Itiieolcgical seminakyJ

Ij Princeton, N. J. |

■^ : .S'A<>//; Sect,,.; . ___]^

I //oo/i-, N», 7|

v. /

v/

V-V ^

Antipoedobaptifm Examined :

O R, A STRICT AKI) IMPARTIAL

I N Q^ U I R Y

INTO THE

NATURE AND DESIGN, SUBJECTS and MODE

O F

B A P T I S M.

INCLUDING, ALSO, An investigation of the NATURE op

POSITIVE INSTITUTIONS

IN GENERAL, AND

OCCASIONAL STRICTURES on HUMAN CEREMONIES in MATTERS of RELIGION.

CONTAINING, IN PARTICULAR,

A FULL REPLY TO

Mr. Booth's Poedobaptifm Examined. By EDWARD 'WILLIAMS.

When i had waited — i said, i will answer also my

PART, I ALSO WILL SHEW MINE OPINION. ELIHU.

VOL. I.

SHREWSBURY: Printed and sold by J. and W. Eddowes; Sold also by T. Longman and J. Buckland, Pater- noster-row ; C. DiLLY, IN THE PoULTRy, LoNDQN

AND W. Browne, Bristol.

MDCCLXXXIX.

PREFACE.

'T'^HE following work is not intended merely -"- as an anfwer to Mr. Booth's Pcedobap- iifm Examined -y the author, as occafion offered, has taken notice of what appeared to him the moft plaufible arguments and objeftions contain- ed in Dr. Stennett's Anfwer to Dr. Adding- TON, Dr. Gale's ReflecStions on Dr. Wall's Hiftory, and fome others; and therefore, he has ventured to give the refult of his inqui- ries the title of AntipoedobapUfm Examined ; not fo much as a counter-title to that of Mr. Booth's publication, as that the Jntipcedobap- tiji Syjiem at large, is made the fubjedl of in- quiry. This extent of defign will, in fome meafure, account for the largenefs of the work ; to which I muft add another reafon, viz. That I was defirous my principles may be thoroughly underftood by every reader, if poflible, without hazard of miftake ; and this appeared the moft effeftual method — to fet them in different po- fitions — and to (hew their connexion with the feveral branches of difpute, and their genuine practical tendency. Whence arifes, eventually, A 2 a

iv PREFACE.

a double advantage to the inquifitiv'e reader ; he not only muft needs perceive clearly what the principles are, but aifo has an opportunity to judge of tlieir .truth., by obferving the univer- sality of their applicaticwi.

At different intervals of relaxation from more important engagements, the fubjedl of thefe vo- lumes .had attracted the Author's attention for ibme years; but he did not refolve to write and -publiOi, till fome time after Mr. Booth's F.tsdobaptifm Examined made its appearance : nor was it his defign, when he began to write, to handle the f^veral branches of controverfy in fo ^Ateniivc a manner. But, in his progrcls, the more he confidered his leading ideas, in their various application to the different parts, the more he was induced to extend his plan.

When I read Mr. Booth's Preface to the fecond edition of his work, which came out af- ter the former part of mine was fent into the prefs, my curiofity was not a little gratified with the following paragraph : " Should this ex- amination of Poedobaptifm have the honour of being regarded as deferring an anfwer, and fliould any of our oppolers write againft me, it will not avail to refute fome particular parts of the work, detached from the general princi- ples

PREFACE. V

pies on which I proceed. No; the data^ the principal grounds of reafoning, which are adopted from Pcedobaptifts themfelves, muft be conftantly kept in view; or nothing to the honour of in- fant fprinkling will be effeded. For as the grand principles on which my argumentation proceeds, and whence my general conclufions are drawn, are thofe of Proteftants when con- tending with Papifts, and thofe of Non -conform- ifts when difputing with Englilh Epifcopalians j it will be incumbent on fuch oppofer to fhew, either that the principles themfelves are falfe^ or that my reafoning upon them is inconcluftve. Now as I do not perceive how any Proteftant can give up thofe principles, without virtually admitting the fuperftitions of Popery ; nor how they can be deferted by any Diflenter, without implicitly renouncing his Non-conformity ; fo I conclude, that the whole force of any oppo- nent muft be employed in endeavouring ^o prove, that I have reafoned inconfequentially from thofe principles. That this might be eafijy proved, I am not at prefent convinced : and whether any of our Poedobaptift Brethren will confider this publication as of fufficient import- ance to excite fuch an attempt, is to me un- certain*." A 3 ■

Thg • p. 19, 20,

vi PREFACE.

*rhe data-y the prittcipal grounds of reajoning muji he kept in view. Well, I refle(Sl:ed, here is my tafk fairly pointed out ; and I am not a little pleafed to obferve, that what is here prefcribed is precifely the fame as what I had from the firft impofed upon myfelf: that is, not to nib- ble at fome of the branches of his ftately tree, but to lay the axe of oppofite principles to the root of it ; not to uncover a little here and there of his building, to find a few faults in quotations, translations, and the like, but to un- dermine the foundation. The principal grounds of reafoning I have endeavoured conftantly to keep in view; and my aim is throughout to fhew that the principles of Proteftants and Non- conformiils, taken in their only true fenfe and force, are either mifunderftood or mifreprefented by my opponent, and confequently his reafon- ing upon them, which derives all its plaufibi- lity from that miireprefentation, is inconcluftve. Kis conduct in applying their maxims to his caufe, may be compared to that of a Judge who (hould produce, from the beft writers, de- fnitions of Juftice in the abftrad, and then ar- bitrarily tack thefe to any caufe, right or wrong, according to his humour. But will fuch an arbitrary application of a definition, formed ab-

ftradedly,

P R E F A C E. vii

ftracledly, make a caufe more or lefs juft in itfelf ? Should not the circuaiftances of the point in litigation be lirfi: attended to, and the fails be accurately afcertained, in order to infer the quantum of juftice or injuftice in the whole ag- gregate? So far were the moft eminent of the Proteftants and Non-conformifts from difcarding the life of right reafon and fcripture analogy in their inveAigations of gofpel worftiip and infti- tutions, that fometimes tliey were not a little of- fended with infinuations to the contrary. The following words of Dr. John Owen may be fairly deemed a proper fpecimen of their thoughts upon the matter : " I have of late been much furpnfed with the plea of fome for the ufe of reajon in religion and facred things ; not at all that fuch a plea is injlfied on, but that it is by them built exprefsly on a fuppofition, that it is by others, whom they refletft upon, denied y whereas feme, probably intended in thofe reflec- tions, have pleaded for it againji the Papijis (to fpeak within the bounds of fobriety) with as much reafon, and no lefs effedually, than any amongft themfelves*."

In fad, the chriftian church has been Shame- fully abufed by extravagant opinions and fuper-

Aitious * On the Sabbath, Exerclt. I. § 8.

viii I> R E F A C E.

ftitious ceremoniesj which may well raife the in- dignation of a mind in love with the facred authority of fcripture, and rational devotion ; and this has occafioned fome, in the height of their antipathy and pious zeal, to fly into the cppofite extreme of adhering to the mere letter of divine laws, to the negle^Sl of their true fpirit. But this is not all ; what was defigned as a preventive to the former difeafe, becomes itfelf, in common with it, the occafion (or, fliall I fay, the culpable caufe?) of a malady far more dan- gerous. " Among other prejudices," — fays a fhrewd obferver, who, hiding himfelf behind the fcene, attentively watched their motions — "among other prejudices there is one of a particular na- ture, which you muft have obferved to be one of the greateft caufes of modern irreligion.— Whilft fome opinions and rites are carried to fuch an immoderate height^ as expofes the ab- furdity of them to the view of almoft every body but them who raife them, not only gentlemen of the belles lettres^ but even men of common fenfe, many times fee thro' them ; and then out of indignation and an excelRve renitence, not fe- farating that which is true from that which is falfe, they come to deny both, and fall back into the contrary extreme, a contempt of all religion in general *."

* WoLLAST. Relig, of Nat. p. 60, 61, Edit. 1725.

PREFACE. ix

I SHOULD be very forry if what is advanced in the following Examination, fhould in any meafure violate the facred bond of chriftian cha- rity and friendfliip that fubfifts between me and, in this inftance, my differing brethren j with fe- veral of whom I wifti to preferve and cultivate a fraternal afre<5lion. And thofe of them who bear the minifterial chara<£ter, with whom I agree in weightier points of evangelical truth, are wel- come to my pulpit, my houfe, and my heart j and none would be more fo, according to my prefent views, than the author of the Reign of Grace, and Poedobaptifm Examined.

I NOW fubmit the performance to the impartial judgment of the candid public, and implore the bleiling of God on every grain of truth con- tained in it, for the reader's real benefit ; ear- naflly wifliing that evangelical knowledge may inereafe, and that all our acquaintance wi'.h God"s word, covenant, inftitutions, and all the means of grace, may be reduced to experience and ufeful pracSlice, to the glory of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Gholl. Amen,

Oswestry, Dec. 9, 1788.

ERRATA.

Vol. I. p.

Vol. II.

7 1	tine 1. Note,	for Treatife on, rej	id, Hiftory of.
89	10	(§ ),	(§ 4«)
95	29	negatives	negative
137	26	Rom.	1 Cor.
184	4	CorroUary	corollary
198	ult.	corolaries	corollaries
200	23	ftiall	fliould
217	8	promifor	promifer
224	12	fants	infants
283	J7	were	wheie
—	ult.	Grotlus	Grotium.
286	15	dele as
298	2 Note,	fiate	^appinefs
311	II	31	39
356	33	9r«]^a»	7ra7ptst
386	penult.	their	your
395	penult.	dele had
3	17	catechrefis	catachrefis
63	18	tinfturat	tinftura
J20	13	let	led
199	I	cafe	caufe
210	25	7r«»^ta»	TTOH^Utt
211	12	fail	feal
213	4	dele as after w	ill
	—	major	magis
268	28	his word	God's word
288	4	fee it	fee to it.
382	18 * Bla	ckft. Comm. Introd,	, §2.

CONTENTS.

Volume the First,

Introduction. Containing fame preliminary Re^ Tnarks ■ ■ ■ ■ p* i — 20

Chap. I. Of pofttive Injlitutiom and analogical Reafoning • p. 2i — 98

Chap. II. Of the nature and defign of Bap- tifm /. 99—197

Chap. III. Of the proper fubjeSls of Baptifm

p. 198'— 4I2~

Volume the Second.

Chap. IV. Of the fgnif cation of the terms bap- tize and baptifm — — p. i — 189

Chap. V. ObjeSfiom and Evafiom of Antipcedo- baptifis anfwered — — p. 190-— 266

Chap. VI. Praaical Reflexions p. 267—350 Appendix . p, 351—417

Intended to be publijhed, as foon as the Juihot''s other Engageinents will permity A N

E S S A Y

ON THE

EQUITY OF DIVINE GOVERNMENT,

AND THE

SOVEREIGNTY of divine GRACE.

Wherein, particularly, The

LATITUDINARIAN HYPOTHESIS or INDETERMINATE

REDEMPTION,

AND THE

A'NTINOMIAN NOTION of the DIVINE DECREES being the rule of minifterial conduft, are carefully examined.

By EDWARD WILLIAMS.

Shai.1, not the Judge of all the earth do right? Gen. xviiu 25.

And he doth according to his will in the army of Hea- ven, and among the inhabitants of the earth. Dan. iv. 35.

Why doth he yet find fault ? for wha hath refifted his will ? Nay but, O man, who art thou that replleft againlt God ? Shall the thing formed' fay unto him that formed it, Why hafl thou made me thus ? Rom. ix. 19, 20.

The fecret things belong to the Lord our Ood ; but thofe things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever. Deut. xxix. 29.

ANTIPiEDOBAPTISM E X A M I N E D. ^

INTRODUCTION,

Containing fome Preliminary Remarks,

§ I. The importance of the fuhjeSf. §2. TJje ad^ vantages of a flriSt and impartial inquiry into it, § 3. Preliminary Remarks. § 4« (i) Of the kind of evidence required in this debate. § 5. (2) Concerning the main hinge of the controverfy, § 6. (3) Of defining and explaining the principal terms, § 7* (4) Of hutnan authority and opinion.

§ I. rry hat the fubje<a inveftigated in the X following pages is of a nature con- fiderably important, will hardly be queflioned by any who refledt, that no perfon profeffing chrifti- anity can lawfully exempt himfelf from paying it at leaft a pra6lical attention; for, if he imagine (as the ^akers^ and fome of the followers of SociNus doj that he is under no obligation to B efpoufe

2 Introduction, containing

cfpoufa the pradice of water baptifm, as 2l Jland- ing ordinance in the chriftian church, furely he ought to have fubflantial reafons for that deter- mination, or elfe muft incur the cenfure of pre- cipitate raflinefs and irreligion. It concerns him impartially to judge, whether or not the arguments adduced in favour of this chriftian pradice be of fnperior force to thofe infifted on to juftify an abfolute neglect of it. If the ordinance be from heaven, a law once enafled by the Great Head of the church ; is our evidence for its repeal ftronger than any we have for its continuance? If not, the negleil muft be highly criminal, as implying an impeachment of the divine wifdom, and a contempt of the divine authority*. But if it be an evident truth, that this ordinance is of perpetual obligation, no fmcere chriftian can hefitate a moment from inferring, that it is 6f fome importance to know, how he may bejt dif- charge any duty that relates to it? To fay, that it is of no confequence who is baptized, or im- material how the rite is to be performed, ivithout

due

• The notion, " that this inftitutlon doth not extend to the iefcei.dants of profefling chriftiansj being neither Aiitable fo their circumftances, nor intended to bind them," is juftly ftiJed, by X Gentleman who has lately publiflied on the fubjeft, a r:nu idea concerning bapti&n, as appropriate Ka frijtnt times \ which he refutes by fhewing — that there is nothing in the nature of any particular tommand, or any circumjlance in the injunflion that renders it pecu- liarly proper, or any ways limits it to the perfons and times then prefent, or which immediately fucceeded — and that there is nothing in the rite of baptifm. In its meaning and dejign, that indicates its being founded on partial confidcratlons. See Tevi,MiM'« Effity tn Baptifm, fajf.m.

Preliminary Remarks* j

due examination, is incompatible with chrlftian fincerity. Whatever bears the flamp of divine authority has an undifputed claim on our reve- rential regards. I may further add ; the confider- ation of its frequent occurrence — that moft gof- pel minifters have reiterated calls to determine about the fubjeds and circumftances of it — that there are innumerable families who have re- peated occafions to decide upon the cafe — and, in a word, that no parent of a living child in the whole chriftian world, ought to reckon this ordinance as a matter of mere indifference — thefe confiderations, I fay, and others that might be mentioned, are concurring reafons at once to juftify a ftridt and impartial inquiry into this controverted fubjedl, and thereby an attempt to afcertain its comparative importance.

Thus far, therefore, I have the pleafure to agree with the refpedtable Author whofe publi- cation I more profefledly examine, when he fays, ** Some perfons affeil to reprefent all difputes about the mode and fubjedls of baptifm as not only ftale and unimportant, but as unworthy the character of any who profefs a warm regard for the Perfon, the atonement, and the grace of Jefus Chrift. It muft, indeed, be acknowledged, that church order, pofitive rites, and external forms of worfhip, are not of equal importance with tliofe doctrines which immediately refpecl: the objecSt: of our worftiip, as rational creatures; the ground of our hope, as criminals deferving to periftii or the fource of our bleilednefs, as in- B 2 tended

MoAk^iiiMi

4 Introduction, containing

tended for an immortal exiftence. — But is this a fufficient reafon for treating the law of baptifm as if it were of little or no importance — as if it were obfolete^ or as if our Great Legiflator had no meaning when he enaded it ? — Are we not required to contend earneJlJy^ but with vir- tuous difpofitions, for every branch of that faith which was once delivered to the faints? If, there- fore, infants be folemnly fprinkled by divine right, it muft be the indifpenfible duty of Paedo- baptifts to contend for it*" — efpeclally when at- tacked. To this I would add, if the baptizing of infants be at all a duty, it tnufl be an important one, for it is to be obfer\'ed, as Bp. Butler has done before, " That all chriftians are com- manded to contribute, by their profeflion of chriftianity, . to preferve it in the world; for it is the very fcheme of the gofpel that each chriftian (hould, in his degree, contribute towards continuing and carrying it on; all by uniting in the publick profeflion and external pradice of chriftianity f ," which cannot properly be done without duly attending to the introdusSlory rite to fuch a profeflion.

§ 2. A FAIR inveftigation of the fubjed be- fore us, in its full extent, and the general prin~ ciplcs on which the weight of the controverfy depends, may be attended alfo with fome con- fidtrablc advantages. A liberal, yet modeft, in- quiry after truth, efpecially in matters of duty

and

• Mr. Bootk'j Paidobaptifm Examined. Preface, p. 7. f £vm:it'c Analogy, Put JI, Ch. I, p. 219. 2d. Edit.

Preliminary Remarks, 5

and pra<ftlce, cannot fail of being Immediately advantageous to the inquirer, and, when attended with fuccefs, muft be greatly beneficial in its confequences. For, to difcover trutli, and the evidence of truth, muft needs afford more fub- ftantial profit, and a more generous pleafure, than can be expeded in the mazes of falfehood -and error, ignorance and prejudice. We may reft afTured that the valuable gem, Truth, will lofe nothing of its luftre or worth by a thorough examination. If what has appeared to us, in the femblance of a precious jewel, turn out on a clofer fearch to be no better than a worthlefs pebble, it muft be weak and prepofterous flill to retain and prize it as moft valuable. But if long efteemed as of real worth, and pronounced genuine by many able judges, proportionable caution is neceflary; we (hould turn and view it on every fide, avail ourfelves of the beft light, and every proper advantage, left, gulled by tho artful, ourfelves and our families fuftain an im- portant lofs. If Paedobaptifm be in reality what its oppofers of the prefent day pronounce it to be, namely, " abfurdzn(i unjcriptural'*,'" to refign it will be no lofs, but real gain. But if it be of God, it is a truth', and if it be a truth, there is attainable evidence for its being fo i for, I confefs, I have no high opinion of what Mr. B. . calls a wonderful fecret — truth without evi^ dence-^ tho' it were difcovered by a right re- B 3 verend

* Stbmmxt*! Aofwer to Adoihgton^ p. S34«

6 Introduction, contaimng

verend prelate f . But I would not have Mr. B. be tranfported with joy at the idea of his pof- feffing " greatly preponderating evidence on his fide," till he has better juftified the principles on which he argues j left while he is endeavouring to demolifh the labours of others, and pleafed,

" greatly

•f Bp. Tav ton's Liberty of Prophefying. This prelate, whom Mr. B. fo often quotes, wrote the treatife here referred to in the I times of the rebellion in England j in which he undertake* to ftew, with a view to moderate the rigor of the parliamentarian party, bcw much might be faid of two forts of Diflenters, the AntJp«do- baptifts and the Papifts, — And in his plea for the former, tho' he there declares himfelf well fatisfied with the principles of Px- dobaptifm, of which he gives a fummary account, and fays, that he takes the other opinion to be an (rror j yet under pretence of reciting what may be faid for this error, he draws tip fo elaborate a fyflcm of arguments againft infant baptifm, and fets them forth to fuch advantage, that he is judged to have faid move for the Antipaedobaptifti than they were ever before able to fay for themfelves. And Dr. Ham- mond fays (Six Queries. Infant Baptifm, § 49.) It is the moll diligent colleftion and the moft exaft fcheme of the- argument! ■gainft Infant Baptifm that he had ever met with. Therefore the Dr. wrote an anfwer to this piece, folving each objeflion particularly; towards the conciufion of which (§ J 3 9.) he obl'erves, " I have " pafTed thro' all the feveral heads of arguments that are here propofed, «' and confidered them as nicely as I could, fo as not to let fall one *• word that feemed to me to have any fhew of validity in it, or in " the confcquence of it, and muft confent to the truth of the author*! ** [the Bilhop's] obfervations, " that the Anabaptifts have been en- " couraged in their error more by the accidental advantages given them ** by the weaknefs of thofe arguments that have been brought againft " them, than by any truth of their caufe." And afterwards Bp, Taylok himfelf, having premifed thjt he was forry if any one had been fo weak as to be mifled by fuch objeftions, and that he counted it great condefcenfion in Dr. Hammond to beftovyr an anfwer crt them, wrote alfo his own anfwers to his own objections, and in- ferted thcrt in a latter cdiUoa of the faid treatife, (Sec Wall's

Treatife

Preliminary Remarh, y

** greatly pleafed," with the thought, his own foundation be undermined. Nor would I have him be fo " greatly difcouraged," as he profefles to be, in refpe£l of an iflue to the prefent con- troverfy, while he thinks that the Baptifts alone " will plead preponderating evidence, and firmly infift upon it as a maxim of logical prudence, that our ajpnt (hould always be proportioned to the degree of evidence." Sir, let not this dif- courage you; furely the Psedobaptifts will think better of it than to reject fo excellent a i-ule ia pleading their caufe. For my own part, I have the pleafure to afTure you, that I feel no re- ludance at all to appeal, on every occafion, to fo equitable a maxim, be the confequence what it may. " Nor have I any apprehenfion (to borrow the words of an oppofite writer) that this trial will at all injure the caufe I am de- fendii^i on the contrary, I am well perfuaded B 4 it

Treatife on Infant Baptifm, Part 11. Qhap, 2. § 6,)— After all, tho' there be nothing which we can pronounce to be truth without fuitable evidence, yet in a qualified fcnfe I queftion whether the Bi/hop's re- mark— •* I think there is fo much to be pretended againft that [Pat* dobaptifm] which I believe to be the truth, that there is much more truth than evidence on our fide" — deferve* all that feveiity of fatire vh'ch Mr. B. beftows on it. For by evidttice, I prefume, he intend* a particular kind of evidence, an exprefs command, totidem i;trbit, or, demonftrable fcriptural example : and by truth, a condufion fairly drawn from other premifes. Nor will Mr. B, deny, that there are many things of a religious nature demonftrably true, or in matters of praftice abfolutc dut^, the evidence whereof does not arife from exprefs revelation. Whether this remark will apply to the fubjeft ia queftion, will be further examined.

