^ 
 
 CTJ 
 
 
 ««• 
 
 O- 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 
 .j2>' 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■# 
 
 «3 
 
 I 
 
 *.^ 
 
 IS 
 
 
 « (^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 x^ 
 
 
 
 'Sj i^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 5 
 
 
 "^ g 
 
 0) 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 w O 
 
 bfl 
 
 CN 
 
 •iS Eh 
 
 <t 
 
 :§ 
 
 r^ g 
 
 3 
 
 
 S 
 
 £ 
 
 .to 
 
 •O M 
 
 (VJ 
 
 •sj 
 
 ^ rt 
 
 CO 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 l! 
 
 S 
 
 ?5 
 
 Ot 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 t 
 
 
 ■ s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 1 
 
 ¥> 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 
THE 
 
 BAPTISMAL KECONCILIATION 
 
 FRATERNAL REMARKS ON DR. HALLEY'S "REPLY, 
 AND THE APPENDIX OF DR. WARDLAW. 
 
 EEV. CHAELES^TOVEL 
 
 LONDON : 
 BENJAMIN L. GREEN, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 1848. 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Arcliive 
 
 in 2011 witli funding from 
 
 Princeton Tlieological Seminary Library 
 
 littp://www.arcliive.org/details/baptismalreconciOOstov 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Pafre 
 
 Preface v 
 
 latroductory Observiitions 1 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Parties IN THE Appeal 14 
 
 The Tractmen's Case 15 
 
 The Congregational Paedobaptists 28 
 
 Dr. Halley's Case 33 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw's Case 49 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Confirmations of the foregoing Statements ... 56 
 From the distinction between Baptism and being born of 
 
 the Spirit ib. 
 
 From the personal nature of Christian baptism 58 
 
 From the import and treatment of the word Musterion ... 62 
 
 From the nature and constitution of the body of Christ ... 64 
 
 From the reasoning on Catechumenical schools 79 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The proposed Rkconciliation explained and en- 
 forced BY Reasonings which have been ad- 
 vanced ON THE identity OF JoHN's BaPTISM 
 
 with that of our Lord and his Apostles ... 90 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw's Argument 93 
 
 The Tractarian Argument 94 
 
 Dr. Halley's Argument • 96 
 
iv CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Mr. Stovel's Argument 104 
 
 Practical Inductions 114 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Fraternal Explanations and Remarks confirm- 
 ing THE foregoing ARGUMENT 122 
 
 Introduction 122 
 
 On Repartee 124 
 
 The Alleged Insinuations 125 
 
 The Galileans 128 
 
 The Apostolical Peculiarities 129 
 
 The Misprints 132 
 
 The Conscientious Affirmation 137 
 
 The Forty-seven Days 139 
 
 The Commission 145 
 
 The Sliding Scale 173 
 
 The " Extracts " 177 
 
 Dr. HaUey's Mistakes 179 
 
 Clement of Alexandria 181 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Reconciliation elucidated and enforced by 
 Arguments employed on the extent of the 
 Administration of Christian Baptism 194 
 
 APPENDIX— A. 
 The Rejected Rules of Grammar 241 
 
 APPENDIX— B. 
 The Letter 252 
 
 APPENDIX— C. 
 
 The last Reference of Dr. Halley to Clement 
 OF Alexandria 256 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The origin and design of this Treatise are 
 explained by the following statement of facts. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw says — '' The views given by 
 Dr. Halley himself, at various times through 
 his volume, of the nature and ends of the rite, 
 are themselves inconsistent with the unre- 
 stricted administration of " ( baptism ) " for 
 which he so earnestly pleads '' [Appendix to 
 Dissertation, etc., p. 296). 
 
 Dr. Halley replies — " I propose to show " 
 "that the arguments which Dr. Wardlaw em- 
 ploys in writing against the Baptists, in his 
 ' Dissertation,^ are inconsistent with the argu- 
 ments which he employs in writing against me 
 in his ' Appendix ' " [Halley' s Reply, p. 90). 
 
 These affirmations are well sustained by 
 their respective authors ; for each is found to 
 be inconsistent with himself, at that very point 
 where he appeals to scripture against his 
 brother; and therefore it seemed advisable to 
 conduct the reasoning onwards, to some place 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 where^ consistently witli themselves, both may 
 unite in obedience to the Word of God. 
 
 Adhering to the practice of infant bap- 
 tism, Dr. Wardlaw pleads for the purity and 
 spirituality of the Christian church which Dr. 
 Halley had compromised ; and Dr. Halley, re- 
 taining the same practice, defends the doctrine 
 of justification by faith only, which is contrary 
 to the Bishop of London, who teaches a justifi- 
 cation in baptism. " The Congregational Lec- 
 ture " was designed, among other things, " to 
 trace the errors and corruptions which have 
 existed in the Christian church to their proper 
 sources,^' and " to point out the methods of 
 refutation and counteraction :" and the Tract- 
 men of Oxford, in defence of their theory, urge 
 the fulness of scripture truth. Here, therefore, 
 are four important objects to be harmonised ; 
 for, to attain the fulness of scripture truth, to 
 counteract error and corruption, to defend the 
 doctrine of justification by faith, and to secure 
 the spirituality and purity of the Christian 
 church, are matters so unspeakably serious and 
 obligatory, that they cannot be rejected, nor 
 
vu 
 
 brought into collision with each other^ without 
 consequences the most alarming. 
 
 Advocates for infant baptism plead the be- 
 fore-named objects severally, the one against 
 the other : this work is designed to explain 
 how, in the church of Christ, the whole of them 
 may be united in obedience to his law. By 
 assuming that " infant baptism is right,'^ these 
 elements of Christian truth and duty are 
 brought into hostility with each other; and, 
 by resigning that assumption, the way for their 
 reconciliation is prepared. 
 
 In this appeal to holy scripture. Dr. Halley 
 claims, justly, more attention than any other of 
 the parties united with him : he will, therefore, 
 kindly accept the fraternal explanations here 
 given, on various points in his " Reply to the 
 Rev. C. Stovel and the Rev. Dr. Warcllaw ;" 
 but the principal argument of these pages is 
 affectionately submitted to the prayerful con- 
 sideration of all who love the Redeemer. 
 
 A little obscurity appears to remain as to 
 the author of proposition 9, on the 8th page : 
 the reader will please to observe, therefore, that 
 
VIU PREFACE. 
 
 the first eight only are attributed to Dr. Owen, 
 as the references indicate — the ninth was af- 
 firmed, as well as sustained, by the author him- 
 self. The reader will also be so kind as to 
 mark the following 
 
 ERRATA: 
 
 On page 78, line 32, for aul read Paul. 
 
 „ 85 ,, 29, omit those. 
 
 ,, 144 ,, 21, for the read his. 
 
 „ 174 ,, 22, for of read on. 
 
 „ 178 ,, 27, for aux re&d arar. 
 
 ,, 191 ,, 10, for Gentiles read Greeks. 
 
 ,, 194 ,, 19, for wth read with. 
 
 „ 208 ,, 16, tor Abraham read Abra7iam's. 
 
 That the good Lord may accept this humble 
 service, and cause it to advance his kingdom 
 and glory, is the author's earnest prayer. 
 
 Philpot Street, East, London, 
 March 1, 1848. 
 
BAPTISMAL RECONCILIATION 
 
 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 . " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, 
 ' spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath 
 in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom 
 he hath appointed heir of all things," Heb. i. 1 ; 
 " head over all things to the church, which is his 
 body," Eph, i. 22. Here he presides, not as a ser- 
 vant, but " as a Son over his own household ; whose 
 household are we, if we hold fast the confidence 
 and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end," 
 Heb. iii. 6. 
 
 Such words, addressed by inspiration to the be- 
 lievers in apostolical times, would seem to indicate 
 an absolute dependence in the community they formed, 
 on authoritative communications from God, by the 
 Redeemer, respecting his salvation and ministry. 
 Apostles and prophets may be in the foundation ; 
 but he, the Christ of God, is the chief corner stone, 
 " in whom the whole building fitly framed together 
 groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord," "an habi- 
 tation of God through the Spirit," Eph. ii. 21. 
 
 B 
 
 / > 
 
2 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Manv things relating to the privileges, covenants, 
 treatment, and final destinies of the household or 
 bodv of Christ mav, by possibilitv, remain treasured 
 in the mind of God ; and therefore, unconnected with 
 the present obedience of its members. On these no 
 question is here entertained ; for secret things belong 
 to God ; but those that are revealed belong to us, 
 and we are responsible for their observance. If 
 therefore any one thing has been revealed with greater 
 distinctness than all others, it is the absolute sub- 
 jection of this whole communitv, collectivelv, and in 
 its several parts, to .Tesus the Christ. He is (if we 
 may so speak) responsible to God, for the guidance 
 and the sanctifying of all whom he conducts into the 
 presence, and commends to the everlasting fellowship 
 of the Father ; and he is made, to the believer, an au- 
 thor and the onlv securitv of eternal salvation. To be 
 thus responsible both to God and man, the conduct 
 of this whole body must be in his hands. He cannot 
 be answerable for things that are under the guidance 
 of others. The church therefore is a community of 
 individuals who are in (that is to say) in the hands or 
 power of Christ ; placed at his absolute disposal, for 
 all the intents and purposes of his covenant and 
 ministration. 
 
 Another fact seems to shine upon the sacred pages 
 too clearly to admit of any reasonable disputation. 
 His people are made willing in the day of his power. 
 Under his dominion the hearts of men are subdued 
 by rational teaching ; and chiefly, by appeals to their 
 affections, through the nope of benefits that are holv 
 and everlasting, and by the proof of his own un- 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 3 
 
 searchable and Divine love, for them, in their lost 
 condition. The love of Christ and the hope of glory 
 therefore, produced by his own appointed ministry 
 and spirit, evince and mature in his people, the 
 essential peculiarity, in this world, of loilling sub- 
 jection to the unseen Lord. 
 
 In every duty to be performed for Christ, the will- 
 ing servant is free ; but the word is fixed, unalter- 
 able in its import, and stable in its authority. It is 
 said, by the Lord himself, " Heaven and earth shall 
 pass away, but my words shall not pass away." 
 
 When voluntary service is rendered and received 
 in mutual reconciliation and love, something of liberty 
 might be expected, giving scope for spontaneous ex- 
 pressions of devotedness and grateful joy. The ser- 
 vice of children cannot, in the nature of things, be the 
 service of slaves. But the freedom of children cannot 
 supersede the regulations of the household in which 
 they have been incorporated. The law intends them 
 to be children and not slaves ; but neither the law, 
 nor its author, can submit to childishness. The less, 
 for mercy's sake, must submit to the greater. The 
 responsible trusts of the Redeemer, mercifully under- 
 taken to prevent their everlasting ruin, never can be 
 executed by subjecting his arrangements to bhnd and 
 sinful men. If salvation be perfected at all, those 
 who receive it must submit to him ; not he to 
 them. 
 
 In former times it was pleaded that the laws of 
 Christ were laid down with too much strictness, and 
 made so binding that human nature could neither sus- 
 tain the service He imposed, nor yield the self-denial 
 B 2 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 He required. It was answered, that experience alone 
 could explain how sweet, to those who love our 
 Lord, the hardest task he ever imposed on man be- 
 comes when rendered with consistency; and, how 
 perfect the support derived from him, in times of ex- 
 tremity, is, to all who subject their judgments to his 
 teaching and their interests to his care. Now the 
 times are altered. Men have discovered, or say they 
 have discovered, that Jesus, responsible to God and 
 men, for all that is covenanted in his work of love, 
 and deliverance from sin and death, has left the laws 
 of his kingdom so imperfect, that an outline only of 
 his intention can with difficulty be discovered ; and, 
 where the glory of the eternal Father, the results of 
 Golgotha, and the hopes of dying men are all in- 
 volved, this outline of the greatest work Jehovah has 
 revealed to man, is left to be filled up by "a holy 
 expediency ; " as sinners, crippled in judgment, be- 
 guiled with delusion, and retaining affinities with 
 this world's criminality, may find their convenience 
 dictate. 
 
 Such an allegation, respecting the Divine leader, 
 the hope of Israel and the joy of heaven, it is griev- 
 ous to hear from men who profess adherence to the 
 truth ; because it involves all that the fiercest agents 
 of the man of sin have ever claimed. Let the 
 church have an outline to fill up, and fill it up by 
 what she calls a holy expediency, and she will de- 
 signate as holy every invention that may suit her 
 purpose for the time, until the man of sin, sitting in 
 the church of God, and speaking as God, shall burst 
 the very outlines of subordination ; and trample into 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 5 
 
 the earth every indication of the Saviour's will, and 
 every appointment of eternal wisdom whatsoever. 
 
 Besides the fact, that hecause the consequences of 
 any human action can never be known to man, they 
 never can be a safe guide to him in performing it ; 
 and, therefore, to give men an outline that they may 
 fill it up by expediency, is either to compel the con- 
 scientious never to act at all, or subject the Redeemer's 
 responsible undertaking to human direction instead of 
 Divine : there are two other considerations which 
 ought to be well weighed before anything is yielded 
 in favour of this resuscitated subterfuge. 
 
 First. It does not seem to be considered by the 
 advocates of this " holy expediency" how far the 
 laws of the Redeemer do extend. His instructions 
 are very plain, and when properly digested, his laws 
 are very compact, but each one is so placed, in the 
 centre of some great moral work, that all the energies 
 of the spiritual man are drawn out in their observ- 
 ance. The Lord who gave the laws, has also made 
 the men, and granted their endowments ; for the 
 latter are exactly adjusted to the former. Whether 
 the instructions of our Lord which we possess, include 
 all the practical objects he designs ultimately to 
 secure, is not a subject for his servants to consider, 
 Peter thus obtruding on the Lord's determinations 
 respecting John, was answered with the rebuke, 
 " What is that to thee ? follow thou me." Peter 
 became assured that his hands and heart should he 
 filled with well defined and positive service, enough 
 for his strength and for his time ; and in the perform- 
 ance of this service, he was to be found faithful even 
 
b INTRODL'CTORT OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 unto death. This was enough for one man, without 
 the burthen of inquiring how his brother should be 
 treated ; or of speculating on theorems of expediency. 
 What is best, in this and in that supposable case, 
 may be good pastime for a legislator, who has 
 nothing else to do ; but, it is miserable sport, for a 
 servant whose hands and time are full of objects and 
 services, defined bv his Lord, and, for which he will 
 be accountable to his Lord utider the penalties of 
 eternity. 
 
 Secondly. Besides that written word, which, when 
 rightly considered, commands adoration of its author 
 for its wealth and purity, the Lord has both promised 
 and granted his Holy Spirit, to dwell with his people 
 through all time, to lead them into all truth, to bring 
 the truth to their remembrance, and to aid them in 
 its application and use. This loving, sympathizing, 
 comforting, sanctifying, and Divine agency, is super- 
 seded and abandoned, when men, leaning to their 
 own understanding, prefer their calculations on ex- 
 pediency, and combine them with the holy word of 
 God. The Holy Spirit was never promised to aid 
 mankind in legislating, and judging what is best for 
 the kingdom of heaven ; but in learning, and doing 
 what Christ, in every case, has ordained ; and when 
 this, the appointed service of man, is forsaken, while 
 he obtrudes on that which is entrusted to the Saviour, 
 a threefold impropriety results ; the law which binds 
 the servant is broken, the Spirit that comforts the 
 servant is grieved, and the servant himself becomes, 
 bevond all excuse, a competitor with his Lord. 
 
 " Therefore we ouffht to srive the more earnest heed 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 7 
 
 to the things which we have heard, lest at any time 
 we should let them slip." The abstract question, 
 whether, in any case, a man may be free to do what 
 he himself considers to be the best, the wisest, or 
 most useful, is not worth discussing ; the question 
 really introduced is whether, while Divine laws re- 
 main neglected, and the Holy Spirit is grieved away 
 from the church, some outline of Christian fellowship 
 should be taken from the Scriptures of truth, and 
 filled up with plausible inductions from thoughts 
 and speculations of men, respecting what is best and 
 most befitting the infinite and eternal kingdom of 
 God. The question, in fact, is, whether in the 
 church, which he has purchased with his blood, God 
 or man should have the pre-eminence. 
 
 Before anything is yielded to such proposals, 
 the following statements carefully educed from 
 holy scripture, by an old and deservedly respected 
 author, may claim consideration. 
 
 1. " The building of the church is so great and 
 glorious a work, as that it could not be effected by 
 any, but He who was God."- — Owen on the Hebrews, 
 vol.1., p. AS. Fol. Ed. 
 
 2. " The greatest and most honourable of the sons 
 of men that are employed in the work of God, in His 
 house, are but servants and parts of the house itself." 
 —Ibid. p. 49. 
 
 3. " Churches are the schools of Christ, wherein 
 his disciples are trained up unto perfection, every one 
 according to the measure appointed for him, and his 
 usefulness in the body" [of Christ.]- — Ibid. p. 406, 
 
 4. " The ordering: of all things in the church 
 
8 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 depends on the sovereign appointment of the Father." 
 — Ibid. p. 26. 
 
 5. " All things concerning the worship of God, in 
 the whole church or house now under the gospel, are 
 no less perfectly and completely ordered and ordained 
 by the Lord Jesus Christ, than they were by Moses 
 under the law." — Ibid. 
 
 6. " The faithfulness of the Lord Christ in the 
 discharge of the trust committed unto him, is the 
 great ground of faith and assurance unto believers in 
 the worship of the gospel," — Ibid. 
 
 7. " Believers are all related to one another, in the 
 nearest and strictest bond of an equal relation." — Ibid. 
 
 8. " The union of believers lies in their joint pro- 
 fession of faith, in the person and offices of Christ, 
 upon a participation in the same heavenly calling.'' 
 —Ibid. 
 
 9. " The union of believers with each other, is con- 
 summated and recognized, when, on the profession of his 
 faith, each one is baptized into the name of the Father, 
 
 the Son, and the Holy Spirit." 
 
 The ninth of these propositions was sustained by 
 evidence stated and published in 1846, in "Eight Lec- 
 tures on Christian Discipleship and Baptism, in reply 
 to the theory advanced by Dr. Halley, in the congregU' 
 tional lecture of 1843 ; by Charles Stovel." It was 
 thought, that since every ordinance of the Christian 
 church was instituted by the Christ himself, and on 
 the sovereign authority of God the father, no one of 
 his servants could be justly offended by any conscien- 
 tious effort to elucidate his law ; especially since the 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. if 
 
 differences of opinion entertained on this part of the 
 Divine will, have, for many ages, and in many na- 
 tions, produced and perpetuated the most pernicious 
 results, that have ever flowed from a neglect of Divine 
 law, and submission to conjectures of expediency. 
 
 In 1847, a tract was issued by Dr. Halley, profess- 
 ing to be "a reply to Mr. Stovel," etc. In this 
 production we have the following words. " If he 
 (Mr. Stovel) propose in future to indulge his polemical 
 propensities," etc. — p. 35. 
 
 On the departures from accuracy and gentlemanly 
 behaviour which the pages of that work exhibit so 
 profusely, no remark or censure will be advanced, 
 more than is absolutely needful to sweep them from the 
 pathway of our argument. And here, whatever might 
 be said respecting the " propensities " of his friend, 
 the occasion which called for " the lectures on Chris- 
 tian discipleship," was created by Dr. Halley himself. 
 In his reply to Dr. Wardlaw are the following words ; — 
 " has he authority for conducting the controversy with 
 Baptists, cu7n privilegio P " This expression proves 
 that, in his lectures. Dr. Halley did intend to share 
 the privilege of " conducting the controversy with 
 Baptists." A Baptist therefore should have the right 
 of reply ; and in making his reply, he has a right to 
 expect a gentlemanly hearing and treatment. Besides, 
 Dr. Halley had said in his lectures ; " let us reach, if 
 it be possible, the arx causee of this unhappy dispute ;" 
 and again,* "As our Baptist friends adduce no passage 
 directly asserting the truth of their doctrine : we ask 
 them to produce it ;"t and further, " If the Baptists 
 *Lec. p. 113. flbid. p. 506. 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 know a brother of old times, let them tell us his name 
 and his residence, the church or the heresy to which 
 he belonged, that we may converse with him, and in- 
 quire where he learned liis peculiarity, and what he 
 means by its assumption."* These, and other passa- 
 ges such as these, though not very remarkable for 
 their " brotherly kindness and charity ,''' yet, offering as 
 they do, a direct, and not a very modest challenge to 
 the whole denomination, demanded a reply ; lest the 
 author of these utterances should mistake them for 
 unanswerable arguments, and his readers should be 
 led to suppose that, since his words have an air of de- 
 fiance in them, his reasoning was such as could not 
 be refuted. 
 
 Besides, the danger of compromising in this sacra- 
 mental controversy, the great doctrine of justification 
 by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, is acknowledged in 
 the following words ; " The sacraments considered as 
 the causes, or the means, or even the seals, of con- 
 verting or regenerating grace, stand opposed to the 
 great protestant doctrine of justification by faith 
 without works. "t With this admission the subject of 
 inquiry is released from all former imputation of in- 
 significance. Society is much indebted here to the 
 labor of Oxford Tractmen. They have laid the 
 matter open to its vital element ; " the arx causae" 
 ■which Dr. Halley professes to seek. In the hands of 
 these writers the question of infant baptism, with the 
 whole doctrine of Christian sacraments, in which 
 infant baptism is supposed to be included, is made 
 to compromise the doctrine of justification by faith 
 * Lee. p. 589. f Ibid. p. 95. 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 11 
 
 only, and to support a doctrine of justification by 
 grace received in baptism. By them the sacrament 
 is deemed " a cause of regenerating grace ;" and must, 
 therefore, be opposed to justification by grace, re- 
 ceived through faith ; because the baptism of an infant 
 is received before any faith can be exercised. But 
 Dr. Halley says, " the sacraments considered as the 
 means, or even the seals, of converting or regenerating 
 grace, stand opposed to the great doctrine of justifica- 
 tion by faith without works."* In the hands of his own 
 brethren therefore, many of whom do regard baptism 
 as a " means," or" seal" " of regenerating grace," the 
 sacrament is " opposed to the great doctrine of justifi- 
 cation bv faith without works." Nothing can be more 
 clear and just than this admission : and therefore, 
 nothing can be more important than the present 
 subject of inquiry : it involves the hope of salvation 
 which God has granted to mankind.' If the hope 
 founded on grace, supposed to have been received or 
 sealed in the baptism of infancy, be scriptural and 
 secure, the chief reason for repentance and faith in 
 our Lord Jesus is done away : but, if that be neither 
 scriptural nor secure, then those who have been, 
 thereby, drawn away from personal repentance and 
 faith, have hazarded, if they have not lost, their 
 salvation in the world to come. 
 
 Viewed in this light, the subject itself presents in 
 its unspeakable importance, the only reason which 
 led the writer to undertake at first, and now to resume, 
 the labor of this investigation. 
 
 From the whole tenor of inspiration, we conclude 
 * Dr. Halley 's Lee. p. 95. 
 
12 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 that " a man is justified by faith, without the works 
 of the law," Rom. iii. 28. If this doctrine be not 
 true, it is most delusive ; but if sustained, as it appears 
 to be, by the clearest and most sacred declarations of 
 God himself, then the defence of this truth against all 
 objections and all corruptions, that prevent its right 
 application to the use of individuals, involves, at 
 the same time, the dearest hope of fallen man, 
 and the brightest glory of sovereign grace. The 
 Bishop of London affirms that the doctrine of his 
 church, as to the Christian's spiritual life, has always 
 appeared to him to be this : 
 
 " Justification begins in baptism, when the children of wrath 
 are regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost, and are made 
 children of God. Remission of sins is expressly declared to be 
 then given ; and remission of sins implies justification, in the 
 proper sense of the term. Grace is also then given ; and by 
 virtue of that grace the person receiving it, and thenceforth 
 using and improving it, continues to believe in the atonement 
 made by Jesus Christ, and to seek for and realize the in-dwelling 
 of tho Holy Spirit, and to be renewed day by day in the inner 
 man."* 
 
 Paul saith, "with the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness ;"t the Bishop saith, "justification begins 
 in baptism : " and this direct contradiction of Paul 
 is made by the Bishop in reference to infant baptism, 
 principally, if not exclusively. If this thing were done 
 in a corner, in the Bishop's own name, by him only, 
 and without any appeal to holy scripture, it might be 
 prudent to pass it by, and not to advertize the error 
 by discussing it ; but, when it has become a spiritual 
 element of the wickedness in high places ; when it is 
 uttered in the name of God, spread over the whole 
 * Charge of 1842, p. 17. f Rom. x. 10. 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 13 
 
 land, and boldly defended by appeals to holy scripture ; 
 those who are set for the defence of the gospel are 
 bound to fulfil their duty. Every witness for the truth, 
 at such a time, ought to bear his testimony with un- 
 flinching faithfulness. When souls are ruined, and 
 truth is compromised, a witness for God will find 
 nothing more dreadful, than an inclination in himself 
 to be unfaithful, silent, or supine. 
 
 The passage which has just been quoted from the 
 charge of his lordship of London, delivered in 1842, 
 will serve also to suggest the origin and nature of this 
 whole enquiry. He simply affirms, what, in his view, 
 forms the doctrine of his church. The Tractmen of 
 Oxford advance to prove it, and in its defence appeal, 
 not onlv to ecclesiastical, but also to Divine authority : 
 the originators and conductors of the Congregational 
 Lecture, with Dr. Halley as their appointed labourer, 
 appeal to Divine authority against them : Dr. Wardlaw 
 appeals to the same authority against Dr. Halley; and 
 Dr. Halley answers by appealing to Divine authority 
 in his own defence. The works of all these labourers 
 in the cause of truth are before the public ; and it is 
 not designed to discuss the points in which it is sup- 
 posed that they are wrong (so much) as to examine 
 and harmonize the points in which they are obviously 
 right. The work before the reader is rather to 
 reconcile than to refute. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 The case to be considered, includes a fourfold ap- 
 peal to holy scripture, on which the reader will have 
 to pass a prayerful and ccnscientious judgment. The 
 Tractmen appeal, on the behalf cf sacramental efficacy, 
 to the fulness of scripture truth. The Independents 
 in general appeal to scripture, in behalf of evangelical 
 doctrine. Dr. Halley more particularly appeals in 
 behalf of justification by faith only ; and Dr. Wardlaw 
 in favor of the spirituality of the church, or body of 
 Christ. Each appeal is made for the favorite topic, 
 as it stands related to Christian baptism ; and the ob- 
 ject of these pages is to show, in what way the 
 fulness of scripture truth, the purity of evangelical 
 doctrine, the justification by faith, and the purity and 
 spirituality of the Christian church, may be harmo- 
 nized with the rite of Christian baptism ; and how that 
 reconciliation of all the parties may be educed from 
 those very sources of instruction, to which they ap- 
 peal in opposition to each other. To eff'ect this 
 object, we shall first consider the nature of each case, 
 as presented by its own advocate, in his appeal to 
 Divine truth ; and then suggest the reconciling cour 
 siderations. 
 
THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 15 
 
 The Tractmeri' s Case. 
 
 The Bishop of London in declaring that "justifica- 
 tion begins in baptism," and that, " remission of sins," 
 and "grace," are " then given," when the infant is 
 baptized ; presents a theory very different from that 
 of Dr. Halley, and his brethren. Neither would 
 refuse to baptize an adult person whose baptism had 
 been delayed, or withhold it from one who credibly 
 professed his faith in Christ ; but both prefer, and 
 advocate, the administering of baptism to persons in 
 their infancy. The same thing is clearly true of all 
 included in the classes of professing Christians, to 
 which these two writers severally belong. His 
 lordship of London may be considered in union with 
 Tractmen and Catholics, and all others, of what kind 
 soever, who hold that grace is given in baptism, and 
 that therein regeneration transpires, and justification 
 begins, minute modifications of theory are of no 
 importance ; the bishop's class will be distinguished 
 by the assumption that grace is given in baptism ; 
 and that baptism was designed of God, to be the 
 means of its bestowment. In the same manner on 
 the other side, minute modifications of theorv re- 
 specting the nature and import of the rite, are of no 
 importance. Dr. Halley is classed with those who 
 hold the rite itself, but deny the assumption that it is, 
 or was ever intended to be, a means of communica- 
 ting to its recipient, either regeneration, justification, 
 the forgiveness of sins, or grace of any kind, con- 
 formable to the meaning of his lordship. The question 
 between these two parties is, not whether baptism 
 
16 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 should be administered to infants at all ; in this they 
 both, and all agree, from Rome to Canterbury, and 
 from Glasgow to Manchester. One, and all, declare 
 that infants ought to be baptized ; but each partv 
 differs from the other in respect to the import and 
 efficacy of the baptism. On this great question, 
 therefore, ■whether baptism so administered, be the 
 Divinely appointed means of conferring regenerating 
 grace ? the party represented by his lordship puts 
 in the affirmative ; Dr. Halley and his party put in 
 the negative. Each appears solemn, each is positive, 
 and each appeals, confidently, to holy scripture, for 
 proof of his own allegation. 
 
 His lordship of London and Dr. Halley are placed 
 in opposition here, not because the one has written 
 against the other, but because each has stated his 
 own views without being in actual controversy. The 
 greatest freedom is thus secured from all prejudicial 
 influence on either side. As to learning and respect- 
 abihty, each may be esteemed alike ; the former 
 being sustained by the whole troop of Tractmen. 
 and advocates of sacramental efficacy ; and the latter 
 being attended by all who plead for the so-called, 
 evangelical paedo-baptism, in which no sacramental 
 efficacy is allowed. Respectable in character, serious 
 in feeling and deportment, and direct in his appeal 
 to Divine law, each party claims a calm, a patient, 
 and a prayerful attention. No mortal upon earth 
 can be, or ought to feel uninterested in the investiga- 
 tion ; the greatest interest is at stake that can be in- 
 herited by mortals. 
 
 The doctrine of the Tractmen, and their appeal to 
 
THE TRACTMEn's CASE. 17 
 
 sacred scripture in its defence, are given in their own 
 words which follow : — 
 
 1. "In many good persons, the desire to uphold (as they 
 think) the doctrine of justification ly faith, practically oblite- 
 rates the truth, that our justification is imparted to us, not 
 through the feelings, but through baptism." "Thus, jus- 
 tification by faith comes to be opposed in men's minds to bap- 
 tism, the means ordained by CHRIST himself for the remission 
 of sin, or for justification."* 
 
 2. "A happier time, we trust, is dawning, when with the 
 energy for conversion which now exists, shall be combined 
 care for the young, such as the belief in God's gift through 
 baptism brings with it, and the holy calmness of a complete 
 faith."t 
 
 3. "The difficulty of explaining baptismal regeneration is 
 two-fold ; first, from its being a mystery ; secondly, from men 
 being in these days inclined to lower that mystery. Thus one 
 should prefer speaking of it, with our catechism, as that 
 whereby we were made ' members of Christ ;' but then, when 
 people explain ' members of Christ' to be ' members of Clirist's 
 church,' and that, to mean ' members of His visible church, or 
 of the society of men called Christians,' a description in itself 
 the highest and most glorious, and the sour.ce of every other 
 blessing, is made equivalent to ' a mere outward admission into 
 a mere outward assemblage of men.' In either case, however, 
 man is the author of his own difficulties ; in the one, by lower- 
 ing the fulness of scripture truth ; in the other, by carnally 
 inquiring into the mode of the Divine working. 'J ' He would 
 fain know how an unconscious infant can be born of God .' how 
 it can spiritually live ? wherein this spiritual life consists .' how 
 baptism can be the same to the infant and to the adult con- 
 vert.'"§ 'But, since infant baptism is right, then must it 
 confer, in effect and in the rudiments, all the benefits of adult 
 baptism, to be developed hereafter.' " || 
 
 From these passages the one uniting element in 
 which all these parties are combined, becomes quite 
 obvious, and this agreement must be kept in mind, or 
 we never can justly appreciate the point of this differ- 
 ence. The bishop, the Tractmen, Dr. Halley, and 
 
 * Tract, 67, p. 20. f Ibid. p. 16. + Ibid. p. 22. 
 
 § Ibid. p. 23. II Ibid. p. 63. 
 
 C 
 
18 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 all the evangelical Psedo-baptists, agree in the assump- 
 tion, that " infant baptism is right." In this they 
 are unanimous. It is only on the second thought, in 
 the last quotation, that the difference originates. 
 With the full consent of Dr. Halley and his brethren, 
 it is assumed that, " infant baptism is right ;" and 
 then the Tractmen advance to argue and affirm, " then 
 must it confer, in effect and in the rudiments, all the 
 benefits of adult baptism." You yield us the pro- 
 priety, and we will prove the value, of infant baptism. 
 The apparent mystery of the case, which you plead, 
 is nothing in the hand of God ; we appeal to his own 
 word. It never affirms anything which he is either 
 unable, or unwilling to perform. Let God be true ; 
 for, in thus denying the power of his sacrament, you 
 lower " the fulness of scripture truth." 
 
 This serious charge, brought against the Psedo- 
 baptist brethren, oi " lowering the fulness of scripture 
 truth," with the solemn appeal of Tractmen to the 
 true import of holy scripture in proof of their doctrine 
 must, above all others, be kept in mind throughout 
 the whole of this inquiry. When this is not regarded, 
 however ingenious and eloquent the replies of their 
 opponents may appear, every student of their writings 
 will see that such answers contain nothing but fallacy. 
 To charge them with appealing to the fathers, against 
 the inspired writings, is unjust ; because they first 
 appeal to the sense of scripture, and then take the 
 fathers as witnesses, to confirm the truth of their in- 
 terpretation. If they have mistaken the meaning of 
 the fathers, they have mistaken the meaning of the 
 inspired writings first ; and it is to what they, assum- 
 
THE TRACTMEn's CASE. 19 
 
 in^ that " infant baptism is right," consider the true 
 meaning' of holy scripture, that they appeal for the 
 authority of their doctrine. It is this which gives 
 the Tract No. 67, its great superiority over almost 
 every other work on infant baptism. To justify his 
 view of its nature and importance, the writer of that 
 tract appeals, with patient investigation, and great 
 critical accuracy, to the only standard of Divine truth. 
 It is by this standard therefore that he must be 
 refuted, if refuted at all : he has imposed on his 
 brethren, who yield to him that " infant baptism is 
 right," the task not yet performed, of showing how, 
 rejecting the theory of regeneration in baptism, their 
 practice may be retained on scriptural authority, 
 without " lowering the fulness of scripture truth." 
 The words of the author are exceedingly plain, and 
 his references very precise. 
 
 1. "We have two distinct bodies of evidence, both solidly 
 establishing the same result, and each confirming the other. 
 First, the works of the several fathers, as individual witnesses 
 of the faith of their several churches, and so ultimately of the 
 vsrhole church ; and, secondly, in the liturgies, the collective 
 doctrine of each church as a whole. They will also supply an 
 answer to a question, ' Do all the promises and descriptions of 
 baptism apply to infant baptism ?' Certainly ; unless they did 
 in effect, infant baptism vFcre vsrong ; for so we should be 
 depriving our children of whatever benefits it were supposed 
 that adult baptism conferred, and infant baptism was incapable 
 of.' ' Moreover, where the language of holy scripture is un- 
 limited, we are not to restrain it.' ' But the same scripture 
 pronounces baptism absolutely to be the washing of regenera- 
 tion and renewal by the Holy Ghost ;' and what scripture calls 
 it, it must remain, at all times, and however applied, to infants 
 or to adults."* 
 
 Here each source of evidence appears in its proper 
 * Tract 67, p. 62, 63. 
 c2 
 
20 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 place. The holy scripture is the authority, while 
 the fathers and the liturgies show how scripture was 
 interpreted by the churches to which they belonged. 
 But, further — 
 
 2. "The passages of holy scripture which refer to baptism , 
 may naturally be divided under two heads ; those which directly 
 connect regeneration with it, (John iii. 5 ; Titus iii. 5,) and 
 those which speak of its privileges.'' " Each class, in a differ- 
 ent way, strengthens our faith ; the one telling us what our 
 privilege is, the other raising or illustrating our notions of that 
 privilege> by speaking of its accompaniments or results."* 
 
 On the scrip''ural evidence to be obtained from 
 these two classes of passages, we have also two gene- 
 ral observations stated thus : — 
 
 3. " Two more observations must be premised on the scrip- 
 ture evidence itself ; first, whereas, confessedly, regeneration 
 is in scripture connected with baptism, there is nothing in scrip- 
 ture to sever it therefrom. The evidence all goes one way." ■)• 
 " But secondly, not only is there nothing in scripture to sever 
 regeneration from baptism, but baptism is spoken of as the 
 source of our spiritual birth, as no other cause is, save God ; 
 we are not said, namely, to be born again of faith, or love, or 
 prayer, or any grace which God worketh in us, but to be born 
 of water and the Spirit, in contrast to our birth of the flesh." J 
 
 And, as to the rule of interpretation, read — 
 
 4. " The evidence, however, arising from a general con- 
 sideration of God's declarations in holy scripture, obtains fresh 
 strength from the examination of the passages themselves ; 
 only we must not look upon them as a dead letter, susceptible 
 of various meanings, and which may be made to bear the one or 
 the other indifferently, but as the living word of God ; par- 
 ticularly we should regard, with especial reverence, any words 
 which fell from our Saviour's lips, and see that we consider, not 
 what they may mean, but what is their obvious untortured 
 meaning." § For Hooker well says, ' I hold for it a most in- 
 fallible rule in expositions of sacred scripture, that where a 
 literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is 
 commonly the worst.' " || 
 
 * Tract 67, p. 19. f Ibid. p. 24. + Ibid. p. 25. 
 
 § Ibid. p. 28. II Ibid. p. 29. 
 
THE TRACTMEn's CASE. 21 
 
 In conformity with this appeal to the " obvious and 
 untortured meaning" of holy scripture, John i. 12, 13, 
 "As many as received him, to them gave he power 
 to become the sons of God, to them that believe on 
 His name ; which were born, not of blood, nor of 
 the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
 God:" with John iii. 5, "Except a man be born of 
 water and the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of 
 God :" and Titus iii. 5, " He saved us by the wash- 
 ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost :" are adduced to show that regeneration is, 
 in holy scripture, united with baptism ; that this was 
 done by our Lord himself, who could not lead his 
 church into error : that the teaching of the apostles 
 was the same ; that it was in no figurative or super- 
 ficial sense that regeneration and baptism were so 
 conjoined, but in a sense which manifested God's 
 free love, so that the regenerated and baptized per- 
 sons became sons of God, united with him, and " saved 
 by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost." * 
 
 Admitting, as we must, that these passages refer 
 to Christian baptism ; its indispensable connexion 
 with regeneration, in some way, can scarcely be dis- 
 puted. Hence the great advantage which Tractmen 
 have in meeting the main position of Dr. Halley. 
 " If," he says, " baptism be not regeneration, if it do 
 not produce or imply any moral or spiritual change, 
 the whole fabric of sacramental efficacy falls to the 
 ground,"t On the supposition, this is ingenious and 
 
 ♦ Tract 67. n. 19—68. f I^ect on Sac. p. 113, 114. 
 
22 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 true ; for, if baptism be not regeneration, and it do 
 not produce nor imply any moral or spiritual change, 
 the whole fabric of sacramental efficacy /a//^ to the 
 ground; but then, will it fall alone ? will not the 
 veracity of John, of Jesus, and of Paul, in whose words 
 regeneration and baptism are so forcibly conjoined, 
 fall with it ? If Dr. Halley rejects these scriptures, 
 let him say so ; but, if they be received, and their 
 application to the matter under investigation be 
 allowed, he must abide by their " untortured mean- 
 ing." The three following passages will set this 
 obligation in a still stronger light : — 
 
 1. " They who depreciate baptism, appeal to their own in- 
 ferences from passages in which holy scripture is not speaking 
 of baptism." " The appeal is here made, on the contrary, after 
 the example of the fathers, to places where scripture is speak- 
 ing on baptism ; and this, surely, would seem the directer way 
 toward the truth." * 
 
 2. " Being ' baptized into the name ' of the three persons of 
 the undivided Trinity, is no mere profession of obedience, 
 sovereignty, belief ; but (if one may so speak) a real ajjpropria- 
 tion of the person baptized to the Holy Trinity, a transfer of 
 him from the dominion of Satan to them." f 
 
 3. " Our life in Christ is, throughout, represented as com- 
 mencing, when we arc by baptism made members of Christ 
 and children of God." J " Those who had fallen in any way 
 are exhorted to repentance ; but men are not taught to seek 
 for regeneration, to pray that they may be regenerate ; it is 
 nowhere implied that any Christian had not been regenerated, 
 or could hereafter be so. The very error of the Novatians, 
 that none who fell away after baptism could be renewed to 
 repentance, will approach nearer to the truth of the gospel, 
 than the supposition that persons could be admitted as dead 
 members into Christ, and then afterwards, for the first time, 
 quickened." § 
 
 * Tract 67, p. 68. f Ibid. p. 72. + Ibid, p. 28. 
 
 § Ibid. p. 27, 28. 
 
THE TRACTMEn's CASE. 23 
 
 Of these three passages, the second is the most 
 unusual for a modern writer, but it is based on accu- 
 rate criticism ; and, with all carefulness of statement, 
 it demands a most prayerful investigation. Referring 
 this investigation to a future page, therefore, it should 
 be observed here, that the third point is indisputable. 
 No passage in the New Testament has yet been found 
 in which any one, who has been baptized into Christ, 
 is exhorted to a conversion ; and told that, unless he 
 be regenerated, he will perish for ever. The baptized 
 person is never exhorted to repent unless he has, 
 since his baptism, done something calling for repent- 
 ance. The contrary prevails, in a most remarkable way, 
 through all the apostoUcal epistles, and the discourses 
 which are on record in the Acts and in the Gospels. 
 This most important fact, which becomes more clear 
 and impressive the more, in conformity with the first 
 of these quotations, we consider the " places where 
 scripture is speaking on baptism," presents to the 
 foregoing hypothesis of Dr. Halley an insuperable 
 objection. For if baptism did " not produce or imply 
 any moral or spiritual change," how comes it to pass 
 that no baptized person, without some special offence, 
 is urged to repent, to convert, or taught that a rege- 
 neration of his nature is essential to his salvation. 
 If, without any personal discrimination, the baptism 
 was intended to recognize them only as learners of 
 gospel truth, how comes it to pass that, in sermons, 
 debates, and epistles, called forth by various circum- 
 stances, these learners are never taught that they 
 must repent or perish ? This is not the less strange ; 
 because baptism is an ordinance designed for per- 
 
24 
 
 THE PARTItS IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 petual observance, and these works form the only 
 authority and guide to God's people, in all ages, when 
 administering and receiving it. If the hvpothesis be 
 considered only in the light of this one fact, which is 
 so kindly, and so fairly propounded by the Tractmen, 
 it falls, with whatever "fabric" it had, into ruinous 
 absurdity. It is unconceivable that John, and Paul, 
 and Christ, should have administered, without dis- 
 crimination, a baptism which did " not produce or 
 imply any moral or spiritual change," to recognize 
 the " learners" of Christian doctrine ; and vet, never 
 teach them, afterwards, the necessitv of beginning a 
 new life, of repenting, or even of beheving for the 
 first time. What learners were those who, on the 
 supposition, were not taught the first and most essen- 
 tial elements of revealed truth .'' But we must not 
 form our judgment on this one fact. The Tractman 
 appeals to particular passages in which scripture does 
 speak of baptism, and he must be heard : — 
 
 "The passEiges of scripture, then, relating to holy bap- 
 tism, may be considered under the following heads. 1. Pas- 
 sages ia which scripture speaks of high privileges and Divine 
 gifts, involving duty as the ancient church saw, but in which 
 moderns have lost sight of the privileges and gifts, and see only 
 duties. 2. Passages in which modems have appropriated to 
 themselves the privileges, without thought of the means whereby 
 they were conveyed. 3. Passages , in which moderns see that 
 baptism is mentioned, but without attaching any especial notion 
 to it." * 
 
 It is clear from this arrangement, that the appeal to 
 scripture is made with great completeness. Indeed, 
 very few, if any, of the passages which refer to bap- 
 
 * Tract 67, p. 90. 
 
THE TRACTMEn's CASE. 25 
 
 tism are omitted : and since the appeal to the precise 
 meaning of the words is made in favor of the efficacy 
 of baptism, and, with the full assumption that infant 
 baptism is right, the paedobaptist is bound, in his 
 reply, to show how, in conformity with these passages, 
 the rite of infant baptism may be retained ; and yet, 
 its regenerating power be repudiated. One or two 
 cases will serve for illustration. 
 
 Rom. vi. 3 — 6. " Know ye not, that so many of us as 
 were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? 
 Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death ; 
 that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For, if 
 we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we 
 shall be also of his resurrection : kuowing this, that our old man 
 was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be de- 
 stroyed."* 
 
 This is the first passage adduced of the first class, 
 and the remarks made in its illustration contain the 
 following words ; 
 
 " St. Paul speaks throughout of actual facts, which have 
 taken place in us, and duties consequent upon them." '* Now, 
 in these pairs (so to speak) of gifts and duties, two things are, at 
 first sight, observable. I. That St. Paul speaks throughout of 
 these gifts as having taken place at a definite past time. Not 
 only we ' were baptized,' but we ' were buried,' ' were planted,' 
 ' were crucified ; ' these acts are in their fruits to live in us, but 
 in themselves they are past, just as much as our baptism is, in 
 which they took place ; ' our old man was crucified with Christ.' 
 2. That a most intimate communion with these same acts in our 
 Lord's holy life and death is, by the original language, con- 
 veyed, etc."t 
 
 Here the only questionable affirmation is contained 
 in the words, '^ in which they took place," referring 
 to baptism alone. The facts are all clearly stated by 
 
 * Tract 67, p 93. f Ibid. p. 94, 95. 
 
^6 THE PARTIES IX THE APPEAL. 
 
 Paul. They tcere baptized, were buried, were plant- 
 ed, were crucified. The persoaal relation of these 
 facts is also clear from the forcible expression, they 
 tcere baptized into Christ, and therefore, were buried 
 with him ; planted in the likeness of his death, and 
 crucified with him. The time also at vrhich these 
 actions took place, is clearly indicated, with the uni- 
 versality of the case, for as many, means all who were 
 baptized into Christ ; and, if all, then ichen any one 
 had been baptized into Christ, it would be affirmed 
 that he had been buried with Christ ; planted in the 
 likeness of his death, and crucified with Christ. The 
 Tractman says, "they were passed just as much, 
 ES his ' baptism ' in which they took place ;" and, 
 since the parties assume that " in/ant baptism is right," 
 then all these facts become true, and past, whenever 
 an infant is baptized ; and since the infant cannot ex- 
 ercise faith, when he is baptized without faith, he is 
 without faith buried with Christ, planted together, 
 etc., and crucified with him ; in order that, like as 
 Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the 
 Father, even so he also should walk in newness of life : 
 and with this assurance, that, having been planted to- 
 gether in the likeness of his death, he shall be also in 
 the hkeness of his resurrection. 
 
 Assuming that " infant baptism is right," the Tract- 
 man passes through all the classes of passages ; and 
 by the same irresistible method, from four passages 
 onlv, nineteen affirmations of Paul, and seven practi- 
 cal inductions, are justly advanced to prove its 
 regenerating efficacy. If they are properly baptized ; 
 or, if any other persons who have not faith, are rightly 
 
THE TUACTMEn's CASE. 27 
 
 baptized ; then, since those who have been baptized 
 into Christ, have been baptized into his death, buried 
 with him, planted with him, their faith has come ; 
 they are sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus, they 
 have put on Christ, are one with Christ, a seed of 
 Abraham complete in Christ, circumcised with the 
 circumcision without hands, buried with him, risen 
 with him, quickened with him, forgiven their sins, 
 saved by the washing of the new birth and by the 
 renewing of the Spirit, justified, and heirs according 
 to the hope of eternal hfe ; all these benefits of Chris- 
 tian baptism, in effect, and in the rudiments are, by 
 Divine authority, conferred on them : and what state- 
 ment ever yet advanced to show the regenerating 
 efficacy of " infant baptism," can be more forcible than 
 these affirmations of St. Paul ? It is of no use to cry 
 them down as absurd, or impracticable ; they are the 
 affirmations of an inspired man, and, therefore, of 
 God who inspired him. If infant baptism, and un- 
 believer baptism be right, then these passages apply 
 to all infants and unbelievers that have been baptized. 
 The authority, therefore, to which the Tractmen ap- 
 peal is divine. The Tract 67 has many strong 
 expressions in it ; but none so profoundly important 
 as these affirmations of St. Paul ; and nothing more 
 absolute and universal in its application. If such wri- 
 ters as these are to be answered, it must be from the 
 authority to which they appeal ; and as long as it is 
 admitted to them that the baptism of infants, or of 
 any but believers, is right, so long will they, with 
 justice, charge upon their psedobaptist, or unbeliever 
 baptist brethren, the inexcusable impropriety of low- 
 
28 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 ering the fulness of scripture truth, in order to deny 
 its regenerating efHcacy. From the elements of proof 
 supplied, in this one publication, it should seem that, 
 wherever the authority of holy scripture is admitted, 
 infant baptism, unbeliever baptism, and baptismal re- 
 generation, must stand or fall together. 
 
 The Congregational Padobaptists. 
 
 When the first Oxford Tract appeared, the import- 
 ance of this subject was foreseen and predicted. By 
 what, or by whom instructed, was never perceived ; 
 but somehow, the general voice of protestant dissent- 
 ers, and especially of pfedobaptists was, let it alone, 
 and it will die away. Facts, however, have transpired 
 lately, which leave no hope whatever of its early dis- 
 solution. The Oxford theorv has proved itself to be 
 the only just, and faithful, exponent of sacramental 
 efficacy, as holden and authorised in the English 
 hierarchv ; and the advocates of that theory, with only 
 this one admission, that " infant baptism is right " 
 find no difficulty, and will find no difficulty in sustain- 
 ing, by an appeal to the untortured meaning of holy 
 scripture, the greater portion of its elements. Hence 
 have followed two alarming realities, which became 
 increasingly obvious every day. The Oxford theory 
 has taken almost the entire possession, and commands 
 the chief resources, of the establishment. Its con- 
 formity to the principle on which the hierarchy is 
 based, is so exact, that, however repudiated, at first, 
 as an advance towards popery, few parishes exist now, 
 which have not, in some shape, received its nroclams- 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL P^DOBAPTISTS. 29 
 
 tion. As a body, the clergy of the estabhshment have, 
 to a great extent, regained their consistency, in con- 
 forming to the theory of sacramental efficacy. This is 
 not surprising. Their interests, and the laws of their 
 church, all lead in this direction. It is the only thing 
 by which their teaching and practice could be made 
 to harmonize with the canons and the creed to 
 which their subjection had been sworn. But a second 
 fact has been presented, far more momentous than 
 the former. The people have, to a great extent, 
 followed the clergy in adopting the Oxford theory. 
 This forms a case both more afflictive and more dif- 
 ficult to explain. Sacramental efficacy was likely to 
 please the clergy, but how should it so please and 
 govern the people ? The answer is found in the 
 character of this Tract, No. 67. By this one ad- 
 mitted element, that " infant baptism is right," it is 
 made to appear that sacramental efficacy is scriptural, 
 and the people are led to embrace it on that ground. 
 With this to begin with, the Tractman is irresistible. 
 Assuming that " infant baptism is right," he proves 
 it to be regenerating ; and sacramental efficacy, being 
 once admitted, extends itself with ease, and by the 
 same authority, through the whole system. 
 
