This, however, our Brethren do not approve. For though the law of baptism be but one, and though the qualifications expressly required by it are the same in every proper subject, yet, strange as it may appear, the baptizing of households must, at all events, be considered as including infants, that cannot believe; and as excluding all the rest of the family, if they do not believe. You must know, then, that the term household, in this connection, is of a singular nature; for it often treats with a distant reserve, and with generous complaisance, the different members of the same family. Are you, for instance, inclined to oppose Mr. Blake, who argues from it in favour of his hypothesis? you may easily show, that when the master of a family is baptized on a profession of faith, the word household must not be understood as extending to either his wife, his adult offspring, or any of his domestics, except they believe. Have you a mind to confute the Baptists, who dwell so much on a profession of faith as necessary to baptism? this identical word will open its friendly bosom to embrace infants, and secure their title to that institution, though incapable of repentance and faith: for, Janus-like, it has two faces respecting the same family, and will turn the one or the other towards its different objects just as your case demands.-Our Brethren seem to forget, that the ordinance about which we contend is a positive institution; and that the only rule of its administration is divine law, or apostolic example, and not dubious conjecture, which is the utmost that can be supposed here; for none, whom I have observed, pretend a certainty that there were infants in any of these baptized families. There is too much reason therefore to suspect, that the love of hypothesis, and the want of solid argument, excite many of our opposers to produce the passages before us with such an air of confidence as they often do.

§ 8.-Rom. xi. 16. "For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy and if the root be holy, so are the branches."

Toletus and Menochius.-"Paul here denominates the first Jews that were converted to the faith, namely, the apostles and disciples of our Lord, first-fruits; and he calls the first patriarchs, the root." Apud Poli Synopsin, in loc.

2. Venema." The word holy, as here used, signifies the dedication of a thing, or of a person, sacred to God. Now, seeing the Jews that believed, in the time of Paul, fitly answer to the first patriarchs, especially Abraham, he considers them as a happy token and example, whence he might lawfully hope for the future conversion of that people; and that the mass and the branches, laid aside for the same use, should be gathered together, and in their own time become holy, like the first-fruits and root, and be afresh implanted in their own olivetree." Comment. ad Malach. iii. 23, 24, [Eng. Ver. iv. 5, 6,] p. 565.

3. Dr. Doddridge." For if the first-fruits be holy, so is the lump.' The consecration of them was looked upon as in effect the consecration of all. And so would I look upon the conversion of some few of the Jewish nation, as an earnest of the conversion of all the rest and so much the rather, when I consider how eminently dear to God those pious patriarchs were from whom they have descended; for if the root be holy, the branches are likewise so,' and will surely at length be regarded as such." Paraphrase on the place.

4. Mr. Leigh." By the name of root, in that nation of the Jews, he doth not understand the next parents, who peradventure were profane and ungodly, but those first parents of that people, viz. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to whom the promise was made and the covenant confirmed." Body of Div. b. viii. chap. viii. p. 673.

5. Gerhardus." By the first-fruits and root, Paul

understands the holy patriarchs; by the mass, or lump, their posterity." Loci Theolog. tom. iv. de Bap. § 216. Vid. Vitringa Comment. in Jesa. vi. 13.

REFLECTION.

Here it may be observed, that baptism is not the subject of Paul's discourse; it is not mentioned in the whole chapter; nor, for any thing that appears, was it so much as thought of by the apostle-much less infant baptism. But the word holy is mentioned. True: yet, according to these authors, and agreeably to the scope of the place, it is in reference to the ancient patriarchs, especially Abraham; in reference to those converted Jews that were the first-fruits of a Christian ministry; and in reference to the future conversion of Abraham's posterity in the latter day; so that the passage has no regard to any Christian parent, as a root, nor to his infant offspring, as branches arising from it. Yet in this light some of our Brethren seem to understand the text, as appears by the following instances. "The Christian," says Dr. Addington, "is to his or her family as the root of these branches; and, upon the principles here laid down, he or she being holy, so are they."*" This proves that the seed of believers, as such," says Mr. Henry, "are within the pale of the visible church, and within the verge of the covenant, till they do by their unbelief throw themselves out; for if the root be holy, so are the branches.' Though real qualifications be not propagated, yet relative privileges are: though a wise man do not beget a wise man, yet a free man begets a free man: though grace doth not run in the blood, yet external privileges do, till they are forfeited, even to a thousand generations. Look how they will answer it another day, that cut off the entail, by turning the seed of the faithful out of the church, and so not allowing 'the blessing of Abraham to come upon the Gentiles.'

* Christian Minister's Reasons, p. 80.

The Jewish branches are reckoned holy, because the root was so."*—Not allow the blessing of Abraham to come upon the Gentiles! Truly, Mr. Henry, this is very severe ! Happily for us, however, though we hear the thunder roar, we are neither much hurt, nor greatly provoked, nor sadly frightened. Not the first; for our cause is yet safe, except it be proved, that every Christian parent is under the same peculiar economy with Abraham-that his children are interested in the same temporal promises and ecclesiastical privileges as those of that illustrious ancient-that the Sinai covenant is yet in force-and that there is equal certainty of a believer's remote descendants, after a long apostasy, being converted in the latter day, as there is that Abraham's posterity shall be so. Not the second; for though we do not admire this observation of the celebrated commentator, we highly respect his character, and are unfeignedly thankful to Providence for his excellent exposition. Not the last; for though we heard the terrible explosion, it was at a distance; and we are still capable of reflecting, that the principles on which our expositor here proceeds, are more becoming a member of the ancient synagogue, than a pastor in the Christian church; and more consistent with the creed of a national establishment, than with that of a Protestant Dissenter.†

But if the censure of Mr. Henry be severe, what is that of Mr. Baxter? who, at the end of a long list of dismal charges laid against the Baptists, adds; "Lastly, they do plainly play the devil's part, in accusing their own children and disputing them out of the church and house of God, and out of his promises and covenant, and the privileges that accompany them; and most ungratefully deny, reject, and plead against the mercies that Christ hath purchased for their children, and made over to them."Ah! reader, did you ever meet with such a terrible "lastly" as this, from the pen of a Protestant * Exposition on the place.

† See Sect. 3. Reflect. II.

Plain Scripture Proof, p. 13.

Nonconformist against that of his Dissenting Brethren? It wants only the anathema of a Popish Council to make the censure quite complete, and the prison of the Inquisition, that these abettors of Satan may receive deserved punishment. It is no small comfort, however, that we can say, Telumque imbelle sine ictu

Conjecit.

§ 9.-1 Cor. vii. 14.-"The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

Mr. Poole's Continuators." The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife.'-I rather think it signifies brought into such a state, that the believer, without offence to the law of God, may continue in a married state with such a yoke-fellow; and the estate of marriage is a holy state, notwithstanding the disparity with reference to religion." Annotations on the place.

2. Camerarius." The unbelieving husband hath been sanctified—that is, sanctified in the lawful use of marriage. For without this, the apostle says, the children would be unclean; that is, infamous, not being legitimate. Thus they are holy; that is, during the marriage, they are free from every spot of ignominy." In loc.

3. Vatablus.The unbelieving husband is sanctified.' That is, the husband, though unclean, shall be accounted pure in reference to matrimonial commerce; otherwise the children would not be legitimate, who nevertheless are legitimate." In loc.

4. Camero." Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.' This holiness, of which the apostle speaks, is not opposed to that impurity which by nature properly agrees to all, on account of Adam's offence; but to that impurity of which believing wives were apprehensive, from their cohabiting with unbelieving husbands." In loc.