S Introduction, containing

it will ferve it. It is the part of error, not of truth, to elude inquiry: and he who would e- ilablifli a point in debate, if he is fatisfied of the goodnefs of his caufe, will know how even to avail himfelf of the objedtions of his oppo- nents. Truth is always perfedly confiftent with itfelf: and however collateral circumftances may be fo difguifed, or placed in fuch a point of light by fkilful management, as, for a time, to weaken and confound the plaineft evidence of a real fad ; yet, when thofe circumftances come to be thoroughly looked into, they will not only ccafe to have their efFeft, but will cor- roborate and brighten that evidence to which they before proved fo unfriendly.*"

§ 3. It is no uncommon thing in controver- fial matters for the contending parties to mifun- derftand one another on their firft fetting out; either fome ambiguous terms are not explained, on which, notwithftanding, confiderable ftrefs is laid ; or fomething is much infifted on which has only a remote reference, but is far from being eflential, to the fubjeft in hand; or a multitude of arguments are produced in proof of a point, when mofl, if not all, would have not the leaft plaufibility but from begging the queftion in debate. This method may, indeed, dazzle and confound the weak, but is ill calculated to convince the judicious. This being the cafe, and perhaps never more fo than in difputes about

baptifm,

* StskViet's Anfwer to A, p. 213,

Preliminary Remarks, 9

baptifm, It may be proper to make a few Pre^ Uminary Remarks.

§ 4. (i) I BEGIN then, with a pertinent ob- fervation of an ingenious Antipaedobaptift, which he afterwards exprefsly applies to baptifm. " No theological fubje6t (fays he) requires more ac- curate inveftigation than the article of evidence. Evidence is that which demonftrates. Now there are various kinds and degrees of evidence, and it w^ould very much contribute to clear a point ia debate, were difputants firft of all to agree on cer- tain data, or what (hould be allowed evidence in the cafe in queftion. In law this is a matter of great confequence, and when divines proceed in the methods ufed in our courts ctf law, they gain infinite advantage — They do, as it were, fwear the witneffes before they admit them as evi- dence*."

It is ftrongly infmuated by Mr. B. that what- ever has been faid in vindication of Paedobaptifm is fit only to deceive " fuperficial obfervers.'* Take his own words. " It is manifeft that nothwithftanding the number of evidences ufually fubpcenaed againft us, when the validity of infant fprinkling is to be puhlickly tried; and notwith- ftanding the formidable appearance they frequent- ly make, in the eye of a fuperficial obferverj yet, when thefe very evidences are impartially examined by Psedobaptiils in private^ without being perplexed with captious queries, they have not a word to fay for infant fprinkling j but all B 5 their

* RoBiNtON*4 Notes ooC|.AVDX*ȣflay, Voli 11, p. X47t

l6 IktrobvctioiJj containing

their depofitions are dire^lcd to prove dotSblncj ' and fads of a quite different nature f." Surely this is very aftonifliing if true. What! are all the conclufions of every Psedobaptift difputant fo naked, fo arbitrary, fo irrational, that not one principle is found which, as a faithful evidence, and unfuborned, will fland uniform in its depo- Ittions, unmoved, and unawed by crofs-examin- ation? I would now only beg of the reader to iadmit, that it is at leaft pojpble Mr. B. is milled by too hafty and partial a judgment. Is he fure, has he demonjirated^ not only that the witnefles give evidence in his favour, but that, in Mr. Robinson's phrafe, they are " fworn before they are admitted?" I am not a little fufpicious that his principal witnefs, nay the only one in which he feems to place any confidence, is not legally introduced.

To be a little more explicit ; I apprehend the Antipaedobaptifts build on the following fup-^ pofition as their chief corner ftone, confide in it as their great palladium, and refer to it as the ftandard of all their arguments, namely, " That the law of baptifm in the New Teftament is of a nature intirely pofitive^ as to the fubje<5l and mode of it;" and, if I underftand them right, they are willing that their caufe (hould fiand or fell with it. Thus Mr. B. when animadverting on the conduiSl: of one of his brethren for oc- bafionally quitting that fort, " Except it be inuintained, that pofitive ordinances are to be

intirely f- Wem p, 449»

Preliminary Remarks. II

intlrcly governed by pofitlve law and primitive e^cample, it is hnpoffible for him to ftand his ground hy fair argument in various cafes, when difputing with Pardobaptifts as fuch *." " All who pre- tend, (fays a Gentleman before quoted) to defend infant fprinkling, do but trifle, except they go to the true ground of the debate, and either prove —that infant fprinkling is fomewhere appointed by Chrift our Legiflator — or that the authority of Chrift is not neceflary to the eftabhfhment of z pofitlve Injlltute — or that feme perfon has fmce appeared vefted with fuch authority as Chrift himfelf exercifed t«" A dire dilemma ! But, upon recolle<Sl:ion, to cafe myfelf a httle of this tripple perplexity, I beg leave to return the third part of the difficulty to the author himfelf and the pretended fucceffors of St. Peter, to be amicably fettled between them. The two former I ftiall not trifie with, but fhall endeavour fairly to anfwer them. For as our opponents feem willing to hazard the reputation and exiftenc^ of their caufe with the ftrength of the afore- faid maxim, " Baptifm is a merely positive rite;" — and concluding it to be divine., they in their turn, " in the language of felf-gratulation, repeat the old tffixa of Archimedes, / havf found It! J have found ?V/"— it will be neceflary, and it fhall be the leading part of this work, to examine its pretenfions with ftridnefs. Thus I, alfo, fhall attempt, on proper occafions, to aicer- tain the kinds and degrees of evidence, and B 6 " fwear

* p. 46a« f Robin9oh'» Notes, Vol. lit p. 4134

12 Introduction, containing '

"Jfwear the witnefTes." Nor am I difcouraged at the profpecSl of " proving, that infant baptifm IS SOMEWHERE appointed by Chrift our Legifla- tor."

§ 5. (2) I PROCEED to obferve, that it appears to me extremely defirable, in controverfial de- bates, that the difputants fliould be peculiarly felicitous to fix upon the main hi^ige of the difference between them, as that not only tends to reduce it in bulk, but would alfo fuperfede much impertinence, altercation, and falfe reafon- ing; hereby a fairer opportunity would be afforded for a clofe encounter, the combatants would fland, as it were, upon even ground, and thus we may hope the one party might avoid the charge laid againft it by the other, viz. That it no fooner fixes upon a fpot for the engage- ment, than it finds it neceffary or expedient to quit that for another.

But how (hall a man know what this turning point is? Mr. Robinson afTures us that "Abra- ham's covenant, greek particles, and a thoufand more fuch topicks, no more regard the fubje6t than the firft verfe of the firfl book of Chronicles, Adam, Sheth, Enoni*!" Dreadful fcythe ! And no mean mower, to cut fo much at one flroke ! Dr. S. with more moderation, expreffes himfelf as follows, " This queflion, fays he, —

WHETHER BAPTISM IS A MEAN OF FAITH AND

REPENTANCE? — I take to be the main hinge Upon which the difpute between us and the Pse-

dobaptifls

• Notts on CiAurz, Vol, 11. p, 4231*

Preltmlnary Remarh, I J

dobaptlfts turns f." I am at a lofs, however, how to reconcile this declaration with what he fays elfewhere; for inftance, where he reprefents the fuppofed " joint interest of parents

AND THEIR CHILDREN IN THE COVENANT, aS

that upon which the whole fuperjiru£iure of in- fant baptifm ftands," adding, " What pity then our brethren will not yield to the force of this plain truth, that pofitive inftitutions muft in their own nature derive their authority, not from the uncertain deductions of analogy, but, fiom the clear and exprefs declarations of God's word!" And what would follow? Why, " yield- ing to this propofition, tliey would at once find themfelves obliged to lay afide infant baptifm*." Certainly then, the faid proportion muft be no mean hinge, if not the main one. But has the Dr. or any one elfe, fairly proved not only that the propofition itfelf is true, but alfo applicable to the ordinance of baptifm, and confequently that this " Yielding" is our duty. Ah, hie labsr^ hoc opus £/?, this, this is the main difficulty. What a pity the Paedobaptifts fhould be fo importuned to yield xvithout evidence} — I alfo will fliew mine opinion refpedting the queftion to be decided, and it is tbis,WHETHER IT IS THE WILL OF CHRIST THAT THE INFANTS OF BELIEVING PARENTS

SHOULD BE BAPTIZED? It Certainly is his will that all who are proper fubjedls of baptifm (hould be baptized; we contend that the infants of be- lieving parents are fuch; and therefore fliould

be

•f Anfwcr to A, p, 34, • Idem p. I74»

14 Introduction, containing

be baptized. If they are proved to be proper fubje£ls, that is, fuch as come within Chrift's intention when he inftituted the ordinance, it muft follow that it is his will and pleafure they fliould be baptized. — I fay the infants of believing parents, for it is not effential to the controverfy to inchide any others; what may be faid of others is only a circumftance which does not afFe6t the argument. For the Antipae- dobaptifts' arguments are intended to conclude asainft all children alike, and it muft be as con- clufive againft their fyftem to prove it to be the will of Chrijl that any one infant whatever {hould be baptized, as if all were included in the rea- foning.

Hence another queftion arifes, namely, How

MAY WE KNOW WHAT IS THE WILL OF ChRIST

IN THIS MATTER? Mr. B. replies; " Seeing baptifm is as really and intirely a pofitive in- ftitution, as any that were given to the chofen tribes; we cannot with fafety infer either the mode or the fubje6l of it, from any thing fhort of a precept^ or a precedenty recorded in fcripture, and relating to that very ordinance ||." He frequently exprefles himfelf to the fame purpofe, as do all the writers of note on that fide of the queftion. We fee that Mr. B. intends that this declaration ftiould be applied not only to the mode but alfo to the fubjeSi of baptifm, that is, in other words, to this queftion, " Who is to be baptized?" Now, iadeptndent of the/^<f?, that

the

Preliminary Remark!. re.

the right of infants is or is not fupported by a revealed exprefs precept or precedent, nay, on fuppofttion that there is in fcripture neither^ I maintain that the infants of believers are intitled to the ordinance, and of courfe that the rule he works by is a falfe one. It proves too much, and is reducible, on his own principles, to a downright contradi£tion. This aflertion I hope to make good againft our author in the following pages, notwithftanding what he fays about " pofi- tive laws implying their negatives f ."

What our oppofing friends fay about pofitive ritcs^ precept Sy precedentSy " and a thoufand more fuch topicks," are to no good purpofe, until they demonftrate that the faithful diilates of the law of our nature, of right reafon and common fenfe, ate no part of Christ's will to his people and minifters, when thefe di<Slates are not exprefsly controuled and fupprefled.

It is not a little furprifing to obferve how ftrenuoufly they oppofe moral and analogical reafonings on this one fubjeSl of baptifm, while they juftly aflume the fame liberty with us on other fubjecSts equally pofitive. I do not wifh to fee any, whom Chrift has made free, wear the galling yoke of thofe ceremonies which he did not ivtend (liould continue, tho' commanded by himfelf, and pra6lifed by his primitive difciples. Therefore, this liberty, I fay, they jiijlly take in all New Teftament inftitutions, this of baptifm akne excepted; and this liberty we aflert is the

right

t p. »87.

i6 Introduction, ««/fl/«/«^

right of us <7//, and without exception of any inftitution. The Antipaedobaptifts are guilty of a great piece of inconjijience in making fuch a dif- tindion where there is no apparent ground of difference, and fo in pronouncing judgment •without fuitable evidence \ but we confiftently claim a right of appealing to reafon, analogy, and common fenfe, in connexion with the naturt and dcfign of the inftitution, and the moft apparent intention of our Lawgiver. Nor is it in their power to maintain the perpetiuty of this ordi- nance, againft the Quakers and others, the obli. gation of minifters to baptize thofe who are taught^ &c. but by thofe very aids which they would fain deny us.

§ 6. (3) Inauspicious to this controverfy, above moft: others, terms of ambiguous import, and unexplained, have been bandied about by both parties, on which, however, conftderable ftrefs has been laid; and thus, much confufion and little profit have often attended very labour- ed arguments. For inftance, the term Infant SPRINKLING has been fubftituted for infant baptifm^ not indeed always by way of contempt, but often improperly, becaufe thereby is con- veyed the fecondary idea of a neceflary connexion between the mode fprinkling and the baptifm of an infant. Whereas thoufands are dipped in infancy as well as fprinkled, in the chriftian world, and fome even in England. So that, upon our opponents' own principles, thofe infants who

are

Preliminafy Remarks* ly

are dipped in the name of the Sacred Three, by a Minifter of Chrift, in obedience to his WILL, ought to be reckoned as baptized: for fince they maintain that baptizing and dipping are fynonymous terms, it follows that thofe are baptized who are thus dipped. Not to infift upon the abfurd confequenccr of fubftituting the one term for the other j for then it would alfo follow, that there are many baptifms to vrhich the fame perfon ought often to fubjnit for his health's fakej that as often as a child is dipped it is baptized 5 that as often as any perfon in the world, Chriftian, Jew, Turk, or Heathen, is plunged, on any occafion whatever, he is bap- tized J yea, that as often as any thing is plunged, according to them, it is baptized j whereas I know of no Paedobaptifts who wilh to make fprinkling, or indeed any other particular mode of ufing water, fynonymous with baptifm.

Besides, the queftion is not, whether fcripture cxprefbly enjoins infant baptifm, by a dire6l fpeci- fication, but whether it enjoins baptifm to all proper fubje£ts, and whether the adminiftrator, who has a difcretionary right of judging about qualifications, has fufficient reafons to conclude, or fuch evidence as the nature of the cafe re- quires, that infants are fuch as are included within our Lord's intention, when he inftituted the ordinance. If infants poflefs, as I am per- fuaded they do, the eflcntial qualifications of proper fubjeds, then it was not only needlefs

but

l8 Introduction, containing

but would have been impertinent to fpecify them. When therefore I fpeak of the mode, it is on fuppofition of agreement about the fubje£l; and when I fpeak of the fubjedl, it is on fuppofition of agreement about the mode.

The remark already made on the abufe of terms, is notorioufly exemplified in the word COVENANT, without adding any more inftances. It muft be acknowledged that many Piedobaptift writers have been extremely unguarded in this particular, which has afforded no fmall handle to the oppofite party. But our opponents are not free of blame on this head, and I am not a little furpnfed to find a perfon of Dr. S.'s cir- cumfpe6tion and polemical acumen prolong an argument to above thirty pages, which has no force at all but in proportion as the word covenant is taken in a fenfe which, I am per- fuaded, moft Paedobaptifls reje£t. And this con- duit is the lefs excufeable in this ingenious and worthy writer, becaufe he profefTedly " lays down all the pojjihle fenfe s in which perfons may be faid to be in a covenant*." The Do(5lor, furely, need but to be reminded of this matter, for his own fagacity muft have informed him how inconclulive his reafoning is, had he taken all the poffible fenfes of being in a cove- nant.

§ 7. (4) The numerous quotations in Mr. B.'s Padobaptifm Examined make, indeed, a for- midable ^ • Anfwer to A, Letter II, and III,

Preliminary Retnarh, l'^

mldable appearance^ and the rather becaufe there are among them, as he juftly obferves, " fome of the moft eminent Pa?dobaptifts that ever filled the profeflbr's chair, or that ever adorned the proteftant pulpit." But my judgment intirely fails me if a very great nianber of thefe quota- tions are not perfedly conjijient with the pra6tice of the perfons quoted, and therefore improperly introduced as evidences againft themfelves.

But fuppofmg that all the paffages our author employs were diredly in his favour, and unex- ceptionably tranfcribed or tranllated; nay, were they an hundred times more numerous and large, and ftill more favourable to the caufe for which he pleads, it is evident from his own declara- tion, that he ought not to confider " either the number or weight of fuch quotations, as con- ftituting any part of the ground on which the diftinguifhing conducSl of the party proceeds," or on which the caufe depends. That many great and learned men have entertained different and even contradictory fentiments on the fubje(SV, does not affe<5l it. That one Ihould give up a topick in the debate, which another thought valid, is immaterial. It is of little confeq lence, in point of argument in the prefent cafe, to urge what is the opinion of good and wife men upon the matter i whereas it is of efiential importance to inquire whether what is pleaded for be de- fenfible or indefenfible. Amicus Socrates^ amicus Plato if(d major arnica Veritas. It is certainly

very

to Introduction; &c."

very becoming, that the fentiments and tefti- monies of refpe6lable authors fhould be treated with modefty and decorum, but I muft beg leave to difcard all human authority, or human opinion, fmgly or collectively taken, from bearing any part cf the principal evidence j for I would ap- peal to the cafe itfelf, and not to the number or manner of its defenders or oppofers.

?r

CHAP.

Of Ptjttive In/lltutUnSy iSc, 2x

CHAP. I.

Of the nature and obligation of pofitive laws and inftitutions in general, together with the ufe of inferential and analogical reafoning, with relation to the ordinance of baptifm.

§ I. Of law in general. § 2. Pofttive laws and inflitutions defined and explained. § 3. Pofitive precepts difinguijhed from moral ones. § a. Their comparative obligations. § 5. The impor~ tance of pofitive infiitutions. § 6. They are neceffarily of an external nature. § ']. They prfuppofe the dilates oj reafon and revelation, § 8- J^il the infiitutions of chrifiianity are of a mixed nature. ^ g. Js appears {1) from the falfe principle on which the contrary opinion is founded, ^10. (2) From the concejfions of opponents^ as io the nature of pofttive inftitutions. §11 — i j.. (3) From inconteftible faSfs. § 15. How to determine what is pofitive and what is moral in a mixed Iciw. § lb. The importance of analogical reafontng. § 17, 18. To deny the ufe of it in tier inquiries about baptifm^ leads to abfurd confix quences. ( 1 ) lyithout ity we can know nothing about the ordinance. § ig — 22. (2) Our opponents cannot prove their authority t» adminifier, and the

validity

'22 Of Pifittve Injfttuttms Cli. i.

validity of the eiiien, §23 — 26. (3) Nor ta determine whs is a proper fuhjeii. § 27. (4) Other ridiculous anfequences. § 28, 29. (5) TranfubJIantiation retorted. § 30. Extremes of different kinds. § 31 — 34. ObjeSlians enfwered, § 35. Recapitulation.

§ I. T AW, in its mofl general and com- A...J prehenfive import, fignifies a rule of eiiion^ didtated by fome fuperior. And man, confidered as a creature, muft neceflarily be fub- je<Sl to the Laws of his Creator, as to difpofi- tion and condu£l; and is bound, from the very idea of his abfolutc dependence, to regulate his aclions and behaviour according to the intima- tions of his fovereign pleafure. — The will of God is the grand law of our nature. But this will is difcoverable principally two ways ; either by human fcigacity — including that intuitive per- ception whereby we difcem what is moft: condu- cive to our own welfare, which welfare the will of our Maker ever fuppofes, and the exertions of right reafon — or by dire^ revelation. " If our reafon (fays an eminent writer) were always as in our firfl: ancerior before his tranfgrefiion, clear and perfedl:, unrufBed by palTions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by difeafe and intempe- rance, the tafk of difcovering what the law of nature directs in evei;y circumflance of life would be pleafant and eafy ; we fhould need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience j that his reafon

is

Ch. I. and Jnalogical Reafonln^. '2J

is corrupt, and his underftanding full of Jgaorancc and error. This has given manifold oocafion for the benign interpofition of divine providence ; which, in compaflion to the frailty, the imper- fection, and the blindnefs of human reafon, hath been pleafed, at fundry times and in divers man- ners, to difcover and enforce its laws by an immediate and direft revelation. The dodrines thus delivered, we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy fcrip- tures. Thefe precepts when revealed, are found upon comparifoR to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in their confequences to man's felicity*."

It is to be carefully noticed, that revelation, as referring to human anions, performs a double part ; it either renders more authentick and indu- bitable, what human fagacity perceived as proba- ble, or elfe enjoins duties which mere reafon could never have difcovered. Hence arifes the obvious diftindlion of moral and pofitive laws.

§ 2. By pofitive taws I underftand, fuch laws as do not appear to us obligatory, except upon the mere authority \ of the Divine Legiflator. And

for

* Blackstoke's Commentaries, Vol. T. Introd, § a,

•f- Whin I fay that the obhgation of pofitive laws refts upon the mere authority of the Legiflator, let the reader obferve, that this it not to be confounded with an ariitraty difpofiiion in the Deity. This diftiniSiion is well defcribed by an elegant and phi> lofophic pen : *' When fome fpeak of the JVill of Cod at the *« Rule of Duty, they do not certainly mean a blind arbitrary " principle of aflioiif but fuch a principle as i) dirtlftd by res-

54 Of Po/ttiV4 Injfttutloni Gh. I.

this ' Jhority is fufficiently and abfolutely binding from the confideration of our being previoufly aflured of the wifdom, juflice, and goodnefs of God, who ena£ls the law. Pofitive injiitutions, llridlly taken, are a fpecies of pofitive laws, and differ as a law differs from an injiitution. The former may be tranfient, but the latter is, at leaft for a term, of {landing obligation. The command given Abraham to facrifice his fon, was a pofitive la>w^ but not properly fpeaking an inftitution; and the right of circumcifion was a pofitive in/iitution as well as a law. Jefus commanding Peter to walk on the water, was a tranfient law, but his command to go and baptize proper fub- jedls of all nations, is a permanent inftitution. " And altho' no laws but pofitive be mutable, yet all are not mutable which be pofitive. Pofitive laws are either permanent or elfe changeable, ac- cording -

•* fon, and governed by wifdom, or a regard to certain ends in pnferenct ** to others. Unlefs we fuppofe fome principle in the Deity analogous *• to our fenfe of obligation, feme antecedent afi'eilion, or deteroii- •• nation of his nature, to prefer fome ends before others, we ••cannot afilgn any fufficient, oi indeed any pofTible reafon, why he •• fhould will one thing more than another, or have any election " at all. Whatever therefore is the ground i:ii his choke or will *' inuft be the ground of obligation, and not the choice or will *• itfelf. — That this is fo, appears farther from the common dif- " tinftion which divines and philofophers make between moral " and pofiti-ve commands and duties. The former they think ebli- *' gatory, antecedent to will, or at leaft to any declaration of itj •* the latter obligatory only in confequence of a pofitive appoint- " ment of the divine will. But what foundation can there be for «» this diftinftien, if all duty and obligation be equally the refult «« of mere wili f" FoRBTCz's Elements of Moral Pbilofapby, B. I, S«ft. 3,

Ch. 1. £ind Jnalogkal Reafoning. 25

cording as the matter itfelf is, concerning which they were firft made f."

