A Body of Divinity, Vol. 4 (of 4) / Wherein the doctrines of the Christian religion are explained and defended, being the substance of several lectures on the Assembly's Larger Catechism

by Thomas Ridgley

NOW IN PRESS

THE REV. DR. JOHN GILL’S COMMENTARY.

The Old Testament is now in the press, and the first volume expected out in the month of May. To subscribers the price will be 6 dollars per vol. sheep; $7 in calf; and $5 25 per vol. in boards. On subscribing, the New Testament can be delivered in 3 volumes, being already printed.

The following is taken from the Minutes of the Philadelphia Baptist Association—October, 1815.

“Oct. 18.—This association have heard with pleasure, by a communication from Mr. Woodward, of his intention to publish Dr. Gill’s Exposition of the Old Testament, in six large quarto volumes; one of which he hopes, if life and health be spared, to issue every 4 or 5 months, at the price originally proposed; that is, $5,25 each vol. in boards—6 in sheep, and 7 in calf. Resolved that this association recommend to the churches, and the brethren of our denomination generally, the encouragement of the work, and that each church subscribe at least for a copy for its respective minister for the time being, and communicate the result of their subscriptions to Mr. Woodward, as early as possible. He hopes to issue the first volume in the Spring. Sister associations throughout the union are affectionately invited to patronize the publication, and should their piety and wisdom approve of the measure, recommend the adoption of a plan in their churches generally similar to what is above recommended.”

SCOTT’S FAMILY BIBLE.

W. W. Woodward is preparing for the press, in 3 vols. quarto, the Rev. Dr. Scott’s Family Bible, on a new arrangement. The work will contain every article, except the Marginal References; and the Notes will follow immediately after the verses to which they belong, and the Practical Observations at the end of each chapter. The first volume will be published as speedily as possible.—The flattering encouragement already received, induces the publisher to put to press a large edition. A copy-right is secured for this popular plan. Price in boards 18 dolls. 75 cents, bound 21 dolls. Proposals shall be sent to any persons who will interest themselves in the work—one copy for every five subscribed for. The Royal Octavo Bible, recently printed by W. W. W. contains all the Marginal References, all the Introductions to the Books, and also to the Chapters, with the General Preface, for $5, common, and $5 50, fine paper; plates added, $1 50; David’s Psalms, or Watts’s imitation, 50 cents; Concordance, 25 cents. It may be had with or without the above; with them separately, or all bound in one, or two volumes: one dollar advance, if bound in two volumes.

The First Volume will be out in the Spring, and the other volumes as early after as practicable—this plan is exceedingly popular. The following is an extract of a letter from a respectable clergyman:—viz. “I am happy to inform you, your edition, on the new plan, meets the general approbation. Of this you will be convinced, when I tell you, that in obtaining two hundred subscribers, I have done little else than to follow along after Proposals for other editions of the same work. About 40 sets of the above are to be bound in calf.—Many have subscribed for this, who have absolutely refused to subscribe for others. I think you may safely conclude, therefore, that many families will be blessed with this excellent work, who would, perhaps, have ever remained destitute, had it not been for this edition.”

A new Edition of

THE POCKET BIBLE,

Will be ready in January, 1816, in a variety of bindings, from 125 to 500 cents.

CONFESSION OF FAITH, or, the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America; containing the Catechism, and the Directory for the worship of God: together with the Plan of Government and Discipline, as amended and ratified by the General Assembly at their Session in May, 1805. Price 1 dollar 12-1/2 cents. Sheep gilt 1 dollar 25 cents.

The CONFESSION OF FAITH: the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, with the Scripture-proofs at large; the Covenants, national and solemn League; the Acknowledgment of Sins, and Engagement to Duties: the Directories for Public and Family Worship; and the Form of Church Government; with Acts of Assembly and Parliament relative thereto, and approbative of, the same, of public authority in the Church of Scotland: and also in the Associate Church, and the Reformed Church, in the United States of America. Together with the Sum of Saving knowledge, and the practical use thereof.—Price 1 dollar 75 cent fine, and 1 dollar 50 cents common.

Pocket Edition of WATTS’S PSALMS AND HYMNS.—W. W. Woodward has printed a new edition, which may be had at the following prices:—Plain 75 cents. Gilt backs, fine paper, 1 dollar 12-1/2 cents. Morocco 2 dollars. Morocco with gilt leaves, 2 dollars 25 cents. Red sheep 1 dollar 62-1/2 cents.

Also, just published—a neat and correct edition of the above, with a large type: taken from W. W. W’s last corrected pocket edition. Price, fine paper, 1 dollar 25 cents, plain; morocco, gilt leaves, 3 dollars 25 cents; sheep gilt, 1 dollar 75 cents; common paper, 1 dollar in plain binding.

RIPPON’S SELECTION (copy-right) in a neat pocket volume, with a variety of New Hymns, not in former editions; prepared by the Rev. Dr. Staughton.—Prices, plain bound and lettered, 75 cents. Gilt backs 1 dollar 12-1/4 cents. Morocco, yellow leaves, 2 dollars, and gilt leaves, morocco, 2 dollars 25 cents.

JUST PRINTED,

BUCK’S THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY,
2 vols. in 1, 350 cents.—4th edition, with an account of the Cumberland Presbyterians.

Proposals are out for printing the WORKS of
The Rev. JOHN B. LINN, D. D.
Late Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.—2 vols. octavo.

Lately Printed,
BUCK’S PRACTICAL EXPOSITOR,
Price 112-1/2 cents.

Also, THE PIOUS SELECTION 112-1/2 cents.

PROOF CATECHISM, revised by the Rev. Dr. James P. Wilson, 50 cents per dozen.

Also—a new edition of the SEQUEL to JANEWAY’S TOKEN FOR CHILDREN, 19 cents.

A constant supply of the latest Theological Publications on hand; and always a very general Assortment of BOOKS in the various departments of Literature. Orders made up for Libraries and Book Stores on the most liberal terms.

Footnotes

[1]. Vid. Grot. de jur. bell. & pacis, Lib. ii. cap. v. § 9.

[2]. The Theatre is said to have commenced at Athens, but to have been so much disapproved of, both in Greece and at Rome, that it was allowed no permanency till the days of Pompey. Minutius Felix derided the Christians for abstaining from this amusement. It is not probable therefore that the first Christians required any reproof in any of the Epistles for this vice. But every abuse of it may find its correction in scripture. Morals and piety may be thrown into Dialogue without reasonable objection. But to turn these things into play, and the amusement of the reprobate, cannot be justified.—There is no fairness in arguing from what they might be, to prove the lawfulness of plays in the state in which they are, always have been, and will probably always be. That they are, and tend to evil is proved by the avidity with which they are frequented by even the worst members of society. They are calculated to excite the affections and passions in the highest manner, and so to render private happiness, domestic enjoyments, and religious observances insipid or disgusting. The reiteration of scenes of impurity, illicit amours, extravagant passions, jealousy, and revenge, will make a silent and secret impression upon the mind, and if they do not promote the same wickedness, they will at least render the mind less abhorrent of such crimes. True religion requires the exclusion of such imaginations, the immediate banishment of such thoughts, that we should mortify and deny ourselves; “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” The cruelty and bloodshed frequently threatened, or resorted to in defence of false honour; the pomp, pride, and ambition not unfrequently exhibited upon the stage, must necessarily prompt to like feats in vindication of character, or at least lead to self-importance and fastidiousness; but the gospel teaches humility, self-denial, lowliness of mind; “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” When such representations please, they prove the mind corrupt, and become an index of the morals of those who are entertained with such spectacles. The Christian duties of meekness, silence, forbearance, humility, bearing the cross, faith, and repentance, are either incapable of being transferred to the stage, or if seen there are exposed to contempt, and ridicule. The addresses to Deity, and prayers there offered, are surely Heaven-provoking blasphemies. The Theatre interrupts religious, domestic, and public duties; it dissipates and fascinates the mind; weakens conscience, grieves the Holy Spirit, wastes property, and time; and unqualifies both for this, and the world to come.

Every one who attends is chargeable with the evil which obtains before him, for he goes voluntarily, he submits himself as to the matter of his amusement to others, and thus with the blessings of Providence, bribes the enemies of God to blaspheme him.

Some men of character for morals have countenanced, and some have written for the stage, perhaps they calculated upon what it might be, and aimed to correct the evil by drawing to it the more respectable of society. But the great majority of men are enemies to God, these will only be pleased with evil, and their pleasure will always be sought, because interest will compel to this. This is therefore doing evil that good may come; if indeed it can under any circumstances be good, to turn even correct performances, if such there were, into publick amusement.

After all there can be no hope of a total removal of this evil, yet we are on this account no more excused from bearing testimony against it, than from opposing other crimes which cannot be wholly prevented.

[3]. The Hebrew word שאל which is here used, does not only signify commodavit, or usui dedit, or accepit, but petiit, or postulavit; in the last of which senses it is to be understood, in Deut. x. 12. What doth the Lord require or demand of thee, &c. And in Judges v. 25. where the same word is used, it is said, that Sisera asked water of Jael; not as one that was borrowing it of her, but as a gratuity for former kindness which he had shewn to her.

[4]. From נשך, momordit.

[5]. See 3 vol. p. 422.

[6]. Mendacium officiosum.

[7]. This is called mendacium jocosum.

[8]. This is called mendacium pernitiosum.

[9]. See Page 509.

[10]. See Quest. LXXVIII. Vol. III. 170.

[11]. See Quest. LXXXII.

[12]. See Vol. II. 44.

[13]. Κτίσις these mean the animal part of man.

[14]. These several heads, concerning the aggravations of sin, are contained in three or four lines, which are helpful to our memories. Most of the heads of this answer, are contained in that verse, Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus auxiliis? Cur? Quomodo? Quando? And those that relate to our contracting the guilt of other men’s sins, in the following lines; Jussu. Consilio. Consensu. Palpo. Recursu. Participans. Nutans. Non obstans. Non manifestans. Incessans. Minuens. Non mærens. Solicitansve.

[15]. See Vol. II. Quest. XXVIII, XXIX, and Vol. III. Quest. LXXXIX.

[16]. See Vol. II. Quest. XLIV. Page 273-290.

[17]. See Quest. LXX, LXXI. Vol. III. p. 66-96. and what was said under those answers, to explain the doctrine of justification.

[18]. See Quest. LXXVI. Vol. III. p. 166.

[19]. See Quest. LXXII., LXXIII. Vol. III. p. 98.

[20]. To affect to honour the mercy of God, by supposing this is sufficient for all our sins, however persevered in, is to disparage his truth which has proposed terms of mercy, connected our salvation with them, and pronounced them exclusive. It is to imagine that Deity shall change his purposes; it is an affront to his wisdom to suppose that after he has placed us in a state of probation and made us accountable, no retribution should be made. It indicates insincerity, and not a real regard for the divine glory, to set up such a substitute for the gospel scheme of salvation.

To excuse sin by alleging our impotency to good, is disingenuous; because the party can be conscious of no obstacle, unless his own inclinations to evil can be so denominated. This excuse casts the blame on God. To persist in sin under such pretences, is to do evil that good may come, which, the Apostle of the Gentiles declares renders condemnation just; it is to sin that grace may abound.

To defer the acceptation of offered mercy, and put off the work of repentance, is unwise, as it is heaping sorrows against the day of bitterness; it is imprudent, because it is to remain at enmity with Him upon whom we depend, and to be liable at every moment of this uncertain life to be involved in everlasting despair. It is evidence of a very sordid mind to prefer the base gratifications of the senses, to the refined pleasures of virtue, and the beauty, peace, and comforts of holiness.

If the procrastination proceed from a dread of the labour of acquiring the knowledge of the truth, this will be increased by every hour’s delay, as the mind becomes thereby the less susceptible of religious impressions. The time in which the work should be accomplished also becomes the shorter; like a traveler, who has mistaken his course, the impenitent has every step to tread back again, and his time is proportionally curtailed. The truths of natural science flatter our pride and ambition, but those of religion humble and crucify them; the latter, being opposed to the carnal mind, disgust; if such disgust produce a delay of conversion, the truths which have once excited such aversion will be more likely afterwards to do it, because the mind by once having rejected them has become more sensual, and opposed to moral good.

The cares and business of life not merely pre-occupy the mind, and exclude the thoughts of religion, but augment our addictedness to earthly objects, and render progressively the mind more insensible to lessons of piety. In old age avarice or sensuality are often at the highest pitch; the man has become more impatient and irritable, tenacious even of his errours, and averse to changes, no change can be looked for but the great one, when the messenger arrives, who brings a scythe in his hand.

To defer conversion till death, that its terrors may dissolve the charms of the world, besides the hazard of surprise, is unreasonable, as it supposes mercy when we have persisted in rebellion as long as we can; it is to expect that God’s Spirit shrill always strive with man; it is highly presumptuous; and it exposes also to self-deception, as religion in that late hour must be the effect of necessity, and destitute of the fruits and proofs of holiness.

[21]. I come now to say somewhat of the antiquity of Musical Instruments. But that these were not used in the Christian Church in the primitive times, is attested by all the ancient writers with one consent. Hence they figuratively explain all the places of the Old Testament, which speak of Musical Instruments; as I might easily shew by a thousand testimonies, out of Clement of Alexandria, Basil, Ambrose, Jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others. I can hardly forbear laughing, when I meet with some of their allegorical interpretations. Thus an Instrument with ten strings, according to them, signifies the Ten Commandments, as the unknown author of the Commentary upon the Psalms, among Jerom’s works, often explains it, In Ps. xxxii. 2. xliii. 4, &c. But the pleasantest fancy is the explication of those words: Praise him with stringed Instruments and Organs. Ps. cl. 4. “That the guts being twisted by reason of abstinence from food, and so all carnal desires being subdued, men are found fit for the kingdom of God, to sing his praises.” But Chrysostom talks more handsomly; “As the Jews praised God with all kind of Instruments; so we are commanded to praise him with all the members of our bodies, our eyes, &c.” In Ps. cl. And Clement of Alexandria talks much to the same purpose. Pædag. lib. ii. c. 4.

Besides, the ancients thought it unlawful to use those Instruments in God’s worship. Thus the unknown author of a Treatise, among Justin Martyr’s works: “Q. If songs were invented by unbelievers with a design of deceiving, and were appointed for those under the Law, because of the childishness of their minds; why do they, who have received the perfect instructions of grace, which are most contrary to the foresaid customs, nevertheless sing in the Churches, just as they did, who were children under the Law? Answ. Plain Singing is not childish, but only the Singing with lifeless Organs, with Dancing and Cym-bals, &c. Whence the use of such Instruments, and other things fit for children, is laid aside, and Plain Singing only retained.” Resp. ad Orthodox. Q. 107.

Chrysostom seems to have been of the same mind, and to have thought, the use of such Instruments was rather allowed the Jews in consideration of their weakness, than prescribed and commanded. In Ps. cl. But that he was mistaken, and that Musical Instruments were not only allowed the Jews, as he thought, and Isidorus of Pelusium, (whose testimony I shall mention presently) but were prescribed by God, may appear from the Texts of Scripture I have before referred to.

Clement, as I have mentioned already, thought these things fitter for beasts, than for men. And though Basil highly commends, and stifly defends the way of Singing by turns; yet he thought musical Instruments unprofitable and hurtful. He calls them, the inventions of Jubal of the race of Cain. And a little after, he thus expresses himself: “Laban was a lover of the harp, and of music, with which he would have sent away Jacob: If thou hadst told me, said he, I would have sent thee away with mirth, and musical instruments, and an Harp. But the Patriarch avoided that music, as being a thing that would hinder his regarding the works of the Lord, and his considering the works of his hands.” Comment. in Is. c. v. p. 956, 957. And a little before, he says thus “In such vain arts, as the playing upon the Harp, or Pipe, or dancing, as soon as the action ceases, the work itself vanishes. So that really, according to the Apostle’s expression, The end of these things is destruction.” page 955.

Isidore of Pelusium, who lived since Basil, held, music was allowed the Jews by God, in a way of condescension to their childishness: “If God” says he, “bore with bloody sacrifices, because of men’s childishness at that time; why should you wonder, he bore with the music of an harp and a psaltery?” Epist. lib. 2. ep. 176.

Nay, there are some ecclesiastical officers in the Church of England, who, for their very profession and employment, would have been kept from the communion of the Church, except they desisted from it. So we are informed by the Apostolical Constitutions: “If any come to the mystery of godliness, being a player upon a pipe, a lute, or an harp; let him leave it off, or be rejected.” Lib. viii. c. 32.

From what has been said, it appears, no musical instruments were used in the pure times of the Church. It became Antichristian, before they were received. Bellarmine himself does not deny, they were late brought into the Church. “The second ceremony,” says he, “are the Musical Instruments, which began to be used in the service of the Church, in the time of Pope Vitalian, about the year 660, as Platina relates out of the Pontifical; or, as Aimonius rather thinks, lib. iv. De gestis Francorum, c. 114. after the year 820, in the time or Lewis the Pious.” De Missa, lib. ii. c. 15. Item, De bon. Oper. lib. i. c. 17.

