arguments which they use in support of it, are
not only void of all foundation in scripture, but
subversive of their own professed doctrine, upon
which they have separated from the national
churcli. No direct reply has been made to
this by any in Scotland ; but Mr. Huddieston,
pastor of an Independent society in Whitehaven,
has attempted something of that kind. To this
also a fidl and particular answer has been writ-
ten, but not published.
The following pages are written in answer to
a recent publication, entitled, " Remarks on
Scripture Texts relating to Infant-baptism ^"
which 1 am credibly informed is the Ions studied
228 PREFACE.
and mature production of an eminent member
of the second class of Independents at Glasgow,
and therefore may justly be considered as con-
taining the strength of their main arguments on
that subject. I know not what others may
think of it, but for my own part, were it not
that I know the author, I should be ready to
suspect that it had been written by some ironi-
cal wag on the other side of the question, with
a view to expose the cause to ridicule.
The Independents are the most inconsistent
of any set of people upon this subject. They
admit that the people of the new covenant are
distinguished from those of the old, by their
having God's law written in their hearts ; and
all of them knowing the Lord from the least
unto the greatest, Jer. xxxi, 33, 34:* — That
the subjects of Christ's kingdom are distin-
guished from the world by their being of the
truth, and hearing his voice, John xviii. 37 : | —
That the spiritual seed are distinguished from
the fleshly, by their being born again of the
♦ Glas's WorkV, vol. 1. p. 47. t Ibid. p. 122, 123.
* PREFACE. 229
Spirit by the incorruptible seed of the word,
John iii. 5. 1 Pet. i. 23 : * And that this distinc-
tion is only visible to us in the profession of
their faith, Acts viii. 37. Rom. x. 9, 10. f But
whenever they attempt to establish infant-bap-
tism, they disregard, and some of them even
condemn, J such distinctions, and every visible
evidence of them, as self-righteous, and resolve
the whole into this single question, " Are they
born of believing parents ?' And though our
Lord au(d his disciples absolutely deny that
such birth can distinguish the true children of
God as it did the typical, John iii. 5, 6. Rom. ix.
6, 7, 8. 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. yet all this goes for
nothing ; they still insist, that their being the
natural seed of believers sufficiently marks
them out as the children of God, truly holy,
and members of the kingdom of heaven. Thus
they chime in with the national church upon
the great radical point of her Judaized Chris-
tianity, and, in their baptism, hold a most inti-
• Glas's Works, vol. i. p. 53. t Ibid. vol. iv. p. 58. 1S8.
% Hnddleston's Letters, p. 87, 88.
'ISO PREFACe.
mate fellowsliip with her. Perhaps it may b^
said that they make amends for this, and keep
lip their separation from the world, by refusing
their children church communion till they pro-
fess the faith : but this is only adding one in-
consistency to another; and implies, either that
they do not believe the principles upon which
they baptize them, or that the visible members
of Christ's true body are unfit to be members of
those societies which represent that body ; than
which nothing can be more absurd. *
You who know your master's will, in this in-
stance, and do it not, suffer a word of exhorta-
tion. You can amuse yourselves with specula-
tions on this point, and clearly show the incon-
sistency of the opposite practice ; but what have
you to say for the consistency of your own con-
duct; or how can you justify yourselves to God
for trifling with an acknowledged ordinance of
the Lord Jesus ? Examine narrowly your mo-
tives. Is it because you esteem it a circumstan-
tial point of small moment? Surely it does not
become Christ's disciples thus to estimate any
preface'. 231,
of his ordinances. The doctrine of believers'
baptism is none of the low singularities of a
party ; it is classed with the first principles of
the doctrine of Christ, stands upon the grand
foundation of his good confession before Pon-
tius Pilate concerning the nature of his kingdonri
and subjects, as distinguished from this world,
as well as upon the commission he gave his
apostles for setting up that kingdom, and cor-
responds with the whole of their practice and
doctrine in executing it.
Perhaps your attachment to your present re-
ligious connection entangles you. You have
formed this connection, and sat down upon the
neglect of the first ordinance of the gospel, and
now you cannot think of returning to it. But
where do you find an unbaptized church in all
the New Testament, or the least warrant for
holding communion with such? Are they good
Christians? Be it so ; but will their Christianity
justify your disobedience? Must not each of
us give an account of himself unto God ? You
have charity for them. Have it still ; but let it
232 PREFACE.
be the charity of the truth. Can there be any
true charity in yielding up a plain ordinance of
Christ to the blindness, prejudice, and perhaps
perverseness of men? According to this, the
more of them we yield in this way, the greater
must be our charity. But true charity can
never clash with our obedience to any of the
laws of Christ, nor lead us to soothe others in
the neglect of them ; on the contrary, it will in-
fluence us to study their true interest, and set
their duty before them both by word and ex-
ample. Disentangle yourselves therefore from
the ensnaring influence of such a connection.
Hear the words of Jesus, which he proclaims to
all men, and let each of them have their proper
weight ; " He that believeth, and is baptized,
shall be saved." — Hear his command to all who
regard his authority ; " And now, why tarriest
thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord."
Edinburgh, May 29, 1777.
OF
BELIEVER'S-BAPTISM, Soc.
In a Letter to a Friend,
Dear Sir,
I RECEIVED your favour, inclosing a pamphlet en-
titled " Remarks on Scripture Texts relating to In-
fant-Baptism." But I think you might have excused
me from writing an answer to it, since all that is
therein advanced has been more than sufficiently re-
futed in my Letters to Mr. Glas, Reply to Mr. Hud-
dleston, and View of the Prophecies, which you have
seen. Besides, when people allow themselves (as this
author hath done) to launch forth into the regions of
fancy and conjecture, it is like hunting an ignis fatiiMS
to trace them in all their vagaries. I find he aims a
stroke now and then at my letters to Mr. Glas, and
seems to be a little warm when he says, ** What are we
that we should withstand God by refusing baptism to
children ? * — We deceive the hearts of those who be-
lieve without proper evidence, and blind the minds
of those who receive not the simple sayings of Jesus ;"
and he represents us as men destitute of " sound and
sober minds." f This is a very heavy charge ; but as
it does not reach conviction to me on the one hand, so
neither does it excite my resentment on the other : Yet
I sincerely lament that he and his brethren should be so
* Page 10. t Page 15. note.
234 A Defence of
much bemisted about the subjects, manner and import
of baptism, which cannot fail to corrupt their views of
other important truths.
This small pamphlet, I see, is divided into four
parts, and each part contains a proposition, with its
proof or illustration. I shall therefore follow his
method, and begin with
PART I.
"The little children who make up the kingdom of God,
as it appears in this world, may be distinguished
from other little children."
For proof of this he adduces Mark x. 13, 14. " And
thej' brought j'oung children to him, that he should
touch them : and his disciples rebuked those that
brought them. Bnt when Jesus saw it he was much
displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children
to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is
the kingdom of God." Now, for my own part, I
cannot see the least affinity betwixt this text and the
above proposition. — These particular little children
were indeed highly distinguished by Christ's taking
tliem in his arms and blessing them ; and we learn
from the passage this comfortable truth, that of such
little children is the kingdom of God ; but it speaks
not a word about how one little child may be distin-
guished from another as belonging to that kingdom,
which is the thing affirmed in the proposition. And
here the matter should rest ; but I am obliged to
follow him through four observations, or rather imagi-
nations upon the words.
Obs. 1. " Jesus here supposeth, that the little chil-
dren who make up the children of God, may be distia-
Believers'-Bapiism. 235
guished from other little children." — But where do we
hear him supposing this ? — " This much," says he, " is
implied in the words, " of sucfi." — That is, we may
suppose from these two words, if we please, that he
supposeth it ; and having converted this supposition
of a supposition into a certain truth, he lays it as a
foundation principle to build upon. — " From this," says
he, " we learn, First, That they were the children of
visible believers , for one little child cannot be distin-
guished from another, but as connected with its
parents."
It is probable that those who brought the little
children believed at least that Jesus was as capable
to bless them as Jacob, Moses, or any other prophet ;
but how does the words of such, or any other words
in the text, teach us that little children may be distin-
guished as of the kingdom of God by their connection
v/ith their parents ? Our Lord says not a word about
their parents, nor does he give the least hint, that they
are to be distinguished by their connection with be-
lieving parents, this being only a figment of the author's
own brain ; so that if, as he owns, they cannot other-
wise be distinguished, it follows that they cannot be
distinguished by us at all. But surely he will allow,
that Christ can distinguish them, as in the instance
before us, whether they are connected with believing
parents or not.
Another thing, he says, we learn from the words is,
" Secondly ; That Christ is here speaking of the
kingdom of God as it appears in this world." That is,
he is not speaking of the kingdom of God as it con-
sists only of the elect and saved, but as it appears in
this world to men, and is composed of foolish as well
as wise virgins, Matth. xxv. 1 — 13. of bad as well as
S36 A Defence of
good fishes, chap. xiii. 47 — 50. But here he flatly con-
tradicts the account which Jesus himself gives of the
kingdom in the very next verse. " Verily, I say unto
you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God
as a little child, he shall not enter therein," Mark x. 15.
Luke xviii. 17. or, as it is expressed in a parallel pas-
sage, " Except ye be coNVERTiiD, and become as
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven," Matth. xviii. 3. which is of the same import
with what he says to Nicoderaus, " Except a man be
born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. — Ex-
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he
cannot eater into the kingdom of God," John iii. 3, 5.
Since therefore our Lord explains himself, and tells us
that infants belong to that kingdom of God, which
none can enter but such as are converted, born again,
and receive it as little children, how comes our author
to say, that he is here speaking of the kingdom as it
appears in this world, into which hypocrites and false
professors may and do enter? Doubtless our Lord
knew his own meaning be^t, and since he hath conde-
scended to explain it, it does not become us to con-
tradict him. Let it therefore be noticed, once for all,
that Jesus is not here speaking of the appearance of
his kingdom in this world, but of its invisible reality,
for to this only is conversion and the new birth abso-
lutely necessary. His next observation is,
Obs. 2. " He (viz. Christ) saith more on this occa-
sion than is allowed by some who call themselves
his followers. He saith, that the kingdom of God is
of such little children, as the young children that were
brought to him." — But we are so far from disallowing
this, that we hold it in a higher sense than the author
seems to allow. We maintain, that the kingdom of
Believers' 'Baptism. 237
God, as it is invisible and unmixed, is of such little
children as those brought to Christ, and that all such
shall certainly be saved ; whereas he only pleads, that
they belong to the appearance of it in the world, and
that many of them may fall short of salvation.* He
observes that our Lord's words are not, " Such are of
the kingdom of God," but " Of such is the kingdom of
God." I own, however, that I am rather too dull to
comprehend this distinction ; for I suppose the king-
dom of God is of such as are of it.
Obs. 3. " He here supposeth that his disciples might
have learned, from the revelation of God which they
then had, that the kingdom of God is of such little
children as those brought unto him ; for the disciples
could not be in fault if they were not acting contrary to
divine revelation ; and he mentions this as the revealed
truth which they acted in opposition unto. Of such is
the kingdom of God."
That the disciples were faulty in rebuking those
who brought the young children to him is plain ; and
that they acted contrary to a prior divine revelation,
is also clear from Mat. xviii. 2 — 5. Mark ix. 36, 37.
Luke ix. 47, 48, where, a considerable time before
this, he had taught them, that little children were of
his kingdom, and so not to be despised. After this
revelation, it was certainly wrong in the disciples to
hinder such being brought to Christ in the days of his
flesh, even as it would be sinful in us to forbid any to
pray for his blessing upon infants, now he is in heaven :
but what is all this to the point 1
** From this," says he, " we understand. First, That
these words of Christ are the public interpretation of
* Page «7.
238 A Defence of
such passages of the Old Testament scriptures as thcsf,
Psal. Ixix. 86. and cii. 28. Isa. Ixi. 9. and Ixv. 2B.
Jer. XXX. 20. E/.ek. xlvii. 22." In these passages much
is said of the seed, offspring, or children of the church,
and here the author would have our Lord's words to
explain these children of infants in distinction from
adults, and of the infants of New Testament believers
in distinction from all other infants. But neither does
Christ's words here refer to such passages, nor do the
passages themselves speak of children in respect of
their being infants or the natural seed of New Testa-
ment believers ; but in respect of their being children
of the church, which consists both of Jews and Gen-
tiles, the natural seed of believers and of unbelievers,
even all of each of these who belong to the election of
grace. This I shall briefly demonstrate.
It must be admitted, that the children spoken of in
the forementioned passages, are the very same with
those spoken of in Isa. xlix. where we find Zion, upon-
the infidelity and rejection of the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham, complaining of her desolate, childless, and for-
saken situation. " But Zion said. The Lord hath for-
saken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me," ver. 14.
To this a most comfortable answer is given from ver.
15 to 20. Then the Lord proceeds to comfort her with
respect to her children ; " The children which thou
shalt have, after thou hast lost the other,' (i. e. after
the Jews shall be cast off,) " shall say again in thy ears.
The place is too strait for me ; give place to me that
I may dwell," verse 20. At this unexpected and nu-
merous progeny, Zion is represented as wondering
and indeed the New Testament shows how much sur-
prised the believing Jews were when they saw the ac-
complishment of this ; see Acts x. 28, 45. chap., xi. 8.
Believers-Baptism. 239
and therefore there is a question about it in the pro-
phecy as a mysterious and puzzling matter to Zion.
**Then shalt thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten
me these, seeing I have lost my children, and am deso-
late, a captive, and removing to and fro ? and who
hath brought up these ? Behold I was left alone, these
where had they been ?" verse 21. To this it is answered,
" Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine
hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the
people ; and they shall bring thy sons in their arms,
and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.
And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers, and their queens
thy nursing mothers," &c. verse 22, 23. q. tZ. I will
cause the gospel to be proclaimed to the Gentile na-
tions, and will beget children to thee from among them
by the word of truth. As to their natural birth, up-
bringing, and outward privileges, be not concerned
about these, for I will cause the heathen to perform
these oflSces to thy children, and make the kingdoms
of the earth as so many nurseries, and their kings and
queens to be nursing-fathers and mothers to them in
common with their other subjects.
In Isa. liv. 1 — 8. the church is again comforted with
the promise of a numerous offspring. We can be at
no loss to understand what church is here meant, for
the apostle applies the first verse to the Jerusalem
which is above, and the mother of all God's children.
Gal. iv. 26, 27. which was typified by Sarah the free-
woman : and, as when Sarah was for a long time bar-
ren, till she was past age, and her womb dead, God
promised that she should be blessed, and be the mother
of nations. Gen. xvii. 16. so her antitype is here ad-
dressed, " Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear ;
break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst
#
240 A Defence of
not travail with child ; for more are the childien of th«
desolate, than the children of the married wife, saith
the Lord," ver. 1. q. d. However desolate, forsaken,
and barren thou mayest at present appear by the un-
belief of the Jews ; yet thou shalt bring forth a much
more numerous offspring than the earthly Jerusalem,
married to me by the Sinai covenant, and typified by
Hagar the bond-woman. Therefore she is commanded
ver. 2. to make room for her numerous family, by en-
larging the place of her tent, &c. That she might not
doubt of this on account of her widowhood, it is said
to her, ver. 5. *' Thy Maker is thy husband, (the Lord
of Hosts is his name,) and thy Redeemer the holy One
of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be called;"
and that in distinction from his being the God of the
Jews only, (Rom. iii. 29.) so that it is the Lord, the
church's husband, that begets these children to her by
the word of truth, (Jam. i. 18.) and hence it is said,
ver. L3. " all thy children shall be taught of the Lord,
and great shall be the peace of thy children." This
last verse is cited by our Lord, and he explains these
children to be, " Every one that hath heard and learned
of the Father, and cometh unto him,", John vi. 45.
The apostle also explains this prophecy thus ; " But
Jerusalem which is aboAe is free, which is tlie mother
of us all : for it is written, Rejoice tliou barren, that
bearest not ; break forth and cry aloud, thou that tra-
vailest not; for the desolate hath many more children
than she which hath an husband." And if we enquire
what kind of children these are ; he answers, " Now
WE, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of
promise: — So then, we are not the children of the
bond-woman, but of the free: i. e. We believers in
Christ are the children promised in the prophets to
BtUev^rs-BapUsm. 241
the Jerusalem above, the antitype of Saiali tlie IVee-
woman, Gal. iv. 20, 27, 28, 31.
Here then is the New Testamwit key, or public in-
terpretation of the prophecies respecting the children;
from which it is phiin, they are not called children on
account oi" their nonage, or inj'cmt state : for Paul and
t^iose he writes to were not children in that respect ;
yet, says he, '* We are the children." Nor are they so
called on fjiccount of their natural birth ; for the Je-
rusalem which is above brings forth m) children by
tiiat ki,nd of birth ; yet lie says, she is " the mother of
us all ;" and the nature of their birth is fully explained,
John i. 13. chap. iii. 3, 5, G. James i. 18. 1 Peter i. 23.
Neither is it because they are the seed of believers that
they are called children ; for those to whom the apostle
applies these prophecies, were mostly the seed of
heathen infidels and idolaters.
But those vvho are not satisfied with the apostolic
explication of the prophecies, may pun upon the pro-
phetic style, and plead, That the prophecies speak not
only of the children of Zion as such, but also of their
children, in such expressions as these; — "The children
of thy servants — their seed — ^their children," &c. and
so must respect not only believers, but also their
natural seed. lu answer to which, I observe,
]. That these promises were all made, in the first
instance, to the Jews. They were delivered by their
own prophets, and addressed to that people in par-
ticular, who were the maternal church, among whom
God had not only a typical people, but also a remnant
according to the election of grace, who believed and
embraced the promises, and waited for the consolation
Qf Israel. The apostle tells us expressly, that to them,
■J^'bcloDged the covenants and the promises/' Rom.ix. 4,
R
2i2 A Defence of
and that in distinction from the Gentiles, whom he
describes as at that time " aliens from the common-
wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise," Eph. ii. 12. Peter addressing the Jews,
tells them, that they were the children meant in the
prophets, " Ye are the children of the prophets, and of
the covenant which God made with our fathers,"
Acts iii. 25. and he shows the convicted Jews, that
the promise of the extraordinary effusion of the Spirit
mentioned in Joel, was also primarily made to them.
" The promise is unto you, and to your children, and
to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our
God shall call," Acts ii. 39. (For Peter knew not as
yet that the Gentiles should receive the Holy Ghost,
till he learnt it afterwards in the instance of Cornelius,
chap. X. 44, 45.) Accordingly we find,
2. That these promises had their first accomplish-
ment among the Jews. Christ's personal mission was
only to them, as he declares himself; " I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." These
he calls the children, in distinction from the Gentiles,
whom he styles dogs. Mat. xv. 24 — 28. Hence also
during his personal ministry on earth, he forbids his
apostles to go into the way of the Gentiles, Mat. x. 5, 6.
and even after his resurrection, when he extends their
commission to all nations, he commands them to
preach the gospel first unto the Jews, Luke xxiv. 47.
This the apostle says was necessary. Acts xiii 6. and
the necessity of it is explained, Rom. xv. 8. " Jesus
Christ was a minister of the circumcision, for the truth
of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers;"
i. e. he had his personal mission to the Jews to display
God's faithfulness in accomplishing his promises to
their fathers. Peter having told them, that they were
Belkvers -Baptism, 243
the children primarily intended in the prophets, and in
the promise of the new covenant, shows the fulfilment
in these words, " Unto yon first God having raised up
his Son, sent him to bless you in turning away every
one of you from lils iniquities," Acts iii. 25,26. And
Paul addressing the Jews at Antioch, says, " We
declare unto you glud tidings, how that the promise
which was made unto the fathi^rs, God hath fulfilled
the same unto us theiu children," &c. Acts xiii.
^2, ;33. Thus it appears that the promises made unto
the Jewish/a//^cr5, had a primary respect unto their
CHILDREN, as they arc called in the prophecies; j^et
not unto all their natural children as such, for then it
behoved that whole nation to be saved ; but only unto
a remnant of them according to the election of grace,
even as many of them as the Lord should call, bless,
and turn from their iniquities, as the apostle explains
it But,
3. In the prophetic style, old Israel are not only
called fathers, in respect of the elect among the na-
tural children, but also in respect of Gentile believers,
who r.tc likewise reckoned their children. For proof
of this, see Jer. xxxi. 31. 32. '* Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ; not
according to the covenant that I made with their
FATHERS in the day that I took them by the hand to
!)ring them out of the land of Egypt," &c. Here those
Avith whom the Lord made the old covenant are called
the FATHERS of those with whom he promises to
make the new covenant in Christ's blood, and which
includes believing Gentiles as well as Jews. They
are likewise so called in the New Testament. In
llcb, iii. aiid iv. the apostle proves at large, that the
R2
e44 A Defence of
address, Psal. xcv. 7, 8, 9. respects the New Testa-
ment church, " To-day, if ye will hear my voice,
harden not your hearts as in the provocation — when
YOU R FATHERS tempted me," &c. Here old Israel are
called the fathers of the people of God for whom
the heavenly rest remains ; that is, the spiritual seed
of all nations, who believing enter into rest. Again,
writing- to the Corinthians, he says, " Moreover,
brelhren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how^
that all OUR fathers were under the cloud, and
passed through the sea," &c. 1 Cor. x. 1. where we find
old Israel styled the fathers, not only of Paul, who
was a Jew, but also of the believing Corinthians, who
were Gentiles.
Now it is plain they were not fathershy natural ge-
neration to the greater part of those called their
children ; but they are so called as being the maternal
church, and chiefly, because of them, as concerning the
flesh, Christ came, Rom. ix. 5. of whom springs the
New Testament church, his seed, Isa. liii. 10, 11.
God's children, Heb. ii. 13. Christ was a Son of the
Jewish church ; unto them he was in a peculiar manner
" a Child born, and a Son given," Isa. ix. 6.; but
unto the New Testament church he is promised as
(o 7raryj§ |Wex^ovtoj aiuvo;) " the FATHER of the future age,"
ver. 6. So that what the apostle argues, (Gal. iii. 29.)
" If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed," will
in like manner hold here ; if they are Christ's children,
then are they the children of ancient Israel, seeing
Christ sprung from that nation as the seed of Abra-
ham ; and they are as properly so called, as Christ's
throne is styled " the throne of his father David,"
Isa. ix. 7. Luke i. 32.
Gentile believers are never spoken of as fathebs, "^
Believers -Baptiant. 245
but as CHILDREN ; and the apostle represents them as
naturalized and adopted children into the common-
wealth of Israel, to which they were formerly strangers
and aliens, Eph. ii. 12 — 21. He also represents them
as branches of the wild olive tree, and graffed among
the natural branches, (viz. the believing Jews,) into
the good olive tree, and with them partaking of its
root and fatness, and standing therein by faith, Rom.
xl. 17 — 25. For these and other reasons that mijrht
be mentioned, old Israel are called ihe fathers of New
Testament believers, whether they be Jews or Gen-
tiles ; and such, on the other hand, are called their
children and children's children in the prophecies. In
?i word, these promises are made to old Israel an
fathers respecting their children, viz. such of their na-
tural seed as should believe the gospel, together with
fill such as should be adopted into the liouseliold of
God from among the Gentiles. But to return to our
author.
06s. 4. " He here supposeth that his disciples might
have justly inferred from this revealed truth " Of sucli
is the kingdom of God," that they should not hinder
these little children from being brought unto him,
although it be not said in the Old Testament scriptures,
that such little children or any other little children,
were to be brought to him in the days oi" his flesh ; nor
do we find he had before told it to them."
I have answered this already, and shown that he-
had before told it to them. See Matth. xviii. 2 — 5.
and its parallels ; and this the author also acknow-
ledires; *'= so that our Lord was not so obscure a
teacher, nor did he leave so much to be made out hj
• Page 8.
246 A Defence of
the dint of their reasoning faculty, and fallible infer-
cnccs, as this writer imagines.
But what he adds deserves our particular notice. —
" And we may, with the same justice and propriety
infer from (he same truth, that the little children dis-
tintraisiied from others, as the little children brouixht
to Christ were, on account of their connection with
believing parents, should be baptized in his name ;
seeing baptism is appointed by him to be a sign and
token of a person's belonging to the kingdom of God
as it appears in this world." That is, in short, if the
disciples might infer from what Christ had plainhj
told them, that they ought not to forbid infants to be
brought unto him ; then may we, with equal justice,,
infer from what is no wliere told us, that they ought to
])e baptized : For it ought to be noticed, that this last
inference is drawn from the following groundless fan-
cies, viz. 1. That infants belong to the kingdom of
God as it appears in this world : 2. That such infant.s
are distinguished from others by their connection with
believing parents : and J3. That baptism is the sign of
a person's belonging to the kingdom of God as it is
visible. The first tw-o of these I have already confuted.
The last seems to throw a refieetion upon our Lord for
not causing these infants to be baptized ; seeing, (if
we believe our author,) he had appointed it to be the
token of their belonging to his kingdom, as it appears
in this world.
But what passage in all the word of God declares
this to be the signitication of baptism ? When I look
into the New Testament for the signification of that
ordinance, I find that it is a sign or token of the re-
mission of sins through the blood of Christ, Acts ii. 38,
chap. xxii. 16— of the sense of this communicated to
Believers' -Baptism. 24/
the conscience, 1 Peter iii. 21. Heb. x. 22— of our fel-
lowship with and conformity to Christ in liis death,
burial, and resurrection, by dying- unto sin, and living-
unto righteousness^ Rom. vi. 4—7. Col. ii. 12.— and ot
our resurrection from the dead unto eternal life,
1 Cor. XV. 29. But there is not the least hint given in
all the scriptures, that it is " appointed to be a sign and
token of a person's belonging to the kingdom of Cod,
as it appears in this world." It cannot indeed be ad
ministered to any till they appear to men to belong to
the kingdom of God by the profession of their faith;
but it is not the token or sign of this appearance ; but
oi i\\e spiritual, eternal, and invisible blessings oniv^
kingdom, as has been shewn.
It is a most unworthy view of this ordinance to hold
it only as a token or sign of appearances or visibla
things. Sorry am I, that those who have separated
from the national church upon Vhe doctrine of the
kinsdom of Christ, which h not of this world, and in
order to follow the footsteps of the apostles an.'^ 7;rst
churches, should yet fall so far short even of the nati-
onal doctrine itself, as to the signification of the very
first ordinance of Christ's kingdom. The Assembly's
Shorter Catechism admits, that baptism " doth signify
and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partakinj^ of
the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engage-
ment to be the Lord's," Quest. 1)4. and although I am
not very fond of human standards, yet I would re-
commend to him. Quest, 1G5. of the Larger Catechism
upon this subject, particularly its scripture proofs,
that, before he pretend to teach others, he may himself
yet learn from these systems he hath set aside, which
be the first principles of the oracles of God v.ith re-
spect to the signification of baptism ; for it plainly
appears he hath lost sight of its meaning altogether.
ii^ A Dtfcnce of
To make baplism a sign or token of our beins'
t!isihle subjects of the kingdon), or a figure of oi>r
being visibly saved, * is not aniy a style unknown in
the scriptures, but a sentiment in every respect absurd^
as it makes it a sign of what is as visible, as itself, and
so an useless sign ; a sign too of that wlwch is but the
appearante of another thing, viz. of our being rral
members of the kingdom as it is invisible; and so he.
makes it a sign of that which, in itself, is of little con-
sequence ; for what docs it avail our being visible sub-
jects of the kingdom, or vlsioly saved, if we are not
really so? No wonder those who haAe such unworthy
viewsofthisdivine ordinance, should hold it as a matter
of indilTerence whether they themselves have been bap-
tized according to their own doctrine or not. f But,
* Page 24, 25.
t A certain preface w I'itft, who !-eems to be much displeased with
n)i the Independents who follow not Avith him in his nnifoiniity,
mnoDg other things, blames some of them for " forbearing and calling
brethren, those who deny infant-baptism," Prtf. 10. Clus's Test'nnnny,
last edition, p. 27.
They may defend tliemselves from this charge as ihey are able ; but
fcertainly they are as consistent in this, as he is in adopting and sus-
taining for baptism the sprinkling of the antichristian church, con-
trary to all the scripture grounds upon which he professedly holds it.
i am credibly informed he has nothing to say for this, but that bap-
tism bein" administered in the name of the Father, Son, anrf Holy
Ghest, it must for that reason be valid, be the administrator pareut,
or subject, what Ihey will. But if the naming, or calling over them
this name, sanctities an unscriptnral baptism, then the sons of Sceva
tnay be justified in their attempt to cast out devils, since they aUa
niaile use of the natne of Jesus whom Paid preached. Acts xix. 13.
He will not plead, that the clergy of the national church have any
better authority to baptize than those exorcists had to cast out devils,
since he considers them as worshippers of a false God, and to be the
locusts which ascend out of the bottomless pit, whose king is
Abaddon or Appoi'jon^ and whose commission is only to hurt nien^
Believers-Baptism. 24Sf
ift opposition to all this, baptism is a sign or token of
a person's belonging to that true church which Christ
hath loved, and for which he gave himself, " that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water by the word," Eph. v. 25, 26.
Further, the baptism of infants is so far from being
Rev. ix. 3—12. See Glas's Works, vol. ii. p. 399—403. first edit. Nei-
ther can he, consistently with his principles, admit, that the infants
sprinkled in the national church are the children of believing parents.
Perhaps he will tell us, that though the vessels of the temple were pro-
phaned at Babylon, yet they vrere afterwards used in the Lord's ser-
vice : and so the sprinkling of improper subjects by the locnsts of the
national church, niu.st still be held sacred among Christians, and sns-
tained for scripture baptism ! ! !
Giving a sketch of Mr. Glas's leading sentiments witli respect to the
subjects of tlie kingdom of Christ, he says," That men (according to
Jolm i. 13.) do not become sons or children in this kingdom by blood,
or descent from religious ancestors — but wholly of god, through
the power of his word — merely by the influence of the word of God
upon their consciences, coming to them not in word only, but with
power, and with the Holy Ghost, and with much assurance," &c. &c.
Prcf. p. 11, 12. Yet, in opposition to this, I suppose be will agree
with Mr.Glas,that infants are born holy, and of the kingdom of heaven;
and that they must be looked upon as sons or children in this kingdom
by their connection with religious ancestors or parents, and not
through the power of the word, or the influence of it upon theit
consciences.
He professes to be extremely happy in his present connection; yet
he discovers not a little uneasiness to find men in any measure pro-
fessing the truth without acknowledging Mr. Gias as their teacher, and
giving liim the glory ; as if that author had been the original inventor
of the doctrine of the kingdom of heaven, and had by patent mono,
polized it to himself and his party. It would not be dilJirult to shew,
that there are few sentiments of any consequence in Mr. Glas's works,
that are not to be found in the writings of other clergymen before his
time ; and I am sure the best of his sentiments are to be found in the
scriptures, which, blessed be God, lie open to every one. T do not
say this to depreciate Mr. Glas's writings, to which I myself have
been indebted in many things; but to expose the vanity of glorying
in nicu.
5^50 A Defence of
a just and proper inference from any thing contained
in this passage, that it is a clear example of the con-
trary : lor here are children brought to Christ, declared
of his kingdom and blessed, and thus became visible
subjects; yet we read nothing of their baptism. We
•arc sure that Christ did not baptize them, for he bap-
tized none, John iv. '2. and it is certain that his dis-
ciples had not baptized them formerly, else they would
not have forbid their being brought to Christ; nor did
our Lord command them then to baptize them, though
he declares them of his kingdom, and blesses them.
Hence we learn, that infants may be acknowledged to
be of the kingdom of God without baptizing them.
" Conclusion. Wliat are we then that we should
%vithstand God, by refusing baptism to the children
who are declared by our Lord to make up the king-
dom of God, as it appears in this world ?" — Tliis con-
clusion (as he calls it) is very awful, and had need to
be well supported. Let us therefore recapitulate the
different suppositions upon which the charge of with-
standing God is founded. And, first, he supposes from
our Lord's words, that he meant we should suppose,
that the little children who belong to his kingdom may
he distinguished from other little children who do not
belong to it; because he says, * Of such is the king-
dom of God.' — Next he supposes him to mean, (thougli
there is not the least hint of it,) that this distinction in
known by their natural connection with believing pa-
rents, for this good reason, because he knows of no other
way one little child can be distinguished from another :
Upon this head he also conjectures, that Jesus refers
us to the prophecies to find out his meaning, and that
these prophecies respect the carnal seed ol' New Tes-
tament believers. — Lastly, he supposes him to mean.
Believers'-Baptism. 551
tliat infants belong to the kingdom of God as it ap-
pears in this world, into which hypocrites do enter,
though Jesus tells us in this and the parallel places,
that they belong to that kingdom into which none can
enter without being converted. — From all this tlimsy
cob-web, which he hath spun out of his own imagina-
tion, he draws an inference, that infants ought to be
baptized ; though we do not find that either Jesus or
his disciples baptized these or any other infants, or
gave the least hint of any such thing. Then, as if he
had demonstrated his point as clear as a proposition
in Euclid, he asks, ' What are we that we should with-
stand God ?' But may I be permitted to ask, What is
he, that he should father his own dreams upon the
scriptures? Surely he has not not duly considered the
repeated prohibition, and its dreadful sanction, re-
corded in Deut. iv. 2. Prov. xxx. 6. Rev. xxii. 18.
In his conclusion he also says, " There appears
from this to be no room for the disciples of Christ to
inquire whether there were little children in the house-
holds that were baptized by the apostles, when the
heads of thera made profession of the faith of Jesus."
— But I cannot think that what he has already ad-
vanced is so exceedingly conclusive, as to preclude all
farther inquiry into that matter. We have no oc-
casion absolutely to deny that there were infants in
those houses, (though it is at best but a mere con-
jecture ;) for the scripture sometimes mentions all the
house, when only the adult part of it is intended. Thus
it is said, all the house of Millo gathered together and
made Abimelech king, Judges, ix. 6. yet none will
affirm that infants had any hand in this. In like
manner, when it is said. He " feared God with all his
house," Acts X. 2 — " they spake unto him the word of
^0-2 A Defence of
the Lord, and to all (hat were in his house,'' chap, xvii
S'2. — " he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house,*'
ver. 34 — " Crispus believed on the Lord with all
his house," chap, xviii. 8. we are sure, that, if there
were any infants in those houses, they must be ex-
cepted in such passages, for this plain reason, that
infants can neither be said to fear God, hear the word,
believe, or rejoice in it. And if they cannot be in-
cluded in the all who believed, ?cc, neither c;in they,
by any rule of reasoning, be included in the all who
were baptized; for that word is not more compre-
hensive in the latter than in the former case, and the
connection demonstrates that the same persons are in-
tended in both.
If any, however, will contend, that the word all sig-
nifies every individual in those houses, without excep-
tion, we have no objection ; but then they must at the
same time allow, that every individual of them were
believers, and this leaves no room to suppose that
there were any infants in those houses. The author
therefore may chuse any of these suppositions he thinks
proper, it being of no consequence in this argument.
He hath, however, taken the easiest method of getting
over those houses of any writer I ever read on the sub-
ject. His talent lies in suppositions; and as one sup-
position is as easily made as another, he takes it for
granted that our Lord's words, Mark x. 13, 14, clearly
suppose, that there were infants baptized iii these
houses upon the profession of the parents; the very
stating of which is a sufficient answer.
Others, however, convinced that no argument for
infant-baptism can be drawn from tho.sc houses, whilst
some stubborn texts stand in the way, have, without
much ceremony, violently bended thcra to their owit
Believers -Baptism. 25B
purpose. I shall give a few instances. The sacved
historian tells us, that Cornelius was " A clevout man,
and one that feared God with all his house,"
Acts X. 2. Not so, says Mr. Iluddleston ; none in Cor-
nelius's house feared God but himself.* — Of the same
house of Cornelius, together with some of his kinsmen,
it is written " The Holy Ghost fell on all them which
HEARD the word," ver. 44. and Peter says, " God pu-
rified their hearts by faith," chap. xv. 9. But the
above author tells us, that there is no account " of the
house of Cornelius, hearing, believing, or receiving the
Holy Ghost,"t and that " it cannot be affirmed in the
fear of God, that he had any house else but little chil-
dren.":|: — Of the Jailer and his house it is also written,
that Paul and Silas " spake unto him the word of the
Lord, AND TO ALL THAT WERE IN HIS HOUSE."
Chap. xvi. 38. This he also flatly contradicts, by de-
nying that " Paul and Silas had any other hearer from
the Jailer's house besides himself." [| — We are further
told that xhe Jailer *' rejoiced believing in God with
ALL HIS HOUSE," vcr. 34. but Mr. Glas assures us,
there was no such thing; that none in the Jailer's house
believed in God but himself, and that his rejoicing was
not in God, but in the whole house. §
* Hndd. Letters, p. 54, t Ibid. X Page 25. ji Page 56.
$His words are, " It is said, ver. 34. that he believed; and Hiere it
no mention of any other believing but himself. The text isays, That he
believed God, rejoicing in the whole house; ryaMiairaTo 7ravoix,i\
as Rom. xii, 3 2. Tn iKTTi^i x^ipovng, " rejoicing in hope." This joy
is his who fell down before Paul and Silas — It was he that rejoiced
believing in God," Glas's Works, vol. ii. p. 129.— Bnt in opposition to
this uncouth criticism, I shall demonstrate, even to the conviction of
the English reader, that the adverb Travoix' (of Trag all, and o%ioj
house) is the same with cuv Ttavri oixu with all the house. This is
clear from its undeniable sense in other passage* where it occurs.
254 A Defence of
After such bold attacks as these upon the word of
God, to make way for this human invention, we need
not wonder at any thing, however ridiculous and ab-
surd, that may be advanced upon the subject. Our
author's dreams and conjectures are almost innocent
when compared with these ; for though it is very un-
becoming to give way to groundless conjectures, when
the question is about what saith the Lord, yet it is not
near so shocking, as flatly to contradict the plain and
express testimony of the word of God. But I have
enlarged too much upon this head, and shall now pro-
ceed to
PART II.
" Christ's commission to his apostles, * Go and (each
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Sod, and of the Holy Ghost,' is to be
understood according to the prophecies that went
The Seventy use this word in Exod. i. 1. "Now these are the names
of the children of Israel which came into Egypt, (sx^^^og wavoixf, •• e.)
each man with his whole house." Or, shall we say, according to this
criticism, that only the eleven patriarchs came into Egypt ; tliat this
journey was theirs, and that their families were left behind them ?
The only other place where I have met with this word is in Josephus,
Antiq. B. IV. chap. iv. Sec. 4. where, speaking of the law respecting
the offerings allotted for the priests maintenance, he says, it was ap-
pointed " that they, ("TravoixO with their whole families, might eat
them in the holy city." Should any one still imagine that these offerings
pertained only to the priest himself; that this eating was his, and that
none of his family partook with him, I refer him to the law itself of
which Josephus is speaking, " In the most holy place shalt thon eat
it — I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons, and to tliy daughters
with thee, by a statute for ever : every one that is clean in thy house
shall eat of it," Num. xviii. 10 — 20. Thus it is clear beyond all dispute.
That our translators have given the true meaning of this word, and that
when a man does any thing Travcfp^i, he does it in concert with a wiiole
house, A\ho are equally engaged therein with himself.
Believers'' Baptism. 255
before concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and the
children who should make up the Messiah's king-
dom as it appears in this world."
That the ccmmission, Matth. xxviii. 18, li). was
every way agreeable to the prophecies respecting the
calling of the Gentiles, and the children that should
make up the Messiah's kingdom, is freely granted ;
and I refer you back to the view I have given of these
children, and tiie sense in which they are so called.
But when he says, " the commission must be under-
stood, according to the jjropliecies" I am much mista-
ken if he does not mean, that we must explain the
commission by these prophecies, or take the pro-
phecies as a key to our Lord's words, which 1 ab-
solutely deny. We could no more understand the
plainest of these prophecies, than the eunuch did, were
it not for the public interpretation of the inspired
apostles. The calling of the Gentiles appears to us
now to be plainly prophesied of, because we have the
New Testament key ; but the apostle always speaks
of that event as a mystery hid from ages and genera-
tions, and which in other ages was not known, Eph. iii.
5, 6. Col. i. 2G. and so we see hov/ ignorant the first
Jewish converts, and even the apostles themselves,
had been about that matter, Acts x. 28- 34, 35, 45.
chap. xi. 2, 8, 17, 18. We are not aware how much we
are beholden to the New Testament explication of the
prophecies, and are ready to wonder at the stupidity
of the Jews ; but it is more wonderful to see men, who
acknowledge the New Testament to be the accomplish-
ment and explication of the Old, still overlooking that
explication, and advancing their own fancies upon the
prophecies in its stead ; and, what exceeds all; making
t
25b* A Defence of
the Old Testament a key to the New'. It is by this
method that national churches and covenants have
been founded on scripture. The Seceders can find
even their party, with the bond for renewing the cove-
nant, prophesied of in Isa. xix. 18.* and they can tell
us, with as good a grace as our author, that 2 Cor. viii. 5.
is to be understood according to such prophecies.
The prophecies in general do not admit of a strict
and literal interpretation, when applying them to the
atfairs of Christ's kingdom, as they are clothed in lan-
guage borrowed from tlie types ; for this would lead
us into the very error of the Jews, and judaizing pro-
fessors who minded earthly things, among which was
their being of the stock of Israel. Hence the necessity
of attending diligently, and adhering strictly to the
apostolic explication of the prophecies, as well as
types of the Old Testament. We cannot therefore go
at first hand to the prophecies, in order to explain tlie
New Testament by them ; on the contrary, we must
enter them with the New Testament key, by which they
are opened to us in express quotations, doctrine, or
the history of facts ; for the inspired and able ministers
of the New Testament teach without a veil, and use
great plainness of speech, 2 Cor. iii. 12, 13. This being
the case, I lay down the reverse of jOur author's position
and maintain.
That the prophecies which went before concerning
the calling of the Gentiles, and the children who
should make up the Messiah's kingdom, must bt
understood according to, or explained by, our
Lord's commission to his apostles in connertiou
with the subsequent revelation.
■t *See Mr. IVioncrieff's Sermons on the Duty of National Cavenarjiiiijjj.
Believers'-Baptism. 257
The best commentary upon our Lord's commission
to his apostles, is their practice in executing it, of
which we have an account in the history of the Acts.
Facts are always the plainest and most convincing
argfuraents.
1. Jesus commands them to " Go, and teacJt all
nations ;" or as Mark hath it, " Go ye into all the world,
and preach the gospel to every creature," chap. xvi. 15.
Accordingly we find them going about every where
teaching or preaching the gospel, first to the Jews, and
afterwards to the Gentiles of all nations ; and it was
by this teaching alone that they made disciples.
2. He commands them to baptize them, viz, those
whom they should previously teach, or make disciples
by teaching ; for Mark hath it, " He that believeth, and
is baptized." Let us now see if they always observed
this order, viz. of baptizing only those whom they had
first taught or made disciples. Peter first preaches the
gospel to the Jews, " then they that gladly received his
ivord were baptized," Acts ii. 41. — Philip, in the first
place, preaches the gospel to the Samaritans, and then
" when they believed Philip preaching the things con-
cerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus,
they were baptized both men and women," chap. viii.
12. — The same Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch,
but it was not till he professed the faith, that he bap-
tized him, ver. 35, 37, 38 — Peter first taught Cornelius,
his house and friends, and it was not till the Holy
Ghost fell upon them, and they magnified God, that
they were baptized, chap. x. 44 — 48.— Paul and Silas
first spake the word of the Lord to the Jailer, and to
all that were in his house, and when they believed it,
they were baptized, chap. xvi. 32, 33, 34. — In like
manner, " many of the Corinthians hearing, believed,
258 A Defence of
and" then it follows, they " were baptized," Acts
xviii. 8. These instances demonstrate, that the apos-
tles adhered strictly to the order of the commission ;
and I make bold to challenge all the Poedobaptists in
the world to produce one single instance wherein they
deviated from this order, or baptized any till they were
previously made disciples by teaching.
3. They are commanded to teach the baptized dis-
ciples, Tr)^siv, to observe (keep or obey) all things vfhai-
soever he had commanded them. This last teaching
is not only expressed by a different word in the ori-
ginal, but differs in various other respects from the first,
and so is not a tautology. The first has for its object
all nations; the last only the baptized disciples ga-
thered out of the nations. — The design of the former
is to make disciples, or beget unbelievers to the faith ;
that of the latter is to instruct believers how they
ought to walk and please God. — The subject matter of
the first is the gospel ; that of the latter, Christ's laws
and ordinances.
That the apostles always timed this last teaching
according to the order stated in the commission , is
also plain from the whole of their practice. As they
never baptized any but such as were first made dis-
ciples by preaching the gospel to them ; so neither did
they ever teach men to obey the laws of Christ till they
were baptized disciples. They never supposed that
any one could obey the gospel, till once their minds
w^ere principled by the truth ; nor did they make any
account of that obedience which does not spring from
love, a pure heart, a good conscience, and faith un-
feigned. Wherever we find them inculcating the ob-
servance of all things whatsoever Christ hath com-
manded, they address themselves only to discjples>
BelieverV Baptism. 259
Und draw the reasons and motives of their exhor-
tations from the principles of the gospel, which such
are supposed already to believe. To evince this,
I might cite all the commandments and exhortations
in the New Testament. *
Thus it is clear, that the apostles executed the com-
mission in all its parts, and in the very order in which
it was delivered to them ; and it would have been
preposterous, as well as direct disobedience in them,
to have done otherwise ; for indeed, that order is
founded as well in the nature of things, as in positive
institution ; and cannot be deranged or inverted, with-
out throwing the whole into confusion and absurdity.
We have no occasion therefore to go to the prophecies
• As the Lord's Supper is among the all things which the baptized
disciples must be taught to observe, it is plain, that none are proper
subjects of baptism, but such as may immediately after receive the
Lord's Supper. Mr. Huddleston says, " This objection takes its rise
from this notion ; That none are capable of being members of the body of
Christ, but those who are capal)le of being members of those churches
which are formed to shew forth this body." Lett. p. 77. — Ans. Not so,
but it takes its rise from this notion, That none are capable of baptism
but such as are also capable of being the same day added to a visible
church, and so of continuing in the apostles doctrine, and in fellowship,
Tind ia breaking of bread, and in prayers, Acts ii. 41, 42. Baptism is
the sign of the new birth, and the Lord's Supper of feeding upon Christ
the true bread; and so the connection between these two ordinances,
and the things signified by them, is as immediate and necessary, as that
between a person's having life and his taking food to preserve it. If
therefore, persons appear to be born of the Spirit, and have the sign
thereof in baptism, how come they to be denied the sign of their spi-
ritual nourishment in the Supper. What can this represent but chil-
dren in a starving condition? It is admitted, that baptism belongs to
none but such as are visible subjects of the kingdom of God ; and I
lay it down as an axiom, which I am confident none can overthrow,
viz. That the Lord's Supper belongs to all the visible subjects of the
kingdom of God immediately upon their being baptised.
S3
'^60 A Defence of
for explaining the commission. This would be to use
the light of a caudle to let us see the meridian sun.
It is sufficiently plain of itself; and if any possibility
of doubt should remain, the apostolic practice en-
tirely removes it.
Further, the prophecies concerning the children who
should make up the Messiah's kingdom, as it appears
in this w orld, must be understood according to this
commission, and the subsequent revelation given to
the apostles for executing it. But this commission
respects no visible children but such as are capable of
being taiigJit, or made disciples by teaching; and to
this agree the prophecies respecting them, " All thy
children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be
the peace of thy children," Isa. liv. 13. which our
Lord explains thus, " every one that hath heard, and
learned of the Father, cometh unto me," John vi. 45.
for they are all the children of God by faith in Christ
Jesus, Gal. iii. 26. The apostles acknowledged none
as visible children of God, but such as professed this
faith. Such also are the children who are to be bap-
tized according to the commission ; for it does not say.
Baptize little children first, and teach or disciple them
afterwards ; but on the contrary, it runs, " Teach all
nations, baptizing them — He that believeth, and is bap-
tized;" and with this the whole of the apostolic prac-
tice, as also their doctrine about baptism corresponds ;
" For (says the apostle) we are all the children of God
by faith in Christ Jesus ; for as many of us as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ," Gal.
iii. 26, 27.
Enough, I am persuaded, has been said to convince
any simple and candid person, that the commission
has no respect to the baptism of infants, and that such
Believers' -Baptism. 261
a practice is every way incompatible with it, as well
as with the prophecies which relate to it. But I
must take notice of some of our author's fancies on
this head.
He gives us two views of the commission — 1. As it
respects teaching — 2. As it respects teaching and bap-
tizing. A most curious distinction indeed ! As if the
apostles were to teach some whom they were not to
teach and baptize, and teach and baptize others whom
they were not to teach. His intention, however, is to
show, that the commission warrants the baptism of
those who are not taught. Upon the lirst part of this
imaginary distinction, he says,
1. " This commission, as it respects teaching or
preaching, is to be understood according to the pro-
phecies that went before concerning the calling of the
Gentiles." This he grounds on Actsxii.44 — 47. where
the apostle cites Tsa. xlix. 6. to shew the Jews, who
did not regard the commission or the authority of
Jesus, that he was warranted from their own scriptures
to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. But were we to
understand the commission only according to this pro-
phecy, then the apostles would have had no com-
mission to teach the Jews ; for this prophecy, as
quoted by the apostle, speaks only of the Gentiles;
whereas they were commissioned to teach all nations,
both Jews and Gentiles ; to preach repentance and re-
mission of sins, in Christ's name, among all nations,
beginning at Jerusalem, Luke xxiv. 47. To some of
them was committed the gospel of the circumcision, as
unto Peter ; to others the gospel of the uncircumcision,
as unto Paul, Gal. ii. 7. and accordingly they preached
the gospel, to the Jews first, and also to the Gentiles,
Rom. 1. 16. This then, is a wrong view of the com.-
262 A Defence of
mission, because partial. After all, what concern has
it with infant sprinkling ? I suppose we must gather
this from his second view, viz.
2. " This commission, as it respects teaching and
baptizing, must be understood according to the pro-
phecies concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and the
children who should make up the Messiah's kingdom,
as it appears in this world." For this he cites Acts ii.
containing Peter's discourses to the Jews. But how
does Peter's teaching the Jews shew he was commis-
sioned only to teach the Gentiles? Or how does It
shew, that teaching and baptizing respects infants?
To discover this we must have recourse, after all, to
the author's paraphrase, giving such a sense of ver.
38, 99. as he owns the apostle himself did not under-
stand or intend ; and no wonder, for indeed it is a very
strange one. — '' Change your views of the Messiah's
kingdom — for the promise of a standing in his kingdom,
as it appears in this world, is unto you, and to your
children, and to them that are afar off, belonging to
any nation in the same way that it is unto you ; that
is, to them and to their children : in this way it is unto
those whom the Lord our God shall call out of every
nation ; for the Gentiles are to have the same privileges
with the Jews in the kingdom of Jesus."