§ 3. It is evident, upon the leaft reflexion,

that pofitive laws are no further binding than the

authority by which they are enjoined is dlfccrm-

ble. And it is equally evident, that there is

no poflible method of difcerning the Lawgiver's

authority and wiU, relative to thefe laws, but

by his own exprefs declarations ; for if they

are difcermble any other way, they are no longer

pofitive. The difference.^ therefore, between po-

fitive and moral commands is clear and obvious.

" Moral precepts, (as Bilhop Butler well ob-

fcrves) are precepts the reafons of which we fee :

politive precepts, are precepts, the reafons of

which we do not fee." But I would further

obfen^e, with the fame fagacious author, that

" this is the diftinclion between moral and po--

Utive precept?, confidered refpeilively as fuch.'-—

Moral and pofitive precepts are in fome refpe<5ts

alike, in other refpeds different. So far as they

are alike, we difcern the reafons of both: fo far

as they are different, we difcern the reafons of

the form.er, but not of the latter. And, moral

duties arife out of the nature of the cafe itfelf,

prior to external command : pofitive duties do

not arife out of the nature of the cafe, but

from external command: nor would they be

duties at all, were it not for fuch command,

received from him whofe creatures and fubjedts

we are.— -Care, then, is to be taken, when %

C comparifon

X Hookir's Eccles, Polit, F, I. § 15,

26 Of Pojitive Injiitut'ions Ch. 1.

comparifon is made between pofitive and moral duties, that they be compared no farther than they are different: no farther than as the former are pofitive, or arife out of mere external com- mand, the reafons of which we are not acquaint- ed with; and as the latter are moral, or arife out of the apparent reafon of the cafe, without fuch external command. Unlefs this caution be obferved^ we Jl:>all run to endlefs confufion *.'* Whether Mr. B. is fuffieiently cautious in ob- ferving this neceflaiy diftinclion, will appear, I prefume, in the fecjuel of this treatife. ..§,4. The following remarks from the above mentioned author, concerning our comparative it ligations to obey pofitive and moral commands, appear jull and pertinent. " Suppofe two Hand- ing precepts injoined by the fame authority; that, in certain conjunctions, it is impollible to chey both; that the former is moral, i. e. a pre- cept of which we fee the reafons, and that they hold in the particular cafe before us ; but that the latter is pofitive, i. e. a precept of which we do not fee the reafons; it is indifputable that our obligations are to obey t\\Q fortner-y becaufe there is an apparent reafon for this preference, and none againft it. Farther, pofitive Inftituti- ons,^ I fuppofe all thofe which chriftianity enjoins, are 7}jeans to a moral end; and the end mull be acknowledged more excellent than the means. Nor is the obfervance of thefe inftitutions any religious obedience at all, or of any value, other- wife

t Butler's Analogy, Part II, Chap, I. p. 227,

CIi. r. end jinaloglcal Reafoning, 27

wife than as it proceeds from a moral principle. I add, that the whole moral law is as much matter of revealed command as pofitive inflitu- tions are; for the fcripture injoins every moral virtue. In this refpeil then they are both upon a level. But the moral law is, moreover, writ- ten upon our hearts; intei-woven into our very nature. And this is a plain intimation of the author of it, which is to be preferred when they interfere. — — Upon occafion of mentioning toge- ther pofitive and moral duties, the fcripture always puts the ftrefs of religion upon the latter, and never upon the former: which, tho* no fort of allowance to negle61: the former, when they do not interfere with the latter; yet is a plain inti- mation, that when they do, the latter are to be preferred. — Our Lord himfelf, from whofe com- mand alone the obligation of pofitive inftitutions arifes, has taken occafion to make the comparifon between them and moral precepts; when the Pharifees cenfured him, for eathtg zvith puhUcam and finners', and alfo when they cenfured his dif- ciples, for plucking the ears of corn on the fab., bath day. Upon this comparifon he has deter* mined exprefsly, and in form, which fliall have the preference when tliey interfere. And by delivering his authoritative determination in a proverbial manner of exprcffion, he has made it general : / will have mercy and not facrifice. For the fenfe and the very literal words of our Lord's anfwer, are as applicable to ayiy other inflitution, on u companion between pofitive and moral C 2 dutie?,-

23 Of Pofit'ive Injlltutmn Cli. r.

duties, as ta this upon which they were fpoken. It is remarkable too, that, as the words are a quotation from the Old Teftament, they are introduced, on botli the forementioned occafions, with a declaration, that the Pharifees did not underftand the meaning of them. This, I fay, is very remarkable. For fince it is fcarce pofll- ble, for the mod: ignorant perfon, not to under- ftand tlie literal fenfe of the paflage in the prophet; (Hof. vi.) and fmce underftanding the Irtcral fenfe would not hava prevented their con- deimiing the guiltlcj's\ (Mat. xii. 7.) it can hardly be doubted, that the thing which our Lord really intended in that declaration, was, that the Pharifees had not learnt from it, as they might, wherein the general fpirit of religion confifts. — Yet it is highly necelTary that we remind ourfelves, how great prefumption it is to make light of any infthutions of divine appointment; that our obli- gation to obey all God's commands whatever, are abiblute and indifpenfible: and that com- mands merely pofitive, admitted to be [fuch, and] from him, lay us under a moral obligation to obey them : aji obligation moral in the flrideft and mofi: proper fenfe *."

It may here be obje61:ed, " Was not Abraham commendable for obeying a pofitive command at the expenfe of a moral one?" I anfwcr, Abraham did well to obey the command to facrifice his fon, for it was in perfect confidence with the ?norality of the fixth command. Which only

implies • BuTtEh's Analogy, ui fupra. p. 230 — 234.

Ch. r. and Analogical Reofoning, 2^

implies that one man has no right to take away the hfe of another unjujlly^ but by no means intends that God has no right to take away the forfeited life of a finful creature, which is abfo- lutely at his difpofal, by what. methods he picafcs. Whatever excellence there was in Abraham's obedience, muft fpring from a difpofition regard- ing God's abfolute dominion, power, wifdom, &c. And his facrificing Ifaac was no duty any further than he was certain God commanded it. Had he been more forward or particular in that bufmefs than the command v/as exprefs and cir- cumftantial, he muft have been in that proportion guilty of a prefumptuous crime; inafmuch as the pofitive command required him to offer vio- lence to the natural feelings of humanity. Dr. GitosvEKOR well obferves, " Where the evidence is not fo clear, the obligation is weakened in proportion; but where the terms are plainly bind- ing, and ftrongly commanding, there the obliga^ tion is not to be evaded. — When we fee the broad feal of heaven, where there is the divine v/arrant, Thus faith the Lords it is worfe than trifling, to cavil and fay. It is but an external rite." — But we ihould not forget, that tho' all pofitive duties are above the reach of mere reafon, fome may be more remote than others; and the nearer thofe duties approach to our natural noti- ons of congruity and expediency, the lefs is the (evidence of pofitive authority, and therefore a fmaller degree of it is propordo.iably binding. C 3 § 5. Not-

30 Of Poftthe Injiltuttons Ch. i,

§ 5. Notwithstanding the indlfputable fuperiority of laws natural and moral to thofe of a pofitive nature, whenever they come in compe- tition, the latter are of very great ufe and con- fequence. " The very notion of a vifible church implies pofitive inflitutions, for the vifibilhy of the church confijis in them. Take away every thing of this kind, and you lofe the very notion itfelf. So that if a vifible church and an inftituted me- thod of education, are advantages, the reafon and importance of pofitive inflitutions in general is moft obvious, fince without them thefe advan- tages could not be fecured to the world f."

§ 6. All ads of religious worfhip are either internal or external. All internal a£ls are of uioral confideration as refulting from certain rela- tions. As foon as thefe relations are difcovered, whether by the di61:ates of reafon or pure reve* laticn it matters not, the obligation of duty na- turally arifes from them, independent of any external command to inforce the fame. The pro- priety of this diftinilion will eafily api^ear when we obferve, that no internal adl of religion can le our duty but what fprings from relative con- fiderations, and fince no relation fubfifting be- tween moral agents can be afcertained^ but we are immediately, from the nature of the cafe, laid under every obligation poffibly aflignablc. Hence it follows, that whatever precepts and duties deferve the name of pofitive^ muft be of an external nature. Indeed " a dlfpofition to obey.

divine

^ Idem, f. 216, 217,

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning, 31

divine orders, either pofitive or moral, (as Dr. Grosvenor juftly obferves) is part of that ho- Unefs without which no man Jhall fee the Loid.^* But then it is equally true, that this very diC- pofxtion is, in the propereft fenfe, of moral obli- gation prior to any external command, and, therefore, is perfeftly diftin<St in its nature from the pofitivemfs of thofe divine orders. But not- withftanding all pofitive duties be in their own nature external^ it does not follow, that all ex- ternal ads of religious wor(hip are alfo pofitive. To elucidate this matter a little I w^ould offer thefe two remarks :

I. That God is to be worflilpped in general^ tvtnm fame external form, is of ?y7(j;W obligation. For, as the obligation of internal worfhip arifes from the relation we {land in to God, without a pofitive command, fo it is clear, from the nature of the cafe, this internal worrtiip, reverence,- gra- titude, &c. ought to be externally manifejled in a manner fuited to thcfe emotions. Nor can it be doubted, that there is a natural congruity between fuch internal emotions and certain moda of exprefiing them in preference to others as lefs proper; for there are, doubtlefs, jome pojiures and geftures of the body, independent of na- tional cuftom, or the like circumftances, that may with more propriety than others be termed, reve- rent, humble, modeft, decent, devout, &:c. and we are under a moral obligation to prefer the moft becoming, whenever this is not determined by pofitive command.

C 4 2» That

32 Of Pofitive Injlltutlont Ch. i.

2. That any particular external mode of wor- fhip is enjoined to men, the leafon and propriety of which dods not appear prior to the externa^ command, is of pofitive confideration. Pofitive precepts, may be confidered as certain exceptions from a general rule, but as a general rule and common analogy ought to be quitted only where they are incompatible with the exception, and precifely in that degree ^ fo we are to recede from moral and analogical reafoning, in our inquiries after the path of duty, only when obliged by a pofitive precept as fuch^ or exadly in the propor- tion it is fo, and no further. For to do other- wife would be to quit a common rule without any apparent neceffity ; and to deviate from a way, which is at leaft: probably the right one, to another which is abfolutely uncertain. To this I would add, that the circumflances of an avStion being Jiaturally cc-nvenietd^ may and ought to have conliderable influence in determining what is or is not our duty, in thofe circum- Aances of it that are indeterminate; for this plain reafon, that we are fure the law of felf- prefervation is the law of God in all thofe cafes where he has not (hewn us the contrary. Whatever, therefore, appears to militate againft life, health, and comfort, without any revealed warrant, may and ought to be avoided, on the principles of natural law and obligation. This is applicable to all the unprefcribed circumftances of pofitive duties, as well as to thofe of a moral kind. " Tliis law of nature, (as Sir William

Black..

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 33

Blackstone obferves) being coeval with man- kind and di(5lated by God himfelf, is of courfe fuperior in obligation to any other. It is bind- ing over all the Globe, in all countries, and at all times*," when not exprefsly countermanded by pofitive interpofition.

§ 7. From what has been faid we may fur- ther conclude, that a pofitive inftitution is a kind of 'ingrafture^ fo to fpeak, upon the law of our nature; the former is the fcyon, the latter is the ftock. The choice of the inftitution depends upon the fovereign pleafure of God. But when this is determined, the law of nature written in our hearts, the principles of reafon and com- mon fenfe, or fome revealed law, are prcfup' pofcd^ and may be compared to the flock upon which the ingrafture is made. For as the fcrip- ture itfelf flieweth not with certainty what books are divine; as all acceptable obedience to divine commands prefuppofes a fuitable difpofition ; as all arts and fciences have their pracognlta^ and every branch of abftrufe learning prefuppofes firft principles, and even the mofl infallible geome- trical demonftration its axioms and poftulates; fo all pofitive Jaws and inftitutions . take fome principles for granted.

§ 8. Another confequence that follows na- turally from the preceding confidcrations is this: That there are no precepts now in force, at leaft, of a nature tmrely pofitive. None, I mean, wherein all the minutla of circumflances neceffai-y C 5 for

34 Of Pofittve Inftitutions Ch. I.

for the difcharge of the duty commanded are fpecified by the Lawgiver; and therefore thofe inftitutions of chriftianity which are commonly termed pofitive are but partially fo. The necef- fity of afcertaining this difference in the prefent controverfy is very apparent; and yet it has fomehow hitherto been ftrangely overlooked, by both contending parties. The Paedobaptifts in general have tamely fubmitted to this pofition, *' Baptlfm and the Lord's Supper are pofitive infli- itttions" in its moft abfolute and undiftinguiflied fenfe, as a maxim not to be controverted; and the Antipaedobaptifts are, doubtlefs, much obliged to us for this piece of complaifance, as it is evidently the main pillar of their caufe, and the armour in which they truft. Pertinent to our pre- fent purpofc is the following remark of Bp. War- burton ; " When two parties go upon different [principles] they naturally begin with examining one another's, whereby the true being at length fettled or difcovered, by its aid the controverfy is timely determined; but where a f^lfe principle has the luck (as his Lordihip expreffes it) to be embraced by both fide s^ they may wrangle for ever, and be, after all, but farther from the truth*." But it may be afked, if we refign the good old maxim, " that the two ftanding ordinances of chriilianity, Baptifm and the Lord's Supper, are fofitiv£ inftitutions, and ahfolutcly fo," and allow that they are of a mixed nature, or partly pofitive and partly moral ; how are we to draw the line

of

* Bp, Warbur ton's Alliance, B, I. Seil, i«

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafontng% 35

of diftiiKflion ? If moral and pofitive precepts thus run into each other, like the fhades of a painted figure, or the colours of the rainbow, how can we afcribe to all their due, or determine where the one ends and the other begins? I'owards folving this difficulty I beg leave to propofe the following obfervations.

§ 9. (i) It is utterly abhorrent from found divinity, as well as logical precifion, not to fay chriftian modefty, to determine, a priori^ with what degree of evidence any given particular inftitution ought to have been delivered by the divine Legiflator, any more than what the infti- tution itjelf fliould be.

For, as Bp. Butler obferves, " our prin- cipal obligation of fearching the fcripture, and to what all our inquiries ought to be direiled, is, in order to fee what the fcheme of revelation really is, inftead of determining before hand from reafon, what the reafon of it mu/l be *.'* To invejligate the degree of evidence from the fail of the inftitution, and to infer the degree of the obligation from the evidence found, is our pro- vince j but to determine what the nature and degree of the evidence -mujl be, is the exclufive prerogative of the Inftitutor himfelf, whofe will and authority muft be the fole and exclufive ground of the inftitution.

I AM, therefore, not a little furprifed to find the gentleman, whofe work I am more immedi- ately examining, and for whofe abilities and 'dif- C 6 pofition

• BuTtEa's Analogy, ut fu^rat,

36 Of Poftt'ive Injlltktlons Ch. r."

pofitlon I have a real efteem, exprefling himfelf as follows : " Pofitive inftitiitions originate in the divine pleafure, and derive their whole being from the fovereign will of God. — We cannot kno-w any thing about their precife nature, their true defign, the proper fubje6ls of them, or the right mode of tlieir adminift ration further than the fcriptures teach. — It does not appear from the records of the Old Teftament, that, when Je- hovah appointed any branch of ritual worfhip, he left either the fubjefl: of it, or the mode of ad- miniftration, to be inferred by the people, either from the relation in which they ftood to himfeif j or from general moral precepts ; or from any branch of his moral worihip ; nor yet from any other well known pofitive rite: but he gave them fpecial diredioiis relating to the very cafe. For as nothing but the divine will can oblige the confcience, and as thai will cannot be knoxvn^ unhfs revealed-^ fo when made known, whether in reference to moral or pofitive duties, it mud oblige. Consequently, seeing baptism is as

REALLY AND INTIRELY A POSITIVE INSTITU- TION AS ANY THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE

CHOSEN TRIBES, wc cannot with fafety infer either the mode or the fubje^l: of it, from anv tiding fliort of a precept or precedent, recorded jn fcriptyre, and relating to that very ordinance. It feems natural hence to infer:, that our fovereio:n Lord MUST HAVE REVEALED HIS WILL Con- cerning' the ordinance of baptifm in a manner 'fnporticnal to its obligation and importance.

For,

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. ^7

For, as an appointment of Chrirt:, it orlguiated in his will, and from a revelation of that will the whole of its obligation refults. In propor- tion, therefore, as we annex the idea of ohfcurky to what he fays about the mode and the fubjcft of it,- we either fink, the idea of obligation to regard it, or impeach the ivlfdom^ or the goodnefs^ or the equity of our divine Lcgijlator : - for we neither have, nor can have any acquaintance with a pofitive inflitution, farther than it is revealed. We are, THEREFORE, obliged to conclude that our Lord HAS CLEARLY REVEALED his pleafure, with re- ference to this appointment, in that code of law, and rule of religious woriliip, which he gave to the church, in the volume of the New Tefla- ment*."

Thus alfo Dr. S. " Here I would obferve then, that all pofitive inftitutions depend folely Upon the will of the inllitutor, and that therefore in every queftion relating to them, we mufl be guided by his ecprejs dec'-arations^ or by thofe of perfons he has daly authorized to fignify his xvill. Nor is it to be doubted that a wife legllla- tor wall, in all mitters of this fort, take care to exprefs his mind in the mo ft plain and intelligible m inner. Now bapti.fm is a pofitive inftitution of Chrirt: and, agreeably to his infinite wifdoni and goodnefs, he has exprefled himfelf. in the mnji clear and explicit manner refpeSling both the mode and the fubjeit of it. — And therefore the ifTue of this inquiry ought to be relied xilone

upon

* p. II — 13.

3? Of Pofitlve Injlitutims Ch. i.

upon his own exprefs declarations^ and thofe of his apoitles and firft minifters *." — And again, *' A right to baptifm muft depend, and depend alone, upon the dire£t exprefs command of the inftitutor; for it is abfurd to talk of analogy and confequence in the matter of pofitiveinftitutionsf." And again, "As pofitive duties depend folely upon the will of the inftitutor, every queftion refpedling them ought in reafon to be decided by his exprefs declarations ; which declarations, if he be a zvife legijlator^ willy no doubt, be clear and explicit %." There are other paiTages in both thefe writers very much to the fame pur- pofe.

Not to ftop to examine the truth and pro- priety of fome things in the above quotations which are taken for granted ; fuch as the abfolute pofitivenefs of every branch of ritual worfliip under the Old Teflament ceconomy; wherein nothing was to be inferred by the people; or to inquire whether it can be jujlly concluded that becaufe^ on fuppofition that the Old Teftament rituals were of that kind, thofe of the New Teflament mnjl be fo likewife; both which I believe they would find too difficult to prove : pafling by fuch things, let us attend to the point of immediate confiderationi — which is to demonftrate contrary to thefe alTertions, that the New Teftament inditutions are not of a nature merely pofitive', or, in other words, that Baptifm and the Lord's Supper, in their completenefs and comprehenfion,

aie

* Anrwer to A, p. 3, 5, -f p, 90. | p. 1931

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 3^

are inftltutions of a mixed nature, that is to fay, partly pofitive and partly moral. And in profe- eution of this defign I further obferve that,

§ 10. (2) From thefe gentlemen's own account. It follows, that the inftitutions of the New Teft- anient are either of a mixed nature or not at all pofitive. For according to them, all matter! of this fort rtiould be expreffed in the mofc glaiii and intelligible, the mofl: clear and explicit man- ner; and, THEREFORE, feeing baptifm and the Lord's Supper are not in fact fo circumflan- tially defcribed as not to need, or io minutely exprefs as to prohibit moral reafoning, analo- gy and confequence; it inevitably follows, that, if thefe inftitutions are not of a mixed nature, partly pofitive and partly moral, they are no pofitive inftitutions at all. And as they allow none to be of that fort but thefe two, chriftia- nity mufl be left without any; and fince chriili- anity is the laft and luialterable difpenfation of religion among men, it is impofhble there fliould be any to the end of time; and fo all pofitive inftitutions are, on their own fuppofition, fairly and utterly banifiied out of the world.

Besides, their anticipated mode of determining the degree of evidence with which a pofitive law enght to he ena<Sl:ed, is quite fubverfive of the very nature of fuch a law; for it is allowed on all hands, and by thefe gentlemen in the plain- eft terms, that the diftinguifhing nature of pofi- tive laws confifts in the meafure and the degree of their injlitution.^ and that they derive their

whole

'40 ^f Pofit'we Injiltut'ions Ch. f .

whole being from the foverelgn vj'iU of God. Arid thus their reafoning is built upon a petitlo principil^ a beggiag of the queftion, whereby they firft take it for granted, that baptifm is an in- (litution merely pofitive, and then take it further for granted, that being fuch it mnji be free from all obfcurity.

§ II. (3) But if it be contended, that our Lord has, a£iuallyy been plain and explicit in the inftitution of this ordinance, and that therefore it is eafy to be underftood : I might afk, to ivhojn is it eafy ? and what fcnfe of it is eafy ? Is it the honeft chriftian, the judicious divine, the learned critic, or the profound univerfal fcho- lar to whom the fcnfe is eajy ? But what fenfe of the inftitution is fo plain and eafy? Mr. B. and Dr. S. no doubt, think that their own fenfe bids fair for this character. But here is an ex- traordinary phenomenon ! here are not a few thoufands of honed chriftians ; not a few hun- dreds of judicious divines, learned critics, profound fcholars ; commentators who have developed the moft abftrufe parts of holy writ ; who yet cannot fee this fenfe of the infiitution which is fo eafy. Can that fcnfe of a paffage of fcripture, or of the nature and defign of an inftitution, be with any propriety called plain and eafy^ clear^ explicit and moj} ifitelligib/e^ which five men out of twenty contend is the true fenfe, but which the other fifteen, pofTeffed of an equal fhare of parts, piety and learning, maintain is the wrong fenfe ? That great numbers fliould unanimoufly ftand out againfi fome kinds of truth, not very ab- ftrufe

Ch. r. ofid Analogical Reajon'wg. 4^

/Irufe in their own nature, is a very pofTible Cafe ; either when a truth may not appear to be of fo much importance as to engage perfons duly qualified to ftudy it with clofe application; or when it has been a point of mere fpeculation; or when flavifli fear and W'Orldly intereft have prevailed over the honfell diilates of coafcience; but that fo many proteflant worthies, who have left all to follow Chrift; thv%t fo many learned commentators and cafuifts, of unblemiftred cha- ra£ter, of unexceptionable ability, having no in- terefl: to ferve vi/hereby the judgment fnould be biaffed, or the confcience bribed; calling no man mafter upon earth, but, with a generous freedom, (liaking off the prejudices of education, the ihacicles ofcuflom, and the influence of different fyftemsj th at thefe, I fay, flwuld oppofe unanimouily the fcnfe of an inftitution quite plain and eafy to be underftood, is a cafe, I believe, unparallelled and unaccountable. 1 would rather infer, and with what propriety let the reader judge, that either the Antipaedobaptifl fcnfe of Chrifl's inftitution is not at all the true fcnfe, or, at any rate, a fenfe very (iLfficult to come at.