Dr. N. would hardly have denied, the Church of Rome was become Antichristian, when they were first brought in; even though we should allow Bellarmine’s first date of them to be the true one. But a Reformed Divine may well be ashamed of that antiquity, that does not exceed the rise of Antichrist. But I am fully satisfied both Bellarmine’s dates are false, and that instrumental music, in the worship of God, is much later than either of those accounts allow. For as to Platina, he seems to suspect the truth of what he wrote: “Vitalian,” says he, “being careful about the worship of God, made an ecclesiastical rule, and ordered the singing, with the addition (as some think) of organs.” In Vital. Again, Bellarmine’s Aimonius is not the true Aimonius. For (as Dr. Cave says) Aimonius of Fleury, who wrote, De gestis Francorum, flourished about the year 1000; and his History, which begins at the destruction of Troy, is brought down as far as the coronation of King Pipin, or to the year 752. For what comes after that, and makes up the fifth book, and the latter part of the fourth, is the continuation of another hand. Hist. Liter. p. 597.

Farther, that these instruments were not used in God’s worship, in Thomas Aquinas’s time, that is, about the year 1250, he himself is witness. “In the old Law,” says he, “God was praised both with musical instruments and human voices, and according to that Psalm xxxiii. Praise the Lord with harp, sing unto him with the psaltery, and an instrument of ten strings. But the Church does not use musical instruments to praise God, lest she should seem to judaize. Therefore, by parity of reason, she should not use singing.” Secunda secundæ Questio 91, art. 4. & conclus. 4. The like objection is made by our author. But Thomas answers: “As to this objection, we must say, as the philosopher, Lib. viii. Polit. that Pipes are not to be used for teaching, nor any artificial instruments, as the harp, or the like: but whatever will make the hearers good men. For these musical instruments rather delight the mind, than form it to any good disposition. But under the Old Testament such instruments were used, partly because the people were harder and more carnal; upon which account they were to be stirred up by these instruments, as likewise by earthly promises; and partly because these bodily instruments were typical of something.” Upon which place Cardinal Cajetan gives us this Comment: “’Tis to be observed, the Church did not use organs in Thomas’s time. Whence, even to this day, the Church of Rome does not use them in the Pope’s presence. And truly it will appear, that musical instruments are not to be suffered in the ecclesiastical offices we meet together to perform, for the sake of receiving internal instruction from God; and so much the rather are they to be excluded, because God’s internal discipline exceeds all human disciplines, which rejected these kind of instruments.” Cit. Hoffm. Lex. voce Musica.

If any one objects the practice of some foreign churches, I answer with Mr. Hickman: “They are laid aside by most of the reformed churches; nor would they be retained among the Lutherans, unless they had forsaken their own Luther; who, by the confession of Eckard, reckoned organs among the ensigns of Baal. That they still continue in some of the Dutch churches, is against the minds of the Pastors. For in the National Synod at Middleburg, in the year 1581, and in the Synod of Holland and Zealand, in the year 1594, it was resolved, That they would endeavour to obtain of the magistrate the laying aside of organs, and the singing with them in the churches, even out of the time of worship, either before or after sermons: so far are those Synods from bearing with them in the worship itself.” Apol. p. 139.

The Church of England herself had formerly no very good opinion of these musical instruments; as may appear by her Homilies: “Lastly, God’s vengeance hath been, and is daily provoked, because much wicked people pass nothing to resort unto the church; either for that they are so sore blinded, that they understand nothing of God or godliness, and care not with devilish malice to offend their neighbours; or else for that they see the church altogether scoured of such gay gazing sights, as their gross phantasie was greatly delighted with; because they see the false religion abandoned, and the true restored, which seemeth an unsavory thing to their unsavory taste, as may appear by this that a woman said to her neighbour: Alas! gossip, what shall we now do at church, since all the Saints are taken away; since all the goodly sights we were wont to have are gone; since we cannot hear the like piping, singing, Chaunting, and playing upon the organs that we could before? But, dearly beloved, we ought greatly to rejoice and give God thanks, that our churches are delivered out of all those things, which displeased God so sore, and filthily defiled his holy house, and his place of prayer.” Hom. of the place and time of prayer, part. 2. p. 131.

A great number also of the Clergy in the first convocation of Queen Elizabeth in 1562, earnestly laboured to have organs, and that pompous theatrical way of singing laid aside, and missed the carrying it but by one vote, as I observe elsewhere. And in this Archbishop Parker concurred with them, or at least did not oppose them.

I will add one or two testimonies of Papists against this cathedral way of worship. The first shall be Polydorus Virgilius.

Having taken notice of Austine’s dislike of that way of singing in his time, he thus proceeds: “But in our time, it seems much less useful to the commonwealth, now our singers make such a noise in our churches, that nothing can be heard, beside the sound of the voice; and they who come there (that is all that are in the city) are satisfied with the concert of music, which their ears itch for, and never mind the sense of the words. So that we are come to that pass, that in the opinion of the common people, the whole affair of religious worship is lodged in these singers; although, generally speaking, there is no sort of men more loose or wicked: and yet a good part of the people run to church, as to a theatre, to hear them bawl: they hire and encourage them; and look upon them alone as ornaments to the house of God. Wherefore, without doubt, it would be for the interest of religion, either to cast these jackdaws out of the churches; or else to teach them when they sing, they should do it rather in the manner of reading, than bawling; as Austine says Athanasius ordered, &c.” De Invent. Rer. lib. vi. c. 2. p. 379.

Next hear the judgment of Erasmus: “Let a man be more covetous than Crassus, more foul-mouthed than Zoilus, he shall be reckoned a pious man, if he sings those prayers well, though he understands nothing of them. But what, I beseech you, must they think of Christ, who can believe he is delighted with such a noise of men’s voices? Not content with this, we have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music; such a confused disorderly chattering of some words, as I hardly think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them.—Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled. And for this end organ-makers are hired with great salaries, and a company of boys, who waste all their time in learning these whining tones. Pray now compute how many poor people in great extremity might be maintained by the salaries of those singers.” In 1 Cor. xiv. 19.

Lastly, Lindanus says: “Who will compare the Music of this present age, with that which was formerly used? Whatever is sung now, signifies little for informing the people; which ’tis certain the ancients always designed.” Panopl. lib. iv. c. 73.

Pierce’s Vindication.

[22]. The first hymns of Gospel churches, were neither rythm, nor metre; and there was no version of David’s psalms, that could be sung before Calvin’s time.

[23]. Ὑμνήσαντε.

[24]. There is a difference between praising God, and instructing men.

[25]. The first christians composed and set to music their hymns.

[26]. Grotius thought the first Gospel hymns were extemporary. Basnage from Tertullian says; “neither the prayers they made to God, nor the hymns which they sung to his honour were reduced to rule; every one drew them from the Holy Scriptures, or from his own treasure, according to his genius.” A council of 70 bishops, A. D. 272. charged among other things against Paulus bishop of Antioch, that he abolished the Psalms, which were sung in gloriam Christi.—When the Ariam sang the doxology Glory be to the Father, the orthodox added, and to the Son and Spirit. Vide Dr. Latta, and Mr. Tod, on Psalmody.

[27]. See Mr. Richard Allein’s essay on singing, chap. iv. who seems, in my opinion, in the whole of his short performance, to argue with a considerable degree of candor and judgment.

[28]. See Sidenham’s gospel ordinance concerning singing, &c. and Hitchen’s scripture proof for singing, &c.

[29]. It cannot be denied that the Psalms of David are called indifferently by these three names, psalms, hymns, and songs שיר, מזמר, תהלה, ψαλμὸς, ὑμνὴ, ὀδη, and sometimes the same psalm is called a song or psalm, as in the title of Psalm. lxv. or a song of a psalm [as the LXX. render it, ὀδη ψαλμοῦ.] And in Psalm cv. 2. when it is said, Sing unto him, sing psalms unto him; שירו לו זמרו לו the former word signifies to sing a spiritual song; the latter to sing a psalm; or, as the Septuagint render the same word, in 1 Chron. xvi. 9. an hymn [Ἀσατε αυτω και υμνησατε.] See Sidenham’s gospel-ordinance, &c. chap. ii. and Ainsworth on the title of Psalm liii. whom he therein refers to.

[30]. See Vol. I. 48. 69. Quest. III. and IV.

[31]. See Quest. LXVII, LXVIII. Vol. III. p. 16.

[32]. Many instances of this might be produced, viz. Gen. iii. 15. instead of, it shall bruise thy head, they render it she; by which they understand the Virgin Mary, shall bruise thy head, that is, the serpent’s. And, Gen. xlviii. 16. instead of, my name shall be named on them, which are the words of Jacob, concerning Joseph’s sons; it is rendered, my name shall be invoked, or called upon by them; which favours the doctrine of invocation of saints. And, in Psal. xcix. 5. instead of exalt the Lord thy God, and worship at his holy hill, they read, worship his footstool; which gives countenance to their error of paying divine adoration to places or things. And, in Heb. xi. 21. instead of, Jacob worshipped leaning on the top of his staff, they render it, he worshipped the top of his staff. And, in Heb. xiii. 16. instead of, with such sacrifices God is well pleased, they render it, with such sacrifices God is merited; which they make use of to establish the merit of good works.

[33]. There is indeed, one verse in Jeremiah, chap. x. 11. that is written in Chaldee; which, it is probable, they did not, at that time, well understand; but the prophet, by this, intimates to them, that they should be carried into a country where that language should be used; and therefore the Holy Ghost furnishes them with a message, that they were to deliver to the Chaldeans, from the Lord, in their own language. The gods, that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from these heavens.

[34]. See Vol. I. Quest. IV. p. 69, & seq.

[35]. See Quest. CLIX, CLX.

[36]. Θεοῦ και ἐσμεν συνεργο.

[37]. Vide T. Williams on the Song of Solomon.

[38]. Vide Table of the Order of the Prophecies. Vol. I. p. 55.

[39]. The word is שלו, which being neither a root to any other word, nor derived from any other root, by which the sense of Hebrew words is generally known, nor found any where in scripture, excepting in those two or three places which refer to this particular dispensation of providence; it is an hard matter to determine the sense of it, without comparing these two scriptures together.—It occurs Numb. xi. 31, 32. Exod. xvi. 13. Psa. cv. 40.

[40]. See the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. v. to the x. inclusive, and 2 Cor. x. 1-6.

[41]. See Vol. I. p. 78.

[42]. See Lightfoot’s Harmony of the Four Evangelists. And his Harmony of the New Testament, Vol. I. p. 268.

[43]. This is called Synecdoche.

[44]. This is called a Metonymy.

[45]. See more of this in an ingenious discourse on this subject by Smith in Solomon’s portraiture of old age.

[46]. Vid. Cic. in Orat. pro Planc. florem equitum Romanorum ornamentum civitatis, firmamentum reipublicæ publicanorum ordine contineri. And in his oration, ad Quintum Fratrem, he has many things concerning the dignity of the publicans, and their advantage to the commonwealth: accordingly he says, Si publicanis adversemur ordinem do nobis optime meritum, & per nos cum republica conjunctum, & a nobis, & a republica disjungimus. And, in his familiar epistles, Lib. xix. Epist. x. he calls them, Ordinem sibi semper commendatissimum; & ad Atticum, Lib. vii. Epist. vii. he says, Cæsari amicissimos fuisse publicanos.

[47]. See Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. xiii. Cap. ix. And we have an account of their pride and insolence in the same author, chap. xviii. and of the great disturbance that they made in civil governments, if chief magistrates did not please them.

[48]. See Joseph. Antiquit. Lib. xi. Cap. viii.

[49]. See Tertull. in præscrip. adv. Hær. Cap. xlv. and Epiphanius, in Hær. Cap. xx.

[50]. That Herod was disposed to make alterations in the Jews religion, by adding to it a mixture of several rites and ceremonies, taken from the Heathen, is affirmed by some. See Cunæus de Rep. Hœb. Lib. i Cap. xvi. who quotes Josephus as saying, that he altered the ancient laws of their country.

[51]. See Vol. III. p. 495.

[52]. Sacrament is the word used by the Vulgate for mystery, and this is a much more probable meaning of the term as used by the early christians.

[53]. Και σημειον ελαβε περιτομης, σφραγιδα της δικαιοσυνης της πίστεως.

[54]. When these two are distinguished by divines, the one is generally called, signum significans; the other signum confirmans; or, the former is said, significare; the latter, obsignare.

[55]. It were to be wished, the inspired books had been more generally honoured, as the only sufficient rule of judgment, by those who have wrote in favor of episcopacy, upon the plan of a DIVINE RIGHT; and the rather, as they speak of it, not merely as an institution of the gospel, but an essentially necessary one: insomuch, that gospel ordinances will be invalid, unless administered by those, who have been episcopally vested with holy orders.

In a matter of such momentous concern, they would not have acted an unworthy part, if they had confined their pleas to the sacred writings; producing such passages from them as speak to the point, not implicitly and darkly; but in peremptory and express terms, so as to leave no reasonable room for hesitation or doubt. It would be dishonourary to the BIBLE, and a gross reflection on the penman of it, to call that an “appointment of Christ,” and an “essentially necessary” one, which is not contained in this sacred volume, and with such clearness and precision, that sober and impartial inquirers may readily perceive it to be there, without foreign help to assist their sight. And yet, such help is made necessary by episcopal writers. They scarce ever fail of turning us to the FATHERS in vindication of their cause; hereby virtually reflecting disgrace on the scriptures, as though they were insufficient, simply of themselves, to bring this controversy to an issue.

In order to reconcile the appeal that is so often made to the FATHERS with that honour which is due to the scriptures, the episcopalian plea is, that they consider these fathers, not as judges, but witnesses only in their cause. But what are they brought to witness? Is it, that episcopacy is an institution of Jesus Christ? If this is witnessed to in the sacred books, of which we, having these in our hands, are as good judges as they, it is sufficient. There is no need of any foreign testimony. If it is not, no other testimony can supply this defect. Are these fathers cited as witnesses to what was the practice in their day? This is now generally the pretence. They may, say the episcopalians, be properly appealed to, in order to know the truth of FACT in the ages in which they lived. And if, from their unanimous testimony, even from the first days of Christianity, it appears, that GOVERNING and ordaining AUTHORITY was exercised by Bishops ONLY, in distinction from Presbyters, and as an order in the church above them, it would argue great arrogance, if not obstinate perverseness, to dispute the divine original of episcopacy. But we must be excused, however perverse we may be accounted, if we cannot bring ourselves to think, that the practice of the church, since the apostles’ days, however universal, will justify our receiving that as an institution of Christ, and an essentially important one, which he himself hath not clearly and evidently made so, either in his own person, or by those inspired writers, whom he commissioned and instructed to declare his will: nor can we believe the great Author of christianity would have put the professors of it to the difficult, I may say, as to most of them, the impossible task of collecting any thing essential to their salvation from the voluminous records of antiquity. We are rather persuaded, he has ordered every article that is necessary, either in point of faith or practice, to be so fairly and legibly wrote by the sacred penman, as that there should be no need of having recourse to the ancient Fathers as WITNESSES, any more than judges, to ascertain his mind. To suppose the contrary, would, in reality of construction, substitute TRADITION the rule of essential truth, in the room of the SCRIPTURES, which were “given by inspiration of God;” or, at least make the former so much a part of this rule, as that the latter, without it, would not be sufficiently complete. Such dishonour ought not to be cast on the one only standard of the real mind of Christ.

The Bishop, in whose defence an appeal is made to antiquity, is not related, by his office, to a single congregation of christians only, with one or more Presbyters belonging to it; but his charge is a diocess, consisting of a number of congregations, greater or less, with their respective Presbyters. The inquiry therefore is, whether it be an UNIVERSALLY ATTESTED FACT, that episcopacy, in this sense, took place in, and through, the two first ages? A Bishop, at the head of a number of congregations, greater or less, is an officer in the church of Christ quite different from the pastor of a single congregation; though he should be called Bishop, as being the Head-Presbyter, or vested with the character of PRIMUS INTER PARES. It should be particularly noted, which of these kinds of episcopacy has the voice of the specified antiquity in its favour. It is willingly left with every man of common understanding, after he has gone over the following testimonies, to say, whether he thinks, that Bishops, after the DIOCESAN-MODE, were known in the first ages of the church?

The Bishop, for whom the fathers are called in as WITNESSES, is an officer in the church of an ORDER SUPERIOR to that of Presbyters, and as distinct from it as the order of Presbyters is from that of Deacons; the pretence being this, that Presbyters were thought to have, in primitive times, no more right to meddle with the peculiar work of Bishops, than Deacons have to concern themselves with the peculiar work of Presbyters. The question therefore is, Whether it will appear from the following evidence, to be at all a FACT, much less an UNIVERSALLY known, and certainly attested one, that there were Bishops, in this sense, in any church, in any part of the christian world, within the two first centuries?

