the present day, naturally associate with the word God an idea of a supreme and self-existent being.

Servetus thought it right to pray to Jesus Christ. This was very inconsistent with his views of the unity and supremacy of the one God and Father, and of the proper humanity of the Son of God. He could not, with the sentiments he held, pray to Christ, and offer him divine adoration, without the idea of praying and offering divine adoration to a man presenting itself to his mind; the same must be said of Socinus, and some others; but we must allow for this inconsistency, by considering how difficult it is for even wise and good men to disentangle themselves from long established customs, and to stand entirely clear of the influence of superstition. The practice of praying to Christ has not the least countenance from the new Testament if we except the case of Stephen, which some christians construe to favor it, which case cannot apply to any ordinary circumstances, as he had a vision of the Lord Jesus at the time. It is a practice evidently contrary to both the precepts and example of the great Master of christians, and of his holy apostles, and must be ranked among the corruptions of christianity.

On the whole it is manifest, however crudely Servetus might sometimes express himself, he was strictly a unitarian.

SECTION 11.

On Baptism, original Sin, the distinction between the Law and Gospel, and Justification.

Servetus was an antipedobaptist. He contended that no one ought to be baptized until he could make a personal profession of faith in Christ, and that the baptism of little infants was a gross corruption of christianity. This John Calvin called horrid blasphemy; but the opinion of Servetus derives abundant support from the New Testament.

One of the grounds of infant baptism is the notion of original sin, or that all mankind are born into the world morally depraved, and consequently under the wrath of God, that baptism is necessary to bring them into a state of grace. In the service of the church of England we are told that in baptism the infant is made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven. It is probable the absurd notion of original sin, first gave rise to the unscriptural practice of infant baptism, Original

sin, Servetus zealously opposed, and it seems said, a mortal sin cannot be committed before the age of twenty. Probably he thought the loving and merciful father of mankind was not so inexorable as to hurl his rational offspring to destruction for the effects of youthful imbecility and inexperience. In denying original sin he was a consistent antipedobaptist. Those baptists who admit that notion act inconsistently; they reject pedobaptism, while they maintain the ground on which it seems to have been introduced.

Another ground on which pedobaptism is supported is the Abramic covenant, and the substitution of baptism in the place of circumcision. In other words, it derives its support from a confusion of ideas respecting the law and the gospel, the confounding of the one with the other. Servetus clearly distinguished the gospel from the law, as an entire distinct system, and contended that the law was totally abrogat. ed. Here again he acted consistently as a baptist: while those who contend that we are all born under the law, and remain under it until we personally believe in Christ, and at the same time renounce pedobaptism, leave their opponents a strong ground of argument against them; for if we are born under the law we ought either

to be circumcised, or subjected to some other rite substituted in the place of circumcision. That many christians still suppose that we are born under the law is manifest; for they contend that it is necessary to preach the law to convince men of sin, and thunder out the curses of the law against us Gentiles.

Servetus' ideas of justification were certainly different from those of the Lutherans; for he said they did not understand the subject, and Melancthon said that his notion of justification. was very extravagant. It is probable he supposed justification to comprehend not only the free forgiveness of sins, but also the being made truly righteous characters, such as God would approve; for he contended that the righteousness of the kingdom of Christ must excel that of the law; consequently he could have no idea of men being made righteous by the righteousness of another being transferred to them. It is likely, as a consistent baptist, he considered baptism as exhibiting the true character of the christian religion, as a religion of universal purity, and that in baptism the believer professed to be risen with Christ to newness of life: this he would naturally conceive to be inconsistent with the Lutheran notion of justification, which

Z

supposed the sinner to become righteous before God, merely by the imputation of the righteousness of another, before he had any righteousness of his own. On the whole it appears that the Doctor was altogether a consistent baptist.

SECTION III.

On the sense of Prophecy.

Whatever may be said of Servetus' mode of explaining prophecy, it is pretty evident he struck out a new, and more rational, method of judging of its sense, than has hitherto been generally adopted. He seems to have found the true key to the real sense of the prophecies, by considering them as having their foundation in the jewish history, and that they ought to be generally explained as having a reference to the affairs of that nation: and to other nations and events as they had a bearing on them. Whether be, in every instance, made a proper use of this key is quite another matter.

His notion of the double sense of prophecy will be thought by many, and for very good reasons, indefensible; as it renders the sacred writings obscure, and indefinite. Yet it is easy to make an allowance for this mistake. He erred