 When this practical necessity, imposed on the ad- 
 vocates of infants' baptism, for some scriptural de- 
 fence of that rite, by which it might be rescued from 
 its alliance with sacramental efficacy, through reading 
 the Tract No. 67, was presented to the author of these 
 pages ; he mentioned it to a friend in the Independent 
 denomination, from whom the answer proposed by 
 Dr. Halley, in his Lectures on the Sacraments, that 
 
30 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 baptism had no connection with regeneration or faith, 
 was received as the onlv reply. As this did not ap- 
 pear to meet the case, when called to address a large 
 body of Baptists and Independents at Cambridge, in 
 1841, it was submitted to them, that each party was 
 bound to rescue its own denominational practice, and 
 arguments, from every implication in this prevailing 
 error of sacramental efficacy. The feeling evinced by 
 Independents on that occasion, suggested the import- 
 ance of submitting the subject to members of that 
 denomination, in writing. The two questions sub- 
 mitted in this Tract, addressed to Dr. Joseph Fletcher, 
 of Stepney, were, "First, Ought not something more 
 decisive to be done in exposing the nature, and check- 
 ing the progress, of this papal heresy of baptismal 
 regeneration ? And secondly. Ought not you and 
 your brethren, in soaie more obvious and conclusive 
 way, to clear yourselves, and the ceremony you per- 
 form on infants, from your implication in the evils 
 which flow from this pernicious heresy }" These 
 questions, in the " Evangelical Magazine" of August, 
 1842, were described impertinent and disingenu- 
 ous; and the personal abuse administered in the 
 review exceeded in bulk the letter-press contained in 
 the publication itself. In 1843, when all parties were 
 engaged in the dispute, the author was requested to de- 
 liver his lecture on baptismal regeneration, at Wool- 
 wich. In the same year, a dispute between the Rev. 
 George Smith and the clergymen at Limehouse, on the 
 same subject, called for the Tract, " SeriousConsidera- 
 tions i-elating to Holy Baptism." Lastly, Dr. Halley's 
 lectures on the Sacraments produced the lectures 
 
THE CONGREGATIONAL P^DOBAPTISTS. 31 
 
 on Christian Discipleship in reply. In all these 
 efforts the object was to urge a consideration of the 
 fact, shown so clearly in the foregoing extracts, that 
 since the Tractmeu appeal to scripture, they must be 
 met by answers resting on scripture, the " untortured 
 meaning" of which constitutes our only authoritative 
 rule ; and that, if infant haptism, which is, by all the 
 disputing parlies, assumed to be right, be retained, on 
 any scriptural authority, and yet rescued from all par- 
 ticipation in the error of baptismal regeneration, 
 those passages adduced by the Tractmen, in which 
 baptism and regeneration are connected with each 
 other, and especially those epistolary passages in 
 which these writers show that the privileges and 
 duties of baptised persons are described, must be both 
 carefully studied and accurately explained. 
 
 The justness of such an appeal to brethren in the 
 Lord ought not, by any one, to be disputed. If 
 whatever is human may, without impropriety, be 
 brought within the sympathies of a man, who will 
 deny that whatever is Christian, and especially what- 
 ever endangers the church of Christ, may properly 
 engage the sympathies of a Christian ? Besides, on 
 the very same grounds, the decision of this case is 
 not less important to brethren united in evangelical 
 churches practising infant baptism, than it is to those 
 who baptize none but professed believers. Expe- 
 rience proves that when they have gained the people, 
 and procured what strength they can from the earthly 
 power, the advocates of sacramental efficacy will ex- 
 ercise no more kindness towards their Paedobaptist 
 than they will towards their Baptist opponents. Pro- 
 
32 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 babilities lead to the reverse conclusion; for a Baptist, 
 though further removed from tractarian theories, yet 
 has a clear and practical case, which Tractmen can 
 see must form a ground of conscientious difference. 
 This is not so obvious with their Psedobaptist oppo- 
 nents, who yield to them that " infant baptism is 
 right," and, in many cases, teach the doctrine of 
 baptismal benefits less definitely, and with less regard 
 to scriptural authority, but not with less danger to 
 the souls of men than those whom they condemn for 
 Tractarian heresy. Verbal difference in stating and 
 teaching the doctrine of baptismal benefits, without 
 faith in the recipient, is of no importance ; it is the 
 thing itself in whatever form, scriptural or unscriptural, 
 that wars against the declarations of Divine truth, and 
 its saving application to mankind. Whether the 
 Tractmen are right or wrong in their appeal to holy 
 scripture, to prove the efficacy of the rite of baptism, 
 is an inquiry that cannot be impertinent to Psedo- 
 baptists, who all allow that " infant baptism," whose 
 supposed efficacy the Tractmen plead, "is right " 
 and who in many forms, if not in the same degree, 
 assert, and defend, its assumed spiritual benefits. A 
 right interpretation of holy scripture here involves the 
 question, whether the rising generation should, by 
 their own parents and ministers, be taught to rest 
 their hope of eternity on a shadow, or hasten in 
 their youth to find the rock of their salvation. This 
 is a question not only important in itself, but recog- 
 nised in public documents, as one that is worthy to be 
 considered. The Congregational Lecture was " esta- 
 blished," among other objects, " to illustrate the 
 
DR. halley's case. 33 
 
 evidence and importance of the great doctrines of 
 Revelation, to exhibit the true principles of philology in 
 their application to such doctrines, etc., and to trace the 
 errors and corruptions which have existed in the Chris- 
 tian church to their proper sources, and by the connection 
 of sound reasoning with the honest interpretation of 
 God's holy word, to point out the methods of refutation 
 and counteraction.''' These words from the "Adver- 
 tisement of the Committee of the Congregational 
 Library;" published in Dr. Halley's " Sacraments," 
 1844, shew that the brethren, under whose auspices 
 he came forth in those lectures, had a fraternal regard 
 to such questions as that in which the Tractmen here 
 appeal to holy scripture. This question therefore is 
 in proper time and place ; and' these brethren will, 
 at least, prayerfully and affectionately receive and 
 consider the "refutation" and "counteraction" of 
 this " error" and " corruption" " of the Christian 
 church," to be hereafter proposed. 
 
 Dr. Halley's Case. 
 
 Few things can be more surprising, or melancholy, 
 than the freedom and force with which the corrup- 
 tion of human nature has gushed out, wherever the 
 point of this requirement has been applied. Anger, 
 wrath, and evil speaking, and whatever is forbidden 
 in Christian intercourse, have become excessive ; as 
 though the brethren, not satisfied with forgetting 
 the argument, must claim the liberty to forget them- 
 selves. This is very unfortunate. The brethren have 
 
34 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 acted as though the questions submitted to them in 
 1842, and the more expanded statements presented 
 in the subsequent publications before recited, were 
 the impertinent suggestions of an individual ; whereas, 
 the passages from Tract 67, adduced in these pages, 
 shew, that this consideration of those passages 
 of scripture in which regeneration and baptism are 
 conjoined, and especially of those epistolatory pas- 
 sages which speak of baptised persons, constitutes the 
 essential requirement of the controversy. It is not 
 the individual that now addresses them, but the 
 case itself, and the writer of Tract No. 67, who re- 
 quire the consideration of those epistolary passages; 
 but Dr. Hallev savs, " This reasoning on passages 
 which manifestly refer only to the parties addressed, 
 as many of you, is undeserving the trouble of serious 
 refutation;"* and, again, after the importance of 
 this appeal, made byTractmen to these passages, had 
 been re-stated and proved, he adds in his reply; "Mr. 
 Stovel appears somewhat discomposed, because I 
 have not undertaken a formal refutation of the argu- 
 ment, which our Baptist friends have founded upon 
 the passages in the epistles, which, according to them, 
 describe the character of baptised persons, and against 
 which he savs my ' system has no defence,' p. 253." 
 If " Mr. Stovel" appear to be " discomposed," it 
 can only be, to find an individual in Dr. HaUey's sta- 
 tion, departing so deliberately from that accuracy of 
 statement which he professes, and is bound, to main- 
 tain. Still, to he " discomposed" v;'i^ not better the 
 
 * Halley on Sacra., p. 528. Stovel's Diicipleship, p. 250. 
 
DR. hallky's case. 35 
 
 case ; and, perhaps, it is only a mistake. Yet the 
 inaccuracy is there ; for, if any one will turn to the 
 page 253, of Christian Discipleship, which he has 
 marked, it will be found that the argument founded 
 on these epistolary passages, against which it is 
 justly said that his "system has no defence," ir, not, 
 as he affirms, produced by " our Baptist friejids," but 
 by " the Tractmen," whom Dr. Halley had under- 
 taken to refute, and whose words are given here, in 
 former pages. The whole argument extends from 
 p. 241 to p. 259, of the Lectures on Discipleship, and 
 in the section immediately preceding that from which 
 he quotes on p. 253, are these words : " By dechning 
 to consider the argument founded on these passages. 
 Dr. Halley has abandoned the very thing he had 
 undertaken to perform. He and his brethren have no 
 right to condemn the Tractmen until their arguments 
 have been refuted. This unfortunate practical error 
 has already betrayed a large portion of the English 
 public into the hands of catholics and semi-catholics.'* 
 Then come the words from which he quotes. " The 
 argument from which he turns, as being ' undeserving 
 the trouble of a serious refutation,' is one against which 
 his system has no defence." The inaccuracy of Dr. 
 Halley consists in ascribing to an argument of his 
 Baptist brethren, a just complaint of his impropriety 
 in treating the chief argument produced by the Tract- 
 men •, and describing, as not undertaking to refute " an 
 argument" ascribed to Baptist brethren, his declining 
 as " undeserving the trouble of serious refutation," all 
 " reasoning on passages" from which, as shown by the 
 D 2 
 
36 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 fore cited quotations, the Tractmen have adduced 
 their principal argument for sacramental efficacy. 
 
 This passage may serve to show the nature of 
 many charges which are preferred against his friend 
 and brother in the reply which Dr. Halley has given 
 to "Mr. Stovel." This case will also show the 
 method to be observed in treating them. If Dr. 
 Halley's references be turned up, and the passages, 
 before and after, in connexion read, they will mostly 
 supplv all the defence which can be desired. This 
 therefore will explain why, excepting in the cases 
 where some important error is to be corrected, or 
 where the subject of inquiry is concerned, the alle- 
 gations are not considered in these pages. Personal 
 charges which any reader may refute from the work 
 itself, need no explanation in another book ; and this 
 inaccuracy would not have been introduced here, 
 except to show the practical importance of that seri- 
 ous defect which is there unclothed in Dr. Halley's 
 " reasoning." 
 
 It is not denied that Baptists have founded an argu- 
 ment in these epistolatory passages ; they have, but so 
 have the Tractmen also ; and in his work on the Sacra- 
 ments, which relates to them both. Dr. Halley makes 
 no reply to the Tractmen on that ground, but affirms, 
 in general terms, that " this reasoning on" these pas- 
 sages is not worth the trouble " of serious refuta- 
 tion." This, in a work which professes to answer both 
 parties, is all that a Tractman obtains in reply. A 
 glance at the quotations from Tract 67, will prove 
 that, it justly claims to be caUed "reasoning on" 
 
DR. halley's case. 37 
 
 these passages, and reasoning of the most serious 
 kind. The thing found on p. 527 of the " Sacra- 
 ments," called by Dr. Halley in his " reply," " the 
 argument which our Baptist friends have founded upon 
 the passages in the epistles," is not stated in their 
 words, and contains the " reasoning" of no one author 
 of that denomination with whom the writer is ac- 
 quainted. It is a man of straw, created to be 
 bonfired in Dr. Halley's own fruitful imagination. 
 His treatment of that "false creation" formed no 
 ground of complaint in " Mr. Stovel's " lectures, as 
 any one may see from pp. 241 to 259. The com- 
 plaint was, that the Tractman received no direct 
 answer to his reasoning on these epistolary passages ; 
 that nothing was done in Dr. Halley's " Sacraments," 
 to reconcile the affirmations contained in these pas- 
 sages with the practice of infant baptism, which he 
 declares to be right ; and yet to refute the Tracta- 
 rian doctrine of baptismal regeneration, which he 
 undertakes to explode. Instead of that, the general, 
 and rude affirmation is received that, " This reasoning 
 on passages which manifestly refer only to the parties 
 addressed, as many of you, is undeserving the trouble 
 of serious refutation." 
 
 This was the complaint made in the lectures on 
 Christian Discipleship, and this complaint is now re- 
 newed. The matter, as far as the Baptists are con- 
 cerned, will come before us hereafter. The complaint 
 now is that, neither in his lectures on the Sacraments, 
 nor in his reply to " Mr. Stovel," has Dr. Halley met 
 the just demands of Tractmen on this ground. He 
 has not even attempted to meet the argument from 
 
38 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 these passages, presented in Tract No. 67 ; but, in- 
 stead of meeting it, as he was bound to do, the 
 abstract of that argument is rejected, with remarks 
 which by no means increase Dr. Halley's celebrity 
 for good behaviour. 
 
 His refusing to answer the Tractmen's argument 
 on the epistolary passages is unfortunate : for, since 
 this argument forms a part of their case, and a most 
 essential part, any answer that does not include 
 this must be unfair, fallacious, and operate rather 
 the advancement than suppression of sacramental 
 efficacy. 
 
 The refusing to answer Tractmen, in their reason- 
 ing on these epistolary passages, is the more unfortu- 
 nate ; because, this argument is the most popular and 
 telling of all that they advance. It combines the act, 
 and doctrine of baptism, with so many operations of 
 our faith, and interests of our souls that, whenever 
 the human mind can be made to feel the importance 
 of personal religion, it must think on them ; and, 
 wherever the Tractmen's interpretation of these pas- 
 sages prevails, the serious mind will think of baptism 
 and its supposed efficacy, as clearly involving the inte- 
 rests of personal religion. 
 
 Moreover, the refusing to answer their argument 
 on these passages, gives to Tractmen, and those 
 who preach their doctrines, a terrible advantage over 
 all their hearers, in that reverent predisposition, which 
 is ever increasing, to hold fast whatever form of doc- 
 trine appears to be stated in the very words cf 
 scripture, and to be recognised in the reasonings of 
 inspired men. Where the interpretation of holy 
 
DR< halley's case. 39 
 
 scripture is correct, this predisposition has a good 
 influence, and its confirmation by habit protects the 
 truth ; but where the interpretation of scripture is 
 not correct, the hght becomes darkness, and the pre- 
 disposition, with its tendency to increase, creates the 
 most powerful protection to error. 
 
 And further, every Tractman who reads an answer 
 to his doctrine, in which his chief appeal to scripture 
 is deemed unworthy of regard, will have just cause 
 for complaint; because, not only is this appeal to 
 scripture, in itself, deserving of regard ; but, where 
 this is refused, no other corroborating testimony can 
 be appreciated. A controversy, so conducted, though 
 in behalf of truth, will force any man further from 
 conviction than he was before ; and give to every 
 advocate of error, prodigious advantage, in every 
 appeal he makes to unprejudiced inquirers. 
 
 Lastly, the refusing to answer this argument from 
 the epistolary passages, gives to the Tractmen an 
 adequate scriptural resource against every other argu- 
 ment that Dr. Halley has employed against them. 
 The affirmation, " Having noticed the passages of the 
 New Testament which are usually adduced in support 
 of the doctrine," * is directly contradicted by the fact, 
 that the argument founded on these epistolary pas- 
 sages, in Tract 67, is rejected as unworthy of serious 
 refutation. To plead, " that no previously existing 
 rite of Judaism" " was the means through which the 
 Divine life was communicated,"! is of no use ; be- 
 cause the Tractmen retire upon these epistolary 
 
 * Halley on Sacraments, p. 240. f Ibid. p. 213. 
 
40 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 authorities which, they say, in their untortured sense, 
 prove the superiority of Christian baptism over all 
 previous rites whatever. To arg^ue that, " previously 
 to the day of Pentecost, there was no such thing upon 
 the face of the earth as baptismal regeneration,"* is 
 of no avail ; for, the washing of regeneration, ia 
 Titus, iii. 5, is the same thing that was meant by 
 being born of water, in John iii. 5 ; and Jesus, the 
 Lord, who could not lead his church into error, spake 
 these words to Nicoderaus, while John the Baptist 
 was yet fulfilling bis course : and John the Evange- 
 list recorded them, after all the epistolary passages 
 had been written, and when the doctrine of those pas- 
 sages had been confirmed by all the apostles. If the 
 baptism of John be first identified with the supposed 
 rite of proselyte baptism, and then, with Christian 
 baptism, that so a " sHding scale " may be produced,. 
 by which the unregenerating character of a Jewish 
 rite may be inferred to the Christian, the work fails ;. 
 for as soon as ever we arrive at that point where 
 Christian operations begin, the Tractmen appeal, and 
 with justice, from all inferential reasoning whatever, to- 
 the untortured meaning of the scriptures. Nor must 
 we ascribe this to mere controversial tact. It is cer- 
 tain that " to be born again" — " to be born of water 
 and of the Spirit " — " to be born of God " — " to be- 
 come sons of God," — are expressions which, in the 
 Gospel of John, have the same meaning that they 
 would have had if, in similar cases, they had been 
 used by Paul in any of bis epistles. The epistolary 
 
 * Halley on Sacraments, p. 214. 
 
DR. halley's case. 41 
 
 passages contain also all that these passages can mean, 
 when taken in their highest import. Jesus, more- 
 over, when he was receiving disciples hy baptism, 
 could not have urged Nicodemus to be born of water 
 and of the Spirit, that he might enter the kingdom of 
 heaven, unless he had been prepared to receive him ; 
 and John could not have written respecting that king- 
 dom, the being born of God, and the being bom 
 again, and of water, when all the other apostles were 
 dead, in a work designed for general use ; and, when 
 he himself was writing in another place, " Now are we 
 sons of God," etc. (1 John iii, 1), in any other sense 
 than that in which the other apostles would have 
 used his terms, without explaining the difference of 
 their meaning. In what sense soever, therefore, bap- 
 tismal regeneration existed, after the Pentecost, it 
 must have existed before : and, in what sense soever 
 it existed before, it must have existed after the Pen- 
 tecost ; and, in no other. The question is, did it exist 
 at all.'' or, if at all, in what sense was it understood 
 by Jesus, by Paul, and by John .'' for each must have 
 viewed it alike. To decide this question, the Tract- 
 men appeal, and rightly, to the whole body of evidence 
 obtained from the untortured meaning of holy scrip- 
 ture ; and, as a part of that evidence, to the untor- 
 tured meaning of these epistolary passages : and, 
 without that untortured meaning of these epistolary 
 passages, no argument adduced by Dr. Halley has any 
 power to convince. 
 
 The consequences which result from following these 
 Tractmen to the tribunal to which they appeal, have 
 been described at length, i,i the Woolwich Lectures, 
 
42 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 p. 92 to 108: and again, in the work on Christian 
 Discipleship, p. 241 to p. 259. To vary the method, 
 and bring the argument within a short space, here, let 
 the passages in John i. 12, 13, and iii. 5, be com- 
 pared with Gal. iii. 25, 29. The Tractmen affirm, 
 that all the expressions, " born ^gain," *' born of water, 
 and of the Spirit," " born of God," become " sons of 
 God," — find their full import, and harmonize their 
 meanings, in every person who has been baptized into 
 Chiist, for he has put on Christ, and has become a 
 son of God : and, if he has become a son of God, he 
 has been born of God, of water and of the Spirit ; and 
 this, taking place in all, as many of you, or you, as 
 tnany as have been baptized into Christ, they say, is 
 baptismal regeneration, as proved by the words of 
 Paul : and, since " infant baptism is right," and, as 
 many as, means all, then all infants are so regenerated 
 in their baptism. But this is an inference, and the 
 Tractmen appeal from inferences to the untortured 
 meaning of scripture itself. To ascertain this un- 
 tortured meaning, therefore, we must look at Paul's 
 expression again ; his words are, " as many of you as 
 have been baptized into Christ, etc., are sons of God 
 by faith in Christ Jesus." It is certain, therefore, 
 that faith in Christ Jesus, formed an essential element 
 in the thought : and, corresponding with this, we have 
 in John, " as many as received him, to them gave 
 he power to become sons of God ; even to them that 
 believe on his name." Hence, we now have three 
 other terms to harmonize with the former, in every 
 baptized person. Every person baptized into Christ, 
 has been born of water and of the Spirit, born of God, 
 
DR. HALLEy's case. 43'' 
 
 and is a child of God ; but he has also received Christ, 
 believed in Christ, and believed on his name. In the 
 untortured meaning of the passages they must all go 
 together ; and, without standing for minute shades of 
 meaning, they must all in their proper sense harmo- 
 nize in the same person ; and, in every one baptized 
 into Christ. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that bap- 
 tism is connected with faith, and all the other things 
 here affirmed of baptized persons, in some way ; it 
 either produces them, or it supposes them to have 
 transpired before it was administered. To determine 
 this, we must consider that to become a son of God, 
 and to be born, have in them something of a passive 
 nature, and may, by possibility, be performed in the 
 act of baptism itself; but, to put on Christ, to receive 
 Christ, to believe in Christ, and to believe on his 
 name, have all an active nature, which requires some 
 thought, and some volition. They are actions per- 
 formed by the subject of baptism himself, or by no 
 one. The actions are past when the baptism has 
 transpired, as truly as the baptism itself. Did they 
 then take place in the baptism ? it is impossible. 
 Unless they had taken place before, these things could 
 never transpire then. No one who did not believe 
 before, would exercise faith by being put underwater; 
 besides, to put on Christ, or be baptized into Christ, 
 and not believe in Christ, is to do outwardly what is 
 not real ; it is hypocrisy. It would follow then, that 
 every baptised person must properly be a believing 
 person ; and hence, the words of John, " to them gave 
 he poiver," authority, right, to become the sons of 
 God : and, since none could have it unless he gave it. 
 
44 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 it follows, from the untortured meaning of these passa- 
 ges, that, by the law of the Redeemer, none have the 
 power of being born of water, and so, of becoming 
 sons of God, but those who exercise faith in Christ 
 Jesus : and that, baptismal regeneration, or rather the 
 baptismal birth spoken of by Jesus, John, and Paul, is 
 nothing more, nor less, than that act by which a be- 
 liever in Christ is baptized into Christ, or into the 
 kingdom of heaven ; commencing a new life under his 
 direction and by his aid. 
 
 The more carefully these passages are studied, and 
 the more closely the reader adheres to the " untortured 
 meaning" of each word, the more will it be manifest 
 to him, that this conclusion is just and most important. 
 It presents the true nature of the kingdom of heaven 
 upon earth, and shows that the church of Christ, in 
 founding which he shed his own blood, and displayed 
 with such splendour his Divine perfections, both was, 
 and is, a sphere in which his authority is acknow- 
 ledged and enforced in works of love : where faith is 
 professed, recognized, and cultivated ; where privi- 
 leges are enjoyed by believers in him, more intelligible, 
 great, and endearing, than any of those inexplicable 
 sentimentalities, which bewilder the advocates of sa- 
 cramental efficacy, and infant baptism. These passa- 
 ges show that the plain realities, set forth in the 
 " untortured meaning " of God's holy word, are, like 
 the author and giver of them, holy, just, and good ; 
 and yet, sublimely superior to every thought of man. 
 As well may one, by seeking, find out God, as find 
 out, fully, the advantage which results to man from 
 becoming a son of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. The 
 
DR. halley's case. 45 
 
 eye hath not seen it ; it hath not come upon the heart 
 of man. When once it can be said, " now are we 
 sons of God," it then becomes certain that " we know 
 not what we shall be." The beginning is defined for 
 our direction; but the end is hidden, not in darkness, 
 but in excess of glory. Hence the solemn importance 
 of adhering to these definite and practical instructions 
 of the Lord and his apostles. Without them, having 
 no guide to lead us, in beginning, conducting, or 
 ending the Christian life, it is not possible to antici- 
 pate how far, in a short time, we may wander from 
 the truth ; or, how securely we may rest in an adhe- 
 rence to error. 
 
 Can anything be more admonitory, and instructive, 
 than the case before us } The bishop with his army 
 of Tractmen claim the submission of mankind, because 
 they administer a baptism, which they say, exerts a 
 regenerating power, and, in which " justification 
 begins." Dr. Halley and his friends say, " baptism 
 is nothing, the state of the heart is everything ;" we 
 shall " be happy to baptize your children without any 
 offering on your part," for we " seek not yours, but 
 you."* The former reply, " To what end will vou 
 baptize their children without any offering, if baptism 
 be nothing ?" Your words deny the value of this so- 
 lemn rite, but your practice proves your belief in it. 
 Dr. Halley's reply is, " Depreciate the sacraments ! we 
 place them by the side of the holy scripture ;t as was 
 the coloured arch to Noah, so to us are baptism and 
 the Lord's supper, hallowed by their association with 
 the holy promises of God."i The reply is, " Oui 
 
 * Smith of Poplar, p. 7. f Sacraments, p. 108. J Ibid. p. 109. 
 
46 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 justification is imputed to us, not through the feehngs, 
 but through baptism ; you create your " own difficulties 
 by lowering the fulness of scripture truth ;" and "since 
 infant baptism is right, then must it confer, in effect 
 and in the rudiments, all the benefits of adult baptism, 
 to be developed hereafter." Dr. Halley says, " we 
 prefer our blessed Lord himself, as the expositor of 
 his own apostle."* The Tractmen respond, " particu- 
 larly we should regard any words which fell from the 
 Saviour's lips, and see that we consider not what they 
 may mean, but what is their obvious untortured mean- 
 ing ;" but we have also passages in which the gifts, 
 etc., of baptism are named, especially those in the 
 epistles. Dr. Halley responds, " this reasoning on 
 passages that manifestly refer only to the parties ad- 
 dressed, as many of you, is undeserving the trouble 
 of serious refutation. "f Thus they stand, each out- 
 facing the other ; each claims the obedience of mankind 
 in the baptising of infants, which is common to both ; 
 but, which the one can administer better, and the 
 other party cheaper than his neighbour. While each 
 appeals with equal confidence to the word of God, 
 the case appears confounding : but, when one happens 
 on a class of passages from which the other shrinks 
 with resolute aversion, the clue is found ; for, on turn- 
 ing to these passages, from their "untortured mean- . 
 ing," and by the authority of the Lord himself, it is 
 proved that both the appellants are wrong. Regene- 
 ration in which the spiritual life begins, is not illustra- 
 ted by these passages at all ; because they speak of 
 persons in whom the spiritual life had appeared, in 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 235. f Ibid. p. 528. 
 
DR. halley's case. 47 
 
 acts of faith, of receiving, and putting on Christ ; and 
 to whom, consequently, was granted the privilege or 
 power of becoming sons of God. Moreover, the 
 question about baptizing infants or adults, has no 
 place in these passages ; because, they speak only of 
 baptizing into Christ, those who vvere sons of God by 
 faith in Christ Jesus. Lastly, this one law, of bapti- 
 zing into Christ, only those who, whether young or 
 old, having received Christ, are empowered to become 
 sons of God, is that alone, in which all scriptures har- 
 monize ; and that which, these parties, unanimously 
 renounce. 
 
 Besides this mutual destruction of theories, relating 
 to infant and ?<«believers' baptism, consummated by 
 their own advocates, by appealing, against each other, 
 to the Word of God ; the case of Dr. Halley has a 
 remarkable peculiarity. His brethren in " the com- 
 mittee of the Congregational Library," wishing " to 
 trace the errors and corruptions which have existed 
 in the Christian church to their proper sources," " and 
 point out the methods of refutation and counterac- 
 tion," bring him forward on this great question re- 
 lating to " the sacraments." In performing this good 
 work, with faithfulness beyond all praise, he pro- 
 nounces the theory maintained by most of his Psedo- 
 baptist brethren, in which the sacraments are repre- 
 sented, as " the means," " or seals," with that in 
 which they are represented as " the causes " of " con- 
 verting or regenerating grace," to be " opposed to 
 the great protestant doctrine of justification by faith 
 without works." This is just in every case where in- 
 fant baptism is said to be right ; but the indiscrimi- 
 
48 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 nating theory which he advances, to reconcile the 
 baptism of infants and this " great protestant doc- 
 trine," will not, even in his own hands, bear that appeal 
 to apostolical writings which his chief opponents, the 
 Tractmen, demand. His substitute for the thing which 
 he condemns, like a corpse which had been long 
 buried, falls into dust when it is brought into the 
 light of da\^ It perishes by being looked at. Dr. 
 Halley himself shields it with effrontery, from a clear 
 enunciation of divine truth, though made by Tracta- 
 rian brethren, who say that Psedobaptism " is right." 
 He appeals to scripture, and shudders at the writings 
 of St. Paul. " By the connection of sound reasoning 
 with the honest interpretation of God's holy word, to 
 point out the methods of refutation and counterac- 
 tion" to be used in treating " the errors and corrup- 
 tion which have existed in the Christian church," with 
 regard to " the sacraments," is the very object for 
 which our brother was introduced to public notice. 
 In accomplishing this, he rightly condemns the re- 
 ceived theories of Psedobaptism, and re-affirms a)theory 
 which forms a part of that which he professes to ex- 
 plode, whose main support is an inference from what 
 scripture is said not to record; but the indiscrimi- 
 nating character of which flatly contradicts the discri- 
 minating affirmations of St. Paul. The Tractmen, ' 
 appealing to scripture, say, that all persons should be 
 baptized, because in baptism they receive the elements 
 of personal religion ; Dr. Halley, against all scripture, 
 says, that all persons should be baptized, because 
 baptism has no connection with personal rehgion 
 at all. 
 
(49 ) 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw's Case. 
 
 This, as far as the present appeal to scripture is 
 concerned, originates in the obviously unfortunate 
 moral influence attendant on Dr. Halley's indiscrimi- 
 nating theory. Affirming, as he does, " that I con- 
 sider baptism to be the initiatory rite," " of the 
 Christian church,"* and that this " initiatory rite 
 of the Christian church " should be administered in- 
 discriminately : that it produces, in the recipient, no 
 personal religion, and requires no qualification of per- 
 sonal religion ; it follows, that persons without any 
 such qualification being initiated, the Christian church 
 itself must become a promiscuous society, having, no 
 discriminating features of personal religion in its mem- 
 bers. The direct opposition of this theory to the 
 spirit and meaning of holy scripture arrested the atten- 
 tion of many minds, and its practical consequences 
 more than justify all the regret which Dr. Wardlaw 
 has expressed for its re- affirmation and defence : but, 
 whether this theory alone be chargeable with this re- 
 sult, will appear more obvious presently ; for in that 
 which Dr. Wardlaw himself proposes, a principle is 
 evolved which is not less opposed to the word of God, 
 nor less fatal to the interests of personal religion, than 
 that which he condemns. The declared and principal 
 point of difference, between him and the parties whose 
 cases we have considered, is, that while, in common 
 with the rest, he holds that " infant baptism is right," 
 yet, to secure the spirituality of the church of Christ, 
 
 • Sacraments, p. 7. 
 
 E 
 
50 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 he contends that repentance and faith form the quali- 
 fication to baptism ; while Dr. Halley pleads that 
 baptism required no qualification at all, his Tractariau 
 brethren, on the contrary, affirm that baptism, in their 
 elements, produces both. The more extended view 
 of Dr. Wardlaw's arguments will be given on the 
 baptism of John, and the extent of Christian baptism. 
 Here it is only necessary to observe, that the faith and 
 repentance which qualify an infant for baptism, are 
 found (by Dr. Wardlaw) in its parents, and not in 
 itself. This involves the doctrine of vicarious faith 
 and vicarious repentance. If this be admitted, though 
 there is not a shadow of evidence to support it in the 
 word of God, yet, if it be admitted, how does it 
 secure the spirituality and purity of the Christian 
 church ? The doctor himself states, that, for full 
 church communion, no discrimination of persons who 
 had been baptized appears on the sacred pages, what- 
 soever. The children, therefore, must come in because 
 their parents have believed and repented ; and conse- 
 quently, in two or three generations, the purest exist- 
 ing church would scarcely have a believing or repent- 
 ing member in its fellowship. But this is not all ; the 
 Tractmen plead the fulness of scripture truth ; and, 
 from those passages which speak of baptized persons, 
 etc, as given before, affirm, not only that the baptized 
 child has a place in the church on earth, but also in 
 the covenant of salvation, in the body of Christ, in the 
 heritage of glory. This conclusion also is, on the 
 supposition, inevitable ; for, whatever the faith might 
 have been, it is clear that, whether personal or vica- 
 rious, it did make the baptized person, in apostohcal 
 
DR. WARDLAW's CASE. 51 
 
 times, a child of God, by faith in Christ Jesns, — an 
 heir according' to the promise. Dr. Wardlaw's argu- 
 ment, therefore, not only does not secure the purity 
 and spirituality of the Christian church, for which he 
 pleads ; but further, it builds the hope of salvation 
 and final glory on natural relationship to a believer, 
 in direct opposition to the words of Paul, " They 
 which are the children of the flesh, these are not the 
 children of God : but the children of the promise 
 are counted for the seed" (Rom. ix. 8) ; " as it is 
 written. Behold I lay in Zion a stumbling-stone and 
 rock of offence : and whosoever believeth on him shall 
 not be ashamed." (v. 3.3). 
 
 It is not the faith of his parents therefore, but the 
 faith of the person himself, that must form his quali- 
 fication, if repentance and faith be any qualification, to 
 baptism at all. The infant baptized on his parents' 
 faith, is, unquestionably, baptized without any faith at 
 all : and since, in scripture, in the passages pleaded by 
 Tractmen, every person baptized into Christ is re- 
 garded as a justified person; so, if the infant be bap- 
 tized on his parents' faith, he must also he justified on 
 his parents' faith, that is to say, he must be justified 
 without faith : for we have no authority for pleading a 
 vicarious faith at the throne of mercy. It is also 
 as perfectly absurd as it is unscriptural. Hence the 
 whole doctrine of justification by faith becomes en- 
 dangered ; and Dr. Halley's exposition of the main 
 argument on which this case rests, is thus made in- 
 valuable. He proves, as we shall see from his own 
 words, that, even in the accepted line of Jewish de- 
 scent, it , was not the immediate relationship, but his 
 E 2 
 
52 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 descent from Abraham, which gave its title and inhe- 
 ritance to the child ; and, therefore, an assumed 
 hereditary claim, which had no existence with the Jews, 
 could not pass yrom the Jews to tincture Christianity. 
 This is well ; but the apostle carries this reasoning 
 farther. He shows in the chapter before cited, that, 
 even in the case of Abraham, himself, it was not a 
 mere bodily relationship that constituted his child an 
 heir of the promise, or gave him a claim to the cove- 
 nant of God. Ishmael was a child, but Isaac was the 
 seed, though he was youngest. The promise of God 
 defined its own recipient, stated its own terms, revealed 
 its own objects, appointed its own ministry and ordi- 
 nances, and ever waited, not for the modification, but 
 the acceptance of men. Hence the children of Abra. 
 ham, by the line of Jacob and Isaac, were circumcised, 
 as inheritors cf the covenant that they should become 
 the progenitors of Messiah. This they were, and that 
 covenant was in them fulfilled. If any analogy with 
 this Abrahamic covenant be now observed by this 
 Messiah, the seed of Abraham, in constituting his 
 kingdom upon earth ; it could never be in appointing a 
 qualification which consisted in a mere fleshy relation- 
 ship, because that had no existence with the seed of 
 Abraham. All Israel held their inheritance on a 
 sovereign and specified declaration of God, by which, 
 Jacob was distinguished from Esau, and Isaac from 
 Ishmael, and which gave, in each case, the full in- 
 heritance. What, then, is the sovereign and specific 
 declaration of God, respecting a full inheritance in the 
 covenant and salvation of his Christ } Dr. Halley and 
 Dr. Wardlaw both answer, faith; for he that be- 
 
DR. WARDLAw's CASE. 53 
 
 lieveth shall be saved, but he who believeth not shall 
 be damned. Faith, therefore, is the quahfication to 
 inheritance and communion in the covenant of Christ. 
 But communion and circumcision both went together 
 in the Jewish church, and the same qualification was 
 required in both ; and therefore, on the supposition, 
 communion and baptism should go together, and the 
 qualification to communion must be the qualification 
 to baptism : but the qualification to communion and 
 full inheritance in the body and covenant of Christ is 
 faith, and therefore faith must be the qualification to 
 baptism. 
 
 The importance of thus considering with calmness, 
 but with care, the cases which are now before the 
 reader, is twofold : first, it shows that a religious in- 
 vestigation, which has concentrated the attention and 
 energies of many minds, will, almost universally, pre- 
 sent some practical reality, some substratum of truth, 
 which, being duly appreciated, commands respect and 
 even reverence. ^ Hence the apostolical injunction, 
 " Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." 
 Errors may adhere to the truth, but it must not be 
 rejected, notwithstanding. Thus, in the cases before 
 us, each one finds the other to be, in some things, 
 wrong ; but each one has a truth to plead, and an aim 
 which is worthy of his exertions. To ascertain the 
 full meaning of Divine truth, to counteract the errors 
 which prevail in the Christian church, to defend the 
 doctrine of justification by faith, and secure the purity 
 and spirituality of the church of Christ, and to make 
 
54 THE PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 
 
 each harmonise in the administration of Christian or- 
 dmances, form severally and collectively an object 
 worthy of any man's study and exertion. Hence pro- 
 ceeds the overture of reconciliation, to be presently 
 considered. The facts themselves, when brought to- 
 gether, force the inquiry. Must all this good be wasted 
 in conflict ? Cannot these objects be harmonised ? Is 
 it by a Divine decree determined that, through the 
 initiatory ordinance of the Christian church, its whole 
 fabric should be so dissolved that each party must ap- 
 pear, like one that has suff'ered shipwreck, floating on 
 a single plank ? It is hoped that this is not a decreed 
 necessity ; but rather an accident, or the work of an 
 enemy, permitted in Divine forbearance. 
 
 But secondly, by bringing the arguments adduced 
 by these several advocates together, the reader will 
 appreciate their effect upon the practice for which they 
 all plead. That " infant baptism is right " is assumed 
 by every one, yet each one sees his own portion of 
 Divine truth hazarded by its defence. The Tract- 
 man, to j'gain the fulness of scripture truth, destroys 
 Dr. Halley's doctrine of justification by faith ; and he, 
 to defend his position, compromises the purity and 
 spirituality of the Christian church for which Dr. 
 Wardlaw contends. This is a most instructive cir- 
 cumstance ; but, by looking at these arguments to- 
 gether, it will be further seen that each advocate is 
 right, against the other ; and to maintain the truth 
 for which he pleads, advances reasonings which, 
 when carried out, explode the theory which they all 
 assume. This is enough to indicate that, combine 
 
DR, WARDLAW'S CASE. 55 
 
 however they may, the wise and proper objects which 
 these brethren plead will never harmonise in their 
 assumption that "infant baptism is right." 
 
 A confirmation of these statements will be given in 
 five particulars, suggested by Dr. Halley. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 CONFIRMATIONS OF THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS. 
 
 First, the foregoing' statements and conclusions are 
 confirmed by the essential difference, admitted by Dr. 
 Halley, between baptism (or being " born of water") 
 and the subsequent act of being " born of the Spirit." 
 Having pleaded that there was no baptismal rege- 
 neration in the days of John, or before the Pentecost ; 
 and that, therefore, the baptism, or being born of 
 water, (John iii. 5,) was a distinct operation from the 
 being born of the Spirit, our brother advances the 
 following : — " If to be born of water, and to be born 
 of the Spirit, are distinct operations, then the wash- 
 ing of regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy 
 Ghost, mentioned together by St. Paul, must be 
 acknowledged to be also distinct operations."* This 
 is advancing very near to the rejected argument ; and, 
 the atfirmation — " To all the fathers we prefer our 
 blessed Lord himself, as the expositor of his own 
 apostle,"t were good, if it were carried out ; but, to 
 come thus near, with this appearance of courage, and 
 then to retire, especially when he himself admits that 
 the " central point of controversy, respecting infant 
 baptism, on which the whole depends," is, "whether 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 234. f Ibid. p. 235. 
 
BAPTISM OF THE WATER AND SPIRIT. 57 
 
 faith be or be not the proper quahfication for bap- 
 tism,"* demands explanation. It seems so obvious 
 to inquire, in such a case, whether either of those 
 " distinct operations" could be identified with the faith 
 which is or is not the " qualification for baptism ?" 
 for, that baptism is the being " born of water," Dr. 
 Halley himself affirms. Is then the faith in question, 
 the same thing with " the renewing of the Holy- 
 Ghost," and the being " born of the Spirit," which 
 follow it ? It is the more important to determine 
 this, because those who are " born of water," " born 
 of the Spirit," " saved by the washing of regenera- 
 tion," and the " renewing of the Holy Ghost," are 
 also "born of God," and "sons of God:" and 
 hence, the Holy Spirit has made this particular per- 
 fectly manifest ; for, it is said, " as many as received 
 him, to them gave he power to become sons of 
 God, even to them that believe on his name." Here, 
 therefore, the fact, that no one had a right, or 
 power, to become a son of God, until Christ conferred 
 it, is implied ; and, that he conferred it on those who 
 received him, " who believed on his name," is the fact 
 declared. It follows, therefore, that no other persons 
 had any right whatever to be born, in any way that 
 might indicate such relationship. 
 
 If, therefore, the being " born of the Spirit" was 
 a distinct action, which, excepting the case of Corne- 
 lius, wherever it transpired, came after baptism ; and 
 no man had any right to become a son of God, in any 
 way, until he had received Christ or believed on his 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 113. 
 
58 CONFIRMATIONS, KTC. 
 
 name ; then no man had any right to be baptised, or 
 " born of water," as a son of God, until he had be- 
 lieved ; and the faith which by Divine law is made to 
 precede baptism, is not to be identified with the 
 " being born of the Spirit" which follows baptism. 
 Faith, therefore, which comes by hearing, must be 
 exercised first; baptism in water is then enjoined ; and 
 the being born of the Spirit is to be sought afterwards, 
 with all such subsidies of renewing grace as are need- 
 ful to sustain the life of godliness. 
 
 Secondly, the foregoing statements and conclusion 
 are confirmed, by tlie personal nature of Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 Nearly two pages in Dr. Halley's reply are wasted, 
 in castigating his friend and bi-other for not bringing 
 passages of scripture to prove that people are, now a 
 days, baptized in their own persons, and with the form 
 of speech used by the minister, " I baptize thee." He 
 might as well have asked for scripture, to prove that 
 Dr. Halley administers infant sprinkling in Man- 
 chester. If any one will turn up the reference made 
 to his opponent's lectures on Christian Discipleship,* 
 it will be seen that " Mr. Stovel" is not pleading for 
 the formula, " I baptize thee, etc. ;" but since, right 
 or wrong, it is used, and each individual is baptized 
 in his own person, it becomes the more incumbent on 
 any teacher of Christianity, to make the nature of 
 that baptism indisputably manifest ; so that none, even 
 the most unlearned, might, without guilt, be able to 
 misunderstand it. The importance of thus bringing 
 
 * Reply, p. 20. 
 
THE PERSONAL NATURE, ETC. 59 
 
 the nature of Christian baptism clearly within the 
 comprehension of individuals who have been baptized, 
 is not only proved by the fact adduced, but by many 
 passages in Dr. Halley's own work, iu which the per- 
 sonal interest of individuals in the baptism they had 
 received, is more or less powerfully depicted. No 
 one can dispute the fact that persons so baptized, 
 having the New Testament to read for themselves, 
 will seek there, and from those very passages to which 
 the Tractmen appeal, an explanation of the nature 
 and effects on themselves and their own interests, of 
 that baptism which the evangelical Psedobaptist pro- 
 fesses to administer as well, and as cheaply, as his 
 more apostolical Tractarian neighbour. With this 
 fact before him. Dr. Halley says, " Baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper did not belong to the commandment 
 going before" " that law of types," but to the better 
 hope, which was brought in with baptism, and com- 
 memorated in the supper.* " Baptism, we believe, 
 is the sign of purification, on being admitted into the 
 kingdom of Christ. "f " The truth exhibited in the 
 sacraments," " may be the means of the communica- 
 tion of Divine grace ;" " but then" " the truth, and 
 not the symbol," " gives Hfe and sanctity to the 
 recipient;"]: and, as if this were not sufficiently par- 
 ticular, respecting infants, he adds, "Shall we deny 
 the sign of water, where Christ has declared the 
 party to be in p6ssession of all our water signifies ?" 1| 
 " What is baptism more than the sign of the blessings 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 74. f Ibid. p. 95. J Ibid, p. 95. 
 
 II Ibid. p. 570. 
 
60 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 of the evangelical covenant, in which the parties bap- 
 tized are supposed to be interested ?" " The parties 
 baptized" then, " are supposed to be interested" in 
 something; why then, putting forth an absurd demand, 
 should be who makes such affirmations, refuse to 
 explain what that something is ? He affirms that in- 
 fants are in possession of " all our water signifies ;" 
 why then will he not explain the nature of that " all," 
 which his " water signifies ?" He is charged with 
 lowering the fulness of scripture truth, and asked to 
 consider the epistolary passages which declare the 
 supposed gifts of infant baptism ; and, as though 
 contempt were a Christian virtue, he says, the reason- 
 ing is not worthy of serious refutation, and adds, 
 " who taught the minister to use these words, * I bap- 
 tize thee ?' "* His own affirmations respecting the 
 personal nature of Christian baptism, which is the 
 point on which " Mr. Stovel" urges a full and accu- 
 rate explanation, seem to have escaped the doctor's 
 memory ; what he has, himself, so clearly affirmed, he 
 is determined at all events tc avoid ; and when au- 
 thorities recognised in his own lectures, are presented 
 to show this personal nature of baptism, the doctor, 
 aggrandizes his wit, by repelling them in words 
 uttered by a demoniac. How far the last clause of 
 his delicate quotation, f "who are ye ^" may serve- 
 to express the blandness of temper in which our 
 brother constructed this evasion, cannot be discussed 
 here ; but, at the very moment when an appeal to the 
 words of Paul, in confirmation of his Lord's command, 
 
 * Reply, p. 21. f Ibid. p. 21. 
 
THE PERSONAL NATURE, ETC. 61 
 
 was rejected by a flagrant ingenuity, to appropriate, 
 as applicable to himself, the words, " Jesus I know, 
 and Paul I know ;" would seem to justify, even from 
 their author, a complaint that, his words had been 
 degraded by a shameful misapplication. 
 
 Whether the language be chosen and imported 
 from above or from beneath, however, it is of no use : 
 the legitimate claims of every investigation must be 
 met. Tastes will often differ, but truth is still the 
 same. Whoever may prefer the petulant language of 
 that spirit, which repelled and wounded the sons of 
 one Scseva a Jew, to the mild and gentle affirmations 
 of Paul respecting the sons of God ; the latter will 
 outshine the former, in vastness of import, and peace- 
 ful, but Divine authority. It is neglecting this fact, 
 that has rendered the evangelical Psedobaptists of 
 'England, i7iadvertentl(/, but yet ^rw/y, .helpers to the 
 advocates of sacramental efficacy. The infcint baptism 
 which they teach and defend, forms the last link in 
 that chain of reasoning, and ceremonies, by which the 
 central corruption of the man of sin, is fastened to 
 the ark of our holy covenant. Hold the rite of in- 
 fant baptism, and leave the Tractmen to prove its 
 value from the epistles of St. Paul, and no other ex- 
 planation will be required of all that we see, in their 
 advancing popularity and power. The people follow, 
 not them, but the apostle, whose words they are per- 
 mitted to abuse ; and the responsibility of leaving 
 those weapons in their hands, while retaining the prac- 
 tice which they extol, forms a fearful burden, lying on 
 the consciences of evangelical adherents to infant 
 baptism. That they may have reasons which seem. 
 
62 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 to them, to justify their bearing this load of respon- 
 sibihty, is not disputed ; but any reader may judge, 
 whether the effects of this temerity be such, in these 
 times, as justify its exemption from the trial and 
 judgment, to which all professed Christianity is sub- 
 ject, before the tribunal of inspired truth. 
 
 Thirdly, the importance of this inquiry and con- 
 clusion is seen in the import and treatment of the loord 
 mystery, or sacrament. 
 
 The work of Dr. Halley is designated " The 
 Sacramknts ;" but he says, " It would be vain to 
 consult the New Testament for any exposition of a 
 sacrament,"* and further, " Nor can the exact defi- 
 nition be obtained from the records of ecclesiastical 
 antiquity ; for, although the Greek fathers called both 
 baptism and the eucharist mysteries, as the Latins 
 called them sacraments, neither of these words was 
 used with the modern restriction ; as innumerable 
 other things are, in their writings, called mysteries or 
 sacraments. "t The cause of this difficulty presents 
 itself in the way he has chosen to begin the inquiry. 
 He says, " I am somewhat perplexed, in attempting 
 to form such a definition of a sacrament, as will in- 
 clude baptism and the Lord's supper, and exclude 
 every other ordinance of the Christian rehgion."J 
 Very likely indeed. One might expect him to be 
 not only " somewhat," but altogether perplexed, in 
 attempting to form such a definition of a sacrament, 
 as will include baptism and the Lord's supper, and 
 exclude every other ordinance of the Christian reli- 
 
 * Sacra., p. 2. f Ibid. + Ibid. p. 1. 
 
THE TREATMENT OF MUSTERION. 63 
 
 gion ;" because he himself affirms that, " almost every 
 rehgious ordinance or sacred emblem was called a 
 sacranaent," * or mystery. Why then attempt it ? 
 The inversion of the process is demanded by the 
 nature of the case. Instead of defining a sacrament 
 so as to include baptism, etc., and exclude every 
 other ordinance, etc. ; he was bound to show some- 
 thing in the nature of baptism and the supper, which 
 would justify the apphcation to them, of these terms, 
 in their ordinary import. The meaning of the words 
 mystery and sacrament was hxed, before the rites of 
 baptism and the supper were instituted. The word 
 musterion is found in twelve passages of the New 
 Testament, and in about thirty-two of the Old. It 
 would be easy to fix the meaning of the word in these 
 places, and then show why these rites, baptism and 
 the supper, were called by that name. If, as it 
 appeared, from many parts of his work, these rites 
 are designated sacraments because they are " religi- 
 ous ordinances," " sacred emblems," f " signs of 
 heavenly things,"t " significant and authorised repre- 
 sentatives," " of Divine truth, "§ etc., etc ; then, 
 without disputing the propriety of using the term in 
 this sense, and with reference to the rite of baptism, 
 the question returns : If it be a " religious ordinance," 
 what religious act is therein performed .' and by 
 whom ? by the infant or by others ? upon it or in 
 its behalf ? If this rite be a " sign of heavenly truth," 
 what truth does it signify ? If it be a " significant 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 2. f Ibid. + Ibid. p. 108. 
 
 § Ibid. p. no. 
 
64 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 and authorised representative of Divine truth," what 
 is that " Divine truth, of which it is the significant 
 and authorised representative ?" Considering what 
 the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven are, and what 
 the mystery of godliness is, the rite of infant baptism 
 could never be called a mystery, or sacrament, unless 
 it mean something. What then does it mean ? and 
 who may authorise our interpretation of its import ? 
 Paul saith, " Let a man so account of us, as of the 
 ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of 
 God," 1 Cor. iv. 1. If then. Dr. Halley will call the 
 rite of Christian baptism a sacrament or mystery, Paul 
 claims the right of being its minister and steward, 
 authoritatively and responsibly intrusted with its right 
 interpretation, and use ; Paul, therefore, must be 
 heard ; and those passages in his epistles which 
 define the condition, privilege, and duty of persons 
 baptised into Christ, however spurned by the contro- 
 versialist, are justly propounded by the Tractmen, as 
 indispensable authorities.* 
 
 Fourthlv, the foregoing statements and conclusion 
 are confirmed by the nature and constitution of the 
 body of Christ, and the meaning of the ivord disciple. 
 
 * This argument is expanded in " Chris' ian Discipleship," 
 p. 30 — 35. The remarks of Dr. Halley in his Reply, p. 17, 
 18, on this part of the subject, require nothing more than this 
 reference supplies. The schedule, without any " endorsement," 
 speaks for itself. Our brother says, " Mr. Stovel may well 
 smile, contemptuously, at my ignorance." Considering all 
 things, the peculiarities shown, in Dr. Halley's judgment, are 
 certainly very remarkable ; but, unfortunately, his treatment of 
 the word mtisterion indicates something more than ignorance, 
 at which no ffood man will everjmile. 
 
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 65 
 
 Because the word disciple mean? an adherent, or 
 learner, and baptism was the rite by which persons 
 who adhered to the Saviour, and submitted to his 
 discipline, in learning his doctrine and attaining the 
 objects of his kingdom were set apart, it is argued 
 that infants, and all applicants, without discrimination, 
 should be baptized : but, when the nature of that 
 baptism and discipleship is to be discussed, and the 
 epistolary passages are produced in evidence, the 
 reasoning is rejected, as not deserving the trouble 
 of serious refutation ; and when the spirituality of 
 tne kingdom of heaven is pleaded against the indis- 
 criminate administration of baptism, it is said that 
 this is not to the point. Thus the prophecies which 
 went before, respecting John the forerunner, and the 
 Lord himself, whether delivered in ancient times or at 
 their birth, the spirit and character of their several 
 ministrations, their treatm.ent of the common people, 
 of inquirers, and of baptized converts, the effects re- 
 sulting from their ministry, the conduct of our Lord 
 in the society of his disciples before his crucifixion, 
 after his resurrection, and at the Pentecost, are, vdth the 
 epistolary passages, all rejected as matters irrelevant, 
 as nothing to the point, and unworthy of attention. 
 Dr. Halley goes farther than this to get rid of those 
 arguments which are drawn from the spiritual nature 
 of the kingdom of heaven, or body of Christ; he de- 
 nies his belief in its existence and its connection with 
 baptism altogether. His words are, " I have ' over- 
 looked ' not only ' its spirituality ' and ' purity,' but 
 even its existence."* In the Lectures on Christian 
 
 * Reply, p. 142. 
 