The repentance which our author here calls the Jews
to, is such as they did not need : it required no change
in their views of the Messiah's kingdom to believe,
that they, as the children of Abraham, and their carnal
seed, should have a standing in it, for this was the
view they all along had of it ; but when John the
Baptist preaches the kingdom of the Messiah, he calls
them to repent of such views, " Begin not to say
within yourselves, "We have Abraham to our father;"
Believers' -Baptiim. 263
(Luke iii. S.) or in other words. We have a believer to
our father ; for this can procure you no standing in the
Messiah's kingdom. Agreeably to this the apostle
says, " Henceforth know we no man after the flesh ;'
i. e. We esteem no man a subject of Christ's kingdom
by his carnal descent from Abraham, or by any thing
that constituted him a member of, and entitled him to,
the privileges of the Jewish church — " Therefore, if
any man be in Christ, he is (or, let him be) a new
creature," 2 Cor. v. IG, 17.
Again, the promise which he makes them of a visible
standing (as he calls it) is very difl'erent from that
which Peter here mentions, which is the promise of the
Hohj Ghost spoken of by the prophet J oel ; see ver.
16-22.
Further, the children here mentioned are supposed,
by our author, to be infant children^ for such only can
answer his purpose ; but the apostle is here speaking
of the same children that are spoken of in Joel, viz.
their sons and their daughters who should receive the
Spirit and prophecy. Mr. Huddleston observes on
this passage, that '* Peter says, the promise is unto you,
i. e. all gladly receiving the word. — From these you
he distinguishes their children, and connects them in
the promise ; and their children sure must l)e all the
children that could not be included in the preceding
you, so all their little children." * But he might also
have told us, that the Jews had infant children who
cast out devils ; for our Lord asks them, " By whom
do your children cast them out ?'' Matth. xii. 27.
Here the children are distinguished from those whom
our Lord addresses, and cannot be included in the pre-
• Letters, p. 20.
264 A Defence of *
ceding your, and so, according to this authorV logic,
must be " all their little children." Mr. Sandeman,
however, seems to have had a very just view of the
children here spoken of, where he says, " The promise
is ofily to as many as the Lord our God shall call; and
none can appear to us to be the called of God, but such
as appear to believe the gospel which Peter preached,
and to comply with his exhortation to repentance." * —
Lastly, be makes Peter tell the Jews, that " the
Gentiles were to have the same privileges wuth them
in the kingdom of Jesus :" — Whereas this was more
than he probably knew himself, till it was afterwards
revealed to him ; nor was it to his purpose in calling
the Jews to repentance, who were not yet able to bear
that truth. In short, the author has so framed his pa-
raphrase, as to lead one to think, that Peter was ad-
dressing Baptists instead of Jews, and that he was
calling them to repent and baptize their infants ! and
yet, after all, we find none baptized there, but they
that gladly received his word, and were that same day
added to the church, ver. 41.
Permit me now, in my turn, to paraphrase these two
verses. The promise of the Holy Ghost, spoken of in
Joel, is unto you, Jews, and to your children, even
your sons and daughters who shall prophesy, ver. 17.
and it is not only to you who dwell at Jerusalem, but
also to those of you who are afar off from thence dis-
persed among the nations ; yet not to all the Jewish
nation, but to the remnant according to the election of
grace, (Rom. ix. 27. chap. xi. 5.) which in the pro-
phecy are styled " the remnant whom the Lord shall
call," Joel ii. 3. so this promise is even to as many of
* Appendix to Letters on Theron and Aspasio, Vol. ii, p. 333.
Believers^ -Baptinm. 265
ydu, and your children, both here and elsewhere, as
the Lord our God shall call, and to none else of you ;
for he giveth the Holy Ghost only to such as obey him,
chap. V. 32. Repent therefore, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remis-
sion of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost, according to God's promise.
He owns, we " say just things concerning the two
covenants, viz. the law or Sinai covenant, and the new^
or better covenant; and the two seeds, viz. the na-
tural seed of Abraham, and the spiritual seed of
Christ, who are also called the seed of Abraham, as
being connected with Him who is of the seed of Abra-
ham, according to the flesh, the great promised Seed."
— Had the author considered properly what he is here
saying, he might have seen, that by this concession he
hath entirely given up the point, and cut himself out
from every ground to stand upon ; it being impossible
for him to hold these distinctions consistently with the
principles he lays down for infant-baptism; for he
gives the very same place to the fleshly birth in the
kingdom of Christ under the new covenant, that it for-
merly had in the earthly kingdom under the old cove-
nant. He makes it as good an evidence of their being
Christians, as it was formerly of their being Jews:
nay, he makes it of greater avail now, than under the
old covenant; for then it could not distinguish the
spiritual seed of Abraham ; but now, (according to
his doctrine,) it points out those whom we are to
reckon the true holy seed, and heirs of spiritual, ever-
lasting, and heavenly privileges.
Mr. Huddleston asserts, " That the fleshly seed of
New Testament believers are really the spiritual seed
26(> A Defence of
of Abraham ;" * but he denies, that they are distin-
guished by the fleshly birth, and says, " Believers' in-
fants are distinjjuished by that same thing which dis-
tinguishes themselves to be the spiritual Israel, viz.
the confession of the mouth to salvation." f Do infants
then confess the faith with the mouth ? No. — How then
are they distinguished ? By the confession of another.
— Very well ; and does this confession respect all in-
fants ? No. — How then do we distinguish the infants
whom this confession respects, from other infants?
By their being the infants of the professor, or springing
from him by natural generation. Thus we see it lands
in the natural birth at last ; and if this be not con-
founding the apostolic distinction of the covenants
and seeds, I know not what is.
But then our author says, we " confound the dis-
tinction that is betwixt the spiritually holy nation;
which consists of the saved out of all nations, with the
kingdom of God as it appears in this world : and in
this way deceive the hearts of those who believe
without proper evidence, and blind the minds of them
who receive not the simple sayings of the Son of
God ;" and for this distinction he cites Matth. xiii. 47
— 50. which speaks of the good and had fishes ; to this
he might have added, Matth. xxv. I — 34. which speaks
of the wise and foolish virgins.
As the author's whole scheme of reasoning rests en-
tirely upon an improper use of this distinction, which
is to be met with almost in every page of his book, I
shall consider it particularly.
1. "We maintain, that the true kingdom of God con-
sists of the whole body of the elect, whether Jews or
* Letters, p. 73. t Page 74.
Believers^ -Baptism, 267
Gentiles, infants or adults, who are redeemed by the
blood of the Lamb, and who shall all be certainly and
finally saved. This is that society which the scripture
calls the general assembly and church of the first-born,
which are enrolled in heaven, Heb. xii. 23. the whole
family in heaven and in earth, Eph. iii. 15. the one
body, having the one spirit, and of which Christ is the
head, chap. iy^. 4. chap. v. 23. and which is commonly
called his invisible kingdom or church. Into this
kingdom no hypocrite or unclean thing can enter.
Rev. xxi. 27.
2. We maintain, that this kingdom appears in this
world unto men, in the open profession of the faith of
Jesus with its correspondent fruits, and in no other
way ; but as men do not always speak as they think,
and as good actions may often proceed from bad
principles and motives ; and further, as we neither can
nor are allowed to judge the hearts of men, hence hy-
pocrites and unbelievers may enter into the ap-
pearance of this kingdom in the world ; and so our
Lord represents it in this view, as consisting of wise
and foolish virgins, good and bad fishes, &c. To this
view of the kingdom belong the churches of the saints,
each of whom are a visible representation of that one
body which is invisible. But to the point :
3. Those whom the scripture points out unto us as
belonging to Christ's kingdom, as it appears in this
world, must also be looked upon as belonging to the
holy nation of them that are saved. We are obliged
by the word of God to esteem none brethren, but such
as profess the faith, and walk accordingly. We are
also bound by that same word, to esteem every one
who professes the faith of Christ, and appears under
its influence, to be not only in appearance, but in
<•.*■
268 A Defence oj
truth and reality the elect of God, and to love them
as brethren for whom Christ died. We ave not al-
lowed here to make any distinction between those who
belong to the appearance of Christ's kingdom in this
world, and those who belong to the spiritually holy
nation of thera that are saved.
(1.) Because we cannot do it. This distinction is
known only to God. He alone knows whom he hath
chosen, and who are his ; he also searcheth the hearts,
and trieth the reins of the children of men, and can
discover the most hidden hypocrisy under the disguise
of the fairest appearances ; and it is he alone that will
at last make a final separation of the sheep from the
goats, and gather out of his kingdom every thing that
offends. But for us, we can make no such discrimi-
nation. Many may obtain salvation whom we cannot
esteem saints; and some, whom we must look upon
as such, may finally fall short of it.
(2.) Because it is contrary to the fervent charity en-
joined in the gospel, for us to attempt to distinguish
between the visible and real subjects of Christ's king-
dom. Charity rejoiceth in the truth, and respects our
brethren as real believers, not as nominal ones only.
We love them in the truth, as knowing the truth, and
for the truth's sake dwelling in them, 2 John, ver. 1, 2. —
as brethren for whom Christ died, Rom. xiv. 15. — as
members of that one body whereof Christ is the head,
and for which he gave himself an offering and a
sacrifice to God, Eph. iv. 4, 15, 16. chap. v. 2. It is
only in this view we can love them with a pure heart
fervently. Every thought of them that falls short of
this view, without visible evidence, is that evil-judging
which is opposed to charity, and an assuming Christ's
prerogative, Rom. xiv. 4, 10. James iv. 12.
Believers' -Bapthm. 269
(3.) The inspired apostles, though they had the gift
of discerning spirits, in respect of doctrine, yet they
never distinguish those who belong to the appearance
of Christ's kingdom in this world, from such as belong
to the holy nation of the saved, but speak of them
always as one and the same, or, (to use our autlior's
phrase,) confound them. They address all to whom
they write as elect, saints, redeemed, and saved. Paul
says, that the vessels of mercy which God had afore
prepared unto glory, are, " Even us whom he hath
called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,"
Rom. ix. 23, 24 — he includes the professsing Ephesians
"with himself, as redeemed and adopted, according as
they were predestinated and chosen in Christ before
the foundation of the world, Eph. i.4 — 8. — he tells the
Thessalonians, that he knew their election, 1 Thess.
i. 4. — and declares that the Hebrews were come unto
the general assembly and church of the first-born
which are written in heaven, Heb. xii.22, 23. — Peter
writing to the strangers scattered abroad, addresses
them as " Elect according to the foreknowledge of
God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit,
unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ," 1 Pet. i. 2. and calls them " a chosen genera-
tion, a royal priesthood, an holy naldon, a peculiar
people," chap. ii. 9. Yet notwithstanding all this, we
learn from these same writings, that hypocrites and
false professors had crept in even among them. Shall
we therefore infer, that the apostles deceive the hearts
and blind the minds of men, because they do not dis-
tinguish between the apparent and real subjects of
Christ, or, in other words, because they were not om-
niscient? We indeed know, that there is a distinction
between the appearance and reality of true religion;
S70 A Defence of
but the practical use of this is, not to judge our brother,
but to judge aad examine ourselves, 1 Cor. xi. 28, 31.
Gal. vi. 3, 4.
It is evident then, that this distinction which our
author harps so much upon, has nothing to do with the
controversy about baptism; for as baptism belongs
only to Christ's visible subjects, so all who have this
appearance must be esteemed by us his real subjects,
and as belonging to the spiritually holy nation of them
that are saved ; for this plain reason, because it is the
appearance of that very thing.
What an unworthy view must our author have of
the subjects of baptism, and even of his own brethren,
when he distinguislies them from the spiritually holy
nation of the saved, and cannot look upon them as
belonging to it ! What can be the foundation of his
charity to them? Do the scriptures ever enjoin us
to love a mere appearance, without supposing its in-
visible reality? But our author, that he may avoid
confounding matters, takes special care, all along, to
let us know, that he does not mean the reality, but only
the appearance of things ; and so he is contending for
a mere shadow, a thing of nought.
He comes next to what is commonly called the
7node or manner of baptism ; but I shall defer the con-
sideration of that, till I have discussed his arguments
about the subjects, and proceed at present to
PAUT III.
*' The household of Lydia were baptized when she
made profession of the faith of Jesus/' Acts xvi. 13,
14, 15.
His meaning is, that her household were baptized
wpon her single profession of the faith, without beings
Believers'-Baplism. 271
either taught, or making a profession themselves ; and
his reason for this supposition is, that it is not parti-
cularly mentioned. But by the same rule of interpre-
tation, we may deny that she professed the faith
herself before baptism ; for neither is that particularly
mentioned in so many words. Rom. x. 10. however,
is to him a sufficient proof, that she must have con-
fessed the faith with her mouth ; and if so, he cannot
in justice blame us, though we should refer him to the
commission as a proof that her household were taught
and believed, before they were baptized ; especially,
when this is corroborated and explained by the whole
practice of the apostles, and the instances of all the
other households which they baptized. He cannot
but allow, that it is a good and safe rule to make the
scripture its own interpreter, or to exijlain the more
concise and obscure passages by such other passages
relating to tlie subject as are more full and explicit ;
and if he admits of this rule in every other case, he
ought certainly to shew cause why it cannot be ad-
mitted here.
I appeal to himself, if he has not purposely singled
out this account of Lydia's household in distinction
from all the rest, as affording him, from its silence, the
greatest scope for conjecture. Surely that must be a
bad cause which obliges men to shun the light, and
avail themselves of obscurity, and so oppose what the
scripture says not, to what it positively and repeatedly
declares. Taking advantage then of the silence of
this passage, he conjectures, that Lydia's household
was all made up of little children; and then she must
have been an extraordinary woman indeed, to have
managed her public business of selling purple, together
with a family of helpless infants, for it does not appear
272 A Defence of
she had a husband at that time. If it be supposed she
had servants to assist her, then, for any thing we know,
these may have been her household, according to the
frequent use of that word in scripture ; see Gen. xvii.
27. 1 Kings i. 9, 11. 2 Kings vii. 9, 11.
But our author imagines they were infants, because
when she invites Paul and his companions to her
house, she uses this argument, " If ye have judged me
faithful ;" whereas had they been adults, she must
have said. If ye have judged us faithful, else she must
have had " a high sense of her own importance, and
a great penury of brotherly love." But perhaps she
knew, that she had the only vight,hoth by the law of God
and man, to invite them to her ow?i house, and that in
her oivn name too, as she was the mistress and head
of it, as well as proprietor of all the entertainment
therein ; and perhaps she did this in the kind sim-
plicity of her heart, without imagining what bad con-
struction would be put upon this act of love 1724
years afterwards. Supposing her thoroughly instructed
in the Christian law of " esteeming others better than
ourselves, and in honour preferring one another,"
Rom. xii. 10. Philip, ii. 3. (for which she had as yet
very little time,) yet it could never enter into her
head, that that law set aside her civil superiority of
mistress over her servants, or her natural superiority
of a parent, even over her adult children ; see Eph. vi.
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8. Nor could «he ever learn, from any
exhortation in all the New Testament, (supposing it
then written, that she was now deprived of the sole
right of disposing of her own ; of using hospitality to
saints and strangers ; and of pressing their acceptance
of her kindness, as an evidence that they judged her
faithful to the Lord therein ; see 3 John, ver. 5.
Believers -Baptism. 273
The author does " not chuse to say what must be
ascribed to Paul and his companions, who were con-
strained by this argument :" for it seems had they
complied with her invitation as a testimony that they
esteemed her faithful, it would have been such an atro-
cious sin in them, as is not fit to be mentioned. But
he ooght to remember, that the apostles were not so
evil-minded as he would have been in this case. They
were not so ungratefully disposed, as to snap at the
hand that offered them a kindness, nor so captious as
to carp at expressions dictated by a heart overflowing
with love.
He says, " We may learn from Jesus's words, that
her little children are here called her household ; for,
pointing at the little chidren who were brought to him
in the days of his flesh, he said. Of such is the kingdom
of God." There are some assertions difficult to answer
from their extreme absurdity ; and I am mistaken if
this is not one of them. Our Lord does not here
mention any person's household whatever, far less the
household of Lydia in particular; neither is he de-
fining the word household, or restricting its sense to
little children, contrary to its usual acceptation
throughout the whole scripture. His words are not.
Of such only are the households of believers ; but,
" Of such is the kingdom of God." How then can we
learn from these words that Lydia had little children,
who are here called her household, and that in dis-
tinction from her adult children and domestics ?
Noah's house consisted of his wife, sons, and daughters
in-law, and there were no infants there. Gen. vii. 7.
Abraham had a numerous household of servants, whilst
as yet he had no child of his own. Gen. xiv. 14. chap.
XT. 2, 3. Our Lord says, " A man's foes shall be they
T
274 A Defence of
of his own household," Mattli. x. 36. Does the word
household here mean little children ?
The word house or household in scripture signifies
sometimes a man's kindred, lineage, and even distant
posterity, Luke i. 27. chap. ii. 4. sometimes a whole
people or tribe, Psal. cxv. 12. and sometimes a man's
particular family, including his wife, adult and infant
children, as well as domestic servants, as has been
shown ; but in no part of the word of God does it sig-
nify little children in distinction from adults, this being
only a conceit of some modern Pcedobaptists, invented
to support their cause with the ignorant ; but which
must prejudice it with those who search the scriptures
for themselves.
The passage itself, however, affords evidence that
Lydia's household were adults ; for we are told, ver. 40.
that Paul and Silas " went out of the prison, and
entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had
seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed."
Now, infants cannot be supposed capable of being
comforted ; and whether it is most reasonable to think
that they comforted these young converts of Lydia's
household, whom they were now leaving behind them
exposed to the hatred of their intidel neighbours, or
those hardy veterans Timothy and Luke, their fellow
travellers and labourers who departed along with them-
selves, let the reader judge. This same Timothy was
sent back to comfort and strengthen the Thessalonians,
a little while afterwards, 1 Thess. iii. 1—8.
Our author farther affirms, that " the baptism of the
household of Lydia, when she professed the faith, was
agreeable to the doctrine which Paul taught ; for he
said to believers in Jesus, " The unbelieving husband
is sanctified to the wife, and the unbelieving wife is
Believers'-BujjtisiH. 275
sanctified to the husband ; else were your chilJrea
unclean," or common, but now arc they holy, or set
apart unto God, 1 Cor. vii. 14. But what has thi^
text to do with baptism? Tlie apostle is not here
speaking a word upon that subject, but answering the
scruples of Christians about continuing in their mar-
riage relation with infidels.
The author makes the apostle to say, that the
children are holy as " set apart unto God ;" whereas
he is speaking of a holiness which is the result of the
unbelieving party's being sanctified or made holy ; for,
says the apostle, " the unbelieving party is sanctified,
else were your children unclean." The apostle denies
that the children would be holy, unless the unbelieving
parent were so also ; and it is certain, that no other
holiness can result from, or be thus connected with,
the holiness of an unbeliever, but what is of the same
nature with itself.
Mr. Huddleston, after having told us, that the unbe-
lieving wife is sanctified to the husband as his food is,
gives us his view of the holiness of the children, thus,
" But now are they holy," viz. " as the Corinthians
themselves were holy, being washed, sanctified, and
justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the
Spirit of God."* Let us try then how the text will
read according to this gloss ; " The unbelieving wife
is sanctified to the husband as his food is ; else were
your children neither washed, sanctified, nor justified
in the name of the Lord Jesus, nor by the Spirit ot
God ! ! !" The very stating of this, manifests its absur-
dity at once.
The same anthor proposes what be calls a rea-
* Letters, p. 72,
T2
276 A Defence of
sonable request, viz. " Let any text in the Bible,
between the beginning and the end, be produced where
a person is said to be holy, where a special relation to
God, or being devoted and separated to him, is not in-
tended."*— But without entering into such an ex-
tensive search, I produce this very text under con-
sideration, " The unbelieving husband is sanctified
(vyiarai, made holy,) by the wife, and the unbelieving
wife is sanctified (made holy) by the husband ;" to
which let me add his own sense of these words, that
" the unbeliever is sanctified to the believer as his
food is," t and this gives a full answer to his request,
until he inform us what special relation to God unbe-
lievers have by this holiness, and how they are devoted
or separated to him by it.
He, says, " We have generally explained the sanc-
tification here, to intend marriage — but is it possible
we can be serious in supposing the apostle would tell
these Corinthians who had unbelieving wives, that they
were married to them? or, did the Corinthians need to
be told this ?"+ No; but though they did not need to
be told they were married, yet they needed to be told
their marriage was lawful, else what w as the ground
of their scruple at all ? He is not telling them they
were married, but that their marriage was lawful or
holy, by shewing them that the unbelieving party
was sanctified {iv) in that relation to the believer, and
so not to be put away.
He also misrepresents our view of the uncleanness
and holiness of the children. ** We have (says he) ex-
plained the uncleanness of the children to be bastardy,
and the holiness legitimacy ;" § and he thinks the Co-
* Letters, p. 30. t Ibid, p. 30.
* Ibid, p. 30. $ Ibid.
Believers' -Baptism. . 277
rinthians had no occasion to be told, their children
were not bastards; for as they were the children of
marriage, they must have known them to be legi-
timate. But by bastards in this case we do not mean
those begotten betwixt persons single, or unmarried,
but the issue of unlawful marriages, like those which
sprang from an Israelite's marriage with a heathen.
This is the uncleanness which the apostle is speaking
of; and as he makes this uncleanness of the children,
to come from the supposed unlawfulness of the parents
marriage, so does he make their Iwliness to be the
effect of the lawfulness or sanctity of that marriage ;
and what kind of holiness can this be but legitimacy,
or their being begotten according to the law of God,
which is the standard of all holiness ?
That the holiness of the children here is of the same
kind with that of the unbelieving parent, will be
further evident, if we consider,
1. That the apostle infers the one from the other :
" The unbelieving wife is sanctified ; — else were your
children unclean ; but now are they holy :" Now it
/iocs not follow from the parents having one kind of
holiness, that therefore the children must have another
and higher kind ; but it follows clearly, that if the
wife or husband is lawful, the children must be so also.
2. The apostle absolutely denies that the children
would have this holiness, unless the unbelieving parent
(r\yiarai) hath been sanctified, or previously made holy :
*' The unbelieving wife hath been sanctified ; — else
were your children unclean." Now, if the holiness of
the children be the effect of their being washed, justi-
fied, and sanctified, it could never depend upon, or
stand and fall with that inferior kind of holiness as-
cribed to the unbelieving parent ; for this would be to
278 . A Defence of
make the very salvation of children depend upon the
lawfulness of their parents marriage ; but if we under-
stand the holiness to be le,i,ntimacy, it is plain that this
depends entirely on their parents having been lawfully
married.
3. When the apostle says, " Else were your children
unclean/' he shews what would have been the case,
had the law of Moses been in force with respect to
their unbelieving wives ; but that law made the chil-
dren unclean in no other sense than it made the unbe-
lieving parent; therefore the holiness which he op-
poses to that uncleanncss, and ascribes to each, must
be the same in both.
4. No other holiness than legitimacy could suit the
apostle's argument against putting away their unbe-
lieving wives ; for the children even of an incestuous
marriage may have the holiness of the truth, while yet
the marriage itself ought to be dissolved ; but if the
children are lawfully begotten, then the marriage must
have been lawful also, and therefore must stand.
Upon the whole, it is demonstrably clear, that the
meaning of the passage is neither more nor less than
this, " Ye must not put away your unbelieving wives,
if they are willing to dwell with you, (as Israel were
obliged to do by the law of separation from the heathen,
Deut. vii. 3.) else ye must put away your children
also ; for that law classed them with the unclean party,
and enjoined them to be put away, Ezra x. 3. but
now, under the gospel, both the unbelieving party, and
the children begot with them, are holy or lawful, even
as the meats are, which were formerly forbidden by
the law of Moses, (1 Tim. iv. 5.) that law being set
aside which made them unlawful or unclean." Now
what has this passage to do with infant sprinkling?
Believers'- Baptism. 279
Our author asserts, that " the children of believing-
parents are represented in scripture as some ivay con-
nected with their parents in the profession made by
them ;" and for proof of this cites, 2 Tim. ii. 16 " The
Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus ; for he
oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain."
So it seems Paul could not pray for the house of One-
siphorus, unless they had been connected with their
parent in his profession ! ! ! Does this deserve an
answer? The household of Onesiphorus were not
infants, but had made the profession themselves, as is
evident from his charging Timothy in this very epistle
to salute them, chap. iv. 19.
The author says, children are some way connected
with their parents ; but does not tell us what way. I
will venture to do it for him. The peculiar con-
nection between a parent and his child is entirely na-
tural and carnal. If they are Christ's, they are in that
respect both equally children ; and in relation to one
another, in this connection, they are not parent and
child, but brethren ; in which respect they are as much
related to all the household of God as to one another.
This connection has nothing to do with the fleshly re-
lation, but is supernatural; nor is ii peculiar io parent
and child, but is founded on that common union
by which every member of Christ's body is connected
with him as the Head.
He concludes this part, by observing, " That in the
baptism of little children we have a lively represen-
tation of this great truth, As sin and death came from
the first Adam to all his natural seed, and even to
little children, without any act or deed of theirs; so
righteousness and life come from the second Adam
to all his. spiritual seed, and even to little children iu
280 A Vefence of
the same way." — This seems to imply, that this great
truth is not so properly represented in the baptism of
believers, because they are supposed to perform some
act or deed of their own to obtain righteousness
and life. *
If there is any thing in this representation peculiar
to infants, it must lie in this, that as by the obedience
of one many are made righteous ; so (according to our
author) by the profession of one man all his infants
appear righteous. Thus the parent and his profession
for his household, is a lively representation of Christ
and his vicarious obedience for the whole household
of faith ! ! ! But then the other part of the representation
is not quite so lively ; for whereas by the disobedience
of one many are made sinners, and so in their first
birth are shapen in iniquity and conceived in siti, the
author teaches us, that children are born holy by
virtue of their connection with believing parents, and
this may be constructed by weak minds as contra-
dicting the doctrine of original sin ; for every one will
not be able to understand how righteousness and life
should be transmitted to us in the same channel with
sin and death.
Mr. Huddleston affirms, " That men have their little
children connected with them in the great salvation by
the Lord Jesus Christ, even as they are in the condem-
nation by Adam." f But this contradicts a number of
scripture facts : Adam had a Cain in his family, Noah
a Ham, Abraham an Ishmael, and Isaac an Esau;
none of which children the scripture directs us to look
upon as connected with their parents in salvation,
* The Papists have invented many lively representations, which
they think more signiiicant than those which God hath enjoined,
t Letters, p. 23.
Believers -Baptism, 281
and yet all these were infants before they became
adults. But he has a salvo for this, viz. that the con-
nection in salvation continues only during their in-
fancy, but vanishes in their adult state. This here-
ditary salvation, fleeting as it is, he makes peculiar to
the New Testament : " The promise (says he) which
is to believers and their children, belongs to the cove-
nant made after these days ; and it was never said to
Abraham, thou shalt be saved, and thy house." * Now
if we compare this with his affirming, that this promise
is the very testimony of the gospel," f it must follow,
that the gospel was not preached before unto Abra-
ham ; nor could his faith " answer to that which ig
now preached," or be set before us in the New Testa-
ment as the example of our faith, as in Rom. iv. 12,
23, 24. Gal. iii. 6 — 9. Neither can we, according to
this author, perceive Abraham to have been of the
kingdom of God; for (says he,) " We perceive an
adult person to be of the kingdom of God, by his con-
fessing the truth to his own salvation, and the salvation
of his housed % Lastly, according to this, we have no
ground to believe there were any elect infants, under
the Old Testament ; for he denies that we have any
other foundation whereon to rest our opinion that
there are elect infants, but their connection with their
believing parent ; § yet Abraham, it seems, had not
even this evidence. However, when we consider all
that has been advanced upon this salvation, Abraham
would sustain very little loss, it being a matter not
worth the contending for.
• Letters, p. 63. t Ibid, p. 7».
X Ibid, p. 39. $ Ibid, p .37.
282 A Defence of
PART IV.
" Baptism is the figure corresponding unto the preser-
vation, and visible salvation of Noah, and seven
more in connection with him, in the ark, by water.
— * "Wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by-
water. The like figure whereunto, even baptism,
doth also now save us; not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good con-
science towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ," 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21.
Here our author runs the parallel between baptism
and the temporal deliverance of Noah and his family
from the flood, thus ; — " It agrees thereto as water is
used in baptism.'' — This we grant; for the apostle
says, that eight souls were saved (^i l^arar,) through,
by, or rather in water, as the same original phrase is
rendered, 2 Pet. iii. 5. So baptism represents not only
our death and burial with Christ, but also our resur-
rection with him and deliverance from death, Rom.
vi.4. Col. ii. 12.
He says, " It agrees thereto, as baptism is a sign of
the salvation that is by Christ." The salvation of
Noah and his house, by the ark in water, was indeed
a type of the salvation that is by Christ ; for the
apostle calls baptism, and the salvation signified by it,
its (avTiryTo?) antitype. But it ought to be noticed,
that there is still such a difference between them, as is
between Old Testament types and New Testament
ordinances. The redemption of old Israel from
Egypt, when they passed under the cloud, and through
the sea, was also a type of baptism and the salvation
signified by it ; but that typical baptism was not into
Belifcven'- Baptism. 2S3
Christ, but unto Moses ; and the salvation by that bap-
tism was not the salvation by Christ, but the temporal
deliverance of an earthly nation from Egyptian slavery.
Even so the salvation of these eight souls in water
was in itself only a temporal salvation from the deluge,
and the preservation of a race of men, as well as of
every other animal, for replenishing the earth. Cut
the New Testament baptism has no temporal, typical,
nor even visible salvation (as our author affirms) con-
nected with it, but is the immediate sign of the spiri-
tual and invisible salvation by Christ. It does not save
from the flood, nor from Egyptian bondage, nor by put- ^
ting away the filth of the flesh, like the legal bathings ; ^
but by the death and resurrection of Christ ; and in this
respect it essentially difi'ers from these earthly deli-
verances, being their antitype, as the apostle declares.
All this, however, is nothing to the point, and
therefore he adds, '* It agrees thereto as the little
children of believers are baptized, and so visibly saved
on account of their connection with their parents."
This is a strange assertion indeed ! and is so far from
having any foundation in the text, that it is every way
contrary to it. The passage informs us, that there
were but eight souls saved in the ark, and our author
(as in the case of Lydia's household)supposes they were
little children; but the scripture expressly tells us,
that these eight souls were Noah, his wife, his three
sons, and their wives, see Gen. vi. 18. chap. vii. 7.
chap. viii. 16. Surely these married sons were not
little children, neither were their wives little children,
nor Noah's proper children at all. How then does
the baptism of little children agree thereto, when there
were no little children there ? If it proves any thing at
all respecting the baptism of a believer's children, it
284 A Defence of
proves too much, viz. that the adult children of a be-
liever must be baptized on account of their connection
with him, for such only can agree with Noah's sons :
and it will also prove, that not only a man's own adult
children, but also his wife, and the adult children of
others, should all be baptized upon his single pro-
I'ession; for without this it cannot agree to Noah's
wife and his son's wives. But as the author does not
admit that this passage warrants the baptism of adults
upon the profession of another, (though such are the
only persons here mentioned,) surely, with much more
reason may we deny, that it warrants the baptism of
little children, when we are sure that there were none
such among them.
In whatever respect, therefore, baptism agrees with
the salvation of these eight persons, it cannot be in
having little children for its subjects ; and this is clear
from the passage itself: — " Baptism doth also now,
save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh,
but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The answer of a
good conscience is the effect of faith in Christ, as de-
livered for our offences, and raised again for our jus-
tification, and consists in the conscious sense of the
remission of our sins, peace with God, and freedom of
access unto a throne of grace, which could never be
obtained by the typical sacrifices or purifications, see
Heb. ix. 9, 13, 14. chap. x. 1, 2, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22.
Now, baptism being the sign of that purgation in the
blood of Christ, which gives the answer of a good con-
science, it cannot be administered to any but such as
appear by their profession to have their consciences
thus purified by faith in Christ's blood, of which in-
fants can give no evidence.
Believers' -Baptism, 285
To aflfirm, that little children are " visibly saved, on
account of their connection with their parents," is, in
my opinion, a very self-righteous doctrine. It has
been already shewn, that we cannot, according to the
scriptures, look upon any as visibly saved, without
looking upon them as really saved ; — because the
former is the very evidence or appearance of the
latter; — because we neither can nor ought to distin-
gaish them ; — and, chiefly, because Christ hath pur-
chased no visible salvation for any, in distinction from
a spiritual, everlasting, and real one. If then children
are visibly saved on account of their connection with
their parents, they must also, in our estimation, be
really saved on that account. This is fine doctrine
indeed ! and, if it be not putting the parent in the
place of Christ, it looks something like it. It can
easily be conceived how children may obtain temporal
deliverances in connection with, and even on account
of their parents, such as the salvation from the deluge,
and redemption from Egypt ; but the gospel salvation
comes by another connection, and must be placed to
another account. Will the author affirm, that he
himself was even visibly saved, (as he calls it,) on ac-
count of his connection with his parents? and does he
teach his children, that they are saved, on account of
their connection with him? If neither he nor his
children can take the comfort of this connection for
their own salvation, what is he contending for all this
time ? Surely that must be a salvation unworthy of the
gospel that cannot be trusted to.
He says, '* Visible salvation is by baptism; but
real salvation is through the shedding of Christ's
blood." If he means by this, that baptism is the sign
of visible, but not of real salvation by Christ s blood.
286 A Defence of
I have already shown this to be contrar}' to scripture,
an unworthy view of the ordinance, and altogether
absurd. But if he means, tliat baptism itself saves
visibly, I ask. What does it save from ? It does not
put away the filth of the flesh, like the legal purifica-
tions, nor does it save tbe body from slavery or death,
like the typical salvations ; and the apostle tells us,
that it cannot save the soul, or purge the conscience,
but by the death and resurrection of Christ. — AVhat
idea then shall we affix to this visible salvation by
baptism ? — a salvation which he distinguishes from
real salvation by the blood of Christ ; — a salvation
which does not benefit either soul or body ; — a sal-
vation which must not be trusted to, but mocks our
hopes, eludes our search, and flies our grasp, like the
baseless fabric of a vision. Is such a fancy as this
worthy the God of salvation ? Is it even worthy the
name of salvation? In short, it comports with nothing
but those other dreams and imaginations with which
the author has furnished out his whole pamphlet from
beginning to end.
Of the ACTIOX called BAPTISM.
Our author owns, that baptism is dippifig or plung-
ing in water, as the word frequently signifies this ;
but then he thinks it bears another sense in 1 Cor. x. 2.
though he does not tell us what it there signifies. He
then proceeds to assert roundly, that " Those who have
water poured out or shed forth upon them, or are
sprinkled with water, are baptized with water, ac-
cording to the language of the New Testament ;" for
this he cites Mark i. 8. Acts i. 5. But none of these
passages speak o( pouring or sprinkling water, but of
baptizing in it ; and the question still returns, What
Believers-Baptiiin. 287
does that mean ? This he thinks may be g^athered from
baptism in the Holy Ghost, \vhich is said to be poured
out, or shed forth upon men, Acts ii. 1(>, 17, 33.
chap. xi. 15, 16. Should we remind him, that the Holy
Ghost was so poured out upon men as to fill them with
it, and that therefore, according to this argument, they
must also be filled with water in baptizing them ; he
will tell us, that this is a foolish assertion, and that
filling men with the Holy Ghost, and baptizing thera
therewith, are as distinct as cause and effect ! Thus he
proves that baptism is either plunging, pouring, or
sprinkling. In opposition to which I observe,
1. That the Greek word Qmmliu, bnptize, is never
translated into English, when the ordinance of baptism
is intended. Baptize is not a translation, but an
adoption of the Greek word. The translators were
virtually forbid to render it into English in the instruc-
tions they received from King James,* by which peo-
ple are left to affix any idea to it which the custom of
the country suggests ; and so, in this country, it is
generally understood to mean the sprinkling, or pour-
ing of a little water on the face of an infant : whereas
baptize, signifies to dip, immerse ox jjlunge in any thing,
especially liquids, and in this ordinance, to dip or wt-
merse the body in water. The Poedobaptists them-
selves generally acknowledge this sense of the word,
and that immersion was the practice of the apostles,
and continued in the church for at least thirteen cen-
turies after.
All the methods by which the sense of any word can
be found, fix the sense of ^aTrn^a, baptize, to be im-
mersion. Should we trace it to its primary root, or
• See a Copy of these instructious in Lewis's History of the English
Translations of the Bible.
288 A Defence of
follow it in all its derivatives and compounds ; should
we consult all the Greek lexicons of any note ; or
take the surer method of observing its constant and
uniform use in Greek authors and translators, before
the practice of sprinkling took place, we shall find all
agree in fixing this as the common and proper accepta-
tion of that word, and meet with no circumstance that
will oblige us to depart from it.
This word, like most others, may indeed sometimes
be used in a secondary, figurative, or allusive sense.
Words are often chosen, not so much for their strict
literal signification, as for some analogy or striking
similitude they bear to the subject ; but the proper
sense of words cannot be fixed from such use of them.
Thus our Lord represents his sufferings by a cup which
the father had given him to drink, John xviii. 11. but
the nature of his sufferings will neither explain the
meaning of the word cup, nor the action of drinking
it. These sufi"erings are likewise called a baptism,
Luke xii. 50. but from this we cannot fix the meaning
of that word, or the action thereby signified, as it is
only figuratively used, to represent the greatness of
his sufferings, even as they are set forth in Old Tes-
tament metaphors, by his sinking in deep mire, and
coming into deep waters, where the floods overflow
him, Psal. Ixix. 1, 2. It is said of Israel, that they
" were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud, and in
the sea," 1 Cor. x. 2. but Israel's being under the cloud,
and passing through the sea, ver. 1. (which was a wall
upon their right hand and left,) though it was a kind
of immersion, yet it does not determine with precision
the meaning of the word ; for here was no action per-
formed by one man upon another, as our Lord en-
joins, nor was there a close contact of the water with
their bodies, as there must be in Christian baptism.
Beiievers'-Baptism. 289
It lias been argued, that as baptism in the Holy
Ohost is expressed by pouring him out on men,
therefore baptism in water must be performed by
pouring water on them. But the extraordinany effusion
of the Holy Ghost is variously expressed in the
scriptures : It is called anointing, filling with, giving
of, pouring out of the Holy Ghost, and believers arc
said to have all been made to drink into one Spirit.
Now, which of all these expressions alludes to the
manner of baptism in water ? If it be said, pouring
alludes to it ; I ask, upon w hat authority is this af-
firmed ? The scripture does not call this expression
baptizing more than the rest. The truth is, all these
are but different expressions for the same thing, viz.
the giving of the Holy Ghost ; but none of them are
expressive of the manner of that action called baptism,
nor so much as allude to it. Pouring in particular,
does not allude to the manner of baptizing ; but to
that of anointing ; see Acts x. 38. 2 Cor. i. 21. 1 John
ii. 27. the manner of which was by pouring, see Exod.
xxix. 7. Matth, xxvi. 7. and it also alludes to the
watering of fields to make them fruitful, for under
this metaphor the effusion of the Spirit is often set
forth ; see Isa. xliv. 3, 4. chap, xxxii. 15. compared
with Heb. vi. 4, 7, 8.
The extraordinary effusion of the Spirit is called
baptism, in allusion to baptism in water; and, ex-
cepting in one place, is always joined with it by a si-
milarity of phrase. Thus Acts i. 5. " John baptized
with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy
Ghost ;" where it is plain, that giving the Holy Ghost
is called baptizing, by a figure of speech borrowed
from water baptism. Instances of this kind are innu-
merable in scripture. Jesus, calling Simon and An-
U
290 A Defence of
drew from their fishing, says, " I will make you
fishers of men ;" which is an expression taken from
the employment they were then engaged in ; and, as
it would be very improper to explain the manner of
fishing from the practice of the apostles in preaching
the gospel, it must be equally so to explain the action
of baptizing in water, by the manner in which the
Spirit was given, for which there are various ex-
pressions besides that of baptism : But when we con-
sider that this extraordinary efiiision of the Spirit, on
the day of Pentecost, filled all the house ivhere they
were sitting, then it is plain they must have been
immersed in it, according to the proper sense of the
word.
The word SaTrn^u is rendered washing in Mark vii. 4.
and it is alleged, that the utensils there mentioned
cannot be supposed to be plu7iged in water. But if
we look into the law about cleansing defiled vessels,
&c. we shall find, this was to be done by plunging or
jmtting them into the water. *' Whether it be any ves-
sel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever
vessel it be wherein any work is done, it must be put
into water," Lev. xi. 32. And though the Jews are
blamed for their superstition in holding things unclean
that were not so by the law, yet they are not accused
of using any other method of cleansing than the law
prescribed.
Mr. Huddleston asserts, that the washing of hands
is also called baptism. Mat. xv. 2. Mark vii. 3.* But
in this he is mistaken, for the word there is not Qaini^u,
but viTTTo, which is the word used for washing of hands;
and as for the baptism mentioned, Mark vii. 4. Luke
* Letters, p. 98,
Believers -Baptism. 291
xi. 38. it does not signify the washing of hands, but
the bathing or immersion of the whole body. The
baptisms mentioned, Heb. ix. 10. were not every kind
of washing, but the divers baptisms prescribed by the
law for unclean persons, which were performed by
bathing in water. Thus Numb. xix. 19 — " And on
the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his
clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean
at even." And the apostle calls these bathings divers
baptisms, because they were performed on different
occasions, and for various kinds of uncleannness ; see
Lev. XV. 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27. chap. xvi. 26, 28.
chap. xvii. 15. 16. Numb. xix. 7, 8, 19. But with re-
spect to the manner of applying the blood, water, and
ashes of the heifer, (Numb. xix. 17, 18.) he does not
call that baptism, but (rhantismos) sprinkling, as it
really was, Heb. ix. 13.
Had this ordinance included every mode of wash-
ing, it would not have been expressed by baptizo,
but by luo, as in Acts xvi. 33. 1 Cor. vi. 11. 2 Pet. ii.
22. or nipto, as in John xiii. 6. 10. Matth. xv. 2. chap,
xxvii. 24. or pluno, as in Luke v. 2. — Had it been
SPRINKLING, it would havc been expressed by rhan-
tizo, as in Heb. ix. 13, 19. chap x. 22. and xii. 24.
1 Pet. i. 2. — Had it been pouring, then the word
would have been cheo or chuo, as in Luke x. 34. Acts
ii. 17, 33. chap. x. 45. But as this ordinance is
neither washing in general, nor the modes of sprinkling
and pouring in particular ; so it is distinguished from
these by another term, and which has a different signi-
fiation, viz, to dip, immerse, or plunge.
It is remarkable that we have the three words, dipr
sprinkle, and pour occurring sometimes in the compass
of two verses, and distinguished as three different suc-
U2
292 A Defence of
cessive actions to be performed with the same thing,
which demonstrates that they are not of the same
import. Thus, the LXX in Lev. iv. 0, 7. " And the
priest shall (bapsei) dip his finger in the blood, and
(prosranei) sprinkle of the blood seven times before
the Lord, and before the veil of the sanctuary,— and
shall (ekchei) pour out all the blood of the bullock at
the bottom of the altar of the burnt-offering." Now,
had the priest presumed to convert bapto here into
sprinkling or pouring, he would have perverted the
whole of this typical institution, been guilty of re-
bellion against the Lord, and might justly have ex-
pected immediate vengeance : and shall we think that
the words of our Lord's commission are less plain and
determinate than those of the law, and that we are at
greater liberty to quibble upon, and alter them at
pleasure ?
The translators, in other cases, have rendered the
primitive word baplo by the English word dip,
wherever it occurs in the New Testament ; see Matth.
xxvi. 23. Mark xiv. 20. Luke xvi. 24. John xiii. 26.
Kev. xix. 13. and had they in like manner translated
it when expressive of this ordinance, every one would
have known what action our Lord enjoins, when he
says, baptizing them. They would then have seen,
that men could no more be baptized by sprinkling or
pouring, than they could eat the Lord's Supper by
seeing or sjnelling.
2. Neither sprinkle nor pour will make sense when
substituted in place of the word baptize. They will
not construe with (sv) in, or (ejj) into, one of which is
always affixed to the word baptize, when the thing into
which men are baptized is mentioned. For instance,
John baptized (iv tw Iof?av») in Jordan, or (£<? t»v U^^hvw)
Believers -Baptism. i>93
into Jordan, Matth. iii. 6. Mark. i. 9. we have also
(fv v^ari) in water, (sv TrviuiA-ctrt ayiu) in the Holy Ghost,
Matth. iii. 11. (e/; rov Moiaviv) into Moses, 1 Cor. x. 2.
(tU X^irov) into Christ, Gal. iii. 27. Rom. vi. 3. This
then being the uniform style of the original, let us try
what language it will make with sprinkling or pouring.
*' Teach all nations, pouring them (ej?) into the name,
&c. — And were poured of John in Jordan.— I indeed
poiir you in water — he shall pour you in the Holy
Ghost," &c. This is strange style, and does not make
sense ; for it conveys an idea as if the persons them-
selves were poured as liquids into any thing. The
like observation may be made on the other passages
where baptism is mentioned, such as, " He that be-
lieveth and is poured," &c. Mark xvi. 16. — " Into
what then were ye ipouredf" Acts xix. 3, &c. which
answers only to liquids, not persons. But if we sub-
stitute the word dip or immerse, which is the true
English of the Greek word, then the sense is clear.
Neither will sprinkle answer for the word baptize;
for how would it sound to say, " Sprinkle them in
water, sprinkle them into Jordan," &c. ? This conveys
the idea of any thing thrown in small scattered portions
into water, and cannot suit persons. The translators
Avere sensible of this impropriety ; and therefore,
instead of in or into, they have given us with, * to
make it agree with sprinkling, except in such places
as it would not answer, such as Matth. iii. 5. Mark i.
9. Rom. vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27. Acts xix. 3. and yet the
original words are the same in the other passages
as in these. Thus it is evident, that pouring or sprink-
• Ev cannot be rendered with in the case of baptism, because the
•ther word tig cannot be so rendered.
29 1 A Defence of
ling, if substituted for baptism, are both contrary to
scripture, and all propriety of speech.
3. The circumstances of our Lord's baptism, and
of the eunuch's, shew it to have been immersion.
Jesus was baptized of John (ej$) into Jordan, Mark
i. 9. for he went up out of the water, and so must have
been down in it, Matth. iii. 16. With regard to the
eunuch nothing can be plainer. They came first (ettj
ri i/3iup) to, or upon a certain water. Acts viii. 36. and
this is all the length that some will allow them to have
come ; but, the text adds further, " and they went
down both (eij to iSwp) into the water," ver. 38. where
Philip baptized him ; and when this was performed,
■we have them coming (s* ra v^aroi) " out of the water."
ver. 39.
4. The places which John chose for baptizing prove
it to be immersion, viz. Jordan and Enon. His
reason for chusing the latter place, we are expressly
told, was " because there was much water there,"
John iii. 23. which could only be necessary for im-
mersion. Some, however, have diminished the waters
at Enon into small shallow rivulets, to prevent im-
mersion if possible ; and no doubt they would have
done the same with Jordan, if they were not more
afraid of a sneer, than of wresting the scriptures ; for
they would rather turn the whole country into a dry
parched wilderness, than suflFer John to immerse any.
But that we may swell these waters at Enon again to
a proper depth, let it be noticed, that the words u^ara
moXKa much water, or many ivaters, are the same that
are used Rev. 1. 15. chap. xiv. 2. chap. xix. 6. which
do not signify the purling or murmuring of shallow
brooks or rivulets, but the boisterous roaring of great
Believers'- Baptism. 295
waters like those of the sea, for it is compared to the
voice of mighty thunderings ; and that the land of
Canaan was abundantly supplied with deep waters, is
evident from Deut. viii. 7.
5. The allusions which the apostle makes to baptism
point out the manner of the action. Christians are
said to be baptized into the death of Christ, to be
buried with him by baptism, and therein also to be
risen with him, Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. But if there
were no kind of burial in baptism, how could it be al-
luded to as the sign of our burial with Christ ? In
whatever sense we are buried, it cannot be in baptism,
if there is no burial there ; nor can there be any pro-
priety in mentioning baptism as the sign of a resur-
rection, if no such thing is to be seen in it. But when
we consider, that baptism is a burial in, and a resur-
rection from water, the similitude is striking, and
these passages clear and simple.
Here our author tells us, that " they are baptized
into the truth testified by the Three that bear record in
heaven concerning Jesus. This makes baptism (he
should have said sprinkling or pouring) a proper re-
presentation of his death and resurrection, and of
guilty men's having fellowship with him in his death
and resurrection." That is, in short, the thing sig-
nified makes any kind of sign a proper representation
of it! and, by the same rule, he might have told us,
that we eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood by
faith, and this makes any other kind of sign, as well
as eating the broken bread and drinking the cup,
a proper representation thereof. But the main thing
we should attend unto is the will of the Great Insti
tutor, who hath expressly appointed the sign to be
296 A Defence of
baptism or immersion, and not sprinkling or pouring";
any other sign than this, be it what it will, is not
his ordinance, either in name or thing, and therefore
can in no respect be a proper representation, but
human invention, whereby the law of Christ is made
void.
I am.
Dear Sir,
Yours, &c.
Believers' -Baptism, 297
APPENDIX.
^9*^0^^^^
It may not be improper to add a few more strictures
on what Mr. Huddleston, and others have advanced,
which did not fall in my way in answering the
" Remarks."
It is but too common for persons, when they cannot
confute their antagonist by fair reasoning, to betake
themselves to reproach and invectives ; and hence it
is, that the charge of self-righteousness is brought
against us for denying infant sprinkling. Mr. Glas
says, that " The denial of infant-baptism comes of
making the salvation by baptism to lie in something?
else than the thing signified, even in that, whatever it
be, which distinguishes the adult Christian from his
infant, though our Lord expressly declares, that we
must enter his kingdom even as infants enter it." —
" This (says Mr. Huddleston) interferes with every
argument brought to support the denial of infant-
baptism. * — Our denying infant-baptism because we
cannot see them of the true Israel, will be followed
with this consequence, that we have something about
us which shews us of the true Israel, that has no
respect to our infants entitling them to our regard as
such Israelites ; f — and this is influenced by the no-
tion, that we become members of this Israel by some
ability which distinguishes us from our helpless in-
fants. J — The true reason for not admitting infants to
baptism, is, the effect of making our salvation to lie
in that which distinguishes us from them."§
»
Lclfei", p, S6. t Ibid, p. 37. |Ibid, p. 38. $ Ibid, p. 40.
