the same chapter; and this acceptation of it here accords with the verse which follows;- "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance :" which in effect is the same as saying, the Divine choice is without repentance.

2. That the sense affixed by Mr. Maclean to the phrase, "for the fathers' sakes," is not the natural one, is evident from his own admission in the following words, which conclude the paragraph of which I have cited the beginning" So that whatever temporal blessings and outward privileges were promised to, or conferred on, the nation of Israel, FOR THE FATHERS' SAKES, yet the spiritual blessings of redemption which were peculiar to the elect among them, are promised and bestowed only FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.”—This is as much as to say, that if the phrase, "for the fathers' sakes," had been used in regard to temporal blessings, it might have been allowed to mean what it plainly and simply expresses;-but that as the Apostle is here speaking of the restoration of Israel to the church of God, and of their spiritual salvation, it must signify, not what it plainly expresses, but "for Christ's sake." This is ar

bitrary. Is there any inconsistency in holding, that, whilst all the blessings of salvation are bestowed in free mercy for Christ's sake, yet, in conferring them on any of the posterity of his servants, the God of grace may have a regard to the previous objects of his love, and, in blessing the offspring, gratify, as it were, an ancient affection to the fathers? And is not this in perfect harmony with the language, so frequent in scripture, which represents the love of God to the fathers as terminating upon the children :"The Lord had a delight in thy fathers, to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day-circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked."*

3. The promise quoted by Mr. Maclean, namely, "In thee," or "in thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed," affords no ground whatever for the inference of a special or primary regard to the election among the Jews. That promise relates alike to the Gentiles and to the natural offspring of Abraham and any obligations on

* Deut. x. 15, 16.

the part of God to fulfil a promise relative to all nations, was not at all to the purpose of the Apostle's argument. The election among the Gentiles were as mnch beloved for the sake of this promise, as the election among the Jews. It left no room for a 66 how much more" on behalf of the latter. If there was any primary respect in it at all, it was rather to the world at large than to the offspring of Abraham and so the Apostle interprets it when he says-" And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Gal. iii. 8. But that a peculiarity of regard to the "seed of Abraham, God's friend," is intended to be expressed, is as clear as words can make it; and an explanation that takes away the ground of this, cannot be the true one.

4. It ought to be observed, that the promise, "In thy seed shall all nations be blessed," is, according to the Apostle," the gospel" as preached to Abraham. If, therefore, "for the fathers' sakes" means for the sake of that promise, it means for the sake of the gospel. What, then, are we to make of the text? as concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes; but as touching the election, they are beloved for the gospel's sake!" How entirely does this destroy the antithesis, and subvert the argument of the passage!

5. It is very unfair in Mr. Maclean, to introduce the Word MERELY into the argument, a word which is neither the Apostle's nor mine:-" If they were thus beloved merely for the sake of the godliness of their fathers; Ishmael and Esau with their posterities, and, at any rate, the whole nation of Israel, must have had an equal claim to this peculiarity of divine regard; for they all sprung from the same godly fathers." Who has ever said they were beloved merely for the sake of their fathers? thought so?- As to what is said of "Ishmael and Esau, with their posterities," I have only to say, let the reader look at the text cited a little ago, where Moses says to the Jewish people, "God had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people." Is there or is there not, any connection inti.

who ever

mated here, between the choice of the seed, and the delight in the fathers? If there be, (and who can question it?) the answer to the objection lies not with me--namely, why God did not choose Ishmael and Esau with their posterities, on account of the same delight. The fact that it was otherwise is all in our favor: for, seeing the connection between the delight and the choice, as between a cause and its effect, is so unequivocally intimated, it follows, that there is inconsistency between gracious sovereignty in the choice of the seed, and a regard of love in it, at the same time, to the fathers.