§ 12. But Mr. B. ftill urges, that " in pro- portion as we annex the idea of obfcurity to what is faid about the mode or the fubje6l of baptifm, we either fmk the idea of obligation to regard it, or impeach the wifdom, or the goodnefs, or the equity of the divine Legiilator." That his idea of the inftitution of baptifm, as an Anti- r.tuoBAPTisT, appears to by far the greater

number

4-4 Of Pofitive Injlltutions Ch. i.

number of competent judges an oh/cure one, is an inconteftible /ff.3 J judges competent, I mean, in a moral as well as natural refpecl. And, tlierefore, it follows, on his own principles, that their obligation to adopt the Antipaedobaptift Hypothefis is fimk in proportion; and that the perfons, fo qualified, who can fee no truth in it, are under no obligation to embrace it ; but are obligated to retain the P-sidobaptist fyftem, as what they fee more clearly.

Allowing, therefore, our annexing the Idea of ohfcurity to what is faid about the fubje(St and the mode of baptifm, in the refpe6l now mentioned, to be true, I might be excufed from vindicating myfelf and my friends from the crime of impeaching the divine wifdom, goodnefs, and veracity, by adopting the alternative of finking the obligation; were it not that Mr. B.'s charges fun ftill higher, when fpeaking of the fignifica- tion of the terms of the inflitution. " Nay, fays he, were the leading term in any human law, to have an ambiguity in it, equal to that for which our Brethren plead with regard to the word baptljm; fuch law would certainly be con- fidered as betraying, either the weaknefs, or the wickednefs, of the legiflator; and be condemn- ed, as opening a door to perpetual chicane and painful uncertainty. Far be it, then, from us to fuppofe, that our gracious and omnifcient Lord Ihould give a law relating to divine wor- ship, and obligatory on the mofl illiterate of his real difcipies, which may be fairly conikued to

mean,

Cli. I. and Analogical Reafoning, 4j

mean, this or that or the other adion — a law which is calculated to excite and perpetuate con- tention among his wifefi: and fmcereft followers— a law, that would difgrace a Britifli Parliament in refpe6l of its tripple meaning, as being involved in the dark ambiguity of a Pagan oracle f." What! and is Mr. B. alfo among the analogical, hypothetical, and confequential rea- foners, upon the matter of a pofitive inftitutlon ? This mode of reafoning, on our principles, would have fome plaufibility ; on his is quite out of character. But what fignifies fetting up our own idea of propriety againft a plain fasSl; it is a faSf^ that wife and good men cannot fee the eflentiality of dipping in the leading term of this law; while Mr. B. and his friends think they do. It is •a.faSiy that wife and good men fincerely believe the law of chriftian baptifm extends to infants, and that they are as much included in the very terms as their parents are. But does it from thence follow, that our Divine Legiflator has lefs wifdom than a Britilh Parliament; or deiigns an impofition like a Pagan oracle?

§ 13. Mr. B.'s argument is, that as the principal terms of all approved human laws are without ambiguity in their meaning, therefore much more ought the laws of Chrift relating to divine worfliip to be fo. But do we forget that pofitive inftitutions depend intirely on the Jovercign will of Heaven, and that we know yiothing about them further than they are revealed? Al- lowing

t P- 34'

44 ^f Pofitive Inji'itutions Ch. r»

lowing this; yet, it may be objecled, if our all- v\'ife Legiflator does enail any law of this kind, ■we may reafonably prefume that it will be fo plain and eafy that the moft illiterate of his real difciples cannot miftake its meaning. This is ftill indulging fuppofitlon againft fa^.

Let us fuppofe, for illuftration' fake, that an ante-diluvian faint had adopted this mode of reafoning. — " It is true, it depends intirely on *' the fovereign will of God whether he will re- " veal himfclf to my pofterity, whether he will " give them laws and pofitive inftitutions, to re- *' gulate their lives and prove their obedience ; *' but if he do fo favour them, I may eafily infer " from his infinite wifdom, goodnefs and equity; *' from his omnifcience, and grace, that thefc " laws and inflitutions mufl be fo plain and eafy *' that the moft ignorant of the righteous, cannot " mifinterpret them. For were I, a finful fhort- " fighted creature, to form a code of laws for " my pofterity, they fliould be all of that charac- *' ter, and therefore much more will thofe v/hich " the Moft High may deliver, be free from all " ambiguity. Yes, He fees the end from the " beginning; and as he is capable by reafon of " his unerring wifdom, fo he is bound by his " immenfe goodnefs, to prevent all occafion of " chicane and painful uncertainty. If prophets " be raifed to addrefs my ruined pofterity, their " meffage muft be fo plain and eafy to be un- *' -derftood, that none of thofe to whom they are " delivered can miftake their meaning ; their cre-

" dentiaJs

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafoning, 45

" dentials muft be of fuch a nature as to admit, *' of no debate whether they fhould be credited *' or not. And when the promifed Saviour ap- ** pears, he will, undoubtedly, deliver himfelf in *' fuch a manner as to prevent all difpute among " his followers, efpecially concerning matters of *' everlafting moment. There will be no quef- " tion among them whether this Saviour is the *' Creator himfelf in man's nature, or only an *' extraordinary prophet of fuperior wifdom and " holinefs j fuice all this may be prevented by a " few words out of his own mouth. He will " put it out of all doubt with all the wife and " pious of his followers, whether he is to be ferved " with, or without, a form of devotion in pub- *' lick affcmblies; whether chriftian magiftrates *' ought, or ought not, to form an alliance be- " tween the church and the ftate; whether or " not feme perfon, for the time being, fhould *' aft as his viceroy to the end of time, at the. " head of his univerfal church. And if he fhould *' inftitute a rite of initiation into his church, it " is reafonable to expert that his wifdom and " goodnefs will prevent all painful uncertainty " refpecSling the mode of admiflion, and who arqi " the proper fuhjeSls" efpecially when we confider that " all doubt of the matter might be precluded by a few plain words." Thus the pious ante- diluvian might meditate, and reafon, a priori^ from the wifdom and goodnefs of the Great Supreme j rejoicing in the profpe<5l of the halcyon days which his pollerity fliould enjoy, when all laborious

karch

4.6 Of Pofitlve Inf it lit ions Gh. I.

fearcli, and tedious analogical reafoning, would be utterly precluded by the explicitnefs and perfpi- cuity with which he would fignify his pleafure. All this feems quite reafonable, very defirable, and mighty fine; but yet is attended with one great infelicity, it is a theory which does not agree with facts. But fliall a benighted finner exclaim, when his views of propriety and wifdom are confronted, deranged, and totally overthrown, "the Lord's ways are not equal!" Rather let me fhrink to my proper nothingnefs, and fay, O the depth of the riches both of the ivifdojn and knowkdge of God^ hovj wrfearchahle are his counfels.^ and his ways., his providence and his various difpen- fations, how pafl finding out! " Let us appeal (fays Dr. S.) to the words of the inftitution, which no doubt are exprefled, as all laws ought to be, in fo clear a manner as that he who runs may read." I walk and read, ftand and read, medi- tate and read, pray and read, and yet cannot difcern the fenfe he puts upon the law of the inftitution. And, what is far more extraordinary, thoufands whom it concerns, many of whom are far better qualified to judge than I am, are equally at a lofs to difcover, what Dr. S. pro- nounces to be without doult^ fo clear a meaning that he who runs may read it. *

Our

• What the pious Mr. Flavel laid of himfelf, is, no doubt, the unfeigned fentimcnt of numbers not lefs fincere and upright than he, however fuperior he vas to moft divines in minifterial abilitici and ufefulncfc j f/jK. " We have a witnefs in -your bofom, *• (iijy» he ia his reply to Mr. CaryJ that tfae defence of CM^'*

*' pun

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafonlng, 47

Our opponents involve themfelves in a glar- ing inconfiftence. They maintain that pofitive rites depend folely on the pleafure of the Infti- tutor, and then, with the fame breath, plead that their evidence muji be in a certain given degree of explicitnefs, that is, the fuperlative de- gree. For if they are not exprefled in the rnoji plain and intelligible manner, they are not wor- thy of a zvife Legiflator. This is to profefs ahfolute ftibje£iion to the fovereign Lord, and af- terwards to prefcr'ibe rules for him to ena£l his laws. Thus they infifl: upon a poftulatum on which to eredl: their fyftem, which it is out of our power to grant them without offering open violence to logical precifion and found Theo- logy.

§ 14. From what has been faid I conclude — fince it is efiential to an inftitution merely pofitive^ our opponents themfelves being judges, it ihould be free from all obfcurity and ambiguity, rela- tive to mode and fubje6t, and fince the inftitu- tion of baptifm does not bear that character, as ftubborn fad>s proclaim — that baptifm is an ordinance of a mixed nature. And it appears further reafonable to conclude, from the forego- ing premifes, that, as all allow baptifm has fomcthing in it of a pofitive nature, " the fet-

" ting

" pure luorjhlp and Inpituttons hath coft us fomething 5 and as for •• mc, were I convinced by all that you have here faid, or any ♦* of your friends, that in baptiaing the infants of believers we did " really depart from the piimitive purity, I would renounce it, " and turn Anabaptift the fame day." Flavel's Reply to Mr, C\B¥'» Solep-.n CaU, Wwh, Vol, II. p. 1003. Firft £<1.

4-8 Of Po/ithe -InJIrtutions Ch. l.

** ing apart a perfon apparently a proper fubjedl « of the viiible church of Chrift, by the ufe of " water, in the Naine of the Father, of the Son, " and of the Holy Ghoil, by a teacher of chrif- «* tianity," feems to bid fair for that charader. Thus far Paedobaptifts and Antipaedobaptifts generally agree; but whether a total hnmerfion ef tlie fubjedl be ejfent'ial to the ordinance, or even the mo ft proper mode of admiflion; and whether fome infants are not equally intitled to the privilege as adults; with other quellions of inferior conlideration, muft be neceflarily de- cided by moral and confequential reafoning.

§ 15. Let us now attend to what feems the only remaining method for determining about the degree and proportion of pojitivenefs and 7no- ral'tty in a law or inftitution commonly termed pofitive. And here I obferve, towards folving this difficulty, the two things following,

I. That we ought carefully to dirtinguilh between what is true of a pofitive inflitute in its own nature, or fimply and abJiraSicdly con- f.dered, and the fame thing attended with its necefiary circumftances. It has been fhewn, that baptifm is an inftitution which is pofitive but in part, and, therefore, that fuch a diftindion as is here propofed is necefiary. I am willing then to .own the propriety of Mr. B.'s reafoning up- on the nature and effential properties of poiitive inAitutions, as far as they are fuch^ but deny that any juft confequences from them are fa- vourable to Antipaedobaptifm. And if we admit,

what

Ch. I. end /Analogical Reafoning, ifij

what I hope has been fufficiently proved, and what the following pages will more abundantly demonftrate, that there is no inftitution of the gofpel difpenfation fo merely pofitive as not re- quiring prudential and moral aid to determine about the due performance and proper fubjects thereof; and confequently, that the ordinance of baptifm does not agree to the abJhaSi notion of pofitive inftitutions; I venture to aflert, as no lefs true than extraordinary, that there is not ONE of all the quotations from Paedobap- till; writers contained in the firft part of his P trdobaptifm examined^ concerning the nature of pofitive inftitutions^ but is Perfectly consist- ent with Psdobaptift principles ! But the fpeci- ous fophifm was fupported by arbitralily uniting what were in themfelves different; by extending the abftrad nature of an inftitution, to the par- ticular circumilances of it.

2. Laying afide all preconceived ideas, we fliould carefully inquire how far any inftitution irk queftion, from an impartial furvey of what is recorded of it, agrees w^ith the definition of a pofitive Inftitution in its abftrail fenfe. We all agree that fuch an inftitution, as deferves the denomination of pofitive, is that^ the reafon of which we do not fee, yet delivered with fuch plainnefs, clearnefs, and circumftantial evidence, as is liable to no mifconftruif^ion from a perfon of common capacity and religious fincerity. Let \is apply this rule to baptifm, and we find, that there are fame things wherein the rule and the D ordinance

^ 'Of Pofithe Injl'ihitlons Ch. r.

ordinance agree, and other things wherein they difagree. Bp. Butler will furnifli us with a flight fpecimen of the manner of applying the above rule. " The moft important obligations and privileges fignified by baptifm are of moral confideration. — For inftance, if fome are com- manded to he laptlzed in the name of the Father, and of the Sofi^ and of the Holy Ghofl j there are obligations of duty refulting from the command as pofitive^ but the importance of thefe duties may be judged of by c ^ferving, that they arife not from pofitive command merely^ but alfo from the offices which appear from fcripture to belong to thofe divine perfons in the gofpel difpenfation; or from the relations^ which, v.e are there in- formed, they ftand in to us *." This I call a fpecimen^ but that the diflin6lion above noticed is applicable to the fubjefl and circumflances of baptifm, will be afterwards confidered.

§'i6. Hence we may infer, that analogical and confequential reafoning is not only lawful, but effential to this controverfy.

We have feen (§ 12.) that our opponents themfelves do occafionally run into this ftrain, however inconfiflent with their favourite maxim; and we have feen that, hitherto, it has done them no fervice. From their being fo extremely reludant to admit of this fort of argument on the fubjecSt of baptifm, we may juftly fufpect that it is proportionably injurious to their tenet. Mr. B. indeed, is very explicit on this head, as be- fore

* Eutlek's Analogy, ut fupra»

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 51

fore obferved; " Except it be maintained (fays he) that pofitive ordinances are to be intirely governed by pofitive law and primitive example, it is impojfible for the Antipasdobaptifts to ftand their ground by fair argument in various cafes, when difputlng with Paedobaptiils as fuch *." Dr. S. infifts, " that prefumptive proofs are in- fufficient to eflablifh duties of a pofitive kind ||.'* And I take the liberty of infifting in my turn, that, as no fuch duty exifts, in his application of the term ■pofitive^ prefumptive proofs are very good ones, becaufe they are the very beft that the na- ture of the cafe can admit of. To argue from what is certain in one cafe, the probability of a cafe lefs evident, when the latter bears fome flriking relation or refemblance to the former, has ever been reckoned fair and proper in fub- jecls of morality and duty ; it therefore follows, that, as the duty in queftion is partly founded on moral grounds, the fame method of arguing is fair and proper to a certain degree in the pre- fent cafe. For when the ctrcumjiances of a duty commonly termed pofitive are left in an indeter- minate ftate, and therefore of neceflity muft yield to moral confiderations, and when thefe moral confiderations do not arife immediately from the evident relation of the cafe in hand, or are not determined clearly by precept or example; what more rational method of determining thefe cir- cumftances, than by recurring by means of analogy D 2 tQ

• P' 462- II p. *9»»

52 Of Pofitive Injiitutions Ch. r.

to thofe which we are fure met with the divine approbation ?

What has been faid already upon this article, might appear, I prefume, quite fufficient, in vin- dication of a method of defence which our op- ponents would fain deprive us of, were it not that they are impertinently inimical to it upon ever)' occafion, as might be eafily fliev/n by nu- merous quotations out of their writings, and Mr. B.'s Pitdobaptifm Examined in particular. But A6 their favourite terms, POSITIVE LAW iud APOSTOLIC EXAiMPLE, as oppofed to moral and analogical reafoning, are a two-edged fword, which they brandifh with great parade, *)\d with which they pretend to do great execu- tion; let us now fee whether this weapon may not be wrefted out of their hands.

§ 17. That principle, whereby our opponents ilecry all ufe of analogy in this debate, is redu- cible to the moft glaring abfurdities. For,

(i) It is impoHible that Mr. B. Dr. S. or any one elfe in the prefent day, flioukl know any thing about this ordinance without the aids of the very method which they fo much oppofe. This is evident when we refle<f^, that as fcripture can never be proved to be of divine original, fo neither can any particular part of it be proved to have this meaning rather than that^ but by means of moral and analogical reafoning. The evidence of revelation is either external or internal ; its external evidence muft depend on the faithful- nef of our predeceflbrs who have recorded and

tranfmitted

Ch, r. and Analogical Reafoning. 53

tranfmltted fuch fa(5ls as conftitute the fame; but will any man, compos mentis^ hefitate a mo- ment refpedling the neceflity of examining the pretenfions and credentials of our fellow-mortals, when they aflert they were fent of God to claim the attention, belief, and obedience of mankind? And how can this be decided without the alTill- ance of moral reafoning? Its internal evidence muft be fought by the fame method ; for nothing can be of God which is evidently and demon- ftrably falfe or impious, however recommended by figns and wonders.

Nor will it avail to fay, the moft abllrufc things, indeed, will admit of fuch inveftigation, but fome things are " fo plain and eafy to be underftood that he who runs may read." Such parts of fcripture, then, need only to be propo- fed, and they appear felf -evident. I will not deny but there are many fuch truths in fcripture ; inafmuch as fome of the plaineft didates of common fenfe and reafon are there recorded. And, indeed, this 4s no fmall part of the glory of revelation, that it is " a republication of na- tural religion; fo that natural religion, in the words of Bp. Butler, feems as much proved by the fcripture revelation, as it would have been, had the defign of revelation been nothing elfe than to prove it *." But it muft amount to an evident ccntradiilion to aflert that pofitive laivs are felf-evidcnt in their own nature ; for, on the fuppofition, we know nothing about them further D 3 than

• Bvtl£r'« Analogy, ut fufra.

54 Of Pofttlve Injlituttons Ch. r,

than they are revealed. Nor will It mend the matter to fay, x\z.\. when revealed they are felf- evident; for, it is likewife granted, that they de- rive their whole force and being from tlie fove- reign authority that enioins them; which autho- rity itfelf cannot be ielf- evident, but muft be examined, . weighed, compared, and finally deter- mined by fome cintcc€de72t principles; and this is the province of moral reafon and analogy.

§ 1 8. But if it be faid, that " tho' we need thefe aids to afcertain the truth of revelation, yet •when that is once done we have no farther need of it;" I anfwer, this can by no means folve the difEculty ; for in order to difcover the im- port of any law or precept of holy writ, we mufl either take the literal and ftridl meaning of it, or we muft have recourfe to the dejign of the pailage from the moft probable intention of the Lawgiver; if the latter^ the point is given up.; if the former, the moft abfurd confequences will immediately follow. For it is evident to a de- monftration, that two perfons, who would under- take to perform a pofitive command, may both alike plead the ftriit letter of the law to be on their llde, and yet one of them may comrnit fm while fo doing, and the other difcharge incum- bent duty. And I may venture to fay, there is not a pofitive law in all the infpired volume, re- lating to the mofaic or the chriftian ceconomy, but might furnifti an illuftration and proof of what I aflert. To avoid prolixity I fliall infift. upon the law of baptifm only : on wliich Mr. B.

thus

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning, 55

thus refle<£l:s. " It Ihould be well obferved, that when our Lord after his rcfurredion, fays, Go—' baptize \ he does not mention baptifm by way of allufion, or incidentally. No, he fpeaks the lan- guage of legijhtion'y he delivers divine law.. He mentions, and appoints baptifm as an ordi- nance of God, and as a branch of human duty.. Where, then, muft we expeil precilion in the ufe of terms, if not on fuch an occafion*?" Where? why, in thofe parts of revelation where man's everlafting welfare is more immediately concerned. For is it probable that the law of initiation into the vifible kingdom of Clwift, and an external relation to him and his church, is of more im- portance, and requiring greater precifion in its terms, than that which afcertains their qualifica- tion for the kingdom of grace and glory? But fuppofmg, for argument fake, that the law of baptifm (Mat. xxviii. 19.) is delivered with greater precifion than ufual, and let us try — not with a view to impeach the wifdom or the goodnefs of Chriil — let us try, I fay, whether moral reafon- ing and analogy are not necefTary for the right obferv-ance of it, even upon our author's own principles.

Mr. B. will allow that this law confifls of three parts; the a6lion itfelf, baptize -y the quali- fication necefTary for the fubjeit previous to bap- tifm, implied in the word teach \ and the com- miflion given to the adminiftrators, Go ye. The firft of thefe ideas will be more profcffedly ex- D 4 aniintd

* 9* 33*

56 Of Pofithe Injiitutions Ch. r.

amined hereafter; but by the bye, one would think that the great diverfity of opinions refpeft- ing this a^ion, and the various practices of dif- ferent nations and churches in performing what they apprehend to be included in it, might lead a modell and impartial obferver to conclude — not that one party of chriftians exclufively are in the right, while all the others are ejfentially wrong, many of whom have ferioufly, deliberately and impartially examined the authority and the mind of their divine Lord in the matter, whofe fove- reign pleafure is more dear to them than their lives, and whom they would not wilfully offend therein for the world — to conclude, I fay, either that the precept is not delivered with all that plainnefs and precifion which our opponents con- tend for, in favour of their manner of perform- ing the aSiion^ or elfe that it is of fuch latitude as to include divers manners. I would only remark, that, fuppofing (without granting) the exclufive invariable meaning of the term, baptizcy fignifies to immerfe, I might, on that fuppOfitioii fo fulfil the command literally.^ in plunging a proper fubjedV, as that Mr. B. I am perfuaded, would either not admit it to be at all true bap- tifm, or would require no fmall affiftance from that very method of arguing which he oppugns, to prove its validity. But I fhall obferve, more particularly, fome things with refpedt to the commifTion of the adminiftrators, which will fur- nifh a fecond argument againft the oppofers of analogical and moral reafoning on the fubjeil.