298 A Defence of
This argument (if it may be called one) reminds me of
what Archbishop Tiilotson says of transubstantiation ;
'* It will suffer nothing to be true but itself." But
how does all this prove, that Christ hath commanded
infants to be baptized ? The question about their bap-
tism must be determined by scripture, and not by the
self-righteous disposition of those who deny it; for
suppose all the deniers of infant-baptism were nothing
but a parcel of self-righteous Pharisees, it would no
more prove infant-baptism, than Mr. Huddleston's
holding it in connection with the church of Rome, *
will prove the contrary. Self-righteousness can find
access upon either side of this controversy. It has a
deeper root in our hearts than to shift its quarters
upon our changing sides in an argument, and can find
its account even in contending for the truth. I have
however, in my second letter to Mr. Glas, demonstrated
that this charge is false so far as it relates to our
reasons for denying infant-baptism, which is all that
belongs to the merits of the cause.
We firmly believe, and readily acknowledge, that
infants are as capable of the grace of God, or of sal-
vation, as adults are, and that adults are saved by that
very thing which saves elect infants ; but still we deny
that infants are proper subjects of gospel ordinances,
such as hearing the word, baptism, the Lord's Supper,
&c. These ordinances were never intended for them
in infancy, nor are they capable of any benefit from
them. He owns himself that infants cannot un-
derstand or believe the gospel; f nor can they dis-
cern the thing signified in baptism, for this is the same
■with understanding and believing the gospel.
* Letters, p. 34. + Ibid, p. 54, 57, 62.
Believers'- Baptism, 299
When we say that infants can reap no benefit by
the ordinances, we do not mean that they cannot be
saved, but only that these ordinances are not the
means of edification to them as they are to adults.
The benefit of baptism, as well as of the word
preached, and the Lord's Supper, can only be enjoyedt
in understanding and believing what is represented by
them ; for as the evident end of these ordinances is to
represent and set forth something to us for our in-
struction, edification, and comfort, these ends are
gained, only so far as the thing represented is dis-
cerned or believed, see Heb. iv. 2. Acts viii. 37. 1 Pet.
iii. 21. 1 Cor xi. 29. * We must not imagine, that the
water in baptism operates in the way of a charm, as
the Papists believe of their holy water ; or that the
sacred name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is to be
used as a spell, having no respect to the understanding
of the subject. No ; it is an emblematical preaching
to the judgment of the person baptized, and a com-
fortable pledge to him of the remission of his sins, and
of his fellowship with Christ in his death, burial, and
resurrection, for the strengthening of his faith, the con-
firmation of his hope, and so to influence his love to,
* This Mr. Glas fairly owns, where he says, " For this is the nature
of the ordinances of divine service in the New Testament, that they arc
not complete in the outward and visible action, which is no more but
the mean of engaging us in, or of expressing outwardly, the nature of
the ordinance, which is spiritual and invisible : Thus baptism is not
complete in the washing of the body with water, without the sprinkling
of the heart from an evil conscience, which is the substance of that or-
dinance, as we may see from Peter's words, 1 Pet. iii. 21. — And so
when a believer of the gospel eats of the bread, and drinks of the cup,
without feasting with God, as has been said, upon Christ's sacrifice, we
may say, he did not eat the Lord's Supper." Glas's Works, vol. iv.
p. 174, 175.
300 A Defence of
and obedience of the gospel. Though infants can
reap no benefit by gospel ordinances, of which they
know nothing, yet they are at no loss, since the elect
among them obtain that salvation represented by them,
as well as the adult believer does. Adults have no
ground to glory over infants on account of any thing
they do in the use of these ordinances, for the ordi-
nances themselves hold forth no ground of hope to
them, but what is equally free and efficacious for
the salvation of infants who are incapable of observ-
ing them.
We are charged with laying a self-righteous stress on
the profession of the faith ; but a profession must at
least be so far necessary to baptism, as to satisfy the
baptizer (who cannot search the heart) that the person
is a proper subject of that ordinance. And in this we
agree with Mr. Glas, who says, *' By this profession
ONLY we (who cannot search the hearts of men) are
capable to know the members of Christ in this world ;
— whilst that appearance is to be seen in any person,
there we must see a member of the body of Christ. —
So far then as any continue in the confession of the
word of the truth of the gospel, as it is the word of
God, and as it sanctifies them, distinguishing them
from the world, — so far they are proper objects of that
love which he requires towards the known elect in his
new commandment."* Now, this is the place we
assign to a profession, and is all the stress we lay
upon it with respect to baptism. We find that Philip
demands it of the eunuch to clear his way for bap-
tizing him. Acts viii. 37. and Mr Glas says, that bap-
tism " cannot be administered to any but upon a con-
* Glas's Works, vol. iv. p. 38, 128.
Believers'-Baptism. 801
Session, by which the baptized can be called disciples
according to the scripture." To set aside the pro-
fession of the faith by which alone we can discern who
are disciples (i. e. persons instructed or taught in the
truth, as the word imports) would be to overthrow at
once the whole grounds of separation from the world,
or any method by which it could be effected.
3Ir. Huddleston himself owns, " that a profession of
faith before baptism does not indicate our disaffection
to the salvation represented therein/' * A conde-
scending concession indeed ! How then comes self-
righteousness to be connected with this profession in
the Baptists more than in others? Because, says he,
we " deny that this profession gives our infants the
same appearance of being in a state of salvation, and
the same title to baptism it gives us ; for while this is
the case with us, it is impossible w'e should not have
some self-righteousstress resting upon our profession."f
This is a very strange reason indeed ! He blames us
for laying too much stress upon a profession, yet when
he comes to explain himself, the blame falls on the
opposite side. We hold, that a profession indicates
only the faith or state of the individual person that
makes it, and cannot answer for any other, however
nearly related to him by blood ; whereas Mr. Hud-
dleston thinks that a man's single profession is suf-
ficient to denominate the whole of his house holy and
of the kingdom of heaven, and so subjects of baptism :
Now, I think it requires very little penetration to de-
termine which of us lays the greatest stress upon a
profession. Should a man's bouse, for instance, con-
sist ©f ten persons, our author would lay ten times
• Letteri,p. 39. t Ibid.
802 - A Defence of
more stress upon the parent's profession than we can
admit of. It is certain, the scripture lays more stress
upon Adam's sin, and Christ's obedience, than upon
the sin or obedience of any other individual that ever
existed ; and I leave you to judge, whether he does
not lay something of a similar stress upon the parent's
profession. Does he not make the parent a represen-
tative of his house in the faith and profession of the
gospel, even as Christ is of the whole household of
faith in his finished work ? Yet this is the man that
charges self-righteousness upon those who dare not
in their consciences build such a fabric upon their
profession !
But I cannot think he grounds this charge of self-
righteousness solely upon this foundation. What he
intends to insinuate is, that we deny that infants are
capable of salvation, and his reason for this can be
no other than our denying them to be capable of bap-
tism ; for he does not appear to understand how those
who deny their baptism can believe their salvation.
Hence it is that he puts the question, " Upon what
does the author rest his opinion, that there are elect
infants to obtain this salvation in infancy?"* — Remove
the baptism of infants, and the very basis upon which
he rests his opinion of their election and salvation is
overturned. Deny this, and it appears to him a " de-
nying that any infants can appear from scripture to be
elected to this salvation ."f When we see the author
gravely and earnestly combating his own shadow, in
order to prove, what was never denied, that infants as
well as adults are of the kingdom of heaven, % what
propriety can we see in all this reasoning, if it be not
* Letters, p. 37. t Ibid, p. 37. % Ibid, p. 39.
Believers'-Baptism. 303
his opinion, that to deny the baptism of infants, is the
same as to deny their being of the kingdom of heaven?
Now, if we trace this sentiment to its source, we shall
find it proceeds from his making baptism necessary to
salvation ; for if he cannot see how the salvation of
infants can be held without baptizing them, tlien their
baptism and salvation must be so inseparably con-
nected in his mind, as that a denial of the former, ne-
cessarily implies to him a disbelief of the latter.
This is the only foundation upon which his charge
of self-righteousness can stand consistently. It is in-
deed the old argument upon which infant-baptism was
at first introduced, and upon which the Papists and
many ignorant Protestants hold it to this day ; and
hence we may account for the solicitude of parents to
have their children christened (as they call it) when in
danger of death. Now, if this be not placing salvation
in something else than the thing signified by baptism,
it looks too like it. The author perhaps will be loath
to admit this ; but, (to return him his own words with
a little variation,) " there wants but a suitable occa-
sion, with all his caution, to make this fully manifest.
Men are more ready to place that confidence in bap-
tism which belongs to the thing signified, than directly
to own it ; nay, they show themselves very unwilling
to own it, whilst all their reasoning for infant-baptism,
from first to last, serves to demonstrate it. Let the
pretended friends of divine sovereignty be gravely told,
that their little children maybe members of the kingdom
of heaven, and saved without their faith, and even
without baptism, and it may open a view to the hypo-
crisy of their friendship."
This author asks, " Whether or not does the ap-
pearance of Christ's kingdom in this world include
304 A Defence of
every age, as well as sort of men, that shall obtain sal-
vation through his sufferings, death, and resurrection?''*
To this I answer.
Though all the true subjects of this kingdom appear
at one time or other in this world, (their bodies being
as visible as those of others,) yet they are not all visible
to us in that respect which denominates them Christ's
subjects ; of such are elect infants, who cannot, and
many adults who do not, give proper evidence to us
thereof; so that here is an age, as well as sort of men,
which do not belong to the appearance of Christ's
kingdom in this world, and yet obtain salvation through
his death and resurrection. These we call the unknown
elect, and agree with Mr. Glas in distinguishing the
known elect from them by the profession of the faith.
The appearance of Christ's kingdom in this world in-
cludes no age or sort of men of all the innumerable
company that shall be saved, but such as confess the
faith, and give evidence to their fellow men that they
know the truth. But we cannot say how great a mul-
titude may be saved that are not included in the ap-
pearance of Christ's kingdom in this world, both in-
fants and adults. It is probable the greatest number
of his subjects are not included in that appearance.
He asks further, " upon what we rest our opinion
that there are elect infants, since we do not allow that
they are visible subjects of the new covenant ?"t
Answ. We rest our opinion and firm belief, that
there are elect infants, not upon their being the chil-
dren of believers, nor upon the faith and profession
of their parents, nor upon any passage of scripture
hat inseparably connects the salvation of a man's
* Letters, p. 57. t Ibid, p. Sr.
Believers'' Baptism. 305
house with his own salvation ; but upon the scripture
<loctrine of election itself; which election, the apostle
says, took place before men were born, Rom. ix. 11.
before the foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4. so that
there must be elect infants, else there would be no
elect at all, for all mankind are infants before they
become adults. Election is not influenced by their
having done good or evil, but is according to the
sovereign good pleasure of God's will, who hath mercy
upon whom he will, Rom. ix. 11, 15, 18. and hence we
conclude, that it will stand as firm and sure with re-
gard to that part of the elect who die in infancy as with
respect to those of them who survive the infant state,
and shew their calling and election by their love and
obedience to the truth. But were it our opinion, that
election went upon what distinguishes the adult be-
liever from his infant, or any thing done by man,
(whatever it be,) then we must either deny the salva-
tion of those who die in infancy, or hold with the
Papists, that baptism saves them, or with the author,
that they are saved by the faith of their parents. Our
Lord says expressly of little children, that " of such is
the kingdom of heaven," Mark x.4. This clearly shows,
that there are elect infants ; and, for my own part, I
am much inclined to judge favourably of the state of
all infants dying in infancy.
He observes, that the churches are exhorted to
" bring up their children in the nurture and admoni-
tion of the Lord, Eph. vi. 4. which does not suit with
their being considered out of the Lord" * It is indeed
the indispensable duty of Christian parents to bring up
their children in the nurture and admonition of the
* Letters, p. 31.
30G A Defence of
Lord, i. e. to give them such correction and instruction
as the Lord hath enjoined in his word. They are their
peculiar charge by the very law of nature ; and the
gospel obliges Christian parents to study the good of
their souls as well as of their bodies, to set a godly
example before them, and to instruct them in the doc-
trines of the Christian faith : but how does this duty
of the believing parent prove that his children are in
the Lord, or the proper subjects of baptism ? Were
not the apostles commanded to teach all nations the
doctrine of the Lord ? And did this not suit with the
nations being considered out of the Lord ? Is a parent
free from all obligations of duty to his children, unless
he can consider them as saved ? The apostle ad-
dressing those who were married to unbelievers, says,
" What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save
thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, whether
thou shalt save thy wife ?" 1 Cor. vii. 16. even so it
may be said in this case. What knowest thou, O pa-
rent, whether thou shalt save thy child 1 When this
appears to be the case by the profession of their faith,
then must they be considered as in the Lord ; then
may they be baptized, but not before.
But Eph. vi. 4. is foreign to the point, for it speaks
not of infant children, but of such as are capable of
admonition : the word vakjitx signifies to fix instruction
upon their minds. In ver. 1. these children are ex-
horted to obey their parents in the Lord ; and in ver. 4.
fathers are forbid to provoke their children to wrath,
but to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord ; so that here are exhortations to the mutual
duties of parents and children, even as of husbands
and wives, masters and servants, &c. which shows that
the children here intended are nok mere infants, but
Believers' -Baptism. 307
believing children, visible members of the churches,
capable of receiving and obeying the word of ex-
hortation, which he enforces by its being the first com-
mandment with promise, ver. 2, 3. and a duty well
pleasing to the Lord, Col. iii. 20. As to the expression
in the Lord, it does not intimate any pecw/iar spiritual
connection betwixt a parent and his children : Chris-
tians are exhorted to marry only in the Lord, 1 Cor.
vii. 39. wives to submit to their own husbands in the
Lord, Col. iii. 18. This phrase signifies, either that
they should obey their believing parents who are in
the Lord, and so it is an additional motive of obedi-
ence ; or, that they should obey in the Lord their pa-
rents, i. e. in the fear of the Lord, manifesting their
subjection to him in so doing, and then it agrees with
the exhortation to servants, Col. iii. 22, 23. Eph. vi. 5,
6, 7, 8.
The argument from circumcision seems to be almost
given up by the Scots Independents. The anonymous
writer of the Remarks, has not so much as mentioned
it, and Mr. Huddleston has sapped the very foundation
of it, where he says, " The promise which is to be-
lievers and their children, belongs to the covenant
made after those days ; and it was never said to Abra-
ham, thou shalt be saved and thy house." * Here he
fairly owns, that the covenant of circumcision made
with Abraham, was not the same with the new cove-
nant to which baptism belongs, and consequently he
cannot argue from the circumcision of infants under
the former, for the baptism of such under the latter.
But whilst he distinguishes the covenants, he confounds
the distinction of the seeds, and so makes baptism to
* Letters, p. 6.?.
X2
308 A Defence of
belong to the natural seed of believers, even as circum-
cision belonged to the fleshly seed of Abraham. " As
to what is observed (says he) of natural and spiritual,
parents and children are alike, both natural and both
spiritual.* — The fleshly seed of New Testament be-
lievers are really the spiritual seed of Abraham." f
AA'hen we remind him, that the spiritual seed, or sons
of God, under the New Testament, are described as
" born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor
of the will of man, but of God," John i. 12, 13. — that
" the children of the flesh are not the children of God,
but the children of the promise are counted for the
seed — even the called, not of the Jews only, but also
of the Gentiles," Rom. ix. 3, 24 — that therefore we
cannot henceforth know any man after the flesh, or by
bis descent from religious ancestors, as in the Jewish
church, but " that if any man be in Christ Jesus he is
a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17. to these, and such
passages, he replies. Will the infants of believers being
born of the flesh, prevent their being typified by
Isiaelitish infants? Could these infants typify any other
sort of persons but what are born of the flesh? — I
suppose believers are the same way born of the flesh
that their infants are, were they not therefore typified
by Abraham's fleshly seed?"! This approaches very
near to a burlesque of these passages.
But the Holy Ghost, in denying that the spiritual
seed are the children of the flesh, or born of blood, &c.
does not mean that they come into the world in a dif-
ferent way from others, or that they are without natural
parents ; but the meaning is, that their natural birth,
he it of whom it may, can neither constitute them the
* Letters, p. 45. t Ibid, p. 73. t Ibid, p. 73.
Believers -Baptism. 309
spiritual seed, nor distinguish them as such to us.
The covenant of circumcision was made with the
fleshly seed of Abraham, and so their natural birth, by
which they descended from him, sufficiently distin-
guished them in infancy as the subjects of circumcision ;
but the new covenant to whicli baptism belongs, re-
spects only the spiritual seed who are born again;
and as these arc not known to us till they profess the
faith, it is demonstrably clear that they cannot be bap-
tized in infancy. Thus stands the argument from cir-
cumcision, which, with the distinction of the covenants,
I have fully handled in my seventh Letter to Mr. Glas.
Nothing can be more agreeable to scripture than
what Mr. Glas advances upon the distinction of the
fleshly and spiritual seed, throughout the greatest part
of his writings. The whole of his excellent treatise
on the kingdom of Christ as not of this world, is
founded upon that distinction. There he tells us, that
" the earthly birth, or that birth after the flesh, availed
much in the state of the church erected at Sinai, as to
the enjoyment of the privileges of it. But now, our Lord
says to Nicodemus, Except a man be born again, (or
from above,) he cannot see the kingdom of God." &c. *
Would not any one think, that he here sets aside the
fleshly birth, or connection with believing parents,
as of no account in the kingdom of Christ? But it
seems he meant no such thing ; for, by his rule of dis-
tinguishing the infant subjects of the kingdom of
heaven, he gives as much place to the fleshly birth, as
ever it had in the Jewish church, and so builds again
the things which he destroyed.
But if his adherents will still maintain, that he
keeps this distinction clear and consistent,' I should be
• Glas's Works, vol. i. p. 53.
310 A Defence of
glad to be informed wherein it lies. The distinction
does not lie in this, that the holiness of believers' chil-
dren comes not by natural generation ; for neither did
that of old Israel come by natural generation, but by a
covenant separating them and Iheir seed to be a pe-
culiar people to the Lord : — Nor does it lie in this, that
the word of God declares the infants of believers holy ;
for so does it declare those of old Israel: — Neither
does the distinction lie in this, that the fleshly birth
does not entitle to the spiritual privileges of Christ's
kingdom; for neither did it entitle to the temporal pri-
vileges of the earthly kingdom. Old Israel obtained
the earthly inheritance by the covenant made with their
father Abraham, Gen. xv. 18. abstract from this, they
had no claim to it upon the footing of their birth or righ-
teousness more than any other people, Deut. ix, 4, 5, 6.
Wherein, then, did the fleshly birth avail more for-
merly than it does now ? or what is the foundation of
the above distinction ? If his arguments for infant
pouring (so he leads us to call it) hold good, it unde-
niably follows, that the earthly birth, or that birth after
the flesh, avails more in the kingdom of God, than ever
it did in the state of the church erected at Sinai ; for
then it could only distinguish the fleshly seed of Abra-
ham, who w^ere typically holy, and entitled to the tam-
poral privileges of the earthly kingdom; whereas,
under the gospel, he makes it to distinguish the spiri-
tual seed of Christ, who are truly holy, and entitled to
the spiritual and everlasting privileges of the kingdom
of heaven.
I shall conclude these miscellaneous observations
with a word or two upon Dr. Stuart's Sermon on the
Kingdom of Christ. * Speaking of the distinction of
* When the author wrote this, Dr. Stuart w^s not a Baptist, but he
became one soon after.
Believers'-Baptism. 311
Christ's subjects from the world, he says, " They are
such as know tlie Father as he hath discovered him ;
— receive and are firmly persuaded of the divine au-
thority in Christ's words;— are brought into a de-
lightful and complacential union with one another ; —
are preserved in this, and in union with God, by the
words of Jesus ; — through these too partake of his in-
effable joy." * Distinguishing thera from the subjects
of the earthly kingdom by the nature of their birth, he
says, that John gives an account of the way that sub-
jects were born to God under the law, John i.lO — 14.
but that the new and heavenly birth by which men
enter into the kingdom of God, is set forth in Christ's
discourse with Nicodemus, chap. iii. 1 — 6. f He dis-
tinguishes also their holiness : " Israel indeed was a
holy nation ; but the national holiness of Israel was
only outward^ and typical. They were a holy people
by virtue of their descent from the sons of Jacob, and
by virtue of their observation of the covenant made
with them at Sinai. But the holiness of Christ's
kingdom is the substance of this. All his subjects are
really and internally, as well as outwardly holy." J
He denies that they can be distinguished without
charity : " Outward appearances, which fall short of
proving persons possessed of charity, shall no more
mark them out, as once, the subjects of the kingdom
of God." § He rejects the distinction between the sub-
jects of Christ's kingdom as it appears in this world,
and the spiritually holy nation of them that are saved,
as a distinction only suited to a national church. " The
apostles describe the kingdom of Christ by names, pri-
vileges and characters, which do not belong, nay, are
* Page 4. t Page 8. note. t Ibid. § Page 5.
312 A Defence of
opposite to these which belong to the kingdoms of tTris
world. They write to every particular congregation
or church, and q/'them, as consisting of these, all of
whom without exception they judged to be the children
of God, chosen, redeemed, called, and separated from
the world. — None, it is evident, were Christians in the
sight or opinions of the apostles, who they were not
bound to think, and did not think. Christians in God's
sight."*
I confess I was much edified and delighted w ith his
description of Christ's subjects, and my heart warmed
in love to the author for the truth's sake, which he so
clearly and boldly maintains through the most of that
Sermon. But how great was my disappointment when
I advanced to page 43, and found him distinguishing
the subjects of Christ's kingdom by characters very
different from the above ! No sooner does he turn his
thoughts to infant-baptism, than his views of the
kingdom are immediately corrupted, and losing sight
of the grand hinge of the difference, he descends into
mere trifling with the national church about sponsors,
bastards, and foundlings ; as if the distinction between
Christ's subjects and the world stood in the faith of
their parents, or the legitimacy of their carnal birth-
Alas, what a falling oif is here !
He cannot admit of sponsors, " because all the lines
of argument in favour of infant-baptism issue from the
faith of the parent as their centre ; but this device sup-
* Page 8, 9. His brother, the anonymous Remarker on Scripture
Texts, is, however of a very different opinion, and charges tliose who
hold tlie above sentiment witii " deceiving the hearts of those who
believe without proper evidence, and blinding the minds of those who
receive not the simple sayings of the Son of God." But perhaps this is
one of the things on which they have agreed lu differ.
Believers' 'Baptism. 318
poses the contrary, at least its doubtfulness." * Yet
the device of sponsors is far more ancient than the de-
vice of the parent's faith, though both of tlicm are de-
vices equally void of foundation in the word of God,
as marking the baptized with the sign of the cross,
and giving them a mixture of milk and honey, a
practice at least full as ancient as infant-baptism.
After all, what is the parent in this case but a sponsor
for his child in the strictest sense of the word ? Are
the subjects of the kingdom of heaven then to be dis-
tinguished by the faith of proxies? Does this distinc-
tion correspond with any of the above? Or rather,
does it not overthrow them, and make all that has been
said upon the subject much ado about nothing?
Again, if infant-baptism rest entirely on the faith of
the parent, then neither he nor his brethren can be
sure they have obtained Christian baptism, unless they
know their parents were believers.
As to bastards cind foundlings, where do we find the
New Testament distinguishing the subjects of baptism
from these ? Does the legitimacy or illegitimacy of
the carnal birth make any difference in the kingdom
of Christ? The Jews indeed claimed a relation to
God as his children, from their being Abraham's seed,
and not born of fornication, like the unlawful issue of
idolaters; but our Lord repels their claim upon that
footing, and gives them to understand, that unless they
believed, continued in his word, loved him and did th&
works of Abraham, neither the faith of Abraham their
father, (however distinguished,) nor the legitimacy of
their carnal birth as descended from him, could avail
♦ Page 43. note.
314 A Defence of
them any thing, as to the enjoyment of (he privileges
of his kingdom, John viii. 31 — 48.
Upon the whole, we may affirm, that no man can
hold the distinction of the kingdom of Christ from the
Jewish theocracy and kingdoms of this world, in any
consistency with the arguments for infant-baptism.
This point, however trivial it may appear to some, is
of such a nature as to affect all our ideas of that dis-
tinction, and leaven the whole. For, if we once admit
the notion, that the subjects which compose this
kingdom, may be known or distinguished by any thing,
be it what it will, which comes short of their mani-
festing their being of the truth, believing it, loving it,
hearing Christ's voice, and following him, this single
sentiment, if followed out, will infallibly lead us to
blend the kingdom of Christ with the world, even in
its visible appearance, and make all we advance to the
contrary a jumble of inconsistencies.
STRICTURES
ON
In a Letter to Mr. Richards, of Lynn.
DEAR SIR,
In Mr. Carter's Remarks on your Observations on
Infant-sprinkling, I find very little argument. Others^
however, may be of a very diflferent opinion; and
hence it may be proper to say something by way of
reply. Neither my time at present, nor the bounds of a
single sheet, will permit me to enter fully into the sub-
ject ; and there is the less occasion, as you inform me
that you intend to publish. His
Letter I. is taken up with his own vindication.
I hope you will do him all manner of justice. In
Letter II. He still contends that the words bapto
and baptizo signify any mode of washing, particularly
sprinkling and pouring, but he has not produced one
passage where they must necessarily be so understood.
Neither Mark vii. 4. nor Luke xi. 38. mention what he
calls unbaptized hands. There is no such expression
in all the scriptures, that I know of; and though there
were, it would not favour either sprinkling or pouring,
for hands are not ordinarily washed in such ways.
He surely knows that nipto is the word for washing
hands, Mark vii. 2, 3. and that the baptism, ver. 4. is
such as was performed on cups, brazen vessels, tables
or beds, which is expressed. Lev. xi. 32. by putting
them into water. Though the Jews held things un-
clean which really were not so, yet they are not
blamed for using a different mode of cleansing from
316 iSliictuyes on
that prescribed in tlie law for things ceremonially pol-
luted. The divers baptisms mentioned Heb. ix. 10.
must signify the divers bathings prescribed both to
priests and unclean persons, on diflfercnt occasions;
because the apostle distinguishes sprinkling from
these baptisms by another word, ver. 13. and the law
distinguishes dipping, sprinkling, and pouring, as
three different actions. Lev. iv. 6, 7.— If the law does not
command one man to take another and plunge him under
water, must it follow that Christ does not command
one man thus to baptize another ? — I know not where
he finds the scripture using the (derivative) word bap-
tizo, " when only part of the body was washed." If
you do, pray dash out this, and conceal my ignorance.
The primitive bapto is indeed used to express the
dipping (not the washing) of a finger, Luke xvi. 24.
and an hand, ^Matth. xxvi. 23. but these may be as
effectually dipped as the whole body. In
Letter III. He insists that the promise Acts ii. 38,
39. is the promise made to Abraham, because the
Apostle mentions that promise on another occasion,
chap. iii. 19 — 25. (strange logic indeed !)— and because
the blessing of Abraham includes the promise of the
Spirit, Gal. iii. 14. as if that was the only promise of
the Spirit which Peter could refer to in Acts ii. ! Yet
Peter speaks not a word of the promise made to Abra-
ham in the whole of that discourse, but cites at large
the promise of the Spirit from Joel — .shews its beguu
accomplishment in what was then seen and heard, and
applies it to the Jews nearly in the very words of that
Prophet — corap. ver. 39. with Joel ii. 32. — By the
children he understands infants, but neither the pro-
mise to Abraham, nor that in Joel, speak of infants.
*' They which are of faith, the same are the childrep
Mr, Carte/s Remarks. 317
of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. *' They which be of faith are
blessed with faithful Abraham," ver. 9. And they " re-
ceive the promise of the Spirit through faith," or be-
lieving, ver. 14. In Joel there is no mention made of
any children but the .sons and daughters, who should
prophesy upon receiving the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit ; and these are evidently the children the
apostle speaks of— By " all that are afar off," he un-
derstands Gentiles. But whether Peter by that ex-
pression intends Gentiles (which, from many considera-
tions, is not likely,) or only dispersed Jews, it makes all
one as to the argument, since he restricts the promise
to those only whom the Lord shall call ; and none can
appear to us the called of the Lord, but such as com-
ply with his call to faith and repentance. Nor do we
read of any, who were baptized on that occasion, but
such as gladly received Peter's word, ver. 41. He says.
Letter IV. " The apostle's words (1 Cor. vii. 14.)
plainly imply, that in consequence of one of the pa-
rents professing the Christian faith, their children are
holy ; whereas if both were unbelieving their children
would be unclean." But his words imply no such thing.
The apostle says nothing of the lawful children of two
unbelieving parents, nor does he give the least hint
that such are unclean. Neither does he make the holi-
ness of the children u consequence of one of the parents
professing the Christian fiiith ; but of the unbelieving
parent being sanctified. " The unbelieving wife (says
he) is sanctified by the husband ; else were your chil-
dren unclean ; but now" (since the unbelieving party
is sanctified) " are they holy." Now what kind of holi-
ness is it, that thus depends upon the holiness of an un-
believer ; "Not an holiness of nature, (says Mr. Carter)
but sui holiness in themselves^ i.e. an holiness of state
318 Striclures on
derived to them from the believing parent's covenant,
or that new covenant in which the believing parent is
interested ; and therefore a further holiness than that
of the unbelieving parent."
But where does the apostle thus distinguish the
holiness of the children from that of the unbelieving
parent ? If the children's holiness is derived from the
believing parent's covenant, the holiness of the un-
believer must be more immediately so ; because it is
the medium through which the holiness of the children
is derived, and without which they would be unclean,
" else were your children unclean ;" and therefore the
children's holiness cannot be a further holiness than
that of the unbelieving parent through which it comes,
but must of necessity be of the very same kind ; for
new covenant holiness can never depend in any sense
upon the sanctification of an unbeliever ; nor does it
depend upon the sanctification of the believing parent
himself, nor even upon the legitimacy of the natural
birth. The bastard children of unbelievers may have
new covenant holiness, and the legitimate children of
believers may want it.
I do not say that the holiness of the children is
originally derived from the holiness of the unbelieving
parent. The holiness of both is originally derived
from the ordinance of God, making the one a lawful
wife to the believer, and consequently the other a law-
ful issue, which was not the case under that law
whereby old Israel were separated from the nations.
This is the only sense which suits the apostle's argu-
ment, and the scruples of the believing Corinthians.
Mr. Carter's account of the children's holiness agrees
neither with the holiness of the old nor new covenant,
but i« only a piece of corrupted Judaism. I must not
Mr. Carter's Remarks. 319
stay however to examine it. He says, " Tlie state of
the unbelieving parent neither is nor can be declared
holy;" yet the apostle declares that the unbelieving
wife (vyiarai) is made holy ; must she not therefore be
holy ? and what more is declared of the children ?
Goodwin's remark upon the use of hagia instead of
kathara is mere trifling. His
Letter V. begins with the argument from Mark x.
13, 14. Where I find nothing worth noticing except
the following quotation. — " B-y such we must under-
stand little ones properly so called." — Granted— "but
not all such, since the persons who brought these in-
fants or little ones to Christ, were without doubt his
followerSy or such as had an high veneration for him —
they were Jews, not heathens," &c. All this may be
very true, for any thing I know ; but where do we learn
that (juv TcisTOJv) of such, has any the least reference
(tojj Tr^oa-tps^Haiv) to those who brought them? The >\ords
are not, of the children of such, as brought them ; but
of such (ttmoiuv,) little children is the kingdom of God ;
I. e. the kingdom of God includes such young subjects
as these. Here is no distinguishing of children by the
character of their parents. Nor does this passage
afford the least warrant for baptizing them, but the
contrary. They were not brought to be baptized.
Jesus himself did not baptize them, for he baptized
none, John iv. 2. Xor did he command his disciples
to do it ; nor would they have forbidden infants to
have been brought unto him had they been accustomed
to baptize such.— The kingdom of God here evidently
means his invisible kingdom, for it is such as none can
enter, but those who receive it as little children, ver. 15.
©rare converted and become as little children, Matth.
xviii. 3. Whereas many enter his visible kingdom whw
320 Strictures on
arc not really converted, Mattli. xxv. 1 — 13. Yet to
this lust only does baptism belong, for tills good rea-
son, because it is not administered by Clirist himself,
who knov/s whom he hath chosen, but by fallible men,
who can judge only by outward appearance.
It is of little consequence whether we grant baptism
to have come in place of circumcision or not, provided
we keep clear the distinction between the children of
the flesh and the children of the promise, which dis-
tinction runs through the whole New Testament, and
is particularly stated Rom. ix. and Gal. iii. and iv.
This distinction cuts down at once all the arguments
from circumcision. AYith this scripture distinction in
onr eye, we may freely admit, that as circumcision be-
longed to all the fleshly seed of Abraham under the old
covenant, who were known to be such by their natural
birth ; so does baptism belong to all the spiritual seed
of Abraham under the new covenant, when they appear
to be such by the confession of their faith in Christ.
Mr. Carter endeavours to confound this distinction ;
" WTiere (says he) does the Holy Ghost apply the term
carnal seed to the infants of believers ? Is not carnal
always used to denote the character of adults who live
according to the desire of the flesh, and of the mind ?
This distinction therefore, the carnal and spiritual
seed of Christians, is totally without foundation."
p. 48, 51. — The term carnalis frequently applied to
things as well as persons; see Rom. xv. 27. 1 Cor. ix. 11.
2 Cor. iii. 3. Heb. vii. 16. and ix. 10. When applied
to adults, it generally marks something bad in their
character or conduct, but not always to that extent he
mentions ; for it is applied to Christians, 1 Cor. iii. 1,
3, 4. But the expression he excepts to is carnal seed;
and where does he find this used to denote the character
Mr. Carters Remarks. 321
of adults in distinction from that of infants ? Were
there none of believing Abraham's children a carnal
seed in their infancy ? How then were they *' the
children of the flesh," Rom. ix. 8. ''born after the
flesh," Gal. iv. 23 ? But he has mistaken us altogether ;
for we do not divide the infant offspring of Christians
into their carnal and spiritual seed. We affirm that,
as the seed of Christians, they are all carnal, because
in this respect Christians are only the fathers of their
flesh, or carnal part, in distinction from God the father
of spirits, Heb. xii. 9. " That which is born of the
flesh is flesh," or carnal, let it spring of whom it may,
John iii. 6. Further, we affirm, that the infants of
Christians are, in their first birth, " Shapen in iniquity
and conceived in sin," Psal. li. 5. and are "by nature
the children of wrath even as others," Eph. ii. 3. The
first state even of the children of God is carnal, and
this commences with their very existence, and con-
tinues till they are changed. In both these senses
they may very properly be called their carnal seed.
But it is quite improper to call the believing children
of Christians their spiritual seed ; for, as believers, they
are the children of God, Gal. iii. 26 — the seed of
Abraham, ver. 29. — the children of J erusalem which is
from above, the free woman, chap. iv. 26, 31. And, in
this respect, not the children, but brethren of their be-
lieving parents. — Indeed, if the parents are instrumental
in begetting them to the faith, they may in that sense
be called their children, as Timothy was Paul's son,
1 Tim. i. 2. and the Galatians his little children.
Gal. iv. 19. But this relation is not peculiar to parent
and child, nor can it take place in mere infancy;
besides, the children may sometimes be instrumental
in converting, their parents.
Y
328 Strictures on
Letter VI. Contains some testimonies from the
ancients ; but as he " cannot feel himself in the least
moved by the authority of such ancients to believe
thatmmemoM was the practice of the apostles of Christ,
who enjoined the churches to do all things decently,"
p. 17. he cannot with any good grace urge their au-
thority upon us for Infant Sprinkling, contrary to the
commission and uniform practice of the apostles, sup-
posing there were any such authority to produce before
the latter end of the second century, which I believe
there is not. I shall therefore proceed to
Letter VII. Wherein he handles the Argument from
the baptism of whole houses. In reply to the quota-
tions from my pamphlet, he charges me with " begging
the question, or taking for granted the point in de-
bate," p. 72.
In answer to this charge I shall state the question,
and see which of us has begged it. The question or
point in debate, if I mistake not, is this, Whether
there were any infants baptized in those houses ? I
denied there were — 1. Because in all the accounts of
those houses, there is not a word said of infants or of
their baptism ; for this I referred to the passages them-
selves.— 2. Because it is aflSrmed of a// that were bap-
tized in those houses, that they believed, rejoiced, 5fc.
This also I rested upon the authority of these accounts,
which was the best I could produce. I know nothing,
therefore, which I have taken for granted, except it be
this, that infants cannot be said to believe, rejoice, ijc.
and for this I shall only appeal to common sense. —
It might reasonably be expected that the Pcedobap-
tists, however firmly persuaded of their favourite point
upon other grounds, would candidly give up those
houses as unserviceable to their cause ; but instead of
Mr. Carters Remarks. 303
this they, with much confidence, heg one question after
another in every step of the argument. — 1. They beg
leave to assert that there were infants in those houses ;
and — 2. Tliey heg also to be excused from proving it,
thinking they have sutficiently acquitted themselves
when they put it upon us to prove the negative. Should
we tell them there are many houses without infants,
and that therefore their assertion is at best but uncer-
tain— Should we come a little closer to the point, and
remind them, that the scripture informs us all in those
houses heard the word and believed, which infants
were not capable of, and that therefore their assertion
is evidently false ; they will then— 3. Beg to have it
granted, that it was only the parent, not the house,
that believed and rejoiced ; or, if that will not do, that
the word all signifies only the adult part of a house,
and that the other part consisted of infants. Should
we, for argument's sake, grant them the unscriptural
supposition, that there were infants in those houses,
they have still — 4 To beg the question as to their
baptism. How so ? Is it not said expressly, that all
in those houses were baptized ? True ; but they have
already begged that the word all might signify only a
FART, i. e. the adult part of a house, therefore it can
conclude for the baptism of none else ; so that to make
out the baptism of these imaginary infants, they are
obliged to reverse their former petition, and to beg
they may be comprehended in the word all, from
which they had before begged to exclude them. In
short, when all in a house are said to believe, they re-
strict it to adults ; but when all in the same passage,
and in the very same house, are said to be baptized,
they extend it to infants : Why ? Because they take
it for granted that there were infants in those houses,
Y2
324 Strictutes on Mr. Carter's Remarks.
and that they were proper subjects of baptism, which
is the very point in debate. 1 am afraid there is some-
thing worse than begging the question in this manner
of arguing. It looks too like handling the word of
God deceitfully. Mr. Carter's question, (p. 72) must
be answered by him and his friends — we have nothing
to do with it. I shall put it with a very little variation,
and let him answer it if he can : " By what rules of
just and fair interpretation can" the Poedobaptists
" prove that the same mode of expression which" they
explain in one sense, when used of a house believing
and rejoicing, " must be understood in a different point
of view, when applied" to the same house baptized?
If in the former" case " it can be referred only to"
adults, " why, in the latter, must it be stretched any
farther ?"
I am.
Dear Sir,
Yours, with all due respect
Edinburgh,
March 27, 1783.
A
LETTER TO A CORRESPONDENT ;
SHEWING
That all the Arguments for Infant-Baptism are ren-
dered null by Pcedobaptists themselves ; and that
there can be no positive divine institution without
EXPRESS SCRIPTURE PRECEPT OF EXAMPLE.
SIR,
Though you admit that the Scriptures clearly sup-
port our sentiments respecting the baptism of believers,
as it is evident that those who were at first baptized
must have been adult proselytes from Judaism or
heathenism to the Christian faith ; yet still it is your
opinion, that the baptism of their infants, though not
expressly mentioned, is a thing very probable : and
you think that the arguments which have been advanced
for infant-baptism, by such a vast number of the most
judicious, learned, and pious writers, if they do not
altogether convince us, should at least make us less
confident in our opposition to that practice.
I am not in the least disposed to dispute either the
learning or piety of those who have appeared as ad-
Tocates for infant-baptism ; and could I believe that it
is a question of such an intricate nature as to require
profound learning or distinguished abilities to determine
it, I should certainly be very diffident of my own
judgment. But if infant-baptism be really a positive
institution of Christ, it can require no such singular
qualifications to discern it ; and if it is not, then all
the learning and reasoning in the world, however in-
genious, can never convert it into one.
326 Examination of the Arguments
It is very remarkable, that though Pcedobaptists of
all denominations agree in the general conclusion, viz.
that infants ought to be baptized, or, at least, that
there is no harm in it ; yet they are far from being
agreed as to the premises from whence they infer that
conclusion ; for there is scarcely an argument which
has been urged by any of them in support of it, but
what has been contradicted by others of them, or con-
sidered as inconclusive and foreign to the point : if
you doubt the truth of this you may attend to the fol-
lowing particulars.
1. The Poedobaptists differ widely among themselves
about the grounds of the right which infants have to
baptism. Some found it upon the universality of di-
vine grace : others, upon the commission to disciple
all nations. But many reject these gTounds, and place
it upon the law of circumcision, Avhich they think war-
rants the baptism of the infant seed of New Testament
believers. Others doubt this, and affirm that it comes
in place, or is rather a continuation of Jewish proselyte
baptism ; while others deny that there was any such
baptism previous to the Christian asra. Some ground
it upon the entail of the covenant of grace on the na-
tural seed of believers, at least during their infancy,
and which gives them a right to baptism as being born
holy and members of the true church for which Christ
gave himself. Others deny this, and affirm, that it is
by baptism they are brought into the bond of the cove-
nant of grace, and constituted members of the true
church. — Some place the right of infants to baptism
on the engagement of a surety or sponsor, and many
on the faith of the immediate parents, or, if these last
happen to be ungodly, on the piety of their more re-
mote ancestors, which they think conveys the right to
respecting Infant-Baptism. 327
several succeeding generations ; but how far this ex-
tends they are not yet agreed. Others deny any right
derived from parents or ancestors, and place it on the
faith and consent of the church, and some even on
the authority of the Christian magistrate over his sub-
jects. There are numbers who ground it on the sup-
posed faith of the infant itself, which they presume it
possesses in the seed, though not in the fruit ; and Lu-
ther owns, " that little children should not be baptized
at all, if it be true that in baptism they do not believe."
Those who adopt this opinion seem to give up every
other ground for infant-baptism, for they admit that
nothing solid can be replied to the Baptists, without
maintaining either that infants have faith before bap-
tism, or that, in baptism, they are regenerated and be-
lieve. In short, the various grounds upon which the
right of infants to baptism has been placed, are not
only contradictory in their own nature, but have
actually been contradicted by Poedobaptists them-
selves, one class of them overturning the hypothesis of
another.
II. The Poedobaptists are not agreed as to the
sense of the scripture passages from which infant-bap-
tism is inferred, nor as to the justness of the inferences
or conclusions drawn from them. I shall take notice
of those passages on which the main stress is laid.
Gen. xvii. 7. " I will establish my covenant between
me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their ge-
nerations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God
unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Many Poedo-
baptists, not understanding that this covenant with
Abraham had a twofold sense; one literal and tem-
poral, relating to his natural seed ; the other spiritual
and eternal, respecting his spiritual seed, have applied
328 Examination of the Arguments
it indiscriminately to the natural seed of New Testa'
ment believers. But others of them admit this distinc-
tion, and maintain, that, so far as this was a promise
of spiritual blessings, it did not respect the natural
seed of Abraham as such, but only his spiritual seed,
by faith ; that in this view only does it include be-
lieving Gentiles, Gal. iii. 2G, '28, 29. but not the natural
seed, of any as such, Matth. iii. 9. Rom. ix. 8. 2 Cor.
V. 16, 17. See Zanchius, De nat. Dei, L. iv. c. v. § 5.
Mr. Baxter's Disputat. of right to Sacram. p. 114,116.
Assem. of Divines' Annotat. on Rom, ix. 8. Beza's
Annotat. on Gal. iv. 24. Venema, Dissertat. SacrcB,
L. ii. c. ix. L. iii. c. ii. Mr. Williams's Notes on
Morrice's Social Religion, p. 312—317.
Gen. xvii. 12. ** And he that is eight days old shall
be circumcised among you, every man-child in your
generations," &c. From this command to circumcise
the infant male seed of Abraham, it is commonly
argued, that the natural seed of believers should be
baptized in infancy. But many Poedobaptists do not
consider this argument as conclusive ; Lord Brooke
says, " The analogy which baptism now hath with cir-
cumcision in the old law, is a fine rhetorical argument
to illustrate a point well proved before ; but I some-
what doubt whether it be proof enough for that which
some would prove by it ; since besides the vast differ-
ences in the ordinances, the persons to be circumcised
are stated by a positive law so express, that it leaves
no place for scruple. But it is far otherwise in bap-
tism, where all the designation of persons fit to be par-
takers, for aught I know, is only such as believe. For
this is the qualification that, with exactest search,
I find the scripture requires in persons to be baptized ;
and this it seems to require in all such persons. Now,
respecting Infant- Baptism. 829
how infants can be said to believe, I am not yet fully
resolved." Discourse of Epis. Sect. ii. chap. vii. p. 97.
Venema, having observed that it is a received hypo-
thesis that baptism succeeded in the place of circum-
cision, says, " But what then ? Must I therefore allow,
or does it thence follow, that the design and the end
of baptism, and of circumcision, were the same?
Certainly by no means. For according to the dif-
ferent nature of the economies, there ought to be a
different aspect of the sacraments, and a different end.
— Circumcision, according to a twofold covenant,
internal and external, which then existed, had likewise
a twofold aspect, spiritual and carnal. The former re-
ferred to the internal covenant of grace ; the latter to
a legal, typical, and external covenant. That was
concerned in sealing the righteousness of faith, as the
apostle asserts (Rom. iv. 11.); this in the external pre-
rogatives of Judaism, and in confirming external be-
nefits. That was peculiar to the believing Israelites;
this was common to the whole people. — This twofold
and different aspect of circumcision being supposed
and admitted, the wholo question will be, Whether
baptism answers to both, or only to one of those dif-
ferent appearances ? Whether it succeeds to circum-
cision absolutely and in all respects, or in a restricted
sense, and in some only 1 Which controversy cannot
be determined, but from a comparison of both econo-
mies, a contemplation on the nature of each sacra-
ment, and indeed the clear doctrine of scripture.'*
And having observed, that the scripture no where
affirms that baptism holds the place of circumcision,
and that Paul in Col. ii. 11, 12. only asserts that bap-
tism answers to spiritual circumcision, he proceeds
thus ; " and seeing I perceive none [no reason] pro-
330 Examination of the Arguments
duccd for a perfect similitude, it is my intention to es-
tablish an imperfect likeness, in order to make it
appear that baptism succeeded circumcision, not ac-
cording to an external, but only an internal and mys-
tical consideration. The genius of the new economy
affords the first and the clearest reason ; seeing a sa-
crament of it cannot be foreign from its nature. Now
that is spiritual, abhorrent of an external covenant, as
I have endeavoured to demonstrate; wherefore it
answers only to the spiritual part of the old economy."
From these considerations he concludes, that " to
settle the external aspect and end of baptism, a com-
parison of it with circumcision avails nothing at all."
He also observes, that " our sacraments do not
belong to any external covenant, as under the former
dispensations ; but to the internal covenant of grace :
which positive institutes no one can rightly or lawfully
use, besides a true believer, who is internally a cove-
nantee." Dissertat. Sacrce. L. ii. c. xv. See also Dr.
Erskine's Theolog. Dissertat. p. 78, 79, 80.
Matth. xxviii. 19. " Go ye therefore and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" &c. Many of the
Poedobaptists contend that infants are included in this
commission ; that the word fxaQrneuffaTt, signifies to
make disciples, and that infants are to be made disci-
ples by baptism, and to be taught afterwards. But a
great many of the most learned and judicious Poedo-
baptist writers reprobate this gloss ; I shall instance
only in three of them. Mr. Baxter says, " As for
those that say they are discipled by baptizing, and not
before baptizing, they speak not the sense of that text;
nor that which is true or rational, if they mean it abso-
lutely as so spoken; else why should one be baptized
respecting Infant- Baptism. 331
more than another ? — This is not like some occasional
historical mention of baptism, but it is the very com-
mission of Christ to his apostles for preaching and bap-
tizing, and purposely expresseth their several works,
in their several places and order. Their first task is
by teaching to make disciples, which are by Mark
called believers : The second work is to baptize them,
whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation:
The third work is to teach them all other things which
are afterwards to be learned in the school of Christ.
To contemn this order, is to renounce all rules of
order; for where can we expect to find it if not
here ? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from
this text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that
must go before baptism, and the profession whereof
the minister must expect," Disputat, of Right to Sacr.
p. 91, 149, 150.
Dr. RiDGLEY, having cited the words of the com-
mission, says, " I am sensible that some who have de-
fended infant-baptism, or rather attempted to answer
an objection taken from this and such like scriptures
against it, have endeavoured to prove that the Greek
word signifies to make persons disciples — and therefore
they suppose that we are made disciples by baptism,
and afterwards to be taught to observe all things
whatsoever Christ hath commanded. — But I cannot
think this sense of the word so defensible or agreeable
to the design of our Saviour, as that of our translation,
viz. Go teach all nations; which agrees with the
words of the other Evangelist, Go preach the gospel
to every creature. And besides, while we have
recourse to this sense to defend infant-baptism, we do
not rightly consider, that this cannot well be applied
to adult baptism, which the apostles were first to
332 Examination of the Arguments
practise : for it cannot be said concerning the heathen,
that they are first to be taken under Christ's care by
baptism, and then instructed in the doctrines of the
gospel by his ministers." Body of Div. Quest. 166.
Dr. Whitby thus comments upon this passage,
" Teach alt nations. MaSr^TtuBiv here is to preach the
gospel to all nations, and to engage them to believe
it in order to their profession of that faith by baptism ;
as seems apparent. — 1. From the parallel commission,
Mark xvi. 15. Go preach the gospel to every creature ;
he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. —
2. From the scripture notion of a disciple, that being
still the same as a believer. — If here it should be said,
that I yield too much to the Antipoedobaptists — I
desire any one to tell me how the apostles could,
fxaBr^TEveiv, make a disciple of an heathen, or unbe-
lieving Jew, without being (xahToi, or teachers of them 1
whether they were not sent to preach to those that
could hear, and to teach them to whom they preached,
that Jesus was the Christ, and only to baptize them
when they did believe this ?" &c.
Matth. xix. 14. " Suffer the little children, and
forbid them not to come unto me : for of such is the
kingdom of God." Much use has been made of this
passage in support of infant-baptism; but several
Poedobaptist writers admit, that it is of little or no
service to the cause. Mr. Poole's Continuators on
the place give this caution, " We must take heed we
do not found infant-baptism upon the example of
Christ in this text; for it is certain that he did not bap-
tize these children. Mark only saith, He took them
into his arms, laid his hands on them, and blessed
them." Dr. Doddridge says, " I acknowledge these
words of themselves will not prove infant-baptism to
respecting Infant-Baptism, 333
be an institution of Christ." Note on the place. Dr.
