^5 
 
 Q_ 
 
 4* 
 
 J5 
 
 fc> 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 ■<+£ 
 
 2 
 
 o 
 
 >, 
 
 x> 
 
 ^ 
 
 -a 
 
 V-' 
 
 a> 
 
 % 
 
 c 
 
 '** 
 
 <u 
 
 e- 
 
 CO 
 
 <& 
 
 CL 
 
 § 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 5^B 
 
Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
 
 in  2011  with  funding  from 
 
 Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/infantbaptismdivOOthor 
 
AN1 
 
 ANT     BAPTISM, 
 
 DIVINE    OBLIGATION. 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM, 
 
 A  DIVINE  OBLIGATION: 
 
 BECOGNIZED,  SANCTIONED,  PLEADED,  AND  PEACTISED,  BY 
 THE  APOSTLE  PAUL; 
 
 AND  DEFENDED  FEOM  EVEEY  KNOWN  OBJECTION 
 HITHEETO  BEOUGHT  AGAINST  IT. 
 
 BY  THE  EEV.  WM/  THOEN, 
 
 WINCHESTER; 
 
 3utt)or  Of 
 "MODERN  IMMERSION  NOT  SCBIPTUEE  BAPTISM; 
 "DIPPING  NOT  BAPTIZING,"  ETC. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JACKSON   AND   WALFORD, 
 st.  Paul's  church  yakd  ; 
 
 WARD    AND    CO.,   AND    J.    SNOW, 
 
 PATEEXOSTER  KOVT. 
 
WINCHESTER: 
 X.  WAREEX,  PRINTER,  HIGH  STREET. 
 
ANALYSIS.* 
 
 
 
 INTRODUCTORY  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Page 
 
 1.  The  Author's  sincere  belief  in  Infant  Baptism         .  25 
 
 2.  This  rite  deducible  from  Scripture  testimonies — Hall  ib. 
 
 3.  The  text,  (1  Cor.  x.  1 , 2,)  selected ;  mode  of  discussion  26 
 
 4.  Special  reasons  for  selecting  Paul's  declaration        .  ib. 
 
 5.  New  Test,  succeed  Old  Test.  Baptisms — Noel,Urwick  27 
 
 6.  Union  of  parents  and  children  in  religious  associations  28 
 
 7.  This  union  recog.  only  by  circumcision  or  baptism  .  30 
 Testimonies  of  Tombes,  Noel,  Carson,  Wall,  &c.        .  ib. 
 
 8.  Baptism  in  the  sea,  the  basis  of  our  Argument        .  31 
 A  pattern  for  Christian  Bapt. — Noel,  Killingworth,  &c.  32 
 
 9.  The  mode,  our  principal  interdenominational  difference  ib. 
 The  subjects,  the  great  question  with  Pedobaptists  .  33 
 
 10.  No  direct  controversy  about  Adult  Baptism  .  34 
 The  only  grounds  on  which  both  parties  can  co-operate  ib. 
 
 1 1 .  Only  two  Scriptural  objections  to  Infant  Bapt. — Hall  35 
 (1.)  Want  of  clear  precepts  and  examples  of  it  .  ib. 
 (2.)  Infants  have  not  proper  qualifications  for  it      .  36 
 
 12.  Difficulties  originate  in  misapplying  particular  terms  ib. 
 
 13.  Much  written  against  Infant  Baptism,  quite  irrelative  37 
 The  rite,  among  Dissenters,  Conformists,  and  Papists, 
 
 confounded         .         .         .         .  .         .38 
 
 14.  Little  here  said  on  the  perpetuity,  mode,  &c.  of  baptism  ib. 
 
 15.  Objections  to  Infant  Baptism  amply  considered       .  39 
 
 16.  Hostility  manifested  against  Infant  Baptism — Byron  40 
 
 17-  Special  motives  for  preparing  the  present  treatise    .  41 
 
 18.  Rev.  R.  Hall,  on  party  prepossessions  .  .         .43 
 
 Text  cited. — Arrangement  of  the  argument    .         .  45 
 
 A 
 
11  ANALYSIS. 
 
 PART  FIRST. 
 
 Under  the  Term  '  Our  Fathers,'  baptized  in  the  Sea, 
 numerous  infants  were  included. 
 
 Sect.  First. — The  term  not  used  in  its  literal  sense  46 
 Dr.  E.  Williams — Stovel — Various  scriptural  proofs  ib. 
 Not  used  for  heads  of  families,  tribes,  or  elders         .     47 
 
 Sect.  Second. — The  children  passing  through  the 
 
 sea  very  numerous  .         .         .         .         .49 
 
 These  present  purposely,  not  incidentally  .  .     50 
 
 Strangers  and  cattle  present,  no  obj. — Carson  &  Stovel     51 
 
 Mr.  Keach,  on  'wicked  people  being  present' 
 The  mixed  multitude  baptized  as  Proselytes 
 
 Sect.  Third. — The  children  as  really  baptized  as 
 their  parents 
 
 52 
 53 
 
 ib. 
 
 If  baptized  as  a  corporate  body,  the  children  parts  of  it     54 
 Explained  by  reference  to  Jewish  purifications  .  .55 
 
 All  virtually,  if  not  individually,  baptized  .  .     56 
 
 Sect.   Fourth. — All   who   ate   the   manna   were 
 
 baptized  in  the  sea        .         .         .         .         .57 
 
 All  the  children  unquestionably  ate  this  manna  .  .     ib. 
 
 The  subjects  of  baptism  and  those  eating  the  manna 
 
 the  same  .......     58 
 
 The  spiritual  food  analogous   to  Christian  religious 
 
 advantages  .....  ib. 
 
 Sect.  Fifth. — The  entire  people  treated  as  alike 
 
 baptized  ......     59 
 
 Children  shared  the  good  and  evil  with  their  parents  .     60 
 Noel,  Stovel,  and  Keach  on  this  question  .  .     ib. 
 
 Rees'  objections,  invalid  and  irrelevant    .  .  .61 
 
 Sect.    Sixth. — Children    present   at   the   great 
 
 Hebrew  conventions  .  .  .  .  -64 
 Children  purified  or  baptized  like  their  parents — Home  66 
 Formed  parts  of  the  New  Testament  congregations  .  67 
 Being  brought  to  Christ  indicates  a  prior  custom  .  68 
 Were  taken  to  John's  baptism — Lightfoot         .         .     ib. 
 
 Rem.  1 . — Great  inlerestChrist,  tyc.  took  in  children.  Baxter  69 
 
 Rem.  2. —  Covenants  of  Old  Test,  included  children      .     70 
 
 Rem.  3. — Predictions  of  ancient  Script. — Mends,  Evans     71 
 This  point  confirmed  by  an  analogous  case — Evans    .     74 
 
ANALYSIS.  Ill 
 
 REM.  4. — Predictions  realized  under  gospel  dispensation    74 
 
 Relative  effects  of  parental  faith       .         .         .  .75 
 
 Abrahamic  and  gospel  covenants  essentially  the  same      76 
 
 Section  Seventh. — If  all  the  Hebrews  were  not 
 
 BAPTIZED,  WHO  WERE  EXCEPTED  ?  ib. 
 
 Not  more  than  a  tenth  literally  specified  .         .  -77 
 
 Obs.  I. —  The  bap.  of  the  regenerated  only,  not  scriptural     ib. 
 
 Drs.  Gale  and  Newman,  on  valid  baptisms  .  .  78 
 Inquisitions  into  the  piety  of  candidates  unknown  .  ib. 
 Unconverted  people  baptized  by  our  opponents — Foot, 
 
 Stovel,  Booth     .  .  .    '     .  .         .79 
 
 Their  bap.  as  valid  as  of  the  regenerated — Stovel,  Birt  ib. 
 Examinat.  for  church  membership  materially  different     80 
 
 Obs.  II. —  To  baptize  the  children  of  spiritual  Christians 
 
 only,  unsustainable    .  .         .         .         .  .81 
 
 The  baptism  of  otber  children  equally  valid       .         .  82 
 
 Church  membership  no  certain  proof  of  piety     .         .  ib. 
 
 Unconv.  people  may  perform  some  religious  acts — Scott  83 
 
 Children  of  unholy  parents  circumcised,  purified,  &c.  84 
 
 This  subject  of  interest  to  grown-up  young  people  .  ib. 
 Children  of  unconverted  parents,  originally  baptized 
 
 — Wardlaw        ......  85 
 
 Obs.  III. —  To  baptize  all  that  are  brought  the  only  safe  rule  86 
 Or  future  genuine  Christians  might  be  omitted  .  .  ib. 
 While  those  who  never  became  holy  might  be  baptized  87 
 Pious  administrators  as  essential  as  pious  parents  .  ib. 
 Dr.  Wardlaw's  difficulty  and  concession  on  this  point  88 
 Those  who  object  to  baptize,  should  refuse  to  teach 
 
 unbaptized  children  .  .  .  .  .89 
 These  Children. may  be  baptized  by  the  Spirit,  therefore, 
 
 may  be  with  water      .         .         .         .         .90 
 
 Section  Eighth. — Paul  practised,  as  well  as  plead- 
 ed INFANT  BAPTISM   .  .  .  .  .  .      ib. 
 
 This  may  be  reasonably  inferred      .  .         .         .91 
 
 The  Corinthns.believingbefore  baptism,  no  valid  objection  ib. 
 The  reasonable  deductions  of  the  Corinthians  .  .  ib. 
 Substitute  circumcision  for  baptism  in  the  text  .     92 
 
 If  our  inference  be  invalid,  Paul's  reasonings  defective     93 
 
IV  ANALYSIS. 
 
 OBJECTIONS. 
 
 Obj.  I. —  Children  not  said  to  have  been  bap.  in  the  Sea  94 
 Without  a  miracle  they  must  have  been  baptized  .  ib. 
 Nor  is  it  said  any  women  were  baptized  .  .  .95 
 The  term  man  includes  infants  as  well  as  men  and  women  ib. 
 Had  Paul  excepted  children,  he  must  have  said  so — Wall  96 
 
 Obj.  II. — Children  not  the  knowledge  required  for  bap.  ib. 
 
 This  assumes  that  knowledge  was  necessary  for  baptism  97 
 
 It  was  not  more  necessary  than  for  circumcision         .  ib. 
 
 Have  knowledge  enough  for  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  98 
 
 And  to  be  made  partakers  of  manifold  blessings  .  99 
 
 However  ignorant,  they  were  baptized  in  the  Sea        .  ib. 
 
 Cox,  Dore,  &c.  on  the  reasonableness  of  religious  duties  ib. 
 
 Obj.  III. — Moral  character  and  advanced  age  necessary 
 
 for  baptism       .         .         .         .         .         .         .100 
 
 Vague  statemts. — Childn.  saved  without  practical  morals  ib. 
 Hebrews  baptized  with  very  little  moral  excellence  101 
 This  ordinance  chiefly  prostituted  in  adult  baptism  .  ib. 
 Who  shall  decide  the  age  for  baptism?  .  .  .  102 
 To  baptize  children  very  young  desirable — Henry      .     ib. 
 
 Obj.  IV. —  Childrenare  not  free  agents  in  baptism — Noel  103 
 Children  baptized  in  the  Sea  without  consenting  .  104 
 Baptisms  enjoined  not  solicited  in  the  N.  T. — Fleming  ib. 
 None  active,  but  all  passive  in  baptism    .  .  .105 
 
 Intelligence  not  needed  for  B. — Stovel,  Noel,  Witsius  106 
 People  discipled  in  order  to  be  taught — Pamphleteer  107 
 Noel,  on  the  difference  between  Believers' and  Infant  B.  108 
 A  disciple  a  child  or  a  man  of  fifty  .         .         .109 
 
 The  practice  of  certain  missionaries  noticed       .         .110 
 
 Obj.  V. —  The  little  Hebr.  might  have  been  bap.  by  proxy  ib. 
 This  contrary  to  the  idea  of  baptism         .         .  .     ib. 
 
 Abraham  was  not  circumcised  for  his  children  .  .111 
 Children  as  capable  of  baptism  as  their  parents  .  .  ib. 
 Parents  did  not  eat  the  manna  for  their  children — Eaton  ib. 
 Bap.  in  the  Sea  equally  bound  children  and  par. — Stovel  113 
 
 Obj.  VI. — Babij  baptism  a  puerile  ceremony — Eaton, 
 
 Gibbs,  Byron    . 114 
 
 Not  more  so  than  circum.  purification,  &c. — Dewhirst  ib. 
 
 Infants  equally  important  and  immortal  with  men      .  115 
 
 Baptized  infants  chiefly  entered  Canaan    .         .         .  ib. 
 
ANALYSIS.  V 
 
 Obj.  VII. — Infant  Baptism  a  most  pernicious  rite         .   115 
 
 This  objection  displayed  in  various  instances     .  .     ib. 
 
 Specially  against  persons  who  defend  Infant  Baptism  116 
 Baptists  fraternize  with  most  that  oppose  Infant  Baptism  117 
 More  scrupulous  about  baptism  than  the  Lord's  Supper  118 
 Quotations,  showing  their  views  on  this  head  .  .119 
 Keach,  Theophilus,  Byron,  Jenkins,  Pengelly,  Draper, 
 
 Crapps,  Noel      ......     ib. 
 
 Their  reasoning  applied  to  Greek  and  Popish  churches  120 
 Noel's  further  distinction  between  Adult  and  Infant  Bap.  ib. 
 The  effect  of  such  denunciations  on  ignorant  partizans  121 
 Pedobaptists'  definition  of  Infant  Baptism         .  .   122 
 
 This  partially  conceded  by  Norcott,  Stovel,  Noel  .  ib. 
 Confirmed  by  Justin,  Cyprian,  Mends,  Edwards,  Newman  123 
 Dedication  by  the  Baptists  equally  pernicious — Noel, 
 
 Booth,  Stovel 124 
 
 Ryland's  concession  on  devoting  children  to  God  .  126 
 Reasons  for  baptizing  in  our  dedications — Edwards  .  ib. 
 Why  most  seceding  clergy  become  Bap.  ministers — Noel  128 
 Why  so  many  Bap.  ministers  conform  to  the  Church  .     ib. 
 
 Obj.  VIII. — Infant  Baptismnot  commanded  inthe  New  T.  129 
 
 The  true  key  to  New  Test,  phraseology — Agnostos        .  130 
 
 John  the  Bap.  followed  the  practice  of  the  Jews — Noel  ib. 
 
 The  Scriptures,  entire,  our  only  complete  directory     .  131 
 
 The  New  Test,  adopted  rites,  &c.  from  the  Old — Hall  132 
 No  necessity  for  enforcing  what  was  never  interrupted — 
 
 Fleming,  Lightfoot      .....  ib. 
 
 Many  present  duties  not  enforced  in  the  New  Testament  134 
 
 Ancient  laws  not  repealed,  perpetually  obligatory         .  ib. 
 
 Daily  duties  seldom  recorded  in  memoirs  or  histories  135 
 
 Jackson,  on  the  silence  of  Scripture  about  Infant  Baptism  136 
 
 John  sent  to  baptize  ;  but  whom  and  how,  to  be  inferred  137 
 
 Our  Lord's  comm.  unlimit. — all  that  were  taught — Scott  138 
 
 The  '  Educator,'  on  early  teaching  and  learning           .  139 
 
 Commission  gives  no  directions  on  the  mode  of  proselyting  140 
 
 Michaelis,  on  the  first  command  to  circumcise  .  .  ib. 
 Case  of  the  passover  adduced  in  illustration       .         .141 
 
 Form  of  Congregationalism  gathered  by  inference       .  142 
 
 And  the  salvation  of  Infants,  dying,  also  inferred  .  143 
 On  following  the  more  or  less  explicit  directions — 
 
 Gale,  Wall ib. 
 
VI  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Infant  Baptism  not  put  in  contrast  with  Adult  Baptism  144 
 If  human  invention,  when  did  it  originate? — Recantation     ib. 
 
 Obj.  IX. — Infant  Baptism  blends  the  church  and  the  ivorld  145 
 
 Tins  asserted  by  Crapps,  Eaton,  Stovel,  Pengilly  .  ib. 
 The  meaning  of  the  terms,  church  and  world — Noel,  Gibbs  1 46 
 The  church  and  the  world  not  blended  by  Infant  Baptism  147 
 The  church  and  the  world  more  blended  in  the  Sea,  &c.  148 
 Baptists  do  it  equally  in  their  baby  dedications — Keach  149 
 Persons  not  rightly  baptized,  not  baptized  at  all — Carson  ib. 
 Done  much  more  in  adult  baptism — Ryland,  Daniell .  150 
 Statistics  of  adult  baptisms  and  excommunications  .  ib. 
 Campbell,  Ryland,  Stovel,  on  the  purity  of  Bap.  churches  151 
 Adult  B.  and  profession  deemed  identical — Stovel,  Noel  152 
 Opponents  blend  the  church  and  the  world  by  baptism  153 
 This  never  done  through  Infant  Baptism  .  .  .     ib. 
 
 Adult  baptism  ever  liable  to  do  so   .  .  .  .   154 
 
 Adult  bapt.  equally  blends  the  Bapt.  with  Popery,  &c.  ib. 
 Noel's  imperfect  views  on  this  point         .  .         .155 
 
 Great  evils  of  thus  blending  the  church  and  the  world  156 
 Theirsystem  equallyblendsthemwithArians,Socins.&c.  ib. 
 Jenkins'  equally  strange  sentiments  on  this  head  .  157 
 Tombes,  on  the  right  of  elect  babes  to  baptism  .  .   158 
 
 Refused,  because  such  cannot  be  distingd. — Marshall  159 
 Still  they  run  the  risk  by  dipping  adults  .  .160 
 
 Noel's  further  notions  .on  the  same  head — Jenkins  .  161 
 Suppose  the  Heb.  priest  had  reasoned  in  the  same  way  162 
 Babies  might  be  baptized,  if  known  to  be  elect .  .     ib. 
 
 None  but  true  believers  should  apply  for  bapt. — Noel   163 
 
 Obj.  X. — Infant  Baptism  destroys  the  child's  liberty  of 
 
 conscience  .  .  .  .  .  .  .164 
 
 Eaton,  Draper,  and  Tombes.  This  not  practically  true  ib. 
 Infants  not  bap.  to  a  sect,  but  to  the  blessed  Trinity  .  165 
 How  are  parents  to  deal  with  their  children  ?     .  .     ib. 
 
 Noel's  strange  remarks  on  this  question  .  .  .166 
 
 DidAbram  destroy  the  liberty  of  consc.  of  his  household?  167 
 None  have  liberty  to  do  anything  but  God's  will — Noel  ib. 
 Relative  piety  has  its  duties  as  well  as  personal  .   168 
 
 Bap.  prej.  their  children's  minds — Jenkins,  Foot,  Draper  169 
 Noel,  on  baptizing  babes  as  unconscious  as  stones!  .  171 
 On  the  cheerfulness  with  which  Baptists  are  dipped  .  ib. 
 Dr.  Evans — '  The  gospel  has  nothing  to  do  with  infants '     172 
 
ANALYSIS.  Vll 
 
 Obj.  XL — Infant  Baptism  the  basis  of  Popery,  fye. — 
 
 Gibbs,  Gill,  Keach 173 
 
 Pedobaptists  most  strenuous  opponents  of  Popery       .  ib. 
 
 Papists  and  Tractarians  not  wrong  in  every  thing         .  174 
 
 Mr.  Stovel's  remarks  without  fairness  or  foundation  .  ib. 
 
 Infant  Bapt.  before  Popery  and  State-establishments  175 
 Austin,  Cyprian,  Tertullian,  Origin,  Justin,  Ireneus, 
 
 Wall,  Tyerman  .         .         .  .         .  .176 
 
 Hall,  on  the  uncertain  and  silent  rise  of  Infant  Bapt.  177 
 
 The  early  diffusion  of  Infant  Baptism — Anon.,  Byron  178 
 
 Gibbs'  notion,  '  Infant  Baptism  is  opposed  to  election  '  ib. 
 
 All  immersed,  not  manifestly  God's  elect  people          .  179 
 
 Obj.  XII. — If  not  plainly  commanded,  certainly  prohibited  180 
 
 If  this  be  a  good  rule,  it  must  be  universal  .  .  ib. 
 Yet,  our  opponents  are  necessarily  and  always  breaking  it  181 
 
 Noel,  on  the  need  of  details  about  Infant  Baptism  .   182 
 
 The  like  required  respecting  the  mode  of  baptism  .     ib. 
 
 And  as  to  the  character  of  adults     .  .  .  .183 
 
 Hebrew  and  Christian  baptism  alike  in  mode    .  .184 
 
 No  instruction  respecting  trained-up  Christians  .     ib. 
 
 Obj.  XIII. — Positive  Institutes  not  establish,  by  inference  185 
 
 Newman,  Noel,  Gibbs,  Booth,  on  this  point      .  .     ib. 
 
 The  weakness  and  irrelevancy  of  this  doctrine — Anon.  186 
 Noel  and  Ryland's  own  rules  refute  this  argument  .  187 
 Baptists  only  infer  to  support  Adult  Baptism     .  .     ib. 
 
 Keach,  on  this  question,  further  considered       .  .   188 
 
 Our  Lord's  disciples  fully  understood  the  commission  189 
 On  God  forbiddiny  Abraham  to  circumcise  females — Keach  ib. 
 No  divine  law  now  personally  applied,  but  by  inference  190 
 All  institutions,  partly  positive  and  partly  moral  .   191 
 
 Baptists  always  violating  their  own  dogmas       .  .     ib. 
 
 Positive  injunctions  the  same  as  positive  institutions  .  192 
 This  argument  of  the  Baptists,  a  sheer  fallacy — Tombes  193 
 
 Obj.  XIV. — Baptism  is  the  profession  of  faith — Noel, 
 
 Keach,  Ryland  .    '      .  .    '      .  .  .194 
 
 A  profession  may  be  made  independent  of  baptism  .  195 
 If  required  of  adults,  might  not  be  of  infants     .  .     ib. 
 
 No  profession  as  among  the  Baptists  originally  required  ib. 
 Jenkins  makes  faith  and  repent,  necessary  to  baptism  196 
 
Vlll  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Fleming  and  Macknight  on  the  word  repentance  .  197 
 Noel's  further  remarks  on  profession  in  baptism  .  198 
 What  kind  of  confession  and  profession  required  ?  .199 
 Noel  on  the  expression,  '  believe  and  be  baptized  '  .  200 
 Infants  saved  without  faith,  but  must  not  be  bap. — Noel  ib. 
 Baptism  an  act  of  divine  worship — Gibbs,  Byron  .  201 
 No  confessions  to  men  required  or  made  before  baptism 
 
 — Owen,  Keach 202 
 
 The  high  assumptions  of  the  Baptists — Agnostos        .  203 
 
 Obj.  XV. — Great  difference  between  baptism  to  Moses 
 
 and  Christ       '.         .  .         .    "     .         .  .204 
 
 Paul's  allusion  shows  their  substantial  agreement  .  ib. 
 The  Hebrews  baptized  without  their  personal  consent  205 
 Diff.  between  ancient  and  modern  bap.  circumstantial    206 
 
 PART  SECOND. 
 
 The  Baptism  of  the  Iseaelites  unto  Moses  embraces 
 all  the  essential  principles  and  properties  of 
 Christian  Baptism 207 
 
 Baptisms  to  Moses  and  Christ  analogous  acts — Hall .     ib. 
 Our  views  on  this  point  fully  conceded  by  Urwick, 
 Noel,  Bloomfield,  Halley,  Fleming,  Anonymous, 
 Green,  Bowden,  Wilson,  Dorrington,  Jones    .  208 
 Mr.  Stovel's  extended  reasoning  on  this  question        .  211 
 His  minor  mistakes  in  the  exposition        .  .  .213 
 
 As  to  the  mode  of  baptism  in  the  Sea       .  .  .     ib. 
 
 Baptism  an  act  of  personal,  not  federal  import  .  .214 
 
 Circumcision  not  once  for  all  succeeding  generations  215 
 So  of  the  purifications,  feasts — all  renewable     .  .   216 
 
 Christian  Baptism  personal  and  not  ancestral     .         .     ib. 
 The  analogy  between  the  two  baptisms     .         .         .217 
 
 Section   First. — The   same   verb   used    for    both 
 
 baptisms — to  Christ  and  to  Moses       '  .        .218 
 
 Must  have  been  understood  in  the  same  sense — Noel  219 
 
 Section  Second. — The  preposition — also  the  same — 
 
 unto  Moses,  and  unto  Christ  ....     ib. 
 
 Eaton,  on  the  obligations  of  the  baptized  .         .   220 
 
ANALYSIS.  IX 
 
 All  classes  and  ages  baptized  to  Moses  and  to  Christ  220 
 Children  as  innocent  as  their  converted  parents  .  221 
 
 Pedobaptists  baptize  no  hypocrites  or  worldlings — Noel  222 
 Baptists  refuse  the  rite  to  eight-tenths  who  go  to  heaven    ib. 
 
 Section  Third. — Both  baptisms  placed  all  the 
 
 baptized  under  like  obligations     .        .        .  223 
 
 Mr.  Stovel's  exposition  explains  this  subject  .  .  ib. 
 From  this  obligation  Paul  does  not  exempt  children  .  224 
 
 Section  Fourth. — The  baptism  to  moses  and  Christ's 
 
 commission  agree 224 
 
 Whether  regarded  as  a  three  or  two-fold  act  .  .  ib. 
 Mr.  Stovel's  views  corroborate  this  proposition  .  225 
 Teaching  followed  the  baptism  in  the  sea  .  .226 
 This  the  case  in  New  Testament  baptisms  .  .  227 
 All  national  benevolent  acts  embrace  children  .  .  228 
 John's  instructions  before  and  after  baptizing  his  con- 
 verts— Doddridge  .....  229 
 Did  not  give  his   disciples  even  the   rudiments    of 
 
 theology — Henry        .....  230 
 Terms  of  the  Commission — Proselyte,  Baptize,  Teach 
 
 — Lightfoot,  Byron 231 
 
 Consistency  in  the  original — not  in  our  version          .  232 
 
 Heathen  and  Jews  partially  taught  to  be  proselyted    .  ib. 
 
 Why  baptized  children  are  designated  holy       .         .  233 
 
 To  proselyte,  the  great  work  of  the  apostles      .         .  234 
 
 Section  Fifth. — The  literal  designation  of  bap- 
 tized JEWS  AND  CHRISTIANS,  THE  SAME         .  .    235 
 
 '  Our  Fathers,'  of  old  ;  and  chiefly  '  Men,' in  the  gospel  ib. 
 John  said  to  have  baptized  '  men  '  only  .  .  .  ib. 
 '  Men  and  brethren,'  the  usual  designation  of  Christians  236 
 Noel  supposes  John  baptized  but  few  females — Halley  ib. 
 Women  not  named,  no  proof  they  were  not  baptized  237 
 Naming  of  women  and  children  in  general  an  exception   ib. 
 
 Section  Sixth. — Old  and  new  testament  baptisms 
 alike  from  heaven  .... 
 
 God  himself  baptized  the  Hebrews  in  the  Red  Sea 
 An  act  of  great  interest  and  importance    . 
 That  of  John,  &c,  equally  from  heaven     . 
 Both  baptisms  from  God,  and  with  one  design  . 
 
 A2 
 
 238 
 
 ib. 
 
 239 
 
 ib. 
 240 
 
X  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Water-baptism  represented  that  of  the  Spirit     .         .  241 
 
 Our  Lord's  conversation  with  Nicodemus           .         .  242 
 
 God's  first  administration  by  affusion        .          .  -        .  243 
 
 Irrimersion  the  reverse  of  all  ministerial  baptisms       .  244 
 
 Sect.  Seventh. — Neither  baptism  conveyed   spi- 
 ritual REGENERATION        .           .            .           .           .  ib. 
 
 This  manifestly  the  case  in  that  of  the  Red  Sea         .  245 
 
 The  style  of  the  0.  T.  adopted  in  the  N.— Home,  Wall  246 
 
 Paul's  view  of  Ecclesia,  Church — Macknight   .          .  ib. 
 
 He  did  not  overlook  the  unconverted        .          .          .  248 
 
 The  use  of  the  terms,  holy,  sanctified,  in  the  0.  T.     .  249 
 
 General  phraseology  used  in  describing  Israelites        .  250 
 
 Paul  supposes  some  of  the  Corinthians  unrenewed      .  251 
 
 The  reasonings  of  the  latter,  if  the  Baptists  are  right.  252 
 
 People  to  be  known  by  their  lives,  not  their  baptism  .  253 
 
 Sect.  Eighth. — The  prerequisites  to  both  baptisms 
 
 about  the  same       ......  254 
 
 Our  opponents  divided  on  this  question — Pengilly      .  ib. 
 
 Spiritual  regeneration  never  deemed  essential  to  bap.  255 
 
 Infants  equally  eligible  for  baptism  to  Moses  and  Christ  ib. 
 
 The  case  of  the  Eunuch  no  exception — Bloomfield     .  256 
 
 John  a  stranger  to  most  he  baptized          .          .          '  ib. 
 
 Stove],  on  the  state  of  the  baptized  Hebrews     .         .  25" 
 
 Obs.  I. —  What  Christ  and  his  apost.  peremptorily  required  258 
 
 What  some  had  previously  obtained,  no  rule  of  action  ib. 
 
 Eew  of  the  people  bap.  named  in  the  N.  T. — Green  .  259 
 
 Judaism  not  determined  by  the  conduct  of  the  Jews    .  ib. 
 
 The  Apostles'  aim,  to  bring  people  over  to  Christianity  2G0 
 Case  of  Cornelius  examined — Parsons      .         .          .261 
 
 Baptists  make  exceptions  the  rule  of  action       .          .  ib. 
 
 Obs.  II. —  Whether  bap.  to  Moses  or  Christ  immaterial  262 
 
 Paul  reasons  as  if  both  were  substantially  alike          .  ib. 
 
 Obs.  III. — Different  requirements  in  adults  and  children  264 
 
 In  the  rite  of  baptism  all  equally  passive — Tombes    .  ib. 
 
 Infants  the  medium  of  instructive  lessons         .         .  ib. 
 
 All  circumcised,  &c.  without  their  consent         .         .  ib. 
 
ANALYSIS.  XI 
 
 Obs.  IV. — Piety  not  always  essential  before   religious 
 
 benefits       .......  265 
 
 Noel's  incongruous  remarks  on  this  point         .          .  266 
 
 His  distinction  between  circumcision  and  baptism        .  267 
 
 '  The  regenerate  only  to  receive  the  sign  of  it '  .         .  ib. 
 
 Many  baptized  at  the  Jordan  not  regenerated    .          .  268 
 
 Obs.  V. — Difference  between  the  first  and  subsequent 
 
 baptisms — Hall          ......  269 
 
 Men  and  women,  as  well  as  children,  first  baptized    .  ib. 
 
 Noel's  admission,  testimonials  were  not  at  first  given  270 
 
 Inducements  to  baptism  at  first  very  great         .          .  ib. 
 
 Probably  more  adults  than  children  first  baptized       .  271 
 
 Subsequently  the  case,  as  in  circumcision,  reversed    .  272 
 
 A  rite  once  commenced  is  continued,  tho'  not  mentioned  273 
 
 The  case  of  the  Essenes  illustrates  this  sentiment        .  274 
 
 Obs.  VI. —  The  baptism  of  the  Spirit  and  water,  not  to 
 
 be  confounded,            .         .          .          .          .  ib. 
 
 These  clearly  distinguished  in  the  New  Test. — Gale, 
 
 Carson      .......  273 
 
 Neglecting  this  rule  leads  to  great  perplexity    .         .  276 
 
 Lord  Congleton's  confused  notions  of  water-baptism  .  ib. 
 
 Stovel  ascribes  too  much  to  water-baptism         .          .  277 
 
 The  same  with  the  Baptists,  called  'Disciples  of  Christ '  278 
 
 Noel,  on  the  congregation  in  Galatia        .          .          .  279 
 
 Paul's  advice  to  the  baptized  Romans — Barnes         .  280 
 
 Water-baptism  only  a  type  of  Spiritual  baptism          .  ib. 
 Acts  so  different,  not  to  be  confounded      .          .          .281 
 
 More  baptized  with  the  Spirit  than  with  water  .          .  282 
 
 A  Baptist,  on  the  regeneration  of  infants  .          .          .  ib. 
 
 Section  Ninth. — Names  given  to  the  baptists  fre- 
 quently MISUNDERSTOOD  .  .  .  .283 
 Words  have  a  lower  and  a  loftier  sense — Noel  .  .  284 
 Of  disciples,  and  disciples  indeed,  &c. — Urwick         .     ib. 
 
 (1.)  Believers. —  This  word  has  different  degrees  of 
 import      ....... 
 
 Faith  of  the  disciples  grew  from  less  to  more     . 
 
 Believer,  expressive  of  relationship 
 
 Nominal  as  well  as  saving  faith — Noel,  Rees    . 
 
 What  was  required  of  John's  disciples — Hall    . 
 
 Stovel's  restricted  sense  of  the  term,  Believer   . 
 
 John  refused  baptism  to  none  willing  to  receive  it — Noel  289 
 
 285 
 ib. 
 286 
 287 
 288 
 ib. 
 
XU  ANALYSIS. 
 
 (2.)  Disciples. — Meaning  learners,  scholars  of  any  age  290 
 None  but  the  baptized  recognized  as  disciples — Hall, 
 
 Noel,  Kinghorn  .  .         .         .         .     ib. 
 
 Distinction  between  ordinary  disciples  and  spiritual  ones 
 
 — Gibbs,  Noel  ...         .         .         .291 
 
 Disciples  of  eight  days  old  and  upwards — Henry  .  292 
 Carson  identifies  disciples  with  persons  already  taught  ib. 
 The  sense  of  discipling  generally — Noel,  Wall  .  293 
 
 Gale's  appeal  to  the  opinion  of  a  poor  countryman  .  294 
 Noel ,  on  being  disciples  before  bap. — Dorrington ,  Carson  295 
 Disciples  and  friends  of  Christ  not  always  identical    .  296 
 
 (3.)  Converts. — Changed  in  views,  conduct,  or  heart  .  297 
 To  be  converted  not  always  to  be  spiritually  regenerated  ib. 
 All  baptized  by  John,  &c,  in  some  sense  converted   .  298 
 
 (4.)  Christians. —  The  followers  of  Christ,  pious  or  not  ib. 
 
 Signifies  profession,  rather  than  spiritual  renewal       .  299 
 
 Strong  motives  at  first  to  embrace  Christianity — Blakey  ib. 
 
 Many  made  believers,  disciples,  &c,  by  miracles  onlyfc  300 
 
 Higher  and  lower  senses  of  the  words — Booth,  Draper  ib. 
 
 Byron  makes  every  nominal  Christian  a  new  creature  301 
 
 Holy  people  known  by  conduct,  not  by  names  .  .  302 
 Modern  phrases  no   certain   exposition  of  Scripture 
 
 language — Noel          .....  303 
 
 Stovel,  on  the  degeneracy  of  Pedobaptist  churches     .  ib. 
 
 Section  Tenth. — Both  baptisms  inducted  to  the 
 like  moral  and  religious  systems 
 The  Mosaic  system  partly  carnal  and  partly  spiritual 
 All  material  gospel  truth  in  the  Mosaic  economy 
 Hebrews  baptized  into  the  spiritual  part  chiefly 
 The  same  as  were  the  Corinthian  professors 
 
 304 
 
 ib. 
 
 305 
 
 306 
 
 ib. 
 
 Quest.  I. — Are  you  not  confounding  an  act  with  an 
 
 institution?       .......  307 
 
 Paul  refers  to  the  act  as  explanatory  of  the  commission  ib. 
 
 It  explains  what  was  not  afterwards  fully  stated          .  ib. 
 
 This  rule  frequently  observed  in  the  New  Testament  308 
 
 Quest.  II. — Are  you  not  placing  these  economies  onapar?  ib. 
 Carson,  Draper,  and  Keach,  on  this  question     .  .     ib. 
 
 Means  of  grace  not  so  clear  as  afterwards  .         .310 
 
ANALYSIS.  X1U 
 
 Interest  God  took  in  the  Old  Testament  church  .  311 
 
 Baptists  compare  carnal  Jews  with  spiritual  Christians  312 
 Children  not  born  members  of  the  Hebrew  church      .  313 
 
 Quest.  III. —  Were  the  Jews  properly  a  church  at  all? 
 
 —Noel 314 
 
 Ecclesia,  in  the  Old  and  New  Test,  means  just  alike  315 
 That  economy  more  than  a  political  system — Jenkins, 
 
 Booth,  Paice,  Edwards         ....  ib. 
 
 Tindale  and  Cranmer,  on  the  term  Congregation — Dore  316 
 
 The  Ecclesia  at  Corinth,  &c,  an  open  congregation  .  317 
 Ecclesia  and  Synagoge  used  synonymously       .         .318 
 
 This  confirmed  by  a  description  of  the  people    .          .  ib. 
 
 Conybeare,  on  the  two-fold  character  of  Corinthn.  church  ib. 
 
 An  American  divine,  on  the  term,  Church  of  God       .  320 
 
 The  Ecclesia  in  Galatia  described   ....  ib. 
 
 The  term  has  a  larger  and  a  limited  application — Byron  322 
 
 Admission  into  the  outer  and  inner  association  .          .  323 
 
 Paul's  anxiety  to  keep  the  select  Ecclesia  pure — Noel  324 
 This  distinction  sustained — Lathrop,  Wills,  Tombes, 
 
 Conybeare,  Calmet      .....  325 
 
 Script,  use  one  word  for  our  'Church  and  Congreg.'  .  326 
 
 Wardlaw,  on  Cox's  sense  of  the  word  Church    .         .  327 
 
 Use  of  the  word  Ecclesia  &  Synagoge  in  the  0.  &  N.  T.  328 
 Former  often  employed  by  Jewish  Converts — Scott, 
 
 Whitby,  Barnes  .  .  .  .  .  ib. 
 The  baptized  inducted  to  what  we  term  a  Congregation 
 
 — Henry 329 
 
 The  seven  churches  of  Asia,  illustrative    .          .         .  330 
 
 Eaton's  description  of  a  really  spiritual  church  .          .  331 
 
 General  and  particular  congreg.,  a  natural  distinction  .  332 
 
 The  great  importance  of  observing  this  arrangement  .  333 
 Scott,  on  the  use  of  the  word  Church        .          .          .     ib. 
 
 Children  baptized  into  the  outer  church — Dwight       .  334 
 
 Quest.  IV. —  Was  not  circumcision  inferior  to  baptism? 
 
 —Noel 336 
 
 Reasons  for  proposing  and  answering  this  question     .  ib. 
 
 About  the  same  qualifications  required  for  both           .  ib. 
 
 Noel's  reasoning  about  difference  of  these  ordinances  .  337 
 
 Argues  as  if  circumcision  was  only  for  adults    .          .  338 
 
 Circumcision  and  baptism  of  the  like  spiritual  import  .  339 
 
 Circumcision  sometimes  personally  useless — no  argt. .  340 
 
 Its  spiritual,  greater  than  its  temporal,  benefits          .  341 
 
XIV  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Noel's  further  groundless  assumptions  .  .  .  342 
 His  marvellous  benefits  of  baptism  !  343 
 
 Baptism  now  as  obligatory  as  circumcision  formerly  .  344 
 As  permanent  in  its  results  as  circumcision       .  .     ib. 
 
 Covenants  of  both  ordinances  alike — Noel  .  .  .  345 
 Baptism  and  circum.  include  the  like  spiritual  promises  346 
 Carson  makes  circum.  of  no  individual  good — Stovel  347 
 Noel's  various  remarks  on  this  subject  expounded  .  ib. 
 Makes  baptism  a  seal  of  regeneration       .  .  .     ib. 
 
 The  three  thousand  did  not  apply  for  baptism    .  .  348 
 
 All  persons  rightly  baptized  with  water  not  justified  .  ib. 
 The  unregenerate  circumcised  andbaptized — Conybeare  349 
 John  probably  baptized  many  women        .  .  .  350 
 
 Noel's  idea  on  baptism  saving  us     .  .  .  .     ib. 
 
 Children  may  be  baptized  without  express  commands  .  351 
 Unregenerate  adults  often  baptized  by  Baptists  .     ib. 
 
 N.  T.  contains  as  many  temporal  promises  as  the  Old  352 
 Paul  places  circumcision  and  baptism  on  an  equality  .  353 
 The  shades  of  difference  between  them — Carson,  Noel  354 
 
 Quest.  V. —  Was  not  the  ancient  church  a  type  of  the 
 
 new? — Carson  .......     ib. 
 
 The  import  of  the  word  Type — Calmet    .  .  .  355 
 
 The  Church  simply  reformed  by  Christ     .  .  .     ib. 
 
 Both  the  former  and  present  economies  spiritual — Anon  356 
 Modern  reforms  as  great  as  that  of  Christ's       .  .     ib. 
 
 Types  in  the  0.  T. ;  but  the  church  not  one  .  .357 
 Carnal  people  not  types  of  spiritual  persons       .  .  358 
 
 Hebrew  saints  not  types  of  Christian  saints        .  .     ib. 
 
 Predictions  referred  only  to  reformations  .  .   359 
 
 Doctrines  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  the  same  .  360 
 Wills  on  the  identity  of  Hebrew  and  Christian  churches  .'361 
 The  fallacious  representations  of  the  Baptists    .  .  362 
 
 Quest.     VI. — Is    not    the    former    spiritual    covenant 
 
 abolished  by  the  gospel  ?    .  .  .  .  .   363 
 
 Import  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  man — Barnes, 
 
 Jenkins,  &c.       ......  ib. 
 
 God's  former  covenants  always  included  children        .  304 
 
 Noel's  defective  statement  on  this  head  .  .  .  ib. 
 Both  covents.  embraced  the  likepersons — Owen,Wardlaw305 
 
 Carson's  reasonings,  and  Wilson's  reply   .          .          .  366 
 
 Fleming,  on  children  being  left  out  of  the  churches    .  367 
 
ANALYSIS.  XV 
 
 Quest.  VII. — Is  not  the  kingdom  of  God  a  purely 
 
 spiritual  one?  .......  369 
 
 This  phrase  of  as  varied  application  as  Ecclesia  .  ib. 
 Spiritual  and  non-spiritual  subj.  in  this  kingdom — Anon  370 
 Church  of  God,  and  kingdom  of  God,  synonym,  phrases  371 
 Children  in  the  kingdom,  also  in  the  church — Stennett  372 
 Mc  Lean  and  Tombes,  on  Christ  blessing  children  .  ib. 
 Distinction  between  the  laws  &  subjects  of  this  kingdom  373 
 Dr.  Halley,  on  the  general  kingdom  of  God       .         .  374 
 
 Quest.  VIII. — If  the  churches  be  one,  why  baptize 
 
 into  Christianity?     .         .         .  .  .  .375 
 
 Inaugurations  were  only  into  new  economies      .  .  376 
 
 We  have  baptisms  to  Moses,  to  Christ,  to  the  Trinity  377 
 Different  covenants  had  different  sanctions  &  ceremonies  ib. 
 Baptisms,  like  designations,  repeated — Davidson        .  378 
 
 Sect.  Eleventh. — Baptisms  to  moses  and  christ, 
 
 <  ALIKE  WITH  WATER ib. 
 
 This  admitted  by  Gill,  Stovel,  &c 379 
 
 Notion  of  a  dry  baptism,  in  the  sea,  invalid       .  .  380 
 
 Water  mentioned  in  few  New  Testament  baptisms  .  381 
 This  not  a  spiritual  nor  figurative  baptism         .  .  382 
 
 Obs.  I. — Hebrew  purifications  the  same  as  baptisms  .  ib. 
 Thesebaptisms  commonamongtheJews — Innes,  Stovel  383 
 Different  elements  employed  in  baptism    .  .  .  384 
 
 Purifications  always  preceded  consecrations  to  God  .  385 
 Initiatory  and  purifying  baptisms  essentially  the  same  ib. 
 Josephus,  Hall,  Noel,  Stovel,  and  Doddridge,  on  this  head  386 
 Children  purified  equally  with  adults         .  .  .  388 
 
 Obs.  II. — Regular    baptism    of    all    Hebrew    infants 
 
 ptrobable  .                    .          .          .          .          .  ib. 
 
 Like  circumcision,  a  personal  and  not  a  federal  rite    .  ib. 
 
 Circumcision  did  not  supersede  baptism   .          .          .  389 
 
 The  mother  unclean,  so  her  offspring         .          .          .  390 
 Infants  bapt.  and  circumcis.  at  same  time — Tombes,  &c.  ib. 
 
 No  child  consecrated  to  Judaism  but  by  baptism        .  391 
 
 This  the  case  up  to  the  end  of  the  Jewish  polity         .  392 
 
 None  consecrated  in  the  wilderness  but  by  baptism    .  ib. 
 
 The  children,  born  and  buried  in  the  wilderness,  bap.  393 
 
 Dr.  Halley's  remarks  on  this  point  ....  394 
 
 This  inquiry  interesting — uniting  the  two  economies .  395 
 
XVI  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Obs.  III. — Christian  baptism  a  continuation  of  Hebrew 
 
 purifications     .......  396 
 
 This  fact  conceded  by  Gale,  Gill,  Noel,  Ainsworth, 
 
 Neander,  Fleming,  and  Lightfoot           .         .  ib. 
 
 Bap.  assume  purifications  were  by  immersions — Noel  398 
 
 None  ever  dipped  others  in  purifies. — Robinson,  Gibbs  ib. 
 
 Sprinkling  alone  a  complete  purification  .         .         .  399 
 
 Oldest  known  font  in  Engl,  described — Tremen,  Budd  400 
 
 Baptists  overlook  children  in  all  their  ablutions          .  ib. 
 
 Baptism  found  besides  in  the  New  Testament — Gibbs  401 
 
 Obs.  IV. — All  proselytes  to  Judaism  purified  or  baptized,  402 
 
 Hebrew  opinions  of  the  idolatrous  nations  .  .     ib. 
 
 Godwin  and  Halley's  reasonings  on  these  points  .  403 
 
 This  doctrine  reasonable  and  unquestionable      .  .     ib. 
 
 This  bap.  admitted  by  Stovel,  Tombes,  Booth,  Noel  .  405 
 Jewish  and  John's  baptisms  alike — Noel  .  .     ib. 
 
 Jackson's  refs.  to  Hammond,  Seldon,  &  Bp.  J.  Taylor  406 
 Proselytes  to  Judaism  occasionally  numerous     .  .  407 
 
 Children  always  proselyted  with  their  parents    .  .  408 
 
 This  a  key  to  explain  the  baptism  of  John,  &c.  .  409 
 
 Stovel's  confused  remarks  on  this  subject  .         .  410 
 
 Anonymous,  in  support  of  our  doctrine     .         .  .411 
 
 Baptism  accompanied  circumcision  under  the  Gospel — 
 
 Tombes,  Noel 412 
 
 Proselytesby  bap.  only,  andby  circumc.  also — Conybeare  413 
 Dr.  Halley,  on  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  .  414 
 Remarks  on  the  preceding  Discussion       .  .  .      ib. 
 
 • 
 
 PART  THIRD. 
 
 Infant  Baptism  sustainable  by  Paul's  allusion  to 
 
 the  Baptism  ix  the  Red  Sea  .         .         .         .415 
 
 Summary  of  the  points  already  established         .  .  416 
 
 Childn.  always  stood  in  the  same  relation  as  their  parents  ib. 
 May  not  be  expelled  without  divine  authority    .  .417 
 
 Hall,  on  the  necessity  of  reiterating  arguments  .  418 
 
 Section  First. — Paul  refers  to  the  first  great 
 
 baptism  in  the  world     .        .        .        .         .    ib. 
 
 The  sublime  circumstances  of  this  first  great  baptism  ib. 
 Probably  baptism  practised  before  that  unto  Moses  .  419 
 Peter's  allusion  to  the  baptism  of  Noah,  &c. — Keach     ib. 
 
ANALYSIS.  .  XVU 
 
 Jacob's  anointing  the  pillar  at  Bethel       .  .  .421 
 
 That  in  the  Sea  largest  of  all  .  .         .         .  422 
 
 Children,  church  members  up  to  the  time  of  Christ    .  423 
 
 Section  Second. — The  reference  not  affected  by 
 
 distance  of  time  or  place       ....  424 
 
 Numerous  children  baptizedby  John,  andalso  in  Corinth  ib. 
 All  parties  plead  remote,  as  well  as  recent,  examples .  425 
 
 Section  Third. — Infant  Baptism  no  more  liable  to 
 
 ABUSE  NOW  THAN  FORMERLY  ....      ib. 
 
 As  likely  to  be  perverted  by  the  Hebrews — as  since  .  426 
 So  the  Lord's  Supper,  preaching,  worshipping,  &c.  .  ib. 
 Pedobaptists  have  used  incautious  expressions  .  .  427 
 
 Section  Fourth. — If  Paul  disbelieved  Infant  Bap- 
 tism, HE  WROTE  MOST  INCAUTIOUSLY   .  .  .    428 
 
 Corinthians  would  assume  infants  were  bap.  in  the  Sea  ib. 
 If  John  had  not  bap.  children  the  narrative  would  mislead  429 
 People  confessing  their  sins  would  not  prevent  it — 
 
 Stovel,  Hall 430 
 
 What  was  done  paternally,  was  done  domestically  .  431 
 Parents  and  children  professionally  and  ecclesiastically 
 
 identified            .          .         .         .          .  ib. 
 
 Confessions  made  voluntarily,  not  necessary  to  baptism  432 
 
 John's  preparing  a  people  for  the  Lord — Noel,  Hall  .  433 
 If  profession  of  conversion   made,   John's   disciples 
 
 were  hypocrites           .....  434 
 
 Other  narratives  subject  to  like  misconstruction,  &c.  435 
 
 The  families  baptized  named  only  as  instances — Ewing  ib. 
 
 Paul's  preaching  to  all  in  the  house,  inconclusive       .  437 
 
 Wardlaw's  refutation  of  the  Baptists  on  this  head       .  ib. 
 
 Author  of  '  Recantation,'  on  the  same  subject    .          .  438 
 
 Carson  admits  infants  in  the  house,  but  not  baptized .  439 
 
 Wills,  on  writing  to  families,  including  infants  .         .  440 
 
 Sect.  Fifth. — Silence  of  the  Corinthians  proves 
 
 INFANT  BAPTISM  ......       ib. 
 
 Corinthians  an  intelligent  and  logical  people — Barnes  441 
 
 Their  difficulties,  if  their  children  were  not  baptized  .  ib. 
 
 Reference  to  proselyte  baptism  would  also  perplex  them  442 
 
 Inquiry  would  lead  to  reply,  but  there  was  neither     .  443 
 
XV111  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Obs.  I, — Infants  not  baptized  ivould  be  deemed  degraded  444 
 
 Infant  members  of  Hebrew  church — Norcutt,Davye,Cox  ib. 
 Did  the  gospel  unchurch  all  infants  ?  445 
 
 Baptism  the  only  rite  of  initiation  under  the  gospel  .  ib. 
 Parents  would  have  made  inquiries  on  this  question  .  446 
 The  first  Christian  communities  composed  of  Hebrews  447 
 Only  reasons  why  God  would  not  have  babes  bap. — Owen  448 
 
 Obs.  II.— Nor  could  they  understandChrisf  s  love  to  children  ib. 
 
 It  did  not  issue  in  their  excommunication  .         .  449 
 
 Halley,  on  children  being  in  the  Kingdom  of  God  .  ib. 
 Wall,  on  receiving  children  in  the  name  of  Christ       .  450 
 
 Obs.  III. — Parents  would  desire  the  bap.  of  their  children     ib. 
 
 Arising  from  the  assumed  benefits  of  baptism  .  .451 
 It  might  originate  in  mistaken  views         .  .         .     ib. 
 
 Gibbs,  on  the  origin  of  Infant  Baptism — J.  Stennett .  452 
 But  when  did  this  misinterpretation  commence?  .  ib. 
 Why  were  not  the  churches  warned  against  it  ?  .  453 
 
 First  Christians  most  likely  to  fall  into  this  supposed  error  454 
 Whence  the  bap.  of  real  Jews  after  the  apostles — Kitto  455 
 Silence  on  proselytism  for  the  first  century — Kitto     .  456 
 
 Obs.  IV. — Christian  parents  and  their  children  connected  458 
 
 Seen  in  the  continuation  of  circumcision  among  them      ib. 
 Hall,  Jerram,  and  Conybeare,  on  this  point       .  .     ib. 
 
 Jewish  converts  would  claim  this  connexion  for  their 
 
 offspring   .......  460 
 
 This  accounts  for  the  silence  of  historians  .         .     ib. 
 
 The  bloody  rite  abolished — the  purifying  continued  .  461 
 These  tendencies  of  Judaism  not  counteracted   .         .  462 
 
 Obs.  V. —  The  analogous  case  of  female  communion       .     ib. 
 
 Under  the  law  they  partook  of  the  passover       .  .  463 
 
 If  denied  the  passover,  it  would  have  been  resented   .     ib. 
 
 Sect.  Sixth. — Relations  created  by  both  baptisms 
 
 alike      ........  463 
 
 The  baptized  unto  Moses  placed  imder  his  direction  .  ib. 
 Thebaptiz.  unto  Christ  placed  under  his  protect. — Stovel  464 
 Children  personally  inducted  to  religious  training  .  ib. 
 And  became  members  of  religious  congregations         .  465 
 
ANALYSIS.  XIX 
 
 This  accounts  for  men's  willingness  to  be  baptized     .  466 
 
 Noel,  on  John's  baptizing  great  multitudes        .         .  467 
 
 The  Rabbis  his  chief  evidence  in  favour  of  immersion     .  468 
 
 His  views  concerning  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch        .  469 
 
 Striking  fallacy  of  his  conclusions — Carson,  Rees,  &c.  470 
 
 His  contrivance  for  dipping  the  three  thousand           .  471 
 
 Cisterns  and  pools  at  Jerusalem  described — Robinson  ib. 
 
 Obs.  I. — Children  in  the  first  religions  congregations    .  472 
 
 Personally  and  directly  addressed  by  the  Apostle  .  ib. 
 
 Paul,  a  Jew,  assumed  them  to  be  present          .  .  473 
 
 Were  as  really  present  as  their  fathers,  &c.       .  .  474 
 
 Stovel's  appeal  to  the  language  of  Clement         .  .  ib. 
 
 Obs.  II. — Infant  Baptism  of  God  from  its  utility  .  475 
 
 This  unquestionably  so  among  the  Jews    .  .  .     ib. 
 
 Parents  view  it  as  a  purifying  and  dedicatory  service  476 
 A  symbolical  and  teaching  ordinance         .  .  •  477 
 
 Calculated  to  impress  the  baptized  in  after  years — Noel  478 
 Noel's  assumption  of  the  contrary  result — Burkitt  .  479 
 Baptized  engaged  to  obey  God  in  after  life — Stovel,  Hall  480 
 After  information  supplies  want  of  present  comprehens.  481 
 
 Sect.  Seventh. — Effects  of  baptism  not  to  be  over 
 estimated 
 
 Daniell  and  Noel,  on  the  benefits  of  immersion 
 Baptism  does  not  necessarily  require  regeneration 
 Nor  entitle  the  baptized  to  all  Christian  privileges 
 Children  not  baptized  into  select  Christian  societies 
 Baptized  adults  not  always  inducted  to  them 
 
 482 
 
 ib. 
 483 
 
 ib. 
 484 
 
 ib. 
 
 Obj.  I. — Like  qualifications  for  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
 
 Slipper 485 
 
 This  based  on  mistaken  interpretations  of  Scripture  .  ib. 
 Baptized  unto  repentance  not  ensuring  it — Hall  .  487 
 Early  baptisms  not  administered  to  the  regenerate  only  488 
 To  such  as  present  Baptists  would  not  admit     .  .     ib. 
 
 John's  disciples  confessed  their  sins,  no  proof  of  regen.  489 
 Pedobaptists  never  dedicate  the  profane  or  hypocritical  490 
 The  faith  of  the  baptized  not  necessarily  saving — Anon.  ib. 
 John's  preaching  discriminating — Halley  .  .  491 
 
 Opinions  of  Noel,  Morell,  and  Newman,  on  this  case .  492 
 
XX  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Obj.  II. — All  the  baptized  partook  of  the  Lord's  Supper  493 
 Doddridge  on  Acts  ii.  42-46 — Not  the  Lord's  Supper 
 
 — Agnostos        ......     ib. 
 
 Small  accomodation  at  first  for  large  communities  .  494 
 Lord's  Supper  at  first  celebrated  only  occasionally  .  ib. 
 Few  of  the  baptized  said  to  partake  of  the  Eucharist .  495 
 First  apostolic  record  of  it  in  the  year  60  .         .     ib. 
 
 Admissions  of  Kinghorn  and  Fuller  on  this  head  .  496 
 Communion  of  adults  affects  not  the  case  of  infants  .  ib. 
 Different   qualifications  for  baptism  and  communion 
 
 required — Keach  .....  497 
 Infant  commun.  commenced  about  the  yr.  300 — Newman  498 
 Infant  Baptism  long  before  infant  communion — Noel  .  ib. 
 Paul,  on  the  purity  of  the  inner  churches — Stovel,  Hall  499 
 Distinction  of  characters  made  at  the  table        .         .  500 
 
 Obj.  III. — Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  united  .  501 
 Gibbs'  views  on  this  point  .....  502 
 Circumcision  and  the  Passover  but  incidentally  connected  ib. 
 Wicked  people  not  qualified  to  eat  the  Passover  .  503 
 No  restrictions  as  to  circumcision,  but  to  the  Passover  504 
 Baptized  adults  not  always  communicants — Gill  .  505 
 Lord  King,  on  the  custom  of  the  early  churches  .  506 
 Fuller's  argument,  founded  on  Paul's  ass.  of  ideas — Hall  507 
 This  association  of  the  baptism  and  the  manna  .  .508 
 
 Paul  equally  associates  dress  with  the  sacrament        .  509 
 
 Sect.  Eighth. — The  scriptural  advantages  of  bap- 
 tizing CHILDREN        .  .  .  .  .  .510 
 
 Bap.,  like  circumcision,  had  its  benefits — Stovel,  Noel     ib. 
 Baptized  children  entitled  to  Christian  instruction,  &c.  511 
 Lightfoot,  Williams,  and  Locke,  on  this  particular     .  512 
 Also,  Noel,  Turretin,  Isaac,  Wills,  and  Addington       .  513 
 Stovel  and  Noel's  reasonings  on  it  .  .         .         .  514 
 
 Noel's  further  observations     .  .         .  .  515 
 
 His  remarkable  assumptions  continued  .  .  .516 
 Carson,  that  circum.  was  personally  useless — Tombes  ib. 
 Noel,  on  the  great  benefit  of  baptism — Foot,  Gibbs  .  517 
 Stovel,  on  the  advantages  of  adult  baptism  .  .  519 
 Baptist's  benefits  retrospective — ours  prospective  .  520 
 Dipping  adult  Christians,  no  benefit  at  all  .  .521 
 
 Obs.  I. — Christ's  Commission  our  principal  directory 
 
 here — Halley    .......     ib. 
 
 Christian  baptism  comes  before  Cbristian  teaching      .  522 
 
ANALYSIS.  XXI 
 
 Newman  and  Gibbs,  on  the  commission  .  .  .  523 
 Conybeare  and  Howson,  on  the  conditions  of  baptism,  ib. 
 Stovel's  ten  articles  in  the  commission — Halley  .  524 
 Christ's  rule  always  broken  by  Baptists    .  .         .  525 
 
 Baptizing  trained-up  Christians,  unscriptural  .  .  526 
 Christian  baptism,  a  baptizing  to  Christianity    .  .  527 
 
 Baptists  lay  great  stress  on  the  order  of  words — Noel  ib. 
 Supposed  other  commission  in  Mark  xvi.  16      .  .  529 
 
 This  no  commission  at  all — Evans,  Carson,  Tombes  .  530 
 Excludes  infants  from  heaven  as  from  baptism — Maclean  ib. 
 Parsons,  on  the  practice  and  views  of  the  apostles  .  531 
 Isaac,  on  preaching  and  making  disciples  .  .   532 
 
 Byron,  on  the  language  employed  in  Mark  .  .  ib. 
 Instruction  given  before  and  after  baptism         .  .  533 
 
 Conybeare,  on  'Kerussein'  and  '  Katangellein' — Stovel  ib. 
 Commission  enforces  baptism  as  much  as  preaching  .  535 
 Correlative  duties  of  converts  and  parents  .         .536 
 
 Baptism,  its  large  space  in  religious  operations  .     ib. 
 
 Obs.  II. —  The  equal  education  of  the  unbaptized  pleaded  537 
 
 Gibbs  and  Noel,  on  the  non-advantages  of  I.  B.         .  ib. 
 
 Their  reasonings  inconclusive  and  irrelevant  .  .  538 
 Persons  may  enjoy  privileges  to  which  they  are  not  entitl.  ib. 
 
 Bules  in  such  cases  generally  observed     .         .         .  539 
 
 Baptism  of  Infants  legitimately  beneficial          .         .  540 
 
 Rules  of  law  yield  to  claims  of  charity      .          .         .  541 
 
 Without  surrendering  the  claims  of  legislation  .         .  542 
 
 Adherence  to  the  commission  our  duty — Anonymous  ib. 
 
 The  little  value  of  adult  immersion — Agnostos  .          .  544 
 
 Parsons,  on  the  same  subject .         .         .         .         .  ib. 
 
 Baptism  promotes  an  interest  in  children           .          .  545 
 
 The  benefits  of  religious  rites  all  prospective     .         .  ib. 
 
 Antibaptism  not  countenanced  by  the  N.  T.       .         .  546 
 
 Probable  occasion  of  antibaptism     ....  547 
 
 Obs.  III. —  Webaptize  into  the  general  church  only — Noel  548 
 
 Neander,  on  the  general  and  particular  communities  .  549 
 None  born  into  any  conventional  fellowships      .  .     ib. 
 
 This  shown  by  the  practice  of  the  Bap. — Killingworth  550 
 
 Sect.  Ninth. — Many  deeds  done  under  the  law 
 
 may  be  done  now  .    "    .    .    .    .551 
 
 Some  things  in  the  old  dispensation  done  away  .  .     ib. 
 
XXU  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Many  others  manifestly  continued — baptism  certainly  551 
 Mr.  Stovel's  rash  remarks  on  this  subject  .  .  552 
 
 The  Old  Testament  good  authority  on  the  question  .  553 
 Paul's  reasonings  to  the  Corinthians  conclusive  .  554 
 
 This  point  conceded  by  most  Baptists — Noel    .  .  555 
 
 If  Infant  Bap.  be  abolished,  its  opponents  must  prove  it  ib. 
 The  natural  conclusion  of  the  Corinthians  .  .  556 
 
 Paul  teaches  them  two  distinct  and  impressive  lessons  557 
 Many  statements  of  the  N.  T.  explained  only  by  the  0.  558 
 This  topic  further  expounded  and  confirmed  .  .559 
 Baptists  continually  recurring  to  the  Old  Testament  .  560 
 On  the  Scriptural  instruction  of  the  young         .  .     ib. 
 
 All  baptisms,  like  circumcision,  were  introductory  .  561 
 The  idea  of  baptism  as  a  burial  noted  .  .  .  562 
 Passover  partly  done  away — so  former  purifications,  &c.  563 
 Little  or  nothing  novel,  in  the  gospel  economy  .  .  564 
 
 The  painful  and  bloody  only  done  away    .  .  .  565 
 
 Sect.  Tenth. — Many  arguments  against  pedobap- 
 
 tists  apply  equally  to  the  baptists .  .  .  ib. 
 Superficial  writers  against  Pedobaptists  most  effective  566 
 The  ablest  Baptist  authors  most  damage  their  cause  .  567 
 Ignorant  Baptists  the  most  dogmatical  and  tenacious  .     ib. 
 
 Aug.  I. — Pedobaptists    adduce  different  grounds  for 
 
 Infant  Baptism — Stovel     .  .  .  .  ib. 
 
 But  our  opponents  do  the  like  on  their  side       .  .  569 
 
 Aeg.  II. — Pedobaptists  at  variance  among  themselves 
 
 — Draper  ......     ib. 
 
 This  is  equally  the  case  with  the  Baptists  .  .  570 
 
 Aeg.  III. —  They  have  made  many  concessions  to  the  Bap.  571 
 So  have  Christns.  to  infidels — and  protestants  to  papists  ib. 
 So  have  Baptists  to  Pedobaptists — as  previously  shown  572 
 
 Aeg.  IV. — Many  good  and  great  men  hare  opposed  infant 
 
 sprinkling         .         .         .         .         ...         .573 
 
 This  the  chief  plea  of  many  of  our  opponents     .  .     ib. 
 
 But  more  good  and  great  men  have  defended  it  .     ib. 
 
 This  species  of  reasoning  very  unsatisfactory  .  .  574 
 Most  people  believe  simply  what  they  are  taught        .  575 
 
 AEG.  V. — Infant  Baptism  requires  much  criticism — Gibbs  576 
 What  volumes  of  criticism  have  not  the  Bapt.  written!  ib. 
 So  in  defence  of  protestantism,  and  every  sacred  truth  577 
 
ANALYSIS.  XX1U 
 
 Aug.  VI. — Infant  Baptism  not  worth  the  labour  of  defence  578 
 It  is  not  so  bustling  and  imposing  as  adult  dipping  .  ib. 
 But  it  is  no  less  interesting,  important,  and  impressive  579 
 Many  acts,  apparently  trivial,  of  va^st  significance  .  ib. 
 Our  opponents  resist  it  as  being  a  very  momentous  affair  580 
 Certain  Pedobaptists  treat  it  too  lightly    .  .         .     ib. 
 
 Aug.  VII. — You  found  Infant  Baptism  on  a  very  limited 
 
 basis        ........  581 
 
 Xot  precisely  the  case — num.  auxiliary  proofs  adduced  ib. 
 
 Many  important  positions  based  on  contracted  premises  582 
 
 Baptists  have  not  a  single  valid  evidence  against  us  .  583 
 
 They  lay  stress  on  isolated  texts — as  to  subj.  and  mode  584 
 
 Isaac,  on  the  want  of  evidence  for  a  Christian's  bap.  .  585 
 
 Sect.  Eleventh. — Most  objections  now  brought 
 against  infant  baptism,  apply  to  infant  baptism 
 in  the  sea       .......  586 
 
 Obj.  I. — Infants  have  not  Ttnmvledge  necessary  for  bap.  ib. 
 This  would  apply  to  infants  baptized  in  the  Sea,  &c.  .     ib. 
 
 Obj.  II. — Childrenmay  have  reliy.  advantages  without  it  587 
 So  they  might  formerly  without  circum.  and  baptism       ib. 
 
 Obj.  III. — Religion  a  personal  grace  children  do  not  possess  ib. 
 The  same  was  the  case  with  the  young  Israelites        .  588 
 
 Obj.  IV. — Should  not  be  bound  by  covenants  while  so  young  ib. 
 The  like  might  have  been  said  of  the  Hebrew  infants      ib. 
 
 Obj.  V. —  Children  may  be  saved  ivithout  being  baptized  ib. 
 So  they  might  formerly  without  circumcision  or  baptism  ib. 
 
 Obj.  VI. — Christian  bap.  a  Neiv  and  not  an  Old  Test,  rite  ib. 
 
 Obj.  VII. — Adult  baptism  expressly  affirmed,  Infant 
 
 only  inferred    .  .  .  .  .  .  .589 
 
 This  was  the  case  in  the  baptism  in  the  Sea,  &c.        .     ib. 
 
 Obj.  VIII. — Belief  is  placed  before  bap.  in  the  N.  T.  ib. 
 So  it  was  before  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea  .  .  590 
 
 Obj.  IX. — Many  children  not  religiously  better  for  being 
 
 baptized  ........     ib. 
 
 Nor  many  for  their  ancient  circumcision  or  baptism   .     ib. 
 
 Obj.  X. — No  physical  advant.  arise  from  baby  sprinhg.  591 
 Nor  did  any  arise  from  the  baptism  in  the  Sea  .     ib. 
 
 Obj.  XL — Itis  useless  to  bap.  the  children  of  the  ungodly  ib. 
 Yet  the  children  of  ungodly  Hebrews  were  baptized  .  592 
 
XXIV  ANALYSIS. 
 
 Obj.  XII. — No  express  precept  or  declaration  of  baby  b.  592 
 
 Nor  is  it  said  a  single  baby  was  baptized  in  the  Sea  .  ib. 
 No  young  men  or  women  nor  old  men  said  to  have  been  bap.  593 
 
 Because  men  were  baptized — no  proof  children  were  not  ib. 
 
 Anonymous,  on  the  same  important  question     .          .  594 
 
 Noel's  fallacious  reasoning  upon  it            ...  595 
 
 Mayo,  Booth,  and  Isaac,  on  this  interesting  point      .  ib. 
 
 CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 I. — A  brief  review  of  the  foregoing  discussion. — It  has 
 
 been  shown       .......  596 
 
 1.  That  Paul  recognized  Infant  Baptism  unto  Moses     ib. 
 
 2.  That  he  viewed  Infant  Bap.  as  practised  at  Corinth  597 
 
 3.  That  bap.  was  regularly  administ.  from  Moses  to  Chr.  598 
 
 4.  Old  and  New  Test.  Churches  were  essentially  one  599 
 
 5.  Numerous  obj.  of  the  Bap.  stated  and  answered     .     ib. 
 Acts  viii.  37,  and  Mark  xvi.  16,  neutral  passages  .     ib. 
 
 6.  All  these  objections  summed  up  in  two  negatives  .  601 
 Baptist  arguments  evidently  exhausted         .  .     ib. 
 
 II. —  The  practical  domestic  results  of  this  inquiry       .  603 
 
 1.  Parents  bound  to  have  their  children  baptized       .  ib. 
 
 2.  And  to  have  it  done  Scripturally          .          .          .  604 
 
 3.  To  neglect  this  duty  is  a  sin  against  God — Williams, 
 
 Booth,  Keach,  Fleming        ....  605 
 
 4.  Are  now  left  without  excuse  for  neglecting  it         .  606 
 If  any  doubt  remain,  give  it  in  the  children's  favour 
 
 —Wall,  Dwight 607 
 
 5.  Not  to  neglect  it,  because  not  a  saving  ordinance  .  ib. 
 This  too  common  in  this  &  other  plain  Christian  duties  608 
 
 6.  Carry  out  the  design  of  bap.  by  subsequent  teaching  ib. 
 See  that  they  are  taught  only  divine  truth    .          .  609 
 
 III. — Duties  of  Congregations  to  those  baptized:  in  them  .   610 
 
 1.  All  the  baptized  pertain  to  Christ's  kingdom  .     ib. 
 
 2.  Those  baptized  in  congregations  to  be  especially 
 
 attended  to  by  their  members        .  .  .611 
 
 3.  This  subject  of  great  interest  and  importance         .  612 
 
 IV. — A  few  words  to  young  baptized  people         .         .  613 
 
 1.  Understand  that  you  were  notregenerated  in  baptism  ib. 
 
 2.  That  you  are  especially  bound  to  serve  the  Lord   .  614 
 
 3.  Strive  not  to  nullify  your  baptismal  covenant         .  615 
 
<z 
 
 INTRODUCTORY  OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 I.  That  tlie  Apostles  and  Primitive  Christians  practised 
 Infant  Baptism,  I  believe  as  firmly  as  I  do  that  they  lived 
 and  preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  My  judgment  on  this 
 point  has  been  formed  and  fixed  after  a  protracted  and 
 careful  examination  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  writings  of 
 numerous  talented  and  earnest  controversialists,  of  conflicting 
 sentiments,  on  this  long  agitated  subject.  I  also  feel  satisfied 
 that  Infant  Baptism,  whether  regarded  in  reference  to  tha 
 various  aspects  it  presents,  or  to  the  different  purposes  it 
 contemplates,  is  highly  instructive,  impressive,  and  important; 
 that  it  is  calculated  to  be  of  great  spiritual  service  to  parents 
 and  their  offspring,  to  all  thoughtful  observers,  and  to  the 
 general  body  of  Christian  professors;  that  it  beautifully 
 harmonizes  with  the  condescending  and  benevolent  scheme  of 
 Christianity;  and  that  a  cessation,  or  a  material  diminution, 
 of  its  performance,  would  be  a  serious  loss  to  the  Churches 
 of  Christ.  The  reader  will,  therefore,  I  hope,  give  me  credit 
 for  being  actuated  by  sincere  and  Christian  motives,  in 
 undertaking  this  further  defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  against 
 the  opposing  efforts  constantly  made  to  destroy  it,  by  numerous 
 Antipedobaptist  preachers,  writers,  and  people;  and  will 
 also  know  how  to  account  for  any  special  earnestness 
 discoverable  in  this  humble  advocacy  of  its  lasting  and 
 universal  administration. 
 
 II.  I  believe  that  the  duty  of  Baptizing  Infants  is  clearly 
 deducible  from  the  sacred  Scriptures — equally  with  that  of 
 admitting  females  to  the  Lord's  Table,  and  more  so  than 
 that  of  observing  the  first  day  of  the  week,  erecting 
 places  of  Christian  worship,  supporting  our  great  benevolent 
 institutions,  family  worship,  attending  week-day  religious 
 services,  or  periodically  uniting  in  social  meetings  for  prayer 
 — obligations  which  no  persons  can  wilfully  neglect,  and  still 
 righteously  claim  to  be  regarded  as  enlightened,  spiritual, 
 and  consistent  followers  of  Jesus  Christ.  All  genuine  and 
 intelligent  Pedobaptists  feel  that  they  have  good  Scriptural 
 grounds  for  practising  this  rite;  and,  with  these  convictions, 
 they  entertain  a  strong  sense  of  duty  to  perform  it.     Their  con- 
 
 B 
 
26  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 sistency  in  this  case  all  honest  men  must  approve.  Mr.  Hall 
 says,  'Every  conscientious  adherent  to  Infant  Baptism  reveres 
 '  the  authority  of  Christ  no  less  than  a  Baptist,  and  is 
 '  distinguished  by  a  spirit  of  submission  and  obedience  to  every 
 'known  part  of  His  will;  and,  as  this  is  all  to  which  a 
 'Baptist  can  pretend,  and  far  more  than  many,  who,  without 
 'scruple,  are  tolerated  in  our  churches,  we  are  as  far  as  ever 
 'from  ascertaining  the  specific  differences  betwixt  the  case  of 
 *  the  Pedobaptist,  and  other  instances  of  error  supposed  to  be 
 'entitled  to  indulgence.'  p.  96.  He  adds,  'Whoever  attaches 
 '  importance  to  the  covenant  under  which  God  is  supposed  to 
 'enter  with  the  seed  of  believers,  must  highly  disapprove  the 
 '  conduct  of  the  parent  who  withholds  from  his  offspring  its 
 '  constituted  seal ;  nor  is  it  possible  for  him  to  cherish  the 
 '  esteem  due  to  him  as  a  Christian,  but  by  imputing  his  conduct 
 'to  involuntary  error.'  p.  263. 
 
 III.  In  securing  a  foundation  on  which  to  erect  my  defence 
 of  Infant  Baptism,  I  might  have  constructed  one  much  broader 
 than  that  on  which  I  have  chiefly  built  my  assumptions,  by 
 uniting  separate  but  congruous  materials,  from  various  sources 
 in  the  Word  of  God.  But  in  the  present  discussion,  I  have 
 placed  the  principal  stress  on  the  declaration  of  Paul,  in  his 
 first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  en.  x.  1-14 — introducing  other 
 corroborative  passages  of  Scripture,  as  the  work  progressed; 
 and  chiefly  for  the  purpose  of  answering  objections  to  the  line 
 of  argument  primarily  pursued  in  this  treatise.  From  that 
 text,  I  think  I  have  fully  and  unanswerably  proved,  that  the 
 inspired  and  divinely  directed  writer  Recognised,  Sanctioned, 
 Pleaded,  and,  consequently ,  Practised,  Infant  Baptism  :  and, 
 therefore,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  all  ministers  to  dedicate  chil- 
 dren to  Christ,  and  thereby  to  initiate  them  to  the  educational 
 privileges,  spiritual  oversight,  and  religious  obligations  of  the 
 Gospel,  by  Water  Baptism.  To  render  the  reasonings,  by  which 
 I  have  endeavoured  to  sustain  my  assumptions,  as  compre- 
 hensible, by  all  classes  of  readers,  as  the  nature  of  this  long 
 controversy  will  admit,  I  have  arranged  the  discussion  under 
 plainly-headed  and  duly-numbered  parts,  sections,  and  minor 
 divisions ;  have  employed  the  simplest  style  of  expression ; 
 and  have  adopted  the  clearest  methods  of  illustration,  I  could 
 possibly  command. 
 
 IV.  I  have  selected  the  before-named  passage  of  Scripture, 
 as  the  chief  basis  of  the  present  discussion,  not  because  I 
 regard  it  as  containing  the  only  decisive  proof  of  Infant  Baptism, 
 but  because  it  refers  to  the  first  recorded  instance  of  Water 
 
IKTROPXICTION.  27 
 
 Baptism,  as  a  religious  ceremony,  administered  on  a  large  scale ; 
 andbecause  I  consider,  that,-thoughithasbecn  often  incidentally 
 mentioned,  or  cursorily  examined,  by  writers  on  this  protracted 
 controversy,  it  has  not  received  the  attention  it  justly  demands, 
 in  reference  to  the  Proper  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism.  If  the 
 views  I  have  taken  of  the  apostle's  language  be  correct,  and  if 
 the  inferences  I  have  drawn  from  it  be  legitimate,  I  presume  the 
 candid  and  intelligent  reader  will  deem  the  doctrine  of  Infant 
 Baptism  to  be  fully  established — and  that,  too,  from  this  single 
 passage,  as  if  five  hundred  had  been  adduced  in  its  support. 
 Many  an  important  truth  is  based  on  a  single  text  or  two  of 
 divine  revelation;  and  no  wise  man  rejects  a  doctrine  because 
 God  has  not  reiterated  his  mind  in  the  matter  a  hundred  times 
 over.  It  will,  however,  be  seen,  that  while  I  have  made 
 Paul's  address  to  the  Corinthians  the  basis  of  my  argument,  I 
 have  corroborated  my  interpretation  of  his  words  by  numerous 
 other  texts  and  considerations  which,  I  believe,  will  render  the 
 practice  of  Infant  Baptism  still  more  manifest  and  imperative. 
 Could  our  opponents  bring  forward  but  one  passage  from  the 
 Bible,  more  clear  and  conclusive  against  Infant  Baptism, 
 than  that  of  Paul,  in  the  text,  is  in  favour  of  it,  they  would 
 feel  that,  without  any  other  testimonies  in  their  behalf,  their 
 position  was  sustained  beyond  any  reasonable  apprehensions 
 of  defeat.     But  such  a  text  will  not  be  soon  forthcoming. 
 
 Y.  That  the  baptismal  act  of  John,  at  the  Jordan  and 
 elsewhere,  was  not  regarded  as  a  new,  strange,  or  unmeaning 
 ceremony,  by  any  of  the  multitudes  who  attended  his  ministry, 
 is  very  evident,  and  generally  admitted,  even  by  our  most  earnest 
 and  intelligent  opponents.  Mr.  Noel  observes,  'It  follows, 
 'that  the  Baptisms  of  the  disciples  (John  iv.  1-3)  resembled 
 'in  its  general  character,  the  Baptism  by  the  priests,  and  the 
 'Baptism  by  John.'  Subject,  p.  61. — That  it  was  viewed  and 
 received  as  a  service  with  which  the  people  were  all  personally 
 or  historically  familiar,  we  deem  unquestionable.  Such  a 
 general  baptizing,  too,  was  manifestly  expected  by  them  when 
 Christ  should  come,  or  when  Elias,  or  some  other  great  prophet, 
 should  be  again  raised  up  among  them.  These  Baptisms, 
 whether  administered  by  the  harbinger,  the  disciples,  or  the 
 apostles  of  the  Messiah,  were  in  no  case  denounced  as  inno- 
 vations, novelties,  or  unscriptural  rites,  by  their  numerous  and 
 captious  antagonists.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  approved 
 of,  and  eagerly  submitted  to,  by  nearly  the  whole  of  the  Jewish 
 nation,  as  ceremonies  with  which  they  were  perfectly  con- 
 versant ;  and  in  doing  so,  they  never  deemed  themselves  to  be 
 
28  INTEODUCTIOX. 
 
 countenancing  any  act  adverse  to  the  practice  of  their  fathers, 
 or  to  the  sacred  ritual  institutions  of  the  old  Testament,  to 
 which  they  were  then  so  devoutly  attached.  'Baptism  with 
 'water,'  says  Dr.  Urwick,  'as  a  religious  ceremony,  did  not 
 '  originate  with  our  Saviour,  or  with  John  his  forerunner  :  see 
 'Mark  vii.  3,  4 ;  Luke  xi.  36  ;  hut  was  of  a  much  earlier  date.' 
 
 This  fact  heing  admitted,  especially  by  the  recent  leading 
 controversialists  of  both  parties,  the  inquiry  is,  Where  shall  we 
 find  the  commencement  of  this  water  Baptism,  as  a  religious 
 and  divine  act,  ordinance,  or  rite?  We  are  first  directed  to 
 the  baptismal  initiation  of  heathen  proselytes  to  Judaism. 
 But,  evidently,  this  was  but  carrying  on  a  prior  custom  and 
 ceremony  in  Israel.  We  are  next  told  to  look  to  the  ancient 
 washings,  purifications,  or  consecrations,  among  the  Jews 
 themselves,  and  which  are  designated  Baptisms,  {Greek,)  by 
 an  inspired  writer  of  the  New  Testament.  Heb  ix.  10.  But 
 we  are  invited  to  go  still  farther  back,  to  discover  the  com- 
 mencement of  this  rite;  and,  following  the  guidance  of  Paul, 
 in  the  passages  previously  referred  to,  we  come  to  the  great 
 national  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea.  Beyond  this,  we  cannot 
 certainly  or  safely  retrograde.  Therefore,  on  this  sublime  and 
 extensive  baptizing,  we  may  safely  take  our  stand,  and  from 
 it  gather  all  the  information  and  arguments  it  supplies,  in 
 illustration  and  defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  under  the  Gospel 
 dispensation.  As  we  trace  back  the  Eucharist  of  the  New 
 Testament,  with  certain  abridgments  or  modifications,  to  the 
 Passover  in  Egypt;  so  we  may  trace  back  Infant  Baptism, 
 with  certain  alterations,  to  the  passage  of  the  Hebrews  through 
 the  Red  Sea — Paul  being  our  infallible  guide  in  this  inte- 
 resting investigation. 
 
 VI.  Few  persons,  moderately  conversant  with  the  baptismal 
 controversy,  as  carried  on  during  the  last  two  hundred  years, 
 can  have  failed  to  perceive,  that,  after  all  the  discussions  on 
 other  branches  of  the  inquiry,  the  prime  point  at  issue  is  not, 
 whether  there  be  any  positive  command  to  baptize  .Infants,  or 
 any  indisputable  instance  of  Infant  Baptism,  recorded  in  the 
 New  Testament;  but  whether,  under  the  former  religious 
 dispensations,  from  Abraham  to  Christ,  children,  as  far  as 
 practicable,  had  always,  invariably,  and  ostensibly,  been  asso- 
 ciated with  their  parents  in  those  moral,  social,  and  religious 
 rites  and  advantages  which  Jehovah  conferred  on  his  favored 
 and  chosen  people  ?  This  question,  I  unhesitatingly  answer 
 in  the  affirmative ;  in  this  all  Pedobaptists  accord ;  and  I  am 
 not  aware,  that  the  negative  has  ever  been  held  or  advocated 
 
IXTHODUCTIOX.  29 
 
 by  our  opponents.  Now,  into  this  state  of  ecclesiastical 
 relationship  none  were  brought  by  birth,  but  always  by 
 undergoing  the  initiatory  rite  of  circumcision,  or  of  Baptism, 
 or  of  both ;  and  by  no  other  ceremonial  of  which  any  notice 
 is  preserved  in  the  Inspired  "Writings. 
 
 I  further  assert,  that  we  have  not  the  slightest  intimation 
 in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  warranting  the  assumption,  that 
 infants  ever  were,  or  ever  were  to  be,  expelled  from  this 
 domestic  and  ecclesiastical  connexion  with  their  parents  and 
 the  ancient  church,  previously  to,  or  during,  the  dispensation 
 of  the  Gospel  of  Christ — certainly  not  by  himself,  before  he 
 took  some  of  them  in  his  arms,  and  declared  that  of  such  was 
 the  kingdom  of  God.  And  until  the  opponents  of  Infant 
 Baptism  shall  have  clearly  proved,  from  the  divine  testimony, 
 that  infants  and  children  were  subsequently  and  positively 
 excommunicated  from  the  visible  congregation,  assembly,  or 
 church  of  God,  by  Christ  or  his  apostles ;  their  divine  right 
 to  religious  association  with  their  parents,  involving  religious 
 tuition,  and  other  religious  advantages,  as  far  as  they  are 
 capable  of  receiving  them,  must  remain  inalienable  to  the  end 
 of  the  Christian  dispensation;  and  that  their  introduction  to 
 this  status,  and  these  privileges,  must  be  obtained  through 
 Water  Baptism. 
 
 Having  been  recognized  as  visible,  though  juvenile,  members 
 of  the  congregation  of  God's  chosen  people,  during,  at  least, 
 •fifteen  hundred  years,  or  during  the  entire  previous  continuance 
 of  the  duly  officered  and  organized  church  of  Jehovah,  from 
 Closes  to  Christ ;  we  dare  not  believe,  without  the  plainest  and 
 most  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact,  that  children  were 
 expelled  from  these  intimate  and  interesting  relationships,  on 
 the  coming  of  the  Messiah  into  the  world,  or  during  his 
 reformatory  processes  of  the  previous  religious,  ceremonial,  and 
 political  economy,  or  in  the  subsequent  extension  of  his 
 manifest  reign  among  all  tribes  and  countries  of  the  earth. 
 Children  having  been  an  integral,  essential,  and  important,  part 
 of  the  previous  religious  communion,  it  rests  with  the  advocates 
 of  exclusive  Adult  Baptism,  and  church  or  congregational 
 membership,  to  adduce  chapter  and  verse  in  support  of  the 
 doctrine  which  would  drive  the  youthful  offspring  of  believers 
 into  a  directly  opposite,  a  less  favorable,  and,  relatively,  a 
 degraded  position,  to  that  which  they  sustained  during  so  long 
 a  period,  under  the  dominion  and  fatherly  care  of  the  same 
 Lord  and  Christ — who,  be  it  remembered,  was  as  truly  the 
 supreme  Head  of  the  Patriarchal  and  Mosaical  churches  for- 
 
30  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 merly,  as  lie  is  of  the  Christian  system  in  the  present  age.  This 
 relationship,  I  repeat,  is  the  chief  point  for  consideration,  and 
 to  it  I  have  had  frequent  occasions  to  recur  in  the  following 
 discussion.  The  onus  of  proving,  that  children  should 
 continue  in  their  former  relative  position  with  their  parents 
 and  the  professors  of  the  true  religion,  fairly  rests,  not  on 
 Pedohaptists;  but  it  rightly  and  solely  devolves  on  our 
 opponents,  if  able,  to  prove  that  they  should  not. 
 
 VII.  As  the  young  Israelites  were  brought  into  a  visible 
 covenanted  connexion  with  the  God  of  Abraham  and  of  Moses, 
 either  by  circumcision  or  baptism,  separately  or  combined; 
 we  are  warranted  in  relying  on  the  administration  of  either  of 
 these  rites  in  the  former  economy,  as  guaranteeing  to  children 
 of  the  present  dispensation,  a  title  to  union  with  their  parents, 
 in  their  position  as  avouched  and  visible  disciples  of  Christ. 
 Both  these  ceremonies  symbolised  the  same  doctrine,  and 
 introduced  the  subjects  of  them  to  similar  great  religious 
 privileges  and  'responsibilities.  And  had  not  circumcision 
 been  virtually  or  actually  done  away  by  the  death  of  the 
 Redeemer,  we  might  now  have  either  circumcised  or  baptised 
 children  to  God,  or  have  observed  both  theserites,  as  was  evidently 
 clone  by  many  Jewish  converts  to  Christianity  in  the  earlier  times 
 of  the  Gospel  economy,  and,  indeed,  for  a  long  time  after  the 
 Saviour's  ascension  to  heaven.  That  these  rites  were  essentially 
 alike,  we  have  the  testimony  of  eminent  Baptist  writers. 
 
 Rev.  Mr.  Tombes  says,  '  Baptism  was  a  concomitant  of 
 'circumcision,  if  not  ancienter,  and  was  in  use  among  the 
 'Jews  for  many  ages,  together  with  circumcision,  though  not 
 'as  a  sacrament.'  p.  80.  He  also  grants  that  Baptism  and 
 circumcision  are  alike  sacraments  for  the  spiritual  part,  viz : — 
 '  sanctification  by  the  Spirit,  and  justification  by  the  blood  of 
 Christ.'  p.  83. — Rev.  Mr.  Noel :  '  Circumcision  to  the  Lord  is 
 'similar  to  Baptism  to  the  Lord,  both  external  acts  betokening 
 'the  same  duty  of  santification  and  dedication  to  God.'  Sub. 
 p.  14. — 'As  circumcision  was  intended  to  signify  the  circum- 
 'cision  of  the  heart,  the  renunciation  of  all  sin,  it  was  enjoined 
 'upon  children  and  servants  to  show  that  God  required  this 
 'renunciation  of  sin  by  all  the  covenanted  people.  It  was  the 
 'token  that  they  must  be  a  holy  people  to  obtain  his  blessing; 
 'but  it  involved  no  profession  of  piety,  and  was  no  sign 
 'of  existing  religious  character.'  lb.  p.  173. — Dr.  Carson: 
 'Circumcision  and  Baptism  correspond  in  meaning.  They 
 'both  relate  to  the  removal  of  sin,  the  one  by  cutting,  the 
 'other  by  washing.' 
 
INTRODUCTION.  31 
 
 To  these  declarations,  I  will  add  one  or  two  more  on  this 
 important  point,  from  two  episcopalian  divines. — Dr.  Wall : 
 'It  is  not  erroneous  to  maintain,  that  both  circumcision  and 
 'Jewish  baptism  might  be  types  and  forerunners  of  Christian 
 'baptism.  The  other  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
 'signified  by  more  than  one  judicial  rite.' — Mr.  Burkitt: 
 '  So  little  is  said  in  the  New  Testament  about  baptizing  infants, 
 'because  the  custom  of  baptizing  them  was  common,  and  the 
 'practice  constant  in  the  Jewish  church,  at  and  before  our 
 *  Saviour's  time.  While  circumcision  was  the  covenanting  sign, 
 'baptism  was  the  purifying  ceremony,  among  the  Jews;  for 
 '  when  any  of  the  Gentiles  were  admitted  into  the  Jewish  church, 
 'both  parents  and  children  were  first  circumcised,  and  then 
 'washed,  in  token  of  cleansing  them  from  the  filth  of  their 
 'heathenism.  So  that  baptism  among  the  Jews  constantly 
 'went  along  with  circumcision  till  our  Saviour's  time.'  This 
 practice  of  both  circumcising  and  baptizing  children  continued 
 among  the  Jewish  converts  to  Christianity,  for  a  very  long 
 period  after  the  apostolic  times.  Taylor's  Letters,  Let.  iii. — 
 L'ltimately  most  Christians  gave  up  circumcision  and  retained 
 baptism.  Though  the  Coptic  church  'practice  both  circum- 
 4cision  and  baptism'  down  to  the  present  time. — 'Faiths  of 
 'the  World: 
 
 VIII.  I  have  selected  the  Apostle's  reference  to  the 
 baptism  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  Red  Sea,  as  the  assumed 
 beginning  of  baptism,  first,  among  the  Jews,  till  the  appearing 
 of  John,  the  harbinger  of  the  Messiah,  and,  secondly,  of 
 baptism  unto  Christ,  under  the  Gospel  dispensation.  The 
 proofs  in  support  of  Christian  baptism,  derivable  from  the 
 practice  of  circumcision,  may  be  seen  in  many  treatises  of 
 great  research  and  worth,  in  this  controversy,  and  the  force  of 
 which,  in  the  judgment  of  the  reader,  will  remain  entirely 
 unaffected  by  the  present  argument.  Infant  Baptism  rests 
 on  a  two-fold  basis  and  practice  under  the  law.  I  have  selected, 
 for  present  discussion,  Paul's  appeal  to  the  Corinthians,  above 
 referred  to.  This  ground  of  evidence  in  favour  of  our  pro- 
 cedure, while  in  no  degree  impugning  the  other,  appears  to 
 me  more  ample — embracing  both  sexes  more  expressly — and 
 as  being  more  readily  comprehended  by  the  majority  of  readers, 
 than  that  derived  from  the  other  initiatory  rite  of  circumcision, 
 among  the  descendants  of  Abraham.  At  any  rate,  in  this  section 
 of  the  controversy,  it  has  not  received  the  attention  that  has 
 been  given  to  circumcision,  and  certainly  not  so  much  as  it 
 undoubtedly  demands. 
 
32  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The  significance  and  value  of  Paul's  reference  to  the 
 baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the  sea,  in  explaining  the  nature 
 of  Infant  Baptism,  and  towards  settling  the  questions  involved 
 in  it,  will  appear  in  the  body  of  this  treatise.  I  will  cite  a 
 remark  or  two  from  our  opponents,  simply  to  show,  that  my 
 views  of  the  passage  are  neither  novel  nor  uncorroborated  by 
 Baptist  divines. — Mr.  Noel:  'The  Hebrews  were  all'  [old  and 
 young]  'marked  to  be  the  disciples  of  Moses,  by  following 
 'him  in  the  Red  Sea.'  Sub.  p.  14.— Mr.  Killingworth:  'The 
 'general sense'  [of  beingbaptizedunto Christ]  'is  mostevidently 
 'this,  that  we  are  baptized  unto  the  solemn  profession  and 
 'acknowledgment  of  his  religion,  just  as  the  Jews  being 
 'baptized  unto  Moses,  implied  in  it,  in  the  sentiment  of 
 '  St.  Paul,  their  owning  him  as  their  leader.'  p.  87- — '  St.  Paul, 
 'for  a  prelude  to  Christian  Baptism,  fixes  on  the  Israelites 
 'being  baptized  in  .the  cloud  and  in  the  sea' — lb.  p.  93  — 
 meaning,  that  the  Apostle  regarded  this  baptism  unto  Moses 
 as  the  beginning,  and,  on  the  whole,  as  a  pattern  of 
 Christian  Baptism. 
 
 IX.  The  reader  should  clearly  understand,  and  constantly 
 bear  in  mind,  that,  in  reality,  our  principal  dispute  with  the 
 Baptist  denomination  is  concerning  the  Mode,  and  not  the 
 Subjects,  of  baptism.  This  has  been  fully  proved  in  the  preface 
 to  the  author's  volume  on  that  specific  section  of  our  contro- 
 versy; and  I  am  not  aware  that  the  sentiment  has  ever  been 
 seriously  denied  by  any  of  our  antagonists.  Some  good  people, 
 not  deeply  versed  in  the  merits  of  this  debate,  tell  us,  that 
 the  form  of  baptizing  is  of  comparatively  little  importance; 
 the  question,  'Who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  it?' — involving 
 the  chief  point  of  sectarian  difficulty.  This,  however,  is  a 
 grave  misapprehension.  'The  Baptist  Bible  Translation 
 'Society'  was  established,  and  is  still  carried  on,  at  a  heavy 
 annual  expense,  not  to  support  Adult  or  Believers'  Baptism, 
 but  to  promote  the  total  immersion  of  the  people.  To  evince 
 the  anxiety  of  our  opponents  to  defend  their  dipping  system, 
 it  may  be  remarked,  that  they  repeatedly  refer  to  the  baptism 
 of  proselytes  to  Judaism  as  fully  illustrating  that  of  John  and 
 our  Lord's  apostles.  And  their  reason  for  doing  so  is  a  belief, 
 (unfounded  it  is  true),  that  the  proselytes  were  all  immersed 
 when  they  were  purified  and  inducted  to  the  Hebrew  religion. 
 They  are  reckless  of  the  fact,  that  children,  as  well  as  their 
 parents,  were  proselyted  and  baptized  at  the  same  time,  and 
 in  the  same  way.  Consequently,  they  appear  prepared  to 
 damage  their   evidence   in   favour   of  Adult    Baptism    only, 
 
INTRODUCTION.  33 
 
 provided  they  can  get  any  testimony,  however  weak  and 
 inconclusive,  in  favour  of  immersion!  In  truth,  with  them, 
 dipping  is  the  chief  thing,  and  must  be  supported  at  all  cost 
 and  hazards. 
 
 Many  Baptist  writers,  in  professedly  quoting  the  Word  of 
 God,  are  in  the  habit  of  altering  the  language  of  our  version, 
 by  rendering  the  verb  'Baptizo,'  by  'Immerse,'  without 
 assigning  any  reason  or  apology  for  doing  so — as  if  it  were  an 
 unquestioned  fact,  that  baptizing  and  dipping  were  necessarily 
 and  always  identical  in  their  action.  Nor  is  it  unusual  with 
 some  of  their  preachers  to  display  the  like  temerity,  by  sub- 
 stituting the  word  'Immersion'  for  the  word  'Baptism,'  when 
 reading  or  quoting  the  Scriptures  in  their  ordinary  pulpit  and 
 public  administrations ;  as  if  none  would  question  the  propriety 
 of  such  a  meddling  with  the  English  Translation — thereby 
 displaying,  if  not  their  actual  ignorance  of  the  real  and  varied 
 import  of  the  term,  at  least  their  anxiety,  by  any  available 
 measures,  to  prejudice  the  minds  of  their  hearers,  of  every 
 class  and  age,  in  favour  of  their  own  sectarian  preconceptions 
 of  the  mode  of  baptism. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  safely  asserted,  that  if  some 
 Pedobaptists  feel  any  serious  difficulties  in  this  question,  it  is 
 concerning  the  proper  Subjects  of  Baptism,  rather  than  about 
 the  precise  mode  of  its  administration.  That  such  doubts — 
 excited  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  by  the  preaching,  books,  and 
 tracts,  of  our  Baptist  bretheren — do  really  exist  among  some 
 Pedobaptist  Christians,  cannot  be  questioned,  and  should 
 create  no  surprise.  It  is  principally  to  assist,  in  setting  the 
 minds  of  those  persons  right  and  at  rest  on  this  head,  that  I 
 have  undertaken  the  present  essay,  rather  than  as  an  attempt 
 to  persuade  our  earnest,  ardent,  and,  especially,  our  ministerial 
 opponents,  to  adopt  our  views  and  practice.  Indeed,  I  should 
 have  been  glad  to  have  discussed  this  question  without  once 
 alluding  to  our  Baptist  brethren,  had  it  been  practicable. 
 But  as  they  industriously  pen,  and  obtrusively  circulate,  their 
 objections  to  our  principles  and  procedure,  among  our  people, 
 especially  the  poor  and  the  young,  as  well  as  their  own;  I 
 must,  of  necessity,  reproduce  their  assertions  and  arguments, 
 in  order  to  refute  them.  I  have,  however,  cautiously  guarded 
 against  the  inscription  of  even  a  single  sentence  which  I 
 considered  fairly  calculated  to  give  the  smallest  offence  to  any 
 persons  who  may  differ  from  us  on  the  topic  under  discussion. 
 Still,  it  may  be  reasonably  expected,  that  the  parties  who  are 
 so  active  and  zealous  in  opposing  Infant  Baptism,  will  not  be 
 
 b2 
 
34  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 easily  offended  at  our  conscientious  and  earnest  labours  in 
 sustaining  our  own  opinions  and  operations  on  this  head. 
 
 X.  Let  it  be  clearly  understood,  that  while  defending  Infant 
 Baptism  in  this  discourse,  we  as  cordially  believe  in  Adult 
 Baptism,  under  certain  circumstances,  as  any  Antipedobaptist 
 in  the  country.  This  fact  is  frequently  overlooked,  if  not 
 purposely  denied,  by  our  opponents.  To  hear  many  of  them 
 talk  on  this  subject,  one  might  imagine  that  we  were  directly 
 and  always  opposing  Adult  or  Believers'  Baptism,  under  every 
 possible  contingency.  They  triumphantly  refer  us  to  the 
 baptisms  of  the  men  and  women  named  in  the  New  Testament 
 — insinuating,  if  not  asserting,  that  we  are  directly  and  exclu- 
 sively, setting  our  faces,  tongues,  and  pens,  against  Adult 
 Baptism.  This  is  a  grave  mistake,  or  a  culpable  misrepre- 
 sentation, of  the  real  truth  of  the  case.  If  persons,  through 
 the  sinful  neglect  of  their  parents,  or  any  other  cause,  have 
 attained  to  the  state  of  maturity,  without  having  undergone 
 this  ceremony,  and  are  desirous  of  becoming  recognized 
 disciples  of  Christ ;  we  as  readily  baptize  them  as  would  the 
 most  devoted  Antipedobaptist  in  the  kingdom.  It  is  hardly 
 questionable,  that  Pedobaptist  missionaries  in  heathen  coun- 
 tries— whose  position  is  very  much  like  that  of  the  first 
 Christian  evangelists — baptize  full  as  many  grown-up  people 
 as  any  equal  number  of  prudent  missionaries  of  Baptist 
 denominations. 
 
 This  declaration,  I  hope,  will  satisfy  the  candid  reader,  that 
 our  present  argument  relates  not  to  Adult  but  only  to  Infant 
 Baptism.  And  I  will  venture  to  assume,  that,  if  our  oppo- 
 nents will  cease  to  oppose  the  administration  of  this  rite  to 
 unbaptized  children,  the  Pedobaptists  will  never  assail  them 
 for  doing  the  like  to  actually  unbaptized  adults.  But  if  they 
 continue  to  assert  or  insinuate,  that  it  is  antiscriptural  and 
 sinful  to  baptize  infants,  or  to  advocate  the  practice  especially 
 among  our  own  people  ;  they  will  not  deem  the  writer  or  his 
 friends  more  uncharitable  or  presumptious  than  themselves,  if 
 they  openly  avow  their  belief,  that  it  is  sinful  to  neglect  it, 
 and  offensive  to  our  divine  Lord  and  Master  to  oppose  this 
 sacred  service. 
 
 It  may  be  here  suggested,  that  it  is  only  on  the  basis  of 
 mutual  forbearance,  respecting  the  Subjects  and  Modes  of 
 Baptism — the  one  party  dipping  adults,  free  of  all  personal 
 molestation  from  us;  and  we  affusing  infants,  without  any 
 annoyance  from  our  opponents — that  any  extensive,  cordial, 
 and  religious  communion  and  co-operation  can  be  long  main- 
 
ixthoductiox.  35 
 
 tained  among  us.  While,  with  a  real  and  continuous  forbearance 
 on  both  sides,  the  two  great  Evangelical  Calvinistic  Commu- 
 nions of  Congregational  Dissenters  might  effectually  coalesce; 
 might,  in  many  places,  have  one  good  self-sustaining  interest, 
 instead  of  two  small  struggling  societies  ;  and  might  carry  on 
 their  cause  with  much  more  comfort  and  efficiency.  But  such 
 forbearance  must  be  mutual,  sincere,  and  resolute.  To  this 
 proposition,  I  verily  believe,  that  few  pious  and  intelligent 
 Pedobaptists  would  feel  any  serious  objection.  Will  our 
 opponents  equally  acquiesce  in  it? 
 
 XI.  Here  I  take  leave  to  notice  the  sum  and  substance  of 
 all  that  has  been  and,  consequently,  of  all  that  can  be,  advanced 
 against  Infant  Baptism,  on  the  assumed  basis  of  Scripture 
 evidence.  Many  simple  people  imagine  there  must  be  a  vast 
 fund  of  biblical  testimony  in  opposition  to  this  rite,  or  that  it 
 would  not  be  so  zealously  and  constantly  opposed  by  so  many 
 good  and  great  men  as  have  spoken  and  written  against  it. 
 This,  however,  is  not  the  fact.  Two  negative  scriptural 
 arguments  only  are  assigned  for  such  antagonism. — Mr.  Hall 
 has  stated  them  distinctly.  The  'Baptists  allege  the  total 
 'silence  of  Scripture,  respecting  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  to- 
 'gether  with  their  incompetence  to  comprehend  the  truths,  or 
 *  sustain  the  engagements,  which  they  conceive  it  designed  to 
 'exhibit.1  p.  11.  All  other  objections,  regarded  as  scriptural, 
 originate  in  these,  or  are  ramifications  of  them ;  or  rather, 
 they  are  brought  against  our  methods  of  debate,  or  modes  of 
 illustration,  than  against  the  doctrine  we  advocate  or  the 
 practice  we  adopt.     To  be  a  little  more  specific,  they  contend, 
 
 (1.)  That  there  is  no  direct,  express,  or  positive  proof 
 of  any  infants  having  been  actually  baptized  by  John  or  the 
 apostles  of  Christ. — The  irrelevancy  and  weakness  of  this 
 negative  argument  have  been  fully  exposed  in  the  subsequent 
 investigation.  It  may  be  here  briefly  remarked,  that  while 
 the  New  Testament  contains  as  many  hints  and  intimations — 
 more  or  less  plain,  as,  under  all  circumstances,  might  have 
 been  expected — that  tens  of  thousands  of  children  were 
 baptized  by  the  primitive  believers ;  there  is  not  the  slightest 
 direct  testimony  afforded  in  it  to  support  the  contrary  opinion. 
 Not  a  word  in  prohibition  of  or  discountenancing  this  service 
 ever  escapes  the  lips  of  our  Lord  or  of  any  of  his  immediately 
 accredited  followers.  And,  as  baptism  had  been  administered 
 to  children  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  regularly,  under  other 
 appellations,  by  the  Hebrews,  from  that  period  to  the  time  of 
 John ;  the  conclusion  of  our  opponents  must  be  viewed  as 
 
36  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 totally  invalid.  Our  practice,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
 presumed,  has  been  placed  on  a  foundation,  which  no  argument, 
 based  simply  on  the  lack  of  a  plain  example  or  a  positive 
 declaration,  can  for  a  moment  disturb.  The  case  of  the 
 communion  of  females  at  the  Lord's  Table,  stands  in  a 
 perfectly  similar  condition — it  never  being  once  expressly  or 
 indubitably  affirmed  or  exemplified  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
 might  as  reasonably  be  objected,  that  no  young  men  or  young 
 women  should  be  baptized  as  that  infants  should  not;  since 
 the  Scriptures  never  command  young  men  or  women  to  be 
 baptized,  nor  ever  say  such  underwent  this  Christian  ceremony. 
 It  is  further  affirmed, 
 
 (2.)  That  such  qualifications  were  required  in  Candi- 
 dates for  Baptism  as  110  Children  ever  possessed. — This,  too, 
 has  been  shown  to  be  a  most  fallacious  argument  against 
 Infant  Baptism.  That  numerous  adults  were  baptized  by 
 John  and  the  apostles  of  Christ,  is  fully  admitted.  We  believe 
 in  Adult  Baptism  equally  with  our  opponents;  and  the 
 necessity  of  it,  on  a  large  scale,  at  the  first  introduction  of 
 Christianity,  to  any  place  and  at  any  time,  no  one  ever  doubted. 
 We  also  believe,  that  in  the  case  of  adult  candidates,  certain 
 prerequisites  were  necessary  to  induce  them  to  be  baptized, 
 and  to  qualify  them  for  it ;  and  that  these  special  antecedents 
 were  not,  and  are  not  found  in  children.  But  we  also  know, 
 that  the  latter  were  circumcised  without  the  personal  pre- 
 parations requisite  in  sinful  adults.  For  aught  the  Scriptures 
 aver  to  the  contrary,  children  might  always  have  been  baptized 
 without  the  prerequisites  essential  to  proselyted  men  and 
 women.  Of  one  thing  we  are  all  certain,  that  a  very  different 
 kind  of  meetness  for  entering  the  kingdom  of  glory  is  required 
 for  adults,  from  what  is  necessary  in  the  case  of  dying  infants. 
 To  the  establishment  of  this  doctrine  we  have  given  con- 
 siderable attention  in  the  subsequent  inquiry.  —  The  above 
 objections  positively  include  all  the  arguments  that  have  ever 
 been  brought,  as  directly  based  on  the  Word  of  God,  against 
 baptizing  children.  That  they  have  been  ramified  to  an  in- 
 definite extent  is  manifest,  from  the  hundreds  of  treatises  written 
 by  our  opponents  against  it,  and  as  will  appear  in  the  present 
 discussion.  But  nothing  professedly  founded  on  the  silence  or 
 assertions  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  can  be  discovered  in  the 
 writings  of  our  intelligent  opponents,  against  Infant  Baptism, 
 which  the  above  two  assertions  do  not  entirely  comprehend. 
 
 XII.  If  I  am  not  greatly  in  error,  the  leading  blunders 
 our  opponents  make,  while  contending  against  Infant  Baptism, 
 
IXTEODUCTION.  37 
 
 are  chiefly  founded  upon  a  contracted,  and  all  but  a  uniform, 
 interpretation  of  certain  leading  terms  employed  in  the  New 
 Testament,  in  relation  to  this  service.  According  to  them — 
 To  baptize  is  always  and  only  to  dip — the  Greek  verb,  accord- 
 ing to  them,  never  meaning  any  thing  less  or  besides.  The 
 noun,  Ecclesia,  translated  church,  comprehends  only  pious 
 and  regenerated  men  and  women.  The  word  Disciple  excludes 
 all  but  holy,  grown  up,  and  instructed  followers  of  Christ. 
 Believers  always  possess  true  and  saving  faith  in  the  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ.  The  Saints,  or  the  sanctified,  are  all  spiritually 
 regenerated  and  enlightened  persons.  The  Brethren  are  all 
 related  to  the  Son  of  God  by  a  new  birth.  Converts  are  all 
 divinely  changed  in  heart,  as  well  as  in  their  views  and  external 
 deportment.  Christians  are  all  really  and  truly  partakers  of 
 the  mind  and  grace  of  Christ.  The  like  high,  spiritual,  and 
 limited  senses  are  attached  to  other  leading  terms  found  in 
 connexion  with  the  gospel  narratives  and  expositions  of 
 Christian  Baptism.  Let  any  one  carefully  peruse  the  books 
 written  against  Baptizing  Infants,  and  I  think  he  will  concede 
 the  verity  of  this  allegation  against  our  opponents.  Hence, 
 they  consistently,  though  unrighteously,  exclude  all  babies 
 from  a  participation  in  this  sacrament,  and  regard  it  as  a  vain 
 and  even  a  monstrous  act,  to  baptize  these  little  creatures,  who 
 do  not  believe,  are  not  converted,  cannot  be  viewed  as  Christ- 
 ians, or  be  fairly  entitled  to  the  designation  of  disciples  and 
 saints  in  heart  and  deed.  But  if  such  a  special  or  contracted 
 interpretation  of  the  above,  and  of  similar  words,  be  not 
 sustainable  in  every  instance ;  if  they  have  a  higher  and  a  lower, 
 a  larger  and  a  lesser,  import;  if  they  are  employed  frequently 
 in  a  different  or  in  a  general  sense,  as  they  unquestionably 
 are,  in  common  with  most  nouns  and  verbs  in  the  Holy 
 Writings  ;  and  if  they  may  be  so  rendered,  as  fairly  to  accord 
 with  the  affusion  of  infants,  as  they  certainly  may ;  then  the 
 chief  current  reasonings,  resting  on  this  ground,  against  our 
 system  and  practice,  will  be  found  totally  irrelevant. 
 
 XIII.  Our  brethren  treat  us  with  numerous  lengthy  and 
 learned  dissertations  professedly  directed  against  Infant  Bap- 
 tism. But,  in  reality,  the  major  part  of  these  effusions  have 
 nothing  more  to  do  with  the  point  at  issue  between  us  than 
 essays  on  the  sabbath,  the  atonement,  or  the  resurrection  of 
 the  dead.  We  have  long  chapters  and  sections  on  baptismal 
 regeneration,  the  employment  of  sponsors,  the  encouragement 
 this  ceremony  is  supposed  to  afford  to  national  political 
 establishments  of  Christianity,  the  ruin  it  brings  on  many 
 
38  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 immortal  souls,  and  so  forth.  The  evils  of  the  rite,  as 
 administered  in  the  state  and  parish  churches,  are  dwelt  on 
 most  largely  and  eloquently ;  and  the  whole  is  set  down  to  the 
 charge  of  all  who  baptize  infants,  in  whatever  manner ;  and  is 
 manifestly  designed  to  alarm  the  ignorant  and  the  credulous, 
 and  to  inspire  a  belief,  that  there  is  not  and  cannot  be  any 
 Infant  Baptism  without  such  dreadful  appendages  ;  and  that, 
 consequently,  it  must  be  a  most  unrighteous  and  injurious 
 ceremony,  whoever  administers  it! 
 
 Yet,  because  certain  sections  of  professing  Christians 
 combine  these  and  other  unscriptural  notions  with  the  rite  in 
 question,  surely,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow,  as  our  oppo- 
 nents endeavour  to  make  the  world  believe,  that  it  cannot  be 
 administered  without  them !  That  it  is  performed  without 
 such  appendages  by  all  evangelical  Nonconformists,  these  very 
 writers  must  know  as  well  as  we  do.  To  make  them  a  part 
 and  parcel  of  treatises  composed  avowedly  against  Infant 
 Baptism,  however  performed,  is  as  unfair  as  to  pronounce 
 doctrinal  heterodoxy  to  be  an  essential  ingredient  in  all  pulpit 
 ministrations,  or  to  assert,  that  superstitious  observances  are 
 inseparable  adjuncts  of  all  divine  worship.  With  these  and 
 similar  irrelevant  materials,  their  numerous  and  most  popular 
 works  against  Baptizing  Children  are  abundantly  supplied. 
 It  is  probable  that  full  eight-tenths  of  what  is  written  pro- 
 fessedly against  this  service,  as  actually  administered  by 
 Wesleyan,  Independent,  and  Presbyterian  denominations,  have 
 neither  directly  nor  indirectly  any  thing  to  do  with  the 
 question  as  between  Dissenting  Pedobaptists  and  their  oppo- 
 nents. Such  a  course  of  polemical  warfare  is  manifestly 
 unfair.  Besides,  it  imposes  an  amount  of  labour  on  our 
 party,  to  expose  and  refute  such  extraneous  allegations,  which 
 a  proper  adherence  to  the  actual  merits  of  the  question 
 between  us  would  wholly  prevent. 
 
 XIV.  In  the  following  exposition  and  application  of  Paul's 
 appeal  to  the  church  at  Corinth,  I  have  not  inquired  into  the 
 grounds  of  the  Perpetuity  of  water  Baptism,  as  held  by  most 
 denominations  of  Christians.  The  validity  and  sufficiency  of 
 the  current  arguments  in  its  favour  have  been  taken  for 
 granted.  The  Mode  of  Baptism,  as  administred  in  the  Red 
 Sea,  and  afterwards  by  the  Jews,  by  John  the  Baptist,  and  by 
 the  apostles  of  Christ,  has  received  but  concise  and  incidental 
 attention  in  this  discussion.  Nor,  has  the  question  of  the 
 post-apostolical  Testimonies  in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism  been 
 much  regarded  in  the  subsequent  treatise.      Nor,  as  before 
 
INTRODUCTION.  39 
 
 intimated,  have  I  minutely  examined,  or  largely  exhibited 
 the  arguments  in  favour  of  our  practice  arising  from  Circum- 
 cision. This  last  especially  has  been  done  frequently  by  far 
 more  competent  hands ;  and  their  reasonings,  on  this  head, 
 have  yet  to  receive  a  fair  and  satisfactory  reputation.  The 
 principles  involved  in  that  rite  have  afforded  me  many  collateral 
 arguments  in  repelling  the  attacks  of  opponents,  and  not  a  few 
 illustrations  in  support  of  my  general  reasonings ;  and  of  these 
 I  have,  of  course,  availed  myself.  There  are  also,  as  before 
 observed,  many  Passages  in  the  New  Testament,  fraught  with 
 ample  materials  adapted  to  sustain  our  practice,  which  have 
 not  been  introduced  as  leading  or  fundamental  arguments  in 
 the  subjoined  pages,  but  simply  as  auxiliary  supports  of  our 
 deductions,  or  rather  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  some  of  the 
 numerous  objections  made  to  our  doctrine  and  practice  by 
 our  antagonists. 
 
 XV.  A  considerable  portion  of  the  following  work  has 
 been  occupied  in  stating  the  objections  of  the  Baptists  against 
 baptizing  children,  or  against  the  arguments  and  expositions 
 by  which  it  has  been  defended  by  various  writers.  These 
 objections  I  have  collected,  arranged,  and  answered,  to  the 
 best  of  my  ability.  I  think  the  reader  will  find  elsewhere 
 few  allegations  against  our  doctrines  and  doings,  on  this  head, 
 worthy  of  the  slightest  consideration,  or  which  are  current 
 among  even  the  least  intelligent  of  our  opponents,  that  he  will 
 not  see  plainly  stated  and,  I  believe,  fully  and  fairly  refuted 
 in  the  work  itself.  Indeed,  it  was  this  part  of  the  discussion 
 which  swelled  the  present  treatise  to  a  size  never  intended 
 when  it  was  commenced.  To  render  this  part  of  the  work  as 
 complete  as  possible,  I  have  had  to  read  numerous  books  and 
 pamphlets,  of  former  and  recent  dates,  published  on  both  sides 
 of  the  controversy.  By  such  a  course,  only,  was  I  enabled  to 
 ascertain  what  the  Baptist  writers  had  advanced  against  our 
 sentiments  and  practices;  and  also  what  answers  Pedobaptists 
 have  given  in  their  own  defence.  Of  these  materials  I  have 
 made  the  best  use  in  my  power.  I  please  myself  with  the 
 idea,  that  both  parties  to  this  contention  will  see  a  full,  true, 
 and  particular  statement  of  what  their  best  advocates  have 
 advanced  in  support  and  defence  of  their  respective  views  and 
 proceedings — with  the  exceptionspreviously  mentioned.  I  have 
 allowed  our  opponents  to  speak  out  fully  for  themselves.  Their 
 strongeststatements,  arguments,  and  objections  have  been  copied 
 without  the  smallest  perversion  or  weakening  of  their  import; 
 and,  in  every  important  citation,  the  chapter  and  page  of 
 
40  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 my  authorities  have  been  appended.  In  the  same  way  I  have 
 dealt  with  the  writings  of  Pedobaptists — from  whom  I  have 
 copied  largely — generally  preferring  to  convey  their  own 
 opinions  in  their  own  language,  to  giving  them  in  my  own. 
 For  making  so  large  a  use  of  their  writings,  I  feel  that  an 
 apology  is  due — especially  to  those  still  in  the  land  of 
 the  living. 
 
 XVI.  That  we  are  often  called  upon  to  reiterate  our 
 expositions  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  to  defend  ourselves  while 
 practising  it,  at  much  expense  of  time  and  labour,  will  not  be 
 denied  by  those  who,  with  myself,  believe  it  to  be  a  scriptural, 
 and,  consequently,  an  innocent,  and  a  useful  institution.  How 
 we  and  this  service  are  viewed  and  represented  by  certain 
 out-spoken  and  zealous  writers  on  the  other  side,  may  be 
 seen  in  the  body  of  this  work.  But  as  a  good  specimen  of 
 the  notions  held  by  many  of  these  gentlemen,  I  will  cite  the 
 language  of  Dr.  Byron,  in  the  most  recent  work,  of  any 
 pretensions,  published  against  Infant  Baptism.  In  a  list  of 
 Queries,  meant  for  strong  assertions,  he  asks,  '  Is  not  Infant 
 'Baptism  an  invention  of  men?  Is  it  not  the  source  whence 
 'the  mass  of  carnal  schemes  have  sprung?  Is  it  not  the 
 'sheet  anchor  of  delusion  that  holds  the  whole  mass  in  such 
 'system  together?  and,  lastly,  is  it  not  the  very  foundation 
 'of  all  apostacy  from  the  truths  of  the  Gospel?'  Title  Page. 
 'I  have  also  referred  to  the  antiscriptural  idol  of  man's 
 'invention,  nicknamed  Infant  Baptism,  which  the  great  ma- 
 'jority  of  the  professing  world  worship  under  one  delusive 
 'speculation  or  another;  and  which  for  ages  has  been  the 
 'subtle  masterpiece  of  the  strong  man  armed  to  keep  the 
 '  carnal  multitudes  in  a  state  of  false  peace  under  this  insensible 
 'delusion.'  p.  3.  'Is  not  Infant  Baptism  the  root  out  of 
 'which  all  these  tamperings  with  infinite  uncertainties  grow? 
 'How  can  this  be?  The  reason  is  evident.  When  the  set 
 'time  came  for  God  to  deliver  his  dear  people  from  that 
 'blasphemous  system  of  iniquity  and  oppression  (the  mother 
 'of  harlots,)  he  brought  about  in  his  providence  that  change 
 '  or  deliverance  which  men  call  the  reformation.'  p.  78.  Here, 
 Infant  Baptism  is  the  root  of  all  popish  evils!  'That  master- 
 ' piece  of  carnal  delusion,  called  Infant  Baptism.'  p.  80. 
 What  deluded  and  dangerous  wretches  are  the  administrators 
 and  defenders  of  Infant  Baptism!  or,  at  least,  they  were  so 
 ten  years  ago,  when  Dr.  Byron  gave  them  a  character,  in  his 
 'Remarks  on  the  Doctrine  of  Baptism!'  A  renewed  attempt 
 to  vindicate  this  rite,  from  such  serious  charges,  cannot  be  an 
 
INTRODUCTION.  41 
 
 uncalled-for  effort.  And  till  we  have  convinced  our  opponents, 
 that  they  misunderstand  the  nature  and  tendencies  ol"  Infant 
 Baptism,  and  have  greatly  under-estimated  the  evidence  by 
 which  we  sustain  it,  that  concord  and  fraternizing,  to  which  I 
 have  before  alluded,  will  never  be  affected.  In  their  present 
 ignorance  of  our  arguments,  and  with  their  lofty  indignation, 
 they  might  consistently,  exclaim, 'What  fellowship  hath  right- 
 eousness with  unrighteousness,  and  what  communion  hath 
 "* light  with  darkness?' 
 
 XA'II.  It  may  be  expected,  by  some  of  my  readers,  that 
 I  should  state  more  particularly  the  reasons  which  induced 
 me  to  write  the  following  work  on  the  Subjects  of  Baptism. 
 After  so  many  able  and  excellent  treatises  have  been  published 
 by  much  more  learned  and  talented  men,  pertaining  to  Pedo- 
 baptist  persuasions,  and  not  a  few  of  them  of  comparatively 
 recent  date,  some  explanation  seems  called  for.  Whether 
 they  will  be  deemed  generally  satisfactory  or  not,  they  are 
 simply  the  following:  — 
 
 (1.)  The  principal  basis  of  my  argument,  in  support  and 
 defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  is  new  in  this  controversy,  at  least, 
 so  far  as  my  information  extends.  I  do  not  mean,  that  I 
 have  formed  a  new  idea  of  the  passage  quoted  from  the 
 Corinthians,  or  of  its  relevancy  to  the  subject  under  review; 
 but,  I  believe,  it  is  the  first  time,  that  it  has  been  made  the 
 ■chief  foundation  of  a  treatise  composed  in  support  of  the 
 Baptism  of  Children.  Citations  will  be  found  in  the  sequel, 
 corroborating  my  view  of  the  apostle's  allusions  ;  but  the 
 writers  of  them  failed  to  pursue  the  inquiry,  as  done  in  the 
 present  work.  And  if  my  arguments  are  found  to  be  valid, 
 and  the  application  of  them  proper,  I  feel  I  shall  be  justified 
 in  the  present  attempt. 
 
 (2.)  The  works  which  have  been  written  more  recently, 
 by  learned  and  earnest  men,  on  both  sides  of  this  controversy, 
 have  elicited  arguments  and  concessions  which  had  not  been 
 so  fully  given  before.  This  has  been  the  case  especially  with 
 the  Baptist  authors  of  mark  in  their  own  denomination. 
 Whether  any  of  the  many  damaging  statements,  and  admis- 
 sions, contained  in  their  works,  were  made  unconsciously  of 
 their  importance  in  this  debate,  or  were  extorted  from  them 
 by  the  pressure  of  their  talented  antagonists,  or  were  the 
 spontaneous  declaration  of  convinced  and  candid  minds,  it  is 
 not  for  me  to  decide.  But  they  are  made;  and,  what  is 
 more,  they  are  all  sound  and  true.  The  result  of  the  whole 
 is,  that  the  controversy  has  progressed  materially  towards  a 
 
42  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 crisis,  such  as  it  had  not  arrived  at  before.  My  object,  then, 
 has  been  to  review  the  question  in  its  present  advanced  con- 
 dition, and  to  methodize  and  use  the  ample  materials  abler 
 disputants  have  placed  before  me.  This  constitutes  my 
 second  reason  for  publishing  this  treatise. 
 
 (3.)  In  reviewing  the  controversy,  it  appears  to  me  that 
 there  were  several  points  of  weight  and  interest  in  the  settle- 
 ment of  it,  which  had  not  been  sufficiently  explained  and 
 enforced,  as  they  fairly  required.  Some  of  these,  at  first 
 sight,  seem  but  remotely  relevant  to  the  question ;  but,  on  a 
 nearer  and  fuller  examination,  they  manifestly  involved  much 
 of  the  pith  and  marrow  of  the  debate.  I  refer  especially  to 
 the  New  Testament  sense  of  the  word  Ecelesia,  or  Church, 
 and  the  terms  Believer,  Disciple,  Convert,  Christian,  and  the 
 like.  On  all  these,  I  do  not  profess  to  have  advanced  any 
 thing  really  novel ;  but  I  have  given  a  prominence  to  them, 
 which,  I  think,  had  not  been  done  before.  I  have  also  stated 
 and  met  a  number  of  objections  which,  though  current  in 
 conversation  and  the  small  and  cheap  publications  of  our 
 opponents,  do  not  often  find  a  place  in  works  of  higher 
 pretensions.  These  small  arguments  are  almost  the  only  ones 
 small  minds  comprehend,  and  by  them  chiefly  they  are  in- 
 fluenced. To  answer  them  all  was  another  reason  for  writing 
 this  volume. 
 
 (4.)  The  larger  and  most  elaborate  works,  on  our  side  of 
 the  question,  appeared  to  me  too  learned  and  recondite  for 
 the  mass  of  our  readers.  They  are  either  above  their  reach, 
 or  their  chain  of  reasoning  is  too  long,  to  be  comfortably  and 
 profitably  followed  by  people  little  accustomed  to  protracted 
 logical  investigations.  What  I  have  aimed  at  has  been  to 
 simplify  the  subject — to  place  it  before  the  understanding  in 
 a  form  which  might  easily  be  comprehended,  and  yet  still  with 
 a  force  of  evidence  that  must  be  felt.  This  has  been  attempted, 
 not  simply  by  using  great  plainness  of  speech,  but  by  dividing 
 and  subdividing  the  whole  into  Parts,  Sections,  and  minor 
 portions,  distinctly  headed  and  numbered.  This  gives  a 
 formality  and  apparent  stiffness  to  the  work.  But,  then,  it 
 enables  the  reader  to  pause  in  his  course  of  perusal,  and 
 assists  him  to  understand  what  is  the  particular  topic  imme- 
 diately in  discussion.  Hence,  to  make  a  plain  and  readable 
 book,  on  a  dry  controversial  question,  was  another  motive  for 
 composing  the  present  volume.  How  far  I  have  succeeded, 
 is  a  question  for  others  to  decide.  The  attempt  has  cost  more 
 time  and  labour  than  most  readers  would  imagine. 
 
INTRODUCTION.       \  43 
 
 (5.)  An  additional  inducement  for  undertaking  the  present 
 work,  was  the  request  of  many  ministers  and  lay  friends,  that 
 I  would  publish  a  small  work  on  the  Subjects  of  Baptism. 
 Expressing  their  approval  and  high  appreciation  of  my  former 
 essay  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism,  they  have  repeatedly  solicited 
 me  to  send  out  a  treatise  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism. 
 These  appeals,  from  gentlemen  resident  in  various  parts  of  the 
 country,  of  course,  had  considerable  influence  in  determining 
 me  to  make  the  attempt.  A  small  work  was  first  aimed  at; 
 but,  to  compress  the  full  discussion  into  a  very  thin  volume, 
 I  found  impracticable.  Hence,  the  publication  as  it  now 
 appears— the  fruit  of  much  labour,  and  the  source  of  con- 
 siderable pecuniary  cost,  before  it  reaches  the  eyes  of  the 
 Christian  public.  I  trust  it  will  not  disappoint  the  expec- 
 tation of  my  friends;  and  will  promote  the  purpose  we  all 
 have  in  view — the  defence  of  Infant  Baptism.  I  have  not  the 
 presumption  to  suppose,  that  all  has  been  said  that  can  be 
 adduced  in  support  of  my  object,  or  that  many  questions 
 relative  to  it  might  not  be  asked,  which  are  not  here  answered: 
 But  this  I  venture  to  assume,  that  every  objection  made 
 against  it,  as  far  as  I  could  discover  it,  has  been  fully  and 
 plainly  stated,  and  as  fully  and  plainly  refuted.  If  I  am 
 mistaken,  my  opponents  will  readily  show  that  I  am  in  error, 
 and  in  what  it  consists. 
 
 XVIII.  The  Bev.  Bobt.  Hall  has  a  few  remarks  on  de- 
 nominational prejudice,  which  merit  universal  and  devout 
 attention,  and  may  be  deemed  appropriate  in  concluding  these 
 long  introductory  remarks.  'Truth  and  error,  as  they  are 
 'essentially  opposite  in  their  nature,  so  the  causes  to  which 
 '  they  are  indebted  for  their  perpetuity  and  triumph,  are  not 
 'less  so.  Whatever  retards  a  spirit  of  inquiry  is  favorable  to 
 'error;  whatever  promotes  it,  to  truth.  But  nothing,  it  will 
 'be  acknowledged,  has  a  greater  tendency  to  obstruct  the 
 'exercise  of  free  inquiry,  than  the  spirit  and  feeling  of  a  party. 
 'Let  a  doctrine,  however  erroneous,  be  a  party  distinction, 
 'and  it  is  at  once  entombed  in  interests  and  attachments 
 'which  make  it  extremely  difficult  for  the  most  powerful 
 'artillery  of  reason  to  dislodge  it.  It  becomes  a  point  of 
 'honour  in  the  leaders  of  such  parties,  which  is  from  them 
 'communicated  to  their  followers,  to  defend  and  support 
 'their  respective  peculiarities  to  the  last;  and,  as  a  natural 
 'consequence,  to  shut  their  ears  against  all  the  pleas  and 
 'remonstrances  by  which  they  are  assailed.  Even  the  wisest 
 'and  best   of  men  are   seldom  aware  how  much  they  are 
 
44  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 '  susceptible  of  this  sort  of  influence;  and  while  the  offer  of  a 
 *  world  would  he  insufficient  to  engage  them  to  recant  a  known 
 'truth,  or  to  subscribe  an  acknowledged  error,  they  are  often 
 'in  a  willing  captivity  to  prejudices  and  opinions  which  have 
 'no  other  support,  and  which,  if  they  could  lose  sight  of  party 
 'feeling,  they  would  almost  instantly  abandon,'  p.  105. 
 
 The  present  work  is  intended  to  be  a  sequel  to  the  Author's 
 treatise,  entitled  'Modern  Immersion  not  Scripture  Bap- 
 tism.' This  latter  volume  (of  which  the  second  thousand  is  on 
 sale)  has  received  the  highest  commendations  from  some  of 
 our  leading  Pedobaptist  Reviews  ;  and  no  formal  answer  to  it 
 has  yet  been  published  by  any  of  our  opponents. 
 
 These  two  works  embrace  a  discussion  of  the  entire  questions 
 at  issue  between  the  Pedo  and  the  Anti-pedobaptist  denomina- 
 tions of  Evangelical  Protestant  Dissenters  in  this  country. 
 
 In  the  volume  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism,  there  are  various 
 statements,  reasonings,  and  references,  which  bear  equally  on 
 the  inquiry  into  the  proper  Subjects  of  Baptism.  Many  of 
 these  have  been  purposely  omitted  in  the  latter  volume,  on 
 account  of  the  great  length  to  which  this  discussion  has  neces- 
 sarily extended ;  but  may  be  readily  seen  by  referring  to  the 
 former  treatise. 
 
 The  publication  entitled (  Dipping  not  Baptizing,'  (of  which 
 about  seven  thousand  have  been  sold)  is  a  concise  abridgment 
 of  Modern  Immersion,  fyc,  and  was  designed  for  a  more  ex- 
 tended circulation  than  the  larger  work  was  likely  to  obtain. 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM,  ETC. 
 
 1  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant 
 'how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
 1  through  the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the 
 '  cloud  and  in  the  sea ;  and  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat; 
 'and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink:  for  they  drank 
 1  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  followed  them  :  and  that  Rock  was 
 1  Christ.  But  with  many  of  them  God  was  not  well  pleased  : 
 'for  they  ivere  overthrown  in  the  wilderness.  Now  these  things 
 '  ivere  our  examines,  to  the  intent  we  should  not  lust  after  evil 
 'things,  as  they  also  lusted.  Neither  be  ye  idolators,  as  were 
 'some  of  them ;  as  it  is  written,  The  people  sat  down  to  eat 
 'and  drink,  and  rose  up  to  play.  Neither  let  us  commit  for- 
 '  nication,  as  some  of  them  committed,  and  fell  in  one  day  three 
 'and  twenty  thousand.  Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some 
 '  of  them  also  tempted,  and  were  destroyed  of  serpents.  Neither 
 'murmur  ye,  as  some  of  them  also  murmured,  and  were  de- 
 '  stroyed  of  the  destroyer.  Now  all  these  things  happened  unto 
 'them  for  ensamples :  and  they  are  written  for  our  admonition, 
 '  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are  come.  Wherefore  let  him 
 'that  ihinketh  he  standelh  take  heed  lest  he  fall.  There  hath 
 'no  temptation  taken  you  but  such  as  is  common  to  man:  but 
 '  God  is  faithful,  who  will  not  suffer  you  to  be  tempted  above 
 'that ye  are  able;  but  will  with  the  temptation  also  make  a  way 
 '  to  escape,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  bear  it.  Wherefore,  my  dearly 
 'beloved,  flee  from  idolatry.' — 1  Cor.  x.  1-14. 
 
 In  order  to  defend  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  by  the 
 declarations  and  reasonings  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  contained  in 
 the  above  portion  of  Scripture,  I  shall  prove  three  things: — 
 First,  That  under  the  term,  'Our  Fathers,'  said  to  have  been 
 baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  the  writer  really,  neces- 
 sarily, and  intentionally  included  numerous  Infants  and  Young 
 Children ;  Secondly,  That  this  Baptism  of  the  Israelites  unto 
 Moses  embraced  all  the  essential  principles  and  properties  of 
 Christian  Baptism;  and,  Thirdly,  Tbat  the  practice  of  Infant 
 Baptism,  under  the  Gospel  dispensation,  may  be  fairly  and 
 
46  'OUR  fathers:' 
 
 fully  sustained  from  the  Apostle's  reasonings  and  reference  to 
 the  Baptism  of  the  Hebrews  in  the  Eed  Sea. — The  Objections 
 likely  to  arise  in  the  minds  of  open  opponents,  or  of  doubting 
 adherents,  against  any  of  our  leading  statements  and  conclu- 
 sions, I  shall  endeavour  clearly  to  set  forth,  and  fully  to 
 meet,  as  the  discussion  proceeds. — To  commence  with  the 
 first  proposition, — 
 
 PART  FIRST. 
 
 Undeb  the  term  'Our  Fathers,'  said  to  have  been 
 baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  paul  really,  neces- 
 sarily, and  intentionally,  included  numerous  infants 
 and  Young  Children. 
 
 This  assumption  is  so  manifest,  on  the  mere  announcement 
 of  it,  that  to  many  persons  it  may  seem  quite  superfluous  to 
 adduce  any  evidence  or  arguments  in  its  support.  But  as 
 the  establishment  of  the  fact  lies  at  the  foundation  of  our 
 ultimate  theoretical  and  practical  conclusions ;  and  as  it  might 
 be  rashly  denied  by  certain  reckless  opponents,  if  not  plainly 
 and  indisputably  sustained  ;  I  shall  here  prove  that  the  words, 
 'Our  Fathers,'  certainly  and  unequivocally  include  infants 
 and  children,  as  well  as  men  and  women;  and  that  the  former 
 were  as  truly  and  effectively  baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
 sea,  as  the  latter. 
 
 SECTION  FIRST.—  The  term,  'Our  Fathers,'  is  used  for 
 remote  ancestors,  or  for  national  or  ecclesiastical  predecessors, 
 and  not  in  its  confined  and  literal 'sense,  for  immediate  adult  male 
 progenitors. — This  is  manifestly  and  necessarily  the  case,  as 
 the  circumstances  of  the  Israelites  when  baptized  fully  testify. 
 Such  an  application  of  these  words  is  common  in  both  the  Old 
 and  New  Testaments.  In  the  former,  the  expression  occurs 
 about  forty  times ;  and  in  the  latter,  about  twenty,  and  in 
 every,  or  all  but  every,  instance,  it  unequivocally  conveys  the 
 idea  of  more  or  less  remote  ancestors,  or  predecessors ;  including 
 alike  and  equally,  men,  women,  and  children.  Dr.  E.  Williams 
 says,  'What  the  Apostle  principally  refers  to,  is  the  fact,  that 
 '  all  the  Fathers,  all  the  Israelites,  old  and  young,  as  the  visible 
 '  church,  were  baptized,  /.  e.,  by  that  solemn  transaction  sepa- 
 rated from  the  idolatrous  Egyptians,  and  initiated  into  a  state 
 '  of  higher  relative  holiness  than  they  were  in  before ; — as  well 
 '  as  the  Christians ;  who  were  now  growing  too  secure  in  their 
 'distinguished  principles.'  Mr.  Stovcl  also  says,  'Paul 
 'employs  the  example  of  the  ancient  Jewish  people'  [without 
 
IMPORT  OF  THE  WORDS.  47 
 
 exception]  'at  and  after  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea.' — 
 Reg.  Lect.  iii.  p.  34. 
 
 To  render  this  import  of  the  language  plain  and  indisputable, 
 I  will  cite  a  few  passages  wherein  the  words  occur,  and  neces- 
 sarily include  men,  women,  and  children.  Neh.  ix.  9:  'And 
 '  didst  see  the  affliction  of  Our  Fathers  in  Egypt.'  The  women 
 and  children  were  afflicted  as  well  as  the  men. — John  vi.  31 : 
 'Our  Fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  desert.'  The  women  and 
 children  did  so  equally  with  the  men. — 1  Chron.  xxix.  15: 
 'We  are  strangers  before  thee,  and  sojourners,  as  were  all 
 'Our  Fathers.'  The  women  and  children  were  as  much 
 strangers  and  sojourners  as  the  men. — Acts  iii.  25:  'The 
 'covenant  which  God  made  with  Our  Fathers.'  This  covenant 
 was  made  with  all  the  men,  women,  and  children  together  at 
 Sinai,  and  renewed  with  them  in  a  body  afterwards. — Acts  v.  3  : 
 'The  God  of  Our  Fathers  raised  up  Jesus.'  He  was  no  more 
 the  God  of  the  men,  than  of  the  women  and  children. — 
 Acts  viii.  44:  'Our  Fathers  had  the  tabernacle  of  witness  in 
 'the  wilderness  as  he  had  appointed.'  The  women  and 
 children  had  this  tabernacle  as  well  as  the  men. — Acts  xiii.  32 : 
 'The  promise  which  was  made  unto  The  Fathers,'  including  all 
 the  mothers  and  little  ones,  even  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  which 
 constituted  'the  church  in  the  wilderness,'  comprehending  old 
 and  young,  the  highest  prince  and  the  humblest  peasant. — 
 Heb.  i.  1 :  'God  spake  in  time  past  unto  The  Fathers  by  the 
 'prophets.'  He  spake  to  all  the  Hebrews,  without  excepting 
 any  of  the  population  on  account  of  sex  or  age — all  capable 
 of  understanding  the  truth. 
 
 These  are  sufficient  specimens.  Other  passages  occur,  of 
 course,  in  which  women  are  evidently  distinguished  from  men, 
 and  children  from  both.  But  the  expression,  '  Our  Fathers,' 
 signifies,  in  every  instance,  where  some  special  exception  is 
 not  made,  and  which  is  readily  apparent,  the  ancient  Hebrew 
 people,  of  both  sexes  and  of  all  ages,  existing  at  some  given 
 period  in  their  protracted  history.  Hence,  we  conclude, 
 that  in  this  designation  of  Paul — who  was  fully  conversant 
 with  the  Hebrew  phraseology — children  and  infants  were 
 included,  as  really  'The  Fathers'  of  the  apostles  and  his 
 brethren  as  any  of  the  old  men  in  the  tribes  of  Israel, 
 baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  In  this  interpretation 
 of  these  words,  every  commentator,  of  every  creed,  I  have  had 
 an  opportunity  of  consulting,  fully  and  unhesitatingly  concurs. 
 Nor,  I  think,  would  any  one  arrive  at  a  different  conclusion, 
 unless  he  had  some  sectarian  purpose  to  serve.      It  should 
 
48  '  OUR  FATHERS  :' 
 
 not  be  overlooked,  that  in  the  above  passage,  Paul  was  also 
 and  equally  addressing  the  Gentile  part  of  the  Corinthian 
 congregation — probably  the  more  numerous  section  of  it. 
 And  he  calls  the  ancient  Hebrews,  their  Fathers  equally  as 
 the  fathers  of  their  Hebrew  fellow-worshipers.  Now,  it  is 
 obvious,  that  the  people  who  passed  through  the  Red  Sea 
 were  not  the  natural  lineal  ancestors  of  those  Greek  converts. 
 But  they  were  their  predecessors  as  worshippers  of  the  God 
 of  Israel.  And  in  this  sense  the  expression  must  have  been 
 understood  by  them  all. 
 
 The  term,  'Our  Fathers,'  as  employed  in  the  text,  is  of 
 much  wider  import  than  those  expressions  which  refer  to  the 
 heads,  rulers,  or  representatives  of  the  Hebrew  nation,  and 
 of  their  respective  tribes.  These  latter  were  recognized  even 
 in  Egypt,  before  the  exodus;  and  are  frequently  employed  in 
 the  history  of  that  favored  people.  Such  heads  and  chiefs 
 were  occasionally  summoned  to  meet  Moses  and  Aaron,  and 
 were  commanded  to  act  separately  from  the  rest  of  the  popu- 
 lation, as  their  representatives,  leaders,  and  guides.  An 
 example  or  two  may  be  given.  While  Moses  was  in  Midian, 
 keeping  the  flock  of  Jethro,  his  father-in-law,  God  commanded 
 him  to  go  into  Egypt,  'and  gather  the  elders  of  Israel  together,' 
 Ex.  iii.  16.  Before  the  institution  of  the  Passover,  'Moses 
 '  called  for  all  the  elders  of  Israel,  and  said  unto  them,  draw 
 'out  and  take  you  a  lamb,  according  to  your  families,  and  kill 
 'the  passover,'  Ex.  xii.  21 ;  'and  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses, 
 'go  on  before  the  people,  and  take  with  thee  the  elders  of 
 'Israel,  and  the  rod  wherewith  thou  smotest  the  river,  take 
 'in  thine  hand  and  go,'  Ex.  xvii.  5.  'And  Aaron  came,  and 
 '  all  the  elders  of  Israel,  to  eat  bread  with  Moses'  father-in- 
 'law  before  God,'  Ex.  xviii.  12.  There  were  also  'heads  over 
 '  the  people,  rulers  of  thousands,  rulers  of  hundreds,  rulers  of 
 'fifties,  and  rulers  of  tens,'  Ex.  xviii.  25.  There  were  the 
 captains  or  subordinate  commanders  of  Israel,  by  which  the 
 people  were  marshalled,  led,  and  directed  out  of  Egypt,  in 
 order  and  according  to  their  tribes.  There  were  also  princes 
 of  their  tribes.  But  the  titles  of  none  of  them  convey  the 
 same  idea  as  the  expression — 'Our  Fathers' — in  the  passages 
 previously  cited;  and  which  clearly  embrace  the  entire  popu- 
 lation existing  at  some  definite  period  in  the  history  of 
 the  Hebrews. 
 
 The  elders,  as  we  have  seen,  were  occasionally  summoned, 
 exclusively  and  apart  from  the  people,  to  receive  instruction 
 and  direction  from  Moses ;  and  then  to  act  as  chiefs  on  behalf 
 
IMPORT  OF  THE  WOEDS.  49 
 
 of  their  socially  subordinate  brethren.  But  they  were  not 
 summoned  to  be  baptized  for  them ;  nor  to  receive  an  initiatory 
 rite  in  their  own  persons  for  the  multitudes  of  Israel;  any 
 more  than  Abraham  was  called  to  receive  the  sign  and  seal 
 of  circumcision  for  all  his  sons  and  male  domestics ;  nor 
 than  the  ancient  priests  were  commanded  to  undergo  personal 
 purifications  on  behalf  of  others  who  might  have  been  defiled 
 in  their  camp.  Neither  should  it  be  overlooked,  that  if,  by 
 the  term  'Our  Fathers,'  Paul  had  meant  to  say,  that  the 
 elders  or  male  heads  of  the  Hebrew  families  only  were  baptized 
 unto  Moses,  it  might  have  been  very  easily  stated.  Or,  had 
 it  been  the  original  intention  of  Jehovah  to  have  baptized 
 only  the  elders  or  male  heads  of  the  families  of  the  Hebrews, 
 there  existed  no  more  difficulty  in  calling  them  out  from  the 
 rest  of  the  people  in  Egypt  for  that  purpose,  than  for  any 
 other;  or  than  in  afterwards  collecting  them  in  the  wilderness, 
 and  there  administering  this  ceremony  to  them  alone.  Had 
 this  been  done  and  plainly  recorded ;  it  would  have  prevented 
 all  our  assumptions,  respecting  the  Baptism  of  the  masses  of 
 men,  women,  and  children  in  the  sea.  As  the  heads,  elders, 
 and  princes  were  separately  dealt  with  in  other  cases,  so  they 
 might  have  been  in  this.  But  such  was  not  the  fact.  When 
 all  the  people  were  together;  when  they  were  all  regarded 
 and  otherwise  treated  as  one  nation,  or  as  one  united  body  of 
 persons,  or  even  as  one  man;  then  and  there  God  baptized 
 them;  as  if  purposely  and  expressly  to  assure  us,  that  not 
 the  elders,  nor  the  heads  of  families,  nor  the  representatives 
 of  the  people,  only;  but  that  the  whole  of  them — old  and 
 young,  male  and  female — were  at  once  personally,  individually, 
 and  alike,  baptized  unto  Moses. 
 
 SECTION  SECOND.—  The  Children  that  passed  through 
 the  sea  must  have  been  very  numerous. — The  Hebrews  who 
 went  out  of  Egypt,  under  the  guidance  of  Moses,  must  have 
 been  an  exceedingly  great  host.  '  And  the  children  of  Israel 
 'journeyed  from  Barneses  to  Succoth,  about  six  hundred 
 '  thousand  on  foot  that  were  men,  besides  children,'  Ex.  xii.  87 ; 
 and,  though  not  mentioned,  probably  as  many  women  of  full 
 age  as  there  were  men.  It  will  hardly  be  questioned,  that 
 there  were  as  many  children  under  twelve  years  of  age,  as 
 there  were  adults  above  twenty ;  for  such  is  about  the  pro- 
 portion of  the  young  to  the  grown-up  population  of  our  own 
 day.  At  all  events,  we  may  reasonably  reckon  a  million  of 
 little  ones  traversing  the  sea  with  their  parents  and  friends; 
 
 c 
 
50  NUMEROUS  CHILDREN 
 
 half  of  whom  probably  were  carried  in  their  mothers'  arms. 
 That  these  children  were  not  left  behind  in  Egypt  is  obvious, 
 from  the  fact,  that  when  Pharaoh  was  anxious  to  detain  them 
 as  hostages,  to  ensure  the  return  of  the  adults,  after  going 
 into  the  wilderness  to  worship,  and  to  offer  sacrifices  to 
 Jehovah ;  Moses  positively  refused  to  depart  on  such  conditions. 
 'And  Moses  said,  We  will  go  with  our  young,  and  with  our  old, 
 'with  our  sons,  and  with  our  daughters.  And  Pharaoh  said 
 'unto  them,  Let  the  Lord  be  so  with  you,  as  I  will  not  let  you 
 'go  with  your  little  ones;  look  to  it;  for  evil  is  before  you.' 
 But,  subsequently,  '  Pharaoh  called  unto  Moses,  and  said,  Go 
 'ye,  serve  the  Lord ...  let  your  little  ones  also  go  with  you.' 
 Ex.  x.  9,  10,  24:  and  the  little  ones  went — hundreds  of 
 thousands  of  them,  and  were  baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
 sea,  with  their  parents  and  friends.  Probably  a  greater 
 number  of  adults  and  children  were  present,  and  baptized  on 
 that  one  occasion,  than  were  proselyted  and  baptized  by  the 
 apostles  of  Christ  during  the  entire  period  of  their  ministry. 
 
 It  appears  to  me  very  likely,  that  Jehovah  conducted  the 
 entire  Hebrew  nation  through  the  sea,  in  their  way  to  Sinai 
 and  the  Holy  Land,  partly,  at  least,  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing 
 them  to  himself,  or  to  purify  them  from  the  pollutions  contracted, 
 in  their  state  of  bondage  among  the  heathen;  and  thus  sym- 
 bolically setting  them  apart  unto  Moses  as  their  teacher  and 
 king  in  Jeshurun.  Afterwards  we  know,  that  people,  of  no 
 rank,  sex,  or  age,  who  had  been  heathens,  or  had  resided  awhile 
 among  heathens,  could  form  any  part  of  God's  worshipping 
 communion,  without  first  being  washed,  or  undergoing  the 
 rite  of  baptism.  To  effect  this  grand  national  purification  of 
 the  Hebrews,  and  at  the  same  time,  to  punish  their  oppressors 
 and  his  own  enemies,  the  Almighty  led  them  through  the  sea, 
 instead  of  leading  them  in  the  ordinary  route  by  land.  As  the 
 cloud  was  alight  to  Israel  and  a  blind  to  the  Egyptians,  so  the 
 sea  was  rendered  a  purifying  element  to  the  people  of  God,  and 
 one  of  destruction  to  their  oppressors.  By  one  act  God,  in 
 his  wisdom,  frequently  accomplishes  the  most  opposite  results. 
 
 Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  these  vast  numbers  of  children 
 and  infants  baptized  in  the  sea,  were  not  present  by  accident, 
 but  through  a  divine  and  previous  arrangement  and  direction. 
 A  mixed  multitude  of  the  Egyptians  were  in  the  train  or 
 company  of  the  Hebrews,  possibly  from  personal  attachment 
 to  old  friends,  or  through  a  hope  of  escaping  any  future  plagues 
 that  might  befal  their  native  country,  or  through  a  conversion 
 to  the  religion  of  the  Israelites,  and  a  desire  to  obtain  a  share 
 
PASSED  THROUGH  THE  SEA.  51 
 
 of  the  blessings  which  were  apparently  in  store  for  God's 
 chosen  people.  Bnt  unless  previous  proselytes  to  Hebrewism, 
 they  were  present  by  accident,  and  shared  in  the  baptismal 
 rite  apparently  by  chance.  But  the  little  Israelites  formed 
 an  essential  part  of  the  nation,  whose  entire  deliverance  God 
 had  determined  to  effect ;  for  whose  emancipation  he  had 
 wrought  so  many  wonders  in  the  land  of  Ham ;  and  who  were 
 then  to  be  manifestly  taken  under  his  special  protection  and 
 guidance.  "When  Pharaoh  was  disposed  to  let  the  adults  go 
 to  worship  God  in  the  way  to  Canaan,  but  proposed  to  retain 
 the  'little  ones,'  Moses  replied,  that  they  wished  to  hold  a 
 feast  unto  the  Lord,  and  that  their  sons  and  their  daughters 
 must  be  present  to  participate  in  the  solemnity — intimating  that 
 the  service  would  be  incomplete  without  them.    Ex.  x.  9,  10. 
 
 Jehovah  evidently  felt  and  displayed  as  deep  an  interest  in 
 the  unhappy  condition  of  the  infant  Israelites,  as  of  the  adults ; 
 was  as  intent  on  their  liberation  as  on  that  of  their  seniors ; 
 and  was  equally  prepared  to  set  them  apart  unto  Moses,  as  the 
 greatest  and  holiest  of  their  elders.  Indeed,  all  things  con- 
 sidered, from  the  prominent  part  those  children  were  to  play 
 in  after  years,  and  the  honours  many  of  them  were  to  win  and 
 to  wear  under  Joshua,  in  conquering  the  land  of  Canaan — 
 compared  with  the  misconduct,  disgrace,  and  death,  of  most 
 of  their  seniors  in  the  desert — they  were  certainly  the  most 
 important  and  interesting  portion  of  the  Jewish  nation — at 
 least,  in  God's  sight,  which  reached  forward  to  the  entire 
 course  and  conduct  of  every  one  of  them.  Here,  then,  we 
 again  note,  we  have  a  million  of  children  purposely  included 
 in  the  great  gathering  of  the  people  in  the  Red  Sea,  in  order 
 to  be  baptized  unto  Moses — or  rather  to  his  divine  Master. 
 
 Should  it  be  said,  that  if  the  fact  of  the  children  being 
 present  with  their  fathers  in  the  sea,  during  this  great  baptizing, 
 necessitated  their  baptism  also ;  then  all  the  cattle  and  goods 
 pertaining  to  the  Hebrew  people  present,  must  also  have  been 
 baptized.  This  does  not  certainly  follow.  Dogs  and  hogs 
 might  be  in  the  river  or  pool  in  which  an  opponent  is  dipping 
 his  converts ;  but  that  does  not  prove  that  he  must  baptize 
 them  also.  A  person  baptized  in  his  clothes  may  be  formally 
 consecrated  to  the  Lord,  while  our  brethren  would  not  aver 
 that  they  had  baptized  the  white  cloaks  and  black  gowns  of 
 the  subjects.  Still,  that  mere  material  or  inanimate  things 
 might  be  baptized  we  all  know,  from  the  fact,  that  cups  and 
 pots,  brasen  vessels  and  tables,  underwent  such  a  ceremony. 
 We  learn  also,  that  the  tabernacle  and  temple  and  their  utensils 
 
52  NUMEROUS  CHILDREN 
 
 were  sprinkled,  consecrated,  and  purified.  Mr.  Carson  says, 
 'The  baptisms  under  the  law  were  for  ceremonial  purifications.' 
 p.  349.  It  therefore  follows,  that  all  ceremonial  purifications, 
 even  of  inanimate  objects,  were  real  baptisms.  The  baptism 
 of  human  beings,  however,  was  to  a  higher  destiny.  Those 
 consecrated  to  Moses,  according  to  Mr.  Stovel,  'were  called  to 
 '  glorify  the  God  of  their  fathers  either  in  the  blessedness  which 
 'resulted  from  obedience,  or  in  the  punishment  which  was  due 
 'to  their  rebellion.'  The  people,  according  to  Paul,  were  bap- 
 tized unto  Moses  as  their  leader,  teacher,  and  lord.  Of  such 
 a  purpose,  human  beings  only  were  capable.  And  the  elements 
 of  this  capacity  all  human  beings  possess.  However,  if  our 
 opponents  think  that  the  cattle  were  baptized  as  well  as  the 
 women  and  children,  we  shall  have  no  dispute  with  them  on 
 that  point.  What  we  contend  for  is,  that  the  latter  were  really, 
 intentionally,  and  divinely  dedicated  to  God  in  this  rite.  Nor 
 would  the  fact  be  altered  if  every  dog,  camel,  or  ass,  belonging 
 to  the  emancipated  Israelites  and  their  followers  were  bap- 
 tized also. 
 
 Mr.  Owen  having  said,  '  The  children  were  baptized  with 
 'their  parents,  with  the  baptism  of  Moses, — were  baptized 
 '  unto  Moses  in  the  sea  and  in  the  cloud ; '  Mr.  Keach  replied, 
 '  To  which  I  answer,  so  were  many  wicked  men  also ;  all  the 
 'Israelites  were  not  godly  persons,  but  many  of  them  were 
 'profane  and  ungodly  persons.  Besides,  there  was  a  mixed 
 'people  passed  through  the  sea  with  the  fathers  also,  and 
 'others  of  other  nations  and  much  cattle  also;  and  these  were 
 'all  baptized  as  much  as  the  little  children,'  [and  as  the  old 
 men  also.]  'May  we  baptize  such  therefore?  We  have  as 
 'much  ground  from  hence  to  baptize  such,  as  you  have  to 
 'baptize  your  babies,  nay,  more  ground,  if  the  rain  falling 
 '  upon  the  Israelites  was  that  which  baptized  them ;  'tis  a 
 '  question  whether  any  rain  might  fall  on  the  little  babies,  if 
 '  it  fell  on  their  parents ;  for  the  parents  might  cover  them, 
 'by  holding  something  over  their  heads  and  bodies.'  p.  165. 
 But,  as  all  the  Fathers  hardly  walked  naked  and  bare-headed 
 through  the  sea,  being  doubtless  just  as  well  protected  from 
 the  rain  as  many  of  the  little  ones ;  it  would  follow,  that 
 Mr.  Reach's  reasons  for  the  non-baptism  of  the  infants,  in 
 their  mother's  arms,  to  say  nothing  of  the  children  walking 
 by  their  parents'  side,  hold  equally  valid  against  the  Baptism 
 of  many  of  the  fathers  themselves !  But  Paul  says,  they 
 were  all  baptized.  Then,  as  to  'the  many  wicked  men,'  the 
 unregenerated  Hebrews,  and  'the  profane  and  ungodly  persons 
 
BAPTIZED  IN  THE  SEA.  53 
 
 'present.'  That  they  were  baptized,  our  author  seems  not  to 
 question;  but  assumes  that  this  was  no  rule  respecting  the 
 proper  Subjects  of  Baptism  under  the  Gospel.  But  Paul  says 
 it  was.  His  doctrine  evidently  is,  that  all  persons  now  in  a 
 position  and  relationship  analogous  to  that  of  the  Hebrews, 
 when  entering  into  a  new  ecclesiastical  state,  preparatory  to 
 the  reception  of  divine  instruction  and  discipline,  to  qualify 
 them  for  future  obedience  and  happiness,  may  and  should  be 
 baptized  unto  Christ,  as  the  Israelites  were  unto  Moses.  With 
 regard  to  '  the  mixed  people,  and  others  of  other  nations,'  who 
 are  admitted  to  have  been  baptized  with  the  natural-born  Israel- 
 ites; it  is  singular  we  never  expressly  read  of  them  afterward, 
 as  religiously  distinct  from  the  Hebrews  themselves.  Nor  do 
 we  hear  of  their  returning  back  to  their  own  country  again. 
 The  inference  is,  that  they  were  baptized  as  proselytes  to  the 
 true  God,  and  became  incorporated  and  identified  with  his 
 ancient  people,  subject  to  the  same  laws  and  entitled  to  the 
 like  privileges.  And  may  not  proselytism  to  Judaism,  and 
 proselytism,  by  water  baptism,  recognized  by  all  the  Rabbis, 
 and  by  our  leading  opponents  in  this  controversy  also,  find  its 
 origin  in  this  great  Baptizing  act  of  Jehovah  in  the  Red  Sea? 
 And,  further,  as  these  mixed  people  would  bring  their  wives 
 and  children  with  them  in  their  flight  out  of  Egypt,  and  as 
 the  latter  would  necessarily  be  baptized  like  their  husbands 
 and  fathers ;  we  readily  discover  how  it  was,  that  subsequent 
 proselytes  to  God's  religion  brought  their  children  with  them, 
 and  subjected  them  to  the  same  ceremonial  introductions  as 
 themselves.  This  circumstance  is  worthy  of  consideration  in 
 examining  this  great  question.  In  a  word,  if  the  apostle  does 
 not  mean,  that  people  similar  to  the  multitude,  baptized  in  the 
 sea,  might  be  baptized  in  Corinth,  whatever  be  their  character, 
 sex,  or  age,  his  allusion  is  without  consistency,  and  his  object 
 without  a  definite  discoverable  aim ;  and  could  be  of  no  utility 
 in  establishing  the  faith,  and  directing  the  minds,  of  his 
 Corinthian  readers. 
 
 SECTION  THIRD.—  All  the  children  that  passed  through 
 the  sea,  with  their  parents,  were  really,  intentionally ,  and 
 scripturally  baptized. — It  is  unquestionable,  that  the  little 
 ones  were  placed  in  precisely  the  same  position,  in  respect  of 
 the  baptizing  act  and  element,  as  their  fathers  and  mothers. 
 Consequently,  what  was  done  to  the  sires  was  done  to  their 
 sons ;  while  the  women  and  their  female  offspring  shared  in 
 this  rite  precisely  alike.     By  this  one  baptismal  covenant  act, 
 
54  THE  CHILDREN  BAPTIZED 
 
 the  whole  congregation  was  bound  and  benefitted  in  exactly 
 the  same  mode  and  degree.  The  children  could  not  have 
 passed  on  far  in  advance  of  their  parents,  and  most  of  them 
 could  not  have  travelled  even  a  yard  before  them.  It  is  plain, 
 too,  they  were  not  left  behind,  at  any  appreciable  distance, 
 during  their  whole  passage  through  the  deep.  Therefore,  no 
 baptizing  of  their  fathers  and  mothers  or  other  adult  friends 
 could  have  taken  place  without  baptizing  them  also,  and  at 
 the  same  moment.  The  application  of  the  baptizing  element 
 to  the  men  and  women,  and  not  to  the  children  in  their  arms, 
 or  '  on  their  shoulders,'  or  by  their  side,  would  have  required 
 a  miraculous  discrimination  and  an  arrangement  equal  to  the 
 power  which  divided  the  sea,  saved  the  Hebrews,  and  brought 
 destruction  upon  Pharaoh  and  his  host.  But  no  such  mirac- 
 ulous separation  or  discrimination,  on  this  great  baptizing 
 occasion,  is  noticed.  The  reverse  is  affirmed.  The  entire  body 
 of  the  'Jewish  people'  is  mentioned,  as  being  acted  upon,  and 
 covenanted  with,  in  the  like  manner,  and  at  the  same  time. 
 
 In  further  illustration,  remark,  that  when  the  sun  shone 
 upon  the  parents,  its  rays  fell  equally  on  their  families.  When 
 the  pillar  of  fire  gave  light  to  the  adults,  it  also  gave  light  to 
 the  children  and  little  ones.  When  'the  clouds  poured  out 
 'water,  and  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound,'  all  the  congregation 
 was  equally  aspersed,  cooled,  and  refreshed,  with  the  baptismal 
 element,  and  cheered  with  the  awful,  yet  encouraging,  voice  of 
 heaven.  Paul  says  nothing  as  to  the  intention  of  the  Almighty 
 to  baptize  only  a  portion  of  the  Hebrews ;  nor  does  he  affirm, 
 that  only  a  part  of  them  underwent  the  ceremony.  They  were 
 all  alike  dedicated  to  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  If 
 any  doubt  our  doctrine,  let  them  adduce  the  grounds  of  their 
 misgivings.  If  any  deny  it,  let  them  support  their  objections. 
 Mr.  Keach  virtually  admits  it,  though  with  manifest  reluctance. 
 The  only  person  among  our  opponents  who  contends  for  the 
 contrary  notion,  is  Mr.  Rees,  whose  remarks  will  be  noticed 
 shortly.  In  fact,  till  the  construction  we  have  put  on  the 
 language  of  the  apostle  be  clearly  shown  to  be  erroneous,  we 
 shall  conclude  it  to  be  fully  proved  that,  at  the  lowest  calcula- 
 tion, a  million  of  children  and  infants  were  really,  effectually, 
 and  designedly  baptized  unto  Moses  by  God  himself,  in  the 
 Red  Sea.  There  is  no  stronger  proof  that  children  were 
 drowned  in  the  general  deluge,  which  destroyed,  with  the 
 exception  of  one  family,  the  entire  population  of  the  whole 
 earth,  than  that  all  the  Hebrew  infants,  who  came  out  of 
 Egypt,  were  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea.     The  evidence  of  both 
 
EQUALLY  WITH  THEUl  PABENTS.  55 
 
 facts  is  of  the  like  description:  while  the  terms  employed, 
 and  the  circumstances  narrated,  warrant  and  necessitate  this 
 conclusion 
 
 Should  the  question  be  proposed,  as  it  possibly  might  be, 
 whether  it  was  essential  to  the  entire  and  universal  baptism 
 of  the  Hebrew  nation,  that  the  baptizing  element,  whether 
 from  the  clouds  above,  or  from  the  spray  of  the  waters  around, 
 should  come  into  personal  contact  with  every  man,  woman, 
 and  child  in  the  Red  Sea?  I  reply,  we  have  no  evidence 
 showing  that  they  were  not  all  and  individually  sprinkled  by 
 the  purifying  element,  or  that  any  difficulty  obstructed 
 Jehovah's  effecting  it.  But,  still,  this  was  not  ceremonially 
 necessary  for  the  realization  of  Paul's  declaration,  that  'all 
 '  our  fathers  were  baptized.'  In  their  congregated  capacity, 
 the  Hebrews  are  often  spoken  of  as  a  body,  a  person,  a  son, 
 a  daughter,  a  child;  and  in  this  united  capacity  they  were 
 generally  regarded  and  dealt  with  by  their  divine  Master. 
 If  the  baptizing  element  actually  reached  any  part  of  this 
 national  body,  it  would  be  the  actual  baptizing  of  every 
 member  of  it.  What  is  done  to  an  army,  a  nocK,  or  a  lamiiy, 
 though  physically  or  sensibly  affecting  only  a  part,  is  reckoned 
 as  if  done  to  every  individual  in  it.  '  Whether  one  member 
 'suffer,  all  the  members  suffer  with  it,  or  one  member  be 
 'honored,  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it.  As  the  body  is 
 '  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that 
 'one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body.'  1  Cor.  xii.  12,  26. 
 
 In  this  united  capacity  the  Israelites  were  treated  and 
 contemplated  during  the  entire  existence  of  the  Hebrew 
 commonwealth,  and  especially  in  their  Levitical  ceremonies. 
 'Moses  took  the  blood  of  calves  and  goats,  with  water,  and 
 '  scarlet  wool  and  hyssop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book,  and 
 'all  the  people,'  Heb.ix.  19;  that  is,  some  of  them  for  all,  a 
 part  of  the  body  for  the  entire  members.  In  accordance  with 
 this  arrangement,  we  read  of  Moses,  'sprinkling  with  blood 
 'both  the  tabernacle  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry,' 
 Heb.  ix.  21 ;  not  every  board,  socket,  and  ring  in  the  tabernacle, 
 nor  every  vessel,  all  over ;  but  parts  for  the  whole.  In  like 
 manner,  the  priests  or  clean  persons  applied  the  purifying 
 element,  in  the  form  of  sprinkling  a  few  drops  on  the  unclean ; 
 but  never  in  the  manner  of  wetting  them  entirely,  or  in  the 
 shape  of  an  immersion.  This  may  not  seem  so  plenary, 
 imposing,  or  effectual,  an  act  of  cleansing  or  consecrating, 
 as  wetting  or  washing  the  body  all  over.  But  it  was  God's 
 plan,  and,  therefore,  perfect,  and  is  our  only  guide  in  similar 
 
;;6  THE  HEBREW  PEOPLE 
 
 crises.  Possibly  the  partial  application,  or  the  limited  amount, 
 of  the  typical  element  employed  in  purifying  multitudes  of 
 individuals,  is  designed  to  teach  us,  that  such  is  the  saving 
 virtue  of  the  Redeemer's  blood,  that  a  few  drops  can  take 
 away  sin,  and  that  a  very  small  measure  of  the  influence  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit  can  sanctify  unholy  souls. 
 
 Take  a  further  exposition  from  other  actions  about  the  same 
 time  as  the  Baptism  in  the  sea.  When,  a  little  previously, 
 'Aaron  smote'  [a  small  portion  of]  'the  waters  that  were  in 
 '  the  river,'  the  result  was  universal,  or  as  if  he  had  smitten 
 every  drop  of  every  stream  in  the  land  ;  for  all  the  waters 
 were  affected  alike,  and  became  blood.  By  a  similar  limited 
 action,  all  the  waters  of  Egypt  became  swarming  with  frogs 
 which  issued  forth  all  over  the  country.  Again,  'Aaron 
 'smote'  [a  little]  'dust  of  the  earth,  and  all  the  dust  of 
 '  the  land  became  lice  throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt.' 
 Here  you  see  a  partial  act  producing  a  universal  effect;  the 
 application  of  Aaron's  rod  to  a  portion  of  the  elements  operating 
 upon  every  drop  and  atom,  as  though  all  of  them  had  been 
 ^ivugtu  imu  intimate  contact,  with  the  wonder-working  staff 
 of  God's  high  priest.  John  the  Baptist,  in  all  probability, 
 baptized  the  people  en  masse,  as  a  multitude,  a  congregation, 
 or  as  a  body,  gathered  around  him.  This  every  preceding 
 minister  under  the  law  would  have  done  ;  and  he  knew  of  no 
 other  method,  in  similar  circumstances.  Nor  can  one  fairly 
 account  for  John's  baptizing  such  vast  and  'prodigious  multi- 
 '  tudes'  in  so  short  a  time — about  six  months— on  any  other 
 plan.  The  immersion  of  every  one  of  them  personally,  as  a 
 separate  act,  was  perfectly  out  of  the  question. 
 
 The  deduction  from  these  illustration's  is  apparent,  that  if 
 only  some  of  the  Hebrew  men,  women,  and  children,  received 
 the  baptizing  element,  all  of  them  were  virtually  and,  to  all 
 intents  and  purposes,  individually  baptized.  That  all  the  men 
 were  baptized,  will  be  universally  admitted;  and  that  all  the 
 women  were  equally  baptized,  will  also  be  conceded.  But  the 
 objection  as  applied  to  the  children,  would  apply  to  their 
 fathers  and  mothers  equally.  Some  of  the  latter  only  were  as 
 likely  to  have  escaped  a  contact  with  the  baptizing  element  as 
 the  former,  beingequally  exposed  to  its  non-application.  In  fact, 
 if  they  were  baptized  by  the  rain  of  heaven,  as  our  opponents 
 presume  they  were;  to  have  escaped  the  personal  application 
 of  it,  would  have  been  ten  times  more  difficult  than  to  have 
 received  it.  All  were  alike  exposed  to  the  descending  element. 
 None  in  the  open  channel  of  the  sea,  and  in  their  marching 
 
BAPTIZED  AS  ONE  CODY.  57 
 
 order,  could  have  had  more  shelter  than  another.  Indeed, 
 Paul  says,  they  were  all  baptized.  But,  even  had  the  case 
 been,  as  the  objection  supposes,  the  consecration  of  every 
 soul  would  have  been  as  perfect,  as  though  all  had  been  per- 
 sonally purified.  There  would  be  nothing  like  what  might  be 
 termed,  a  baptism  by  proxy,  where  one  would  be  baptized  for 
 another;  and  yet,  had  such  been  the  case,  it  would  not  sustain 
 the  cause  of  the  objectors  to  Infant  Baptism,  as  the  children 
 were  virtually  baptized,  as  truly  as  the  adults;  and  our  oppo- 
 nents never  baptize  substitutes  instead  of  principles,  nor  parents 
 for  their  adult  offspring.  These  observations  constitute  a 
 reply  to  Mr.  Keach's  supposition  that  the  mothers  might 
 have  prevented  their  'little  babies'  from  being  baptized,  'by 
 'holding  something  over  their  heads  and  bodies!' 
 
 SECTION  FOURTH.—  All  the  Israelites  who  ale  of  the 
 manna  and  drank  of  the  water  from  the  rock,  were  certainly 
 baptized  in  the  sea, — provided  they  were  born  at  the  time  of 
 this  national  exodus.  'And  did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual 
 'meat,  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink,  for  they  all 
 '  drank  of  that  spiritual  Rock  that  .followed,  them,  and  that  Rock 
 'was  Christ.'  In  Paul's  exhortation  to  the  Corinthians,  he 
 informs  them,  that  all  the  Hebrews  had  been  baptized  in  the 
 cloud  and  in  the  sea,  the  pious  and  the  profane,  the  subsequent 
 worshippers  of  the  golden  calf,  fornicators,  murmurers,  and 
 sinners  against  Christ;  and  that  all  of  them  had,  in  common, 
 eaten  of  the  bread  and  drank  of  the  water  which  God  had 
 miraculously  provided  for  them.  In  neither  case  does  he 
 make  the  least  exception  of  character,  sex,  or  age.  That  all 
 of  them  were  thus  fed,  we  know  from  the  sacred  narrative ; 
 and  we  are  assured,  that  all  who  were  thus  fed  were  also 
 baptized.  The  eating,  drinking,  and  baptizing,  in  respect  of 
 the  emancipated  Hebrews,  were  equally  extensive;  nor  is  an 
 exception  of  the  infants  made,  or  even  practicable.  Nor  was 
 it  necessary  on  account  of  the  nature  of  the  food  God  supplied, 
 any  more  than  it  was  necessary  because  of  the  nature  and  mode 
 of  the  baptism  he  adopted.  The  manna  and  water  were  as 
 suitable  for  the  sustenance  of  the  children  '  weaned  from  the 
 'breast,'  as  for  the  men  and  women.  On  it  they  lived,  till 
 they  were  forty  years  of  age,  and  safely  located  in  the  fertile 
 land  of  Canaan.  There  was  not  a  babe  carried  through  the 
 sea,  who  was  not  capable  of  receiving  and  digesting  this  bread 
 from  Heaven — this  angels'  food — and  of  drinking  of  this  living 
 water,  soon  after  they  were  provided  for  these  travellers  in  the 
 
 C2 
 
58  ALL  WHO  ATE  THE  MANNA 
 
 wilderness — about  six  weeks  after  their  baptism  in  the  sea. 
 In  a  word,  Paul  evidently  means,  that  all  the  Israelites,  old 
 and  young,  were  fed  with  the  manna,  and  refreshed  with  the 
 water  of  the  rock.  The  history  of  this  singularly  supported 
 people  proves  his  assertion  to  be  true.  They  had  nothing  else 
 for  their  regular  support  during  their  long  and  painful  wan- 
 derings in  the  desert.  The  inference  is,  that  as  all  who  first 
 ate  the  manna,  and  drank  the  water,  were  baptized  in  the  sea; 
 so  the  whole  of  the  Hebrew  tribes,  who  came  out  of  Egypt, 
 and  were  sustained  in  this  gracious  and  wonderful  manner, 
 were,  without  exception,  personally  and  purposely,  consecrated 
 or  discipled  unto  Moses  by  their  Heavenly  Deliverer. 
 
 In  truth,  an  objector  might  as  reasonably  aver,  that  the 
 literal  Fathers  of  the  Hebrew  families  in  the  wilderness  were 
 the  only  persons  who  ate  of  the  manna  and  drank  of  the  rock, 
 because  they  alone  are  expressly  named  ;  as  that  the  same 
 Fathers  only  were  baptized;  since  they  alone  are  specifically 
 mentioned.  The  same  persons  who  lived  on  God's  provision, 
 underwent  God's  baptism.  We  might  as  justly  deny,  that  the 
 children  were  not  fed  with  the  manna  and  water,  as  deny  that 
 they  were  not  consecrated  to  God  in  the  sea.  Or  we  might 
 charge  the  inspired  apostle  with  employing  a  style  of  speech, 
 for  the  information  of  the  Corinthians,  grossly  inconsistent,  and 
 every  way  calculated  to  perplex  and  mislead  his  readers — 
 making  the  term  'Our  Fathers'  to  signify  only  the  heads  of 
 families,  and  every  man,  woman,  and  child,  at  the  same  time, 
 and  in  the  same  sentence ! 
 
 It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  notice,  that  when  Paul  refers 
 the  Corinthians  to  the  manna  and  water  in  the  wilderness,  it  is 
 not  stated  what  gracious  privileges  they  themselves  possessed, 
 corresponding  with  those  their  ancestors  had  enjoyed  under 
 Moses.  Nor  is  a  solution  of  the  case  material  to  our  argument. 
 It  may,  however,  be  remarked,  that  if  the  sacred  writer  had 
 any  particular  Christian  means  in  his  mind,  they  must  have 
 been  such  as  were  adapted  to  both  sexes  and  to  all  ages, 
 capable  of  receiving  them ;  since  the  manna  and  water  were 
 partaken  of  by  all  the  Hebrews  in  their  journey  through  the 
 desert.  Any  privileges,  adapted  only  to  a  certain  class  or  age, 
 would  not  have  corresponded  with  the  universally  administered 
 and  appropriated  food  and  drink  in  the  wilderness.  Religious 
 teaching  or  training  is  the  only  ordinance  and  blessing  thus 
 communicated  indiscriminately  to  the  Corinthian  and  other 
 congregations.  That  Paul  referred  to  this  kind  of  privilege, 
 is  rendered  the  more  probable  from  the  fact,  that  he  compares 
 
WERE  BAPTIZED  IN  THE  SEA.  59 
 
 religious  instruction  to  human  sustenance  in  this  very  epistle. 
 'I  have  fed  you  with  milk  and  not  with  meat;  for  hitherto  ye 
 •  were  not  ahle  to  bear  it ;  neither  yet  now  are  ye  able ;  for 
 'are  ye  not  yet  carnal?  for  whereas  there  is  among  you  envy- 
 'ing  and  strife,  and  divisions.'  chap.  iii.  23.  The  like  idea 
 and  comparison  are  suggested  in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 where  hearing,  and  eating  and  drinking,  are  mentioned  as 
 analogous  operations,   chap.  v.  12-14. 
 
 Observe  further,  the  apostle  places  the  typical  religious 
 significance  of  baptism  in  the  sea,  and  eating  the  manna  and 
 drinking  the  water  from  the  rock,  upon  an  equality.  The 
 manna  was  from  heaven,  and  the  water  was  from  Christ,  and  both 
 wrere  of  a  spiritual  import;  the  one  angels'  food,  and  the  other 
 living  water,  or  the  water  of  life.  The  language  is  highly 
 descriptive  of  the  best  of  religious  privileges.  Baptism  was 
 a  dedication  to  God  and  good  things ;  the  manna  and 
 water  were  the  blessings  obtained  in  consequence  of  it.  Those 
 who  partook  of  the  one  partook  of  the  other.  It  is  also  seen, 
 that  not  only  children  but  unconverted  and  ungodly  men 
 partook  of  both.  And  the  deduction  is,  that  similar  people, 
 under  the  gospel,  might  partake  of  both  also.  If  unrenewed 
 people  were  proper  subjects  for  eating  the  manna  and  drinking 
 the  water,  they  were  equally  so  for  water  baptism  or  purification. 
 And  if  now  unconverted  people  may  enjoy  the  means  of 
 religious  instruction,  they  may  surely  enjoy  the  preliminary 
 rite  which  inducts  to  it.  Both  acts  were  typical,  one  of  mental 
 purification,  the  other  of  mental  edification — of  consecra- 
 tion to  the  cause  of  God,  and  being  trained  up  in  it — of  the 
 influence  of  the  Spirit,  and  of  feeding  on  the  provisions  made 
 for  the  soul,  through  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 SECTION  FIFTH.—  God  subsequently  treated  the  entire 
 Hebrew  nation  as  if  they  had  all  been  consecrated  to  himself 
 by  Baptism. — This  fact  plainly  proves,  that  they  were  all 
 brought  into  the  same  covenant  relationship,  and  placed  under 
 the  like  personal  obligations ;  for  otherwise  his  dealings  with 
 them  would  have  been  materially  different — as  was  apparent 
 in  respect  of  themselves  and  the  unconsecrated  Gentiles.  We 
 never  read  of  Israelitish  females  being  without  the  pale  of 
 the  divine  protection  and  its  special  benevolence;  although 
 it  is  not  recorded,  that  they  were  consecrated  unto  Moses  in 
 the  sea,  in  common  with  their  fathers,  brothers,  and  husbands. 
 Nor  were  they,  when  transgressing,  exempted  from  the 
 punishments  inflicted  on  adult  offenders,  on  the  ground  that 
 
CO  THE  ENTIRE  NATION 
 
 they  had  broken  no  baptismal  covenant.  The  like  may  also 
 be  affirmed  respecting  the  infants  and  children.  They  enjoyed 
 all  the  covenanted  blessings  of  the  baptized  equally  with 
 their  seniors,  till  any  of  them  sinned  and  involved  themselves 
 in  the  evils  incurred  by  violating  their  initiatory  obligations 
 to  love  and  serve  God,  as  some  of  them  ultimately  did.  The 
 case  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and,  of  the  two  latter, 
 '  their  wives  and  their  sons  and  their  little  children,'  is 
 strikingly  to  the  point.  Num.  xvi.  17,  30.  So  in  all  the 
 national,  social,  and  family  blessings  of  the  Hebrews,  as  well 
 as  in  the  plagues,  famines  and  disastrous  wars,  old  and  young 
 were  benefitted  or  chastened  in  common.  The  fact  is  too  mani- 
 fest and  indisputable  to  need  confirmation.  The  treatment  which 
 the  women  and  children  met  with  during  the  personal  adminis- 
 tration of  Moses  fully  evince  that,  equally  with  the  men,  they 
 were  included  in  what  Mr.  Stovel  designates  the  'Covenant'  of 
 the  Red  Sea.  That  the  obligations  and  blessings  of  this  covenant 
 were  great  and  numerous,  the  punishments  inflicted  on  those  who 
 wilfully  violated  its  claims,  render  unquestionable. 
 
 Mr.  Noel's  views  accord  with  those  of  Mr.  Stovel — to  be  more 
 fully  cited  in  the  sequel — and  show  that  infants  may  be  in- 
 cluded in  a  covenant  equally  with  their  parents,  and  that 
 unholy  persons  may  be  bound  by  it,  the  same  as  the  righteous. 
 '  This  covenant  was  made  with  the  whole  nation.  God  required 
 'Israel  to  obey  him,  and  if  they  revolted  against  him,  they 
 'would  be  condemned  and  punished;  but  they  would  be 
 'punished  as  a. covenanted  people.  The  covenant  required 
 '  them  to  be  holy ;  but  it  was  made  with  them  all,  holy  or 
 'unholy,  as  the  children  of  Abraham.  When  holy,  they  kept 
 'the  covenant,  and  were  blessed.  When  unholy,  they  broke 
 'his  covenant,  and  were  punished;  but  holy  or  unholy,  they 
 'were  within  the  covenant.'  Subj.  p.  150.  Mr.  Keach  also 
 says,  '  God  called  the  house  of  Israel  holy,  because  he  separated 
 'them  to  himself,  both  parents  and  children,  in  a  legal  church 
 '  state,  whether  the  parents  were  believers,  or  faithful  persons, 
 'or  real  saints,  or  not.'  p.  114.  How  God  visibly  separated 
 the  whole  house  of  Israel  to  himself,  if  not  by  circumcision 
 and  baptism,  our  opponents  will  have  the  goodness  to  inform 
 us.  It  is  also  admitted,  that  unholy  people  and  children 
 may  be  members  of  God's  church — call  it  legal,  if  you  please; 
 but  God  had  a  church  of  old,  and  such  persons  were  in  it — 
 or,  more  correctly,  they  were  in  God's  Ecclcsia  or  Congregation 
 of  consecrated  Hebrews — as  they  were  in  the  first  age  of  the 
 gospel  dispensation. 
 
TEEATED  AS  ALIKE  BAPTIZED.  01 
 
 I  may  here  advert  to  a  statement  made  by  Mr.  Rees  in 
 reply  to  Mr.  Walker.  The  latter  having  briefly  advocated  the 
 application  of  Paul's  allusion  to  the  baptism  in  the  sea,  in 
 accordance  with  the  views  I  have  previously  advocated ;  the 
 former  makes  the  following  rejoinder.  As  this  contains  the 
 only  open  and  explicit  denial  of  the  fact,  that  the  children  were 
 baptized  unto  Moses  with  their  parents,  I  shall  give  his 
 argument  at  large.  He  says,  Mr.  Walker  '  lays  the  whole  stress 
 'upon  the  apostles  making  the  infants  to  be  the  Fathers 
 'spoken  of  here.  (I  Cor.  x.  1,  2.)  Whereas  there  is  no 
 'ground  to  believe  that  St.  Paul  had  any  infants  in  his 
 '  intention.  For  he  applies  his  idea,  if  we  may  judge  from 
 'his  words,  to  fathers  and  heads  of  families  passing  through 
 'the  sea;  and  there  is  no  notice  taken  of  infants  in  the  least. 
 'And  the  following  context  makes  it  necessary  to  understand 
 '  the  apostle  as  speaking  of  fathers,  heads  of  families,  and  adult 
 1  persons.    For  there  are  actions  ascribed  to  them  which  are 
 
 *  utterly  inconsistent  with  infancy,  and  denote  them  to  be  adult 
 
 *  persons  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt.  As  particularly  their 
 'lusting  and  murmuring  in  a  sinful  manner  against  God  and  his 
 'providence.      Compare  the  passage  with  Ex.  xvi.    1,   2,  3. 
 
 *  "  And  all  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel  came  unto 
 'the  wilderness  of  Sin,  which  is  between  Elim  and  Sinai,  on 
 '  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  second  month,  after  their  departure 
 'out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.  And  the  whole  congregation  of 
 'the  children  of  Israel  murmured  against  Moses  and  Aaron 
 {in  the  wilderness.  And  the  children  of  Israel  said  unto 
 'them,  would  to  God  that  we  had  died  by  the  hand  of  the 
 '  Lord  in  the  land  of  Egypt  when  we  sat  by  the  flesh-pots, 
 'and  when  we  did  eat  bread  to  the  full."  And  in  the  17  chap, 
 'v.  3.  "The  people  murmured  against  Moses,  and  said, 
 'wherefore  is  this  that  thou  has  brought  us  up  out  of  Egypt  to 
 '  kill  us  and  our  children,  &c."  Mr.  W.  would  have  us  believe 
 '  that  these  were  the  infants  who,  but  a  few  weeks  before,  were 
 'in  their  parents'  arms  in  the  Red  Sea;  whereas  the  text  says, 
 '  they  had  long  before  sat  down  by  the  flesh-pots  in  Egypt,  and 
 ^even  that  they  had  children  of  their  own.'  p.  81,  82. 
 
 That  this  representation  of  Mr.  Rees  is  destitute  of  the  least 
 validity  against  the  views  of  Mr.  Walker,  I  think  the  preceding 
 remarks  have  rendered  manifest.  And  did  not  the  above 
 quotation  contain  the  only  specious  argument  I  have  met  with, 
 at  variance  with  the  conclusion  drawn  from  the  language  of 
 Paul ;  and  were  it  not  certain,  that  the  opponents  of  Infant 
 jBaptism  are  ever  ready  to  avail  themselves  of  the  slightest 
 
62  MR.  REES'  OBJECTION 
 
 excuse  for  their  hostility  to  it,  the  whole  might  be  passed  over 
 in  silence.  Let  it  be  noted,  that  the  entire  force  of  Mr.  Rees' 
 argument  rests  on  the  meaning  he  puts  on  the  words,  'The 
 'whole  congregation,'  (Ex.  xvi.  2),  as  if  there  it  necessarily 
 included  every  individual  in  the  congregation  of  Israel — men, 
 women,  and  children.  If  it  does  not,  in  all  connexions  and 
 under  all  conditions,  comprehend  every  person  of  every  age, 
 his  inferences  will  be  found  to  be  gratuitous  and  invalid. 
 The  terms  'Children  of  Israel,'  and  'The  People,'  are  con- 
 fessedly indefinite,  admitting  almost  any  number  of  exceptions 
 among  the  murmurers  in  the  wilderness.  When  it  is  said 
 'The  whole  congregation  came  into  the  wilderness  of  Sin,' 
 we  must  understand  it  as  comprehending  the  entire  people. 
 This  we  gather  from  the  connexion  in  which  the  language 
 is  found.  But  when  it  is  said  'The  whole  congregation 
 '  murmured,'  we  know  that  only  a  part  of  the  people  are  intended 
 by  this  expression ;  for  the  connexion  assures  us,  that  only  a 
 part  of  even  the  adults  complained  of  Moses  and  Aaron;  and 
 that  the  children  were  guiltless  in  this  case,  not  only  reason, 
 but  also  inspiration  assures  us.  'With  many  of  them  God 
 'was  not  well  pleased ...  Neither  murmur  as  some  of  them 
 'murmured.'  It  is,  therefore,  certain  that  every  one  in  the 
 congregation  did  not;  and  that  Moses  did  not  mean  to  tell  us 
 they  did — he  using  the  expression  in  a  limited  sense. 
 
 That  the  sacred  historian  meant,  that  only  a  part  of  the 
 people  rebelled  and  murmured,  we  learn  from  his  own  words. 
 'And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  Aaron,  saying,  How 
 'long  shall  I  bear  with  this  evil  congregation,  which  murmur 
 'against  me?  I  have  heard  the  murmurings  of  the  children  of 
 'Israel,  which  they  murmur  against  me.  Say  unto  them,  as 
 '  truly  as  I  live,  saith  the  Lord,  as  ye  have  spoken  in  mine  ears, 
 '  so  will  I  do  to  you ;  your  carcases  shall  fall  in  the  wilderness ; 
 'and  all  that  were  numbered  of  you,  according  to  your  whole 
 'number,  from  twenty  years  old  and  upward,  save  Caleb  the  son 
 '  of  Jephunneh,  and  Joshua  the  son  of  Nun.  But  your  little  ones, 
 'which  ye  said,  should  be  a  prey,  them  will  I  bring  in,  and  they 
 '  shall  know  the  land  which  ye  have  despised.  But  as  for  you, 
 'your  carcases,  they  shall  fall  in  the  wilderness.'  Num.  xiv. 
 26-32.  Here  the  divine  speaker  fully  explains  the  import  of  the 
 expressions,  '  this  evil  congregation — the  children  of  Israel — 
 'and  the  whole  congregation;'  and  clearly  shows,  that  the 
 little  ones  were  not  included  in  them,  when  alluding  to  the 
 sins  and  murmurings  of  the  people.  On  this  point  there  can 
 be  no  mistake.     But  can  this  be  said  of  the  language  of  the 
 
SHOWN  TO  BE  GROUNDLESS.  G3 
 
 apostle,  or  is  there  any  subsequent  expression  to  indicate  that 
 by  the  words,  'Our  Fathers,'  the  entire  people,  of  both  sexes 
 and  of  all  ages,  were  not  intended:  or  was  there  any  circum- 
 stance connected  with  the  baptism  in  the  sea,  that  admitted 
 or  necessitated  the  exception  of  the  children,  or  of  any  who 
 were  passing  through  it? 
 
 That  the  whole  Hebrew  nation,  without  exception,  went 
 through  the  sea,  and  were  baptized  in  it,  we  learn,  not  so  much 
 from  the  term — 'All  Our  Fathers' — employed  by  the  Apostle, 
 as  from  the  fact,  that  they  were  all  personally,  purposely,  and 
 individually,  present  and  together,  when  this  baptism  was 
 administered.  Every  person,  young  and  old,  was  capable  of 
 being  affused  or  sprinkled  with  the  baptizing  element.  There 
 was  no  more  moral  or  natural  difficulty  in  the  case  of  any  one 
 of  them,  than  in  the  rest.  But  in  the  instance  of  the  mur- 
 muring, there  were  both.  The  obedient  adults  would  not 
 murmur,  and  the  little  ones  could  not.  In  this  reasonable  sense 
 God's  word  is  to  be  interpreted.  When  it  is  said,  'The 
 1  children  of  Israel  ivalked  upon  dry  land  in  the  midst  of  the 
 'sea;'  Ex.  xiv.  29;  we  know  that  infants  and  young  children 
 did  not  literally  travel  on  foot  on  the  occasion,  because  they 
 were  unable.  But  when  it  is  added,  'The  Lord  saved  Israel 
 "'that  day  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Egyptians,'  v.  30;  we  are 
 certain  that  the  children  were  meant  as  well  as  their  parents. 
 Many  illustrations  might  be  given.  'The  people  of  Nineveh 
 'believed  God,  and  proclaimed  a  fast,  and  put  on  sackcloth, 
 ^from  the  greatest  of  them  to  the  least  of  them.'  Jonah,  iii.  5. 
 In  this  case  adults  only-  were  meant.  But  when  it  is  said, 
 'God  spared  Nineveh,  that  great  city,  wherein  were  more  than 
 'six-score  thousand  persons  that  could  not  discern  between 
 'the  right  hand  and  the  left,'  ch.  iv.  11 :  it  is  unquestionable, 
 that  infants  were  included  among  the  people  of  Nineveh. 
 Mr.  Keach,  who  admits,  that  all  the  children  that  passed 
 through  the  sea  were  baptized,  as  we  have  previously  seen, 
 says,  'I  have  shown  that,  according  to  scripture  rhetoric, 
 'frequently  by  a  synechdoche,  a  part  is  put  for  the  whole,  and 
 •'•sometimes  a  far  lesser  part  also.'  p.  186. 
 
 In  the  words  of  the  apostle,  'The  Fathers,'  who  were 
 baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  are  said  to  have  eaten 
 the  manna  and  drank  of  the  water  from  the  rock ;  now  Mr.  Rees 
 might,  with  equal  consistency,  have  argued,  that  the  then' 
 existing  'fathers,  heads  of  families,  and  adult  persons,'  only 
 participated  in  these  provisions.  He  might  have  reasoned, 
 'there  is  no  more  ground  for  believing  that  Paul  had  any 
 
04  THE  HEBREW  CHILDREN 
 
 '  infants  in  his  intention,'  when  speaking  of  the  food  in  the 
 wilderness  than  when  referring  to  the  purification  in  the  sea. 
 'For  he  applies  his  ideas,  if  we  may  judge,  from  his  words, 
 '  to  fathers  and  heads  of  families ....  There  are  actions  ascribed 
 'to  them  which  are  utterly  inconsistent  with  infancy,  and 
 'denote  them  to  be  adult  persons,  when  they  came  out  of 
 'Egypt,  as  particularly  their  lusting  and  murmuring  in  a 
 'sinful  manner  against  God  and  his  providence,  &c.'  Where- 
 fore, we  are  to  conclude  'That,  because  the  whole  congregation 
 'murmured  against  Moses  and  Aaron,  and  wished  to  return  to 
 '  the  flesh-pots  of  Egypt,  the  apostle  could  not  have  included 
 ' infants  and  children  in  the  expression,  "Our  Fathers,"  when 
 'speaking  of  their  partaking  of  the  bread  and  water  mercifully 
 ' provided  for  all  the  people.  If  the  term  "Our  Fathers" 
 'did  not  include  the  children  among  the  murmurers  in  the 
 'whole  congregation;  it  could  not  include  them  among  the 
 'whole  congregation  that  ate  of  the  manna  and  drank  of  the 
 'water  of  the  rock.'  But,  the  persons  who  partook  of  this 
 sustenance  were  identical  with  those  who  were  baptized ;  and 
 as  all  were  fed,  so  all  were  purified — and  are  designated 
 'All  our  Fathers,'  by  the  apostle  in  the  very  same  verse  of 
 his  epistle — and  he  had  them  as  much  in  his  mind  when 
 referring  to  them  in  the  sea,  as  when  feeding  on  the  food  of 
 heaven.  Thus  much  for  Mr.  Rees'  reasoning  on  this  point. 
 The  fallacy  of  his  conclusion  is  apparent.  In  truth  he  appears 
 to  have  no  great  confidence  in  it  himself;  for  instead  of 
 asserting,  that  children  were  not  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea,  he 
 merely  insinuates  they  were  not,  offering  the  suggestion  in 
 support  of  his  notion  rather  with  the  hope  of  satisfying 
 superficial  observers,  than  of  convincing  such  as  were  likely  to 
 examine  its  validity. 
 
 SECTION  SIXTH.—  Children  usually,  if  not  always, 
 constituted  an  essential  portion  of  the  religious  conventions  of 
 the  Hebrews. — This  fact  forms  a  strong  presumptive  evidence 
 in  favour  of  our  doctrine,  that  infants  were  really  arid  inten- 
 tionally comprehended  in  the  term,  'Our  Fathers,'  said  to 
 have  been  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea.  It  is  not  probable  that 
 their  presence  would  have  been  required  in  these  religious 
 gatherings,  or  that  they  would  have  been  made  parties  to  the 
 important  affairs  transacted  in  them,  had  they  not  been  com- 
 prehended in  the  preceding  national  baptism,  or  the  ceremonial 
 act  of  a  national  consecration  to  God.  They  were  equally 
 interested  in  this  initiatory  rite  as  in  the  subsequent  religious 
 
JOINED  IX  BELIGIOUS  CONVENTION'S.  C)5 
 
 assemblies;  and  they  were  as  capable  of  being  baptized  as  of 
 being  made  parties  to  the  covenants  which  God  afterwards 
 established  with  his  chosen  people.  These  congregations 
 were  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  the  divine  commands,  as  at 
 Sinai,  or  to  renew  their  covenant  vows,  as  when,  at  length,  they 
 stood  near  the  Jordan.  That  little  children  were  present,  and 
 as  far  as  practicable,  participated  in  these  solemn  transactions, 
 and  thereby  became  bound  to  obedience  in  coming  years,  as 
 much  as  the  adult  members  of  these  vast  conventions,  may  be^ 
 fully  evinced  by  a  few  citations  from  the  sacred  narrative. 
 
 'Ye  stand  this  day,  all  of  you,  before  the  Lord  your  God; 
 'your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders  and  your  officers, 
 'with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  Utile  ones,  your  wives,  and 
 'the  stranger'  [or  proselyte]  'that  is  in  the  camp,  from  the 
 '  hewer  of  thy  wood  unto  the  drawer  of  thy  water,  that  thou 
 'shouldest  enter  into  covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God.' 
 Deut.  xxix.  10,  1 1.  '  Gather  the  people  together,  men,  women, 
 'and  children,  and  the  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates,  that 
 '  they  may  hear,  and  that  they  may  learn,  and  fear  the  Lord  thy 
 '  God,  and  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of  this  lawy'  De"t.  xxxi.  12. 
 'Thci'G  u"as  not  a  word  that  Moses  commanded,  which  Joshua 
 '  did  not  read  before  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  with  the 
 '  women  and  little  ones,  and  the  strangers  that  were  conversant 
 'among  them.'  Joshua  viii.  35.  In  the  days  of  Jehoshaphat, 
 when  the  divine  protection  was  to  be  publicly  implored  against 
 the  power  of  Moab  and  Aramon,  'All  Judah  stood  before  the 
 'Lord,  with  their  wives  and  their  children.'  2  Chron.  xx.  13. 
 '  And  when  Ezra  had  prayed,  f.nd  when  he  had  confessed, 
 '  weeping  and  casting  himself  down  before  the  house  of  God, 
 'there  assembled  unto  him  out  of  Israel,  a  very  great  congre- 
 'gation,  of  men,  and  women,  and  children,  for  the  people  wept 
 'very  sore.'  Ezra  x.  1.  Thus  the  children,  being  present, 
 most  probably  in  all  the  great  religious  assemblies  of  the 
 Israelites,  and  being  often  expressly  mentioned;  we  may 
 reasonably  infer,  that  they  were  regarded  as  an  integral  and 
 essential  part  of  'the  church  in  the  wilderness;'  equally  with 
 their  fathers  and  mothers — were  entitled  to  participate  in  all 
 the  general  benedictions  and  benefactions  conferred  on  God's 
 chosen  seed;  and  became  subject  to  the  laws  and  regulations 
 by  which  their  seniors  were  to  be  ruled  and  governed.  Hence, 
 we  further  infer,  that  they  were  not  only  present  with  their 
 parents  in  the  Red  Sea,  but  were  also  and  ecrually  baptized  or 
 discipled  with  them  unto  Moses. 
 
 Not  only  were  the  children  of  the  Hebrews  summoned  to 
 
66  CHILDREN,  CEREMONIALLY  PURIFIED  ; 
 
 form  a  part  of  the  great  religious  congregations  of  the  people, 
 but  tliey  always  constituted  an  integral  portion  of  them.  As 
 far  as  they  were  capable,  they  were  subject  to  all  the  distin- 
 guishing Mosaic  laws  and  ordinances.  That  they  were  liable 
 to  ceremonial  pollutions,  no  one  will  question.  It  is  nowhere 
 said  they  were  exempted  from  such  uncleanness,  till  they 
 had  arrived  at  a  certain  advanced  age,  or  till,  what  we  call, 
 the  time  of  manhood.  With  the  utmost  parental  care,  few 
 young  ones  would  pass  a  very  long  period  without  requiring 
 some  ritual  sanctification.  '  In  the  Mosaic  laws,  those  persons 
 'were  termed  unclean  whom  others  were  obliged  to  avoid 
 '  touching,  or  even  meeting,  unless  they  chose  to  be  themselves 
 'defiled ;  that  is,  cut  off  from  all  intercourse  with  their  brethren ; 
 'and  who  besides  were  bound  to  abstain  from  frequenting  the 
 'places  where  divine  service,  and  the  offering  feasts  were  held, 
 'under  penalties  still  more  severe.' — Home,  Intro,  pt.  3, 
 bk.  4,  chap.  5.  'Eleven  different  species  of  impurity  are 
 'enumerated  in  the  Levitical  law,  to  which  the  later  Jews  added 
 'many  others.' — lb.  One  may  readily  conceive,  how  frequently 
 the  volatile  little  folks  would  subject  themselves  to  such  a 
 defilement,  and  how  often  they  must  have  been  the  subjects  of 
 ritual  purification.  If  we  suppose,  that  in  the  wilderness, 
 and  in  the  Holy  Land,  not  a  single  day  passed  without  such  a 
 ceremony  being  performed  on  a  dozen  little  people,  we  shall 
 surely  not  be  charged  with  exaggeration — though  from  the 
 giving  of  the  law  till  the  time  of  John,  not  a  single  instance 
 is  recorded,  in  which  a  child  is  said  to  have  been  polluted,  or 
 been  subject  to  a  formal  ritual  cleansing  on  account  of  it. 
 Indeed,  it  must  have  been  a  matter  of  such  ordinary  occur- 
 rence and  have  excited  such  little  notice,  as  never  to  have 
 induced  a  record  in  the  annals  of  the  nation.  This  assumption 
 is  corroborated  by  the  fact,  that  the  account  of  individual 
 purification  of  persons  of  riper  age,  though  necessarily  of 
 daily  and  even  hourly  occurrence,  is  scarcely  ever  mentioned, 
 from  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  till  the  end  of  the  Hebrew 
 polity,  a  period  of  fifteen  hundred  years.  And.  had  the 
 Jewish  theocracy  continued  to  this  day,  with  all  its  ceremonial 
 laws  and  operations  still  in  force;  it  is  highly  probable,  that 
 washing  for  uncleanness,  or  for  proselytism,  in  the  ordinary 
 way,  would  have  found  no  place  in  the  written  accounts,  or  the 
 general  history  of  that  people.  Like  eating,  drinking,  and 
 dressing,  it  would  have  been  too  common  for  especial  record 
 —  save  under  some  extraordinary  circumstances. 
 
 Here,  by  the  way,   it  is  worthy  of  notice,   that  intimations 
 
BROUGHT  TO  CHRISTIAN  ASSEMBLIES.  67 
 
 are  not  wanting,  in  the  New  Testament  narratives,  warranting 
 the  conclusion,  that  in  the  days  of  John,  of  Christ,  and  of  his 
 apostles,  parents  were  also  accustomed  to  take  their  children 
 with  them,  whenever  practicahle,  to  religious  meetings,  espe- 
 cially to  all  the  large  gatherings  of  the  people  for  the  service 
 or  worship  of  God;  or  to  obtain  instruction  and  divers 
 blessings  from  his  inspired  and  appointed  servants.  A  multi- 
 tude of  Jews,  out  of  different  cities,  followed  Christ  on  foot, 
 into  a  desert  place,  and  remained  with  him  till  the  evening ; 
 when,  out  of  compassion,  he  miraculously  fed  them  all  with 
 five  loaves  and  two  fishes.  '  And  they  that  had  eaten  were  about 
 1  five  thousand,  besides  women  and  cluldren.,  Matt.  xiv.  15-21. 
 On  another  occasion,  the  multitude  continued  in  attendance  on 
 the  ministry  of  Christ  three  days.  These  he  fed  with  seven 
 loaves  and  a  few  fishes;  'and  they  that  did  eat  were  four 
 'thousand  men,  besides  women  and  children.'  Matt.  xv.  32-38. 
 We,  therefore,  conclude,  that  when  all  the  'inhabitants  of 
 'Jerusalem,  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,' 
 repaired  to  the  preaching  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  probably 
 remained  with  him  several  days  successively,  they  took  their 
 children  with  them,  and  had  them  baptized  by  the  forerunner 
 of  the  Messiah,  as  their  infant  ancestors  had  been  in  the  Red 
 Sea.  The  baptizing  spot  on  the  Jordan  is  about  fifteen  miles 
 from  Jerusalem — a  full  day's  journey  for  good  travellers  on 
 foot  in  that  country,  and  more  for  the  aged  and  infirm — even 
 if  unencumbered  with  children  and  provisions.  Such  as  came 
 from  more  distant  parts  must  have  been  much  longer  on  the 
 road.  Three  or  four  days  would  be  the  least  time  that  could 
 have  been  occupied  by  a  visit  to  the  Baptist  for  instruction 
 and  baptism.  If  we  set  down  a  week  as  their  average 
 absence  from  home,  we  shall  probably  approach  near  to  the 
 truth.  That  the  parents,  and  especially  those  of  the  poorer 
 classes,  left  their  little  infant  children  at  home  all  this  time, 
 is  very  improbable. 
 
 When  the  people,  brought  young  children  to  Christ  that  he 
 should  touch  or  put  his  hand  on  them  and  pray ;  (Matt.  xix.  13 ; 
 Markx.  13),  we  read  in  this  act  indications  of  a  prior  habit 
 of  pious  parents,  who  were  accustomed  to  take  their  little 
 ones  to  the  tabernacle  or  temple,  to  devote  them  to  God,  or 
 to  obtain  his  divine  blessing.  Such  a  practice,  moreover,  is 
 said  to  be  common  among  the  Jews  even  in  the  present  day. 
 Hebrew  parents  are  accustomed  to  take  their  children  to  the 
 priest,  during  the  service  of  the  synagogue,  that  he  may  put 
 his  hand  on  their  heads  and  pronounce  or  implore  a  blessing 
 
68  OBJECTS  OF  DEEP  INTEREST 
 
 on  them.  And  may  it  not  be  reasonably  concluded,  that  the 
 Saviour's  imposition  of  hands  on  the  heads  of  those  little 
 ones,  accompanied  with  bis  sacred  benediction,  was  the  token, 
 if  not  the  act,  of  conferring  on  them  the  Holy  Ghost? — which, 
 if  the  latter,  would  be  a  vastly  greater  favour  than  simply 
 baptizing  them  with  water.  We  are  informed,  that  the 
 apostles  conveyed  tbe  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  people 
 by  a  similar  laying  of  hands  upon  them.  Acts  viii.  15  ;  xix.  6. 
 The  disciples  who,  on  a  particular  occasion,  forbade  the 
 parents  to  bring  their  little  ones  to  Christ,  did  not  adduce 
 the  very  common  and  frivolous  objection  of  our  opponents, 
 that  it  could  do  the  children  no  good,  because  they  were  too 
 young  to  understand  the  nature  or  design  of  such  a  manual 
 imposition  or  divine  benediction.  They  probably  thought  it 
 would  interrupt  the  Saviour  in  his  present  engagements,  and 
 so  repulsed  the  parents ;  just  as  the  two  blind  men  near 
 Jericho  were  bidden  to  desist  from  crying  out  to  the  Son  of 
 David,  lest  they  should  trouble  the  Master  or  arrest  his 
 progress. 
 
 The  children  crying  in  the  temple,  and  saying,  '  Hosanna  to 
 '  the  Son  of  David,'  (Matt.  xxi.  15),  intimates  their  accustomed, 
 presence  in  the  house  of  God,  and  their  association  with  its 
 pleasing  solemnities.  That  these  were  young  children  is 
 plainly  intimated  from  our  Lord's  replying  to  certain  chief 
 priests  and  scribes,  who  were  sorely  displeased  at  this  volun- 
 tary expression  of  juvenile  adoration;  'Have  ye  never  read 
 '(Ps.  viii.  2),  out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings,  thou 
 'hast  perfected  praise?'  v.  1G.  It  is  presumable,  that  in  the 
 great  congregations  of  the  Hebrews,  gathered  to  hear  the 
 apostles  of  Christ,  especially  if  become  favorable  to  the 
 doctrines  propounded  by  them;  they,  after  the  manner  of  their 
 ancestors,  brought  their  little  ones  with  them,  to  participate 
 in  the  religious  rites  of  which  they  themselves  were  the 
 subjects,  and  especially  in  that  of  Baptism,  as  the  first  and 
 most  symbolically  instructive.  Indeed,  if  all  the  adults 
 went  to  hear  the  harbinger  of  Christ,  and,  as  previously 
 noted,  remained  from  home  a  considerable  time,  who  were  to 
 take  care  of  the  little  children  during  their  absence  ?  Even 
 had  not  the  young  been  baptized  with  their  parents,  they 
 would  certainly  have  been  present  with  them  at  the  Jordan, 
 Enon,  and  elsewhere,  when  attending  the  preaching  of  John. 
 The  like  may  be  assumed  in  reference  to  the  great  multitudes 
 that  followed  Christ  himself  and  his  apostles.  The  protracted 
 absence  of  parents,  especially  of  the  humbler  classes,  to  hear  the 
 
TO  CHRIST  AND  HIS  PEOPLE.  69 
 
 preaching  of  the  gospel,  necessitated  their  taking  the  little 
 ones  with  them.  And  yet,  for  the  children  to  he  present  with 
 their  parents,  and  not  to  he  baptized  with  them,  would  have 
 been  regarded  as  a  very  strange  affair  to  the  descendants  of 
 the  ancient  Hebrews,  who  were  altogether,  old  and  young, 
 baptized  in  the  Red  Sea.  'I  do  not  believe,'  says  Dr.  Lightfoot, 
 'the  people  that  flocked  to  John's  Baptism,  were  so  forgetful 
 '  of  the  manner  and  custom  of  the  nation  as  not  to  bring 
 'their  children  with  them  to  be  baptized.' — A  remark  or  two 
 here,  illustrative  of  our  sentiments  on  this  head,  though  not 
 directly  confirmative  of  our  immediate  proposition,  may  be 
 admissible,  and  to  some  persons  beneficially  instructive. 
 
 Eemai'k  (1.)  While  perusing  the  Word  of  God,  you  can 
 but  have  noticed  the  very  deep  interest  which  Christ,  his 
 ministers,  and  his  friends  have  ever  taken  in  the  moral  and 
 spiritual  well-being  of  children. — This  leads  us  to  the  con- 
 clusion, that  if  baptism  involved  any  covenant  blessings,  of 
 which  the  little  ones  were  capable  of  partaking — and  this  we 
 know  to  be  the  fact — they  would  surely  be  baptized,  even  as 
 infants  were  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  as  the  infant  seed 
 of  Abraham  were  circumcised  and  taught  for  their  future 
 benefit.  They  are  declared  to  be  'the  heritage' — or  the 
 special  possession  'of  the  Lord.'  They  were  to  be  'trained  up 
 'in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord — in  the  way  in 
 'which  they  should  go.'  The  word  which  God  spake  to  the 
 Hebrews,  he  commanded  all  parents  to  'teach  diligently  to 
 '  their  children,  when  sitting  in  the  house,  when  walking  by 
 'the  way,  when  lying  down,  and  when  rising  up.'  They  are 
 'The  lambs'  which  the  Good  Shepherd  'gathers  in  his  arms 
 '  and  carries  in  his  bosom ; '  on  whose  heads  the  Saviour  placed 
 his  hands  and  pronounced  a  blessing;  and  whom  he  declared 
 to  be  patterns  to  his  disciples  of  teachableness  and  humility. 
 Of  such,  he  assured  his  audience,  were  '  the  kingdom  of 
 'heaven' — and  all  this  every  man  believes,  who  does  not,  in 
 purpose,  send  them  to  perdition. 
 
 So,  like  their  divine  Master,  holy  men  and  women,  in  every 
 age  and  clime,  have  felt  the  deepest  concern  for  the  spiritual 
 conservation  and  growing  welfare  of  children;  and  have 
 laboured  to  promote  their  piety  and  eternal  salvation.  We, 
 therefore,  repeat  the  assumption,  that  if  the  baptism  of  infants 
 can  confer  any  religious  benefit  on  them,  as  it  certainly 
 does,  our  benevolent  and  child-loving  Father  in  heaven  would 
 not  now  withhold  it  from  them,  any  more  than  from  the 
 children   and   infants   that   originally    came    out    of   Egypt. 
 
70  INCLUDED  LX  DIVINE 
 
 Baxter  devoutly  observes,  'Doth  Christ  take  them  into  his 
 '  arms,  and  would  he  have  them  all  put  into  his  visible  church  ? 
 'Would  he  have  us  receive  them  in  his  name,  and  yet  not 
 'receive  them  into  his  church,  nor  as  his  disciples?  How 
 'can  infants  he  received  in  Christ's  name,  if  they  belong  not 
 'to  him  and  his  church?  Nay,  doth  Christ  account  it  a 
 'receiving  of  himself,  and  shall  I  then  refuse  to  receive  them 
 'or  acknowledge  them  the  subjects  of  his  visible  kingdom? 
 '  For  my  part,  seeing  Christ  hath  given  me  so  full  a  discovery 
 'of  his  will  on  this  point,  I  will  boldly  adventure  to  follow 
 'his  rule,  and  had  rather  answer  him  upon  his  own  encourage- 
 'ment  for  admitting  a  hundred  infants  into  his  church,  than 
 'answer  for  keeping  one  out.' 
 
