also am Israelite," &c. "The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded."

This interpretation of the promise solves every difficulty respecting God's dealings with that people. And the view which is here given of the case is only further illustrated and extended in the passage under examination.

The 16th verse should be taken in connexion with the 7th; for what comes between, is rather a digression, though it pertains, in some degree, to the main subject treated of. The argument then will be this, viz. "The election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." The heirs of promise were expressly designed to be a holy people: God said he would "multiply Abraham," i. e. literally and spiritually; the latter was the highest and most important sense; i. e. he engaged that he would multiply persons of his character as the stars of heaven. Hence for any to be included in the promise as heirs of the same blessing with him, they must have the same character-they must likewise be holy-not federally or relatively holy, but really holy. "For if the first fruit be holy," i. e. if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were truly holy men, "the lump is also holy;" i. e. the whole body of the seed included in the promise, is holy too, and that in the same sense; as the whole lump of dough, or the whole harvest was holy in the same sense that the first fruit

was.

Again: And if the root be holy, i. e. if Abraham the father of the Jewish nation be holy, so are the branches, viz. the branches included in the promise-the seed that should be called and blessed with faithful Abraham. It was manifestly intended that the same holiness should descend from generation to generation to give a right to the promise. "Abraham's children" must and "would do the works of Abraham." "If the root be holy, so are the branches, viz. the approved branches-the real heirs; for they were not all Israel which were of Israel; neither because they were the seed of Abraham were they all children."

The apostle adds: "And if some of the branches be broken off." "The branches," in this clause, mean not the holy branches, but the mere "natural branches”—those that "were of the circumcision only."

The olive tree, previous to this breaking off of some of the branches, included the nation, all of the posterity of Abraham in the line of Isaac and Jacob. God, then, separated one whole nation in distinction from all other nations, to be his people, and thus connected church and state together; so that chil

1

dren were then born in the church, because they were born of the nation which God had thus separated to be his people.

But he has now placed the same church under a new covenant or constitution, whereby the sound part is retained, i. e. the believers, and the residue is cut off or rejected. The church is no longer perpetuated by natural descent, or in a national capacity as before, but consists of select individuals that are born of the Spirit, or of such as profess and appear to be born of the Spirit.

Hence the branches that are said to be broken off, are the mere "natural branches"-" children according to the flesh."

This construction does, indeed, make the apostle speak of two sorts of branches in these two verses. But it is evidently as proper to understand him to speak of two sorts of branches in these connected verses, as to understand him to speak of two kinds of holiness in a single verse, viz. the 16th, as the Pedobaptist interpretation maintains, viz. a real holiness and a federal holiness. For there were "children of the stock of Abraham, who were not of his faith; and such were broken off; while the rest, the believers, remained; and with those that remained, believing Gentiles were graffed in. The church, or the olive tree, under the new constitntion, is composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, and of no other. It being no longer national in its character, infants are no longer members by birth, nor are they considered, federally, a holy seed. But the church is a select company, called out of the world

Some of the branches were broken off, and some remained. Now the question is, who remained. The Pedobaptists say, believers and their infant children. But where is the proof of this? It is, surely, not contained in this chapter; but the contrary is manifestly implied. The words "because of unbelief they were broken off," show that all unbelievers, whether old or young, were broken off, and that none but believers were retained. And all mankind are divided into these two classes. Although mere infants cannot be said openly to reject the gospel, they are depraved by nature, and cannot be reckoned among the friends of Christ; but must be included in the class of unbelievers. No one can consistently say they are included among believers, and that they "stand by faith."

I do not deny that some of them have the principle of faith, or that they are born of the Spirit, and sanctified, as it were, from the womb. And, consequently, should they die in infancy, they are prepared to join the blood-washed throng in heaven.

Still they are not born into the world with the principle of faith; otherwise they would not need to be born again.

Therefore, merely as infants, or by virtue of their being born of pious parents, they are not members of the household of faith. Consequently, they cannot be considered as standing by birth, in the good olive, seeing that all who remain therein stand by faith.

It is evident that, although some infants are sanctified in that early age, (and perhaps all who die before they come to years of understanding,) multitudes are not sanctified, but grow up in sin and unbelief. Therefore it would be highly absurd to consider infants in common, or even the infants of believers, as renewed unto holiness. And even those who are renewed cannot give evidence thereof, nor can they understandingly enjoy any church privilege. It is not our province to judge the heart, and hence the incapacity of infants to give a reason of the Christian's hope, forbids their being received as disciples and baptized. So far as the rule for baptism and church fellowship is respected, they must be considered in unbelief. They actually are in unbelief unless born of the Spirit: and such of them as may be born of the Spirit, cannot give us the evidence thereof; and so we have no rule that reaches their case; but must leave them to the disposal of God.