§ 19*

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafonlng. ^j

§ 19. (2} It is impofTxble, on the principle I am oppofing, for Mr. B. or Dr. S. to prove their right and authority to adminifter the ordi- nance of baptifm to any fubje^t, and of confe- quence the validity of the action. The fen- timent I refer to, is, that nothing fliort of a precept or precedent will fuffice for the due per- formance of the duty. Now that every adion performed by apoftles, difciples, or faints, with, or without, the fpecial dire<Stions of the Holy Spirit, is not to be regarded as a precedent^ or an example to be imitated, will, I prefume, admit of no debate. It therefore follows that we muft either gather from moral confiderations, or con- fequential deductions, whether any particular acti- on is to be imitated by us, or notj or elfe that there muft be a precept previoufty given, whereby any fuch action receives a fpecial direction and determination to influence our choice. And fo it remains that an action, however and by vvhom- foever performed, can be to us no rule of duty, no precedent at oll^ of itself. It is there- fore abfurd to fay that we can regard aiiy action as a precedent, without the aids of inferential reafoning. We are, now, driven to precepts to perform the difficult taflc. Let us, therefore, at- tend to that " language of legiflation, that divine law where we may expect, we are told, the greateft plainnefs and precifvon." Go ye, there- fore^ and teach. — This is the precept. But to •whom is it given? The anfwer, no doubt, will be, To the difcipk^^ and to their fuccejjhrs in th^ D 5 gofpcl

5 8 Of Pofitive hijittutions Ch. r.

pel miniftry. Rather, To the difciples, and, we may juftly ?«/>r, to their fucceffors in the gofpel miniftry to the tnd. of time. For our Lord adds, ** Lo! I am with you alway, even to the end of the world;'* which 77iore likely refers to our Lord's authoritative and gracious prefence with all the then future, properly qualified teachers and propagators of thfe gofpel, than exclufively his immediate fucceffors, the apoftles and difciples, who fliould be endowed from above with extraor- dinary abilities, remarkably owned, and attended with figns and wonders for the eftablifhment of the chriftian religion, on the ruins of the jewifh hierarchy.

But fuppofing, (without granting) that the former propofition is fo fclf-evident as to pre- clude all need of inference, or analogy. The queftion flill returns, what conftitutes a difciple, and teacher of religion? Chriftian godly parents are difciples, and they alfo teach their children and domeftics the principles of chrillianity ; have ihey^ therefore, authority io bapt'rze fuch as they teach? Without analogy and inference how can their pre- tenfions be difproved? May they not plead, from the very paffage in queftion, that becaufe they rnay teach, they may likewife baptize? It will be faid, perhaps, the adminiftration of gofpel or- dinances belongs to puhlick teachers. But publick and private are relative tepms ; and who fhall draw the line of diflin6lion how far publick his charafter and teaching mufl be? May any one ran, without being fent, to teach and baptize ?.

Does

Cii. t. and Analogical Reafoning, ^Of

Does this conftitute a teacher of chriftianlty, that he fancies he may fet up for one? or is he to. be admitted to the difcharge of his minifterial funcSlioii in forae more regular way ? How fhall we judge about the regularity of that way? The wearer of the tripple crown aflerts an univerfal claim to this right of admiffion, as his fovereign prerogative. With a prieftly nod, with roaring bulls, or with dire anathemas, he excludes all of us, who are of the heretical tribe, from approaching to officiate at the baptifmal font, or the holy altar. And what is extraordinary, he urges ex- prefsy literal pafTages of fcripture, on which to found his pretenfions.

§ 20. But Proteftants, alfo, talk of the divine right of epifcopacy, and the neceflity of an epif- copal commiifion, for preaching God's w'ord, and for the valid miniftration of the chriftian facra- ments. And this they attempt to prove from the holy fcriptures^ as well as the doctrine and praiflice of the primitive church. Thus . the twenty third article of the church of England, pa- raphrafed by a faithful fon and champion; " // is not lawful by the law of Godi for any .man to take upon him the office of publick preaching or minifiering the facraments in the -congregation or church of Chriil before he be laiufidly called ac- cording to the law of God, and fent to execute the fame. And thofe lue ought to judge lawfully called and fent according to the law of God, zuhich be chofen and called to this work by ?nen^ who by the law qf God have publick authority given unt\ D 6 them

6o Of Pofitwe In/iltutlons Ch. r.

them in the congregation or church of Chrift, to call and fend minijiers into the Lord's vineyard. I have put in the words according to the law of Gcd, (fays the Paraphraft,) becaufe it is certain that is meant by the word lawful in this place. Thefe articles were drawn up by the Bifliops and Clergy in convocation or fynod, who were ever efteemed to be interpreters or expofitors of the law of God, and to have authority to declare what was agreeable to his laws, and what not — Confequently (fays this Do6lor of Laws) when they fay, it is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching or miniftering the facraments in the church, they could not mean that it was not lawful in this realm only by virtue of the temporal laws here in force, becaufe they had no authority to declare or expound thofe laws, but that it was not lawful according to the LAW OF God, and therefore could not be allowed in any realm, in any country, in any church or fociety of chrijlians. — And in the pre- face to the forms of ordination, it is faid, that // is EVIDENT to all men diligently reading holy scrip- tures, and ancient author s^ that from the apcjllcs' time^ there have been thefe orders of minijiers in Chri/l's church, bijhops^ priejis and deacons, which offices were evermore had in fuch reverend eflima^ tion, that no man by his own private authority j might prefume to e^^ccute any of them, except he were f.rji called, tried, exainined and knoxvn to have fuch qualities as were rcquifte for the fame, and alfo by futlick prayer, with impofition of hands, approved

and

Ch. Xr and Analogical Reafon'mg. 6i

and admitted thereunto.'— She [the church] alfo de- clares thefe three orders to be of divine injlitution, when flic fays that it is evident to all men dili- gently reading holy scripture that there havt been thefe orders of ?ninijlers in ChrUVs church.—^ And therefore according to the dodrine of the church of England^ declared by her ordinal and articles as they expound each other, it is not lawful for any rnan to take upon him the office of publick preachings or minijlering the facraments in the congregation or church of Chrift, before he be laxvfuily called and fent to execute the fame by fame Bishop-, that is^ before he be episcopally or- dained; and this by the law of God, who by his Holy Spirit has appointed the order of bifhops, and direSicd that only thofe who are of that order fliould ordain others, confequently is a law not only obligatory in the church of Eng- land, but throughout the whole catholic church, — She further declares, in the tzventy fixth zn'ide, that altho^ in the vifible church the evil be ever mingled with the good^ and foinetime the evil have chief authority in the minijiration of the word and jacramcnts ; yet forajmuch as they do net the fame in their own name but in ChrijVs^ and do minijier by HIS coMMissiONf and authority ^ we may ufe their mini/try both in hearing the ivord of God, and in the receiving of the facraments. Neither is the effeil of ChriJVs ordinance taken away by their ivickcdnefs, nor the grace of God's gifts diminifhed from fuch, as by faith, and rightly ao receive the facraments minijiercd unto thcin^ which be ejflcfiial becaufe of

Chrijfs

62 Of Pofitive Jnjlitiitiom Ch. I,

Chri/i's INSTITUTION and promise, altho^ they be 7niniJ}ered by evil fnen. Here the church plainly makes the validity of the facraments depend intirely upon Chrift's commission. For the reafon alleged why they may be received from evil minifters, is becaufe fuch miniflers have com- m'ljjton and authority from Chrill, and that facra- ments fo received are effe6tual becaufe of Chrift's injlitution and promife, which evidently implies that where there is no fuch comraiifion there is not the inftitution and promife of Chrift, confe- quently they are not effeflual without the com- miffion. Thus the church of England moil clearly maintains and afferts both the divine right of epifcopacy^ and alfo the neceffity of an epifcopal comynijjion to the valid adminiftration of the facrament *."

§ 21. Thus the large body of venerable Bifliops, together with their numerous fons and fervauts the Clergy, in convocation affembled, as the re- prefentatives of millions, deliver their final and permanent fentiments, concerning the authority necellary for minifters to difcharge the duties of their fundion, and the validity of their miniflra- tions thereon depending. But what is very re- markable is, that their determination appeals, not to the uncertain reports of tradition, t(^ moral, inferential, or analogical reafoning, but to a pofi- tive law, to the exprefs inftitution of Chrilt., And our expounding Doilor juftifies thefe eccle- fiaftical decifions, on the very fame principles^ by

appealing. * Dr. Brett's Divine Ri^ht of Epifccpacy, § i — 4.

Ch. I. and 'Analogtcal Reafming. 63 »

appealing to the language of legiflation, the di- ■ vine pofitive command, to which we firll: referred. Thus he fettles his point: " That the npojlollcal or highefl order, which was appointed to fupply the place of Chrill: himfelf after his afcenfion, was intended by him not for a temporary, but a perpetual inftitution, is evident from the com- milhon he gave them after his refurreclion. For, having fmgled out the eleven Apoflles, out of above five hundred, to whom he appeared at once after his refurreclion, and appointed them alone to meet him at a mountain in Galilee^ he fpake unto them, faying, All power is given unto ?ne in heaven and in earth. And having thus de- clared his own power, he commits it to them, and fays. Go ^^ therefore^ as my deputies and vicegerents, and difciple all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gho/l, teaching them to obferve all things whatfoever I have commanded ycu. And lo I am ivith you alvjay, even unto the end of the world. Amen. In which words he plainly ihews that their office was intended to be continued alway, even unto the end of the world, and he confirms this promife with an Amen, thereby teiiifying that he would verily and indeed fulfil it. Now it was plainly the apoftoiical office which our Saviour here promiled he would be alway prefcnt with, to ratify and confirm their miniih-ations. For it was ouly the eleven dif- ciples or apoftles, whom he hiid before font, as he was fent by the Father, to whom he inude

tin;

64 Of Pofitive Injlitutions Ch. r.

tlie promlfe. And that the promifc was made to the office or order with which he had veiled them, and not to their perfons, is evident^ becaufe otlierwife his promife muft have failed at their deaths, and confequently he was fo far from con- tinuing with them to the end of the world in the difcharge of this office, that he did not continue with them an hundred years, for all thefe eleven Apollles were dead in lefs than that time. But fome pretend that the words which we here tranflate, the end of the xvorld^ fignify no more than the end of that age. But if they are un- derftood to fignify no more, then the com miffi on- to difciple by baptifm, and to teach what Chrift had commanded, muft end with that age alfo, and then chriftianity muft have ceafed with that age, fo that ever fince our preaching has been vain, and your faith alfo vain; for it has fince had no promife of Chrift to depend upon, if this promife is to be extended to no longer time; and that is not falth^ hut prtfumption, 'which is not founded upon any promife. But if the promife is to be extended to the end of tha world, and that it muft be, or there can be no chriftianity in the v/orld, then muft the office, the apoJioHcal office or order, to which it was made, continue fo long. For Chrift did not fay, / am akvay prefefit to ratify and confirm thefe miniflrations by xvkomfoever performed.^ but I am with you akvay; with you whom I have fent, as I was fent by the Father, with you whom I have appointed to difciple all nations by bap- tifm

Ch, r. snd Analogical Reafonirtg, 65

tifm, with you whom I have appointed to teach all things which I have commanded and will ratify and confirm what yrju do in thcfe minif- trations, that is, you who are commifiloned for that purpofe. Iherefore the office, the apojlolical office^ to which this commiflion was given, muft continue for the miniftry of thefe ordinances, or tiiere is no promife that thefe ordinances fliall be eifedual to any after the death of thofe perfons to whom this commiffion was particu- larly given. But if the ordinances continue, then the commiffion alfo is continued, for the promife is not made to the ordinances, but to the commiffioners in the miniflration of thofe ordinances; and therefore if thofe who have not the commiffion undertake to adminifler them, there is no word of promife to make fuch miniftrations efFedlual.

" Now whence do the facraments receive their validity P Certainly not from any thing that i» naturally intrinfick to the outward vifible fign, but from the injlitution of Jefus Chrift. But then it is not every kind of baptifm, or of wafli- ing with water, that will have effeft: it muil be done according to his injiitution^ or it is not the facrament which he has ordained. Now when Chrift ordered baptifm to be adminiftered to all nations, when he appointed that all fliould eat of that bread and drink of that cup, he did not only ordain in what manner, or with what form of words thefe facraments fliould be cele- brated, but likewife directed what particular pcrfom

fliould

66 . Of Pofttlve Injlltutions. Ch. T.

fhould celebrate them. Thus when he ordered all nations fliould be made difciples by baptifm, he did not indifcriminately command all perfons that Ihould know how to recite the form of words with which baptifm was ta be adminifter- ed, to baptize, but the Jpojiles only, whom he chofe out of a vaft multitude of his difciples, and to them particularly, as I have before ob- ferved, he gave commiffion to go and difciple all nations.^ baptixlng them. So alfo when he infti- tuted the holy eucharift, he did not commit the miniftration of it to all his difciples, but only to the twelvs. And to them only he faid This do, that is, confecrate bread and wine, and diflribute it, as I have now done, in re- membrance of me. — The Apoflles on neither of thefe occafions met our Saviour by accident, but by appointment. Whereas if he had intend- ed to have commi(iioned ?nore for eitlaer of thefe purpofes, he could as eaflly have ordered more to ha.ve attended him upon either of thefe occafions*. But by- not requiring their attendance, and at the fame time requiring that of the Apoflles, he pla'mly excluded all the reft. — I know it is ob- jetSled, that a bare omiflion in this cafe does not amount to a prohibition, and therefore fince our Saviour only forebore to command, but did not prohibit his other difciples to adminifter his fa- craments, we have no ground from fcripture to fay that none but Btjlsps, as Succejfors to the Apoftles, may minifter them, or that if any others do it, they are invalid, and of no effect

what-

Ch. r. and Analogical Rcnfoning, ()^

whatfoever. But we anfwer, that an oml/fion in this cafe does amount to a prohibition. For where- ever a conimillion is necelTary to authorize an act, whofoever is Uft out of the commiirion, is unauthorized, and therefore cannot perform that ail fo as to make it valid. — I never could underftand that a prince when he granted a commiffion to levy, or any other commiiTioa whatfoever, did exprefsly or in direct terms for- bid any other to do wliat he authorized thofe to do whom he did commiflion. For a com- miiTion is always given to authorize a man to do that, which without fuch commifnon neither he nor any one elfe has otherwife a right to ^o, — There was therefore no occafion for our Saviour to prohibit others from adminiilering his facraments, fmce the authorizing fome and not others was itfelf in the nature of the thing as full a prohibition, as if he had forbid them to do thefe things in exprefs words. — Now the pro - mifes of God with relation to the facraments, at lead to the facramcnt of baptifm^ are not made to the 2.di itfelf, but to the perfons by whom that facrament is ordered to be adminiilered. For Chrift does not fay, I am with the a<Sl of baptizing, or wartiing in the name of the Father, &c. — But he fays, Lo^ I am with you alivayy with YOU my Apojlles^ with you whom I have commijjioned to 7ninijler baptifm^ and with your Succeflbrs to the end of the voorld. Tiie pro- mife being therefore not made to the bare bap- tifm or wafhing with water, but to the Apoftles.

and

68 Of Pofitive Injittuilons Ch. r.

and their SuccefTors, who were Gommiflioned to miniiler that facrament, thofe that are not bap- tized by perfons fo commiflloned, have no pro- mife to depend upon, that they have received Chrift's baptifm; and therefore for any to be- lieve that they have received it, is not faith but prefumpt'ion, and being not of faith St. Paul tells us it is fm. It is fin in the perfon who pretends to admimfler it, for he takes upon him an office unto which God has not called him, he a£ls without authority, and prefumptuoufly fup- pofes God will ratify that which he has given him no commiffion to do : it is alfo fm in the perfon who receives it from one whom he knows to have no commifTion to give it, for he alfo is prefumptuous, and expedls a bleffing where God has made no promife of any. — Any pretended baptifm therefore miniftered by fuch as have no commiffion, is deftitute of this pro- mife, and being fo, is of no effe6l or validity, for it is not Chr-iji's baptifm^ but a baptifm of human invention *."

§ 22. The attentive reader will eafily obferve, that Dr. Brett, when he wrote the above, was on his road to Rome-, taking, however, po- ftive precepts^ which always imply their negative, for his guide. And had he compleated bis journey, he and his principles would have met with the mod cordial welcome. For by fuch principles the papal chair is fupported, and tlie whole ftiudhire of the holy catholic church can

boaft

• Ibid. § 9. t^-— 18.

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafomng, 69

boaft of a fimilar foundation. " Yes, whether it be an aflembly of prefbyters, or a council of prelates; whether it be the injunction of a popt, or the mandate of a prince, by which the in- ventions of men are incorporated with the ap- pointments of God ; they admit of the fame kind of defence." How Mr. B, would anfwer the above pretended apoftolical fucceflion, I will not take upon me to determine > but for my own part, fince my Maker and Judge has given me eyes to fee and ears to hear, I would attend to what the Spirit of truth faith unto the churches; I would diligently and with diffidence fearch my bible, and efpeeially thofe parts that feem more immediately to refer to thefe matters ; feek light and direition from the Father of lights, who liberally imparts wifdom, and prudence pro» fitable to direcSl; I would examine, reafon, mo" ralizc, analogize^ and ufe ALL the means and methods which a gracious God has furnirtied me with; and, finally, I would fhew that the Do6lor's foundation, notwithflanding his appeal upon every turn to pofjtive appointment and apo- ftolic practice, is contrary to the genius of the gofpel difpenfation, and reducible to manifold abfurditiesy which can never be a part of the divine will.

§ 23. (3) But fuppofmg, for argument' fake, thefe gentlemen could extricate themfdves from the above entangling difficulty; it would prove but a temporary relief, for another ftill greater awaits them. I aflert, therefore, in the next place, That it is impoflible, on their own avowed

prin-

70 Of Pofitlve Injii tut tons Ch. I.

principles, whereby they dilcard from their fyftem all ufe of moral confiderations, inference and analogy, to determine in pradice who is a pro- per fubje^f of baptifm among adults and who is not; and if fo, are not only liable to commit fin inftead of performing duty, but as often as they perform the adion of baptifm they ifievita- bly plunge themfelves into fin.

Let us not lofe fight of that " divine law,'* where, if at all^ w^e may expe£l precifion with refpedl to the qualifications of the fubjeil. Go — TEACH — baptize"— As "this infirudive text, fays Mr. B. is the firft appointment of baptifm for the ufe of the gentiles^ and as it is the law of adminiftration to the end of time, fo it can- not but require the moft fubmiflive regard. For Jefus Chrift, on this occafion, exprefsly claims all authority in heaven and on earth. He plainly appears as King of Zion, and Sovereign of the world. His language, here, is not a mere allu- fion to baptifm, — but it is the inftitution of that ordinance, it is divine law; and therefore the expreffions contained in it, muft be underftood in their natural and obvious meaning, except any ahjur~ ■ dity would follow fuch a conflru61ion of the facred ftatute. — As to any abfurdity following upon it, our opponents pretend none, but what implies a begging of the queition difputetj*/*— Over- looking a great piece of inconfiftency obferva- ble in the above paragraph, where it is faid that " this text is the frji appointment of baptilaij

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafoning, yt

for the life of the Gentiles" implying that it was before appointed for the ufe of the fews^ which is the real fa(5l; tho' that/r/? infiitution is not mentioned in the evangelic hiftory: and where it is alfo faid, " that this is not a mere allifion to baptifm, but is the injiitution of that or- dinance;" which, if it has any determinate mean- ing, muft imply, by the oppofition intended, that if was not before iyxjlituted^ which involves a con- tradiction. It was not a mere aliufion, but the injiitution itfclf of what was before inflituted. Faffing by this, what, pray, is that difputed queftion which the P:edobaptifts beg at the hands of their brethren ? Is it the favour of difputing about the qualifications of fubjecSls on moral grounds? They have no need to beg that; it is their native rights as the preceding pages, I prefume, do evince; and as the following will further eftablifh. Or is it that the natural and primary fignification of the greek term, /^ia9>!Tjt/cr«T£, is to difciple rather than to teach? At prefent I only obferve, that, whatever advantage would accrue to the caufe for which I am pleading, from fuch a grant in its favour, Mr. B. and his friends will be no great gainers by a peace- ful pojfejpon of what they fo highly efteem. My prefent argument does not require a profefled examination of the above queftion, and therefore let it be now fuppofed that the word is properly rendered, teach. I will 4lfb grant that Mr, B. is in tlie propereft fenfe a qualjtied perfou to CTtecutc Chrift's commiilion, as properly quaiifted

as

*72 Of Pofitlve hi/lltutlons Ch. r.

as thofe to whom the commifTion was originally given. After all, I infift it is not in his power to perform his appointed work, to teach in or- der to baptifm, but by the aids of moral and analogical reafoning. Without this he will be at a lofs about the kind and the degree of teaching. The word teach is vague and inde- terminate, becaufe it is not only of various kinds, about which however we will fuppofe no mifunderftanding, but admits of endlefs degrees. How much teaching is fufficient ? The quahfication of the taught is by no means to be meafured by the time, the pains, or the abilities employed by the teacher. Some are ever learning without ever coming to the knowledge of the truth j and few go^el teachers but have occafion to make the mournful obfervation. No given degree what- ever of fkill, of faithfulnefs, or of laborious di- ligence in the difcharge of his high commiffion, can enable a teacher to decide who is fit for baptifm and who is not. Were a teacher to come to this determination, that each catechumen fhould be fufficiently qualified when able to recite the Lord's prayer, the ten commandments, and a certain Ihort creed ; all this, and much more, may be taught a perfon, while he has not a grain of religion; nay, continuing openly irre- ligious. And fhould fuch be baptized? Befides, by what authority could he fix upon fuch a ftsndard ? The obje(£l and the end of this teacli- ing, then, is the moral improvement of the in- truded, of which the teacher is the appointed

jiidge.

Ch. I. and Analogical Reasoning, 73

judge f . But what pofitive precept or example can enable him to do this? Pofitive inftitutions are of an external nature, as before ihewn, (§ 6.) and are perfe£tly diftindl in their nature from all moral confiderations.

§ 24. Mr. B. very frequently refers us to the Mofaic ritual as of a fimilar nature with bap- tifm: or, in other words, tinds an analogy be- tween baptifm and thofe antiquated rites, to which he is fond of referring us. And on a cer- tain occafiOEi, when fpeaking of the fignification of terms, he throws down the gauntlet; and, feeling the ground on which he treads^ exclaim.s, " We may fafely challenge our oppofers to pro- duce an inftance of this kind out of the Mofaic ritual*." Before we accept the challenge, I would fain learn, upon what principle Mr. B. draws a co?nparifon between baptifm and the Jewifli ceremonies ? How the law that enacts the former, ought to have any thing in it analogous to thofe inforcing the latter? It feems he makes it requifite that there fliould be an analogy be- tween thefe laws ; " the whole being of which, and all their legitimate connections, depend on the fovereign pleafure of God:}:." .