 Remark  (2.)  The  covenants  of  the  Old  Testament  confirm 
 our  views  on  this  head. — In  every  general  covenant  which 
 God  gave  to  his  people,  children  are  included,  as  being 
 embraced  in  its  obligations  and  blessings.  They  were  included 
 in  that  made  with  Adam,  virtually  if  not  verbally,  and  they 
 suffered  sadly  in  consequence  of  his  transgressing  it. — 
 Rom.  v.  12,  14.  In  that  of  Noah:— 'And  I,  behold,  I  establish 
 'my  covenant  with  you  and  with  your  seed  after  you.' — 
 Gen.  ix.  9.  In  that  of  Abraham: — 'And  I  will  establish  my 
 '  covenant  between  thee  and  me,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in 
 '  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant  to  be  a  God  to 
 'thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee' — from  infancy  till  death. — 
 Gen.  xvii.  7.  In  that  of  Phineas: — 'Behold  I  give  unto  him 
 'my  covenant  of  peace,  and  he  shall  have  it  and  his  seed  after 
 'him,  even  the  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priesthood,'  and  to 
 which  they  were  destined  from  earliest  babyhood. — Num.  xxv. 
 12,  17-  In  that  of  David : — 'And  when  thy  days  be  fulfilled, 
 'and  thou  shalt  sleep  with  thy  fathers,  I  will  set  up  thy  seed 
 'after  thee.' — 2  Sam.  vii.  12.  If  then,  children,  as  soon  as 
 they  were  born,  were  the  subjects  of  these  and  other  gracious 
 covenants,  and  were  to  be  bound  and  blessed  by  them;  what 
 reason  can  be  adduced  against  their  reception  of  the  token  or 
 sign  of  them,  whether  it  were  circumcision  or  water-  baptism? 
 If  any  valid  objection  exists  we  certainly  have  never  seen  it 
 stated,  nor  are  we  sufficiently  clear  or  far-sighted  enough  to 
 find  it  out.  It  should  be  remarked  that  all  the  covenants 
 made  with  Israel,  were  made  verbally  with  men,  or  given  to 
 them,  and  not  to  women  or  children.  And  yet  these  women 
 and  children  were  as  much  interested  in  them  as  any  of  the 
 males  of  adult  age.  God  claimed  the  daughters  of  Israel  as 
 his  own  equally  with  the  sons,  and  intended  that  all  should  be 
 
COVENANTS  AND  PREDICTIONS.  71 
 
 equally  interested  in  his  covenants,  predictions,  and  promises; 
 and  that  they  should  he  fully  recognized  as  his  'sons  and 
 'daughters.'  The  language  of  God,  hy  the  prophet,  Ezekiel 
 xviii.  4,  gives  his  view  of  the  connexion  of  parents  and  their 
 children. — 'Behold  all  the  souls  are  mine!  as  the  soul  of  the 
 'father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine."  The  daughter 
 of  a  Hebrew  was  so  pure  and  sacred  to  God  that  she  was  not 
 to  be  married  to  a  Gentile,  any  more  than  a  son  of  Abraham 
 was  to  take  a  heathen  woman  to  wife. — Deut.  vii.  2. 
 
 Remark  (3.)  The  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament  also 
 unite  children  with  the  blessings  promised  to  their  parents. 
 — 'The  children  of  thy  servants  shall  continue,  and  their  seed 
 'shall  be  established  before  thee.'  Ps.  cii.  28. — 'I  will  pour 
 'my  spirit  on  thy  seed  and  my  blessing  upon  thy  offspring.' 
 Is.  xliv.  3. — 'And  the  Gentiles  shall  bring  thy  sons  in  their 
 '  arms,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be  carried  upon  their  shoulders.' 
 Is.  xlix.  22. — 'My  spirit  that  is  upon  thee,  and  my  words 
 '  which  I  have  put  in  thy  mouth,  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy 
 'mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed,  nor  out  of  the  mouth 
 '  of  thy  seed's  seed,  saith  the  Lord,  from  henceforth  and  for 
 ever.'  Is.lix.  21. — '  And  their  seed  shall  be  known  among  the 
 'Gentiles,  and  their  offspring  among  the  people;  all  that  see 
 'them  shall  acknowledge  them,  that  they  are  the  seed  which 
 'the  Lord  hath  blessed.'  Is.  lxi.  9. — 'Their  children  shall 
 'be  as  aforetime,  and  their  congregation  shall  be  established 
 'before  me,  and  I  will  punish  all  that  oppress  them.' 
 Jer.  xxx.  20. — 'And  it  shall  come  to  pass  afterward  that  I 
 'will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  and  your  sons  and  your 
 'daughters  shall  prophecy,  and  your  old  men  shall  dream 
 'dreams,  and  your  young  men  shall  see  visions.'  Joel  ii.  28, 
 and  Acts  ii.  17. — Hence,  Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
 said  unto  the  Jews,  'The  promise  is  to  you  and  to  your 
 'children,  and  to  all'  [the  heathen]  'that  are  afar  off,  even  as 
 'many  as  the  Lord  your  God  shall  call.'  Acts  ii.  39. 
 
 Here  we  learn,  that  children,  equally  with  their  parents, 
 are  included  in  those  prophecies  which  refer  to  the  New 
 Testament  state  of  the  church.  Nor  do  they  apply  to  them 
 only,  after  attaining  a  certain  age,  or  a  specific  amount  of 
 knowledge,  and  practical  holiness,  but  for  the  most  part, 
 indefinitely,  from  the  time  of  their  birth  till  the  day  of  their 
 death — as  far  as  they,  at  any  time,  are  capable  of  enjoying 
 them — or  till  they  personally  forfeit  the  promised  blessings 
 by  their  own  misconduct.  It  would,  indeed,  sound  most 
 incongruously  with  the  spirit   of   the  gospel,  and  with  the 
 
72  IDENTIFIED  WITH  THEIK  TAEENTS, 
 
 manifest  benevolence  of  the  Saviour  to  the  young,  to  hear  it 
 said,  'The  blessings  of  religion,  included  in  the  covenants  of 
 'mercy,  belong  to  the  offspring  of  Christian  professors,  when 
 1  they  have  attained  the  age  of  eighteen  or  twenty  years,  and 
 'not  before!'  The  prophesies  evidently  relate  to  the  young; 
 and  the  promises  as  clearly  apply  to  them,  from  the  day  of 
 their  birth ;  and  may  be  enjoyed  by  them  onward  continuously, 
 unless  despised  and  rejected,  and  lost,  as  they  advance  in 
 years,  and  practically  rebel  against  the  truth.  The  younger 
 they  are,  the  more  manifestly  do  children  pertain  to  the 
 adoption,  and  are  comprehended  in  the  gracious  promises  of 
 our  covenant  God. 
 
 On  this  point,  'the  language  of  Peter  is  strongly  emphatical.' 
 'The  promise  is  to  you  and  your  children.'  'These  words,' 
 says  Mr.  Mends,  'were  addressed  to  the  Jews,  and  gave  them 
 '  the  firmest  assurance,  that  their  children  were  considered  in 
 '  the  same  light  by  God,  and  entitled  to  the  same  external 
 'privileges  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  as  they  were,  under 
 'that  of  Moses.  None,  I  think,  can  deny  that  the  promise 
 '  does,  as  plainly  include  the  seed  of  the  disciples  of  the  Lord 
 'Jesus,  as  the  promise  to  Abraham:  "I  will  be  a  God  to  thee 
 'and  thy  seed."  What  could  the  apostle  mean,  by  the  promise 
 'being  unto  them,  and  unto  their  children? — for  if  they  were 
 'not  in  covenant,  they  have  no  right  to  the  promise.'  p.  28. 
 The  persons  referred  to,  as  afar  off,  evidently  mean  the  stranger 
 and  the  Gentile ;  and  are  perfectly  distinct  from  the  children 
 already  in  the  covenant.  Deut  xxix.  10-13 ;  Josh.  viii.  34,  35. 
 There  seems  hardly  a  question,  that  when  Peter  tells  his 
 hearers — in  order  to  induce  them  to  be  baptized  unto  Christ 
 — that  the  promise  made  by  the  prophet,  not  merely  included 
 them,  but  their  children  also;  and  that  they  need  not  fear 
 their  dear  offspring  would  be  excluded  from  its  blessings, 
 any  more  than  under  the  former  dispensation.  So  far  from 
 that,  he  assures  them,  that  it  extended  even  to  all  persons 
 afar  off,  to  whom  the  call  of  the  gospel  should  be  subsequently 
 proclaimed.  See  Eph.  ii.  13-17- 
 
 To  explain  and  enforce  the  principle  we  are  advocating,  let 
 us  suppose  a  case.  Were  a  wealthy  and  benevolent  gentleman 
 to  engage  to  show  substantial  kindne'ss  to  the  family,  household, 
 or  children  of  certain  poor  adult  dependents,  after  they  them- 
 selves had  left  the  world ;  would  it  not  be  deemed  strange, 
 were  it  stipulated,  that  he  would  do  nothing  towards  the  main- 
 tenance, education,  and  comfort  of  the  baby  orphans;  but 
 would  reserve  his  aid  till  they  were  grown  up  to  adult  age  ? 
 
IX  COD'S  BENEVOLENT!  TURrOSES.  73 
 
 Would  not  all  observers  regard  his  benevolence  as  strange, 
 capricious,  and  sadly  withheld  when  most  required?  And  yet, 
 the  construction  some  persons  put  on  God's  promises  and 
 covenants  of  mercy,  would  make  his  kindness  like  that  of  this 
 imaginary  eccentric  benefactor! 
 
 The  identity  of  parents  and  their  offspring,  in  the  before- 
 named  covenants  and  predictions,  guarantees  to  the  latter  all 
 the  rites  and  privileges  enjoyed  by  the  former,  as  far  as  they 
 were,  at  any  time,  intellectually  and  physically  capable  of 
 receiving  them.  Of  these  they  cannot  be  deprived  without 
 'frustrating  the  grace  of  God,'  developed  in  his  holy  ordi- 
 nances, and  mercifully  and  wisely  designed  for  the  young. 
 And  as  baptismal  consecration  to  God  was  among  these  benefits, 
 who  shall  forbid  water  that  they  may  not  be  discipled  to  Christ 
 in  this  sacred  ordinance?  If  any  venture  to  do  so,  we  may- 
 ask  them,  what  have  these  little  ones  done  to  forfeit  their 
 predicted  covenant  rights  to  a  ceremony  their  parents  enjoyed, 
 and  which  the  children  in  the  Red  Sea  and  their  descendants 
 afterwards  regulary  obtained?  Where  is  the  act  of  excom- 
 munication ?  When  was  it  passed  ?  And  what  is  the  recorded 
 cause  of  its  ratification  ? 
 
 To  reply,  that  children,  under  the  present  dispensation, 
 unlike  their  infant  ancestors,  pertaining  to  the  former  divine 
 economies,  are  not  to  enjoy  the  privileges  of  these  covenants 
 and  predictions,  till  theyr  arrive  at  adult  age,  or  until  they  are 
 personally  believers  in  the  gospel,  would  have  the  effect  of 
 depriving  them  of  all  religious  instruction,  holy  examples,  and 
 other  advantages,  till  they  are  grown  up  to  be  men  and  women, 
 and  spiritually  converted  to  God — for  these  means  of  mercy 
 are  included  in  those  covenants  and  predictions,  the  same  as 
 the  initiatory  rites  and  spiritual  consolation  of  a  living  Christ- 
 ianity. Besides,  it  would  practically  exclude  all  children  from 
 the  terrestrial  kingdom  of  God,  till  they  were  far  advanced  in 
 years,  though  Christ  has  said  that  little  infants  and  young 
 children  are  really  subjects  of  this  kingdom.  Further,  should 
 the  messenger,  death,  convey  them  out  of  this  world  before 
 their  baptism,  they  would  never  have  been  ostensibly  in  the 
 kingdom  of  God  on  earth,  though,  as  elect  and  regenerated 
 children,  they  were  taken  to  the  kingdom  of  God  in  heaven, 
 when  removed  from  among  us.  This  would  be  the  case  with  such 
 children  who  might  have  lived  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  in  the 
 faith  of  the  gospel,  twenty  or  more  years,  the  same  as  if  they 
 had  breathed  only  a  dozen  times.  In  a  word,  it  would  be 
 shutting  out  the  purest  patterns  and  fairest  specimens  of  meet- 
 
 D 
 
74  AND  FKEQUENTLY  BLESSED 
 
 ness  for  the  church  and  heaven,  while  receiving  only  those- 
 who,  at  the  best,  are  said  to  he  but  like  them ! 
 
 In  further  reference  to  the  argument  of  Peter  on  the  day  of 
 Pentecost,  to  induce  the  Hebrews  to  submit  to  Christian 
 baptism,  it  may  be  noted,  that  if  the  promise  made  to 
 Abraham  was  a  good  reason  for  baptizing  the  parents,  it  was 
 equally  so  for  baptizing  their  children,  for  they  were  both 
 included  in  that  promise.  It  evidently  contained  no  motive 
 for  the  parents  to  submit  to  this  ceremony,  if  it  did  not  for 
 their  childrens'  dedication  also.  'To  suppose,'  says  Mr.  Evans, 
 'that  the  promise  was  to  their  children,  when  called  by  divine 
 'grace,  was  to  say  no  more  than  might  be  said  of  children  of 
 '  heathens  and  infidels,  as  well  as  the  seed  of  Christians  .  .  . 
 'If  we  suppose  their  children  excluded  from  baptism,  we  make 
 '  the  apostle's  argument  confused  and  inconclusive,  for  then 
 'it  would  stand  thus: — "The  promise  is  to  you;  therefore,  be 
 'ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  The  promise 
 'is  equally  to  your  children,  yet  let  not  them  be  baptized,  for 
 'they  are  not  proper  subjects  for  baptism."  But  this  appears 
 'a  gross  absurdity,  that  their  children  should  be  included  in 
 'the  promise,'  [pleaded  to  induce  the  parents  to  be  baptized], 
 'and  not  be  admitted  to  receive  the  external  sign  of  it,'  [with 
 their  parents.]  p.  12.  That  both  Joel  and  Peter,  in  the 
 passages  above  referred  to,  meant  children  in  age,  is  manifest, 
 by  their  distinguishing  them  from  adults.  Had  the  latter 
 class  of  persons  only  been  intended,  they  would  have  said  so, 
 and  not  have  spoken  of  children  at  all.  Were  a  promise  made 
 especially  to  persons  when  arrived  at  the  age  of  manhood  and 
 social  independence,  no  sensible  person  would  say  it  was  a 
 promise  to  children  in  any  proper  sense  of  the  language — for 
 it  would  not  be  true. 
 
 Eemark  (4.)  These  covenants  and  promises  have  been 
 graciously  realized  in  numberless  instances. — The  profession, 
 faith,  and  piety  of  the  parent  have  been  actually,  as  well  as 
 prophetically,  allied  with  blessings  on  his  family.  The  children 
 have  been  benefitted  'for  the  fathers'  sake.'  Take  the  in- 
 stances referred  to  in  the  passages  previously  quoted.  As 
 posterity  often  suffer  through  the  sins  and  profligacy  of  those 
 who  beget  them ;  so  they  are  frequently  blessed  on  account  of 
 the  virtues  and  excellencies  of  their  holy  progenitors.  This  is 
 doubtless  designed  to  operate  as  a  stimulus  to  parental  piety. 
 It  may  be  regarded  as  a  general  rule  of  God's  benevolent 
 procedure,  that  children  shall  share  in  the  blessings  obtained 
 by  those  who  preside  over  them,  and  who,  in  the  domestic  circle, 
 
FOR  'THE  FATHERS1  SAKE.'  7") 
 
 arc  identified  with  them.  Abraham's  faith  brought  blessings 
 on  bis  house.  When  Zaccheus  believed,  and  hospitably  enter- 
 tained the  Saviour,  salvation  came  to  his  house,  or  family. 
 When  Cornelius  prayed,  Peter  was  sent  to  tell  him  words 
 whereby  he  and  his  house,  or  his  family,  should  be  saved. 
 The  piety  of  Lydia  brought  blessings  on  her  house  or  family. 
 Crispus  believed  in  the  Lord,  and  all  his  family  was  benefitted 
 by  his  faith.  The  believing  husband  sanctifies  his  wife  and 
 family,  and  the  believing  wife  sanctifies  her  husband  and 
 children. — These  expressions,  of  course,  cannot  mean  positive 
 and  everlasting lnippiness  given  unconditionally  to  the  young.  'If 
 '  thou  bclievest,  thou  shalt  be  saved  with  all  thy  house.  Surely, 
 'the  apostles  intended  no  more,  when  they  spoke  thus  of  the 
 'jailor,  and  to  others,  than  that  they  and  theirs  should  have 
 'the  means  of  eternal  happiness  put  into  their  hands;  and  they 
 'and  theirs  should  be  admitted  and  acknowledged  by  them,  as 
 'members  of  Christ's  church  and  kingdom.'  Fleming's  Plea, 
 p.  31.  Baptismal  salvation  was  no  apostolic  doctrine.  Still 
 the  blessings  promised  and  enjoyed  were  great,  and  of  ines- 
 timable worth. 
 
 The  above  are  a  few  of  the  many  recorded  instances  of 
 parental  faith  connected  with  blessings  on  the  offspring.  '  If 
 '  the  root  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches.'  If  parents  are  ritually 
 sanctified  or  set  apart  to  God,  so  will  be  their  children,  who, 
 as  a  matter  of  course,  will  be  consecrated  or  discipled  to  Christ 
 by  baptism.  The  bearing  of  these  passages  on  the  question 
 of  Infant  Baptism  is  readily  perceived.  If  through  the  faith 
 of  parents,  blessings  came  upon  their  children,  there  should 
 be  some  visible  token  or  sign  of  it.  In  the  case  of  Abraham, 
 that  token  was  circumcision.  In  the  case  of  Israel,  it  was 
 baptism  unto  Moses ;  and  in  the  case  of  Christians,  it  is  a 
 consecration  of  the  young  to  Christ,  by  water  poured  on  their 
 heads; — followed  by  instruction  in  the  doctrines,  duties,  and 
 privileges  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  hardly  questionable,  that  the 
 blessings  promised  to  the  parent  would,  as  far  as  circumstances 
 allowed,  rest  on  the  family.  It  is  so  in  secular  matters;  as 
 in  the  case  of  wealth,  knowledge,  and  reputation.  And  as 
 children  are  capable  of  baptism,  instruction,  and  worship,  these 
 undoubtedly  should  be  granted  and  enjoyed.  These  are  the 
 least  and  lowest  personal  spiritual  benefits  which  come  to  the 
 house  of  a  sincere  professor  of  the  true  religion.  And  if 
 parents  be  really  pious,  devout,  and  devoted  to  God,  we  may 
 reasonably  hope  for  greater  and  more  enduring  benefactions  for 
 the  souls  of  their  offspring  hereafter. 
 
76  ALL  THE  HEBREWS  BAPTIZED. 
 
 We  may  here,  further,  notice  Paul's  argument  respecting 
 the  essential  oneness  of  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian 
 covenants.  The  reader  will  see  this  subject  clearly  and  fully 
 explained  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Bomans,  and  in  the 
 third  chapter  of  the  Galatians.  All  believers  in  Christ  are 
 regarded  as  Abraham's  seed.  The  ancient  Patriarch  is  viewed 
 as  the  father  of  all  the  faithful,  in  every  dispensation,  age, 
 and  country  of  the  world.  By  believing  in  Christ,  all  the 
 Gentiles  are  brought  into  covenant  relationship  with  the 
 ancient  heirs  of  the  promise.  Into  the  former  dispensation  of 
 the  covenant,  children  were  introduced,  and  became  members 
 of  the  body  of  professors  of  revealed  truth.  This  was  the 
 case  with  all  the  young — having  actually  or  virtually  the  seal, 
 sign,  or  token,  of  introduction  into  the  church  or  ecclesia  of 
 old.  Now,  if  there  be  an  identity  in  the  leading  and  essential 
 principles  of  the  systems  of  Abraham  and  of  Christ ;  if  they 
 are  viewed  as  one  and  the  same  continuous  and  everlasting 
 covenant — it  must  follow,  that  infants  or  the  seed  of  believers, 
 should  be  introduced  into  the  gospel  economy,  either  by 
 circumcision,  or  by  some  other  initiatory  rite,  recognized  by 
 the  followers  of  Christ,  or,  in  other  words,  by  water  Baptism. 
 If  this  be  not  conceded,  there  is  a  defect  in  the  essential 
 elements  necessary  to  constitute  a  fair  identity  between  the 
 two  manifestations  of  the  church  of  Christ,  in  the  days  of 
 Abraham  and  in  apostolic  times.  If  the  language  of  Paul 
 have  any  important  meaning  and  force  in  our  day,  children 
 must  be  members  of  the  visible  church  or  congregation,  as  in 
 Abraham's  time — and  be  formally  inducted  to  their  religious 
 position  and  blessings. 
 
 SECTION  SEVENTH.—//  all  the  Israelites,  who  passed 
 through  the  sea,  were  not  baptized,  who  can  point  out  and 
 verify  the  exceptions? — The  'Fathers'  only  are  expressly 
 mentioned.  But  if  the  entire  Jewish  people,  male  and  female, 
 adults  and  children,  are  not  to  be  comprehended  under  this 
 designation,  who  are?  Here  is  a  question  of  insurmountable 
 difficulty, — on  the  supposition  that  the  children  were  not 
 baptized  m  their  passage  through  the  Bed  Sea.  Shall  we 
 except  the  latter,  because  they  are  not  specifically  mentioned  ? 
 Then,  for  the  same  reason,  we  must  except  all  young  people 
 from  twelve  years  old  to  twenty,  and  all  females  of  every  rank 
 and  age;  for  the  words  'Our  Fathers,'  no  more  literally 
 embrace  them  than  they  do  the  youngest  babes  in  Israel. 
 On  the  like  ground,  should  not  all  the  unmarried  men,  who 
 
NO  EXCEPTIONS  INTIMATED.  77 
 
 passed  through  the  sea,  he  also  excepted?  for,  at  that  time, 
 they  were  no  more  fathers  than  the  little  male  children  in  their 
 mothers'  arms.  To  reply,  they  might  hecome  fathers  in  the 
 ■course  of  time,  does  not  meet  the  difficulty;  for  so  might  the 
 youngest  male  infants  that  passed  through  the  deep.  In  fact, 
 all  the  married  men,  who  at  last  died  without  issue,  must  he 
 also  excepted,  hecause,  though  legally  husbands,  they  were 
 never  literally  fathers  at  all.  Even  those  married  male  adults, 
 whose  families  became  extinct  before  the  Christian  era,  must 
 also  be  passed  by;  as  no  Hebrews  in  the  apostles'  age  could, 
 in  precise  language,  regard  them  as  really  their  own  fathers, 
 however  remote.  Paul  'and  his  brethren  could  no  more 
 literally  reckon  them  among  their  lineal  ancestors  than  the 
 merest  infants  who  came  out  of  Egypt.  We  again  inquire,  if 
 all  the  congregation  that  passed  through  the  sea  were  not 
 intended  by  the  words  '  Our  Fathers,'  who  shall  decide  on 
 the  exceptions? 
 
 If,  according  to  Mr.  Rees'  reading,  none  but  married 
 men  with  families  were  baptized;  —  then  not  more  than  a 
 tenth  of  the  entire  host  who  crossed  the  sea  were  consecrated 
 to  Closes.  And  how  came  they  to  be  baptized  and  no  one 
 else?  Were  they  separated  from  all  their  fellow-travellers, 
 or  were  they  distinguished  in  some  miraculous  manner  from 
 all  the  rest,  and  sprinkled  or  affused,  or,  if  our  opponents 
 prefer,  immersed,  alone?  And  if  so,  where  is  the  divine 
 authority  for  this  assumption  ?  But,  conclude  that  every  one 
 wras  baptized,  and  you  remove  all  the  difficulties  of  the  case. 
 This,  as  previously  proved,  comports  with  the  current  use  of 
 the  term,  'Our  Fathers,'  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  On 
 -this  natural  interpretation  of  the  words,  we  can  act  without 
 perplexity,  and  without  such  inquisitions  as  a  contracted 
 •rendering  of  them  would  necessarily  require.  We,  therefore, 
 aver  that  our  only  just  and  safe  conclusion  must  be,  that 
 every  Hebrew  individual,  old  and  young,  male  and  female, 
 who  passed  through  the  sea,  was  baptized  and  discipled  unto 
 Moses,  the  teacher  and  leader  of  God's  emancipated  people. 
 In  a  word,  if  infants  were  not  baptized,  then  it  is  certain  that 
 1  all'  the  fathers  or  religious  ancestors  of  Paul  and  his  Hebrew 
 brethren,  who  passed  through  the  sea,  were  not  baptized — 
 contrary  to  his  declaration,  which  asserts  that  they  were. — 
 Here  a  few  observations  of  practical  importance  may  be  offered. 
 
 Obs.  (1.)  The  doctrine  that  none  can  be  properly  or 
 effectually  baptized,  unless  they  are  previously  regenerated  by 
 the  Holy  Ghost,  is  not  only  unscriptural,  but  also  surrounded 
 
78  UNBEGENEKATED  ADULTS : 
 
 with  insuperable  difficulties. — If  none  but  really  and  spiritu- 
 ally converted  people  are  proper  subjects  for  this  ordinance — 
 as  most  Baptists  contend — then  no  Baptism  can  be  regarded 
 as  scriptural  and  valid  when  the  subjects  of  it  are  not 
 unquestionably  spiritual  Christians,  in  faith,  obedience,  and 
 love.  Dr.  Gale  asserts,  'That  none  are  baptized  but  believers 
 'dipped  into  water;  and  that  such  who  are  not'  [so]  'baptized 
 '  are  not  rightly  initiated,  and  have  no  title  to  church  member  - 
 'ship,  but  should  be  disclaimed.'  Dr.  Newman  says,  'If  you 
 'are  not  rightly  baptized,  you,  in  fact,  are  not  baptized  at  all.' 
 This  is  the  general,  if  not  the  universal,  argument  of  our 
 opponents.  The  case  of  the  Ethiopian  Eunuch  is  constantly 
 referred  to  in  support  of  the  doctrine ;  and  we  are  told,  that 
 unless  men  'believe  with  the  heart,'  they  should  not  be 
 baptized;  and  that  without  heartfelt  faith  in  the  subject,  the 
 rite  is  invalid.  Now,  to  carry  out  this  doctrine  safely,  there 
 must  be  minute,  protracted,  and  ample  investigation  into  the 
 doctrinal  views,  spiritual  affections,  conduct,  and  experience, 
 of  the  candidate,  before  it  can  be  safely  settled,  whether 
 he  is  entitled  to  receive  this  rite,  or  not.  There  must  be 
 examinations  in  chief,  and  cross  examinations,  witnesses  must 
 be  called  and  interrogated,  especially  in  populous  districts ; 
 and  much  time  must  be  occupied  in  the  important  inquiry  in 
 the  case  of  every  separate  individual  proposed  as  a  candidate 
 for  baptism. 
 
 But  such  inquisitions,  most  certainly,  did  not  precede  any 
 Baptisms  mentioned  in  the  Word  of  God.  The  utmost 
 requirement  was  a  belief  in  Christ,  as  the  Messiah,  and  a 
 profession  of  obedience  to  him  as  the  head  of  the  church. 
 Even  now,  when  such  investigations  are  prosecuted  with  the 
 utmost  care  and  diligence,  by  ministers  of  the  gospel,  they  are 
 frequently  found  totally  ineffectual.  Multitudes,  who  have 
 undergone  this  scrutiny,  and  have  been  thereupon  immersed, 
 have  soon  evinced  that  they  were  not  spiritually  converted  to 
 God;  and,  at  length,  have  become  as  heathen  men  and 
 publicans  to  the  church  with  which  they  had  before  been 
 connected  through  their  immersion.  That  all  the  care,  and 
 prayer,  and  scrutiny,  by  ministers  and  memhers,  will  not 
 hinder  the  intrusion  of  unconverted  persons  into  their  religious 
 fellowship,  our  opponents  are  forced,  if  not  free,  to  confess; 
 as  a  citation  or  two  from  their  writings  will  show : — 
 
 Mr.  Foot: — 'It  must  be  acknowledged,  as  a  lamentable 
 'truth,  that  many  are  baptized,  who,  by  their  unchristian, 
 'wicked  lives,  prove  a  disgrace  to  their  profession.'  p.  71. 
 
THEIR  EAr-TISM  VALID.  79 
 
 Mr.  Stovel: — 'If  a  man  seek  salvation  by  baptism,  without 
 'conversion  to  God,  lie  acts  the  hypocrite,  and  the  ceremony 
 'is  reduced  to  a  mere  heathenish  form.  ...  If  an  unconverted 
 'man  should  gain  admission  to  the  baptism,  his  being  born  of 
 'water  will  not  secure  to  him  the  right  of  Christian  fellowship; 
 '  this  deception,  perpetrated  in  the  name  of  God,  is  no  ground 
 '  on  which  he  can  claim  the  confidence  of  his  brethren,  devoted 
 'to  each  other,  and  to  God,  in  the  spirit  of  martyrdom.  He 
 'is  born  dead;  and  when  that  fact  is  known,  he  is  cast  out 
 'as  a  dead  thing.  .  .  .  Those  persons — the  Baptists — do  not 
 'baptize  again.'  Eegen.  lect.  iii.  p.  41,  44,  48.  Mr.  Booth: 
 — 'Simon  the  sorcerer,  professing  faith  in  Jesus  Christ, 
 'though  he  had  it  not,  was  baptized  by  Philip;  and  many 
 'doubtless,  both  in  former  and  later  ages,  have  been  baptized, 
 *on  a  similar  profession,  whose  conduct  afterwards  disgraced 
 'the  Christian  character.'  We  shall  subsequently  prove,  that 
 no  efforts  do  or  can  keep  out  unregenerated  people  from 
 fellowship  with  the  Baptist  body;  and,  in  fact,  that  they 
 admit  vast  numbers  of  them  every  year  to  their  holy  com- 
 munions. 
 
 Now,  a  serious  question  arises.  Is  the  baptism  of  such 
 unregenerated,  self-deluded,  professors  or,  it  may  be,  religious 
 hypocrites,  really  valid  or  not  ?  For  all  church  or  sectional 
 purposes,  in  the  Baptist  communion,  it  is  perfectly  valid. 
 Notwithstanding  Mr.  Stovel's  declaration,  that  the  ceremony 
 undergone  by  a  hypocrite,  is  'a  mere  heathenish  form,'  and 
 that  he  is,  or  rather  should  be,  'cast  out  as  a  dead  thing;'  it 
 is  as  effectual  and  abiding  as  that  of  the  holiest  man  among 
 them.  As  in  prelatical  ordination,  a  seal  is  fixed  on  his  verbal 
 profession  which  cannot  be  effaced.  His  immersion  is  deemed 
 valid  and  scriptural  during  his  entire  earthly  existence,  even 
 while  he  himself  feels  and  confesses  that  he  was  unconverted, 
 or  a  hypocrite,  when  it  was  administered.  He  may  be  turned  out 
 of  the  society,  or  even  out  of  the  synagogue ;  yet  his  baptism 
 is  perfect,  and  never  renewed.  If  subsequently  he  should  be 
 savingly  renewed  by  the  grace  of  God,  he  is  not  immersed  a 
 second  time.  After  having  been  excommunicated,  after  having 
 lived  many  years  in  open  wickedness ;  if,  at  length,  he  repent 
 and  reform,  and  seek  re-admission  into  the  bosom  of  the 
 society,  which  possibly  he  had  long  despised,  and  from  which 
 he  was  formally  expelled,  he  is  received  again  without  being 
 immersed  a  second  time. 
 
 Our  opponents,  out  of  pretence  and  policy,  preach  up  and 
 ■contend  for  an  especial  theory ;  and  yet  contradict  and  repudiate 
 
80  TJXREGENERATED  ADULTS  : 
 
 it,  in  their  uniform  practice.  First,  we  are  gravely  told,  that 
 spiritual  regeneration  is  essential  to  the  validity  of  Christian 
 Baptism — for  it  would  be  most  damaging  to  their  theory,  were 
 the  contrary  openly  admitted;  and,  secondly,  we  learn,  that 
 the  baptism  of  a  deluded  professor,  or  of  a  wily  hypocrite,  is 
 as  valid  as  that  of  the  best  of  men,  and  equally  enduring  in 
 its  denominational  efficacy.  As  this  theory,  and  this  practice, 
 without  a  miracle  of  wisdom  in  the  examiners,  cannot  for 
 certain  accord,  and  as  the  theory  is  evidently  not  based  on  the 
 precepts  or  precedents  of  Scripture;  it  requires  little  reflection 
 to  determine  that  the  doctrine,  which  is  purely  delusive,  ought 
 to  be  given  up;  and  it  should  be  candidly  admitted,  that 
 spiritual  conversion  of  the  soul  to  Christ  cannot  be  an  absolute 
 requisite  to  the  validity  of  Christian  Baptism.  This  holds 
 especially  true,  as  our  opponents  regard  the  terms,  'Anabaptist 
 '  and  Anabaptism,'  embracing  the  doctrine  of  dipping  the  person 
 a  second  time,  to  be  quite  'reproachful.'  Birt,  p.  5. 
 
 Pedobaptist  Congregational  Churches  examine  into  the 
 sentiments,  experience,  and  conduct  of  candidates  prior  to 
 their  induction  to  full  membership  in  their  select  or  particular 
 churches.  But  this  is  widely  different  from  that  of  our 
 opponents,  prior  to  baptizing  them,  with  its  subsequent  endur- 
 ing results.  For  such  a  fellowship  in  our  select  communions, 
 personal  piety,  sound  orthodoxy,  and  consistant  behaviour, 
 are  required.  Much  care  is  necessary,  in  order  to  render  our 
 associations,  as  far  as  possible,  pure  and  harmonious.  Every 
 member  of  our  spiritual  societies,  like  those  of  apostolic 
 times,  is  rightly  invested  with  administrative  power,  besides 
 being  inducted  to  the  highest  social  spiritual  privileges  and 
 designations  of  this  select  fellowship.  He  has  a  voice  and  a 
 vote  in  the  internal  regulations  of  our  Christian  affairs.  Hence, 
 to  examine  well  into  his  religious  creed  and  character  before 
 admission,  is  the  voice  of  prudence  as  well  as  of  piety.  But 
 then,  when  elected,  his  position  is  not  a  freehold;  nor  has 
 he  a  lease  for  life  in  it.  The  seal  of  his  fellowship  may  be 
 broken,  or  be  taken  from  him,  at  any  time,  on  proof  of  grave 
 misconduct.  If  the  pre-existing  members  are  first  deceived 
 in  his  character,  or,  if  after  admission,  he  walks  disorderly, 
 he  is  to  be  'put  away,'  or  excommunicated,  and  placed  in  the 
 same  position  he  occupied  previous  to  his  induction  to  the 
 inner  church  of  the  ecclesiastical  body.  He  is  unchurched, 
 and  sent  out  of  communion,  as  completely  as  though  he  had 
 never  been  in  it.  Nor  is  he,  on  the  avowal  of  repentance,  or 
 of  hopeful  conversion  to  God,  readmitted,  till  after  undergoing 
 
THEIR  BAPTISM  VALID.  81 
 
 an  examination  similar  to  the  first,  and  by  the  suffrages  of 
 the  members,  as  though  he  had  never  before  been  one  of 
 their  number. 
 
 In  respect  of  Christian  Baptism,  the  ease  is  widely  different. 
 "When  a  person  is  baptized  to  Christianity  and  dedicated  to 
 the  blessed  Trinity,  it  is  for  life.  We  do  not  baptize  him 
 again.  His  initiation  to  the  external  means  and  privileges  of 
 the  gospel,  we  do  not,  we  dare  not,  revoke ;  nor  do  we  exclude 
 him  from  our  open  Christian  sanctuaries,  and  the  external 
 ordinances  of  instruction  and  conviction  of  sin — provided  he 
 conduct  himself  there  with  decorum — how  badly  soever  he 
 may  have  demeaned  himself  elsewhere.  When  we  baptize 
 children  or  adults,  we  pronounce  no  judgment  as  to  their 
 spiritual  character;  we  thereby  invest  the  parties  with  no 
 controlling  church  power  ;  we  do  not  introduce  them  into  the 
 select  communion  of  saints  ;  we  never  exhibit  them  as  examples 
 of  personal  piety  to  others;  and  they  sit  not  with  us  at  the 
 Lord's  table.  This  the  newly-baptized  soon  know;  and  this 
 is  also  well  known  to  all  conversant  with  our  holy  usages. 
 They  themselves  cannot,  therefore,  be  deceived;  nor  can  the 
 fact  of  their  dedication  to  God  deceive  others.  Consequently, 
 while  inquisition  is  properly  made  into  the  character  of  candi- 
 dates for  full  fellowship  in  particular  churches,  it  is  not 
 necessary  to  do  the  like  of  candidates  for  baptism  into  the 
 general  church  or  congregation  of  worshippers,  or  into  the 
 training  schools  of  Christianity.  Hence,  inquiry  in  the  one 
 case,  and  not  in  the  other,  involves  not  the  slightest  incon- 
 sistency, any  more  than  there  would  be  by  receiving  a  youth 
 into  a  public  seminary,  without  strict  and  minute  inquiry  into 
 his  previous  conduct;  and  making  it  before  taking  him  into 
 an  office  of  trust  or  power,  or  into  partnership  in  some 
 important  business  or  undertaking. 
 
 Obs.  (2.)  In  no  less  predicament  is  the  doctrine,  That 
 no  children  should  he  baptized,  one  or  both  of  whose  parents 
 are  not  real  Christians — .Here,  again,  if  otherwise,  a  court 
 of  inquiry  would  be  requisite.  If  the  baptism  be  not  valid, 
 unless  genuine  parental  piety  induce  its  administration  to  the 
 young;  then,  whatever  child  is  baptized,  without  having  a 
 really  pious  father  or  mother  or  both,  is,  in  truth,  not  baptized 
 at  all;  and  the  ceremony,  though  performed  by  the  holiest 
 minister,  in  the  most  scriptural  manner,  must  go  for  nothing ; 
 and  the  rite  should  be  reiterated  when  the  parent  or  parents, 
 in  subsequent  years,  are  actually  converted  by  the  grace  of 
 God.     On  this  principle,  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  of 
 
 D2 
 
82  CHILDREN  OF  THE  UNEEGEXERATE  : 
 
 children,  the  offspring  of  mere  nominal  Christians,  are  still 
 not  scripturally,  and,  therefore,  not  really  baptized,  and  not 
 entitled  to  the  rights  and  privileges  to  which  this  sacrament 
 officially  introduces  duly  qualified  subjects.  If  we  may  baptize 
 only  the  children,  one  or  both  of  whose  parents  are  members 
 of  our  select  churches,  as  some  people  contend ;  we  shall  still 
 be  met  by  the  difficulty  of  knowing  whether,  though  in  full 
 Christian  fellowship,  they  are  truly  godly  people — unless  it 
 must  be  taken  for  granted,  that  all  the  members  of  such 
 societies,  are  really  and  unquestionably  the  true  spiritual 
 children  of  God.  But  who  will  venture,  for  a  moment,  posi- 
 tively to  arrive  at  such  a  conclusion? 
 
 Again,  there  are,  doubtless,  many  converted  parents,  who, 
 for  certain  reasons  or  motives,  have  never  joined  a  particular 
 Christian  church.  But  are  their  children  not  to  be  baptized, 
 or  never  to  be  formally  consecrated  to  God,  even  though  their 
 subsequent  training  may  be  more  scriptural  and  careful  than 
 that  of  many  others,  whose  parents  are  full  members  of  evan- 
 gelical Christian  societies?  Or,  are  pastors  and  churches  to 
 deprive  children  of  certain  honours  and  benefits,  because  their 
 parents,  though  designated  Christians,  fail  to  unite  themselves 
 with  some  particular  fellowship  of  professed  believers  ?  The 
 objection,  that  as  unconverted  persons  do  not  feel  the  full 
 importance  of  vital  godliness,  they  are  not  likely  to  train  up 
 their  offspring  "in  the  way  in  which  they  should  go;"  or,  in 
 other  words,  are  not  inclined  or  qualified  to  carry  out  the 
 Christian  purposes  of  Infant  Baptism;  they  should  not  bring 
 their  children  to  the  font — though  involving  a  mournful  fact 
 — is  quite  irrelevant  to  the  question ;  unless  it  can  be  proved, 
 that  if  people  will  not  perform  two  scriptural  and  naturally 
 consecutive  deeds,  they  should  not  be  encouraged  or  allowed 
 to  do  either  of  them  separately;  or,  that  because  they  are 
 likely  to  sin  openly  in  the  week,  they  should  not  be  admonished 
 to  keep  holy  the  sabbath  day;  or,  that  because  they  are  not 
 likely  to  observe  the  injunctions  of  the  Bible,  they  should  not 
 be  advised  to  read  it;  or,  that  because  they  are  not  likely  to 
 comply  with  the  teachings  of  the  pulpit,  they  should  not  be 
 admitted  to  the  public  preaching  of  the  gospel !  If  it  be  right 
 for  parents  to  baptize  their  infants,  this  duty  is  not  to  be 
 neglected  because  some  other  parental  act,  properly  allied  with 
 it,  is  not  likely  to  be  performed  afterwards.  What  minister 
 would  feel  justified  in  refusing  to  marry  a  couple  of  young 
 people,  merely  because  he  entertained  a  serious  doubt  whether 
 they  would  properly  fulfil  their  obligations  as  husband  and 
 
TIIKIR  BAPTISM  VALID.  83 
 
 wife  in  after  years? — so  keeping  them  single,  lest,  if  united, 
 they  might  not  he  happy !  God  certainly  did  not  except  from 
 baptism  in  the  Red  Sea,  the  children  of  ungodly  parents. 
 
 We  learn  that  under  the  Levitical  economy,  parties  were 
 permitted  to  do  some  acts  of  a  religious  kind,  who  might  not 
 do  others  of  a  higher  order.  The  uncircumcised  stranger  was 
 not  permitted  to  eat  the  passover.  Ex.  xii.  48.  But  he  might 
 bring  his  offering  to  the  altar  of  the  Lord.  Num.  xv.  14-1(3. 
 'And  if  a  stranger  sojourn  with  you,  or  whosoever  he  he  among 
 'you  in  your  generations,  and  will  offer  an  offering  made  by 
 'fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto  the  Lord;  as  ye  do,  so  shall  he 
 'do.  One  ordinance  shall  be  hoth  for  you  of  the  congregation, 
 'and  also  for  the  stranger  that  sojourneth  with  you,  an  ordi- 
 ' nance  for  ever  in  your  generations;  as  ye  are,  so  shall  the 
 'stranger  be  before  the  Lord,  &c.'  Mr.  Scott,  on  this  passage, 
 observes,  'The  intention  of  this  law  might  he,  to  induce 
 'strangers  to  attend  the  worship  and  ordinances  of  God;  to 
 'intimate  to  the  Israelites,  that  if  they  hecame  profligates  and 
 'ungodly,  they  would  he  treated  as  strangers;  and  to  signify 
 'that  in  due  time  the  Gentiles  would  be  fully  admitted  into  the 
 'church.  Though  uncircumcised  persons  might  not  eat  the 
 'passover,  they  might  offer  other  sacrifices  in  the  appointed 
 '  way ;  if  they  were  so  disposed.  These  regulations  referred  to 
 'sacrifices  and  ordinances  only;  not  to  public  offices,  nor  to 
 'marriages.'  I  have  cited  the  above  texts  and  comment  to 
 confirm  the  proposition,  that  persons,  not  fully  recognized  as 
 genuine  disciples  of  Christ,  may  and  ought  to  do  certain 
 religious  deeds,  while  they  might  not  be  allowed  to  do  some 
 others ;  and  to  show,  that  there  would  be  no  very  great  incon- 
 gruity in  bringing  their  children  and  offering  them  to  the 
 Lord,  though  they  might  not  be  allowed  to  attend  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  nor  be  initiated,  as  full  members,  into  the  spiritual 
 communion  or  fellowship  of  the  true  saints  of  God.  That 
 unconverted  persons  may  do  many  religious  things  cannot  be 
 questioned;  and  that  the  baptizing  of  their  children  is  not 
 one  of  those  things,  it  devolves  on  the  persons  holding  that 
 opinion  to  prove. 
 
 That  there  were  exceptions  to  the  religious  actions  of 
 certain  unsanctified  characters  among  the  Jews,  there  is  no 
 question;  the  instance  just  alluded  to  is  manifest.  But  there 
 were  many  deeds  which  all  who  openly  professed  the  religion 
 of  the  Hebrews,  whether  devout  or  profane,  were  not  only 
 permitted,  but  commanded  to  do.  Among  these,  the  dedication 
 of  their  children  to  God,  by  circumcision  and  baptism,  was 
 
84  CHILDREN  OF  THE  UNREGENER  ATE  : 
 
 certainly  one.  All  were  commanded,  under  severe  penalties,  to 
 dedicate  their  offspring  to  the  Lord.  Not  a  single  proviso  is 
 given — as 'If  the  parents  are  holy,  moral,  or  worthy.'  It 
 was  to  he  done  hy  every  Israelite  of  every  rank,  age,  or 
 character.  Though  they  might  be  under  the  divine  displeasure 
 — though  their  oblations  might  be  despised,  and  though  the 
 severest  expressions  of  God's  indignation  might  be  uttered 
 against  them ;  the  circumcision  and  consecration  of  their 
 children  to  God  is  never  prohibited,  never  discouraged,  and, 
 for  aught  we  read,  was  never  omitted;  and  it  never  could  be, 
 without  increasing  the  criminality  of  the  ungodly  parents. 
 So  the  purification  of  their  unclean  children,  and  the  due 
 education  of  them,  were  not  to  be  overlooked  on  the  ground 
 of  their  own  personal  unworthiness.  These  parental  duties 
 were  not  to  be  ignored  by  their  own  other  transgressions  of 
 the  laws  of  heaven.  The  inference  is,  that  as  far  as  the 
 arrangements,  in  the  ancient  church  of  God,  can  be  a  directory 
 under  the  present  economy,  all  parents  professing  the  Christian 
 religion  are  not  merely  allowed  to  dedicate  them  to  God  in 
 Baptism,  but  are  actually  bound  to  do  it,  and  also  to  train 
 them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,  even 
 though  they  themselves  are  not  spiritually  converted  to  the 
 Lord.  Those  who  were  not  Israel,  but  only  of  Israel,  must 
 dedicate  their  offspring  to  God.  And  so  those  who  are  not 
 Christians  in  heart  and  life,  but  only  of  Christians  in  profession 
 — of  the  creed  or  society  of  Christians — are  bound  to  do  the 
 same,  unless  evidence  can  be  given  to  show,  that  God's  plan 
 under  the  law,  is  entirely  reversed  under  the  gospel.  Certainly, 
 those  who  base  Christian  baptism  on  Jewish  circumcision 
 cannot  well  rebut  our  present  argument. 
 
 Further,  suppose  it  were  a  doctrine  generally  taught  in  our 
 schools  and  congregations,  (and  if  it  be  true,  it  ought  to  be 
 promulgated  universally,)  that  unless  one  of  the  parents  were 
 a  spiritually  regenerated  person,  at  the  time  of  the  baptism  of 
 their  children,  such  a  baptism  was  unscriptural  and  invalid ; 
 what  doubts  and  anxieties  would  naturally  arise  in  the  mind  of 
 many  of  our  serious  young  attendants?  They  might  entertain 
 no  question  about  Infant  Baptism,  as  being  a  doctrine  of 
 revelation;  but  only  respecting  the  validity  of  their  own — 
 conscious  that  their  parents  were  not  truly  pious  when  it  took 
 place.  Many  adult  Pedobaptists,  brought  under  the  sound  of 
 the  gospel,  religiously  enlightened,  and  devoutly  impressed  by 
 the  ministry  of  the  truth,  must  look  back  with  sorrow  to  their 
 early  days,    and  readily  discover,    that  when  this  rite  was 
 
THEIE  BAPTISM  VALID.  85 
 
 administered  to  tliem,  their  parents  were  not  renewed  in  their 
 hearts,  and  neither  of  them  was  a  member  of  a  truly  spiritual 
 church.  The  inquiry  might  arise,  and,  in  some  minds,  with 
 great  and  painful  force,  whether  or  not  they  were  rightly 
 baptized  at  first,  or  whether  it  must  be  done  over  again.  If 
 told  that  the  children  of  spiritual  believers  only  should  be 
 admitted  to  this  rite;  and  fearing  that  they  had  received  it, 
 when  neither  of  their  parents  was  regenerated  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit;  what  are  they  to  do  in  the  emergency?  Are  they  to 
 catechize  their  aged  parents,  as  to  their  piety  at  the  time  of 
 their  juvenile  dedication  to  God,  and  to  sit  in  judgment  upon 
 their  past  parental  conduct?  Or  are  they  to  be  rebaptized; 
 or  must  they  quietly  put  up  with  an  imperfect  or  unscriptural 
 ceremony  ?  Here  is  their  difficulty.  They  solicit  advice. 
 The  Baptist  says,  You  have  not  been  baptized  at  all;  let  me 
 dip  you!  Another  replies,  It  was  not  properly  done;  but 
 you  may  safely  put  up  with  it!  Our  answer  is,  You  were 
 scripturally  initiated  into  the  school  of  Christ;  and  should  now 
 duly  attend  to  its  advantages  and  obligations. 
 
 The  advocates  of  the  doctrine  we  are  opposing  believe,  that 
 in  the  apostolic  times,  parents  and  children  were  baptized 
 together — the  latter  on  the  ground  of  their  connexion  with 
 the  former.  But  what  evidence  is  there  that  all  the  adults 
 were  regenerated  previous  to  baptism?  That  they  believed 
 the  message  they  heard,  and  tacitly  agreed  to  comply  with  its 
 claims,  may  be  readily  conceded.  But  this  does  not  prove, 
 what  the  parties  seem  to  contend  for — that  one  of  the  parents, 
 at  least,  was  a  real  and  spiritual  disciple  of  Christ.  Indeed, 
 if  they  contend  for  any  thing  less,  they  aim  at  little  to  the 
 purpose ;  since  none  but  believers,  in  a  general  sense,  would 
 bring  their  children  to  the  font  to  receive  this  rite.  Dr.  Wardlaw, 
 probably  the  most  able  advocate  of  baptizing  only  the  children 
 of  genuine  believers,  thus  states  the  case:  'Whatever  qualifi- 
 '  cations  render  it  warrantable  to  baptize  the  parent's  self, 
 '  render  it  warrantable  to  include  his  infant  offspring  with  him 
 'in  the  administration  of  the  ordinance ;  and  whatever  qualifi- 
 '  cations  in  the  parent  render  it  warrantable  to  baptize  his 
 'children,  render  it  equally  warrantable  to  baptize  himself.' 
 Diss.  p.  271-  Now  the  question  is,  What  qualifications  are 
 absolutely  necessary  to  warrant  the  baptism  of  an  adult? 
 He  says,  '  I  have  no  objection  to  the  statement  [of  Dr.  Halley] 
 'that  the  apostles  baptized  "all  applicants,"  provided  appli- 
 '  cation  be  understood  to  imply  professing  to  receive  their 
 'doctrine;  nor  have  I  any  objection,  further,  to  the  statement 
 
80  ALL  ADULTS  AND  INFANTS  APPLYING, 
 
 '  that  they  received  such  applicants,  leaving  their  characters  to 
 'be  formed  and  tested  by  subsequent  events;  that  is,  not 
 'waiting  till  the  genuineness  of  the  professed  reception  of  the 
 'doctrine,  involved  in  the  application,  had  been  tried  and 
 '  satisfactorily  ascertained.'  lb.  p.  300.  We  gather,  then,  that 
 the  Apostles  baptized  such  as  believed  the  truth  of  the  doctrines 
 they  preached — that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  the  Saviour  of 
 the  world.  This,  however,  affords  no  evidence  of  regeneration 
 of  heart,  or  of  saving  faith;  and  that  the  children  of  such 
 nominal  adherents  of  the  gospel  were  baptized,  is  plainly 
 admitted,  and  this  is  all  we  contend  for. 
 
 Obs.  (3.)  The  only  course  to  be  pursued,  in  order  to  avoid 
 these  and  similar  difficulties,  is,  To  baptize  all  the  adults 
 that  devoutly  desire  it,  and  all  the  children  that  are  brought 
 for  that  purpose. — It  was  doubtless,  from  a  similar  view  of 
 the  perplexities  involved  in  the  contracted  scheme  just  pro- 
 pounded, that  a  very  intelligent  Baptist  minister  lately  declared 
 to  a  friend  of  mine,  that  he  was  prepared  to  baptize  any 
 persons,  of  good  moral  conduct,  who  applied  to  him  to 
 administer  the  rite  to  them.  We  may  take  it  as  granted, 
 that  neither  heathens,  Jews,  avowed  infidels,  nor  open  enemies 
 to  Christianity,  will  solicit  baptism  for  themselves  or  their 
 families;  and  that  others  who  do  so,  in  the  present  day  and 
 country  (now  a  civil  registration  of  baptism  is  not  required 
 for  any  social  or  political  purpose)  are,  in  the  general  sense 
 of  the  words,  believers  and  Christians.  That  these  terms 
 are  frequently  applied  to  mere  professors  of  the  gospel  will 
 be  questioned  by  none  who  carefully  examine  the  records  of 
 the  first  churches,  or  the  current  vocabularies  of  existing 
 religious  communions,  of  all  persuasions.  Besides,  as  on  the 
 principles  of  the  parties  I  am  now  referring  to,  regeneration 
 is  not  required  in  the  candidates  for  baptism,  nor  viewed  as 
 being  imparted  by  the  ceremony;  no  sane  person  will  be  led 
 to  build  his  hopes  of  adoption  into  the  spiritual  family  of 
 God,  on  the  mere  ground  of  his  being  baptized  into  the 
 congregation  of  professing  worshippers  of  Christ;  and  with 
 any  other  class  of  people  it  is  in  vain  to  reason.  While,  on 
 the  other  hand,  a  profession  to  baptize  no  adults  except 
 genuine  believers,  is  apt  to  excite  in  the  minds  of  self-deluded 
 professors  the  fearful  assumption,  that,  after  receiving  this 
 rite,  they  are,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  children  of  the'Most  High, 
 by  a  spiritual  regeneration.  Our  views  of  this  subject  remove 
 every  difficulty  and  unwarranted  responsibility  out  of  the  way 
 of  the  administrator,  and  all  danger  of  deluding  the  souls  of 
 
ENTITLED  TO  CHBISXIAN  BAPTISM.  87 
 
 the  baptized.  It  also  evidently  harmonizes  with  the  baptism 
 in  the  Bed  Sea,  in  which  good  and  bad  were  alike  consecrated 
 to  Moses;  with  that  of  John,  in  which,  as  far  as  we  can 
 discover,  few  of  his  converts  were  truly  and  spiritually 
 enlightened  and  religious  persons ;  and  with  that  of  the 
 Apostles,  who  certainly  never  made  the  new-birth  a  test  of 
 meetness  for  receiving  this  ceremony. 
 
 Again,  the  scheme  we  are  opposing,  would  often  issue  in 
 discipling  to  Christ,  those  who  ultimately  receive  no  material 
 present  practical  benefit  from  the  baptismal  rite;  and  in 
 refusing  it  to  others  who  subsequently  become  the  most  sincere 
 and  effective  servants  of  the  Son  of  God.  We  know  that  all 
 are  born  in  sin  and  shapcn  in  iniquity — as  well  the  children 
 of  real  saints  as  the  children  of  open  sinners:  consequently, 
 the  distinction  contended  for  by  many  good  men,  cannot  be 
 fairly  founded  on  any  natural  difference  in  the  condition  of  the 
 young.  Though  we  entertain  more  hope  of  future  piety  in 
 the  offspring  of  holy  than  of  unholy  parents,  from  the  more 
 assiduous  and  prayerful  use  of  appropriate  means  for  their 
 salvation ;  yet  history  and  observation  teach  us,  that  many 
 children  of  converted  parents,  unhappily,  live  and  die  in  sin; 
 and  that  many  children  of  unconverted  parents,  through  the 
 overruling  providence  and  sovereign  grace  of  God,  are  early 
 led  into  the  path  of  evangelical  holiness,  and  continue  therein 
 all  the  days  of  their  lives.  Indeed,  many  unrenewed  parents 
 are  very  anxious  about  the  religious  training  of  their  families ; 
 even  more  so  than  some  who  profess  the  warmest  love  to  God, 
 (especially  those  of  the  Antinomian  cast,  who  too  frequently 
 leave  the  spiritual  good  of  their  children  only  to  God,  without 
 the  use  of  appropriate  Christian  measures  to  effect  it,)  while  the 
 means  employed  by  the  mere  nominal  professors  of  the  gospel 
 are  not  unfrequently  and  effectually  blessed  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  The  practice,  then,  of  baptizing  only  the  children  of 
 really  converted  parents,  would  often  result  in  withholding 
 the  rite  from  those  who  subsequently  become  spiritual  disciples 
 of  Christ;  while  duly  administering  it  to  others  who  soon 
 forsake  the  school  of  the  gospel,  and  live  and  die  in  the  open 
 transgression  of  the  laws  of  God.  The  difficulty  involved  in 
 this  case  can  be  removed  only  by  adopting  the  plan  of  disci- 
 pling all  who  apply,  or  are  brought  to  receive  this  ordinance. 
 
 Those  who  argue,  from  what  they  consider  to  be  the  sense 
 of  scripture,  that  none  but  spiritual  Christian  believers,  or  the 
 children  of  truly  pious  parents,  are  proper  subjects  for  baptism ; 
 should,  on  the  like  principle,  contend,  that  unless  the  admi- 
 
88  ALL  ADULTS  AND  INFANTS  APPLYING, 
 
 nistrator  himself  were  a  man  of  God,  in  judgment,  heart, 
 and  conduct,  the  rite  would  be  as  unevangelical  as  if  the 
 subjects  were  totally  destitute  of  proper  qualifications  for  its 
 reception.  If  you  turn  to  New  Testament  precedents,  you  will 
 read  of  no  persons  performing  this  ceremony,  who  were  not 
 regarded  by  their  brethren  as  sincere  and  real  disciples  of 
 Christ.  Nor  is  there  even  the  slightest  intimation  given,  that 
 the  sacrament  is  valid,  when  administered  by  unconverted 
 ministers,  any  more  than  when  performed  on  unqualified 
 subjects.  Admitting  this  to  be  a  fair  statement  of  the  facts 
 of  the  case,  it  follows,  on  the  principle  of  the  objectors  to  the 
 baptism  of  unregenerate  adults,  or  the  children  of  unconverted 
 parents,  because  such  is  assumed  to  be  unscriptural,  that  all 
 baptisms  performed  by  men  not  spiritually  regenerated  are 
 also  unscriptural  and  invalid.  It  does  not  appear  that  the 
 rite  may  not  be  vitiated  or  neutralized  by  the  unfitness  of  the 
 administrator  as  much  as  by  the  unfitness  of  the  candidate. 
 Therefore,  an  inquisition  must  be  made  into  the  character  and 
 condition  of  the  ministers  who  baptize  either  the  old  or  the 
 young,  before  their  administration  can  be  regarded  by  our 
 opponents  as  proper  and  effectual.  This  becomes  especially 
 imperative,  as  it  is  now  well  known  or,  at  least,  generally 
 believed,  that  many  who  baptize  others  in  or  with  water,  have 
 themselves  never  been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 That  the  baptism  of  an  ungodly  adult  is  practically  valid, 
 though  theoretically  repudiated,  among  our  immersing  oppo- 
 nents, has,  I  think,  been  clearly  established.  That  the  actual 
 baptism  of  the  offspring  of  unconverted  parents  is  also  valid, 
 in  the  opinion  of  those  who  contend  for  baptizing  only  the 
 children  of  genuine  Christians,  by  aspersion,  may  be  gathered 
 from  the  following  concession  of  Dr.  Wardlaw : — 'It  is 
 'possible  that  some  Pedobaptists,  may  hold  one  opinion,  and 
 '  some  another,  as  to  the  propriety  of  re-baptizing  those 
 'children,  when  they  come  to  maturity  and  profess  the  faith; 
 '  whose  parents,  at  the  time  of  their  baptism,  were  living  without 
 'God — but  no  ground  of  objection  to  the  views  either  of 
 'Baptists  or  Pedobaptists  could  be  more  futile.  For  my  own 
 'part,  my  young  friends,  I  see  little  cause  for  distressing 
 'yourselves  upon  the  subject.  When  your  parents  had  the 
 'ordinance  administered  to  yon,  it  ought  to  have  been  under- 
 '  stood  by  them.  If  they  understood  it  not,  or  did  not 
 'properly  consider  its  import,  and  its  connexion  with  their 
 '  duty,  and  did  not  act  according  to  the  obligations  and  the 
 'encouragements  recognized  in  it;    they  were  to  be  blamed, 
 
ENTITLED  TO  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM.  89 
 
 'and  you  were  to  be  pitied.  But  the  meaning  of  the  ordinance 
 'was  not  thereby  altered;  and  if  you  are  now  satisfied  of  the 
 *  scriptural  ground  for  infant  baptism,  any  suspicion  or  con- 
 'viction  of  the  want  of  faith  in  your  parents  can  no  more  be 
 'a  valid  reason  for  your  being  re-baptized,  than  the  suspicion 
 'or  conviction  of  the  inadequacy  of  a  previous  profession, 
 'would  be  a  valid  reason  to  the  believer  in  adult  baptism  only, 
 'for  re-baptizing  an  adult,  who  should  come  to  make  that 
 'profession  in  earnest,  which  he  had  before  made  with  care- 
 'lessness  or  insincerity.  In  either  case,  the  recognition  of 
 'the  ordinance  with  a  right  understanding  and  an  honest 
 'heart,  should  be  considered  as  sufficient.' — Diss.  p.  145. 
 Notwithstanding  the  supposed  blame  of  the  parents,  and  the 
 pitiable  state  of  the  children,  the  baptism  of  the  latter  is 
 admitted  to  be  valid,  which  must  mean,  that,  though  it  is  not 
 the  best  way,  it  is  passable,  or,  at  any  rate,  it  is  not 
 contrary  to  the  Word  of  God. 
 
 I  would  ask  the  advocates  for  baptizing  only  the  children  of 
 godly  and  regenerated  parents,  whether  they  would  feel  justified 
 in  teaching  the  youthful  progeny  of  unrenewed  people  the  doc- 
 trines, duties,  and  privileges  of  the  gospel  ?  Universal  practice 
 answers  in  the  affirmative.  Indeed,  they  would  be  shocked 
 at  the  notion  of  refusing  to  instruct  even  the  seed  of  infidels 
 and  practical  heathens  in  the  truths  of  our  holy  religion. 
 But  if  such  children  may  be  treated  as  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
 or  as  pupils  in  a  Christian  seminary,  why  may  they  not 
 undergo  the  ceremony  which  ministerially  and  officially  con- 
 stitutes and  recognizes  them  young  disciples,  and  entitles 
 them  to  a  Christian  education  ?  If  an  unregenerate  paternity 
 would  prevent  the  baptism  of  infants,  would  it  not  equally 
 prevent  the  religious  and  systematic  instruction  of  the  unbap- 
 tized?  Christ's  law  is,  first  baptize,  and  then  teach.  The 
 objector  would  not  only  teach  such  children,  but  he  would  do 
 it  without  administering  what  he  believes  to  be  the  prior  act 
 of  baptism.  This  is  an  inconsistency,  which,  I  think,  has 
 only  to  be  seen  and  felt,  to  promote  the  practice  I  am  advo- 
 cating—  the  baptism  of  all  who  are  brought  to  receive  this  rite. 
 To  refuse  baptism  to  the  children  of  unconverted,  and  even  of 
 immoral  people,  with  the  hope  of  producing  conviction  of  sin 
 and  repentance  in  the  applicant,  is  unauthorized  by  either  the 
 letter  or  the  spirit  of  scripture,  and  is  by  no  means  likely  to 
 effect  the  desired  result,  but  rather  the  contrary.  One  might 
 as  justly  refuse  to  speak  to  such  people  in  a  Christian  spirit, 
 or  to  admit  them  to  public  worship,  or  to  family  prayer,  as  to 
 
90  PAUL  PRACTISED 
 
 refuse  to  dedicate  their  innocent  offspring  to  its  Maker,  because 
 the  parents  were  not  born  from  above.  It  must  be  a  very 
 credulous  and  susceptible  mind,  that  would  be  piously  and 
 favourably  impressed  by  such  conduct:  most  would  be  in- 
 dignant, and  grow  more  averse  to  the  religion  which  would  not 
 benefit  the  children,  because  God  had  not  savingly  converted 
 their  parents. 
 
 Finally,  on  this  point,  the  advocates  of  baptizing  only  the 
 children  of  believing  and  truly  godly  parents,  hold,  equally 
 with  their  brethren,  that  all  infants,  whether  the  offspring  of 
 sinners  or  of  saints,  dying  while  young,  go  to  the  kingdom  of 
 glory.  They  argue,  that  before  these  little  ones  are  taken  to 
 heaven,  they  are  regenerated  or  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit; 
 and  that  if  they  have  a  capacity  for  receiving  the  grace  signi- 
 fied by  water  baptism,  they  are  surely  qualified  to  receive  the 
 sign  of  it — water  baptism  itself.  Here,  then,  their  restricted 
 views,  concerning  the  subjects  of  this  ordinance,  are  destroyed 
 by  their  arguments  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism  generally — 
 nor  can  it  be  otherwise,  unless  they  are  prepared  to  prove, 
 that  all  the  children  of  unconverted  parents,  dying  in  infancy, 
 are  incapable  of  regeneration,  and  are  universally  excluded 
 from  the  world  of  future  happiness,  when  they  leave  the 
 present!  Moreover,  I  am  not  aware,  that  any  of  these  gentle- 
 men, when  taking  the  children  of  unholy  parents  in  their 
 arras,  would  not,  like  their  divine  Master,  say,  '  Of  such  is 
 'the  kingdom  of  God,'  as  readily  as  they  would  use  the  same 
 language  concerning  the  children  of  the  holiest  members  in 
 their  spiritual  societies.  This  qualification  for  being  'of  the 
 'kingdom  of  God,'  is  clearly  a  valid  reason  for  their  being 
 formally  introduced  into  this  kingdom,  notwithstanding  the 
 unholy  character  of  their  parents — at  least,  such  must  be  the 
 inference,  unless  this  requisite  fitness  were  relative  and  not 
 personal— in  the  parent  and  not  in  the  child;  or  unless  it 
 could  be  proved  that  the  children  of  the  saints  are  inherently 
 better  than  the  children  of  sinners;  which  cannot  be  done, 
 and,  I  believe,  is  never  attempted — no  evidence  of  it  being 
 anywhere  to  be  found.  Besides,  what  proof  is  there 
 that  the  infants  our  Lord  took  up  in  his  arras,  and  respecting 
 which  he  employed  the  language  above  referred  to,  were 
 undoubtedly  the  offspring  of  truly  godly  parents?  Certainly, 
 nothing  of  the  kind  is  averred  in  the  holy  narratives. 
 
 SECTION  EIGHTH.—  That  Paul  practised  Infant  Bap- 
 tism, as  ivell  as  pleaded  and  sanctioned  it,  may  be  reasonably 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM.  91 
 
 inferred. — That  the  Apostle,  in  his  appeal  to  the  Corinthians, 
 recognized,  sanctioned,  and  pleaded,  the  Baptism  of  Infants 
 in  the  Eed  Sea,  we  deem  to  be  manifest  in  the  text,  and  to 
 have  been  rendered  indisputable  by  our  preceding  remarks 
 upon  it.  This  will  be  made  still  more  apparent  as  we  advance 
 in  our  inquiry.  Assuming  this  to  be  true,  the  administration 
 of  this  rite,  by  the  inspired  writer  himself,  or  by  his  direction, 
 which  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  can  scarcely  be  a  question 
 of  grave  disputation  between  reasonable  men.  You  will 
 observe  that  the  apostle  is  not  writing  as  an  historian, 
 simply  recording  foregone  transactions ;  but  as  a  teacher, 
 arguing  with  a  people  he  himself  had  baptized  about  three 
 years  before;  and  admonishing  them,  as  a  baptized  com- 
 munity, to  take  heed  to  their  spirit  and  conduct;  enforcing 
 his  appeal  by  a  reference  to  their  predecessors,  who,  though 
 baptized  by  Jehovah  himself,  had  afterwards  sinned  and 
 fallen  under  the  divine  displeasure.  Had  there  been  any 
 material  discrepancies  between  the  two  baptisms,  in  the  Eed 
 Sea  and  at  Corinth,  his  argument,  so  far,  would  have  been  inap- 
 propriate and  invalid.  If,  on  administering  this  rite  to  'many  of 
 '  the  Corinthians,'  Acts  xviii.  8,  he  had  purposely  and  avowedly 
 omitted  children,  the  analogy  would,  to  a  very  great  degree,  have 
 been  affected  and,  indeed,  incomplete,  and  his  admonitions 
 very  much  limited  in  their  application. 
 
 To  reply,  that  the  .Corinthians  believed  before  they  were 
 baptized,  in  no  measure  militates  against  our  conclusion.  The 
 Hebrews  must  have  thoroughly  believed  in  the  mission  of 
 Hoses  before  they  or  their  children  were  baptized,  or  they 
 never  would  have  followed  him  out  of  Egypt,  and  ventured 
 through  the  sea.  On  emerging  from  the  deep,  their  faith  was 
 greatly  confirmed;  as  was  that  of  our  Lord's  disciples  after 
 witnessing  the  progressive  miracles  performed  by  him.  'And 
 'Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  the  Lord  did  upon  the 
 'Egyptians;  and  the  people  feared  the  Lord,  and  believed  the 
 'Lord,  and  his  servant  Hoses.' Ex. xiv.  31.  Abraham's  personal 
 faith  was  sufficient  to  secure  circumcision,  with  all  its  social 
 and  spiritual  blessings,  to  his  children,  and  to  their  seed  after 
 them.  Hany  other  instances,  of  a  similiar  federal  headsbip, 
 securing  rites  and  benefits  to  posterity,  even  in  their  infantile 
 condition,  might  be  mentioned.  The  case  of  Jewish  proselytes, 
 to  which  special  reference  will  be  subsequently  made,  is  a  striking 
 corroboration  of  this  doctrine.  Let  it  be  observed,  that  if 
 Paul  and  his  colleagues  baptized  but  a  single  infant  or  child 
 in  the  whole  course  of  their  protracted  ministry,  or  if  in  the 
 
92  PAUL  PRACTISED 
 
 households — and  prohably  there  were  thousands  of  them 
 consecrated  to  God  by  baptism — there  had  been  but  one  child, 
 the  question  about  Infant  Baptism,  every  where  and  in  all 
 ages,  is  finally  settled ;  — for  myriads  of  other  little  ones  must 
 evidently  have  undergone  the  like  ceremonial. 
 
 There  cannot  be  a  reasonable  doubt,  that,  in  this  interesting 
 and  important  matter,  a  uniformity  was  observed  by  the  first 
 ministers  and  churches  of  Christ;  as  it  was  during  many 
 centuries  afterwards — if  the  histories  of  those  ages  are  to  be 
 credited,  or  to  be  regarded  as  of  any  weight  in  this  investi- 
 gation. In  a  passage,  subsequently  cited,  Mr.  Noel  assumes, 
 that  if  but  one  clear  case  of  immersion  baptism  can  be 
 established  in  the  New  Testament,  dipping  in  every  other 
 case  may  be  safely  assumed.  He  fixes  on  that  of  the  Eunuch. 
 How  far  he  has  established  his  point,  the  reader  will  decide. 
 In  my  view  he  has  utterly  failed.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
 high  probability  of  Paul's  baptizing  infants — after  having 
 referred  to  the  baptism  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  them  in 
 the  Red  Sea,  and  having  pleaded  the  act  as  the  ground  of  a 
 powerful  argument  in  favour  of  stedfastness  in  the  faith,  and 
 perseverance  in  consistent  holiness,  must  be  felt  by  every 
 candid  reader.  And  further,  on  Mr.  Noel's  principle,  I  might 
 as  justly  contend,  that  if  but  one  instance  of  sprinkling  the 
 baptized  can  be  established,  or  rendered  probable,  in  the 
 New  Testament,  sprinkling  in  every  other  case  may  be  as 
 safely  assumed. 
 
 To  render  our  deductions  still  more  palpable  and  convincing, 
 let  it  be  supposed,  that  instead  of  baptizing  the  Corinthians, 
 it  had  been  recorded,  that  Paul  had  circumcised  them,  and 
 had  argued  in  the  following  manner :  'All  Our  Fathers  were 
 'circumcised  in  the  wilderness;  but  they  soon  broke  the 
 '  covenant  of  circumcision,  and  fell  under  the  wrath  of  God. 
 '  Now  these  were  our  examples,  to  the  intent  that  we  should 
 'not  lust  after  evil  things  as  they  also  lusted.  .  .  .  These 
 'things  happened  unto  them  for  ensamples,  and  are  written 
 'for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are 
 '  come.  Wherefore  let  him  that  thinketh  he  standeth  take 
 'heed  lest  he  fall.  See  that  ye  break  not  your  covenant  of 
 '  circumcision  in  the  same  manner,  and  fall  under  the  like 
 'displeasure  of  the  Almighty.  I  speak  as  unto  wise  men, 
 'judge  ye  what  I  say.'  In  this  assumed  case,  no  person 
 would  ever  have  concluded  that  Paul  had  not  circumcised  the 
 male  infants  of  the  proselyted  Christian  people  at  Corinth, 
 even  though  he  never  mentioned  them  by  name;    and  on  this 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM.  93 
 
 simple  ground,  that  they  all  knew  the  male  infants  of  the 
 Hebrews  had  certainly  been  circumcised  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
 Now,  it  is  as  certain  that  children  were  baptized  in  the  Red 
 Sea,  as  that  the  male  infants  were  circumcised  in  Canaan. 
 Consequently,  if  our  reasonings  in  the  former  case  would 
 apply  to  the  latter,  which  will  hardly  be  doubted,  then 
 children  were  certainly  baptized  by  Paul  at  Corinth. 
 
 Besides,  if  this  inference  cannot  be  sustained,  Paul's 
 argument  is  imperfect,  the  premises  being  twice  as  large  as 
 the  deduction,  and  that,  too,  without  his  giving  the  slightest 
 intimation,  that  such  a  partial  and  illogical  consequence 
 was  ever  intended  by  him.  Every  ordinary  reader  of  his 
 address  must  have  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  his  appeal 
 assumed,  as  a  known  fact,  that  he  baptized  the  children  of  the 
 converted  Corinthians.  Indeed,  no  other  could  have  been 
 fairly  inferred  from  it.  If  Paul  did  not  personally,  or  by 
 deputy,  baptize  these  children,  it  rests  with  those  who  hold 
 and  advocate  that  opinion  to  develop  some  serious  discrepancy 
 in  his  reasoning,  by  which  children,  though  not  specially 
 mentioned,  were  regarded  as  excluded  from  this  baptismal 
 rite.  Till  this  be  plainly  and  satisfactorily  accomplished,  our 
 position  must  be  conceded,  that  the  Apostle  not  only  recognized, 
 sanctioned,  and  pleaded  Infant  Baptism;  but  that  he  univer- 
 sally practised  it.  I  may  just  add  here,  that  as  we  advance 
 in  our  investigations,  the  reader  will  discover  the  fact,  that 
 some  of  our  most  talented  and  intelligent  opponents  arrive 
 at  the  conclusion,  that  Jewish  Proselyte  baptism  was  common 
 before  and  during  the  time  of  Christ;  not  from  any  positive 
 command,  but  from  the  great  probability  and  reasonableness  of 
 the  case.  Our  conviction,  that  Paul  himself,  and  all  the  other 
 Apostles,  baptized  infants,  is  based,  not  on  any  literally 
 expressed  statement  of  the  fact,  but,  on  the  probabilities  and 
 reasonableness  of  it — on  which  principle  of  deduction  we 
 follow  the  example  of  our  clever  and  cautious  antagonists. 
 In  a  word,  few  persons,  who  admit  the  truth  of  our  preceding 
 statements,  will  refuse  their  assent  to  the  doctrine,  that  Paul 
 did  actually  baptize  children  at  Corinth,  and  in  many  other 
 parts  of  the  world. 
 
 OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 It  may  be  readily  anticipated,  that  clear  and  conclusive 
 as  our  foregoing  statements  and  deductions  appear  to  our  own 
 minds ;  various  objections  will  be  made  against  them,  by  the 
 
94  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 ardent  opponents  of  Infant  Baptism.  It  will,  therefore,  be 
 necessary  here,  though  at  the  risk  of  occasional  repetitions, 
 plainly  to  state,  and  fully  to  meet  such  objections;  in  order 
 that,  if  possible,  no  doubts  may  be  ultimately  felt,  even  by 
 the  most  incredulous  reader,  as  to  the  validity  of  our  facts, 
 and  the  legitimacy  of  our  inferences. 
 
 In  this  part  of  our  inquiry,  I  shall  not  confine  my  replies  to 
 objections  brought  directly  and  simply  against  the  fact  I  have 
 been  endeavouring  to  establish,  that  multitudes  of  children 
 were  baptized  in  the  Ked  Sea:  but  shall  recur  to  others 
 which  our  opponents  generally  adduce  in  opposition  to  Infant 
 Baptism,  on  whatever  grounds  that  doctrine  may  be  based, 
 by  its  respective  advocates.  This  will  account  for  the  length 
 of  this  part  of  our  subject;  the  importance  of  which  will  be 
 deemed  a  sufficient  apology.  It  will  also  be  seen,  that  many 
 arguments  and  illustrations  previously  given  to  support  our 
 propositions,  will  be  again  adduced  to  meet  the  subsequent 
 allegations  of  our  opponents.  The  reiteration  of  them,  though 
 undesirable  in  some  respects,  may  have  the  effect  of  familiar- 
 izing them  to  the  mind  of  the  ordinary  reader. 
 
 Objection  I.  Children  are  not  expressly  said  to  have 
 been  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea;  therefore,  we  are  not  bound 
 to  believe  that  they  were. — But  we  have  seen,  that  terms  are 
 employed  by  the  Apostle,  which  unquestionably  include  all 
 the  infants,  as  well  as  all  the  adults,  who  passed  through  the 
 sea.  We  have  seen,  further,  that  a  vast  multitude  of  children 
 did  actually  pass  through  the  sea  with  their  parents ;  and  that, 
 when  in  this  state  of  transit,  the  adults  were  baptized,  their 
 little  ones,  without  the  intervention  of  a  miracle,  must  have 
 been  baptized  also  at  the  same  time,  in  the  same  place,  and 
 in  the  same  manner.  Yet  no  such  miracle  is  mentioned; 
 and  no  exception  of  the  children  is  even  remotely  hinted  at, 
 by  the  Inspired  Writer.  Further,  the  objection  would  also 
 exclude  'Our  Mothers'  as  much  as  their  infant  offspring;  for 
 there  is  not  a  word  in  the  statement  of  Paul,  informing  us, 
 that  women,  any  more  than  their  children,  were  baptized  with 
 the  men.  It  is  a  remarkable  circumstance,  that  while  the 
 little  ones  are  referred  to  as  swelling  the  mighty  host,  leaving 
 Egypt  for  the  Red  Sea,  the  women  are  not  once  mentioned 
 as  pertaining  to  it.  'And  the  children  of  Israel  journeyed 
 'from  Rameses  to  Succoth,  about  six  hundred  thousand  on 
 'foot  that  were  men,  besides  children.'  Ex.  xii.  37.  That 
 adult  females,  though  not  specified,  were  really  baptized,  no 
 person  affects  to  doubt.     And  if  exclusion,  on  the  ground  of 
 
CHILDEKX  KOT  SPECIFIED.  95 
 
 nondescription,  cannot  be  admitted  in  the  case  of  the  women, 
 no  more  can  it  be  in  the  case  of  the  children.  In  truth,  the 
 precise  terms  used  by  the  Apostle  would  literally  include 
 male  infants  before  their  pious  and  beloved  mothers;  for,  in 
 respect  of  sex,  they  were  really  more  'Our  Fathers'  than  the 
 wives  of  the  first  princes  of  Israel. 
 
 By  the  way,  according  to  the  strict  verbal  import  of  legal 
 phraseology  used  respecting  Coroners'  Inquests,  our  opponents 
 might,  with  equal  propriety  assume,  that  no  women  or  children 
 were  ever  accidentally  killed  in  this  country,  since  the  verdicts 
 in  such  cases,  are  always  brought  in,  not  woman,  nor  baby, 
 but  'Man  Slaughter.'  Again,  as  we  read  only  of  the  Pilgrim 
 Fathers,  who  formerly  left  England  for  America,  to  escape 
 religious  persecution  at  home;  must  we  conclude  that  there 
 were  neither  women  nor  children  connected  with  this  great 
 Puritan  Emigration?  When  Paul  says,  he  does  not  allow  'a 
 'woman' — a  married  woman — 'to  speak  in  the  church,'  are 
 we  to  conclude,  that  spinsters  or  widows  might  with  propriety 
 openly  address  the  congregated  body!  And  when  we  talk  of 
 our  '  Forefathers,'  do  we  not  also  and  equally  mean  and  include 
 our 'Foremothers?'  And  does  not  the  term  'Our  Ancestors,' 
 include  all  our  natural  predecessors,  of  both  sexes  and  of  all 
 ages — from  a  day  old,  to  that  of  threescore  years  and  ten? 
 
 It  is  remarkable,  that  an  infant  of  eight  days  old,  is  called  a 
 man  by  the  Lord  himself:  'Ye  on  the  sabbath  day  circumcise 
 'a  man  ...  If  a  man  on  the  sabbath  day  receive  circumcision, 
 '  that  the  law  of  Moses  should  not  be  broken.'  John  vii.  22,  23. 
 Even  new-born  babes  are  designated  men.  Eve  'bare  Cain, 
 'and  said,  I  have  gotten  a  man  from  the  Lord.'  Gen.  iv.  1. 
 '  She  remembereth  no  more  her  sorrow  for  joy  that  a  man  is 
 'born  into  the  world.'  John  xvi.  21.  Consequently,  when  we 
 read  of  men  being  baptized,  we  have  no  certainty  that  half  of 
 them  were  not  infants  of  eight  days'  old  or  even  under; 
 unless  the  connexion  indicate  that  they,  unquestionably,  were 
 of  riper  age.  It  was  also  customary  to  designate  the  young  of  the 
 herd  and  the  flock  by  the  names  literally  descriptive  only  of 
 the  old. — 'Likewise  shalt  thou  do  with  thine  oxen,  and  with 
 '\\\y  sheep;  seven  days  shall  it  be  with  his  dam;  on  the 
 '  eighth  day  shalt  thou  give  it  me.'  Ex.  xxii.  30. 
 
 In  arguing  in  favour  of  females  sitting  down  at  the  Lord's 
 table,  our  opponents  contend,  that  the  Greek  word  anthropos, 
 man,  includes  women  as  well  as  men;  and  on  that  ground 
 they  contend  for  their  right  to  the  sacramental  table  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper. — This  we  admit.     But  the  term  also  includes 
 
96  OBJECTIONS  AXSWEKED. 
 
 children  as  well  as  adults  —  mankind  in  general.  The  ex- 
 pression—  'men' — anthropoi — 'were  baptized,'  contains  as 
 good  an  argument  in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  the  other 
 phrase — 'men' — anthropoi — 'sat  down  at  the  Lord's  Supper,' 
 would  do  in  favor  of  female  communion.  In  all  cases  of  this 
 kind  the  leading  terms  must  be  interpreted  specifically  or 
 generally  according  to  circumstances. 
 
 Had  the  Apostle  meant  to  tell  the  Corinthians,  that  only 
 adult  males,  or  adults  generally,  had  been  baptized  unto 
 Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea,  he  could  have  done  so 
 as  plainly,  and  as  briefly,  as  in  the  language  he  has  actually 
 employed.  Nor,  with  such  a  purpose,  would  he  have  used 
 expressions  relative  to  the  act  and  subjects  of  Baptism,  which 
 he  must  have  well  known  his  readers  at  Corinth  would, 
 most  probably,  if  not  necessarily,  interpret  or  understand,  as 
 comprehending  children  equally  with  adults.  Had  he  been 
 an  Antipedobaptist,  he  would  have  said,  in  effect,  'The 
 'regenerated  men  and  women,  of  full  age,  when  passing 
 'through  the  sea,  were  baptized  unto  Moses;  but  the  little 
 'ones,  though  brought  into  precisely  the  like  local  and  relative 
 'positions,  were,  by  some  means  or  other,  beyond  my  powers 
 'of  conception,  excluded  from  the  operation,  and  the  advantages 
 'of  its  sacred  administration.' 
 
 If  he  were  not  a  practical  Pedobaptist,  he  was  sadly  off 
 his  guard  in  his  unqualified  address  to  the  Congregation  at 
 Corinth.  Even  Mr.  Noel,  notwithstanding  his  many  con- 
 cessions to  his  opponents,  never  surrendered  the  cause  he 
 advocates  to  the  friends  of  Infant  Baptism  so  completely  as 
 the  Apostle  Paul  has  done,  in  his  address  to  the  Congregation 
 at  Corinth — provided  he  never  believed  in,  nor  practised, 
 this  rite  on  little  children.  The  sagacious  Abraham  Booth 
 certainly  would  never  have  expressed  himself  so  unguardedly, 
 and  so  much  in  favour  of  Infant  Sprinkling.  But  Paul  was 
 no  Antipedobaptist.  Dr.  Wall's  remark  on  this  head  is  to 
 the  point.  '  If  a  master  give  a  command  to  his  servant,  in 
 'short,  to  take  care  of  his  flock'  [of  sheep]  'shall  an  arrogant 
 'servant  excuse  himself,  that  he  did  not  in  the  commission 
 'particularly  name  the  lambs?'  v.  iii.  p.  145.  God  brought 
 Israel  up  out  of  the  sea  with  Moses,  'the  shepherd  of  his  flock.' 
 Is.  lxiii.  11.  Surely  there  were  many  lambs  under  his  care 
 and  protection;  though  Paul  does  not  particularly  distinguish 
 them. 
 
 Objection*  II.  The  children  and  infants,  who  passed 
 through  the  Red  Sea,  had  not  the  knowledge  essential  for 
 
CHILDREN  NOT  INTELLIGENT.  97 
 
 baptism,  and,  therefore,  would  not  have  been  baptized  with 
 their  enlightened  parents. — This  doctrine  and  deduction  are 
 not  only  opposed  to  fact,  but  are  based  on  an  assumption 
 destitute  of  any  valid  foundation.  The  import  of  the  objection 
 is,  that  children  might  not  then,  and  may  not  now,  be  baptized, 
 unless  they  could  comprehend  the  nature  and  purport  of  this 
 religious  act.  But  we  all  know,  that  instances  are  of  daily 
 occurrence  —  to  which  no  reasonable  man  objects — wherein 
 young  children  are  placed  under  personal  obligations,  are 
 bound  by  covenants,  and  are  blessed  by  promises,  of  which, 
 at  the  time,  they  are  totally  ignorant,  and  in  which,  of  course, 
 they  never  express  their  concurrence.  Though  ever  so  young, 
 they  are  made  members  of  the  commonwealth,  and  of  benefit 
 societies;  are  admitted  tenants  of  estates,  and  the  like.  Why, 
 then,  may  they  not  become  members  of  a  religious  community, 
 for  which  they  are  as  fully  qualified,  as  for  being  members  of 
 a  voluntary  association?  Or  why  should  our  opponents  protest 
 against  such  a  position  as  unreasonable  in  religious  matters, 
 and  yet  daily  act  upon  it  in  those  which  are  social  and  secular? 
 If  there  be  any  inconsistency  or  absurdity  in  the  one  case, 
 there  is  the  like  equally  in  the  other. 
 
 The  rite  of  circumcision,  originally  appointed  by  Jehovah, 
 proves,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  infants  of  eight  days  old  might 
 be  the  subjects  of  an  instructive  ceremonial,  and  be  thereby 
 laid  under  obligations,  in  after  years,  to  keep  laws  they  had 
 never  read,  and  be  placed  in  relationships  to  enjoy  future 
 blessings  of  which,  at  the  time,  they  cannot  have  formed 
 the  slightest  conception.  (Acts  xv.  1,10;  Gal.  v.  3.)  Till  these 
 effects  of  infant  circumcision  can  be  successfully  disproved, 
 or  be  clearly  shewn  to  have  originated  in  gross  ignorance  of 
 human  nature  and  covenant  obligations;  the  argument  against 
 Infant  Baptism,  based  on  the  simple  ground  of  juvenile 
 incapacity,  must  ever  be  regarded  as  irrelevant,  and  even 
 frivolous  in  the  highest  degree.  It  might,  with  as  much 
 reason,  be  asserted,  that  infants  were  not  capable  of  receiving, 
 and  of  being  benefitted  by,  the  Saviour's  blessing,  when  he 
 put  his  hands  on  their  heads ;  as  that  they  could  not  receive, 
 or  be  benefitted  by  the  Saviour's  baptism,  administered  by 
 his  holy  apostles.  An  old  writer  has  justly  remarked,  that 
 'though  infants  cannot  lay  hold  on  Christ,  he  can  lay  hold  of 
 '  them ; '  and  we  know  that  even  adults,  before  renewed  in 
 their  minds,  will  not  lay  hold  on  Christ,  till  he  has  first,  by 
 his  Spirit,  laid  hold  of  them. 
 
 That  children,  notwithstanding  their  ignorance,  are  capable 
 
 E 
 
98  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 of  being  regenerated  by  divine  grace,  will  be  questioned  by- 
 few  intelligent  Christians.  And  if  so,  why  must  they  be 
 incapacitated  for  receiving  baptism  with  water,  the  sign  and 
 symbol  of  this  great  internal  renovation?  or,  at  least,  why 
 should  their  ignorance  incapacitate  them  for  it?  John  the 
 Baptist  'was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  from  his  mother's 
 'womb.'  That  this  gracious  Spirit  may  dwell  in  other  infant 
 hearts  is,  therefore,  possible  and  far  from  improbable.  In  truth, 
 we  know  from  God's  Word,  and  also  from  sad  experience  and 
 observation,  that  the  seeds,  germs,  or  elements,  of  evil  may 
 dwell  in  the  souls  of  young  children.  There  is  in  them  the 
 capacity  for  containing,  fostering,  and  perfecting  moral  cor- 
 ruption. Hence,  it  is  written,  'except  a  man'  [tis,  any  one] 
 'be  born  again,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  This 
 language  includes  the  unconscious  infant  as  much  as  the  hoary- 
 headed  sinner.  On  one  occasion,  a  man  brought  his  son  to 
 Christ  to  be  healed  of  a  dumb  spirit,  which  had  often  cast  him 
 into  the  fire  and  into  the  water  to  destroy  him.  'And  Jesus 
 '  asked  his  father,  How  long  is  it  ago  since  this  came  unto 
 'him?  and  he  said,  Of  a  child.'    Mark  ix.  17-27. 
 
 On  the  like  ground  of  capacity,  it  follows,  that  the  seeds, 
 germs,  or  elements  of  grace,  imparted  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  may 
 also  exist  in  an  infant's  mind.  Both  cases  are  mysterious,  as 
 to  their  properties,  and  modes  of  mental  inhabitation.  But 
 the  latter  is  not  more  so  than  the  former.  It  is  as  easily 
 credited,  that  divine  influence  may  dwell  in  childish  hearts, 
 as  that  sinful  or  satanic  influences  should  there  take  up  an 
 unrighteous  residence.  Nor  is  it  manifestly  beyond  the  power 
 of  God,  or  the  energy  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  effect  that  divine 
 change  in  the  mind  of  a  child,  destined  to  an  early  grave, 
 which  we  call  regeneration,  and  which,  we  are  assured,  is 
 essential  to  every  one  previous  to  entering  the  kingdom  of 
 .  God.  We  feel  warranted  to  regard  all  who  leave  the  world 
 in  childhood,  as  being  elect  according  to  the  divine  fore- 
 knowledge, and,  through  the  grace  of  Christ,  taken  to  glory 
 when  they  die;  and  that,  too,  in  spite  of  their  'ignorance  and 
 'unconsciousness.'  They  are  capable  of  being  baptized  by 
 the  Holy  Ghost  in  their  earliest  life;  and  who  would  contend 
 that  this  ignorance  and  unconsciousness  render  them  incapable 
 of  receiving  the  symbol  of  it — which  consists  of  baptism  witli 
 water  ? 
 
 Infants,  unquestionably,  were  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea, 
 and,  consequently,  they  may  be  so  now  at  the  font,  as  far  as 
 capacity  is  concerned,  without  any  present  knowledge  of  the 
 
CIULDEEN  NOT  INTELLIGENT.  99 
 
 subject,  or  any  voluntary  concurrence  in  the  rite. — Human 
 nature  has  ever  been  the  same  in  every  clime  and  class 
 of  mankind.  Whatever  information  or  inclination  may  be 
 necessary  in  adults,  prior  to  their  baptism  ;  it  is  certain,  that 
 such  is  not  required  in  the  case  of  infants,  prior  to  their 
 baptism;  any  more  than  it  was  essential  in  Hebrew  infants, 
 prior  to  their  circumcision.  For  further  exposition  of  the 
 doctrine,  let  the  reader  turn  to  his  Bible,  and  he  will  perceive 
 that  children,  from  a  month  old  and  upwards,  were  constituted 
 keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary.  Num.  iii.  22.  At  a 
 prior  age,  they  were  capable  of  receiving  'the  seal  of  the 
 'righteousness  of  faith.'  Rom.  iv.  11.  They  are  designated 
 'Holy  or  Saints.'  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  And  they  are  plainly  called 
 'Disciples'  when  old  enough  to  be  circumcised.  Acts  xv.  10. 
 If  they  possess  a  capacity  for  all  this,  who  will  deny  them 
 the  capacity  requisite  for  being  consecrated  or  discipled  to 
 Christ  by  baptism? 
 
 The  want  of  knowledge  is  not,  in  all  instances,  a  bar  to  our 
 reception  of  the  divine  guidance  and  blessings.  How  often 
 are  we,  even  in  advanced  life,  the  subjects  of  God's  dealings 
 and  providences,  concerning  the  nature,  purport,  and  issue  of 
 which  we,  at  the  time,  are  as  unconscious  as  infants  can  be 
 of  their  dedication  to  Christ;  and  by  which,  notwithstanding 
 our  ignorance,  we  may  be  benefitted  many  years  afterwards. 
 Under  such  mysterious  dispensations,  we  take  courage  and 
 gather  comfort  from  the  promise,  that  what  the  Saviour  does, 
 though  we  'know  not  now,  we  shall  know  hereafter.'  Few 
 persons,  when  inclined  to  confer  some  substantial  token  of 
 their  affection  on  infants,  however  young,  would  feel  that  a 
 deed  of  gift,  or  a  last  will  and  testament,  in  their  favour, 
 would  be  ineffective  or  useless,  because  the  little  ones  were 
 not  in  a  condition  to  understand  the  nature  of  legal  documents, 
 the  benevolence  that  dictated  them,  nor  the  terms  and  provisos 
 on  which  the  gifts  and  bequests  were  to  be  subsequently  received 
 and  enjoyed. 
 
 Dr.  Cox  objects  that,  'neither  reason,  judgment,  conscience, 
 'nor  affection,  are  necessary  to  the  due  observance  of  this 
 'rite'  of  Infant  Baptism,  p.  10.  Nor  were  they  necessary  to 
 the  due  observance  of  circumcision,  nor  to  the  Baptism  of 
 Infants  in  the  Red  Sea,  nor  to  their  obtaining  numberless 
 blessings,  both  temporal  and  spiritual.  Mr.  Dore  says  'The 
 'religion  of  Christ  is,  in  all  its  branches,  a  reasonable  service.' 
 p.  1 7-  And  is  not  dedicating  a  child  to  God,  according  to 
 God's  command,  a  reasonable  service  in  its  parents?      Is  it 
 
100  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEKED. 
 
 not  a  reasonable  service  for  children  to  be  taught  the  first 
 catechism  of  Christianity ;  though  they  may  understand  little 
 or  nothing  of  its  meaning  at  the  time?  Was  not  circumcision 
 a  reasonable  service!  And  is  not  the  dry  dedication  of  a 
 Baptist  baby  a  reasonable  service!  Mr.  Pengelly  remarks, 
 'Baptism  is  an  act  of  obedience  to  Christ.'  p.  95.  He  means, 
 it  should  be  the  act  of  the  baptized,  and  not  of  the  baptizer. 
 Yet,  the  circumcision  of  infants  was  an  act  of  obedience ;  and 
 so  was  the  purification  of  children,  when  ceremonially  polluted. 
 But  in  neither  case  was  it  the  act  of  the  children  themselves, 
 but  of  those  who  performed  the  service.  In  the  baptism  of 
 infants,  God  is  obeyed,  and  by  the  only  persons  who  have  the 
 right  or  power  to  render  this  act  of  obedience  to  him.  In 
 baptism,  even  of  adults,  baptism  is  never  the  act  of  the  bap- 
 tized, but  of  the  baptizer — the  former  being  only  a  passive 
 subject,  acted  upon  by  another. 
 
 Objection  III.  A  high  moral  character ,  and  a  considerable 
 advance  in  age,  are  essential  prerequisites  to  baptism. — These, 
 it  is  argued,  the  children  in  the  Red  Sea,  not  having  attained, 
 could  not  have  been  properly  baptized  unto  Moses.  This, 
 like  the  preceding  objection,  is  based  on  a  groundless  assump- 
 tion, and  is  fully  answered  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  by  an 
 appeal  to  historical  facts.  With  reference  to  moral  attain- 
 ments. Admitting  that,  in  the  case  of  adults,  some  moral 
 prerequisites  were  necessary  to  their  baptism;  it  does  not, 
 therefore,  follow  that  children  were  not  of  old,  and  may  not 
 now  be,  baptized  without  them.  Before  men  and  women  can 
 enter  the  kingdom  of  glory,  repentance,  faith  in  Christ,  and 
 holiness  of  heart,  are  absolutely  required.  But  this  cannot 
 hold  true  in  the  case  of  infants  or  children,  leaving  the  world 
 before  they  have  known  good  or  evil,  or  have  become  practical 
 or  actual  transgressors  of  the  laws  of  God.  If  it  were  not  so, 
 then  all  departed  little  ones,  though  the  offspring  of  the  most 
 holy  parents  on  the  earth,  must  undoubtedly  perish  for  ever 
 — a  thought  too  dreadful  to  be  entertained  by  any  but  demons 
 in  human  form.  We  all  know  that,  as  a  general  rule,  practical 
 holiness,  or  a  conversation  becoming  the  gospel,  are  required 
 of  adult  believers,  before  they  can  enter  heaven.  This  doctrine 
 is  plain  and  positive.  But  the  Saviour  graciously  dispenses 
 with  the  enforcement  of  this  law  in  the  case  of  persons  con- 
 verted at  the  eleventh  hour,  or  on  a  bed  of  death,  or  who,  like 
 the  thief  on  the  cross,  expire  immediately  after  their  regene- 
 ration by  the  Holy  Ghost.  Our  considerate  Father  in  glory 
 does  not  reap  where  he  has  not  sown ;  nor  deny  his  blessings 
 
AGE,  ETC.  REQUIRED  IN  THE  BAPTIZED.  101 
 
 to  the  redeemed  and  the  renewed  in  heart,  because  some  of 
 them  may  be  necessarily  destitute  of  the  capacity  or  power  to 
 comply  with  all  the  claims  rigidly  enforced  on  other  persons 
 capable  of  fulfilling  them.  Nor  will  he  refuse  privileges  to 
 infants  because  they  are  not  in  the  condition  of  adults,  to 
 understand  and  duly  to  appreciate  their  value. 
 
 What  high  moral  attainments  were  necessary  to  the  male 
 children  of  the  Hebrews,  prior  to  their  being  circumcised, 
 when  but  eight  days  old?  Besides,  nothing  can  be  plainer 
 than  the  fact,  that  many,  if  not  most,  of  the  adult  Israelites — 
 before  their  baptism  unto  Moses — had  made  but  very  small 
 attainments  in  religious  knowledge  and  true  holiness;  and  yet 
 this  deficiency  was  no  preventive  to  their  being  baptized  by 
 God  himself.  Exceptions,  no  doubt,  existed;  but,  certainly, 
 the  after  conduct  of  the  Hebrews,  then  twenty  years  old  and 
 upwards,  shows,  that  few  of  them  had  much  spiritual  infor- 
 mation in  their  heads,  or  much  love  to  God  in  their  hearts. 
 Their  practice  and  punishment  soon  after,  as  Moses  and  Paul 
 assure  us,  fully  confirm  the  fact  of  their  gross  ignorance  and 
 their  great  depravity. 
 
 The  Hebrews  were  not  initiated  into  the  school  or  church 
 of  Moses  because  of  their  past  high  mental  attainments,  but 
 in  order  to  become  wise  under  his  future  instruction.  The 
 like  may  be  said  of  their  piety.  They  were  not  baptized 
 because  they  were  righteous,  but  to  be  thereby  inducted 
 formally  to  a  system  of  divine  ordinances,  that  thereby  they 
 might  afterwards  become  so.  The  chief,  if  not  the  exclusive, 
 qualification  of  these  people,  for  this  great  baptism,  was  a 
 belief,  based  on  their  recollection  of  the  Egyptian  plagues, 
 that  Moses  was  sent  of  God  to  deliver  them  out  of  the  hand 
 of  Pharaoh,  and  that  by  following  him,  they  should  attain 
 religious  benefits,  national  liberty,  and,  at  length,  enjoy  great 
 prosperity  and  happiness,  in  the  good  land  to  which  they  were 
 travelling.  Surely,  the  mere  want  of  knowledge  with  the  inno- 
 cence of  children  must  be  deemed  as  good  a  moral  qualification 
 for  their  reception  of  baptism,  as  most  of  their  unconverted 
 parents  had  hitherto  attained. 
 
 In  truth,  we  think,  few  will  question,  that  the  ordinance  of 
 baptism  is  never  so  profaned  and  prostituted  by  the  baptism 
 of  children,  belonging  even  to  the  most  ignorant  and  ungodly 
 parents,  as  it  is  by  that  of  unconverted  adults,  and  of  which 
 latter,  it  is  confessed,  that  great  numbers  are  immersed  every 
 year  by  our  opponents.  It  may  be  here  subjoined,  that  the 
 knowledge  which  the  believers  at  Corinth  possessed,   of  the 
 
102  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 doctrines,  duties,  and  blessings  of  the  gospel,  prior  to  their 
 baptism,  must  have  been  extremely  limited.  'Paul  was 
 'pressed  in  the  spirit,  and  testified  to  the  Jews,  that  Jesus  was 
 'Christ.  .  .  .  And  Crispus  the  chief  ruler  of  the  synagogue 
 'believed  on  the  Lord  with  all  his  house,  and  many  of  the 
 'Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and  were  baptized.  .  .  .  And' 
 [after  this]  'he  continued  there  a  year  and  six  months,  teaching 
 'the  word  of  God  among  them.'  Acts  xviii.  5,  8,  11.  Their 
 faith,  prior  to  baptism,  embraced  only  the  great  truth,  that 
 Jesus  was  the  promised  Messiah ;  which  few,  in  this  country, 
 except  Jews,  deny.  Their  instruction  in  religion  came  after- 
 wards ;  just  as  the  Hebrews  were  first  baptized  unto  Moses, 
 and  then  taught  the  laws  of  God;  and  just  in  the  order  the 
 communion  of  Christ  enjoins — 'baptize  and  teach.' 
 
 Then,  in  reference  to  the  age  which  persons  must  attain 
 before  they  ought  to  be  baptized.  How  is  this  to  be  determined, 
 and  who  is  to  judge  in  the  matter?  What  period  in  rising 
 life  would  our  objector  fix  on  as  the  minimum  for  receiving 
 this  sacrament?  Is  it  replied,  not  under  twenty?  But  why  fix 
 on  that  age,  since  the  Scriptures  have  fixed  on  none?  Why 
 not  under  fifteen?  And,  if  so,  why  not  under  twelve,  ten, 
 eight,  and  so  downward  to  a  week  old?  For  what  reasons, 
 or  on  what  divine  authority,  are  we  to  be  arrested  in  our 
 sliding  scale  of  time?  The  eighth  day  after  birth  was 
 appointed  for  circumcision;  why  not  for  baptism?  If  that 
 period  were  late  enough  for  one  initiatory  rite,  why  not, 
 without  some  scriptural  prohibition,  for  both? — especially  as 
 our  chief  opponents  admit  that,  in  purport,  these  ordinances 
 were  substantially  the  same,  and  even  were  administered  at 
 the  same  time.  To  urge  that  the  candidates  must  be  old 
 enough  to  exercise  faith  and  exemplify  holiness  beforehand, 
 is  irrelevant  to  our  immediate  question,  which  is  simply  con- 
 cerning the  age  of  the  candidate  for  baptism.  It  is  manifest 
 that  being  descendants  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  in  the 
 line  of  the  promise,  or  having,  through  divine  mercy  become, 
 in  purpose,  proselytes  to  the  laws  of  Moses ;  or  being  associated 
 with  Israel,  like  '  the  mixed  multitude,'  who  came  with  them 
 out  of  Egypt,  qualified  them  all,  both  old  and  young,  male 
 and  female,  for  the  privileges  and  responsibilities  of  the  great 
 national  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea. 
 
 [While  adverting  to  the  age  of  persons  that  might  be  baptized, 
 a  passing  suggestion  to  some  of  our  Pedobaptist  friends,  may 
 not  be  altogether  needless  or  out  of  place.    It  not  uufrequently 
 
BAPTISM  IMPROPERLY  DELAYED.  103 
 
 occurs,  that  the  baptism  of  children  is  deferred  for  months 
 and  even  for  years,  on  no  other  ground,  than  that  of  an  un- 
 accountable procrastination.  They  intend  to  have  it  done 
 shortly ;  and  this  good  intention  is  cherished  for  an  indefinite 
 period — perhaps  till  the  parents  have  two  or  three  children  to 
 be  consecrated  to  God  at  once.  This  certainly  is  not  infant 
 baptism,  according  to  the  usual  import  of  the  term.  The 
 result  often  is,  that  when  such  observant  and  excitable  little 
 folks  are  brought  to  the  font,  the  strangeness  of  the  ceremony, 
 the  novelty  of  the  whole  scene,  and  the  apprehension  of  some- 
 thing unpleasant  being  done  to  them  by  the  minister,  occasion 
 unruliness  and  noise — to  the  distress  of  their  mothers,  and  the 
 annoyance  of  all  present.  And  though  there  is  nothing  in  the 
 scene  half  so  painful  as  some  nervous  and  timidadults  frequently 
 occasion,  at  their  immersion  under  water;  yet  the  opponents  of 
 Infant  Baptism  make  a  great  deal  out  of  it,  and  plead  the 
 children's  crying  as  a  presumptive  argument  against  baby 
 sprinkling. 
 
 Now,  all  or  most  of  this  might  be  avoided  by  baptizing 
 children  when  very  young ;   say,  under  a  month  or  six  weeks 
 old,  at  least;   or  as  soon  as  their  maternal  parents  are  well 
 enough  to  accompany  or  carry  them  to  the  temple  of  God. 
 It  was,  doubtless,  for  reasons  akin  to  this,  at  least,  in  part, 
 that  God  appointed  the  eighth  day  after  birth  for  circumcising 
 the  little  Hebrews,  instead  of  the  eighth  month,  or  the  eighth 
 year.     Let  parents  take  this  hint,  and  they  will  most  probably 
 save  themselves  much  inconvenience,  and  unpleasant  excite- 
 ment.    Young  infants,  in  health  and  properly  fed,  are  seldom 
 noisy  at  the  font;  and  the  ceremony  is  mostly  administered 
 without  the  least  disturbing  incident.      The  Eev.   Matthew 
 Henry  remarks,  'Baptism  should  not  be  carelessly  deferred, 
 as  if  it  were  a  thing  indifferent,  whether  it  were  done  or  not. 
 It  argues  a  contempt  of  the  ordinance,  and  a  slight  regard 
 to  our  children's  covenant-right,  to  delay  the  administration, 
 perhaps  because  the  feast  cannot  be  yet  provided,  or  such  a 
 fine  friend  procured  to  stand  gossip.      Thus   a  solemn  and 
 important  institution  of  Christ  is  often  made  to   truckle  to 
 mean  and  inconsiderable  respects.      Moses'  deferring  to  cir- 
 cumcise his  child  had  like  to  have  cost  him  dear.'  p.  144.] 
 Objection  IV.  In  Baptism  all  the  subjects  should  be  free, 
 active,  and  make  an  intelligent  profession  of  the  relic/ion  to 
 which  they  are  inducted. — 'Infant  Baptism,'  says  Mr.   Noel, 
 'differs  essentially  from  the  baptism  of  believers.     The  believer 
 'is  active  in  the  reception  of  baptism,  but  the  infant  is  passive ; 
 
104  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEEED. 
 
 '  the  believer  asks  for  it  as  a  privilege,  the  infant  receives  it 
 '  without  its  consent ;  the  one  by  it  professes  his  faith,  the 
 'other  professes  nothing.  The  baptism  of  the  believer  and 
 *  the  baptism  of  the  infant  are,  therefore,  two  different  baptisms, 
 'with  different  significations  and  different  consequences;  and 
 'both,  therefore,  to  be  lawful,  must  have  a  separate  warrant 
 'from  the  Lord,  since  they  are  quite  different  institutions 
 '  —  the  precept  which  enjoins  the  one,  rather  by  inference 
 'forbids  the  other.'  Sub.  p.  1 26.  It  is,  therefore,  assumed,  that 
 as  the  Hebrew  children  were  not  capable  of  making  such  a 
 profession,  they  could  not  really  have  been  baptized.  But 
 here  again  the  objection  is  opposed  to  fact;  for  Paul  declares 
 they  were  all  baptized  to  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea. 
 As  argued  before,  if  freedom,  activity,  and  intelligence  were 
 required  in  adults,  it  does  not  follow,  that  infants  might  not  be 
 baptized  without  such  mental  endowments.  The  dry  dedication 
 of  the  young  to  God,  by  our  Baptist  friends,  has  nothing 
 voluntary  in  it,  in  respect  of  the  children  themselves ;  nor 
 are  the  babies  asked,  if  they  would  like  to  be  thus  discipled 
 to  the  Lord  When,  moreover,  they  begin  to  teach  them  the 
 true  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  their  infant  will  or  choice  is  not 
 consulted.  Why  then  must  there  be  a  personal  mental  recog- 
 nition and  acquiescence  in  the  one  case  and  not  in  the  other? 
 When  adult  proselytes  to  Judaism  were  circumcised  and 
 baptized,  the  reception  was  voluntary ;  but  this  was  not 
 required  in  the  case  of  their  new-born  children,  who  were 
 confessedly  associated  with  them  in  this  ceremony. 
 
 Mr.  Fleming  observes,  that '  We  have  an  instance  of  baptism, 
 'applied,  when  the  grown  persons  baptized,  do  seem  to  have 
 'been  mere  patients  in  the  application  of  the  rite.'  Acts  x.  47, 
 48.  'Peter  does  not  ask  them  their  consent,  but  inquires  of 
 'his  company,  whether  they  had  any  objection  to  these  Gentiles 
 'being  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.'  Here,  we  may 
 notice  the  singular  circumstance  that,  with  the  exception  of 
 the  Ethiopian  Eunuch — if  it  really  be  an  exception — none  of 
 all  the  thousands  baptized,  after  the  Saviour's  resurrection, 
 ever  applied  for  personal  baptism.  The  three  thousand  on 
 the  day  of  Pentecost  yielded  to  the  persuasions  of  Peter,  and 
 were  baptized.  The  Samaritans  believing  Philip  were  baptized ; 
 but  are  not  said  to  have  applied  for  baptism.  Paul,  complying 
 with  the  request  of  Ananias,  arose  and  was  baptized.  Lydia, 
 the  Jailor,  and  the  Corinthians,  believed  and  were  baptized. 
 But  not  a  single  instance,  save  the  questionable  one  of  the 
 Eunuch,  is  recorded  in  which  the  parties  themselves  are  said 
 
INFANTS  NOT  FREE,  ACTIVE,  ETC.  105 
 
 to  have  solicited  this  rite  at  the  hands  of  the  apostles  or  their 
 colleagues.  They  consented  to  undergo  the  ceremony,  and 
 submitted  to  the  operation  ;  but,  apparently,  did  nothing  more. 
 Their  meetness  was  determined  by  the  ministers  of  Cbrist ;  and 
 the  administration  was  performed  by  them  or  their  assistants,  as 
 the  sole  procurance  and  act  of  his  faithful  servants. 
 
 The  case  of  the  Eunuch  renders  it  manifest,  that,  while 
 Philip  preached  Christ  to  him,  he,  at  the  same  time,  explained 
 the  nature  and  necessity  of  water  baptism  unto  Christ.  In 
 accordance  with  this,  the  Eunuch,  who  probably  saw  the  water 
 before  Philip,  merely  said,  '  see  here  is  water,'  what  hinders 
 me  from  being  baptized  at  once,  as  you  have  suggested  or 
 enjoined.  That  the  Ethiopian  should  have  applied  for  baptism 
 before  the  Deacon  had  stated  its  nature  and  necessity,  is 
 extremely  improbable.  Indeed,  he  does  not  directly  apply 
 for  baptism  at  all.  He  merely  acquiesces  in  Philip's  proposal. 
 So  that  this  instance  in  no  degree  forms  an  exception  to  the 
 statement,  that  people  were  solicited  to  be  baptized,  and  that 
 they  did  not  apply  for  this  rite.  In  the  case  of  John's  Baptism, 
 and  that  of  our  Saviour's  disciples,  before  he  suffered,  there 
 appears  to  have  been  a  difference.  The  people  rushed  to  the 
 herald  and  early  followers  of  Christ,  under  the  conviction, 
 that  a  temporal  kingdom  was  about  to  be  established;  the 
 first  advantages  of  which  they  were  anxious  to  share.  But 
 even  in  these  instances  we  have  no  record  of  any  person 
 soliciting  baptism  for  himself.  The  people  flocked  to  hear; 
 were  invited  to  submit  to  the  rite ;  this  they  did ;  and  this  is 
 all  we  are  informed  of  on  the  subject. 
 
 It  is  insisted,  that  the  baptized  must  be  active  in  baptism ; 
 meaning,  that  they  must  take  a  leading  part  in  the  perform- 
 ance— doing  something  themselves,  as  well  as  permitting 
 something  to  be  done  to  them.  But  why  must  they  be  more 
 active  than  the  children  circumcised  unto  God,  or  baptized 
 unto  Moses,  or  dedicated  to  Christ  in  the  vestry  of  a  Baptist 
 Chapel?  Even  an  adult  is  no  more  active  in  the  actual  rite 
 of  baptism  itself  than  a  baby.  He  merely  walks  into  the  font 
 instead  of  being  carried;  but  that  is  not  the  baptism.  In  the 
 act  itself  he  is  as  pasive  as  an  infant;  or  as  a  man  undergoing 
 a  surgical  operation  in  a  hospital.  Something  is  done  with 
 him,  or  to  him,  and  not  by  him.  Who  would  argue  that  a 
 patient  is  active  while  stretched  on  a  table,  undergoing  the 
 amputation  of  a  fractured  limb  ?  And  the  adult,  when  baptized, 
 is  no  more  so.  He  consents  to  the  deed,  he  submits  to  the 
 operation  by  another;  and  that  is  the  sum  total  of  his  activity 
 
 E2 
 
106  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 in  the  ceremony;  as  any  one  may  readily  learn  by  witnessing 
 the  rite  of  adult  immersion.  In  truth,  the  officiating  minister 
 is  the  only  acting  agent  in  the  matter  of  dipping,  as  he  is  in 
 Infant  Baptism  by  affusion. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  says,  'Infants  must  not  be  baptized  because  they 
 'are  incapable  of  performing  a  religious  act.'  p.  55.  First  of 
 all,  the  baptized  adult  really  performs  no  act  at  all — he  is 
 merely  acted  upon.  And,  secondly,  being  taught  to  read  the 
 Scriptures,  is  as  religious  an  act  as  submitting  to  be  dedicated 
 to  God;  but  must  not  children  be  instructed,  till  they  are  old 
 enough  to  take  a  part  in  teaching  themselves  the  word  of  God  ? 
 'You  will  please  to  observe,'  says  Mr.  Stovel,  'that  the  act  of 
 'baptism  was  performed  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son  and 
 'Holy  Ghost,  performed  (I  say)  by  both  parties — administered 
 'by  the  church,  and  received  by  the  candidates.'  Regen. 
 Lect.  ii.  p.  10.  He  might  have  as  correctly  asserted  that  an 
 act  of  charity  was  performed  by  both  parties — when  he  gave 
 Peggy  Brown  half-a-crown,  and  she  received  it  with  a  very 
 genteel  courtesy,  and  put  it  into  her  pocket! 
 
 It  is  further  asserted,  that  intelligence  in  the  subject  is 
 essential  to  baptism.  But,  we  again  inquire,  why  so  in  this 
 rite  any  more  than  in  infant  circumcision  among  the  Jews, 
 the  baptism  of  children  unto  Moses,  or  the  dry  dedication  of 
 children  by  our  opponents  ?  Besides,  what  amount  of  religious 
 knowledge  did  the  adult  portion  of  'Our  Fathers'  possess 
 when  they  were  baptized  in  the  Bed  Sea?  When  Abraham, 
 the  same  day  that  God  commanded  him,  circumcised  every 
 male  born  in  his  house  or  bought  with  money,  and  who  must 
 have  amounted  to  upwards  of  a  thousand  persons,  what  large 
 portion  of  intelligence  on  the  subject  of  circumcision  to 
 Jehovah,  could  any  of  them  have  obtained.  Gen.  xvii.  3. 
 Even  those  adults,  baptized  by  John  and  the  disciples  of  Christ, 
 could  have  had  only  the  most  imperfect  understanding  of  the 
 gospel.  The  extent  of  the  information  of  most  of  them  was 
 only,  that  the  coming,  or  the  crucified  Saviour,  was  the 
 promised  Messiah,  and  that  by  baptism  they  would  become, 
 and  be  recognized  as,  his  disciples.  Witsius  justly  observes, 
 '  Nor,  at  the  beginning  of  Christianity,  was  any  profession  of 
 '  faith  required  from  those  to  whom  baptism  was  about  to  be 
 'administered,  except  a  simple  declaration  that  they  believed 
 'in  Christ,  or  in  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost; 
 '  as  appears  from  the  baptism  of  the  converts  mentioned  in  the 
 'Acts  of  the  Apostles.'  Such  a  profession  of  faith,  most 
 assuredly,  would  not  satisfy  any  of  our  strict  Baptist  brethren. 
 
INFANTS  NOT  THEE,  ACTIVE,  ETC.  107 
 
 111  the  case  of  the  baptized  families,  mentioned  in  the  New 
 Testament,  whatever  information  the  parent  or  master  might 
 have  obtained,  in  a  very  short  time,  we  can  hardly  imagine 
 the  children  and  domestics  to  have  advanced  far  in  divine 
 knowledge,  before  they  were  consecrated  to  Christ — the  same 
 day,  or  the  same  hour! 
 
 It  may  be  material  to  our  argument  to  remark,  that  many 
 persons  became  believers  in  Christ,  not  after  obtaining  a  full 
 and  detailed  exposition  of  the  doctrines,  duties,  and  promises, 
 of  the  gospel;  but  from  simply  witnessing,  or  hearing  of,  the 
 miracles  wrought  by  Christ  or  his  apostles.  This  was  the 
 case  of  Nathaniel.  John  i.  43-51.  The  people  of  Samaria 
 believed,  because  Jesus  told  the  Samaritan  woman,  at  Jacob's 
 well,  all  that  ever  she  did.  John  iv.  39.  Many  of  the  Jews 
 believed  on  seeing  Lazarus  raised  from  the  dead.  John  xi.41-45. 
 The  like  result  took  place  at  Joppa,  on  the  restoration  of 
 Dorcas  to  life.  Acts  ix.  41,  42.  Now,  if  these  believers 
 were  immediately  baptized — which  is  highly  probable — they 
 underwent  this  ceremony  without  any  extensive  instruction  in 
 the  doctrines  and  claims  of  the  gospel  dispensation.  This,  too, 
 would  have  been  in  accordance  with  the  Saviour's  commission 
 — Proselyte,  Baptize,  and  Teach; — and  also  in  agreement 
 with  the  practice  of  the  apostles  in  general,  who,  at  once, 
 baptized  all  they  could  induce  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the 
 Christ.  The  case  of  Paul  himself  is  fully  illustrative  of  this 
 doctrine.  Acts  ix.  17,  18.  Of  him,  Mr.  Stovel  says,  'Paul 
 'went  down  into  the  water  of  baptism'  [Qy?]  'a  reputed 
 'Jewish  Persecutor;  but  he  came  up  out  of  the  water,  an 
 'avowed  Christian!'  Regen.  Lee.  iii.  p.  19.  The  instance  of 
 the  Corinthian  converts,  we  have  mentioned  before.  They 
 were  baptized,  and  became  recognized  disciples  of  Christ,  in 
 all  probability,  like  the  three  thousand,  on  the  same  day. 
 
 When  we  say  disciples,  of  course  we  mean  scholars,  pupils, 
 or  students,  in'  the  schools  of  Christianity — where  most  of 
 them,  after  being  baptized,  had  to  learn  nearly  all  things 
 comprehended  under  the  term  Christian  knowledge.  A  sum- 
 mary of  the  details  of  revelation,  not  professedly  taught  the 
 first  converts,  previous  to  their  reception  of  this  initiatory  or 
 dedicatory  ordinance,  but  which  they  were  to  learn  afterwards, 
 would  constitute  an  extensive  compilation.  Assuming  that 
 the  Bodies  of  Divinity  and  Confessions  of  Faith,  published  by 
 Bidgley,  Gill,  Dwight,  Watson,  the  Assembly  of  Divines  and 
 other  eminent  writers,  comprehend  'The  Knowledge  which  a 
 'Christian  Man'  ought  to  obtain;  and  comparing  the  contents 
 
108  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 of  their  expositions  with  what  John  the  Baptist,  and  the 
 Saviour's  apostles,  taught  the  candidates  for  this  sacrament, 
 before  administering  it  to  them ;  it  would  be  found  that  not 
 more  than  a  fiftieth  part  of  the  details,  comprehended  in  the 
 usual  systems  of  scriptural  theology,  were  given  before  baptism 
 — leaving  the  other  forty-nine  parts  to  be  communicated  to 
 them  subsequently.  This  statement  will  hold  true  especially 
 in  reference  to  converts  from  heathenism,  who  had  not  pre- 
 viously possessed  or  perused  the  contents  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 I  do  not  vouch  for  the  precise  proportions  just  stated;  but  I 
 believe  that  it  would,  on  inquiry,  be  found  not  far  from  the 
 facts  of  the  case.  So  much  for  the  great  intelligence  necessary 
 in  candidates  previous  to  baptism,  in  apostolic  times,  and,  by 
 fair  deduction,  in  our  own  also. 
 
 An  American  writer  says,  'It  has  often  been  asserted  by 
 'our  brethren,  and  that  with  much  confidence,  that  little 
 'children  being  incapable  of  being  taught,  cannot  be  made 
 'disciples;  nay,  that  discipleship  necessarily  implies  not  only 
 'a  capacity  of  instruction,  but  actual  previous  instruction. 
 'But  is  this  assertion  true?  I  acknowledge  that  the  term 
 'disciple  has  a  relation  to  instruction:  but  it  by  no  means 
 'implies  universally,  that  he  who  is  called  a  disciple  must 
 'have  been  previously  instructed.  A  disciple  is  one  who  puts 
 'himself,  or  who  is  put  by  others,  under  the  authority  of  a 
 '  teacher.  The  word  applies  equally  to  both  cases.  We  agree 
 'that  of  adults,  no  longer  under  the  control  of  parents,  no 
 '  person  can  be  called  a  disciple  of  Christ  without  a  profession 
 'of  faith  in  him  as  the  Messiah,  and  of  subjection  to  his 
 'authority.  But  what  has  this  to  do  with  the  reception  of 
 'children  as  his  disciples?  How  does  it  oppose  their  ad- 
 ' mission  into  his  school,  that  they  may  be  taught  in  future? 
 'Is  it  fair  reasoning,  that  because  adults  are  not  to  be  received 
 '  without  a  profession  of  voluntary  subjection  to  Christ,  there- 
 'fore,  children,  incapable  of  making  such  profession,  are  to 
 'be  excluded?  I  think  not.  But  I  go  further,  and  observe 
 '  that  there  is  a  text  in  the  New  Testament,  where  little  children 
 'are  manifestly  called  disciples,  &c.  Acts  xv.  10.'  Pam- 
 jrftleteer,  p.  33. 
 
 I  must  not  omit  to  notice  the  logic  of  Mr.  Noel,  in  the 
 paragraph  cited  at  the  beginning  of  this  objection.  Because 
 the  believer  asks  for  baptism,  is  active  in  it,  and  professes 
 faith  before  it — which  a  child  cannot  be  or  do; — he  infers 
 that  the  baptism  of  a  believer  and  of  an  infant  are  two  different 
 baptisms,  with  different  significations,  and  different  conse- 
 
INFANTS  NOT  FREE,  ACTIVE,  ETC.  109 
 
 quences;  requiring  separate  warrants  from  the  Lord;  and  that 
 the  validity  of  the  one  forbids  the  other.  Apply  this  to  another 
 divine  institution.  Suppose  the  men  of  Abraham's  household 
 to  have  been  active  in  their  own  circumcision,  to  have  solicited 
 the  rite,  and  to  have  professed  their  faith  in  the  covenant — 
 none  of  which  their  little  baby  boys  did  or  could  have  done;  — 
 were  there,  consequently,  two  different  circumcisions,  with 
 different  significations,  and  different  consequences?  were  they 
 different  institutions,  having  separate  warrants?  and  did  the 
 circumcision  of  the  men,  'rather  by  inference  forbid,'  the 
 circumcision  of  the  children?  If  Mr.  Noel  can  discover  a 
 flaw  in  this  rejoinder,  he  has  more  penetration  than  I  profess 
 to  exercise.  Further,  were  the  circumcision  and  baptism  of 
 a  heathen  proselyte,  of  sound  mind  and  holy  purpose,  different 
 institutions  and  acts,  from  the  circumcision  and  baptism  of 
 his  little  boys  ?  for  the  latter  of  which  there  should  be  a  distinct 
 warrant;  or  should  not  be  done  ! 
 
 A  young  man  of  twenty  applies  at  a  Sabbath  School  for  the 
 privilege  of  studying  under  some  godly  teacher!  And  mamma 
 also  takes  her  little  child  there,  to  be  placed  in  the  infant 
 class.  Must  the  master  get  a  different  warrant  for  attending 
 to  these  different  duties?  and  does  teaching  the  young  man, 
 'rather  by  inference,  forbid'  his  teaching  the  young  child? 
 There  was  but  one  passover,  and  men,  women,  and  children 
 partook  of  it.  There  is  but  '  One  Faith,  one  Lord,  oneBaptism  ;' 
 one  creed  for  all  to  believe,  one  God  for  all  to  worship, 
 one  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which,  it  is  admitted,  elect 
 infants,  as  well  as  adults,  experience.  If  different  ages,  activities, 
 and  professions  constitute  really  different  baptisms,  what  ob- 
 jection can  our  opponents  have  to  our  calling  the  dipping 
 of  regenerate  men,  and  the  dipping  of  hypocrites,  different 
 baptisms ;  requiring  different  warrants ;  the  one,  rather  by 
 inference,  forbidding  the  other?  And  yet  these  gentlemen 
 regard  both  the  dippings  as  but  one  baptism,  equally  valid 
 and  lasting.  As  for  baptizing  the  hypocrite  again,  on  his 
 real  conversion,  it  is  out  of  the  question.  'The  Baptists  have 
 'been  charged  with  anabaptism,  a  sentiment  and  practice  which 
 '  they  detest,  as  much  as  any  of  their  opposers.'  Booth  v.  2. 
 p.  97- — By  the  way,  as  I  believe,  I  have  elsewhere  proved, 
 that  dipping  in  baptism  never  was  practised  under  the  law,  or 
 during  the  apostolic  age;  I  conclude  that  dipping  is  not 
 baptism  now;  and  that,  therefore,  our  Immersionist  brethren 
 cannot  be  designated  Anabaptists;  from  the  simple  fact,  that 
 dipping  is  not  baptizing  at  all.      Nor  will  they  deem  this 
 
110  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 doctrine  more  uncharitable  than  their  own  declaration,  That 
 pouring,  affusing,  or  sprinkling,  is  not  baptism  at  all! 
 
 [I  must  here  respectfully  notice  a  practice  which,  I  believe, 
 prevails  among  some  pedobai'TIST  missionaries,  among  the 
 heathen — of  keeping,  persons  proselyted  to  Christianity,  under 
 a  long  system  of  tuition,  before  baptizing  them — requiring  not 
 simply  a  knowledge  of  the  leading  truths  of  the  Gospel — as 
 that  Christ  is  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  and  that  men  must  trust 
 his  word,  mercy,  and  death,  in  order  to  be  saved  from  hell 
 and  raised  to  glory — but  also  of  the  various  doctrines,  duties, 
 privileges,  and  obligations  of  genuine  Christians.  Where 
 such  a  course  is  pursued,  the  Saviour's  commission,  and  the 
 apostolic  rule  of  action,  are  certainly  not  followed.  Some  of 
 our  excellent  missionaries  go  even  beyond  this,  and  wait  for 
 decided  evidence  of  genuine  conversion  of  heart  to  Christ, 
 before  they  administer  this  rite  to  them ;  after  which  they  at 
 once  introduce  them  into  their  spiritual  communion,  as  full 
 and  perfect  members  of  it.  Thus  baptism  is  placed  rather  at 
 the  end,  than  at  the  commencement,  of  a  Christian  education. 
 It  is  proselyting,  teaching,  and  baptizing,  instead  of  proselyting, 
 baptizing,  and  teaching,  as  enjoined  by  our  Lord.  It  is  pur- 
 suing a  course  abroad  which,  as  Pedobaptists,  we  avoid  at 
 home ;  and  adopting  a  practice  which  we  earnestly  object  to 
 by  our  opponents.  As  soon  as  persons  are  made  willing  to 
 become  disciples  of  divine  truth,  and  to  submit  to  the  pleasure 
 of  the  Lord;  they  are  entitled  to  baptism,  and  then  to  that 
 regular  and  systematic  teaching  which,  under  God,  will  qualify 
 them  to  enter  the  select  society  of  the  saints  of  Christ. 
 Caution  and  prudence  may  possibly  dictate  a  postponement  of 
 the  rite  of  baptism  under  certain  circumstances.  But,  as  the 
 rule  of  Scripture  is  plain  in  this  case,  to  observe  it  appears 
 the  wiser  and  better  plan.] 
 
 Objection  V.  The  Hebrew  children  that  passed  through 
 the  sea,  might  have  been  baptized  by  proxy — their  parents 
 being  their  representatives  in  this  great  national  purification. 
 — Of  such  a  baptismal  substitution,  Paul  says  not  a  word, 
 either  in  our  text  or  any  where  else;  nor  should  we  have 
 referred  to  such  an  objection,  except  under  the  impression  that 
 some  one  might  have  entertained  and  adduced  it  against  our 
 conclusions.  When  Mr.  Rees,  in  a  passage  previously  quoted, 
 contends,  that  by  the  terms,  'Our  Fathers,'  the  elders  of 
 Israel,  or  the  heads  of  families  only,  were  included,  he  assumes, 
 that  they  themselves  only  were  baptized ;  and  that  the  children 
 were  not  baptized  at  all,  actually  or  virtually,  personally  or  by 
 
CHILDREN  BAPTIZED  BY  PROXY.  Ill 
 
 proxy.  That  his  assumptions  are  untenable,  we  believe,  has 
 been  rendered  clear  and  unquestionable.  The  present  objection 
 supposes  that  all  were  virtually,  or,  in  effect,  baptized,  though 
 the  parents  only  underwent  the  ceremony,  or  were  personally 
 baptized.  But  the  language  of  the  Apostle  clearly  proves,  that 
 the  entire  'Jewish  'people,'1  male  and  female,  old  and  young, 
 were  alike  baptized  unto  Moses.  The  men  were  not  baptized 
 for  their  children  any  more  than  for  their  wives,  who,  as 
 previously  seen,  are  no  more  expressly  mentioned  than  their 
 little  ones.  It  is  indisputably  a  principle  of  the  divine  pro- 
 cedure, in  God's  dealings  with  his  creatures,  and  especially 
 with  professed  disciples  of  the  truth,  that  none,  however 
 young,  shall  have  that  done  for  them  that  they  can  do  for 
 themselves;  nor  shall  others  undergo  for  them  what  they 
 themselves  have  the  capacity  of  personally  undergoing.  In 
 circumcision,  Abraham  did  not  become  a  substitute  for  his 
 male  children  and  servants ;  because  they  were  capable  of 
 being  circumcised  equally  with  himself.  But  the  infant 
 females  of  his  household,  because  incapable  of  receiving  this 
 sign  of  the  covenant,  were,  through  their  intimate  relation  to 
 the  males,  interested  in  its  privileges  and  obligations,  equally 
 with  their  fathers  and  brethren.  It  is  never  said  that  females 
 were  circumcised,  but  merely  implied  that  they  were  a  part  of 
 a  circumcised  nation,  and  were  to  enjoy  the  blessings  and 
 bear  their  share  of  the  responsibilities,  of  the  entire  people. 
 It  might  as  reasonably  be  supposed,  that  parents  should  be 
 baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  for  their  offspring,  as  that  they 
 should  be  baptized  with  water  for  them. 
 
 In  the  case  of  baptism,  there  certainly  is  no  physical 
 difficulty  in  respect  of  infants  any  more  than  in  that  of  adults; 
 nor,  if  dipped,  a  twentieth  part  as  much ;  and  the  necessity  of 
 representation,  as  in  the  case  of  circumcision,  could  not  exist 
 in  the  case  of  Infant  Baptism.  If  parental  baptism  would 
 have  answered  for  the  offspring  in  the  Red  Sea,  it  would 
 have  answered  at  the  Jordan  and  in  Jerusalem ;  and  would 
 answer  still;  and  then  all  children,  whose  parents  or  adult 
 predecessors  have  been  baptized,  must  be  deemed  virtually 
 baptized,  and  be  treated  as  such  by  the  churches  of  Christ, 
 to  the  end  of  time.  If  this  doctrine  were  admitted,  then 
 none  would  require  personal  baptism,  whose  remotest  ancestors 
 had  undergone  this  rite;  for  to  be  virtually  baptized  amounts 
 to  the  same  thing  as  being  really  baptized.  On  this  principle, 
 every  descendant  of  the  first  person,  converted  from  Judaism 
 or  heathenism,  and  baptized  into  Christianity,  would,  in  effect, 
 
112  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 be  baptized,  as  soon  as  it  was  born;  and  baptism  must  cease 
 in  all  instances,  excepting  in  those  of  children  whose  forefathers 
 bad  never  undergone  this  ceremony.  This  is  the  doctrine  of 
 Anti-baptists,  with  whom  we  are  not  contending,  and  not  of 
 our  opponents,  who  believe  in  tbe  personal  and  perpetual 
 obligation  of  baptism  in  tbe  Christian  church.  We  never 
 hear  of  a  parent,  Baptist  or  Pedobaptist,  asserting  that  his 
 children  bave  been  baptized  in  his  baptism;  and  thereby 
 entitled  to  all  the  advantages,  and  laid  under  all  the  obligations, 
 to  which  he  himself  had  been  raised  or  subjected  by  this 
 ceremony.  It  may  be  added,  that  as  neither  wives  nor  women 
 are  said  to  have  been  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea;  it  might  be 
 argued,  that  the  baptism  of  adult  males  might  be  equally 
 available  for  tbe  female  sex;  as  in  the  case  of  circumcision; 
 and  that  now  the  latter  may  be  considered  baptized  by  proxy. 
 To  this,  I  opine,  our  opponents  would  not  readily  agree! 
 
 Baptism  is  confessedly  a  personal  affair.  And  so  were  all 
 other  ancient  rites,  of  which  children  are  capable.  When 
 young  persons,  of  any  age,  became  individually  and  ceremonially 
 polluted,  the  purification  of  themselves  was  doubtlessly  admin- 
 istered, and  not  of  their  parents.  Some  religious  acts  are 
 relative — your  duty  to  others;  and  some  are  personal — what 
 you  must  do  or  experience  yourselves.  It  might  as  justly  be 
 argued,  that  parents  ate  the  manna  and  drank  of  the  rock  for 
 their  children,  as  that  they  were  baptized  for  them;  or  that 
 the  male  infants  in  Abraham's  house  were  not  circumcised — 
 that  rite  having  been  administered  to  their  fathers  instead. 
 Parents  may  devote  their  children  to  God  in  baptism ;  but 
 they  cannot  be  baptized  in  their  room.  They  may  bring  their 
 dependent  families  into  covenant  relationships  and  obligations; 
 but  they  cannot  be  personally  religious  for  them.  They  may 
 teach  their  children,  but  they  cannot  be  learned,  any  more  than 
 converted,  for  them.  'No  man,'  says  Mr.  Eaton,  'can  be  a 
 '  Christian  by  proxy,  any  more  than  he  can  be  a  wise  and 
 'good  man  by  proxy,  or  than  he  can  be  saved  by  proxy.' 
 p.  184.  If  by  the  words,  'Our  Fathers,'  adult  males  only 
 were  meant,  they  only  were  the  actual  subjects  of  this  great 
 administration ;  and  as  every  Israelite,  who  passed  through 
 the  sea,  was  virtually  baptized ;  then,  as  before  remarked,  for 
 aught  the  words  literally  declare  to  the  contrary,  all  the  wives, 
 mothers,  and  young  women,  who  came  out  of  Egypt,  must 
 have  been  baptized  by  proxy,  as  much  as  the  children  and 
 infants  among  them.  But  this  is  what  no  intelligent  person 
 will  accredit. 
 
CHILDREN  BAI-HZED  BY  PROXY.  113 
 
 This  baptism  in  the  sea  bound  all  its  subjects  in  a  covenant 
 to  cleave  to  God,  to  love  and  obey  him  all  the  clays  of  their 
 lives.  In  a  passage,  to  be  cited  more  at  length  hereafter, 
 the  Rev.  Mr.  Stovel  says,  'From  that  moment' — after  passing 
 the  sea — 'they  were  under  God  in  the  hands  of  Moses.  By 
 'his  means,  they  received  their  direction,  defence,  and  sub- 
 '  sistence.  He  was  their  anointed  ruler,  called  in  one  place 
 'their  Christ.  Under  his  government  they  were  called  to 
 'glorify  the  God  of  their  fathers,  either  in  the  blessedness 
 'which  resulted  from  obedience,  or  in  the  punishment  which 
 'was  due  for  their  rebellion.'  Now,  it  is  plain,  that  when 
 the  children,  baptized  in  the  sea,  became  men  and  women,  or 
 responsible  agents,  in  the  wilderness,  they  could  be  neither 
 obedient  nor  rebellious  by  proxy,  but  only  in  their  own  persons ; 
 and,  in  their  own  persons  only,  could  they  enjoy  the  blessedness, 
 or  endure  the  punishment,  arising  from  keeping  or  breaking 
 this  baptismal  covenant.  If  they  were  not  all  personally 
 baptized,  they  were  not  all  personally  involved  in  the  respon- 
 sibilities of  this  engagement— their  proxies  in  the  water  would 
 be  still  their  proxies  in  the  wilderness.  The  exceptions  in 
 the  rite,  would  be  equally  exceptions  in  the  subsequent 
 obligations  to  submit  to,  and  be  bound  by,  this  covenant. 
 
 But  all  the  people — fathers,  mothers,  and  children — were 
 rewarded  or  chastised  alike  in  their  own  individual  capacities. 
 Not  the  slightest  intimation  is  afforded  in  the  narratives  of 
 the  after  doings  and  fate  of  the  Hebrews,  that  the  heads  of 
 families  only  were  benefitted  by  keeping  their  baptismal  en- 
 gagement, or  punished  for  its  violation.  Nor  do  we  ever 
 read,  that  when  the  infants,  who  had  passed  through  the  sea, 
 had  attained  the  age  of  majority  or  accountability,  they  pleaded 
 exemption  from  the  like  obligations  as  their  parents,  by  urging 
 that  they  were  not  personally  bound  by  precisely  the  like 
 baptismal  covenant — not  having  been  personally  baptized 
 unto  Moses.  Neither  is  there  any  record  given  us  of  the 
 initiatory  baptism  of  the  babes  who  passed  through  the  sea 
 being  administered  when  they  had  become  men  and  women, 
 on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  really  and  properly  baptized 
 with  their  parents,  and  must  therefore  receive  this  rite  in  after 
 years,  to  place  them  on  an  equality  with  their  fathers  and 
 mothers,  who  were  adults  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt.  The 
 initiatory  rite  of  the  tiniest  infant  was  as  complete,  for  all 
 church  purposes,  as  that  of  the  highest  and  holiest  saint  in 
 the  Israelitish  camp.  They  were  therefore  doubtlessly  baptized 
 in  their  own  proper  persons. 
 
114  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 Objection  VI.  There  is  something  too  puerile  in  baby 
 baptism  to  have  been  administered  by  Jehovah  himself  in  the 
 Red  Sea. — Mr.  Eaton  says,  Infant  Baptism  'is  unauthorized 
 'by  Scripture — utterly  puerile — incapable  of  all  benefit  to  a 
 '  child — no  direct  historical  evidence  of  its  observance  till 
 '  several  centuries  after  the  introduction  of  Christianity.'  p.  192. 
 Mr.  Gibbs  predicts,  that  '  the  time  must  soon  come  when 
 *  Pedobaptist  Dissenters  will  see  the  absurdity  of  their  system, 
 'and  when  they  will  explode  Infant  Baptism.'  p.  31.  Byron 
 asks,  'What  men  can  possibly  mean  when  they  sprinkle 
 'children  just  brought  into  natural  life,  with  water,  and  call 
 'it  baptism,  in  which  state  there  is  no  possibility  of  spiritual 
 'existence  being  evinced  or  known?'  p.  14.  But  a  ceremony 
 may  be  even  great  and  glorious,  not  from  the  objects  acted 
 upon,  nor  from  the  mode  of  its  administration ;  but  from  the 
 dignity  of  the  agent,  and  the  design  of  the  operation.  The 
 creation  of  an  insect  or  of  a  worm  is  not  a  trifling  affair  in 
 the  estimation  of  God,  or  of  the  glorious  angels,  who  better 
 appreciate  his  creative  wisdom  and  power;  though  it  may 
 seem  so  in  the  imagination  of  foolish  and  inconsiderate  mortals. 
 If  we  look  at  the  baptism  of  adults,  without  recognizing  the 
 Being  at  whose  command  it  was  done,  and  the  end  he  had  in 
 view  in  the  ceremony,  it  would  appear  just  as  puerile  as  that 
 of  sprinkling  little  children — and,  if  done  by  dipping,  much 
 more  unseemly.  What  could  appear  more  unmeaning  than 
 infant  circumcision ;  the  various  sprinklings  under  the  law; 
 the  distinguishing  ceremonies  of  Jewish  worship;  or  the 
 sacrificing  of  animals — if  you  leave  Jehovah  and  his  covenants 
 of  justice  and  mercy  out  of  the  question?  'A  Baptist  was  once 
 'asked,  if  he  would  not  have  thought  it  ridiculous  to  have 
 *seen  an  unconscious  babe  circumcised;  to  which  he  replied, 
 *'I  certainly  should;"  'and  yet  this  was  a  positive  institute; 
 *an  ordinance  of  God's  appointment.'  Dewhurst,  p.  184. 
 Even  the  Lord's  Supper,  if  witnessed  without  maturely  con- 
 sidering its  designs  and  associations,  presents  nothing  imposing 
 to  the  cool  philosophical  observer.  To  proud  and  haughty 
 infidels,  singing  the  praises  of  God,  calling  on  his  name,  and 
 even  preaching  the  gospel,  are  matters  below  their  serious 
 consideration.  When  any  religious  service  is  viewed  abstract- 
 edly, or  with  aversion,  it  is  generally  the  object  of  supercilious 
 regard. 
 
 A  little  consideration  would  soon  satisfy  any  thoughtful 
 mind,  that  infants  are  not  only  more  innocent  than  adults, 
 but  of  equal  importance  in  the  scale  of  human  life;  and  their 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM,  A  PUERILE  RITE.  115 
 
 consecration  to  God  as  momentous  an  affair  as  that  of  a 
 prince,  a  sage,  or  a  giant.  A  young  man  of  twenty  is  of 
 more  social  importance  than  an  old  man  of  eighty.  In  the 
 hahe  we  possibly  see  the  father  or  mother  of  thousands,  whose 
 ■destiny,  in  a  great  degree,  depends,  under  the  divine  blessing, 
 upon  its  own  spiritual  training.  In  the  infant  are  the  elements 
 of  the  Christian,  the  preacher,  or  the  martyr.  Every  noble, 
 priest,  hero,  and  prophet  in  Israel,  from  forty  to  fifty  years 
 of  age,  on  first  entering  Canaan — save  Caleb  and  Joshua — 
 was  baptized  an  infant  or  a  child,  in  the  Eed  Sea.  In  children 
 is  implicated  all  the  importance  of  their  parents;  they  have 
 the  like  spirit,  the  like  relation  to  God,  and  similar  elements 
 of  goodness,  greatness,  and  immortality.  Even  the  children 
 of  the  hired  servant  and  the  sojourner  are  claimed  as  God's 
 servants,  who  must  not  be  ruled  over  with  rigour,  hut  with 
 kindness.  Lev.  xxv.  40-43.  For  the  salvation  of  infants  the 
 Saviour  lived  and  died  as  much  as  for  the  first  adults  in  the 
 world.  In  those  little  ones,  who  are  carried  from  their  cradles 
 to  the  grave,  the  Holy  Spirit  as  graciously  operates  as  in  full- 
 grown  men  and  women.  Over  the  bahes  of  the  earth  God  is 
 as  watchful,  and  in  their  happiness  as  much  interested,  as  in 
 that  of  their  parents.  For  them  there  is  the  same  heavenly 
 homes,  with  all  its  joys  and  glories,  as  for  his  redeemed 
 people  of  riper  age.  And  if  it  he  the  will  of  Heaven  to 
 baptize  them,  we  are  bound  to  comply,  though  it  be  performed  by 
 simply  affusing  or  sprinkling  them;  and  though  this  ceremony 
 may  not  excite  the  same  general  curiosity,  bustle  and  noration 
 as  an  adult  immersion.  But  to  this  objection  we  may  have 
 occasion  to  recur  hereafter. 
 
 Objection  VII.  Infant  baptism  is  too  pernicious  a  rite 
 to  have  been  administered  by  Jehovah  or  to  have  been 
 enjoined  upon  us. — Here  again  the  objection  is  in  opposition 
 to  facts,  and  can,  therefore,  have  no  force  against  existing 
 duty.  But  still  it  is  deeply  felt  by  many  sincere,  though 
 mistaken,  disciples  of  Christ;  and  under  the  influence  of  such 
 an  impression,  they  oppose  us  with  astonishing  zeal  and  perse- 
 verance. Some  of  them  would  feel  all  but  shocked  at  finding 
 themselves  present  at  a  baby-sprinkling;  and  dare  not  sit 
 down  at  the  Lord's  table  with  persons  confessedly  favourable 
 to  this  rite.  Being  a  party,  it  becomes  a  prominent  question, 
 and  is  mooted  more  frequently,  and  with  much  more  fervency, 
 than  many  others  of  inconceivably  greater  moment. 
 
 For  the  sheer  purpose  of  opposing  Infant  Baptism  more 
 effectually,  many  Baptists  separate  themselves  from  Pedobaptist 
 
116  HOSTILITY  OF  THE  BAPTISTS 
 
 congregations,  in  which  they  have  long  worshipped,  and  where 
 the  grace  of  God  may  have  first  reached  their  hearts ;  and  set  up 
 new  Baptist  interests  in  the  same  small  towns  and  villages,  merely 
 as  rivals  to  those  they  have  just  forsaken.  To  maintain  their 
 opposition  to  Infant  Baptism — for  on  this  question  they  alone 
 are  the  aggressors — they  employ  the  hottest  phraseology,  enun- 
 ciate the  oddest  reasons,  and  leave  no  means  unattempted,  to 
 increase  their  party,  and  to  gain  it  support  from  the  ranks  of  the 
 timid,  misguided,  and  poor  deluded,  Pedohaptists !  Not  a  few  of 
 their  ministers  are  frequently  accused  of  assiduously  endeavour- 
 ing to  gain  a  footing  in  Pedobaptist  families,  and  ingratiating 
 themselves  into  their  favour,  in  order,  when  an  opportunity 
 offers,  to  get  them  under  water.  Of  this,  many  of  our  ministerial 
 brethren  loudly  and,  I  believe,  too  justly  complain.  The  press 
 constantly  sends  forth  its  books,  pamphlets,  and  tracts,  against 
 Infant  Baptism  ;  and  many  agents  are  industriously  occupied  in 
 secretly  circulating  them  among  the  less  enlightened  and  con- 
 firmed of  our  congregations;  while  the  pulpit  pours  out  its 
 most  ardent  and  eloquent  harangues  in  condemnation  of  our 
 practice.  We  are  pitied  for  our  want  of  common  sense,  are 
 charged  with  a  sad  deficiency  of  physical  courage,  and  gravely 
 rebuked  for  a  lack  of  religious  integrity. 
 
 So  vital,  in  the  view  of  the  Baptists,  at  large,  is  this  question, 
 that  it  has  caused  a  separation  of  the  Calvinistic  Congregational 
 body  into  two  sections ;  and,  in  not  a  few  instances,  has, 
 unhappily,  excited  a  spirit  of  rife  and  perpetual  alienation 
 among  them.  This  repugnance  of  our  opponents  to  Infant 
 Baptism  is  strikingly  exemplified  in  their  generally  refusing 
 to  assist  Pedohaptists  in  erecting  or  repairing  their  places  of 
 wrorship.  Though  constantly  urging,  and  frequently  inducing, 
 our  body  to  help  them  in  similar  efforts ;  comparatively  few  of 
 them  will  return  the  compliment.  This  want  of  reciprocal 
 aid  is  felt  and  complained  of  by  nearly  all  those  Pedobaptist 
 ministers,  whose  arduous  and  self-denying  duty  it  is  to  solicit 
 assistance  towards  promoting  their  local  endeavours  to  save 
 the  souls  of  the  people.  All  this  opposition  evidently  arises 
 from  a  settled  aversion  to  Infant  Baptism — which,  for  the 
 world,  they  would  not  knowingly  countenance  or  encourage 
 in  the  smallest  degree,  or  in  the  most  indirect  way.  Of 
 course,  I  speak  not  of  all  our  opponents,  but  certainly  of  the 
 great  majority  of  their  competent  members. 
 
 Again,  let  a  person  write  a  tract,  pamphlet,  or  volume,  in 
 defence  of  Infant  Sprinkling,  and  let  him  do  it  with  zeal,  and 
 some  degree  of  efficiency;  and  if  he  escape  the  rudest  demon- 
 
TO  PEDOBATTIST  ADVOCATES.  1 1  7 
 
 strations  of  dislike,  from  the  great  mass  of  the  Baptist 
 communions  he  may  happen  to  fall  in  with,  it  must  arise  from 
 some  peculiarity  in  his  position  and  circumstances — shielding 
 him  from  their  open  attacks.  Every  thing  is  done  to  traduce 
 his  talents,  intelligence,  and  motives,  and,  if  possible,  to  annoy 
 him  personally.  He  is  viewed  as  the  enemy  of  the  dipping 
 denomination,  and  of  every  individual  in  it.  Let  him,  per- 
 chance, get  into  the  company  of  a  dozen  of  them,  and  the 
 looks  he  will  encounter,  and  the  remarks  to  which  he  will  he 
 subjected,  must  soon  convince  him  of  being  accused  of  having 
 committed  some  fearfully  grave  offence !  Let  him  solicit  their 
 aid,  even  for  some  object  of  general  interest;  and,  a  hundred 
 to  one,  but  he  will  not  only  get  a  refusal,  but  also  a  castigation 
 for  presuming  to  differ  from  themselves  on  the  matter  of 
 baptism,  and  for  having  the  audacity  to  publish  his  thoughts 
 on  it.  They  will  sneer  at  his  performance,  pronounce  it  trash, 
 profane,  absurd,  worthless,  and  its  arguments,  as  having 
 been  answered  a  hundred  times  over!  As  a  specimen,  the 
 Rev.  Samuel  Green,  speaking  to  his  congregation  of  my  volume 
 on  the  Mode  of  Baptism,  which  has  been  strongly  sanctioned 
 and  recommended  by  the  leading  Pedobaptist  reviews,  calls  it, 
 'An  ignorant,  conceited,  and  flippant  book' — of  course,  not 
 worth  their  notice,  nor  entitled  to  their  belief!  Address,  p.  5. 
 Now,  this  is  not  dignified  nor  Christian ;  and  rather  betrays 
 a  weakness  and  soreness,  than  a  calm  conviction,  that  their 
 cause  is  invulnerable.  The  strong  can  afford  to  be  merciful. 
 In  this  light  every  intelligent  Pedobaptist  regards  such  pettish 
 hostility  to  himself  and  his  productions ;  and  naturally  assum- 
 ing, with  some  small  amount  of  gratification,  that  his  efforts 
 have  made  an  impression  in  the  right  quarter.  The  most 
 zealous  and  unscrupulous  opponents  of  Infant  Baptism,  I 
 venture  to  affirm,  never  meet  with  such  treatment  from  its 
 most  ardent  advocates. 
 
 The  importance  our  opponents  attach  to  what  they  believe 
 to  be  the  right  administration  of  baptism,  compared  with  some 
 other  scriptural  obligations,  is  remarkable.  In  relation  to 
 Doctrines ;  our  Calvinistic,  Antinomian,  and  Arminian  friends, 
 differing  most  widely  in  the  celebrated  Five  Points,  which 
 have  so  long  and  so  deeply  agitated  the  Christian  world,  can 
 write  themselves  down  as  if  constituting  only  one  affiliated 
 and  identical  section  of  believers.  In  the  same  list,  they 
 publish  the  numbers  of  their  conflicting  churches,  with  the 
 increase  or  decrease  of  their  members.  As  for  baby-sprinklers, 
 Calvinistic,  or  Arminian,  they  must  be  repudiated  and  opposed 
 
118  HOSTILITY  OF  THE  BAPTISTS 
 
 on  every  hand,  as  in  grievous  and  dangerous  error,  and  as 
 ever  doing  a  world  of  mischief!  Many  of  their  advocates  will 
 admit  of  no  difference  between  the  religious  and  moral  tendencies 
 of  baptism  as  administered  in  a  Catholic  or  in  a  "Wesleyan 
 chapel!  I  could  easily  quote  pages  from  the  writings  of  our 
 learned  and  loudly-applauded  opponents,  in  confirmation  of 
 this  assertion.  It  is  urged,  that  just  as  papists  and  conformists, 
 in  baptizing  infants,  teach  the  fearful  doctrine  of  baptismal 
 regeneration;  so  all  other  sections  of  the  church  must,  and 
 and  always,  do  the  like,  verbally  or  by  inference,  whenever 
 they  baptize  children. 
 
 Then,  in  relation  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
 if  we  may  judge  from  the  language  of  our  opponents,  they 
 are  far  more  concerned  about  the  due  administration  of  Baptism, 
 both  as  to  the  mode  and  the  subject,  than  about  the  scriptural 
 observance  of  the  Eucharist.  They  seldom  urge  pious  people 
 to  attend  the  Lord's  Supper  with  half  the  earnestness  they 
 manifest  in  persuading  others,  of  very  doubtful  godliness, 
 to  submit  to  immersion.  Nor  is  the  neglect  of  the 
 former  ordinance  half  as  much  reproved  or  condemned  as  a 
 neglect  of  the  latter.  More  value  and  virtue  appear  associated 
 with  the  due  observance  of  the  ceremony  in  the  water,  than 
 the  ceremony  at  the  Christian  altar.  How  seldom  do  you 
 read  of  our  opponents  castigating  people  for  not  receiving  the 
 Lord's  Supper,  or  doing  so  in  a  careless  frame  of  mind,  or  in 
 an  unscriptural  posture — kneeling  instead  of  sitting — or  in 
 quietly  listening  to  the  most  exceptional  language?  These 
 are  matters,  doubtless,  not  approved;  but  the  evils  seem  to 
 be  nothing  compared  with  the  imperfect  or  improper  adminis- 
 tration of  baptism.  They  will  commune,  by  the  year,  with 
 very  doubtful  immersionists  at  the  Lord's  table,  and  seldom,  or 
 never  utter  a  complaint.  But,  let  a  person  take  his  place 
 there,  of  whose  proper  baptism  they  entertain  a  doubt,  and 
 they  are  ready,  in  an  instant,  to  express  their  dislike  at  being 
 so  near  him ;  and  indeed  they  feel  he  ought  not  to  be  allowed 
 there  at  all — at  least  this  would  be  the  case  with  most  of  our 
 Baptist  brethren.  All  this,  and  more  of  the  like  kind  might  be 
 truly  added,  indubitably  evinces  the  transcendent  importance 
 our  opponents  attach  to  this  rite,  evidently  far  more  than  was 
 ever  ascribed  to  it  by  the  apostle  Paul,  and  also  their  hostility 
 to  Infant  Baptism,  administered  even  in  its  simplest  form. 
 
 In  order  to  offer  the  best  apology  in  my  power  for  this 
 hostile  feeling  and  conduct  of  so  many  of  our  opponents,  I 
 will,  for  the  present,  assume  that  it  originates  in  a  serious 
 
TO  PEDOLAl'TIST  ADVOCATES.  11  J) 
 
 belief,  that  in  administering  the  rite  to  infants,  we  really, 
 knowingly,  and  necessarily,  teach  the  doctrine  of  BaptismaIi 
 Regeneration;  or,  that  tbiS  soul-deluding  sentiment  must 
 always  and  inevitably  be  the  consequence  of  its  administration; 
 and  that  few  errors  are  so  sinful  and  dangerous  as  this.  In 
 confirmation  of  that  assumption,  I  will  cite  a  few  passages 
 from  the  writings  of  some  of  the  most  lauded  and  popular 
 antagonists  of  Infant  Baptism.  Mr.  Keach  : — 'The  doctrine 
 'of  Pedobaptism  is  a  direct  violation  of  that  holy  precept  of 
 'our  blessed  Lord,  "Thou  shalt  not  forswear  thyself,  but  shalt 
 'perform  unto  the  Lord  thine  oaths."'  Theophilus  : — 'What 
 'then  is  Infant  Baptism,  whether  as  practised  in  the  Establish- 
 'ment  or  out  of  it,  but  a  work  of  supererrogation,  a  wily 
 'artifice  of  Anti-cbrist,  whereby  to  usurp  the  kingdom 
 'of  God?'  p.  5.  Byron: — 'Is  not  Infant  Baptism  an  in- 
 'vention  of  men?  Is  it  not  the  source  whence  the  mass 
 'of  carnal  schemes  have  sprung?  Is  it  not  the  sheet  anchor 
 'of  delusion  that  holds  the  whole  mass  in  such  system 
 'together?  And,  lastly,  is  it  not  the  very  foundation  of  all 
 'apostacy  from  the  truths  of  the  gospel?'  Jenkins: — '0  Sir! 
 'the  ignorant  people,  as  they  are  deemed,  of  the  Church 
 'of  England,  are  not  in  half  so  much  danger,  as  the  demure 
 'and  regular  amongst  the  dissenters,  of  being  deceived  here, 
 'and  trusting  to  the  outside  of  religion,  without  the  inward 
 'reality?'  p.  82.  Pengelly: — 'Presbyterians,  Independents, 
 '  Congregationalists,  and  Wesleyans,  hold  doctrines  like  those 
 'of  the  Churches  of  Greece,  Borne,  and  England,  on  the 
 'virtues  of  baptism,  or  which,  carried  out,  lead  to  consequences 
 'little  short  of  those  communions.'  p.  77-  Draper  beads  a 
 section  of  his  work  with  the  following  question: — 'Is  not  the 
 'practise  of  Infant  Sprinkling  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men?' 
 And  then  proceeds  to  persuade  his  readers,  that  the  Assembly 
 of  Divines,  the  Bev.  Philip  Henry,  and  his  son,  the  Commen- 
 tator, Drs.  Doddridge,  Williams,  and  Watts,  held  Infant 
 Baptism  to  be  a  saving  ordinance !  p.  14-23.  Craps : — 
 'Whatever  may  be  the  form  of  words  used  by  the  minister, 
 'in  connexion  with  the  ceremony  of  baptizing  Infants,  it  cannot 
 'be  denied  that  the  tendency  of  the  ceremony  is  to  teach  that 
 'infants  are  saved  by  baptism.  Nor  can  it  be  doubted  that 
 '  the  salvation  of  infants  by  baptism  is  a  doctrine  very  generally 
 'believed  in  this  country,  not  merely  by  Episcopalians,  but  by 
 'the  Wesleyans  and  Independents.'  p.  76.  Noel: — 'So  long 
 'as  Infant  Baptism  continues  to  be  practised,  this  "gross 
 'superstition,"  this  mighty  mischief,'  [baptismal  regeneration] 
 
1  20  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 'must  continue;  because  it  springs  necessarily  from  the  appli- 
 cation of  scriptural  statements  respecting  the  baptism  of" 
 '  believers,  to  the  baptism  of  infants ;  and  while  Infant  Baptism 
 'lasts,  there  being  only  one  baptism  enacted  by  Christ,  they 
 'must  be  so  applied.'  Sub.  p.  289. 
 
 In  the  above  citations  we  have  some  curious  and  reckless 
 specimens  of  logical  deductions.  Let  us  apply  their  mode 
 of  reasonings  to  themselves  and  their  own  practice.  The 
 churches  of  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  of  England,  whenever 
 they  baptize  adults,  always  teach  the  awful  delusions  of 
 Baptismal  Regeneration ;  therefore,  whoever  baptizes  adults, 
 do,  either  by  implication  or  by  direct  declarations,  teach  this 
 doctrine  also !  And  while  adult  baptism  lasts,  this  fearful  evil 
 must  continue  among  its  advocates.  In  truth,  the  great 
 sticklersforbelievers' baptism  are,  consciously  or  not,  promoting 
 this  system  of  evil  and  mischief  in  the  world.  It  is  in  vain 
 for  them  to  protest  against  our  attributing  such  errors  and 
 evils  to  them  all  and  alike;,  or  to  aver  that,  though  the  Greek, 
 Romish,  and  English  hierarchies  hold  and  teach  Baptismal 
 Regeneration,  in  every  adult  baptism,  they  themselves  do 
 nothing  of  the  kind;  and  are  certain,  that  their  mode  of 
 administering  this  ordinance  is  exempt  from  such  shocking 
 and  antiscriptural  consequences.  No,  they  all  baptize  adults — 
 that  is  sufficient;  and  they  are  all  alike  doing  incalculable 
 mischief,  whenever  they  perform  this  rite! — I  leave  it  with 
 any  reasonable  person  to  decide,  whether  my  deductions,  from 
 their  Adult  Baptism,  are  not  as  well-founded,  and  as  fairly 
 drawn,  as  those  our  opponents  draw  from  our  baptizing 
 Infants ! 
 
 Here  you  will  notice  Mr.  Noel's  distinction  between  the 
 effects  of  Adult  and  Infant  Baptism.  It  evinces  the  difficulties 
 our  assailants  feel  while  making  the  above-cited  serious  charges 
 against  our  principles  and  practices  in  this  matter.  'Infant 
 '  Baptism  also  mainly  sustains  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal 
 '  Regeneration ;  for  those  who  are  rightly  baptized,  are  "buried 
 'and  risen  with  Christ,"  Col.  ii.  12;  have  "put  on  Christ," 
 'Gal.  iii.  27;  and  "baptism  saves  them,"  1  Pet.  iii.  21 ;  and 
 'if  infants  are  rightly  baptized,  it  follows  that  they  arc  buried 
 'with  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ,  and  are  saved.  Hence  it  is 
 'argued,  that  baptism  must  regenerate  and  justify  them. 
 '  Adult  converts  are  regenerated  by  grace,  and  justified  by  faith, 
 'before  baptism,'  [what,  every  one  of  them?]  'and  if  baptism 
 'is  said  in  Scripture  to  do  this,  it  is  only  as  being  an  external 
 'manifestation  of  faith,'  [or  of  hypocrisy!]  'it  is  the  faith 
 
INFANT  BArTIS^r  PERNICIOUS.  121 
 
 'signified,  and  not  the  external  sign,  that  saves.  But  infants 
 'have  not  faith;  and  if  baptism  saves  them,  it  is  not  faith 
 'which  saves  them,  hut  the  external  rite.'  Mode,  p.  15.  In 
 this  paragraph  we  are  told,  that  Infant  Baptism  always  and 
 necessarily  teaches  Baptismal  Regeneration;  and  that  Adult 
 Baptism,  without  exception,  produces  a  contrary  impression. 
 The  reason  assigned  for  the  latter  conclusion  is,  that  adults 
 are  always  regenerated  before  they  are  immersed  —  and  that 
 this  immersion  is  a  clear  manifestation,  that  they  had  faitli 
 before-hand,  in  consequence  of  their  previous  regeneration  by 
 the  Holy  Spirit! 
 
 But,  suppose  these  adults  should  not  have  been  spiritually 
 baptized,  what  does  this  ceremony  then  teach?  surely,  as  great 
 and  dangerous  an  error  as  it  could  do  in  the  case  of  infants — 
 supposing  baby-baptism  were  considered  a  soul-regenerating 
 service!  But  the  texts  above-cited  do  not  say,  baptism 
 manifests  that  the  parties  had  been  'buried  with  Christ,'  or 
 had  'put  on  Christ,'  or  had  'been  saved,'  before  hand;  but 
 plainly  and  unequivocally,  that  baptism  itself,  did  all  this,  or 
 that  it  was  done  at  the  same  time  with  the  baptism  itself. 
 Does  water  baptism  effect  this  object  ?  If  not,  it  does  nothing, 
 but  what  might  be  much  more  effectually  accomplished  by  a 
 holy  life,  and  devotion  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  If  Mr.  Noel's 
 logic  were  true,  it  would  follow,  that  nearly  half  the  people 
 our  opponents  dip  were  made  to  manifest  a  falsehood,  and  to 
 become  the  awful  dupes  of  a  fearful  delusion!  I  have  cited 
 his  language  to  show  the  manifest  perplexities  into  which  our 
 wisest  and  holiest  antagonists  plunge  themselves,  in  order  to 
 evince  their  hostility  to  the  baptism  of  infants !  Think  of 
 the  shocking  delusions  such  a  notion  must  foster  in  the  minds 
 of  the  baptized  adults,  without  exception — we  were  all  'buried 
 'with  Christ — have  all  put  on  Christ — are  all  saved;'  and  our 
 dipping  is  the  seal  and  manifestation  of  this  soul-cheering  truth 
 ■ — as  the  Hon.  and  Rev.  Mr.  Noel  unequivocally  assures  us! 
 
 It  is  hardly  to  be  doubted,  that  owing  to  such  positive  and 
 reckless  assertions,  false  representations,  and  reasonings,  as 
 those  cited  from  Byron,  Craps,  Draper,  Noel,  &c,  and 
 similar  sentiments  you  will  hereafter  meet  with  in  the  course 
 of  this  treatise,  that  many  young,  unread,  and  very  imperfectly 
 informed  persons,  among  our  opponents,  so  often  and  so 
 positively  denounce  Infant  Baptism,  and  its  advocates.  They 
 regard  those  reverend  guides  as  oracles ;  and  feel  they  may, 
 on  all  occasions,  safely  and  confidently,  use  the  language  those 
 gentlemen  teach  them.     Indeed,  in  many  cases  they  are  more 
 
 F 
 
122  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 dogmatical  than  their  masters.  The  better  versed  in  this 
 controversy  are  constrained  occasionally  to  make  concessions 
 exceedingly  damaging  to  their  own  precited  views,  and  which, 
 in  some  instances,  when  duly  followed  out,  are  calculated 
 to  neutralize  the  entire  force  of  their  arguments.  But  few 
 of  the  persons  now  referred  to,  have  studied  the  real  points 
 of  difference  in  this  question ;  and  most  of  them  know  sur- 
 prisingly little  about  it.  Yet  they  reiterate  the  foregoing 
 declarations  of  their  unscrupulous  and  incompetent  guides, 
 with  all  the  dogmatic  airs  of  conscious  infallibility;  treating 
 the  opinions  and  reasonings  of  their  opponents  with  super- 
 cilious contempt.  Nor,  with  such  assertions  before  them,  as 
 I  have  just  cited,  from  lauded  and  learned  scribes  of  their 
 own  party,  can  one  wonder  at  it. 
 
 We  have  solemnly,  publicly,  and  repeatedly  averred,  that 
 we  teach  neither  directly,  nor  by  fair  inference,  any  such 
 heretical  doctrine  as  our  opponents  ascribe  to  us.  Our  adminis- 
 trations of  this  rite  are  open  before  the  congregation  and  the 
 world.  And  we  challenge  them  to  cite  an  instance  in  which 
 any  duly-recognized  Independent  or  Wesleyan  minister,  fairly 
 interpreted,  has  pronounced  such  dogmas  as  are  perpetually 
 ascribed  to  all  Pedobaptists.  A  service  more  simple,  innocent, 
 or  apparently  and  really  inoffensive,  cannot  be  performed 
 by  any  minister  of  Christ.  It  is,  in  a  few  words,  consecrating, 
 
 DEDICATING,  OR  DISCIPLING  A  CHILD  TO  THE  TRIUNE  GOD,  AND 
 FORMALLY  INITIATING  OR  INTRODUCING  IT  INTO  THE  SCHOOL, 
 CONGREGATION,    OR   TEACHINGS,  OF  CHRISTIAN  TRUTH.       The 
 
 mode  in  which  we  administer  this  rite  is,  by  pronouncing 
 over  it  thewords  of  the  commission,  and  by  pouring  or  sprinkling 
 pure  water  on  its  head,  to  symbolize  and  inculcate  the  necessity 
 and  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  contains 
 the  sum  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  to  its  design  and  form,  among  all 
 evangelical  dissenting  Pedobaptists.  No  sponsors  are  present; 
 no  vows  are  taken;  and  no  spiritual  change  of  heart  is  even 
 hinted  at,  as  the  result  of  this  ceremony. 
 
 For  employing  the  terms  dedicating,  discipling,  or  conse- 
 crating, as  expressing  the  design  of  baptizing,  we  have  the 
 sanction  of  some  of  our  intelligent  opponents.  The  Bev. 
 Mr.  Norcott:  fI  confess  that  many  men  do  say  the  word 
 'Teach  in  the  Greek  is,  make  disciples,  and  I  dare  not  say 
 'against  it;  for  I  find  it  the  very  practice  of  Jesus  Christ; 
 '  he  did  first  make  disciples,  and  then  baptized  them.  John  iv.  1 .' 
 Mr.  Stovel  says,  'The  Apostles  were  commanded  to  initiate 
 '  the  disciples ;  for  baptizein  eis,  in  such  a  connexion,  means 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  PEENICftUSi  123 
 
 'to  initiate.'  Dis.  p.  103.  'The  nation  was  baptized,  initiated 
 'into  Moses.'  lb.  p.  70.  'The  proselyte  being  initiated,  he 
 'became  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law.'  lb.  'In  the  Christian 
 'system,  baptism  is  found  exalted  to  the  character  of  an 
 'adequate  initiation.'  p.  77-  Mr.  Noel  says,  'As  in  all  these 
 'places  the  phrase,  "  to  be  baptized  unto  the  name"  of  any  one 
 'means  to  be  dedicated  by  water  baptism  to  the  service  of 
 'any  one,  the  similar  phrase  in  the  commission  to  the  apostles, 
 'must  mean  the  same  thing;  and  when  Jesus  said,  baptize 
 'them  unto  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
 'Holy  Ghost,  he  meant,  dedicate  them  by  water  baptism  to 
 'the  service  of  the  Triune  God.'  Sub.  p.  15.  'To  be  baptized  unto 
 '  Christ,  or  unto  Moses,  or  unto  Paul,  means,  to  be  his  follower 
 'or  disciple,  consecrated  to  his  service.'  p.  34.  'Immersion 
 'unto  the  name  of  God  means  consecration  to  God;  and  the 
 'words  baptizing  them  unto  the  name  of  the  Father,  &c.  means 
 'consecrating  them  to  the  Triune  God.'  p.  35.  Of  course, 
 then,  they  were  not  the  Lord's  professedly  or  by  recognition 
 before;  that  is,  they  were  not  regarded  as  his  disciples  or 
 followers  before  their  baptism !  Nor  is  the  idea  of  discipling 
 to  Christ,  by  baptism,  one  of  recent  application.  Justin  Martyr, 
 who  was  born  near  the  close  of  the  first  century,  speaking  of 
 those  who  were  then  members  of  the  congregation,  says, 
 'A  part  of  these  were  sixty  or  seventy  years'  old,  and  were 
 'made  disciples  to  Christ  from  their  infancy.'  On  this  passage 
 a  judicious  writer  remarks,  'Now,  had  some  Jewish  proselyte 
 'father,  speaking  of  his  sons,  affirmed,  They  were  made  Jews 
 'in  infancy,  we  should  easily  understand  him.'  It  is  plain, 
 that  Justin  means,  they  were  discipled  to  Christ,  in  the 
 ordinance  of  baptism.  Cyprian  says,  'The  main  thing  in 
 'baptism,  in  God's  sight,  is  the  dedicating  the  person  to  God 
 'in  his  gospel.'  Wall,  v.  iii.  p.  1 18. 
 
 That  this  design  of  baptism  is  the  leading  one  among 
 evangelical  dissenters,  might  be  confirmed  by  numerous  un- 
 exceptionable authorities.  The  subjoined  will  suffice : — Mends : 
 'Every  evangelical  Pedobaptist  will  cordially  acknowledge  .  .  . 
 'that  the  children  of  parents,  professing  their  belief  in  the 
 '  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  who  are  baptized,  are  not  on  account 
 '  of  the  faith  and  piety  of  parents  entitled  to  spiritualprivileges, 
 'and  saving  grace.  But  we  assert  .  .  .  that  the  children  of 
 '  such  parents,  thus  early  devoted  to  God,  in  the  ordinance  of 
 'baptism,  are  by  it  admitted  into  external  and  visible  covenant 
 '  with  God ;  they  are  introduced  into  the  school  of  Christ,  to  be 
 '  taughtthefirstprinciples  of  the  oracles  of  God,  agreeably  to  the 
 
124  •       OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 '  express  words  and  obvious  meaning  of  the  commission,  given 
 'to  the  apostles,  by  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection.'  p.  13. 
 
 Mr.  Edwards  remarks,  'I  view  infants,  when  baptized,  under 
 'the  notion  of  persons  entered  into  a  school;  and,  therefore,  I 
 '  consider  parents,  pastors,  deacons,  and  church  members,  at 
 'large,  as  brought  under  an  additional  obligation  to  instruct 
 '  those  children  who  are  become  scholars,  as  they  become  able 
 'to  learn,  in  the  peculiar  truths  of  the  religion  of  Christ. 
 'Viewing  the  matter  in  this  light,  it  assumes  an  importance 
 '  exceedingly  grand ;  and  Infant  Baptism  is  far  from  being 
 '  that  unmeaning  thing  which  it  appears  to  be  when  the  views 
 'are  extended  no  further  than  helpless  infancy ...  .By  taking 
 'a  view  of  circumcision,  and  of  our  Lord's  command  to  his 
 'apostles  to  make  disciples,  scholars,  or  learners,  of  all  nations 
 '  . .  .  .there  appears  not  only  a  grandeur  of  design,  but  likewise 
 '  an  exact  symmetry  in  the  different  dispensations  of  God ;  I 
 '  mean  that  attention  to  the  rising  offspring,  which  had  shown 
 'itself  in  a  former  dispensation,  and  no  doubt  in  all.' 
 
 This  doctrine  we  are  prepared  to  defend,  as,  at  least,  free 
 from  all  superstition  in  itself,  and  against  the  supposition  of 
 any  dangerous  consequences  legitimately  arising  from  it.  As 
 to  our  making  a  saving  ordinance  of  this  rite,  I  will  appeal  to 
 the  candid  statement  of  the  late  Dr.  W.  Newman,  of  Stepney 
 College: — He  says,  'Whether  baptism  and  regeneration  be 
 '  synonymous  and  convertible  terms  is  a  question  that  may  give 
 'pain  and  trouble  to  the  national  establishment.  Dissenters 
 'in  general'  [who  certainly  baptize  infants]  'have  not  much 
 'concern  with  it.'  Serm.  p.  24.  For  our  practice  we  have  the 
 divine  sanction  and  example,  in  the  baptism  of  numerous 
 infants  and  children  in  the  Red  Sea;  and  we  believe  also,  of 
 the  inspired  disciples  of  Christ,  under  the  gospel  dispensation; 
 and  we  consequently  and  confidently  infer,  that  it  cannot  now 
 possibly  be  injurious  to  either  infants  or  adults. 
 
 But  had  there  been  danger  to  the  young  in  our  baptizing 
 and  dedicating  them  to  God,  are  not  our  opponents  chargeable 
 with  being  equally  guilty  in  dedicating  or  discipling  their 
 children  to  the  Lord?  When  they  formally  devote  their  little 
 ones  to  Christ,  as,  I  believe,  most  pious  parents,  among  them 
 do ;  what  is  meant  by  that  solemn  and  interesting  act  ?  and 
 what  end  is  intended  to  be  accomplished  by  it?  Why,  just  the 
 same  as  we  purpose  in  our  baptisms.  Mr.  Noel  says,  the 
 children  of  Baptists  are  'dedicated  to  God,'  [similar  to  being 
 baptized  unto  God,]  '  from  their  infancy,  and  trained  in  his 
 '  ways ;  they  receive  instruction  and  exhortation  from  their 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  PERNICIOUS.  125 
 
 "parents;  they  worship  with  believers  and  see  Christian 
 'examples  from  childhood.'  Sub.  p.  277.  The  manner  of 
 this  consecration  we  may  gather  from  the  following  passage 
 of  Mr.  Booth :  '  Being  sometimes  requested  by  the  parents 
 'of  a  new-born  child,  to  unite  with  them  in  addressing  the 
 'Father  of  all  mercies,  we  comply.  On  which  occasion  we 
 'frequently  read  some  portion  of  Scripture;  give  a  word  of 
 'exhortation  to  the  parents  respecting  the  education  of  their 
 '  child,  return  thanks  to  the  Giver  of  all  good  for  the  recent 
 'blessings  bestowed  on  the  family,  and  recommend  the  infant 
 'to  God  by  earnest  prayer.'  Vol.  ii.  p.  343.  How  oddly  the 
 following  passage,  in  Mr.  Stovel's  work,  reads  after  the  above 
 declarations  !  The  unbaptized  '  child  is  made  to  feel  his  fearful 
 'association  with  the  wicked  until  he  becomes  separated  by 
 'actual  conversion!'  and  evinces  it  by  being  immersed. — 
 Reg.  Lect.  v.  p.  25.  I  suppose  he  means,  the  dear  little  creature 
 docs  not  live  at  home,  or  cannot  pertain  to  a  Christian  family ! 
 
 In  fact,  pious  Baptists  avowedly  give  up  their  children  to 
 Jehovah;  they  place  them  under  his  gracious  guidance;  they 
 pray  for  his  protection;  and  for  his  spiritual  blessings  to  rest  upon 
 them.  Where  this  dedication  is  not  publicly,  ministerially,  or 
 formally  done,  it  is  virtually  effected  by  the  every-day  prayers 
 and  devotions  of  all  godly  parents  among  them.  As  the 
 result,  they  express  their  hope  and  belief,  that  the  Lord  will 
 be  their  children's  God,  their  Redeemer,  and  their  constant 
 friend.  They  beseech  him  to  baptize  them  with  his  Holy 
 Spirit,  and  thereby  regenerate  their  youthful  hearts.  Having 
 done  all  this,  they  consider  that  their  children  now  professedly 
 belong  to  Christ,  are  in  his  covenant,  and  must,  therefore,  be 
 nursed  and  trained  up  especially  for  him  ;  must  be  taught  the 
 doctrines  of  the  gospel;  and,  as  'babes  in  Christ,'  must  be 
 nourished  with  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word;  must  have  holy 
 examples,  constant  watching,  and  daily  admonitions  to  love  and 
 serve  their  heavenly. Father.  They  feel  that  their  children  are 
 thus  formally  separated  from  the  outer  world;  are  brought 
 into  the  congregation  of  God ;  and  must  be  treated  as  beings 
 devoted  and  consecrated  to  him.  In  a  word,  they  view  them 
 as  nominal  Christians,  and  separated  from  the  heathen  multi- 
 tudes, and  the  open  infidels  around  them.  Now  all,  and  even 
 more  than  this  must  be  included  in  the  formal  dedication  of 
 their  children  to  Christ ;  otherwise  the  service  has  no  meaning 
 in  it — the  term  no  legitimate  import — nor  can  any  good  end  be 
 accomplished  by  it, — being  a  mere  senseless  and  useless  act. 
 
 But  if  it  be  of  any  rational  import,  benefit,  and  force,  it  is 
 
126  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 quite  as  dangerous  to  the  souls  of  the  young  as  Infant  Baptism. 
 Might  not  the  same  false  hopes  he  based  on  it,  and  the  same 
 delusions  follow  it,  as  are  ascribed  to  our  ceremonial?  Our 
 opponents  have  a  dry  baptism,  and  we  a  wet  one.  For  theirs 
 they  have  neither  precept  nor  example,  under  the  gospel 
 dispensation ;  for  ours  we  have,  at  least,  the  instance  of  the 
 Bed  Sea.  They  can  produce  no  Scriptural  record  of  any 
 divinely-appointed  method  of  formally  consecrating  infants  to 
 Jehovah,  except  by  circumcision  or  baptism.  Theirs  is  a  human 
 substitute  for  a  Christian  rite.  Yet  without  any  precedent  or 
 command,  many,  if  not  most,  of  the  really  godly  parents  among 
 them  would  deem  themselves  as  bad  as  infidels  or  heathens, 
 were  they  not  to  follow  our  example  to  a  great  extent,  and,  in  some 
 form  or  other,  consecrate  their  offspring  to  the  Almighty,  and 
 initiate  them  into  the  general  church  or  congregation  of  Christ. 
 Why  not  add  the  element  and  complete  the  rite!  Surely  no 
 great  mischief  could  ensue  from  such  a  simple  and  divine 
 addition  to  their  own  imperfect  and  unauthorised  ceremony ! 
 And  then  we  and  they  might  constitute  one  body — might  live 
 in  concord,  and  more  efficiently  benefit  the  world. 
 
 Dr.  Ryland,  remarks — 'To  the  baptism  of  infants,  con- 
 'sidered  simply  as  expressive  of  their  dedication  to  God,  and 
 '  their  parents'  desire  that  their  children  may  be  the  Lord's,  we 
 'only  object,  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands?'  p.  23. 
 Here,  the  Doctor  candidly  admits  the  harmlessness  of  our 
 practice,  which  is  conceding  much  more  than  many  of  his 
 brethren.  As  to  our  authority  for  it,  we  ask  in  return, '  who 
 'hath  required  it  at  your  hands,'  to  build  chapels,  preach  from 
 pulpits,  formally  dedicate  your  children  to  Christ,  or  to  baptize 
 young  or  old  men  and  women  who  have  been  trained  up 
 religiously,  or  to  admit  females  to  the  Lord's  table,  or  to  sanctify 
 the  first  day  of  the  week  ?  Pray,  by  what  authority  do  ye 
 do  these  things? 
 
 It  is  possible  that  some  Baptist  brother  may  retort — 'as  our 
 '  children,  through  their  dry  dedication  to  Christ,  are  placed  in 
 'a  similar  Christian  position  with  those  devoted  to  God  by 
 '  water  baptism ;  why  so  strenuously  contend  for  a  rite  which 
 '  conveys  no  practical  advantage  over  ours  ? '  We  answer,  first 
 and  chiefly,  because  we  deem  our  method  to  be  in  agreement 
 with  the  revealed  will  of  God;  and  his  will  we  regard  as  a 
 sufficient  injunction,  not  only  to  baptize  infants,  but  also  to 
 do  whatsoever  he  commands  us,  whether  we  can  see  any 
 advantages  arising  from  it  or  not.  On  this  ground  our 
 objectors  also  frequently  and  piously  proceed.     Might  not  their 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  rEEXICIOUS.  127 
 
 members  enjoy  all  church  privileges  without  being  previously 
 immersed,  as  well  as  after  it?  Might  not  their  ministers 
 preach  as  eloquently  and  successfully  without  ordination,  and 
 the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,  as  with  them  ? 
 And  might  not  their  religious  societies  be  as  select,  and 
 zealous,  and  useful,  without  attending  the  ordinance  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper,  as  after  doing  so?  Why,  then,  enforce  these 
 fruitless  services  in  their  churches  ?  Simply  or  chiefly,  because 
 they  view  them  as  being  agreeable  to  the  revealed  will  of 
 Heaven.  The  grounds  of  our  actions  are  the  same  on  both 
 sides.  'What  say  the  Scriptures?'  and  their  holy  responses 
 Ave  believe  and  must  ever  obey,  irrespective  of  any  manifest 
 benefits  arising  from  active  subjection  to  the  divine  commands. 
 We  may  possibly  misread  God's  truth;  but  our  aims  are  to 
 accomplish  his  published  will. 
 
 We  have,  however,  a  second  reason  for  adding  water  to 
 their  verbal  and  formal  dedication  of  children  to  God.  Baptism, 
 like  the  Lord's  Supper,  was  manifestly  designed  to  be  an 
 instructive  institution.  It  was  intended,  as  previously  observed, 
 to  'show  forth'  the  out-pouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  that 
 real  and  spiritual  baptism,  by  which  the  heart  is  divinely 
 purified  and  renewed.  Here  is  the  exhibition  of  a  great 
 doctrine,  teaching  mankind  through  the  organs  of  vision,  as 
 well  as  through  those  of  hearing.  The  Hebrews  were  not 
 merely  to  talk  of  sacrifices,  but  actually  and  publicly  to  offer 
 them.  Believers  in  Christ  are  not  merely  to  sit  around  the 
 table  of  the  Lord,  but  to  eat  and  drink  the  bread  and  wine 
 placed  upon  it.  Nor  would  it  be  less  absurd  for  our  opponents 
 to  place  their  converts  in  the  dry  channel  of  a  river,  or  in  a 
 baptistry  without  water,  than  to  dedicate  infants  to  Christ 
 without  applying  to  them  this  purifying  element.  Baptism, 
 like  its  twin  sacrament,  is  designed  to  effect  several  objects 
 through  the  same  action.  This  is  an  instructive  dedication 
 of  the  young  to  Jehovah.  It  teaches  indirectly  the  original 
 pollution  of  human  nature.  It  illustrates  the  anointing  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit ;  which  a  dry  dedication  of  children  to  God 
 cannot  do.  It  constitutes  a  public  covenant  transaction,  in 
 which  parents  pledge  themselves  to  train  up  their  offspring 
 for  God,  and  teach  them  to  love,  serve,  trust,  and  glorify,  the 
 Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Mr.  Edwards  remarks,  'There  is  one 
 'fault  among  others  in  the  Baptist  system,  that  it  places  the 
 'rising  generation  so  entirely  out  of  sight.  And  in  this  it 
 '  differs  from  all  the  dispensations  of  God,  of  which  we  have 
 ■*any  knowledge ;   and  which  alone  would  lead  to  the  presump- 
 
128  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 '  tion  that  it  is  not  of  God.  I  do  not  mean  that  the  Baptists 
 '  do  this ;  for  in  this  respect  their  conduct  is  hetter  than  their 
 '  system ;  but  their  system  places  them  out  of  sight.  And  in 
 'this  it  differs  from  all  the  dispensations  of  God.' 
 
 Mr.  Noel  says,  'Let  me  add  this,  that  I  believe,  amongst 
 '  the  multitude  of  those  who,  as  ministers  of  Christ,  have  seen 
 'it  right  to  renounce  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  an 
 'abuse  in  the'  [established]  'church,  which  has  no  sanction  in 
 'Scripture,  there  are  very  few,  if  any,  who  have  not  felt  it 
 'their  duty  to  be  baptized  by  immersion.'  The  import  of 
 this  passage,  I  presume  to  be,  that  the  state  clergy,  who  have 
 left  the  establishment,  were  so  annoyed  and  distressed  at  the 
 abuse  of  Infant  Baptism  by  sprinkling,  that  they  entirely 
 renounced  this  service,  were  immersed  themselves,  and  adopted 
 the  scheme  of  adult  dipping.  But  would  it  not  have  been 
 more  consistent,  had  they  renounced  baptism  altogether? 
 For,  even  in  the  state  system,  baptism  is  not  rendered  more 
 pernicious,  or  more  really  abused,  than  by  the  dipping  of 
 numerous  deluded  or  hypocritical  professors,  and  then  inducting 
 them  into  the  fellowship  of  the  children  of  God — as  is  notoriously 
 done  by  our  opponents  of  all  parties,  and  all  over  the  Christian 
 world.  Under  strong  excitement,  men  sometimes  fail  to 
 discriminate  wisely;  and  ardent  minds  are  prone  to  run  to 
 extremes.  With  equal  propriety,  these  clerical  seceders 
 might  denounce  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  turn  Quakers  at  once 
 ■ — as  that  sacrament,  according  to  their  views,  has  also  been 
 shockingly  perverted  in  the  national  religion.  And  so  has 
 preaching,  and  a  stipendiary  ministry.  These  gentlemen 
 should  not  forget,  that  Adult  Baptism,  involving  Baptismal 
 Regeneration,  is  as  much  a  doctrine  in  the  law-church,  as  the 
 baptizing  of  infants;  and  that  dipping  babies  and  adults  are 
 quite  canonical,  if  not  often  performed  by  the  parish  minister. 
 
 While  Mr.  Noel  exultingly  remarks,  that  most  seceding 
 clergymen  join  the  ranks  of  the  Baptist  community;  can  he 
 account  for  the  motives  which  induce  so  many  Baptist  ministers 
 to  conform  to  the  Church  of  England — more  by  far,  it  has  been 
 said,  in  proportion  to  their  numbers,  than  evangelical  Congre- 
 gational Pedobaptists?  It  may  seem  strange  to  our  worthy 
 divine;  were  I  to  venture  the  conjecture,  that  it  partly,  if  not 
 chiefly,  arises  from  the  fact,  that,  after  all  the  apparent 
 incongruities  between  the  doctrine  of  baptism,  in  the  establish- 
 ment, and  of  our  Baptist  brethren;  there  is  a  much  greater 
 accordance  between  them  than  appears  on  the  surface  of  the 
 affair.   Our  opponents  tell  us,  that  faith  is  necessary  to  baptism. 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  129 
 
 So  says  the  state  religion ;  only  the  latter  recognizes  a  faith 
 by  proxy,  while  the  former  does  not.  Dipping  in  baptizing  is 
 the  only  mode  adopted  by  Mr.  Noel  and  his  friends;  and  the 
 rubric  of  the  Church  of  England,  not  only  allows  but  even 
 recommends  it,  when  the  child  is  able  to  bear  it.  Then  the 
 baptized,  among  both  parties,  are  regarded  and  treated  as 
 regenerate  and  saved,  after  having  undergone  this  ceremony ; 
 the  difference  being,  that  this  work  was  effected  in  the  soul 
 before  the  baptism  in  one  case,  and  at  the  baptism  in  the  other. 
 Most  assuredly,  there  is  a  greater  accordance  between  the 
 Baptists  and  the  state-church,  on  the  question  of  baptism, 
 than  there  is  between  Congregational  Pedobaptists  and  the  said 
 church,  on  the  same  subject.  In  a  word,  if  Mr.  Noel  and  his 
 seceding  brethren  had  resolved  actually  to  depart,  as  far  as 
 possible,  from  the  errors  and  evils  of  the  establishment  on 
 this  ceremony,  they  should  not  have  stopped  at  the  half-way 
 house  of  adult  and  believers'  immersion! 
 
 Objection  VIII.  The  baptism  of  infants  is  never  com- 
 manded in  the  New  Testament,  and  therefore  the  baptism  of 
 them  in  the  Red  Sea  can  be  no  guide  for  us  under  the  gospel 
 dis})ensation. —  On  this  point  we  shall  have  to  enlarge  hereafter. 
 At  present  we  remark,  that  we  certainly  have  no  institution 
 of  baptism,  de  novo,  in  the  New  Testament.  And  we  may 
 challenge  any  person  to  arrive  at  a  clear  and  satisfactory 
 conclusion  respecting  either  the  mode  or  the  subject  of  this 
 ordinance,  from  any  accounts  or  records  of  its  administration 
 given  us  in  the  New  Testament  only.  It  is  easy  to  jump  at 
 conclusions,  from  the  places  in  which  John  generally  performed 
 this  rite,  from  the  verb  and  prepositions  employed  to  describe 
 it,  and  from  the  indefinite  statements  given  of  the  people  who 
 came  to  his  baptism.  But  such  obscurity  rests  on  the  whole 
 affair,  as  detailed  by  the  evangelists  and  apostolical  writers, 
 that  without  recurring  to  the  baptisms  administered  in  the 
 Red  Sea,  and  afterwards  among  the  Jews,  and  which  must 
 have  been  well  known  by  their  descendants,  in  the  time  of 
 the  Baptist,  we  cannot  possibly  or  properly  understand  it. 
 Mr.  Noel  felt  this  when  he  referred  to  the  baptism  of  Jewish 
 proselytes,  in  order  to  obtain  his  chief  testimonies  in  support 
 of  dipping.  The  like  indeflniteness  attends  the  narratives  of 
 the  after-baptisms  of  the  disciples  and  apostles  of  Christ. 
 Nor  is  the  topic  of  baptism  alone  in  this  position.  The 
 Lord's  Supper  cannot  be  fully  comprehended  without  recurring 
 to,  and  duly  studying,  the  Lord's  Passover.  It  was  evidently 
 intended  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  should  form  one 
 
 f2 
 
130  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEKED. 
 
 book  ;  be  in  the  hands  of  the  same  readers;  mutually  explain 
 and  confirm  each  other;  and,  united,  constitute  a  complete 
 and  perfect  directory  to  the  followers  of  Christ,  in  all  parts 
 and  ages  of  the  world. 
 
 'In  regard  to  any  expression  that  relates  to  a  religious 
 'ordinance,  we  conceive,  that  the  shortest  and  the  surest  way 
 '  to  obtain  a  right  understanding  of  it,  is  to  inquire,  in  what 
 'sense  such  an  expression  was  likely  to  be  understood  by 
 'those  among  whom  the  ordinance  originated;  and  when  a 
 'scriptural  expression  is  the  subject  of  discussion,  we  must 
 'search  the  Scriptures,  if  we  would  ascertain  its  meaning. 
 'In  the  present  case  we  should  also  do  well  to  remember,  that 
 'the  ordinance  referred  to  is  evidently  of  Jewish  extraction. 
 'It  was  introduced  before  the  abrogation  of  the  ceremonial 
 'law,  and  was,  in  the  first  instance,  confined  to  the  Jewish 
 '  nation.  We  may,  therefore,  expect  to  see  the  term,  by  which 
 'it  is  designated,  employed  in  allusion  to  some  of  the  services 
 'that  were  familiar  to  that  people.  Nor  shall  we  be  dis- 
 ' appointed.'  Agnostos,  p.  70.  The  early  Hebrew  converts  of 
 John  and  of  the  Saviour's  apostles,  would,  of  course,  be  as 
 familiar  with  the  subjects,  as  with  the  modes  of  baptism 
 prevalent  among  their  own  nation.  It  is  no  unusual  case  for 
 certain  Baptist  writers,  preachers,  and  advocates,  to  declare 
 most  gravely  and  dogmatically,  that  baptism  is  a  rite  peculiar 
 to  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  that  the  Gospels  and 
 Epistles  would  be  defective,  if  not  affording  full  and  explicit 
 direction  as  to  both  the  subject  and  mode;  and  that  it  is 
 wrong  to  recur  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  to  Ecclesiastical 
 History,  to  obtain  any  information  on  the  question.  Yet  to 
 both  these  sources  of  information  they  are  constantly  referring, 
 when  they  imagine  there  is  anything  in  them  corroborative  of 
 their  sentiments  —  evincing  that  their  own  dogma  is  invalid, 
 and  that  the  New  Testament  does  not,  of  itself,  afford  all  they 
 need  to  support  and  defend  their  exclusive  believers'  baptism. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  justly  observes,  'We  have  reason  to  think,  that 
 'John  and  the  disciples  of  Christ,  administered  the  baptism 
 '  to  which,  as  Jews,  they  were  accustomed.  The  simple  record 
 '  that  they  baptized,  must  be  understood  to  declare,  that  they 
 'did  so  according  to  the  common  recognized  practice.  The 
 'use  of  the  word  "baptize,"  as  a  term  generally  known,  and 
 '  which  called  for  no  explanation,  proves  that  it  must  be 
 'understood  in  its  common  sense.  Had  the  external  act' 
 [or  the  proper  subjects]  'of  baptism,  when  that  rite  was 
 'administered  by  the  apostles,  differed  materially  from  the 
 
IXFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  131 
 
 •*  external  act '  [or  the  customary  subjects] 'of  baptism  as  practised 
 'by  the  Jews,  the  difference  would  have  been  explained,  to 
 'prevent  mistake  in  successive  generations.  And  since  there 
 'is  no  explanation  whatever,'  [as  to  either  mode  or  subject,] 
 'we  may  conclude  that  the  apostles  administered  baptism 
 'after  the  manner  of  the  Jews.'  Mode,  p.  54,  55.  We  are, 
 thence,  directed  back  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  to  the  practice 
 of  the  Hebrews,  to  ascertain  who  were  baptized  by  John  and 
 the  Lord's  disciples,  as  well  as  to  the  right  mode  of  baptizing 
 — for  in  both  points  they  are  equally  obscure  in  the  New 
 Testament — during  and  after  the  Saviour's  sojourn  upon  earth. 
 From  this  plenary  guide  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  we  gather 
 that  adults  and  children  were  equally  the  subjects  of  baptism  ; 
 that  the  mode  consisted  in  the  application  of  the  element  to 
 the  subjects,  either  by  the  Almighty  himself,  as  in  the  Bed  Sea, 
 or  by  his  ministers  subsequently,  in  the  course  of  their  official 
 services;  and  that  great  advantages  accrued  from  being  thus 
 purified  and  consecrated  to  God.  This  was  the  case  when 
 John  began  to  preach  and  baptize;  and  from  this  prior 
 administration  we  naturally  infer,  that  the  forerunner  of  Christ 
 proceeded  in  his  work,  as  his  priestly  ancestors  had  ever  done 
 before  him,  and  that  our  Lord's  apostles  followed  in  the  same 
 course  of  operation. 
 
 Would  it  not  be  an  equally  valid  objection  to  our  reasonings, 
 to  aver,  that  every  gospel,  epistle,  and  separate  portion  of  the 
 New  Testament,  ought  to  contain  full  and  plain  information 
 on  all  matters  of  doctrine  and  duty,  discipline  and  privilege, 
 rite  and  ceremony,  requisite  for  a  congregation  to  understand, 
 without  any  other  part  of  divine  revelation ;  especially  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  seeing  each  distinct  epistle  was  addressed  to  a 
 separate  congregation ;  and  that,  in  all  probability,  the  members 
 had  no  others  for  a  considerable  time?  The  entire  contents 
 of  the  New  Testament  were  not  collated  and  combined  for 
 some  years  after;  in  fact,  not  till  subsequently  to  the  death 
 of  the  apostle  John,  who  is  said  to  have  lived  a  hundred  years. 
 Yet  some  of  these  portions  of  divine  truth  contain  not  a  w  rd 
 of  direction  as  to  the  proper  modes  or  subjects  of  baptism, 
 nor  concerning  the  Lord's  Supper,  nor  several  other  matters 
 which  it  must  have  been  important  for  the  people  to  know, 
 and  for  their  teachers  to  have  confirmed,  by  reference  to  a 
 divine  authority.  Where,  then,  could  these  early  converts 
 have  looked  for  a  full  explanation  and  confirmation  of  the 
 sacraments,  and  of  various  doings  and  probably  doctrines  too, 
 with  satisfaction,  but,  like  the  Bereans,  to  the  Old  Testa- 
 
132  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 merit?  To  a  less  extent  would  be  the  case  when  the  New 
 Testament  Canon  was  complete,  especially  after  the  inspired 
 authors  of  it  were  gone  to  heaven. 
 
 Mr.  Hall  says,  '  The  wisdom  of  God  in  the  arrangement  of 
 'successive  dispensations,  seems  averse  to  sudden  and  violent 
 '  innovations,  rarely  introducing  new  rites,  without  incorporating 
 '  something  of  the  old.  As  by  the  introduction  of  the  Mosaic, 
 'the  simple  ritual  of  the  patriarchal  dispensation  was  not  so 
 'properly  abolished,  as  amplified  and  extended  into  a  regular 
 'system  of  prefigurations  of  good  things  to  come,  in  which  the 
 '  worship  by  sacrifices,  and  the  distinction  of  animals  into  clean 
 ' and  unclean  reappeared  under  a  new  form;  so  the  area  of 
 'immediate  preparation  was  distinguished  by  a  ceremony  not 
 '  entirely  new,  but  derived  from  the  purifications  of  the  laic, 
 '  applied  to  a  special  purpose.  Our  Lord  incorporated  the 
 '  same  rite  into  his  religion,  newly-modified,  and  adapted  to 
 'the  peculiar  views  and  objects  of  the  Christian  economy,  in 
 'conjunction  with  another  positive  institution,  the  rudiments 
 'of  which  are  perceptible  in  the  Passover.  It  seemed  suitable 
 'to  his  wisdom,  by  such  gentle  gradations,  to  conduct  his 
 '  church  from  an  infantine  state,  to  a  state  of  maturity  and 
 •perfection.'  p.  29,  30. 
 
 We  infer  further,  that  if  baptism  were  a  universal,  or  even  a 
 general  practice  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  till  the  advent 
 of  the  Messiah;  and  if  proselyte  baptism  of  entire  families, 
 on  the  faith  and  profession  of  their  parents,  were  common 
 during  the  latter  periods  of  the  Hebrew  Commonwealth — as 
 most  of  our  intelligent  and  candid  opponents  are  constrained 
 to  admit — there  could  have  been  no  more  need  of  fresh 
 instructions  and  commands  on  this  point,  under  the  gospel 
 economy,  than  there  was  about  keeping  holy  the  sabbath  day. 
 The  old  rule  would  have  been  observed  in  this  respect,  as  it 
 was  in  many  others,  during  our  Lord's  ministry.  Fresh 
 injunctions  would  have  been  superfluous,  equally  with  fresh 
 commands  to  the  Jews  to  admit  females  to  the  Paschal  Supper. 
 If  nothing  prohibitory  were  said,  the  ceremony  would  go  on 
 as  previously — just  as  circumcision,  for  a  long  time,  was 
 resolutely  practised  by  the  Christianized  Hebrews — unless, 
 indeed,  it  were  rendered  impracticable  by  the  altered  condition 
 of  the  reformed  New  Testament  church ;  but  which,  con- 
 fessedly, was  not  the  case  respecting  baptism.  We  know 
 that  this  last  institution  was  not  one  of  the  ancient  ordinances 
 which  were  abrogated  or  done  away  in  Christ;  for  it  was 
 universally   administered   in   his  time;    and    long   after   his 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  133 
 
 ascension  to  heaven,  by  his  specially  appointed  and  divinely 
 directed  apostles.  And  as  the  rite  was  continued,  it  would 
 have  been  hut  natural  to  continue  baptizing  the  like  subjects, 
 with  respect  to  age,  sex,  and  religious  attainments.  This 
 would  unquestionably  be  done,  unless  the  supreme  Author  of 
 the  original  institution  had  plainly  and  publicly  prohibited  it. 
 Mr.  Fleming  truly  observes,  'There  was  no  manner  of  occasion 
 'for  giving  any  express  law  to  the  Jews,  about  the  initiation 
 '  of  their  infant  offspring  into  the  Christian  covenant;  since 
 'by  Water  Baptism  they  had  ever  been  used  to  initiate  the 
 '  children  of  converts  to  Judaism ;  and  in  consequence  of  which 
 'John  the  harbinger  came  initiating  them  and  theirs  into  the 
 'new  dispensation  by  water.'  p.  G4.  Lightfoot  remarks,  'There 
 *  needed  no  mention  of  baptizing  infants,  this  having  been 
 'ordinarily  used  in  the  church  of  the  Jews,  as  ever  it  hath 
 'been  in  the  Christian  church;  it  was  enough  to  mention 
 '  that  Christ  established  baptism  for  an  ordinance  under  the 
 'gospel;  and  then  ivho  should  be  baptized  was  well  enough 
 'known,  by  the  use  of  this  ordinance  of  old.'  Harm.  p.  10. 
 
 The  law  of  circumcision  was  first  enacted  by  Jehovah;  and 
 all  the  Israelites,  on  that  foundation  alone,  have  continued, 
 through  thousands  of  years,  to  circumcise  their  male  children ; 
 and  that  notwithstanding  the  greatest  reformations,  revolutions, 
 captivities,  convulsions,  and  dispersions  of  the  nation.  The 
 sabbath  was  publicly  appointed,  and  the  mode  of  its  observance 
 described,  at  Sinai;  and  that  sufficed  for  all  coming  time 
 among  good  men,  and  was  duly  kept  during  the  apostolic  age. 
 Even  certain  ordinances,  that  anciently  came  or  crept  into  use, 
 and  were  long  continued  among  the  Jews,  received  the  divine 
 sanction  and  blessing ;  though  we  have  no  account  of  their 
 original  institution — the  feast  of  the  dedication,  and  the 
 synagogue  services  being  among  the  rest.  What  is  remarkable, 
 in  this  last  instance,  that  while  we  have  no  record  of  the  first 
 establishment  of  synagogues,  yet  their  government  and  modes 
 of  worship,  were,  in  a  great  measure,  embodied  in  Christian 
 churches  by  the  apostles,  became  of  divine  authority  and  of 
 perpetual  observance — as  the  practice  of  our  opponents,  as  well 
 as  our  own,  fully  manifests.  Had  Infant  Baptism  never  existed 
 before  the  days  of  the  apostles,  there  might  have  been  some 
 small  force  in  the  objection.  But  as  the  origin  of  it  was,  at 
 least,  as  old  as  the  days  of  Moses ;  and  as,  under  other  names, 
 it  was  continued  to  the  time  of  Christ;  the  argument  of  the 
 Baptists  is  not  of  the  slightest  validity.  It  might  be  as  justly 
 said,  as  there  is  no  command  in  the  New  Testament  to  keep 
 
134  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 holy  the  Sahhath  day,  therefore,  it  ought  not  to  be  observed 
 by  Christian  people. 
 
 There  is  no  command  in  the  New  Testament  for  females  to 
 keep  the  passover;  nor  is  there  an  instance  of  any  woman  or 
 child  having  attended  it,  except  the  Virgin  Mary,  when  Christ 
 was  twelve  years  old.  And  her  going  up  to  Jerusalem,  'after 
 'the  custom  of  the  feast,'  at  that  particular  time,  stands  related 
 to  certain  other  events  which  the  sacred  historian  deemed 
 proper  to  chronicle.  Luke  ii.  40-52.  But  are  we,  hence,  to 
 conclude,  that  no  other  females  or  young  persons  ate  the 
 passover  during  the  very  long  period  which  elapsed  from  the 
 days  of  John  the  Baptist  till  the  death  of  his  venerable 
 namesake,  John  the  divine?  It  was  the  custom  for  them  all 
 to  do  so,  and  it  was  doubtlessly  done ;  yet  it  is  not  mentioned 
 any  more  than,  that  parents  were  accustomed  to  feed,  clothe, 
 and  educate  their  offspring.  Nor  was  Infant  Baptism  more 
 likely  to  be  specifically  enjoined  or  recorded  than  the  duty 
 and  practice  of  providing  meat,  drink,  and  apparel  for  their 
 children.  Show  us  a  command,  either  to  or  by  the  apostles,  not 
 to  continue  to  baptize  infants,  like  that  respecting  circumcision  ; 
 nor,  in  future,  to  keep  the  Sabbath  day;  nor,  in  gospel  times, 
 to  admit  females  to  the  Lord's  passover;  then  something  to 
 the  purpose  would  be  forthcoming.  English  laws,  enacted  in  the 
 sixteenth  century,  are  still  in  legal  force,  unless,  in  the  mean 
 time,  theyhavebeen  formally  repealed  by  the  British  legislature. 
 Of  themselves  these  laws  never  lose  their  original  authority  by 
 mere  lapse  of  time.  Neither  do  the  laws  and  institutions  of 
 the  ancient  church  of  God.  They  are  ever  binding  till 
 divinely  abrogated. 
 
 After  a  divine  law  has  been  promulgated,  an  institution 
 established,  or  a  rite  introduced,  among  God's  people,  we  hear 
 no  more  of  it,  unless  some  remarkable  circumstance  occur  in 
 the  history  of  the  church  to  necessitate  a  reference  to  it. 
 While  obedience  is  practised;  while  matters  go  on  as  at  first 
 enjoined;  and  while  nothing  material  transpires  in  connexion 
 with  it;  the  sacred  historians  are  remarkably  silent  on  the 
 subject.  This  was  the  case  with  circumcision,  sacrifices, 
 offerings,  priestly  engagements,  purifyings,  and  many  other 
 matters,  among  the  Hebrews.  Hundreds  of  years  passed  in 
 the  quiet  and  regular  performance  of  the  rites  and  duties 
 originally  enjoined,  without  a  line  to  assure  us  of  the  fact. 
 It  is  only  when  something  unusual  takes  place,  that  we  read 
 of  circumcision,  sacrifice,  oblations,  purifications,  and  the  like. 
 Then  reference  to  them  is  made,  not  to  tell  us  that  such  laws  and 
 
ENFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  135 
 
 ordinances  were  in  existence,  and,  that  such  rites  were  of  daily 
 practice,  but  that  they  had  been  broken  or  neglected;  or  that 
 some  striking  affair  had  transpired  in  connexion  with  them. 
 For  the  mere  object  of  telling  us  they  were  continued,  I  think, 
 we  never  read  a  verse  in  the  whole  volume  of  the  Scriptures. 
 On  this  principle,  which  no  careful  interpreter  of  God's  word 
 will  question,  the  baptism  of  the  children  of  the  Jews,  or  of 
 Heathen  proselytes,  if  once  established,  or  commenced  with 
 the  divine  approval  or  command,  was  not  likely  to  be  noticed 
 again  in  the  sacred  annals — unless  some  remarkable  event 
 occurred  in  connexion  with  it.  This  will  also  hold  true  in 
 reference  to  circumcision,  the  daily  sacrifices,  the  annual 
 festival,  and  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath.  As  an  illustration, 
 we  observe,  that  circumcision,  which  must  have  been  of  daily 
 occurrence  among  the  Jews,  is  mentioned  only  at  long  intervals 
 in  their  records.  From  Gen.  xvii.  11,  to  Gen.  xxxiv.  15,  a 
 period  of  158  years,  it  is  not  once  mentioned.  From  Gen. 
 xxxiv.  15,  to  Ex.  iv.  26,  a  period  of  340  years,  it  is  not 
 mentioned.  From  Josh.  v.  8,  to  Jer.  iv.  4,  a  period  of  839 
 years,  it  is  not  mentioned;  and  from  Jer.  ix.  25,  to  Luke  i.  5- 
 9,  a  period  of  G14  years,  it  is  equally  unnoticed,  in  God's 
 word.  Nor  was  it  more  likely  to  be  recorded,  that  when  a 
 Gentile  was  proselyted  to  Judaism,  or  a  Jew  to  Christianity, 
 by  baptism,  his  children  also  were  proselyted  with  him;  since 
 the  practice  of  the  whole  family  going  along  with  its  head, 
 and  undergoing  similar  rites,  was  a  practice  immemorial. 
 But  had  the  custom  been  changed,  we  should  soon  have  read 
 of  it;  as  also  of  any  material  alterations  taking  place  in  its 
 designs  or  observances.  The  ten  commandments  are  as  binding 
 on  the  Jews  as  ever  they  were ;  and  for  this  simple  reason, 
 they  have  not  been  divinely  repealed,  nor  is  the  observance  of 
 them,  in  the  ordinary  way,  often  mentioned.  But  if  flagrantly 
 broken,  we  then  hear  of  the  transgression. 
 