66 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 disci pleship, it is shown that, before the Pentecos. 
 and therefore before any particular, local, or " volun- 
 tary church," such as Dr. Halley describes, had any 
 existence, an association of persons baptized by John, 
 and under the direction of the Lord himself, was 
 formed ; that the persons forming this association 
 were distinguished by their subjection to the Lord, 
 the privilege they had in his fellowship, and their in- 
 heritance in the kingdom of heaven ; and farther, that 
 the spiritual nature of this kingdom proves, that the 
 baptism of these persons could not have been indis- 
 criminate. It is distinctly affirmed, also, that he gave 
 the power, or privilege, of becoming sons of God, to 
 those, and only to those, who received him, who be- 
 lieved on his name (John, i. 12, 13). These believing 
 persons became born of God, born again, born of 
 water, baptized into Christ, born of the Spirit, had the 
 renewing of the Spirit, and became sons of God by 
 faith in Christ Jesus ; they formed one new man, one 
 body in Christ, one brotherhood, one holy temple in the 
 Lord, an habitation of God through the Spirit ; built 
 upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus 
 Christ himself being the chief corner stone. Dr. 
 Halley says, " I should like to know a little more 
 about it." * Then let him read those passages of 
 St. Paul which he has refused to consider, and study 
 them carefully in their connection ; he will there find, 
 not only "a little more," he will find a great deal 
 more than can be reconciled to his course of reason- 
 ing. But he must mind how he does it ; for these 
 
 * Reply, p. 142. 
 
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 67 
 
 apostles of our Lord are too grave, and, like the old 
 prophets, too far removed from sympathy with sinful 
 passion, to be pleased or appalled by any rudeness or 
 dexterous dodging behind carefully selected super- 
 ficialities. Such improprieties may blind their readers, 
 but cannot change the meaning of those solemn affir- 
 mations made by these holy men. Nor let it be con- 
 sidered too much to be yielded in the case ; for this 
 concession is asked, not to Tractmen, etc., but to Paul 
 and others, who, with him, spake by inspiration of 
 God, and therefore claim a profound attention. These 
 holy instructors teach that the society of baptized dis- 
 ciples — begun by John, matured by the Lord himself, 
 and in his absence at the Pentecost occupied by the 
 Holy Spirit, with the augmentations it attained bv 
 subsequent conversions through the truth, — formed 
 that body of which Christ was the head ; that family 
 of which God is the Father ; that brotherhood in 
 which dwells the Spirit of adoption ; that peculiar 
 people who form, on earth, the subjects and the 
 agencies of the kingdom of heaven ; and that those 
 churches which met in Rome, Corinth, etc , were, as 
 their designations import, neither more nor less than 
 assemblies of individuals, who, by being baptized into 
 Chi-ist, had, in this exercise of their faith, become 
 members of the greater association. Hence the expres- 
 sion, " we, as many as have been baptized into Christ" 
 (Rom. vi. 3), does not describe the act of baptism 
 as administered in the church of Rome merely, but 
 as administered through all the fraternity of disciples 
 in which the apostle had his fellowship ; and the ex- 
 pression, " Ye, as many as have been baptized into 
 F 2 
 
68 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 Christ" (Gal. iii. 27), does not imply that the assem- 
 blies of brethren in Galatia had a view of baptism pecu- 
 liar to themselves, but that they had partaken of the 
 baptism into Christ, which all his other members had 
 received : and hence, the exhortations and arguments 
 used in each epistle are intended to enforce, on these 
 assemblies and all persons in their fellowship, a strict 
 observance of those laws which Christ had ordained 
 for the regulation of all his people. There was no 
 such thing in the apostles' time, as a body composed 
 of the aggregate of churches, supposed to exist seve- 
 rally, before they existed in association ; for each 
 church was only an assembly of individuals previously 
 in fellowship with the general association, because 
 baptized into the common Lord, and subjected to the 
 one Spirit. There are some passages which seem to 
 indicate that, when a particular assembly of disciples 
 was convened, under the authority of Christ, and for 
 his service, all the brethren and apostles were sup- 
 posed to be present with them ; and thus the assembly 
 would be more properly called a meeting of the body 
 of Christ, holden at such a place and at such a time, 
 than a " voluntarj^ church" making its own laws, and 
 separated from the whole family of God. The per- 
 sons received in one assembly, when accredited, thus 
 became received in all the rest. Hence, therefore, 
 the law which recognised the disciples determined, in 
 effect, the moral and spiritual character of that society 
 into which disciples were formed. If the baptism was 
 indiscriminate, the society must also be indiscrimi- 
 nate ; for, without baptism, none could enter ; and, 
 since everj^ person baptized was baptized into Christ, 
 
THE BODY OF CHRIST. B9 
 
 no after discrimination could be, or ever was made. 
 The being in Christ Jesus was that one distinction 
 which absorbed all others whatsoever. The peculiar 
 people were the people in Christ, and the assemblies 
 of that people were assemblies of people in Christ. 
 The character of the people therefore determines the 
 character of its assemblies. If the former be indis- 
 criminate, the latter cannot be select. By all the 
 teaching of the apostles, therefore, an indiscriminate 
 baptism violates the Divine law, and sacrifices the 
 purity and spirituality of the church, the body of 
 Christ, with all its assemblies. To avoid this con- 
 clusion, Dr. Halley says, " we recognise a Christian 
 brother by sitting down with him," " at the Lord's 
 table ; and we say this ordinance, as an act of recog- 
 nition, has an obvious advantage, because it can be 
 discontinued whenever the person is found to be un- 
 worthy of the distinction."* It mat/ be so, and our 
 brother may be right in his judgment of " an obvious 
 advantage " here ; and yet the foolishness of God has 
 been found wiser than men, and the weakness of God 
 stronger than men Moreover, if God has graciously 
 placed two sacramental rites in his church, which, like 
 watch-towers, guard its purity — though Dr. Halley 
 may think that one of them is the best, it is no good 
 reason why the other should be taken down. It may 
 be that two are better than one. But, after all, unless 
 Dr. Halley plead a divine inspiration in judging which 
 of these sacraments " has an obvious advantage," an 
 appeal must be made to the sacred records ; and here, 
 the spirituality of Christ's kingdom, and the universal 
 * Reply, p. 4, 
 
70 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 adjuncts of Christian baptism, as set forth by pro- 
 phets and apostles, the evidence which Dr. Halley 
 refuses to receive, is indispensible. 
 
 A fact presents itself here which claims particular 
 attention. In his Lectures, baptism is called " the 
 initiatory rite" " of the Christian church"^ — "of 
 perpetual obligation in the Christian church "\ — in 
 " the Christian church surrounded with infirmities ;" % 
 " the sign of purification on being admitted into the 
 kingdom of Christ," § "the ordinary profession of the 
 members of Christ's kingdom" \\ — " the brotherhood of 
 Christians."^ " Indeed," he says, " men must be 
 members of the general kingdom, before they are eligible 
 to the particular church, if the church be composed only 
 of professing Christians."** "Is not baptism the 
 proper recognition of a member of Christ's king- 
 dom ?"ti" Tn these passages we have not only " the 
 church of Christ " identified with the kingdom of 
 Christ and " the brotherhood of Christians," etc., 
 and called " the general kingdom," but the particular 
 church or assembly is said to be composed of its 
 members, of whom " the proper recognition " is bap- 
 tism. That is to say, the kingdom of Christ on earth 
 now consists of all who have received his baptism, and 
 the particular churches are assemblies of its members 
 meeting and acting together, in the service of that 
 kingdom and its Lord. This is, as far as Dr. Halley's 
 words can be understood, the doctrine of these pas- 
 sages. For " the proper recognition of a member of 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 7. t Ibid. p. 66. J Ibid. p. 70. 
 
 § Ibid. p. 95. II Ibid. p. 148. % Ibid, p, 250. 
 
 ** Ibid. p. 568. tt Ibid, p. 569. 
 
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 71 
 
 Christ's kingdom, the Christian church," etc., " is bap- 
 tism," and " men must be members of the general king- 
 dom before they are eligible to the particular church." 
 Constructed on this basis, the argument of the Tract- 
 men would be stated thus : — 
 
 First. It is admitted that the proper recognition of a 
 member of Christ's kingdom, etc., is baptism ; that, 
 until he has been baptized into that kingdom, he is 
 not eligible to a particular church : and also, that 
 infant baptism is right. 
 
 But secondly. From these passages of the epistles, 
 and the untortured meaning of other scriptures, it 
 appears that the members of the kingdom of 
 heaven are sons of God, the subjects of faith, 
 and of other indications of a new life ; and that 
 this new life being so connected with their baptism, 
 must be conveyed in it ; for infants can receive 
 it in no other way. 
 
 Tnerefore, thirdly. To make your system perfect, the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration must be received; 
 and in rejecting baptismal regeneration, you lower 
 the fulness of scripture truth. 
 
 Dr. Halley's reply to this is substantially as follows : 
 
 First. The proper recognition of a member of Christ's 
 kingdom is baptism ; and until he is baptized into 
 that general kingdom, a man is not ehgible to a 
 particular church. 
 
 But secondly. The reasoning on epistolary passages is 
 not worthy of a reply, and the prophecies, etc., are 
 not to the point ; but from other evidence it appears, 
 
72 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 that baptism was administered, and is to be ad- 
 ministered, without any discrimination, of infants 
 or adults. And, — 
 Therefore, thirdly. As baptism neither produced nor 
 implied, any moral or spiritual change, the doc- 
 trine of baptismal regeneration cannot be received ; 
 and the fulness of scripture truth proves that justi- 
 fication is by faith only, and that faith ccmes by 
 hearing the word of God, etc. 
 
 " Mr. Stovel," in answering Dr, Halley, says, both 
 are right, and both wrong ; for — 
 
 First. Baptism is the proper recognition of a member 
 of Christ's kingdom ; and, until he is a member of the 
 general kingdom, he is not eligible to a particular 
 church, and justification is by faith, notwithstanding; 
 
 For, secondly. The rejected epistolary passages, and 
 the other Tractarian arguments, show, that faith 
 and the new life were connected with baptism ; not 
 as its effects, but as the qualification of its subject ; 
 and all the evidence to be obtained from prophecy, 
 the evangelists and other scriptures, with Jewish 
 and even heathen practices, by proving the spiritu- 
 ality of the kingdom, proves that this quahfication 
 in its members must have been required in the gene- 
 ral kingdom and in the particular churches ; and, — 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. By indiscriminate baptism, in in- 
 fants or adults, foregoing its appointed qualification, 
 the spirituality and purity of the kingdom and 
 churches of Christ are sacrificed ; for, if the bap- 
 tism be indiscriminate, the general kingdom will be 
 indiscriminate, and so, eventually the churches ; 
 
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 73 
 
 while the infant baptism, which one party seeks to 
 exalt, and both seek to defend, is found to have no 
 authority from scripture whatsoever. 
 
 The arguments of each partv are thus stated, in 
 order to meet Dr. Halley on his own terms. This 
 appeared due to him, in writing the lectures on 
 Christian Discipleship. But when the foregoing in- 
 evitable result of his theory is pointed out to him, by 
 the Rev. Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. Halley answers, " Hoio d 
 I overlook the spirituality and purity of the church," 
 " seeing I firmly maintain baptism introduces no man 
 into it ? " * What then, will Dr. Halley deny that 
 the words, before quoted, and in conformity with 
 which the foregoing arguments are constructed, are 
 his own P Did he not write the sentence, " Is not 
 baptism the proper recognition of a member of Christ's 
 kingdom ? " and again, " Men must be members of the 
 general kingdom before they are eligible to the par- 
 ticular church ;" and farther, respecting infants, 
 " Shall we deny the sign of water, where Christ hath 
 declared the party to be in possession of all our water 
 signifies .'' " Dr. Halley did write them, at least they 
 are in the work that bears his name. He wrote these 
 sentences, and yet he declares, " I firmly maintain 
 baptism introduces no man into the church." He 
 thus declares, "I firmly maintain that baptism in- 
 troduces no man into the church" and yet he writes, 
 and the chief arguments in his " Sacraments " go to 
 prove that, baptism is " the initiatory rite of the 
 Christian church," that it is " of perpetual obligation 
 
 * Reply, p. 142. 
 
74 CONFIRMATION'S, ETC. 
 
 in the Christian church," " the Christian church 
 surrounded with infirmities," " the brotherhood of Chris- 
 tians." What can be meant by these expressions, 
 and the multifarious reasons produced in their support, 
 if Dr. Hal]ey_^r/H/y maintains that baptism introduces 
 no man into the church ? At first it appeared that 
 some accident must have led to a mistake ; but, in 
 the sentence which contains this declaration, we have 
 the clause, "in anv one of these senses." It reads, 
 " How do I overlook the spirituality and purity of the 
 church in any one of these senses, seeing I firmly 
 maintain baptism introduces no man into it ?" * The 
 words, " in any one of these senses," refer to three defi- 
 nitions of the word church, written on the foregoing 
 page, and differently described on p. 3, in his opinion 
 on which, he says, " Dr. Wardlaw agrees with me :" 
 and therefore, on which there is no dispute, and to 
 which, the principal arguments in his own lectures 
 can have no reference. These definitions relate to 
 " voluntary churches," the "great aggregate of all 
 the visible" " voluntarv churches," and " the general 
 assembly or church of the first-born," the invisible 
 church, " or that part of it living upon earth ;" f and 
 his argument is, because I firmly maintain that bap- 
 tism introduces no man into the church, in any one of 
 these senses, therefore by indiscriminate baptism I do 
 not sacrifice, or overlook, the spirituality and purity 
 of " the church under the gospel dispensation. "J 
 But the complaint of Dr. Wardlaw could not refer to 
 " voluntary churches," as such, because, in the apos- 
 
 * Reply, p. 142. f Ibid. p. 141, 142. 
 
 + Wardlaw, p. 280. 
 
THE BODY OP CHRIST. 75 
 
 ties' time, compulsory, and national churches of Christ, 
 having^ no existence, the voluntary principle, as we call 
 it, was not brought under discussion; the "aggre- 
 gate" of such churches, too, as we have them united 
 in county associations and unions, finds no example 
 or authority in the word of God ; and lastly, the visi- 
 ble rite of baptism could never have been intended 
 for an invisible church, because that rite, itself, would 
 give it visibility. These defined objects of thought, 
 therefore, are not connected with the subject under 
 consideration. Dr. Wardlaw's words, "the church 
 under the gospel dispensation," are plainly used in the 
 natural and necessary sense in which the words, 
 "the Christian church," "the kingdom of Christ," 
 " the brotherhood of Christians," and " the general 
 kingdom," are used, by Dr. Halley, in the following 
 sentences, which appear to mean the church, king- 
 dom, or brotherhood, which Christ founded on earth, 
 and, to which, his ordinances and laws were given. 
 For, on the nature of this brotherhood, kingdom or 
 church, all attention is fixed when it is said, baptism 
 is called " the initiatory rite of the Christian church," 
 it is " of perpetual obligation in the Christian church," 
 " the Christian church surrounded with infirmities ;" 
 baptism is " the sign of purification, on being ad- 
 mitted into the kingdom of Christ," " the brother- 
 hood of Christians," " men must be members of the 
 general kingdom before they are eligible to the par- 
 ticular church." " Is not baptism the proper recog- 
 nition of a member of Christ's kingdom ?" By these 
 and many other such affirmations as these, it was 
 thought that Dr. Halley was discoursing on that com- 
 
76 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 munity, or association, of persons on earth, for which 
 John made preparation ; which was formed in Christ ; 
 and, which was built up an habitation of God through 
 the Spirit. This was the gi-eat theme of apostoUcal 
 ministration and discourse ; and, referring to this. 
 Dr. Wardlaw employs the words, " the church under 
 the gospel dispensation ;" but Dr. Halley, obtruding 
 his own 7iew and iirelevant definitions, says, if he 
 (Dr. Wardlaw) has "distinctly before his mind some 
 other church," " I should like to know a little more 
 about it ; for certainly, I have ' overlooked' not only 
 * its spirituality and purity,' but even its existence." 
 Dr. Halley's overlooking capabilities deserve celebrity; 
 still, if he would like to know a little more about it, 
 he may find many things, loosely stated, and still 
 more loosely argued, respecting "the church under 
 the gospel dispensation," in his own Lectures on the 
 Sacraments. If he would know a little more on the 
 subject, assistance will be found in the evidence he 
 rejects, as furnished from the epistles, etc, by the 
 Tractmen ; and from the Prophecies, Gospels, and 
 Epistles, by his friend and brother, " Mr. Stovel." 
 In playing ofi" upon the latter, the subterfuge em- 
 ployed against Dr. Wardlaw, it is said, " If I do 
 not misunderstand Mr. Stovel, there is some difierence 
 of opinion between us, as to the precise nature of that 
 fellowship, whose purity we both equally desire to 
 preserve inviolate." The " difference of opinion" 
 here, will depend on which class of his own affirma- 
 tions he may determine, ultimately, to retain aq,d sup- 
 port. As the one is the opposite of the other, they 
 cannot both stand ; and, further discussion will be 
 
THE BODY OP CHRIST. 77 
 
 fruitless, until he makes his election. Yet, consider- 
 ing that it was his intention to introduce a doctrine, 
 the reverse of what he had before sustained ; he 
 might, with greater propriety, have written, if I do 
 not now misunderstand myself, my former opinion, 
 respecting the fellowship whose purity ive both desire 
 to preserve inviolate must be given up, another theory of 
 its constitution being essential to my defence. This 
 would have been, at least, magnanimous ; the method 
 now adopted by Dr. Halley, without remarking at all 
 upon its moral dignity, evades indeed, but does not 
 answer, the objections of his friend. 
 
 The propriety and force of this argument is seen 
 from the following statements of Dr. Halley in his 
 " Sacraments," p. 568, 569 : " If infants are mem- 
 bers of the kingdom of heaven, they ought, by the 
 officers of the church, to be recognised in that rela- 
 tion." " They have a title to heaven, clear and in- 
 contestable, which no man can abrogate, and no 
 church has a right to gainsay." " They are re- 
 deemed from death ; they are entitled to everlasting 
 life; their interest in Christ is sure and certain, until 
 they forfeit it by wilful trangression." It is in this 
 character that he claims their i-ecognition, and there- 
 fore their baptism, for he says, " Is not baptism the 
 proper recognition of a member of Christ's kingdom ?" 
 They are to be baptized as members of Christ's king- 
 dom, therefore, because it is assumed that they " have 
 received the grace of the gospel." From these words 
 it would appear that " the church," " the kingdom 
 of heaven," and " Christ's kingdom," were three 
 phrases used to designate that society of persons who 
 
78 CONFIRMATION'S, ETC. 
 
 " are redeemed from death," " entitled to everlasting 
 life," "whose interest in Christ is sure," and who 
 " have received the grace of the gospel." This can be 
 affirmed, in no evangelical sense, of any infants except 
 those who die in their infancy ; and, on this principle, 
 no infant can have a claim to he baptized until after 
 it is dead. It is the event of death itself which 
 takes the infant out of the rules of that " kingdom of 
 heaven," "the church," " Christ's kingdom," which is 
 conducted upon earth by his authority and laws. This 
 "kingdom of heaven," " the church," moreover, is 
 thus recognized, as distinct from congregational 
 churches formed in England, since the Reforma- 
 tion. His words are, " Who will say that there was 
 no kingdom of God," [" kingdom of heaven," 
 " Christ's kingdom," " the church,"] " in Britain, 
 until Robert Brown gathered a congregational 
 church?" No one, surely, but Dr. Halley himself; 
 who now says " / have overlooTced its very existence." 
 It is clear, therefore, from his own words, that not 
 only was " the general kingdom," " the kingdom of 
 God," " Christ's kingdom," " the church," supposed, 
 in his own words, to exist ; but it is also clear, that 
 the whole inquiry related to the terms of admission 
 into " the church," " the general kingdom," " Christ's 
 kingdom," which he himself supposes, and, in effect, • 
 affirms to have existed 1500 years hQioxQ " Rolert 
 Brown gathered a congregational church." This was 
 the question, and to answer that question " Mr. 
 Stovel" showed that, not only before Brown had 
 •'gathered a congregational church;" but, before 
 aul had formed any assembly of brethren baptized 
 
ANCIENT CATECHUMENS. 79 
 
 into the body of Christ, in Rome, Corinth, or Galatia ; 
 from the time that John began to prepare the way, 
 until the Lord entered into his kingdom at the Pente- 
 cost, when that kingdom did not yet hold separate 
 assemblies ; the appointed qualifications of its mem- 
 bers to their baptism, was repentance toward God, 
 and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. It is to evade 
 this, that Dr. Halley now declares, he has overlooked 
 the subject of his former affirmations, and of all the 
 inquiry he had undertaken to conduct. 
 
 Fifthly. The reply, in which Dr. Halley attempts to 
 show that Dr. Wardlaw's theory is as bad as his own, 
 will be considered in its proper place ; here it will be 
 necessary to add a word or two, on the subject of 
 Catechumens and their ancient Schools. These are 
 called " the unscriptural institution of the catechu- 
 menical school."* Between the third and fourth 
 centuries, when corruptions began to prevail, and the 
 more pure precedent ages, he says, " no distinction is 
 more remarkable than that which appears in the in- 
 stitution of catechumens. "t He traces these to the 
 rites observed in heathen worship, and the inclination 
 to bring those rites into the church. J He adds, " The 
 catechumenical services, of which we have no trace 
 whatever in the New Testament, disclose, in the third 
 and fourth century, an extraordinary change of opinion 
 upon the subject of baptism."§ The disputed passage 
 in Acts viii. 37, which he designates " a scandalous 
 forgery," II and the only "warrant of scripture" for 
 " baptism being restricted to believers," " was," he 
 
 * Sacra., p. 586. f Ibid. p. 255. t Ibid. p. 12, 13. 
 
 § Ibid, p. 256. B Ibid. p. 603. 
 
80 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 says, " I doubt Rot, originall)'^ appended as a gloss, 
 in order to soften the manifest opposition between 
 the sacred history and the subsequent practice of 
 catechumenical preparation."* " Tliere are," he 
 adds, " no catechumens, so far as h\nng man can find, 
 nor any indication of their presence,"t '' in the pre- 
 cincts of the primitive churches." "The most atten- 
 tive student of the apostohc age can never find 
 a catechumen," "not a shadow of the institute 
 appears."t To say the least of them, these ex- 
 pressions are very strong. One would think that the 
 mind must have been settled, from which such forcible 
 affirmations proceed; and yet, without any confessed 
 change of opinion, his reply comes forth, with this 
 proposition printed in capital letters, at the top of his 
 title page : " Baptism, the designation of the cate- 
 chumens, not the symbol of the members of the 
 Christian church." One would gladly spare a man 
 in such a position ; and yet, the facts must be made 
 clear. He has declared to Dr. Wardlaw, that he has 
 overlooked the very existence of the Christian church, 
 the words being taken in any sense which can be con- 
 nected with this inquiry ; and yet, he here writes, 
 " the Christian church," again, in the very proposition 
 of his discourse. Again, he has written before, "I 
 consider baptism to be the initiatory rite" " of the. 
 Christian church." Now he writes, " baptism [is] 
 not the symbol of the members of the Christian 
 church." It is true the words are a little changed ; 
 but, how it should be " the initiatory rite," and "not 
 
 * Sacra., p. 510. f Ibid. p. 585. J Ibid, p. 584. 
 
ANCIENT CATECHUMENS. 81 
 
 the symhol of the members of the Christian church," 
 seems hard to conceive, while the incessant shifting 
 of his terms asks, at least, no commendation for their 
 author. But, if it be not the symbol of the members 
 of the Christian church : what is it ? His words are 
 "Baptism, the designation of the catechumens, not 
 the symbol of the members of the Christian church." 
 Where then shall we find the catechumens to whom 
 baptism was first administered ? to whom it was ad- 
 ministered at the Pentecost ? or in the time of Paul ? 
 Dr. Halley says, " There are no catechumens, so far 
 as hving man can find, nor any indication of their 
 presence in the precincts of the primitive churches."* 
 The precincts should be marked, because it is of 
 especial importance here ; but. Dr. Halley adds, 
 '' The most attentive student of the apostolic age can 
 never find a catechumen, not a shadow of the insti- 
 tute appears. "f Not even " in the precincts of the 
 primitive churches." So that, upon this showing, 
 baptism, the initiatory rite of the Christian church, 
 whose existence Dr. Halley has both asserted and 
 denied, is now not the symbol of the members of the 
 Christian church, but the designation of its catechu- 
 mens ; and was administered to thousands when, " so 
 far as living man can find, there were no catechu- 
 mens, nor even a shadow" of " that unscriptural in- 
 stitution." The explanation and proof of all this 
 absurd contradiction, is promised in a forthcoming 
 work ; but, would it not be better for him to publish 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 585. t Ibid. p. 584. 
 
 G 
 
82 CONFJRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 a dictionary first, that some certainty may be attained, 
 as to the meaning in which his words are to be 
 taken ? For this sort of composition is all " pye." 
 If all the types of which his work is composed were 
 loose, and shuffled in a sieve, they could not assume 
 anv order mere irrecoverably absurd. The man who 
 will write thus, ought to be compelled, by law, to 
 pay the expense of answering him. And what is to 
 be accomphshed by this shuffle, in changing the 
 ground, and nature of the whole inquiry ? Why 
 first, as if we had not controversies enough, instead 
 of finding the " arx causee," and settling the ques- 
 tion of infant baptism, he introduces another, respect- 
 ing the existence and propriety of catechumenical 
 baptism, in which, it will have to be considered, 
 whether a boy can be admitted to the Sunday-school 
 without being baptized ; and further, he has con- 
 structed a form of words, in which he can include 
 Dr. Wardlaw's theory of infant baptism, and place 
 it in the same hamper with his own. But what of 
 all this ? Suppose them to be both alike, it does not 
 follow that both are of Divine authority ; they may, 
 after all Dr. Halley's ingenuity, be both wrong. Let 
 them then both be called catechumenical baptisms, 
 and let their authority be the question to be con- 
 sidered ; by what evidence can we decide the ques-- 
 lion ? Can it be decided without appealing to 
 scripture ? and, if not, can the appeal to scripture, in 
 this case, any more than in any otiier, be perfect, 
 until the prophecies and the epistles which relate to 
 the question have been heard ? Unquestionably, not ; 
 
ANCIENT CATECHUMENS. 83 
 
 and therefore, the doctor must come back to the 
 rejected sources of evidence, after all ; although, before 
 that evidence, he may stand himself condemned. 
 
 As another work is to be expected, in which the 
 principal evidence required in supporting this new 
 theory of catechumenical baptism, will be supplied, we 
 have only to consider here a single fact, connected 
 with the statements of its principle, in the following 
 words : — " In connexion with every apostolical church, 
 was a class of persons under instruction and training 
 for its fellowship. This is admitted, at least by im- 
 plication, both by Mr. Stovel and by Dr. Wardlaw." 
 Observe, " This is admitted," " at least by implica- 
 tion/' " by Mr. Stovel," etc. On what authority 
 does Dr. Halley venture to take this liberty with his 
 friend and brother ? It is submitted, that, whatever 
 Dr. Halley's regard for " Mr. Stovel" might be, self- 
 respect demands, that where such affirmations are 
 made, the proof of their veracity should be given. This, 
 however, may be reserved for the work which is to 
 come ; and which, should it ever come, and, coming, 
 fulfil the promises of its author, will certainly be no 
 ordinary production. But that which is to come, 
 must come, before its contents can be examined and 
 discussed. All that " Mr. Stovel" can now do, 
 therefore, is, to assure the reader that he does not 
 remember, either openly or by any " implication" 
 whatever, admitting any such thing as that which is 
 here affirmed, without proof, but with so much confi- 
 dence. Lest Dr. Halley should have fallen into a 
 mistake, however, and to prevent a waste of time, 
 printing, and paper, it may be proper to record what 
 g2 
 
84 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 " Mr. Stovel" did do. Finding that, in his Lectures 
 on the Sacraments, Dr. Halley reposed his chief 
 patristical argument on his assertion that, " The un- 
 scriptural institution," " the catechumenical services, 
 of ivhich we have no trace whatever, in the New Tes- 
 tament, disclose, in the third and fourth century, an 
 extraordinary change of opinion upon the subject of 
 baptism," p. 256— finding this assumption placed as a 
 kej- stone, in the apex of Dr. Halley's reasoning, 
 " Mr. Stovel" did venture to show that the assertion 
 was altogether a mistake : for these catechumenical 
 services are, hy Paut83nas, traceable to within a.d. 
 180. They therefore formed no peculiarity of "the 
 third and fourth century," when, it is insinuated, be- 
 lievers' baptism and baptismal regeneration were 
 originated. On the contrary, as matter of history, 
 and so far, as evidence, it was shown that, the gene- 
 ral corruption of the church was traceable to the love 
 of power, ecclesiastical alliance with the state, and 
 the doctrine of sacramental efficacy ; secondly, it was 
 shown that this doctrine of sacramental efficacy was 
 traceable, not to the " catechumenical institute," but to 
 causes which were in operation in the time of Paul, 
 and which are condemned in his writings ; and thirdly, 
 it was shown that, from TertuUian upwards, the 
 period of purity, as defined by Dr. Halley himself, the' 
 fathers all testify that baptized persons, in their day, 
 formed a society, so distinct from the world, and in- 
 volving such responsibilities to its members and their 
 common Lord, that the indiscriminate theory of bap- 
 tism, pleaded for by Dr. Halley, was incompatible 
 with their evidence ; whether taken with respect to 
 
ANCIENT CATECHUMENS. 85 
 
 the society composed of baptized persons ; or the 
 administration of baptism in their times. This was 
 done. And thirdly, not only was his argument 
 founded on the catechumenical corruption answered, 
 with perfect refutation ; but the whole evidence of 
 these early fathers, which Dr. Halley confesses to 
 have been comparatively pure, was turned against 
 him, and shown to be in favour of believers' baptism, 
 and of that only. This was done ; yet Dr. Halley 
 has not acknowledged it. More than this, many 
 things were attributed to the fathers, by Dr. Halley, 
 as corruptions, which were clearly traceable to the 
 writings of St. Paul ; and thence, it was shown, that 
 greater carefulness is required, in this kind of reason- 
 ing, lest the supposed corruptions of the church be 
 inadvertently ascribed to the apostles, and to the 
 Lord himself. This also was done; but, not acknow- 
 ledged, Our brother can find a concession in his 
 favour " by implication," at least, though the author 
 cannot think where ; but, these principal evidences, 
 on the subject before him, which make up the sub- 
 stance of his opponents' work, he disregards. He 
 even affirms, after having been the first in appeaUng 
 to those authorities, yet he affirms that "they decide 
 nothing in this controversy."* They answer his 
 main argument ; but, that decides nothing, because 
 he can shift his ground. They place Dr. Halley's 
 own authorities in opposition to his own theory, but 
 they decide nothing ; they show that those things, 
 which he calls corruptions in the fathers, are facts 
 
 * Reply, p. 6. 
 
86 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 found in the epistles of St. Paul, and forming parts of 
 that evidence, from which our brother has before so 
 unjustly turned away, as being unworthy of serious 
 refutation ; but still, the evidence from these early 
 fathers decides nothing ; yet the evidence has decided 
 something, though that something is not confessed ; 
 this evidence has decided Dr. Hallev on the reso- 
 lution to shift his ground. It has decided him on 
 giving up his argument, so often, so fully, and so 
 eloquently stated in his Lectures on the Sacraments, 
 drawn from the " unscriptural institution of the cate- 
 chumenical school." That catechumenical school, of 
 which no vestage can be found " in the precincts of 
 the primitive churches" is now, henceforth, to be the 
 high tower and great deliverance of his mangled 
 argumentation. In future, the rite of infant baptism 
 is to be nourished and preserved, in that verv insti- 
 tute, the existence of which was before exposed, as 
 the heathenish corruption in which believers' baptism 
 was generated. The evidence supplied, therefore, 
 has decided something ; for. Dr. Hallev has advertised 
 his intention of producing, in his second volume on 
 the Sacraments, evidence to prove, that, though there 
 was no vestige of a catechumen or a catechumenical 
 institute in existence; yet " in connexion with every 
 apostolic church," "the persons under instruction," 
 " and training for its fellowship," " were baptized 
 at the commencement of their preparatory [catechu- 
 menical] discipline ; and that the delay of baptism 
 until its conclusion, was an early departure from the 
 apostolic practice, arising out of the prevalent opinion 
 of the unpardonable criminality of sin committed 
 
ANCIENT CATECHUMENS. 87 
 
 after baptism."* It is hoped that Dr. Halley will be 
 spared, and supported to fulfil his promise ; we shall 
 then have two volumes on the sacraments ; the one 
 containing an affirmation, and the other in reply to 
 himself. Considering the position occupied between 
 the two, by "Mr. Slovel's" Lectures, the change of 
 position and argument, in the second volume, will 
 form the highest compliment that can be paid to any 
 adversary ; it is the declaration of defeat, raised by our 
 brother himself, with obvious unwillingness, on the 
 field which he had chosen, arranged, and fortified. 
 
 The whole operation of the argument, therefore, is 
 now to be changed again ; but the appeal must be 
 made to the same authoritie?, notwithstanding. "When 
 the efl5cacy of infant baptism is pleaded for by the 
 Tractmen, the appeal must be to prophecy, the evan- 
 gehsts, the Acts, and the Epistles ; and- before these 
 authorities, as we have seen, the right of infant bap- 
 tism and its efficacy fall together. When the per- 
 sonal nature of Christian baptism is considered, the 
 indispensable qualification of an accredited faith being 
 proved, by the same authorities, we are brought to the 
 same result. When the word disciple is made promi- 
 nent, all these authorities prove that no disciple is 
 recognised in baptism, until his faith in the Redeemer 
 has been expressed. When the general constitution 
 of the body of Christ is proposed, as a basis of the 
 reasoning, the same authorities show that this was 
 composed of baptized believers ; and that all baptized 
 believers were, as sons of God, united in its fellow- 
 
 * Advertisement to Reply, p. 5. 
 
88 CONFIRMATIONS, ETC. 
 
 ship. If the ground be changed to the nature of par- 
 ticular churches, these are found to be assembhes only 
 of persons who had been baptized into Christ : the 
 assemblies of the body of Christ agreed, in their 
 constitution, with the constitution of the body itself. 
 If the fathers be received as witnesses, those admitted 
 to be pure agree in their testimony with the apostles 
 that went before them. On these, as on all other 
 points connected with the inquiry, it has been shown, 
 that the evidence obtained from these sources, and 
 especially from the untortured meaning of holy scrip- 
 ture, cannot be evaded. It is the law which God has, 
 in mercy, granted for the guidance of his people; and 
 to it his people must defer. When the nature of a 
 sacrament or musterion is considered, these authorities 
 must fix the meaning of the word, and show in what 
 way, and to what intent, baptism takes its place 
 amongst the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven ; 
 and now the existence of catechumens, so distinctly 
 denied before, is to be assumed ; their baptism, train- 
 ing, and supposed ultimate admission to the Christian 
 church, are to be explained, and defended : on all 
 these points it will be necessary to use the same 
 authorities. If the catechumens are found, they must 
 be found in the Acts, the Epistles, and the evange- 
 lists, under the ministrations of John, of Jesus, and- 
 of his apostles. If their supposed baptism, at the 
 commencement of their training — the training through 
 which they passed after their baptism, and the quali- 
 fication and treatment, on which they were at last ad- 
 mitted into full communion with the church, or of any 
 other subject relating to them and " their unscriptural 
 
ANCIENT CATECHUMENS. 89 
 
 institution," which no " hving- man " before was able 
 to find ; whatever the subject may be, which imagi- 
 nation may prepare to exercise the faith and patience 
 of God's people, the appeal must be made to no infe- 
 rence of man, ancient or modern, profound or super- 
 ficial ; it must be made to the Lord and his apostles, 
 and to those prophecies and testimonies which eluci- 
 date their words and actions. These teach that the 
 body of Christ, the church, the family of God, con- 
 sists of individuals who are baptized into Christ ; that 
 it includes them all, unless, for positive sin, any bap- 
 tized person has been expelled ; and that those who 
 receive Christ, who believe on his name, and those 
 only, have power thus to become sons of God, and 
 living stones built up into his holy temple ; and by 
 these divine authorities, whatever discussion may 
 arise, the truth of God, the church's purity, and the 
 Christian's peace, edification, and joy must stand, 
 through the Eternal Spirit, until the Lord himself 
 shall come. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE PROPOSED RECONCILIATION EXPLAINED AND EN- 
 FORCED BY REASONINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN AD- 
 VANCED ON THE IDENTITY OF JOHN's BAPTISM 
 VflTa THAT OP OUR LORD AND HIS APOSTLES. 
 
 The foregoing observations show, in the case under 
 consideration, and the reasonings of each party, many, 
 occasions for sincere regret In passing his judgment, 
 however, the reader will avoid partiality, and labour 
 not to be too severe. Human infirmity is such, that 
 imaginary objects, by being combined with the reali- 
 ties of human existence and religious duty, will often 
 assume a substantial appearance ; and, through that 
 appearance, they will exert an influence which belongs 
 to truth only. Infant baptism, in the minds of its 
 advocates, thus becomes exalted above that region of 
 sentimentality where it began to exist ; and, entering 
 into combination with Divine appointments, becomes 
 defended and enforced, as though it were one of them. 
 In such a case the operations of zeal divert attention 
 in the advocate, from consequences attendant on his 
 work. He sees what he wishes to sustain, but not 
 what his weapons may destroy. The general discus- 
 sion — though all the parties engaged therein contra- 
 dict themselves, each other, and the word of God, — 
 
INTRODUCTION. 91 
 
 presents to each an object deserving of all solicitude, 
 which is brought into danger by the others. The 
 Tractnien rightly contend for the fulness of scripture 
 truth, because safety and edification can never be 
 obtained in the fellowship of Christ, without strict 
 conformity to his written laws. If human calcula- 
 tions and inferences are allowed to interfere with, and 
 as men suppose, correct them, the faith of Christ will 
 become either a mere name, or a presumptuous expec- 
 tation of Divine power, to consummate the vanity of 
 human wishes. Omnipotence can never move, except 
 where infinite wisdom defines the way. Dr. Halley, 
 also, has an object both great and solemn, when he is 
 labouring to harmonise the rights of religious fellow- 
 ship with the doctrine of justification by faith only ; 
 for this is so indispensible to the Christian system, 
 that it cannot be said to exist where tliat doctrine is 
 in^ theory or practice denied. Lastly, Dr. Wardlaw 
 has an object worthy of all attention, when he is de- 
 fending the purity and spirituality of the Christian 
 church ; because this forms, and is intended to form, 
 that sphere of human experience where, in the enjoy- 
 ment of spiritual good, to its own members and to the 
 world at large, shall be verified the holiness, truth, 
 and practicable reality which aggrandise the covenants, 
 overtures, and administration of redeeming mercy. 
 As each is labouring for an important object, there- 
 fore, patience ana candour are due to all : and, for the 
 same reason, a prayerful attention may be asked for 
 any attempt to show, how all these important objects 
 may be gained and harmonised. The fulness of scrip- 
 ture truth ought not to be seen, in any case, opposed 
 
92 John's baptism. 
 
 to a principal doctrine of scripture ; nor should these 
 two together be hostile to the purity and spirituality 
 of the Christian church. They all come from God, 
 and therefore they must agree. It is the harmonising 
 of these great objects, to which each advocate seve- 
 rally owes his own claim to regard, which forms the 
 object of inquiry in the following pages : since each 
 party has something good to be secured and something 
 bad to be rejected, the design is to show where the 
 line which separates these two classes of objects should 
 be drawn ; so that all the good may be preserved for 
 each, and all the evil may be abandoned and avoided 
 by every one : this, if it can be attained, will be " to 
 trace the errors and corruptions, which have" [on this 
 subject] " existed in the Christian church, to their 
 proper sources," and " to point out the methods of 
 refutation and counteraction." (Advertisement by the 
 Committee of the Congregational Library, 1 844). 
 
 This reconciliation of the parties engaged in this 
 inquiry, to themselves, to each other, and to the word 
 of God, will be elucidated : first, by comparing what 
 each has advanced on the identity of John's baptism 
 with that of Jesus and his apostles. 
 
 By Dr. Ilalley it is pleaded, that the baptism ^of 
 John is so far the same with the baptism which Christ 
 appointed to be a perpetual ordinance in his kingdom, ' 
 that, where the one had been rightly received, the 
 other was not required. To all the intents and pur- 
 poses of the kingdom of heaven, the former was, in 
 its place, equivalent to the latter. The Tractmen and 
 Dr. Wardlaw , maintain the opposite opinion. The 
 latter advocates of infant baptism assume, and the 
 
DR. WARDLAw's ARGUMENT. 93 
 
 former does not deny, that the two baptisms cannot 
 be so identical, that the one should pass for the other ; 
 unless it could be shown that, in the case before us, 
 they both have the same source, the same nature, and 
 the same use. By assuming this common element, 
 therefore, all the arguments may l)e compared ; and 
 thus the reconciling suggestion will be brought before 
 the reader, for his prayerful consideration.* 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw's Argument. 
 
 First. The two baptisms cannot be so identified, that 
 the one should pass for the other, unless it could 
 be proved that both had the same origin, the same 
 nature, and the same use. 
 
 But, secondly. The baptism of Jesus differed from 
 that of John, the doctrine of the kingdom being 
 more clearly revealed, the person of the Christ 
 having been identified, the office of the Christ 
 having been more fully explained, and the re- 
 cipients being baptized into the name of Jesus. 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. Though the baptisms of John and 
 of Christ were both from heaven, yet, because they 
 difiered in their nature and use, they were not the 
 same ; and one could not pass for the other. 
 
 * The argument of Mr. Hall, in his " Terms of Commu- 
 nion," is referred to by Dr. Halley and Dr. Wardlaw, but it is 
 not introduced here, because the arguments of the Psedobaptist 
 advocates are complete in themselves, and the author of this 
 work intends to state no opinion on the subject of free com- 
 munion. The present controversy respecting Psedobaptism 
 and baptismal benefits will be best considered on its own merits. 
 
94 John's baptism. 
 
 The Tractarian Argument. 
 
 First. The two baptisms cannot be so identified, that 
 the one should pass for the other, unless it could be 
 proved that both had the same origin, the same 
 nature, and the same use. 
 
 But, secondly. The baptism of John differed in na- 
 ture from that of Christ : the one being instructive, 
 the other life-giving ; the one significant, the other 
 sanctifying ; the one preparatory, the other sin- 
 remitting ; perfective, in which the Holy Spirit is 
 conveyed. 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. Though both are from heaven, 
 they differ in their nature and use, and are not 
 identical ; and one cannot be taken for the other. 
 
 In either case it would not be denied that mere 
 circumstantial difference might exist, without affecting 
 the identity of the baptisms ; but each author, in 
 maintaining the second proposition in his argument, 
 presents evidence to show that the difference, in nature 
 and use, is essential; a difference that affects the iden- 
 tity of the baptisms ; so that the baptism of John did 
 not, and never could, answer the purpose of that 
 which Christ instituted. 
 
 It is necessary to remark here, that if the institution ■ 
 of Christian baptism did not take place under the 
 ministration of John, we have no record whatever by 
 which to ascertain its institution and nature at all ; 
 for the commission, as we call it, supposes the nature 
 of the rite to have been understood by those to whom 
 it was given, and at tbe time when they received it. 
 
THE TRACTARIAN ARGUMENT. 95 
 
 Much of the reasoning, by which the Tractmen en- 
 deavour to prove the essential difference of the two 
 baptisms, is based on John iii. 5, and Titus, iii. 5, with 
 John i. 12, 13, and the epistolary passages ; the rea- 
 soning on which Dr. Halley rejects, as unworthy of 
 serious refutation. 
 
 On John in. 5, and Titus iii. 5, it was shown, in 
 1843, that the being born of water, and being born of 
 the Spirit, are two distinct acts, of which the former 
 preceded the latter.* This is justly pleaded also by 
 Dr. Halley, in his work on the Sacraments, and sup- 
 ported by various scriptures. John, iii. 5, therefore, 
 is put out of the way. The being born of the Spirit, 
 not being included in the being born of water, cannot 
 be deemed an essential element in the nature of bap- 
 tism, which Jesus was pleased to describe in these 
 terms. 
 
 Moreover, it was shown, in 1843, that if Paul was 
 urged to wash away his sins in Christian baptism 
 (Acts xxii. 16), it could only be in that sense in which 
 a believing penitent, by receiving baptism, declares 
 his separation from the sinful world, and renunciation 
 of his former crimes ; and, since God only forgives 
 sin, and justifies the ungodly, and does this, when the 
 penitent believer pleads the atonement at the mercy- 
 seat in prayer ; if the church forgive sin in baptism, 
 it can only mean that, in its fellowship, the penitent 
 believer is received, as a child of God, freed from any 
 ecclesiastical censure which his sin might have formerly 
 deserved. The supposed "sin-forgiving" nature of 
 
 * Stovel on Baptismal Regeneration, pp. 126 — 139. 
 
96 John's baptism. 
 
 Christian baptism must therefore be struck out of the 
 second proposition of the Tractmen here ; since the 
 baptism, in this particular, expressed the same thing 
 when administered by John, that it did when ad- 
 ministered by Jesus or his apostles. 
 
 These two assumed peculiarities of the Christian 
 baptism are, therefore, taken away ; and, when they 
 have been removed, the following form will express 
 
 Dr. Halley's Argument. 
 
 First. It may be admitted that the two baptisms can- 
 not be so identified, that the one might pass for the 
 other, unless it could be proved that both had 
 the same origin, the same nature, and the same 
 use. 
 
 But, secondly. The " baptism by water as administered 
 by John, and " the " baptism by water as solemnised 
 by the ministers of Christ,"* were administered on 
 the authority of " a Divine commission. "f They 
 both had reference to the same " kingdom of 
 Christ;"! they both related to the same person — 
 " the coming one," " Jesus," " the Christ. "§ 
 Neither in itself wrought any spiritual result. I| 
 In each case " to be baptized was to be initiated as 
 a disciple."^ Each was " a symbol " " of regene- 
 ration," " of evangelical truth." ** 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. These two baptisms " by water," 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 183. f Ibid. p. 191. % Ibid. p. 192. 
 
 §Ibid. p. 193. 11 Ibid. pp. 187—189. 1[ Ibid. p. 162. 
 
 ** Ibid. p. 7. 
 
DR. halley's argument. 97 
 
 having- the same origin, the same nature, and the 
 same use, in the same kingdom of heaven, and with 
 reference to the same Lord and Christ, as far as the 
 nature of the case can lead us, may be identified ; 
 and the one, when properly administered, might 
 stand for the other.* 
 
 The difficultv in constructing this argument alto- 
 gether in Dr. Halley's own words, arises out of the 
 way in which that writer has chosen to treat the sub- 
 ject before him. Instead of advancing to consider 
 fairly the depositions of the Tractmen relating to the 
 essential difference of John's baptism from that of our 
 Lord, he takes the question as stated by Mr. Hall, in 
 his work on the Terms of Christian Communion, in 
 writingwhich the subject of baptismal regeneration had, 
 probably, no place in his thoughts. It is when deal- 
 ing with these sentiments of Mr. Hall that Dr. Halley 
 adduces the pleadings which have been digested into 
 the preceding form. These all go to prove against Mr. 
 Hall that the baptisms were the same, in their essential 
 nature, though they had circumstantial differences: and 
 these reasonings are preceded by the following words : 
 " If the baptism of John was truly and essentially the 
 same as Christian baptism, then Christian baptism 
 itself, at its commencement, was only a symbol, and 
 not a means of regeneration."! In answering Mr. 
 Hall, he pleads that the alleged difference cannot be 
 admitted, because no influence of the Spirit was given 
 in Christian baptism more obviously, fully, or with 
 
 * Sacraments, pp. 180 and 201. t Ibid. p. 180. 
 
 H 
 
98 John's baptism. 
 
 greater certainty than in the haptism of John.* In 
 answering the Tractmen, he says, " But if the baptism 
 was truly and essentially the same, etc., then Chris- 
 tian baptism itself, at its commencement, was only the 
 symbol, and not the means, of regeneration." Re- 
 lieved of all its hypothesis and poetry, and taken in 
 its best estate, this argument would simply be — The 
 baptisms are both the same, because neither had the 
 advantage in communicating the Spirit ; and neither 
 communicated the Spirit, nor was a means of regene- 
 ration, because they were both the same. This result 
 had probably presented itself to our brother's mind 
 when, in his reply to Dr Wai-dlaw, he says, " I am, 
 however, ready to acknowledge, that I am not pre- 
 pared to found any argument whatever, in favour of 
 my views, respecting Christian baptism, upon its 
 identity, in any particular, with the baptism of John. "f 
 Here, therefore, his chief argument against the Trac- 
 tarian theory is formally and positively abandoned ; 
 and yet, on the very next page, he adds, " It cannot 
 be unimportant to ascertain whether he (John) bap- 
 tized children, or only their parents ;" I and therefore, 
 as if to preserve this literary curiosity, on which he is 
 not prepared to found any argument in favour of his 
 own views respecting Christian baptism, from p. 92 to 
 
 p. 119. he considers, not now "as an advocate" 
 
 " fencing with logic" — but " as an inquirer," Three 
 " facts " relating to the identity of " the two rites :"§ 
 " the [re] baptism of the twelve men at Ephesus " — 
 " the baptism of the three thousand on the day of 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 187—190. f Reply, p. 1 14. 
 
 + Reply, p. 115. § Ibid. p. 92—93. 
 
DR. halley's argument. 99 
 
 Penteco!5t, of whom, it is presumed, some were disci- 
 ples of John" — " and the acknowledged fact, that the 
 one hundred and twenty disciples in Jerusalem at the 
 resurrection were not rehaptized." This clinging to 
 the identity of " the two rites," notwithstanding his 
 acknowledged subsequent convictions, when he him- 
 self is not prepared to found any argument in 
 favour of his own views respecting Christian baptism 
 thereupon, is most difficult to be accounted for, and 
 it reveals that remarkable facility in self-contradiction, 
 which distinguishes this author so eminently, and 
 baffles all attempts to comprehend his real meaning. 
 
 The two objections just named, supposed to rest 
 on ScrijDture cases, not on the essential nature of the 
 baptism, but bearing testimony to their difference, are 
 pleaded by Dr. Wardlaw. One rests on a supposition 
 that many of the persons baptized at the Pentecost 
 had previouslt/ received the baptism of John, and there- 
 fore were baptized again ; the other rests on a suppo- 
 sition that the twelve persons rebaptized by Paul, in 
 Ephesus, had properly received the baptism of John ; 
 and that, therefore, the act of Paul, in rebaptizing 
 them, is proof that he regarded the two baptisms as 
 essentially different in their nature. 
 
 The first objection is proved to be an hypothesis, 
 and nothing more ; there is no mention of John's 
 baptism in the history, and nothing to indicate a re- 
 baptism in any case. The multitude, converted by 
 the preaching of Peter, are urged to repent and be 
 baptized, and the promise of their receiving the Holy 
 Spirit, is to be fulfilled, after the exhortation has been 
 obeyed, they were to repent and be baptized first ; 
 H 2 
 
100 John's baptism. 
 
 and then, after this was done, they were to receive the 
 Holy Spirit. This, instead of showing a difference, 
 proves that, in reference to the Holy Spirit, at 
 least, the two haptisnis were essentially the same. 
 (Actsii. 38). 
 
 The second objection to the foregoing argument is 
 urged by Dr. Wardlaw* from the rebaptism of the 
 twelve in Ephesus (Acts xix. 1 — 7). It had been 
 shown, in 1843, that the baptism of these twelve 
 persons into the doctrine or baptism of John, having 
 through the want of further knowledge on the part 
 of ApoUos, who ministered there, transpired since 
 the Christ had appeared and entered into his glory, 
 and no "coming one" was after that event to be ex- 
 pected, involved a departure from the true nature of 
 John's baptism itself. Instead of leading the baptized 
 person to the Christ, it led them away from the 
 Christ ; for the Christ was not now to come. In this 
 case, therefore, the identity, not the difference, is 
 pioved ; since, in both baptisms, the faith was fixed 
 on the same person, as both Lord and Christ, and 
 each was the initiation into the same kingdom. The 
 argument of Dr. Halley is so similar that it need not 
 be transcribed. t 
 
 The real objection to that form which represents 
 Dr. Halley's reasoning, appears when his argument 
 is brought into comparisoa with that of the Tractmen. 
 In Tract No. 67, the argument for an essential differ- 
 ence in the baptisms, rests upon the evidence which 
 had been previously adduced from the epistles and 
 
 * Halley's Sacraments, p. 194 ; Wardlaw's Reply, p. 228. 
 t Stovel oa Bapt. Regen. pp. 136 — 139 ; Reply, p. 93, etc. 
 
i>R. halley's argument. 101 
 
 other scriptures, to show, from " their untortured 
 meaning," that baptism and spiritual life were, in all 
 the apostolical churches, supposed to co-exist in the 
 same persons ; so that baptized persons were not ex- 
 horted to repent and beheve, as though they had 
 never been regenerated, but to rejoice and hope ; and, 
 forgetting the things that were behind, to press on 
 towards those that are before ; not to begin, but to 
 finish, their course with joy. In all these argu- 
 ments it is assumed Ma^ "infant baptism is right;" 
 and hence it is inferred, that if baptism co-existed 
 with spiritual life in the same persons, and especially 
 in infants, who could not learn and believe, the bap- 
 tism must have produced it : and if the apostles re- 
 garded these two things — baptism and the spiritual 
 life — as co-existing in the same persons, they must 
 have regarded the former as producing the latter. 
 Hence they call the Christian baptism " life-giving," 
 " sin-pardoning," etc , as in the second proposition of 
 their argument. Tiiis ascertained co- existence of 
 baptism and the spiritual life in the subjects of Chris- 
 tian baptism. Dr. Halley has not attempted to ex- 
 plain, and the argument by which it is ascertained, 
 from the epistolary passages, he has not refuted. 
 
