Page images
PDF
EPUB

and the power of Chrift; but left by any conduct of his, his miniftry should be rendered useless among men. The inftances of David and Peter are no proofs of the final and total apoftacy of saints, fince they were both recovered from their falls by divine grace. Judas, indeed, fell from his election to an office, but not from election to grace and glory, in which he never had any intereft; and alfo from his ministry and apostleship, which is never denied to be an outward favour, though no inward special grace, and fo nothing to the purpose. The chapters referred to, 1 Cor. x. Heb. vi. and x. Rev. ii. and iii. Ezek xviii. 2 Peter ii. I have largely confidered elsewhere, and have fhewn that they have nothing in them repugnant to the faints final perfeverance; where I have also confidered the feveral cautions and exhortations given to the faints refpecting this matter; and have fhewn the nature and ufe of them; to which I refer the reader.

3. Under this head is again introduced the doctrine of God's feeing no fin in his people. In order to set this doctrine in a proper light, we distinguish between God's eye of omniscience and of justice; with the one he does, and with the other he does not behold the fins of his people, being juftified by the righteousness of his Son: we also distinguish between the correction or chastisement of a father, and the punishment of a judge; which distinction we think might be allowed, and thought fufficient to keep the door fhut, and not to open it to all manner and degrees of immorality, falfhood and lewdness, as this man suggests"; though we do not diftinguish, as he foolishly infinuates', between being chaftened and punished in hell fire: who ever talked of fatherly chastisements in hell? The text in Numb. xxiii. 21. He bath not beheld iniquity in Jacob, &c. he says*, is spoken of the whole body of Ifrael, all the pofterity of Jacob, who apoftatized, rebelled, fell, and were cut off through unbelief, and fo no ways ferves our cause. I answer, that that whole body of people were a typical people, typical of all God's elect, or his fpiritual Ifrael, and what is spoken typically of them, is really true of the other; and as all that people were, on the day of atonement, typically cleansed from all their fins and tranfgreffions, hence God, in respect to that, beheld no iniquity in them; fo the whole spiritual Ifrael of God, or all God's elect, being cleanfed from their fins, and having them all really expiated by the blood and facrifice of Chrift, God fees no iniquity in them to take vengeance on them for it. But if this will not do, this man has more to say, and that is, that learned men fay, for he is no judge himself, that the Hebrew original will justify another reading, namely, he doth not approve of outrage against the pofterity of Jacob, nor vexation against Ifracl. I reply, that as our version

[blocks in formation]

agrees with the context and defign of the writer, fo it entirely accords with the original Hebrew, and much more fo than this other reading does; and is con firmed by the Samaritan, Syriac and Arabic verfions, and by fuch learned men as Vatablus, Pagnine, Arias Montanus, Junius and Tremellius, Drufius, Fagius, Ainfworth, &c. and could this new tranflation, though it is wholly borrowed from Gataker, be justified, it would be fo far from militating againft, that it would rather establish the doctrine we contend for; for, if God disapproves of outrage and vexation against his people by others, he himself will give them none; or, in other words, he fees no fin in them so as to punish them himself: moreover, if this text was out of the question, the doctrine we plead for will stand its ground, we are not in fuch poverty and distress; for befides Jer. 1. 20. which has been produced already, though this writer takes no notice of it, we have many others which contain the fame truth; fee Pfalm xxxii. 1. and lxxxv. 2. and 1.. 2. and li..7. 1 John i. 7. Cant. iv. 7. Ezek. xvi. 14. Ifai. xliii. 25. and xliv. 22. Col. i. 21, 22. and ii. 10. Rev. iii. 18. and xiv. 5.

VII. We are now come to the last thing in the debate, the ordinance of Baptifm. What is said upon this point may be reduced to these two heads, the subjects and the mode.

1. The fubjects. The probability of the Jews baptizing the children of Gentile profelytes; of the apostles understanding and executing their commission, in conformity to their Jewish notions and customs; and of the early baptifm of infants in the christian church, this writer thinks is ground fufficient for the practice", that is, of infant-baptifm. But is it probable that there was such a practice among the Jews, before the coming of Chrift, to baptize their profelytes and their children? fince there is not the leaft hint of it, nor any allufion to it in the writings of the Old Testament, in which difpenfation this practice is faid. to obtain, nor in the apocryphal writings of the Jews; nor in the writings of the New Testament; nor in thofe of Philo and Jofephus, both Jews, and well verfed in the customs of their nation; nor even in the Mifna itself, a collection of their traditions; the authors and compilers of that have not the least syllable of this practice in it. This man therefore, has either miftook his authors, or they have misled him: the truth of the matter is, this rite is first mentioned, not in the Mifna, but the Gemara, a work later than the other, of fome hundred years after Chrift: and was this custom probable, is the probability of it a fufficient ground to establish such a practice upon, as a New-Teftament-ordinance? Is it probable that the apostles understood and executed their commiffion according to their Jewish notions and cuftoms, though it does not appear, nor is it prom Part II. p. 110.