Whitby, having attempted to shew that these words
are fitly used at the celebration of infant-baptism,
adds, " But, say the Antipoedobaptists, Christ neither
did baptize them, nor command the apostles to do it.
Ans. That is not to be wondered at, if we consider
that — Christian baptism was not yet instituted ; and
that the baptism then used by John and Christ's dis-
ciples, was only the baptism of repentance, and faith
in the Messiah, which was for to come. Acts xix. 4 ;
of both which infants were incapable." Annotat. on
the place. With this Mr. Burkitt's note agrees
almost verbatim. But here a question occurs, How
are infants more capable of Christian baptism than
they were of the baptism of John ? Is it because
Christian baptism requires neiiher faith nor repentance
as that did ? Or are infants mentioned as subjects of
the one any more than of the other ?
Acts ii. 39. " The promise is unto you and to your
children, and to all that are afar oflF, even to as many
as the Lord our God shall call." These words have
also been frequently urged in favour of infant-baptism ;
but many learned Poedobaptists deny that they have
any relation to that subject. Thus Dr. Hammond
says, '* If any have made use of that very incon-
cludent argument, [viz. from Acts ii. 39,] I have
nothing to say in defence of them — the word children
there is really the posterity of the Jews, and not pe-
culiarly their infant children." Works, vol. i. p. 490.
LiMBORCH, having shewn that the apostle by rexva did
not mean infants, but children or posterity, concludes
thus, " Whence it appears, that the argument which is
very commonly taken from this passage for the bap-
tism of infants, is of no force, and good for nothing ;
334 Examination of the Arguments
because it entirely departs from the design of Peter.
It is necessary, therefore, that Poedobaptism should be
supported by other arguments." Comment, in loc.
Dr. Whitby on the place says, " These words will
not prove a right of infants to receive baptism. The
promise here being that only of the Holy Ghost, men-
tioned ver. 16, 17, 18. and so relating only to the times
of the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, and to
those persons who by age were made capable of these
extraordinary gifts."
Acts xvi. 15. " When she was baptized and her
household." — Ver. 33. " And was baptized, he and all
his, straightway." — 1 Cor. i. 16. " I baptized also the
household of Stephanas." As many of the Poedo-
baptists take it for granted that there were infants in
those households, so they conclude that they were bap-
tized : But here again their Poedobaptist brethren con-
sider this argument as altogether uncertain. As to the
household of Lydia, Dr. Whitby paraphrases the
passage thus, " And when she, and those of her
household, were instructed in the Christian faith, and
in the nature of the baptism required by it, she was
baptized, and her household." Limbo rch on the
place says, '' Whether any infants were in her house
is uncertain. An undoubted argument, therefore,
cannot be drawn from this instance, by which it may
be demonstrated that infants were baptized by the
apostles. — There might be [little] children in these
families; yet the Holy Spirit furnishes me with no
solid argument whereby I can demonstrate it — it does
not expressly say there were any children in them :
And though this should be granted, yet we are not in-
formed that they were baptized together with their
parents ; on the contrary, all those who were baptized
respecting hifant-Baptism. 835
are said to give thanks to God, which children could
never do." Of the Jailer and his house it is said, He
rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house, Acts xvi.
34. On which Mr. Henry observes, " There was none
in his house that refused to be baptized, and so made
a jar in the harmony ; but they were unanimous in
embracing the gospel, which added much to the joy."
With respect to the household of Stephanas, Dr.
Hammond says, "I think it unreasonable that the
apostle's bare mention of baptizing his household
should be thought competent to conclude that infants
were baptized by him, when it is uncertain whether
there were any such at all in his house," Works, vol. i.
p. 494. Indeed it appears clear there were none
such in his house ; for the apostle in the same epistle
says, " Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the
first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted
themselves to the ministry of the saints," 1 Cor. xvi. 15.
On which place Dr. Doddridge remarks, " This
seems to imply, that it was the generous care of the
whole family to assist their fellow Christians ; so that
there was not a member of it which did not do its
part."
] Cor. vii. 14. " The unbelieving husband is sanc-
tified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanc-
tified by the husband ; else were your children unclean,
but now are they holy." This text is strongly urged
by many as a decisive proof of infant-baptism ; but
there are also many learned and judicious Pcedo-
baptist writers who differ from them, both as to the
sanctification of the unbelieving parent, and the con-
sequent holiness of the children, and deny that it has
any relation to baptism. In opposition to that ex-
teroal covenant holiness which many plead for, Vel-
336 Examination of the Arguments
THUYSius says, " Some think, by that holiness, men-
tioned in 1 Cor, vii. 14. is to be understood such an
external holiness as was possessed by an Israelite and
a Jew, even though his life made it appear that he was
not a true Israelite, whose praise is not of men, but of
God. Now those who are of this opinion suppose,
that there is a kind of external covenant under the
gospel ; on account of which covenant some are
called holy, though nothing appears in their lives to
prove them real saints. But I see no intimation of
this external covenant in the whole gospel." Opera.
Tom. 1. p. 801. To the same purpose Vitringa
writes, " We would have it observed, the apostle does
not mean, that all the children of believers and saints
are truly partakers of the Holy Spirit, and by him in-
grafted into the body of the church ; for there is no
promise of this prerogative made to believing parents ;
nay, rather, the events of every day teach the contrary
— [therefore] the generality of our divines recur to an
external holiness, which has its original from an ex-
ternal covenant. So that the children of believers are
holy, because being separated from the world, they
live and are educated in the communion of the external
church. Like as the Israelites in former times, being
chosen out of the other nations of the world, are
called a Jioly nation, Exod. xix. 6. though a very great
part of them was impure ; and their children are denom-
inated a holy seed, Ezra ix. 2. comp. with Neh. ix. 2. —
But this is inconsistent with the clear doctrine of the
divine word, and absolutely contrary to the genius of the
new covenant. — So far from an external holiness of this
kind having any place under the New Testament, that,
^ on the contrary, this is the prerogative of the New Tes-
tament or Covenant, that no one belongs to it, except he
respecting Infant-Baptism. 337
be truly sanctified : no one is called holy, except he be
truly considered as internally holy ; and in this consists
the difference between the Old and the New Covenant
— that this is entirely spiritual, entirely internal." —
But after all we must remember, that Vitringa was
a Poedobaptist, and therefore, though he denies that
there is any external covenant holiness under the New
Testament; nay, though he denies that the apostle
means that all the children of believers are truly holy
as being partakers of the Holy Spirit, or that there is
liny promise of this prerogative made to believing pa-
rents ; yet he adds, " The infants of believing parents
are therefore called holy, because we justly presume,
that they are sanctified by the Holy Spirit in their pa-
rents. For seeing God has conferred his grace on the
parents, or on one of the parents, by a judgment of
charity we presume, that he will afford the same grace
to the infants as long as the contrary is not manifest
to us." Observat. Sac. L. ii. c. vi. § 25, 26, 27, 28. —
*' We justly presume — by a judgment of charity we
presume." — Presume what? " That infants are sanc-
tified by the Holy Ghost in their parents." Does the
apostle say so ? No. Is there any promise to that
effect ? No. Then to presume it, and to act upon it,
is indeed presumption, mere presumption, and nothing
else.
As to the sanctification of the unbelieving parent,
and the consequent holiness or cleanness of the children,
many of the Poedobaptists agree with our view of both.
Take the ibUowing for a specimen; *' The apostle
does not mean the sanctification of a married person,
by which he becomes truly righteous and holy ; but
that by which the use of marriage may be honourably
enjoyed." Justinianus: apud Cham ierura, Pawsfra^
Z ^
338 Examination of the Arguments
Tom. iv. 1. V. c. X. § 47.—*' The sanctification intended
relates to marriage." Salmrro. Ibid. — " The children
are called holy in a civil sense ; that is, legitimate, and
not spurious. — As if Paul had said, If your marriage
were unlawful, your children would be illegitimate.
But the former is not a fact; therefore not the latter."
SuAREsand Vasques, Ibid.—" Hath been sanctified ;
that is, legitimated, so that their marriage is lawful.
This the apostle proves from the natural effect. For
if the unbelieving husband be not sanctified, i. e. legi-
timated, by the wife ; and if the unbelieving wife be
not sanctified or legitimated by the husband, your
children are unclean ; that is, they were bom of an
unlawful marriage ; rather of an illicit commerce.
But now are they holy ; that is, legitimate, not bas-
tards, or born of unchastity." Dietericus; apud
"Wolfium, Curce, in loc. — " We attribute this sanctifi-
cation, that is cleanness, not to the faith of the be-
lieving yokefellow, but to the marriage, by reason of
the appointment of God; with Hierome, who saith,
because by God's appoititment marriage is holy ; and
Ambrose, who hath it thus, the children are holy,
because they are born of lawful marriage. — Nor is any
other holiness or cleanness of children meddled with,
than that which agrees also to unbelieving parents;
for to them no other agrees, than that which is by
lawful marriage." Muscuhis. — " The unbeliever is said
to be sanctified by marriage with the believer ; not as
to the person, which is not sanctified, except by faith ;
but as to use, and conjugal intercourse. — Paul here
treats concerning a mutual participation of such holi-
ness as depends upon conjugal custom, as Chry-
sosTOM teaches ; a holiness which the believing and
unbelieving partner have in common between them-
respecting lufant-Bapiism. tS^Q
selves. Whence it follows, that these things hate been
rashly and violently applied by Calvin, Beza, Para^us,
and others, to a natural or original holiness of children
born of believers." Calovius' Bihlica Illustrata.
Many other Poedobaptist writers agree in this sense of
the passage. Indeed I know of no Scripture text which
has been adduced to prove infant-baptism, which
many of the most judicious Poedobaptists themselves
have not considered either as entirely foreign to the
point, or at least very doubtful. *
III. Those who practise infant-baptism differ much
from each other in their opinion as to what benefit in-
fants derive from their being baptized. The Romish
and Greek churches hold it to be necessary to their sal-
vation. Protestants in general deny this, though many
of them lean to that side. — The church of England
affirms, that by it they are made the members of Christ
the children of God, and the inheritors of the kingdom
of heaven : others deny that baptism makes them such,
but only seals and confirms these blessings to them. —
Some maintain that it initiates them into the true in-
visible church ; others, into the visible church ; while
many insist that they are naturally members of the
visible church by being born within the pale of it, and
that their baptism is only an acknowledgment of this.
— Many consider baptism as sealing to infants the be-
nefits of an external covenant, which they think is
made with believers respecting their ofi'spring, an-
swerable to the covenant which God made with Abra-
ham respecting his natural seed, though they are not
* Several of the foregoing quotations from foreign Poedobaptist
writers, I have selected from Mr. Booth's Padobapiism Examined.
2d edit, a book which I recommend to your perusal.
Z2
%'
^40 Examination of the Arguments
agreed as to the nature of these benefits : but others
deny that any such covenant exists under the gospel.
ViTRiNGA hays, " The sacraments of the New Cove-
nant are of such a nature, as to seal nothing but what
is spiritual ; nor are they of any advantage, except
with regard to those who really believe in Jesus
Christ."
Many of them are quite undetermined as to the ef-
ficacy and usefulness of infant-baptism. Mr. Booth
has produced three of their celebrated writers who ac-
knowledge this. WiTsius says, " The question rela-
ting to the efficacy and usefulness of Christian baptism,
in reference to the elect infants of parents who are in
the covenant, is peculiarly arduous and obstruse ; and
as of old, so very lately, it is embarrassed by the sub-
tilty of curious disputes." Miscel. Sac. Tom. ii. exercit.
xix. § i, Mr. Jonathan Edwards speaks to the
same purpose, " God's method of dealing with such
infants as are regularly dedicated to him in baptism,
is a matter liable to great disputes and many contro-
versies." Inquiry into Qualijicat. for Commun. Ap-
pendix, p. 13. So also Saurin ; " Does an infant par-
ticipate in the blessings of a covenant, which he may
perhaps reject when he comes to the age of reason ?
Is baptism useless, then, till such as have received it
shall perform the vows that have been made for them?
Why do not we wait then till that time before it be admin-
istered ? We do not pretend that these difficulties are
insurmountable ; but we think that means more con-
sistent than those which are commonly employed
should be oftered." Abrege de la Theologie, p. 202*
Nay, some of them do not view infant-baptism as of
any benefit at all. They consider it not as directly
implying that the infants themselves have any interest
respecting Infant- Baptism. 341
io it, or in the thing signified by it ; but as part of the
parent's own profession of Christianity.
Thus it appears that the Poedobaptists are not
agreed among themselves as to the grounds of the
right which infants have to baptism ; nor as to the
sense of the Scripture passages commonly alleged in
support of it ; nor as to the benefit which infants de-
rive from it.
IV. The Poedobaptists universally admit, that there
is no express precept nor plain precedent for infant-
baptism in all the word of God, But to admit this,
(and admit it they must) is, in fact, to give up the
cause. Baptism is confessedly not a moral but positive
institution ; that is, it is not founded in the nature of
things, like moral precepts, but depends entirely on
the authority and revealed will of the Institutor. Now,
if infant-baptism have neither scripture precept nor ex-
ample to support it, it can have no existence as a
divine institution. But it may be proper to explain
more fully the difference between moral and positive
precepts, which I shall do nearly in the words of
Pcedobaptist writers.
Moral duties are founded not merely in external
commands, but in the nature and reason of things. To
love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as
ourselves, are duties arising from the character of God,
and our relation to him and one another, and so right
and fit in their own nature antecedently to any external
command. But positive institutions are founded solely
in the will of the Institutor. To eat of the tree in the
midst of the garden w as in itself altogether indifferent,
till it became sinful by the Divine prohibition. So
circumcision, and the various rituals of the Mosaic law,
had no foundation in the nature of things, but became
•.'t
342 Examination of the Arguments
duties merely by positive iustitution. Yet we are nof
to consider positive institutions as mere arbitrary im-
positions ; for God appoints nothing but for some wise
reason, and for some good end ; but then it is not the
reason or end but the autiiority which makes the in-
stitution ; and therefore though we should not un-
derstand the reason of this or that appointment, yet if
we see the command, we must obey.
Again, moral doctrines and duties may be deduced
and inferred from others of a moral nature, and all of
them from their first principles. Thus love is the
principle required in the moral law, and from this we
may justly infer a prohibition from working any ill to
our neighbour, as being contrary to the nature of love,
(Rom xiii. 10.) and also a command to do him all the
good that properly lies in our power, for that is nothing
but the natural and practical exercise of love. So
that a genuine inference from a moral principle, and
relating to things of a moral nature, has all the cer-
tainty of the principle itself. But with regard to
positive institutions the case is quite different : For as
they depend wholly upon the will of God, so they can-
not be deduced or inferred from any thing known to
us, abstract from the express declaration of his will.
Such laws admit of no commutation, mutilation, or
alteration by human authority ; because in them we
see nothing beyond the words of the law, and the first
meaning, and the named instance. It is that in in-
dividuo which God appoints, fixing it so and no more,
and no less, and no otherwise : For when the will of
the Lawgiver is all the reason, the first instance of the
law is all the measures, and there can be no product
but what is just set down. No parity of reason can
infer any thing else ; because there is no rea^n known
- respecting Infant-Baptism. 343
to us but the will of God, to which nothing can be
equal ; which will being actually limited to this spe-
cification, this manner, this institution, whatever comes
besides, has no foundation in the will of the Lawgiver,
and therefore can have no warrant or authority. It is
plain therefore, that as moral duties may be deduced
from moral principles and the reason of things, it is
not necessary that every duty of this nature in all its
aupposeable modes, occasions, objects, and circum-
stances, should be expressly stated and particularly
specified, for that Avould be endless : But with respect
fo positive institutions, as these depend entirely on
the will of the Institutor, and cannot be deduced from
any thing else, so they can have no existence but by
the express declaration of his will in their appointment,
without which they cannot be said to be instituted,
and so there can be no obligation to observe them.
Moral duties are o{ perpetual obligation, because
founded in the nature of things, or the essential and
unalterable distinction between right and wrong : But
positive institutions, being appointed only for a limited
<me, their obligation ceases when that time has expired.
Thus circumcision and the rituals of the old law were
set aside at the end of the Jewish dispensation ; and
so Baptism and the Lord's Supper will cease when
Christ shall come again. But here it must be observed
that our obligations to obey all God's commands,
whether moral or positive, are absolute and indis-
pensable ; and that commands, merely positive, ad-
mitted to be from Him, lay us under a moral obligation
to obey them, an obligation moral in the strictest and
most proper sense. Surely obedience to God's com-
mand is a moral excellence, though the instances of
that obedience may lie in positive rites. A disposition
*•
344 Examination of the Arguments
to obey divine orders, either positive or moral, is part
of that holiness without which no man shall see the
Lord. We may be saved without a sacrament, but
we cannot be saved without a disposition to obey
God's authority wherever we see it. Positive precepts
are the greatest and most perfect trial of obedience,
because in them the mere authority and will of the
Legislator is the sole ground of the obligation, and
nothing in the nature of the things themselves ; and
therefore they are the greatest trial of any person's re-
spect to that authority and will. Whatever difference
there is between moral and positive precepts, and how-
ever excellent the former are in themselves in com-
parison with the latter, the obligation is the same in
both, viz. the command of God.
We shall now apply these observations to the sub-
ject in hand. The Poedobaptists admit that baptism
is a positive institution. — They also admit (and I know
none of them who deny) that a positive institution de-
pends solely on the will of God the Institutor ; and so
'■ cannot be deduced or inferred from any thing known
to us, besides the express declaration of his will con-
cerning it. — Further, they are obliged to admit, that
there is no express precept or example in all the word
of God for infant-baptism.
Now, by these concessions they entirely, though un-
designedly, give up the cause of infant-baptism ; for a
positive institution for which there is neither express
precept nor example, is an absolute contradiction, as
no positive institution can have any existence but by
the express declaration of the will of the Institutor,
which is its very institution ; nor can we know any
thing about it unless it be expressly recorded or exem-
plified in the holy scriptures.
• *
0
respecting Infant-Baptism. 345
Still, however, it is maintained, that though there is
no express scripture precept or example for the bap-
tism of infants, there are many other considerations
from which it may be deduced or inferred. This is
the common mistake in which all the Poedobaptists
unite, and so depart from the true nature of the sub-
ject in question, which is a positive rite, not deducible
from any principle known to us, but depending en-
tirely for its being, and all that relates to it, on the will
of God; consequently, not the subject of inference, but
of express positive institution. Were it a natural or
moral duty, it might be fairly argued from general
principles, moral considerations, analogy, expediency,
fitness or utility, because the known nature and rela-
tion of things furnish the proper data : Nay, a duty
of this nature may be fairly inferred from many texts
of scripture where it is not particularly mentioned, nor
perhaps has entered into the thoughts of the inspired
writers when penning these texts : But as to baptism
the case is quite different, it being a particular ritual
institution which derives its whole being and authority
from a positive law respecting itself, and therefore can
be deduced from no other principle whatever. Since
therefore the Poedobaptists cannot produce a plain
scripture precept or precedent for the baptism of in-
fants, all their arguments in favour of it are quite in-
applicable and to no purpose.
Many Poedobaptist writers confess, that " the scrip-
ture does not clearly determine the baptism of infants" —
" that it is so dark in the scriptures, that the contro-
versy is become so hard, as we find it" — " that it is
not so clearly delivered, but that it admits of a dispute
which has considerable perplexities in it. Therefore
some of them wish to shift the state of the question^
.^
♦»
J
S46 Examination of the Arguments
and turn the argument upon another hinge. Thus
Vitringa; " He, in my opinion, that would argue
prudently against the Anabaptists, should not state
the point in controversy thus ; Whether infants, born
of Christian parents, ought necessarily to be baptized?
but, whether it be lawful, according to the Christian
discipline, to baptize them ? Or, what evil is there in
the ceremony of baptizing infants ?" Observat. Sac.
Tom. 1. L. ii. c. vii. § 9. Thus also an anonymous
author, " In the controversy about infant-baptism, the
enquiry ought not to be. Whether Christ hath com-
manded infants to be baptized ? but, whether he hath
excluded them from baptism ?" Cases to Recover Dis-
senters, Vol. ii. p. 405.
This prudent manner of arguing, by shifting the en-
quiry from a command or example to a prohibition,
demonstrates in the clearest manner to what a sad
pinch the more thinking part of the Pcedobaptists are
reduced. To maintain the baptism of infants as being
either commanded or exemplified in scripture, is to
place it upon a ground which they find to be altogether
untenable; but they think that if infants are not ex-
cluded from it by an express prohibition, there can be
no evil in it, i. e. it must be a thing perfectly harmless
and indifferent ! And it will be granted, that if they do
not intend it as a divine institution, there can be no
evil in bathing or washing infants as often as there is
occasion for it, and as they are not excluded from this,
it is perfectly lawful. But if they perform it as a re-
ligious act of divine worship, and administer it in the
sacred name of the Divine Three, then it involves in it
a complication of evils. It is a profane abuse of the
adorable name of the Trinity, and a misapplication of
the outward sign : It supersedes, or sets aside, the
respecting Infant-Baptism. * 347
baptism of believers which Christ hath instituted, and
so makes the commandment of God of none effect, by
substituting a human tradition in its place. Mat. xv. 3,6.
And as it is founded upon the negative ground of its
not being particularly and expressly prohibited, it
establishes a principle that will justify all manner of
superstition and will worship, which the Lord ex-
pressly condemns and rejects, saying, " But in vain do
they worship me, teaching for doctrines the command-
ments of men," ver. 9. see also Col. ii. 20, 22, 23.
It is said that infants are not excluded from baptism :
But does not our Lord commission his apostles to
baptize persons of a certain description, viz. those
whom they should teach or make disciples by the
preaching of the gospel? and is not the subject of that
ordinance plainly described to be, he that believeth ?
This certainly excludes infants who cannot be taught
or believe, and there was no necessity that he should
further exclude them by a particular express pro-
hibition ; for when the subjects of a positive ordinance
are described, all who fall not under that description
are of course excluded. #
Thus you may see, that the arguments in favour of
infant-baptism have no tendency to make us less con-
fident in our opposition to it. The Peed ©baptists
themselves destroy the force of one anothers arguments ;
for while they hold by one general conclusion, they
differ as to every part of the premises whence it should
be drawn,
I am.
Your, &c.
»
€
BAPTISM
MUST PRECEDE
VISIBXfE CHURCH-FELIiOWSHIP.
In a Letter to a Friend.
SIR,
While you seem to admit, that the scripture war-
rants the baptism of none but believers, you cannot be
reconciled to our making it a term of communion.
Your words are : " But granting your view of baptism
to be perfectly agreeable to the original institution,
yet still I think you lay an undue stress upon that or-
dinance when you make it a term of communion. Ad
it must be admitted that there are many sincere Chris-
tians who are differently minded from you on that sub-
ject, I cannot help thinking, that your refusing com-
munion to such, merely on that account, is contrary to
charity, and making a positive institution, or external
rite, of as much importance as moral precepts, or the
faith itself, wherein all true Christians are one,
whereby it becomes an occasion of dividing the real
children of God."
It is very surprising, that while you acknowledge
baptism to be an ordinance of Christ, and even suppose
that we observe it agreeably to his institution, you
should yet object to us for refusing communion to such
as, upon this supposition, are entirely without baptism,
and have substituted a human invention in its place.
I must be so free as to tell you, that this objection
argues no great reverence for Christ's authority, or
acquaintance either with the nature of true charity or
Baptism must precede, b;c. 849
ehurch-commimion ; but proceeds at bottom from an
opinion, that the institutions of Christ are not ab-
solutely binding, but may be sacrificed to our good
opinion of men. It is very remarkable, that in pro-
portion as that kind of charity you plead for bulks
in your eye, in the same proportion does the im-
portance and obligation of Christ's institutions sink in
your esteem ; hence you distinguish his precepts into
moral and positive, as if the latter sort were not so
much to be regarded as the former, nor his authority
the same in both ; and you speak of baptism in par-
ticular in such diminutive terms, as too plainly indicate
that the authority of its Institutor has not its proper
weight upon your conscience. Was it not the trans-
gression of a positive law which introduced sin and
death into the world ? You may approve of moral
precepts upon the principles of pure Deism, as per-
ceiving them founded in nature and reason ; but you
cannot be influenced to this by Christ's authority, while
you make light of his positive institutions, in which that
authority appears more simple and conspicuous.
We hold it as a fixed principle, that there can be no J^
real Christianity without charity ; but at the same time
we are fully persuaded, that true charity must ever con-
sist with a strict and conscientious adherence to all
things whatsoever Christ hath commanded, and that
no true Christian communion can take place upon the
avowed principle, that one of the least of his laws
should be dispensed with in favour of any, however
serious they may appear, and however much cause we
may have to esteem them on other accounts ; for we
can never be so certain of the Christianity of such as
refuse to submit to Christ's ordinances, after they have
been set before them, as we are of the ordinances
#
850 Baptism must precede
themselves, and of the indispensable obligation that
lies upon all Christians to observe them. We admit,
that there is but one faith essential to salvation, viz.
That Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, that he was
delivered for the offences and raised again for the jus-
tification of sinners, * and that whosoever believeth
this shall be saved : f But we think it no dispa-
ragement of this one faith to maintain, that there is
also one baptism which corresponds with it, :|: and
which, by the will of its Institutor, is inseparably con-
nected, at least, with the scriptural confession of that
faith, § and so essentially necessary to the visible com-
munion of saints. Besides these general hints, we
offer the following reasons for holding believers-bap-
tism as a term of visible communion.
1. Baptism is of indispensable obligation upon all
Christians who can possibly obtain it, because Christ
hath commanded it, and because he had suflScient
power and authority to do so.
(1.) That Christ hath instituted baptism admits of
no doubt ; for he says, " Go teach all nations, bap-
tizing them ;" j] which is not only a command to his
apostles to baptize, but to those whom they made dis-
ciples to be baptized ; % for how could the apostles ad-
minister baptism, if none were obliged to receive it ?
The same command we have in Mark xvi. 16. " Go ye
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved." The obligation to be baptized is the same
here with the obligation to believe the gospel ; for it is
• John XX. 31. — Rom. iv. 24, 25. + Rom. x. 9.
t Eph. iv. 5. § Mark xvi. 16. |j Mat. xxviii. 19.
T See Acts ii. 58. x. 48. and xxii. 16,
Visible Church-fellowship. 3Skv
not simply said, " he that believeth," but " he that be-
lieveth, and is baptized ;" so that whatever difference
there is between these two in other respects, there is
none in point of obligation. It can admit of no doubt
that our Lord means baptism in water ; for so his in-
spired apostles understood him, as appears from their
practice. Acts viii. 38. how else could the forbidding
of water be a withstanding of God? * This command
is not limited to any particular nation ; for he bids
them " teach all nations, baptizing them." Nor is it
confined to the apostolic age ; for he promises to be
with his disciples in observing it, " alway, even unto
the cjid of the world." f
(2.) That Christ had sufficient power and authority
to institute baptism and every other ordinance of the
gospel, and an indisputable right to our obedience,
cannot possibly be denied by any Christian. The
Father declares him to be his beloved Son in whom he
is well pleased, and commands us to hear him. :|: He
hath loved the Son, and given all things into his hand ; §
he hath put all things under his feet, and given him to
be head over all things to the church ; || and upon this
supreme power and authority with which he his vested,
he grounds the commission to disciple and baptize ;
" All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye, THEREFORE, disciplc all nations, baptizing
them,"^ &c. To dispute Christ's power to make laws,
or his rightful title and claim to our obedience, is in
fact to deny that he is the Christ, and to renounce
Christianity altogether. His having all power in
heaven and in earth, excludes not only all rival, but
• Act! X. 47. and xi. 17. t Matth. xxviii. 20. J chap. xvii. ft.
i Johu iii. 35. || Eph. i. 23, 23. f Matth. xxviii. 18, 19.
352 Bapism must precede
conjunct authority, either in angels or men,, to set
aside, dispense with, alter, or add to his laws, he being
the alone Sovereign and sole Lawgiver of his church. •
Accordingly the latter part of the commission runs
thus : " Teaching them" (i. e. the baptized disciples)
*' to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you."* They were to teach them to observe only what
he had commanded ; and not their own inventions, or
the traditions and commandments of men ; f — to teach
them all things whatsoever he had commanded, with-
out keeping back, making light of, or dispensing with
any of the least of his commandments. J Now if Christ
has instituted baptism as a standing ordinance to the
end of the world, if he had suflEicient power and autho-
rity to do so, and if neither angels nor men have any
right to dispense with, or alter his institutions, then
the baptism of believers must be of indispensable
obligation, and so essentially necessary to visible
church communion.
II. The order in which baptism stands in the com-
mission, proves it to be an indispensable pre-requisite
to church communion. It comes immediately after
being made disciples by preaching the gospel to them,
and before they are taught to observe all things what-
soever Christ hath commanded. The supreme Law-
giver has expressly enjoined — first, to make disciples
— then, immediately to baptize the disciples — lastly, to
teach the baptized disciples to observe, keep, or obey
his laws or institutions. It must be admitted, that
church-fellowship, and the Lord's Supper, fall under
the last head ; and if so, then according to the order of
• Mattb. xxviii. 20. t chap- xv. 4, 5, 6. — Coli-ii. 8.
t Mattb. V. 19.— Acts xx. 20, 27.
Visible Church-fellowship. 353
the commission, men can no more be admitted to
church-fellewship or the Lord's Supper before baptism,
than they can be admitted to baptism before they are
made disciples.
III. The apostles strictly adhered to the order
stated in the commission, and never admitted any to
church-fellowship till once they were baptized. On
the day of Pentecost, Peter — first preached the gospel,
and exhorted the convicted Jews to repent and be
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
of sins * — " Then they that gladly received his word
were baptized" f — Lastly, the baptized disciples were
added to the church, and observed all things what-
soever Christ had commanded ; for it follows, *' and
the same day there were added unto them about three
thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the
apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers." J Through the whole history of
the Acts we find them observing the same order.
They went about every where preaching the gospel —
those who believed it were immediately baptized — of
luch baptized believers only did they form churches —
and to such churches did they deliver the ordinances
to keep as they had received them of the Lord. §
IV. This order is not accidental, but founded in the
very nature of things. Baptism is the sign of our spi-
ritual birth, and entrance into the kingdom of God ; ||
but church-fellowship and the Lord's Supper represent
us as already entered into his kingdom, and feasting
upon Christ's sacrifice. ^ Now as we cannot in the
nature of things have a place in the kingdom of God
* Acts ii. 1 4—40.
t Ver. 41.
t Ver. 41, 42.
§ 1 Cor. xi. 2, 2».
11 John iii. i.
A A
f 1 Cor. V. 7, «.
354 Baptism must precede
before we enter it, nor feed upon Christ till once we are
born from above, and possessed of spiritual life ; so,
if there is any correspondence in the signs to what they
respectively signify, we can with no propriety be added
to a visible church, and partake of the Lord's Supper,
till once we receive baptism, the sign of our regenera-
tion and entrance into the kingdom of God. Whether,
therefore, we consider the order of our Lord's com-
mission— the practice of his inspired apostles in exe-
cuting it — or the nature and import of the ordinances
themselves, it is clear, that baptism must always pre-
cede admission to a church, or communion in the
Lord's Supper.
You will perhaps make a distinction between the iw-
stitutions of Christ and the terms of communion;
between our obligation to observe them ourselves, and
our right to urge them upon others who may desire fel-
lowship with us. But we can admit of no such distinc-
tions; for,
1. The very nature of church-communion requires,
that we should not only observe Christ's institutions
ourselves,/ but also take heed that our brethren observe
them likewise. Christians separated from the world,
and connected together in a church state agreeably to
the word of God, have a peculiar relation to, and
concern in each other. They are united together
as members of one body, that they should have the
same care one for another. * The bond of their union
is the truth, and mutual love for the truth's sake, as
perceiving it visibly dwelling in each other, f by the
confession of the mouth and obedience of the life.
By this appearance they know one another, to be the
* 1 Cor. xii. 25. t 8 JqhD, Tcr. 1, 8.
Visible Church-fellowship. 355
proper objects of that love which Christ has enjoined
in his new commandment ; * and without it they could
not possibly love one another for the truth's sake, or
be united in the bonds of the gospel. They must
therefore be deeply interested in one another's princi-
ples and conduct. Accordingly, they are commanded
to exhort one another daily,lest any of them be hardened
through the deceitfulness of sin;t to look diligently
lest any man fail of the grace of God, J to warn them
that are unruly, &c, § which implies, that they have a
mutual charge one of another, and cannot say, like
Cain, " Am I my brother's keeper?" — The discipline
which Christ hath appointed in his house, is strongly
expressive of the mutual concern they have in one
another's sentiments and practices. || It is intended to
preserve purity of communion and the exercise of bro-
therly love, by enforcing obedience to his laws, re-
claiming transgressors, and expelling impenitent and
incorrigible offenders. If Christ has given such a
power to his churches, they must have an undoubted
right to exercise it, and be culpable in neglecting it ;
and so the whole church at Corinth are blamed for to-
lerating the incestuous person. 1[ If a single private
trespass, committed against a brother, must, without
repentance, exclude from the communion, according
to Matth. xviii. 17. by what rule are we to receive into
our communion such as neglect or despise a plain and
public institution of the Lord Jesus Christ? This
would be to assume a dispensing power, to connive at
their neglect, and to become partakers of their sin;
nay, in many respects we should be more guilty and iri-
• John xiii. 34, 35. t Heb. iii. 13. J Chap. xii. 15.
i 1 ThcH. V. 14. II Matth. xviii, 15—21. If 1 Cor. v.
A a2
S50 Baptism must precede
consistent than they. More guilty, as knowing more
of the obligation, nature, and importance of baptism
than they are supposed to do. — More inconsistent;
because, according to our principles, we must look
upon them as entirely without baptism ; whereas they
either consider themselves as baptized in infancy, or
have no principle respecting that ordinance at all, as
we profess to have. Christ has committed his truths
and ordinances to his churches to keep and hold fast
till he come, * but not to dispense with in favour of
any. We are therefore not only bound to observe his
institutions ourselves as individuals, but to take heed
that every member of the body with which we are con-
nected observe them also.
2. We hold every institution of Christ to be a term
of communion ; because, should we avowedly dispense
with any of them, we, by offending in one point, are
juilty of all ; f i- c. we disregard the authority of Christ
in one ordinance, which is the same in all, and so
must be deficient in our regard to it in any. Hereby
also we give up the general principle upon which we
ean consistently hold any of his institutions whatever
as a term of communion. Should one who is of the
Quakers' sentiments, as to the Lord's Supper, apply
for admission, with what consistency could we urge
that ordinance upon him, after having dispensed with
his baptism ? We could not show him from the word
of God, that the Lord's Supper was instituted by a
higher authority, is more important and indispensable
in its nature, more sacred in its signs, or significative
of more valuable blessings than baptism is ; and there-
fore, to be consistent with ourselves, it behoved us to
• Rev. ii. 25. t J«me« ii. 10.
Visible Chureh-fellowship. 857
yield that ordinance also, and so all the rest which
are founded solely upon Christ's authority. N o scrip-
tural reason can be assigned for preferring the Lord's
Supper to Baptism. To adopt the words of a sensible
writer on this subject, " When we consider how much
more frequently baptism is mentioned in the New
Testament than the sacred supper; how often repenting
and believing sinners are exhorted, by the apostles, to
be baptized ; how soon that ordinance was adminis-
tered to Christian converts after they believed ; what
exhortations are given to professing Christians on the
ground of their being baptized ; and when we reflect,
that the Holy Spirit commends them that were baptized
by John, as "justifying God ;" while he severely cen-
sures others, as " rejecting the counsel of God against
themselves,* being not baptized of him :"t I say, these
things considered, it is amazing to observe in what
small estimation baptism is held by the generality of
professors in comparison of the Lord's Supper ; nay,
the positive contempt with which that divine ordi-
nance is treated by many, calling it a non-essential
external rite, a circumstantial ceremony, a shadow, a
mere outward form, &c. But to think that some pro-
fessed Baptists themselves should treat it in the same
profane manner, to justify their novel scheme of free
communion, is really astonishing. % They may boast
* See Mr. Booth's Apology for the Baptists, p. 136.
t Luke vii. 29, 30.
X Several Baptist congregations in England admit unbaptized per-
sons into tlieir commuuion, and so are denominated free-communion
Baptists. Mr. Booth, in his Apology, has fully exposed the absurdity '
and inconsistency of such a heterogeneous communion, especially on
the part of the Baptists ; though I think he pays too great a compli-
ment to their sincerity, conscientiousness, and irAcgrily.
358 Baptism must precede
of their pretended candour, generosity, liberality of
sentiment, and charity, in opposition to bigotry and
narrow-mindedness ; but it does not appear, nor is
true charity obliged to admit, that such truly fear God,
regard his authority, or tremble at his word, who can
knowingly, deliberately, and from avowed principle,
make light of any of his acknowledged institutions,
and assume a power to dispense with them.
By making baptism a term of communion, you say,
" it becomes an occasion of dividing the real children
of God." We adoiit the fact, but refuse the blame.
We freely admit, that there are multitudes of God's
dear children unenlightened as to baptism ; many of
them have never attended to the subject ; and others,
through the influence of custom and false instruction,
have seriously taken up with infant-sprinkling in its
stead. It is also a fact, that whilst they and we con-
tinue in our present sentiments, we must remain di-
vided as to visible church communion. But the ques-
tion is. Who are to blame ; those who observe and
stand to the scripture rule, or they who do not comply
with it ? And whether should Christians unite in ob-
serving Christ's institutions, or in dispensing with
them ? The very state of the question is a sufficient
answer to such as hold the institutions of Christ of in-
dispensable obligation. We are grieved to think that
so many of the real children of God are living in the
neglect of the very first ordinance of the gospel ; we
endeavour to hold it forth to them consistently by our
example, doctrine, and separate communion : we cor-
dially invite them to fellowship with us in this, and all
the other institutions of Christ, according to the order
in which he has placed them ; and we earnestly pray
Visible Church-fellowship. 35i>
to their Father and ours, that he would dispel their
ignorance, remove their prejudices, and subject their
consciences to this and every other part of his revealed
win ; but while they remain in their present mind, we
dare not meet them any nearer, nor step over the
sacred boundaries which Christ hath marked out in
his word, in order to give them the right hand of fel-
lowship. Indeed the great body of Poedobaptists
themselves act upon this principle ; for they will not
receive any to communion with them in the Lord's
Supper, unless they consider them as having been bap-
tized in some way or other.
This, you will say, is contrary to charity. Christian
forbearance, and the apostolic exhortation to '* receive
one another as Christ also hath received us to the glory
of God," Rom. xv. 7.
It is indeed very opposite to that profane com-
pliant charity so much cried up in the professing world,
which has neither the word of God for its rule, nor the
truth for its object ; which esteems conscientiousness
in error equivalent to soundness in the faith, and le-
gitimates a kind of Christianity which stands indepen-
dent of keeping the commandments of God and the
faith of Jesus : But it is perfectly agreeable to true
charity, which consists in love to the truth, and to
those who are of the truth for its sake, as perceiving it
dwelling in them by its genuine effects. If we esteem
all the commandments of the gospel to be plain, im-
portant and indispensable ; if we see them to be effects
of divine wisdom, benevolence, and love ; if we are
persuaded that men's interest lies in observing them,
and that there is danger in neglecting them ; then re-
gard to the Divine authority, love to the truth; and
360 Baptism must precede
charity to men, require that we dispense with none of
them.
If by Christian forbearance you mean, an agreement
to differ quietly about the commandments of Christ,
as not essential to church-communion, there is no such
thinjj enjoined in the scripture. It would be absurd to
suppose, that Christ would give ordinances to his
church, and at the same time a command to dispense
with any of them. The mutual bearing with each other
insisted on, Rom. xiv. and xv. has no respect to any
of the precepts of the gospel, but to the peculiarities
of the Mosaic law respecting meats and days. We are
exhorted to forbear one another in love;* but this
does not respect any settled difference as to the com-
mon rule of our faith and obedience, but a just al-
lowance for one another's weaknesses and imperfec-
tions in coming short of the acknowledged rule, with
the exercise of meekness, tenderness, and long-suflFering
towards each other in this imperfect state.
The exhortation, " Receive ye one another as Christ
also received us to the glory of God," f does not sig-
nify, that they should receive one another into church-
fellowship disagreeing about the institutions of the
gospel, or that they should receive any into their com-
munion without baptism. The parties exhorted were
believing Jews and Gentiles, who differed not about
baptism, but about the peculiarities of Moses' law, as
has been noticed. Christ had received the Jew ob-
serving that peculiar law, and indulged him in it for a
time ; % he had also received the Gentile, who was
• Eph. iv. 2. t Rom. xv. 7.
t Acts xxi. 25. 1 Cor. tu 18.
Visible Church-fellowship. 361
never under that law, and now forbid to observe any
such thin^. In these peculiar circumstances, they
are exhorted to imitate the example of Christ in re-
ceiving one another as he had received them both to
the glory of God, without making any difference of
Jew or Gentile.
I am.
Sir,
Your, flee.
Edinburgh, 178(?.
AN
OF
The Prophecies
OF THE
OLD TESTAMENT,
RESPECTING
THE SEED OF ABRAHAM,
AND THE
NATURE OF THE BIiESSINGS
PROMISED TO THAT SEED.
ILLUSTRATION, Sec.
In a Letter to u Friend*
DEAR SIR,
At your repeated solicitation, I send you my yiew of
the prophecies concerning which you wrote me ; but
want of time, and the valetudinary state of my health,
have prevented me from digesting it with that accu-
racy, or comprising it into the bounds I would have
chosen. However, not to detain you with circum-
stantials, I shall state what I take to be the argument
from these prophecies for infant-baptism, and then
give such an answer as may occur. The argument I
think stands thus :
** There are many promises in the prophetic writings
©f the Old Testament respecting Israel and their seed
in conjunction with them, such as Psal. cii. 36, 27, 28.
Isa. Ixv. 22, 23. Jer. xxx. 18 — 23. Ezek. xxxvii. 25.
8cc. and as it cannot be denied that these prophecies
have a respect to gospel times, they must point out a
spiritual connection betwixt New Testament believers
and their seed, in the great salvation ; and if so, then
the infants of Christians ought to be baptized, even as
those of old Israel were circumcised."
Now, though the premises were admitted as here
stated, yet the conclusion is far from being necessary
or certain. Children may have the promise of salva-
tion, and yet have no peculiar connection with their
parents therein ; and they may even b« connected
366 Illustration of the Prophecies
with their parents in the promises, without any title
to baptism in their infancy. Baptism proceeds upon
evidence that the promises have begun to take effect
in their calling, which is obtained from the confession
of the mouth unto salvation, and can never go before
this, according to the scripture. It is not like cir-
cumcision, which was connected with the fleshly birth,
a thing visible in infants ; but it is connected with the
evidence of the spiritual birth, which is not visible
till they profess the faith, and thereby evidence them-
selves the true children of Abraham, the antitype of
these circumcised infants. So that you see, supposing
I were to admit the principle, the inference of infant-
baptism will not follow. And here I would remark,
that when people are obliged to have recourse to the
Old Testament to establish a New Testament ordi-
nance, it indicates that they think the New Testament
not clear and express enough upon the point, or that
they want to model it in some way which the New
Testament does not admit of. It puts me in mind of
the abettors of national churches and covenants, who,
finding nothing of that kind in the New Testament, or
at least not so clear as they would desire, betake them-
selves to the Old Testament, and bring their materials
from the typical earthly economy, to erect a worldly
kingdom to Christ, or rather to the clergy. These also
dabble much in the prophecies, and strange work they
make of them when they have a point to drive. The
Seceders can even find their party, and the bond for
renewing the covenant, prophecied of in Isa. xix. 18 ;
and many can show from Isa. xlix. 23. that the kings
of the Gentile nations were to have the same office and
power in the spiritual Zion that David and his suc-
cessors, who were anointed types of the Messiah, had
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 367
ia the earthly Zion. No wonder then, that we find
Infant-baptism, both as to its subjects and mode, de-
duced from the prophecies, by those who stickle for the
national plan ; for the christening, as they call it, of
the carnal seed, is the main pillar and support of a na-
tional profession ; but to see the same arguments taken
up by those who on every other occasion show their
knowledge of the spirituality of Christ's kingdom, not
only in distinction from the nations of this world, but
also from the nation of Old Israel, is indeed very
amazing and unaccountable. But not to insist upon
this, I shall deliver my thoughts upon the prophecies
relative to this subject, in the following order :
I. Premise a few general things, necessary to be
attended to, in order to understand the prophecies.
II. Shew who are meant by the children spoken of
in the prophets, and in what respect they are called
children.
III. Explain whose children they are ; or who arc
theiY fathers, and in what sense they are so called.
I. First then, I would premise, that though these
promises point at gospel times, and ultimately respect
the true Israel ; yet they are delivered in a figurative
style, and clothed in a language suited to the ty-
pical or earthly economy, i. e. the state of things
under the new covenant, is held forth in these prophe-
cies by expressions alluding to the earthly typical
state of things under the old covenant. — Thus the pro-
mise made to Abraham, " A father of many nations
have I made thee," Gen, xvii. 5, would naturally lead
us to think, that Abraham was to be the natural father
of these manynations, especially when we readit in con-
nection with ver. 6. and find from the history that many
nations really sprang from him. But when we look to
36*8 Illustration of the Prophecies
the apostle's explanation of that promise, Rom. ir.
13, 18. we see that the many nations ultimately in-
tended in that promise, include the uncircumcised
Gentiles blessed in Christ, following the steps of Abra-
ham's faith, and that Abraham was to be their father
in that sense wherein he is the father of all true be-
lievers; See also Rom. ix. 6 — 9. Gal. iii. 7 — 29. chap,
iv. 21 — 31. — The promise made to David of setting up
his seed after him, and perpetuating his throne and
kingdom, 2 Sam. vii. would naturally be thought to
mean that earthly throne and kingdom wherein David
reigned, and that by his seed was only meant a race
of kings descending from him, and successively filling
his throne to the latest posterity ; and especially too
as it cannot be denied that there is an evident respect
had to his earthly house in that very promise: But
when we read Luke i. 32, 33. Acts ii. 30. chap. xiii.
23, 34. we find that the grand subject of this promise,
was the raising up his son the Messiah from the dead,
to sit (not on the earthly throne of David, nor to rule in
the earthly kingdom, nor over the fleshly Israel, but)
on the heavenly throne, ruling over the true spiritual
Israel. The promises made during Israel's captivity,
such as Isa. Iii. 11. chap. Ixi. 1, 2, 3, 4. Jer. xxx. 18 —
24. Ezek. xxxvi. 24 — 38. chap, xxxvii. 2 — 26. chap,
xlvii. 22, 23. Zach. iv. and vi. chapters, had we no
other explication of them, we should be ready, from the
occasion on which they were made, and the style in
which they are spoken, to apply them only to the re-
storation of old Israel from captivity, the building of
the second temple, and the re-establishment of them
and their fleshly seed in their ancient possession, toge-
ther with their peace, prosperity, and safety therein,
under their own rulers and governors : And we should
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 369
be confirmed in this view from what we read of the
be^un accomplishment thereof in the books of Ezra and
Neheraiah; to which events, it must be owned, these
promises do also literally refer: But when we see how
these promises are explained and applied in the New
Testament, such as Luke iv. 18. 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18.
Matth, xxi. 5, then we are led to understand, that the
restoration of fsrael from captivity, &c. was typical of
the great deliverance by Jesus Christ; and that the
promises delivered upon occasion of, and in a lan-
guage accommodated to, the temporal deliverance,
had a further reference, and were only fully accom-
plished in the spiritual. — Again, the promise of the
new Covenant, Jer. xxxi. 31 — 35. by attending to the
words in their literal sense, we should be led to think
that this covenant was only to be made with old Israel
and Judah, for it is expressly promised to be made
with the house of Israel and Judah, ver.xxxi.; it is con-
nected with various promises concerning their resto-
ration from captivity (read the chapter throughout); and
what is very remarkable, that earthly nation whom God
brought out of Egypt, and with whom he made a co-
venant at Sinai, arc called the fathers of the children
with whom this new covenant was to be made,ver.xxxii.
But when we consider how the apostle explains this
promise, Heb. viii. and chap. x. 16, 17. and what he
says of the subjects of it. Gal. iii. 8, 9, 2Q, 27, 28, 29.
chap. iv. 22. to the end, then we find that it is the new
covenant in Christ's blood, and that it is made with the
spiritual Israel of all nations, whether of Jews or Gen-
tiles.— The setting up of Christ's kingdom is represented
by building the cities of Judah, Psal Ixix. 35. building
up Zion, Psal. cii. 16. building the city of Jerusalem
upon her own heap, Jer xxx. 18. and raising up the
B B
370 Illustration of the Prophecies
tabernacle of David, that was fallen, and building it
as in the days of old, Amos ix. 11. The heavenly inhe-
ritance is promised under the figure of the land which
the Lord gave unto Jacob his servant, wherein the fa-
thers of old Israel had dwelt before the captivity ; and
the perpetuity of that inheritance is set forth by the
way in which the earthly inheritance was continued to
the fleshly seed, viz. by descending successively to
their children, and their children's children, Ezek.
xxxvii. 25. Yea, the Messiah himself is set forth under
the figure of David, ver. xxiv. and even when he is
promised as David's son, his throne is called the throne
of his father David, Isa. ix.7. Luke i. 32. though it is
well known he never sat upon David's earthly throne,
nor did Christ's royal throne in heaven ever belong
unto David. In short, though the person, offices, and
kingdom of Christ are laid down in these prophetic
writings with greater perspicuity than in the books of
Moses, yet still they are covered with the veil of
figures and ceremonial and typical phrases. They de-
scribe spiritual blessings by images of civil peace and
plenty ; the victory of Jesus Christ, by the treading of
a wine press, in which the wine is the blood of slaugh-
tered enemies, Isa. Ixii. 2, 3. Conversion is represented
by going up to Jerusalem, in opposition to the apos-
tacy of the ten tribes, who worshipped the calf in
Bethel and Dan ; and gospel worship is represented
by incense and a pure ofiering, Mai. i. 11. and by the
celebration of the Jewish festivals.
From these hints it is plain, that the prophecies in
general will not admit of a strict and literal interpre-
tation, when applying them to the afiairs of the New
Testament; for this would lead us into the very error
of the Jews and Judaizing professors, who minded
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 371
earthly things, and affected a worldly kingdom or es-
tablishment. Hence the necessity of attending dili-
gently, and adhering strictly, to the apostles' explica-
tion of the prophecies, as well as types of the Old Tes-
tament ; for, as they were able ministers of the New
Testament, so they had the infallible inspiration of
the Spirit of Truth, whereby they were sufficiently qua-
lified to explain and apply the prophetic word accor-
ding to its true intent and meaning. We cannot go at
first hand to the prophecies, in order to explain the
New Testament by them; but, on the contrary, we
must enter the prophecies with the New Testament key,
by which they are opened to us either by express quo-
tations, the history of facts, or by doctrine.