 The  like  holds  true  in  the  general  transactions  of  mankind. 
 Who,  in  writing  a  concise  history  of  an  Independent  church, 
 would  tell  us  that  its  ministers  were  accustomed  to  preach 
 on  the  Lord's  day ;  that  they  had  one  or  two  weekly  services ; 
 that  the  people  sang  hymns;  that  the  children  were  baptized 
 by  aspersion?  Or,  to  come  to  secular  matters,  What  historian 
 of  our  country  would  tell  us,  that,  during  the  last  hundred 
 years,  farmers  used  to  have  their  land  plowed,  harrowed,  sown, 
 and  the  produce  reaped,  thrashed,  winnowed,  ground,  and 
 made  into  bread,  cakes,  and  puddings?  or,  that  builders 
 erected  houses,  and  that  commercial  men  bought  and  sold 
 
136  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 articles  of  daily  use  ?  I  think  I  may  venture  to  say,  that  you 
 may  look  through  the  brief  biographies  of  a  hundred  Christian 
 Ministers,  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists,  and  never  learn  from 
 them,  that  they  ever  baptized  a  single  man,  woman,  or  child; 
 or  administered  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  preached  sermons,  or 
 visited  the  sick  of  their  congregations — except  something 
 extraordinary  were  connected  with  sucli  engagements.  All 
 this  is  taken  for  granted,  and  is  supposed  to  require  no 
 account  in  such  narratives.  In  fact,  it  can  only  be  assumed 
 that  baptism  was  administered  at  all  in  several  of  the  congre- 
 gations formed  by  the  apostles,  or  in  their  time.  We  have  no 
 account  of  any  baptism  administered  at  Antioch,  at  Colosse, 
 at  Philippi,  at  Thessalonica,  at  Ephesus,  or  in  the  other 
 Churches  of  Asia  Minor.  But  the  fact  we  as  fully  believe  as 
 if  we  had  a  divine  record  of  it.  Inference,  based  on  previous 
 or  collateral  practice,  is  our  guide  in  this  matter.  Should  it 
 be  urged,  that  infants  were  not  baptized  in  the  above-named 
 churches,  we  should  have  equally  good  grounds  for  saying, 
 neither  were  any  adults — silence  being  observed  in  both  cases 
 alike. 
 
 There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind,  and  it  is  formed  on  good 
 and  satisfactory  historical  evidence,  that  not  only  did  John 
 the  Baptist,  and  the  apostles  of  Christ,  baptize  children;  but 
 also  that  it  was  regularly  and  invariably  practised  in  all  Christian 
 societies,  duly  organized  by  the  first  preachers  of  the  gospel. 
 But  many  years  passed  away  before  we  hear  of  its  being  done ; 
 and  then  it  is  referred  to,  not  to  assure  us  that  it  was  the 
 common  or  general  practice,  but  incidentally,  to  illustrate  a 
 doctrine,  or  to  check  an  abuse,  or  to  make  an  innovation  in 
 the  ancient  manner  of  observing  it.  Being  so  ordinary  a 
 practice,  being  so  well  known,  and  being  so  little  ostentatious 
 in  its  performance ;  it  was  passed  over  as  requiring  no  chronicle ; 
 or,  if  ever  recurred  to,  it  was  only  when  something  of  interest 
 transpired  in  conjunction  with  it.  The  silence  of  the  Scriptures 
 indicates  that  the  former  law  was  observed;  and  the  equal 
 silence  of  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  as  to  asserting  the 
 fact  of  its  observance,  immediately  subsequent  to  the  apostolic 
 age,  may  be  reasonably  construed  into  the  conclusion, — not, 
 that  the  rite  was  neglected,  but  that  it  was  continuously 
 administered  to  the  like  kind  of  persons  that  had  been 
 accustomed  to  receive  it  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  time  of 
 John,  and  from  his  day,  till  the  close  of  the  inspired  canon, 
 and  also  regularly  ever  afterwards. 
 
 Mr.  Jackson  has  a  paragraph  so  accordant  with  this  view, 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  137 
 
 that  I  beg  to  transcribe  it: — 'I  look  upon  it  as  extremely 
 'dangerous  to  the  cause  of  truth,  to  conclude  that  certain 
 'things   were   not  done   from   the   silence    of  the   historian; 
 
 *  because  it  is  not  only  possible  for  us  to  mistake  his  design, 
 'but  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  be  acquainted  with  every 
 'inducement  which  he  may  feel  to  omit  parts  of  his  narration. 
 
 *  "The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,"  as  the  title  imports,  is  not  an 
 'entire  history  of  the  primitive  church,  but  rather  a  brief 
 'journal  of  parts  of  the  proceedings  of  a  few  of  the  apostles; 
 'and  the  accounts  of  baptisms,  are  exclusively  confined 
 'to  the  first  introduction  of  the  gospel  into  some  of  the  places 
 '  where  they  preached,  as  the  immediate  effects  of  their  ministry. 
 'In  such  a  journal  many  things  must,  of  course,  be  omitted; 
 ■*and  nothing  is  so  likely  to  be  omitted  as  the  baptism  of 
 'infants;  for  as  infants  had  always  belonged  to  the  church  of 
 '  God,  and  had  received  the  initiatory  ordinance,  the  continuation 
 '  of  this  state  of  things  did  not  require  any  historical  notice, 
 ''because  it  was  a  thing  with  which  every  one  was  acquainted. 
 'But  every  instance  in  which  the  church  under  the  present, 
 '  differed  from  that  under  the  former,  dispensation,  created  a 
 'necessity  for  a  specific  relation;  and  had  such  a  difference 
 'existed  as  the  exclusion  of  infants  would  have  created,  this 
 'difference  in  the  disputes  respecting  circumcision,   and  the 
 
 *  admission  of  the  Gentiles,  could  scarcely  have  passed  unnoticed. 
 'As  we  are  not  informed  of  the  existence  of  any  difference 
 '  between  the  Jewish  and  the  Apostolic  churches,  and  as  novelty 
 'always  gives  occasion  to  historical  narration,  especially  where 
 '  controversy  is  excited,  we  have  certainly  more  reason  to 
 'avail  ourselves  of  the  silence  of  the  writer  of  the  Acts  of 
 'the  Apostles,  than  the  Antipedobaptists,  and  therefore  to 
 'conclude,  that  infant  church-membership  was  continued  by 
 'the  apostles,  and  that  consequently  Infant  Baptism  was 
 'practised.'  p.  62. 
 
 It  will  doubtless  be  universally  admitted,  that  John  was 
 sent  to  baptize  unto  the  name  of  Him  who  was  to  come — the 
 approaching  Messiah.  A  solemn  purification  of  all  ranks  and 
 classes  was  to  take  place — such  as  God  had  administered  to 
 all  the  Hebrews,  previous  to  the  formal  promulgation  of  the 
 Mosaic  laws  on  Sinai — for  the  purpose  of  calling  attention  to 
 the  Saviour,  to  intimate  the  sanctity  of  his  kingdom,  and  to 
 prepare  the  people  for  the  general  enunciation  of  the  great  and 
 glorious  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  But  respecting  the  mode  in 
 which  this  baptism  was  to  be  administered,  and  the  qualification 
 of  the  subjects  of  the  ordinance,  no  new  commands  were  given, 
 
138  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 and  no  fresh  instructions  were  issued.  As  the  priests  of  old 
 sanctified  the  people  by  baptism,  and  as  all  the  households  of 
 proselytes  were  consecrated  with  their  parents;  so  John,  by 
 descent,  a  priest,  would  certainly  do  the  same — unless  he  had 
 received  a  divine  command  to  introduce  some  radical  change. 
 Neither  of  himself,  nor  from  any  records  of  preceding  purifi- 
 cations, would  he  have  dipped  any  person  under  water,  or  have 
 excluded  any  children  from  the  rite  administered  to  their  parents. 
 He  would  naturally  have  sprinkled  them  all  indiscriminately ; 
 and  the  children  would  have  received  the  benefits  of  the  ceremony 
 with  their  fathers  and  mothers.  Had  John  been  called  to  perform 
 a  service  never  practised  before,  and  the  subjects  of  which  were 
 entirely  unknown,  new  directions  must  have  been  given ; 
 and  what  these  were,  we  must  have  gathered  from  the  New 
 Testament,  or  discovered  from  the  narratives  of  his  proceedings. 
 But,  as  the  case  now  stands,  we  arrive  at  our  conclusions,  from 
 the  modes  and  practices  fully  known  from  preceding  details  of 
 Hebrew  baptisms.  In  this  line  of  reasoning,  Mr.  Noel,  and 
 other  intelligent  Baptists,  accord.  The  sum  of  the  facts  is, 
 that  John,'  in  his  day,  did  as  the  priests  had  regularly  done 
 before  him.  And  as  those  priests  were  accustomed  to  purify 
 men,  women,  and  children,  whenever  they  became  ceremonially 
 unclean,  and  on  other  remarkable  occasions,  therefore,  the 
 harbinger  of  Christ  must  have  done  the  same.  Indeed,  the 
 people  would  have  felt  greatly  aggrieved,  had  John  objected  to 
 include  their  little  ones  among  the  privileged  and  sanctified; 
 since,  with  themselves,  they  had  ever  been  associated  in  all 
 their  general  and  national  consecrations. 
 
 The  only  further  command  we  have  respecting  baptism  is 
 contained  in  our  Lord's  commission  to  his  apostles.  A  higher, 
 and  an  ultimate  purification,  consecration,  or  initiation,  was  to 
 take  place,  on  entering  the  perfectly  reformed,  renovated,  and 
 simplified,  congregations  of  the  Lord.  The  people  were  to  be 
 dedicated  anew — not  now  in  the  name  of  Him  that  was  to 
 come,  but  in  that  of  the  risen  Saviour,  who  had  finished  his 
 redeeming  work,  and  been  received  up  into  glory — or  rather, 
 in  the  name  of  the  ever  blessed  and  adorable  Trinity.  But, 
 still  no  fresh  specific  directions  are  given,  as  to  either  the 
 mode  or  the  subjects  of  this  ceremony.  Those  who  believed 
 in  the  Messiah,  and  agreed  to  be  guided  by  his  gospel — like 
 those  who  had  believed  in  Moses,  and  became  subject  to  his 
 laws — were  to  be  baptized,  and  then  taught  more  perfectly 
 the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  All  nations  were  to  be  baptized 
 to  him,  as  the  Hebrew  nation  had  been  baptized  to  its  great 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  139 
 
 Lawgiver.  That  this  baptizing  was  to  be  general,  we  gather 
 from  the  fact,  that  the  teaching,  to  succeed  it,  was  not  to 
 be  limited.  Every  one  who  was  to  be  systematically  taught 
 the  elements,  doctrines,  duties,  and  privileges,  of  the  religion 
 of  Christ,  was  previously  to  be  baptized.  Therefore,  every 
 child,  having  the  capacity  of  being  taught,  even  the  first  and 
 simplest  rudiments  of  theology,  or  merely  the  existence  of  God, 
 or  to  lisp,  'Our  Father  which  art  in  heaven,'  had  a  capacity  to 
 be  baptized,  and  a  divine  right  to  Christian  baptism.  And  if 
 these  were  qualified  and  entitled  to  receive  this  ordinance,  our 
 opponents  will  not  think  it  worth  their  while  to  prove,  were 
 it  possible,  that  still  younger  children  should  not  be  partakers 
 of  it.  In  Chron.  xxxi.  16-18,  we  read,  'Beside  their  genealogy 
 'of  males,  from  three  years  old  and  upward,  even  unto  every 
 'one  that  entereth  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  his  daily  portion 
 'for  their  service  in  their  charges,  according  to  their  courses, 
 '  both  to  the  genealogy  of  the  priests  by  the  house  of  their  fathers, 
 'and  the  Levites  from  twenty  years  old  and  upward,  in  their 
 'charges,  by  their  courses;  and  to  the  genealogy  of  all  their' 
 [ether]  'little  ones,  their  wives,  and  their  sons,  and  their 
 'daughters,  through  all  the  congregation,  for  in  their  set  office, 
 'they  sanctified  themselves  in  holiness.'  On  this  passage, 
 Sir.  Scott  remarks,  'The  sons  of  the  priests,  who  attended 
 'with  them,  as  it  seems,  from  three  years  of  age,  to  learn  the 
 'work  of  the  sanctuary,  previously  to  the  time  of  their 
 'officiating,  had  a  provision  made  for  them.'  While  referring 
 to  the  age  in  which  children  of  old  were  put  into  office,  I 
 will  quote  a  passage  respecting  the  time  when  children  now 
 are  supposed  really  to  begin  to  learn. 
 
 In  '  The  Educator,''  of  July,  1855,  the  writer  says,  'It 
 'was  the  opinion  of  Pestalozzi — an  opinion  which  has  ever 
 'siuce  his  day  been  gaining  ground — that  education  of  some 
 '  kind  should  begin  from  the  cradle.  Whoever  has  watched, 
 'with  any  discernment,  the  wide-eyed  gaze  of  the  infant  at 
 'surrounding  objects,  knows  very  well,  that  education  does 
 '  begin  thus  early,  whether  we  intend  it  or  not;  and  that  these 
 'fingerings  and  suckings  of  every  thing  it  can  lay  hold  of, 
 '  these  open-mouthed  listenings  to  every  sound,  are  the  first 
 'steps  in  the  series  which  ends  in  the  discovery  of  unseen 
 'planets,  the  invention  of  calculating  machines,  the  production 
 'of  great  paintings,  or  the  composition  of  symphonies  and 
 'operas.  The  activity  of  the  faculties,  from  the  very  first, 
 'being  spontaneous  and  inevitable,  the  question  is,  whether 
 'we  shall  supply  in  due  variety  the  materials  on  which  they 
 
140  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEKED. 
 
 'may  exercise  themselves;   and  to  the  question  so  put,  none 
 'but  an  affirmative  answer  can  he  given.' 
 
 There  is  another  fact  corroborative  of  our  position.  While 
 the  commission  to  baptize  is  based  on  the  assumed  previous 
 knowledge  of  a  practice  prevalent  among  the  Hebrews;  so 
 the  method  of  proselyting  or  of  making  disciples,  enjoined  in 
 the  same  commission,  must  have  been  previously  understood, 
 by  the  apostles  of  Christ,  from  a  foregoing  practice  in  Israel. 
 Our  Lord  does  not  give  them  directions  as  to  the  mode  of 
 proselytisra.  He  does  not  say,  go  and  preach  to  the  people, 
 work  miracles,  persuade  them,  warn  them,  enter  their  houses, 
 collect  them  in  synagogues,  or  heal  their  diseases.  Nothing 
 of  the  kind  is  said.  'Proselyte  all  nations' — make  disciples, 
 collect  scholars,  then  baptize  and  teach  them.  But  no  specific 
 method  is  defined  in  this  commission,  no  rules  are  drawn  up, 
 no  plans  are  laid  down.  As  holy  men  of  former,  or  of  more 
 recent,  times  had  done  in  such  cases,  so  the  apostles  were  to 
 do.  And  the  apostles  went  forth  and  did  as  their  predecessors 
 or  themselves  had  done  before.  The  means  of  proselyting, 
 as  well  as  the  proper  subjects  and  mode  of  Christian  baptism, 
 were  assumed  to  be  so  well  understood,  before  the  baptismal 
 commission  was  given,  as  to  require  no  detailed  explanation. 
 The  only  difference  between  the  former  and  present  proselytism 
 and  baptism  consisted,  not  in  the  mode  or  in  the  subject,  but  in 
 consecrating  to  a  higher  Name  than  that  of  Moses,  and  to  a  more 
 simple  and  spiritual  dispensation  than  that  of  the  law.  When 
 the  usual  customs  and  rites  were  so  well  known,  and,  in 
 themselves,  were  so  perfect;  fresh  instructions  would  have 
 been  superfluous.  At  any  rate,  none  were  given.  The  former 
 custom  was  their  guide;  and  this  they  followed  in  baptizing, 
 as  well  as  in  proselyting,  and  in  many  other  Christian  duties. 
 
 Even  in  respect  of  circumcision,  the  command  of  God  to 
 Abraham  was,  as  far  as  we  read,  so  brief  and  indefinite,  and 
 yet  so  readily  and  well  understood  by  the  patriarch,  that 
 Michaelis,  in  his  'Laws  of  Moses,'  supposes  that  the  leading 
 members  of  his  household  were  previously  well  acquainted 
 with  the  operation.  This  he  deems  probable  from  the  accounts 
 which  ancient  historians  give  us  of  the  practice  of  this  rite  by 
 the  Egyptians  and  other  nations  in  the  times  of  the  remotest 
 antiquity.  With  the  latter  it  was  a  national  institution.  God 
 converted  it  into  a  religious  one,  and  made  it  the  sign  of  the 
 covenant  between  the  descendants  of  Abraham  and  himself 
 for  ever.  Art.  185.  Now,  as  the  ministers  of  the  New 
 Testament  received  no  particular  direction,  as  to  the  mode 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  141 
 
 or  subjects  of  baptism,  so  we  conclude,  on  tbe  principles 
 assumed  by  Micbaelis,  that  they  gathered  their  instructions 
 in  this  case  from  what  they  had  read  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 where  ample  and  minute  information  was  given  to  their  official 
 predecessors.  In  truth,  throughout  all  the  teachings  contained 
 in  the  preachings  and  writings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
 there  is  a  taking  for  granted,  that  the  Jews,  to  whom  they  at 
 first  addressed  themselves,  were  conversant  with  the  meaning 
 of  the  religious  terms  and  phraseology  employed,  and  with 
 the  institutions  and  services  to  which  allusion  was  continually 
 made.  The  attainment  of  such  qualifications  had  been  made 
 by  the  schooling  of  the  nation  for,  at  least,  fifteen  hundred 
 years. 
 
 To  prove  still  further  the  difficulties  in  which  persons 
 often  involve  themselves  by  demanding  explicit  and  positive 
 directions,  as  to  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  denying 
 the  right  of  infants  to  this  ordinance,  because  they  are  not 
 literally  and  unequivocally  named ;  we  may  refer  to  the  case 
 of  females  and  the  passover,  under  the  law.  In  Ex.  xii.  3,  4, 
 we  learn,  that  a  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  provided  for  every 
 house,  or  for  two  or  more  neighbouring  families,  in  case  the 
 members  of  one  were  not  sufficient  to  consume  it  at  once. 
 Hence,  we  gather,  that  all  the  members  of  the  family  were  to 
 partake  of  this  sacramental  meal,  without  excepting  adult 
 females  or  youths  of  either  sex.  But,  in  a  subsequent  verse, 
 48,  we  read,  that  no  uncircumcised  person  was  to  eat  the 
 passover.  Now,  according  to  the  literal  interpretation  of 
 these  passages,  women  could  have  formed  no  part  of  the 
 bouses,  or  households  of  the  Hebrews,  when  they  left  Egypt, 
 and  could  not  have  partaken  of  the  passover — for  this  reason, 
 that  they  were  not  circumcised.  Here  females  are  not  only 
 apparently  overlooked,  but  are  verbally  prohibited  from  going 
 to  this  sacred  feast!  In  this  way  our  opponents  reason 
 respecting  infants,  in  reference  to  baptism.  They  are  not 
 expressly  said  to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  families  baptized 
 by  the  apostles ;  hence  there  were  none  in  them !  And  as 
 they  are  not  literally  stated  to  have  been  baptized,  therefore, 
 they  were  not  baptized  at  all ! 
 
 But  the  fallacy  of  this  deduction  is  manifest.  Females  did 
 form  a  part  of  the  Hebrew  households,  and  they  did  eat  of  the 
 passover,  notwithstanding  the  omission  of  their  specific  names 
 in  the  one  case,  and  the  prohibition  of  all  uncircumcised 
 persons  to  partake  of  it  in  the  other.  And,  for  aught  our 
 opponents  have  advanced  to  the  contrary,   children,  though 
 
142  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 not  verbally  named,  as  parts  of  the  New  Testament  families^ 
 said  to  have  become  Christians  and  been  baptized,  might 
 have  been  there,  and  have  been  consecrated  to  God  with  their 
 parents.  The  literal  reading  of  the  sacred  text  of  the  Old 
 Testament  would  certainly  exclude  females,  of  all  ages,  from 
 the  passover  far  more  clearly  and  completely,  than  the  literal 
 reading  of  the  New  Testament  would  exclude  infants  from 
 baptism.  Those  who  concede,  that  women  ate  of  the  paschal 
 feast,  will  find  it  difficult,  on  the  mere  ground  of  nonde- 
 scription,  to  prove  that  infants  were  not  baptized  unto  Christ. 
 The  two  cases  here  referred  to  are  perfectly  analogous,  and 
 must  stand  or  fall  together — that  is,  either  we  must  conclude 
 that  no  Hebrew  females  partook  of  the  Lord's  passover,  or  that 
 children,  in  the  New*  Testament  churches,  might  have  been 
 and  were  baptized;  though  they  are  not  expressly  mentioned 
 as  having  undergone  this  rite. 
 
 Our  opponents  demand  of  us  explicit  and  direct  statements 
 in  support  of  Infant  Baptism,  while  they  readily  dispense  with 
 them  in  other  cases  of,  at  least,  equal  interest  and  moment. 
 Most  of  these  antagonists  are  Congregationalists.  They  believe, 
 and,  I  think,  rightly,  that  their  form  of  church  order  is 
 perfectly  scriptural,  best  adapted  to  promote  the  honour  of 
 God,  and  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of  divine  mercy  in  the 
 world.  But  where  is  this  form  of  church  government  plainly 
 defined,  or  positively  enjoined  in  the  Word  of  God?  Are  not 
 our  brethren  obliged  to  compare  scripture  with  scripture;  to 
 examine  various  New  Testament  narratives  and  incidents;  to 
 infer  from  unconnected  premises,  and  to  conclude  from  the 
 entire  aspect  of  apostolic  procedure,  before  they  can  arrive  at 
 their  present  convictions  on  Christian  Congregationalism?  In 
 fact,  as  a  comparative  anatomist,  on  discovering  a  number  of 
 scattered  bones,  carefully  collects,  nicely  examines,  and  skilfully 
 adjusts  them,  according  to  their  natural  position,  makes  up 
 the  animal  outline  complete,  and  determines  its  species ;  so 
 the  Congregational  Baptist,  from  detached  portions  of  God's 
 Word,  makes  out  his  system  of  church  government  and  order; 
 and  in  no  other  way.  Nor  does  he  imagine,  that  his  method 
 is  objectionable;  but  perfectly  rational  and  proper.  Why 
 then  should  he  object  to  our  adopting  the  like  course  with 
 analogous  materials?  Why  must  we  have  plain,  positive,  and 
 express  statements  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  when  he  has 
 not  the  like  in  support  of  his  own  form  of  church  government, 
 and  still  feels  satisfied  and  confident  that  the  latter  is  perfectly 
 agreeable  with  the  manifest  mind  of  God? 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  143 
 
 Again,  our  friends  entertain  no  doubt,  that  all  children  dying 
 in  infancy  are  among  the  elect,  and  go  directly  to  heaven. 
 In  this  too,  of  course,  we  deem  them  perfectly  correct.  But 
 can  they  find  any  clear  and  positive  assertion  in  God's  word, 
 warranting  this  important  and  interesting  conclusion?  Are 
 they  not  obliged  to  examine  many  scattered  texts  of  God's 
 truth ;  mark  the  spirit  of  divine  benevolence  towards  children 
 pervading  the  sacred  volume;  and  to  infer  from  hints  and 
 indirect  expressions,  that  children,  when  they  die,  do  not  go 
 to  perdition,  but  are  taken  to  a  world  of  ineffable  joy?  Why, 
 then,  may  we  not  follow  the  like  logical  processes  in  reference 
 to  Infant  Baptism?  If  they  are  compelled  to  conclude,  from 
 hints  and  intimations,  that  dying  infants  are  saved;  is  it  wrong 
 in  us  to  follow  a  similar  course  of  inquiry  respecting  their 
 baptism  and  introduction  to  the  visible  congregation  of  Christ? 
 Why  must  we  have  direct,  positive,  and  explicit  declarations 
 in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  while  our  opponents  dispense 
 with  the  like  in  maintaining  their  views  of  church  government, 
 and  of  Infant  Salvation?  It  is  no  more  expressly  said,  that 
 dying  babies  go  to  heaven,  or  that  Independency  is  the  only 
 right  and  scriptural  system  of  church  order,  than  it  is  that 
 all  infants  ought  to  be  baptized — while  we  think  all  of  them 
 may  be  clearly  gathered  by  inference  from  the  Word  of  God. 
 
 Dr.  Gale  says,  in  substance,  'Adult  Baptism  and  that  by 
 'dipping  is  delivered  to  us  in  Scripture  'plainly  and  clearly. 
 'Infant  Baptism  and  by  affusion,  but  obscurely,  if  at  all. 
 'Therefore,  we  do  what  the  Scriptures  expressly  teach;  while 
 'they  do,  at  best,  but  what  is  very  obscurely  taught,  so  our 
 ',case  is  secure,  and  far  the  most  eligible.'  p.  75.  To  this 
 Dr.  Wall  replies :  '  Giving  the  Lord's  Supper  to  men  is  com- 
 'manded  in  Scripture  plainly  and  expressly:  giving  it  to 
 'women  but  obscurely;  therefore  they  that  would  give  it  only 
 'to  men,  and  refuse  it  to  women,  would  act  most  securely .... 
 'Whence  the  consequence  is,  they  that  give  it  to  men,  are 
 '  certainly  in  the  right,  so  far  as  they  go ;  but  yet  they  would 
 '  do  ill  in  refusing  it  to  women.  And  so  they  that  give  baptism 
 'to  adult  persons,  not  already  baptized  ....  do  well;  but  they 
 '  do  ill  in  refusing  it  to  infants  also  ....  A  servant  employed 
 'in  his  master's  business,  must  do  his  master's  will  in  all 
 '  things,  which  he  understands  to  be  really  meant  and  intended 
 'by  him ;  though  some  of  the  things  be  more  plainly  expressed 
 '  than  others  of  them,  which  he  knows  by  the  nature  of  the 
 'thing,  and  by  good  consequence  from  his  master's  words, 
 'to  be  his  true  meaning.'  v.  iii.  79,  80.    Besides,  the  question 
 
144  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 
 
 before  us  is  not,  Whether  Adult  or  Infant  Baptism  be  the 
 more  clearly  revealed,  or  whether  a  choice  must  be  made 
 between  them?  The  baptism  of  adults,  not  previously  devoted 
 to  God  in  this  ordinance,  is  universally  admitted.  The  only 
 point  to  be  decided  is,  whether  the  baptism  of  infants,  however 
 obscurely  stated,  or  however  ascertained,  like  female  com- 
 munion, can  be  made  out  to  be  the  duty  of  parents  and 
 ministers  ?  One  duty  may  be  plainer  than  another,  and  yet 
 both  may  be  equally  obligatory  on  us. 
 
 Infant  Baptism  is  not  to  be  put  in  opposition  to  Adult 
 Baptism,  any  more  than  infant  circumcision  is  to  be  put  against 
 adult  circumcision.  The  rite  is  the  same,  and,  under  varied 
 circumstances,  both  are  proper.  We  all  complain  of  Unitarians, 
 that,  in  writing  against  the  divinity  of  Christ,  they  labour  to 
 prove  his  humanity,  which  no  Trinitarian  for  a  moment  disputes. 
 In  the  same  way  the  Baptists,  in  writing  against  baptizing 
 infants,  quote  numerous  passages,  and  adduce  long  arguments, 
 to  prove  the  baptism  of  adults,  which,  in  certain  cases,  we 
 believe  as  fully  as  themselves.  This  kind  of  reasoning  is 
 more  specious  than  conclusive,  and  more  likely  to  ensnare  the 
 ignorant,  than  to  convince  the  thoughtful  and  intelligent.  As 
 we  believe  in  the  humanity  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  apostolic 
 baptism  of  adults,  especially  on  the  introduction  of  Christianity, 
 at  any  time  or  to  any  place ;  we  have  no  question  to  agitate  on 
 these  points.  Let  Socinians  and  Baptists,  if  they  can,  disprove 
 the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  baptism  of  infants;  for  on 
 these  heads  only  are  we  at  issue  either  with  the  Socinian  or 
 the  Baptist. 
 
 While  discoursing  on  the  want  of  command  or  example  for 
 Infant  Baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  I  may  cite  the  following 
 remarks  from  a  work  entitled  '  Recantation,'  as  in  several 
 respects  apropos  to  the  topic.  '  If  we  should  suppose  the 
 'baptism  of  infants  to  be  merely  a  human  invention,  it  is 
 '  most  extraordinary,  that,  unlike  every  other  error  and 
 '  heresy  of  consequence,  its  author  is  unknown.  While  the 
 '  originators  of  Arianism,  Sabellianism,  Pelagianism,  and  a  long 
 '  catalogue  of  other  heterodox  opinions  and  practices  are  well 
 '  known  and  familiar  to  our  ears,  no  one  knows  who  first 
 '  introduced  Pedobaptism.  It  is  not  on  record  what  means  he 
 '  adopted  to  induce  the  Baptists  to  imitate  his  innovation — 
 'what  sophistry  he  used  to  blind  their  eyes — neither  by  which 
 '  of  the  holy  fathers  he  was  opposed  and  refuted.  With  regard, 
 '  however,  to  the  first  known  advocate  of  Antipedobaptism,  it 
 '  may  be  designated  Tertullianism.     About  the  year  200,  he, 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  NOT  COMMANDED.  1 45 
 
 'with  much  caution,  advised  the  delay  of  Infant  Baptism; 
 '  but  mark,  on  what  grounds  and  for  what  reasons.  He  says 
 '  not  a  word  of  its  being  not  required  in  the  New  Testament, 
 '  or  of  its  being  unused  by  apostolic  men  ;  which,  had  it  so 
 1  been,  he  could  scarcely  have  failed  to  know,  and  which  must 
 '  have  been  much  more  to  the  purpose  than  any  thing  else  he 
 'could  advance.  All  the  ground  of  his  objection  was,  "Lest 
 '  the  sponsors  should  expose  themselves  to  danger,  who,  through 
 '  death,  may  fail  of  the  performance  of  their  promises,  or  may 
 '  be  deceived  by  the  wicked  disposition  of  those  for  whom  they 
 'promise;"'  [an  objection  which,  of  course,  does  not  apply 
 now  to  those  who  employ  no  sponsors  at  all  in  baptism.] 
 
 '  But  Tertullian  not  only  objected  to  the  baptism  of  infants, 
 '  under  a  persuasion  that  sins  committed  after  baptism  were 
 '  scarcely  to  be  forgiven ;  he  dissuaded  young  converts  in 
 '  general,  and  especially  young  females,  from  coining  to  the 
 '  font,  until  the  lapse  of  years  should  have  rendered  them  less 
 '  liable  to  be  overcome  by  temptation. — After  Tertullian, 
 '  Gregory,  a.d.  250,  delayed  the  baptism  of  his  own  children 
 '  from  a  similar  apprehension,  it  would  appear,  to  that  of 
 '  Tertullian ;  i.  e.  that  should  they  sin  after  baptism,  for- 
 '  giveness  was  scarce  to  be  expected.  From  the  time  of  Gregory 
 'until  a.d.  1120,  neither  any  society,  nor  even  an  individual, 
 '  objected  in  one  form  or  another  to  the  right  or  scriptural 
 '  authority  of  Infant  Baptism.'  p.  13,  14. 
 
 Objection  IX.     Infant  Baptism  blends  the  church  and  the 
 world,  and,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  administered  by 
 Jehovah,   or  by  his  command. — Mr.  Craps   asks,   '  Does  not- 
 infant  sprinkling  destroy  the  boundary  which  separates  the 
 church  from  the  world  ?  '     And  then  replies,  '  On  the  system 
 of  our  Pedobaptist  friends,  such  a  community  as  the  world 
 is  scarcely  to  be  found.     The  pious  and  profane,  believers 
 and  unbelievers,  provided  they  have  been  sprinkled  in  their 
 infancy — all  are  united  to  Christ,  put  into  the  covenant  of 
 grace,  are  inheritors  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and,  of  course, 
 they  all  belong  to  the  living  God.'  p.  24.     In  another  page, 
 he  asks,  '  Is  not  the  practice  of  infant  sprinkling  ruinous  to 
 '  the  souls  of  men  ?  '  p.  14.     We  answer,  certainly  not ;   at  any 
 rate,  not  more  so  than  the  dipping  of  unconverted,   deluded, 
 or  hypocritical  adult  professors   of  Christianity  ;    and   then 
 introducing  them  into  full  communion  in  Particular  Baptist 
 churches.      Mr.   Eaton   asserts,    that  '  Infant   Baptism   is   a 
 'practice  that  confounds   the   church   and   the   world.... It 
 '  converts  the  gospel  into  a  mere  geographical  term,   so  that 
 
 G 
 
14G  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEEED — 1OTANT  BAPTISM 
 
 '  if  a  child  happen  to  be  born  in  what  is  called  a  Christian 
 '  country,  he  is,  of  course,  born  a  Christian.'  p.  194.  Mr.  Draper 
 inquires,  '  Does  not  infant  sprinkling  destroy  the  boundary 
 1  which  separates  the  church  from  the  world  ?  '  p.  24. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  argues,  '  The  wide  extension  and  pernicious 
 '  influence  of  this  error,'  [of  baptizing  all  that  are  brought  to 
 the  font,]  'which  contains  all  that  is  bad  in  Dr.  Wardlaw 
 '  and  Dr.  Owen,  exhibits,  in  a  painful  light  the  importance  of 
 '  this  controversy.  It  is  diverting  the  whole  attention  from 
 '  the  fact  of  human  depravity  ;  it  is  superseding  the  original 
 '  necessity  for  personal  regeneration  by  the  word  and  the  Spirit 
 •  of  life.  Its  very  aim  is  to  baptize  all ;  and  thus  to  destroy 
 '  all  distinction  between  man  and  man,  until  some  actual  and 
 '  open  transgression  has  called  for  church  discipline,  and, 
 '  thereupon,  for  repentance.  It  identifies  the  church  and  the 
 '  world  ;  and  makes  it  incumbent  on  the  church  to  prove  the 
 1  unbelief  of  individuals  seeking  fellowship,  instead  of  making 
 1  them  declare  and  testify  their  faith.  In  fact,  this  controversy 
 '  involves  the  whole  question,  whether  there  shall  be  a  people 
 '  set  apart  for  Christ,  a  kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth,  or 
 'not.'  Z)/s.p.217-  Pengelly  says,  'InfantBaptism  goes  to  unite 
 '  the  world  with  the  church  of  Christ.  Have  not  the  vilest 
 '  infidels  in  Christendom  received  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and 
 '  been  grafted  into  the  church,  the  body  of  Christ  ?  How 
 '  grossly  absurd !  How  lamentable,  that  they  should  have 
 '  cause  to  pour  contempt  upon  Christianity  by  the  errors  and 
 '  follies  of  its  professors  ! '  p.  95 
 
 That  Jehovah  did  baptize  infants  in  the  Red  Sea  is  un- 
 questionable, by  any  intelligent  and  thoughtful  person — as 
 our  previous  remarks  have  clearly  proved.  As  to  our  blending 
 the  church  and  the  world  through  baptizing  children ;  a  few 
 observations  may  be  required. — What  do  our  opponents  really 
 mean  by  the  terms,  '  The  church,'  and  '  The  world,'  in  this 
 objection?  It  cannot  be  pretended,  that  Infant  Baptism, 
 though  introducing  the  young  into  the  general  congregations 
 of  professing  Christians,  blends  the  spiritual  church  with  the 
 world  of  heathens,  infidels,  idolaters  and  open  profligates ! 
 Surely,  the  little  innocents  we  consecrate  to  Christ,  are  not 
 to  be  regarded  as  on  a  par  with  these  practical  transgressors, 
 and  manifest  enemies  of  God !  Though  children  are  sinful  in 
 their  natures,  they  are  not  criminals  by  their  conduct.  Christ 
 took  infants  in  his  arms,  and,  while  he  blessed  them,  declared 
 that  '  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ' — a  remark  he  never 
 made  respecting  any  baptized  adults.     Mr.  Noel  says,  '  Little 
 
BLENDS  THE  CHURCH  A3SD  THE  WORLD.       147 
 
 '  children  are  humble  and  dependent,  teachable  and  patient  of 
 'reproof,  simple,  free  from  art;  such  are  the  dispositions 
 '  which  Christ  requires  in  his  disciples,  which  grace  imparts 
 '  to  them ;  and  having  which  they  are  blessed.'  Sub.  p.  223. 
 "When  his  people  are  declared  to  he  sheep,  are  not  the  little 
 ones  called  the  lambs — indicative  of  their  innocence? 
 
 Now,  if  introducing  these  dear  little  innocents  to  the 
 general  church  or  congregation  of  professed  believers  in  the 
 Messiah,  constitute  the  entire  ground  of  the  awful  accusation 
 against  Infant  Baptism,  we  cheerfully  plead  guilty  to  the 
 allegation — observing  that  in  many  cases  babies,  thus  intro- 
 duced, form  by  far  the  holier  part  of  the  association.  If  by 
 the  church,  our  opponents  mean  the  converted,  the  enlightened, 
 and  the  divinely-instructed  disciples  of  Christ,  formed  into 
 distinct  and  particular  societies,  the  recognized  and  avowed 
 members  of  our  spiritual  communions;  then  we  deny,  that 
 Infant  Baptism  can,  possibly,  blend  the  church  and  the  world. 
 Call  the  children  '  of  the  world,'  if  you  please ;  yet  the  baptized 
 little  ones  are  not  introduced  into  those  select  societies  or 
 communions;  and  certainly  never  as  the  result  of  their  baptismal 
 consecration  to  God.  They  are  not  inducted  to  the  table  of 
 the  Lord,  nor  reckoned  with  the  faithful  adults,  nor  possess 
 any  admitted  claim  to  vote,  in  person  or  by  proxy,  in  the 
 affairs  of  our  spiritual  fellowships,  any  more  than  the  children 
 of  the  Baptists,  consecrated  to  God  without  the  application 
 of  water.  Or,  in  other  words,  they  are  not  introduced  at  all 
 to  our  select  and  particular  churches.  This  is  well  known  to 
 all  observers  of  our  ecclesiastical  order  and  discipline  ;  and,  in 
 fact,  to  our  objectors  as  well  as  to  ourselves.  Mr.  Gibbs 
 proposes  the  following  questions,  the  more  strongly  to  assert  the 
 negative : — '  Do  Pedobaptist  dissenters  receive  any  into  their 
 '  communion  upon  the  mere  circumstance  of  their  having 
 '  been  baptized  in  infancy?  Does  any  man  plead  his  baptism 
 '  when  an  infant,  as  a  sufficient  ground  for  his  admission  to 
 '  the  communion  of  the  saints  ?'  p.  26.     Certainly  not. 
 
 If  Popery  and  National  Establishments  of  religion  should 
 commit  the  offences  alleged  in  the  objection,  it  does  not  follow, 
 that  evangelical  nonconforming  denominations,  who  also  bap- 
 tize babes,  must  do  the  like.  But  it  is  only  by  blending  or 
 identifying  Popery  and  voluntary  evangelical  dissent,  contrary 
 to  all  truth  and  fairness,  that  the  least  semblance  of  such  a 
 charge  could  be  brought  against  the  latter.  Our  accusers,  on 
 this  point,  must  necessarily  regard  baptism  as  introducing 
 infants  to  our  special  fellowships,  in  order  to  prove  a  case  to 
 
148  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 our  disadvantage;  and  that  disadvantage  resulting  in  the 
 assumed  impurity  of  our  societies,  by  amalgamating  in  them 
 the  clean  and  the  unclean — as  in  popish  and  state-churches. 
 Here,  however,  it  may  be  observed,  that  whatever  objections 
 we  may  entertain  against  the  baptismal  rites  and  doctrines  of 
 these  systems — and  they  are  great  and  many;  we  cannot 
 justly  charge  them  with  making  baptism  immediately  intro- 
 ductory to  full  and  ostensible  membership  in  their  communions. 
 Another  ordinance  must  intervene  before  this  is  effected.  The 
 young  must  be  Confirmed  before  they  can  partake  of  the 
 Eucharist.  And  this  confirmation  does  not  take  place  for 
 several,  and  often  for  many,  years  after  baptism:  so  that,  in 
 the  proper  sense  of  the  term  '  baptism '  among  Catholics,  and 
 state-episcopalians,  does  not  more  really  and  visibly  blend  the 
 church  and  the  world,  than  among  ourselves — for,  of  itself 
 and  alone,  it  does  not  canonically  blend  them  at  all. 
 
 When  our  opponents  formally  and  officially  dedicate  their 
 infants  to  God,  and  thereby  place  them  in  the  visible  church 
 of  Christ,  as  much  as  we  do  our  children  by  baptism;  is  not 
 this  as  intimate  a  blending  of  the  world  and  the  church,  both 
 theoretically  and  practically,  as  is  done  by  us?  They  actually 
 and  designedly  place  them  in  precisely  the  same  relative 
 position  to  their  body,  as  we  do  baptized  children  to  our  own 
 fellowship.  But  we  may  ask  our  good  brethren,  whether 
 Abraham  and  his  house,  Ishmael  and  Isaac,  and  his  numerous 
 men-servants  and  their  male  children,  when  separated  from 
 the  idolaters  around  them,  by  circumcision — thereby  dedi- 
 cating them  to  God,  and  initiating  them  into  the  patriarchal 
 church — did  not  blend  the  church  and  the  world  then,  equally 
 as  is  done  by  us  now,  through  Infant  Baptism?  And  was  not 
 Jehovah  the  immediate  author  of  this  ceremonial?  Again, 
 when  God  himself  baptized  a  whole  nation  in  the  Red  Sea — 
 some  of  whom  feared  the  Lord,  while  many  others  feared  him 
 not — was  there  not  a  still  more  manifest  blending  of  the  world 
 and  the  church — of  the  good  and  the  bad — than  is  ever  done 
 by  our  consecrating  innocent  children  to  Christ,  or  initiating 
 them  into  the  congregational  school,  or  general  churches  of 
 Christ,  by  water-baptism  ?  Again,  when  John  the  Baptist 
 consecrated  the  mixed  multitudes,  who  resorted  to  him  at  the 
 Jordan,  Enon,  and  in  the  Wilderness  of  Judea,  some  of  whom 
 doubtless,  were  pious,  waiting  and  hoping  for  the  consolation 
 of  Israel,  while  we  know,  by  their  after  conduct,  that  most  of 
 them  were  unregenerated ;  did  he  not  really  and  openly  unite 
 the  church  and  the  world  more  than  we  do  by  Infant  Baptism  ? 
 
BLENDS  THE  CHDEOH  AND  THE  WORLD.       149 
 
 Let  our  opponents  decide  in  this,  as  in  similar  cases,  and 
 their  affirmative  we  confidently  anticipate. 
 
 Mr.  Keach  says,  '  Though  we  cannot,  as  the  apostles  could  not, 
 '  certainly  or  infallibly  know  who  were  truly  regenerated,  or 
 '  are  true  believers  ;   yet  they  baptized  none  but  such  in  whom 
 
 *  they  saw  such  signs  of  grace,  that  made  them  in  charity,  to 
 '  believe,  or  hope  they  were  believers  ;  they  made  a  profession 
 
 *  and  confession  of  their  faith.'  p.  152.  Now,  if  this  be 
 admitted,  and  if  the  apostles  introduced  the  baptized  into  the 
 spiritual  communion  of  regenerated  believers — which  our 
 opponents  suppose — surely,  they  must  have  blended  the  real 
 and  redeemed  church  with  the  world  of  deluded  or  hypocritical 
 mortals,  in  away  in  which  it  is  never  done  by  infant  baptism. 
 That  they  occasionally  consecrated  unrenewed  adults  to 
 Christianity,  by  the  rite  of  baptism,  through  not  being  able, 
 for  certain,  to  distinguish  the  good  from  the  bad  ;  we  have 
 decided  scriptural  testimony.  Even  their  inducting  uncon- 
 verted adults  into  the  outer  church  or  congregation  of  Christian 
 worshippers  or  disciples,  more  visibly  effected  the  object  with 
 which  we  are  offensively  charged,  than  they  or  we  ever  did,  or 
 could  do,  by  baptizing  innocent  babies  to  Jesus  Christ — and 
 thereby  simply  introducing  them  to  the  privileges  of  a'religious 
 education,  and  a  ministerial  oversight. 
 
 Further,  when  our  objectors  baptize  adults,  without  any 
 real  faith,  love  to  God,  or  renewal  of  heart;  and  which,  by 
 their  own  admission,  they  do  by  hundreds,  if  not  by  thousands, 
 every  year;  and  then  admit  them  into  full  fellowship  with 
 their  select  churches — as  is  their  almost  invariable  rule  ;  do 
 they  not  blend  the  church  and  the  world  by  baptism  far  more 
 than  we  do,  by  baptizing  innocent  babes  ;  and  introducing 
 them  into  the  general  association  of  Christian  professors,  to  be 
 taught  and  trained  up  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ?  Our  opponents 
 admit  that  they  take  into  their  spiritual  churches  people  they 
 view  as  not  baptized  at  all.  'If,' says  Carson,  'persons  baptized 
 'are  not  the  persons  appointed  to  be  baptized,  it  cannot  be 
 '  Christian  baptism,  although  in  mode  it  may  be  perfectly  correct ; 
 
 *  for  Christian  baptism  is  not  every  immersion  of  persons,  but 
 '  an  immersion  of  certain  persons  for  a  certain  purpose.'  p.  239. 
 4  The  mere  rite  profits  them  nothing.'  p.  240.  In  truth,  when 
 the  pious  and  unconverted  unite  in  congregational  worship,  join 
 in  hearing  the  gospel,  in  singing  and  prayer,  is  there  not  as 
 real  and  as  manifest  a  blending  of  the  church  and  the  world, 
 as  there  is  in  baptizing  little  children  ;  recognizing  them  as 
 young  disciples ;    and  granting  them  the  initiatory  privileges 
 
150  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 of  the  Christian  dispensation  ?  What  man  of  sense  and  candour 
 would  answer  in  the  negative  ? 
 
 Dr.  Ryland  remarks,  'one  of  our  chief  objections  to  Infant 
 '  Baptism isthatitunitesthechurchand  theworld.'  p. 29.  'Bap- 
 '  tism,'  says  Mr.  Daniell,  '  should  be  the  manifest  line  of  demarc- 
 '  ation  between  the  church  and  the  world,  between  the  renewed 
 '  and  the  unrenewed  '  p.  23 — intimating  that  it  is  so  in  his  own 
 communion,  but  not  among  the  Pedobaptists.  The  reader  will 
 now  readily  perceive,  that  this  objection  to  our  system  is  based 
 on  a  palpable  misconception,  or  on  a  gross  perversion,  of  truth 
 and  fact ;  and  may  be  easily  disposed  of  as  perfectly  invalid. 
 2'o  me,  however,  it  is  clear,  that  our  opponents  are  the  only, 
 or  all  but  the  only,  people  in  the  world  who  actually  and 
 manifestly  blend  the  spiritual  church  of  Christ  and  the  unre- 
 generated  men  of  the  world,  by  baptizing  unconverted  adults, 
 and  then,  as  a  consequence,  admitting  them  into  their  holy  fel- 
 lowships. This  evil  is  never  done  and  never  practicable  through 
 the  baptism  of  infants,  at  least,  inprotestant  communions. 
 
 The  above  objection  of  the  Baptists  is  doubtlessly  designed 
 to  intimate,  that  their  own  religious  fellowships  are  much 
 purer  and  holier  than  ours  :  and  that  this  arises,  not  from 
 personal  care  and  discrimination,  but  from  the  system  which 
 they  have  adopted,  and  now  carefully  carry  out.  This  I  very 
 much  question.  In  our  commmunions,  great  pains  are  taken 
 to  guard  against  the  intrusion  of  unregenerated  persons. 
 A  good  moral  reputation,  an  open  profession  of  the  faith, 
 and  a  confession  of  experimental  piety,  are  required  of  all 
 candidates  for  admission  into  our  spiritual  or  select  associations. 
 To  have  been  baptized  by  the  greatest  divine,  at  any  age  of 
 life,  would,  of  itself,  avail  nothing  towards  admission  to  our 
 inner  church  or  congregation.  And  though  the  ordeal  of  dipping 
 stands  not  in  the  way  of  the  nervous  and  insincere,  in  uniting 
 with  these  bodies  of  believers  ;  it  is  more  than  probable,  that 
 the  character  of  our  members  is  quite  as  unexceptionable  as 
 that  of  our  objectors.  Probably  the  following  statistics  will 
 throw  some  light  on  this  head:  — 
 
 In  the  '  Christian  Witness  '  for  April,  1840,  there  is  a  report 
 of  the  church  statistics  of  the  Jamaica  Baptist  Western  Union, 
 for  the  year  1845.  This  presents  an  account  of  36  churches, 
 containing  21,101  members.  It  subjoins,  that  in  the  same 
 year,  917  were  immersed ;  580  were  excluded,  and  54  had 
 withdrawn.  In  the  same  periodical  of  July  1849,  we  have 
 another  account  of  the  same  Western  Union,  in  which  it  is 
 stated,  that  there  were  (independent  of  G  churches  which  had 
 
BLENDS  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  WOELD.  151 
 
 made  no  returns)  17, 85  1  members — baptized,  783 — excluded, 
 766 — withdrawn,  131.  In  the  English  Baptist  Manual  for  1S45, 
 there  is  reported  a  decrease  by  death  of  1,739,  by  exclusion 
 1,5-10 — that  is,  nearly  as  many  had  been  excluded  as  died. 
 The  same  manual  of  1852  records,  that  in  England  and 
 Wales  5,973  were  baptized,  2,753  were  excluded,  and  669 
 had  withdrawn.  And  in  the  same  manual  for  1855,  as  cited 
 in  the  '  Patriot '  Paper,  there  was  '  a  net  increase  of  members 
 'by  baptism,  in  1,041  churches,  of  1,679  persons;  while 
 '  1,67 1  had  been  lost  by  exclusions.  The  Baptist  churches  in 
 '  Germany  and  Denmark  present  a  somewhat  similar  result — 
 'baptized,  674 — excluded,  257 — withdrawn,  15.' 
 
 It  may  be  reasonably  assumed,  that  the  above  exclusions 
 or  excommunications  were  for  immoral  conduct — too  pain- 
 fully indicating,  that  the  subjects  of  them  were  really  destitute 
 of  the  saving  grace  of  God  in  their  souls,  or  that  such  was 
 the  case  with  a  considerable  number  of  them.  Of  the  com- 
 position of  these  churches,  Dr.  Campbell,  a  Baptist  minister 
 of  America,  speaking  of  the  Baptists  in  that  country — we 
 hope,  in  a  very  exaggerated  style — expresses  his  sad  convic- 
 tion, that  '  not  a  tithe  of  the  Baptists  will  enter  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven.'  If  by  the  Baptists,  he  means  the  actually  bap- 
 tized, his  view  is  still  more  awfully  distressing.  I  hope  he 
 does  not!  Upon  the  whole,  the  reader  will  admit,  that  were 
 we  actually  to  introduce  all  the  infants  we  baptize  into  the 
 particular  churches  of  our  faith  and  order,  we  should  not 
 blend  the  church  and  the  world,  by  that  act,  half  as  effectu- 
 ally as  is  done  by  our  brethren.  At  all  events,  we  think  it 
 will  not  be  contended,  that  their  societies  are  a  whit  purer 
 than  our  own,  or  that  our  infant  baptism  does  more  mischief, 
 in  this  respect,  than  what  they  designate,  their  adult,  Christian, 
 or  believers'  baptism.  To  every  clear  and  honest  mind  the 
 reverse  will  appear  to  be  the  genuine  truth. 
 
 To  such  persons,  moreover,  the  following  remarks  of  our 
 opponents  will  appear  of  little  moment  against  Infant  Baptism, 
 as  compared  with  the  adult  dipping  of  their  body.  Dr.  Ryland, 
 '  asks,'  are  not  the  children  of  believers  confessedly  baptized 
 1  into  one  body  with  the  children  of  profligates,  of  irreligious 
 '  profligates,  and  superstitious  papists  all  over  the  world? '  p.  30. 
 We  reply,  by  proposing  another  question,  are  not  vast  numbers 
 of  unbelievers,  profligates,  and  hypocrites,  baptized  into  the 
 churches  of  our  opponents  all  over  the  world  ?  After  the 
 above  statistics,  given  by  themselves,  will  they  venture  to 
 answer,  No  !    Mr.  Stovel  remarks,  that  with  his  party,  baptism 
 
152  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 '  stood,  like  a  guard,  at  the  entrance  of  the  church  of  God, 
 '  protecting  the  members  of  the  family  in  the  enjoyment  of 
 '  their  privileges  and  in  the  performance  of  their  duties.' 
 Lee.  v.  p.  13.  This  sounds  very  oddly,  after  the  preceding 
 home-cast-up  accounts.  Surely,  the  guardian  angel  of  their 
 holy  temples  must  be  often  nodding,  or  absent  from  his  post ! 
 Strangely  does  sectarian  zeal  pervert  one's  perceptive  or  reflective 
 faculties  !  Note  the  following  passage,  in  the  next  page  : — ■ 
 'Men  enter  the'  [Pedobaptist]  'church  without  any  change 
 '  of  heart,  and  they  influence  the  society  of  the  church  by  the 
 '  unsanctified  developments  of  their  fallen  nature.' — "  But, 
 rny  dear  friends,"  he  meant  his  hearers  to  infer,  "no  unholy 
 people  ever  intrude  into  the  churches  of  our  body ;  our 
 baptism  stands  at  the  door  with  '  much  water,'  threatening 
 to  duck  them  thoroughly,  if  they  should  attempt  to  enter  ! 
 And  it  keeps  the  wicked,  hypocritical  sinners  out,  most  com- 
 pletely. The  trial  or  '  ordeal  by  water '  is  too  much  for  the 
 unconverted  !  Hence,  the  singular  purity  of  our  communions  ! 
 Enter,  and  you  will  find  there  none  but  saints  indeed !  the 
 Lords'  elect !  the  sheep  of  his  pasture  !  Though,  of  course, 
 we  have  no  little  lambs  inside,  to  tease  their  matronly  dams, 
 or  disturb  the  gravity  of  the  venerable  rams  of  our  flocks  !  " 
 
 He  says,  further,  'By  Baptismal  Regeneration,  promiscuous 
 '  Baptism,  and  the  Baptism  of  Infants,  the  church  is  thrown 
 '  open  to  the  world;  and  the  society  set  apart  by  our  Lord, 
 '  for  cultivating  and  indulging  the  fellowship  of  saints,  is 
 1  polluted  and  betrayed;  but,  by  the  law  of  baptizing  accredited 
 '  believers  only,  this  family  of  God  is  separated  from  the  world, 
 '  and  guarded  by  the  care  of  all  its  members.'  lb.  p.  9.  All 
 this,  and  much  more  of  the  like  kind,  he  says,  though  he 
 knows  that  Infant  Baptism,  at  least,  has  no  more  relation  to 
 the  '  fellowship  of  the  saints  '  than  the  dry  dedication  of  babies 
 to  Christ;  and  that  the  baptism  of  accredited  believers  only,  as 
 administered  by  his  brethren,  awfully  pollutes  and  betrays  the 
 spiritual  society  of  his  own  denomination!  Indeed,  he  admits, 
 that  'It  must  not  be  supposed  Pedobaptists  have  no  means 
 '  whereby  the  pernicious  operations  of  infidelity  can  be  resisted,' 
 in  preserving  the  purity  of  their  churches.  lb.  p.  26.  What 
 more  can  adult  immersion  accomplish  for  his  own  party?  His 
 Woolwich  audience  must  have  been  soft  indeed,  to  be  favourably 
 impressed  with  such  a  gross  and  wilful  misrepresentation  of 
 facts  !  '  The  Baptist,'  says  Mr.  Noel,  '  has  professed  his 
 '  allegiance  to  Christ  at  baptism,  the  Pedobaptist  has  professed 
 'it  at  the  Lord's  Table.'   Sub.  p.  305.     And  why  may  not  the 
 
BLENDS  THE  CHURCH  AND  THE  WORLD.       153 
 
 profession  be  as  full,  minute,  and  satisfactory,  in  the  latter 
 case,  as  in  the  other,  and  equally  guard  the  society  from  un- 
 godly members  ?  That  it  does  so,  not  even  Mr.  Stovel  will 
 venture  to  deny.  '  To  be  in  Christ,'  he  remarks,  '  is  to  be 
 '  subject  to  his  guidance,  and  to  be  dependent  on  his  aid,  so 
 1  as  to  be  confessedly,  and  entirely,  and  willingly  in  his  power.' 
 Regen.  Lee.  iii.  p.  12.  Does  this  gentleman  mean  to  assert, 
 that  his  adult  or  believers' baptism  keeps  out  all  but  suchperfeet 
 saints  from  his  society?  Let  the  religious  statistics  of  his 
 party  answer  this  question.  Surely,  boasting,  on  this  head, 
 ought  to  be  kept  outside  his  reverend  lips! 
 
 It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  our  opponents  regard  their 
 being  baptized,  and  their  making  a  profession  of  religion,  as 
 the  same  thing  ;  and  that,  after  undergoing  this  ceremony,  the 
 subjects  of  it  are  viewed  by  their  friends,  with  few  exceptions, 
 as  real  Christians,  and  entitled  to  full  church  membership.  The 
 question  is,  Have  you  been  immersed  ?  If  so,  and  if  no 
 flagrant  violations  of  God's  Word  have  recently  intervened, 
 you  are  welcome  to  the  Table  of  the  Lord,  in  their  unpolluted 
 sanctuary.  They  are  distinguished  by  their  Baptism.  This 
 is  the  token,  or,  as  Mr.  Noel  states  it,  '  the  manifestation  of 
 '  their  faith,'  and  their  title  to  spiritual  fellowship  in  their  body. 
 J3ut,  in  the  New  Testament  we  nowhere  read  that  spiritual 
 Christians  were  recognized  by  their  having  been  baptized,  or  by 
 their  professions  at  the  baptistry.  They  were  distinguished 
 by  their  good  works — the  appropriate  fruits  of  renewed  and 
 sanctified  hearts,  and  the  exposition  of  saving  faith  in  our 
 Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  manifest,  and  will  be  denied  by  no 
 competent  judge,  that  adults,  be  they  ever  so  holy  or  devoted 
 to  God,  receive  no  gift,  grace,  or  power,  in  baptism,  which 
 may  not  be,  and  which  is  not,  imparted  to  every  infant  conse- 
 crated to  God  in  baptism.  And  it  is  certain,  that  as  full  and 
 indubitable  a  profession  of  the  Gospel  may  be,  and  is,  made 
 at  the  door  of  our  select  churches,  as  in  the  baptistry  of  our 
 brethren.  These  are  propositions,  the  truth  of  which  no 
 intelligent  and  candid  believer  will  either  oppose  or  question. 
 
 In  fact,  while  it  is  clear,  that  we  do  not  blend  the  spiritual 
 church  and  the  ungodly  world,  by  the  baptism  of  infants  ;  it  is 
 certain,  as  before  proved,  that  our  opponents  do  this  by  their 
 baptizing  numerous  adults,  and  then  immediately  receiving 
 them  into  their  particular  fellowships.  We  do  not  introduce 
 baptized  infants  to  the  communion  of  the  saints,  or  to  a 
 participation  of  the  peculiar  privileges  of  our  select  Christian 
 societies.      This  is   known   to   all   men,   and   can  never  be 
 
 G2 
 
154  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 misapprehended  by  any  persons  acquainted  with  the  rules 
 and  discipline  of  voluntary,  evangelical,  Pedobaptist  churches. 
 There  is  not  the  slightest  immediate  connexion  between  our 
 baptism  and  full  spiritual  membership.  But  widely  different 
 is  the  case  with  our  opponents.  Nearly  all  the  unconverted 
 people  they  immerse,  they  immediately  introduce  to  their 
 particular  churches.  Indeed,  with  few  exceptions,  they  baptize 
 them  directly  into  those  churches.  The  candidates  become, 
 at  once,  identified  with  their  spiritual  fraternity  ;  they  stand 
 in  the  same  position  as  their  best  preadmitted  Christian  mem- 
 bers ;  they  are  regarded  and  addressed  as  dear  brethren  and 
 sisters  in  the  faith;  and  are  invested  with  the  highest  powers 
 and  privileges  of  their  societies.  In  meetings  convened  to 
 elect  fresh  office-bearers,  to  introduce  new  members,  and  to 
 decide  on  questions  pertaining  to  the  peace,  purity,  and 
 prosperity,  of  their  communions ;  they  are  placed  on  a  perfect 
 equality  with  the  wisest  and  best  people  present.  Though 
 totally  unrenewed  in  their  hearts,  and  actually  destitute  of 
 saving  faith,  of  love  to  God,  and  of  zeal  for  his  glory;  if 
 immersed  in  due  form,  they  are  regarded  and  treated  as 
 genuine  Christians.  And,  if  the  previously  quoted  reports  of 
 their  own  denomination  are  to  be  credited,  and  may  be  deemed 
 fair  specimens  of  the  working  of  their  system  generally,  the 
 numbers  of  unconverted  members  in  their  churches  evince, 
 that  they  blend  the  church  and  the  world,  by  their  baptism,  to 
 a  most  fearful  extent. 
 
 In  truth,  if  the  church  and  the  world  are  at  all  blended 
 among  evangelical  Pedobaptists,  it  is  certainly  not  done  by 
 infant  affusion,  but  by  some  subsequent  incidental  act  of  our 
 various  communions.  One  thing  is  certain,  that  while  those 
 who  baptize  adults,  not  unfrequently  immerse  hypocrites,  the.' 
 self-righteous,  the  secretly  immoral,  and  enemies  to  God  in 
 their  hearts — and  that  in  great  numbers,  as  their  own  self- 
 collected  and  self-published  church  statistics  fully  prove; 
 those  who  baptize  only  infants,  never  can  be  charged  with 
 doing  anything  of  the  kind.  They,  as  said  before,  dedicate 
 to  God  only  the  innocent,  the  humble,  the  docile,  and  such  as 
 are  'of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  I  adduce  this  fact,  not  as  an 
 argument  against  the  abstract  doctrine  of  Adult  Baptism,  but 
 as  a  truth  which  every  ingenuous  Baptist  will  admit,  and 
 which,  on  his  own  principles,  must  tell  in  favour  of  the  claims 
 of  our  little  folks,  who,  by  their  baptism,  like  the  consecrated 
 Hebrew  children  in  the  sea,  are  set  apart,  consecrated  to 
 God,  and  become  holy,  or  dedicated  to  the  Lord. 
 
BLENDS  THE  CIIUIICH  AND  TIIE  WORLD.  155 
 
 To  repel  the  groundless  and  unjustifiable  accusation  our 
 adversaries  so  frequently,  and  so  presumptuously,  bring  against 
 us;  I  remark,  that  the  evil,  in  this  respect,  with  which  they 
 charge  us,  they  themselves  are  exclusively  guilty.  If  the 
 1  admixture  of  the  church,'  in  its  spiritual  aspect — '  and  the 
 '  world,'  in  its  ungodly  character — '  has  been  one  of  the  most 
 '  fatal  evils  which  have  hindered  the  progress  of  the  Gospel ; ' 
 (Xoel  p.  279),  our  opponents  certainly  are  not  the  least 
 culpable  of  all  the  sinners  in  our  British  Zion !  This  should 
 most  certainly  induce  silence  on  their  part,  concerning  the 
 supposed  '  fatal  evils  '  arising  to  the  purity  of  a  Christian 
 church  from  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 In  reference  to  the  dipping  of  such  vast  numbers  of  uncon- 
 verted adults,  let  me  not  be  supposed  to  charge  our  opponents 
 with  neglecting  the  usual  or  best  available  means  to  ascertain 
 the  characters  of  their  converts.  Cases  may  occur,  in  which 
 proper  diligence  and  discrimination  may  not  be  employed,  in 
 eliciting  the  sentiments,  affections,  and  discovering  the  conduct, 
 of  applicants  for  baptism.  Sometimes  also  over-persuasions 
 are  used  to  induce  parties  to  undergo  the  ceremony  of  immersion. 
 But  to  such  exceptions  I  do  not  particularly  refer.  The  evil 
 is  in  the  system ;  and  the  results  naturally  flow  from  it, 
 however  cautiously  carried  out.  These  have  enlarged  as  the 
 respectability  of  our  opponents  has  increased,  and  the  talents 
 of  their  ministers  have  become  more  popular  and  attractive. 
 Denominationally,  it  is  as  respectable  to  be  a  Baptist  as  a 
 Pedobaptist  of  any  persuasion.  The  self-deceived  and  the 
 deceivers  will  always  abound ;  and  our  brethren  will  become 
 increasingly  liable  to  the  like  deceptions  as  hitherto  practised 
 on  them.  No  care,  prayer,  or  penetration,  they  can  employ, 
 will  prevent  it.  They  must  be  endowed  with  the  power  of 
 God  himself,  who  knows  all  that  is  in  man,  to  avoid  occasionally 
 and  frequently  baptizing,  and  thereby  adding  to  their  churches, 
 the  uuregenerated  and  the  ungodly.  The  principles  on  which 
 they  profess  to  act,  they  cannot  carry  out;  for  they  cannot 
 read  the  human  heart.  The  wily  hypocrite  can  generally 
 frustrate  their  purposes,  and  obtain  a  baptism  from  them ; 
 which,  in  its  social  results,  will  be  as  abiding  as  that  of  the 
 most  sincere  and  godly  man  among  them.  As  we  have  seen,  in  at 
 least  one-third  of  their  cases  of  dipping,  they  are  acting  in 
 direct  opposition  to  the  professions  they  make — nor  have  they 
 the  power  of  preventing  it.  Their  system  must,  therefore,  be 
 radically  wrong.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Pedobaptist,  who 
 avowedly  receives  all  infants  brought  to  the  font,  and  there 
 
156  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED— INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 consecrates  them  to  the  Lord,  can  in  no  case  violate  his  own 
 principles,  can  never  he  deceived,  nor  baptize  any  he  deems 
 unsuitable  subjects. 
 
 It  might  be  further  reasonably  retorted  on  our  evangelical 
 opponents,  that  if  baptizing  infants,  in  common  with  church- 
 men, papists,  and  unconverted  people,  blends  us  with  them,  so 
 as  to  bring  us  under  the  disrepute  they  attribute  to  those 
 parties;  their  dipping  adults,  in  common  with  Arians,  Socinians, 
 Campbellites,  Mormonites,  and  other  sects,  which  they  deem 
 and  denounce  as  heretical,  must  also  bring  them  into  an  equally 
 close  union  with  these  bodies  of  professors.  By  what  process 
 of  reasoning  can  our  zealous  antagonists  make  out  baby- 
 sprinkling  to  be  a  more  uniting  and  binding  ordinance 
 between  the  sects  who  practised  it,  than  adult  dipping  is 
 between  the  sects  who  practise  that  ?  Call  Infant  Baptism 
 a  Puseyite,  Popish,  state-church,  ceremony  ;  and  blame  us  for 
 being  alike  and  blended  with  them  ;  and  we  may,  on  the  same 
 grounds,  call  adult  immersion  an  Arian,  Socinian,  and  Mormonite 
 ceremony;  and  reprove  them  for  being  alike  and  blended  with 
 these  latter  systems !  This  species  of  allegation  against  us  is 
 futile,  and  absurd.  It  might  be  as  justly  said,  that,  because 
 we  have  chapels  and  churches,  like  the  Catholics  and  the 
 Hellenistic  Christians,  we  are,  therefore,  as  superstitious  and 
 heretical  as  those  Western  and  Eastern  communities !  We 
 may  believe  and  do  nineteen  things  in  common  with  other 
 persons,  and  yet  be  perfectly  distinguished  from  them,  by 
 differing  about  the  twentieth ;  much  more  so  when  our  differences 
 are  one  out  of  ten,  or  one  out  of  half-a-dozen.  Yfe  agree  with 
 most  Congregational  Baptists  on  every  matter  but  baptism  ; 
 why  do  they  not  therefore  regard  us  as  specially  identified 
 with  themselves,  on  the  ground  of  our  numerous  points 
 of  accordance  ? 
 
 The  reader  will  now  be  prepared  to  appreciate,  at  its  true 
 value,  the  following  passage  of  Mr.  Noel  : — '  Besides,  the 
 '  influence  which  the  baptism  of  an  individual  must'  have  on 
 '  various  classes,  the  church  derives  no  small  advantage  from 
 '  the  institution  generally.  The  mixture  of  the  church  and 
 '  the  world  has  been  one  of  the  most  fatal  evils  which  have 
 '  hindered  the  progress  of  the  gospel.  Baptism  is  in  some 
 '  degree  a  preventive  of  this  evil.  I  have  already  noticed, 
 '  that  few  worldly  persons,  without  strong  inducements  of  a 
 '  worldly  kind,  would  wish  to  make  so  solemn  a  profession  of 
 *  self-dedication  to  God  falsely.  But  should  they  wish  to  do 
 1  so,  it  is  not  in  their  power.'     [Is  the  writer  sure  of  that!] 
 
BLENDS  THE  CHURCH  AND  TIIE  WORLD.  157 
 
 1  The  church  which  is  the  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  candidates 
 '  for  membership,  has  no  right  to  admit  any  one  to  membership 
 '  if  the  baptismal  profession  be  palpably  false.'  [But  does  it 
 never  do  wrong!]  '  Ordered  to  put  away  from  themselves 
 1  each  wicked  person,  they  are  virtually  forbidden  to  receive 
 'such,  (1  Cor.  v.  11-13),  and  are  therefore  bound  to  require 
 '  from  each  candidate  a  sound  creed  and  irreproachable  conduct 
 * .  .  .  Should  a  church  practise  Infant  Baptism,  it  may,  notwith- 
 
 ■  standing  the  noxious  tendency  of  this  error,  abound  in  piety; 
 1  and  no  less  a  church,  which  is  sound  in  its  views  of  baptism, 
 '  may  be  unsound  in  doctrine  and  relaxed  in  discipline,  its  mem- 
 1  hers  without  spirituality,  and  its  services  without  life.'  [What 
 great  social  benefit  then  is  Adult  over  Infant  Baptism?]     '  But 
 
 *  among  the  means  which  tend  to  prevent  such  declension  in 
 1  churches,  baptism  clearly  holds  a  place.'  [Certainly,  a  very 
 low  one  !]  p.  279,  280.  Comment  on  this  paragraph  is  need- 
 less. It  will  be  seen  that  this  worthy  minister  writes  like  a 
 tyro  on  this  question,  and  gives  us  his  theoretical  notions, 
 rather  than  the  result  of  much  observation  or  effective  study 
 of  the  working  of  the  scheme  he  so  strenuously  advocates. 
 
 Jenkins  also  endeavours  to  make  his  readers  believe  that 
 adult  baptism  is  highly  conducive  to  purity  of  communion  in 
 Baptist  churches.  He  supposes  that  persons,  baptized  in  child- 
 hood, are  subsequently  admitted  into  our  fellowship  by  merely 
 answering  a  few  unimportant  questions.  He  says,  '  To  put  the 
 '  matter  however  in  a  more  favourable  and  careful  light,  what 
 
 *  are  a  little  superficial  talk  with  a  minister,  a  few  slight 
 '  questions  put  by  the  latter,  questions  which  are  more  like 
 '  what  the  lawyers  call  leading  an  evidence,  than  calculated  to 
 
 *  discover  the  real  character  of  the  examinant,  and  to  all  which 
 
 *  the  examinant  gives  the  general  replies  of  '  yes '  or  '/  hope 
 '  so,'  or  some  answer  as  little  to  the  purpose  ;  I  say,  what  is 
 '  all  this,  or  what  is  a  paper  of  experience   and  profession 
 
 *  (written  as  probably  by  another  person,  as  by  the  party 
 '  requesting  communion)  but  a  piece  of  previous  formality,  a 
 '  mere  ceremony,  which  supposes  that  the  party  having  been 
 '  bom  holy,  and  received  baptism  in  infancy,  has  already  had 
 '  one  stamp  or  seal  affixed  to  his  interest  in  the  covenant  of 
 '  grace,  and  that,  in  a  certain  rotation  of  years,  the  other  seal 
 
 ■  is  affixable,  or  the  livery  and  seisin  to  be  given,  to  make 
 '  the  deed  complete  ? . .  .  .  But  as  a  body,  no  denomination  takes 
 '  more  pains  in  this  matter,  or  regards  more  narrowly  the 
 '  future  circumspection  of  members    of   churches,  than    the 
 
 *  Baptists.    Their  views  of  baptism  being  so  different  from  the 
 
158  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEEED  —  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 '  majority  of  professing  Christians,  it  is  natural  to  think  they 
 1  will  obtain  all  the  satisfaction  they  can  respecting  the  know- 
 '  ledge  and  conviction  of  those  that  submit  to  it ;  whereas  the 
 '  author'  (Rev. Matt. Henry)  'supposes  his  communicants  to  be 
 '  baptized  Christians  in  their  infancy,  and  then  admits  them  to 
 '  Church-privileges,  chiefly  on  that  supposition.'  p.  85,  86. 
 
 Whether  such  notions  of  our  practice,  in  the  admission 
 of  members  to  particular  churches,  be  common  among  the 
 Baptists,  I  am  not  informed.  One  thing  may  be  asserted, 
 that  the  representation  is  a  caricature  of  our  proceedings  '  as 
 '  a  body.'  And,  further,  I  believe  that  '  no  denomination 
 '  takes  more  pains  in  this  matter,'  or  regards  more  narrowly 
 the  future  circumspect  conversation  of  the  members  of  their 
 churches  than  the  Independents,  notwithstanding  their  candi- 
 dates have  been  previously  consecrated  to  Christ,  and  introduced 
 to  the  general  congregation  of  believers  by  baptism.  And,  I 
 think,  that,  as  to  the  discrimination  of  character  for  admission 
 into  their  communions,  our  opponents,  if  their  statistics  indicate 
 the  truth,  have  little  to  exult  in  over  ourselves.  I  opine, 
 that  our  communions  are  as  pure  as  their  own,  and  that  our 
 excommunications  are  not  proportionately  half  as  numerous. 
 One  thing  our  opponents  will  not  deny,  that  there  are  as 
 many  contentions,  broils,  divisions,  and  all  those  kind  of 
 things,  going  on  among  their  own  lauded  and  lovely  churches 
 as  among  any  others  in  the  country.  Whether  they  enjoy  a 
 pre-eminence  in  these  matters,  over  most  Pedobaptist  societies, 
 I  will  not  presume  to  assert — though  there  are  not  a  few  of 
 their  own  people  that  have  the  courage  to  say  so. 
 
 Though  it  may  not  be  exactly  in  its  proper  place,  I  must 
 not  overlook  the  admission  of  Mr.  Tombes,  one  of  the  earliest 
 and  ablest  opponents  of  Infant  Baptism,  who  fully  and 
 repeatedly  admits  that  children  may  partake  of  the  inward 
 grace  of  baptism ;  that  all  who  do  so  might  partake  of  the 
 outward  sign  ;  and  that  all  dying  in  infancy  are  the  elect  of 
 God,  regenerated  by  the  Spirit,  and  go  to  heaven ;  and,  he  adds, 
 that  no  Antipedobaptist  will  deny  this.  Exer.  p.  2-1,  142. 
 Probably  Mr.  Tombes  had  his  eye  on  the  declaration  of  Peter, 
 in  the  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  family — '  Can  any  man  forbid 
 '  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received 
 '  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  we  ?'  Acts  x.  47-  Consequently, 
 whoever  receives  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  is  renewed  by  his 
 grace,  should  receive  the  sign  of  it.  Now,  this  is  assumed 
 to  be  true  of  all  who  die  in  infancy  and  childhood  ;  and  who, 
 at  least,  on  Mr.  Tombes'  reasoning,  are  entitled  to  receive 
 
BLENDS  THE  CIILT.Cn  AND  THE  WORLD.  159 
 
 this  ordinance.  But  our  opponents  deprive  them  of  it.  Hence, 
 we  may  safely  infer,  that  more  than  a  third  of  the  human 
 family — who  die  in  infancy  or  childhood,  and  who,  through 
 the  Wood  of  Christ  and  the  inward  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 are  prepared  for  glory,  and  go  thither  when  they  die — are, 
 on  the  principles  of  our  opponents,  denied  an  ordinance  for 
 which  they  were  divinely  qualified,  and  to  which  they  had  a 
 most  righteous  claim.  When  we  compare  this  vast  number 
 with  those  haptized  on  a  public  profession  of  faith,  we  shall 
 perceive  that,  according  to  the  above  concession,  not  one  in 
 fifty  who  is  entitled  to  baptism  could  ever  receive  it. 
 
 The  reason  assigned  for  omitting  the  baptism  of  these 
 numerous  proper  subjects  is,  that  they  cannot  be  distinguished 
 from  those  other  children  who  are  not  baptized  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  and  who  are  not  destined  to  an  early  grave.  lb.  p.  157- 
 They  prefer  depriving  millions  of  qualified  subjects  for  baptism 
 every  year,  of  their  Christian  rights,  lest  the  ceremony  should, 
 perchance,  be  administered  to  some  not  qualified  to  receive 
 them.  But  might  not  the  like  cautious  prudence  prevent 
 their  baptizing  thousands  they  now  immerse  on  a  peradventure, 
 and  recklessly  admit  into  their  churches  ?  They,  indeed,  dip 
 no  one  of  whose  spiritual  regeneration  they  are  absolutely 
 certain.  They  allow  they  can  read  no  man's  heart,  and  even 
 that  this  was  beyond  the  power  of  the  holy  apostles  themselves. 
 They  have  no  more  assurance  that  the  adult  they  immerse,  is 
 one  of  the  elect-and  regenerate  people  of  God,  than  we  have 
 that  the  baby  we  sprinkle  is  one  of  the  regenerate  and  elect 
 children  of  grace.  They  will  run  the  venture  with  a  man ; 
 but  we  must  not  do  so  with  an  infant !  If  their  own  foregoing 
 statistics  may  be  relied  on,  do  not  our  opponents  act  on  this 
 venturesome  principle  in  reference  to  adults  ?  Do  they  not 
 dip  multitudes  of  doubtful  converts,  rather  than  deny  the  rite 
 to  any  that  are  supposed  to  be  spiritually  qualified.  Have 
 they  adequate  proof,  that  more  than  a  half,  or,  at  most,  than 
 two-thirds,  of  their  baptized  adult  converts  are  partakers  of 
 the  inward  grace  ?  Would  their  mistakes  be  proportionately 
 increased,  to  any  very  alarming  degree,  if  they  were  to 
 baptize  all  children  born  in  the  country,  and  to  immerse 
 no  more  adults  ? 
 
 To  the  above  admissions  of  Mr.  Tombes,  Mr.  Marshall 
 replied  :  '  Beside,  what  one  thing  can  be  named,  belonging  to 
 '  the  initiation  and  being  of  a  Christian,  whereof  baptism  is  a 
 '  seal,  which  infants  are  not  capable  of  as  well  as  grown  men  ? 
 '  They  are  capable  of  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  union  with 
 
160  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 '  Christ,  of  adoption,  of  forgiveness  of  sins,  of  regeneration,  of 
 '  everlasting  life  ;  all  which  things  are  signified,  and  sealed  in 
 1  the  sacrament  of  baptism.'  The  rejoinder  of  Mr.  Tombes  is, 
 '  Tbe  thing  you  should  prove  is,  that  all  the  infants  of  believers 
 '  are  actually  partakers  of  the  inward  grace  of  baptism ;  but 
 *  instead  of  this  you  prove,  they  are  capable  of  it ;  they  may 
 '  have  it.  But  doth  it  therefore  follow,  that  they  actually  have 
 'it?. .  .  .Must  children  be  baptized  because  they  are  capable 
 '  of  grace  ?  Then  may  all  children  be  baptized,  for  they  are 
 'all  capable  of  the  inward  grace  of  baptism.'  Exerc.y.  147. 
 This  last  inference  is  doubtlessly  correct ;  unless  it  could  be 
 shown  that  the  actual  possession  of  renewing  and  saving 
 grace  is  essential  to  a  true  Christian  baptism ;  and  that, 
 without  such  grace,  the  baptism  is  vicious  and  void.  But 
 that  is  not  the  case  among  our  opponents.  Unconverted  men 
 are  capable  of  grace,  and  their  baptism  on  that  account  is 
 deemed  valid,  as  their  practice  proves.  Children  are  capable 
 of  grace  ;  why  then  should  not  their  baptism  be  valid  also  ? 
 Can  our  antagonists  prove  the  contrary  ? 
 
 The  truth  is,  on  Mr.  Tombes'  admission,  and  to  which,  it 
 seems,  no  Antipedopaptist  will  object,  at  least,  a  third  of  the 
 human  race,  duly  and  spiritually  qualified  for  water-baptism, 
 by  having  the  inward  grace,  leave  the  world  necessarily  deprived 
 of  this  ordinance.  How  much  more  consistent  with  the  doctrines 
 of  Scripture,  and  with  the  benevolent  views,  in  other  matters, 
 of  the  Baptists  themselves,  who  baptize  so*  many  doubtful 
 adult  subjects  at  a  venture,  is  the  practice  of  those  who  baptize 
 all  the  young  brought  to  them  for  that  purpose  ?  For  thereby 
 they  are  sure  of  dedicating  all  the  elect  children  to  Christ ;  and 
 they  can  do  no  harm  to  those  who  may  ultimately  become  the 
 manifest  elect  men  and  women,  in  the  course  of  coming  years. 
 Nor  does  it  appear,  that  even  those  who  may  afterwards 
 repudiate  their  infant  dedication  to  God,  and  live  and  die  in  sin, 
 can  receive  any  very  serious  moral  and  spiritual  injury  from 
 the  ceremony !  It  is  this  broad  and  benevolent  practice  we 
 are  defending  against  the  narrow-minded  opponents  of  Infant 
 Baptism  ;  though  not  on  the  precise  principle  propounded  by 
 Mr.  Tombes,  and  assented  to  by  all  Antipedopaptists. — In  the  like 
 strain  of  reasoning,  Mr.  Rees  remarks  :  '  It  is  a  very  nice  and 
 '  hazardous  point  to  baptize  infants  ;  '  [as  the  offspring  of 
 genuine  believers ;]  '  for  who  knows  what  their  parents  are  ? 
 '  since  a  hypocrite  often  makes  as  fair  an  outward  show,  as  a 
 '  real  saint.'  p.  246.  But  is  it  not  equally  a  nice  and  hazardous 
 point  to  baptize  adults;  for  who  certainly  knows  that  they 
 
DLENDS  THE  CHURCH  AXD  THE  WORLD.       1(31 
 
 are  better  Christians  than  the  parents  of  the  young  we  devote 
 to  God  ? — '  since  hypocrites  among  the  former,  make  as  fair 
 'an  outward  show  as  real  saints  ;  '  or  they  would  not  immerse 
 so  many  unworthy  subjects,  as,  by  their  own  accounts,  they 
 do  every  year. 
 
 This  inconclusive  method  of  reasoning  against  Infant 
 Baptism  is  adopted  and  repeated  by  Mr.  Noel,  as  the  subjoined 
 citations  will  prove  : — '  Infants  can  be  saved  without  faith, 
 '  because  God  can  give  them  regeneration,  which  is  equivalent 
 1  to  faith;  but  they  are  unfit  for  baptism,  because  baptism  is 
 
 *  a  profession  of  faith ;   and  they  are  capable  neither  of  making 
 
 *  a  profession,  nor  of  anything  which  is  equivalent  to  it.     It 
 
 *  is  a  fallacy  to  infer  what  man,  who  is  ignorant,  may  do,  from 
 '  what  God  may  do,  who  is  omniscient.  He  can  give  an  infant 
 1  salvation,  because  he  sees  in  the  infant  all  that  prepares  a 
 
 *  believer  for   salvation ;    but  man  may  not  give    an   infant 
 
 *  baptism,  because  he  cannot  see  in  the  infant  the  grace  which 
 
 *  fits  a  believer  for  baptism.     As  infants  are  generally  un- 
 
 *  regenerate,  and  we  can  never  know  what  cases  are  exceptions, 
 '  unregenerate  infants  ought  not  to  be  injured  by  being  baptized 
 '  as  regenerate.  Salvation  depends  upon  faith  in  the  adult, 
 '  and  on  regeneration,  which  is  equivalent  to  faith,  in  the 
 '  infant ;  and  as  infants  are  capable  of  regeneration,  they  may 
 'be  saved.  But  baptism  depends  upon  the  manifestation 
 '  of  faith  or  of  regeneration;  and  as  infants  are  incapable  of 
 '  this  manifestation,  they  may  not  be  baptized.'  Sub.  p.  172. 
 '  Since  infants  are  not  capable  of  affording  proof  that  they  are 
 '  regenerate,  they  must  be  treated  as  unregenerate.'  lb.  p.  170. 
 Jenkins  is  of  the  same  mind.  '  An  infant  may  be  an  object 
 '  of  God's  special  love;  but  as  that  cannot  be  ascertained  but 
 '  by  years,  'tis  best  to  wait  till  that  time  to  administer  the 
 '  tokens  of  that  love.'  p.  23.  See  also  p.  49.  The  meaning 
 evidently  is,  that  though  some  infants  are  qualified  for  baptism,  it 
 must  not  be  administered  to  them, lest  others  should  be  baptized 
 who  are  not  qualified  by  being  regenerate — which  would  be 
 equivalent  to  believing;  while  the  baptism  of  unregenerate 
 children  would,  somehow  or  other,  be  injurious  to  them. 
 How  the  preceding  declarations  of  Mr.  Noel,  and  the  follow- 
 ing from  the  same  pen,  are  to  be  reconciled,  I  must  leave  to 
 his  superior  sagacity.  '  Although  the  doctrine  of  Infant 
 1  Regeneration  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  and  refuted  by  facts, 
 '  and  the  Baptism  of  Infants  is  unauthorized  and  mischievous, 
 'yet  children  may  early  receive  the  blessing  of  conversion.' 
 p,  225. 
 
162  OBJECTIONS  AX SWEKED— INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 That  circumcision  was  a  blessing,  few  will  deny;  nor  is  it 
 questionable  that  it  typified  the  regeneration  of  the  heart,  and 
 was,  so  far,  equivalent  to  baptism.  But  suppose  the  pious  priest 
 of  old  had  reasoned  after  the  fashion  of  modern  Antipedo- 
 baptists — '  Of  what  avail  is  it  to  circumcise  a  child,  and  thereby 
 '  dedicate  it  to  secular  blessings,  and  especially  to  those  which 
 'are  spiritual?  We  do  not  know  who  will  live  to  enjoy  the 
 'blessings  of  the  promised  land,  nor  whose  heart  will  be  really 
 '  renewed.  And  if  the  results  of  the  sign  are  the  non-possession 
 '  of  the  good  promised,  what  benefit  can  it  do  them  ?  We 
 '  want  to  have  a  divine  mark  set  upon  the  children,  that  we 
 '  may  not  err  in  this  important  matter.  Who  can  say  what 
 '  self-delusion  may  be  the  consequence  of  imparting  the  token, 
 '  sign,  or  seal,  when  the  thing  signified  may  never  be  obtained, 
 '  either  in  religious  instruction,  or  in  broad  acres  of  land  ?  Were 
 '  it  not  the  more  prudent  plan  to  defer  the  rite  universally  till 
 'we  see  how  the  children  are  subsequently  circumstanced,  and 
 '  what  conduct  they  display,  when  arisen  to  the  age  of  matu- 
 '  rity?  Will  not  this  be  better  than  circumcising  the  wrong, 
 '  or  those  who  may  never  have  the  covenanted  blessings  in 
 '  this  life  or  in  the  next  ?' 
 
 But  in  this  wray  no  holy  and  enlightened  man  of  God  ever 
 reasoned  among  the  Hebrews.  He  did  not  pass  over  the 
 supposed  right  objects,  lest  he  might  possibly  include  the  wrong 
 ones.  Yet  if  he  had  been  disposed  to  cavil  on  this  head,  he 
 had  just  as  much  real  ground  for  doing  so  as  our  opponents 
 have  for  theirs.  He,  no  doubt,  felt  that  it  was  more  in 
 accordance  with  the  Divine  pleasure  to  circumcise  ten  future 
 profligates,  than  to  omit  one  future  saint.  This  certainly  was 
 the  mind  of  God,  who  commanded  them  all  indiscriminately  to 
 be  devoted  to  him  by  circumcision. — To  reply,  that  the  cases 
 referred  to  are  not  analogous  ;  since,  for  circumcising  Jewish 
 infants,  there  is  the  express  and  clear  command  of  God  ;  while 
 for  baptizing  Christian  infants,  there  are  no  such  explicit  and 
 positive  directions  ;  is  beside  our  immediate  argument,  which 
 rests  on  the  admission  of  our  opponents,  that,  elect  or  regene- 
 rated children  are  entitled  to  baptism  as  much  as  Jewish 
 children  were  entitled  to  circumcision.  The  only  difficulty  we 
 are  combatting  here  arises  from  our  not  being  able  to  distinguish 
 which  of  our  little  ones  are  regenerated  or  elect,  or,  in  other 
 words,  which  of  them  will  die  in  infancy,  or  become  genuine 
 Christians  in  after  life  ?  Mr.  Carson  remarks :  '  The  thing 
 '  that  is  shadowed  by  circumcision  is  not  found  in  the  infants 
 '  who  were  circumcised.     In  this  it  differs  from  baptism  by 
 
BLENDS  THE  CHURCH  AXD  THE  WORLD.  163 
 
 :  the  distance  of  heaven  and  earth.'  p.  228.  He  means  that 
 unquestionably  the  grace  of  God  is  found  in  all  baptized  adults, 
 and  that  it  never  was  found  in  the  hearts  of  circumcised  infants  ! 
 He  meant  this,  or  his  statement  is  a  sheer  delusion. 
 
 From  the  reasonings  of  our  opponents,  as  seen  in  the 
 preceding  quotations,  it  seems,  that  the  great  obstacle  to  Infant 
 Baptism  is  a  want  of  knowing  whether  a  child  is  one  of  the 
 elect,  and  whether  destined,  through  the  favour  of  God,  to 
 eternal  life.  If  we  may  judge,  from  the  statements  referred  to, 
 it  is  not  the  want  of  years,  or  of  knowledge,  or  faith,  or  grace, 
 in  the  usual  sense  of  the  terms,  that  prevents  the  baptism  of 
 infants  ;  but  the  want  of  knowing  whether  the  little  ones  are 
 the  objects  of  divine  favour  ?  Could  we  truly  say  of  any  child, 
 it  is  elect,  or  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost  from  its 
 mother's  womb,  or  could  our  opponents,  from  any  extraordinary 
 juvenile  manifestations,  arrive  at  this  conviction;  they  would, 
 we  suppose,  be  prepared  to  baptize  it.  They  require  regene- 
 rating grace,  or  the  proof  of  electing  love,  in  an  individual,  no 
 matter  how  young  or  old,  to  induce  them  to  administer  this 
 ceremony  to  him.  After  the  renewal  of  the  heart,  the  person  is 
 entitled  to  baptism.  Here  we  have  a  new  phase  of  the  matter. 
 Whether  the  party  be  consenting  or  not,  be  intelligent  or  not, 
 be  active  in  the  rite  or  not,  is  of  no  moment,  provided  it  were, 
 or  could  be,  determined,  that  the  child  is  one  of  God's  elect,  and 
 its  infant  heart  unconsciously  renewed  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 
 Does  not  this  admission  neutralize  more  than  half  the  current 
 objections  brought  against  the  baptism  of  our  little  ones  ?  It 
 would  be  well  if  our  opposing  brethren  would  tell  us  plainly 
 what  the  actual  grounds  of  their  hostility  to  this  ceremony 
 really  consist  of;  whether  the  supposed  lost  state  of  the  child, 
 or  the  want  of  developing  proofs  of  its  election,  be  the  actual 
 preventive  of  baptism  ?  And  then,  as  previously  observed, 
 they  should  inform  us,  whether  the  caution  exercised  in  the 
 case  of  infants  might  not  be  as  prudently  exercised  in  the 
 case  of  professing  adults  ;  thousands  of  whom  are  dipped  every 
 year,  without  proofs  of  regeneration,  or  of  being  God's  elect 
 people  ?  Why  should  there  be  such  desperate  ventures  in 
 the  latter  instance,  and  no  ventures  at  all  in  the  former. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  further  says,  '  Our  Lord  has  here  forbidden  any 
 '  persons  to  apply  for  baptism  who  are  not  true  believers,  and  he 
 1  has  forbidden  his  ministers  to  baptize  any  who  do  not  seem  to 
 '  be  true  believers.  But  as  no  man  can  read  another's  heart, 
 '  reason  agrees  with  apostolic  precedents  to  declare  that  no 
 '  minister  should  refuse  baptism  to  a  candidate  of  sound  creed 
 
164  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — EST  ANT  BAPTISM 
 
 '  and  of  Christian  habits  because  he  does  not  feel  sure  of  his 
 1  conversion ;  otherwise  baptism  might  be  refused  to  many  true 
 '  believers.  Real  faith,  therefore,  warrants  the  candidate  to 
 '  apply  for  baptism,  and  a  credible  profession  of  faith  warrants 
 '  the  minister  to  receive  him.'  lb.  p.  44.  In  a  previous  quotation, 
 Mr.  Noel  plainly  implies,  that  some  children,  those,  for  instance, 
 who  die  in  their  infancy,  have  regeneration,  which  is  equivalent 
 to  faith  in  the  adult,  and  should  be  baptized,  if  they  could  be 
 distinguished  from  the  unrenewed.  But  then  there  is  danger  in 
 doing  this,  lest  unqualified  babies  should  share  in  the  ceremony, 
 and  receive  moral  injury  !  But  adults  are  to  be  baptized  when 
 they  make  a  profession  of  a  sound  creed,  and  are  of  Christian 
 habits;  though  the  minister  is  not  sure  of  their  conversion  ! 
 Hence,  as  before  noticed,  he  will  run  the  risk  of  baptizing  an 
 unconverted  man,  and  a  consummate  deceiver  ;  but  will  not,  on 
 any  account,  run  the  risk  of  baptizing  a  wrong  child,  though 
 perfectly  innocent,  and  the  offspring  of  the  holiest  parents  in  his 
 congregation  ;  and  that,  too,  though  the  injury  done  to  the  un- 
 sanctified  adult  is  manifestly  ten  times  greater  than  could 
 possibly  have  been  done  to  a  wrong  infant !  Further,  he 
 contends  for  the  venturesome  dipping  of  adults,  after  having 
 learnt  from  the  statistics  of  his  own  denomination,  that  a  very 
 large  proportion  of  persons,  dipped  on  the  ground  of  having  a 
 sound  creed  and  Christian  habits,  are  entirely  without  spiritual 
 regeneration  or  true  faith  in  Christ !  We  may,  therefore,  again 
 safely  aver,  that  to  baptize  every  baby  brought  to  the  font, 
 as  done  by  most  Evangelical  Dissenters,  could  never  do  a  tithe 
 ofthe  evils  our  opponents  effect  by  the  course  they  are  every- 
 where pursuing. 
 
 Objection  X.  Infant  Baptism  destroys  the  child's  liberty 
 of  conscience,  and  must,  therefore,  be  displeasing  to  God. — ■ 
 Eaton: — 'This  practice  does  great  injury  to  the  child  ;  for 
 '  with  a  name  a  creed  is  imposed  on  the  infant,  while  it  is 
 '  incapable  of  judging  what  is  right.'. .  . .'  As  the  child  grows 
 '  up,  its  young  mind  is  impressed  with  a  sense  of  the  sacred 
 '  obligation  which  it  contracted  in  infancy,  and  that  no  less 
 '  than  the  favour  of  God,  and  the  hopes  of  heaven,  depend  on 
 *  his  holding  fast  the  doctrines  of  his  creed  and  church.'. .  . . 
 'Thus  the  mind  is  early  prejudiced,  and  becomes  enslaved  to 
 1  certain  opinions  and  practices ;  and  its  early  prepossessions  too 
 1  generally  forestal  all  due  exertion  of  the  understanding,  and 
 '  incapacitate  the  future  man  for  fair  inquiry  and  impartial 
 '  examination.'  p.  194.  Draper  : — '  The  sprinkling  of  infants 
 '  has  operated  greatly  against  the  interest  of  Christianity,  by 
 
DESTROYS  TIIE  CHILD'S  FUTURE  LIBERTY.  1G5 
 
 1  exhibiting  whole  nations  as  Christians,  who  have  been  forced 
 '  to  profess  this  religion  without  their  knowledge  or  consent.' 
 p.  25.  Tombes  : — Children  '  are  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
 1  Lord,  who  know  not  the  Lord,  nor  have  consented,  or  perhaps 
 '  will '  [not]  '  consent  to  the  confession  of  the  name  of  our 
 '  Lord.'  Serm.  p.  30. 
 
 If  the  above  objection  means  any  thing  pertinent  to  the 
 purpose  of  our  opponents,  it  must  be,  that  baptism  pledges 
 the  young  to  become  Christians  instead  of  Turks,  Heathens, 
 or  Jews.  They  must  further  intend,  that  children  should  be 
 free  from  all  parental  influence  against  becoming  infidels  or 
 pagans  ;  and  that  nothing  should  be  done  to  bias  their  minds, 
 or  implicate  their  consciences  in  favour  of  gospel  truth  and 
 duty  !  It  cannot  be  intended,  that  the  simple  act  of  Infant 
 Baptism  pledges  the  little  folks  to  become  Congregationalists 
 instead  of  Wesleyans,  or  Episcopalians  instead  of  Presby- 
 terians ;  for  they  are  baptized  only  to  Christ,  or  to  his  religion 
 generally.  When  they  attain  the  age  of  mental  maturity  or 
 manhood,  they  can  ally  themselves  with  any  section  of  the 
 church  they  prefer,  without,  in  the  least  degree,  violating 
 their  baptismal  obligations.  If  they  should  then  fancy,  that 
 'Baby-sprinkling  was  unscriptural,'  they  could  be  soon  com- 
 pletely dipped  under  water  ;  and  our  differing  brethren  will 
 be  but  too  glad  to  lead  them  down  into  the  baptistry!  Such 
 conversions  we  know  to  be  of  no  unfrequent  occurrence — many 
 persons,  baptized  in  their  infancy,  being  immersed  in  after 
 years.  Ignorant,  as  we  believe  them  to  be,  of  the  designs  of 
 Infant  Baptism,  unacquainted  with  the  scriptural  nature  of 
 the  grounds  on  which  it  rests,  and  assailed  by  the  strongly- 
 reiterated  assertions  and  specious  glosses  of  our  zealous 
 adversaries  ;  they  repudiate  their  former  discipleship  to  Christ, 
 and  submit  to  be  dipped  by  some  Baptist  minister.  Llere  we 
 see,  that  liberty  of  conscience  is  not  destroyed  by  Infant 
 Baptism;  that  the  parties  can  act  as  freely  as  if  they  had 
 never  undergone  this  ceremony,  and  that,  too,  without  in- 
 curring what  our  opponents  designate,  the  disrepute  of  being 
 Anabaptists. 
 
 But,  pray,  what  are  Pedodaptist  parents  to  do  with  their 
 children  ?  Must  they  altogether  neglect  the  religious  instruc- 
 tion of  their  offspring,  lest  they  should  bias  their  minds  so 
 strongly  in  favour  of  scriptural  Christianity,  that  the  after 
 adoption  of  any  other  system  would  become  all  but  a  moral 
 impossibility  ?  We  all  know,  that  such  an  education  would 
 be  far  more  potent  in  after  life  than  Infant  Baptism.     The 
 
166  OBJECTIONS  ANSVVEKED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 proofs  of  this  doctrine  are  manifested  perpetually  in  every 
 section  of  the  religious  community.  How  few  are  the  instances 
 wherein  persons,  trained  up  ever  so  imperfectly  in  the  truths 
 and  duties  of  Christianity,  ultimately  become  Jews,  Turks,  or 
 idolaters  ?  Do  not  our  objectors  themselves  equally  destroy 
 liberty  of  conscience  in  their  children,  when  either  publicly  or 
 privately  they  dedicate  them  to  the  Triune  God  ?  And  do  they 
 not  invariably  train  them  up  in  the  knowledge  and  favour  of 
 the  gospel,  and  of  their  own  particular  views  and  forms  of  it  1 
 Do  not  their  children  often  hear  arguments  in  their  homes 
 and  chapels  against  baby-sprinkling  ?  Would  they  not  deem 
 themselves  most  negligent  of  their  parental  duties,  were  they 
 not  to  labour  hard  and  long  to  teach  their  offspring  the  faith 
 they  regard  as  divine,  and  the  discipline  they  themselves 
 have  adopted,  as  being  most  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God  ? 
 
 Surely,  our  little  ones  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  grow  up  like 
 wild  asses'  colts,  and  to  commence  discipleship  when  they 
 should  be  young  men  in  Christ ;  nor  to  be  sitting  on  the 
 lowest  forms  of  Christian  scholarship  for  the  first  time,  when 
 they  come  of  age!  On  the  principle  involved  in  the  objection, 
 children  should  not  be  biased  in  favour  of  any  one  political  or 
 philosophical  system  more  than  another ;  for  that  would  virtually 
 destroy  their  mental  liberty  in  all  coming  time,  as  much  as 
 baptizing  them  and  teaching  them  the  good  knowledge  of  God! 
 It  is  a  singular  circumstance,  that,  when  it  serves  the  purpose 
 of  our  opponents,  they  contend  that  Infant  Baptism  can  have 
 no  influence  on  the  subsequent  profession,  life,  or  condition 
 of  the  young,  doing  them  neither  good  nor  evil,  being  a  mere 
 useless  and  unmeaning  ceremony.  But,  then,  when  a  different 
 end  is  to  be  gained,  they  argue  as  if  the  future  destiny  of 
 children,  for  time  and  eternity,  were  wholly,  or  very  essentially, 
 determined  by  it ! 
 
 Mr.  Noel  appears  to  think  that  he  makes  sad  havock  of  all 
 our  arguments,  in  support  of  Infant  Baptism,  when,  following 
 the  example  or  direction  of  the  late  Mr.  Knibb,  he  enunciates, 
 most  gravely,  the  subjoined  declaration  : — '  No  baptized  infant 
 '  has  been  baptized  by  his  own  consent ;  no  person  baptized 
 '  in  infancy  has  ever  in  his  own  person  honoured  Christ's 
 '  ordinance ;  but  conformity  was  forced  upon  him  when  he 
 •  was  asunconsciousasastone.'  Sitb.y.  125.  He,  then, concludes 
 that  ministers  cannot  lawfully  or  reasonably  baptize  infants — 
 the  act  on  the  part  of  the  child  not  being  voluntary,  nor  a 
 personal  profession  of  faith.  But  may  nothing  be  done  to  or 
 with  a  child  except  what  it  consents  to;   even  though  the  pious 
 
destroys  the  ciiilb's  fdtdbe  liberty.  107 
 
 parent  deems  it  ever  so  proper  and  useful,  and  feels  accountable 
 to  God  for  the  early  education  and  right  training  of  his 
 offspring?  "What  infant  ever  gave  its  consent  to  be  washed 
 in  cold  water  on  a  frosty  morning,  or  to  be  taught  the  alphabet, 
 or  to  take  a  dose  of  nauseous  medicine?  Do  children  consent 
 to  be  bom  of  their  own  parents,  to  be  subject  to  their  authority, 
 or  to  be  guided  by  their  precepts  ?  Was  it  their  voluntary 
 act  to  come  into  the  world  in  this  country,  whose  laws,  usages, 
 and  religion  they  may  not  like,  when  they  arrive  at  years  of 
 discretion?  And  is  their  liberty  destroyed  by  having  this 
 parental,  providential,  and  legislative  dominion,  forced  upon 
 them,  without  ever  soliciting  their  approbation,  waiting  for 
 their  '  profession  of  faith '  in  these  matters,  or  even  once 
 bowing  to  their  baby  decisions ! 
 
 Did  the  infant  seed  of  Abraham  consent  to  be  circumcised, 
 or  the  little  Hebrews,  at  the  Red  Sea,  to  be  baptized  unto 
 Moses  ?  Aud  do  Baptist  babies  give  their  consent  to  be 
 dedicated  to  Christ,  and  not  to  Jupiter,  Vishnu,  or  one  of  the 
 Polynesian  gods ;  or  to  be  trained  up  in  the  knowledge  and 
 practice  of  the  gospel,  instead  of  the  Shaster  or  Koran  ?  And 
 did  these  little  ones,  '  in  their  own  persons  honour  God's 
 '  ordinances  ?  was  not  conformity  forced  upon  them  when 
 '  they  were  as  unconscious  as  stones  ?  '  Does  not  the  objection 
 even  charge  God  foolishly  ?  Was  it  not  he  who  ordered 
 infants  to  be  circumcised,  and  who,  himself,  baptized  them  by 
 tens  of  thousands,  without  their  consent  being  ever  solicited  ; 
 and  who  also,  in  our  judgment,  has  made  it  the  duty  of 
 ministers  to  baptize  the  young,  under  the  gospel  dispensation, 
 and  unquestionably  to  teach  them,  from  their  childhood,  to 
 know  the  Holy  Scriptures  ?  Christ  put  his  hands  upon  the 
 heads  of  certain  infants  brought  to  him,  without  asking  their 
 consent ;  and  now,  without  soliciting  their  leave,  takes  millions 
 of  such  to  glory !  Indeed,  without  begging  the  permission 
 of  ignorant  and  graceless  sinners,  he  sends  down  his  Holy 
 Spirit  to  convert  and  save  them ;  and  then  imperatively 
 commands  them  to  believe,  love,  and  obey  him,  as  though 
 they  had  no  choice  of  their  own  ! 
 
 All  the  liberty  of  conscience  a  good  man  is  desirous  of 
 enjoying,  and  all  to  which  anyone  is  entitled,  consists  in  doing 
 nothing  of  himself,  but  only  just  what  his  Heavenly  Father 
 pleases.  Nor  has  a  child  more  right  to  liberty  and  self-control 
 than  its  godly  parent.  On  the  principle  of  the  objection  we 
 are  combatting,  Joshua  must  have  acted  most  imperiously  and 
 tyrannically  over  his  children,  when  he  solemnly  and  publicly 
 
168  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 said,  'As  for  me  and  my  house,  we  will  serve  the  Lord.'  It 
 would  be  irrelevant  to  retort,  'It  is  a  fallacy  to  infer  what  man 
 '  who  is  ignorant  may  do,  from  what  God  may  do  who  is 
 '  omniscient.'  Noel,  p.  172.  God  commanded  all  the  Jews  to 
 circumcise  the  male  children  without  exception ;  and  all 
 people  to  train  up  all  their  children  in  the  way  in  which  they 
 should  go ;  and  his  ministers  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
 creature,  and,  we  believe,  to  baptize  every  child  brought  to 
 them  for  that  purpose.  In  these  matters,  the  injunctions  are 
 universal,  and  no  right  of  discrimination  or  choice  is  allowed 
 to  man.  Surely,  it  is  as  tyrannical  to  bring  a  child  up  a  little 
 Baptist,  Calvinist,  Arminian,  Conformist,  Dissenter,  or  any 
 thing  else,  as  to  bring  him  up  a  Pedobaptist !  One  thing  is 
 certain,  that  though  a  man  cannot  do  what  God  may  or  can 
 do,  he  is  bound  to  do  all  that  God  commands  him. 
 
 The  interesting  fact  should  not  be  overlooked,  that  relative 
 piety  may  greatly  conduce  to  objective  personal  benefit.  For 
 parents  to  teach  their  children  the  doctrines,  duties,  and 
 privileges,  of  the  gospel,  is  purely  a  religious  act,  and  as  much 
 a  divine  command,  as  it  is  the  duty  of  the  young  to  learn 
 them  ;  and  both  parties  offend  against  the  laws  of  Heaven 
 when  these  natural  relative  obligations  are  neglected.  Nor 
 will  the  readers  of  Scripture  fail  to  observe,  that  the  faith  and 
 prayers  of  parents  are  often,  if  not  always,  accepted  on  behalf 
 of  their  children,  the  same  as  if  the  latter  had  believed  and 
 prayed  for  themselves  ;  at  least,  this  is  true  when  the  young 
 are  too  ignorant  or  indisposed  rightly  to  address  the  Father 
 of  mercies  on  their  own  behalf.  The  faith  and  prayer  of  the 
 woman  of  Canaan  obtained  from  Christ  the  expulsion  of  a 
 demon  from  her  daughter.  Matt.  xv.  28.  The  faith  and 
 supplication  of  the  Centurion  effected  the  restoration  of  his 
 beloved  servant  from  an  attack  of  the  palsy,  with  which  he 
 was  grievously  tormented.  lb.  viii.  13.  When  a  poor  paralytic 
 was  let  down  through  the  tiling  of  a  house,  where  Christ  was 
 preaching,  by  earnest  and  believing  friends,  their  faith  and 
 zeal  were  followed,  not  only  by  the  recovery  of  the  patient's 
 health,  but  also  by  the  pardon  of  his  sins.  Luke  v.  20.  And 
 James  assures  us  that  the  prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth 
 much  for  the  recovery  of  the  sick,  and  the  forgiveness  of 
 transgression.  Jas.  v.  15,  16.  Who  does  not  know  that 
 believing  intercessory  supplications  are  God's  appointed  means 
 to  draw  down  spiritual,  as  well  as  secular,  blessings  on  the 
 world  ?  This  is  perpetually  done  by  real  Christians  ;  and  it 
 is  being  religious  towards  men  as  well  as  towards  God. 
 
DESTROYS  TIIE  CIIILl/s  FUTTJBE  LIBFKTl'.  1G9 
 
 Such  being  admitted,  is  it  too  much  to  suppose,  that  parents 
 may  not  be  religious  towards  their  children — bone  of  their  bone 
 and  flesh  of  their  flesh,  one  in  covenant  and  identical  in 
 interest — that  they  may  pray  for  them  in  faith  in  the  divine 
 promises,  and  devote  them  to  Christ  in  the  ordinance  of 
 baptism,  without  infringing  on  the  rights  naturally  pertaining 
 to  helpless,  ignorant,  and  totally  dependent  beings,  placed 
 under  the  care  and  direction  of  those  very  parents,  who  are 
 answerable  to  God  for  the  religious  instruction  of  their  offspring  ? 
 This  is  not  a  parent's  being  personally  religious  for,  or  instead 
 of,  his  children  ;  but  it  is  praying  on  their  behalf  and  in  their 
 name  ;  and  often, — as  in  the  instances  just  referred  to, — with 
 as  much  effect,  as  if  children  were  to  pray  for  themselves. 
 Hence,  all  good  ministers  and  religious  people  pray  for  the 
 children  in  their  congregations  and  families ;  and,  doubtless, 
 draw  down  divine  blessings  on  the  rising  generation.  They 
 represent  the  young  at  the  throne  of  grace,  and  plead  their 
 cause  before  God ;  and  surely  they  may  consecrate  them  to 
 the  Saviour,  without  violating  any  laws  of  human  nature,  or 
 of  divine  grace. 
 
 It  is  recorded  as  one  of  Abraham's  religious  excellencies, 
 that  God  could  say  of  him,  'I  know  him  that  he  will  command 
 '  his  children  and  his  household  after  him,  and  they  shall 
 '  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment.' 
 Gen.  xviii.  19.  Paul  highly  congratulated  Timothy,  'that 
 'from  a  child  he  had  known  the  Holy  Scriptures,'  (2  Tim.  iii. 
 15,)  doubtless,  through  the  instructions  of  his  grandmother 
 Lois  and  his  mother  Eunice,  who,  so  far  from  being  charged 
 with  invading  his  natural  liberty  of  conscience,  are  indirectly 
 commended  for  biasing  his  mind  and  heart  in  favour  of  Christ 
 and  his  gospel.  Paul  fervently  implores  the  blessings  of  God 
 to  rest  on  the  family  of  a  holy  and  benevolent  father.  '  The 
 '  Lord  give  mercy  unto  the  house  [or  family]  of  Onesiphorus  ; 
 '  for  he  oft  refreshed  me,  and  was  not  ashamed  of  my  chain,' 
 &c.  2  Tim.  i.  16-18.  And  that  many  precious  favours  are 
 conferred  on  children,  not  for  their  own,  but  for  their  parent's 
 sake,  every  day  fully  and  happily  testifies. 
 
 I  must  not  pass  unnoticed  a  remark  of  Mr.  Foot  on  this 
 head :  '  Let  the  parent  train  up  his  child  in  the  way  he  should 
 '  go,  but  let  him  not  suppose  that  his  children  can  be  advan- 
 '  taged  by  a  ceremony  about  which  the  Scriptures  are  silent, 
 '  and  in  which  his  child  is  implicated  before  the  development 
 '  of  his  intellect.'  p.  23.  Here,  it  is  admitted,  that  the  child 
 is  implicated  in  its  baptism,  or  in  some  way  bound  to  answer  the 
 
 H 
 
170  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEKED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 end  proposed  in  this  service — to  love  God,  to  trust  in  Christ,, 
 and  lead  a  Christian  life — for  to  these  purposes  only  infants 
 are  consecrated.  Now,  surely  this  may  be  an  advantage  to 
 the  child,  since,  if  influenced  by  it  at  all  legitimately,  it  must 
 be  on  the  side  of  Christ  and  godliness.  Whether  the  Scriptures 
 are  quite  so  silent  on  the  matter,  as  Mr.  Foot  indicates,  is 
 another  question.  But  with  what  consistency  '  are  parents  to 
 '  train  up  children  in  the  way  in  which  they  should  go,'  if  they 
 are  not  to  implicate  them  in  favour  of  Christianity  ?  Would 
 not  such  a  training  tend  much  more  than  Infant  Baptism  to 
 bias  the  child  and  youth  in  favour  of  the  gospel  ?  And  what 
 right  have  parents  to  bias  the  minds  and  hearts  of  their 
 offspring  on  the  side  of  Christ,  by  teaching,  persuading, 
 admonishing,  and,  perhaps,  castigating  them,  any  more  than 
 by  early  and  prayerfully  devoting  them  to  his  cause  ? 
 
 Mr.  Draper  is  more  explicit,  even  than  Mr.  Foot,  respecting 
 the  education  of  the  young.     '  A  pious  Baptist  parent,  from 
 '  the  earliest  dawn  of  intellect,  labours  to  teach  his  children 
 '  divine  truth ;  he  commends  and  devotes  them  to   God  in 
 1  earnest,  fervent  prayer  every  day  ;  he  continually  takes  them 
 '  to  the  sanctuary ;   he  perpetually  admonishes  them  to  avoid 
 '  all  evil,  and  to  pursue  after  and  practice  all  that  is  good  ; 
 'and prays  with,  as  well  as  for  them,  and  assures  them  of  the 
 'just  claim  which  God  has  to  their  supreme  love  and  constant 
 '  obedience ;  and  he  enforces  his  instructions  by  a  good  and 
 '  consistent  example.     Can  any  Pedobaptist  parent  do  more  ? 
 '  Or  can  his  children  possess  any  greater  privileges  ?  '  p.  55. 
 But  the  Baptist  parent  does  all  this  without  the  consent  of  his 
 little  folks !    He  begins  with  the  '  dawn  of  intellect,'  and,  as  far 
 as  possible,  biases  them  in  favour  of   Christianity,  equally 
 with  the  Pedobaptist  parent.     In  a  word,  '  the  little  Baptists 
 '  are  virtually  forced  to  profess  this  religion   without    their 
 *  knowledge  or  consent,'  as  much  as  any  little  Independents 
 in  the  kingdom !     '  The  Baptists  are  as  conscientious,'  says 
 Mr.  Jenkins,  'as  other  denominations,  in  fraying  for  their 
 '  children  ;  in  teaching  them  betimes  ;   and  taking  pains  with 
 '  them ;  in  using  proper  arguments,  by  the  blessing  of  God, 
 '  to  win  upon  them  ;  in  providing  for  them  ;   and  should  they 
 '  die  infants,  in  surrendering  them,  into  the  hands  of  God,  with 
 '  "full  confidence  "  in  his  goodness,  who  has  a  right  to  reclaim 
 '  what  he  gave.'  p.  73.     Again,  I  ask,  could  infant- sprinkling 
 more  effectually  bias  or  bind  the  youthful  heart,  than  such 
 teachings  and  arguments  in  favour  of  any  creed  or  system — or 
 more  powerfully  abridge  its  conscientious  liberties  in  after  life  ? 
 
DESTROYS  TIIE  CIIILD's  FUTURE  LIBERTY.  171 
 
 Mr.  Noel  speaks  of  our  baptizing  children  when  as  '  uncon- 
 '  scious  as  a  stone ; '  and  assumes  that  this  is  a  great  absurdity ; 
 since,  in  his  opinion,  they  are  not  capable  of  being  baptized 
 at  all.  But  is  he  not  aware  that  the  Pharisees  are  said  by 
 our  Lord  to  wash  (baptize,  Gr.)  'cups  and  pots,'  [probably 
 stone  ware,']  '  brasen  vessels  and  tables  ?  '  You  will  remark, 
 that,  however  superstitious  might  be  the  design  of  those 
 hypocritical  religionists,  the  act  itself  was  divinely  designated 
 baptism — the  baptism  of  articles  as  unconscious  as  a  stone. 
 Under  the  law,  the  equally  unconscious  tabernacle  and  its 
 utensils  of  gold,  silver,  brass,  and  iron  were  purified  or  baptized ; 
 that  is,  they  were  dedicated  to  God,  by  being  sprinkled  with 
 water,  or  blood.  Was  this  an  unmeaning  act  ?  was  it  absurd  ? 
 was  it  to  be  condemned,  because  the  objects,  dedicated  to  God 
 in  baptism,  were  not  consenting,  intelligent,  and  possessed  of 
 high  moral  virtues  ?  And  if  not,  wherein  lies  the  inconsistency 
 or  unreasonableness  of  baptizing  a  child  to  God,  on  the 
 ground  that,  at  the  time,  it  is  unconscious  of  what  is  being 
 done  to  it,  and  for  its  future  benefit  ?  The  design  of  the 
 baptism  of  the  tabernacle,  and  of  an  infant,  varies  according 
 to  their  natures  ;  but  both  are  consecrations  to  Jehovah — the 
 one  for  mere  passive  use,  the  other  for  discipleship,  and 
 ultimate  active  service  in  the  house  of  the  Lord.  The  act  of 
 baptism  is  the  same,  but  the  ends  vary,  according  to  the 
 nature  of  their  subjects  ;  one  being  to  a  higher  and  the  other 
 to  a  humbler  destiny.  After  viewing  the  matter  in  this  aspect — 
 probably,  Mr.  Noel  will  not  regard  the  baptism  of  an  uncon- 
 scious babe  as  a  very  great  absurdity  after  all ! 
 
 "When  Mr.  Noel  speaks  of  infants  being  baptized  when 
 '  unconscious  as  a  stone  ; '  he  intimates,  that  there  is  no  cheerful 
 and  cordial  willingness  in  them  to  undergo  this  rite.  But 
 then,  there  is  no  unwillingness,  no  resistance  to  it,  no  fear,  no 
 repugnance.  They  arenot  in  great  mental  or  physical  opposition 
 to  be  aspersed  or  affused  at  the  font.  Can  this  be  truly  said, 
 of  all  that  are  dipped  into  the  baptistry,  before  a  staring 
 congregation?  Do  not  many  of  them,  particularly  delicately- 
 trained  and  nervously- constituted  females,  feel  a  dread  of  this 
 operation?  Are  not  numerous  persuasive  arguments,  and  even 
 indirect  threatenings,  occasionally  employed  to  induce  them 
 to  comply?  Are  they  not  told,  there  can  be  no  proper 
 Christian  profession  without  it;  that  drawing  back  would 
 evince  a  lack  of  Christian  faith,  firmness,  and  love ;  that  it 
 would  be  refusing  to  take  up  the  cross  and  to  follow  Christ — 
 in  the  Jordan ;  that  they  cannot  be  joined  to  the  people  or 
 
172  OBJECTIONS  ANSWEEED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 cliurch  of  God ;  with  various  intimations,  that  it  is  necessary 
 to  present  Christianity,  if  not  to  future  happiness? — '  No  cross 
 '  no  crown.'  At  length,  the  parties  yield,  often  to  such 
 inducements,  rather  than  to  an  enlightened  conviction  of  its- 
 scriptural  necessity.  Sleepless  nights  precede  the  operation. 
 How  gladly  would  they  he  dipped  hy  proxy  !  They  have 
 little  knowledge  on  the  subject.  But  the  minister,  and 
 deacons,  and  members,  say  it  is  necessary ;  and  they  give 
 in.  There  is  nothing  cordial,  voluntary,  or  cheerful  in  the 
 transaction  in  numerous  instances.  They  go  to  the  font,  as 
 some  go  to  the  altar  to  marry  persons  they  really  do  not  love  ! 
 Where,  then,  is  the  marvellous  difference  between  baptizing  an 
 unconscious  infant,  or  a  reluctant,  timid,  and  nervous  young 
 woman  ?  And  when  she  faints  in  the  water,  or  in  the  arms  of  the 
 administrator,  becoming  as  insensible  of  all  that  is  said  to, 
 and  passing  around,  her  ;  surely  an  unconscious  baby,  is  quite 
 as  cordial  a  subject ! 
 
 At  a  recent  gathering  of  Baptists,  in  London,  Dr.  Evans  is 
 reported  to  have  said,  among  other  striking  things,  that  '  Con- 
 '  cession  after  concession  is  being  made,  that  the  gospel  has 
 '  nothing  to  do  with  infants.'  Who  are  making  these  concessions, 
 we  are  not  informed.  Nor  does  the  speaker  say,  from  what 
 facts  he  infers  this  concession,  so  adverse  to  Infant  Baptism. 
 He,  doubtless,  thinks  there  is  much ;  and  his  auditors — 
 whether  they  cheered  him  or  not — most  probably  were  of  the 
 same  opinion.  Now,  the  Doctor  cannot  mean,  that  the  gospel 
 does  not  say  any  thing  about  infants.  That  seems  impossible. 
 The  argument  against  baby-sprinkling  is,  that  the  gospel  says 
 nothing  to  infants  directly  on  the  subject — enjoining  them  to 
 seek  for  baptism,  or  cheerfully  to  submit  to  it !  What  a 
 marvellous  discovery  of  our  learned  opponent !  and  what  a 
 conclusive  testimony  against  Infant  Baptism  !  Ye  unguarded 
 Pedobaptist  ministers  and  writers,  the  authors  of  such 
 damaging  concessions,  see  what  a  handle  you  have  given 
 Dr.  Evans  and  his  learned  brethren  !  If  you  had  stood  to  it, 
 that  the  gospel  had  something  to  say  to  infants,  as  monthly 
 nurses  talk  to  them,  about  their  sweet  little  eyes  and  fingers ; 
 you  would  have  saved  us  the  labour  of  meeting  his  potent 
 argumentation  !  But,  soberly  ;  the  Doctor's  assertion  contains 
 a  slip  or  a  trick.  The  gospel  has  to  do  with  infants  as 
 such,  through  their  parents  or  guardians  ;  and  through  them 
 only.  And  what  God  wishes  to  be  done  to,  or  by,  them  he 
 informs  their  seniors,  and  not  themselves.  He  has  something 
 to  do  with  oxen  and  sheep,  through  their  owners.     The  gospel 
 
THE  FOUNDATION  OF  TOPEE Y,  ETC.  173 
 
 has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Doctor's  hearers  as  such ;  but 
 speaks  to  them  through  himself  from  the  pulpit.  This  boasted 
 concession  amounts  to  nothing ;  and  to  plead  it  against  our 
 practice  is  absurd.  And,  yet,  as  the  reader  has  already  seen, 
 or  will  soon  see,  it  is  equal  to  most  of  the  grave  objections 
 paraded  by  our  earnest  brethren,  in  opposition  to  Infant 
 Baptism,  not  excepting  even  Mr.  Noel's  unconscious  baby ! 
 
 Objection  XL  Infant  Baptism  is  the  foundation  of 
 Popery  and  of  all  national  establishments  of  Christianity, 
 and  therefore  could  not  have  been  of  God. — Dr.  Gill  calls  it, 
 1  The  pillar  and  ground  of  Popery.'     Mr.  Gibbs  says,  '  The 
 
 *  theory  of  Pedobaptism  is  only  adapted  to  the  constitution  of  a 
 '  national  church ;  it  has  a  manifest  tendency  to  unite  the  church 
 '  and  the  world,  and  is  therefore  necessarily  opposed  to  the 
 '  spirit  and  principles  of  dissent.'  p.  232.  Mr.  Keach  says,  '  I 
 '  look  upon  Infant  Baptism  to  be  one  of  the  chief  pillars  of 
 '  the  Romish  church  and  of  all  national  churches  and  consti- 
 
 *  tutions  in  the  European  world.'  p.  234.  This  kind  of  objection, 
 like  several  others,  to  Infant  Baptism,  is  not  always  made 
 because  it  is  regarded  as  valid,  and  relevant  to  the  object ; 
 but  because  it  is  calculated  to  prejudice  weak  and  unreflecting 
 minds  against  the  service. 
 
 Our  opponents  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  voluntary 
 churches,  of  evangelical  principles,  and  of  the  Pedobaptist 
 order,  have  ever  been  among  the  most  zealous  and  active 
 antagonists  to  popery  and  all  state-endowed  and  politically- 
 governed  systems  of  Christianity ;  and  that,  too,  without 
 imagining  the  least  inconsistency  in  such  opposition.  They, 
 moreover,  are  as  competent  to  understand  the  legitimate  tendency 
 of  their  own  practices,  as  any  persons  opposed  to  their  religious 
 movements.  For  example,  the  Protestant  Pedobaptist  churches 
 in  North  America  are  as  much  opposed  to  popery,  and  state- 
 governed  and  parliamentary-sustained  prelacy,  as  any  Baptist 
 in  that  portion  of  the  world.  If  they  were  not  so,  how 
 happens  it,  that  while  exercising  a  very  commanding  influence 
 in  the  country,  they  have  not,  at  least,  made  the  attempt  to 
 subject  their  churches  to  his  Holiness  at  Rome,  or  to  place 
 them  under  the  power,  and  in  the  pay,  of  the  President  and 
 the  legislative  congress  ?  If  the  objection  have  any  weight 
 or  truth  in  it,  how  are  we  to  account  for  the  well-attested 
 historical  fact,  that  among  the  sturdiest  opponents  of  popery, 
 and  state-establishments  of  Christianity,  in  this  land,  during 
 the  Commonwealth  and  Protectorate,  as  well  as  ever  since, 
 have  been  nonconforming  Pedobaptists  ? 
 
174  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED— INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 But  were  it  true,  that  Infant  Baptism,  as  administered  by- 
 Catholics  and  State  Episcopalians,  was  the  foundation  of 
 their  systems  ;  it  does  not  necessarily  follow,  that  this  rite,  as 
 administered  among  Evangelical  Nonconformists,  must  have 
 the  like  tendency.  Preaching  may  be  the  foundation  of 
 error  and  superstition  in  certain  places,  and  as  performed  by 
 some  ministers  of  religion  ;  but  must  it,  therefore,  be  the 
 same  among  all  denominations  ?  Because  Catholics  and 
 Churchmen  baptize  babes,  as  well  as  men  and  women,  must 
 it  be  concluded,  that  whoever  besides  baptize  infants  must 
 virtually  be  Catholics  or  Churchmen,  or  approximating  closely 
 toward  them  ?  Must  it  be  assumed,  that  because  papists 
 and  Puseyites,  from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  are  said  to 
 pronounce  mere  morality  and  their  childish  mummeries,  to 
 be  meritorious  and  saving  acts  in  the  sight  of  God  ;  that, 
 therefore,  all  who  preach,  though  it  be  salvation  by  faith  in 
 Christ,  and  universal  obedience  to  God,  founded  on  a  feeling 
 of  love  or  a  sense  of  duty,  must  be  papists  or  Puseyites  also? 
 However  we  deplore  the  unscriptural  notions  and  forms  of 
 baptism,  to  which  our  opponents  refer ;  and  think  them 
 most  pernicious  in  their  tendencies  and  results  ;  we  cannot 
 regard  them,  or  any  other  ceremonial  observances,  as  the 
 principal  basis  of  the  systems  so  earnestly  objected  to.  As 
 before  shown,  children,  on  account  of  their  baptism,  among 
 Catholics  and  Churchmen,  are  not  regarded  as  members  of 
 their  inner  churches,  till  confirmed  by  a  Diocesan  Bishop. 
 There  is  a  foundation  still  underlying  the  evils  attached  to 
 this  rite  among  them — a  lust  of  power,  prerogative,  patronage, 
 and  glory,  in  both  priests  and  princes.  Destroy  this  spirit, 
 and  both  popery  and  state-episcopacy  would  soon  fall,  even 
 were  Infant  Baptism  far  more  prevalent  than  it  is  already 
 in  our  world. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  comes  out  very  strong  on  this  favourite  topic. 
 '  Dissenting  Pedobaptists  are  found,  who  burst  with  spleen 
 'when  spoken  of  as  participating  in  Tractarianism  ;   and  yet 
 
 *  by  the  benefits  they  ascribe  to  Infant  and  promiscuous 
 '  Baptism,  convey  the  very  same  principle  into  their  institutions. 
 
 •  They  do  not  seem  to  me'  [on  a  very  merciful  review  of  their 
 case !  to  be]  '  dishonest,  but  rather  victims  of  their  own 
 '  reasonings  and  neglect  of  Scripture.  Before  the  ceremony 
 '  of  Infant  Baptism  can  be  relieved  from  this  alliance  with 
 1  Baptismal  Regeneration,  and  "the  opus  operation  of  Popery," 
 1  it  must  be  exhibited  to  mankind  as  absolutely  useless ;  and 
 '  before  our  baptism  comports    with    Scripture,  that   useless 
 
THE  FOUNDATION  OF  POPERY,  ETC.  175 
 
 'ceremony  must  be  altogether  laid  aside.  It  is  with  all' 
 [denominations  of  Pedobaptists,]  '  therefore,  we  have  to  do. 
 f  Call  them  by  what  name  you  will,  persons  admitting  regene- 
 
 I  ration  in  baptism,  pardon  in  baptism,  justification  in  baptism, 
 
 *  sealing  in  baptism,  induction  by   baptism,    recognition   in 
 
 *  baptism,  dedication  in  baptism,    or  whatever  you    please ; 
 
 *  those  supposed  sacramental  benefits  associated  with  the 
 '  baptism  of  infants  and  unbelievers,  the  brethren  with  whom 
 
 I I  have  the  honour  to  be  united,  most  solemnly  denounce  as 
 
 *  altogether  unsustained  by  divine  authority.'  Reg.  Lect.  i. 
 p.  30,  31.  You  can  but  notice,  that  the  mere  dedication  of 
 an  infant  to  God  in  baptism  is  here  placed  on  a  par  with 
 teaching  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  !  Must  not  a 
 Lecturer  have  some  side-end  to  answer  before  he  would  make 
 such  a  statement  ?  and  must  he  not  have  presumed  greatly  on 
 the  ignorance  and  prejudice  of  his  audience  before  he  ventured 
 on  such  a  sentiment  ?  Then,  he  classes  infants  with  un- 
 or  dis-believers  !  Why,  none  baptize  such  persons,  but  our 
 opponents  themselves  !  and  nearly  half  they  baptize,  according 
 to  their  own  showing,  have  not  the  faith  of  God's  elect,  and 
 are  unconverted  to  God. 
 
 It  should  be  observed,  that  whatever  support  popery  and 
 state-establishments  of  religion  derive  from  Infant  Baptism  ; 
 they  certainly  did  not  give  rise  to  the  rite.  That  our  state- 
 episcopacy  is  of  modern  origin,  no  one  questions — being  little 
 more  than  300  years  old — and  that  Infant  Baptism  existed 
 before  the  Reformation  will  be  as  readily  admitted.  When 
 genuine  popery  was  first  founded,  I  believe,  no  one  has  fully 
 ascertained  ;  but,  at  any  rate,  in  its  present  form,  it  certainly 
 is  not  so  ancient  as  Infant  Baptism.  Some  hundreds  of 
 years  are  allowed  to  have  elapsed  from  the  death  of  Christ 
 before  the  setting  up  of  the  dominion  of  the  Man  of  Sin. 
 Mr.  Stovel  says,  that,  in  Cyprian's  time,  about  the  middle  of 
 the  third  century,  '  The  genius  of  popery  had  already  generated, 
 '  and  thenceforward  it  ceased  not  to  unfold  its  mysterious 
 '  resources  in  criminality  and  spiritual  oppression.'  Regen. 
 Lect.  ii.  p.  12.  The  growth  was  gradual — the  development 
 slow — though  even  in  Paul's  day  the  evil  spirit  or  germ  of 
 popery  had  began  to  work.  But  it  is  universally  agreed, 
 that  the  popery  to  which  our  objectors  refer,  dates  some  four 
 or  five  hundred  years  after  the  Saviour's  birth.  Now,  it  is 
 admitted,  by  all  parties,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  of  much 
 earlier  date  than  that,  and  could  not  have  sprung  out  of  this 
 system,    however  perverted  by  it.      About  300  years  after 
 
170  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 the  apostles,  Austin  wrote,  '  That  infants  are  by  all  Christians 
 '  acknowledged  to  stand  in  need  of  baptism,  which  must  be 
 '  for  original  sin,  since  they  have  no  other.'  In  the  time  of 
 Cyprian,  about  250  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  a  council 
 of  sixty-six  ministers  unanimously  agreed  that  baptism  need 
 not  be  delayed  till  the  eighth  day.  This  rite,  therefore,  was 
 universal  about  loO  years  after  the  apostles.  About  100  years 
 after  their  decease,  Tertullian,  entertaining  a  notion,  that  sin 
 after  baptism  was  nearly  unpardonable,  advises  that  Infant 
 Baptism  should  be  deferred  till  children  were  grown  up,  and 
 that  young  women  should  not  be  baptized  till  after  they  were 
 married,  except  the  life  of  the  child  or  female  was  in  danger. 
 Hence,  Infant  Baptism  existed  and  prevailed  in  his  day,  or 
 Lis  superstitious  notions  about  it  would  have  had  no  existence. 
 Origen,  who  was  born  within  a  100  years  of  the  apostles, 
 writes,  '  The  baptism  of  children  is  given  for  the  forgiveness 
 '  of  sins  ;  but  why  are  infants,  by  the  usage  of  the  church, 
 '  baptized,  if  they  have  nothing  that  wants  forgiveness  ? ....  It 
 'is  because,  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  the  pollution  of  our 
 '  birth  is  taken  away,  that  infants  are  baptized ....  The  church 
 '  had  also  from  the  apostles  an  order  to  give  baptism  to  infants.' 
 Ireneus,  who  was  probably  born  before  the  death  of  John  the 
 Apostle,  says,  '  Christ  came  to  save  those  wbo,  by  him,  are 
 '  regenerated  unto  God  '  (that  is  according  to  the  sense  of  the 
 early  Christian  writers,  baptized,)  '  both  infants,  and  little  ones, 
 '  and  young  men,  and  elderly  persons.'  Justin  Martyr,  who 
 wrote  about  40  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  says,  in  a  passage 
 previously  quoted,  '  several  persons  among  us,  both  men  and 
 '  women,  of  sixty  or  seventy  years  old,  who  were  proselyted  or 
 '  made  disciples  to  Christ  in  or  from  their  infancy,  do  continue 
 '  uncorrupl.'  Seventy  years  back,  from  Justin  Martyr,  bring 
 us  nearly  into  the  middle  of  the  apostolic  age.  IValVs  Hist. 
 vol.  1.  Dr.  Tyerman  says,  '  Let  it  be  observed,  that  the 
 'term  regeneration  is  often  used  in  the  fathers  for  baptism; 
 '  with  what  propriety,  is  no  concern  of  mine.  I  need  only 
 '  quote  the  words  of  two  of  them  to  prove  this.  Thus  Ireneus : 
 '  — "  When  Christ  gave  his  disciples  the  command  of  regene- 
 '  rating  unto  God,  he  said,  Go  teach  all  nations  baptizing  them 
 '  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
 '  Ghost."  The  following  are  the  words  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  was 
 '  contemporary  with  Ireneus — "  They  are  regenerated  in  the 
 '  same  way  in  which  we  have  been  regenerated,  for  they  are 
 1  washed  with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
 'the  Holy  Ghost.'"  p.  82. 
 
TIIE  FOUNDATION  OF  ror-EIiY,  ETC.  177 
 
 These  passages  render  it  unquestionable  that  baptism 
 existed  long  before  popery — understanding  by  this  term  the 
 system  of  religion  which  has  long  passed  under  that  name  ; 
 and  it  is  simply  to  prove  this  fact  that  I  have  transcribed  the 
 above  quotations  from  the  afore-named  Christian  fathers  of  the 
 church.  Whether  these  ancient  writers  had  correct  views  of 
 the  baptism  of  either  adults  or  children  is  immaterial  to  my 
 present  object.  That  Infant  Baptism  existed  and  was  prevalent, 
 if  not  universal,  within  a  few  years  of  the  death  of  John  the 
 Apostle,  is  unquestionable.  How  it  became  so,  if  it  had 
 never  been  practised  by  inspired  men,  and  especially  if  it  had 
 been  repudiated  and  condemned  by  them,  as  it  is  by  our 
 opponents,  I  leave  the  latter  to  divine.  But,  not  requiring 
 the  glosses  of  the  Rabbis,  nor  the  practices  of  the  fathers,  to 
 establish  my  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism,  under  the  New 
 Testament  economy,  I  shall  not  lay  any  further  stress  on  the 
 above  authorities,  than  to  sustain  my  assumption,  that  Infant 
 Baptism  is  not  the  offspring  of  popery  or  of  a  state-religion  ; 
 though,  when  perverted,  it  may  have  been  made  to  harmonise 
 with  its  dogmas,  and  minister  to  its  continuance,  among  their 
 unenlightened  supporters. 
 
 Mr.  Hall  assumes,  that  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism  was 
 introduced  towards  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of 
 the  third  century ;  and  that  it  obtained  a  '  complete  and 
 '  undisputed  ascendency '  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth. 
 Yet,  he  says,  the  ancient  church,  which  he  supposes  continued 
 to  practise  only  adult  baptism,  never  made  any  serious  demur 
 against  the  innovations  of  the  Pedobaptists.  He  asks,  '  Did 
 '  they  separate  from  their  brethren  in  order  to  form  distinct  and 
 '  exclusive  societies  ?  Of  this,  not  the  faintest  trace  or  vestige 
 '  is  to  be  found  in  Ecclesiastical  history,  and  the  supposition 
 '  is  completely  confuted  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  ancient 
 '  writers  to  the  universal  incorporation  of  orthodox  Christians 
 '  in  one  grand  community.  We  challenge  our  opponents  '  [the 
 close  communionists]  '  to  produce  the  shadow  of  evidence  in 
 '  favour  of  the  existence,  during  that  long  tract  of  time,  of  a 
 '  single  society  of  which  adult  baptism  was  the  distinguishing 
 '  characteristic'  p.  304. 
 
 This  quotation  teaches  us  two  or  three  important  truths. 
 (1)  That  in  very  early  times  Infant  Baptism  was  not  regarded 
 by  the  good  men  of  those  days  with  the  same  dislike  and 
 abhorrence  which  are  felt  against  it,  by  most  of  the  Baptists  in 
 the  present  day  ;  or  they  certainly  would  have  made  a  notorious 
 stir  about  it.     (2)  That  it  is  among  the  strange  events  of  the 
 
 h2 
 
178  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 world,  that  a  rite  should  have  sprung  up,  within  little  more 
 than  a  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  so  contrary  to 
 the  supposed  spirit  and  genius  of  the  gospel,  and  so  injurious 
 to  the  souls  of  mankind,  as  our  opponents  regard  it,  without 
 being  denounced  as  an  innovation,  and  as  altogether  contrary  to 
 the  practice  of  the  first  ministers  of  Christ — for  even  Tertullian 
 no  where  speaks  of  it  as  unscriptural  or  as  a  novel  invention ! 
 And  (3)  that,  in  the  course  of  two  centuries  more,  Infant 
 Baptism  should  have  obtained  a  complete  and  undisputed 
 ascendency  in  the  Christian  world,  had  it  been  viewed  as 
 adverse  to  the  mind  and  doings  of  the  apostles  and  their 
 successors,  is  truly  marvellous !  It  is  easy  to  account  for  false 
 notions  being  attributed  to  this  ordinance,  as  there  were 
 to  the  Lord's  supper ;  but  to  suppose,  that  the  rite  itself 
 should  have  originated  and  universally  prevailed,  in  so  brief 
 a  space  of  time,  without  any  manifest  and  recorded  opposition, 
 on  Scriptural  grounds,  is  beyond  our  capacity — the  fact  is 
 unparalleled  in  the  history  of  ecclesiastical  operations. 
 
 I  will  here  cite  the  language  of  an  Anonymous  writer. 
 '  For  an  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the  apostles,  their 
 '  authority  was  sufficient,  our  brethren  acknowledge,  to  keep 
 '  such  an  innovation  from  entering  the  church.  They  therefore 
 '  usually  place  the  introduction  of  this  practice  about  the 
 'beginning  of  the  third  century.  But  behold!  in  the  short 
 '  space  of  about  two  hundred  years,  without  a  single  precept 
 '  or  warrant,  or  a  single  example  to  encourage  it,  yea,  with 
 '  the  well-known  practice  of  the  apostles  themselves,  and  of 
 '  all  the  churches  they  ever  planted  throughout  the  whole  world, 
 '  confessedly,  openly,  directly  against  it ;  under  all  these 
 '  disadvantages,  the  baptism  of  infants,  it  seems,  so  every 
 '  where  prevailed,  that  upon  the  face  of  the  whole  earth  there 
 '  was  not  a  church  found  where  it  was  not  performed  !  To  him 
 'that  believes  this,  what  can  be  incredible!'  p.  11.  Byron 
 says,  the  first  invention  of  this  antiscriptural  and  flesh-pleasing 
 error  commenced  in  Africa,  was  occasionally  practised  in  the 
 second  century,  and,  '  before  the  end  of  the  third  century,  it 
 '  had  become  literally  universal.'  p.  65.  What  a  rapid  and 
 marvellous  spread  of  such  a  wicked  rite  in  so  short  a  time ! 
 Were  there  no  intelligent  and  faithful  followers  of  Christ  then 
 left  in  the  world  to  oppose  or  protest  against  it ! 
 
 Mr.  Gibbs  advances  rather  a  singular  objection  to  Infant 
 Baptism,  which  may  be  worth  noting  in  this  place.  He  says, 
 '  it  practically  denies  the  doctrine  of  personal  election  and 
 '  particular  redemption,  for  there  can  be   no    election   to    a 
 
THE  FOUNDATION  OF  POPERY,  ETC.         179 
 
 c  particular  benefit  of  which  all  arc  partakers  ;  this  universality 
 '  of  grace  is  strongly  implied  in  the  administration  of  Infant 
 
 *  Baptism ....  which,  traced  to  its  source,  and  followed  by 
 '  its  legitimate  consequences,  will  be  found  to  arise  out  of  the 
 1  most  subtle  system  of  Arminian  policy  ever  devised  ;  and  to 
 '  be  the  most  powerful  practical  expedient  for  supporting  and 
 1  propagating  the  doctrines  of  universal  grace  and  general 
 '  redemption,    within    the    compass    of    human    agency.     It 
 
 *  proceeds  upon  the  general  principle,  not  only  that  all  men 
 '  are  alike  eligible  to  salvation,  but  that  grace,  of  which  baptism 
 '  is  the  outward  sign  and  seal,  is  conferred  upon  all  men.'  240. 
 No  doubt,  this  phase  of  the  matter  will  be  very  gratifying  to 
 our  Arminian  friends !  and  if  they  credit  Mr.  Gibbs,  it  will  surely 
 induce  them  to  cleave  more  closely  to  the  practice  of  baptizing 
 infants  !  But  how  does  our  High  Calvinistic  opponent  make 
 out  his  case  ?  The  last  sentence  in  the  citation  tells  us,  that 
 it  assumes  '  all  men  to  be  alike  eligible  to  salvation.'  But 
 can  it  be  proved  that  all  are  not  so ;  and,  then,  can  our  opponents 
 point  out  who  really  are,  that  they  only  may  be  baptized  1 
 Or  would  he,  like  Tombes  and  Noel,  argue  that  no  infants 
 should  receive  the  rite,  lest  some  non-elected  babies  might 
 unfortunately  partake  of  the  benefit !  And  would  he  carry 
 out  this  cautious  procedure,  and  dip  no  adult,  lest  he  should 
 perchance  dip  a  hypocrite  or  an  unregenerate  convert ! 
 
 This,  however,  is  only  a  moiety  of  the  mischief.  Baptism 
 is  the  outward  sign  and  seal  of  grace  ;  and  it  intimates  that 
 this  is  conferred  on  all  that  undergo  this  ceremony !  But 
 what  does  our  good  brother  mean  by  the  outward  seal  of 
 grace — that  Protestant  Pedobaptists  regard  all  they  baptize 
 as  having  saving,  regenerating,  sanctifying  grace  assured  to 
 the  children  they  baptized  ?  If  so,  we  say,  he  was  grossly 
 ignorant  of  our  principles,  or  knowingly  misrepresented  them, 
 like  his  friends  Messrs.  Craps,  Draper,  and  others,  previously 
 quoted.  And  if  he  were  not,  and  meant  that  baptism  is  merely 
 a  token  of  God's  mercy  to  a  sinful  world,  a  sign  of  the  out- 
 pouring of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  introductory  rite  to  the 
 external  privileges  of  Christian  instruction — of  itself  neither 
 securing  nor  assuring  grace  to  any — it  would  puzzle  a  very 
 wise  head  to  discover  what  it  has  to  do  with  particular 
 redemption  or  the  universality  of  regenerating  grace. 
 
 Besides,  could  Mr.  Gibbs  or  his  brethren  prove,  that  all,  or 
 even  half,  they  dip,  are  personally  elected  to  eternal  life  ? 
 If  not,  does  not  his  argument  tell  against  their  own  doings 
 equally  as  against  ours  ?     To  be  consistent  with  their  own 
 
180  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 notions,  ought  they  not  to  obtain  some  special  token  from 
 heaven,  pointing  out  who,  for  certain,  are  really  the  elect 
 of  the  Lord  ?  Alas  !  what  some  rash  partizans  of  a  system 
 will  occasionally  advance  in  its  defence !  Might  he  not  also 
 have  brought  it  as  a  charge  against  us,  that  we  train  up  the 
 young  in  the  principles  of  religion,  and  use  our  best  efforts, 
 and  offer  up  our  fervent  prayers,  for  the  salvation  of  their 
 souls ;  as  this  equally  tends  to  defeat  the  purposes  of  God's 
 election,  as  baptizing  them,  or  dedicating  them  to  God  ? 
 Most  thinking  people  would  answer  yes,  a  great  deal  more 
 so  ;  and  that  all  the  pious  and  godly  ministers,  parents,  and 
 people  in  his  own  denomination  are  doing  as  much  in  this 
 way  as  those  who  practise  baby-sprinkling! 
 
 He  says,  further,  '  It  is  the  prominent  doctrine  of  those 
 '  national  establishments  which  pronounce  every  subject  of 
 '  their  spiritual  jurisdiction  a  member  of  Christ,  a  child  of 
 '  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Thus  it 
 '  is  we  find  personal  election,  particular  redemption,  and 
 'justification  denied  by  the  Romish  and  episcopalian  clergy 
 '  in  general ;  for  how  can  they  hold  doctrines  so  subversive  of 
 '  the  opinion  that  every  child  is  made  a  subject  of  grace  by 
 '  Baptism.'  p.  240.  Here,  like  his  friends  above  named,  he 
 confounds  the  rite  with  its  abuse  ;  and  which  perversion,  in 
 the  English  and  Romish  churches,  applies  to  adult  as  clearly 
 and  fully  as  to  Infant  Baptism.  The  state-religion,  oddly 
 enough,  maintains  personal  election  and  baptismal  regeneration 
 also ;  and  yet  its  clergy,  somehow,  are  not  so  puzzled  in  the 
 affair  as  our  opponents  imagine.  The  regenerating  grace  of 
 baptism  they  think  may  be  lost,  and,  at  last,  of  course,  its 
 predestinated  subjects  also !  But,  as  we  attach  no  such 
 virtues  to  the  rite,  we  are  not  answerable  for  the  errors  of 
 those  that  do  ;  and  it  is  most  unjust  to  attribute  the  conse- 
 quences of  their  system  to  ours. 
 
 Objection.  XII.  As  Infant  Baptism  is  not  plainly  com- 
 manded, nor  clearly  exemplified,  in  the  New  Testament,  it 
 is  certainly  prohibited. — It  is  further  argued,  that  duties 
 enjoined  under  former  economies,  or  practised  by  inspired 
 saints,  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  can  be  no  rule  or  directory 
 to  us,  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  Here,  it  is  to  be  noted, 
 that  if  this  objection  be  founded  on  a  correct  canon  of  Scrip- 
 tural interpretation,  it  must  apply  universally  ;  otherwise,  the 
 principle  must  be  vicious  and  false  ;  and,  therefore,  cannot 
 necessarily  apply  to  Infant  Baptism,  any  more  than  to  other 
 acts  and  declarations  found  in  the  Old  Testament.    Well,  then, 
 
IF  NOT  COMMANDED,  IS  TKOHIBITED.  181 
 
 in  no  part  of  the  New  Testament  is  it  positively  enjoined,  or 
 clearly  exemplified,  by  the  apostles  or  any  of  the  first  Christians, 
 with  the  manifest  approbation  of  God,  that  the  ministers  of 
 Christ  did  officiate  at  a  marriage,  or  at  a  funeral,  or  preach  from 
 a  pulpit,  or  preside  at  the  Lord's  table,  or  receive  pew-rents, 
 or  regular  salaries,  or  allowed  females  to  sit  down  with  men  at 
 the  eucharist,  or  kept  or  encouraged  Sunday  schools,  or  Bible 
 classes,  or  supported  Bible  or  Tract  societies,  or  erected  any 
 places  for  Christian  worship,  or  held  regular  week-day 
 meetings  for  social  prayer,  or  were  designated  Reverend,  or  had 
 organs  and  musical  instruments  in  their  religious  services,  or 
 sunk  baptistries  in  places  of  worship,  or  provided  garments 
 especially  for  baptismal  occasions.  Hence,  all  these,  and 
 many  other  deeds  and  practices,  among  our  opponents,  must 
 be  regarded  as  unscriptural,  unwarranted,  and  prohibited,  and 
 should  be  resisted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power — because 
 they  are  not  plainly  taught,  nor  clearly  exemplified,  in  the 
 New  Testament ! 
 
 To  rejoin,  that  these  things  may  be  tolerated,  as  being  in 
 accordance  with  the  genius  and  design  of  the  gospel,  or  may 
 be  sustained  by  the  practices  of  the  Hebrew  economy,  which 
 was  abrogated  only  in  part,  or  may  be  supported  by  the 
 procedure  of  the  early  post-apostolical  churches;  is  to 
 surrender  at  once  the  validity  of  the  objection ;  leaving  us  at 
 liberty  to  recur  to  the  Old  Testament,  or  to  the  spirit  of  the 
 New,  or  to  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  fathers,  for  direct 
 or  indirect  evidence  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism;  though  in 
 the  letter  of  the  gospel  itself,  there  might  be  neither  a  positive 
 command,  nor  a  clear  example,  in  its  favour.  It  may  be 
 added,  that  on  the  principle  plainly  involved  in  this  objection, 
 though  on  an  inverse  application  of  it,  we  should  be  led  to 
 the  conclusion,  that  all  the  apostles  did  or  sanctioned,  in  their 
 peculiar  circumstances,  down  to  the  minutest  acts  and  opera- 
 tions of  their  procedure,  must  be  done  by  all  their  ministerial 
 successors,  in  the  present  day;  and  that  to  omit  one  jot  or 
 tittle  of  them  would  be  iniquitous  !  All  we  require,  is  a  fair 
 and  legitimate  exposition  and  application  of  the  Word  of  God, 
 as  a  whole — carrying  out  the  spirit  and  genius  of  it  through 
 all  our  Christian  and  ministerial  operations.  And  if,  by  this 
 course,  we  can  defend  Infant  Baptism  ;  or  if,  by  similar  means 
 of  scriptural  interpretation,  our  opponents  cannot  effectually 
 oppose  it ;  we  think  that  all  intelligent  and  honourable  men 
 will  readily  award  a  verdict  in  our  favour. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  argues,  that  the  silence  of  Scripture  '  respecting 
 
182  OBJECTIONS  AX SWEEED  —  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 '  the  baptism  of  infants,  affords  the  stronger  evidence,  that 
 '  infants  were  not  then  baptized,  because,  had  they  been 
 '  required  to  be  baptized,  the  churches  needed  information  on 
 '  so  many  points  respecting  it ...  .  and,  lastly,  after  parents  had 
 1  baptized  their  children,  what  could  be  more  useful  or  more 
 '  necessary,  than  to  recal  to  Christian  parents  the  stipulations 
 '  which  they  had  made  for  their  children  at  the  time  of  their 
 'baptism?  Yet,  this  is  not  once  done.'  Sub.  p.  245,  246. 
 But,  in  the  first  place,  I  deny  that  the  Scriptures  are  silent  on 
 the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism.  Such  general  terms  are 
 employed  as  necessarily  refer  to,  and  include,  them  when  the 
 subject  of  baptism  is  the  topic  of  exposition.  When  the 
 inspired  penmen  speak  of  a  whole  nation,  all  the  Jews,  all  the 
 people,  in  reference  to  the  safety,  danger,  protection,  and 
 supplies  of  them  indiscriminately  and  without  exception  ;  are 
 not  children  included,  necessarily  and  always  ?  Are  they  not 
 referred  to  equally  with  youths  in  their  teens  and  with  men 
 in  old  age  ;  with  maidens  of  twenty  and  matrons  of  eighty  ; 
 with  the  poor  and  the  rich  ;  with  the  godly  and  the  unbeliever  ? 
 In  the  expressions,  all  the  people,  the  whole  nation,  the 
 different  classes  of  adults  are  not  mentioned  any  more  than  the 
 infant  community — and  it  might  be  said,  with  equal  truth, 
 that  the  Scriptures  are  as  silent  respecting  men  and  women,  as 
 respecting  infants.  To  argue,  that  the  incapacity  of  children 
 to  receive  the  baptismal  rite,  or  to  meet  the  claims  that  rite 
 involves,  is  to  beg  the  question,  and  to  assume  the  point  to  be 
 established.  Certain  it  is,  that  the  language  of  inspiration  is 
 not  silent  concerning  the  young  when  speaking  of  Baptism — 
 unless  it  can  be  proved,  from  other  data,  that  it  necessarily 
 and  purposely  excludes  them. 
 
 In  the  next  place,  I  remark,  that  were  dipping  the  proper 
 mode  of  baptism,  is  it  not  strange  that  there  should  not  be 
 definite  and  extensive  instruction  given,  as  to  the  manner  of 
 its  performance — that  the  information  should  be.  so  vague, 
 that  men  equally  learned,  sincere,  devout,  and  holy,  should  see 
 it  differently — some  believing  that  dipping  is  right,  and  others 
 that  sprinkling  only  is  proper  ?  Mr.  Noel  himself  does  not 
 decide  concerning  the  proper  mode  of  baptizing  from  the  words 
 used  in  the  New  Testament,  or  from  the  circumstances  in 
 which  the  act  was  administered  by  John  and  the  apostles ;  but 
 from  what  the  comparatively  modern  Rabbis  tell  us  respecting 
 the  mode  of  ancient  proselyte  baptism !  or  from  inferences 
 drawn  from  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the  prophets.  He 
 thinks  there  was  no  need  of  specific  instruction  in  the  New 
 
IF  NOT  COMMANDED,  IS  PROHIBITED.  183 
 
 Testament,  as  the  mode  was  so  well  and  so  generally  known 
 before  hand,  from  the  practice  of  the  Jews.  Well,  then,  were 
 not  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  as  fully  understood  as  the 
 mode  ;  and  needed  there  more  minute  directions  on  the  one 
 head  than  on  the  other  ?  Were  not  people  previously  con- 
 versant with  the  duties  of  parents  towards  the  young  persons 
 circumcised  and  baptized  to  Judaism  ;  and  would  they  not 
 thence  naturally  infer  how  the  little  proselytes  to  Christianity 
 were  also  to  be  trained  up  and  dealt  with  ?  If  the  former 
 baptisms  were  sufficiently  instructive,  as  to  the  mode,  why 
 not  as  to  the  subjects  ?  Assuredly,  there  was  no  more  difficulty 
 in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other.  Certainly,  Mr.  Noel  has 
 not  proved  the  contrary. 
 
 Again,  it  is  assumed,  that  adults  only  were  to  be  baptized 
 under  the  gospel  economy.  But  could  no  questions  fairly 
 arise  respecting  what  kinds  of  persons  were  to  undergo  this 
 ceremony  ?  Might  it  not  be  asked,  whether  both  sexes,  and 
 above  what  ages,  might  be  safely  baptized  ?  Whether  they 
 must  be  first  regenerated  by  the  Spirit,  or  whether  a  simple 
 profession  of  it  would  do,  to  render  the  ceremony  valid  and 
 abiding  ?  And,  then,  are  all  the  baptized  to  be  admitted  to 
 the  Lord's  supper  at  once,  or  are  they  first  to  be  further 
 trained  and  proved  ?  Is  this  baptism  the  act  of  the  minister, 
 or  of  the  church,  or  of  both?  Now,  if  adult  baptism  only  be 
 scriptural,  how  is  it  that  these  necessary  questions,  and  many 
 kindred  ones,  about  most  of  which  our  opponents  themselves 
 are  at  issue,  are  not  so  clearly  answered,  that  no  difference  of 
 opinion  could  reasonably  exist  among  wise  and  good  men 
 concerning  them  ?  And  as  they  are  confessedly  not  all 
 cleared  up  in  the  New  Testament,  does  not  this  render  it 
 equally  suspicious,  whether  this  adult  baptism  was  to  be 
 more  than  a  temporary  or  occasional  rite  in  the  beginning  of 
 the  Gospel  dispensation  ? 
 
 Here,  however,  our  brethren  present  us  with  their  own 
 solution.  The  baptized  proselyte  to  Judaism  must  have  been 
 a  believer,  a  penitent,  and  keep  the  whole  law  afterwards, 
 and  enjoy  all  the  religious  privileges  of  the  seed  of  Abraham. 
 We  also  maintain  that  proselyte  baptism  was  the  immediate 
 precursor  of  Christian  baptism.  In  this,  our  leading  opponents 
 fully  agree.  And  both  its  subjects  and  modes  must  have 
 been  perfectly  understood  by,  and  familiar  to,  the  Hebrews, 
 in  the  days  of  Christ.  No  particular  explanation  or  fresh 
 instruction  was  required,  any  more  than  a  new  exposition  of 
 the  fourth  commandment,  or  a  minute  account  of  the  ancient 
 
184      OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — POSITIVE  INSTITUTIONS 
 
 passover,  as  instituted  in  Egypt.  Baptism  was  baptism,  as 
 preaching  was  preaching,  in  every  age  of  the  church.  Hence, 
 Infant  Baptism  might  have  heen  common  among  the  early 
 Hebrew  Christians,  without  its  being  explained  anew  to  them 
 by  the  apostles,  whether  the  .children  of  only  a  class,  or  of 
 any  specific  character,  were  to  be  so  dedicated  to  God,  or 
 how  the  act  was  to  be  followed  out  by  their  parents  or  the 
 ministers  of  the  gospel.  I  repeat,  proselyte  infant  circumcision 
 and  baptism  being  admitted,  as  it  is  and  must  be  by  all  who 
 have  dispassionately  and  carefully  looked  into  the  subject ; 
 we  conclude,  that  if  these  rites  were  well  understood  and 
 prevalent,  before  John  appeared,  and  even  during  our  Lord's 
 ministry  ;  the  fact  of  so  little  being  said  about  them  by  the 
 apostles  and  evangelists,  as  to  the  exact  persons  to  be  baptized, 
 and  the  way  in  which  the  rite  was  to  be  performed,  is  easily 
 accounted  for,  and  affords  a  ready  and  clear  solution  of  the 
 difficulties  of  the  question.  The  same  persons,  as  to  age,  sex, 
 and  relationship,  would  be  baptized ;  and  the  same  mode 
 as  previously  would  be  adopted.  Whether  that  mode  were 
 dipping  or  sprinkling,  is  not  now  the  question  ;  nor  is  the 
 point  to  be  decided  by  what  the  Jewish  Rabbis  advance  ;  but 
 by  the  Word  of  God,  either  plainly  expressed  or  fairly  implied. 
 An  appeal  to  this  sacred  record  satisfies  us,  that,  both  as  to 
 the  subjects  and  the  mode,  we  are  perfectly  in  the  right. 
 
 I  might  further  ask  the  objector,  If  the  baptism  of  a  trained- 
 vp  and  truly  converted  Christian  be  not  plainly  commanded 
 and  clearly  exemplified  in  the  New  Testament,  is  it  not 
 certainly  prohibited  ?  Now,  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact, 
 that  the  baptism  of  such  persons  is  never  enjoined  nor 
 recorded  in  the  Word  of  God.  All  the  grown-up  subjects 
 of  apostolic  baptism  were  certainly  Jews  or  Heathens  when 
 first  initiated  by  this  rite  to  Christianity,  as  soon  as  they 
 heard,  and  were  brought  to  believe,  the  truth  of  the  gospel. 
 Usually,  there  was  not  the  delay  of  a  year,  a  month,  a  week, 
 or  a  day,  between  their  conversion  to  the  religion  of  Christ 
 and  their  baptism.  This  being  the  c<tse,  on  what  authority  are 
 people,  who  have  been  regularly  brought  up  in  the  school 
 of  Christianity,  and  converted  in  after  life,  baptized  by  our 
 objectors  ?  They  cannot  find  either  precedent  or  precept  for 
 such  an  act ;  nor  have  they  a  tithe  of  the  inferential  evidence 
 in  favour  of  it,  that  we  have  in  support  of  baptizing  the  children 
 of  baptized  parents.  If,  therefore,  the  want  of  a  plain  command 
 and  a  clear  instance,  in  our  case,  be  a  valid  prohibition  ;  surely 
 the  want  of  the  like,  in  respect  of  what  may  be  properly  termed 
 
NOT  UNDERSTOOD  BY  INFERENCE.  185 
 
 a  Christian's  baptism,  must  be  a  valid  prohibition  of  such 
 baptisms  as  prevail  among  our  opponents  !  They  also  tell  us 
 that  '  if  believers'  baptism  be  right,  Infant  Baptism  is  wrong.' 
 "We  reply,  if  the  baptism  of  a  Jew  or  of  a.  heathen  be  right, 
 then  the  baptism  of  a  trained-up  Christian,  by  the  same  rule, 
 must  be  wrong.  And  we  might,  on  the  same  grounds,  argue, 
 that  if  Infant  Baptism  be  right,  Adult  Baptism  is  wrong. 
 In  fact,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  if  the  Scriptures  are 
 to  he  cur  guide,  nine-tenths  of  the  subjects  of  baptism,  among 
 our  opposing  brethren,  are  wrong  subjects;  and  that  they 
 are  acting  contrary  to  the  practice  of  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
 in  baptizing  them. — Let  them  prove  the  like  of  Infant  Baptism, 
 if  they  can  ! 
 
 Objection  XIII.  Positive  institutions,  cannot  be  estab- 
 lished by  inference  or  analogical  reasonings,  but  must  depend 
 on  the  will  of  the  Saviour,  revealed  in  express  precepts. 
 Dr.  W.  Newman :  '  If  the  divine  commission  does  not  include,' 
 infants,  '  it  excludes  them.  For  by  the  nature  of  the  case, 
 '  positive  laws  imply  a  negative ;  what  is  not  required  is 
 '  forbidden.'  p.  23.  Mr.  Noel :  '  From  our  Lord's  naming 
 'believers  as  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  it  is  plain  that 
 '  none  others  must  be  baptized,  unless  Christian  ministers  have 
 
 •  his  authority  expressed  or  implied  to  baptize  them.'  Sub.  p.  43. 
 Here  Mr.  Noel's  proviso  neutralizes  Dr.  Newman's  assertion; 
 though  still  inculcating  the  same  object!  Mr.  Gibbs :  'Analogical 
 '  evidence,  which  can  never  amount  to  more  than  possible  pre- 
 '  sumption,  or  mere  probability,  should  not  be  admitted  as 
 '  authority  in  the  worship  of  God ;  and  we  maintain  that  no 
 '  ordinance  should  be  recognized  as  divinely  appointed,  upon 
 '  any  evidence  short  of  demonstrative  proof. 'p.  317-  Mr.  Booth: 
 '  As  the  sovereign  will  of  God  is  more  concerned  and  manifested 
 '  in  positive  ordinances  than  in  any  other  branches  of  holy 
 '  worship  ;  so  it  is  evident  from  the  history  of  the  Jewish 
 '  Church,  that  the  divine  jealousy  was  never  sooner  inflamed, 
 '  nor  ever  more  awfully  expressed,  than  when  God's  ancient 
 
 *  people  failed  in  their  obedience  to  such  commands,  or  deviated 
 '  from  the  prescribed  rule  of  such  institutions.  The  destruction 
 '  of  Nadab  and  Abihu  by  fire  from  heaven  ;  the  breach  that 
 '  was  made  upon  Uzzah  ;  the  stigma  fixed  and  the  curses 
 '  denounced  on  Jeroboam  ;  together  with  the  fall  and  ruin  of 
 4  all  mankind  by  our  father's  disobedience  to  a  positive 
 '  command,  are  among  the  many  authentic  proofs  of  this 
 '  assertion.  .  .  .Accursed  then  is  the  principle,  and  rebellious 
 '  is  the  conduct,  of  those  professors  who   think  themselves 
 
186      OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — POSITIVE  INSTITUTIONS 
 
 1  warranted  by  the  grace  of  the  gospel  to  trifle  with  God's 
 '  positive  appointments,  any  more  than  the  priests  or  the 
 'people  were  of  old.'  Consequently,  as  in  the  opinion  of 
 Mr.  Booth  and  his  brethren,  Infant  Baptism  is  a  deviation  from 
 the  prescribed  rule  of  the  positive  institution  of  Baptism ;  its 
 abettors  may  well  look  out  for  the  vengeance  of  Heaven  to  rest 
 upon  them  and  their  ungodly  rite  !  If  Pedobaptists  are  not 
 frightened  out  of  their  practice,  Mr.  Booth  will  not  be  to  blame 
 for  their  mental  equanimity. 
 
 In  replying  to  these  objections,  I  cannot  do  better  than 
 commence  by  citing  the  language  of  an  able  anonymous  writer : 
 '  This  is  the  principal  pillar  our  plunging  brethren  have  to 
 '  support  their  hypothesis  against  us.  Now,  if  we  can  remove 
 '  this  huge  pillar,  their  building  must  come  to  the  ground. 
 '  Well,  this  we  can  easily  do,  by  following  their  own  principles 
 '  and  practice.  It  is  well  known  by  all  intelligent  Christians, 
 '  that  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  positive  ordinance, 
 '  and  that  no  express  command  is  given  for  females  to  partake 
 '  of  it,  as  none  but  men  were  present  at  its  first  institution, 
 '  and  the  command  is  only  expressly  given  to  men.  See  1  Cor. 
 'xi.  28.  Yet,  your  plunging  brethren  will  very  justly  prove 
 '  from  Scripture,  that  females  ought  to  partake  of  it.  But 
 '  how  do  they  prove  this  ?  Exactly  in  the  same  way,  as  we 
 '  do  Infant  Baptism,  by  inference,  or  from  passages  of  Scripture 
 '  from  which  it  may  be  fairly  inferred.  For  instance,  they 
 'justly  show,  from  Gal.  iii.  28,  that  male  and  female  are  all 
 '  one  in  Christ ;  that  women  are  included,  in  the  common 
 '  gender  of  man,  in  the  passage  already  noted,  1  Cor.  xi.  28, 
 '  and  also  from  1  Timothy  ii.  5,  in  which  women  (and  here  we  also 
 '  add  infants  too)  are  included  in  the  mediation  of  Christ  in 
 '  the  same  gender  of  man,  or  mankind,  the  species  of  human 
 '  beings.  Now,  observe  the  proof  is  not  express,  but  fairly 
 '  drawn  by  inference  ;  and,  besides,  our  plunging  brethren 
 '  have  no  positive  or  express  Scripture  warrant  to  keep  the 
 '  Sabbath  or  the  first  day  of  the  week  ;  yet  they  do  not  consider 
 '  a  positive  command  necessary  to  warrant  their  practice  in 
 '  this  as  well  as  in  many  other  religious  services,  but  establish 
 '  the  propriety  of  their  conduct  by  drawing  fair  inferences. 
 '  Now,  if  they  allow  themselves  this  reasonable  privilege,  is  it 
 '  not  exceedingly  unfair  in  them  to  deny  us  the  same  ? ' 
 
 It  is  observable,  that  while  our  brethren  are  so  scrupulous 
 and  rigid  in  adhering  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  when  Infant 
 Baptism  is  to  be  opposed ;  they  can  not  only  surrender 
 positive   Scripture  testimony  to  their  antagonists,  but   even 
 
NOT  UNDERSTOOD  BY  INHERENCE.  187 
 
 sanction  what  they  deem  erroneous  opinions  and  practices 
 for  party  purposes.  Mr.  Noel  says,  '  It  is  well  known  that 
 1  many  churches  admit  to  the  Lord's  table  none  who  are 
 '  unbaptized'  [by  dipping.]  '  In  my  opinion  this  practice  is 
 '  erroneous  ;  but  as  it  is  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  nearly 
 4  all  Christian  churches,'  [who  hold  adult  baptism,]  '  it  should 
 '  be  respected  as  the  result  of  conscientious  conviction,  rather 
 1  than  be  treated  as  an  offence.'  p.  290.  Will  Mr.  Noel,  or  any 
 of  his  open-communionist  brethren,  reason  in  the  same  tolerant 
 spirit  respecting  the  dedication  of  infants  to  God  in  baptism  1 
 Surely,  the  errors  of  both  practices,  should  not  appear  to  be 
 so  widely  different,  even  in  his  own  view,  when  good  old 
 Dr.  Ryland  could  see  no  objection  to  ours,  but  the  want  of  a 
 plain  warrant  from  the  Word  of  God  !  p.  23.  Mr.  Noel  adds, 
 '  one  who  was  sprinkled  in  his  infancy  has  not  in  his  passive 
 '  reception  of  that  rite  either  complied  with  the  form  or  fulfilled 
 '  the  reality  of  baptism. .  .  .he  is,  therefore,  unbaptized. .  . . 
 '  There  is  no  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  any  person 
 '  who  was  converted  to  Christ,  after  he  commissioned  his 
 '  disciples  to  baptize,  coming  to  the  Lord's  table  unbaptized.' 
 p.  290.  Yet,  abandoning  Christian  precedent,  the  erroneous 
 practice  of  admitting  undipped  persons  to  the  Lord's  table  is, 
 it  seems,  practised  in  his  own  church,  and  in  that  of  numerous 
 other  Baptist  ministers !  Why,  I  inquire,  is  conscience  so 
 rigid  in  the  one  case,  and  so  reckless  in  the  other  ?  Can  it 
 possibly  be,  that  sectarian  considerations,  numerical  displays, 
 seat-rents,  and  subscriptions,  have  any  thing  to  do  with  this 
 diversity  of  operations  ?  For,  surely,  to  sprinkle  a  baby  in 
 baptism  cannot  be  more  dangerous,  than  admitting  persons  to 
 the  Lord's  supper,  who  have  no  scriptural  right  to  be  there  ! 
 
 In  their  attempts  to  prove  exclusive  adult  believers'  baptism, 
 by  immersing  the  subject  in  water  ;  our  opponents  invariably 
 and  necessarily  employ  inference  in  their  procedure,  whether 
 always  conscious  of  it  or  not.  Indeed,  the  assumptions  on 
 which  they  build  their  scheme  are  far  more  numerous  than 
 we  employ  in  defending  Infant  Baptism  by  affusion  ;  and 
 many  of  the  former  are  of  the  most  gratuitous  kind,  as  the 
 reader  of  their  works,  on  this  head,  cannot  fail  to  discover. 
 However,  the  question  here  is,  not  so  much,  whether  they  or 
 we  have  the  better  ground  for  our  respective  inferences,  as 
 whether  such  a  mode  of  argumentation  is  appropriate  to  the 
 matter  under  consideration  ?  The  motives  of  the  Baptists  for 
 objecting  to  inferential  proofs  in  the  case  in  question  are 
 evident.     A.  few  passages,   superficially  regarded,  appear  to 
 
188      OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — POSITIVE  INSTITUTIONS 
 
 speak  in  their  favour  ;  and  in  their  plain  literal  import,  are 
 supposed  to  tell  against  our  practice,  especially  in  the  minds 
 of  the  unreflecting.  Hence,  there  must  be  no  meddling  with 
 them  lest  the  spell  be  broken,  and  its  effect  be  lost  on  the 
 mind  of  the  masses  ! 
 
 Mr.  Keach  remarks,  '  When  Christ  in  the  affirmative 
 1  declares,  who  he  would  have  baptized  ;  doth  it  not  follow 
 '  that  in  the  negative,  none  else  ought  to  be  baptized '  [but 
 those  that  believe?^  'In  other  cases  you  would  not  argue 
 '  thus,  as  for  example,  when  God  commanded  Abraham  to 
 '  circumcise  his  male  infants,  doth  he  not  implicitly  forbid 
 'the  circumcising  of  his  female  children?  And  when  he 
 '  commanded  him  to  circumcise  them  on  the  eighth  day,  doth 
 '  he  not  implicitly  forbid  him  to  circumcise  them  on  the 
 '  seventh  or  ninth  day?. .  .  .Are  not  all  those  persons  that  a 
 '  testator,  in  his  last  will  and  testament,  leaveth  out,  or 
 '  expresseth  not,  excluded  from  any  legacy  in  the  said  will? 
 'Now,  the  great  commission,  Matt,  xxviii.,  Mark  xvi.,  is  also 
 '  Christ's  last  will  and  testament,  about  the  right  of  baptism, 
 '  viz. :  who  are  right  subjects,  and  they  are  expressed  by  their 
 '  qualifications,  viz. :  disciples,  or  persons  taught,  or  such  that 
 *  believe,  &c.'  p.  229.  Now,  if  Mr.  Keach's  premises  were 
 valid,  his  inferences  would  be  indisputable.  Had  the  com- 
 mission run,  'baptize  intelligent  and  godly  adults  who  believe 
 'with  the  heart  the  gospel  of  Christ;'  and  had  there  been  no 
 prior  custom,  nor  collateral  expressions  in  the  Scriptures,  to 
 modify  the  language ;  no  true  and  sincere  follower  of  Christ 
 would  ever  have  thought  of  baptizing  babies,  any  more  than  of 
 marrying  them  at  three  years  of  age.  But,  unfortunately  for 
 the  argument  of  our  opponent,  the  commission  simply  states, 
 that  disciples  or  proselytes  are  to  be  baptized ;  and  we  learn 
 that  children  may  be  such ;  and  we  know,  too,  that  such  had 
 long  been  the  subjects  of  this  initiatory  rite.  In  no  instance 
 is  it  declared,  he  that  believeth  is  converted,  and  fully  instructed 
 in  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  walks  worthy  of-  his  high 
 vocation,  may,  or  shall,  be  baptized  with  water.  All  that  we 
 can  gather  from  the  sacred  records,  is  that  such  people,  not 
 previously  baptized  to  Christ,  should  not  be  denied  this  rite, 
 and  that  some  such  actually  underwent  it.  Baptism  is  no 
 more  confined  to  the  believer,  or  to  the  converted,  or  to  the 
 penitent,  than  salvation  is  limited  to  them.  The  only  text  that 
 seems  to  render  faith  prerequisite  to  baptism,  (Mark  xvi.  1G, 
 of  which  more  hereafter,)  makes  it  equally  prerequisite  to  future 
 happiness  ;  and  would  as  certainly  keep  children  out  of  heaven, 
 
NOT  UNDERSTOOD  BY  INFERENCE.  189 
 
 as  from  the  baptismal  font.  Therefore,  such  an  interpretation 
 of  it  must  unquestionably  be  erroneous. 
 
 No  person  will  question,  that  the  disciples  to  whom  our 
 Lord  verbally  delivered  his  last  commission  fully  understood 
 his  intention,  or  that  they  failed  to  act  upon  it  in  their  sub- 
 sequent ministrations.  Nor  will  it  be  doubted,  that  whenever 
 they  baptized  the  believing  heads  of  a  family  at  home,  they 
 always  baptized  their  families  with  them — at  the  same  time, 
 and  in  the  same  way — whatever  were  the  sex  or  age  of  the 
 latter ;  we  may  therefore  conclude,  that,  to  baptize  families, 
 formed  one  sense  of  our  Lord's  command.  Now,  let  it  be 
 supposed,  that  what  the  disciples  understood  by  the  commission, 
 had  been  literally  expressed  in  it,  '  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
 '  — proselyte — all  families,  baptizing  them  in  the  name,  &c.' 
 This  constitutes  a  clearly  implied  clause  in  our  Lord's  last 
 will  and  testament.  The  preceding  practice  of  domestic 
 proselytism  and  baptism  would  be  regarded  as  a  key  to  open 
 the  precise  nature  of  the  injunction  ;  and  the  following  practice 
 of  the  apostles  plainly  evinces  how  they  construed  our  Lord's 
 intentions.  They  must  have  felt  that  they  were  as  positively 
 enjoined  to  baptize  families  as  nations,  or  nations  by  families. 
 There  is  only  one  commission,  comprehending  baptism,  given 
 by  our  Lord.  In  this  there  is  not  a  word  about  spiritual 
 conversion,  saving  faith,  or  the  acquisition  of  scriptural 
 knowledge.  The  people  were  to  be  made  disciples,  proselyted 
 to  Christianity,  or  brought  over  to  the  Christian  religion,  and  then 
 baptized  and  taught.  All  this  is  plain,  and  the  consecration 
 of  families  was  manifestly  the  result.  Tombes  says,  '  The 
 '  institution  appoints  only  disciples  of  all  nations  to  be  baptized  ; 
 '  but  infants  are  not  such  ;  therefore  the  institution  doth  not 
 '  warrant  their  baptism.'  p.  152.  The  assertion  that  infants 
 are  not  or  cannot  be  disciples  is  false,  as  will  afterwards  appear. 
 Why  may  they  not  be  disciples  as  much  as  the  untaught 
 heathens,  whom  the  apostles  baptized  after  preaching  to  them 
 a  sermon  of  less  than  an  hour  long,  or  immediately  after  the 
 performance  of  some  miracle  had  induced  the  astonished 
 gentile  to  give  in  his  adhesion  to  Christianity  ? 
 
 Mr.  Keach's  assertion,  that  God  forbade  Abraham  to  circum- 
 cise females,  for  which  they  were  physically  incapacitated,  is 
 absurd  ;  and  was  either  meant,  or  calculated,  only  to  impose 
 on  the  grossly  ignorant.  He  might  as  consistently  have 
 said,  God  indirectly  forbade  the  Patriarch  to  furnish  them 
 with  wings,  and,  at  once,  to  send  them  flying  over  the  country. 
 Again,  when  he  adds,  God  forbade  the  circumcising  of  children 
 
190        OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — POSITIVE  INSTITUTIONS 
 
 only  on  the  eighth  day  ;  his  assertion  is  not  literally  true,  and 
 but  partially  carried  out ;  nor  so  understood  by  God's  ancient 
 people  ;  for  probably  not  a  dozen  of  Abraham's  male  domestics 
 underwent  this  rite  at  that  precise  period  of  life.  And  when 
 the  national  circumcision  took  place,  in  the  time  of  Joshua, 
 hundreds  of  thousands,  above  eight  days  old,  must  have 
 submitted  to  this  ceremony.  Nor  is  it  to  be  overlooked, 
 that  on  adult  proselytes,  from  heathenism  to  the  worship  of  the 
 true  God,  it  was  practised  on  all  ages  ; — and  it  is  supposed, 
 that  at  some  periods  of  their  history  it  was  done  very 
 numerously.  The  writer's  aim  appears  to  have  been  to 
 make  out  a  striking  case  of  positive  law  adverse  to  Infant 
 Baptism  ;  but  it  is  evidently  a  positive  failure.  It  is  akin  to 
 the  statements  of  certain  authors  on  his  side  of  the  question, 
 who  imagine  that  because  they  read  of  grown-up  believers 
 being  baptized,  therefore,  none  beside  were  to  undergo  the 
 ceremony — being  a  contracted,  partial,  and  unsatisfactory  view 
 of  the  whole  question  under  consideration.  That  the  circum- 
 cision of  infants  of  eight  days  old  was  to  be  the  future  ordinary 
 rule  is  plain  enough ;  just  as  Infant  Baptism  was  to  be  the 
 general  practice ;  though  exceptions  in  both  cases  were  always 
 admissible.  It  is  observable,  that  when  we  refer  to  the 
 circumcision  of  the  Hebrews,  in  defence  of  our  baptism  of 
 infants,  we  are  gravely  told,  that  nothing  is  to  be  gathered 
 from  that  ancient  and  unique  institution  on  the  question. 
 But  when  any  inference  can  be  drawn  from  it,  legitimate 
 or  not,  against  baby-sprinkling,  our  opponents,  as  in  the 
 instance  under  notice,  avail  themselves  of  it  with  the  highest 
 self-satisfaction. 
 
 It  may  here  be  proper  to  remark,  that  there  is  no  positive 
 law  or  institution  to  be  found  in  the  Word  of  God,  which  does 
 not  require  reasoning  and  inference  before  it  can  be  safely 
 applied  by  ourselves  and  our  cotemporaries. — Instance  the 
 Lord's  Supper.  This  is  as  plain  and  positive  an  institution 
 as  can  be  found  in  the  New  Testament.  But  are  there  not 
 questions  arising  concerning  it,  which  require  a  solution? 
 Is  it  to  be  perpetual?  Who  may  be  the  communicants? 
 What  kind  of  bread  and  wine  are  to  be  used?  How  often  is 
 it  to  be  observed  ?  What  postures  are  we  to  assume  ?  Who 
 may  preside  on  such  occasions?  And  what  is  the  spiritual 
 design  of  the  ordinance?  On  all  these  particulars  different 
 opinions  are  held  by  Christian  men. — Take  the  Gospel 
 Ministry.  What  more  plain  and  positive  than  the  divine 
 commission  to  preach  the  word  ?    And  yet,  how  many  points 
 
NOT  UNDERSTOOD  BY  INFERENCE.  191 
 
 of  inquiry  present  themselves  to  our  minds,  before  we  have 
 fairly  come  to  a  safe  practical  conclusion  on  the  subject  ? 
 Who  now  may  preach  ?  What  endowments  or  qualifications 
 must  preachers  possess  ?  Where  should  they  proclaim  the 
 Gospel  ?  Must  their  method  be  textual  or  expository  ?  Who 
 is  to  decide  on  the  preacher's  abilities  ?  And  how  is  he  to 
 get  support? — Take  the  Fourth  Commandment.  Are  we  to 
 keep  the  ancient  sabbath,  or  the  first  day  of  the  week — out  of 
 the  Holy  Land?  When  does  it  begin,  at  the  previous  sun- 
 setting,  or  in  the  morning  of  the  same  day?  How  are  we  to 
 keep  it?  What  are  the  works  forbidden  on  it  ?  What  religious 
 duties  should  be  performed  during  its  sanctified  hours?  Is 
 the  day  unchangeable  or  not?  In  what  way  are  its  sanctions 
 to  be  now  applied? — Other  cases  might  be  mentioned,  and 
 other  questions  proposed.  But  can  any  of  them  be  fairly 
 answered,  without  the  exercise  of  our  reasoning  and  inductive 
 powers,  or  without  recourse  being  had  to  other  parts  of 
 Scripture  ? 
 
 The  truth  is,  that  all  scriptural  institutions  are  partly  moral 
 and  partly  positive.  The  ultimate  designs  of  them  are  readily 
 discoverable;  while  the  mode  of  conducting  them  can  be 
 gathered  only  from  divine  prescriptions.  For  example :  Circum- 
 cision, Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  Sabbath,  are 
 positive  enactments.  Their  ultimate  purpose,  true  piety  and 
 devotion  would  naturally  aim  to  accomplish.  But  the  precise 
 modes  of  effecting  it  are  matters  of  revelation.  Reason  would 
 never  have  found  them  out.  But  in  carefully  attending  to  the 
 injunctions  of  Scripture,  and  exercising  the  faculties  with  which 
 we  are  graciously  furnished,  we  can  easily  arrive  at  the  know- 
 ledge requisite  to  direct  us  in  performing  God's  revealed 
 pleasure.  Baptism  is  placed  in  the  category  of  positive 
 institutions.  Concerning  the  subjects,  or  those  who  shall 
 undergo  the  rite,  the  manner  in  which  it  is  to  be  administered, 
 and  the  intermediate  benefits  to  be  accomplished  by  it,  we 
 must  employ  our  intellects  as  we  would  on  any  other  question 
 about  which  it  is  possible  for  honest  minds  to  differ,  and  to 
 arrive  at  various  or  contrary  conclusions.  It  is  also  well-known, 
 that  the  strictly  literal,  is  not  always  the  true,  import  of 
 language.  Transubstantiation  is  based  on  the  phrases,  'This 
 '  is  my  body,  This  is  my  blood.'  All  that  can  be  required  is 
 a  fair,  consistent,  exposition  of  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
 whatever  style  of  expression,  or  degree  of  plainness,  or  method 
 of  illustration,  he  may  have  employed.  Whoever  assumes 
 that  Infant  Baptism  is  not  true,  because  it  is  not  so  expressed 
 
192        OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — POSITIVE  INSTITUTIONS 
 
 in  explicit  and  unmistakeable  terms ;  has  yet  to  learn  the  laws 
 which  govern  all  holy  and  intelligent  interpretations  of  the 
 Scriptures  of  God.  When  our  Lord  said  to  his  disciples,  'As- 
 '  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them 
 'likewise;'  Luke  vi.  31;  he  recognized  and  commanded  the 
 duty  of  exercising  our  faculties  in  determining,  on  Christian 
 principles,  what  we  should  do  in  all  cases  requiring  the  use  of 
 our  reasoning  powers. 
 
 And  why  should  not  Positive  Injunctions  be  regarded  in 
 the  same  light  as  Positive  Institutions — and  be  taken  in  their 
 literal  sense,  without  the  intervention  of  reasoning  and  inference  ? 
 I  am  not  aware,  that  any  valid  grounds  for  viewing  them  in  a 
 different  manner  can  he  justly  assigned  by  our  opponents. 
 Of  plain  and  positive  commands,  many  might  be  adduced 
 from  the  Word  of  God.  I  will  content  myself  with  the  following, 
 as  a  good  specimen :  '  Unto  him  that  smiteth  thee  on  the  one 
 '  cheek,  offer  also  the  other ;  and  him  that  taketh  away  thy 
 '  cloak,  forbid  him  not  to  take  thy  coat  also.  Give  to  every 
 '  one  that  asketh  thee ;  and  of  him  that  taketh  away  thy  goods, 
 '  ask  them  not  again.'  Luke  vi.  29,  30.  No  authority  can 
 be  higher  than  that  of  the  Divine  Speaker.  No  terms  can  be 
 more  simple  or  positive.  And  the  individual  application  of 
 the  language  is  manifest.  Will  our  Baptist  brethren  take 
 the  text  literally?  Will  they  act  it  out  scrupulously?  And 
 will  they  let  their  views  on  the  point  be  known  generally  to  their 
 pugnacious  and  pilfering  neighbours!  Alas!  they  will  not. 
 They  must  explain  the  words ;  show  what  they  consider  the 
 true  bearing  of  them ;  and  adduce  certain  inferences  which 
 may  be  fairly  drawn  from  them !  But  why  ?  They  contain  not 
 a  word  of  reservation,  proviso,  or  hidden  purposes.  They,  in 
 fact,  constitute  a  positive  institution  on  Christian  charity  and 
 forbearance,  as  much  so  as  the  commission  of  Christ  does 
 respecting  Infant  Baptism.  And  while  our  opponents  recur 
 to  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  for  the  purpose  of  expounding  the 
 former  positive  declaration ;  surely  they  cannot  consistently 
 refuse  our  doing  the  like,  in  order  to  understand  the  real 
 purport  of  the  latter. 
 
 To  amplify  our  previous  method  of  exposing  the  fallacy  of 
 our  opponents'  objection,  I  observe,  that  whether  any  of  them 
 are  fully  conscious  of  the  fact  or  not,  it  is  beyond  all  doubt, 
 that,  in  order  to  sustain  their  own  practice,  they  are  incessantly 
 supposing,  assuming,  inferring,  and  deducing,  and  often  taking 
 disputable  points  as  granted,  both  as  to  the  subjects  and  modes 
 of  baptism.    For  instance,  as  to  their  own  Subjects  of  Baptism, 
 
NOT  UNDERSTOOD  BY  INFERENCE.  193 
 
 let  me  ask,  Were  persons  to  be  baptized  after  the  apostolic 
 age  of  miracles?  Were  any  but  the  first  converts  from 
 Judaism  and  heathenism  to  be  baptized,  and  not  their  natural 
 descendants  ?  How  much  knowledge  must  precede  baptism, 
 and  how  much  left  to  be  acquired  afterwards  ?  What  confession 
 must  the  candidates  make?  What  degree  of  Christian 
 experience  and  holiness  is  prerequisite?  What  is  the  lowest 
 age  when  a  person  may  be  baptized?  What  must  be  believed 
 in  order  to  be  regarded  as  a  qualified  disciple?  How  deep 
 must  be  his  repentance  for  sin?  Must  he  apply  for  baptism, 
 or  must  he  be  applied  to  ?  Who  is  to  judge  of  his  qualification, 
 the  minister  or  his  people?  May  a  layman  administer  the 
 rite  to  the  candidates  ?  and  is  he  to  be  baptized  into  the  general 
 or  into  the  particular  church?  Take  their  oivn  Mode  of 
 Baptism :  Did  the  Jewish  proselytes  dip  themselves,  or  did 
 the  priests  dip  them;  and  were  the  first  Christian  converts 
 guided  by  the  Jewish  practice?  Were  the  candidates  dipped 
 naked,  or  in  their  ordinary  attire,  or  in  dresses  made  for  the 
 occasion  ?  Did  the  Apostles  baptize  in  the  name  of  the 
 Trinity,  or  only  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  which  is  the  proper 
 form  of  speech  now?  Were  the  women  dipped  separately,  or 
 with  the  men?  Did  they  immerse  only  in  natural  streams,  or 
 in  open  reservoirs  of  water,  or  also  in  enclosed  artificial 
 baptistries?  Must  the  water  touch  every  part  of  the  body, 
 or  will  wetting  the  larger  part  of  it  suffice  ?  Are  the 
 candidates  to  be  dipped  backward  or  forward,  or  either  way 
 most  convenient? 
 
 These,  and  many  similar  queries  might  be  proposed ;  indeed, 
 they  naturally  present  themselves  to  the  inquiring  mind,  while 
 seriously  meditating  on  the  question  of  Baptism  ;  and  about 
 the  solution  of  most  of  them,  authors  have  puzzled  their 
 brains,  and  filled  many  a  quire  of  valuable  paper.  And  yet, 
 after  all,  would  not  our  brethren  be  still  put  to  some 
 considerable  amount  of  reflection  before  they  can  fairly  and 
 satisfactorily  answer  them  ?  It  involves  very  little  trouble  to 
 conclude,  at  will,  that  some  particular  course  is  right,  without 
 taking  a  broad  and  minute  survey  of  the  entire  subject,  and 
 seeing  what  other  methods  the  language  may  enjoin  or  tolerate. 
 Our  opponents  demand  of  us  definite  statements  and  positive 
 evidence  in  support  of  the  plans  we  adopt;  and  yet  they  can 
 adduce  nothing  unequivocal  and  specific  in  support  of  their 
 own!  They  employ  criticisms,  analogies,  and  inferences,  to 
 defend  their  own  procedure ;  but  when  Infant  Baptism  is  to 
 be  opposed,  we  must  not  exercise  our  reasoning  powers  at  all ; 
 
 I 
 
194  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — 
 
 criticisms  must  be  repudiated;  and  inferences  are  totally 
 irrelevant  to  the  subject!  How  accordant  with  honorable 
 debate  such  requirements  are,  we  shall  leave  it  with  the  reader 
 to  determine.  How  little  confidence  can  they  feel  in  the 
 strength  of  their  own  principles  and  practices,  who  would,  if 
 they  could,  prevent  our  arguing  the  question  at  issue  between 
 us  and  themselves,  as  is  universally  done  in  other  matters 
 of  theological  difficulty !  The  fact  is,  that  when  hard  pressed 
 on  this  point,  Mr.  Tombes  fully  and  frankly  conceded  the 
 untenableness  of  his  previous  position.  '  I  readily  grant,  that 
 1  whatever  in  positive  worship  is  commanded  in  the  New  Testa- 
 '  ment,  though  it  be  not  in  formal  terms  commanded,  yet,  if  it 
 '  may  be  gathered  by  virtual  consequence,  ought  to  be  done.' 
 Exam.  p.  112. 
 
 Objection  XIV.  '  Baptism  is  the  profession  of  faith,  the 
 '  public  confession  of  Christ,  without  which  confession  there 
 'is  no  true  faith  and  no  salvation.1  [What,  not  for  infants  ?] 
 '  So  Jesus  has  himself  pronounced,  Matt.  x.  32,  33  ;  see  also 
 'Rom.  x.  8-10;  Rev.  xxi.  8.  And  as  the  confession  of  Christ  is 
 'necessary  to  salvation, '[what,  for  infants?] 'so  is  baptism  to  those 
 '  who  know  that  this  is  the  appointed  method  of  confessing  him,' 
 [unless  there  are  more  ways  than  one  of  confessing  Christ !]  Noel, 
 Sub.  p.  95.  'A  profession  of  faith  is  necessary  at  the  beginning 
 '  of  a  Christian  life,  and  no  act  of  profession  can  be  more  solemn 
 '  or  expressive  than  this.'  [And  none  more  fallacious.]  lb. 
 p.  17-  '  This  day's  work,'  says  Dr.  Ryland,  on  dipping  an  adult, 
 '  is  but  the  commencement  of  a  public  profession  of  ardent 
 '  attachment  to  him  that  loved  you  and  gave  himself  for  you.' 
 p.  32. — Now,  suppose  the  Dr.  had  dipped  an  individual  who 
 had  been  a  pious  member  of  an  Independent  or  Wesleyan  church 
 for  many  years  past ;  had  long  been  a  sunday-school  teacher ;  a 
 tract  distributor  ;  a  visitor  of  the  sick  ;  and  had  taken  an  active 
 part  in  their  church  and  prayer  meetings  ; — but  who  had  just 
 altered  his  views  on  the  mode  of  baptism — how  oddly  would 
 the  above  declaration  have  sounded !  Or  suppose  that  when 
 Mr.  Noel  was  dipped,  the  like  phraseology  had  been  used 
 concerning  him !  How  would  the  spectators  have  lifted  up 
 their  hands  and  eyes  in  astonishment! — thinking,  probably, 
 aloud :  '  What,  did  he  never  make  a  public  profession  of 
 '  ardent  attachment  to  Christ  before  now  ?  Is  this  the  beginning 
 '  of  his  Christian  life  ?  '  And,  yet,  the  notion  is  inculcated  and 
 common,  that  no  real  profession  of  love  to  God,  or  of  faith  in 
 Christ,  is  made,  but  at  the  baptistry  !  What !  do  not  Pedo- 
 baptist  ministers,  missionaries,  members  of  Christian  societies, 
 
BAPTISM  A  PROFESSION  OF  FAITH.  195 
 
 and  benevolent  and  laborious  disciples  of  our  blessed  Saviour, 
 make  a  public,  a  full,  and  an  unequivocal  confession  and 
 profession  of  religion  in  their  lives,  worship,  work,  and  at 
 the  table  of  the  Lord,  as  effectually  and  devoutly,  as  any 
 other  persons  do  when  dipped  in  a  baptistry  or  a  river? 
 
 That  our  opponents  require  a  profession  of  faith  and  a 
 confession  of  Christ,  in  their  candidates  for  baptism,  we  all 
 know.  The  latter  are  questioned  concerning  their  conversion, 
 experience,  doctrines,  views  of  church  government,  and  modes 
 of  life  ;  sometimes  very  minutely  and  rigidly  ;  and,  in  some 
 instances,  satisfactory  answers  are  returned,  before  immersion 
 is  administered  to  the  parties.  But  what  authority  does  the 
 Word  of  God  afford  for  such  investigations  and  replies  ?  That 
 adults,  at  the  first,  before  submitting  to  the  ordinance  of 
 baptism,  believed  Christ  to  have  been  the  Messiah,  and  tacitly, 
 at  least,  professed  to  cleave  to  him,  as  the  Redeemer  of  men, 
 or  the  king  of  the  Jews,  we  also  cordially  concede  : — for, 
 without  the  adoption  of  such  sentiments,  or  the  expression  of 
 such  resolutions,  they  would  not  have  been  baptized  by  the 
 ministers  of  the  Christian  religion.  This,  however,  cannot  be 
 regarded  as  a  profession  of  faith,  or  a  public  confession  of 
 Christ,  as  understood  by  our  opponents, — provided  their 
 practice  be  a  true  exponent  of  their  sentiments  ;  and  would  by 
 no  means  satisfy  the  most  lax  or  the  least  rigid  among  them. 
 
 But,  assuming,  that  a  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  the 
 Saviour  was  an  essential  prerequisite  to  baptism ;  it  could, 
 only  apply  to  adults  who  were  capable  of  exercising  this  faith ; 
 and  must  leave  the  question  of  infants  totally  unaffected.  The 
 Jewish  proselyte  must  have  believed  in  the  Hebrew  religion, 
 and  have  made  a  profession  of  his  faith,  and  have  avowed  his 
 resolution  to  keep  the  law ;  but  his  children  were  not 
 obliged  or  required  to  do  the  same,  previous  to  their  circum- 
 cision and  baptism,  in  conjunction  with  their  parents.  And  if 
 New  Testament  baptisms  were  like  those  of  the  Old — which 
 our  objectors  admit, — why  must  none  be  baptized  now,  who 
 are  not  capable  of  professing  faith  and  confessing  Christ  ?  To 
 reply,  that  Christianity  is  a  more  spiritual  and  personal  affair 
 than  the  former  dispensation,  (which,  however,  is  but  very 
 partially  true)  does  not  meet  the  case  ;  since  the  like  leading 
 principles  might  have  been  observed  under  both  economies — 
 as  doubtless  they  were. 
 
 But  it  is  a  groundless  assumption,  that  a  profession  of  faith, 
 or  a  public  confession  of  Christ,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
 terms,  was  ever  required  or  given  prior  to  any  New  Testament 
 
196  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — 
 
 Baptisms  ;  unless  the  simple  act  of  being  baptized  be  construed 
 into  such  an  act ;  and  then  it  would  include  infants  equally 
 with  men  and  women.  All  that  John's  converts  did  was 
 to  '  confess  their  sins.'  The  Samaritans  '  believed  Philip 
 '  preaching  the  things  concerning  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the 
 ■  name  of  Jesus.'  The  three  thousand  asked  the  apostles, 
 '  what  shall  we  do  V  And,  when  informed,  '  they  gladly 
 '  received  the  word,'  which  Peter  proclaimed  in  their  hearing, 
 (though  the  term  '  gladly '  here  is  said  to  be  of  doubtful 
 authority.)  Cornelius  made  no  confession  of  faith ;  nor  did 
 the  Jailor ;  nor  did  Saul  of  Tarsus ;  nor  did  Lydia,  who 
 simply  attended  to  the  things  which  were  spoken  of  Paul; 
 nor  did  the  Eunuch — according  to  the  generally  admitted 
 correct  version  of  the  narrative  of  his  baptism ;  nor  did 
 Stephanus,  nor  Crispus,  nor  Gaius — nor  any  one  else,  who 
 received  the  ordinance  at  the  hands  of  the  first  ministers  of 
 the  gospel.  Men  were  baptized  '  unto  Christ' — or  consecrated 
 to  him.  They  were  baptized  'unto  his  death' — or  unto 
 the  doctrine  of  his  glorious  atonement.  They  'put  on  Christ,' 
 assumed  his  name,  and  professed  his  gospel ;  but  not  before 
 they  were  baptized.  Having  first  symbolically  put  away  the 
 filth  of  the  flesh  by  baptism,  they  gave,  or  were  to  give,  the 
 '  answer  '  or  '  petition  '  of  a  good  conscience.  They  were 
 baptized  'unto  repentance;'  unto  the  'remission  of  sins,' 
 that  they  might  '  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  They 
 were  to  'repent,'  (alter  their  minds)  'and  be  baptized  ;'  to 
 '  believe  and  be  baptized.'  But  in  no  case  were  they  required 
 to  make  any  thing  like  a  modern  confession  of  faith  ;  nor  was 
 it,  that  we  read  of,  done  in  a  single  instance. 
 
 Consequently,  this,  like  all  the  preceding  objections,  is 
 destitute  of  the  slightest  weight  against  Infant  Baptism. 
 Jenkins  says,  '  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  converted  Jews 
 '  and  Proselytes  were  baptized  upon  a  solemn  profession  of 
 1  faith  and  repentance,  previously  obtained.'  p.  8.  Where  the 
 writer  finds  this  solemn  profession,  it  is  difficult  to  discover ; 
 it  certainly  is  not  expressed ;  whether  implied  or  not,  the 
 reader  may  judge.  They  [gladly]  received,  or  believed  the 
 word  preached ;  but,  for  aught  that  appears,  they  did  not 
 utter  a  syllable  themselves,  in  the  shape  of  a  profession  of 
 their  faith  or  religious  creed.  One  thing  is  indisputable,  that 
 no  confession  of  faith  was  required  or  given  in  that  great 
 model  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea,  to  which  Paul  alludes  in  the 
 words  of  our  text.  But,  even  had  a  profession  and  confession 
 been  systematically  required  of  all  the  baptized,  prior  to  their 
 
BAPTISM  A  PROFESSION  OF  FAITH.  197 
 
 undergoing  this  ceremony  ;  that  rendered  by  parents  would 
 have  scripturally  and  perfectly  answered  for  their  children, 
 and  been  regarded  the  same,  in  effect,  as  if  intelligently 
 uttered  by  themselves.  In  all  large  deputations  to  princes 
 or  persons  in  power,  one  speaks  for  all ;  and  in  our  appeals 
 to  God,  in  the  assembly  of  worshippers,  one  confesses  for 
 all.  Our  previous  expositions  of  analogous  cases,  have  placed 
 this  doctrine  of  parental  authority  and  substitution,  in  such 
 matters,  beyond  all  reasonable  disputation.  There  is  one 
 consolation,  that  infants  make  no  insincere  or  hypocritical 
 profession  of  faith  and  confession  of  Christ  in  baptism,  which, 
 unhappily,  many  adults  do,  to  the  deception  of  their  ministers, 
 and  to  their  own  greater  condemnation. 
 
 Mr.  Jenkins  couples  repentance  with  faith  as  necessary  in 
 candidates  for  baptism.  That  heartfelt  sorrow  for  sin  did 
 immediately  precede  baptism,  in  the  case  of  many  adults  who 
 underwent  this  rite,  is  hardly  to  be  questioned.  But  that  it 
 was  not  a  universal  or  general  affection,  we  devoutly  believe — 
 the  case  of  our  blessed  Saviour  we  know  to  have  been  an 
 exception.  He  was  without  sin  ;  and  not  being  a  transgressor 
 could  have  felt  no  remorse.  There  are  apparently  numerous 
 other  instances  confirming  our  judgment.  Mr.  Fleming  says, 
 '  I  cannot  but  at  present  be  of  opinion,  that  the  term  [metanoia] 
 '  repentance,   when  applied  to  baptism,  had  this  idea  applied 
 
 *  to  it,  viz. :  men's  change  of  mind,  or  their  renouncing  the 
 
 *  religion  they  had  before  professed,  either  of  Gentilism,  or 
 'Judaism.  For  although  baptism  demanded  a  change  of 
 '  vicious  habits  in  all  such  who  embraced  the  gospel,  to  any 
 '  good  purpose ;  yet,  I  doubt  not,  but  there  were  many  baptized 
 'with  this  baptism,  who  were  habitually  pious  and  holy 
 '  persons — among  such  I  reckon  the  guileless  Nathaniel  to  have 
 '  been  one,  and  the  devout  Cornelius  to  have  been  another. 
 '  And  I  see  no  reason  to  exclude  either  Lydia,  or  the  Eunuch,  or 
 '  Crispus. — To  suppose  baptism  to  have  been  the  baptism  of 
 '  repentance  to  such  pious  persons,  must  chiefly  intend,  their 
 '  renouncing  Judaism,  or  import  the  change  of  their  religion.' 
 Def.  p.  38.  Dr.  Macknight,  on  2  Cor.  vii.  9. :  'The  word 
 '  metanoia  properly  denotes  such  a  change  of  one's  opinion 
 
 *  concerning  some  action  which  he  hath  done,  as  produceth 
 '  a  change  in  his  conduct,  to  the  better. .  .  .metamelia  signifies 
 '  the  grief  which  one  feels  for  what  he  hath  done,  though  it 
 
 *  be  followed  with  no  alteration  of  conduct'  The  former  word 
 (and  not  the  latter)  is  invariably  used  in  connexion  with 
 baptism.    Change  your  opinion,  and  be  baptized.    Besides,  here 
 
198  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  — 
 
 repentance  is  as  necessary  to  the  receiving  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
 and  the  remission  of  sins,  as  to  being  baptized;  and,  according 
 to  the  logic  and  theology  of  Jenkins,  children,  not  having  the 
 power  of  repenting,  cannot  enjoy  the  grace  of  the  Spirit,  or 
 the  redemption  of  Christ. 
 
 According  to  Mr.  Noel's  own  admission,  a  profession  or 
 confession  of  the  faith  may  be  made,  and  is  made,  elsewhere, 
 besides  at  the  baptistry.  'A  person  sprinkled  in  infancy  may, 
 'indeed,  have  professed  his  faith  in  Christ,  by  coming  to  the 
 '  Lord's  table,  and  in  other  ways ;  but  he  has  never  made  a 
 *  baptismal  profession  of  faith  according  to  Christ's  commands, 
 '  both  implied  and  expressed.  Matt,  xxviii.  19;  Mark  xvi.  16 ; 
 '  John  iii.  5 ;  Acts  ii.  38.  His  confession  of  Christ  in  one 
 '  appointed  way  seems  to  be  no  valid  reason  for  neglecting  to 
 '  confess  him  in  another  concurrent  way,  which  is  no  less 
 '  unequivocally  prescribed.'  Sub.  p.  291.  In  this  citation,  the 
 writer  has  referred  us  to  no  less  than  four  texts  of  Scripture, 
 to  prove  his  doctrine  of  baptismal  confessions ;  and,  strange  to 
 say,  not  one  of  them  affords  us  the  slightest  intimation  of  any 
 such  public  act,  as  he  is  advocating,  and  which  his  denomi- 
 nation always  demands.  Let  the  reader  turn  to  the  passages 
 in  question,  and,  I  doubt  not,  he  will  arrive  at  the  like 
 conclusion — that  no  profession  and  confession  of  faith  were 
 required  and  made,  '  implied  or  expressed.'  What  he  means 
 by  an  implied  confession,  he  does  not  tell  us.  It  certainly  is  not 
 such  as  his  church  requires!  We  trust,  however,  that  many 
 have  attained  salvation  who  never  made  it  at  the  font — 
 especially  the  little  ones  who  have  died  in  the  Lord!  In  the 
 last  citation  he  modifies  his  previous  assumption;  and  else- 
 where he  says,  'As  baptism  is  an  appointed  method  of  confession, 
 '  it  is  generally,  to  those  who  know  Christ's  appointment,  as 
 1  necessary  as  confession  is.'  lb.  p.  40.  But  we  know  it  is  not 
 generally  necessary,  and  not  at  all  required  in  God's  book, 
 previous  to  baptism. 
 
 Such  a  confession  as  our  opponents  require  of  candidates 
 for  baptism  includes  an  exposition  of  their  doctrinal  sentiments, 
 an  account  of  their  religious  experience,  and  a  declaration  of 
 their  intention  to  walk,  as  becometh  the  gospel,  for  the  future. 
 Now,  supposing  such  a  confession  to  have  been  required  by 
 John  the  Baptist  and  our  Lord's  apostles — and  our  opponents, 
 of  course,  conclude  that  it  was  —  does  it  not  strike  the  reader 
 as  rather  strange,  that  not  a  single  person,  of  all  the  multitudes 
 who  thus  confessed  and  were  baptized,  and  then  apostatized 
 and  became  enemies  to  Christ  and  his  gospel,  is  ever  reproved 
 
BAPTISM  A  PROFESSION  OF  FAITH.  199 
 
 for  making  a  false  or  hypocritical  profession,  and  of  thereby 
 obtaining  this  rite  under  false  pretences  ?  To  have  made 
 serious  and  solemn  asseverations  of  what  they  believed,  and  felt, 
 and  designed  to  do,  and  then,  by  tens  of  thousands,  to  have 
 belied  their  public  avowals  ;  to  have  gone  back  and  walked 
 no  more  with  Christ,  was  to  have  committed  an  offence  that 
 called  for  severe  and  open  reproof.  Such  would  be  adminis- 
 tered to  similar  backsliders  by  our  brethren.  And  yet,  even 
 Simon  Magus  himself  is  not  charged  with  any  such  duplicity. 
 He,  and  countless  numbers  besides,  had  been  consecrated  to 
 Christianity,  had  been  recognized  as  nominal  disciples,  or 
 placed  in  a  position  to  learn  more  fully  the  laws  and  duties  of 
 our  holy  religion.  But,  that  they  had  made  such  a  confession 
 of  faith,  as  our  brethren  assume,  is  never  even  intimated  in 
 the  whole  Christian  narrative.  Nor  are  any  individuals 
 condemned  for  deceiving  the  baptizers,  by  their  hypocritical 
 expositions  of  belief,  experience,  or  holy  resolutions,  at  the 
 baptistry.  On  what  principle  can  this  want  of  reproof  be 
 accounted  for,  except  that  no  such  explicit  confessions  and 
 avowals  were  ever  made  or  required  ?  In  referring  to  the 
 confessions  made  at  the  Jordan,  Mr.  Owen  remarks,  '  The 
 '  text  does  not  tell  us  what  manner  of  confession  this  was, 
 '  whether  in  words  or  works,  their  submission  to  baptism  was 
 
 *  an  actual  confession  of  their  uncleanness,  and  that  they 
 '  stood  in  need  of  washing.     It  cannot  be  thought  that  it  was 
 
 *  a  confession  in  words  ;  because  one  man  could  not  receive  a 
 
 *  particular  confession  from  the  whole  country,  if  they  made  a 
 '  confession  in  words.  It  is  like  one  made  in  the  names  of 
 '  others,  even  as  the  priests  did  in  the  names  of  all  the 
 '  people.'  Lev.  xvi.  2 1 .  Thus  '  parents  might  confess  their  sins 
 '  for  themselves  and  their  children,  &c.'  See  Reach,  p.  187- 
 It  appears  that  John  baptized  Roman  Soldiers  as  well  as 
 Jews.  The  great  probability  is,  that  they  had  not  before 
 become  proselytes  to  Hebrewism.  What  kind  of  previous 
 confession  were  these  men  likely  to  make  ?  Or,  did  John 
 wait  till  they  had  been  fully  instructed  in  the  laws  of  God, 
 and  given  satisfactory  testimonies  of  adequate  proficiency  in 
 theological  wisdom  ?  Can  our  friends  throw  any  light  on 
 this  question  ? 
 
 Among  Mr.  Noel's  innumerable  'Ifs,'  and  'Whys,'  he  asks, 
 1  Why  did  Christ  say,  that  they  were  to  baptize  believers,  if 
 'faith  was  not  necessary  to  baptism?  '  p.  42.  But,  whoever 
 denied  that  faith  was  not  necessary  to  baptism  in  those  that 
 were  capable  of  believing  ?     But  is  faith  required  where  it  is 
 
200  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  — 
 
 impossible  ?  Faith  was  required  of  the  adult  heathen 
 proselyte  before  he  was  circumcised  and  baptized,  but  not  of 
 his  little  children,  who  were  circumcised  and  baptized  with  him. 
 But  what  kind  of  faith  was  required  ?  Of  course,  reply  our 
 opponents,  '  Saving  faith,  for  this  is  in  the  commission,  as 
 'given  by  Mark. — "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
 *  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned."  ' 
 chap.  xvi.  16.  This  faith,  however,  is  not  said  to  be  necessary 
 to  baptism ;  but  faith  and  baptism  are  said  to  be  necessary  to 
 salvation.  Baptism  happens  to  stand  the  former  of  two  requisites 
 for  the  saved.  And  the  intent  of  the  divine  speaker  would 
 have  been  the  same  had  the  position  of  the  words  been 
 reversed.  Christ  is  not  saying,  If  you  believe,  you  may  be 
 baptized;  but  if  you  do  both,  you  may  be  redeemed.  Being 
 born  of  water,  previous  to  believing,  might  equally  have  been 
 the  order,  supposed  to  be  meant,  as  in  our  Lord's  conversation 
 with  Nicodemus.  The  truth  is,  as  repeatedly  asserted,  that 
 saving  faith  is  never  rendered  an  essential  preparative  to 
 water-baptism.  And  if,  in  the  last  cited  text,  the  baptism  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost  be  intended — as  it  probably  is — it  must  precede 
 saving  faith — unless  saving  faith  may  be  possessed  and 
 exercised  without  regeneration.  'With  the  heart  man 
 '  believeth  unto  righteousness  ;  and  with  the  mouth  confession 
 '  is  made  unto  salvation.'  Rom.  x.  10.  Why  are  belief  and 
 confession  made  requisite  to  salvation,  if  men  could  be 
 saved  without  them?     But  are  they  required  of  infants? 
 
 Mr.  Noel  says,  '  Infants  can  be  saved  without  faith,  because 
 '  God  can  give  them  regeneration  which  is  equivalent ;  but 
 '  they  are  unfit  for  baptism,  which  is  a  profession  of  faith.' 
 p.  172.  The  former  doctrine  we  admit;  the  latter  we  deny. 
 But  why  should  not  Paul's  language  exclude  children  from 
 heaven,  as  entirely  as  Christ's  excludes  them  from  baptism  ? 
 In  Acts  ii.  38,  Repentance  is  rendered  a  prerequisite  to 
 baptism.  But,  as  before  observed,  it  is  declared  to  be  equally 
 essential  to  salvation.  Luke  xiii.  3.  Hence,  the  young  are  as 
 effectually  excluded  from  eternal  life  as  from  the  font,  by 
 these  assertions.  Dr.  Carson,  in  order  to  meet  this  difficulty, 
 asserts,  that  the  gospel  has  nothing  to  do  with  infants,  '  nor 
 'have  gospel  ordinances  any  respect  to  them.'  p.  173.  Can 
 he  mean,  that  the  gospel  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  treatment 
 of  them — their  dedication  to  God,  and  training  them  up  in  the 
 ways  of  evangelical  holiness  ?  Why,  it  has  to  do  even  with 
 oxen,  commanding  us  not  to  muzzle  such  as  tread  out  the  corn. 
 He  says,  the  passage  in  Mark  xvi.  16,  has  no  reference  at  all 
 
BAPTISM  A  PROFESSION  OF  FAITII.  201 
 
 to  children.  lb.  Then  it  cannot  exclude  them  from  baptism  ; 
 their  title  to  which  we  readily  discover  in  other  parts  of  the 
 inspired  writings.  Let  our  opponents,  therefore,  cease  to  cite 
 this  text  to  prove  that  infants  should  not  be  baptized — since 
 it  affords  no  evidence  for  or  against  this  rite,  any  more  than 
 if  it  were  not  found  in  the  Scriptures.  Dr.  Jenkins,  on  Mark 
 xvi.  16,  says,  'As  to  the  salvation  of  infants,  the  hope  of  that 
 *  must  arise  from  other  texts  of  Scripture,  not  from  this,  which 
 'is  confined  absolutely  to  them  that  can  be  the  subjects  of  a 
 'preached  gospel.'  Def.  p.  42.  Then,  as  just  said,  it  has 
 nothing  to  say  against  their  baptism  ;  and  our  opponents  have 
 no  right  to  quote  it  as,  by  inference,  excluding  them  from  the 
 font,  any  more  than  from  glory.  And  yet,  there  is  not  a 
 passage  in  the  New  Testament  more  frequently  and  exultingly 
 cited  against  Infant  Baptism  than  this — a  passage  which,  it 
 is  conceded,  is  absolutely  confined  to  adults ! 
 
 Mr.  Gibbs  asserts,  that  Baptism  '  is  a  solemn  act  of  divine 
 worship.'  p.  340.  He  then  quotes  half-a-dozen  passages  of 
 Scripture  to  sustain  his  assumption — not  one  of  which  even 
 remotely  indicates,  that  this  rite  is  ever  designated  divine 
 worship,  or  that  the  person  dipped  or  dipping,  sprinkling  or 
 sprinkled,  is  said,  by  these  acts,  to  be  worshipping  God. 
 Every  act  of  obedience  is  not  one  of  worship,  or,  circumcising 
 a  child,  offering  a  sacrifice,  or  washing  brazen  vessels  and 
 beds,  would  be  acts  of  divine  worship — which  consist  in 
 adoring,  praising,  and  calling  upon  God,  through  Jesus  Christ. 
 He  proceeds,  '  To  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
 'is  to  profess  that  we  are  the  subjects  of  his  regenerating 
 'power.'  p.  842.  Where,  in  the  whole  compass  of  the  sacred 
 volume,  does  he  find  a  person,  when,  being  baptized,  making 
 such  a  profession  ?  A  little  before,  he  says,  'Positive  institutions 
 '  are  signs,  deriving  their  use  from  the  end  they  prefigure.' 
 p.  337.  But  here,  it  seems,  the  rite  is  an  avowed  seal  of  a 
 previous  engagement ;  and  an  open  avowal,  that  the  work  of 
 divine  grace  has  been  effected  in  the  soul.  Of  such  a  pro- 
 fession, by  the  baptized,  we  ask  for  an  instance ;  but  we 
 might  long  ask  in  vain.  Once  more,  '  Baptism  prefigures  the 
 '  death  of  the  believer's  body  and  his  resurrection  to  eternal 
 'life.'  p.  356.  And  the  only  text  he  quotes  to  prove  his  point 
 is,  '  For  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle  do  groan  being  burdened  ; 
 'not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  clothed  upon,  that 
 'mortality  might  be  swallowed  up  of  life.'  2  Cor.  v.  4.  It 
 would  puzzle  even  Keach  himself  to  make  out  many  points 
 of  analogy  between  dipping  a  man  under  water,  and  his  being 
 
 I  2 
 
202  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — 
 
 clothed  upon  with  a  new  garment;  or  by  being  presented  with 
 a  new  tent  to  live  in,  that  his  poor  frail  body  might  become 
 immortal !  But,  at  the  best,  the  poor  similitude  is  not  Paul's, 
 but  Mr.  Gibbs'.  Dr.  Byron  says,  '  If  it  be  admitted  that 
 '  baptism  is  a  gospel  ordinance,  it  follows  as  a  consequent  that 
 '  its  observance  can  only  be  enjoined  upon  the  recipients  of  a 
 '  spiritual  birth.'  p.  12.  But,  to  read  the  Bible, teach  the  young, 
 attend  public  worship,  are  certainly  gospel  ordinances,  or  such 
 as  the  gospel  enjoins.  According  to  this  writer,  '  it  follows 
 '  as  a  consequent,  that  the  observance  of  them  can  only  be 
 '  enjoined  upon  the  recipients  of  a  spiritual  birth  !'  The  fact, 
 however,  is,  that  they  are  enjoined  upon  all  men ;  as  the  Dr., 
 unless  a  rank  Antinomian,  will  readily  admit. 
 
 From  the  frequent  reference  of  Baptist  writers  to  verbal 
 confessions  and  professions  of  faith,  made  before  ministers 
 and  church  members,  previous  to  immersion,  and  the  great 
 stress  laid  on  this  preparatory  act ;  one  might  be  inclined  to 
 conclude,  that  such  a  practice  was  common,  if  not  universal, 
 in  the  New  Testament  Churches.  But  what  is  the  real  fact 
 of  the  case  ?  That  the  people,  or  some  of  them,  baptized  by 
 John,  confessed  their  sins  to  him  or  to  God,  personally  or 
 collectively,  in  word  or  deed,  before  or  after  their  baptism, 
 we  are  plainly  told.  But  this  confession  stands  alone.  No 
 similar  instance  is  met  with  in  the  gospel  narratives.  We 
 read  of  confessing  Christ  before  men ;  that  Jesus  was  the 
 Christ ;  and  that  he  was  actually  come  into  the  world.  Paul 
 confessed  that  he  worshipped  the  God  of  his  fathers.  He 
 enjoins  the  Romans  to  confess  Jesus  Christ  with  the  mouth, 
 to  believe  on  him  with  the  heart,  and  to  confess  him  before 
 the  Gentiles.  Men  were  to  confess  their  faults  one  to  another. 
 John  confessed  that  he  was  not  the  Christ.  Jesus  witnessed 
 a  good  confession  before  Pontius  Pilate.  And  Timothy  professed 
 a  good  profession  before  many  witnesses.  These  references 
 comprehend  nearly  all  that  is  said  in  the  New  Testament 
 about  religious  confessions  and  professions.  Not  a  passage  is 
 to  be  found  in  it  sustaining  the  notion  of  confessing  to  Christian 
 pastors  prior  to  baptism,  any  more  than  of  confessing  to  popish 
 priests  before  absolution — unless  those  above  referred  to  be 
 exceptions.  The  Eunuch's  profession  of  belief,  in  the  identity 
 of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  promised  Messiah,  previous  to 
 his  baptism,  even  were  it  a  genuine  part  of  Scripture,  contains 
 nothing  like  that  required  by  our  opponents  before  they  dip 
 their  converts.  Hence,  it  is  plain  our  good  brethren  build 
 their  system  of  confessing  and  professing,  before  immersion, 
 
BAPTISM  A  PROFESSION  OF  FAITH.  203 
 
 on  a  basis  as  insecure  as  the  shifting  sands  on  the  sea  shore. 
 To  reply,  that  times  and  circumstances  are  altered,  and  that 
 confessions  are  needed  now,  though  they  might  not  have  been 
 required  in  the  apostolic  age,  is  just  surrendering  the  argument 
 sought  to  be  sustained — which  is,  not  what  is  needful  now, 
 but  what  was  practised  or  required  formerly. — Mr.  Keach 
 truly  says,  '  That  vow  or  promise  in  baptism  that  you  dream 
 '  of,  prepares  no  man  for  Christ,  nor  fits  any  for'  (baptism 
 into)  '  his  church  ;  no,  no,  it  must  be  conversion,  faith,  and 
 'regeneration  itself.'  p.  180. 
 
 A  Baptist  writer  correctly  remarks,  'As  we  have  often 
 '  witnessed,  when  a  truly  pious  character,  who,  for  a  series  of 
 '  years,  has  made  an  honorable  profession  of  religion,  and  even 
 '  been  eminently  useful  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  adopts 
 '  these  views  of  the  ordinance,  and  acts  accordingly,  the 
 '  general  impression  is,  not  that  he  is  become  a  Christian,  but, 
 '  that  he  is  turned  Baptist.  His  personal  Christianity  was 
 '  previously  too  well  established  to  need  such  evidence  to 
 '  support  it.     Baptism,  in  such  cases,  appears  to  answer  no 
 
 *  end  whatever,  except  it  be,  to  tell  all  whom  it  may  concern, 
 '  that  he  who  was  formerly  a  Churchman,  an  Independent,  a 
 '  Methodist,  or  a  Quaker,  is  now  a  Baptist.  Thus,  that  ordi- 
 '  nance,  which  was  originally  the  distinguishing  badge  of 
 '  Christianity,  is  become  the  mere  badge  of  a  sect,  adapted  to 
 '  excite  a  sectarian  spirit,  and  promote  sectarian  views.  Now, 
 '  we  cannot  persuade  ourselves  that  baptism  was  ordained  for 
 '  any  such  purpose  as  this  ;  least  of  all,  that  it  was  designed 
 '  to  furnish  one  particular  sect  with  the  arrogant  claim  of  an 
 '  exclusive  right  to  sit  down  at  the  table  of  the  Lord ;  while 
 '  they  refuse  to  acknowledge,  as  churches  of  Christ,  any 
 '  Christian  societies  that  are  not  formed  precisely  on  the  same 
 '  model  with  their  own.  That  this  is  the  principle  on  which 
 '  the  Baptists  proceed,  their  conduct  sufficiently  evinces.  They 
 '  hold  no  communion  with  any  churches  but  those  of  the  same 
 'faith  and  order  with  themselves.  They  give  no  dismissions 
 '  to  them,  and  receive  no  admissions  from  them.  Nor  is  the 
 '  operation  of  this  act  of  exclusion  from  Christian  fellowship 
 
 *  confined  to  Pedobaptists.  It  extends  to  churches  of  their 
 '  own  denomination  who  allow  of  free  communion.  In  their 
 ■  esteem,  the  admission,  into  such  a  connexion,  of  a  single 
 '  individual,  who  has  not  been  baptized  as  they  have  been 
 '  baptized,  is  sufficient  to  contaminate  the  whole  body ;  and 
 '  render  the  society,  of  which  he  forms  a  part,  unworthy  to  be 
 '  designated  a  church  of  Christ,  or  to  be  treated  as  such.' 
 Agnostos,  p.  96-98. 
 
204  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES 
 
 Objection  XV.  There  are  such  differences  between  the 
 baptism  unto  Muses,  and  unto  Christ,  that  the  latter  cannot 
 be  based  on  the  former,  nor  derive  any  direct  countenance 
 from  it. — The  accordance  between  these  administrations,  we 
 shall  unfold  in  a  subsequent  section.  The  discrepancies  we 
 will  now  state  concisely,  and  shew  that  they  are  of  no  moment, 
 compared  with  their  striking  and  important  coincidences. 
 It  may  be  said,  (1)  That  God  baptized  the  adult  Hebrews 
 without  regeneration  of  heart,  holiness  of  life,  and  probably 
 without  their  immediate  recognition  of  the  act.  (2)  That  he 
 baptized  the  children  without  the  solicitation  or  manifest 
 concurrence  of  their  parents.  (3.)  That,  as  far  as  we  are 
 informed,  all  this  was  done  without  the  intervention  or  instru- 
 mentality of  Moses,  of  Aaron,  or  of  any  other  ministers.  And, 
 (4)  That  the  whole  transaction  was  singular  and,  consequently, 
 not  to  be  regarded  as  a  precursor  of  or  precedent  for  baptism 
 under  the  gospel  economy.  These  statements  contain  all  the 
 exceptions  any  candid  opponent  is  likely  to  take  on  this  head, 
 against  our  foregoing  and  future  conclusions,  in  reference  to 
 Infant  Baptism,  under  the  gospel  economy.  Should  we 
 meet  with  any  others,  they  will  be  answered  in  the  further 
 consideration  of  this  question. 
 
 In  reply,  permit  me  to  observe,  that  Paul's  exposition  of 
 the  baptism  of  the  Hebrews,  and  his  application  of  the 
 transaction  to  the  congregation  at  Corinth,  meet  all  the  above 
 objections,  and,  indeed,  every  other  that  can  be  made  against 
 our  interpretation  of  the  passage  especially  under  consideration. 
 He  refers  to  it  as  being  of  sufficient  force  and  agreement  with 
 the  baptism  of  the  Corinthians,  to  found  his  appeal  to  their 
 consciences  upon  it.  That  there  were  differences  between  the 
 baptisms  unto  Moses  and  unto  Christ,  we  do  not  and  need  not 
 deny.  So  there  were  differences  between  the  original  per- 
 formance of  every  other  rite  and  the  after  administration  of  it. 
 Look  at  circumcision,  as  first  performed  by  Abraham,  and 
 afterwards  by  the  Hebrew  ministers  of  this  ceremony.  He 
 circumcised  hundreds  of  adults  as  well  as  children;  they, 
 probably,  did  not  circumcise  a  single  adult  for  many  years 
 together,  nor  probably  a  genuine  adult  Hebrew  for  a  thousand 
 years  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  Look  at  the  first  celebra- 
 tion of  the  passover  in  Egypt,  and  the  ordinary  celebration  of 
 it  afterwards,  as  seen  in  the  case  of  our  Lord  and  his  disciples. 
 Look  at  the  first  observance  of  the  Eucharist,  over  which 
 Christ  himself  personally  presided — as  he  evidently  did  over 
 the  first  baptism  in  the  sea — and  the  like  sacrament  now 
 
AND  TO  CHKIST— DISSIMILAR.  205 
 
 superintended  by  ordinary  ministers  of  the  gospel.  The 
 differences  in  these  cases  are  quite  as  great  as  between  the 
 baptism  in  the  sea,  by  John  at  the  Jordan,  and  by  Peter  on 
 the  day  of  Pentecost.  In  the  first  institution  of  this  rite, 
 Jehovah  himself  baptized  the  Hebrews  because  it  was  beyond 
 the  power  of  any  human  being — not  supernaturally  qualified 
 ■ — to  baptize,  probably,  three  millions  of  people  in  their 
 transit  through  the  sea,  in  the  space  of  a  few  hours ; 
 especially  if  every  individual  personally  received  the  con- 
 secrating element.  "When,  subsequently,  his  ministers  were 
 competent  to  the  work  of  baptizing,  they  always  or  frequently 
 did  it.  God  first  planted  Eden ;  but  when  Adam  and  Eve 
 were  created  and  qualified  for  the  task,  they  were  commanded  to 
 till  the  ground  and  manage  their  own  beautiful  paradise.  Further, 
 it  will  be  seen,  from  citations  already  given,  and  from  others 
 yet  to  follow,  that  our  leading  opponents  concede  the  analogy 
 in  question,  and  admit  that  the  baptism  in  the  sea  was  a 
 prelude  to  Christian  baptism;  and  that  the  latter  derives 
 much  light  and  emphasis  from  the  former. 
 
 Because  God  baptized  the  Israelites  without  asking  their 
 consent,  and  possibly  without  their  recognition  of  the  spiritual 
 meaning  of  the  transaction ;  it  does  not  follow,  that  his 
 ministers,  by  obtaining  the  concurrence  of  adult  persons  to  be 
 baptized,  must  violate  the  essential  accordance  of  these 
 transactions.  When  God  commanded  the  father  of  the  faithful 
 to  circumcise  himself  and  his  male  household,  he  did  not  ask 
 their  acquiescence ;  and  with  the  religious  meaning  of  the 
 operation,  it  is  very  probable  few  of  them  were  perfectly,  or 
 even  at  all,  acquainted.  But  no  priests  could  afterwards 
 perform  the  same  rite,  on  any  adult  proselyte  and  his  children, 
 without  his  consent.  When  Christ  washed  the  disciples' 
 feet,  they  understood  not  the  design  of  this  gracious  and 
 condescending  act,  until  he  afterwards  explained  it  to  them. 
 It  is  one  of  Jehovah's  plans  to  act  first,  and  unfold  his 
 intentions  subsequently.  '  What  I  do  thou  knowest  not  now, 
 'but  thou  shalt  know  hereafter.'  Thus,  his  dealings  with  the 
 Hebrew  nation  were,  at  the  time,  profoundly  mysterious  to 
 them,  and  were  made  manifest  afterwards.  '  The  day  shall 
 '  declare  it.'  As  the  Hebrew  people,  generally,  might  not 
 have  understood  clearly,  nor  at  all,  God's  design  in  their 
 baptism,  it  certainly  does  not  follow,  that  infants  should  not 
 be  baptized  in  after  time,  because  they  might  not  understand 
 the  nature  of  the  ceremony.  The  reverse  is  the  only  fair 
 inference  from  the  circumstances. 
 
206  OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED — BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES 
 
 In  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  which  baptism  with 
 water  is  confessedly  a  symbol,  God  does  it  without  soliciting 
 the  approval  or  permission  of  his  creatures — till  then,  blind, 
 carnal,  and  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.  It  is  an  unsought, 
 free,  sovereign,  and  often,  at  first,  an  unrecognized  act  of 
 mercy.  And  were  he  himself  now  to  baptize  with  water,  as 
 he  did  at  the  institution  of  this  sacrament,  he  would,  doubt- 
 less, exercise  his  supreme  prerogative,  commanding  them  to 
 submit,  and  not  first  solicit  their  mental  concurrence.  As 
 he  binds  his  creatures  in  high  covenant  obligations,  without 
 their  'Amen,'  as  much  as  with  it;  so  he  might  baptize  and 
 bring  them  into  the  baptismal  covenant,  as  he  did  the 
 Hebrews,  without  consulting  their  judgment  or  will.  But, 
 when  his  ministers  labour  to  lead  men  to  faith  and  obedience, 
 by  an  official  instrumentality,  the  concurrence  of  the  parties, 
 personally  or  relatively,  is  always  essential. 
 
 The  above  remarks,  I  think,  render  it  plain,  that  the 
 differences  between  the  ancient  baptism  unto  Moses,  by  God 
 himself,  and  the  after  baptisms  unto  Christ,  by  his  disciples, 
 are  insufficient  to  destroy,  or  even  to  weaken,  our  argument, 
 based  on  the  facts  of  their  essential  agreement.  It  is  true, 
 Mr.  Keach,  in  a  citation  previously  made,  argues  against  our 
 referring  to,  or  arguing  from,  the  baptism  in  the  sea,  because 
 unconverted,  or,  as  he  calls  them,  '  wicked  men,'  were  the 
 subjects  of  that  great  national  purification.  He  assumes,  as 
 if  an  indisputable  point,  that  none  but  truly  regenerated 
 persons  should  be  baptized  under  the  gospel;  and,  thence, 
 infers,  that  the  two  ordinances  are  essentially  different.  But 
 this  is  completely  begging  the  question,  and,  like  a  bold 
 partizan,  taking  the  chief  matter  of  debate  as  settled,  and  his 
 own  positions  as  granted.  Such  conclusions,  as  a  matter  of 
 course,  go  for  just  nothing  at  all,  in  the  estimate  of  a  Pedo- 
 baptist,  nor,  indeed,  of  any  one  else,  viewing  the  argument 
 before  us  in  its  true  character  and  bearings. 
 
 Without  adducing  any  further  facts,  reasonings,  or  reflec- 
 tions, in  confirmation  of  our  first  proposition ;  I  shall  deem 
 it  incontrovertibly  proved,  that  the  words,  'Our  Fathers,'  as 
 understood  and  applied  by  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
 rinthians, comprehend  all  the  men,  women,  and  children,  who 
 came  out  of  Egypt,  under  the  guidance  of  Moses,  and  passed 
 through  the  Red  Sea;  and  that  all  these,  too,  were  really, 
 intentionally,  and  scripturally,  baptized — the  women  and 
 children — equally  with  the  holiest,  oldest,  and  greatest,  males 
 in  the  tribes  of  Israel.     Every  objection  brought  against  this 
 
AND  TO  CHRIST— ANALOGOUS.  207 
 
 interpretation  of  the  terms  employed  by  the  apostle,  or  which 
 are  likely  to  he  raised  against  it,  I  have  plainly  stated,  and, 
 I  believe,  conclusively  answered — perhaps,  at  a  length,  and, 
 with  expositions,  beyond  their  controversial  value.  It  will  be 
 seen  that  some  of  the  objections  stated  and  refuted  are  rele- 
 vant to  this  controversy  irrespective  of  the  particular  basis  on 
 which  we  are  resting  the  main  weight  of  the  present  argument. 
 But  their  consideration  seemed  essential  to  the  full  discussion 
 of  our  subject.  Other  objections  will  be  noticed  and  consi- 
 dered in  the  further  prosecution  of  the  inquiry.  We  shall 
 now  proceed  to  our  next  general  proposition. 
 
 PART  SECOND. 
 
 The  Baptism  of  the  Israelites  unto  Moses  embraces 
 
 ALL  THE  ESSENTIAL  PRINCIPLES  AND  PROPERTIES  OF  ChRIS- 
 
 tian  Baptism. 
 
 My  object  now  is  to  show  the  reader,  that  the  analogies 
 between  these  baptisms  are  sufficiently  ample,  clear,  and  cogent, 
 to  warrant  the  conclusion,  '  That,  as  infants  were  baptized  in 
 '  the  former  case,  so  they  undoubtedly  were  in  the  days  of  the 
 '  apostle  Paul,  and  should  be  so  to  the  end  of  time.'  The 
 leading  discrepancies  between  the  baptism  unto  Moses  and 
 the  baptism  unto  Christ,  have  been  noticed  already,  and,  I 
 presume,  the  objections  based  upon  them  sufficiently  answered. 
 I  may,  however,  further  observe,  that,  in  some  particulars,  the 
 baptism  of  John  differed  from  that  of  the  apostles  ;  yet  that, 
 in  all  their  principal  features,  the  parallel  between  them  is 
 manifest,  striking,  and  instructive.  Mr.  Hall  says,  '  The 
 'principal  difference  betwixt  John's  baptism,  and  that  which 
 '  the  apostles  were  commissioned  to  perform  after  our  Saviour's 
 '  ascension,  consisted  in  the  former  not  being  celebrated  in 
 '  the  name  of  Jesus.'  p.  120.  John's  was  as  truly  a  spiritual, 
 if  not  as  evangelical,  a  baptism  as  Peter's  on  the  day  of 
 Pentecost.  There  were  shades  of  difference  between  the 
 baptism  to  Moses,  and  that  by  John ;  but  still  that  to  Moses, 
 as  Paul  assures  us,  was  a  real,  true,  and  spiritual  baptism. 
 To  show  that  I  am  not  singular  in  this  judgment  of  the  latter 
 case,  I  will  cite  the  sentiments  of  several  writers  of  considerable 
 
208  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES 
 
 authority  in  Biblical  questions,  and  in  the  Baptismal  controversy. 
 Others  might  be  given,  were  the  subjoined  not  abundant  for 
 our  purpose. 
 
 Dr.  Urvvick  : — '  The  apostle  represents  the  whole  nation  of 
 '  Israel  as  having  been  made  disciples  to  Moses — or  separated 
 
 *  to  receive  the  instruction  he  was   to   communicate  in  the 
 
 *  divine  will — by  being  baptized.  It  also  implies  that  what 
 '  the  baptism  spoken  of  did  for  the  Israelites  with  regard  to 
 
 *  Moses,  the  baptism  as  now  ordained  does  for  us  with  regard 
 '  to  Christ.  The  baptism  of  the  Israelites  did  not  signify 
 '  that  they  had  already  learnt  what  Moses  was  to  teach  them, 
 '  for  Moses  had  not  yet  received  the  code  in  which  he  was  to 
 '  instruct  them  ;  but  it  signified  their  being  placed  under  his 
 '  care  to  be  taught  the  revelation  he  was  to  promulgate.' 
 
 Mr.  Noel : — '  The  argument  of  the  apostle  is  as  follows :  As 
 '  the  Israelites  had  been  baptized  unto  Moses  ;  so  the  Corinth- 
 '  ians  had  been  baptized  unto  Christ ;  and  as  many  of  the 
 '  baptized  Israelites  perished  in  the  wilderness  through  their 
 '  rebellion  ;  so  might  the  baptized  Christians  fall  too  :  hence, 
 '  he  urged  them  to  beware.  In  this  passage,  therefore,  there 
 '  is  a  comparison  between  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  and 
 '  the  baptism  of  professed  believers' — and  their  families. 
 Mode,  p.  39. 
 
 The  B-ev.  Dr.  Bloomfield  observes,  '  Baptism,  it  must  be 
 '  remembered,  was  a  symbolical  rite,  by  which  any  one  binds 
 '  himself  to  faith  and  obedience  to  any  teacher  of  religion,  and 
 '  the  baptism  itself  was  a  form  of  initiation  and  inauguration 
 '  into  that  religion.  Thus  the  sense  is  ;  they  were,  by  passing 
 1  under  the  cloud,  and  through  the  sea,  as  it  were,  baptized, 
 '  or  initiated  into  the  religion  promulgated  by  Moses ;  and 
 '  thus  thoroughly  recognized  his  divine  mission,  and  bound 
 
 *  themselves  in  future  to  obey  his  injunctions.'  Digest  in  loc. 
 
 Dr.  Halley  : — '  The  argument  of  St.  Paul  evidently  implies 
 '  that  the  baptism  into  Moses  was  an  important  religious  rite 
 '  . .  . .  He  declares  that  the  whole  nation  of  Israel  was, 
 '  previously  to  the  giving  of  the  law,  baptized  into  Moses, 
 '  which  is  exactly  the  doctrine  on  which  the  Jews  found  their 
 4  baptism  of  proselytes.  The  apostle  indeed  seems  to  represent 
 '  the  baptism  as  referring  to  the  cloud  and  the  sea :  the 
 '  Rabbins,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  ablution,  the  sanctifying 
 1  themselves  and  washing  their  clothes  at  the  foot  of  Sinai. 
 '  But,  both  agree  that  the  whole  nation  of  Israel  was,  previously 
 
 *  to  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  baptized  unto  Moses,  initiated  by 
 '  water  into  the  religion  or  covenant  which  he  announced. 
 
AND  TO  CHUIST — ANALOGOUS.  209 
 
 'According  to  the  Talmiuls  and  according  to  St.  Paul,  there 
 *  was  a  baptism  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel  unto  Moses.' 
 vol.  1.  p.  117,  US. 
 
 Rev.  C.  Fleming : — '  Paul  could  not  have  fixed  on  an 
 '  instance  that  could  possibly  be  more  favourable  to  Infant 
 '  Baptism  ;  forasmuch  as  the  Jewish  parents,  with  all  their 
 '  households,  infants  included,  male  and  female,  were  certainly 
 '  baptized  together.  And,  in  like  manner,  as  the  Jewish 
 1  parents,  by  their  baptism,  owned  Moses  as  their  leader,  and 
 'his  institutions  to  be  divine,  so  do  Christian  parents,  when 
 '  they  first  embrace  the  Christian  doctrine,  and  are  baptized 
 '  with  their  households,  own  Christ  to  be  their  leader,  and  his 
 '  institutions  to  be  divine.  It  follows,  by  undoubted  conse- 
 '  quence,  from  Paul's  fixing  on  this  baptism  of  the  Israelites, 
 '  as  a  prelude  to  Christian  baptism,'  [Killingworth,]  '  that 
 '  infants  must  be  concerned  in  the  Christian  baptism.  ..  .If 
 '  this  consequence  be  not  fairly  drawn,  I  despair  of  ever  being 
 '  able  to  draw  one,  or  of  seeing  a  consequence  stand  related 
 '  to  the  premise.'  p.  17. 
 
 An  Anonymous  writer,  in  a  work  entitled  "Infant  as  well 
 as  Believers'  Baptism  proved  from  Scripture  Authority  and 
 Example,"  says,  '  From  1  Cor.  x.  1,  2,  we  have  an  example 
 '  of  hundreds '  [of  thousands] '  of  infants  that  were  baptized  with 
 '  their  parents,  with  a  baptism  which  signified  the  same  thing 
 'for  substance,  as  our  Christian  baptism  does  now. .  .  .Here, 
 '  then,  we  have  a  baptism  which  at  once  proves  the  subjects 
 'and  mode,  viz.:  parents  and  hundreds'  [of  thousands]  'of 
 '  dear  children  that  were  all  baptized  by  pouring,  yea,  with  a 
 '  baptism  which  signified  the  same  thing  for  substance  as  our 
 '  Christian  does  now.'  p.  27. 
 
 Rev.  S.  Green : — '  To  be  "baptized  into  Christ,"  is  a  phrase 
 '  employed,  Gal.  iii.  27,  for  putting  on  a  profession  of  Chris- 
 '  tianity.  To  be  baptized  into  Moses,  precisely  the  same  form 
 '  of  speech,  conveys  a  similar  idea.  The  scope  of  the  passage 
 '  is  to  guard  the  Corinthians  against  carelessness  and  sin. 
 'They  might  trust  to  their  privileges: — "we  are  the  baptized 
 '  disciples  of  Christ — we  partake  of  the  elements  of  bread  and 
 'wine  in  token  of  our  relation  to  him."  Think  not  on  that 
 '  account,  the  apostle  says,  to  escape  with  impunity.  The 
 '  fathers  were  in  a  similar  condition ;  they  were  baptized  into 
 '  Moses  ;  they  ate  and  drank  of  spiritual  food  and  drink  ; 
 '  their  manna,  and  their  water  from  the  rock,  typified  some 
 '  such  thing  as  that  which  is  set  forth  in  the  bread  and  wine 
 '  of  which  you  partake. . .  .The  argument  turns  simply  on  the 
 
210  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES 
 
 '  Israelites  having  made  a  profession  not  much  unlike  that 
 
 *  which,  by  being  baptized  into  Christ,  the  Corinthians  had 
 'made.'  Address,  p.  11. 
 
 Eev.  J.  Bowden  : — '  The  Israelites  were  now  in  a  situation, 
 1  perhaps  not  unlike  that  of  Christian  converts  with  their 
 '  households.  They  had  embraced  the  promise,  which  is  the 
 '  ground  of  consolation,  likewise  to  believing  gentiles.  They 
 '  had  left  an  idolatrous  and  defiling  country.  They  were 
 '  about  to  enter  into  solemn  covenant  with  God — into  an 
 '  earlier  dispensation  of  the  same  covenant  that  is  sealed 
 '  in  Christian  baptism.  They  were  confessing  themselves 
 '  strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth.  And  the  providence 
 '  of  God  wonderfully  provided  for  ratifying  his  promise  and 
 '  their  engagement  by  a  seal  solemnly  and  universally  applied 
 ' — "they  were  all  baptized  unto"  or  into  "Moses" — by 
 '  baptism  they  were  introduced  into  that  dispensation  of  the 
 '  covenant  of  which  Moses  was  the  mediator.'  p.  171. 
 
 Professor  Wilson  : — '  Baptism  into  Moses  clearly  implied 
 '  the  acknowledgement  of  his  official  claims  as  a  leader  and 
 '  lawgiver,  and  of  the  economy  called  after  his  name — just  as 
 '  baptism  into  Christ  implies  the  acknowledgement  of  our 
 '  blessed  Lord  in  his  personal  and  mediatorial  character,  and 
 '  of  the  faith  which  he  founded — and,  as  the  baptism  of  the 
 
 *  commission  implies  the  acknowledgement  of  the  Father,  and 
 '  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  He  adds,  '  There  was 
 'no  immersion,  properly  so  called,  in  any  baptizing  element 
 '  whatever,  yet  there  was  a  real  baptism  ;  for  the  Spirit  of 
 '  God  expressly  and  solemnly  testifies,  that  all  our  Fathers 
 '  were  baptized  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.' 
 
 Rev.  T.  Dorrington  : — 'When  the  whole  nation  of  Israel 
 '  are  said  by  the  apostle  to  have  been  Baptized  unto  Moses, 
 '  in  their  passage  through  the  Red  Sea,  (1  Cor.  x.  2,)  the  meaning 
 '  of  it  is,  that  they  did  therein  come  under  an  engagement, 
 
 *  and  were  bound  to  receive  and  obey  the  rule  of  religion  which 
 'Moses  should  deliver  them  from  God.  This  is  said  of  the 
 '  whole  nation  :  and  then,  as  the  infants  which  they  carried 
 '  with  them  out  of  Egypt  are  included  in  the  number  spoken 
 '  of,  they  passed  through  the  Red  Sea,  as  well  as  the  grown 
 '  persons,  they  also  came  under  that  engagement  taken  upon 
 'them  all  in  and  by  a  baptism,  both  old  and  young.  The 
 '  infants  of  Israel  did,  in  this  passage,  according  to  the 
 '  apostle's  words,  enter  into  the  school  of  Moses,  and  became 
 '  disciples  to  him,  as  they  came  under  an  obligation  and 
 '  engagement  with  the  rest,  to  learn  and  obey  the  religion 
 
AND  TO  CHRIST — ANALOGOUS.  211 
 
 taught  from  God  by  Moses  ;  therefore,  infants  may  be  dis- 
 cipled,  and,  by  baptism,  they  may,  in  and  by  that  sacrament, 
 become  engaged  to  learn  and  obey  the  laws  of  God,  though, 
 while  infants,  they  cannot  understand  them.'  p.  137,  138. 
 
 Rev.  W.  Jones,  in  his  '  Biblical  Cyclopaedia,'  writes,  '  It  is 
 
 highly  probable  that  at  the  initiation  of  proselytes  in  the 
 
 Jewish  Church  which  bore  striking  resemblance  to  baptism, 
 
 and  which  might  induce  our  Saviour  to  adopt  it.  .  .  .Nor  is 
 
 it  difficult  to  trace  the  source  of  their  ideas  about  baptism  ; 
 
 for  not  only  was  Moses  commanded  to  wash  Aaron  and  his 
 
 sons  at  their  consecration,  but  no  person  who  had  contracted 
 
 ceremonial  impurity  was  admitted  into  the  sanctuary,  till  it 
 
 was  removed  by  washing.     This  law  must  have  extended  to 
 
 the  Gentiles  who  became  proselytes  of  righteousness,  and 
 
 who  must  have  been  introduced  into  the  Jewish  church  by 
 
 washing  as  well  as  circumcision.     The  conduct  of  Christ  in 
 
 the  institution  of  the    Supper,  also,   corresponds    with    his 
 
 conduct  on  this  occasion  ;   for  as  the  Jews  concluded  their 
 
 passover,  by  giving  to  every  person  a  piece  of  bread,  and  a 
 
 cup  of  wine,  so  Christ,  though  he  set  aside,  as  the  nature  of 
 
 his  office  required,  the  rites,  enjoined  by    Moses    in    that 
 
 ordinance  which  he  had  been  commemorating,  yet  he  retained 
 
 the  bread  and  cup  added  by  the  Jews.'  Inloc. — In  the  book 
 
 of  Common  Prayer  it  is  written — 'Almighty  and  everlasting  God, 
 
 who  of  thy  great  mercy. ..  .didst  safely  lead  the   children 
 
 of  Israel,  Thy  people,  through  the  Eed  Sea,  figuring  thereby 
 
 thy  holy  baptism.'  Adult  Baptism. 
 
 Persons  opposed    to    our  views  and  practice   on  baptism 
 
 find  or  fancy  a  similarity  in  the  modes  of  baptism  in  the  Red 
 
 Sea,  in  the  Jordan,  and  in  Jerusalem,  and  plead  their  assumed 
 
 accordance  in  favour  of  immersion  ;    without  betraying   the 
 
 slightest   consciousness   of   inconsistency   or    impropriety   in 
 
 referring  to  Old  Testament  deeds  in  supporting  their  views  of 
 
 New  Testament  transactions.     If,  therefore,  we  can  discover 
 
 a  sufficient  similarity  in  the  subjects  of  these  baptisms,  to 
 
 infer  the  one  from  the  other ;  they,  at  least,  will  not  contend 
 
 that  we  are  arguing  from  vague,  antiquated,   or  untenable, 
 
 premises. — But,  before  proceeding  to  point  out  the  special 
 
 particulars  of  the  analogy  between  the  two  baptisms — unto 
 
 Moses  and  unto  Christ — I  shall  further  cite  the  more  extended 
 
 and  explanatory  remarks  of  Mr.  Stovelon  this  head,  as  found 
 
 in  his  Lectures  on  '  Baptismal  Regeneration.' 
 
 'The  whole  doctrine'  [of  Baptism]  '  derives  a  very  powerful 
 '  and  solemn  confirmation  from. ...  1.  Cor.  x.  1-14. . .  .This 
 
212  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES 
 
 '  case  occurs  in  a  very  powerful  exhortation  to  Christian 
 '  obedience  and  purity  of  life.  To  urge  this,  Paul  employs 
 '  the  example  of  the  ancient  Jewish  people,  at  and  after  the 
 '  passage  of  the  Eed  Sea.  Previously  to  that  event,  the  whole 
 '  matter  of  their  deliverance  was  one  purely  of  recognition. 
 '  If  any  individual  of  their  tribes  refused  to  follow  Moses  out 
 1  of  Egypt,  no  tribunal  existed  there  at  which  he  could  be 
 '  be  judged.  When  they  came  to  the  sea,  it  was  their  own 
 '  act  to  enter  the  divided  waters.  They  were  then  covered  by 
 '  the  cloud,  and  thus  they  became  immersed  as  they  entered 
 '  into  Moses.  If  they  had  so  resolved,  before  the  passage, 
 '  they  might  have  turned  back  into  Egypt ;  but  not  so  after 
 '  they  had  passed  to  the  other  side.      From  that  moment  they 
 
 *  were  under  God  in  the  hands  of  Moses.  By  his  means  they 
 'received  their  direction,  defence,  and  subsistence.  He  was 
 1  their  anointed  Ruler,  called  in  one  place  their  Christ.  Under 
 '  his  government  they  were  called  upon  to  glorify  the  God  of 
 '  their  fathers,  either  in  the  blessedness  which  resulted  from 
 '  obedience,  or  in  the  punishment  which  was  due  to  their 
 '  rebellion.  They  lusted,  and  were  smitten ;  they  tempted 
 '  their  Christ,  and  were  destroyed  with  serpents  ;  they  became 
 '  adulterers,   and  twenty  thousand  perished  in  one  day  ;   they 
 
 *  murmured,  and  were  destroyed  by  the  destroyer  ;  they  were 
 '  treated  as  men  in  the  hands  of  God ;  and  that  nation 
 '  continues  to  bear  the  same  discipline  to  this  very  hour. 
 1  Nothing  else  can  explain  the  present  condition  of  the  Jews. 
 ( By  the  discipline  of  their  covenant,  they  have  become  a 
 '  wonder  to  all  nations  on  the  earth. 
 
 '  These  things,  the  apostle  says,  are  examples  to  us  ;  for 
 'having  once  been  baptized,  entering  into  Christ,  we  are 
 '  subjected  to  his  discipline,  whatever  the  event  may  be. 
 '  Whether  we  go  forward  to  life,  or  turn  back  again  unto 
 '  death  ;  the  vow  of  God  is  upon  us  ;  and,  in  love  or  wrath, 
 '  His  love  and  honour  must  be  vindicated.  This  is  the  whole 
 '  point  of  the  apostle's  exhortation,  and  it  is  full  of  the  deepest 
 '  solemnity.  It  ought  never  to  be  read  without  prayerful  examin- 
 '  ation.  Hence,  it  has  sometimes  seemed  ready  to  break  ray 
 '  heart,  [!]  when  controversial  critics  have  been  found  pecking 
 '  at  this,  with  similar  passages,  as  sparrows  at  work  upon  a 
 '  flower,  tearing  it  to  atoms,  defacing  its  beauty,  destroying  its 
 '  form,  and  reducing  it  to  absolute  contemptibility  [!]  in  order, 
 '  that  being  bereft  of  all  its  grandeur  and  worth,  it  might 
 '  seem  to  yield  a  vain  support  for  theories  which  deserve  not 
 '  the  smallest  esteem.     By  this  we  learn,  how  ill  men  are 
 
NOT  BY  IMMERSION.  213 
 
 '  repaid  for  thus  abrogating  tlie  solemn  purposes  of  inspiration, 
 1  and  turning  away  from  those  streams  of  thought,  that  flow 
 '  from  the  dwelling  place  of  the  Deity,  and,  swelling  into 
 1  sublimest  grandeur,  rush  to  their  conclusion,  like  torrents  [!] 
 '  as  if  to  show,  that  their  merciful  Author  designed  to  carry  all 
 '  the  soul  with  Him  in  his  kind  intentions '  [!]  Lect.  iii.  p.  33-35. 
 
 The  leading  principles  enunciated  in  this  long  quotation 
 are  highly  interesting  and  important,  and  do  credit  to  the 
 penetration  and  candour  of  the  writer.  They  are  also,  on  the 
 whole,  as  true  as  they  are  eloquently  expressed.  In  fact,  the 
 latter  part  reaches  the  pathetic,  the  poetic,  and  the  sublime ! 
 Still,  there  are  two  or  three  assertions  in  the  passage  which, 
 if  I  understand  the  author  rightly,  strike  me  as  untenable. 
 He  says,  the  Hebrews  'became  immersed  as  they  entered 
 'into  Moses;'  surely,  it  cannot  be  meant,  that  they  were 
 '  dipped,  or  plunged  into '  the  water,  as  this  word,  from 
 immergo,  evidently  means !  In  the  controversy,  on  the  mode 
 of  baptism,  we  are  continually  reminded,  that  baptism  is  not 
 a  state,  or  a  condition,  but  an  act ;  and  that  baptizo  means 
 always  and  only  to  dip.  Hence,  in  consistency  with  this 
 idea,  pouring  tuns  of  water  on  a  person  would  not  scripturally 
 baptize  him.  He  must  be  put  into  and  under  water,  and  the 
 element  must  come  in  contact  with  every  part  of  his  body ; 
 and,  then,  he  must  be  formally  raised  up  out  of  it,  before  he 
 can  be  perfectly  baptized,  in  accordance  with  the  avowed 
 sentiments,  and  the  universal  practice,  of  adult  immersionists. 
 This  being  essential  to  '  Modern  Immersion,'  we  may  safely 
 aver,  that  the  Hebrews  were  not  really  immersed  in  the  Red 
 Sea.  The  truth  is,  that  though  our  good  Baptist  friends  find 
 and  admit  various  manifest  modes  of  operation  expressed  by 
 the  original  verb  in  question,  in  different  Greek  authors,  they 
 contrive  to  make  it  always  to  mean  dipping  or  immersing, 
 literally  or  figuratively,  expressed  or  implied !  and  never  . 
 attempt  to  baptize  in  any  other  form  than  that  of  plunging  the 
 entire  body  under  water — constantly  pleading  the  supposed 
 simple  and  invariable  sense  of  the  Greek  verb,  as  the  rule  of 
 their  ceremony  !  They  never  baptize  persons  by  getting  them 
 to  walk  on  dry  land,  with  water  on  each  side  of  them,  and  a 
 cloud  or  shower  of  rain,  natural  or  artificial,  over  their  heads, 
 and  then  call  it  an  immersion,  or  Christian  baptism  ! 
 
 It  may  be  allowable,  in  passing,  to  notice,  that  our  opponents 
 frequently  complain,  that  the  original  word  baptizo,  in  the 
 New  Testament,  is  not  invariably  translated,  to  dip,  to  plunge, 
 or  to  immerse ;    thereby  expressing  in  English,  what  they 
 
214  BAPTISM  TO   MOSES 
 
 strenuously  contend  is  the  true  and  only  sense  of  it  in  the 
 Greek  language.  But,  had  this  been  done,  the  words,  Baptist, 
 Baptizing,  and  Baptism,  would  never,  in  all  probability,  have 
 been  in  ordinary  use  among  us,  any  more  than  among  the 
 ancient  Hebrews,  in  whose  language  the  word  is  nowhere 
 found.  And  had  our  brethren  still  immersed,  dipped,  or  plunged 
 their  converts,  in  accordance  with  this  restricted  translation  ; 
 and  had  this  rite,  then  as  now,  supplied  the  distinguishing 
 designation  of  their  denomination  ;  instead  of  having  Baptist 
 Ministers,  Baptist  Brethren,  and  Baptist  Chapels ;  we  should 
 have  had  Dipping  Ministers,  Dipping  Brethren,  and  Dipping 
 Chapels  !  And  if  the  grounds  of  their  complaint  against  the 
 translators  of  the  Bible  be  deemed  valid  by  them,  and  if  to 
 dip  be  the  proper  sense  of  the  verb,  they  could  not,  on  their 
 present  principles,  have  objected  to  such  an  appellation. 
 Those  who  regard  the  original,  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
 conveying  the  broad  and  general  idea  of  an  initiating,  conse- 
 crating, or  purifying  rite,  rather  than  of  a  specific,  restricted, 
 and  unvarying  mode  of  administering  it ;  whether  they  poured, 
 sprinkled,  or  immersed,  would  not  be  consistently  subject  to 
 any  such  special,  and,  to  our  ears,  uncouth  designation. 
 Indeed,  the  name  which  our  brethren  now  bear,  whether  given 
 to  them  originally,  or  assumed  by  themselves  subsequently, 
 indicates  that  they  only,  of  all  the  Christian  denominations  in 
 the  world,  really  baptized  their  converts  !  Against  this  we 
 demur.  We  believe  that  we,  at  least,  truly  and  scripturally, 
 baptize  both  adults  and  infants.  The  Papists  are  blamed  for 
 appropriating  to  themselves  the  term  Catholic,  as  if  they 
 comprehended  the  universal  church  of  God :  yet,  our  opponents 
 claim  to  be  the  exclusive  or  only  true  baptizers  in  Christen- 
 dom !     But  to  return  to  Mr.  Stovel. 
 
 He  asserts,  that  the  '  Jewish  nation  continues  to  bear  the 
 '  same  discipline  to  this  hour. .  .  .that  nothing  else  can  explain 
 '  the  present  condition  of  the  Jews ;  and  that  by  the 
 '  discipline  of  their  '  [baptismal]  '  covenant,  they  have  become 
 '  a  wonder  to  all  nations  of  the  earth.'  But  is  he  to  be  under- 
 stood, as  meaning,  that  the  one  act  of  baptism,  in  the  Red  Sea, 
 involved  all  their  posterity,  as  to  its  privileges  and  obligations, 
 to  the  latest  times?  If  so,  he  gives  a  vast  deal  more  impor- 
 tance to  that  transaction  than  we  ever  thought  of  attaching  to 
 it,  or  than  the  apostle  gives  to  it,  in  his  allusion  to  the 
 ceremony,  or  than  the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament  ever 
 assumed.  It  would  be  like  the  fabulous  consecration  of 
 St.  Peter  to  the  Popedom  of  Rome;    in  which  the  celestial 
 
PERPETUATED  EN'  ISRAEL.  215 
 
 virtues  of  the  Spirit,  first  poured  on  his  head,  have  come  in 
 an  uninterrupted  and  unimpaired  stream  of  light,  authority, 
 and  holiness,  to  every  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon,  papist  or 
 protestant,  apostolically  ordained,  in  the  congregations  of  the 
 Lord,  without  any  fresh  supply  from  the  sources  above! 
 According  to  our  view  of  the  text  and  rite,  there  must  have 
 been  a  reiteration  of  the  act  in  all  succeeding  generations 
 among  the  Jews — at  least,  so  long  as  baptism  was  a  recognized 
 personal  sign  of  the  Mosaic  Covenant.  That  it  was  not  the 
 baptism  of  a  nation  once  for  all,  and  to  last  for  ever  in  its 
 results,  without  a  repetition,  is  certain;  for  we  know  that 
 John  and  the  disciples  of  Christ  baptized  the  Jews  in  their 
 own  day,  before  the  special  kingdom  of  Christ  was  set  up, 
 and  consecrated  them  to  the  same  God  who  led  the  tribes  out  of 
 Egypt,  and  gave  them  his  laws  at  Sinai.  This  baptism  in  the 
 sea  was  not  literally  to  Moses,  whose  personal  influence  was 
 to  terminate  with  his  life  on  Mount  Nebo ;  but  to  that  great 
 and  glorious  religious  system  of  which  he  was  the  medium 
 and  mediator,  and  which  continued  to  the  death  of  Christ; 
 and,  in  its  more  expansive  application,  continues  to  the 
 present  day.  Into  this  system,  people  must  be  personally 
 inducted  and  instructed,  generation  after  generation,  in  order 
 that  the  baptismal  covenant  may  affect  and  benefit  them  as 
 they  come  into  existence. 
 
 The  covenant  of  circumcision  was  of  a  like  order.  The 
 one  act  of  circumcising  Abraham  and  his  household  did  not 
 suffice  for  all  their  succeeding  posterity ;  it  was  to  be  repeated, 
 from  father  to  son,  down  to  the  death  of  Christ;  when,  having 
 answered  the  leading  purpose  of  its  original  institution,  it  was 
 to  be  virtually,  if  not  absolutely  and  universally,  done  away 
 — leaving  water  baptism  as  the  sole  external  symbol  of 
 regeneration,  and  the  only  initiatory  rite  of  the  gospel  economy. 
 It  will  be  seen,  that  every  new  subject  dedicated  to  God, 
 under  the  law,  was  called  to  undergo  a  fresh  ceremony  of 
 consecration.  Aaron  was  not  anointed  for  all  succeeding 
 High  Priests,  nor  Saul  for  all  the  Kings  of  Israel  who  came 
 after  him.  The  dedication  of  the  first  sanctuary  did  not 
 supersede  the  necessity  of  dedicating  the  second ;  and  the 
 holy  vessels,  as  they  were  brought  into  use,  were,  in  their 
 turn,  purified  for  the  service  of  God.  So  were  the  seed  of 
 Abraham,  as  they  came  into  the  world.  We  have  here  a 
 valid  corroboration  of  the  doctrine,  that  baptism  was  continued 
 among  the  Jews  from  Moses  to  Christ — at  least,  I  can 
 conclude  nothing  less,  if  Mr.  Stovel  be  correct,  in  saying  the 
 
216  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES 
 
 covenant  of  baptism  was  perpetual  among  that  people.  There 
 were  avowedly  leading  features  of  agreement  between  the 
 covenants  of  circumcision  and  baptism  ;  and  of  these  their 
 personal  application  and  perpetuity  among  the  Jews,  would 
 not  be  the  least  prominent. 
 
 It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  the  signs  of  both  covenants 
 would  be  alike  reiterated  as  long  as  the  covenants  themselves 
 remained  in  their  original  force  ;  which  was  certainly  the  case 
 till  the  full  introduction  of  the  New  Testament  economy. 
 That  the  sign  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  then  virtually 
 abrogated,  is  not  a  question  now  with  any  enlightened  professor 
 of  Christianity  ;  and  that  the  special  sign  of  the  Mosaic  or 
 the  baptismal  covenant  was  to  be  perpetuated,  till  the  end  of 
 the  gospel  dispensation,  is  a  matter  equally  indisputable  by 
 all  Baptist  and  Pedobaptist  followers  of  Christ.  Other  signs 
 and  seals  of  God's  gracious  covenant,  given  to  Moses,  or 
 renewed  through  him,  were  continued  from  year  to  year,  till 
 the  whole  Mosaic  system  was  abolished  in  Judea,  if  not  much 
 longer.  The  sacrifices  bled  daily  on  the  altar,  and  at  other 
 appointed  intervals.  The  feasts  of  commemoration  were,  or 
 should  have  been,  regularly  kept.  The  tabernacle  and  temple 
 services  were  unremittingly  performed.  The  sabbath  day  was, 
 no  doubt,  weekly  observed  by  all  the  pious  Hebrews.  Tithes, 
 offerings,  and  oblations  were  duly  brought  to  sustain  the 
 institutions  of  Israel.  And  though  we  have  very  few  historical 
 notices  of  the  continuous  performance  of  these  duties,  none 
 question  the  fact,  or  the  obligation  to  do  so. 
 
 Consequently,  there  is  as  much  reason  for  believing  that 
 this  initatory  rite,  first  publicly  administered  in  the  Red  Sea, 
 was  perpetuated,  like  many  others  which  were  commenced  or 
 renewed  about  the  same  time.  It  does  not  appear  why  the 
 Hebrews,  who  left  Egypt,  should  be  personally  baptized  unto 
 Moses,  or  rather  consecrated  to  his  religion,  and  not  every 
 succeeding  generation  of  that  people.  We  must  suppose 
 either  that  all  personal  religious  privileges  and  obligations, 
 connected  with  the  ancient  baptismal  covenant,  were  the 
 result  of  being  born  of  a  consecrated  ancestry ;  or,  that  the 
 descendants  of  those  baptized  in  the  sea  were  not  as  greatly 
 blessed  as  their  forefathers  ;  or  that  they,  with  all  proselytes  to 
 Judaism,  were  individually  the  subjects  of  the  like  initiatory 
 rite.  The  choice  among  these  three  alternatives  must  be 
 made,  and  the  last  is  the  one  which  evidently  claims  the 
 preference.  Further,  that  there  were  certain  rites,  duly,  and 
 perhaps  daily,  administered  among  the  Hebrews,  which  Paul 
 
PERPETUATED  IN  ISRAEL.  217 
 
 elsewhere  designates  Baptisms,  and  which,  in  ail  their  leading 
 purposes,  were  the  same  as  the  New  Testament  baptisms, 
 our  opponents,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  candidly  admit ; 
 and  which  few  persons  of  judgment  and  candour  will 
 seriously  dispute. 
 
 In  truth,  if  the  Hebrew  baptismal  covenant,  imposed  in  the 
 Ked  Sea,  involved  that  people  in  '  the  same  discipline  to  this 
 '  very  hour,'  the  symbol  must  have  been  continuously  admin- 
 istered to  the  succeeding  generations  of  their  tribes,  during  their 
 continuance  as  a  nation,  and  must  have  been  fully  incorporated 
 in  the  institutions  of  the  gospel  on  the  resurrection  of  the 
 Messiah.  Mr.  Stovel  evidently  and  very  properly  understands 
 the  apostle  to  be  addressing  the  Corinthians  as  baptized 
 persons,  as  being  well  acquainted  with  the  rite  of  baptism, 
 and  with  their  baptismal  obligations.  Without  this,  there 
 would  have  been  no  coherence  in  Paul's  discourse,  nor  analogy 
 in  his  illustrations.  To  have  told  them,  that  the  baptized 
 Israelites  broke  their  baptismal  covenant,  and  were  punished 
 for  it,  would  have  had  no  adaptation  to  the  Corinthians,  nor 
 any  motive  to  stedfastness,  had  they  not  been  also  religiously 
 baptized.  They  might  have  readily  inferred — '  It  is  true,  the 
 '  Hebrews  were  baptized  and  were  severely  chastised  for 
 '  violating  their  baptismal  covenant ;  but  as  we  have  not  been 
 '  baptized  at  all,  or  not  like  that  ancient  people,  we  have  no  such 
 '  covenant  to  break,  nor  any  such  obligations  to  violate ;  therefore, 
 '  the  reasoning  is  without  relevancy  to  us ;  though  it  would  be 
 1  to  any  other  people  actually  initiated  to  religion,  after  the  manner 
 1  of  Our  Fathers,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.  Where  there  is  no 
 '  law,  there  can  be  no  transgression  of  it.  We  are  without  the 
 •  first,  and,  consequently,  are  exempt  from  the  second.' 
 
 The  analogy  must  also  have  held  true  in  respect  of  the 
 manna  and  the  water,  mentioned  in  the  text ;  or  the  argument 
 of  the  apostle  would  have  so  far  been  imperfect.  That  the 
 Corinthians  had  means  and  privileges  answerable  to  this  food 
 of  angels,  and  this  water  of  life,  is  certain.  They  had  the  true 
 bread  from  heaven  ;  they  had  Christ,  with  all  the  blessings 
 of  his  grace,  set  before  them  in  the  gospel,  and  many  of  them 
 had  eaten  and  drank  thereof,  to  the  support  and  salvation  of 
 their  souls.  Hence,  the  consistency  and  cogency  of  the 
 admonition.  The  ancient  Hebrews  and  the  Corinthians  were 
 placed  in  the  like  responsible  and  spiritual  positions,  and  were 
 favoured  and  bound  alike  by  their  baptisms.  If  the  con- 
 gregation at  Corinth  had  not  been  baptized,  and  laid  under 
 obligations  by  it,  like  the  Hebrews,  there  would  have  been 
 
 K 
 
218  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CUEIST 
 
 nothing  in  Paul's  argument  to  convince  their  judgment,  to 
 impress  their  consciences,  or  to  guard  their  conduct. — With 
 these  prefatory  explanations,  we  shall  proceed  to  unfold  the 
 analogy  stated  in  the  heading  of  this  part  of  our  subject. 
 
 SECTION  FIRST.— In  the  text,  Paul  employs  the  same 
 Greek  verb  to  express  the  act  of  baptism  unto  Moses, 
 (ebaptizanto,)  and  the  act  of  baptism  unto  Christ,  (ebap- 
 tizonto,)  in  Acts  xviii.  8 — for  the  baptism  of  the  Hebrews 
 in  the  Sea,  and  for  that  of  the  first  converts  to  Christianity  in 
 Corinth.  The  religious,  spiritual,  and  ceremonial  ideas  he 
 attaches  to  the  baptism  administered  by  his  own  hands  and 
 in  his  own  times,  he  evidently  attaches  to  the  baptism  of 
 their  remote,  lineal,  or  ecclesiastical  ancestors,  in  the  cloud 
 and  in  the  sea.  Whatever  shades  of  difference  there  might 
 be  in  the  circumstantials  of  these  ceremonies,  there  were 
 none  that  prevented  the  inspired  writer  from  speaking  of  both 
 as  genuine  and  alike  scriptural  baptisms.  In  this  sense  the 
 church  at  Corinth  must  have  understood  him — interpreting 
 what  he  said  by  what  they  either  had  seen  or  personally 
 experienced.  Without  some  glossary  or  explanation,  expressly 
 indicating  that  he  did  not  use  the  word  in  its  current  or 
 ecclesiastical  application ;  and  that  there  were  important  and 
 essential  differences  between  the  two  baptisms ;  they  could 
 not  have  entertained  a  second  opinion  on  the  subject.  They 
 would  naturally  and  even  necessarily  have  conceived  that  the 
 Israelites  were,  in  all  material  points,  baptized  like  the 
 Christians  ;  and  that  the  Christians  were,  of  course,  as  really 
 baptized  as  the  Israelites. 
 
 Nor  does  Mr.  Stovel's  language  convey  the  slightest 
 intimation,  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  administrations  were  not 
 the  same,  both  in  fact  and  in  effect,  and  the  subjects  physically 
 and  morally  analogous.  He  does  not  question,  that  under  the 
 term  '  Our  Fathers,'  all  the  Hebrew  men,  women,  and 
 children,  who  passed  through  the  sea,  are  fairly  and  properly 
 included;  nor  does  he  hint  even  a  suspicion,  (however  it 
 might  have  seemed  to  favour  adult  baptism  exclusively,)  that 
 all  the  little  ones,  children  and  infants,  were  not  baptized  as 
 really,  as  completely,  as  personally,  and  as  purposely,  as  the 
 male  heads  of  the  families,  and  the  princes  and  elders  of  their 
 tribes ;  and  all  these,  too,  as  canonically  and  as  scripturally 
 as  the  congregation  at  Corinth.  He  does  not  here,  at  least, 
 attempt  to  weaken  the  force  and  iutent  of  the  apostle's  ex- 
 pressions, by  saying  (like  some  of  his  less  intelligent  brethren) 
 
DESIGNATED  PRECISELY  ALIKE.  219 
 
 that  the  Hebrews  were  figuratively,  or,  as  it  were,  haptized  unto 
 Moses  ;  or  that  the  baptism  itself  was,  in  any  of  its  leading 
 particulars,  inferior  to,  or,  in  principle  and  design,  different 
 from,  that  of  the  first  Christian  converts  and  their  households. 
 Indeed,  it  is  not  readily  apparent  how  'the  doctrine  of  baptism 
 '  could  derive  a  very  powerful  and  solemn  confirmation  '  from 
 the  words  of  Paul,  unless  the  baptisms  to  Moses  and  to  Christ 
 were,  in  their  essential  properties,  very  much  alike. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  correctly  states  the  case,  in  a  passage  before 
 quoted.  '  As  the  Israelites  had  been  baptized  unto  Moses  ;   so 
 
 •  the  Corinthians  had  been  baptized  unto  Christ'. .  .  .'  there 
 '  is  a  comparison  between  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  and 
 '  the  baptism  of  professed  believers  ' — of  course,  he  does  not 
 add — '  and  their  children  also  ;'  for  that  would  have  been  too 
 manifestly  suicidal  to  his  denominational  object !  But,  on 
 the  other  hand,  neither  he  nor  any  of  his  recent  brethren, 
 whose  sentiments  on  the  text  I  have  just  now  cited,  even  once 
 intimate  that  children  were  not  baptized  in  the  sea,  the  same 
 as  their  parents.  Had  there  been  the  shadow  of  evidence  in 
 favour  of  such  an  assumption,  they  doubtless  would  have  seen 
 and  readily  avowed  it.  The  groundless  exception  and  argu- 
 ment of  Mr.  Rees,  I  have  noticed  and  answered  already. 
 Indeed,  their  cautiously  overlooking  the  numerous  little  ones 
 baptized  in  the  sea,  and  proselyted  by  baptism,  with  their 
 parents — a  fact  they  must  have  well  known — intimates  the 
 danger  an  avowal  of  it  would  have  been  to  their  cause  ;  and, 
 therefore,  tells  us  plainly  that  the  establishment  of  it  must 
 greatly  confirm  our  doctrine. 
 
 SECTION  SECOND.—  The  prepositions,  'unto  'Moses, 
 in  the  text,  is  the  same  as  that  used  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  Eis,  'unto' 
 Christ. — The  objects  are  not  one  and  the  same  in  person,  but 
 the  baptized  were  brought  into  the  like  relation  to  their 
 respective  heads  and  leaders — Moses  and  Christ.  The  converts 
 to  Christianity  were  consecrated,  set  apart,  or  discipled,  unto 
 Christ,  the  Saviour,  Lawgiver,  and  Ruler  of  the  New  Testament 
 Church.  '  Moses  was  the  anointed  Ruler  of  Israel,  called  in 
 '  one  place  their  Christ ;  under  his  government  they  were 
 '  called  to  glorify  the  God  of  their  Fathers,  either  in  the 
 '  blessedness  which  resulted  from  obedience,  or  the  punishment 
 
 *  that  was  due  for  their  rebellion.'  The  same  language  might 
 be  employed  with  equal  relevancy  concerning  those  who  were 
 baptized  unto  Christ.  He  was  their  Leader,  Lawgiver,  and 
 King-,  in  the  highest  degree.     Moses  was  the  head  servant  in 
 
220  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 the  ancient  house  of  God  ;  Jesus  was  the  first-horn  in  his- 
 own  house.  Moses  was  a  lawgiver  to  a  nation  ;  Christ  to  all 
 the  later  nations  of  the  earth.  Moses  wrote  what  God  dictated 
 to  him  in  the  mount ;  Christ  revealed  the  will  and  spake 
 the  words  of  his  Father  who  sent  him.  Both  were  inter- 
 cessors in  their  respective  spheres.  Moses,  it  is  true,  was, 
 in  person  and  position,  infinitely  inferior  to  the  Saviour,  in 
 many  important  particulars  ;  hut  as  a  prophet  and  a  prince, 
 he  was  the  most  eminent  type  of  our  Redeemer  that  ever  lived 
 on  the  earth.  '  The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a 
 '  Prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren  like  unto  me, 
 'unto  him  shall  ye  hearken.'  Deut.  xviii.  15.  Acts  iii.  22. 
 
 Baptism  is  connected  with  faith  in  Christ  and  an  open 
 profession  of  the  gospel.  '  For  ye  are  all  the  children  of  God 
 '  by  faith  ;  "  for  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
 '  Christ  have  put  on  Christ."  As  if  the  apostle  had  said,  you 
 '  are  his  ;  you  have  espoused  his  cause  and  professed  his 
 '  name ;  you  have  thus  declared  your  belief  in  his  divine 
 '  mission  and  doctrines,  and  are  therefore  bound  to  obey  his 
 '  commands.  The  apostle  reasons  on  the  same  principle 
 '  with  the  Galatians,  who  were  for  adding  to  the  gospel  the 
 '  ceremonial  law  ;  "I  testify  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised, 
 '  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law,"  [though  circumcised 
 when  only  eight  days  old.]  '  In  like  manner,  we  observe, 
 '  every  one  that  is  baptized  lays  himself,'  [or  is  laid  by  his 
 parents,  like  the  baby  Israelite,]  '  by  that  act,  under  an 
 'obligation  to  obey  all  the  laws  of  Christ.'  Eaton,  p.  179. 
 It  is  observable,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  objects  or  designs 
 of  Christian  Baptism,  of  which  children  now  are  not  as  capable 
 as  they  were  formerly,  respecting  the  ends  of  Hebrew  circum- 
 cision. In  this  latter  case,  the  young  were  consecrated  to 
 God,  his  laws,  and  his  institutions,  as  revealed  by  his  servant 
 Moses.  In  the  former  case,  they  are  consecrated  to  God,  his 
 laws,  and  his  institutions,  as  revealed  by  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 
 To  be  baptized  to  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  or  unto  the  doctrine 
 of  his  death,  or  to  the  obligations  of  repentance,  or  to  the 
 injunctions  of  the  whole  of  evangelical  truth  ;  involves  no 
 more  difficulty  than  existed  in  olden  times,  in  being  circum- 
 cised to  do  the  whole  law.  Indeed,  there  seems  nothing 
 involved  in  the  intentions  of  this  consecration  which  is  not  as 
 congruous  with  the  young  as  with  the  aged. 
 
 Now,  as  men,  women,  and  children  were  consecrated  unto 
 Moses ;  what  valid  reasons  can  be  given  why  men,  women, 
 and  children  should  not  be  also  consecrated  unto  Christ  ?     It 
 
DESIGNATED  PBECISELT  ALIKE.  221 
 
 was  an  honour  to  Moses,  that  the  whole  Hehrew  family  was 
 baptized  unto  him,  or  to  the  laws  and  institutions  enacted 
 through  his  agency ;  and  why  should  not  Christ  be  honoured 
 by  all  nations,  without  excepting  children,  which  generally 
 constitute  a  third  of  the  population,  being  baptized  unto  him, 
 and  to  that  divine  '  grace  and  truth  '  he  came  to  exemplify  and 
 establish  in  the  world  at  large  ?  Those  initiated  unto  Moses, 
 were  but  one  people,  and,  though  abstractedly  numerous,  were 
 comparatively  few.  Those  that  have  been,  and  that  shall  yet 
 be,  discipled  to  Christ,  will  be  innumerable  even  as  the  dew- 
 drops  of  the  morning.  But  to  consecrate  every  age  to  Moses, 
 and  only  those  of  adult  age,  or  a  small  minority  of  the  people 
 prepared  for  the  Lord,  to  the  King  of  kings,  appears  to  lower 
 that  pre-eminence  in  all  things  which  Christ  is  really  to  sustain 
 in  the  world,  and  to  render  his  rule  less  comprehensive,  literal, 
 and  gracious,  than  that  enjoyed  under  the  old  dispensation. 
 
 Nor  would  this  imagined  disparity  be  met  by  alleging, 
 that  only  the  converted,  the  devout,  the  faithful,  the  intelli- 
 gent, and  the  useful,  should  now  be  baptized  unto  Christ ;  and 
 that,  in  the  purity  of  his  subjects,  notwithstanding  their 
 comparative  paucity,  he  is  more  honoured  than  he  would  be 
 by  having  innumerable  unconscious  or  inexperienced  infants 
 and  children  dedicated  to  him,  and  accounted  as  a  portion  of 
 his  holy  inheritance.  For,  though  all  children  are  born  in  sin, 
 and  all  have  the  latent  seeds  of  human  depravity  in  their 
 natures  ;  yet,  in  submission,  docility,  and  innocence  of  life, 
 they  are  more  like  the  angels  in  heaven  than  the  most  righteous 
 men  in  our  churches  ;  are  as  meet  for  glory,  at  a  moment's 
 notice,  as  any  saint  in  existence  ;  and,  dying  in  that  condition, 
 they  will  as  certainly  enter  the  heavenly  kingdom,  as  the 
 most  devout  and  devoted  Christian  in  the  land.  If  mental 
 purity  and  moral  innocence  be  essential  or  desirable  pre- 
 requisites for  baptism,  none  are  more  meet  for  the  ordinance 
 than  new-born  babes.  Hence,  to  baptize  such  interesting 
 immortal  beings  to  Moses,  and  not  to  Christ,  is  to  give 
 greater  honour  to  the  servant,  than  to  the  Son,  of  God.  It 
 is  remarkable,  that  our  divine  Lord  not  only  said  concerning 
 little  children,  'of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God;'  but,  also, 
 '  whosoever  shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little 
 'child,  he  shall  not  enter  therein.'  Mark  x.  15.  We  must 
 receive  the  teachings  and  blessings  of  it  with  childlike  do- 
 cility and  confidence.  If  the  baptism  of  the  Hebrews  placed 
 all  the  children,  as  well  as  all  the  adults,  under  the  direction, 
 instruction,  and  care    of  Moses ;  (and,  that    it   did  so,   the 
 
222  THE  BAPTIZED  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST, 
 
 language  of  Mr.  Stovel  fully  implies  ;)  and,  if  this  were  a 
 great  mercy  and  blessing  to  them,  as  it  certainly  was  ;  then, 
 not  to  baptize  children  to  Christ  is,  not  officially  to  place  them 
 under  his  direction,  instruction,  and  care.  On  the  contrary, 
 it  would  be  leaving  them,  where  the  Hebrews  stood  prior  to 
 their  baptism,  without  the  pale  of  the  baptismal  covenant,  and 
 so  unentitled  to  its  subsequent  religious  advantages. 
 
 Our  preceding  statements,  from  unquestionable  statistics, 
 have  also  clearly  shown,  that  numerous  adults  are  baptized 
 unto  Christ  by  our  opponents,  and  introduced  to  the  communion 
 of  saints,  who — as  subsequent  developments  of  unrighteous 
 principles  plainly  evince — are  not  the  converted,  the  devout, 
 the  faithful,  the  intelligent,  or  the  useful ;  but  the  very 
 reverse.  We  are  also  certain,  that  while  human  depravity, 
 duplicity,  and  hypocrisy,  remain,  as  at  present,  in  mankind ; 
 and  while  the  perceptive  faculties  of  Baptist  ministers,  deacons, 
 and  churches,  are  not  elevated,  almost  immeasurably,  above 
 their  existing  standard,  the  insincere,  the  ungodly,  and  the 
 unsaved,  will,  in  large  numbers,  be  consecrated  to  Christ,  by 
 immersion,  in  times  to  come,  as  they  have  avowedly  been  in 
 times  past,  in  every  country  where  our  opponents  proselyte 
 and  immerse  people  into  their  fellowships.  The  notion, 
 therefore,  that  the  virtues  of  the  characters  dedicated  to  the 
 Saviour  by  our  brethren,  more  than  overbalance,  in  weight 
 and  worth,  the  numbers  of  children  discipled  to  Christ  by 
 Pedobaptists,  is  void  of  any  force  in  this  controversy. 
 
 Had  the  principles  of  our  opponents  been  universally 
 adopted,  probably  eight-tenths  of  the  redeemed  in  glory  would 
 have  been  introduced  there  from  among  ourselves  without 
 having  been  scripturally  consecrated  to  Christ  here  ;  while 
 we  have  the  saddest  solid  ground  for  believing,  that  in  perdition 
 a  large  portion  of  those  immersed  as  adults,  have  found  a 
 miserable  and  an  everlasting  home.  After  these  remarks, 
 which  few  will  attempt  to  controvert,  the  following  passage 
 of  Mr.  Noel  reads  somewhat  awkwardly,  especially  with  the 
 insertions  between  the  brackets,  which  are  my  own.  ■  To 
 •  witness  the  baptism  of  a  believer  '  [that  is,  of  a  professor] 
 '  must  be  useful  to  the  members  of  the  Church.  Another 
 '  soul  is  rescued  by  Almighty  grace  from  perdition,  and  the 
 '  church  may  share  with  angels  in  their  joy  over  a  repentant 
 '  sinner,'  [if  he  be  a  real  penitent.]  'Another  soldier  enlists  in 
 '  Christ's  army,  and  his  fellow-soldiers  may  renew  their  reso- 
 "  lution  to  fight  the  good  fight  of  faith,'  [if  assured  he  will 
 not  soon  become  a    deserter.]     '  At  that  sight,   experienced 
 
THEIR  OBLIGATIONS  PRECISELY  ALIKE.  223 
 
 *  Christians  must  revive  their  old  impressions '  [with  many 
 fears  and  misgivings]  '  when  they  first  gave  themselves  to  the 
 '  Lord  ;    backsliders,  moved  to  compunction  at  witnessing  a 
 
 *  faith  so  contrasted  with    their    faithless    wanderings,    may 
 
 *  repent,'  [or  calculate  on  his  backsliding  also.]  -  Young 
 1  Christians  must  rejoice  to  admit  companions  like  themselves 
 ■  to  the  brotherhood  of  the  saints  ;'  [unless  they  should  be, 
 like  thousands  of  others,  no  saints  at  all,  but  in  name  ;]  '  and 
 
 *  the  prayers  and  praises  of  many  must  ascend  as  an  acceptable 
 
 *  sacrifice  to  God,'  [for  the  introduction  of  possibly  a  deceiver 
 or  a  deceived  attendant,  into  the  bosom  of  the  inner  church  !] 
 Sub.  p.  276. 
 
 SECTION  THIRD.— Both  baptisms  placed  the  subjects 
 of  them  under  obligations  to  believe,  obey,  and  love,  their 
 respective  Heads.— The  entire  argument  of  Paul  is  intended 
 to  develop  and  establish  this  noble  design  ;  and  Mi*.  Stovel's 
 exposition  is  intended  to  explain  and  confirm  it.  All  the  persons 
 baptized  unto  Moses  were,  without  any  exceptions,  bound  to 
 learn,  approve,  and  keep,  the  laws  he  should  afterwards  pro- 
 mulgate among  them.  Whether,  as  adults,  they  walked  through 
 the  dry  channel  of  the  sea,  or,  as  children,  were  borne  on  the 
 shoulders  of  their  sires  ;  whether  they  had  a  full  knowledge 
 of  their  position,  and  of  God's  design  in  their  baptism,  or 
 were  in  total  ignorance  of  both — as  much  so  as  all  Hebrew 
 infants  were  of  the  nature  and  intention  of  circumcision,  or 
 as  the  children  of  the  Baptists  are  of  their  early  dedication  to 
 Christ — if  Israelites  by  birth  or  proselytism,  or  by  association 
 with  them  in  their  flight,  and  by  which  they  became  incor- 
 porated in  their  households  or  community,  they  were  all 
 baptized,  and  were  thenceforward  equally  bound  to  hear,  study, 
 and  keep  the  laws,  statutes,  and  ordinances,  which  were  to  be 
 subsequently  delivered  to  them  by  their  prophet,  leader,  and 
 king  in  Jeshurun.  In  this  respect,  this  baptism  of  the 
 Israelites  bore  a  striking  resemblance  to  that  of  the  first  converts 
 to  the  gospel.  They  and  their  families  were  placed  under  the 
 special  guidance  and  supervision  of  the  apostles  of  Christ,  or 
 rather,  indirectly,  under  Christ  himself.  Had  not  this  been 
 the  apostle's  intention,  his  argument  would  have  been  wholly 
 irrelative,  and  of  no  force,  in  promoting  holiness  of  heart,  con- 
 sistency in  life,  and  a  continuance  in  evangelical  obedience. 
 
 And,  be  it  observed,  the  apostle  does  not  exempt  the  young 
 from  the  same  obligations  as  those  resting  on  persons  of 
 mature  age,  by  saying  or,  in  any  way,  intimating,  that  they 
 had  not  been  baptized  like  the  Hebrew  infants,  and,  conse- 
 
224  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  ACCORDS 
 
 quently,  were  not  involved  in  the  like  claims  of  the  baptismal 
 covenant  of  the  gospel.  This,  it  is  more  than  probable,  he 
 would  have  done  had  they  not  been  duly  consecrated  to 
 Christ.  Indeed,  we  cannot  possibly  account  for  his  not 
 noting  the  exceptions,  if  they  were  actually  made,  in  the 
 ministrations  of  this  ordinance  at  Corinth.  One  thing  is 
 certain,  that  as  children  were  baptized  by  hundreds  of 
 thousands  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  frequently,  if  not  regularly, 
 afterwards  in  the  wilderness,  and  in  the  Holy  Land,  where 
 '  divers  baptisms  '  must  have  been  of  daily,  and  all  but  of 
 hourly,  occurrence ;  and  as  this  brought  them  under  a 
 covenant  to  hear,  love,  and  obey  God ;  so,  for  anything 
 advanced  to  the  contrary,  children,  under  the  Gospel  dis- 
 pensation, should  be  baptized,  and  thereby  brought  under 
 covenant  obligations,  to  learn  of,  to  serve,  and  to  glorify  God, 
 during  the  after  portions  of  their  earthly  existence.  These 
 are  quite  as  capable  of  being  thus  personally  engaged  and 
 obliged  to  believe,  honour,  and  obey  the  Saviour,  the  head 
 of  the  Christian  church,  through  all  the  subsequent  years  of 
 their  lives,  as  the  Hebrew  children  were  to  learn  of,  believe 
 in,  and  obey  Moses,  the  visible  lawgiver  and  ruler  in  Israel, 
 or  as  were  their  own  parents,  and  the  most  devout  adult 
 converts  to  the  gospel.  God,  unquestionably,  bound  them  all 
 by  the  same  baptismal  covenant,  and  expected  from  every  one 
 of  them,  in  after  life,  similar  obedience,  submission,  and  love. 
 
 SECTION  FOURTH.—  The  baptism  unto  Moses,  in  all 
 its  leading  properties,  agreed  ivith  the  commission  of  Christ, 
 recorded  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20. — In  the  latter,  the  apostles 
 were  enjoined  to  do  either  three  or  two  distinct  acts.  Suppose 
 the  former.  '  Go  ye  therefore  and  (1)  Teach,'  [proselyte  as 
 many  as  you  can  of]  'all  nations  ;  (2)  Baptizing  them  in  the 
 '  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  (3)  Teaching 
 'them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  command  you.' 
 Under  Moses,  the  people  were  (1)  Proselyted,  or  discipled 
 to  him,  by  being  brought  to  regard  and  follow  him  as  their 
 appointed  deliverer  and  guide  ;  (2)  They  were  all  baptized 
 or  consecrated  to  him  in  the  capacity  of  their  Lawgiver  and 
 King  ;  and  (3)  They  were  afterwards  taught  the  statutes  and 
 ordinances  of  the  Lord.  One  might  almost  conclude,  that 
 the  Saviour  had  this  Hebrew  baptism  in  his  eye,  when  his 
 own  commission  was  given  to  his  eleven  disciples.  In  both 
 instances  the  same  order  was  observed  and  similiar  results 
 ensued. — Or,  suppose  the  latter,  that  only  two  distinct  acts 
 
with  Christ's  last  commission.  225 
 
 were  enjoined ;  then,  these  baptisms  still  equally  accord. 
 (1)  'Go  ye  therefore  and  proselyte,  or  disciple,  by  baptizing, 
 '  as  many  as  you  can  of  all  nations,'  (2)  '  Teaching  them  to 
 '  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  command  you.'  It  is  argued, 
 that  the  verb  to  teach,  or  proselyte,  being  immediately  followed 
 by  the  participle,  baptizing ;  the  meaning  of  the  injunction 
 is,  to  proselyte  or  disciple  through  this  baptismal  act ; 
 intimating  that  the  persons  were  not  to  be  recognized  as  full 
 or  complete  disciples  of  Christ  until  they  had  undergone  this 
 ceremony.  '  Disciple  them,  baptizing  them,'  says  Matthew 
 Henry,  '  does  not  note  two  distinct  acts,  but  the  body  and 
 1  soul  of  the  same  act ;  as  granting  land  by  sealing  a  deed,  or 
 1  giving  livery  and  seizin.' 
 
 Mr.  Stovel's  exposition  of  the  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea 
 harmonises  with  this  latter  construction  of  the  passage.  '  If 
 '  they  had  so  resolved  before  the  passage,  they  might  have 
 '  turned  back  into  Egypt  ;  but  not  so  after  they  had  passed 
 '  to  the  other  side.  From  that  moment  they  were  under  God, 
 '  in  the  hands  of  Moses.  By  his  means  they  '  [all]  '  received 
 '  their  direction,  defence  and  subsistence.'  They  became  full 
 '  and  pledged  disciples  '  [of  Moses]  '  by  their  baptism.'  It  is 
 therefore  apparent,  that  the  Hebrews  were  not  fully  proselyted 
 or  regarded  as  his  duly  inducted  disciples  till  they  had  been 
 baptized.  But,  the  moment  they  had  received  this  rite,  they 
 were  recognised  as  being  under  Moses,  '  their  anointed  ruler.' 
 They  were,  in  fact,  made  complete  disciples  through  baptism, 
 as  literally  stated  in  our  Lord's  commission.  Mr.  Stovel 
 elsewere  says, '  no  disciple  was  to  be  recognized  in  any  other  way 
 1  than  by  baptism.'  p.  239.  And  'none  were  called  disciples 
 '  without  their  being  baptized.'  p.  207-  Consequently, 
 complete  discipleship  and  baptism  were  about  simultaneous. 
 The  practice  of  the  apostles  also  sustains  this  exposition. 
 There  was  no  intermediate  step,  or  purposely  intervening  space 
 of  time,  between  a  conceded  willingness  to  be  baptized,  and 
 the  baptizing  itself;  nor  have  we  any  proof,  that  persons  were 
 regarded  as  duly  inducted  and  perfect  disciples  before  they 
 were  baptized ;  while  there  are  many  texts  indicating,  that 
 immediately  on  receiving  this  rite,  the  subjects  were  designated 
 disciples  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  terms — in  agreement  with 
 the  import  of  the  commission,  and  the  result  of  the  baptism 
 in  the  sea — commencing  to  learn  the  special  doctrines,  duties, 
 and  discipline  of  the  gospel — as  previously  the  Hebrews  had 
 learned  the  laws,  statutes,  and  ordinances  of  Moses. 
 
 Still,  as  in  the  case  of  grown-up  heathens,  and  Jews,  or 
 
 K2 
 
226  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  ACCORDS 
 
 ignorant  unconsecrated  adults  generally,  some  kind  and 
 amount  of  teaching,  inducement,  or  persuasion,  must  have 
 been  employed  by  ministers,  in  order  to  incline  them  to  adopt 
 the  gospel  scheme  of  religion,  to  regard  Christ  as  the  Messiah, 
 and  to  become  willing  to  receive  instruction,  before  they 
 would  submit  to  be  baptized,  and  thereby  become  recognised 
 as  actual  and  open  disciples  of  divine  truth  ;  we  will  give  our 
 opponents  the  advantage,  if  any,  of  regarding  the  act  as  three- 
 fold, instead  of  two.  But,  whether  two-fold  or  three,  the 
 analogy  is  complete.  It  has  been  well  remarked,  that  as  the 
 apostles  preached  rather  scriptural  facts,  than  systematical 
 theology,  to  the  unbaptized ;  so  Moses  performed  miracles 
 and  issued  commands,  rather  than  taught  divine  laws,  to  the 
 Israelites,  prior  to  their  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea :  for  even  he 
 himself  was  not  acquainted  with  these  heavenly  statutes  till 
 sometime  afterwards.  Further,  like  Moses,  to  whom  a  whole 
 people  was  consecrated  at  once,  the  apostles  laboured  to  make 
 proselytes  of  all  nations,  of  all  tribes  and  clans  of  mankind, 
 or  as  many  as  possible  among  them ;  and  had  they  been  able 
 to  bring  over  to  Christianity  entire  communities,  however 
 large,  they  would  at  once  have  baptized  them  all ;  just  as 
 God  baptized  all  the  Hebrews  in  the  Red  Sea. 
 
 After  the  Hebrews  had  been  baptized,  then  Moses  regularly 
 trained  them  up  in  the  laws  of  the  Lord ;  and,  in  doing  this, 
 he  spent  many  years  among  them  in  the  wilderness.  Parents 
 were  commanded  to  instruct  their  baptized  families  in  the 
 Word  of  God.  '  And  these  words  which  I  command  thee 
 '  this  day  shall  be  in  thine  heart ;  and  thou  shalt  teach  them 
 '  diligently  unto  thy  children,  and  shalt  talk  of  them  when 
 '  thou  sittest  in  thine  house,  and  when  thou  walkest  by  the 
 '  way,  and  when  thou  liest  down,  and  when  thou  risest  up.' 
 Deut.  vi.  6,  7-  Similar  injunctions  are  frequent  in  the 
 writings  of  Moses.  The  young  Hebrew  disciples  must  be 
 fully  initiated  into  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  their  religion. 
 In  like  manner,  the  apostles,  or  rather  their  assistants, 
 endowed  with  various  gifts,  taught  those  previously  baptized, 
 from  the  least  unto  the  greatest — from  the  little  child,  like 
 young  Timothy,  to  the  man  of  hoar  hairs.  When  churches 
 were  established  in  different  parts  of  the  world,  means  were 
 adopted,  by  inspired  men,  to  teach,  by  verbal  addresses  or 
 by  sacred  epistles,  all  the  members  of  them  the  entire  revealed 
 will  of  God,  that  they  might  be  furnished  unto  every  good 
 word  and  work.  Christianized  parents  are  also  frequently 
 admonished  to  train  up   their  families   in  the  nurture  and 
 
with  Christ's  last  commission.  227 
 
 admonition  of  that  Lord  to  whom  they  had  previously  heen 
 consecrated  in  baptism. 
 
 As  soon  as  the  people  of  Samaria  were  induced  to  regard 
 Philip  as  a  messenger  of  saving  truth,  they  were  baptized, 
 (Acts  viii.  12)  both  men  and  women  ;  and,  doubtlessly,  their 
 children  also.  For,  though  the  latter  are  not  specifically 
 mentioned,  of  their  consecration  to  God,  in  this  rite,  we 
 entertain  not  the  slightest  misgiving,  any  more  than  we  do  of 
 those  baptized  in  the  sea,  or  than  we  do  of  the  baptism  of  the 
 Hebrew  women,  who  are  not  numbered  as  being  among  the 
 passing  host ;  while  even  their  children  were  particularly 
 named.  Ex.  xii.  37.  These  Samaritan  disciples  were  soon 
 after  visited,  and  fully  instructed  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord,  by 
 two  eminent  apostles.  This,  it  is  true,  was  not  a  whole 
 nation ;  but  it  was  a  whole  city,  possibly  containing  many 
 thousands  of  inhabitants.  John  the  Baptist  purified  and 
 consecrated  the  people  to  Christ  on  the  largest  scale  in  his 
 power.  All  they  '  of  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the 
 '  region  round  about  Jordan,  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
 '  confessing  their  sins.'  Having  baptized  them  with  water 
 unto  the  approaching  Redeemer  ;  he  then  taught  them  more 
 particularly  the  character,  dignity,  and  work,  of  the  Son  of 
 God  ;  and  directed  them  how  to  conduct  themselves,  as  persons 
 publicly  professing  a  desire  to  receive  and  learn  of  the  expected 
 Messiah.  And  if  all  the  Jews  scattered  abroad  throughout 
 •the  world  had  come  to  him  for  baptism,  not  one  of  them  would 
 have  gone  away  without  receiving  this  initiatory  sacrament ; 
 nor  have  had  long  to  wait  for  its  administration.  Three 
 thousand  were  proselyted  at  once  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and 
 were  discipled  to  Christ,  before  the  going  down  of  the  sun. 
 And  had  the  number  of  converts  been  twice  as  many,  and 
 been  equally  willing  to  submit  to  this  initiatory  rite,  they, 
 doubtlessly,  would  have  been  baptized  on  the  same  day,  and 
 been  subsequently  taught  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of 
 God.  Neither  does  John  seem  to  have  been  overworked  in 
 his  baptizing  operations  ;  nor  ever  told  any  to  wait  awhile 
 for  their  turn,  or  to  come  again  the  next  week,  or  the  next 
 day.  The  deed  was  done  off-hand,  and  at  once.  A  sure  sign 
 that  they  did  not  dip  their  proselytes,  one  by  one,  as  our 
 opponents  dip  theirs.  In  every  instance,  the  apostles  followed 
 their  Lord's  direction — proselyting  and  baptizing,  and  then 
 teaching  them  all  things  whatsoever  he  commanded  them. 
 The  case  of  Paul  himself  clearly  expounds  our  views.  He 
 was  made  a  convert  by  a  miracle,  a  disciple  by  baptism,  and 
 
228  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  ACCOKDS 
 
 a  wise  and  useful  Christian  by  the  instructions  which  his 
 divine  Master  subsequently  gave  him. 
 
 On  referring  to  the  commission  in  Matthew,  you  will  see 
 that  the  apostles  were  directed  to  proselyte,  baptize  and  teach 
 all  nations.  Now,  a  nation— ethnos — whether  you  view  it  as 
 embracing  a  clan,  a  tribe,  the  inhabitants  of  an  island,  or  of 
 a  vast  teritory ;  you  always  suppose  it  as  comprehending  the 
 entire  population.  You  never  set  down  the  men  of  a  country 
 as  a  whole  nation  ;  nor  all  the  women ;  nor  all  the  children 
 apart ;  but  the  whole  of  them  combined.  The  Hebrew  people 
 baptized  in  the  sea,  travelling  in  the  wilderness,  or  located  in 
 the  Holy  Land,  constituted  a  nation.  Were  we  to  speak  of 
 the  inhabitants  of  a  county,  city,  town,  or  village,  we  should 
 be  universally  understood  as  including  every  man,  woman, 
 and  child  in  it.  When  it  is  said,  a  nation  is  benefitted, 
 enlightened,  or  punished,  we  do  not  except  any  of  its  population, 
 if  capable  of  participating  in  the  national  good  or  evil.  In 
 this  sense  of  the  word  nation,  the  apostles  would  naturally 
 and  of  necessity  understand  the  terms  of  the  Saviour's 
 commission.  Had  they  been  commanded  and  prepared  to 
 feed  and  clothe  a  whole  nation  ;  they  would  have  administered 
 the  boon  to  all  who  could  eat  and  wear  apparel.  Or  had  they 
 been  told  to  heal  all  the  sick  in  a  nation,  they  would  have 
 attended  on  afflicted  infants  as  well  as  on  diseased  adults. 
 Or  had  they  been  told  to  sprinkle  or  dip  a  nation,  they  would 
 not  have  thought  of  exempting  any  who  would  receive  their 
 ablutions.  If  any  exception  were  observed,  it  would  arise 
 from  their  own  inability  to  execute  their  orders  universally, 
 or  from  some  subsequent  instructions  or  provisoes  which  would 
 limit  the  range  of  their  operations.  Neither  of  these  is 
 noticed  in  the  commission,  or  elsewhere  in  the  word  of  God. 
 We  know  that  children  form  a  large  essential  part  of  every 
 nation ;  that  they  are  capable  of  being  baptized  by  affusion 
 or  immersion,  or  both ;  and  the  latter  more  easily  than  adults ; 
 that  they  have  capacities  for  becoming  benefitted  disciples, 
 even  more  readily  than  many  old  men  and  women.  And, 
 therefore,  we  conclude,  that  the  apostles  would  not  have 
 fulfilled  their  commission,  had  they,  purposely  or  needlessly, 
 omitted  to  proselyte  little  children  by  baptizing  them. 
 
 It  has  been  often  asserted,  that  John  the  Baptist  instructed 
 his  audience  fully  before  he  baptized  them.  This  is  nowhere 
 apparent.  That  he  preached  to  them  before  he  purified  them, 
 no  one  questions.  As  he  wrought  no  miracles,  it  was  only  by 
 such  a  mode  of  appeal  that  any  were  induced  to  regard  him 
 
with  cueist's  last  commission.  229 
 
 as  the  messenger  and  herald  of  the  Messiah.  No  adult  would 
 have  been  baptized  by  him,  or  by  any  one  else,  without  some 
 preface,  explanations,  or  instructions.  The  question,  however, 
 arises,  What  did  John  actually  teach  the  people  before  he 
 baptized  them  ?  Taking  for  granted,  that  the  topics  of  his 
 ministration  are  indicated  in  the  concise  analysis  preserved  of 
 his  discourses,  I  will  cite,  at  length,  all  John  is  said  to  have 
 preached  to  his  audiences,  both  before  and  after  performing 
 this  ceremony. 
 
 '  And  John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  and  came  into 
 'all  the  country  about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of 
 '  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  and  saying,  Repent, 
 '  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.  I  am  the  voice  of 
 '  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  way  of  the 
 '  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight.     Every  valley  shall  be  filled, 
 
 *  and  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be  brought  low ;  and 
 '  the  crooked  shall  be  made  straight,  and  the  rough  ways 
 '  shall  be  made  smooth  ;  and  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation 
 '  of  God ....  But  when  he  saw  many  of  the  Pharisees  and 
 '  Sadducees  come  to  his  baptism,  he  said  unto  them,  0 
 '  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the 
 '  wrath   to    come  ?       Bring  forth,   therefore,   fruits  meet  for 
 
 *  (or  worthy   of)  repentance  ;    and  think  not  to  say  within 
 
 *  yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  father,  for  I  say  unto 
 '  you,  that  God  is  able,  of  these  stones,  to  raise  up  children 
 '  unto  Abraham.     And  now  the  axe  is  laid  unto  the  root  of 
 
 *  the  trees  ;  therefore,  every  tree  which  bringeth  not  forth  good 
 '  fruit  shall  be  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fire.     And  the 
 
 *  people  asked  him  saying,  what  shall  we  do  then  ?  He 
 '  answereth  and  saith  unto  them,  he  that  hath  two  coats,  let 
 '  him  impart  to  him  that  hath  none  ;  and  he  that  hath  meat, 
 '  let  him  do  likewise.  Then  came  the  Publicans  to  be 
 'baptized,  and' said  unto  him,  Master,  what  shall  we  do? 
 '  And  he  said  unto  them,  exact  no  more  than  that  which  is 
 
 *  appointed  you.  And  the  soldiers  likewise  demanded  of 
 '  him,  saying,  and  what  shall  we  do  ?  And  he  said  unto 
 '  them,  do  violence  to  no  man,  neither  accuse  any  falsely, 
 '  and  be  content  with  your  wages.  And  as  the  people  were 
 '  in  expectation,  and  all  men  mused  in  their  hearts  of  John 
 '  whether  he  were  the  Christ  or  not,  John  answered,  saying 
 '  unto  them  all,  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  '  [unto  repen- 
 '  tance]  '  but  one  mightier  than  I  cometh  after  me  whose  shoes 
 '  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear,'  [the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am 
 '  not  worthy  to  stoop  down  and  unloose,]  he  shall  baptize  you 
 
230  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  ACCORDS 
 
 '  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.  Whose  fan  is  in  his 
 '  hand,  and  he  will  throughly  purge  his  floor,  and  will  gather 
 '  the  wheat  into  his  garner,  hut  the  chaff  he  will  burn  with 
 '  fire  unquenchable.  And  many  other  things  in  his  exhortation 
 '  preached  he  unto  the  people.  John  bare  witness  of  him  and 
 *  cried,  saying,  this  is  he  of  whom  I  spake,  He  that  cometh 
 '  after  me  is  preferred  before  me,  for  he  was  before  me.  And, 
 '  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked,  he  saith,  Behold  the  Lamb 
 1  of  God.     He  must  increase  and  I  must  decrease." 
 
 The  above  is  the  substance  of  all  that  is  recorded  of  John's 
 preaching,  doctrinally  and  didactically,  as  harmonized  or 
 collated  by  Doddridge  ;  and,  if  we  may  judge  from  a  careful 
 examination  of  the  connexion,  we  shall  find,  that  nearly  the 
 whole  was  spoken  to  the  people  after  their  baptism,  and  not 
 before  ;  concerning  a  large  part  of  it,  this  fact  is  unques- 
 tionable. We  ask  now,  did  John  give  his  attendants  even 
 the  rudiments  or  outlines  of  Christian  truth  either  before  he 
 baptized  them,  or  ever  afterwards  ?  Nothing  of  the  kind. 
 That  he  fulfilled  his  mission  is  clear ;  but  of  what  did  it 
 consist  ?  Certainly  not  of  adequate  instruction  in  Christian 
 theology.  He  was  sent  to  herald  the  coming  Messiah ;  to 
 prepare  his  way  ;  to  make  ready  a  people  to  receive  and 
 welcome  him ;  to  enforce  repentance  and  reformation  of 
 conduct ;  to  consecrate  them  to  Christ,  by  a  general  purifi- 
 cation ;  to  announce  his  advent ;  and  then  to  resign  his  office. 
 When  asked  a  few  questions  on  moral  obligations,  he  answered 
 wisely  and  freely.  He  denounced  hypocrisy,  dishonesty,  and 
 violence  ;  and  enforced  integrity  and  generosity :  or,  as  Henry 
 has  it,  he  endeavoured  '  To  dispose  the  minds  of  people  to 
 '  receive  the  doctrines  of  Christ,  that  thereby  they  might  be 
 '  prepared  for  the  comforts  of  his  coming.' 
 
 This  was  just  all  he  did  in  the  way  of  religious  education, 
 or,  at  least,  all  that  is  recorded  by  the  holy  evangelists.  Our 
 opponents,  who  found  their  chief  argument  against  Infant 
 Baptism,  on  the  supposed  silence  of  Scripture,  of  course,  will 
 not  attribute  speeches,  preachings,  and  doings,  to  him,  out  of 
 their  own  imaginings,  in  order  to  make  up  a  case  in  defence 
 of  their  own  opinions.  The  great  work  of  unfolding  and 
 explaining  the  glorious  truths,  and  enforcing  the  various  and 
 numerous  duties  of  the  gospel,  he  left  to  those  who  should 
 come  after  him.  His  best  disciples  had  to  be  instructed 
 afresh  ;  and  many,  if  not  all,  of  his  converts,  were  undoubtedly 
 baptized  again.  His  teaching  went  no  further  than  to  induce 
 the  people  to  submit  to  his  baptism,  and  thereby  to  become 
 
WITH  CHRIST'S  LAST  COMMISSION.  23  1 
 
 consecrated  to  Him  that  was  to  follow.  After  their  purification, 
 they  had  nearly  every  thing  to  learn,  properly  designated 
 religion  ;  as  had  all  others  who  were  subsequently  baptized 
 by  the  disciples  and  apostles  of  Christ.  Their  baptism  was 
 but  initiatory  to  further  and  fuller  Christian  instruction. 
 
 It  may  be  proper  here  to  explain  to  the  general  reader, 
 why  we  have  rendered  the  first  verb  '  To  Teach,''  in  our 
 Lord's  commission,  by  the  word  '  To  Disciple '  or  '  To 
 '  Proselyte ;  '  while  the  second  verb  '  Teaching  '  is  left  in 
 its  ordinary  sense.  The  reason  is,  that  the  two  verbs,  in  the 
 Greek  language,  are  essentially  different,  though  translated 
 in  our  English  Testament  by  the  same  word.  The  first  is 
 matheteusate  from  Matheteuo,  to  be,  or  to  be  made  a 
 Disciple  or  Learner ;  the  noun  of  which  is  Mathetes,  a 
 Pupil,  Learner,  or  Scholar.  The  second  didaskontes,  from 
 Didasko,  to  Teach,  Instruct,  Educate  ;  the  noun  of  which  is 
 Didaskalos,  a  Teacher,  Doctor,  or  Instructor.  He  will  now 
 readily  perceive  the  difference  between  these  words  in  the 
 original  scriptures.  The  former  means  to  make,  procure, 
 or  obtain  pupils,  disciples,  or  scholars,  in  the  schools,  semi- 
 naries, or  colleges,  of  Christianity.  The  latter  means  to 
 teach,  instruct,  or  educate  them  when  there.  The  language 
 supposes  the  Mathetes,  or  scholar,  to  be  ignorant  of  what  the 
 Didaskalos,  or  master,  has  to  teach  him.  The  pupils  are 
 presumed  to  come  under  the  teacher's  instruction,  in  order  to 
 acquire  what  they  were  ignorant  of  previously,  either  in 
 nature  or  in  degree.  They  attend  his  lessons,  only  to  acquire 
 a  knowledge  of  what  they  understood  not  beforehand. 
 
 Hence,  in  the  ordinary  affairs  of  life,  and  in  the  due  order 
 of  procedure,  a  youth  or  child  becomes  a  pupil,  before  he  reads 
 his  first  lesson  ;  an  apprentice,  before  he  commences  operations 
 in  his  new  calling ;  a  servant,  before  he  does  any  work  for 
 his  master ;  and  a  partner,  before  he  transacts  any  business 
 in  the  name  of  his  firm.  In  all  these  instances,  the  covenant 
 or  ceremony  that  constitutes  or  recognizes  the  relationship,  or 
 fixes  the  position,  of  persons,  precedes,  or  is  supposed  to 
 precede,  the  acts  done  under  or  in  consequence  of  it.  Regular 
 religious'  teaching,  therefore,  according  to  the  commission, 
 follows  the  baptism  by  which  discipleship  is  recognized  and 
 confirmed.  '  Discipling,'  says  Dr.  Lightfoot,  'was  not  of 
 'persons  already  taught,  but  to  the  end  they  should  be  taught; 
 '  and  if  the  disciples  understood  this  word  in  Christ's  command 
 1  after  any  other  sense,  it  was  different  from  the  sense  of 
 '  the  word  which  the  nation  had  ever  used  and  only  used.' 
 
232  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  ACCORDS 
 
 Dr.  Byron,  referring  to  Mark  xvi.  15,  16,  says,  'Here  we 
 '  have  the  word  '  preach,'  and  which  word,  in  the  Greek, 
 '  is  keruxate,  of  the  verb  kerusso,  the  literal  rendering  of  which 
 '  is,  to  cry  out  aloud — to  make  publicly  known — to  proclaim 
 '  — to  promulgate — to  announce  openly — to  call  loudly  upon; 
 '  and,  therefore,  matheteusate  and  keruxate  alike  convey  the 
 '  preaching  of  the  everlasting  gospel  in  its  fullest  sense.'  p.  22. 
 To  use  the  Doctor's  own  ivords,  in  another  part  of  his  work, 
 (p.  52,)  I  may  remark,  'The  author  has  reasoned  nervously, 
 *  shrewdly,  and  subtlely  ;  but,  then,  he  has  only  laboured  to 
 '  convert  a  lie  into  the  resemblance  of  truth.  He  has  not  only 
 '  taken  away  the  true  and  proper  meaning  of  the  Greek  word,' 
 matheteuo,  but  has  also  appended  a  sense  to  it,  which  is  foreign 
 to  its  real  import.  This  he  calls  '  preaching  the  gospel  in  its 
 'fullest  sense  '—meaning  to  convey  the  idea  to  his  credulous 
 readers,  that  to  make  disciples  or  proselytes  was  the  same  as 
 '  teaching  all  things  which  Christ  commanded  his  apostles.' 
 The  one  is  no  more  like  the  other,  than  his  school  circulars, 
 to  obtain  pupils,  are  like  his  fully  instructing  them  in  all 
 knowledge  from  his  professor's  chair  ! 
 
 There  is,  consequently,  a  propriety,  in  the  original  terms  of 
 the  commission  which,  by  general  consent,  does  not  appear  in 
 the  translation;  and,  in  so  important  a  law  or  institution,  we 
 may  expect  to  find  precision  of  expression,  if  it  is  to  be 
 found  in  any  part  of  the  divine  oracles. — We  now  see  how  a 
 little  child  may  be  made  a  disciple,  without  any  prior 
 instruction  ;  how  it  may  continue  a  disciple  all  its  life  time, 
 or  so  long  as  it  is  learning  the  good  knowledge  of  the  gospel ; 
 and  how  a  patriarch  may  die  an  aged  disciple,  studying  the 
 profound  mysteries  of  the  Saviour's  reign  to  the  end  of  his 
 days.  The  mere  will,  or  expressed  desire,  of  the  parent,  on 
 behalf  of  his  children,  is  all  that  is  requisite  prior  to  their 
 baptism,  or  formal  initiation  into  the  free  school  of  Christianity; 
 and,  then,  becoming  properly  matriculated  disciples,  they  are 
 to  be  judiciously  taught  the  doctrines  of  our  religion — giving 
 them  the  sincere  milk  of  the  word,  that  they  may  grow  thereby. 
 All  places  of  pure  Christian  worship,  and  all  the  Scriptural 
 ordinances  of  the  gospel  conducted  in  them,  are  but  school- 
 houses  and  means  of  educating  souls  in  the  divine  doctrines, 
 laws,  and  discipline,  of  our  holy  religion,  and  of  training 
 immortal  spirits  for  the  high  and  holy  vocations  of  heaven. 
 
 Adult  heathens,  unbelievers,  or  Jews,  may  require  many 
 arguments,  invitations,  and  warnings,  before  they  will  submit 
 to   become   disciples   by   baptism.      In   the   apostolic   age, 
 
WITH  CHRIST'S  LAST  COMMISSION.  233 
 
 Israelites  and  idolaters  bad  to  be  convinced  by  miracles, 
 impressive  facts,  and  striking  arguments,  and  to  be  turned 
 from  tbeir  former  systems  and  services,  before  tbey  would 
 submit  to  receive  tbe  rite  of  Christian  baptism.  Tbey  bad  to 
 become  like  little  children,  emptied  of  all  high  thoughts  of 
 themselves,  and  to  be  submissive  as  infants  in  the  hands  of 
 God,  before  tbey  could  sit  with  profit  in  the  schools  of  the 
 holy  evangelists.  Indeed,  the  more  they  became  like  babes, 
 the  better  were  they  prepared  for  baptism  and  religious 
 instruction.  Now,  if  to  be  like  children  in  meekness,  docility, 
 and  confidence,  be  the  chief  qualification  for  initiation  into 
 the  external  privileges  of  Christianity  ;  surely  children  them- 
 selves must  be  better  qualified  for  baptism  than  most  adults, 
 however  humble  and  sincere — and  who,  at  best,  are  but  like 
 copies  of  the  beautiful  originals.  These  latter  have  nothing 
 to  unlearn,  no  intellectual  prejudices  against  the  Word  of 
 God ;  and  the  corruption  of  their  natures  has  not  yet  ripened 
 into  confirmed  habits  of  ungodliness.  Christ  never  said  of  any, 
 except  little  children,  '  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
 
 Further,  the  apostle  says,  that  the  children  of  believing 
 parents  are  '  Holy.'  1  Cor.  vii.  14.  This,  however,  cannot 
 mean  by  birth,  and  probably  not  by  regeneration ;  for  he 
 speaks  of  the  children  of  believers  generally.  But  it  may  be 
 by  dedication,  consecration,  or  by  being  set  apart  for  the 
 Lord;  for  such  is  the  sense  of  the  term  holy  or  sanctified,  in 
 numerous  passages  of  scripture.  And  if  they  were  officially 
 dedicated  to  God  by  the  apostles,  it  was  unqestionably  by 
 water-baptism.  This  appears  to  be  the  sense  of  the  expression 
 in  the  text  now  referred  to — no  other  harmonizing  with  the 
 current  purport  of  scripture  doctrine.  To  suppose  that  the  word 
 means  legitimate,  is  totally  at  variance  with  its  use  in  every 
 other  part  of  the  inspired  writings.  Baxter  observes, '  The  word 
 '  Holy  is  used  nearly  600  times  in  scripture  for  a  relative 
 'holiness,  and  a  separation  to  God,  and  never  for  legitimacy.' 
 The  term  hagios,  holy,  is  used  to  express  a  nation  or  people 
 consecrated  to  God,  and  is  opposed  to  akathartes,  unclean. 
 Acts  x.  28.  The  latter  Greek  word  also  means  heathen — not 
 devoted  to  God.  See  Is.  xxxv.  8,  lii.  1.  The  apostle  persuades 
 the  believing  husband  not  to  put  away  bis  unbelieving  wife, 
 and  the  believing  wife  not  to  leave  her  unbelieving  husband ; 
 but  to  do  all  in  their  power  to  save  their  unconverted  com- 
 panions. But  would  he  have  reasoned  in  this  fashion  had  he 
 felt  they  were  living  in  adultery,  and  that  their  children  were 
 consequently   illegitimate    or   bastards  ?       Impossible.       His 
 
234  THE  BAPTIZED  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 injunction  would  surely  have  been,  get  marrried  immediately. 
 Paul's  doctrine  evidently  is,  that  natural  and  social  ties  should 
 not  be  severed  in  consequence  of  a  person's  conversion  to 
 God.  'Let  not  the  wife  depart  from  her  husband.' — 'Let 
 '  every  man  abide  in  the  calling  wherein  he  is  called.' 
 
 Let  me  remark,  that  to  induce  adult  Jews  and  heathens  to 
 become  disciples  of  Christ,  by  being  baptized,  the  apostles 
 exerted  all  their  efforts,  wrought  all  their  miracles,  endured  a 
 great  fight  of  affliction  ;  leaving  it,  for  the  most  part,  with 
 others,  probably  less  gifted  with  miraculous  powers  and 
 preaching  talents,  to  train  up  the  converts  in  the  faith  and 
 practice  of  the  gospel  ;  while  they  themselves  pressed  forward 
 to  make  fresh  proselytes  or  disciples  to  the  religion  of  Christ. 
 Nor  should  we  overlook  the  important  fact,  that  though  the 
 term  disciples  is  employed  in  a  general,  as  well  as  in  a  limited 
 sense — embracing  the  young  and  the  aged,  the  unrenewed 
 and  the  regenerated,  the  more  or  the  less  instructed,  ordinary 
 believers,  and  the  twelve  personal  associates  of  the  Son  of  God 
 — yet  it  is  clear,  that  it  is  never  used  to  designate  the 
 occasional  hearers  of  the  truth.  '  Then,  in  the  audience  of 
 '  all  the  people,  he  said  unto  his  disciples,    Beware  of  the 
 
 *  scribes,  &c.'  Luke  xx.  45.     'And  as  he  spake  these  words, 
 
 *  many  believed  on  him.  Then  said  Jesus  to  those  Jews  which 
 'believed  on  him,  then  are  ye,'  [or  shall  be,]  'my  disciples 
 '  indeed ;  and  ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall 
 '  make  you  free.'  John  viii.  30-32.  Somethingbeyond  believing 
 was  required  of  people  before  they  were  recognised  as  Christ's 
 actual  disciples.  (See  v.  40.)  What  that  was,  the  language 
 of  the  commission  renders  manifest — being  baptized,  and 
 thereby  entering  the  school  of  Christianity.  Then  they  became 
 his  disciples  by  position  and  profession,  if  not '  disciples  indeed.' 
 The  public  teacher  or  lecturer  on  art,  science,  or  philosophy, 
 does  not  reckon  those  his  disciples  who  simply  congregate 
 to  hear  his  first  general  expositions,  or  the  outlines,  of  his 
 principles  ;  but  those  only  who  formally  place  themselves,  or 
 who  are  placed  by  others,  under  his  more  private  and 
 systematic  instructions.  It  may  be  safely  assumed,  that  no 
 persons,  old  or  young,  openly  become  disciples  of  Christ  till 
 dedicated  to  him  by  baptism.  The  question  is,  at  what  age 
 may  this  discipleship  begin  ?  All  reply,  as  soon  as  the  first 
 elements  of  Christian  truth  can  be  received  or  felt.  And  as 
 this  may  be  effected  very  early  in  childhood,  it  follows,  that 
 very  early  in  childhood,  the  young  may  and  should  be  discipled 
 to  Christ  by  Christian  baptism. 
 
DESIGNATED  VERBALLY  ALIKE.  235 
 
 SECTION  FIFTH.—  The  literal  designation  of  those 
 baptized  in  the  sea,  and  under  the  Xew  Testament  economy, 
 is  substantially  the  same. — They  are  called  'Our  Fathers' 
 in  the  former  case,  and  commonly  '  Men  '  in  the  latter.  This 
 was  the  ordinary  method  of  designating  large  indiscriminate 
 Lodies  of  people,  and,  indeed,  of  people  generally,  though 
 comprehending  a  mixture  of  hoth  sexes  and  of  all  ages. 
 This  held  true,  not  only  among  the  Hehrews,  hut  also  among 
 most,  if  not  all,  other  nations — the  male  sex  including  the 
 female,  and  the  parents  their  children.  Paul  says,  '  Our 
 '  Fathers  '  were  baptized  :  he  does  not  say,  '  Our  Mothers  ' 
 were  baptized  also.  He  speaks  literally  of  males,  hut  not  a 
 word  about  females  ;  and  of  adults,  without  specifying  young 
 people  or  infants,  though  the  latter  were  baptized  the  same  as 
 the  former.  The  like  rule  will  apply  to  other  cases  beside 
 that  of  baptism,  of  which  numerous  examples  might  be  given. 
 Take  two  or  three  as  specimens.  In  Josh.  viii.  25,  26,  the 
 Israelites  are  said  to  have  destroyed  all  the  men  and  women 
 in  Ai ;  yet  we  learn  from  the  facts  of  the  narrative,  that  all 
 the  children  were  destroyed  also.  '  But,'  says  Moses,  '  over 
 '  your  brethren  of  the  children  of  Israel  ye  shall  not  rule  with 
 '  rigour.'  Might  they  rule  with  rigour  over  females  1  '  Hear 
 '  between  your  brethren,  and  judge  righteously,  between  a  man 
 '  and  his  brother.'  Did  not  this  include  females  in  the  intention 
 of  the  law,  though  sisters  or  women  are  not  mentioned  ?  '  If 
 '  there  be  among  you  a  poor  man  of  one  of  thy  brethren 
 'within  any  of  thy.  gates  —  thou  shalt  not  harden  thy  heart, 
 '  nor  shut  thy  hand  from  thy  poor  brother.'  Would  not  this 
 law  equally  oblige  a  kindly  regard  to  a  poor  sister,  and  also 
 to  destitute  children  of  both  sexes? 
 
 John  is  said  literally  to  have  baptized  males  only,  and 
 those  only  adults.  There  is  no  express  record  of  any  women 
 or  children  having  been  baptized  by  him.  But  the  compre- 
 hensive phraseology  of  the  sacred  historians  indicates  that  he 
 must  have  done  so,  if  there  were  any  women  and  children  in 
 the  country.  The  terms  '  all  Jerusalem,  Judea,  and  the 
 '  region  round  about  Jordan  ;  as  rationally  included  them  as 
 '  the  words  all  our  Fathers '  necessarily  comprehended  all  the 
 women  and  children  originally  consecrated  unto  Moses.  We 
 might  as  safely  challenge  an  opponent  to  prove,  that  children 
 were  not  present  and  baptized  by  John,  as  to  prove  that  none 
 were  baptized  unto  Moses ;  for  though  evidently  included  in  both 
 cases,  they  are  specifically  noticed  in  neither.  The  three 
 thousand  spoken  of  as  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  are 
 
236  THE  BAPTIZED  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 all  written  in  the  masculine  gender,  though  most  probably 
 there  were,  at  least,  some  women  among  them.  The  Saviour 
 was  seen  of  five  hundred  brethren  at  once ;  not  a  sister  is 
 said  to  have  been  present ;  but  undoubtedly  not  a  few  were 
 there.  The  five  thousand  converts,  mentioned  soon  after, 
 are  all  designated  '  men.'  All  those  said  to  have  communicated 
 at  the  Lord's  table,  during  the  entire  apostolic  age,  are  set 
 down  as  males.  All  the  sacred  epistles  are  directly,  and,  in 
 the  original  Scriptures,  literally,  addressed  to  the  saints  of 
 the  masculine  order — sanctified  males,  and  '  holy  brethren  ;  ' 
 as  if  no  females,  of  any  rank  or  age,  were  incorporated  in  these 
 sacred  fellowships.  Again,  when  the  first  preachers  of  the 
 gospel  appealed  to  the  multitudes,  congregated  in  the  open 
 air,  or  in  the  temple,  or  in  the  synagogues  of  the  Jews,  '  men 
 '  and  brethren,'  are  literally  addressed,  and  not  men  and 
 women,  nor  brethren  and  sisters.  We,  however,  gather 
 from  incidental  remarks,  in  the  letters  and  discourses  of  the 
 apostles,  and  from  the  historical  narratives  of  Luke,  that  there 
 were  holy  women  in  the  churches,  and  females  in  the  con- 
 gregations. And  we  may  conclude,  with  equal  confidence, 
 and  from  similar  data,  that  young  people  and  children  were 
 present  also  ;  though  not  literally  addressed,  in  the  super- 
 scriptions of  the  letters,  nor  in  the  introductions  to  the  sermons. 
 Hence,  children,  not  being  literally  named  among  the  baptized, 
 affords  no  fair  argument  against  the  assumption  of  their 
 having  undergone  this  Christian  rite. 
 
 Dr.  Halley,  having  pointed  out  the  improbability  of  respect- 
 able women  in  Judea  being  exposed  to  the  gaze  of  promiscuous 
 crowds,  and  submitting  to  be  immersed  in  the  Jordan  by 
 John  the  Baptist ;  Mr.  Noel  replies,  '  All  these  imaginary 
 '  objections,  without  a  particle  of  positive  evidence  on  the 
 '  subject,  cannot  weigh  against  the  plain  narrative  ' — which, 
 by  the  way,  affords  no  positive  proof  that  John  immersed  a 
 single  individual.  Mr.  Noel  continues,  '  But  nothing  whatever 
 '  is  said  of  any  female  converts  ;  there  might  have  been  no 
 'women  in  the  crowds,  or  very  few.... Few  of  them  would 
 '  leave  their  homes  to  go  out  into  the  wilderness  amidst  a 
 1  promiscuous  crowd.  When  Jesus  fed  the  five  thousand 
 '  with  five  loaves,  and  the  four  thousand  with  seven  loaves, 
 *  on  each  occasion  the  number  of  women  and  children  were 
 'not  counted,  as  adding  inconsiderably  to  the  whole  amount.' 
 Mode,  p.  81.  This  passage  concedes  the  difficulty  of  dipping 
 females  at  all — whether  many  or  few.  And  it  must  be 
 assumed,  that  none  were  immersed,  or  that  multitudes  might 
 
DESIGNATED  VEEBALLY  ALIKE.  237 
 
 have  undergone  the  ceremony  ;  for  if  the  rite  were  unseemly 
 or  indelicate  in  the  case  of  a  thousand,  it  was  equally  so  in 
 the  case  of  one.  His  notion,  that,  because  these  women  and 
 children  were  not  counted,  they  must  have  been  comparatively 
 few,  is  perfectly  gratuitous.  When  the  Hebrews  journeyed 
 from  Barneses  to  Succoth,  it  is  said  there  were  '  six  hundred 
 '  thousand  men,  besides  children  ;  '  Ex.  xii.  37  ;  not  naming 
 a  woman  anong  them.  But  did  not  the  women  and  children, 
 notwithstanding,  add  considerably  to  the  whole  amount — most 
 likely  numbering  three  or  four  to  one  of  the  men  over  twenty 
 years  of  age  ?  The  possibility  is,  that  our  Lord,  on  each 
 occasion,  fed  nearer  twenty  thousand  than  four  or  five.  The 
 females  and  little  ones,  it  is  likely,  might  have  been  too 
 many  to  count  with  ease,  as  to  have  been  too  insignificant  in 
 numbers  to  require  notice.  The  men  leaving  Egypt  were 
 only  counted  ;  the  others,  surely,  were  not  passed  over  because 
 they  were  numerically  unimportant. 
 
 '  The  women  of  Samaria  were  baptized  ;  '  and  '  honorable 
 1  women  not  a  few,'  believed  and,  of  course,  were  baptized, 
 though,  assuredly,  not  publicly  immersed  in  water  by  men, 
 and  strangers  too  !  That  John  baptized  women  as  well  as 
 men,  and  probably,  (if  we  may  judge  from  the  practice  of 
 our  opponents,  who  dip  far  more  of  the  weaker  sex  than  of 
 the  stronger,)  the  principal  part  of  his  converts  was  composed 
 of  women.  Private  baptisms  were  few,  and  probably  none, 
 in  preference,  or  purposely  so.  The  attempt  to  meet  the 
 difficulty  of  the  operation,  in  reference  to  females,  either  as 
 to  the  indecency  of  the  act,  or  as  to  the  masculine  designation 
 of  the  baptized,  only  shows  that  our  opponents  are  not  entirely 
 without  their  perplexities,  either  in  opposing  Infant  Baptism, 
 or  in  defending  the  immersion  of  their  noble  and  delicate 
 sisters  in  the  faith. 
 
 When  women-  and  children  are  verbally  or  literally  noticed, 
 as  forming  a  portion  of  the  persons  present  in  the  church, 
 congregation,  or  assembly,  or  as  engaged  in  some  sacred  act, 
 or  as  undergoing  some  religious  ceremony,  it  was  an  exception 
 to  the  common  rule  of  the  Hebrew  writers,  whether  prophets 
 or  historians ;  and  arose  from  some  special  reason  for  departing 
 from  their  ordinary  modes  of  speech — but  the  nature  of  which 
 we  may  not  always  be  able  to  comprehend.  The  women  of 
 Samaria  and  Lydia  of  Philippi,  are  the  only  females  baptized 
 by  the  apostles,  whose  sex  is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  divine 
 narratives.  We  read  of  men  and  their  households,  or  of 
 families,  being  baptized  ;  but,  with  the  foregoing  exceptions, 
 
238  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 of  no  females,  of  any  rank  or  age.  We  may  here  note,  that 
 had  not  these  solitary  cases  been  incidentally  recorded,  we 
 should  have  had  no  direct  or  literal  evidence  to  show  that 
 any  women  had  ever  been  baptized  by  the  apostles  or  other 
 ministerial  servants  of  the  Lord,  any  more  than  of  the  baptism 
 of  the  women  and  the  children  in  the  Red  Sea.  As  it  is,  we 
 have  only  inference  to  prove,  that  any  females,  besides  the 
 above,  actually  underwent  this  ceremony,  though  not  a  shadow 
 of  doubt  can  rest  on  any  reasonable  mind,  that  tens  of  thousands 
 of  them  were  initiated  into  the  public  teachings  of  Christianity, 
 through  this  holy  ordinance.  Persons  who  adopt  the  principle, 
 that  the  silence  of  Scripture  is  a  sufficient  proof  that  infants 
 were  not  baptized,  because  they  are  not  expressly  named,  would, 
 by  the  same  rule,  find  it  difficult  to  show,  that  any  females, 
 besides  the  above,  however  impressed  with  the  preachings 
 and  miracles  of  the  apostles,  were  baptized  unto  Christ ;  or, 
 indeed,  that  a  single  female  descendant  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
 Jacob,  during  the  apostolic  age,  was  baptized  at  all — the 
 Samaritan  women  and  Lydia  probably  not  being  Jewesses  in 
 the  direct  line  of  natural  descent  from  the  Patriarchs.  But  as 
 Paul  necessarily  included  women  and  children,  under  the 
 terms  '  Our  Fathers,'  in  his  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  so  we 
 feel  warranted  in  believing,  that  women  and  children,  though 
 not  expressly  mentioned,  were  also  comprehended  in  the  terms 
 '  Men,'  '  Brethren,'  and  '  Saints'  in  the  masculine  gender,  in 
 other  recorded  cases  of  baptism,  by  the  New  Testament  writers. 
 If  they  were  not,  it  certainly  devolves  on  our  good  opponents 
 to  prove  their  own  adverse  assumptions. 
 
 SECTION  SIXTH.—  The  Baptisms  to  Moses,  of  John, 
 and  of  the  Apostles,  were  all  and  alike  from  heaven. — God 
 was  the  author  of  them  all.  In  that  of  the  Red  Sea,  the 
 administration  was  immediately  by  Jehovah  himself,  the  sole 
 Head,  Lawgiver,  and  King,  in  Israel ;  manifestly  without  the 
 intervention  of  any  human  agency,  even  as  much  as  the  lifting 
 up  of  Aaron's  rod.  Indeed,  no  mortal  instrumentality  was 
 adequate  to  so  great  a  work,  in  so  short  a  time ;  especially  if 
 there  were  an  individual  or  separate  reception  of  the  conse- 
 crating element,  by  all  the  vast  multitudes  that  passed  through 
 the  deep — on  dry  land.  This  must  have  been  effected,  either 
 with  the  spray  of  the  water,  blown  by  the  winds  of  heaven,  or  by 
 the  clouds,  that  poured  out  rain,  at  God's  command,  upon  them. 
 Ps.  lxxvii.  17  ;  so  that,  like  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  was  wetted 
 (literally,  baptized,  Greek,)  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  (Dan.  iv. 
 
ALIKE  FUOM  HEAVEN.  239 
 
 25,  33,)  they  were  baptized  from  above,  by  the  Almighty  him- 
 self. In  either  case,  the  whole  people  were  thus  virtually  and 
 really  consecrated  unto  Moses,  or,  rather,  to  his  laws  and 
 institutions  ;  and,  thereby,  laid  under  obligations,  religiously 
 and  scrupulously  to  learn  of,  to  love,  to  obey,  and  to  glorify  God. 
 
 Nor  were  the  designs  of  this  consecration  unworthy  of 
 Jehovah.  The  baptized  were  thereby  bound  not  to  lust  after 
 evil  things,  nor  to  become  idolaters,  nor  to  commit  fornication, 
 nor  to  tempt  Christ,  nor  to  murmur  at  his  dispensations. 
 But,  on  the  other  hand,  they  were  to  use  all  appointed  and 
 appropriate  means  to  obtain  divine  blessings,  and  to  promote 
 the  divine  glory.  It  introduced  them  to  the  privilege  of  eating 
 spiritual  food,  and  of  drinking  spiritual  drink,  which  were 
 striking  types  of  high  and  holy  advantages.  '  They  were 
 '  treated  as  men  in  the  hands  of  God.'  The  Lord  avouched 
 them  to  be  his  people,  his  portion,  and  his  treasure.  He 
 gave  them  the  sacred  oracles,  an  altar,  and  a  mercy  seat. 
 They  could  easily  and  freely  draw  nigh  unto  him  for  advice  ; 
 for  he  dwelt  in  the  midst  of  their  tents — a  position  he  had 
 never  so  manifestly  and  permanently  assumed  among  them 
 till  that  time.  They  had  types,  tokens,  and  ordinances, 
 directing  them  to  the  Lamb  of  God;  and  ministers  of  religion 
 appointed  and  competent  to  lead  them  into  the  then  revealed 
 laws  of  heaven.  To  all  these  moral  and  religious  benefits 
 they  were  inducted  by  their  baptism  in  the  Ked  Sea.  '  From 
 '  that  moment  they  were  under  God,  in  the  hands  of  Moses.' 
 They  were  then,  for  the  first  time,  formed  into  a  duly  organized 
 and  fully  officered  ecclesia,  church,  or  congregation,  by  the  Lord 
 himself,  for  his  worship  and  glory — he  continuing  to  be  their 
 supreme  visible  Head  and  King.  The  baptism  of  the  Hebrews, 
 therefore,  was  not  only  from  heaven,  but  was  also  especially 
 interesting  and  important  in  its  results. 
 
 The  baptisms  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  were  no  less 
 of  divine  authority,  nor  less  beneficial  in  their  consequences. 
 John  was  '  sent  to  baptize,'  as  the  priest  had  done  before  him. 
 The  people  regarded  him  as  a  prophet  of  God  ;  and  must, 
 therefore,  have  viewed  his  ablutions  and  consecrations  as  the 
 result  of  a  divine  commission.  Nor  would  his  ritual  be  the 
 less  from  heaven,  because  he  was  following  the  mode  enjoined 
 on  his  predecessors — for  they  received  their  instructions 
 primarily  from  God.  As  sacrifices  and  the  passover,  adminis- 
 tered in  the  time  of  the  Harbinger,  were  originally  of  God,  so 
 was  this  baptism  from  heaven.  Christ  commanded  his  disciples 
 to  proselyte  and  baptize  all  nations.    These  baptisms  introduced 
 
240  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 the  recipients  of  them  to  blessings  equal,  if  not  superior,  to 
 those  conferred  on  the  baptized  Hebrews.  They  became 
 obliged  to  learn  the  laws  and  statutes  of  the  gospel,  and  to 
 keep  them  ;  to  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  true 
 Messiah  from  heaven,  promised  to  their  fathers.  It  entitled 
 them  to  seats  in  the  seminaries  of  the  gospel,  and  to  a  full 
 acquaintance  with  the  mysteries  of  Christian  truth.  They 
 had  the  right  of  entrance  into  the  assemblies  of  the  faithful, 
 to  the  privileges  of  catechumens,  and  to  a  candidateship  for 
 subsequent  full  communion  with  the  perfected  saints  of  God. 
 But,  though  Christian  baptism  was  administered  at  a  time  of 
 more  light,  when  there  was  a  fuller  development  of  the  great 
 plan  of  salvation,  and  when  it  was  accompanied  by  many 
 advantages  not  recognized  so  distinctly  at  the  time  of  the 
 baptism  in  the  Red  Sea,  or  by  the  Hebrews  afterwards  ;  yet, 
 in  its  origin,  and  in  all  the  leading  features  of  a  religious 
 baptism,  it  was  on  a  par  with  that  which  God  himself  originally 
 administered.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  assumed, 
 that  had  not  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites  been  of  high 
 importance,  and  little  or  nothing  behind  Christian  baptism, 
 in  significance,  benefits,  and  obligations,  as  well  as  in  the 
 range  and  grades  of  its  subjects  ;  the  argument  founded  on  it, 
 by  the  Apostle  Paul,  would  have  been  of  no  adequate  force  in 
 his  present  logical  and  powerful  address  to  the  Corinthians. 
 
 It  may  be  fairly  inferred,  that  as  the  baptisms  unto  Moses, 
 by  John,  and  by  the  apostles  of  our  Lord,  originated  entirely 
 with  one  and  the  same  divine  Being,  as  wise  and  kind  at  first  as 
 ever  afterwards  ;  since  the  design  in  each  case  was  essentially 
 the  same — being  the  introduction  of  the  baptized  to  great 
 religious  blessings  and  obligations  ;  they  were  also  alike  in 
 their  subjects  and  modes  of  administration  ;  or,  at  all  events, 
 they  could  not  have  been  so  entirely  distinct  and  directly 
 opposite  to  each  other  as  the  exclusion  of  children,  and  the 
 dipping  of  adults  only,  in  New  Testament  times,  would  have 
 evidently  rendered  them.  Had  these  ordinances  originated 
 with  different  lawgivers — not  of  one  mind,  but  of  conflicting 
 judgments — or  had  they  been  appointed  for  widely  different 
 purposes,  symbolizing  different  spiritual  operations,  and  laying 
 the  baptized  under  widely  different  obligations ;  it  might  be 
 conceded,  that  the  subjects  and  modes  of  this  initiatory  rite, 
 in  Christian  times,  would  have  varied  from  those  first 
 performed  in  the  Red  Sea.  But  it  is  passing  all  debate,  that  the 
 design,  in  every  leading  particular,  was  the  same,  whether  this 
 rite  were  administered  in  the  Red  Sea,  in  the  Jordan,  or  in  the 
 
ALIKE  FHOM  HEAVEN.  241 
 
 city  of  Jerusalem;  that  the  great  and  ever-blessed  God  was 
 the  sole  author  of  them  all ;  and  that,  in  fact,  and  in  effect, 
 these  different  administrations  were  essentially  but  one  water- 
 baptism,  observed  through  a  long  series  of  ages,  in  the  one 
 church  or  congregation  of  God.  Can  we,  then,  bring  our 
 minds  to  believe,  without  the  plainest  and  most  positive  proof 
 from  Scripture — which  is  silent  respecting  any  alteration  in 
 the  case— that  while  the  first  great  religious  administration 
 of  this  ordinance  on  record  embraced  tens  of  thousands 
 of  infants  and  children ;  under  the  gospel  economy,  all 
 little  ones,  even  the  offspring  of  the  most  devoted  followers 
 of  the  Saviour,  were  excluded  from  it?  Or,  that  while  to 
 baptize  them  was  originally  deemed  lawful  and  right,  it  would 
 now  be  will-worship,  and  a  sin  against  God  ?  All  this,  too, 
 while  the  development  of  light  and  mercy  was  becoming 
 more  glorious,  and  the  platform  of  religion  daily  more  extended  ! 
 We  might  have  as  reasonably  expected,  that,  though  children 
 were  taught  and  trained  religiously  under  the  law,  they  were 
 to  be  brought  up  in  ignorance  under  the  gospel ;  or  that,  though 
 they  were  of  high  moral  and  spiritual  interest  and  consideration 
 in  the  times  of  Moses,  David,  and  Malachi,  they  were  now  to 
 be  of  no,  or  of  very,  small  account  in  the  New  Testament  churches 
 of  Christ ! 
 
 Akin  to  this  view  of  water  baptism,  is  that  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost.  '  By  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,' 
 [one  '  general  assembly,']  '  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
 4  whether  we  be  bond  or  free.'  1  Cor.  xii.  13.  Whoever 
 have  been  '  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,'  have  been  '  born 
 '  again  of  the  Spirit.'  Without  this  baptism,  none  have  been 
 renewed  or  introduced  to  the  congregation  of  heaven  above — 
 not  excepting  the  purest  offspring  of  the  holiest  saints  on  earth. 
 This  gracious  and  saving  operation  has  ever  been  the  same  in 
 the  soul  of  a  child  and  that  of  an  adult;  though  the  practical 
 developments  of  it  have  not  been  so  speedily  and  equally 
 manifest  to  human  observation.  It  will  not  be  denied,  that 
 from  the  exodus  of  Israel,  when  numerous  symbolical  exposi- 
 tions were  first  openly  and  divinely  instituted — though  probably 
 existing  among  the  Hebrews  before — to  the  time  of  Christ, 
 millions  on  millions  of  babies,  who  died  in  their  infancy,  as 
 well  as  myriads  on  myriads  of  redeemed  men  and  women,  were 
 thus  spiritually  and  savingly  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 The  legitimate  inference  is,  that,  as  the  same  spiritual  baptism 
 prevailed  under  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ;  so  the  same 
 water-baptism,   which  was    instituted,    or,    at   least,   largely 
 
 L 
 
242  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 practised  in  the  time  of  Moses,  was  continued,  in  all  its 
 essential  properties,  up  to,  and  long  after,  the  days  of  the 
 apostles.  To  assume  so  vast  a  change,  as  our  opponents 
 must  contend  for,  in  order  to  maintain  or  countenance  their 
 doctrine  of  exclusive  adult  and  believers'  baptism,  is  far 
 beyond  the  powers  of  our  comprehension. 
 
 Again,  if  water-baptism  was  an  appropriate  sign  of  spiritual 
 baptism  at  the  Red  Sea,  it  was  equally  so  at  the  Jordan,  and 
 in  Corinth  ;  and  if  infants  might  have  received  this  symbol  of 
 regeneration  fifteen  hundred  years  before,  they  surely  might 
 receive  it  in  the  times  of  the  apostles.  It  is  certain,  and  univer- 
 sally conceded,  that  the  principal,  the  most  apparent,  and  the 
 most  instructive  symbol  of  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  baptism 
 with  water.  If,  therefore,  water-baptism  were  not  common 
 and  continuous  during  the  Hebrew  economy,  as  it  was  univer- 
 sal at  the  time  of  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  there  would  have 
 been  a  serious  lack  of  the  most  appropriate  symbolical  teaching 
 during  fifteen  hundred  years  of  the  Church  of  God  ;  and  that, 
 too,  under  a  system  of  religion  abounding  in  signs,  types, 
 and  tokens  of  spiritual  and  saving  blessings.  This  appears 
 altogether  improbable.  But  admit  the  foregoing  view  of  the 
 case,  and  you  will  perceive  perfect  consistency  and  harmony 
 in  the  subject. 
 
 In  our  Lord's  conversation  with  Nicodemus,  he  told  him, 
 that  '  Except  a  man '  [any  one]  '  were  born  of  water  and  of 
 '  the  Spirit,  he  could  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  God,'  adding, 
 '  Art  thou  a  master  in  Israel,  and  knowest  not  these  things  ?  ' 
 John  iii.  5,  10.  Does  not  this  language  plainly  imply,  that 
 the  terms  of  admission  to  the  church,  in  former  times,  had 
 been  the  same  as  they  would  be  for  the  time  to  come  ?  Is  it 
 not  clear,  that  the  Saviour  referred  to  the  past,  as  well  as  to 
 the  present  and  future  ?  This  supposition  is  confirmed  by 
 the  question  proposed  to  the  Rabbi — How  it  happened  that 
 he,  a  teacher  among  the  Jews,  should  not  have  known  this — 
 a  doctrine  so  ancient  and  so  universal  among  his  countrymen? 
 Nor  does  it  appear,  that  Nicodemus  was  ignorant  of  the  fact 
 of  water  and  spiritual  baptism.  He,  most  probably,  was 
 nonplussed  at  the  expression — indicating  that  a  person  must 
 be  born  again,  or  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit :  being 
 forms  of  speech  new  to  him,  never  having  read  them  in  the 
 Old  Testament — though,  with  the  idea  of  purifying  the  soul, 
 symbolically  by  water,  and  the  Spirit — of  analogous  import — he 
 might  have  been  familiar.  Or,  he  might  have  been  surprised 
 that  our  Lord  should  have  made  the  declaration  to  apply  so 
 
ALIKE  FROM  HEAVEN.  2  13 
 
 generally,  including  old  men  and  Rabbis,  while  liis  notion 
 might  have  been,  that  none  but  children  or  proselyted  adults 
 underwent  this  regeneration.  Be  that  as  it  may,  nothing 
 can  more  fully  express  the  views  of  our  divine  Master,  that 
 water-baptism  was  a  standing  ordinance  in  the  ancient  church, 
 however  the  Rabbi  might  have  misunderstood  the  import  of 
 his  divine  phraseology.  Indeed,  there  seems  an  impossibility 
 of  arriving  at  any  other  satisfactory  conclusion  from  the 
 language  here  employed.  This  view  of  the  passage  fully 
 corroborates  the  doctrine  we  have  been  advocating  throughout 
 ■ — that  there  was  water-baptism  under  the  law  as  well  as 
 under  the  gospel — whether  applied  to  new-born  babes,  in 
 conjunction  with  circumcision  —  to  the  purifying  of  the  unclean, 
 or  to  the  initiation  of  proselytes.  How  this  case  can  be 
 construed  into  a  contrary  sentiment,  I  am  unable  to  imagine. 
 
 To  this  may  be  added — though  diverging  from  the  imme- 
 diate object  before  us — that  as  God's  first  administration  of 
 this  ordinance  was  unquestionably  by  sprinkling,  affusing,  or 
 aspersing,  the  Hebrews,  old  and  young,  with  the  spray  of  the 
 sea,  or  the  rain  of  heaven,  the  latter  of  which  probably  few  of 
 them  had  ever  seen  before  (for  rain  scarcely  ever  falls  in 
 Egypt) — and  as  the  purifications  and  sanctifications  of  the 
 people,  during  the  whole  Jewish  dispensation,  as  administered 
 by  the  priest — God's  appointed  servant  and  substitute  to  them 
 ■ — were  by  sprinklings,  affusings,  or  pourings,  and  never  by 
 dipping  the  bodies  of  the  Jews  under  water ;  we  may  safely 
 infer,  that  God  would  not,  and  did  not,  appoint  a  directly 
 opposite  mode  of  baptizing  among  his  disciples,  in  after  and 
 gospel  times  ;  at  least,  we  shall  contend  that  he  did  not,  until 
 stronger  proof  to  the  contrary  be  given  than  our  immersing 
 friends  have  hitherto  furnished.  If  sprinkling  or  affusing 
 were  sufficient  at  the  very  time  when  Jehovah  was  about  to 
 impose  the  burdensome  ceremonies  of  the  legal  economy  on 
 his  people  ;  surely,  it  would  be  sufficient  in  the  later  ages  and 
 the  simpler  services  of  the  Christian  church — the  yoke  of 
 which  was  to  be  easy,  and  the  burden  light. 
 
 I  think  I  have  elsewhere  proved,  that  such  a  change  was 
 never  made,  and  that  the  mode  of  baptism,  from  the  days  of 
 Moses  to  those  of  Christ,  and  long  after,  continued  to  be  by 
 sprinkling,  affusing,  or  by  the  application  of  the  water  to  the 
 person,  and  not  by  dipping,  immersing,  or  the  application  of 
 the  person  to  the  water.  If  the  Almighty  did  actually  make 
 so  great  an  alteration  in  this  ancient  ordinance,  as  to  exclude 
 
244  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHEIST 
 
 all  children  from  its  administration,  and  to  dip  the  subjects, 
 instead  of  sprinkling  them ;  it  hehoves  our  good  Baptist 
 brethren  to  show  us  where  it  may  he  plainly  discovered  in  the 
 inspired  volume.  Mr.  Noel  and  others  enlarge  on  the 
 assumption,  that  proselytes  were  dipped  by  the  Jewish  Priest ; 
 but  can  they  give  us  a  single  clear  or  positive  instance  in 
 support  of  the  supposition  from  the  word  of  God?  We 
 believe  not ;  and  until  they  have  done  so,  their  quotations  from 
 the  later  Rabbis  will  not  weigh  to  the  amount  of  a  feather 
 against  the  inspired  command  for  the  priests  simply  to  sprinkle 
 the  unclean. 
 
 Our  Baptist  brethren  cannot  reasonably  object  to  be  chal- 
 lenged to  produce  an  instance  in  which  it  is  apparent,  that 
 any  service,  institute,  or  rite,  of  the  Old  Testament,  evidently 
 continued,  with  the  divine  sanction,  in  the  New ;  wherein  the 
 change  is  so  great  as  that  which  must  have  taken  place  in 
 respect  of  the  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  as  first  adminis- 
 tered in  the  Red  Sea,  and  practised  by  themselves  in  the 
 present  day.  As  far  as  we  can  judge,  praying,  preaching, 
 singing,  hearing,  and  worshipping  generally,  were  essentially 
 the  same  in  the  days  of  Moses,  and  in  the  time  of  Paul.  The 
 elements  of  the  Lord's  supper  are  confessedly  the  same  as  were 
 eaten  by  the  Hebrews  after  partaking  of  the  paschal  lamb. 
 The  like  holiness,  devotion,  and  faith,  were  required  of  the 
 people  of  God  under  both  economies.  We  speak  not,  of 
 course,  concerning  the  types,  symbols,  rites  or  regulations, 
 which  were  peculiarly  and  especially  Jewish  or  Patriarchal, 
 and  which  were  plainly  and  positively  done  away  in  Christ,  or 
 rendered  impracticable  by  the  disruption  of  the  Hebrew 
 commonwealth;  but  only  of  those  institutions,  modes,  and 
 regulations  which  were  evidently  and  intentionally  preserved 
 from  the  former  to  the  present  dispensation  of  divine  truth. 
 We  believe  that  no  similar  change,  nor  anything  approaching 
 it,  can  be  discovered  in  any  act  or  rule  adopted  from  the  Old 
 Testament  and  embodied  in  the  New,  so  great  as  that  of 
 converting  sprinkling  into  dipping  in  baptism,  and  of  excom- 
 municating children  from  communion  with  their  parents  in 
 this  initiatory  rite.  This  fact,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  affords 
 high  presumptive  evidence,  that  no  such  alteration  was  ever 
 made;  and  that  Infant  Sprinkling  is  still  scriptural  and 
 obligatory  on  all  Christian  parents. 
 
 SECTION  SEVENTH.—  The  baptisms  unto  Moses  and 
 •unto  Christ,  agreed  in  this,  that  neither  of  them  conveyed 
 
CONVEYED  NO  REGENERATION".  245 
 
 spiritual  regeneration,  nor  guaranteed  holiness  of  life. — 
 Being  new  creatures  was  certainly  not  an  essential  prerequisite 
 to  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea ;  nor  was  such  a  divine  change 
 effected  by  its  administration.  All  were  baptized  unto  Moses  ; 
 '  but  with  many  of  them  God  was  not  well  pleased.  .  .  .for  they 
 1  lusted  after  evil  things. .  .  .some  of  them  became  idolaters. .  . . 
 '  committed  fornication. .  .  .tempted  Christ . .  .  .and  murmured 
 '  against  God  and  his  servant  Moses.'  In  consequence  of  this 
 wickedness,  '  they  were  overthrown  in  the  wilderness ....  in  one 
 '  day  fell  three-and-twenty  thousand  of  them ....  they  were  de- 
 '  stroyed  of  serpents. .  .  .and  of  the  destroyer.'  But  two  males,  of 
 twenty  years  old  and  upwards,  who  were  baptized  in  the  sea — 
 who,  '  under  God,  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  Moses  ....  their 
 '  anointed  ruler,'  and  who  were  '  called  to  glorify  the  God  of 
 
 *  their  fathers ' — eventually  entered  Canaan  ;  though  it  is  more 
 than  probable,  that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  the  children, 
 baptized  at  the  same  time,  gained  the  promised  land.  Here, 
 then,  we  have  proof,  painful  and  abundant,  that  regeneration 
 and  spiritual  sanctilication  were  not  necessary  prerequisites  to 
 the  reception  of  the  ceremony,  nor  actually  connected  with 
 the  operation,  nor  effected  as  a  consequence  of  it — most  cer- 
 tainly not,  in  the  adult  portion  of  the  Hebrews.  'Now,'  says 
 Paul,  '  these  things  happened  unto  them  for  ensamples  ;  and 
 '  they  are  written  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of 
 '  the  world  are  come.  Wherefore,  let  him  that  thiuketh  he 
 '  standeth,  take  heed  lest  he  fall.'  Let  him  that  imagines  he 
 was  regenerated  when,  or  because,  he  was  baptized,  and 
 guaranteed  holiness  and  stability  in  his  profession,  take  heed 
 lest  he  be  deceived. 
 
 "What  else  could  be  Paul's  idea,  but  that  some,  at  least,  of 
 the  baptized  Corinthians,  consecrated,  too,  by  apostolic  hands, 
 •or  by  apostolic  directions,  unto  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to 
 the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God,  were  yet  unconverted  in  heart, 
 and  in  danger  of  committing  sins  like  the  Hebrews  in  the 
 wilderness — not  excepting  the  most  flagrant  and  deadly  of 
 them.  All  this  he  strongly  guards  them  against ;  though  they 
 were  intimately  associated  with,  and,  as  fellow-worshippers, 
 identified  with,  an  ecclesia,  or  congregation,  which  he  styles, 
 the  church  of  God — the  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus — the  called 
 to  be  saints — the  recipients  of  divine  grace,  endowed  with 
 gifts,    knowledge,   and    all    utterance.       '  Wherefore,    dearly 
 
 *  beloved,  flee  from  idolatry.'  He  felt  that  it  was  necessary  to 
 warn  some  of  them  against  the  vilest  and  most  iniquitous  sins 
 of  which  unrenewed  men  could  be  guilty — that  of  dethroning 
 
246  THE  BAPTIZED  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 God  from  their  hearts,  and  ostensibly  setting  up  gold,  silver, 
 wood,  and  stone,  in  his  place  ;  and  paying  them  the  homage 
 which  the  Supreme  only  can  justly  demand — and  then 
 perishing  for  their  crimes,  under  the  divine  wrath,  like 
 thousands  of  the  baptized,  yet  ungodly,  Hebrews  in  the 
 wilderness. 
 
 The  apostle  evidently  employs  the  style  of  the  Old  Testament 
 in  the  New  ;  and  it  is  necessary  to  study  the  import  of  the 
 terms  used  by  Moses  and  the  prophets  to  understand  the 
 sense  of  the  same  words  used  by  the  evangelists  and  apostles  ; 
 as  also  to  look  well  into  the  institutions  of  the  ancient 
 dispensations  fully  to  comprehend  the  nature  of  those  pertaining 
 to  the  gospel.  '  From  their  covenant  relation  to  Almighty  God, 
 'the  whole  Jewish  nation  are  in  the  Scriptures  frequently 
 '  termed  holy  ;  and  the  apostles,  being  Jews  by  birth  (though 
 '  they  wrote  in  Greek,)  have  often  applied  to  Christians  the 
 '  phraseology  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  order  to  convey  to  them 
 '  accurate  ideas  of  the  magnitude  of  God's  love  to  them  in 
 '  Christ.'  Home's  Int.  p.  3.  In  fact,  had  not  the  New  Testament 
 writers  adopted  this  mode  of  teaching,  the  early  Hebrew 
 Christians  could  not  have  understood  the  import  of  half  the 
 apostles  wrote  or  spoke  to  them.  '  The  Jews  told  the  baptized 
 '  proselyte  that  he  was  now  taken  out  of  his  unclean  state 
 '  and  put  into  a  state  of  sanctity  or  holiness.  So  the  Scriptures 
 '  of  the  New  Testament  do  call  the  baptized  Christians  the 
 '  saints,  the  holy,  the  sanctified  in '  [or  unto]  '  Christ  Jesus  ; 
 '  and  say  that  the  church  of  them  is  sanctified'  [set  apart] 
 '  with  the  washing  of  water.'    Wall,  vol.  1.  p.  27- 
 
 It  may  confirm  this  view  of  the  subject,  if  we  refer  to  Paul's 
 description  of  some  of  the  baptized  Corinthians,  to  whom 
 this  and  the  second  epistle  are  addressed.  '  Awake  to 
 '  righteousness,  and  sin  not ;  for  some'  [of  you]  'have  not  the 
 '  knowledge  of  God  :  I  speak  this  to  your  shame.'  1  Cor.  xv.  34. 
 '  There  were  heresies  '  or,  rather,  heretics  '  among  them.'  lb. 
 xi.  19.  'Ye  do  wrong  and  defraud,  and  that  your  brethren.' 
 ch.  vi.  8.  '  It  is  commonly  reported  that  there  is  fornication 
 '  among  you,  and  such  fornication  as  is  not  so  much  as  named 
 '  among  the  Gentiles,  that  one  should  have  his  father's  wife. 
 '  And  ye  are  puffed  up,  and  have  not  rather  mourned,  that  he 
 '  that  hath  done  this  deed  might  be  taken  away  from  among 
 'you.'  ch.  v.  1,  2.  'I  fear  lest  when  I  come  again,  my  God 
 '  will  humble  me  among  you,  and  that  I  shall  bewail  many 
 '  which  have  sinned  already,  and  have  not  repented  of  the 
 '  uncleanness,  and  fornication,  and  lasciviousness,  which  they 
 
CONVEYED  NO  REGENERATION.  2-17 
 
 'have  committed.'  2  Cor.  xii.  21.  I  again  ask,  could  the 
 apostle  believe  that  all  the  people  he  addressed  in  his  epistles 
 to  the  ecclesia,  or  congregation,  at  Corinth,  were  spiritually 
 regenerated  persons  ?     Unquestionably  not. 
 
 On  the  last  quotation  Dr.  Macknight  remarks: — 'Those  of 
 '  whom  the  apostle  speaks  were  such  of  the  faction,  who, 
 '  notwithstanding  all  he  had  written  in  his  former  letter,  had 
 '  not  refrained  from  partaking  in  the  idolatrous  sacrifices  of 
 '  the  heathens,  and  from  the  lewd  practices  connected  with 
 'idolatry,  to  which,  by  their  former  education,  they  were  still 
 '  addicted.'  Could  these  have  been  divinely  enlightened  and 
 savingly  converted  Christians  ?  Or,  can  we  readily  believe 
 that,  when  their  conduct  became  known  to  the  pious  members 
 of  the  society,  they  would  be  admitted  among  them  ?  Or, 
 that,  if  once  admitted,  would  be  allowed  long  to  remain  there  ? 
 At  any  rate,  should  such  have  crept  into  the  spiritual  fellowship 
 of  the  saints,  Paul  assures  them  they  were  quite  out  of  their 
 place. — 'Be  not  deceived;  neither  fornicators,  nor  idolators, 
 '  nor  adulterers,  nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves 
 '  with  mankind,  nor  thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor 
 '  revilers,  nor  extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.' 
 1  Cor.  vi.  9,  10.  Though  such  were  in  the  congregation  at 
 Corinth,  which  was  open  to  all  properly  conducted  attendants  ; 
 yet  we  can  hardly  suppose  they  were  in  their  spiritual 
 communion  !  Certainly  we  cannot  imagine  the  apostle  to  have 
 included  them  among  those  '  sanctified  in  Christ,  called  to  be 
 '  saints,  and  for  whom  he  gave  thanks  to  God  always  on  their 
 
 *  behalf,  for  the  grace  of  God  which  was  given  to  them  by 
 '  Jesus  Christ,  as  being  enriched  by  him  in  all  utterance  and 
 '  in  all  knowledge,  &c.'  1  Cor.  i.  2,  5. 
 
 It  will,  however,  be  replied,  that  after  Paul  had  stated  the 
 characters  who  should  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  he 
 subjoined  verse  11.      'And  such  were  some  of  you:    but  ye 
 
 *  are  washed;  but  ye  are  sanctified;  but  ye  are  justified  in 
 '  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.' 
 This,  Dr.  Macknight  paraphrases,  '  And  such  were  many  of 
 '  you  formerly,  but  ye  are  washed  with  the  water  of  baptism 
 '  in  token  of  your  having  vowed  to  lead  a  new  life  ;  and  ye 
 '  are  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God  ;  and  ye  are  delivered 
 '  from  heathenish  ignorance  by  the  power  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
 '  and  by  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  the  God  of  the  Christians.' 
 In  a  note,  he  subjoins,  '  This  being  addressed  to  the  Corinthian 
 'brethren  in  general,  it  is  not  to  be  imagined,  that  the  apostle, 
 
 *  by  their  being  washed,   sanctified,  and  justified,  meant  to 
 
248  THE  BAPTIZED  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST, 
 
 '  say,  they  were  all  holy  persons  in  the  moral  sense  of  the 
 '  word,  and  that  they  were  all  to  be  justified  in  the  day 
 '  of  judgment.  Among  the  Corinthians  were  many  unholy 
 1  persons  whom  the  apostle  reproved  sharply  for  their  sins. 
 '  2  Cor.  xii.  20,  21.  And  whom  he  threatened  to  punish 
 '  severely,  if  they  did  not  repent.'  2  Cor.  xiii.  1.  This  view 
 of  the  above  texts  harmonizes  their,  apparent  difficulties. 
 We  mast  either  admit  the  internal  society  of  that  people  to  have 
 been  fearfully  and  unprecedentcdly  corrupt ;  or  assume  that, 
 while  the  apostle  was  speaking  the  language  of  consolation  to 
 the  spiritual  and  consistent  members  of  the  select  body,  he,  at 
 the  same  time  and  in  the  same  letter,  strongly  reproved  the 
 ungodly  attendants  in  the  general  congregation — a  very 
 natural  course  for  this  holy  man  of  God  to  follow. 
 
 Indeed,  if  this  latter  purport  of  the  passages  be  not 
 conceded,  one  of  two  things  must  follow.  First,  that  there 
 were  no  regular  worshippers  at  Corinth  who  had  not  been 
 converted,  who  were  not  living  holy  lives,  and  who  were 
 not  united  with  the  pious  members  of  the  internal  Christian 
 communion.  Or,  Secondly,  that,  though  there  were  such 
 ungodly  attendants  in  their  usual  worshipping  assemblies, 
 and  who  needed  strong  reproof  on  account  of  their  sad 
 misconduct ;  the  apostle  said  not  a  word  to  them,  in  an 
 epistle  to  be  read  before  the  entire  congregation.  As  neither 
 of  these  assumptions  appears  at  all  probable  ;  we  infer,  that 
 our  previous  conclusions  are  correct, — That  he  primarily 
 inscribed  his  letter  to  what  we  usually  call  the  church ;  and 
 in  it  said  many  severe  things  to  the  ungodly  members  of  the 
 congregation,  generally  associated  with  them  in  public  worship. 
 
 Here,  in  passing,  I  would  suggest,  that,  when  Paul  advised 
 the  church  or  congregation  at  Corinth  to  put  away  from 
 among  themselves  that  wicked  person  who  had  committed  sins, 
 '  which  were  not  so  much  as  named  among  the  Gentiles  ;  ' 
 (1  Cor.  v.  13);  he  referred  to  some  baptized  individual  who 
 was  one  of  their  usual  fellow-worshippers,  but  not  one  of  the 
 members  of  their  holy  and  inner  spiritual  fellowship.  He 
 advises  the  more  virtuous  and  godly  attendants  to  discoun- 
 tenance, and  not  to  keep  company  with,  such  an  unrighteous 
 person ;  in  fact,  not  to  allow  him  the  privilege  of  being  a 
 recognized  associate  in  their  sanctuary — where  he  might  be 
 regarded  as  identified  with  themselves — until  he  had  repented, 
 and  abandoned  his  wicked  conduct.  Of  course,  this  is  only 
 conjecture,  and  upon  it  I  shall  lay  no  special  stress.  But  it 
 accords  with  the  Apostle's  views  of  what  a  Christian  society 
 
CONVEYED  NO  REGENERATION.  249 
 
 should  be;    and  with  the  style  he  was  likely  to  employ  in 
 
 addressing  a  mixed  assembly  of  people,  meeting  most  probably 
 
 in    a   hired    house,    or   in    the    dwelling    of  some   friend    to 
 
 the  Christian  cause.       For  effecting   this  object,   the    early 
 
 Christians  would  not  be  without  something  like  a  precedent. 
 
 We  learn  that  the  Jews  were- in  the  habit  of  casting  obnoxious 
 
 attendants    out  of  their   synagogues,   and  thereby  hindering 
 
 hem  from  worshipping  with  them  in  the  common  services  of 
 
 God.    It  is  also  said,  '  The  Cheimazomeni  of  the  early  church, 
 
 were  such  penitents,  as  from  theheinousness  and  aggravation 
 
 of  their  crimes,  were  not  only  expelled  out  of  the  communion 
 
 of  the  church,  but  cast  out  of  the  very  atrium,  or  court  and 
 
 porch  of  the  church,  and  put  to  do  penance  in  the  open  air, 
 
 where  they  stood  exposed  to  the  inclemency  of  the  weather.' 
 
 — Faiths  of  the  World.     Does  this  throw  any  light  on  the 
 
 case  before  us? 
 
 Since  this  idea  of  addressing  a  people,  as  saints,  as  holy, 
 and  the  like,  a  part  of  whom  were  certainly  unrenewed  and 
 unrighteous,  maybe  rather  puzzling  to  some  of  my  readers; 
 I  beg  to  explain  it  further,  by  a  reference  to  the  Old  Testament. 
 How  often  did  God  apply  epithets  to  the  Hebrew  nation,  which, 
 while  expressing  his  interest  in  them,  and  his  approbation  of 
 them,  as  his  people,  evidently  prove,  that  many,  if  not,  at 
 times,  the  majority,  of  them  were  unconverted  and  wicked 
 people.  A  few  quotations  will  establish  this  doctrine.  Ex.  v.  1. 
 *  Let  my  people  go.'  These  were  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  most 
 of  whom  afterwards  perished  for  their  sins  in  the  wilderness. 
 Is.  i.  3,  4.  '  My  people  doth  not  consider. .  .  .a  people  laden 
 'with  iniquity.'  Jer.  ii.  13,  32.  'My  people  have  committed 
 'two  great  evils. ..  .my  people  have  forsaken  me,  they  are 
 '  sottish  children.'  lb.  i.  o,  7-  'I  will  destroy  my  people,  since 
 '  they  return  not  from  their  ways.'  Hos.  iv.  6,  12.  '  My  people 
 '  are  destroyed  for  lack  of  knowledge.  My  people  ask  counsel 
 '  of  their  stocks,  and  their  staff  declareth  unto  them,  for  the 
 '  spirit  of  whoredom'  [idolatry]  'hath  caused  them  to  err,  and 
 '  they  have  gone  a  whoring  from  under  their  God.'  Here  we 
 have  a  nation,  sinful,  laden  with  iniquity,  forgetful  of  God, 
 foolish,  sottish,  ignorant,  idolatrous,  and  in  danger  of  des- 
 truction ;  yet  they  are  called  the  Lord's  people  ;  not  because 
 they  were  spiritually  converted  or  pious  ;  but  because  they 
 had  been  consecrated  to  him  by  circumcision  and  baptism  ; 
 and  because  there  were  many  truly  godly  and  devoted  Israelites 
 among  them. 
 
 These  are  called    '  The  children  of  the  Lord  their  God,' 
 
 l2 
 
250  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 (Deut.  xiv.  1,)  not  because  they  were  regenerated,  but  on  the 
 ground  of  their  national  adoption,  having  been  initiated  to  him, 
 and  placed  under  his  paternal  care  ;  though  many  of  them 
 were  prodigal,  rebellious,  and  exposed  to  his  highest  indignation. 
 In  truth,  it  was  this  adoption  which  brought  them  under 
 the  special  discipline  of  Jehovah,  as  the  baptism  of  the  New 
 Testament  congregations  placed  the  members  of  them  within 
 the  special  surveillance  and  jurisdiction  of  the  apostle.  Amos 
 iii.  2.  '  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  ; 
 '  therefore  I  will  punish  you  for  all  your  iniquities.'  In  the 
 passages  just  quoted  from  the  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
 Paul  only  follows  the  example  and  style  of  the  former  economy. 
 He  designates  them  generally  as  saints,  endowed  with  gifts 
 and  knowledge  ;  yet,  he  evidently  did  not  view  them  all  and 
 individually  as  renewed  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  He  clearly 
 implies  that  there  were  many  sad  exceptions  among  them. 
 The  expression,  Ecclesia  tou  Theou,  the  congregation  of  God, 
 1  Cor.  i.  1,  does  not  necessarily  convey  the  idea  that  all  the 
 people  composing  it  were,  in  heart  and  life,  the  truly  regenerated 
 people  of  God.  It  might  be  designed  to  distinguish  them,  as 
 professors  of  Christianity,  from  the  idolaters  around  them, 
 who  were  of  the  synagogue  of  Satan — professedly  the  Lord's 
 people,  as  opposed  to  the  children  of  their  father  the  devil. 
 
 In  further  confirmation  of  this  view  of  the  case,  the  reader 
 of  the  Scriptures  will  readily  recognize  the  fact,  that,  when 
 speaking  of  the  people  under  the  Old  Testament  economy,  the 
 sacred  writers  use  general,  rather  than  specific,  terms,  in 
 describing  the  virtues  and  failings  prevalent  among  them. 
 In  the  best  times  there  were  many  bad  men  and  women  in 
 Israel ;  and,  in  the  worst,  there  were  many  good  men  and 
 women  in  the  land.  But,  when  God  is  expressing  his  approval 
 of  the  nation,  he,  with  rare  exceptions,  says  nothing  of  the 
 ungodly ;  and,  when  reproving  the  nation,  the  righteous 
 are  not  particularly  mentioned.  The  majority,  or  the  party 
 to  be  specially  recognized,  characterizes  the  whole.  Passages, 
 almost  without  number,  might  be  cited,  to  sustain  this  view  of 
 the  subject: — 'When  God  heard  this,  he  abhorred  Israel. 
 '  Israel  would  none  of  me.  Israel  doth  not  know,  my  people 
 '  doth  not  consider.  Ah,  sinful  nation,  a  people  laden  with 
 '  iniquity.  Israel  is  defiled.  Israel  hath  cast  off  the  thing 
 '  that  is  good.  All  Israel  forsook  the  law  of  the  Lord.'  The 
 Jewish  Christian  writers  employ  the  like  mode  of  expression. 
 A  congregation  is  commended  or  corrected  in  general  phrase- 
 ology— the  good  are  praised,  while  the  bad  are  not  excepted  ; 
 
CONVEYED  NO  DEGENERATION*.  251 
 
 and  the  bad  are  denounced,  without  literally  exempting  the 
 good.  So  we  speak  of  the  sinful  population  of  England, 
 without  specifying  the  righteous  ;  and  of  the  godly  inhabitants, 
 without  literally  noticing  the  wicked.  No  person  conversant 
 with  our  modes  of  expression  is  misled  by  such  language  ; 
 nor  can  the  perspicuity  of  Scripture  be  impeached,  for  adopting 
 such  a  style  of  speech.  Mr.  Tombes  evidently  viewed  the 
 subject  in  the  same  light:  —  'All  the  house  of  Israel  is  put  for 
 '  a  great  part,  or  the  greater,  or  the  most  eminent,  as  it  is 
 '  frequently.  1  Sam.  vii.  3  ;  Acts  ii.  36  ;  xiii.  24.  As  the  whole 
 '  church  is  said  to  come  together,  when  the  most  of  them  came 
 4  together. ..  .as  a  church  of  believers,  from  the  greater,  or 
 
 -  most  eminent  part,  though  the  rest  be  neither  actually  nor 
 
 -  virtually  believers.'  Exam.  p.  38.  This  view  of  the  matter 
 readily  explains  many  apparent  difficulties  in  God's  word. 
 
 That  Paul  believed  and  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  perse- 
 verance of  the  saints  in  heart  and  life,  most  of  our  opponents 
 believe.  This  may  be  taken  for  granted — as  also  his  confidence 
 that  real  Christians  should  never  come  into  condemnation  ; 
 and  that  all  who  were  begotten  again  from  above,  should  be 
 kept  by  the  power  of  God,  through  faith  unto  salvation. 
 Nor  is  there,  that  we  know  of,  a  single  passage  in  the 
 Scriptures,  which,  fairly  interpreted,  would  legitimately  induce 
 the  conviction,  in  any  enlightened  mind,  that  water-baptism, 
 administered  even  by  the  apostles  themselves,  was  necessarily, 
 ordinarily,  or  ever  connected  with  the  regeneration  of  a  human 
 spirit.  Facts  without  number  fully  confirm  our  doctrine. 
 Comparatively,  few  of  the  multitudes  baptized  by  John  appear 
 to  have  ever  been  converted  persons,  any  more  than  were  all 
 the  Hebrews  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea.  Many  of  those, 
 baptized  by  the  disciples,  before  the  death  of  Christ,  went 
 back,  and  walked  no  more  with  him  ;  and  many,  baptized  by 
 the  apostles,  after  the  Saviour's  ascension,  gave  painful  proof 
 that  they  were  not  spiritually  converted. 
 
 It  is  plain,  that  if  the  Corinthians  had  been  taught,  and 
 believed,  that  none  but  professedly  regenerated  persons  were 
 baptized  among  them  by  the  apostles,  or  that  good  evidence 
 of  spiritual  regeneration  were  required  of,  and  given  by,  all  the 
 candidates  for  this  ceremony,  previously  to  their  undergoing 
 it ;  they  would,  at  once,  have  discovered  the  fallacy  of  the 
 writer's  argument,  and  the  groundlessness  of  his  fears  and 
 admonitions.  They  would  have  seen,  at  a  glance,  that  Paul's 
 reference  to  the  baptism,  and  to  the  subsequent  sins  and 
 punishments,  of  the  Hebrews,  was  totally  inapplicable  to  their 
 
252  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 case.  They  might  have  rejoined  somewhat  in  the  following 
 style: — 'The  impiety  of  the  unbelieving,  disobedient,  mur- 
 '  muring,  and  idolatrous  Hebrews,  after  their  baptism,  by  God 
 '  himself,  may  be  readily  accounted  for.  It  is  unquestionable 
 '  that  many,  if  not  most,  of  them  were  ignorant,  and  unconverted, 
 1  when  they  received  this  rite.  They  were  not  questioned  as 
 1  to  their  regeneration,  nor  did  they  profess  to  have  experienced 
 '  such  a  change.  They  were  a  people  as  much  laden  with 
 '  iniquity  as  with  affliction.  But,  according  to  your  doctrine, 
 1  Christian  baptism  now  is  a  widely  different  matter.  It  is  a 
 '  test  of  sincerity  ;  a  token  of  our  piety  ;  a  confession  of  our 
 '  faith ;  a  seal  of  our  regeneration ;  and  a  proof  of  our 
 '  spiritual  union  to  Christ,  our  divine  Head.  We,  of  course, 
 '  were  not  baptized  till  we  believed,  or  professed  our  belief, 
 '  with  the  heart  unto  salvation — till  we  had  learned  and 
 '  embraced  the  doctrines,  pledged  ourselves  to  the  duties,  and 
 '  enjoyed  the  privileges,  of  the  gospel ;  and  gave  satisfactory 
 '  proof  that  we  had  been  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus. 
 
 '  Now,  as  you,  beloved  Paul,  do  not  believe  in  falling  from 
 '  saving  and  sanctifying  grace,  and  encourage  us  to  look  to 
 '  God  for  the  preservation  of  our  spiritual  life  ;  and  as  Peter 
 '  says  of  the  saints,  that  "  they  are  kept  by  the  power  of  God, 
 '  through  faith  unto  salvation,  ready  to  be  revealed  in  the  last 
 '  times;  "  we  believe  your  fears  about  us  must  be  groundless 
 '  and  vain.  At  any  rate,  your  reference  to  the  case  of  the 
 1  unconverted  and  ignorant  Hebrews,  baptized  in  the  sea,  is 
 '  perfectly  inappropriate  ;  and  your  logic  is  quite  inconclusive. 
 '  You  might  as  reasonably  have  said,  that  because  confessedly, 
 'and  even  notoriously,  unsanctified  men  have  sinned  awfully 
 '  and  suffered  fearfully  after  their  baptism,  there  is  the  same 
 '  danger,  that  really  enlightened,  regenerated,  and  devout 
 '  people,  will  transgress  quite  as  badly,  and  be  punished  quite 
 '  as  dreadfully  !  You  place  us  on  a  par  with  '  Our  Fathers  ' 
 '  who  had  just  escaped  from  the  slavery  of  Egypt,  and  who 
 '  were  never  converted  to  God  !  You  expect  no  more  holiness 
 '  from  genuine  and  devout  disciples  of  Christ,  than  from  men,  who 
 '  were  total  strangers  to  the  power  of  divine  grace  in  their 
 '  heart !  We  really  thought  better  of  spiritual  conversion 
 *  than  you,  by  your  arguments  and  inferences,  now  represent  it.' 
 
 On  the  supposition,  that  Paul  and  his  brethren  taught,  that 
 none  but  spiritual  believers  of  adult  age  ought  to  be  baptized, 
 and  that  they  knowingly  baptized  no  others  ;  such  a  rejoinder 
 would  have  been  fair,  natural,  and,  among  shrewd  and  clever 
 people,   such   as    the    Corinthians  were,   all   but    inevitable. 
 
CONVEYED  XO  REGENERATION.  2o3 
 
 But  supposing,  that,  on  the  other  hand,  it  were  well  and 
 generally  understood,  that  conversion  of  heart,  or  spiritual 
 regeneration  hy  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  not  necessarily  required 
 in  candidates  for  Christian  baptism,  and  that  the  baptized 
 Corinthians  had  never  been  taught  to  believe,  that,  because 
 they  had  undergone  this  rite,  they  were  regarded  as  spiritual 
 followers  of  Christ ;  but  had  been  received  simply  as  disciples 
 or  learners  in  the  school  of  Christianity,  like  the  Hebrews  in 
 the  school  of  the  prophet  Moses  ;  the  apostle's  argument 
 appears  consistent,  harmless,  and  forcible  ;  and  it  was  doubtless 
 felt  to  be  such  in  the  Congregation  at  Corinth. 
 
 In  arriving  at  the  conclusion,  that  certain  persons  in  the 
 ecclesia,  congregation,  or  church,  at  Corinth  were  not  really 
 and  spiritually  converted ;  we  have  had  recourse  to  the  same 
 kind  of  evidence  which  our  opponents  would  regard  as  satis- 
 factory in  other  analogous  instances.  We  judge  of  the  tree,  not 
 by  its  name,  or  its  foliage,  but  by  its  fruits.  We  believe  many 
 of  the  Hebrews,  baptized  in  the  sea  and  subsequently  unto 
 Moses  in  the  wilderness,  were  not  regenerated,  because  they 
 were  not  afterwards,  as  a  whole,  a  truly  godly  people.  We 
 reason  in  like  manner  respecting  multitudes  baptized  by 
 John  and  the  Saviour's  disciples.  Vast  numbers  of  adults,  as 
 well  as  infants,  baptized  in  our  own  day,  evince,  by  the 
 conduct  they  afterwards  habitually  display,  that  they  never 
 were  regenerated  by  the  divine  Spirit.  We  are  not  deceived  by 
 their  Christian  designations,  or  their  confederation  with  Chris- 
 tian assemblies.  By  their  fruits  we  know  them.  This  test 
 of  character  is  confessedly  scriptural,  and,  when  fairly  applied, 
 indubitably  conclusive.  What  the  Corinthians  might  have 
 become  subsequently  to  the  appeal  of  the  apostle  is  not  the 
 question  ;  but  simply,  what  they  actually  were,  in  his  judgment, 
 at  the  time  he  wrote  it  ? 
 
 Surely,  the  divine  marks  of  truly  godly  people  were  not 
 upon  all  of  them.  Paul's  description  of  the  real  children  of 
 God  excluded  many  of  them  from  the  number  of  the  elect,  or, 
 at  least,  of  the  then  existing  regenerated  saints  of  God.  His 
 admonitions  on  the  purity  of  true  Christian  fellowship,  and 
 spiritual  communion,  evince  that  they  were  not  all  of  the 
 genuine  brotherhood  ;  and  of  this,  at  the  time,  he  must  have 
 been  fully  and  painfully  conscious.  And  so  must  have  been 
 all  the  truly  enlightened  and  pious  people  among  them.  As 
 said  elsewhere,  we  should  not  tolerate,  in  our  select  societies, 
 for  a  single  week,  persons  whose  views  and  procedure  agree 
 with  that  of  many  in  the  congregation  at  Corinth ;    and  of 
 
254  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 whose  expulsion  from  their  position,  with  one  solitary  exception, 
 not  a  word  of  command  or  advice  is  given.  While  conducting 
 themselves  peaceably,  they  might  he  tolerated  to  attend  our 
 ministrations,  and  to  hear  our  expositions  and  admonitions  ; 
 but  they  would  not  be  admitted  to  the  bosom  of  any  particular 
 churches,  either  Baptist  or  Independent.  '  They  come  unto  thee 
 '  as  the  people  '  [of  God]  '  cometh,  and  they  sit  before  thee  as 
 '  thy  people  ;  and  they  hear  thy  words,  but  they  will  not  do 
 '  them.'  There  might  be  an  association  in  public  worship, 
 but  no  communion  of  hearts,  or  real  fellowship  in  love,  holiness, 
 and  faith.  A  still  more  distinct  view  of  this  important  point, 
 in  our  controversy,  will  be  seen  in  a  following  section. 
 
 SECTION  EIGHTH. —  The  prerequisites  to  the  baptisms 
 of  71 1 oses  and  of  Christ  were  about  the  same  in  principle, 
 nature,  and  degree. — As  we  have  just  shown,  the  argument 
 of  the  apostle  implies  that  many  of  the  Hebrews,  baptized 
 unto  Moses,  were  in  an  unregenerated  condition.  Hence, 
 we  account  for  their  subsequent  sins  and  punishments.  He 
 is  guarding  the  baptized  Corinthians  against  similar  transgres- 
 sions, and  consequent  indignation.  This  could  be  consistently 
 done  only  on  the  supposition,  that,  though  they  were  baptized 
 to  one  infinitely  greater  than  Moses,  they  might  not,  in  his 
 opinion,  be  all  regenerated,  and  so  be  securely  placed  beyond 
 the  possible  vengeance  of  Heaven.  His  argument  teaches 
 this  doctrine,  or  it  is  void  of  adaptation  to  his  object,  and  of  all 
 force  towards  its  accomplishment.  They  were  not  to  take  it 
 as  granted,  that,  because  they  had  been  baptized,  they  were 
 savingly  converted,  and  should,  therefore,  never  come  into 
 condemnation.  He  is  not  here  speaking  of  the  personal 
 doubts  and  fears  often  excited  in  the  minds  of  the  best  of  men, 
 and  of  which  Paul  himself  was  occasionally  the  subject;  but 
 he  is  incidentally  propounding  a  doctrine  to  others  in  accord- 
 ance with  his  often  reiterated  views  of  the  preservation  and 
 perseverance  of  the  saints.  '  Holiness,'  says  Mr.  Pengelly,  a 
 leading  Baptist  minister,  '  is  nowhere  required  in  God's  word 
 '  as  a  prerequisite  to  baptism.'  p.  61.  'Wherefore  let  him  that 
 '  thinketh  he  standeth,'  [safe  and  invulnerable,  on  the  ground 
 of  his  apostolical  baptism],  '  take  heed  lest  he  fall,  under  the 
 '  same  example  of  unbelief.' 
 
 The  truth  is,  that  as  a  qualification  for  baptism  in  the  Red 
 Sea,  or  in  the  Jordan,  or  in  Jerusalem,  personal  conversion 
 to  God,  newness  of  heart,  saving  faith,  and  holiness  of  life, 
 were  never  deemed  essential,  nor  ever  required.     A  belief  in 
 
REQUIRED  THE  LIKE  PREREQUISITES.  255 
 
 the  heavenly  mission  of  Moses,  of  John,  and  of  Christ;  an 
 acquiescence  in  the  truth  of  the  primary  doctrines  propounded, 
 and  in  the  verity  of  the  facts  stated,  by  the  divinely  attested 
 teachers;  and  a  professed  readiness  to  be  further  instructed 
 and  directed  by  them ;  were  all  the  absolute  prerequisites  to 
 Jewish  or  Christian  adult  baptism.  Under  God,  Moses 
 produced  this  faith  in  the  Hebrews  by  his  rod;  John  by  his 
 appearance  and  crying,  '  in  due  time,'  in  the  wilderness;  and 
 the  apostles  by  the  preaching  of  great  facts  and  sublime 
 doctrines,  with  signs  following.  Possibly,  in  each  of  these 
 cases,  some,  if  not  many,  real  conversions  took  place,  by  the 
 outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  primary  means  here 
 employed.  But  all  those  who  simply  believed  the  testimony 
 given,  and  were  made  willing  to  undergo  the  ceremony,  were 
 immediately  baptized  ;  that  is,  they  were,  in  effect,  formally 
 registered  as  the  disciples  of  the  Lord. 
 
 Now,  surely,  as  before  inferred,  infants — to  which,  in 
 simplicity,  docility,  and  confidence,  all  must  conform  before 
 entering  the  kingdom  of  God — were  as  morally  and  spiritually 
 qualified  for  being  dedicated  to  Christ  as  those  unconverted 
 sinners,  who,  had  they  professed  to  have  been  savingly 
 renewed,  would  have  only  exposed,  either  their  gross  ignorance, 
 or  their  impious  hypocrisy  ;  or,  if  represented  as  spiritual, 
 by  the  persons  who  baptized  them,  the  latter  would  have 
 shockingly  deluded  their  votaries,  and  have  exposed  the 
 pure  religion  of  Christ  to  the  merited  contempt  of  mankind. 
 It  is,  indeed,  worthy  of  notice,  that,  when  some  of  the  disciples 
 of  Christ  had  been  contending  among  themselves,  who  should 
 be  the  greatest  in  his  supposed  worldly  kingdom,  he  said  unto 
 them,  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  be  converted,  and 
 '  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  the  kingdom  of 
 '  heaven.'  Matt,  xviii.  3.  That  these  disciples  had  been 
 baptized,  is  doubted  by  few  or  none ;  and,  yet,  it  appears,  they 
 were  without  that  conversion  which  was  the  door  into  the 
 real  kingdom  of  heaven. 
 
 In  the  case  of  initiating  or  discipling  the  Hebrews  unto 
 Moses,  we  know  that  infants  were  as  eligible  for  baptism  as 
 adults;  and  we  are  confident  that  the  same  rule  will  apply 
 under  the  gospel  economy  ;  at  least,  we  challenge  any  one  to 
 prove  the  contrary ;  and  the  contrary  must  be  established 
 before  the  claims  of  infants  to  ritual  baptism  can  be  righteously 
 surrendered.  The  only  passage  which  exhibits  the  slightest 
 appearance  of  favouring  the  doctrine  of  spiritual  conversion 
 being  requisite  prior  to  personal  baptism,  and  which  text  is 
 
256  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 instinctively  referred  to  and  invariably  pleaded  by  our  brethren, 
 in  support  of  it,  is  Acts  viii.  37: — '  If  thou  believest  with  all 
 1  thine  heart,  thou  mayest '  be  baptized.  But,  as  before 
 noticed,  the  most  competent  witnesses  assure  us,  that  this  decla- 
 ration is  destitute  of  any  sound  canonical  authority,  and  forms 
 no  part  of  the  original  Scriptures  of  God — being  simply  an 
 interpolation  of  some  blundering  or  presumptuous  copyist. 
 \_See  Bloomfield' s  Test,  in  loc.~\  Besides,  that  some  kind 
 and  degreeof  faith,  knowledge,  and  change  of  mind,  occasionally 
 called  repentance,  conversion,  confession  of  sin,  with  a  professed 
 or  implied  intention  of  submitting  to  the  laws  and  rules  of  the 
 system,  to  which  they  are  to  be  initiated;  must  precede  the 
 baptism  of  adults,  and  of  all  independent  individuals,  no  man 
 in  his  senses  ever  doubted  ;  as  without,  they  would  not  comply 
 with  the  ceremony.  That  the  Eunuch  believed  Christ  was 
 the  promised  Messiah  ;  and  that,  in  compliance  with  Philip's 
 instruction,  and,  probably,  his  persuasion,  he  was  baptized  ; 
 are  manifest. 
 
 The  like  may  be  assumed  of  all  self- controlled  men  and 
 women  ever  baptized  by  the  apostles,  and,  from  their  day  to 
 the  present,  by  the  inferior  ministers  of  Christ.  But,  that 
 saving  faith,  or  even  a  full  and  explicit  profession  of  all  divine 
 truth,  was  demanded  by  John,  or  by  our  Lord's  apostles,  before 
 the  rite  could  be  administered  to  adults,  is  what  we  deny,  and 
 what  our  opponents  have  never  yet  established.  The  Baptist 
 enjoined  on  his  hearers  the  urgency  of  bringing  forth  fruits 
 meet  for  repentance  ;  but  it  was  mostly  after,  and  not  before, 
 they  were  baptized.  Camp.  Matt.  iii.  8,  11,  and  Luke  iii.  7, 
 11,  15  :  Though  whether  before  or  after,  is  immaterial  to  our 
 leading  argument.  Indeed,  unless  he  had  delayed  their 
 baptism  for  months  or  even  for  years,  till  these  fruits  were 
 forth-coming,  which  he  certainly  did  not,  his  injunctions  must 
 have  alluded  to  their  conduct  after,  and  not  before,  their  baptism. 
 Fruits  meet  for  repentance  do  not,  like  Jonah's  gourd,  grow 
 in  a  night;  nor  are  they  like  the  morning  cloud  and  the  early 
 dew,  which  appear  an  hour,  and  then  vanish  away.  At  all 
 events,  it  could  not  have  affected  their  baptism  ;  for  John  had 
 no  opportunity  of  knowing  but  very  few,  if  any,  of  them  pre- 
 viously, and,  most  probably,  never  saw  one  in  a  thousand  of 
 them  a  second  time. 
 
 His  home  was  in  the  desert  before  he  baptized  them,  and 
 in  the  prison  immediately  after  his  brief  official  work  was 
 accomplished.  Neither  had  he  the  prerogative  of  God  himself, 
 directly  and  immediately,  to  read  the  heart,  and  to  learn  what 
 
DESIGNATED  PRECISELY  ALIKE.  257 
 
 was  in  man.  He  could  not  have  instinctively  discriminated 
 between  the  different  classes  and  characters  that  came  to  him, 
 so  as  to  have  baptized  some  of  them  as  godly,  and  refused 
 the  ordinances  to  others,  as  unregenerate.  Certain  persons 
 rejected  his  counsel  and  baptism  ;  but  every  willing  attendant 
 received  the  rite,  whatever  might  have  been  his  spiritual  state 
 before  God.  He  left  the  investigation  of  men's  spiritual 
 condition  to  the  judgment  day,  when  Christ,  with  his  fan  in 
 his  hand,  would  thoroughly  purge  his  floor.  Matt.  iii.  12. 
 In  respect  of  infants,  the  requirements  made  on  adults,  few 
 and  light  as  they  were,  the  apostles  dispensed  with  in 
 baptism ;  as  their  fathers  had  dispensed  with  everything 
 of  the  kind,  prior  to  infant  circumcision,  purification, 
 and  other  religious  ceremonials,  of  which  children  were 
 really  proper  subjects  ;  and  as  the  like  is  now  dispensed 
 with  by  our  Baptist  brethren,  when  they  dedicate  their  babes 
 to  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 That  the  preceding  views,  on  this  point,  are  not  exclusively 
 with  the  Pedobaptists,  may  be  gathered  from  the  statement  of 
 Mr.  Stovel,  already  quoted.  '  Having  once  been  baptized,  and 
 4  entering  into  Christ;  we  are  subject  to  his  discipline, 
 '  whatever  the  event  may  be.  Whether  we  go  forward  to 
 '  life,  or  turn  back  again  unto  death,  the  vow  of  God  is  upon 
 1  us,  and,  in  love  or  wrath,  his  love  and  honour  must  be 
 1  vindicated.'  Here  we  learn,  that,  through  baptism,  persons 
 may  enter  into  Christ,  become,  by  profession,  subject  to  his 
 authority,  and  be  laid  under  solemn  vows  to  love  and  obey 
 God  ;  though,  at  the  time,  they  may  be  destitute  of  vital  and 
 saving  grace  in  their  hearts — for  such  only,  in  the  opinion  of 
 Mr.  Stovel,  and  most  of  his  Calvinistic  brethren,  will  turn 
 back  again  unto  death,  and  incur  the  wrath  of  God.  In  still 
 plainer  terms,  we  learn  that,  unrenewed  men  have  the  capacity 
 for  being  scripturally  and  duly  baptized  unto  Christ,  may  be 
 placed  in  the  same  relative  position,  towards  the  visible  church 
 of  God,  as  the  holiest  person  in  the  congregation  of  believers. 
 If  I  understand  the  sense  of  the  language  Mr.  Stovel  employs, 
 and  I  think  I  do,  this  is  his  own  doctrine.  Further,  this 
 gentleman,  I  presume,  is  propounding  the  ideas  which  he  and 
 his  immersing  friends  generally  entertain  respecting  the  doc- 
 trines and  doings  of  apostolic  times.  We  may,  therefore, 
 on  their  own  grounds,  fairly  conclude,  that  unregenerate 
 individuals  were  legitimately  baptized  by  the  disciples  of 
 Christ,  and  then  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  discipleship  ; 
 and  which  were  subsequently  forfeited  only  when  the  initiated 
 
258  THE  BAPTIZED  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 turned  back  again  to  the  ways  of  death.  In  order  to  render 
 this  view  of  the  question  still  more  clear  and  conclusive,  we 
 shall  offer  several  expository  observations. 
 
 Observation  I.  The  question  is,  what  did  Christ  and 
 his  apostles  always  require  in  all  adults  prior  to  bap- 
 tizing them  into  the  gospel  economy? — The  inquiry  is  not, 
 what  attainments  in  knowledge  and  holiness  may  have  been 
 made  by  certain  persons,  whose  baptisms  are  recorded  in  the 
 New  Testament?  Some  of  them  might  have  been,  and 
 probably  were,  so  favoured,  through  reading  the  law  and  the 
 prophets,  or  by  hearing  of,  or  seeing,  the  miracles  wrought 
 by  the  apostles,  as  to  have  understood  much  of  the  divine 
 mind,  before  they  had  the  opportunity,  or  felt  the  necessity, 
 of  being  baptized,  or  openly  consecrated,  unto  the  Christian 
 religion.  And  the  blessing  of  God  might  have  so  immediately 
 accompanied  the  first  hearing  of  the  gospel,  that  many  of  the 
 people  may  have  been  really  and  spiritually  converted  to  Christ, 
 previous  to  their  being  initiated  into  the  general  body  of 
 Christian  professors.  For  example,  Paul  was  deeply  convinced 
 of  sin,  by  the  vision  and  voice  of  Christ,  before  Ananias  baptized 
 him.  Lydia's  heart  and  ears  were  opened  to  attend  to  divine 
 truth,  before  she  and  her  family  were  baptized  by  the  apostles. 
 The  three  thousand  were  pricked  to  the  heart,  and  received 
 the  word,  perhaps,  gladly,  before  they  were  baptized,  on  the 
 day  of  Pentecost.  Cornelius,  and  those  that  were  with  him  in 
 the  house,  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  before  they 
 were  baptized.  The  Jailor  at  Philippi  trembled  and  cried  out 
 for  mercy  before  he  and  his  children  were  baptized  at  midnight. 
 All  this,  though  constantly  and  triumphantly  referred  to,  by 
 the  opponents  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  the  advocates  of  believers' 
 baptism  only,  as  being  conclusively  in  their  favour,  is  little  to 
 the  purpose  in  the  present  investigation. 
 
 The  question  is  not,  what  some  or  many  persons  may  have 
 attained  to  before  they  were  baptized ;  but  simply,  what 
 meetness  the  laws  of  baptism  actually  and  always  required,  as 
 indispensable,  before  any  adult  could  be  baptized  by  the 
 apostles  of  Christ  ?  It  might  have  been  a  mere  incidental 
 circumstance,  that  certain  individuals  were  convinced  of  sin, 
 and  even  converted,  before  baptism.  This  is  a  case  of  frequent 
 occurrence  among  existing  Pcdobaptists,  who  certainly  do  not 
 deem  spiritual  regeneration  essential,  previously  to  water- 
 baptism.  The  writer  himself  has  baptized  believing  adults, 
 and  so  have  most  of  his  brethren  of  the  same  denomination. 
 These  persons  have  been  the  grown-up  children  of  Baptists, 
 
REQUEUED  THE  LIKE  PREREQUISITES.  259 
 
 or  others,  neglected  in  their  infancy,  by  Pedobaptist  parents. 
 The  historical  details  of  particular  baptisms  are  no  certain 
 guide  for  us,  at  least,  as  to  the  proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance  ; 
 but  the  laws  of  the  institution,  as  laid  down  by  the  Author  of 
 our  holy  religion,  or  referred  to  by  him  as  a  directory  in  this 
 matter.  Unless  we  had  received  a  full  account  of  every  case 
 of  Christian  baptism,  administered  by  divinely  directed  men — 
 which  we  have  not,  nor,  probably,  the  thousandth  part  of  them 
 — we  should  be  unable  to  draw  any  conclusion  from  them 
 satisfactory  to  inquiring  minds.  Mr.  Green  says,  '  Exclusive 
 '  of  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  of  the  multitudes  by  John,  and 
 1  also  of  the  disciples  whom  Jesus,  as  it  was  rumoured,  made 
 '  and  baptized,  John  iv.  1 ;  there  are,  I  believe,  eleven 
 '  recorded  instances  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament.' 
 Address,  p.  14.  We  must,  therefore,  appeal  to  the  correct 
 meaning  of  the  commission  on  this  head,  as  explained  by 
 previous  instances  under  the  law,  by  the  conduct  of  John  the 
 Baptist,  and  by  the  early  practice  of  Christians,  as  in  a  great 
 measure  explaining  its  terms  ;  and,  from  all  combined,  make 
 our  own  deductions. 
 
 "We  do  not  refer  to  the  occasional  conduct  of  the  Israelites, 
 even  of  the  best  of  them,  to  ascertain  the  purport  of  the 
 written  institutions  of  Moses;  but  to  his  ordinances  and 
 statutes  themselves ;  nor  to  the  conduct  of  the  early  professors 
 of  the  gospel,  to  find  out  the  nature  of  Christianity,  unless  it 
 be  manifestly  approved  by  the  divine  Head  of  the  church,  or 
 by  his  inspired  ambassadors;  but  directly  to  the  laws  and 
 precepts  of  Heaven.  Our  opponents  do  not  follow  even  the 
 examples  of  the  apostles  themselves,  in  using  the  words  of  their 
 baptismal  rite.  The  former  always  employ  the  terms  given  in 
 the  commission,  and  baptize  '  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
 '  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  But  they  can  find  no 
 instance  where  this  formulary  is  said  to  have  been  employed 
 by  the  immediate  followers  of  Christ,  who  baptized  in  the 
 name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  See  Acts  ii.  39  ;  xix.  .5.  They  and 
 we  properly  follow  the  letter  of  the  commission,  and  not  the 
 recorded  language  of  the  primitive  baptizers.  The  above 
 principle  should  never  be  lost  sight  of  as  a  prime  rule  of 
 biblical  interpretation,  in  the  case  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  of 
 every  other  question  of  grave  importance  in  the  Scriptures — ■ 
 understanding  the  mind  of  God  from  his  laws ;  and  appealing 
 to  the  conduct  of  good  men  of  primitive  times  for  explanations 
 only  when  those  laws  are  to  us  obscure  and  uncertain.  Such 
 is  not  the  case  in  this  divine  commission,  which  is  our  only 
 
2G0  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 direct  legislation  in  the  New  Testament  on  this  subject;  and 
 which,  undoubtedly,  does  not  make  conviction  of  sin,  spiritual 
 conversion,  and  saving  faith  in  God,  essential  in  any,  much 
 less  in  every,  candidate  for  Christian  baptism. 
 
 Of  course,  as  previously  intimated,  the  possession  of  vital 
 religion  disqualifies  no  unbaptized  persons  from  receiving  this 
 ordinance — for,  doubtlessly,  many  Jews  were  pious,  converted, 
 and  holy,  before  John  or  Jesus  entered  on  their  gracious  work, 
 and  were  baptized  by  them  or  their  attendants.  Even  Christ 
 himself,  though  perfectly  holy,  underwent  this  ordinance  at  the 
 hands  of  his  harbinger.  Cornelius  received  the  baptism  of 
 water,  after  he  had  been  manifestly  baptized  by  the  Holy 
 Ghost.  Nor  do  we,  for  a  moment,  believe  that  the  apostles 
 acted  otherwise  than  according  to  the  spirit  and  intent  of 
 their  instructions.  But,  in  this  instance,  we  have  the  instruc- 
 tions themselves,  and  these,  in  conjunction  with  preceding 
 practices,  are  plainer  to  us,  than  many  of  the  narratives  of 
 the  ceremony  which  the  apostles  administered.  This  arises 
 from  the  fact,  that  only  a  few  instances  of  practical  compliance 
 with  them  are  recorded  ;  nor  is  the  account  of  these  sufficiently 
 plain  and  full,  on  many  points,  as  required  to  place  the  question 
 of  their  procedure  beyond  all  difficulty. 
 
 I  must  here  again  advert  to  the  fact,  that  the  principal 
 aim  of  the  apostles,  especially  when  publicly  addressing  the 
 Jews  and  disputing  with  them — many,  if  not  most,  of  whom 
 probably  had  the  divine  and  glorious  doctrines  and  precepts 
 of  the  Old  Testament  in  their  hands,  or  in  their  memories,  if 
 not  in  their  hearts — was  evidently  to  convince  their  audiences 
 that  the  man  called  Jesus,  who  had  been  preaching  in  Jewry 
 for  some  time,  and  who  had  been  ultimately  crucified  under 
 Pontius  Pilate,  at  Jerusalem,  was  the  Messiah  spoken  of  by 
 Moses  and  the  prophets.  No  one  can  listen  to  their  discourses 
 without  perceiving  this  to  have  been  the  case.  Take  an  instance 
 or  two  as  examples.  In  the  synagogues  of  the  Jews  at 
 Thessalonica, '  Paul,  as  his  manner  was,  went  in  unto  them,  and 
 1  three  sabbath  days  reasoned  with  them  out  of  the  Scriptures, 
 '  opening  and  alleging  that  Jesus  whom  he  preached  unto 
 '  them  was  Christ.'  Acts  xvii.  2,  3.  At  Corinth,  '  he  reasoned 
 '  in  the  synagogue  every  sabbath,  and  persuaded  the  Jews 
 'that  Jesus  was  Christ;  and,'  [apparently  without  any  further 
 present  instruction]  '  many  of  the  Corinthians,  hearing,  believed 
 'and  were  baptized.'  Acts  xviii.  4,  5,  8.  The  Eunuch, 
 probably  a  Jewish  proselyte,  having,  at  the  utmost,  confessed 
 his  hearty  belief  that  'Jesus  was  the  Christ,'  was  immediately 
 
REQUIRED  THE  LUCE  PREREQUISITES.  2G1 
 
 baptized.  The  great  point  the  first  preachers  aimed  at,  was 
 to  persuade  the  people,  that  the  Messiah  had  actually  come 
 into  the  world,  and  had  died  for  their  salvation.  This  being 
 done,  baptism  unto  Christ  was  at  once  administered  to  them. 
 And  this  perfectly  accords  with  the  commission.  In  fact,  the 
 apostle  John  makes  the  preaching  of  this  great  truth  the 
 test  of  a  genuine  and  divinely  directed  ministry.  '  Hereby  we 
 '  know  the  Spirit  of  God.  Every  spirit  that  confesseth  that 
 '  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of  God.  And  every 
 '  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
 '  flesh  is  not  of  God.  And  this  is  the  spirit  of  Antichrist, 
 '  whereof  we  have  heard  that  it  is  come ;  and  even  now 
 1  already  is  it  in  the  world.'    1  John  iv.  2,  3. 
 
 The  opponents  of  Infant  Baptism,  and  of  Adult  Baptism, 
 before  actual  and  spiritual  conversion  to  Christ,  have  dwelt 
 with  much  emphasis  on  the  case  of  Cornelius  and  his  household, 
 who  received  the  Holy  Spirit  before  being  baptized  by  the 
 apostle  Peter.  In  reply  to  their  objections,  I  will  quote  the 
 remarks  of  Mr.  Parsons: — 'If  the  Holy  Ghost,  falling  on 
 '  Cornelius,  is  a  direct  proof  of  his  being  converted  before  he 
 'was  baptized,  then  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  fall 
 '  upon  the  three  thousand,  nor  upon  the  Samaritans,  nor 
 '  Ephesians,  until  after  they  were  baptized,  affords  three 
 '  direct  proofs  of  baptism  before  conversion.  How  in  the 
 '  world  could  Amator  Veritatis  talk  of  the  uniform  practice 
 '  of  the  apostles,  when  the  precedent  their  conduct  furnishes, 
 '  and  which  he  himself  quotes,  is  three  to  one  against  his 
 '  declaration  ?  The  case  of  Cornelius  is  a  solitary  one,  and 
 '  forms  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  apostolic  proceeding; 
 '  and  the  whole  history  shows  that  it  was  unusual  for  such  a 
 '  thing  to  take  place,  and  that  it  occurred  in  this  instance 
 '  solely  to  overcome  the  prejudices  of  Peter.  Nothing  is 
 '  more  evident  than  that  the  apostle  himself  was  astonished 
 '  at  beholding  an  event  so  uncommon ....  We  have  one  instance 
 '  of  a  person  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost  before  he  was  baptized, 
 '  and  several  instances  of  crowds  being  baptized  before  they 
 'received  the  Holy  Spirit;  yet,  says  the  lover  of  truth,'  [and 
 many  echo  his  assertions,]  '  the  one  example  is  the  infallible 
 '  rule,  and  the  many  precedents  are  the  exceptions  !  '  p.  81. 
 
 In  reading  the  publications,  and  listening  to  the  arguments, 
 of  some  of  our  Baptist  friends,  it  will  be  remarked,  that  they 
 often  make  that  a  rule  of  ministration,  which  can  be  fairly 
 deemed  nothing  more  than  an  incident  in  its  operations.  The 
 baptism  of  the  Eunuch  is  dwelt  on  with  special  emphasis,  as 
 
262  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  AND  CHKIST 
 
 if  conveying  all  the  information  required  to  establish  their 
 views  of  the  mode  and  subjects  of  this  ordinance.  But,  in 
 reality,  it  does  neither.  As  to  the  subject,  it  proves  too 
 much  for  their  purpose ;  for  if  the  English  text  be  valid — none 
 but  believers  in  heart  should  be  baptized  ;  and  unless  this  be 
 satisfactorily  established,  the  candidate  must  not  be  dipped — 
 they  adduce  a  rule  of  action  which  they  cannot  always  and 
 safely  apply.  Then  they  recur  to  Mark  xvi.  16  ;  and  lay 
 remarkable  stress  on  belief  before  baptism  ;  forgetting  that  it  is 
 placed  equally  before  salvation.  Make  this  refer  to  water-baptism, 
 and  then  the  rule  must  be,  that  this  rite,  as  well  as  faith,  is 
 essential  to  being  saved — keeping  all  the  unbaptized  out  of 
 heaven  !  Recourse  is  then  had  to  the  baptism  of  our  blessed 
 Lord.  But  the  peculiarities  of  the  case  render  it  unmeet 
 for  a  rule  in  every  other.  People  must  be  about  thirty  years 
 of  age,  must  be  perfectly  holy,  and  undergo  this  ceremony  in 
 a  river,  at  least!  The  baptism  of  the  3000  on  the  day  of 
 Pentecost  is  adduced,  as  if  that  were  a  good  rule  for  us  now. 
 But  these  were  all  said  to  have  been  males,  probably  fro'm 
 home,  certainly  Jews  just  proselyted  to  a  belief  in  the  fact 
 that  Jesus  was  the  Christ — an  analogous  instance  none  of 
 our  opponents  meet  with  once  in  a  century.  Reference  is 
 made  to  other  instances,  and  adduced  as  grounds  and  rules  of 
 baptism.  To  a  certain  extent,  they  all  may  convey  to  us 
 some  light  on  the  subject ;  but  none  of  them,  separately,  can 
 become  a  guide  for  our  practice.  We  must  view  the  cases  as 
 a  whole ;  one  explaining,  confirming,  or  modifying  another. 
 To  say,  all  must  believe  with  the  heart,  because  it  is  said  the 
 Eunuch  did ;  or  that  faith  must  always  go  before  baptism, 
 as  stated  in  Mark  ;  or  that  the  baptized  must  be  adults  and 
 holy,  because  Christ  was  so  when  baptized  in  the  Jordan  ;  or 
 that  the  Jews  just  proselyted  and  consecrated  to  Christianity 
 on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  are  patterns  to  us  ;  or,  in  a  word, 
 that  any  other  case,  noted  in  the  New  Testament,  is  alone  a 
 perfect  directory  to  us  in  administering  this  ceremony,  is  to 
 err  most  egregiously.  The  commission  of  our  Lord,  as 
 variously  explained  and  illustrated  by  the  divers  baptisms 
 preceding  or  following  it,  is  our  warrant  and  guide  in  this 
 interesting  and  important  matter. 
 
 Observation  II.  It  does  not  affect  the  question  before 
 us,  whether  people  were  baptized  unto  Moses  or  unto  Christ 
 — to  the  servant  or  to  the  Son  of  God  ;  for,  in  both  cases,  the 
 baptism  was,  virtually  and  truly,  to  Jehovah  himself. — The 
 parties  baptized  unto  Moses  and  unto  Christ,  whether  adults 
 
REQUIRED  THE  LUCE  PREREQUISITES.  2G3 
 
 or  children,  were  essentially  the  same  by  nature  and  practice. 
 The  children  who  passed  through  the  sea,  were  horn  in  sin 
 and  shapen  in  iniquity,  like  their  descendants  in  the  days  of 
 John  and  Paul.  The  religion  to  which  the  Hebrews  were 
 consecrated,  in  the  time  of  Moses,  was  the  same,  in  all  its 
 leading  properties,  as  the  religion  more  fully  unfolded  by 
 Christ,  when  he  brought  life  and  immortality  more  plainly  to 
 light,  by  the  Gospel.  But,  perhaps,  the  original  baptism, 
 unto  a  less  clearly  developed  religion,  in  the  time  of  Moses, 
 is  elevated  to  an  equality  with  that  of  after  times,  through 
 being  administered,  not  by  man,  but  directly  by  God  himself; 
 an  act  never  performed  by  Jesus  Christ  under  the  Gospel 
 dispensation.  The  persons  baptized  unto  Moses,  '  were  called 
 '  to  glorify  God; '  and  nothing  greater  could  be  said  of  those 
 baptized  unto  Christ.  The  responsible  position  in  which  the 
 Hebrews  were  placed,  cannot  be  exceeded  by  that  in  which 
 Christian  baptism  places  its  professors.  Blessedness  resulted 
 from  obedience  ;  and  punishment  was  incurred  by  rebellion, 
 in  case  the  baptismal  covenant  of  the  Red  Sea  were  broken. 
 '  Having  been  baptized,  entering  into  Christ,  we  are  subject 
 '  to  his  discipline,  whatever  the  event  may  be.  Whether  we 
 '  go  forward  to  life,  or  turn  back  again  unto  death,  the  vow  of 
 1  God  is  upon  us,  and,  in  love  or  wrath,  his  love  and  honour 
 '  must  be  vindicated.'  For  any  differences  the  systems  exhibit, 
 the  qualifications  of  the  baptized,  in  their  moral  and  religious 
 capacities,  might  be  on  an  equality.  Certainly,  no  such 
 discrepancies  existed  between  them,  as  to  demand  vital  piety 
 in  the  one  case,  and  to  overlook  it  entirely  in  the  other ;  or 
 as  to  admit  infants  to  this  rite,  by  thousands,  in  the  Bed  Sea, 
 and  to  exclude  every  one  of  them  in  the  days  of  Christ.  God 
 required  as  much  piety  in  his  people  in  the  wilderness,  as  he 
 did  in  Judea,  after  the  Saviour's  resurrection.  And  what  he, 
 so  far,  required,  he  probably  obtained.  The  godly  Christian 
 may  have  had  more  light  than  the  godly  Hebrew  ;  but  he  had 
 no  more  devotion  to  the  glory  of  the  Lord,  or  love  to  his  cause, 
 than  his  Israelitish  ancestor,  baptized  in  the  sea.  Nor  is  it 
 likely,  that,  according  to  the  numbers  baptized  under  both 
 economies,  that  more  drew  back  unto  death,  during  the  first 
 forty  years  after  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  than  during  the  first 
 forty  years  after  John  began  to  baptize  and  preach  the  doctrine 
 of  repentance,  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea.  Because  the  specific 
 manifestations  of  piety  may  have  differed  under  the  law  from 
 those  under  the  gospel,  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  piety  itself 
 was  not  essentially  the  same.    True  religion,  though  the  fruit 
 
2G4  THE  BAPTISM  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 of  one  Spirit,  develops  itself  in  various  forms  in  different 
 individuals,  and  in  every  age  of  the  church.  While  some  who 
 are  baptized,  both  with  water  and  the  Spirit,  remain  com- 
 paratively obscure  disciples  all  their  days,  others,  baptized  in 
 the  same  way,  perform  numerous  deeds  of  distinguished  piety, 
 with  which  their  brethren  do  not  intermeddle.  Some  are  the 
 hands,  and  some  the  feet — some  the  eyes  and  some  the  ears, 
 in  the  baptized  ecclesiastical  body. 
 
 Observation  III.  It  must  not  be  assumed  that  the  same 
 prerequisites  for  baptism  are  required  in  little  children  as 
 in  adults. — We  should  recollect,  what  we  have  previously 
 proved,  that  in  some  ceremonies  the  subjects  are  unconscious 
 and  passive,  while  in  others  they  are  intelligent  and  active. 
 In  the  passover  and  the  Lord's  supper,  the  recipients,  being 
 adults,  were  active  ;  they  did  something — indeed,  the  entire 
 thing  itself.  They  ate  and  drank  the  elements  ;  and  did  not 
 submit  to  have  any  thing  done  to  them.  While,  in  circumcision 
 and  baptism,  the  recipients,  being  for  the  most  part  children, 
 were  totally  passive — they  did  not,  in  any  sense,  apply  the 
 element  to  themselves.  This  was  done  by  the  administrators. 
 Mr.  Tombes  justly  says,  'nor  was  circumcision  itself  the 
 '  infant's  duty,  required  by  God  of  the  infant ;  though  it  were 
 '  a  privilege,  it  was  the  parent's  duty.'  Exer.  p.  1 65.  Children, 
 in  many  cases,  are  as  capable  of  being  acted  upon  as  adults  ; 
 and  they  may  be  equally  blessed  and  obliged  by  the  operation 
 of  an  official  agency.  As  any  other  human  beings,  born  in 
 sin,  and  needing  regeneration  ;  they  may  be  rendered  the 
 medium  of  teaching  these  great  doctrines  as  much  as  adults. 
 In  circumcision,  father  and  child  were  alike  passive  and  alike 
 benefitted.  In  the  baptismal  act,  adults,  though  consenting, 
 are  as  passive  as  infants.  They  are  acted  upon ;  yet  still  they 
 are  bound,  and  may  be  blessed,  by  this  sacred  ordinance. 
 The  unconsciousness  of  the  child  does  not  disqualify  it  for 
 being  made  the  subject  of  instruction  to  others,  or  of  good 
 to  itself. 
 
 Our  Lord  taught  his  disciples  humility  through  the  medium 
 of  a  little  child  ;  and  other  children  he  blessed,  by  laying  his 
 hands  on  them.  Even  animals  and  inanimate  matter  were 
 frequently  employed  to  convey  moral  and  spiritual  instruction 
 to  man.  The  sacrifice  which  bled,  and  the  tabernacle  with 
 its  furniture,  were  used  to  convey  lessons  of  religious  wisdom. 
 We  know,  that,  in  many  ways,  children,  without  their  knowledge 
 or  consent,  suffer  great  moral  evils.  Who  would  argue  that 
 because  little  children  are  unconscious  of  the  value  or  the 
 
REQUIRED  THE  LIKE  PREREQUISITES.  2H5 
 
 precise  nature  of  instruction,  we  are  not  to  teach  them  ?  Or 
 that,  because  the  ancient  Hebrew  children  did  not  comprehend 
 or  desire  circumcision,  they  ought  not,  for  lack  of  a  proper 
 capacity,  to  have  been  circumcised  ?  Or  that,  because  they 
 did  not  understand  the  covenants  of  God,  they  should  not 
 have  been  present  nor  bound  by  them,  as  they  unquestionably 
 were  at  Sinai,  and  in  other  places  ?  Or  that,  because  they 
 had  not  arrived  at  the  years  of  discretion,  they  should  not 
 have  been  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea?  Or  that,  because  the 
 children  of  our  Baptist  friends  do  not  understand,  nor  consent 
 to,  their  dedication  to  Christ,  they  should  not  be  formally 
 devoted  to  him  ? 
 
 Few  persons  would  think  of  answering  these  questions 
 negatively.  Indeed,  the  assumptions  they  convey  are  so 
 palpably  true,  that  no  thoughtful  and  candid  person  can  ever 
 seriously  doubt  their  validity.  And  yet,  a  large  amount  of 
 the  argument  brought  against  Infant  Baptism  is  founded  on 
 the  supposition,  that  they  are  all  undoubtedly  erroneous  and 
 absurd.  If  our  opponents  would  be  frank,  and  honestly 
 concede  the  fallacy  of  their  frequent  thoughtless  assertions — 
 that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  because  they  do  not 
 understand  the  nature  of  the  rite — our  controversy  would, 
 at  least,  be  greatly  circumscribed.  To  reply,  that,  by  this 
 admission,  children  might  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 
 is  fallacious,  unless  one  might  fairly  contend,  that  if  children 
 may  be  initiated  into  the  school  of  Christianity  by  baptism, 
 for  which  they  have  a  capacity  ;  they  should  also  be  put  into 
 the  pulpit  to  preach  the  gospel,  for  doing  which,  at  present, 
 they  have  not  the  ability  ! 
 
 Observation  IV.  Personal  piety  is  notessentialto  therecep- 
 1ion  of  many  religious  benefits. — After  the  preceding  observa- 
 tions, on  analogous  topics,  a  defence  of  this  assertion  may  seem 
 superfluous.  But- we  are  constantly  assailed  by  the  declaration, 
 that  religion  is  a  personal  thing ;  that  none  but  truly  pious 
 people  are  entitled  to  religious  privileges ;  that  the  regenerate 
 only  should  receive  the  emblem  or  sign  of  it ;  and  that, 
 therefore,  as  infants  are  not  personally  religious,  or  give  no 
 unequivocal  evidence  of  having  divine  grace  in  their  hearts  ; 
 they  are  not  entitled  to  the  boon  of  a  religious  baptism. 
 But  will  our  scriptural  and  evangelical  opponents  deny,  that 
 our  first  spiritual  blessings  and  saving  impressions  of  divine 
 truth,  are  the  free  gifts  of  God  to  unworthy,  unconverted,  and 
 sinful  men  ?  Not  only  did  Christ  die  for  the  ungodly  ;  but 
 when  we  were  enemies  to  God  by  wicked  works,  he  sent  his 
 
 M 
 
266  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 word  and  Spirit,  and  converted  us  to  himself  and  to  the 
 practice  and  enjoyment  of  true  holiness.  Here  we  see,  that 
 previous  personal  religion  is  not  essential  to  the  reception  and 
 possession  of  the  greatest  benefits  Christ  now  confers  on  man- 
 kind. To  this  wicked  world,  the  Lord  has  given  his  word — 
 a  great  blessing  to  us  now,  and  every  way ;  as  were  the 
 oracles  of  God  to  the  Hebrews,  in  ancient  ages.  He  affords 
 the  worst  of  men  the  means  of  grace — a  preached  gospel,  and 
 the  privilege  of  uniting  in  prayer  and  praise,  in  his  holy 
 temple.  What  numerous  favours  were  conferred  on  the 
 Israelites  of  old,  irrespective  of  their  personal  religion ;  and  in 
 the  Red  Sea,  it  is  evident,  that  grace  in  the  heart  was  not 
 prerequisite  to  receiving  the  blessings  of  baptism. 
 
 The  case  of  circumcision,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Noel,  is  fully 
 corroborative  of  our  views  on  this  point.  '  As  circumcision 
 '  was  intended  to  signify  the  circumcision  of  the  heart,  the 
 '  renunciation  of  all  sin  (Rom.  ii.  28,  29;  Col.  ii.  11 ;  Deut. 
 '  x.  16;  xxx.  6),  it  was  enjoined  upon  children  and  servants 
 '  to  show  that  God  required  this  renunciation  of  sin  by  all  his 
 '  covenanted  people.  It  was  the  token  that  they  must  be  a 
 '  holy  people  to  obtain  his  blessing  ;  (Deut.  vii.  6 ;  xiv.  2,  21  ; 
 '  xxvi.  19  ;  xxviii.  9)  ;  but  it  involved  no  profession  of  piety, 
 '  and  was  no  sign  of  existing  religious  character.'  Sub.  p.  173. 
 Here,  we  gather,  that  great  religious  advantages  may  be 
 obtained  where  there  is  no  profession  of  piety,  nor  sign  of  an 
 existing  religious  character.  In. a  preceding  page,  the  same 
 writer  says,  'Infants  can  be  saved  without  faith;  because 
 'God  can  give  them  regeneration,  which  is  equivalent  to  faith.' 
 lb.  p.  172.  Hence,  infants  are  capable  of  receiving  the 
 greatest  blessing  God  has  to  communicate — equivalent  to  the 
 faith  which  saves  the  soul  of  an  adult.  He  adds,  'But  they' 
 [infants]  'are  unfit  for  baptism,  because  baptism  is  a  pro- 
 '  fession  of  faith,  and  they  are  capable  neither  of  making  a 
 '  profession  of  faith,  nor  of  any  thing  which  is  equivalent  to 
 it.'  lb.  That  a  profession  of  faith,  prior  to  baptism,  is  not 
 •required  in  Scripture,  I  have  shown  before ;  at  least,  that  it 
 was  not  required  previous  to  baptism,  any  more  than  in  the 
 case  of  circumcision.  It  seems  strange,  that  when  regene- 
 ration places  a  child  on  an  equality  with  a  believing  adult — 
 its  regeneration  being  equal  to  faith — and  whose  faith  would 
 entitle  bim  to  baptism — it  should  not  also  be  baptized, 
 — though  in  a  similar  relative  position ! 
 
 Equally  strange  are  some  other  assertions  of  Mr.  Noel, 
 which  I  will  here  cite,  as  bearing  on  the  point  before  us :  — 
 
REQUIRED  THE  LIKE  PREREQUISITES.  267 
 
 '  Circumcision,  being  the  initiatory  rite  which  introduced  to 
 '  the  external  privileges  of  the  Abrahamic  national  covenant, 
 1  was  a  token  of  the  covenant,  i.  e.  a  sign  that  God  required 
 '  repentance  and  piety  in  those  whom  he  promised  to  bless. 
 '  But,  when  rightly  received,  it  secured  neither  salvation,  nor 
 'grace,  nor  pardon,  nor  any  spiritual  blessing  beyond  those 
 '  which  were  external.  It  gave  great  privileges  of  an  external 
 1  kind,  but  nothing  beyond  it.'  Sub.  p.  181.  Can  Mr.  Noel 
 forget  the  purport  of  the  commission,  that  the  baptized  were 
 to  be  taught  all  things  that  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  ? 
 "Was  not  this  a  great  and  inestimable  blessing,  though  the 
 means  are  external  ?  And  what  beyond  this  is  there,  in 
 reality,  secured  to  the  baptized  adult  ?  '  Baptism,  on  the 
 '  other  hand,  when  rightly  received,  being  the  true  profession 
 '  of  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  life  of  faith  and  devotedness 
 '  unto  God  through  Christ  by  the  Spirit,  was  the  bath  of 
 '  regeneration,  (Titus  iii.  5  ;)  was  accompanied  by  the  remis- 
 '  sion  of  sins,  (Acts  ii.  38;  xxii.  16;)  was  the  act  of  putting 
 'on  the  righteousness  of  Christ,  (Gal.  iv.  27;)  and  ended  in 
 '  salvation,  1  Peter  iii.  21 ;  Mark  xvi.  16.  The  qualification 
 '  for  rites,  with  effects  so  different,  could  not  be  the  same.' 
 lb.  p.  182.  But,  according  to  the  theory  of  the  same  writer, 
 in  other  places,  none  but  the  true  believer,  the  regenerated, 
 and  the  holy,  ever  rightly  receive  this  baptism !  Consequently, 
 all  the  privileges,  made  dependent  on  this  ceremony,  were 
 enjoyed  before-hand,  and  nothing  additional  can  accrue  from 
 it,  but  the  consciousness  of  having  performed  a  religious 
 duty — the  immersed  adult  being  just  where  he  was  before 
 — unless  he  be  admitted  into  the  particular  church  of  his 
 brethren  by  it,  which  is  not,  in  all  cases,  the  fact !  We  say 
 nothing  of  the  thousands  dipped  every  year,  who  have  no 
 saving  faith  at  all. — Again, 
 
 '  If  baptism  be  the  sign  of  regeneration,  an  unregenerate 
 '  person  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  If  the  rite  is  a  public 
 '  manifestation  of  spiritual  life,  it  should  be  withheld  from  those 
 '  who  afford  no  tokens  of  that  life.'  lb.  p.  112.  This  language 
 is  vague.  If  baptism  were  deemed  a  pledge,  that  the  person 
 is  regenerated,  we  could  understand  him  ;  but  with  the 
 preceding  statistics  before  him,  he  never  could  have  intended 
 that !  Even  '  circumcision  was  intended  to  signify  the  cir- 
 '  cumcision  of  the  heart,  the  renunciation  of  all  sin ... .  the 
 '  token  that  they  must  be  a  holy  people  to  obtain  his  blessing.' 
 Surely,  if  circumcision  be  a  sign,  or  signify  the  circumcision 
 of  the  heart,  and  might  be  administered  to  the  children  of  the 
 
268  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 Jews  ;  Mr  Noel  will  have  the  goodness  to  prove,  that  baptism,, 
 which  is  but  a  sign  of  the  same  thing,  may  not  be  administered 
 to  the  children  of  Christian  professors — especially,  after  having 
 truly  told  us,  '  Circumcision  to  the  Lord '  is  similar  to 
 '  baptism  to  the  Lord,  both  external  acts  betokening  '  the 
 '  same  duty  of  sanctiflcation  and  dedication  to  God.'  p.  14- 
 The  fact  is,  Mr.  Noel,  and  his  like-minded  friends,  view 
 circumcision  as  indicating  what  a  person  must  be  hereafter, 
 and  baptism  as  expressive  of  what  he  is  already.  The  former 
 is  an  initiation  to  what  is  good,  the  latter  a  declaration  that 
 the  good  has  been  attained.  Circumcision  is  for  the  sinner, 
 baptism  for  the  saint !  And  yet,  as  just  cited,  we  are  told  that 
 circumcision  to  the  Lord,  is  similar  to  baptism  to  the  Lord, 
 both  betokening  the  same  duty  of  sanctiflcation  and  dedication 
 to  God !  Carson  asks,  '  Are  adult  unbelievers  to  have  the 
 '  figure  of  regeneration,  which  they  have  not  experienced  V — 
 And  replies,  '  I  do  not  envy  the  conscience  that  can  receive 
 'this  without  qualms.'  p.  196.  .But,  that  this  was  the  case 
 in  circumcision,  is  admitted  by  the  writer  himself,  and  by 
 Mr.  Noel  also.  And,  pray,  what  qualms  of  conscience  must 
 our  opponents  feel,  in  giving  the  figure  of  regeneration  to 
 thousands,  every  year,  who  have  not  experienced  the  divine 
 reality ! 
 
 I  will  just  add,  that,  on  the  Jordan,  multitudes,  whose  piety 
 must  have  been  most  questionable,  enjoyed  the  benefit  of 
 baptism,  or  of  being  inducted  to  discipleship  to  the  coming 
 Saviour.  Noel  says  : — 'All  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud 
 '  and  in  the  sea. .  .  .were  marked  to  be  the  disciples  of  Moses, 
 '  by  following  him  into  the  sea.'  p.  14.  The  majority  of  these 
 were,  unquestionably,  not  regenerated ;  but  a  great  blessing 
 was  conferred  upon  them  by  their  dedication  to  Moses.  Why, 
 then,  withhold  the  advantages  of  this  consecrating  ordinance 
 from  the  young  now,  simply  because  they  are  not  in  the 
 possession  of  personal  piety  ?  With  equal  consistency  might 
 children  be  denied  the  blessing  of  religious  instruction,  or  of 
 an  association  with  their  parents  in  the  worship  of  God. 
 These  advantages  are  not  less  spiritual  and  important  than 
 baptism,  whether  of  infants  or  of  adults.  That  there  are 
 certain  institutions  and  blessings  designed  only  for  persons 
 who  are  genuine  disciples,  or  adult  Christians  in  heart,  as 
 there  are  duties  and  privileges  peculiar  to  parents,  pastors, 
 and  people  of  wealth,  no  one  questions  ;  but,  that  water- 
 baptism,  or  the  consecration  of  people  to  God,  and  the  intro- 
 duction of  them  to  the  seminary  of  Christianity,  is  intended 
 
FIRST  AND  FOLLOWING  ADMINISTRATIONS.  2G9 
 
 only  for  converted  adults,  I  deny  ;  and  feel  confident,  that 
 the  most  zealous  and  talented  of  our  opponents  cannot  prove 
 the  reverse.  Indeed,  such  converted  proficients  in  the  learning 
 and  experience  of  the  gospel  are  the  last  to  require  such 
 instruction,  and,  therefore,  stand  least  in  need  of  an  intro- 
 duction to  the  school  of  Christianity.  If  there  be  any  class  of 
 people  in  this  world,  to  whom  water-baptism  is  less  appropriate 
 than  to  any  other,  they  are  the  truly  enlightened,  pious,  and 
 proficient  followers  of  Jesus  Christ :  and  if  there  be  any  other 
 class,  to  which  it  appears  most  adapted,  it  consists  of  little 
 children.  Our  opponents,  failing  to  establish  the  adverse 
 doctrine,  must  surrender  their  favorite  dogma — that  the 
 baptism  of  spiritual  believers  is  the  only  valid  baptism  of  the 
 New  Testament  church.  We  may  here  readily  perceive,  why 
 the  strenuous  advocates  of  adult  or  believers'  baptism  only,  often 
 labour  so  arduously,  and  even  recklessly,  to  show  that  the 
 subjects  and  designs  of  circumcision  and  baptism  are  so  very 
 dissimilar  to  each  other. 
 
 Observation  V.  A  marked  difference  must  necessarily 
 have  occurred  between  the  first  baptisms  of  the  new  dispensa- 
 tion and  those  tliat  generally  followed. — Through  a  want  of  due 
 reflection  on  this  head,  many  persons  have  been  led  into 
 serious  mistakes  on  the  baptismal  question.  Mr.  Hall  wisely 
 observes,  '  There  is  one  general  rule  applicable  to  the  subject, 
 '  which  is,  that  no  matter  of  fact  is  entitled  to  be  considered 
 '  as  an  authoritative  precedent,  which  necessarily  arose  out 
 
 *  of  existing  circumstances,  so  that,  in  the  then  present  state 
 
 *  of  things,  it  could  not  fail  to  have  occurred.'  p.  40.  The 
 difference  above  referred  to  displays  itself  in  two  ways.  First 
 in  the  great  numbers  baptized  by  John  and  Peter,  at  once, 
 compared  with  the  regular  administration  of  the  ordinance  in 
 after  years.  That  vast  multitudes  were  baptized  unto  Moses 
 in  the  sea,  by  John  on  the  Jordan,  and  by  the  apostles  of  Christ 
 on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  very  soon  after,  is  clear,  and 
 affords  full  confirmation  of  our  proposition.  As  far  as  we 
 know,  nothing  like  it  was  done  in  any  following  years,  under 
 the  same  economies,  and  among  the  same  people.  These 
 plenary  baptizings  were  brought  about  by  miracles,  by  especial 
 impressions,  by  providential  combinations,  or  by  the  exertion 
 of  divine  power  over  the  minds  of  the  masses,  at  those 
 respective  periods. 
 
 In  the  days  of  John  and  of  Christ,  previous  to  his  death, 
 there  was  a  general  and  eager  expectation  of  the  promised 
 Messiah.    '  The  kingdom  of  heaven,'  or  the  gospel  dispensation, 
 
270 
 
 THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AXD  CHRIST. 
 
 '  suffered  violence,  and  the  violent  took  it  by  force.'  'The 
 'law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John;  since  that  time,  the 
 '  kingdom  of  heaven  is  preached,  and  every  man  presseth  into 
 'it.'  In  the  earlier  periods  of  the  apostolic  ministry,  when 
 there  was  no  state  or  systematic  persecution — occasional 
 mob-uproars  being  the  chief  opposition  the  ministers  of  Christ 
 had  to  contend  with — the  converts  to  Christianity  were 
 numerous;  their  adherence  being  probably  based,  in  many 
 cases,  on  the  hope  of  personal  and  national  advantages,  or 
 under  the  surprising  and  captivating  powers  exerted  over  their 
 minds  by  the  eloquence  and  miracles  daily  witnessed.  '  Then, 
 '  had  the  churches  rest  throughout  all  Judea,  and  Galilee,  and 
 '  Samaria,  and  were  edified,  and  walked  in  the  fear  of  the 
 '  Lord,  and  in  the  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were  multiplied.' 
 Acts  ix.  31.  Afterwards,  converts  were  made  to  their  cause, 
 slowly  and  gradually,  in  various  places.  But  we  have  no 
 authentic  accounts  of  accessions,  at  any  time,  comparable 
 with  the  numbers  first  baptized  by  John,  the  disciples,  and 
 the  apostle  Peter. 
 
 In  speaking  of  the  first  baptisms  by  the  apostles,  Mr.  Xoel 
 argues,  '  If  no  testimonials  of  character  were  asked,  and  no 
 '  delay  of  baptism  suggested,  neither  of  these  were  necessary. 
 '  The  converts  embraced  shame,  persecution,  loss,  and  hard- 
 '  ship,  when  they  received  the  gospel ;  none  but  earnest  men 
 '  were  then  likely  to  profess  their  reception  of  it ;  and  neither 
 '  ministers  nor  churches  were  authorized  to  demand  any  other 
 '  qualifications  in  the  converts,  than  the  external  indications 
 '  of  conversion — a  hearty  reception  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ, 
 '  and  a  cheerful  subjection  to  his  yoke.'  Sub.  p.  87,  88. 
 That,  from  the  first,  there  was  much  and  violent  opposition  to 
 the  gospel,  we  admit.  To  profess  it,  was  sometimes  attended 
 with  very  serious  and  painful  sufferings  and  sacrifices.  But 
 these  deterring  outbursts  were  intermittent,  and  often  much 
 modified.  It  is  hardly  questionable  by  Mr.  Noel  himself, 
 that,  to  become  or  continue  protestants  in  England,  in  the  days 
 of  bloody  Queen  Mary;  or  dissenters  under  the  reigns  of 
 Charles  II.  and  his  successor  James ;  exposed  men  to  much 
 greater  losses  and  severer  sufferings  than  the  early  Christians 
 experienced  under  Herod  Antipas,  Herod  Agrippa,  or  any  of 
 their  immediate  successors.  And,  yet,  like  Israel  in  Egypt,  they 
 grew  and  multiplied.  Even  in  our  own  times,  and  in  our  own 
 country,  the  trials  of  many  poor  nonconformists  may  vie  with 
 those  felt  by  most  of  the  earlier  adherents  to  Christianity.  On 
 the  other  hand,  the  allurements  to  become  disciples  of  Christ 
 
FIRST  AXD  FOLLOWING  ADMINISTRATIONS.  271 
 
 at  first — from  the  miracles  they  witnessed,  and  the  anticipa- 
 tions they  entertained — were  exceedingly  powerful ;  and,  no 
 douht,  operated  mightily  upon  men  who  sought  the  loaves  and 
 fishes,  or  wanted  places  of  trust  and  affluence,  in  the  new 
 theocracy  which  many  expected  to  see  established  in  the 
 world.  '  Earnest  men,'  would  make  great  sacrifices  to 
 secure  such  prospective  national  and  secular  advantages. 
 But  earnestness  or  sincerity  is  no  proof  of  regeneration. 
 The  sacred  history  proves  that  many  strove  to  enter  the 
 kingdom,  whose  hearts  were  not  renewed  by  divine  grace. 
 This  the  apostles  knew  as  well  as  ourselves. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  concedes  the  fact,  and  which,  indeed,  no  honest 
 intelligent  man  will  deny.  He  says,  '  no  testimonials  of 
 *  character  were  asked,  and  no  delay  of  baptism  suggested.' 
 Even  now,  where  these  points  are  fully  attended  to  by  our 
 opponents,  nearly  one-half  they  dip,  at  least,  in  some  places, 
 are  ultimately  found  destitute  of  saving  faith  and  the  regene- 
 ration of  their  hearts.  If  none  but  those  who  gave  a  clear 
 and  satisfactory  testimony  of  being  subjects  of  saving  grace 
 had  been  enumerated,  doubtless  the  numbers  of  baptized  men 
 and  women,  recorded  in  the  Acts,  would  have  been  sadly 
 diminished.  Besides,  if,  as  he  admits,  'no  testimonials  were 
 '  asked,  and  no  delay  of  baptism  suggested  ;  '  on  what  grounds 
 are  they  so  earnestly  demanded  by  our  opponents?  For  a 
 practice,  on  which  they  lay  such  stress,  and  for  which,  they 
 are  constantly  and  eloquently  contending,  they  have  no 
 precedent  in  the  New  Testament !  The  early  ministers  of 
 religion  took  it  for  granted,  that  all  who  submitted  to  baptism 
 were  proper  characters,  though  they  could  read  no  man's 
 heart.  And  though  there  might  have  been  persecution  in 
 prospect,  there  was  also,  in  their  imaginations,  many  secular 
 benefits  before  them  !  The  apostles  baptized  unrenewed  people 
 without  testimonials  of  regeneration ;  and  our  opponents  do 
 the  same  with  false  ones  ! 
 
 The  second  remarkable  feature  in  the  case  is,  that  great 
 numbers  of  men  and  women  were  baptized,  as  well  as  children. 
 In  the  very  nature  of  things,  the  adults  -would  then  be  numerous, 
 if  not  more  so,  than  the  children ;  as  was  the  case  in  the  great 
 baptism  in  the  Red  Sea.  The  former  had  then  never  been 
 formally  initiated  into  this  new  economy.  But  that  must  be 
 done — it  being  the  appointed  mode  of  discipleship  for  adults 
 as  well  as  for  little  ones.  This  baptism  was  administered  to 
 proselytes  as  soon  as  they  were  made  willing  to  receive  it, 
 and  on  the  spot.     Parents  from  home,  like  nearly  all   the 
 
2/2  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MIOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  converted  to 
 Christianity,  and  baptized  on  the  spot ;  while,  probably,  most, 
 if  not  all,  of  their  wives  and  children  were  at  a  distance. 
 Doubtless,  many  similar  instances,  on  a  smaller  scale,  took 
 place  during  the  apostolic  times,  (Acts.  ii.  9,  11,)  when  the 
 adult  Hebrew  males,  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  were  in  the 
 habit  of  going  up  to  Jerusalem  to  attend  the  great  national 
 festivals,  three  times  every  year  ;  and  which  occasions,  we 
 may  readily  conclude,  were  always  embraced  to  preach  to 
 them  the  great  facts  and  truths  of  the  gospel.  Their  wives 
 and  families  would  be  baptized  afterwards,  perhaps,  separately, 
 at  home,  and  without  any  public  record  of  the  occurrence 
 being  either  made  or  preserved — for  written  registers  of 
 baptisms  were  then  possibly  unknown.  The  result  of  this 
 would  be,  that  more  adults,  and  especially  more  men,  were 
 baptized  by  the  apostles  than  women  or  children  ;  and  the 
 sacred  historians  would  particularly  notice  the  class  which 
 preponderated  in  numbers  and  existing  social  importance, 
 as  the  subjects  of  this  religious  ceremonial.  Thus  the  language 
 of  Scripture  on  this  topic  is  reasonably  accounted  for. 
 
 But,  after  awhile,  we  hear  no  more  of  any  extensive  simul- 
 taneous baptisms  of  grown-up  people  in  those  localities.  The 
 children  of  baptized  parents  having  been  consecrated  to  the 
 religion  of  Christ  in  infancy,  would  not  be  again  required  to 
 undergo  this  rite  a  second  time,  on  reaching  man  or  woman- 
 hood. It  is  a  singular  circumstance,  worthy  of  reiteration, 
 that,  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  to  the  imprisonment  of  Paul 
 at  Rome,  a  period  of  thirty-three  years,  we  never  read  of  the 
 baptism  of  any  adult  descendants  of  those  parents  who  had 
 themselves  been  baptized  while  their  children  were  under 
 their  charge.  This  is  an  intimation  that  the  little  ones  were 
 baptized  with  their  parents,  or  while  they  were  young;  though 
 the  circumstance  would  not  be  deemed  sufficiently  important 
 or  novel  among  the  Jews,  fully  conversant  with  proselyte 
 baptism,  to  demand  or  obtain  a  distinct  record  in  the  annals 
 of  the  churches.  Had  not  this  been  the  case,  it  is  very  likely 
 we  should  have  read  of  their  baptism  in  after-life  (as  we  do  of 
 the  first  adult  converts  to  the  gospel)  on  attaining  full  age, 
 and  being  formally  initiated,  for  the  first  time,  into  the  general 
 school  or  church  of  Christ. 
 
 This  fact  finds  a  parallel  in  the  case  of  circumcision.  When 
 that  rite  was  first  instituted,  some  hundreds  of  adult  males 
 • — and,  perhaps,  double  the  number  of  male  infants — under- 
 went this  operation.  Gen.  xvii.  13.    But,  during  the  following 
 
FIRST  AXD  FOLLOWING  ADMINISTRATION'S.  273 
 
 four  hundred  and  fifty  years,  not  a  single  adult  Hebrew  is  said 
 to  have  been  circumcised.  Indeed,  we  have  good  reasons  for 
 believing  that  no  such  case  occurred  during  all  that  time, 
 except  through  proselytism  from  heathenism.  At  the  end  of 
 those  years,  this  rite  was  performed  on  all  the  adult  males, 
 as  well  as  on  all  the  male  children  in  Israel,  because  it  had 
 been  discontinued  forty  years  in  the  wilderness.  Josh.  v.  2-9. 
 After  that,  for  fifteen  hundred  years  more,  no  male  adult,  of 
 any  of  the  chosen  tribes,  is  ever  mentioned  as  having  been 
 circumcised;  and  that,  simply,  because,  like  baptism,  it  was 
 regularly  administered  to  infants  soon  after  their  birth.  The 
 baptism  of  proselytes  to  Judaism,  now  admitted  by  the  best- 
 taught  of  our  opponents,  must  have  dated  back  far  into  the 
 Hebrew  commonwealth,  and  have  been  of  no  infrequent  occur- 
 rence, especially  in  its  more  flourishing  periods  ;  yet,  it  is 
 never  once  noticed  in  the  writings  of  the  sacred  historians. 
 The  like  remark  will,  I  believe,  hold  true  in  reference  to  the 
 circumcision  of  heathens  into  Hebrewism — no  case  of  the 
 kind  being  found  in  the  Old  Testament  records  from  Moses  to 
 Christ,  though  every  male  proselyte  was  unquestionably  cir- 
 cumcised, as  well  as  baptized,  and  at  the  same  time.  Nor  is  it 
 unworthy  of  notice,  that  the  apostles  are  not  known  to  have 
 baptized  any  adults  besides  presently  or  immediately  prose- 
 lyted Jews  or  Gentiles.  The  baptism  of  a  recognized  nominal 
 Christian  adult,  or  of  a  regular  attendant  on  the  ministry  of 
 the  gospel,  for  any  considerable  length  of  time,  or  who  had 
 been  religiously  trained  up  to  adult  age  in  Christian  families, 
 as  is  commonly  practised  among  our  opponents,  is  no  where 
 recorded  in  the  New  Testament;  and,  therefore,  the  assump- 
 tion is,  that  the  baptism  of  no  such  persons  ever  took  place 
 during  the  first  age  of  the  Christian  economy. 
 
 It  may  not  be  uninteresting  just  to  learn,  that  when  a  rite 
 or  institution  had  been  once  appointed  by  divine  authority  ; 
 the  observance  of  it  continued  without  remark  or  record  by 
 the  divine  historians  for  a  very  considerable  time.  Thus,  the 
 Circumcision  of  a  Hebrew  is  not  mentioned  after  Joshua  v.  8, 
 till  Jer.  ix.  25,  being  an  interval  of  840  years ;  though  it  must 
 have  taken  place  daily,  if  not  hourly,  during  all  that  time. 
 The  Sabbath  is  not  referred  to  from  Deut.  v.  15,  till  2  Kings 
 iv.  23,  being  a  period  of  5G0  years.  The  Passover,  from 
 Josh.  v.  11,  to  the  2  Kings  xxiii.  20,  occupying  a  space  of 
 820  years,  is  not  once  noticed,  though  it  was  a  great  annual 
 festival  of  the  Hebrews,  throughout  the  land  and  the  world, 
 wherever  the  Jews  resided.     If  it  can  be  once   ascertained 
 
 M2 
 
274 
 
 THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 that  a  ceremony  was  divinely  established,  its  continuance  must 
 he  assumed,  though  no  mention  be  made  of  its  observance. 
 It  is,  therefore,  no  valid  objection  to  our  doctrine,  That 
 Infant  Baptism  was  continued  from  the  time  of  Moses,  till 
 the  death  of  John  the  apostle,  to  affirm  we  have  no  explicit 
 statement  of  the  fact  during  this  interval,  however  protracted. 
 Even  the  purifications  under  the  law  are  seldom  mentioned, 
 though  of  perpetual  reiteration.  The  cessation  of  them  would 
 be  a  subject  for  notice,  and  possibly  of  complaint ;  while  their 
 continuance,  as  a  matter  of  course,  would  be  passed  over 
 without  chronicle  or  commendation.  The  stir  made  about  the 
 ordinary  dipping,  of  our  opponents,  is  a  departure  from  the 
 rule  observed  by  the  divine  historians  ;  while  the  quietness  of 
 dissenting  Pedobaptists  about  consecrating  their  children 
 to  God,  harmonizes  with  the  silence  which  marks  the  writings 
 of  the  inspired  penmen. 
 
 To  show,  further,  that  the  omission  of  express  notice  of 
 Infant  Baptism  in  the  New  Testament — its  practice  in  previous 
 ages  being  proved  and  admitted  by  our  leading  opponents — 
 is  of  little  force  in  this  controversy,  may  be  confirmed  by  a 
 striking  case  of  a  somewhat  parallel  kind.  It  is  well  known 
 to  all  conversant  with  the  works  of  Josephus  and  other  ancient 
 and  veritable  ecclesiastical  authors,  that,  long  before  the 
 incarnation  of  Christ,  there  originated  a  body  of  religionists 
 recognized  by  the  name  of  Essenes  ;  that  it  became  a  large 
 community,  and  existed  during  the  time  of  Christ,  and  all 
 through  the  apostolic  age ;  and  that  its  being  and  peculiarities 
 must  have  been  well  known  to  the  Saviour  and  to  all  the 
 writers  of  the  gospels  and  epistles.  Yet  this  sect  is  not  once 
 mentioned  by  these  inspired  men,  at  least  by  name,  nor  are 
 any,  save  remote  and  obscure  hints,  given  of  them  or  of  their 
 doings.  Yet,  will  any  reasonable  man  contend  that  they  were 
 not  in  existence,  and  openly  observing  their  distinguishing 
 rites  in  Judea,  during  the  entire  period  of  the  apostolic 
 ministry  ?  And  it  would  be  equally  unreasonable  to  argue, 
 that  Infant  Baptism,  which  had  existed  long  before  the  time 
 of  John,  was  not  practised  by  him  and  others,  because  it  is 
 not  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 Observation  VI.  When  we  read  of  baptism  in  the  New 
 Testament,  we  must  distinguish  between  that  with  water,  and 
 that  with  the  Holy  Ghost. — We  have  only  to  notice  the  context 
 of  the  passage  in  which  it  is  mentioned,  to  discover  which  of 
 these  baptisms  is  intended.  Failing  to  do  so,  we  shall  often 
 find  ourselves  perplexed  on  the  subject.     For  want  of  due 
 
OF  WATEB  AND  SPIRIT  DISTINGUISHED.  2  ,  5 
 
 discrimination  here,  many  people  fall  into  the  Puseyite  and 
 Popish  errors  of  baptismal  regeneration  and  sacramental 
 salvation.  That  the  baptism  with  water  is  mentioned  alone, 
 is  clear  ;  and  so  is  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  '  I  baptize  you 
 'with  water  unto  repentance' — to  the  doctrine  of  repentance — 
 'he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.' 
 Matt.  iii.  11.  Here  are  two  baptisms  perfectly  distinguished. 
 '  For,  by  one  Spirit,  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether 
 '  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  are  bond  or  free  ;  and 
 'have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit.'  1  Cor.  xii.  13. 
 Here  is  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  only:  —  'Buried  with 
 '  him  in  baptism,  wherein,  also,  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through 
 '  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from 
 '  the  dead.'  Col.  ii.  12.  Here  are  results  ascribed  to  baptism, 
 which  can  flow  only  from  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. — 
 The  like  may  be  said,  also,  of  the  following  passages  : — 'Know 
 '  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ, 
 '  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  therefore,  we  are  buried  with 
 '  him  by '  [or  through]  '  baptism  unto  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ 
 '  was  raised  up  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so,  even  we  should 
 '  walk  in  newness  of  life.'  Rom.  vi.  3,  4. — '  He  that  believeth, 
 '  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not, 
 '  shall  be  damned.'  Hark  xvi.  16. — 'Baptism  doth  now  save 
 '  us  (not  the  putting  away  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer 
 *  of  a  good  conscience)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.' 
 1  Pet.  iii.  21. — '  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
 '  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.'  Gal.  iii.  27-  Dr.  Gale 
 contends,  '  that  in  John  iii.  3,  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  only 
 'is  intended.'  p.  391.  lKai,'  says  Carson,  'often  signifies 
 '  even.'  p.  69.  Another  writer  thinks  the  passage  is  elliptical ; 
 that,  by  being  born  of  water,  we  enter  the  visible  kingdom  of 
 Gcd;  and  that,  by  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  we  enter  the 
 invisible  or  spiritual  kingdom.  This  interpretation  certainly 
 accords  with  the  entire  tenor  of  gospel  doctrine,  and  the  gloss 
 does  no  violence  to  the  concise  style  of  speech  generally 
 employed  by  our  Lord. 
 
 I  am  aware,  that  some  of  the  above  passages  are  capable  of 
 explanations  in  accordance  with  the  idea  of  water-baptism, 
 however  administered.  But,  most  readers  will  admit,  that  the 
 literal  sense,  and  the  simple  purport  of  the  language,  are 
 indicative  of  effects,  which  can  be  produced  only  by  the  influence 
 of  the  Spirit  of  God.  To  such  senses  we  ought  to  adhere, 
 unless  obvious  and  urgent  reasons  compel  us  to  adopt  a 
 different  conclusion.     It  is  well  known,  that  Puseyites  and 
 
276  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 Papists  derive  their  chief  or  sole  argument,  in  support  of 
 baptismal  regeneration,  through  believing  and  maintaining, 
 that,  in  the  above  texts,  water-baptism  is  intended ;  and  that 
 the  saving  results,  ascribed  to  the  rite,  arise  from  the  virtues 
 of  this  ceremony,  administered  by  priestly  hands. 
 
 That  most  of  these  passages,  understood  of  water-baptism 
 only,  present  serious  difficulties  to  our  opponents,  may  be 
 inferred,  from  their  labouring  to  explain  and  apply  them  in 
 support  of  their  principles.  They  argue,  that  adults,  being 
 regenerated  before  they  are  immersed  in  water,  may  be  said 
 to  receive  the  benefits,  literally  ascribed  to  this  rite,  at  the 
 time  of  its  administration  ;  or,  that  this  rite  is  a  recognition  of 
 their  being  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  this  does  not  com- 
 port with  the  language  of  the  inspired  writers,  who  ascribe 
 union  to  Christ,  interest  in  his  death,  rising  to  newness  of 
 life,  being  saved  from  destruction,  and  putting  on  Christ,  to 
 this  act  or  operation,  as  taking  place  in  it,  or,  as  immediately 
 consequent  on  it.  In  the  celebrated  text  just  cited,  Rom. 
 vi.  3,  4  ;  and  on  which  our  opponents  lay  such  extraordinary 
 stress,  in  defence  of  dipping  in  baptism  ;  the  result  evidently 
 proves,  that  it  refers  exclusively  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  in 
 the  conversion  of  the  soul ;  for  the  baptized  are  said  to  rise 
 to  newness  of  life,  in  the  likeness  of  Christ's  resurrection,  the 
 old  man  being  crucified,  the  body  of  sin  being  destroyed,  and 
 the  individual  no  longer  serving  sin.  He  that  can  ascribe 
 such  results,  in  every  or  in  any  case,  to  water-baptism,  is  not 
 far  from  the  kingdom  of — the  Pope! 
 
 The  following  citation  from  Lord  Congleton's  recent  Tract, 
 entitled,  '  What  is  the  Use  of  Baptism  ?  '  may  be  considered 
 as  expository  of  the  views  which  the  advocates  of  believers' 
 baptism  take  of  the  texts  before  quoted.  The  italics  and 
 capitals  are  his  own.  '  Thus  far  the  passages  of  Scripture  that ' 
 [it]  '  was  proposed  to  examine.  And  we  are  brought  to  this 
 '  conclusion,  that  while  baptism  is  not  the  means  whereby  a 
 '  person  is  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  yet  is  it  very  much  more 
 '  than  a  mere  sign.  Baptism  is  a  visible  act,  whereby  saving 
 *  benefits,  already  possessed  by  the  believer,  according  to  the 
 '  truth  of  God's  promises,  whether  he  be  conscious  of  the  fact 
 '  or  not,  are  again  bestowed  upon  him,  as  by  a  visible  act, 
 '  for  his  comfort  and  strength.  Baptism  is  a  visible  act 
 1  whereby  sinners  that  repent  and  believe  do  visibly  receive 
 '  the  remission  of  their  sins.  Or,  more  fully,  baptism  is  a 
 '  visible  act,  whereby  sinners,  that  repent  and  believe,  are 
 '  visibly  associated  with  Christ  in  His  death,  burial,  and 
 
OF  WATER  AXD  SPIRIT  DISTINGUISHED.  277 
 
 '  resurrection,  and  thus  are  justified,  sanctified  in  Him,  and 
 '  made  the  children  of  God,  and  united  to  one  another,  in 
 '  Him  ....  Baptism,  according  to  this  view  of  it,  is  an  Ordinance 
 '  whereby  tfie  believer  is  put  into  immediate  conscious  possession 
 '  of  the  forgiveness  of  bis  sins.  It  may  be,  that  he  is  already 
 '  conscious  that  be  is  forgiven  ;  if  so,  this  consciousness  will 
 'be  confirmed  and  strengthened.'  p.  14,  15. 
 
 According  to  this  interpretation  of  the  above  texts,  men  are 
 not  regenerated  by  baptism,  but  they  have  a  pledge  that  they 
 were  renewed  before,  and  may,  thenceforward,  safely  calculate 
 on  being  the  real  people  of  God  ;  their  conscience  now  bearing 
 them  this  delightful  testimony!  The  reader  will  easily  call 
 to  mind  several  citations  from  the  works  of  Mr.  Noel,  Carson, 
 Stovel,  and  others,  in  which  the  like  opinion  is  broached  and 
 advocated.  At  least,  if  such  be  not  the  idea  they  labour  to 
 inculcate,  they  are  totally  meaningless,  and  utterly  fail  to 
 promote  the  object  the  writers  are  aiming  to  advance.  Yet, 
 how  much  less  delusive  than  Puseyism  is  such  a  notion,  let 
 the  reader  judge !  How  disastrously  must  such  opinions 
 operate  on  the  minds  of  the  thousands  of  men  and  women  who, 
 without  saving  grace,  but  on  a  bare  profession  of  faith,  are 
 baptized  by  our  opponents  every  year  !  Mr.  Green  asks,  { What 
 '  will  attest  the  entireness  of  assent  by  which  I  have  become 
 '  Christ's  ?  The  very  day  when  this  inquiry  is  met  will  witness 
 '  his  declaring,  in  the  sight  of  all,  by  this  expressive  rite,  "  I 
 'am  the  Lord's  alone."'  p.  16.  Carson  argues,  'Does 
 '  Mr.  Ewing  believe,  that  when  a  man  believes  the  gospel, 
 '  his  infants,  and  all  the  unbelievers,  of  his  house,  receive 
 '  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  If  not, 
 '  there  is  no  ground  to  give  them  that  baptism  that  implies  both 
 '  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost? '  p.  203. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  evidently  teaches  that  '  every  baptized  person,' 
 baptized  with  water,  '  may  be  designated  a  child  of  God  by 
 'faith  in  Christ  Jesus.'  Dis.  p.  7-  The  same  writer  says, 
 '  Baptism  is  not  a  symbol,  showing  the  necessity  of  faith  and 
 '  repentance  in  the  baptized' . .  .  .but  that,  '  through  the  minis- 
 *  tration  of  divine  mercy,  they  are  willing  to  act  under  that 
 '  authority,  and  to  commit  their  everlasting  interests  to  that 
 '  event.'  lb.  p.  196.  Or,  in  effect,  it  is  saying  or  showing, 
 that  they  are  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus, 
 and  that  all  believers  are  so  to  regard  them.  In  his  Woolwich 
 Lectures,  he  is  more  explicit,  or,  certainly,  more  unguarded. 
 '  There  are  two  agencies  employed  in  the  new  birth ;  the 
 '  water  and  the  Spirit.     By  these  a  converted '  [or,  rather, 
 
278  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AXD  CHRIST. 
 
 an  unconverted]  '  man  begins  life  anew,  not  by  water  without 
 '  the  Spirit,  nor  by  the  Spirit  without  the  water,  but  by  the 
 '  water  and  the  Spirit.  Led.  iii.  p.  41.  '  After  baptism,  he  is 
 '  then  to  be  registered  as  a  child'  [of  God],  '  and  trusted  as  a 
 'brother,  and  held  responsible  as  one  devoted  to  God.' 
 lb.  p.  42.  Wherein  this  doctrine  differs  from  Puseyism, 
 perhaps  Mr.  Stovel  can  tell  us! 
 
 A  large  and  growing  body  of  the  Baptists,  in  America,  are 
 even  more  explicit  than  Messrs.  Noel  and  Stovel  on  this  head, 
 and  fully  state  what  the  language  of  those  gentlemen  implies, 
 and  to  which,  in  feeling  and  effect,  it  practically  leads.  They 
 admit  to  immersion,  '  every  one  who  sincerely  believes  the 
 '  testimony  which  God  gave  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  saying, 
 '  "This  is  my  Son,  the  beloved,  in  whom  I  delight;"  or,  in 
 '  other  words,  believes  what  the  evangelists  and  apostles  have 
 '  testified  concerning  him,  from  his  conception  to  his  coro- 
 '  nation  in  heaven  as  Lord  of  All,  and  who  is  '  [professedly] 
 '  willing  to  obey  him  in  every  thing,  they  regard  as  a  proper 
 '  subject  of  immersion,  and  no  one  else.'  Hence,  every  person 
 admitting  and  avowing  his  belief  in  Christianity,  or  every 
 nominal  adherent  of  gospel  truth,  regenerated  or  not,  is 
 qualified  for  this  immersion.  The  results  of  their  baptizings 
 are  stated  by  one  of  their  own  ministers  ;  and,  I  believe,  they 
 are  not  disputed  by  any  of  his  brethren.  '  It  was  the  unity 
 '  of  the  church  which  first  struck  the  attention  :  the  subse- 
 '  quent  submission  to  immersion  is  only  one  example,  among 
 '  others,  of  that  progression  which  consistency  with  their  own 
 '  principles  required.  Thus,  it  was  not  till  about  ten  years 
 '  after  this,  that  the  definite  object  of  immersion  was  fully 
 4  understood,  when  it  was  recognized  as  the  remitting  ordi- 
 1  nance  of  the  gospel,  or  the  appointed  means  through  which 
 '  the  penitent  sinner  obtained  an  assurance  of  that  pardon,  or 
 '  remission  of  sins,  procured  for  him  by  the  suffering  ami  death 
 1  of  Christ.  Nor  was  it  until  a  still  later  period,  that  the 
 '  doctrine  was  practically  applied,  in  calling  upon  believing 
 '  penitents  to  be  baptized  for  the  purpose  specified.  This  view 
 1  of  baptism  gave  great  importance  to  the  institution,  and  has 
 '  become  one  of  the  prominent  features  of  this  reformation.' — 
 Faiths  of  the  World. 
 
 Though  all  our  opponents  do  not  go  to  the  same  lengthy, 
 as  to  the  efficacy  of  immersion ;  and  though  some  of  them 
 often  forcibly  declare,  that  it  is  merely  a  ceremony  which 
 does  not,  in  the  least  measure,  save  the  soul ;  yet,  they 
 frequently  lay  such  stress  on  the  reception  of  this  rite,  as  an 
 
OF  WATEB  AND  SriRIT  DISTIXGUISIIED.  279 
 
 act  of  obedience  to  the  plain  and  unmistakable  will  of  Christ; 
 that  the  persons  who  refuse  to  submit  to  it  must  be  viewed  as 
 resisting  and  rebelling  against  the  truth  ;  and  whose  conversion 
 and  piety  are  matters  of  fearful  doubt.  With  this  argument, 
 they  induce  numbers,  every  year,  to  go  under  the  water.  The 
 result,  on  many  minds,  is  the  same  as  if  assured,  they  could 
 not  be  truly  and  savingly  religious,  without  being  dipped  in 
 the  sacred  waters  of  their  baptistry  ;  and,  as  if  the  reception 
 of  such  a  rite  gave  an  assurance  of  their  regeneration  and 
 final  salvation !  The  truth  is,  you  must  make  this  baptism  a 
 mere  initiatory  rite  to  external  religious  privileges  and  duties, 
 and  a  simple  teaching  of  the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth  ;  or 
 you  must  regard  it  as  the  certain  and  constant  concomitant  of 
 the  receiving  and  saving  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  other 
 words,  you  cannot  make  it  any  thing  beyond  a  symbol  or  a 
 dedication  to  God,  without  viewing  it  as  a  regeneration  of  the 
 soul — the  latter  being  the  gracious  work  of  the  Spirit,  and 
 the  former  the  mere  symbolical  application  of  water.  Depart 
 from  this  rule,  and  you  are  in  great  danger  of  fatally  misleading 
 and  injuring  the  souls  of  men. 
 
 It  may  be  worth  while  to  take  another  instance,  in  order  to 
 show  the  difficulties  our  opponents  have  to  surmount,  while 
 interpreting  passages  expressing  the  divine  baptism  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost,  and  applying  them  to  baptism  with  water,  in 
 order  to  oppose  the  baptism  of  infants.  Noel,  on  Gal. 
 iii.  26,  27,  says,  '  The  Galatians  were  the  children  of  God  by 
 'faith,  because  all  baptized  persons  have  put  on  Christ,  i.e. 
 1  are  justified  and  adopted. .  .  .If  we  assume  that  baptism  is 
 '  an  act  of  faith,  then  the  argument  is  sound;  "ye  are  the 
 '  children  of  God  by  faith  ;  because  all  who  are  baptized  in 
 '  faith,  put  on  Christ,  and  those  who  put  on  Christ,  are  children 
 '  of  God  ;   as,  then,  you  have  been  baptized  by  faith,  you  have 
 
 *  put  on  Christ  by  faith,  and  have  become  the  children  of  God 
 '  by  faith."     Hence,  baptism  is  an  act  of  faith  according  to 
 
 *  the  text ;  and  believers  alone  ought,  therefore,  to  be  baptized.' 
 Sub.  p.  108,  109.  If  I  understand  this  crudely-expressed 
 syllogistic  passage,  the  writer  means,  that  all  who  believe, 
 and  are  baptized  with  water,  are  the  children  of  God — are 
 justified  and  adopted — have  put  on  Christ — and  are  safe  for 
 heaven.  Thus,  all  who  are  baptized,  not  only  put  on  the 
 profession  of  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  religion,  but,  are 
 savingly  united  to  Christ.  But,  in  the  latter  verse,  the 
 apostle  explains  how  the  Galatians  became  thus  safe,  justified, 
 and  adopted.     They  were  all  ■  the  children  of  God  by  faith,' 
 
280  THE  BAPTISES  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 because  all  baptized  persons  have  'put  on  Christ'  They 
 were  made  the  children  of  God  by  renovation,  or  the  baptism 
 of  the  Holy  Ghost,  before  they  possessed  the  faith  of  justifi- 
 cation and  adoption ;  and  because  of  this  baptism,  they  were 
 inducted  into  a  divine  relationship  to  the  blessed  Redeemer. 
 If  this  be  effected  by  water-baptism,  then  Pusey  and  the 
 Papist  are  not  far  wrong  ;  water-baptism  saves  everlastingly. 
 It  is  not  the  mere  recognition  of  persons  as  already  believers, 
 but  the  actual  cause  of  saving  faith! 
 
 It  may  be  noted,  that  Paul,  in  writing  to  the  Romans, 
 inscribes  his  epistle,  '  To  all  that  be  in  Rome,  beloved  of 
 '  God,  called  saints,'  [to  be  is  not  in  the  original,]  '  grace  to 
 '  you,  and  peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
 '  Christ' — adding,  '  First,  I  thank  my  God  through  Jesus 
 '  Christ  for  you  all,  that  your  faith  is  spoken  of  throughout 
 'the  whole  world.'  chap.  i.  7,  8.  Here  we  have  a  people,  at 
 the  least,  as  holy  as  the  congregations  in  Galatia  or  Corinth  ; 
 and  of  whose  baptism  no  person,  I  presume,  entertains  the 
 smallest  doubt.  Yet,  he  admonishes  them  to  'put  on  the 
 *  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  make  not  provision  for  the  flesh, 
 '  to  fulfil  the  lusts  thereof,'  ch.  xiii.  14;  meaning,  'to  take 
 '  him  as  a  pattern  and  guide,  to  imitate  his  example,  to 
 '  obey  his  precepts,  to  become  like  him,'  &c.  Barnes. — 
 This  was  said  to  the  Romans,  probably,  some  years  after  their 
 baptism — in  which  rite  that  object  had  not  been  really  or  fully 
 accomplished.  They  are  exhorted  to  do  it,  for  the  first  time, 
 or  to  do  it  again,  or  to  do  it  better.  Therefore,  Christ  may 
 be  put  on,  without  undergoing  the  ceremony  of  baptism,  with 
 or  in  water.  Hence,  '  to  put  him  on,'  necessarily  conveys 
 nothing  more  than  to  make  a  profession  of  faith,  or  to  assume 
 an  obligation  to  regard  Christ  as  a  pattern,  teacher,  and 
 Saviour.  It  does  not  certainly  vouch  for  the  regeneration  or 
 saving  faith  of  the  subjects  baptized.  In  the  letter  to  the 
 Galatians,  if  water-baptism,  and  not  that  of  the  Spirit,  be 
 intended,  the  apostle  means,  that  his  readers  had  embraced 
 the  Christian  religion,  and  had  become  identified  with  the 
 Jews  and  the  Greeks  who  professed  to  be  the  disciples  of 
 Christ.  The  stress  laid  on  the  passage,  and  the  inference 
 drawn  from  it,  by  Mr.  Noel,  are  manifestly  unwarranted. 
 
 Water-baptism  is  but  a  type  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit, 
 as  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh  was  a  type  of  the  circumcision 
 of  the  heart ;  or,  as  the  Passover  and  the  Lord's  Supper  were 
 types  of  the  sacrifice  of  Christ,  and  of  our  need  of  faith  in 
 him.     Water-baptism  is   introductory  to  the  privileges  and 
 
OF  WATER  AND  SPIRIT  DISTINGUISHED.  281 
 
 duties  of  discipleship  in  the  school  of  Christ ;  while  that  of 
 the  Holy  Spirit  meetens  the  soul  for  the  communion  of  saints 
 at  the  Lord's  Tahle.  The  former  admits  to  the  outer  court 
 of  the  visible  assembly  or  congregation  of  professors  ;  the 
 latter  into  the  holy  place,  as  priests  unto  God  and  the  Lamb, 
 through  the  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant.  The  baptism 
 of  the  Spirit  impresses  and  renovates  the  soul,  really  sanctifies 
 the  heart,  consecrates  it  to  God,  induces  holiness  of  life,  zeal 
 for  the  glory  of  God  ;  and  so,  in  process  of  time,  prepares  it 
 for  the  inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light.  This  water-baptism 
 cannot  do  ;  any  more  than  the  blood  of  bulls  or  of  goats,  or 
 the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  could  formerly  take  away  sin.  Though 
 water  were  applied  to  a  person,  in  the  most  approved  forms, 
 by  the  holiest  hands,  it  could  afford  but  a  delusive  conscious- 
 ness that  he  was  justified,  sanctified  in  Christ,  and  made 
 a  child  of  God. 
 
 The  distinction  made  by  John,  between  his  baptism  and 
 that  of  the  Messiah  is  most  important.  Christ  never  personally 
 baptized  with  water  ;  and  the  disciples,  though  they  gave  the 
 sign,  never  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  To  do  the  latter 
 is  a  divine  prerogative.  Ministers  may  exhibit  the  token  ; 
 but  Christ  only  can  give  the  substance — just  as  tl.ey  may 
 sow  the  seed,  while  he  only  can  give  the  increase.  The 
 first  is  introductory  to  visible  advantages  here  ;  the  latter 
 graciously  prepares  the  soul  for  glory  hereafter.  The  baptism 
 of  the  Spirit  is  necessary  for  eternal  life  ;  and  no  one  can 
 ascend  to  heaven,  unless  he  be  born  from  above.  John 
 probably  baptized  the  twelve  disciples  at  the  Jordan ;  but 
 Christ  baptized  eleven  of  them  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
 with  fire,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Peter  baptized  Cornelius 
 and  his  family  with  water ;  Christ  baptized  them  visibly 
 with  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 
 Therefore,  acts-  so  essentially  different  in  their  results 
 must  not  be  confounded,  in  their  operations  ;  nor  must  we 
 combine  them,  as  if  they  were  necessarily  inseparable.  That 
 God  baptizes  with  the  Holy  Spirit  those  who  may  never  be 
 baptized  with  water,  we  may  gather  from  the  fact  of!  the 
 many  holy  people  in  the  Society  of  Friends,  and  the  many 
 converted  persons  among  our  opponents,  who  have  never 
 undergone  this  outward  rite  before  their  death.  And  that 
 many  are  baptized  with  water,  who  have  never  been  baptized 
 with  the  Spirit,  the  numbers  of  ultimately  ungodly  persons 
 consecrated  to  God  in  infancy  by  Pedobaptists,  and  upon  a 
 bare  profession  of  faith,  in  adult  age,  by  the  Baptists,  we  have 
 
282  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CTIRIST. 
 
 numerous  and  painful  testimonies.  The  baptisms  of  Scripture 
 are  to  be  distinguished  on  the  foregoing  plain  and  important 
 principles.  For  want  of  doing  so,  some  persons,  on  reading 
 about  the  saving,  and  renovating  effects  of  baptism,  have 
 erroneously  concluded  that  it  was  water-baptism  the  writers 
 always  referred  to.  Hence,  they  have  been  led  into,  or  been 
 confirmed  in,  the  dangerous  notion,  that  true  holiness  must 
 have  been  effected  by  it,  or  that,  at  least,  it  must  have  preceded 
 the  rite  of  water-baptism.  Whereas,  it  was  the  result  of  the 
 baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  entirely  independent  of  the 
 outward  ceremony. 
 
 To  show  the  distinction  I  am  contending  for  is  of  grave 
 importance  in  this  discussion,  I  may  further  observe,  That 
 while  many  people  are  baptized  with  water  who  are  not 
 baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  still  many  more  are  baptized 
 with  the  Holy  Ghost  who  are  not  baptized  with  water.  I 
 believe  that  two  points  will  be  granted  by  our  opponents. 
 First,  that  no  person  can  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  above, 
 who  has  not  been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit — the  act 
 designated  also,  being  born  of  the  Spirit,  regenerated,  made  new 
 creatures  through  Christ  Jesus,  and  the  like.  And,  secondly, 
 that  all  children,  dying  in  infancy,  in  every  age  and  in  every 
 part  of  the  world,  go  to  heaven ;  and  that  all  the  pious  and 
 spiritually  converted  adults,  who  have  not  been  baptized  with 
 water,  in  any  form,  also  go  to  that  world  of  glory.  Then,  the 
 conclusion  is  inevitable,  that,  where  the  ministers  of  Christ 
 baptize  one  individual  with  water,  God  baptizes,  at  least,  a 
 thousand  by  his  Spirit,  and  makes  them  meet  for  the 
 inheritance  of  the  saints  in  light — a  glorious  consideration, 
 calculated  to  inspire  the  believer's  soul  with  thanks  to  their 
 benevolent  Friend  in  heaven.  The  case  is  analogous  to  that 
 of  partaking  of  an  interest  in  Christ's  glorious  sacrifice,  without 
 partaking  of  the  material  elements  appointed  to  set  forth  our 
 act  of  faith,  and  adherence  to  him,  at  the  Lord's  table.  Water- 
 baptism  and  the  Eucharist  are  appointed  ordinances,  which  all 
 believers  ought  personally  to  observe  or  relatively  to  promote  ; 
 but  the  neglect  of  them,  especially  through  ignorance,  inca- 
 pacity, or  lack  of  opportunity,  assuredly,  will  exclude  none 
 from  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 
 
 I  am  here  reminded  of  a  conversation  with  a  clever  Baptist 
 minister,  on  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism.  As  the  notion  of 
 my  good  brother  is,  probably,  entertained  by  many  of  our 
 opponents,  I  will  just  give  the  substance  of  the  discussion. 
 Among  other  statements  offered  in  defence  of  our  service,  it 
 
OF  WATER  AND  SriRIT  DISTINGUISHED.  283 
 
 ■was  urged,  'That  as  children,  dying  in  infancy,  went  to  heaven, 
 '  they  must  have  heen  spiritually  regenerated,  or,  in  other 
 1  terms,  must  have  been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;   and 
 
 •  it  was  thence  inferred,  that  if  little  ones  had  the  capacity  of 
 '■  undergoing  this  inward  baptism,  they  could  not  be  lacking 
 'a  capacity  for  receiving  the  outward  symbol  of  it — baptism 
 '  with  water.'  The  reply  to  this  reasoning  was,  '  That  children, 
 '  dying  in  infancy,  did  not  require  regeneration,  or  the  baptism 
 '  of  the  Spirit,  being  sufficiently  holy,  or  innocent,  by  nature, 
 
 *  to  enter  heaven  without  it.'  Surprised  at  this  strange  response, 
 from  so  devout  and  acute  a  divine,  I  asked  him,  if  a  '  clean  thing 
 '  could  come  out  of  an  unclean ; '  if  men  were  not  all  '  born  in 
 'sin  and  shapen  in  iniquity;'  if  the  seeds  and  elements  of  the 
 adult  sinner  were  not  in  the  babe,  just  as  the  savage  principles 
 of  the  tiger  were  in  the  whelp  ?  and  if  so,  were  the  souls  of 
 such  unrenewed  children  meet  for  glory  ?  He  conceded  my 
 premises,  that,  by  nature,  we  were  corrupt ;  but  contended, 
 that,  though  some  improvement  in  the  nature  of  children  was 
 needed  ;  yet,  that  regeneration,  which  is  symbolized  by  water- 
 baptism,  was  not  requisite.  This,  I  remarked,  was  admitting 
 the  doctrine,  but  only  objecting  to  the  term. 
 
 He  was  further  reminded,  that  if  children  were  naturally 
 pure  and  spiritually  holy;  and  if  far  more  little  ones  went 
 to  glory  than  penitent,  pardoned,  and  sanctified  men  and 
 women  ;  the  consequence  must  be,  that  a  vast  majority  of  the 
 spirits  translated  from  this  earth,  and  now  surrounding  the 
 throne  of  God,  could  not  heartily  join  in  the  song  of  Moses 
 and  the  Lamb;  for,  having  been  neither  sinners  nor  sinful, 
 they  could  not  have  been  redeemed  by  Jesus  Christ;  and 
 never  having  been  unholy,  nor  unclean,  could  never  have 
 been  purified,  nor  made  meet  for  heaven,  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ! 
 My  friend  evidently  felt  the  force  of  this  inference;  but  made 
 no  reply.  This  little  occurrence  is  worthy  of  notice  only  as 
 showing  what  even  clever  and  good  men  will  advance  when 
 resolved,  at  all  events,  to  sustain  a  favorite  practice,  or  to 
 oppose  a  system  they  have  long  been  accustomed  to  condemn. 
 
 SECTION  NINTH. —  The  distinguished  titles  given  to 
 the  baptized,  do  not  affect  our  conclusions. — In  this  contro- 
 versy a  sense  is  often  attached  to  the  words,  Believer, 
 Disciple,  Convert,  Christian,  fee,  calculated  to  induce  very 
 serious  theological  mistakes.  On  reading  these  terms  in  the 
 New  Testament,  many  persons  associate  with  them  senses 
 which  they  do  not  always,  or,  perhaps,  often,  intentionally 
 
284  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 express.  "When  they  read,  that  disciples  or  helievers  were 
 baptized,  or  that  people  were  converted  and  became  Christians, 
 they  instantly  conclude,  that,  because  they  are  so  designated, 
 they  must  have  been  spiritually  regenerated,  and,  thereby, 
 become  holy  followers  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  does  not 
 necessarily  follow.  Mr.  Noel  justly  observes,  that  '  words 
 '  have  a  lower  or  loftier  sense  in  different  connexions.' 
 Mr.  Tombes  also  truly  remarks,  '  Not  etymology,  but  use, 
 must  expound  words.'  p.  146.  Our  opponents  must  prove 
 their  assumption,  that  these  terms  are  employed  always  and  only 
 to  characterize  truly  pious,  and  renewed  people,  before  they 
 can  effectively  employ  them,  or  the  supposed  meaning  of  them, 
 against  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism.  If  they  are  found  to 
 carry  a  lower  sense,  if  they  convey  the  idea  of  characters  not 
 Christians  indeed  and  in  truth;  then  it  will  be  seen,  that 
 there  are,  at  least,  two  classes  of  people  bearing  the  same 
 appellations — the  one  truly  genuine,  and  the  other  merely 
 nominal,  followers  of  Christ. 
 
 That  there  were  many  persons  called  Believers,  Disciples, 
 Converts,  and  Christians,  who  were  born  of  God,  and  lived  to 
 glorify  him,  and  to  bless  the  world,  none  but  the  grossest 
 infidel  will  deny.  But,  that  there  were  many  others,  spoken 
 of  in  similar  terms,  who  were  not  divinely  renewed  and 
 influenced,  is  equally  indubitable.  As  there  were  '  Israelites 
 '  indeed,'  so  there  were  Israelites  only  in  name.  All  were  not 
 Israel  that  were  of  Israel.  There  were  Jews  inwardly,  and 
 there  were  Jews  only  '  outwardly  after  the  flesh.'  There  were 
 believers  in  Christianity,  as  simply  distinguished  from  Jews 
 and  heathens;  and  there  were  those  that  believed  with  the 
 heart  unto  salvation,  and  whose  faith  overcame  the  world. 
 Dr.  Urwick,  referring  to  John  viii.  30-32,  says,  '  From  these 
 '  verses  it  is  evident,  that  our  Lord  made  a  difference  between 
 c  disciples  in  form,  and  disciples  indeed — that  there  was  a 
 '  faith  possessed  which  made  disciples  in  form,  when  there 
 '  was  not  the  knowledge  necessary  to  make  disciples  indeed.' 
 
 In  the  Old  Testament  phraseology,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
 and,  as  may  be  further  observed  in  the  sequel,  terms  are  used 
 in  a  lower  and  a  loftier  sense,  as  well  as  in  the  New ;  and, 
 generally,  in  almost  every  other  verbal  composition.  There 
 was  the  true  Israel  and  the  false;  there  was  the  true  prophet 
 and  the  false  prophet ;  there  were  children  of  God  that  were 
 good,  and  others  called  the  children  of  God  that  were  bad; 
 his  people  that  he  loved,  and  his  people  that  he  despised; 
 his  servants  whom  he  praised,  and  his  servants  whom  he 
 
Till",  TEEMS,  BELIEVER,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  285 
 
 condemned.  The  Lord  had  holy  priests,  and  very  indifferent 
 ones.  It  is  only  by  the  connexion,  in  which  these  terms  and 
 titles,  are  found,  that  we  can  determine  whether  the  good  or 
 the  had  prophet,  priest,  person,  servant,  or  child,  is  meant  by 
 them.  These  designations,  in  one  connexion,  express  the 
 highest  and  holiest  characters  the  Hebrews  could  sustain; 
 and,  in  another,  they  point  out  very  unworthy,  and,  sometimes, 
 very  wicked,  men.  They  were  all  circumcised,  all  were 
 baptized,  and  some  of  them  anointed  to  office  ;  and,  yet,  they 
 were  as  different  from  each  other — as  a  nominal  believer 
 differs  from  a  believer  with  the  heart  unto  salvation  ;  as  a 
 disciple  indeed  differs  from  a  disciple  without  divine  grace  ; 
 as  a  mere  notional  convert  to  Christianity  differs  from  a 
 spiritual  convert  to  Christ;  and  as  a  Christian  only  in  name 
 diifers  from  a  Christian  in  feeling  and  life.  None  but  the  most 
 unreflecting,  when  reading  in  the  Old  Testament  of  Israelites, 
 prophets,  priests,  children,  people,  and  servants,  would  infer 
 that  they  must  have  been  all  godly,  devout,  sincere,  and 
 obedient  Hebrews.  And  equally  ill-furnished  must  that  mind 
 be  now,  which,  on  finding  the  terms,  believers,  disciples, 
 converts,  and  Christians,  in  the  New  Testament,  jumps  to  the 
 conclusion,  that  all,  bearing  these  titles,  are  truly  regenerated 
 souls  !  We  will  now  briefly  examine  these  terms,  and  in  the 
 order  in  which  we  have  placed  them.  This  inquiry  is  of 
 considerable  moment  in  the  present  controversy. 
 
 I.  BELIEVERS.— With  regard  to  this  term,  it  may  be 
 noticed,  that  some  '  believed  for  a  while'  only.  Luke  viii.  13. 
 Here  faith  and  regeneration  are  separable.  Simon  Magus 
 believed  and  was  baptized.  Acts  viii.  13.  Here  belief  and 
 impiety  are  united.  '  Among  the  chief  rulers  also  many 
 'believed  on  him,  but,  because  of  the  Pharisees,  they  did  not 
 '  confess  him,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue  ; 
 '  for  they  loved  the  praise  of  men  more  than  the  praise  of 
 '  God.'  John  xii.  42,  43.  Surely,  this  was  not  saving  faith ! 
 The  devils  believe,  and  tremble  too.  James  ii.  19.  But, 
 Satan,  though  a  believer,  cannot  love  God  or  his  saints. 
 Paul  supposes  men  may  believe  in  vain.  1  Cor.  xv.  2.  The 
 Ephesians  believed  before  they  were  sealed  with  the  Holy 
 Spirit.  Eph.  i.  3.  The  belief  of  many  and  of  most  was, 
 simply,  that  Christ  came  from  God,  John  xvi.  30  ;  that  God 
 did  send  him  into  the  world,  lb.  xvii.  21  ;  and  that  the 
 Saviour  died  and  rose  again.  1  Thes.  iv.  14.  When  Paul  speaks 
 of  a  faith  unfeigned,  he  implies  that  there  is  a  faith  of  mere 
 pretension.    1  Tim.  i.  5.     Others  had  a  faith  that  was  readily 
 
286  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 overthrown  ;  this  was  not  the  faith  of  God's  elect.  lb.  ii.  3. 
 Some  made  shipwreck  of  faith.  1  Tim.  i.  19.  This,  surely, 
 was  not  a  faith  that  saves  the  soul.  John  the  Baptist  purified 
 no  grown-up  people  who  were  not  helievers  in  the  doctrines 
 he  proclaimed,  or  in  the  mission  he  came  to  fulfil ;  had  it 
 been  otherwise,  they  would,  like  the  Pharisees  and  lawyers, 
 have  rejected  the  counsel  of  God,  and  not  been  baptized  by 
 him.  The  adults,  baptized  by  our  Lord's  disciples,  in  the 
 early  part  of  his  ministry,  must  have  been  believers,  or  they 
 would  not  have  submitted  to  receive  this  rite  at  their  hands. 
 As  we  have  previously  shown,  the  great  object  of  the  first 
 preachers  of  the  gospel  was  to  induce  people  to  believe  in 
 the  Saviour's  Messiahship.  This,  surely,  might  have  existed 
 then  as  now,  where  saving  faith  had  not  been  obtained. 
 
 The  twelve  disciples  had  very  little  faith  for  a  good  while 
 after  they  became  the  professed  followers  of  Christ.  When 
 he  turned  water  into  wine,  '  then  they  believed  on  him  ;  ' 
 implying  that,  previously,  they  had  more  doubts  than  faith. 
 At  a  later  period,  he  permitted  Lazarus  to  die,  to  the  intent 
 that,  by  raising  him  from  the  dead,  they  might  believe ; 
 indicating  that,  hitherto,  they  were  not  without  occasional 
 doubts  concerning  his  Messiahship.  And  even  after  his 
 resurrection,  and  before  the  day  of  Pentecost,  he  upbraided 
 them  as  '  fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the 
 '  prophets  had  spoken  concerning  him.'  It  is  evident, 
 that  Christ  had  many  disciples  who  did  not  believe  with  their 
 heart;  for  they  totally  abandoned  him,  Johnvi.  66.  And  we 
 learn  that  there  were  believers  who  never  became  his  disciples, 
 nor  were  baptized  unto  him.  John  xii.  42,  43.  Indeed, 
 some  were  said  to  have  believed  on  him  whom  he  designated 
 the  children  of  their  father  the  devil,  and  who  did  the  deeds 
 of  their  father.  John  viii.  31,  41.  Hence,  it  cannot  be 
 doubted,  that  the  word  Believer  does  not  necessarily  and 
 always  mean  a  truly  spiritual  and  savingly  converted  person. 
 When  we  read  of  believers  being  baptized,  the  terms  give  us 
 no  assurance  that  the  subjects  were  genuine  followers  of 
 Christ.  If  we  take  in  the  numbers  baptized  by  John  and  by 
 our  Lord's  more  immediate  ministers,  Ave  may  safely  say, 
 that,  as  far  as  the  narratives  enable  us  to  judge,  and  that 
 most  favourably,  not  one  in  a  hundred  was  a  true,  intelligent, 
 spiritual  believer,  when  receiving  this  rite. 
 
 The  word  believer  is  expressive  of  relationship  as  well  as 
 of  personal  knowledge  and  confidence  ;  so  that,  if  parents  are 
 set  down  as  believers,  their  children  are  virtually  regarded  as 
 
THE  TERM?,  BEIJEVEE,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  2S7 
 
 believers  also.  A  Jew  is  a  believer  in  Moses  ;  hence,  Lis 
 children  are  all  Jews ;  though  they  have  never  read  or  seen 
 the  Old  Testament  writings.  A  Mahomedan  is  a  believer  in 
 the  Koran,  and  all  his  children  are  Mahomedans  also,  in  the 
 usual  style  of  addressing  them.  A  Baptist  is  a  believer  in 
 adult  immersion,  and  all  his  children  are  designated  Baptists 
 also,  though  many  of  them  are  babies  ;  and  a  Baptist  congre- 
 gation is  distinguished  by  these  terms,  though  there  may  be 
 a  hundred  little  ones  present.  Mr.  Noel  says,  '  The  Jewish 
 '  baptism  was  intended  only  for  believers  in  Moses;'  if  so, 
 then  their  children  were  regarded  as  believers  also,  for  certainly 
 thousands  of  them  were  baptized  in  the  sea,  in  the  wilderness, 
 and  when  proselyted  from  heathenism.  He  adds,  that '  Christian 
 '  baptism  is  intended  for  none  but  believers  in  Christ.'  But 
 since  the  children  of  Christians  are  as  really  believers  in 
 Christ,  as  the  children  of  Jews  were  believers  in  Moses, 
 there  is  perfect  consistency  in  baptizing  them  in  the  same 
 way  !  Christ  says,  of  the  little  children  he  took  in  his  arms, 
 that  they  '  believed '  in  him.  As  their  parents  probably 
 were  called  believers,  the  children  were  regarded  as  being 
 believers  also — though  here  their  personal  credence  of  what 
 Christ  said  to  them  is  the  more  probable  import  of  his  decla- 
 ration concerning  them. 
 
 Mr.  Bees  observes,  '  Now  because  the  word  believer  is, 
 '  by  the  propagation  of  the  gospel,  become  a  sort  of  an 
 '  ambiguous  term,  it  may  be  necessary  to  explain  this  matter 
 1  a  little.  A  believer,  at  the  first  propagation  of  the  gospel, 
 '  was  one  who  acknowledged  one  true  God,  and  professed 
 '  faith  in  the  Messiah,  in  opposition  to  an  infidel,  i.  e.  an 
 '  idolater ;  but  a  believer  in  our  day  is  one  who  has  the  faith 
 '  of  the  operation  of  God,  or  the  faith  of  God's  elect,  in 
 '  contradistinction  to  a  nominal  Christian,  who  (strictly  speak - 
 '  ing)  has  only  a  notional  faith  in  the  existence  of  the  true 
 '  God  and  of  Christ.'  p.  239.  This  passage  contains  an 
 important  truth;  and,  though  it  requires  a  cautious  application, 
 is  calculated  to  divest  our  opponents  of  one  of  the  principal 
 arguments  usually  employed  by  them  against  our  system,  and 
 in  support  of  the  baptism  of  only  truly  regenerated  believers. 
 The  question  here  is,  not  in  what  sense  the  word  may  be 
 employed  by  our  opponents  now,  but  its  current  or  occasional 
 use  by  the  apostles.  That,  at  least,  frequently,  was  descriptive 
 '  of  persons  '  who  acknowledged  One  True  God,  and  professed 
 'faith  in  the  Messiah,  in  opposition  to  an  infidel  or  idolater,' 
 without  any  saving  faith  in  Christ. 
 
288  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST 
 
 Mr.  Hall  remarks,  '  The  profession  demanded  in  the  baptism 
 '  of  John  was  nothing  more  than  a  solemn  recognition  of  the 
 '  great  article  of  the  Jewish  faith,  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah, 
 '  accompanied,  indeed,  with  this  additional  circumstance,  that 
 '  it  was  nigh  at  hand.  The  faith  required  by  the  apostles 
 '  includes  a  persuasion  of  all  the  miraculous  facts  which  they 
 '  attested,  comprehending  the  preternatural  conception,  the 
 '  deity,  incarnation,  and  atonement,  the  miracles,  the  death 
 '  and  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  In  the  one  was 
 '  contained  the  general  expectation  of  the  speedy  appearance 
 '  of  an  illustrious  person  under  the  character  of  the  Messiah  ; 
 'in  the  other,  an  explicit  declaration  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
 '  whose  life  and  death  are  recorded  in  the  evangelists,  was  the 
 'identical  person.'  p.  17-  That  this,  in  substance,  was  the 
 utmost  included  in  the  faith  required  of  adults,  prior  to  their 
 baptism,  either  by  John  or  Peter,  we  may  safely  conclude, 
 and  what  we  have  repeatedly  asserted  before.  But  the 
 statement  contains  not  a  word  as  to  the  possession  of  spiritual 
 regeneration,  the  sanctification  of  the  soul,  or  the  manifestations 
 of  practical  godliness.  A  credence  and  admission  of  certain 
 great  doctrines  and  facts  were  all  the  apostles  ever  regarded 
 as  requisite  to  adult  baptism. — Carson  says,  '  In  mode  and 
 '  subjects  John's  baptism  was  perfectly  coincident  with  Christ's. 
 p.  175.  '  John's  baptism  did  not  serve  '  [as  a  substitute]  '  for 
 'Christ's  baptism.'  p.  177-  'There  is  no  doubt  but  John's 
 '  baptism  and  Christ's  were  equally  extensive.'  p.  178.  These 
 concise  quotations  corroborate  certain  previous  assumptions 
 respecting  the  accordance  of  John's  baptism  and  that  of  Jesus 
 Christ ;  a  point  of  some  importance  in  our  investigations. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  says, '  That  belief  which  leadeth  not  to  repentance, 
 '  is  no  belief  at  all.  Until  a  man  becomes  a  believer  in  this 
 '  vital  sense,  he  is  to  be  numbered  with  the  ranks  of  the 
 '  adversary  ;  and  if  an  enemy  found  disguised  within  the  lines, 
 '  at  a  time  of  war,  by  the  military  law,  he  is  shot,  not  nourished 
 '  as  a  brother,  and  trusted  as  a  friend.'  Reg.  Lect.  iii.  p.  38. 
 Our  author's  meaning  is,  that  none  should  be  called  believers 
 who  are  not  so  in  heart ;  and  that  all  those,  baptized  by  the 
 apostles  or  their  assistants,  were  of  this  character.  I  see  no 
 drift  in  his  language,  if  this  be  not  the  impression  he  seeks  to 
 convey  to  the  mind  of  his  readers.  But,  according  to  the 
 various  concessions  and  the  ample  statistics  already  given,  the 
 Baptists  dip,  and  introduce  to  their  inner  churches,  persons 
 who  are  not  believers  at  all — seeing,  according  to  Mr.  Stovel, 
 there  are  no  believers  except  truly  Christian  penitents.     He 
 
THE  TERMS,  BELIEVER,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  289 
 
 does  not  here  allow  of  a  mere  nominal  belief,  as  available  for 
 admission  to  the  baptistry,  and  to  the  communion  of  saints  : 
 for,  according  to  him,  there  is  no  believer  who  is  not  such 
 in  a  vital  and  saving  sense !  Does  he  not  assume,  that  no 
 distinction  is  made  in  Scripture  between  such  a  belief  as 
 Simon  Magus  professed,  and  that  of  the  apostle  Paul !  between 
 the  credence  of  the  understanding,  and  the  holy  confidence  of 
 the  heart !  Would  he  persuade  his  congregation  that  there 
 was  not  a  nominal,  or  a  mere  professional,  belief,  as  well  as 
 a  believing  to  the  saving  of  the  soul  ?  Good  and  intelligent 
 men  must  be  hard  driven,  before  they  would  venture  on  such 
 rash  and  dangerous  declarations,  in  order  to  oppose  the 
 baptism  of  infants  !  Does  he  reckon  all  of  his  hearers,  whose 
 faith  has  not  led  them  to  repentance  unto  life,  and  who  are 
 not  believers  in  a  saving  sense,  as  adversaries,  or  as  enemies 
 in  disguise,  within  his  denominational  lines  ;  and  who,  if  not 
 shot,  should  neither  be  nourished  as  brethren,  nor  trusted 
 as  friends ! 
 
 In  another  passage,  he  says,  '  The  repentance  which  John 
 1  required,  must  have  been  based  on  evangelical  faith,  and 
 'his  baptism  believers'  baptism. ..  .John  did  require  faith, 
 '  and  the  faith  which  he  required,  was  no  superficial  act  of  the 
 '  intellect  merely,  but  one  which  ruled  the  heart  and  formed 
 'the  character.  Dis.  p.  117.  This  is  all  very  admirable. 
 But,  did  he  in  many,  or  in  any,  known  instances,  succeed  in 
 getting  it  ?  Did  he  require  it  as  essential  to  baptism  ;  and 
 refuse  to  administer  this  rite  to  all  that  did  not  prove  they 
 possessed  it?  God  requires  all  men,  every  where,  to  repent; 
 but  do  they,  notwithstanding,  universally  do  it?  Mr.  Stovel 
 requires  all  his  congregation  to  believe  with  the  heart,  to  be 
 truly  sorry  for  their  sins,  and  fully  to  obey  the  gospel,  in 
 order  to  be  saved  ;  indeed,  he  dare  do  no  less.  But  are  the 
 responses  of  his  people's  hearts  and  lives  answerable  to  his 
 requisitions  ?  John,  if  he  required  faith  unto  salvation, 
 could  not  have  required  any  thing  less  than  our  opponent 
 ascribes  to  him.  But,  I  ask  again,  did  John  refuse  any  one 
 the  rite  of  baptism,  who  did  not  profess  such  a  repentance, 
 based  on  evangelical  faith,  and  whose  belief  ruled  the  heart, 
 and  formed  the  character  ?  And  did  John  delay  the  ceremony 
 till  the  fruits  meet  for  repentance  appeared  on  these  trees  of 
 righteousness?  Will  Mr.  Stovel  answer  yes? — According  to 
 Mr.  Noel,  '  Simon  Magus  believed,  and  professed  to  believe, 
 '  the  corruption  of  man,  his  ruin  by  the  fall,  his  need  of  a 
 •  Saviour,  the  atonement  made  by  the  Son  of  God,  regeneration 
 
 N 
 
290  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 *  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  necessity  of  entire  obedience  to  the 
 '  law  of  God,  the  resurrection,  and  the  future  judgment.' 
 Sub.  p.  73.  And  we  are  referred  to  Acts  viii.  12, 13,  in  proof 
 of  this  large  and  explicit  profession  of  faith  by  the  sorcerer ! 
 Alas  !  then,  how  little  dependence  can  be  placed  on  confessions 
 at  the  baptistry !  And,  yet,  our  opponents  frequently  intimate, 
 that  these  may  be  regarded  as  sufficient  authority  for  dipping 
 — the  followers  of  Simon! — and,  of  course,  for  denouncing 
 baby-sprinkling ! 
 
 II.  DISCIPLES.— This  term,  like  that  of  Believers,  is 
 used  in  '  a  lower  and  a  loftier  sense '  in  the  New  Testament. 
 As  we  have  seen,  its  literal  and  proper  meaning  is,  a  Learner, 
 a  Scholar,  obtaining  knowledge  and  skill  in  some  school,  and 
 under  some  duly  recognized  instructor.  That  this  word  is 
 not  always  expressive  of  real  Christian  adults,  we  may  soon 
 determine,  by  a  reference  to  the  oracles  of  truth.  There  were 
 grown-up  disciples,  and  holy  disciples,  and  eminently  distin- 
 guished disciples ;  and  there  were  disciples  who  evidently 
 had  neither  saving  grace  nor  divine  gifts.  Judas  was  a 
 disciple,  and  even  one  of  the  twelve  ;  yet,  he  was  destitute  of 
 divine  grace.  John  the  Baptist  had  disciples,  of  whose 
 spiritual  conversion,  as  Mr.  Hall  intimates,  we  have  no 
 evidence.  John  iii.  25.  The  Jews  were  the  disciples  of  Moses  ; 
 but,  though,  doubtless,  baptized,  and  regarded  as  baptized 
 Hebrews,  they  were,  as  a  body,  far  from  the  righteousness  of 
 the  law.  lb.  ix.  28.  Saul  breathed  out  threatening  and  slaughter 
 against  the  Lord's  disciples,  among  whom  were  included  '  any 
 
 *  of  this  way  '  of  thinking  and  living — whether  they  were 
 regenerated  or  not.  Acts  ix.  1,  2.  The  blind  man  supposed 
 that  the  Pharisees,  by  anxiously  inquiring  how  Christ  had 
 opened  his  eyes,  were  disposed  to  become  his  disciples — 
 evidently  meaning  his  scholars.  John  ix.  27.  Of  the  vast 
 multitudes  baptized  by  our  Lord's  special  disciples,  and  who 
 thereby  became  nominal  disciples  themselves,  almost  all  must 
 have  been,  as  their  future  conduct  testified,  destitute  of  every 
 iota  of  vital  religion.  As  we  said  of  believers,  so  we  say  of 
 the  baptized  disciples,  not  one  in  a  hundred  could  have  received 
 the  grace  of  God  in  truth. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  says,  '  All  who  are  baptized,  even  in  infancy,  are, 
 '  in  some  sense,  disciples.'  Hence,  all  the  children  baptized 
 in  the  sea,  or  with  their  proselyted  parents  among  the  Jews, 
 became  disciples,  notwithstanding  their  tender  age.  What 
 he  intends  by  the  qualifying  expression — '  in  some  sense' 
 — I  must  leave  him  to  explain.     Probably,  he  means  in  the 
 
THE  TERMS,  BEUEVER,  ETC.  EXAMETED.  291 
 
 '  lower,  and  not  the  loftier,  sense  '  of  its  application  ;  in  that 
 we  agree.  Mr.  Kinghorn  says,  '  The  Church  of  Christ,  acting 
 'upon  the  rule  he  has  laid  down,  cannot  recognize  any  person 
 'as  his  disciple,  who  is  not  baptized  in  his  name.'  p.  18. 
 Between  these  two  gentlemen,  it  is  rendered  manifest,  that 
 all  infants  who  are  haptized  may  he  justly  designated  the 
 disciples  of  Christ.  It  might  he  fairly  put  to  the  judgment 
 and  conscience  of  most  ingenuous  Baptists,  whether  they  do 
 not  consider  the  youngest  children  in  their  families  and 
 sabbath  schools,  while  learning  the  Word  of  God,  little  disciples 
 in  the  school  of  the  gospel  ;  nor  would  any  of  them  answer 
 in  the  negative,  when  convinced  that  the  words  scholar  and 
 disciple  were  synonymous  terms.  Whether  scripturally  in- 
 ducted to  the  seminaries  of  Christian  discipleship,  is  another 
 question. 
 
 Mr.  Gibbs  says,  'We  know  of  no  real  discipleship  to  Christ 
 '  upon  New  Testament  principles,  that  is  not  founded  in  a 
 'real  conversion  to  God.'  p.  139.  But  does  not  Mr.  Gibbs, 
 by  the  term  '  real  discipleship,'  imply  that  there  was  a 
 discipleship  not  founded  on  real  conversion  to  God  ?  Could 
 he,  or  any  other  student  of  the  New  Testament,  believe  that 
 there  were  no  unconverted  disciples,  or  persons  who  had  been 
 inducted  to  the  school  of  Christ  by  baptism,  without  the 
 saving  regeneration  of  their  hearts  ?  The  same  reasonings 
 apply  to  Mr.  Noel's  assertion — '  No  persons  are  true  disciples 
 'but  those  who  obey  him.'  Sub.  p.  31.  So,  then,  there  were 
 disciples  that  were  not  true  ones ;  by  which  he  means,  not 
 spiritually  converted  or  perfect  ones.  Who  ever  doubted  this  ? 
 and  what  has  the  averment  to  do  against  Infant  Baptism  ? 
 He  says,  Christ  '  surely  wished  to  have  true  followers,  and 
 '  not  false  ones.'  lb.  But  does  this  prove,  that  none  of  them 
 were  really  false  ones,  or  that  there  have  been  no  such  in 
 in  every  age  ?  He  adds,  '  Baptism  cannot  make  a  disciple 
 '  in  the  lowest  sense,  because  it  cannot  make  even  a  learner 
 '  of  the  Christian  doctrine,  still  less  can  it  make  a  true  disciple 
 '  a  believer  in  Christ.'  p.  32.  No  more  can  sending  a  boy  to 
 school  make  him  a  good  scholar  ;  but  it  inducts  him  into 
 the  path  of  knowledge,  and  gets  him  recognized  as  a  young 
 disciple,  if  not  as  a  profound  philosopher.  Ithinkhewillconcede 
 that  baptism  cannot  make  an  adult  '  a  learner  of  the  Christian 
 '  doctrine,'  any  more  than  a  child  ;  though  it  might  effect  a 
 relationship  involving  a  right  to  religious  instruction  in  the 
 cases  of  both.  As  cited  above,  he  says,  that  '  All  who  are 
 'baptized,  are  disciples  in  some  sense;'  it  may  be  a  low  one, 
 
292  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 but  they  are  disciples  still ;  and  none  are  recognized  dis- 
 ciples who  are  not  baptized !  and  this  is  all  we  are  now 
 contending  for. 
 
 In  Acts  xv.  10,  children  of  eight  days  old,  the  proper  age 
 for  receiving  circumcision,  are  indirectly,  but  unquestionably,, 
 'designated  disciples.  'Circumcision,'  says  Henry,  'was  a 
 '  yoke  upon  children  particularly,'  [almost  exclusively,]  '  yet 
 '  that  is  called  a  yoke  upon  the  necks  of  the  disciples  ;  therefore 
 '  children  are  disciples.'  p.  110.  In  fact,  among  the  native 
 Jews,  none  but  infants  were  circumcised,  and  none  but  infants 
 could  be  intended  by  the  inspired  writer  ;  and  yet,  these  are 
 styled  disciples.  When  Christ  rode  into  Jerusalem,  '  the 
 '  whole  multitude  of  the  disciples,'  [persons  who  had  been 
 baptized  and  consecrated  to  him,  Kingliorn,  p.  18,]  'began  to 
 '  rejoice.'  Luke  xix.  37-  If  all  these  were  spiritually  converted, 
 what  became  of  them  afterwards  ?  That  some  of  this  multitude 
 were  children,  we  may  reasonably  infer  from  the  reply  of  Christ 
 to  the  Pharisees,  who  complained,  because  '  the  children  cried 
 '  in  the  temple,  and  sang  Hosannah  to  the  Son  of  David ' — 
 '  Have  ye  never  read,  out  of  the  mouth  of  babes  and  sucklings 
 '  thou  hast  perfected  praise?'  Matt.  xxi.  15,  16.  After  these 
 remarks,  I  think  no  person  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  none 
 were  recognized  disciples  but  genuine  believers  of  adult  age  ; 
 or  that  children  are  not  comprehended  under  this  designation. 
 Byron  asks,  'what  is  a  disciple?'  and  replies,  'a  follower,  a 
 'scholar;'  adding,  'real  disciples  follow  the  Lord  in  the 
 '  regeneration.'  p.  26.  Here  he  also  implies  a  distinction,  he 
 seems  unwilling  to  express.  By  real  disciples,  he  means 
 something  beyond  mere  '  followers  or  scholars,'  even  truly 
 regenerated  children  of  God  ;  or  disciples  in  the  highest  and 
 most  spiritual  sense,  which  does  not  affect  our  assumption — 
 that  there  are  disciples  in  another  and  a  lower  sense. 
 
 Dr.  Carson  remarks,  '  To  be  called  a  disciple  of  Christ, 
 '  implies  not  only  to  have  learned  something  from  Christ,  but 
 '  to  have  learned  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  and  to  have  submitted 
 '  in  all  things  to  his  teaching.'  p.  258.  '  If  disciples  only 
 1  are  to  be  baptized,  infants  are  of  necessity  excluded.'  p.  259. 
 '  I  ask  the  conscience  of  every  Christian,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
 1  is  it  as  disciples  that  newly-born  infants  are  generally 
 '  baptized  ?'  lb.  '  The  persons  baptized  are  supposed  to  be 
 '  capable  of  being  taught  the  ordinances  enjoined  by  Christ, 
 '  children  then  cannot  be  included.'  p.  174.  These  assertions 
 and  assumptions  are  perfectly  invalid.  Surely,  a  person  may 
 be  a  scholar  or  disciple  before  he  has  learned  the  doctrines 
 
THE  TERMS,  BEUEVER,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  293 
 
 of  salvation.  He  becomes  a  disciple,  in  order  to  gain  the 
 knowledge  of  them.  The  youngest  infant  may  he  designated 
 to  a  scholarship  before  he  can  enter  on  the  enjoyment  of  it. 
 Between  the  time  of  baptismal  consecration  to  privilege  and 
 duty,  a  considerable  period  may  elapse  ;  and  yet,  the  act  itself 
 may  be  reasonable  and  divine.  The  Hebrew  infant  was 
 circumcised  and  baptized,  and  became  a  disciple  of  Moses, 
 long  before  it  recognized  the  advantages  and  obligations  of 
 its  consecration.  The  like  holds  true  respecting  babies  devoted 
 to  God  and  the  gospel  by  our  opponents.  Besides,  if  learning 
 the  first  lessons  of  religion,  and  being  baptized,  maybe  coeval 
 operations,  very  young  children,  if  not.  absolute  infants,  may 
 be  devoted  to  God  in  this  ceremony ;  for  even  babes  and 
 sucklings  may  be  qualified  to  praise  the  Saviour,  and  to 
 understand  the  first  lessons  of  piety.  About  the  brief  space 
 of  a  few  weeks  or  even  months,  in  such  a  matter,  I  presume 
 Mr.  Carson  would  not  argue  very  strenuously.  If  children 
 may  be  baptized,  Infant  Baptism  would  not  be  very  heartily 
 opposed. 
 
 The  case  before  us  is  analogous  to  that  of  the  propounder 
 of  some  new  system  of  ethics,  science,  or  art.  He  first  gives 
 a  lecture  or  two  on  his  chosen  subject ;  states  an  outline  of 
 his  proposed  scheme  of  instruction  ;  and  then  enrols  as 
 many  pupils,  for  subsequent  training,  as  present  themselves, 
 or  as  he  can  procure.  This  inscription  of  their  names  con- 
 stitutes them  disciples,  which  they  were  not  previously,  though 
 they  had  been  attentive  hearers  of  his  opening  discourses. 
 "Were  purification  of  the  person  concurrent  with  the  enrolment 
 of  the  names,  as  it  seems,  was  common  among  most  schools 
 and  systems  in  ancient  Greece  and  Rome,  there  would  be  a 
 clear  illustration  of  the  course  adopted  by  John  and  our  Lord's 
 apostles.  They  preached  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  and  stated,  in 
 general  terms,  the  doctrines,  duties,  and  advantages  of  the 
 gospel.  They  then  virtually,  or  actually,  enrolled  the  names 
 of  all  who  were  inclined  to  become  disciples  ;  and,  by  a 
 baptismal  ceremony,  inducted  them  to  scholarships  in  the 
 school  of  Christianity.  Mr.  Noel  observes,  '  Till  men  become 
 '  disciples  of  Christ,  they  will  not  listen  to  his  commands.' 
 p.  21.  He  means,  they  will  not  duly,  regularly,  and,  with 
 docility,  attend  to  his  systematic  instructions.  But,  we  inquire, 
 how  were  they  made  disciples  at  all  ?  It  must  have  been  done 
 by  listening  to  the  commands  or  doctrines  of  Christ ;  or  by 
 some  spontaneous  impulse  on  their  minds,  or — and  this  is  the 
 only  alternative — by  being  persuaded  to    be   baptized   unto 
 
294  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 Christ  first — as  children  then  were,  and  still  are,  by  all 
 Pedobaptists  ! 
 
 Dr. Wall  says, '  In  Matt.  x.  42,  little  ones  are  called  disciples. 
 '  This  word  is  often  used  for  Christians,  saints,  of  or  belonging 
 •  to  Christ,  brethren.  Surely,  children  may  be  of  Christ, 
 '  saints,  brethren,  Christians,  or,  if  dying,  they  would  be 
 1  excluded  from  the  kingdom  of  God.'  v.  iii.  163.  The  terms 
 disciple  and  scholar  are  synonymous.  Mamma's  baby  on 
 her  knee,  endeavouring  to  distinguish  the  round  0  from  the 
 other  letters  of  the  alphabet,  is  her  little  scholar  or  disciple  ; 
 and  so  he  will  be  a  scholar  or  disciple,  while  advancing 
 through  all  the  grades  of  increasing  knowledge,  till  possibly 
 astonishing  and  benefitting  mankind,  by  his  literary  or 
 scientific  attainments. — It  has  been  observed,  that  as  children 
 are  '  God's  servants,''  (Lev.xxv.41,42,)  there  appears  nothing 
 inncongruous  with  Scripture  phraseology  to  call  the  like, 
 '  Christ's  disciples.'  Mr.  Noel  asserts,  '  Believers  alone  are 
 'called  disciples  in  the  New  Testament.'  p.  85.  Well,  then, 
 many  disciples  went  back  from  Christ,  as  did  also  many 
 believers ;  consequently,  persons  may  be  disciples  and  believers 
 too,  and  yet  have  no  real  godliness  of  heart ! 
 
 On  this  point,  Dr.  Gale  says,  '  Ask  a  countryman '  [he 
 intends,  with  Mr.  Booth,  an  illiterate  ploughman]  'what  he 
 '  means  by  the  word  scholar  ?  and  he  will  tell  you,  he  means 
 '  one  that  goes  to  school  to  learn ;  and  what  by  a  disciple  ? — 
 '  one  that  holds  such  a  man's  opinions,  and  thinks  his  way 
 '  best.  And  you  will  find  the  countryman  understands  his 
 '  mother  tongue  better  than  some  others  seem  to  do  ;  and  if 
 '  he  uses  more  honest  simplicity,  he  uses  more  reason  too  in 
 '  explaining  his  meaning,  than  the  bias  of  interest  and  parties 
 '  will  suffer  some  men  of  letters  to  do.'  p.  242.  The  appeal 
 of  our  opponents  to  the  notions  of  an  untutored  Englishman, 
 respecting  the  sense  of  a  Greek  word,  is  absurd — as  if  he 
 knew  that  learner,  scholar,  pupil,  and  disciple,  were  expressed 
 by  one  and  the  same  term  in  the  original  language  of  the 
 New  Testament !  This  is  just  a  specimen  of  the  polemical 
 tactics  of  many  of  our  Baptist  brethren. 
 
 But,  it  is  argued,  that  persons  were  made  disciples  before 
 they  were  baptized.  Noel: — 'As  those  baptized  by  the 
 '  Priests  conformed  to  the  Mosaic  Ritual,  and  those  baptized 
 '  by  John,  professed  their  belief  of  his  doctrine,  so  those 
 '  baptized  by  the  disciples,  professed  their  belief  in  the  doctrine 
 '  of  Jesus.  And  this  is  declared  by  the  brief  record  which 
 'states  that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  disciples.   John  iv.  1. 
 
THE  TEEMS,  BELIEVER,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  295 
 
 '  The  disciples,  therefore,  haptized  those  only  who  were  first 
 'made  their  fellow  disciples.'  Sub.  p.  61.  This,  I  helieve, 
 is  the  only  passage  where  discipleship  is  placed  hefore  baptism ; 
 and  here  the  terms  are  so  intimate,  that  such  a  simultaneous 
 act  as  '  proselyte  baptizing,'  mentioned  in  the  commission, 
 is  evidently  intended.  Mr.  Noel  explains  the  case  clearly 
 in  a  preceding  page.  '  As  the  baptized  proselyte  became,  by 
 '  Jewish  baptism,  the  avowed  disciple  of  Moses,  entitled  to 
 '  all  Mosaic  ordinances  ;  so  the  baptized  Christian  proselyte 
 '  becomes,  by  baptism,  the  avowed  disciple  of  Christ,  entitled 
 *  to  all  Christian  ordinances,'  [of  which  he  is  capable.]  lb.  p.  4S. 
 After  baptism,  the  person  is  recognized  as  a  disciple,  and  not 
 before,  though  he  might  have  been  a  hearer  of  the  apostles — 
 as  the  three  thousand  were  on  the  day  of  Pentecost — previous 
 to  their  baptism. 
 
 Dorrington  paraphrases  the  above  text : — '  He  made  and 
 entered,  or  admitted  them,  his  disciples,  by  baptizing  them, 
 p.  133.  Mr.  Carson  says — 'kai' — and — 'often  signifies 
 even.'  Supposing  this  to  be  the  sense  here,  the  text  would 
 plainly  harmonize  with  the  commission,  and  the  repeated  admis- 
 sions of  our  brethren.  '  He  made  even  baptized  more  disciples 
 '  than  John.'  That  this  is  the  true  sense  of  the  expression, 
 I  believe,  will  be  conceded  by  most  competent  and  unbiassed 
 witnesses.  It  certainly  accords  with  the  analogies  of  the 
 case,  as  exhibited  in  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  In 
 the  latter  clause  of  the  verse,  the  word  '  baptized,'  evidently 
 embraces  all  that  was  meant  by  '  made  and  baptized '  in  the 
 former.  Mr.  Noel's  notion  of  '  The  disciples  baptizing  their 
 1 fellow  disciples,' is  manifestly  mostincongruous— the  disciples 
 baptizing  one  auother  !  And  yet,  if  his  premises  be  true,  his 
 inference,  however  odd,  cannot  be  fairly  averted ! 
 
 Christ  said,  '  The  disciple  is  not  above  his  master,  nor  the 
 '  servant  above  his  Lord.'  Matt.  x.  24.  Consequently,  as  the 
 servant  is  under  his  master's  direction,  the  disciple  is  under 
 his  master's  instruction,  and  not  a  mere  casual  hearer  of  his 
 occasional  lectures.  And  while  Jesus  walked  in  Galilee,  '  His 
 '  brethren  said  unto  him,  depart  hence,  and  go  into  Judea, 
 '  that  thy  disciples  also  may  see  the  works  that  thou  doest.' 
 John  vi.  3.  These  disciples  were  those  who  became  attached 
 to  the  Saviour,  and  received  instruction  from  his  teachings 
 and  miracles.  Master  and  disciple  are  correlative  terms. 
 There  can  be  no  master  without  a  disciple,  nor  a  disciple 
 without  a  master — any  more  than  there  can  be  a  husband 
 without  a  wife — or  a  wife  without  a  husband. 
 
296  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 The  Pharisees  said  to  the  man  who  had  been  born  blind, 
 '  Thou  art  his  disciple,  but  we  are  Moses'  disciples ; '  meaning 
 to  charge  him  with  regarding  Christ  as  his  teacher,  as  they 
 regarded  Moses  as  theirs,  and  to  whom  they  were  consecrated 
 in  their  childhood.  John  ix.  28.  As  Mr.  Noel  says  above, 
 '  Till  men  become  disciples  of  Christ,  they  will  not  listen  to 
 '  his  commands  : '  that  is,  they  will  not  duly  attend  his  school 
 or  class  for  instructions.  Indeed,  no  young  person  is  a  disciple 
 of  a  master  in  philosophy,  art,  or  literature,  till  he  has  been 
 formally  inducted  to  his  seminary.  Mr.  Noel  says,  'A  sinner 
 '  is  called  to  become  a  disciple  first,  and  then  to  profess  dis- 
 '  cipleship  in  baptism,  and  to  receive  instruction  in  the  details 
 1  of  a  Christian  life.'  lb.  p.  23.  Of  course,  people  are  called 
 to  be  disciples  before  they,  actually  and  professedly,  become 
 such  by  baptism  ;  as  we  canvass  for  sabbath  school  scholars 
 before  we  get  them  into  our  schools ;  or,  as  young  men  are 
 made  willing  to  become  soldiers,  by  the  recruiting  sergeant, 
 before  they  are  formally  sworn  into  her  Majesty's  service. 
 Many  arguments  or  motives  may  be  adduced  to  fill  the 
 school,  or  to  win  over  the  men  to  a  military  life ;  but  they 
 are  not  recognized  as  complete  or  real  scholars  or  soldiers,  till 
 their  names  are  duly  enrolled.  So,  many  efforts,  and 
 eloquent  appeals,  and  miracles,  were  employed  to  induce  the 
 Jews  and  Gentiles  to  become  Christians  ;  but  they  were  not 
 deemed  disciples  till  they  were  initiated  by  baptism  ;  nor  had 
 they  the  privileges  of  being  regularly  and  systematically  taught 
 the  doctrines,  duties,  and  privileges  of  the  gospel,  till  they 
 were  properly  inducted  to  the  congregations  or  schools  of 
 Christianity.  There  were  disciples  of  a  higher  and  lower  grade; 
 as  there  are  ranks  in  a  regiment,  or  upper  and  under  servants 
 in  a  large  establishment.  But  the  least  and  lowest  is  as 
 really  a  soldier  or  a  servant,  as  those  of  the  topmost  rank 
 or  position. 
 
 Possibly,  some  persons  imagine,  that  to  be  '  the  disciples 
 of  Christ,'  and  '  the  friends  of  Christ '  are  synonymous 
 expressions.  This,  however,  is  not  necessarily  the  case. 
 Doubtless,  Judas  Iscariot  was  baptized,  and,  therefore,  a 
 disciple  of  Christ ;  but  he  was  anything  but  his  friend. 
 Many  were  baptized  by  our  Saviour's  immediate  followers,  and 
 became  his  disciples  ;  but,  instead  of  being  his  cordial  friends, 
 they  went  back  and  walked  no  more  with  him.  Of  the 
 multitudes  made  disciples  by  John  the  Baptist,  whose  office 
 and  aim  were  to  make  ready  a  people  prepared  to  receive, 
 trust,  and  love  the  Lord,  few  turned  out  the  real  friends  of 
 
TILE  TERMS,  BELIEVER,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  297 
 
 the  Saviour.  And  our  opponents,  by  painful  observation, 
 discover  that  thousands  made  willing  to  become  disciples  by 
 their  preaching,  and  recognized  as  such  by  being  immersed, 
 prove,  in  the  long  run,  anything  but  real  friends  of  our 
 blessed  Redeemer,  or  of  themselves  either.  As  they  might 
 have  many  disciples  in  their  secular  schools  who  had  little 
 affection  for  their  teachers  ;  so,  in  the  schools  of  Christianity, 
 there  may  be  many  pupils  who  cherish  no  real  love  to  Christ, 
 his  people,  or  his  cause.  It  has  often  been  remarked,  that 
 many  of  the  disciples  who  lauded  the  Son  of  David  on  his 
 triumphal  entry  into  Jerusalem,  a  few  days  afterwards,  joined 
 in  the  cry,  invoking  his  death  on  the  cross.  Nor  is  there 
 anything  very  unlikely  in  the  supposition. 
 
 III.  CONVERTS  is  a  word  descriptive  of  people  whose 
 views,  conduct,  or  hearts  have  been  changed  by  preaching, 
 teaching,  providence,  or  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  well-known 
 that  there  may  be  a,  change  of  sentiment,  without  a  renewal 
 of  the  heart ;  that  men  may  alter  in  conduct,  without  a 
 renovation  of  spirit ;  and  we  know,  that  the  former  often 
 takes  place,  while  the  latter  remains  in  all  its  native  corruption, 
 obduracy,  and  love  of  sin.  This  distinction  being  confessedly 
 admitted,  it  rests  with  our  opponents  to  prove  that  spiritual 
 conversion,  or  the  renewing  of  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
 was  looked  for  as  an  essential  and  invariable  prerequisite,  to 
 baptism.  If  they  cannot  do  this,  their  plea,  that  none  but 
 spiritually  regenerated  men  only  should  be  baptized,  will  be 
 found  to  be  utterly  unavailing.  This  will  be  more  particularly 
 the  case,  if  they  are  unable  to  point  to  a  single  text,  where 
 the  profession  and  demand  of  this  great  change  are  ever 
 mentioned  as  essential  to  the  valid  reception  and  administration 
 of  this  ordinance.  The  words  converts,  conversion,  and 
 converted,  are  not  found  in  our  translation  of  the  New 
 Testament  more  than  about  ten  times  ;  though  others,  of  the 
 same  general  import,  are  of  frequent  occurrence.  Our  Lord 
 said  to  his  twelve  disciples,  '  Except  ye  be  converted,  and 
 '  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
 '  of  heaven.'  Matt,  xviii.  3.  How  far  this  necessarily  means 
 the  same  as  spiritual  regeneration,  I  leave  our  good  brethren 
 to  determine.  Simon,  '  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith 
 '  fail  not ;  and  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy 
 1  brethren.'  Luke  xxii.  32.  '  Brethren,  if  any  of  you  do  err 
 1  from  the  truth,  and  one  convert  him  ;  let  him  know  that  he 
 !  which  converteth  the  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way  shall 
 *  save  a  soul  from  death,  and  shall  hide  a  multitude  of  sins.' 
 
 n2 
 
298  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHKIST. 
 
 James  v.  19,  20.  These  passages  manifestly  refer  to  the 
 restoration  of  a  hrother  to  the  exercise  of  faith,  or  to  his 
 abandonment  of  error  ;  neither  of  which  conveys  the  idea  of 
 an  original  conversion  of  the  soul  to  God,  or  of  that  new 
 birth  which  is  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  men,  not 
 truly  Christians,  may  be  converted  from  Mahomedanism,  or 
 Paganism,  to  Christianity,  or  from  Popery  to  Protestantism ; 
 so  men  were  converted  from  Judaism  and  Infidelity  to  an 
 adoption  of  the  creed  of  the  gospel,  without  guaranteeing  a 
 divine  renovation  of  soul. 
 
 There  is  a  sense  in  which  it  may  be  said,  all  that  were 
 baptized  by  John  and  the  immediate  followers  of  Christ, 
 were  converted.  Their  minds  were  changed,  or  their  views 
 respecting  the  coming  Messiah,  were  altered ;  or  they  would 
 not  have  become  even  his  temporary  disciples,  or  have  been 
 admitted  to  his  purifyings  and  consecrations.  But  it  is 
 certain,  that  this  conversion  was,  in  most  instances,  only 
 sentimental,  superficial,  and  temporary.  The  good  seed  was 
 sown  on  a  rock ;  and,  at  most,  like  washing  the  sow  that 
 soon  after  wallowed  again  in  the  mire.  They  endure  not 
 to  the  end.  Because  of  the  faithful  words  of  truth,  subsequently 
 spoken  to  them,  they  were  offended.  They  went  out  from  the 
 associations  of  the  faithful,  because,  in  reality,  they  were  not 
 of  them  ;  for,  had  they  been  so,  they,  doubtless,  would  have 
 continued  with  them.  As  the  terms  Believers  and  Disciples 
 are  used  in  a  large  and  loose  sense,  as  well  as  a  limited  and 
 specific  one  ;  so  the  term  Convert  has  its  general  as  well  as 
 its  definite  meaning.  As  we  sometimes  employ  the  word  in 
 a  strict  and  confined  sense,  so  occasionally  do  the  inspired 
 writers ;  and  as  we  extend  its  meaning  to  a  wider  range  of 
 import,  so  do  the  sacred  historians.  Hence,  upon  the  simple 
 use  of  the  word,  unless  the  connexion  shall  prove  that  it  means 
 a  spiritual  change  of  heart ;  no  fair  expounder  of  the  oracles 
 of  truth  would  aver,  that  the  subject  of  it  was  really  and  truly 
 become  a  spiritual  child  of  God.  Indeed,  were  it  affirmed 
 that  a  thousand  people  were  converted,  the  language,  in  its 
 scriptural  sense,  would  not  be  a  certain  guarantee  for  the 
 regeneration  of  any  one  of  them.  In  a  word,  while  a  person 
 is  regenerated  but  once,  he  may  need  and  experience  conversion 
 many  times  over  in  the  course  of  his  life. 
 
 IV.  CHRISTIANS.— This  name  was  first  given  to  the 
 disciples  at  Antioch,  possibly  by  their  enemies,  and  by  way 
 of  reproach,  like  the  appellations  of  Nazarenes  and  Galileans. 
 Acts  xi.  26.     But,  whether  by  friends  or  foes,  is  not  much  to 
 
THE  TERMS,  BELIEVER,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  299 
 
 the  purpose  before  us.  It  is  used  only  twice  besides  in  the 
 word  of  God.  '  Then  Agrippa  said  unto  Paul,  almost  thou 
 'persuadest  me  to  be  a  Christian.'  lb.  xxvi.  28.  'If  any 
 'man  suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be  ashamed ;  but  let 
 'him  glorify  God  on  this  behalf.'  1  Peter  iv.  16.  Whether 
 we  should  construe  the  term  in  any  of  these  texts  as  necessarily 
 implying  truly  spiritual  persons,  is  not  certain.  Nor  is  it 
 material.  We  never  read  of  a  Christian  being  baptized ;  that  is, 
 the  name  is  never  employed  to  designate  a  candidate  for  this 
 service.  And  here  it  is  worthy  of  reiteration,  that,  while  our 
 opponents  enlarge  so  much  on  baptizing  Christians,  such  an 
 act  is  unknown  in  the  New  Testament.  Jews  and  Heathens 
 were  baptized  unto  Christ,  or  unto  Christianity  ;  yet  Christians 
 were  never  said  to  be  baptized  unto  either.  Indeed,  the 
 language  would  be  as  unmeaning,  as  to  talk  of  baptizing, 
 dedicating,  or  initiating  a  Jew  to  Judaism,  a  Hindoo  to 
 Hindooism,  or  a  Turk  to  Mahoraedanism  ! 
 
 The  assumption  that  none,  or  but  few,  would  submit  to 
 baptism,  and  consort  with  the  sincere  followers  of  Christ,  who 
 were  not  truly  renewed  in  their  minds  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  is 
 in  no  degree  warranted.  We  know,  by  the  after  conduct  and 
 apostacy  of  numbers  of  the  baptized,  that  spiritually  uncon- 
 verted people  did  so.  Nor,  as  previously  observed,  is  this  to 
 be  wondered  at,  considering  the  anticipations  and  hopes  of  the 
 enthralled  and  afflicted  Jewish  nation,  of  a  Messiah  who  should 
 deliver  them  from  the  Roman  yoke.  And  after  witnessing  the 
 numerous  and  stupendous  miracles  the  apostles  performed, 
 the  surprise  is,  not  that  so  many,  really  unregenerated  persons, 
 whom  we  call  the  early  Christians,  gave  in  their  adhesion  to 
 the  gospel  economy ;  but,  that  every  being  in  the  country, 
 good,  bad,  and  indifferent,  did  not  follow  their  example, 
 and  permanently  adhere  to  him  and  the  cause  he  established. 
 Respecting  the  term  Christian,  as  employed  in  the  precited 
 texts,  it  no  more  vouches  for  the  real  piety  of  those  who 
 might  have  been  known  under  that  name,  than  the  words,  a 
 Christian  congregation,  now  necessarily  guarantees,  that  all  its 
 members  are  spiritual  followers  of  Christ,  or,  that  the  term, 
 Christendom,  comprehends  only  true  and  devout  disciples  of 
 Jesus  Christ.  The  term  Christian  very  early  became  the 
 common  appellation  of  all  who  professed  Christianity,  with 
 their  families  and  dependents,  as  distinguished  from  heathens 
 and  Jews.  Bardesanes,  the  Syrian,  Justin's  contemporary, 
 says,  '  that  the  followers  of  the  Christian  institution,  though 
 *  living  in  widely  distant  parts  of  the  globe,  and  under  the 
 
300  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  influence  of  different  climates,  were  yet  all  called  by  the  name 
 1  of  Christians.'  Blakey's  Prim.  Fathers,  p.  12. 
 
 There  is  a  fact,  previously  hinted  at,  worthy  of  repetition  in 
 this  place.  Many  persons,  reported  to  have  become  Believers, 
 Disciples,  Converts,  &c,  were  not  induced  to  become  such  by 
 any  systematic  or  verbal  instructions,  but  by  seeing,  or  hearing 
 of,  the  miracles  performed  by  Christ  or  his  apostles ;  just  as 
 the  Hebrews  became  Believers  in  Moses,  by  witnessing  the 
 wonders  he  performed  in  Egypt.  Consequently,  they  became 
 such  when  they  did  not  understand  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
 and  before  they  were  taught  by  Christ  himself  or  any  of  his 
 ministers.  Nathaniel  is  said  to  have  believed,  because  the 
 Messiah  declared  he  saw  him  under  the  fig  tree,  where  he 
 thought  the  eye  of  man  could  not  have  discovered  him.  John  i.  5. 
 "When  Christ  turned  water  into  wine,  many  of  his  disciples 
 believed  on  him.  lb.  ii.  11.  Many  of  the  Samaritans  believed 
 for  the  saying  of  the  woman,  who  declared  that  Christ  had 
 told  her  all  that  ever  she  did.  lb.  iv.  39.  When  the  Jews 
 witnessed  the  raising  of  Lazarus  from  the  dead,  many  of 
 them  believed,  lb.  xi.  45.  On  seeing  the  solemn  judgment 
 of  God  on  Ananias  and  his  wife,  for  their  falsehoods,  believers 
 were  the  more  added  unto  the  Lord,  both  men  and  women. 
 Acts  v.  14.  When  Peter  raised  Dorcas  to  life,  numbers  believed 
 in  the  Lord.  lb.  ix.  42.  It  is  very  probable  that  many  more 
 believed  on  account  of  the  miracles,  than  through  comprehending 
 the  distinguishing  doctrines  our  Saviour  taught.  All  these 
 people  were,  speaking  generally,  Believers,  Converts,  Chris- 
 tians ;  and  probably,  were  made  disciples  by  baptism ;  though 
 few  of  them  gave  signs  of  being  renewed  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 They  believed,  at  least  for  a  time,  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah ; 
 that  he  came  forth  from  God ;  and  that  his  apostles  were 
 commissioned  to  instruct  mankind  in  the  saving  and  sanctifying 
 knowledge  of  the  gospel.  Even  Christ  himself  appealed 
 from  his  discourses  to  his  operations,  as  being  more  convincing 
 and  satisfactory — '  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father, 
 1  believe  me  not.  But  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me, 
 '  believe  the  works ;  that  ye  may  know,  and  believe,  that  the 
 '  Father  is  in  me,  and  I  in  him.'  John  x.  37,  38. 
 
 The  distinctions  we  have  drawn  respecting  the  lower  and 
 loftier,  the  narrower  and  wider,  senses  of  the  words  referred 
 to  above,  are  recognized  by  every  section  of  the  general 
 church.  There  is  not  an  evangelical  Baptist  minister  in 
 this  country,  who,  in  his  pulpit  discourses,  does  not  make 
 the   like  difference  between  Believers,  Disciples,  Converts, 
 
THE  TEEMS,  BELIEVER,  ETC.  EXA3IIXED.  301 
 
 and  Christians,  in  name  and  in  reality ;  between  the  true 
 and  the  false  professor,  the  sincere  and  the  hypocritical ; 
 between  conversion  in  sentiment  and  profession,  and  conver- 
 sion of  heart  to  God ;  who  would  not  admit  that  this 
 momentous  distinction  was  as  needful  in  the  age  of  the  apos- 
 tles as  in  any  subsequent  generation  ;  and  who  would  not 
 feel  that  any  preachers  belonging  to  their  body,  generally 
 disregarding  it,  ought  to  be  reproved,  as  very  incompetent  and 
 dangerous  teachers  of  others.  Mr.  Booth  calls  those  who  fol- 
 lowed and  then  forsook  Christ,  '  Nominal  disciples.'  v.  3.  p.  448. 
 Mr.  Draper  says,  '  By  these  means,'  [infant  sprinkling,  &c] 
 1  whole  nations  are  become  nominal  Christians,  so  that  no  one 
 'can  tell  which  is  the  church,  and  which  is  the  world.'  p.  25. 
 So,  after  all,  there  are  nominal  disciples  and  nominal  Christians ! 
 About  the  difficulty  of  distinguishing  the  spiritual  church 
 from  the  nominal,  and  both  from  the  world  of  Jews,  Turks, 
 and  heathens,  we  need  not  be  much  perplexed.  We  must  try 
 the  spirits  of  preachers  and  of  people  too  ;  and  thence 
 discover  if  their  fruits  are  meet  for  a  spiritual  repentance. 
 I  venture  to  think,  that  our  Baptist  churches  are  not  long 
 at  a  loss  in  discovering  the  precious  from  the  vile — those 
 that  serve  God  and  those  that  serve  him  not. 
 
 When  Byron  says,  '  Every  Christian  has  a  new  creature 
 '  formed  or  created  in  him ;'  p.  30  ;  surely,  he  does  not  intend, 
 that  every  person  called  a  Christian  by  himself  and  his  brethren, 
 has  this  new  creature  formed  in  him  !  If  he  does,  he  is  deceiving 
 himself;  and  if  he  does  not,  his  language  is  calculated  to 
 deceive  others.  It  is  only  in  the  baptismal  controversy,  that 
 a  force  is  attempted  to  be  placed  on  the  abstract  sense  of  the 
 above  expressions  which  the  Scriptures  will  not  always  warrant. 
 No  person,  conversant  with  the  Word  of  God,  will  deny,  that 
 most  of  the  leading  terms  of  evangelical  truth  have  very 
 different  or  varied  applications.  Take  the  words  faith,  friends, 
 brethren,  hope,  worship,  grace,  everlasting,  sacrifice,  &c, 
 and  it  will  be  readily  seen,  that  as  all  highly-valued  things — 
 such  as  gold  and  precious  stones,  have  their  counterfeits — so 
 have  all  these  different  characters  and  graces.  There  is  a 
 living  and  a  dead  faith,  a  true  and  a  false  friend,  brother,  and 
 hope  ;  spiritual  and  formal  worship — just  as  there  are  genuine 
 Believers,  Christians,  Converts,  and  Disciples ;  and  mere 
 imitations  of  them.  Everlasting  is  used  in  a  full  and  a  limited 
 sense.  There  is  an  acceptable  sacrifice,  as  well  as  the  sacrifice 
 of  fools ;  a  repentance  unto  life  ;  and  a  repentance  to  be 
 repented  of. 
 
302  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 The  simple  minded  or  the  prejudiced  reader  may  reply, 
 that  if  the  terms  of  Scripture  are  employed  with  such  various 
 applications — '  having  a  lower  or  a  loftier  sense  in  different 
 '  connexions  ' — is  there  not  a  vagueness  and  indefiniteness  in 
 the  language,  calculated  to  render  the  meaning  of  it  very 
 difficult,  especially  to  ordinary  and  superficial  readers  ?  That 
 there  are  such  distinctions,  all  intelligent  and  candid  students 
 of  the  Bihle  will  admit.  They  will  also  further  concede,  that 
 there  are  few  common  nouns  or  general  verbs  in  the  Scripture, 
 or  in  any  other  volume,  which  are  not  employed,  by  the  writers 
 of  them  in  a  higher  and  a  lower,  a  larger  and  a  lesser,  sense, 
 in  different  connexions.  This  arises  from  the  paucity  of 
 words  in  every  language,  to  express  the  numerous  shades  of 
 characters,  diversities  of  operations,  and  the  endless  mental 
 conceptions  and  combinations,  which  exist  or  spring  into 
 being.  Still,  this  circumstance  presents  no  very  formidable 
 obstacle  to  the  due  understanding  of  the  revealed  will  of 
 God,  or  of  the  intentions  of  a  competent  writer,  when  carefuily 
 and  devoutly  read.  The  connexion  of  words,  and  the  evident 
 scope  of  an  argument,  the  train  of  thought,  and  the  course  of 
 the  narrative,  render  the  sense  of  the  author  tolerably  plain  to 
 thoughtful  readers ;  and  no  others  should  expect  to  become 
 masters  of  their  lessons.  In  addition  to  this,  we  may  observe, 
 that  God  has,  in  all  times,  appointed  scribes,  priests,  prophets, 
 preachers,  and  teachers  of  his  word,  to  make  it  plain  to  the 
 unlettered  mind,  and  to  impress  its  truth  on  the  consciences, 
 of  men.     For  what  else  are  they  appointed  ? 
 
 Further,  there  are  other  signs  than  those  involved  in  the 
 above  appellations — Believers,  Disciples,  Converts,  and  Chris- 
 tians— by  which  true  and  holy  people  are  distinguished  easily 
 enough  from  formal  professors,  by  all  who  carefully  and 
 diligently  examine  them.  Their  manifest  love  to  Christ  and  to 
 each  other ;  their  faith,  overcoming  temptation  and  persecution ; 
 their  zeal  and  self-sacrificing,  to  promote  the  cause  and  glory 
 of  God  ;  their  holy  conduct,  in  the  different  relations  of  life  ; 
 their  attendance  on,  and  support  of,  the  means  of  grace  ;  their 
 endurance  to  the  end  in  obedience  to  Christ,  reliance  on  his 
 atonement,  and  the  promotion  of  his  glorious  cause.  These 
 were  formerly  the  distinguishing  marks  of  true  disciples, 
 real  converts,  heartfelt  believers,  and  genuine  Christians  ;  and 
 by  such  traits,  and  not  by  mere  names,  are  their  true  characters 
 now  to  be  tested.  The  argument  sometimes  employed  by  our 
 opponents,  that  as  the  words,  Believers,  Disciples,  Christians, 
 and  Converts,  do  often,  if  not  in  the  majority  of  instances, 
 
THE  TEEMS,  HEUEVEB,  ETC.  EXAMINED.  303 
 
 mean  genuine  followers  of  Christ,  they  should  always  he 
 regarded  in  that  light,  in  connexion  with  the  baptismal  con- 
 troversy, is  most  inconclusive ;  and  which  would  be  pleaded 
 only  in  case  of  great  and  conscious  difficulties  in  otherwise 
 maintaining  adult  and  believers'  immersion,  and  in  opposing 
 infant  affusion. 
 
 It  is  like  assuming,  that  as  Baptizo  is  sometimes  used 
 for  dipping  ;  therefore,  who  or  whatever  is  to  be  baptized 
 must  be  dipped ;  or,  like  assuming,  that  dipping  is  the 
 primary  sense  of  the  verb,  and  therefore,  it  must  be  always 
 so  understood,  when  persons  are  to  be  baptized.  Would  our 
 respectable  opponents  reason  and  conclude  in  a  similar  way, 
 in  any  case,  beside  that  of  dipping  believers  ?    Mr.  Noel  says, 
 
 •  I  have  heard  men  appealed  to,  in  the  pulpit,  as  Christians, 
 1  living  in  known  sin  ;  Christians,  neglecting  the  Bible  and 
 '  prayer  ;  Christians,  ungodly  in  heart  and  life.  Addressed  as 
 '  Christians,  they  would  not  think  that  they  needed  a  complete 
 '  change.'  p.  2S6.  But  what  has  this  to  do  against  infant, 
 more  than  against  adult,  baptism  ?  Are  there  not  many  such 
 Christians,  as  the  above,  in  all  Baptist  congregations  and 
 churches  ;  and  do  not  the  ministers,  sometimes,  address  them, 
 among  the  rest,  as  their  '  dear  Christian  brethren!'  And  do 
 they  exclude  from  these  soul-deceiving  designations  even 
 their  most  unsanctified  attendants  ! 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  says,  '  In  Bome,  in  Germany,  in  Canterbury,  in 
 
 *  Geneva,  in  Scotland  :  or  rather  in  those  churches  which 
 '  have  a  peculiar  relation  to  those  names,  as  well  as  amongst 
 
 *  many  nonconformists  in  England,  the  word  Christian,  has 
 '  undergone  a  decisive  change  in  its  import,'  [since  when  ?] 
 '  It  no  longer  means  '  [as  among  the  Baptists]  '  a  man  who 
 '  is  following  Christ  in  the  spirit  of  martyrdom.  The  Church ' 
 [except  our  own]  '  is  no  longer  a  society  made  up  of  such 
 '  persons.  The  character  and  pi'actices  of  the  '  [Pedobaptist] 
 '  church  can  no  longer  be  reconciled  to  the  rule  of  human 
 
 •  action  implied  in  that  description  of  character.  The  whole 
 '  system  of  practical  Christianity  has  clearly  undergone  a 
 ■  change  which  is  not  for  the  better,  but  for  the  worse.  It  is 
 1  no  longer  possible  to  say,  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  "  ye,  as 
 '  many  as  have  been  baptized  unto  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ : " 
 '  "ye  are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus," 
 [except  in  those  churches  which  maintain  believers'  baptism  !] 
 '  The  advocates  of  evangelical  religion,  themselves,  plead  for 
 '  a  church  within  the  church  ;'  [which  I  do  not !]  '  and  thus, 
 '  they  confess  that  the  Christian  community  has  fallen  from  its 
 
304  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  original  purity  and  devotedness.'  Reg.  Lect.  iv.  p.  4.  'This 
 '  process  of  degradation  in  the  Christian  church  became  both 
 '  more  obvious  and  more  rapid  after  the  time  of  Cyprian,'  [who 
 was  martyred  A.D.  258,]  'when  the  doctrine  of  sacramental 
 '  grace. ..  .led  to  the  introduction  of  Infant  Baptism  and 
 1  promiscuous  baptism.'  lb.  Mr.  Stovel  here  intimates  that 
 Infant  Baptism  was  introduced  after  the  time  of  Cyprian — 
 when  his  own  party  repeatedly  admits  it  had  been  practised, 
 at  least,  50  years  before  !  That  the  word  Christian  has 
 undergone  a  change  in  its  import  from  the  sense  it  had  in 
 the  earliest  times,  or  that  what  was  designated  a  church  at 
 first  has  undergone  a  change  for  the  worse,  we  have  only  his 
 declaration  for  it.  And  if  the  Baptists  have  not  a  church 
 within  a  church,  they  manifestly  fail  to  observe  the  twofold 
 senses  in  which  the  word  is  evidently  used  in  the  New 
 Testament,  and  recognized  even  by  the  best  men  in  their 
 own  denomination,  when  not  advocating  their  own  distinctive 
 principles.  The  above  high,  yet  groundless,  assumptions  of 
 this  polemic  are  in  keeping  with  many  others  found  in  his 
 controversial  publications. 
 
 SECTION  TENTH.—  The  system  into  which  the  Hebrews 
 were  baptized  was  moral  and  spiritual  equally  with  that  of 
 the  gospel. — That  there  were  many  things  in  the  Mosaic 
 institutions,  secular  in  nature,  and  temporary  in  duration,  no 
 one  will  deny.  '  The  first  covenant  had  also  ordinances  of 
 '  divine  service,  and  a  worldly  sanctuary  ;  meats  and  drinks, 
 '  and  divers  washings,  and  carnal  ordinances  and  shadows  of 
 'good  things  to  come.'  Heb.  ix.  1,  10;  x.  1.  The  High 
 Priest  was  made  after  '  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment.' 
 lb.  vii.  16.  The  Hebrew  church,  however,  is  never  called 
 carnal ;  while  the  church  or  congregation  at  Corinth  is 
 repeatedly  so  designated  by  the  apostle.  '  And  I,  brethren, 
 '  could  not  speak  unto  you  as  unto  spiritual,  but  as  unto  carnal, 
 '  even  as  unto  babes  in  Christ.  Ye  are  carnal ;  for  whereas 
 '  there  is  among  you,  envyings,  strifes,  and  divisions,  are  ye 
 '  not  carnal,  and  walk  as  men  1  For  while  one  saith,  I  am 
 ■  of  Paul,  and  another,  I  am  of  Apollos  ;  are  ye  not  carnal?' 
 1  Cor.  iii.  1,  3,  4.  Nor  let  anyone  imagine,  that  carnal  ordi- 
 nances were  confined  to  the  Old  Testament  dispensation.  The 
 baptism  of  the  body  is  as  carnal  an  ordinance  as  the  circumcision 
 of  the  flesh  ;  and  eating  the  elements  of  the  Lord's  supper  is 
 as  carnal  an  act  as  eating  the  paschal  lamb,  or  as  feasting  on 
 the  sacrifices  originally  offered  on  the  altar  of  the  Lord. 
 
JEWISH  AXD  CHRISTIAN  CHURCHES  IDENTICAL.         305 
 
 The  ancient  covenant,  moreover,  had  also  numerous  purely 
 moral  and  spiritual  laws,  doctrines  and  promises.  Even  those 
 rites  which  were  to  he  done  away  in  Christ  were,  like  the 
 sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  now,  symbolical 
 of  great  existing  and  expected  blessings,  and  contained  lessons 
 of  high  evangelical  import.  The  first  Testament  had  Jehovah 
 as  the  object  of  supreme  reverence,  obedience,  and  love.  It 
 had  Christ  among  them,  as  their  Teacher,  Leader,  and  Lord  ; 
 and  whose  great  atonement  for  sin  was  set  forth  in  signs  and 
 types  of  daily  recurrence.  Faith  in  this  glorious  Saviour 
 was  required ;  and  devout  and  spiritual  worship  was  claimed 
 for  him.  His  voice  was  to  be  obeyed  in  all  things.  Holy 
 convocations  were  appointed  every  seventh  day,  to  advance  the 
 spiritual  interests  of  the  attendants.  A  beautiful  tabernacle 
 was  constructed,  as  a  habitation  for  the  Lord,  in  the  midst  of 
 their  tents  ;  and  afterwards  a  gorgeous  temple  was  erected  in 
 their  holy  city,  as  a  palace  for  the  great  King.  The  gospel, 
 which  before  had  been  preached  unto  Abraham,  was  also 
 proclaimed  to  the  Hebrews  during  all  their  polity  ;  as  it  has 
 been  since,  in  every  successive  generation.  Those  command- 
 ments, on  which  hung  all  the  law  and  the  prophets,  were  in 
 the  former  covenant.  '  And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
 '  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy 
 'might.'  Deut.  vi.  5;  Matt.  xxii.  37-40.  When  Paul  was 
 accused  of  heresy  before  the  Roman  governors,  he  replied,  that 
 he  was  not  setting  up  a  new  religion,  but  simply  explaining 
 and  enforcing  that  of  his  ancestors.  '  I  confess  unto  thee, 
 '  most  noble  Felix,  that  after  the  way  which  they  call  heresy, 
 '  so  worship  I  the  God  of  my  fathers,  believing  all  things 
 '  which  are  written  in  the  law  and  in  the  prophets.'  Acts  xxiv.  14. 
 4  Having  obtained  help  of  God,  I  continue  unto  this  day, 
 '  witnessing  both  .to  small  and  great,  saying  none  other 
 '  things  than  those  which  the  prophets  and  Moses  did  say 
 4  should  come;  that  Christ  should  suffer,  &c.  lb.  xxvi.  22,  23. 
 
 Indeed,  there  is  not  a  material  doctrine,  duty,  or  promise, 
 in  the  New  Testament,  which  may  not  be  found  in  the  Old, 
 and  even  in  the  writings  of  Moses  himself.  In  the  latter, 
 the  development  may  not  always  be  so  complete,  nor  the 
 light  so  clear,  nor  the  evidence  so  striking,  as  in  the  records 
 and  epistles  of  the  New  Testament.  But,  there  is  the  gospel, 
 there  is  Christ,  there  is  redemption,  there  is  holiness  ;  in 
 a  word,  there  is  every  truth  essential  to  evangelical  piety 
 and  the  eternal  salvation  of  man;  and,  through  believing  and 
 obeying  which,  millions  of  Hebrews  went  to  glory  before  the 
 
306  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 Saviour  became  incarnate,  or  John  had  baptized  a  single  Jew 
 on  the  banks  of  the  Jordan.  '  And  beginning  at  Moses  and 
 '  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures 
 the  things  concerning  himself.'   Luke  xxiv.  27. 
 
 It  is  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  portion  of  this  economy 
 that  Paul  alludes  in  his  address  to  the  Corinthians.  The 
 Israelites  are  not  accused  of  having  violated  their  baptismal 
 covenant,  by  neglecting  purification,  sacrifices,  oblations,  rites, 
 or  ceremonies  ;  but,  by  transgressing  the  great  moral  and 
 spiritual  laws  of  God  ;  by  idolatry,  fornication,  murmurings, 
 departing  from  the  Lord,  and  rebelling  against  him — sins  in  every 
 age  and  religious  dispensation.  To  these  latter  great  principles 
 God  referred  in  the  day  of  their  emancipation.  '  For  I  spake 
 '  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that 
 '  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt 
 '  offerings  and  sacrifices  ;  but,  this  thing  commanded  I  them, 
 '  saying,  Obey  my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye 
 '  shall  be  my  people  ;  and  walk  ye  in  all  the  ways  that  I 
 '  have  commanded  you ;  that  it  may  be  well  unto  you.' 
 Jer.  vii.  22,  23. 
 
 In  referring  to  the  same  subject,  Paul  places  the  exclusion 
 of  their  ancestors — who  left  Egypt  of  full  age — from  the 
 Holy  Land,  on  the  ground,  not  of  ceremonial  transgressions, 
 but  of  moral  or  rather  of  spiritual  offences.  '  To  whom  sware  he 
 '  that  they  should  not  enter  into  his  rest,  but  to  them  that  believed 
 '  not  ?  So  you  see  that  they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  un- 
 '  belief.'  Heb.  iii.  18, 19.  He  adds, '  Let  us  labour,  therefore, 
 '  to  enter  into  that  rest,  lest  any  man  fall  after  the  same  ex- 
 '  ample  of  unbelief.'  lb.  iv.  11.  '  I  will,  therefore,'  saysJude, 
 '  put  you  in  remembrance,  though  ye  once  knew  this,  how 
 '  that  the  Lord,  having  saved  the  people  out  of  the  land  of 
 '  Egypt,  afterwards  destroyed  them  that  believed  not.'  v.  5. 
 Such  sins  the  baptized  Corinthians,  and  others  in  their  day 
 and  circumstances,  were  in  great  danger  of  committing,  and 
 against  such  Paul  earnestly  warns  his  immediate  readers, 
 and,  through  them,  all  contemporary  professors  of  religion, 
 and  even  all  succeeding  generations,  during  the  Christian 
 dispensation.  Consequently,  so  far  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
 ground  for  demurring  to  a  recognition  of  the  baptism  in  the 
 Red  Sea,  as  the  beginning,  and,  in  every  important  feature, 
 the  pattern  of  Christian  baptism,  and  as  throwing  a  great 
 light  on  the  ordinance,  at  least,  as  to  the  proper  subjects  of 
 its  administration.  But,  in  order  to  set  this  part  of  our 
 discussion  in  a  still  clearer  aspect,  and  to  remove  any  doubts 
 
JEWISH  AXD  CHRISTIAN  CHURCHES  IDENTICAL.         307 
 
 that  may  arise  concerning  it  in  certain  minds ;  I  shall  suppose 
 the  reader  ready  to  put  several  questions  to  the  author. 
 These  I  shall  plainly  state,  and  endeavour  to  answer  to  his 
 satisfaction. 
 
 Question  I. — Are  you  not  regarding  a  simple  act  of 
 Hebrew  baptism  as  though  it  were  a  solemn  institution  of  a 
 jierpetual  ordinance? — We  regard  it  as  confessedly  recognized, 
 by  the  apostle,  and  as  fully  admitted,  by  some  of  our  intelligent 
 opponents.  Paul  argues  from  it,  as  from  a  great  and. 
 instructive  fact.  Mr.  Stovel  views  it  as  conveying  '  a  very 
 '  powerful  and  solemn  confirmation '  of  Christian  baptism. 
 Mr.  Kenilworth  calls  it  '  a  pattern  and  prelude '  of  our  holy 
 ordinance.  It  was  an  event  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrews, 
 well-known  to  Paul  and  others,  to  which  he  refers  the 
 Corinthians,  and  on  which  he  founds  a  caution  to  them 
 against  immorality  and.  unbelief.  On  this  we  do  not  directly 
 or  immediately  base  our  present  duty  and  practice  of  baptizing 
 any  one.  The  commission  of  our  Lord,  is  our  warrant  for 
 administering  this  rite  under  the  fully  set  up  gospel  economy, 
 or  for  continuing  to  observe  this  ancient  ceremony  to  the  end 
 of  time  among  his  disciples.  We  refer  to  the  declaration  of 
 Paul  as  an  exposition  of  what  our  Lord  concisely  enjoined 
 upon  his  followers.  The  words  of  our  text  contain  and 
 explain  the  apostle's  views  of  the  nature  of  our  Lord's 
 injunction  ;  and  the  spiritual  improvement  of  an  occurrence 
 which  took  place  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  which,  in  effect, 
 was  continued  among  the  Jews  during  all  their  subsequent 
 generations.  He  does  not  refer  to  this  baptism  unto  Moses 
 as  expressly  warranting  baptism  unto  Christ,  but  as  affording 
 a  lesson  of  holy  caution  and  admonition.  The  Paschal 
 Supper,  instituted  in  the  time  of  Moses,  would  not,  of  itself, 
 have  authorized  us  to  continue  any  part  of  the  institution 
 under  the  gospel.  For  doing  this,  we  refer  to  the  express 
 command  of  Christ ;  and  the  Lord's  Passover  is  consequently 
 observed  among  us  on  the  same  grounds.  But,  the  ancient 
 observance  of  it  in  Egypt,  throws  much  light  on  the  later 
 injunctions  of  the  Son  of  God.  The  baptism  in  the  sea 
 sheds  a  light  on  the  baptisms  of  John  and  of  the  apostles.  And 
 so  do  the  baptisms  of  cleansings,  washings,  and  purifyings, 
 daily  administered  under  the  Mosaic  law;  being  frequently 
 referred  to  by  the  sacred  penmen  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
 designated  '  divers  baptisms.'  [Greek].  To  these  we  are 
 necessitated  to  refer  for  explanations  respecting  the  modes 
 and  subjects  of  baptism,  as  we  have  confessedly  no  explicit 
 
308  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 rules  on  these  heads  in  the  New  Testament;  and  the  instances 
 of  which  are  not  sufficiently  detailed  readily  to  direct  us  in 
 this  service,  without  the  light  shed  upon  them  hy  the  clearer 
 and  more  specific  accounts  of  the  former  economy. 
 
 This  great  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea,  we  regard  as  expository 
 of  the  baptism  in  Jerusalem.  In  that  sense  it  is  referred  to  by 
 the  apostle.  It  was  the  first  administration  of  this  rite,  on  a 
 large  scale  ;  and  was  performed  by  Jehovah  himself.  It  may 
 be  safely  viewed  as  the  beginning  of  the  numerous  baptisms 
 recorded  in  the  holy  writings.  In  the  original  narrative,  it  is 
 not  explained  as  minutely  as  the  subsequent  consecrations  and 
 purifications.  But  two  points  are  rendered  clear  and  indisputable 
 — that  people  of  all  religious  characters  and  ages  were  dedicated 
 unto  Moses  by  baptism  ;  and  that  this  was  done,  not  by 
 dipping  them  under  water,  but  by  simply  affusing  or  sprinkling 
 them  with  that  element.  By  this  service  children  were 
 inducted  into  the  privileges  and  responsibilities  of  Hebrewism, 
 as  much  so  as  the  adults  themselves.  This  is  all  we  are  here 
 attempting  to  prove  ;  and  this  is  all  we  require,  in  order  to 
 complete  our  knowledge  of  baptism,  and  to  defend  our  practice 
 in  the  present  age.  All  other  points  are  sufficiently  explicit 
 in  the  New  Testament.  For  the  exposition  of  this  question, 
 adequate  to  remove  our  difficulties,  we  are  indebted  to  the 
 incidental  allusions  of  Paul.  Nor  is  this  a  singular  instance 
 of  deriving  a  commentary,  on  obscure  points  in  the  New 
 Testament,  from  references  to  the  rites,  usages,  and  declarations 
 of  the  old  ;  as  the  reader  will  learn  elsewhere.  God  does  not 
 explain  all  his  mind  in  one  chapter  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  in 
 one  book,  nor  even  in  one  testament.  But  in  the  entire 
 canon  of  revelation,  we  are  enabled  to  discover  all  we  need  to 
 understand,  and  how  to  perform  the  whole  will  of  God.  All 
 the  lessons  of  wisdom,  concerning  material  nature,  cannot  be 
 learned  in  one  county  or  country  ;  but  from  a  survey  of  the 
 entire  globe.  The  Christian  requires  not  to  be  informed,  that 
 an  inspired  exposition  of  an  Old  Testament  act,  or  the  evangelical 
 application  of  an  Old  Testament  rite,  to  New  Testament 
 operations,  stands  upon  the  same  footing  as  any  others 
 originally  given  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  is  of  equal 
 authority  in  the  congregations  of  God. 
 
 Question  II. — Are  you  not  placing  the  Old  Testament 
 church  too  much  on  a  par  with  that  of  the  New  ? — Dr.  Carson : 
 '  It  is  often  said,  that  the  Jewish  church  was  the  same  with 
 '  the  Christian.  There  is  just  such  a  portion  of  truth  in  this 
 '  assertion,  as  to  enable  it  to  impose  upon  the  ignorant.     But, 
 
JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  CHURCHES  IDENTICAL.         309 
 
 '  with  respect  to  everything  which  can  concern  this  argument, 
 •  it  is  manifestly  false.  Is  the  Christian  church  that  rejected 
 1  the  great  hody  of  the  Jewish  nation,  the  same  with  the 
 '  Jewish  church,  which,  hy  God's  own  appointment,  contained 
 1  the  whole  nation  1  Was  the  church  into  which  its  members 
 '  were  horn,  the  same  with  the  church  whose  members  must 
 '  be  bom  from  above — born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of 
 '  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  ?  Was  the 
 '  church  that  admitted  every  stranger  to  its  passover,  without 
 '  any  condition  of  faith  or  character,  merely  on  complying  with 
 '  a  certain  regulation  that  gave  circumcision  to  their  males, 
 '  without  any  condition  of  faith  or  character,  the  same  with 
 '  the  church  that  requires  faith  and  true  holiness  in  all  who 
 1  enjoy  its  ordinances  ?  Was  the  church  that  contained  the 
 '  Scribes,  and  Pharisees,  and  Sadducees — the  most  cruel, 
 1  determined,  open,  and  malignant  enemies  of  Christ — the 
 '  same  with  that  church  in  which  such  persons  could  not  enter 
 '  without  a  spiritual  birth  ?  The  church  of  Israel,  and,  as  a 
 '  whole,  could  no  more  be  called  the  church  of  Christ,  in  the 
 '  sense  of  that  phrase  in  the  New  Testament,  than  the  nation 
 '  of  England  can  be  called  the  church  of  Christ.  .  .  .  Whatever 
 '  unity  may  be  supposed  to  be  in  the  Jewish  church  and  the 
 '  church  of  the  New  Testament,  it  does  not  consist  in  sameness 
 '  of  members,  or  of  ordinances.  The  one,  by  its  constitution, 
 '  included  carnal  members  ;  the  other,  by  its  constitution, 
 '  admits  spiritual  members  only.  This,  then,  is  the  only 
 '  point  of  view  in  which  the  subject  can  have  any  reference  to 
 '  the  controversy  on  baptism.  This  difference  existing,  no 
 '  number  of  points  of  coincidence  can  avail  our  opponents.' 
 p.  233,  234. 
 
 Mr.  Draper  says,  '  Not  a  few  mistakes  have  arisen  from 
 '  the  common  error  of  regarding  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
 '  churches  as  one  and  the  same ;  whereas  the  points  of 
 '  difference  are  great  and  manifold.  Persons  were  born 
 '  members  of  the  Jewish  church,  but  the  members  of  the 
 '  Christian  church  are  all  regenerate,  or  "born  from  above  ; 
 '  born  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the 
 '  will  of  man,  but  of  God."  The  Jewish  church  included  the 
 '  Sadducees,  and  Pharisees,  and  multitudes  who  were  the 
 '  enemies  of  truth  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Can  this  church 
 '  be  the  same  which  admits  none  but  penitent  believers  in 
 '  the  Lord  Jesus  as  its  members  1  The  church  among  the 
 '  Jews  included  the  whole  nation ;  but  who  can  regard  the 
 '  whole  English  people  as  belonging  to  the  true  church  of  the 
 
310  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  living  God  ?  none  but  those  persons  who  practically  reject 
 
 *  the  revealed  will  of  Heaven.       And  the  ordinances  of  the 
 '  Jewish  church  are  expressly  abolished.'  p.  80. 
 
 Mr.  Keach  reasons,  '  We  deny  not  but  the  Jewish  infants 
 '  were  members  of  God's  legal  church,  but,  I  ask  you,  whether 
 '  John's  baptism  was  a  legal  ordinance,  or  a  pure  gospel 
 '  ordinance,  as  circumcision  was,  prove  it ;  we  deny  it,  and 
 '  say  it  was  evangelical,  and  did  not  "appertain  to  the  Jews, 
 '  or  the  seed  of  Abraham,  according  to  the  flesh  as  such. .  . . 
 1 1  am  troubled  to  see  how  you  '  [Mr.  Owen]  '  confound  your 
 'people's  understanding.  Was  the  Jewish  church,  or  the 
 '  visible  church  of  God,  under  the  law,  and  the  visible  gospel 
 '  church,  formally  and  materially,  one  and  the  same  ?  Had 
 '  the  Jews  a  right  to  all  gospel  ordinances  and  privileges, 
 'because  they  abode  in  his  legal  visible  church  till  the  death 
 '  of  Christ  ?  We  grant  the  invisible  church  of  God,  under 
 'law  and  gospel,  is  but  one  and  the  same  ;  but  doth  not  the 
 '  gospel  church,  in  its  ordinances,  administrations,  rights,  and 
 '  privileges,  vastly  differ  from  the  legal  ?  Was  not  the  visible 
 '  church,  under  the  law,  a  national  church,  made  up   of  the 
 
 *  Jewish  people  only,  and  is  the  gospel  church  not  congrega- 
 
 *  tional,  consisting  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles  that  believe,  or 
 'are  born  of  the  Spirit?'  p.  181. 
 
 That  the  means  of  spiritual  instruction  enjoyed  by  the  early 
 Hebrew  church  were  less  simple,  direct,  and  extensive,  than 
 those  enjoyed  by  the  early  Christian  church,  I  have  in  effect 
 already  conceded;  nor  am  I  prepared  to  recall  the  admission. 
 The  sources  of  enlightenment  were  accumulating  with  every 
 fresh  inspiration,  and  became  more  manifestly  established  by 
 the  continuous  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  especially  of  those 
 predictions  which  related  to  the  Messiah.  Yet,  probably,  the 
 holiest  generation  of  the  Israelites  were  those  baptized  in 
 childhood  in  the  Eed  Sea,  and  most  of  whom  eventually 
 entered  the  Holy  Land.  Judges  ii.  6,  7.  These  came  not 
 far  behind  the  people  called  Christians  during  the  first  half 
 century  in  our  era,  in  piety  and  obedience  to  God ;  and 
 especially  so,  if  we  take  the  differences  of  their  means,  and 
 their  circumstances,  into  our  calculation.  We  hesitate  not  to 
 say,  that,  using  the  word  Christians  in  its  broad  and  general 
 import — for  all  who  professed  the  faith  of  the  gospel,  as 
 distinguished  from  other  religionists — the  adherents  to  Chris- 
 tianity, during  the  last  eighteen  hundred  years,  have  not,  as 
 a  whole,  been  more  enlightened,  united,  holy,  faithful,  and 
 obedient  to  God,  than  were  the  Israelitish  nation,  during  the 
 
JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  CHUBCHES  IDENTICAL.         311 
 
 fifteen  hundred  years  which  elapsed  from  the  exodus  out  of 
 Egypt  to  the  coming  of  the  Messiah.  Christianity  never  had 
 greater  and  hetter  men  and  women,  than  were  found  in  the 
 church  of  the  Hebrews  ;  and,  it  is  probable,  that  the  relative 
 numbers,  of  the  truly  religious  people  in  Israel,  were  as  great  as 
 they  have  been  in  Christendom  since  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour 
 to  heaven.  Were  we  to  affirm,  that  to  be  baptized  into  the 
 ancient  Israelitish  church,  was  but  little,  if  any  thing,  less 
 honourable  and  advantageous,  than  being  baptized  into  the 
 Christian  church  ;  we  should  be  sustained  by  the  recorded 
 practical  fruits  of  such  a  connexion.  Or,  if  we  could  correctly 
 compare  the  '  True  Israel '  in  the  nominal  Israel,  with  the 
 '  True  Christians,'  among  the  nominal  Christians,  the  like 
 conclusion  would  be  the  result. 
 
 This  view  of  the  question  may  be  further  sustained  by  the 
 manifest  interest  which  Jehovah  took  in  the  Hebrew  church. 
 If  words  have  any  meaning,  God  delighted  in  it  as  he  never 
 did  in  the  early  church  of  the  New  Testament.  One  might 
 fill  pages  with  his  declarations  respecting  the  holiness  of  his 
 ancient  people,  or  of  many  of  them,  and  of  his  strong  affection 
 for  them.  And  they  are  such  as  leave  no  doubt  in  our 
 minds,  that  they  were  not,  at  least,  behind  the  New  Testament 
 church  in  his  estimation.  The  following  passages  are  adduced 
 only  as  specimens  : — '  Ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
 'priests,  and  an  holy  nation.'  Ex.  xix.  6.  '  For  thou  art  an 
 '  holy  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God ;  the  Lord  thy  God  hath 
 1  chosen  thee  to  be  a  special  people  unto  himself  above  all 
 'people  that  are  upon  the  face  of  the  earth.'  Deut.  vii.  6. 
 '  Blessed  be  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  set  thee  on  the  throne  of 
 '  Israel ;  because  the  Lord  loved  Israel,  therefore  made  he 
 '  thee  king  to  do  judgment  and  justice.'  1  Kings  x.  9.  'The 
 '  holy  seed  have  mingled  themselves  with  the  people  of  the 
 '  lands.'  Ezra  ix.  2.  '  And  shall  call  them  the  holy  people, 
 '  the  redeemed  of  the  Lord ;  and  thou  shalt  be  called,  sought 
 'out,  a  city  not  forsaken.'  Is.  lxii.  12.  'The  Lord  hath 
 '  appeared  unto  me  saying,  yea,  I  have  loved  thee  with  an 
 '  everlasting  love,  therefore,  with  loving  kindness  have  I 
 '  drawn  thee.'  Jer.  xxxi.  3.  '  I  have  delivered  the  dearly 
 •  beloved  of  my  soul  into  the  hands  of  her  enemies.'  Jer.  xii.  7. 
 '  Open  ye  the  gates  that  the  righteous  nation  which  keepeth 
 '  the  truth  may  enter  in.'  Is.  xxvi.  2.  Peter,  describing  the 
 New  Testameut  church,  in  its  highest  state  of  purity,  employs 
 the  expressions  used  aforetime  to  characterize  the  church  of 
 the  Old  Testament.      '  But  ye  are  a  chosen  generation,  a 
 
312  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 1  royal  priesthood,  an  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,  that  ye 
 '  should  show  forth  the  praises  of  God  who  hath  called  you 
 *  out  of  darkness  into  his  marvellous  light.'  1  Peter  ii.  9. 
 Language  more  strong  or  striking,  expressive  of  God's 
 esteem  of,  and  love  for,  the  New  Testament  church,  than 
 some  of  the  above  quotations,  descriptive  of  the  old,  cannot 
 be  met  with  in  the  writings  of  the  evangelists  or  apostles  ; 
 while  the  severe  terms  in  which  God  reproves  and  condemns 
 many  persons  and  actions  among  the  Jews,  evidently  find  a 
 parallel  in  his  censures  and  judgments  on  the  evil  thoughts  and 
 the  sinful  deeds  of  those  who  unworthily  or  hypocritically 
 profess  the  Christian  faith. 
 
 In  comparing  the  former  and  existing  economies  of  revealed 
 religion,  it  seems  that  many  of  our  opponents  describe  the 
 ceremonially  consecrated  Hebrews,  and  the  spiritually  con- 
 verted Christians ;  and  then  exhibit  the  former  as  far  less 
 pure  than  the  latter.  But,  no  reasonings  could  be  more 
 erroneous  in  themselves,  or  more  unjust  towards  the  Jewish 
 church.  The  regenerated  Israelites  and  the  regenerated 
 Gentiles  are  the  parties  to  be  compared ;  and  the  merely 
 dedicated  Israelites  with  the  merely  dedicated  Gentiles.  All 
 the  baptized  under  the  law,  and  all  the  baptized  under  the 
 gospel,  are  to  be  viewed  as  offering  a  fair  ground  of  comparison. 
 While  those  of  both  dispensations,  who  were  born  of  the  Spirit 
 of  God,  are  to  be  contemplated  as  exhibiting  features,  bearing 
 the  impress  of  their  heavenly  parentage.  Christians  after 
 the  flesh,  and  Israelites  after  the  flesh  ;  the  Christian  after 
 the  Spirit,  and  the  Israelite  after  the  Spirit ;  can  only  come 
 into  a  fair  and  righteous  comparison.  The  Jewish  church 
 and  the  Christian  church,  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  language, 
 are  to  be  viewed  as  justly  answering  to  each  other.  While 
 the  Jewish  church  and  the  Christian  church,  in  their  limited 
 sense — embracing  only  the  renewed  and  the  righteous — must  be 
 deemed  as  maintaining  a  similar  relative  position.  Judaism 
 and  Christianity  are  terms  which  convey  similar  general  views 
 of  the  past  and  present  dispensations  of  divine  truth.  To 
 describe  the  fellowship  of  gospel  saints,  the  holy  lives  of 
 converted  spirits,  and  their  zeal  for  pure  religion  ;  and  then 
 exultingly  to  exclaim,  how  different  from  the  church  or 
 congregation  in  the  wilderness,  containing  the  entire  nation 
 of  Israel,  is  inequitable  and  absurd.  And  then  to  infer  that 
 though  infants  and  unspiritual  adults  might  be  baptized 
 into  this  broad  Jewish  communion  of  old,  they  should  not  be 
 baptized  into  the  limited  fellowship  of  regenerated  believers 
 
JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN  CHURCHES  IDENTICAL.        313 
 
 now,  is  grossly  illogical  and  inconclusive.  The  only  fair 
 inference  is,  that  the  like  description  of  persons,  as  to  character 
 and  age,  that  might  be  baptized  into  the  general  Israelitish 
 community,  may  be  baptized  into  the  general  Christian  com- 
 munity ;  and  that  such  as  composed  the  inner  church  among  the 
 Jews  may  still  compose  the  inner  church  among  Christians. 
 
 When  Mr.  Draper  says,  '  Persons  were  born  members  of  the 
 1  Jewish  Church  ;  but  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church  are  all 
 '  regenerate,  or  born  from  above  ;  '  he  proffers  statements  only 
 calculated  to  mystify  the  subject,  and  to  mislead  the  reader. 
 If  by  the  '  Christian  Church,'  he  means  the  true  spiritual 
 invisible  church  of  Christ;  we  perfectly  agree  with  him; 
 that  none  are  real  members  of  it,  who  are  not  regenerated  or 
 born  from  above.  But  if  he  means  the  visible  'Christian 
 Church,'  or  the  society  of  professed  believers  in  Christ,  such 
 as  are  constituted  by  both  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  denomi- 
 nations, in  this  country,  he  is  evidently  in  gross  error ;  for 
 none  are  born  into  such  fellowships  ;  and,  doubtless,  many- 
 pertain  to  them  who  are  not  renewed  in  their  hearts  by  the 
 Spirit  of  God.  And  if  he  means  the  general  church,  the 
 Ecelesia,  or  congregation  of  Christians,  as  distinguished  from 
 Jews  and  heathens,  he  is  equally  in  error ;  since  none  are 
 recognized  as  pertaining  to  it  till  they  are  baptized  into  it. 
 People  are  born  human  beings,  but  they  are,  correctly  speaking, 
 constituted  disciples,  or  nominal  Christians,  only  by  being 
 formally  dedicated  to  Christ,  enrolled  among  his  people, 
 and  officially  placed  under  his  especial  care  and  mediatorial 
 dominion. 
 
 The  like  held  true  with  respect  to  the  ancient  Hebrews. 
 Persons  were  not  '  born  members  of  the  Jewish  church,' 
 though  they  were  born  of  Jewish  parents  ;  nor  were  all  born 
 in  the  Promised  Land  necessarily  members  of  the  Hebrew 
 nation.  Those  not  formally  consecrated  to  God,  were  not  of 
 the  sanctified  congregation,  whether  descended  from  the 
 stock  of  Abraham,  or  proselyted  from  the  Gentiles.  There 
 are  two  aspects  in  which  the  Jewish  community — like  the 
 English — must  be  regarded.  There  were  the  sanctified  and 
 the  unholy,  the  circumcised  and  the  profane.  These  dis- 
 tinctions are  manifest  throughout  the  entire  history  of  that 
 interesting  people.  There  was  no  incorporation  of  any  persons 
 with  them,  as  the  church  of  God,  but  by  ritual  consecration. 
 No  alien  could  be  religiously  joined  with  them  without 
 circumcision  and  baptism.  If  any  of  their  own  people,  even 
 though  a  priest  or  a  prince,  became  unclean,  he  was  viewed 
 
 o 
 
314  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 as  a  stranger,  till  he  was  purified  and  introduced  afresh  into 
 their  holy  associations.  As  children  were  horn  in  sin,  and 
 were  unclean  till  they  were  washed  and  circumcised,  or,  at 
 least,  till  either  of  those  rites  was  performed  on  them  ;  we 
 may  reasonably  conclude,  they  would  not  be  deemed  members 
 of  the  Jewish  Church.  We  can  readily  perceive,  that  had  a 
 tribe  or  a  family  of  that  nation  abandoned  the  use  of  these 
 initiatory  rites,  they  would  not  have  been  regarded  as  Jews  ;  at 
 any  rate,  in  their  religious  characters,  or  been  ecclesiastically 
 united  with  that  people.  They  could  not  have  eaten  of  the 
 passover,  nor  have  entered  into  the  temple,  beyond  the  court 
 of  the  Gentiles  ;  nor  could  they  have  held  any  office  in  the 
 service  of  God.  They  would  have  been,  in  these  respects, 
 like  the  uncircumcised  heathen,  or  as  persons  in  a  state  of 
 nature,  and  not  in  covenant  with  God  or  his  church.  So 
 now,  under  the  Christian  economy,  persons  cannot  be  viewed 
 as  Christians,  even  ecclesiastically,  who  have  not  been  baptized 
 and  consecrated  to  Christ.  The  notions  of  Mr.  Draper  and 
 his  brethren,  on  this  point,  are  evidently  most  erroneous,  and 
 can  afford  not  the  shadow  of  an  argument  against  Infant 
 Baptism.  In  fact,  '  the  church  of  the  Jews  included  the  whole 
 '  nation  ' — being,  in  a  religious  aspect,  identical — simply 
 because  every  individual  in  it  was  ritually  consecrated  to  God. 
 It  was  an  identity  arising  solely  from  consecration  and  not 
 from  birth — just  as  a  whole  nation,  county,  or  parish,  of  Gentiles 
 might  now  be  called  Christian  and  constitute  a  Christian  church, 
 in  the  wide  sense  of  those  words,  by  every  person  in  it  being 
 duly  baptized  and  consecrated  unto  Christ.  This  matter  will 
 be  further  illustrated  by  the  following  observations. 
 
 Question  III. —  Were  the  Israelitish  people  a  church  at 
 all,  seeing  they  are  never  called  so  in  the  Old  Testament, 
 and  only  once  so  in  the  New  ? — On  the  points  involved  in 
 this  question  concise  remarks  have  been  given  in  a  previous 
 section.  But,  as  it  refers  to  matters  of  considerable  interest 
 in  our  present  inquiry,  as  well  as  respecting  the  purity  of  the 
 first  Christian  communions  in  general ;  I  must  recur  to  it  at 
 somewhatgreaterlength. — It  is  thoughtwe  are  not  warranted  in 
 regarding  the  Hebrews  in  any  other  light  than  as  a  nation 
 favoured  with  valuable  religious  privileges  ;  while  the  term 
 church  means  an  assembly  of  regenerated,  holy,  and  faithful 
 men.  Mr.  Noel  says,  '  There  was  a  church  of  God  within 
 'that  nation,  as  there  are  churches  of  Christ  within  England, 
 '  France,  India,  and  China  ;  but  Israel  itself  was  no  more  the 
 'church  than  these  nations  are.'  Sub.  p.  143.   In  reply  to  this 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES— GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   315 
 
 assumption,  allow  me  to  observe,  that  though  the  Hebrew- 
 people,  of  both  sexes,  and  of  all  ages,  as  separated  from  the 
 surrounding  nations,  by  circumcision  and  baptism  to  God, 
 and  especially  as  united  in  their  great  assemblies,  are  all  but 
 invariably  called  congregations  in  the  English  version  of  the 
 Bible  ;  the  Greek  version,  in  numerous  instances,  designates 
 them  Ecclesiae — the  same  word  which,  in  the  Greek  New 
 Testament,  our  translators  have  rendered  churches,  in  nearly 
 every  instance.  As  the  apostolic  writers  are  known,  and 
 admitted,  to  have  imitated  the  style  of  the  Septuagint,  in  their 
 discourses,  gospels,  and  epistles,  we  are  bound  to  conclude 
 that  the  word  Ecclesia — with  occasional  exceptions,  which  are 
 easily  distinguished — means  about  the  same  in  the  New 
 Testament  as  in  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old.  In  the  latter, 
 it  signifies  an  assembly  of  Jews,  old  and  young,  male  and 
 female;  and,  therefore,  in  the  former — unless  the  connexion 
 manifestly  limit  or  modify  its  import — still  signifies  an 
 assembly  or  congregation  of  professing  Christian  people,  of 
 both  sexes,  of  all  ages,  and  of  different  moral  characters. 
 
 There  is  not  the  slightest  intimation,  given  in  the  New 
 Testament,  that  the  inspired  writers  invariably  or  commonly 
 employed  the  word  Ecclesia  in  a  sense  essentially  more  limited 
 or  elevated  than  was  attached  to  it  in  the  version  of  the  Seventy, 
 with  which  they  were  familiar,  and  on  the  style  of  which 
 they  formed  their  own.  Had  the  evangelists  and  apostles 
 intended  to  express  other  ideas,  and  to  describe  differently 
 constituted  communities,  words  were  not  wanting,  or  unknown 
 to  them,  adapted  for  that  purpose.  But  the  former  terms 
 were  employed.  Nor  is  this  case  singular.  I  am  not  aware 
 that  the  language  of  the  Septuagint  is  in  any  case  perverted 
 from  its  ancient  ecclesiastical  sense  in  the  writings  of  the  New 
 Testament.  The  people  that  understood  the  language  of  the 
 Greek  Bible  would  equally  understand  the  language  of  the 
 Greek  Testament.  And  it  was  to  them,  principally,  that  the 
 latter  was  written  and  circulated  by  the  inspired  servants 
 of  Christ. 
 
 The  perplexity  of  many  of  our  opponents,  respecting  the 
 Old  Testament  economy,  is  further  manifest,  from  their  viewing 
 it  as  only  a  civil  and  political  institution,  and  Jehovah,  as  only 
 their  civil  and  political  governor,  requiring  only  external 
 obedience  to  his  laws.  Dr.  Jenkins : — '  The  Greek  word 
 '  Ecclesia,  church,  in  the  Old  Testament,  signifies  only  the 
 '  congregation,  without  any  relation  to  religious  matters  at  all. 
 1  This  Greek  word  might  be  applied  to  Israeh-as  a  body  politic. 
 
316  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  It  was  a  sort  of  church,  to  he  memhers  of  which,  and  of  the 
 '  state,  under  God,  their  civil  governor,  were  one  and  the 
 '  same  thing,  a  worldly  church  or  congregation.  Def.  p.  52-56. 
 Booth  : — '  To  he  an  obedient  subject  to  their  civil  government, 
 1  and.  a  complete  member  of  their  state  church,  were  the  same 
 '  thing.'.  .  . .'  Jehovah  acknowledged  all  those  for  his  people 
 '  who  performed  an  external  obedience  to  his  commands,  even 
 '  though  in  their  hearts  disaffected  to  him.'  lb.  v.  ii.  p.  25,  1 52. 
 Paice  : — '  The  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  differed  greatly 
 '  one  from  the  other.  In  the  Jewish  church,  God  accepted  of 
 'external  odedience  merely;  but  in  the  Christian  church,  he 
 '  seeketh  such  to  worship  him,  who  worship  him  in  spirit  and 
 
 •  in  truth.'  p.  19. 
 
 To  these  misrepresentations,  Edwards  forcibly  replies, 
 '  A  civil  governor,  a  political  sovereign  over  a  civil  society,  is 
 '  the  highest  character  the  Baptists  will  grant  the  divine  Being 
 1  for  fifteen  hundred  years' ....  He  adds,  '  The  sum  of  all  is, 
 1  that,  upon  Baptist  principles,  the  ancient  church-state  was 
 '  political  and  diabolical — the  blessed  God  was  a  mere  civil 
 
 *  governor — and  that  God  was  pleased  with,  and  accepted  of, 
 '  pure  hypocrisy.' .  .  . . '  Ye  hypocrites,  well  did  Isaiah  prophesy 
 '  of  you,  saying,  this  people  draweth  nigh  unto  me  with  their 
 1  mouth,  and  honoureth  me  with  their  lips  ;  but  their  heart  is 
 '  far  from  me.'  Crit.  Rem.  p.  26,  27.  The  animus  of  the 
 above  representations  of  the  ancient  church  is  apparent — to 
 destroy  all  fair  analogy  between  that  and  the  Ecclesia  of  the 
 new  dispensation.  It  is  overlooked,  that  God  required  truth 
 and  holiness  in  all  the  Jews,  as  he  does  now  in  all  Christians ; 
 that  in  both  communities  there  were  the  bad  and  the  good ;  that 
 '  there  was  an  Israel  after  the  flesh,  and  an  Israel  after  the 
 '  Spirit.'  Carson,  p.  222  ;  and  that  the  like  holds  true  among 
 the  first  professors  of  the  gospel  ;  and  has  done  so  in  every 
 intervening  age. 
 
 In  Tindale's  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  the  author 
 has  invariably  rendered  the  word  Ecclesia  by  the  word 
 Congregation.  It  is  also  worthy  of  note,  that,  in  Cranmer's 
 Bible,  the  word  Ecclesia,  which  is  now  translated  church,  is  also 
 uniformly  rendered  Congregation.  And  had  our  translators 
 been  left  to  act  according  to  their  own  judgment,  they, 
 doubtless,  would  have  followed  this  great  Puritan's  example  ; 
 and  that  they  would  have  been  justified  in  such  a  course,  may 
 be  easily  proved.  Mr.  Dore  observes,  '  When  our  common 
 '  version  was  made  in  the  reign  of  James  I.,  he  directed  the 
 1  translators  to  retain  the  old  ecclesiastical  words,  as  Church 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES— GENERA!  AND  PARTICULAR.   317 
 
 *  for  Congregation,  Easter  for  Passover,  and  so  on.'  p.  3.  A 
 quotation  or  two  from  Scripture  will  explain  and  confirm  my 
 view  of  the  case.  '  If  therefore  the  whole  church — "  Ecclesia 
 (oleu — be  come  together  in  one  place,  and  all  speak  with 
 '  tongues,  and  there  come  in  those  that  are  unlearned  or 
 '  unbelievers,  will  they  not  say  they  are  mad  V  1  Cor.  xiv.  23. 
 Here  we  see  that  the  Ecclesia  was  not,  what  this  modern  phrase 
 designates  a  '  church  meeting,'  composed  of  pious  or  pre- 
 sumedly converted  people  only  ;  but  consisted  of  the  assembly 
 of  professors  of  Christianity,  met  for  public  worship,  open 
 to  all  who  liked  to  attend  ;  or,  in  other  words,  a  congre- 
 gation, similar  to  our  own. 
 
 In  v.  22,  the  apostle  says,  the  gift  of  tongues,  exercised  in 
 such  assemblies  or  churches,   '  was  for  a  sign,  not  to  them 
 
 *  that  believe,  but  to  them  that  believe  not.'  In  all  such 
 religious  meetings,  where  these  tongues  were  used,  the  ignorant 
 and  ungodly,  and,  indeed,  any  one,  might  be  present,  forming 
 a  part  of  the  Ecclesiae  or  churches.  In  his  letter  to  the 
 Colossians,  Paul  says,  '  And  when  this  epistle  is  read  among 
 '  you,  cause  it  to  be  read  also  in  the  Ecclesia,  or  church,  of  the 
 '  Laodiceans  ;  and  that  ye  likewise  read  the  epistle  from 
 '  Laodicea.'  Col.  iv.  16'.  That  these  epistles  were  to  be  read 
 publicly  in  the  congregation,  to  all  assembled  together  to 
 receive  instruction,  correction,  and  consolation,  and  not  to  a 
 small  company  of  pious  and  select  Christian  friends,  few  will 
 question.  Besides,  there  were  expositions,  reproofs,  and 
 directions  given  in  them,  which  could  apply  only  to  persons 
 whose  characters  and  conduct  evidently  indicate  that  they  were 
 not  truly  and  spiritually  converted  to  God,  though  they 
 constituted  a  portion  of  the  regular  and,  probably,  of  the 
 baptized  congregation. 
 
 It  can  scarcely  be  imagined  that  the  sacred  doctrines, 
 precepts,  warnings,  and  promises,  contained  in  the  Pauline 
 Epistles — though  expressly  directed  'to  the  saints  and  faithful 
 'brethren  ' — '  to  all  the  saints  in  Christ  Jesus' — and  '  to  the 
 '  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus  ' — were  to  be  withheld  from  all  other 
 people  ;  that  they  were  not  to  hear  them  ;  and  who  yet,  most 
 probably,  constituted  a  considerable  part  of  the  congregation 
 gathered  together  for  the  express  purpose  of  being  instructed  out 
 of  them.  The  identity  of  the  terms  church,  raid  congregation,  in 
 these  places,  is  hardly  questionable,  nor  will  the  reader  be 
 surprised  at  this  when  he  learns  that  the  word  Ecclesia — 
 mostly  rendered  church,  in  our  version  of  the  New  Testament 
 —  should  not   only  occasionally   or  frequently  mean   a  pro- 
 
318  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 miscuous  congregation  of  religious  worshippers,  but  also  an 
 assembly  or  riotous  mob,  (Acts  xix.  23) ;  a  bench  of 
 Magistrates,  (v.  29);  and,  in  the  Septuagint,  'a  congregation 
 '  of  evil  doers.  Ps.  xxvi.  5.  The  term  Ecclesia  occurs  in 
 the  Greek  Old  Testament  about  sixty-four  times.  Our 
 translators,  if  I  have  counted  accurately,  have  rendered  it 
 company  once,  assembly  five-times,  and  congregation  fifty- 
 eight.  The  term  Synagoge,  which  appears  to  have  been 
 regarded  as  synonymous  with  Ecclesia,  occurs  in  the  same 
 Scriptures  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  times,  and  is  rendered 
 assembly  four  times,  company  eight  times,  and  congregation 
 one  hundred  and  eight  times.  We  may,  hence,  safely  infer, 
 how  the  New  Testament  writers  understood  these  words,  and 
 also  how  they  were  likely,  and  even  necessitated,  to  use  them 
 in  their  discourses,  narratives,  and  epistles,  in  order  to  be 
 understood  by  their  hearers  and  readers — for  companies, 
 assemblies,  or  congregations — whether  of  a  promiscuous 
 gathering,  or  of  a  select  class  of  persons — and  which  of  these 
 being  determined  by  the  connexion  in  which  the  words 
 are  found. 
 
 In  addressing  the  Corinthians,  the  apostle  says,  in  language 
 previously  cited,  '  Lest,  when  I  come  again,  my  God  may 
 '  humble  me  among  you,  and  that  I  shall  bewail  many  which 
 '  have  sinned  already,  and  have  not  repented  of  the  uncleanness 
 '  and  fornication  and  lasciviousness,  which  they  have  committed.' 
 2  Cor.  xii.  21.  When  designating  this  people,  'The  church 
 '  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  with  all  the  saints  which  are  in 
 'allAchaia;'  could  the  inspired  writer  mean  to  say,  or  toimply, 
 by  these  general  terms,  that  in  the  Ecclesia,  or  congregation, 
 at  Corinth,  there  were  no  persons  manifestly  destitute  of 
 genuine  piety  and  love  to  the  Saviour  of  mankind  ?  This, 
 surely,  could  never  have  been  the  intention  of  Paul,  whose 
 zeal  for  the  purity  of  Christian  fellowship  is  everywhere 
 apparent ;  nor  could  it  be  the  sense  which  the  people  would 
 assign  to  his  language.  He  was  not  the  man  to  confound 
 the  precious  with  the  vile,  the  real  children  of  God  with 
 impenitent  profligates;  or  to  designate  wicked  and  adulterous 
 people,  the  spiritual  saints  of  the  Lord,  holy  and  dearly 
 beloved — to  the  delusion  and  destruction  of  their  souls! 
 
 Conybeare  and  Howson  observe. — '  The  twofold  character 
 '  of  this  [second]  '  epistle,'  [to  the  Corinthians,  and  which 
 equally  applies  to  the  first]  '  is  easily  explained  by  the 
 '  existence  of  the  majority  and  minority  which  we  have 
 '  described    in    the    Corinthian    church '    [or    congregation]. 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES — GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   319 
 
 *  Towards  the  former,  the  epistle  overflows  with  love  ;  towards 
 *the  latter,  it  ahounds  with  warning  and  menace.  The  purpose 
 1  of  the  apostle  was  to  encourage  and  tranquilize  the  great  body 
 1  of  the  church  '  [or  congregation]  ;    '  but,  at  the  same  time,  he 
 
 *  was  constrained  to  maintain  his  authority  against  those  who 
 '  persisted  in  despising  the  commands  of  Christ  delivered  by 
 1  his  mouth.  .  .  .  This  twofold  character  pervades  the  whole 
 '  epistle.'  vol.  ii.  p.  112. 
 
 Let  us  take  one  of  our  general  congregations,  not  selecting 
 that  most  eminent  for  purity  and  quietude  ;  and  describe  the 
 members  of  it  as  faithfully  as  the  sacred  writer  has  done  the 
 churches  at  Corinth  and  Galatia ;  and  there  can  hardly  be  a 
 doubt,  that  the  modern  Baptist  or  Independent  congregation 
 would  appear  more  pure  and  peaceable  than  the  general 
 congregations  in  Corinth  and  Galatia — leaving  their  inner 
 churches  out  of  the  question.  Paul's  description  of  those 
 assemblies  accords  with  the  character  of  a  mixed  assembly, 
 and  not  with  that  of  a  holy  internal  fellowship  of  the  saints, 
 even  in  its  lowest  condition.  Nor  will  the  inscription  of  his 
 epistle  be  found  essentially  different  from  that  which  a  good 
 minister  of  the  gospel  now  commonly  employs  in  addressing 
 his  promiscuous  congregation,  as  his  dear  '  Christian  friends,' 
 or  his  '  beloved  brethren.'  There  is  hardly  a  Baptist 
 preacher  in  the  country  but  adopts  the  like  style  of  spe&ch, 
 notwithstanding  Mr.  Noel's  horror  at  hearing  people  '  called 
 '  Christians,  when  living  in  known  sin.' 
 
 Further,  when  addressing  the  Almighty  in  solemn  prayer 
 and  thanksgiving,  before  a  general  assembly,  in  the  house  of 
 God,  theBaptist  minister,  and,  probably,  every  other,  speaks  to 
 Jehovah  in  the  name  of  all  of  them,  as  though  all  were  devout 
 and  uniting  in  the  supplications  and  praise  he  offers ;  implores 
 God's  blessing  upon  his  people  before  him,  and  blesses  him 
 for  the  mercies  bestowed  upon  all  his  people  present.  Nor 
 can  the  preacher  easily  conduct  public  worship  without 
 adopting  such  a  mode  of  address  to  God,  or  to  his  congregation. 
 These  being  facts  which  admit  of  no  valid  refutation  ;  let  us 
 suppose  that,  wherever  the  word  Ecclesia  or  Synagogue  occurs 
 in  the  Greek  Bible,  it  had  been  rendered  church ;  or  that 
 wherever  found  in  the  Greek  Testament,  it  had  been  translated 
 congregation ;  or,  rather,  that,  throughout  both  Testaments, 
 it  had  been  uniformly  rendered  either  church  or  congregation; 
 how  materially  would  it  have  modified  the  opinions  of  many, 
 if  not  of  most,  persons  respecting  the  question  of  Infant  Baptism  ? 
 And  that  such  a  uniformity  of  translation  of  the  originals  might 
 
320  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 have  been  adopted,  the  foregoing  observations  have  rendered 
 tolerably  manifest  —  at  least,  Tindale  and  Cranmer  were  of 
 this  judgment. 
 
 An  American  divine  says,  '  In  looking  into  the  New 
 1  Testament,  we  find  that  the  term  church,  when  first  intro- 
 '  duced,  is  used  without  explanation,  in  a  way  that  shows  it 
 '  to  have  been  quite  familiar  to  the  people  of  that  time. 
 '  Matt.  xvi.  13.  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  rock  I  will  build 
 'my  church,"  &c.  lb.  xviii.  17-  "And  if  he  shall  neglect 
 '  to  hear  them,  tell  it  unto  the  church  ;  but  if  he  neglect  to 
 '  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and 
 '  a  publican."  It  seems  manifest  from  this  phraseology  that 
 '  the  word  church  conveyed  no  new  idea  to  the  disciples  of  our 
 '  Saviour.  This  appears,  too,  from  the  words  of  Stephen 
 '(Acts  vii.  38,)  "This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in  the 
 '  wilderness."  In  fact,  the  Greek  word  rendered  church 
 '  (ecclesia)  corresponds  with  the  Hebrew  term  KAL,  rendered 
 '  congregation,  and  occurring  so  frequently,  that  an  enumeration 
 '  of  the  passages  would  he  tedious.  And  the  English  phrase, 
 '  Church  of  God,  is  a  literal  rendering  of  the  Greek,  Ecclesia 
 '  Theou  ;  which  is,  again,  a  literal  translation  of  the  Hebrew 
 '  kal  jehovah.  In  fact,  a  great  part  of  the  phraseology  of 
 '  the  New  Testament,  is  derived  from  the  Old,  and  it  is 
 '  impossible  to  read  many  passages  of  the  former  intelligibly, 
 '  without  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  latter.  The 
 '  complex  idea  conveyed  by  the  word  church,  cannot  be 
 '  adequately  understood  without  reference  to  the  Old  Scriptures. 
 '  This  will  appear  strange  to  those  who  have  taken  up  the 
 'opinion,  that  the  church  was  organized  by  our  Saviour  when 
 '  on  earth.  That  this  is  not  true,  follows  from  what  has  been 
 'said.'  Pamphleteer,  p.  13,  14. 
 
 The  foregoing  views  may  be  confirmed  by  a  reference  to  the 
 Ecclesiae,  the  churches  or  congregations,  in  Galatia.  Paul  says, 
 '  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have  put 
 '  on  Christ,' — we  will  suppose,  by  water-baptism.  Thence,  it  is 
 argued,  that  Paul  would  not  have  said  this  of  whom  he  could 
 not  declare,  '  He  that  is  joined  to  the  Lord  is  one  Spirit.' 
 Yet,  Mr.  Parsons  justly  remarks,  '  The  epistle  furnishes  little 
 '  evidence  to  prove,  that  every  one  of  them  was  of  one  mind 
 '  with  Christ,  or  had  been  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 '  Paul  broadly  intimates  that  they  were  bewitched — that  they 
 '  were  disobeying  the  truth  ;  that  they  were  so  foolish  as  to 
 '  expect  perfection  from  the  flesh  and  from  the  works  of  the 
 '  law ;  that  what  they  had  suffered  they  had  suffered  in  vain  ; 
 
EARLY   CHURCHES— GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   021 
 
 •  that  they  were  turned  again  to  weak  and  beggarly  elements; 
 1  that  by  observing  days,  and  months,  and  times,  and  years, 
 1  they  were  being  reduced  to  a  state  of  bondage  ;  that  they 
 '  accounted  the  apostle  an  enemy,  because  he  told  them  the 
 '  truth  ;  that  he  had  travailled  again  in  birth  for  them,  until 
 '  Christ  should  be  formed  in  them  ;  that  he  stood  in  doubt  of 
 '  them,  and  would  change  his  voice  to  them.  He  as  good  as 
 '  testifies,  that  they  had  fallen  from  grace,  and  that  Christ 
 '  was  become  of  none  effect  to  them  ;  that  they  were  now 
 'biting  and  devouring  one  another.'  p.  18. 
 
 That  these  persons  were  in  the  congregations  of  Galatia 
 is  manifest,  because  Paul  addresses  them  as  members  of 
 them ;  and  that  they  had  been  baptized  into  them,  our 
 opponents  will  not  care  or  venture  to  deny.  Those  who 
 would  contend,  that  the  term  church,  in  the  New  Testament, 
 is  always  used  in  the  restricted  sense,  implied  in  Mr.  Noel's 
 statement,  quoted  above,  will  have  some  difficulty  in  showing 
 that  the  communion  of  saints,  in  apostolic  times,  was  equally 
 pure  with  our  own  ;  for,  surely,  we  should  soon  expel  such 
 persons,  as  the  apostle  so  vividly  portrays,  from  our  spiritual 
 societies.  Yet,  the  same  respected  opponent  says,  '  Since 
 'our  Lord  has  said,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall 
 'be  saved,"  (Mark  xvi.  16,)  and  these  Corinthians  believed 
 '  and  were  baptized,  they  were,  therefore,  saved.  There  is  no 
 '  more  reason  to  give  the  lowest  sense  to  the  word  "  believed," 
 '  in  this  narrative,  than  there  is  to  give  it  to  the  same  word 
 '  in  Mark  xvi ;  and,  therefore,  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt 
 '  that  these  persons  were  true  believers  before  baptism.'  p.  85. 
 Of  course,  he  means  all  of  them — all  believed,  and  were  all 
 saved :  or  he  means  nothing  with  the  paper  he  wrote  on. 
 Were  he  to  explain  the  passage  in  Mark  by  the  manifest 
 character  of  the  believers  at  Corinth,  he  would  evidently 
 approximate  much  nearer  the  sense  of  the  language  employed 
 by  our  divine  Instructor. 
 
 The  truth  evidently  is,  that  Ecclesia,  like  many  other  words, 
 has  a  larger  and  a  less  application.  Referring  to  the  Hebrews 
 in  the  broad  sense,  it  embraced  them  all,  because  all  were 
 separated  from  the  heathens  around  them,  and  consecrated  to 
 the  Lord,  by  circumcision  and  baptism.  In  its  narrower 
 sense,  it  would  include  those  who  were  the  people  of  God  by 
 a  new  birth,  and  who  also  manifested  it  by  living  to  his  glory. 
 Referring  to  Christians,  it  would  embrace  all  the  baptized 
 people  in  Christendom,  or  any  collected  body  of  people 
 professing  the   Christian  faith,  instead  of  gentilism ;    or   a 
 
 02 
 
322  THE  BAI>TI3MS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 congregation  of  people,  large  or  small,  where  the  means  of 
 grace  are  conducted,  and  in  which  all,  who  were  inclined, 
 might  assemble ;  or,  in  a  still  more  spiritual  sense,  a  com- 
 munion or  fellowship  of  truly  pious  people,  assumed  to  be 
 regenerated  by  divine  grace,  among  whom  the  Lord's  Supper 
 was  administered,  more  or  less  frequently.  This  last  is  the 
 church  of  Christ  in  the  purest  import  of  the  term.  In  this 
 high  and  special  sense,  the  word  is  occasionally  used  in  the 
 New  Testament ;  which  may  be  readily  discovered  by  carefully 
 examining  the  context — as,  '  the  church  or  congregation 
 '  which  Christ  has  bought  with  his  own  blood  ;  the  church  of 
 '  the  first-born  written  in  heaven  ;  Christ  loved  the  church 
 '  and  gave  himself  for  it ;  that  he  might  present  to  himself 
 '  a  glorious  church  ;  he  is  head  of  the  body  the  church  ;  for 
 '  his  body's  sake,  which  is  the  church,'  and  the  like.  And, 
 yet,  the  substitution  of  the  word  congregation,  for  the  word 
 church,  in  the  above,  and  most  other  places,  sounds  somewhat 
 strange  and  unorthodox,  in  ears  so  long  accustomed  to  a 
 different  form  of  speech.  But  the  redeemed  and  renewed  of 
 the  Lord  are  distinguished,  not  so  much  by  the  application  of 
 the  word  church  to  them,  as  by  designating  them,  '  holy 
 '  brethren,'  '  the  communion  of  saints,'  '  faithful  and  true,' 
 '  the  chosen,'  '  the  beloved,'  '  my  sheep,'  '  my  lambs,'  and 
 similar  appellations. 
 
 To  belong  to  the  church  or  congregation,  in  the  larger 
 sense,  nothing  was  essential,  but  induction,  by  undergoing 
 baptism  with  water — such  as  was  administered  in  the  Red 
 Sea.  To  become  real  members  of  the  church  or  congregation, 
 in  its  more  limited  sense,  the  parties  were  assumed  to  be 
 baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  former  case,  spiritual 
 piety  was  not  necessarily  requisite  ;  in  the  latter,  it  became 
 professedly  essential.  In  the  former  case,  the  parties  took 
 their  station  as  inquirers  and  learners  ;  in  the  latter,  they 
 were  elevated  to  the  position  of  perfect  and  complete  Christians, 
 being  no  longer  tyros  or  novices,  but  young  men  and  fathers 
 in  Christ  Jesus.  From  the  court  of  the  people,  they  ascended 
 to  that  of  the  priests,  in  their  way  to  the  holiest  of  all — 
 in  heaven. 
 
 Byron  says,  '  God's  church  is  composed  only  of  the  sheep 
 'of  Christ,  whom  he  gave  himself  to  redeem.'  p.  132.  This 
 is  true ;  but  then,  the  term  church  here  must  be  employed 
 in  its  limited  sense,  and  not  in  that  general  application  of  it, 
 so  frequent  in  the  Word  of  God.  Carson  says,  'The  constitution 
 '  of  the  Jewish  church  recognized  the  membership  of  carnal 
 
EARLY  CHUECHES — GENEBAL  AND  PAETIOULAE.       323 
 
 i  persons.'  p.  233.  Had  the  writer  employed  the  term 
 congregation,  or  the  word  church,  in  its  general  or  original 
 sense,  he  would  have  stated  the  truth.  But,  the  same 
 may  he  said  of  the  congregations  or  churches  of  the  New 
 Testament — regarding  the  expressions  in  that  hroad  sense,  in 
 which  it  is  mostly  employed  hy  its  inspired  authors.  The 
 inner  churches,  congregations,  or  societies,  however,  of  neither 
 economies  avowedly  or  purposely  regarded  carnal,  worldly, 
 or  ungodly  persons,  as  true  members.  Few  things  tend  more 
 to  mislead  the  popular  mind,  in  matters  of  religion,  than  an 
 erroneous  nomenclature.  And  our  opponents  are  evidently 
 misguided  hy  miscalling  some  of  the  leading  facts,  points,  and 
 actions,  involved  in  the  question  of  Christian  haptism. 
 
 Our  view  of  the  subject  is  analogous  to  cases  of  daily 
 occurrence  in  civil  and  social  life.  The  conditions  on  which 
 an  alien  may  hecome  an  ordinary  citizen,  and  enjoy  the  usual 
 privileges  pertaining  to  such  a  position,  are  different  from 
 those  which  must  he  ohserved  hefore  he  can  hecome  a  member 
 of  the  corporate  body,  chosen  to  manage  the  affairs  of  the 
 population.  While,  therefore,  our  principles  and  practice 
 open  wide  the  door  to  Christian  privileges — particularly  to 
 those  of  religious  instruction — by  water-baptism  ;  they,  at  the 
 same  time,  tend  to  preserve,  as  much  as  human  care  can  do 
 it,  the  purity,  peace,  rights,  and  usefulness,  of  our  particular 
 or  select  churches,  societies,  or  fellowships,  of  genuine  and 
 spiritual  Christians.  This  latter  is  confessedly  done  among 
 the  friends  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  effectually  as  among  the 
 advocates  of  adult  immersion,  and  that,  too,  in  perfect  agree- 
 ment with  the  plans  of  the  first  churches  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 We  do  not  mix  up  the  members  of  the  general  church  or 
 congregation  of  professors  with  the  especial  church  or  congre- 
 gation of  holy  and  devoted  believers,  any  more  than  do  our 
 pious  and  respected  opponents,  though  adopting  the  practice 
 of  adult  and  believers'  baptism. 
 
 That  the  inner  or  select  churches  or  congregations  of  the 
 apostolic  age  differed  from  the  outer  churches  or  congregations, 
 into  which  the  unbelieving  and  ungodly  were  freely  admitted, 
 and  with  which  they  were  identified,  as  hearers  of  the  word, 
 and  the  witnesses  of  miracles,  of  tongues,  and  of  other  divine 
 demonstrations  of  heavenly  powers,  we  may  readily  gather 
 from  the  care  taken  by  the  apostles  to  make  and  keep  the 
 former  pure.  He  denounces  a  curse  on  any  one  who  should 
 preach  another  gospel  from  what  he  himself  delivered  by 
 divine  inspiration.     So  much  for  the  pulpit.     The  excommu- 
 
324  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 nication  of  a  heretic,  after  two  or  three  admonitions,  is 
 enjoined  ;  and  the  withdrawal  from  every  brother  that  walked 
 disorderly,  is  commanded,  not,  surely,  in  respect  of  the 
 means  of  grace — except  for  present  and  outrageous  misconduct 
 ■ — but  in  reference  to  spiritual  fellowship.  Could  he,  then, 
 have  regarded  those  obnoxious  people — though  baptized — 
 as  being  truly  converted  by  the  grace  of  God,  as  suitable 
 members  of  Christ's  mystical  body  ?  Would  he  have  intro- 
 duced such  into  it  at  first,  or  have  willingly  retained  them 
 afterwards,  when  their  true  character  was  discovered  ?  As- 
 suredly not.  Nor  would  our  evangelical  Baptist  brethren 
 knowingly  receive  such  erring  and  troublesome  people  into 
 their  select  churches  ;  or  if,  on  subsequently  discovering  their 
 erroneous  notions  and  sinful  conduct,  would  they  suffer  them 
 to  remain — like  spots  in  their  feasts  of  charity  ?  We  believe 
 not.  Yet,  that  such  were  in  the  general  or  baptized  churches 
 or  congregations  of  Corinth  and  Galatia,  and,  probably,  in 
 some  of  the  rest,  is  proved  to  a  demonstration. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  says,  '  Those  are  ordered  in  the  word  of  God  to 
 '  be  excluded  from  the  communion  of  saints,  who  are  heretical 
 'in  doctrine,  (Gal.  v.  12,)  who  are  vicious  in  their  practice, 
 '(1  Cor.  v.  11,  13,)  who  are  schismatical  in  temper,  (Rom. 
 '  xvi.  17,)  who  injure  their  brethren,  (Matt,  xviii.  17,)  or  who 
 '  are  openly  disobedient  to  the  commands  of  Christ,  (2  Thess. 
 '  iii.  14.'  Sub.  p.  312.  Hence,  it  is  manifest,  that  the  inner 
 congregation  at  Corinth  should  have  been  pure  ;  while  it  is 
 equally  plain,  that  the  outer  congregation  was  morally  corrupt. 
 Have  we  any  valid  reasons  for  believing  that  these  churches  or 
 congregations  were  identical  ?  How  apparently  inappropriate 
 to  a  spiritual  inner  church  of  God  at  Corinth,  of  whom  Paul's 
 hope  was  stedfast,  is  the  following  admonition: — '  Come  out 
 '  from  among' — the  unbelievers,  the  unrighteous,  the  children 
 of  darkness,  the  sons  of  Belial,  the  heathenish  idolators — 
 '  and  be  ye  separate,  saith  the  Lord,  and  touch  not  the  unclean 
 '  thing,  and  I  will  be  a  father  unto  you,  and  ye  shall  be  my 
 '  sons  and  daughters,  saith  the  Lord  Almighty.'  2  Cor.  vi. 
 14-18.  But,  suppose  it  to  be  addressed  to  a  mixed  congre- 
 gation of  worshippers,  and,  then,  all  is  consistent.  Unless 
 Mr.  Noel's  description  of  church  members  applies  to  all  the 
 primitive  hearers  of  the  gospel,  there  must  have  been  another 
 and  a  larger  association  of  people,  to  whom  the  word  of  God 
 was  statedly  spoken ;  and  who,  in  conjunction  with  those 
 previously  converted  by  divine  grace,  must  have  constituted 
 the  general   or   outer   church   or   congregation   of  Christian 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES  —  GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   325 
 
 hearers  or  worshippers  of  God.  In  truth,  our  distinction 
 between  the  nominal  and  spiritual  Christian  ;  between  the  mere 
 professor,  and  the  real  possessor,  of  vital  religion  ;  between 
 being  in  the  general  and  in  the  particular  churches  ;  are 
 points  recognized  as  clearly,  and  admitted  as  fully,  by  our 
 Baptist  brethren,  in  their  ordinary  books  and  publications,  as 
 by  ourselves.  In  truth,  it  is  never  questioned  nor  denied, 
 except  when  deemed  necessary  to  frame  an  argument  against 
 the  doctrine  and  rite  of  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 That  the  above  distinction  is  not  novel  or  singular,  may  be 
 seen  in  the  following  passage  of  Dr.  Lathrop,  in  his  '  Church 
 of  God  Described  :' — '  The  church  in  Corinth  was  that  number 
 of  persons  who  had  come  out  from  among  their  idolatrous 
 fellow-citizens  for  the  true  worship  of  God  in  Christ.  The 
 apostle  describes  them  "  as  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  and 
 called  to  be  saints."  We  cannot  suppose  that,  by  this  descrip- 
 tion, he  intended  to  represent  all  the  members  of  the 
 Corinthian  Church  to  be  gracious,  godly  persons  ;  many 
 passages  in  this  and  his  second  epistle  to  them,  import  that 
 he  thought  otherwise.  But  these  phrases  rather  signify, 
 that  they  had  been  called  out  of  the  world,  and  separated 
 from  others,  that  they  might  be  a  peculiar  people  to  God. 
 They  were  called  to  be  holy.  The  words  sanctified,  saints, 
 and  holy,  applied  to  bodies  of  men,  are  usually  to  be  taken 
 in  the  same  general  sense,  as  Christians,  disciples,  and 
 brethren  ;  to  express  their  visible  relation  and  professed 
 character,  rather  than  a  certain  judgment  concerning  their 
 habitual  temper .  .  .  The  word  saints,  in  many  places,  stands 
 opposed,  not  to  unsound  Christians,  but  to  the  heathen  world, 
 particularly  in  the  passages  which  speak  of  persecution 
 against  the  saints,  of  ministry  to  the  saints,  and  of  distributing 
 to  the  necessities  of  the  saints  ;  and  in  that  remarkable 
 passage  which  denominates  the  children  of  a  believer  holy,  in 
 distinction  from  the  unbelieving,  who  are  called  unclean.  .  .  . 
 By  the  visible  church,  are  meant  all  those  who  have  been 
 visibly  dedicated  to  God  in  Christ,  and  have  not,  by  infidelity, 
 heresy,  or  scandal,  cut  themselves  off  from  the  society  of 
 Christians.'  p.  4. 
 Nor  is  this  idea  of  recent  origin.  Mr.  Wills,  180  years 
 ago,  says,   '  The  apostle  calls  the  churches  sai7its,  either  as 
 
 *  looking  upon  them  all  as  such,  i.e.  truly  regenerate; 
 '  for  this  is  the  famosius  significatum  of  the  word  saint.  But 
 '  this  could  not  be,  for  he  pointed  at  some  that  were  sad  saints 
 
 *  in  the  church  at  Corinth  and  Galatia.      Or  else  he   calls 
 
326  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  them  saints  synecdochically,  because  lie  judgeth  the  most 
 '  of  them  to  be  such,  and  so  the  whole  communion  were 
 'judged  saints,  a  fortiori,  from  the  better  part.'  p.  78.  As 
 the  prophet  said  of  the  Jews,  we  may  say  of  the  churches  at 
 Corinth  and  Galatia,  and,  probably,  of  some  others,  '  Among 
 1  my  people  are  found  wicked  men.'  Jer.  v.  26.  Mr.  Tombes 
 had  previously  said,  a  congregation  is  called  '  a  church  of 
 '  believers,  from  the  greater  or  most  eminent  part,  though  the 
 *  rest  be  neither  actually  nor  virtually  believers.'  Exam.  p.  38. 
 Conybeare  and  Howson,  on  the  word  '  saints,'  in  1  Cor.  i.  1, 
 remark — '  The  sense  of  hagioi,  in  the  New  Testament,  is 
 '  equivalent  to  the  modern  [word]  Christians.  .  .  .  The 
 '  English  reader  should  bear  in  mind,  that  St.  Paul  applies 
 '  the  term  to  all  members  of  the  church,'  [or  congregation]. 
 Calmet  says,  '  Saints  is  sometimes  put  for  the  people  of  Israel ; 
 '  sometimes  for  Christians  ....  But,  it  is  probably  never  given 
 '  to  any,  after  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel,  who  had  not 
 'been  baptized.'  Inloc.  And,  doubtless,  all  the  baptized  had 
 this  designation,  which  means  the  persons  set  apart,  sanctified, 
 or  consecrated  to  Christianity. 
 
 In  our  ecclesiastical  phraseology  we,  from  custom,  use  two 
 words  where  the  original  writers  of  the  New  Testament  use 
 only  one.  We  employ  one  word  to  express  the  general 
 audience,  and  another  the  select  fellowship  of  our  people. 
 The  former  we  call  a  congregation,  and  the  latter  a  church. 
 But  the  New  Testament  contains  one  term  only,  to  designate 
 both  of  them.  Now,  it  is  plain,  that  if  the  word  Ecclesia 
 signify  exclusively  the  communion  of  Saints,  or  only  the 
 spiritually  regenerated  believers  in  Christ ;  then  it  has  no 
 distinct  term  for  a  congregation  of  promiscuous  hearers — 
 answering  to  our  open  assemblies  of  worshippers,  which,  of 
 necessity,  the  first  Christians  had  equally  with  ourselves. 
 This  fact,  at  first  sight,  may  present  a  difficulty ;  but  it  is 
 apparent  rather  than  real,  at  least,  to  a  thoughtful  student  of 
 the  Scriptures — and  no  other  should  expect  to  understand 
 them.  The  word  Israel,  in  one  application,  included  all  the 
 Jews,  in  another  only  the  holy  and  devout  among  them.  As 
 seen  before,  the  word  saints,  or  the  sanctified,  may  distinguish 
 the  truly  regenerated,  or  comprehend  all  the  baptized  into 
 Christ.  So  the  word  congregation  may  signify  all  the  atten- 
 dants on  our  ministry  ;  or  only  a  select  company  of  spiritual 
 Christians.  The  term  assembly  may  express  a  promiscuous 
 gathering  of  individuals,  and  a  select  number  of  persons  met 
 for  a  more  spiritual  communion.     The  connexion  of  the  word 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES  — GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   327 
 
 readily  determines  its  specific  application.  This  is  the  case 
 with  Ecclesia.  And  whether  it  signify  what  we,  from  custom, 
 mostly  call  a  congregation,  or  a  church,  must  he  gathered 
 from  the  connexion — as  must  also  he  the  case  with  most 
 words  of  a  similar  character.  One  thing  is  certain,  that  if 
 this  term  signify  only  a  select  hody  of  true  helievers  and 
 disciples  indeed ;  the  New  Testament  has  no  other  to  designate 
 a  general  congregation,  which  we  know  must  have  existed  in 
 all  places  where  the  gospel  was  puhlicly  preached.  Unless 
 all  the  promiscuous  hearers  of  the  gospel,  good  and  had,  for 
 the  first  or  the  fiftieth  time,  were  admitted  into  spiritual 
 fellowship,  and  were  entitled  to  all  the  honours  and  privileges 
 of  the  regenerate  and  godly,  even  to  partake  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  whenever  it  was  administered  in  their  locality,  to  vote 
 in  all  religious  affairs,  and  exercise  the  like  authority  in 
 every  spiritual  concern — which  neither  we  nor  our  oppo- 
 nents helieve. 
 
 Dr.  F.  Cox,  in  replying  to  Dr.  Wardlaw,  says,  '  Dr.  W. 
 
 *  has  not  adduced  a  single  passage  in  all  his  citations,  and 
 '  never  can  produce  one,  in  which  the   sense  of  the  term 
 
 *  church,  as  a  protestant  dissenter,  is  applied  to  the  nation  of 
 'Israel.'  p.  153.      But  Stephen  says,   'This  is  he  that  was 
 
 *  in  the  church,  \_Ecclesia~\  in  the  wilderness  with  the  angel 
 '  which  spake  to  him  in  the  mount  Sina,  and  with  our 
 '  fathers :  who  received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us  : 
 '  to  whom  our  fathers  would  not  ohey,  hut  thrust  him  from 
 '  them.'  Acts  vii.  39,  40.  Here  the  words,  '  Our  Fathers,' 
 certainly  signify  'the  nation  of  Israel,'  as  we  have  previously 
 shown.  And  these  are  distinctly  called  '  the  church.'  Long 
 before,  what  our  opponents  call,  a  Christian  church  was  formed, 
 our  Lord  speaks  of  '  the  church,'  as  the  object  of  ultimate 
 appeal  in  cases  of  a  brother's  violation  of  his  moral  or  religious 
 obligation.  Matt,  xviii.  17^  Here  is  the  recognition  of  a 
 congregation,  assembly,  or  church  of  God,  under  the  former 
 dispensation.  The  term  Ecclesia,  rendered  church,  in  the 
 New  Testament,  is  employed  in  the  Greek  Bible  to  express 
 the  nation  of  Israel  in  many  instances,  and  is  mostly  translated 
 congregation  in  our  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  Let  the 
 reader  now  judge  whether  Dr.  Cox  was  not  too  rash  in  his 
 assertion,  that  such  a  passage  could  never  be  produced. 
 
 But  his  '  statement  is  fallacious.'  Protestant  dissenters, 
 the  most  earnest  and  consistent,  not  excepting  even  our 
 good  Baptist  friends  themselves,  can  readily  distinguish  between 
 a  general  and  a  particular  church ;   the  one  composed  of  the 
 
328  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHEIST. 
 
 baptized  generally,  and  the  other  of  the  spiritually  converted ; 
 the  ecclesia  in  its  large,  and  in  its  limited,  senses ;  the  assembly 
 of  worshippers,  and  the  hopefully  renewed  communicants.  In 
 return,  it  may  be  safely  averred,  that  our  opponents  cannot 
 produce  half  as  many  passages  in  the  Greek  Scriptures,  where 
 the  word  Ecclesia,  rendered  church,  is  used  for  a  select  society 
 of  only  regenerated  and  godly  believers,  as  we  can  others,  in 
 which  it  is  evidently  employed  to  distinguish  those  who  were 
 simply  named  Christians,  or  the  general  worshippers  of  God. 
 Mr.  Hall  says,  '  The  term  church  is  merely  a  numerical  term, 
 denoting  a  multitude  '  or  an  assembly  of  men ;  and  for  the 
 '  same  reason  that  a  number  of  men  meeting  together  constitute 
 'an  assembly,  or  church.  Acts  xix.  32.      "  For  the  assembly 
 
 *  was  confused.".  .  .  .The  original  is  Ecclesia,  the  term  usually 
 'rendered  church,  in  the  most  comprehensive  import  of  the 
 'word;  so  a  number  of  Christians,  convened  for  the  worship  of 
 '  God,  constitute  a  Christian  assembly  or  a  church.'  p.  76. 
 
 As  previously  remarked,  the  Greek  terms  Synagoge  and 
 Ecclesia  are  used  synonymously  in  the  Septuagint;  and  would, 
 of  course,  be  so  regarded  by  the  Jewish  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament.  The  word  congregation  occurs  about  166  times 
 in  the  English  version  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  the 
 rendering  of  the  Greek  term  Synagoge  108  times,  and  of 
 Ecclesia  58.  The  accordance  of  these  may,  therefore,  be 
 fairly  assumed.  In  the  Greek  New  Testament,  the  same 
 words  occur  frequently — Ecclesia  llo  times  and  Synagoge 
 57-  The  sense  and  application  of  this  latter  term  is  well 
 known.  It  means  a  congregation,  open  to  all  properly  con- 
 ducted people,  disposed  to  attend  the  services  administered  in 
 them,  not  excluding  Gentiles  ;  yet,  for  the  most  part,  composed 
 of  Israelites.  Though  the  word  Ecclesia  is  more  frequently 
 employed  by  the  New  Testament  writers  than  Synagoge,  it 
 is  highly  probable  the  Jewish  converts  to  Christianity  were 
 accustomed  to  assemble  in  them  for  Christian  worship  whenever 
 they  had  the  opportunity — the  first  Christians  having  no 
 separate  places  of  worship  of  their  own.  In  Heb.  x.  28, 
 Paul  commands  them  not  to  forget  to  come  together  as  in  a 
 synagogue  (Gr.)  for  divine  service.    James  (ii.  2)  says,  'If 
 
 *  there  come  into  your  assembly '  (synagogue)  or  place  of 
 meeting.  Mr.  Scott  explains  this  expression,  'When  they 
 '  were  met  for  the  worship  of  God,  as  the  Jews  did  in  their 
 4  synagogues.'  Whitby  remarks,  '  The  Jewish  Christians  still 
 '  assembled  in  the  Jewish  synagogues,  and  both  the  judges 
 'and  the  judgment  seats  might  belong  to  the  rulers  of  the 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   329 
 
 '  synagogue  ;   nor  do  I  think  there  were  then  any  other  church 
 '  assemblies  among  the  Jews.' 
 
 Barnes  observes,  '  This  word  is  probably  employed  here 
 1  because  the  apostle  was  writing  to  those  who  had  been  Jews  ; 
 '  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  "that  the  word  .synagogue  would  be 
 1  naturally  used  by  the  early  converts  from  Judaism  to  designate 
 '  a  Christian  place  of  worship,  or  a  congregation  ;  and  it  was 
 '  probably  so  employed  until  it  was  superseded  by  a  word 
 '  which  the  gentile  converts  would  be  more  likely  to  employ, 
 '  and  that  would,  in  fact,  be  better,  and  more  expressive,  of 
 'the  word  church.  .  .  .It  is  probable,  that  the  Christian 
 '  church  was  modelled,  in  its  general  arrangements,  after  the 
 '  Jewish  synagogue.'  In  loc. — Now,  it  is  plain,  that  if  the 
 first  Christian  assemblies  were  like  those  of  the  Hebrew 
 synagogues,  our  preceding  views  are  confirmed  beyond  all 
 valid  refutation.  The  terms  Ecclesia  and  Synagoge  being 
 synonymous,  the  early  converts  to  Christianity  being  Jews, 
 and  no  novel  method  of  worship  being  appointed,  the  con- 
 clusion is  fair,  if  not  inevitable,  that  what  we  call  the  church 
 or  congregation  of  Christians,  was  after  the  manner  of  the 
 synagogues  or  assemblies  of  Israel. 
 
 The  Rev.  Matt.  Henry  justly  discriminates  on  this  interesting 
 point: — 'Baptism  is  an  ordinance  of  Christ,  whereby  the 
 '  person  baptized  is  solemnly  admitted  a  member  of  the  visible 
 'church.  .  .  .not  of  the  invisible  church  (as  it  is  called),  the 
 '  church  of the  first-born  whose  names  are  written  in  heaven, 
 1  but  the  visible  church  ;  comprehending  all  that  profess  faith 
 '  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him.  Many  are  baptized,  and 
 '  so  taken  into  that  number,  who  yet  remain  in  the  gall  of 
 'bitterness,   and  bond  of  iniquity.     Witness   Simon  Magus. 
 
 ' Baptism    is    an    ordinance  of   the    visible    church ; 
 
 '  appointed  for  the  admission  of  visible  church  members  : 
 '  admission,  not  into  the  internal  communion,  but  only  into 
 '  that  which  is  visible  and  external,  in  the  profession  of  faith; 
 'that  is,  into  the  general  congregation.'  p.  25,  26.  After  a 
 careful  examination  of  this  matter,  I  believe  that  the  terms, 
 Ecclesia  and  Ecclesiae,  nearly  always  translated  church  or 
 churches,  and  which,  as  said  before,  occur  about  one  hundred 
 and  fifteen  times  in  the  Greek  Testament ;  the  sense  of 
 them,  in  about  ninety  instances,  is  that  of  a  mixed  congre- 
 gation or  assembly  of  Christian  professors,  or  general  hearers 
 of  the  gospel,  among  whom  the  ordinances  of  preaching, 
 prayer,  and  praise,  were  conducted,  as  among  ourselves  in  the 
 present  day.     In   a  few  places   reference  is  made  to  people 
 
330  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 assembled  for  the  transaction  of  secular  affairs.  The  remainder 
 refer  to  the  communion  of  saints,  spiritual  worshippers,  the 
 renewed  and  the  redeemed,  who  believed  with  the  heart,  and 
 lived  unto  God.  If  the  reader  will  take  a  Greek  and  English 
 Concordance  of  the  New  Testament,  and  carefully  examine 
 every  text,  I  think  he  will  find  that  my  conclusions  are  not 
 far  from  the  truth.  Though,  of  course,  the  precise  propor- 
 tions in  the  application  of  the  term  is  comparatively  immaterial 
 to  my  argument. 
 
 The  seven  churches  of  Asia  Minor  (Rev.  ii.  and  iii),  offer 
 us  a  fair  exposition,  and  a  full  confirmation,  of  the  distinction 
 previously  made  between  the  large  and  the  limited,  the  general 
 and  the  particular,  use  of  the  term  Ecclesia.  Suppose  the 
 word  Church,  in  the  headings  of  the  seven  epistles  to  the 
 seven  congregations,  comprehended  all  who  usually  or  occa- 
 sionally met  together  in  one  place  to  worship  God,  or  the 
 people  who  nominally  professed  Christianity,  as  distinguished 
 from  heathenism,  in  each  of  these  cities  ;  then  the  case  is 
 clear  and  accordant  with  what  constantly  meets  our  observ- 
 ation. Many  motives  might  have  induced  the  worst  persons 
 mentioned  in  these  letters  to  attach  themselves  to  the  Christian 
 assemblies  of  these  Asiatic  cities,  and  to  constitute  a  part  of 
 the  Ecclesiae,  or  congregations.  But,  suppose  the  word 
 church  meant,  what  we  usually  understand  by  the  term,  an 
 assembly  of  pious,  faithful,  and  divinely  regenerated  people  ; 
 what  a  scene  is  represented  before  us !  Church  members, 
 some  that  love  God,  and  some  that  hate  him  ;  some  really 
 pertaining  to  the  communion  of  saints,  and  others  belonging 
 to  the  synagogue  of  Satan  ;  some  holding  the  doctrines  of  the 
 cross,  and  others  the  doctrines  of  Balaam  ;  some  that  were 
 spiritually  chaste  virgins,  and  others  utterly  seduced  by  that 
 woman  Jezabel ;  some  alive  to  God,  and  others  dead  in  sin  ; 
 some  enriched  with  spiritual  gifts  and  graces,  and  others 
 wretched,  and  miserable,  and  poor,  and  blind,  and  naked! 
 What  incongruous  and  conflicting  elements  have  we  here — in 
 this  fellowship  of  the  faithful,  this  society  of  believers! 
 
 But  suppose,  that,  in  these  seven  cities,  there  were  select 
 assemblies,  congregations  or  churches,  however  limited, 
 within  the  general  ones ;  then  all  our  difficulties  vanish. 
 Give  correct  renderings  to  the  titles  of  the  epistles.  Read,  'to 
 '  the  angel,  messenger,  or  minister  of  the  congregation  of 
 1  Ephesus,  Smyrna,  Pergamos,' &c. — and  all  is  accordant  with 
 our  views  of  such  promiscuous  gatherings.  Doubtless,  in 
 each  of  these  congregations  there   were  some  devout,  evan- 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES — GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   331 
 
 gelical,  and  righteous  people,  walking  in  the  commandments 
 and  ordinances  of  the  Lord  blameless.  These  would  form  the 
 fellowship  of  the  saints,  would  speak  often  one  to  another, 
 and  commune  at  the  table  of  the  Lord.  These  would  really 
 constitute  the  inner,  select,  elect  churches  of  Christ.  Indeed, 
 in  two  or  three  of  the  epistles  themselves,  the  distinction,  I 
 contend  for,  is  observed,  as  in  that  to  the  church  of  Per- 
 garaos,  Thyatira,  and  Sardis.  And  this,  unquestionably,  was 
 but  a  fair  representation  of  the  whole.  There  was  combination 
 without  communion. 
 
 The  point  I  am  aiming  to  establish  respecting  the  difference 
 between  the  general  and  the  spiritual  churches  of  Christ,  may 
 be  further  confirmed  by  the  following  quotation  from  Eaton  : — 
 '  If  any  sort  of  baptism  was  employed  to  -proselyte  or  initiate  a 
 '  family,  a  tribe,  a  race  into  Judaism ;  will  it  or  can  it  perform  the 
 'same  office  as  to  Christianity  ?  '  If  a  whole  people,  young  and  old , 
 '  ignorant  and  informed,  virtuous  and  vicious,  (including  in 
 '  them,  too,  successive  generations,)  could  be  received  into 
 '  the  Jewish  church,  or  rather  Jewish  nation  ;  does  it  follow, 
 '  that  such  can  be,  or  ought  to  be,  received  into  the  Christian — 
 '  we  mean  the  real,  the  pure  Christian  church,  or  church  of 
 '  Christ — that  church  of  which  he,  and  he  alone,  without 
 '  vicegerent,  partner,  or  rival,  is  the  sole  head,  the  only  Lord  ? 
 '  If  baptism  could  make  mere  infants*  Jews,  can  baptism  make 
 '  mere  infants  Christians,  in  the  proper  acceptation  of  the 
 '  name  or  designation  ?  It  may  be  said  by  a  common  abuse 
 '  of  words,  (than  which  no  entities  are  more  absurd,)  that 
 '  new-born  infants  are  christened,  and  that  they  receive  their 
 '  Christian  name  by  a  ceremony  with  water,  be  it  immersion, 
 '  affusion,  or  sprinkling :  but  will  this  ceremony — can  this 
 'ceremony — constitute  the  poor,  passive,  unconscious  babes, 
 '  real  or  living  members  of  that  intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual 
 '  church,  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  as  the 
 '  body  of  Christ,  because  he  is  its  intellectual  and  moral  and 
 '  spiritual  head? '  p.  142.  This  Baptist  writer  is  here  describing, 
 in  very  precise  phraseology,  the  society  of  genuine  Christians  ; 
 and,  in  doing  so,  is  compelled  to  employ  terms,  in  conjunction 
 with  the  word  church,  exalting  it  to  a  far  higher  sense  than 
 it  generally  conveys  to  the  ordinary  reader  of  the  English  New 
 Testament.  But  into  this  church,  thus  refined  and  elevated, 
 no  child  is  ever  baptized.  And,  consequently,  his  indignation, 
 at  our  supposed  inconsistency,  is  intirely  misdirected  and  lost. 
 
 That  shortly  after  the  work  of  proselyting  and  conversion 
 to  Christ  commenced,  the  distinction  I  have  made,  between 
 
332  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 the  general  and  the  particular  Ecclesia  or  congregation,  really 
 took  place,  our  opponents  believe  equally  with  ourselves ; 
 and  so  do  most  other  Christian  denominations.  Their  practice, 
 in  this  matter,  expounds  their  faith.  The  precise  time, 
 reason,  and  modes  of  this  separation  of  the  professing  dis- 
 ciples into  classes,  are  not  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament. 
 Doubtless,  like  the  office  of  deacons,  it  originated  in  a  religious 
 necessity,  and  was  designed  for  spiritual  advantage.  As  the 
 ancient  synagogues  arose  at  the  unrecorded  command  of  God, 
 for  the  benefit  of  the  Jews  ;  so,  I  apprehend,  the  formation  of 
 churches  within  churches  was  enjoined  by  inspired  apostles, 
 for  the  good  of  the  saints  —  though  we  have  no  definite  account 
 of  its  being  done.  That  there  was  an  Israel  within  the  ancient 
 Israel  was  well  known ;  and  that  those  who  feared  the  Lord 
 spake  often  one  to  another,  in  select  and  solemn  fellowships, 
 in  former  ages,  the  early  disciples  had  full  information. 
 The.  congregating  of  the  more  devoted  followers  of  the 
 crucified  Redeemer,  in  upper  rooms,  for  secret  converse  and 
 social  prayer,  was  a  spontaneous  act.  When  the  hearers  and 
 adherents  of  Christianity  were  greatly  multiplied,  embracing 
 — like  the  net  of  the  fishermen  —  people  of  all  kinds,  the 
 truly  pious  and  spirtually-minded  would  naturally  seek 
 occasions  to  meet  sepai'ately  from  the  rest,  for  converse, 
 communion,  andmore  secret  worship.  The  sheep,  thelittle  flock, 
 would,  at  stated  times,  separate  from  the  goats,  and  form  a 
 sacred  fold  of  themselves.  The  serious,  the  deeply  impressed, 
 the  people  of  special  kindred  sympathies,  of  genuine  faith, 
 ardent  love  to  Christ,  and  those  particularly  interested  in  the 
 cause  of  holiness,  would  endeavour  to  meet  apart,  to  tell  one 
 another  what  God  had  done  for  their  souls  ;  would  speak  of 
 joys,  hopes,  and  fears,  with  which  the  promiscuous  audiences 
 could  not  experimentally  intermingle.  From  such  holy 
 reunions  others  would  be  excluded,  until  they  gave-  hope  of 
 evidence  of  having  undergone  similar  mental  renovations,  and 
 of  being  under  similar  holy  influences.  This  inner  congrega- 
 tion would  soon  be  recognized  as  a  special  fellowship,  possessing 
 more  wisdom,  virtue,  and  grace,  than  those  who  were  without ; 
 and,  as  a  rational  consequence,  would  be  consulted  on  all 
 affairs  of  interest  and  importance,  and  ultimately  have  the 
 chief  management  of  the  cause  voluntarily  submitted  to  their 
 direction. 
 
 What  now  takes  place,  in  all  sects  and  religious  assemblies, 
 would  early,  though,  perhaps,  gradually,  have  taken  place 
 among  the  adherents  of  the  gospel.     The  genuine  partizans  of 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES — GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   333 
 
 distinctive  principles  mostly  constitute  the  members  or  fellows 
 of  particular  societies  ;  and  the  cordial  adherents  of  special 
 creeds  join  in  distinctive  brotherhoods.  So,  at  first,  the  inner 
 church  or  congregation,  duly  organized,  was  essential  to  the 
 proper  exhibition  of  Christianity,  and  would,  doubtless,  be 
 universally  instituted  by  the  spiritual  converts  to  Christ. 
 Imagine  our  general  congregations  being  viewed  as  the 
 exponents  of  the  principles  and  piety  of  the  sanctified  people 
 of  God  ;  specially  in  our  missionary  stations !  The  like 
 incongruities  would,  in  a  great  measure,  have  been  the  same 
 in  primitive  times.  The  baptized  proselytes,  and  the  devoted 
 saints,  must  have  presented  very  different  aspects  to  the 
 world  at  large.  The  after  failure,  to  preserve  the  inner 
 fellowship  pure,  was  one  of  the  most  fearful  evils  that  ever 
 bcfel  the  cause  of  Christ.  When  the  unclean  entered  the 
 society  of  the  holy  ;  when  those  that  feared  not  God  took 
 their  places  in  the  assembly,  and  at  the  table,  of  elect  believers ; 
 and  when  the  heretic  gave  his  suffrage  with  the  orthodox  ; 
 ills  befel  the  Christian  cause,  the  consequences  of  which,  in 
 all  their  malignity,  have  come  down  to  the  present  day,  and 
 have  spread  their  baleful  influence  throughout,  what  we  call, 
 the  Christian  world.  Let  us  endeavour  to  preserve  the  church 
 within  the  church  pure  as  possible  ;  and  our  evils,  however 
 many  and  heavy,  will  not  materially  injure  the  heart  of  our 
 respective  fellowships.  The  above  explanation  appears  to  me 
 to  be  natural,  reasonable,  and  true ;  and  accounts  for  the 
 distinction  between  the  general  and  the  particular  communions 
 to  which  I  have  alluded.  It  may  also  show,  in  some  degree, 
 how  it  occurred,  that  only  one  word,  ecclesia  or  synagoge, 
 assembly,  congregation,  or  church,  was  originally  used  to 
 designate  two  separate  classes  of  Christians,  or  rather  two 
 distinct  degrees  of  Christian  attainments. 
 
 I  may  here  notice  the  remark  of  Mr.  Scott.  He  says, 
 '  "We  admit,  indeed,  that  the  word '  \_Ecclesia,  church]  '  did 
 '  not  include  the  whole  population  of  a  city  or  country  ;  for 
 '  there  was  no  establishment  of  any  kind.  But  if  some 
 '  extend  the  word  too  largely,  others  narrow  it  much  more 
 '  than  accords  with  Scripture  :  and  Independents  '  [including 
 their  Baptist  brethren],  '  restrict  it  to  the  communicants,  to 
 '  the  exclusion  of  most  of  the  congregation.'  Works,  vol.  ix., 
 p.  571.  Had  the  writer  subjoined,  that  the  communicants 
 constituted  a  fellowship,  society,  or  Ecclesia,  within  the 
 congregation,  he  would  have  conveyed  the  idea  for  which  I 
 am  contending.     He  would  have  also  shown  that  the  practice 
 
334  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 of  most  modern  Christian  denominations  accords  with  the 
 procedure  of  the  first  apostolical  churches.  This  practice  is 
 found  absolutely  necessary  now  in  carrying  out  the  manifest 
 design  of  Christ,  in  preaching  to  the  promiscuous  multitude,  in 
 training  up  the  novitiates,  and  in  preserving  the  purity  of 
 Christian  communion.  And  the  same  design  would  have 
 required  the  like  arrangements  in  ancient  as  in  recent  times. 
 In  fact,  wherever  a  fellowship  is  perpetuated  by  proselytism, 
 two  classes  of  persons  must  be  recognized ;  the  candidates, 
 the  novitiates,  or  the  catechumens,  on  the  one  hand ;  and  the 
 initiated,  the  full  members,  or  the  perfect,  on  the  other. 
 From  the  larger  assembly  a  lesser  must  be  elected.  From  a 
 great  congregation  a  small  one  may  be  chosen.  From  the 
 Ecclesia  of  general  worshippers,  a  particular  Ecelesia  of 
 communicants  may  be  gathered.  This  is  the  case  now,  and 
 necessarily  so ;  and  such  must  have  been  the  case  when  the 
 gospel  was  preached  to  all  characters  and  classes  ;  and  when 
 saints,  or  faithfuls,  or  converts,  were  formed  into  separate  or 
 distinct  associations. 
 
 It  will  now  be  readily  seen,  that  children  might  be  intro- 
 duced to  the  outer  or  general  church  by  baptism,  without 
 being  regarded  as  members  of  the  inner  society  or  church,  in 
 its  more  limited  sense  ;  and  also  that  our  practice  does  not, 
 in  the  least  degree,  affect  the  purity  of  what  we  understand 
 by  the  phrase  '  Christian  communion  ; '  as  theoretically  held 
 by  all  evangelical  protestant  dissenters.  Indeed,  we  regard 
 our  views  and  reasonings  as  the  only  ones  calculated  to 
 vindicate  the  early  churches  against  the  charge  of  being  corrupt, 
 and  our  own  against  departing  from  the  apostolical  models.  The 
 mistakes  of  our  opponents,  on  this  point,  originate  in  erro- 
 neously regarding  the  word  church,  as  embracing  only  and 
 always  truly  regenerate  persons,  instead  of  viewing  it  as  also 
 and  mostly  indicating  a  larger  circle — comprehending  all  that 
 are  separated  to  Christianity  from  the  ranks  of  the  heathen,  or 
 from  the  unbaptized  people  of  the  world  generally.  By  their 
 reasonings  in  this  matter,  their  communions  can  assume 
 nothing  in  purity  over  our  own  ;  and  we  know  that,  practically, 
 the  inner  churches  of  Petlobaptists  are  not  a  whit  behind  those 
 of  their  opponents  in  the  virtues  and  excellencies  of  their 
 elected  constituents. 
 
 Though  some  of  our  opponents,  perceiving  the  bearing  of 
 our  present  distinction — between  the  outer  and  the  inner 
 communions  in  the  apostolic  fellowships — on  the  subject  of 
 Infant  Baptism,  and  in  defence  of  our  practice,  may  object 
 
EARLY  CHURCHES — GENERAL  AND  PARTICULAR.   335 
 
 to  some  of  my  testimonies  and  deductions,  they  cannot 
 consistently  deny  the  fact,  that  such  a  distinction  really 
 existed.  They  all  profess  to  have  founded  their  own  churches 
 on  the  model  of  those  constituted  hy  the  inspired  followers 
 of  Christ.  These  are  divided  into  two  parts,  the  outer  and 
 the  inner  fellowships,  the  general  worshippers  and  the  elect 
 communicants,  the  greater  and  the  less  congregations,  or 
 the  Ecclesia  in  its  large  and  limited  sense.  Their  authority 
 for  this  division  is  either  present  expediency,  or  primitive 
 example  ;  either  a  sagacious  arrangement  or  a  divine  precedent. 
 As  they  will  certainly  and  readily  deny  that  this  important 
 ecclesiastical  measure  is  the  result  of  their  own  invention ; 
 they  must  admit  that  it  is  according  to  the  revealed  will  of 
 God,  or  the  example  of  the  apostolical  communions, — and  so 
 confirm  the  verity  of  our  statements  and  inferences.  If  they 
 are  right  in  practice,  we  are  right  in  argument ;  and  they 
 cannot  aver  that  we  are  wrong  in  argument,  without  conceding 
 that  they  are  wrong  in  practice.  Not  only  so,  it  must  be 
 concluded,  that  all  the  churches  of  scriptural  protestantism,  if 
 not  in  Christendom,  are  wrong,  provided  we  are  not  right ; 
 for  all  of  them  have  professedly,  if  not  practically,  churches 
 within  churches,  societies  within  societies  ;  or  select  commu- 
 nions within  general  ones.  Let  me  also  add,  that,  supposing 
 the  constitution  of  the  Baptist  persuasions  to  be  scriptural 
 and  proper,  in  the  case  under  consideration,  they  base  it  on 
 inference,  rather  than  on  any  clear  precept  or  manifest  examples 
 —  as  they  do  many  other  matters  in  their  opinions  and 
 religious  proceedings. 
 
 I  will  now  conclude  my  extended  reply  to  the  important 
 question  under  review,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Dwight : — '  If 
 '  baptized  infants  are  members  of  the  Christian  church,  we 
 '  are  bound  to  determine  and  declare  the  nature  and  extent  of 
 '  their  membership.  That  they  are  members  of  the  church,  I 
 '  believe.  All  persons  are  baptized  not  in  but  into  the  name 
 '  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit ;  that  is,  they 
 '  are  introduced  into  the  family  of  God,  and  are  called  godly, 
 '  Christians,  spiritual,  sons  and  daughters  of  God,  throughout 
 '  the  Scriptures.  All  persons  baptized,  therefore,  are  members 
 '  of  the  Christian  church.  Still,  they  are  not  members  in  the 
 '  sense  commonly  intended  by  these  terms.  The  word  church 
 '  has  various  signfications  ;  denoting  the  invisible  kingdom  of 
 '  Christ,  consisting  of  all  who  are  sanctified — the  visible 
 'kingdom,  consisting  of  all  who  have  publicly  professed 
 '  religion,  and  their  baptized  offspring — any  body  of  Christ- 
 
33G  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  ians,  holding  the  same  doctrines,  and  united  in  the  same 
 '  worship  and  discipline — and  Christians  who  worship  together 
 1  in  the  same  place.  Hence,  when  persons  baptized  in 
 '  infancy,  are  said  to  he  members  of  the  church,  the  word 
 '  cannot  be  used  in  all  these  senses,  and,  therefore,  something 
 '  beside  baptism,  or  a  profession  of  religion,  is  necessary 
 '  to  constitute  a  membership  of  any  particular  church.' 
 Lect.  157. 
 
 Question  IV. —  Was  not  Jetvish  Circumcision  evert]  ivay 
 inferior  to, and  essentially  different  from,  Christian  Baptism? 
 — I  propose  this  question,  and  shall  endeavour  to  answer  it,  not 
 because  the  topic  much  or  immediately  concerns  the  specific 
 argument  in  hand  ;  but,  in  order  to  state  and  meet  certain 
 allegations  usually  brought  against  Infant  Baptism,  when 
 based  upon  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  as  is  done  by  many 
 Pedobaptist  writers  ;  and  to  show,  that  even  their  foundation  is 
 too  solid  to  be  destroyed  by  what  our  opponents  usually 
 adduce  against  it.  As  Mr.  Noel  has  dwelt  very  largely 
 and  emphatically  on  this  point — having  summed  up  all  his 
 brethren  have  advanced  upon  it — I  shall  confine  my  remarks 
 chiefly  to  his  various  observations.  He  says,  '  Circumcision 
 '  was  enjoined  on  all  the  descendants  of  Jacob,  and  their 
 '  servants,  whether  they  were  godly  or  ungodly  ;  baptism  was 
 'offered  to  no  adults  except  regenerate  believers.'  p.  184. 
 On  what  authority  does  Mr.  Noel  assume,  that  the  grown-up 
 household  of  Abraham  (for  they  only  can  be  meant)  were 
 ungodly,  or  that  even  any  of  them  were  so,  according  to  the 
 light  they  enjoyed?  That  the  father  of  the  faithful  was 
 attentive  to  the  piety  of  his  family,  we  may  well  suppose ; 
 and,  probably,  great  blessings  attended  his  labours,  '  For  I 
 '  know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his  house- 
 '  hold  after  him  ;  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to 
 '  do  justice  and  judgment,  that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon 
 'Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him.'  Gen.  xviii.  19; 
 see  also  Ps.  ci.  4-7- 
 
 If  it  cannot  be  proved,  that  his  immediate  adult  household 
 were  ungodly,  in  the  general  sense  of  that  word  ;  it  would  be 
 strange  to  call  the  little  descendants  of  Abraham  himself,  or 
 of  his  servants,  ungodly  at  eight  days  old  ;  '  for  of  such  was 
 '  the  kingdom  of  God,'  then  as  well  as  now.  And  none  but 
 such  were,  as  a  general  rule,  to  be  circumcised  after  the 
 introduction  of  this  rite  into  the  household  of  Abraham.  As 
 to  '  baptism  being  offered  to  no  adults,  except  to  regenerate 
 '  believers ; '  where  does  the  writer  find  this  doctrine  in  the 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  337 
 
 word  of  God  ?  Grown-up  men  must  have  some  belief, 
 before  they  will  accept  the  invitation  to  baptism.  But  to 
 assert,  that  the  call  was  limited  to  the  regenerated,  is  to  speak 
 without  the  divine  book.  I  have  said  that  no  Hebrews, 
 in  a  general  way,  were  to  be  circumcised,  but  infants  of  eight 
 days  old.  The  only  exception  occurred  on  the  tribes  entering 
 the  Holy  Land,  under  the  conduct  of  Joshua.  Then,  probably, 
 some  hundreds  of  thousands  of  males,  from  eight  days,  to 
 nearly  forty  years,  old,  underwent  this  rite.  And,  as  far  as 
 age  was  concerned,  there  was  no  distinction  made  between 
 the  people,  any  more  than  there  was  in  the  baptism  in  the 
 Eed  Sea,  forty  years  before  ;  or  in  the  baptismal  purifications 
 under  the  law  of  Moses.  And,  here,  it  is  observable,  that 
 many,  if  not  most,  of  the  adults,  previously  baptized  in  the 
 Eed  Sea,  were  honourably  distinguished  by  their  obedience 
 to  the  laws  of  God — '  Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of 
 1  Joshua,  and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  out-lived  Joshua, 
 '  and  who  had  known  all  the  works  of  the  Lord,  that  he  had 
 'done  for  Israel.'  Josh.  xxiv.  31. 
 
 '  The  foregoing  remarks  show  how  impossible  it  is  to  argue 
 1  for  the  divine  appointment  of  Infant  Baptism  from  the  divine 
 1  appointment  of  Infant  Circumcision.  The  two  rites  are  so 
 '  distinct,  that  persons  who  are  fitted  to  receive  the  one,  are 
 '  utterly  unfitted  to  receive  the  other.  Designed  for  different 
 '  classes,  bearing  different  significations,  admitting  to  different 
 '  communities,  and  attended  with  different  results,  the  first 
 c  might  properly  admit  those  who  were  excluded  by  the  second, 
 '  and  the  second  properly  exclude  those  who  were  admitted  by 
 '  the  first.  Circumcision  involved  no  profession  of  faith,'  [not 
 even  by  heathen  adult  proselytes!]  'and  all  servants  of  Israel 
 '  were  obliged  to  receive  it  upon  pain  of  excision  ;  baptism 
 '  expresses  the  faith  of  the  baptized  person,  and  was  his 
 'voluntary  act;'  [much  more  than  keeping  God's  other 
 commandments  !]  '  Circumcision  admitted  to  the  privileges 
 '  of  a  favoured,  but  corrupt,  community,  which  was  about  to  be 
 'cast  away;'  [2000  years  afterwards!]  'baptism  admitted  to 
 '  the  communion  of  saints,'  [and  of  sinners  too,  if  the  Baptist 
 churches  are  constructed  on  the  true  primitive  model!]  'Cir- 
 '  cumcision  introduced  to  external  means  of  improvement,  as 
 '  festivals,  sacrifices,  and  communion  with  the  chosen  nation ; ' 
 [but  not  with  any  religious  and  spiritual  teachings  !]  '  baptism 
 *  was  the  seal  of  pardon,  regeneration,  and  salvation,'  [and  of 
 course,  sealing  or  assuring  all  these  blessings  to  every  body 
 dipped  by  our  opponents  !]     '  Circumcision  accomplished  for 
 
 P 
 
338  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHIUST. 
 
 '  the  unregenerate  infant  all  that  it  was  intended  to  accomplish  ;* 
 [even  though  it  did  not  keep  the  law  !]  'but  baptism  accom- 
 '  plishes  nothing  for  the  unregenerate  infant,  absolutely  nothing/ 
 [any  more  than  it  does  for  the  unregenerate  adult!]  '  The 
 '  circumcision  of  the  unregenerate  infant  was  a  blessing  to  him, 
 1  because  it  introduced  him  to  a  moral  and  religious  training,' 
 [which  its  godly  parents  would  have  totally  neglected,  had  it 
 not  been  circumcised!]  '  but  the  baptism  of  the  unregenerate 
 '  infant  is  a  mischief  to  it,  because,  while  it  adds  nothing  to 
 '  its  means  of  instruction,  deludes  it  with  the  mockery  of  a 
 '  pretended  adoption  into  the  family  of  God,  which  may 
 '  hinder  him  from  seeking  a  real  adoption;'  [an  evil  which 
 never  happened  to  a  Jew,  nor  to  an  immersed  adult !] 
 p.  183-185.  A  more  defective  or  perverted  view  of  the  case 
 in  question,  I  believe,  will  nowhere  be  found,  than  the 
 above.  Yet,  the  same  writer  tells  us,  that  '  Circumcision  to 
 '  the  Lord  is  similar  to  baptism  to  the  Lord,  both  external 
 '  acts  betokening  the  same  duty  of  sanctification  and  dedication 
 'to  God!'  p.  14. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  intimates  that  circumcision  was  a  rite  administered 
 to  adults  chiefly,  if  not  generally.  That,  in  the  first  instance, 
 men  of  various  ages  were  circumcised,  is  plain  from  the 
 divine  record,  and  from  the  necessity  of  the  case.  But,  it  is 
 equally  plain,  that  it  was  not  designed  for  Hebrew  adults 
 afterwards.  Every  male  Israelite,  and  every  male  child, 
 born  in  the  house  of  an  Israelite,  was  to  be  circumcised,  at 
 eight  days  old.  Adult  circumcision  was  the  rare  exception. 
 Infant  circumcision  was  the  law,  the  rule,  the  custom.  The 
 general  administration  of  the  ceremony  in  Gilgal,  and  the 
 occasional  circumcision  of  a  heathen  adult  proselyte,  were 
 exceptions,  occurring  long  after  the  institution  of  the  ordinance. 
 Hence,  infants  were  all  but  the  universal  subjects  of  this 
 operation.  From  the  days  of  Abraham  to  the  days  of  Joshua, 
 it  is  probable,  that  not  a  single  adult  Hebrew  had  ever  been 
 circumcised ;  and  from  the  days  of  Joshua  to  the  death  of 
 Christ,  it  is  doubtful  if  one  adult,  of  their  nation,  had  under- 
 gone this  ceremony.  To  talk  of  'the  godly  or  ungodly 'subjects 
 of  circumcision,  is  only  to  mislead  the  unreflecting  reader; 
 unless  babies  of  eight  days  old  might  be  termed  godly  or 
 ungodly — meaning  the  mentally  and  practically  good  and  bad 
 — the  virtuous  or  the  vicious — the  holy  or  the  criminal ! 
 Circumcision,  like  baptism,  as  a  rule,  was  intended  for  the 
 newly  born,  the  innocent,  those  who  knew  not  their  right 
 hand  from  their  left,  or  who  had  done  neither  good  nor  evil, 
 
CIRCUMCISION-  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  339 
 
 or  for  such  as  were  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  As  an  exception 
 only,  were  adults  ever  circumcised  ;  and  as  an  exception  only, 
 is  adult  baptism  proper  now.  A  law,  which  made  the  vaccina- 
 tion of  all  infants  in  a  country  imperative,  would  soon  render 
 the  vaccination  of  adults  a  rare  occurrence.  If  circumcision 
 and  baptism  are  analogous,  in  respect  of  their  subjects,  as 
 they  are  admitted  to  be,  in  several  important  particulars,  by 
 most  of  our  opponents  ;  no  adults,  except  proselytes  from 
 the  Gentiles  or  the  Jews,  would  ever  undergo  this  rite. 
 
 That  this  rite  of  the  ancient  covenant  was  quite  as  spiritual 
 in  its  teachings  and  results  as  that  of  baptism  itself,  may  soon  be 
 made  apparent :  ■  And  the  Lord  God  shall  circumcise  thine 
 1  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
 1  with  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest 
 'live.'  Deut.  xxx.  6.  Was  baptism  typical  of  greater  spiritual 
 blessings  ?  '  Circumcise  yourselves  to  the  Lord,  and  take 
 '  away  the  foreskins  of  your  hearts,  ye  men  of  Judah  and 
 1  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem.'  Jer.  iv.  4.  '  For  all  the  nations 
 '  are  uncircumcised,  and  all  the  house  of  Israel  are  uncircum- 
 '  cised  in  heart.'  Jer.  ix.  26.  Was  the  lack  of  spiritual 
 baptism  a  greater  evil  than  the  lack  of  spiritual  circumcision, 
 as  here  stated  by  the  prophet  ?  '  Ye  have  brought  into  my 
 '  sanctuary  strangers,  uncircumcised  in  heart,  and  uncircum- 
 '  cised  in  flesh,  to  be  in  my  sanctuary,  to  pollute  it,  even  my 
 '  house.'  Ezek.  xliv.  7.  Could  baptism  confer  a  greater  favour 
 than  introducing  men  into  God's  sanctuary,  or  the  want  of  it 
 prove  a  greater  evil  to  people  now  ?  see  v.  9.  '  Ye  stiffnecked 
 '  and  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  ye  do  always  resist  the 
 '  Holy  Ghost ;  as  your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye.'  Acts  vii.  51. 
 The  spiritually  circumcised  resisted  not  the  Spirit — could  more 
 be  said  of  the  spiritually  baptized  ?  '  And  he  received  the 
 '  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
 'which  he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised.'  Kom.  iv.  11. 
 Could  baptism  seal  a  higher  spiritual  blessing  ?  '  What 
 '  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew  ?  or  what  profit  is  there  of 
 '  circumcision  ?  Much  every  way  ;  chiefly  because  unto  them 
 'were  committed  the  oracles  of  God.'  Rom.  iii.  1,  2.  Is  it 
 pretended,  that  baptism  is  more  advantageous  than  this  to  a 
 Christian  ?  '  We  are  of  the  circumcision,  which  worship  God. 
 '  in  the  spirit,  and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no 
 '  confidence  in  the  flesh.'  Phil.  iii.  3.  Were  those  baptized 
 any  better  in  life  or  affection  ? 
 
 That  God  required  as  much  piety  in  the  circumcised 
 Hebrew  as    in   the  baptized  Christian  is    manifest.     'And. 
 
340  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  now,  Israel,  what  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of. 
 '  thee,  hut  to  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  all  his 
 '  ways,  to  love  him,  and  to  serve  the  Lord  thy  God,  with 
 '  all  thine  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  to  keep  the  com- 
 '  raandments  of  the  Lord,  and  his  statutes  which  I  command 
 'thee  this  day  for  thy  good.'  Deut.  x.  12,  13.  In  fact,  the 
 apostle  Peter,  commending  Christianity,  merely  says,  '  We 
 '  helieve  that  through  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  we 
 1  shall  he  saved,  even  as  they ' — the  circumcised  Israelites. 
 Acts  xv.  11.  Mr.  Young  remarks,  'We  frequently  hear 
 '  circumcision  called  carnal,  and  that  it  was  wholly  a  proof  of 
 '  earthly  blessings  .  .  .  Paul  was  of  a  different  way  of  thinking. 
 '  He  says,  "  We  are  the  circumcision,  which  worship  God  in  the 
 '  spirit,  and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in 
 '  the  flesh."  Phil.  iii.  3.  The  man  who  uses  those  words  views 
 '  circumcision  as  a  spiritual  ordinance.  There  is  no  ordinance 
 '  in  the  New  Testament  which  includes  more  than  this,  and 
 '  we  do  not  find  so  much  said  of  baptism,  though  it  has  the 
 '  same  meaning  with  that  of  circumcision.'  p.  9. 
 
 To  argue,  that  circumcision  was  often  attended  with  no 
 practical  spiritual  good,  is  of  no  force ;  for  neither  is  the 
 baptism  of  either  children  or  adults  always  succeeded  by 
 divine  grace.  Or,  to  say,  that  many  temporal  blessings  were 
 connected  with  the  former  rite,  is  of  equal  irrelevancy ;  for 
 the  like  may  be  said  in  respect  of  the  latter.  Indeed,  it  is 
 probable,  that  more  earthly  blessings  are  connected  with 
 Christianity,  than  were  ever  enjoyed  by  the  early  descendants 
 of  Abraham.  That  circumcision  is  placed  on  a  par  with 
 baptism,  in  its  spiritual  purport,  may  be  further  proved.  '  For 
 '  he  is  not  a  Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly  ;  neither  is  that 
 '  circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh  :  but  he  is  a  Jew, 
 '  which  is  one  inwardly  ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart, 
 '  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter  ;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men, 
 '  but  of  God.'  Rom.  ii.  28,  29.  Substitute  the  terms  Christian 
 and  baptism  for  Jew  and  circumcision,  and  you  will  find  the 
 perfect  accordance  of  the  passage  with  the  entire  tenor  of 
 gospel  doctrines.  That  the  rites  of  baptism  and  circumcision 
 are  equally  spiritual  may  be  still  further  seen.  '  In  whom 
 '  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without 
 '  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the 
 '  circumcision  of  Christ,  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein 
 '  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation 
 '  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.  And  you, 
 '  being  dead  in  your  sins  and  the  circumcision  of  your  flesh, 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  341 
 
 •'  hath  he  quickened  together  with  him,  having  forgiven  you 
 'all  trespasses.'  Col.  ii.  11-13.  That  these  results,  whether 
 designated  circumcision  or  haptism,  are  spiritual,  as  well  as 
 the  divine  agency  that  produces  them,  is  apparent  to  the 
 slightest  ohservation. 
 
 That  circumcision  sealed  or  proffered  more  spiritual  than 
 worldly  benefits,  will  be  seen  from  a  moment's  candid  review  of 
 the  subject.  The  promises  of  a  temporal  order,  made  to 
 Abraham,  included  the  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the  Holy 
 Land  by  his  posterity,  while  they  were  obedient  to  God  and 
 observed  his  covenant.  '  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant 
 '  between  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  generation, 
 ■*  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
 '  seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  and  thy  seed 
 '  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  art  a  stranger,  all  the  land 
 '  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  possession  ;  and  I  will  be  their 
 '  God.'  Gen.  xvii.  7,  8.  This  land,  be  it  observed,  was  not 
 more  fertile  than  Goshen,  nor  more  lovely  than  Damascus, 
 nor  better  defended  by  nature  than  many  parts  of  Greece. 
 In  comparison  with  the  wilderness,  it  flowed  with  milk  and 
 honey.  Having  God  for  its  King,  his  temple  for  their  worship, 
 and  his  ordinances  for  their  edification  and  comfort ;  it  was 
 the  glory  of  all  lands,  and  Jerusalem  the  joy  of  the  whole  earth. 
 But  nothing  else  rendered  it  so.  This  was  the  extent  of  the 
 boon,  being  rather  a  religious  than  a  secular  benefaction;  and, 
 doubtless,  it  was  highly  estimated.  But,  during  the  first  400 
 years,  after  the  promise  was  made,  the  descendants  of  Abraham, 
 (though  enjoying  spiritual  means),  were  kept  out  of  this  in- 
 heritance. Afterwards,  whenever  a  Jew  passed  the  boundaries 
 of  Canaan,  these  temporal  privileges  were  foregone  ;  and  if 
 he  became  so  rebellious  as  to  be  expatriated,  they  were  finally 
 forfeited.  And,  at  last,  the  seed  of  Abraham  totally  failed 
 to  possess  the  blessing  thus  promised  to  their  great  progenitor. 
 
 But  the  spiritual  results  were  not  subject  to  such  fluctuations, 
 and  remained  with  the  people  under  most  untoward  cir- 
 cumstances. They  had  their  holy  oracles,  and  their  divine 
 worship,  in  the  countries  whither  they  were  carried  captive, 
 or  whither  they  travelled  for  business,  and  were  located  for 
 their  secular  benefits.  They  might  ever  worship  in  the  temple 
 when  they  came  up  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  keep  the  feasts,  when- 
 ever they  chose  to  attend  them  ;  as  did  multitudes,  whose 
 homes  were  in  distant  parts  of  the  wide  empires  of  the  east. 
 The  stranger  and  his  family,  proselyted  by  circumcision  and 
 baptism,  though  he  thereby  gained  no  lasting  inheritance  in 
 
3-12  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHEIST. 
 
 the  Holy  Land  ;  yet  he  could  worship  in  the  synagogue  and 
 temple,  and  participate  in  the  highest  privileges  of  the  Hebrew 
 people.  He  reckoned  the  God  of  the  Hebrews  as  his  God ; 
 the  promises  of  the  Messiah  he  joyfully  applied  to  himself; 
 and  these  he  valued  more  than  all  the  beauties  and  bounties  of 
 the  hills,  valleys,  and  plains  of  that  delightsome  land.  In  a 
 word,  the  temporal  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
 were  limited  in  their  value,  extent,  and  duration  ;  while  the 
 spiritual  were  inestimable,  and  everlasting,  to  all  the  faithful 
 and  godly  seed  of  their  father  Abraham  ;  and  but  little,  if,  in 
 reality,  any  thing  inferior  to  those  promised  to  all  the  true 
 followers  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  reasons,  '  If  there  be  such  an  analogy  between 
 '  circumcision  and  baptism,  that  infants  may  bebaptized,  because 
 1  infants  may  be  circumcised,  the  analogy  must  extend  to  every 
 'class.'  p.  169.  That  this  is  true,  in  respect  of  every  class 
 brought  into  a  similar  relation  to  God — willing  or  prepared  to 
 receive  divine  instruction — as  the  Jews  were  in,  is  the  very 
 thing  we  contend  for.  The  idea,  that  none  but  spiritual 
 believers  should  be  the  subjects  of  this  rite  is  what  Mr.  Noel 
 broaches,  but  utterly  fails  to  establish.  All  sincere  proselytes 
 were  welcome  in  Israel,  were  circumcised,  or  baptized,  or  both, 
 readily,  and,  on  the  part  of  pious  Hebrews,  joyfully — and  their 
 children  with  them.  What  more  can  be  said  of  men  and  their 
 families  converted  to  Christianity?  'Baptism,  in  the  New 
 '  Testament,  was  the  voluntary  act  of  those  who  were  baptized; 
 'but  circumcision  was  a  law  which  the  persons  designated 
 'could  not,  without  punishment,  neglect.'  p.  171.  Pray,  what 
 punishment  was  inflicted  for  the  neglect  of  circumcision, 
 beyond  foregoing  those  blessings  promised  to  such  as  under- 
 went the  rite  ?  just  as  the  unbaptized  were  subjected  to  the 
 loss  of  the  privileges  promised  to  those  who  submitted  to  this 
 ceremony.  There  were  no  direct  punishments  inflicted  in 
 either  case.  'Neither  infant  nor  servant  received  circumcision 
 '  in  virtue  of  their  piety,  nor  the  piety  of  their  parents.'  p.  175. 
 The  like  we  maintain  is  the  case  in  respect  of  baptism.  Indeed, 
 nearly  half  the  people  our  opponents  immerse  are  as  destitute 
 of  real  piety  as  the  circumcised  Israelites. 
 
 '  The  circumcision  of  Infants  was  not  meant  to  sanction  the 
 'baptism  of  Infants,  from  the  difference  of  the  two  communities 
 '  to  which  these  two  rites  admit  those  who  receive  them.'  p.  177. 
 But,  we  have  seen,  or  shall  prove,  that  these  two  communities, 
 as  the  professors  of  the  revealed  religion  of  the  true  God, 
 were   the   same,  in   all   their  leading  particulars.     Jehovah 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  348 
 
 never  established  two  religions  in  the  world — though  the  one 
 varied  in  its  aspect  and  ceremonials.  '  The  circumcision  of 
 1  infants  affords  no  sanction  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  because 
 '  of  the  different  effects  which  are  said  in  Scripture  to  flow 
 'from  these  two  ordinances.'  p.  181.  This  would  be  true,  if 
 baptismal  regeneration  flowed  from  undergoing  this  rite,  yet 
 not  otherwise.  But,  if  the  result  of  baptism  be  simply  a 
 ■dedication  to  God,  entitling  its  subjects  to  religious  instruction 
 and  the  external  advantages  of  Christian  ordinances,  the 
 parallel  between  the  two  ceremonies  is  too  apparent  to  be 
 controverted. — '  Circumcision,  when  rightly  received,  secured 
 '  neither  salvation,  nor  grace,  nor  pardon,  nor  any  spiritual 
 ■  blessing  beyond  those  which  were  external.'  p.  181.   'Baptism, 
 
 *  on  the  other  hand,  when  rightly  received,  being  the  true 
 '  profession  cf  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  life  of  faith,  and 
 '  devotedness  to  God  through  Christ  by  the  Spirit,  was  the  bath 
 '  of regeneration,  (Titus  iii.  5),  was  accompanied  by  the  remission 
 '  of  sins,  (Acts  ii.  38  ;  xxii.  16),  was  the  act  of  putting  on  the 
 '  righteousness  of  Christ,  (Gal.  iv.  27),  and  ended  in  salvation. 
 
 *  1  Pet.  iii.  21  ;  Mark  xvi.  16.  The  qualification  for  rites,  with 
 '  effects  so  different,  could  not  be  the  same.  It  is  seen  at 
 '  once  to  be  most  improbable,  that  the  rite,  sealing  the  external 
 
 *  privileges  of  the  law,  should  be  administered  on  the  same 
 '  terms  with  the  rite,  sealing  the  spiritual  and  eternal  blessings 
 '  of  the  gospel.  It  is  exceedingly  improbable  that  there  should 
 '  be  the  same  required  qualifications  for  blessings  so  exceedingly 
 '  diverse.'  p.  181. 
 
 Can  this  gentleman  mean,  that  zoa£<?r-baptism  seals,  makes 
 sure,  all  the  spiritual  blessings  of  regeneration,  the  remission 
 of  sins,  of  being  really  in  Christ,  and  of  salvation  ?  If  he 
 does,  he  may  claim  near  kindred  with  Pusey  and  the  Pope  ; 
 for  what  could  they  ascribe  rhore  to  this  ceremony  ?  If  he 
 does  not  mean  this,  his  argument  is  frivolous,  and  calculated 
 only  to  deceive.  If  it  be  intended,  that  baptism  is  a  testimony 
 that  the  subject  is  already  a  Christian,  the  ceremony  confers 
 nothing  more  than  external  privileges,  and  stands  on  a  level 
 with  his  own  notion  of  the  results  of  circumcision.  He  seems 
 anxious  to  make  it  appear,  that  dipping  confers  some  vast 
 advantage  on  his  people  ;  and,  in  doing  so,  magnifies  a  mere 
 ceremonial  into  a  sanctifying  and  saving  ordinance.  But  let 
 him  look  into  these  glorious  and  gracious  results,  as  exemplified 
 in  a  large  portion  of  the  people  his  brethren  have  immersed! 
 To  say,  they  have  not  been  rightly  baptized,  or  have  not  rightly 
 received  this  ceremony,  and  hence  the  failure  of  it ;  is  much 
 
344  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 like  persons  promising  you  wonderful  benefits  from  their 
 charms  or  spells  ;  and  accounting  for  your  non-reception  of 
 them,  through  your  want  of  faith  in  their  operations  ! 
 
 Mr.  Noel  distinguishes  circumcision  from  baptism,  by 
 observing,  that  the  former  was  obligatory,  and  the  latter 
 voluntary — the  former  not  to  be  neglected  without  punishment, 
 while  the  latter  might  be  disregarded  with  impunity.  This 
 is  strange  reasoning — as  if  the  observance  of  God's  commands 
 were  optional,  unless  enforced  with  present  penal  sanctions  ! 
 But  one  thing  is  plain,  that  the  great  benefits  attached  to  baptism, 
 are  forfeited  by  the  neglect  of  this  ordinance  ;  as  the  religious 
 benefits  attached  to  circumcision  were  forfeited  by  the  neglect 
 of  that  rite.  I  contend  that  Infant  Baptism  is  as  obligatory 
 under  the  gospel,  as  circumcision  was  under  the  former 
 dispensations.  It  is  not  specifically  enjoined  respecting  the 
 age  of  its  subjects,  as  circumcision  was  to  Abraham — though 
 admitting,  as  we  have  seen,  numerous  exceptions.  But,  that 
 it  was  enjoined  and  practised  from  the  days  of  Moses,  till  the 
 end  of  the  apostolic  age,  has  been  rendered  as  manifest  as 
 many  other  acts  and  obligations,  about  which  our  opponents 
 entertain  not  the  shadow  of  a  doubt.  For  instance,  our  Lord 
 never  directly  commanded  even  his  disciples  to  keep  the 
 Christian  passover,  nor  is  it  ever  plainly  commanded  subse- 
 quently— the  duty  and  privilege  of  this  sacrament,  and  the 
 time  of  its  recurrence,  being  inferred  from  its  first  observance. 
 The  communion  of  females,  at  the  Lord's  supper,  is  never 
 specified  or  enjoined  ;  nor  is  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day 
 commanded  by  Christ,  or  his  apostles.  And  yet,  a  due  regard 
 of  them  all  is  as  binding  on  Christians,  as  circumcision  was 
 on  the  Jews ;  and  disobedience  here  is  as  iniquitous  as 
 neglecting  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 
 Infant  Baptism  is  as  binding,  as  was  circumcision.  To 
 neglect  the  former  is  as  sinful  as  neglecting  the  latter ;  and 
 the  spiritual  evils,  in  both  cases,  are  about  the  like,  if  fairly 
 and  legitimately  carried  out.  The  Jew  loses  the  advantages 
 obtained  from  the  study  of  the  oracles  of  God ;  and  the 
 gentile  foregoes  all  claim  to  that  teaching  which  the  apostles 
 were  commanded  to  impart  to  the  baptized. 
 
 1  When  the  Jewish  nation  became  corrupt,  it  remained  still 
 '  the  covenanted  nation,  because  it  was  composed  of  the  descen- 
 '  dants  of  Abraham  ;  and  it  was  owned  by  God  as  such.'  p.  1  79. 
 This  was  just  as  immersed  adults,  who  apostatize  from  the 
 faith  and  profession  of  the  gospel,  are  still  regarded  by  their 
 brethren,  as  consecrated  to  Christ  as  long  as  they  live,  however 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  3  15 
 
 badly — requiring  no  fresh  immersion  in  order  to  enjoy  all  the 
 means  of  religious  ordinances  and  advantages.  With  regard 
 to  the  Jewish  nation,  it  holds  true,  however,  only  in  part. 
 The  ten  tribes  were  scattered ;  and  the  Lord  expressed  his 
 displeasure  with  the  other  two  for  their  sins  ;  as  much  as 
 with  the  uncircuracised  heathen.  Their  circumcision,  in  effect, 
 became  uncircumcisiou  to  the  profane  and  rebellious.  And 
 were  not  baptized  congregations  reproved  and  punished  just  in 
 the  same  way  ?  Where  now  are  the  seven  churches  in  Asia, 
 and  many  others,  once  flourishing  in  the  eastern  world?  Yet, 
 the  ancient  Jewish  church  was  not  entirely  cut  off;  as  there 
 were  many  pious  persons  of  that  communion  existing  in  the 
 days  of  Christ,  who  embraced  the  gospel  and  became  his 
 disciples.  There  was  ever  a  remnant  of  the  spiritual  church 
 of  Christ  in  the  darkest  times  of  its  history.    He  adds,  'Infants 
 
 *  might  be  conformists,   they  might  be  Jewish   citizens  by 
 
 *  circumcision  ;  but  since  they  cannot  be  known  to  be  penitent 
 '  believers,  they  must  not  be  admitted  to  the  communion  of  saints.' 
 p.  180.  But,  may  they  not  be  admitted  to  the  general  privi- 
 leges and  blessings  of  Christianity  by  baptism,  as  our  opponents 
 admit  little  ones  to  the  covenants  of  the  gospel  by  their  dry 
 dedication,  thereby  making  them  fellow-citizens  with  the 
 sanctified  disciples  of  Christ — a  position  analogous  to  that  of 
 the  little  Hebrew  conformists  ? 
 
 He  proceeds,  '  The  ignorant  and  unregenerate  adult  was 
 '  obliged  to  receive  the  token  of  the  national  covenant.  To 
 1  become  a  citizen  of  that  nation'  [or  national  church]  '  required 
 '  no  more  spirituality  than  to  become  a  citizen  of  England.' 
 p.  177.  What,  did  not  Jehovah  require  all  his  people  to  be 
 a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people,  equally  as  he  requires  all 
 men  now  every  where  to  repent,  and  all  his  professed  disciples 
 to  love  and  obey  him  ?  Besides,  no  adult  heathen  was 
 compelled  to  join  that  nation  at  all,  so  as  to  become  a  subject 
 of  it,  unless  it  were  by  the  force  of  truth  on  his  judgment  and 
 heart.  If  he  wished  to  become  a  Jew,  he  must  receive  the 
 mark  of  Judaism  ;  just  as  any  heathen,  becoming  a  Christian, 
 must  undergo  its  initiatory  rite.  Besides,  to  talk  of  a  baby, 
 eight  days'  old — and  scarcely  any  older  persons  were  ever 
 circumcised — being  compelled  to  receive  the  mark  of  the 
 Abrahamic  covenant ;  implies  an  intelligent  resistance  which 
 hardly  comports  with  our  notions  of  the  most  precocious  and 
 pugnacious  of  these  Hebrew  youngsters  ! 
 
 Again,  he  argues,  '  The  promises  of  the  covenant  of  cir- 
 '  cumcision  did  not  include  salvation,  nor  renewal  of  heart, 
 
 J?2 
 
346  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AXD  CHRIST. 
 
 '  nor  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  p.  152.  Nor  does  the  covenant 
 of  water-baptism,  unless  it  is  an  invariable  seal  of  spiritual 
 grace,  or  a  divine  regeneration  of  the  soul.  Take  that  in  the 
 Red  Sea,  as  expounded  by  Mr.  Stovel.  Grace  and  salvation 
 were  not,  thus,  conditional.  Simply,  because  a  man  is  bap- 
 tized, in  the  most  approved  style  of  dipping,  he  is  not  more 
 certified  of  eternal  life,  than  was  a  Jew,  because  he  was 
 circumcised.  Alas !  how  often  have  both  Jews  and  gentiles 
 been  deluded  with  such  groundless  hopes !  'Abraham's 
 '  covenant  was  conditional  and  defectible.'  p.  157-  Wherein 
 was  it  more  so  than  that  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is 
 declared  to  be  the  same  in  all  its  leading  features  1  '  No 
 '  previous  instruction  was  ordained,  no  profession  required, 
 '  no  examination  instituted,  no  delay  allowed,'  [in  circum- 
 cision.] p.  167.  Certainly  not,  in  the  first  great  act  of 
 circumcision ;  nor  was  it  in  the  first  great  baptizing  in  the 
 Red  Sea;  nor  in  the  first  great  consecration  on  the  day  of 
 pentecost.  But,  was  it  not  otherwise  afterwards,  '  when 
 '  proselytes  and  their  children  were  admitted  into  the  national 
 'covenant,'  [by  circumcision  and  water-baptism?]  p.  143. 
 Would  not  a  profession  be  required,  instruction  given,  exam- 
 inations instituted,  in  the  case  of  circumcised  adults,  as  much 
 as  in  the  case  of  adult  proselytes  to  Christianity  ?  Why, 
 every  animal,  from  an  ox  to  a  kid,  was  examined  before  it 
 was  consecrated  to  the  Lord.  That  the  babes  were  not  interro- 
 gated in  either  case,  we  may  readily  conceive  ;  and  that  when 
 the  parents  were  ready  for  the  rite,  there  would  be  no  delay, 
 through  the  slow  responses  of  the  little  ones,  may  be  equally 
 imagined  !  Mr,  Gamble  justly  remarks,  '  The  apostle  in  no 
 '  instance  examined  the  spiritual  character  of  the  candidates 
 '  for  baptism.'  p.  47.  '  In  the  first  cases,  there  was  no  previous 
 '  knowledge  whatever  of  Christianity  up  to  the  hour  of  baptism.' 
 p.  49.  Even  Paul  himself  must  have  been  very  ignorant  of 
 Christianity  up  to  the  time  of  his  baptism  by  Ananias. 
 
 I  must  not  overlook  a  remark  of  Dr.Carson  bearing  on  this  head. 
 '  Circumcision  neither  signed  nor  sealed  the  blessings  of  the 
 '  covenant  of  Abraham  to  the  individuals  to  whom  it  was,  by 
 '  divine  appointment,  administered.'  p.  223.  He  means,  that 
 many  were  circumcised,  who  did  not  obtain  the  benefits  or 
 blessings  it  promised  to  those  who  underwent  this  rite.  He 
 thence  concludes,  that  the  analogy  between  that  ceremony 
 and  Christian  baptism  is,  so  far,  destroyed ;  seeing  all,  who 
 are  rightly  baptized,  possess  the  blessings  signed  or  sealed  by 
 it !    But,  does  adult  or  believers'  baptism,  even  as  administered 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  347 
 
 "by  our  opponents,  always  sign  and  seal  the  blessings  of  the 
 gospel  covenant  to  the  individuals  themselves  ?  If  so,  what 
 are  we  to  say  to  the  previous  statistics,  of  the  apostacy  of  the 
 baptized!  Stovel  says,  'Men  enter  the'  [Baptist]  'church, 
 '  without  any  change  of  heart,  and  they  influence  the  society 
 *  of  the  church,  by  the  unsanctified  developments  of  their 
 '  fallen  nature.'  Reg.  Lect.  iv.  p.  1 2.  The  fact  is,  that  circum- 
 cision did  sign  or  seal  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  the  blessings 
 included  in  the  ancient  covenant,  as  fully  as  baptism  signs 
 and  seals  the  blessings  of  Christianity  to  the  seed  of  believers, 
 and  to  the  young,  who  undergo  this  rite.  That  did  not  insure 
 the  benefit  to  the  young  Hebrew ;  this  does  not  insure  the 
 benefit  to  the  young  Christian — nor  to  the  old  one  either. 
 A  forfeiture,  in  both  cases,  was  possible  and  actual,  through  the 
 subsequent  unbelief  and  apostacy  of  the  parties.  Mr.  Edwards 
 says,  '  The  Baptists  make  circumcision  no  religious  rite  at  all.' 
 p.  33.  Their  reasons  are  manifest.  If  it  be  a  religious  insti- 
 tution, it  affords  too  many  arguments  in  favour  of  Infant 
 Baptism,  for  our  opponents  easily  to  answer.  The  simpler 
 and  safer  plan  for  them  is,  to  treat  it  as  a  mere  political 
 institution,  to  be  observed  only  during  the  political  existence 
 ■of  the  Hebrew  nation  !  This  notion,  however,  is  in  direct 
 opposition  to  the  language  of  Paul  and  the  other  inspired 
 servants  of  God. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  offers  many  other  concise  observations,  bearing, 
 more  or  less  remotely,  on  our  subject,  which  may  be  as  well 
 concisely  to  notice  in  this  place.  '  If  baptism  be  the  sign 
 '  of  regeneration,  an  unregenerate  person  ought  not  to  be 
 'baptized.'  p.  112.  And  if  'circumcision  be  a  sign  of 
 'regeneration,'  as  he  elsewhere  asserts,  (p.  173),  an  unre- 
 generate person  ought  not  to  have  been  circumcised  !  But, 
 he  admits  above,  that  the  unregenerate  Jews  were  circumcised 
 and  baptized ;  and  we,  therefore,  infer  that  such  may  still  be 
 baptized  !  '  Baptism  cannot  be  the  baptism  of  regeneration, 
 '  except  with  respect  to  those  who  are  previously  regenerate,' 
 p.  112.  But,  why  not? — unless  Christian  baptism  be  essen- 
 tially different  from  Jewish  baptism — which  difference  he  has 
 not  attempted,  nor  is  he  able,  to  disprove.  On  his  principles, 
 none  but  regenerated  men  may  receive  an  instructive  benefit, 
 or  be  made  the  medium  of  conveying  heavenly  truth,  or 
 perform  a  religious  duty !  Even  worshipping  God,  keeping 
 the  sabbath,  praying,  or  reading  the  Scriptures,  must  not  be 
 attended  to,  except  by  the  regenerate,  for  they  are  all  Christian 
 acts  !      '  If  the  rite  is  a  public  manifestation  of  spiritual  life, 
 
348  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  it  should  be  withheld  from  those  who  offered  no  tokens  of 
 '  that  life.'  p.  112. — Where  is  it  called  a  public  manifestation 
 of  spiritual  life  in  the  Scriptures  ?  Nowhere.  '  Our  Lord  has 
 '  not  commanded  us  either  to  eat  unleavened  bread,  or  to 
 1  recline  at  the  Lord's  table,  or  to  wash  each  other's  feet ;  had 
 'he  so  commanded,  we  ought  to  do  these  things.'  p.  130. 
 But,  will  example  go  for  nothing  with  our  opponents,  when 
 it  does  not  affect  their  believers'  immersion  ?  Can  they  find 
 adult  dipping  more  clearly  enjoined  than  washing  one  another's 
 feet  ?  '  If  I,  then,  your  Lord  and  Master,  have  washed  your 
 '  feet,'  [which  he  had  just  done,]  '  ye,  also,  ought  to  wash  one 
 '  another's  feet.  For  I  have  given  you  an  example,  that  ye 
 '  should  do  as  I  have  done  unto  you.'  John  xiii.  14,  15. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  speaks  of  the  '  application  for  baptism '  by  the 
 three  thousand  on  the  day  of  pentecost.  p.  66.  The  record 
 of  this  is  wanting.  All  we  know  of  the  matter  is,  that  Peter 
 applied  to  them,  and  persuaded  them  to  undergo  the  rite. 
 '  There  is  evidence,  that,  with  respect  to  the  great  majority,' 
 [of  the  three  thousand]  '  their  repentance  and  faith  were  real.' 
 p.  67-  Most  Baptist  writers  conclude,  that  all  of  them  were 
 regenerate ;  now  it  amounts  to  but  a  great  majority,  say, 
 two-thirds  of  that  number.  And  where  is  the  evidence  of  the 
 saving  nature  of  the  repentance  and  faith  of  all  the  rest  ? 
 Up  to  the  time  of  the  pentecost,  he  says,  '  scarcely  any  of  the 
 '  rulers  had  believed  in  him,  not  a  single  priest,  not  a  solitary 
 '  pharisee,  had  become  his  disciple.'  p.  68.  Very  possible. 
 But,  where  are  the  converts  of  John ;  all  they  of  Jerusalem, 
 of  Judea,  and  of  the  region  round  about  Jordan  ;  baptized  on 
 sincere  repentance,  confession  of  sin,  resolutions  to  become 
 holy,  and  professions  of  faith  ?  Where  are  the  people  prepared 
 and  made  ready  for  the  Lord,  by  John's  ministry,  when  not  a 
 single  ruler,  priest,  or  pharisee,  (constituting  a  large  body  of 
 the  population),  believed  in  Christ,  up  to  the  time  of  his 
 ascension  ?  And  where  are  all  the  people  baptized  by  our 
 Lord's  disciples — which,  Dr.  Newman  says,  was,  (speaking 
 generally,)  the  same  as  Christian  baptism  ?  ■  Since  all  persons 
 '  rightly  baptized  are  justified,  and  yet,  none  but  believers  can 
 '  be  justified,  it  follows,  that  all  persons  rightly  baptized  must 
 'be  believers.'  p.  108.  Then,  it  follows,  that  a  minority  of 
 the  three  thousand  were  not  rightly  baptized ;  nor  were  any 
 of  the  multitudes,  who  afterwards  apostatized  from  the  pro- 
 fession made  to  John,  the  disciples,  and  apostles  of  Christ, 
 rightly  baptized  !  Nor  are  the  vast  numbers  which,  according 
 to  the  annual  statistics  of  the   Baptist  churches,  annually 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  349 
 
 excommunicated,  rightly  baptized !  And,  then,  we  should 
 like  to  know  wherein  the  delect  lies ;  since,  on  a  real  con- 
 version of  any  of  these  apostates,  they  are  not  dipped  a 
 second  time  ? 
 
 Mr.  Noel  goes  on : — '  As  an  unregenerate  adult  might  be 
 '  circumcised,  and  an  unregenerate  infant  might  receive  cir- 
 1  cumcision ;  but,  asan  unregenerate  adult  might  not  be  baptized, 
 'an  unregenerate  infant  might  not  receive  baptism.'  p.  169. 
 But,  it  is  not  proved  or  provable,  that  an  unregenerate  adult 
 might  not  be  baptized.  It  is  admitted  that  they  were  baptized 
 in  great  numbers  ;  and  that  rightly  too.  And  our  opponents 
 do  it,  as  they  publicly  confess ;  and  these  baptisms  are 
 practically  as  valid  as  that  of  the  best  men  in  their  denom- 
 inations. And,  therefore,  according  to  his  logic,  'Unregenerate 
 '  infants  might  receive  baptism'  also.  I  suppose,  Mr.  Noel  will 
 not  deny  that  persons  professing  the  Christian  religion  were 
 fully  baptized.  Hear,  then,  Paul's  description  of  some  of 
 these  baptized  people.  '  For  men  shall  be  '  [and  even  now 
 are]  '  selfish,  covetous,  false,  boasters,  haughty,  blasphemers, 
 '  disobedient  to  parents,  ungrateful,  unholy,  without  natural 
 'affection,  ruthless,  calumnious,  incontinent,  merciless,  haters 
 
 *  of  the  good,  treacherous,  headlong  with  passion,  blinded  with 
 '  pride,  lovers  of  pleasure  rather  than  lovers  of  God ;  having 
 
 *  a  form  of  godliness,  but  renouncing  the  power.  From  such 
 'turn  away.'  2  Tim.  iii.  2-6. —  Conybeare's  Trans. — 'Since 
 '  there  is  a  manifest  falsehood  in  the  profession  made  in  baptism 
 '  by  unregenerate  persons,  how  can  Christian  ministers  have 
 '  authority  from  Christ  to  sanction  such  falsehoods,  by  admin- 
 '  istering  baptism  to  any  persons  who  are  not  manifestly 
 '  converted?'  p. 45.  As  infants  never  make  any  professions  at 
 baptism,  Mr.  Noel  must  refer  to  his  own  Baptist  brethren  only 
 in  this  grave  allegation  !  On  their  behalf,  I  would  just  say, 
 that  they  seldom  dip  any  person  manifestly  or  notoriously 
 unconverted.  They  are  fallible,  and  deceived  by  false  pro- 
 fessions of  being  truly  converted.  Possibly,  our  opponent 
 himself  may  be  taken  in,  before  he  has  done  with  his 
 immersing  operations,  if  he  has  not  been  so  already  !  '  The 
 '  Jewish  baptism  was  intended  for  none  but  believers  in  Moses  ; 
 '  the  Christian  baptism  is  intended  for  none  but  believers  in 
 '  Christ.'  p.  49.  But  Jewish  baptism  was  unquestionably 
 intended  for  children  also  ;  and  as  John  and  the  apostles  fol- 
 lowed the  example  of  the  Jews,  in  administering  this  rite, 
 children,  most  assuredly,  should  now  be  baptized  unto  Christ! 
 
 He  proceeds — '  Nothing  whatever  is  said  of  any  female 
 
350  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 1  converts  '  [to  John's  baptism]  ;  '  there  might  have  been  no 
 '  women  in  the  crowds,  or  very  few.'  p.  81.  And  yet,  I  dare 
 say,  that  now  two  women  are  immersed  by  our  brethren  to  one 
 man  ;  notwithstanding  their  timidity  and  shaken  nerves,  even 
 when  they  are  not  publicly  dipped  in  a  river,  without  suitable 
 preparatory  appliances  !  On  one  occasion,  '  multitudes  '  of 
 believers  were  added  to  the  Lord,  'both men  and  ivomen,'  and, 
 of  course,  they  were  baptized,  but  how  did  they  decently 
 immerse  the  '  female  converts '  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  ? 
 Acts  v.  14.  Besides,  if  the  first  Christian  baptizers  dipped 
 comparatively  few  of  their  female  converts,  what  grounds  have 
 our  opponents  for  baptizing  comparatively  so  many  of  them  now  ! 
 1  True,' [water]  'baptism  secures  pardon.'  'True,  baptism  saves' 
 — what !  those  who  are  not  pardoned  and  saved  before  ? 
 1  Those  rightly  baptized  are  in  Christ !  '  But  were  they  not 
 in  him  previously,  or  else  how  did  they  become  regenerate 
 and  believers  immediately  afterwards  ?  '  True,  baptism  secures 
 '  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  But  must  they  not  have  the 
 Spirit  before  Mr.  Noel  would  knowingly  dip  them  ?  When 
 the  baptism  of  our  opponents  does  not  secure  the  Holy  Ghost, 
 is  it  a  false  baptism  ?  And  if  so,  should  it  not  be  viewed  and 
 treated  as  a  nullity  ?  '  It  is  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new 
 '  life  of  holiness.'   (p.  116,  117).     What!  water-baptism'! 
 
 '  As  the  statement  of  the  Apostle  (1  Peter  iii.  20,  21)  is 
 '  absolute,  that  baptism  doth  save  us,  it  follows  that  baptism 
 '  implies  faith,  is  an  act  of  faith,  and  may  be  put  for  faith  itself.' 
 p.  114.  But  Peter,  in  explanation,  says,  that  water-baptism 
 does  not  save  us,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience,  which 
 is  a  very  different  thing  from  immersing  a  person  under  water. 
 Still,  water  baptism  is  put  for  faith !  It  might  as  truly  be 
 put  for  fear  or  hope.  Would  Mr.  Noel  tell  his  congregation, 
 that  his  dipping  saves  the  souls  of  the  dipped  1  And  if  not, 
 he  either  must  misunderstand  Peter,  or  admit  that  his  baptism 
 and  Peter's  were  not  alike — at  least,  in  effect !  '  God  has 
 1  made  repentance  necessary  '  [essential]  '  to  baptism.'  p.  126. 
 What  kind  of  repentance  and  faith  must  it  be — spiritual  and 
 saving  ?  If  so,  all  persons  undergoing  this  rite,  without  this 
 spiritual  meetness,  are  still  unbaptized.  Besides,  to  whom 
 were  repentance  and  faith  so  necessary  ?  To  the  children 
 baptized  in  the- sea?  Or  to  the  baby  proselytes  to  Judaism? 
 Or  to  all  infants  now?  And  are  they  necessary  prerequisites 
 to  their  spiritual  baptism,  to  their  becoming  of  the  kingdom 
 of  God,  or  to  their  getting  to  heaven  ? 
 
 Further,  he  argues,  *  As   Christ  has  not  commanded  the 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  351 
 
 '  baptism  of  infants,  it  can  be  no  violation  of  bis  command  to 
 '  delay  tbeir  baptism  till  tbey  become  believers,  p.  130.  By 
 command,  be  means,  a  clear  and  express  injunction.  But, 
 if  it  may  be  inferred  from  Jewish  proselytism,  or  from  the 
 baptism  in  the  sea,  it  is  as  manifestly  commanded,  as  keeping 
 the  Lord's  day,  or  as  the  communion  of  females  at  the  Lord's 
 supper,  or  as  baptizing  young  men  and  maidens,  or  old  men 
 and  women.  And  might  it  not  as  reasonably  be  said,  defer 
 these  latter  actions  till  explicit,  verbal,  or  written  commands 
 to  do  them,  come  from  Heaven  1  But  though  Infant  Baptism 
 may  not  be  literally  enjoined,  he  does  not  question,  that  some 
 introductory  rite,  like  that  of  old,  would  have  been  proper, 
 and,  of  course,  he  means  the  ceremony  of  baptism.  'As 
 1  Judaism  had  its  initiatory  rite,  so  it  is  useful  that  Christianity 
 '  should  have  its  initiatory  rite  likewise.'  p.  17-  But,  as  the 
 initiatory  rite  was  administered  to  Jewish  children  almost 
 exclusively,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude,  that  the  initiatory 
 rite  to  Christianity  should  be  administered  to  children  also. 
 But,  though  this  initiatory  rite  among  the  Jews,  was  not 
 administered  to  one  adult  out  of  every  million  of  the  popu- 
 lation ;  yet,  according  to  this  gentleman's  doctrine,  not  one 
 child  born  in  Christendom,  should  be  initiated  to  Christianity 
 in  the  usual  way  !  What  a  striking  and  beautiful  analogy 
 between  the  two  economies  ! 
 
 To  argue,  as  Mr.  Noel  does,  '  that  persons,  intending  to 
 '  continue  in  sin,  would  not  like  solemnly  to  renounce  it '  at 
 the  baptistry,  especially  '  if  their  nerves  were  shaken  '  [at  the 
 sight  of  the  water  ;]  '  that  few  wordly  persons,  without  strong 
 '  inducements  of  a  wordly  kind,'  [which,  of  course,  they  never 
 feel !]  '  would  wish  to  make  so  solemn  a  profession  of  self- 
 '  dedication  to  God  falsely;'  [a  thing  unknown  in  our  body!'] 
 '  that  should  they  wish  to  do  so,  it  would  not  be  in  their  power  ! 
 [hence  it  is  never  done  !]  '  the  church  '  [and  not  the  minister] 
 '  which  is  the  judge  of  the  qualifications  of  candidates,  having 
 
 *  no  right '  [and  it  never  does  wrong!]  '  to  admit  any  one  to 
 '  membership,  if  the  baptismal  profession  be  palpably'  [or 
 actually]  '  false.'  p.  276-279.       Again,  he  says,   '  Our  Lord 
 
 *  has  forbidden  any  persons  to  apply  for  baptism  who  are  not 
 '  true  believers  ;  and  he  has  forbidden  his  ministers,'  [though 
 the  church  is  the  judge  of  their  qualities,]  '  to  baptize  any 
 '  who  do  not  seem,'  [hypocritically  or  not,]  '  to  be  true  be- 
 'lievers.'  p.  44.  Where  Christ  says  all  this,  either  directly, 
 or  by  fair  inference,  Mr.  Noel  fails  to  show  us  ;  nor  have  we 
 the  means  of  discovering  it. 
 
352  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 It  is  well  known,  and  universally  admitted,  that  multitudes 
 of  unregenerated  people,  and  women  too,  really  brave  all  the 
 difficulties  of  this  dipping,  withstand  the  fearful  ordeal  of 
 examination,  and  are  gladly  admitted  by  ministers  and  members 
 into  particular  Baptist  societies.  But  this  initiatory  rite, 
 instead  of  sealing  or  making  sure  to  them  pardon,  regeneration, 
 and  eternal  glory,  too  often  tends  to  place  them  in  a  false 
 position,  to  produce  a  morbid  conscience,  and  to  cherish  vain 
 expectations.  One  is  occasionally  amused  at  the  graces, 
 glories,  and  importance,  some  good  persons  throw  around  a 
 ceremony  they  wish  others  to  admire  and  attend.  But,  in 
 truth,  personal  piety,  pardon,  and  heaven,  were  sealed  to 
 none  under  the  law  or  the  gospel,  by  either  circumcision  or 
 baptism.  '  For  in  Christ  Jesus,  neither  circmcision  availeth 
 1  anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature — but  faith 
 '  that  worketh  by  love.'  These  institutions  were  designed  as 
 seals  of  God's  covenant ;  were  symbols  of  the  spiritual 
 blessings  it  contained ;  and,  when  applied  to  persons,  they 
 secured  to  them  the  external  means  of  obtaining  the  blessings 
 themselves,  but  did  nothing  more. 
 
 I  must  not,  however,  dismiss  the  topic  involved  in  the 
 question  under  immediate  consideration,  without  remarking 
 further,  that  while  the  former  covenant  included  spiritual 
 and  temporal  blessings,  the  present  covenant  does  the  like  : 
 and  that  in  the  latter,  as  previously  hinted,  the  secular 
 blessings — all  points  being  duly  and  fully  considered — areequal 
 to  those  of  the  former  economies.  '  Godliness  is  profitable 
 '  unto  all  things,  having  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is,  and 
 '  of  that  which  is  to  come.'  1  Tim.  iv.  8.  '  Honour  thy  father 
 '  and  mother  ;  which  is  the  first  commandment  with  promise; 
 '  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,  and  thou  may  est  live  long  on 
 '  the  earth.'  Eph.  vi.  2,  3.  '  Take  no  thought,  saying,  what 
 1  shall  we  eat,  or  what  shall  we  drink,  or  wherewithal  shall 
 *  we  be  clothed?..  ..But  seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God 
 '  and  his  righteousness  ;  and  all  these  things  shall  be  added 
 'unto  you.'  Matt.  vi.  31,  33.  'Godliness  with  contentment 
 '  is  great  gain.'  1  Tim.  vi.  6.  '  Let  your  conversation  be 
 '  without  covetousness,  and  be  content  with  such  things  as  ye 
 '  have,  for  he  hath  said,  I  will  never  leave  thee,  nor  forsake 
 '  thee.'  Heb.  xiii.  5.  '  Blessed  are  the  meek,  for  they  shall 
 '  inherit  the  earth.'  Matt.  v.  5  ;   see  ch.  vi.  25,  34. 
 
 Though  these  and  similar  promises  do  not  assure  to  the 
 people  of  God,  as  such,  worldly  kingdoms,  triumph  and  glory 
 in  this    life,  they  afford   them   an   assurance  of  all   that  is 
 
CIRCUMCISION  AND  BAPTISM  COMPARED.  353 
 
 needful,  and  comfortable  ;  and  on  that  tlieir  gracious  Father 
 is  causing  his  children  to  hope.  We  may  reasonably  conclude, 
 that  Christians,  in  general,  are  rendered  as  temporally  happy 
 as  were  the  ancient  Jews  ;  and  that  God's  real  children  now 
 come  little  or  nothing  behind  Israel  in  secular  benefits.  '  All 
 1  things  work  together  for  good  to  them  that  love  God  :'  and 
 these  bodies  of  ours  are  as  much  the  object  of  God's  providential 
 care  as  were  those  of  the  ancient  Israelites.  If  the  covenant 
 of  circumcision  included  mixed  benefactions,  so  does  that  of 
 baptism.  As  the  latter  embraces  superior  religious  advantages 
 — a  clearer  and  fuller  revelation,  and  a  larger  out-pouring  of 
 the  sanctifying  and  comforting  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit ; 
 it  would  not  have  been  marvellous,  had  it  comprehended 
 fewer  earthly  enjoyments  than  it  actually  contains,  or  than  it 
 indirectly,  but  certainly,  insures.  At  any  rate,  both  circumcision 
 and  baptism  typified  great  and  glorious  spiritual  blessings  ;  and 
 they  introduced  all,  who  complied  with  their  claims,  to  many 
 advantages  and  consolations  for  soul  and  body — for  time  and 
 eternity.  They  induct  us  to  a  grand  dispensation  of  blessed- 
 ness, for  which  we  should  be  heartily  and  unfeignedly  grateful, 
 and  of  which  our  children  should  not  be  deprived,  any  more 
 than  the  descendants  of  the  father  of  the  faithful,  the  friend 
 of  God. 
 
 There  is  one  circumstance  mentioned  in  Col.  ii.  11,  12, 
 worthy  of  notice,  before  quitting  this  particular  ;  as  it  shows 
 that  baptism  and  circumcision  are  placed  on  an  equality,  at 
 least,  in  some  of  its  leading  allusions.  Circumcision  and  baptism 
 are  spoken  of  as  analogous  in  their  designs  and  results,  and 
 as  equally  applicable  to  the  like  subjects.  The  typical  designs 
 are  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  ;  and  of  rising, 
 as  from  the  dead,  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God. 
 We  know  that  the  persons  circumcised  among  the  Jews,  were 
 infants — probably  not  one  in  ten  hundred  thousand  of  them 
 being  adults.  Further,  an  Israelite,  thinking  of  circumcision, 
 would,  probably,  seldom  or  never  associate  the  idea  of  an 
 adult  with  this  rite.  The  consequence  would  be,  that  when 
 Paul  had  circumcision  in  his  mind,  it  was  that  only  of  children, 
 and  not  of  grown-up  men  ;  and  that  when,  at  the  same  instant, 
 baptism  was  in  his  mind,  infants,  and  not  adults,  would  natu- 
 rally be  associated  with  it — at  least,  they  would  not  be 
 overlooked.  I  lay  no  great  stress  on  this  latter  circumstance. 
 But,  I  can  readily  imagine,  from  an  analogous  case,  that,  had 
 the  apostle  spoken  of  baptism,  in  a  like  relation  to  some  act 
 under  the  law,  in  which  adults  had  been  all  but  the  entire 
 
354  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 subjects  ;  our  opponents  would  have  felt  themselves  furnished 
 with  a  valuable  argument  in  favour  of  adult  baptism,  as  opposed 
 to  the  baptism  of  infants. 
 
 It  may  be  desirable  to  observe,  that  while  circumcision 
 and  baptism  agree  in  many  leading  particulars,  teach  the  like 
 impressive  and  important  lessons,  and  point  to  similar  spiritual 
 results  ;  there  are  some  things  in  which  they  manifestly  differ. 
 In  fact,  we  can  hardly  suppose,  that  both  would  have  been 
 instituted  so  early,  and  continued  to  be  administered, 
 in  the  same  religious  system,  and  principally  to  the  same 
 persons,  and  mostly  at  the  same  time,  so  many  centuries,  had 
 they  been  entirely  of  the  same  import.  Circumcision  had  an 
 especial  reference  to  the  covenant  of  Abraham  ;  Baptism  to 
 that  of  the  Mosaic  ceremonial.  One  particularly  spoke  of 
 putting  away  sin,  by  the  shedding  of  blood  ;  the  other  of 
 removing  pollution,  by  the  out-pouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 The  one  said,  ye  must  be  pardoned  ;  the  other,  ye  must  be 
 clean.  The  one  had  an  especial  reference  to  the  law,  the  other 
 to  the  gospel ;  the  one  inflicted  pain,  the  other  imparted 
 pleasure.  Probably,  in  other  matters  they  differed,  though, 
 in  their  main  designs,  they  graciously  agreed — teaching 
 redemption  by  Christ,  and  sanctification  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 Dr.  Carson  remarks,  '  Circumcision  and  baptism  correspond 
 '  in  meaning.  They  both  relate  to  the  removal  of  sin,  the  one 
 1  by  cutting,  the  other  by  washing.'  And  Mr.  Noel  states, 
 '  Circumcision  to  the  Lord  is  similar  to  baptism  to  the  Lord, 
 *  both  external  acts  betokening  the  same  duty  of  sanctification 
 'and  dedication  to  God.'  Still,  like  all  other  specific  divine 
 institutions,  while  agreeing  in  many  particulars,  they  all  had 
 some  distinct  purposes  in  the  economy  of  religious  means. 
 Baptism  and  circumcision,  even  if  administered  to  the  same 
 child  and  in  the  same  ritual,  were  not  so  united,  as  that  the  one 
 might  not  be  removed  without  damaging  the  other  ;  or  the  one 
 cease  without  destroying  its  associate. 
 
 Question  Y.—Was  not  the  Old  Testament  church  a  mere 
 type  of  the  New  ? — or  was  it  not  a  carnal  church  typifying 
 a  spiritual  one  ;  a  local  church  typifying  a  universal ;  and  a 
 temporary  church  typifying  an  everlasting  one  ?  Dr.  Carson 
 says,  '  The  church  of  Israel  was  the  type  of  the  church  of  the 
 '  New  Testament,  containing  no  doubt  the  body  of  the  people 
 '  of  God  at  that  time  on  the  earth,  and  in  this  point  of  view, 
 1  may  be  called  the  same.  Both  are  called  the  kingdom  of 
 '  God,  and  both  were  such,  but  in  a  different  sense.  The  one 
 'was  a  kingdom  of  this  world [!]  the  other  is  a  kingdom  not 
 
THE  0.  T.  CHURCH  NO  TYPE  OF  THE  NEW.  355 
 
 *  of  this  world.  God's  kingdom  of  Israel  contained  many  who 
 1  did  not  belong  to  his  spiritual  kingdom  ;  and  some  belonged 
 '  to  his  spiritual  kingdom  who  did  not  belong  to  the  typical 
 
 *  kingdom.  All  the  believers  belong  to  the  church  of  Christ, 
 '  but  all  believers  did  not  belong  to  the  church  of  Israel.  As 
 '  the  church  of  Israel  was  the  church  of  God,  typical  of  his 
 
 *  true  church,  and  containing  in  every  successive  age  a  remnant 
 '  of  the  spiritual  seed  of  Abraham,  according  to  the  election  of 
 'grace,  the  New  Testament  church  is  spoken  of  in  the  Old 
 1  under  the  figure  of  Israel,  Zion,  Jerusalem,  God's  holy 
 '  mountain,  &c.'  p.  234. 
 
 Before  replying  to  the  preceding  questions,  or  meeting 
 Dr.  Carson's  statements,  we  must,  ascertain  the  meaning  of 
 the  word  type,  as  employed  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
 learned  editor  of  Cahnet's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  says,  it  is  a 
 '  Greek  word,  which  signifies  generally  a  resemblance,  by 
 'whatever  means  made.'  It  is  used  in  the  Greek  Testament 
 sixteen  times;  and  it  is  translated  seven  times  by  the  English 
 word  'Example;'  two  of  these  are  in  our  text,  v.  6,  11. 
 Twice  it  is  rendered  '  Pattern  ; '  twice,  '  Prints,'  of  the  nails 
 in  our  Saviour's  hands  ;  twice,  '  Figures  '  or  '  Copies  ; '  once, 
 'Fashion;'  once,  'Form;'  and  once,  'Manner.'  Therefore, 
 had  the  Old  Testament  church  been  a  type  of  the  New,  the 
 general  sense  and  use  of  the  word  would  not  have  bespoken 
 much  inferiority  in  the  ancient  system.  But,  the  word  is 
 never  employed  to  express  the  idea,  that  the  church  in  the 
 wilderness  was  a  type  of  the  gospel  church,  at  least,  in  the 
 sense  of  inferiority  intended  in  the  objection.  The  church, 
 composed  of  the  worshippers  of  the  God  of  heaven,  has  ever 
 been  one  and  equal  in  all  its  prime  features,  from  the  time  of 
 Moses  till  the  present  day.  Reformations  and  revivals  have 
 taken  place  in  that  church  ;  but  its  essential  identity  has 
 remained  unaffected  by  any  of  them  ;  and  it  must  continue  so 
 while  the  same  God  is  worshipped,  the  same  Mediator  is  appealed 
 to,  and  the  same  Spirit  works  in  the  like  natures  of  mankind. 
 
 On  the  death  of  Christ,  there  was  a  great  reformation. 
 More  light  was  shed  on  the  minds  of  men,  by  the  more  full 
 and  clearer  dispensation  of  truth,  through  the  ministry  of  the 
 apostles  ;  and  a  mighty  influence  affected  their  hearts,  by  a 
 larger  than  ordinary  communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost — as 
 in  the  times  of  Whitfield  and  Wesley  in  this  country.  Much 
 that  had  been  previously  associated  with  the  church,  in  forms, 
 rites,  and  arrangements,  was  abolished.  Priests,  altars,  sacri- 
 fices, tithes,  incense,  feasts,  and  many  external  observances, 
 
356  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 were  removed  ;  as  having  answered  their  respective  purposes, 
 and  fulfilled  their  day  ;  and  the  simple  form  of  worship,  as 
 conducted  in  the  synagogue,  was  recognized  and  established. 
 Still,  the  church — the  assembly,  the  congregation,  professedly 
 and  openly  worshipping  the  God  of  heaven — remained  the 
 same  in  all  its  essential  constituents,  properties,  principles, 
 and  services.  It  was  composed  of  the  like  characters,  before 
 and  after  the  death  of  the  Redeemer.  The  same  spiritual 
 affections  and  social  duties  were  required  of  its  members 
 previously,  as  after  that  glorious,  yet  tragical,  event. 
 
 An  anonymous  writer  inquires :  '  Was  Jesus  Christ  the 
 '  head  of  a  carnal  church  ?  He  was  head  of  the  church 
 '  under  the  law,  even  as  in  the  days  of  the  gospel.  And  will 
 '  any  sober  man  say,  he  was  the  head  of  a  carnal  church  ? 
 '  This  were  heterogeneous,  indeed,  that  a  spiritual  head  should 
 1  be  joined  to  a  carnal  church.  But,  I  pray,  what  singular 
 '  virtue  do  these  men  see,  and  find,  in  baptism,  that  they  so 
 '  much  admire  it  above  circumcision  ?  What  is  there  in  it  of 
 '  itself — since  they  keep  such  ado  about  it — more  than  in 
 '  circumcision  ?  It  is  altogether,  in  itself,  as  carnal  as  circum- 
 '  cision,  and  the  people  that  submit  to  it  as  carnal  as  others  ; 
 '  and  as  carnal  and  perverse  a  use  do  some  of  them  make  of  it, 
 '  as  the  Jews  did  of  circumcision  .  .  .  There  is  a  circumcision 
 '  in  the  flesh,  and  a  circumcision  in  the  heart ;  the  former  carnal, 
 '  the  latter  spiritual ;  and,  so,  there  is  a  baptism  of  the  flesh, 
 4  and  a  baptism  of  the  spirit.  The  apostle  derides  circum- 
 '  cision  in  the  flesh,  where  that  of  the  heart  was  wanting,  by 
 '  giving  it  the  contemptible  name  of  concision,  and  circum- 
 *  cision  was  uncircumcision,  so,  dipping  is  non-baptism,  where 
 '  that  of  the  Spirit  is  wanting.' 
 
 There  was  a  great  reformation  and  revival  of  religion  on 
 the  continent  in  the  time  of  Luther.  Much  that  had  been 
 unrighteously  blended  with  gospel-worship  was  removed; 
 and  many  souls  were  converted,  and  added  to  the  true  church 
 of  God,  by  the  ministrations  of  the  faith,  in  a  purer  and 
 simpler  form,  probably  more  than  had  been  regenerated, 
 in  those  countries,  during  several  centuries  before.  But 
 previously,  as  well  as  subsequently,  to  that  reformation, 
 there  was  a  church — the  same  in  its  prime  elements,  and 
 holy  constituents,  even  though  its  numbers,  as  in  ancient 
 Israel,  at  times,  were  but  small — for  who  but  the  catholics 
 themselves,  men  of  more  light  and  piety  than  the  mass  of 
 their  co-religionists,  effected  this  glorious  revolution  ? 
 
 Indeed,  I  venture  to  suggest,  that  were  the  national  estab- 
 
TIIE  0.  T.  CIR'ECII  X0  TYPE  OF  THE  HEW.  357 
 
 lishment  of  this  country  to  be  divested  of  what  it  holds, 
 teaches,  and  exhibits,  different  from  the  spiritual  doctrines, 
 laws,  ministrations,  and  ceremonies,  of  Independent  and. 
 Baptist  churches  ;  there  would  be  as  great,  if  not  as  manifest, 
 a  change  as  took  place  in  the  Jewish  religious  system  in  the 
 days  of  the  apostles.  Yet  the  putting  away  of  the  appendages 
 previously  made  to  the  gospel  scheme,  by  the  state  church, 
 would  not  make  another  church,  any  more  than  a  state  officer 
 would  become  another  man,  by  taking  off  his  paraphernalia 
 and  attiring  himself,  as  he  often  does,  in  the  dress  of  a  private 
 gentleman.  There  would  be  no  annihilation  of  the  real  church, 
 no  ignoring  its  fundamental  doctrines,  duties,  and  obligations, 
 and  even  no  interruption  of  its  existence  ;  but  merely  a  reform, 
 and  such  as  all  intelligent  dissenters  believe  would  be  of  vast 
 advantage  to  the  cause  of  true  holiness,  and  highly  conducive 
 to  the  glory  of  God.  Nor  would  any  person  of  sound  mind, 
 contemplating  such  reformations,  affirm  that  popery  was  a 
 type  of  protestantism,  or  the  state  church  a  type  of  Congrega- 
 tionalism, or  the  general  on  parade  a  type  of  the  same  gentleman 
 in  nonofficial  attire,  or  a  judge,  in  his  big  wig  and  gown,  a  type 
 of  his  lordship  without  them.  Rites,  forms,  and  ceremonies, 
 were  not  the  church,  under  the  former  economy,  any  more  than 
 modes  and  ecclesiastical  measures,  are  the  church  now.  The 
 church  is  a  body  or  congregation  of  people  worshipping  God, 
 and  holding  the  grand  and  leading  truths  of  divine  revelation. 
 When  we  use  the  word  Reformation,  in  reference  to  the 
 changes  which  took  place  in  the  church  of  God,  we  adopt  the 
 very  term  of  Scripture,  and  its  import  also.  In  Heb.  ix.  10, 
 Paul  states,  that  the  changes  which  took  place,  through  the 
 incarnation  and  death  of  the  Messiah — were  a  'Reformation' 
 of  the  old,  and  not  the  Institution  of  a  new,  church  of  God 
 in  the  Holy  Land. 
 
 That  there  were  types,  figures,  shadows,  and  symbols,  in 
 the  Old  Testament,  directing  the  Jews  to  spiritual  blessings, 
 past,  present,  and  future,  no  one  ever  thought  of  denying  ; 
 and  that  these  types  were,  in  certain  respects,  inferior  to 
 their  antitypes,  will  be  readily  conceded.  Moses  and  Aaron, 
 in  their  official  positions,  were  types  of  Christ,  our  King,  and. 
 glorious  High  Priest.  The  sacrifices  were  types  of  the 
 atonement.  The  tabernacle  and  temple  were  types  of  the 
 holiest  of  all  in  heaven.  And  so,  according  to  Mr.  Keach, 
 most  of  the  persons  of  note,  the  things,  and  the  religious 
 acts,  of  the  law,  were  types  of  something  or  other  in  the  gospel 
 economy.     But,  still,  the  former  church  was  no  type  of  the 
 
3o8 
 
 THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 Christian  church,  though,  in  some  of  its  privileges,  the  former 
 might  be  inferior  to  the  latter.  Water-baptism  was  a  type  of 
 the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  in  the  days  of  Moses,  as  much  as  in 
 the  time  of  Paul.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  a  type  of  the  sacrifice 
 of  Christ,  and  of  the  feast  of  blessings  in  another  world. 
 Hence,  we  infer,  that,  as  children  were  baptized  into  God's 
 congregation,  in  and  after  the  days  of  Moses,  we  must  have 
 very  strong  and  clear  scriptural  proofs  to  convince  us  that 
 they  should  not  be  baptized  into  God's  church  in  the  present 
 day.  Water-baptism,  before  Christ,  was  no  more  a  type  of 
 water-baptism  after  Christ  came,  than  circumcision  before  the 
 age  of  Moses,  was  a  type  of  the  same  rite  after  the  exodus 
 from  Egypt. 
 
 Besides,  if  any  valid  argument  might  be  raised  against 
 Infant  Baptism,  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  on  the  ground 
 that  the  Old  Testament  church  was  a  carnal  type  of  the  New 
 Testament  church  ;  it  would  follow,  that  no  carnal  children 
 should  now  be  baptized  ;  and  that  only  spiritual  ones,  if  they 
 are  to  be  found,  should  undergo  this  initiatory  rite.  But,  our 
 opponents  neglect  the  baptism  of  all  children,  whether  spiritual 
 or  not.  It  is  also  an  unquestioned  fact,  that  the  children  of 
 the  worst  Hebrews  were  naturally  as  spiritual,  as  the  children 
 of  the  best  Christians  ;  and  were  equally  qualified  for  the 
 reception  of  the  baptismal  rite,  in  its  spiritual  aspect,  with  the 
 offspring  of  the  holiest  parents  in  Christendom.  Further, 
 according  to  the  reasoning  of  our  objectors,  all  the  adult 
 Israelites  must  have  been  viewed  only  as  carnal,  or  they  would 
 not  have  been  proper  types  of  the  spiritual  candidates  for 
 Christian  baptism  ;  while  the  children  of  the  devil  must  have 
 been  types  of  the  children  of  God  !  But,  doubtless,  many  of 
 the  Hebrews,  both  men  and  women,  were  as  pious  and  spiritual 
 as  any  baptized  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  or  by  any  of  our 
 brethren  in  recent  times. 
 
 Our  opponents  might  consistently  contend,  that  the  holy 
 prophets  were  carnal  types  of  the  holy  apostles ;  that  the  saints 
 in  Israel  were  carnal  types  of  the  spiritual  saints  at  Corinth ; 
 and  that  the  Sabbath  day,  preaching,  praise,  prayer,  and 
 adoration,  were  carnal  types  of  the  Lord's  day,  and  of  our 
 sanctuary  services !  Water-baptism,  under  the  former  economy, 
 was  not  a  type  of  water-baptism  under  the  gospel,  for,  in  both 
 cases,  they  were  alike  typical  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
 They  precede  or  follow  each  other  as  continuous  ordinances 
 in  the  same  church  of  God.  The  passover  was  not  a  type  of 
 the  Lord's  supper,  both  being  equally  types  of  the  death  of  the 
 
THE  0.  T.  CHURCH  X0  TYl'E  OF  THE  NEW.      359 
 
 Lamb  of  God.  The  one  preceded,  and  the  other  followed, 
 that  tragic  scene,  and  both  pertained  to  the  glorious  church  of 
 God,  though  there  were  variations  in  their  administrations. 
 Alford  says, '  No  sacramental  ordinance  canbe  a  type  of  another, 
 '  but  all  alike,  though  in  different  degrees  of  approximation, 
 '  and  by  different  representations,  types  of  Him,  who  is  the 
 'fountain  of  all  good.'  Gr.  Test.  Text.  In  the  establishment 
 of  the  gospel  economy,  that  only  wras  done  away  which  was 
 of  no  more  religious  utility,  or  which  comported  only  with 
 the  local  position  of  the  Jews,  or  with  the  more  immediate  and 
 manifest  national  theocracy.  But  all  that  was  spiritual,  moral, 
 and  appropriate  to  all  ages,  was  evidently  and  purposely 
 retained.  Among  the  institutions  thus  preserved,  assuredly 
 was  Christian  and  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 There  is  not  a  doubt,  in  my  mind,  that  the  providence  of 
 God  effected  the  abrogation  of  the  Jewish  polity,  and  the 
 overthrow  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  in  order  to  do  away  with 
 those  types  and  symbols  which  had  especial  reference  to  the 
 sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God.  While  Jerusalem  stood  and 
 remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Jews,  the  temple  would  be 
 preserved,  the  altar  would  be  used,  and  sacrifices  would  be 
 daily  offered,  and  all  typical  persons,  things,  and  actions, 
 would  be  continued — all  virtually  saying,  the  Saviour  was 
 not  come,  and  the  great  atonement  for  sin  was  not  yet  made. 
 To  prevent  this  fearful  result,  the  whole  were  swept  away, 
 never  to  be  again  restored.  While,  on  the  other  hand, 
 whatever  comported  with  the  fact  of  the  Saviour  having 
 died,  or  became  proofs  and  memorials  of  his  incarnation  and 
 resurrection,  or  tended  to  prepare  men  to  believe  in,  to  love, 
 and  to  obey  him,  was  carefully  preserved  to  his  people — 
 and  water-baptism  was  evidently  one  of  those  means. 
 
 That  the  churches  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  were 
 one,  may  be  further  confirmed  from  the  fact,  that  the  sacred 
 writers  of  the  former  economy  predicted,  not  the  annihilation 
 of  their  church,  nor  an  interval  between  putting  down  the 
 one  and  setting  up  another  in  its  place  ;  but  that  the  gentiles 
 were  to  be  brought  into  the  very  same  communion  of  which 
 they  themselves  were  members — '  The  gentiles  shall  come  to 
 
 •  thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising  .  .  .  they 
 '  shall  gather  themselves  together,  they  shall  come  to  thee ; 
 '  thy  sons  shall  come  from  far,  and  thy  daughters  shall  be 
 '  nursed  at  thy  side  .  .  .  they  shall  come  up  with  acceptance 
 
 *  on  mine  altar  .  .  .  the  sons  of  the  strangers  shall  build  up 
 '  thy  walls.     In  my  wrath  I  smote  thee ;  but  in  my  favour 
 
3 GO  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  have  I  had  mercy  on  thee  .  .  .  Thy  gates  shall  he  open 
 '  continually,  they  shall  not  be  shut  day  nor  night ;  that  men 
 '  may  bring  unto  thee  the  forces  of  the  gentiles,  and  that  their 
 '  kings  might  be  brought  .  .  .  They  shall  come  unto  thee,  the 
 '  city  of  the  Lord,  the  Zion  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  .  .  . 
 '  A  little  one  shall  become  a  thousand,  and  a  small  one  a 
 'strong  nation;  I  the  Lord  will  hasten  it  in  his  time.'  (Is. 
 Ix.  3,  &c.) — when  the  Messiah  shall  come  in  the  flesh,  and 
 establish  his  spiritual  reign  over  the  gentiles,  and  bring  them 
 into  the  then  existing  church  of  Israel.  In  the  prospect  of 
 this  sublime  event,  the  Hebrew  saints  of  old  rejoiced  and 
 gloried ;  but  which  they  would  never  have  done,  had  they 
 imagined  their  beloved  church  was  to  be  absolutely  destroyed, 
 and  another  substituted  in  its  place.  The  tabernacle  was  to  be 
 rebuilt  and  the  gentiles  were  to  come  into  it.  Amos  ix.  11-16. 
 The  divine  Messenger  was  to  purify  the  sons  of  Levi,  and  not 
 destroy  their  heaven-born  religion.  Mai.  iii.  1-4. 
 
 In  the  New  Testament,  the  same  doctrine  is  unfolded  and 
 affirmed.  The  middle  wall  of  partition  was  to  be  broken  down, 
 and  the  gentiles  were  to  be  brought  into  the  inner  court  of 
 the  house  of  the  Lord — fraternizing  with  the  ancient  Israelitish 
 church.  Eph.  ii.  12,  19.  Some  of  the  branches  of  the  fat 
 olive  tree — the  former  church  of  God — were,  through  unbelief, 
 to  be  cut  off,  and  exotic  scions  were  to  be  grafted  in  their 
 places.  Eom.  xi.  17,  24.  But,  there  remained  the  same  tree — 
 with  many  original  branches  on  it — the  venerable  and  veritable 
 church  of  God  ;  and  this  was  to  stand  and  flourish  to  the  end 
 of  time.  The  real  church  of  God  was  to  continue  one  and 
 the  same  in  every  essential  particular — or  all  the  above  pas- 
 sages, and  many  others,  of  the  like  import,  are  without  any 
 rational  application.  There  was  never  to  be  a  period,  even  of 
 the  shortest  duration,  from  the  days  of  Moses,  when  the  church 
 of  God  was  first  duly  organized,  in  which  God  would  not  have 
 a  church  in  the  world.  If  there  were  such  a  time,  we  should 
 feel  indebted  to  the  advocates  of  this  assumption,  to  tell  us 
 precisely  when  it  occurred,  and  how  long  was  its  duration. 
 As  corporate  bodies  never  die,  so  the  first  incorporated  church 
 abideth  for  ever.  Even  in  the  worst  times  of  Israel,  and 
 among  the  most  degenerate  of  its  tribes,  there  were  seven 
 thousand  men  who  had  not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal,  and  who 
 constituted  the  true  church  of  God  in  the  days  of  Elias. 
 It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  for  many  years  after  the  death  of 
 Christ,  the  church  was  chiefly,  if  not  entirely,  composed  of 
 persons,  who  had  been  members,  (and  some  of  them  godly 
 
TIIF.  0.  T.  CHURCH  NO  TYPE  OF  THE  NEW.  3G1 
 
 members  too  !)  of  the  church  instituted  under  (lie  law — just 
 as  the  first  protestant  churches  were  composed  of  persons 
 who  had  been  in  communion  with  the  church  of  Rome.  These 
 Christian  Israelites,  so  far  from  imagining  themselves  apostates 
 from  their  former  faith,  evidently  felt  that  they  were  still 
 professing  and  maintaining  it  in  greater  purity  than  before  ; 
 and  they  frequently  appealed  to  their  ancient  books,  in  support 
 and  defence  of  their  then  present  views  and  conduct. 
 
 On  the  last  cited  text,  (Rom.  xi.  17,  24,)  Mr.  Wills  observes, 
 (1)  '  That,  though  the  collected  body  of  the  Jews,  or  the  gene- 
 rality of  that  people,  were  broken  off  from  the  church  through 
 unbelief;  for  it  is  said,  "If  some  were  broken  off,"  not 
 all  of  them  ;  for,  as  said  before,  most  of  the  apostles  and 
 thousands  of  the  Jews  believed.  (2)  The  believing  gentiles 
 are  ingrafted  in  their  place — en  autois — in  among  them ....  in 
 amongst  the  branches  of  the  tree. ..  .implying  that  some 
 remained  still,  and  the  believing  gentiles  were  inoculated 
 (ingrafted)  among  them,  pro  ipsis,  instead  of  them,  in  the 
 place  and  room  of  the  branches  broken  off.  (3)  The  Jews 
 shall  be  restored  again  to  the  church  at  the  latter  end  of  the 
 world  ;  they  shall  be  in  statu  quo  prius,  become  the  church 
 and  people  of  God  again,  as  formerly,  but  in  a  more 
 glorious  manner.' 
 
 Whence  he  infers,  '  (1)  That  the  same  Jewish  children, 
 which  were  visibly  of  the  church  immediately  before  their 
 parents  became  Christians,  continued  to  be  so  after.... 
 All  that  were  not  broken  off  by  unbelief,  did  continue 
 unbroken  off ;  that  is,  they  still  kept  their  place  and  standing 
 in  the  church  of  God.  To  assign  any  other  cause  of  dis- 
 churching  any,  than  the  Scripture  hath  assigned,  is  too  great 
 presumption,  and  such  as  will  satisfy  no  impartial  mind. 
 (2)  Those  Jews  who  were  broken  off  from  the  church,  their 
 children  also  being  before  members,  were  likewise  broken 
 off;  therefore  it  follows,  believing  gentiles  and  their  children 
 are  ingrafted  in  ;  for  the  ingrafting  must  be  proportionable 
 to  the  breaking  off;  they  succeeding  in  the  place  of  the  former, 
 must  enjoy  the  privileges  they  lost.  (3)  When  the  Jews 
 shall  be  grafted  in  again,  not  with  a  diminution,  but  addition 
 to  their  glory,  and  one  part  of  their  glory  was,  that  they 
 and  their  seed  were  God's  visible  church,  then  so  shall  it 
 be  with  them  when  they  are  called.' 
 
 '  At  their  first  grafting  in,  they  and  their  children  were 
 grafted  in  ;  at  their  casting  out,  they  and  their  children 
 were  broken  off;   and  when  they  shall  be  taken  in  again, 
 
 Q 
 
362  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHEIST. 
 
 '  they  and  their  children  shall  be  taken  in.  This,  Mr.  Tombes 
 'himself  grants. ..  .Thus,  then,  we  argue,  If  it  must  he  so 
 '  with  them,  it  must  he  so  with  believing  gentiles  now,  or 
 •  else  there  would  be  a  schism  between  Jew  and  gentile  in 
 '  point  of  privilege,  else  there  will  be  two  distinct  estates  in 
 '  the  Christian  churches  ;  one  of  the  Jews,  holy  fathers,  and 
 '  children ;  another  of  the  gentiles,  who  have  only  personal 
 '  privileges,  none  for  their  seed,  which  is  an  absurd  conceit, 
 '  and  would  set  up  and  keep  up  a  partition  wall  still,  contrary  to 
 '  that.  Eph.  ii.  I  shall  say  nothing  of  other  absurdities,  which 
 '  are  very  numerous,  which  come  from  the  denying  the 
 '  church  membership  of  the  infant  seed  of  believers.'  p.  73-76. 
 Notwithstanding  the  above  and  similar  proofs  of  the  identity 
 of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  churches,  in  every  essential  and 
 leading  particular,  we  often  hear  persons  speaking  of  the  former 
 as  if  it  had  not  the  same  God,  Saviour,  or  Sanctifier,  as  the 
 latter  ;  and  as  if  there  had  been  different  principles  of  holiness, 
 different  faith,  different  affection,  and  different  obedience,  in 
 the  days  of  Moses,  David,  Isaiah,  and  Malachi,  from  what 
 were  required  in  the  days  of  Peter,  James,  and  John  his 
 brother.  In  fact,  they  talk  as  if  religious  people,  before  the 
 incarnation  of  Christ,  were  all  totally  ignorant  of  the  divine 
 Redeemer,  his  character,  office,  and  claims,  and  never  looked 
 to  him  for  salvation,  nor  to  the  Holy  Spirit  for  sanctiflcation, 
 nor  to  the  moral  laws  of  God  for  guidance  in  their  social  and 
 religious  concerns  ;  or,  as  if  they  were  altogether  different 
 from  the  good  men  living  after  the  Saviour  returned  to  heaven  ; 
 or,  as  if  theNewTestament  were  the  embodiment  of  an  entirely 
 new  religion  in  the  world,  commencing  on  the  memorable  day 
 of  Pentecost.  They  seem  to  fancy,  that  there  was  no  real  or 
 visible  church,  or  religious  congregation,  in  the  earth,  before 
 the  death  of  Christ.  All  this,  too,  is  pleaded  for  the  sole 
 purpose  of  proving,  if  possible,  that,  while  infants  were 
 recognized  members  of  the  former  dispensation,  they  should 
 not  be  of  the  latter ;  and  that  now  Infant  Baptism  and 
 membership  are  superstitious,  sinful,  and  vain.  It  must, 
 however,  be  a  feeble  cause  that  requires,  for  its  support,  such 
 a  disjunction  and  disruption  of  God's  religious  interest  in  the 
 world.  The  church  of  Christ,  I  repeat,  has  been  the  same, 
 in  all  its  essential  properties,  in  all  times  and  places,  wherever 
 his  name  has  been  recorded,  where  spiritual  worship  has  been 
 offered,  where  faith  has  been  in  vital  exercise,  and  where  his 
 righteous  laws  have  been  cheerfully  obeyed.  Mr.  Keach 
 candidly  says,  '  We  grant  the  invisible  church  of  God,  under 
 
THE  OLD  AXD  NEW  COVENANTS  THE  SAME.  3G3 
 
 '  the  law  and  gospel,  is  but  one  and  the  same.'  p.  181.  I  add, 
 that  from  the  days  of  Moses,  the  true  church  has  been  systema- 
 tically and  divinely  organized  and  officered  by  the  blessed 
 God  himself,  and  that  children  have  always  constituted  a  large 
 and  essential  part  of  it. 
 
 Question  VI. — Is  not  the  former  spiritual  covenant  done 
 away,  and  a  new  one  established  in  its  room  ? — The  answers 
 given  to  a  preceding  question,  are  substantially  a  reply  to  the 
 present.  But,  as  this  part  of  the  inquiry  is  of  considerable 
 importance,  towards  defending  our  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism, 
 the  reader  must  pardon  the  prolixity  of  our  observations  upon 
 it — as  well  as  upon  some  other  points,  which,  at  first  sight, 
 may  appear  of  remote  relation  to  the  subject. — Our  opponents 
 refer  us  to  Jer.  xxxi.  31-34,  and  Heb.  viii.  6,  13,  to  prove  that 
 the  Mosaic  covenant  was  entirely  abrogated  at  the  resurrection 
 of  Christ ;  that  a  perfectly  new  one  was  given  in  its  place  ; 
 and  that,  though  children  were  included  in  the  former,  they 
 are  not  comprehended  in  the  latter,  and,  therefore,  should  not 
 be  baptized  into  it.  It  may  be  instructive  to  determine  the 
 meanings  of  the  term  Covenant  in  the  passages  just  referred  to. 
 
 The  original  words  are  Berith  and  Diatheke.  '  They  both 
 '  signify  an  arrangement  or  disposition  of  affairs  ;  '  and  in 
 their  present  connexion,  intimate,  '  that  the  gospel  should  be 
 '  peculiarly  spiritual  in  its  character,  and  should  be  attended 
 '  with  the  diffusion  of  just  views  of  the  Lord.' — Barnes.  A 
 covenant  between  God  and  man  must  not  be  confounded  with 
 a  covenant  between  man  and  his  fellow  mortals.  The  former 
 is  a  divine  command,  from  an  absolute  superior,  and  which 
 the  inferior  is  bound,  by  fearful  penalties,  to  receive  and 
 keep.  The  latter  is  a  compact  (Sunthema)  between  two  free, 
 equal,  and  independent  parties,  fully  comprehending  its  con- 
 ditions, and  both,  beforehand,  equally  at  liberty  to  engage 
 in  it,  or  not.  '  Sometimes  the  word  [Diatheke)  denotes  '  the 
 '  sovereign  decree,  or  purpose  of  the  Almighty,  in  reference  to 
 '  things  where  no  mutual  stipulations  could  take  place.  And 
 '  in  other  instances,  it  expresses  the  absolute  promise  of  God, 
 '  respecting  what  he  will  do  for  his  people.'  Gibbs,  p.  287. 
 '  The  decalogue,  or  ten  commandments,  is  called  a  covenant. 
 '  Ex.  xxiv.  28  :  and  this  is  exactly  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
 'Deut.xxix.il.'  Jenkins,  p.  26.  '  It  must  be  remembered 
 '  that  Diatheke  does  not  (like  the  English  covenant)  imply 
 '  reciprocity.  It  means  a  legal  disposition,  and  would  perhaps 
 'be  better  translated   dispensation  here.    (Heb.  viii.  9.)     A 
 
364  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  covenant  between  two  parties  is  SyntheJce.'  Conybeare  and 
 Howson,  v.  ii.  p.  626. 
 
 In  God's  covenant,  therefore,  children  are  as  admissible  as 
 men  and  women.  Jehovah  enters  into  covenant  even  with 
 the  beasts  of  the  field,  and  the  fowls  of  the  air.  Hosea  ii.  18. 
 Surely,  then,  he  may  embrace  children  in  his  gracious  covenants 
 of  promise.  They  may  be  bound  to  obey  the  commands  of 
 God,  as  they  grow  in  wisdom  and  stature,  equally  with  their 
 parents  ;  and  they  may  receive  the  sign  of  this  covenant 
 when  they  are  unconscious  infants,  as  the  Hebrew  children 
 received  the  sign  of  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  when  they 
 were  only  eight  days  old  ;  or  as  a  father  binds  his  babe  to 
 perform  certain  acts,  after  attaining  to  a  competent  age.  The 
 abrogated  covenant,  referred  to  by  the  prophet  and  the 
 apostle,  comprehended  the  peculiar  rules,  laws,  rites,  and 
 rituals,  of  the  Levitical  dispensation,  and  nothing  more ;  as 
 we  know  that  the  moral  and  spiritual  portions  of  the  old 
 system  remain  to  this  day. 
 
 The  new  covenant  means  the  gospel  dispensation,  with  its 
 simpler  services,  clearer  light,  and  greater  efficiency,  in 
 converting  the  souls  of  men  ;  or,  rather,  it  is  a  new  declaration 
 of  the  spiritual  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity  ;  as  the 
 new  commandment,  to  love  one  another,  was  but  the  reiteration 
 and  reinforcement  of  injunctions  as  old  as  the  law.  But  this 
 retrenchment  of  types  and  forms,  did  not  affect  the  essential 
 properties  of  the  ancient  system,  or  render  the  new  materially 
 different.  Its  constituents  were  not  to  be  changed.  There 
 were  not  to  be  new  sorts  of  men  and  women  and  children ; 
 nor  were  there  to  be  new  kinds  of  conversion,  faith,  holiness,  or 
 love  to  God — merely  because  some  of  the  rituals  and  arrange- 
 ments of  the  Jewish  system  were  to  be  modified,  or  totally 
 removed. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  says,  '  As  God  made  a  covenant  with  the  descen- 
 '  dants  of  Jacob,  with  their  children  and  slaves,  irrespective 
 '  of  religious  character,  he  ordered  them  to  receive  the  token 
 '  of  his  covenant ;  and  as  he  has  made  a  new  covenant  with  all 
 4  believers,  he  has  ordered  them  also  to  receive  the  token  of 
 '  the  covenant.'  Sub.  p.  185.  Had  the  writer  completed  the 
 parallel,  which  the  subject  evidently  requires,  he  would  have 
 said,  God  has  made  a  new  covenant  with  all  believers,  their 
 children  and  domestics,  and  has  ordered  them  to  receive  the 
 token  of  the  covenant,  which  is  baptism  ;  as  exemplified  in  the 
 case  of  the  household  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament.     We 
 
THE  OLD  AND  NEW  COVENANTS  THE  SAME.  3G3 
 
 see,  however,  that  God  may  make  a  covenant  with  children, 
 and  that,  too,  under  the  new  dispensation  as  well  as  the  old. 
 Whether  it  were  the  former  covenant  enlarged,  or  an  entirely- 
 new  one,  docs  not  affect  the  point.  That  children  maybe  the 
 subjects  of  a  divine  covenant,  and  receive  the  token  of  it, 
 Mr.  Xoel  plainly  concedes.  The  gratuitous  employment  of  the 
 term  'believers,'  and  the  omission  of  their  '  children,'  embraced 
 in  this  new  covenant,  evinces  the  difficulty  involved  in  making 
 out  this  analogy,  on  Baptist  principles. 
 
 This  new  covenant  was  to  be  made  with  '  the  house  of 
 '  Israel,'  whose  little  ones  were  of  '  the  church  in  the 
 '  wilderness,'  and  in  the  holy  land  ;  and  who,  without  a  divine 
 and  imperative  command  to  do  so,  would  never  have  quietly 
 submitted  to  have  them  excommunicated,  under  any  new 
 economy  of  their  ancient  religion.  No  modification  or  abolition 
 of  the  priesthood,  sacrifices,  tithes,  or  rites,  would  have  caused, 
 occasioned,  or  required,  the  expulsion  of  any  Hebrews,  of 
 whatever  age,  from  their  relative  positions  in  the  Church — of 
 the  children  any  more  than  of  men  and  women.  Dr.  Owen 
 remarks,  '  On  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  there  was  not  one 
 '  church  taken  away,  and  another  set  up  in  the  room  thereof. 
 '  The  Christian  church  is  not  a  new  church,  but  the  very  same 
 1  that  was  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  What  is  called  the 
 '  new  covenant,  is  only  the  old  one  expounded,  and  enforced, 
 '  Luke  i.  72,  73  ;   just  as    the    New   Commandment  is    only 
 
 *  charity,  more  explicitly  stated  and  more  earnestly  enforced.' 
 
 Dr.Wardlaw,  also,  says,  In  both  the  Old  and  New  Testament 
 Scriptures, '  the  ancient  church  is  spoken  of,  not  as  annihilated, 
 
 *  and  succeeded  by  another,  but  as  visited,  comforted,  purified, 
 
 *  raised  up,  and  gloriously  restored  from   decline  and   con- 
 
 *  sumption.  If,  in  some  passages,  the  idea  of  complete 
 '  renovation  appears  to  be  suggested,  we  need  not  be  surprised 
 
 *  that  such  language  should  be  applied  to  a  change  in  the  state 
 
 *  of  the  church,  so  remarkable  —  to  a  revival  so  eminently 
 1  glorious.  The  prosperity  of  the  church  in  the  latter  days, 
 'is  represented  by  the  "  creation  of  new  heavens  and  a  new 
 '  earth,  so  that  the  former  should  not  be  remembered,  nor 
 'come  into  mind."  Is.  Ixv.  17  ;  2  Peter  iii.  13.  If  such 
 'language  is  employed  to  elevate  our  conceptions  and  antici- 
 '  pations  of  that  blessed  era,  we  might  surely  expect  terms 
 '  somewhat  similar,  to  be  used,  in  reference  to  the  time  when 
 "  God  was  to  be  manifested  in  the  flesh,"  "  a  light  to  lighten 
 '  the  gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel."  '  Nor  let 
 it  be  overlooked,  that  the  New  Testament  dispensation  was  to 
 
366  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 be  'built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets; 
 '  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone.' 
 
 It  has,  notwithstanding,  been  contended,  that  the  new 
 covenant  necessarily  excludes  children  and  infants.  Dr.  Carson 
 refers  to  the  before-cited  texts,  in  Jeremiah  and  the  Hebrews, 
 to  prove  his  assumption.  '  For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I 
 'will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel,  after  those  days,  saith 
 '  the  Lord  ;  I  will  put  my  laws  in  their  mind,  and  write  them 
 '  in  their  hearts  ;  and  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and  they  shall 
 '  be  to  me  a  people ;  and  they  shall  not  teach  every  man  his 
 '  neighbour,  and  every  man  his  brother,  saying,  Know  the 
 '  Lord,  for  all  shall  know  me,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest. 
 '  .  .  .  .  Here  we  see,  that  all  who  are  included  in  this  covenant, 
 '  have  the  laws  of  God  put  into  their  minds,  and  written  in 
 '  their  hearts,  by  himself.  Can  this  be  said  of  infants  ?  The 
 '  subjects  of  this  covenant  know  the  Lord — all  of  them — even 
 '  the  least  of  them.  This,  surely,  cannot  include  infants  who 
 '  know  nothing.  Is  there  not  a  necessity  to  teach  children, 
 '  as  soon  as  they  are  capable  of  instruction,  to  know  the  Lord  ? 
 '  Are  any  children  found,  who  need  not  instruction  ?  If  not, 
 'there  are  no  infants  in  this  covenant.'  p.  216. 
 
 To  this  argument,  I  cannot  do  better  than  reply,  in  the 
 words  of  Professor  Wilson.  This  objection  '  would  equally 
 shut  children  out  of  the  old  covenant,  in  which  all  admit 
 them  to  have  been  included.  At  the  dedication  of  the  first 
 covenant,  Moses  "  sprinkled  the  book  and  all  the  people, 
 saying,  this  is  the  blood  of  the  testament'  [covenant]  '  which 
 God  hath  enjoined  unto  you."  (Heb.  ix.  18,  20;  Exod. 
 xxiv.  8.)  He  had  previously  read  unto  them  the  book  of 
 the  covenant,  and  received  their  solemn  assent  to  its 
 teachings,  and  their  cordial  promise  of  obedience.  With 
 one  hearty  response,  the  assembled  trihes  exclaimed, 
 (Ex.  xxiv.  7,)  "All  that  the  Lord  hath  said,  we  will  do,  and 
 be  obedient."  Now,  it  is  this  very  covenant  which  the 
 passage  in  the  Hebrews  compares  with  the  new  covenant ; 
 and  Dr.  Carson  argues  for  the  exclusion  of  infants  from  the 
 latter,  on  the  ground  that  they  knew  not  the  Lord.  If  the 
 argument  is  sound,  it  will  equally  exclude  infants  from  "the 
 first  covenant ;"  for  when  Moses  had  read  "  the  book,"  the 
 people,  in  the  exercise  of  intelligence,  yielded  a  voluntary 
 assent,  of  which  infants  are  confessedly  incapable.  Were 
 infants  really  excluded  from  the  old  covenant  ?  Had  the 
 seed  of  Abraham  no  interest  in  the  Mosaic  economy  till  they 
 arrived  at  the  age  of  adults  ?     Does  not  the  whole  history  of 
 
THE  OLD  AND  NEW  COVENANTS  THE  SAME.      367 
 
 *  this  economy  promptly  answer  in  the  affirmative  ?  In  Jer. 
 '  xxiv.  7,  God  says,  "  I  will  give  them  a  heart  to  know  me, 
 '  that  I  am  the  Lord  ;  and  they  shall  he  my  people,  and  I  will 
 '  be  their  God  ;   for  they  shall  return  unto  me  with  their  whole 
 
 *  heart."  This  promise  is  applied  to  the  Jews  under  the  old 
 '  covenant,  and,  without  doubt,  embraces  children.  Hence, 
 'the    promise    in    ch.    xxxi.   31,  32,     unquestionably     does 
 
 *  the  same....  The  terms  of  the  new  covenant  exhibit  no 
 '  departure  from  the  style  of  promissory  address  which 
 '  Jehovah  commonly  adopted  towards  the  house  of  Israel,  and 
 '  the  house  of  Judah.' 
 
 Besides,  what  does  the  Dr.  mean,  by  saying,  '  That  all  who 
 '  are  included  in  this  covenant,  have  the  laws  of  God  put  into 
 '  their  minds,  and  written  in  their  hearts,  by  himself?'  Could 
 he  intend,  that  all  this  knowledge  is  to  be  attained  without 
 intermediate  instruction  imparted,  before  reaching  a  state  of 
 adultship  or  manhood?  Are  Christian  people,  in  these  latter 
 days,  to  be  directly  inspired,  like  the  ancient  prophets,  and 
 illuminated  by  new  revelations  from  Heaven  ?  Few  of  our 
 opponents  would  concur  in  such  preposterous  assumptions. 
 They  well  know  that  there  must  be  prior  teaching  and 
 trainiug,  and  that,  under  both  covenants,  these  processes 
 commenced  with  the  earliest  development  of  the  mental 
 faculties  of  human  beings.  This  being  admitted,  the  deduction 
 of  the  Dr.,  from  the  precited  texts,  is  manifestly  inconclusive 
 — proving  far  too  much  for  his  purpose,  and,  consequently, 
 nothing  against  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 The  following  passage,  from  Fleming's  Challenge,  is 
 worthy  of  quotation,  as  developing  the  views  of,  at  least, 
 some  of  our  opponents: — 'Another  terrifying  blow  is  aimed  to 
 'be  given  to  Infant  baptism,'  (p.  18.)  'where  this  Answerer 
 1  says,  "  Here  is  a  full  and  fair  solution  to  that  mighty  question, 
 '  urged  by  almost  all  writers  on  this  point,  viz  : — Whether  God 
 '  has  abolished  his  gracious  covenant  so  far  as  it  concerns  the 
 1  infant  children  of  his  people  ?    and  where  he  has   signified 
 
 *  a  repeal  of  this  their  privilege  ?     Here  is  the  question,   in 
 
 *  its  full  force  and  strength,  and  the  answer  is  ready  and 
 '  plain ;    they  were  all  left  out  at  this  juncture,   upon  the 
 
 *  change  of  the  dispensation,  and  for  ever  afterwards ;    and 
 
 *  yet  their  salvation  is  as  secure  as  it  was  before  ;  for  if  there 
 '  was  any  other  covenant  made,  since  the  abolition  of  circum- 
 '  cision,  as  an  outward  sign,  which  is  to  be  applied  to  infants, 
 
 *  let  it  be  produced,   or  else  it  is  high  time  to  have  done 
 
368        THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 declaiming   upon   an    imaginary   covenant,    nowhere   to    be 
 found  in  the  gospel." 
 
 To  this  Mr.  Fleming  replies,  '  Did  ever  any  rational 
 defender  of  Infant  Baptism  once  pretend  that  any  new 
 covenant  was  made  since  the  abolition  of  circumcision?  It 
 does  not  appear  that  circumcision  was  abolished  till  after 
 our  Lord  had  appeared  as  the  promised  seed,  which  promise 
 was  made  to  Abraham,  so  that  the  gospel  covenant,  the  new 
 covenant,  was  made  433  years  before  the  law.  Gal.  iii  17. 
 ....  Zacharias  calls  it  his,  i.  c.  God's  covenant ;  Luke  i.  72, 73, 
 to  perform  the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers,  and  to 
 remember  his  holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  he  sware  to 
 our  father  Abraham,  p.  7,  8.  Had  infants  been  left  out, 
 or  excluded  a  right  to  some  symbol  by  which  they  are 
 acknowledged  legatees  or  subjects  of  the  grace  of  this 
 covenant,  we  might  very  justly  have  expected  some  notice 
 of  it  in  the  revelation — and  that  they  who  declared  this 
 leaving  out,  should  have  given  the  converted  Jewish  parents 
 some  reconciling  reasons  for  such  an  act  of  exclusion — that 
 they  would  have  told  them,  why  they  had  not  admission  to 
 one  common  rite  with  them ;  though  baptismal  water  had  been 
 all  along  in  use  with  them,  as  a  symbol  of  purity.'  p.  14. 
 
 Mr.  Fleming  elsewhere  remarks,  'And  here  I  would  observe, 
 that  the  weight  of  the  debate  rests  upon  the  decision  of  the 
 following  question : ' — The  question  is,  '  Whether  our  Lord's 
 not  having  particularly  and,  expressly  specified  Infants  in 
 his  baptismal  commission,  does '  [all  the  circumstances  taken 
 together]  'amount  to  a  prohibition  of  their  baptism?  Or, 
 whether'  [inking  in  all  the  circumstances']  'an  express  pro- 
 hibition urns  not  necessary,  to  warrant  us  in  denying  baptism 
 to  infants  ? — For  my  own  part,  I  think  there  can  be  no 
 reason  assigned  why  our  Lord  should  neglect  to  give  an 
 express  prohibition,  if  it  was  his  will  that  they  should  not 
 be  baptized.  When  I  consider  how  infants  had  been  treated 
 under  the  patriarchal,  and  the  Mosaic  dispensations — when 
 I  consider  how  our  Lord  did  personally  treat  them — and 
 when  I  take  notice  of  several  expressions  of  the  apostles,  in 
 their  favour — particularly,  that  of  children  becoming  holy 
 upon  the  faith  of  a  parent,  who  otherwise  would  have  been 
 unclean. .  ..If  it  should  be  asked,  That,  since  God  had  so 
 expressly  enjoined  circumcision  to  Abraham's  infant  posterity, 
 why  was  not  Christ  as  express  in  his  injunction  of  baptism 
 to  the  infant  posterity  of  Christian  converts  ?  I  should  say, 
 
THE  KINGDOM  AND  CHURCH  OF  GOD  ALIKE.     3G9 
 
 4  it  was  not  necessary  ;  since,  by  a  plain  inference,  they  would 
 'see  it  to  be  the  design  of  the  institution  ;  unless  they  could 
 'suppose,  that  God's  economy  of  grace  to  our  world,  which 
 'has  been  gradually  opening  and  enlarging  ever  since  Abra- 
 '  ham's  time,  till  the  coming  of  the   Messiah,  should   then 
 
 *  abridge  and  curtail  the  significations  of  favour  to  the  human 
 '  family.— •When,  on  the  contrary,  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah 
 '  did  carry  those  significations  to  their  zenith  of  perfection, 
 '  or  gave  them  their  highest  amplification  or  enlargement  — 
 '  what  a  strange  and  unnatural  inference  would  it  be  against 
 
 *  ourselves  and  offspring,  to  suppose,  that  our  Lord  should 
 
 *  resume  a  grant  of  favour  made  to  Abraham,  and,  in  him,  to 
 '  all  that  should  express  like  faith  with  him  ! '  Def.  p.  41,  42. 
 
 Question  VII.  —  Is  not  'the  kingdom  of  God'  on  earth, 
 a  purelg  spiritual  kingdom  '? — meaning,  I  presume,  that  all 
 the  subjects  of  this  kingdom  are  enlightened,  holy,  and  spiritual 
 people  ;  that  unconscious  babes  cannot  belong  to  it ;  and,  there- 
 fore, should  not  be  baptized  into  it.  But  the  truth  is,  that 
 the  phrases, '  kingdom  of  God,' and  'kingdom  of  heaven,'  are 
 used  with  about  the  same  latitude  of  meaning,  as  the  analogous 
 words,  Ecclesia,  Congregation,  and  Church.  We  have  the 
 redeemed  church  in  glory,  the  regenerated  church  on  earth, 
 and  the  general  church  of  Christendom  ;  the  last  composed 
 of  all  persons  dedicated  to  Christ  by  baptism,  and  divided 
 into  numerous  minor  sections.  We  have,  in  like  manner,  the 
 kingdom  of  God  in  glory,  the  spiritual  kingdom  of  God  on 
 earth  ;  and  the  general  kingdom  of  God — the  last  embracing 
 all  who  are  brought  within  the  pale  of  religious  teachings  and 
 ordinances  in  different  localities,  and  in  multiplied  combinations. 
 That  the  terms  are  employed  in  this  third  sense,  is  manifest. 
 'The  kingdom  of  heaven,'  or  the  ministration  of  the  gospel, 
 '  is  like  unto  a  net- that  was  cast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of 
 'every  kind;  which,  when  it  was  full,  they  drew  to  shore, 
 '  and  sat  down,  and  gathered  the  good  into  vessels,  and  cast 
 1  the  bad  away.'  Matt.  xiii.  47,  48. 
 
 Here  we  learn,  that  the  same  gospel  net  encloses  the  clean 
 and  the  unclean ;  all  are  alike  caught  in  its  meshes  ;  all  are 
 privileged  with  religious  instruction  ;  but  all  are  not  converted 
 and  prepared  for  heaven  ;  and,  at  the  end  of  the  world,  a 
 fearful  and  final  separation  will  be  made  between  them.  We 
 read  of  the  '  kingdom  of  heaven '  in  the  parable  of  the  sower ; 
 we  there  see  that,  in  the  same  field,  the  wheat  and  the  tares, 
 (a  kind  of  degenerate  wheat — Barnes),  '  grow  together  until 
 
 *  the  time  of  harvest,  the  end  of  the  world.'     Real  Christians 
 
 Q2 
 
370  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 and  nominal  professors,  enjoy  the  like  means  of  grace  ;  but 
 the  former  ripen  for  the  garner  of  the  Lord,  and  the  latter 
 for  eternal  fire.  Matt.  xiii.  24-30.  '  Then  the  son  of  man 
 '  shall  send  forth  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his 
 '  kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and  them  which  do  iniquity, 
 '  and  shall  cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire ;  there  shall  he 
 '  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.'  Matt.  viii.  12.  Tlfc  ungodly 
 are  in  this  general  kingdom  of  God,  or  they  could  not  be 
 cast  out  of  it. 
 
 The  like  distinction  between  the  visible  and  invisible,  or 
 the  general  and  spiritual,  church,  we  find  in  different  parts  of 
 the  New  Testament.  In  the  parable  of  the  ten  virgins,  it  is 
 palpable.  All  were  bridemaids,  but  only  half  of  them  were 
 divinely  wise,  and  permitted  to  join  in  the  marriage  feast ; 
 the  rest  were  foolish,  and  shut  out  from  the  coveted  banquet. 
 Matt.  xxv.  1-13.  On  the  same  floor  lie  the  wheat  and  the 
 chaff,  ultimately  to  be  separated  by  the  fan  of  the  Messiah, 
 at  the  end  of  the  world — the  former  being  appropriated  to  his 
 own  use,  and  the  latter  cast  into  the  flames.  Matt.  iii.  12. 
 In  the  same  great  house  there  are  not  only  vessels  of  gold 
 and  silver,  but  also  of  wood  and  earth  ;  '  some  to  honour  and 
 '  some  to  dishonour.'  2  Tim.  ii.  20.  '  Every  branch  in  me 
 '  that  beareth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  away  ;  and  every  branch  that 
 '  beareth  fruit,  he  purgeth  it,  that  it  may  bring  forth  more 
 '  fruit.'  John  xv.  2.  Here  are  barren  branches  in  Christ,  to 
 be  lopped  off.  How  in  him,  but  through  baptismal  dedication  ? 
 and  why  taken  away,  if  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ? 
 
 The  general  scope  of  these  phrases,  figures,  and  illus- 
 trations, and  of  many  others,  of  like  import,  in  the  New 
 Testament,  unmistakeably  indicates,  that  '  the  kingdom  of 
 '  God,'  or  '  the  Church  of  Christ,'  may  be  viewed  in  a  large, 
 broad,  or  indefinite  sense,  for  all  who  are  initiated  into  the 
 religious  system  of  the  gospel,  and  continue  to  profess  its 
 creed  and  attend  its  altars,  and  who  are  thereby  distinguished 
 from  avowed  infidels,  idolaters,  or  the  open  devotees  of  any 
 antichristian  form  of  worship.  '  In  short,'  says  an  intelligent 
 clergyman,  '  this  is  not  that  universal  church  of  Christ, 
 '  dispersed  throughout  the  world,  consisting  of  the  whole 
 '  company  of  Christians  ;  in  which  "  many  are  called,  and  few 
 'chosen."  But  his  invisible  church  is  his  peculiar  people, 
 '  who  are  called  his  redeemed,  his  sheepfold,  his  bride,  his 
 '  elect,  his  election,  the  house  of  God,  the  temple  of  God,  the 
 '  body  of  Christ,  the  habitation  of  God,  and  the  like,  whereby 
 1  their   peculiar    interest    in    the    Saviour    is    shown.'      Our 
 
THE  KINGDOM  AXD  CHURCH  OF  GOD  ALIKE.     371 
 
 deduction  is,  that  all  who  were  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the 
 Jewish  dispensation,  were  members  of  the  ancient  kingdom 
 of  God ;  and  that  all  who  are  still  baptized  unto  Christ,  are 
 members  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  the  wide  sense  of  that 
 expression. 
 
 Our  opponents  seem  to  entertain  the  idea,  that  to  be  '  of  a 
 '  kingdom,'  that  is,  to  be  subjects,  members,  or  constituents 
 of  it,  people  must  possess  a  very  considerable  amount  of 
 patriotism,  loyalty,  intelligence,  and,  certainly,  be  of  adult  age. 
 This  evidently  is  their  notion  in  reference  to  the  constituents 
 of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  But,  on  reflecting  a  moment,  we 
 perceive,  that  the  entire  population — with  the  exception  of  a 
 few  aliens  or  foreigners  sojourning  awhile  among  us — are  of 
 our  British  kingdom.  All  owe  allegiance  to  its  sovereign,  are 
 amenable  to  its  laws,  and  entitled  to  its  protection  and  privileges. 
 Of  this  kingdom,  children  constitute  an  important  part — areas 
 really  and  as  much  a  portion  of  it  as  any  adults  in  the  land. 
 A  kingdom  without  children  never  existed.  When  a  kingdom 
 was  named  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  it  was  in  the  sense 
 usually  attached  to  the  language.  Nearly  half  the  subjects 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God  of  old  were  infants  and  children  ;  and 
 so  they  are  now.  Through  their  baptism  unto  Christ,  they 
 become  enrolled  among  his  subjects,  they  are  legislated  for, 
 and  receive  manifold  advantages.  In  a  word,  they  are  placed 
 in  the  same  relation  to  Christ,  the  King  of  his  church,  as  the 
 home-born  children  of  British  parents  sustain  in  respect  of 
 the  kingdom  in  which  we  reside.  Israel  constituted  the 
 kingdom  of  Jehovah  ;  all  the  circumcised  and  baptized  were 
 of  it.  Some  were  good  and  some  were  bad  ;  some  were  old 
 and  some  were  young ;  but  still  all  were  of  the  kingdom  of 
 God.  This  kingdom  now  embraces  all  within  the  pale  of  the 
 visible  church,  or  the  assembly  of  professed  Christians — all 
 who  regard  Christ  as  their  King,  and  his  laws  as  their  directory, 
 and  who  themselves  and  their  families  look  to  him  for  his 
 mercy  and  salvation. 
 
 Since  the  terms,  '  the  kingdom  of  God,'  and  '  the  church 
 '  of  God,'  are  essentially  synonymous,  in  the  New  Testament ; 
 it  follows,  that,  as  infants  and  unregenerate  persons  pertain 
 to  this  kingdom,  they  must  equally  pertain  to  the  Ecclesia 
 or  general  church ;  and,  being  in  the  church,  their  baptism 
 may  be  taken  as  granted — unless  it  can  be  proved,  that 
 persons  may  become  canonical  members  of  this  Ecclesia, 
 church,  or  congregation,  without  any  baptism  at  all.  This, 
 few  or  none  of  our  opponents  would  admit.     A  judicious  writer 
 
372  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 justly  observes  :  '  The  argument,  then,  is  conclusive,  in  what- 
 '  ever  sense  we  take  the  kingdom  of  God,'  [whether  the 
 invisible  or  the  visible  church.]  '  For  our  Lord,  having  in 
 '  one  place  declared,  that  the  little  children  should  be  brought 
 '  to  him,  because,  of  such  is  the  kingdom  ;  and  another,  that 
 '  except  any  one  is  born  of  water,  or  baptized,  he  cannot 
 '  enter  the  kingdom,  it  most  evidently  follows,  that  infants 
 '  are  capable  of  being  born  again  of  water,  or  baptized ; 
 '  because,  else,  they  could  not  enter  into  this  kingdom,  into 
 '  which  our  Lord  here  expressly  declares  they  do  enter,  and 
 '  are  admitted.' 
 
 Mr.  J.  Stennett  observes,  when  our  Saviour  says,  '  Of  such 
 '  infants  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  if  he  means,  the 
 '  kingdom  of  glory  belongs  to  such  '  [infants],  '  'tis  a  principle 
 '  the  Anabaptists  do  not,  in  the  least,  deny.  And  if  he  means 
 '  by  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  Christian  church,  they  grant, 
 '  that  those  who  resemble  little  children,  in  docility,  humility, 
 '  innocence,  and  the  virtues,  are  interested  in  the  kingdom 
 '  of  grace.'  (p.  102.)  He  plainly  intimates,  that  the  children, 
 themselves,  are  not  interested  in  this  gracious  kingdom — 
 being  good  enough  for  the  kingdom  of  glory,  but  not  for  the 
 kingdom  of  grace  in  this  world  !  He  evidently  puts  such  a 
 construction  on  the  language  'of  our  Lord,  as  his  disciples 
 never  would  have  done — unintentionally  indicating,  that  Christ 
 spoke  equivocally,  and  sadly  misled  their  unsophisticated 
 minds.  How  hardly  pressed  with  the  difficulties  of  this 
 passage,  must  so  good  a  man  have  been,  to  arrive  at  such  an 
 unnatural  conclusion ! 
 
 Further,  all  who  have  been  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
 belong  to  the  invisible  or  spiritual  kingdom  of  God,  and  are 
 entitled,  not  only  to  the  teachings  of  its  ministers  ;  but,  also, 
 to  enjoy  the  highest  privileges  and  prerogatives  of  accredited 
 members,  the  fellowship  of  believers — the  communion  of 
 saints,  at  the  table  of  the  Lord,  in  particular  Christian 
 societies — when  their  spiritual  state  is  properly  developed, 
 and  when  they  have  attained  a  sufficient  age  and  understanding 
 to  partake  of  them,  and  to  conduct  themselves  consistently 
 with  the  claims  of  the  gospel  on  their  hearts  and  lives.  For 
 our  duties  and  obligations  must  ever  correspond  with  our 
 capacities  and  positions — just  as  parental  claims  rest  on 
 parents,  and  filial  ones  on  children,  and  on  no  others. 
 
 Mr.  Maclean,  referring  to  Mark  x.  13-16,  says,  'Here 
 '  are  children  brought  to  Christ,  declared  of  his  kingdom,  and 
 '  blessed,  and  thus  becoming  visible  subjects ;    yet  we  read 
 
THE  KINGDOM  AND  CHURCH  OF  GOD  AL1KK.  373 
 
 *  nothing  of  their  baptism.'  Led.  viii.  p.  82.  But  might  not 
 their  baptism  have  preceded  this  gracious  declaration  and 
 blessing  ?  When  Christ  said  to  Peter,  '  Blessed  art  thou, 
 1  Simon  Barjona,'  lie  did  not  baptize  him  !  When  he  conferred 
 the  blessing  of  sight  on  the  blind,  and  of  pardon  on  the 
 sinner,  he  did  not  baptize  them  !  Besides,  these  children 
 ■were  not  brought  to  Christ,  that  he  might  baptize  them,  but, 
 simply,  that  he  might  bless  them  ;  for  it  must  have  been 
 generally  known  that  he  personally  baptized  no  one.  ]\Ir. 
 Tombes  says,    '  The  reason  of  repelling  "  the  infants  by  the 
 
 *  disciples,"  is  not  known  ;  but,  by  conjecture  it  is  probable, 
 'this  bringing  of  little  children  was  troublesome  to  them, 
 '  either  because  it  did  interrupt  Christ's  speech  about  marriage, 
 '  and  fitness  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or,  because  they  sought 
 '  rest  in  the  house,  or  because  they  did  think  this  bringingwould 
 1  beinvain.' jEacer.  p.  17-  Doubtless,  many  children  were  brought 
 to  Christ,  that  he  might  heal  them ;  but  it  does  not  follow, 
 that  he  was  opposed  to  Infant  Baptism,  because  he  did  not 
 baptize  them  also  and  at  the  same  time. 
 
 Further,  our  opponents  recognize  none  as  visible  subjects- 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God  who  have  not  been  previously  baptized 
 in  water ;  and,  as  these  little  ones  were  recognized  as 
 visible  subjects  of  this  kingdom,  their  previous  baptism, 
 according  to  Maclean,  is  undoubted.  Nor  were  the  above 
 picked,  or  especially  selected,  babies.  Doubtless,  any  others, 
 had  they  been  brought  to  Christ  in  the  same  way,  and  for  the 
 like  purpose,  would  have  received  a  similar  benediction.  If 
 the  language  of  Christ  have  any  clear  import,  or  express  any 
 benevolent  purpose  towards  infants ;  they  certainly  were 
 considered  by  him  as  being  a  part  of  his  gospel  kingdom, 
 just  as  children  had  been  a  part  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
 before  his  incarnation.  He  did  not  expel  them  from  their 
 high  and  holy  relative  position ;  but  confirmed  and  continued 
 it ;  nor  did  his  apostles  excommunicate  these  little  interesting 
 subjects  from  their  former  honours  and  advantages.  Hence, 
 their  present  ecclesiastical  standing,  and  their  right  to 
 Christian  baptism — the  introduction  to  religious  privileges  — 
 is  fully  confirmed. 
 
 When  speaking  of  the  visible  church,  congregation,  or 
 kingdom  of  God,  in  this  world,  as  being  imperfect ;  of  course, 
 we  mean,  the  members  and  subjects  of  which  they  are 
 constituted  ;  and  not  those  laws,  rules,  doctrines,  and  promises, 
 which  form  the  statutes  of  the  reign  of  Christ  on  the  earth. 
 Whatever  defects  are  found  in  the  former,  there  are  none  in 
 
374  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 the  latter.  As  the  head  of  the  church,  the  King  in  Zion,  is 
 infinitely  wise,  holy,  and  merciful ;  so  are  all  his  laws  and 
 ordinances.  In  this  light  especially,  the  kingdom  of  God  is 
 not  of  this  world  ;  neither  are  the  principles  and  affections 
 wrought  by  his  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  his  people.  They 
 are  from  above,  and  divine  in  every  particular,  from  the  highest 
 enactments  to  the  minutest  regulations.  His  laws  are  not  to 
 be  abridged  nor  enlarged  ;  nor  can  they  be  improved  by  any 
 human  sagacity  or  care.  What  is  written  we  are  to  receive 
 as  from  God,  in  order  to  become  perfect  in  every  good  word 
 and  work.  Fearful  penalties  are  denounced  on  those  presump- 
 tuous mortals,  of  whatever  political  or  ecclesiastical  position, 
 who  attempt  to  mend  the  institutions  of  Jehovah,  or  who 
 disregard  his  infallible  and  imperious  declarations. 
 
 It  would  not  be  more  preposterous  to  attempt  to  rearrange 
 the  movements  of  nature,  regild  the  orbs  of  light,  or  remodel 
 the  perfect  structure  of  human  beings,  than  to  labour  to 
 improve  the  laws  of  God.  The  imperfections  we  have  alluded 
 to,  are  found  only  in  the  persons,  and  in  the  societies,  which 
 we  call  Christian  ;  and  which  require  only  a  closer  adherence 
 to  the  word  of  God,  more  holiness  of  heart  and  life,  and  more 
 love  to  Christ  and  his  cause,  to  become  consistent  congre- 
 gations of  the  Lord.  I  may  here  notice  Carson's  distinction 
 between  the  ancient  and  the  gospel  economies.  '  The  nation 
 1  of  Israel  was  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  letter  ;  the  church 
 
 •  of  Christ  is  the  spirit  of  which  the  other  was  but  the  letter 
 
 *  . . .  .Israel  was  an  elected  people  ;  but  they  were  only  types 
 '  of  the  true  election.'  p.  222 — making  God  a  mere  political 
 governor  of  the  Jews  !  Like  many  other  far-seeing  adversaries 
 of  Infant  Baptism,  he  felt,  that  if  God's  kingdom  under  the 
 law  were  spiritual — embracing  all  ranks  and  ages  of  the  people 
 - — it  would  be  difficult  to  keep  the  young  ones  out  of  God's 
 spiritual  kingdom  now.  Hence,  the  former  must  be  viewed 
 as  merely  a  political  institution,  and  its  members  related  to 
 him,  just  as  the  Romans  were  to  Julius  Caesar  !  This  doctrine 
 our  opponents  must  fully  and  clearly  establish,  or  their  attacks 
 against  Infant  Baptism  can  never  be  successful. 
 
 Dr.  Halley's  observations  on  this  topic  are  worthy  of  serious 
 consideration.  '  If  infants  are  members  of  the  kingdom  of 
 '  heaven,  they  ought  by  the  officers  of  the  church  to  be  recognized 
 '  in  that  relation.  They  are  not,  indeed,  members  of  a  particular 
 '  church  or  Christian  society,  for  that  is  formed  by  the  voluntary 
 '  act  of  Christian  men,  and  every  man  joins  any  such  society 
 '  — any  one  of  several  in  his  neighbourhood — on  his   own 
 
RE-BAPTIZINGS  TO  DIFFERENT  ECONOMIES.  375 
 
 4  election,  and  is  received  on  the  approbation  of  its  members. 
 '  Were  be  rejected  by  them,  he  would  not  be  expelled  from  the 
 1  kingdom  of  God.    Were  all  these  particular  churches  dissolved, 
 
 *  the  kingdom  of  God  would  remain  a  kingdom  which  cannot 
 
 *  be  moved.     Who  will   say  there  was  no  kingdom  of  God 
 
 *  in  Britain,  until  Eobert  Brown  gathered  a  congregational 
 '  church  ?  Indeed,  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. 
 '  But  how  is  an  infant  to  be  recognized  as  a  member  of  the 
 
 *  kingdom  of  Christ  ?     Is  not  baptism  the  proper  recognition 
 
 *  of  a  member  of  Christ's  kingdom  ?  And  if  we  refuse  to 
 '  baptize  an  infant,  do  we  not  virtually  disown  him  as  if  he  did 
 
 *  not  belong  to  us,  or  to  our  kingdom  ?  If  we  refuse  to 
 '  acknowledge  a  relation  which  a  child  has  to  Christ's  kingdom, 
 
 *  do  we  not  despise  one  of  these  little  ones,  depreciate  its 
 1  privileges,  and  act  the  part  of  the  disciples,  in  refusing  to 
 '  allow  parents  to  bring  their  children  to  Christ,  in  the  only 
 '  way  in  which  infancy  can  be  brought  to  him  ? 
 
 '  Infants  have  all  the  spiritual  blessings  of  the  covenant  of 
 
 *  grace,  they  are  redeemed  from  death ;  they  are  entitled  to 
 '  everlasting  life  ;  their  interest  in  Christ  is  sure  and  certain, 
 '  until  they  forfeit  it  by  wilful  transgression.  If  they  cannot 
 '  have  faith,  they  do  not  need  it ;  if  they  cannot  have  repentance, 
 
 *  God  requires  it  not  from  them.    They  have  a  title  to  heaven, 
 
 *  clear  and  incontestible,  which  no  man  can  abrogate,  and  no 
 '  church  has  a  right  to  gainsay.  They  are  bought  with  a 
 1  price,  with  no  corruptible  thing,  such  as  silver  and  gold,  but 
 'with  the  precious  blood  of  Christ.  Can  any  man  forbid 
 '  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received 
 'the  grace  of  the  gospel,  as  well  as  we?  As  the  infant  Jew 
 '  was  the  recognized  subject  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  so 
 
 *  every  infant  is  a  recognized  subject  of  the  kingdom  of 
 '  heaven,  and  recognized  by  no  less  authority  than  that  of 
 '  the  King  himself.  Shall  we  refuse  to  recognize  any  whom 
 '  Christ    acknowledges  ?    or   shall   we   invent    a   new   ritual 
 
 *  of  recognition,  by  which  we  may,  after  our  own  manner, 
 '  receive  an  infant  in  the  name  of  a  disciple  ?  Shall  we  deny 
 '  the  sign  of  water,  where  Christ  has  declared  the  party  to 
 '  be  in  possession  of  all  our  water  signifies  ?  '   Pt.  ii.  p.  64,  65. 
 
 Question  VIII. — If  the  Old  and  New  Testament  churches 
 were  essentially  the  same,  zvherefore  the  re-haptizings  under 
 the  gospel  P  or,  in  other  words,  If  the  Jews  had  been  baptized 
 into  the  true   church  before  the  appearance  of  John,  why 
 
376  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHEIST. 
 
 initiate  them  into  the  church  of  Christ,  as  though  they  had 
 not  been  baptized  into  the  religion  of  God  previously  ? — The 
 answer  is  simple,  and  easily  stated.  A  worshipping  people, 
 though  not  formally  organized  nor  systematically  officered,  at 
 least,  as  far  as  the  sacred  writings  inform  us,  had  existed 
 from  the  time  of  Abraham  to  the  exodus  of  Israel.  Then,  an 
 advance  was  to  be  made ;  an  improved  economy  was  to  be 
 instituted.  Arrangements,  simple  and  minute,  were  to  be 
 introduced,  for  the  moral,  political,  and  spiritual  benefit  of 
 the  Hebrews.  All  this  was  to  be  marked  by  a  solemn  inau- 
 guration into  these  higher  duties  and  privileges.  Hence,  this 
 universal  baptizing  and  consecration  of  the  Israelites  unto 
 Moses  in  the  sea  ;  and,  again,  previously  to  the  solemn  giving 
 of  the  law  on  Sinai.  John  the  Baptist  commenced  a  new  era 
 in  the  church,  and  announced  the  near  approach  of  a  still 
 further  development  of  God's  signal  benevolence  to  mankind. 
 Then  there  was  another  general  baptizing  of  the  nation,  to 
 prepare  the  way  of  the  Lord,  or  the  people  for  his  reception. 
 The  early  baptisms  of  our  Lord's  own  disciples,  it  is  most 
 probable,  partook  of  the  like  nature  and  design.  And  when 
 a  full  and  perfect  manifestation  of  God's  great  and  merciful 
 scheme  of  salvation  was  to  be  made,  after  the  death  of 
 Christ,  again,  all  who  would  submit,  were  baptized  unto 
 the  Son  of  God. 
 
 It  required,  not  a  new  church,  but,  simply,  a  new  dispen- 
 sation, or  a  fresh  revival  of  the  old,  to  induce  an  additional 
 consecration  or  purification,  in  order  to  become  members  of 
 the  progressive  and  enlarged  system  of  religion.  The  Mosaic 
 purifying  and  dedicatory  baptism  answered  for  the  Hebrews, 
 till  the  time  of  John.  That  of  John  and  of  our  Saviour's 
 disciples,  answered  till  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  And  when 
 the  work  of  redemption  was  finished,  and  the  church  was  to 
 be  perfectly  organized,  a  third  baptism  was  administered  to 
 the  proselytes  of  this  fully- completed  system  of  religion. 
 Thus,  in  the  same  religion,  in  its  progress  to  completeness 
 and  perfection,  we  have  three  specific  administrations 
 of  baptism.  The  first,  for  the  Hebrews  into  the  Mosaic 
 church ;  the  second,  for  the  Jews,  into  the  intermediate 
 church,  prior  to  the  Redeemer's  ascension  to  glory  ;  and  the 
 thirfl,  into  the  complete  system  of  the  gospel.  And  as  we 
 expect  no  purer  or  higher  economy  of  grace  in  this  church, 
 we  do  not  anticipate  any  other  general  material  baptizing,  or 
 water-baptism,  into  a  more  perfect  system. 
 
 We  have  had  baptism  unto   Moses ;    baptism  to  the  ap- 
 
BE-BAPTIZINGS  TO  DIFFERENT  ECONOMIES.  377 
 
 proaching  Messiah ;  and,  at  last,  baptism  to  the  ever-glorious 
 Trinity.  Beyond  this  there  is  no  aspiring.  Throughout  all, 
 the  mode  of  administration  and  the  moral  characters  of  the 
 subjects,  have  been  just  the  same.  But  the  consecrations 
 have  been  to  systems  gradually  advancing,  and  to  names 
 progressively  glorious  in  their  development.  John  re-baptized 
 those  who  had  been  baptized  unto  Moses  ;  and  Paul,  with  all 
 our  Lord's  disciples  and  apostles,  most  probably,  baptized 
 afresh  those  who  had  been  baptized  by  John.  It  is  admitted, 
 by  our  intelligent  opponents,  that  the  proselytes  to  Judaism, 
 from  the  gentile  nations,  were  baptized  on  being  received  into 
 the  general  or  particular  fellowship  of  the  Israelites.  These 
 proselytes  of  the  gate  and  of  justice  are  believed  to  have  been 
 very  numerous  in  the  time  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  to 
 have  been  found  in  various  parts  of  the  Roman  world — or,  at 
 least,  wherever  the  Jews  resided  and  built  a  synagogue.  And, 
 further,  it  is  unquestioned  that  great  numbers  of  these  Jewish 
 proselytes  became  converts  to  Christianity,  and  were  baptized 
 into  the  profession  and  discipleship  of  faith  in  Christ.  Here, 
 then,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  we  have  a  double  baptizing  of  the 
 same  persons  in  their  onward  course  to  religious  perfection. 
 We,  therefore,  conclude,  that  our  views  of  the  identity  of  the 
 church,  in  ail  ages,  from  its  first  formation,  are  not,  in  the 
 slightest  degree,  invalidated  by  the  successive  baptisms  unto 
 Moses,  unto  Christ  at  hand,  and  to  the  adorable  Trinity. 
 And,  further,  that  as  children  were  certainly  baptized  into  the 
 church  or  congregation,  in  and  from  the  days  of  Moses,  for 
 initiation  or  reinitiation,  we  cannot  understand  why  they 
 should  not  have  been  baptized  into  the  church  or  congregation 
 of  Christ,  as  aforetime,  and  should  not  be  so  now  and  for  ever. 
 
 I  may  add,  in  illustration  and  confirmative  of  our  doctrine 
 on  this  head,  that,  in  the  Hebrew  church,  successive  covenants 
 were  made  with  Israel,  to  which  the  people  consented,  and 
 the  laws  and  precepts  of  which  they  were  bound  to  observe. 
 There  were  progressive  manifestations  of  the  divine  good-will 
 to  mankind.  But,  a  new  church  was  not  constituted  with 
 every  new  covenant,  any  more  than  a  new  nation  is  formed 
 with  every  new  king,  or  every  new  act  of  parliament,  or  every 
 revolution  or  fresh  form  of  government,  or  than  a  new  Christian 
 fellowship  is  instituted  every  time  a  new  rule  or  regulation  is 
 written  in  its  books.  The  ancient  church,  as  far  as  its 
 externals  were  concerned,  underwent  various  alterations,  and 
 enlargements  in  the  days  of  David,  and  especially  when 
 Solomon  built  his  temple  ;  but  the  church,  in  all  its  essential 
 
378  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 characters,  continued  the  same.  Now,  when  the  last  divine 
 covenant  was  given  to  the  church,  making  no  exception  of 
 infants,  who  had  heen  included  in  every  former  covenant ; 
 surely,  their  right  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church,  which 
 had  been  enjoyed  for,  at  least,  two  thousand  years,  are  not 
 to  he  tamely  surrendered  by  their  natural  guides  and 
 ministerial  overseers. 
 
 The  re-baptizing  of  the  same  persons,  under  peculiar 
 circumstances — against  which,  Dr.  Ryland  says,  he  can  see 
 no  very  great  objection,  (p.  27) — is  not  without  a  modified 
 parallel  in  another  consecrating  ceremonial.  Dr.  Davidson, 
 in  his  excellent  lectures  on  '  The  Ecclesiastical  Polity  of  the 
 '  New  Testament,'  remarks,  '  Prayer,  and  the  imposition  of 
 '  hands,  were  not  peculiar  to  an  individual  entering  on  the  duties 
 '  of  the  ministerial  office.  They  were  used  on  many  occasions. 
 '  When  one  engaged  in  a  special  enterprise,  he  was  commended 
 *  in  this  manner  to  the  grace  of  the  Most  High.  Paul  was 
 '  an  apostle  before  he  was  set  apart  at  Antioch,  in  connexion 
 '  with  Barnabas.  The  spirit  of  apostolic  times  and  precedents 
 ■  sanction  a  renewed  use  of  the  ceremony,  when  an  office- 
 '  bearer,  already  ordained,  enters  on  a  new  work,  or  a  new 
 1  sphere  of  labour.  It  is  our  opinion,  that  imposition  of  hands 
 4  and  prayer,  may  be  employed  repeatedly,  with  reference  to 
 '  the  same  person,  should  the  circumstances  of  his  life  har- 
 'monize  with  the  repetition.'  p.  193.  By  the  way,  though 
 our  opponents,  like  ourselves,  are  only  baptized  once  with 
 water,  it  is  no  unusual  thing  for  them  frequently  and 
 fervently  to  pray  for  a  renewed  spiritual  baptism,  or  the  fresh 
 outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  their  own  souls,  and  on 
 those  of  their  devout  fellow- worshippers. 
 
 SECTION  ELEVENTH.—  The  baptisms  unto  Moses  and 
 unto  Christ,  were  both  in  the  form  of  cleansing,  washing,  or 
 ceremonial  purification. — That  water  was  the  element  usually 
 employed  in  ancient  baptisms,  will  not  be  doubted  ;  and  that 
 it  was  applied  to  the  person,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  only,  I 
 think  has  been  satisfactorily  proved  in  '  Modern  Immersion 
 'not  Scripture  Baptism.''  John  and  the  apostles  of  Christ 
 used  pure  water  in  their  initiatory  rite.  The  like  was  used 
 by  Jehovah  in  discipling  the  Hebrews,  '  baptized  in  the  cloud 
 '  and  in  the  sea ' — the  natural  vehicle  and  reservoir  of  water. 
 Had  not  water  been  the  material  of  this  baptism,  they  might 
 have  been  initiated  unto  Moses  at  Succoth,  before  they  left 
 Egypt,  or  in  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  soon  after  their  eman- 
 
BAPTISM  A  SYMBOLICAL  PURIFICATION.  379 
 
 cipation  from  the  dominion  of  Pharaoh.  Why  is  the  apostle 
 careful  to  inform  us  that  it  was  done  when  there  was  '  much 
 '  water  ' — vastly  more  than  John  found  at  Enon — though  we 
 feel  assured  that  no  person  was  actually  dipped  or  immersed, 
 in  it ;  hut  hecause  pure  living  water  was  essential  to  its 
 administration  ?  It  would  he  as  incongruous  to  speak  of  an 
 initiatory  physical  haptism  without  water,  as  to  speak  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper  without  the  elements  of  hread  and  wine,  or  of 
 a  hurnt  sacrifice  without  a  victim. 
 
 Dr.  Gill  and  others  suppose,  that  the  cloud,  as  it  passed 
 from  the  rear  to  the  front  of  the  camp,  '  let  down  a  plentiful 
 '  rain  upon  them,  whereby  they  were  in  such  a  condition  as  if 
 'they  had  all  over  been  dipped  in  water.'  This,  by  the  way, 
 was  rather  an  unlikely  thing  to  be  done  to  a  people  travelling, 
 with  their  babies  in  their  arms,  and  their  goods  of  all  descriptions 
 on  their  backs  !  Haste  was  the  order  of  the  moment ;  and 
 how  would  their  movements  have  been  impeded,  had  their 
 persons  and  flowing  apparel  been  as  wet  as  if  they  had  been 
 dipped  into  water,  or  as  we  usually  say,  '  dragged  through  a 
 'river!'  With  what  difficulty  do  some  persons,  after  being 
 immersed  in  a  baptistry,  in  their  long  sticking  cloaks,  make 
 their  way  to  the  adjoining  vestry,  though  but  a  few  yards 
 distant  ?  It  is  hardly  probable,  that  God,  who  divided  the 
 sea  to  make  dry  land  for  the  people,  to  walk  upon  '  dry  shod,' 
 should  pour  a  deluge  of  water  upon  them  from  the  clouds 
 above,  and  placing  them  '  in  such  a  condition  as  if  they  had 
 '  all  over  been  dipped  in  water ! '  But  let  that  pass.  I  make 
 the  above  citation  to  show,  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Doctor, 
 as  in  that  of  Mr.  Stovel,  and  of  others  previously  given,  water 
 was  the  element  used  in  this  great  baptizing.  I  believe  there 
 is  no  instance  recorded  in  Scripture  of  this  initiatory  rite 
 of  baptism  being  administered,  except  by  water,  either  men- 
 tioned or  implied — that  being  the  ancient  and  the  natural 
 element  of  physical  purification. 
 
 This  historical  fact  is  highly  instructive  and  impressive  ; 
 teaching  us,  in  symbol,  what  is  verbally  and  repeatedly  told 
 us  in  the  doctrinal  portions  of  Scripture  —  that  all  human 
 beings  are  morally  and  spiritually  unclean  and  corrupt  by 
 nature  ;  and  that  we  must  be  divinely  washed  and  sanctified 
 by  the  purifying  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  of  which  water 
 is  the  usual  emblem,  before  we  can  be  genuine  Christians 
 here,  or  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven  after  death.  It  also 
 evinces,  that  before  persons  can  canonically  attend  the  sacred 
 school  of  divine  wisdom,  to  learn  and  become  conversant  with 
 
380  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 the  sublime  and  gracious  mysteries  of  our  holy  religion,  they 
 must  be  formally  consecrated  to  such  a  holy  scholarship, 
 and  be  symbolically  cleansed  from  the  pollutions  of  their 
 previous  natural  condition.  As  the  priests  must  wash  their 
 hands  and  feet  at  the  brazen  laver,  before  they  could  enter 
 the  tabernacle  or  temple,  to  serve  the  Lord  ;  so,  with  the 
 consecration  of  the  mind  to  God,  there  must  be  the  sign  or 
 symbol  of  that  sanctification,  which  is  required  of  all  who 
 enter  even  the  humblest  school-room  of  the  Christian  com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 As,  then,  all  children  are  born  in  sin  and  shapen  in  iniquity, 
 are  as  ignorant  of  God  and  of  their  duty  to  him  as  the  brutes 
 that  perish,  and  have  within  them  all  the  latent  elements  and 
 principles  of  a  subsequently  increasing  vicious  impiety  ;  they 
 too  must  be  formally  purified,  and  officially  introduced  to  the 
 privileges  of  a  religious  education.  If  baptism  must  precede 
 Christian  training,  in  the  case  of  adult  idolaters  and  polluted 
 heathens,  because  of  their  uncleanness,  it  should  also  precede 
 the  regular  instruction  of  all  destined  to  be  young  disciples 
 in  the  laws  and  religion  of  Christ ;  because,  by  nature,  they 
 are  as  really  defiled  as  the  unconverted  worshippers  of  Baal. 
 As  the  playful  innocent  whelp  of  the  lion  has  all  the  innate 
 properties  of  its  ferocious  parents  ;  so  the  dear  little  ones,  we 
 press  to  our  bosoms,  have  brought  into  the  world  all  the  seeds 
 and  incipient  elements  of  every  vice  that  disgraces  the  man, 
 and  which,  if  not  prevented  by  spiritual  conversion,  will 
 ultimately  destroy  the  soul  for  ever.  The  washing  of  regene- 
 ration, and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  as  truly 
 needed  by  them,  prior  to  their  early  admission  to  glory,  as  by 
 the  oldest  and  guiltiest  sinner  alive. 
 
 I  must  not  overlook  the  suppositions  of  one  or  two  writers 
 I  have  met  with,  that  the  baptism  in  the  Eed  Sea,. unto  the 
 Mosaic  economy,  was  an  initiation  without  the  application  of 
 water  ;  though,  it  is  conceded,  to  have  been  a  consecration,  as 
 clear  and  complete,  as  if  the  element  had  been  actually 
 employed.  But,  in  support  of  this  conjecture,  neither  the 
 reference  of  Paul,  nor  the  narrative  of  Moses,  affords  us  the 
 slightest  testimony.  But,  even  had  it  been  so,  it  would  not, 
 in  the  smallest  degree,  affect  our  argument  in  support  of 
 Infant  Baptism ;  since  it  concedes  a  perfect  initiation,  as  if 
 by  water-baptism,  of  all  the  young,  as  much  as  of  all  the  old, 
 to  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  By  that  act,  whatever  it  were, 
 which  Paul  calls  baptism,  and  which  must  have  been  a  perfect 
 substitution  for  baptism,  they  would  have  been  laid  under 
 
BAPTISM  A  SYMBOLICAL  LURIFICATIOX.  38  1 
 
 obligations  to  attend  to  Moses,  as  their  teacher,  the  same  as 
 if  the  element  had  been  really  used  ;  or,  as  much  so,  as  the 
 Corinthians  were  laid  under  obligations  to  receive  the  doctrines 
 and  perform  the  duties  of  the  gospel,  by  their  initiation  to 
 Christianity  with  water.  This  must  be  true,  or  the  argument 
 of  Paul  would  have  amounted  to  just  nothing  at  all.  Indeed, 
 it  seems,  that,  for  the  apostle  to  have  referred  to  a  baptizing 
 without  water,  while  he  is  admitted,  by  all  parties,  to  have 
 baptized  the  Corinthians  with  water  ;  would  have  been,  in 
 every  way,  inconsistent  with  all  legitimate  reasoning.  There 
 is  no  doubt,  that  his  Corinthian  readers  understood  him  to 
 mean,  that  the  different  baptisms  were,  at  least,  in  respect  of 
 the  element  employed,  pei-formed  in  the  same  way.  We 
 shall  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Hebrews 
 was  certainly  with  water.  That  the  contrary  cannot  be 
 established,  is  unquestionable. 
 
 The  only  circumstance  assignable  for  the  assumption,  that 
 water  was  not  applied  to  the  Israelites  in  their  baptism,  is 
 that  it  is  not  expressly  asserted  by  the  sacred  historian  to 
 have  been  poured  or  sprinkled  upon  them,  or  that  they  were 
 actually  immersed  in  it.  This,  however,  is  of  no  weight  in 
 the  argument.  Few  instances  are  found,  even  in  the  New 
 Testament,  where  the  use  of  water  in  baptism  is  expressly 
 recorded — though  its  invariable  application  is  universally 
 conceded.  John  baptized  with  water ;  and  the  Eunuch, 
 Cornelius  and  his  family,  are  also  stated  to  have  been  baptized 
 with  water.  But,  no  other  person,  that  I  recollect,  is  literally 
 said  to  have  baptized,  or  to  have  been  baptized,  with  this 
 element.  The  disciples  of  Christ,  prior  to  his  crucifixion, 
 though  they  baptized  more  than  John,  are  not  said  to  have 
 used  this  element  in  their  administrations.  In  the  account  of 
 the  baptisms  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  no  water  is  mentioned; 
 neither  is  it  noticed  in  the  records  of  the  baptisms  of  the 
 Samaritans,  nor  of  Paul,  nor  of  Lydia,  nor  of  Crispus,  nor  of 
 the  Jailor,  nor  of  Stephanus,  nor  of  the  Corinthians  ;  nor,  in 
 fact,  of  any  others,  beside  those  mentioned  above.  Conse- 
 quently, we  have  no  more  literal  and  positive  evidence,  that 
 water,  or  any  other  material  element,  was  employed  by  the 
 apostles  of  Christ  in  baptizing,  (with  the  forementioned 
 exceptions),  than  we  have,  that  the  Hebrews  were  baptized 
 in  the  Red  Sea,  without  the  use  of  water.  And  we  should  be 
 as  fully  warranted  to  aver,  that  nearly  all  the  baptisms  of  the 
 New  Testament,  were   dry  baptisms,   as   that  those   of  the 
 
382  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 Old  Testament,  especially  that  unto  Moses,  were  but  dry 
 dedications  to  God. 
 
 There  were  spiritual  baptisms  with  the  Holy  Ghost  without 
 water ;  but  that  of  the  Hebrews  was  not  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
 as  their  subsequent  folly  and  crimes  too  fully  evince.  There 
 was  the  baptism  of  suffering  ;  but  this,  certainly,  was  not 
 administered  to  the  joyous  Israelites  in  their  crossing  the 
 channel  of  the  Sea.  Paul  is  speaking  of  an  initiatory  baptism, 
 to  a  people  conversant  with  the  baptism  of  water  ;  and  he, 
 thereby,  gave  them  to  understand  that  water  was  the  element 
 used  in  the  case  of  the  Hebrews,  'the  same  as  in  their  own. 
 His  mentioning  the  cloud  and  the  sea,  as  conjoined  with  this 
 ceremony,  evinces  that  he  understood,  not  a  dry  or  a  figurative 
 baptism  ;  but  such  as  he  himself  and  his  colleagues  had 
 administered  to  the  people.  In  a  word,  wherever  official 
 baptism  is  mentioned  in  the  Scripture,  an  element  is  always 
 expressed  or  understood — as  water,  oil,  or  blood.  The  word 
 is  interchangeable  with  that  of  purifying,  cleansing,  washing, 
 anointing,  &c.  ;  and,  therefore,  supposes  that  water  or  some 
 other  liquid  was  employed.  Nor  let  it  be  supposed,  that 
 there  was  an  insuperable  difficulty  in  God's  baptizing  the 
 Israelites  with  water  in  the  Red  Sea  ;  for  with  him  all  things 
 are  possible  and  easy.  The  objection  would  be  more  forcible 
 in  the  mouths  of  our  opponents,  were  it  asserted  that  there 
 must  have  been  a  dry  baptism  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  because 
 the  difficulty  of  dipping  three  thousand,  in  the  city  of 
 Jerusalem,  was  all  but,  if  not  really,  insurmountable — though 
 to  sprinkle  ten  times  as  many  might  have  been  readily  accom- 
 plished. Nor  is  there  any  more  ground  for  saying,  that  the 
 baptism  to  Moses  was  figurative,  than  for  assuming  that  the 
 great  circumcision  to  God,  in  the  days  of  Abraham,  was 
 figurative  also. — I  shall  now  make  certain  observations  on 
 water-baptism,  which  I  trust  the  reader  will  not  deem 
 too  lengthy  in  comparison  with  their  importance  in  this 
 controversy. 
 
 Observation  I. —  The  tvashings,  sprinklings,  purifications 
 and  anointings,  under  the  law  loere,  in  their  nature  and 
 results,  actual  baptisms. — This  is  rendered  apparent  by  the 
 apostle's  expression: — 'There  were,'  [among  the  Hebrews,] 
 '  divers  washings  ' — diaphorois  baptismois — divers  baptisms. 
 Heb.  ix.  10.  Every  person  and  thing  was  regarded  as  unclean 
 and  unfit  for  the  service  of  God,  till  sanctified  by  some  puri- 
 fying element ;  or,  in  other  words,  till  baptized.     If,  after  the 
 
BAPTISM  A  SYMBOLICAL  I'UMFICATTON.  383 
 
 first  purification,  the  subject  became  unclean,  he,  she,  or  it, 
 must  undergo  further,  and  even  many  subsequent  purifications. 
 It  is  true,  the  term  baptism  is  not  used  by  the  original  writers 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  because  the  Hebrew  language  contains 
 no  such  word.  But  equivalent  terms  are  employed,  indicative 
 of  purifying  the  polluted,  and  of  setting  apart  what  was  thus 
 rendered  ceremonially  holy,  to  the  use  and  service  of  Jehovah. 
 The  instances,  on  this  head,  are  so  plain  and  decisive,  that 
 no  one,  moderately  conversant  with  scripture,  will  venture  to 
 dispute  them. 
 
 The  Baptist  author  of  '  Eugenio  and  Epenetus,'  says,  '  It  is 
 '  manifest,  that  a  number  of  purifications  were  common  among 
 '  the  Jews,  and  these  are  called,  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 'divers  baptisms.'  p.  122.  'The  Jews  knew  what  baptisms 
 '  were,  though  the  baptism  of  John,  or  washing  with  water 
 '  simply,  as  a  token  of  a  profession  of  repentance,  was  new  to 
 '  them.'  lb.  p.  123.  Mr.  Stovel  remarks,  '  The  heathen  were 
 '  baptized  when  entering  into  their  mysteries  and  temples  ; 
 '  this  was  heathen  baptism.  The  Jews  were  baptized  when, 
 '  coming  from  their  markets,  or  a  journey,  they  entered  into 
 '  their  families,  and  the  temple  ;  that  was  Jewish  baptism  ; 
 '  but  the  Christian  baptism  was  an  immersion  received  by 
 '  persons  entering  into  Christ.'  p.  28.  Here,  two  deductions 
 are  manifest ;  first,  that  if  the  analogies  between  heathen, 
 Jewish,  and  Christian  baptism,  are  sustainable,  even  in  a  very 
 general  sense,  children,  when  old  enough  to  enter  the  temple, 
 or,  to  go  to  the  market,  or,  to  take  a  short  journey,  might  be 
 baptized  by  the  early  Christians.  And,  secondly,  that  unless, 
 on  every  such  occasion,  men,  women,  and  children,  dipped 
 themselves  all  over  in  water — to  say  nothing  of  being  dipped 
 by  other  people — Christian  baptism  was  not  necessarily  an 
 immersion.  By  entering  into  Christ,  of  course,  we  understand 
 entering  into  the  school  of  Christ,  or,  for  the  first  time,  pro- 
 fessing the  gospel.  '  That  washing  with  water,  was  a  token 
 '  of  a  profession  of  repentance,'  is  fairly  inferable.  It  was 
 an  admission  of  relative  or  personal  pollution,  contracted 
 through  violating  the  laws  of  ceremonial  holiness  :  for  which, 
 transgressors,  or  their  guardians,  ought  to  have  been,  and 
 probably  were,  sorry,  and  received  the  symbol  of  purification, 
 like  humble  penitents  ;  as  much  so  as  most  that  were  baptized 
 by  John  the  Baptist. 
 
 Every  Hebrew,  who  rendered  himself  ceremonially  unclean, 
 must  have  been  formally  purified  before  he  could  again  enter 
 into  the  tabernacle,  or  the  temple  of  the  Lord ;    or,  in  other 
 
384  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AXD  CHRIST. 
 
 terms,  he  must  have  heen  rehaptized,  before  engaging  afresh 
 in  the  public  worship  and  service  of  the  sanctuary.  When 
 an  individual  had  to  be  consecrated  to  some  office  of  dignity 
 or  power,  such  as  that  pertaining  to  a  prophet,  priest,  or 
 king ;  a  more  costly  element  was  added,  and  he  was  baptized 
 also  with  holy  oil,  or  precious  ointment,  poured  on  his  head 
 —  still  more  strikingly  symbolizing  the  baptism,  or  the  pouring 
 out,  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  him — of  course,  there  was  no 
 dipping,  immersing,  or  plunging,  in  these  higher  baptizings  ! 
 When  a  conscience,  pained  with  a  sense  of  some  extraordinary 
 transgression,  was  to  be  pacified,  the  Israelite  was  sprinkled 
 or  baptized  with  the  blood  of  some  fore-appointed  sacrifice  ; 
 thereby  fore-shadowing  the  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ, 
 which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world. 
 
 This  last  allusion,  not  improbably,  sheds  some  light  on  the 
 expression  of  our  Lord ;  '  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized 
 '  with,  and  how  am  I  straitened  till  it  be  accomplished  ;  ' 
 alluding  to  his  last  sufferings  and  death,  when  his  own  precious 
 blood  was  shed,  and  sprinkled  upon  his  own  sacred  body — 
 the  divine  victim  of  the  law  for  the  removal  of  human  guilt. 
 This  was  the  highest  baptism  of  all — the  baptism  of  blood. 
 He  then  bore  our  sins,  which  were  graciously  imputed  to 
 him;  and  by  that  baptism  with  blood,  he  was  judicially  freed 
 from  this  imputed  guilt,  and  sanctified  to  the  Lord,  as 
 thenceforth  perfectly  freed  from  sin.  So,  virtually,  also  are 
 those  who  are  in  him  by  faith,  obedience,  and  love.  '  The 
 '  captain  of  their  salvation  was  made  perfect  through  suffering ; ' 
 '  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for  ever  them  that  are 
 '  sanctified ;  '  and  '  they  are  made  white  in '  (or  through) 
 1  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.' 
 
 Water,  however,  was  the  ordinary  element  of  purification, 
 or  consecration,  or,  literally,  of  a  Jewish  baptism.  This, 
 in  sufficient  quantities,  might  have  been  obtained  in  the 
 wilderness,  or  in  Jerusalem,  where  no  natural  springs  nor  foun- 
 tains existed,  or  wherever  people  could  possibly  live.  It]might 
 have  been  applied  to  the  youngest  infant  without  maternal 
 fear  ;  to  the  feeblest  invalid  without  danger ;  to  the  most 
 refined  and  delicate  without  the  slightest  shock  to  their 
 modesty  ;  and  to  the  purest  garments  without  leaving  an 
 imparted  stain  behind — beautifully  typifying  the  gracious 
 iniluences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  are  adapted  to  every  class 
 and  character  of  mankind,  and  which,  in  cleansing  the  soul, 
 leave  no  vestige  of  transferred  impurity  behind. 
 
 The  great  lesson  inculcated  universally  by  the  '  Doctrine  of 
 
BAPTISM  A  SYMBOLICAL  PTTROTCATION.  385 
 
 1  Baptisms  '  is,  that  all  persons  and  things  must  be  purified, 
 before  being  presented  to  God,  and  before  they  can  be  accepted 
 and  adopted  by  him.  No  ceremonially  unclean  person  might 
 appear  before  God,  in  his  temple,  nor  worship  at  his  altar — 
 he  must  be  first  sanctified.  The  priest  must  wash  his  hands, 
 however  materially  clean,  before  officiating  in  the  house  of 
 the  Lord.  David  says,  '  I  will  wash  mine  hands  in  innocency ; 
 '  so  will  I  compass  thine  altar,  0  Lord.'  Before  Jacob  wor- 
 shipped at  the  altar  in  Bethel,  his  household  must  cleanse 
 their  clothes,  as  well  as  put  away  their  strange  gods.  Before 
 the  Hebrews  could  approach  the  holy  mount,  when  God 
 appeared  to  give  his  law,  they  must  sanctify  themselves  and 
 wash  their  clothes.  Before  men  could  ascend  the  hill  of  the 
 Lord,  or  stand  in  the  holy  place,  they  must  have  clean  hands. 
 Before  men  could  bear  the  vessels  of  the  Lord,  they  must  be 
 clean.  Before  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary  could  be  used, 
 they  must  be  cleansed.  Passages  of  a  like  purport  may  be 
 found  in  numerous  parts  of  the  word  of  God,  as  every  Christian 
 must  be  fully  aware.  The  entire  scheme  of  the  Gospel — its 
 means  and  ministrations — is  to  present  every  man  to  God, 
 pure,  perfect,  and  justified  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  great  lesson 
 teaches  us  the  following  doctrines : — That  purification  precedes 
 presentation  to  God — and,  that  he  will  not  accept  the  unsanc- 
 tified  and  unclean — ceremonially,  in  his  kingdom  on  earth, 
 and  spiritually,  in  his  kingdom  in  heaven.  That,  before 
 children  can  be  duly  and  orderly  presented  to  God,  they  must  be 
 cleansed,  sanctified,  or  baptized.  Hence,  in  baptizing  infants, 
 we  perform  the  rite,  before  we  offer  to  God  the  prayer  of  dedi- 
 cation. To  consecrate  our  offspring  to  the  Lord,  without  this 
 sign  of  purification,  would  be  like  offering  to  him  the  impure 
 and  unclean.  To  delay  their  baptism  for  years,  would  be  to 
 defer  their  proper  dedication  to  the  Lord  all  that  time — or  be 
 like  postponing  circumcision  of  old,  till  the  children  were 
 grown  to  youths  or  young  men.  And,  finally,  we  infer,  that 
 our  Baptist  brethren  violate  the  laws  of  heaven,  by  not  formally 
 consecrating  their  infants  to  God,  or  by  doing  it  without  their 
 previous  symbolical  cleansing  in  water-baptism. 
 
 A  distinction  is  occasionally  made,  between  Initiatory 
 baptism  among  the  Jews,  and  the  baptism  for  Uncleanness. 
 The  baptism  at  the  Red  Sea,  baptism  in  conjunction  with 
 circumcision,  and  the  sanctification  or  baptism  at  Sinai,  have 
 been  regarded  as  initiatory  ;  while  the  purifications  consequent 
 on  ceremonial  defilement,  through  touching  a  dead  body,  and 
 the   like,   have  been  viewed    as    baptisms  for  uncleanness. 
 
 B 
 
386  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 But,  though  the  occasions  were  different,  the  objects 
 were  substantially  the  same,  in  their  subjects,  modes,  and 
 designs.  Initiatory  baptisms  were  intended  to  place  the 
 parties,  originally  out  of  the  church  or  congregation,  or  of  a 
 particular  economy  of  it,  into  a  position  of  membership  for 
 the  first  time ;  laying  them  under  obligations  to  learn  the 
 divine  will,  and  to  live  in  obedience  to  the  revealed  laws  of 
 God.  This  was  not  only  the  primary,  but  also  the  most 
 important  act  of  consecration  to  God  ;  and,  as  such,  could 
 not  be  repeated,  in  respect  of  the  same  dispensation.  The 
 baptisms  for  uncleanness  were  designed  to  restore,  or  re- 
 initiate, those  to  their  former  fellowship  with  the  church,  or 
 congregation,  who  had  been  previously  separated  from  it, 
 on  account  of  some  ceremonial  defilement  or  transgression. 
 This,  though  a  secondary,  was,  according  to  Paul  and  our 
 opponents,  a  real  and  religious  baptism.  The  difference 
 between  the  objects  of  these  cleansings,  washings,  or  baptisms, 
 was,  therefore,  comparatively  immaterial.  Both  recognized 
 the  subjects  as  being  previously  defiled,  and,  therefore, 
 without  the  pale  of  the  church,  or  congregation  of  the  Lord ; 
 and  both,  by  a  ceremonial  act  of  sanctification,  consecration 
 or  baptism,  were  placed,  or  replaced,  in  a  position  of  holy 
 fellowship.  "Whether  you  regard  the  New  Testament  baptisms 
 as  embracing  one  or  both  of  these  acts  is  immaterial  in  our 
 discussion — for  children  were  the  subjects  of  both  of  them. 
 
 In  truth,  baptism  is  of  a  double  import,  comprehending 
 both  purification  and  initiation.  And  this  will  hold  true  in 
 reference  to  all  the  baptisms  mentioned  in  Scripture.  We 
 know  that  John's  baptism,  and  that  of  our  Lord's  disciples, 
 were  initiatory,  and  yet  they  were  manifestly  regarded  as  puri- 
 fications. John  iii.  22-26.  Josephus,  in  speaking  of  John's 
 baptism,  calls  it  a  '  washing  '  or  purification.  Ant.  b.  18,  c.  5, 
 sec.  2.  By  this  expression,  he  evidently  inscribed  the  current 
 opinion  of  the  Jews  in  his  day.  It  was  viewed  as  a  continuation 
 of  the  priestly  cleansings  and  consecrations  under  the  law. 
 This  being  the  case,  no  exception  of  children,  to  the  reception 
 of  this  rite,  would  be  made  by  the  harbinger  of  Christ ;  while 
 conscious  that  all  his  priestly  ancestors  included  them  in  their 
 divers  washings  or  baptisms.  For,  surely,  a  child  might,  by 
 accident,  be  made  ceremonially  unclean  as  readily  as  an  adult ; 
 and  would  equally  require  purification,  to  restore  it  to  its 
 former  position  in  the  Hebrew  congregation. 
 
 This  view  of  our  subject  being  material,  I  shall  cite  an 
 authority  or  two  in  confirmation  of  it.     Mr.  Hall : — '  The  era 
 
BAPTISM  A  SYMBOLICAL  PURIFICATION.  387 
 
 of  immediate  preparation  '  [for  the  gospel  dispensation]  '  was 
 distinguished  by  a  ceremony  not  entirely  new,  but  derived 
 from  the  purification  of  the  law,  applied  to  a  special  purpose. 
 Our  Lord  incorporated  the  same  rite  into  his  religion,  newly 
 modified,  and  adapted  to  the  peculiar  views  and  objects  of 
 the  Christian  economy,  in  conjunction  with  another  positive 
 institution,  the  rudiments  of  which  are  perceptible  in  the 
 passover.'  p.  29. .  .  .'In  all  probability,  the  Jews  regarded 
 the  consecrated  use  of  water '  [by  John]  '  merely  as  an 
 emblem  of  purification  of  that  reformation  of  manners  to 
 which  they  were  summoned  ;  for  to  such  a  use  of  it  tliey 
 had  long  been  accustomed.'  lb.  p.  189.  Mr.  Noel :  —  'The 
 manner  in  which  this  practice  of  the  first  disciples  is  here 
 mentioned,'  [John  iv.  1-3],  'without  any  recorded  command 
 of  Christ,  before  his  disciples  had  been  called  by  him  to  any 
 ministry,  while  they  were  yet  very  partially  instructed, 
 without  the  slightest  comment  by  the  evangelist  upon  the 
 nature  of  the  transaction,  shows  that  the  disciples  were 
 simply  imitating  the  practice  of  John  and  the  custom  of  the 
 country.  It  follows,  that  their  baptisms  resembled,  in  its 
 general  character,  the  baptisms  of  the  priests  and  the  baptisms 
 of  John.'  p.  61. 
 
 Doddridge: — 'It  is  strange  to  me,  that  any  should  doubt 
 whether  proselytes  were  admitted  into  the  Jewish  church  by 
 baptism,  that  is,  by  iv  ashing ;  when  it  is  plain,  from  express 
 passages  in  the  Jewish  law,  that  no  Jew,  who  had  lived  like 
 a  gentile  for  one  single  day,  could  be  restored  to  the  com- 
 munion of  their  church  without  it.     Compare  Numb.  xix. 
 19,  20,  and  many  other  precepts    relating   to    ceremonial 
 pollutions ;   by  which  the  Jews  were  rendered  incapable  of 
 appearing  before  God  in  the  tabernacle  or  temple  till  they 
 were  washed,  either  by  bathing  or  sprinkling.'  Fam.  Expos. 
 Other  quotations,  of  similar  import,   the  reader  will  find  in 
 subsequent  pages.     Now,  in  none  of  these  purifications  were 
 children  made  an  exception ;  as  the  silence  of  our  opponents 
 fully  admits. 
 
 It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  while  both  the  initiative  and 
 re-initiative  baptisms,  or  the  first  and  following  purifying  and 
 consecrating  ceremonials,  were  continued  among  the  Jews, 
 till  the  termination  of  their  economy ;  the  latter  were  virtually 
 done  away  among  the  disciples  of  Christ ;  at  least,  this  is  the 
 general  belief — as  the  practice  of  protestant  Christians  plainly 
 intimates.  The  initiative  was  a  symbolical  removal  of  native 
 or  original  defilement,  and  accompanied  the  first  consecration 
 
388  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 of  the  person  to  Jehovah.  The  re-initiative  was  a  symbolical 
 removal  of  subsequently  acquired  ceremonial  pollutions,  accor- 
 dant with  the  Levitical  institutions  of  the  Hebrew  nation. 
 The  truth  of  this  statement,  I  believe,  no  one  questions. 
 That  there  was  an  initiative  consecration  of  the  Hebrews  to 
 Moses  in  the  Red  Sea,  Paul  assures  us.  And  that  there  was- 
 an  initiative  baptism  of  proselytes  to  Judaism  is  fully  admitted 
 by  all  our  intelligent  and  candid  opponents ;  and,  indeed,  it  is 
 too  manifest  to  be  denied  by  any  who  have  fairly  examined 
 the  case.  This  primary  institution  was  established  before 
 the  giving  of  the  law,  and,  of  course,  before  the  Sinaic 
 appointment  of  the  purely  ceremonial  cleansings  of  persons 
 and  things,  during  that  legal  economy.  Its  perpetuation 
 under  the  gospel  dispensation,  is  a  matter  admitting  of  no- 
 question  with  those  who  now  believe  in  water-baptism  at  all. 
 We  base  our  present  baptismal  rite  on  this  primitive  baptismal 
 initiation,  and  recur  to  the  Levitical  baptismal  purifications 
 simply  as  illustrative  of  our  positions,  and  in  confirmation  of 
 our  views,  on  the  subject ;  just  as  we  refer  to  ancient  infant 
 circumcision  to  meet  many  of  the  objections  of  our  opponents. 
 From  them  we,  at  least,  learn  that  children,  young  and  ignorant 
 as  they  might  be,  had  the  capacity  of  undergoing,  and  frequently 
 if  required,  a  rite  which  bore  all  the  leading  features  of  purifi- 
 cation by  water,  and  which  the  inspired  apostle  designates 
 baptism — though  it  might  not  be  initiatory,  nor  for  the 
 symbolical  removal  of  original  or  natural  defilement. 
 
 Observation  II. — A  regular  initiatory  baptism  of  infants 
 to  Moses,  under  the  laiv,  has  great  probability  in  its  favour. 
 — Hebrew  children,  whose  parents  were  among  the  holiest  in 
 Israel,  were  corrupt  and  sinful  by  nature.  They  all  had  the 
 germs  and  seeds  of  human  depravity  in  them.  And,  without 
 the  regenerating  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  could  not  have 
 lived  a  life  of  holiness  here,  nor  have  entered  the  kingdom  of 
 God  above,  when  they  left  the  world — though  it  were  within 
 a  day  after  their  birth.  They  were  naturally  as  unclean  as 
 any  man  who  had  been  defiled  by  touching  a  dead  body,  and 
 who  must  have  been  sanctified  by  baptism,  before  he  could  be 
 regarded  as  of  the  congregation  of  the  Lord.  It,  therefore, 
 comports  with  the  entire  genius  of  the  Hebrew  economy,  that 
 they  should  be  duly  sanctified  by  baptism,  before  they  would 
 be  recognized  as  clean  persons  and  members  of  the  great 
 sanctified  church  of  Israel.  As  many  thousands  of  infants 
 were  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea,  the  baptism  of  their  infant 
 progeny  afterwards  seems  highly  probable,  if  not  absolutely 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  OBSERVED  IN  ISRAEL.  389 
 
 •essential,  to  comport  with  the  spirit  of  their  holy  economy. 
 That  parental  haptism  did  not  supersede  Infant  Baptism  in  the 
 Eed  Sea,  we  have  previously  established.  We  also  know 
 that  the  circumcision  of  the  father  did  not  prevent  the 
 circumcision  of  his  sons — Abraham  and  his  male  offspring 
 having  undergone  the  operation  at  the  same  time.  When  a 
 man  was  proselyted  from  heathenism  to  Judaism,  his  male 
 seed,  though  but  eight  days'  old,  as  well  as  himself,  must 
 be  circumcised  ;  and  all  the  male  descendants  of  those  infant 
 proselytes,  from  generation  to  generation,  must  have  received 
 in  themselves  the  like  sign  of  initiation  to  the  Abrahamic 
 covenant.  It  is  certain,  too,  that  the  baptism  for  uncleanness, 
 administered  to  the  parents,  did  not  render  the  like  baptism  to 
 unclean  children  needless.  When  the  latter  were  personally 
 defiled,  they  must  be  personally  purified ;  as  much  so  as  if 
 their  progenitors  had  never  undergone  such  a  process  of 
 sanctification. 
 
 It  in  no  measure  militates  against  the  idea  of  the  circum- 
 cision and  the  baptism  of  male  infants  being  continued 
 together  through  the  Mosaic  dispensation ;  '  That  as  both 
 *  rites,  in  certain  leading  particulars,  symbolized  the  same 
 '  spiritual  operations  ;  therefore,  both  of  them  were  not 
 '  necessary,  in  the  case  of  the  same  children.'  We  know 
 there  were  different  kinds  of  sacrifices  offered  continually, 
 from  the  days  of  Moses  to  those  of  Christ ;  while  the  leading 
 design  of  all  of  them  was  the  same.  Those  males  who  were 
 baptized  in  the  sea,  had  been  previously  circumcised.  The 
 male  proselytes  to  Judaism  were  both  circumcised  and  baptized. 
 All  the  males  baptized  by  John,  with  the  exception  probably 
 of  the  Roman  soldiers,  had  undergone  the  ceremony  of 
 circumcision  before.  One  rite  did  not  supersede  or  affect 
 the  other  under  the  law  ;  and  both  were  doubtless  observed  by 
 the  Christianized  Jews  a  long  while  under  the  gospel.  Conse- 
 qently — to  say  nothing  of  the  female  infants,  who,  of  course, 
 were  not  personally  circumcised  at  all — the  administration  of 
 this  rite,  symbolizing  the  renewing  of  the  heart,  spiritual 
 regeneration,  and  the  sanctification  of  the  soul  to  God,  the 
 same  as  was  done  by  water-baptism ;  would,  in  no  degree, 
 render  the  latter  nugatory  or  useless.  They  would  naturally 
 keep  pace  together,  and  alike  teach  the  great  lesson  of  infants 
 being  devoted  and  holy  to  the  Lord,  with  double  emphasis, 
 till  the  setting  up  of  the  gospel  economy  in  the  world. 
 Besides,  as  Carson  remarks,  there  were  certain  points  of 
 •difference  between  them,  which  rendered  them  both  equally 
 
390  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 useful  and  essential  in  the  former  system  of  the  religion 
 of  heaven. 
 
 The  laws  of  Moses  (Lev.  xii.  1-6.)  pronounced  the  mother 
 of  a  man-child  unclean  seven  days,  and  of  a  maid- child  two 
 weeks,  after  their  respective  births  ;  '  and  rendered  all  who 
 '  touched  her  unclean  ;'  Scott;  and,  of  course,  not  excepting 
 her  infant  offspring.  In  the  former  case,  she  was  to  touch 
 no  hallowed  thing,  nor  come  into  the  sanctuary,  for  thirty-three 
 days  ;  and  in  the  latter  case,  not  for  sixty  days ;  when  she 
 was  to  be  deemed  purified,  or  rather,  was  to  undergo  the  rite 
 of  priestly  purification.  Now,  as  you  '  cannot  bring  a  clean 
 '  thing  out  of  an  unclean,'  it  seems  to  follow,  that  new-born 
 children  must  be  deemed  as  unclean  as  the  maternal  parent, 
 and  would  require  some  formal  religious  purification  or  baptism 
 on  or  before  being  presented  unto  the  Lord  in  his  sanctuary, 
 with  the  accustomed  offerings,  immediately  after  the  days  of 
 the  purification  were  accomplished.  See  Luke  ii.  22-24. 
 It  may  be  also  worth  notice,  as  corroborating  our  view  of  the 
 uncleanness  of  new-born  children,  that  every  creature  was 
 considered  unclean  for  a  whole  week  after  its  birth.  '  Likewise 
 1  shalt  thou  do  with  thine  oxen,  and  thy  sheep  :  seven  days  it 
 '  shall  be  with  the  dam  ;  on  the  eighth  day  thou  shalt  give  it 
 '  me.'  Ex.  xxii.  30.  That  the  primitive  believers  did  not 
 deem  their  individual  baptisms  sufficient  for  all  their  posterity, 
 to  the  remotest  times,  is,  we  believe,  a  truth  which  none  of 
 our  opponents  are  disposed  to  controvert ;  and  also  that  this 
 general  practice  was  based  on  that  of  their  Hebrew  ancestors, 
 is  admitted  by  the  most  intelligent  and  competent  among  them. 
 The  inference  is,  a  very  high  probability  in  favour  of  the 
 doctrine,  that  all  the  infants  in  Israel  were  baptized,  or 
 consecrated  to  Moses,  soon  after  their  birth,  during  the  entire 
 period  of  Judaism. 
 
 If  the  recent  customs  of  the  Jews,  in  this  respect,  afford  an 
 explanation  of  the  practice  of  their  ancestors,  baptism  always 
 accompanied  the  rite  of  circumcision.  In  the  Modern  History 
 of  the  Jews,  it  is  said,  '  Before  the  infant  is  circumcised,  he 
 '  is  carefully  washed,  and  laid  in  clean  clothes,  because  no 
 '  prayers  can  be  offered  for  him,  while  he  is  defiled. ..  .An 
 '  empty  seat  is  always  provided  for  the  Prophet  Elias,  who, 
 'they  suppose,  comes  to  occupy  it;  because  the  Jews  have  a 
 '  tradition  among  them,  that  he  is  always  present  at  the 
 4  baptizing  of  every  child  ' — evidently  identifying  this  washing 
 with  baptism.  Faiths  of  the  World.  This  affords  an  expla- 
 nation of  Mr.   Tombes'   assertion,   previously  given,    '  That 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  03SERVED  IN  ISRAEL.  391 
 
 *  baptism  was  a  concomitant  of  circumcision,  if  not  ancienter, 
 1  and   that  it  was  in  use  among  the  Jews  for  many  years 
 
 *  together  with  circumcision.'  Dr.  Gale  admits  that  baptism 
 attended  circumcision  ;  but  followed  rather  than  preceded  it. 
 '  All  natural  born  Jews  were  washed  with  this  baptism,  except 
 '  only  females,  who,  not  being  circumcised,  were  not  washed 
 '  till  they  had  contracted  pollution  some  other  way ;  and  this 
 '  plainly  intimates  that  there  was  a  baptism  thought  necessary 
 '  on  account  of  circumcision,   or   some  pollution   contracted 
 
 *  thereby.'  p.  2GC.  At  any  rate,  the  union  of  the  two  rites 
 is  plainly  admitted. 
 
 Corroborative  of  this  conclusion,  it  may  be  remarked,  that 
 no  infant  or  child  could  have  been  formally  and  personally 
 consecrated  to  the  Mosaic  economy  but  by  baptism  ;  at  any 
 rate,  no  female  children  could  be  otherwise  initiated  to  his 
 religious  teachings  and  its  advantages.  Males  were  circum- 
 cised under  a  prior  covenant,  and  so  became  devoted  to 
 Jehovah  as  the  God  of  Abraham  ;  and  that  only  once  in  then- 
 lives,  whatever  uncleanness  they  might  incur,  or  whatever 
 sins  they  might  individually  commit,  in  the  Hebrew  camp  or 
 country,  during  their  entire  existence.  If  young  females  were 
 to  be  personally  and  ceremonially  devoted  to  Jehovah,  as 
 doubtless  they  were,  it  must  have  been  by  purification  or 
 baptism  ;  for  to  them  no  other  initiatory  ceremonial  was  open. 
 It  can  hardly  be  conceived,  that  for,  at  least,  fifteen  hundred 
 years,  no  female  children  were  individually  and  personally 
 dedicated  to  the  God  of  Israel.  It  is  admitted,  as  we  shall 
 presently  prove,  that  all  the  female,  as  well  as  the  male, 
 children  of  proselytes  were  baptized,  and  so  consecrated  to 
 the  Lord  under  the  gospel ;  and  we  cannot  imagine  that  the 
 female  children-  of  God's  own  original  people,  naturally  as 
 unclean  as  their  infant  brothers,  and  as  the  offspring  of 
 converted  idolaters,  should  not  be  privileged  and  distinguished 
 in  the  same  manner.  Indeed,  as  just  hinted,  no  person  of 
 either  sex  was  devoted  to  Moses,  or  inducted  to  his  religious 
 system,  any  more  than  to  Christ  and  Christianity,  except  by 
 water-baptism.  Circumcision  continued  throughout  the  Jewish 
 polity,  but,  like  sacrifices,  it  had  no  peculiar  or  necessary 
 connexion  with  Moses  and  his  Levitical  institutions.  As  a 
 distinct  operation,  it  existed  long  before  he  had  a  being  ;  was 
 
 *  of  the  fathers  '  before  him  ;  was  practised  by  other  nations  ; 
 and  is  still  continued  among  their  descendants  ;  though  the 
 temple  is  no  more,  and  all  the  sacrifices  have  legally  ceased. 
 Women  and  children  were  included  in  the  original  baptismal 
 
392  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 act  and  covenant  of  the  Eed  Sea,  and  in  all  the  subsequent 
 general  covenants  God  gave  to  his  people  ;  and  were  thereby 
 placed  in  the  same  position,  relative  to  the  law,  as  their 
 circumcised  husbands  and  fathers. 
 
 In  this  relationship  they  continued  up  to  the  period  when 
 their  Levitical  system  was  really  or  virtually  destroyed.  Into 
 this  covenant  they  were  not  brought  by  personal  circumcision, 
 but  only  by  baptism.  Into  this  covenant  also,  we  have  reason 
 to  assume,  they  were  brought,  not  simply  in  virtue  of  their 
 relation  to  the  other  sex,  as  in  the  case  of  circumcision  ;  but 
 by  baptism,  administered  to  themselves  when  they  were  infants. 
 That,  under  the  Levitical  economy,  females  were  personally 
 and  officially  initiated  to  the  Mosaic  law,  at  some  period  or 
 other  of  their  lives,  or  rather,  before  they  were  permitted  to 
 be  present  in  the  sacred  assemblies  of  the  Lord,  appears  all 
 but  certain.  The  only  question  is  about  the  manner,  and  the 
 time  of  doing  it.  That  it  was  by  washing,  purifying,  or  baptism, 
 is  unquestionable.  And  that  the  time  was  in  infancy  or  child- 
 hood, is  hardly  to  be  doubted — no  particular,  or  no  other, 
 period  of  life  being  specified  ;  and  that  of  infancy,  is,  on  many 
 grounds,  the  most  reasonable,  and,  therefore,  the  most  probable. 
 Nor  is  this  probability,  when  there  is  no  evidence  opposed  to 
 it,  to  be  slightly  rejected.  Our  opponents  admit  that  proselyte 
 baptism  existed  among  the  Hebrews,  not  from  any  instance  of 
 it  recorded  in  the  sacred  narratives ;  but  simply  because  it 
 was  most  probably  done,  was  a  reasonable  service,  and  accorded 
 with  the  spirit  of  the  Levitical  system  ;  and,  therefore,  to  be 
 acknowledged  as  undoubtedly  true.  That  the  purification, 
 consecration,  or  baptism  of  infant  Israelites  is  equally  in  the 
 spirit  of  that  system,  and  was  as  probably  administered,  I 
 think  the  intelligent  and  candid  reader  will  as  readily  concede. 
 
 As  additional  proofs,  that  infants,  among  the  Jews,  were 
 baptized  under  the  Hebrew  dispensation,  it  may  be  noted, 
 that  while  no  females  could  have  been  initiated  unto  Moses 
 except  by  baptism  ;  we  are  assured,  that  if  any  children,  of 
 either  sex,  were  ever  virtually  consecrated  to  him,  during  his 
 lifetime,  it  must  have  been  by  baptism.  From  the  day  that 
 the  Hebrews  left  Egypt,  till  they  had  entered  into  the  Holy 
 Land,  no  circumcision  had  been  administered  to  any  one. 
 '  Now  all  the  people  that  came  out '  [of  Egypt]  '  were  circum- 
 '  cised,  but  all  the  people  that  were  born  in  the  wilderness, 
 '  by  the  way  as  they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,  these  they  had 
 '  not  circumcised.'  Josh.  v.  5.  Hence,  during  forty  years, 
 the  entire  period  of  the  personal  guidance  and  government  of 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  OBSERVED  IN  ISRAEL.  393 
 
 Moses,  no  child,  infant,  or  young  person,  had  been  officially 
 or  formally  dedicated  to  God — except  by  baptism.  Conse- 
 quently, those  persons  who  had  not  been  baptized  in  the  sea, 
 because  they  were  subsequently  born  in  the  wilderness,  could 
 not  have  personally  broken  the  baptismal  covenant,  nor  have 
 committed  the  specific  and  aggravated  offence  with  which  Paul 
 charges  them,  unless  they  had  been  baptized.  Whether  any 
 of  these  children  did  actually  offend,  and  fall  under  the  wrath 
 of  God,  except  in  the  case  of  Korah  and  his  company,  we  are 
 not  informed.  If  none  of  them  did  so  sin  and  suffer,  it  is 
 far  more  remarkable  than  that  they  were  not  baptized. 
 
 As  all  the  people,  old  and  young,  who  came  out  of  Egypt, 
 required  baptism — for  otherwise  we  are  sure  God  would  not 
 have  baptized  them  —  so  all  that  were  born  in  the  wilderness 
 first,  and  in  the  land  of  Canaan  afterward,  would,  as  far  as 
 we  can  judge,  have  required  baptism  also,  and  to  be  brought 
 under,  and  bound  by,  the  like  baptismal  covenant,  equally 
 with  those  who  were  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea.  Why, 
 moreover,  were  the  children  of  baptized  proselytes  baptized, 
 but  because  they  required  it,  and  because  it  was  a  custom  in 
 Israel  ?  If  the  consecration  of  the  Jewish  adult  answered  for 
 his  offspring,  why  should  not  the  consecration  of  the  believing 
 gentile  suffice  for  his  offspring  also,  seeing  that,  in  point  of 
 moral  nature,  they  were  on  a  par,  and  were  all  to  be  treated 
 alike — in  all  religious  institutions  and  rites?  But  the  baptism 
 of  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  did  not  suffice 
 for  all  or  any  of  their  posterity  ;  nor  that  of  the  apostolic  age 
 for  all  or  any  coming  time.  Wherefore,  we  doubt  not,  that 
 baptism  was  regularly  administered  to  all  Jewish  children, 
 and  to  all  the  children  of  those  who,  under  the  Christian 
 economy,  became  the  members  of  the  congregation. 
 
 Further,  there  can  hardly  be  a  question,  that  multitudes  of 
 children  were  born  in  the  wilderness,  and  died — not  like  the 
 family  of  Korah  and  his  company,  by  the  manifest  judgments 
 of  heaven — but  in  the  usual  course  of  nature.  It  would  have 
 been  a  miracle,  sure  of  a  divine  record,  if  such  had  not  been 
 the  case.  If  we  suppose,  that,  at  the  lowest  calculation,  half 
 a  million  of  children  were  born  and  died  in  the  course  of  the 
 forty  years,  during  which  the  Hebrews  wandered  in  the 
 desert ;  we  shall  not  be  deemed  extravagant  in  our  estimates. 
 Now,  none  of  these  were  dedicated  to  God  by  circumcision  ; 
 for  we  are  expressly  told  that  this  rite  was  suspended  during 
 all  that  long  period  of  time.  Then,  were  they  not  formally 
 consecrated  at  all  to  God  before  they  left  the  world  ?      Were 
 
 R2 
 
394  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 half  a  million,  or  even  any  of  them,  so  neglected  by  their 
 parents,  by  their  priests,  or  by  Moses,  that  they  lived  and 
 died — between  the  ages  of  eight  days  and  forty  years — without 
 being  devoted  to  the  Lord,  or,  in  some  required  form  of 
 initiation,  inducted  to  the  congregation  of  God  ;  and  that,  too, 
 when  numerous  ceremonies  were  duly  administered,  when  even 
 the  tabernacle,  and  its  utensils  werebaptizedbeforeusedfor  God, 
 the  High  Priest  washed  and  annointed  before  be  could  officiate 
 at  the  altar,  and  every  unclean  Jew  purified  or  baptized  before 
 he  could  join  in  their  social  gatherings  1  That  appears  so 
 improbable,  so  irreligious,  so  contrary  to  all  we  know  of  God's 
 institutions,  in  the  wilderness,  that  we  cannot,  for  a  moment, 
 admit  the  possibility  of  it.  And  if  they  were  ever  officially 
 and  formally  devoted  to  God,  it  must  have  been  by  water- 
 baptism,  (for  then  there  was  no  other  rite  of  consecration  used 
 among  them) ;  and  the  time  in  which  they  received  it  was 
 unquestionably  in  their  infant  years.  The  suspension  of 
 circumcision,  during  their  frequent  and  uncertain  movements 
 and  wanderings  in  the  wilderness,  may  readily  be  accounted 
 for ;  just  as  the  suspension  of  the  Passover,  under  the  like 
 circumstances,  for  want  of  adequate  flocks  to  supply  the 
 feast.  But,  dry  as  the  wilderness  was,  water  for  sprinkling 
 the  people,  however  numerous  and  frequently,  was  always  at 
 hand,  or  they  could  not  have  existed  a  week. 
 
 As  shown  before,  it  is  no  valid  argument  against  these 
 assumptions,  based  on  such  high  probabilities,  that  it  is  not 
 expressly  affirmed  that  infants  were  baptized  in  the  wilderness, 
 and  during  the  subsequent  period  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 
 All  reasonable  men  concede  the  existence  of  facts  and  operations, 
 during  long  spaces  of  time,  which  are  neither  fully  narrated, 
 nor  even  once  noticed  by  historians,  sacred  or  profane.  It  is 
 nowhere  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  a  child  was 
 ever  taught  to  walk  by  its  parents,  or  to  talk,  or  to  behave 
 courteously ;  but  every  one  believes  such  instructions  were 
 constant  and  universal  in  Israel,  because  the  necessity  of  the 
 case  ensured  them. 
 
 Dr  Halley  remarks: — '  According  to  the  command  given  to 
 'Abraham,  every  male  child  must  have  been  circumcised 
 1  before  it  was  numbered  with  the  people.  As  baptism  and 
 '  circumcision  accompanied  each  other,  if  they  were  baptized 
 1  at  all,  the  inference  is  undeniable,  that  they  were  baptized 
 '  as  they  were  circumcised,  in  infancy.  Being  circumcised, 
 1  they  were  deemed  proselytes,  and  there  was  no  subsequent 
 1  time  in  which  they  could  have  been   offered  for  baptism. 
 
INFANT  BAPTISM  OBSERVED  IX  ISRAEL.  395 
 
 *  Numbered  with  their  parents  in  infancy  among  the  children 
 '  of  Abraham  ;  they  must  have  received  the  rites  of  initiation 
 
 *  if  they  received  them  at  all,  when  they  were  admitted  into 
 '  the  visible  church  or  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  child  of  a 
 '  Hebrew  was  initiated  in  infancy  ;  the  child  of  a  proselyte 
 1  would  be  initiated  at  the  same  age.  How  should  baptism 
 '  be  deferred  when  circumcision  was  performed  ?  The  child,  as 
 '  well  as  the  parent,  would  need  be  purified  from  theuncleanness 
 1  of  living  as  do  the  gentiles.  Indeed,  among  the  Jews  there 
 '  was  no  rite  peculiar  to  the  adult  proselyte.  According  to 
 '  their  rule  ;    as  was  the  parent,   so  was  the   child.       Inue- 
 
 *  pendently,  therefore,  of  the  express  testimony  of  their 
 '  authorities,  we  may  infer  that  the  Jews,  as  they  circumcised, 
 '  so  they  baptized  the  infants  of  proselytes,'  [as  they  did  their 
 own,]  '  and  received  the  household  with  their  parents  as 
 '  initiated  into  the  covenant  of  Abraham.  The  probability  of 
 '  the  thing,  combined  with  the  express  testimony  in  its  favour, 
 '  places  it,  we  think,  beyond  any  reasonable  objection  or 
 'doubt.'   Pt.  I.  p.  124,  125. 
 
 I  have  adduced  the  foregoing  arguments  in  support  of  the 
 doctrine,  that  babes  were  baptized  during  the  entire  Hebrew 
 Commonwealth,  in  order  to  supply,  as  far  as  able,  the  connexion 
 between  the  baptism  in  the  Eed  Sea,  and  that  of  John  in  the 
 Jordan.  How  far  my  remarks  have  sustained  the  assumption, 
 the  reader  will  judge  for  himself.  I  have  attempted  to 
 establish  it,  not  as  a  point  materially  affecting  the  controversy 
 between  ourselves  and  our  Baptist  opponents.  They  would 
 not  deem  it  important  to  disprove,  that,  if  baptism  was  admin- 
 istered to  infants  and  children  in  the  Red  Sea,  it  was  not 
 reiterated  in  the  wilderness.  Convinced  of  the  former,  they 
 would  probably  concede  the  latter,  or  lay  but  little  stress 
 upon  a  denial  of  it ;  unless  they  discovered  unequivocal 
 evidence  to  the  contrary.  Hence,  also,  if  it  can  be  proved,  that 
 the  apostles  really  baptized  children  ;  it  would  be  no  question 
 of  moment  with  our  opponents,  were  we  to  adduce  ample 
 testimony  evincing  that  succeeding  ministers  of  the  gospel 
 followed  their  example — unless  the  New  Testament  had 
 given  an  explicit  commandment,  that  the  rite  was  to  be 
 limited  to  the  times  in  which  the  apostles  lived.  On  the 
 other  hand,  could  they  prove,  to  a  certainty,  that  none  but 
 believing  and  regenerated  adults  were  baptized  by  John  and 
 the  immediate  followers  of  Christ,  and  that  it  would  have  been 
 wrong  then  to  have  acted  otherwise  ;  they  would  feel,  and 
 rightly  too,  that  no  other  class  of  persons  should  subsequently 
 
396  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 participate  in  the  service.  Still  the  inquiry  is  interesting. 
 To  show,  that  after  the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  sea,  and  long 
 before  that  practised  in  Jerusalem,  the  rite,  most  probably, 
 was  uninterruptedly  administered  to  infants,  by  the  ancient 
 priests  and  people  of  God,  must  gratify  the  mind,  if  it  do 
 not  confirm  the  faith,  of  all  sincere  Pedobaptists. 
 
 Observation  III. —  The  baptisms  under  the  gospel  economy 
 were  a  continuation  of  the  purifications,  consecrations,  or 
 baptisms  under  the  law. — To  this  point,  viewed  in  another 
 aspect,  we  have  previously  adverted.  But  the  question 
 requires  a  more  general  consideration,  in  order  to  determine, 
 as  clearly  as  possible,  the  practice,  first  of  John  the  Baptist, 
 and  then  of  the  disciples  of  our  Lord.  I  have  already  cited 
 several  testimonies  in  corroboration  of  our  proposition ;  to 
 these  the  reader  can  easily  recur.  I  may  add  a  few  more  to 
 the  like  effect.  Dr.  Gale : — '  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
 '  words  (Baptism,  &c.)  may  very  reasonably  be  understood  of 
 '  those  legal  washings ....  That  the  Jews,  on  account  of  several 
 '  kinds  of  pollution,  used  to  purify  themselves,  cannot  be 
 '  questioned  ;  the  divers  washings  (Gr.  Baptisms)  mentioned 
 'in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (ch.  ix.  10)  make  it  incon- 
 '  testible.  And  it  is  plain  enough,  that  upon  some  such 
 '  notion,  they  were  washed  after  the  sore  of  circumcison  was 
 '  healed ' — that  is,  when  in  a  state  of  infancy,  p.  265.  Dr.  Gill : 
 — '  There  were  divers  bathings,  baptisms,  incumbent  on  the 
 '  Israelites,  and  so  upon  such  proselytes  who  were  upon  an 
 '  equal  footing  with  them,  and  equally  under  obligation  to 
 '  obey  the  ceremonial  laws,  which  consisted  of  divers  washings, 
 '  baptisms. .  .  .yet  none  of  them  for  proselytism,'  [Qy?]  'but 
 '  for  purification  from  one  uncleanness  or  another  in  a 
 '  cermonial  sense.' 
 
 Mr.  Noel: — 'When  our  Lord  commanded  his  disciples  to 
 '  go  and  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  they  had  already 
 'been  in  the  habit  of  baptizing. .  .  .As  he  indicated  then  no 
 '  change  in  their  practice,  it  would  continue  what  it  had  been 
 'before;  and  as  no  earlier  directions  respecting  the  rite  are 
 '  recorded  (than  John  iii.  26  ;  iv.  1,  3),  but  it  is  simply  stated 
 *  that  they  baptized,  we  have  reason  to  think  that  they  ad- 
 '  ministered  the  baptism  to  which  as  Jews  they  were  accustomed. 
 '  The  simple  record  that  they  baptized  must  be  understood  to 
 '  declare  that  they  did  so  according  to  the  common  recognized 
 '  practice.  The  use  of  the  word  "  baptize,"  as  a  term  generally 
 '  known,  and  which  called  for  no  explanation,  proves  that  it 
 '  must  be  understood  in  its  common  sense.     Had  the  external 
 
BAPTISM  FOLLOWS  JEWISH  PURIFICATIONS.  397 
 
 1  act  of  baptism,  when  that  rite  was  administered  by  the  apostles, 
 1  differed  materially  from  the  external  act  of  baptism  practised 
 1  by  the  Jews,'  [either  as  to  the  mode  or  the  subject],  '  the 
 '  difference  would  have  been  explained,  to  prevent  mistake  in 
 '  successive  generations.  And  since  there  is  no  explanation 
 '  whatever,  we  may  conclude  that  the  apostles  administered 
 1  baptism  after  the  manner  of  the  Jews.'  Mode,  p.  54,  55. 
 '  Various  Jewish  washings  were  emblematical  of  the  purification 
 '  of  the  soul,'  {lb.  p.  113),  in  which  case  it  symbolized  with 
 baptism  under  the  gospel. 
 
 These  declarations,  of  such  highly  respectable  and  influential 
 Antipedobaptists,  will  have  their  due  weight  with  many  of 
 their  brethren  of  the  same  denomination.  But  the  doctrine 
 will  be  further  confirmed,  in  the  opinion  of  certain  Pedobaptists, 
 at  least,  by  the  judgment  of  two  or  three  men  of  mark  in  their 
 own  ranks.  Ainsworth  : — '  Baptism  was  nothing  strange  to 
 '  the  Jews,  when  John  the  baptist  began  his  ministry. 
 'Matt.  iii.  5,  6.  They  made  question  of  his  person  that  did 
 '  it ;  but  not  of  the  thing  itself.  John  i.  5.'  Lightfoot : — 
 1  When  the  baptizing  of  infants  was  a  thing  commonly  known 
 '  and  used  '  [among  the  Jews],  '  as  appears  among  incontestible 
 '  evidence  from  their  writers,  there  need  not  be  express 
 '  assertion  that  such  and  such  persons  were  to  be  the  subjects 
 '  of  baptism,  as  it  was  as  well  known  before  the  gospel  began, 
 '  that  men,  women,  and  children  were  baptized  as  that  the 
 '  sun  is  up '  [when  it  shines  on  us.]  '  The  baptizing  of 
 '  infants  was  as  well  known  in  the  church  of  the  Jews  as  ever 
 '  it  has  been  in  the  Christian  church.' 
 