The Bishop, in whose favour the ancient Fathers are said universally to speak, is one to whom the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF GOVERNMENT has been committed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, or his apostles as commissioned by him. Says the famous Bishop Hoadly, treating of the government of the church, as belonging to Bishops only, in the above appropriated sense, “And here—I think I may say, that we have as universal and as unanimous a testimony of all writers, and historians from the apostles’ days, as could reasonably be expected or desired: every one, who speaks of the government of the church, in any place, witnessing, that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one, who hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the apostles’ days, and fixing it upon their decree.—Were there only testimonies to be produced, that this was the government of the church in all ages, it would be but reasonable to conclude it of apostolical institution;—but when we find the same persons witnessing, not only that it was episcopal, but that it was of apostolical institution, and delivered down from the beginning as such, this adds weight to the matter, and makes it more undoubted. So that here are two points to which they bear witness, that this was the government of the church in their days, and that it was of apostolical institution. And in these there is such a constancy and unanimity, that even St. Jerom himself traces up episcopacy to the very apostles, and makes it of their institution.”—He adds, “All churches and christians, as far as we know, seem to have been agreed, in this point, amidst all their other differences, as universally as can well be imagined.” One would suppose, from the peremptory manner in which this citation is expressed, that the FACT it affirms was so evidently clear, as to leave no room for the least doubt. Those, who may think it worth while to look over the testimonies brought to view, in the following pages, will perhaps, by critically observing their real and just import, be surprized, that any man of learning, who professes a regard to truth, should speak of it, and with such a degree of assurance, as the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF ALL AGES from the apostles, that episcopacy, in the impleaded sense, was the “form of government in the church in their day,” and that it was by “apostolical institution;” especially, if they should not be able to find, as it is certain they will not, so much as a single witness, for two hundred years, whose evidence is clear, direct, express, and full, in affirming, either that this was the form of government in the church, or that it was ever instituted by Christ, or his apostles: so far is it from the truth, that this is a FACT UNANIMOUSLY and CONSTANTLY TESTIFIED TO, even from the beginning, and through all ages.

The Bishop, for the support of whose claims antiquity is repaired to, is one with whom the SOLE POWER of ORDINATION is lodged; insomuch, that he only can convey holy orders conformably to the appointment of Jesus Christ; and should Presbyters presume to do this, they would take that upon them which they have no more a right to, than Deacons have to baptise, or administer the Lord’s supper. This part of the UNANIMOUS report of ALL AGES concerning the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT of Bishops deserves most of all the special notice of the reader; and he is particularly desired, as he goes along, to point out to himself, for his own satisfaction; or to others, for their information, any one among all the testimonies he will have placed before his view, that plainly and directly affirms the RIGHT OF ORDINATION to be peculiar to Bishops as a distinct order from Presbyters, and superior to them; or that this right was ever thus exercised by them. If he should not be able to do this, as unquestionably he will not, how strange must that affirmation appear, which says in the most positive terms, not only that this is FACT, but a fact CONSTANTLY and UNANIMOUSLY witnessed to by the fathers, in ALL AGES from the days of the apostles.

The Bishop, in whose defence antiquity is pleaded, is vested with the power of CONFIRMATION, according to the mode of the church of England; and it is appropriated to him as his right in distinction from all others. But I need not assure the reader, he will in vain look to find it a FACT, within the two first ages, that Bishops were either vested with, or ever exercised this power. For he must come down below these ages, before a word is said, by any one of the fathers, relative to this superstitious practice. Tertullian is the first that mentions it; and he mentions likewise some other corruptions, which had got mingled with christianity in that day.

In short, the question in debate, so far as it relates to FACT, is, not whether there were officers in the christian church, known by the name of Bishops in the apostolic age, and down along through the two first centuries? We join with the episcopalians in affirming this to be a truth universally testified to in those times: but the proper question is, what is FACT with reference to the ORDER of these Bishops, and the POWERS PECULIAR TO THEIR OFFICE, and as EXERCISED by them in it? The name of Bishop is one thing, and the POWER claimed for, or exercised by him, is another. The dispute is, not about the name, but the power appropriated to it. This therefore should be heedfully attended to by all, in their examination of the evidences that will be produced; and they may, in this way, clearly and satisfactorily determine, each one for himself, whether it be at all an attested FACT, much less a CONSTANT and UNANIMOUSLY ATTESTED ONE, from the apostles days, and down along through the two first ages, as well as after ones, that Bishops were vested with, and did actually exercise, the above specified powers, which are at this day claimed for them, as the appropriate work of their office by divine appointment?

CHAUNCY’S VIEW OF EPISCOPACY.

[56]. See vol. II. page 86.

[57]. See vol. III. page 424-426. and vol. II. page 205.

[58]. See Vol. III. p. 12.

[59]. Βαπτιζω, has been said to signify immergo and exclusively when applied to sacred baptism. And this is necessary to establish immersion as the only mode. The question is not, therefore, whether Βαπτιζω, sometimes signifies to immerse, but whether it never signifies any thing else. This can be proved, it is presumed, by no Lexicographer, and no version of the New Testament. In the New Testament it is taken in different senses, for example we read of a Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire. It is therefore a generic term and not specific, as immerse cannot be substituted for it in all places. If a specific Greek term signifying to plunge had occasionally been used for it, in the New Testament, yet baptism being in our Saviour’s commission to his disciples, should not have been confined to one mode, but this is never the case. The numerous admissions of our divines, that Βαπτιζω, primarily signifies to immerse, and which are disingenuously collected to impose on the ignorant; do not weaken our cause, as they did neither influence the practice nor sentiments of those who used them.

If Βαπτιζω, signifies to immerse totally, or partially; to dip, to cleanse, or purify, &c. it leaves the mode to our convenience or choice; and reason also accords, that the mode is unimportant with respect to moral defilement.—Porphery has “Βαπτιζεται μεχρι κεφαλης.” The oracle said “Βαπτιζη him as a bottle” (of leather, which could swim) “but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under water.” Strabo says, “Βαπτιζομενων up to the waist.” Aristotle says “Βαπτεικαι ανθιζει τηνχειρα,” it stains and renders florid the hand. Aristophanes says, “Βαπτομενος Βραχειοις,” stained with tawny colours. Homer says, “¨Εβαπτετο δ᾽᾽ αιματι λιμνω,” And the fountain was tinged with blood. Rev. xix. 13. “Ιματων Βεβαμενον αιματι.” Isaiah xxi. 4. “Fearfulness Βαπτιζει me.”

[60]. Διαφοροις βαπτισμοις.

[61]. The promulgation of this command marks a new and important era in the history of the church and of the world. These words may be considered as the public and formal abrogation of the Mosaic economy; and the authoritative annunciation of the new order of things under the gospel.

The first communications of divine truth, through Adam and Noah, were made indiscriminately to the human family; but, in both instances, the precious deposit was generally adulterated, and nearly lost. The wisdom of God, therefore, saw it to be necessary to select and separate from the idolatrous world, a particular family which might serve as a repository of the divine oracles and institutions; until that ‘Seed of the woman’ should come, of whom it was predicted, that he should ‘bruise the serpent’s head:’ and that ‘seed of Abraham’ in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed.

But when Jesus Christ, our great high-priest of good things to come, had, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, to bear the sins of many; and had by this one offering of his own body, perfected them that are sanctified, the service of the first tabernacle was set aside, and as to any utility, or divine authority, ceased forever; as an emblem of which, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, at the very moment of expiation; when Christ our high-priest, by sheding his vital blood and pouring out his soul unto death, offered his one great sacrifice for sins.

So great, however, was the power of early and national prejudice, that the apostles did not, for some time, understand the extent of their commission. They had, before, been sent on a short mission, on which occasion it was ordered, that they should not go into the way of the Gentiles, nor even enter into any city of the Samaritans; and they seem to have thought, that by going into all the world, and preaching to every creature, no more was intended, than that they should go to the seed of Abraham now widely dispersed among the nations. But this veil was soon removed, by a particular revelation made to Peter in a vision; and by the calling of Paul to the apostleship, who, from the beginning, received commission to go to the Gentiles, and was, in a peculiar manner, designated and directed, to preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ.

Dr. Alexander’s Missionary Sermon.

[62]. Εις τὸ ὁνομα.

[63]. Εις Χριστόν.

[65]. See vol. II. Quest. XXXI, XXXII. Page 167, & 185.

[66]. There is a common aphorism among them, that the sacraments, and baptism in particular, confer grace, ex opere operato.

[67]. See vol. II. page 166-216.

[68]. The Gospel is glad tidings of great joy, not a system of new and terrifying restrictions and exclusions; so far from retracting formerly conceded privileges, and confining the church within narrower limits, it publishes peace and salvation, and invites the whole human family to participate in these blessings. It must either be referred to the impressions it has made, or to uninterrupted usage that females have, by a general consent, been deemed to possess an unquestionable right to approach the holy communion, though neither precept for it is found, nor an example of it recorded in the Scriptures. This baptism of infants was still less necessary to be enjoined by, and less likely to have been noticed in the short history given us of apostolical transactions.

He who gave parental affection, and is the Lord of his church under every dispensation, conferred on children at an early age of the world the privilege of sharing with their parents in the seals of grace, and bearing the tokens of his covenant. Jewish christians having themselves experienced such benignity, and been given to the same God, whom they now served under brighter displays of his eternal and unchangeable love, could not have expected, that, an entrance into the milder gospel-church would have been denied to the seed whom God had given them, and whom they had devoted to him not only in prayer, but in that ordinance which he had appointed for the purpose. An ordinance which being now obsolete was supplied by another, apparently as proper for their children as themselves. Because infants are incapable of repenting and believing, these duties were not required nor expected of them, either under the old, or new dispensation; but though incapable of actual sin, and therefore free from obligations of obedience unto the law, yet their nature is not pure, and consequently needs the sanctifying influence of divine grace, which can correct the latent enmity, and renew the soul. They are capable, therefore, of spiritual blessings, and may consequently be members of the invisible church, and received into the church triumphant. The obvious reasonableness of the privilege of being received with their parents into the society of the worshippers of God, a privilege publicly known to have been conferred by the great Head of the church, equally prevented the supposition of an implied repeal, and the necessity of a renewal of the right.

If indeed there had been a different religion introduced; if christians were not engrafted into the old stock; if they worshipped some other than the God of Israel; if there was another moral law, another Christ than he whose day the fathers anticipated, and another faith; this privilege of receiving infants into the church might have been interrupted; and in that case unless expressly again enjoined, it ought not to have been regarded in practice. But if the christian religion is founded upon the prophets; if the peculiarities of the Jewish worship were but shadows of gospel things; if both were directed to the same glory of God and salvation of men; if they both enjoined the same holiness and presented the same object of faith; if those who were saved under the Old Testament shall be associated with those who are saved under the New; the privileges formerly granted to children will remain the same; and it is not wonderful that the first christian should obey the dictates of parental tenderness; and that desiring the salvation of their children as well as their own, should cause their households to be baptized as well as themselves. To have affirmed in the gospel history expressly, that children were a part of the household, could have answered no purpose in the first days of christianity, but would have been thought repetitions and unmeaning until modern times. In the fifth, in the third and even so early as in the second century, the baptism of infants was the established usage of the church, and it was then thought, and not disputed, to have been the practice of the apostles themselves.

[69]. Μαθητεισατε.

[70]. Vid Whitby in Loc.

[71]. This then is a repetition; go, teach, baptize, teach. This commission was to disciple the world, baptizing and teaching are the specification, and are participles agreeing with the nomination.

It is no inference from the position of baptizing before teaching are that adults might be first baptized. This was the institution of the ordinance of baptism as well as the apostolic commission; yet it neither contains any direction either as to the mode or subjects; because Christ spoke to Jews, who knew that adult proselytes were carefully examined, whilst infants were circumcised with their parents without such examination. They also knew the various modes of religious purifications among the Jews; both John the Baptist, and they having under that dispensation baptized. Neither is faith essential to the validity of baptism, nor is the profession of it required of such as are incapable of making it.

[72]. To be brought into the visible church, is a high privilege, of which infants are as capable now, as under the former dispensation. Consent is not necessary; for infants receive inheritances. This is by force of municipal laws. But are not the laws of God of equal force?—Baptism implies obligations, which can be founded only on consent. Then it will follow that infants are not bound by human laws, for they have not assented to the social compact; they are under no obligation to obey parents, guardians, or masters, because they either did not choose them, or were incompetent to make such choice; they are not bound by the laws of God himself, which is this very case, because they have not consented to his authority; and if they never consent, they will be always free equally from all obligations, and all sin. Such are the consequences of the above objection.

[73]. The dictates of nature, uncontrouled by revelation, are the will of Christ, and our rule of duty. The will of Christ, expressed in these dictates, requires us to benefit our children as they are capable. Baptism, as the initiatory seal of God’s covenant, is a benefit of which infants are capable.—This evidence is not eclipsed, but brightened, by scripture authority, as we shall see in the sequel of this chapter.

Let the reader carefully notice, that we do not suppose, by insisting on this argument, the insufficiency of direct scripture evidence: for this has been frequently urged with advantage, to satisfy persons of the best dispositions and abilities. That is, reader, “some of the most eminent Pœdobaptists that ever filled the Professor’s chair, or that ever yet adorned the Protestant pulpit.” But since our opponents insist, that what has been so often urged, is not conclusive; and modestly affirm, it is only calculated to catch “the eye of a superficial observer;” they are desired once more impartially to weigh this reasoning, and then, if they are able, to refute it. Let them know, however, that hackneyed phrases without meaning—principles taken upon trust—and empty declamation—must not be palmed on us instead of solid arguments.

Were it necessary, it would be easy to shew, that the principles above urged are no novelty; but are perfectly agreeable to experience,—and to the practical judgment of the most serious Pœdobaptists, both illiterate and learned. But waving this, we proceed next to another corroborating proof of the main proposition.

What we contend for is. That it is the will of Christ we should baptize our infant children. In proof of this we have shewn, first, that the dictates of right reason require us to benefit them, and consequently to baptize them; as baptism is always a benefit when administered to capable subjects. We come, secondly, to shew—That God has constantly approved of this principle, in all preceding dispensations. In other words—That the principle of the last argument is so far from being weakened by scripture evidence, that the Lord’s approbation of it, in his conduct towards the offspring of his professing people, in all the dispensations of true religion, is abundantly illustrated and confirmed.

Mr. B’s misapplied but favourite maxim—“Positive laws imply their negative,” has no force in the baptismal controversy, until he demonstrates, in opposition to what is advanced, that the dictates of right reason must be smothered, or else, that revelation countermands their influence. But to demonstrate the former, in matters about which, on the supposition, scripture is silent, is no easy task. And the difficulty will be increased in proportion as the sacred oracles corroborate reason’s verdict. Let us now appeal to these oracles.

We appeal to that period of the church, and dispensation of grace, which extended from Adam to Noah. The inspired narrative of this long space of time is very short: on which we make the following remarks. We then assert,

Whatever exhibition of grace was made to antediluvian parents, was constantly made to their offspring; and consequently whatever seals of grace were granted to the former, must equally appertain to the latter if not voluntary rejectors of them. Therefore, all such parents had a revealed warrant to regard their offspring as entitled to the seals of the covenant, in like manner as themselves, according to their capacity. For,

All allow that Gen. iii. 15. contains the promulgation of gospel grace; nor are we authorised to question the interest of children therein with their parents, without an express contravention. For, it were unnatural for a parent to confine such a benefit to his own person to the exclusion of his children, who are not only parts of his family but of himself. To which we may add, that the phrase thy seed, though principally referring to the Messiah, respected Eve’s natural seed as sharers in common with herself in the exhibition of mercy; and we suppose not less so than her husband. For this application of the phrase thy seed, compare Gen. xvii. 7. and Gal. iii. 16. Again,

It is generally agreed, that not only the institution of sacrifices, but also the coats of skin, (Gen. iii. 21.) were emblematic of covenant blessings; and not only so, in common with mere types, but seals of the covenant, as earnests and pledges of exhibited favour. “Who will deny,” says Witsius, “that God’s cloathing our first parents was a symbolical act? Do not Christ’s own words (Rev. iii. 18.) very clearly allude to this?” As for sacrifices, they were slain at God’s command after the promulgation of the covenant. For, if Abel offered by faith, (Heb xi. 4.) it presupposes the divine institution of them. And this institution, most probably, took place when God—taking occasion from the insufficiency of the aprons of fig-leaves, which the fallen pair sewed together, to cover the shame of their nakedness—himself cloathed them with coats of skins. And most divines agree, that it is very probable, these were the skins of those beasts which were slain for sacrifices. However, God gave testimony to these oblations of the ancient patriarchs, that they were acceptable to him; but this cannot be supposed without admitting them to be divinely instituted. Besides, a distinction of clean and unclean animals was observed before the deluge; which was not from nature, but the mere divine pleasure; and may we not add, with a particular respect to sacrifices? Now,

If, according to Witsius and others, these skins of beasts, and sacrifices, were appointed seals of the righteousness of faith; I would ask—Was the covenant directed for the use of their seed in common with the parents, and not the seal in like manner? For, if the seals be affixed to the covenant for confirmation of its contents, as well as, in another view, for signification; I would fain know, by what rule of construction we can infer, that the covenant itself belongs to the parents and their seed in common, while the confirmation of it belongs exclusively to the former? Is it not contrary to custom and unreasonable to conclude, that a charter of privileges, or a testamentary instrument, (which by the way express the nature of the covenant) belongs to a man and his heirs alike, but the confirming seal respects the former only; while on the supposition, the sovereign, or the testator, has given no ground for such partiality? Besides,

If the covenant itself be a benefit to the persons to whom it is directed, as it certainly is in every dispensation of it, it follows that the confirmation of it is so; for parents, therefore, to deny their offspring all the share in such common benefits they are capable of, without a divine warrant, is unnatural, and an act of injustice. We may therefore conclude—that from Adam to Noah, the covenant and its seals appertained to infants in common with their parents.