 The true and only answer to this argument of the 
 Tractmen is obtained from those passages to which 
 they appeal ; and the refusing to consider which argu- 
 ment, constitutes the serious and fatal defect of Dr. 
 Halley's reasoning. These epistolary passages show 
 that the spiritual life, in faith and repentance, had, in 
 the apostles' apprehension, been exercised in every 
 baptized person, and accredited to those who baptized 
 
102 John's baptism. 
 
 him, before the baptism took place : and therefore, in 
 all their 'OTitinirs, baptism and the spiritual life are 
 supposed to CO- exist in the same person until that 
 baptized person was proved to be an hypocrite. The 
 epistles thus agree with the gospel of John, for there 
 (chap. i. 12, 13), it is said that Jesus gave to all those 
 vrho received him, who believed in his name, the 
 privilege or power to become sons of God. Such 
 persons were, both by John and Christ, born of God, 
 of water, and, after the Pentecost, of the Spirit : into 
 " the kingdom of heaven" — " the household" — " the 
 habitation of God through the Spirit " — they entered, 
 as " sons of God, by faith in Christ Jesus ;" and, 
 being baptized into Christ, they had, in the body of 
 Christ, a right to be, by all parties, treated, and ad- 
 dressed, as sons of God, by faith in Christ Jesus ; 
 until, by some overt sin, the sinceritv of their repent- 
 ance and faith was impugned. 
 
 It is on this point that the third " fact," propounded 
 by our brother for investigation, but which he has re- 
 fused to investigate, casts its light. "That the apos- 
 tles, and especially the hundred and twenty disciples 
 in Jerusalem, were not rebaptized, after the resurrec- 
 tion, is the fact alleged on the other side :"* that is, 
 in favour of the essential identity of " the two rites." 
 Dr. Halley might have added the five hundred ' 
 brethren who ( 1 Cor. xv. 6) at one time met the 
 Redeemer after his resurrection, with all who con- 
 versed with him, in eleven interviews, between his 
 
 * Reply, p. 110. 
 
DR. hallet's argument, 103 
 
 resurrection and the Pentecost, during forty days, in 
 which " he was seen of them," " speaking of the 
 things pertaining to the kingdom of God" (Acts i. 3). 
 Not a hint is anywhere given that any one of these 
 was ever rebaptized. The facts of the case, as stated 
 by " Mr. Stovel," in his Lecture on these forty-seven 
 days between the resurrection and the Pentecost, 
 (Discipleship, p. 168) clearly unfold the reason. 
 Whether baptized by John, or by the disciples of 
 Jesus, under his own ministry, before the crucifixion, 
 these disciples had been received, and were, by Jesus, 
 recognised, after his resurrection, as friends and ad- 
 herents, believinglv devoted to himself. The evidence 
 adduced from this period to prove that their conduct 
 was such as faith onlv could sustain ; and that the 
 treatment of the !i, by our Lord, implied its recogni- 
 tion. Dr. H alley has endeavoured to .evade, as we 
 shall hereafter see, but not ventured to meet, nor even 
 attempted to refute. It therefore stands to prove 
 that before the crucifixion, as well as after the resur- 
 rection, whether baptism was administered by John, 
 or the disciples of our Lord, during his ministry on 
 earth or after he ascended up on high, the same 
 qualification of repentance and faith in its subjects 
 was required. 
 
 The scriptural qualification for Christian baptism, 
 therefore, demands a place in that argument by which 
 it is intended to prove that the baptism of Jesus and 
 of John are essentially the same. Hence, without 
 controverting or changing what Dr. Halley affirms 
 correctly, the following form will express — 
 
104 John's baptism. 
 
 " Mr. Stovel's" Argument. 
 
 First. It may be admitted that the two baptisms 
 cannot be so identified, that the one might pass 
 for the other, unless it could be proved that both 
 had the same origin, the same nature, and the 
 same use. 
 
 But, secondly. The baptism of water administered 
 by John, and the baptism of water as solemnized 
 by the ministers of Christ, were both administered 
 on the authority of a Divine commis&ion, they both 
 had reference to the same kingdom of Christ, they 
 both related to the same person, the coming one, 
 Jesus, the Christ ; neither, in itself, wrought any 
 spiritual result in its recipient. In each case, to be 
 baptized was to be initiated as a disciple, each was 
 a symbol of regeneration, of evangelical trath, and 
 each required the same qualification of faith and 
 repentance in its subject. 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. These two baptisms by water 
 having the same Divine origin, the same spirituality 
 of nature and qualification in the same kingdom, and 
 with reference to the same Lord and Christ, are 
 essentially the same, and, as far as their nature is 
 concerned, the former, when properly administered, 
 might stand for the latter. 
 
 Here nothing is added to Dr. Halley's argument, 
 but the qualification of its subjects ; and the considera- 
 tion of this is indispensable both to the case itself, 
 and the Tractmen's appeal to scripture ; for the nature 
 
" MR. stovel's" argument. 105 
 
 of any initiation cannot be understood without con- 
 sidering what quahfication is required in the person 
 to be initiated ; and, the appeal to holy scripture in 
 proof of baptismal efficacy, can never be fairly con- 
 sidered without attending to the principal, if not the 
 only passage, which positively states who has the 
 power, or right, to claim initiation as a son of God, 
 and whence he obtained it ; and the passages which 
 describe the moral and social effect of that initiation 
 when it has been received. John i. 12, 13, which 
 affirms that Jesus gave the right, or power, to those 
 who received him, even to as many as believed on 
 his name ; and the epistolary passages which describe 
 the results which follow when a believer has used 
 the right which Jesus gave him, are, therefore, bvthe 
 nature of the case, indispensable parts of this investi- 
 gation ; and when this indispensable qualification to 
 both the baptisms, the faith which receives the Lord, is 
 fully considered, and the power, or right, given Ijy 
 Jesus to the believer, not only does the initiation so 
 claimed and received, without any " baptismal rege- 
 neration," realize the fulness of scripture truth ; but this 
 one indispensable qualification of each baptism, the 
 faith of its subject, in the same Lord, for the same 
 spiritual intent, the forgiveness of sins, and in the 
 same kingdom of heaven, of God, and of Christ, is 
 so important that, coming as it does by Divine au- 
 thority to both, it reduces the circumstantial features 
 which have been pleaded to mere nothingness, and 
 realises a feature which is common to both, and so 
 unspeakably important in their nature and results, 
 that the baptism of the kingdom of heaven when so ad- 
 ministered by Jesus and bv John, could no more difier 
 
106 John's baptism. 
 
 from itself, than it did when, with other, equally 
 unimportant peculiarity of circumstances, it was 
 administered hy Philip in the wilderness, or by Peter 
 in the city of Jerusalem. 
 
 But this qualification in the subject of baptism is 
 the vei-y thing which Dr. Halley wishes to disprove. 
 Though indispensable in a reply to the Tractraen, he 
 rejects it, and labours, from a part of the evidence, to 
 prove that neither Christian baptism nor John's bap- 
 tism required any personal qualification whatever : as 
 though it had been written, to all men whatsoever, 
 Jesus gave a power, or right, to become sons of God, 
 whether they received him, whether they believed on 
 his name, or not. This essential part of the case, 
 therefore, which is rejected by Dr. Halley, is the 
 point which " Mr. Stovel" had to sustain in his reply. 
 To refute the theory of baptismal regeneration, it was 
 necessary to prove that the qualification to baptism, as 
 administered by Jesus and by John, would lealize the 
 fulness of scripture truth, in all the passages pleaded, 
 and leave the theory of baptismal regeneration with- 
 out any support or countenance from scripture what- 
 soever. Evidence to sustain this point was submitted 
 in the Lectures on Christian Discipleship. Dr. Halley 
 had affirmed, that both baptisms were " administered 
 indiscriminately to all applicants," in opposition to- 
 this it was affirmed, that both baptisms required the 
 discriminating qualification of personal faith in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, which received him, in \Ahatever 
 office he came to fill, and which rejected the world 
 and sin for his sake. This state of mind as it looks 
 toward him, being faith, and, as it looks towards 
 past sin, repentance. 
 
" MR. stovel's" argument, 107 
 
 The evidence brought to sustain this direct denial 
 (jf Dr. Halley's chief affirmation, was drawn from 
 sources to which Dr. Halley had himself appealed. 
 Jewish baptism formed the subject of one lecture in 
 his course, and John's baptism that of another ; and, 
 from both he expected aid " in interpreting the com- 
 mission to baptize all the nations,"-^ and in pro- 
 secuting the " inquiry respecting the nature of 
 Christian baptism." f The whole field of investiga- 
 tion that lay before the pentecost, was therefore laid 
 open ; and, from the material therein supplied, it was 
 suggested. — 
 
 First. That since, from Dr. Hallev's own evidence, 
 the proselyte baptism supposed a character which 
 might be accredited, and imposed a rule of life 
 which was and must be a test of that character it 
 was discriminating ; this discriminating /character of 
 proselyte baptism, therefore, could never justify an 
 expectation that John's baptism, and that of Christ, 
 would be administered without discrimination. — Dis- 
 cipleship, pp. Q6 — 71. 
 
 Secondly, The declarations in John i. 12, 13, and 
 John iii. 5, which relate to the time when John was 
 baptizing at Belhabara and Enon, and Jesus was 
 also making and baptizing disciples, prove that Jesus 
 gave the power, or privilege, of becoming disciples, 
 or sons of God, only to those who received him and 
 believsd on his name. — Jbid. p. 124, 158. 
 
 Thirdly. The epistolary passages, and the plain 
 declarations contained in John i. 35 — 37, and John 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 115. f Ibid. p. 162. 
 
108 John's baptism. 
 
 iii. 27 — 36, prove that this faith, which formed the 
 qualification to baptism, rested, in each case, on the 
 same person ; whether the baptism was administered 
 by the apostles, during the ministry of Christ, or by 
 John ; the person was baptized into Christ, the coming 
 one, the bridegroom, the Lamb of God who takcth away 
 the sins of the world. — Ibid. pp. 129 — 149. 
 
 Fourthly. This baptism into Christ is shown, by 
 the epistolary passages, and the words both of John 
 and Jesus, to be, in some way, connected with for- 
 giveness ot sin, and justification before God, and 
 therefore the faith which was professed and recognized 
 in both the baptisms could not have been deemed 
 superficial.— /i/rf. pp. 149—164, 241—255, 99. 
 
 Fifthly. The general doctrine of initiations at and 
 before the time of our Lord was, that persons, rightly 
 initiated, enjoyed the advantage and hope of the 
 society into which they were so introduced. Cicero 
 thus learned, at Eleusis, how to live better, and die 
 more happily, than other heathens. He was dis- 
 criminated and joined in the Eleusinean hope. If 
 Cicero had been converted and proselyted, when bap- 
 tized into Moses, he would be on his faith discrimi- 
 nated, and joined in the hope of Israel ; but John 
 delivered another doctrine, and administered another 
 baptism to the men of Israel, and this, like the 
 baptism of Jesus, discriminated the Jew from the 
 Jew, the men of Israel from each other, and, on his 
 faith, every believer from all other men, recognizing 
 his participation in the hope of the kingdom of heaven. — 
 Ibid. pp. 66—84. 
 
 Sixthly. The hope of the kingdom of heaven, and 
 
"MR. stovel's" argument. 109 
 
 the faith on which alone it can be justly entertained, 
 are clearly exhibited in the prophecies of Isaiah, 
 Malachi, and others, which went before, and those 
 delivered at the conception and birth of Jesus, respect- 
 ing the spirituality of his kingdom, and the everlast- 
 ing benefits it was designed to secure. The baptism 
 which recognized the hope of individuals in this king- 
 dom, therefore, must have required a qualification 
 including the faith, without which no hope of that 
 kingdom could be entertained. — Ibid. pp. 22— 109. 
 
 Seventhly. The ministry, office, and whole autho- 
 rity of John the herald, are, in the prophecies that 
 went before, and those delivered at his birth, iden- 
 tified with the nature and operations of the kingdom 
 of heaven. His office and responsibiUty to God, 
 therefore, would not allow him to initiate by baptism 
 anv individuals whatever who did not possess that 
 qualification of faith, without which the duties of the 
 kingdom of heaven could never be performed, and 
 its hopes and privileges could never be enjoyed. — 
 Ibid. pp. 104—109. 
 
 Eighthly. The predictions that went before, of 
 John, and the history of his labour given in the evan- 
 gelists, prove that he was formed of God not to teach 
 a superficial indiscriminating triviality ; but, to deal 
 with human nature on some great spiritual obligation 
 like that which the penitent and self-subjecting faith of 
 the kingdom of heaven involves.* — 76/(?.pp. 102, 110. 
 
 * The witty or rather Aa//'-witted misrepresentation of this 
 argument given by Dr. Halley in his reply, needs, for adequate 
 refutation, only to be compared with the text he has ventured 
 to abuse. — Reply, p. 24. 
 
110 John's baptism. 
 
 Ninthly. The Lord's commendation of John shows, 
 that the discrimination between man and man, on 
 the ground of personal and unlimited faith in him- 
 self, which appears in his cwn ministry, when dealing 
 with the multitudes, the inquirers, and the dis- 
 ciples, formed the chief point of agreement between 
 these two ministrations in the kingdom of heaven ; 
 and, therefore, the one by which the two baptisms 
 may be identified. — Ibid. pp. 102 — 127, 133 — 164. 
 
 Tenthlv. The discriminating endearments seen in 
 the conduct of our Lord towards his disciples, whether 
 thev were baptized bv John or under his own super- 
 vision, before the crucifixion, when the supper was 
 instituted, and after the crucifixion, before he ascended 
 to the Father, when in eleven recorded interviews he 
 spoke to them of his kingdom, and gave them his 
 commission, with the promise of power from on high, 
 but would not meet the unbelievers at all, prove 
 that these, his disciples, were recognized as persons 
 devoted to himself, by faith in his person and autho- 
 rity. — Ibid. pp. 159 — 167. 
 
 Eleventhly. This personal faith in our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, which involves repentance before God for 
 past sin, and subjects the person and interests of the 
 believer to the direction and care of the Redeemer, 
 as it formed the basis of fellowship under the 
 ministry of John and of Christ, was regarded in the 
 same light from the Pentecost until the brethren 
 were scattered from Jerusalem ; and, in the local 
 assemblies which were afterwards formed at different 
 places, the same qualification to discipleship was 
 retained. — /fiief. pp. 168 — 205. 
 
"MR. stovel's" argument. Ill 
 
 This qualification to discipleship and baptism, 
 therefore, which Dr. Hallev rejects and denies, is 
 thus proved to have been imposed by Divine autho- 
 rity ; and to have been sustained by that Divine 
 authority as long as any inspired and infallible expo- 
 sition of the Divine will existed among men. It is, 
 therefore, through all change of ministration, the one 
 identifying feature of the baptism used in the king- 
 dom of heaven. By it, the baptism administered by 
 the apostles is seen to be one with that of our Lord, 
 and that administered in the ministry of our Lord is 
 seen to be identified with that of John. They have 
 the same origin, nature, and use, with reference to the 
 Lord and his subjects, in the same kingdom of Christ 
 and of God. 
 
 To that portion of this evidence which is favoured 
 with Dr. Halley's attention at p. 22, of his reply, he 
 answers, '' As Mr. Stovel no where asserts that the 
 persons baptized by John were incorporated into visi- 
 ble churches, or recognized as members of voluntary 
 societies, it appears to me that he introduces irrelevant 
 discussion in his sections entitled ' the Declaration of 
 our Lord' respecting John, etc. This reasoning on 
 his new definition of a church, and thus evading the 
 subject of inquiry, has been considered and answered 
 before. The fact that there were, at that time, no 
 separately organized assemblies in the kingdom of 
 heaven or body of Christ, renders the evidence 
 adduced here the more important. The whole king- 
 dom or body of Christ both was, and is, a " voluntary 
 society ;" inasmuch as that, no man is admitted 
 
112 John's baptism. 
 
 into it but upon his own voluntary confession of faith 
 in the common Lord, and willing subjection to his 
 authority ; and, since the baptism was a recognition 
 of that faith and subjection, the society so formed, by 
 baptism into Christ, was visible. It was more visible 
 when Christ was on earth with his disciples than it 
 is now, while he is absent from them, at God's right 
 hand. But visible or not, the whole question related 
 to the nature of this " voluntary society" of disciples, 
 commenced by John, enlarged and possessed by the 
 Lord himself, and made the abode of his Spirit, at 
 the Pentecost. The question was, and is, what quali- 
 fication was required by John, and by our Lord, in 
 administering that baptism which Dr. Halley calls 
 " the initiatory rite" of this voluntary society of dis- 
 ciples. While " the church" was in its greatest 
 simplicity, and before any separate assemblies were 
 either formed or required in the kingdom or body of 
 Christ, from these eleven sources of evidence, contained 
 within that range of inquiry, to which the doctor 
 had appealed in proof of his indiscriminate theory, it 
 is found that the baptism of the kingdom of heaven 
 required a faith, in its recipients, which produced 
 repentance of sin and personal subjection to the au- 
 thority and ministration of the Lord Christ. If 
 Dr. Halley could appeal to Jewish authority and 
 practice in support of his indiscriminate theory, 
 why should that authority be now rejected .'' when, 
 from bis own facts, and prophecies, he admits to be 
 Divine, with the actions and declarations of John, 
 and of the Lord himself, it is proved that, instead of 
 
"MR. stovel's" argument. 113 
 
 being reduced below the moral level of Jewish 
 society, by an indiscriminate influx of the heathen, 
 the body of Christ was raised above all other society, 
 by a quahfication, consistent with its own nature, and 
 required by its sacred laws, of all who are baptized 
 into its fellowship ? On the spirituality of the Savi- 
 our's kingdom the whole question turns ; and, that 
 flagitious dexterity with which he shifts his ground, 
 and reasons from a part of the case, will no more 
 serve Dr. Halley now, with his new definition of 
 " voluntary churches," than it did when, without this 
 distinction, he laboured to defend indiscriminate initia- 
 tion into that body of Christ whose existence he now 
 denies. He has actually pleaded that " When John 
 baptized, there were no such voluntary societies as 
 Christian churches."* He might have said there 
 were none such until after the persecution in which 
 Stephen fell. But what then } was there no king- 
 dom of heaven till then ? was there no baptism ? no 
 initiation till then ? were there no recognised dis- 
 ciples till after the martyrdom of Stephen ? was there 
 no community nor fellowship therein until that time .'' 
 There ivas a community and fellowship before that 
 time, and on that fellowship in Christ Dr. Halley had 
 himself discoursed in his Lectures on the Sacraments, 
 and the evidence adduced from these eleven sources, 
 which proves that faith was the qualification to its 
 baptismal initiation, must stand untouched by this 
 new invention of " voluntary churches," because its 
 service is obtained, at a time when the separate assem- 
 
 * Reply, p. 6. 
 I 
 
114 John's baptism. 
 
 blies in the body of Christ had not yet been called 
 into existence. 
 
 These eleven arguments prove, therefore, that the 
 baptism of water administered by John, became iden- 
 tified with that which was administered by Christ and 
 his disciples, througli that qualification of repentance 
 and faith in him, which was common to ]them both ; 
 this being determined, a few w^ords will show its im- 
 portance in the controversy, and its reconciling in- 
 fluence with the several parties concerned. 
 
 First. It furnishes an adequate reply to the chief 
 argument for baptismal regeneration, set forth at 
 Oxford, in Tract No. 67, and based on that association 
 of the spiritual life with baptism, which is found in 
 the writings of St. Paul, and in other parts of sacred 
 scripture. For 
 
 First. It is proved that the baptism of John, and that 
 of Christ, agree in requiring repentance and faith 
 in Christ, as a qualification in its recipients, to 
 whom the epistolary passages refer. 
 
 But, secondly. Since those only who receive the 
 Lord, believing on his name, have power to become 
 the sons of God ; the blessings described in the 
 epistolary passages may be all expected and en- 
 joyed ; and, the obligations conjoined with them 
 will all be realized by such baptized believers. 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. Though this evidence does not 
 prove the regenerating power of baptism, it meets 
 the fulness of scripture truth, and shows how bap- 
 tism and the spiritual life may be recognized, in 
 
PRACTICAL INDUCTIONS. 115 
 
 the same persons, without supposing that the 
 former had produced the latter. 
 
 Secondly. The fact of our social and individual 
 responsibility in this particular is obvious from the 
 following statement ; for. 
 
 First. The baptism of John and that of Jesus unite 
 in the requirement of repentance and faith. 
 
 But, secondly. The whole body of Christ is intrusted 
 with the care and execution of his demands in 
 the church on earth. 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. The whole body of Christ must 
 see that none are baptized whose faith and repent- 
 ance are not evinced. 
 
 This conclusion applies to each in his proper place ; 
 to the minister, in his office, to the member, in his 
 relationship to the Lord, and to every assembly that 
 is formed to act in his name. 
 
 Thirdly. The limitation of Christian responsibility 
 in the case, whether social or individual, is clear 
 from the following facts : — 
 
 First. The baptism of John and of Christ agree in 
 the requirement of repentance and faith ; and the 
 body of Christ is intrusted with the care and the 
 execution of his law upon earth. 
 
 But, secondly. In preserving and executing Divine 
 
 law upon earth, the service of the church is 
 
 measured by the capabilities with which it is 
 
 endowed. It cannot be extended further than 
 
 I 2 
 
116 John's baptism. 
 
 these capabilities will allow, and God is not satisfied 
 with less. 
 Therefore, thirdly. The body of Christ which is in- 
 trusted with his law, is responsible for the with- 
 holding of baptism only until faith and repentance 
 has been avowed, and made credible, in its rightly 
 constituted assemblies. 
 
 Fourthly. The case of infants and unbelievers in 
 general, is manifested as follows ; as if to keep the 
 reality of our spiritual ruin constantly in view, their 
 admission to baptism and fellowship is deferred, until 
 the appointed personal qualification has been pro- 
 duced. Admission is not refused but deferred : and 
 the burden of proof is thrown upon the applicant ; for, 
 
 First. The baptism of John and of Christ agree in 
 the requirement of repentance and faith ; and the 
 body of Christ, being intrusted with its administra- 
 tion, is bound to withhold that rite, until its re- 
 quirement has been made credible in its lawfully 
 constituted assemblies. 
 
 But, secondly. Man cannot search the heart, nor 
 know what is the unrevealed purpose of God, and 
 therefore infants and persons not making a credible 
 profession of faith and repentance, cannot be known 
 to have repented and believed. 
 
 Tlierefore, thirdly. Infants and persons not making 
 a credible profession of faith and repentance, can 
 have no claim to be baptized ; nor is the church 
 at liberty to baptize them until they comply with 
 the Lord's demand. 
 
PRACTICAL INDUCTIONS. 117 
 
 Fifthly. The relation in which children dying in 
 infancy stand to this Divine institution, appears from 
 the following statement. They are exempted by 
 the sovereign interposition of God ; for. 
 First. The baptism of John and of Christ agree in 
 demanding the same qualification of repentance and 
 faith in persons to be baptized ; the l)ody of Christ 
 intrusted with the execution of this law, is bound 
 to withhold the rite, until satisfactory evidence of 
 repentance and faith is obtained ; and, since no 
 profession of faith or of repentance is, in their case 
 made, infants are not admissible to that ordinance. 
 But, secondly. It was, from the beginning, known 
 to the Divine author of baptism and the founder of 
 the church, or kingdom of Christ, in which it is 
 appointed, that, by his own providential interposi- 
 tion, many children would die in their infancy. 
 Therefore, thirdly. The church, or kingdom of Christ, 
 with its initiatory rite, could never have been in- 
 tended to include such infants ; since they never 
 live to possess the qualification required ; and are, 
 by the sovereign and gracious act of God, taken 
 from this world ; where these duties of his kingdom 
 are to be performed, and this fellowship to which 
 its members are by baptism initiated, is to be 
 sustained. 
 
 Sixthly. Much of the language used, and many of 
 the precepts enforced in holy scripture, respecting 
 Christian fellowship, become plain from the following 
 facts. That burden of proof which binds the can- 
 didate to show his qualification before he is admitted 
 
118 John's baptism. 
 
 to baptism and fellowship ; afterwards, binds the 
 church to prove his adequate culpability before he is 
 subjected to personal disadvantage ; for, 
 
 First. Faith, the qualification to baptism, is the per- 
 sonal ground of a sinner's justification before God, 
 Rom. V. 1—12. 
 
 But, secondly. Baptism cannot rightly be adminis- 
 tered in the church, until this faith is believed to 
 be sincere. 
 
 Therefore, thirdly. In all the business of the church, 
 baptized persons, being admitted as believers, must 
 be treated as persons justified by their faith, until 
 its sincerity has been rendered doubtful by some 
 open sin which calls for the discipline of censure or 
 exclusion. 
 
 Seventhly. — The best way to secure spirituality, 
 purity, and efficient exertion in the church or body 
 of Christ will scarcely be doubted, wherever the fol- 
 lowing statement is fully understood and appre- 
 ciated ; for, 
 
 First. The faith professed which qualifies for baptism , 
 by his own consent, subjects the person baptized 
 to all the laws and discipline of the Christ into 
 whose body, church, or kingdom, he has thus been 
 initiated. 
 
 But, secondly. The laws and discipline of Christ are 
 ordained and adapted, by infinite wisdom, to secure 
 the spiritual edification and usefulness of indi- 
 viduals so baptized into him ; the harmony and 
 sweetness of their co-operation in his service and 
 
PRACTICAL INDUCTIONS. 119 
 
 fellowship ; and, the efficacy of their combined and 
 individual exertions, in bearing •witness to the grace 
 of God, and in turning sinners to the Lord. 
 Therefore, thirdly. To demand the qualification of 
 baptism before it is administered, and to follow 
 it up with the discipline which Christ hath ap- 
 pointed, both for edification and reproof, is the 
 course which infinite wisdom prescribes for securing 
 the spirituahty, edification, and union, of believers 
 upon earth ; and, for extending the enjoyments of 
 mercy amongst men. 
 
 It is better, as the field of controversy is now to 
 be changed, that these points should have been con- 
 sidered here, where no question respecting separate 
 assemblies in the body of Christ can rise to confuse 
 the thought, than to take them at a later period, when 
 the Divine communications have been obscured by 
 new and irrelevant definitions. The questions relating 
 to " voluntary churches" can have no place where 
 evidence is taken from sources confessedly Divine, 
 and given before such " voluntary churches" are sup- 
 posed to have existed. To prove the spirituality of 
 the kingdom, the body of Christ, at this period, and 
 the corresponding requirement of repentance and faith 
 as the qualification to its baptism, or fellowship, is not 
 only to the point, it supplies a proof, that repentance 
 and faith form the indispensable qualification to 
 Christian baptism, which stands beyond the reach of 
 Dr. Halley's new invention. This proof meets, as it 
 was at first intended to meet, the theory of indis- 
 criminate baptism, as Dr. Halley presented it in his 
 
120 John's baptism. 
 
 " Sacraments," where his " voluntary churches" are 
 named, indeed, as modern things, but not supposed, 
 even by himself, to interfere with evidence derived 
 from the eleven sources before given. Isaiah did not 
 prophecy respecting " voluntary churches," but the 
 kingdom or society, of him who leadeth his flock Uke 
 a shepherd, gathereth the lambs (" its converts") in 
 his arms, and layeth them in his bosom, and gently 
 leadeth those that are with young." Malachi did 
 not prophecy respecting " voluntaiy churches ;" but 
 the great refiner, and the day of his administration, 
 which shall burn like an oven. The indiscrimination 
 of the kingdom they predict, is the indiscrimination 
 of a shepherd who separates the flock of his care, or 
 that of a refiner's fire, in which every thing must 
 perish, but the silver he intends to purify. Such 
 was the kingdom commenced by John and by Christ ; 
 and, when that qualification of repentance and faith 
 which unites and identifies their baptisms has been 
 ascertained, no other fact is necessary to realize the 
 fulness of scripture truth found in those epistolary 
 passages which, through the words of our Lord him- 
 self, are united with his baptism and that of John. 
 The qualification which unites the baptisms, explains 
 the epistolary passages which are brought to prove 
 their essential difl^erence. Instead of this evidence 
 being " not to the point," it meets the point, it occu- 
 pies the whole space of the argument, and holds the 
 point it has proved against all adversity. It not 
 only explains the fulness of scripture truth, in passages 
 pleaded by the Tractmen, and harmonizes them with 
 the identity of the baptism of Christ and of John ; 
 
CONCLUSION. 121 
 
 but this evidence also shows, how baptism, which 
 these Tractraen labour to defile and blazonize, may, 
 by Divine law, and in scripture terms, be reconciled 
 to that justification by faith in Christ, for which Dr. 
 Halley contends. This should be something to the 
 point, but this is not all. This evidence, derived from 
 sources which Dr. Halley's last invention cannot 
 reach, shows in what way the fulness of scripture 
 truth, defended by the Tractmen, the scriptural treat- 
 ment of baptized persons which they plead, the justi- 
 cation by faith, which Dr. Halley labours to defend, 
 and the spirituality and purity of the church, for 
 which Dr. Wardlaw is so justly and so seriously con- 
 cerned, may, by Divine law, be reconciled to each 
 other, and to the word of God; in a right observ- 
 ance of Christian sacraments, and a just administra- 
 tion of church discipline. This is the reconciliation 
 that we seek. We long to see these brethren unite in 
 embracing, not one, but all these great realities of 
 inspiration; and this is desired the more earnestly, 
 because the evidence supplied from these eleven 
 unexceptionable sources not only prepares the fore- 
 named ground for reconciliation, it also drives the 
 dividing and corrosive theory of infant baptism, with 
 its attendant error, baptismal regeneration, into open, 
 and unanswerable hostility to the word of God. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS AND REMARKS CONFIRM- 
 ING THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT. 
 
 Before the reconciling suggestion is explained as it 
 applies to the theories propounded on '' the adminis- 
 tration of Christian baptism," one or two particulars 
 have to be considered which partake of a personal 
 character. If these were passed altogether without 
 notice, the reader might suppose that all the allega- 
 tions of our brother were just, and that the subject 
 of them cherished an indifference to personal propriety. 
 Neither of these suppositions would be true. The 
 writer is conscious of many defects, and would gladly 
 attain to all the perfection which is necessary to 
 silence, if not to satisfy, the most keen sighted of all 
 bis opponents in this cause of God and truth. 
 Moreover, reputation is the greatest treasure of men 
 in public life ; and wherever, in the heat of contro- 
 versy, a friend may feel himself injured, the utmost • 
 care should be taken to make any acknowledgment 
 that truth will allow ; and to remove, if possible, any 
 mistake through which a supposition of personal in- 
 jury has been produced. 
 
 On the other hand, to follow in detail that line of 
 offensive and personal remark which has been chosen 
 
INTRODUCTION. 123 
 
 by the objectors, in this case, would seem too much 
 like labouring to perpetuate strife. It is also unneces- 
 sary ; for, in many cases, the references given to sus- 
 tain the charge, will, when properly used, supply its 
 unanswerable refutation. An example of this is found 
 in the following words of our brother : — " I was 
 totally ignorant of his great and ' notorious ' exploit. 
 I hope, however, we have now recovered from our 
 ' extremity,' and can venture to look him again in the 
 face."* The reference here is to Lectures on Dis- 
 cipleship, p. 246. On that page and those connected 
 with it, an abstract is given of the argument advanced 
 at Woolwich, in 1843, in reply to the reasoning which 
 Tractmen have reposed on the epistolary passages. 
 In these pages, however, the reader will find no 
 reason to justify the imputation of self-praise which is 
 brought, in this reply, by quoting the word " noto- 
 rious," in a sense differing from that in which it is 
 found under the reference. It is there said that the 
 argument " has been made notorious by the wrath it 
 has provoked amongst his ( Dr. Halley's) brethren." 
 Unless he thinks it is an honour to have their blame, 
 there can be no vanity in affirming this fact. It was, 
 it is, and it will be, ever deemed a calamity. But 
 what can be meant by the words — " we can " " now" 
 " venture to look him again in the face P" Does our 
 dear brother mean to express his courage thereby ? 
 But what courage is required, except in a guilty man, 
 to look into the face of one who had never looked on 
 him but with affection and esteem ? Besides, this is 
 
 * Halley's Reply, p. 9. 
 
124 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS. 
 
 not the thing required. Dr. Halley is not asked to 
 look his brother in the face ; but simply to look at the 
 argument. It is of no use to look at the 7na?i, every 
 body knows that there is nothing terrible in him : the 
 thing to be considered is the reasoning founded on 
 these epistolary passages, which. Dr. Halley says, is 
 not worthy of serious refutation, It is this, as ad- 
 vanced by Tractmen, which creates "the extremity" 
 of infant baptism and its advocates, and this reasoning 
 Dr. Kalley was requested " to look in the face " and 
 answer. He pleads ignorance of that reasoning when 
 his sacramental lectures were prepared ; but he could 
 not have been ignorant of it when he was misquoting 
 the words which stand on that page where its restate- 
 ment begins. Why, then, did not Dr. Halley answer 
 that reasoning in his Reply } Such an answer would 
 have been more honourable to himself, and more use- 
 ful to the church of Christ than the expedient he has 
 chosen. The reader will see at once, that it was 
 easier " to look" a brother " in the face," whose con- 
 stitutional timidity is known to all, than it was to 
 face his argument. This conclusion being obvious, 
 from the reference itself, to every reader ; no ad- 
 ditional defence is needed, and, on that account, other 
 such cases will be passed over as not requiring farther 
 elucidation. 
 
 On Repartee. 
 
 One apology required for, not to, our brother, in 
 this case, will apply to many others. He exhibits in 
 his writings a diseased inclination to repartee. Smart 
 things are written, as it should seem, for the pleasure 
 
THE ALLEGED "INSINUATIONS." 125 
 
 of writing them, until the mere smartness is taken for 
 conclusive reasoning'. Thus, in the case before cited, 
 it would seem exceedingly clever, by quoting the word 
 " notorious" in a wrong sense, to turn the reader's 
 thought fi-om an obligation which lay upon Dr, Halley 
 himself to an imputation unjustly cast, by him, on his 
 opponent ; but this dexterity will not repay the reader 
 for being misled, nor will it protect the author when 
 the subterfuge has brought him into judgment. Such 
 approximations to wit, since they often indicate the 
 germinating of a prolific though uncultivated genius, 
 if given in the nursery, the playground, or that lighter 
 intercourse where nothing more serious comes within 
 reach, might be pleasantly received ; but to mislead 
 the public mind is doing mischief W\^\ the merriment, 
 and in a man, when serious business is before him, it 
 is not allowable. The truth of God cannot be so 
 evaded or forced aside. In justice, as well as mercy, 
 holy communications from our Lord demand the at- 
 tention : and, for His sake, to all such ebullitions of 
 mere taste and talent, our brother must be content 
 with one reply ; here they are out of place, unseemly, 
 and deserving of no attention. 
 
 The Alleged " Insinuations," 
 
 The following is more connected with the contro- 
 versy, though scarcely within its province. " Let Mr. 
 Stovel expose the fallacy of my reasoning as severely 
 as he pleases ; but he has no right to indulge in such 
 insinuations about ' what has transpired.' "* The 
 
 * Reply, p. 9. 
 
126 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 quotation, " what has transpired," is from Discipleship 
 Lectures, p. 1 1 ; by referring to which the reader 
 will see that, there, "what has transpired" is no 
 " insinuation," but a reference to plain matters of fact 
 which are stated, and which relate to the position 
 which Dr. Halley occupies as representing the advo- 
 cates of infant baptism. It is there said, " It will 
 scarcely be supposed that Dr. Halley is, in the highest 
 sense, an authority, because the brethren on his side, 
 professedly, defer to none but God ; yet his lectures 
 were delivered under such peculiar auspices, that they 
 cannot be treated as an ordinary production." The 
 facts which give them peculiar importance are stated, 
 not " insinuated;" and these facts are not, and cannot, 
 he denied. Instead of this, a part of the sentence is 
 so quoted as to convey only a part of its meaning, 
 and thus produce the appearance of insinuation ; while 
 that part which completes the sense is left out. The 
 following is quoted — " after what has transpired, 
 unless his brethren do openly and avowedly reject him, 
 we are justified in using his work as an authority." 
 "After what has transpired," is by our brother put into 
 italics, to attract attention ; the facts stated are passed 
 over, and the words following " authority " are left 
 out. The passage reads, " we are justified in using 
 his work as an authority, /ro/w which the general views 
 of Congregational P cedohaptists may be understood, and 
 for the arguments of which the body will be answer- 
 able.""^ The words taken in connection mean nothing 
 more than that this volume of lectures, considering 
 
 * Discipleship, p. 11. 
 
THE ALLEGED INSINUATIONS. 127 
 
 the facts connected with its publication, unless dis- 
 avowed, must be received, by consent of all parties, 
 as a fair basis of any investigation like that on which 
 " Mr. Stovel " was entering. This opinion was 
 formed not on " insinuations," nor on anything sup- 
 posed to be concealed, but on the facts stated on 
 p. 11, to which the reference is made. This will show 
 how our brother falls l>efore his own references ; and 
 the opinion here stated finds additional support in the 
 advertisement contained in his own Lectures. It is there 
 said that " the Congregational Lecture was established 
 with a view to the promotion of ecclesiastical, theolo- 
 gical, and biblical literature, in that religious connec- 
 tion with whose friends and supporters it originated :" 
 " embracing a series of annual courses of lectures." 
 " In the selection of lecturers " — " it was also sup- 
 posed, that some might be found possessing a high 
 order of intellectual competency and moral worth " — 
 " who, from various causes, might never have attracted 
 that degree of public attention to which they are en- 
 titled " — " to trace the errors and corruptions which 
 have existed in the Christian church to their proper 
 sources, and by the connection of sound reasoning 
 with the honest interpretation of God's holy word, to 
 point out the methods of refutation and counteraction, 
 are amongst the objects for which the ' congregational 
 lecture ' has been established."* There is nothing 
 " concealed " in this — there is nothing wrong to con- 
 ceal — it is plain, and requires no " insinuation." In 
 
 * Advertisement by the committee of the Congregational 
 Library. In Halley on Sacraments, p. 9 ; Wardlaw, Appen- 
 dix, p. 272 ; Discipleship, p. 419. 
 
128 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 this series " The Sacraments," vol. i. is the tenth in 
 order. The lectures were heard with cheers, re- 
 ported at great length, published, and received with 
 approbation by many of the periodicals ; all this is 
 open, and there is nothing in it to blame ; it merely 
 puts Dr. Halley in the front, where it is hoped that he 
 will stand to his own words, and that his brethren will 
 stand by hira, until they give as much reason to be- 
 lieve that they think him wrong, as, by these acts, 
 with all their protecting statements taken into full and 
 just consideration, they have given men to suppose 
 that thev now think him, in the main particulars of 
 his argument, right. Any one who reads p. 11, to 
 which he refers, will see that the " insinuation," 
 " concealment," etc., at which Dr. Halley is so justly 
 indignant, are creatures of his own imagination ; and 
 this mistake, with the errors into which it has led 
 him, may well show the importance of chastening the 
 feelings wherever they induce the invention of a sub- 
 terfuge or the snatching at some plausible superficia- 
 lity. If our brother feel unwilling or unable to 
 maintain his ground, it is submitted, with sincere 
 Christian affection, whether it would not be more 
 magnanimous for him to say so — than thus, under the 
 influence of feehng, to seek a dishonourable method 
 of escape ? 
 
 The Galileans. 
 
 Another example of this error, more intimately 
 connected with our general inquiry, is found in the 
 following words. Having been pressed with the 
 fact that Herod the King was not baptized by John, 
 
APOSTOLICAL PECULIARITIES. 129 
 
 though he received instruction from John, Dr. Halley 
 replies, " It is, if possible, still less to the purpose to 
 say, as he does, ' Herod was not baptized,' for not 
 only are exceptions readily admitted, but Herod was 
 of Galilee, and of the baptism of the Galileans the 
 evangelists say nothing whatever."* How, not to 
 the purpose ? What if these " exceptions" should be 
 made, as they have been, to show and demonstrate 
 the rule ? The exceptions then become witnesses to 
 the point of our whole inquiry. But why say that 
 "the evangelists say nothing whatever of the baptism 
 of the Galileans ? Jesus himself came from Galilee, 
 to be baptized of John (Matt. iii. 13), Philip was of 
 Bethsaida of Galilee (John xii. 21), and Nathaniel 
 was of Cana in Galilee (John xxi. 2). Were not the 
 disciples who witnessed the ascension called men of 
 Galilee.^ (Acts i. 11), and do not the evangelists 
 speak of their baptism ? It is clear that no deliberate, 
 solemn thought could have led our brother into this 
 mistake. It is a snatch at the imagination before 
 him ; and, no doubt of it, the brightness of the 
 thought, for want of calm investigation, must have 
 produced the conception of its being a positive 
 reality. Whether the individual to be baptized came 
 from Galilee or from Jerusalem, was never made a 
 question of importance by Jesus or by John, if re- 
 pentance and faith were evinced. 
 
 The Apostolical Peculiarities. 
 
 At p. 56 of the Reply, we have the following : — 
 "Mr. Stovel says, 'if these splendid peculiarities, 
 
 * Reply, p. 25. 
 K 
 
130 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS. ETC. 
 
 [that is, the facts not recorded], could, by returning 
 to their simplicity, be now procured, the unearthly 
 acquisition would be well regained (p. 290).' " It 
 would seem that this unfair reference to parts of a 
 sentence, put together with the bracketed clause, to 
 make it express a meaning exactly the opposite to 
 that of its author, is followed by the reference, 
 p. 290, to give it an appearance of truth, without 
 even supposing that a reader might turn up the pas- 
 sage, to verify its falsehood and absurdity. As the 
 words stand, with the bracketed comment, on Dr. 
 Halley's page, they do not make sense ; and well de- 
 serve, in the meaning to which he would force them, 
 the coarse raillery with which they are followed. By 
 turning to p. 290, it is found that " these splendid pe- 
 culiarities " are contained in the things " which the 
 Spirit has recorded," but which Dr. Halley had under- 
 taken to prove to be impossible, and not in any sap- 
 posable " facts not recorded, '5 he, in the brackets, 
 affirms. The affirmation he ridicules is precisely the 
 opposite of the truth " j\Ir. Stovel " affirms. The 
 whole argument of the place is designed to show the 
 impropriety of Dr. Halley's attempting to prove im- 
 possible the things " which the Holy Spirit has re- 
 corded" as having taken place. Of these things 
 " which the Holy Spirit has recorded " of the apostleS 
 and their labour, two are named as " splendid pecu- 
 liarities" of " their times." First, they were attended 
 with " the constant working of Divine power," and 
 secondly, " An indwelling and guidance of the Spirit 
 characterised their times, which finds no parallel in 
 ours." These are not supposed, but " recorded," pecu- 
 
APOSTOLICAL PECULIARITIES. 131 
 
 liarities of the apostolic age. Will it be denied that such 
 things are " recorded " of the apostles ? It is written, 
 "they spake as the Spirit gave them utterance," 
 " God working with them," etc. But will Dr. Halley 
 laugh at them, or at a desire to recover thera at any 
 price of suffering ? Is it possible that Divine guidance 
 and the operation of Divine power in the church of 
 Christ are objects of derision to a minister of Christ ? 
 It surely cannot be : and yet there is a deliberate de- 
 sign manifest in this misrepresentation, which could 
 scarcely result from a momentary flash of feeling ; and 
 if he did not deride those objects, why, when the 
 Divine guidance and the operation of Divine power 
 enjoyed by the apostles are so clearly before him, 
 should the phrase which describes that Divine guidance 
 and power be broken up, and misquoted, to call forth 
 his exuberant capabilities in banter.' .Without some 
 inward deficiency, demanding watchfulness, in that 
 regard which is due from him to the Spirit and 
 power of God in his church, it seems impossible that 
 Dr. Halley's mind could have been so fully drawn away 
 from the solemn subjects there presented to him, 
 to the grossly absurd creation of his own audacious 
 ingenuity. Such license in the treatment of Divine 
 truth is beyond the allowance of good taste, even in 
 ordinary sarcasm : and, whatever the attitude it may 
 assume, grotesque or formidable, the passage it has 
 abused, and its sentiments in full, are still retained as 
 follow : — 
 
 " Before we begin to reason on these events, it is 
 incumbent on us to remember, that nothing which the 
 Spirit has recorded can be too hard for God to have 
 k2 
 
132 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 performed. Constant appeals to impossibility are 
 absurd, when placed against the constant working of 
 Divi?ie potver. He who was with these holy men (the 
 apostles, etc.) is able to do more than we can ask or 
 think. It was their confidence in this which gave the 
 firm and cheerful action to the disciples of that time, 
 and guided them through darkness. The searcher of 
 hearts confirmed to Peter the fact of Cornelius' faith ; 
 the Spirit directed Philip to the chariot and the Ethio- 
 pian ; and Ananias was guided by God himself to the 
 converted Saul. An indwelling and guidance of 
 the Spirit characterised their times, which finds no 
 parallel in ours. They moved as the Spii'it led them, 
 and spake as the Spirit gave them utterance ; and if 
 these splendid peculiarities could, by returning to their 
 (apostolical) simplicity, be now procured, though they 
 mig-ht bring the furnace of trial with them, the un- 
 earthly acquisition " (of Divine guidance and Divine 
 power) " would be well regained." (Discipleship Lec- 
 tures, pp. 289 — 290 ; "Wardlaw's Appendix, p. 334). 
 
 The Misprints. 
 
 The awful feature, bearing so marked and obvious 
 an approach to deliberate misrepresentation, presented 
 in the foregoing case, seriously diminishes the pleasure' 
 which would otherwise have been felt, in thanking 
 Dr. Halley for pointing out one or two errors that 
 escaped the author's notice when correcting his Lec- 
 tures on Christian Discipleship, as they passed through 
 the press. Having to perform that task mostly by 
 night, and often, to avoid neglecting other duties, 
 
THE MISPRINTS. 133 
 
 being so engaged till four or five o'clock in the morning, 
 too much was, through fatigue, left to the printer ; 
 and so, Theophylact passed with an " i " for a " y ,-'' 
 Dionysius was printed Dyonitius ; fjLaOrjreveiv, was, in 
 one instance, wrongly spelt ; " the apostle James, 
 quoted from the Alexandrine MS. of the Septuagiat " 
 was put for " the apostle James quoted from the Sep- 
 tuagint as represented in the Alexandrine MS. : and 
 finally, Rev. xvii. 5 — 7, was mistaken for Rev. xix. 13. 
 In all these cases our brother is right ; and the author 
 had been grieved, by observing these errors, before 
 they were censured bv his friend, in the Reply. It is 
 quite right that they should be censured ; for too many 
 inducements to accuracy can scarcely be supplied ; but 
 a generous regard to propriety would induce, in the 
 discharge of this duty, a just appreciation of the mis- 
 take to be corrected. If, as in this case, the misprints 
 do not at all aiFect the argument, the corrections might 
 easily be given in such a way as would not divert the 
 reader yrom the argument. Any one acquainted with 
 the errata of books will sympathise with an author in 
 such accidents ; but who will excuse the man who 
 makes use of them to evade the argument he has under- 
 taken to answer ? Dr. Halley could find the mistake 
 in treating Rev. xix. 13 ; but he must have known 
 that the argument rested on the vesture's being 
 DIPPED IN BLOOD, and the zealous action by which it 
 had been so stained ; not on the person who wore 
 it. It was dipped in blood ; and this was produced 
 to elucidate the word baptise, which, in one form, is 
 there used, and translated, dip, or immerse. This the 
 brother knew ; and, before he arrived at that sentence, 
 
134 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 on p. 495, he should have read the arguments which 
 extend from p. 479 to that place. In that space, 
 too, he must have found himself sorely chastised 
 for a former fault. There a short and easy English 
 method, with the word baptize, is proposed to sepa- 
 rate the study of its meaning from his former levities 
 in Greek criticism. Schedules are presented contain- 
 ing all those passages of the New Testament, in 
 which the word baptize occurs, or its derivatives ; and 
 he is asked to point out, in one schedule, where the word 
 is translated immerse, the obscurity which he pleads ; 
 or, in the other schedule, where the word is not trans- 
 lated, but transferred, to supply some other translation 
 than immerse, which will harmonise, in all the places, 
 with its literally translated connections. He must 
 have seen this, as well as the one mistake which can 
 in no possible way effect the argument. How could 
 he find the mistake without reading the pages .'' But 
 having read the pages and found the mistake, why did 
 he not explode the argument of the blunderer who 
 made it ? To have done this would, at least, have 
 broken one more bone in his adversary, and brought 
 the contest one step nearer to its close ; why, then, 
 was it not done ? He could not be afraid ; for he 
 says, " Mr. Stovel " "has not taken the trouble to 
 acquire a moderate knowledge of the (Greek ?) Ian- ' 
 guage." " Mr. Stovel " would not turn a straw to 
 alter Dr. Halley's opinion on that subject ; but then, 
 why, when Dr. Halley was himself chastised in these 
 very pages, for his mistreatment of a Greek verb, — why 
 did he lose the opportunity of crushing the argument 
 of so contemptible an opponent ? Did he mean to 
 
THE MISPRINTS. 135 
 
 spare his dear brother ? "Why, then, make use of 
 his unhappy, but unimportant, mistake ? To spare his 
 brother was not the intention of Dr. Halley. His in- 
 tention was to save himself, in any way he could; and, 
 therefore, baptizing this mistake in his own gall, and 
 dashing it in the eyes of his reader, he absconds, say- 
 ing nothing for chastisement formerly deserved, and 
 affecting contempt for reasoning which he could 
 not answer. 
 
 This Halleyan manoeuvre of finding a diversion in an 
 incident, if the subject were not too serious, from the 
 adroitness with which it is executed, so frequently, 
 and in such varied and unexpected circumstances, 
 might produce mirth. A man of one trick is, when 
 kept out of mischief, a prodigy. But here the 
 trickery cannot be separated from mischief. It is 
 known, perfectly well, that if the subject of baptism 
 can be written into nausea, the toleration of those 
 errors which unite with it will be secured, for a 
 time, because then people will not attend to evidence 
 on either side. The writing of one book, in which 
 scripture is misinterpreted, involves the examination 
 of other books to answer the misinterpretation. The 
 reply to this answer, in which it is misquoted, mis- 
 represented, and its chief arguments treated with 
 contempt, involves a reference to many other books 
 besides the one which is so abused. The end is, that 
 those whom the truth concern are unable to find it, 
 and therefore unable to follow it. The Hberty of the 
 press, by this flagrant neglect of propriety in its use 
 is made to accomplish that concealment of the 
 Divine will, which was sought by the Indices of Rome, 
 
136 FKATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 and the acts of the Inquisition. Formerly, it was the 
 practice first, to goad the Baptist brethren with legal 
 prosecutions as litigious disturbers of the peace ; and, 
 whenever they thus became compelled to defend the 
 truth committed to their care, their just and temperate 
 defences were buried in personal imputations, which, 
 though utterly unsustained, were brought to exem- 
 plify a gratuitous assumption of Christian charity, in 
 those who would not do them Justice. The labours of 
 Tractmen have now rendered it necessary that, to 
 prevent the return of popery, and the ruin of millions, 
 the theory of infant baptism itself should be reviewed ; 
 and its defence, if scriptural defence it have at all, re- 
 vised and amended, that it may no longer form, 
 through its alliance with the notion of baptismal bene- 
 fits, a shelter for the enemy, and a means of extend- 
 ing the sacramental pestilence. This necessity, 
 therefore, has been created, in the course of Pro- 
 vidence ; but what is the temper, the courtesy, the 
 Christian charity, the forbearing one another in love, 
 so ostentatiously boasted by advocates of infant bap- 
 tism, and so clearly enforced by the Redeemer on all 
 his servants ? where are those amiabihties of the re- 
 newed heart ? Let them be sought in the pages of 
 Dr. Halley's reply, in those evasions which have been 
 already noted, and in those which are to follow : and 
 then let the reader judge, if any language can be 
 found sufficiently strong to describe the case, and yet 
 sufficiently courteous to use, in addressing a minister 
 of Divine truth. 
 