לא הביט און ביעקב ולא ראה עמל בישראל !

bable:

bable that they had any fuch as this; and not rather according to the plain mind and meaning of their Lord and Master, who by his example and doctrine had taught them both how, or in what manner, and whom they should baptize what probability is there of the early baptifm of infants in the chriftian church? and, if there was, is that a fufficient foundation? Should there not be a plain proof for what claims the name of an ordinance, a pofitive institution, a part of religious worship? does it appear that any one infant was baptized by John, by Chrift, or his orders, or by his apoftles, or in the two first centuries? There was a talk about infant-baptism in the third century, but it will be difficult to prove a fingle fact, even in that; and if it could be proved, would this justify a practice that has neither precept nor precedent in the word of God? But it seems it was agreeable to the Jewish customs, to admit profelytes and their children by circumcifion, and as soon as capable, to instruct them in religion"; and that the Jewish children were entered into their church by circumcifion, and fo baptifm is the only fign of admiffion into the chriftian church. To which I anfwer, as to Jewish customs, we have feen already what foundation there is for them, or probability of them; and as for the Jewish church, it was national, and the children of the Jews, as foon as born, before they were circumcised, belonged unto it, and therefore were not entered by circumcifion. The inftance produced by this man clearly proves it; for the little children represented in Deut. xxix. 11, 12. as entering into God's covenant, and belonging to the congregation of Ifrael, were not as yet circumcised, fee Joshua v. 5. and confequently could not be entered this way. Nor is baptifm any admiffion, or a fign of admiffion of perfons, infants, or adult, into a visible church of Chrift; perfons may be baptized, and yet not admitted into a church: what vifible church of Chrift was the eunuch admitted into, when he was baptized, or his baptism a fign of his admiffion into?

2. The mode of it. That there is any efficacy in baptifm, to regenerate perfons, take away fin, or make men more holy, is what is never afferted by us; nor do we think that a quantity of water is of any confequence on that account: we affirm it to be declarative and fignificative of the death, burial, and refurrection of Chrift; for which reafon we contend for the mode of immersion, as being fo, and only fo. The washing a part, the principal part of the body, this author thinks may stand for the whole. The inftance with which he supports this, is in Exod. xxiv. 8. His fenfe of that paffage is, that not the people, but the pillars were fprinkled; which, he imagines, muft appear to every man in his fenfes though, according to his own account, it did not fo appear to fome, who thought the twelve young men were sprinkled, instead of the people; and though • Ibid. p. 110, 111.

Part II. p. 113.

though rejected by the learned Rivet, and others; yea, though Mofes, and the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, fay not a word of sprinkling the pillars, but affirm that the people were sprinkled. And if this man was in his fenfes, he would have seen which of these fenfes would have ferved his purpose beft; for if not the people, but the pillars were fprinkled in their ftead, then not a part, a principal part, nor any part of them, were fprinkled; and fo no inftance of fprinkling or washing a part of the body for the whole. He is now brought to allow that sprinkling, or washing the face, does not fignify the death, ́burial, and refurrection of Chrift; though dipping the face or head in water, may do it. But why not go further, and rather fay, dipping the whole body in water does it? fince we are faid to be buried with Chrift in baptifm, Rom. vi. 1. Col. ii. 12. which men of sense and learning allow to refer to the ancient mode of baptizing by immerfion. Baptifm is never called circumcifion; nor are perfons in baptifin faid to be crucified with Chrift, but to be baptized into his death, and to be buried with him; and which can be reprefented by no other mode than that of immerfion, or covering the whole body in water. But, after all, this way must still be infinuated to be unfafe, and indecent; and the old rant and calumny continued, against the cleareft evidence, and fulleft convictions to the contrary.

Thus have I confidered and replied to the material things objected to the doctrines before in debate. One might have expected, that, in this Second Part, the author would have proceeded on fome new fubjects. This, to be fure, cannot be the Second Part he formerly intended. Perhaps his long harangue on the freedom of speech, and liberty of writing, is to pave the way for what he has farther to communicate. I am very defirous he should fpeak out freely, and write all he has to fay. What it is he has farther in defign, does not yet appear we muft wait patiently, and in the mean time bid him adieu, until he obliges us with his Third Part.

[Note, The pages in the foregoing marginal Notes in general refer to the Octavo Edition. ]

VOL. II.

Y

THE

THE MORAL NATURE AND FITNESS OF

THINGS CONSIDERED.

OCCASIONED BY

Some PASSAGES in the Reverend Mr SAMUEL CHANDLER'S Sermon,

lately preached to the Societies for the Reformation of Manners.

[ocr errors]

OTHING is more frequently talked of in this enlightened age, this age of politeness, reafon and good fenfe, than the nature and fitness of things; or, the reafon and nature of things; phrafes, which to many, at leaft, that ufe them, are unmeaning and unintelligible founds; and ferve only as a retreat, when they have been fairly beaten out of an argument by the fuperior force and evidence of divine revelation. It may easily be obferved, how glibly, and with what volubility of fpeech, with what a fagacious look, and an air of wisdom, these words are pronounced by fome, who, when afked, what things are meant? what the nature of them? and, what the fitness which arifes from them? are at once filenced and confounded. This must be understood of your lower-fized folks, who take up these fayings from others, and use them as parrots, by rote. It must be prefumed, that their learned mafters, from whom they have received them, better understand them, and are capable of explaining the meaning of them; among thefe, the Reverend Mr Samuel Chandler makes a very confiderable figure; whofe Sermon, lately preached to the Societies for the Reformation of Manners, lies before me; upon which I fhall take leave to make fome few ftrictures. This Gentleman, not content to affert, that the difference between moral good and evil is certain and immutable, which will be readily granted; further affirms, that "this arifes from the nature of things; is strictly and pro"perly eternal; is prior to the will of God, and independent of it; is the inva«riable and eternal rule of the divine conduct, by which God himself regulates "and determines his own will and conduct to his creatures; the great reason and "measure of all his actions towards them, and is the fupreme original, univerfal, and most perfect rule of action to all reasonable beings whatsoever; and

"that

« PreviousContinue »