We appeal next to that period of the church which extended from Noah to Abraham: On which we observe,

Whatever benefits and privileges belonged to the former dispensation, continue to flow on to the present, if not expressly repealed; for the change of a dispensation of itself, is no adequate cause of their abrogation. That would be as unreasonable as to suppose that the bare change from night to day was, of itself, an adequate cause of a man’s being disinherited. Or we may as well say, that the abstract notion of an epoch in chronology has a real influence on the sequence of events. Whatever covenant privileges, therefore, belonged to Noah and his family before the deluge, if not expressly repealed, must belong to them after the deluge. But,

So far were these privileges from being abridged at this period, that they were greatly enlarged and confirmed, by additional discoveries. For thus we read, Gen. vi. 18. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shall come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee. Again, chap. vii. 1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. And again, chap. viii. 20. And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. Once more, chap. ix. 8, 9, 12, 13. And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you. And God said, This is the token of the covenant I do set my bow in the cloud. Hence we further learn,

That the covenant or divine charter, first given to Noah, included the preceding; it was the same covenant with additional grants: for the Lord says, “I will establish my covenant.” Lest Noah should infer that the drowning of the world in wrath disannulled the well known covenant, God dissipates his fears, by saying, “I will establish my covenant.”

On Noah’s account, or as belonging to him, all his house or family was privileged. The privilege is,—“Come thou, and all thy house into the ark.” The ground and reason of that privilege—“for thee have I seen righteous.” It is true, the natural dictates of reason and affection, whereby a father pitieth his children, and whereby an infidel careth for his own, especially those of his own house, would have prompted this righteous person to bring all his family, (except any adults refused compliance) into the ark, (the like figure whereunto is baptism, as an inspired teacher assures us, 1 Pet. iii. 21.) yet the Lord was pleased to brighten his evidence and strengthen his obligations of duty by express revelation.

After the flood the institution of sacrifices continued as the seal of the first part of the covenant; and the rainbow was instituted as the seal of the additional part, or, as Pareus calls it, “appendix of the covenant of grace.” And here it is worthy of notice, that as the first exhibition of the covenant and its seals respected the offspring of fœderati, and the renewal or establishment of it to Noah retained that privilege in full force: so also the appendix of the covenant comprehended his seed.

Respecting this appendix of the covenant of which the rainbow was the seal, though we suppose, with Witsius, it was not formally and precisely the covenant of grace; yet we observe, with the same excellent author, “it does not seem consistent with the divine perfections, to make such a covenant with every living creature, but on supposition of a covenant of grace, and having a respect to it.” And as this covenant, in its universality, implied the covenant of grace, we are not to deny, but the promises of it were also sealed to Noah and his seed by the rainbow. See Rev. iv. 3. x. 8.

It is observable, finally, that Noah his sons, and their seed were fœderati, in this ratification of the covenant; consequently whatever seals of the covenant belonged to Noah, belonged to his sons, and their seed, while non-dissentients.

Appeal we next to a very important period of sacred history, viz. From Abraham to Moses. On this also we make the following remarks.

The Abrahamic covenant included the preceding dispensations, on the general principle—that grants and privileges continue in force until repealed. Which repealing, if it be not either express, or arise from the nature of the case, in itself plain, can have no binding influence, that is to say, no existence at all: except we maintain, that we are bound to resign an important good without an assignable cause; which is in fact to maintain that we ought to deny that to be, which is.

I suppose it will be granted, that the principal blessing exhibited in the foregoing dispensations was the righteousness of faith; the great importance of which to the human race, in every age of the world, no one will deny who considers things as they are. This covenant, therefore, was in force to Abraham prior to what is called the Abrahamic dispensation; and in this connexion we might mention Lot and his family. But, behold,

A most explicit ratification of it, with superadded favours, Gen. xii. 3.—In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. ver. 10. This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee: every man-child among you shall be circumcised, ver. 12. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. ver. 24-27. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. In the self-same day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him. Hence we learn,

The nature and extent of the Abrahamic covenant or promise. Whatever blessings are promised to ruined man, must be in virtue of the covenant of grace. All promised blessings, therefore, must imply an exhibition of gospel grace. And the glad tidings of salvation through Christ preached to the gentile world, is expressly called—The blessing of Abraham (Gal. iii. 14.) Not that this link is the first in the chain of exhibited mercy to the fallen race in general, or with an universal and unlimited aspect, if the reasoning in the last sections be just: but for its explicitness, and precious (because expressly diffusive) intendment, it may be justly termed a golden link. In this respect Abraham may well be styled—The Father of us all; not to the disavowal of Noah, with whom the covenant was before ratified, or Eve, who received the first intimation of it, and who in this respect eminently may be called—The mother of all living. The covenant of grace, in its external manifestation, containing an exhibition of exceeding great and precious promises to every human being on the face of the globe, to whom providence directs the joyful news, may be compared to a flowing stream: it proceeds ultimately from the immense ocean of sovereign grace in Christ; its first visible source we trace to paradise, where it rises in a small spring, and glides on to Noah. During this part of its progress, there were but few comparatively who participated of its cleansing and healing virtues, though none were debarred from it. This continuing to glide along, without interruption, (notwithstanding God’s awful visitation of a corrupt world by the deluge) we discern through the person of Noah another source, whence is poured forth a second stream which empties itself into the former channel. The streams thus united become a river, which flows on to Abraham—a river to which all are invited, but few come, and these made willing by the omnipotent energy of divine influence which observes the laws of another—a hidden dispensation, running parallel as it were with the former; which was also the case in the preceding period. Then, through the highly honoured person of Abraham we behold another mighty spring copiously pouring forth the waters of salvation, and again uniting itself to the former river; and from him to Christ, with a wide majestic flow, it proceeds along the consecrated channel of the Jewish nation; gradually increasing by the accession of other streams, till it arrives at the Saviour’s finished work; where, impatient of confinement, it breaks over its banks on every side, and the healing waters flow to the most distant regions—That the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles. (Gal. iii. 14, 8. compared with Gen. xii. 3. xviii. 18. xxii. 18.) Paul expressly says, that “the Gospel” (even the very same as the New Testament contains—salvation by Grace) “was preached to Abraham:” And (Heb. iv. 2.) it was preached to his unbelieving descendants in the wilderness.

As it is natural to expect, that whatever exhibition of privileges the parents enjoyed should be extended to their children, in common with themselves; so we find that in fact they are expressly included in this dispensation as well as the preceding. The covenant is established between God and Abraham’s seed, in the very same sense as with Abraham himself; the essence of which is—to be a God to him and his seed. And lest it should be objected that the term seed refers to his adult posterity who should tread in his steps, to the exclusion of infants, all doubt is dissipated by the appointment of applying the seal of the covenant in early infancy.

Sacrifices continuing in full force to seal the covenant, till the divine oblation should be made; and the bow of the covenant continuing as a token and seal of it, until the Messiah’s second coming; at the commencement of this period is given an additional seal—circumcision. The very nature of the rite shews that all females are excluded from being the subjects of it; as well as the discriminating specification—every man-child. Here observe in general, that children, in this rite, have the same privileges as their parents. The males are treated as Abraham, and the females as Sarah: These therefore, had the covenant sealed in the same manner as their honoured mother. Again: though Sarah and her sex were not the subjects of this rite, they were constant witnesses to the institution; and therefore there was an important sense in which circumcision was a seal to Sarah and her daughters; a sense analagous to that in which sacrifices were.

Every domestic head being, in truth, a prophet, priest, and king, in his own family; a question must arise, Whether the covenant and its seals are restricted to the parent head of the family, and his children, or else extended to the other domestics? Nor would the question be unimportant; for his instructions, his prayers, and commands, answerable to his three-fold office, must be directed accordingly. To this question right reason replies: If the covenant and its seals are beneficial to all capable subjects, benevolence requires that they should be extended to the other non-dissenting members—except forbidden by indisputable authority. This is the voice of reason; and we find that this is the voice of God. The privilege is common to the seed, and to him that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of the seed, Gen. xvii. 12.

It has been objected, “that the covenant with Abraham was a covenant of peculiarity only, and that circumcision was no more than a token of that covenant;” but if so, as Mr. Henry observes, “how came it that all proselytes, of what nation soever, even the strangers, were to be circumcised; though not being of any of the tribes, they had no part or lot in the land of Canaan? The extending the seal of circumcision to proselyted strangers, and to their seed, was a plain indication, that the New Testament administration of the covenant of grace would reach, not to the covenanters only, but their seed.” But it has been proved that circumcision sealed to Abraham and his seed the righteousness of faith; and therefore it does not affect the point in debate to contend that temporal promises were sealed also.

We next appeal to the long and interesting period from Moses to Christ, On which let the following observations be considered.

Whatever appertained to the Abrahamic covenant was not disannulled by the Mosaic dispensation. This St. Paul asserts in plain terms, Gal. iii. 17.

It may not be amiss to take notice, before we proceed, of Job’s family; who, being as is generally supposed, cotemporary with Moses, and unconnected with his history, deserves a previous regard. Of him it is said, that “he sanctified his children, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt-offerings, according to the number of them all—Thus did Job continually,” or, all the days. (Job i. 5.) On this I would only observe, let the sanctifying be what it may, the sacrifices must have been of divine institution; and used by Job, being an eminently righteous man, as the seals of the covenant of grace; with respect to his children separately.

Superadded to the foregoing seals of the covenant, is the passover; a divine rite of the nature of a sacrifice, instituted in memory of Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt, representing and sealing spiritual blessings. “As to the guests, says Witsius, they were, first, all native Israelites, who were not excluded by legal uncleanness. For all the congregation of Israel is commanded to solemnize the passover. And, next, the Proselytes circumcised and become Jews; whether bondmen born in the house or bought with money, &c. Exod. xii. 48. When a stranger will sojourn with thee, and keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it, and he shall be as one that is born in the land.” On this passage in Exodus, Dr. Jennings observes these two things; “First, That when a man thus became a Proselyte, all his males were to be circumcised as well as himself, whereby his children were admitted into the visible church of God, in his right, as their father. Secondly, That upon this, he should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the Jewish church and nation as well as be subject to the whole law: He should be as one born in the land.” In short; not only men and women, but also young children partook of this ordinance, as soon as they were capable of answering the revealed design of it, for—no positive rule was given them on this head, like that of circumcision. It is manifest that since the injunction respected not only individuals of such a description, but also families as such, every member without exception had a legal right to the ordinance; and nothing prevented infants from a participation, but what lay in the natural incapacity to answer the design of it.

“Besides the ordinary and universal sacraments of circumcision and the passover, some extraordinary symbols of divine grace were granted to the Israelites in the wilderness, which in the New Testament are applied to Christ and his benefits, and said to have the same signification with our sacraments. And they are in order these—The passage in the cloud through the Red Sea—the manna which was rained from heaven—The water issuing out of the rock—and the brazen serpent erected by Moses for the cure of the Israelites.” To this we may add, among other things, with the author now referred to—the clear and familiar display of the divine majesty—and the adumbration of divine mysteries daily sealed by religious ceremonies. Our subject does not call for an investigation of these particulars, but I would remark in general, that the principle for which we contend, is so far from being weakened, that it is abundantly corroborated by the inspired testimony of every dispensation, and the Mosaic in particular—That it is a common dictate of right reason, children should from their earliest infancy share in their parents’ privileges, as far as they are capable, when no positive authority contravenes it.

From the preceding induction of sacred evidence in favour of children being sharers of the seals of grace in common with their parents, we conclude, that for the space of four thousand years, that is to say, from the creation to Christ, it was a rule universally incumbent on parents to treat their children as entitled to religious privileges equally with themselves, according to their capacity.—And as a counterpart of what was observed of privileges, we may remark that, in virtue of the same uniform principle, often when the parents were punished with excommunication or death, their infant children were included with them. As might be instanced in—the deluge—the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah—the case of Achan the Son of Zerah (Josh. vii. 24.)—the matter of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram—the case of the conquered nations (Deut. xx. 16, 17.)—and many more instances, down to the destruction of Jerusalem. Far be it from us to suppose, that the parents’ crimes and impenitence made their suffering children incapable of mercy—that mercy which proceeds on an invisible plan, and belongs to a purely spiritual dispensation. Yet, that children, during their dependence on their parents, should share equally with them in judgment and mercies externally, is the effect of an all-wise constitution coeval with mankind.

Dr. Williams on Baptism.

[74]. Tertullian observes on this passage, that if either parent were christians,, the children were enrolled in Jesus Christ by early baptism. And it fairly implies infant baptism in the days of Paul. For, having declared that the unbelieving partner was not to be divorced according to the law of Moses, which held the heathen to be unclean; he pronounces the unbelievers set apart by such marriage to God, as far as regarded that marriage; and in proof of this he refers to a fact as known to the Corinthians, namely that the children of such marriages were received into the church, and treated as holy, that is devoted to God. Now if the children of such marriages were not treated as heathens, but owned by the church, and this could be in no other way than by receiving them by baptism, there can be no doubt, that this was the case when both parents were believers.—Ακαθαρτος & αλιος never mean illegitimate and legitimate; and if they did, this would be no proof that the unbelieving party was consecrated to God, so as that the children should be clean and devoted to him.

[75]. All these scriptures which require faith, that is, the credible profession of it, to precede baptism, are certainly directed only to those who are at years capable of it, and not to infants. These scriptures do not exclude infants whose claim is through the church-membership of their parents, by which they are not “unclean,” 1 Cor. vii. 14. but holy, entitled to the promises made to the seed of Abraham; and also by virtue of the commission to disciple all nations, of which they are a part as much as their believing parents; and by the practical exposition of that commission in the universal baptism of infants in the christian churches for the first four hundred years.

[76]. It may be objected, “If the preceding account be true, that baptism is not an institution merely positive, as much so as any enacted under the Mosaic dispensation; then the present economy hath no institutions at all of that kind.” This objection supposes,

1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation, were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the discharge of the duty enjoined.—But if these things were so, if the Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many Targums and Talmuds, so many voluminous works intended to explain and illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of these positive duties among others. Are not these unprescribed circumstances of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what in a great degree swell the interpretations of the Rabbins?—The truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy positive in a considerable degree, relative to the subject as well as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as not to take some things for granted respecting the circumstances of the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of the Jewish rites had the subjects distinguished and characterized in a sensible manner, which qualification was to be determined by the same sort of evidence as any facts in common life; but the administrator of the Christian rites has no such grounds to proceed on; his commission is of a discretionary nature, arising from the nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.

2. The objection again supposes, that there is some excellency in an institution being merely and absolutely positive, more than in one of a mixed nature. But this supposition is vain and erroneous. For what conceivable superior excellency can there be in any precept or duty on account of its positiveness? Were there any force in the objection, it would imply that the Christian dispensation is less excellent than the Mosaic; as having fewer positive rites, and their proportion of positiveness being also smaller. And it would also imply, that the reasonable duties of prayer and praise, as founded on the law of nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were less excellent than baptism and the Lord’s supper; and it would follow, that the services of the church triumphant are in their own nature less excellent than those of the church militant; which are consequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and absurd. Our Lord’s answer respecting the first and great commandment, shews at once that what is the most important duty, is also the most natural, and therefore the most remote from what is merely positive; and that is the love of God. This matter has been fully shewn before. In one word, the spirit of the objection is truly pharisaic.

Some may perhaps object, “that this has been always admitted as true, that baptism and the Lord’s supper are positive institutions of the New Testament; and that many pædobaptists have availed themselves of this fort, in ascertaining the nature and enforcing the obligation of the latter, and particularly bishop Hoadly. And as his lordship’s principle, in his Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, has been deemed unanswerable, Mr. Foot, Dr. Stennett, and others, have taken but the same method in treating about baptism.” To this I reply,

That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester’s positions, taken in a sound sense, nay, the only consistent sense in which they can be taken, are evidently true and important. The sum is this; that all positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently, to the due manner of performing them. This is strictly true, in the degree that any duties are positive, but no further. And to denominate a precept or duty positive, though but partially so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of things. “Except we observe this caution,” as bishop Butler observes, “we shall be in danger of running into endless confusion.”