The cutting off of the branches, so far as the invisible church is respected, includes all who are unrenewed, of every age: and as the visible church is respected, it includes all who are not visibly and professedly renewed. Some may belong to the former who do not belong to the latter; and some may belong to the latter who do not belong to the former. The rule by which we are to act will neither bring into the visible church. of God every true saint, nor exclude every one that is not a true saint. The visible church, like the invisible, is a select society, and there are certain qualifications necessary in those that are received; but these qualifications may be apparently, yet not really possessed; and so the church be deceived with regard to some of her members.

It is no argument that the infants of believers should be reckoned with the household of faith, and baptized, on the ground that some of them may be born of the Spirit; because if admitted, it would be equally in favour of the baptism of the infants of unbelievers; for doubtless some of them are born of the Spirit too. And certainly the former are no more capable of manifesting a renewal than the latter.

Besides, if we were to say that the seed of believers are to be considered really holy till they manifest the contrary by their

conduct, and so base their union to the olive tree and their baptism on this ground, the argument could not apply in favour of household baptism, because it frequently happens that a household contains children who are old enough to be ranked decidedly with unbelievers. And such are often baptized, too, upon the faith of parents. Here is an evident inconsistency: for these children most clearly belong to the class of unbelievers who are cut off.

To remedy the whole difficulty, will it be said that the faith by which the children stand is merely the faith of the parents, and that the former are acknowledged to be unbelievers?

In reply to this I would remark, that in no part of the account given of the good olive is it said that parents stand by faith together with their unbelieving children; but the privilege is limited to actual believers. "And thou standest by faith."

But it will be further plead that the apostle speaks of the believing Gentiles partaking of "the root and fatness of the olive tree, by which must be meant the blessings and privileges of the Abrahamick church, and consequently, as circumcision was formerly applied to infants as a token of these blessings, so baptism should be applied to them now.

This argument implies that baptism is a substitute for circumcision, which is not the case, as I have already shown. Besides, it implies that females were circumcised as well as males, which was not the case. It also implies that the children of Jewish believers were continued in the gospel church, which is taking for granted the very thing in dispute. If those children were not considered as belonging to the good olive after the breaking off before mentioned, as I have shown, then the root and fatness of the tree, of which believing Gentiles partake, in common with believing Jews, must mean something which both inherit for themselves, and not for their children, viz. justification by faith and eternal life. "So then," says the apostle Paul, in another place, "they that are of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."

I know we meet with the following words in the Abrahamick covenant, viz. "To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." But the seed here is not restricted to his immediate children, as the argument for infant baptism implies; but embraces his remote posterity also: therefore, if the promise applies to each believing parent in the same sense that it did to him, and baptism is to be administered to his seed on the same principle that circumcision was to Abraham's, then not only his immediate children, but his grand children and great grand children, yea, all his succeeding posterity, must be baptized on his account, or by virtue of God's covenant with him. And con

sequently the church would become completely national. It is very manifest that the right of circumcision to Abraham's seed, however remote, was based not upon the faith of successive parents, but upon their descent from him, and God's order that they should be circumcised in their generations. Therefore, there would be no authority for requiring faith of each successive parent in the line, in order to the baptism of his children, but the right of all would follow from the faith of the first. Certainly, the seed included with Abraham embraced his remote as well as immediate children; although all of each generation were not heirs of his blessing; but only such as the covenant should be established with, or such as should be effectually called. Yet all the natural seed were to be circumcised. Hence it will be seen, that if we insist that the covenant is established with each believing parent in the same sense that it was with him, and hence infer the duty of infant baptism, the right to baptism belongs as much to his remote posterity as to his immediate. And if this extent of the right is not maintained, the argument is lost; and Abraham's case must be confessed to be peculiar, as it truly was.

It is abundantly manifest that parents in common do not stand in the same relation to this covenant that Abraham didnot even Jewish parents. God has not made such a promise to each believer respecting his seed after him in their successive generations as he did to that patriarch. His was a peculiar case. He was the honoured father of the Jewish nation, which God, by a free and sovereign act, separated from all other nations. God promised not only that he would give him a numerous natural posterity, but also a numerous spiritual posterity from among them, and also from the Gentiles. And to this seed, which he would call, by his grace, in their successive generations, he promised to be a God. This, therefore, gives a very different view of the case from that which is presented by limiting the term seed, to his immediate offspring; and fully evinces that he stood in a peculiar relation to the covenant made with him, and that ordinary parents were not to be thus distinguished. Others are not fathers of the faithful in the sense that he was. But all believers, first among the Jews, and then among the Gentiles, are the seed of Abraham, to whom the promise was made, and is sure. Thus, as the apostle asserts, "he was the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith which he had, being yet uncircumcised." He was also the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcis