944

Divers washings, fome of them not Baptifm, PART II. of chriflians being reproached for this negle&: If no where else; this must have unavoidably come into view, in the difpute about circumcifion at Antioch; thofe who contended for circumcifion, would have had a frong argument for it, because it embraced children, and baptifm did not, and it must have been answered. But not a word of any fuch argument; therefore it conclufively follows, that there was nothing, to found such an objection or argument upon: But that the chriftians did uniformly bring their children to haptifm.

From all which confiderations, I fee not but it is fubftantially demonflrated, that God did inftitute baptifm, in the chriftian church, upon the covenant with Abraham, to take the place of circumcifion; embracing all the fame fubjects, with the addition of females. And that the Apostles under the influence of divine infpiration practifed accordingly.

It was propofed further to illuftrate the Mode.

In which it may be obferved, that it amply ap pears, that the Jews had been ufed to baptifms, previous to the days of Chrift, or of John. It was no new thing introduced at that time.

There were divers wafhings practised among them, in their religious economy, fome of which were confidered, as wefhing or cleaning the whole perfon; fome as only a part, fuch as the hands and feet. The washing the perfon generally, without expreffing any particular part, it appears they called baptifm. The other they always diftinguished, by telling what part was wafhed, or to be washed; and never as I find, called the washing of those. particular parts baptifm. Thus as before confideled, God directed Mofes to bring Aaron and his

PART II.

Baptifm could be only the capital part.

145

fons, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and to wash them with water. This was a public official wafhing of their perfons; therefore what they called baptifm, this was not to be. repeated. God in the fame law, commanded that Aaron and his fons fhould wash their hands and feet, when they went into the tabernacle, Exod. XXX. 19, 20, 21. This it feems was to be repeated, as oft as they went into the tabernacle. It has been noticed that the washing, which was exprefled as washing the whole man, without defcribing any particular part; yet could not mean, that the water and washing, fhould be applied to every part and place of the body, because it would be unlawful. It could therefore be only the capital part, which is always decently and lawfully confpicuous. And it appears pretty plain, that Jefus and Peter understood it fo, in what they faid about washing Peter's feet, John xiii. Peter objected againft Chrift's wafhing his feet. "Jefus anfwered him, if I wash thee not, thou haft no part in me. Peter faid, Lord, not my feet only, but alfo my hands and my head. Jefus faid, he that is wafhed needeth not fave to wafh his feet, but is clean every whit." Here it appears, by what Peter faid, and Chrift's answer, that the head, hands and feet, were all the parts they ever wafhed; the fe parts may always be lawfully and decently naked, and generally, were really fo among the Jews. And the hands and feet being expreffed when they washed them, and no particular part when the perfon was washed, it will neceffarily follow, that then, they wafhed the head, or rather the face, for it is not likely they wafhed the hair. I fee no other alternative, but it must be the head, when no part is expreffed, for both the other parts were expreffed when they were

N

146 washed. It comes out therefore, to a compleat demonftration that when they wafhed the head, it was confidered and spoken of, as washing the whole perfon. Chrift very literally fpeaks of the head and body in this fenfe, Mat. 26 verfe 7. A woman having a box of very precious ointment, came and poured it on Chrift's head. Verfe 12, he fays, "In that the poured it on my body, the did it for my burial." The fame account is in Mark 14. verse 3. She poured it on his head, verse 8, fhe bath come aforehand to anoint my body, &c. By all which it is evident, that they understood, and fpake of what was done to the head, as done to the whole body. And there are many other places of Scripture to the fame purpose; as where it fpeaks of anointing perfons; particularly as it was fpoken of Aaron, to fanctify him; the whole of Aaron was anointed and fanctified; yet he was not plunged in the anointing oil, nor ftripped, and anointed all over his body; but the oil was applied only to his head; and fo it evidently was, in feveral other inftances of anointing, of which we have account in the Bible. On the fame grounds, and with propriety, the washing that part of the head, which is capable of being washed, viz. the face, is a washing the whole perfon, and is never, as I find, fpoken of in the Bible, as a partial wafhing the perfon; as the washing the hands and feet are a partial washing, therefore always difcriminated. But the anointing or wafhing the head or face, being always confidered as done to the whole body, therefore, when that part was washed, it was confidered and underflood, that the whole man was wafhed, and clean every whit,

Partial washings always difcriminated. PART II.

Jefus told Peter; and it was not to be repeated. Chrift refufed to do it to fatisfy Peter's confcience, or whatever it was, notwithstanding his re

PART II.

Rebaptifm Improper.

147

queft. The reafon appears plain why this total wafhing or baptifin fhould not be repeated; beeaufe that was understood, and defigned to fignify the application of the blood of Chrift to the foul, to cleanfe away fin, unto Salvation. Therefore to repeat baptifm, would imply, either that the blood of Chrift once applied, was not fufficient unto Sal. vation; or that perfons fall from Grace, or both. Either of which, would be highly derogatory to Chrift the Saviour, as if the Salvation he wrought out, was imperfect. Again as to the repetition of bap. tifm, I conclude it has been fully proved, that baptism is exactly in the place of circumcifion, at least completely fills it up, ftands in the fame relation and conne&ion, with God's covenant with believ ers; therefore, is a Token and feal of the cove nant, and to repeat it, is totally to make void the former baptifma and feal, which baftardizes, and renders fpurious all the perfon has done, on his former baptifm, and involves in it, many very awfal abfurdities, when a perfon has once been planted, or baptized into the holy Trinity, to renounce it, and make nought of it, is awful indeed!

But though baptifm was not to be repeated, when performed as a Sacrament; yet the wafhing the hands and the feet was to be repeated; becaufe these in a religious fenfe, fignified the cleansing away thofe daily faults, which even true chriftians fall into, through remaining depravity. Thus we may understand, the religious meaning and importance, of thofe outward wafhings which God inftituted in his worship.

We may further learn the importance of those ordinances by the following confiderations, viz. We find in the Divine Law, that God threatened his people with death, if they neglected the outward

$48 External & Internal New-Birth, both necessary. Part 17. wafhing with water. Christ also told Peter; Except I wash thee, thou haft no part in me. It is as manifeft as words can make it, that Chrift here fpeaks of the outward washing with water. To the fame purpose he told Nicodemus; Verily verily, I fay unto thee, except ANY ONE r be born of water and of the fpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. There cannot be a ftronger affeveration, than Chrift here makes, of the importance of the outward washing with water; as well as of the inward cleaning of the fpirit. For any therefore to make light of it, treat it as a trivial matter, or to Speak of it as of no confequence, can be no less, than awful and daring prefumption. God made man foul and body; and both are but one perfon. Both foul and body effentially belong to the fame perfon; and when man fell, it was by an external act, concuring with the internal exercife of the mind; by which the whole man, foul and body, became mortified and undone. Hence it appears fitting, that when God provided a way for the reftoration of man, it fhould be by a concurrent op eration, both outward and inward, or by an outward fign, answering to the inward operation of the Holy Spirit. I can devile no other, than that with this view, Chrift afferted, that except any one be born of water and of the fpirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This being born of water must be fomething external. Chrift informed us what it is, when he inftituted baptism, faying, he that believeth and is baptized, fhall be faved. Here he expreffes both the inward, and outward operation; and as pofitively afferts, that

This is tranflated man but in the original it is Tis, any one, which being more emphatical, including all ages and Both fexes; I take the liberty to adopt it rather than man.