It may be said, “If we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c.” In reply to this specious objection let it be observed,

1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is a very insufficient barrier for the defence of truth, if the objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not barricadoed by this very maxim. If Protestants use it against Papists, Papists in their turn use it against Protestants. If the Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort, they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious. Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to all forensic swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers’ nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful? Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme unction? &c.—On the contrary,

2. Not to distinguish between the positiveness and morality of a precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective degrees; and to deny that the latter distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to bigotry, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the analogy of faith and the design of scripture herein, we give the most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is still more remarkable is, that the more firmly any one adheres to the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, essential to the rite itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which the institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the antipædobaptist’s cause, will be further considered.—The doctrine that teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions as such, or in the degree they are so, is just and proper, as founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. “For who are most likely to put weapons into the hands of infidels; they, who seem to discard reason in the investigation of truth, or they, whose researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most rational decisions?—They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a coalition of scripture and right reason?” Once more,

3. The objection, as it includes Mr. B.’s favourite maxim, and tends to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to discard, do our opponents retain some of the positive rites of the New Testament and reject others? Why regard baptism and the eucharist as of standing obligation; while the pedilavium and feasts of charity (the former enjoined expressly by our Lord, and both practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii. 14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance? Why receive females to communion, or adopt the first day of the week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in these matters, these circumstances of positive institutions, without undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath, indeed, the antipædobaptists are divided among themselves; while some are content with the first day of the week, others observe the seventh. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr. Addington appeals to an objecting antipædobaptist, “whether he does not think himself sufficiently authorized to keep the christian sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, Remember the first day of the week to keep it holy?” To this the Dr. replies, “There is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New Testament that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment, and to have required the observation of the first day, I cannot think myself sufficiently authorized to renounce that, and to keep this.” If the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the christian world; if not, he and his tenet are at variance: analogy and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system, which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse consequences.

Another objection much insisted on is, “If our Lord has left any thing to be inferred relative to the subject and mode of baptism, being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself expressly and clearly in every thing, respecting the question who are to be baptized, and the manner how; it implies a reflexion on his wisdom and goodness.” But this objection is impertinent on different accounts. For,

1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was somehow obliged to make his will known to men by one method only. But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely dependent creatures? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with the author of nature, because he had not confined his method of information to one source only, to the exclusion of all others? That his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of sense, to the exclusion of reason and analogy? Or what should we say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a miracle, should impeach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because he did not appeal to one sense only of his dependent and unworthy creatures, that of seeing, for instance, to the exclusion of that of hearing? The answer is plain, and the application easy.

2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to the former: it unreasonably requires positive evidence for what is discoverable by other means. It is demonstrable, and I think has been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism (the mode also will be examined in its place) is what cannot possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must be resolved to the discretionary nature of the commission, or the supposed wisdom and prudence of the administrators, in common with other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an audience, the choice of a concionatory subject, &c. Preach the gospel to every creature, is a part of the commission, but the execution has no positive rule. Nor does this commission of preaching the gospel prohibit preaching the law, for a lawful use, or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.’s excluding standard, that “positive laws imply their negatives.” In like manner, the commission to baptize believers, and the taught, we contend and prove, does not mean to include all sorts of believers and taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit, according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms of the commission, believers and taught, stand opposed, not to non-believers and untaught, but to unbelievers and persons perversely ignorant. What, therefore, falls necessarily to the province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a positive standard.

3. The objection implies an ungrateful reflexion on the Institutor’s wisdom and goodness, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this it does, by counteracting and vilifying those natural dictates of reason, prudence and common sense, that our all-wise and beneficent Creator has given us—his goodness, in not suspending their operations, but leaving them in full force, as to these circumstances of positive duties—his wisdom, in grafting what is positive of his laws on these common principles—and finally, the favourable circumstance of his diminishing the degree of positiveness in New Testament institutions, as well as their number.

Let us now recapitulate what has been said in this chapter—From an investigation of the nature of positive precepts and duties, as distinguished from moral ones, together with their comparative obligations and importance, we have seen, that, in any case of supposed competition, the latter claims an undoubted preference. We have also seen, that nothing but absolute, decisive, discernible authority can turn the scale in favor of the former, or, indeed, place any law or duty in the rank of POSITIVE. Moreover, it has been shewn, that every duty resulting from any discernible moral relation, must needs be classed among moral duties; that some things appertaining to the very essence of baptism, on our opponents’ own principles, are of moral consideration; particularly the qualifications of proper subjects; consequently, that baptism is an ordinance of a mixed nature, partly positive and partly moral. Of all which an unavoidable consequence is, that our opponents’ outcry against all moral and analogical reasons in our enquiries respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, is impertinent and absurd, and to a demonstration contradictory to their own avowed principles.

Dr. Williams on Baptism.

[77]. The commission to disciples baptizing all nations is both a positive and express authority for the baptism of the infants of such as are themselves discipled.

[78]. See his works: vol. II. pag. 1129, 1132, 1133.

[79]. Vid. Just. Martyr, Quest. & Resp. Quest. CII. & ejusd. Apol. II.

[80]. Vid. Cyp. in Epist. ad Fid. Lib. iii. Epi. viii.

[81]. Vid. Iren. Lib. ii. xxxix.

[82]. Vid. Ejusd. Orat. xl.

[83]. Vid. Augustin. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Lib. i. Cap. xxviii. parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt qui contra autoritatem universæ ecclesiæ proculdubio per dominum, & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt; and in Sermon. x. de verbis Apostol, speaking concerning infant-baptism, he says, Nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc ecclesia semper habuit. semper tenuit; hoc a majorum fide percepit: hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit.

[84]. Vid. Tertul. Lib. de Baptism, Cap. xviii.

[85]. It is very remarkable, that in those ages and countries, where the mode of dipping has been, or still is, the most prevalent, there infant-baptism has been the most generally practised, and there the mode of baptizing has not been deemed essential. Instead, therefore, of finding all these people Baptists, but very few, if any, of that denomination, are to be found among them. Dr. Wall, who was himself an advocate for dipping, tells us, “that all christians in the world, who never owned the pope’s authority, do now, and ever did, dip their infants, in the ordinary use.” They always baptized their infants; and, ordinarily, by dipping, but not universally, for they, occasionally, sprinkled them. The mode of dipping was of ordinary use; but the practice of infant-baptism, in those churches who were never under the influence of popery, appears to have been universal, both in ancient and modern times.

We do not pretend to rest the proof of infants’ right to baptism upon historical evidence, relative to the ancient practice of the church in this respect. However, if it should appear, that the churches, soon after the apostles, did admit the infant children of believing parents to baptism—if no account can be produced, of any church that rejected them—if no individual can be named, who pretended that the practice was unlawful, or an innovation—these facts will certainly furnish a very weighty argument in favour of the aforesaid doctrine.

Baptism is an important transaction of a public nature. Those christians, who lived and wrote in the earliest times after the apostles, must have known what their practice was, with reference to the infant children of believers. The testimony of these ancient writers, as historians or witnesses, respecting this plain matter of fact, justly claims our most impartial and attentive consideration. It is not, however, my intention to write a complete history of infant-baptism. A history of this kind has been written a century ago, by Dr. Wall, a very correct and judicious historian. This history is highly approved and recommended by the best judges, being a work of great merit, candour and impartiality.

On February 9th, 1705, the clergy of England, assembled in general convention, “ordered, that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, vicar of Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written concerning infant-baptism; and that a committee be appointed to acquaint him with the same.” Dr. Atterbury, a leading member in said convention, says, “that the history of infant-baptism was a book, for which the author deserved the thanks, not of the English clergy alone, but of all the Christian churches.” Mr. Whiston also, a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers of the four first centuries, and a professed Baptist, in his address to the people of that denomination, declares to them, “that Dr. Wall’s history of infant-baptism, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately done, and might be depended on by the Baptists themselves.” Mem. of his life, part 2, page 461.

The aforesaid history is still extant in two volumes. The same author has since published another volume, which is a defence of the two former volumes, against the reflections of Dr. Gale and others. In these publications, he has favoured us with the testimony and sayings of the ancient Fathers, with respect to infant-baptism, a few of which I shall produce, as authorities on the present occasion.

Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age, says, “We have not received the carnal but spiritual circumcision, by baptism. And it is enjoined on all persons to receive it in the same way.” He here evidently considers baptism as being in the place of circumcision, and, consequently, like that ancient rite, designed for infants as well as for adults. In one of his apologies for the christians, he observes, “Several persons among us, of sixty or seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their childhood, do continue uncorrupt.”—Who were made disciples.—Take notice; for he makes use of the very same word that was used in the commission given to the apostles. Disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now, if infant children were made disciples, they were undoubtedly baptized. Justin wrote about 105 years after the ascension of Christ. Those persons whom he mentions were then 70 years old; and consequently born and made disciples, in the times of the apostles.

Irenæus, who wrote about sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was then an aged man, says, concerning Christ, “he came to save all persons who by him are regenerated (or baptized) unto God, infants, little ones, youths and elderly persons.” He speaks of infants and little ones as being regenerated. It is evident from his own words that he had reference to their baptism; for he tells us, “When Christ gave his apostles the command of regenerating unto God, he said, go and teach all nations baptizing them.” The ancient Fathers as customarily used the word regeneration for baptism, as the church of England now use the word christening. Justin Martyr, whose name and testimony we have already mentioned, speaking of some particular persons who had been baptized, says, “they are regenerated in the same way of regeneration, in which we have been regenerated, for they are washed with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In this short sentence, the word regeneration, or regenerated, is put for baptism no less than three times.

It is a matter of no importance in the present dispute, whether the primitive Fathers used the aforesaid word properly or improperly. We certainly know in what sense they did use it, and this is all the information needed. I would however repeat a former observation, viz. that by a common figure, the thing signified is often substituted for the sign, and the sign for the thing signified. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is sometimes put, by God himself, for circumcision; and circumcision, the sign and token thereof, is sometimes put for the covenant. Accordingly, baptism has been put for regeneration; and regeneration, for baptism.

We have already shown, that the Jews were in the habit of baptizing the Gentile proselytes, even before the time of John and of Christ. They considered these proselytes as being, by baptism, born the children of Abraham; and therefore expressed their baptism, by regeneration. Accordingly, Christ and his apostles, on some particular occasions, adopted a similar language. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus, except one be born again—except he be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. By this new birth, Christ evidently had reference to water baptism, as truly as to the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul styles baptism, the washing of regeneration. The ancients commonly expressed baptism with water, by regeneration; for they considered this external sacrament as a sign of internal, spiritual renovation and purification, Irenæus expressly calls baptism regeneration, and says that infants were regenerated, that, is baptized. His testimony is plain and full; and cannot be doubted by any person acquainted with the phraseology and writings of the Fathers. He mentions not only old persons and youths, but also little ones, and even infants. This Irenæus was bishop of Lyons in France. According to Mr. Dodwell, he was born before the death of St. John—was brought up in Asia, where that apostle had lived and died. He was acquainted with Polycarp; and in his younger years, had often heard him preach. Polycarp was John’s disciple, had been chosen by him to be bishop of Smyrna—and probably that angel of the church, so highly commended in the 2d chapter of Rev. Irenæus, and those Christians who lived in an age so near the apostles, and in a place where one of them had so lately resided, could not be ignorant—they must have known what the apostolic practice was, with respect to infant-baptism—a matter of the most notorious and public nature.

Dr. Lathrop observes, “that Tertullian, who flourished about one hundred years after the apostles, gives a plain testimony, that the church admitted infants to baptism in his time. It is true, he advises to delay their baptism; not because it was unlawful, for he allows of it in cases of necessity; but because the sponsors were often brought into a snare; and because he imagined that sins, committed after baptism, were next to unpardonable. He accordingly advises that unmarried persons be kept from this ordinance, until they either marry or are confirmed in continence. His advising to a delay, supposes that infant-baptism was practised, for otherwise there would have been no room for the advice. He does not speak of it as an innovation, which he would certainly have done, had it begun to have been practised in his time. His words rather imply the contrary. His speaking of sponsors, who engaged for the education of the infants that were baptized, shows that there had been such a custom. And his asking, ‘why that innocent age made such haste to baptism,’ supposes that infants had usually been baptized, soon after their birth. So that he fully enough witnesses to the fact, that it had been the practice of the church to baptize infants. And his advice to delay their baptism, till they were grown up and married, was one of those odd and singular notions for which this father was very remarkable.”

This quotation agrees well with the account given of Tertullian, by Dr. Wall and other approved writers. Tertullian was evidently a man of abilities and learning, and in some respects an useful writer. His integrity and veracity were never questioned. But as has been hinted, he held to some strange and peculiar notions. He was not deemed perfectly orthodox by the ancient Christians. Being a person of warm imagination, he expressed himself, very strongly, on different subjects, at different times; and some have thought, in a manner that was not consistent. Some of the later Baptists have even pretended that he denied infant-baptism. But these considerations do not disqualify him as a witness in the present case. Instead of invalidating, they serve to confirm his testimony.

Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who mentions infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not come into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer, replies, “So he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the baptism of unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks against it, and as earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger of temptation is past; till marriage, or the abatement of lust. But will it thence follow, that the baptism of such unmarried persons did not obtain in the church till Tertullian’s time? Or that it then first began to be in use? Our author might as reasonably have inferred the latter opinion, as the former. But the very words, in which he expresses his advice against baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common practice. After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against infant-baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be more profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper years, and were able to understand something of its nature and design; but he does not like the anti-pædobaptists, condemn it as unlawful; which he would have done, if it had been a novel practice—an innovation, contrary to the rule of scripture, or without the approbation or direction of the apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of necessity, of sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of saying, that Tertullian was the first man who mentioned infant-baptism, and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was the only man, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us, who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing infants.” The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly shows, that infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He does not intimate, that the practice was of human invention, or not authorized by the apostles. His private opinion, with respect to the expediency of delaying baptism in several cases, and the reasons which he offered, are nothing to us. We have only cited him as a voucher to an ancient fact; and the testimony which he has given affords clear and incontestable proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in his times.

Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, and was for some time contemporary with Tertullian, in his 8th homily on Levit. 12, observes, “David, speaking concerning the pollution of infants, says, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother bring me forth. Let it be considered what is the reason, that whereas the baptism of the church is given for forgiveness, infants also, by the usage of the church, are baptized; when if there were nothing in infants, which wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them. And again, infants are baptized for the remission of sin. Of what sin? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver hold good in their case? But according to that sense before mentioned, none is free from pollution, though his life be only the length of one day upon the earth. It is for this reason that infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism, our pollution is taken away.” In another treatise, he says, “the church had a tradition, or command from the apostles, to give baptism to infants! for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is, in all persons, the natural pollution of sin, which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit; by reason of which pollution, the body itself is also called the body of sin, &c. &c.”

These testimonies of Origen are full and unequivocal. They put the matter in debate beyond all reasonable doubt, if any credit can be given to them; and no reason appears, why they should not be credited. It is true, they are taken from Latin translations. Origen wrote in the Greek language. But the fidelity of the translators and authenticity of these passages, have been sufficiently vindicated by Dr. Wall, even to the entire satisfaction of all impartial enquirers. None will object, but those persons who are disposed to cavil.

I perceive that you have admitted the aforesaid facts; but have made an unusual outcry against the tradition and order from the apostles, mentioned by Origen. There is, I suspect, more policy and popularity in your remarks, than real weight. It will not do for us to turn those weapons against the ancient Fathers and holy apostles, which the protestants have used with so much success, in their disputes with the Papists.

Let us hear what St. Paul says, with respect to traditions. 2 Thess. ii. 15. “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” And in the 3d chap. 6th verse, he says, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.” So also in 1 Corin. 11th chap. 2d verse. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances (the traditions, paradoseis) as I delivered them to you.” The apostle was here speaking of christian ordinances, which he calls traditions. The original word signifies traditions, and is so rendered by our translators in the other aforecited passages.

Thus, sir, you see in what a solemn manner—in the name of Christ, the holy apostle charged the primitive christians, to hold and keep the traditions—not merely such as had been written by the pen of inspiration, but also those which were delivered to them by word, or in an oral and verbal manner, and with particular reference to the rules and ordinances of the gospel. The traditions and commandments of mere men, which pretend to divine authority, are to be rejected. But those traditions are not to be treated with sneer and ridicule, which were delivered by the apostles to the primitive christians—recorded and authenticated by the ancient Fathers—and transmitted down to us, by the faithful historian.