2. As the language and style of the typical economy
runs through the whole of these prophecies, we must
not take the epithets children, seed, or offspring, in a
literal sense, when applying them to the subjects of
Christ's kingdom, any more than we can take the
other things that respect them in a literal sense ; for
this would leave us without any certain or uniform
rule of explication by the analogy of type and antitype.
The word children, literally and strictly taken, is ex-
pressive only of the product of natural generation, and
every other sense in which this term is used, is by a
figure borrowed from this. If then we understand
this epithet literally of the natural offspring, we confine
these promises to Jewish children, or set aside the dis-
tinction of spiritual and fleshly children ; for, if the spi-
ritual seed are called children in the prophecies in re-
lation to their natural parents, or as springing from
them, wherein do they differ, as children, from their
type, or indeed from any other children, seeing, accor-
ding to this, the foundation of this terra (or the reason
B B 2
372 Illustration of the Prophecies
of their being called children) is precisely the same in
both ? We cannot say that there is any thing more spi-
ritual in the natural birth of one child tiian another ;
for that which is born of the flesh is flesh, John iii. 6.
To express this, if possible, still shorter and clearer —
They must be called children in the prophecies either
in a fleshly or spiritual sense : — If in a fleshly sense,
then the type and antitype are children in the same
sense, and there is no distinction pointed out by that
epithet betwixt them and any others. But if it be
allowed (and allowed it must be, as I shall shew,) that
Ihey are called children in the prophecies on another
account than their fleshly birth, i. e. in a spiritual sense,
then all the argments for the natural seed of believers,
drawn from the epithets children, seed, offspring, fall
at once to the ground, as these epithets are not ex-
pressive of any thing whereby they are connected with
their natural parents, under the New Testament, more
than with others, but of a spiritual relation and birth,
typified by that of the fleshly seed of Old Israel, from
which the prophetic phraseology is borrowed.
3. The typical people had a concern in these pro-
mises in their literal sense, and so by their being deli-
vered in a language suitable to that earthly state of
things, they were adapted to comfort them under their
national distresses, as well as to direct the faith of the
true Israel among them to the great salvation by
Christ. The promise made unto David concerning
his house and throne, had a respect to the typical as
well as spiritual kingdom, and so we find that people
taking hold of God's promise to David, and pleading
it under their national distresses, when David's crown
was profaned and cast to the ground, Psal. Ixxxix. 3
- 51. The various promises made during the captivity
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 878
have mostly a literal sense, and were made to comfort
the typical people under that most afflicting dispensa-
tion of the captivity. Thus the building the cities of
Judah, causing the desolate places to be inhabited ;
building the city upon her own heap ; sowing them
with the seed of men and beasts ; giving them the land
wherein their fathers had dwelt, for a possession to
them and their children's children, &c. &c. respected
literally the temporal deliverance, and the consequent
earthly blessings, which were actually bestowed upon
them and their children. This is plainly accounting
for the style of the prophecies. — Let us now see
upon what the prophetic manner of speaking re-
specting the children and their connection with their
parents is founded.
In that temporal economy the children were really
connected with their parents in the temporal deliver-
ances and earthly blessings. They are included with
their parents in the covenant of circumcision made
with Abraham and his fleshly seed. In that covenant
God promises Abraham a fleshly seed, and that he
would multiply him exceedingly. Gen. xvii. 2. and
further promises, " I will establish my covenant be-
tween me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their ge-
nerations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God
unto thee and to thy seed after thee. And I will give
unto thee and unto thy seed after thee, the land wherein
thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, and I will
be their God," ver. 7, 8. This promise is the founda-
tion of the whole typical economy. In pursuance
thereof, God multiplied Abraham's fleshly seed into a
nation, redeemed them out of Egypt, entered into a co-
venant with them at Sinai, and brought them into the
possession of the earthly inheritance : in all which.
374 Illustration of the Prophecies
the children were connected with the parents, and
sharers with them of the earthly blessings. — And,
indeed, it could not be otherwise consistently with the
nature of that covenant : For, how could a covenant
be made with Abraham's fleshly seed without taking in
the children who were equally his seed with their pa-
rents? Deut. xxix. 10 — 14. How could Abraham's na-
tural posterity be multiplied into a great nation but by
the fleshly birth ? The case dififers with the spiritual
seed ; for they are gathered from all nations, and are
of no peculiar race ; but the fleshly seed must spring
from Abraham's loins, else the promise would not be
accomplished, and therefore the fleshly birth was in-
cluded in the promise of multiplying him. How could
the promise, which was not accomplished till upwards
of four hundred years after it was made, if it had not
a respect to the successive generations of infants as
well as adults ? For instance, how could the promise
of giving Abraham's fleshly seed the land of Canaan
for an everlasting possession be ever fulfilled, if it had
not a respect to the adults of that generation that went
up out of Egypt, seeing they all died in the wilderness?
But it is clear that God's promise respected Abraham's
seed in their successive generations, Gen. xvii. 7. and
the promise was performed by various steps, at distant
and successive periods, to different generations of that
peculiar race of people. One generation goes down
into Egypt; another dwells there in servitude; a third
are brought out of Egpy t, but die in the wilderness ; and
a fourth are brought into the possession of the promised
inheritance ; then, one generation after another enjoy
the good things thereof: In all which the children
must of necessity have been connected with the parents.
The blessings being earthly good thing.s, they sue-
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 375
eccded to their parents' possessions as their heirs, even
as in the nations of this world ; only with this difference,
that they were a seed promised to Abraham, separated
from every other race of men, and held their inheritance
by a divine tenure, and under supernatural protection
In all earthly things as these were, it behoved the chil-
dren necessaiily to share with their parents, whether
in prosperity or adversity, deliverances or disasters,
and hence the promises and threatenings respect them
both, they being involved in one another's circum-
stances, Deut. xxvii. 4, 11, 32, 41.
When blessings were promised to that people which
were to be of long continuance, the children are parti-
cularly mentioned ; for the life of man being but short
and transitory in this world, these earthly blessings
could not be lengthened out to that nation, but by ex-
tending them from one generation to another, or to
their children and children's children. Thus Moses
prays, in the view of the shortness of human life, that
the Lord would make his glory appear unto their chil-
dren, Psal. xc. 16. The Psalmist speaking of the per-
petuity of God's mercy to them that fear hitn, notwith-
standing the frailty and shortness of man's life ; he ex-
plains how this mercy was to be lengthened out, viz.
God's extending his righteousness unto children's chil-
dren, Psal. ciii. 15, 16, 17. And this corresponds with
the promise of shewing mercy unto thousands of them
that love him, Exod. xx. 6. whilst on the other hand,
he visited, (under that economy) the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth ge-
neration of them who hated him, ver. 5. The cii. Psalm,
which appears to have been penned near the latter end
of the captivity, (see ver. 13.) contains a very mournful
complaint of the Lord's chastisement of that people.
S7G Illustration of (he Prophecies
and also an expression of the joyful hope of speedy
deliverance to the prisoners, and of God's having
mercy upon, and building up Zion ; but as the genera-
tion that were carried captive were then mostly gone,
and the remainder of them could not expect to enjoy
long the fruits of their restoration, therefore it is said,
" This shall be written for the generation to come, and
the people which shall be created shall praise the
Lord," ver. 18. — and again, " The children of thy ser-
vants shall continue, and their seed shall be established
before thee," ver. 28. — Jer. xxx. 18 — 22. is literally a
promise of restoring the captivity of Israel, and of the
consequent blessings they were to enjoy, and (for the
reasons before noticed) their children are particularly
mentioned. " Their children shall be as aforetime,"
i. e. they shall enjoy their ancient privileges and inhe-
ritance, even as before their captivity — " and their
nobles shall be of themselves," i. e. they shall not be
governed by foreigners, as in the time of their captivity,
but " their governor shall proceed from the midst of
them," i e. from their own nation, and of their brethren.
— Ezek.xxxvii. literally taken, is also a promise of re-
storing Israel from captivity, see ver. 21, 22, 23 here
it is promised they shall dw ell in that very land which
God gave unto Jacob, wherein their fathers had
dwelt; and this promise respected not only that gene-
ration, but to shew the duration of that blessing, it is
added, that their children and their children's children
should dwell therein for ever, (ver. 25.) i. e. ibr a long
while to come ; for in this limited sense are we to un-
derstand the words for ever and everlasting when ap-
plied to typical things, as might be shewn in a vast
number of places. From these instances, it is plain
that the typical people had an interest in these pro-
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 377
mises literally taken, and that there was a foundation
in that earthly constitution tor the prophetic manner
of speaking respecting- the children. And as the spi-
ritual seed are spoken of under the fijrure of the fleshly
seed, the language must of necessity correspond with
the ligure ; and so we must (under the direction of the
New lestament) make proper allowances for what
was peculiar to each, in explaining the prophecies.
This will appear the more necessary, if we consider,
4. That many things are said of the types which will
not apply to their antitypes, and, on the contrary, of
the antitypes which will not apply to their types ; for
not only are they different in their radical and essential
properties, (the types being fleshly, earthly, and tem-
poral, and the antitypes spiritual, heavenly, and
eternal,) but there are many circumstances arising
from, and connected with these differences, wherein
we cannot trace any analogy betwixt them. The types
in general, were but partial and inadequate represen-
tations even of what they did typify ; they were not the
very image of the things, Heb. x. 1. and hence they
were multiplied ; for what single type, for instance,
could fully represent the different natures, offices, and
characters that concentered in the person of our Lord ?
What one man could represent a priest offering up the
sacrifice of himself, and afterwards entering into the
holiest of all with his own blood ! The types were not
only defective, but in many respects opposite to their
antitypes. The sacrifices of beasts typified the sacri-
fice of Christ ; but what did the repetition of them ty-
pify? certainly nothing respecting his sacrifice; it
only showed their in3ufficiency to take away sin, and
that- it was still called to remembrance; for where re-
mission is obtained, there is no more ofifering for sin.
378 Illustration of the Prophecies
Heb. X. 1 — 19. — The fleshly seed of Abraham were
also a type of his spiritual seed ; but their being a pe-
culiar fleshly race, springing from Abraham by natural
generation, did not typify any thing of the like nature
under the gospel ; for the spiritual seed were not to
be of any peculiar fleshly race, but of all nations, kin-
dreds, and tongues. Rev. vii. 9. and their relation to
Abraham, birth, and peculiar privileges, (as the spiri-
tual seed) are not in any respect connected with their
fleshly descent ; but are the spirit and truth of these
carnal things in the fleshly seed. I might illustrate
these observations from every one of the types, but
your own judgment will anticipate what might be said,
it being a clear point that the types have many pecu-
liarities that cannot be transferred or applied to their
antitypes. Before I quit this head I would observe,
that there is something very fond and fanciful in
squeezing mystical meanings out of every minutice of
the type : Thus some writers can show us what the
bells and pomegranates on the high-priest's robes ty-
pified in particular, though I question if we are war-
ranted to be much more particular as to these minutia
than the New Testament revelation directs us ; at least
it would be unwarrantable to build doctrines of any
consequence upon such a fanciful foundation. — It is
enough in many of the types that they bear a general
similitude to their antitypes, and in others, that the re-
semblance appear in some few things. But whatever
may be in this, it is really dangerous either to transfer
the letter of the types into the gospel economy, or to
found doctrines upon such circumstances as were pe-
culiar to them.
Having premised these things, I proceed to the next
general head proposed, which was to show
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 379
II. Who are the children spoken of in the prophe-
cies, and in what respect they are called children.
And
1. When we apply these prophecies to gospel times,
we must of necessity take the New Testament expli-
cation of the seed, children, or offspring. Now those
counted for the seed under the New Testament,
are distinguished from the fleshly seed of Abraham by
being children of the promise, Rom. ix. 8. Gal. iv. 28.
i. €. they are the product of the spiritual promise made
to Abraham of making him a father of many nations,
and of blessing all nations in his seed, Christ, Gen.
xvii. 5. chap. xxii. 18. There is no promise made to
believers under the New Testament, that they shall
have a seed either fleshly or spiritual, and therefore,
as the offspring of believers, none are the children of
promise ; but the Apostle says of all believers, (be
they sprung by natural generation of whom they may)
" Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of
promise," Gal. iv. 28. and the type of this promise was
that concerning the multiplication of Abraham's na-
tural seed in the line of Isaac.
2. They are distinguished from the fleshly children
by their birth. They are not born of blood, nor the
will of the flesh, nor of the will of man ; that is, they
have no right, power, or privilege to become the sons
of God by such a birth as gave the fleshly seed that
title, in a typical sense, under the law, or old co-
venant ; nor are they denominated the children of God
by such a birth as is common to them with all
mankind : But those who receive power to become the
sons of God in a spiritual sense, are such only as are
born of God, John i. 13. 1 John iv. 7. chap. v. 1. and
this birth is effected, not by the flesh but by the Spirit,
380 Illustration of the Prophecies
John iii. 5, 6. and is the product, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which
liveth and abideth for ever, even the word which by
the gospel is preached, 1 Pet. i. 23. which is also their
nourishment, chap. ii. 2. The type of this birth w^as
the fleshly birtli of old Israel.
3. As they are begotten of God's own will by the word
of truth, James i. 18. so they are distinguished from
the mere fleshly seed by their faith in that word, or in
Christ, the subject of it. Thus our Lord describes
those who are born again to be such as believe in the
only begotten Son of God, John iii. 15, 16. and in chap,
i. 12. they are described to be those who receive him,
who believe in his name : John also connects the spi-
ritual birth with believing—" whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ, is born of God," 1 John, chap. v.
ver. 1. which exactly answers to what Paul says. Gal.
iii. 26. " Ye are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus." And it is by the confession of this faith
that men can distinguish them.
4. These children are not distinguished by their
fleshly descent, or their being sprung from any pecu-
liar line or race of men, as the typical children were ;
but they are of all nations, kindreds, and languages.
Rev. ch. V. 9. ch. vii. 9. According to the covenant
made with Abraham, and the promises respecting his
fleshly seed, the Lord separated old Israel from all
other nations of the earth, as a peculiar people to
himself: They were forbid to marry with strangers,
and the children begot by such marriages, were (by the
peculiar law of separation) counted unclean, and not
a holy seed ; but this separation and the holiness con-
nected with it was only a fleshly figure of the true se-
paration and holiness, which is entirely of another king-
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 381
and which, when it took place, set aside the other as
of no consequence or avail in the kingdom of Christ.
There is therefore no more any separated jQieshly race
to propagate a holy seed by carnal generation. In
vain wonld old Israel plead, " We have Abraham for
our father," and still more vain and groundless would
be the boast, " We are the children of a New Testa-
ment believer;" for we are expressly told, " that in
Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature," Gal. vi. 15.
and " except a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God," John iii. 3. The Apostle disclaims
all judgment of men's state by their fleshly descent.
" Henceforth," says he, " know we no man after the
flesh ;" that is, we esteem or distinguish no man as a
subject of the kingdom of Heaven by his fleshly
descent, be it of whom it may, though it should even
be of Abraham. The word henceforth intimates that
men were known formerly after the flesh, but that now
such knowledge is at an end. He adds, " Yea, though
we have known Christ after the flesh," (that is, as a
Jew or descendant of Abraham) " yet now henceforth
know we him no more :" that is to say, in that relation,
or as having any peculiar interest in him on that
account, above the Gentile nations. And in opposition
to all claims formed on the fleshly relation even
to Christ himself, he further adds, " Therefore if any
man be in Christ he is a new creature," 2 Cor. v. 16, 17.
Specifying those who ai'e the children of the promise
and counted for the seed, he says, " Even us whom he
hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gen-
tiles," Rom. ix. 24. This holy seed is composed of
whosoever believeth in Christ, " for there is now no
difierence between the Jew and the Greek," Horn. x.
382 Illustration of the Prophecies
11, 12. And the same apostle tells the believing Gen-
tile Galatians (whose parents must have been heathen
infidels) " Ye are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been bap-
tized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ
Jesus. And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed, and heirs according to the promise." From all
which it is demonstrably evident, that the spiritual seed
are of no peculiar fleshly race under the new covenant ;
but of all nations, according to the promise made to
Abraham, Gen. xxii. 18. Gal. iii. 8. and that they
cannot be known or distinguished from the world by
their fleshly relation to believing parents, since belie-
vers may be the natural parents of infidels, as Abraham
was of unbelieving Israel ; and infidels may be the na-
tural fathers of believers, as the idolatrous Gentiles
were of those who were first converted from among
them by the gospel. In explaining the prophecies,
then, we must carefully keep in our eye this New Tes-
ment account of the seed, children, or offspring. The
last thing proposed was
III. To shew whose children they are, or who are
their fathers, and in what respects they are held forth
as parents in the prophecies.
First, They are the children of Abraham, as spring-
ing from the promise made to him respecting his spi-
ritual seed. " Know ye therefore (says the apostle)
that they who are of faith, the same are the children of
Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. For understanding of which, it
may be useful to touch a little on the promises made
to Abraham respecting his seed, with the apostolic ex-
plication of them.
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 383
The promises made to Abraham were of two kinds,
1. Temporal, typical, and earthly. 2. Spiritual, ever-
lasting, and heavenly. The former of these contained
the types of the latter, and so it behoved them first to
be accomplished.
Each of these kinds of promises respected two things.
1. The seed themselves. 2. The blessings to be con-
ferred upon them.
1. He was promised a fleshly seed to spring from
his loins. Gen. xv. 5. these were the children or pro-
duct of the temporal promise.
The blessings promised to this seed, were — (1) That
radical blessing of being their God, Gen. xvii. 7. which
must be understood in a typical and temporal sense,
agreeably to the nature of the old covenant, seeing that
he threw them off from that peculiar relation when the
new covenant took place. — (2) With this blessing was
connected the typical adoption, Exod. iv. 22, 23. Kom.
ix. 4. — (3) Redemption from Egypt, Gen. xv. 14. thus
they were a purchased people unto God, Exod. xv. 16.
he gave Egypt for their ransom, Ethiopia and Sebafor
them, Isa. xliii. 3.— (4) The earthly inheritance. Gen.
XV. 18. Exod. vi. 3, 9. This was connected with their
adoption; for if sons, then heirs. Even this inheritance
was not conferred upon them, by virtue of their obe-
dience to the law, but freely upon the footing of the
promise made to Abraham, Deut. ix. 5. even as the
heavenly inheritance is also confened on the spiritual
seed. Gal. iii. 18.
2. Abraham was promised a spiritual seed. Gen.
xxii. 18. viz. Christ himself. Gal. iii. 16, and those of
all nations that should be blessed in him. Gal. iii. 7,
8, 9. for thus the apostle explains the promise, " A fa-
ther of many nations have I made thee ;" compare
084 Illustraiion of the Prophecies
Gen. xvii. 5. with Rom. iv. 16, 17, 18. These are the
product or children of the spiritual promise, of which
the former were a type.
The blessings promised these children in his notable
seed, Christ, are — (I) His being their God in the spirit
and truth of that promise. Gen. xvii. 7. i. e. in a spiri-
tual and eternal sense, as in the promise of the new co-
venant, Jer. xxxi. 33. — (2) Redemption from the
curse. This the apostle includes in the blessing of
Abraham, Gal. iii. 7, 8, 13, 14. so they are a purchased
or redeemed people to God, as old Israel was typically,
1 Pet. ii. 9. — (3) Justification. This is connected both
in the promise, Jer. xxxi. 33, 34. and in the fulfilment,
Rom. iii. 29, 30. with God's being their God ; and of
this justification by faith Abraham was a prime
pattern, Rom. iv. — ^(4) Adoption, Gal. iii. 26. chap. iv.
5, 6. This is included in the promise of being their
God, see Rom. ix. 26. and is the peculiar privilege of
the children of promise, Rom. ix. 8. of this adoption
that of the fleshly seed was but a figure. — Also the
spirit of adoption, Rom. viii. 15, 16. Gal. iv. 6. and
that in opposition to the fearful spirit of bondage or
servitude. This spirit shows they are sons and heirs,
Rom. viii. 16. and so is the earnest of the heavenly in-
heritance, 2 Cor. i. 22. Eph. i. 13. as well as of the re-
demption of their bodies in conformity to Christ the
first born, Rom. viii. 11. which is also called the adop-
tion, ver. 23. and this gift of the spirit is included in
the blessing of Abraham, Gal. iii. 14.— (5.) The resur-
rection of their bodies from the grave. This is implied
in God's being their God in the sense he was so to
Abraham, Luke xx. 37, 38. and is connected with their
having the spirit, Rom. viii. 11. and is that adoption
whereby they are God's begotten sons from the dead.
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 385
bearing the image of the heavenly man, delivered from
the bondage of corruption, Rom. viii. 23. 1 John iii. 1
— 3.^6 ) The possession of the eternal inheritance,
llom. iv. 16. Gal. iii. IG, 17, 18, 29. Heb. ix. 15.
I Peter i. 3, 4. of which Canaan was but a type. This
inheritance was the hope of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, and is also implied in God's being their God,
see Heb. xi. 16. It is connected with their sonship,
as being joint heirs with Christ, Rom. viii. 16, 17. and
with their having the spirit of adoption, the earnest of
it, Eph. i. 13. — But to return again to the fleshly seed
of Abraham :
The Apostle speaks of Abraham's natural seed in a
threefold view. — 1. Ishmael was the son of the bond-
woman, born after the flesh and not by promise, not a
child of God, nor an heir of the earthly inheritance,
Rom. ix. 7, 8. Gal. iv. 23, 30. With him we may class
Esau, Abraham's grand-child in the promised line, who
profanely despised and sold his birthright, forfeited
the blessing and was rejected. But there is this dif-
ference betwixt the two. — I.shmael was of the bond-
woman, and not an heir. — Esau was of the free- woman,
and an heir of the temporal inheritance by birth. — Ish-
mael was a type of the children of the flesh ; of their
bondage under the old covenant (which was typified by
his mother,) Gal. iv. 25. of their persecuting the true
seed, ver 29. and of their being cast out of their
father's house, ver. 30. But Esau was a type of apos-
tatizing professors under the gospel; their despising
the heavenly inheritance, and of their being rejected,
Heb. xii. 16, 17. From these the apostle shows, that
** they are not all Israel who are of israel; neither
because they are the seed of Abraham are they all
children," Rom. ix. 5—14.
Ce
386 Illustration of the Prophecies
2. Another division of Abraham's natural seed is the
children ot" the temporal promise. The first of these
was Isaac, in whom Abraham's seed was to be called
in distinction from Ishmael, Rom. ix. 7. and who was
conceived by a supernatural power (Abraham's body
and Sarah's womb being dead, Rom. iv. 19) to in-
timate that divine power whereby the spiritual seed are
regenerated, and which raised Christ from the dead.
The second was Jacob, who was also called Israel,
from whom, in distinction from Esau, Abraham's seed
are denominated, and springing in twelve tribes, were
multiplied into a nation. These were the heirs of the
temporal promises, who were separated from the rest
of the nations by the covenant of circumcision, and
the old covenant at Sinai, to be a peculiar people and
holy nation unto God above all people, Exod. xix. 5, 6.
To them " pertained the (typical) adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law,
and the service of God, and the promises ; and of them
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever," Rom. ix. 4, 5.
Of these again the apostle gives us different views.
—Comparing them with Ishmael, he views them as
children of promise, of the free-woman, and heirs of
the temporal inheritance, Rom. ix. 4 — 14. — But on
the other hand, comparing them with the spiritual seed,
or children of the new covenant, he ranks them in the
predicament of Ishmael, and considers them as chil-
dren of the bond-woman, (or old covenant) and, as
such, not heirs of the heavenly inheritance, but born to
slavery or bondage, and so cast out with their mother
as Ishmael was. Gal. iv. 22 — 31. — Again,
3. He considers a remnant among them both as
fleshly and spiritual seed. These are they who, he
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 387
says, " are not of the circumcision only, but also walk
in the steps of that faith of their fother Abraham, which
he had being yet uncircumcised," Rom. iv. 12. As
children of the old covenant, and in bondage under the
rudiments and elements of the world, they differed
nothing from servants : and though, as believers of the
promise of Christ, they were heirs of the eternal inhe-
ritance and lords of all, yet before Christ came they
were at best but as children under tutors, and sub-
jected to the severe pedagogy of the law, having much
of the spirit of fear and bondage. Gal. iii, 23, 24. chap,
iv. 1 — 4. from this state Christ came to deliver them.
Gal. iii. 25. 2G. chap. iv. 5. Heb. ii. 15. — They were
servants as disciples of Moses — they were typically
free as representing the true children of God — and
truly free sons and heirs as imitators of Abraham's
faith.
Now it is this last division of Abraham's fleshly seed,
together with all those who are called from among the
Gentiles that compose the spiritual seed of Abraham,
as I have already shewn. But because the promises
were made to the seed of Abraham, and it being not
so clear how believing Gentiles were counted for his
seed in these promises, as it was a mystery hid from
ages and generations, and in other ages was not known,
Eph. iii. 5, 9 — Col. i. 26, 27. therefore the apostle
insists largely upon that important point, and explains
fully how they stand in this relation to Abraham.
And
1. By calling them the children of the promise, Gal.
iv. 28. he intimates that they are Abraham's children,
as springing from the promise made to him of being
the father of many nations. Gen. xvii. 5. compared
with Rom. iv. 17. even as Isaac was the child of a
Cc2
388 Illustration oj the Prophecies
promise. The word of promise constituted this rela-
tion betwixt Abraham and the Gentile nations, " I have
made thee a father of many nations," and so he says
that Abraham is the father of us all before God, whom
he believed in that promise, " that he might become
the father of many nations, according to that which
was spoken, so shall thy seed be." And that we may
be in no doubt about the seed included in the many
nations, he describes them to be not that only which is
of the law, but that also which is of the faith of Abra-
ham ; and so they are also the children of Abraham's
faith, he believing the promise that he might become
their father. See Rom. iv. 13 — 19.'
2. He is their father, as the prime example of justi-
fication by faith without the works of the law. He
was justified by faith in God's promise before he was
circumcised, that he might be the father of all them that
believe though they be not circumcised; that righte-
ousness might be imputed to them also. And being
justified, he received the sign of circumcision, a seal
of his being justified by the faith which he had before
it, that he might be the father of circumcision to them
who are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in
the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he
had yet being uncircuracised, Rom. iv. 10, 11, 12.
That is, in short, that he might be the father (or prime
pattern) of justification by faith, both to the believing
Jews and Gentiles ; and so his faith is set before us for
our imitatation, ver. 18, 25.
3. He is their father as being the father of th«
notable seed Christ, according to the flesh ; and they
being Clirist's seed, Isa. liii. 10. and also his brethren,
adopted and connected with him as the first-born,
Heb. ii. 11, 18. must of consequence be Abraham's
I
respecting the Seed oj Abraham. 389
seed ; and in this sense the apostle expressly asserts
them to be so ; " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra-
ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise,"
Gal. iii. 29.
Thus I have given a sketch of the New Testament
doctrine concerning Abraham's seed ; how they are so
called, and of what they consist. The purport of the
whole is to show, that the seed, the children, the
offspring, mentioned in the prophecies, stand in that
relation to Abraham, and not to their natural parents ;
that is, they arc not called a seed, children, or offspring,
as springing from their fleshly parents, but in relation
to Abraham, who is the father of all believers in the
sense already explained. Their natural parents are
not their fathers as spiritual children, but, if they are
also believers, they are their brethren, they being
equally the children of Abraham. To Abraham and
his seed (and not to the natural seed of believers, as
such) were the promises made ; first to Christ, and in
him to all his adopted brethren of Jews and Gentiles.
So that the fleshly relation of parent and child is of no
account here : as they are both children in the sense
of the prophecies, if they are believers ; brethren
of Christ and of one another, and fellow heirs of the
heavenly inheritance. This will farther appear if we
consider.
Secondly, That the seed whom the promises respect
are the children of Zion, Isa. xlix. 14 — 24. an epithet
given to the gospel church, Heb. xii. 22. and that in
allusion to the earthly Zion ; and this mount Zion is
opposed to mount Sinai in Arabia, where the old co-
venant was made with the typical people, Heb. xii. 18.
and where the earthly church was erected. The old
covenant made at Sinai, was typified in Abraham's
800 Illuslration of the Prophecies
family by Hagar the bond-woman, with whom Abra-
ham begat Ishmael, and this covenant, though it
brought forth children to Abraham, yet like Hagar it
brought them forth to bondage, Gal. iv. 24. — The
gospel church, related unto God by the new covenant,
is also called Jerusalem, in allusion to the earthly Je-
rusalem where the tribes of God assembled, and in dis-
tinction therefrom is called the Jerusalem which is
above, the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. iv. 26. Heb. xii.
22. This Zion, this Jerusalem, is represented as the
mother of God's children, and was typified by Sarah
the free woman, Abraham's wife, (he mother of Isaac,
the child of promise ; and so with respect to her state,
she is free in distinction from Hagar, who typified the
old covenant, and the earthly Jerusalem which was in
bondage; and hence her children are also free, and
heirs in distinction from the children of the former.
Gal. iv. 24, 25. Thus the apostle says, " But Jeru
salem which is above is free, which is the mother of ua
all," ver. 26. — " Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are
the children of promise," ver. 28. — " So then, brethren,
we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the
free," ver. 31. This Jerusalem is Christ's spouse or
bride, her maker is her husband, Eph. v. 25, 26, 27,
32. — Rev. xxi. 2, 9, 10. and to her and her children the
promises are made in the prophecies. This will
clearly appear from the prophecies themselves; but
1 shall instance only in two passages, viz. Isa. xlix.
14, 24. and chap. liv. 1—9. both of which are quoted
by the apostle, and applied to gospel times, see
2 Cor. vi. 16. and Gal. iv. 27. For the understanding
of which I would premise.
That the children of the earthly typical Zion or Je-
rusalem, were all the fleshly seed of Abraham, the
I
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 891
whole of the nationof Israel who were related to God
by the old covenant. — The children of the true Zion
or heavenly Jerusalem were then only a small remnant
among these, who believed the promise of Christ, and
waited for the consolation of Israel. These in com-
parison of the rest were like Lot in Sodom, Isa i. 9.
and of them the Lord takes particular notice, Mai. iii.
16, 17. When our Lord came into the world, few of
that nation appeared to be the true children of Zion ;
he came unto his own and his own received him not, few
of them believed the gospel report, to few of them was
the arm of the Lord revealed, Isa. liii. 1. — Rom. x. 16.
Though the number of Israel was as the sand of the
sea, it was but a remnant of them that were saved,
Rom. ix. 27, 28, 29. Such was the state of Israel in
the apostle's time, that he compares it to the universal
defection in the days of Elias, Rom. xi. 3, 4, 5. And
as they rejected the Messiah, so the Lord cast them off
from being his people, threw them out of a church
state, and dissolved the typical covenant, whereby
they were related to him. The Spirit of God in the
view of this, represents Zion as complaining of her
desolate, childless, and forsaken situation, Isa. xlix.
14. " But Zion said, the Lord hath forsaken me, and
my Lord hath forgotten me." To this a most com-
fortable answer is given from ver. IS to 20. Then the
Lord proceeds to comfort her, with regard to her chil-
dren ; " The children which thou shalt have, after thou
hast lost the other, (that is, after the Jews should be
cast off) shall say again in thy ears, the place is too
strait for me ; give place to me that I may dwell," ver.
20. This is a promise of the great increase of her
children. At this unexpected and numerous progeny,
Zion is represented as wondering; and indeed the
392 Illustration of the Prophecies
New Testament declares what difficulty there was
about this, and how much surprised the believing
Jews were, when they saw them begotten to Zion,
(Acts X. 28, 45. chap. xi. 18.) and therefore there is a
question about it in the prophecy, as a mysterious and
puzzling thing to Zion ; " Then shalt thou say in thine
heart, who hath begotten me these, seeing I have lost
ray children, and am desolate, a captive, and re-
moving too and fro ? and who hath brought up these ?
Behold I was left alone, these, where had they been ?"
ver, 21. To this it is answered, " Thus saith the Lord
God, behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, and
set up my standard to the people ; and they shall bring
thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be
carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy
nursing-fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers,"
&c. ver. 22, 23. q. d. I will cause the gospel to be pro-
claimed unto the Gentile nations, and will beget chil-
dren unto thee, from among them, by the word of
truth ; and as to their natural birth, briuging-up, and
earthly privileges (which were of such consequence to
thy former children) be not concerned about these j for
I will cause the heathen to perform these offices to thy
children, and make the kingdoms of the earth as so
many nurseries to rear them up, and their kings and
queens to be nursing-fathers and nursing-mothers to
them, in common with their other subjects.
In Isai. liv. 1, 8. the church is comforted with the
promise of a numerous oflfspring. We need be at no
loss to understand what church is here meant ; for the
apostle quotes the first verse, and applies it to the
Jerusalem which is above, and the mother of us all.
Gal. iv. 26, 27. which was typified by Sarah the free-
woman. And as when Sarah was for a long time bar-
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 803
ren, till she was past age, and her womb dead, God pro-
mised that she should have a son, that she should be
blessed, and be the mother of nations, Gen. xvii. 16,
so her antitype here is addressed, " Sing, O barren,
thou that didst not bear ; break forth into singing and
cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child ; for
more are the children of the desolate than the children
of the married wife, saith the Lord," ver. i. that is,
however desolate, forsaken, and barren thou mayst at
present appear to be by the infidelity and rejection of
the tleshly seed of Abraham ; yet thou shalt bring forth
a much more numerous ofi'spring than the earthly Jeru-
salem, married to me by the old covenant : therefore
she is commanded, ver. 2. to enlarge the place of her
tent, &c. to make room for her numerous family. And
that she might not doubt of this wonderful increase of
her children, on account of her widowhood, it is said
to her, ver. 5. " Thy Maker is thy husband, (the Lord
of hosts is his name) and thy Redeemer the Holy One
of Israel, the God of the whole earth shall he be
called," and that in opposition to his being the God of
the Jews only, Rom. iii. 29. So that it is the Lord, the
church's husband, that begets these children to Jeru-
salem, by the word of truth, (James i. 18 ) and so it is
said, ver. 13. of this chapter, " All thy children shall
be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of
thy children," which is the same promise with that in
Jer. xxxi. 34. made to the children of the new cove-
nant, even the children which were to spring from the
marriage of Jerusalem above with the Lord of hosts ;
for with regard to the fleshly children, springing from
the temporal covenant, Zion was to lose these, Isa.
xlix. 20, 21. but Christ, the church's husband, in con-
sequence of making his soul an offering for sin, is pro-
394 Illustration of the Prophecies
mised a seed, and to be satisfied in seeing the travail
of his soul, even the many who by the knowledge of
him should be justified, Isa. liii. 10, 11. and it is upon
this foundation that Jerusalem is bid to sing and rejoice
in the prospect of children. See the connection of the
53d and 54th chapters of Isaiah.
From these scriptures it is clear, that the promises
respecting the children are made to Zion, and not to
believers, as fleshly parents ; and that the seed men-
tioned throughout the prophecies, are not called chil-
dren in relation to their natural parents, but in relation
to Zion, the Jerusalem above, Christ's spouse. — It is
also manifest, that Jerusalem the true church, is not
called a mother in respect of her bringing forth chil-
dren by natural generation, as Hagar, and the earthly
Jerusalem did ; but her maternal relation respects the
children begotten by the incorruptible seed of the word,
and born again, even the seed of Christ, Isa. liii. 10. his
children, Heb. ii. 13. the children of the living God,
Rom. ix. 26. To these, and these only, she is a
mother: but she has nothing to do with the fleshly
birth ; even her own children can claim no relation to
her upon that account, nor can they beget children to
her by that means more than others. The children
promised to her in the prophecies, were to be mostly
of the heathen extraction according to the flesh; with
which heathens she had no connection ; and the
history of the Acts of the Apostles shews us how these
prophecies were accomplished, when " God visited
the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name ;
for to this agree the words of the prophets," Acts xv.
14, 15.
But many who are not satisfied with the New Tes-
tament explication of the prophecies on this point,
may still object and say —
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 395
*' Though the prophecies do indeed respect the spi-
ritual seed ot Abraham, the children of the free-woman,
the Jerusalem which is above ; yet it appears from
many passages of the prophetic writings, that a re-
spect is also had unto the natural seed of these spiri-
tual children. Thus it is said, Psal. Ixix. 36. * The
seed also of his servants shall inherit it.' So Psal. cii.
28. ' The children of thy servants shall continue ; and
their seed shall be established before thee.' Also Ezek.
xxxvii. 25. — ' and they shall dwell therein, even they
and their children, and their children's children, for
ever.' And Jer. xxx. 20. ' Their children also shall be
as aforetime,' &c. From which it appears that the pro-
mises are made not only to the children of Zion, but
also to the children of these children ; that is, not only
to believers, but also to their natural seed."
Now to this I answer, that there has enough been
said already in my observations upon the prophetic
style and phraseology, and upon the foundation it had
in the typical economy, to obviate this objection.— It
certainly is not doing justice to the prophecies to over-
look the New Testament explication of them, and
perch upon such plirases as in their literal signification
can only apply to the type. This is like wrapping our-
selves up in the veil when it is done away in Christ, and
when we may see with open face. However, in answer
to the objection, I shall observe. That
Thirdly, Old Israel, in scripture style, are called the
fathers of the new covenant children, (as I observed
before) Jer. xxxi. 31, 32. *' Behold the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. (i. e.
with the children of Israel and Judah) Not according
to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the
t^6 Illustration of the Prophecies
day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of
the land of Egypt," &c. It is certain that this is a
promise of the new covenant in Christ's blood, see
Heb. viii. and chap. x. 15, 16, 17. and which was made
with the believing Gentiles as well as Jews ; and it is cer-
tain that the covenant made when Israel was brought
out of Egypt, was the old temporal covenant with
the fleshly seed ; for we have the history of that trans-
action in the xix. xx. xxi. xxii. xxiii. and xxiv, chap-
ters of Exodus ; and yet this old Israel, this fleshly
seed, are called the fathers of those with whom the
new covenant was made. They are likewise so called
in the New Testament : The apostle proves at large,
Heb. chap. iii. and iv. that the address in Psal. xcv.7,
8, 9. respects the New Testament church, to whom
he applies it, " To-day, if ye will hear my voice,
harden not your hearts as in the provocation — when
youT fathers tempted me," &c. for none I suppose wiU
afiirm that the rest here spoken of by the apostle re-
mained only for the children of old Israel, acording to
the flesh ; and yet we see old Israel in the wilderness
are called the fathers of those for whom this rest
remains after the seventh-day rest, and the earthly
rest are set aside, which can be no other than the spi-
ritual seed of Jews and Gentiles, who believing enter
into rest, Heb. iv. 3, 9. Again, the apostle writing to
the Gentile church at Corinth, (1 Cor. x. 1.) says,
" Moreover, brethren, 1 would not that ye should be
ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud
and passed through the sea," &c. where old Israel are
called the fathers not only of Paul, who was a Jew,
but also of the believing Corinthians, who were Gen-
tiles. Now it is plain they were not fathers by natural
generation, to the greater part of those called their chil-
respecting the Seed of Abraham. S97
dren — How then is that earthly nation called the fathers
of the spiritnal seed of all nations? and in what re-
spects can the children of the new covenant be called
their children? To this I answer (1) That old Israel
are called the fathers of New Testament children,
chiefly because of them, as concerning: the flesh, Christ
came, Rom. ix. 5. of whom springs the New Testa-
ment children, his seed, Isa. liii. 10, 11. his children,
Heb. ii 13. Christ w as a son of the Jewish church ;
unto them he was in a peculiar manner a Child born,
and a Son given, Isa. ix. 6. but unto the new Testa-
ment church he is promised as a father, and so what
in our version is rendered the everlasting father, is by
the seventy translated 6 Tramp ^z».ovro<; aiovor) the father
of the future age, or world to come, i. e. of the gospel
economy, see ver. 6. So that what the apostle argues.
Gal. iii. 29. " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's
seed," will in like manner hold here ; if they are Christ's
children, then are they the children of ancient Israel,
seeing Christ sprang from that nation as well as from
Abraham ; and they may with as great propriety be
called their children, as Christ's throne is called the
throne of his father David, Isa. ix. 7. Luke i. 32. The
apostle represents the believing Gentiles as naturalized
and adopted children into the commonwealth of Israel,
from which they were formerly strangers and aliens,
£pb. ii. 12 — 81. He likewise represents them as
branches of the wild olive tree, and grafted in among
the natural branches (i. e. the believing Jews) into the
good olive tree, and with them partaking of the root
and fatness thereof, and standing thereon by faith, *
* The twelve apostles of oiir Lord, who were children of Old Israel,
may be consideiedasthe fathers or patriarchs of the Christian church,
1 Cor. iv. 15. Rev. xxi. 12, 14. and so this chnrch may be called th«
children's children of that people.
398 Illustration of the Prophecies
Rom. xi. 17—25. For these and other reasons old
Israel are called the fathers of the New Testament
children; and so the prophecies delivered to them
respecting their children and children's children, do
not respect the natural children of New Testament
believers, but believers themselves, whether of Jews or
Gentiles, whether parents or children, they being all
children of old Israel in the prophetic style, according
to the sense explained. Or in other words, these pro-
mises are not made to New Testament believers, as
fathers, but to old Israel, and that because Christ was
to spring from them, who is the father of the New
Testament children.
Lastly, I would observe. That the prophecies were
actually accomplished to the natural children of that
ancient people even in their spiritual sense. Peter
addressing the Jews says, " Ye are the children of the
prophets and of the covenant which God made with
our fathers— Unto you first God having raised up his
Son Jesus, sent him to bless you in turning away every
one of you from his iniquities," Act iii. 25, 26. And
Paul addressing the Jews at Antioch, before he turned
to the Gentiles there, says, " We declare unto you
dad tidings, how that the promise which was made
unto the Fathers, God hsith fulfilled the same unto us
THEIR CHILDREN, in that he hath raised up Jesus
again," &c. Acts xiii. 32, 33. The promises had a
primary respect unto their natural posterity, and so it
behoved them to have their first accomplishment among
them. Christ's mission was ^rsf to them, and hence
he says to the woman of Canaan, *' I am not sent, but
unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," Matt. xv.
24. among them alone he exercised his personal min-
istry upon earth, and, during that ministry, he prohi-
bits his aposUes from going into the way of the Gen-
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 399
tiles, Matt. x. 5, G, and even after his resurrection
when he extends their commission to all nations, they
were commanded to preach the gospel first unto the
Jews, Luke xxiv. 47. and this the apostle says was
necessary, Acts xiii. 46. Thus '* Jesus Christ was made
a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God,
to confirm the promises made unto the fatJiers :" Rom.
XV. 8. Among them did Christ first set up his king-
dom after his resurrection ; among them he had the
" first fruits of his new creatures, begotten by the word
of truth," Jam. i. 18, and from them did the word of
God sound out unto the aations, begetting children to
the faith. — Thus far, then, the promises made unto
old Israel in the prophecies were accomplished to
their natural children or descendants ; which will at
least partly vindicate the truth of God in these pro-
mises made to the fathers, and show how they were
accomplished to their children and children s children !
Now all the senses that have been given with respect
to the parentage of the children mentioned in the pro-
phecies, perfectly agree and harmonize one with
another. — l.They are Abraham's children as springing
from the promise made to him. — 2. Of consequence
they must be the children of the Jerusalem above, the
free woman, Sarah's antitype. — 3. As they are Christ's,
they must of consequence be the children of old Israel,
from whom Christ came, as well as the children of
Abraham; and it behoved those of them, who were
Jews by birth, to be their children, both in a natural
and spiritual sense. But none of these senses will
favor the point contended for ; for in all the prophecies
there is no promise made to New Testament believers
as natural parents, or in relation to a natural seed
springing from them ; but both parents and children^
400 Illuslraiion of the rrophecies
if they are of the true Israel, are Abraham's seed,
and the children of the promise made to Christ of
seeing his seed ; Isa. liii.lO. they are both the children
which God hath given him, Heb. ii. 13.
As Jer. XXX. 20. is much insisted on to show that
the infants of New Testament believers are to be bap-
tized, even as those of old Israel were circumcised, I
shall, to what has already been said, add another hint
for explaining it. I have already observed, that many
of the prophecies, and particularly those respecting
the children, were delivered during the captivity, and
have a literal respect to the deliverance of old Israel
from that calamity, and to their peace and prosperity
in their ancient inheritance. I have also hinted m ge-
neral that this temporal deliverance was a type of the
great salvation by Christ, which he intimates himself
hi opening up his mission from Isa. Ixi. 1. see Luke iv.
18—22. But it also appears from comparing the book
of the Revelations with the visions and prophecies of
the Old Testament to which it alludes, that the cap-
tivity of that typical church in Babylon was a type of
the captivity of the church of Christ during the reign
of Antichrist. We cannot doubt that Babylon was a
type of the mystical Babylon, the mother of harlots,
see Rev. xvii. and that her fall was also a type of the
down-fall of the other, see Isa. xiii. chap. xxi. 9. chap,
xlvii. Jer. 11. 6—59. compared with Rev. xiv. 8, 9, 10.
chapters xviii. and xix.-The woman, or true church,
is represented as flying from the face of the dragon
into the wilderness. Rev. xii. 13-17, where she is
nourished for a time ; even as Elijah did from the face
of wicked Jezebel, where he was also miraculously
fed, 1 Kings xix. which represents a period of the
church, wherein the true followers of the Lamb were
respecting the Seed of Abraham. 401
to be as obscure and indiscernible as the 7000, who
had not bowed the knee to Baal, were in the days of
Elijah, ver. 18. The two witnesses are said to pro-
phesy in sack-cloth, Rev. xi. 3. that is, in the garments
of their captivity, for it alludes to Joshua's filthy gar-
ments, Zech. iii. 3, 4. They are called the two olive
trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the
God of the earth, ver, 4. in which there is a plain
reference to Zech. iv. 3, 11, 14 where the success of
Zerrubbabel in building the second temple is set forth.
These witnesses have power to inflict judgments on
the wicked, " They have power over waters to turn
them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues
as often as they will," even as Moses and Aaron did
in Egypt. Again, " if any man will hurt them, fire
proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their
enemies. These have power to shut heaven, that it
rain not in the days of their prophecy," ver. 5, 6. even
as Elijah inflicted these punishments during his pro-
phecy, 1 Kings xvii. 1, 2 Kings i. 2 — 8. The state of
Christ's people during this prophecyingof the witnesses,
must of consequence be similar to the state of Israel
in Egypt, to that of the 7000, who did not bow to Baal,
in the time of Jezebel, and to that of the captive Jews,
when their temple and the wall of their city lay in rub-
bish, that is, a state of bondage, obscurity, and cap-
tivity, and not in that separated visible church state
and order instituted for them by Christ. If then we
consider the captivity of old Israel in Babylon, as a
type of the captivity of Christ's people, under the
reign of Antichrist, the mystical Babylon, then the
prophecies, concerning the restoration of the typical
people, may be explained of this spiritual restoration
Qf Christ's people from the power of Antichrist. And
D D
402 Illustration of the Prophecies, !^c.
so when it is said, Jer. xxx. 20. " Their children shall
be as aforetime, &c." (that is, the children of Jacob's
tent, see ver. 18.) it cannot signify that the infant seed
of New Testament believers shall be as the infant
seed of old Israel (for they were not so aforetime) ;
but it means that the spiritual children of Israel's
tents, or the dwelling places of mount Zion, shall be
as they themselves were aforetime, viz. in the days of
the apostles, when delivered from the tyranny and
usurpation of Antichrist, they shall enjoy the primitive
doctrine, order, and ordinances, and when there shall
be a revival of the ancient brotherly love, and patient
following of Christ, in opposition to this present w orld,
in the hopes of conformity to him in his glory.
I am, dear Sir,
Yours in the truth,
ARCH» M'LEAN.
STRICTURES
ON THE SENTIMENTS OF
Dr. JAMES WATT AND OTHERS,
RESPECTING
A Christian Church, the Pastoral Office, and the
right of private Brethren to dispense
the Lord's Supper.
Dd2
NOTICE TO THE READER.
The Reader is requested to keep in view that the chief prin-
ciples which are opposed in the following miscellaneous Stric-
tures are,
1. That two or three believers constitute what the Scriptures
call a Church.
2. That they are competent to do every thing without Pastors
which they can do with them.
3. That there is no work or function peculiar to the pastoral
office.
4. That the institution of the Lord's Supper is unlimited, and
not to be confined either to a church, or to the administra-
tion of a Pastor.
5. That a visible organized church is not the body of Christ in
any other sense than as being members in particular of his
one body.
STRICTURES, See
9999^
The present day is considered, by some, as a time
of great improvement in religious knowledge. How
far this is really the case, I will not venture to de-
termine ; but I should be happy to think that the ob-
servation was well founded. One thing is certain, that
there is much speculation afloat respecting the external
order and social practices of the primitive churches ;
but how far the true spirit of Christianity keeps pace
with it, is another question. It should ever be kept in
view, that the end of the commandment is love, out of
a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned ; and that without this, the understanding of
all mysteries and all knowledge is unprofitable. If
we may judge of things by their effects, it does not as
yet appear, that many of the supposed improvements
of the day have any great tendency to produce Chris-
tian humility, charity and unity among brethren. On
the contrary, they have been the occasion of mul-
tiplying parties and divisions in abundance. Yet,
while the leaders in this admit the appearance of con-
fusion, they consider it as " the only way to unity and
harmony among the disciples of Jesus," and flatter
themselves that " a day is coming when they will be
viewed as the witnesses of Christ, the salt of the earth
which prevented universal corruption, and preserved
the precious doctrine in which all the disciples of Jesus
shall be united," &c.
406 Strictures oh the Sentiments of
Mr. Walker of Dublin, and the Messrs. Haldane^
of Edinburgh, have been remarkable for new dis-
coveries. The former has found out, that the ordi-
nance of baptism is derived from a Jewish tradition,
and that it belongs only to a man and his infants upon
his conversion to Christianity from Judaism or hea-
thenism, but ought not afterwards to be administered to
any of his descendants. And he and the Messrs. Hal-
danes have discovered, that two or three believers
constitute a church of Christ, and possess a full power
or right to adminsitcr and observe all church ordi-
nances previous to their having office-bearers, and
without them, and are bound to do so as their imme-
diate duty. Mr. Walker does not scruple to assert,
that " They know not the scriptural nature of a church,
or of its elders, who conceive that the elders are to
enable or authorise the church to do any thing which
it was not bound to do before it had any elders, and
without them :" And adds, " But I know that where
the sentiment against which I contend is held, there
can be no scriptural church." That is, if a society of
Christians hold the sentiment, that elders arc necessary
to them in any respect, they cannot be a scriptural
church : and if we want proof for this strange asser-
tion, let us rest in this, that Mr. Walker knows they
cannot !