( 137 ) 
 
 The Conscientious Affirmation. 
 
 The great moral danger which attends the use of 
 expedients such as those just named, is clear from the 
 following case. On page 75 of his Reply, Dr. Halley 
 says, " I can conscientiously say, that I have endea- 
 voured to notice every argument which appeared to 
 me to have any connexion with the controversy." 
 How " conscientiously" this is said must not be 
 disputed here ; but the accordance of this saying with 
 matters of fact and the truth of the case, forms a 
 just and indispensable subject of inquiry. " To 
 notice" should mean, in the connexion, to give such 
 attention to the argument as it deserved, to answer, 
 to refute it. This has been done in no one case 
 essential to " the controversy." The argument 
 brought by Tractmen from the epistolary passages, 
 as we have seen, he rejects, as unworthy of serious 
 refutation. The argument brought from prophecy 
 to prove the spirituality of tne Saviour's kingdom, 
 which, if it stand, must refute his theory of indis- 
 criminate initiation, he notices, but refuses to answer. 
 The testimony of those fathers to which he had him- 
 self appealed, is brought against him, and this is 
 noticed, but not refuted; and, in the last case here 
 presented, a mistake, which passed by accident, is 
 noticed, but the argument directed against his sixth 
 lecture on the Mode of Christian Baptism, contained 
 in those pages where he finds the mistake, he has 
 not noticed at all. That exposition of causes which 
 operated in producing the corruptions of the Chris- 
 
138 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 tian church, which he ascribes to believers* baptism 
 and the catechumenical schools, he has not consented 
 to consider at all. Though it explodes his theory of 
 " the corruption," he says,* " I do not see what con- 
 nexion the controversy has with the reasoning of this 
 lecture." If he " conscientiously" " cannot see the 
 connexion between his main assumption on this part 
 of his subject, and the reasoning which explodes it, 
 this may remove some of the difficultv ; but how he 
 can see what he sees, and notices, and yet conscien- 
 tiously say 1 have endeavoured to notice [answer] 
 every argument which appeared to me to have any 
 connexion with the controversy, while the seventeen 
 pages on the act of Christian baptism are not noticed 
 at all, remains to be explained from his own views of 
 Christian kindness and veracity. 
 
 It is of no use to quarrel with any man's capa- 
 bilities ; and it is not intended to complain of any 
 corrections that are suggested by any person what- 
 soever. Good temper is, of course required from all, 
 whether such favours are given or received. The 
 complaint which, with all the concessions that can be 
 made in his favour, must still be maintained against 
 our brother, is that the argument which had to be 
 considered, in ascertaining the will of our Lord 
 respecting the persons who are to be baptized into 
 his kingdom, was not considered, but avoided. In- 
 stead of labouring to show from the evidence sup- 
 plied, what sort of persons those were whom John 
 and Christ baptized ; Dr. Halley labours to show 
 
 * Lect. viii. and Reply, p. 73. 
 
THE " conscientious" AFFIRMATION. 139 
 
 what sort of a man " Mr. Stovel" is, who writes 
 against his new theory. This is paying his friend 
 too high a coraphment. What does the world care 
 ahout what sort of a man "Mr. Stovel" is? The 
 facts adduced by " Mr. Stovel" are the things to be 
 considered. These involve interests most important 
 to the world, and to the church. If these can but 
 obtain a proper and just regard from God's people, 
 and his holy ministers, so that the church may return 
 from useless inventions of men, to the laws of her 
 Redeemer and Lord ; it will not matter, by whom the 
 facts are presented, or what, in this world, becomes 
 of him who has presented them. 
 
 The Forty-seven Days. 
 
 One might suppose from the manner in which our 
 brother defends the rite of infant baptism, notwith- 
 standing the destructive and enslaving errors with 
 which it is combined, that it formed a department of 
 disputation created merely to show his own licentious 
 ingenuity. The example which follows, respecting 
 the interval between the resurrection and the Pente- 
 cost, painfully confirms this statement. This period, 
 distinguished by events which have no parallel in the 
 past history of this world, was, to distinguish it from 
 about three years spent by our Lord in conducting his 
 ministration before the crucifixion, designated " the 
 forty-seven days," Each period is defined in round 
 numbers to prevent any diversion from the main 
 thought, which must have been created by descending 
 to chronological diflnlculties ; and, in order to avoid 
 
140 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 placing the affirmations of the New Testament in 
 doubt, the terms there employed were used to place 
 before the reader the two parts of that period which 
 are essential to the argument. Forty days, Acts i. 3, 
 were employed by the Lord in exclusive converse 
 with his disciples, on things concerning the kingdom 
 of God. He rose from the dead on the third day, 
 making forty-three, this being deducted from fifty, 
 which gives the name to Pentecost, leaves seven days, 
 during which the disciples were waiting for the Spirit, 
 in the absence of their Lord, and surrounded with 
 the hostihties of Jerusalem. It is easy to see that, 
 by including or excluding the day on which the cal- 
 culation of time begins and ends, a difference of one 
 or two days might be created ; but to determine this, 
 was not the object. It was intended, by the aid of 
 these evangelical statements, to fix attention on the 
 transactions of that period, when the Lord, just 
 risen from the tomb, unfolded the first glories of his 
 endless life, and the disciples, believing the fact of his 
 resurrection, were waiting for power from on high. 
 It was requested that the facts of this period, briefly 
 stated as they are, might be considered, to ascertain, 
 if possible, whether they did or did not accord with 
 our brother's theory of indiscriminate initiation. This 
 was the real object for referring to that time, but 
 this object did not suit the purpose of our brother ; 
 he saw that it would not do ; the facts so brought 
 before him prove, in direct opposition to all he 
 has pleaded, "that these disciples are treated as no 
 unbelievers could be treated ; that they evolved a 
 character which unbelief could not sustain ; that their 
 
THE FORTY-SEVEN DATS. 141 
 
 work could not be performed by unbelievers ; that 
 their interests were ruined by the incorporation of 
 unbelievers ; that by law, and in fact, they were 
 separated and set apart for the Lord." Discipleship 
 Lects. p. 173. 
 
 To escape from this argument, Dr. Halley fixes 
 attention on the chronology, and says : — 
 
 " As Mr. Stovel is so precise in defining the time, 
 and so confident in his accuracy, as to convert the 
 result of his computation into the title of his lecture, 
 we are induced to inquire by what calendar he com- 
 putes the Jewish festivals. Be he right or wrong in 
 his computation, he computes the Pentecost as no 
 chronologist, Jew or Christian, ever computed it 
 before him." — Reply, p. 28. 
 
 It is strange that any man so full of " computation," 
 
 as this sentence indicates, did not ascertain, before he 
 
 wrote it, to what result its affirmation would lead 
 
 him. As to the " calendar" for which he inquires, the 
 
 one used by " Mr. Stovel," in correcting his Lectures 
 
 on Christian Discipleship, was that published in 1845, 
 
 by " Mr. DeLara, Chromo lithographer to the Queen," 
 
 "dedicated by permission to Sir Moses Montefiore, 
 
 F.R.S." If Dr. Halley has not seen this beautiful 
 
 pubhcation, '•' Mr. Stovel" will be glad to present him 
 
 with the copy which was then used ; and, there it 
 
 will be seen that, in the Jewish svnasroffue, now, and 
 ' .00'' 
 
 before " Mr. Stovel" wrote, Jewish chronologists 
 had "computed the Pentecost" as he did. Jesus 
 fixed the Passover to be prepared on the 14th of 
 Nisan ; on the 15th he suffered, on the 17th he 
 rose from the dead, and from the 17th to the 
 
142 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 Passover, are found in the Calendar forty- seven days 
 exactly, as stated in the Lectures which our brother 
 professes to refute. The affirmation of Dr. Halley, 
 before given, therefore, is flatlv untrue. 
 
 But further, he says : "In reckoning from the 
 fourteenth day of the first month, he leaves us to 
 inquire why he departs from the command of the 
 Lord given to Moses ; * and ye shall count unto you 
 from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day 
 that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering,' etc.. 
 Lev. xxiii. 15, 16." To this inquiry the answer is, 
 "Mr. Stovel" has not departed from the command- 
 ment of the Lord. This " command of the Lord," 
 was not the subject of investigation before him. He 
 was considering the command and practice of the 
 Lord, in baptizing and treating his disciples. The 
 evidence to be considered lay within a given period 
 of time defined, by a Jewish practice ; the legal pro- 
 priety of that practice had nothing to do with the 
 subject. The law in Lev. xxiii. 15, 16, ordains the 
 feast of seven weeks to begin with the offering of the 
 sheaf of first fruits, or from the time thou beginnest to 
 put the sickle to the corn, which must depend upon 
 the time of harvest, Deut. xvi. 9. The law of the 
 Passover fixed it from the 14th to the 21st of Nisan, 
 the first month. In the time of our Lord, the feast 
 of first fruits was holden on the loth of Nisan, judg- 
 ing from "the Calendar," on the 16th according to 
 Josephus ; but as the latter reckons the forty-nine 
 days to Pentecost from the 16th, and it is not clear 
 whether that day is included ; and since the law of 
 Moses does not require that the variable feast of 
 
THE " FORTY-SEVEN DATS." 143 
 
 first fruits should be holden on any day of the Pass- 
 over, but when the corn was ripe, it was not deemed 
 proper to load the inA-estigation of " Mr. Stovel" 
 with this doubtful disputation ; and therefore " the 
 Calendar" with the gospels, were taken as authority 
 sufficiently clear for his purpose. 
 
 If the title chosen for the lecture has led our 
 brother into temptation, this is matter for regret, but 
 with all the difficulties fully considered, it appears 
 that, " Mr. Stovel's" description of the time has the 
 greatest probability of being right, and it is not so 
 likely to divert a reader from the subject before him, 
 as any departure from ordinary scriptural expressions 
 must be. It "was not designed to conceal his thought 
 m chronological curiosities. " Mr. Stovel" intended 
 to show, as he has shown, and to secure in his reader 
 a prayerful consideration of the fact, that without any 
 further discriminating process whatever, the Lord, 
 through this period, define it how you may, appeared 
 to these disciples and walked amongst them, con- 
 versing of the things respecting the kingdom of 
 heaven ; that he did this when he would no more 
 meet an unbaptized person on any account whatever, 
 though he had the greatest provocation and induce- 
 ment ; and therefore, that these disciples wej-e dis- 
 criminated. By the practical intention of our Lord, 
 the nature of his communion, the conduct of his dis- 
 ciples, and the Pentecostal scene, it is proved that 
 this discrimination of the disciples from the world, 
 which took place before any "voluntary churches," as 
 they are called, had an existence in the body of 
 Christ, was based . on their faith. They formed an 
 
144 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 incorporation of faith. It was nothing less, and it 
 could have been nothing more. The society in which 
 our Lord appeared, during this period, was a society 
 of baptized believers. This, Dr. Halley must have 
 see?i. He would not have turned from the path of 
 the reasoning, had he not seen something before him 
 to shun. This evasion, let the reader judge, could 
 never have been constructed by accident ; and the 
 deliberate design of such an evasion has a voice in it : 
 for, it is against nature to suppose that, where such 
 intense desire for victory is cherished, an argument 
 would ever be evaded, at such expense, if, by any 
 means within his power, Dr, Halley had supposed 
 himself able to refute it. 
 
 The words in the Reply are worthy of the design 
 they were intended to accomplish. " But what was 
 done in these forty-seven days ? During that time 
 the commission of cur Lord was given to his disci- 
 ples."* As if to be ready for a contradiction it is not 
 said positively that nothing else was done ; but it is 
 fully implied, and the subsequent reasoning is based 
 on that assumption. The transactions of that period 
 having been referred to, it was incumbent on Dr, 
 Halley to consider, at least, the eleven recorded inter- 
 views which were permitted to the disciples ; and 
 before it could be conscientiously affirmed that every 
 argument, in the book to be exposed, had been no- 
 ticed or answered, it should seem that the reasoning 
 founded on these interviews ought to have obtained 
 some kind of refutation. But they are altogether 
 
 * Reply, p. 30. 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 145 
 
 passed by, and the advocate hastens to hi^ strong 
 hold in the " commission." The strength of this, 
 therefore, must be considered next. 
 
 " The Commission." 
 
 It is matter for sincere regret to the writer, that 
 a greater opportunity for concession to the feehngs of 
 his friend is not allowed by the just claims of Divine 
 truth. Considering how Dr. Halley feels and suffers 
 under the fate of his reasoning on this scripture, every 
 humane man would earnestly desire to soften the case 
 as much as possible ; but the truth cannot be com- 
 promised ; and, however one may grieve, it cannot be 
 helped if the lips of our brother, now and then, 
 appear to devour himself. Such things are very un- 
 fortunate, but they cannot be avoided', and they will 
 be noticed only so far as the interest of truth renders 
 it indispensable. 
 
 One example of this peculiar wisdom is found in 
 the following words, " Mr, Stovel does not under- 
 stand the most common grammatical terms he em- 
 ploys."* It is scarcely wise, in any author, thus to 
 load himself with the obhgation of proving a negative. 
 "When the work before him proved that " Mr. Stovel" 
 had, either knowingly or unknowingly, laid at his 
 feet so much evidence that Dr. Halley was unable to 
 face it, it was cruel to himself thus to undertake to 
 prove what " Mr. Stovel" does not know. If the 
 rules of grammar be against Dr. Halley, why should 
 
 * Reply, p. 41. 
 L 
 
146 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 it be discussed whether " Mr. Stovel" understands 
 them or not. Dr. Halley is too much concerned for 
 his brother, and too Httle for the reasoning. 
 
 The reasoning of " Mr. Stovel," with reference to 
 the commission of our Lord, was designed to show, 
 first, what the Lord intended thereby to enjoin on his 
 disciples ; and secondly, in what way the grammatical 
 structure of his words might be explained, without 
 that violation of a known rule in grammar for which 
 Dr. Halley pleads. With all the unseemly personali- 
 ties introduced into his reply, our brother has not 
 answered the reasoning on either of these points ; 
 and, therefore, when brought before the reader in a 
 brief restatement, they will stand against the advocate 
 of infant baptism, sustained by their references to 
 arguments which are stated, more copiously, in the 
 Lectures on Christian Discipleship. 
 
 Our Lord's injunction related to the ministration 
 of his word and the extension of his kingdom on 
 earth, by his disciples, and their successors, after he 
 had ascended to the Father and tbey had received, at 
 Pentecost, the promise of the Father, the power from 
 on high, that is, after they had been endowed with 
 the Holy Spirit. As all power was now given unto 
 him, the Lord ascended to heaven, taking all its 
 affairs into his own hands ; the conduct of his king- 
 dom on earth was intrusted to his disciples, with that 
 injunction, the import of which we have to ascertain, 
 and those on which he had conversed with them, 
 during forty days, before his ascension. Acts i. 3. 
 
 Whatever might have transpired during this period, 
 without finding any authentic record, can never be 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 147 
 
 admitted as evidence, in this inquiry, unless it be first 
 revealed to us of God ; but nothing that has been 
 recorded should be passed over with neglect. Hence 
 it was thought, and it is still thought, that one legi- 
 timate and just method of ascertaining the intention 
 of the Lord is, to compare and to unite all his ex- 
 pressions referring to the same subject, and delivered 
 by himself, between the resurrection and ascension. 
 It is not to be conceived that, during this period, 
 when he was giving a law to be acted upon until his 
 second coming, He could have contradicted himself. 
 Of all possible interpretations, of any one of these in- 
 structions, therefore, that is to be preferred in which 
 they all harmonize. (Discipleship, p. 235.) 
 
 The three passages, besides Matth. xxviii. 19, 
 which thus demand consideration here, are Acts i. 8, 
 Luke xxiv. 44—49, and Mark xvi; 15—18. All 
 these passages relate to the same work ; they were 
 delivered during the same period, when the disciples 
 were preparing for that work ; some of them might 
 have formed part of the same discourse in which the 
 words recorded by Matthew were delivered ; and 
 certainly all were given to the same body of disciples, 
 who had, by one united labour, to secure, by observ- 
 ing them, the blessing of God in the salvation of 
 men. 
 
 In Acts i. 8, therefore, having forbidden a vain 
 curiosity, be says, " But ye shall receive power, after 
 that the Holy Ghost is come upon you ; and ye shall 
 be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all 
 Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part 
 of the earth." This then was the character which 
 l2 
 
148 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 they were to sustain. As witnesses to the Lord they 
 received his commission ; and, in obedience to that 
 commission, they were to be witnesses unto him, in 
 Jerusalem, in Judea, in Samaria, and unto the utter- 
 most part of the earth. 
 
 But a witness must have something to testify ; and, 
 a witness unto the Lord, must have something to 
 testify concerning the Lord. What then were they 
 to testify ? Luke xxiv. 48, " and ye are witnesses of 
 these things," that " thus it behoved Christ to suffer, 
 and to rise from the dead the third day ; and that 
 repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
 in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusa- 
 lem," (verse 46, 47,) and ye are witnesses of these 
 things, of this death, this resurrection of the Christ, 
 its ordained necessity, and its merciful result, the 
 preaching of repentance in his name, on his authority, 
 among all nations ; beginning at Jerusalem, but be- 
 coming witnesses unto him of these things in Jeru- 
 salem, in Judea, in Samaria, and unto the uttermost 
 part of the earth. 
 
 A witness going through all the nations unto the 
 uttermost part of the earth, testifying unto the Lord, 
 that his death and resurrection were predicted, and 
 divinely appointed events, through which repentance 
 and forgiveness of sins should be on his sole authority 
 preached through all the nations, must have had 
 some object in this work. What was it ? was it a 
 splendid pastime .'' or was it intended to accomplish 
 some important end ? We are told in Mark xvi. 
 15 — 18, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
 gospel," the glad tidings " to every creature. He 
 
"the commission." 149 
 
 that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he 
 that believeth not shall*be damned. And these signs 
 shall follow them that believe ; in my name shall they 
 cast out devils ; they shall speak with nev? tongues ; 
 they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any 
 deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay 
 hands on the sick, and they shall recover." This is 
 no pastime, it is serious as the possibility of escaping 
 damnation can make it, and it shows that the testi- 
 mony is borne, as any one might expect, in order that 
 it might be received, it was borne to produce faith. 
 These disciples testified, that men might beheve. 
 In this way John bore his testimony when writing his 
 gospel. These things were written, (he says) that 
 ye might believe ; and that, believing, ye may have 
 life through his name ; for, to every one that receiveth 
 him he giveth power to become the. sons of God, 
 even to as many as believe on his name, who are born, 
 not of the will of man, but of water and of the Spirit, 
 and so of God. The words of the Lord and those of 
 his beloved disciple lead to the same thing. The 
 words of John prove, that he who believeth on the 
 name of Jesus, hath power to become a son of God ; 
 the words of Jesus teach, that he who believeth shall 
 be, as a child using the father's power, where he 
 allows it. The baptism and the faith are, in both, 
 united. The faith is, in both, made indispensable to 
 every hope. The whosoever beheveth in him, of John, 
 is confirmed and elucidated by the expressions, 
 " unto all the world," '* to every creature," " among 
 all nations," and "to the uttermost part of the earth," 
 with other expressions of universahty, in the words of 
 
150 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 the Lord. All these declarations of the Lord, with 
 all the explanatory testimony of John, who, when he 
 was the last of the apostles upon earth, appears to us 
 performing the very thing which his beloved Lord 
 commanded, in his hearing, exhibit to us one heavenly 
 ordained system of administration, by which faith 
 should be produced, by inteUigible instruction, and 
 living testimony ; and, when so produced, be recog- 
 nized in the act of Christian baptism. 
 
 These facts operate in two ways. They prove that 
 the disciples, to whom these words were given, must 
 have been recognized believers ; and also, that the 
 command to disciple others could never have been 
 understood by them, in any sense which did not com- 
 prehend the indispensable qualification of faith. 
 
 When the effect of these communications, in the 
 ministry of John, and the earthly ministrations of our 
 Lord, both of which had now been completed, is consi- 
 dered, the proof is obvious, and unanswerable, that the 
 society they formed, of persons baptized into the king- 
 dom of heaven, was composed of individuals whose 
 faith had been confessed and recognized ; and, since 
 the supper had not been instituted until after their 
 recognition, and these injunctions were given to dis- 
 ciples who were not present at the supper, the recog- 
 nition of their faith must have taken place in their 
 baptism. All these injunctions clearly imply the ex- 
 istence of their faith, and also the fact that its recog- 
 nition had transpired. How could they become wit- 
 nesses of what they had neither seen nor experienced? 
 How could they bear witness unto him in whom they 
 did not beheve ? Without repeating what has been 
 
"the commission." 151 
 
 so fully explained before, it is obvious that the sup- 
 position is a moral impossibility. (Disciplesbip, Lec- 
 ture V.) 
 
 Nor must it be forgotten, that the same persons 
 who received the injunction, as recorded by Matthew, 
 which relates to this same work, and was delivered by 
 the Lord at the same period, when they were waiting 
 for the Spirit to begin their great task, received also 
 the instructions which are conveyed in these three pas- 
 sages. These instructions, therefore, must harmonize 
 with that which Matthew records. All were given to 
 persons who had heard the Saviour teach the absolute 
 confidence, in him, which his service and fellowship 
 required ; and, their subjection to him, at the time 
 these instructions were given, and after the Pentecost, 
 as well as before it, proves that they had not heard 
 in vain. By this they showed what they understood 
 to be the nature of Christian disciplesbip. Disciple- 
 ship, without faith, could have no place in their imagi- 
 nations ; yet, without any explanation, they are 
 commanded to go and disciple others. How could 
 they understand this in any other way than that in 
 which they were enjoined to make others believe and 
 obey the Lord as they themselves did ? Dr. Halley's 
 refusing to consider this fact, and the passages by 
 which it is ascertained, is positive proof of its fatal 
 power against the theory for which he pleads. But 
 the inference is not all that has to be considered. 
 Without repeating what is already in more than a 
 thousand hands, we have the testimony of an eye- 
 witness ; of one, who was present when all these in- 
 junctions of our Lord were given to his disciples ; of 
 one, who was himself a disciple, an apostle, bound in 
 
152 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 every way by those very instructions, and the last who 
 lived to act upon them. The apostle John, not at an 
 early period, but when he had watched the operations 
 of the church for at least sixty years, when presiding 
 over one of the churches planted by Paul ; and, long 
 after Paul had explained the one faith and one baptism 
 to these Ephesians; when the words of Paul, "As many 
 as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ, 
 ye are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus," must 
 have been fully known and universally acted upon ; 
 when the same John was the only inspired man left 
 upon the earth, and when, warned by the apocalyptic 
 vision, he was completing the volume of inspiration, 
 when every motive was supplied to correct a mistake, 
 i such existed, and, when the record of events which 
 prove the Divine majesty of his Lord had moved the 
 sweet affections of his soul to their very depths, then, 
 this aged, holy, and inspired man, who could not lie, 
 in such a case, positively affirms that, his Lord, whose 
 glory he saw, whose words he heard, on whose breast 
 he reclined, the Lord who gave this commission, gave 
 power to become sons of God, only to those who 
 received him, to them that believed on his name ; 
 that these were born of water, of the Spirit, of God ; 
 and his testimony proves that, if any other persons, 
 not receiving Christ, nor believing on his name, were 
 baptized into Christ, and placed, as sons, in the family 
 of God without faith in Christ Jesus, it was by some 
 other authority than that of the Redeemer, whom 
 John so tenderly adored and loved.* 
 
 * The language in wtiich this evidence is rejected by Dr. 
 Halley, in his Reply, p. 32, is passed over, because " Mr. 
 Stovel" does not feel answerable for its manifold improprieties. 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 153 
 
 However an advocate may, in his desire for victory, 
 deprecate this evidence, seeing that it comes from the 
 Lord, and from one whom the Lord so highly ap- 
 proved, it is for the reader to consider, within him- 
 self, how far he is or can he at liberty to withhold 
 from it a due regard. If faith in Christ mean any- 
 thing, it must include a wilhngness to learn what 
 Christ has, so manifestly, taught and enjoined. The 
 truth which is thus ascertained is also of the greatest 
 importance in the case. It proves that believers 
 baptized into Christ are his witnesses, bound to 
 testify to him, that his death and resurrection were 
 ordained of God, that repentance and forgiveness of 
 sins were thus to be proclaimed, in his name, to every 
 creature in Jerusalem, in Samaria, through all the 
 nations unto the uttermost part of the earth, — that he 
 who believeth and is baptized might be saved, and 
 every one who believed in the name of the Lord, that 
 is, received him, had power to become a son of God ; 
 but, that he who believeth not, shall be " damned.'' 
 notwithstanding all that mercy has prepared and pro- 
 claimed. All these points relating to the ministration 
 of Divine truth and the conduct of the church of 
 Christ, are thus determined. The words recorded bv 
 Matthew teach, in addition, that the persons baptized 
 shall be baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit, and taught to observe all things 
 whatsoever the Lord had commanded his disciples to 
 observe. But the supper was instituted by the Lord ; 
 and, with its observance, the duty of rejoicing in the 
 Lord, and of loving one another, and of being ready 
 to die for his sake, was enjoined on all the disciples ; 
 
154 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 and therefore, by the words of Matthew, the persons 
 baptized were to observe these things ; they were to 
 observe all things whatsoever the Lord commanded 
 his disciples to observe ; and therefore, they were to 
 eat the supper, rejoice in him, love one another, and 
 die for his sake when he required it. They therefore 
 must be believers ; for, none who do not believe can 
 eat the supper lawfully, or rejoice in him, or love the 
 saints, or die for his sake. But every believer bap- 
 tized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit, is a disciple, come from what nation so- 
 ever he may ; and therefore, those who fulfil the 
 injunction, which Mark and Luke have recorded, and 
 to which John has borne his testimony, will also fulfil 
 the injunction which Matthew has recorded. They 
 will go into all the world, bear witness through all the 
 nations ; as far as the Lord blesses them in their work 
 they will lead men to believe, and then baptize them, 
 even unto the uttermost part of the earth. Thus, indi- 
 viduals shall be made disciples unto the uttermost part 
 of the earth ; and, when it shall please the Lord that 
 all individuals shall become believers, be baptized into 
 the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 
 and be taught to observe all things whatsoever the 
 Lord commanded his disciples to observe, then all the 
 nations will have been discipled. It matters little 
 which way the passages are studied ; the harmonizing 
 of them all secures the full meaning of each ; and if, 
 in order to make way for the baptism of infants and 
 unbehevers.our brother had not introduced the gram- 
 matical discussion, this plain common-sense view of 
 the case, pleaded for in the Lectures, would have an- 
 
"the commission." 155 
 
 swered every purpose that a Christian is bound to en- 
 tertain. The case requires no separation of the 
 passages whatever ; taken in their natural sense, they 
 harmonise in the fulness of their meaning, like all 
 other injunctions that come to us from God. 
 
 One of the most convincing proofs that infant and 
 Mwbeliever baptism is wrong, rises into view at this 
 point. In no aspect it presents, and in no method 
 chosen for its defence will this practice, bear a free, 
 direct, and full appeal to holy scripture for its support. 
 It may be dressed in the poetry of imagination, and 
 patched over with pieces of scripture, but all reason- 
 ing on its behalf, falls before the harmony and ful- 
 ness of scripture passages. If every advocate for 
 this ceremony were tied down to the intended use of 
 each passage he quotes, and never permitted to ter- 
 minate his investigation, or to affirm anything until 
 all the inspired authorities are made to agree in his 
 conclusion, no man would ever dare'to undertake a 
 scriptural defence of infant baptism. It must have 
 some inference from Jewish rites, ancient covenants, 
 antecedent notions, or some piecemeal argumenta- 
 tion, or it finds no resource. Hence our brother, 
 with all his mental power, could not undertake the 
 harmonizing of these inspired records, in support of 
 his theory, because the very attempt must have 
 proved its destruction. One, therefore, must be 
 taken apart ; and then, a part of that one passage 
 must be evaded; and when the startling fact pre- 
 sents itself, that, in the text of Mark, it is written, 
 " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," 
 he says, " If it be asked why belief should be men- 
 
156 FRATKKNAIi EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 tioned before baptism," " we must protest against the 
 assumption that reasons for the collocation of words 
 are to be required in controversy " — " why behef 
 should be mentioned before baptism, we are not 
 bound to explain." * " Our commission is to disci- 
 ple as many as we can, by baptizing and by teach- 
 ing them. Some may choose to baptize only those 
 who are taught ; and others, with as good reason, 
 may teach only those who are baptized. Adhering 
 to the literality of the commission, we admit 
 no exceptions, either in the baptizing or in the 
 teaching, regarding the extent of our ability as the 
 only limit of our obedience." f "Adhering, there- 
 fore, to the grammar of the words, we say the 
 commission, which no man has a right to alter, is 
 — baptize all the nations." | 
 
 When the intention of our Lord respecting any 
 point of Christian duty is to be ascertained, all his 
 declarations relating to that duty, should be con- 
 sidered together ; and no conclusion can be safe when 
 founded on a part of his instructions only. Moreover, 
 when each part of his instructions is to be considered, 
 that interpretation of his word, in each passage, which 
 secures the harmony of all his instructions, on the duty 
 to be ascertained, is more safe than any plausible inter- 
 pretation of one passage, which brings it into opposition 
 with the rest. Lastly, in studying the import of any 
 one passage, no interpretation can be admitted that 
 will not allow us to give the full meaning of each word 
 it contains, and to harmonise the meaning of them all 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 510. f Ibid. p. 578. J Ibid. p. 489. 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 157 
 
 with the known intention of the speaker. All these 
 laws are violated by our brother in his proposed in- 
 terpretation of Matt, xxviii. 1 9, 20. The instruction 
 there recorded is separated from all the other instruc- 
 tions given by our Lord with reference to the same 
 duty — the conduct and enlargement of his church. 
 Secondly, the interpretation proposed by our friend, of 
 this one passage, stands in essential opposition to the 
 instructions of our Lord which have been named be- 
 fore. So rendered it gives, without any change of 
 heart, to every one, power to become sons of God ; 
 when Jesus gave that power, or privilege, only to 
 those who believe on his name. Lastly, the inter- 
 pretation proposed by our brother will not allow all 
 the words in this passage, itself, to express their full 
 meaning in harmony with each other and the known 
 intention of the Lord. "To baptize all the nations," 
 — this interpretation being, at present, admitted, — is 
 not the same as "to baptize them into the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit :" and " to teach" 
 all the nations, does not express the full meaning of 
 Matthew's words, " teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you." The terms which 
 modify, the baptizing and the teaching, are left out, 
 and must be left out, to make way for the interpreta- 
 tion proposed, and any interpretation requiring such 
 omissions ought never to be received. 
 
 The persons that are "to observe all things whatso- 
 ever I have commanded you," are the persons to be 
 baptized : and if the persons, when baptized, must be 
 taught to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you to observe, then the persons to be bap- 
 
158 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 tized must also be qualified, in all other respects, for 
 the observance of " all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded you " to observe. But Dr. Halley himself 
 admits that some things, as the supper, are, in the 
 kingdom of Christ, lawful only to believers. To be- 
 lieve, therefore, is an essential qualification to the 
 observance of " all things whatsoever I have com- 
 manded ;" and therefore it is an essential qualification 
 to the baptism. No rule for discriminating disciples, 
 after baptism, so that some should be admitted to 
 fellowship, and others not, has ever yet been presented 
 by Divine authority : the churches who act upon this 
 rule are built upon a fiction. This commission, 
 " which no man has a right to alter," proves that 
 the qualification to perfect fellowship must be the 
 qualification to baptism. 
 
 The other omission is not less important. It is not 
 said simply " baptizing them ;" but " baptizing them 
 into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit." However this phrase may have been ne- 
 glected, surely it could not have been vainly employed 
 by the Redeeemer. He would not use the name 
 of God in vain. The words, therefore, must not 
 be left out in the interpretation. The name of 
 God, therefore, is put for his authority, as in the 
 Saviour's words, " I have come in the name of my 
 Father, and ye have not received me ; if another 
 should come in his own name, him ve will re- 
 ceive " (John V. 43). The Lord came in the name 
 of his Father; and so, the dispensation has the 
 authority of the Father. Repentance and forgiveness 
 are preached in the name of the Lord himself; and so, 
 
•• THE COMMISSION." 159 
 
 the dispensation has the authority of the Son. The 
 disciples are commanded not to act icithout the Holy 
 Spirit ; and so, the authority of the Holy Spirit is 
 given. All these three authorities combine, in one, 
 to which the members of the kingdom of heaven are 
 all subject ; and to which the administration of that 
 kingdom must, in all things, conform. In this name 
 the disciples of our Lord were to act, to pray, to hope, to 
 rejoice, confide, cast out devils, and, finally, overcome 
 the world with all its opposing authorities. Some- 
 times the name of Christ is put alone, not to exclude 
 the Father and the Spirit, but because, by his autho- 
 rity, both the others are brought within our reach. 
 A glance at those things, which are thus performed in 
 the name, by the authority, of Christ, would show at 
 once the sacredness of this act by which persons are 
 admitted into his name, and recognised in its use. 
 The exercise of mind which its use requires, exhibits 
 this still more clearly, since a person baptized into 
 this authority is bound to seek its intimations, in all 
 things wherever it can be obtained ; and to obey it, 
 whatever it imposes. Nothing, in the history of man, 
 has ever yet exceeded the glory of those deeds which 
 God has performed through those who acted in this 
 name. On it, from the first, was, by sovereign grace, 
 suspended the salvation of this sinful world ; and, in 
 the end, this salvation of the world shall be efiected 
 by this means alone. Each individual baptized into 
 Christ, into his name, therefore, was as those baptized 
 into Moses (1 Cor. x. 1), holden to his engagement, 
 and, in mercy or in wrath, subjected under that autho- 
 rity. The entering into the name of the Father, the 
 
160 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, was the most solemn and 
 most cheering act performed in a sinner's history : 
 and the being baptized into that name could be no 
 less. It constituted him an agent in the kingdom of 
 heaven : one in whom, on whom, and by whom this 
 authority of the holy Trinity shall be exercised on 
 earth. By being baptized into it, he put it on, as- 
 sumed it ; and, by the words of the commission itself, 
 was justified in assuming it, to the full communion of 
 the bodv of Christ ; for, the persons, be they who 
 they may, who are baptized into the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are to be 
 taught to observe all things whatsoever Jesus had en- 
 joined on his disciples. Was this to be done without 
 faith ? Did the Lord command the disciples to bap- 
 tize the nations into an authority, which they neither 
 trusted nor feared ? or, of which they knew nothing ? 
 The supposition is absurd in theory, and unjust in 
 practice. To enforce a social subjection of this kind, 
 without an indi\nduars consent, would be compulsion 
 the most demoralizing ; to assume that subjection, 
 in appearance, voluntarily, without believing in the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is profound 
 hvpocrisy ; and neither could lead to the observing 
 of whatsoever Jesus had enjoined on his disciples ; 
 for, they were to be perfect, even as their Father in 
 heaven is perfect, holy, and unblameable, before him, 
 in love. 
 
 If it could be supposed that God, Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit, would grant their authority in the king- 
 dom of heaven, to persons who had no faith in the 
 Divine veracity, no hope in the Divine mercy, and no 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 161 
 
 subjection to the Divine will ; that is to say, that 
 persons were, and were to be, baptized into the name, 
 etc. without faith, or even the power of exercising it ; 
 yet some pains should be taken to show what these 
 words mean. An appeal to the commission which 
 begins by striking out of it its essential terms cannot 
 be admitted as safe. Moreover, the consideration of 
 those terms shows the symmetry of inspired truth, 
 and the oneness of God's revelation to man ; for, 
 when these modifications of baptism, and the teaching 
 which is to follow it, come before us, it is clear that 
 the persons entering into the name, and observing all 
 things whatsoever the Lord had commanded his dis- 
 ciples to observe, must be qualified for the use of that 
 name, and the observance of those commands, in some 
 way ; and this must either be in the baptism, after the 
 baptism, or before the baptism. But the commission 
 does not say baptize them, etc., and then, afterwards, 
 when they have been converted, teach them to observe 
 all things, etc. The preparation for fellowship after 
 baptism, therefore, has no place in the comraisson. 
 The Tractmen, therefore, plead that the qualification 
 is obtained in the baptism, and then bring up to sup- 
 port this affirmation the epistolary passages, which 
 our friend so much dislikes. If he shrink into this 
 one passage only, therefore, the Tractmen will follow 
 him, until he finds some qualification which is not ob- 
 tained after baptism, nor yet conveyed in baptism ; 
 but which must have been ascertained before baptism ; 
 and, whatever this be, it will make the baptism dis- 
 criminating. Our brother himself admits also that 
 
 M 
 
162 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 faith is necessary to some Christian duties ; but the 
 baptized person is bound to observe all, and faith in 
 Christ Jesus alone quahfies to all. This faith, there- 
 fore, which is the qualification to all fellowship, must 
 be the qualification to all baptism : and believer's bap- 
 tism is, in the words of the commission, as in the 
 epistolary passages, the only refuge from sacramental 
 efficacy. 
 
 Our brother's refuge, in the Reply, is sought in the 
 preparation for communion which he proposes after 
 baptism. This is not a neio thought, but it is here 
 pleaded too late. The Tractmen are before him. 
 They have proved that conversion, etc., is never urged 
 on any person after baptism, as a thing necessary for 
 the first time ; repentance for sin committed after 
 baptism may be urged in scripture, but the beginning 
 of the new life is never, in the inspired writings, urged 
 on baptized persons. This cannot be disproved ; and, 
 though all kindness might be due to a brother in dis- 
 tress, yet he, having appealed to the commission, 
 must fall before it : for there the baptized persons are 
 supposed to be qualified for Christian fellowship, and 
 there is no word in it that justifies a qualification for 
 fellowship after baptism : so, also, there is no word 
 that justifies us in expecting a spiritual qualification 
 for fellowship in baptism : the words baptizing them 
 into the name, etc., prove that in the persons so bap- 
 tized a sufficient qualification for Christian fellowship 
 had been previously ascertained. Whatever might 
 be said respecting the necessity of baptism to fellow- 
 ship, the commission to which our brother appeals. 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 163 
 
 and " ivhich no man has a right to alter," leaves no 
 doubt that a profession of faith is indispensable to 
 baptism. 
 
 A single glance at those passages which it is so 
 earnestly desired to separate and avoid, will show, 
 still further, the importance of those terms which our 
 brother has struck out of the " commission," to which 
 he so positively appeals. Judging from the best har- 
 mony of the gospels that can be obtained, it would 
 appear that the words recorded by Mark xvi. 15, 
 Luke xxiv, 45, and John xx. 21, were delivered to 
 the disciples by our Lord during the fifth recorded in- 
 terview, which was holden with them after his resur- 
 rection. The words by Matthew appear to have been 
 delivered during the eighth, and the words in 
 Acts i. 3 — 8, during the eleventh and last interview, 
 in which he ascended before them. In the three 
 first passages the Lord distinctly said, " As the 
 Father sent me, so send I you" (John xx. 21). 
 " Ye are my witnesses of these things, that so it was 
 written, and so it behoved the Christ to sufi'er and to 
 rise from the dead on the third day, and that, on his 
 authority, a repentance and forgiveness of sins should 
 be preached among all the nations, beginning at Jeru- 
 salem : and behold I send the promise of my Father 
 upon you, but remain ye in the city (Jerusalem) until 
 ye are endued with power from on high" (Luke xxiv. 
 45) . Then, " going into all the world, proclaim ye the 
 glad tidings to every creature, he who believeth and 
 is baptized shall be saved ; but he who believeth 
 not shall be condemned" ( Mark xvi. 15). From 
 these words of their^ Lord, the disciples could be left 
 M 2 
 
164 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 in no doubt respecting the nature of their work as 
 witnesses : no obscurity remained over their object — 
 it was that men might believe and be baptized into 
 Christ, and so obtain the forgiveness of sins which is 
 preached in his name. The third passage renews the 
 promise of power, by the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
 received at Pentecost, and of the character as wit- 
 nesses to him, to which they should so attain, in 
 Jerusalem, in all Judea, in Samaria, and unto the 
 uttermost part of the earth (Acts i. 3 — 8). ; What 
 was required in the character and qualification of a 
 disciple they knew from the teaching of John, of the 
 Lord himself, and from the discipline through which 
 they were then passing. Confidence in his word, 
 sufficiency, and work, and subjection to his will, 
 were, unquestionably, indispensable in those who had 
 to follow whithersoever he led them, and to lay 
 down their lives for his sake. To break the ties of 
 consanguinity, and trample on all interest, for one in 
 whom we do not believe, is manifestly absurd. The 
 moral qualification of a disciple, therefore, was known ; 
 the spiritual aim of discipleship was also known ; the 
 means to be employed in leading men to become dis- 
 ciples was known, and the baptismal initiation of 
 disciples was known ; — what then remained to form 
 the subject of a new instruction ? The case is so 
 plain that it can scarcely be mistaken. The Divine 
 authority to which disciples were subjected " in the 
 kingdom of heaven," was, in the ministrations of 
 John, expected from the Father, by the coming Lord ; 
 subjection to him, therefore, was both pledged and 
 recognised in their baptism. The Divine authority to 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 165 
 
 which disciples where subjected " in the kingdom 
 of heaven," in the ministrations of Jesus, was declared 
 from the Father by the Lord himself; subjection to 
 that present Lord, therefore, was pledged and recog- 
 nised in the baptism. But when the Lord was risen 
 and ascended, and the Spirit, whom the world cannot 
 see, descended into the church, the authority to which 
 disciples in the kingdom were subject was declared 
 fi'om the Father and the Son, through the Spirit. The 
 authority of the Spirit, therefore, had to be recog- 
 nized in the baptism, and the commandments of the 
 Lord required confirmation, lest it should be supposed 
 that the Spirit would set them aside. Hence the 
 chief object of those words that Matthew has recorded. 
 It was not so much to command the making of dis- 
 ciples, and the baptizing of disciples, both which had 
 been defined and enforced before, but to enjoin that 
 in their work now, when it recoitimenced under the 
 ministration of the Spirit, the disciples should be bap- 
 tized, not into the name, authority, "of the coming one," 
 nor into the name, authority, of Christ alone ; but since 
 all authority in the kingdom of heaven came through 
 him, from the Father, and by the Spirit, henceforth 
 the name or authority of all three was to be recog- 
 nized in the baptism of each disciple ; and that those 
 who were so baptized should be taught to observe all 
 things that he had commanded. This proves that the 
 faith which qualified for baptism must not only qualify 
 for full communion in the church, but also for com- 
 munion with the Spirit through which that church is 
 made an habitation for God. Those terms, therefore, 
 which modify tho' baptism, and define the teaching 
 
166 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 after baptism, which our brother has so resolutely 
 thrown away, and refused to notice in his reasoning, 
 are not only fatal to his theory of indiscriminate bap- 
 tism, but they are the very words on which depends 
 that peculiar instruction, to convey which the passage 
 to which he appeals, in Matthew, was spoken by 
 the Lord. 
 
 From these two essential and most important parts of 
 " the commission," therefore, it is certain that when 
 it is said, " baptizing them," etc., the pronoun " them' 
 must refer to some persons, whoever they might be, 
 that were qualified for complete fellowship in the 
 church, and for communion with the Holy Spirit, in 
 submitting to the authority of the kingdom of heaven. 
 Hence Peter, at the Pentecost, said, repent, and be 
 baptized, etc., and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit, 
 plainly implying that the qualification to baptism and 
 communion with the Spirit was the same. And, from 
 the history of that day we learn, that those who were 
 baptized united in all the worship and fellowship of 
 the disciples : so that the qualification for baptism was 
 the qualification to communion with the church, as 
 well as with the Spirit that dwelleth in the church. 
 But, since the word them, in the passage " baptizing 
 them," is preceded by "all the nations," it is neces- 
 sary to inquire whether " all the nations " can, in any ' 
 sense, be said to be without any change qualified for 
 communion with the Spirit, under the authority of the 
 kingdom of heaven, and for full communion with the 
 church, or body of Christ ? All authority answers, 
 no. The communion of the church requires baptism 
 into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 167 
 
 Spirit, and baptism into the name, etc., requires a 
 qualification which enables the person to receive the 
 authority of the Father and the Son by the Spirit. 
 But the world, the nations, without change, cannot 
 receive him, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth 
 him ; and therefore cannot be the objects of the 
 words " baptizing them into the name," etc., and this 
 intervening clause prevents the nations, the world, 
 from being identical with the church ; for, before 
 they are baptized into the name, etc., individuals 
 have no place in the church, and no part in its com- 
 munion. In conformity with this commission, a per- 
 son not baptized into the name, etc., cannot be taught 
 to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded 
 his disciples to observe. 
 
 But why is the phrase " all the nations " put into 
 the sentence at all ? It is said to form the object of 
 the verb to disciple ; hence it is written, " going forth 
 disciple all the nations," etc. If this be, for the sake 
 of considering the argument, admitted, what is the 
 result ? The nations forming the object of this verb, 
 to disciple, must fall under the action which that verb 
 represents ; and when that action has been completed, 
 the object of the verb will become what its derivative 
 noun represents, that is to say, disciples. The action 
 of the verb begins upon the object, as it is found, 
 nations, or persons composing the nations, just as 
 they are ; but these nations, or persons composing 
 them, are, when the process is finished, disciples of the 
 Lord, qualifiedj for fellowship in his kingdom, and for 
 communing with the Spirit ; and, therefore, baptized 
 into the name of the Father, etc., and instructed to 
 
168 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 observe all things whatsoever the Lord had com- 
 manded his disciples to obsei-ve. In short, persons not 
 qualified for communion became persons qualified and 
 admitted to communion. This is the thing to be done. 
 How is it to be done r Taking the other instructions 
 of the Lord, delivered at the same time, and in re- 
 spect to this very work, we learn, that witnessing 
 for Christ to the necessity' and purport of his suflfer- 
 ings, and proclaiming the jovful tidings consequent 
 upon these sufferings, were the means to be employed 
 in producing that faith which, as we have seen, forms 
 the indispensable quahfication to fellowship in the 
 church, communion with the Spirit, and baptism into 
 the name, etc. This witnessing, proclaiming, etc., 
 therefore, are included in the work of discipling, 
 and must, in conformity with the laws of the Re- 
 deemer, take their proper place in the whole work 
 to be performed. If it be pleaded that baptizing is 
 also a part, and that teaching the baptized persons 
 to observe all that the Lord enjoins on them, is 
 another part, this also may be admitted ; but these 
 two parts included in the whole work of disciphng 
 must not, can not supersede the former parts ; nor 
 because the Lord now teaches his servants to baptize 
 into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, which was not done before, are we to conclude 
 that, because the name or authority of the Holy 
 Spirit is added, therefore the baptism should become 
 more loose, and, contrar}- to all other authority, be 
 administered without any profession of faith at all. 
 This would be placing the whole commission in oppo- 
 sition to aU the other instructions of the Lord, and 
 
" THE COMMISSION." 169 
 
 all the history of apostoHc times. It would also 
 place the first part of the commission in opposition 
 to the latter part ; the communion against it- 
 self. Whatever the consequence, this cannot be 
 allowed. Nor is it needful. If the phrase " all the 
 nations" be the object of the verb to disciple; then, 
 the work of diseiphng is to be carried on, as far as 
 possible, upon the whole mass of mankind so pre- 
 sented to the thought. The teaching, preaching, 
 witnessing, and whatever acts of persuasion can be 
 employed, are to be used upon mankind, in order to 
 the obedience of faith (Rom. i. 5) ; but the obedience 
 of faith is, not a national, but an individual act ; and 
 it is, also, the qualification to that fellowship in 
 which, by the commission, all things enjoined on 
 the disciples are to be observed. The pronoun that 
 represents such persons is, therefore, not put into the 
 neuter gender, as though the faith were a national 
 act, or as though the qualification were national, but 
 in the masculine gender, as having a reference to some 
 antecedent in which the personal qualification existed. 
 That antecedent is found in the word disciple, which 
 is the result produced by discipling, and which be- 
 comes complete, when those parts, in the work of 
 discipling, which produce the obedience of faith, 
 have, with the last parts, in the work of discipling, 
 which recognize that obedience of faith, instructed 
 baptized believers to observe all things that Christ 
 hath enjoined on his disciples. 
 
 This, though charged -with limiting the commission, 
 is only taking it in that sense which comprehends 
 the fuU meaning of all its parts, when fairly inter- 
 
170 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 preted by the rule which our brother himself supplies. 
 No nation, no part of any nation, no man, no infant, 
 is excluded from this merciful process of conviction 
 and recognition in the sure and certain hope of ever- 
 lasting life. It sets the whole organization of the 
 church to work upon the whole population of the 
 unbelieving world, that each soul may believe and 
 obtain everlasting life. The infant, as soon as it can 
 learn, may be taught, and each soul, submitting in 
 the obedience of faith, may be baptized into the name, 
 etc., and admitted to the full communion of saints. 
 The going forth is aggressive, the baptism is dis- 
 criminating, and the communion to which it forms 
 the qualification is full, but the discipling, which in- 
 cludes them all, is evangelical, and every other theory 
 that has sought a defence from these words, has violated 
 their true interpretation ; presenting some shadow 
 of the good, and urging the rejection of its substance. 
 But Dr. llalley says, " the commission, which no 
 man has a right to alter, is, baptize all the nations."* 
 If it be supposed, for the present, that this represents 
 justly a part of the commission, it cannot represent 
 the whole . The other part of our Lord's injunction 
 is, make them believers first. This is included in 
 the word disciple; and. without this, the two last 
 clauses in the commission cannot be fulfilled. The- 
 process also by which the doctor reaches this con- 
 clusion is most objectionable : all the words — 
 (" into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit,") — which follow " baptizing them," with all 
 
 * Sac, p. 489. 
 
"the commission." 171 
 
 the words — (" to observe all things ivhatsoever I have 
 commanded you") — which follow " teaching them" — 
 are left out of his reasoning ; hut they cannot 
 be left out, they are words of the Lord, and they 
 must stand for ever. Besides this, the words teach 
 and baptize, taken in a sense, as we have seen, differ- 
 ing from that in which our Lord used them, must be 
 received as making up the whole import of the word 
 to disciple, which includes the process of convincing 
 and persuading to the obedience of faith ; besides the 
 act of recognizing it. But these most unjustifiable 
 assumptions are not all that this theory requires ; 
 all the nations, or the persons who compose them, 
 must, unaltered by the work of discipling, be united 
 to avTov;, the masculine pronoun, and made the ob- 
 ject of baptize and teach. Thus he says, I would 
 baptize them at the beginning of their course, pre- 
 paratory to communion, and not at the end of it. 
 Against every step of the process, by which our bro- 
 ther seeks to obtain his desire, a most solemn and 
 earnest protest is hereby borne and recorded. A 
 more shameful perversion of Divine truth will scarcely 
 be found in the English language. "With this con- 
 viction made quite clear, to prevent all mistake, let 
 us consider what is the theory our brother supposes 
 himself to have attained ? By this construction he 
 ventures to baptize infants and unbelievers, whoever 
 he can, without any discrimination. What then does 
 he teach them to observe ? He baptizes them at the 
 beginning of a course in which they are preparing for 
 full communion in the church of Christ. "What then 
 is to be taught in this course ? "What is tauerht to 
 
172 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 the infants. The multitude of baptized infants who 
 grow up and are never taught at all ? What sort of 
 teaching is this ?* But some are taught ; what then 
 is the course of teaching by which the baptized per- 
 sons are, by this theory, prepared for communion ? 
 What are they taught to observe ? Is it not the 
 duty of repentance ? the necessity of regeneration ? 
 and of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ ? These 
 things, or some things hke them, must be taught 
 these baptized catechumens. But when were these 
 things urged on the observance of our Lord's dis- 
 ciples ? Where is their observance urged on them 
 in the commission? He taught the disciples to 
 abide in him, be fruitful, etc. ; but those who were 
 not his disciples he urged to repent, believe, etc. 
 What sort of appealing to the commission is this ? 
 It speaks one thing, our brother makes an echo of 
 the reverse. He would baptize and teach the things 
 that are necessary to communion ; the commission says, 
 teaching them the things to be performed in commu- 
 nion. The Lord says, "baptizing them into the 
 name, etc.," and teaching them to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have enjoined on you, my friends. Dr. 
 Halley teaches them to observe the things which 
 Christ hath enjoined on his enemies. The teaching 
 that follows baptism in our brother's class, belongs 
 essentially to the world ; that which follows baptism, 
 in the commission, " which no man has a right to 
 alter," belongs essentially to the church. 
 