 Neander  : — '  John  made  use  of  baptism  as  a  symbol  of 
 'preparatory  consecration  to  the  Messiah's  kingdom  ;  a  course 
 '  to  which  he  might  have  been  led  by  the  lustrations  common 
 '  among  the  Jews,  and  by  the  intimations  of  prophecy,  such 
 
 *  as  Mai.  iii.,  Zech.  xiii.,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  even  if  the  baptism 
 
 *  of  proselytes,  was  not  then  extant  among  the  Jews.'  Life  of 
 Christ,  b.  iii.,  ch.L,  sec.  35.  I  will  just  subjoin  the  reasoning  of 
 Mr.  Fleming : — '  Though  we  have  not  now,  in  the  Jewish  code 
 '  any  very  particular  and  express  account  of  the  ceremonials 
 '  of  the  Proselyte's  admission  ;  yet  we  may,  by  a  just  analogy, 
 '  conclude,  that  since  washing  was  appointed  for  the  legal 
 '  purification  of  a  defiled  Jew,  it  was  but  reasonable  to  expect 
 '  that  the  same  purifying  rite  should  be  applied  to  a  gentile 
 '  convert,  who  was  looked  upon  by  them  as  naturally  defiled, 
 '  and,  therefore,  as  bearing  some  likeness  in  his  condition  to  a 
 
 *  Jew,  under  legal  pollution  and  uncleanness.'    Plea,  p.  27. 
 
398       THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AXD  CHP.IST. 
 
 Calmet : — '  The  baptism  of  proselytes  was  practised    every 
 '  day  in  Israel.'  In  he. 
 
 Quotations  to  the  same  purport  might  be  made  to  almost 
 an  indefinite  extent.  That  Christian  baptism  is  a  continuation 
 of  Jewish  baptism,  few,  after  looking  carefully  into  the  subject, 
 will  deny.  The  apostle  declares  these  washings  to  be  baptisms ; 
 and  when  he  made  the  statement,  he  knew  well  what  it 
 imported,  and  how  it  would  be  understood,  by,  at  least,  all  the 
 Christianized  Israelites.  There  might  be  slight  differences 
 in  the  administration,  but  enough  would  remain  in  these 
 ceremonies  to  identify  them  as  real  and  genuine  baptisms,  and 
 to  warrant  the  same  common  designation  of  them  all.  This 
 view  of  the  connexion  of  the  Hebrew  and  Christian  baptisms 
 appears  to  be  the  only  one  entirely  free  of  all  but  insur- 
 mountable difficulties.  Christian  baptism  was  undoubtedly  a 
 continuance  of  some  foregoing  ceremony  practised  by  the 
 priesthood,  and  well  known  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  time  of 
 John,  who,  though  he  administered  it  on  a  larger  scale  than 
 ordinary,  and  in  circumstances  calculated  to  excite  unusual 
 attention,  he  evidently  did  nothing  with  which  the  entire 
 people  were  not  quite  familiar. 
 
 When  our  Baptist  opponents  refer  to  Hebrew  purifications, 
 as  the  precursor  and  prelude  of  baptism,  by  John  and  the 
 apostles,  they  assume  one  thing,  and  keep  another  out  of 
 sight.  First,  they  assume,  that  all  the  baptisms  were  by 
 dipping ;  and,  secondly,  they  forget  to  tell  us,  that  children 
 were  the  subjects  of  the  ceremony  equally  with  adults.  The 
 practice  of  immersion,  Mr.  Noel  thinks,  was  founded  on  the 
 following  law  in  the  Mosaic  code  : — *  The  clean  person  shall 
 '  sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the 
 *  seventh  day  :  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself, 
 '  and  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall 
 '  be  clean  at  even.  But  the  man  that  shall  be  unclean,  and 
 '  shall  not  purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  the 
 '  congregation,  because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the 
 1  Lord.'  Mode,  p.  55,  56.  That  this  conclusion  is  fallacious, 
 I  think,  I  have  proved  in  the  work  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 
 Does  Mr.  Noel  believe  in  se  or  self-baptism  1  "When  he 
 himself  was  immersed,  he  did  not  adopt  this  method,  nor  is  it 
 practised  by  any  in  his  communion.  Mr.  Robinson,  in  his 
 1  History  of  Baptism,'  says,  '  That  among  the  Jews,  no  person 
 '  ever  dipped  another,  a  proselyte  washed  himself,  but  that 
 '  is  not  baptism.'  p.  36.     Mr.  Gibbs  remarks,  'The  circum- 
 
BAPTISM  FOLLOWS  JEWISH  PURIFICATIONS.  399 
 
 4  stance  of  one  man's  dipping  another,  who  had  passed  through 
 
 *  all  the  forms  requisite  to  a  full  admission  into  the  church, 
 
 *  had  nothing  answerable  to  it  in  the  whole  history  of  Judaism.' 
 p.  274.  And  yet,  it  seems,  a  ministerial  dipping  of  a  believer 
 is  warranted  by  a  Jewish  layman  dipping  himself !  Ceremonial 
 baptism  was  ever  deemed  a  transitive  act  —  something  done  by 
 one  person  to  another — by  the  minister  to  his  people,  or  by 
 the  clean  person  to  the  unclean.  The  only  act  in  this  cleansing 
 that  can  be  regarded  as  baptism,  is  the  clean  person  sprinkling 
 upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day. 
 John  and  the  apostles  did  not  command  their  converts  to 
 baptize  themselves  ;   but  they  did  it  to  or  for  them. 
 
 The  Lord's  commission  does  not  run,  '  Go  disciple  all 
 '  nations,'  then,  after  they  have  dipped  or  baptized  themselves 
 under  water,  teach  them  all  things  whatsoever  I  command 
 you.  The  whole  act  of  baptizing  was  to  be  administered  by 
 Christian  officers.  The  converts  were  not  enjoined  to  go  to 
 the  water  or  into  the  water  ;  but  merely  to  be  passive  subjects 
 of  the  ordinance.  Children,  and  even  babes,  were  liable  to 
 ceremonial  defilement ;  and  if  the  purification  were  by  dipping 
 or  washing  one's  self,  perhaps,  our  good  opponents  can  tell  us 
 how  these  little  folks  immersed  or  washed  themselves  in  water. 
 All  that  the  most  earnest  advocates  of  dipping  could  fairly 
 claim  from  any  baptism  of  the  Jews,  is,  that  the  minister  should 
 first  sprinkle  his  candidates  and  then  send  them  to  a  reservoir 
 of  water  or  a  river,  to  bathe  themselves  and  wash  their  clothes. 
 Let  it  not  be  forgotten,  that '  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and 
 '  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to 
 '  the  purifying  of  the  flesh.'  Heb.  ix.  13.  Here  is  a  full  and 
 complete  ceremonial  purification  by  sprinkling  alone.  Many 
 other  texts  teach  the  same  doctrine. 
 
 The  method  of  purifying  or  baptizing,  by  sprinkling  or 
 applying  the  cleansing  element  to  the  unconsecrated  and 
 unclean,  appears  to  arise  from  the  circumstance,  that  the 
 ceremonially  holy  could  not  touch  the  unholy  without  polluting 
 himself.  This,  I  believe,  was  a  universal  Levitical  law.  The 
 unclean  must  be  first  purified  before  the  clean  person  could 
 come  in  contact  with  them,  unless  they  would  change  their 
 relative  ceremonial  positions.  This  being  true,  the  clean 
 person  could  not  dip  or  wash  the  unclean,  because  he  could 
 not  do  so  without  touching  him,  and,  thereby,  defiling  himself. 
 And  it  is  observable,  that  in  no  case  of  purifying  or  baptizing, 
 is  the  administrator  of  the  rite  ever  said  to  touch  the  purified 
 or  baptized  :  a  plain  intimation  that  there  was  no  dipping  or 
 
400  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHMST. 
 
 immersing  one  another  in  these  rites.  And  this  accounts  for 
 the  fact  stated  by  Gibbs  and  Robinson  in  the  above  quotation. 
 That  the  like  principle  operated  under  the  New  Testament, 
 whose  first  adherents  were  Jews,  fully  acquainted  with,  and 
 accustomed  to,  their  ancient  rites  of  cleansing  and  consecration, 
 appears  at  least  highly  probable.  Let  me  add,  that  to  found 
 immersion  baptism,  chiefly  or  solely,  on  the  supposed  sense 
 of  the  verb  baptizo,  as  is  done  by  Mr.  Carson  and  others,  is 
 utterly  fallacious.  It  has  been  proved,  beyond  all  fair  dis- 
 putings,  that  to  wash,  pour,  or  sprinkle,  is  conveyed  by 
 the  word  as  clearly  as  to  immerse. 
 
 I  may  be  here  allowed,  by  way  of  further  digression,  to 
 notice  a  fact  of  some  little  interest  to  ecclesiastical  antiquarians, 
 respecting  the  mode  of  baptism.  It  has  been  repeatedly 
 asserted,  that  sprinkling  is  of  very  recent  date  in  this  country, 
 and  that  it  arose  in  the  time  of  the  Protestant  Reformation. 
 This,  at  least,  is  not  universally  correct.  Mr.  Tremen,  in  his 
 History  of  Architecture,  says,  '  The  earliest  font,  probably,  in 
 '  Great  Britain,  is  that  recently  discovered  by  Mr.  Hadfield  in 
 '  Castle  Rising.  It  was  found  incased  in  the  more  modern 
 '  one  of  the  celebrated  churches  of  the  twelfth  century,  and 
 1  had  evidently  been  brought  there  from  the  much  earlier 
 '  church  of  the  castle.  It  has  a  square  base,  two  feet  three 
 '  diameter,  with  circular  shaft,  one  foot  ten  diameter,  and  a 
 '  basin,  one  foot  nine  in  diameter  in  the  clear  square  sunk  to 
 '  the  depth  of  nine  inches  and  half.  The  whole  is  perfectly 
 '  plain.'  And  it  is  as  perfectly  plain  that  when  this  most 
 ancient  font  in  England  was  made  and  used,  infant  sprinkling 
 was  not  a  thing  totally  unknown  in  this  country.  '  The 
 '  reformers,'  says  Mr.  Budd,  '  knew  no  baptism  but  that  of 
 '  infants,  and  therefore  prepared  no  service  for  adults  ;  that 
 'was  a  subsequent  provision'  [in  1622.]  p.  235. 
 
 . 
 
 I  just  now  remarked,  that  when  our  opponents  refer  to 
 Baptism  of  any  kind  and  in  any  place,  or  for  any  purpose, 
 under  the  Hebrew  dispensation,  they  never,  for  a  moment 
 inform  you  that  children,  as  well  as  adults,  were  the  subjects 
 of  it.  Mr.  Stovel  does  not  appear  to  have  seen,  or  imagined, 
 a  child  among  the  multitudes  that  were  baptized  in  the  Red 
 Sea,  though  there  must  have  been  several  hundred  thousands 
 present !  Drs.  Gale  and  Gill  are  equally  unconscious  of  the 
 existence  of  the  children  who  were  baptized  because  of  some 
 ceremonial  defilement,  during  the  whole  period  of  the  Jewish 
 polity !     Mr.  Noel  witnesses   these  Jewish  baptisms,  among 
 
BAPTISM  FOLLOWS  JEWISH  PURIFICATIONS.  401 
 
 the  original  stock  of  Abraham,  and  administered  to  many 
 heathen  proselytes  ;  hut  so  lofty  are  his  observations,  that 
 scarcely  iu  a  single  case  does  he  discover  any  subjects  below 
 men  and  women — who,  of  course,  left  their  little  ones  among 
 the  priests  and  people  of  heathenish  idolatry,  or  somehow 
 smuggled  them  into  Judaism,  without  their  undergoing  the 
 legal  rites  of  initiation !  And  why  are  these  young  ones 
 so  seldom  mentioned  or  noticed,  as  of  deep  interest  and 
 importance,  by  our  good  friends  in  this  inquiry?  The  reasons 
 are  manifest. 
 
 To  tell  their  readers  that  God  himself  baptized,  probably, 
 a  million  babes  and  children  in  the  Red  Sea ;  that  the  Jews 
 baptized  children,  if  not  immediately  after  birth,  or  when 
 eight  days'  old,  at  least  whenever  any  of  them  happened  to 
 become  ceremonially  unclean ;  that  whenever  heathen  parents 
 became  proselytes  to  the  Jewish  religion,  which  was  of 
 frequent  occurrence,  and  occasionally  on  a  large  scale,  their 
 children,  however  young,  were  baptized  as  well  as  themselves; 
 would  have  been  too  dangerous  and  damaging  a  disclosure 
 and  concession  to  their  simple-minded  readers.  These  might 
 have  fancied  it  not  very  improbable,  that  when  John  baptized 
 all  the  people  of  Jerusalem,  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round 
 about  Jordan ;  and  when  the  apostles  consecrated  vast  numbers 
 of  proselytes  to  Christianity,  children  were  baptized  also  ! 
 This  might  the  more  easily  have  happened,  after  being 
 repeatedly  told,  that  John  derived  his  baptism  from  the  Jews; 
 that  the  disciples  of  Christ  followed  the  example  of  John ; 
 and  that  the  concise  commission  of  Christ  was  given  on 
 the  assumption,  that  the  apostles  would  understand  him  as 
 enforcing  a  practice,  of  which  they  had  read  and  seen  much, 
 and  in  which  the'  children  always  participated  with  their 
 parents  !  Our  good  brethren  were  far  too  cautious  explicitly 
 and  openly  to  betray  their  cause  by  any  such  directly 
 damaging  expositions. 
 
 Mr.  Gibbs,  doubtless,  speaking  the  opinion  of  many  of  his 
 brethren,  says,  '  It  is  a  fact  in  which  we  glory,  and  which  our 
 '  opponents,  with  all  their  sophistry  cannot  refute,  that  the 
 '  directions  for  the  observance  of  Believers'  Baptism,  and  the 
 '  arguments  for  its  support,  are  to  be  found'  [only]  '  in  the  New 
 *  Testament.'  p.  230.  Let  the  reader  of  the  preceding 
 remarks,  say,  whether  this  assertion,  or,  at  least,  the  impression 
 it  is  designed  to  make,  can  be  fully  sustained  ?  Where  are 
 the  full  directions  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  observance  of 
 baptism  ?    How  was  it  to  be  done  ?  Who  was  to  do  it  1  And 
 
402  .    THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 what  were  the  results  ?  Are  full  directions,  without  numerous 
 assumptions  or  inferences,  afforded  us  by  Christ  or  his  apostles? 
 Mr.  Noel  very  properly  answers,  No.  Then,  as  to  Believers' 
 Baptism  ;  what  faith  was  essential  to  meeten  men  for  this 
 ordinance  ?  Did  it  consist  of  a  mere  mental  or  intellectual 
 admission  of  the  doctrines  of  revelation,  as  spoken  by  Christ 
 and  his  inspired  followers  ?  or  did  it  necessarily  include  the 
 belief  of  the  heart,  the  faith  of  God's  elect,  which  overcometh 
 the  world,  and  saves  men  from  the  love  and  dominion  of  sin 
 here,  and  from  all  condemnation  and  suffering  hereafter  ?  It 
 surely  does  not  require  much  sophistry  to  refute  this  notion, 
 in  which  Mr.  Gibbs,  and  his  like-minded  defenders  of  exclusive 
 Believers'  Baptism,  so  much  glory.  As  this  controversy 
 progresses,  the  more  intelligent  and  clear-headed  of  his  own 
 persuasion  will  gradually  perceive  that  baptism,  like  many 
 other  matters  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  cannot  be 
 clearly  understood,  except  by  calling  in  the  assistance  of 
 Moses  and  the  holy  prophets  of  old.  It  is  quite  amusing  to 
 notice,  that  while  many  of  our  brethren  recur  to  the  Old 
 Testament  for  guidance  in  matters  of  doctrines,  duties,  and 
 religious  forms,  with  the  deepest  interest  and  confidence  ;  no 
 sooner  do  you  refer  to  the  same  authorities  for  light  on  the 
 proper  modes  and  subjects  of  baptism,  than  the  Bible  is 
 thrown  aside  as  a  thing  of  nought ;  and  they  greatly  glory  in 
 the  supposed  fact,  that  they  are  not  beholden  to  it,  for  any 
 help  on  this  important  question  ! 
 
 Observation  IV. — All  proselytes  from  heathenism  were 
 baptized  before  being  fully  admitted  to  the  Hebrew  congre- 
 gation.— The  following  remarks  are  designed  as  continuous 
 arguments  and  evidences  given  under  the  preceding  obser- 
 vations.— I  observe,  that,  if  the  lineal  seed  of  Abraham,  Isaac, 
 and  Jacob,  the  heirs  of  the  promise,  must  be  baptized 
 before  they  could  be  duly  constituted  '  the  church  in  the 
 'wilderness,'  even  though  all  the  males  had  been  previously 
 circumcised  to  the  Lord ;  we  may  confidently  infer,  that  no 
 descendants  of  Ishmael,  Esau,  or  of  any  other  profane  or 
 idolatrous  progenitors,  would  be  permitted  to  join  in  the 
 sacred  solemnities  or  congregations  of  Israel,  and  draw  near 
 to  God  in  his  synagogues,  tabernacle,  or  temple,  without 
 undergoing  this  heavenly  instituted  purification.  The  opinions 
 which  the  Hebrews,  as  a  people,  entertained  of  the  moral  and 
 ceremonial  pollution  of  the  heathen,  may  be  gathered  from 
 Ezra's  address  to  the  Jews,  in  order  to  induce  them  to  put 
 away  their  strange  wives.     '  And  now,  0  our  God,  what  shall 
 
HEATHEN  PROSELYTES  ALWAYS  BAPTIZED.  403 
 
 1  we  say  after  this  ?  for  we  have  forsaken  thy  commandments, 
 1  which  thou  hast  commanded  hy  thy  servants  the  prophets,' 
 [Josh.  xxii.  19,]  'saying,  The  land  unto  which  ye  go  to  possess 
 'it,  is  an  unclean  land,  with  the  filthiness  of  the  people  of 
 '  the  land,  with  their  ahominations,  which  have  filled  it  from 
 '  one  end  to  the  other  with  their  uncleanness.'  Ezra  ix.  10. 
 
 That  the  pious  Hehrews  regarded  gentile  idolaters  with 
 dislike  and  contempt,  passages  all  but  innumerable  fully 
 testify.  David's  disdain  of  Goliah,  the  uncircumcised  Philis- 
 tine, is  fully  to  the  purpose.  1  Sam.  xvii.  26.  Frequently  are 
 the  Israelites  warned  against  having  social,  and  especially 
 religious,  intercourse  with  the  heathen  natives  around  them, 
 or  with  any  persons  among  them,  till  separated  and  purified, 
 according  to  the  divinely  instituted  ordinances  of  the  ancient 
 laws  of  God.  The  like  feelings  evidently  pervaded  the  minds 
 of  the  Jews  in  apostolic  times.  The  reluctance  of  Peter  to 
 visit  Cornelius  and  his  family,  because  they  weje  uncircum- 
 cised gentiles,  is  apparent  in  the  records  of  that  interesting 
 event.  '  Ye  know  how  it  is  an  unlawful  thing  for  a  man 
 '  that  is  a  Jew  to  keep  company,  or  come  unto  one  of  another 
 '  nation.'  Acts  x.  28.  On  one  occasion  Paul  was  in  danger 
 of  being  killed  by  the  Jews,  because  he  had  brought  certain 
 supposed  uncircumcised  Greeks  into  the  temple.  lb.  xxi. 
 28-30.  The  enmity  of  the  Jews  against  the  Samaritans  is 
 notorious.  In  the  case  of  such  unclean  people,  purification 
 was  indispensable,  before  being  admitted  to  join  with  them  in 
 the  worship  of  the  Lord. 
 
 It  is  hardly  questionable,  that  the  contentions,  originating 
 with  the  Christianized  Jews,  mentioned  in  Acts,  chap.  xv. 
 arose  from  the  fact,  that  the  gentile  Christians  were  admitted 
 to  share  the  religions  privileges  of  the  early  churches,  without 
 being  circumcised  as  well  as  baptized.  These  people  were 
 deemed  so  bad,  that  one  divine  rite  of  admission  was  not 
 regarded  as  sufficient  to  remove  their  heathenish  pollution ; 
 especially  when  two  were  required  of  the  proselyte  to 
 Hebrewism  ;  and  also  in  the  case  of  every  male  child  among 
 the  Israelites.  '  It  would  be  strange  and  unaccountable,' 
 says  Mr.  Godwin,  '  if  the  law  that  was  binding  on  the  native 
 '  Jew,  was  not  also  binding  on  the  gentile  proselyte.  Can  it 
 '  be  supposed  that  a  Jew,  until  purified,  was  excluded  from 
 '  the  society  of  his  countrymen,  and  from  the  religious 
 '  privileges  which  were  his  birthright,  on  account  of  a  single 
 *  act,  producing  ceremonial  defilement ;  and  that  the  gentile, 
 f  who  had  often  done  the  same  thing,  was  not  excluded  also 
 
404  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 'until  purified  in  the  same  way?  Would  a  Jew  require  this 
 '  purification  after  merely  touching  the  unclean  gentile,  before 
 '  restored  to  his  religious  privileges,  and  would  the  unclean 
 '  gentile  be  admitted  without  this  purification  to  participate  in 
 '  them  ?  The  supposition  is  most  unreasonable.  Not  only 
 '  is   it   contrary  to  the   spirit  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  to 
 
 *  the  design  of  their  ceremonies,  but  it  is  opposed  to  the 
 '  express  injunction  of  the  law,  which  required  that  the  gentile 
 '  should  be  treated  as  a  Jew.'  p.  72.  I  may  just  add  here, 
 that  after  a  heathen  had  been  fully  proselyted,  and  inducted 
 to  Judaism,  by  baptism  and  circumcision,  he  appears  to  have 
 been  regarded,  in  a  religious  point  of  light,  as  a  perfect  Jew. 
 Acts  ii.  10.  No  distinction,  but  in  name,  if  always  in  that, 
 ever  seems  to  have  been  made  between  the  original  and  ingrafted 
 branches  of  the  parent  stock.     See  Lewis'  Ant.  v.  i.  p.  33. 
 
 '  On  the  subject  of  Jewish  baptism,'  says  Dr.  Halley,  '  I  am 
 '  disposed  to  take  still  higher  ground,  and  to  say,  although 
 4  there  was  no  positive  enactment  of  Moses'  law,  according  to 
 
 *  which,  proselytes  from  the  gentiles  were  baptized,  yet,  the 
 '  requirements  of  that  law  rendered  a  baptism,  a  purification 
 
 *  of  water,  absolutely  necessary,  before  a  gentile  could  be 
 '  received  into  the  communion  and  society  of  the  Jews.  If 
 '  this  were  the  fact,  Jewish  baptism,  though  not  expressly 
 
 *  ordained  by  God,  is,  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  of  divine 
 '  authority.     Whatever  is  absolutely  necessary  to  be  done,  in 
 
 *  order  to  observe  a  command  of  God,  is,  in  effect,  commanded, 
 '  as  well  as  the  deed  which  is  expressly  enacted.     If  we  advert 
 
 *  to  the  ceremonial  pollutions  of  the  Mosaic  law,  we  must 
 1  acknowledge  that  the  gentile  nations,  without  a  single  ex- 
 '  ception,  were  perpetually  unclean. .  .  .Is  it  to  be  supposed, 
 '  that  a  gentile,  who  desired  to  associate  with  Israel,  to  be 
 
 *  received  into  their  families,  to  sit  at  their  tables,  to  eat  their 
 
 *  holy  things,  to  sacrifice  at  their  great  altar,  to  worship  in  their 
 '  national  temple,  would  not  have  been  compelled  to  submit  to 
 '  the  same  purification  as  the  Jew,  who  returned  from  a  single 
 'feast  in  the  house  of  a  gentile?'  Pt.  i.  p.  114,  115. 
 
 Some  of  our  opponents  reject  the  authority  of  uninspired 
 Jewish  historians  and  commentators,  who  assert  the  prevalence 
 of  proselyte  baptism  among  the  ancient  Jews ;  doubtless, 
 foreseeing  the  damage,  the  admission  of  it  might  do  to  their 
 own  views  of  Infant  Baptism.  But,  the  thing  itself  is  so 
 reasonable,  and  the  act  so  essentially  in  keeping  with  the 
 economy  of  that  peculiar  people,  that  one  could  hardly  think 
 it  possible  for  any  intelligent  person  to  deny  or  doubt  it,  even 
 
HEATHEN  PROSELYTES  ALWAYS  BAPTIZED.  405 
 
 though  not  a  single  Jewish  Rabbi  ever  wrote  a  line  respecting 
 it.  If  it  be  conceded,  that  the  washings  under  the  Levitical 
 dispensation  were  baptisms,  either  initiating  or  purifying ; 
 then,  surely,  the  persons  who  came  from  a  state  of  heathenism 
 to  join  the  Israel  of  God,  must  have  been  baptized.  To  admit, 
 as  our  opponents  do,  that  there  were  baptisms  or  purifications 
 of  the  unclean  Hebrews,  and  not  of  heathen  proselytes,  about 
 to  enter  into  even  the  remotest  communion  with  the  sanctified 
 in  Israel,  seems  to  us  truly  surprising  and  unaccountable,  and 
 so  it  must  be  to  the  more  intelligent  of  our  reverend  opponents 
 themselves.  Concede  the  point,  that  there  actually  were 
 proselytes  to  Judaism,  and  you  cannot,  with  even  the  shadow 
 of  a  reason,  deny  their  purification  or  baptism.  Indeed,  these 
 ceremonial  baptisms  of  Jews  and  gentiles  stand  on  the  same 
 basis,  exhibit  the  same  aspect,  and  convey  the  same  evidence 
 in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism.  Prove  the  one,  and  you  establish 
 the  other.  Make  it  plain  that  the  Jewish  washings  were 
 baptisms,  and  you  render  it  evident  that  proselyte  baptism  did 
 exist  among  the  Hebrews — without  the  slightest  reference  to 
 the  declarations  of  the  Rabbis. 
 
 I  have  previously  cited  several  Baptist  writers,  whose 
 language  fully  concedes  the  fact  of  proselyte  baptism.  A  few 
 further  quotations,  or  a  recitation  of  passages  previously 
 quoted,  will  show  the  reader  something  of  the  nature  and 
 extent  of  these  admissions  or  declarations.  Mr.  Stovel : — 
 '  That  the  Jews  should  baptize  themselves  after  a  contact  with 
 '  the  heathen,  and  not  baptize  a  heathen  when  he  was  initiated, 
 '  would  seem  strange.  The  baptism  of  a  proselyte  is,  moreover, 
 'retained  unto  this  day,  and  practised  just  in  the  same  way 
 '  which  would  seem  to  be  implied  in  the  words  of  Holy 
 '  Scripture.'  p.  67-  •  Mr.  Tombes : — '  To  speak  exactly,  baptism 
 '  (I  do  not  say  the  sacrament  of  baptism)  was  a  concomitant 
 '  of  circumcision,  if  not  ancienter.  For  it  is  well-known  that 
 '  baptism  was  in  use  among  the  Jews,  in  the  initiating  of 
 '  proselytes  for  many  years,  together  with  circumcision.' 
 Exam.  p.  89.  Mr.  Booth  concedes  that  the  children  of 
 proselytes  were  baptized  along  with  their  parents,  v.  ii.  p.  177- 
 Mr.  Noel: — 'As  the  heathen  were  unclean,  they  were  obliged, 
 '  before  they  could  be  admitted  into  association  with  the  Jews, 
 '  to  be  bathed  or  baptized  ;  and  this  baptism  was  required  of 
 '  every  proselyte,'  [children  as  well  as  adults.]  Sub.  p.  46. 
 '  Every  one  was  familiar  with  the  baptismal  rite,  every  one 
 '  talked  of  it;  it  admitted  proselytes  into  communion  with  the 
 '  Jews ;    it  admitted   converts  into  the   company   of  John's 
 
406  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 '  disciples ;  it  was  administered  to  the  disciples  of  Jesus.' 
 lb.  p.  10.     'The  Jewish  women  who  resorted  to  the prosenche, 
 
 •  or  chapel'  [with  Lydia,]  '  on  the  hanks  of  the  stream,  accus- 
 
 •  tomed  as  they  were  to  the  immersion  '  [rather  affusion]  '  of 
 '  female  proselytes  by  the  hands  of  Jewish  priests,'  [for,  now, 
 they  do  not  baptize  themselves  !]  '  would  witness  the  spectacle 
 
 •  with  solemn  emotion.'  Mode,  p.  102.  '  These  considerations 
 '  and  testimonies  go  far  to  show,  that  the  baptism  of  proselytes 
 '  was  practised  by  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our  Lord.'  lb.  p.  58. 
 
 The    Rev.   G.  Jackson    remarks,    '  There   was   a   dispute 
 '  between  Dr.  Hammond  on   one  side,  and  Mr.   Seldon  and 
 
 •  Mr.  Tombes  on  the  other  side,  concerning  the  children  of 
 '  natural  Jews ;  yet,  all  agree,  that  the  infant  children  of 
 '  proselytes  were  baptized  ;  and  that  it  was  a  common  phrase 
 '  with  them  to  call  such  infants,  proselytes,  as  well  as  their 
 1  parents.'  p.  34.  Bishop  J.  Taylor,  the  great  oracle  of 
 certain  Baptist  writers,  observes,  '  That  this  rite  of  admitting 
 1  into  mysteries,  and  institutions,  and  offices  of  religion,  by 
 '  baptisms,  was  used  by  the  posterity  of  Noah,  or,  at  least,  very 
 '  early  among  the  Jews,  besides  the  testimonies  of  their  own 
 '  doctors,  I  am  the  rather  induced  to  believe,  because  the 
 1  heathens  had  the  same  rite  in  many  places,  and  in  several 
 '  religions ;    so   they   initiated   disciples   into  the   secrets   of 
 
 •  Mithra ;    and   the  priests   of  Cotytto  were   called   Baptae, 
 
 •  because  by  baptism  they  were  admitted  into  the  religion. .  . . 
 '  A  proselyte  is  called  in  Arrianus,  Bebammenos,  Intinctus,  a 
 f  baptized  person. .  .  .But  this  ceremony  of  baptizing  was  so 
 
 •  certain  and  usual  among  the  Jews,  in  their  admitting  prose- 
 '  lytes,  and  adopting  into  institutions,  that  to  baptize  and  make 
 'disciples  are  all  one.... The  Jewish  baptisms  admitted 
 1  proselytes  to  Moses,  and  to  the  law  of  ceremonies.'  Works, 
 vol.  i.  p.  115.  Stovel : — '  The  initiating  immersion'  [rather 
 aspersion]  '  certainly  was  used  before  the  time  of  our  Lord  by 
 '  heathen  communities.'  Dis.  p.  85.  Burroughs,  another 
 Baptist  writer,  admits,  that  proselyte  baptism  '  contains  what 
 '  is  of  the  greatest  importance  in  the  controversy  relating  to 
 
 •  this  practice  of  baptism.'  p.  42.  In  fact,  of  so  great 
 importance  is  it,  that  being  once  universally  admitted,  and  its 
 consequences  fairly  drawn,  Infant  Baptism  must  be  deemed 
 fully  established ;  and  the  controversy  between  the  Baptists 
 and  their  opponents  must  speedily  terminate. 
 
 Mr.  Noel  asserts,  that '  the  disciple  of  the  priests  renounced 
 
 •  idolatry,  conformed  to  the  Jewish  ritual,  and  was  baptized  ; 
 
 •  the  disciple  of  John  confessed  his  sins,  avowed  his  belief 
 
HEATHEN  PEOSELYTES  ALWAYS  BAPTIZED.     407 
 
 1  that  the  Christ  was  at  hand,  and  was  haptized.'  Sub.  p.  GO. 
 But,  admitting  all  this,  in  neither  case  does  it  seem,  that 
 regeneration  of  heart  was  required,  as  essential  to  conformity  ; 
 and,  as  the  priests  received  the  children  into  the  Mosaic 
 church  hy  circumcision  and.  haptism  with  their  parents  ;  John, 
 also  a  priest,  without  a  divine  prohibition,  could  do  no  less. 
 He  proceeds,  '  If  a  heathen  wished  for  Jewish  baptism,  he 
 '  must  renounce  his  idols,  profess  his  belief  in  the  divine 
 '  authority  of  Moses,  and  promise  obedience  to  the  Mosaic 
 '  laws  :  would  John,  then,  baptize  a  Jew,  unless  he  renounced 
 '  his  sins,  and  professed  belief  in  the  approaching  advent  of 
 '  Christ,  with  his  intention  to  keep  the  commands  of  God  ? 
 '  What  he  had  ever  seen  demanded  in  the  initiatory  rite  of 
 1  the  more  carnal  religion,  he  would  not  dispense  with  in  the 
 '  initiatory  rite  which  was  to  enrol  men  under  his  ministry, 
 'as  expectants  of  the  Messiah.'  lb.  p.  52.  For  the  sake  of 
 argument,  we  will  also  admit  the  statement  and  the  inference 
 to  be  true  and  fair.  But,  how  does  this  exclude  infants  from 
 John's  baptism,  when  it  admitted  them  to  Jewish  baptism? 
 Would  John  reject  those  whom  his  predecessors  were  ever 
 accustomed,  to  baptize  ?  The  heathen  confessed,  and  was 
 baptized,  he  and  all  his  straightway  :  and  if  the  two  baptisms 
 are  essentially  alike,  the  Jews  also  confessed,  and  were 
 baptized  by  John  and  our  Lord's  apostles,  they  and  all 
 theirs  straightway  !  Lewis  says,  '  It  is  most  certain,  that 
 '  they  baptized  children,  and,  generally,  with  their  parents  ; 
 '  and  if  the  parents  were  dead,  the  consistory  of  three  took 
 1  care  of  their  baptism.'  vol.  ii.  p.  460. 
 
 As  previously  remarked,  in  all  probability,  heathen  proselytes 
 to  Judaism  were  very  numerous,  especially  in  the  days  of  David 
 and  Solomon,  as  well  as  in  later  ages  of  the  Hebrew  Common- 
 wealth. In  the  time  of  Esther  and  Mordecai,  many  of  the 
 people  of  the  Persian  empire  became  Jews,  probably  proselytes 
 of  righteousness,  for  the  fear  of  the  Jews  fell  upon  them. 
 Esther  viii.  17.  In  this  case,  all  the  males  would  be  circumcised 
 and  baptized,  and  the  females  simply  baptized,  according  to 
 the  laws  and  traditions  of  Israel,  even  though  no  record  of 
 the  rite  is  furnished  us ;  for  they  could  not  have  been 
 recognized  and  received  as  Jews  on  any  other  terms.  That 
 this  and  all  proselytisms  embrace  children  with  the  adults,  we 
 gather  from  the  fact,  that  the  stranger  or  proselyte  was  to  be 
 put  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  Israelites  themselves.  'And 
 'when  a  stranger  shall  sojourn  with  thee,  and  will  keep  the 
 '  passover  to  the  Lord,  let  all  his  males  be  circumcised,'  [which 
 
408  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 rite  included  the  baptismal  act]  '  and  thou  shalt  let  him  come 
 '  near  to  keep  it ;  and  he  shall  be  as  one  born  in  the  land  ; 
 '  for  no  uncircumcised  person  shall  eat  thereof.  One  law 
 '  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home-born,  and  unto  the  stranger  that 
 '  sojourneth  among  you.'  Ex.  xii.  48,  49. 
 
 That  all  these  strangers  were  baptized,  though  nowhere 
 recorded,  is  indisputable  ;  as  our  foregoing  remarks  have 
 fully  shown.  We  have  here,  then,  Infant  Baptism,  because 
 we  have  infant  proselytism  ;  and  that,  too,  even  in  the  time  of 
 our  Lord.  Mr.  Noel  truly  admits  that  '  a  proselyte  and  his 
 '  children  were  admitted  into  the  national  covenant,'  Sub.  p.  43 ; 
 and  he  might  have  added,  by  water-baptism.  This  was  the 
 point  to  be  established ;  and  this  having  been  effected,  Infant 
 Baptism  is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  any  successful  assault. 
 Further,  as  all  proselytes,  though  baptized  at  their  first 
 initiation,  were  subsequently  to  be  dealt  with,  in  all  cases  of 
 personal  defilement,  as  those  that  were  home-born;  it  follows, 
 that,  as  all  the  infants  existing  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus 
 were  baptized  with  their  parents,  and  whenever  afterwards 
 they  were  ceremonially  defiled ;  so  every  infant,  entering 
 Israel  from  a  heathen  land,  must  have  been  first  baptized 
 with  its  parent,  and  re-baptized  whenever  it  subsequently 
 became  unclean. 
 
 '  As  a  proselyte  and  his  children  were  admitted  into  the 
 '  national  covenant '  together  ;  it  follows,  that  it  was,  in  both 
 cases,  by  the  like  rites  and  ordinances.  If  heathenish 
 pollution,  without  baptism,  prevented  the  father  from  enjoying 
 communion  with  Israel ;  it  equally  prevented  the  unbaptized 
 mother  and  children,  male  and  female,  from  all  such  fellowship. 
 Now,  unless  we  assume,  that  the  little  folks,  proselyted  from 
 the  gentiles,  were  to  be  entirely  deprived  of  all  the  religious 
 privileges  of  the  youthful  Hebrews,  it  is  certain,  that  they  must 
 have  been  purified  the  same  as  their  parents.  What  rendered 
 the  cleansing  of  the  seniors  essential  to  religious  fellowship  in 
 Israel,  the  same  rendered  the  cleansing  of  the  juniors  essential 
 to  their  enjoying  the  same  advantages — just  as  the  regeneration 
 of  a  child  is  as  requisite  to  its  entering  heaven,  as  the  regene- 
 ration of  an  old  man  But,  we  find,  that  the  fully  proselyted 
 stranger  and  his  family  were  to  be  placed  on  the  same 
 spiritual  footing  as  native  Israelites  themselves ;  and,  therefore, 
 as  the  Hebrew  children  were  blessed  with  a  participation  of 
 religious  means  and  mercies ;  so  where  the  children  of 
 sanctified  gentiles.  It  is,  therefore,  demonstrable,  that  as 
 adult  proselytes  were  cleansed,  washed,  or  baptized,  so  their 
 
HEATHEN  PROSELYTES  ALWAYS  BAPTIZED.     409 
 
 offspring  underwent  the  like  ceremonies.  And,  as  it  is  ad- 
 mitted, that  John  the  Baptist  and  the  disciples  of  Christ 
 followed  the  practice  of  their  fathers,  in  the  case  of  proselytes 
 and  their  children  ;  so  we  have  indisputable  evidence,  that 
 they  haptized  proselytes  and  their  children  into  their  new 
 economies  of  religion.  Either  the  premises  of  our  opponents 
 must  be  bad,  or  the  inference  we  have  drawn  is  inevitable, 
 viz.:  —  that  the  apostles  of  Christ  baptized  all  the  children  of 
 those  parents  whom  they  proselyted  to  Christianity. 
 
 The  practice  and  prevalence  of  Jewish  and  proselyte  baptism, 
 up  to  the  time  of  John  the  Baptist,  and  during  the  ministry  of 
 our  Lord,  furnishes  a  key  fitted  to  unlock  the  mystery  of  the 
 subject  of  Infant  Baptism  better  than  any  other  with  which  we 
 are  acquainted.  It  accounts  for  the  conduct  of  the  harbinger  of 
 the  Messiah,  in  baptizing  children,  though  the  sacred  historian, 
 from  the  commonness  of  the  act,  did  not  deem  it  requisite  to 
 give  us  any  specific  information  on  the  subject.  Indeed, 
 without  recognizing  and  understanding  the  subjects,  modes, 
 and  designs,  of  those  prior  purifications,  consecrations,  or 
 baptisms,  under  the  law,  there  would  manifestly  be  a  serious 
 want  of  information  on  the  point — a  want  even  in  reference 
 to  the  right  baptizing  of  any  one,  and  in  any  way — a  want  which 
 th eXew  Testament  does  not  elsewhere  fully  supply,  just  because 
 it  was  contained  in  the  Old.  John  went  about  the  work 
 of  baptizing  without  any  recorded  instructions  given  him, 
 respecting  its  performance,  either  as  to  the  mode  or  the 
 subject ;  and  the  people  submitted  to  the  ceremony  as  to  one 
 with  which  they  were  well  acquainted.  They  never  asked 
 him  what  he  was  doing,  as  strangers  to  such  a  rite  surely 
 would  have  done.  .  Nor  did  any  persons,  however  opposed  to 
 his  doctrines  and  precepts,  object  to  his  baptizings,  as  if 
 they  were  novel  or  unscrjptural.  From  the  days  of  John  the 
 Baptist  to  the  death  of  John  the  apostle,  no  one  ever  betrayed 
 any  thing  like  ignorance  on  this  head — a  sure  proof  that  the 
 ceremony  had  been  long  prevalent,  and  not  lightly  esteemed 
 by  the  Jews.  The  mystery  is  cleared  up  by  Paul's  reference 
 to  the  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea — the  baptism  of  purification 
 in  Israel — and  the  admitted  baptism  of  initiation  of  heathen 
 proselytes.  It  is  remarkable,  that,  while  the  Jews  objected 
 to  many  other  things  said  and  done  by  Christ  and  his  apostles ; 
 while  eager  to  lay  hold  on  any  obnoxious  word  or  deed  ; 
 while  sending  lawyers  and  others  to  catch  them  in  their 
 speech  and  procedure  ;  we  never  read  of  their  charging  them 
 with  violating  the  laws  of  Moses,  by  baptizing  the  people. 
 
 S 
 
410  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel's  remarks  on  this  point  are  worthy  of  trans- 
 cription ;  especially  as  they  evince  the  difficulties  in  which  it 
 involves  a  clever  opponent  of  Infant  Baptism.  '  If  circumcision 
 '  was  a  part  of  the  initiation  '  [of  proselytes,]  •  then  that  was 
 '  a  circumcision  of  believers  in  God  under  Moses.  If  oblation 
 '  was  a  part,  that  was  an  oblation  of  believers  in  God  under 
 '  Moses  ;  and  if  baptism  was  a  part,  that  was  a  baptism  of 
 1  believers  in  God  under  Moses.  If  the  children  were  admitted 
 '  with  the  parent,  (which  is,  by  no  means,  certain,)  it  was 
 '  because  of  the  parent's  faith  in  God  under  Moses  ;'  [for  the 
 faith  of  a  parent  may  secure  the  religious  initiation  or  baptism 
 of  his  children !]....'  The  question,  whether  proselytes  were 
 '  or  were  not  baptized,  is  of  no  moment;'  [my  best  mode  of 
 escaping  a  considerable  difficulty!]  'the  initiation  was  discri- 
 '  ruinating;  and  if  baptism  was  a  part  of  it,  the  baptism  must 
 '  have  been  discriminating  too.'  [He  means,  they  baptized 
 only  those  who  were  taught  the  leading  truths  of  Hebrewism, 
 were  true  penitents,  and  were  willing  to  become  Jews.]  '  How 
 1  far,  and  to  what  age,  the  child  of  a  proselyte  could  be 
 '  received  with  him,  is,  though  the  Jewish  was  a  national  and 
 'hereditary  system,  very  uncertain;'  [and  it  is  very  unde- 
 sirable to  inquire  too  much  into  the  matter!]  'but  the 
 '  proselyte  initiation  itself  was  unquestionably  discriminating ; 
 '  it  supposed  a  character  which  might  be  accredited,  and  it 
 '  imposed  a  rule  of  life  which  was,  and  must  be,  a  test  of  that 
 '  character.' 
 
 '  When  the  nation '  [men,  women,  and  children !]  '  was 
 '  baptized,  initiated  into  Moses,  being  immersed  in  cloud  and 
 '  sea,  they  entered  under  an  authority,  the  exercise  of  which 
 '  was  destined  to  secure  the  glory  of  the  God  to  whom  they 
 '  were  subject.  They  were  not  permitted  to  return. .  ..But 
 '  one  law  was  for  the  proselyte  and  the  home-born  Jew ....  If, 
 '  in  conformity  with  the  national  and  hereditary  nature  of  that 
 '  community,  his  children  were  initiated  with  him,  then  this 
 '  also  must  have  taken  place  because  of  the  faith  which  the 
 'parent  had  disclosed.'  (Z)/s.  p.  69-71.) — Of  course,  it  did; 
 and  so  it  must  ever  have  done  in  the  case  of  parents  who 
 baptize  their  children  to  Christ  —  for  an  heathenish  or  idolatrous 
 unbeliever  would  not  bring  his  child  to  the  font  in  any  country 
 or  age.  The  provisoes,  cautions,  and  expositions,  in  con- 
 junction with  the  damaging  concessions  contained  in  these 
 citations,  fully  evince  the  importance  of  this  part  of  the 
 controversy,  and  how  gladly  the  evidence  it  affords,  in  favour 
 of  Infant  Baptism,  would  be  passed  over,  if  it  were  possible. 
 
HEATHEN  PROSELYTES  ALWAYS  BAPTIZED.  411 
 
 In  fact,  it  is  passing  strange,  how  acute  and  logical  gentlemen, 
 like  Noel,  Stovel,  &c.  with  their  views  of  proselyte  baptism, 
 so  general  and  up  to  the  very  time  of  Christ,  cannot  perceive, 
 that  they  have  not  a  foot  of  solid  ground  left  to  stand  upon, 
 in  their  fight  against  Infant  Baptism  ! 
 
 An  anonymous  writer,  (1757),  referring  to  John  i.  25, 
 '  Why  baptizest  thou,  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ,  nor  Elias, 
 '  nor  that  Prophet?'  remarks,  '  To  give  light  unto  the  reason 
 '  of  their  demand,  it  must  be  observed,  that  it  was  a  well- 
 '  known  and  well-established  custom  among  the  Jews,  when 
 '  any  persons  became  converts  and  proselytes  to  their  religion, 
 1  from  among  the  heathens,  to  admit  them  with  a  becoming 
 '  solemnity  into  it,  by  baptizing  them  with  water,  denoting  by 
 '  this  significative  ceremony  the  washing  away  their  sinful 
 '  idolatries  and  superstitions,  and  separating  them  to  the 
 1  worship  and  service  of  the  true  God.  This  custom  was 
 '  probably  derived  either  from  the  baptism  of  Moses,  when  he 
 '  purged  the  whole  nation  of  Israel  from  those  impurities 
 '  which  they  had  contracted  by  their  residence  among  the 
 '  idolatrous  Egyptians,  in  order  to  enter  them  into  that 
 '  religion  which  he  was  about  to  establish,  by  baptizing 
 '  them  in  the  Red  Sea ;  or,  as  the  Jewish  writers  assert, 
 'from  the  command  which  Moses  received  and  executed, 
 'just  before  the  giving  of  the  Law  from  Mount  Sinai,  to 
 '  sanctify  all  the  people,  and  let  them  wash  their  clothes  ; 
 'Ex.  xix.  10,  14  ;  by  which  rite  they  were  put  in  order  to  be 
 '  consecrated  to  Cod,  and  entered  into  covenant  with  him, 
 '  and  prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  divine  commandments.' 
 
 From  the  prevalence  and  even  universality  of  baptism  among 
 the  Hebrews,  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  John  himself  had 
 been  baptized  in  his  childhood  or  youth  ;  that  our  beloved 
 Lord  had  undergone  this  ceremony  in  his  early  years  ;  and, 
 that  all  the  disciples,  both  of  John  and  of  Christ,  had  received 
 this  ordinance  while  they  were  young.  They  were  baptized 
 into  the  ancient  dispensation,  like  Isaiah  and  David,  if  not 
 into  that  of  the  gospel,  which  was  not  fully  instituted  till 
 after  the  Saviour's  resurrection.  We  deem  this  a  reasonable 
 answer  to  the  question  often  proposed  by  some  persons, 
 '  Were  the  disciples  of  Christ  ever  baptized ;  and,  if  so,  who 
 'administered  this  rite  to  them?'  They,  doubtless,  were 
 baptized  in  childhood  to  the  God  of  heaven,  by  the  priests  or 
 circumcising  officers  at  first,  and,  probably,  by  John  after- 
 wards. That  they  had  been,  at  least,  once  baptized,  with  the 
 baptism  of  initiation,  is  hardly  questionable.     To  reply,  that 
 
412  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 we  have  no  record  of  their  baptism  into  Christianity,  tells  no- 
 more  against  the  assumption  that  they  were,  than  the  fact, 
 that  we  have  no  record  of  their  washing  their  hands  and  faces 
 on  a  sabbath  morning,  before  going  to  the  synagogue  service 
 — we  take  both  of  them  for  granted.  Our  Lord's  baptism  at 
 the  Jordan  was  evidently  intended  for  his  public  consecration 
 and  inauguration  to  the  glorious  offices  he  was  about  to  assume 
 — (after  the  manner  of  Aaron,  who  was  washed,  but  surely 
 not  dipped,  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  in  the  sight  of  all 
 the  people) — and  as  an  occasion  for  receiving,  in  the  presence 
 of  assembled  thousands,  the  gracious  attestations  of  his 
 Heavenly  Father's  love  and  confidence.  He  was  openly  con- 
 secrated to  his  kingly,  prophetic,  and  priestly  work ;  and  this 
 act  is  called  his  baptism. 
 
 There  is  another  aspect  in  this  case,  confirmatory  of  our 
 doctrine.  Mr.  Tombes,  in  a  passage  previously  cited,  says, 
 that  baptism  and  circumcision  were  both  practised  together, 
 under  the  law  of  Moses.  Mr.  Noel  is  of  the  same  judgment : 
 '  The  question  before  us  is,  not  the  duty  of  individuals,  but 
 '  the  difference  between  the  nation  and  the  church,  viewed  as 
 '  communities  owned  by  God,  into  which  persons  were  to  be 
 '  introduced,  according  to  the  divine  law,  by  circumcision  and 
 '  baptism.'  p.  179.  When  persons  of  the  Hebrew  persuasion 
 were  converted  to  Christianity,  and  admitted  to  the  fellowship 
 of  the  Saviour's  people,  many  of  them,  being  exceedingly 
 zealous  of  the  law,  continued  to  circumcise  their  own  children, 
 and  the  proselytes  from  among  the  heathen,  the  same  as  before 
 the  promulgation  of  the  gospel.  Great  anger  was  excited,  in 
 the  minds  of  certain  Christianized  Hebrews,  against  Paul, 
 because  he  did  not  circumcise  his  gentile  converts ;  and  because 
 he  even  went  so  far  as  to  declare,  that  the  rite  was  virtually 
 abolished,  even  among  the  Jews — though  tolerated  a  good 
 while  afterward.  This  custom,  of  both  circumcising  and  bap- 
 tizing, appears  to  have  been  of  long  continuance  among  the 
 converted  Jews  at  Jerusalem,  and  also,  probably,  throughout 
 the  Holy  Land.  And,  be  it  observed,  that  respecting  the 
 circumcision  of  the  Jewish  children,  the  apostle  is  silent — 
 his  manifest  objection  being  against  the  compulsory  circum- 
 cision of  the  children  of  converted  gentiles.  —  (See  Coni/beare 
 and  Hoicson,  vol.  ii.  chap.  21 ;  and  Taylor's  Letter  ui.  p.  17). 
 
 What  is  the  inference  from  this  fact  ?  That  the  Hebrew 
 Christians  had  been  previously  in  the  habit  of  both  baptizing 
 and  circumcising  their  children  unto  Moses,  and  to  the  God 
 of  Abraham.     Now,  though  baptized  unto  Christ,  they  felt  no 
 
HEATHEN  PROSELYTES  ALWAYS  BAPTIZED.  -1  13 
 
 inconsistency  in  also  circumcising  their  children  to  the  God  of 
 ■their  fathers.  It  is  probable,  that,  on  the  same  principle, 
 these  people,  for  a  good  while,  also  kept  both  the  Jewish  and 
 •Christian  Sabbaths,  the  passover,  and  the  feast  of  pentecost, 
 Acts  xx.  16;  1  Cor.  xvi.  8;  and  did  many  other  things,  in 
 •conjunction  with  Christianity,  which  they  had  done  under  the 
 law,  even  though  the  latter  was  virtually  abrogated  by  the 
 new  dispensation.  To  the  Jew,  Paul  became  a  Jew,  that  he 
 might  gain  the  Jew.  It  is  not  likely,  that  both  these  ordinances 
 would  have  been  observed  so  generally  and  so  long,  and  that 
 "without  any  authoritative  rebuke  from  the  apostles,  in  their 
 addresses  to  these  Christian  Jews,  had  not  the  connexion  between 
 them  been  of  long  standing,  and  of  divine  origination.  In 
 the  course  of  time,  circumcision  ceased  to  be  administered, 
 ■and  baptism  was  continued;  just  as  the  observance  of  the 
 seventh  day  of  the  week  gave  place  to  the  first,  among  most 
 of  the  disciples  of  Christ;  and  the  keeping  of  the  entire  passover 
 was  lost  in  the  appended  eucharistical  bread  and  wine,  now 
 constituting  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 
 Another  point  is  worthy  of  consideration  :   Conybeare   and 
 Howson  observe,  '  The  subject  of  the  proselytes  is  sufficiently 
 
 *  important,  to  deserve  a  separate  notice.     Under  this  term 
 
 *  we  include,  at  present,  all  who  were  attracted,  in  various 
 '  degrees  of  intensity,  towards  Judaism — from  those  who,  by 
 
 *  circumcision,  had  obtained  full  access  to  all  the  privileges  of 
 '  the  temple  worship,  to  those  who  only  professed  a  general 
 
 *  respect  for  the  Mosaic  religion,  and  attended  as  hearers  in 
 ■*  the  synagogues.'  vol.  i.  p.  22.  Calmet  says,  'The  Hebrews 
 '  distinguished  two  kinds  of  proselytes.  The  first,  the  prose- 
 '  lytes  of  the  gate;  the  other,  proselytes  of  justice.'  In  loc. 
 The  former  dwelt  in  the  land,  mixed  with  the  Jews,  and 
 enjoyed  many  social  privileges,  for  which  baptism  or  purifi- 
 -cation  was  unquestionably  prerequisite ;  the  latter  were  ad- 
 mitted into  the  temple,  shared  in  the  holy  fellowship  of  the 
 Israelites,  and  that  upon  terms  of  equality,  for  which  baptism 
 and  circumcision  were  essential.  Assuming  these  to  be  facts, 
 it  follows,  that  there  were  two  grades  of  proselytes.  The 
 former,  only  baptized ;  the  latter,  both  baptized  and  circumcised ; 
 ■constituting  two  distinct  classes  of  converts,  or,  rather,  of 
 persons,  in  the  condition  of  novitiates,  and  of  perfected  members, 
 of  the  Hebrew  ecclesiastical  body.  This  distinction,  it  is 
 supposed,  was  fully  and  universally  known  to  all  the  Israelites; 
 who,  consequently,  would  not  deem  baptism  only  sufficient  to 
 induct  persons  into  the  higher  fellowship  of  believers,  whether 
 
414  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES  AND  CHRIST. 
 
 under  the  law  or  under  the  gospel,  but,  simply  placing  them 
 in  the  position  of  novices,  to  be  further  trained,  and  to  undergo 
 another  rite,  previous  to  becoming  recognized  and  treated  like 
 the  true  or  natural  seed  of  Abraham.  Does  not  this  view  of 
 the  subject  harmonize  with  the  idea  of  an  outer  and  inner  con- 
 gregation of  believers  in  the  gospel  of  Christ ;  and  show,  that 
 such  an  arrangement,  by  the  first  and  following  disciples  of 
 the  Redeemer,  would  be  regarded  as  only  in  keeping  with  the 
 practice  of  their  Jewish  forefathers  ? 
 
 Dr.  Halley,  referring  to  the  baptism  of  the  three  thousand 
 on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  says,  '  A  promiscuous  crowd 
 '  of  foreign  Jews  from  every  nation  under  heaven,  came 
 '  together,  and  were  amazed  as  they  heard  every  man  in  his 
 'own  tongue  wherein  he  was  born,  Parthians  and  Medes,  and 
 '  Elamites,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia,  and  in  Judea, 
 '  and  in  Cappadocia,  in  Pontus  and  Asia,  Phrygia  and  Pamphilia, 
 '  in  Egypt,  and  in  the  parts  of  Libya  about  Cyrene, 
 •  and  strangers  of  Rome,  Jews  and  proselytes,  Cretes  and 
 '  Arabians.  (Acts  ii.  8-11.)  To  this  crowd  of  foreigners,  from 
 '  countries  so  various  and  remote  from  each  other,  speaking 
 '  so  many  different  languages,  and  ignorant  of  their  fathers' 
 '  tongue,  sojourning  in  Jerusalem  only  during  the  few  weeks 
 '  from  the  Passover  to  the  Pentecost,  (many  of  them  having 
 '  made  the  pilgrimage  but  once  in  their  lives,)  Peter  said, 
 '  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you."  He  assumed 
 '  that  they  all  knew  the  meaning  of  baptism.  It  seems  to 
 '  have  been  with  them  an  old  familiar  rite  ;  as,  even  if  it  were 
 '  probable  that,  on  the  same  day,  they  would  have  submitted 
 '  to  a  ceremony,  of  the  nature  and  meaning  of  which,  they 
 'had  no  previous  knowledge,  the  terms  of  the  address  imply 
 '  that  they  were  already  well  acquainted  with  its  administra- 
 '  tion.  There  was  no  need  of  delay,  in  order  to  expound  the 
 'nature  or  the  meaning  of  the  ceremony;  "for  they  that 
 'received  the  word  were  baptized,  and  the  same  day  there 
 '  were  added  unto  them  about  three  thousand  souls."  ' — 
 Pt.  i.  p.  101.  
 
 Without  further  discussing  the  subject  more  especially 
 involved  in  this  second  part  of  our  treatise,  I  shall  conclude 
 it  by  remarking,  that  I  believe  the  proposition,  with  which  it 
 is  headed,  has  been  fully  sustained  ;  and  I  hope  and  think 
 the  intelligent  and  candid  reader  will  be  of  the  same  judgment. 
 It  has  been  contemplated  from  every  point  of  observation. 
 Objections  to  the  doctrine  it  involves,  intimate  and  remote, 
 
HEATHEN  PEOSELYTI'S  ALWAYS  BAPTIZED.  415 
 
 have  been  stated  and  duly  considered  ;  Questions  adapted  to 
 draw  forth  its  amplest  discussion  have  been  put  and  answered  ; 
 and  Observations,  likely  to  lead  to  the  fullest  consideration  of 
 it,  have  been  made  and  pursued  to,  what  some  may  deem,  an 
 unnecessary  and  unwarrantable  length.  Still  with  all  these 
 discursive  remarks,  I  trust  it  will  be  found,  that  the  main 
 purpose  of  the  inquiry  bas  not  been  long  lost  sight  of,  and 
 tbat  the  whole  has  tended  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  Infant 
 Baptism. 
 
 Of  the  concessions  of  opponents,  when  manifestly  based  on 
 truth,  and  elicited  by  necessity  and  incontrovertible  testimonies 
 of  Scripture  and  reasons,  I  have  fully  availed  myself  in  sup- 
 porting what  I  believe  to  be  the  revealed  will  of  God  in  this 
 matter;  and  the  arguments  of  Pedobaptist  writers,  sustaining 
 the  same  doctrine,  I  have  quoted  largely,  in  order  to  show, 
 •that  I  am  introducing  no  unsanctioned  novelties  in  this 
 controversy ;  and  also  to  favour  the  reader  with  various 
 statements,  expositions,  and  arguments,  expressed  in  language 
 better  than  any  with  which  I  could  treat  them.  I  have,  in 
 this  part  of  the  work,  as  in  the  preceding,  felt  desirous,  that 
 the  best  men,  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  should  be  heard, 
 and  that  the  strongest  and  best  things  they  have  advanced, 
 for  and  against  Infant  Baptism,  should  come  under  the 
 immediate  observation  of  the  reader.  In  a  word,  my  aim  has 
 been,  and  still  is,  to  prove,  that  the  adversaries  of  Infant 
 Baptism  have  not  one  invulnerable  argument,  or  one  unim- 
 peachable testimony,  in  defence  of  exclusive  adult  or  believers' 
 baptism,  and  to  show  that  their  interpretations  of  Scripture, 
 in  opposition  to  our  practice,  are  all  erroneous  ;  that  their 
 hostile  reasonings  are  all  illogical  and  invalid  ;  and  that  they 
 have  not  yet  adduced  a  single  substantial  and  sustainable 
 argument  in  support  of  their  doctrine.  How  far  my  aim 
 shall  be  effected,  the  sequel  must  still  further  declare. — I 
 shall  now  proceed  to  the  last  leading  division  of  this  inquiry. 
 
 PAET  THIRD. 
 
 Ikfaxt  Baptism  may  ee  fully  sustained  by  Paul's 
 keferenxe  to  the  baptism  of  the  hebrews  ix  the 
 Red  Sea. 
 
 Having  shown  that  multitudes  of  Hebrew  infants  and 
 -children  were  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  during  fifteen 
 hundred   years    afterwards,    and    that    this    baptism    of  the 
 
41G  INFANT  BAPTISM  SUSTAINED  BY 
 
 Israelites,  according  to  the  view  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  embraced 
 all  the  essential  principles  of  Christian  Baptism  ;  it  requires 
 little  penetration  to  see  that  the  doctrine  and  practice  of 
 Infant  Baptism  may  be  fully  sustained,  under  the  gospel 
 dispensation,  from  the  allusions  and  arguments  of  Paul  in 
 the  passage  first  quoted  from  his  letter  to  the  Corinthians. 
 "We  have  seen,  that,  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  that  of  Christ, 
 it  was  regularly  practised  under  the  form,  and  in  the  name, 
 of  purification,  as  an  initiation  of  juvenile  proselytes  to  the 
 privileges  of  Hebrew  children,  or  as  a  rite  conjoined  with 
 circumcision  ;  and  as  no  portion  of  the  Word  of  God  has 
 been  found  prohibiting,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  continuance 
 of  the  like  service  to  infants,  under  the  gospel  economy,  which 
 retains  all  the  leading  principles  of  the  ancient  church ;  as  no  act 
 of  exclusion  was  ever  pronounced  by  inspiration  on  the  children 
 of  believers  in  Christ,  since  the  Hebrews  and  their  offspring 
 were  first  taken  into  covenant  relation  to  God  ;  and  as  no 
 alteration  in  the  nature,  domestic  relationship,  or  ecclesiastical 
 circumstances,  of  infants,  has  ever  taken  place,  to  warrant 
 their  excommunication  ;  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  they 
 stand  in  their  former  position,  and  are  still  entitled  to  parti- 
 cipate in  all  those  ancient  institutions,  perpetuated  in  the 
 reformed  dispensation  of  the  church  of  God.  We  have  also 
 seen,  that  there  are  many  plain  and  unmistakable  intimations 
 in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism,  given  in  the  New  Testament 
 writings. 
 
 That  children  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  the  former 
 visible  church  or  congregation  as  their  parents ;  and,  as  far 
 as  they  were  capable,  received  the  like  signs,  seals,  symbols, 
 and  advantages  ;  we  think  has  been  sufficiently  established. 
 In  this  same  relative  position  they  must  be  viewed  as  continuing 
 to  stand  ;  unless  good  evidence  be  given  of  their  excision,  by 
 Jehovah  himself,  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  One  Baptist 
 writer  talks  of  God's  '  having  left  children  out  of  their  original 
 'relation  to  the  church,  for  the  first  time,  when  the  gospel  was 
 'established.'  But  he  adduces  no  Scriptural  evidence  in 
 support  of  his  assertion.  Besides,  tacitly  leaving  them  out, 
 would  not  be  sufficient.  After  being  in  the  church,  at  least, 
 fifteen  hundred  years  ;  there  must  be  proof  of  God's  having 
 positively  and  expressly  turned  them  out,  in  order  to 
 establish  their  Scriptural  exclusion  now.  One  thing,  however, 
 this  writer  admits,  and  which  we  have  been  labouring  to 
 make  manifest,  that  children  were  always  regarded  as  being 
 in  the  former  economy  or  congregation,  and  as  constituting 
 
PAUL'S  ALLUSION  IN  THE  TEXT.  417 
 
 an  essential  portion  of  it,  up  to  the  time  of  our  Lord's 
 incarnation.  Now,  if  this  be  true — and  no  intelligent  and 
 candid  student  of  the  Bible  will  deny  it — why,  in  the  name 
 of  common  sense,  should  they  not  remain  as  canonical  members 
 in  the  congregation  of  God  to  the  time  of  its  consummation. 
 
 Further,  as  children  were  formally  and  officially  introduced 
 to  the  previous  general  church,  or,  rather,  to  the  same  church 
 in  former  times,  by  baptism  ;  why  should  they  not,  like  their 
 ecclesiastical  ancestors,  be  still  introduced  to  the  church  or 
 congregation  of  God  by  baptism,  also,  when  baptism  is  the 
 admitted  and  sole  initiatory  rite  of  the  Christian  system  ? 
 "Wanting  divine  declaration  for  their  excommunication,  there 
 seems  to  be  no  more  right  or  reason  for  keeping  children  out 
 of  the  general  church  of  God,  or  for  depriving  them  of  the 
 ceremony  and  privilege  of  baptism,  after  the  Saviour's 
 ascension  to  heaven,  than  for  preventing  their  worshipping 
 the  Lord  with  their  parents,  in  the  sanctuary,  or  at  the 
 family  altar  ;  or  for  denying  them  religious  instruction,  or 
 holy  examples,  or  Christian  admonitions,  or  spiritual  consola- 
 tions, or  than  for  keeping  females  from  the  Christian 
 passover.  They  enjoyed  all  these  advantages  previous  to  the 
 coming  of  Christ ;  and  it  appears  both  needless  and  sinful 
 to  deprive  them  of  any  one  of  them  now,  unless  under  the 
 plain  and  express  interdiction  of  the  Almighty.  The  first 
 converts  from  Judaism,  as  we  shall  presently  show,  did  not 
 believe  their  children  were  to  be  placed  in  a  less  favourable  or 
 honourable  position  than  they  had  hitherto  filled.  On  the 
 contrary,  they  acted  like  people  under  the  full  conviction, 
 that  their  little  ones,  as  well  as  themselves,  were  to  be 
 ostensibly  and  really  elevated  and  benefitted,  rather  than 
 depressed  and  injured,  by  the  gospel  economy. 
 
 Were  not  the  present  a  question,  about  which  great  and 
 good  men  have  long  differed  and  disputed  with  uncommon 
 zeal  and  determination  ;  and  did  we  not  know  that  pre- 
 judgment closes  its  eyes  and  ears,  as  long  as  possible,  against 
 doctrines  adverse  to  its  own  former  settled  convictions  and 
 practices ;  we  think  we  might  leave  the  preceding  statements 
 to  produce  their  own  legitimate  effect,  in  the  mind  of  the 
 honest  reader,  without  any  further  remarks  on  the  subject ; 
 and  without  any  fear  of  a  conclusion  at  variance  with  the 
 doctrine  and  practice  of  Infant  Baptism.  But,  as  matters 
 now  exist,  after  the  agitation  of  the  question,  for  so  long  a 
 time  ;  and  from  the  ramification  of  the  topic  by  multiplied 
 and  often   irrelevant  discussions ;    it  may   be    desirable    to 
 
 s2 
 
418  INFANT  BAPTISM  SUSTAINED  BY 
 
 pursue  the  investigation  somewhat  further ;  to  meet  other 
 objections  against  Infant  Baptism  ;  and  to  bring  other 
 evidence  in  defence  of  it — even  at  the  risk  of  over-diffusive- 
 ness, and  the  repetition  of  some  of  our  previous  statements 
 and  reasonings.  Our  object  is,  to  establish  our  position 
 beyond  the  possibility  of  all  fair  refutation ;  and  to  place 
 our  arguments  in  such  a  conspicuous  and  varied  aspect,  that, 
 stand  where  you  may,  they  shall  be  readily  comprehended  ; 
 and,  when  duly  contemplated,  shall  approve  themselves  to  the 
 judgment  of  every  intelligent  and  impartial  observei-. 
 
 Mr.  Hall,  in  his  discussion  on  Open  Communion,  has  a 
 passage  which  I  think  may  be  appropriated  by  the  writer  in 
 the  present  controversy,  as  an  excuse  for  the  length  of  his 
 remarks,  and  the  repetition  of  many  of  them.  '  In  the 
 militant  state  of  a  doctrine,  it  is  generally  found  necessary 
 to  incur  frequent  repetitions,  to  represent  the  same  idea  in  a 
 variety  of  lights,  and  to  encounter  a  multitude  of  petty 
 cavils  and  verbal  sophisms,  which,  in  its  further  progress, 
 sink  into  oblivion.  When,  in  consequence  of  a  series  of 
 discussions,  a  doctrine  is  firmly  rooted  in  the  public  mind, 
 the  proof  by  which  it  is  sustained  may  be  presented,  without 
 impairing  its  force,  in  a  more  compact  and  elegant  form ;  and 
 the  time,  I  am  persuaded,  is  not  very  remote,  when  it  will  be 
 matter  of  surprise  that  it  should  have  been  thought  necessary 
 to  employ  so  many  words  in  evincing  a  truth,  so  nearly  self- 
 evident,  as  that  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  writer  of  these 
 pages  to  establish.  The  flimsy  sophistry  by  which  it  is 
 attempted  to  be  obscured,  and  the  tedious  process  of 
 reasoning  opposed  to  these  attempts,  will  be  alike  forgotten, 
 and  the  very  existence  of  the  controversy  remembered  only 
 among  other  melancholy  monuments  of  human  imperfec- 
 tion.' p.  389. 
 
 SECTION  FIRST. — Paul's  reference  in  the  text  is  to 
 the  first  great  or  general  baptism  ever  administered. — The 
 circumstances  attending  this  baptizing  of  the  Hebrew  nation 
 are  among  the  most  striking  of  any  recorded  in  the  Sacred 
 volume.  The  Psalmist,  referring  to  them,  exclaims, '  Thou  art 
 '  the  God  that  doest  wonders  ;  Thou  hast  declared  thy  strength 
 '  among  the  people.  Thou  hast  with  thine  arm  redeemed  thy 
 '  people,  the  sons  of  Jacob  and  Joseph.  The  waters  saw 
 '  thee,  0  God,  the  waters  saw  thee  ;  they  were  afraid :  the 
 '  depths  also  were  troubled.  The  clouds  poured  out  water,  the 
 '  skies  sent  out  a  sound;   thine  arrows  also  went  abroad.     The 
 
Paul's  allusion  in  the  text.  419 
 
 *  voice  of  thy  thunder  was  in  the  heaven  ;  the  lightnings 
 '  lightened  the  world  ;   the  earth  trembled  and  shook.      Thy 
 
 *  way  is  in  the  sea,  and  thy  path  in  the  great  waters,  and  thy 
 '  footsteps  are  not  known.  Thou  leddest  thy  people  like  a 
 '  flock  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron  ; '  [and,  according  to 
 Paul,  baptized  every -one  of  them.]  Ps.  Ixxvii.  14-20.  This 
 manifestation  of  divine  power,  in  the  deliverance  and  baptismal 
 consecration  of  the  Hebrews  to  God  their  Redeemer,  is  little, 
 if  any  thing,  less  than  what  soon  after  took  place  at  the  giving 
 of  the  law  on  Sinai,  or  at  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  on  Zion. 
 The  whole  is  marked  as  a  great  and  interesting  event  in  the 
 records  of  the  Jews.  To  it  poets,  prophets,  and  historians, 
 frequently  recur,  as  to  a  grand  epoch  in  the  history  of  that 
 interesting  nation.  It  would  be  ever  memorable  in  the  hearts 
 of  the  sons  of  Jacob  and  Joseph.  The  affrighted,  roaring, 
 and  rushing,  floods  ;  the  clouds  discharging  their  refreshing 
 showers  on  the  passing  multitude  ;  the  heavens  thundering  ; 
 the  lightnings  flashing,  and  sending  forth  their  forked  arrows ; 
 the  earth  trembling  and  shaking;  all  combine  their  forms  and 
 forces  to  stamp  the  occasion  as  one  of  deep  and  enduring 
 interest  in  the  minds  of  all  the  people  of  God.  The  pomp 
 and  circumstance  accompanying  all  the  subsequent  baptisms, 
 save  that  of  Christ  himself,  were  few  and  unimpressive 
 compared  with  that  in  the  sea — just  as  the  giving  of  the  law, 
 a  little  while  after,  was  accompanied  with  terror  and  glory, 
 never  displayed  on  any  following  communication  of  the  divine 
 will  to  mankind.  But  God  was  baptizing  a  whole  nation  to 
 himself,  and  that  event  must  be  attended  with  the  special 
 tokens  of  the  divine  presence. 
 
 Abraham  and  his  household  had  long  before  been  taken 
 into  covenant  with  God  by  circumcision  and  sacrifice.  Whether 
 any  distinct  ceremony,  analogous  to  purification  with  water 
 under  the  law,  called  baptism  in  the  New  Testament,  existed 
 prior  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  the  Scriptures  do  not  deter- 
 mine— though  it  is  supposed  that  such  always  formed  a  part 
 of  the  ceremony  of  circumcision.  "We  read  of  clean  and 
 unclean  beasts  -and  fowls  ;  intimating  a  distinction  between 
 consecrated  and  impure  animals.  This,  possibly,  held  true 
 among  human  beings  —  distinguishing  the  holy  from  the  unholy. 
 The  expression,  '  the  sons  of  God  and  the  daughters  of  men,' 
 manifestly  refers  to  the  pious  and  the  profane  ;  the  sanctified 
 and  the  polluted,  who  were  not  to  be  united  in  marriage,  any 
 more  than  Jews  and  gentiles  of  later  times ;  give  some 
 countenance  to  our  supposition.     If  this  conjecture  be  valid, 
 
420  INFANT  BAPTISM  SUSTAINED  BY 
 
 probably,  some  rite  was  appointed  and  practised,  by  which  the 
 sanctified  and  the  unholy  would  be  marked  and  formally 
 distinguished.  And  if  there  were  any  such  ceremony,  most 
 likely,  it  was  by  a  symbolical  purification  with  water — the 
 element  so  generally  employed  for  that  purpose  in  after  times. 
 Of  this,  however,  we  have  no  certainty ;  and,  of  course,  it 
 cannot  be  pleaded  as  a  ground  of  positive  argument  in  support 
 of  either  Infant  or  Adult  Baptism.  While,  on  the  other  hand, 
 the  probabilities  in  its  favour  are  such,  that  no  person  can 
 think  of  positively  denying  that  the  rite  had  been  instituted, 
 and  was  generally  observed,  among  the  early  descendants  of 
 Abraham,  or  of  building  an  argument  on  the  assumption  of 
 its  non-existence. 
 
 Peter  refers  to  the  safety  of  Noah  and  his  family  in  the  ark, 
 floating  on  the  waters  of  the  deluge,  as  being,  in  some  respects, 
 like  water-baptism,  by  which  we  are  typically  saved,  under 
 the  gospel  dispensation.  But  the  instance  is  too  limited  in 
 its  application,  if  not  too  obscure  in  its  purport,  to  be  regarded 
 as  illustrative  of  baptism  in  the  present  economy.  And, 
 while  we  readily  admit,  that  there  were  no  infants  saved  by 
 water  in  the  ark  ;  it  will  be  as  readily  conceded  to  us,  that 
 the  adults  then  baptized  were  not  dipped  or  immersed  in  the 
 waters  of  the  flood.  As  in  the  baptism  in  the  Sea,  so  in  the 
 deluge,  none  but  the  enemies  of  God  and  of  his  people  were 
 thoroughly  washed,  and  that  not  by  dipping,  but  by  over- 
 whelming, them  ;  and  they  unhappily  were  drowned.  Those 
 who  regard  the  Apostle  Peter  as  referring  to  water-baptism, 
 can  place  it  only  in  the  category  with  those  expressions  which 
 render  a  belief  of  the  truths  of  the  gospel  necessary  before  the 
 admission  of  adults  into  the  congregations  of  Christianity, 
 leaving  the  case  of  infants,  pro  or  con,  entirely  out  of  the 
 question.  The  supposition,  that  it  alludes  exclusively  to  the 
 baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  renders  it  more  congruous  with 
 the  connexion,  and  accordant  with  the  spirit  of  evangelical 
 doctrines.  That  there  is  nothing  in  the  language  of  Peter 
 adverse  to  Infant  Baptism,  will  be  readily  taken  as  granted 
 by  all  ingenuous  students  of  the  sacred  writings  ;  for,  in  the 
 instance  referred  to,  there  were  no  infants  in  Noah's  family 
 to  be  baptized ;  had  there  been,  they  certainly  would  have 
 shared  in  the  baptizing  ;  and  not  been  kept  or  turned  out 
 to  perish  in  the  deluge,  lest  they  should  have  received  a 
 benefit  to  which  they  were  not  entitled.  On  the  other  hand, 
 as  Mr.  Keach  remarks,  there  '  was  cursed  Ham,'  who  was 
 baptized  with  the  rest  of  the  family  in  the  ark  ;   which  fact 
 
Paul's  allusion  ix  the  text.  421 
 
 militates  against  the  notion  of  our  opponents,  '  That  none  hut 
 '  truly  regenerate  and  holy  people  might  undergo  this  sacred 
 '  and  consecrating  rite.'  By  the  way,  as  we  have  seen  before, 
 one  of  Mr.  Reach's  chief  objections  to  regard  the  baptism  in 
 the  Red  Sea,  as  being  analogous  to  Christian  baptism,  is 
 founded  on  the  circumstance,  that  unconverted  persons  were 
 baptized  unto  Moses.  He  thus  assumes  the  doctrine  he  and 
 his  friends  are  challenged  to  prove,  that  none  but  spiritual 
 people  are  ever  rightly  baptized  unto  Jesus  Christ.  But  what 
 is  to  become  of  Ham  ! 
 
 The  case  of  Jacob  erecting  a  pillar  in  Bethel,  and  pouring 
 oil  upon  it,  thus  consecrating  it  to  God,  or  rendering  it  a 
 sacred  memorial  of  God's  gracious  manifestation  to  him  in 
 his  distress,  intimates,  that,  even  in  those  very  remote  times, 
 it  was  customary  to  set  apart  certain  things  to  the  Lord,  by  a 
 kind  of  anointing  ;  and  if  so,  why  not  persons  ?  The  use  of 
 oil,  instead  of  water,  might  arise  from  necessity  ;  or,  in  Jacob's 
 judgment  the  occasion  might  demand  a  more  costly  dedication 
 than  that  effected  by  water ;  as  in  the  case  of  consecrating 
 priests,  kings,  and  prophets  to  Jehovah.  Gen.  xxviii.  18. 
 When  God  subsequently  commanded  Jacob  to  go  to  Bethel, 
 and  there  make  an  altar,  the  Patriarch  ordered  his  household 
 '  to  be  clean  and  change  their  garments.'  Was  not  this  an 
 instance  of  purification,  such  as  was  afterwards  observed  at 
 Sinai,  and  called  baptism  by  the  apostle  1  Gen.  xxxv.  2. 
 Certainly,  this  transaction  is  both  striking  and  instructive. 
 
 That  purifications,  consecrations,  or  baptisms,  with  water, 
 were  of  very  remote  times,  antedating  the  Mosaic  institutions, 
 has  been  very  generally  accredited,  from  the  circumstance, 
 that  they  were  customary  in  ancient  nations,  having  little  or 
 no  existing  connexion  with  the  Jewish  people.  Like  some 
 other  traditionary  practices,  discovered  in  very  early  ages, 
 and  in  very  distant  regions  of  the  earth  ;  baptism,  and  the 
 baptism  of  children  also,  must,  it  is  assumed,  have  been 
 derived  from  periods  prior  to  the  general  dispersion  of  the 
 human  family,  or  before  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  the 
 building  of  the  tower  of  Babel.  It  does  not  seem  that  such 
 a  rite,  with  such  a  design,  and  with  such  a  connection,  as  we 
 find  it,  was  likely  to  have  originated  spontaneously  in  the 
 human  mind,  and  especially  in  the  minds  of  distant  and  very 
 dissimilar  classes  of  mankind.  Like  sacrifices,  it  probably 
 had  a  common  origin  ;  and,  like  those,  were  spread  with  the 
 dispersion  of  the  human  family.  Still,  in  this  matter  we 
 have  no  explicit  information,  nor  any  indubitable  records,  as  to 
 
422  INFANT  BAPTISM  SUSTAINED  BY 
 
 the  beginning  of  baptism  before  that  to  which  Paul  directs 
 our  notice  in  his  address  to  the  Corinthians.  We  shall, 
 therefore,  continue  to  regard  the  baptism  in  the  Eed  Sea  as 
 the  admitted  commencement  of  purely  religious  baptisms. 
 
 The  consecration  of  the  Hebrews  to  Moses  being,  if  not  the 
 first,  at  least,  the  largest  administration  of  baptism  ever 
 effected  in  the  world,  and  which  was  performed  by  God 
 himself,  with  grand  and  fearful  demonstrations  of  his  presence, 
 when  the  first  systematically  organized  communion  of  professed 
 worshippers  of  Jehovah  was  established  ;  we  may  reasonably 
 look  to  it  for  such  light  as  it  sheds  on  all  subsequent 
 administrations  of  this  ordinance,  especially  in  reference  to 
 those  particulars  which  succeeding  narratives  have  not  so 
 definitely  explained  ;  and  which  possibly  were  not  minutely 
 detailed  in  the  New  Testament,  because  the  original  institution 
 was,  on  most  points,  so  plain  and  so  well  understood  by  the 
 later  Jews  and  the  primitive  Christians.  In  this  case,  it  is 
 analogous  to  the  institution  of  the  sabbath.  To  keep  sacred 
 the  seventh  part  of  our  time,  we  learn  to  be  our  duty  and 
 interest  from  the  New  Testament,  in  which  we  have  certain 
 vague  intimations  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  was  sanctified. 
 But,  for  particulars,  full  instructions,  and  specific  reasons  on 
 this  subject,  we  must  recur  to  the  fourth  commandment,  as 
 given  to,  and  promulgated  by,  Moses.  From  this  alone  we 
 learn,  that  there  is  to  be  a  total  cessation  of  secular  labour 
 for  man  and  beast — that  the  day  is  to  be  observed  as  holy  or 
 consecrated  to  the  Lord,  for  his  worship  and  honour — and 
 for  our  own  advantage — and  because  on  the  seventh  day,  God 
 ceased  from  the  work  of  creating  the  world.  The  fact  and  duty  of 
 water-baptism,  we  learn  in  the  New  Testament ;  hut  the 
 proper  subjects,  and  mode  of  it,  we  learn  only  or  chiefly 
 from  the  Old. 
 
 Now,  it  is  placed  beyond  all  doubt,  that  in  this  baptizing 
 in  the  sea,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  children  and  infants 
 were  devoted  to  Moses,  or,  rather,  to  Christ,  of  whom  Moses 
 was  a  figure.  We  subsequently  read  of  numerous  succeeding 
 baptisms,  among  the  same  people,  in  the  form  of  purifications, 
 washings,  cleansings,  and  sanctifyings,  without  any  express 
 exclusion  of  children  or  infants ;  and,  therefore,  we  have 
 no  more  authority  to  excommunicate  them  than  any  other 
 class  of  persons  participating  in  those  ancient  rites.  When 
 it  is  said  that  God  fed  all  the  people,  blessed  all  the  people, 
 protected  all  the  people,  and  the  like ;  we  are  compelled  to 
 conclude  that  infants  and  children  were  fed,    blessed,    and 
 
Paul's  allusion  in  tiik  tfxt.  423 
 
 protected,  in  common  with  the  adult  Hebrews.  If  our  deduc- 
 tions be  deemed  gratuitous  and  invalid,  our  opponents  will 
 have  to  show  us  in  what  respects  we  are  illogical.  Children 
 are  as  physically  capable  of  being  baptized  as  of  being 
 defended,  fed,  and  blessed,  as  men  and  women.  The  only 
 point  in  dispute  is,  whether  it  was  God's  will  and  practice 
 to  baptize  them.  To  establish  this  point  is  the  question 
 at  issue  between  us. 
 
 The  result  at  which  we  reasonably  and  necessarily  arrive 
 is,  that  infants  were  regularly  baptized  unto  Christ,  with 
 their  parents  or  guardians,  in  the  apostolic  age,  as  previously 
 they  had  been  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  during  the  continuance  of 
 the  Levitical  economy.  It  is  on  the  ground  of  these  precedent 
 and  pattern  baptisms,  that  we,  in  a  great  measure,  rest  our 
 belief  that  women,  as  well  as  children,  were  purified  by  John 
 the  Baptist — for  we  never  expressly  read  of  his  baptizing  a 
 female  of  any  age  or  station.  That  the  baptism  of  the  Red 
 Sea  was  viewed  with  deep  interest,  and  as  fraught  with  much 
 instruction  to  the  first  converts  of  Christianity,  by  the  Apostle 
 Paul,  we  are  certain,  from  his  reference  to  it,  in  his  solemn 
 and  powerful  address  to  the  Corinthians  on  the  subject.  That 
 his  inspired  and  enlightened  contemporaries  viewed  it  in 
 a  similar  aspect,  we  may  safely  infer.  And,  further,  we 
 ourselves  ought,  with  Mr.  Stovel,  to  regard  it  as  of  equal 
 interest  and  importance  in  the  present  day — and  as  being  a 
 'prelude  '  or  pattern  of  Infant  Baptism  under  the  gospel. 
 
 I  would  here  remark,  before  proceeding  to  the  next  section, 
 that  all  Jewish  parents  and  adult  persons,  living  in  the 
 apostolic  times,  being  viewed  as  worthy  members  of  the 
 Hebrew  church,  and  being  willing  to  become  members  of  the 
 reformed  communion  established  by  Christ  and  his  disciples, 
 were,  without  any  further  change  of  mind  or  heart,  readily 
 received  and  incorporated  with  the  Christian  fellowship,  and 
 sustained  the  same  religious  status  and  relationships  they 
 enjoyed  before.  Why,  then,  should  not  their  families  be 
 viewed  with  the  same  favour,  and  received  with  the  like 
 freedom  ?  Why  should  virtuous  parents  have  been  accepted, 
 and  their  innocent  offspring  have  been  rejected  ?  And  how 
 would  such  a  novel  and  unnatural  distinction  have  been  made 
 for  the  first  time  when  the  gospel  was  first  preached  ?  A 
 worthy  Hebrew,  as  soon  as  he  was  willing  to  join  himself  to 
 the  Saviour's  disciples,  without  a  renewed  regeneration,  was 
 received  by  the  apostles,  and  immediately  regarded  as  a 
 worthy  Christian.     And,  surely,  the  children  that  were  worthy 
 
424  INFANT  BAPTISM  SUSTAINED  BY 
 
 of  being  in  God's  church,  under  the  law,  were  equally  worthy 
 of  being  the  like  members  of  God's  church,  under  the  gospel. 
 This  inference  we  readily  draw ;  we  hold  it  fair ;  and  our  present 
 work  is  to  prove  that  our  reasonings  cannot  be  refuted. 
 
 SECTION  SECOND.—  The  distance  of  time  and  place, 
 between  the  Baptisms  unto  Moses  and  unto  Christ,  in  no 
 degree  lessens  the  validity  of  our  inferences. — Paul  pleads 
 the  example  of  the  former,  as  though  the  act  had  been 
 accomplished  but  a  few  weeks  before,  and  only  a  few  miles  off. 
 Nor  is  the  case  of  the  baptism  in  the  sea,  in  this  respect,  singu- 
 lar. The  faith  of  Abraham,  the  manna  from  heaven,  the 
 water  from  the  rock,  and  especially  the  exodus  from  Egypt, 
 are  pleaded  in  the  New  Testament  as  motives  to  belief, 
 stedfastness,  and  obedience,  with  the  same  freedom  and  force 
 as  though  they  had  been  but  of  yesterday.  Now,  suppose, 
 that  instead  of  the  Baptism  in  the  Red  Sea,  fifteen  hundred 
 years  before,  and  three  hundred  miles  off,  we  had  the  narrative 
 of  a  similar  transaction  in  the  Jordan  just  by,  a  few  years 
 previously.  Or  suppose  we  had  read,  that  all  the  inhabitants  of 
 Judea,  Jerusalem,  and  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  without 
 any  possible  exceptions  of  rank,  sex,  or  age,  had  been 
 unquestionably  baptized  by  the  harbinger  of  Christ;  had 
 been  thereby  introduced  to  the  enjoyment  of  great  religious 
 privileges,  and  had  been  laid  under  high  obligations  to 
 holiness — and  suppose  Paul  had  pleaded  this  recent  baptism 
 as  a  striking  example,  as  in  the  case  under  review,  or' 
 as  the  ground  of  a  persuasive  argument,  to  the  baptized 
 Corinthians  ;  would  not  every  reader  have  been  compelled  to 
 believe,  that  the  baptism  at  the  Jordan  and  that  at  Corinth 
 were  the  same,  in  all  their  leading  particulars  ? 
 
 Further,  suppose  numerous  children  were  necessarily  and 
 undoubtedly  among  the  multitudes  at  John's  baptizing  at 
 Bethabara,  and  were  certainly  baptized  by  him  with  their 
 parents  and  friends  ;  should  we  not  be  constrained  to  infer, 
 that  such  were  also  the  subjects  of  baptism  in  the  city  of 
 Corinth  1  We  imagine,  a  doubt  on  this  point  would  never 
 have  arisen  in  the  mind  of  any  unsophisticated  interpreter  of 
 the  sacred  writings,  nor,  indeed,  of  any  one  else.  But  the 
 interval  of  centuries  can  make  no  difference  in  the  force  and 
 adaptation  of  this  Hebrew  precedent;  unless,  in  that  interval, 
 some  circumstances  had  arisen,  to  set  aside  the  full  appli- 
 cation of  the  precedent — to  cut  off,  at  least,  one-third  of  the 
 subjects   of   the   ceremony — but  which,   in   this   case,   most 
 
Paul's  allusion  ix  tiie  text.  425 
 
 certainly  never  occurred.  The  conclusion  in  favour  of  bap- 
 tizing infants,  from  the  example  given  in  the  Red  Sea,  is  as 
 authoritative,  appropriate,  aud  satisfactory,  as  though  it  had 
 taken  place  nigh  at  hand,  in  respect  both  of  time  and  locality. 
 
 In  fact,  were  precedents  and  examples  to  lose  their  influence, 
 through  distance  of  space,  or  lapse  of  time,  the  piety  of  Enoch 
 •would  never  have  been  pleaded  by  Paul,  before  the  believing 
 Hebrews  ;  nor  would  the  zeal  of  Paul  himself,  be  a  precedent 
 to  British  Christians  in  the  present  day,  so  far  from  the  age 
 and  scene  of  his  piety  and  labours.  One  thing  is  certain, 
 that  our  brethren,  in  their  public  discourses,  frequently  refer 
 to  persons,  deeds,  and  events,  as  remote  as  the  days  of  Adam, 
 and  his  antediluvian  posterity  ;  and  they  adduce  their  topics 
 as  confidently  and  energetically  as  though  they  were  matters 
 of  far  more  proximate  occurrence.  When  they  speak  of  the 
 meekness  of  Moses,  the  valour  of  Joshua,  the  patience  of 
 Job,  and  the  devotion  of  David  ;  they  never  anticipate,  that 
 their  illustrations  are  without  perfect  adaptation  and  power, 
 because  those  great  and  good  men  lived  so  long  ago.  Further, 
 they  often  allude  to  the  sacrifices,  purifications,  anointings, 
 and  consecrations,  common  before  or  under  the  Mosaic  law, 
 gathering  lessons  of  piety,  and  illustrations  of  truth  and 
 providence,  as  freely  as  from  the  sayings  and  doings  of  the 
 holy  apostles  themselves.  Consequently,  the  Corinthians, 
 reasoning  by  the  like  rule,  would  never  have  imagined  that 
 the  baptism  of  infants,  in  the  Red  Sea,  was  no  good  or 
 appropriate  precedent  for  them,  because  it  was  administered 
 so  long  before,  and  in  a  part  of  the  world  so  far  away. 
 
 SECTION  THIRD. — Infant  Baptism  is  not  more  liable 
 to  abuse  now,  than  was  the  baptism  of  infants  in  the  Red 
 Sea. — That  priestcraft,  ignorance,  and  a  false  philosophy, 
 have  frequently,  extensively,  and  shockingly,  perverted  and 
 abused  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  Infant  Baptism,  is, 
 unhappily,  too  manifest.  And  it  is  this  abuse  on  which  the 
 opponents  of  the  ordinance  are  continually  enlarging.  "We 
 are  pointed  to  popery  and  state-churchism,  in  which  Infant 
 Baptism  is  always  identified  with  regeneration  and  salvation  ; 
 and  in  which  sponsors  are  compelled  to  make  vows  they  all 
 necessarily  break.  We  are  then  warned  of  the  danger  of  even 
 remotely  sanctioning  a  practice  so  destructive  to  the  souls  of 
 mankind ;  our  opponents  asserting  that  this  ceremony  is 
 never  performed  now  without  running  the  risk  of  producing 
 the  like  fearful  delusions  !     But,  as  previously  shown,  Infant 
 
426  BOTH  BAPTISMS  EQUALLY 
 
 Baptism  is  no  more  necessarily  connected  with  the  doctrine 
 of  spiritual  regeneration,  than  was  circumcision  of  old,  or  than 
 the  Lord's  Supper  is  identified  with  salvation  in  these  gospel 
 times.  It  is  a  fact,  those  who  teach,  that  infants  arc 
 regenerated  in  baptism,  teach  the  same  respecting  adult 
 baptism ;  and  it  is  equally  certain,  that,  though  Infant  Baptism, 
 erroneously  administered,  is  a  fearful  evil,  adult  baptism, 
 when  perverted,  is  much  worse — involving  a  greater  incon- 
 sistency, and  effecting  much  greater  mischief.  See  Fisher  s 
 '  Liturgical  Purity.''  ch.  vi.  I  submit  to  the  candid  reader 
 whether  some  of  the  remarks  quoted  from  Stovel,  Noel,  and 
 others,  on  this  head,  are  not  of  as  dangerous  a  tendency,  as 
 any   broached  by    ministers    of   the    Anglican    and    Romish 
 
 communions 
 
 That  this  rite  is  now  perverted  by  superstition  and  priestly 
 assumption  and  cunning,  tells  no  more  against  the  simple  and 
 legitimate  performance  of  it,  as  practised  among  evangelical 
 nonconformists,  than  it  might  have  done  in  the  days  of  Moses, 
 or  than  it  does  still  against  the  practice  of  adult  baptism — 
 which,  as  we  have  seen,  perverts  it  in  a  most  fearful  and 
 extensive  degree.  The  rising  Hebrew  youths,  in  the  wilder- 
 ness, might  have  argued,  '  Surely  we  are  all  the  Lord's 
 '  people,  we  were  begotten  anew  in  baptism,  we  were  consecrated 
 '  to  the  God  of  Israel,  we  were  born  again;  our  protection, 
 'comfort,  and  salvation,  are  now  secure;  another  new-birth 
 '  is  not  necessary  ;  we  are  all  right ;  we  may  live  at  our  ease, 
 '  murmur  to  our  hearts'  content,  and  still  feel  sure  of  entering 
 '  Canaan  and  heaven.'  That  the  Jews,  in  later  times,  at 
 least,  were  prone  to  presume  on  the  favour  of  God,  through 
 their  relationship  to  Abraham,  their  circumcision,  their  laws, 
 their  religious  institutions,  and  their  national  distinctions, 
 there  can  be  no  question.  The  effects  of  their  presumption 
 were  visible  in  their  glaring  sins  and  hopes  of  impunity. 
 But,  surely,  this  abuse  of  divine  statutes,  ordinances,  and 
 blessings,  was  no  proof  that,  of  themselves,  they  were  wrong, 
 pernicious,  or  not  from  heaven  ! 
 
 In  our  own  times,  the  Lord's  supper,  pulpit  ministrations, 
 the  doctrines  of  grace,  church-membership,  the  atonement  of 
 Christ,  the  mercy  of  God,  divine  worship,  and  the  Scriptures 
 of  truth,  are  perverted  and  abused  quite  as  greatly  and  as 
 extensively  as  Infant  Baptism.  But,  it  does  not  necessarily 
 follow,  that  the  Lord's  supper,  preaching,  divine  worship, 
 and  the  like,  are  all  unscriptural,  and  should  be  given  up, 
 because  of  any  pernicious  perversion  of  them   by  ignorant, 
 
LIABLE  TO  PERVERSION.  427 
 
 superstitious,  and  ungodly  people !  Adult  or,  what  is  called, 
 Believers'  Baptism,  is  as  liable  to  abuse  as  Infant  Baptism; 
 and,  according  to  the  comparative  extent  of  its  administration, 
 is  much  more  fearfully  desecrated.  Infant  Baptism,  as 
 practised  and  preached  by  all  evangelical  dissenters,  contains 
 nothing  in  form  or  expression,  which,  fairly  regarded  and 
 construed,  can  lead  to  spiritual  pride  or  religious  presumption. 
 It  is  simply  a  dedication  of  the  young  to  Christ,  as  others 
 were  originally  dedicated  to  Moses — and  even  as  vessels  were 
 consecrated  to  the  service  of  the  temple.  It  is  ostensibly 
 initiating  them  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Christian 
 instruction  and  pastoral  superintendence  ;  just  as  the  little 
 Israelites  were  initiated  to  the  advantages  and  obligations  of 
 the  former  dispensation — without  the  slightest  intimation 
 being  subseqently  given  them,  by  their  pastors  or  teachers, 
 that  they  were  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  spiritually 
 sanctified,  or  saved  from  perdition,  by  this  simple  and 
 beautiful  sacrament. 
 
 That  numbers,  who  favour  and  scripturally  practice  Infant 
 Baptism,  have  occasionally  used  incautious  expressions,  espe- 
 cially when  the  baptismal  controversy  was  in  abeyance  and 
 asleep,  as  many  sincere  Christians  have  done  respecting  every 
 gospel  rite,  doctrine,  and  duty,  we  are  free  to  confess.  On 
 these,  our  opponents  eagerly  fasten  ;  and  on  them  they  build 
 many  of  their  most  plausible  arguments  against  this  service. 
 But,  by  such  unguarded  statements,  we  are  to  be  neither  guided 
 nor  bound;  anymore  than  our  consistent  Baptist  brethren,  at 
 large,  are  to  be  taunted  with  all  that  has  been  rashly  and 
 foolishly  spoken  or  written  by  their  predecessors,  and  even 
 contemporaries,  respecting  adult  immersion — making  it,  as 
 some  of  them  have  done,  if  not  absolutely  a  saving  ordinance, 
 yet,  as  being  essential  to  Christianity  here  ;  a  seal  of  con- 
 version and  sanctification  to  the  baptized ;  and  all  but 
 requisite  to  ultimate  admission  into  heaven  after  death.  Nor 
 will  they  feel  themselves  implicated  in  the  strange  notions 
 advocated  respecting  the  doctrines  of  grace,  the  Divinity  of 
 Christ,  the  polity  of  the  Christian  church,  the  practical  duties 
 of  believers,  and  numerous  other  points,  broached  and  advo- 
 cated by  men  who  are  zealous  Antipedobaptists,  and  who,  if 
 they  can,  will  always  dip  their  converts.  The  abuse  of  a 
 doctrine  or  ordinance  contains  no  evidence  against  its  divine 
 veracity,  or  its  Scriptural  administration — if  it  did,  what 
 Christian  creed  or  ceremony  would  be  safe  ?  Surely,  adult 
 immersion  must  be  surrounded  with  equal  dangers,  notwith- 
 
428  THE  NATURAL  CONCLUSIONS 
 
 standing  the  feelings  of  superiority,  which  numbers  of  the  less 
 intelligent  among  its  advocates  manifest  toward  those  who 
 differ  from  them  on  this  question — feelings  which  prompt 
 even  some  of  their  preachers  to  express,  from  the  pulpit,  their 
 pity  at  the  ignorance,  timidity,  or,  want  of  honesty,  in  many, 
 if  not  most,  of  their  Pedobaptist  brethren  ! 
 
 SECTION  FOURTH.— If  Paul  repudiated  Infant  Bap- 
 tism, his  argument  with  the  Corinthians  was  very  incautiously 
 constructed. — As  we  shall  presently  perceive  the  interpretation 
 of  the  terms  be  employed  would  induce  all  reasonable  Corinth- 
 ians to  believe,  that  infants  were  baptized  unto  Moses.  The 
 consequence  of  this  belief  would  certainly  have  been,  an 
 assumption,  that  their  own  children  should  be  baptized  also  ; 
 unless  they  had  discovered  elsewhere  in  the  apostle's  writings 
 or  addresses,  some  special  and  very  cogent  reasons  for 
 excluding  them  from  this  sacrament.  But,  they  could  not 
 find  even  a  single  hint,  to  warrant  the  notion,  '  that  the 
 '  children  were  not  to  be  in  their  religious  relationships,  just 
 1  as  aforetime.'  Jer.  xxx.  20.  If  many  of  the  Congregation 
 at  Corinth  were  truly  enlightened  and  converted  Jews,  which 
 is  highly  probable,  for  Paul  reasoned  in  the  synagogue  every 
 sabbath  day,  persuading  the  Jews  as  well  as  the  Greeks ; 
 (Acts  xviii.  4,)  the  conviction  in  their  minds  would  have 
 been  still  deeper  and  stronger,  and  would  have  led  them  to 
 infer,  that,  as  circumcision  was  now  or  soon  to  be  abolished, 
 their  children  should  unquestionably  be  baptized,  as  the 
 infant  Israelites  had  been  in  the  Red  Sea  and  subsequently. 
 If  this  were  not  to  be  done,  they  would  have  been  misled,  and 
 that  quite  gratuitously.  For  enforcing  obedience  to  God, 
 and  stedfastness  in  his  covenant,  Paul  was  under  no 
 necessity  of  employing  the  precise  language  he  used,  nor  of 
 making  the  allusions  he  did.  He  might  have  avoided  entirely 
 all  reference  to  baptism  ;  and  yet  have  equally  promoted  his 
 object — stedfastness  in  obedience  to  Christ. 
 
 He  might  have  reasoned  thus :  'Our  Fathers  passed  through 
 '  the  sea,  under  the  guidance  of  Moses ;  they  were  miraculously 
 '  delivered  from  the  power  of  Pharaoh  and  his  army  ;  they 
 '  were  blessed  with  the  best  of  laws,  statutes,  and  ordinances  ; 
 1  they  had  manna  from  heaven,  and  water  from  the  rock  ; 
 '  and  were  thereby  laid  under  high  obligations  to  obey  the 
 '  Lord  in  all  things,  and  to  love  him  with  all  their  hearts  and  souls. 
 '  But  they  rebelled  against  him,  and  fell  in  the  wilderness  ; 
 '  &c.'     This  reasoning  would  have  been  just  as  forcible  and 
 
OF  THE  COIUXTIIIAX  CnUECII.  4  29 
 
 appropriate,  without  any  reference  to  baptism,  as  it  is  with  it. 
 Had  no  constructive  allusion  been  made  in  the  text,  to  Infant 
 Baptism,  or  had  it  been  purposely  excepted,  no  possible 
 mistake  could  have  arisen,  respecting  this  ordinance,  from  his 
 argument ;  for  upon  it  they  would  have  founded  no  expect- 
 ation, that  any  of  their  children  should  have  been  baptized. 
 But,  there  it  is,  eminently  calculated  to  mislead  them  ;  that  is, 
 if  Paul  were  certainly,  what  our  opponents  believe  him  to 
 have  been — decidedly  opposed  to  Infant  Baptism — or  if  it 
 were  not  practised  by  him  during  his  gospel  ministry. 
 
 The  like  reasoning  will  apply  to  other  statements  and 
 narratives  of  baptism  in  the  New  Testament.  Take  the 
 accounts  respecting  the  procedure  of  John  the  Baptist :  — '  There 
 '  went  out  to  him  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
 '  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan, 
 'confessing  their  sins.'  Matt.  iii.  5.  'And  there  went  out 
 '  unto  him  all  the  land  of  Judea,  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and 
 '  were  all  baptized  of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  confessing 
 '  their  sins.'  Mark  i.  5.  John  preached  beforehand  '  the  bap- 
 '  tism  of  repentance  to  all  the  people  of  Israel ; '  Acts  xiii.  24 ; 
 and  baptized  them  too.  Here  they  read,  or,  doubtless,  had 
 heard,  that  all  the  population  of  the  Hebrew  metropolis,  and 
 of  other  cities,  with  those  of  the  towns  and  countries  adjacent, 
 went  to  John  at  the  Jordan,  and  were  all  baptized  by  him, 
 about  thirty  years  before.  For  aught  the  words  intimate, 
 there  was  no  exception  of  children — which  might  have  easily 
 been  made — any  more  than  there  was  in  the  case  of  the 
 baptism  in  the  Red  Sea.  The  Jewish  reader,  at  least,  would 
 never  have  imagined,  that  infants  were  left  at  home  alone,  on 
 account  of  their  age,  any  more  than  the  women,  on  account  of 
 their  sex.  And  if  they  were  present,  it  would  certainly  have  been 
 assumed,  that  they  were  all  baptized,  as  their  infant  ancestors 
 had  been  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  also  for  uncleanness,  both  in 
 the  wilderness  and  in  Canaan. 
 
 Indeed,  the  sacred  historian  declares,  that  '  all  the  people 
 '  were  baptized.'  Luke  iii.  21  ;  and  we  know,  that  children 
 are  as  really  people  as  old  men  and  women.  Now,  if  infants 
 were  not  baptized,  and  if  the  sacred  historians  were  decidedly 
 opposed  to  Infant  Baptism,  as  being  a  sinful  and  dangerous 
 practice ;  they  were  unpardonably  incautious  in  their  method  of 
 narrating  the  baptisms  at  the  Jordan — having  employed 
 language  needless  to  their  history,  and  yet  calculated  greatly  to- 
 mislead  their  readers.  Antipedobaptists  would  have  employed 
 a  very  different  mode   of   expression.     Neither  would    the 
 
430  THE  NATURAL  CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Corinthians,  nor  any  other  converts  to  Christianity,  have 
 concluded  that  children  were  not  to  he  baptized,  because 
 Matthew  nor  Mark  particularly  mentions  infants  as  being 
 among  the  multitudes  congregated  near  the  Jordan  and  Enon. 
 As  the  language  of  the  evangelists  literally  comprehends 
 males  only,  they  could  not  thence  infer,  that,  therefore, 
 children  were  not  the  subjects  of  this  rite  any  more  than  that 
 female  adults  were  all  excluded  from  it.  The  result  of 
 carefully  reading  the  above  Scripture  passages  would  induce 
 them  to  baptize  women  and  children  alike  or  neither  of  them.  As 
 before  remarked,  should  some  historian  inform  us  that  certain 
 transactions  which  took  place  in  a  city  or  county  greatly  benefitted 
 the  inhabitants,  the  people,  the  population ;  who,  on  reading  the 
 statement,  would  infer,  that  none  but  adults  partook  of  the 
 advantages,  and  that  the  children,  and  especially  the  infants, 
 did  not  share  in  them  ? 
 
 But,  it  is  replied,  that  the  case  is  qualified  by  the  expression, 
 The  converts  of  John  '  confessed  their  sins.'  This  however, 
 would  not,  in  the  least  measure,  have  affected  the  conclusion 
 of  the  Corinthians,  respecting  the  baptism  of  the  children. 
 It  is  nowhere  said  that  any  of  the  Corinthians  themselves 
 confessed  their  sins.  They  simply  believed  what  Paul 
 preached,  and  then  were  baptized.  With  respect  to  the 
 converts  of  the  harbinger  of  Christ,  who  are  said  to  have  done 
 so  ;  they  would  have  felt,  that  this  was  a  general  confession, 
 and  not  a  personal  one.  An  individual  confession,  they  well 
 knew,  would  have  been  quite  impracticable,  in  the  short  time 
 of  John's  ministration,  before  the  baptism  of  Christ — six 
 months  at  the  outside  ;  and  when  his  subjects  must  have  been, 
 as  Mr.  Hall  expresses  it,  a  '  prodigious  multitude  ' — '  almost 
 '  national.'  p.  26.  They  would,  moreover,  have  known  that 
 individual  confession  was  not  required  either  in  the  Eed  Sea, 
 nor  on  any  other  occasion  of  entering  into  covenant  with  God. 
 This  supposed  personal  confession  of  repentance  and  faith  is 
 as  difficult  in  the  judgment  of  our  opponents  as  in  our  own. 
 Mr.  Stovel  says,  'John  did  require  faith,  and  the  faith  which 
 '  he  required  was  no  superficial  act  of  the  intellect  merely, 
 '  but  one  which  ruled  the  heart,  and  formed  the  character.' 
 p.  119.  '  But,'  he  also  observes,  '  it  is  not  for  us  to  explain 
 '  in  what  way  John  received  the  confession  of  sin,  and  the 
 '  declaration  of  his  repentance  from  each  candidate  for  his 
 1  baptism  ;  all  we  mean  to  affirm  is,  that  the  confession  and 
 '  repentance  required,  were  of  that  kind  which  stands,  in  the 
 '  dispensation  of  mercy,  connected  with  the  forgiveness  of  sin  ; 
 
OF  THE  COEINTIIIAX  CHURCH.  431 
 
 1  and  that  the  pledge  of  submission  to  the  coming  Lord,  was 
 '  one  on  which  an  action  might  be  taken  in  Christian  discipline.' 
 p.  98.  For  aught  Mr.  Stovel  can  tell,  it  might  be  a  nod  of 
 assent,  lifting  up  the  hand,  or  a  loud  Amen,  by  the  multitude. 
 He  cannot  account  for  personal  confession  ;  and  yet,  without 
 the  least  evidence,  or  show  of  probability,  he  supposes  it  must 
 have  been  made ! 
 
 Might  not  this  confession  have  been  made  by  the  father, 
 for  himself  and  family  ;  as  Job  confessed  for  his  sons  and 
 (laughters?  or  as  Nehemiah  did  for  the  nation?  or  as  the 
 High  Priest  did  for  the  whole  people  ?  or  as  the  minister  of 
 Christ  now  does  for  his  congregation  ?  When  the  assembled 
 Israelites,  in  the  wilderness  and  in  the  Holy  Land,  openly 
 declared  their  contrition  for  sin  against  God,  and  their 
 determination  to  observe  the  propounded  laws,  rules,  and 
 covenants,  of  heaven  ;  the  male  adults,  or,  perhaps,  the  tieads 
 of  their  families,  or  of  their  tribes,  only  spake  the  words, 
 while  all  present — the  inferior  men,  with  the  women  and 
 children — were  implicated  in  the  confessions  and  resolutions 
 equally  with  those  who  audibly  uttered  the  expressions,  and 
 as  much  so,  as  if  every  one  of  them  had  lifted  up  his  hand 
 and  voice  in  solemn  assent  or  affirmation.  A  contrary 
 notion  would  never  have  entered  the  mind  of  an  intelligent 
 Jew,  or  gentile  either.  The  usual  Amen,  of  the  family  or 
 company,  was  all  that  would  have  been  expected,  or  that  was 
 practicable.  The  assent  of  an  assembly  is  given  by  lifting  up 
 the  hand;  and  so  is  their  veto.  And,  occasionally,  silence 
 gives  the  required  consent.  That  resolution  is  said  to  be 
 passed  unanimously,  in  which  all  present  tacitly  acquiesce. 
 
 It  is  clear  that-  what  was  done  paternally,  was  done 
 domestically ;  that  what  the  head  did  was  done  by  the 
 members,  and  bound  them  all ;  and  that  what  was  spoken  to  God 
 by  the  priest  or  the  preacher,  was  spoken  in  his  representative 
 capacity.  An  identity  was  understood  to  exist  between  the 
 root  and  the  branches  of  the  household  tree.  There  might 
 be  many  members,  forming  one  body,  and  governed  and 
 regulated  by  one  head.  The  king's  word  was  for  all  the 
 nation  ;  and  his  pledge,  on  their  behalf,  bound  them  all. 
 Israel  is  generally  recognized  as  one  person.  '  I  have  brought 
 '  my  son  out  of  Egypt.'  What  the  father  was  in  faith, 
 relationship,  obligation,  and  privilege,  that  the  wife,  family, 
 and  household  were  understood  to  be-,  and  as  such  they  were 
 treated  for  good  or  for  evil.  The  like  holds  true  in  a  great 
 measure  now.     We  should  never  designate  the  children  of  a 
 
432  THE  NATURAL  CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Christian  parent,  in  their  religious  aspect,  little  Mahometans,. 
 Jews,  or  heathens,  hut  little  Christians.  The  offspring  of  a 
 Briton,  in  their  national  aspect,  are  British  ;  of  a  Frenchman, 
 French;  and  of  a  Spaniard,  Spanish.  On  this  point,  the  Jews, 
 who  were  well  acquainted  with  their  own  laws  and  usages, 
 would  never  suppose,  that,  because  infants  could  not  confess 
 their  sins  personally  and  verbally,  as  done  by  their  parents,  at 
 their  own  baptism,  the  former  could  not  therefore  have  been 
 baptized  with  them,  nor  confession  made  on  their  behalf. 
 
 Besides  it  was  a  voluntary  confession  on  the  part  of  the 
 people  ;  it  was  not  required  by  the  Baptist ;  it  was  not  made 
 a  condition  of  receiving  the  baptismal  rite ;  and,  for  aught 
 that  appears,  they  might  have  been,  and  were  baptized 
 without  it.  John  did  not  say,  '  personal  and  individual 
 '  confession  of  sin  must  precede  the  administration  of  this 
 '  service;  and  he  that  is  not  willing  or  able  to  make  it,  is  not 
 f  qualified  to  receive  the  rite.'  After  John  had  performed  the 
 service  on  the  multitude,  he  exhorted  them  to  be  virtuous, 
 honest,  and  sober.  But,  previous  to  the  rite,  he  required 
 nothing  of  them  but  compliance  with  the  ordinance.  As 
 afterwards  enjoined  in  the  apostolic  commission,  he  baptized, 
 and  then  taught  the  people.  He  first  made  them  disciples, 
 and  then  he  instructed  them.  How  much  so,  we  have 
 previously  seen.  John,  doubtless,  observed  the  ancient  rule, 
 to  purify  persons  and  things,  and  then  consecrate  them  to  God, 
 and  not  to  offer  him  the  unclean  and  unsanctified. 
 
 Again,  the  Corinthians  would  not  infer  that  the  phrase, 
 *  Confessing  their  sins,'  necessarily  implied  a  change  of  heart 
 in  the  people  that  made  it.  The  confession  might  have  been 
 general  and  national ;  lamenting  their  transgressions  as  a 
 people,  suffering  under  the  Roman  yoke,  and  hoping  for 
 temporal  deliverance,  through  the  approaching  King  of  Zion. 
 Or,  if  the  confession  were  for  personal  transgressions,  which, 
 by  the  way,  is  not  asserted,  they  well  knew  that  Balaam 
 confessed  his  own  sins,  without  being  converted ;  Simon 
 Magus  virtually  did  the  same,  while  in  the  bonds  of  iniquity  ; 
 and  we  know  that  millions  besides  have  done  the  like  in  public 
 worship,  in  the  prospect  of  death,  and,  when  alarmed,  at  the 
 approaching  day  of  Judgment ;  but  whose  conversion  to  God 
 has  been  most  questionable.  The  expression,  therefore,  in 
 no  degree  opposes  the  conclusion,  that  infants  were  baptized 
 with  their  parents  at  the  Jordan.  That  John  did  not  regard 
 all  the  multitudes  he  baptized  as  spiritually  converted,  may  be 
 further  inferred  from  his  impressive  declarations,  that  Christ 
 
OF  THE  CORINTHIAN  CHURCH.  433 
 
 thereafter  would  fan  the  chaff  from  the  floor  ;  and  that  many 
 of  them  would,  without  future  repentance  and  piety,  he  driven 
 away  hy  the  wind,  or  hurnt  up  with  unquenchable  fire.  Nor 
 would  the  Corinthians  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  that  the  multi- 
 tudes baptized  by  John,  had  subsequently,  (with  comparatively 
 few  exceptions,)  manifested  no  evidence  of  having  been 
 spiritually  regenerated.  They  had,  doubtless,  heard  of  those 
 confessors  persecuting  Christ  and  his  faithful  apostles,  and 
 uniting  in  savage  clamours  to  put  them  to  death.  Of  their 
 religion,  therefore,  they  could  have  formed  no  very  high  opinion, 
 notwithstanding  they  had  confessed  their  sins  and  been  baptized 
 in  the  river  of  Jordan !  If  I  am  not  greatly  out  in  my 
 judgment,  our  opponents  lay  very  little  stress  on  the  verbal 
 confessions  made  by  their  own  candidates  for  baptism.  They 
 look  rather  to  their  past  moral  and  religious  conduct,  than  to 
 all  their  declarations  of  belief,  and  professions  of  future  piety. 
 
 It  has  been  contended,  that  the  prophesies  concerning  the 
 ministry  of  John,  indicate  the  effectual  and  spiritual  success 
 of  his  labours  ;  and  that,  therefore,  through  his  preaching, 
 multitudes  were  first  converted  to  God,  and  then  baptized 
 unto  Christ.  We  are  referred  to  Isaiah  xl.  3  ;  Mai.  iv.  5,  6  ; 
 Luke  i.  16,  17,  76,  77-  Mr.  Noel  cites  Matt.  iii.  2  ;  and 
 John  i.  6-8,  23-36,  to  show  that  such  results  accorded  with 
 the  prediction.  He  proceeds,  '  I  know  of  no  other  proof  that 
 '  the  ministry  of  John  corresponded  to  the  predictions 
 '  concerning  him  ;  and  the  value  of  this  proof  depends  upon 
 '  the  conditions  of  his  baptism.  If  he  baptized  all  applicants 
 '  indiscriminately,  then  there  is  no  proof  whatever,  that  he 
 '"made  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord,"  because 
 '  superstitious  or  sordid  motives  may  have  induced  numbers 
 '  to  apply  for  baptism.  But  he  baptized  those  only  who 
 '  solemnly  professed  to  repent  and  believe  in  Christ  shortly  to 
 'come;'  [Qy?]  'then  the  multitudes  who  were  baptized  by 
 '  him  show  that  he  signally  fulfilled  the  prophecies  concerning 
 'him.  It  is,  therefore,  probable  —  since  he  certainly  fulfilled 
 '  those  prophecies,  and  the  sacred  narratives  record  no  other 
 '  proof  of  the  fulfilment— "that  those  numerous  baptisms  furnish 
 '  this  proof,  and  that  those  who  were  baptized  by  John,  made 
 '  a  solemn  profession  of  their  repentance  and  faith.'  p.  50,  51. 
 
 There  is  little  doubt,  that  what  was  foretold  concerning 
 John,  he  attempted,  and,  perhaps,  accomplished  ;  and  what 
 that  was,  we  must  gather  from  the  record  of  his  success.  He 
 was  to  make  '  ready  a  people  prepared  for  the  Lord.'  But 
 did  this  preparation  consist  in  the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  by 
 
 T 
 
434  THE  NATURAL  CONCLUSIONS 
 
 the  grace  of  God  attending  his  crying  in  the  wilderness  ? 
 The  answer  is,  '  Christ  came  to  his  own  and  his  own  received 
 '  him  not.'  Multitudes  of  them  followed  and  lauded  him  ; 
 but  he  tells  them  it  was  for  the  sake  of  the  loaves  and  fishes, 
 for  temporal  benefits,  and  because  of  the  miracles  of  healing. 
 That  the  people  were  so  far  prepared  by  John,  as  to  follow 
 Christ,  the  expected  Messiah,  to  listen  to  his  beautiful 
 discourses,  and  some  to  enrol  themselves  as  his  disciples,  we 
 readily  perceive.  But,  alas  !  how  many  went  back,  how  many 
 of  them  cried,  '  Crucify  him,'  how  few  were  stedfast,  and  how 
 little  was  that  flock  to  whom  God  gave  the  kingdom  !  As 
 Mr.  Hall  observes,  '  They  all  but  uniformly  forsook  Christ,' 
 and  all  but  unanimously  voted  for  his  crucifixion.  Mr.  Ncel 
 confounds  a  preparation  for  Christ,  with  a  preparation  for 
 heaven,  a  meetness  to  come,  as  troubled  souls  to  Christ,  for 
 light  and  comfort,  with  a  supposed  repentance,  remission  of 
 sin,  and  faith  in  the  Saviour's  sufferings  and  effectual 
 mediation  in  glory. 
 
 If  John  required  a  'solemn  profession  of  spiritual  repentance,' 
 and  the  people  made  it,  they  were  sheer  hypocrites ;  and  if 
 they  professed  belief  in  Christ,  their  faith  was  dead,  being 
 alone.  John  preached  repentance  ;  but  it  does  not  prove 
 that  the  multitudes  did  repent,  after  a  godly  sort,  any  more 
 than  it  is  a  proof,  that  an  audience  must  be  holy,  because  a 
 minister  preaches  to  it  the  necessity  of  holiness.  John 
 baptized  them  unto  repentance  ;  but  that  is  no  evidence  his 
 hearers  were  truly  sorry  for  their  sins  beforehand  ;  but,  simply, 
 that  he  urged  it  upon  them  thereafter.  Multitudes  have 
 been  baptized  by  our  opponents  unto  Christ,  who  never 
 cordially  embraced  him,  nor  exercised  saving  faith  in  his 
 doctrines  or  death.  In  connexion  with  this  subject,  our 
 opponents  appear  never  to  read  of  repentance,  but  they  think 
 of  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart;  never  of  a  profession,  but 
 it  springs  from  a  sincere  mind  ;  never  of  a  disciple,  but  a 
 renewed  follower  of  the  Lamb  ;  never  of  a  believer,  but  a 
 genuine  Christian.  At  any  rate,  such  is  the  only  impression 
 one  can  gather  from  their  writings  and  preachings,  when 
 directed  against  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 Further,  respecting  Apostolic  Practice  in  this  case. 
 When  the  Corinthians  read,  in  the  Epistle  to  their  church, 
 eh.  i.  16,  that  Paul  had  'baptized  the  household' — oikon, 
 family — 'of  Stephanus;'  or  in  Acts.  xvi.  15,  that  '  Lydia 
 '  believed,'  and  that  then  '  she  and  her  household ' — oikos, 
 family — '  were  baptized ; '  or  in  verse  33,  that  the  Jailor  '  was 
 
OF  THE  COEINTIIIAX  CHURCH.  435 
 
 'baptized,  he  and  his  [household] 'straightway;'  orinch.x.47, 
 that '  Cornelius,  and  those  that  were  with  him' — verse  2,  oiko, 
 family — 'were  baptized;'  would  they  not,  to  say  the  least, 
 be  in  danger  of  supposing  that  there  might  be  children  in 
 some  of  these  domestic  circles?  Would  they  not  have  reasoned, 
 '  If  all  the  households  were  adults  only — full-grown  men  and 
 '  women  —  would  it  not  have  been  better  to  have  said  so,  even 
 '  if  they  were  not  individually  named  ?  Why  employ  language 
 'so  calculated  to  mislead  us  —  if  children  were  never  to  be 
 '  baptized,  and,  particularly  so,  if  it  would  be  deluding  and 
 (  endangering  their  souls  to  baptize  them  ?  ' 
 
 Besides,  they  might  have  read  or  heard  of  other  Christian 
 families  who,  as  a  matter  of  course,  were  baptized  like  the 
 families  before-mentioned,  and  in  which,  they  might  naturally 
 conclude,  there  were  some  little  ones.  There  is  the  church 
 that  is  in  the  house — oikon,  family — of  Priscilla  andAquila; 
 the  church  that  is  in  the  house  —  oikon,  family — of  Nymphas  ; 
 the  church  in  the  house — oikon,  family  —  of  Philemon ;  Crispus 
 believed  in  the  Lord  with  all  his  house — oiko,  family.  The 
 Lord  have  mercy  on  the  house — oiko,  family — of  Onesiphorus. 
 Salute  them — the  family — which  are  of  Aristobulus'  household. 
 Unto  the  elect  lady  and  her — teknois — children.  The — tekna 
 —  children  of  thy  elect  sister,  greet  thee.  I  again  ask,  would 
 not  the  Corinthian  converts  and  their  successors,  in  their 
 simplicity  or  sagacity,  have  been  in  danger  of  supposing, 
 that,  in  a  dozen  families,  there  might  have  been  some  children  ? 
 And,  as  they  might  fairly  presume,  that  these  were  only  a 
 few  of  the  hundreds  of  families  baptized  by  the  apostles,  and 
 regarded  as  Christian  family  circles  ;  as  the  Corinthians 
 could  discover  no  expressions  calculated  to  counteract  the 
 inferences  they  would  reasonably  draw  from  the  use  of  such 
 language  ;  would  they  not  conceive,  that  the  children  were 
 rightly  denominated  Christians,  and  had  been  discipled  to 
 Christ  by  baptism  ?  And,  if  so,  would  they  not  have  felt 
 perplexed  if  told,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  a  Christian 
 ordinance,  and  that  the  inspired  writers  of  these  passages 
 utterly  condemned  the  rite? 
 
 Again,  would  they  not  have  inquired,  '  Why  were  not  the 
 '  sacred  historians  more  explicit  on  a  point  so  important  and 
 '  interesting  to  us  as  parents  ?  Why  speak  of  families,  if 
 '  they  wished  to  guard  us  against  error  on  this  head  ?  Why 
 '  did  they  not  say,  that  none  but  adults,  and  those  regenerated 
 '  by  the  Spirit  of  God  were,  or  were  to  be,  baptized  ?  Their 
 '  arguments  would  have  had  all  the  effect  they  intended,  had 
 
436  THE  NATURAL  CONCLUSIONS 
 
 '  they  stated  the  simple  truth  in  unequivocal  language.' 
 Mr.  Ewing  justly  observes,  '  To  speak  of  family  baptism,  if 
 '  all  were  adults  and  believers,  and  each  baptized  on  his  own 
 '  profession  of  faith,  appears  incongruous,  and  is  very  apt  to 
 '  mislead — why  not  say,  so  many  Christians  in  one  dwelling — 
 1  why  say  family — if  some  were  not  young  and  unconverted  ? 
 '  The  term  family  is  calculated  to  lead  to  a  practice  different 
 '  from  that  adopted  by  the  Baptists.'  p.  191.  When  Jehovah 
 said,  '  I  will  be  the  God  of  all  the  families  of  Israel,'  Jer. 
 xxxi.  1  ;  would  not  the  entire  domestic' circle  be  understood 
 — without  excepting  the  youngest  children  in  it  ?  If  otherwise 
 intended,  would  not  the  Almighty  have  said,  'I  will  be  the 
 '  God  of  all  the  heads  of  the  families  of  Israel,  or  of  all  the 
 '  grown-up  members  in  them  ;  and  not  of  the  little  ones,  till 
 '  they  have  attained  to  man  or  womanhood  ?  '  To  speak  of 
 families  now,  is  to  include,  indefinitely,  all  the  inmates  of  the 
 house,  be  they  old  or  young,  many  or  few  ;  and,  doubtless,  it 
 ever  was  the  same. 
 
 Besides  the  forenamed  ten  or  a  dozen  families,  designated 
 believers,  disciples,  or  converts,  in  the  Acts  and  Epistles,  are 
 noticed  incidentally,  not  with  the  least  apparent  design  of 
 enumerating  all  the  households  that  pertained  to  the  Christian 
 faith.  There  are  about  thirty  persons  identified  and  distin- 
 guished by  name  as  being  converts  to  the  gospel ;  and  these 
 are  not  given  as  a  list  of  all  the  noted  individuals  brought  to 
 Christ.  We  are  told,  that  among  the  Jews,  about  twenty-five 
 years  after  Christ,  there  were  '  many  thousands '  [myriads]  '  of 
 '  Jews  which  believed,  all  zealous  of  the  law  ;  '  '  and  that 
 '  multitudes  of  men  and  women  '  believed  soon  after  the  death 
 of  Ananias  and  Sapphira  his  wife  ;  to  say  nothing  of  numerous 
 gentile  proselytes.  Suppose  these  Hebrew  Christians 
 amounted  to  one  hundred  thousand.  Then,  it  will  be  no 
 immoderate  estimate,  if  we  conclude,  that  there  were  ten 
 thousand  families  among  them.  And  if  we  reckon  one  little 
 child  in  every  five  families,  we  shall  not  be  charged  with 
 exaggerating  the  matter.  Now,  in  these  ten  thousand 
 families,  there  would  be  two  thousand  children  or  infants. 
 In  this  way  the  Corinthians  would  probably  have  reckoned, 
 and  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that  all  these  two  thousand 
 little  ones  had  been  baptized  with  their  parents ;  and  then 
 they  would  have  naturally  inquired,  why  their  own  should 
 not  be  baptized  also.  Indeed,  I  can  hardly  imagine,  that  any 
 opponent  would  now  assume,  there  were  fewer  babes  than  we 
 have  supposed,  among  any  hundred  thousand  adults — except 
 
OF  THE  CORINTHIAN  CHUHCH.  -137 
 
 'it  were  to  make  up  an  argument  against  Infant  Baptism.  We 
 have  not  the  names  or  numbers  of  all  the  families  consecrated 
 to  God  by  any  of  the  apostles.  Mr.  Hall  assumes,  that 
 '  innumerable  persons  were  baptized  by  St.  Paul.'  p.  130. 
 Yet,  those  mentioned  by  name  are  comparatively  very  few. 
 
 Still,  certain  brethren  will  have  it,  that  there  were  no 
 infants  in  any  of  the  dozen  families  just  referred  to.  '  Did 
 4  not  the  apostle  preach  the  word  to  all  that  were  in  the  house  ? 
 '  Did  not  all  the  family  attend  to  the  word  spoken  to  them  ? 
 '  And  how  could  babies  be  preached  to,  and  give  heed  to  the 
 
 *  doctrine  ?  Xot  at  all.  Hence,  there  were  no  little  ones 
 "•present;  and  all  the  evidence,  in  favour  of  Infant  Baptism, 
 '  founded  on  these  baptized  households,  is  invalidated  in  a 
 *■  moment ! '  In  reply,  let  me  ask  our  antagonists,  whether 
 there  were  not  children  in  the  congregations  to  which  our 
 Lord  preached  before  feeding  the  multitudes  with  the  loaves 
 and  fishes  1  The  inspired  historian  answers,  '  Yes.'  When 
 Moses,  Joshua,  Ezra,  and  others,  addressed  the  great  assem- 
 blies of  the  Hebrews,  as  previously  referred  to,  were  not  the 
 wives  and  the  little  ones  present,  forming  a  part  of  these  vast 
 gatherings?  The  sacred  writers  again  answer,  'Yes.'  Because 
 a  minister  is  said  to  speak  to  all  his  congregation,  does  it 
 necessarily  follow,  that  there  can  be  no  children  or  babes 
 present  ?  When  an  assembly  is  said  to  attend  to  the  preacher, 
 and  to  believe  and  approve  of  his  discourse ;  must  it  be 
 assumed,  that  there  could  be  no  little  ones  in  it  ?  Or,  cannot 
 ■we  designate  a  family,  as  intellectual,  benevolent,  or  religious, 
 in  which  there  may  be  infants  ?  And  is  this  not  often  done, 
 without  implicating  the  speaker  in  a  charge  of  inconsistency 
 •or  falsehood  ?  In  fact,  the  objection  is  founded  on  a  fallacy, 
 which  an  unprejudiced  person  instantly  recognizes,  and  con- 
 demns as  a  quibble  !  People  must  be  most  resolute  and 
 leckless  in  their  hostility  to  Infant  Baptism,  before  they 
 could  so  outrage  the  meaning  of  the  current  modes  of  human 
 speech,  in  order  to  find,  in  such  expressions,  an  objection 
 against  it.  To  me,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  the  Corinthians 
 would  never  have  concluded,  that  the  infants  in  a  house  were 
 not  baptized,  because  it  was  said,  all  the  family  heard  or 
 believed  the  preacher. 
 
 Dr.  Wardlaw  remarks,  'Let  us  only  consider,  for  a  moment, 
 '  into  what  ridiculous  absurdities  we  should  be  led  by   the 
 
 *  general  adoption   of  such   a  principle    of    criticism.       The 
 
 *  children  of  Israel  were  commanded,  in  preparing  the  passover, 
 
 *  to  take  a  lamb  for  a  house,  according  to  the  number  of  the 
 
438  THE  NATURAL  CONCLUSIONS 
 
 souls.  Are  we  to  infer  from  this,  that  they  numhered  the 
 mouths  of  sucking  infants  ?  Or,  that  there  were  no  such 
 infants  at  the  time  in  the  families  of  Israel  ?  They  were 
 enjoined  to  eat  it,  "with  their  loins  girt,  and  their  shoes  on 
 their  feet,  and  their  staff  in  their  hand."  Children  could 
 not  do  this  ;  therefore,  we  conclude  again,  that  there  were 
 none  ;  and  the  conclusion  is  irresistibly  confirmed  by  the 
 testimony  of  the  Psalmist  respecting  the  passage  through  the 
 Red  Sea,  for  they  went  "  through  the  flood,"  he  says,  "  on 
 foot,"  which  infants  certainly  were  incapable  of  doing. 
 When  the  paralytic  Eneas  was  cured  by  Peter,  it  is  said, 
 "  all  that  dwelt  in  Lydda,  and  Saron  saw  him,  and  turned  to 
 the  Lord  ;  "  from  which,  among  other  instances,  it  will  follow 
 that  these  places  presented  the  singular  anomaly  of  a  population 
 without  infants !  Paul  writes  to  the  Thessalonians,  that  if 
 any  would  not  work,  neither  should  they  eat ;  were  the 
 babes  in  Thessalonica,  then,  to  be  left  to  starve,  because  they 
 were  incapable  of  earning,  or  of  being  willing  to  earn,  their 
 daily  bread?  Let  no  Baptist  say  indignantly,  "this  is 
 ridiculous  —  it  is  making  a  joke  of  the  matter."  Let  him 
 recollect  that  the  materials  of  the  joke  are  furnished  by  his 
 own  friends.  Let  the  argument  (if  it  must  have  a  name  to 
 which  it  has  no  title)  be  withdrawn,  and  there  will  be  no 
 room  left  for  the  joke.  I  am  only  ashamed  indeed  of  being 
 obliged  to  treat  it  so  seriously.  It  is  not  worth  the 
 ammunition.'  p.  88. 
 
 Another  writer  observes,  '  But  a  brother  may  object,  "  all 
 
 the  house"  cannot  signify  merely  some  cf  them,  sufficiently 
 
 grown.     Yet,  I  remember  a  passage   where  we  read,  "  all 
 
 the  house  of  Elkanah  went  up  with  him  to  offer  unto  the 
 
 Lord ; "  but,  in  the  next  verse  it  is  added,  "  Hannah  went 
 
 not  up,"  neither   young   Samuel,   a   member  of  Elkanalrs 
 
 house,  not  yet  weaned  from  the  breast.   1  Sam.  i.  21.     And 
 
 in  the  4th  of  John,   verse  46,   we  read  of  a  nobleman  of 
 
 Capernaum,   whose  son  was   sick.      He  besought  Jesus  to 
 
 come  and  heal  him,  saying,  Sir,  come  down,  ere  my  child 
 
 (paidion,  a  little  infant,)  die.     Jesus  healed  the  child,  and 
 
 we  are  told,  the  nobleman  believed  with  his   whole  liouse. 
 
 This  cannot  be  affirmed  of  the  infant  healed — nor  of  any  other 
 
 young  children  the  nobleman  might  have.'  Recantation,  p.  33. 
 
 Dr.    Carson,   probably  feeling  the  difficulty  of  excluding 
 
 children  from  the  houses  of  all  those  said  to  believe,  adopts 
 
 another  course  of  argument  to  surmount  it.     '  We  know  that 
 
 '  the  house  of  Crispus  was  baptized  because  the  commission 
 
OF  THE  CORINTHIAN  CHURCH.  439 
 
 ■'enjoins  it.'  p.  182.  But,  then,  he  makes  all  the  children  to 
 be  adults  and  individual  believers.  '  When  it  is  said,  with 
 4  respect  to  the  Jailor,  that  Paul  spake  the  word  of  the  Lord 
 '  to  all  that  were  in  his  house,  I  admit  there  might  have  been 
 
 *  infants.  And  when  it  is  said,  a  family  were  baptized,  infants 
 1  might  have  been  in  the  house,  without  being  included  in  the 
 4  baptism.  The  commission  as  effectually  excludes  them  from 
 1  baptism,  as  their  infancy  excludes  them  from  the  number 
 
 *  of  those   to  whom   the   gospel   was   preached.'    lb.  p.  185. 
 
 *  Children  are  excepted  by  that  commission  that  must  guide 
 '  all  practice.'  lb.  p.  190.  '  When  it  is  said,  that  Cornelius 
 1  "feared  God,  with  all  his  house,"  is  it  necessary  to  assert, 
 'that  there  could  have  been  no  infants  under  his  roof? 
 '  Surely  not.  Why,  then,  is  it  supposed,  that  the  baptism  of 
 '  households  should  imply  the  baptism  of  infants,  who,  by  the 
 'commission,  are  excluded?'  lb.  p.  183. 
 
 But,  it  by  no  means  necessarily  follows,  that  infants  were 
 not  baptized — of  which  rite  they  were  confessedly  capable — 
 because  they  could  not  understand  the  preaching  which 
 accompanied  that  ceremony.  Because  speaking  and  eating 
 frequently  go  together;  must  children  go  without  their  dinner 
 because  they  cannot  understand  the  discussions!  The  dispute 
 here  lies  between  the  divine  historian  and  Dr.  Carson.  The 
 former  states  the  fact,  that  the  family  was  baptized — not 
 excepting  any  of  its  members.  The  latter  admits,  there 
 might  be  children  present,  and  constitute  parts  of  those 
 families ;  but  denies  they  were  baptized — pleading  that 
 the  terms  of  the  commission  excluded  them.  Whereas,  it  says 
 not  a  word  that  would  hinder  the  baptism  of  a  single  infant 
 among  them- — but  the  very  reverse;  as  I  believe  our  remarks, 
 on  this  head  elsewhere,  will  convince  the  candid  reader. 
 The  Doctor,  however,  concedes  a  point,  for  which  Pedobaptists 
 have  long  contended,  that  the  term  family  possibly,  or, 
 probably,  includes  children.  Now,  it  is  unlikely  their 
 children  were  present  when  they  were  baptized,  without 
 being  baptized  also.  The  Doctor  contends  otherwise  without 
 the  least  valid  reason.  He  might  have  as  reasonably 
 contended  that  children  were  not  baptized  in  the  Bed  Sea, 
 when  in  company  with  their  parents,  who  underwent  that 
 ceremony.  Most  Baptists  argue,  that  there  could  be  no 
 children  in  the  house,  because  they  could  not  be  preached  to. 
 Dr.  Carson  says,  they  might  have  been  in  the  house;  and 
 might  have  been  preached  to  also  ;  but  they  could  not  have 
 been  baptized,  because  the  terms  of  the  commission  would 
 
440  TIIE  SILENCE  OF  THE  COEIXTIIIAXS 
 
 have   prevented  it.       So  here,   again,   our  Dipping   Doctors 
 differ  — like  their  Pedobaptist  friends  ! 
 
 '  We  grant,'  says  Mr.  Wills,  '  the  epistles  were  directed ' 
 [some  of  them]  '  to  professing  believers  joined  in  fellowship, 
 '  directly  and  immediately ,  and  to  their  children,'  [if  they 
 had  any,]  'and  the  children  of  all  believers  in  succeeding 
 '  ages,  remotely  ;  and  the  contents  of  the  epistles  concern 
 '  both  the  parents  at  present,  and  the  children  when  come  to 
 '  the  years  of  discretion.  A  father  that  hath  several  children, 
 '  some  grown  up  to  understanding,  others  minors  or  babes, 
 '  may  direct  a  book  or  epistle  to  them  all.  Whatsoever  was 
 '  writ  was  written  as  much  for  our  instruction  as  the  primitive 
 '  Christians.  We  know  Moses  and  the  prophets  directed 
 '  what  they  writ  to  the  church  under  that  administration, 
 '  whereof  their  children  were  a  part ;  and  yet,  they  were 
 '  ignorant  babes,  and  could  not  understand  any  thing  or 
 '  perform  any  duties.  But,  let  it  be  considered,  that,  though 
 '  they  understood  nothing  of  those  divine  exhortations,  yet, 
 1  being  within  God's  nursery  and  school,  they  were  in  a 
 '  nearer  capacity  to  be  taught  their  duty,  than  aliens  ;  and 
 '  their  parents  were  enjoined  to  teach  them  the  ordinances 
 '  of  God  ;  and  God  gave  his  testimony  concerning  Abraham, 
 '  that  he  knew  he  would  teach  his  children ;  and  in  the  New 
 '  Testament,  it  was  the  commendation  of  Lois,  that  she  had 
 'instructed  Timothy  apo  brephous — ab  infantia  —  when  he 
 '  was  an  infant  or  little  child.'  p.  77.  Mr.  Tombes  also 
 admits,  '  It  is  true,  in  the  face  of  the  visible  church,  the 
 '  infants  of  believers  are  to  be  accounted  God's,  to  belong 
 'to  his  family  and  church,  and  not  to  the  devil's,  as  being  in 
 '  a  near  possibility  of  being  members  of  the  church  of  God, 
 'by  an  act  of  opinion  grounded  on  probable  hopes  of  the 
 'future.'  Exam.  p.  41.  In  fine,  the  language  of  the  New 
 Testament,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  was  calculated  to 
 mislead  ingenuous  Israelites,  and  the  proselyted  heathen, 
 provided  Infant  Baptism  were  contrary  to  the  will  of  God,  and 
 adverse  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive  believers  ;  and,  con- 
 sequently, the  inspired  writers  must  have  been  very  incautious 
 in  their  statements,  records,  and  reasonings!  This,  however, 
 we  dare  not  for  a  moment  credit. 
 
 SECTION  FIFTH.—  The  silence  of  the  Corinthians  con- 
 firms the  fact,  that  their  children  had  been  baptized  equally 
 with  themselves. — As  intelligent  people,  they  would  readily 
 discover  the  correct  and  full  application  of  an  argument,  and 
 
PEOYES  THEIR  CniLDKEX  WEEE  BAPTIZED.  441 
 
 also  any  fallacy  that  might  lurk  in  its  construction..  Had 
 they  been  like  unlettered  and  uncultivated  Hottentots  or 
 Caffres,  they  might  not  have  understood  the  principles  of 
 reasoning,  or  been  competent  to  discover  any  discrepancies 
 in  a  logical  deduction.  But  not  so  the  Corinthians.  They 
 evidently  possessed  a  high  order  of  intelligence.  '  Though 
 i  Corinth  was  thus  dissipated  and  licentious  in  its  character, 
 '  yet  it  was  also  distinguished  for  its  refinement  and  learning. 
 '  Every  part  of  literature  was  cultivated  there,  so  that,  before 
 '  its  destruction  by  the  Romans,  Cicero  scrupled  not  to  call  it 
 '  tot ius  Grcecce  lumen — the  light  of  Greece.'  Barnes.  So,  in  the 
 time  of  Paul,  he  could  say,  '  I  speak  as  to  wise  men,  judge  ye 
 '  what  I  say.'  As  acute  and  inquiring  people,  they  would  search 
 into  the  sense  and  import  of  the  apostle's  statements  and 
 appeals — more  particularly,  as  he  avowedly  wrote  under  the 
 influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  was  the  acknowledged  mouth 
 of  Jehovah  to  them.  '  Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in 
 1  the  words  which  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Holy 
 '  Ghost  teacheth  ;  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual.' 
 1  Cor.  ii.  13.  Every  sentence  and  every  syllable  of  his  letters 
 would  be  examined  and  criticised  with  the  utmost  attention ; 
 and  their  conclusions  would  be  drawn  with  the  nicest 
 precision.  Hence,  had  their  own  children  not  been  baptized, 
 as  well  as  themselves,  or  like  the  infants  in  the  Red  Sea,  or 
 the  young  proselytes  to  Judaism,  they  would  have  been 
 perplexed,  and  at  a  loss  to  discover  the  reasons  for  the 
 omission,  particularly  as  the  gospel  disclosed  no  other  rite, 
 at  least,  to  the  gentile  converts,  as  a  substitute  for  it.  We 
 can  readily  imagine  them  inquiring  among  themselves,  as 
 I  think  we,  if  wise  men,  should  have  done  in  similar 
 circumstances — 
 
 '  If  all  our  national  ancestry  or,  rather,  all  our  ecclesiastical 
 '  predecessors,  known  by  the  name  of  Israel — and  constituting 
 '  a  fellowship,  of  which  the  Christian  system  is  but  a  con- 
 '  tinuance — were  baptized  unto  Moses  ;  and  if,  at  the  time, 
 '  more  than  a  tbird  of  their  number  must  then  have  been  in  a 
 '  state  of  childhood  or  infancy  ;  and  if  all  these  were  baptized 
 '  with  their  parents  ;  how  is  it  that  our  little  ones  were  not 
 '  baptized  with  ourselves,  or  since  ?  The  apostles  speak  of 
 '  the  great  amplitude  and  liberality  of  the  Gospel  dispensation, 
 '  compared  with  that  of  the  law  ;  and  yet,  they  shut  out,  from 
 '  our  covenant  and  religious  standing,  ceremonials  and  advan- 
 '  tages,  those  whom,  in  analogous  circumstances,  the  covenant 
 '  of  Moses  embraced.     Therefore,  how  defective,  and  partially 
 
 t2 
 
442  THE  SILENCE  OF  THE  COEIXTHIANS 
 
 '  applicable  to  us,  is  the  writer's  argument,  drawn  from  a 
 '  consecration  to  God,  so  much  more  extensive  and  compre- 
 '  hensive  than  that  observed  towards  our  Christian  societies — 
 '  in  which  children  are  neither  circumcised  nor  baptized  unto 
 '  Jesus  Christ  ?  In  the  case  on  which  the  apostle's  appeal 
 '  is  based,  both  the  parents,  and  their  seed,  were,  through 
 1  baptism,  brought  under  individual  obligations  to  love,  obey, 
 '  and  confide  in  God  ;  now,  the  parents  only  are,  personally, 
 '  so  engaged  and  bound  ;  nor  will  the  young  ones  be  under 
 '  any  similar  obligations,  till  they  are  baptized,  though  it  be 
 '  not  till  twenty  or  forty  years  hence,  or,  possibly,  not  at  all.' 
 
 '  In  the  Red  Sea,  a  formal  covenant  relation  was  created 
 '  between  God,  and  men,  women,  and  children;  now  between  God 
 '  and  men  only.  Then  the  manifest  blessing  of  heaven  was 
 '  on  both  the  root  and  the  branches,  now  on  the  root  only.  Then 
 4  the  benediction  was  pronounced  on  men  and  their  seed  ; 
 '  now  on  the  men  only.  Hence,  if  the  apostle's  argument  be 
 '  direct  and  valid,  it  can  apply  only  to  baptized  adults,  and 
 '  not  on  their  offspring  also.  These  have  never  been  dedicated, 
 '  devoted,  discipled,  or  consecrated  to  God,  by  baptism,  as 
 '  were  the  little  Hebrews  in  the  Red  Sea ;  and  probably  they 
 1  never  will  be  ;  or,  at  any  rate,  not  at  all  as  children.  They 
 '  are  totally  overlooked,  as  if  they  were  beings  without  souls, 
 '  and  who  come  not  within  the  scope  of  Christian  attention. 
 '  The  apostles  have  told  us,  that  now  circumcision — the 
 '  introduction  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant — is  inadmissible,  at 
 '  least,  among  gentile  converts  to  Christianity ;  so  that  children, 
 '  though  inducted  to  the  patriarchal  dispensation  by  circum- 
 '  cision,  and  into  the  Mosaic  by  baptism,  are  not  inducted  to 
 1  the  gospel  economy  by  either  or,  rather,  are  not  inducted  at 
 '  all.  This  is  very  perplexing  to  us,  and  requires  considerable 
 '  explanation  and  evidence  to  prove  that  our  beloved  children 
 '  should  not  be  treated  with  as  much  ceremony  and  ministerial 
 '  regard  as  the  infant  Israelites,  and  to  free  the  argument 
 '  of  Paul  from  a  considerable  fallacy.' 
 
 It  is  reasonable  to  suppose,  these  Corinthian  converts  to 
 Christianity  would  have  proceeded  even  still  further  in  their 
 reflections  on  this  question,  if  not  in  their  criticisms  of  the 
 apostle's  language  :  '  We  have  also  learned  from  authorities 
 '  we  dare  not  dispute,  that  whenever  a  gentile  parent  became 
 '  a  proselyte  to  the  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  his  family  always 
 '  accompanied  him  in  this  transition  from  idolatry  to  the  true 
 '  church  of  Jehovah.  This  proselyting,  we  understand,  has 
 '  been  of  very  frequent  occurrence ;  and  with  it,  we  ourselves 
 
PROVES  THEIR  CHILDREN  WEBB  BAPTIZED.  443 
 
 *  have  become  fully  acquainted,  from  the  influence  of  the 
 '  synagogue  services  among  our  countrymen.  We  are  also 
 'assured,  that  before  proselytes  could  be  received  into  Jewish 
 1  congregations,  they,  among  other  ceremonials,  must  be  bap- 
 '  tized,  as  a  sign  of  spiritual  purification.  But,  it  was  the 
 '  invariable  custom  for  their  children  to  be  baptized  also,  and 
 '  to  become  members  of  the  same  body  as  their  parents.  No 
 '  instance,  we  believe,  is  known,  in  which  the  father  and 
 '  mother  were  proselyted  and   purified,   in   which  their  little 
 
 *  ones  were  denied  the  like  rites  and  privileges.  How  happens 
 '  it,  then,  that  when  we  were  proselyted  to  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
 '  and  initiated  into  the  fellowship  of  the  friends  of  Christianity, 
 'by  baptism,  our  children  were  not  also  baptized  with  our- 
 '  selves  ?  Thjs  is  very  strange  !  What  can  have  been  the 
 '  cause  of  it  ?  The  children  of  gentile  proselytes  were  baptized 
 '  into  Judaism  :  but  they  are  not  baptized  into  the  gospel 
 4  dispensation  !  Their  little  ones  were  made  members  of  the 
 1  Hebrew  communion,  and  yet  ours  are  denied  membership  in 
 '  the  religion  of  Christ,  though,  in  every  essential  and  leading 
 
 •  principle,  they  are  precisely  one  and  the  same  religion  ! 
 '  We  solicit  information  on  a  matter  so  interesting,  so  strange, 
 '  and,  in  our  opinion,  so  unlovely  and  unscriptural !      Pray, 
 
 •  beloved  Paul,  enlighten  our  minds,  and  lessen  the  load  on 
 '  our  hearts,  in  relation  to  this  matter  !  ' 
 
 Such,  in  all  probability,  would  have  been  the  inquiries 
 and  reflections  of  these  Corinthian  parents,  warmly  interested 
 in  the  religious  position  of  their  children — if,  after  perusing 
 the  argument  of  the  apostle,  their  own  children  had  not  been 
 baptized  like  the  infants  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea ;  and, 
 especially,  had  they  been  told,  that  it  would  have  been  very 
 sinful  and  dangerous  to  have  done  so.  And  if  many  of  the 
 members  of  the  congregation  at  Corinth  were  Jews,  which, 
 we  repeat,  is  very  probable,  the  non-participation  of  their 
 little  ones  in  this  rite  — after  the  reference  of  Paul  to  the 
 baptism  in  the  sea,  and  having  a  vivid  recollection  of  the 
 intimate  relation  of  infants  and  their  parents  in  all  the 
 rites  and  privileges  of  theLevitical  economy,  or  when  proselyted 
 from  heathenism  to  the  worship  of  the  true  God — would  have 
 produced  no  small  stir  among  them,  and  have  prompted  them 
 to  earnest  interrogation,  if  not  to  open  contention. 
 
 Even  the  converts  from  idolatry  would  feel  that  their  little 
 ones  were  left  in  a  relative  position  inferior  to  what  they  had 
 sustained  before  abandoning  their  false  religion  ;  since  then, 
 their  children  were  united  with  themselves  ;  nor  ever  viewed 
 
444  CHILDREN  OF  CONVERTS  BAPTIZED, 
 
 with  the  indifference,  and  treated  with  the  neglect,  induced 
 hy  the  gospel.  They  would  not,  and  could  not,  forget,  that  their 
 offspring  were  formally  dedicated  to  the  gods  which  they  had 
 previously  worshipped.  But,  it  is  remarkable,  that  not  even  a 
 whisper  of  doubt,  inquiry,  or  objection,  is  ever  heard  from 
 the  Corinthians,  nor,  in  fact,  from  any  other  churches,  instituted, 
 or  written  to,  by  the  apostles.  In  this  respect,  everything 
 was  done  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  Christian  proselytes, 
 both  from  the  Jews  and  the  gentiles.  The  only  conclusion 
 at  which  we  can  legitimately  arrive  is,  that  parents  and 
 children  were  baptized  together,  whenever  it  was  practicable, 
 or  with  as  little  space  between  as  matters  made  convenient. 
 This  fully,  and  this  only,  will  account  for  their  entire  and 
 universal  silence  on  this,  to  them,  most  interesting  and 
 momentous  subject. — An  observation  or  two,  on  this  topic, 
 may  be  desirable. 
 
 Observation  I. — If  the  offspring  of  Christian  parents 
 had  not  been  baptized,  it  would  have  been  felt  that  the 
 gospel  had  degraded  them. — Mr.  Norcutt  says,  'Infants 
 '  were  members  of  the  national  church  of  the  Jews  ;  '  and, 
 therefore,  as  such,  they  would  be  estimated  by  their  parents 
 and  all  around  them.  Mr.  Davye,  '  Grants  that  infants  were 
 1  church  members  under  the  pedagogy  of  Moses,  and  that 
 '  they  were  brought  to  the  ordinance  of  the  passover  as  soon 
 '  as  they  were  capable  to  eat  it,  and  that  under  the  gospel ' 
 [all]  'infants  dying  are  in  the  covenant  of  grace.'  Ex.  Wall's 
 Hist.  vol.  iii.  p.  370.  Dr.  Cox  says,  '  Infants  under  the  law 
 '  were  members  of  the  Jewish  visible  church.'  p.  154.  They 
 were,  consequently,  viewed  and  treated  as  sustaining  a 
 religious,  and  a  highly  honourable,  relationship,  to  their 
 priests,  their  parents,  and  to  God.  It  would  be  estimated  as 
 the  noblest  position  any  infant  Jew  could  occupy  in  the 
 present  world.  The  heathen  proselyte  and  his  family  would 
 esteem  it  an  honour  to  belong  to  this  holy  nation,  this 
 peculiar  people,  this  royal  priesthood  of  the  Lord,  a  people 
 blessed  above  all  people  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  Into  that 
 visible  church  or  communion,  infants  were  always  and  formally 
 inducted  by  circumcision  and  water-baptism. 
 
 Up  to  the  time  of  John,  and  during  the  transition  period 
 of  the  apostolic  age,  when  multitudes  of  Jews  became  Christians, 
 their  children  had  been  actual  and  recognized  members  of  the 
 ancient  Jewish  church,  equally,  and  in  conjunction,  with 
 their  Jewish  parents.  On  the  latter  leaving  their  former 
 communion,  and  joining  that  of  the  gospel,  one  of  the  following 
 
On  RELATIVELY  DEGRADED.  445 
 
 results  must  have  taken  place.  (1)  Their  children  must  have  gone 
 
 with  thou,  and  become  duly  initiated  members  of  the  reformed 
 religion ;  or,  (2)  they  must  have  remained  in  their  former 
 ecclesiastical  connexion,  while  their  parents  united  themselves 
 with  the  followers  of  Christ ;  or,  (3)  they  must  have  totally 
 lost  their  church-membership  and  lived  in  connexion  with  no 
 religious  body  whatever.  Suppose  the  first  course  to  have 
 been  pursued,  then,  all  appears  natural  and  righteous;  and 
 such  as  every  godly  parent  must  have  cordially  approved  and 
 desired.  Suppose  the  second,  and,  then,  the  parents  would 
 have  been  in  one  religious  fellowship,  and  their  little  ones  in 
 another,  whose  adult  members  were,  for  the  most  part, 
 exceedingly  hostile  to  the  Christian  community.  Ov,  suppose 
 the  third,  then,  the  gospel  unchurched  all  the  infants  and 
 children  of  the  Jewish  converts  the  very  same  day  that 
 their  parents  believed  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  were 
 baptized  unto  him.  So  that,  for  example,  when  the  three 
 thousand  were  baptized,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  according 
 to  the  views  of  our  opponents,  probably  twice  the  number  of 
 children  must  have  been  professedly  unchurched  altogether — ■ 
 or  intentionaly  left  in  the  old  Hebrew  communion,  while  the 
 parents  formally  entered  the  new!  Such  must  have  inevitably 
 been  one  of  the  results,  on  the  conversion  of  Jewish  parents  to 
 Christianity,  unless  they  were  all  childless,  or  all  their  offspring 
 were  grown  up  to  the  age  of  men  and  women !  The  like 
 alternatives  would  also  have  occurred  in  respect  of  gentile 
 parents  becoming  Christians  —  their  children  must  have  gone 
 over  to  Christianity  with  them,  or  remained  behind,  still  being 
 actual  members  of  some  heathenish  fellowship,  or  must  have 
 lost  all  federal  connexion  with  any  religious  body  of  mankind! 
 Let  the  reader  make  his  election. 
 
 The  early  converts  to  Christianity  well  knew,  that  circum- 
 cision, though  in  some  cases  tolerated,  was  virtually  abolished; 
 and  that,  if  their  children  were  not  discipled  to  Christ  by 
 baptism,  they  would  not  be  introduced  at  all  to  this  community, 
 and  would  not  be  considered  members  of  the  gospel  congre- 
 gation or  fellowship.  Now  '  circumcision  is  nothing,  and 
 '  uncircumcision  is  nothing.  Is  any  man  called,  being 
 '  circumcised,  let  him  not  be  uncircumcised.  Is  any  man 
 '  called  in  uncircumcision,  let  him  not  be  circumcised.'  1  Cor. 
 vii.  18,  19.  'If  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit  you 
 '  nothing.'  Gal.  v.  2.  They  would  see,  at  a  glance,  that  if 
 their  children  or,  at  least,  the  males  among  them,  were  not 
 to  be  introduced  into   the  gospel  dispensation  by  baptism, 
 
446         CHILDREN  OF  CONVERTS  BAPTIZED, 
 
 they  were  to  have  no  introduction  at  all ;  but  were  to  be 
 officially  and  ministerially  excluded  from  the  honours  and 
 blessings  granted  to  their  progenitors  in  the  Hebrew  economy; 
 as  if  some  fearful  ban  of  heaven  now,  for  the  first  time,  rested 
 on  the  rising  race !  Hence,  all  the  young  must  have  been 
 tacitly  excommunicated  and  degraded,  or  have  remained  in 
 their  old  associations,  while  their  parents  were  transferred  to 
 another — provided  Infant  Baptism  were  not  practised  in 
 apostolic  times,  or  unless  children  became  members  or  dis- 
 ciples of  Christianity,  without  any  baptism  or  introduction  at  all. 
 
 Had  such  been  really  the  fact,  would  it  not  have  excited 
 surprise,  regret,  and  earnest  inquiry  ?  Would  not  believing 
 parents  have  sorely  felt,  that  now  their  little  ones  were  totally 
 overlooked,  and  treated  as  nonentities,  in  a  way  they  had 
 never  been  before,  when  their  relation  to  God's  covenant  was 
 similar  to  their  own,  and  their  introduction  to  it  precisely  of 
 the  like  kind,  when  eight  days  old  ?  And  would  they  not  have 
 pressed  the  apostles,  or  their  coadjutors,  to  circumcise  or 
 baptize  their  children?  and,  if  refusing,  at  least,  to  state  good 
 reasons  for  their  non-compliance  ?  On  this  question,  there 
 can  hardly  be  a  second  opinion.  It  has  been  well  remarked, 
 '  That  a  pious  Jew,  whose  children  had  ever  been  associated 
 '  with  him  in  the  church  of  God,  before  the  establishment  of 
 '  Christianity,  would  have  felt  very  little  desire  to  be  united 
 '  with  the  apostles  in  a  society  from  which  their  children  were 
 '  to  be  systematically  excluded,  and  thereby  compelled  to 
 '  descend  to  a  lower  relative  condition  in  society  than  they 
 1  sustained  before.' 
 
 Indeed,  as  just  now  remarked,  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
 were  also  accustomed  to  have  their  children  associated  with 
 themselves  in  their  religious  rites,  by  a  formal  initiation  into 
 them  on  the  eighth  or  ninth  day  after  birth,  called  their  Lustral 
 Day,  or  the  day  of  their  purification — a  practice,  doubtless, 
 dating  from  a  very  remote  antiquity.  Had  the  religion  of 
 Christ  been  exhibited  even  to  them  in  the  stern  aspect  assumed 
 by  the  opponents  to  Infant  Baptism  ;  it  is  all  but  certain  they 
 would  have  been  nearly,  if  not  fully,  as  reluctant  as  the  Jews 
 to  identify  themselves  with  it  on  this  ground,  if  on  no  other 
 ■ — the  acceptance  of  themselves  as  members,  and  the  rejection 
 of  all  their  dear  children.  Assuredly,  they  would  have  felt  the 
 necessity  of  soliciting  the  reasons,  why  their  children  should 
 not  be  manifestly  their  fellow-heirs  of  the  gracious  favours  of 
 God  ?  And  if  they  were  to  be  so,  then,  why  should  not  their 
 dedication  to  the  Saviour  be  celebrated  with  all  accustomed 
 
OR  RELATIVELY  DEGRADED.  447 
 
 and  due  solemnity?  But  we  read  of  no  objections  or  inquiries 
 of  any  kind.  We  are  compelled,  therefore,  to  conclude,  that 
 the  children  of  the  first  Christians  were  not  placed  in  a 
 relative  position,  inferior  to  what  they  sustained  under  their 
 former  religious  systems. 
 
 To  strengthen  our  arguments  still  further  on  this  head,  we 
 remark,  that  the  converts  to  Christianity,  for  twelve  years 
 after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  were  nearly  all  Hebrews,  and 
 constituted  all  the  first  congregations  of  Christian  believers. 
 Theyr  were  not  composed  of  people  who  had  enjoyed  no 
 organized  scheme  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  such  as  may  be 
 found  in  some  savage  parts  of  the  world.  Their  former 
 religious  economy  was  of  God,  was  minutely  defined,  and 
 stamped  with  the  seal  of  heaven.  The  Almighty  had  spoken 
 to  their  fathers  in  Sinai,  and  commanded  them  concerning  all 
 he  designed  them  to  believe  and  to  do.  As  members  of  this 
 venerable,  heavenly,  and  endeared  religion,  stood  their  children, 
 side  by  side  with  themselves.  Had  these  been  expelled  from 
 their  former  elevated  state,  surely  these  jealous,  zealous,  and 
 excitable  people  would  have  created  a  stir  of  no  ordinary 
 intenseness  about  it.  Yet  these  Jews  were  all  at  peace  on 
 this  question.  They  felt  that  no  wrong  had  been  done  to 
 them,  or  to  their  offspring. 
 
 The  fact,  that  many,  if  not  most,  of  these  persons,  circum- 
 cised their  children,  does  not  account  for  their  silence.  For 
 this  was  known  to  be  introductory  to  the  covenant  of  Abraham, 
 to  be  the  seal  of  a  Hebrew,  and  not  initiatory  to  the  gospel 
 church,  nor,  indeed,  to  the  church  established  at  Sinai. 
 However  the  Jew  might  retain  circumcision,  by  which  his 
 children  were  recognized  as  the  descendants  of  the  father  of 
 the  faithful,  or  dedicated  to  the  God  of  Israel ;  he  would  feel 
 that  the  introduction  to  the  seminary  or  church  of  Christ  was 
 baptism  with  water,  into  the  name  of  Jesus  or,  of  the  Father, 
 Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  that,  by  this  ceremonial  alone,  he, 
 himself,  had  been  introduced  to  its  privileges,  honours,  and 
 obligations  ;  and  that,  without  this  rite,  though  his  children 
 might  be  regarded  as  Jews,  they  would  never  be  deemed 
 Christians.  It  was  this  baptismal  ceremony  they  would  covet 
 and  demand.  And  this  would  be  especially  the  case  with 
 those  more  enlightened  Israelites,  who  entirely  gave  up  circum- 
 cision— as,  doubtless,  some  of  the  better  instructed  of  them 
 did,  at  an  early  period,  and  all  their  successors  in  the  course 
 of  time. 
 
 A  remark  of  Dr.  Owen  is  worthy  of  solemn  consideration  : 
 
448  cheist's  love  to  children 
 
 '  If  God  denies  the  sign  to  the  infant  seed  of  believers,  it 
 'must  be,  because  he  denies  them  the  grace  of  it;  and  then, 
 '  all  the  children  of  believing  parents,'  [and  of  every  other,] 
 '  dying  in  their  infancy,  must  be,  without  hope,  eternally 
 '  damned.  I  do  not  say,  that  all  must  be  so,  who  are  not 
 1  baptized  ;  but  all  must  be  so,  whom  God  would  have  not 
 1  baptized.'  Works,  vol.  xxi.  p.  549.  If  God  deny  baptism 
 to  infants,  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  it  must  arise  from 
 their  incapacity  to  receive  the  thing  signified  by  it — a  new 
 heart  and  eternal  life.  Nor  can  we  imagine,  why  persons 
 should  so  strenuously  oppose  the  baptism  of  infants,  unless 
 they  deemed  them  incapable  of  receiving  the  grace  of  salvation, 
 or  that  it  might  prevent  their  doing  so.  Assuming  that 
 infants  could  not  be  at  all  benefitted  by  making  them  legatees 
 to  a  will,  or  by  making  them  tenants  for  life  in  an  estate,  or 
 by  conferring  upon  them  titles  to  future  honours  and  favours  ; 
 we  could  readily  account  for  persons  neglecting  or  opposing 
 these  acts  as  useless — but  on  no  other  principle — certainly 
 not,  because  of  any  positive  evils  arising  from  them  ;  for  none 
 could  legitimately  ensue.  But,  our  opponents  believe,  that 
 children  are  capable  of  being  regenerated  and  glorified,  and 
 that  baptism  will  never  keep  them  out  of  heaven.  Whence, 
 then,  their  hostility  ?  Evidently,  a  misconception  of  God's 
 revealed  will  in  the  matter,  and  a  conscientious  abhorrence  of 
 the  abuse  to  which  this  ordinance,  in  common  with  every 
 other,  has  been  subject.  But,  this  abuse  is  not  inherent  in 
 the  service.  Mr.  Pengelly  says,  '  Persons  dying  incapable  of 
 '  faith  in  Christ,  are,  without  doubt,  saved,  not  by  water,  nor 
 '  by  the  work  of  man ;  but,  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  by 
 1  the  power  of  the  Spirit.'  p.  71.  By  the  power  of  the  Spirit, 
 must  be  meant,  what  is  called  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  of 
 which  water-baptism  is  the  type.  Why,  then,  should  this  latter 
 be  injurious  ?     And  why  such  opposition  to  Infant  Baptism  ? 
 
 Observation  II. —  They  would  be  at  a  loss  to  harmonize 
 the  Saviour's  avowed  love  to  the  young  with  their  exclusion 
 from  the  only  rite  that  coidd  officially  distinguish  and 
 benefit  them. — Under  the  former  dispensations,  the  kindness 
 of  God  was  displayed  towards  them  in  various  forms ; 
 intimating  that  they  were  the  objects  of  divine  love  and 
 care.  This  affection  was  manifested  by  his  having  circum- 
 cised or  baptized  them,  or  both ;  and  thereby  inducting 
 them  into  the  highest  relative  privileges  and  honours  of 
 which  they  were  capable.  This  the  Christian  converts  well 
 knew.    At  the  same  time,  they  knew  that  the  Saviour,  when 
 
WOULD  LEAD  TO  TIIEHl  BAPTISM.  449 
 
 on  earth,  had  also  exhibited  great  love  toward  children,  had 
 set  them  up  as  patterns  of  docility,  and  humbleness  of  mind, 
 even  to  his  twelve  chief  disciples  ;  had  declared,  that  of  such 
 is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  that  out  of  the  mouth  of 
 babes  and  sucklings,  God  perfected  praise.  But,  if  they  were 
 not  baptized,  and  brought  into  a  visible  covenant  relation  to  the 
 general  body  of  his  followers  ;  the  latter  would  see,  that  this 
 love  issued  in  no  single  apparent  act  of  recognition  as  of  old; 
 and  that,  in  this  omission,  there  was  a  marvellous  change  in 
 the  divine  procedure,  under  the  gospel,  compared  with  that 
 under  the  law,  and  even  before  the  time  of  Moses.  They 
 would  consider  their  little  ones  relatively  reduced  from  their 
 former  standing,  and  religious  privileges.  The  result  would 
 certainly  be,  inquiry  and  answers,  remonstrance  and  vindi- 
 cation. But,  strange  to  say,  not  a  word  of  the  kind  is  heard 
 from  the  lips  of  the  Christian  Israelites  any  more  than  from 
 those  converted  from  heathenism.  Can  this  be  accounted  for, 
 in  any  other  way,  than  by  taking  it  for  granted,  that  the 
 children  were  baptized  as  well  as  their  parents — who  would 
 experience  the  most  lively  interest  in  the  spiritual  good  of 
 their  families,  and  in  their  recognition  of  them  as  parts  of 
 the  great  Christian  community.  The  pleasure  which  most, 
 if  not  all,  affectionate  parents  feel,  when  attention  is  paid, 
 or  kindness  shown,  to  their  children,  is  well  known ; 
 and,  doubtless,  those  in  the  church  at  Corinth  were 
 endowed  with  this  apparently  universal  property  of  human 
 nature. 
 
 On  the  text,  '  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and 
 '  forbid  them  not ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God; '  ]\Iark 
 x.  14  ;  Dr.  Halley  justly  observes  : — '  Had  our  Lord  said  of 
 '  these,  his  words  might  have  been  limited  to  those  children 
 '  specifically  ;  but  the  words,  of  such,  clearly  refer  to  children 
 'generally — all  such  children.  The  words  are,  surely,  not  to 
 '  be  expounded,  as  meaning  that  these  children  were  not  of 
 1  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  So  to  expound  them,  would  be  a 
 '  wonderful  instance  of  making  the  art  and  mystery  of 
 '  hermeneutics '  [or  criticism]  '  explain  away  the  obvious 
 '  sense  of  the  passage.  Can  any  one  imagine  our  Lord  is  to  be 
 '  understood  as  saying,  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me  ; 
 '  for,  although  they  are  not  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  yet 
 '  men  and  women  of  similar  dispositions  are  ?  If  these 
 '  children  themselves  did  not  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
 '  the  words  of  our  Lord  assign  no  reason  for  suffering  them  to 
 '  approach  him.     He,  the  King  in  Zion,  publicly  acknowledges 
 
450  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIANS  WOULD  WISH 
 
 '  them  as  his  own  subjects,  and  proclaims  their  title  in  the 
 'most  unequivocal  terms.'  vol.  ii.  p.  63. 
 
 Dr.  Wall,  referring  to  Matt,  xviii.  5  ;  Mark  ix.  37  ;  Luke 
 ix.  48  ;  says,  '  Our  Saviour,  holding  a  little  child  in  his  arms, 
 '  and  saying  to  his  disciples,  "  Whosoever  shall  receive  this 
 'child"  [in  Matthew  and  Mark  it  is  'one  such  little  child,' 
 or,  'one  of  such  children']  "in  my  name,  receiveth  me." 
 '  The  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  "  receive,"  in  the  books 
 '  of  the  New  Testament,  even  where  it  stands  alone,  is  well 
 'known  to  all  readers  of  Scripture,  to  be,  "  to  receive,  or 
 '  admit,  to  a  brotherhood  or  fellowship  in  Christianity  ;  "  as, 
 '  (to  name  one  place  of  forty,)  Eom.  xv.  7,  St.  Paul  commands 
 '  those  dissenters  in  opinions  "  to  receive  one  another."  But, 
 '  when  Christ,  moreover,  adds  here  these  words,  "  in  my 
 'name,"  it  more  plainly  still  imports,  that  they  should  be 
 '  received  to  be  his  members  or  his  children,  belonging  to 
 '  him,  or,  as  I  once  before  deduced,  the  import  of  the  like 
 '  phrase,  as  Tou  Christou  antes,  being  Christ's,  or  Christians.' 
 vol.  iii.  p.  387. 
 
 If  these  citations  present  a  correct  view  of  the  language  of 
 our  Lord,  (and  I  hardly  see  how  it  can  be  doubted)  ;  and  if 
 the  Corinthians  understood  it  in  this  sense  ;  would  they  not 
 have  expected,  that  their  children  should  be  taken  into  the 
 society  of  Christians,  or  be  admitted  among  the  disciples  of 
 Christ  ?  And,  if  so  introduced,  their  baptism  becomes  all 
 but  unquestionable.  Those  who  suppose  our  Lord  exhibited 
 these  children  simply  to  show  that  men  and  women  must  be 
 as  meek,  humble,  and  gentle,  as  these  children,  before  they 
 can  enter  the  kingdom  of  God ;  might  fairly  assume,  that, 
 had  he  taken  a  dove  in  his  hand,  or  a  lamb  in  his  bosom, 
 the  same  end  would  have  been  equally  answered ! 
 
 Observation  III. —  That  baptized  parents  would  feel 
 anxious  for  the  baptism  of  their  children,  from  its  supposed 
 personal  benefits.  —  However  lightly  some  persons  may  estimate 
 Infant  Baptism  ;  and  however  others,  from  education,  pre- 
 judice, or  denominational  connexions,  may  be  opposed  to  it, 
 in  the  present  day  ;  we  may  rest  assured,  that  the  mass  of 
 early  proselytes  to  the  gospel  would  be  of  a  very  different 
 mind.  This  would  arise,  not  merely  from  the  fact,  that 
 children  had  long  been  circumcised,  and  their  forefathers, 
 and  foremothers  baptized  in  their  infancy,  but  from  the 
 privileges  they  would  associate  with  this  rite,  when  personally 
 received.  On  reading  several  gospel  declarations  about 
 baptism,  in  various  parts  of  the  New  Testament,  and,  doubtless, 
 
TIIKIR  CHILDREN  TO  BE  BAPTIZED.  451 
 
 hearing  much  on  the  same  topic ;  their  anxiety  to  have  their 
 own  children  baptized  would  he  considerably  stimulated. 
 Nor,  would  their  wishes  be  less  intense,  because,  in  the 
 absence  of  inspired  men  to  explain  their  own  epistles  and 
 observations,  like  more  learned  persons  in  our  own  times, 
 they  would  attribute  results  to  this  ordinance  which  were 
 never  intended  by  the  sacred  writers.  Take  a  few  passages 
 as  examples:  —  'Except  a  man' — any  one — 'be  born  of 
 '  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
 '  God.'  John  iii.  5.  '  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized, 
 '  shall  be  saved.'  Mark  xvi.  16.  'The  like  figure  whereunto 
 'baptism  doth  now  save  us.'  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  'All  the  people 
 'were  baptized  of  John.'  Luke  iii.  21.  'Arise,  and  be 
 'baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins.'  Acts  xxii.  16.  'So 
 '  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  '  \_eis,  or  unto]  '  Jesus 
 '  Christ,  were  baptized  into  '  [eis,  or  unto]  'his  death.'  Rom. 
 vi.  3.  'Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach'  [proselyte]  'all  nations,' 
 [by]  '  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
 'Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 
 
 A  common-place  view  of  these  passages,  or  of  the  like 
 sentiments  taught  by  inspired  men,  must  have  led  many  persons 
 of  ordinary  spiritual  discernment — those  who  were  themselves 
 but  babes  in  Christ,  and  not  a  few  of  whom  needed  to  be 
 taught  what  were  the  first  principles  of  the  oracles  of  God, 
 especially  in  the  Corinthian  congregation — to  attach  great 
 importance  to  baptism,  and  to  imagine  that  some  considerable, 
 if  not  saving,  benefit  might  be  derived  from  it.  Even  learned 
 divines  of  the  present  day  do  the  like.  Nor  would  the  logical 
 acumen  of  the  first  imperfectly- taught  Christian  converts  have 
 necessarily  preserved  them  from  similiar  conclusions.  Hence, 
 they  would  most  earnestly  desire  that  their  beloved  children 
 should  participate  in  this  sacrament,  in  order  to  obtain  the 
 supposed  attendant  benefits.  At  all  events,  as  previously 
 noted,  inquiries  would  be  instituted  on  the  question,  and 
 responses  would  be  given  ;  and  both,  doubtless  —  as  in  the 
 matter  about  circumcising  the  children  of  converted  gentiles — 
 would  have  found  a  place  in  the  chronicle  of  the  Acts  of  the 
 Apostles  —  that  is,  provided  Infant  Baptism  were  neglected  or 
 condemned  by  the  first  ministers  of  Christ.  But  no  such 
 inquiries  are  found,  no  such  difficulties  were  felt ;  and, 
 therefore,  we  again  conclude,  that  their  children  must  have 
 been  baptized.  We  have  no  reason  to  infer,  that  the  early 
 Christians  would  not  regard  the  baptism  of  their  own  children 
 with  as  much  interest  as  the  ancient  Hebrews  regarded  the 
 
452  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIANS  Y>70ULD  WISH. 
 
 circumcision  of  theirs,  and  have  felt  as  desirous  that  the 
 little  ones  should  undergo  this  gospel  ceremony  as  the  Jews 
 had  felt  concerning  the  circumcision  and  baptism  of  their 
 children.  History  assures  us  that  such  was  the  case  in  after 
 years ;  and  we  can  conceive  of  no  reasons  for  supposing  that 
 it  was  not  the  same  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  But,  if 
 children  were  actually  baptized,  without  noise  or  notice,  and 
 as  a  matter  of  course  or  of  custom,  by  the  disciples  or  apostles 
 of  Christ,  as  they  had  been  circumcised  and  baptized,  for 
 many  previous  centuries,  by  Hebrew  priests,  without  any 
 specific  record  of  even  a  single  instance,  the  silence  of  the 
 Corinthians,  and  of  all  other  Christian  parents,  is  readily 
 accounted  for ;  but  it  can  be  on  no  other  reasonable  grounds. 
 
 Our  opponents  attribute  the  origin  and  spread  of  Infant 
 Baptism,  in  the  post-apostolic  churches,  to  the  misunder- 
 standing of  the  words  of  our  Lord,  in  his  conversation  with 
 Nicodemus.  Mr.  Gibbs  observes,  '  The  practice  of  baptizing 
 '  infants  arose  out  of  a  belief,  that  baptism  was  absolutely 
 '  necessary  to  salvation ;  and  upon  this  principle  it  was 
 '  strenuously  defended  by  all  the  early  Pedobaptists :  they 
 '  ascribed  to  the  baptismal  water,  the  power  of  illuminating, 
 'sanctifying,  and  regenerating  the  soul,  and  thus  they  led  the 
 '  people  to  conclude,  that  unless  they  and  their  children  were 
 '  baptized,  they  could  not  be  saved.'  He  then  quotes  several 
 expressions,  to  confirm  his  views,  from  Justin  Martyr,  Ireneus, 
 Clemens,  and  Tertullian  ;  adding,  '  This  opinion,  respecting 
 '  the  necessity  of  baptism,  originated,  probably,  in  a  miscon- 
 '  ception  of  our  Lord's  words,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of 
 '  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of 
 '  God."  The  early  Fathers  evidently  considered,  that,  to  be 
 '  born  of  water,  referred  to  baptism  ;  and  that  the  kingdom 
 1  of  God  meant  a  state  of  future  happiness  ;  and,  hence,  they 
 '  concluded,  that  no  man  could  be  saved  unless  he  was  baptized, 
 'an  inference  which  is  correct,  if  the  premises  are  admitted.' 
 p.  255.  Mr.  J.  Stennett  adduces  the  same  argument.  He 
 says,  '  It  ought  to  be  considered  that  this  custom '  [of  baptizing 
 infants]  '  seems  to  have  taken  its  rise  from  a  misinterpretation 
 '  of  those  words  of  our  Saviour,  Except,  &c.'  p.  73. 
 
 But  the  real  question  here  is,  When  did  this  belief  first 
 arise?  For  it  seems,  that  Justin,  Clemens,  Tertullian,  &c. — 
 all  real  primitive  fathers — who  lived  near  the  beginning  of 
 the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  found  this  rite  very  general,  or 
 even  universal,  in  the  churches.  Were  not  the  Corinthian 
 Christians,  and  their  contemporary  religionists,   as  likely  to 
 
THEIR  CHILDREN'  TO  RE  RAPTIZED.  4")3 
 
 entertain  similar  notions,  respecting  the  saving  virtues  of 
 baptism,  as  these  learned  and  lauded  fathers,  or  as  any  persons 
 living  in  the  intermediate  period  ?  If  the  practice  arose  from 
 a  desire  in  parents  to  save  the  souls  of  their  infants,  it  was 
 as  likely  to  have  sprung  up  in  the  times  of  the  apostles  as 
 afterwards.  It  is  certain,  that  many  other  notions,  contrary 
 to  the  pure  and  simple  gospel,  originated  in  their  day  ;  since 
 much  in  Paul's  letters  to  them  was  written  in  order  to  expose 
 and  counteract  them. 
 
 Can  Mr.  Gibhs,  or  any  of  his  brethren,  fix  on  the  origin  of 
 Infant  Baptism,  during  any  part  of  the  second  century?  If 
 not,  may  we  not  look  for  it  in  the  first — to  nearly  the  close 
 of  which  the  life  of  John  the  Evangelist  is  said  to  have 
 been  protracted  ?  And,  if  in  any  part  of  this  age,  why  not 
 near  the  middle  of  it ;  provided  it  were  a  new  practice  in  the 
 churches  ?  And,  had  such  a  gross  heresy  and  deadly  evil,  as 
 our  opponents  regard  it,  been  introduced,  on  the  most  limited 
 scale,  on  such  false  and  sinful  grounds  ;  is  it  not  probable  we 
 should  have  heard,  if  but  a  few  words,  from  Peter  or  Paul, 
 or  James  or  John,  in  condemnation  of  a  rite  so  bad,  so 
 puerile,  so  absurd,  so  destructive  to  the  souls  of  men — a  rite, 
 so  likely,  and  even  so  certain,  to  spread  all  over  Christendom, 
 and  to  enter  into  every  converted  family — at  least,  where  the 
 parents  devoutly  loved  their  little  ones,  but  who  did  not 
 understand  the  Gospel  of  Christ  on  this  question  or,  in  the 
 same  sense,  as  our  present  Antipedobaptist  brethren ! 
 
 If,  moreover,  Infant  Baptism  be,  and  early  became,  such 
 a  fearful  and  widely  diffused  evil  as  our  antagonists  aver, 
 deluding  and  destroying  human  souls  in  untold  numbers  ; 
 and,  as  the  Spirit. of  God  must  have  clearly  foreseen  this 
 gigantic  and  wide-spreading  mischief;  does  it  not  seem  re- 
 markable, that  the  saints  were  not  forewarned  against  it,  as 
 they  were  against  other  rising,  and  not  more  ruinous,  notions 
 and  practices  ?  Men  were  put  on  their  guard  against  Anti- 
 christ, the  Man  of  Sin,  bad  people,  and  unchristian  conduct. 
 Paul  says  to  Timothy,  '  This  know  also,  that  in  the  last  days, 
 '  perilous  times  shall  come.  For  men  shall  be  lovers  of  their 
 '  own  selves,  covetous,  boasters,  proud,  blasphemers,  dis- 
 '  obedient  to  parents,  unthankful,  unholy,  without  natural 
 '  affection,  trucebreakers,  false  accusers,  incontinent,  fierce, 
 '  despisers  of  those  that  are  good,  traitors,  heady,  highminded, 
 4  lovers  of  pleasure  more  than  lovers  of  God  ;  having  a  form 
 'of  godliness,  but  denying  the  power  thereof;  from  such 
 '  turn  away.'  2  Tim.  iii.  1-5.     But,  in  this  long  and  apparently 
 
454  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIANS  WOULD  WISH 
 
 complete  enumeration  of  coming  iniquities,  nor  in  any  other 
 found  in  the  New  Testament,  do  we  find  the  term  Pedobaptists, 
 nor  a  single  intimation,  that  the  heresy  of  Infant  Baptism 
 would  hereafter  spring  up  in  the  congregations  of  professing 
 Christians  ;  and  should  be  avoided  as  one  of  the  awful  and 
 fearful  evils  and  mischiefs  of  later  times.  In  truth,  there  are 
 few  false  doctrines  or  doings  in  Christendom,  against  which 
 we  are  not  premonished  and  forearmed  in  the  Word  of  God. 
 And  yet,  marvellous  as  it  may  appear,  one  of  the  greatest 
 evils  of  all,  if  our  Baptist  opponents  are  to  be  credited — 
 Infant  Baptism — though  clearly  foreseen  by  the  omniscient 
 God,  is,  without  a  word,  guarding  his  people  against  adopting 
 such  a  soul-deluding  and  soul-destroying  practice  !  While, 
 on  the  other  hand,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  numerous  hints  and 
 intimations  are  given  us,  in  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
 that  such  a  ceremony  had  been  common  in  the  congregations 
 of  God  for  full  sixteen  hundred  years! 
 
 Again,  it  is  clear  that  the  first  converts  from  Judaism  and 
 idolatry  to  Christianity  were  as  likely  to  fall  into  the  error — 
 if  it  be  one — of  having  their  children  formally  inducted  to 
 the  new  system  of  religion  with  themselves,  as  any  that 
 succeeded :  in  fact,  even  more  so,  provided  it  were  not 
 practised  in  apostolic  times.  If,  during  the  first  age  of 
 Christianity,  such  perverted  views  of  certain  texts  of  Scripture 
 had  not  been  adopted  or  acted  upon,  the  succeeding  community 
 would  have  become  fully  indoctrinated  in  Antipedobaptist 
 opinions,  and  accustomed  to  a  different  course ;  and  the 
 commencement  of  baptizing  children,  say,  in  the  second 
 century,  would  have  been  a  matter  of  immense  difficulty,  and 
 been  regarded  as  an  unauthorized  and  sinful  innovation; 
 while,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  the  obstacles  to  the 
 introduction  of  such  a  novel  institution  would  have  been 
 increasingly  augmented  among  all  the  sincere  disciples  of 
 Christ — and  opposed  by  them  with  the  utmost  determination. 
 On  the  first  formation  of  Christian  societies,  by  persons  whose 
 children  had,  up  to  that  moment,  been  joint-members  with 
 themselves  of  their  previous  religious  associations,  and  where 
 the  proselyte  baptism  of  whole  families  was  of  frequent 
 occurrence ;  the  union,  in  question,  would  have  been  expected, 
 and  contended  for  ;  and,  of  course,  no  surprise  would  have 
 been  felt  by  any  one  at  its  observance.  The  innovation,  if 
 such  it  were,  would  have  been  easy  at  first ;  but  almost 
 impracticable  two  hundred  years  afterwards.  We  also  know, 
 that,    supposing    an    erroneous   interpretation    of    scriptural 
 
TIIFIR  CHILDREN  TO  BE  BAPTIZED.  455 
 
 language  induced  the  baptizing  of  children,  the  first  converts 
 from  the  Jews  and  the  gentiles  were  as  likely  to  fall  into  it 
 as  any  of  their  followers  ;  for  it  is,  on  all  hands  admitted, 
 that  the  baptism  of  children  was  common,  if  not  universal, 
 among  the  Hebrews  and  heathens,  while  in  their  former 
 condition,  and  up  to  the  time  of  Christ,  and  even  to  the  day 
 of  their  conversion  to  Christianity.  As  just  said,  their  views, 
 on  many  points,  were  very  erroneous,  and  their  mistakes 
 quite  flagrant,  particularly  on  the  question  of  the  efficacy  of 
 religious  rites,  ceremonies,  and  priestly  ablutions.  This  we 
 gather  from  the  contents  of  Paul's  epistles  to  the  Corinthians, 
 ice.  —  epistles  sent  purposely  to  correct  their  numerous  blunders. 
 See  Mosheim's  Ece.  Hist.  cent.  ii.  pt.  ii.  chap.  iii.  In  a  word, 
 Christian  Infant  Baptism,  if  not  of  divine  appointment,  was 
 more  likely  to  have  originated  among  the  first  converts  to  the 
 gospel,  than  among  any  of  its  subsequent  adherents  ;  and  if 
 it  did  not  actually  commence  with  them,  the  difficulties  of  its 
 doing  so  would  have  been  immensely  enhanced  in  every 
 succeeding  age,  however  superstitious  the  professors  of 
 Christianity  might  have  become. 
 
 Further,  whatever  dispute  may  have  arisen,  as  to  whether 
 the  Jewish  proselytes  were  of  two  classes — those  of  the  gate 
 and  those  of  righteousness — or  only  of  one,  those  made  such 
 by  circumcision  and  baptism  ;  or  respecting  the  characters 
 and  attainments  of  the  strangers  incorporated  with  the  Hebrew 
 people  ;  or  whether  the  converts  to  Israel  were  sprinkled, 
 or  dipped,  or  both  ;  I  believe  none  has  occurred,  at  least,  of 
 late  years,  as  to  the  fact,  that  after  the  apostolic  age,  the 
 Jews  received  no  proselytes  except  by  baptism.  The  admissions 
 made  by  our  Baptist  brethren,  and  cited  in  a  previous  section, 
 render  it  needless  to  quote  further  authorities  in  proof  of  this 
 practice  among  that  people.  Now,  the  question  is,  How,  then, 
 came  the  Jews,  after  the  apostolic  times,  to  baptize  all  proselytes 
 ■ — including  old  and  young,  male  and  female — as  proved  also 
 in  a  preceding  part  of  this  treatise  ?  Two  motives  only  can 
 be  assigned  for  their  doing  so — to  imitate  the  Christians,  or 
 to  follow  the  practice  of  their  venerated  ancestors.  '  The 
 '  great  improbability  of  the  Jews  adopting,  for  the  first  time 
 '  subsequently  to  the  death  of  Christ,  a  religious  rite  which 
 1  was  well  known  to  be  the  initiatory  rite  to  Christianity,'  is 
 manifest  to  all  thinking  people.  'Assuming,  that  the  Jews 
 '  practised  that  rite  before,  we  can  account  for  their  not  giving 
 '  it  up  simply  because  the  Christians  had  adopted  it ;  but, 
 '  trace  it  as  we  please  to  Jewish  customs  and  rites  ;  it  seems 
 
456  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIANS  WOULD  WISn 
 
 1  utterly  incredible,  that,  after  it  had  become  the  symbol  and 
 '  badge  of  the  religious  party,  which,  of  all  others,  perhaps, 
 '  the  Jews  most  bitterly  hated,  any  consideration  whatever 
 '  should  have  induced  them  to  begin  to  practise  it.  On  the 
 '  other  hand,  we  have  in  favour  of  the  hypothesis,  that  prose- 
 '  lyte  baptism  was  practised  anterior  to  the  time  of  our  Lord, 
 '  some  strong  and  corroborative  evidence ' — which  has  been 
 adduced  in  its  proper  place.  Kitto's  Cyc.  Bib.  Lit.  in  loc. 
 
 Wherefore,  as  we  cannot  account  for  the  custom  of  the 
 Jews  baptizing  their  proselytes,  after  the  commencement  of 
 the  Christian  era,  except  by  tracing  it  back  even  to  the  times 
 of  Moses  ;  so  it  is  impossible  fairly  to  account  for  the  baptism 
 of  children  unto  Christianity,  not  long  after  the  death  of  the 
 apostles,  without  tracing  it  up  to  the  times  in  which  they 
 lived  and  preached  the  gospel.  That  the  early  followers  of  Christ 
 did  not  copy  the  practice  from  the  heathen,  is  unquestionable. 
 That  they  did  not  invent  it  so  soon,  and  adopt  it  so  universally, 
 is  equally  manifest.  Hence,  our  conclusion  is,  that  they 
 followed  the  traditions  of  their  fathers,  who  received  directions 
 immediately  from  the  apostles,  and  who,  under  '  divine  advice,' 
 followed  the  custom  long  observed  among  the  ancient  children 
 of  Israel. 
 
 It  is  further  worthy  of  note,  that,  according  to  Dr.  Kitto, 
 '  There  is  no  direct  evidence  that  this  rite  '  [proselyte  baptism] 
 '  was  practised  by  the  Jews  before  the  second  or  third  century 
 '  of  the  Christian  era  ;  but,  that  it  was  practised  by  them 
 '  then,  necessitates  the  inquiry,  when  and  how  did  such  a 
 '  custom  arise  among  them  ?  '  lb.  According  to  Mr.  Noel 
 and  his  brethren,  this  ceremonial  was  common  among  the 
 Jews  in  the  time  of  Christ.  '  Every  one  was  familiar  with 
 '  the  baptismal  rite,  every  one  talked  of  it ;  it  admitted 
 '  proselytes  into  communion  with  the  Jews. .  .  .Jewish  women 
 1  were  accustomed  to  witness  the  baptism  of  female  proselytes 
 1  . .  . .  The  baptism  of  proselytes  was  practised  by  the  Jews  in 
 '  the  time  of  our  Lord.'  Yet,  no  direct  mention  is  made  of 
 it  for  at  least  a  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the  last 
 apostle.  It  was  practised  all  that  time,  and,  still,  no  evidence 
 of  it  is  left  on  record !  And,  still,  on  the  lack  of  direct 
 evidence  of  Infant  Baptism,  during  the  same  time,  our 
 opponents  base  one  of  their  best  arguments  against  the 
 practice  of  this  rite  during  the  apostolic  age.  But,  it  seems, 
 that  had  it  been  as  notorious  and  familiar,  as  Mr.  Noel's 
 proselyte  dipping,  from  John  the  Baptist  to  the  death  of  John 
 the  apostle,  it  might  not  have  been  mentioned  till  the  second 
 
THEIR  CHILDREN  TO  BE  BAPTIZ1  D.  457 
 
 cr  third  century  of  the  Christian  era,  without  anything  very 
 incongruous  and  singular  in  the  case — just  as  circumcision 
 and  baptism  were  continuously  practised,  under  the  law,  for 
 hundreds  of  years,  without  a  single  record  of  them  being 
 i  in  the  Old  Testament. 
 
 It  is  well  known,  to  all  persons  acquainted  with  the 
 proceedings  of  the  early  churches  and  their  office-hearers, 
 that,  when  any  matter  of  heresy,  disorder,  or  breach  of  the 
 early  traditions  of  religion  occurred,  especially  if  deemed  of 
 moment  by  the  holy  men  and  ministers  of  the  age  ;  convo- 
 cations of  pastors,  then  designated  bishops,  or  presbyters, 
 were  convened,  the  innovations  discussed,  and  resolutions 
 arrived  at  and  published  for  the  information  and  guidance  of 
 the  Christian  public.  Some  of  these  meetings  were  called 
 confessedly  about  topics  which  to  us  appear  of  very  minor 
 interest,  if  not  quite  non-essential — as  concerning  the  precise 
 day  of  keeping  Easter,  and  others  not  much  more  momentous. 
 But,  strange  to  tell,  Infant  Baptism  creeps  into  the  churches, 
 spreads  widely,  and  does  a  world  of  mischief;  and  yet,  not 
 a  single  gathering  of  the  Christian  Fathers  is  convened  to 
 expose  and  suppress  it !  Of  all  the  evils  that  ever  assailed 
 the  cause  of  Christ,  this,  Dr.  Byron  and  others  tell  us,  is 
 among  the  worst,  if  it  be  not  the  parent,  of  every  other ;  while 
 not  a  single  convocation  is  held  to  do  it  away  !  A  fearful 
 practice,  it  is  said,  sprang  up  in  the  second  or  third  century, 
 utterly  unknown  to  the  apostles  and  their  immediate  disciples; 
 and  is  allowed  to  continue  even  without  a  single  recorded 
 meeting  to  check  its  growth !  A  council  of  bishops  was 
 called,  it  is  true,  about  Infant  Baptism,  in  the  year  253  ;  but, 
 marvellous  to  relate,  it  was  to  settle  the  important  question, 
 - — whether  children  must  be  baptized  precisely  on  the  eighth 
 day  after  their  birth — or  whether  they  might  undergo  the 
 ceremony  before  or  after  that  day.  But  not  a  word  escapes 
 these  reverend  divines  condemning  their  being  baptized  in 
 their  childhood !  Alas  !  if  our  Baptist  brethren  are  right 
 respecting  the  origin  and  the  evils  of  Infant  Baptism,  the 
 early  pastors  and  churches  were  assuredly  most  grossly 
 ignorant,  or  indifferent  about  the  truth,  or  they  wickedly 
 connived  at  a  most  pernicious  and  soul-destroying  delusion. 
 Beader,  '  Believest  thou  this?' 
 
 There  is  another  circumstance  confirmatory  of  the  idea,  that 
 an  institution  may  be  long  observed  by  the  Church  of  God, 
 while  most  of  its  administrators  omit  to  chronicle  the  fact. 
 '  It  is  somewhat  strange  that,  in  consulting  the  writings  of 
 
 U 
 
453  THE  FIRST  CHEISTIANS  ASSOCIATED 
 
 '  the  apostolical  Fathers,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Lord's 
 '  supper  in  Barnabas,  Polycarp,  or  Clement  of  Eome,  but  only 
 '  in  the  writings  of  Ignatius  is  there  any  reference  to  the 
 '  subject;  and  even  supposing  the  passages  to  be  genuine, which 
 '  has  been  doubted,  the  allusions  are  slight  and  very  general. 
 '  Most  of  the  early  apologists  of  Christianity  also  are  silent  as 
 '  to  this  ordinance.  Justin  Martyr,  however,  has  given  two 
 '  descriptions  of  the  ordinance  in  nearly  the  same  words.' 
 Faiths  of  the  World.  That  Christ  instituted  the  Lord's 
 supper  is  certain  ;  that  it  was  duly  observed  when  Christian 
 societies  were  gathered  and  organized,  or  during  the  later 
 part  of  the  apostolic  age  ;  we  think  our  opponents  will  not 
 deny.  Yet,  only  the  slightest  and  vaguest  notice  of  it  is 
 recorded  by  only  one  out  of  four  of  the  earliest  men  of  note, 
 subsequent  to  the  death  of  the  first  apostles.  In  this  respect 
 the  Lord's  supper  is  about  parallel  to  that  of  Infant  Baptism — 
 which  is  scarcely  mentioned,  as  having  been  practised  during 
 the  time  above  referred  to,  though  it  was  undoubtedly  duly 
 observed  all  the  while,  equally  with  the  Lord's  supper. 
 
 Observation*  IV. — Many,  if  not  all,  the  converts  to 
 Christianity  did  really  associate  their  children  with  them- 
 selves in  their  religious  professions. — This  was  done,  at 
 least,  through  circumcision,  and,  we  assume,  also  through 
 water-baptism.  Twenty-five  years  after  the  day  of  pentecost 
 many  thousands  of  the  Jews,  who  believed  in  Christ  as  the 
 Messiah,  were  zealous  of  the  law,  and  complained  of  the 
 apostle  Paul  for  teaching  the  gentiles  that  their  children 
 ought  not  to  be  circumcised.  Acts  xxi.  20,  21.  Serious 
 contentions  were  the  result  of  this  charge  against  the  apostle 
 of  the  gentiles.  Hence,  the  circumcision  of  their  own  Jewish 
 children  is  apparent  beyond  all  doubt ;  and,  therefore,  the 
 religious  association  of  their  children  with  themselves  is 
 morally  demonstrated.  The  practice  of  circumcising  the 
 children  of  believing  Hebrews  was  then  evidently  acquiesced 
 in  by  the  apostle  ;  and,  doubtless,  it  continued  many  years 
 longer,  till  the  parties  became  more  simply  Christian  and 
 better  enlightened,  or  their  national  policy  came  to  an  end, 
 and  weakened  their  respect  for  this  ancient  introductory  rite. 
 See  also  chap.  xv.  1,  5.  The  administration  of  this  ceremony 
 to  the  children  of  the  gentile  proselytes  was,  at  the  same 
 time,  strenuously  advocated  and  insisted  on  by  the  Judaizing 
 brethren  ;  while  yet  firmly  resisted  by  the  great  apostle. 
 
 '  That  the  Mosaic  ceremonies,'  says  Mr.  Hall,  '  were  uni- 
 •  versally  practised  by  the  believers  of  Jewish  extraction,  is 
 
THEIR  CHILDREN  WITH  THEMSELYES.  459 
 
 '  manifest  from  various  parts  of  Scripture  ;  and  with  respect 
 '  to  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  is  especially  affirmed  by  James. 
 '  "  Thou  seest,  brother,"  said  be,  addressing  Paul,  "  how 
 'many  thousand"  [myriads  of]  "Jews  are  there  who  believe, 
 '  and  they  are  all  zealous  for  the  law."  The  apostle  of  tbe 
 lies,  with  all  his  zeal  in  the  assertion  of  their  liberties, 
 'conformed  to  them  himself;  partly  from  respect  to  the 
 '  Jewish  people,  whom  he  was  most  anxious,  by  every  lawful 
 1  compliance,  to  conciliate,  and  partly  from  a  tender  consider- 
 '  ation  of  the  infirmities  of  his  weaker  brethren,  not  yet 
 '  sufficiently  confirmed  in  the  freedom  of  the  gospel.  .  .  .But, 
 '  while  he  displayed  this  amiable  and  condescending  spirit,  he 
 '  never  disguised  his  convictions,  that  the  obligation  attached 
 '  to  the  Mosaic  rites  was  dissolved,  and  that  the  gospel  was 
 'alone  the  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  p.  272. 
 
 It  is  evident,  says  Mr.  Jerram,  that  the  Christian  Jews 
 '  took  it  for  granted  that  they  already  constituted  the  true 
 '  church,  and  that  Christianity  was  to  be  grafted  upon  it ; 
 '  that  theirs  was  the  parent  stock,  and  that  the  religion  cf 
 '  Christ  was  to  grow  out  of  it ;  that  there  was  nothing  to 
 '  surrender,'but  something  to  add  ;  that  it  was  precisely  the 
 '  same  religion,  only  under  a  somewhat  different  modification; 
 '  and  that  the  transition  to  what  was  novel  in  tbe  system,  was 
 '  really  made  by  a  compliance  with  a  rite  with  which  they 
 '  had  always  been  familiar  ;  and  that  baptism  was  appointed  ' 
 [perpetuated]  '  as  the  external  badge  of  the  new  profession.' 
 p.  61.  We  also  learn,  that  the  great  body  of  professing 
 converts  to  Christianity,  during,  at  least,  the  first  quarter  of 
 a' century  after  the  Saviour's  ascension,  never  appear  to  have 
 imagined  that  their  children  were  not  to  be  reckoned  with 
 themselves,  as  members  of  the  general  church,  as  they  had 
 always  been  previous  to  their  becoming  Christians.  Not  a 
 word,  concerning  the  excommunication  of  their  little  ones, 
 had  ever  been  heard.  Had  such  an  excision  been  even 
 hinted  at  by  their  teachers,  there  would  have  been  far  more 
 heat  and  contention  among  them,  than  arose  from  discovering 
 that  the  children  of  gentile  converts  were  admitted  to  religious 
 privileges  without  circumcision. 
 
 '  The  great  object  of  the  Judaizing  teachers,'  observe 
 '  Conybeare  and  Howson,  '  was  to  turn  tbe  newly- converted 
 '  Christians  into  Jewish  proselytes,  who  should  differ  from 
 '  other  Jews  only  in  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Messiab. 
 '  In  their  view  the  natural  posterity  of  Abraham  were  still  as 
 '  much  as  ever  the  theocratic  nation,  entitled  to  God's  exclusive 
 
460  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIANS  ASSOCIATED 
 
 '  favour,  to  which  the  rest  of  mankind  could  only  be  admitted 
 'by  becoming  Jews.'  vol.  i.  p.  521.  This  party,  at  least, 
 had  no  idea  that  their  children  should  be  excluded  from  their 
 covenant  privileges  and  connexion  with  themselves.  Their 
 aim  was  to  have  all  their  children  circumcised  and  baptized 
 ■unto  Christ,  as  was  done  aforetime  unto  Moses.  Those  who 
 underwent  the  latter  rite  only  were  regarded  as  inferior  to 
 such  as  experienced  both  of  them.  '  In  short,  they  kept  the 
 '  Gentile  converts,  who  would  not  submit  to  circumcision,  on 
 '  the  same  footing  as  the  proselytes  of  the  gate,  and  treated  the 
 '  circumcised  alone  as  proselytes  of  righteousness.'  lb.  p.  522. 
 
 Moreover,  there  can  hardly  be  a  doubt,  in  the  minds  of 
 reflecting  people,  that  these  said  Jewish  converts  would  have 
 claimed  for  their  families  the  like  ritual  observances,  and 
 covenanted  privileges,  which  they  themselves  enjoyed,  as  far 
 as  their  capacities  enabled  them ;  since  they  had  always 
 mutually  partaken  of  the  like,  under  the  former  dispensation. 
 Their  own  parents  had  been  baptized  before  them,  and  they 
 themselves  also,  when  little  children.  The  fathers  had  been 
 circumcised  in  infancy,  and  their  own  male  infants  also.  If, 
 therefore,  the  children  of  believing  parents,  either  at  Corinth 
 or  Jerusalem,  were  not  to  be  religiously  united  with  their 
 believing  fathers  and  mothers,  some  command,  prohibitory  of 
 the  connexion,  at  least,  in  this  uniting  ordinance,  would 
 certainly  have  been  required.  And  if  they  were  not  baptized 
 with  them,  or  like  them,  inquiry  would  have  been  the  result, 
 and  answers  would  have  been  returned ;  and  the  sacred 
 historians  would,  doubtless,  have  mentioned  it.  The  question, 
 then,  would  have  been  felt  of  greater  moment  than  in  the 
 present  day,  when  it  has  called  into  existence  numberless 
 publications,  displaying  great  zeal  and  diligence  on  both  sides, 
 or,  rather,  on  every  side,  of  the  subject.  But,  in  the  Scriptures, 
 we  have  nothing  of  the  sort  —  the  subject  is  not  even  once 
 mooted,  and,  consequently,  we  infer,  that  all  the  little  ones 
 were  baptized  unto  Christ,  as  others  had  been  previously  unto 
 Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea. 
 
 It  has  been  objected,  '  That,  as  in  these  contentions  about 
 '  circumcising  the  infants  of  Christianized  gentiles,  nothing  is 
 '  said  concerning  Infant  Baptism  being  administered  in  its 
 '  place,  and  answering  the  like  purpose,  of  introducing  the 
 '  young  into  the  congregations  of  believers  ;  the  probability 
 '  is,  that  the  practice  was  unknown  in  those  times,  and  that 
 '  parents  did  not  expect  their  children  to  be  baptized  at  all. 
 1  Paul,  it  is  argued,  does  not  say,  that,  as  baptism  now  answers 
 
THEER  CHILDREN  WITH  THEMSELVES.  -101 
 
 '  the  same  purpose  that  circumcision  did  formerly,  and  as 
 4  you  baptize  your  children,  you  need  not  circumcise  them  ; 
 'while  your  children  will  remain  in  the  same  covenant 
 'relation  to  the  Almighty  and  the  church,  as  they  did  before.' 
 Had  baptism  been  instituted  in  the  place  of  circumcision  ; 
 had  that  rite  been  intended  at  once,  entirely  and  universally,  to 
 supersede  it  in  the  Christian  church  ;  then,  there  would  be 
 some  plausibility  in  the  objection.  But,  we  do  not  place 
 water-baptism  in  the  room  of  the  ancient  circumcision ; 
 having  all  along  regarded  it  as  a  concurrent  ceremony, 
 administered  during  the  whole  period  of  the  Levitical  dispen- 
 sation, running  parallel  with  that  rite  from  Moses  to  John  — 
 from  the  Red  Sea  to  the  Jordan  —  the  one  being  a  dedication 
 to  the  Abrahamic  covenant  especially,  the  other  to  the 
 Mosaic  economy.  And  our  settled  conviction  is,  that  the 
 apostles  and  primitive  Christians  were  of  the  same  judgment. 
 Their  conduct  cannot  be  fairly  accounted  for  on  any  contrary 
 supposition. 
 
 The  bloody  rite  of  circumcision,  having  accomplished  its 
 purpose  when  the  Redeemer  died,  and  being  incompatible 
 with  the  milder  dispensation  of  the  gospel,  might  have  been 
 done  away  entirely ;  while  the  other  ancient  ceremony, 
 illustrative  of  mental  purification,  might  have  remained  in 
 force  ;  but,  to  meet  the  prejudices  of  the  Jews,  circumcision 
 was  tolerated  awhile  by  the  holy  apostles.  There  might  be  a 
 continuance  of  the  one  institution  and  an  extinction  of  the 
 other ;  just  as  the  bloody  sacrifices  might  have  been  done 
 away,  and  oblations,  first-fruits,  peace-offerings,  or  pecuniary 
 contributions,  remained  ;  or  as  the  paschal  lamb  might  no 
 longer  be  roasted,  and  the  eucharistical  part  of  the  supper 
 might  continue  to  the  end  of  time  ;  or,  if,  as  suggested,  the 
 act  of  circumcision  was  always  accompanied  with  water- 
 baptism,  the  former  painful  part  might  be  done  away,  and  the 
 latter  simple  and  painless  part  might  be  preserved  in  the 
 churches.  At  any  rate,  we  have  seen,  that  circumcision  and 
 water-baptism  co-existed  in  the  time  of  Moses  ;  and  we  have 
 rendered  it  highly  probable,  that  they  both  were  administered 
 to  male  infants  from  his  clay  to  that  of  our  Lord's  ascension 
 to  glory.  In  our  view,  Christian  baptism  succeeded  Jewish 
 baptisms,  initiatory,  purifying,  or  both.  The  dispute,  to  which 
 -we  have  just  alluded,  had  respect  only  to  the  continuance 
 of  circumcision,  leaving  the  question  of  baptism  entirely 
 untouched — just  as  preaching  and  prayer  were  continued, 
 while  burnt  offerings  and  priestly  services  came  to  an  end. 
 
4G2  THE  FIRST  CHRISTIANS  ASSOCIATED 
 
 However,  the  point  we  have  aimed  to  prove  here  is, 
 that  the  converted  Hebrews,  hy  circumcising  their  children, 
 and  thereby  bringing  them  into  the  same  covenant  with 
 themselves,  evidently  understood,  that  the  former  relation, 
 existing  between  entire  families  and  the  congregations,  was, 
 in  their  view  of  the  case,  still  in  existence  ;  and  that,  I  think, 
 is  rendered  unquestionable.  In  a  word,  it  seems  the  Israelites 
 had  been  accustomed  to  a  two-fold  bond  of  union  between 
 their  male  children  and  the  Jewish  church  or  congregation' — 
 circumcision  and  baptism.  Their  complaint  now  was,  that 
 the  children  of  the  gentile  converts  were  to  be  united  with  the 
 church  or  congregation  of  the  gospel  by  only  one  of  these 
 ceremonies  — being  admitted  on  much  easier  or  less  impressive 
 terms  than  their  own  beloved  offspring.  This,  most  probably, 
 was  one  of  the  grounds  of  the  contention  about  circumcision 
 in  apostolic  times  ;  and  this  appears  to  be  a  natural  assump- 
 tion under  the  then  state  of  the  first  converts  from  Judaism 
 to  Christianity. 
 
 I  may  add,  that  Paul,  and  Peter,  and  James  must  have  been 
 well  aware,  that  while  the  Christianized  Jews  circumcised 
 their  children,  the  latter  would  be  regarded  as  being  thereby 
 brought  into  a  religious  covenant-relation  with  their  parents, 
 as  of  old;  and  yet,  not  a  word  is  directly  said  against  this 
 act,  or  the  consequent  relationship.  Moreover,  the  results 
 attending  or  following  infant  circumcision  into  Christian 
 congregations  would  be  as  pernicious  as  baptizing  children 
 into  the  same  associations.  The  subjects  would  be  equally- 
 unconscious,  the  like  spiritual  pride  might  be  engendered, 
 and  the  same  absurdities  and  mischief  would  be  the  result. 
 All  this  the  inspired  men  knew  full  well ;  and  still  they  were 
 silent  on  the  question — leaving  the  practice  to  rectify  itself 
 in  the  course  of  time,  and  with  growing  gospel  light.  There- 
 fore, they  could  not  have  viewed  the  consecration  of  children 
 to  God  by  circumcision,  or  baptism,  orboth,  such  a  dreadful  evil 
 as  represented  by  our  enlightened  and  sensitive  brethren  ! 
 
 Observation  Y. —  The  case  of  female  communion  affords 
 a  subject  for  strikingly  illustrating  our  proposition. — Let  it 
 be  remembered,  that,  under  the  former  economy,  women  had 
 partaken  of  the  passover  equally  with  the  men  :  at  least,  no 
 Baptist  opponent  will  dispute  or  question  this  assumption. 
 God  had  often  shown  them  peculiar  tokens  of  his  kindness 
 and  love  ;  they  were  among  the  holiest  and  most  useful  of 
 his  people ;  and  were  occasionally  signalized  for  their  great 
 virtues  and  worth.     So,  under  the  economy  cf  the  Gospel, 
 
THEIR  CHILDREN  WITH  THEMSELVES.  463 
 
 they  were  among  the  most  affectionate,  devout,  faithful,  and 
 useful  followers  of  Christ;  the  closest  adherents  of  the 
 apostles,  and  received  numberless  expressions  of  the  divine 
 benevolence  and  care.  Now,  suppose,  that,  notwithstanding 
 all  this,  it  had  been  proposed  to  preclude  them  from  the  table 
 of  the  Lord— and  there  is  no  plain  literal  record  of  their 
 having  ever  attended  it,  nor  any  command  for  them  to  do  so  ; 
 any  more  than  there  is  a  plain  literal  account  of  Infant 
 Baptism,  or  any  direct  injunction  to  baptize  a  baby — would 
 not  this  preclusion  have  caused  such  general  and  earnest 
 inquiry,  and  consequent  explanation,  as  must  have  found  a 
 place  in  the  chronicles  of  a  people,  whose  apparent  neglect  of 
 the  poor  widows,  in  the  daily  distribution  of  charity,  and 
 many  other  equally  minor  matters,  are  sufficiently  recorded  ? 
 But,  on  this  point,  we  find  no  inquiry,  and  read  of  no 
 explanations. 
 