But, inftead of acceding to this propofal of

producing an inftance out of the Mofaic ritual

enjoined in a manner fimilar to what we con-

E ceive-

+ " Admiflion to baptifm lies fsUly in the breaft of tlie y^dr:!- tiljfrjtor, who is the cK/y judge of qualifications for it, an.l has Xhi file power of receiving to it, and of rejefling from it." Gill's Body of Divinity, Vol. HI. B. III. Chap. i.

74 Of Pofitive Injl'itutlons Ch. I,

ceive the latter to be; I beg leave to demand ONE INSTANCE out of all the numerous precepts, which Mr. B. calls pofitive, delivered by Mofes to the chofen tribes, that required in the fubjedl a difcriminating moral qualification? An inftitution ?nerely pofitive^ in regard to the fubjedl, neceffarily requires diftinguilhing marks in him of an external nature; a diftindion that is lenfible, circumftantial, not liable to mifconftruc- tions, and, in a word, infallibly charadlerized ; otherwife, the choice of the fubje6t, to whom the rite is to be applied, depends not upon pofitive . rules, but prudential maxims, and moral confider- ations. Hence we may obferve, that thofe rites w^ere awfully guarded with temporal vifible penal fanSfions^ which baptifm is not. He that helieveth and is baptized Jhall befaved^ but he that BELIEVETH NOT, or rejedls the Redeemer and his falvation, Jhall be DAMNED. The neglect of baptifm, in proportion as it is a duty, is finful; but it is guarded with no penal fanction. There appears another important reafon why the Mofaic ritual was connected with external characters, as dif- tmguifhed from moral ones, and alfo their being guarded by penal threats, and that is, their being typical of future blefllngs under the Mefliah; but no gofpel ordinance, ftridly fpeaking, is a type. — On the whole, then, we may obferve this remarkable difference between the inftitutions of the Old Teftament and thofe of the New; the former referred, for inftance, to perfons of fuch 7i fex and age^ as circumcifion 5 to perfons who

had

Ch. I. and Analcgical Reafoning, 71J

had certain ?narks on their bodies, as the cure of the leprofy ; to perfons who touched any thing declared to be unclean; to perfons who uttered certain words, as the blafphemer ; to perfons who committed certain aSI'ims^ as the manflayer; &c. —but the latter refer to ?noral quahties, to cer- tain difpofitions of mind, to perfons in fuch cir- cumjiancei as are anfwerable to the end and de~ fign of the inftitutions, according to the judgment of the Adminiftrator. Mr. B.'s reafoning, there- fore, is of no force when he argues, that becaufe the terms of the Mofaic ritual left nothing to be inferred, refpedting the qualifications of the fubje^^ therefore the fame mufl hold in baptifm; and his challenge is impertinent. To difcard moral grounds from this controverfy, leads to this ab- furdity, for it is the fame as to fay, that Chrift gave a command to his minifters, in executing which, no reafoning or inference is at all necef- fary, and yet without this they are liable to per- petual miftakes. It is like a fovereign giving his reprefentative a difcretionary commiffion to treat with a foreign power, but every word of the treaty, he is told, is written and unalterably fixed^ and mull be taken in its ftridlefl: mean- ing. Which is the fame as to fay. The nature of your commifllon neceflarily requires fome liberty and latitude, fome difcretionary power of de- termining certain points, which cannot polTibly be included in thefe rules and this treaty, and yet you muft not recede a hair's breadth from the particulars therein contained,

E. 2. § 25.

76 Of Poftti've Injlitutions Ch. i.

§ 25. If it be objected, (what indeed feems to me to be the only objedtion of any plaufibility that can be urged) " that tho' our Lord has drawn no line in the command to determine zvhat degree of infti"u£l:ion is necelTary, yet ac- cording to the letter of the command fome de- gree is requifitej" To this I reply, that teach- ings in the prefent cafe, is of no further ufe than a 7neayi to a moral end. Its only ufe feems to be to difcover, produce, or promote a moral qualifi- cation. This is evident when we confider that if this important end is attained, the other is of courfe fuperfeded; for whether the fubje<5l, on our opponents' principle, has been taught by - another, or has profited, in a folitary way, by prayer and reading, &c. as a pre-requifite quali- fication, is quite immaterial. The fubjeil has al- ready attained to what is a necefTary qualification, in the Antipasdobaptift fenfe, and therefore teach- ing for that end is unneceflary. Which fuffici- ently fliews the weaknefs and futility of forming an abfolute and indifpenfible connexion between teaching and baptizing. The objedion, therefore, is of no force, but on fuppofition that human , teaching is a neceffary mean, without which there can be no moral qualification, which is contrary to fail; for it is demonfirable from the con- ceflions of our opponents, that many of the hu- man race are actually in pofleflion of that end, to attain which is the fole ufe of the teaching intended, who yet are not beholden to its aid. Nor can it be denied, that there are other means

of

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafon'tng, 77

of information befide what arife from the cir- cumftance of teaching, whereby we may con- clude with fnfficient Certainty, that is, with a certainty equal to what teaching can afford us, or equal to any profejfion whatever, that certain perfons are in the Jiate of which a profcffion, a-s the effeiSl of teaching, is only an indication; except it be maintained that profeffion is an infallible fign, which is abfurd.

But fhould any one flill infift, that a com- petent knowledge of cliriil:ian principles, and a credible profeffion are neceffary; I afk, what is tlic ftandard of this competency or credibility ? Wliat pofitive rule can anfwer this purpofe ? And again, I afk, necejfary for what? If the reply be, to an- fwer the nature and defign of the inftitution— it is evident this is only begging the queftion, as_ I fhall fully fhev^ in the next chapter; where I hope alfo to demonftrate, that there is nothing in the nature and defign of baptifm, but is ^- qiially applicable to the infant child of a believer as to himfelf, however eminent he ipay be in faith and piety. Upon the whole it appears, that teaching cannot be any way an efjential qualification for baptifm, and therefore is re- quired in certain circumjlanccs only.

§ 26. From what has been faid it follows, that Qur opponents, if they acl upon their avowed principles, are not only liable to commit fin by baptizing an unqualified perfon, but do inevitably commit fin, by renouncing and deferting the real and only guide left to conduil us in the E 3 path

78 Of Pofdhe Injlitut'ions Ch. I.

path of duty. To baptize the inJhuSlcd would Idc no duty, without attending to the Tnoral cir- cumllances of the inftrufiion; and to perform vvliat is jnateriaUy right without an adequate rule, is morally an evil, or finful. It is the ob- fervance of the defign and reafon, the moral purpofes of the command, as it refers to teach- ing, and not the mere letter of it, that conlli- tutes a teacher's duty. For of two minifters, keeping to the letter of the precept, in a manner equally firi£l, one may be performing the inten- tion of the Lawgiver, and the other committing a nn. The office of teaching, therefore, is a difcretionary office, to be m.eafured by the moral defign of the inflitution to which it refers. How abfurd to argue thus: Omai the favage is taught — the Patcrnofler — the ten commandments — the ^poitles' creed — therefore he fhould be baptized; hov»'cver deftitute of chriflian virtue and religion. Yet, on the principle I am oppofing, this muft be good logic. — Now, if we ought to reje^ fome candidates for baptifm who yet are taught, be- caufe not in a flate that feems to comport with the defign of the inflitution; we are at liberty, for the fame reafon, to admit others who ap- pear in a condition fuited to that defign, tho* not taught, if upon inquiiy any fuch fliould be found. Whether infants be of that number, will be confidered in its proper place.

§ 27. {4) What innumerable other abfurdi- ties would follow from that mode of interpreting fcriptare which Mr. B. contends for, even in

reference

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafon'mg, 79

reference to the very commiflion in queflion ! For inftance, Whofoever believeth and is baptized, fliall be faved; Simon the forcerer believed and was baptized; therefore he is faved. He that believeth not (liall be damned ; infants believe not; therefore (borriblle dlSiul) they fliall be damned. And thefe figns fliall follow them that believe: in my name they fhall cafl: out devils; they fliall fpeak. with new tongues; they (hall take up ferpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it fliall not hurt them; they fliall lay hands on the fick, and they fliall recover : but thefe figns have not followed for many ages back; therefore, during all that time, none have be- lieved. Or, on the other hand, many have believed without thefe figns following ; therefore, Chrifl: is not true to his word. — Again, Jefus fpake nothing but in parables ; but he fpake the commiflion to preach the gofpel and to baptize; therefore this commiflion is a parable. The com- mand is not only teach all nations, but preach the gofpel to every creature \ (the latter being lafl written explaining the former;) but four-footed beafts, fowls, and fiflies, &c. are creatures ; there- fore it behoved the difciples to preach to thcfc. Again, Paul was not fent to baptize, but to preach the gofpel; but he baptized Crifpus and Gains, and the houlTiold of Stephanus; therefore he did that which he was not fent to do, or acted contrary to his commiflion, and was blame- worthy in baptizing them. How can fuch a E 4. ridicu-

8o Of Pofit'ive Injl'itutmn Ch. i.

ridiculous mode of reafoning be confuted with- out inferential reafoning?

§ 28. Will any fay, that there is no danger of running into fuch ridiculous inconfiftencies ; that a very moderate fhare of common fenfe, a httle fober reafon, a fmall attention to the fcope of a paffage, and the analogy of faith, vv»ouId prove a fufficient barrier againft the apprehended dan- ger? Very true; this is all we defire. But this is the very barrier which the Antipa?dcbaptifts would fain demolifh. Wheji Dr. S. profelTedly inquires by what kind of proof we are to be determined in this controverfy, he fays, " Here I would obferve then, that all pofitive inftitu- tions depend folely upon the will of the infli- tutor, and therefore i-n every queflion relating to them we are to be guided by his exprefs decla- rations, or by thofe of perfons he has duly au- thorized to fignify his will. — Now this principle granted, I might very properly be excufed confi- dering the much greater part of Mr. A.'s book, which confifls of analogical reafoning; — becaufe a matter of this iynportance in its own nature requires an exprefs pofitive declaration*." And Mr. Robinson is fo well fatisfied and pleafed with this principle, (however repugnant in its genuine confequences to that freedom of inquiry which on other occafions he profefTes and adepts, and for which he is reprehended by Mr. B. as inconfiftent with himfelff) that he looks upon it as a moft formidable weapon employed againft

the * Anfwer to A. p. 3, 6, f p. 462. Ncte.

Ch. r. ond Analogical Reafonin^. 8r

tlie Paedobaptifts 3 and publickly compliments his reverend brother, when he fays, " Dr. Stennett has given the deatlj wound to A-Ir. A 's ar- guments for infant baptifm by this method §." But Mr. R. need not be informed that the "wadikc Jcbilles was not invulnerable^ any more than the vaunting Goliah. And I am fully per- fuaded that the merely pofithe fyjierrif whatever gigantic and formidable appearance it hath made in the eyes of its votaries, and however loud and ftrong its defiance, muft fall at the feet of found reafon and genuine analogy. — Mr. B. we may be fure, is otherwife minded j " This maxim, fays he, [of adhering to precepts and precedents] is a firm barrier againfl encroachments on the government of Chrift, by princely domination, prieftly pride, and popular unfteadinefs. It guards the throne of our afcended fovereign, and fecures his honour as legillator in his own kingdom. This maxim duly obferved, his difciples treat, with equal contempt, the mandates of a pope and the edi<^s of a prince, the canons of a council and the ftatutes of a parliament, when- ever they prefume to appoint rites of divine worfliip, or to alter thofe zuhich Omjl ordained:^ In reading this paragraph and fome others of the fame complexion, I could not help fmiliug at the thought, how well it would fuit (mutatis vxutandii) a popilii do6tor in defendino- — tran- fubjlantiation I In vain do Protefiants wa^^e war againfl: this firll-born of abfurdities, while it is E 5 defended

§ NotesonCtAVPj, Velt II, p, 247,

§2 Of Pofit'ive Injittutlons Ch. i,

defended by fuch a frjn barrier. Entrenched in this camp, the catholics are fecure; having this for their guard, no arguments can approach them ; planting in front this pofitlve canon, they defy every aflault. In vain do we oppofe to their maxim, common fenfe, the ufe of reafon, moral confiderations, the afTiftance of analogy; &c. for what has all this to do with a pofitive inflitu- tion? " Let the fubjeit of inquiry be moral truth, " or 7noral duty, may popifh advocates reply, and ** we admit inferential proof in as large an ex- " tent as any of our oppofers; concluding, that '* a genuine inference from a moral principle, ** and relating to things of a moral nature, has *' all the certainty of the principle itfelf. — But, " when a pofttive duty is under our notice;— *' tlie cafe is greatly altered. For the inquiry *" being intirely converfant about the fovereign " pleafure of God, concerning an article of hu- " man faith or duty, which abfolutely depends " on a ?nanifeJiation of the divine will; the na- " ture of the cafe forbids our expeding any " intelligence relating to it, except what arifes " from divine revelation, precept, or fcriptural " precedent. Such is the ordinance of the eu- " charift; fuch was the fyftem of ritual appoint- " ments in former times ; and fuch is the myftery " of tranfubJiantiatio72, which is ejfential to the " aforefaid ordinance, as it is founded upon the " plain xvords of inflitution. This is my body. *' Metliinks they need but be read, and they mull " produce conviition, if taken in their plain and

*' proper

Ch. I^ a^d Analogical Reafomng. 83-

" proper fenfe. And that they are to be taken ** in their proper fenfe, in oppofition to one that " is figurative, is apparent hence, for furely Chrifl " wouid fpeak in the plainejl manner to his dif- " ciples, while his language is the injiitution of " that ordinance; it is divine law. And what " is very remarkable, St. Paul received of the *' Lord Jefus, now afcended to glory, what he " was to communicate to the churches as of " {landing obligation till the Lord come, a con- " firniation of the inftitution in the felf fame " words. This is 7ny body\ whereby the cavils " of heretics are for ever confounded. 'Tis true, " before the confecration it was bread; but after " that it was his body. And as to any ohfur- " dity attending our interpretation, none can " be pretended by thofe who admit, that the " Divine Word was inade flesh; and other " gofpel myfteries equally remote from human *' comprchenfion."

§ 29. Mr. B. after quoting a paflage from Ainsworth's Arrow againjl Idolatry^ remarks; '' By this abftrail of the mafterly mock apology which the famous Puritan makes for the conduct of Jeroboam — it appears — that the moft deteft- able corruptions of ritual worfliip admit of a plaufible defence, when managed by perfons of genius, if you do but allow them the privilege of arguing on general principles, as diftinguilh- ed from pofitive laws, and on fuch pafTages of facred writ as are foreign to the fubje6l in quef- tipn. It certainly behoves us, therefore, to be E 6 exceed-

S4 ^f Pofitme Injlitutions Ch. r.

exceedingly careful of deferting pofttlve law and primitive example, when a ritual ordinance is under confideration j feeing this apology for Jero- boam defies the art of man to confute it, on any other ground *." What ! cannot Idolatry, that fuperlatively deteftable 7)ioral evil, be con- demned on moral grounds? Would this abomi- nktion, this fpiritual whoredom, this root of all evil, be an innocent thing, then, were it not pofitively prohibited ? Credat Jiideus. While the mafterly pen of Ainsworth defcribes in ?nockery the condu6l of the idolatrous Jeroboam, on ge- neral grounds; the learned and eloquent pens of a numerous train of Romifh dodlors vindicate in earncjl the do61rine of tranfubftantiation on posi- tive ground; and I may with the greateft pro- priety add, " their apology defies the art of man to confute it," without the aids of inferential and moral reafoning; and that in the cafe of an inftitution confejfedly pofitive.

A CERTAIN anonymous writer, who profefies himfelf an eneqpy to the corruptions of Poper)', after an appeal to antiquity and univerjality, to early Fathers^ Councils, and Liturgies, in evidence that the pra6tice of the church refpe£ting the en- charijiick cup, was to offer wine mixed with WATER, as beft agreeing with the original injii- iution ; and having obferved, that this is not the only eJJ'ential defeat the church of England is to be charged with in the commemoration of this great myftery, writes to his learned friend as fol- lows: " Give me leave therefore to afk you in

what

• F' 472.

Ch. r. and Analogical Reafonlng, 85

what tolerable fenfe we may be faid to retain this inftitution of our Lord's, when we obferve neither the matter nor the fortn of it ? If it be anfwered, that we do retain the inftitution, tho' maimed in Tome parts of itj I afk again, whe- ther, in a POSITIVE institution, every part of it be not equally necejfary to be obferved, efpeci- ally when there is nothing in the nature of the things themfelves which can produce the effects, but all the benefits we receive thereby are de- rived to us upon account of our exa5l confor- ?nity to the will of him that inftituted them ? But again, if every part of a pofitive injlltutlon be equally neceflary, where is the power that can flifpenfe with our non-obferv^ance of the forego- ing particulars ? If there be fuch a power, that power may difpenfe with as many more parti- culars, and fo on till the whole be taken away, and then it will follow, that our Saviour injiituted Jomcthing for a continual remembrance of his deathy which might lawfully be taken away before his corning again.'* The reader Ihould obferve, that the wri- ter of the above, and the perfon addrefled, both ftood on the merely pofitive ground^ and accord- ingly the latter fo felt the force of the former'^s reafoning on their common principle, that he made the following ingenuous acknowledgment : *' To this long obje*5tion &c. 1 muft con fefs / knovj not haw to return a fatisfaSlory anfwer f ." Here is a man honeftly fabmitting to the ftrength and evidence of his own avowed principle, how- ever

•f Brett's Divine Right, v^'c, Appiindix, p. 1S9 — J91.

85 Of Pofitwe Injlittitiom Ch. I,

ever repugnant to found analogy and the gemdne fpirlt of the chriftian difpenfation.

§ 30. The real fa6t is, that the path of truth is daily tranfgreffed on either fide. Some leave the line of duty fo flack and entangled, that it proves of little or no ufe to guide; others draw it to fuch a pofitrue tigbtnfs^ that it breaks ; they furely are beft off who cautioufly obferve the golden mean.

There is, no doubt, in the divine difpenfa- tions, an admirable analogy obfervable, an analogy eftabliflied and confirmed by uncontefted faSis ; nor fliould we quit the clue afforded by the for- mer, in theological as well as philofophical fub- je6ls, but when obliged to do fo by the latter.* The Supreme Being obferA^es in the works of cre- ation and providence, in the revolutions of ftates, the rife and fall of empires, and the fucceffive difpenfations of religion, refpe5:ively, a wonderful proportion 'i and who can deny that a due atten- tion to the fame, as explained by fa6ls, eminently diftinguifhes a wife politician from a weak patri- ot, or a judicious chriftian from an enthufuiilick bigot. Among the extravagancies of the latter, of which the chriftian world furnifhes too many inflances, not a few are ellablifhed and fupported by the pretended aids of analogical reafoning, wiiile others are beholden to the abufed patro- nage of pofitive laws. But the real parent of the former is not fober and juft analogy^ but rather a kind of ano7naly; and that of the latter aiiomy of lawlefs breed,

§ 31'

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafotiing, 87

§ 31. (i) Before I clofe this part of my fub- jedl:, I iliall take notice of fome ohjeSiions that may be made, befide thofe already anticipated, to what has been delivered in the preceding pages, whether in itfelf or in its confequences. And, firft, it may be objected, " If the preceding account be true, that baptifm is not an infdtu- tion merely pofithe, as much fo as any enabled under the Mofaic difpenfation, then the prefent oeconomy hath no inftitutions at all of that kind." This objection fuppofes,

I. That precepts of a pofitive nature under the Mofaic difpenfation, were abfolutely fo in all their circumftances ; fo as not to leave any thing to be inferred by the perfon or perfons concerned, in the difcharge of the duty enjoined. — But if thefe things were fo, if the Jewilh ritual was fo cxprefs as to leave nothing to be determined by inference, one might well wonder whence could fpring fo many Targums and Talmuds^ fo many voluminous works intended to explain and illuf- trate the various circumftances attending the per- formance of thefe pofit'rue duties among others. Are not thefe wiprefcribed circu7V.J}ances of ritual worfliip, and other pofitive injunctions, what in a great degree fwell the interpretations of the Rabbinsf — The truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewifli ceconomy pofitive in a confidcrahle degree^ relative to the fuhjs^ as well as the mode of an inftitute, and refpecling the former, it was fometimes particularly fcrupulous, for rei\foiis already alfigned (§ 24.} i but it does

not

$S Of Pofitlve Infiltut'iom Ch. I,

not follow that any one of thefe were fo ftridly pofitive, as not to take fome things for granted refpe(5ling the circumftances of the duty, fuch as national cuftom, the common dictates of fenfe and reafon, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, &c. And it fhould not be forgotten, that the adminiftratior of the Jewifti rites had the fubjefts diftinguiftied and chara61:erized in a fenftble manner^ which qua- lification was to be determined by the fame fort of evidence as any fa^s in common life; but the adminiflrator of the Chriftian rites has no fuch grounds to proceed on j his commiffion is of a difcretionary nature, arifing from the nature and defign of the inftitutions themfelves, as before fliewn (§ 23.)

2. The objeilion again fuppofes, that there is fome excellency in an inftitution being merely and abfolutely pofitive, more than .in one of a mixed nature. But this fuppofition is vain and erroneous. For what conceivable fuperior excel- lency can there be in any precept or duty on account of its pofjivenefs F Were there any force in the objection, it would imply that the Chrif- tian difpenfation is hfs excellent than the Mofaic; as having fewer pofitive rites, and their proportion of pofitivenefs being alfo fmaller. And it would " alfo imply, that the reafonable duties of prayer and praife, as founded on the law of nature, as well as more fully enjoined by revelation, were l/'fs^ excellent than baptifm and the -Lord's fupper; and it would follow, that the fervices of the

church

Ch. r. (tnd Analog'ual Reafon'ing. 89

church triumphant are in their own nature lefs excellent than thofe of the church militant; which are confequences from the force of the objection equally genuine and abfurd. Our Lord's anfwer refpecting the firft and great commandment, ftiews at . once that what is the moll: important duty, is alfo the moll natural^ and therefore the moll re- mote from what is merely pofitive; and that is the kve of God. This matter has been fully ihewn before. (§ ) In one word, the fpirit of the objection is truly pharifaic.