 After thus finding that Dr. Halley's own rule of 
 
 * See Jethro. 
 
THE SLIDING SCALE. 173 
 
 interpretation, when all the words of " the commis- 
 sion" are included, as they must be, becomes fatal to 
 his own theory, nothing further is required in reply. 
 But since the appeal made to grammatical rule was 
 so confident, it was thought desirable to show in the 
 work on Discipleship, that the ascertained meaning of 
 our Lord could be derived from his words by rules of 
 grammar, authorized by good, if not the best autho- 
 rities, without that violation of pronominal concord 
 on which Dr. Halley relies. In our brother's Reply, 
 he denies the existence of those rules ; and, on that 
 denial, bases a variety of personal allegations which 
 should not have been introduced. Tlie rules in ques- 
 tion, therefore, from authorities which our brother 
 himself has named, are given in the Appendix (A). 
 
 The Sliding Scale. 
 
 On examining the instructions of our Lord as re- 
 corded by Matthew, called " the commission," it will 
 be found that no mention is made of infants, except 
 as they might be included in the words " all the 
 nations," and it has been ascertained that the injunc- 
 tion conveyed in the commission, related to persons 
 who when that injunction was fulfilled, became qua- 
 lified for full communion in the church. This would 
 exclude infants, because they could neither receive nor 
 act upon the authority of the Father, etc., nor are 
 they, when baptized, qualified to do all that was en- 
 joined on the disciples. They may be taught hke 
 other persons, and, when qualified, baptized into the 
 name, etc., and received into communion; but the 
 
174 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 idea of baptizing them before they are so qualified, 
 must spring from some other source. That practice 
 cannot find its origin in " the commission," it is 
 brought there for a toleration, or a defence. It is 
 supposed to have been in existence before, and the 
 commission is pleaded as not forbidding it. 
 
 In conformity with this remark which applies to 
 the great mass of reasoning on infant baptism, Dr. 
 Halley says, " The question of importance is, was 
 the baptism of proselytes practised by the Jews in 
 the time of our Lord .'' and if it was, how far may 
 the practice assist us in interpreting the commission 
 to baptize all the nations."* And further, that " bap- 
 tism, as a sign of discipleship, was not known until 
 the ministry of John," " appears directly at variance 
 with the evangelical history. "f Again, the baptism 
 of John " is too important to be dismissed without 
 notice, as by carefully attending to it, we may obtain 
 some assistance in the more important inquiry 
 respecting the nature of Christian baptism."]: Thus 
 he declares the intentmi he had in presentmg first his 
 Lecture on Proselyte Baptism, and then that of the 
 Baptism of John. The discriminating nature of either, 
 he did not mean to use ; but, he says distinctly, 
 " that the Jewish and Christian baptisms correspond 
 in many particulars," " the Jews were accustomed to' 
 baptize the infants of proselytes with their parents. "§ 
 By this supposed coincidence, the idea of infant bap- 
 tism comes within the channel of his reasoning. But 
 further, " If in the last lecture T succeeded in show- 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 115. f Ibid. p. 116. J Ibid, p, 162 
 
 § Ibid. p. 160. 
 
THE SLIDING SCALE. 175 
 
 ing that it is exceedingly probable, if not morally 
 certain, that the infant children of proselytes to 
 Judaism were baptized with their parents, the pre- 
 sumption in favour of infant baptism, as administered 
 by John, is so far confirmed. If the Jews were 
 accustomed to see infants baptized with their parents, 
 in an age when proselytes to the faith were very 
 numerous, they would naturally take their children to 
 be baptized with themselves by (John) the preacher 
 of the kingdom of heaven."* Thus the idea passes 
 from the Jews to John : not by a proof, but, by an 
 "it is exceedingly probable," and, "they would natu- 
 rally take, etc.," expressions which, by their very 
 construction, are ready to be used as proofs, if persons 
 allow them, or abandoned if they come to be dis- 
 puted. Again, " among the Jews there was no rite 
 peculiar to the adxilt proselyte." '' "What bearing 
 the Jewish practice has upon the argument in favour 
 of infant baptism among Christians, must be here- 
 after considered. "t The point on which this " ex- 
 ceedingly probable" thing is to throw illustration, 
 is, therefore, determined. The conclusion is stated 
 thus; we have " seen" "that the unrestricted com- 
 mission was given to Jews, whose religious rites of 
 discipling were uniformly administered to the children 
 of proselytes with their parents."^ The argument 
 comprised in these passages, when presented in the 
 answer to his lectures, is rejected as an injury in his 
 Reply. That it is worthy of rejection no one will dis- 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 204. f Ibid, p, 154. 
 
 t Ibid. p. 602. 
 
176 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 pute. From the beginning to the end of it, it is 
 assumption and nothing more. But our brother 
 should not deny his own words. He may see reason 
 for abandoning an argument which is thus made to 
 tinge the communication of his Redeemer ; but, while 
 these passages stand in print, he should not say that 
 he has never used it. While these assumptions are 
 so interwoven with his theory, he cannot be said to 
 make an independent and direct appeal to the words 
 of his Lord. His disclaimer, the just effect of which 
 was given to him, by his friend, in the answer to his 
 " Sacraments," being written on page 577, did not 
 prevent his writing the conclusion above stated on 
 page 602, of the same work. A disclaimer which 
 has no effect upon himself, can have no effect on 
 other people ; at least, until the thing he disclaims is 
 given up. If the suggestions of proselyte baptism be 
 now, and for ever, given up, well ; but if so, why is 
 it said that the practice may " assist us in interpreting 
 the commission to baptize all the nations ?" and why in 
 the conclusion of his whole argument is it said that 
 '• the unrestricted commission was given to Jews, 
 whose religious rites of discipling were uniformly 
 administered to the children of proselytes with their 
 parents ?" and why is this put as a leading argument 
 for infant baptism ? That Dr. Halley has a dis- 
 claimer, was shown by "Mr. Stovel" in his lectures; 
 and there, the effect of that disclaimer is pointed out ; 
 but, after this disclaimer was written. Dr. Halley 
 returns to the assumption ; it lies at the basis of all 
 his reasoning, notwithstanding ; and, however nume- 
 
THE "EXTRACTS." 177 
 
 rous the examples, it maybe for the advantage of our 
 brother, to know, that self-contradiction is no credit 
 in a Christian author. In such a case there is no 
 way of dealing with the error, but that of showing 
 the fallacy of reasoning on premises which he him- 
 self is compelled, in his better judgment, to disown. 
 
 On the " Extracts.'^ 
 
 On p. 18 of his Reply, which follows a grievous 
 complaint respecting falsified extracts, etc., we have 
 these words — " But ' Mr. Stovel,' in noticing the 
 passages in which I decline the aid of the Rabbi, savs, 
 ' If this rule had been adopted from the beginning of 
 Dr. Halley's work, much unnecessary trouble might 
 have been spared to himself and his readers' (p. 214). 
 Had my lectures related exclusively to infant baptism, 
 I might, probably, have spared myself this ' unneces- 
 sary trouble.' " Two things are to be observed here ; 
 first, as the passages before cited show, that after 
 the Rabbi had been dismissed, the deposition of that 
 same Rabbi, is re-affirmed, and for no other purpose 
 but to support infant baptism. Secondly, " If this 
 rule had," etc. If what rule ? No rule is mentioned 
 in the sentence, so that " this rule" means nothing, 
 and the quotation as it stands, on our brother's page, 
 has no sense. The passage he professes to quote, 
 reads thus: — "If the just rule of explaining the 
 commission rf our Lord by his own, and the words and 
 practice of the apostles had been adopted,"* etc. 
 
 * Disciplesbip, p. 213, 6. 
 N 
 
178 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 " This rule'^ is put, by Dr. Halley, for all those 
 words which are here given in itahcs, as though on 
 the page where his Rabbi is " declined" this just rule 
 of interpretation would be found. There is no such 
 thing. This just rule is not on that page.* Nor is 
 there any thing on that page which conforms to it. 
 On the following page is that interpretation in which, 
 as we have seen, this just rule is broken. The words 
 as between Dr. Halley's commas, are not the words 
 of his friend, they do not convey the meaning of his 
 friend, and, taken as they stand, they convey no 
 meaning at all; iov " this," without a noun, means 
 nothing; and " this rule," when no rule is before us, 
 means nothing. Our brother supposing such a charge 
 as this to be made out against him, says, " I shall 
 ever after be ashamed to appear on the arena of 
 honourable controversy, "f There, unfortunately, is 
 the very thing which he describes ; and, other cases 
 might easily be produced, while the foregoing pas- 
 sages refute the allegations which called for his re- 
 mark. But this declaration of his feeling is too 
 hasty to be enforced. The folly of deliberating such 
 a fraud, so certain to be discovered by some one, 
 is, in itself, a sufficient reason for ascribing it to over 
 excitement or mere misfortune ; and therefore, it is 
 lioped that our brother will not retire fi-om the field 
 so soon. Let " the uux causes'^ of infant baptism be 
 found out first. Truth demands such labour of her 
 friends. Only in the labour, let that just admonition 
 of our brother be remembered. It forms the most 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 576, 7. f Reply, p. 14. 
 
"dr. ballet's mistakes." 179 
 
 perfect sentence in his whole work. " Let every 
 controversialist consider how far he is guilty of ob- 
 structing, hy the acrimony of his words, the force of 
 his own arguments" (Sacraments, p. 118). 
 
 The repartees with which our brother has embel- 
 lished this part of his Reply, must be left. It would 
 not be modest to compete for such reputation in print. 
 
 Dr. Halley's Mistakes. 
 
 The case of the Corinthians has called for some 
 explanation. The letter which conveyed that expla- 
 nation, having been misrepresented, by Dr. Halley, 
 in his Reply, is placed in the appendix to speak for 
 itself.* 
 
 With respect to a section entitled Dr. Halley's 
 Mistakes, he answers, congratulating himself that 
 they are so few as six. It is worthy of observation 
 that these six relate only to that one part of the 
 subject ; the rise of corruption in the church. There 
 are many more besides these, if accurately noted 
 down. 
 
 But respecting these six mistakes, it was said, 
 "These discrepancies show that, if Dr. Halley's 
 statements be received, the blame of the general 
 apostacy must fall upon the Lord himself, his apos- 
 tles, and the Spirit which inspired them " (Disciple- 
 ship, p. 384). This our brother cannot understand. 
 It will be proper, theiefore, to concede an explanation. 
 
 This conclusion, then, does not follow, as our bro- 
 
 * Appendix B. 
 N 2 
 
180 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 ther seems to suppose, from the mere fact that 
 Clement and others have been misrepresented ; but, 
 from the fact, that the charges brought against them, 
 consist, in the cases specified, of words which are 
 found in the New Testament ; and which, in obedi- 
 dience to its authority, they were bound to use. If 
 it be said that men originated the corruption and 
 apostacy of the church, by using the words of inspi- 
 ration, then inspiration, to which they were subjected, 
 and not they, is presented as the principal cause of 
 that apostacy whicli we deplore and condemn. 
 
 One example of this error is found on page 586 of 
 " The Sacraments." " Warnings against hastening 
 to baptism were soon uttered in the church. A gloss 
 on the baptism of the Eunuch, which made faith in- 
 dispensable, was forged, and, it would seem, as early 
 as Irenseus. Sins after baptism were invested with 
 indiscribable terror," etc. These affirmations stand 
 amongst general statements of early corruptions, 
 wdthout any reference to sustain their truth, and sug- 
 gest at once, Heb. vi, 4 — 8; "For it is impossible 
 for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted 
 of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the 
 Holy Ghost, etc., if they shall fall away, to renew 
 them again to repentance ; seeing they crucify to 
 themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an 
 open shame." Here sins after baptism are presented 
 as the subject of a sentiment, which is found in the 
 epistle, and which cannot be condemned without 
 condemning the epistle and its author. 
 
 Again, at page 9, "The Greek fathers call bap- 
 tized persons, the perfected in Christ," (the ini- 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 181 
 
 tiated.) The use of this term is also combined with 
 many unsustained charges, which, without one autho- 
 rizing reference, stand on page 13, associated, loosely 
 indeed, but yet associated with the name of Clement 
 of Alexandria. It should not be forgotten, that 
 however wrong the fathers might be, in this use of 
 the word perfect, Paul, in his epistle to the Philip- 
 pians iii. 15, has, " Let us therefore, as many as be 
 perfect " (initiated) : and, in 1 Cor. ii. 6, we speak 
 wisdom among " them that are perfect " (initiated), 
 they know it, and acknowledge it. The fathers are 
 not defended as if without defect ; but, when con- 
 sidering their defects, we must not condemn as sinful 
 in them, an act in which they have followed the 
 apostle Paul. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria. 
 
 Clement, of Alexandria has, in this inquiry, been 
 brought into rather more prominence than he de- 
 serves. His works are valuable ; they show us how 
 a Grecian used the Greek Testament, and they make 
 us otherwise acquainted with the literature of his 
 time. Those who exhibit him as unworthy of respect, 
 and those who suppose him free from faults, appear 
 to be about equally removed from the truth. Dr. 
 Halley has erred in charging him beyond what the 
 evidence supplied from his own writings will justify. 
 If the allegations can be supported, let them be sup- 
 ported ; and, if Clement fall, under a well sustained 
 rebuke, no harm is done ; but, to hurl a condemna- 
 tion at him, which falls, at last, on the Divine writer, 
 cannot be approved; nor can he be made to explain 
 
182 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 the creed of his time, in any case which led to the 
 great apostacy, until the alleged cause of corruption 
 is found in his own writings. However bad he may 
 be, he should, he must have justice. 
 
 The necessity for dealing with this point firmly, 
 will be seen from the following passages : — 
 
 " If the Baptists know a brother of old times, let them tell 
 us his name and his residence, the church or the heresy to which 
 he belonged, that we may converse with him, and enquire where 
 he learned his peculiarity, and what he means by its assump- 
 tion."* " Tertullian, tenacious of an unscriptural theory, 
 opposed the prevalent usage of the church, and does not seem 
 to be a man who would have scupled to di-spute with ao apos- 
 tle, if an apostle had said anything in contradiction to his 
 opinions. In this very passage, he disputes with our Lord 
 himself, who is cited as saying, do not forbid little children to 
 come unto me. Differing from his Baptist admirers, he admits 
 that our Lord is speaking of their baptism > as is evident from 
 his reply, "t 
 
 " We have seen" "that baptism restricted to believers, is 
 a practice rigidly and consistently observed by no sect, and for 
 which no warrant of scripture can be offered, except a doubt- 
 ful reading, or rather a scandalous forgery. "J 
 
 " We find Tertullian sorely troubled with the speedy baptism 
 of the Ethiopian treasurer;* believers' baptism haunted the 
 imagination of the man who here tampered with the genuine 
 text of the holy scripture. "§ 
 
 " If Justin Martyr, and Irenseus, should be cited as proving 
 the doctrine [of baptismal regeneration] to be earlier than 
 Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, we reply that, if their 
 phraseology be interpreted in favour of baptismal regeneration, 
 good use may be made of them to exhibit the doctrine in its 
 transition state, from the simplicity of Christ, to the corrup- 
 tions of the third century. "|1 ^ 
 
 " The simple rites of the Christian religion," " became 
 mystic, reserved only for the perfect, in whose initiation bap- 
 tism was deemed the proper ablutirn." "The minister of the 
 sanctuary acting the part of the hierophant of the grove or the 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 589. f Ibid. p. 597. J Ibid. p. 603. 
 
 § Ibid. p. 511. II Ibid. p. 244. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.. 183 
 
 grotto, exclaiming almost in his words, ' Procul, O procul, 
 este profani,' " and hence the tumid phraseology of the phi- 
 losophical fathers as Clement of Alexandria, derived from the 
 Elusinian processions, or Bacchanalian orgies," etc.* 
 
 " We now come to TertuUian, to Clement of Alexandria'', to 
 Origen, and to other writers of the beginning of the third cen- 
 tury, and here we are obliged to surrender the argument, "f 
 
 On all these affirmations of our beloved brother, 
 the reader will be pleased to observe that there is no 
 reference given by which their accuracy can be tested, 
 excepting in the two cases marked (a) and (b). The 
 first of these refers to TertuUian's work on baptism, 
 where the authority appealed to flatly contradicts our 
 brother's affirmation ; and the last, refers to the 
 abstract of Theodotus, from which Dr. Halley, in his 
 Reply, p. 69, says, he intended to educe no evidence to 
 the discredit of Clement. The whole of these affirma- 
 tions, therefore, stand before us w'ithout any proof 
 whatever. They are the bold affirmations of our bro- 
 ther, and nothing more. 
 
 Secondly. The object of these affirmations is clearly 
 to fix attention on the third century as the time, and 
 on Clement of Alexandria and TertuUian as the 
 agents to which the origin of behevers' baptism and 
 baptismal regeneration, must be traced. 
 
 Thirdly. On the ground of all definitions of bap- 
 tismal efficacy as the supposed means of producing 
 spiritual life in its recipients, this is absurd ; because, 
 believers' baptism supposes the spiritual life to have 
 been produced and exercised before baptism is allowed ; 
 and therefore, can never be traced to the same cause 
 that produced the doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
 
 * Sacra., p. 12, 13. t IWd. p. 258. 
 
184 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 in infants as well as adults, in whom no spiritual life 
 is supposed to exist until it is received in baptism. 
 
 Fourthly. The affirmations are so made as to com- 
 bine believers baptism, not only with baptismal rege- 
 neration, with which it is utterly incompatible, but 
 also with a supposed " scandalous forgerv," said to 
 be its only scriptural warrant, with a disposition in 
 Tertullian to dispute with an apostle, and with an 
 argument in which "he disputes with our Lord him- 
 self," and also, with the " tumid" language of Clement 
 of Alexandria, derived from the Eleusinian proces- 
 sions, etc., and his supposed unquestionable advocacy 
 of baptismal regeneration. 
 
 Fifthly. The affirmations here given respecting 
 Tertullian, are absolutely, and without any qualifica- 
 tion, false. Tertullian does not " dispute with our 
 Lord himself," nor with an apostle, nor does he 
 show any inclination so to do, nor is he "sorely 
 troubled" %vith the speedy baptism of the Ethiopian. 
 He simply affirms, that Philip did it in obedience to 
 the command of the Spirit, and he defends our Lord's 
 words against those who desired to abuse and mis- 
 apply them. These affirmations of our brother 
 respecting Tertullian, do not contain in them one 
 particle of truth. 
 
 Sixthly. Besides those points in which the words 
 of Clement agree with those of holy scripture, as 
 before explained, no e^-idence is given to prove that 
 Clement of Alexandria ever taught the doctrine now 
 designated baptismal regeneration, nor anything like 
 it, excepting only the reference in note (b) of the last 
 quotation, to the abstract of doctrines taught by 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, 185 
 
 Theodotus and Valentine, which is printed with his 
 works. Our brother's affirmation, " here we are com- 
 pelled to surrender the argument," is sustained by this, 
 or by nothing. If, as the brother now says, the sen- 
 timents of Clement are not inferred from those of 
 Theodotus, the charge here brought against Clement 
 is altogether unsiistained. 
 
 Seventhly. It has been shewn that the error to which 
 the doctrine of sacramental efficacy is traced, was in 
 operation before the apostles died ; that after being 
 taught by Theodotus, it was condemned in the excom- 
 munication of Valentine, who taught the same ; that 
 its first clear reception in the church took place at Car- 
 thage, about A.D. 250,* under Cyprian; that it appeared 
 in the question respecting the allowance of baptism to 
 sickly children, and the rebaptism of heretics ; and 
 that this doctrine of sacramental efficacy, combining 
 with the love of power, and the spiritual adultery of 
 state alliance, produced that corruption of the church 
 which is called its apostacy, and which our brother 
 ascribes to TertuUian's bad temper, Clement's tumid 
 phraseology, the catechumenical institution, and, 
 above all, to that baptism of believers, which was 
 produced under his own ministry, and enjoined by 
 the Redeemer on all his followers. 
 
 Eighthly. These unsustained allegations brought 
 against Clement and TertuUian are unjust to them ; 
 but, when they are pelted out as the authors of be- 
 lievers' baptism, the filth cast [on their garments is 
 
 * Stovel on Baptismal Regeneration, pp. 62, 71. 
 
186 
 
 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 rubbed off on the Baptists. In short, by saying these 
 things, and printing them, receiving them with accla- 
 mation, and pubhshing them with commendatory no- 
 tices, persons are degraded in tlie estimation of others 
 whose arguments Dr. Halley and his brethren cannot 
 answer. It is injuring the reputation of those whose 
 reasoning cannot be refuted, and making an appeal to 
 prejudice where truth affords no defence. 
 
 Ninthly. The abstract of Theodotus and Valentine 
 is, in another part of the Sacraments, called " the old 
 writer appended to Clement" (p. 277). This is wrong 
 both ways. If " the old writer " mean the person who 
 wrote the abstract, then he affirms nothing, except 
 that these two men taught so and so. It is an abstract, 
 and nothing more. If the affirmations of doctrine 
 contained in that work be referred to, these are not 
 the affirmations of one " old writer," but of two old 
 teachers, who have left no writings at all of their own. 
 But still, not to press a man too hard, if it be allowed 
 that this "old writer appended to Clement asserts 
 that in baptism, the horoscope is reversed" — which is 
 not accurate, for he does not say " reversed," — yet, 
 letting this pass also, for this is no place for niceties 
 — if all this be allowed, why, on p. 258, should it be 
 written in note (b). " If the Epitomy of Theodotus," 
 which is not the Epitomy of Theodotus, but of some 
 one who abstracted his docti ines ; but never mind — " If 
 the Epitomy of Theodotus appended to the works of 
 Clement can be supposed to represent his opinions on 
 the subject of baptism, the doctrine of baptismal rege- 
 neration must, in his age, have expanded in its full 
 bloom and perfection. Why should this " if" be thus 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 187 
 
 introduced on the page which charges this doctrine on 
 Clement, without any other evidence to sustain the 
 statement whatever ? On p. 257 we have a reference to 
 the Paedagogus of Clement ; and this work, from the 
 nature of its subject, the office and work of Christ, as a 
 teacher, ought to show whether Clement did hold the 
 doctrine in question or not. It is true that, in this 
 quotation, out of three Greek words, two are wrongly 
 spelt : (Tr]fJiripov being put for arjfjiepov, and avayevrjOei's 
 for avayewrjOet'; ; and the second error being a different 
 word, alters the meaning, or rather, destroys all 
 meaning in the passage whatsoever ; yet the passage 
 and the connection from which it is taken, relating to 
 the act of initiation and the new birth, if evidence 
 were wanted to show the doctrine of Clement, this 
 passage, in his own work, would have been better 
 than this " old writer" appended to his works. Some 
 expressions are introduced into the note which indi- 
 cate a doubt whether the sentiments of this abstract 
 can be attributed to Clement or mo.. The doubt is an 
 injustice : it ought not to be doubted whether Clement, 
 or his age, could be answerable for errors recorded, 
 only in the name of their author, who was excommuni- 
 cated for holding them. Would not all persons deem 
 it an injury if, referring to most suspicious facts in the 
 conduct of some other man, the writer should say, I 
 doubt, notwithstanding, whether Dr. Hallev can be 
 charged with deliberate falsehood } The man who 
 brings the character of another in doubt, on such 
 grounds, has, by the very action, implicated his own. 
 No man ought to be condemned, charged or suspected 
 from the conduct or sentiments of another. But this 
 
188 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 is not all that our brother does : he not only intro- 
 duces the supposition and then guards it with a doubt, 
 lest it should stand as a charge — he concludes the 
 note with these words : " According to Photius, how- 
 ever, nothing can be too had to attribute to the Sypo- 
 typoses of Clement." What has the Hvpotyposes of 
 Clement to do with an abstract of doctrines taught by 
 Theodotus and Valentine ? Nothing whatever : and 
 yet, on this ground, for he gives none other, he leaves 
 Clement in the text, under the full charge of holding 
 the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Our dear 
 brother complains that this was severely censured in 
 the Lectures on Christian Discipleship, and says he 
 did not infer the sentiments of Clement from this ab- 
 stract. From what, then, is it inferred ? He does 
 charge Clement with teaching baptismal regeneration, 
 and this reference to the abstract is the only evidence 
 in proof that he supplies. If he had other evidence, 
 why did he not produce it ? His eye was fixed on a 
 part of Clement's own works which contains evidence 
 on the point; and though, in quoting three words 
 from the passage, two are wrongly spelt, yet we can- 
 not conclude Dr. Halley incapable of reading it. The 
 error was the printer's, not his, no doubt ; and, if so. 
 Dr. Halley must have known, that this very passage 
 from which he quoted, contained evidence which flatly 
 denies the charge he has preferred. This reference to 
 the abstract of doctrines taught by Theodotus and 
 Valentine, therefore, is not only the only evidence, 
 but it is an evidence used in opposition to contrary 
 evidence which was before Dr. Halley's eye in Cle- 
 ment's own writing's. Our brother disclaims all inten- 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 189 
 
 tion to infer the sentiments of Clement from the ab- 
 stract. Why, then, was the abstract introduced at all ? 
 What did it do there, connected with the charge, unless 
 it was to testify thereto ? Why is it followed by the 
 affirmation from Photius — " nothing is too bad to 
 attribute," etc. ? The guarding his statements, to 
 secure a retreat, renders the imputation more inex- 
 cusable. The injustice declares itself by its dread of 
 openness. Our brother complains that this was de- 
 signated " a slander :" the reader will be so good as to 
 consider what milder term can be justly employed. 
 The charge is preferred, it is retained, it is repeated 
 in his Reply ; it is made against the ancients, Clement, 
 and TertuUian — it is made to fall on the modern Bap- 
 tists, and it is sustained by nothing but this reference, 
 which Dr. Halley is compelled to disown. It is con- 
 ceded that the word in question is a hard one, but the 
 case is hard when personal abuse, at first and second 
 hand, is trowelled on, with such munificence, to hide 
 the want of argument. Is this defaming of the 
 fathers and carbonization of the Baptists the only 
 social offence which must not find a designa- 
 tion in the vocabulaiy of crime .'' What moral 
 sense is that which loathes the name, and loves 
 the thing it names ? Still, if some milder word 
 can be found, let it be found, and, when suggested, it 
 shall be used ; but our brother is mistaken in saying 
 that the complaint is withdrawn. It would rejoice 
 the author if the facts before him would allow it to be 
 withdrawn. Before it is withdrawn, all the allega- 
 tions given above, in Dr. Halley's own words, must 
 be recalled. The charge against Clement must be 
 
190 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 recalled, or sustained from his own works, and the 
 quotations must be rightly spelt, or we cannot under- 
 stand them. The unjust association of believers' 
 baptism with " a scandalous forgery," and Baptists 
 with ancient heretics, must also be recalled. These, 
 and all such artifices as these, by which an efi'ect is 
 sought through degrading a person, when no power is 
 left to refute his reasoning, must be given up. Then, 
 and not till then, called by what name it may, the 
 castigation of this shameful subterfuge shall cease 
 for ever. 
 
 The nature and result of our brother's references in 
 other places may be seen from the following case : — 
 On p. 24-3 of the Sacraments, it is said, "we find the 
 doctrine (of baptismal regeneration) as early as Cle- 
 ment of Alexandria" ;" and in note (a) the following 
 references : " Fed. 1. 1, c. 5 ; 1. 3, c. 12 ; Strom. 1. 3, 
 1. 4." Here " Fed " should be P(^d, and the reference 
 being to whole books and chapters, unless these books 
 and chapters were on that subject, the reference might 
 as well have been made to the Bodleian Library. 
 Book the fourth of the Stromata is on the subject of 
 martyrdom ; book the third is on the lawfulness of 
 marriage, and the duty of Christians in the married 
 state. If anything in these books seemed to involve 
 the doctrine, our brother should have pointed it out. 
 It cannot be found. Book the third and chap. 12 of 
 the Psedagogus relates principally to the life of 
 Christians, showing the duty of persons who had been 
 bom again, but not teaching baptismal regeneration, 
 as now understood ; and book the first, chap. 5, shews 
 on what grounds Christians are, in Scripture, called 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 191 
 
 children. Its chief statements would he all falsified 
 if Clement were convicted of teaching the baptismal 
 regeneration now pleaded for. Neither these, nor any- 
 other references that our brother has given, supply the 
 evidence required to support his statements. The only 
 appearance of proof is that supplied from the abstract 
 which he repudiates ; and as this will not stand in- 
 vestigation, the allegations are given without any 
 evidence at all. The reference, which is given in the 
 Reply, to Clement's admonition to the Gentiles, ex- 
 posing the corruptions of their idolatry, and urging 
 their submission to the Redeemer, will neither justify 
 the charge of heresv, nor that of using tumid lan- 
 guage borrowed from heathen rites. The whole work 
 is designed to expose the base and shameful nature of 
 those rites. The passage referred to appears to form 
 its conclusion. In its principal features it agrees 
 very much with the 12th of Hebrews. It is 
 professedly adapted to the habits of thought which 
 had been formed in those whom Clement was labour- 
 ing to convince. The passage, literally translated, is 
 in the Appendix (C). Let the reader judge whether 
 Dr. Halley can sustain his charge by anything con- 
 tained in its fervent exhortations. 
 
 These documents will be supplied, that the English 
 reader may judge for himself how far the affirmations 
 of our friend are supported by his evidence. It is not 
 intended to repeat what has been written before. If 
 any friend has received a feeling at all removed from 
 absolute disgust while reading the professed reply of 
 our brother, a re-perusal of the work on Christian 
 Discipleship, marking well Dr. Halley's references. 
 
192 FRATERNAL EXPLANATIONS, ETC. 
 
 will immediately recover confidence in its argument. 
 It was not deemed courteous to pass over this produc- 
 tion in silence, and the foregoing explanations have 
 therefore been conceded. It is hoped that they will 
 give satisfaction to all, and, at least, convince Dr. 
 Halley that his brother is still alive and willing, with 
 aU humihty, to supply all possible information on the 
 matter to be investigated. These apologies and sug- 
 gestions will also smooth the way for our brother's 
 second course ; which, it is hoped he will be enabled 
 to deliver with greater satisfaction to himself and to 
 others whom they may concern. It is entreated, how- 
 ever, that personalities may be laid aside for ever. 
 Let nothing said, in seeking for the truth, be taken 
 too painfully. It is a bad thing to occupy a wrong 
 position ; but then, it would be far worse to be left 
 there. Let our dear brother receive, in kindness, 
 the attempts which have been made to render the 
 subject, in its essential parts, at least, perceptible to 
 him, if not convincing ; and, in return for this kind- 
 ness, let the same thing be done for his friend. Only 
 let the argument, and not any irrelevant 'personal 
 peculiarities, be considered. Nor let the facts 
 evolved in the foregoing pages be deemed as bear- 
 ing too exclusively on our brother, who appears 
 to be more immediately implicated ; they belong to 
 the cause he has undertaken to defend, rather than 
 to Dr. Halley himself. Infant baptism, and its sup- 
 posed benefits, have scarcely ever had a more careful 
 expositor and advocate ; but the greatest genius 
 and moral worth sufi'er from misappropriation. It 
 has been ever so. From the day in which Becon 
 
CONCLUSION. 193 
 
 denounced them in the reign of Edward VI.,* 
 through the age of vituperation in which Dr. Featley 
 took the lead, to the vulgar abuse cast from behind the 
 arras of periodicals, and the absolute untruths issued 
 in their pages, anonymously, in 1842, and 1846, etc., 
 to this professed reply of brother Halley's, it has, 
 with few exceptions, ever been the same. The 
 maltreatment of Baptist brethren and their works 
 has appeared to be a Christian virtue, not because 
 enjoined by him they serve, but because no other 
 way was left for dealing with their arguments. 
 This is the terrible but indispensable price of infant 
 baptism, with its supposed benefits. It must be 
 surrounded by a storm of improprieties, or it cannot 
 be defended at all. It is time for the brethren who 
 linger round a custom so endeared by sentimentalities, 
 to consider whether it is not their duty to find some- 
 thing like a calm and direct appeal to scripture in its 
 behalf; or, if that cannot be prepared, to relinquish 
 the ceremony ; for, it is written, " The symbols of 
 our faith," " if not of Divine authority, are profane 
 inventions of men." (Halley on Sacraments, p. 69.) 
 
 * Discipleship, p. 21. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE RECONCILIATION ELtrciDATED AND ENFORCED BY 
 ARGUMENTS EMPLOYED ON THE EXTENT OP THE 
 ADMINISTRATION OP CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 Each party has been found, in the foregoing investi- 
 gation, to have at least one object of sohcitude, the 
 importance and spiritual claims of which can never 
 be doubted. To seek a clear exposition of justifica- 
 tion by faith, as taught by Paul, to separate that doc- 
 trine from sacramental delusions, and to place it 
 before the public in such a light as will facilitate its 
 saving use by every sinful man, is no mean under- 
 taking. Few works can be more important ; and, 
 all the solicitude displayed with reference to that 
 subject, by Dr. Halley, is deserving of praise. The 
 spirituality and purity of the Christian church which 
 Dr. Wardlaw defends, against Dr. Halley, is also of 
 great moment. The church of Christ is God's visible 
 and authorized agency and witness upon earth ; and no 
 man can be too much concerned in seeking or defend- 
 ing its spirituality and purity. Lastly, The fulness of 
 scripture passages which are God's communications 
 wth men, however lost sight of in the conflict for 
 infant baptism, cannot be too earnestly forced into 
 observation by the Tractmen. But each party seems 
 absorbed with one of these objects chiefly, sometimes 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 195 
 
 exclusively ; and, from hence, we have the partial 
 and onesided arguments of the whole. To prevent 
 this it is proposed that, since each admits the import- 
 ance of all the three objects, no one shall admit, on 
 his own side, any argument that compromises either 
 of those three great practical realities. Whatever 
 may be said for infant baptism, discriminate or ire- 
 discriminate, or for baptismal regeneration, whether 
 variable or e«variable, those brethren who advocate 
 those theories must allow, that the fulness of scrip- 
 ture truth, the purity and spirituality of the Christian 
 church, and the doctrine, or rather, the privilege of 
 being justified by faith in Christ Jesus, are subjects, 
 so authorized of God and confirmed to us by his 
 testimony, that, collectively or separately, no man 
 whatever, is, on any grounds, at liberty to compro- 
 mise them. It is proposed, therefore, that each party 
 shall seek a proof of his own denominational pecu- 
 liaritv, just in that line of reasoning where the full 
 import of scriptures relating to the point harmonizes 
 with the purity of the church and the doctrine of jus- 
 tificatirn by faith only. Since these are known and 
 admitted certainties, let them be regarded as fixed ; 
 and, let everything in the Christian system, that 
 will not harmonize with them be resigned, at least, 
 for further investigation. This will diminish the 
 diversions of thought, and facihtate a peaceful repose 
 of judgment. These three points will determine the 
 centre, and there each party will find baptized be- 
 lievers waiting the arrival, and prepared to sing — 
 
 *' Blessed be the tie that binds our hearts in Christian love, 
 The fellowship of kindred minds is like to that above." 
 o2 
 
196 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 One case elucidating the importance of this sugges- 
 tion is presented in the section on epistolary passages 
 as expounded by the Tractmen. They plead for the 
 fulness of scripture truth as far as these passages are 
 concerned, but they are asked and required to con- 
 sider the fulness of scripture truth in passages relat- 
 ing to justification hy faith, and the impossibility of 
 being justified without it. The full import of holy 
 scripture should be taken on both the points ; not on 
 one only : scripture is scripture, whether it describe 
 the indispensable requirement of faith, or whether it 
 declare the privileges of baptized believers. 
 
 The refutation of the Tractmen, therefore, would 
 stand thus : — 
 
 First. " The fulness of scripture truth" assigns to all 
 baptized persons, not. guilty of known sin, the 
 whole privilege of Christian fellowship on earth, 
 and it recognizes in them the relationship of chil- 
 dren to God, with the hope of everlasting glory. 
 
 But, secondly. The hope of everlasting glory and the 
 privilege of God's children on earth are granted, 
 in scripture, to no one who does not believe in 
 Christ. 
 
 And therefore, thirdly. " The fulness of scripture 
 truth," requires that all persons baptized should 
 be believers ; and since the putting on of Christ is 
 the act of a believer, in baptism, and no subse- 
 quent preparation for fellowship is required, their 
 faith should be accredited before baptism is ad- 
 ministered to them. See the argument at length 
 onpp. 91— 121. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 197 
 
 The illustration now to be proposed is derived 
 from a very brief comparison of the arguments ad- 
 duced by Dr. Wardlaw and Dr. Halley, on " the 
 Extent of the dministration of Christian baptism." 
 One says, the ordinance should be confined to be- 
 lievers and their ofi'spring ; the other pleads, that all 
 men and all children have a right to Christian bap- 
 tism without any discrimination whatever. One 
 pleads for the spirituality of the church ; the other 
 for justification by faith. Each is anxious to save 
 his infant baptism ; but, both shrink from the fulness 
 of scripture truth presented by the Tractmen. One 
 ■will hear the scripture on one point, the other asks 
 us to hear it on another. We ask them to consider 
 it on all the three. Scripture has the same autho- 
 rity when speaking on the privilege of baptized per- 
 sons, and their qualification for the rite, as it has 
 when speaking on justification by faith, and the 
 spirituality of the church composed of baptized 
 believers. 
 
 The argument to be examined is based upon the 
 assumption that " There is only ' one baptism ' in the 
 Christian church."* And that this " one baptism" 
 "is the initiatory rite of the Christian church. "f 
 The question therefore is, " whether faith be or be 
 not the proper quahfication"+ for " this one baptism." 
 It initiates the recipient into the Christian church : 
 does it initiate him without faith ? and. if so, how 
 can the puritv and spirituality of the church be 
 secured ? and how can the fulness of scripture truth 
 
 * Halley's Reply, p. 199. f Sacra, p. 7. % Ibid. p. 113. 
 
198 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 be realized, in such members of the church, without 
 resigning the doctrine of justification by faith? 
 
 To meet the foregoing difficulties, it is said, with 
 consent of both the brethren, " Baptism, it seems 
 evident from the New Testament, is not to be re- 
 garded as a social or church ordinance." * How, then, 
 is this "one baptism" "the initiatory rite of the 
 Christian church?" They say, it is the initiatory 
 rite of the Christian church, and yet it is not a church 
 ordinance. Besides this flat contradiction, the brethren 
 forget the fulness of scripture truth. It is said by 
 Paul, " Ye, as many as have been baptized into 
 Christ, have put on Christ : ye are sons of God by 
 faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. iii. 25 — 27). Can any 
 persons be more at home in the church, the household 
 of God, than those who are sons of God by faith in 
 Christ Jesus ? 
 
 But it is answered — " Baptism" " did not" " intro- 
 duce the persons baptized to connection with any par- 
 ticular church, or society of Christians. They were 
 simply baptized into the faith of Christ,t and the 
 general fellowship of the gospel." " Their baptism 
 was administered to " " the converts," simply on " a 
 
 * Halley's Reply, p. 124. 
 
 •f It is worth consideration, that there is no such expression 
 in holy scripture as this " baptized into the faith of Christ," 
 etc. We have " baptized into Christ" (Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 
 27). It is very strange that those who contend that persons 
 should be baptized into Christ, without faith, should prepare 
 the way for their object by inventing the wwscriptural phrase 
 ^^ baptized into the faith of Christ," and adding the word 
 "simply." 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 199 
 
 profession of their faith ?"* If these words be taken 
 in the full meaning which they have in holy scripture, 
 without the modifying term " simply," and the new 
 definition, " particular church," which is not found in 
 scripture, the statement comes very near to the fact of 
 the case. Converts, in the days of our Lord and his 
 apostles, were baptized on a profession of their faith ; 
 and, in being so baptized into the faith of Christ, 
 into Christ, and into his death, they were born of 
 water, and so became sons of God by faith in Christ 
 Jesus. But what more was needed in order to their 
 fellowship ? " Being justified by faith they had peace 
 with God, and access into the grace wherein his people 
 stand" (Rom. v. 1). Why then say, "simply" only, 
 as if something more than being " baptized into the 
 faith of Christ " was needed in order to fellowship } 
 This labouring against the full meaning of a scriptural 
 word evinces the bringing forth of some unscriptural 
 conception. If the faith of the persons be not pro- 
 fessed as real, they cannot be baptized into it ; if it 
 be sincere, though it be doubted whether a man can, 
 in the church, be justified by faith without baptism, 
 who will doubt the fact of his justification there, when 
 " baptized into the faith of Christ ?" This struggling 
 with the words of scripture shows a necessity for more 
 careful attention to its testimony respecting the will 
 of God. The justification by faith, the purity and 
 spirituality of the church, and the full meaning of holy 
 scripture, must be taken together. Nothing, with 
 which they will not harmonise, is sound in theory, or 
 safe in practice. 
 
 * Wardlaw in H alley's Reply, p. 124. 
 
200 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 On the necessity of faith to Christian fellowship, 
 professedly, no diversity of opinion exists between those 
 brethren at all. But each is anxious, in his own way, 
 to find a protection, in the words of scripture, for the 
 practice of infant baptism, which is common to them 
 both. It is said, professedly , because much of the 
 reasoning advanced to oppose discrimination in bap- 
 tism, is equally opposed to discrimination in fellow- 
 ship ; whether the body of Christ consist of one 
 assembly, as in the time of our Lord, or of many 
 assemblies, as in the time of Paul, Dr. Halley seems 
 driven to this resource by the peculiar nature of his 
 undertaking. The limited theory of infant baptism, 
 defended by Dr. Wardlaw, and followed by the Scotch 
 Independents, though it came in his way, was not the 
 principal object in his design. His aim was to take 
 a position from which he might repel the Tractmen 
 on one side, and the Baptists on the other. Hence 
 his hypothesis — " If baptism do not produce, or im- 
 ply, any moral or spiritual change," etc.* The sup- 
 position is well constructed, if it could be sustained ; 
 and the double inference is inevitable, derived from 
 the two words, "produce" and "imply." If baptism 
 do not produce any moral or spiritual change, " the 
 whole fabric of sacramental efficacy falls to the 
 ground ;" and if baptism do not " imply '' any moral 
 or spiritual change, the whole fabric of believer's bap- 
 tism falls to the ground. This is clear, if sustained ; but 
 the supposition cannot stand for law without some 
 proof. It must find an authority in the fulness of 
 
 * Sacraments, p. 113. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 201 
 
 scripture truth ; and it must be shown to harmonise 
 with justification by faith, and the spirituahty of the 
 Christian church : but when, as we have seen, those 
 three sources of evidence provethat baptism rf/c? "imjo/y" 
 a moral and spiritual change in its recipient, though, as 
 our brother designed, the fabric of sacramental efficacy 
 falls to the ground, yet must his own supposition and 
 theory fall with it. In removing the stone from a 
 sloping edifice, he buries himself in its ruins. 
 
 Had the indiscriminate theory been a little farther 
 from the ultimate error in this question, so as to 
 admit of a less general statement, it could scarcely 
 have called for Dr. Wardlaw's Strictures He does not 
 wish to explode the theory of infant baptism, though 
 shocked at its proposed defence. The first and obvious 
 fact, that no discrimination of disciples, after their 
 baptism, is hinted at in the New Testament, as a 
 qualification to fellowship, forces itself into direct and 
 unquestionable hostility with the scheme. This fact 
 renders an indiscriminate baptism incompatible with 
 discriminating spirituality in the Christian church, 
 unless some after discrimination be instituted, for 
 which no* authority whatever can be found in the 
 word of God. As no mention is made of infant 
 baptism in scripture, as far as its authority is con- 
 cerned, the whole investigation must proceed on the 
 case of adults. Dr. Halley had to show, therefore, 
 that these were baptized without discrimination, in 
 order that by this indiscriminating feature of his 
 theory he might include the infants. This made the 
 matter worse, and forced him one step farther ; for 
 if baptism include infants, because it is indiscriminate. 
 
202 RECONCILIATION OF ARGTMENTS ON THE 
 
 it must include aU infants indiscriminately . Hence 
 come the two points on which Dr, Wardlaw's objec- 
 tions bear : first, the indiscriminate administration of 
 baptism to adults ; and, secondly, the indiscriminate 
 administration of baptism to infants : or, more gene- 
 rally, in opposition to the indiscriminating theory 
 altogether, he maintains that faith is the quahfica- 
 tion to baptism in the adult, and that faith in the 
 parent is a qualification to baptism in the infant. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw's objechons to Dr. Halley's theory 
 are founded on its own intrinsic nature, on its oppo- 
 sition to particular scriptures, and the inconsistency 
 to be observed between its several parts, or, rather, 
 between the several statements of its author while 
 exhibiting it. 
 
 To transcribe Dr. Wardlaw's argument without re- 
 printing the whole, would be doing it injustice. Onlv 
 such parts will be given here, therefore, as are 
 necessary to place before the reader his conclusion, 
 and the evidence on which it is sustained. 
 
 On the theory of Dr. Halley, taken as a whole, it 
 is said, — 
 
 " It is a matter of sincere concern to me, that such a man 
 should have embraced and defended a scheme so loose, so un- 
 scriptural, so mischievous" as ''this indiscriminate baptism of 
 adults, and consequently of infants." * 
 
 " The church is no longer national. It consists now of ' the 
 Israel of God, of a spiritual people, of the children of Abraham 
 by faith and character, of the ' chosen generation.' the ' royal 
 priesthood,' the ' holy nati >n,' the ' peculiar people,' who ' show 
 forth the praises of him who hath calkd them out of darkness 
 into his marveiious light.' "i" 
 
 *' In this point there appears to me to be, on the part of Dr. 
 
 * Wardlaw, Appendix, p. 272. f Ibid. p. 27". 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 203 
 
 Halley, a very important error — strange, as fallen into by him 
 — and most mischievous in its legitimate consequences. He 
 dwells, emphatically, upon the greater enlargement of the 
 church under the gospel dispensation ; while he leaves almost 
 entirely out of his reckoning a no less momentous change in its 
 constitution — its increased spirituality."* 
 
 " Had Dr. Halley limited his conclusion to the church as 
 gathered out of all nations, it would have been correct; but 
 when he insists on baptism unrestrictedly for ' all the nations,' 
 as such, independently of faith or the profession of it, and yet 
 equally insists on the necessity of a restriction in regard to 
 church membership and the Lord's table, and on the indispen- 
 sableness of faith to these, — he institutes a distinction which the 
 New Testament does not seem to me anywhere to recognise. "f 
 
 " If faith was not a pre-requisite to baptism, and faith was a 
 pre-requisite to communion at the Lord's supper, how comes it 
 that we have no such cases .' The entire New Testament, in its 
 historical and epistolary parts alike, bears me out in the affirma- 
 tion that no farther profession than that which was made in 
 order to baptism was, in any case, required in order to admis- 
 sion to the church and the table of the Lord. "J 
 
 " These points of difference between my friend and myself" 
 " have a practical bearing. I regard them as not only unscrip- 
 tural, but perilously so to the constitution and character of the 
 New Testament church ; as tending, if consistently followed 
 out, to undermine and destroy it as a spiritual and separate 
 community. ''§ 
 
 These just and unanswerable affirmations lie against 
 the scheme of Dr. Halley, considered as a whole and 
 in itself. The judgment passed against it, when con- 
 sidered in relation to particular passages of scripture, 
 may be stated in fewer words. 
 
 Acts viii. 36, 37, called by Dr. Halley " a scandalous 
 forgery," that is to say, a various reading in the Greek 
 text is very justly resigned ; nothing of importance 
 can be educed from it until the various reading is ex- 
 plained and corrected. 
 
 * Wardlaw, Appendix, p. 280. t Ibid, p. 286. 
 
 + Ibid. p. 286. § Ibid. p. 291. 
 
204 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 But Dr. Wardlaw shows that this is not the only text 
 to be adduced in support of the connection between 
 baptism and previous faith, that is, profession of 
 faith."* 
 
 " One should think that the connection between faith and 
 baptism ought to be sufficiently ascertained to the satisfaction 
 of any ingenuous mind by the simple reading of such passages 
 as these : — Mark xvi. 16, ' Go — preach the gospel to every 
 creature : he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.' 
 Acts ii. 38, ' Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.' Acts ii. 41, 
 ' Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.' 
 Acts viii. 12, ' When they believed Philip preaching the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, 
 they were baptized, both men and women ;' — and verse 13, 
 ' Then Simon himself believed also ; and when he was baptized, 
 he continued with Philip,' etc. Acts xvi. 14, 15, ' Whose heart 
 the Lord opened, that she attended to the things which were 
 spoken of Paul : and when she was baptized and her house- 
 hold,' etc. Acts xvi. 31 — 34, ' And they said Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 
 And they spake unto him the Word of the Lord, and to all 
 that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of 
 the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and 
 all his, straightway. And when he had brought them into his 
 bouse, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God 
 with all his house.' Acts xviii. 8, 'And many of the Corin- 
 thians hearing, believed, and were baptized.' Gal. iii. 26, 27, 
 ' For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 
 For as many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ, 
 have put on Christ." f 
 
 The recital of these passages is not the only ser- 
 vice Dr. Wardlaw has performed. He shows that in 
 these passages faith is put before baptism, repentance 
 is put before baptism, and, in the case of the house- 
 holds, hearing and Jailh go before baptism, while re- 
 rejoicing follows immediately after ; for the jailor 
 
 * Wardlaw's Appendix, p. 297, f Ibid. p. 298. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 205 
 
 " rejoiced, believing in God with all his house : and 
 finally, the last passage quoted proves that the very 
 reason why the Galatians were children of God was, 
 because they had, by being baptized into Christ, put 
 on Christ, which could not be done without faith. 
 
 The more Dr. Wardlaw's powerful reasoning on 
 the foregoing statements is studied, the more manifest 
 it will appear that this conclusion, on the connection be- 
 tween faith and baptism, is correct ; and this conclusion 
 is the appointed and indispensable protection to the 
 purity and spirituality of the church of Christ on 
 earth. "When this enclosure is destroyed, the garden 
 of the Lord is, everywhere, exposed to lawless depre- 
 dation. 
 
 After the numerous instances suppUed and censured 
 in the foregoing pages, it is not requisite to trans- 
 cribe the just and obvious examples collected, by Dr. 
 Wardlaw, to prove that the reasoning of Dr. Halley is 
 inconsistent with itself. Never was an author so at 
 variance with himself, or so easily driven, by pecipi- 
 tancy, to form a general conclusion from a particular 
 case. On one page, when reasoning against baptismal 
 regeneration, he seems to admit all that an advocate 
 of believers' baptism could desire ; and on another 
 page, he affirms, " that baptism was administered, 
 without any qualification." There is not (he says) in 
 one of " these historical notes " of scripture, " the 
 slightest intimation of any pre-requisite." Well may 
 Dr. Wardlaw say, " not the slightest !" — " not in any 
 one of them!" — "none whatever!" "There is a 
 recklessness in all this, for which I am unable to ac- 
 
206 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 count;"* and especially when the cases produced by 
 Dr. Wardlaw show " the difficulty, the impossibility 
 experienced by Dr. Halley, of writing on the subject 
 in anything like harmony with the principle and spirit 
 of the theory, "t 
 
 As a body of evidence, supplied by a Psedobaptist, 
 on the connection between faith and baptism in the 
 Christian church, in the time of the Lord and his 
 apostles, the Appendix of Dr. Wardlaw is unrivaled. 
 It is also presented with so fall a sense of the solem- 
 nity of the subject, that it cannot be read without 
 advantage. If it fail in the treatment of any eluci- 
 dating or confirmatory scripture, the deficiency will 
 be found in the slight attention paid to those episto- 
 lary passages which have been so powerfully pleaded 
 by the Tractraen ; and in the almost entire neglect of 
 the prophecies, which went before, respecting the 
 spirituality of the Redeemer's kingdom. By the 
 epistolary passages, such as Rom. vi. ] — 13, the 
 affirmations respecting persons baptized into Christ, 
 clearly prove the connection between baptism and 
 faith ; the faith being supposed where the baptism 
 had been received. These passages prepare the 
 mind to use, rightly, the historical cases recorded in 
 the Acts. Each class of passages elucidates the 
 other. The indispensable requirement of faith, in 
 baptism, is thus found, at the Pentecost, before any 
 separate assemblies in the body of Christ existed; 
 and, that this same qualification to discipleship and 
 
 * Appendix, p. 329. f Ibid. p. 344. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 207 
 
 baptism was enforced, is proved by the facts of the 
 forty-seven days, the ministry of our Lord and of 
 John, and the import of the foregoing prophecies. 
 All teach the spirituality of the kingdom, the body 
 of Christ, the church, the family of God, and, from 
 that spirituality of the kingdom, before the separate 
 assemblies existed, as well as after, it is clear, that 
 no one coald be lawfully baptized who was not pre- 
 pared for communion ; and that none could be pre- 
 pared for communion without faith in our Lord Jesus 
 Christ. From the beginning, repentance for sin, 
 and personal subjection, by faith, to the will and 
 guidance of their Redeemer, have formed the qualifi- 
 cation on which disciples were, and are to be, united 
 by baptism, in fellowship and for service in the king- 
 dom of heaven. 
 