Origen has expressly informed us, that infant-baptism was practised in his time. With respect to this matter of fact, Origen was certainly a competent witness; and he had every opportunity, and advantage for knowing what had been the practice of his predecessors and even of the apostles. Many of the ancient Fathers were illiterate, and descended from heathen parents; and being the first of their family who embraced christianity, must have been baptized when adults. But Origen was one of the most learned men of the age. He was born and educated at Alexandria in Egypt, but travelled into Rome, and Greece, and Capadocia, and Arabia. He resided for some time in several of the most eminent churches, and spent the greatest part of his life in Syria and Palestine. His ancestors were christians. Eusebius tells us, that his forefathers had been christians, for several generations. His father was martyred, in the persecution under Severus.

It is very remarkable, that his pedigree should have been so accurately ascertained. The occasion was this: Porphyry, a great enemy to christianity, had represented the christians as being an ignorant people, destitute of science; but not being able to conceal the repute of Origen, for his uncommon skill in human literature, pretended that he had been at first a heathen, and had learned their philosophy. In order to confute this falsehood, Eusebius enquired into his ancestry, and set forth his christian descent.

Origen was born in the year of our Lord 185, that is, eighty-five years after the apostles. He was seventeen years old when his father suffered martyrdom. He had himself, undoubtedly, been baptized in his infancy; and must have been informed concerning the practice of the apostles, respecting the baptizing of infants; for his grandfather, or at least his great-grandfather, lived in the apostolic times, and they both were christians. This is the man, who has expressly declared, that infants were baptized in his day, and that the church was directed by an order or tradition from the apostles, to baptize them. His circumstances were such as afforded him all the necessary and suitable means for obtaining information. We have no reason to suspect his credibility as a witness; and nothing can be more unreasonable, than to reject or treat his testimony with contempt. It is a circumstance worthy of our very particular notice, that Origen and the other ancient Fathers do not speak of infant-baptism as being a practice that was denied or opposed by any one. They mention it as a practice generally known and approved, and for the purpose of illustrating and confirming other points that were then disputed.

I shall now produce the testimony of the blessed martyr Cyprian, who was for some time contemporary with Origen; and next to him, the most noted Christian writer of that age. Cyprian was constituted bishop or minister of Carthage, in the year 248, and Origen died in the year 252. The testimony of this ancient saint, to which I now have an immediate reference, was occasioned by a question proposed to him, by one Fidus, a presbyter, or minister in the country, viz. Whether an infant might be baptized before he was eight days old? The reason of his doubt, it seems, was an article in the law respecting circumcision, which, under the Old Testament dispensation, required that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day from their birth. Pursuant to the aforesaid question, an ecclesiastical council of sixty-six bishops, having convened at Carthage, A. D. 253, Cyprian proposed a resolution of the following import, viz. “that an infant might be baptized on the second or third day, or at any time after its birth; and that circumcision, besides being a sacramental rite, had something in it of a typical nature; and particularly, in the circumstance of being administered on the eighth day, which ceased at the coming of Christ, who has given us baptism, the spiritual circumcision; in which ordinance, we are not thus restricted, with respect to the age or time of administration.” To this resolution the council agreed unanimously; as it appears from the testimony of Cyprian in his epistle to Fidus, from which I shall extract a few paragraphs, in order to show the sentiments of those venerable and ancient saints relative to infant-baptism.—The inscription is as follows:

“Cyprian and the rest of the colleagues, who are present in council, in number sixty-six, to Fidus our brother,

“Greeting.

“As to the case of infants, whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the law of the ancient circumcision is to be observed; so that you think none should be baptized and sanctified, until the eighth day after their birth; we were all in our assembly of a quite different opinion. For in this matter, with respect to that which you thought fitting to be done, there was not one of your mind. But all of us rather judged, that the grace and mercy of God is not to be denied to any person born. For whereas our Lord in his gospel, the Son of Man came not to destroy men’s souls (or lives) but to save them.—That the eighth day, appointed to be observed in the Jewish circumcision, was a type going before in a shadow, or resemblance, but on Christ’s coming was fulfilled in the substance; for because the eighth day, that is the next after the Sabbath, was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise from the dead, and quicken us, and give us the spiritual circumcision. This eighth day, that is, the next to the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, went before in the type, which type ceased when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was given to us. So that we judge, no person is to be hindered from obtaining the grace, (that is of baptism) by the law which is now established; and that the spiritual circumcision ought not to be restrained by the circumcision which was according to the flesh; but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Christ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the apostles, says, the Lord hath shown me that no person is to be called common or unclean. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism, and from the grace of God, who is merciful, and kind, and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it holds for all, so we think it is more especially to be observed in reference to infants, and those that are newly born, to whom our help and the divine mercy is rather to be granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion,” &c.

Saint Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles, declares expressly, “that infant-baptism was practised in his time, and in the time of the apostles.”

Saint Chrysostom observes, “that persons may be baptized either in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age.”—He tells us, infants were baptized, although they had no sin; and that the sign of the cross was made upon their foreheads at baptism.—Saint Hierome says, “if infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is laid to the parent’s charge.”—Saint Austin, who wrote at the same time, about 280 years after the apostles, speaks “of infant-baptism as one of those practices which was not instituted by any council, but had always been in use.” The whole church of Christ, he informs us, had constantly held that infants were baptized for the forgiveness of sin.—That he “had never read or heard of any Christian, Catholic or sectary, who held otherwise.”—“That no christian, of any sort, ever denied it to be useful or necessary.” “If any one,” saith he, “should ask for divine authority in this matter, though that, which the whole church practises, and which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, may be believed, very reasonably, to be a thing delivered or ordered by the apostles, yet we may, besides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God’s former people received.”

No one of these ancient Fathers ever wrote directly in favour of, or against, infant-baptism. In their various discourses and writings, they often mention it, occasionally and transiently, when discoursing on some other subject.—They mention it as a general practice of universal notoriety, about which there was no controversy, in order to confute some prevailing heresy, or establish certain doctrines, that were then disputed. Similar testimonies might easily be produced from the writings of many other ancient witnesses, but this would unnecessarily add to the prolixity of the present work. I will therefore conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and conclusive evidence in proof of infant-baptism, arising out of the well-known Pelagian controversy respecting original sin, which happened about three hundred years after the apostles.

Pelagius held, that infants were born free from any natural and sinful defilements. The chief opposers of him and his adherents were Saint Hierome, and Saint Austin, who constantly urged, very closely, in all their writings upon the subject, the following argument, viz. “That infants are, by all christians, acknowledged to stand in need of baptism, which must be in them for original sin, since they have no other.” “If they have no sin, why are they then baptized, according to the rule of the church, for the forgiveness of sins? Why are they washed in the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?” Pelagius, and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were extremely puzzled and embarrassed with this argument. They knew not how to evade or surmount its force, but by involving themselves in greater absurdities and difficulties. Some persons aggravated the supposed error, by charging upon them the denial of infant-baptism, as a consequence that followed from their tenet. Pelagius disclaimed the slanderous imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was accused falsely. In the confession of faith, Pelagius then exhibited, which Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, “that baptism ought to be administered to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons.”—He vindicates himself in the strongest terms, saying, “that men slander him as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of heaven to any person without the redemption of Christ; and affirms that he never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, that would say such a thing of infants.” Now these difficulties would have been instantly removed, and the battery, which so greatly annoyed them, been demolished at once, by only denying that infants were to be baptized. But they did not suggest or entertain any doubt at all respecting this doctrine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the most explicit manner, the incontested right, and the established immemorial practice of infant-baptism. Celestius also confessed, “that infants were to be baptized according to the rule of the universal church.”

One of these men was born and educated in Britain, and the other in Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the centre of the world and place to which all people resorted. Celestius settled at Jerusalem, and Pelagius travelled over all the principal churches of Europe, Asia and Africa. If there had been any number of churches, or a single church, in any part of the world, not only in that but in the two preceding ages, who denied the baptism of infants, these learned, sagacious persons must have known or heard of it; and certainly they would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their opponents, and to wrest from them that argument, by which, above all others, they were most grievously pressed. It is evident there was no society of Baptists then in the world, nor had there been any of that denomination, within the memory of man. The confession of Pelagius and Celestius amounts almost to demonstration. It proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that infant-baptism had universally obtained, and had always been practised among christians, even from the apostolic times.

Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the best advantages for being acquainted with the history of infant-baptism, and who made this the principal subject of his studies and enquiries, briefly sums up the evidence on both sides, in the following words: “Lastly, for the first four hundred years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, who advised the delay of infant-baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, who did perhaps practise such delay in the case of his own children; but no society of men so thinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found, who either spoke for or practised any such delay, but all the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses or Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them who held that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising of the German anti-pædobaptists in the year 1522.”

Reed’s Apology.

[86]. See Wall’s History of Infant-Baptism, Part II. page 52-86.

[87]. They that would see more on this subject may consult G. J. Voss, de baptismo disput. xiv. Forbes. instruct. hist. theol. Lib. x. cap. v. and Wall’s history of infant-baptism, vol. I.

[88]. See Dr. Owen’s complete Collection of Sermons, page 580, 581. of dipping; in which he observes, that βαπτω, when used in these scriptures, Luke xvi. 24. and John xiii. 26. is translated to dip; and in Rev. xix. 13. where we read of a vesture dipped in blood; it is better rendered stained, by sprinkling blood upon it; and all these scriptures denote only a touching one part of the body, and not plunging. In other authors, it signifies, tingo, immergo, lavo, abluo; but in no author it ever signifies to dip, but only in order to washing, or as the means of washing. As for the Hebrew word טבל, rendered, by the LXX. in Gen. xxxvii. 31. by μολύνω, to stain by sprinkling, or otherwise mostly by βαπτω: In 2 Kings v. 14. they render it by βαπτιζω, and no where else: In ver. 10. Elisha commands Naaman to wash; and accordingly, ver. 14. pursuant to this order, it is said, he dipped himself seven times; the word is ויטבל; which the LXX. render εβαπτισατω; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word טבל is used, which we render dip, speaking concerning the dipping the bunch of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by the word βαπτω: And, in I Sam. xiv. 27; it is said, that Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in an honey-comb; the word here is also ויטבל, and the LXX. render it εβαψεν; in which place it cannot be understood of his dipping it by plunging: And in Lev. iv. 6. 17. and chap. ix. 9. the priest is said to dip his finger in the blood, which only intends his touching the blood, so as to sprinkle it; and therefore does not signify plunging.

This learned author likewise observes, that βαπτιζω signifies to wash; as instances out of all authors may be given; and he particularly mentions Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, and Phavorinus and Eustachius. And he further adds, that it is first used in the scripture, in Mark i. 8. John i. 33. and to the same purpose, Acts i. 5. in which place it signifies to pour; for the expression is equivocal; I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost: which is an accomplishment of that promise, that the Holy Ghost should be poured on them. As for other places, in Mark vii. 2. 4. νίπτω, which signifies to wash, and is so translated, is explained in the words immediately following, as signifying to baptize. And, in Luke xi. 38. it is said, that the Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour had not washed before dinner: The word in the Greek is ἐβαπτισθη, to whom he replies in the following verse, Ye Pharisees make clean the outside, &c. so that the word, βαπτιζω signifies there to cleanse, or to use the means of cleansing.

He also observes, that though the original and natural signification of the word imports, to dip, to plunge, to dye; yet it also signifies to wash or cleanse: Nevertheless, he thinks that it is so far from signifying nothing else but to dip or plunge, that when it is to be understood in that sense, the words ought to be εμβάπτω, or εμβαπτιζω, rather than βαπτω, or βαπτίζω; and also that it no where signifies to dip, but as denoting a mode of, and in order to washing; and that it signifies to wash, in all good authors. He also refers to Scapula and Stephanus, as translating the word βαπτιζω by lavo, or abluo; and Suidas, as rendering it by madefacio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo: And he speaks of some authors, that he had searched in every place wherein they mention baptism, and that he found not one word to the purpose; and therefore concludes, that he was obliged to say, and was ready to make it good, that no honest man, who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to wash, as well as to dip.[^[89]]

[89]. Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of applying water was certainly that of pouring, and not that of dipping. It is as follows:—St. Origen, when commenting on the Baptism of John, enquires thus of the Pharisees; “How could you think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who did not in Ahab’s time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord’s appearing in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not once only, but he says, do it the second time; and they did it the second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time. Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, who did not then baptize, but assigned that work to others, would himself baptize, when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear here on earth?”

We find in the first book of Kings, xviii. 33, that the order given by Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the wood and on the burnt offering. This pouring of water, Origen, that accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament, calls baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of the Greek word Baptizo four times; twice with express reference to the Baptism of John; and twice with express reference to that Baptism which took place in the days of the Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are expressly told, was not performed by dipping the wood and sacrifice into water, but by pouring water upon them.

It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word baptizo, by heathen authors, that it does not always signify a total immersion. Mr. Walker tells us, “that Porphyrie mentions a river in India, into which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is immediately baptized up to his head:” (baptizetai mechri Kephales.) Here a person is said to be baptized, although his head did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not a total immersion.

“He also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by the oracle (viz. askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti.”) In which instance, if dunai signifies to plunge wholly under water, as it certainly does, then baptize must signify something less than a total immersion.—“Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under the water.” The baptism here described, resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put into the water, will not sink to the bottom, but swim upon the top.

The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelii’s and Robertson’s Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the primitive word bapto signifies a wetting with water, that was certainly less, and very different from a total dipping or immersion. The sentence is this. (“Baptei men askon, udor de ugron dunei pote.”) “He indeed baptizeth a bladder or bottle, but it never goeth under the liquid water.”

To these instances, we might add a well known case, taken from a poem attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in which the lake is said to be baptized by the blood of a frog. (Ebapteto de aimati limne porphureo.) This lake was not dipped into the blood of a frog; it was only bespattered and tinged therewith.

We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It appears undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from learned writers and commentators, both ancient and modern, that the word baptizo has other significations besides that of a total dipping or immersion.

The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and criticks have often translated baptizo into the following Latin words, viz. baptizo, mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, lave, abluo, madefacio, purgo, mundo. No one, I presume, will pretend that all these words are mentioned as being perfectly synonimous—of the same meaning exactly. And certainly if the word baptizo signify any thing less or different from a total immersion, then persons may be baptized in some other mode.

Besides, if it had been the intention of Christ and of his Apostles, to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have selected from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal and definite signification. If it had been their intention to specify the mode of sprinkling, they might have used the word Rantizo; if the mode of pouring, they might have used the word Ekcheo; if that mode of bathing or washing, which is performed by the application of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word Louo; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of dipping, they might have used the word Dupto or Duno, &c.

Reed’s Apology.

[90]. Ἐις and ἐκ.

[91]. Ἐις τὴν Θαλασσαν.

[92]. Ἐκ.

[93]. If any one has a mind to see how these particles ἐις and ἐκ, are used in the New Testament, he may consult Schmid. concord. in voc. ἐις and ἐκ, where there are a great number of places mentioned, in which these words are used; and, it will hardly be thought, by any impartial reader, that the greatest part of them can be rendered by, into or out of; but rather to, or from.

[94]. Γδατκ πολλα.

[95]. See Lightfoot’s works, Vol. I. Page 500.

[96]. In Col. ii. 12. and context, is a succession of figures, designed, in different ways, to illustrate and enforce the same fact. Verse 11. “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.” That is, in putting off the old man, you are circumcised without hands; the work is effected by the Holy Spirit—You are born again, which is spiritual circumcision. “Circumcision is that of the heart.” This renewing of the Holy Spirit consists in putting off the body of sin, in renouncing sin, and reforming the life. Or, we are “buried with him in baptism.” As the burial of Jesus Christ gave evidence, that he had really died, the just for the unjust; that he had yielded himself a sacrifice for sin; so we in our spiritual circumcision or baptism, the figure now used, show ourselves to be really dead to sin, crucified in the lusts of our minds. As Christ, when buried, was dead and separated from the world; so in regeneration we become separate from sin. We are new creatures, having put off the old man. We are buried from the wicked indulgences and pursuits of the world.

The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, are, not only causes, but types and symbols to represent the death of our sins, our putting off the old man, and becoming new creatures.

No reference is made in the text to the water of baptism, any more than to the knife of circumcision in the preceding verse. The writer is speaking of that baptism, and of that alone, in which we “are risen with Christ, through the faith, which is the operation of God.” This certainly can be nothing less than spiritual baptism, or regeneration; for the most violent advocate for dipping, or plunging, or burying, will not pretend, that this, necessarily, is connected with “faith;” he will allow it may be possible for a man to be plunged and buried in water, and yet not have “the faith, which is the operation of God.” If he allow this, and allow this he must and will, then our text is no support of his cause. It cannot be water baptism which is mentioned.

Were not this the fact, nothing could be inferred respecting the mode of baptism. It would then only signify that, as Christ was buried and separated from the world; so we in baptism are buried and separated from a world of sin. The zeal for the literal construction of this figure may, perhaps, be extinguished by indulging it in other instances. St. Paul says, “I am crucified with Christ.” Would any person suppose from this, that he had been led to Calvary, nailed to the cross, and pierced by the soldier’s spear? Christians are said to be “circumcised in Christ.” Does any one infer from this that all Christians experience the bloody rite of the Jews? Or, because Christians “are partakers of Christ’s sufferings,” are all christians, therefore, betrayed by Judas, spit upon, buffeted, and crowned with thorns? Or, because St. Paul says the Philippians were his “crown,” were they, therefore, formed into a crown of honor, and worn as a badge of future glory? Or, because the sacrament represents the sufferings and death of Christ, are all worthy communicants crucified? Were our baptist brethren consistent with themselves, such would be their explanation of these passages of scripture.

It immediately follows our text; “wherein also you were risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” Wherein, or in which baptism “we are risen,” actually “risen with Christ by the faith” which God gives to the new creature. You, who have this spiritual baptism, rise like Christ above the selfish motives, and sensual pursuits of a fallen world. You seek the kingdom of God; you aspire after divine good.

Persons, born again, like Jesus Christ, separate their hearts from the world, and rise to a divine life. That this is the only true construction of the text, may be inferred from a corresponding passage, Rom. vi. 4. “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” By spiritual baptism we partake the privileges of Christ’s death. By dying to sin ourselves, as we do in the new birth, we resemble Jesus Christ in his death, who died “to make an end of sin.” As Christ was raised from the grave; so we, not in water baptism, but in regeneration or spiritual baptism, are “raised” to walk in newness of life. Old things are done away; all things are become new. If we have experienced this spiritual baptism, we shall have the Spirit of Christ, We shall be separate from the world of sin, as Christ was in the grave, and we shall like him rise to a holy, a new life. We obey a new master, seek a new way of salvation, act from new motives, to accomplish new designs; we choose new companions, experience new sorrows, and new joys. As if buried, we are separate from our former lives.

St. John says, “He [Christ] shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” The Selucians and Hermians understood this literally, and maintained that material fire was necessary in the administration of baptism. Valentinus, like our baptists, rebaptized those, who had received baptism out of the sect, and drew them through the fire. Herculian, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, says that some applied a red hot iron to the ears of the baptized. St. Paul says, we are buried with Christ in baptism. This also has been understood literally; but such persons forget that to be consistent, on their plan, they should continue “buried” three days and three nights, the time Christ lay in the earth. Should any object that this would drown them, the baptist, in his way of treating figures, would have an easy answer, and readily prove that drowning was the very design of baptism. Rom. vi. 4. “We are buried with him by baptism into his death.” We are not merely buried, for this is only a part, any more than sprinkling; but we are buried to death, “buried into his death.” Thus he has scripture for drowning all whom he baptizes, and precisely as much scripture for drowning, as for burying. The very same passage, might he say, which commands burying, commands drowning, commands “death.”

In the present mode of plunging, the resemblance is almost entirely lost. What is the difference between laying a dead body in a rock, covering it with a great stone; sealing it in a solemn manner; all things continuing in this state, three days and three nights, what is the resemblance between this, and suddenly plunging a living body into water, and instantly lifting it out of the water? What possible likeness is there between a living person in the water, and a dead body in a rock? The similitude is little better than that of the blind man, who supposed the light of the sun was like the noise of a cannon. We have accordingly endeavoured to show in the introduction, that the elegant scholar, the christian orator of Tarsus, had no thought of any such resemblance; his object was to show, that in regeneration or spiritual baptism, which is followed “with newness of life,” or, a new life, “through faith which is the operation of God,” we are dead and buried to sin, and raised or made alive to God, as Christ was. The evident design of the text is to illustrate the preceding verse, which speaks of spiritual circumcision made without hands. This baptism is that by which we are raised with Christ; but in water baptism we are not always raised with Christ. If men are plunged they may generally be raised from the water; but this has no necessary connexion with “rising with Christ.” This baptism is also effected “through faith which is the operation of God;” but a man may be raised out of an ocean of water, every day of his life, and remain destitute of faith; therefore, the text has no reference to water baptism.

Rev. E. Parish’s Sermon.

[97]. This was done by the council at Constance, A. D. 1415, before which time there were, indeed, several disputes about the matter or form of the cup, in which the wine was contained; but it was never taken away from the common people till then.

[98]. This hymn is inserted after Sternhold and Hopkin’s version of the Psalms.

[99]. See Dr. Goodwin’s Christ set forth, § 2. Chap. ii.

[100]. See Quest. LXXII. Vol. III. page 97, & seq. and Quest. LXXVI, LXXXV, LXXXVII.

[101]. See Quest. lxxxi. Vol. III. page 268.

[102]. Voveo.

[103]. See Quest. [CLI].

[104]. See page [317].

[105]. That several of the Fathers practised and pleaded for praying for the dead, is evident from what Cyprian says, Epist. xxxix. concerning the church’s offering sacrifices, by which he means prayers for the martyrs; among whom, he particularly mentions Laurentius and Ignatius, on the yearly return of those days, on which the memorial of their martyrdom was celebrated. And Eusebius, in the life of Constantine, Lib. iv. Cap. lxxi. when speaking concerning the funeral obsequies performed for that monarch, says, that a great number of people, with tears and lamentations poured forth prayers to God for the emperor’s soul. And Gregory Nazianzen prayed for his brother Cæsarius after his death. Vid. Ejusd in Fun. Cæsar, Orat. x. Also Ambrose prayed for the religious emperors, Valentinian and Gratian, and for Theodosius, and for his brother Satyrus. Vid. Ejusd. de obit. Valentin. Theodos. & Satyr. And Augustin speaks of his praying for his mother Monica, after her decease, in Confess. Lib. ix. Cap. xiii. And Epiphanius defends this practice with so much warmth, that he can hardly forbear charging the denial hereof as one of Aerius’s heresies. Vid. Epiphan. hæeres. lxxv. And some Popish writers, when defending their praying for the dead, have, with more malice than reason, charged the Protestants with being Aerians, upon this account.

[106]. See Quest. lxxxvi. page [313].

[107]. Vid. Grot. in loc.

[108]. Many suppose that all those Psalms, in which some particular expressions are referred to in the New Testament, as having their accomplishment in Christ, are to be understood as containing a double reference, namely, to David, as denoting his particular case, and to Christ, of whom he was an eminent type. But as for Psalm xxii. there are several expressions in it, not only applied to Christ in the New Testament; but they cannot well be understood of any other but him. In the first verse he uses the same words that were uttered by Christ on the cross, Matt. xxvii. 46. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? and in ver. 8. he trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him; let him deliver him: This was an expression used by those who mocked and derided him, Matt. xxvii. 41, 45. And what is said in verses 14, 17. All my bones are out of joint; I may tell them, they look and stare upon me; does not seem to be applicable to David, from any thing said concerning him elsewhere; but they are a lively representation of the torment a person endures, when hanging on a cross, as our Saviour did; which has a tendency to disjoint the bones, and cause them to stick out. And when it is said, ver. 16, 18. they pierced my hands and my feet; and they part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture; the former was fulfilled in Christ’s being nailed to the cross, and his side pierced with a spear; and the latter is expressly referred to as fulfilled in the parting of Christ’s garments, and casting lots upon his vesture, Matt. xxvii. 35. as an accomplishment of what was foretold, by the royal prophet in this Psalm. These expressions cannot, in the least, be applied to David, but are to be understood of our Saviour; therefore, we may conclude that those words in ver. 6. I am a worm, &c. are particularly applied to him.

[109]. What under one aspect is grace, under another is duty.

[110]. Vide ante vol. I. p. 19. in note.

[111]. The petition in Luke offered daily, is equivalent to that in Matthew.

[112]. επιουσιον is found only in this prayer, and rather means necessary.

[113]. Qu. For Father is designed in its appellative sense, and our as a covenant-plea.

[114]. See Quest. CLIV. page [79].

[115]. See Vol. II Quest. XLV. page 353.

[116]. See Vol. II. page 376.

[117]. See Vol. II. page 376, &c.

[118]. See Vol. I. Quest. xii. p. 471.

[119]. It has been said, that there cannot be any reason or motive to pray, or make any petition, to an unchangeable God, whose design cannot be altered, and who has fixed all events, without a possibility of any change.

Before any attempt is made to remove this objection, and supposed difficulty, it must be observed, that it equally lies against the foreknowledge of God. For if God certainly foreknows every thing that will take place, then every event is fixed and certain, otherwise it could not be foreknown. “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.” He has determined, and passed an unchangeable decree, with respect to all that he will do to eternity. Upon the plan of the objection under consideration, it may be asked, What reason or motive can any one have to ask God to do any thing for him, or any one else, since he infallibly knows from the beginning what he will do, and therefore it is unalterably fixed? Therefore if it be reasonable to pray to an omniscient God, it is equally reasonable to pray to an unchangeable God. For the former necessarily implies the latter. But in order to show that the objection is without foundation, the following things must be observed.

1. If God were not omniscient and unchangeable, and had not foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, he would not be the proper object of worship, and there would be no foundation, reason, or encouragement to make any petition to him.

This, it is presumed, will be evident to any one who will well consider the following observations.

First. If there were no unchangeable, omniscient Being, there would be no God, no proper object of worship. A being who is capable of change, is necessarily imperfect, and may change from bad to worse, and even cease to exist, and therefore could not be trusted. If we could know that such a being has existed, and that he was once wise, and good, and powerful, we could have no evidence that he would continue to be wise or good, or that he is so now, or that he is now disposed to pay any regard to our petitions, or is either willing or able to grant them; or even that he has any existence. What reason of encouragement then can there be to pray to a changeable being? Surely none at all. Therefore, if there be no reason to pray to an unchangeable God, there can be no reason to pray at all.

Secondly. If God be infinitely wise, and good, and omnipotent, supreme and independent; then he certainly is unchangeable, and has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. This has been proved above, or rather is self-evident. But if he be not infinitely wise and good, &c. then he cannot be trusted; he cannot be the object of that trust and confidence which is implied, and even expressed, in praying to him.

Thirdly. The truly pious, benevolent, devout man would not desire, or even dare, to pray to God for any thing, if he were changeable, and disposed to alter his purpose and plan, in order to grant his petitions. Therefore he never does pray to any but an unchangeable God, whose counsel stands forever, and the thoughts of his heart to all generations. He is sensible that he is a very imperfect creature; that his heart, his will, is awfully depraved and sinful; that he knows not what is wisest and best to be done in any one instance; what is best for him, for mankind in general, for the world, or for the universe; what is most for the glory of God, and the greatest general good; and that it would be infinitely undesirable and dreadful to have his own will regarded so as to govern in determining what shall be done for him or any other being, or what shall take place. If it could be left to him to determine in the least instance, he would not dare to do it, but would refer it back to God, and say, “Not my will, but thine be done.” But he could not do this, unless he were certain that the will of God was unchangeably wise and good, and that he had decreed to do what was most for his own glory, and the greatest good of the whole; at the same time infallibly knowing what must take place, in every instance, in order to answer this end; and consequently must have fixed upon the most wise and best plan, foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass. Therefore, whatever be his petitions for himself, or for others, he offers them to God, and asks, on this condition, always either expressed or implied, If it be agreeable to thy will: for otherwise he would not have his petitions granted, if it were possible. And he who asks any thing of God, without making this condition, but sets up his own will, and desires to have it gratified, whether it be for the glory of God, and the greatest good of his kingdom, or not; and would, were it in his power, compel his Maker to grant his petition, and bow the will of God to his own will; he who prays to God with such a disposition, is an impious enemy to God, exercises no true devotion, and cannot be heard; and it is desireable to all the friends of God that he should be rejected. Resignation to the will of God always supposes his will is unchangeably fixed and established, which it could not be, unless he has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Thus it appears that if God were changeable, and had not foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, there would be no foundation for religious worship, or reason for praying to him; or that there can be no reason or encouragement for prayer and petition to any but an unchangeable God.—I proceed to observe,

2. There is good reason, and all desirable and possible encouragement, to pray to an unchangeable God, who has from eternity determined what he will do, in every instance, and has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

This will doubtless be evident, to him who will duly, consider the following particulars.

First. Prayer is as proper, important, and necessary, in order to obtain favour from an unchangeable God, as it could be were he changeable, and had not foreordained any thing.

Means are as necessary in order to obtain the end, as if nothing were fixed and certain. Though it was decreed that Paul and all the men in the ship should get safe to land, when they were in a storm at sea; yet this must be accomplished by means, and unless the sailors had assisted in managing the ship, this event could not take place, and they could not be saved. Prayer is a means of obtaining what God had determined to grant; for he has determined to give it in answer to prayer, and no other way. “Ask, and ye shall receive,” says our Saviour. When God had promised to do many and great things for Israel, he adds, “Thus saith the Lord God, I will yet for this be inquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them:” [Ezek. xxxvi. 37.] The granting the favours, which God had determined to bestow, was as much suspended on their asking for them, as if there had been nothing determined and fixed about it. There is as much regard had to prayer in granting favours, and the prayer is heard, and God gives them, as really and as much in answer to it, as if there were nothing determined and foreordained respecting them: for the decree includes and fixes the means, as much as the end; the method and way by which events are to take place, as much as those events themselves. The one depends on the other, as much as if there were no decree, and nothing fixed; yea, much more: for the decree fixes the dependence and connexion between the means and the end: whereas if there were no decree, and nothing fixed, there would be no established connexion, but all would be uncertain, and there would be no reason or encouragement to use means, or do any thing to obtain an end.

Surely, then, there is as much reason and encouragement to pray to an unchangeable God, and this is as important and necessary, as if there were nothing fixed by the divine decrees, and much more: yea, the unchangeable purposes of God are the necessary and only proper ground and reason of prayer.

Secondly. Though prayer is not designed to make any change in God, or alter his purpose, which is impossible; yet it is suited and designed to have an effect on the petitioner, and prepare him to receive that for which he prays. And this is a good reason why he should pray. It tends to make the petitioner to feel more and more sensibly his wants, and those of others for whom he prays, and the miserable state in which he and they are: for in prayer these are called up to view, and dwelt upon: and prayer tends to give a sense of the worth and importance of the favours asked. It is also suited to make persons feel, more and more, their own helplessness, and entire dependence on God for the favours for which they petition, of which their praying is an acknowledgment: and therefore tends to enhance them in the eyes of the petitioner, when given in answer to prayer, and make him more sensible of the free, sovereign goodness of God in granting them.[^[120]] In sum, this is suited to keep the existence and character of God in view, and impress a sense of religious truths in general on the mind, and to form the mind to universal obedience, and a conscientious watchfulness and circumspection, in all religious exercises.

Thirdly. It is reasonable, and highly proper and important, and for the honour of God, that the friends of God should express and acknowledge their entire dependence on him, and trust in him, for all they want for themselves and others, and their belief in the power, wisdom and goodness of God; and all this is acknowledged, expressly or implicity, in prayer to God. It is also reasonable and proper that they should express their desire of those things which are needed by themselves or others, and which God alone can give or accomplish: and such desires are expressed in the best way and manner by petitioning for them. And in asking for blessings on others, and praying for their enemies, they express their benevolence, which is an advantage to themselves, and pleasing to God, even though their petitions should have no influence in procuring the favours which they ask. And in praying that God would honour himself, and advance his own kingdom, and accomplish all the great and glorious things which he has promised to do for his own honour, and the good of his people, they do not express any doubts of his fulfilling his promises, but are certain he will grant their petitions; but they hereby express their acquiescence in these things, and their earnest desire that they may be accomplished; and also profess and express their love to God, and friendship to his people and kingdom; and do that which the feelings of a pious, benevolent heart will naturally, and even necessarily, prompt them to do.

We have many examples of such petitions and prayers for those things and events, which the petitioners, antecedent to their prayers, knew would certainly be accomplished. We have a decisive and remarkable instance of this in David, the king of Israel, in the following words: “And now, O Lord God, the word that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it for ever, and do as thou hast said. And let thy name be magnified forever, saying, The Lord of hosts is the God over Israel: and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee. For thou, O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house: therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this prayer before thee. And now, O Lord God, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant. Therefore now let it please thee to bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue forever before thee; for thou, O Lord God, hast spoken it, and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant be blessed forever:” [2 Sam. vii. 25-29.] Here David not only prays God to do that which at the same time he knew and acknowledges God had promised to do; and therefore it was established as firm as the throne of the Almighty, and decreed that it should take place; but he says that this promise of God, making it certain, was the reason, motive, and encouragement to him to make this prayer: “Thou, O Lord, hast revealed to thy servant, saying, I will build thee an house. And now, O Lord God, thou art that God, and thy words be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant; THEREFORE HATH THY SERVANT FOUND IN HIS HEART TO PRAY THIS PRAYER BEFORE THEE.” We hence are warranted to assert that it is reasonable and proper to pray for that which God has promised; and that the certainty that it will be accomplished is a motive and encouragement to pray for it. How greatly then do they err, who think that if every event is made certain by God’s decree, there is no reason or encouragement to pray for any thing!

Our Saviour, in the pattern of prayer which he has dictated, directs men to pray that God would bring to pass those events which are already fixed and decreed, and therefore must infallibly take place; “Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done,” &c.