But I have no inclination to intermeddle in other
men's matters ; nor should I have taken any notice of
these things, were it not for the division and animo-
sities which such sentiments are producing among
ourselves, and which are encouraged and promoted
by the Messrs. Haldanes and their coadjutors. About
three years ago, Mr. Ewing of Glasgow published
" An attempt towards a Statement of the Doctrine of
Dr. James Watt and others. 407
Scripture on some Disputed Points," in which he
presumed to disapprove of some of Mr. Haldane's in-
novations, and among the rest, of his sentiment about
observing the Lord's Supper without elders. Since
that time, a number of antagonists have appeared in
magazines, and other publications, against Mr. Ewing,
who have fastened upon him with repeated attacks,
as if they could never be satisfied till they had worried
him outright.* Among this number have appeared
Messrs. Jackson, Ballantine, Carson, and Dr. VTatt,
who is one of the elders of our sister church at Glas-
gow, and who, through the sides of Mr. Ewing, has
been striking at some of the principles which were
universally held by the Baptists in Scotland when he
joined them. By disseminating his principles among
the brethren, and receiving into the church a number
of those who were of his own sentiments, he has
obtained the ascendancy of a prevailing party in the
church at Glasgow, while his colleagues have been
too inattentive, or too timid to oppose the growing
progress of these principles. And now finding himsell
supported by so numerous a party, both at Glasgow
and elsewhere, he has, in a reply to Mr. Braidwood
of Edinburgh, openly impugned the principles of the
profession which he once made, as to the nature, fel-
lowship, and order of a church of Christ, and has at-
* Though I differ from Mr. Ewing as to several things contained
in that publication, yet I could not help being disgusted at the man-
ner and number of their answers. Mr. Haldane had a right to
answer for himself ; but the group of his keen retainers from dif-
ferent quarters, have manifested a very litigious spirit. Mr. Ewing,
in his section on the duties of office-bearers in a church, p. 130—143.
will stand his ground against the whole posse of his antagonists,
because the Word of God clearly supports him. And what he sayi
in another section, p 157 — 168, deserves serious consideration.
408 Strictures on the Sentiments of
tempted to vindicate Mr. Walker and Mr. Ballantine
in the most obnoxious of their sentiments. In all this
he is supported and eucourai,ed by Mr. R. Haldane,
wiih whom he hath joined counsels ; and who, it is said^
has taken a good number of his pamphlets to disperse
gratis. Another writer, in two letters to Mr. Braid-
wood, has also of late declared himself of these senti-
ments, and argued for them, of which some notice
shall be taken in the following pages.
They inform us now, that they have been long in
their present sentiments ; but if they were established
in these sentiments when they joined us, it belongs to
them to reconcile their conduct with uprightness and
sincerity : They well knew our principles, both with
regard to the doctine and precepts of the gospel, and
also with respect to our social religious practices and
church order; for these were then published to the
world ; and they also knew that had they then pro-
fessed and avowed their present sentiments, they
would not have been admitted into connection with us.
And now that they have got in amongst us, Dr. Watt
urges us to bear with him and his party on account of
their numbers ; but we never considered numbers as a
test of sound principles, but frequently of the opposite.
He also urges forbearance, because " multitudes of
dear brethren wish to unite with us, but cannot submit
to the commandments of men which rest only on
strained figures, and texts misapplied." I shall after-
wards take notice of this unjust charge : But while
these multitudes of dear brethren view our sentiments
in that light, with what consistency can they wish to
unite with us? And while we, on the other hand,
firmly believe that our principles are founded on the
doctrine and precepts of our Lord and his inspired
Dr. James Watt and others. 409
upostles, how would it consist with the fear of God
that we should relinquish any of these principles for
the siike of union with them ? From Dr. Watt's reply
to Mr. Braid wood, we may see that we have little for-
bearance to expect from him, unless gross misrepre-
sentation and contemptuous treatment be considered
as forbearance. And from this printed letter which he
hath since sent to be disseminated among the members
of the church at Edinburgh, we see the nature of his
forbearance. It is allowed to be such forbearance
as consists with our giving over visiting some of the
societies in our connection ; or, if we visit them,
consists with our withdrawing, instead of sitting down
with them at the Lord's table ! Such forbearance is as
opposite to that which the scripture inculcates, (Eph.
iv. 2.) as darkness is to light ; and it will soon mani-
fest itself by its effects in obstructing real brotherly
love, and estranging the churches from each other, as
it has done in part already ; and this indeed seems to
be part of the scheme. Would it not be far more
honest and consistent, fairly and openly to separate
and part in peace, than to give place to such unscrip-
tural forbearance, which can serve no other end than
to keep up a hypocritical profession of unity which
does not in reality exist? We have received some
into the church at Edinburgh who were doubtful
as to the principle of observing the Lord's Supper
without elders, and we bore with them in love ; and
should any of these come to be fixed in that sentiment,
they have it still in their power to act as honest con-
scientious persons by declaring themselves, and with-
drawing from the connection ; for we never professed
to bear with any who avowed themselves to be esta-
blished in that opinion, if they should raise disputes
•110 Slrictures on the Sentiments of
about it, practise it even occasionally, or endeavour to
propagate it among the members.
But the sentiment, that a church may and ought to
observe the Lord's Supper without elders, is but a
small part of the present difference, as will appear by
taking a view of the avowed principles which are con-
nected v^^ith that sentiment, and have been brought
forward in support of it.
I, The first principle that I shall mention is this, viz.
" That the execution of the commission given by
Christ to his apostles to teach and baptize, is not con-
fined to any official description of men who are parti-
cularly fitted for and appointed to that work ; but is
competent also to private brethren, according as the
circumstances of mere conveniency may happen to
dictate for the time." Though I have stated this senti-
ment in my own words, yet they cannot disclaim it,
because it is a well known fact that they have acted
upon it. A number of years ago a society at Paisley,
who had separated from the Secession, and turned
Baptists, proceeded upon this principle, and baptized
one another, and that without any necessity. Mr.
Walker's pupils, at Dublin, when they embraced bap-
tism, followed the same plan ; and a number of Mr.
Haldane's connections have adopted the same sen-
timent, and acted upon it. Indeed it is their avowed
sentiment, as we shall see immediately.
If this can be justified in any case, it can be only in
a case of absolute necessity, such as w as the case with
David and those that were with him, in eating the
shew-bread, Matth. xii. 3, 4. which few in Britain can
plead. But we are reminded by one of our brethren,
that " It is written, He that believeth, and is baptized,
shall be saved;" and he asks, " What would you
Dr. James Watt and otJisrs. 411
think of the modesty, and, I may add, the Christianity
of that man who should add, if baptized by an
ordained minister ? Y'et wc know, that some zealots
have thus limited the divine promise, in opposition to
its les^itimate meaning and design, and to the plain and
most explicit evidence, that private brethren, during
the age of the apostles, both preached the gospel and
baptized the disciples." To this I answer. That we
think it would be eq illy needless to add, if baptized
by an ordained minis as it would be unscripiural
to add, if baptized by a private brother. But as to
those zealots who limit the promise of salvation to the
baptism of an ordained minister, we know not how
this comes to be mentioned on the present occasion,
unless it be to insinuate that we hold that principle, or
something a-kin to it. It has ever been our declared
sentiment, that many will be saved who have never
been baptized at all according to scripture rule, either
by private persons or ordained ministers ; and we have
also received some who have been baptized by private
persons without rebaptizing them. Not that we ap-
proved of that irregularity, or of the principles and
character of the persons who presumed to baptize
them ; but because we did not view it as affecting
their salvation, and because we have no scripture pre-
cedent for repeating baptism.
But to return to the principle under consideration,
which does not respect the promise of salvation at all,
but the authority or right which men have to preach
the gospel and baptize. It is asserted above, that
there is '* the plainest and most explicit evidence, that
private brethren, during the age of the apostles, both
preached the gospel and baptized the disciples." By
private brethren, I understand those who have no par-
4^2 Strictures on the Sentiments of
ticular call nor distinguished qualifications for public
teachers. But it is certain, that the commission to
teach arid baptize, (recorded in Matth. xxviii. 19, 20.
and Mark xfi. 15, 16.) and which is the authority for
preaching and baptizing to the end of the world, was
not delivered by Christ to private brethren, but to those
whom he appointed as public teachers ; and the work
he assigned them sufficiently demonstrates this. The
first order of these teachers were his apostles, — men
whom he had called, chosen, and, in an extraordinary
degree, qualified for that important work, by infallible
inspiration, and other miraculous powers and super-
natural gifts of the Spirit, both for the purpose of
giving forth the New Testament revelation, and con-
firming the truth of it, Heb. ii. 4. These supernatural
gifts were distributed in various kinds and degrees
among many others besides the apostles ; to some one
kind of gift, to others another, 1 Cor. xii. 4 — 12. By
these some were qualified for being prophets, some
evangelists, some pastors, some teachers, &c. ver. 28
— 31. Eph. iv. 11. the nature of the gift pointing out
the work assigned them, as well as their call to the
exercise of it, Rom. xii. 6 — 9. All who possessed and
exercised these extraordinary gifts were not what are
called private brethren, but were fitted for and en-
gaged in public official services, either in the churches
or in preaching the gospel at large.
When revelation was completed, as we have it now
in the inspired writings of the New Testament, these
extraordinary gifts ceased, (as was foretold, 1 Cor.
xiii. 8.) having accomplished their design: But the
work of preaching the gospel and baptizing the dis-
ciples was not to cease with the miraculous gifts, but
to continue to the end of the world, as is clear from
Dr. James Watt and others. 41S
Christ's promise, Matth. xxviii. 20. Now, upon whom
did this work devolve? Upon private brethren? By
no means ; for, during the daj'S of the apostles, and
by their directions, ordinary standing office-bearers
were appointed for carrying on this work, Actsxiv. 23.
Tit. i. 5. And Paul thus exhorts Timothy, " The
things which thou hast heard of me, the same commit
thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others
also," 2 Tim. ii. 2.
These are distinguished from private brethren by
certain characters and qualifications, by the special
work assigned them, and by their official designations.
The characters and qualifications by which they are to
be chosen, are described in 1 Tim. iii. and Tit. i. 5—
10. And though some of the first of them might be
possessed of extraordinary gifts, yet none of these are
mentioned among their essential qualifications. The
work assigned them is peculiar ; viz. to oversee, rule,
and labour in the word and doctrine, and thus to feed
the church of God, 1 Tim. v. M. Acts xx. 28. 1 Pet. v.
1 — 5. They are also distinguished by their official de-
signations, such as elders, pastors, teachers, bishops,
&c. and the only other ordinary standing office is that
of deacons. Acts xx. 17. Eph. iv. 11. Phil. i. 1. 1 Tim.
iii. 2 — 8. These things, duly considered, it will require
very plain and explicit evidence indeed to prove, that
private hrethreiiy during the age of the apostles, either
publicly preached the gospel, or baptized the disciples,
or that they were appointed to do so in after ages.
We may, however, take notice of a few things which
are urged to this purpose.
We read, that " there was a great persecution against
the church which was at Jerusulem ; and they were
ALL scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea
414 Strictures on ths Sentiments of
and Samaria, except the apostles. Therefore, they
that were scattered abroad, went every where preach-
ing the gospel," Acts viii. 1 — 4. Some from these word^
imagine, that every individual of the church at Jeru-
salem, except the apostles, were scattered abroad,
and that the whole of them went every where publicly
proclaiming the gospel ; and hence they conclude,
that private brethren must have been among those who
were thus engaged. This, indeed, at first sight, ap-
pears plausible, and I make no doubt that many pri-
vate members, both men and women, fled from Jeru-
salem on that occasion : But it must be noticed,
1. That the word all must frequently be taken in
a restricted sense : Thus it is said, " There went out
to him (i. e. John the Baptist,) all the land of Judea,
and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him
in the river Jordan, confessing their sins, Mark 1. 5.
Yet we are told, " that Jesus made and (by his dis-
ciples) baptized more disciples than John," John iv.
1, 2. And it is said, " that all men came to him,"
chap. iii. 26. We also know, that a great number
rejected the baptism of both, Luke vii. 29, 30. In this
limited sense, the word all is very frequently used,
see Luke iii. 6. Mat. iii. 5. John xii. 32. Acts. ii. 17, &c.
2. We know that all the individuals of the church
at Jerusalem, except the apostles, were not scattered
abroad ; for there were a number both of nxen and
women belonging to that church whom Saul dragged
from their houses and committed to prison, Acts viii.
3. though it is likely that the public meetings of the
church were at that time discontinued. Before this
persecution was ended, we find that, besides the apos-
tles, there were a number of disciples at Jerusalem to
whom Saul essayed to join himself, but they were
Dr. James Watt and others. 416
afraid of him until he was introduced to them by Bar-
nabas ; and when the Jews went about to slay him,
some of these brethren brought him down to Cesarea,
and sent him forth to Tarsus, see Acts ix. 26 — 31.
Thus we have explicit evidence that the whole church
at Jerusalem were not scattered abroad. And had it
not been for the comfort and encouragement of the
church there during that persecution, it will be hard
to account for the apostles continuing there ; especially
too as public teachers were the most exposed.
3. When it is said that " they who were scattered
abroad went every where preaching the word," Acts
viii. 4. we have reason to believe that all those who
did so were public teachers ; that they were furnished
with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, which were
so copiously bestowed on the church at Jerusalem,
from whence the word of God was to go forth to all
nations; and that these gifts both pointed out the
work to which they were designed, and sufficiently
qualified them for it.
The history of the progress of these public preachers
is resumed, chap. xi. 19 — 21. where we are told, that
" they travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and
Antioch, preaching (or speaking) the word to none
but unto the Jews only :" That " some of them were
men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come
to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the
Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with
them," not only in giving effect to their doctrine, but
confirming it by miracles, " and a great number be-
lieved, and turned unto the Lord."
Thus we see, that they were men eminently gifted
and qualified for their work, and remarkably coun-
tenanced of the Lord, in laying the foundation of the
416 Strictures on the Sentiments of
first of the Gentile churches. Any of them who are
particularly mentioned, were evidently public teachers.
The first we read of was Philip, the evangelist and
deacon, chap, viii, 5. ; and as others of them were the
means of converting a great number at Antioch, it
is likely that they were among the teachers men-
tioned in the church there, chap, xiii. 1. There is,
therefore, no explicit evidence that they were private
brethren, but very much evidence that they were
qualified and appointed to the work in which they were
engaged.
It is also affirmed, that, during the age of the apos-
tles, private brethren baptized the disciples. If they
did, then they were not acting according to the com-
mission, which was not given to men as private
brethren, but to men appointed and qualified as
public teachers ; and which connects the administra-
tion of baptism with the preaching of the gospel. It
is alleged that the six brethren who accompanied
Peter to Cesarea were private brethren, and that Peter
commanded them to baptize Cornelius and his kins-
men. Acts X. 48. Here are two things affirmed with-
out any explicit proof. There is no evidence that
those six brethren were private persons. Their being
termed brethren does not prove this, else it will equally
prove that apostles, evangelists, and other public
teachers, were private persons, for they are also
termed brethren, see Matth. xx. 24. Acts xv, 22. Phil,
i. 14. 2 Cor. viii. 23. chap ix. 3, 5. Again, it is not
said that Peter commanded these six brethren to bap-
tize the converts, but that he commanded the converts
themselves to be baptized, which does not determine
who baptized them, whether Peter himself or those
brethren ; for Ananias commanded Saul to be bap-
i>r. James Walt and others. 41?
tized, though he himself baptized him, Acts xxii. IG.
So that there is no proof either that these persons were
private brethren, or, supposing they were, that they
baptized Cornelius and his kinsmen.
Some imagine that Ananias was not a public
teacher, and yet he baptized Saul, Acts ix. 17, 18.
It is amazincf to observ e how persons will strain mat-
ters in order to support a favourite hypothesis. This
conjecture is perhaps founded upon his being called a
disciple, ver. 10. yet both the apostles and the seventy
are throughout the gospels termed disciples. Though
Ananias should have had no particular commission
before, he got an immediate divine commission then,
which sufficiently authorized him to do what he did,
see ver. 10, 11, 15. And it must farther be observed,
that he had both the miraculous gift of restoring Saul's
sight, and the power of conferring the Holy Ghost
upon him, ver. 17. powers which were conferred only
on the most eminent public teachers.
To show that any private brother may preach the
gospel and baptize, some have instanced in Philip,
who was one of the seven deacons, and who preached
to and baptized the Samaritans and the Ethiopian
eunuch. Acts viii. 12. But it should be noticed, that
Philip was not only a deacon but an evangelist, chap,
xxi. 8. that be confirmed his doctrine at Samaria by
miracles, chap. viii. 6, 7. and (hat he had an imme-
diate call to preach the gospel to the eunuch and bap-
tize him, ver. 29. From the whole, therefore, I am
fully w arranted to conclude, that there is no explicit
evidence, nor indeed any evidence at allj that private
brethren either publicly preached the gospel or bap-
tized, during the age of the apostles ; nor is there the?
least intimation that this work was to devolve iiponf
such in succeeding ages.
B E
418 Strictures on the Seniimenls of
II. Another radical principle of their scheme is,
" That a church is the organ through which the power
of dispensing ordinances is conveyed to elders." This
principle is true in a certain sense ; but observe the
argument they draw from it, viz. that as no church can
transfer powers which it does not possess in itself, so
it must possess in itself the power of dispensing or-
dinances, otherwise it could not transfer that power to
elders.
It will be necessary here to examine what powers a
church possesses in itself, and what powers it transfers
to its elders ; for these are not in all respects the same.
The powers which a church possesses in itself, while
it is without elders, can be none of the powers of
office, for without the office these do not exist ; and
the powers which it transfers to elders cannot respect
the duties required of itself ; for its own proper and
indispensable duties are not transferable.
The question at issue is not. Whether a church is
possessed of a power or right to chuse its own pastors ?
for that is freely admitted on all hands ; nor is that the
power which a church transfers to its pastors in chusing
them, for they had it before as private members. But
it must here be observed, that the power which a
church possesses of chusing its pastors is not arbitrary
and unlimited, but is under the restrictions and direc-
tions of Christ's law, by which its choice must be cir-
cumscribed and regulated. No church has any warrant
from Christy nor any legitimate power in itself, to chuse
any to that office, but such whose qualifications and
characters answer, in some measure, to those which
are particularly specified in his word, as in 1 Tim. iii.
1 — 8. Tit. i. 5 — 10. ; and it may be questioned, on
the other hand, whether a church has a right to with-
t)r. James Watt and others. 419
hold its choice from those who appear to be thus
qualified, since it is only by these visible characters
and qualifications that it can possibly know who are
called of God to that office. No church can, by virtue
of its choice, convey any gifts or fitness for the pastoral
oflaice which the persons did not previously possess,
accordinij to the measure of the gift of Christ, Rom. xii.
(j. Eph. iv. 7. ; and tliis fitness must appear to the
church previous to its choice, and as the grounds of it.
The pastoral office itself is not the institution of the
church, but of Christ, Luke xii. 14. The qualifications
necessary to it are bestowed by him ; and both these
and the persons possessing them are his gifts to the
church, Eph. iv. 12. The peculiar duties and functions
of that office, together with the church's subjection to
the scriptural exercise of it, are all prescribed and en-
joined in his law ; so that nothing of church power or
arbitrary authority can have place here, but the au-
thority of Christ alone, to which all are bound to be
subject.
The relation between pastors and flock is not formed
merely by the choice and call of the church, but re-
quires also the consent and acceptance of the persons
called. It is the solemn mutual consent and agreement
of both parties which constitutes that relation, and
lays them both under mutual obligations to perform
the respective duties of that relation according to the
law of Christ. The choice of the church of persons
fit for the pastoral office, empowers the persons so
chosen to take the oversight of it as pastors, while it
also engages the church to be subject to their minis-
trations in the Lord, and to perform all the other duties
it owes them as enjoined in the word of God. On the
other hand, those who accept of and undertake that
E e2
420 strictures on the Sentiments of
office, are engaged to perform with faithfulness all the
official duties and functions belonging to it as the ser-
vants of Christ, to whom they must give an account,
and as the ministering servants of the church for
Christ's sake. Whatever other scriptural solemnities
may be used on the occasion, this is the simple amount
of the whole transaction. But in all this, the church
does not transfer, or make over, to its pastors any
powers which it previously possessed in itself. It still
retains all the power that ever it had to chuse its owti
pastors, and may still exercise that power whenever
there is occasion for it. And what is this power ? It
is well described by one who had closely studied the
scriptures on that subject. Speaking of what belongs
to elders in ordaining men to the pastoral office, he
says, "They have no right to separate any man to that
office, whom God has not called :" (by which he means
qualified). " His law gives them only the power of
obedience, in separating the men who are called by
him according to his word." And, with respect to the
people, he says, " No people have a right to elect any
whom God has not called, or to reject those whoin he
calls ; but they must obey him in receiving and doing
all that he requires of them in his word, towards them
that are by him qualified according to the description
given in his law. It cannot be so well shown where
the New Testament says. That it is my election that
makes a man wy minister, as where it forbids me to
reject a minister of Christ, and obliges me to receive a
man because he is one, according to the description
of a minister in the Christian law. — The turning of the
part that men have to act, in the choice and ordination
of ministers, out of the channel of humble obedience
to the plain word of God, has been the spring of ail
Dr. James Watt and others. 421
the confusion and disorder that has taken place in the
world about the ordination of ministers."*
But, as has been observed, the power of a church
to chuse its own pastors is not the point in dispute,
nor what our brother has in view. The whole scope
of his letter abundantly explains his meaning- to be,
That a church, previous to its having pastors, possesses
in itself all the powers, and is competent to exercise
all the functions which the word of God assigns to
pastors, otherwise it could not by its choice transfer
these powers to them. Or, in other words, a church
or Christian society, as such, must possess in itself
a right to perform every part of the pastoral work,
before it has pastors, otlierwise it can have no power
or right to set apart any of its number to that office.
One would think that the bare statement of this sen-
timent is a sufficient refutation of it. It is true, none
can transfer, or make over to others a right to any
property, unless that property is in their possession,
and at their own disposal ; But it is equally true, that
a society, by its right of election, may confer an office
on some of its members which it was not itself pre-
viously possessed of, and which, till that election was
made, neither the society at large, nor any of its mem-
bers, had a right to assume or exercise. This is a well
known principle with regard to all offices and official
powers which are conveyed by a free election. A
Christian society, though it possesses the right of
election to an office under the limitations already men-
tioned, yet that is a very different thing from its pos-
sessing the office itself, or being qualified for it, or
having a right to exercise the powers and functions
* Gias's Works, vol. ii. 236, 237, 240. Perth Edit,
425 Strictures on the Sentiments of
wMch are attached to it, not by the authority of men,
as in worldly societies, but by the authority of Christ
himself. If the pastoral office be an ordinance or ap-
pointment of Christ in his house, — if he has clearly
distinguished, in his word, those who are fit for it from
the body of the church, by certain qualifications, by
the official designations given them, and by the min-
isterial work and charge assigned them; then it is
plain to a demonstration, that neither the office, nor
the work belonging to it, are vested in the church at
large, but only in those who are qualified, chosen, and
solemnly set apart to execute it.
Now if it is true, that a society of Christians is com-
petent, and bound in duty, to do every thing without
elders that it can do with them, and that no part of the
order, worship, ordinances or government of a church
has any dependance on the ministrations of the pas-
toral office, then it must follow,
1 . That a church has no right or authority to transfer
any part of that duty from itself to elders ; for what-
ever is its own proper, immediate, and indispensable
duty cannot be transferred from itself to an official
substitute or proxy, any more than the personal duties
of brotherly love or morality can. Nor has any per-
son a right to accept of such a transfer.
2. It makes the scriptural qualifications for the
elder's office not necessary : This consequence is evi-
dent ; for if a society of private Christians, who have
none among them possessing the qualifications of
elders (otherwise they ought to chuse them) can do
every thing without them, or perform every part of the
work assigned to elders without these qualifications,
then such qualifications cannot be necessary to the
performance of that work. And why then are the cha-
Dr. James Watt and others. 433
racters and qualifications of elders or bishops so
pointedly stated and required in the word of God ?
3. This principle renders it needless to chuse and set
apart men to the pastoral office. The word of God
not only mentions the qualifications necessary to that
sacred office, and by which alone we can distinguish
those who are called of God to it ; but it also informs
us, that such persons were actually chosen in distinc-
tion from their brethren, and solemnly set apart and
ordained to the pastoral office by prayer with fasting,
and laying on of hands, Acts xiv. 23. 1 Tim. v. 22.
Now if this conveys no official authority, nor any pe-
culiar function or work, but what all, or any of the
brethren, have a right and are bound in duty to exercise,
without either the qualifications or the office, it must
undoubtedly follow, that the whole of this solemn pro-
ceeding is not only a mere unmeaning ceremony, but
its very solemnity must be superstition, if not gross
prophanity.
4. According to this principle, elders have no pecu-
liar work or charge committed to them which does not
equally belong to all the brethren, and so elders can be
under no special obligation or responsibility for the
discharge of that work but what is common to all :
For if a church is bound in duty to do every thing
without, or previous to its having elders, then it is >
plain, that no peculiar work, charge, or responsibility
is attached to the elder's office. But what then shall
we make of the solemn charge given by Paul to the
elders of the Ephesian church, and which he en-
forces by his own example, " Take heed, therefore, to
yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the
church of God which he hath purchased with his own
424 Strictures on the Sentiments of
blood," Acts XX. 28. Again, Peter writing to the dif-
ferent churches throughout Pontus, Galatia, &c, gives
this charge to the elders among them : " The elders
who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder —
feed the flock of God which is among you, exercising
the oversight, not by constraint, but willingly ; not for
filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being
lords over God's heritages, but being ensamples to the
flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye
shall receive a crown of glory that fudeth not away,"
1 Pet. V. 1—5. These passages sufiiciently shew, that
there is a peculiar work assigned to elders in relation
to the flock over which they are set. Farther, this
principle makes the official designations given to
elders in the scriptures, such as pastors, overseers^
leaders, guides, or rulers, presidents, stewards, teachers,
ifc. to be words without meaning, or mere empty
sounds ; and surely they can be nothing else, if they
are not expressive of any official power, function,
or work peculiar to elders, and which the brethren
in common have no authority to assume or exercise.
5. Another consequence of this principle is, that
it frees a church from any particular obligation of
duty to their elders as such, or on account of any
official work which they perform among them : For if
there is no peculiar work or duty due from pastors to
the flock, there can be no peculiar duty due from the
flock to their pastors. But in opposition to this, let
us hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches : Paul,
writing to the church of the Thessalonians, says,
^' And we beseech you, brethren, to know them who
labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and
admonish you ; and to esteem them very highly in
Joye for their work's sake, and be at peace among
Dr. James Walt and others. 425
yourselves," 1 Thess. v. 12, 13. And, writing to the
Hebrews, he says, " Obey them that have the rule
over you, and submit yourselves ; for they watch for
your souls as they that must give account, that they
may do it with joy and not with grief, for that is un-
profitable for you," Heb. xiii. 17.
Since we are on this subject, it may be proper to
mention another duty which a church owes to its
elders, and that is maintenance ; for thus the churches
in Galatia are exhorted, " Let him that is taught in
the word communicate to him that teacheth in all good
things," Gal. vi. 6. And Timothy is directed to instruct
the church at Ephesus in this duty : " Let the elders
that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, es-
pecially they who labour in the word and doctrine :
For the scripture saith. Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
that treadeth out the corn ; and, The labourer is
worthy of his reward," 1 Tim. v. 17, 18. As this also
is disputed by some, we may observe, that the word
honour here signifies not only respect, but maintenance,
as is clear from the reasons enforcing it, in ver. 18.
and from the use of the word in several other places,
see Matth. xv. 4—7. Acts xxviii. 10. 1 Tim. v. 3.
It ought also to be noticed, that this duty is not
founded merely in the law of charity, which obliges
Christians to supply the wants of the poor ; but it is
founded in strict justice and equity, such as the right
which the labourer has to his reward, in which there
is a reference to our Lord's words, Luke x. 7. ; and
the apostle places it on the same footing with tho
right which the priests had to a maintenance by the
Mosaic law. " Do ye not know, that they who min-
ister about holy things live of the things of the temple ?
and they who wait at the altar are partakers with the
426 Strictures on the Sentiments of
altar? EvExN so hath the Lord ordained, that
they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel,"
1 Cor. ix. 13, 14. And though Paul declined taking
any thing from the Corinthians, for reasons which he
assigns, 2 Cor. xi. 7 — 13. yet he maintains his right to
it, 1 Cor. ix. 6 — 16. and received supply from other
churches, 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9. Philip, iv. 14—19. It is
indeed honourable in pastors to decline their right to
maintenance, if they can do without it. Acts xx. 34, 35.
but it is very dishonourable in churches to withhold
the reward of the labourer if they are able to afford it ;
and in this respect the Corinthians were inferior to
other churches, 2 Cor. xii. 13.
Now, as pastors, on the one hand, are set over the
flock, and have a special charge to feed them, by
ruling, watching over, admonishing, and ministering
the word and ordinances to them, as they that must
give account; and, on the other hand, as the flock are
commanded to know and esteem them for their work's
sake, and to obey, submit to, and support them in the
discharge of that work, nothing can more clearly set
forth the distinction between the duties of the pastoral
office and those incumbent on the church at large.
From what has been already said, it is clear to a de-
monstation,
6. That the principle under consideration renders
the elders' office altogether unnecessary ; for if a church
possesses all the powers of that office in itself; if it
can do every thing without it, and without the qualifi-
cations necessary to it, and is bound in duty to do so,
it can be of little or no consequence whether it has
elders or not. In a church where all the members are
possessed of the same powers, and are under the same
obligations to perform every part of the public service.
Dr. James Watt and others. 4*27
there can be no such thing as any peculiar or distinct
office. An office which has no exclusive prerogative,
no powers, functions, or duties peculiar to it, is a mere
non-entity, and to apply to it any of the distin-
guishing designations of office, is an absolute ab-
surdity.
III. Another principle assumed in support of this
scheme is, " That the peculiarity of the pastor's work
does not consist in the kind of employment in which
he engages, but in the degree." Now, if this be the case,
then the pastoral office has no peculiar kind of work
or charge attached to it ; nor have pastors any peculiar
kind of official authority, power or rule vested in them
for the discharge of that office, but what belongs to all
the brethren, who, according to this, must be all, in fact,
leaders, rulers, pastors, teachers, &c. in ki?id, though
not in the same degree. The scripture, indeed, never
applies these official designatiojis to the brethren in
general ; but why ? Is it because, though they are en-
gaged in the same kind of work with their pastors,
they do it not in the same degree ? If so, it will be ne-
cessary to ascertain what degree of the same kind of
work is necessary to constitute the peculiarity of the
pastor's office, and whether that degree is to be mea-
sured by the quantity or quality of his work, or both.
To settle this with precision will, perhaps, require all
Dr. Watt's skill, especially as he denies that there is any
diflerence in the pastor's work from that of the brethren
as to its nature or kind.
It may happen that some of the brethren may be
equal to, or perhaps excel their elders in abilities for
performing different parts of their work, who yet, upon
the whole, would be very unfit for that office in respect
of experience, temper, or character; in which case it
428 Strictures on the Sentiments of
would at least be very difficult to perceive any pecu-
liarity in the elder's work as to its degree. Should a
brother perform different parts of the public service
equally well as an elder, there would be no distinction
in the degree of their work in this case, for equality
does not admit of it ; and so the elder cannot be dis-
tinguished by the degree of his work from that brother,
if there is nothing else to distinguish him. But should
the brother in any degree excel the elder in that work,
tlien that degree constitutes him the elder, it being accor-
ding to this rule, the only distinction in which the pe-
culiarity of the elder's work consists. If it be said,
that he cannot be an elder, because he is not chosen
by the church, and because there may be something in
his character which unfits him for that office ; I answer,
this is to admit, that there are other peculiarities ne-
/cessary to the office and work of an elder besides
its degree, and so contradicts the principle above laid
down.
If there is any distinction between rulers and ruled,
stewards and households, pastors and flock, teachers
and taught, &c. as the word of God abundantly shews,
then there must of necessity be a difference in the
nature of their relative and respective duties answer-
able to these distinctions. It must be the official work
of pastors to rule, lead, watch over, feed, and instruct
the church committed to their charge, according to the
word of God ; and, on the other hand, it must be the
duty of the church to obey and submit to them that are
over them in the Lord, and to receive and comply with
their instructions, so far as these are agreeable to the
word of God.
It is evident, therefore, that the respective duties of
pastors and flock in relation to each other are different
X)r. James Watt and others. 420
in kind: And though the reciprocal duties of bro-
therly love and mutual edificaiion, belong to all the
members in their sphere, and according to their ability ;
yet they are not teachers or rulers by office, nor are
they entrusted with the charge of feeding the flock, and
of taking care of the church of God : but pastors being
\csted in a peculiar sacred office appointed by Christ
over the church, and with the official powers and au-
thority which are essentially necessary to the discharge
of it, they must have a work and sphere of action dif-
ferent in kind as well as degree from what is common
to them with those who are commanded to obey and
submit to them in the Lord. And those who oppose
or resist them in the proper exercise of their office,
resist the authority of Christ himself, whose ordinance
they are.
Dr. Watt, in defending this principle of his against
Mr. B. discovers a remarkable talent at quibbling
and shuffling. He says, " The term pastor or feeder
applied to elders, is no proof that none else may pre-
side at the Lord's Supper ;'' and to this negative asser-
tion he adds another as the proof of it, viz. " for it is
not chiefly on account of presiding at this ordinance
that the elder is called a pastor," p. 38. But as there
are diffi^rent parts of pastoral feeding, so unless he
denies that dispensing the Supper is any part of it, to
what do his assertions amount ? Or why does he use
the word chiefly in this connection ? Our argument
does not rest upon its being chiefly on account of ad-
ministering the Supper that the elder is termed a
pastor or feeder, nor upon its being the most literal
act of feeding; but upon its being included in that
feeding of the flock which belongs to pastors. If,
therefore, he would say any thing to the purpose, h&
430 Strictures on the Sentiments of
must deny this; and then he may inform us what right
or authority he himself has to administer the Supper,
more than any private brother in the church ? Is it
because he officiates in a more perfect degree than any
of the rest can ? I do not think he can plead this
Wliy then does he not call on the brethren to officiate
in this ordinance, even as he calls on them to pray?
Or why may not any of the brethren who chuse spon-
taneously step forward and officiate in this, even as
they do in the duty of exhortation 1 Till he adopt this
plan, we can perceive no consistency in any of his ar-
j,^uments on this subject ; nor are we obliged to believe
that he is sincerely and firmly established in the prin-
ciple while his practice contradicts it.
He says, " That even those things on account of
which the elder is called pastor, are not exclusive to
him," &c. But if those things which are the very
reason and ground of his being called a pastor are not
exclusive to him, how comes the designation oi pastor
to be applied to him exclusively? There are many
duties which belong to the members and elders of a
church in common ; but it is not on account of these
things that elders are called pastors, though in such
things they ought to be examples to the flock ; but they
are called pastors on account of what is peculiar to
them, such as the qualifications and characters by
which they are distinguished ; their being chosen and
set apart to the pastoral office ; their being vested with
the official powers and authority necessary to the dis-
charge of the duties pertaining to it, and their actual
discharge of these duties in ruling, leading, feeding, and
taking care of the church of God. Because private
brethren may occasionally teach, admonish, exhort,
and comfort one another, and give their voice in
Dr. James Watt and others. 431
public discipline, therefore Dr. Watt imagines there is
no difference between these mutual duties of brethren
and the work and charge assigned to a pastor, except
in the degree of employment, he being more constantly
engaged in these things ; nor does he seem to admit
that a pastor is possessed of any official authority ;
for he affects not to understand what Mr. B. means by
the use of the terms official and authoritative, though
he knows that Paul thus exhorts Titus, " These things
speak, exhort, and rebuke with all authority,"
Tit. ii. 15. The W'Ord is t7rirayy\, which is rather
stronger than eis<na. No office can include rule with-
out including some authority in the exercise of it, and
which belongs not to those who are commanded to be
subject.
But the Doctor confounds the authority of the
pastor with that of private brethren, by attempting to
shew that every brother has the same kind of authority
with him. He says, " a private brother may state to
his brother a command of Christ, and call him to obey
it. He can refuse Christian fellowship to incorrigible
sinners, or even churches, by withdrawing from them,"
p. 44, 45. But what similarity has this to the official
authority of a pastor over tlie flock ? And what exercise
of authority is it in a brother to ivithclraw himself
either from an individual or a church? Several have
withdrawn from us from time to time ; but we never
looked upon this as an exercise of authority over us,
nor do I believe that they themselves viewed it in that
light. He supposes, that the majority of a church
may agree, in opposing the pastor's exercise of power,
in some one case, and asks, " Of what use would his
power be ?" I answer, of none at all to the majority ;
though he had ever so right a cause, all he can do is
432 Strictures on the Sentiments of
to deliver his own soul. But he says, " Every rational
man must a.2:ree that the probability (viz. of being right)
was in favour of the majority." In a general view the
probability may, but in fact the right may notwith-
standing be on the other side, as it has often been.
The majority of Israel opposed their faithful teachers,
and fell into idolatry ; and if the probability was in
their favour, the Lord of Hosts was against them.
The majority in the churches of Galatia had fallen
from the doctrine of grace ; yet as they were in a
dangerous error, the apostle thought it his duty, as far
as in him lay, to controul those churches, and recover
them to the faith. The majority is far from being
infallible, nor is its voice any test of truth ; and this
Dr. Watt himself admits, where he supposes private
brethren withdrawing from incorrigible churches. Yet,
without determining whether the opposition of the
majority to their pastors be right or wrong, he says,
" no pastor ought to controul a church." He farther
asks, " Whether is the judgment of the church, or of
the elders, to be followed ? Whether do the elders or
the church rule?" p. 41. I answer, that judgment
which is according to truth ought to be followed,
whether that be the judgment of the church, or of the
elders ; and if both of them are wrong, (which is also
a supposable case), then neither of them ought to be
followed. As to the other question, ** Whether do
the elders or the church rule ?" The word of God
never assigns what is properly called rule to any ex-
cept to office-bearers ; but a church may deprive their
elders of the rule, if they have just cause ; and without
such cause they would only demonstrate their own
unruliness ; for they have no authority to act arbitrarily
in this matter.
Dr. James Watt and oiJiers. 43S
After having argued at large in defence of his prin-
ciple, viz. that the teaching and ruling of private l)re-
thren are of the same kind with that of elders ; or, in
other words, that there is no peculiar kind of function
pertaining to the pastoral office, he says, " that his
(Mr. B's.) distinctions of teaching and ruling, &c. into
official and non-official, authoritative and non-authori-
tative, are of a different consideration. " A different
consideration ! From what 1 From the point in hand ?
By no means : These distinctions are directly in point,
and of the same consideration. Mr. B. mentions
several things which distinguish pastors from private
brethren, and among the rest their office, and the
authority with which they are vested for the discharge
of it, and which belong to private brethren in no degree,
otherwise they must in some degree be pastors. Instead
of meeting this directly. Dr. Watt endeavours to
evade it, by asserting in general that these things " are
of a different consideration," without stating in what
respects they are so, or whether he views them of any
consideration at all. But indeed it is all one to him
of what consideration they are, for he asserts that they
are of none in the administration of the Lord's Sup-
per, p. 43. All his arguments, or rather assertions,
on this head amount just to this, that there is nothing
peculiar to the pastoral office but the name, and per-
haps, a greater proportion of the work which is com-
mon to them with private brethren. As the necessary
consequence of this and of the foregoing principles, it
is maintained.
IV. " That private brethren have a right to admin-
ister the Lord's Supper to a church of Christ." Some
indeed add, " provided they have no elders, or if their
elders are absent." This would intimate, that private
Ff
434 Strictures on the Sentiments of
brethren have a right from the word of God to admin-
ister the Supper, but that the same word forbids them
to do so when elders are present ; yet tliere is not the
least hint in the Scriptures of any such right, nor con-
sequently of any such restriction upon it. But that
the reader may form a just view of the controversy
upon this head, it will be necessary to state the argu-
ments on both sides. We maintain, that no society
of Christians can regularly observe the Lord's Supper
while they have none among them who, by office, is
authorized to administer it to them. This is plain,
1. From the example of Christ himself at its first
institution, see Mat. xxvi. 26— 29. Luke xxii. 19, 20.
1 Cor. xi. 23 — 26. Here we see that he acted not
merely as the institutor, but also as the administrator
of this ordinance : " He took bread, blessed it, brake
it, and gave it to his disciples. Then he took the cup,
gave thanks, and gave it to them." These actions he
accompanied with words, explaining the mystery of
the bread and cup, and the use they were to make of
them; "Take, eat; thisismy body which is broken for
you ; this do in remembrance of me. This cup is my
blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you ;
drink ye all of it ; this do, as oft as ye drink it, in
remembrance of me." These are the actions and words
of Christ as the administrator, the actions of the
receivers being distinguished from them, and are their
taking the bread and cup, and, their eating the one
and drinking the other, and doing both in remembrance
of Christ. Here we see, that Christ hath set an exam-
ple how this ordinance is to be dispensed in the
churches of the saints till he come again ; and it is
the only rule or example afterwards referred to in
all the New Testament; see 1 Cor. xi. 23 — 26. chap.
Dr. James Watt and others. 485
X. 16, 17. It cannot be denied that Christ, in ad-
ministering the Supper to his apostles, acted as the
chief Shepherd and Bishop of his church ; and if
it be lawful for any to administer this ordinance
after his example, it must belong only to such
as are appointed officially to feed the church of
God, and not to the members in common, or to
any private brother who may assume that office for
the time.
This argument is vehemently opposed, and, by one
of our brethren, in a way not very consistent with
charity, or even with that common candour which we
might expect from him. He first misconstrues our
meaning, as if we were impiously affirming, that elders
or pastors hold a similar station to Christ in the church,
as he is Lord and Lawgiver, the institutor and sacrifice
in this ordinance ; though he well knows, and every
one may see, that our argument respects only the
administration of it ; a service which was not to end
with Christ's personal ministry, but to continue till he
come again ; but as to elders holding a similar sta-
tion to Christ in this, he knows that we abhor the
blasphemous thought. He seems to think, that insti-
tuting and dispensing the Supper are all one action,
because Christ did both at the same time. But if they
are, it must follow, that none can dispense the ordi-
nance after his example, any more than they can
institute it. Though this is a plain consequence, yet
I am far from thinking it is his sentiment ; for there is
a wide diflference between instituting and dispensing
an ordinance. Christ instituted baptism, but he never
dispensed it outwardly to any, John iv. 2. He, as the
great Lawgiver, instituted the Supper, and that once
for all, so that there can be no farther institution of it,
Ff2
436 Strictures on the Sentiments of
for he has delegated his legislative authority to none :
He also, at the same time, dispensed it to his disciples,
in which he acted among them as he that serveth,
Luke xxii. 27. but this service which he performed
must be repeated by others as often as the disciples
afterwards come together to break bread.
Dr. Watt also attempts to set aside Christ's ex-
ample of dispensing the Supper from being any rule to
us : He says, " We never can obtain, nor dare we
imitate the Head of the church ; the Lord Jesus Christ
presiding in a church on earth. No pastor may per-
sonate the Lord, and say, This is my body broken for
you," p. 16. Though there is some ambiguity and
want of proper arrangement in these words, yet the
concluding sentence explains the whole ; and it
amounts to this, that no pastor can copy Christ's ex-^
ample, or imitate him in the service of dispensing the
Supper, without personating him ; that is, without as-
suming Christ's station as head of the church, and
counterfeiting his person, and so holding himself forth
to the church, instead of Christ, as the mystery of the
bread and cup in that ordinance ! One would have
thought that Dr. Watt, who steps- forward on all oc-
casions, (and indeed without occasion), to display his
critical and argumentative talents, might, at least,
have easily distinguished between a pastor's dis-
pensing the Supper, by repeating the w^ords of insti-
tution expressly as Christ's words, and his repeating
them as his own words, and so declaring that it is his
own body that is broken for them. Such a distinction
is obvious to every one possessed of common sense.
He admits, that a private brother, or even a sister,
may dispense the Supper, by reading or repeating the
same words, and doing the same actions which Christ
Dr. James Watt and others. 43/
did on that occasion, without any such shocking im-
putation ; but a pastor (whose proper charge it is to
feed the church of God) cannot, according to him, do
the same thing without personating Christ, and telling
the church that it is his own body that is broken for
them! I believe that few will think this reasoning
merits a serious refutation ; and whether it deserves a
greater share of pity or contempt, I leave to the judg-
ment of the candid reader. If Dr. Watt be a pastor,
as he calls himself; if, as such, he dispenses the Sup-
per, reminding the church of our Lord's words on that
occasion, and doing the same actions, he acts that
very part which he condemns. And if he dispenses
it only as a private brother, and is really persuaded
that any of the brethren has the same right to per-
form that service, why does he not allow them to do
so when pastors are present ? One would be apt to
conclude from this, that his arguments (if they deserve
that name) are as much at variance with his real con-
viction as they are with his practice.
He says, " Christ gave this ordinance to his apos-
tles, and commanded them as his disciples, and on
the common footing of the privileges of all his disci-
ples, Do this in remembrance of me ; and he did not
limit the observance to an organized society," p. 16.
Another brother says, " From the institution, we learn
who are to observe it," viz. disciples ; " in what man-
ner it is to be administered, and the gracious ends for
which it is appointed. But the institution does not
inform us by whom {i. e . by what order of men) the
Supper is to be dispensed. Jesus does not say. Do
this in remembrance of me ; but it must be dispensed
by office-bearers," &c.
There can be no doubt that this ordinance was^
438 Strictures on the Sentiments of
given to disciples to be observed by them. All things
were given to the disciples, and for their benefit ; all
ordinances, and all gifts and office-bearers, even the
most eminent and extraordinary, whether Paul, or
Apollos, or Cephas, apostles, prophets, evangelists,
pastors, or teachers ; all things are theirs, 1 Cor. iii.
21, 22. Eph. iv. 11, 12. But what is the inference
from all this? Is it that office-bearers, as such, have
no peculiar charge to feed the church of God by dis-
pensing public ordinances : or, if they have, that the
Lord's Supper is an exception ? This would be a
strange and unnatural inference indeed. But it is said,
"Jesus does not say. It must be dispensed by office-
bearers." True ; but neither does he say. It may be
dispensed by private members. Here then the balance
appears equal ; but if we place in one scale the ex-
ample of Christ in dispensing it, with the ministry he
hath avssigned to office-bearers, the other scale, light
as air, will quick up fly, and kick the beam. To take
the commandment, " Do this in remembrance of me,"
abstractedly by itself, and then to argue from what it
does not expressly say, is both an injudicious and
unfair method of arguing, and would make sad work
of a great part of the word of God. This command-
ment does not expressly say in what manner the Sup-
per is to be administered; whether it belongs to a
church, organized or unorganized ; whether it must be
a church coming statedly together into one place to
eat it, or whether it may not be observed by solitary
individuals ; for precepts are often addressed to mul-
titudes which require detached individual obedience.
Nor does the commandment inform us how often the
Supper is to be observed, whether yearly, quarterly,
monthly, or weekly, nor on what day of the week.
Dr. James Watt and others. 439
Our opponents must here confess, that they do not ga-
ther these particulars from the commandnaent itself,
but are obliged to have recourse to other passages of
Scripture : And is it reasonable that they should
restrict us to the coinmandment for proof that the
Supper belonj^s to an organized church, and that it
ought to be dispensed by office-bearers ? Or are they
at liberty to deny these things if not expressly men-
tioned in the mandatory part of the institution ?
Dr. Watt says, that " the commandment of Christ
in this instance, without any example but that re-
ferred to in the commandment, is a sufficient rule," p.
16. And the other writer above referred to admits,
that " from the institution we learn in what manner it
is to be administered :" But if the commandment
refers to Christ's example as to the manner of ad-
ministering it, then it must be an imitable example,
and commanded to be imitated by those whom he
hath appointed to feed the flock of God. Yet the
Doctor says, " We dare not imitate the Head of the
church, the Lord Jesus presiding in a church on earth."
If so, how can he view the commandment as referring
to that example ? and if he dares not follow it in his
manner of administering that ordinance, where is his
rule for administering it at all? I am of opinion,
that the command, " This do in reraenbrance of me,"
refers both to the dispensing and receiving of that
ordinance; and that as it refers to the former it is
' given to office-bearers, but as it refers to the latter it
is given to them all, "drink ye all of it;" for both
these parts were distinctly exemplified.
He farther says, " Mr. B. complains, that we here
take many things for granted which we ought to prove.
This would be a just charge, perhaps, if we rested
440 Strictures on the Sentiments of
solely on such reasoning for our warrant for the
observance of the Lord's Supper. But we rest on the
broad ground of unlimited institution, and use these
ar<^uments as concordant to the institution, and also
in opposition to arbitrary limitations," p. 18. He has
no doubt a meaning of his own to the words unlimited
institution ; but surely the institution of the Supper is
not unlimited, either as to those who have a right to
dispense or receive it, or as to its substance or design.
Unlimited institution appears to me an absurdity ; for
every thing that is instituted must be limited and
regulated by the law of its institution. If he means
to say, that they admit of no other limitations than
what are expressly stated in the words of the institution,
this is not the case ; for I know none, except himself,
who do not limit it to what they call a church, and to
the first day of the week, though the words do not
express this; and while they extend to private brethren
the right of dispensing this ordinance in certain cir-
cumstances, they limit it in others, though there is not
the least hint of that right, nor of the circumstances
under which it is to be limited, either in the words of
institution or any where else. I cannot suppose that
he imagines the institution is so unlimited as to leave
US at liberty to observe it in any manner we please ;
and therefore, if he means any thing to the point, it
must be this, that the dispensing of the Supper in all
circumstances, is, by unlimited institution, made the
equal right of every member, even as the receiving of
it is. This, I apprehend, is the broad ground on which
he rests his reasoning. But as it is the very point in
debate, it requires more than his bare assertion to
determine it; and if his broad ground of unlimited
institution be itself a wild and unfounded imagination.
^ Dr. James Watt and others. 441
as it evidently is, what will become of all his concordant
reasonings which he rests upon it? Christ, in adminis-
tering the Supper, has set a plain example how those
who are appointed oflSce-bearers in his church should
administer it till he come again ; and all the contradic-
tory reasonings that have been urged against this,
whether, on the one hand, from its being inimitable by
any, or, on the other hand, from its being competent to
every private brother, are altogether unworthy of a se-
rious answer,
2. The peculiar work, with the corresponding official
designations given to elders, clearly shew, that dis-
pensing the public ordinances is assigned to them, con-
sequently the dispensing of the Lord's Supper. They
are commanded to feed Christ's sheep and lambs,
John xxi. 15 — 18. — to feed the church of God, Acts
XX. 28.— to feed the flock of God, 1 Pet. v. 2. The
original word poimainein, rendered to feed, properly
signifies to perform the office of a shepherd. It im-
ports rule and authority, and is figuratively used to ex-
press the exercise of civil government, 2 Sam. v. 2.