 "When these concessions of Dr. Wardlaw, sustained 
 by the additional evidence adduced in the lectures on 
 Christian Discipleship, are carried to their legitimate 
 result, the fact that he still retains the practice of 
 infant baptism appears to be strangely inconsistent. 
 His own reasonings, and the positive authorities he 
 adduces, deprive the practice to which he adheres of 
 all direct authority from scripture whatever, and 
 reduce its defence to a mere inference sustained, as 
 he supposes, by negative corroborations, as fully 
 opposed to his own reasoning, in defence of the spi- 
 rituality of the church, as any inconsistency in Dr. 
 Halley's statements, is to the indiscriminating theory 
 which he defends. The question of infant baptism 
 demands a calm and prayerful consideration of this 
 particular. 
 
208 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 As some advocates for the practice derive the ori- 
 ginal suggestion of infant baptism from the proselyte 
 baptism supposed to have existed before the coming 
 of Christ, and then plead that nothing in his practice 
 or laws can be found positively to prohibit it, so Dr. 
 Wardlaw derives the original suggestion from the 
 Abrahamic covenant, and then pleads that we have 
 no proof of its repeal. In each case the argument is 
 the same ; an inference, supported bv supposed nega- 
 tive evidence. This is the more strange in Dr. Ward- 
 law, because he says, " The church is no longer 
 national. It consists now of the Israel of God, of a 
 spiritual people, of the children of Abraham by faith and 
 character," and he quotes Gal. iii. 26, in which it is 
 said, to those who were baptized into Christ. If ye 
 are Christ's, then are ye Abraham seed, and heirs 
 according to the promise. And since Paul positively 
 affirms that, neither afore time, nor now, were the 
 children of the flesh, the heirs of the promise, since 
 Ishmael and Esau were rejected, but the persons 
 named or described in the promise, as Isaac and 
 Jacob inherited it, it is hard to see how this could 
 lead us to expect any such hereditary right now, 
 especially since Paul declares, that the same sovereign 
 grace which excluded Ishmael and Esau, but made 
 Isaac and Jacob heirs of the ancient covenant, has 
 now determined, that believers only can be inheritors 
 of this covenant under Christ. In the " Hereditary 
 Claims to the Covenant of Grace considered and 
 rejected," published by '•' Mr. Stovel," 1842, this 
 whole argument is examined ; and, it is there shown 
 that, if the law of baptism in the New Testament 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 209 
 
 follow the analogy of the Abrahamic covenant, the 
 evidence to be derived from thence, will prove that 
 believers only can be its recipients ; for, if the chil- 
 dren of Abraham were circumcised because they in- 
 herited the covenant, and the children of heathens 
 were not circumcised because they did not inherit the 
 covenant ; then believers in Christ should be bap- 
 tized because they do inherit his covenant, and unbe- 
 lievers of every kind, should not be baptized, because 
 they do not inherit his covenant ; for, " they which 
 are the children of the flesh, these are not the chil- 
 dren of God ; but the children of the promise are 
 counted for the seed," Rom. ix. 8. " He that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that 
 believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi. 16. 
 
 Dr. Halley's objection to this Abrahamic argument, 
 will be best understood, when its statement is before 
 us in Dr. Wardlaw's own words ; — 
 
 " We state our argument thus : — Before the coming of Christ, 
 the covenant of grace had been revealed; and under that cove- 
 nant there existed a divinely instituted connection between 
 children and their parents ; the sign and seal of the blessings 
 of the covenant was, by divine ayf ointment, administered to 
 children ; and there can be produced no satisfactory evidence 
 of this connection having been done away." (Wardlaw's Dis- 
 sertation, p. 20j. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw's argument for infant baptism, rests 
 altogether upon this sentence. He pleads no positive 
 authorityfor it whatever, but rests it entirely on the sup- 
 posed " connection between children and their parents ;" 
 as though the children of the flesh were the children 
 of God, when Paul, as before shown, says, and proves, 
 that they " are not." Dr. Chalmers' argument. 
 
210 KECOXCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 stated in nearly the same words, was answered in 
 1843.* Dr. ^N'ardlaw rests the practice on the same 
 assumption, and merely endeavours to prove that the 
 connection between children and their parents in the 
 covenant of grace has not been done away. Dr. 
 Halley answers this with great force and accuracy. 
 
 " No one is hound to produce ' satisfactory evi- 
 dence of its having been done away/ until some one 
 produce satisfactory evidence of its having ever 
 existed, "t 
 
 " The obvious reply, which a child could hardly 
 fail of noticing, is. The Jewish parent transmitted the 
 natural relation to his child, and, of course, trans- 
 mitted its privileges, hut the Christian parent does not 
 transmit the spiritual relation, and therefore does not 
 transmit its privil ges."X 
 
 " The analogy of the covenant with Abraham 
 might, with some show of reason, be pleaded on 
 behalf of the children of ' another Abraham,' and 
 equally so for all his posterit}'." " But if a behever 
 be not ' another Abraham,' how comes it to pass that 
 his children are baptized on account of their con- 
 nection with him ?"§ 
 
 " No ' descendants' of any person, in any line 
 whatever, note constitute the visible church of God ; 
 and, therefore, no line has to be distinguished from 
 others by the seal of the covenant."|| 
 
 " The church is no longer national. It consbts 
 now of the ' Israel of God,' of the spiritual people, 
 of the children of Abraham by faith and character, of 
 
 * Puseyisni: by C. Stovel, p. 223. f Sacraments, p. 536. 
 
 ■ X Reply, p." 136. § Ibid. p. 136. || Ibid. p. 138. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OP CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 211 
 
 ' the chosen generation,' the ' royal priesthood, the 
 ' holy nation,' the ' peculiar people,' who show forth 
 the praises of him who hath called them out of dark- 
 ness into his marvellous light." — Dr. Wardlaw's 
 Appendix, p, 277. 
 
 From the two last passages it will be seen how 
 curiously these learned brethren contradict each other 
 with the same truth. The spirituality of the church 
 of Christ, which both affirm, is, by each, affirmed in 
 opposition to the other ; because each theory is, by 
 its opponent, found to be in total opposition to the 
 common truth. Dr. Wardlaw, in defending the 
 spirituaHty of the church, is right ; but, in affirming 
 his Abrahamic theory, falls, without resource, under 
 his brother's reasoning ; and he falls with the above 
 most clear, and resistless affirmation, in his mouth, 
 confirming the very argument that strikes him down. 
 Thus, to defend a fiction, they wound each other with 
 the truth of God. How indispensable does it appear 
 from hence that the fulness of scripture evidence 
 should be taken ; and, that all the interests it autho- 
 rizes should be made to harmonize in their conclu- 
 sion, and not, by adhering to some one part of Divine 
 truth, and mingling it with some extraneous element, 
 be thus forced into warfare by words of mercy and 
 of peace. Dr. Wardlaw's own affirmation, " The 
 church consists now of the Israel of God, of the spi- 
 ritual people," etc., combined with the affirmation 
 that " the entire New Testament, in its historical and 
 epistolary parts, bears me out in the affirmation, that 
 no further profession than that which was made in 
 order to baptism was, in any case, required in order 
 p2 
 
^12 RECONCILIA.TION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 to admission to the church and table of the Lord, is 
 most decisive." If the church now '' consist of the 
 spiritual people," and no further profession than 
 that which was made in order to baptism was, in any 
 case, required in order to admission to the church 
 and table of the Lord, then every baptized person 
 tnust have professed that spirituahty of mind which 
 is necessary to fellowship " in the church," and at the 
 table of the Lord ; or, otherwise, being baptized 
 without this qualification, the individual would, by 
 law, enter the church, and come to the table, without 
 this lawful qualification. The law is thus placed 
 against itself ; and, to avoid the consequence, the 
 baptized individual is kept out of the church, for in- 
 spection, by some unscriptural rule. This is just 
 the consequence to which our brother's argument 
 from the Abrahamic covenant leads. By an hereditary 
 claim, which cannot be justified, he baptizes mul- 
 titudes, whose entrance into the Christian church, 
 he knows, must destroy its spirituality ; and yet, 
 he pleads that no further profession after baptism can, 
 in any case, be required by scripture. So far his 
 theory destroys itself. By limiting the baptism to 
 children of believers, he does nothing, but expose 
 himself to every shaft in Dr. Halley's quiver. To 
 harmonize his pleadings, one other step must be 
 taken, by assuming that children of believers have 
 faith, as children of men have reason. If this be not 
 assumed, Dr. Halley is perfectly right in saying; 
 V No ' descendants' of any person, in any line what-* 
 ever, now constitute the visible church of God ;" and, 
 therefore, no line has to be distinguished from others 
 
ADMINISTRATION OP CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 213 
 
 by the seal of the covenant. Dr. Wardlaw him- 
 self says, " no further profession than that which was 
 made in order to baptism was, in any case, required 
 in order to admission to the church and the table of 
 the Lord," and the church now consists, of " the 
 children of Abraham by faith and character :" there- 
 fore, the profession made in baptism now must be that 
 of being children of Abraham by faith and character. 
 For if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
 ?ind heirs according to the promise, ye as many as 
 have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ, 
 ye are sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 
 
 The more carefully we study the scriptures referred 
 to by Dr. Wardlaw, the more clearly shall we see the 
 safety of this conclusion. That God made a covenant 
 of mercy with men from the first detection of their 
 sin is unquestionable, it is comprehended in the words 
 the seed of the woman " shall bruise thy head, and 
 thou shalt bruise his heel," G«n. iii. 15. Reference 
 is made to this when God said to Noah, " I will 
 establish my covenant with you," and promised that 
 the earth should no more be destroyed by a flood. 
 Gen. ix. 11 — 17. How much of information was 
 granted in those times respecting the character of this 
 expected seed, and his purpose to destroy the works 
 of the devil, it is difficult, if not impossible, now to 
 ascertain ; but there can be no doubt that the radical 
 idea of deliverance from sin and its consequences was 
 perceived, and the desire of that deliverance cherished 
 before the words " I will establish my covenant be- 
 tween me and thee and thy seed, etc.," were spoken 
 to Abraham, Gen. xvii. 7. The essential idea of a 
 
214 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS; ON THE 
 
 merciful deliverance from sin end its effects, -was 
 included in every renewal of this covenant, and this 
 becomes more plain in the expression, " And in thy 
 seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," 
 Gen. xxii. 18. The original promise points out a 
 particular person, " it shall bruise thy head and thou 
 shalt bruise his heel," and to Abraham, " He saith 
 not, and to seeds as of mani/ ; but as of one, and to 
 thy seed, which is Christ," Gal. iii. 16. The deliver- 
 ance of mercy, therefore, was from the beginning, 
 covenanted, and confirmed of God in Christ, " the 
 seed of the woman," "the seed of Abraham," the 
 son of David, Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ of God. 
 Connected with this promise of the Christ, there are 
 two grants of inheritance, both given in mercy, and 
 by promise, the one preparatory to his coming, and 
 the other consequent upon his coming and work ; 
 the one includes the inheritance of Canaan, " Sinai," 
 the earthly Jerusalem ; the other, " Jerusalem which 
 is from above," the church of Christ with all her pri- 
 vileges and blessings. Gal. iv, 24 — 27. The first in- 
 heritance was granted to Abraham by promise, circum- 
 cision marked his offspring as its inheritors, and the 
 law "was added because of transgression, till the seed," 
 the Christ, till Jesus " should come to whom the pro- 
 mise," " in thee shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed," "was made," Gal. iii. 19, 8. The law 
 " was added," to the first preparatory inheritance, 
 " till,'^ and only until, he should come through whom 
 Abraham should " be the heir of the world," Rom. 
 iv. 13, and through whom " all nations should be 
 blessed" in him. Gal. iii. 8. Thus " the law," like all 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 215 
 
 preparatory dispensations in their places, " was our 
 schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ," Gal. iii. 24. 
 When the Christ was come, therefore, this preparatory- 
 inheritance and dispensation, having accomplished 
 their object, ceased. Tbe preparatory dispensation 
 and the law that was added, ceased, they had no more 
 authority, the Lord himself was come. — The grant 
 of inheritance consequent upon his coming and work 
 is that which, by the grace of God, is enjoyed in the 
 kingdom of heaven, the church, the body of Christ, 
 in covenant relationship with the Lord himself. It 
 includes the deliverance from siri and its consequences, 
 and that renewed enjoyment of Divine favour and 
 fellowship in which it was covenanted, from the 
 beginning, that " all nations should be blessed," and 
 the work of Satan be destroyed. The question 
 therefore is, who, by the grace of God, is justified 
 in claiming this inheritance which is consequent upon 
 the coming and work of Christ ? This is answered 
 by Paul. First in respect to the Jews, " know ye 
 therefore that they which are of faith, the same are 
 the children of Abraham," Gal. iii. 7. Secondly, 
 with regard to the Gentiles, '' And the scripture 
 foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
 faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, 
 saying, in thee shall all nations of the earth be 
 blessed," Gal. iii. 8. This identifies the consequent 
 inheritance with the terms of the covenant granted to 
 Abraham, and hence with respect to both Jews and 
 Gentiles, it is said, " ye are all the children of God 
 by faith in Christ Jesus," " there is neither Jew nor 
 Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
 
216 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus," 
 ■Gal. iii. 26 — 28. " For ye, as many as have been 
 baptized into Christ have put on Christ," " and if ye 
 be Christ's then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
 ■according to the promise," Gal. iii. 27, 29. It is 
 plain, therefore, from this positive authority, that the 
 preparatory dispensation and law, in which circum- 
 cision was included, has been done away ; for, " the 
 law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that 
 .we might be justified by faith, but after that faith is 
 .come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster," Gal. 
 iii. 24, 25. The only dispensation in which any mere 
 National relationship had a7iy place whatever, is ful- 
 ■filled and done away, and with it, by the clearest 
 positive authority, every shadow of a basis for Dr. 
 •Wardlaw's argument is removed. The only claimant 
 here justified, is he who believes in Christ ; and the 
 only baptism here exhibited and attested, is that in 
 ■which this believing and justified claimant puts on 
 Christ ; and therefore, it is added, "Ye are all chil- 
 dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus," and by this 
 faith ye have " put on Christ" in your baptism : and 
 " because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit 
 of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father," 
 Gal. iv. 6, with iii. 13, 14, 26. 
 
 Besides this positive evidence derived from Dr. 
 Wardlaw's chosen authority, two practical cases of 
 great importance in the apostles' time were so deter- 
 mined as to throw additional illustration over this 
 inquiry : the first involved a claim to this inheritance 
 of mercy based on works of law, and the second was 
 a claim to inheritance based on a natural descent 
 
ADMINISTRATION OP CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 217 
 
 from Abraham : in each case the claim is not only 
 not allowed, but the way in which Paul proves that 
 it cannot be justified, demands particular attention. 
 
 The first claim, based on a performance of legal 
 rites, such as circumcision, etc., became the more 
 important because it involved the case of converted 
 heathen; and those who expelled them, though be-f 
 lieving, because they had not performed the Jewish 
 rites, were in danger of trusting those rites without 
 the faith which God demanded. The question, 
 therefore, became fully investigated, and the decision 
 was given with the greatest distinctness. As the 
 disputes on this point crossed the path of Paul, and 
 became to him the source of great embarassment, his 
 statements and conduct on the point are forcibly con^ 
 elusive. Withstanding Peter to the face, he said, 
 " We who are Jews by nature, knowing that a man 
 is not justified by the works of the law, but by the 
 faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus 
 Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of 
 Christ, and not by the works of the law : for by the 
 works of the law shall no flesh be justified." " And 
 the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the 
 heathen through faith, preached before the gospel 
 unto Abraham, saying, " In thee shall all the nations 
 of the earth be blessed," " so that they which be of 
 faith are blessed with faithful Abraham," Gal ii. 16, 
 iii. 8. This argument is expounded by Paul in 
 another place. He there shows, not only that no 
 flesh can be justified by works of law in claiming 
 this inheritance with, and from God ; but further, 
 that the promise, concerning which Abraham believed 
 
218 KECOXCILIATIOX OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 God and was justified, and in expecting which we are 
 to be justified by faith in Christ, was given before 
 the law or the circumcision was instituted. " How 
 •was it then reckoned ? when" Abraham " was in 
 circumcision, or in uncircumcision ? Not in circum- 
 cision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the 
 sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of 
 the faith tchich he had yet being uncircumcised ; that 
 he might be the father of all them that believe, though 
 they be not circumcised,'"' Rom. iv. 10. The alliance 
 to Abraham, therefore, by which any claim can be 
 made to the promise of blessing in Christ through 
 him, is removed from the law, which became super- 
 seded when Christ came, and based on the exercise 
 of that faith through which he had been justified, in 
 the same expectation, before the law or circumcision 
 was instituted. The association of men, with Abra- 
 ham, in the inheritance of blessing resulting from the 
 appearance and work of Christ, is, therefore, an 
 association of faith in Christ Jesus. This alone jus- 
 tifies the expectation of blessedness in him, Rom. iii. 
 26. By this we have peace with God through our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, Rom. v. 1. By this faith, he 
 saith " We as many as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ were baptized into his death," Rom. vi, 3. 
 Bv this faith, they had " obeyed from the heart that 
 form of doctrine which was delivered" to them, Rom. 
 vi. 17. Their faith came by hearing, it was an obe- 
 dience to the truth, a confession of the Lord Jesus, 
 it placed them in Christ where there is no condemna- 
 tion, and gave them, through the spirit of adoption, 
 as sons of God, a fellowship with Abraham and aU 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 219 
 
 saints, in the love of God which is in Jesus Christ 
 our Lord. 
 
 The second rejected plea for inheritance in this bless- 
 ing was based on personal relationship to Abraham. To 
 this the w^ords of John apply when urging his demand 
 of repentance and faith, he said, " Think not within 
 yourselves to say, we have Abraham to our father," 
 Matt. iii. 9 ; and the same thing is rebuked in the 
 words of our Lord, " If ye were Abraham's children, 
 ye would do the works of Abraham," John viii. 39. 
 As an undefined sentiment, or as an assumed prin- 
 ciple, this claim to Divine favour based on a fleshly 
 relationship almost governed the Jewish people, and 
 made the greatest provision of mercy a stumbling 
 stone. To break up the error, Paul proves that a 
 mere fleshly relationship to Abraham never justified 
 a claim to the inheritance promised through him, in 
 any dispensation whatsoever ; for Ishmael and the chil- 
 dren of Keturah were nine persons as much sons of 
 Abraham as Isaac was, but Isaac alone inherited the 
 hereditary promise. They had direct personal re- 
 lationship, but their claim could not be justified, as 
 Esau had direct personal relationship, and yet could 
 not be justified in claiming the birthright. Hence the 
 direct afiirmations — " They are not all Israel that are 
 of Israel:" " Neither, because they are the seed of 
 Abraham, are they all children :" " That is, they 
 which are the children of the flesh, these are not the 
 children of God; but the children of the promise are 
 counted for the seed," Rom. ix. 6 — 8. As, there- 
 fore, in the preparatory dispensation, sovereign grace 
 distinguished between man and man in making Isaac 
 
220 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 and Jacob heirs of the promise instead of Tshmael 
 and Esau, so sovereign grace has now determined 
 that behevers in Christ, and not wwbehevers, should 
 inherit the promise of mercy in him (Rom. ix. 33). 
 But Dr. Wardlaw assumes that baptism is now the 
 sign of this relationship to Abraham in the inherit- 
 ance of Divine mercy, and the relationship itself 
 depends on the existence of justifying faith. The 
 sign, therefore, requires a credible declaration of that 
 faith, and the baptism is believers' baptism. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw claims the respect which is due to a 
 father in Israel, and with all that respect, this positive 
 breaking up of his main position is submitted from 
 the Apostle Paul. In the last case especially, he 
 will not fail to recognise the only proof he has 
 given in support of his assumption that, " before 
 the coming of Christ, the covenant of grace had 
 been revealed; and under that covenant there existed 
 a divinely instituted connection between children and 
 their parents. That any such connection existed 
 by Divine appointment, as would justify a claim to 
 " the blessings of the covenant," is by St. Paul posi- 
 tively denied. It never existed in the case of Israel 
 even, it was more obviously departed from in the 
 case of Isaac, and still more remarkably in that of 
 Abraham. It was never declared as a Divine law 
 in the covenant of grace. The only feature by 
 which Dr. Wardlaw's assumption finds a place in 
 the reasoning of St. Paul, is that in which it be- 
 comes identified with the error which John and 
 Jesus and Paul alike condemned. By forming their 
 hopes of Divine mercy, and regulating their con- 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 22l' 
 
 duct towards the Redeemer and his church — by in- 
 ferences drawn from speculations on human and 
 earthly relationship, — the Jews, in Paul's time, re- 
 sisted the counsel of God against themselves, and 
 provoked his deepest and bitterest sympathies ; it 
 remains, perhaps, for after ages to unfold the full 
 amount of evil which, in the church of Christ, must 
 flow from the imitation of an error, which, in spite of 
 all apostolical authority and exertion, made the Re- 
 deemer himself a stumbling stone (Rom. ix. 33). 
 
 Moreover, on the assumption that infant baptism 
 is right. Dr. Halley successfully shows that Dr. 
 Wardlaw's system is, in principle and in practice, 
 the same as his own. That the Dissertation is in- 
 consistent with the Appendix ; that the argument of 
 the Dissertation is untenable ; and that the objections 
 in Wardlaw's Appendix bear, with equal force, against 
 the practice advocated in his Dissertation, and that for 
 which Dr. Halley pleads. One example will be suf- 
 ficient to elucidate and confirm these truths. Dr. 
 Halley, to prove that other persons than those who 
 make a credible declaration of their faith in Christ 
 should be baptized, pleads that the baptism is not con- 
 nected with faith at all ; though many of his state- 
 ments imply, and some express, the connection 
 between faith and baptism, notwithstanding. Pass- 
 ing the self-contradiction here, to guard his theory 
 from that opposition to the purity of the church with 
 which it is charged, so justly, he pleads that persons 
 were baptized at the beginning of that course by 
 which they were prepared for full communion at the 
 Lord's table, and in the church or body of Christ* 
 
222 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 The persons received into fellowship are thus repre- 
 sented as being discriminated after their baptism, and 
 before their admission to communion. Thus, by bap- 
 tizing indiscriminately and discriminating after bap- 
 tism, he professes to secure the spirituality of the 
 church. This is the very thing which Dr. Wardlaw 
 condemns as unscriptural. All the New Testament 
 proves this judgment to be correct. No discrimina- 
 tion of disciples after baptism, and in order to com- 
 munion, can be found in holy scripture. But when 
 he has thus condemned this expedient against Dr. 
 Halley, Dr. Wardlaw is compelled to employ it as the 
 sole defence of his own system, against the very same 
 charge on which he so justly condemns that of his 
 brother. Whether infants be baptized indiscrimi- 
 nately, or only the infants of believers be baptized, 
 the case is not materially changed. The baptized in- 
 fants, unless faith be inherited by natural birth from 
 believers, are, in either case, unprepared for commu- 
 nion in the church of Christ ; and, if admitted to it, 
 by that very means the church of Christ must lose its 
 purity and spirituality. Perhaps the limited theory is 
 something worse than the other, because it has less to 
 put people on their guard, and, though more slowly, 
 effectuates the result more absolutely. The only sup- 
 posable practice worse than this would occur if be- 
 lievers' baptism come to be administered with un- 
 faithfulness and precipitancy. The thing to be 
 dreaded is the recognizing in persons, whose be- 
 lie\-ing subjection to the Lord has not been ascer- 
 tained, a right to communion in the church of Christ, 
 and a hope of final glory. As no discrimination after 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 223 
 
 baptism, for this end, is consistent either with the na- 
 ture of baptism or with the word of God, this dread- 
 ful consequence is chargeable on the system of Dr. 
 Halley, and that of Dr, Wardlaw, and on the practice 
 of infant baptism, as such, whatever be the form of its 
 administration or defence. When the hereditary 
 faith, the Abrahamic covenant, and the indiscriminate 
 theory are pleaded together, or apart, the same things 
 inevitably transpire. The church, in her practice, is 
 placed in direct hostility to her Redeemer's example 
 and law. If she follow his example, in commun- 
 ing with the baptized disciples indiscriminately, her 
 society is made identical with the world ; and if, 
 alarmed at this result, she labour to secure something 
 of her ordained separation and sacredness, it must be 
 by inventing, in human weakness, some rule, which 
 her Redeemer has not given. In either case, if God 
 be true, the object of all his dispensations will be, to 
 teach his erring people, by discipline and sorrowful 
 experience, the folly, as well as wickedness, of such 
 misplaced human inventions. 
 
 It is not the object of this work to transcribe and 
 reprint those of our brethren, but to set before the 
 reader such points, in each, as show a necessity for 
 taking the whole evidence of scripture in its full 
 meaning, and in reference to all the points for which 
 these parties plead. The Tractmen are not to be con- 
 demned because they live in Oxford, nor Dr. Halley 
 for his residence in Manchester, nor Dr. Wardlaw be- 
 cause he is a Scotchman. They are to be considered 
 solely in the light of advocates for infant baptism, 
 each one of whom has found a particular difficulty 
 
224 
 
 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 ^vhich it is desired to remove from the system. One 
 to realise the full import of scriptures relating to the 
 subject would make the ordinance a means of convey- 
 ing from God the power of regenerating grace, and 
 the element of that spiritual life which is, in scripture, 
 recognised in baptized persons. Another, shuddering 
 at the effect of this assumption, shuns the evidence 
 pleaded on its behalf, separates the initiatory rite of 
 the Chi'istian church from all connection with faith 
 whatsoever, and yet pleads for justification by faith 
 only. The last, rising up with just alarm, for the 
 purity and spirituality of the Christian church, un- 
 folds with a masterly hand the law which imposes 
 a requirement af faith in baptism ; and yet, on certain 
 grounds, which his brother has exploded, and which 
 he himself has proved to be unsafe and contrary to 
 truth, he retains the baptism of infants out of which, 
 and for which, this whole confusion springs. If each 
 would hear the other, in the spirit of a child, and not 
 repel the truth by special and partial pleading, they 
 would, from the works now before us, learn that the 
 infant baptism for which they plead, will never, can 
 never, harmonise with the full import of scripture 
 truth, justification by faith, and the purity and spiritu- 
 ality of the Christian church. The full import of 
 scripture truth demands that faith should be evolved 
 before baptism ; justification by faith can be realised 
 in Christian fellowship on no other grounds ; and the 
 purity and spirituality of the Christian church has no 
 other effectual defence than that which is thus sup- 
 plied, in the purity and spirituahty of its initiation, and 
 subsequent fidelity in administering its discipline. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OP CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 225 
 
 Few things can be more confirmatory of these re- 
 marks than the practical catastrophy to which each 
 line of argumentation here considered leads. The 
 advocates of sacramental efficacy, professing the 
 strictest adherence to divine truth, and having the 
 advantage of their fellow Psedobaptists in almost every 
 interpretation they produce, promise, in the name of 
 our Lord, to give the infants they baptize the elements 
 of spiritual life, and deliverance from original sin ; 
 while every street and every gradation of society de- 
 clares the promise to be Mwfulfilled. That children 
 are not so imbued with spiritual life, all experience has 
 demonstrated. The evangelical Psedobaptists, guard- 
 ing their system by many inventions, resign, in theory, 
 the larger portion of scripture to the Tractmen, and 
 falsify the other part, in practice, by teaching that in- 
 fants, in their baptism, were recognised as members 
 of the church, and therefore have a right to claim 
 their full communion. If this were all, the case would 
 not appear so painful as it is. To give his theory a 
 shadow of defence, a mirage of battlements, our 
 brother Halley, as a last resource, is compelled to 
 deny the very existence of that habitation of God 
 through the Spirit to which baptism belongs ; and to 
 confound the fellowship of the ■. body of Christ with 
 a preparatory system, the existence of which in apos- 
 tolic times, as before seen, he had himself formally, 
 positively, and repeatedly denied. Like a baby upon 
 rushes, he plays with the ripple, and goes down with 
 Jhe stream. The gulph of worldly-mindedness is be- 
 fore, but he heeds it not ; to keep what is pleasing, 
 at, the present, he mourns not the thing that is for- 
 Q 
 
226 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 saken, and cannot understand that dangers are near. 
 He forgets that this community of baptized believers, 
 the existence of which he boldly denies, constituted the 
 body of Christ, the association upon earth with which 
 God has made and recorded all his covenants of mercy ; 
 while he cannot, or will not, understand that these par- 
 tial and professional pleadings for infant baptism, and 
 the abandoning of more than half the scriptures to 
 Tractmen, is advancing the cause of popery every day, 
 and rendering more difficult to all the recovery of 
 that holv, peaceful, edifying, and confidential fellow- 
 ship of Christians, the ordination and character of 
 which are described in the Acts of the Apostles and 
 the Epistles of St. Paul. 
 
 One important aspect of our subject appears from 
 a complaint expressed by Dr. Halley in the following 
 words : — 
 
 " My Stricturist * attempts to establish his charge 
 of inconsistency by refusing to allow me to use my 
 terms in the sense in which I define them for ray- 
 self." (Reply, p. 194). 
 
 It is submitted, with all deference, that the best 
 way to avoid such an injury would be to use his 
 words in the sense they bear on the sacred page. 
 Every new sense of an old word, such as disciple, 
 faith, church, kingdom of heaven, baptism, etc., is 
 liable to mislead. It should not be forgotten, that 
 the determining the import of these words in scrip- 
 ture involves the whole question in dispute. Hence 
 the frequency with which our brother changes the 
 
 * This beautiful word refers to Dr. Wardlaw's Siriciurea, 
 
ADMINISTKATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 227 
 
 whole field of inquiry with a new definition. If, how- 
 ever, the meaning of a word when thus arhitrarily 
 defined, could be retained with uniformity through the 
 same work, it would be less injurious; although, 
 when deviations from ordinary usage are numerous, 
 and frequent, a glossary at the end should certainly 
 be given. This expedient, however, would serve but 
 little in our brother's composition. Words essential 
 to the investigation, occurring there on one page, are 
 no guide whatever to the meaning in which they will 
 be used upon another. Nothing that Dr. Wardlaw 
 has said is too severe on this point. Attention to this 
 feature of his writing is, however, requested now 
 simply as pointing out the character of the controversy 
 taken as a whole. On other points, we can take a 
 word of scripture, in the meaning which it bears in the 
 holy writings, and use it through all' our study and 
 practice ; but here the whole vocabulary of Divine 
 grace must pass through an entirely new construction, 
 and, to preserve the infant baptism, be baptized into 
 a new signification. Disciple can no longer be em- 
 ployed in the sense which may pass through all the 
 passages in which it appears in scripture without 
 losing its import ; but requires to be used in a new 
 sense that suits Dr. Halley's theory. Faith the same ; 
 and, joined with the " disciple or learner," it will not 
 pass through half the passages in scripture, nor yet 
 through half the sentences of our brother's own work. 
 The " simply baptized into the faith of Christ " of 
 Dr. Wardlaw, is a like case. This will neither pass 
 in scripture nor in Dr. Wardlaw's own works : for 
 the faith of Christ is all that a Christian caii have of 
 q 2 
 
228 KECOXCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS OX THE 
 
 qualification for the grace and fellowship of God. So 
 strikingly is this verified, that in some works on this 
 subject, the words of scripture on the page of contro- 
 versy have no more agreement with the writing from 
 whence they come, than the threads picked out of a 
 tapestry have to the figures that were formed by them 
 on the work. Let the reader calmly think what tcill, 
 what must, be the end of this ? If the words of 
 scripture are to be decomposed in order that the con- 
 troversiahst may express his own meaning with them, 
 we may as well decompose the letters also, and set 
 them up afresh to our own liking. Where, then, will 
 be the inspiration we have trusted, except in the wild- 
 ness of our own day dream ? If from Dr. Halley's 
 work, or almost any other on the subject, the scrip- 
 tural terms be taken out and tested for their meaning, 
 in passages of scripture where they have been used by 
 inspired writers, it is doubtful whether any fact would 
 be needful to show the fallacy of infant baptism, 
 other than its absolute dependence on this terrible 
 expedient. 
 
 Where brethren have been led to feel the import- 
 ance of some particular truth, it is due to them and 
 the God they serve, that aU possible attention should 
 be paid to their instructions ; but it is also due Jrom 
 them, that, in their professional zeal, no violation of 
 holv scriptiu'e be allowed. Whoever sinks or swims, 
 thi* must be protected at whatever cost. A few slips 
 of the pen, or of the temper, mav be treated with for- 
 bearance, even though they cannot be approved. 
 Hence, in answering Dr. Halley's Sacraments, the bad 
 spelling and misplaced commas, etc., . were treated 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 229 
 
 kindly, and, for the most part, not noticed. An in- 
 stance or two are given in these pages to answer the 
 personalities which disfigure his Reply. Such acci- 
 dents are, however, liable to all, and it is hoped that 
 thus much will suffice, with what appears in the Ap- 
 pendix, to terminate this kind of intercourse. Which 
 party may have the greater genius for abuse, is a 
 problem which, by the law of our Redeemer, we are 
 not absolutely compelled to work out to a conclusion. 
 These things are not written in fear, but in love ; if 
 our dear brother prefer that kind of reputation, let 
 him only pay for the paper and printing beforehand, 
 and if his celebrity be not rendered equal to his 
 genius and services, the writer shall not be to blame. 
 But it is aftectionately submitted, whether the past 
 time may not suffice for all that is desirable in this 
 department. Let the motto now be, not temper, but 
 truth. In seeking this, let a just regard be paid to all 
 its claims. The great law of induction applied with 
 so much advantage to the ivorks of God, remains to 
 be applied with greater advantage to his holy word. 
 By taking the passages, as cases or facts, and apply- 
 the rule of induction with care to all, without par- 
 tiality, the scriptural meaning of words may be 
 ascertained, for the most part, with mathematical cer- 
 tainty. Instead of dodging through the field with 
 new definitions for every paragraph, and thus making 
 a theology of our own, let us, in the fear of God, 
 learn the meaning of his own words, and conform our 
 practice to their import. His word will thus become 
 a light unto our feet, and a lamp unto our path ; but 
 if, in the exuberance of unchastened genius, the Divine 
 
230 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 illumination be obscured, or made delusive, more than 
 the capabilities of human thought will be needful to 
 define and to repair its terrifying consequences. 
 
 One thing to be especially avoided is showTi in the 
 following case. In his Appendix, pp. 499 — 504, 
 " Mr. Stovel " had given a collection of passages in 
 the second arrangement of which is given the word 
 baptize, translated immerse; and, in the first, the 
 borrowed word is given : in each case the literal 
 translation of its particles and connections is ap- 
 pended, that Dr. Halley might show how the word 
 immerse could be defective or obscure, or how another 
 word might be supplied without altering the connec- 
 tions, and with equal clearness, through all the places. 
 This forms an instance in which the simple rule of in- 
 duction is exemplified. Dr. Wardlaw presents a list 
 of passages which prove that faith is required in the 
 subject of baptism, which forms another example. 
 The first class of passages Dr. Halley does not con- 
 descend to notice ; the second class is met with 
 another list, in which the authorised version is con- 
 trasted with what is called, by Daniel Isaacs, the 
 author, an "amended version:" designed by him as 
 an argumentatnm ad absurdum against the Baptists. 
 The shameful levities with scripture words which are 
 there given, render their introduction in bad taste; and 
 the recommendation of that work by Mr. Thomas 
 Wilson, is no addition to his high character.* Dr. Halley 
 should not have printed such a fact. But this is not 
 the chief complaint. It is called " a specimen of the 
 
 * Reply, pp. 166, 167. 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 231 
 
 ingenuity which I said might be used on both sides of 
 the question."* Dr. Halley says, he is not satisfied 
 with them, hut he introduces them to show the inge- 
 nuity that might be used. It is this " ingenuity " over 
 God's most holy word, which serves the momentary 
 purpose of controversy and facihtates universal infi- 
 delity, that we pray might be for ever avoided. Such 
 things do not look well on Dr. Halley's page, and it 
 would be merciful if he could be altogether acquitted 
 of labouring to display this kind of talent : but it was 
 probably done without thought, and it is guarded with 
 a disclaimer. He reprints the passages, but does not 
 approve them any more than he does those which 
 were produced by Dr. "Wardlaw, but yet they are 
 there reprinted ; and they exhibit that kind of " inge- 
 nuity " which every Christian minister ought to avoid. 
 It would be well to bear in mind, that, great ingenuity 
 is not so important in ascertain^g the import of God's 
 holy word as prayerful attention, childlike simplicity, 
 and an honest heart, with whatever state of feeling 
 may commend us to the eternal teaching Spirit. 
 
 Other instances of this most censurable ingenuity, 
 in dealing with the words of holy scripture and with 
 reasonings designed to elucidate them, are found in 
 the Evangelical Magazine of 1842, p. 381 and p. 481 ; 
 in the Congregational Magazine of 1843, p. 903 ; and 
 again, in the Biblical Review for July, 1846. Some 
 amends was made, in the first instance, by adnaitting 
 into the same work, with appended misconstructions, 
 a reply from the author. In the second case, such 
 
 * Reply, p. 169. 
 
232 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 partial justice having been refused, the article was 
 advertised as an inaccurate and unjust statement of 
 the case it professed to describe. The third instance 
 was exposed and refuted in the Baptist Record for 
 January, 1847. No individual has yet been found 
 prepared to undertake, in his own name, the defence 
 of these appalling improprieties. Had not Dr. Halley's 
 Reply partaken so fully in their offensive character, 
 it would have been conjectured that, through the 
 natural association of cowardice with whatever is 
 wrong, such methods of sectarian defence would be 
 confined to those who figure in anonymous publica- 
 tions. Bad indeed must be the cause which, in an 
 age of freedom, finds protection and support in expe- 
 dients which are so unworthy of respect. In this case, 
 at least, the discharge of corruption which follows the 
 lancet, evinces a fearful necessity for its use. The 
 author would have felt himself honoured by the vitu- 
 perations which have, in these publications, been cast 
 upon him while performing a sacred duty, had they 
 not, from their denominational character, by profess- 
 ing to defend, subjected to unmerited disgrace a body 
 of professing Christians, for whom he has ever, in his 
 most ardent labours for the truth, cherished nothing 
 but fraternal reverence and love. 
 
 One more case, not less admonitorv than the fore- 
 going, demands, at least, to be recorded. From 
 Matt, xxviii. 19, it has been ascertained that the dis- 
 ciples of our Lord were, after the Pentecost, to be, 
 by his own commandment, baptized into the name of 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The 
 whole question, therefore, rests upon the further 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 233 
 
 inquiry, Who are, by Divine law, justified in assuming, 
 bearing, and using this threefold name, or authority 
 of God ? For those who are not justified in bearing 
 and using the name of the Father, etc., could not, by 
 our Lord's command, be baptized into it. But Paul 
 saith, and by Dr. Halley's consent, we conclude, that 
 " a man is justified by faith only ;" and never without 
 it ; and since justification, in the reasonings of St. 
 Paul, applies to all the intents and privileges for 
 which the gospel has been granted, it must also apply 
 to that personal assumption, bearing, and use of the 
 name and authority of God, into which the followers 
 of Christ were commanded to be baptized. To 
 assume, bear, and use the name of the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Spirit, is, in every instance, either 
 justifiable, or it is not ; and no ground has yet been 
 shown, on which the person assuming this name and 
 authority of the blessed Trinity can be justified, ex- 
 cepting that which is defined in the words of Paul, 
 " with the heart man believeth unto righteousness ^ 
 It is here that justification begins, and then follows 
 the baptismal confession ; for " with the mouth con- 
 fession is made unto salvation," Rom. x. 10. The 
 same apostle, in the continuation of this very argu- 
 ment, has also shown that the same sovereign mercy 
 which gave the covenant of salvation to man, has also 
 made the personal exercise of faith in Christ the one 
 and only term of its inheritance. As, therefore, faith 
 is the only ground on which, by this covenant, to 
 which the assumption and use of the name of the 
 Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost refers, God 
 will justify the hope of salvation in any person what- 
 
234 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 ever, faith must be indispensable in even^ one who is 
 by Divine authoritv baptized into that name, and all 
 the inquiry respecting the true qualification of those 
 who are to be baptized rests at last on the nature of 
 that faith which God has made essential to the hope 
 of salvation, and the use of his name iu seeking its 
 consummation and enjoyment. In the Lectures on 
 Christian Discipleship it was also shown — that since 
 the requirements of John, and those of Jesus, before 
 the crucifixion, in those who were to be received and 
 baptized as his disciples, were comprised in the faith 
 which Paul declared to be the term of justification 
 before God — " the right understanding of this word 
 is of great importance, and the two works of Aristotle 
 on this subject were, hence, of unspeakable value. 
 His ' Treatise on Rhetoric,' is expressly designed to 
 show in what way a speaker mav produce faith in his 
 hearers ; and that designed for Alexander explains 
 how he might produce faith in his soldiers, and the 
 people he had subdued. The faith of the citizen was 
 gained when he was prepared to go with the orator, 
 in voting for his law, and in carrying it into effect. 
 The faith of the soldier was gained when his confi- 
 dence in the general prepared him, ' at his command,' 
 to rush on the pikes and masses of the adversary. The 
 faith wliich John required was gained when, in re- 
 pentance for sin and hope of its forgiveness, the 
 hearer consented to enter on a new life in John's 
 baptism. All inquirv that fell short of this, fell 
 short of the faith which John demanded. Ilis doc- 
 trine and discipline were called the baptism of repent- 
 ance ; but, without faith, the repentance be required 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 235 
 
 is absurdly impossible ; for, how can one repent of 
 sin, who does not believe that he has committed it ? 
 and how can the nature of sin be felt, unless we have 
 faith in God ? Lastly, who would forsake his sin at 
 the suggestion of another, and on the hope of its for- 
 giveness, unless he believed that the ground of 
 forgiveness propounded to him was sufficient, and 
 that the promise of forgiveness was secure ? These • 
 suppositions are all against nature, as they are against 
 the intentions of Divine mercv. The requirement of 
 repentance in baptism, therefore, involves the require- 
 ment of faith." The reference, in this argument, on 
 p. 119 of the Lectures on Discipleship, to Aristotle, 
 was designed to avoid the metaphysical notions of 
 faith which had grown up in the dark ages, and 
 remain uncorrected by the revival ot letters ; and 
 thus to fix attention on that view of. faith which, at a 
 time anterior to Christian operations, and on autho- 
 rity which no one will dispute in fixing the import of 
 a Greek word, realizes the whole intentions of our 
 Lord, of his forerunner, and of all his apostles, as 
 well as the idea of faith, that was entertained through 
 all Grecian antiquity. If the notion of faith be mys- 
 tified, it may well be doubted whether faith, so 
 mystified, be the authorized qualification to Christian 
 baptism ; but if faith be taken in that sense in which 
 it was used by Paul and the writers of his time, 
 the evidence of its requirement becomes irresistible. 
 To this argument, as seen in the words before cited, 
 Dr. Halley rephes, " but as we cannot agree about 
 the meaning of the commonest word in the Greek 
 Testament, I dare not adventure to meet such a critic 
 
236 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THB 
 
 in a controversy upon the style of Aristotle." (Reply, 
 p. 27. Undoubtedly, if Dr. Halley had "dared" 
 " to meet" the evidence adduced, he would not have 
 used this personal and expensive, but ingenious device, 
 for avoiding it. To dispute the reality of those fears 
 which are so strongly expressed in the latter part of 
 this objectionable sentence, would be uncharitable ; 
 for then, the insinuation on which it is based would 
 appear causeless and wanton, as well as unjust. The 
 critical differences referred to as its excuse, will be 
 found, in the Appendix, principally to lie, not between 
 " Mr. Stovel" and him, but between our brother 
 and Buttmann, and others, whose words are there 
 given ; and the statements on page 26 and 27 of his 
 " Reply," form an instance of inexcusable and 
 flagrant misrepresentation which nothing can justify. 
 The whole case is presented here as unclothing just 
 that habit of mind which every one engaged in those 
 solemn investigations which relate to Divine truth 
 and Christian duty, should, in the fear of God, 
 prayerfully avoid. Dr. Halley was not asked to 
 engage " in a controversy upon the style of Aristotle :" 
 our dear brother has exhibited nothing to justify his 
 engaging in such a work. The facts referred to, in 
 the citation before given, are so connected with the 
 theme and subject matter of the works named, that 
 if he shrink from the originals he can verify their 
 Jruth, and the reasoning based upon them, from any 
 ordinary translation. If he "dare" ''adventure" to 
 read the originals, the case will appear much more 
 strong, and ths " Gorgias" of Plato, may be added 
 for further confirmation. From these it will be found 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 237 
 
 that, with men -who understood Greek, faith, which 
 comes by hearing, was an effect of reasoning and 
 persuasion, produced in the minds of individuals by 
 some person addressing them, and through which 
 their judgments, being made to coincide with his 
 own, their energies might be combined with his, and 
 their actions conformed to his direction in the thing 
 which he propounded. Thus, by conviction and per- 
 suasion, Demosthenes ruled the citizens of Athens, 
 and Alexander, the soldiers he conducted to victory. 
 The thing which Jesus propounds is, that he should 
 deliver guilty men from sin, and, in his own way, 
 conduct them as sons of God, into everlasting glory. 
 This simple requirement in the case is, that each one 
 shall trust him, so as to follow his instructions, both 
 in that which he commands them to do for him, 
 and in that which he undertakes to do for them. 
 By this personal subjection to the Lord in the hope 
 of everlasting glory, all his people are united to him- 
 self, and all his merciful intentions are accomplished. 
 He rules in his own community of believers, and to 
 authorize and justify their faith in them, the name 
 or authority of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, has been revealed and granted. Without this 
 authority for their faith in him, the very position of 
 believers in the Christ would be blasphemous ; and, 
 when properly understood, the assumption of this 
 name or authority, without faith in him, is scarcely 
 less to be deplored. 
 
 Faith, therefore, the action of an individual per- 
 son, convinced in judgment, and subdued in hearty 
 placing himself in the Redeemer's hands for time and 
 
238 RECONCILIATION OF ARGUMENTS ON THE 
 
 for eternity, is, by the covenant of grace, the divinely 
 appointed quaHfication to all ordinances, privileges, 
 and hopes, in the church of Christ or the kingdom of 
 heaven. The qualification is no more for all, it is no 
 less for any. Until that faith is produced by teach- 
 ing, hearing, learning, persuasion, and the accom- 
 panying actions of the sovereign and eternal Spirit 
 who dwelleth in the church, whatever the distinctions 
 that men may bear on earth, the church must testify, 
 admonish, teach, persuade, beseech them in Christ's 
 stead to be reconciled to God, but yet, for their own 
 sakes, that they be not misled, and in obedience to 
 Divine law, in all things concerning the kingdom of 
 heaven, regard them, being in unbelief, as without 
 God and without hope in the world. Those who die 
 in infancy, are removed from the earthly operations 
 of mercy, by a sovereign act of its own author ; and 
 find in the bosom of the Father a sweet and final 
 repose ; but those who live, enter the great conflict, 
 and are all subject to the same law. In this law 
 unite the justification which is by faith, the sacra- 
 ments appointed for believers, and the full import of 
 scripture passages, both those which unfold the 
 depravity of man and the overtures of mercy, and 
 those which declare the privilege and hope of sinners 
 properly baptized into Christ. Having faith in Christ 
 they are justified, by authority received from the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in entering the 
 kingdom and serving under its Lord ; and hence, by 
 his command, they are baptized into the name. This 
 line of demarcation between the church and the 
 world, is drawn to give the greatest visibility to a 
 
ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 239 
 
 sinner's lost condition, the greatest obviousness to the 
 experience of the church, and the most convincing 
 force to her testimony concerning the grace of God. 
 When believers, by Divine law, are thus, on the 
 declaration of their faith, baptized into the name of 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, nothing 
 remains on the part of man but strict obedience to 
 the law of Christ and his indwelling spirit, to secure 
 the spirituality and purity of the church of God. 
 The rest remains with him, whose very forbearance 
 has permitted us to see that every departure from 
 his holy law, entails the reverse of his merciful inten- 
 tions. In this law, therefore, the fulness of scripture 
 truth, justification by faith, and the purity and spi- 
 rituality of the Christian church, harmonize as by 
 infinite wisdom ; and, under God, conformity to his 
 law must form the best expedient f6r refuting and 
 counteracting the errors which have been permitted 
 to prevail. 
 
APPENDIX-A. 
 
 THE REJECTED RULES OP GRAMMAR. 
 
 In the body of the work, our Lord's instructions to 
 the disciples respecting their duty in extending his 
 kingdom upon earth, are shown to be perfectly clear 
 from a collation of his own words. Against this 
 declaration of Christian duty, Dr. Halley appeals to 
 the grammar of a single passage, (Matt, xxviii. 19) ; 
 calling this " The Commission," as though no other 
 instructions whatsoever, relating to this duty, had 
 been given by our Lord to his disciples. His appeal 
 to grammar is made to prove that, in the passage 
 before named, " all the nations" are the object of the 
 verb to " disciple," and the antecedent to the pronoun 
 " them." Making it read " disciple all the nations 
 baptizing them," [the nations,] etc. 
 
 It was argued in reply to this, that no one could 
 baptize a " nation," literally, disciphng and baptizing 
 being actions which relate to persons not to " nations," 
 and that " all the nations" included Gentiles as well 
 as Jews ; while the disciples, before the conversion of 
 ■Cornelius, though they had the clearest and most 
 
242 APPENDIX. 
 
 felicitous expressions of Divine approval, yet never 
 entertained the idea of discipling or baptizing any 
 heathen whatsoever. This, therefore, could not have 
 been the sense in which the apostles, with fall appro- 
 bation of God, understood and acted upon it at that 
 time ; and further, e^vos, in " all the nations," is a 
 neuter noun, and cannot agree with a.vTov<s them, which 
 is a masculine pronoun ; because, "pronouns must 
 always agree with their antecedents, and the nouns for 
 which they stand, in gender and number; as, 'This 
 is the friend whom I love ; ' That is the vice which I 
 hate ;' ' The king and queen had put on their robes ;' 
 ' The moon appears, and she shines, but the hght is 
 not her own.' 
 
 The relative is of the same person as the antece- 
 dent, and the verb agrees with it accordingly : as, 
 ' Thou who lovest wisdom;' ' I who speak from expe- 
 rience.' " (Murray's Grammar, Syntax, Rule v.) 
 
 As if conscious that there was something hazard- 
 ous, if not wrong, in his proposal. Dr. Halley, when 
 he made it, said, "I suppose no one will object that 
 avTols being masculine, does not refer to iravra to 
 Wvr] being neuter, as this would betray gross ignor- 
 ance of the common rule of Greek syntax, known by 
 eveiy school boy, respecting the reference of pronouns 
 to neuter nouns" (Sacraments, p. 489) ; but when, 
 in the face of these intimidating allusions to "gross 
 ignorance," " every school boy," etc., it was objected 
 ^' that dtrroi's [them] being masculine does not refer to 
 " all the nations," being neuter, because pronouns 
 must agree with their nouns in number and gender ; 
 he answers, in his Reply, p. 36, " There is no such 
 
THE REJECTED RULES OF GRAMMAR. 243 
 
 rule in Buttmann, etc., or in any other grammar, 
 unless Mr. Stovel has made one for his own school.''^ 
 
 Passing the gentlemanly temper of these expres- 
 sions ; if contrary to the very nature of language, 
 and the rule just given from Murray, in English, no 
 rule in Greek grammar requires an agreement be- 
 tween pronouns and nouns, in number and gender ; 
 is it not strange that Dr. H alley should have pleaded 
 a rule of exception in favour of neuter nouns ? If 
 there be " no such rule" of agreement, there could 
 have been no such exception from the rule favouring a 
 disagreement in this particular case, as that which our 
 brother has here supposed. His own reasoning, 
 therefore, stultifies itself. 
 
 But Dr. Halley says, " There is no such rule" as 
 that which requires a pronoun to agree with its noim 
 in number and gender, " in Buttmann," etc. Passing 
 the other authorities adduced, the truth of this bold 
 affirmation may be tested by the first name upon his 
 list ; and this is sufficient, for Buttmann is high au- 
 thority in Greek, and here are his words : — 
 
 " Everything joined to the substantive of the nature 
 of an adjective, whether adjective, participle, pronoun, 
 or article, must agree with it in gender, number, and 
 case." (Butt. Gram. p. 216.) 
 
 Of this rule, the following words were used in 
 the Lectures on Discipleship, " every" "pronoun" 
 "joined to" a " substantive," " must agree with it in. 
 gender, number, and case," or every pronoun must 
 agree with its substantive in gender, number, and 
 case. But the argument does not depend on the 
 particular form of words used in stating the rule ; it 
 r2 
 
244 APPENDIX. 
 
 is the rule itself, in its most essential nature, wliicli 
 proves Dr. Halley to be wrong. It is the fact that 
 pronouns must agree with their nouns in gender, etc., 
 express it how any one may, which is fatal to the pro- 
 posal of our friend. Buttmann says, " a pronoun" 
 "must agree with" its noun, "in gender, number, and 
 case." Dr. Halley says they must not, " there is no 
 such rule in Buttmann, etc., or in any other gram- 
 mar, unless Mr. Stovel has made one for his own 
 school." 
 
 But further, " the pronoun avros," is used instead 
 of the simple pronoun of the third person, only in the 
 oblique cases ; and in this signification can stand only 
 after other words in the clause." (Butt. Gram. p. 
 ^20). This is precisely the case which occurs in 
 !Matt. xxviii. 19, baptizing avrovs them. The plural 
 masculine in the accusative, an oblique case. Here, 
 therefore, it must agree with its noun going before 
 it : as in Buttmann's own example, " He gave to 
 Sepas [the skin] to Aetes, and he nailed dvro [it]. 
 The pronoun here, avro [it] is in the singular num- 
 ber and the neuter gender, agreeing with to Se/aas [the 
 skin.] Hence it was said, in the Lectures on Dis- 
 cipleship, that the pronoun " them" being, in this 
 particular, like the relative, must agree with its noun 
 in the foregoing part of the proposition in number, 
 gender, etc., but Dr. Halley denies the application 
 of any such rule. (Reply, p. 37.) But, once more : — 
 
 "When the predicate consists of more propositions 
 than one relating to the same subject, the pronoun 
 bv the last rule agrees with its noun in that which has 
 "gone before. For avTov^ could mean them " only 
 
THE REJECTED RULES OP GRAMMAR. 245 
 
 after other loords in the clause." Hence, in the ex- 
 ample, the first proposition is, " He gave the skin to 
 Aetes," the second proposition is, " he [Aetes] 
 nailed it ;" and it, the pronoun in the second propo- 
 sition, agrees with "the skin" in the antecedent pro- 
 position. This is precisely the case presented in 
 Matt, xxviii. 19. The precept there given has three 
 parts, all relating to one subject. In the second and 
 third parts of the precept, its subject is expressed by 
 the word avTov<i [them'], " baptizing them," and 
 " teaching the7n ;" but, in the first part of the pre- 
 cept, instead of having its subject named by some 
 word agreeing with them, in number and gender, etc., 
 we have the verb to disciple, or to make disciples, 
 followed by TrdvTa to. Wvq, [all the nations'] which 
 being neuter, does not agree with avrovs [them], the 
 masculine pronoun. This creates the diflSculty, and 
 the question is, shall we violate the foregoing rules of 
 grammar, by referring the pronoun them to a noun 
 with which it does not agree, or, is there any other 
 rule by which a noun agreeing with the pronoun, may 
 be supplied ? 
 
 Dr. Halley chooses the former alternative, and 
 refers to what he calls " the common rule of Greek 
 Syntax, known by every schoolboy, respecting the 
 reference of pronouns to neuter nouns." Though 
 asked, kindly, to produce this rule, which he says is 
 " known hy every schoolboy " he has not done it in 
 his Reply ; but he has chosen rather to deny the 
 existence of those rules which are here produced, and 
 which he proposes to violate. It is thought that our 
 brother has mistaken what he calls " the reference of 
 
246 APPENDIX. 
 
 pronouns to neuter nouns," for the fact that neuter 
 nouns in the plural number sometimes take a singular 
 verb. This is the more likely, because the referring 
 of pronouns to neuter nouns, will not meet the diffi- 
 culties which occur in the use of this pronoun ; for it 
 is found in the plural number and masculine gender, 
 preceded by nouns in the singular number, and of 
 every gender, of the masculine, the feminine, and the 
 neuter, and thus presenting an apparent violation of 
 every point in which agreement is required by the 
 foregoing rules. On examining the cases subjoined,* 
 however, it will be seen that, in each case, the fore- 
 going noun is more comprehensive than the noun 
 which agrees with the pronoun, and that the noun 
 •which agrees with the pronoun forms the subject of 
 discourse in the words which follow, governing the 
 pronoun. The pronoun, therefore, by strictly retain- 
 ing its gender and number, and its subjection to the 
 rule of agreement in those particulars, leads the 
 thought to that part of the foregoing noun to which 
 the following discourse applies. Thus Wvos, the 
 nation, a neuter and singular noun, is, in Acts viii. 
 1 1 , followed by dvrovs, them, both plural and mascu- 
 line, which is explained by the writer to mean " both 
 men and women," contained in the nation ; but 
 drawn out, by the pronoun, to form the subject of his 
 
 * Yldaa aap% [all flesh] feminine singular, is followed by 
 avTis, his, masculine singular, and by dvrovc, them, mascu- 
 line plural, in Genesis vi. 12, 13. And, in the same passage, 
 ■KavToc avOpwTTov, a masculine singular, meaning all mankind, 
 is followed by dvTwv, of them, and dvTovg, them, masculine 
 plurals. The neuter singular, followed by the plural masculine, 
 is given in the text. 
 
THE REJECTED RULES OF GRAMMAR. 24? 
 
 future affirmations, (verse 12). The pronoun is not 
 drawn out of its own proper case and government ; 
 but, by retaining its own case, gender, and govern- 
 ment, it brings before the mind that which forms the 
 subject of the author's discourse. This principle ex- 
 plains a multitude of cases found in the best Greek 
 authors which seem, at first sight, anomalous ; and, 
 if applied to Matt, xxviii. 19, it would read, Disciple 
 all the nations, baptizing them [the persons discipled, 
 " both men and women,"] into the name of the 
 Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, teaching them 
 to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you, and lo, I am with you always, even unto the 
 end of the world. 
 
 This interpretation of Matt, xxviii. 19, though 
 proposed by persons who justly claim profound 
 respect, is liable to serious objection. It gives the 
 passage a meaning in which it was not understood by 
 the apostles, while they were acting upon it with, 
 manifest tokens of Divine approval. By making 
 " all the nations" the object of the verb to disciple, 
 the heathen are included, and the apostles had no idea 
 of discipling the heathen. This, on the supposition, 
 was wrong in principle, and yet God was bearing 
 them witness with signs and wonders, wrought by his 
 own power. The passage ought to have a meaning 
 that could be realized by the apostles while labour- 
 ing among the Jews only, and yet be unaltered when 
 its principle was more extensively applied in their 
 labours among the Gentiles. 
 
 Hence two other rules laid down by Buttmann, 
 
248 APPENDIX. 
 
 have to be considered here. First, " the pronouns'^ 
 are " often found without any substantive with which" 
 they agree, " the latter having been omitted, or being 
 easy to be supplied by the mind." (Butt. Gram. p. 216.) 
 By this rule, the attention being fixed on the mascu- 
 line and plural " them," the foregoing verb, fjLaOrjTcveiv 
 to disciple, suggests its own noun, ^a.Orp-a.'i, disciples ; 
 and this noun agrees with the pronoun in number 
 and gender, as the rule requires. The disciples, 
 therefore, whom the apostles were commanded to 
 make, form the natural and proper antecedents of 
 the pronoun " them," and are the persons to be bap- 
 tized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 But secondly. " The noun signifying the part, cir- 
 cumstance, or object, of which anything is affirmed, is 
 put in the accusative case," as " Trovetv ra o-KiXr], to 
 suffer" [Kara] " in the legs; and aXyS) ra's yvdOovs, 
 I am afflicted" [Kara] " in the jaws." This " is so 
 common a construction," " that it ought to be taught 
 as a principle of the language " (Butt. Gram. p. 225). 
 In other words, " The accusative is sometimes used 
 without the preposition Kara, following almost any verb, 
 participle, or adjective," as, No man whatever is 
 felicitous, IIANT' for [Kara] Travra, in everything 
 (Charterhouse Grammar, p. 89). 
 
 If by this rule, in which Buttmann and the Charter- 
 house-school agree, Kara be supplied before, and go- 
 verning Travra ra Wvr}, the passage will read thus : — 
 " Going, disciple " [men and women] [in] " all the 
 nations, baptizing them" [the disciples] " into the 
 
THE REJECTED RULES OP GRAMMAR. 249 
 
 name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy 
 Spirit, teaching them [the disciples] to observe all 
 whatsoever I have enjoined upon you ; and lo, I am 
 with you always, even unto the end of the world." 
 (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20). 
 
 Conformable with this rule, the Rev. T. Haweis, 
 LL.B., in 1795, translated the passage — " Go, there- 
 fore, make disciples among all nations, baptizing 
 them," etc. (See his New Testament at the place). 
 
 It is objected by a friend that this loads the passage 
 with a double ellipsis [persons, or men and women], 
 and [Kara] being understood between the verb to 
 disciple and " all the nations." This is true, but it is 
 no such strange thing. An example was given in 
 Acts xiv. 21, where a similar double ellipsis occurs, 
 and the proper object of the verb to disciple is seen. 
 " And having proclaimed that city and discipled a 
 great many," are the words used by Luke. By this 
 short expression he means to say, " having proclaimed 
 [the things concerning the kingdom of God] [Kara] 
 in that city," etc. (Acts. viii. 12). The verb "pro- 
 claim " is a transitive verb. The first ellipsis is of 
 its object ; they proclaimed [the things relating to the 
 kingdom of God], as is clear from verses 22 and 23 ; 
 and r^v ttoXiv eKeivqv, that city, though it be in the 
 accusative case, and follows a transitive verb, is not 
 governed by that verb, but by Kara understood ; and it 
 is not the object of the transitive verb which precedes 
 it, but, with the preposition understood, it describes 
 the sphere in which its action was performed. Paul 
 and Barnabas proclaimed, not that city, but the things 
 relating to the kingdom of God. They proclaimed 
 
250 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 them in that city : and they made there, not many 
 cities, but many disciples, or, discipled many persoQS 
 there. Moreover, it is quite clear from this passage, 
 that all the disciples Paul and Barnabas made in 
 Derbe were received as believers ; for they were ex- 
 horted " to continue in the faith," and reminded that, 
 through much tribulation, we must enter into the 
 kingdom of God " (Acts. xiv. 22, 23). 
 
 The evidence advanced in the Appendix to Lectures 
 on Christian Discipleship, to prove that the construc- 
 tion proposed of Matt, xxviii. 19 — "by supplying the 
 ellipsis with Kara, is at least admissible — consists prin- 
 cipally of three parts. First, many passages were given 
 in which Kara is vfritten with an accusative to describe 
 the sphere of an action ; secondly, other cases were 
 given in which the accusative is written with Kara 
 understood, for the same purpose ; and thirdly, pas- 
 sages are given from scripture and the best heathen 
 authors, which explain all the difficulties found in the 
 popular expressions used by Matthew. " Mr, Stovel" 
 has a right to claim that all this evidence be well con- 
 sidered and refuted before his brethren throw the 
 work aside and say, " Stovel is wrong in his Greek." 
 After what has been received from various sources, 
 this evidence has been carefully reviewed ; and the 
 only effect this review of that evidence and the rules 
 of grammar here adduced has had upon the author's 
 mind, is, to make him feel more convinced that the 
 opinions there expressed cannot be refuted. He can 
 only entreat his brethren, therefore, since the inquiry 
 relates to the word of God, not to abandon the inves- 
 tigation; nor, if they feel a doubt, to leave the 
 
THE REJECTED RULES OF GRAMMAR. 251 
 
 ground of their hesitation undefined or undeclared. 
 The author will be more obliged than any one if it be 
 proved that he is wrong. 
 
 Dr. Halley appears grieved, and even resentful, at 
 what he calls "attempts to convict an opponent of 
 ignorance." This is quite a mistake : if Dr. Halley 
 appears to be ignorant, this results from the nature 
 of his own unguarded and diverse affirmations and 
 reasonings : " Mr. Stovel" has been, and is, concerned 
 only for the truth. The personalities of our brother, 
 by which he seeks to be revenged, might seem to call 
 for some further reply ; but it is punishment sufficient 
 for any one, in Dr. Halley's station, to have fallen 
 into such disgraceful improprieties. 
 
APPENDIX-B. 
 
 THE LETTER. 
 
 Under date of May 18, 1846, a letter was received 
 from Dr. Halley, complaining of some statements in 
 the Lectures, and requesting an explanation. The 
 answer given to this letter was designed to meet our 
 brother's feeling as fuUy as the truth would allow. 
 He has chosen to publish parts of it with most unjust 
 misrepresentations. The letter is therefore given in 
 fuU from the copy that was retained. 
 
 The first note, being merely an acknowledgment to 
 prevent any appearance of discourteous inattention, 
 was as follows : — 
 
 To the Rev. Dr. Halley. 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 I received your favour of yester- 
 day, and wiU consult a friend on what it may be 
 proper to do in the case. I should be sorry to do 
 you the least injustice ; or, if I have done it through 
 inadvertency, to withhold any acknowledgment that 
 
THE LETTER. 253 
 
 may be due. But I wish, above all things, to avoid 
 making the pursuit of truth a question of personal 
 feeling. Excuse my ansvrering the questions, there- 
 fore, for the present, and in a few days I will write 
 again. 
 
 With kind regards. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 C. Stovel. 
 
 5, Stebon Terrace, Philpot Street East, London. 
 May 20th, 1846. 
 
 Tlie second letter containing the promised answer, 
 and referred to in pp. 64 — 72 of the " Reply," is as 
 follows ; — 
 
 To the Rev. Dr. Halley. 
 
 Dear Brother, 
 
 I have been so much engaged 
 with a Committee of the House of Commons, that 
 I could not write you before : I hope, therefore, 
 you will excuse the unavoidable delay. 
 
 The passages which seemed to me to require re- 
 ferences are such as that from " aided by," etc., on 
 p. 12, to " the gospel," on p. 14; and that on p. 586, 
 from " it is desirable," to " in favour of infant 
 baptism." 
 
 The statement on p. 258, with note (b), and other 
 passages repeating the charge against Clement, as 
 
254 APPENDIX. 
 
 pp. 12 — 14, etc., seemed to me to justify the con- 
 clusion, that you inferred the sentiments of that 
 author from the abstract of the sentiments taught 
 by Valentine and Theodotus, and the passage you 
 have partially quoted in the note. 
 
 The word " slander " was intended to apply to the 
 charge brought against Clement, which appears to me 
 unsustaiued by any other evidence, but the effect of 
 which falls, first on him and Tertullian, then on the 
 svstem you suppose them to have originated, and 
 finally, on us who adhere to it, though we take it 
 from scripture, not from him. 
 
 Out of ten references to the Corinthians, I do 
 not find that you have appealed to the corruptions 
 of that church, as I had supposed. The kind of 
 argument which was on my mind when writing is 
 exemplified on pp. 167, 168 ; but this does not bear 
 out my statement with respect to the corruptions of 
 the Corinthian church. I fear that I must have been 
 misled by other documents with which I had then to 
 do. If, in adding this case to those on which your 
 reasoning is based, I have done you any wrong, I 
 beg your pardon, and assure you that if ever I have 
 to pass the work through the press again, the error 
 shall be corrected. 
 
 With kind regards, 
 I am. 
 
 Yours very sincerely, 
 C. Stovel. 
 
 5, Steton Terrace, Philpot Street East, London, 
 June 2nd, 1846. 
 
THE LETTER, 255 
 
 The references in this letter are to Dr. Halley's 
 work on the Sacraments. The letters are printed 
 here, that Dr. Halley may have the full advantage of 
 all that they contain, and of the way in which he has 
 referred to those fraternal communications in his 
 Reply, pp. 72—64. 
 
 No further elucidation of the case is required, than 
 that which has been already given frotn p. 181 to 
 p. 193 of this work. 
 
APPENDIX-C. 
 
 THE LAST REFrRENCE OP DR. HAXLET TO CLEMENT 
 OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 Preliminary Remarks. 
 
 The ancient Christian writers, in describing the Chris- 
 tian brethren of their age, were accastomed to use 
 terms by which the pecoliarities of their privilege and 
 character are presented to the mind, as when we em- 
 ploy the word believer, which describes the person by 
 his peculiarity of exercising faith in Christ. The 
 word enlightened is used to describe the person by 
 the instruction he had received in the truth of God, 
 (Heb. vi. 4) ; and, in Phil. iii. 15, Paul uses the word 
 perfect to describe the same persons as havinff at- 
 tained to that state in which, by the law of our Lord, 
 their full enjoyment of Christian fellowship and ser- 
 vice was authorised. Dr. Halley, forgetting this use 
 of these words in the inspired writings, and learning 
 that they are found in Clement, without showing that 
 they were used in any sense differing from that in 
 which they occur in the inspired writings, charges 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 257 
 
 Clement with thereby introducing the corruptions 
 which he supposes led to believer baptism and bap- 
 tismal regeneration. In the Lectures on Christian 
 Discipleship, as also at p. 181 of his work, this error 
 was corrected, and in his Reply, at pp. 66, 67, he 
 gives the following explanation and defence. 
 
 " I referred to the passage in which Clement describes 'the 
 mysteries of the Logos,' and invites the Bacchanalian to leave 
 his thyrsus and his mitre, and come to the mountain beloved of 
 God ; where, instead of the Maenades, the initiated daughters 
 of God lead the dance, celebrating the chaste orgies of the 
 Logos — where virgins sing and angels applaud — and the 
 Lord is the hierophant who seals the initiated, — with much 
 more to the same effect, — as Mr. Stovel may find in the twelfth 
 chapter of the Cohortatio ad Gentes. In calUng this language 
 ' tumid,' I am very easy under the accusation of ridiculing the 
 style or sentiments of the Epistle to the Hebrews !" " The 
 charge is utterly false '' " that I " '' condemn Clement or any 
 one else, with or without ' severity and ridicule,' because he calls 
 the baptized believers perfect and enlightened." 
 
 The passage referred to in the first of these quota- 
 tions is that on pp. 12, 13 of the Sacraments. Here 
 the word tumid occurs in the following connec- 
 tion. Referring to the supposed improper use made 
 by the fathers of heathen rites, etc., he says : — 
 
 " Hence the frequent and peremptory command to the un- 
 initiated to depart," etc., " the minister of the sanctuary acting 
 the part of the hierophant of the grove or the grotto, exclaiming 
 almost in his words, ' Procul, O procul, este profani ;' hence the 
 frequent remark of the preacher, when adverting in ambiguous 
 terms to a mystery — * The initiated understand it ;''' and hence 
 the tumid phraseology of the philosophical fathers, as Clement 
 of Alexandria, derived from the Eleusinian processions," etc. 
 
 '* " ' 01 TeXovjjLtvoi laaaiv.' " 
 
 In the simplicity of his heart the author of these 
 pages conceived that these words of Dr. Hallev, and 
 the whole passage in which they stand, were con- 
 s 
 
258 APPENDIX. 
 
 demnatory of the things he describes, and of the men 
 to whom they are attributed ; and the writer has not 
 jbeen able to find any other individual to whom the 
 •passage has been shown, who has not formed the same 
 conclusion. If it be not a passage condemning the 
 things it so clearly affirms to be " derived from the 
 Eleusinian processions or the Bacchanalian orgies," it is 
 difficult to find any term, commonly employed to de- 
 scribe the character of writing, which contains in its 
 meaning any idea so perfectly beneath all respect or 
 critical allowance, as fairly to designate the paragraph 
 under consideration. It was therefore deemed most 
 charitable, as well as just, to take the passage in that 
 sense in which every one yet consulted has inter- 
 preted it ; and since the note to the passage, " oi 
 reXov[j.evoi taaaLv " — " Those who have been perfected 
 know," — which is so like the apostle's expression 
 (1 Cor. ii. vi.), " But we speak wisdom to those who 
 are perfect " — but which Dr. Halley does not tell his 
 reader where to find ; and further, since this applica- 
 tion to baptized believers of the word perfect, or 
 initiated, which is common to the fathers and the 
 apostle Paul, is the only evidence given to sustain the 
 statements of this passage, it was concluded that Pr. 
 Halley did condemn them for thus using this term ; 
 though the condemnation was not pronounced with 
 all the gravity, perspicuity, and blandness which 
 might have been expected. It appears, however, 
 that this is all mistake in the writer, and in every 
 one besides whom he has consulted ; for Dr. Halley 
 now says, " The charge is utterly false " '•' that I " 
 " condemn Clement or any one else, with or without 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 259 
 
 severity and ridicule, because he calls the baptized 
 believers ^er/ec^," etc. (Reply, p. 66). 
 
 Having the word of our brother so directly given, 
 and in a case so full of solemnity, it must, of course, 
 be taken ; and it will no doubt be regarded as a com- 
 pliment, that now his word has been taken in a case, 
 and on a point, where the word of no other man on 
 earth would go for anything. It would be well for 
 Dr. Halley to consider, nevertheler-s, that such de- 
 mands on Christian courtesy should be exacted with 
 as little frequency as possible, and never without some 
 clear and important reason. It is the more necessary 
 to consider this last suggestion well, because, in his 
 Lectures, many cases occur in which no friend can, 
 with safety, quote our brother's words. Much of this 
 danger results from the want of clear and direct 
 affirmation necessary to make it obvious what he 
 does condemn, and why he condemns it. Thus, 
 on page 281 of "The Sacraments," among many 
 monstrous superstitions which are attributed to the 
 fathers, without any references to support them, and 
 which the Tractmen are called upon in the spirit 
 of defiance to adopt, he says, "And where" [are] 
 " the lighted tapers held by the newly baptized, as 
 the proper sign of illumination ?" and again at p. 
 264, " Baptism is by no term more frequently desig- 
 nated than by illumination." Cyril is on this very page 
 defended, because he uses this descriptive term, ia 
 what Dr. Halley deems a sense less objectionable than 
 that in which he supposes it was used by the later 
 fathers. Justin Martyr is defended in the same way, 
 and on the same grounds, from the same imputation, 
 s 2 
 
260 APPENDIX. 
 
 on p. 252. The whole course of Dr. Halley's reason- 
 ing is such as to make the reader feel that this use 
 of the term is wrong, and that he himself thinks, 
 and means to teach so. For the term in its worst 
 sense is brought into the heap of corruptions which are 
 too bad even for Tractmen to own ; while the chief 
 argument of our brother's work is designed to show, 
 that this better sense in which Cyril and Justin used 
 it, is untenable ; because baptism, it is said, neither 
 produces nor implies any moral or spiritual change in 
 its recipient, (p. 113.) To call baptized persons, 
 who were, in this ordinance, and by these fathers, 
 recognized as believers, the illuminated or enlightened, 
 must therefore be wrong ; but, our brother says, 
 " The charge is false," " that I" " condemn Clement 
 or any one else, with or without severity and ridicule, 
 because he calls the baptized believers enlightened." 
 
 In this last case, of course, the word of our brother, 
 must be taken as before ; but what then does he 
 mean ? does he approve ? Then how can he con- 
 demn the believer's baptism which, from his own 
 showing, p. 252, and "Mr. Stovel's Discipleship," 
 p. 359 to 364, Justin Martyn describes, and for 
 which Dr. Halley nevertheless says, p. 603, that 
 " no loarrant of scripture can be offered, except a doubt- 
 ful reading, or rather a scandalous forgery." When 
 the disavowal of our brother is so clearly given, it 
 should not be declined, and yet with all the advantage 
 it supplies, it is impossible to learn from his writings 
 whatever it is that he does mean, either to approve 
 or to condemn. Besides, his affirmations are, in 
 many cases which are indispensable to the subject of 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 261 
 
 inquiry, clearly and positively the opposite of each 
 other. As shown from p. 70 of this work, he first 
 declares that baptism is " the initiatory rite of the 
 Christian church," then affirms, that this initiatory 
 rite " introduces no man into the church,'' and further 
 advances to deny the very existence of that church 
 which formed the subject of his discourse. As shown 
 from p. 79 of this work, he first denies the existence 
 of a Catechumen, or any shadow of the institute in 
 " the apostolic age," and then in the title page of his 
 Reply, affirms that baptism was " the designation of 
 the Catechumens," administered by apostles, and by 
 their authority, when he had affirmed that no Cate- 
 chumens were at that time in existence. He justly 
 explodes the theory of Chalmers, Wardlaw, and 
 others, who trace the idea of baptizing infants to the 
 Abrahamic covenant ; he traces it himself to proselyte 
 baptism ; he takes the depositions of Rabbies on that 
 point in Lecture iii., he declines this deposition of the 
 Rabbi on p. 577, and re-affirms it on p, 603. He 
 professes to appeal to the grammar of the Commis- 
 sion on p. 488, and says, "The question respecting 
 the subjects of baptism is here resolved into one of 
 grammar and criticism. It is simply what is the 
 antecedent to the word them." On page 548 he 
 says, " that reasoning" " upon the Commission" 
 " must be, in some degree, afiected by the view we 
 take of the position of ' all the nations,' imder the 
 evangelical economy." This is his keeping to the 
 grammar. He also says on page 115, "The ques- 
 tion of importance is, was the baptism of proselytes 
 practised by the Jews in the tune of our Lord } and 
 
262 APPENDIX. 
 
 if it was, how far may the practice assist us in iu- 
 terpreting the Commission to haptize all the nations ?" 
 On p. 12, 13, of his Reply, he denies this use of 
 proselyte baptism, and pleads the disclaimer on p. 
 577 of his Sacraments, while there-affirmation of its 
 use appears on p. 603. Lastly, at p. 162, he says 
 [John's] " baptism is too important to be dismissed 
 without notice, as by carefully attending to it, we may 
 obtain some assistance in the more important inquiry 
 respecting the nature of Christian baptism ;" and at 
 p. 180 he adds, " If the baptism of John was truly 
 and essentially the same as Christian baptism, then 
 Christian baptism itself, at its commencement, was 
 only a symbol, and not a means of regeneration." 
 But in his Reply we find the following, " I am, how- 
 ever, ready to acknowledge, that I am not prepared 
 to found any argument tchatever, in favour of my 
 \4ews respecting Christian baptism, upon its identity, 
 IN ANT PARTICULAR, with the baptism of John," (p. 
 114.) These words taken in their natural meaning 
 would seem to form a frank confession, that all the 
 reasoning he had in support of his theory based on 
 the identity of the two baptisms was now to be 
 renounced ; given up ; and yet, on the very next 
 page, 115, he savs, notwithstanding, " It cannot be 
 unimportant to ascertain ichether he baptized children, 
 etc. But to what end must this "be ascertained," 
 if our brother is not prepared to found any argument 
 whatever in favour of his views respecting Christian 
 baptism upon its identity in any particclar icith the 
 baptism of John '? If he does not mean to found any 
 argument tchatever on the assumption of their " iden- 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 263 
 
 tity" in this " particular," why should he wish to 
 ascertain whether John baptized children [infants] or 
 not ? The reader will see how easily sentences so con- 
 structed, bearing every approximation to the character 
 of direct opposite?, the one to the other, maybe played 
 off altogether, or apart, to diverse ends, as the circum- 
 stances of the case may require ; and how difficult it 
 must be to deal with argumentative statements of this 
 kind. It would not be an wwprofitable exercise to read 
 these two works, " The Sacraments" and the " Reply" 
 in order to ascertain on how many points, essential to 
 the inquiry, the affirmations of Dr. Halley may be 
 taken from one page without any danger of contra- 
 diction, modification, or evasion, from another. Any 
 one who will undertake that task, may promise him- 
 self no ordinary astonishment in the result. Thus it 
 has been shown, in the section on Clement, p. 181, 
 that affirmations the most solemnly disadvantageous 
 to him are, in the first place, made without proof, 
 then backed with a quotation from the abstract of 
 doctrines taught by Valentine, who was excommu- 
 nicated from the church for holding and teaching 
 them ; that this objectionable evidence is guarded by 
 a doubt, written on the very page where it is used, 
 and totally disclaimed in the Reply ; and yet Clement 
 is left under the charge of teaching what is now 
 commonly called baptismal regeneration ; and, since 
 all other evidence has failed, reference is now made 
 to the admonitory discourse which Clement addressed 
 to the Greeks, called by Dr. Halley " Cohortatio ad 
 Gentes." That work consists in an exposure of the 
 corruptions of the heathen oracles, worship, and mys- 
 
264 APPENDIX. 
 
 teries ; and an admonition addressed to the worship- 
 pers themselves, assuring them that they will be lost 
 for ever, if these heathen idolatries are not given up 
 for Christ's sake. The passage referred to by Dr. 
 Halley, forms the concluding part of the work, and 
 it is quoted here at considerable length, that some 
 acquaintance being formed with its author, the reader 
 may feel more confidence in deciding whether the 
 affirmations made against Clement be thereby sus- 
 tained, and whether it supplies any evidence to prove, 
 that Clement taught the doctrine now called baptis- 
 mal regeneration, or any doctrine resembling it in 
 nature and consequences ; and whether on this evi- 
 dence, without any other, it can be justly said that 
 Clement, by " tumid phraseology borrowed from 
 Eleusinian processions, and Bacchanalian orgies," 
 commenced the apostacy of the church, by bringing 
 their corruptions into the sanctuary of the Lord. 
 
 The Passage. 
 
 " The trumpet of Christ is the gospel ; he sounds, 
 and we should hear. Let us arm peacefully, putting 
 on the breastplate of righteousness, taking the shield 
 of faith, and binding on the helmet of salvation ; and 
 let us prepare to use the sword of the Spirit, which is 
 the word of God. Thus the apostle peacefully forms 
 our ranks.* These are our invulnerable arms. Con- 
 flicting with these, let us form our line, fronting with 
 resistance all iniquity ; let us quench the fiery darts of 
 
 * 1 Eph. vi. 10—20. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, 265 
 
 the wicked one, with tearful intentions, baptized 
 under the word, returning the favours we have 
 received with grateful thanks, and exalting God in the 
 Divine word ; for still while thou art speaking he 
 answers, he saith behold, I am present with thee."* 
 
 " O this holy and blessed power through which 
 God becometh a fellow-citizen with men ! It is, 
 therefore, better and more noble to become the 
 worshipper and imitator of those things which belong 
 to the best of all existence ; for no one is able for 
 himself to imitate God, except by those things in 
 which he holily worships him, nor yet to worship 
 and serve unless he imitate him. For that love 
 which is heavenly, is truly Divine ; by this means it 
 happens to men, whenever what is truly excellent 
 becomes kindled and stirred up in the soul itself, by 
 things which are united in the Divine word, it is 
 enabled to become very eminent ; and this especially 
 the greatest, to be saved, hastens, if I may so speak, 
 as by free choice and vital energy, to join the sincere 
 resolution to be saved." 
 
 " For, this Admonition of truth itself alone resem- 
 bles the most faithful of friends, remaining until the 
 last breath of life, and becoming in those who are 
 pressing forward into heaven, a perfect conductor and 
 guide to the entire and perfect spirit of the soul. 
 [It saith] What do I persuade thee .'' I am urging 
 thee to be saved. This the Christ intends ; in one 
 word he grants thee life. And what is this word ? 
 
 * Matt, xxviii. 20. 
 
266 APPENDIX. 
 
 Learn briefly, a word of truth, a word of incorrupt 
 tion, a word which regenerateth the man, leading 
 him into truth, the goading impulse of salvation, 
 which draweth out the corruption, and driveth out 
 the death, which buildeth a temple in men, that God 
 may be enthroned amongst men." 
 
 " Purify that temple, the pleasures and indolences 
 [that defile it], like a flower which blossoms for f 
 day, leave thou to the wind and fire ; cultivate dis- 
 creetly the fruits of sober-mindedness, and present 
 thyself a first offering to God,* that thou mayest be- 
 come not only a work, but also a joy of God ; but it 
 is befitting both to come forth recognized in Christ, 
 and worthy of the kingdom, and to be deemed wor- 
 thy of the kingdom [by others]. Let us, therefore, 
 forsake the general custom, let us flee it as a danger- 
 ous rock, or the terrors of Charybdis, or the fabled 
 Sirens ; it strangles the man, turns him from the 
 truth, it drags him from life ; the general custom is 
 vile, a fan to drive the chafi^ before it, it is a snare, a 
 pit, a perdition. 
 
 KetVou fjikv Kairvov Kai KVfj.aTO<; eKxos eepye 
 
 Work the ship beyond this smoke and surge. 
 
 Let us flee, O associates, let us flee this surge ; it 
 vomits fire ; the island is bad, it is heaped with 
 
 • See Rom. xii 1. 
 
 f Odyssey /x 219, Clement reads Kiivov for tovtov ; but, 
 since it could not have been to serve a religious end, it is hoped 
 that Dr. Halley will not call this variation "a scandalous 
 forgery y 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 267 
 
 bones and carcases ; in it Pleasure, a little garnished 
 courtezan, delighting with common music, sings : — 
 
 Aevp' ay' Iwv, iToXvaiv 'OSvcrev, fxeya kvSo<s A^ataii', 
 N^a KaTa.(jrr](Tov, Iva OnoripTjv oir aKoucrrys.* 
 
 Great fame of Greeks, much praised Ulysses, come, 
 
 Bring to the ship, to hear diviner song. 
 
 To praise thee, shipmate, she calleth thee the theme 
 of many hymns, and the prostitute appropriates to 
 herself the glory of the Greeks ; leave her to feed 
 upon the carcases of those whom she hath slain ; a 
 holy spirit aids thee ; depart from this Pleasure, it 
 misleads : — 
 
 MrySe yvvt] ere voov 7rvyoo"ToXos l^airaTaroy, 
 Aifj-vXa KWTiXXovcra, rerjv 8L(f>!hcra KaXtrjv.f 
 Let not the half-dress'd harlot cozen thee in thought, 
 Prating deceits, and coveting thy nest.- 
 
 Sail past her song, it worketh death ; if only thou 
 art willing, thou hast overcome the destruction, and 
 [like one who has suffered shipwreck], bound to a 
 plank, [the cross], thou shalt be delivered from all 
 the defilement. The word of God shall steer thee, 
 and the Holy Spirit shall impel thee to the celestial 
 havens ; then thou shalt see my God, and thou shalt 
 be perfected in those holy mysteries, and thou shalt 
 enjoy the things that are laid up in heaven, which 
 
 * Odyssey M. 185. Here Clement reads GeioTspijv for 
 va)LrEpr]v. 
 
 t Dr. Halley will see here, in the first line, a case of the 
 double accusative, t^aTrardru) at [/card] voov, beguile thee 
 [in\ thought. 
 
268 APPEXEIX. 
 
 are preserved for me, which the eye hath never seen, 
 •which have not come upon the heart of any one." 
 ' Indeed, I seem to see two suns, and Thebes.' 
 ' To me is double,' said one, raving to idols, drunk 
 in unmitigated ignorance. But I desire to compas- 
 sionate this misconceiving victim of excitement, and 
 him, returning to sober-mindedness, I would call to 
 salvation, because the Lord receiveth of a sinner, 
 with delight, repentance, and not death. Come, 
 paralyzed intelligence, not leaning on a th\TSus, nor 
 bound with ivy leaves, cast away the mitre [head 
 dress], and the fawn skin, be sober-minded; I will 
 unfold to thee the word, and the mysteries of the 
 word, discoursing in conformity with thine own de- 
 lineations.* 
 
 " This is a mountain.f lovely to God, not devoted 
 to tragedies, as Citheron, but to exhibitions of the 
 truth, a sober mountain, shaded with chaste groves. 
 The Msenades, sisters to thunder- smitten Semele, do 
 not rave there, conducting an unchaste fleshly initia- 
 tion ; but the daughters of God, the beautiful lambs, 
 conduct a venerable chorus, celebrating decent orgies 
 of the word." 
 
 * The reader will see that Clement discoursing to Greeks, 
 has hitherto taken his illustrations from Homer, &c. ; but since 
 he is wishing to convince idolaters, he now introduces one £is 
 an example to individualize the thought, and speaks to Viim in 
 his own style. 
 
 t The Church, see Psa. ii. 6. ; Sept. ; Heb. sii. 22. The 
 words sober, chaste, decent, smd venerable, are all emphatic, 
 referring to opposite features in the rites Clement had con- 
 demned. See Isa. xl. 11 ; John x. 1 — 18. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 269 
 
 " The choir consists of justified persons ; the song 
 is a hymn of the universal King, virgins harp, angels 
 praise, prophets speak, a sound of melody goes forth, 
 they urge the solemn procession in its course ; those 
 who have been called hasten, desiring intensely to 
 recover a Father. And thou, ancient man, come to 
 me ; forsaking Thebes, and casting away the divi- 
 nation and bacchanalian riot, be guided by the hand 
 unto truth : behold, I give to thee a staff on which 
 to lean [the cross] Hasten, Tiresias.* Believe, see, 
 Christ enlighteneth more sweetly than the sun ; 
 through him the eyes of the blind receive their sight, 
 night shall flee away, a fire shall be driven away, 
 death shall be destroyed ; thou, O ancient man, who 
 beholdest not Thebes, shalt see the heavens." 
 
 "O these truly holy mysteries; O unmingled, 
 uncorrupted light, being initiated I become holy, 
 I am lighted onward, discovering the heavens and 
 God, The Lord is the hierophant [possesseth the 
 knowledge of divine things] ,t and, pouring h'ght 
 upon, sealeth the initiated [the disciple], and pre- 
 senteth to the Father him who hath believed, pre- 
 served for ever. These are the celebrations of my 
 mysteries : if willing, be thou also initiated, and thou 
 shalt sing with angels round the unproduced, the im- 
 perishable, and really the only God, the Word uniting 
 with our praise." [See Ep. i. 12, 13 i Rev. viii.] 
 
 * Tiresias of Thebes, as a reparation for his having been 
 struck blind, is said to have received from Jupiter the gift of 
 prophecy, and to have had his life extended to seven times the 
 ordinary age of man. (Lempriere.) 
 
 t See 1 Cor. ii. 1—16 ; John iii. 12, 13 ; Matt. xi. 27—30. 
 
270 APPENDIX. 
 
 "This one everlasting Jesus, the great High 
 Priest of the one God, who is also the Father, 
 prayeth. for men, and calleth to men, — Gather round, 
 ye many tribes; but rather, all such as are reasonable, 
 of men, both barbarians and Greeks. I call the whole 
 race of man, of whom by the Fa^^her's will I am 
 Creator. Come unto me that ye may be subjected 
 imder one God, and the one word of God, and not 
 only of all irrational beings shall ye have the greatest 
 eminence in discourse,* but of all mortal things I 
 will grant you to enjoy an immortality ; for I desire, 
 and I desire to share with you, a full inheritance of 
 this favour, advancing the benefit to incorruption ; I 
 give to you also a word [conveying") , the knowledge 
 of God ; I give to vou my own initiated [perfected] 
 self.f This I am, this God designs, this is a consent 
 and harmony of the Father, this a Son, a Christ, the 
 word of God, a right hand of the Lord, a power of 
 the universe, [is] the will of the Father; of which 
 things anciently descriptions [were given], but not 
 all exact ; I design to conform you to the antitype, 
 in order that you may become like unto me. I will 
 anoint you with the unguent of faith, through w^hich 
 ye shall cast ofi" the corruption ; and I will show you 
 perfectly the scheme of righteousness through which . 
 
 * The Greeks gloried in their keenness, and the eminent 
 cultivation of their language, hence Clement rebukes their sin by 
 classing them, on the subject of religion, with irrational agents. 
 
 •(• By this application of the word TtSuov to the Saviour, 
 Clement describes him as completely set apart and recognised 
 in the dispensation of mercy. See Psedagogus, book i,, 
 chap. 6. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 271 
 
 ye shall ascend to God : Come unto me all ye who 
 labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 
 Take my voke upon you, and learn of me, for I am 
 meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto 
 your souls ; for my yoke is easy and my burthen is 
 light." 
 
 Let us hasten, let us run, O men, beloved of God, 
 created resemblances of the Word ! let us hasten, let 
 us run, let us take his yoke, let us receive the Christ, 
 the beautiful charioteer of men. Let us love the foal 
 (the New Testament church) : receive ye a yoke- 
 bearer, now fitted for its task, and he, uniting with 
 the ancient [church] in God, the pair of men directeth 
 the chariot unto immortality, hastening to accomplish 
 with effect what he indicated formerly, indeed, entering 
 into Jerusalem, but now into heaven.* A spectacle, 
 most delighting to the Father, is an eternal conquering 
 Son. Let us, therefore, now become men who are 
 pleasing to God, seeking honour in things that are ex- 
 cellent, and especially in those which are free from 
 human passions; let us inherit God and life. The Word 
 is our helper, let us be confident in him ; and never at 
 any time should so much love of gold and silver, nor 
 even of glory come upon us as of him who is the 
 Word of Truth. Never, by any means, can it be- 
 come pleasing to God, if we exchange things of the 
 greatest value, for those which are most vain ; but, of 
 ignorance, indocility, lasciviousness, and idolatry, 
 wanton insults are manifest ; and to many we attri- 
 bute the extreme of impiety ; for, not inconsistently, 
 
 * This illustration is taken from John, vii. 14, 15, etc. 
 
272 APPENDIX. 
 
 the philosophers judge that those things which the 
 ignorant practice, they do unhohly and impiously ; and 
 when they describe this same ignorance as a species 
 of derangement, they declare by their confession, that 
 the multitude are mad. 
 
 Therefore, the word saith, it behoveth not to hesi- 
 tate in concluding whether it be better of the two, to 
 be sober-minded or insane ; but, holding the truth 
 firmly, to follow God with all our might, becoming 
 temperate, and to consider all things to be his, as 
 they are ; and with us it is also deemed, that, having 
 truly learned of him, to commit our whole selves to 
 God, loving the Lord God, and continuing this work 
 through the whole life, is the most excellent of all 
 possessions ; but, if the possessions of friends are 
 common, * then man is lovely to God ; and, there- 
 fore, the Word interceding, a friend ; and, therefore, 
 all things belong to the man, because all things be- 
 long to God, and all things are common to both the 
 friends, — to God and to man. It is proper for us to 
 say, therefore, that the godly Christian only is rich, 
 and sober-minded, and noble, and, in this way, an 
 image of God, bearing his likeness ; and also, to 
 believe, and to declare, that he is just and holy, 
 being with discretion, subjected under Christ Jesus, 
 and, to that extent also, already resembling God. 
 The prophet, therefore, hath not concealed the grace, 
 saying, " I said that ye are gods, and all sons of the 
 Most High. For us, even us, he hath adopted, and 
 
 * See Aristotle's Ethics, Book viii. chap. 9, Koiva to. 
 <pi\wv. 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 273 
 
 he is wiUing to be called a Father of us only, not of 
 those who are unbelieving. Here, therefore, the 
 affairs of us who are followers of Christ stand thus ; 
 as are our resolutions, such are our words ; as our 
 words, such are our performances ; as our works, 
 such is our life ; of those who know Christ the whole 
 life is useful and happy." 
 
 "Of words, I think this to be enough. And, if I 
 have extended them too far, I have done it through 
 philanthropy ; because I am pouring out things I 
 received from God, exhorting on the greatest of all 
 good, salvation; for, when expounding divine reali- 
 ties, concerning the life which can never have an end, 
 the arguments are not inclined to terminate. But 
 still, with you is left this main object, that the prefer- 
 able be chosen, whether judgment or mercy ; for, 
 which of the two is best, I deem it unworthy to 
 inquire : indeed, it is not lawful to place life in com- 
 petition with endless ruin." (Clement of Alexandria s 
 Admonitory Discourse to the Greeks; works, pp. 72 
 —76, Fol. Ed. GolonicB, A.D. 16SS.) 
 
 The reader will be so kind as to observe, that this 
 long quotation is given, not for the sake of justifying 
 every expression it contains, nor of proving that its 
 author is perfect, nor yet for the purpose of setting 
 him forth as an authority ; the last character he him- 
 self would disclaim, and the scene of his labour being 
 in the East, he may be readily allowed to use illustra- 
 tions more figurative and bold than we, in our western 
 climate, can admit. If any one choose to call these 
 " tumid," when they were chosen expressly to bring 
 the argument more within the comprehension of his 
 
 T 
 
274 APPENDIX. 
 
 readers one can only refer to the discourses of our 
 Lord, remembering that tastes form no subject for 
 disputation. The great point to be decided from this 
 passage, is, whether it supphes the evidence required 
 to support Dr. H alley in charging Clement of Alex- 
 andria with teaching the doctrine now commonly 
 called baptismal regeneration. The word translated in 
 the New Testament, to be born again, and sometimes 
 as, in other works, to regenerate, occurs in this passage 
 only once, and then it is joined to the word of truth, the 
 word of God, and not to the ordinance of baptism, 
 which is not named therein at all. All other evidence, 
 adduced to sustain his charge, has nowbeen abandoned, 
 and Dr. Halley flies to this as his last resource. It 
 is now before the reader, that whatever help it can 
 afford, in finding out the truth, may with facility be 
 improved by all. On page 73 of his Reply, Dr. Halley 
 calls upon " Mr. Stovel," " like an honest man," to 
 specify the passage in which he inferred the senti- 
 ments of Clement from the abstract of sentiments 
 taught by Valentine, and urges him not " to evade 
 this challenge," but specify the passage, or retract 
 the charge." On page 186 — 190, of this work, the 
 facts of the case are given, yet, as on page 2.59, his 
 word is taken, that he did not intend to support his 
 affirmation by that reference. It was only an embel- 
 lishment. On page 66, of his Reply, notwithstanding 
 the eloquence on p. 9, p. 13, and p. 281, of his Lec- 
 tures, he says that he did not mean to condemn 
 Clement, or any one else, for calling the baptized 
 believers perfected and enlightened, and, therefore, 
 of course, he did not use these points as evidence to 
 
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 275 
 
 support his allegation ; and his word is taken again 
 on page 259 — 264. On page 257, of his Lectures, 
 a quotation is given inaccurately, and this goes against 
 the supposition, that Clement taught the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration ; for, if the charge rest upon 
 the simple fact, that Clement uses the word avayewdw, 
 this word being used twice, and equivalent expres- 
 sions twenty-two times in the New Testament, the 
 imputation of heresy would ultimately rest upon the 
 Lord and his disciples. This, of course, our brother 
 will disclaim in his next work, and in this case, as 
 before ; when he does it, his word shall be again 
 taken. The long quotation which is here given, which 
 Dr. Halley says he did refer to (Reply, p. 67), let the 
 reader judge, does not sustain the charge ; call it 
 ." tumid," or whatever he may, it has not any even 
 the least indication of the opus o'peratum in it. It 
 contains nothing whatever that approaches the like- 
 ness of baptismal regeneration. If our brother 
 disclaim this evidence, as he has done the other, what 
 is to be done ? Why, of course, his word must be 
 taken in the same way. There can be no motive to 
 force upon him any argument which he disowns ; 
 but then, if all his former cases and reasonings are 
 now abandoned, will not Dr. Halley be so kind as to 
 state why, after speaking of things as corruptions, 
 the use of which he now disclaims — on page 13 of 
 his Sacraments, he says, " The answer to the moment- 
 ous question, what must I do to be saved } then re- 
 quired years for its explanation, while the inquirer was 
 passing through the long course of discipline among 
 
276 APPENDIX. 
 
 the hearers, etc. ;" and, again, on page 12, " The rites 
 of the Christian religion" " became mystic, reserved 
 only for the perfect, in whose initiation baptism was 
 deemed the proper ablution." And " hence, too, we 
 think, arose the institution and rule of unbaptized 
 Catechumens, so unhke anything to be found in the 
 apostohc age ;" and why does he affirm, on page 510 
 and page 5S6, that Acts viii. 37, was "forged," and 
 before the time of Irenaeus, to cover this corruption 
 which he declared to have originated in the third and 
 fourth centur}' ? This was very provident, certainly ; 
 it supposes that this passage was "forged" be- 
 fore A.D. 176, in order to conceal an error which did 
 not appear until more than a century afterwards : that 
 is to say, they prepared the fig-leaf one hundred years 
 before the necessity for its application existed. This, 
 surely, is too remarkable to be retained ; and when 
 this argument also has been abandoned, will not our 
 brother explain why, on page 603, he affirms " that 
 baptism, restricted to believers, is a practice rigidly 
 and consistently observed by no sect, and for which 
 no warrant of Scripture can be offered, except a 
 scandalous forgery V Why does he say these things ? 
 On what ground does he rest them ? He has backed 
 out through all authority from John, to Clement ; and 
 from aU other passages relating to Clement but the 
 one given here, which cannot serve his purpose ; and 
 now the last shred of evidence from him is gone, what 
 is the proof on which our brother thus confounds 
 the ordinance of his Lord with heathenish corrup- 
 tions ? He must explain himself. Let him not evade 
 
CLEMENT OP ALEXANDRIA. 277 
 
 this "challenge;" for we are not "angry," though 
 in earnest : " Let him, like an honest man, specify the 
 passage, or retract the charge." 
 
 It is hoped that this requirement, presented in Dr. 
 Halley's own words, wiU not be deemed uncourteous ; 
 because here the thing requested and urged forms an 
 indispensable part of that subject which, with all its 
 practical importance, and with all due respect for 
 those whose works have been examined, now, by this 
 restatement, asks for a prayerful consideration from 
 the reader. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 London: Printed by Ward & Gkiffiih, Bear Alley, City. 
 
WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 
 
 TO BE OBTAINED OF HOULSTON & STONEMAN, 
 
 PATERNOSTER ROW, 
 AND OF ANT OTHER BOOKSELLER. 
 
 HINTS ON THE REGULATION OF CHRIS- 
 TIAN CHURCHES. 12mo, 3s. 6d. 
 
 '* A careful examination of this work has served to convince 
 us that it is a most valuable addition to the stores of Noncon- 
 forming Theology It is well written, and displays con- 
 siderable mental power ; and hence we have much pleasure in 
 giving it our warm and conscientious approbation." — Congre- 
 gational Magazine. 
 
 " We thank Mr. Stovel for the volume before us. These 
 ' Hints ' are the production of a sound and independent mind, 
 
 guided in its inquiries by the Word of God alone We 
 
 can assure our readers that they will find the work most amply 
 repaying an attentive perusal." — Baptist Magazine. 
 
 PASTORAL APPEALS ON CONVERSION. 
 
 12rao, 2s. 6d. 
 
 " We know not which to admire most, the excellent object 
 of the writer, or the deep piety with which his volume is 
 imbued. It displays an intimate acquaintance with the work- 
 ings of the human mind, and the operations of religious prin- 
 ciples ; and cannot be attentively perused without benefit. 
 We cordially recommend it to the immediate attention of our 
 readers." — Eclectic Review, March, 1837. 
 
PUSEYISM, OR THE BAPTISMAL REGENE- 
 RATION CONTROVERSY CONSIDERED. 
 In Five Lectures. 
 Second Edition. Price 6s. 
 
 " These Lectures must rank unquestionably with the very 
 best publications on the subject in our language." — Primitive 
 Church Magazine, August, 1843, p. 281. 
 
 " We know no work in the English language equal to this 
 volume of Lectures ; and none which we can recommend with 
 so much confidence." — Northern Baptist, p. 169, November, 
 
 " Patiently and unflinchingly has Mr. Stovel pursued the 
 subject in all its bearings, and h-e richly deserves the commen- 
 dations of all who love spiritual religion and scriptural truth. 
 That his Lectures have met with so little attention from the 
 public journals of our own body is a matter of astonishment ; 
 that he should be severely, — we may say, harshly and unjustly 
 — dealt with elsewhere, he probably made up his mind to ex- 
 pect. It gives, however, but an unfavourable idea of the state 
 of intercourse between different sections of the professedly 
 Christian church, when a reviewer could calculate so largely 
 upon his readers' ignorance of the book, and spirit of denomi- 
 nationalism, as to misinterpret and misrepresent in the way 
 the Congregationalist has done. We hope that all our readers 
 will procure the work, and convince themselves of its value. 
 Mr. Stovel's crime is his honesty ; but to us it appears that at 
 the present crisis, we need thorough scrutinizing investigations, 
 and an open expression of honest convictions." — Baptist 
 Record, March, 1844, p. 132. 
 
 " Sincerely do we hope that these Lectures will have an ex- 
 tended circulation. They are full of truth and originality ; and 
 are admirably calculated to counteract the baneful influence of 
 the wide-spreading heresy the talented Lecturer has so tri- 
 umphantly refuted. In the investigation of the subject, Mr. 
 Stovel has appealed to the hearts as well as the understandings 
 of his hearers and readers ; and if, through the influence of 
 prejudice and pre-conceived opinions^ his arguments should fail 
 to convince, the spirit in which he has conducted the examina- 
 tion will do much to conciliate." — Gospel Herald, 1844, p. 298. 
 
OUND BY 
 ESTLEVS fc 
 CLARK