but his disciples, according to Dr. W. may be obliged, in Dr.W. certain cases, well to consider how far "local customs and national decency" will permit them to perform his commands. For if that decency and those customs "are not to be overlooked," they must be regarded. But, if regarded, they must have an influence on the administration: and who can say how far that influence may extend? Who shall set bounds, in this case, to the combined and controlling power of "local customs and national decency," whenever they are inimical to the positive appointments of Jesus Christ?-Had this principle of our author been understood and approved by the patriarch Abraham, he would not so readily have obeyed the divine order to circumcise himself and his male domestics, as he manifestly did. For except Dr. W, believe that circumcision was originally, not of the fathers,* but of the idolatrous Gentiles, he must conclude, that the friend of God, in performing that rite, acted contrary to "local customs," and was considered by multitudes as committing the most violent outrage on "national decency."To meet with such an assertion from the pen of a Jesuit, would not be surprising; but I am astonished to find it recorded by a Protestant Dissenter. Though Dr. W. frequently speaks of positive institutions, without limitation or distinction, yet he insists that baptism and the Lord's supper are not institutes of a merely positive kind; nay, that the rites of ancient Judaism were not of that nature; as will appear by the following extracts. "There are no precepts, now in force at least, of a nature merely positive. None, I mean, wherein all the minutia of circumstances necessary for the discharge of the duty commanded, are specified by the Lawgiver; and, therefore, those institutions of Christianity, which are commonly termed positive, are but partially so." He proposes to demonstrate" that * John vii. 22. "the New Testament institutions ARE NOT of a nature merely positive," but " of a mixed nature; that is to say, partly positive and partly moral." "There were," he says, "many precepts under the Jewish economy, positive in a considerable degree, relative to the subject as well as the mode of an institute-but it does not follow, that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as not to take some things for granted respecting the circumstances of the duty; such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, and so on. He tells us, "That the qualification of the subjects formed no part of the positiveness of the law of baptism....To purify by water, in the name of the Father, and so on, was of a positive nature; but what kind of moral qualifications (and no other are supposed) were suitable, for a participation of the ordi nance, needed no positive standard to determine."†Hence, he infers, that "not to distinguish between the positiveness and morality of a precept, ordinance, or duty, and not to ascertain their respective degrees; and to deny that the latter distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, opens a wide door to bigotry, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles."Such is Dr. W.'s view of the subject before us: in opposition to which the following things may be considered. "No religious institute now that is merely positive; and the rites of ancient Judaism were so only to a considerable degree." Then it has been with but little pene tration or accuracy, that theological writers, for time immemorial, have so generally contrasted positive ap pointments with moral duties. For I do not recollect a single author, besides Dr. W., who denies either the rites of Judaism, or baptism and the Lord's supper, to be strictly speaking positive institutions. But who can + Vol. ii. 394, 395. * Vol. i. 34, 38, 39, 87, 88. ‡ Vol. i. 91. but his disciples, according to Dr. W. may be obliged, in certain cases, well to consider how far "local customs. and national decency" will permit them to perform his commands. For if that decency and those customs are not to be overlooked," they must be regarded. But, if regarded, they must have an influence on the administration: and who can say how far that influence may extend? Who shall set bounds, in this case, to the combined and controlling power of "local customs and national decency," whenever they are inimical to the positive appointments of Jesus Christ?-Had this principle of our author been understood and approved by the patriarch Abraham, he would not so readily have obeyed the divine order to circumcise himself and his male domestics, as he manifestly did. For except Dr. W. believe that circumcision was originally, not of the fathers, but of the idolatrous Gentiles, he must conclude, that the friend of God, in performing that rite, acted contrary to "local customs," and was considered by multitudes as committing the most violent outrage on "national decency."-To meet with such an assertion from the pen of a Jesuit, would not be surprising; but I am astonished to find it recorded by a Protestant Dissenter. * Though Dr. W. frequently speaks of positive institutions, without limitation or distinction, yet he insists that baptism and the Lord's supper are not institutes of a merely positive kind; nay, that the rites of ancient Judaism were not of that nature; as will appear by the following extracts. "There are no precepts, now in force at least, of a nature merely positive. None, I mean, wherein all the minutia of circumstances necessary for the discharge of the duty commanded, are specified by the Lawgiver; and, therefore, those institutions of Christianity, which are commonly termed positive, are but partially so." He proposes to "demonstrate" that * John vii. 22. دو "the New Testament institutions ARE NOT of a nature merely positive," but "of a mixed nature; that is to say, partly positive and partly moral." "There were," he says, "many precepts under the Jewish economy, positive in a considerable degree, relative to the subject as well as the mode of an institute-but it does not follow, that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as not to take some things for granted respecting the circumstances of the duty; such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, and so on. He tells us, "That the qualification of the subjects formed no part of the positiveness of the law of baptism....To purify by water, in the name of the Father, and so on, was of a positive nature; but what kind of moral qualifications (and no other are supposed) were suitable, for a participation of the ordinance, needed no positive standard to determine."Hence, he infers, that "not to distinguish between the positiveness and morality of a precept, ordinance, or duty, and not to ascertain their respective degrees; and to deny that the latter distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, opens a wide door to bigotry, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles."Such is Dr. W.'s view of the subject before us: in opposition to which the following things may be considered. "No religious institute now that is merely positive; and the rites of ancient Judaism were so only to a considerable degree." Then it has been with but little pene tration or accuracy, that theological writers, for time immemorial, have so generally contrasted positive ap pointments with moral duties. For I do not recollect a single author, besides Dr. W., who denies either the rites of Judaism, or baptism and the Lord's supper, to be strictly speaking positive institutions. But who can * Vol. i. 34, 38, 39, 87, 88. Vol. i. 91. + Vol. ii. 394, 395. wonder that the penetration of a "superior genius"one who announces himself on his title page as a second Elihu, professedly to "show his opinion," should discover a "latent mystery?"-Besides, as Dr. W. expressly allows the "propriety of my reasoning upon the nature and essential properties of positive institutions, as far as they are such,*" he felt himself constrained to seek for a new ground, on which to defend his cause. But were it not for what has just been mentioned, it would appear a little extraordinary, and not easily to be credited, that, after such numbers of the most learned and able authors have appeared in vindication of Pædobaptism, a NEW general principle of defending it, that is worthy of the highest regard, should be found by my opponent. It is not, indeed, uncommon for expert polemics to argue upon old principles in a new manner; but, respecting theological subjects, and in the present age, we seldom find a new and solid principle of argumentation adopted, in vindication of an old cause-a cause that has been defended a thousand times, and that by persons of profound learning and acute parts.-Being "enamoured," though not "disproportionately," with an observation made by Dr. W., I confess myself strongly "tempted" to transcribe it; only taking the liberty of applying it in a different manner. Thus, then, our author: "That such characters as Mr. Brainerd, or his celebrated biographer Mr. Jonathan Edwards, that professors Witsius and Turretinus, doctors Owen and Manton, bishops Latimer and Leighton, reformers Luther and Calvin, and a thousand more of the same spirit, should [consider baptism as a merely positive institute,] is not wonderful, on our principles; but that such persons as these should be guilty of an enormous [blunder, with regard to the true nature of a positive rite;]-deliberately, habitually, in their most serious moments, and, for a long series of years, to their dying day-is what I cannot digest. But he * Vol. i. 48. |