Psal. Ixxviii. 71, 72. but more frequently the exercise
of a religious office in the church, Jer. iii. 15. ch.
xxiii. 4. Hence elders or bishops are termed Poimenai,
i. e. shepherds, pastors, or feeders, Eph. iv. 11. as
being official feeders of the flock committed to their
charge; which feeding comprehends all the duties of
their office, such as watching over, ruling, teaching,
exhorting, comforting, and admonishing them, and,
among other ordinances, administering the Lord's
Supper to them, in the name and after the example of
Christ the (Archipoimen) Chief Shepherd, 1 Pet. v. 4.
Hence also elders or bishops are termed (oikonomoi)
stewards of God, Tit. 1. 7. The word signifies one
442 Strictures on the Sentiments of
who is set over a household, and hath the charge and
care of its affairs committed to him, and particularly
to deal out or dispense the necessary provisions to the
family ; so our Lord explains it, " Who then is that
faithful and wise (oikonomos) steward, whom his lord
shall make ruler over his household, to give them their
portion of meat in due season ?" Luke xii. 42. It is
therefore evident, that pastors have a peculiar and ap-
propriate charge and work assigned them, and which
pertains to their office ; an office involving authority,
and which none can warrantably assume or exercise
till they are scripturally chosen and set apart to it.
To this it has been answered, " That the brethren
nourish one another with the words of faith and good
doctrine, which, it is presumed, is the same SiS feeding ;
and that therefore it is not the exclusive work of
pastors." Though it is the duty of brethren mutually
to exhort and admonish one another ; yet the passage
alluded to in 1 Tim. iv. 6. says nothing of that, but re-
spects the exercise of Timothy's office, " as a good
minister of Jesus Christ, nourished by the words of the
faith and of the good doctrine, to the knowledge of
which he had attained." The word feeding is never
applied to the mutual instructions and exhortations of
brethren, but is a term expressive of, and appro-
priated to the exercise of the pastor's office. The
word of God no where represents the brethren as
official teachers or pastors, or as set over the flock
with a charge to feed it; nor is the ministry of the
word and dispensing of ordinances committed to
them.
But Dr. Watt soon gets rid of this argument. He
has nothing to do but to observe, that the words pastor,
feeding, 3jc. are metaphors; and to assert, that the
Dr. James Watt and others. 443
most of our proofs of the point at issue " rest on no
sounder basis than strained figures, verbal criticisms,
applied to figurative expressions; and that this is a
species of reasoning neither proper nor necessary for
plain Christians, nor within their reach," p. 26, 27.
But this misrepresentation of our reasoning and proofs
is of small consequence when compared to his treat-
ment of the language in which the Holy Spirit saw
proper to communicate a considerable part of revela-
tion to men. He says, " Strict reasoning requires de-
finitions ; as definitions reject metaphors, and as these
expressions (viz. pastor, f ceding, %ic.) are metaphorical,
we can expect little conclusive reasoning from them.''
Here he lays it down as his rule of strict reasoning,
to reject all scripture metaphors, as having no certain
or determinate sense or application; and so finds
himself at liberty to set aside every argument as incon-
clusive, which rests in any degree on the current sense
of a metaphor, though explained and applied by the
Holy Spirit himself, as are the metaphors he objects to
in the present case. For instance, the word shepherd or
pastor literally signifies one whose business is to feed
or take care of a flock of sheep, Luke ii. 8. ; and though
it is often figuratively applied to God in respect of his
people, Psal. xxiii. 1. Ixxx. 1. ; to Christ, Isa. xl. 11.
John X. 11, 14. and also to the elders or bishops of a
Christian church ; yet its meaning, in such applications,
is, at least, as obvious and determinate as its literal
sense is, and is by far more fully explained by the
Holy Spirit. The same observation will apply to the
word feeding, which comprehends every part of the
shepherd's work in relation to the sheep ; and this
is more particularly set forth in the figurative than
literal use of it, see Psal. xxiii. Ixxx. 1. Isai. xl. 11.
444 Strictures on the Sentiments oj
Ezck. xxxiv^ 11—20. All the directions given i<^
office-bearers respecting the exercise of their ministry,
are just so many literal explanations of the manner in
which they are to feed the flock of God, see Acts xx.
28—36. with the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. I
know not therefore why he should accuse us of
straining these figures for maintaining, that dispensing
the word and ordinances is part of the pastor's work
in feeding the flock. To affirm that " this is a species
of reasoning neither proper nor necessary for plain
Christians, nor within their reach," and that strict rea-
soning rejects metaphors, however clearly explained
and applied, is to throw a dishonourable reflection
upon the diction of the Holy Spirit, as not cal-
culated to make the simple wise, and to ofi"er an insult
to the understanding of the plainest Christian ; for
what Christian is so ignorant (unless confounded by
artful sophistry) as not to know, that it belongs to the
pastors of a church to administer the word and ordi-
nances to the flock committed to their charge, and that
for the purpose of their spiritual nourishment and
growth in grace ? Yet he at the same time maintains,
that it is within the reach of these same plain Chris-
tians themselves, to administer the word and ordi-
nances to each other, and to interfere with every part
of the pastor's work, p. 21.
He says, " The principal idea intended by the terms
shepherd and feeding, as applied to churches, is that of
guidance and leading. — Pastors are guides or leaders
to a society on their journey through this world hea-
venward," p. 21. Feeding, no doubt, implies guidance
or leading, as necessary to it ; and we may add, it re-
quires seeking out, ruling, watching, and protecting
the sheep, as these and other particulars are detailed
Br. James Watt and others. 445
in Ezek. xxxiv. 11—25. But on what authority does
he affirm, " that the principal idea intended by the
terra feeding, is guidance or leading in a journey ?"
This sense is not the strict meaning of the word ; for
when leading is simply or chiefly intended, it is always
expressed in Greek by other terms. A shepherd, in
feeding his sheep, does not lead them in a journey, but
to green pastures where they may feed, see Psul. xxiii.
2, 5. Ezek. xxxiv. 14, 15. John x. 3, 4, 9. Leading is
not the principal idea intended, nor indeed the proper
sense of the word (Troi/xaivu) to feed, at all, though it is
connected with and implied in it, even as ruling is ;
for a shepherd, if he would feed his flock in proper
pastures, must both lead and rule them. And as the
original term is never used solely, or even chiefly, to
signify leading ; so it occurs where neither leading nor
ruling is implied, but simply feeding with food, as in
Jude, ver. 12. Now as the w ord of God is often com-
pared to food, suited both to babes and those of full
age ; as the Lord's Supper represents a church feeding
on Christ's sacrifice; and as pastors, agreeably to
their official designation, are enjoined to feed the
church of God, being appointed as stewards over his
household to give them their portion of meat in due
season, what sober-minded and unprejudiced Chris-
tian can desire stronger evidence, that the church must
be fed by administering to it the word and ordinances;
and that this is a work and charge peculiarly assigned
to pastors, as distinguished from those whom they are
commanded to feed ? Is there any straining of figures
here, or is it a method of reasoning beyond the reach
of the plainest Christians ?
He says, " To render the argument from the word
pastor, and the term feeding of any use, it should be
4-46 Strictures on the Sentiments oj
shewn, that the expression feeding applies solely or
chiefly to presiding at the Lord's Supper." — But the
argument requires no such thing. It is sufficient to
shew, that dispensing the Supper, according to the
pattern which Christ hath given, is part of that feeding
which belongs to those whom he hath appointed as
pastors over his church. — He farther adds, that it
must also be shewn, " th?it feeding is so peculiar to the
pastor, that none else may, in any degree, interfere with
it," p. 20. But it is enough here to shew, that feeding
a church is connected with leading and ruling it, and
is assigned only to such as sustain a public office, who
are scripturally qualified, and have been chosen and
set apart to that work. To such alone is the charge
expressly given to feed the church of God ; and
therefore to such it peculiarly belongs. But as he
affirms that this feeding is competent to private bre-
thren, it belongs to him to shew the scripture authority
for it. The duties of mutual edification enjoined upon
the brethren in common will not prove this, unless he
can shew that the pastoral work is committed to them,
and that they are under a solemn charge to feed the
church of God.
He thinks that private brethren are not excluded
from interfering with the exercise of the pastor's
office. Yet we know that the divine displeasure was
awfully manifested against all who presumed to inter-
fere with the priests' office under the law. Numb. xvi.
1 Sam. xiii. 11—15. 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-21. The chil-
dren of Israel might plead that all the Lord's people
were holy ; that many religious duties were common to
them with Aaron and his sons ; and Saul, on account
of the priest's absence, might plead necessity for what
he did ; but none of these pleas were sustained as suf-
Dr. James Wait and others. 447
ficient to justify their interference with the priest's
office. I am aware of all the objections that can be
brought against the application of this, to the present
case, but I consider them as of no weight at all ; for
though the pastors of Christian churches are neither
sacrificing priests, nor types of Christ in his priestly
office ; yet their office is equally of divine appointment,
and the official functions pertaining to it equally pecu-
liar to them. Will any affirm, that the ministry
assigned them is less sacred, spiritual and important
than that which was assigned to the ministers of reli-
gion under the law ? or that the character and qualifi-
cations necessary to the proper discharge of it are of
less consequence ? If these things cannot be affirmed
with truth, then it must be equally presumptuous in
private brethren to interfere with what belongs pecu-
liarly to the pastoral office, as it was in what belonged
to the priestly ; nor does the ditference between these
two offices, as to their nature and end, make any dif-
ference in this respect. The Christian royal priesthood
(1 Pet. ii. 9.) have no right to interfere with what is pe-
culiar to the pastoral office, any more than the Jewish
kingdom of priests, (Exod. xix. 6.) had to interfere
with what was peculiar to the priestly.
Referring to his Essays, he says, " It is no part
of the controversy in these Essays, whether it be
proper to call a small society, meeting for worship
without elders, a church or not. — Though it could be
proved that such a society is not a church, it cannot
be proved that they may not eat the Lord's Supper. —
But this writer," (viz. the Editor of the Christian Ad-
vocate,) "takes it for granted, that the Lord's Supper
is allowed to be a church ordinance, which, in arguing
with me, is in part begging the question." We have.
448 Strictures on the Sentiments of
indeed, hitherto understood our opponents as admit-
ting that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance.
They have expressly declared this ; and, upon any
other principle, they had no occasion to contend so
strenuously, that the lowest plurality, even two or
three, constitute a church of Christ : But here Dr. Watt
maintains, that as to observing the Lord's Supper, it is
of no consequennce whether they be a church or not.
It is not my intention here to prove that the Lord's
Supper is a church-ordinance, that being abundantly
proved by other hands,* and fully allowed by many
of our opponents ; but shall only observe, that the
multitude of disciples at Jerusalem, at Corinth, and at
Troas were churches ; that these observed the Lord's
Supper, and are the only instances of this recorded in
scripture ; that they came together into one place to
eat it, and are forbidden to eat it separately, but are
commanded to tarry one for another. Acts xx. 7.
1 Cor. xi. 20, 21, 33. that they may exhibit the joint
participation of the body of Christ, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17.
But Dr. Watt does not limit this ordinance to any
thing that can be called a church : He rests his war-
rant for the observance of it on what he calls the
broad ground of unlimited institution ; so that, ac-
cording to him, it may be observed by any company
of Christians, whether it has elders or not ; whether it
consists of many, or only of two or three ; nay, whether
it can be called a church or not ; these are with him
mere circumstances of no consideration in this matter ;
the Lord's Supper must be observed at any rate ; and
to take it for granted that he allows it to be an or-
dinance peculiar to a church, is only begging the
question.
* See Letters on various Subjects, by W. Braidwood, p. 48 — 70.
Dr. James Watt and others. 44^
He observes that " the Reviewer," (viz. the Editor
of the Christian Advocate) " urges, that the opposite
sentiraeat deduced would lead to the idea, that two
females meeting together for Christian worship, &c.
ought to communicate in the ordinance of the Supper;"
to this the Doctor answers, And why not? The Re-
viewer considered this idea as absurd ; but to this he
again answers. Why absurd? p 29. So that, according
to him, no reason can be assigned why two females
may not meet by themselves, and communicate in the
ordinance of the Supper ; and that there is no absurdity
in maintaining this. But when the Reviewer took no-
tice of this as a plain avowal of that sentiment, and a
vindication of the practice, he makes the following
shuffling reply, " When it was supposed absurd to say,
that two females meeting together for Christian wor-
ship, &c. ought to communicate in the Lord's Supper,
I answered, And why not ? I made in the quotation a
blank, or &c. in order to steer clear of the question,
whether such two females are to be called a church or
not, which I judge very unimportant. But with regard
to the Lord's Supper, I observe, the case is one of ray
opponent's making. I have said. Essays, p. 6. the
discussion of it is necessarily trifling." But though he
declines to answer the question, as to whether the two
supposed females are a church or not ; yet from what
follows, it is clearly his sentiment, that, however they
may come together, whether statedly, occasionally, or
accidentally, if they join in any act of worship at all,
they ought to observe the Lord's Supper; for he again
asks, " Why not ? What is there in this more than in
any other social ordinance, that they cannot observe?"
And, according to his sentiments, he might also have
asked. What is there in observing it in commuuioD
450 Strictures on the Sentiments of
with a church, more than with two, either males or
fema,les, who may chuse, or find it more convenient, to
meet by themselves for that purpose ? He could not,
consistently with the principles he has laid down, rea-
sonably find fault with such apian; nor could he ht^g
opon them that the Supper is a church communion
ordinance, and that therefore they oujjht to come
together into one place with a church to eat it ; for as
to whether they are a church or not, he judges that to
be very unimportant.
He admits indeed, that the Supper is a social ordi-
nance, and that an individual observing it could not
represent the joint communion of believers in the bene-
fits of Christ's death, p. 4. but then he maintains that
this can be represented in the joint communion of two.
He carefully avoids the scriptgre phrase on this head ;
for instead of saying, *' the communion of the body of
Christ," he terms it " the joint communion of believers,
p. 4. However trifling this distinction may appear,
yet it is not without design ; for as he declines an-
swering the question whether two believers are a church
or not, he might think it improper to say, that they
could represent the communion of the body of Christ
in the Supper. Besides, " Mr. Braid wood," he ob-
serves, " founds an argument on the phrase, the body
of Christ. The argument is shortly this, a Christian
church is compared to an organized body, such as the
huraai) body, therefore it must be an organized body.
In support of this argument, reference is made to
Eph. iy. 4— :17. 1 Cor. :^ii. 21—27. where the gifts
which the Lord ascended on high to bestow, likewise
enter into the description of the body of Christ, and
are necessary," p. 10. Here he gives a short but just
state of the ground of Mr. JB's. argument ; but such ia
Dr. James Watt and others. 451
his inveterate opposition to him that he controverts
every word of it ; and not only represents him as igno-
rant of the meaning of the phrase, the body of Christ,
but attempts to set his application of it to any par-
ticular church to ridicule, by asking him, " Whether
an elder be a hand or an eye ? Whether a deacon be
an ear or a foot ?"
With regard to the phrase, the body of Christ, he
says, " It cannot be made appear that it ever is ap-
plied to a single congregation as a body, but only as
consisting of members of the body, viz. the catholic
church, the whole church of the redeemed." Whether
by the catholic church or whole church of the redeemed
he means all in heaven and on earth whom Christ has
redeemed by his blood, or a catholic church consisting
of all the redeemed on earth, is uncertain. It is but
comparatively a small part of the whole church of the
redeemed that at any particular period is to be found
in this world ; and it is only to that part of it in suc-
cessive generations that the gifts and offices mentioned
are needful : But this is never represented as a church
by itself, but as forming a part of the general assembly
and church of the first born, which includes the spirits
of just men made perfect, Heb. xii. 23. This is Christ's
one body, Eph. iv. 4. his church for which he gave
himself, chap. v. 25 — 28. But then, where is this
church, which at present is invisible to us, represented
or made visible in this world ? Not surely in any
catholic visible church on earth, nor in separate in-
dividuals ; but it is in the churches of the saints that
Christ's true catholic church is represented, and has
its visibility upon earth. Each of these churches, if com-
posed of visible believers, and formed upon the apos-
tolic plan as to docirme, worship, order and discipline,
Gc2
452 Strictures on the Sentiments of
is a visible representation of the whole church of the
redeemed in heaven and on earth ; and hence it is, that
the same things are said of it, and the same epithets
applied to it. Is the catholic invisible church termed
God's temple, building;, house, Christ's body, spouse,
&c. Eph. ii. 21. Heb. x. 21. Col. i. 18. Rev. xxi. 2, 9. ?
So also is a particular church of visible saints, see
2 Cor. vi. 16. 1 Cor. iii. 9, lU, 17. Eph. ii. 22. 1 Tim.
iii. 15. 1 Cor. xii. 27. 2 Cor. xi. 2. It was in such a
visible church that the gifts bestowed by Christ for
gathering in and edifying his body were found and
tried. Acts i. 21—25. 1 Tim. iii. 1 — 8. There some of
them were stationed to feed the flock of God, Acts xiii.l.
chap. xiv. 23. chap. xx. 28. and from thence others
were sent forth, and recommended to the grace of
God for more extensive services. Acts viii. 14. chap,
xi. 22. chap. xiii. 2, 3, 4. chap. xiv. 26, 27. To such
a church were all the ordinances delivered, both as to
worship and the highest acts of discipline, Matth.
xviii. 17. 1 Cor. v. To such a church does the Lord's
Supper belong, 1 Cor. xi. 23. and as the bread and
cup represent Christ's broken body and shed blood,
so a church of visible believers, coming statedly to-
gether into one place and jointly partaking of^that or-
dinance, is the only visible representation on earth of
the invisible and spiritual communion of the whole
church of the redeemed in partaking of Christ's sacri-
fice, 1 Cor. X. 16, 17. John vi. 53—59. Ileb. xiii. 10.
It is true, all the gifts and ofiices which Christ hath
bestowed on men are intended for gathering in and
edifying that part of his mystical body which is on
earth, Eph. iv. 12. but they are placed and exercised
in the visible churches of the saints, or sent forth by
them. These particular churches are the golden can-
Dr. James Watt and others. 458
•ilesticks among which Christ walks, holding the stars
in his right hand, Rev. i. 12, 13, 16, 20. and to them
believers are added. Every such church is the body
of Christ, i. e. the sign or visible representation of
Christ's one body, the church of the redeemed, and the
only visible exhibition we have of it in this world.
But Dr. Watt denies, that the phrase the body of
Christ, is ever applied to a single congregation as a
body, but only as consisting of members of the body,
viz. the catholic church : Yet in this he plainly con-
tradicts the Scripture ; for the Apostle, having set
forth at large the union and communion of the church
of Christ with its gifts, under the notion of a living
human body and its members, 1 Cor. xii. he thus ap-
plies it to the church at Corinth, "Kow ye are the
body of Christ, and members in particular," ver. 27.
His argument against this from the word we in chap.
X. 17. is nothing to the purpose; for the Apostle is
there speaking of what was common to all the churches,
and so includes himself among them. Dr. Watt affirms,
that " The Corinthians were the body of Christ in the
same sense as they were members in particular :" But
this is to explain the Apostle's words into nonsense,
and to make him say. Ye are the body of Christ in the
same sense as ye are only parts of it. He next
changes eind into even, and says, " The plain sense of
the text is, Ye are the body of Christ, even members in
particular." But this is so far from being its plain
sense, that it is much the same with the former, i. e. no
sense at all ; and to give it the sense he aims at, he
should have glossed it thus: Ye, the Corinthian church,
are not the body of Christ, but only a few particular
members of it. He next observes, " That the language
is not. Ye are a body of Christ, as Mr. B's view would
454 Strictures on the Sentiments of
seem to require, but Ye ve the body of Christ." But
had he consulted the original language, it would have
saved him this remark on the English word the, for
there is nothing answering to it there. It is not to auna,
the body, but simply crt^ix-a, body, without the article,
which, according to Locke's rule, should be rendered
a body, and though there are exceptions, there is no
occasion for any here, for every visible church of
Christ is his body in the $ame sense as that at Co-
rinth was.
Again, he says, " That one body, the organization
of which is celebrated by Paul, is that to which were
given the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and
teachers, gifts of healing, &c. These attainments, per-
haps, never belonged to any particular society, but to
the church-catholic, which is the one body," p. 11. I
could have wished that he had explained what he
means by the church-catholic, or one body ; whether
he includes in it those in heaven as well as all those
who are yet in their pilgrimage state on earth. If he
means only the latter, how can they be termed a church,
or the one body abstract from the former ? All the pro-
fessors of the true religion, or even all real believers
existing at any period in this world, collectively con-
sidered, make but a small part of the one body of
Christ. But passing this, he says, " These attainments,"
viz. the organization and gifts mentioned, 1 Cor. xii.
" perhaps, never belonged to any particular society."
But in this he is mistaken ; for the particular society
at Corinth had actually all the gifts enumerated in
ver. 28, 29, 30. and the apostolic gift first, whereby
the foundation of it was laid, chap. iii. G, 10. chap. iv. 15.
and by which it was afterwards directed : And there is
reason to believe, that these extraordinary gifts, which
Dr. James Watt and others. 465
have long ago ceased, were in some degree conferred
npon every church planted by the apostles; but they
were all for the bcnetit of the otie body of Christ, for
the sake of which the visible churches themselves were
appointed. But, besides the miraculous gifts which
were peculiar to the apostolic age, there were ordinary
gifts and oflSices, which were necessary to the organiza-
tion and edification of the churches, which were not
to cease ; and this is that organization which Mr. B.
pleads for. He farther says, " But though it were pro-
ved, that a particular congregation were called the body
of Christ in its associated capacity, unless its organi-
zation is the only reason why it is so designed, the
argument will not be aided by the phrase." This seems
to be his favorite mode of reasoning. He has recourse
to it in p. 20. where he says, "To render the argument
from the word pastor and the term feeding of any use,
it should be shown, that the expression /eedmgr applies
solely to presiding at the Lords Supper ; and also, that
feeding is so peculiar to the pastor, that none else may
interfere with it." So here, though he should be obliged,
unwillingly, to admit that a particular congregation ii
called the body of Christ ; yet unless its organization
is the only reason why it is so designed, he thinks it
will not aid the argument for the organization of a
church. How glaringly perverse is this reasoning ! If
a single congregation is called the body of Christ, as
was the church at Corinth, and if it is compared to the
natural bodv of a man, what idea can he have of such
a body, or what instruction can he receive Irom the
comparison if he keep its organization out of view ?
We are not obliged to prove that organization is the
only reason why it is so designed ; it is sufficient for
©ur purpose to sho\y> tliat the apostle describes th«
456 Strictures on the Sentiments of
body he has in view by its organization : for he par-
ticularly mentions the different members as placed in
the body, their mutual sympathy and care one for
another, their various and peculiar gifts and offices,
and their unity of design, viz. the good of the whole.
After stating that Mr. B. ascribes two senses to the
phrase the body of Christ, 1st, The whole church of
the redeemed : 2nd, A visible representation of this by
a company of believers, as compacted and organized,
he, in his usual cavalier style, says, " I know not
where this second sense originated. I suspect it was
started by Mr. Glas, or some head of a sect. It has
gained currency ; but I cannot find that it has any
solid foundation in the word of God." p. 14. Here he
plainly denies, that a particular organized company of
believers is ever in the Word termed the body of Christ,
contrary to 1 Cor. xii. 27. He says, " That the two
senses of the phrase in that Word are, 1st, The whole
body of the redeemed : 2nd, Believers considered as
members of that body, and as being the materials of
which that body is constituted." That is, a church is
termed the body of Christ considered as members or
materials of that body ! It is certain that a particular
church is not the whole body of the redeemed, and
that all the visible churches on earth do not make up
the full complement of that one church of Christ which
is still in building, and is his body, the fulness of him
that filleth all in all, Eph. i. 22, 23. ch. ii. 21. Nor
does this one body include all the members of visible
churches ; for hypocrites creep in among them under
the disguise of a scriptural profession, some of whom
are discovered in this world, and will all at last be
disowned by Christ. None of these were ever real
members or materials of the one body, though, while
Dr. James Watt and others. 457
they have that appearance to us, they are to be es-
teemed and loved as such. And thouo^h it is true that
all real believers are members or materials of Christ's
one body ; yet, considered under that idea, or a.s parts,
they can with no propriety be called a body or the body
of Christ. So that in whatever sense a particular visible
church is called the body of Christ, whether from its
being a visible representation of it, or from its own
particular union and organization as a body, or from
both, it must in that sense be considered as a whole.
And what the apostle calls members in particular,
are not particular churches, as Dr. Watt affirms, but
the particular members of a church, which are de-
scribed by their different places and offices in the
body, such as that of the eye, the ear, the hand, the
foot, &c. from the variety and union of which results
the organization of the whole. But the Doctor, in
order to set aside the organization of a particular
church, as necessary to its observing the Supper, and
that he might accommodate it to two or three in-
dividuals, who are incapable of being organized, has
denied that it is the body of Christ in any other sense
than as it is a part of its materials, and so has con-
fused and obscured one of the most striking, beau-
tiful, and instructive illustrations of the union, com-
munion and order of a church of Christ that is to be
found in all the Word of God.
He thinks that " Mr. B's mention of the feebler
members, has undone the whole of his argument," p.
13. How so ? Did any part of his argument, not to
say the whole, rest upon a denial that there were any
feeble members in the body of Christ ? Let the reader
consult p. 16. of Mr. B's letters, and he will find that
the feebler members are much to Mr. B's purpose.
458 Strictures on the Sentiments of
His words are, " It is remarkable, that the most hon-
ourable and useful members are declared, by the new
plan of forming churches, to be sometimes unnecessary,
while the Lord himself teacheth us that those members
which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. Such is
the contrast between his judgment and that of his
misguided servants. In any other case, one would
be apt to say. If the more feeble, and less honourable,
and even the uncomely members of a body, are neces-
sary, much more are the strong, the honourable, and
the seemly ; and this reasoning would be held conclu-
sive." Now this is what Dr. Watt says has undone
the whole of Mr. B's argument !
He affirms, that " although it could be proved that
every recorded instance of the Lord's Supper, took
place in an organized society, it would not be suf-
ficient to limit the institution which is general,*' p. 18.
I have formerly taken notice of what he calls the broad
ground of unlimited institution ; but what I have par-
ticularly in view here, is what he connects with it in
the following words : " But Mr. B. himself grants that
the case might be as we suppose, owing to the pre-
sence o{ extraordinary teachers. Now, he thus virtually
adopts a principle, that what churches might do who
bad extraordinary teachers in them is no rule to us in
this case. This principle would have saved him all
his pains in proving, that the churches at Corinth,
Troas, &c. were organized at all times when they
observed this ordinance. It would also destroy the
force of example from the apostolic churches alto-
gether, as a guide to us; for extraordinary teachers
descended as far down as the scriptural history of the
churches descended," p. 19.
It will be proper here to repeat Mr. B's. words : be
Dr. James Watt and others. 459
says, " For my own part, I will not affirm that societies
of Christians, before they obtained elders, did not eat
the Lord's Supper, when apostles and other extraor-
dinary teachers, who had the care of all the churches,
were present with them : But they could not be said
to want elders when those presiding among them were
superior to ordinary pastors, and having a general
charge, feed my lambs, feed my sheep, had power to
teach authoritatively, and to preside and rule wherever
they went. This therefore, although it had been ex-
pressly declared in the word of God, wo-.tld have been
the farthest thing imaginable froia sanctioning the
practice of eating the Lord's Supper without elders."*
Now, is this granting that the case might be as his
opponents suppose ? If lie grants that Apostles, Pro-
phets and Evangelists might administer the Supper,
is this the same as to admit that private brethren, and
even women, may administer it ? Again, how does
the virtual adoption of this principle " destroy the
force of example from the Apostolic churches alto-
gether, as a guide to us ? Is it a principle with Dr.
Watt, that nothing done by these extraordinary teachers
can be a guide or example to ordinary ones ? If " ex-
traordinary teachers descended as far down as the
scripture history of the churches descended," does
this shew, that no ordinary teachers or pastors were
ordained in the churches during all that period, or that
it was essential to their office to be possessed of ex-
traordinary gifts ? If so, there can be no such thing
as any scriptural pastors at this day, as the extraor-
dinary gifts have long ago ceased. Indeed the Doc-
tor's plan will suffer very little by the want of them ;
* Braidwood's Letters, p. 79t
4G0 Strictures on the Sentiments of
for the whole drift of his Essay is to shew of how
little use they are as to the organization, order, or
government of a church of Christ, or the administration
of his ordinances, since two or three may, and ought
to do, every thing without them.
Mr. B. considers Matth. xviii. 19, 20. as having a
particular respect to discipline, as it stands imme-
diately connected with that subject ; and though he
denies that it has a literal and immediate respect to
any assembly that can justly be called a church, (for
which he has good reason from the context, which
distinguishes the two or three engaged in private dis-
cipline, from the church to which they are to tell the
offence in the last resort ;) yet he admits that the spirit
of the passage may apply to every lawful assembly of
Christians.* Dr. Watt takes hold of this and says,
** This concession destroys his argument ; for if the
two or three enjoy the spirit of the passage, i. e. the
presence of Christ, it is all that is pleaded for from
this text," p. 7. But this is not the case ; he knows
that from this text it is pleaded, that two or three are
a church, which ought to observe the Supper. This is
what Mr. B. denies without any concession. At the
same time, I think it would have been as well not to
have mentioned discipline as the particular thing con-
cerning which two of them were to agree on earth to
ask, since the promise is general " touching any, (or
rather ^avrof every) thing that they shall ask." Yet a
case of discipline may here be included, and although
it were inserted as an explanatory supplement, it would
express no tautology, as the Doctor aukwardly at-
tempts to make it by a superfluous repetition of it.
* Letters, p. 54.
Dr. James Walt and others. 4G1
However, upon bis plan, he has no occasion to con-
tend from tliis passage that two or three are a church,
as he denies that the Lord's Supper is peculiar to any
thing that can be called a church, or to its coming to-
gether into one place for the joint participation of the
symbols of his broken body and shed blood. Two are
with him competent to every thing ; and as to order or
organization, that is out of the question, and has
nothing to do with the Lord's Supper.
Many who do not go his length argue in this manner,
** Though the Lord's Supper is an ordinance peculiar
to a church ; yet as the disciples are called a church
before they had elders, or were set in order, Acts xiv.
23. they might eat the Lord's Supper in that state."
To this it may be replied. That the original word
ecclesia signifies in general a congregation or assembly
of any kind, or a multitude of people called out and
collected together, whether good or bad, regular or
irregular, and whether assembling occasionally or sta-
tedly ; and so it is applied to the confused mob at
Ephesus, and rendered assembly, Acts xix. 32, 41,
and also to a lawful assembly, ver. 39. In this general
sense of the word it may be applied to a company of
disciples not yet set in order, or brought into the form
of a regular organized society ; yet it may be ques-
tioned if ever it is so applied in all the New Testament.
And as to their observing the Lord's Supper while in
that state, it is a mere supposition, and of which there
is not the least hint in all the word of God. The term
is repeatedly applied to those in certain houses, see
Rom. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xvi. 9. Col. iv. 15. Philem. ver. 2.
If these houses contained the whole of a church which
met in any of these different cities, and to whom the
apostle directs his epistles, then they were organized
462 Strictures on the Sentiments of
churches : But if they contained only such parts of
these chinches as belonged to a christian house or
family, then they tvere not an organized church by
themselves, nor could they eat the Lord's Supper, but
by comini? together with the whole church for that pur-
pose, and in this respect were organized.
It cannot be shewn that any society of disciples
was called a church before it had elders, or such as
were more than sufficient to supply their place till they
obtained them. The apostles exercised this office in
the church at Jerusalem from its beginning, and Peter
and John expressly call themselves elders, and could
act as such in all churches. The disciples at Antioch
are not called the church till Barnabas and Saul as-
sembled themselves with them. Acts xi. 25, 26. And
as to the companies of disciples in Derbe, Lystra,
Iconium, and Antioch, they are not mentioned as
churches till the time when Paul and Barnabas ordained
them elders. In Crete, where elders were not as yet
ordained, they are not termed churches, but Titus was
left there to ordain elders in every city, i. e. among
the disciples in every city. Tit. i. 5. Elders cannot
be without a church, in which they are placed ; but
neither is a church complete in its order, or fully fitted
to answer its end without them. Therefore though,
according to the general sense of ecclesia, there is no
impropriety in terming a company of disciples a churck,
previous to their being furnished with office-bearers ;
yet, in the sacred and appropriate use of that term,
the inspired writers seem to avoid applying it to them
till they are either set in order, or at the time of their
being so.
Dr. Watt seems to liave a pretty high opinion of
himself for his learning and critical skill in the Ian-
X)r. James Watt and others. 465
g^uages, not only the Latin, French, and Spanish, but
the Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew ; and this may account
for the supercilious and contemptuous manner in
which he treats Mr. B. who pretends to no such
acquaintance with these languages. That I have ground
for this opinion of him, may appear from his frequently
taxing Mr. B. with ignorance, mistakes, and inatten-
tion ; and after having observed, that the most of his
proofs rest on verbal criticisms and figurative expres-
sions, he adds, " Observe also, that those brethren
who have been qualified to judge in matters of veibal
criticism, have been, and are, in general, opposed to
Mr. Braidwood on this point," p. 27. He surely
cannot think that the generality of learned men are on
his side, and opposed to Mr. B. in this controversy ;
for he knows the contrary. By men qualified to judge
in verbal criticism, therefore, he must mean himself,
and two or three more who of late years have embraced
the same sentiments ; though it does not appear that
this has arisen from their superior skill in solid Bibli-
cal learning.
It would be exceedingly vain and silly in any of us
to vie with Dr. Watt in learning. But while we yield
him the palm as to that, we think it would be more to
his real honour if he made a less ostentatious display
of it, and of his qualifications for verbal criticism,
especially as he is not always very correct in his
learned explanations of scripture w^ords.
In his Essay on " the covenant of Jehovah with
Abraham," he begins with a learned critical expla-
nation of the Hebrew beritfi, and the Greek diatheke,
which our translators render covenant, and sometimes
testament. " Berith" he says, "literally applies to
Gutting, and may express either the same idea as
464 Strictures on the Sentiments of
intersection, division^ and separation, or be equivalent
to pattern, form, or shape, viz. made by cutting."
Now, though I cannot pretend to Dr. Watt's know-
ledge of the Hebrew, yet I can learn from my lexicon,
that berith does not signify cutting at all. The Hebrevr
phrase for making a covenant is carath berith, which
signifies to cut a covenant, so that it is not berith that
signifies to cut, but carath. How a Hebrew critic
should fall into this glaring mistake is not easily
accounted for ; and it may lead some to suspect that
he knows little or nothing of the Hebrew\ As to berith,
which we render covenant, it is derived from a root
which signifies to purify ; answerable to this it some-
times signifies soap, Jer. ii. 22. Mai. iii. 2. and so the
Hebrew phrase carath berith literally signifies to cut
a purifier, or to cut ofi'a purifying victim, alluding to
the ancient manner of making a covenant upon sa-
crifice. Gen. XV. 10, 18. Exod xxiv. 8. Psal. 1. 5. Jer.
xxxiv. 18, 19.
The Greek translation of berith is diatheke, which,
he says, " literally applies to what is set between, or
interposed, and expresses nearly the same literal idea
as the words interposal, interposition, or intercourse."
But whatever be the etymological sense of diatheke
(of dia and tithemi) the LXX paid no other regard to
that than as they found it the fittest word to express
the usual sense of the Hebrew berith, and to hav«
aimed at any thing else would have been pernicious
pedantry. He gives many other senses to the word
covenant, as that " it may literally refer to commerce,
but more likely to coming together, or convening."
All these, he says, " may be viewed as nearly equi-
valent," and then gives this mathematical demonstration
of it, "for ihe point ox line at which objects meet, is
Dr. James Watt and others. 466
the point or line of their intersection or division." So
that from this hint we may learn that he has been
studyin}^ Euclid. But he has not yet exhausted his
catalogue of senses ; for he says, " The general idea
which will suit all these cases, and all the texts in
which the words occur, may well be expressed by th«
term project, or plan of intercourse," &c.
Now I ask the reader, whether, from all these dif-
ferent and even opposite senses, (which, with the
Doctor are all one) his mind is in any degree enlight-
ened as to the nature of " the covenant of Jehovah
with Abraham ?" Or whether, on the contrary, they
have not confused and perplexed him? But the
Doctor hates the confined use of words ; it does not
suit his learned and enlarged ideas ; and by his fertile
talent at coining a variety of senses, he can easily
explain the Word of God into any sense he thinks
proper.
I shall only farther observe, that he is not very
scrupulous at using unwarrantable freedoms with the
Word of God when it serves to display his enlarged
mind, and emancipation from popular trammels. In
his Key to the Song of Solomon, he boldly denies that
it has any reference to Christ and his church*. And
in shewing how Paul became to the Jew as a Jew,
he says, " He employed the circumstances of their
religion, and perhaps even their prejudices, for the
purpose of leading them to Christ." " A most emi-
nent illustration of this," he says, " is given in the
epistle to the Hebrews ; and what in that epistle ap-
pears most striking, is his application of the Levitical
service and Aaronical priesthood to his purpose f/>
"* Edinburgh Evangelical Mag. vol. ii. p. 54, 5V.
t Edinb. Evaug. Mag. vol. ii. p» 145.
Hh
4C6 Strictures on the Sentiments of Dr. Watt.
If this principle is admitted, it will not be easy to
determine when the apostle, in that epistle, is writing
according to the truth of things, or, only according to
Jewish prejudices.
I am sorry to have had occasion for these Stric-
tures, which mijrht be greatly enlarged : It is a task
very disagreeable to me, and especially to be laid
under the necessity of publishing them : But as Dr.
Watt has violated every rule of christian discipline
and brotherly love, by a most uncandid appeal to the
public, and also by dispersing printed letters among
the churches in the connection, containing perverse
things, with a view to foment divisions, and draw
away disciples after him ; in these circumstances, I
had no choice left, but to meet him in the same public
manner in which he has made the attack. I have
little expectation that any thing I have said, or can
say, however clearly supported by the Word of God,
will make any impression upon him, though the Lord
is able to change his mind, and to convince him of the
guilt of his present conduct, which is producing such
desolating eflfects among the churches. But if the
foregoing pages should be blest for establishing those'
who are wavering, or for recovering any of our beloved
brethren who have been led aside by his sophistry,
my end is gained, and for this I earnestly pray.
LETTERS
ON
IMPORTANT SUBJECTS.
ON
Disinterested Iiove to God;
AND THE
Principle of Fear considered as a Motive to Obedience.
[In a Letter to a Friend.]
DEAR SIR,
I HAVE been busily employed in writing several
long letters since I received yours, and I now answer
you in your turn.
I never blamed you for being attached to the scrip-
ture system of divine truth, but for attending too much
to human writings and systems. A favorite precon-
ceived system in a man's mind, is like a mould, which
gives its own form to all his conceptions of the word
of God, and hinders him from attending to the form of
sound words in their own native connexion and sim-
plicity. You will never make much progress in the
knowledge of the Scriptures, till you are convinced
the Bible is a plain book in every thing essential, and
can risk yourself entirely upon it as able to make the
simple wise unto salvation through faith that is in
Christ Jesus ; and until you are bold enough to abide
by its plain and simple meaning, in opposition to the
most renowned authorities for orthodoxy.
There cannot be a clearer instance of your mind
being warped with human systems, than the descrip-
tion you give of a true christian, viz. " One who by
faith rests on the righteousness of Jesus Christ, as his
470 (j>n Disinterested Love to God,
justifying righteousness, and in this rest does every
piece of commanded duty, without being influenced
either by the fear of hell, or the hope of heaven." The
first part of this description I admit, taking justification
in Paul's sense, Rom. iii. but from whence did you
learn the last part of it? Not from the word of God,
for that sets before christians, both the hope of heaven
to encourage them in duty, and the terrors of hell to
deter them from sin, or to alarm them when they fall
into it. Can a true christian then disregard both ? I
grant that when christians are in heaven, they have no
occasion to hope for that which they have in posses-
sion, nor yet to fear hell, of which they are in no more
danger. But while in this imperfect state of trial and
temptation, they need to be stimulated to their duty,
both by the rewards and punishments of a future state.
The Lord saw this to be necessary, and therefore hath
set both these motives before them in his word. I grant
also, that as hope prevails, its opposite, fear, must
subside, and that the full assurance of hope and perfect
love casteth out tormenting fear, and which is incon-
sistent with the spirit of adoption, 1 John iv. 18. Rom.
viii. 15, 16. Yet, even in this case, there is a fear of
hell which hath no torment, and which answers in the
spiritual life to the principle of self-preservation in the
natural. This principle does not in ordinary cases
give torment, but makes us cautious to avoid every
thing we apprehend to be hurtful. When I see a coach
coming up on the street, I step aside to let it pass, and
feel my mind quite composed and easy ; yet on ex-
amining ray motive for getting out of the way, T find it
was no less than the fear of being rode down, or per-
haps trode to death. This fear is absolutely neces-
sary to the very preservation of life, and yet in ordi-
and the Principle of Fear. 471
aary cases gives a man very little uneasiness. It is
equally necessary, and still more important in the spi-
ritual life, and perfectly consistent with happiness of
mind and peace with God. Adam had the fear of death
set before him, whilst he was both holy and happy.
Gen. ii. 17. this fear was very consistent with his pre-
sent enjoyment of God's favour, and tended to preserve
that enjoyment ; and happy had it been for him and
his posterity, had he been more under its influence.
But there are certain cases which require that this fear
should be awakened to a very high, and even a painful
degree. Christains may leave their first love, and
grow lukewarm ; in others the things which remain
may be ready to die ; in short, their relish for divine
things may in a great measure subside, and their love
of this present world may gain ground ; and ail this
may be accompanied with insensibility, and a kind of
false ease and security of mind. To take comfort in
this situation, from the doctrine of election, the per-
severance of the saints, their former attainments, their
being once in Christ, and so always in Christ, because
God's love to them is unchangeable, and his promises
faithful, would be only fostering themselves in pre-
sumption, and hardening their hearts in carnal security ;
and therefore the scripture beats them off from all
these refuges, and tells christians roundly, that if they
deny Christ, he will also deny them ; that if they be-
lieve not, yet he abideth faithful, and cannot deny him-
self, 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13. And that if any man draw
back, God's soul shall have no pleasure in him, Heb.
X. 38. It sets before them the danger, and awful con-
sequences of apostacy, ver. 26 — 32. in order to alarm
their fears, and renew them again unto repentance.
Thus it is that God keeps his people from totally
472 On Disinterested 7^ove to God,
falling away, by a seasonable application of the motive
of fear as well as hope.
But the only principle of obedience you approve of,
is pure disinterested love, without being influenced
either by hope or fear. Now hereby you raise a chris-
tian above the state of a dependent creature, who de-
rives all his happiness from God. Did we possess in-
dependent happiness in and of ourselves, we might, in
that case, love God disinterestedly, purely for what he
is in himself, because we could have nothing to hope
or fear from him. God necessarily loves his own hap-
piness ; but he holds it of none, and therefore his love
to his creatures must be disinterested. It is also
essential to our being to love our own happiness, but
we derive it all from God, and therefore cannot love
him disinterestedly ; for it is essential to our depen-
dent state to be under interested obligations to love
him, as the source of our being and happiness. We
cannot love (however much we may approve of) his
perfections, till we have some ground to hope they are
engaged in our behalf. In any other view the neces-
sary love of our own happiness makes us averse to
them. The noblest principle of obedience enjoined in
scripture is gratitude, which is not disinterested love,
but arises from benefits received or expected. In
short, if we love God at all it must be because he first
loved us, i. e. because we either have, or expect hap-
piness from him. — You may call this selfish and mer-
cenary, if you will ; but the Spirit of God approves of
this principle of obedience in the highest manner, and
states it as an effect of faith. Abraham was influenced
in his obedience by the prospect of the heavenly
country, and the city which hath foundations, %\hose
builder and maker is God, Heb. xi. 10, 16. Moses
and the Principle of Fear. 478
despised all the pomp of Egypt, and pleasures of sin,
and preferred the reproach of Christ to them, because
he had respect unto the recompence of the reward^
Ter. 24— 27. The Hebrews took joyfully the spoiling
of their goods, because they knew in themselves thej
had in heaven a better and enduring substance, chap.
X. 34. Christ frequently encourages his disciples,
both in obedience and sufferings, by the promise of a
great reward in heaven, Matth. v. 11, 12. ch. x. 42.
Luke xiv. 14. The apostles were constrained by
Christ's love to live unto him, 2 Cor. v. 14 — 16. Paul
pressed toward the mark for the prize of his high-call-
ing, Phil. iii. 14. And Christ himself /or the joy that
was set before him, endured the cross, despising the
shame, Heb. xii. 2. It would be needless to quote
any more to this purpose ; the scripture is full of such
motives and examples.
With respect to fear, you admit of none but the fear
of sin, and of temporal corrections, such as those
threatened against Davids natural transgressing seed,
who were to succeed him on the throne, Psal. Ixxxix.
SO — 84. but even this, you say, " if it influence to duty
is mercenary and selfish." That we should have " a
fear of offending a holy and gracious Father in Christ,
and of ungratefully acting towards him," I heartily
admit, and think we can never exceed in it ; but this
is not a disinterested fear ; it arises from gratitude for
the love bestowed upon us, and the sense of obligation
arising therefrom. The fear of temporal corrections
may likewise be admitted, see 1 Cor. xi. 30. Rev. iii. 19.
though they are not much insisted on in this view
under the New Testament, but as an evidence of God's
peculiar love, which we ought neither to despise nor
faint under, seeing they are for our profit, Heb. xii.
474 On Disinterested Love to God,
5 — 12. But there is a more awful consequence of siia
than this set before us in scripture, as an object of
fear, when the other, perhaps, would have very little
. effect, viz. the fear of hell or misery in a future state,
but this fear you altogether explode as unsuitable to a
christian, in any case or in any degree, if I mistake
not. I shall therefore lay before you a few texts out
of many, which hold forth this motive of fear to chris-
tians.— Our Lord commands his disciples to pluck
out a right eye, and cut off a right hand, by this argu-
ment, that it is better for them to do so, than " that
their whole body should be cast into hell," Matth. v.
29, 30. chap, xviii. 8, 9. — In opposition to the fear of
man, he exhorts his apostles to " fear Him who is able
to destroy both soul and body in hell," chap. x. 28.
Here it is evident, that the fear of God includes in it
such a fear of hell, as overbalances the fear of tem-
poral punishment from men. — The apostle, speaking
of the rejection of old Israel, draws this awful caution
from it to awaken the fears and beat down the high-
mindedness of believers, " Well ; because of unbelief
they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be
not high-minded, but fear. For if God spared not the
natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God :
on them who fell severity ; but towards thee goodness,
if thou continue in his goodness : otherwise thou aho
shall be cut off," Rom. xi. 20, 21, 22. The cautious
fear here enjoined is not a fear of mere fatherly cor-
rection, but of God's severity in cutting oft" such as
through unbelief continue not in his goodness, which
must be the fear of hell, for he that believeth not shall
be damned. He warns the Corinthians from wronging
and defrauding one another, by this consideration^
' and the Principle of Fear, 475
" that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God," and he bids them not be deceived with any con-
trary thought, 1 Cor. vi. 9. I know no medium between
inheriting the kingdom of God, and being cast into
hell. He urges the Hebrews to give the more earnest
heed to the things which they had heard, lest at any
time they should let them slip ; from this considera-
tion, that it was impossible for them to escape if they
neglected so great salvation, Heb. ii. 1 — 4. and having
set before them the awful example of Israel, in the
wilderness, who fell through unbelief, and came short
of the promised rest, he exhorts them to " fear, lest a
promise being left of entering into his rest, any of them
should seem to come short of it ; and to labour to
enter into that rest, lest any of them fall after the same
example of unbelief," chap. iv. 1, 11. Is he exhorting
them only to fear temporal correction, and to labour
to enter into an earthly rest ? No ; The rest is the
eternal inheritance, chap. ix. 15. and to come short of
that rest, is to be punished with everlasting destruction,
(see 2 Thess. i. 7 — 16.) and so he describes the pun-
ishment of those who draw back from the faith, to be
fiery indignation which shall devour them as adver-
saries, chap. X. 27. Innumerable are the texts which
might be quoted to show, that the fear of hell is one
motive of the christian obedience ; but if you can turn
off these plain texts already mentioned, it would be in
Tain to attempt to convince you by scripture.
If it be asked. How can such passages be reconciled
with the doctrine of election, the unchangeableness of
God's love, his faithfulness to his promise, the assu-
rance of our interest in Christ, &c. ? I answer,
1. That though I could not reconcile them with these
doctrines, yet still I should believe them reconcileable;
476 On Disinterested Love to God,
because, as there can be no doubt as to their meaning;,
so it is equally certain they are the words of inspira-
tion, and so must be true and consistent with every
other part of revelation. If I cannot perceive the
consistency, let me freely own my ignorance ; but let
me never presume to explain away the word of God,
under pretence of reconciling it. But
2. I apprehend these passages may very well be
reconciled with the above points.
The general doctrine of election is clearly revealed
in scripture ; but no man can know his own particular
election, but in believing and obeying the gospel ; for
that is the evidence of it. Men are chosen unto salva-
tion through sanctijication of the Spirit and 6e/ie/of the
truth, 2 Thess. ii. 13. They are elect, not only accord-
ing to the foreknowledge of God the Father, but also
through sanctijication of the Spirit unto obedience, and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, 1 Pet. i. 2. As
therefore election cannot be known but by its effects,
there is room left for every man to give all diligence
to make his calling and election sure, 2 Pet. i, 10. and
in doing these things he is assured he shall never fall;
but if he remits that diligence, the evidence of his
election is proportionably weakened ; so that there is
still room for cautious fear, as a spur to that diligence,
whereby he obtains and preserves the knowledge of
his election.
God's love to his elect is unchangeably the same in
itself, but not so in its manifestation and manner of
exercise towards the changeable objects of it. The
motives of hope and fear, are the two great stimula-
tives to duty in this imperfect state, and his love is
exercised in making each of them produce their proper
effect, as circumstances require ; whilst the end he in-
and the Principle of Fear. 47f
variably pursues in both is the salvation of their souls.
If he make all things, even things of an opposite na-
ture, work together for their good, does this argue that
he is changeable in his love 1
He is also faithful to his promise of salvation to
him that believeth ; but no person can know his own
salvation by this promise, any farther than he is at
present holding fast the faith and influenced by it. It
is not a promise that he shall be saved at any rate,
whether he believe and continue in the faith or not.
On the contrary, God hath declared, that he that be-
lieveth not shall be damned ; and that his soul shall
have no pleasure in him that draweth back from the
faith. Should we therefore think of denying him, we
muet also think, that if we do so, he also will most
assuredly deny us, and yet abide faithful to all his
promises notwithstanding, 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13. — The
apostle is so far from cutting out cautious fear by the
promise, that he connects both together, " Let us
therefore /ear lest a promise being left of entering into
his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it,"
Heb. iv. 1. — The promise is not to him that for a
while believeth^ like the stony ground hearers, Luke
viii. 13. but to him that endureth to the end. Matt,
X. 22. abideth in Christ, John xv. 6, 7. continueth in
God's goodness, Rom. xi. 12. continueth in the faith
grounded and settled, and is not moved away from
the hope of the gospel. Col. i. 23. that lives by faith,
and does not draw back unto perdition, Heb. x. 38.
The apostle thus exhorts the believing Hebrews, " Let
us hold fast the profession of our faith without waver-
ing," and uses this argument, " for he is faithful that
promised," Heb. x. 24. yet in connection, and in a
perfect consistency with this, he tells them, " if we sin
478 On Disinterested Love to God,
wilfully, after we have received the knowledge of th«
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins ; but
a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries," vcr.
26, 1*7. God's promise therefore still leaves open a
door for cautious fear upon all proper occasions,
without any impeachment of his faithfulness.
The final perseverance of the saints is also consistent
with this fear. God keeps them by his power through
faith unto salvation ; and this faith apprehends the
motives of fear as well as hope, Heb. xi. 7. Fear is
one of the methods whereby he hedges in their way,
and also reclaims them when they have gone astray,
Jude, ver. 23. Rev. iii. 3. It is an ingredient, in that
fear of him which he puts in their heart, that they may
not finally depart from him, Jer. xxxii, 40.
This cautious fear likewise consists with the assu-
rance of our interest in Christ. The scripture assures
every one that believes, of his interest in Christ, and
salvation by him. Of this he may be as sure as he is
that he triily belie veth in him. But the scripture gives
no man such an absolute assurance of salvation, as to
make him think he is quite secure from future misery,
independent of his keeping the faith and abiding in
Christ, John xv. 6. nor has he ground to think, that
God will keep him by his power in any other way.
A man who has escaped perishing in the waters, may
contemplate with joy his deliverance, and find himself
secure from drowning whilst he abides on firm land ;
but this security will not make him less cautious of
falling again into the deep, or less afraid that he would
perish if he did so. An assurance which utterly ex-
cludes a cautious fear of sin, and its awful conse-
quences, would be very unsuitable to our present state
and the Principle of Fear. 419
of imperfection and trial. It comports not with the
chrisli;in life, which is compared to a warfare, wherein
circumspection, vigilance, sobriety, and vigorous ex-
ertion are necessary to detect the stratagems, and
repel the attacks of the enemy, lest we be overcome,
Eph. vi. 10-19. 2 Tim. ii. 3—6. 1 Pet. v. 8, 9. It is
also compared to a race, wherein if we would so run
as to obtain the prize, we must be temperate in all
things, and lay aside every weight, and the sin that
doth so easily beset us, 1 Cor. ix. 25. Heb. xii. 1 .
Paul himsell, who had the highest assurance that any
can pretend to in this world, was not without the in-
fluence of cautious fear, both in fighting and running,
lest that by any means, when he had preached the
gospel to others, he himself should be a cast- away,
(ah>ii/xog) unapproved, rejected, and so fail of the prize^
1 Cor. ix. 26, 27. He had the most assured hope that
he should obtain the prize, in that course which he
was pursuing, (see it described, Phil. iii. 7 — 15.) but
he had every thing to fear, should he go back or turn
aside from it; he therefore laboured, that whether
present or absent, he might be accepted of Christ in
the judgment, 2 Cor. v. 9, 10. and so every christian is
exhorted to be diligent, that they may be found of him
in peace, without spot and blameless, 2 Pet. iii. 14.
and that they may have confidence, and not be ashamed
before him at his coming, 1 John ii. 28. I shall illus-
trate this by two plain examples. Noah and his familj
were assured of salvation in the ark, and it would
have been sinful in them in the least to doubt it; nay,
they had the distinguishing enjoyment of present sal-
vation there, whilst the whole world were swallowed
up in the flood ; but then, it behoved them at the sama
time to know, that if they abode not in the ark, they
480 On Disinterested Love to God, ijc.
would as certainly perish. So, abiding^ in Christ we
have the strongest assurance of salvation ; but then,
it is only in him ; we must therefore take heed, lest
there be in us an evil heart of unbelief, departing from
him. Again, when Paul and the rest in the ship were
likely to be lost, the Lord absolutely determined that
none of them should perish — he positively promised
to Paul that they all should escape. Acts xxvii. 24.
But though Paul believed God, that it should be even
as he had told him, ver. 25. yet he thought it very
consistent with this belief to tell them afterwards,
" Except these abide in the ship ye cannot be saved"
ver. 31. — Whilst God gave them assurance of safety
in his own way, he gave them as certain grounds to
fear they should perish in any other way; and this
fear was the means of their safety, by making them
abide in the ship. The application is easy.
ON THE
Universal Restoration Scheme.
DEAR SIR,
At our last interview, yoii requested to have my
thoughts on Rom. viii. 19—24. Though I have little
hope that my opinion of that passage will be of any
service to you, yet I believe I gave you ground to
expect it ; but the conversation I had with you and
Mr. S. fully convinced me that it would be to no pur-
pose, as " The Universal Restoration of the creature"
is not the only point upon which we differ ; and as I
plainly perceived you were less disposed to receive
instruction from me, than to disseminate your princi-
ples, which in my opinion are little short of avowed
infidelity, and directly lead to it ; I therefore did not
consider it as useful to have any more correspondence
on the subject, as it could produce nothing but vain
jangling.
With regard to the passage above mentioned, though
I should not be able to give a clear and satisfactory
explanation of it, that would be no proof that your
view of it is right, or that it in the least favours your
sentiments. I never pretended to understand every
passage in the word of God ; but I hold it firmly as a
principle, that the word of God is consistent with
itself, and that no explanation of a difficult passage
can be right if it contradict a number of other plain
passages, as your view of this evidently does. But
though Paul in his epistles has written some things
I I
482 On the Universal
hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned
and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scrip-
tures, unto their own destruction, (2 Pet. iii. 16.) yet
I think what he says in Rom. viii. 19 — 24. is not so
hard to be understood, but that it may be explained
in a perfect consistency with himself, and with the
other scriptures. I shall therefore offer a few general
remarks upon it.
1. It is evident that the apostle is speaking of that
time when the whole frame of creation shall be reno-
vated, and when the saints shall be raised from the
dead and glorified. For it is the time when the Spirit
of him that raised up Christ, shall also quicken their
mortal bodies, ver. 11. when they shall obtain the
adoption for which they wait, namely, the redemption
of their body, ver. 23. and when that glory shall be
revealed in them, with which the sufierings of the pre-
sent time are not worthy to be compared, ver, 17, 18.
2. In the whole of this passage the apostle says
nothing of the resurrection or future glory of the wicked
and finally impenitent. He speaks only of the resur-
rection and glory of the saints, or the manifestation of
the sons of God, ver. 19. whom he describes as in
Christ Jesus, walking not after the flesh but after th«
Spirit, ver. 1. as spiritually minded, having the Spirit
of Christ dwelling in them, ver. 6, 9. as the sons of
God, who are led by his Spirit, and have the spirit of
adoption witnessing with their spirit that they are the
children of God, and so heirs of God, and joint-heirs
with Christ, and who shall be glorified together with
him, ver. 14 — 18. It is for the manifestation of the
sons of God as thus described, that the earnest expec-
tation of the creature waiteth, ver. 19. but not a syl-
lable is here said of unbelievers who die impenitent
Restoration Scheme. 483
True indeed, we read elsewhere that they also shall
be raised from the dead, but it is not in glory, nor to
receive glory, but to everlasting shame and contempt,
Dan. xii. 2. it is unto the resurrection of damnation,
John V. 29. for they shall then be sentenced to ever-
lasting punishment. Matt. xxv. 41, 46. and be punished
with everlasting destruction from the presence of the
Lord, and from the glory of his power, 2 Thess. i. 9.
So that this passage cannot have the least respect to
their restoration to a better state ; for the manifesta-
tion of the sons of God, for which the creature waiteth,
takes place at that very time when the wicked shall
be sentenced and go away into everlasting punishment,
and there the scripture leaves them. Let us now
consider,
3. What is meant by the creature, or the whole
creation, which is represented as earnestly expecting,
groaning and travailing in pain together until now.
Though the whole creation is an universal expression,
yet it must be limited by the scope of the passage, the
nature of the subject spoken of, and the harmony of
divine truth, otherwise we shall make sad havoc of
the scriptures in explaining a vast number of universal
expressions. It appears that the wicked are not in-
cluded in the expression the whole creation ; for though
they are part of the creation, and are groaning under
the miseries introduced by sin ; yet they are not groan-
ing for deliverance from sin itself, which is their de-
light, nor are they earnestly expecting or wishfully
waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God,
whom they hate : Nor shall they then be brought into
the glorious liberty of the children of God, but go
away into everlasting punishment ; therefore they are
not the creature or whole creation here spoken of, and
I i2
484 On the Universal
of whom these things are said, ver. 19, 21. Nor does it
appear that by the creature or whole creation the saints
are intended ; for the apostle evidently distinguishes
the one from the other in these words, '* And not only"
they (or it, i. e. the whole creation) " but ourselves
also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we
ourselvqs (viz. the saints) groan within ourselves,
waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of our
body," ver. 2:3. Here we see that Paul and all the
saints, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, are dis-
tinguished from what he terms the whole creation, and
are represented as joining with it in groaning and
waiting for the day of redemption.
It will now be asked. What then is meant by the
creature or whole creation, if it include neither the
wicked nov the righteous ? To this I answer ; that by
the whole creation here I understand, the whole mate-
rial frame or system of creation, particularly this
lower world, which was fitted up as a convenient ha-
bitation for man, and furnished with every thing neces-
sary to his comfort and happiness, who was constituted
lord over it, and designed to glorify God by it. But
man by his apostacy from God drew oflF the whole
creation with him, and perverted every thing from its
original end. Some of the creatures of God he
abused as objects of worship, others of them he
applied to the gratification of his corrupt lusts and
passions, and all of them he turned into means and in-
struments of rebellion against his Maker. Thus the
whole creation, as it stood connected with man, was
perverted and polluted by his sin, to the dishonour of
God. Therefore, not only man himself fell under the
curse and was subject to death. Gen. iii. 19. but the
very ground was cursed for his sake, ver. 17. ch. v. 29
Restoration Scheme. 485
The delights of Paradise were withdrawn, and the face
and constitution of nature was changed from its pris-
tine beauty and fertility. Thus the apostle says,
" The creature was made subject to vanity, not wil-
lingly," (or of its own choice) " but by reason of him
who hath subjected the same," ver. 20. It was for the
sin of man that the curse came upon the creature, and
that God subjected it to vanity. And this vanity
imports also its changeable state, and even its disso-
lution. So the first world, " being overflowed with
water perished," 2 Pet. iii. 6. and " the heavens and
the earth which are now, by the same word are kept
in store, reserved unto fire against the day ofjudgment,
and perdition of ungodly men" — " Then the heavens"
(i. e. the aerial heavens) " shall pass away with a
great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent
heat, the earth also, and the works that are therein,
shall be burnt up," ver. 7, 10. Thus it was by the sin
of man that the creature, nay, the whole frame of the
visible creation was subjected to vanity and dis-
solution.
But then it was subject to this vanity '' in hope, that
the creation itself also" (as well as the saints) " shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the
glorious liberty of the children of God," ver. 21. This
hope is the hope of the saints respecting the restoration
and renovation of the creature, and is formed on the
promise of God, as Peter observes, " Nevertheless we,
according to his promise, look for new heavens, and a
new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness," 2 Pet. iii.
13. As the bodies of the saints shall die because of
sin, (Rom. viii. 10.) and be raised again glorious and
immortal ; so the present heavens and earth which are
subjected to vanity for the sin of man, and shall be dis-
486 On the Universal
solved, shall also be restored and renovated into a
state analogous to the risen bodies of the saints, and
as a fit habitation for them. This new creation shall
no more be polluted with, or made subservient to the
sins of men, or made subject to change or dissolution,
but will be delivered from the bondage of corruption,
into the glorious liberty of the children of God who
dwell therein, and are all righteous. This is that
state for which the creature is said to be earnestly ex-
pecting and waiting.
4. It will perhaps be asked. How can the inanimate
creation be said to expect, wait, groan, and travail in
pain together ? I answer, by a figure of speech very
common in Scripture, which we call a prosopopeia or
personification, whereby inanimate things are spoken
of as if they were persons, and were endowed with
human reason, passions, and feelings. Thus the earth
is said to mourn — the little hills to rejoice on every
side, and the pastures and the vallies to shout for joy
and sing, Psal. Ixv. 12, 13. Thus also heaven and
earth, and seas, and fields, and woods are called upon
to rejoice before the Lord, Psal. xcvi. 11 — 13. The
apostle therefore, by a noble and sublime figure of
speech, represents the whole creation as if, conscious
of its present degraded state and expecting a better, it
were groaning and travailing in pain, like a woman in
labour, to obtain deliverance.
The saints are also represented as joining the whole
creation in their present burthens and sufferings, and
as waiting for a better state, ver. 23. What the whole
creation do figuratively, they do literally. They have
the first fruits of the Spirit, which is the earnest of
their inheritance, being the pledge, evidence, and
foretaste of it, Eph. i. 14. ch. iv. 30. for it is the
Restoration Scheme. 487
ijpirit of their adoption as heirs of God : Yet notwith-
standing their spiritual enjoyments and present attain-
ments, they groan within themselves for deliverance
from the natural and moral imperfections of this
present state, and from the troubles and mortality to
which they are subject, 2 Cor. v. 6. They ivait for
the adoption, viz. the redemption of their body from
the grave. They look for the Saviour, from heaven,
to change the body of their humiliation, and fashion it
like unto his glorious body, when mortality shall be
swallowed up of life, and they shall be ever with the
Lord.
Thus I have given you, what appears to me, the
sense of this passage ; and though in some particulars
I should not exactly have hit the meaning, yet I am
confident that no part of it has any respect to the re-
storation of the wicked after a temporary punishment ;
for the time here referred to is when the saints shall be
raised from the dead and glorified, at which period the
punishment of the wicked commences, and there is no
after period mentioned, either here or any where else
in scripture, when they shall be restored to happiness.
We cannot consistently believe the scriptures, that
eternal happiness awaits the righteous, unless we also
believe the same scriptures that eternal misery awaits
the wicked ; and all arguing against this is vain and
foolish ; and it would be far more consistent to give up
with the scriptures altogether, than to wrest them
where they clash with our favourite notions.
I am, &c.
ON THE EXTENT
OF
ADAM'S FIRST TRANSGRESSION.
[To Mr. R. Moncreiff.]
MY DEAR BROTHER,
I RECEIVED your favour of the 10th inst. wherein
you desire my thoughts on the extent of Adam's sin as
to those who shall be eternally damned. I am not
sure that the Scripture makes any distinction betwixt
the damned and the saved as to the extent of Adam's
sin. Wherever the Scripture speaks expressly of the
extent and elFects of Adam's sin, it is particularly with
respect to the saved, see Rom. v. and 1 Cor. xv. And
wherever it speaks of eternal damnation, it assigns
another reason for it than Adam's one offence. I admit
the principle, that a personal sin against the eternal
law of love to God, infers the desert of eternal punish-
ment in the very nature of things ; but this inference
cannot so clearly be drawn from imputed sin. Impu-
tation, in the sense commonly taken, is purely an act
of the sovereign will of the supreme lawgiver, and to
which he is no way obliged from any necessity of na-
ture, or eternal indispensable justice ; and therefore he
may either not impute the sin of another at all, or to
what degree or extent he pleases. Before therefore
we can affirm that any are eternally damned purely for
Adam's one offence, we must have express scripture
for it; because it will not arise from the nature of
Adam's First Transgression. 489
things, however heinous we may suppose that one
offence to be. I am not very fond of diftering from
commonly received opinions without great necessity;
I shall, however, at your desire, lay before you a few
hints upon the subject with modesty and diffidence,
rather with a view of being instructed by your correc-
tions, than of proselyting you to my particular views.
The apostle expressly says that Adam was the type
of him that was to come, Rom. v. 14. Now as every
type must fall infinitely short of its antitype, so does
Adam fall short of Christ in all the respects wherein
he typified him ; and there are some respects wherein
he could not typify him at all ; for the type is never
fully commensurate to its antitype, so as to answer to
it in all points. It is sufficient that it bear some striking
resemblance to some of the leading outlines of its an-
titype, though it should not exhibit the very image of
it. Farther, the difference betwixt type and antitype
does not lie simply in degree, but also in kind or na-
ture, such as is betwixt earth and heaven, flesh and
spirit, &c. and such is the difference in the present
case ; " The first man Adam was made a living soul ;
the last Adam a quickening spirit— the first natural, or
animal ; the last spiritual — the first man was of the
earth, earthy : the second the Lord from heaven."
1 Cor. XV. 45—47. If such was the dffierence betwixt
Adam (even in his original state) and Christ, there
must be as wide a disproportion betwixt them in their
representative capacities. The popular scheme exalts
Adam almost to an equality with Christ in this respect.
It makes the earthly state in which he was created
almost equal to the heavenly state, and his obedience
of equal consequence to his posterity as the obedience
of Christ ; and in coi;isequence of this^ his 6m, and the
490 On the Extent of
death thereby entailed upon his seed, are made the
full and adequate opposites of Christ's obedience, and
the justification and life resulting from it. According
to this scheme, I am at a loss to perceive the disparity
betwixt them stated by the apostle, Rom. v. 15 — 17.
In entering upon this passage I would observe, that
the apostle is not stating a comparison betwixt the
blessings we have lost by Adam, and those procured
by Christ; but he is stating a contrast betwixt the
judgment, condemnation and death which come upon
us by Adam's one offence, and the justification and life
which come unto us by the one obedience of Christ.
These he shows are perfectly similar in their manner
of conveyance to us, the one being for an offence we
never committed, and the other for an obedience we
never performed : But as to their nature or degree he
makes a very wide difference, and shows that the
former is not at all commensurate or the adequate op-
posite of the latter. If the death which comes by
Adam's one offence were eternal damnation, then
I ask,
1. How could the apostle say, that such a death
reigned from Adam to Moses, ver. 14. not only over
infants, but also over Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob ; nay actually passed (e»j) unto all men ?
ver. 12. It is evident he is there speaking of the death
which came by Adam in the same sense in which he
speaks of it through the rest of that chapter. It is also
plain he is not speaking of death in a mystical or figu-
rative sense, such as a spiritual or moral death in sin ;
for he distinguishes here betwixt death and sin as the
effect is distinguished from its cause, or the crime from
its punishment. He distinguishes betwixt the sin which
was in the world until the law, and the death which
AdanCs First Transgression. 401
reigned from Adam to Moses, ver. 13, 14. which there-
fore cannot be the same. So that death hers does
not mean sin either in heart or life. Neither is he
speaking simply of men falling under the sentence of
death, and becoming liable to it, but of the actual exe-
cution of the sentence ; for he says death reigned over
and passed unto all men. Are all men actually and
eternally damned by Adam's sin 1 God forbid !
2. He shows that many have died (aTredavcv) the death
which came by Adam, who notwithstanding shall reign
in life by Jesus Christ, ver. 15, 17. He does not say
merely that they deserved death, or were under its sen-
tence, but that they have died, death passed unto them,
and reigned over them. Now if this were eternal death,
how could he afl5rm that the very same persons shall
reign in life by Jesus Christ ? The sentence indeed
might be reversed, and the punishment remitted ; but
if once injBicted, as is affirmed of this death, there
could be no deliverance from it, if it were eternal.
3. According to this doctrine, how could the apostle
$ay, " Not as the offence, so also is the free gift" — i. e.
the effect of the oflfence, which is death, is not adequate
to the free gift of justification and eternal life. That
this is the sense is clear from the words immediately
following — " for if through the offence of one many
have died ; much more the grace of God, and the gift
by grace, by one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many," ver. 15. Certainly eternal death is the
adequate opposite to eternal life. Upon this plan the
offence would be fully commensurate in its effects to
the free gift, and there would be no room for saying
that the gift by grace was (ttoj^u /xawov) much more
abundant. This superabundance does not lie in the
number of the saved ; for more were condemned in
492 On the Extent of
Adam than shall be saved by Christ. It must therefore'
lie in the nature and degree of the grace and gift con-
ferred upon the saved, and plainly intimates that the
condemnation by Adam's one oflfence is not so great
as the salvation by Christ, which it would surely be if
it were eternal death.
4. Lastly, upon this plan how could the apostle say,
" And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift ;
for the judgment was by one (viz. oflfence) to condem-
nation ; but the free gift is of many offences unto jus-
tification," ver. 16 Here is a distinction made be-
twixt Adam's one offence and the 7nany offences of his
posterity. Had Adam's offence been adequate to
Christ's obedience, then that obedience could only
have justified from the one offence, and there would be
nothing to answer for, or oppose to the many offences
which the elect themselves have personally committed.
But the apostle is here setting forth the infinite merit
and efl&cacy of Christ's obedience to save, above that
of Adam's one oflfence to condemn, by this, that it frees
not only from the eflfects of that single offence, but from
the eflfects of the many offences. Now, if the judgment
by the one oflfence was everlasting condemnation,
what additional condemnation does the many oflfences
bring ? There may indeed be higher degrees of torment
in a future state ; but is this the only circumstance the
apostle has in his eye in mentioning the many oflfences?
Does he enhance the obedience of Christ above the
oflfence of Adam merely from this consideration, that
it saves from some greater degree of hell's torment
than we have incurred by Adam ? Surely the oppo-
sition intended must be much wider than this. The
superabundance of the merits of Christ's obedience,
and the free gift of justification and life thereby, ap-
Adam's First Transgnssion. 493i
pears from the apostle's reasoning to stand thus. — It
justifies not only from Adam's one offence, but also
from our own many personal offences. — It recovers
not only from the death pronounced upon the one
otfence, and which hath passed unto all men, but re-
deems from the wrath to come or second death, which
is the penalty of the many offences. It restores us
not only to the happy life in Paradise which Adam
forfeited ; but raises us far above the terrestrial state
in its highest perfection, to reign in eternal life, glory
and happiness with Christ in heaven. To illustrate
this a little farther, I would observe
. 1. That natural death is never ascribed to the many
offences as it is to the one offence. The destruction of
the old world by the deluge, of Sodom and Gomorrah
by fire from heaven, and the death inflicted upon
Israel for their disobedience to the law, was not indeed
simply the natural death which all men are appointed
to die, Heb. ix. 27. but also a violent death, as a just
recompense of reward for their own sins; yet the
death which came by Adam's sin was also included in
it ; for this they were previously liable to, and behoved
to suffer at any rate.
2. The second death is never, that I can recollect,
connected immediately with Adam's one offence. The
original curse pronounced upon Adam's sin, was the
toils, troubles and miseries of this life, and his re-
turning to the dust from whence he was taken. Gen. iii.
17 — 19. The New Testament does not seem to state
it in any other light. I have already considered Rom. v.
the only other place is 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22. " For since
by man came death, by man came also the resurrection
of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ
shall all be made alive." The apostle is upon the resur-
4H On the Extent of
rection of the body of the saints, and shews that this
resurrection is from the death which carae by Adam.
Now what kind of death is that from which there is a
resurrection ? The apostle is not speaking of a spiri-
tual death and resurrection, but of the death and re-
surrection of the body, which was the point in question ;
far less is he speaking of the second death, for that is
posterior to the resurrection of the wicked : besides
there is no resurrection from the second death, as the
apostle affirms of this.
3. The second death or eternal misery is always
threatened against the many oflFences which men com-
mit themselves. See Matth. xxv. 41 — 44. Rom. ii.
5—12. Heb. X. 26—31. 2 Pet. ii. 9. It is those who
have done evil that shall come forth unto the resun ec-
tion of condemnation, and it is upon the deeds done
in the body that the final judgment proceeds, 2 Cor.
V. 10. Rev. XX. 21.
It is certain that Adam by his sin lost for a while
the sense of the divine favour, which constituted the
true happiness of his life, in distinction from that of
the brutes, and that he was filled with shame, fear and
dread. It is also certain that all his posterity derive
a corrupt nature from him, whereby they are alienated
from the life of God. Yet I do not find the scripture
calling either of these the death which came by Adam.
It appears to me that upon this subject the scripture
speaks of death in the plainest and most obvious
sense, even a privation of that breath of life whereby
Adam became a living soul. Gen. ii. 7. But as some
think he must have died in some other sense, the very
day he sinned, otherwise the threatening would not be
made good, " In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die," Gen. ii. 17. I answer, that the threatening^.
Adam's First Transgression. 4!9$
in my opinion, does not necessarily mean that he
should actually die on that identical solar day whereon
he sinned, but that he should become mortal the day
he became a sinner ; that from that time he should be
dead in law, or under sentence of death. As to the
expression DV2 in the day, we may see with what lati-
tude it is used, Ezek. xxxiii. 12. " The righteousness
of the righteous shall not deliver him dv3 in the day
of his transgression — neither shall the righteous be
able to live DIO in the day that he sinneth ;" and yet
we know that the Lord did not always execute speedy
vengeance, but bore long with rebellious Israel, and
was even then exercising long-suffering, and warning
the wicked to turn from his evil way.
But though the second death be not threatened upon
Adam's one offence, nor immediately connected with
it as its penalty ; yet it has a connection therewith
through the medium of men's personal guilt ; for by
that one offence sin not only entered into the world,
but continues in it in the hearts and lives of his off-
spring, bringing forth fruit unto everlasting death ; for
the wages of personal sin is death in the highest sense,
the opposite of which is the free gift of God, even
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. I cannot
therefore see any material error in the popular way of
stating this doctrine, seeing Adam hath brought all his
posterity into a sinful and depraved state, which, with-
out the salvation by Christ, would have issued in eter-
nal death ; and this will infallibly be the case with all
who do not partake of that salvation. I have avoided
any difference from the common opinion, on this point,
in my public teaching ; because I think there is more
danger in raising curious speculations and distinctions
among the brethren upon it, than in taking it wholly
496 Ont he Extent of Adam's Transgression.
in the old way. Another reason is, because I am
aware of some objections to this view which I cannot
satisfactorily answer. In the mean time I submit the
above hints to your consideration, and expect your
faithful animadversions. Praying that you and I may
know more and more of Jesus Christ and him crucified
as the foundation of all our hope and glorying, that
we may be more and more conformed to him, and out
of love to his name, feed the flock committed to our
charge with wholesome and sound doctrine, even (to
xoyiKov a^o7\ov yaxa) the rational undeceitful milk, that
they may grow thereby.
I am. Dear Brother,
Yours most cordially in the truth,
A.M.
Edinburgh, *
August 25, 1779.
ON
SABEI.I1IANISM.
DEAR SIR,
I RECELVED your letter giving your view of the
two points whereof I wrote you ; I also read your
letter to the whole church, and send you the following
lines both as my own mind and theirs.
With regard to the doctrine of reconciliation, your
manner of expressing it is no new thing to me, it being
my view of that matter ever since I knew any thing
about it. It would be absurd to suppose, that the
death of Christ, which is an effect of God's love,
should be the procuring cause of it ; and it would be
no less than blasphemy to imagine, that any thing
similar to the wicked enmity of a sinner's heart ever
took place in the mind of God. In this then we are
agreed. I wish I could say so upon the other point
I do not intend to enter into much argumentation upon
the subject, both because I have little hope of its
answering any good end, and also because I am sen-
sible how ready I am to darken counsel with words
without knowledge, upon so high and adorable a
mystery ; for what am I, a poor blind worm of the
dust, who am but of yesterday and know nothing, that
I should pretend to search out the Almighty unto per-
fection either in his essence, manner of existence, or
ways, when I cannot so much as investigate thoroughly
even the smallest part of his works which falls under
the examination of my senses ? I know nothing of
the doctrine of Father, Word, and Spirit but by rc-
Kk
498 On Sabellianism.
velation. I believe what this revelation plainly de-
clares to be, though I do not understand the manner of
its bein^. I hold therefore the doctrine of the Three
divine Witnesses which are One, that adorable name
into which we are baptized, to be a matter of pure
faith, and not of investigation by human reason, it
being far above our comprehension ; but as the general
doctrine is clearly revealed, it is reasonable to believe
it, because God hath said it. We do not understand
how God shall raise the dead, after the body is entirely
consumed, or perhaps converted into the bodies of
other animals ; far less can we investigate how God
created the world out of nothing ; for it appears a plain
contradiction to suppose that something should be
brought out of nothing. These things we must take
simply upon God's word ; or fall immediately into
infidelity. Revelation tells us that God is infinite and
eternal ; but do we know what infiidty and eternity are ?
All we can say is, that the first is to be without bounds
or limits, and the last without beginning or end of
duration ; but this is saying nothing to the point; it is
only telling what they are not, but not what they are.
The truth is, we can have no positive conceptions
either of the one or the other ; all our notions oi eternity
take their rise from the succession of time, and of
infinitude from magnitude or space, neither of which
have any relation to these divine perfections. That
adorable and incomprehensible Being then, who in-
habiteth eternity and fills immensity, must exist in a
manner of which we can have no conception ; yet we
must firmly believe that he is both eternal and infinite ;
though we can neither positively describe or even
comprehend what these words mean, or what it is thus
to exist. Revelation also declares that there is but
On Sahellianism. 499
&iie God ; but it also sets forth this one God by all the
vvaj^s oCspeakini^ by which vvc distinguish iJiree persons
among- men. Reason at first sight pronounces this
absurd and contradictory, and when we inquire into
the bottom of this contradiction it will be found to
land in this, that no such thing is to be found among
the creatures, and that one human soul cannot subsist
in three distinct persons ; but reason takes too much
upon her when she argues from the creature to God,
when she lays the line of finite to infinity, and pro-
nounces that a contradiction in God which she cannot
comprehend, or because he hath not thought fit to
give an image of such an existence amongst his
creatures. This is to say, that reason can comprehend
every possible manner of existence even of the Author
of existence himself. Having premised this I proceed
to state what I understand to be your view of this
p oint.
You say, " That the three names Father, Son, (or
Word) and Holy Ghost, are not expressive of three
distinct subsistences in the same Godhead ; but of the
one undivided Godhead dwelling bodily in the man
Christ Jesus — and thus acts in all the characters, re-
lations and offices implied in these and in every other
appellation which he condescends to bear for our
complete salvation and consolation. — Among men it
is found allowable, yea amiable, for one man to sustain
several and distinct characters, and fulfil the offices
peculiar to each ; why should it appear unbecoming
him to whom all perfections belong to do so, seeing in
each character he bears he is the Almighty Jehovah,
besides whom there is none else ?"
I have quoted these clauses as most directly ex-
pressive of your view^, and I think it amounts to this,
Kk2
500 On Sabellianism.
*' That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not three
divine subsistences, but only three character^ or mani-
festations under which tlie One God fulfils all the
offices necessary for our salvation." Which seems to
me to be much the same with what Sabellius main-
tained about the year 25G, and which, with very little
variation, had been broached by Noetus a few years
before. But as you adduce three classes of Scripture
texts in support of this view, I shall first advert to
each of them, to shew that according to the genuine
sense of language these three names. Father, Word,
and Holy Ghost, must imply more than you admit.
1. You quote a number of Scriptures to prove that
there is but one living and true God, such as Mark xii.
29-3-i. 1 Cor. viii. 4-7. Gal. iii. 20. 1 Tim. ii. 5.
Eph. iv. 6. — and .speaking of the witness of the Three
which bear record in heaven, you wish me to observe
that it is the witness of God, not Gods. The unity
of the Godhead or Divine Nature, is what we have
all along professed to believe ; and I charitably hope
that you yourselves believed that fundamental article
of all true religion, even before you gave up with the
Trinity. In this then we are agreed. But I wish you
would observe in your turn, that the most of these
scriptures which you adduce for the unity of the God-
head, shew also a plurality in that one Godhead ; for
instance; Mark xii. 20. is taken from Deut. vi. 4.
" Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah."
That Elohim is plural none can deny, and Avhen it is
applied to angels, rulers or idols, it is always trans-
lated ijods. And indeed unless Elohim were plural,
this text would have no apparent sense ; for why
should Israel be told that the Lord their God was one
Lord, if there was nothing in the name that might be
On Sabellianism. 501
construed into more? It would be only telling them
that One is One; but as the Elohim of Israel was
plural, it was necessary to shew them that their plural
Eli>kim was but one Jehovah. Moses inlorras us that
it was this plural Elohim that made the world, Gen. i.
throughout, and the apostle gives us two of the distinc-
tions in this creating Elohim in your second text,
" But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom
are all thini^s, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things and we by him." 1 Cor. viii. 6.
withwiiich youmay compareJohui. 1 — 4. Heb. i. 2.and
particularly Eph. iii. J). — As fori Tim.ii 5. it holds forth
not only one God, but also one mediator between this
God and men, which mediator I hope you will not deny
is both God and man.
2. Concerning the iSon or Word, you cite Gal. iv, 4.
Luke i. 31 —36. Rom. i. 3. Acts ii. 22, 30, 38. ch. iii.
13. ch. iv. 10, 26. ch. x. 36, 38.— Upon looking over
these texts I find they contain an account of Christ's
incarnation, mission, unction, death, resurrection and
glorification ; and though it may be allowed they shew
in what sense he is God's begotten Son ; yet they do
not fully set forth in what view he is the IVord ; for
they do not speak of his existence as the Word before
his incarnation, but only as the Word made flesh: and
if this be all your view of him as the Word, it falls far
.short of what the scripture reveals of him under that
distinguishing character. Under this head ^'ou should
have quoted John i. 1 — 3. " In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. The same was in the beguming icith God.
All things were made by him," &c. and ch. xvii, 5.
*' Father glorify thou me with thine own self, with the
glory I had with thee before the ivorld was." I'he
apostle shews, that the Him in whom it pleased the
502 On Sabellianism.
Father that all fulness should dwell, " was before all
things, and by him all things consist," Col. i. 17, 19.
And shewing the original glory and dignity of his
person before he took upon him the form of a servant,
or was made in the likeness of men, he says, " Who
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be
equal with God," Phil. ii. 6. Of that very person that
should spring of the tribe of Judah, and be born in
Bethlehem Ephratah, it is declared, that his goings
forth have been of " old from the days of eternity,"
Micah V. 2. that he is " the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever," Heb. xiii. 8. " the Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the ending," Rev. i. 8. Thus we see
he is lie eternal Word, and distinguished from the
Father before the world was ; but of this more after-
wards.
3. Your next class of citations is to shew that He
and the Father are one, for which you adduce John
X. 30. ch. xiv. 8—12. Col. ii. 9. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Heb. i.
John i. 1—9. 1 John v. 20, 21. John, viii 16—30.
These texts do indeed shew that the Son or Word is
one God with the Father, i. e. possesses the very same
divine nature or essence with him ; for it is impossible
there should be more than one Godhead ; but I am
surprised you did not observe, that these same texts
point him out as another than the Father in the One
Godhead. Thus, John x. 30 *' / and my Father'—
here is the distinction which we call personal among
men — " are one" — here is the unity of nature, these
two being the one God — John. xiv. 9. *' He that hath
seen me hath seen the Father," does not mean that he
was the Father, but that the Father was manifested in
him as his express image, Col. i. 15. Heb .i. 3. and also by
his works and doctrine, see John i. 18. ch. xvii. 6, 2Q.
On Sahellianism.' 503
The same expression occurs, ch.xii. 45. " He that seeth
me, seeth him that sent me" — here is such a distinction
as is betwixt the sender and the sent ; yet in regard of
manifestation the sender was seen in the sent. The
same manner of speaking he uses with regard to
himself and his disciples, Matth. x, 40. " He that re-
ceiveth you receiveth me ; and he that receiveth me
receiveth him tliat sent me ; ' yet neither were his dis-
ciples personally himself, nor he the Father that sent
him. — Col. ii. 9. " For in him dwelleth all the fulness
of the Godhead boiily," i. e. fulness of divine perfec-
tions, for he possesses the same divine nature with the
Father ; and also lulness of grace and truth for his
church, whereby they are " filled with all the fulness of
God," Eph. iii. 19. Thus " it hath pleased the Father
that in him should all fulness dwell ;" Col. i. 19. but
here the Father whom it pleased, and the Him in whom
it dwells, are again distinguished. — 1 Tim. iii. 16.
" God was manliest in the tiesh." This shews he is
God equal with the Father, but distinguished from him
as incarnate, which the Father never was ; for it was
God the Word that was made flesh, and thus was sent
forth from the Father as his Son; and this distinction
appears clear from Heb ii. where the He who took not
on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham,
speaks to his Father as one distinct from him, " I will
declare thy name," &c. — " Behold /, and the children
which God hath given me," ver. 12, 17. In like
manner he says, " A body hast thou prepared me,"
ch. X. 5. where the me who assumed the human nature,
distinguishes himself irom the thou who prepared it, —
Heb. i. sets forth both the personal and official dignity
of Christ above all God's former messengers, whether
prophets or angels ; but through the whole he is also
604 On Sahdlianism.
distinguished from the Father — as a Son is from a
Father — as an heir is from him that appointed him,
ver. 2. — as the express image is from the person whose
image he is, ver. 3. and as he that is spoken to is dis-
tinjruished from him that speaketh to him, see ver. 5,
8, 9, 13. — John i. 1 — J), plainly affirms, that the Word
was God, ver. 1. and that all things were made by him,
ver. 3. but here also the Word is distinguished from
God the Father, as being (Trpog) with God, ver. 1. as
being in the beginning (Trpog) with God, ver. 2. upon
which permit me to make the following plain remarks.
— 1. That the beginning here does not signify the be-
ginning of the gospel (as the Socinians affirm) but
before the creation of any thing ; for the creation of all
things follows after in ver. 3. in which all things are
included the angels. Col. i. 16. and as all things were
created by the Word, he must have been with God
before any creature existed, or as he himself says
before the world was, John xvii. 5. — 2. There is here
a distinction in the Godhead plainly intimated ; in the,
Godhead, I say; for the Word was God, and he with
whom the Word was is God ; and as there was no
creature angelic or human as yet existing, this distinc-
tion must be in the Deity. Yet this distinction cannot
be a plurality of Gods, for there is but one God ; nor
was this a distinction of manifestation (as you say)
for how could there be any manifestation of God
before there were any created to manifest himself to?
It is essential to a manifestation to be seen, and when
there is no discovery made, nor any to get a discovery,
there can be no manifestation, — nor was it a distinc-
tion of character ; for neither character nor manifesta-
tion will make sense if you substitute them in place of
the Word. But it is such a distinction as the Holy
On Sahellianism. 505
Ghost expresses to us in the language we use when we
speak of two persons, and say the one was ivith the
other ; and how would it sound to say the Deity ivas
with himself, or a character was with him. — 3. God
with whom the Word was, does not signify tlic Divine
Nature, as such ; for if the Word was (•n-poi) with
the Godhead, it would imply that he was not pos-
sessed of it himself; but it is affirmed that the
Word himself was God; therefore he with whom
the word was, must be another subsistence in the
one Godhead, and this other subsistence is declared
by the incarnate Word himself (and doubtless he
knew best) to be he who in the New Testament is
called the Father : " Father glorify thou me with thine
own self, with the glory I had ivith thee before the
world was," John xvii. 5. — With respect to 1 John v.
20, 21. it proves that Jesus Christ is the true God in
opposition to all idols, and the same God with the
Father; but then it also points out a distinction in
that one Godhead, by the words him and his Son, " we
are in Him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ ;" and
if we look to ver. 7. we shall find that distinction set
forth under the notion of three distinct Witnesses,
emitting (not a successive, as you imagine, but) a. joint
testimony, whilst it is also affirmed, that these Three
are One, for it is the witness of the One God subsisting
in the Three Witnesses, ver. 9. And when, at your
desire, I compare this with John viii. 16 — 30. I see
the same distinction kept up in the clearest personal
terms imaginable, " I and the Father that sent me,"
ver. 16. " I am one that bear witness of myself, and
the Father that sent me beareth witness also," ver. 18.
" Ye neither know me nor my Father," ver. 19. &c.
As to the Holy Ghost, his distinction from the Father
^OG On Sabellianisin.
and Son is also clearly spoken of, — he was one of the
Elohira that created the world, Gen. i. 2. — ^Iie revealed
the gospel before hand to the prophets, 2 Pet. i. 21. —
descended on Jesus at his baptism, Matth. iii. 16. and
furnished him for his work, Luke iv. 18. John iii. 34.
Acts X. 38. — he was sent forth by the Son from the
Father upon the apostles, John xv. 20- — his office was
not to speak of himself, but wiiat he should hear, and
guide the disciples into all truth, John xvi. 13, 14. —
and he is mentioned as a distinct witness from the
Father and Word, in 1 John v. 7.
Thus I have just touched on the different texts you
have quoted on this subject, and have confined myself
to the simple and obvious meaning of the very words.
If I am wrong, it must be in understanding them too
literally ; but if I depart from their literal sense, I am
afraid that it would lead me into the deserts of scep-
ticism and uncertainty, not only with respect to this
point, but the whole of revelation. In the whole of
these texts there is a distinction pointed out as well as
an unity, and this distinction is held forth by all the
modes of speech by which we distinguish persons
among men. Each of them speaks of himself in the
first person, /, me, my, mine, us, we, &c. — They speak
to one another reciprocally, thou, thee, thy, thine, &c.
They speak of one another, he, his, him, &c. — and they
are all spoken of in distinct form, and in relation to
one another, as being with one another, sending and
sent, and doing distinct things peculiar to each. I take
the revelation of this high mystery then just as it is
simply expressed.
It is possible that you may start an objection to the
following effect, " God in using this personal manner
of speaking is only accoramodatino^ himself to human
On Sahellianism. 507
conceptions, even as when he ascribes bodily parts to
himself, and so must not be understood literally." To
this I answer, that I am a human creature ; so can
have nothing but human conceptions, and if the Lord
has accommodated his revelation to my conceptions,
I ought to receive it thankfully, and conform my ideas
to his revelation, as a little child, assured that it is the
only revelation he intends me in this world, the most
proper for me in my present state, the most worthy of
him to bestow, and that he can have no intention to
deceive or mislead me. If he speaks to me in a lan-
guage suited to men, shall I strain after being wdse as
God ? Gen. iii. 5, (j. Shall I reject the idea which he
thought most proper for human creatures to entertain
of him, and seek to be wise above what is written by
intruding into things which I have not seen ? — As to
hand, eyes, ears, &c. being ascribed unto God, I shall
only notice, that as we are fully ascertained from the
whole Bible, that God is an invisible, pure spiritual
Being, these expressions cannot signify bodily parts
in him, nor does the scripture any where say so ; but
shall we affirm, that because they do not signify any
thing corporeal in him as they do in us, that therefore
they signify nothing in him at all ? do they not point
out some acts or perfections of the divine nature
whereunto the use of these members in us bears some
faint and imperfect analogy ? Even so, the scripture
reveals three subsistences in the divine nature by all
the modes of speech in which we speak of three per-
sons among men, and though we must not measure
these three by any created subsistences, angelic or
human, (more than the divine omniscience by bodily
eyes and ears) yet, if words can have any meaning, we
must believe the reality of them.
508 On Sabelliamsm.
Still, ho^yever, you may possibly inquire " What is
it that constitutes distinct subsistences in the God-
head ? or what lies at the bottom of such a distinction?"
I reply, God forbid that I should ever attempt to re-
solve such a question ! I do not know what consti-
tutes distinct persons among men. All I know is how
they appear to be distinct. I am as conscious that I
am my very individual self, and not another, as I am
of my existence ; bat what constitutes this self, I can-
not tell. I do not so much as know what constitutes
the difference of colours, yet I am not the less certain
that there is a difference, because 1 see it with my eyes.
Shall I then attempt to describe what constitutes the
distinction of the adorable and incomprehensible Di-
vine Three? Far be it ! It is enough for me (hat they
are declared to be Three, Father, Word, and Holy
Ghost, and that these Three are One Jehovah. Let
me therefore believe and adore.
I am, yours, &c.
A.M.
ON THE LOSS OF RELATIVES.
[To Mrs. Stevenson, of Hull]
DEAR MADAM, Edinburgh, Dec. 15, 17{)9.
JBY a line from Mr. S. f am informed that you have
met with an afflicting dispensation of Providence, in
the loss of your youngest child, by the small-pox.
You will, no doubt, feel this the more sensibly, from
its being, I suppose, the first affliction of the kind you
have experienced, and from the natural tenderness of
a mother's affections and feelings. Insensibility, under
the hand of God, would be criminal, and, in such a
case as this, unnatural. He hath implanted in us
natural affections, and when he deprives us of the ob-
On the Loss of Relatives. 509
jects of them, he wills that we should feel. True, in-
deed, these objects are his gifts, every thing amiable
in them is from him, and he has an undoubted right to
recall them at pleasure ; yet
" The God of love will sure indulge
Tin; flowing tear, the heavini; s>i^h,
When tender fiitnds and kindred die,"
But as, on tlie one hand, we are not to despise the
chastening of the Lord through a stoical or callous in-
sensibility ; so neither ought we, on the other hand, to
faint, when rebuked of him, so as to be overset and
sink under the trial. As both these extremes are sinful,
as well as hurtful to ourselves, so we may be sure that
neither of them corresponds with the designs of a gra-
cious and merciful God in afflicting us.
I might suggest to you, upon this occasion, that all
our worldly comforts and enjoyments are from God,
and lent us but for a season — that we are unworthy of
the least of his favours — that he has a sovereign right
to recall them, when he sees meet — that affliction is
the common lot of mankind — that death will un-
doubtedly, sooner or later, close this transitory scene,
with respect to us all — and that impatience, or ex-
cessive grief, is sinful, unreasonable, unavailing, and
only increases our distress. But though such reflec-
tions are just and proper, they are not sufficient, of
themselves, to give relief to the mind smarting under
affliction. Religion, the Christian religion alone, is
calculated to assuage our grief in every trial, and to
make us not only submissive and resigned, but even
cheerfully to acquiesce in the divine disposals. It
assures us that none of our afflictions come by chance,
but by the special appointment of our heavenly
Father — that they are under his direction and special
management, as to their nature, degree, continuance
and effects— that he is possessed of infinite wisdom.
510 On the Loss of Relatives.
and knows what is best for us ; and also of infinite
goodness, whereby he makes all things, even the
sharpest afflictions, to work together for good, to them
that love him. His chastisements are the efl'ects of his
love to his people, and he therein acts the part of a
tender-hearted Father ; " For whom the Lord loveth
he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he re-
ceiveth." And though " no affliction for the present
seemeth to be joyous, but grievous, yet afterwards it
yieldeth the peaceable fruits of righteousness to them
that are exercised thereby."
Had God intended no other happiness for his people,
no other portion but the transitory enjoyments of this
life, we could not indeed perceive his love in depriving
us of these ; but when we consider that God proposes
himself as the object of our happiness, who is a satis-
fying and everlasting portion, and whose favour is
better than life ; when we think of this world only as
a passage to an eternal state of happiness, in the pre-
sence and enjoyment of God, where there is fulness of
joy and pleasures for evermore ; and when we think
of the Son of God coming into the world, bleeding and
dying, and rising again from the dead, to procure for
us the remission of sins, and eternal life with himself
beyond death and the grave : this will lead us to con-
sider afflictions as but light and momentary, when
compared with the glory that shall be revealed, and
the faith and hope of this will support us under every
trial. It is only in this view that we can perceive
chastisements to be effects of divine love, and sub-
servient to our true and everlasting interest. They
serve, when sanctified, to humble our minds — teach
us submission to, and acquiescence in, the will of
God — remind us, that we owe all our comforts to, and
hold them immediately of, God — discover to us the
On the Loss of Relatives. 5il
transitory nature of all earthly enjoyments, and the
folly of setting our supreme affections upon them, or
of placing our happiness in them — convince us, that
our true and permanent happiness lies only in the en-
joyment of God — make us relish the comforts of the
gospel, which are suited to a state of afiliction in this
world — and tend to lead our views and desires forward
to that state, where sin and sorrow shall never enter.
These, and such like effects, are what God intends by
afflicting us, as he has declared in his word. Are they
not all conducive to our chief good ? and ought it not
to be our main care, that these gracious designs of
God may be gained upon us by all his chastisements?
In proportion as these efiects are produced, a sweet
and placid serenity overspreads the soul ; it recurs to
God himself as its chief happiness, and finds rest in
him as its portion and satisfying good. How blessed
in such a case is the man whom the Lord chasteneth !
When our minds are overcome with an affecting
loss, we are apt to forget our remaining mercies. But
are there not always great grounds for thankfulness
amidst all our sorrow ? Has God taken from us one
dear child, and has he not left us another? Nay, has
he not left us a husband or wife, the affectionate
partners of our joys and griefs ? And though he had
bereft us of all at once, does not he himself stand in-
stead of all relations ? and is he not infinitely better
than sons or daughters? — We ought therefore to reflect
upon the grounds of gratitude and thankfulness he
affords us, amidst all our afflictions.
You have reason, dear Madam, to believe that your
child is happy. The scripture gives us a favourable
view of the state of all infants dying in infancy. Our
Lord says, " Suffer the little children to come unto me
and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of
612 On the Loss of Relatives.
God." A great part of mankind die in infancy before
they have done any s^ood or evil ; and our Lord de-
clares, that of such little children the kingdom of God
is made up ; and, as a token of this, he took the little
children that were brought him up in his arms, and
blessed them, Mark x. They die, by virtue of their
connection with Adam in his first transgression ; but
having done neither good nor evil, in their own persons,
they will not be judged according to the deeds done in
the body, nor fall under the sentence of the second
death, which is pronounced only upon personal wicked
deeds ; but being redeemed by the blood of Christ,
and written in the Lamb's book of life, they shall be
raised up from the first death, which came by Adam,
to the enjoyment of eternal life in the heavenly king-
dom. This consideration should dry up your tears.
Your child is now with God, infinitely more happy
than you could have made her on earth ; infinitely
more happy than you can conceive ; and, if you are a
follower of them, who, by faith and patience inherit
the promises, and of Jesus Christ, the author and
finisher of faith, you shall one day meet with her
amidst the redeemed company, where you shall never
more part; and, where "there shall be no more death,
neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any
more pain : for the former things are passed away,"
Rev. xxi. 4. That this may be the happy issue of all
our present afflictions, is the sincere prayer of.
Dear Madam,
Your sincere and sympathizing Friend,
A.M.
FINIS.
Printed by W. MYERS, IScdford Place, Commercial Road.
Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries
195 8321
1012 0
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