Christ himself, in the 17th chapter of John, prays for those whom the Father had given to him, that he would keep them through his own name, and that they might be one, as the Father and Son were one; might be kept from the evil in the world, and be sanctified through the truth; that they might be with him in heaven forever, and behold his glory. At the same time he knew that all this was made certain to them; for he had before said, that all that were given to him should come to him, and he would raise them up at the last day; that he would give unto them eternal life, and not one of them should perish, as none should be able to pluck them out of his hands, or his Father’s. He prays, “Father, glorify thy name;” not because this event was uncertain, but to express his earnest desire of that which he knew was decreed, and could not but take place, and his willingness to give up every thing, even his own life to promote this. Again, Christ prays in the following words: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” The event for which Christ prays in these words was decreed from eternity, and the decree had been long before published, in the 2d and 110th Psalms: “I will declare the decree: The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy foot-stool.” And he had declared the certainty of that for which he here prays, since his incarnation. He had said, that all power in heaven and earth was given unto him; that “the Father had committed all judgment unto the Son; that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.” St. Paul, when speaking of God, often introduces the following words: “To whom be glory forever, Amen;” which is not to be considered as a mere doxology, by which glory is ascribed to God; but it is rather a wish, or desire, that God may be glorified forever; and the Amen corroborates it: as if he had said, “Let it be so; this is the most ardent desire of my soul, including the sum of all my petitions.” Here then the Apostle utters a desire and petition for that which he knew was decreed, and would take place.

The last words of Christ to his church are, “Surely I come quickly.” Upon which promise the following petition of the church, and of every friend of his, is presented to him: “Amen, even so come Lord Jesus.” Here is a petition, in which all Christians join, praying Christ to do what he has promised; and which therefore was as certain as a declared decree could possibly make it; and the petition is grounded on this promise and decree published by Christ, in which the petitioners express their hearty approbation of the coming of Christ, and earnest desire of this important and happy event. And if it be reasonable thus to pray for an event which is fixed and made certain by an unchangeable decree, and cannot be altered, as in the instance before us; then it is reasonable and proper to pray for any thing or any event which appears to us desirable and important, though we know God is unchangeable, and that all things and every event are fixed by an unalterable decree.

The apostle John says, “And this is the confidence that we have in him, that if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us. And if we know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of him:” [1 John v. 14, 15.] To ask for any thing according to his will, is to ask for those things which it is agreeable to his will to grant; and this is to be known only by what he has revealed. When we ask him to do what he has declared he will do, then we know we ask for that which is according to his will; and consequently that we have our petitions. But it will be asked, What are these things? I answer, that God will glorify himself in all things, and make the brightest display of his perfections and character forever; that he will promote and effect the greatest possible good of the universe; that he will make his church and kingdom perfectly happy and glorious forever; that he will accomplish all his designs and predictions, and fulfil all his promises to his church and people: and cause all things to work for the good of those who love him; and give his holy Spirit to all who ask him. These, I think, must be the things we ask, when we know that we pray for any thing according to the will of God, and consequently know that he heareth us, and that we have the petitions that we desired of him. But in all these instances we ask for that which God has said he will do, that is, has decreed that he will do them. And as it has been said before, if a decree in these instances does not render it unreasonable or improper to pray for their accomplishment; then, if God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, this is not in the least inconsistent with our praying for whatever appears to us desirable and good, and may not be contrary to the will of God to grant. But here it must be observed, that when we ask for any particular things or events which, though it may not be contrary to the will of God to grant, yet he has in no way revealed that it is his will to grant our petitions; when we ask for any such thing, we must do it with an express or implicit reserve—If it be according to the will of God. Otherwise, or if it be not according to his will, we must withdraw our petition, and not desire to have it granted. Resignation to the will of God, whatever it may be, in all such instances, is essential to the pious petitions of a benevolent friend of God. And by thus referring to the will of God, and resigning to that, desiring it may be done in all cases, whatever petitions we may make, we do refer to the decrees of God, by which he has determined what he will do in every particular instance; for his will and his decrees are in this case one and the same, being fixed and unchangeable.

Fourthly. It is not only proper and important that the worshippers of God should express their desires of those things which they want, in praying for them; but were this not true, and were not asking for them the means and way of obtaining them; yet the pious friends of God would esteem it a privilege and enjoyment to be allowed and invited, “by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, to make known their requests unto him.” To them prayer is not a task, from which they would be glad to be excused, but they practise it with pleasure.—They have great support, enjoyment and happiness, in casting their cares upon God, and expressing the desires of their hearts to him. While others restrain prayer before God, and say, “What is the Almighty, that we should serve him? and what profit should we have if we pray unto him?” the benevolent friend of God would pray, were it only for the enjoyment which he has in the exercise; and says in his heart, “I will call upon God as long as I live. And though he is certain that God is unchangeable, and that nothing is done, or will come to pass, which is not foreordained by him, this does not tend to prevent or in the least abate the pleasure and enjoyment he has in making known his requests to God, or his desire constantly to practise it: but this truth gives him support and consolation, and increases his delight in calling upon God, and renders it more desirable and pleasant unto him: yea, were not this a truth, he could not find any reason for making his requests known to him, or any delight in doing it; and would not have any encouragement, or even dare, to ask for any thing, as has been observed and shewn.”

And now this matter is to be left to the judgment of every one who will attend to it. It is hoped that it appears evident, beyond all dispute, from the light in which this subject has been now set, that the doctrine of God’s decreeing whatsoever comes to pass is not only consistent with all the exercises of true piety, but is the proper foundation for this, and is suited to excite and promote these exercises, and that there can be no real piety which is not consistent with this truth.

[Hopkins’s Sermons.]

[120]. A kind and wise father, who designs to give his child some particular favour, will bring the child to ask for it before he bestows it, and will suspend the gift upon this condition, for the benefit of the child, that what he grants may be a real advantage to him, and a greater than if it were given before the child was better prepared to receive it, by earnestly and humbly asking for it; and that the father may hereby receive a proper acknowledgment from the child, and be treated in a becoming manner. And in this case, the petition of the child is as really regarded, heard and granted, and the child’s application and prayer to the father is as much a means of obtaining the favour, and as proper, important, and necessary, as if the father had not previously determined the whole affair. And when the children of such a father know that this is his way of bestowing favours on them, they will have as proper motives, and as much encouragement, to ask for all they want, as if he had not determined what he would do antecedent to their asking him; yea, much more.

[121]. See vol. II. 289-290 and vol. III. 72.

[122]. See Quest. CLII.

[123]. In our day and country there are some worthy men, who without fear, or scruple, affirm, that God is the author, and cause of sin; which words they soften to avoid the blasphemy, which they contain. We have in a note, I. vol. p. 530, given the sentiments of the late Dr. Williams, on the origination of sin. Being a proficient in the study of the human mind, he has philosophized a little on, but not essentially differed from the representation of the subject, as it is found in the writings of sound protestant divines. As some American writers advocate with considerable address, such divine causality, and publicly affirm it to have been taught by Luther, Calvin, &c. and to have found its place in our standards in the words—“foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;” it is proper to resort to the ipsissima verba of some of the European protestant theologians, as a test of such allegations.

The Westminster divines, no doubt, entertained the same views of sin, which will be found in the following extracts. In their definition of sin, they not obscurely shew, that they did consider it not more a transgression of, than a want of conformity unto, the law. The former is the translation of ανομια in I. John iii. 4. which is rather privatio, defectus, or declinatio than transgressio legis. Also the Greek word αμαρτια, and the Hebrew חטא signify non consecutio scopi. If they viewed sin as a qualitas adventitia, a quiddam non positivum, a simplex privatio, a quiddam actioni inhærens, they could not have viewed it the proper subject of a decree or purpose, but only as foreseen and permitted.

The following quotations are given in the authors’ own words, for the satisfaction of those who may not possess the works from which they are taken.

“Natura peccato corrupta est...—Aversio quædam voluntatis secuta est, ut homo nihil eorum velit aut faciat, quæ Deus vult et præcipit. Item quod nescimus, quid Deus, quid gratia, quid justitia, denique quid ipsum peccatum sit. Hi sunt profecto horribiles DEFECTUS, quos, qui non intelligunt; nec vident, talpa cœciores sunt.” Mart. Lutheri Loc. Com. p. 23.

“Hæc Regula certa et vera est; Deum esse natura bonum, ideo nihil a Deo proficisci, nisi quod bonum est, mors autem est mala, peccatum etiam est malum, &c. Non igitur a Deo proficiscuntur mala hæc, &c. Peccati porro quæ causa sit, si roges, sacræ literæ ostendunt, id ex Sathana esse, cui contra verbum Dei assenserunt nostri parentes, a Deo inobedientes facti, incurrerunt in horribiles pænas. Nam per peccatum illud non solum corpora nostra sic infirmata sunt, ut ex immortalibus mortalia fierent, sed etiam mens depravata est. Amisit enim homo veram Dei notitiam, et voluntas quoque tum admodum est depravata, ut nihil quam malum appetat.” Mart. Lutheri Loci Com. p. 22.

“Eant nunc qui Deum suis vitiis inscribere audent, quia dicimus naturaliter vitiosos esse homines. Opus Dei perperam in sua pollutione scrutantur, quod in integra adhuc et incorrupta Adæ natura requirere debuerant. A carnis ergo nostræ culpa, non a Deo nostra perditio est, quando non alia ratione periimus, nisi quia degeneravimus a prima nostra conditione.”—“Dicimus ergo naturali hominem vitiositate corruptum, sed quæ a natura non fluxerit. A natura fluxisse negamus, ut significemus adventitiam magis esse qualitatem quæ homini acciderit, quam substantialem proprietatem quæ ab initio indita fuerit. Vocamus tamen naturalem, nequis ab unoquoque prava consuetudine comparari putet, quum hæreditario jure universos comprehensos teneat.” Calvini Institut. lib. II. cap. 1. sect. 10, 11.

“Sed cum nihil contingat in mundo, aut contingere possit sine justissima et sapientissima Dei providentia, annon, peccati author et causa dici potest? Absit, quippe qui illud odit, vetat, & punit, ut quod cum summâ ipsius bonitate pugnet.” Bucani Theolog. p. 165.

“Deus non infundit malitiam in volentates malorum, sicut infundit bonitatem in corda piorum, nec impellit aut allicit voluntates ad peccandum; sed tantum malas voluntates, seu peccantes, quales invenit ex corruptione quæ sequuta est aversionem diabolorum et hominum a Deo, movet, ciet, flectit, inclinat, dirigit, sapienter, juste, potenter, ubi, quando, quomodo, et quousque vult, sive mediate, sive immediate, ad objecta vel persequenda, vel fugienda, ut impleant (quibus tale nihil propositum est) quod manus et consilium Domini decrevit. Bucani Theol. p. 153.

“Estne peccatum originis Substantia an accidens?—Non est substantia; esset enim anima vel corpus. Jam vero corpus et anima quoad substantiam, sunt bonæ Dei creaturæ, quæ etiamnum creantur a Deo. Ergo non sunt peccatum. Nec substantialis est proprietas, aut aliquid substantiale in homine: sed est adventitia qualitas, quæ tamen naturalis dicitur, non quod à natura fluxerit (quatenus creata est) sed quia hæreditario jure ut dicitur, suos comprehensos tenet, et in ipsa hominis natura, viribus, et facultatibus naturalibus inhæret, et ipsi homini innata est.”

Bucani Theol. p. 174.

“Estne peccatum aliquid Positivum an Privativum?—Peccatum non est positivum, id est, quiddam subsistens a Deo conditum, nec est simpliciter et pura privatio, sicut mors est privatio vitæ, aut tenebræ sunt privatio lucis; sed est defectus seu destructio rei positivæ, videlicit operis et ordinis divini in subjecto, quod culpam sustinet suæ depravationis, aversionis a Deo, ut ruina in domo, cœcitas et amissio visus in oculis.” Bucani Theol. p. 167.

“Permissio est gubernatio Dei, quâ homines vel diabolos, ad peccandum pronos, a peccato non retrahit, sed gratiæ suæ auxilio negato vel subtracto, in peccata ruere sinit, ita tamen ut ipsorum impetum ad judiciorum suorum executionem flectat, et quæ pessimo ab ipsis concilio suscipiuntur, in fines optimos dirigat.”

Explicatio.

1. Deus in permissione mali culpœ seu peccati, non est otiosus spectator, sed potens, justus, et sapiens judex: Itaque.

(1.) Efficax gratiæ suæ auxilium, sine quo non possunt non peccare in peccatis mortui homines, negat vel subtrahit.

(2.) Homines vel diabolos ad peccandum natura et consuetudine pronos, sæpissimè a peccatis non retrahit, quos tamen facillimè posset retrahere: sed in peccata ruere sinit.

(3.) Peccatum animis ipsorum susceptum, seu peccandi impetum ita moderatur, ut non in quævis objecta eum ferri patiatur, sed flectat et dirigat ad ejus modi objecta, vel homines, quos punire, castigare, vel explorare vult.

(4.) Quæ ab impiis hominibus, vel diabolis, malo fine, perpetrantur, in fines optimos dirigit.

Exempli Gratia.

Si viator aliquis a latrone in via occidatur, homicidium permississe Deus dicitur:

(1.) Quia efficax gratiæ suæ auxilium ei subtraxit vel negavit, sine quo infallibiliter homicidium erat perpetraturus.

(2.) Quia animum latronis, naturâ vel consuetudine ad homicidia pronum, ab homicidio non retraxit; quem tamen facillimè potuisset retrahere: sed in hoc facinus ipsum ruere permisit.

(3.) Quia concilium homicidii perpetrandi, ipsumque latronis impetum ita rexit et flexit, ut non quemvis promiscue hominem voluerit aut potuerit interficere: sed hunc potius, quam alium interfecerit; Unde furori latronis hunc potius viatorem, quam alium hominem objecit: justo quodam judicio: cujus ratio plerumque homines latet.

(4.) Quia, quod malo fine a latrone est perpetratum; forte ad pecuniam acquirendam, quam nequiter dilapidaret, in finem bonam direxit: quia est pœna vel ipsius latronis, vel ejus, qui a latrone est occisus: vel alius etiam finis nobis ignotus.

II. Sunt igitur in peccatis hominum, circa quæ divina occupatur permissio, quatuor imprimis observanda et distinquenda:

(1.) Actio per se, quatenus est actio.

(2.) Vitium actioni inhærens.

(3.) Directio organi mali et actionis vitiosæ in objectum certum.

(4.) Finis directionis, e quo accidit peccato judicii divini ratio; ut per hominum peccata Deus exequatur justa sua judicia: Primum, tertium, et quartum a Deo est, Deumque authorem habet. Est enim omnis actio, quatenus est actio, bona: directio actionis et ipsa bona: denique finis directionis optimus, nempe divini judicii executio. Secundum, in quo peccati consistit ratio, non a Deo, sed a solo est homine: adeoque solus homo peccati, quatenus est peccatum author est. Wendel. Theol. p. 179.

“Hinc firmiter concludimus, cum permissione Dei concurrere quoque efficacem Dei actionem et directionem vitiosi instrumenti in objectum certum, adversus quod judicium suum exercere Deo visum.”

“Orthodoxi nominis osor et insignis caluminator Graverus ad art. 19. Confess. Aug. p. 112, et sequentibus, portentosum dogma, de Deo peccati authore, Ecclesiis nostris non tantum calumniose impingit, sed et 15 argumenta nostris affingit quibus thesin hanc suam: Deus est peccati, quatenus peccatum est, author: probet: imprimis autem ad infame hoc et blasphemum dogma probandum affirmat, a nostris adduci scripturæ loca, quæ modo allegata sunt. Nos vero ut tam effrontibus calumniatoribus; ita omnibus, qui blasphemum istud dogma vel probant; vel profitentur, et defendunt, anathema dicimus, et innocentiæ nostræ vindicem mundi judicem, jamjam ad judicium se accingentem, imploramus.” Wendel. Theol. p. 183.

[124]. See Quest. LXXVII.

[125]. See Vol. II. page 94.

[126]. See a particular account what this sin is; and when a person may certainly conclude that he has not committed it, ante page [318] to 320.

[127]. As in John only it is repeated, he wrote it only in the Hebrew character, it is presumed, and understood by it “the truth;” the second Amen was exegetical and in the Greek character, for the sake of the unlearned.

[128]. Vid. Justin Martyr, Apol. ii. pro Christ. who intimates, that when public prayer and giving of thanks was ended, the whole congregation testified their approving of it by saying, Amen; ωᾶς ὄ ωαρωγ λαὸς ὀπευφημεὶ λὲγων αμῆν.

[129]. Vid. Hieron. in Lib. ii. comment. ad Galat. in Proen. Ad similitudinem cælestis tonitrus reboat, [scil. Ecclesia.] Amen.

[130]. Vid. Whitby in loc.

• Transcriber’s Notes:
  • The author’s archaic and idiosyncratic punctuation, spellings, and capitalization have been retained.
  • Footnotes have been collected at the end of the text, and are linked for ease of reference.