Mr. Maclean further objects, that, as the promises made to Abraham had a primary respect to his natural offspring, it follows from this, that they can have no such respect to the natural offspring of Gentile believers, for this plain reason, that they cannot have two primary respects."*-But the objection is more specious than solid. The spiritual seed amongst the posterity of Abraham, and the spiritual seed amongst the Gentiles, are not two spiritual seeds. They are one seed, of which Abraham is the spiritual father. The primary respect for which I contend, was not, if I may so speak, concentrated in Abraham personally. It descended with the possession of his faith; every follower of that faith sharing in it, and deriving from it his encouragement in making known God's "testimony and law" to his children, that they too might "set their hope in God." When a Gentile received the faith of Abraham, and united himself to the Israelitish church, the circumcision of his children along with him showed, that, amongst other privileges, he became a partaker in this primary respect of the promises to the natural offspring. At the fulness of time, the Gentiles, believing the gospel, and received into the church, became the people of God. The blessing of Abraham came upon them. They became partakers and heirs of the promises-and the continuance among them of the primary respect to the natural offspring no more constitutes two primary respects, than their reception into the church produced two peoples of God, or two spiritual seeds of Abraham.

* Review, p. 93, 94.

SECTION II.

In the preceding section, I have endeavored to show, that the covenant made with Abraham was the gospel covenant, the covenant of grace, under which we live, and which is the basis of the New Testament church :—that the ordinance of circumcision was attached to that covenant, and, as the sign of its blessings and the seal of its promises, was, by divine command, administered to children that, although there is abundant evidence of a change in the rite or ordinance, there is none whatever of any such change in its administration, as excludes children from being any longer the legitimate subjects of its observance:-and that, therefore, whilst our baptist friends call upon us for the production of express precept, authorizing the baptism of children, we are better entitled to require the production of such precept from them, repealing and setting aside the ancient injunction and practice, which existed under the same covenant, and, not belonging to the old economy, the dispensation of Moses, did not necessarily cease when that economy" waxed old, and vanished away."

The excellence of any process of reasoning consists in its successfully eliciting and establishing truth. The philosopher who contrives an experiment, or a course of experiments, by which a controverted point in science may be satisfactorily settled, should certainly be regarded with gratitude. If any brother philosopher should have formed to himself certain principles and rules, according to which all scientific inquiries and experiments ought to be conducted, and should not only refuse to be satisfied by the experiments, but even so much as to examine them, because the process has not been in perfect agreement with his pre-ordained regulations, he would justly be rep

rimanded as unreasonable, as a bigot to modes and forms, and an enemy to knowledge, unless it has been attained by a particular route. No man has any title to complain of any mode of discussion, or of the sources from which arguments are drawn, if he is conducted by them to true conclusions and right principles.-I refer, in these remarks, to the exception, so generally and so strongly taken by our baptist brethren, against all reasonings in support of a New Testament practice, drawn from the Old Testament scriptures. It has even been said, that "those who attempt to prove infant baptism from the Abrahamic covenant, follow the same course as those who try to prove the propriety of the alliance between the church and the world. Many subtle arguments, which may perplex, are also brought forward on this subject from the Old Testament; but if any one attends to the nature of the kingdom of Christ, and to the apostolic instructions and examples, the truth appears clear and "manifest."*. It does so but why?-because the arguments drawn from the Old Testament, in support of the alliance between church and state, have been deduced from a perverse misapplication to the conduct of other nations, of the peculiarities of the Jewish people; peculiarities, which were such as no other nation can be authorized to apply to themselves, unless they can show, that like Israel of old, they have been singled out by Jehovah for special purposes, that they have been taken into the same peculiar relation to himself, and have been endowed with the same peculiar privileges. There never has been a divinely authorized national church but one. If it could be shown, that we found our argument for infant baptism on any of the peculiarities of that constitution; that we build our reasonings upon the specialities of the old and temporary covenant; that we would bind the consciences of Christians by what was purely and exclusively Mosaic ;—there might be some justice in the above comparison. But it is not so. The argument drawn from the Abrahamic covenant, is founded on the very consideration, that it is not

* Mr Haldane's Reasons of a Change in Sentiment and Practice in the Subject of Baptism, p. 93.