§ S'^' (2) Some may perhaps objecl, " that this has been always admitted as true, that bap- tifm and the Lord's fupper are pofitive infhtu- tions of the New Teftament; and that many PEedobaptifts have availed themfelvcs of this fort, in afcertaining the nature and enforcing the obli- gation of the latter, and particularly Bp. Hoad- LY. And as his Lordlhip's principle, in his Plain Account of the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup" per^ has been deemed unanfwerable, Mr. . Foot, Dr. Stennett, and others, have taken but the fame method in treating about baptifm." To this I reply,

That, as principles taken upon trud, digni- fied titles, and lawn fleeves, are light as a fea- ther in the fcale of argument ; fo, on the other hand, I am fatisfied the Bilhop of Wincheller's pofitions, taken in a found fenfe, nay, the only confiftent fenfe in which they can be taken, are evidently true and important. The fum is this; " That all pofitive duties, or duties made fuch by

inftitutioa

go Of Pcfitive hijlitutiom Ch. i,

inftitutlon alone, depend intirely upon the will and declaration of the peribn who inftitutes or ordains them, with refpecl to the real defign and end of them, and confequently, to the due manner of performing them." This is ftri£tly true, in the degree that any duties are pofitive^ but no further. And to denominate a precept or duty pofitive^ tho' but partially fo, I have no objec^ioji, for the fake of diftinguifhing them from fuch as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reafon and iiature of thhigs. " Except we obferve this caution," as Ep. But- ler obferves, " we fliall be in danger of run- ning into endlefs confufion."

§ 33- (3) It may be faid, " If we refign this maxim, that a pofitive precept or duty excludes all moral reafoning, analogy and inference, we open a door to numberlefs innovations, and de- prive ourfelves of a neceflary barrier againfl the encroachments of popery, he. *" In reply to this fpecious objection let it be obferved,

I. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is a very infujjicient barrier for the defence of truth, if the objedion implies, that it is calculated to defend truth againft error, and not error againft truth as well. For it is notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compafs of the diftinguilhing pecu- liarities of religious praftice, that is not barrica- doed by this very maxim. If Protejiants ufe it againft Pspifts, Papijls in their turn ufe it againft

Proteftants,

* Thus Mr, B, p. 190, 443, &c.

Ch. I. «fid Analogical Kcafoning. 91

Proteflants. If the ^takers are purfiied and foiled when they occafionally quit this fort, they foon rally their controverfial forces, and, entrenching thcmfelves behind the firength of this maxim, the warlrfs race becomes again viSforious. Whence pafllve obedience and non-refiftance? Whence an oppofition to all forenfic fwearing, in common with profane ? Whence the Qiiakers' nonconformity to what other ferious chriftians confider as la'wful? Their peculiar mode of falutation and addrefs? Their method of conducing religious worfhip? The little ftrefs they lay on the obfervance of the chriftian Sabbath ? &c. Whence the popifti abfurd figment of tranfubflantiation *, apoftolical

fucceffion fj extreme undion ? ho.. On the

contrary,

2. Not to diftiaguifli between the pofithenefs and morality of a precept, ordinance or duty, and not to afcertain their refpeflive degrees \ and to deny that the latter diftincftion admits of moral reafoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to bigotry^ and numberlefs glaring abufes of the facred oracles. By reje6ting the analogy of faith and the defign of fcripture herein, we give the moft effeitual encouragement to every fenfelefs intrufion. And what is ftill more re- markable is, that the iiwre fii ndy any one ad- heres to the undiAinguifliing pofitive fcheme, in reference to any chriftian ordinance whatever, the more clofely will he be allied to the intereft of genuine bigotiy. For it has a direct ten- dency

* See § 28, t See § 21.

92 Of Pofit'ive Injlitutiom Ch. i.

dency to make the unprefcribed circumftances of a pofitive rite, ejfential to the rite itfelf, and confequently to make that neceffary and elTential which the inftitutor has not made fo. How far this is appHcable to the Antipxdobaptift's caufe, will be further confidered. — The do6trine that teaches the propriety of yielding our reafon to pofitive inftitutions as fuch^ or in the degree they are fo, is jufl and proper, as founded on the fovereign, abfolute and manifeft authority of the Supreme Legiflatorj and in this view it has been of lingular fervice in refuting the cavils of deifiical impiety. But to carry the principle any further, tends to betray the caufe of chriflianity into the hands of infidels, and to breed un- hallowed party zeal and uncharitable animofities among its fmcereft profefTors. " For who are moft likely to put weapons into the hands of in- fidels \ they, who feem to difcard reafon in the inveftigation of truth, or they, whofe refearches are founded on her moil vigorous exertions, and moft rational decifions? — They, who make fcrip- ture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct oppofition to the dictates of reafon and common fenfe, or they, whofe arguments are founded on a coalition of fcripture and right reafon fi"* Once more,

3. The obje£l:ion, as it includes Mr. B.'s fa- vourite maxim, and tends to oppofe the diflinc- tion above ftated, involves a great inconfiftence with itfeif. For on what principle, except what

they

f D* Couicv's Rejoinder, p, 252*

Ch. I. a>2d Analogical Reafoning, 193

they affe(5l to difcard, do our opponents retain fome of the pofitive rites of the New Teftament and reje6l others? Why regard baptifm and the eucbarijl as of {landing obHgation; while the pe-^ dilavium znd. feajis of charity {the former injoined exprefsly by our Lord, and both pradifed by the difciples of the apofloUc age, fee John xiii. 14, 15. I Tim. V. 10. Jude 12.) are judged un- worthy of continuance? Why receive females to communion, or adopt the f?fl day of the week. for the chriftian fabbath? How can they juftify their condudl in thefe matters, thefe circumflances of po/itive inftitutions, without undermining their own avowed hypothefis? With regard to the fabbath, indeed, the Antipasdobaptifts are divided among themfelves; while fome are content with the fr/i day of the week, others obferve the f event h. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenuousi Mr. Addington appeals to an ob- jedling Antipasdobaptift, " whether he does not think himfelf fufficiently authorized to keep the chriftian fabbath, tho' Chrift has no where faid in fo many words. Remember the firji day of the week to keep it holy \?" To this the Dr. replies, ** There is, I acknowledge, fome weight in this *' objeiSlion: and all I can fay to it is, that not *' having yet met with any paffage in the New " Teftament that appears to me to have re- " pealed the fourth commandment, and to have *' required the obfervation of the firft day, I " cannot think myfelf fufficiently authorized to

" renounce

II The Chrlftian Minifler's Reafons, 5;c. p. 143.

94 Of Pofit'ive hi/litutions Ch. r,

'' renounce that, and to keep this f." If the Doc- tor is profeffedly an obferver of the JewiHi fab- bath, he is confiftent with himfelf, however dif- ferent from fo great a part of the chriRian world ; if not J he and his tenet are at variance; analogy and inferential reafoning have got the better of the pofitive fyftem, which neverthelefs mufl not be refigned, for fear of worfc confequences.

§ 34. (4) Another objedlion much infifled on is, " If our Lord has left any thing to be inferred relative to the fubjeSf and mode of bap- tifm, being a pofitive inflitute; or if he has not delivered himfelf exprefly and clearly in every thing, refpe6ling the queflion ivho are to be bap- tized, and the manner how, it implies a re- flexion on his wifdom and goodnefs." But this objedion is impertinent on different accounts. For,

I. Its force is derived from the fuppofition that the Inftitutor was fomehow obliged to make his will known to men by one method only. But is the Great Supreme under any fuch ob- ligations to his abfolutely dependent creatures? What fhould we fay of a philofopher, who, having to judge of any important phenome- non in phyficks, (liould quarrel with the author of nature, becaufe he had not confined his method of information to one fource only, to the exclufion of all others? That his evidence, for inftance, was not confined to the informa- tion of frfe^ to the exclufion of reafon and

analogy F f Aflfwer to At p. 177.

Ch. I. and Analogical Reafoning. 95

analogy? Or what fliould we fay of a perfon, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a miracle, Ihould impeach the wifdom and goodnefs of his Pvlaker, becaufe he did not ap- peal to one i&n{e only of his dependent and -unworthy creatures, that^ of feeing^ for infTance, to the exclufion of that of hearhigf The anfwer is plain, and the application eafy.

2. The obje£lion is guilty of another im- pertinence, nearly allied to the former: it un- reafonably requires pofttive evidence for what is difcoverable by other means. It is demonftrable, and I think has been demonftrated, that the qualifications of the fubjecSls of baptifm (the ?node alfo ^will be examined in its place) is what cannot poffibly be determined by any pofi- tive rule whatever as fuch, but muft be refolved to the difcretionary nature of the commifllon, or the fuppofed luifdom and prudence of the admi- niftrators, in common with other parts of the fame commiffion, fuch as the choice of an au- dience^ the choice of a concionatory fubjeSJ, Sec. Preach the go/pel to every creature, is a part of the commilfion, but the execution has no pofitive rule. Nor does this ' commifllon of preaching the gofpel prohibit preaching the law, for a law- ful ufe, or any branch of natural religion, not- withftanding Mr. B.'s excluding ftandard, that " pofitive laws imply their negatives." In like manner, the commifllon to baptize believers, and the taught^ we contend and prove, does not mean to include all fort i of believers and taught

perfons,

96 Of Pofitive Injittutkni Ch. i.

perfons, but fuch of them as the adminiftrators judge fit, according to the rules of chriftian pru- dence and difcretion. And we further infifl, as Ihall be more fully ftiewn hereafter, that the terms of the commiffion, believers and taught^ (land oppofed^ not to no?i-beUcvers and untaught^ but to unbelievers and perfons perverfely ignorant. What, therefore, falls necejfarily to the province of inferential reafoning, is impertinently referred to a pofitive ftandard.

3. The objection implies an ungrateful re- flexion on the Inftitutor's wifdom and goodnefs, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this it does, by countera61:ing and vilifying thofe natural di6i:ates of reafon, prudence and com- mon fenfe, that our all-wife and beneficent Creator has given us — his goodnefs^ in not fuf- pending their operations, but leaving them in full force, as to thefe circumfl:ances of pofitive duties — his ivifdom^ in grafting what is pofitive of his laws on thefe common principles — and, finally, the favourable circumfl:ance of his dimi- nifiiing the degree of pofitivenefs in New Tefia- ment inftitutions, as well as their number.

§ 35. Let us now recapitulate what has been faid in this chapter. — From an inveftigation of the nature of pofitive precepts and duties, as diftinguifhed from moral ones, together with their comparative obligations and importance, we have feen, that, in any cafe of fuppofed competition, the latter claims an undoubted preference. We have alfo feen, that nothing but abfolute, deci-

five

Ch. I. and Jnalogtcal Reajoningm 97

five, dlfcernible authority can turn the fcale in favour of the former^ or, indeed, place any law or duty in the rank of positive. Moreover, it has been (hewn, that every duty refulting from any difcernible moral relation^ muft needs be clafled among vtoral duties j that fome things ap- pertaining to the very ejfence of baptifm, on our opponents' own principles, are of moral confider- ation; particularly the qualifications of proper fubjedis; confequently, that baptifm is an or- dinance of a mixed nature, partly pofitive and partly moral. Of all which an unavoidable confequence is, that our opponents' outcry a- gainft all moral and analogical reafons in our in- quiries refpeding the fubjefts and mode of baptifm, is impertinent and abfurd, and to a demonftration contradidory to their own avowed principles. — The moft material, I believe, of the objections that may be urged againft my principles, have been anfwered. And this I can fmcerely aver, that I have not intentionally concealed one objedion, that has been or may be advanced, on account of any apprehended force therein. On the contrary, I have pur- pofely and ftudioufly fought out what appeared to me the moji forcible. And I am fatisfied that no obje£lsoi3L can be fairly made, which is not capable of a fair and full anfwer, and which will not eventually contribute to illuftrate and eftab- lifli what I here contend for.

Having now fixed upon the fpot, cleared F the

^5 Of Pofitwe InJiltuUonSj ^c. Cli. i,

the rubbifli, and laid the foundation, I proceed to the fuperftrufture, and firft of all to invefti- gate the Nature and Defign of tlie baptifmal rite.

CHAP.

Ch. a. Of the Nature^ &c. 99

CHAP. IL

Of the Nature and Defign of baptlfm; containing an account of the fa6ls, blef- fings, and obligations reprefented by it, impartially deduced from all the paflages in the New Teftament relating to it.

§ I. The beji method to find the nature and de- fign of baptif7n. § 2 — 7. (i) Thofc pajfoges of fcr'ipture that fpeak of baptifn in dire^ tenns. § 8. (2) Thofe that are fuppofed to allude to this ordinance. § 9. Axioms of interpretation. § lO —12. (t) The difference between the baptifn of John and that of Chrijl. § 13. (2) Their agreement. § 14. The general nature of bap- tif?n. § 15—17. (i) The blejpngs exhibited by it, § 18 — 21. (2) Obligations refulting from it. § 22. General conclufom\ (i.) baptifm obliges to fome dutieSy and exhibits fome benefits not cx~ prefsly mentioned in fcripture'i benefits and obli- gations beiiig correlates, § 23 — 35. (2) The propriety of denominating baptifn a feal of the covenant. § 36. And of confequcnce' the Lord's Supper. § 37. (3) The unworthinefs of minijler or fuhje£i does not nullify the ordinance. § 38. {4) To renounce infant baptifn^ as fuch, by a deftre of rebaptizing^ militates againfl the very F 2 nature

100 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

nature and dejtgn of the ordinance. § 39. (5) // is not necejfarily attended with fpiritual com" munications. § 40 — 42. (6) The death, burial^ and refurreStion of Chrijly not the principal faSis reprefented by ba^tifm.

§ I. np^HO' I have faid fo much in vlndi- X cation of inferential proof and juft analogy, in controverfial debates about inftitu- tions partially pofitive, as baptifm is (hewn to be; I am far from defiring to evade the force of any thing recorded in the New Teftament re- lative to this ordinance: on the contrary, the rules laid down in the preceding chapter require that we (hould very carefully attend to revealed fa£ls before all other confiderations, as all reafon- ings that may contradidl thefe muft needs be falfe and impertinent. It would be ridiculous to borrow the aids of analogy, while inveftigat- ing any fubjeil whatever, in oppofition to plain fads. For as an hypothefis in philofophy is juftly exploded, when the fyftem-maker, in whofe brain it was fabricated, forcibly drags all phe- nomena into its vortex, in defiance of well atteft- ed obfervations and experiments; fo that fyftem in divinity, whether it comprehends the whole body of it, or any particular part, muft needs be precarious and vain when it contradiSis re- vealed inconteftible fadls. And it is no lefs evident, that the pretenfions of any hypothefis muft be equally futile in proportion as it is in- confiftent with itfelf. To avoid thefe inconveni- ences

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm, lOi

ences I know of no better method, in general, than that which an ingenious writer on this fubjefl has adopted, in a fmall treatife which he callsi J Plain Account of the Ordinance of Baptifm*\ and that is, to Jay together all the texts in the New Tejiament relating to it; that from thefe, as fo many data, we may deduce the nature and defign of the inftitution, and learn every thing t\k that the inftitutor hath been pleafed to reveal concerning it. And this method I the rather adopt, not only becaufe it is proper and rational in itfelf, but likewife cannot be objefled to confiftently by any of our opponents. The Author of the Plain Ac- count produces firjl the paflages concerning John's baptifm, znA. fecondly thofe that refer to Chrift's baptifm ; and inferts promifcuoufly thofe paflages th^t only allude to the baptifmal rite. I fhall attempt, however, a flight improvement of his arrangement, by placing firjl all the pafl*ages in the Neiv Tejiament that fpeak of baptism in dire(5l terms and in whatever connedlion ; and fecondly thofe texts that are fuppofed to allude to the inftitution. This I think is lefs exception- able, fince the clafling of the texts in the man- ner he does, feems to imply an eflential dif- ference between the baptifm of John and that of Chrift, as a circumftance taken for granted, before the inquiry is made.

F 3 § 2. (I)

* Anenymouf, but generally afcribcd to M/, Foot, of Biiftolj addreflsd to Bp» Hoadlev, in a feries of Letterst

102 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

§ 2. (i) Let us begin with thofe pafTages that fpeak of baptism in dire6i terms and in ■whatever connexion. Mat. iii. 5 — 7. Then went out to him Jerufalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were bap- tized of him in Jordan, confefTmg their fins. But when he faw many of the Pharifees and Sadducees come to his baptifm he faid unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? — v. 11. 1 in- deed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whofe fhoes I am not worthy to bear; he ihall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft and with fire. — V. 13 — 16. Then cometh Jefus from Ga- lilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him faying, I have need to be bapti-zed of thee, and comeft thou to me? And Jefus anfwering faid unto him, fuffer it to be fo now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all rlghteoufnefs. Then he fuffered him. And Jefus •when he was baptized went up ftraightway out' of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened ' unto him, and he faw the Spirit of God de- fending like a dove and lighting upon him.— Chap. XX. 22, 23. But Jefus anfwered and faid, Ye know not what ye afk. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I fliall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptifm that T am baptized witli? They faid unto him, We are able. And he faith unto them, Ye fhall indeed drink of my cup, and be baptized with the baptlfji that I

am

Ch. 2. Dejign of Baptifm. lO^

am baptized withj but to fit on my right hand and On my left is not mine to give, but it Hiall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my father. — Chap. xxt. 25. The baptifm of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reafoned with themfelves, faying, If we fliall fay, From heaven; he will fay unto us, Why did ye not then believe him? — Chap, xxviii. 19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Fatlier, and of the Son,, and of the Holy Ghoft.

§ 3. Mark i. 4, 5.. John did baptize in the wildernefs, and preach the baptfn of repentance for the remidlon of fins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerufalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan confelTing their fms.— -y. 8 — 10. I indeed have baptized you with water; but he Ihall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft. And it came to pafs in thofe days, that Jefus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and v/as baptized of John in Jordan. And ftraightway coming up out of the water, he faw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a^^dove defcending upon him. — Chap. vii. 4. And when they come from the market, except they wafh, [Greek, baptize^'] they eat not; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the wafhing [Greek, baptizing,"] of cups and pots, and of bra- fen vefTels and tables. — Chap. xi. 30. The bap- tiftn of John, was it from heaven or of men? anfwer me,— Chap. xvi. 15, i6. And he faid F 4 unto

104 Of ihe Nature and Ch. 2.

unto them, go ye into all the world, and preach the gofpel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized fhall be faved.

§ 4. Luke iii. 3. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the laptifm of re- pentance for the remiffion of fins.— v. 7, 8. Then faid he to the muhitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? — V. 12—14. Then came alfo publicans to be baptized^ and faid unto him, Mafter, what fliall we do? And he faid unto them, Exad no more than that which is appointed you. And the fol- diers likewife demanded of him, faying, And what fhall we do? And he faid unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accufe any falfely; and be content with your wages, — v. 16. John anfwered, faying to them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than 1 cometh, the latchet of whofe fhoes I am not worthy to unloofe; he fhall baptize you with the Holy Ghofl and with fire. — z*. 21, 22. Now when all the people were baptized^ it came to pafs that Jefus alfo being baptized^ and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghofl defcended in a bodily fhape like a dove upon Iiim, and a voice came from heaven which faid, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleafed.— Chap. vii. 29, 30. And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, juftified God, be- ing baptized with the baptifm of John. But the Pharifees and lawyers rejedcd the counfel of

God

Ci». 2. Defign of Bapttfnt\ 105

God againft themfelves, being not baptized of him.

— Chap xi. 38. And when the Pharifee faw it, he marvelled that he had not firft wafhed [Gr. baptiz- ed] before dinner. — Chap, xii, 50. But I have a baptifm to be baptized with, and how am I ftrait- ened till it be accomplilhed! — Chap. xx. 4. The baptifm of John, was it from heaven or of men?

§ 5. John i. 25, 26. And they afked him, and fent unto him. Why baptize/} thou then, if thou -be not that Chrift, nor Elias, neither that prophet? John anfwered them, faying, I baptize with water. — v. 28. Thefe things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where Johri was baptizing — v. 31, And I knew him not; but that he (hould be made manifeft to Ifrael, there- fore am I come baptizing -with water. — v. 33.— He that fent me to baptize with water, the fame faid unto me, upon whom thou Ihalt fee the Spirit defcending and remaining on him, the fame is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghoft.

— Chap. iii. 22, 23. After thefe things came Jefus and his difciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them and baptized. And John alfo was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim; becaufe there was much water there; and they came and were baptized,-— v. 26. And they came unto John and faid unto him, Rabk",. he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bareft witnefs, behold the fame baptizeth^ and all men come to him. — Chap. iv. i, 2. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pha- rifees had heard that Jefus made and baptized more difciples than John, (tho' Jefiis himfclf

F 5 baptized

io6 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

baptized not, but his difciples). — Chap. x. 40. And went away again beyond Jordan, into the place where John at firft baptized^ and there he abode.

§ 6. Acts i. 5. For John truly baptized with water; but ye fhall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft not many days hence. — v. 22. Beginning from the haptifm of John, unto that fame day that he was taken up from us.— Chap. ii. 38, 39. Then Peter faid unto them. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jefus Chrift for the remifTion of fins, and ye fhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoft. For the promife is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God fliall call. — 'y. 41.. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized^ and the fame day there were added unto them about three thoufand fouls. — Chap. viii. 12 — 17^ But when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jefus Chrift, they were baptized both men and women. Then Simon himfelf believed alfo ; and when he was baptized^ he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the mira-« cles and figns that were done. Now when the Apoftles which were at Jerufalem heard that Sa- maria had received the word of God, they fent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghoft. For as yet he vras fallen upon none of them 5 only they were

baptized

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Bapttfm, lof

baptized In. the name of the Lord Jefus. Then laid they tlieir hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghofl. — v. 36—38. And as they went on their way they came unto a certain wa- ter. And the Eunuch faid, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip faid, If thou believeft with all thine heart, thou mayefl". And he anfwered and faid, I believe that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to ftand ftill. And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. — Chap. ix. 18. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been fcales ; and he received light forth- with, and arofe and was baptized. Chap. x. 37, 38. — That word (I fay) you know, which was publiflied throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptipn which John preached; How God anointed Jefus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghoft, &CC.—V. 47, 48. Can any man forbid water, that thefe fliould not be baptizedy which have received the Holy Ghod, as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. — Chap. xi. 15, 16. And as I began to fpeak, the Holy Ghoft fell on them, as on us at the beginning.^ Then re- membered I the word of the Lord, how that he faid, John indeed baptized with water; but ye ihall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft. — Chsp. xiii. 23—25. Of this man's feed hath God, according to his promife, raifed unto Ifrael a Saviour, Jefus: When John had firjl preached F 6 before

io8 Of the Natun and Ch. 2.

before his coming, the baptlfm of repentance to all the people of Ifrael. And as John fulfilled his courfe, he faid, Whom think ye that I am ? I am not he. — Chap. xvi. 15. And when Ilie fLydia] was baptized^ and her houfehold, flie befought us, kc—v. 33. And he [the jailor] took them the fame hour of the night, and wafhcd their flripes j and was baptized^ he and all his, ftraightway. — Chap, xviii. 8. And Crif- pus the chief ruler of the fynagogue, believed' on the Lord with all his houfej and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were bap- tized.— V. 25.— He [Apollos] fpake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptifrfi of JohrL. — Chap. xix. 3 — 5-. And he faid unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they faid. Unto John's baptlfm. Then faid Paul, John verily baptized with the baptlfm of repentance, faying unto the people, that they fhould believe on him which fhould come after him, that is, on Chrift Jefus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus. — Chap. xxii. 16. And now why tarrieft thou? Arife and be baptized, and wafli away thy fms, calling on the name of the Lord.

