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

SECTION II.

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 he, 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

with the generality of expositors.

The idea of

a mystical sense was so common that it was not easy to detect its fallacy. He might not have observed that many passages are accommodated to Christ, in the New Testament, which were not written originally as prophecies of him. He might be led the more easily into the supposition of a double sense, to avoid the common error of regarding most of the prophecies as relating immediately and directly to Christ. An undue deference to the popular opinion, which supposed Christ was to be found every where in the Old Testament, might lead him to seek a mystical sense.

On the whole his opinion respecting the method to be adopted, in order to an understanding of the prophecies, is worthy the most serious consideration.

SECTION IV.

On christian Liberty.

Servetus was a friend to christian liberty. He opposed that odious principle of persecution, that men ought to be put to death for their erroneous opinions, and contended that they