§ 7. RoM. vi, 3j 4. Know, ye not, that fo many of us as were baptized Into Jefus Chrift,, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptlfm into death; that like as Chrift was raifed up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even fo we alfo fhould walk

in

Ch. 2. Deftgn of Baptifm, 109

in newnefs of life. — i Cor. i. 13 — 17. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crifpus and Gaius ; left any fliould fay, that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized alfo the houfehold of Stephanas; befides, I know not whether I baptized any other; for Chrift fent me not to baptize^ but to preach the gofpel. — Chap. X. 2. And were all baptized unto Mofes in the cloud and in the fea. — Chap. xii. 13. P'or by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one fpirit. — Chap. xv. 29. Elfe what fhall they do, that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rife not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? — Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrift, have put on Chrift.— Ephef. iv. 5. One baptijm. — Col. ii. 12. Buried with him m baptiftny wherein alfo ye are rifen with him. — Heb. vi. 2. The do<Slrine of baptifms. — Chap. ix. icr. Which flood only in meats, and drinks, and di- vers waftiings [Greek baptifms] and carnal ordi- nances impofed on them until the time of refor- mation.—! Pet. iii. 21. The like figure where- unto, even baptfm^ doth alfo now fave us (not the putting away the filth of the flefti, but the anfwer of a good confcience towards God) by the refurredlion of Jefus Chrift. — Rev. xix. 13. And he was clothed with a vefture dipt in [Gr. baptized in or with] blood,

§8.

no Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

§ 8. (2) I SHALL now produce thofe pafTages that are fuppofed to allude to the ordinance of baptifm, tho' the term be not ufed. John iii. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the fplrit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. — V. 25. Then there arofe a queftion between fome of John's difciples and the Jews, about pu- rifying.—"2. Cor. vi. II. But ye are wajhed.— Eph. V. 26. That he might fandlify and cleanfe k, with the ivajhing of water ^ by the word. — Tit. iii. 5. According to his mercy he faved us, by the wajhing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghoft. — Heb. x. 22. Our bodies wajhed with pure water. — i Pet. i. 9. And hath for- gotten that he was purged from his old fins. — Rev. i. 5.— Unto him that loved us, and wajloed us from our fins in his own blood. -— — Perhaps the following texts, and fome others, allude to the chriftian purification. Tit. ii. 14. — And purify to himfelf a peculiar people. — James iv. 8.

. Cleanfe your kands, ye finners, and purfy your

hearts, ye double minded. — i Pet. i. 22. — See- ing ye have purified your fouls in obeying. — 2 Cor. vii. I. — Let us cleanfe ourfelves from all filthinefs of fiefli and fpirit. — i John i. 7. The blood of Jefus Chrift cleanfeth us from all fin. <y. g.— To cleanfe us from all unrighteoafnefs. — May I not add? Ads ii. 33. — Having re- ceived of the Father the promife of the Holy Ghoft, he hath ,[})ed forth this, which ye now fee and hear.— Rom. v. 5. The love of God is jked in your hearts by the Ploly Ghoft.— Tit.

iii. 6.

Ch. 2* Defign of Baptifm. rrr

iii. 6. Which he Jhed en us abundantly thro' Jefus Chrifl: our Lord. — A£ls x. 45.— On the Gentiles alfo was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghoft. &c.

§ 9. Before I proceed to confider thefe paf- fages, I would propofe the following remarks as axioms of interpretation.

1. Every one of thefe texts, feperately, con- fidered in its proper conneiSlion, muft have one principal defign and determinate meaning.

2. As they all proceed from the fame infal- lible fource, they muft have one general mean- ing, coUedlively, in which they all agree.

3. That cannot be the defign and meaning of any particular text which is contrary to this general defign, or even contrary to^ any other paflage which is more evident than itfelf.

4. That is to be deemed the general mean- ing of thefe paffages, and their true interpretation, which moft unexceptionably harmonizes with the whole revealed will of God, which is ever con- fiftent with itfelf.

5. As the law of nature, viz. That rule of action which derives its being from the na- ture of God and man, and the relation thence arifing, was never fuperfeded as ufelefs under any difpenfation of religion j but on the contrary always remained in force, and ever will remain ; no interpretation of thefe texts, or indeed any other, fliould be admitted as true, which feems to offer violence to this law of nature, otiierwife called the moral law, except it be fupported by

the

ri2 Of the Nature end Cli. 2,

the clear, indubitable, pofitive authority of GodV The reafon is evident; for as this law of na- ture is always binding in every part of the globe, and thro' every period of time; whatever appears to be probably conformable to it, or a faith- ful di6late of it, every man is hid under a pro- portionable obligation to obey its voice; until an infallible authority interpofes, ufhered in with Jlronger evidejice againft: the former fuppofed pro- bability, from whofe decifive verdidl there lies no appeal. This I the rather infift upon, becaufe it may ferve to explain the genuine meaning of a maxim on which Mr. B. lays confiderable ftrefs, viz. " Pofitive laws imply their nega- tive*." Pofitive duties as far as, or in the re- fpecl that they are pofitive^ that is, having no apparent reafon to recommend them but the mere authority of the Lawgiver, imply their ne- gatives, for this reafon, that no law whatever,. on the fuppofition, enjoins thefe negatives. Nol the natural or moral law, for then they would not be ranked among pofitive duties: not any pefitlve law, for then the term negative would be inapplicable. On the contrary, whatever appears, upon the whole, a moral duty, cannot with any propriety be termed the negative of any pofitive duty.

§ 10. (i) I SHALL now make fome obferva- tions on the foregoing texts. And it is ob- vious, in the firft place, that there is fome difference between the baptifm of John and that of Chrift and his Apoftles.

1, The » p. 1S7.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. J13

I, The immediate Injlitutor of John's bap- tifm was God the Father^ John i. 33. He that fent me to baptize with water, the same faid unto me, Upon whom thou (halt fee the Spirit defcending and remaining on him, the fame is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghoft. Here we fee that He who fent John to baptize was a divine Perfon diftinit from the Son and Spirit ; who muft be therefore the Father. — But the immediate Injlitutor of the Chrirtian baptifm, which is of perpetual ob'igation, is Chrift the Son of God. John iii. 22. After thefe things came Jefus and his difciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them and baptized. V. 26. And they came unto John and faid un- to him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan to whom thou bareft witnefs, behold the fame baptizeth, and all men come to himj &c. Mat. xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them he. P>om thefe paf- fages we obferve, that Chrift was the Injiitutor of baptifm before his death j and more explicitly before his afcenfion.

2. John's baptifm was a preparatory rite, re- ferring the fubjeils to Chrift, who was about to confer upon them fpiritual bleftings. Mat. iii. 11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repent- ance; but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whofe flioes I am not worthy to bear; he ftiall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft and with fire. Mark i. 8. I indeed have baptized you with wateri but he fliall baptize you with

the

114 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

the Holy Ghoft. Luke iii. 16. John anfwered, faying to them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whofe (hoes I am not worthy to un- loofe; he fhall baptize you with the Holy Ghoft and with fire.. John i. 31. And I knew him not, but that he fiiould be made manifeft: to Ifrael, therefore am I come baptizing with water. A£ls L 5. For John truly baptized with water, but ye fhall be baptized with the Holy Ghoft not many days hence. Chap. xix. 4. Then faid Paul, John verily baptized with the baptifm of repentance, faying unto the people, that they fiiould believe on him which fhould come after him, that is, on Chrifl: Jefus, &c. — The Chrif- tian baptifm was an a6lual initiation into the Meffiah's vifible kingdom. Ads ii. 41. Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized ; and the fame day there were added unto them about three thoufand fouls. — This addition was to the number of the difciplcs, and fubje£fs of Chrift; for thejiy when they were baptized^ were they reckoned among his followers. — The bap- tifm of John did not a^ually introduce any in- to the gofpel kingdom, or make them difciples. of Chrift; but thofe whom John baptized were properly his own difciples, and expectants of the Meffiah's bleffings. Whereas thofe whom Jefus ordered to be baptized, were ftridly his difciples, and were taught to expefl the promife of the Spirit, in his various gifts and graces.

3, It

#&-

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 115

3. It appears from the texts firfl: recited, that the baptifm of John was confined to the Jnvs^ and temporary; Mat. iii. S~7' &c.— But the Chriftian baptifm was common tq Jews and Gentiles, and of {landing obligation. John iii. 26. The fame baptizeth, and all men come unto him. Mat. xxviii. 19. Mark: xvi. 15, i6. &c.

4. It does not appear that John had any formula of adminiftration; nor, indeed, have we any account of his coimnijfwn^ but what may be inferred from what he fays John i. 33. He that SENT me to baptize with water. And we may further infer that his baptifm was from heaven, from what our Lord fays to the chief prieds and ciders of the people, Mat. xxi, 25. <kc. — Whence it appears that he was divinely autho- rized, and, as before obfcrved, that the Father was the Inftitutor. — But the Chriftian baptifm has "^ formula of adminillration. Mat. xxviii. 19. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.— And ftill fhorter, A6ts ii. 31. Be baptized every one of you IN THE Name of Jesus Christ. Alfo Chap. x. 38. In the Name of the Lord.

5. It may be added, that the baptifm of John was the concluding fcene of the legal dif- penfation, and in faiSl part of it. Hence the lead in the kingdom of God, vi'z, the gofpel kingdom, was greater than he. It may be con- fidered as a final and general purification, per- formed by John as the lart: prielL That he difcharged his office as a purifying prieft to the

thoufands

Ii6 Of the Nature and Ch. ^.

thoufands of Ifrael, fee Ads xiii. 23—25. Thus John went before Jefus in the fpirit and power of Elias (as promifed Mai. iv. 5.) to turn the hearts of the fathers with the children to him, and the difobedient to the wifdom of the juft; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. See Luke i. 17.— Chriftian baptifm is the regular entrance into and is a part of the evangelical difpenfa^ion. Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Chrift, have put on Chrift, &c.

6. It does not appear from the infpired nar- rative (however probable from inferential reafon- ing) that any but John himfclf was engaged as operator in his baptifm; whereas Chrift himfelf baptized none, but his difciples by his authority and in his name. John iv. 2.

§ II. Some have fuppofed another diftindion between the baptifm of John and that of Chrift, viz. ']'hat the latter had an immediate reference to the Holy Spirit^ requiring of the baptized faith in him as a divine Perfon, and an expec- tation of his promifed influence; that the former had no refpe<5t at all to that divine Perfon, nor fuppofed any information concerning hira ; in proof of which they urge, A<Sls xix. 2.— That Chriftian baptifm has an immediate relation to the promife of the Spirit exhibited in the gofpel difpenfation, I grant and maintain, but that any baptized by John (or even his dif- ciples) fhould be fo grofsly ignorant as not to know any thing about the Holy Ghoft, or never

to

Ch. 2. Dejign of "B apt I fin, II7

to have heard of him, is highly Improbable. There is nothing upon the fubjcifl more exprefsly and emphatically noticed by the evangelifts, than that John direded thofe whom he baptized to Chrift, as one who would baptize with the Holy Ghoji and with fire. It appears probable, there- fore, the difciples at Ephefus meant by their anfwer, That they had not been informed that the Holy Ghoft, in his miraculous influence, had been a<Sua!ly conferred on any of the difciples of John or of the Mefllah as yet. As if they had faid, We have not fo much • as heard whether there be any Holy Ghoft, miraculoufly communicated, much lefs have been made par- takers of the fame.— If this be not the import of their ftrange anfwer, what muft we infer? Were they baptized by John in their infancy^ about thirty years before? Were they children of parents who were fo ignorant or fo carelefs as not to inform them of this very important part of John's miniftry? Could they be baptized by this popular reformer, or have any connexion with thofe whom he difcipled, and not be informed of that extraordinary fa6t, the defcent of the Holy Ghoft upon Jefus at his baptifm? And was not the appellation familiar to John and his fol- lowers? Whether we confider thefe twelve men as natives of Ephefus or foreigners, as Jews or converted Gentiles, whether baptized with their parents in infancy, or when adults; attending the one interpretation there remains infuperable

difficulties,

liS Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

difFiculties, according to the other none at all. See A£ts x. 37, 38.

§ 12. The baptifiii of John, therefore, was a rite appertaining to the legal difpenfation, infti- tuted by God the Father for the ufe of the Jews alone, for a fhort time, to prepare them for the kingdom of the Mefllah then approach- ing, as by an extraordinary general purification*, attended .with fuitable inftrudions and exhorta- tions to the people, and performed by John himfelf. — And Chriftian baptifm, as far as it has been confidered, is an evangelical rite, infti- tuted by Chrift, the Son of God, for the ufe of Jews and Gentiles, to the end of time, to be adminiftered in the name of the Lord Jefus Chrift, or, more fully and properly, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghoft, performed by Chrift's difciples.

Thus John's miniftry and baptifm were, in a manner, the voice of the Father crying by him in the wildernefs to prepare the thoufands of Ifrael for a fuitable reception of his divine

Son.

>»^ John's baptirm is to be confidered as one of thofe " divers wafljiings," in ufe among the Jews on many occafions; for he did not attempt to make any alterations in the Jewifli religion as fettled by the Mofaic law, ary more than to ereft a new dif- penfation. And as thefe wa/hings were intended not only for " the purifying of the flefli," but to be figns and fymbo^s of moral purity ; fo the rite of baptifm was, in this view, very fuitable to the doftrine of repentance, which John preached, JE^MNGs's Jnvip Antiquities, B. I. chap. iii. Art Profelytes. — And the fame Author concludes, from a paflage in Jofepbus, that the latter makes John's baptifm to be of the nature of the jewifh purifications or ceremonial wafliings.

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. 119

Son. Behold the Lamb of God! Let your attention be drawn from all legal facrifices, as about to ceafe; and let it be direded to him m whom all the law and the prophets have their accomplifhment, and who is fliortly, in a won- derful manner, to bear away the fm of the world! — And lo, a voice from heaven, faying. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am

WELL VhE\sEi}\ — Hear ye him. But the

Chriftian baptifm is the inftitution of the Son, proclaiming the neceflity, and direding to the in- fluences of the divine Spirit; and thefe influ- ences poured upon the difciples of Jefus is the baptifm of the Spirit. And thus we are led with wonder and gratitude to contemplate the love and provident care of the Father,, the mediation and grace of the Son^ arid the effica- cious and everlafting operations of the Ho/y Ghoft, Thefe three are onej and they concur in bear- ing record to the truth and glory of the bleffed gofpel. See I Johji v. 6—8. And thofe who are baptized in the name of Jefus, or the facred Three-One, ftiould inceflantly breathe after the fpirit of grace, to which the ordinance refers us, Jefus, our divine Mafler and Lord, is able and ready to baptize us with the Holy Ghoft and with fire: not by conferring miraculous gifts, but, what is infinitely more important to us fanififying graces, whereby we may be purified and made meet for his heavenly kingdom.

§ 13- (2) It muft be allowed, in the next place, that between the baptifm of John and that

oi

120 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

of Chrlfl, there is an agreement in fomc particu- lars. And

1. They were both from heaven, or oi divine inftitution. The one inftituted by the Father^ the other by the Son^ but both aUke by the higheft authority.

2. There appears no mark of difference, in the two inftitutions, as to the a^ion of baptiz- ing; we may, therefore, conclude, for aught the different accounts fay to the contrary, that it was the fame. Pure water was the common clement, but the nature and mode of the adion itfelf will be confidered in its proper place.

3. The fame may be faid concerning the qualifications of their refpedive fuhje6ls\ which qualifications and the grounds thereof, will be examined at large in the fubfequent part of this treatife.

4. There was an agreement refpedling fome of the hlejfings fign'ijied and exhibited; particularly the remijfton of fins. Mark i. 4. Luke iii. 3. and A£ls ii. 38.— They both referred to Chriji as the fove reign difperfer of the influences of the Spirit, the one indeed in a fenfe more remote^ and the other direSlly. See Mat. iii. ii. &c. and A6ls ii. 38. &c.

5. Some obligations were alfo fimilar; efpecially that of repentance. See Mat. iii. 11. Ads xxii. 16. — Alfo that they fhould believe on Chriji » A6ts xix. 3 — 5. and chap. viii. 37. — Both re- quired a fuitable reformation of life and condud.

§ 14. I AM led by an attentive and impartial

furvey

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptifm. I2i

furvey of thofe facrcd paflages that have any re- ference to the baptifmal rite, to confider it in its mofl: general nature^ as " the inftituted ordi- *' nance of a regular admijfion into the vlfible king- " dom of Chrift, or, as it is fometimes called, the " kingdom of heaven j wherein the minijler fo- " lemnly recognizes the fitnefs of the baptized to " be a fubjecl of that kingdom."

I. It is the inftituted ordinance of a regular admiffion. See A£ls ii. 41. Charity, and the nature of the cafe, compel me to conclude, that there are many whom we ftiould deem fubjecls of Chrift's kingdom, even in its vifible form, who were never admitted into it 7ninijhr,ially by baptifm. Among whom we may reckon at leaft the promiftng (not to fay the infant) off-- fpring of Antipsedobaptifts; many well meaning tho' erroneous difciples of Fox and Barkley, he. Nor ftiould this conceflion feem at all ftrange to thofe who difclaim the pretended iti- fallibility of a viftble church: But however wil- ling we may be to embrace thefe in the arms of chriftian charity, as fellow fubjccls of Chrift's kingdom, yet as they were never initiated into it by the folemn right of baptifm, we cannot confider them as regiihr fubjecls.

1. It is an ordinance of admiffion into the Vlfible kingdom of Chrift. Compare Acts viii. 13- X. 47, 48. The Redeemer's kingdom is to be confidered in two rcfpects; as to \U fpiriiiud form, and its external odmlnijlration. Many, 110 G doubt.

122 Of the Nature a»d Ch. 2.

doubt, belong to the former^ who have no re- gular conne6lion with the lattery and many, it is equally certain, are introduced to the Meffi- ah's kingdom thro' the baptifmal ceremony, (even in adult age,) who are not the fubjedts of his fpiritual government. It is highly probable this was the cafe with great numbers of difciples who followed Chrift but for a feafon, and then forfook him ; we might alfo inftance in Judas, Simon the forcerer, &c. And many will fay at laft. We have eaten and drunk in thy prefence, who yet will be difowned. However regular the admiflion, and however unimpeachable the external allegi- ance of fome perfons, they may be, notwith- (landing, eflentially deficient in a fpiritual view, and be at laft tranflated into the kingdom of' darknefs,

3. It is a folemn recognition of the fitnefs of the baptized to be a fubjecSl of that kingdom. See Mat. xxviii. 19. The qualifications of the fub- jeds muft be of a moral nature, as before fhewn, and baptifm does not produce thefe but fuppofe them. So far is it, therefore, from faving a foul, ex opere opcrato, that it does not even con- flitttte a vifible fubje£l or member, but only re- cognize one; and fo far from making the bap- tired a child of God, a member of Chrift, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, in the proper fenfe of thefe terms, that it is only decla- rative of his fitnefs to be a fubjed: of the ex- ternal adminiftration of that kingdom. Ads yiii. 13.

4. The

Ch. 2. Defign of Baptlf?n. 123

4. The perfon whofe right it is to determine this fitnefs is the minijier who does folemnly recognize it. See Mat. xxviii. 19. Whatever extra- vagant notions have obtained refpecling the power of the keys, in admitting into the kingdom of heaven or (hutting out of it, there is, however, a found fenfe in which this power is affigned to minifters. They are the appointed guardians of the inftitution, and have a negative voice in oppofition to all claims. If they abufe this pow- er, as fallible perfons may, to their own Mafler they ftand or fall. Their Sovereign and Judge is at hand.

§ 15. (i) Let us next inquire, by fcripture evidence, into the things reprefented by this fig- nificant rite. Paflages of information relating to this particular are very numerous j but if I mif- take not, there is not one but is naturally redu- cible to thefe two heads, viz. hlejfings exhibited by it, and obligations refulting from it. I ftiall begin with the former.

I. One of the important bleflings exhibited in the ordinance of chriftian baptifm, as in a bright 4^ mirror, is the remijjion of fins. A(5ls ii. 38. In this, as obferved before, the baptifm of Chrift agreed with that of John, and I may add, with the divers baptifms under the law (Heb. ix. 10.) Indeed it is not eafy to conceive how there could be a difpenfation of grace, or exhibition of mercy to fallen man, in any period of time, without including this blelRng as an efjmtial part of it.

G 2 2. It

124 Of the Nature and Ch. 2.

2. It exhibits falvation thro' Chriji. Mark xvi. i6. I Pet. iii. 2i. The difplay oi fahatioriy fimply confidered, is not peculiar to the chrirtian ceconomy, more than the remiflion of fins; but the peculiarity of the one and the other blefling under the gofpel difpenfation is, that they are propofed thro' the mediation and atonement of the MelTiah aSlually come. Now, in this laft moft perfect and unfhaken eftabhfhment of rehgion, the initiatory rite of it, baptifm, exhibits falva- tion and life eternal to its highly favoured fub- jedls, as not only procured by the merits^ but alfo conferred by the hands of its divine Founder.

3. In chriftian baptifm is exhibited un'ioyi and commuvion with Chrift and with his body the church. I Cor.