 Our  conclusion,  therefore,  is,  that  the  pious  women  partook 
 cf  the  Lord's  supper,  the  same  as  the  male  members  of  those 
 particular  societies  which  were  ultimately  formed,  and  in 
 which  this  sacrament  was  duly  celebrated.  In  this  deduction 
 all  our  brethren  will  readily  concur.  Yet,  we  believe  the 
 surprise  that  would  have  been  felt  at  the  exclusion  of  holy 
 females  from  this  Christian  feast,  would  have  been  equally 
 intense,  in  the  minds  of  pious  parents,  especially,  if  of  Jewish 
 origin,  at  the  exclusion  of  their  children,  from  the  covenant 
 and  privileges  of  Christianity,  and  from  the  initiatory  ldte 
 through  which  they  were  obtained.  The  Hebrew  passover 
 and  Hebrew  baptism,  if  coeval  in  their  origin,  were  regularly 
 observed  by  the  same  nation,  and  existed  as  twin  ordinances, 
 at  least,  from  the  exodus,  till  the  death  of  Christ — and  were,  in 
 an  abridged  or  modified  form,  to  continue  to  the  end  of  the 
 world.  To  have  excluded  women  from  the  Christian  passover, 
 and  children  from  the  Christian  baptism,  would  have  been 
 equally  a  subject  of  wonder,  of  contention,  or,  at  least,  cf 
 grave  inquiry.  But,  in  neither  case,  was  there  any  dispute  ; 
 and,  therefore,  I  infer,  that  in  neither  case  was  any  exclusion 
 of  their  former  subjects  or  communicants. 
 
 SECTION  SIXTH. —  The  spiritual  relationships  created 
 by  the  baptism  to  Muses  and  to  Christ  are  f idly  developed, 
 and  just  in  the  same  manner. — As  soon  as  the  Israelites  had 
 been  baptized  unto  Moses,  they  were  treated  as  the  Lord's 
 special  charge,  taught  the  good  laws  of  his  kingdom,  corrected 
 when  they  transgressed,  and,  when  obedient,  graciously  com- 
 
464  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  MOSES 
 
 forted  in  all  their  providential  afflictions.  So,  when  the  early- 
 converts  to  the  doctrines  of  the  cross  were  baptized,  they 
 were  taken  under  the  special  care  and  charge  of  the  apostles, 
 taught,  corrected,  and  comforted,  as  catechumens  in  Christian 
 seminaries.  Stovel  says,  '  Having  once  been  baptized,  and 
 '  entering  into  Christ,  we  are  subject  to  his  discipline,  what- 
 '  ever  the  event  may  be.  Yvliether  we  go  forward  to  life,  or 
 '  turn  back  again  unto  death,  the  vow  of  God  is  upon  us,  and, 
 '  in  love  or  wrath,  his  law  and  honour  must  be  vindicated.' 
 In  God's  dealings  with  the  Israelites,  we  find  their  children 
 regarded  as  the  objects  of  his  covenant  love,  bounty,  and  care, 
 equally  with  their  parents,  and  those,  too,  of  the  most  holy 
 and  obedient  among  them.  Hence,  on  this  principle,  their 
 baptism  in  the  sea,  at  all  events,  so  far  as  the  first  generation 
 of  the  emancipated  Hebrews  was  concerned,  is  placed  beyond 
 all  cogent  disputation. 
 
 In  the  New  Testament,  we  also  find,  that  the  children  of 
 baptized  disciples,  believers,  or  Christians,  were  the  manifest 
 objects  of  apostolic  and  pious  regard,  as  being  in  the  baptismal 
 covenant,  equally  with  their  parents  ;  as  heirs  of  the  same 
 promises,  and  subjects  in  the  same  kingdom  of  God  ;  whose 
 angels  beheld  the  face  of  their  Father  in  heaven ;  as  patterns 
 of  humility  ;  and  as  believers  in  Christ.  This,  also,  was  the 
 case  of  children  whose  parents  had  been  recently  brought  out 
 of  the  ranks  of  heathenism  and  idolatry,  and  who  had  never 
 been  previously  devoted  to  the  true  God,  by  circumcision  or 
 any  other  initiatory  rite  than  that  of  baptism.  The  young 
 Ephesians  are  required  '  to  obey  their  parents  in  all  things,' 
 ch.  vi.  1  ;  so  were  the  children  of  the  church  at  Colosse, 
 because  it  was  'well-pleasing  to  the  Lord.'  ch.  iii.  20.  And 
 so,  doubtless,  were  all  the  children  found  in  the  other 
 apostolical  communions.  But  how  came  these  children  to  be 
 the  special  charge  of  the  apostles,  and  to  be  subject  to  their 
 direct  instruction  and  discipline?  Not,  simply,  because  they 
 were  the  offspring  of  converted  parents  ;  for  many  of  them 
 were  probably  born  before  their  parents  had  heard  the  gospel 
 at  all ;  but,  evidently — according  to  Mr.  Stovel's  reasoning, 
 in  reference  to  the  Hebrews  baptized  unto  Moses  —  because 
 they  had  been  individually  consecrated  to  Christ  in  baptism. 
 
 As  the  Israelites,  old  and  young,  became  subject  to 
 only  through  their  baptism,  the  first  Christians  became  subject 
 to  the  apostles  only   by  being  baptized   into  their  religion. 
 The  apostles  had  no  more  ministerial   or  pastoral  authority 
 over  unbaptized  men,    women,  or   children,   than   Moses    had 
 
AND  TO  CHRIST  ALIKE  DEVELOPED.  4G5 
 
 over  the  Hebrews,  before  tbey  were  initiated  to  him  in  the 
 Red  Sea,  or  than  I  have  officially  over  a  Baptist  congregation, 
 or  than  a  Baptist  minister  has  over  mine,  or  than  any  preacher 
 has  over  persons  who  never  listen  to  his  discourses  ;  that  is, 
 none  at  all.  When  gentile  families  were  proselyted  to  Judaism, 
 by  circumcision  and  baptism,  they  all  became  subject  to  the 
 laws  of  Moses ;  the  little  ones  were  to  be  watched  over, 
 taught,  purified,  corrected,  and  cared  for,  equally  with  their 
 seniors — by  the  priests  and  prophets  of  Israel.  Their  youth 
 did  not  deprive  them  of  any  benefit  they  were  capable  of 
 enjoying.  They,  indeed,  were  to  be  dealt  with  as  if  they  had 
 been  of  the  original  stock  of  Abraham.  Paul,  certainly, 
 exercised  spiritual  authority  over  children,  as  Ins  own  appeal 
 to  them  clearly  proves  ;  but,  then,  it  was  only  over  those 
 who  were  within  the  Ecclesia — the  baptized  congregation  — 
 arid  upon  him  rested  the  daily  care  of  them  all.  2  Cor.  xi.  28. 
 '  What  have  I  to  do  to  judge  them  also  that  are  without? 
 '  Do  ye  not  judge  them  also  that  are  within  ?  But  them  that 
 'are  without,  God  judgeth.'   1  Cor.  v.  12,  13. 
 
 By  the  way,  it  was  on  the  same  principle  that  Paul,  in  the 
 epistles,  directed  particularly  to  the  saints  and  regenerated 
 people  of  God,  refers  frequently  and  emphatically  to  the 
 unconverted  members  of  their  congregations,  as  being,  like 
 the  little  ones  above  referred  to,  under  the  special  supervision 
 and  care  of  the  ministers  of  Christ.  Those  who  would  contend, 
 that  Paul  could  not  have  meant  to  address  any  but  the  truly 
 and  spiritually  converted,  at  Ephesus  and  elsewhere,  or,  at 
 least,  only  such  as  communicated  at  the  Lord's  table  ;  would, 
 on  the  like  grounds,  have  to  account  for  his  directly  addressing 
 children  in  the  same  epistles  —  since  they  unquestionably  were 
 not  communicants  or  full  members  of  the  inner  churches  of 
 these  places.  Children,  and  the  general  hearers  of  the  Gospel, 
 must  have  been  present  in  about  the  same  capacities — babes 
 in  years,  and  children  of  a  larger  growth — to  learn  the  will 
 and  ways  of  God  from  those  outward  ordinances,  intended,  by 
 the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  to  prepare  them  for  the  true  and 
 higher  fellowship  of  the  saints.  It  is  hardly  questionable, 
 that,  in  writing  his  epistles  to  the  churches  at  Ephesus  and 
 Colosse,  and  to  the  other  congregations  addressed  by  him, 
 Paul  meant  to  say  something  appropriate  to  all  the  people 
 who  generally  composed  them  ;  just  as  a  good  minister  of 
 the  preseut  day  appeals  to  the  different  classes,  ages,  and 
 characters,  commonly  composing  his  audience,  and  to  no 
 others.      This    fact  explains   how   it   occurred,    that   certain 
 
 u2 
 
460  THE  BAPTISMS  TO  HOSES 
 
 unconverted  and  immoral  persons  were  sometimes  directly 
 appealed  to  as  well  as  children  ;  because  such,  he  expected, 
 would  be  found  in  their  worshipping  assemblies,  as  ordinary 
 hearers  of  the  Gospel.  But,  he  never  directly  addresses 
 Icings  and  nobles,  nor  Judaizing  and  false  teachers,  nor  avowed 
 and  open  enemies  of  Christianity,  in  those  letters  ;  because 
 they  were  not  likely  to  form  any  part  of  the  assemblies  in 
 which  they  were  to  be  read.  He  spake  of  those  that  were 
 without,  and  not  immediately  to  them. 
 
 To  return.  The  baptism  of  parents  might  be  the  motive  or 
 occasion  of  the  baptism  of  their  children,  as  the  circumcision 
 of  Abraham,  and  of  heathen  proselytes  to  Judaism,  was  the 
 reason  of  the  circumcision  of  their  children  and  households; 
 but  it  was  only  the  personal  introduction  of  the  latter  to  the 
 gospel  economy,  that  constituted  them  the  objects  of  the 
 apostles'  care,  the  lambs  of  their  fold,  and  the  juvenile  pupils 
 in  the  school  of  the  Saviour.  As  the  Hebrews,  of  all  ages, 
 were  formerly  brought  under  the  leadership  and  legislation 
 of  Moses,  by  their  baptism  ;  so,  now,  it  is,  through  the  like 
 initiation,  that  either  parents  or  their  children  can  be  regarded 
 as  avowed  and  ostensible  disciples  in  Christian  seminaries  ; 
 be  scripturally  entitled  to  tuition  in  the  knowledge  of  God  ; 
 or,  be  qualified  to  enjoy  the  external  privileges  which  a  proper 
 religious  status  conveys.  Unbaptized  persons,  whether  Jews 
 or  gentiles,  were  regarded  as  mere  Jews  and  gentiles,  without 
 the  pale  of  the  gospel  commonwealth  ;  as  unlikely  to  be 
 regular  or  constant  worshippers  of  God  in  Christian  congre- 
 gations ;  just  as  the  Israelites  in  Egypt,  and  the  heathens  in 
 Tyre  and  Sidon,  were  without  the  pale  of  the  Hebrew  institution, 
 till  they  were  baptized  unto  Moses  ;  or  like  excommunicated 
 professors  of  the  gospel,  who  were  viewed  and  treated  '  as 
 'heathen  men  and  publicans.'   Matt,  xviii.  17- 
 
 This  fact  will  account  for  the  willingness  of  converts  to  the 
 Christian  faith  to  be  baptized,  in  order  to  be  fully  initiated 
 into  its  mysteries,  to  be  numbered  with  the  disciples,  and  to 
 be  entitled  to  similar  advantages.  The  general  readiness  and 
 desire  of  the  Jews,  in  John's  time,  to  be  baptized  by  him,  and 
 afterwards,  by  the  twelve  or  the  seventy  disciples  of  Christ, 
 can  be  accounted  for  on  no  other  reasonable  grounds.  They 
 must  have  felt,  that  this  rite  prepared  them  for,  and  intro- 
 duced them  to,  something  good — political,  social,  moral,  or  spi- 
 ritual—  or  they  never  would  have  submitted  so  readily  to  these 
 baptizings  —  especially  had  they  been  by  immersion!  Let  it 
 be  borne  in  mind  also,    that   John,  the    disciples,  and    the 
 
AND  TO  CHHIST  ALIKE  DEVELOPED.  467 
 
 apostles  of  Christ,  were  always  willing,  always  ready,  and 
 apparently  glad,  at  any  time,  and  in  any  place,  to  baptize  all 
 that  desired,  or  were  inclined,  to  receive  this  rite,  whether 
 they  were  solitary  individuals,  family  circles,  or  congr.  I 
 
 thousands.  There  was  no  delay,  no  postponement,  no  orders 
 to  come  again  to-morrow,  or  when  better  instructed,  or  when 
 evidences  of  spiritual  conversion  were  more  fully  developed  ; 
 or  when  the  crowds  of  hearers  became  thinned  ;  or  when 
 some  more  convenient  spot  was  found,  in  which  there  was 
 living  or  running  water  sufficient  to  immerse  them.  Whoever 
 expressed  themselves  willing  to  undergo  the  ceremony,  were 
 then  and  there  baptized  unto  Christ.  And  this  was  always 
 done  so  speedily,  that  none  of  the  attendant  crowds  seem  to 
 have  waited  a  single  day  or  hour  for  their  turn  ;  as  many 
 must  have  done  for  weeks,  and  even  for  months,  had  the  plan 
 of  dipping  been  adopted  by  John,  as  our  opponents  contend  ; 
 and  more  specially  so,  if  he  had  to  examine  them  personally, 
 and  hear  every  one  of  them  confess  his  sins,  in  detail, 
 promise  repentance,  and  exhibit  a  satisfactory  reformation  of 
 life  !  The  administrator,  as  well  as  the  people,  were  conscious 
 of  certain  advantages  to  be  legitimately  obtained  by  this 
 ordinance  ;  and,  by  inference,  were  not  ignorant,  that  they 
 should  experience  a  loss,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  by  not 
 being  Scripturally  baptized.  To  undergo  this  rite  was  deemed 
 equal  to  be  enlisted  into  the  army  of  Christ,  the  Captain  of 
 salvation  ;  or  to  be  inducted  to  the  association  of  great  and 
 good  men  ;  or  to  be  enrolled  as  pupils  in  the  school  of  divine 
 wisdom  and  knowledge  ;  or  to  be  written  down  as  expectants 
 of  advantages  in  some  benevolent  institution.  Hence,  the 
 readiness,  both  of  the  agents  and  subjects,  for  this  initiatory 
 ceremonial.  
 
 To  recur  again,  for  a  moment  or  two,  to  the  Mode  of 
 Baptism. — The  baptism  of  such  vast  numbers,  as  evidently 
 came  to  John,  and  were  baptized  by  him,  presents  a  difficulty 
 which  Mr.  Noel  gets  over,  by  supposing,  that,  'in  all  probability, 
 '  he  baptized  almost  entirely  by  the  ministry  of  others.'  Mode, 
 p.  70.  Of  this  aid,  however,  we  have  not  the  slightest  inti- 
 mation in  the  Word  of  God.  When  such  agency  was  employed 
 in  the  case  of  the  baptism  ascribed  to  Christ,  we  are  informed, 
 that  not  he  himself,  but  his  disciples,  administered  the  rite. 
 It  is  intimated  that  Peter  himself  did  not  baptize  Cornelius 
 and  his  family,  but  commanded  others  to  do  it.  Our  author, 
 feeling  that  the  difficulty  is  not  entirely  removed  by  his  '  all 
 
468  FUTILE  ARGUMENTS  IN  DEFENCE 
 
 '  probability,'  goes  on: — '  But.  if  great  numbers  were  baptized, 
 '  it  is  easy  to  conceive  that  it  might  be  administered  in  such 
 '  a  manner,  as  to  occupy  little  more  time  than  sprinkling. 
 '  Why  might  not  the  converts  enter  the  stream  in  companies, 
 '  and,  dipping  themselves  beneath  the  water,  receive  from  him 
 '  the  benediction  at  the  same  time  with  the  imposition  of  his 
 '  hands? '  lb.  I  can  readily  conceive  all  this,  and  even  much 
 more  novel  and  grotesque  exhibitions  ;  though  I  cannot  readily 
 fancy,  how  it  could  be  correctly  affirmed,  that  John  or  any  of  his 
 assistants  actually  baptized  them,  seeing  they  dipped  them- 
 selves, which  is  the  real  act  of  baptizing — according  to  the 
 dictum  of  almost  all  our  opponents.  It  will  also  be  new  to  most 
 readers,  that  for  a  minister  merely  to  lay  his  hands  on  persons, 
 and  to  pronounce  a  benediction,  are  regarded  as  a  baptisjn 
 administered  by  our  clerical  opponents  !  Where  they  found 
 convenient  places  in  the  rocky,  deep,  and  turbulent  waters  of 
 the  Jordan ;  or  in  the  domestic  reservoirs  in  Jerusalem  ;  or  in 
 pools,  from  fifteen  to  fifty  feet  deep,  in  its  neighbourhood, 
 for,  say,  a  thousand  or  even  a  hundred  at  a  time,  to  get  into, 
 and  to  dip  themselves  entirely  under  water,  before  John  or 
 Peter  gave  them  his  benediction,  and  then  placed  his  hands 
 on  them  individually — all  which  Mr.  Noel  supposes — it  is 
 certainly  not  a  little  difficult  to  imagine  ! 
 
 As  Mr.  Noel  derives  his  idea  of  baptism  from  that  of 
 proselytes,  and  supposes  that  John,  and  all  baptizers  after 
 him,  copied  the  original  examples  of  the  Hebrews — of  course, 
 leaving  out  the  little  proselytes,  as  if  they  were  too  small  for 
 remark  ! — I  will  cite  from  the  Baptist  Historian,  Robinson,  to 
 show  how  the  thing  was  supposed  to  be  done  by  the  Jews  ; 
 and  which  will  also  show  whence  Mr.  Noel,  most  likely, 
 obtained  the  notion.  '  The  mode  of  purification  was  immersion 
 '  in  water.  A  river  was  preferred ;  but  any  collection  of 
 1  clean  water,  of  a  depth  sufficient  for  dipping,  would  do.      If 
 
 *  a  bath  were  necessary,  a  square  with  about  four  feet  and  half 
 '  depth  of  water  was  requisite.  The  proselyte  was  not  to 
 'jump  in,  as  if  he  were  bathing,  but  he  was  to  walk  in  leisurely. 
 '  A  woman  was  to  be  conducted  by  three  women  ;    and  when 
 
 •  notice  was  given  that  she  was  up  to  the  neck  in  the  water, 
 'the  three  judges,  either  withdrawing  or  turning  their  backs, 
 '  she  plunged  herself  once  into  the  water.  Some  dipped 
 '  themselves  naked,  others  in  a  thin  garment  that  would  admit 
 '  the  water  everywhere,  but  none  in  any  habit  that  might 
 'prevent  the  water  from  wetting  all  the  body;  for,  if  only  a 
 '  small  deduction  from  the  eye  ran  between  the  water  and 
 
OF  DIPPING  NUMEROUS  CONVEB  4G9 
 
 4  Line  skin,  the  purification  was  judged  partial  and  incomplete' 
 p.  38.  Here  is  Mr.  Noel's  model  for  baptizing  vast  numbers 
 nearly  as  fast  as  sprinkling  them — barring  the  laying  on  of 
 hands  in  the  river,  and  pronouncing  the  benediction  ! 
 
 It  is  scarcely  questionable,  that  Mr.  Noel  and  his  brethren 
 depend  more  on  the  supposed  dipping  of  the  Jewish  proselytes, 
 for  their  immersion  of  converts  to  Christianity,  than  upon 
 any  other  foundation.  '  That  which  we  learn  from  the  word 
 '  baptizo,'  [which  proves  nothing  satisfactory  on  either  side,] 
 '  we  may  also  learn  from  the  practice  of  the  time  when  the 
 '  commission  was  given.  When  Jesus  said  to  his  disciples,  "Go, 
 1  and  baptize,"  baptism  was  of  a  very  familiar  occurrence  among 
 '  the  Jews.  As  it  was  to  be  the  initiatory  rite  of  Christianity,  as 
 '  it  was  already  one  of  the  initiatory  rites  of  Judaism.  When  the 
 '  Jewish  proselyte  was  baptized,  his  baptism  was  an  immersion  ; 
 '  and,  without  an  intimation  to  the  contrary,  the  disciples  must 
 '  understand,  that  when  a  Christian  proselyte  was  to  be  bap- 
 '  tized,  his  baptism  must  also  be  an  immersion.  The  same  word 
 'must  necessarily  express  the  same  external  act  for  both  religions. 
 '  Since  the  convert  to  Judaism  was  immersed,  in  token  of  his 
 '  discipleship  to  Moses,  and  this  was  called  his  baptism  ;  when 
 'Jesus  commanded  his  apostles  to  administer  baptism,  as  a 
 '  token  of  discipleship  to  him,  they  must  have  understood 
 'that  baptism  likewise  to  mean  immersion.'  p.  126.  The 
 simple  reader  will  probably  be  surprised  to  learn,  that  this 
 chief,  if  not  sole,  argument  for  dipping  proselytes  in  baptism, 
 is  not  based  on  any  part  of  God's  word  ;  and  that  Robinson, 
 Noel,  nor  anyone  else,  ever  cites  a  plain  and  positive  command 
 or  example  of  Scripture,  to  prove  their  point — the  whole  being 
 based  chiefly  on  the  dogmas,  if  not  on  the  inventions,  of 
 Hebrew  Eabbis,  or  on  inferences,  the  premises  of  which  are 
 most  uncertain.  Yet,  on  other  occasions,  we  are  roundly 
 rated  for  diverging  a  single  inch  from  the  line  of  direct  and 
 positive  declarations  of  divine  revelation,  in  support  of  aspersion 
 or  Infant  Baptism ! 
 
 Mr.  Noel  fixes  on  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  as  affording 
 one  of  the  best  proofs  of  baptism  by  immersion.  Let  us 
 attend  to  his  argumentation  on  this  point.  '  One  such 
 '  instance  of  immersion  is  enough  to  prove  the  apostolic 
 'practice;  for,  unless  the  apostles  had  generally  immersed  the 
 '  converts,  Philip  would  certainly  not  have  felt  himself  at 
 '  liberty  to  immerse  the  Ethiopian  ;  if  sprinkling  had  been 
 '  the  practice  of  baptism  in  Jerusalem,  where  there  was  every 
 '  convenience  of  baths,  Philip  would  certainly  have  preferred 
 
470  FUTILE  ARGUMENTS  IN  DEFENCE 
 
 '  sprinkling,  where  there  was  no  convenience  for  immersion.' 
 
 [Mark  that!]    ' He  immersed,  because  the  apostles  immersed. 
 
 Go  ye,  and  teach  all  nations,  immersing  them.'  Mode,  p. 92. 
 
 As   the   Jews,   therefore,   baptized    by   immersion   and    the 
 
 apostles  were  ordered  by  our  Lord  to  baptize,   without  any 
 
 further  explanation  of  the  word,   they  certainly  must  have 
 
 understood    the    command    to    enjoin    immersion,    and    did 
 
 accordingly  immerse  the  converts.'    lb.  p.  60.      '  It  is  utterly 
 
 improbable  that  a  man  of  wealth  would  cross    the    desert 
 
 without    having    a    supply    of   water    for    himself   and    his 
 
 attendants  more  than  sufficient  for  the  required  sprinkling, 
 
 and,  therefore,  the  Eunuch  would  have  asked  for  baptism, 
 
 before  coming  to  the  pond,  if  the  rite  had  been  performed 
 
 by  sprinkling.'  lb.  p.  90.      '  It  is  unlikely  that  Philip  would 
 
 propose,  for  no  reason,  that  the  Ethiopian  should  leave  his 
 
 chariot  for  an  object  which  could    be  attained  as  well  or 
 
 better  close  beside  it.'  lb.  p.  89.      '  We  may  be  sure,  that  in 
 
 that  hot  climate,  a  man  of  rank  and  wealth  would  not  be 
 
 without  the  comfort  of  water-skins  on  his  journey,  especially 
 
 as  he  had  before  him  the  desert  of  Shur,  which,  he  must 
 
 cross  before  he  could  reach  the  river.'   lb.  p.  90. 
 
 Mr.    Noel    had    previously  quoted,   without    remark,    and 
 
 therefore,  I  presume,  with  approval,  the  statement  of  fVitsius, 
 
 on  proselyte  baptism  :  — '  It  was  unlawful  to  baptize  but  in  a 
 
 '  natural  current   or  collection   of  waters,   as  a  river,   lake, 
 
 '  fountain,  because,  according  to  them,  none   could  be   duly 
 
 '  baptized  in  water  fetched  from  any  place  and  received  in 
 
 'artificial  receptacles.'   lb.  p.  GO.      Gale  also  says,   'A  foun- 
 
 '  tain  or  running  stream,  in  the  remotest  times,  was  always 
 
 'judged  purest,  and  most  proper  for  purifications.'    p.  113. 
 
 Rees  affirms  : — '  The  early  Christians  went  to  a  river,  bi 
 
 '  or  pool  of  fair  water,  and  there  discharged  a  good  conscience 
 
 'towards   God.'    p.  178.     Carson    adds,    'The    water    of    a 
 
 '  fountain  would  soon  become  unfit  for  baptism,  if  used  for 
 
 'the  multitudes  baptized  by  John.'  p.  424.      'The  priests  of 
 
 '  the  temple  did  not  wash   in   either   the  laver  or  its  base, 
 
 'because  then,  the  water  in  which  they  washed'  [however 
 
 large  the  quantity]   '  would  have  been  rendered  impure  by 
 
 'those  who  washed  before  or  with  them.... The    orientals 
 
 '  wash  at  a  falling  stream,  where  each  successive  affusion  is 
 
 '  of  clean  water.'    Pictorial  Bible.     Now,  let  the  reader  put 
 
 these  several  quotations  together,  and  then  say,  if  Philip  and 
 
 the  Eunuch  must  not  have  descended  to  the  running  or  living 
 
 water  for  affusion  baptism  ;   even  though  the  latter  had  ridden, 
 
OF  DIPPING  NUMERO  471 
 
 surrounded  with  a  hundred  goatskins  of  water  ?  This  is 
 one  of  Mr.  Noel's  clearest  instances  of  dipping,  from  which, 
 in  a  great  measure,  lie  infers  all  the  rest!  His  notions,  that 
 in  Jerusalem  there  was  every  convenience  of  haths  available 
 for  clipping  the  thousands  of  converts  to  Christianity  ;  and  no 
 convenience  for  dipping  the  Eunuch  in  the  waters  of  the 
 desert ;  are  founded  on  most  erroneous  views  of  the  former 
 locality,  and  corroborate  our  belief  that,  certainly,  there  was 
 no  dipping  at  all  in  the  latter. 
 
 One  or  two  further  proofs  of  dipping.  His  object  is,  to 
 discover  'every  convenience '  for  immersing  the  three  thousand 
 on  the  day  of  pentecost.  He  quotes  Dr.  Eobinson's  '  Bib- 
 lical Researches,'  to  settle  the  matter  most  triumphantly. 
 'The  main  dependence  of  Jerusalem  for  water,  at  the  present 
 '  day,  is  on  its  cisterns. ..  .Almost  every  private  house  in 
 '  Jerusalem,  of  any  size,  is  understood  to  have  at  least  one 
 '  or  more  cisterns,  excavated  in  the  soft  limestone  rock  upon 
 '  which  the  city  is  built.'  He  gives  us  a  specimen  of  the 
 manner  in  which  all  the  better  class  of  houses  are  supplied  ; 
 and  then  refers  to  four  cisterns,  respectively  12,  15,  15,  and 
 20  feet  deep,  under  the  houses,  supplied  with  water  during 
 the  rainy  seasons,  and  preserved  for  family  use  during  the 
 ensuing  six  months.  Here  we  certainly  have  baptistries 
 numerous  enough,  secluded  enough,  dark  enough,  and,  in 
 all  conscience,  deep  enough!  But,  how  were  the  despised 
 apostles,  and  the  three  thousand  strangers,  to  get  access  to 
 them,  and  then  discreetly  get  into  them,  without  polluting 
 the  whole  supply  for  the  next  five  or  six  months  !  Yet, 
 Mr.  Noel  must  mean,  that  they  did  actually  get  into  these 
 reservoirs,  dusty  and  dirty  as  they  might  he  ;  or  he  would 
 not  have  adduced  these  domestic  cisterns  as  an  argument  in 
 favour  of  immersion  !  How  much  in  want  of  proper  accommo- 
 dation, for  dipping  the  three  thousand,  must  he  have  felt, 
 before  having  recourse  to  such  a  monstrous  scheme  !  Let 
 him  or  his  friends  make  the  like  experiment  in  an  eastern 
 city  of  the  present  day,  or  anywhere  else ;  and  try  to  dip  a 
 few  hundred  people  into  the  tanks  of  water  preserved  under 
 or  near  dwelling-houses,  for  culinary  or  drinking  uses,  during 
 the  next  three  or  four  months  ;  and  see  how  he  would  succeed, 
 except  by  force  and  violence,  or  a  good  round  sum  of  money ! 
 
 But  these  are  not  all  his  resources  for  immersing  the  three 
 thousand  converts.  Jerusalem  had  pools  filled  with  the  floods 
 from  the  higher  grounds  during  the  same  rainy  seasons. 
 These,  he  assumes,  were  accessible  to  all — Jews  or  heretics, 
 
472  CHILDREN  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
 
 and,  I  suppose,  to  sheep,  horses,  oxen,  and  asses  also  ;  and, 
 in  his  imagination,  they  were  surrounded  with  all  proper 
 conveniences  for  immersion,  dressing,  and  undressing,  as  in 
 modern  Baptist  chapels!  Well,  he  quotes  Dr.  Robinson 
 again,  to  prove  that  these  pools  had  water  enough.  The 
 Upper  Pool,  length,  316  feet,  breadth,  200,  depth,  18  feet. 
 Lower  Pool,  length,  502  feet,  breadth,  between  245  and  275, 
 depth,  North  end,  35  feet,  South  end,  42.  Pool  of  Hezekiah, 
 length,  250  feet,  breadth,  144  feet,  the  depth  not  great. 
 Bethesda,  or  Sheep  Pool,  length,  360  feet,  breadth,  130, 
 depth,  75  feet.  Then,  there  are  Solomon's  Pools,  Lower, 
 Middle,  and  Upper,  in  depths,  respectively  50,  39,  and  25 
 feet.  All  this  is  innocently  quoted  to  prove,  that  there  was 
 water  enough  to  dip  ail  the  converts  on  the  day  of  Pentecost ! 
 But,  the  real  question,  which  every  thoughtful  reader  will 
 ask,  is,  was  there  not  too  much  ?  to  say  nothing  of  its  impurity 
 and  filth  !  How  did  the  apostles,  or  their  numerous  assistants, 
 stand  in  them,  and  safely  immerse  their  converts  ?  or  how  did 
 their  converts  get  in  and  dip  themselves  ?  Should  some  good 
 brother  reply,  '  Did  not  John  baptize  thousands  in  the  river 
 '  of  Jordan,  which,  at  Bethabara,  was  broad,  deep,  rapid,  and 
 '  apparently,  most  inconvenient '(  why,  then,  not  in  the  deep 
 *  pools  near  Jerusalem  ? '  But,  the  question  is,  '  Did  the 
 '  Harbinger  actually  do  so?'  I  believe  not.  The  language  of 
 the  sacred  historian  proves  nothing  of  the  sort.  If  being 
 'baptized  in  the  sea'  involved  no  act  of  immersion  ;  surely, 
 being  '  baptized  in  the  river  '  cannot  prove  it.  The  dry  bed  of 
 the  one,  and  the  dry  banks  of  the  other,  may  be  placed  in  fair 
 comparison. — To  return  to  the  proper  subjects  of  baptism  — 
 
 Observation  I. — It  is  evident  that  children  were  regarded 
 as  members  of  the  first  churches  addressed  by  the  apostles. 
 — When  I  say  churches,  I  use  the  word,  in  its  broad  and 
 general  sense,  for  congregations.  It  is  certain  that  Paul 
 directly  addresses  children  as  component  parts  of  the  Ecclesiae, 
 or  congregations,  to  whom  he  wrote  his  epistles.  Take,  for 
 example,  the  passages  before  cited.  These  are  found  in  his 
 letters  directed  to  the  churches  at  Ephesus  and  Colosse  ;  to 
 the  saints  and  faithful  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  to  the  persons  who 
 constituted  the  Christian  assemblies  in  those  cities  ;  or,  in 
 other  words,  to  the  companies  of  the  baptized,  the  people 
 and  the  families  who  had  forsaken  Judaism  or  idolatry,  had 
 been  consecrated  to  Christ,  and  composed  the  churches  of 
 those  places.      He  does  not  here,  as  elsewhere,  simply  enjoin 
 
FIESX  CHRISTIAN  CONGREGATIONS.  -173 
 
 the  parents  to  admonish  their  children,  as  if  they  were  out 
 of  the  congregations  in  which  the  '  epistles  were  to  be  read; ' 
 hut  he  speaks  or  writes  directly  to  them,  as  he  does  to 
 husbands  and  wives,  as  being  integral  members  of  these 
 communions,  equally  with  their  fathers. 
 
 To  assume,  that  they  were  grown  up  to  manhood,  and  had 
 previously  been  baptized,  on  a  profession  of  their  faith,  is  a 
 groundless  assumption;  for,  in  that  case,  they  would  have 
 been  spoken  to  as  young  men  and  women  ;  and  such  too  they 
 would  have  been  reckoned  at  a  much  earlier  period  of  life 
 than  with  us,  and  as  young  people  still  are  in  most  eastern 
 countries.  They  were  yet  under  their  parents'  cave  and 
 control;  were  living  beneath  their  roof;  and  were  to  obey 
 them  in  all  things.  Their  ages  could  not  have  been  known 
 by  Paul ;  and  whether  they  were  five  or  fifteen  years  old,  it 
 had  little  to  do  with  the  purport  of  his  admonition.  One 
 point  may  be  assumed  as  settled,  that  no  pastor  or  parent, 
 among  our  opponents,  would  deem  it  inconsistent  or  inappro- 
 priate to  address  similar  language  to  children  of  very  tender 
 age,  even  from  two  years  old  and  under  ;  and  the  like  is  done 
 by  them  in  our  infant  classes  by  some  of  them  every  Sabbath 
 and  week-day  throughout  the  year.  Now,  assuming,  that  at 
 Ephesus  and  Colosse  the  congregations  amounted  to  five 
 hundred  persons — no  very  extravagant  estimate  —  the  children 
 from  twelve  years  old  down  to  three,  would  be  few  less  than 
 a  hundred  between  them — directly  addressed  by  the  apostle 
 in  these  epistles.  But,  if  they  were  only  half-a-dozen,  our 
 argument  remains  equally  valid. 
 
 Paul,  moreover,  was  a  Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  in  whose 
 ancient  churches  children  of  nine  days  old  were  constituted 
 members  as  really  as  their  parents.  A.nd  if  the  children  at 
 Ephesus  and  Colosse  were  of  sufficient  understanding  to 
 know  what  he  meant,  by  '  obeying  their  parents  in  all  things,' 
 because  it  was  'well  pleasing  to  the  Lord;'  there  would  be 
 nothing  incompatible  with  propriety  in  addressing  them 
 personally  or  as  a  class.  He  wrote  nothing  recondite, 
 intricate,  or  difficult  of  apprehension' to  them;  and,  yet,  it 
 was  all  that  was  requisite,  and  all  that  a  candid  opponent 
 will  demand.  But,  as  a  child  of  two  or  three  years  old 
 would  be  capable  of  comprehending  the  substance  of  the 
 admonition,  we  have  a  right  to  conclude,  that  such  were 
 disciples,  and,  if  disciples,  then,  doubtless,  they  had  been 
 previously  baptized  into  the  general  churches  of  Christ. 
 God  anciently  commanded  children  to   '  honour  their  fathers 
 
474  CHILDREN  MEMBERS  OF  THE 
 
 '  and  mothers.'  Ex.  xx.  12.  This  precept  must  have  applied 
 to  little  ones  as  well  as  to  grown-up  sons  and  daughters; 
 unless  it  can  be  shown,  that  children,  under  a  certain  age, 
 might  fail  to  reverence  their  parents.  These  little  Jews  were 
 in  the  church  of  old,  and  as  such  were  addressed,  and  would 
 be  made  to  understand  the  purport  of  the  law  when  in  a  state 
 of  infancy,  that  is,  even  under  three  years  of  age.  The 
 children  at  Epliesus  and  Colosse,  after  being  baptized, 
 evidently  came  under  the  ministerial  jurisdiction  cf  the  great 
 Apostle  of  the  gentiles. 
 
 We  naturally  infer,  that  fathers,  masters,  and  servants 
 were,  or  might  have  been,  in  the  general  church  at  Ephesus; 
 that  wives,  husbands,  parents,  masters,  and  servants  were,  or 
 might  have  been,  in  the  general  church  at  Colosse  ;  and  that 
 immoral,  troublesome,  and  inconsistent  persons  were  in  the 
 churches  at  Corinth  and  Galatia,  because  the  divine  writer 
 specially  and  directly  addressed  such  persons— as  regular, 
 and  not  as  casual,  attendants.  On  the  same  ground,  we 
 conclude,  that  children  were  also  members  of  the  former 
 congregations,  because  he  distinctly  addressed  such  little 
 ones  as  being  among  them.  Or,  if  this  assumption  be  not 
 positive,  it  is  clear,  that  children  might  have  been  there  as 
 well  as  their  parents  ;  for  Paul  supposes  them  to  he  equally 
 present,  and  entitled  alike  to  be  there,  when  his  epistles  were 
 read.  And,  being  present,  as  really  as  wives  and  servants, 
 and  forming  a  part  of  the  regular  congregation,  equally  with 
 the  adults,  they  had  undoubtedly  been  baptized.  In  like 
 manner  John  the  Evangelist,  addresses  '  little  children,  ; 
 'men,  and  fathers.'  2  Epist.  ii.  12,  13.  These  little  folks 
 are  not  here  distinguished  by  character  or  attainments,  but  by 
 age,  and  were  readily  recognized  as  different  from  young  men. 
 In  a  letter  addressed  to  a  company  or  committee  of  gentlemen, 
 suggesting  advice  on  some  special  matter,  we  should  say 
 nothing  directly  to  their  wives,  their  servants,  or  their 
 children,  en  the  supposition  that  they  were  not  present  to 
 hear  our  admonitions,  nor  concerned  in  obeying  them.  Or, 
 were  we  to  send  a  letter  to  an  assembly  of  women,  we  should 
 not  directly  address  men.  On  a  similar  assumption, 
 speak  to  the  persons  supposed  to  be  present,  when  our  epistle 
 was  to  be  read.  On  this  common-sense  rule,  the  apostle 
 evidently  acted,  and  addressed  children,  as  forming  a  part  of 
 the  regular  congregations  in  Colosse  and  Ephesus. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel,  after  quoting  Clement's  epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
 wherein  he  says,   'Let  your  children  partake  of  the  discipline 
 
FIRST  CHRISTIAN  CONGREGATION'S.  475 
 
 '  that  is  in  Christ,'  subjoins,  '  This  was  the  business  of  a 
 'disciple,  and  because  he  had  this  to  learn,  he  was  called  a 
 1  disciple.'  p.  329.  The  age  of  these  children  is  not  stated  ; 
 they  might  be  very  young ;  that  they  were  not  adults,  is  very 
 manifest.  That  they  had  been  baptized  is  also  admitted,  for 
 Mr.  S to vel  elsewhere  remarks,  'None  were  called  disciples 
 '  without  their  being  baptized,  and  all  the  baptized  had, 
 1  without  discrimination,  the  equal  privilege  of  brethren  in 
 '  that  society,  p.  207-  Again,  he  says,  '  The  only  badge  of 
 '  diseipleship  a  believer  is  commanded  to  receive,  is  that  of 
 4  baptism.'  p.  221.  Further,  'Disciple  the  persons:  bap- 
 '  tizing  them,  is  added,  because  no  disciple  was  to  be 
 '  recognized  in  any  other  way  ;  but  the  disciple  must  have 
 '  an  existence  before  he  can  be  recognized.'  p.  230.  Of 
 course,  he  must !  If  I  am  not  much  out  in  my  inferences, 
 Mir.  Stovel  here  admits,  that  children,  under  the  paternal  care, 
 were  baptized  and  made  disciples,  and  in  the  congregation  at 
 Corinth,  in  the  time  of  Clement,  who  is  regarded  as  a  fellow- 
 labourer  with  Peter  and  Paul !  I  do  not  see  what  other 
 conclusion  I  can  fairly  draw  from  his  combined  observations. 
 
 Oesfrvatiox  II. —  That  Infant  Baptism  is  of  God,  may 
 be  safely  inferred  from  its  simple,  instructive,  and  beneficial 
 character. — That  it  was  so  among  the  Hebrews  in  the  sea, 
 in  the  wilderness,  in  Canaan,  and  among  the  early  Christians, 
 we  shall  now  take  for  granted.  That  its  influence,  when 
 lightly  understood  and  administered,  must  be  innoxious, 
 producing  no  unrighteous,  erroneous,  or  injurious  results,  we 
 have  shown  before.  I  now  assert,  further,  that  it  is  calculated 
 to  be  of  great  benefit  to  parents,  to  children,  and  to  cur 
 congregations  generally.  The  appearance  of  parents  in  the 
 house  of  God,  or  even  in  their  own  dwellings,  with  their 
 young  immortals  in  their  arms,  for  the  purpose  of  presenting 
 and  consecrating  them  to  the  blessed  Trinity,  in  this  holy 
 ordinance,  is  ever  a  pleasing  and  imposing  sight,  to  most 
 unprejudiced  Christian  people,  and  fully  in  keeping  with  the 
 spirit  of  our  holy  religion.  It  reminds  us  of  Hannah,  leading 
 her  little  son  Samuel  to  the  Tabernacle  at  Shiloh.  and  lending 
 him  to  the  Lord  ;  and  of  the  virgin  Mary,  presenting  the 
 infant  Redeemer  before  God  the  Father,  in  his  sacred  temple, 
 let,  for  all  that,  many  Baptists,  who  could  listen  to  almost 
 any  rough  language,  or  stand  to  witness  some  cruel  deed, 
 hurry  out  of  the  sanctuary,  when  an  infant  is  to  be  dedicated 
 to  Christ  in  baptism,  as  if  the  roof  was  ready  to  tumble  down 
 upon  them,  or  the  ground,  to  open  and  swallow  up  the  people, 
 
470  INFANT  BAPTISM  OF  GOD, 
 
 as  it  did  Korah  and  his  company  ;  or,  as  if  some  monstrous 
 deed  was  to  be  done,  outraging  all  decency,  violating  most 
 dreadfully  the  laws  of  God,  or,  as  if,  at  least,  it  were  an  act  of 
 the  grossest  or  wickedest  superstition ! 
 
 Though  we  sometimes  meet  with  cases  in  which  the  parents 
 are  influenced  merely  by  the  force  of  custom,  understanding  little 
 of  the  precise  nature  of  the  act  they  are  performing,  or  no  better 
 than  they  often  do  the  purport  of  the  worship  in  which  they 
 occasionally  unite  on  the  Lord's  day  ;  or  than  many  Hebrew 
 parents  did  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  circumcision  ;  or  than 
 many  mothers  do  of  the  '  churching '  they  solicit  of  the 
 Baptist  minister  after  child-birth  ;  or  than  many  adults  do  of 
 the  real  meaning  of  the  dipping  they  are  about  to  undergo  ; 
 yet,  they  place  themselves  in  a  position  to  hear  the  designs  of 
 this  sacrament  explained,  and  its  duties  enforced.  The  good 
 minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  fails  not  to  show  them  how  to  train 
 up  their  offspring  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord, 
 to  whom  they  are  then  devoted  in  baptism,  and  their  high 
 obligation  to  do  it.  He  points  out  to  them  those  portions  of 
 divine  truth,  which  admonish  parents  to  fulfil  their  task  with 
 prayerfulness,  piety  of  example,  and  to  persevere  in  their 
 Christian  endeavours.  He  embraces  the  opportunity  of 
 preaching  Jesus  Christ  to  them,  the  necessity  of  repentance, 
 faith,  and  holiness  of  life  in  themselves,  in  order  to  be  able 
 consistently  to  guide  their  children  in  the  way  to  heaven. 
 And  it  is  often  such  an  opportunity  as  he  may  possibly  secure 
 on  no  other  occasion  ;  and  sometimes  it  has  been  blessed  to 
 the  conversion  of  the  parents  themselves.  Indeed,  the  most 
 unfavourable  view  one  can  take  of  the  case,  is  parallel  to 
 inducing  ignorant  and  unconverted  people  to  attend  the 
 preaching  of  the  gospel,  in  order  that  they  may  learn  their 
 spiritual  state,  repent  and  consecrate  themselves  to  Christ  — 
 deeds  daily  attempted  by  all  our  holy  and  zealous  opponents. 
 
 While  a  few  persons,  comparatively,  bring  their  children  to 
 be  baptized,  merely  because  it  is  done  by  others  ;  most  fathers 
 and  mothers  arc-  aware  that,  in  this  act,  they  are  dedicating 
 their  children  to  God  ;  and  many  of  them  attend  with  hearts 
 full  of  love  to  their  little  ones,  devoutly  devoting  them  to  the 
 Saviour.  These,  and,  in  fact,  all  parents,  are  then  encouraged 
 to  attend  well  to  the  Scriptural  interests  of  their  charge,  from 
 the  promises  of  Scripture  made  to  such  as  fulfil  aright  their 
 obligations  to  their  children  and  to  God.  They  are  also  fore- 
 warned, that  a  neglect  of  their  home  duties,  or  a  careless  or 
 piayerless  performance  of  them,  will  most  likely  end  in  the 
 
1  i.    M   ITS  £  VXD  UTILITY.  4  77 
 
 profligacy  of  their  children,  and  in  the  wretchedness  of  their 
 own  hearts.  In  truth,  Infant  Baptism,  when  devoutly  and 
 Scripturally  conducted,  is  a  very  profitahle  and  interesting 
 service,  particularly  to  the  parents  and  relatives  present.  It 
 would  certainly  be  a  serious  loss  in  our  churches,  and  a  sad 
 \t  id,  amidst  the  ordinances  of  religious  instruction,  and  sacred 
 impressions,  where  this  means  of  grace  to  he  abolished 
 among  us  ;  more  particularly  so,  as  we  have  no  other  in- 
 stituted ceremonial  to  supply  its  place,  equally  adapted  for 
 usefulness  and  parental  admonition. 
 
 This  service  is  also  symbolically  instructive  to  all  present 
 on  a  baptismal  occasion  among  nonconforming  Pedobaptists. 
 In  this  ordinance  there  is  not  only,  as  in  adult  baptism,  an 
 implied  declaration  of  the  fact,  that  all  unconverted  men  and 
 women  are,  by  nature  and  practice,  in  a  state  of  moral  pol- 
 lution, and,  consequently,  need  the  renewing  and  sanctiflcation 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but,  also,  the  still  further  and  more 
 instructive  and  impressive  lesson,  that  even  infants,  who 
 have  never  practically  transgressed  the  laws  of  Heaven,  require 
 the  regenerating  and  purifying  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
 meeten  them  for  glory,  if  they  die  in  childhood  ;  and  to  qualify 
 them  for  the  duties  of  our  blessed  and  holy  religion,  if  they 
 continue  many  years  in  this  wicked  world.  The  baptism  of 
 a  man  or  of  a  woman,  may,  it  is  true,  be  made  a  solemn  and 
 interesting  ceremony.  But  that  of  a  child  is  vastly  more 
 instructive.  The  doctrine  of  original  depravity  must  certainly 
 be  recognized  in  the  conduct  of  ungodly  men  ;  while  it  might 
 not  be  in  the  character  of  a  little  child.  All  must  admit, 
 that  adults  are  sinful ;  but  Infant  Baptism  teaches,  that  even 
 young  children  also  are  naturally  and  sadly  depraved. 
 
 Unquestionably,  this  rite,  like  the  Lord's  supper,  and  like 
 all  the  sacred  ceremonies  of  old,  was  designed  to  teach  some 
 great  and  important  truth,  if  not  verbally,  yet,  symbolically 
 and  ocularly  ;  and  the  more  effectively  the  ordinance  teaches 
 that  truth,  the  more  likely  it  is  to  have  been  from  Heaven, 
 and  according  to  the  revealed  will  of  God.  That  sinful  adults 
 should  require  the  regenerating  grace  of  the  gospel,  is  a  truth 
 the  merest  novice  in  divinity  would  not  dispute  ;  and  with  the 
 symbolical  pouring  of  purifying  water,  on  their  heads,  he 
 would  not  be  much  surprised.  But,  to  be  a  witness  of  the 
 same  ceremony,  when  an  infant  was  the  subject,  could  not 
 fail  profitably  to  instruct  a  thoughtful  inquirer,  and  to  lead 
 the  young,  in  after  life,  to  ask,  what  meant  ye  by  these  things  ? 
 Hence,  it  is  inferred,  that,  as  a  teaching  service,  which  it 
 
478  INFANT  BAPTISM  OF  GOD, 
 
 certainly  was  intended  to  be,  as  well  as  one  of  consecration  to 
 God,  Infant  Baptism,  like  Infant  Circumcision,  is  far  superior 
 to  the  baptism  of  an  adult,  and  was,  doubtless,  designed  to 
 become  universal  and  continuous  in  the  churches  ;  while,  as 
 a  consequence,  adult  baptism,  like  adult  circumcision,  was 
 designed  to  come  to  an  end,  whenever  the  gospel  was  generally 
 spread  in  the  world.  It  is  probable,  an  adult  lineal  descendant 
 of  Abraham  has  not  been  circumcised  during  the  last  three 
 thousand  years. 
 
 The  baptismal  dedication  of  children  to  God,  is  also  calcu- 
 lated to  operate  beneficially  on  their  own  hearts  and  lives  in  after 
 years.  Our  opponents  enlarge,  with  considerable  energy 
 and  eloquence,  on  the  pernicious  tendencies  of  Infant  Baptism  ; 
 contending,  that  they  are  powerfully  and  perniciously  affected 
 by  it  in  after  life.  '  Since,'  says  Mr.  Noel,  '  you  are  equally 
 '  without  both  precept  and  precedent  for  the  baptism  of 
 '  infants,  rescue  them  also  from  the  disadvantages  of  an 
 '  unauthorized  and  deceptive  rite,  which,  by  making  them 
 '  Christians  in  name,  may  hinder  them  from  being  Christians 
 '  in  reality.'  p.  89.  If  these  earnest  adversaries  of  Infant 
 Baptism  mean,  that,  when  administered  unscripturally,  and 
 associated  with  antichristian  and  soul-deluding  doctrines- 
 like  all  other  false  and  heretical  teachings  in  Baptist  or  other 
 pulpits — it  is  injurious  to  the  baptized,  we  readily  concede 
 the  fact,  and  deplore  it  as  much  as  Mr.  Noel,  or  any  of  his 
 godly  brethren.  But,  it  does  not  follow,  that,  because  some 
 people  abuse  this  sacrament,  as  they  do  almost  everything 
 else,  and  wrest  many  Scriptures  of  truth  to  their  own  des- 
 truction, it  cannot  be  administered  harmlessly  and  beneficially. 
 I  recur  to  this  allegation  of  our  opposing  brethren,  however, 
 to  show,  that,  in  their  opinion,  what  is  done  to  children  in 
 baptism,  may  greatly  affect  them,  when  arrived  at  the  age  of 
 reflection — a  doctrine  which,  when  it  serves  their  purpose, 
 they  repudiate  as  invalid  and  frivolous  ;  asking  us,  with  an 
 air  of  exultation,  What  good  can  baptism  do  to  a  baby  who 
 knows  nothing  about  the  service,  and  who,  at  the  time,  '  is  as 
 'unconscious  as  a  stone?'  For,  surely,  if  an  act,  done  to  an 
 infant,  may  be  of  great  mental,  moral,  or  religious  disad- 
 vantage to  it ;  another  act  may  do  it  great  and  essential 
 service.  At  all  events,  its  youth  or  unconsciousness  would 
 not  prevent  the  result  in  the  one  case  more  than  in  the  other  ! 
 
 When  children,  in  subsequent  years,  are  duly  informed, 
 that  their  parents  prayerfully  and  piously  consecrated  them 
 to  the  Lord,  through  baptism,  in  the  beginning  of  their  days  ; 
 
FROM  ITS  SIMPLICITY  AND  UTILITY.  479 
 
 that  they  were  then  devoted  to  Christ;  placed  under  his  wing; 
 introduced  to  the  teachings  and  governance  of  the  people  of 
 God,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  were  hound  and  pledged  to  believe, 
 love,  and  serve  the  Lord  ;  the  fair  and  legitimate  result  will 
 be,  a  desire  to  act  in  accordance  with  their  early  consecration, 
 and  to  observe  those  holy  and  gracious  laws  which  were 
 inculcated  upon  them  subsequently  to  its  administration.  To 
 do  otherwise,  would  be  adverse  to  the  only  obligations  which 
 should  bind  and  govern  them — just  as  it  would  have  been 
 grossly  inconsistent  with  the  obligation  of  a  Jew,  circumcised 
 in  its  infancy  to  Jehovah,  to  have  run  after  idols  in  manhood  ; 
 or,  as  for  the  son  of  Baptist  parents,  dedicated  to  God  in 
 childhood,  to  turn  Jew  or  Mahometan,  when  grown  to  the  age 
 of  an  adult. 
 
 There  is  much  import  and  force  in  the  passage,  '  Train  up 
 '  a  child '  [even  from  the  cradle]  '  in  the  way  he  should  go, 
 '  and  when  he  is  old,  he  will  not  depart  from  it.  There  are 
 numerous  cases,  unhappily,  in  which  no  more  apparent  good 
 arises  from  this  rite,  however  piously  and  correctly  adminis- 
 tered, than  formerly  arose  from  circumcision,  or  from  the 
 baptism  of  the  young  Hebrews  in  the  Bed  Sea,  or  than  now 
 follows  the  formal  dedication  of  Baptist  children  to  God. 
 without  the  use  of  water,  or  from  the  solemn  immersion  of 
 thousands  of  adults.  But,  on  all  sides,  the  reasonable 
 anticipation  is,  that  good  to  the  young  will  he  the  result,  as 
 they  grow  up  ;  and,  that  they  will,  for  themselves,  seek  and 
 serve  that  Saviour,  to  whom  they  were  early  devoted  by  their 
 beloved  parents. 
 
 The  objection  Mr.  Noel  brings  against  Infant  Baptism — 
 that  it  was  calculated  to  make  them  assume  themselves  to  be 
 Christians  indeed,  when  they  were  only  Christians  by  dedica- 
 tion ;  will  equally  apply  to  the  declarations  of  our  Lord, 
 concerning  certain  infants  of  old,  That  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
 of  God.  If  they  were  said  to  he  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ; 
 if  the  Son  of  God  makes  so  much  of  children,  and  regards 
 them  as  members  of  his  church  ;  or  even,  that  such  as  them- 
 selves, in  meekness  and  docility,  were  worthy  subjects  of  his 
 kingdom  ;  might  not  this  hinder  them,  in  after  life,  from 
 seeking  to  become  wiser  and  better  ;  and  prove  of  great 
 disadvantage  to  them  ?  Surely,  nothing  respecting  their 
 character  or  security  is  pronounced  by  the  Protestant 
 Dissenting  Minister  in  their  baptism  more  gratifying  to  the 
 young  and  opening  mind,  than  Christ  uttered,  when  he 
 took  children  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them !     Christ,  doubt- 
 
480  IXFAXT  BAPTISM  OF  GOD, 
 
 less,  had  his  design  in  manifesting  so  publicly  his  deep  interest 
 in  infants  and  little  children.  He  not  only  intended  to  teach 
 his  disciples  and  friends  what  manner  of  persons  they  ought 
 to  be  ;  but  also  to  interest  them  in  the  spiritual  welfare  of 
 the  rising  generation.  But,  surely,  he  said  nothing  to  delude 
 the  hearts  of  children  as  they  grew  up  to  manhood ! 
 
 Mr.  Burkitt  remarks,  '  Can  any  wise  or  good  man  believe, 
 '  that  our  Saviour  would  speak  such  favorable  words  of  infants, 
 '  and  his  outward  gesture  manifest  so  much  good-will  towards 
 '  them,  only  with  an  intent  to  ensnare  and  deceive  us  ? 
 '  Doubtless,  it  was  to  encourage  his  ministers  to  perform  all 
 '  charitable  offices  towards  them.'  Certainly,  he  did  not 
 intend  to  inflate  them  with  a  false  conceit  of  their  self-impor- 
 tance when,  in  after  years,  they  heard  of  the  gracious  words 
 which  proceeded  out  of  his  mouth  concerning  them  !  While 
 Mr.  Tombes  denies  '  That  the  kingdom  of  heaven  pertains  to 
 '  all  infants  of  believers  ;  '  he  thinks  it  does  '  to  them  whom 
 'Christ  then  blessed.'  Exer.  p.  19.  Consequently,  those 
 children,  at  least,  were  in  as  great  danger  of  being  '  inflated 
 '  with  false  conceits  '  as  any  that  John  or  Paul  might  have 
 baptized  with  water.  Was  Christ  doing  mischief  on  a  small 
 scale  1 
 
 The  baptized  Hebrews  (not  excepting  their  infant  seed) 
 were,  according  to  Mr.  Stovel,  bound  to  obey,  love,  and  serve 
 God,  because  of  their  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea.  So,  on  the 
 same  principle,  we  may  assume,  that  all  baptized  children 
 now  are  equally  and  especially  bound  to  obey,  love,  and  serve 
 Jesus  Christ.  If  they  break  their  baptismal  covenant,  or  the 
 laws  it  imposes  on  them  ;  they,  like  the  rebellious  Israelites, 
 both  old  and  young  in  the  wilderness,  will  suffer  for  it.  To 
 object,  that  a  ceremony  of  which  children,  at  the  time,  can 
 understand  nothing,  and  to  which  they  can  give  no  intelligent 
 assent,  cannot  beneficially  influence  them  in  subsequent  years, 
 amounts  to  little,  unless  it  be  at  the  same  time  proved,  that 
 the  circumcision  of  the  juvenile  Israelites,  the  baptism  of  the 
 little  Hebrews  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  dedication  of  baby- 
 baptists  in  the  chapel  vestry,  were  destitute  of  any  tendency 
 to  benefit  these  infants,  even  in  the  smallest  degree.  If  it 
 be  asked,  in  what  way  is  a  child  to  be  benefitted  in  subsequent 
 life,  by  an  act  of  which  it  was  unconscious  at  the  time  of  its 
 performance  ?  I  reply,  that  its  original  ignorance  is  to  be 
 compensated  by  subsequent  information  and  enlightenment. 
 
 The  children  present,  when  Israel  crossed  the  Jordan,  in 
 their  way  to  Canaan,  were  ignorant  of  the  purpose  of  God  in 
 
FROM  ITS  SIMPLICITY  AND  UTILITY.  481 
 
 ordering  twelve  stones  to  be  set  up  at  Gilgal.  But,  'Joshua 
 'spake  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying,  When  your 
 'children  shall  ask  their  fathers  in  time  to  come,  saying, 
 '  What  mean  these  stones  ?  Then  ye  shall  let  your  children 
 '  know,  saying,  Israel  came  over  Jordan  on  dry  land.'  Josh.  iv. 
 21,  22.  In  the  same  way,  parents  should  tell  their  children, 
 in  time  to  come,  that  they  were  baptized,  and  what  were 
 the  purport  and  duties  involved  in  this  dedicatory  service. 
 Infant  Baptism,  it  is  true,  leaves  no  cognizable  impression  on 
 the  child's  person,  to  call  to  remembrance  its  early  dedication 
 to  God  ;  but  the  like  may  be  said  of  adult  dipping.  '  That 
 'immersion  leaves  no  permanent  corporal  mark,'  says  Mr. 
 Hall,  '  our  senses  assure  us.'  p.  249.  The  external  physical 
 effects  are  equally  wanting  or  evanescent  in  the  case  of 
 dipping  as  of  sprinkling — unless,  as  unhappily  sometimes 
 occurs,  the  immersed  man  or  woman  contract  a  cold,  or 
 something  worse,  by  the  dangerous  operation. 
 
 No  child  knows  who  are  its  own  parents  by  instinct ;  and 
 without  recognizing  them  as  parents,  it  would  never  love  nor 
 obey  them  in  the  Lord,  nor  at  all.  But,  being  informed,  in 
 after  years,  whose  offspring  it  really  is,  filial  affection  and 
 obedience  become  the  natural  and  spontaneous  result.  The 
 circumcised  Hebrew  could  not  have  known  that,  by  this  deed, 
 he  was  devoted  to  the  true  God,  unless,  when  cf  age  to 
 understand  the  fact,  he  was  made  acquainted  with  it.  For 
 aught  he  could  discover  from  himself,  he  might  have  been 
 circumcised  to  some  false  deity,  whose  votaries  circumcised 
 their  male  children  the  same  as  did  the  descendants  of  the 
 Patriarch  Jacob.  It  is  stated  by  Godwyn,  that  circumcision 
 was  practised  by  the  Ethiopians,  Egyptians,  Colchians,  and 
 Turks,  as  well  as  the  Jews.  B.6.  To  the  religion  of  which  of  these 
 nations  the  children  were  devoted  by  this  rite,  they  all  required 
 information  in  advanced  years  ;  and  naturally  they  would 
 zealously  cleave  to  that,  and  to  that  only.  So,  children  and 
 young  people,  informed  that  they  were  baptized  or  discipled 
 unto  Christ,  in  their  infancy,  by  beloved  parents,  may  be  as 
 much  influenced  by  the  communication,  as  though  they  had 
 originally  been  well  informed  of,  and  consenting  parties  to, 
 the  rite  itself.  And,  no  doubt,  they  are  often  as  much 
 affected  by  it,  as  numerous  adults  are  by  the  remembrance  of 
 their  own  immersion.  Many  people  are  equally  disposed  to 
 abide  by  the  virtuous  obligations  their  parents  have  laid  them 
 under,  as  they  are  to  fulfil  thoseunderwhichtheyhave knowingly 
 and  willingly  laid  themselves — and,  very  often,  more  so. 
 
 x 
 
482  THE  EFFECTS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM, 
 
 SECTION  SEVENTH.—  The  personal  and  relative  effects 
 of  baptism  are  not  to  be  magnified  beyond  the  statements  of 
 the  Word  of  God. — This  has  often  been  done,  and  occasionally, 
 too,  with  the  best  intentions.  Some  good  people  tell  us,  that 
 none  are  either  prepared  for,  or  were  worthy  of,  this  rite,  till 
 they  have  been  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  have  heartily 
 repented  of  their  sins,  and  have  shown,  by  long  or  effectual 
 probationary  trials,  that  they  are  the  spiritual  children  of 
 God.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  does  not  comport  with  the 
 requirements  or  examples  of  the  sacred  volume.  Others 
 also  ascribe  such  marvellous  results  to  this  sacramental  act, 
 especially  if  performed  by  genuine  priestly  hands,  as  to 
 magnify  the  service  into  all  but  a  saving  ordinance.  Mr.  Daniell 
 says,  '  Infant  sprinkling  tells  us  a  sinner  is  born — believers' 
 'baptism  tells  us  a  sinner  is  born  again.'  p.  25.  The  latter 
 not  truly  and  always  so,  Mr.  Daniell !  Mr.  Noel  adds,  '  To 
 '  witness  the  baptism  of  a  believer,  must  be  useful  to  the 
 '  members  of  the  church.  Another  soul  is  rescued  by 
 1  Almighty  grace  from  perdition,  and  the  church  may  share 
 'with  angels  in  their  joy  over  a  repentant  sinner!'  p.  276. 
 Alas !  most  of  his  brethren,  if  they  read  the  fore-cited 
 statistics  of  the  Baptist  body,  must  rejoice  with  trembling ! 
 
 Neither  of  these  notions  did  the  apostles  of  Christ  either 
 teach  or  believe.  With  them,  baptism  was  of  very  secondary 
 interest  to  the  preaching  of  the  gospel.  Though  they  some- 
 times baptized  their  converts  with  their  own  hands,  they  tell 
 us,  that  it  was  not  for  this  purpose,  as  a  primary  object,  they 
 were  sent  on  their  mission  to  all  nations ;  but  rather,  to 
 proselyte  souls  to  Christ — a  proof  they  did  not  believe  in 
 baptismal  regeneration !  Inferior  agents  were  generally 
 employed  to  administer  this  cermony,  even  in  their  own 
 presence.  Peter  evidently  did  not  baptize  Cornelius  and  his 
 family,  but  commanded  some  of  his  attendants  to  do  it.  It 
 is  a  singular  circumstance,  that,  after  the  day  of  pentecost, 
 only  two  of  our  Lord's  twelve  apostles  are  mentioned  as 
 having  baptized  their  converts,  or  commanded  others  to  do  it 
 for  them.  These  were  Peter  and  Paul — Peter,  the  family  at 
 Caesarea,  just  mentioned  ;  and  Paul,  certain  persons  at  Corinth, 
 with  Lydia  and  the  Jailor  and  their  families  at  Philippi. 
 That  the  other  apostles  baptized  their  converts,  we  doubt  not ; 
 but  we  are  favoured  with  no  record  of  the  fact.  And  though 
 many  ten  thousands  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  subsequently  to 
 the  memorable  day  of  pentecost,  underwent  this  ceremony, 
 we  seldom  read  any  naratives  or  notices  of  it. 
 
ACCORDING  TO  THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  483 
 
 We  have  already  proved,  that  haptism  does  not  require 
 spiritual  conversion  beforehand,  nor  ever  insure  it  as  a  con- 
 sequence. It  simply  places  its  subjects,  of  whatever  age,  in 
 the  position  of  candidates  for  still  higher  advantages  and 
 influences  for  the  time  to  come.  Persons  baptized  unto 
 Moses,  were  not  thereby  meetened  for  the  office  of  priest 
 or  Levite.  These  posts  were  subsequently  filled  on  other 
 considerations,  or  through  other  qualifications,  than  those 
 imparted  by  baptism.  Even  partaking  of  the  passover  was 
 not  based  on  baptism  to  Moses ;  but,  on  a  prior  institution, 
 covenant,  or  command,  which  would  have  equally  secured  to  the 
 emancipated  Hebrews  this  commemorative  and  foreshadowing 
 ceremony,  had  they  not  been  baptized  at  all.  Other  blessings 
 were  secured  to  Israel  through  circumcision,  and  with  their 
 lawful  right  to  these  blessings,  the  Mosaic  baptism  did  not 
 interfere.  The  act  of  dedication,  especially  that  performed  in 
 the  Red  Sea,  guaranteed  its  own  peculiar  rights  and  advantages. 
 What  these  were,  has  been  repeatedly  stated. 
 
 So,  in  respect  of  Christian  baptism,  under  the  gospel 
 dispensation ;  the  subjects  of  it  are  not  thereby  and  neces- 
 sarily entitled  to  every  boon  and  promise  of  the  gospel  of 
 Christ.  Before  all  these  can  be  fully  self-appropriated  and 
 enjoyed,  another  and  a  higher  baptism — that  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost  — must  be  received.  Water-baptism  constitutes  them 
 disciples,  places  them  in  the  school  of  Christianity,  and 
 entitles  them  to  pastoral  supervision  and  care.  In  the 
 Saviour's  commission,  it  is  connected  directly  and  only  with 
 teaching  the  baptized  what  he  communicated  to  the  apostles. 
 It  does  not  empower  them  to  preach  the  gospel,  or  to  become 
 full  members  of  duly  organized,  select,  and  independent 
 Christian  churches,  or  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  to 
 join  the  special  communion  of  the  saints,  or  to  exercise  power 
 in  managing  the  affairs  of  spiritual  associations.  It  is  a  step 
 in  the  right  direction  ;  as  learning  in  a  sabbath  school  has 
 been  the  road  to  the  pulpit ;  or,  as  mastering  the  alphabet 
 has  been  the  commencement  of  a  course  that  ended  in  the 
 Professor's  chair,  or  on  the  Lord  Chancellor's  wool-sack. 
 Before  a  baptized  person,  of  any  age,  can  preach  or  teach,  or 
 have  a  vote  or  voice  in  the  select  society  of  the  saints,  or 
 receive  the  Christian  passover,  in  purely  Christian  societies, 
 certain  intellectual  and  religious  attainments  must  be  made, 
 admission  solicited,  and  election,  by  the  brethren,  secured. 
 And  this  holds  as  true  among  many  of  our  Baptist  friends  as 
 among  congregational  Pedobaptists.     In  some  cases  of  old, 
 
484  TIIE  EFFECTS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM, 
 
 the  interval  between  baptism  and  communion  might  have  been 
 brief;  but,  still,  the  former  might  have  been  received,  and  not 
 the  latter.  Occasionally  personal  baptism  and  preaching,  in 
 the  apostolic  age,  might  have  been  almost  chronologically 
 identical ;  yet,  there  was  no  more  necessary  connexion  between 
 them,  than  between  baptism  and  martyrdom.  In  truth,  the 
 connexion,  in  the  latter  instance,  was  often  more  intimate,  we 
 have  reasons  for  believing,  than  in  the  former. 
 
 The  idea  of  baptizing  into  a  particular  communion,  conferring 
 on  the  subjects  of  it  a  right  to  full  membership,  and  a  seat  at 
 the  Lord's  table,  with  co-authority  in  the  affairs  of  the  society, 
 is  not  warranted  by  any  deed  or  doctrine  found  in  the  Word  of 
 God  ;  and  I  believe,  is  not  now  generally  contended  for,  even 
 by  some  of  the  warmest  advocates  of  adult  or  believers' 
 baptism.  It  is  mostly  held,  that  the  baptism  rests  with  the 
 minister,  and  the  admission  to  membership  with  the  pre- 
 existing fellowship.  As  far  as  we  can  learn,  from  the  Scripture 
 narratives,  the  apostles  and  their  preaching  coadjutors  laboured 
 chiefly  to  win  men  over  to  a  belief  in  Christ  as  the  true  Messiah  ; 
 to  understand  the  leading  doctrines,  duties,  and  privileges  of 
 the  gospel,  and  practically  to  keep  the  laws  of  God  ;  and 
 that,  subsequently,  the  people  formed  or  organized  themselves 
 into  societies,  fellowships,  communions,  or  churches,  in  which 
 the  ordinances  of  worship  were  conducted,  and  the  sacraments 
 were  duly  administered — probably,  in  a  great  measure  after 
 the  model  of  the  synagogue — receiving,  of  course,  such  hints 
 and  advice  from  their  instructors,  as  the  cases  seemed  to 
 require.  The  apostles  appear  to  have  provided  the  elements 
 for  a  duly  organized  church,  but  seldom  or  never  actually  to 
 have  put  them  together.  Titus  was  left  in  Crete  to  assist  in 
 organizing  the  spiritual  materials  Paul  had  provided  to  his 
 hand.  Hence,  what  we  call  church -power  under  God,  originated 
 with,  was  vested  in,  and  exercised  by,  the  .constituent 
 members  of  the  respective  localities.  Indeed,  no  other  course 
 was  practicable.  This  also  is  the  principle  on  which  our 
 opponents  and  ourselves  usually  proceed  in  this  country 
 and  age. 
 
 It  is  felt,  that  if  baptism  and  membership  were  inseparably 
 connected,  the  church  might  be  improperly  placed  under  the 
 absolute  dominion  of  the  pastor,  unless  his  power  of  baptizing 
 were  limited,  or  taken  out  of  his  hands.  To  be  able  to 
 nominate  all  the  members  of  the  senate,  would  be  to  possess 
 and  exercise  despotic  national  authority.  If,  at  the  commence- 
 ment  of   the   apostles'   labours,  which    were    most   signally 
 
ACCORDING  TO  THE  WORD  OF  GOD.  485 
 
 successful,  the  people  who  were  baptized  and  then  immediately 
 added  to  the  church ;  it  must  have  been  into  the  general  body  of 
 Christian  professors,  as  opposed  to,  or  distinguised  from,  the 
 Jews  and  heathens,  and  not  into  select  communions  of 
 ■regenerated  believers  in  Christ ;  for  such  holy  and  particular 
 societies  were  not  then  duly  formed — these  being  the  result 
 of  arrangements  in  after  times.  They  were  baptized  unto 
 Christ,  or  in  his  name,  and  were  simply  purified  and  devoted 
 to  Christianity,  to  believe  its  doctrines,  and  to  comply  with  its 
 rules  —  were  '  added  unto  them,'  the  apostles  and  their  previous 
 adherents.  To  be  baptized  unto  Christ,  was  to  be  baptized 
 unto  a  belief  in  Christ,  as  the  true  Messiah  ;  and  to  be  baptized 
 into  his  death,  was  to  be  baptized  to  a  reception  and  acknow- 
 ledgment of  his  glorious  atonement  for  sin,  and  nothing  more. 
 
 To  attach  greater  results  than  these  to  water-baptism,  is  to 
 make  it  a  regenerating  and  saving  ordinance,  and  to  teach  the 
 fearful  notion,  that  eternal  life  is  made  dependent  on  a  ceremony 
 performed  or  withheld,  at  pleasure,  by  poor  fallible,  prejudiced, 
 and  sinful,  mortals.  If  there  be  a  practicable  middle  course, 
 our  opponents  have  failed  to  point  it  out;  nor  have  we 
 sufficient  penetration  to  discover  it.  As  previously  shown, 
 certain  parties  have  laboured  to  find  out  some  intermediate 
 result  of  this  baptismal  ordinance  ;  but,  it  is  generally  agreed, 
 that  they  have  signally  and  even  miserably  failed.  Still, 
 while  some  persons  would  not,  for  a  moment,  suggest,  that 
 salvation  depended  on  this  rite  ;  they  contend,  that  there  are 
 certain  social  and  religious  privileges,  of  the  highest  order, 
 immediately  consequent  upon  it.  They  argue,  that  baptism 
 and  full  communion  are  for  the  same  persons,  and  that,  in 
 the  post-apostolic  churches,  at  least,  this  doctrine  was 
 generally  recognized.  They  make  the  following  objections 
 to  our  views  on  this  head — 
 
 Objection  I. —  That  the  qualifications  for  baptism  ivere 
 the  same  as  those  required  fur  the  Lord's  Supper. — This 
 opinion  is  professedly  based  on  the  following  expressions  : 
 '  Hethatbelieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved.'  Markxvi.  16. 
 '  Kepent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  .  .  .  .And  they  that 
 'gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized.'  Acts  ii.  38,  41.  It 
 is  contended,  that  these  qualifications  are  as  sufficient  for 
 receiving  the  Lord's  Supper  as  for  being  baptized  ;  and  that, 
 as  children  cannot  believe,  repent,  or  gladly  receive  the  word, 
 they  should  neither  be  baptized  nor  partake  of  the  Eucharist. 
 '  Infant  communion,'  says  Mr.  Gibbs,  '  ought  certainly  to  be 
 *  observed  in  every  church  that  admits  of  Infant  Baptism  ;   for 
 
486  THE  QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  BAPTISM 
 
 '  are  not  the  ordinances  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
 '  commanded  by  the  same  authority — are  they  not  of  the  same 
 •  religious  importance  ?  '  p.  27-  He  might,  however,  as  truly 
 have  said,  '  Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  preaching  the 
 'gospel,  are  commanded  by  the  same  authority,  and  are  of  the 
 1  same  religious  importance,  and  that  those  who  are  baptized 
 1  should  officiate  in  the  pulpit !  Mr.  Noel  says,  '  If  the  adult 
 1  is  qualified  for  baptism,  he  is  qualified  for  the  Lord's  Supper; 
 '  and  if  he  is  disqualified  for  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  is 
 '  disqualified  for  baptism.  The  qualifications  for  each  ordinance 
 'are  the  same.'  p.  129.  It  is  certain  the  last  cited  passages 
 of  Scripture  do  not  connect  repentance,  receiving  the  word, 
 belief,  or  salvation,  with  the  Lord's  Supper ;  for  the  latter 
 is  not  mentioned  at  all  in  them.  Carson  states  the  case 
 correctly  :  '  The  person  who  is  admitted  to  one  ordinance  of 
 '  a  church,  is  admitted  to  all,  if  there  be  no  limitation,' 
 [expressed  or  implied — arising  from  circumstances,  or  from 
 personal  incapacity.]  p.  233. 
 
 It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  above  passage  from  Mark 
 must  mean  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  if  not,  by  proving 
 too  much,  it  evidently  proves  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  our 
 opponents'  argument.  Let  them  regard  it  as  water-baptism, 
 and  then  tell  us,  how  they  can  escape  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
 salvation?  To  evade  the  dilemma  in  which  this  text  involves 
 our  opponents,  some  of  them  concede,  that  it  has  no  reference 
 to  children  at  all ;  and,  consequently,  no  more  opposes  their 
 baptism,  than  their  admission  into  heaven.  The  other  passage 
 from  the  Acts,  with  similar  ones  which  might  be  cited,  does 
 not  represent  the  characters  to  which  it  refers,  as  necessarily 
 and  unquestionably  converted  to  the  Lord,  in  their  hearts  and 
 by  divine  grace.  It  simply  speaks  of  a  change  of  mind,  of  a 
 belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  the  converts  to 
 this  doctrine  were  glad  to  hear  of  his  being  the  Saviour  of  the 
 world.  These  good  beginnings  might  ultimately  end  in  the 
 Lord's  Supper,  the  pastoral  office,  and  eternal  salvation.  But 
 of  this  we  feel  assured,  that,  were  persons,  previously  Jews, 
 heathens,  idolaters,  or  infidels  —  excited  and  impressed,  for 
 the  first  time,  by  powerful  appeals  to  their  consciences — to 
 apply  to  any  evangelical  Baptist  minister  for  immediate 
 immersion  and  full  church-fellowship ;  assuring  him,  that 
 they  had  altered  their  minds,  as  to  the  Messiahship  of  Christ, 
 whom  they  now  believed  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world  ; 
 were  sorry  for  past  offences,  and  were  glad  to  hear  the  gospel 
 preached  ;  he  would,  most  certainly,  demand  further  proof  of 
 
AND  THE  LOKD'S  SUITER,  NOT  THE  SAME.  487 
 
 their  real  conversion  and  spiritual  renovation,  than  these 
 avowals  afforded  him,  before  inducting  them  to  the  communion 
 of  saints,  or,  probably,  immersing  them  in  his  baptistry.  This 
 certainly  would  be  the  case,  if  he  felt  any  desire  to  preserve 
 purity  of  communion,  harmony  of  fellowship,  and  stedfast 
 cordial  co-operation,  in  promoting  the  genuine  religion  of  the 
 Gospel — at  least,  if  past  experience  guided  his  future  pro- 
 ceedings. And,  as  in  this  case,  he  professes  to  follow  the 
 precepts  and  practice  of  the  first  Christian  ministers,  of  course, 
 he  believes  they  observed  the  same  rules  by  which  his  own 
 proceedings  are  now  scrupulously  guided. 
 
 It  is  manifest,  that  the  first  candidates  for  baptism,  as 
 administered  by  John,  were  destitute  of  the  moral  and 
 spiritual  prerequisites  for  the  inner-church  membership ; 
 while  they  evidently  were  qualified  for  water-baptism.  '  I 
 '  baptize  you  with  water,  unto  repentance.'  Matt.  iii.  II.  '  John 
 '  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  and  did  preach  the  baptism  of 
 1  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.'  Mark  i.  4.  '  John  did 
 1  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance  to  all  the  people  of  Israel.' 
 Acts  xiii.  24.  '  John  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance.' 
 Acts  xix.  4.  Here  were  people  baptized,  in  order  that  they 
 might  repent  and  reform,  or  unto  the  doctrine  of  repentance 
 and  reformation.  Now,  unless  some  marvellous  and  saving 
 influence  certainly  and  invariably  attended  John's  baptism, 
 they  were  no  more  fitted  for  Christian  communion,  as  the 
 immediate  result  of  their  baptism,  than  before  they  were 
 baptized  ;  and  when,  as  yet,  they  had  not  repented,  or  been 
 religiously  reformed. 
 
 Mr.  Hall  observes,  '  The  evangelists,  Mark  and  Luke,  it  is 
 '  true,  affirm  that  John  preached  the  baptism  of  repentance 
 '  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  whence  we  are  entitled  to  infer, 
 '  that  the  rite  which  he  administered,  when  accompanied  with 
 *  suitable  dispositions,  was  important  in  the  order  of  preparation, 
 '  not  that  it  was  accompanied  with  the  immediate  or  actual 
 '  collation  of  the  benefit.'  p.  29.  It  is  nowhere  said,  or  even 
 intimated,  that  any  of  the  people  whom  John  baptized,  did 
 actually  repent  of  their  sins,  especially  '  after  a  godly  sort.' 
 Had  he  professedly  baptized  them  as  genuine  penitents  and 
 truly  converted  Christians,  he  would  have  sadly  deluded  them, 
 and  fostered  in  their  hearts  vain  and  groundless  hopes  ;  as 
 much  so  as  our  opponents  do  by  baptizing  thousands  every 
 year,  and  directly  admitting  them  to  the  Lord's  table,  without 
 their  possessing  any  real  heartfelt  godliness — and  then 
 •excommunicating  them  for  immoral  or  unchristian  conduct! 
 
4'88  THE  QUALIFICATIONS  FOIi  BAPTISM 
 
 Mosheim  says,  'In  the  earliest  times  of  the  church,  all  who 
 '  professed  firmly  to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  only  Redeemer 
 '  of  the  world,  and  who,  in  consequence  of  this  profession, 
 '  promised  to  live  in  a  manner  conformable  to  the  purity  of 
 '  his  holy  religion,  were  immediately  received  among  the 
 '  disciples  of  Christ.  This  was  all  the  preparation  for  baptism 
 '  then  required  ;  and  a  more  accurate  instruction  in  the  doctrine 
 '  of  Christianity  was  to  be  administered  to  them,  after  their 
 '  receiving  that  sacrament.'  Ece.  Hist.  Cent.  i.  p.  ii.  c.  3. 
 
 It  is  certain  that  the  baptisms  of  John  and  of  the  Apostles 
 (whose  subjects  and  modes  are  admitted  to  have  been  perfectly 
 analogous)  were  not  administered  professedly  to  those  only 
 whose  sins  had  been  remitted,  and  who  were  to  receive  this 
 ordinance  as  a  sign  or  seal  that  they  were  freed  from  condem- 
 nation ;  but,  simply,  as  an  introduction  to  a  probationary  state 
 of  discipline,  through  which  they  might  ultimately  enter  into 
 the  particular  communion  of  saints.  '  Repent,'  says  Peter, 
 'for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
 Holy  Ghost.'  Acts  ii.  30.  Were  these  people,  before  their 
 baptism,  as  meet  for  the  Lord's  Supper  as  for  this  symbolical 
 purification  ?  Many  in  the  Ecclesine,  or  congregations  of 
 Corinth  and  Galatia,  were  guilty  of  great  irregularities  and 
 misconduct,  contrary  to  the  precepts  of  Paul  concerning  the 
 purity  of  Christian  fellowship.  But,  doubtless,  the  members  of 
 their  inner  fellowship  would  never  have  thought  of  admitting 
 to  their  especial  communion  persons  who  manifestly  had  yet 
 to  repent  of  their  sins,  and  to  receive  the  gifts  or  graces  of 
 the  Holy  Ghost.  At  all  events,  they  would  never  have  done 
 so,  had  they  paid  a  clue  regard  to  his  admonitions  respecting 
 the  holiness  becoming  the  household  of  God.  And,  surely, 
 we  are  not  now  to  make  the  admitted  errors  and  misconduct 
 of  the  early  converts  to  Christianity  the  rule  of  our  judgment 
 and  the  guide  of  our  religious  procedure!  The  laws  of 
 Christ's  house,  and  not  the  doings  of  his  ignorant  domestics, 
 are  to  be  our  spiritual  directory! 
 
 It  is  plain,  that  people  in  their  sins,  not  yet  forgiven,  not 
 yet  brought  under  divine  influence,  might  be  baptized  ;  but 
 were  they,  while  in  this  state,  qualified  for  sitting  down  at  the 
 Lord's  table  ?  and  would  any  Particular  Baptist  Church, 
 knowingly  or  willingly,  receive  into  their  fellowship  such  as 
 were  baptized  by  John  and  the  apostles  of  Christ  ?  Cer- 
 tainly not.  According  to  the  discipline  of  the  Baptist  churches 
 in  our  land  and  age,  there  evidently  is  no  continuous  connexion 
 between  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.     Thousands  of  people 
 
AND  THE  lord's  suppeb,  not  TIIE  SAM!'.  ^  S9 
 
 are  dipped  yearly,  who  are  thrust  out  of  spiritual  fellowship 
 by  our  opponents,  and  then  regarded  as  heathen  men  and 
 publicans.  Their  dipping,  at  first,  generally  introduced  them 
 to  their  inner  society ;  but,  their  subsequent  misconduct 
 or  heretical  notions  totally  expelled  them.  They  were 
 qualified  for  baptism,  and  that  for  life,  but  not  for  continued 
 membership.  Therefore,  according  to  the  procedure  of  our 
 antagonists,  persons  may  be  fit  for  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
 and  receive  it  most  canonically,  and  not  for  that  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  from  which  they  are  justly  excluded.  In  fact,  they 
 advocate  a  theory,  in  their  works,  written  to  oppose  Infant 
 Baptism,  which  they  necessarily  repudiate  every  day  in  their 
 denominational  proceedings. 
 
 "We  are  again  urgently  reminded,  that  John's  disciples 
 Confessed  their  sins,  and  consequently  were  as  suitable 
 subjects  for  the  Lord's  Supper  as  for  baptism  —  though  the 
 sacred  writers  say  nothing  of  the  kind.  We  must,  therefore, 
 again  reply,  that  the  consequence  does  not  necessarily  follow. 
 Balaam,  Saul,  and  Judas,  made  as  full  and  as  penitent  a 
 confession  of  their  sins  as  any  that  John  baptized  at  the 
 Jordan;  and  yet,  they  were  not  such  characters  as  our  Baptist 
 friends  would  admit  to  the  Eucharist — in  the  communicants 
 of  which  faith,  love,  gratitude,  and  holiness  of  heart  and  life 
 are  expected.  Mr.  Hall,  speaking  of  the  baptized  disciples 
 of  John,  says,  '  The  number  of  his  converts  appears  to  have 
 'been  almost  national,'  p.  26,  and  they  'all  but  uniformly 
 '  rejected  Christ.'  p.  160.  Were  these  people,  though  qualified 
 for  baptism,  and  baptized  unto  the  coming  Messiah,  fit 
 members  for  Particular  Churches  ?  Though  '  prodigious 
 '  multitudes '  had  been  baptized  by  John  and  our  Lord's 
 disciples,  the  Saviour  styles  his  true  followers  a  'little  flock,' 
 to  whom  the  Father  would  give  the  kingdom.  Were  they 
 not  the  baptized  mob,  who  cried  out  '  Crucify  him,  crucify 
 him' — for  who  besides  were  there  to  cry  out  at  all?  That 
 most  of  this  clamorous  and  wicked  multitude  had  been 
 baptized  by  our  Saviour's  harbinger  and  his  own  personal 
 attendants,  admits  of  little  doubt.  His  enemies  then,  as  well 
 as  now,  were,  in  a  certain  sense,  'they  of  his  own  household.' 
 '  His  own  received  him  not,'  but  rejected  him.  They  were 
 disappointed  in  their  false  and  visionary  expectation  of  the 
 Saviour ;  and  now  they  invoked  the  vengeance  of  the  law  on 
 their  supposed  deceiver. 
 
 It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  those  who  oppose  Infant 
 Baptism,  and  profess  to  follow  only  Scripture  precedents,  do 
 
 x2 
 
490  THE  QUALIFICATIONS  FOR  BAPTISM 
 
 not  avowedly  baptize  unto  repentance,  but  after  it ;  not  for 
 the  remission  of  sins,  but  after  it ;  not  to  receive  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  but  after  receiving  him ;  not  unto  Christ,  but  after 
 being  in  Christ  by  faith  and  love.  The  correct  statement  of 
 Baptist  principles  and  practice  requires  the  use  of  language 
 totally  different  from  that  employed  by  the  inspired  writers 
 in  the  New  Testament.  It  may,  further,  be  worth  observing, 
 that  of  all  the  vast  multitudes  baptized  in  the  sea,  none  but 
 those  who  underwent  the  ceremony  in  infancy,  and  up  to 
 twenty  years  of  age,  with  two  exceptions,  ultimately  entered 
 the  Holy  Land  ;  that  of  all  the  infants  and  children  baptized 
 now,  none,  at  the  time,  are  practical  disbelievers,  sinners, 
 profligates,  or  hypocrites  ;  that  all  the  persons  circumcised 
 under  the  law,  in  the  regular  way,  were  little  innocent  babes ; 
 and  that  of  all  who  were  baptized  by  John  and  our  Lord's 
 disciples,  and  afterwards  turned  against  Christ,  and  promoted 
 his  crucifixion,  the  children  dedicated  to  the  Messiah,  as 
 coming  or  as  having  arrived  in  our  world,  took  no  part  in 
 this  iniquitous  procedure.  They  were  too  young  for  that. 
 All  their  recorded  doings  consisted  in  singing  '  Hosanna  to  the 
 '  Son  of  David,  who  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.'  His 
 murderers  were  those  who  had  been  baptized  as  adult  believers! 
 It  is  insisted,  that  all  persons  baptized  by  the  apostles 
 believed,  and  that,  therefore,  belief  is  now  essential  to  the 
 reception  of  this  rite.  This  we  admit,  in  respect  of  independent 
 adults.  But  we  again  assert,  that,  even  in  their  case,  there  is 
 no  proof  that  it  was  any  thing  beyond  a  belief  in  the  fact, 
 that  Christ  was  the  promised  Messiah — leaving  the  qualifications 
 of  infants  quite  out  of  the  question.  A  clever  Anonymous 
 writer,  after  reviewing  every  text  relating  to  baptism,  arrives 
 at  the  like  conclusion ;  and  whose  words  I  will  cite,  in 
 confirmation  of  my  own  judgment  in  the  matter.  '  Thus  I 
 '  have  carefully  and  impartially  examined  all  the  accounts  I 
 '  can  meet  with  in  the  history  of  the  acts  of  the  apostles,  of  any 
 '  persons  being  converted  to  the  Christian  faith  ;  and,  I  believe, 
 '  upon  the  nicest  scrutiny,  it  will  appear,  that  all  the  faith  to 
 1  which  they  were  converted,  and  by  which  they  were  entitled 
 '  to  the  name  of  believers,  and  to  an  admission  into  the 
 'Christian  Church'  [or  community]  'by  baptism,  was  no 
 '  more  than  a  conviction  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  Lord 
 '  Jesus  ;  this  is  what  the  apostles  preached,  what  their  hearers 
 '  believed,  and  into  this  they  were  baptized. . . .  As  there  is  no 
 '  instance  then  to  be  produced  where  any  thing  more  than  a 
 '  belief  in  the  divine  authority  of  Christ  is  required,  as  necessary 
 
AND  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER,  NOT  THE  SAME.  491 
 
 *  to  an  admission  into  his  church,'  [or  congregation,]  '  it  is 
 1  evident,  I  think,  that  this  faith  alone  is  a  sufficient  qualification 
 1  for  Christian  Baptism.  Had  there  been  but  one  precedent 
 '  of  this  kind  which  had  no  peculiar  circumstance  attending  it, 
 'I  know  not  why  it  would  not  have  justified  the  admission  of 
 
 *  others  upon  the  same  terms  in  all  similar  cases.  How  much 
 '  more  must  the  concurrence  of  all  the  instances  of  conversions 
 '  which  we  have  any  account  of,  in  which  there  is  no  more 
 '  than  such  a  faith  inculcated  or  demanded,  be  a  demonstrative 
 '  proof  of  its  being  not  merely  sufficient  for,  but  of  its  giving 
 'an  absolute  title  to,  baptism.  For,  if  a  belief  in  the  divine 
 '  mission  of  Christ  was  not  a  proper  qualification  for  an 
 'admission  into  his  church'  [or  congregation],  '  the  apostles 
 '  must  be  extremely  faulty  in  their  requiring  nothing  further. 
 4  But,  if  they  who  were  enlightened  and  directed  by  the  Holy 
 '  Spirit  of  God,  in  a  distinguishing  manner,  allowed  its  suffi- 
 '  ciency  for  the  end,  it  must  be  very  great  arrogance  in  others 
 '  to  demand  any  thing  further.' 
 
 It  is  again  said,  that  John's  preaching  was  Discriminating; 
 and  the  like  will  apply  to  that  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 
 It  is  then  inferred,  that  the  primitive  baptisms  were  so 
 discriminating,  that  only  persons  who  deeply  repented  of 
 their  sins,  heartily  believed  the  doctrines  taught,  and  avowed 
 a  determination  to  conform  to  all  the  revealed  will  of  God, 
 underwent  this  ceremony.  To  this  objection  Dr.  Halley 
 forcibly  replies  :  '  The  preaching  of  John  was  faithful,  dis- 
 '  criminating,  searching,  distinguishing  between  the  righteous 
 '  and  the  wicked.  Mr.  Stovel  incontrovertibly  proves  that  he 
 '  reproved  sin,  rebuked  the  impenitent,  and  exhorted  all  to 
 '  bring  forth  fruits  meet  for  repentance.  But  how  does  all 
 '  this  determine  the  question,  whether  John  baptized  unto 
 'repentance  or  after  repentance.  Mr.  Stovel  might  as  well 
 '  produce  the  earnest,  searching,  discriminating  sermons  of 
 '  Latimer,  or  Baxter,  or  Whitfield,  to  prove  that  they  would 
 '  baptize  no  other  than  believers.  I  humbly  venture  to  affirm 
 '  that  I  have  endeavoured,  however  imperfectly,  to  discrimi- 
 '  nate  character  in  preaching.  But  I  do  not  suppose  that  I  shall 
 '  be  called  a  Baptist  on  that  account.  What  is  there  in  this 
 '  discriminating  preaching  of  John  which  an  evangelical  minister 
 '  of  the  Independent  denomination  would  not  imitate  as  readily 
 '  and  cordially  as  the  ministers  of  the  Baptist  communion  ?  My 
 '  opponent  must  be  again  reminded  that  our  controversy  is 
 '  not,  what  was  the  searching  character  of  John's  preaching, 
 '  but  what  was  the  signification  of  John's  baptism  ?     Was  it  a 
 
492  MULTITUDES,  OBIGINALLY  EAPTIZSD, 
 
 '  public  recognition  of  all  the  baptized  as  already  penitent,  or 
 '  was  it  a  symbol  of  the  cleansing  influences  of  that  doctrine 
 '  in  which  they  were  to  be  instructed?' 
 
 Nor  have  we  any  proof,  that  the  apostles  were  more 
 discriminating  in  their  preaching,  or  more  particular  respecting 
 the  persons  they  baptized,  than  John.  Our  opponents,  for 
 the  most  part,  concede  this  point.  Mr.  Noel  says,  '  A  disciple 
 *  of  John  was  one  who  repented  of  his  sins,  and  believed  that 
 '  the  promised  Christ  was  about  to  appear ....  It  is  improbable 
 '  that  John  would  baptize  on  lower  terms  than  those  on  which 
 '  proselytes  were  baptized  unto  Moses.  If  a  heathen  wished 
 'for  Jewish  baptism,  he  must  renounce  his  idols,  profess  his 
 '  belief  in  the  divine  authority  of  Moses,  and  promise  obedience 
 '  to  the  Mosaic  laws  ;  would  John,  then,  baptize  a  Jew,  unless 
 '  he  renounced  his  sins,  and  professed  belief  in  the  approaching 
 'advent  of  Christ,  with  his  intention  to  keep  the  commands 
 '  of  God  ?  His  numerous  baptisms  furnish  proof,  that  those 
 '  who  were  baptized  by  John  made  a  solemn  profession  of 
 'their  repentance  and  faith.'  p.  50,  51.  Now,  we  may  fairly 
 infer,  that  as  far  as  piety,  regeneration,  and  profession  went, 
 the  disciples  of  John  were  as  fully  qualified  for  baptism  as 
 any  of  Paul's  converts  —  for  they  could  require  no  more  than 
 was  done  at  Jordan  and  Enon.  How  far  they  were  thus 
 qualified,  we  have  just  shown. 
 
 Mr.  Morell,  a  baptist  writer  says,  '  Eeal  conversion  was 
 '  not  indespensible  to  constitute  a  disciple  of  Christ  during 
 'his  life  and  ministry.'  p.  40.  Does  Mr.  Noel  really  mean, 
 that  it  actually  was,  and  that  all  John's  disciples  were  really 
 and  spiritually  converted  ?  Impossible  !  Dr.  W.  Newman 
 says,  '  John's  baptism  and  Christ's  Baptism,  before  his  death, 
 '  were  surely  Christian  baptism,  for  the  time,  as  we  say.'  p.  8. 
 Besides,  if  John's  baptism  were  not  essentially  the  same  as 
 that  of  the  apostles  afterwards,  then  our  baptism  is  essentially 
 different  from  the  baptism  administered  to  the  Saviour  himself, 
 and  to  which  latter  our  brethren  are  constantly  referring  us, 
 as  exhibiting  what  they  believe  to  be  the  true  subjects  and  mode 
 of  this  ordinance.  Those  baptized  after  the  Saviour's  death, 
 might  have  obtained  more  distinct  views  than  those  baptized 
 before  ;  but  that  the  apostles  required  a  fuller  confession  of 
 sin,  deeper  repentance,  'stronger  resolutions,  or  more  personal 
 '  piety,'  than  John,  there  is  not  the  shadow  of  evidence.  That 
 our  evangelical  Baptist  brethren  would  not  admit  such  persons 
 to  their  communion,  as  John  and  the  apostles  frequently 
 baptized,  I  re-affirm  ;   and  none  of  our  opponents  will  deny  it. 
 
vmo  NEVI'R  BECAME  COMMUNICANTS.  193 
 
 Objection  II.  —  It  is  still  maintained,  that  all  who  were 
 baptized  by  tlie  apostles,  were  at  ones  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
 Supper. — The  only  text  brought  forward  to  support  this 
 opinion  is  the  following :  '  And  they  continued  stedfastly  in 
 1  the  apostles'  doctrine  '  (  or,  '  in  their  attendance  on  the  word 
 'the  apostles  preached'  —  Doddridge)  '  and  fellowship,  and 
 '  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in  prayers .  .  .  .And  they  continuing 
 '  daily  with  one  accord  in  the  temple  ;  and  breaking  bread 
 1  from  house  to  house,  did  eat  their  meat  with  gladness  and 
 'singleness  of  heart.  Acts.  ii.  42,  46.  That  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  formally  administered, is  here  meant,  is  very  doubtful. 
 Commentators  are  divided  on  the  question — the  preponderance 
 being,  as  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  in  favour  of  its  meaning  only 
 their  ordinary  meals,  or  their  feasts  of  charity  and  hospitality, 
 partaken  of  thankfully,  devoutly,  joyfully,  in  eating  and 
 drinking  to  the  glory  of  God.  To  me,  it  is  manifest,  that  the 
 Lord's  Supper,  as  our  opponents  understand  it,  is  not  intended. 
 Agnostos  observes — -'  This  appears  to  be  the  only  place  where 
 '  baptism  is  associated  with  the  Lord's  Supper  (supposing 
 '  that  the  breaking  of  bread  is  to  be  understood  in  relation  to 
 '  that  ordinance).  But  even  here,  it  is  no  less  intimately 
 '  connected  with  the  apostles'  doctrine,  and  fellowship,  and 
 '  prayers  ;  so  that  if  the  want  of  baptism  would  exclude  from 
 'the  table  of  the  Lord,  it  would  equally  exclude  from  those 
 '  other  exercises  of  devotion  and  instruction,  which  are 
 'represented  as  designating  the  Christian  character.'  p.  108. 
 
 Doddridge  says,  'It  may  undoubtedly  signify  their  common 
 'meals.'  In  loc.  It  is  not  called  the  Lord's  Supper;  but 
 simply  'breaking  of  bread,'  a  phrase  frequently  employed  to 
 designate  their  ordinary  meals.  Matt.  xiv.  19;  xv.  30;  Luke 
 xxiv.  50.  No  wine  is  mentioned,  and  no  memorial  of  Christ's 
 death  is  referred  to,  nor  is  any  special  solemnity  of  manner 
 recorded ;  all  which  seem  essential  to  the  devout  administration 
 of  this  sacrament.  And  when  it  is  added,  '  from  house  to 
 *  house,'  it  appears  clearly  to  refer  to  Christian  hospitality,  or 
 social  and  friendly  intercourse.  Certainly,  the  expression, 
 '  from  house  to  house,'  is  nowhere  else  employed  in  respect 
 of  the  Lord's  Supper.  There  is  nothing  in  the  terms  that 
 would  indicate  '  the  sacrament,'  any  more  than  when  '  Gaius, 
 '  mine  host, '  and  other  hospitable  friends,  entertained  the 
 apostles  and  people  of  Christ,  in  subsequent  times.  That  the 
 converts  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  and  those  added  soon  after, 
 amounting,  at  least,  to  five  thousand  men  (aud  women),  did 
 not  meet  together  in  one  place  to  partake  of  the  Eucharist, 
 
494  MULTITUDES,  ORIGINALLY  BAPTIZED, 
 
 may  be  readily  assumed.  The  accommodation  for  such  a 
 multitude  of  communicants  would  be  out  of  their  reach, 
 unless  the  temple  were  lent  for  the  purpose  by  the  priests, 
 which  was  not  more  likely,  than  that  the  inhabitants  of 
 Jerusalem  would  allow  the  apostles  to  immerse  their  converts 
 in  the  domestic  tanks;  or  unless,  like  the  Scottish  covenanters, 
 they  fenced  their  tables  in  the  suburban  fields,  exposed  to 
 the  gaze,  and  liable  to  the  shouts,  if  nothing  worse,  of  their 
 indignant  enemies  ;  which  is  equally  improbable. 
 
 It  is  worth  knowing,  that  the  early  followers  of  Christ  had 
 no  spacious  churches  or  chapels  of  their  own  in  which  to 
 congregate  and  celebrate  their  religious  services.  '  The  first 
 '  place  of  meeting,  among  the  primitive  Christians,  seems  to 
 '  have  been  a  room  in  the  house  of  some  member  of  the 
 *  church.  As  the  congregation  became  larger,  particularly  in 
 '  towns,  it  became  necessary  to  select  a  more  suitable  place 
 1  of  assembly.  The  church  at  Ephesus  held  their  meetings 
 'for  a  time  in  the  house  of  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  where  Paul 
 'preached  to  them.  Gradually,  these  private  apartments 
 '  would  be  fitted  up  in  a  style  better  adapted  for  public 
 '  worship.  An  elevated  seat  would  be  introduced  for  the 
 '  speaker,  and  a  table  set,  for  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's 
 '  Supper.  Separate  buildings,  for  the  special  purpose  of 
 '  divine  service,  were  erected  so  early  as  in  the  third  century, 
 '  at  which  time  they  are  expressly  mentioned  in  the  edict  of 
 '  Gallien.  The  Chronicle  of  Edessa  speaks  of  a  Christian 
 '  church  as  standing  then,  even  in  A.D.  202.'  Faiths  of  the 
 World.  Hence,  the  congregating  or  communion  of  large 
 numbers  of  believers  at  one  time,  and  in  one  building,  during 
 the  apostolic  age,  is  very  improbable. 
 
 In  truth,  it  is  not  rendered  certain  that  the  sacrament  was 
 frequently  or  regularly  administered  to  the  baptized  for  a 
 considerable  time  after  its  first  appointment,  by  Christ  himself. 
 He  gave  his  disciples  no  directions  when  it  was  to  be  first 
 repeated,  nor  how  often  afterwards.  It  might  have  been 
 reiterated  annually,  (like  the  original  passover),  or  monthly, 
 or  weekly,  by  the  saints  in  limited  companies,  in  the  houses 
 of  Christian  converts;  but  there  is  no  proof  in  support  of  its 
 early  observance.  When,  in  the  course  of  time,  distinct  and 
 independent  societies  were  formed  by  real  Christian  converts, 
 as  circumstances  permitted  or  demanded — as  when  bishops 
 or  elders  were  appointed  in  particular  localities,  to  take  the 
 oversight  of  the  little  flocks,  or  when  infant  congregations 
 were  gathered  by  evangelical  labourers,  as  recorded  in  Actsxiv. 
 
WHO  NEVER  BECAME  COMMUNICANTS.  495 
 
 23,  about  the  year  46  ;  or,  just  as  deacons  were  chosen  when 
 they  were  needed — then,  it  is  probable,  the  Lord's  Supper  was 
 regularly  administered,  at  intervals  more  or  less  protracted, 
 to  the  godly  followers  of  Christ,  duly  admitted  to  this 
 Christian  feast. 
 
 Nor  is  a  long  intermission,  or  a  considerable  postponement, 
 of  this  sacrament,  in  times  of  travail,  tumult,  and  persecution, 
 without  something  like  a  precedent.  The  passover  was  not 
 kept,  nor  circumcision  administered,  by  the  Israelites,  even 
 when  under  the  personal  guidance  of  Moses  and  Aaron,  during 
 the  forty  years  they  were  travelling  in  the  wilderness.  Though 
 instituted,  and  commanded  to  be  observed  by  them,  and  their 
 seed  for  ever  ;  the  former  was  not  kept  a  second  time,  till 
 they  came  to  the  plains  of  Jericho.  Ex.  xii.  24.  Nor  were  the 
 children  circumcised  during  all  their  long  pilgrimage  in  the 
 desert.  Josh.  v.  2-12.  Indeed,  many  of  the  ceremonial  laws, 
 which  Moses  enjoined  upon  the  Jews,  could  not  have  been 
 regularly,  if  ever,  observed  by  them  till  they  came  into  the 
 corn  and  wine -growing  land  of  Canaan — forty  years  afterwards. 
 
 Now,  unless  we  can  discover  some  intimate  and  immediate 
 connexion  between  water-baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  in 
 the  passages  to  which  we  have  referred,  (Acts  ii.  42,  46),  we 
 shall  find  it  no  where  else  in  the  New  Testament.  No  other 
 case  occurs  in  which  the  slightest  intimation  is  given,  that 
 the  baptized  generally  received  this  sacrament.  Of  course,  we 
 conclude,  that  the  vast  multitudes,  baptized  by  John  and  the 
 Saviour's  disciples,  prior  to  the  crucifixion,  were  not  inducted 
 to  this  service  ;  for,  in  its  direct  spiritual  application  to  Christ, 
 as  having  actually  died  for  sin,  it  had  not  been  instituted — 
 though  the  original  passover,  of  which  it  formed  a  part, 
 was  regularly  observed  during  all  the  time.  The  baptized 
 Samaritans  are  not  said  to  have  received  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  nor 
 Cornelius ;  nor  Paulus  Sergius,  (Peter  and  Paul's  first  converts 
 among  the  gentiles) ;  nor  Lydia ;  nor  Crispus  ;  nor  Gaius  ; 
 nor  Stephanus  ;  nor  Paul ;  nor  the  Jailor  ;  nor  the  Eunuch  ; 
 nor,  in  fact,  any  other  persons,  immediately  after  their  baptism, 
 or  in  consequence  of  its  reception,  and  some  of  them  not  for 
 months  or  years  afterwards.  The  fact  of  its  administration 
 at  Corinth  is  clearly  stated  ;  but  this  was  in  the  year  of  our 
 Lord,  60  ;  and  at  Troas,  its  celebration  is  probable  ;  but  this 
 was  in  the  year  57 — periods  considerably  remote  from  the 
 time  of  its  institution. 
 
 I  am  not  asserting  that  a  very  long  time  did  certainly 
 elapse  during  which  this  holy  ordinance — like  the  passover 
 
496  MULTITUDES,  ORIGINALLY  BAPTIZED, 
 
 and  circumcision  in  the  wilderness — was  suspended.  But, 
 I  do  contend,  that  the  opponents  of  Infant  Baptism  must  not 
 be  permitted  to  found  an  argument  against  that  rite,  on  the 
 gratuitous  assumption  of  an  early,  intimate,  and  uninterrupted 
 connexion,  between  the  two  sacraments,  in  the  case  of  all 
 baptized  Christians — which  connexion,  according  to  the  sacred 
 records,  was  never  designed,  nor  ever  observed.  With  respect 
 to  the  apostle  Paul,  it  is  probable,  that  the  nature  and  purport 
 of  this  ordinance  were  unknown  to  him  till  he  received  a 
 direct  revelation  concerning  them,  from  Jesus  Christ  himself, 
 very  likely  some  years  after  his  conversion  and  baptism ; 
 1  Cor.  xi.  23.  '  For  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which 
 '  I  have  delivered  unto  you,'  [when  I  was  with  you  three  years 
 ago].  In  none  of  his  recorded  discourses,  or  his  epistles, 
 besides  the  above,  is  this  sacrament  ever  specifically  mentioned. 
 Mr.  A.  Fuller  says,  '  I  do  not  recollect,  that  any  minister  is 
 '  said  to  have  administered  the  Lord's  Supper,  unless  we 
 '  consider  Christ  as  sustaining  that  character,  at  the  time  of 
 '  its  institution  ;  and  this  silence  of  the  Scriptures,  concerning 
 '  the  administrator,  appeared  to  me  to  prove  that  it  was  a  matter 
 '  of  indifference.'  Mr.  Kinghorn  also  admits,  that  'the  New 
 '  Testament  does  not  prohibit  the  unbaptized  from  receiving 
 •  the  Lord's  Supper,  because  no  circumstance  arose  which 
 'rendered  such  prohibition  necessary.'  p.  32.  A  similar 
 silence,  for  many  years,  as  to  its  administration  at  all,  equally 
 proves,  that  there  was  no  necessary  connexion  between  this 
 ordinance  and  water-baptism  ;  the  latter  of  which  was  con- 
 fessedly administered  to  all  new  converts  to  the  Gospel. 
 
 But,  supposing  adult  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  were 
 scripturally  related  ;  it  does  not  necessarily  follow,  that  there 
 migbt  not  be  Infant  Baptism  without  any  such  immediate 
 connexion  between  that  act  and  a  partaking  of  the  Eucharist. 
 Between  circumcision  and  immediate  active  obedience,  in 
 the  case  of  adults,  the  law  enjoined  a  close  connexion  ;  but 
 not  so  between  the  circumcision  of  infants  and  the  like 
 immediate  obedience.  The  baptized  adult  proselyte  was 
 bound  to  serve  God  openly  and  actively  at  once  ;  but  his 
 baptized  baby,  from  its  natural  incapacity,  was  under  no 
 such  present  obligation — though  the  exception  is  not  noticed. 
 God  does  not  reap  where  he  has  not  sown.  And  all  his 
 general  rules  admit  of  necessary  exceptions.  The  Hebrews, 
 baptized  in  the  Sea,  were  bound  immediately  to  attend  to  the 
 instruction  of  Moses  as  their  inspired  teacher  ;  but  the  young 
 child  was  not  bound  to  be,  there  and  then,  an  attentive  student 
 
WHO  NEVER  BECAME  COMMUNICANTS.  497 
 
 in  the  school  of  the  law.  Baptist  parents  dedicate  and  devote 
 their  infants  to  the  care,  service,  and  blessings  of  God,  before 
 the  latter  can  have  a  thought  on  the  subject,  or  perform  the 
 least  labour  for  the  Lord.  Persons  may  be  in  the  same  state, 
 hut  not  in  the  like  circumstances  ;  may  be  in  the  same  relation 
 to  the  church,  but  not  in  the  like  position  as  to  active  duty. 
 A  cbilu  maybe  an  heir  to  a  fortune  it  cannot  personally  hold, 
 to  food  it  cannot  eat,  to  raiment  it  cannot  wear,  and  to  homage 
 it  cannot  knowingly  receive.  All  this  is  too  manifest  to  be 
 unperceived,  and  too  conclusive  to  be  controverted.  On  the 
 same  grounds,  we  conclude,  that  if  Baptism  and  the  Lord's 
 Supper  were  consecutive  and  allied  ;  the  interval  between  the 
 reception  of  them  might  be  many  years — as  there  are  between 
 the  little  school-boy,  and  the  competent  school-master.  To 
 argue  that,  because  infants,  through  natural  incapacity,  are 
 not  prepared  to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper,  they  should  not 
 receive  the  rite  of  baptism,  for  which  they  have  a  capacity,  is 
 as  illogical  as  the  assertion,  that  a  child  should  not  be  made 
 the  inheritor  of  an  estate,  because,  at  present,  it  could  not 
 manage  its  concerns ;  or  that  it  should  not  have  been 
 circumcised,  because  it  could  not  keep  the  whole  law — to  do 
 which  all  who  received  that  rite  immediately  became  debtors  ! 
 
 That  infants  are  proper  subjects  for  Christian  baptism,  or 
 for  being  dedicated  to  Christ,  with  the  application  of  water, 
 I  assume  has  been  rendered  certain  and  plain,  by  the  preceding 
 discussion.  To  me,  it  is  equally  clear,  that  they  are  not 
 mentally  qualified  for  communion  at  the  Lord's  table.  In 
 the  former  case,  persons  are  the  mere  passive  recipients  of  a 
 simple  religious  ceremony ;  in  the  latter,  they  are  the  intelligent 
 performers  of  a  high  religious  duty.  In  the  Eucharist,  the 
 communicants  are  to  partake  of  the  elements  in  remembrance 
 of  Christ,  or  as  a  recognized  memorial  of  his  dying  for  their 
 salvation.  They  are  to  examine  themselves  as  to  their  own 
 personal  piety,  character,  and  motives,  previous  to  joining 
 with  others  in  this  holy  festival.  They  must  discern  the 
 Lord's  "body,  symbolized  in  breaking  the  bread  and  pouring 
 out  the  wine,  lest  they  eat  and  drink  unworthily  and  to  their 
 own  condemnation.  1  Cor.  xi.  25,  28,  29.  These  are  acts  of 
 which  children  of  tender  age,  in  no  sense,  are  capable;  and 
 consequently,  they  are  not  qualified  for  the  communion  of 
 saints  at  the  Lord's  table.  Mr.  Keach  remarks,  'When  Paul 
 '  saith, "  let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so  let  him  eat,"  doth  he 
 'not  forbid  infants  to  partake  thereof,  and  all  to  come  to  the 
 '  Lord's  Supper,  that  do  not  so  examine  themselves,  or  who  do 
 
498  MULTITUDES,  ORIGINALLY  BAPTIZED, 
 
 1  not  discern  the  Lord's  body.'  p.  229.  He  means,  that  all 
 such  are  forbidden  by  implication.  But,  the  truth  is,  they 
 are  forbidden  to  eat  the  Lord's  Supper,  simply  because  they 
 cannot  perform  the  works  of  faith,  obedience,  and  love  ;  just 
 as  our  little  ones  might  be  said  to  be  forbidden  to  eat  ordinary 
 food,  because  they  cannot  make  a  coat,  or  cultivate  the 
 vegetables  in  the  garden  !  and  for  no  other  reason.  Baptism 
 is  an  initiatory,  the  Eucharist  a  commemorative,  service. 
 
 Again,  it  is  observable,  that  no  person  is  said  to  have 
 received  water-baptism  unworthily,  or  was  in  danger  of  doing 
 so,  for  want  of  faith,  love,  or  holiness  ;  showing  that  the  like 
 intelligence,  piety,  and  faith,  so  essential  to  communion  at 
 the  Lord's  table,  were  not  essential,  before  approaching  the 
 baptismal  font.  Nor  can  we  find  an  intimation  in  Scripture, 
 that  young  children  ever  did  unite  with  adults  at  this  sacred 
 feast ;  or  even  a  remote  hint,  that  they  were  qualified  for  such 
 a  spiritual  act.  It  is  repeatedly  affirmed,  that  men  and  their 
 families  were  baptized,  and  that  men  and  their  families  believed 
 the  gospel ;  yet,  it  is  never  said  that  any  man  and  his  family 
 united  with  the  people  of  God  in  partaking  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper.  In  respect  to  these  two  ordinances  the  language  is 
 changed,  indicating  that  the  subjects  of  them  were  not  always 
 and  necessarily  the  same ;  and  also,  by  the  bye,  that  in  some 
 of  these  families  there  were  children  too  young  to  sit  at  the 
 Lord's  table.  Moreover,  while  it  is  several  times  asserted, 
 that,  previous  to  baptism,  persons  ought  to  repent ;  such  an 
 admonition  is  never  given  to  any  previous  to  their  coming  to 
 this  sacrament — the  assumption  in  the  latter  case  being, 
 that  the  communicants  had,  at  least,  professedly  repented, 
 previously  to  their  presuming  to  take  their  seats  around  the 
 sacramental  board. 
 
 Let  it,  further,  be  noted,  that  the  first  recorded  instance  of 
 children  being  taken  to  the  Lord's  table,  and  made  participants 
 of  the  elements  of  this  ordinance,  occurred  nearly  three 
 hundred  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ.  Dr.  Newman  says, 
 '  Infant  Communion  was  introduced  into  the  church  in  the 
 1  third  century.'  p.  50.  The  ground  of  this  assertion  the  writer 
 does  not  produce.  But  certain  it  is,  from  very  ample  data,  that 
 Infant  Baptism  long  preceded  Infant  Communion.  In  the 
 mean  time,  those  who  practised  the  former  could  not  have 
 believed  that  there  was  any  immediate  or  necessary  connexion 
 between  these  sacraments,  or  they,  too,  would  most  assuredly 
 have  observed  it,  and  brought  their  children  to  the  Lord's 
 table.     Mr.  Noel  says,  '  Infant  Communion,  which  all  admit 
 
WHO  NEVER  BECAME  COMMUNICANTS.  499 
 
 '  to  be  a  corruption,  was  introduced  as  early  '  [as  Infant 
 Baptism],  '  became  as  general,  lasted  centuries,  and  grew  up 
 'as  silently.'  p.  253.  His  autbority  for  sucb  early  Infant 
 Communion  is  based  on  a  mistaken  view  of  Mr.  Bingham's 
 statements  on  this  question.  The  latter  says,  it  continued 
 in  some  churches  six  hundred  years,  and  ceased  in  the  ninth 
 century  ;  in  others,  it  continued  eight  hundred  years,  and  was 
 abrogated  in  the  twelfth  century  ;  showing  that  it  could  not 
 have  been  commenced  in  any  of  them  before  between  the 
 third  and  fourth  century — confirming  Dr.  Newman's  remark 
 just  given.  The  testimonies  Bingham  adduces,  prove  that 
 Infant  Baptism  was  earlier  than  Infant  Communion  by,  at  least, 
 a  hundred  years.  Mr.  Noel  is,  therefore,  sadly  out  in  his 
 chronology.  All  reliable  historical  authorities  admit  that 
 Infant  Baptism,  if  not  apostolical,  commenced  long  before 
 Infant  Communion. 
 
 It  is  also  worthy  of  notice,  that  while  the  general  church, 
 the  Ecclesia  in  its  wide  sense,  was  thrown  open  to  all  who 
 were  willing  to  enter,  and  to  receive  the  privileges  of  hearing, 
 learning,  and  uniting,  with  decorum,  in  public  worship  ;  the 
 particular  church,  the  Ecclesia,  in  its  limited  sense,  was 
 professedly  barred  against  the  manifestly  unholy,  the  grossly 
 ignorant,  and  confessedly  unrenewed.  The  former  fact  we 
 have  already  established ;  the  latter  may  soon  be  made 
 apparent,  by  citing  a  text  or  two : — '  I  wrote  unto  you  in  an 
 '  epistle  not  to  company  with  fornicators. .  .  .But  now  I  have 
 1  written  unto  you  not  to  keep  company,  if  any  man  [who]  is 
 '  called  a  brother,  be  a  fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  an  idolater, 
 1  or  a  railer,  or  a  drunkard,  or  an  extortioner,  with  such  an 
 *  one,  no  not  to  eat.'  1  Cor.  v.  9,  11.  '  Now  I  beseech  you 
 '  brethren,  mark  them  which  cause  divisions  and  offences 
 '  contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  have  learned,  and  avoid 
 '  them.'  Rom.  xvi.  1  7.  '  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in 
 '  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  your- 
 '  selves  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  net 
 1  after  the  tradition  which  ye  received  of  us.'  2  Thess.  iii.  6. 
 Hence,  we  gather,  that  spiritual  Christians  were  not  intimately 
 to  associate  in  this  holy  communion  with  any  professors  of 
 the  gospel,  who  conducted  themselves  disorderly,  transgressed 
 the  great  moral  laws  of  Christianity,  or  who  created  divisions 
 or  contentions  among  the  brethren.  They  were  not  to  make 
 special  companions  of  them,  or  to  eat  with  them  at  each 
 other's  tables,  and,  much  less,  at  the  table  of  the  Lord. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  observes,  '  The  supper  of  the  Lord  was  not  only 
 
500  MULTITUDES,  ORIGINALLY  BAPTIZED, 
 
 '  used  exclusively  by  persons  baptized  into  Christ ;  but  it  also 
 '  required  them  to  be  living  as  Christ  had  appointed.'  Dis. 
 p.  315.  And,  as  we  before  argued,  the  present  procedure  cf 
 our  opponents  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  an  exposition  of  their 
 views  of  the  primitive  practice  in  this  case  as  in  many  others. 
 Now,  what  would  be  thought  of  the  members  of  a  Baptist 
 society,  to  whom  the  pastor  might  truly  say  what  Paul  wrote 
 to  the  Corinthians  :  '  Change  your  drunken  revel-lings  into  the 
 'sobriety  of  righteousness,  and  live  no  more  in  sin  ;  for  some 
 '  of  you  know  not  God:  I  speak  this  to  your  shame.'  1  Cor. 
 xv.  34.  Conybeare's  Version.  This  admonition,  addressed  to 
 a  promiscuous  congregation,  would  present  nothing  very 
 incongruous  ;  but,  to  the  accredited  members  of  their  inner 
 church,  seems  totally  inappropriate.  Mr.  Hall  says,  '  The 
 '  admission  '  [even]  '  of  spectators,  who  were  not  members  of 
 'the  church,  during  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
 'was  comparatively  a  modern  innovation.' — 'During  the 
 '  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  early  Christian 
 'church,  none  but  believers  in  full  communion  with  the 
 '  church,  were  allowed  to  be  present,  and  all  who  were  present 
 'partook  of  the  ordinance.'  Faiths  of  the  World. 
 
 It  is  remarkable,  that  the  distinction  cf  classes  and 
 characters  wTas  much  more  observed  at  the  table  than  any 
 where  else.  The  uncircumcised  must  not  eat  the  passover 
 with  the  circumcised,  however  virtuous  and  dignified  in  life 
 and  position.  It  was  brought  as  a  charge  against  Christ,  that 
 he  ate  with  publicans  and  sinners,  though  talking  and  dealing 
 with  them  were  unnoticed.  So  it  was  in  the  east  aforetime, 
 and  is  so  even  now.  Joseph  must  eat  separately  from  his 
 brethren.  The  Hindoo  of  high  caste  will  trade  and  converse 
 with  an  inferior,  but  will  not  eat  with  him,  and  much  less 
 with  a  Christian.  The  holy  followers  of  Christ  might  hear 
 with,  talk  with,  trade  with,  and  worship  with,  their  ungodly 
 and  disorderly  brethren  ;  but  they  must  not  partake  of  a 
 sacred  meal  with  them.  Here  was  the  chiefly  manifest 
 division  between  sincere  and  consistent  Christians,  and  the 
 evidently  unconverted.  Yet,  against  the  baptism  of  unrenewed 
 and  unrighteous  persons  not  a  syllable  is  uttered  by  Christ  or 
 his  apostles.  In  fact,  all  were  invited  to  hear  the  gospel 
 in  thefields,  streets,  synagogues,  or  houses  of  Christian  friends. 
 Hence,  the  distinction  I  have  been  aiming  to  establish,  that 
 persons  were  deemed  qualified  for  baptism,  who  were  not 
 regarded  as  prepared  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
 Mr.  Hall  supports  this  view  of  the  subject:   'The  communion 
 
WHO  NEVEB  BECAME  OOMMDNICANTS.  501 
 
 1  has  no  retrospective  reference  to  baptism,  nor  is  baptism  an 
 '  anticipation  of  communion.  Enjoined  at  different  times,  and 
 '  appointed  for  different  purposes,  they  are  capable,  without 
 '  the  least  inconvenience,  of  being  contemplated  apart ;  and 
 1  on  no  occasion  are  they  mentioned  in  such  a  connexion  as 
 '  to  imply,  much  less  to  assert,  that  the  one  is  enjoined  with  a 
 'view  to  the  other.'  p.  37. 
 
 The  preceding  remarks  confirm  the  propriety  of  the  dis- 
 tinction we  formerly  made  between  the  general  and  the 
 particular  congregations  of  Christians,  in  the  first  ages  of  the 
 Christian  economy.  We  endeavoured  to  prove,  that  the 
 ■Ecclesia,  in  its  wider  sense,  embraced  the  assemblies  of  the 
 converted  and  the  unconverted,  who  were  baptized  unto  the 
 profession  of  Christianity,  (as  distinguished  from  an  open 
 adherence  to  Judaism,  idolatry,  or  atheism,)  and  the  supposed 
 regenerated  followers  of  Jesus  Christ — whose  conduct  indicated 
 that  they  loved,  trusted,  and  laboured  to  obey,  the  Son  of  God. 
 These  latter  constituted  the  Ecclesia,  or  congregation,  in  its 
 narrower  sense,  and  met  in  spiritual  communion  at  the  table 
 of  the  Lord.  It  is  now  further  apparent,  there  was  also  a 
 distinction  founded  on  age  as  well  as  on  character.  We  have 
 shewn,  that  children  formed  a  part,  and,  probably,  a  considerable 
 part,  of  the  Christian  or  believing  congregations,  in  which  the 
 •epistles  were  read,  preaching  conducted,  and  prayer  offered 
 to  God.  But,  we  have  also  seen,  that  children,  baptized  or 
 not,  formed  no  part  of  the  communicants  at  the  Lord's  table, 
 or  of  the  congregation  in  its  limited  sense,  for  some  centuries 
 after  Christ,  nor  until  great  corruptions  had  been  introduced 
 to  the  profession  of  the  gospel.  This  evinces,  that  there  were 
 two  classes  of  people,  in  the  first  times  of  the  Christian  church, 
 recognized  as  disciples,  and  followers  of  Christ,  the  same  as 
 in  the  present  day,  by  our  opponents  as  well  as  by  ourselves  ; 
 and,  indeed,  to  a  greater  or  less  degree,  by  most,  if  not  all, 
 the  professors  of  the  Christian  religion.  However  lax  and 
 culpable  might  have  been  the  discipline  of  the  first  churches, 
 in  respect  of  adult  communion  ;  it  is  certain  the  distinction, 
 for  which  I  have  been  contending,  was  preserved  in  the  case 
 of  the  younger  members  of  the  Christian  community. 
 
 Objection  III. — It  is  asserted  that  there  ought  to  be  the 
 same  connexion  betiven  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  as 
 there  was  between  circumcision  and  the  passover. — Gibbs 
 says,  '  All  children  who  were  circumcised  partook  of  the 
 '  passover — all  children  who  were  baptized  should  receive 
 ■  the   Lord's   Supper.      All   children  who   were   circumcised 
 
502  CIRCUMCISION  AND  THE  PASSOVER  — 
 
 '  were  thenceforth  considered  members  of  the  Jewish  church ' 
 [or  great  congregation]  ;  '  and  without  any  subsequent  conver- 
 '  sion  or  profession  of  faith  were  entitled  to  all  its  privileges  ' 
 [as  far  as  they  could  use  them] — '  all  children  who  are 
 '  baptized,  should  be  received  as  members  of  the  visible 
 1  church '  [or  congregation],  '  and  have  a  right  to  its  privileges ' 
 [as  far  as  they  can  use  them],  '  independent  of  any  work  of 
 'grace,  or  profession  of  faith,  in  their  future  lives.'  p.  321. 
 This  objection,  like  many  others,  to  Infant  Baptism,  is 
 founded  on  a  fallacy.  What  proof  have  we  that  all  who  were 
 circumcised  immediately  afterwards  partook  of  the  paschal 
 feast  ?  Every  male  child  of  eight  days  old  was  actually 
 circumcised.  Was  it,  at  that  age,  to  eat  the  passover,  to 
 gird  up  its  loins,  to  take  its  pilgrim's  staff,  and  to  masticate 
 roast  lamb  and  unleavened  bread,  or  hard  biscuits,  like  a  man! 
 The  idea  is  absurd.  Besides,  these  two  institutions  had  a 
 perfectly  independent  origin — one  preceding  the  other  by 
 four  hundred  years.  The  passover  had  no  special  primitive 
 reference  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  like  circumcision. 
 And  though  both  had  God  for  their  author,  their  designs 
 were  different ;  one  had  a  direct  allusion  to  the  sanctification 
 of  the  heart,  the  other  to  the  redemption  of  the  soul  by  the  blood 
 of  Christ.  Their  subsequent  connexion  was  incidental ;  just 
 as  circumcision  became  related  to  the  Mosaic  priesthood  and 
 the  tabernacle  worship,  to  sacrifices  and  the  various  ablutions 
 and  consecrations. 
 
 There  is  no  command  for  babes,  though  circumcised,  to 
 partake  of  the  passover.  None  were  to  eat  it,  unless  they  were 
 circumcised,  really — or  virtually,  as  grown-up  females.  But 
 it  does  not  follow,  that  every  circumcised  male  was  immediately 
 to  eat  it.  None  but  really  converted  persons  ought  to  preach 
 the  gospel ;  but  it  does  not  thence  follow,  that  every  pious 
 person  should  occupy  a  Christian  pulpit.  A  stranger  could 
 not  partake  of  the  passover  till  himself  and  his  male  children 
 were  circumcised  ;  but  the  children,  though  circumcised,  are 
 not  enjoined  to  partake  of  it  also,  nor  the  parents  to  give  it 
 to  them.  Ex.  xii.  48,  49.  Though  circumcised  in  a  state  of 
 infancy,  they  were  to  be  subsequently  taught  the  laws,  wonders, 
 and  works  of  God  ;  and  when  duly  enlightened  on  these 
 points,  were  probably  permitted  formally  to  unite  in  this 
 festal  celebration.  Deut.  vi.  1-9.  It  was  also  like  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  at  least,  partly  a  commemorative  service ;  and 
 could  be  intelligently  observed  only  by  persons  when  of  age  to 
 reflect  on  their  great  deliverance  out  of  Egypt.  Ex.  xii.  26,  27. 
 
BAPTISM  AXD  THE  LORD'S  STJPPFR.  503 
 
 Our  Lord  came  up  to  the  passover  when  he  was  twelve  years 
 of  age ;  and  likely  that  was  about  the  period  of  life  when 
 children  were  deemed  meet  to  receive  this  ordinance. 
 
 Again,  it  is  certain,  that  openly  wicked  persons  were  not  to  be 
 regarded,  relative  to  external  religious  matters,  with  the  same 
 favour  as  the  virtuous  and  the  devout ;  were  not  to  be  treated 
 ceremonially  with  the  like  indulgence  ;  and,  very  probably,  if 
 known  to  be  profane,  were  not  allowed  to  partake  of  the 
 passover  at  the  annual  gatherings,  even  though  it  was  a 
 national  institution.  '  But  unto  the  wicked  God  saith,  what 
 '  hast  thou  to  do  to  declare  my  statutes,  or  that  thou  shouldest 
 '  take  my  covenant  into  thy  mouth.'  Ps.  1.  16,  17.  '  To  what 
 '  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me,  saith 
 'the  Lord  ?  I  am  full  of  the  burnt  offerings  of  rams  and  the 
 '  fat  of  beasts ;  I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of 
 1  lambs,  or  of  he  goats,'  [which  you  offer].  '  When  ye  come 
 '  to  appear  before  me,  who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands, 
 '  to  tread  my  courts  ?  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations  ;  your 
 'incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me.'  Is.  i.  11-15.  Who 
 will  aver  that  such  characters  were  welcome  to  God's  passover, 
 or,  if  known,  cheerfully  permitted  to  eat  thereof  in  the 
 company  of  virtuous  and  devout  Israelites?  We  find,  that 
 the  ceremonially  unclean,  except  under  very  pressing  and 
 peculiar  circumstances,  might  not  eat  of  the  passover  till 
 they  were  purified.  2  Chron.  xxx.  18,  19.  'And  many  went 
 'out  of  the  country  up  to  Jerusalem,  before  the  passover  to 
 '  purify  themselves.'  John  xi.  55.  '  And  they  went  not  into 
 '  the  judgement  hall,  lest  they  should  be  defiled  ;  but  that 
 '  they  might  eat  the  passover.'  lb.  xviii.  28  ;  intimating,  that 
 the  ceremonially  unsanctified  could  not  partake  of  it.  '  And 
 '  with  bitter  herbs  they  shall  eat  it.'  Ex.  xii.  8.  '  These 
 '  bitter  herbs  might  be  an  emblem  of  godly  sorrow,  deep 
 '  repentance,  self-denial,  and  mortification  of  depraved  pas- 
 '  sious.'  Scott.  Teaching  us,  that  a  moral  and  spiritual 
 preparation  for  the  passover  was  required  of  old,  as  there  is 
 now  for  the  Lord's  passover  under  the  gospel. 
 
 We  may,  therefore,  reasonably  infer,  that  the  morally 
 profane,  the  open  transgressors  of  God's  laws,  and  the  manifestly 
 impenitent,  ought  not  to  have  attended  it.  The  question  is 
 not,  what  a  lax  discipline,  and  a  negligent  or  sin-conniving 
 priesthood  might  tolerate,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God; 
 but  what  his  will  really  was  concerning  the  religious  character 
 of  the  communicants  The  rules  of  both  Independent  and 
 Baptist   churches — which  we  regard  as    scriptural   in   this 
 
504  CIRCUMCISION  AND  THE  PASSOVER — 
 
 particular — are,  that  none,  except  really  enlightened  adult 
 Christian  people,  should  sit  down  at  the  Lord's  table.  That 
 unholy  and  unrenewed  people  do  commune  in  these  ordinances 
 occasionally  or  constantly,  does  not  alter  their  rules,  nor  prove 
 that  such  persons  ought  to  he  there.  Our  Lord  says,  no  one 
 should  offer  his  gift  on  the  Jewish  altar,  while  indulging 
 enmity  in  his  mind  against  his  brother  ;  commanding  such 
 angry  people  first  to  go  and  be  reconciled  to  their  brother, 
 and  then  to  come  and  offer  their  gifts.  Matt.  v.  24.  This  is 
 the  law,  however  it  may  occasionally  be  broken.  Is  it  not, 
 therefore,  highly  probable,  that  openly  wicked  and  profane 
 people,  even  though  they  had  been  duly  circumcised,  ought 
 not  to  partake  of  the  passover ;  and  iff  so,  there  is  no 
 inseparable  connexion  between  these  two  divine  ordinances  ; 
 any  more  than  between  adult  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
 among  our  opponents — which  is  observed  only  during  good 
 behaviour. 
 
 Having  seen  that  there  was  no  immediate,  necessary,  or 
 invariable  connexion  between  circumcision  and  the  passover, 
 the  inference,  founded  on  a  contrary  assumption,  falls  to  the 
 ground.  But,  even  had  these  ordinances  been  united,  as  the 
 objection  takes  for  granted,  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  Lord's 
 Supper  and  baptism  must  be  equally  conjoined.  Mr.  Hall  says, 
 '  Our  opponents  '  [the  close  coram  unionists]  'are  extremely 
 '  fond  of  representing  baptism,  under  the  New  Testament,  as 
 '  essential  as  circumcision  under  the  Old,  inferring  from  thence, 
 '  that  no  unbaptized  person  is  admissible  to  the  Eucharist, 
 '  for  the  same  reason  that  no  one  who  was  not  circumcised, 
 '  was  permitted  to  partake  of  the  paschal  feast.  But,  beside 
 '  that  this  is  to  reason  from  analogy,  a  practice  against  which, 
 '  when  applied  to  the  discussion  of  positive  institutes,  they, 
 '  on  other  occasions,  earnestly  protest,  the  analogy  fails  in 
 '  the  most  essential  points.  Circumcision  is  expressly  stated 
 '  as  a  necessary  condition  of  admission  to  the  passover ; ' 
 [when  the  sex  and  age  are  not  preventives]  ;  '  a  similar  state- 
 '  ment  respecting  baptism  will  decide  the  controversy.'  p.  46. 
 '  A  Jew  would  have  found  no  difficulty  in  establishing  this  fact 
 'respecting'  [the  ultimate  connexion  between]  'circumcision 
 '  and  the  passover  :  he  would  have  immediately  pointed  to  the 
 '  book  of  Exodus,  where  we  find  an  express  prohibition  of  an 
 '  uncircumcised  person  from  partaking  of  the  paschal  lamb. 
 1  Let  some  similar  evidence  be  adduced  on  the  present  subject 
 ' — let  some  declaration  from  Scripture  be  exhibited,  which 
 '  distinctly  prohibits  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  by 
 
BAPTISM  AND  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  505 
 
 '  any  person  who,  from  a  misconception  of  its  nature,  has 
 '  omitted  the  baptismal  ceremony,'  [or  received  it  in  infancy,] 
 'and  the  controversy  will  be  at  rest.'  lb.  p.  185.  However, 
 as  I  have  not  treated  Infant  Baptism  as  based  on,  or  coming 
 in  the  place  of,  infant  circumcision,  but  on  the  early  baptism 
 of  the  Hebrews,  and  its  perpetuation  by  Jesus  Christ  ;  the 
 objection  has  little  actual  bearing  on  my  arguments.  The 
 objection  is  referred  to,  because  I  am  unwilling  to  pass  by 
 any  plausible,  though  groundless,  assertions,  adverse  to  the 
 practice  of  Infant  Baptism.  Had  Mr.  Gibbs  proved,  that  all 
 who  were  purified,  cleansed,  or  baptized,  under  the  law, 
 immediately  and  invariably  ate  the  passover  ;  he  would  have 
 said  something  more  parallel,  and  to  the  point  in  hand. 
 
 Several  preceding  observations  indicate  our  opinion,  that 
 there  is  no  necessary  connexion  between  baptism  and  the 
 Lord's  Supper — any  more  than  there  is  between  hearing  the 
 Gospel  in  the  public  congregation,  and  sitting  down  at  the 
 table  of  the  Lord.  In  this  opinion  I  am  sustained  by  the 
 judgment  of  some  of  the  best  men  among  our  opponents. 
 Let  me  simply  subjoin  the  statement  of  Dr.  Gill  on  this  head, 
 in  addition  to  that  of  Mr.  Hall,  just  quoted: — '  Baptism  is  not 
 '  a  church  ordinance  ;  I  mean,  it  is  not  an  ordinance  adminis- 
 '  tered  in  the  church,  but  out  of  it,  and,  in  order  to  admission 
 '  into  it,  and  communion  with  it ;  it  is  preparatory  to  it ;  and 
 '  a  qualification  for  it ;  it  does  not  make  a  person  a  member  ; 
 '  or  admit  him  into  a  visible  church.  Persons  must  first  be 
 '  baptized ;  and  then  added  to  the  church,  as  the  three  thousand 
 1  converts  were.  A  church  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  baptism 
 '  of  any,  but,  to  be  satisfied  they  are  baptized,  before  they  are 
 '  admitted  into  communion  with  it.'  The  church  may  keep  the 
 baptized  out  of  it  perpetually,  should  its  members  disapprove 
 of  the  connexion.  Hence,  their  baptism  is  rather  into  the 
 congregation  generally,  than  into  the  internal  congregation, 
 or  what  is  now  commonly  called  the  church — treating  the 
 baptized  adult  simply  as  we  do  a  baptized  infant. 
 
 It  is  remarkable,  that  though  we  read  of  eating  the  Lord's 
 Supper  unworthily,  and  to  men's  own  condemnation,  through 
 not  discerning  the  Lord's  body — as,  doubtless,  many  Hebrews 
 ate  the  passover  unworthily,  not  recognizing  the  spiritual 
 design  of  that  institution  ;  we  nowhere  read  of  any  persons, 
 young  or  old,  receiving  baptism  or  circumcision  unworthily, 
 through  a  lack  of  knowledge  or  a  befitting  moral  character ; 
 clearly  evincing  that  the  two  former  rites  stood  on  very 
 different  grounds  from  the  two  latter.    The  Eucharist  is  hedged 
 
 Y 
 
506  BAPTISM  AND  THE  MANNA — 
 
 in,  like  the  ttee  of  life  in  Eden  ;  and  none  but  the  truly- 
 renewed  and  sincere  may  eat  of  its  provisions  hut  at  the  peril 
 of  a  sinful  presumption.  Yet,  water-baptism  is  surrounded 
 by  no  such  fences,  nor  indeed  by  any,  it  being  open  to  all 
 who  wish  to  receive  it,  or  are  brought  to  the  font  for  that 
 purpose.  What  is  more  to  the  point ;  our  blessed  Lord, 
 who  knew  what  was  in  man,  most  probably  saw  his  immediate 
 disciples  baptize  thousands  cf  unconverted  people  and  their 
 families,  without  ever  indicating  that  any  of  them  were 
 unsuitable  subjects,  or  saying  that  certain  intellectual  or 
 religious  qualifications  were  necessary  before  receiving  this 
 rite.  This  evinces  a  marked  and  material  distinction 
 between  the  persons  scripturally  baptized,  and  scripturally 
 communicating  at  the  Lord's  table. 
 
 While  Dr.  Gill's  statement  corroborates  my  opinion,  that 
 there  is  no  necessary  intimate  connexion  between  receiving 
 baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  I  think  he  has  failed  to  make 
 a  proper  distinction  between  the  general  and  the  particular 
 churches  or  congregations  of  Christ.  And  it  is  the  want  of 
 rightly  discriminating  in  this  case,  that  has  puzzled  so  many 
 minds,  and  so  greatly  involved  this  question.  I  have  shown, 
 I  believe,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  attentive  and  candid 
 reader,  that  people,  of  all  characters  and  ages,  were  baptized 
 into  the  general  church,  or  into  the  profession,  congregation, 
 seminary,  or  training  school,  of  Christianity  ;  but  not  into 
 the  select,  particular,  or  regenerated  assembly,  society,  or 
 church  of  Christ.  It  is  certain  that  the  Jailer,  Cornelius, 
 the  Eunueh,  and  many  other  converts  to  Christianity,  were 
 baptized  into  the  general  church,  but  not  into  any  particular 
 or  select  communion  of  saints;  though  afterwards  they  might 
 have  been  admitted  into  full  membership  in  some  holy 
 fellowship  of  spiritual  believers,  or  have  themselves  constituted 
 such  in  their  own  localities. 
 
 Objectors  may  still  urge  on  us  the  practices  of  the  churches 
 during  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  as  being  opposed  to  the 
 doctrine  I  am  now  advocating.  They  may  tell  us,  that 
 baptized  infants,  as  well  as  adults,  were  accustomed  to 
 communicate  at  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  is  admitted.  But, 
 as  we  all  know  that  innovations,  the  most  puerile  and 
 unchristian,  had  then  been  made  in  the  services  of  religion, 
 and  most  of  which  our  opponents  cordially  reject ;  such  an 
 intimate  connexion  between  the  rites  in  question  can  have  no 
 influence  in  deciding  this  specific  question.  'About  the  same 
 1  time,'   says   Lord  King,   '  persons   who   designed    to   leave 
 
BAPTISM  AND  TIIF.  LORD'S  SUPPER.  507 
 
 '  heathenism  and  idolatry,  and  desired  to  be  members  of  a 
 '  Christian  church,  were  not  presently  advanced  to  that  degree, 
 'but  were  first  continued  a  certain  space  of  time  in  the  rank 
 'of  catechumens  or  the  catechised  cues. .  .  .that  they  might 
 '  be  instructed  in  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith....  and 
 'give  demonstration  of  the  reality  of  their  intentions,  by  the 
 '  change  of  their  lives,  and  the  holiness  of  their  conversation. 
 '....These  were  permitted  "to  come  to  church,"  where 
 '  they  stood  in  a  place  by  themselves,  and  were  present  at  the 
 '  services  which  were  adapted  to  their  capacities,  being  dis- 
 '  courses  of  the  ordinary  and  less  mysterious  truths  of  the 
 '  Gospel.'  Lord  King's  Prim.  Hist.  pt.  i.  ch.  vi.  These,  be  it 
 remarked,  were  not  little  children  belonging  to  baptized 
 parents  ;  for,  at  the  time  referred  to,  such  were  confessedly 
 baptized,  and  even  brought  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  but,  young 
 or  adult  persons,  from  the  ranks  of  heathenism,  desirous  of 
 being  recognized  as  Christians  by  baptism,  and  ultimately 
 received  into  full  communion  with  the  church.  Further,  we 
 here  perceive  a  distinction,  for  which  we  had  previously 
 contended,  between  the  Ecclesia  generally,  and  the  Ecclesia 
 in  particular — the  outer  and  the  inner  churches.  I  lay  no 
 stress  on  this  fact,  but  simply  refer  to  it  as  explaining  and 
 confirming  my  foregoing  proposition  on  this  head. — Adding, 
 however,  that  if  infants  were  regarded  as  members  of  the 
 inner  church,  they  could  have  exercised  no  power  in  its  affairs, 
 any  more  than  the  seats  they  occupied ;  even  though  they 
 might  have  been  the  most  innocent  and  holy  of  the  entire 
 community.  At  most,  they  could  not  have  been  more  than 
 half-members  ;  as  the  term  members  is  now  understood  in  all 
 free  Christian  communions. 
 
 I  may  here  notice  Fuller's  argument,  drawn  from  the  words 
 of  our  text,  to  sustain  his  doctrine  of  close  communion: — ■ 
 '  If  the  apostle  had  not  connected  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
 '  Supper  together  in  his  mind,  how  came  he  so  pointedly  to 
 'allude  to  them  both  in  this  passage?'  He  brings  forward 
 also  another  text  for  the  same  purpose,  in  which  St.  Paul 
 affirms,  we  are  all  '  baptized  into  one  body,  and  are  all  made 
 '  to  drink  the  same  Spirit.'  Mr.  Tombes  long  before  wrote, 
 '  If  this  verse  —  1  Cor.  x.  2. — prove  that  infants  were  baptized, 
 '  the  verses  following  will  prove  that  they  received  the  Lord's 
 '  Supper.'  Exer.  p.  20.  To  this  reasoning  Mr.  Hall  replies, 
 '  It  is  freely  admitted  that  these,  and,  perhaps,  other  texts 
 '  which  might  be  adduced,  afford  examples  of  an  allusion  to 
 '  the  two  ordinances  at  the  same  time,  whence  we  may  be 
 
508  BAPTISM  AND  THE  MANNA — 
 
 '  certain  that  they  werepresenttogetherinthe  mind  of  the  writer. 
 1  But  whoever  considers  the  law  of  association,  must  be  aware 
 '  how  trivial  a  circumstance  is  sufficient  to  unite  together  in 
 '  the  mind  ideas  of  objects  among  which  no  essential  relation 
 '  subsists.  The  mere  coincidence  of  time  and  place  is 
 '  sufficient  for  that  purpose.  In  addressing  a  class  of  persons 
 '  distinguished  by  the  possession  of  peculiar  privileges,  what 
 '  more  natural  than  to  combine  them  in  joint  allusion,  without 
 '  intending  to  assert  their  relation  or  dependence  ;  just  as  in 
 '  addressing  a  British  audience  on  a  political  occasion,  the 
 '  speaker  may  be  easily  supposed  to  remind  them,  at  the  same 
 '  time,  of  their  popular  representation,  of  the  liberty  of  the 
 '  press,  and  the  trial  by  jury,  without  meaning  to  affirm  that 
 'they  are  incapable  of  being  possessed  apart.'  p.  215. 
 
 But  supposing,  what  I  do  not  concede,  that,  in  the  apostle's 
 mind,  the  ideas  of  Christian  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
 were  associated,  when  alluding  to  the  baptism  in  the  sea,  and 
 to  the  eating  of  the  manna,  six  weeks  after,  in  the  wilderness; 
 it  does  not  follow,  that  the  two  former  acts,  must  be 
 chronologically  as  nearly  related  as  the  two  latter.  Even  if  the 
 conjunction  were  really  as  intimate  between  Christian  baptism 
 and  the  Eucharist,  as  it  was  between  the  baptism  in  the  sea 
 and  the  descent  of  the  manna ;  the  only  consistent  inference 
 would  be,  that  recently  baptized  babies  should  partake  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper ;  and  not,  that  they  should  not  be  baptized. 
 And  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  our  work  is  not  designed  to 
 oppose  infant  communion  ;  but  to  defend  Infant  Baptism. 
 And  it  is  simply  to  oppose  the  latter,  that  its  supposed  connexion 
 with  the  former  is  contended  for.  The  baptism  of  children  in 
 the  sea  is  certain ;  and  our  inference,  that  children  were  baptized 
 at  Corinth,  is  inevitable.  The  only  question  here  is,  Were 
 they  brought  to  the  Lord's  table  immediately  or  very  soon 
 after  ?  or  was  it  deferred  for  years,  or  till  they  were  as 
 qualified  to  participate  in  this  second  ordinance,  as  they  were 
 to  eat  of  the  manna  and  water  in  the  wilderness  ?  Our 
 opponents  tell  us,  that  infant  communion  commenced  about 
 three  hundred  years  after  Christ.  Mr.  Hall,  who  admits,  that 
 Paul  probably  connected  the  ideas  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
 Supper  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  as  he  did  the  baptism 
 in  the  sea,  with  the  bread  from  heaven — yet  contends,  that 
 the  Christian  sacraments,  even  in  the  case  of  adults,  might  he 
 widely  separated  in  their  ministrations  ;  in  fact,  that  practically 
 there  might  have  been  no  connexion  at  all  between  them — 
 and  his  reasoning  is  plain  and  irrefutable. 
 
BAPTISM  AXD  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER.  509 
 
 But,  it  is  clear  to  me,  that,  in  the  passage  under  notice, 
 Paul  did  not  especially,  it"  at  all,  connect  the  ideas  of  the 
 bread  from  heaven  and  the  water  from  the  rock,  with  the 
 Lord's  Supper.  There  was  little  or  nothing  sufficiently 
 common  to  produce  a  particular  or  distinct  identification  of 
 them  in  his  mind.  The  Lord's  Supper  was  administered  with 
 a  loaf  of  unleavened  bread,  broken  in  pieces,  and  a  cup  of 
 wine  handed  round  to  each  devout  guest ;  intended  to  represent 
 the  bruised  and  broken  body  of  Christ,  and  the  shedding  of 
 his  precious  blood.  The  manna  fell  like  dew,  looked  like 
 coriander  seed,  was  daily  collected,  and  then  cooked  over  the 
 fire  before  eaten.  The  water  was  dipped  from  the  stream 
 that  followed  them  some  way  in  the  wanderings  of  the  Hebrews. 
 This,  too,  formed  a  solitary  or  domestic  meal.  The  truth  is, 
 that  the  Lord's  Supper  would  call  to  the  mind  of  a  Jew  an  idea 
 of  the  Passover  of  the  ancient  Israelites,  and  be  intimately 
 associated  with  that  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively ;  and  Paul 
 would  naturally  connect  the  spiritual  meat  and  the  spiritual 
 drink  of  the  wilderness  with  the  ministrations  of  the  Gospel, 
 the  Word  of  God,  the  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the 
 gracious  means,  by  which  men  were  supported  and  refreshed 
 in  their  divine  life.  God's  Word  contains  strong  meat  for 
 them  that  are  of  full  age,  and  milk  for  babes.  His  Gospel 
 drops  as  the  rain  and  distils  as  the  dew.  Few  will  question, 
 that  the  means  of  Christian  enlightenment  are  far  more 
 valuable  to  mankind  than  even  the  Lord's  Supper.  This 
 latter  was  not  regularly  administered,  probably,  for  many 
 years  after  its  institution,  and,  then,  possibly,  at  considerable 
 intervals ;  while  preaching,  and  the  other  ordinances  for 
 leading  sinners  to  Christ,  were  the  daily  manna  and  supplies 
 of  living  water,  attended  to  immediately,  earnestly,  and 
 continuously,  during  the  apostles'  times. 
 
 In  the  following  chapter,  (1  Cor.  xi.),  the  apostle  commences 
 by  referring  to  the  impropriety  of  men  praying  or  preaching 
 with  their  beads  covered  ;  and  of  women  doing  the  like  with 
 their  heads  uncovered ;  and  then  proceeds  to  the  subject  of 
 the  Lord's  Supper,  on  which  he  enlarges  in  a  most  emphatic 
 manner.  However,  these  separate  topics  might  succeed  each 
 other  in  the  mind  of  the  writer,  it  is  clear  that,  in  themselves, 
 they  are  perfectly  distinct.  He  might  as  logically  have  been 
 discussing  the  question  of  submisssion  to  the  will  of  Christ 
 generally,  and  then  have  proceeded  to  the  duty  of  training  up 
 youth  religiously,  or  to  conduct  themselves  properly  in  the 
 house  of  God.      In  the   present   chapter  (the    10th),    Paul 
 
5  1 0  SCMPTUHAL  ADVANTAGES  OF  BAPTIZED 
 
 speaks  of  the  privileges  and  the  impiety  of  the  Hebrews,  as 
 conveying  lessons  of  deep  moment  to  the  Corinthians  ;  and 
 then  goes  on  to  guard  them  against  countenancing  idolatry, 
 by  eating  things  offered  to  idols.  To  show  them  the  gross 
 inconsistency  of  their  doing  so,  he  points  to  persons  eating 
 the  supper  of  the  Lord  and  meats  offered  to  idols— of  drinking 
 the  cup  of  the  Lord  and  the  cup  of  devils.  Hence,  to  build 
 an  argument  in  support  of  intimately  and  invariably  uniting 
 baptism  and  the  Eucharist  in  the  same  person,  on  the  ground 
 assumed  by  Mr.  Fuller,  is  to  evince,  at  least,  a  conscious 
 lack  of  other  passable  evidence  on  the  subject. 
 
 But  though,  from  Paul's  allusion  in  the  text,  Mr.  Fuller 
 fails  to  prove  a  close  and  invariable  connexion  between  baptism 
 and  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  fully  concedes  the  fact,  that  the 
 Hebrews  were  baptized  in  the  Bed  Sea,  and  that,  too,  without 
 any  exception  of  rank,  sex,  or  age.  He  admits,  that,  in  the 
 apostle's  mind,  the  baptism  in  the  Sea  and  the  baptism  at 
 Corinth,  were  intimately  associated  ;  and,  that  this  association 
 of  ideas  was  occasioned  by  the  general  similitude  of  the 
 ordinances  in  both  places.  And,  as  he  must  have  known, 
 that  unconverted  people  and  children  were  the  subjects  of 
 this  rite,  administered  during  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites,  he 
 could  scarcely  have  failed  to  perceive  the  want  of  a  proper 
 analogy  between  the  two  cases,  had  not  unconverted  people  and 
 children  been  the  subjects  of  the  rite  administered  at  Corinth 
 and  elsewhere,  under  the  Gospel  dispensation.  Whether  the 
 entire  parallel  were  apparent  to  him,  is  not  manifest.  But, 
 he  does  sustain  our  previous  arguments  and  quotations, 
 designed  to  prove,  that  the  baptism  unto  Moses  was  a  pre- 
 cursor to  the  baptism  unto  Christ,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
 great  apostle  to  the  gentiles.  Farther  than  this,  one  could 
 hardly  expect  any  genuine  Baptist  to  go.  To  have  drawn  our 
 inference,  which  is  both  fair  and  inevitable,  would  have  been 
 fatal  to  his  cause  as  a  Baptist,  especially  of  the  close  com- 
 munionist  section  of  it. 
 
 SECTION  EIGHTH.—  The  Scriptural  advantages  >f  bap- 
 tized children  over  those  that  are  not  baptized.  —  If  baptism  do 
 not  convey  all  the  religious  privileges  some  persons  ascribe 
 to  its  administration,  and  whose  mistakes,  on  this  head,  have, 
 doubtless,  chiefly  arisen  from  confounding  the  baptism  with 
 water  and  the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  type  with 
 the  antitype,  the  sign  with  the  thing  signified,  and  the  general 
 church  with  the  particular  ;    still,  unquestionably,   there  must 
 
CIIILDItEN  OVER  THE  UNEAPTIZED.  511 
 
 be  some  great  benefits  righteously  arising  from  it,  as  from  all 
 other  divinely  instituted  ordinances  ;  or  Christ  would  never 
 have  had  people  baptized  at  first,  nor  made  the  rite  a  standing 
 sacrament  in  his  congregations  to  the  end  of  time.  The 
 baptism  unto  Moses,  as  Mr.  Stovel  justly  argues,  was  succeeded 
 by  many  important  advantages  which,  without  baptism,  we 
 are  warranted  in  supposing,  in  accordance  with  God's  general 
 rules  and  arrangements,  the  Israelites  would  net  have  been 
 entitled  to  enjoy.  That  Paul,  in  our  text,  reasons  en  the 
 same  principle,  no  candid  person  will,  for  a  moment,  question 
 — for,  otherwise,  his  inferences  would  have  been  destitute  of 
 any  valid  premises  from  which  to  draw  them.  Mr.  Noel 
 says,  '  As  the  baptized  Jewish  proselytes  became,  by  Jewish 
 '  baptism,  the  avowed  disciple  of  Moses,  entitled  to  all  Mosaic 
 '  ordinances,  so  the  baptized  Christian  proselyte  becomes,  by 
 1  Christian  baptism,  the  avowed  disciple  of  Christ,  entitled  to 
 'all  Christian  ordinances;'  [or  to  all  of  which  he  is  properly 
 capable.]  p.  49.  When  Paul  refers  to  the  manna  and  the 
 water  in  the  wilderness,  given  by  the  Almighty  to  the  Hebrews, 
 it  is  instantly  perceived,  that  they  represented  great  and 
 essential  benefits  for  the  people.  The  conjunction  of  baptism 
 with  these  supplies  of  physical  sustenance,  in  the  argument  of 
 the  apcstle,  plainly  indicates  that  they  were  both  regarded  as 
 blessings,  and  that  a  deprivation  of  the  former,  would  also 
 have  been  a  serious  loss.  From  this  inference,  there  is  no 
 fairly  escaping. 
 
 Our  Baptist  brethren  professedly  conjoin  high  social 
 privileges  with  adult  or  believers'  baptism  ;  a  recognition  of 
 faith  and  fitness  for  admission  into  the  society  of  the  saints, 
 or  of  those  separated  from  the  world  and  joined  in  religious 
 worship,  if  not  with  an  immediate  association  with  the  people 
 of  God,  in  the  participation  of  the  highest  church  ordinances. 
 A  lack  of  these  they  ever  regard  as  a  material  defect  in  every 
 one  professing  the  Christian  name;  and  they  urge  submission 
 to  the  ordinance  as  of  great  benefit  to  their  brethren,  especially 
 on  doubting  Pedobaptists  !  Circumcision  conveyed  high  and 
 gracious  advantages  to  its  subjects,  chiefly  that  of  having  a 
 divine  right  to  possess,  read,  and  self-appropriate,  the  oracles  of 
 God.  The  baptized  also  have  a  legitimate  claim  on  the  ministers 
 and  people  of  God  for  religious  instruction  and  spiritual 
 oversight,  in  the  Christian  congregations,  or  the  schools  of 
 the  gospel.  The  baptized,  when  grown  to  years  of  reflection, 
 will  perceive  a  special  obligation  resting  on  themselves  to 
 love  and  obey  that  divine  Being  to  whom  they  were  devoutly 
 
5 1  2  SCRIPTURAL  ADVANTAGES  OF  BAPTIZED 
 
 consecrated  by  beloved  parents  ;    and  which   act   may  be   a 
 
 great  religious  benefit  to  the   young  all  the  future    days   of 
 
 their  lives. 
 
 Dr.  Lightfoot  observes,  '  Baptism  also  brings  its  privileges 
 along  with  it,  while  it  opens  the  way  to  a  partaking  of  holy 
 things  in  the  church  ;  and  places  the  baptized  within  the 
 church,'  [or  congregation],  'over  which  God  exerciseth  a 
 more  singular  providence,  than  over  those  that  are  out  of  the 
 church.'  Dr.  E.  Williams  remarks,  '  Baptism  is  a  benefit 
 and  privilege  when  applied  to  capable  subjects,  possessing 
 all  the  qualifications  necessary  to  answer  the  Scriptural 
 design  of  the  ordinance.  That  it  is  a  benefit  to  such  is 
 apparent,  when  we  consider  what  baptism,  when  applied, 
 necessarily  includes.  It  includes  a  relative  change  of  state  ; 
 thereby,  the  subject  is  translated,  ministerially,  from  a  state 
 of  distance  to  a  state  of  nearness  ;  is  separated  from  the 
 world  and  joined  to  the  universal  church  ;  is  thereby  legally 
 entitled  to  all  the  other  external  privileges  of  the  gospel 
 dispensation,  of  which  the  subject  is  capable,  this  being  the 
 right  initiation  to  them.  Again,  it  includes  a  dedication  of 
 the  subject  to  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit ;  is  a  seal  of  God's 
 covenant  to  the  subject,  assuring  him,  to  his  dying  day,  that 
 there  are  exhibited  to  him  exceeding  great  and  precious 
 promises  ;  and,  of  course,  lays  a  foundation  for  the  most 
 rational  and  interesting  obligations  of  duty.  And,  indeed, 
 the  single  consideration  of  baptism  laying  all  suitable  subjects, 
 to  whom  it  is  ministerially  applied,  under  such  obligations, 
 is  alone  decisive  in  support  of  the  point  under  consideration. 
 And  here  we  may  ask,  if  infants  are  capable  and  suitable 
 subjects,  as  we  have  proved  they  are,  and  if  the  above 
 important  particulars  belong  to  all  those  when  baptized,  as 
 such  ;  what  greater  benefit  can  we  conceive  to  appertain  to 
 a  divine  institution  ?  Could  Paul  himself  regard  his  baptism 
 in  a  more  beneficial  light?'  vol.  i.  p.  220. 
 
 Locke  says,  '  To  be  baptized  to  any  one,  is  to  be  devoted  to 
 him,  to  receive  and  acknowledge  him  as  a  teacher,  professing 
 to  receive  his  rules,  and  to  be  governed  by  his  authority.' 
 
 Mr.  Noel  states,  '  To  be  baptized  unto  Christ,  or  unto  Moses, 
 or  unto  Paul,  means  to  be '  [or  to  become]  '  his  follower  or 
 disciple,  consecrated  to  his  service.'  p.  34.  Turretin  reasons, 
 The  word  which  Christ  here  uses,  does  not  so  properly 
 signify,  to  teach  by  preaching,  as  to  make  disciples,  which 
 may  be  done  by  baptism  ;  it  being  a  sacrament  of  initiation. 
 Tims,  John  iv.  1,  Mathetas  poiein,  is  not  simply   to  teach, 
 
CHILDREN  OVER  THE  UXBAPTIZED.  5  1 3 
 
 'but  to  make  disciples,  and  to  introduce  into  a  professional 
 '  state  of  discipline,  as  among  the  Jews  ;  persons  were  often 
 '  made  disciples,  not  as  already  taught,  but  in  order  to  be 
 '  taught.  Thus  a  gentile  addressed  Hillel,  "Make  a  proselyte 
 '  of  me,  that  thou  mayest  teach  me."  And  that  the  word  is  so 
 'to  be  understood  here  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20),  is  demonstrable 
 'from  the  word,  afterwards,  rendered  teaching,  which  appears 
 '  tautological,  unless  the  first  word  refers  to  something  more 
 '  than  that.'  See  Isaac,  p.  90.  Hence,  no  proselyting,  no 
 teaching,  in  the  usual  sense  of  that  word.  '  Infant  Baptism,' 
 says  Wills,  '  lays  a  singular  good  foundation  for  knowledge  ; 
 'for  in  that  children  are  taken  into  Christ's  school,  they  are 
 1  in  a  near  capacity  to  be  taught,  and  those  who  recommend 
 '  them  to  that  ordinance,  are  obliged  to  promote  their  know- 
 '  ledge,  and  to  see  them  brought  up,  Nouthesia  Kuriou,  in 
 '  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.'  p.  272. 
 
 If,  then,  baptism  introduces  the  baptized  to  certain  important 
 benefits,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  not  to  he  baptized,  is  not 
 to  be  canonically  introduced'  to  them.  Hence,  unbaptized 
 persons  are  not  Scripturally  entitled  to  that  Christian  instruc- 
 tion and  oversight  to  which  this  rite  is  an  introduction  ;  just 
 as  an  uncircumcised  Israelite  would  not  have  been  entitled 
 to  the  benefits  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his 
 circumcised  posterity  ;  and  just  as  an  undipped  believer  is 
 not  permitted  to  full  religious  communion  among  the  majority 
 of  our  brethren  ;  or  among  any  of  them,  consistently  with  the 
 principles  on  which  they  mainly  rest  their  adult  immersion. 
 Dr.  Addington,  having  enumerated  the  religious  benefits 
 legitimately  resulting  from  Infant  Baptism ;  Dr.  Stennett 
 makes  the  following  reply: — '  Now,  Sir,  If  these  advantages, 
 '  which,  no  doubt,  are  very  great  and  important,  were  the  natu- 
 '  ral  and  proper  effect  of  baptism  to  infants,  or  if  the  ceremony 
 *  was  appointed  by  God  to  these  ends  ;  or  if  omission  of  it 
 '  did  at  all  lessen  the  obligations  to  parents  to  take  care  of 
 1  the  education  of  their  children,  or  of  children  to  make  all 
 '  suitable  returns  to  their  parents,  and  to  demean  themselves 
 '  well  in  life,  and  of  ministers  to  instruct  and  exhort  them 
 '  both  to  their  several  duties  :  If  this  were  the  case,  I  acknow- 
 '  ledge  it  would  be  cruel  and  impious  to  deny  them  to  children.' 
 Such  privileges  I  regard  as  legitimately  belonging  only  to  the 
 baptized  ;  and,  therefore,  assert,  that,  to  deny  baptism  to 
 infants,  is  virtually  to  deny  them  all  those  advantages. 
 
 Mr.  Stovelwill  have  it,  that  no  good  canaccrue  to  infants  from 
 baptism,  unless  theyare  regenerated  by  it.    'Pedobaptists  plead 
 
 Y2 
 
514  SCRIPTURAL  ADVANTAGES  OF  BAPTIZED 
 
 '  for  the  right  of  infants,  or  the  children  of  believers,  to  Christian 
 '  baptism.  Now,  what  are  we  to  understand  by  a  right  ? 
 '  Is  it  not  a  claim  to  some  good,  in  the  enjoyment  of  which 
 'we  are  to  be  protected  by  a  just  administration  of  the  law? 
 'Such  I  understand  the  term  'right.'  If  so,  then,  what  is 
 '  the  good  which  infants  find  in  baptism  ?  For  since  they 
 '  have  a  right  to  it,  and  it  is  wrong  to  withhold  it,  there  must 
 'be  a  good  in  it,  or  the  right  is  a  right  to  nothing.  It  is 
 '  plain,  therefore,  that  this  notion  of  Baptismal '  [Regenerating] 
 '  grace,  confessed  or  not  confessed,  has  still  been  retained, 
 '  wherever  the  baptism  of  infants  is  thus  defended.'  Reg. 
 Lee.  xi.  p.  45.  According  to  this  logic,  a  person  cannot  have 
 a  right  to  an  inferior  good,  unless  he  also  have  a  right  to  a 
 superior  one  ;  no  right  to  education  without  a  right  to  a 
 fortune  ;  no  right  to  the  means  of  grace,  except  he  have 
 a  claim  or  right  to  the  gift  of  eternal  life.  But,  all  children 
 have  their  rights,  according  to  their  positions  and  relationships 
 — nor  will  it  be  denied,  that  children,  baptized  unto  Christ, 
 have  a  right  to  certain  privileges  which  do  not  belong  to 
 others  not  so  devoted  to  him.  What  these  privileges  are, 
 the  present  discussion  is  intended  to  show  and  establish. 
 
 I  will  here  reiterate  a  few  observations  of  Mr.  Noel, 
 appropriate  to  the  present  section  of  our  treatise.  '  The 
 '  circumcision  of  the  unregenerate  infant  was  a  blessing  to 
 '  him,  because  it  introduced  him  to  a  moral  and  religious 
 '  training '  [whether  he  really  obtained  it  or  not]  ;  but,  '  the 
 '  baptism  of  the  unregenerate  infant  is  a  mischief  to  it, 
 '  because,  while  it  adds  nothing  to  his  means  of  instruction,' 
 [unless  it  be  viewed  as  the  ground  thereof,]  '  it  deludes  him 
 '  with  the  mockery  of  a  pretended  adoption  into  the  family  of 
 '  God,  which  may  hinder  him  from  seeking  a  real  adoption. .  . . 
 '  No  one  was  permitted  to  receive  the  token  of  the  first 
 '  covenant,  whether  child,  slave,  or  stranger,  who  was  not  in 
 '  the  first ;  and  as  infants  cannot  be  shown  to  be  within  the 
 '  second  covenant,'  [which  is  substantially  the  same  as  the 
 first,]  '  because  they  cannot  be  shown  to  be  believers,'  [any 
 more  than  the  little  Hebrews !]  '  so,  by  the  analogy  of 
 '  circumcision,  they  ought  not  to  receive  its  tokens.'  Here 
 we  are  told  that  circumcision  was  necessary  to  introduce 
 children  to  religious  training.  The  same  doctrine  we  hold 
 respecting  the  effect  of  Infant  Baptism.  Children  being 
 in  the  ancient  covenant,  or  being  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
 according  to  the  promise,  did  not,  of  itself,  entitle  them  to 
 especial  moral  and  religious  training ;    but  they  must  first  be 
 
CHILDREN  OVEB  THE  UXBAPTIZED.  515 
 
 circumcised.  "We  believe  the  same  respecting  the  children  of 
 believing  parents — baptize  them  first,  and  then  teach  them. 
 As  to  adult  candidates  for  baptism,  being  believers  before 
 undergoing  this  rite,  the  same  held  true  with  regard  to  all 
 adults,  admitted  to  circumcision.  The  avowed  infidel  heathen 
 would  not  have  been  admitted  to  circumcision,  any  more  than 
 he  would  be  now  admitted  to  Christian  baptism.  As  to  infant 
 delusion,  the  notion  originates  in  a  gross  misconception  of 
 the  design  of  the  rite  of  infant  consecration  to  God  ;  and  it 
 may  follow  a  dry  dedication  to  the  Lord  as  readily  as  one  with 
 water;  and,  to  a  dipped  adult,  far  more  so  than  to  a  sprinkled 
 child.  Mr.  Noel  says,  'Circumcision  to  the  Lord  is  similar 
 '  to  baptism  to  the  Lord.'  Yet,  he  labours  hard  to  prove, 
 were  it  possible,  that  no  two  rites  were  more  dissimilar  ! 
 
 He  proceeds,  '  Every  reader  can  see  at  once  that  unregene- 
 '  rated  infants  might  be  circumcised,  because  capable,'  [through 
 their  precocious  powers  !]  '  as  well  as  unregenerate  adults, 
 'of  conformity  to  the  law  ;  but  unregenerate  infants  should 
 1  not  be  baptized,  because  they  are  utterly  excluded  '  [for  lack 
 of  the  like  infant  talents  of  the  Hebrews  !]  '  so  long  as  they 
 '  remain  unregenerate,  from  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of 
 '  the  gospel.'  p.  184.  But  could  the  little  Hebrew  babies  '  do 
 '  the  whole  law,'  any  more  than  the  little  English  ones  can  do 
 the  whole  gospel  ?  Where  did  Mr.  Noel  learn,  that  regeneration 
 was  necessary  prior  to  baptism,  any  more  than  to  circumcision  ? 
 Not  in  the  New  Testament,  most  assuredly.  And  where  did 
 he  discover  the  ungracious  doctrine,  that  unregenerated  infants 
 are  'utterly  excluded  from  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  of 
 '  the  gospel?'  Of  course,  they  must  not  be  taught,  or  trained 
 in  the  way  of  divine  truth  ;  since  this  wrould  be  a  great 
 privilege  and  blessing  !  Alas  !  what  appalling  consequences 
 frequently  and  necessarily  flow  from  the  adoption  of  unscriptural 
 principles.  Again,  'As  Judaism  had  its  initiatory  rite,  so  it  is 
 '  useful  that  Christianity  should  have  its  initiatory  rite  likewise.' 
 p.  17-  The  initiatory  rite  of  Judaism  was  chiefly  to  moral 
 and  religious  training,  not  previously  enjoyed.  So  it  is  to  the 
 first  Christian  religious  instruction  now  ;  or  there  would  be  no 
 analogy  left.  But,  must  none  but  the  regenerate  be  taught 
 the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  of  Christ?  But,  in  truth,  our 
 opponents  have  no  Scriptural  introductory  rite  to  Christianity 
 at  all.  They  have  an  introductory  rite  to  membership  in  their 
 select  denominational  societies.  Yet,  surely,  these  are  not  to 
 beregarded  as  comprehending  all  Christianity — which  embraces 
 the  teachings,    and  many  other  privileges,  of  the  Saviour's 
 
516  SCRIPTURAL  ADVANTAGES  OF  BAPTIZED 
 
 religion,  and  which  may  be  enjoyed  by  the  young,  and  even 
 by  adults  too,  not  spiritually  converted  to  God.  In  most 
 cases,  their  people  are  introduced  to  Christianity  long  before 
 they  are  admitted  into  the  fellowship  of  their  inner  churches. 
 Indeed,  they  profess  to  dip  none  but  well-instructed  and 
 divinely-qualified  Christians, — who  must,  therefore,  have 
 heen  introduced  to  Christianity,  in  some  way  or  other,  long 
 before  hand. 
 
 Further,    '  If  baptism    be    the    sign    of  regeneration,    an 
 '  unregenerate  person  ought  not  to  be  baptized.'  p.  112.     Yet, 
 '  Circumcision  was  intended  to  signify  the  circumcision  of  the 
 'heart.'  p.  173.    But,  were  none  circumcised,  save  the  regen- 
 erate?     '  If  baptism  is  the  washing  of  regeneration,  it  ought 
 '  not  to  be  administered  to  the  unregenerate.'    lb.     But,  why 
 wash  the  regenerate  only,  who  certainly  need  it  the  least  ? 
 Were  none  anciently  allowed  to  have  the  type  of  a  blessing 
 unless    they    had    previously   received    the    blessing    itself? 
 "Were  circumcision  and  baptism  seals  fixed  on  the  subjects  of 
 them,  testifying  that  they  were  really  and  personally  regenerated  ? 
 Would  Mr.  Noel  undertake  to  stamp  the  foreheads  of  all  he  dips 
 with    this    inscription — '  Divinely    Regenerate  ? '      '  The 
 '  baptism  of  the  believer  and  the  baptism  of  the  infant  are  two 
 '  different  baptisms;  the  precept  which  enjoins  the  one,  rather, 
 'by  inference,  forbids   the   other.'    p.  126.      As  previously 
 inquired,  Was  the  circumcision  of  an  adult  proselyte  different 
 from   that    of  his    child ;   and   did   that   which   enjoined   the 
 circumcision  of  the  father  rather  forbid  that  of  his  little  sons? 
 Pray,   did  the  Jews   understand  the  matter   in   this   sense  ? 
 Are  the  regeneration  of  a  man  and  the  regeneration  of  a  child 
 two  different  or  two  incompatible  regenerations  ?      And  does 
 the  fact,  that  a  man  may  be  regenerated  imply,  that  a  child 
 cannot  be  ?     But,  if  the  regeneration  be  essentially  the  same 
 in  the  adult  and  the  infant — which   our  opponents  will   not 
 deny — why  may  not  the  signs  or  symbols  be  alike  in  both 
 of  them  ? 
 
 Dr.  Carson,  perceiving  the  difficulty  involved  in  such  notions 
 as  Mr.  Noel's,  says,  '  As  to  parents  and  children,  circumcision 
 '  was  no  privilege  at  all.  Had  circumcision  made  the  children 
 '  of  the  Jews  heirs  either  of  Canaan  or  of  heaven,  it  might  be 
 '  considered  asapnvilege,but  itdidneither.  It  was  not  enjoined, 
 '  nor  ever  explained  as  a  privilege  to  individuals.  Itwas  enjoined 
 '  by  the  most  severe  penalty,  even  death.  The  females  had 
 '  no  loss  by  the  want  of  it.  They  enjoyed  every  spiritual 
 '  privilege  equally  with  the  males  ;  and  the  want  of  circum- 
 
CHILDREN  OVER  THE  UNBAPTIZED.         517 
 
 '  cision  did  not  deprive  them  even  of  any  temporal  privilege 
 '  Which  they  would  have  enjoyed.'  p.  230.  But,  it  is  plain, 
 according  to  Paul,  there  was  much  profit  in  circumcision, 
 though  enforced  hy  severe  penalties.  Kom.  iii.  1,2.  If  it  were 
 national,  it  was  also  individual,  and  universal  ;  all  were 
 benefitted  by  it.  Though  the  males  only  underwent  the  rite, 
 they  represented  the  females  ;  and  both  shared  alike  in  the 
 advantages  of  it.  Men  go  to  war,  and  the  women  who  tarry 
 at  home,  divide  the  spoil.  While  circumcision  might  not 
 assure  an  inheritance  in  Canaan  to  every  descendant  of 
 Abraham,  nor  heaven,  of  necessity,  to  any  one  of  them  ;  it 
 guaranteed  to  all  a  title  to  the  oracles  of  God,  and  the  means 
 of  grace  ;  and  salvation  to  all  earnestly  desirous  of  obtaining  it. 
 If  these  were  not  individual  privileges,  and  of  the  highest 
 order,  divine  benevolence  assuredly  bestowed  none  on  his 
 ancient  people.  Mr.  Tombes  says,  '  The  truth  is,'  that 
 '  though  circumcision  was  a  privilege  to  the  Jews .  .  .  .it  is  a 
 1  great  privilege  to  us  and  our  children  that  they  have  neither 
 '  it,  nor  any  other  thing  in  the  place  and  use  of  it,  but  Christ 
 'manifest  in  the  flesh.'  Exam.  -p.  101.  Dipping  adults, 
 however,  it  seems  is  a  great  privilege  to  them,  and  must  be 
 maintained  at  any  cost  of  labour,  talent,  and  time  !  though  it 
 requires  the  eye  of  an  inspired  seer  to  discover  it !  The 
 grounds  of  Mr.  Tombes'  congratulation,  that  we  have  nothing 
 in  the  place  of  circumcision,  are  left  to  conjecture. — To 
 return  to  Mr.  Noel :  — 
 
 '  Since  baptism  is  the  seal  of  regeneration,  none  but  the 
 1  regenerate  ought  to  be  baptized ;  since  it  is  the  sign  of 
 'justification,  it  should  be  administered  to  those  only  who  are 
 'justified;  since  it  was  attended  by  the  gift  of  the  Spirit, 
 '  none  but  believers,  to  whom  that  gift  was  limited,  ought  to 
 '  to  receive  it ;  since  it  saves,  and  there  is  no  salvation 
 '  except  by  faith  ;  and  since  it  confers  the  right  of  admission 
 '  into  the  churches  of  the  saints  and  faithful  brethren,  none 
 '  but  saints  and  faithful  brethren  ought  to  receive  it.  If 
 '  unbelievers  are  baptized,  baptism  is  a  sign  of  regeneration 
 *  to  the  unregenerate,  and  of  justification  to  those  who  are 
 1  still  in  their  sins ;  it  ought  to  save,  and  does  not,  and  admits 
 '  into  communion  with  the  churches  those  who  are  unfitted 
 'for  the  privilege.'  p.  118. 
 
 Had  Mr.  Noel  substituted  '  If,'  for  '  Since,'  throughout  the 
 paragraph,  and  given  us  hypotheses  instead  of  implied  affirm- 
 ations, one  might  have  viewed  the  whole  as  an  inquiry  after 
 truth.       In   its    present    form,    it    looks   like    the    positive 
 
518  SCKIPTURAL  ADVANTAGES  OF  BAPTIZED 
 
 imposition  of  unquestionable  dogmas.  As  remarked  before, 
 where  is  baptism  said  to  be  the  seal  or  declaration  of  spiritual 
 regeneration ;  or  the  certain  sign  of  a  person's  being  already 
 justified,  or  of  divine  internal  gifts  bestowed  on  those  that 
 are  baptized,  and  limited  to  them  ?  Where  did  he  learn,  that 
 water- baptism  saves  the  souls  of  any  of  its  subjects?  Can 
 Puseyism  or  Popery  convey  more  heterodox  or  dangerous 
 notions,  than  taught  in  the  above  quotation  ?  If  persons 
 are  regenerated,  justified,  endowed  with  gifts,  and  saved 
 beforehand  ;  how  can  this  rite  be  said  to  have  produced  such 
 results,  or  have  any  necessary  connexion  with  them  ?  He 
 might  as  truly  have  said,  the  Lord's  Supper  produces  the 
 same  or  similar  consequences.  Certainly,  it  is  never  said, 
 they  are  prerequisites  to  the  reception  of  this  ordinance. 
 Where  is  it  asserted,  that  '  baptism  ought  to  save,  and  does 
 '  not  1 '  Are  we  to  consider  this  a  saving  rite  ?  And  where 
 did  our  opponent  learn,  that  Infant  Baptism  '  admits  into 
 '  communion  with  the  churches  those  who  are  unfitted  for 
 '  the  privilege  ? '  Not  among  Pedobaptist  dissenters,  nor,  as 
 shown  elsewhere,  even  in  the  state-religion. 
 
 He  proceeds,  '  Since  the  Scriptures  declare,  that  persons  are 
 '  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins,  (Acts  ii.  38),  that 
 '  they  should  be  baptized  and  wash  away  their  sins,  (Acts  xxii. 
 '  16),  'that  they  are  buried  with  Christ,  and  rise  with  him  in 
 '  baptism,  (Col.  ii.  12),  that  the  baptized  put  on  Christ,  (Gal.  iii. 
 '  27)j  and  that  they  are  saved  by  baptism,  (1  Peter  iii.  21);  if 
 '  these  passages  are  applied  to  infants,  it  is  very  difficult  to  avoid 
 1  the  conclusion,  that  they  are  renewed  and  justified  in 
 'baptism.'  p.  127.  But,  is  it  not  equally  difficult,  if  applied 
 to  dipping  adults  in  water  ?  The  notion  of  this  writer,  that 
 in  the  above  passages,  baptism  is  put  for  the  profession  of 
 faith  in  men  and  women,  is  perfectly  gratuitous,  and  exhibits 
 an  attempt  to  evade  a  difficulty  he  does  not  appear  prepared 
 rightly  to  master. 
 
 I  will  just  subjoin  the  following  conflicting  sentiments  from 
 two  of  his  brethren  :  —  Mr.  Gibbs,  '  We  do  not  believe  that  a 
 '  man  is  more  fit  for  church  membership  after  baptism  than 
 '  he  was  before,  in  consequence  of  his  receiving  any  moral  or 
 'spiritual  qualification  by  attending  to  this  ordinance'.... 
 '  The  supposition,  that  any  spiritual  blessing  is  conveyed  by 
 '  baptism  cannot  be  supported  without  allowing  the  popish 
 '  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.'  lb.  p.  15,  16.  And,  yet, 
 Mr.  Foot,  in  a  work  recommended  by  Mr.  Pearce,  of  Birmingham, 
 and  Dr.   Murch,   of  Stepney,   says,    '  The  first  privilege  of 
 
CHILDREN  OVER  THE  U.NBAPTIZED.  519 
 
 'Christian  baptism  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  Scripture 
 1  evidently  teaches  us  to  consider  baptism  as  attended  with 
 '  this.  .  .  .Now,  since  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins,  is 
 'not  this  an  advantage  worthy  of  your  glad  acceptance?' 
 p.  22,  79.  He  means,  the  baptism  of  adults;  for  infants  have  no 
 actual  sins  to  be  forgiven.  This  language  is  absolutely 
 popish.  Whether  Mr.  Noel's  opinions  most  accord  with 
 Scripture  and  Mr.  Gibbs,  or  with  popery  and  Mr.  Foot,  let 
 the  candid  readers  of  the  above  extracts  decide  for  themselves. 
 
 It  may  amuse  the  intelligent  reader  to  learn  Mr.  Stovel's 
 notions  concerning  '  The  advantages  derived  to  personal 
 '  religion,  from  a  strict  adherence  to  the  scriptural  rule 
 '  cf  baptizing  accredited  believers  only,'  (Reg.  Lee.  v.),  and 
 to  see  if  there  be  any  real  good  to  be  obtained  from  the 
 practice  of  it,  not  equally  secured  to  all  accredited  members  in 
 our  Pedobaptist  congregational  churches.  I  challenge  him  to 
 discover  even  the  shadow  of  it.  '  We  shall  trace  the  blessings, 
 ljirst,  in  the  influence  which  this  obedience  to  the  law  of 
 '  Christian  baptism  exerts  over  the  constitution  and  fellowship 
 '  of  the  church  ;  '  [in  admitting  only  assumed  pious  people  !] 
 '  Secondly,  in  the  facility  which  it  gives  to  the  interpretation 
 '  and  use  of  sacred  Scripture  ;  '  [enabling  them  to  see  the 
 harmony  cf  their  own  immersion  with  the  Word  of  God !] 
 '  Thirdly,  it  leads  to  the  promotion  of  personal  holiness  ;  ' 
 [the  dipped  being  pledged  to  live  a  very  exemplary  Christian 
 life,  which  a  Pedobaptist  member  is  not !]  '  Fourthly,  in  the 
 '  acquisition  and  use  of  resources  fitted  for  active  exertion  ;  ' 
 [which  are  beyond  the  reach  of  all  other  people  !]  '  Fifthly, 
 '  in  the  advancement  of  early  piety;'  [securing  better  instruction 
 than  the  young  can  get  in  Pedobaptist  families  !]  '  Sixthly,  it 
 '  affords  the  very  best  means  of  confounding  and  resisting 
 '  infidelity  ;  '  [by  exhibiting  a  more  pure,  a  more  highly 
 intelligent,  and  a  more  consistent  and  useful  society  of  saints 
 than  you  can  find  any  where  else !]  These  are  all  the 
 advantages  the  learned  lecturer  adduces,  in  praise  and  support 
 of  his  own  system,  over  that  of  the  Independent,  Wesleyan,  or 
 Presbyterian  bodies  !  No  wonder  he  is  so  energetic,  eloquent, 
 and  sensitive,  in  the  defence  of  baptizing  only  accredited 
 believers ! ' 
 
 The  careful  reader  of  the  foregoing  remarks  in  this  section 
 and,  indeed,  in  those  of  several  preceeding  ones,  will  perceive 
 that  an  essential  difference  exists  between  our  opponents  and 
 ourselves,  as  to  the  ultimate  design  of  baptism.  They  regard  it 
 as  chiefly  retrospective,  and  we  as  chiejly  prospective,  in  its 
 
520  SCRIPTURAL  ADVANTAGES  OF  BAPTIZED 
 
 applications.  With  them  it  is  a  sign,  evidence,  or  seal  of  a 
 divine  change  which  lias  already  taken  place,  or  of  spiritual 
 blessings  previously  and  actually  obtained  ;  being  like  phy- 
 lacteries on  their  sleeves,  announcing  their  present  sanctity 
 to  the  outer  world  !  With  us  it  is  a  sign,  a  token,  or  a  teaching, 
 of  what  should  be  effected  in  us,  or  of  benefits  to  be  conferred 
 upon  us.  Carson  says,  '  Baptism  supposes  that  all  baptized 
 '  persons  are  washed  from  sin  through  the  belief  of  the  truth.' 
 p.  233.  Consequently,  all  the  immersed  are  to  assume,  that 
 the  great  work  of  regeneration  has  been  accomplished  in  their 
 hearts.  It  imposes  on  them  no  obligations  to  seek  the 
 regeneration  of  their  natures  by  the  Spirit  of  God — though 
 nearly  half  the  dipped  evince  their  need  of  it  afterwards.  It  is 
 fraught  with  no  available  or  practicable  instruction,  and  lays 
 them  under  no  additional  claim  to  pray  for  the  accomplishment 
 of  any  future  renovation  of  soul.  The  deed  is  done.  You 
 are  born  again.  Live  consistently  with  your  past  and  present 
 sacred  condition.  You  were  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost 
 beforehand.  Water-baptism  unites  '  the  outward  visible  sign, 
 '  with  the  inward  spiritual  grace  previously  given  unto  you  ' 
 —  as  taught  in  our  Anglican  communion.  Make  yourselves 
 easy  and  happy  !  You  now  exhibit  the  broad  seal  of  your 
 divine  heirship.  That  this  doctrine  of  baptism  is  fearfully 
 delusive  and  dangerous,  equally  with  that  of  Pusey  and  the 
 Pope,  I  have  asserted  and  shown  before. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  evangelical  dissenting  advocates  of 
 Pedobaptism  view  this  service  as  teaching  ivhat  should  be 
 done  in  the  baptized,  what  renovation  they  are  to  seek, 
 and  what  blessings  they  ought  to  pray  for.  You  have  received 
 the  sign,  labour  for  the  substance.  You  have  had  the  type, 
 employ  the  duly  appointed  means  in  order  to  obtain  the 
 antitype.  They  are  not  united  as  cause  and  effect.  They 
 are  like  preaching  and  conversion.  You  may  hear  the  one, 
 and  yet  not  experience  the  other.  As  in  circumcision,  you 
 may  have  that  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh,  and  not  that 
 which  is  inward  in  the  heart.  Now,  if  the  above  be  a  correct  view 
 of  the  chief  difference  between  the  Baptists  and  ourselves,  it  is 
 plain  and  certain,  that  we  are  at  issue  on  points  of  more  vital 
 importance  than  most  persons  generally  suppose.  Their 
 system  can  do  no  real  good,  and  may  do  immense  mischief, 
 to  their  converts  ;  fostering  spiritual  pride,  delusion,  and  false 
 contentment ;  while  ours  cannot  legitimately  effect  the  least 
 evil,  and  is  calculated  to  accomplish  essential  benefits  in 
 the  baptized. 
 
CHILDREN  OVER  THE  UNBAPTTZED.  521 
 
 In  privately  debating  the  subject  under  consideration,  with 
 Baptist  ministers,  we  have  found  that,  when  having  fully 
 and  confessedly  met  every  other  objection  brought  against 
 our  practice,  they,  at  last,  take  refuge  on  the  supposed 
 non-advantage  of  our  service.  '  Pray  tell  us  what  good  is  it? ' 
 They  assume,  that  on  this  question  we  must  be  dumb,  or  can 
 speak  only  to  our  own  confusion.  Here,  however,  our  reply 
 is  ready,  if  not  always  convincing,  '  Much  every  way.'  But, 
 when  we  retort,  and  press  the  inquiry, '  what  benefits  do  pious, 
 'intelligent,  and  long-tried  Christians  gain,  by  being  im- 
 '  mersed  ?  '  our  opponents  are  thoroughly  at  a  loss  for  even 
 a  plausible  answer.  Conscious  of  this  difficulty,  they  are 
 tempted  to  attribute  benefits  to  their  ceremonial  little  inferior 
 to  those  ascribed  to  it  by  the  open  advocates  of  baptismal 
 regeneration — as  the  citations  previously  made  fully  testify. 
 It  is  this  effort,  to  exalt  their  believers'  immersion  above 
 baby-affusion,  which  has  led  them  to  make  such  unscriptural 
 and  injurious  statements  as  I  have  repeatedly  quoted.  These 
 are  the  results  of  polemical  perplexities,  or  the  progeny  of 
 an  unconscious  priestcraft — ascribing  marvellous  virtues  to  the 
 ceremonious  operation  of  their  own  clerical  hands.  These 
 may  be  regarded  as  strong  allegations  against  great  and  good 
 men  ;  but  are  they  not  as  true  as  they  are  severe  ? 
 
 Observation  I. —  The  Commission  of  Christ  contains  the 
 chief  New  Testament  law,  concerning  Christian  baptism 
 and  its  benefits.  —  Let  it  be  observed,  'That  there  is  in  the 
 '  New  Testament  no  express  command  addressed  to  any  living 
 '  man  or  woman  to  be  baptized,  and  no  other  command  than 
 '  that  which  is  implied  in  his  address  to  the  apostles  to 
 '  administer  baptism  to  any  person  whatsoever.  Were  this 
 '  text  obliterated  from  Scripture,  we  should  have  no  direct 
 '  authority  for  the  administration  of  baptism.'  Halley^t.  ii.p.  5. 
 All  besides,  in  the  New  Testament,  relating  to  this  ceremony, 
 consists  of  records,  allusions,  and  incidental  remarks.  It 
 having  been  argued,  that  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  does  not  contain 
 the  institution  of  baptism  ;  (which  was  given  and  practised 
 long  before);  that  the  words  of  our  Lord  convey  only  a 
 modified  reinforcement  of  the  ancient  sacrament ;  and  that, 
 whereas  the  apostles  and  their  predecessors  had  only  been 
 accustomed  to  go  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  they 
 were  now  to  go  into  all  the  world  ;  Mr.  Tombes  replies,  '  If 
 'this  be  not  the  first  institution  of  baptism,  yet  it  is  an 
 '  institution,  and  the  institution  of  baptism  to  the  gentiles  ; 
 '  and,  therefore,  the  rule  by  which  ministers  are  to  baptize, 
 
522  OUR  LORD  S  LAST  COMMISSION 
 
 '  there  being  no  other  institution  that  I  know  of  to  regulate 
 '■  our  practice  by,  but  such  as  is  gathered  from  John  Baptist 
 'and  the  apostles'  practice  and  sayings.'  Exer.  p.  153.  As 
 this  writer  admits,  the  purport  of  the  commission  is  just  the 
 greater  extension  of  baptism  to  the  gentile  nations,  in  the 
 name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  The  Hebrews 
 had  willingly  received,  circumcised,  and  baptized  those  that 
 came  to  them  and  sought  the  benefits  of  the  former  economy. 
 The  apostles  of  Christ  were  to  be  aggressive,  and  to  carry  the 
 gospel  into  all  parts  of  the  earth,  and  to  baptize  and  teach 
 every  person  they  could  induce  to  submit  to  their  instruction 
 and  discipline.  No  fresh  directions  are  given  as  to  the  age, 
 sex,  or  character  of  the  subjects,  or  as  to  the  mode  of  its 
 administration.  These  were  to  be  gathered  from  the  foregoing 
 practice  of  John,  as  he  had  gathered  his  from  the  practice  of 
 the  priests  and  his  other  Hebrew  predecessors.  So  far 
 Mr.  Tombes  accords  with  our  views  of  this  commission. 
 
 In  this  injunction  Christ  commands  the  apostles  and  all 
 following  ministers  of  the  gospel,  first,  to  proselyte,  secondly, 
 to  baptize,  and  thirdly,  to  teach  the  doctrines,  duties,  and 
 privileges  of  Christianity.  The  first  does  not  necessarily 
 include  any  verbal  teaching  at  all.  Whatever  means  enlisted 
 people  on  the  side  of  divine  truth,  fully  answered  their 
 purpose.  We  have  seen  before,  that  many  believed  in  Christ, 
 not  from  what  he  or  his  disciples  said,  but  from  what  they 
 did.  Miracles,  with  the  loaves  and  fishes,  probably,  made 
 many  more — ^at  least,  temporary — adherents  to  Christ,  than 
 the  simple  ministry  of  the  word.  At  most,  there  was  no 
 previous  instruction  beyond  what  was  necessary  to  induce 
 adults  to  become  proselytes  by  baptism — a  persuasion  that 
 Jesus  was  the  Christ ;  or  impressions  favourable  to  the  new 
 dispensation  of  the  cause  of  God.  This  being  accomplished, 
 the  converts  were  baptized,  and  then  initiated  into  the 
 mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  much  so  as  times  and 
 circumstances  would  permit. 
 
 To  have  effected  a  complete  religious  training  and  education 
 before  baptism,  would  have  been  impracticable,  unless  the 
 doctrines,  discipline,  obligations,  and  privileges,  or  '  all  things 
 '  which  Christ  commanded  his  apostles,'  had  been  understood 
 by  instinct,  or  in  the  course  of  an  hour's  audience — for  fre- 
 quently not  much  more  time  elapsed  between  the  preaching  of 
 the  truth,  with  signs  following,  and  the  administration  of 
 baptism  to  the  hearers  —and  these  hearers,  too,  mostly  strangers 
 whom  the  apostles  had  never  seen,  nor  known  anything  about, 
 
FULLY  SUSTAINS  INFANT  BAPTISM.  523 
 
 previously.  The  Saviour  taught  the  multitudes  generally,  and 
 in  parahles,  of  which  few  of  them  understood  the  precise 
 import;  hut  he  afterwards  explained  the  meaning  of  them, 
 and  the  mysteries  of  his  kingdom,  to  his  more  fully  initiated 
 followers  in  private.  One  thing  is  indisputable,  that  if  the 
 order  of  the  commission  had  heen  observed  in  the  case  of 
 children,  they  must,  like  the  little  Hehrews  in  the  Red  Sea, 
 have  heen  first  baptized  by  the  apostles,  and  then  scripturally 
 educated.  To  instruct  children  in  the  full  knowledge  of  the 
 gospel,  before  they  are  initiated  by  baptism,  is  not  only  to 
 invert  what  appears  to  be  the  natural  order  of  things  ;  but  it 
 would  be  to  postpone  the  rite  to  an  indefinite  distance. 
 
 Dr.  Newman  says,  'In  the  commission,  we  have  teaching 
 1  before  baptism,  and  after  it.  The  former  is  supposed  to  be 
 '  general  and  elementary,  including  what  is  necessary  to  form 
 ?  the  character  of  a  disciple  ;  the  latter  more  copious — more 
 'in  detail.'  p.  14.  Now,  the  commission  does  not  literally 
 or  necessarily  include  a  word  about  any  teaching,  properly  so 
 called,  before  baptism  ;  but  commands,  that  '  all  things ' 
 Christ  commanded  his  disciples,  should  be  taught  afterwards. 
 In  the  cases  of  some  persons,  preaching,  and  proving  that 
 Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  were  necessary  to  induce  the  Jews  to 
 be  baptized  unto  him.  It  was  like  proving  the  Scriptures  to 
 be  divine,  from  its  external  evidences,  and  then  unfolding  its 
 internal  contents.  But,  many  believed  and,  probably,  were 
 baptized,  without  any  theological  teaching  at  all.  This  previous 
 announcing  or,  rather,  persuading,  was  incidental,  and  not 
 included  in  the  injunction  to  the  apostles — as  if  purposely  to 
 make  disciples  of  infants,  too  young  to  be  regularly  taught  ; 
 and  just  as  infants,  too  young  to  understand  the  law,  were 
 circumcised  to  the  Lord.  Mr.  Gibbs  says,  '  In  the  apostolic 
 'commission,  there-  are  three  things  enjoined  —  preaching, 
 'baptizing,  and  teaching*,  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  which 
 '  duties,  the  divine  influence  is  promised  to  the  end  of  the 
 '  world.'  p.  37-  Even  conceding  that  this  view  is  correct,  and 
 was  frequently  exemplified  ;  still,  the  question  returns,  In 
 what  did  this  primary  preaching  consist  ?  Was  it  the  whole 
 counsel  of  God,  or  the  grand  truth,  that  Christ  was  the 
 Messiah  ?  The  latter  we  affirm  ;  and  we  think  this  position 
 cannot  be  effectively  controverted. 
 
 Conybeare  and  Howson  observe,  '  In  ordinary  cases  the 
 '  sole  condition  required  for  baptism  was,  that  the  persons  to 
 'be  baptized  should  acknowledge  Jesus  r.s  the  Messiah, 
 '  "declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power  by  his  resurrec- 
 
524  our  lord's  last  commission 
 
 tion  from  the  dead."     In  this  acknowledgment  was  virtually 
 
 involved  the  readiness  of  the  new  converts  to  suhmit  to  the 
 
 guidance  of  those  whom  Christ  had  appointed  as  the  apostles 
 
 and  teachers  of  His  Church  ;   and  we  find  they  were  subse- 
 
 quently  instructed   in  the  truths  of  Christianity,  and  were 
 
 taught  the  true  spiritual  meaning  of  those  ancient  prophesies, 
 
 which  (if  Jews),  they  had  hitherto  interpreted  of  a  human 
 
 conqueror    and    an     earthly    kingdom.       This     instruction, 
 
 however,  took  place  after  baptism,  not  before  it ;   and  herein 
 
 we  remark  a  great  and  striking  difference  in  the  subsequent 
 
 usages  of  the  Church.      For,  not  long  after  the  time  of  the 
 
 Apostles,  the  primitive  practice  in  this  respect  was  completely 
 
 reversed  ;   in  all  cases  the  convert  was  subjected  to  a  long 
 
 preliminary  instruction  before  he  was  admitted  to  baptism, 
 
 and,  in  some  instances,  the  catechumen  remained  unbaptized 
 
 till  the  hour  of  death  ;    for  thus  he  thought  to  escape  the 
 
 strictness  of  a  Christian  life,  and  fancied  that  a  death-bed 
 
 baptism  would  operate  magically  upon  his  spiritual  condition, 
 
 and  ensure  his  salvation.    The  apostolic  practice  of  immediate 
 
 baptism,  would,  had  it  been  retained,  have  guarded  the  Church 
 
 from  so  baneful  a  superstition.'  vol.  i.  p.  516.     This  view 
 
 of  the    superstitious  notions   of   many  persons,  subsequent 
 
 to  the  times  of  the  apostles,  explains  the  reasons  of  certain 
 
 cases  of  adult  or  deferred  baptisms,  to  which  our  opponents 
 
 exultingly  refer  us,  in  defence  of  their  adult  or  believers' 
 
 baptism    in    the    present    age.       The    same   writers    render 
 
 Heb.  vi.  2,  'Baptism,  instruction,  and  laying  on  of  hands;  ' 
 
 adding,  '  We  take  the  punctuation  sanctioned  by  Chrysostom. 
 
 '  . .  .  .The  Didakes  was  the   Catechetical  Instruction  which, 
 
 'in  the  apostolic  age,  folloived  baptism.'  vol.  ii.  p.  619. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  divides  and  subdivides  this  commission  into 
 ten  articles  of  instruction ;  and  reproves  Dr.  Halley  for 
 taking,  like  Mr.  Gibbs,  these  injunctions  as  the  basis  of  his 
 argument.  In  order  to  make  up  these  ten  articles,  Mr.  Stovel 
 divides  the  first  expression,  '  Proselyte  all  nations,'  into 
 three  parts.  — '  It  has  been  shown  that  these  instructions 
 '  include  three  acts,  which  naturally  precede  baptism :  to 
 '  proclaim  the  glad  tidings,  to  bear  witness  to  their  truth, 
 '  and  to  make  disciples.  These  instructions  all  imply,  that 
 '  faith  comes  by  hearing,  that  faith  justifies  a  man  in  becoming 
 '  a  disciple,  and  that  such  disciples  must  be  made  by  teaching 
 '  and  testifying  before  they  can  be  baptized.'  p."235.  Marvel- 
 lous discovery  !  as  if  Dr.  Halley  had  never  understood  that 
 preaching  and  bearing  witness  to  the  truth  constituted  a  part 
 
FULLY  SUSTAINS  INFANT  BAPTISM.         525 
 
 of  the  means  of  proselytism  !  '  The  next  part  of  these 
 1  instructions  requires  the  apostles  to  baptize,  or  initiate,  the 
 1  disciples  so  made.'  But  can  our  good  brother  tell  us,  what 
 act  makes  a  disciple  distinct  from  teaching,  witnessing,  and. 
 baptizing  ?  What  is  done  to  the  proselyte,  or  for  him,  or 
 with  him,  or  what  is  proclaimed  concerning  him,  that  constitutes 
 him  a  disciple,  separate  from  teaching  or  baptizing  him  ? 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  had  previously  said,  '  none  were  called  disciples 
 '  without  being'  [first]  'baptized.'  p.  207-  No  person  was  to 
 be 'recognized  as  a  disciple,  but  by  baptism.'  p.  230.  'Baptism 
 'is  the  only  badge  of  discipleship.'  p.  221.  Putting  these 
 passages  together,  it  is  manifest,  that  the  commission  gives 
 our  brethren  some  little  trouble,  in  making  it  accord  with 
 their  practice  !  If  Mr.  Stovel's  meaning  can  be  ascertained, 
 from  these  hair-splittings,  it  is,  that  proclaiming  the  glad 
 tidings,  and  bearing  witness  to  the  truth,  inclines  and  prepares 
 men  to  become  disciples,  and  that  they  are  formally  made,  or 
 recognized,  as  such  only,  by  being  baptized.  And  if  this  be 
 the  case,  his  impreachment  of  Dr.  Halley's  judgment  is 
 groundless,  and  his  analysis  of  the  terms  of  the  commission 
 any  thing  but  valid,  evidence  against  Infant  Baptism.  Mr. 
 Stovel's  aim  seems  to  be  to  make  a  grand  and  fussy  affair  of 
 baptism,  as  administered  in  his  own  persuasion ! 
 
 On  looking  into  this  commission  attentively,  it  is  manifest, 
 that  its  provisions  are  violated  in  nearly  all  the  adult  or 
 believers'  baptisms  which  take  place  in  this  country.  In  the 
 case  of  grown-up  heathen  proselytes  to  Christianity,  and  of 
 infants  dedicated  to  Christ  by  baptism,  you  can  easily  comply 
 with  the  terms  of  the  law  in  this  case  made  and  provided. 
 You  make  and  recognize  disciples  by  baptizing  them,  and 
 then  duly  teach  them.  Here  you  observe  order,  and  follow 
 divine  direction.  But  if  you  teach  them  the  doctrines,  duties, 
 and  privileges  of  the  gospel  first — as  the  advocates  of  adult 
 baptism  maintain  you  ought — and  then  baptize  them,  leaving 
 little  of  moment  for  them  to  learn  afterwards,  you  depart 
 from  the  rule  given  in  the  commission.  To  contend,  that 
 the  candidate  must  be  taught  at  all  the  system  of  theology 
 before  he  is  baptized  into  the  school  of  Christ,  is  just  to  place 
 the  question  in  a  state  of  perplexity,  as  to  how  much  divinity 
 the  person  must  acquire  before  his  initiation,  and  how  much 
 he  shall  have  to  acquire  subsequently.  Nor  can  what  is  now 
 understood  by  the  baptism  of  fully-enlightened  believers,  be 
 made  to  accord  with  the  commission.  When  our  opponents 
 train  up  the  young  in  the  knowledge  of  the  gospel,  till  they 
 
526  OUR  lord's  last  commission 
 
 understand  the  doctrines  of  salvation  fully  and  clearly,  and, 
 perhaps,  as  well  as  the  baptizer  himself;  and  till  they  are 
 spiritually  renewed  in  their  minds  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ; 
 and  then  administer  the  rite  to  these  young  men  or  fathers  in 
 Christ ;  they  cannot  be  said,  by  this  ceremony,  to  dedicate  or 
 baptize  persons  unto  the  Saviour,  at  all  in  agreement  with  the 
 law  of  the  commission  ;  for  that,  according  to  their  practice, 
 was  done,  possibly,  twenty  or  thirty  years  before. 
 
 In  fact,  many  of  these  people,  previous  to  their  baptism, 
 have  made  an  open  profession  of  the  gospel,  have  taught  in 
 sabbath-schools,  have  been  employed  in  various  offices  of 
 Christian  effort.  They  have  withstood  temptation,  have 
 witnessed  a  good  confession  of  their  faith,  knowledge,  zeal, 
 and  love  to  Christ,  before  many  witnesses.  They  have  made 
 a  better,  a  more  trustworthy,  and  impressive  confession,  than 
 is  ever  made  by  the  candidate  at  the  baptistry — when  'shivering 
 '  on  the  brink,  and  fearing  to  launch  away ! '  or  when  exultingin 
 the  occasion  of  becoming  the  marked  heroes  or  heroines  of 
 the  hour  !  Now,  to  baptize  these  holy,  adult,  useful,  and 
 long  recognized  servants  and  friends  of  God,  certainly  is  not 
 according  to  the  wording  of  the  commission  !  Such  persons 
 are  first  Christianized  by  instruction,  and  hopefully  regene- 
 rated by  divine  grace  ;  and,  when  well  taught,  are  initiated 
 to  the  school  of  Christ  by  baptism  !  This  scheme  is  evidently 
 the  reverse  of  that  stated  in  this  interesting  and  important 
 direction,  given  to  the  disciples  of  Christ — which  can  be 
 observed  properly  only  in  the  case  of  children,  or  cf  recently 
 converted  and  untaught  heathens  and  Jews.  In  respect  of 
 these  it  was  evidently  given— as  was  circumcision  of  old  ;  and 
 in  no  case  do  the  Scriptures  offer  us  even  a  hint,  that  what 
 our  opponents  understand  by  Christians — persons  taught  in 
 the  Word,  and  sanctified  in  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  having 
 long  made  a  profession  of  the  gospel,  been  trained  up  by 
 religious  parents,  and,  for  a  long  time,  usefully  employed  in 
 the  work  of  the  Lord — were  ever  baptized  by  the  holy  apostles. 
 Children  and  heathens  you  can  proselyte,  baptize,  and  teach. 
 But  you  cannot  do  so  in  the  case  of  such  as  have  been  first 
 taught  by  the  Spirit,  and  fully  instructed  in  the  great  leading 
 truths  of  the  gospel.  If  the  commission  had  not  reference  to 
 children  and  heathen  or  Jewish  adults,  it  is  all  but  a  dead  or 
 an  inapplicable  law,  in  the  economy  of  Christianity. 
 
 To  reply,  that  our  opponents  would  have  baptized  many  of 
 the  adults  they  now  immerse  much  sooner,  had  they  applied 
 for  the  rite,  or  been  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  it,  leaves 
 
FULLY  SUSTAINS  INFANT  BAPTISM.         527 
 
 our  argument  untouched.  The  qualifications  demanded  are 
 the  same,  whether  the  person  dipped  be  fifteen  or  fifty  years 
 old — whether  he  have  been  a  real  Christian  one  year  or  twenty, 
 or  whether  he  have  been  consecrated  to  God  by  aifusion 
 baptism  in  infancy,  or  in  adult  age.  Till  immersed,  he  is 
 viewed  denominationally  as  a  Jew  or  a  heathen  ;  he  is  out  of 
 the  pale  of  the  true  church  ;  and,  as  a  Jew  or  a  heatb.cn,  he 
 must  be  formally  admitted.  He  must  be  really  or  professedly 
 converted,  must  have  learnt  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and 
 must  be  able  to  stand  a  good  examination  in  theology,  before 
 he  can  be  inducted  to  their  fellowship  by  baptism.  This  is 
 a  procedure  the  reverse  of  that  enjoined  in  the  commission; 
 nor  can  all  the  excuses,  explanations,  and  reasonings,  of  our 
 antagonists  make  them  accord.  True  Christian  baptism  is 
 not  the  baptism  of  Christians,  fully  taught  the  truth,  and 
 renewed  and  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  it  is  a  baptism 
 of  those  that  are  without  the  pale  of  the  gospel— on  account 
 of  their  birth,  and  native  pollution,  or  their  lack  of  religious 
 training,  as  Jews  and  heathens  —  into  Christianity.  This  is 
 manifestly  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  commission.  The  bap- 
 tism of  a  pious  and  intelligent  adult,  from  whom  the  rite  had 
 been  ignorantly  cr  sinfully  withheld  in  infancy,  and  who 
 desires  to  receive  it  before  uniting  with  a  Christian  church  of 
 the  Pedobaptist  order,  is  a  different  affair — being  an  exception 
 to  its  general  custom,  and  an  act  imposed  upon  its  members 
 by  the  neglect  of  others.  What  we  are  opposing  is,  not  the 
 occasional  baptizing  of  pious  adults,  but  a  systematical  neglect 
 of  Infant  Baptism,  which  may  render  the  former  proceeding 
 requisite  or  desirable. 
 
 The  parties  most  prone  to  oppose  our  conclusion  on  this 
 point,  avowedly  lay  the  utmost  stress  on  the  arrangement  of 
 words  in  the  New  Testament,  whenever  they  fancy  it  favorable 
 to  their  own  denominational  views.  We  are  repeatedly  told 
 — '  We  must  believe  first,  and  be  baptized  afterwards,' 
 because  such  is  indicated  by  the  order  of  the  words  relating 
 to  baptism.  '  Teach  and  baptize,'  '  believe  and  be  baptized  ;  ' 
 (which,  in  the  case  of  Jews  and  heathens,  must  be  duly  observed); 
 are  phrases  reiterated  almost  without  intermission  or  end. 
 None,  however  enlightened  or  holy,  may  enter  the  particular 
 '  churches  of  consistent  Baptists,  or  partake  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper  among  them,  who  have  not  first  been  immersed ; 
 because  they  read  of  persons  being  first  baptized,  and  then 
 added  to  the  number  of  the  professed  followers  of  Christ. 
 Well,  then,  we  say,  keep  to  the  order  of  the  words  in  the 
 
528  our  lord's  last  commission 
 
 commission,  and  about  the  meaning  of  which  there   can   now 
 be   no   difficulty.      Proselyte,  baptize,   and   teach  ;    and    we 
 need  require  no  more  to  sustain   our  positions  in  defence   o 
 Infant  Baptism.       Baptize   the    untaught,    and   instruct   the 
 baptized — this  is  the  Saviour's  plan. 
 
 But,  our  friends  will  find,  that  the  order  of  words,  about 
 which  they  are  often  so  confident  and  so  eloquent,  is  not 
 always  a  safe  support  of  their  believers'  immersion.  Of  this 
 they  are  apparently  unconscious.  We  never  hear  them 
 emphatically  proclaiming,  in  their  pulpits,  such  passages  as 
 the  following  : — '  John  did,'  first,  '  baptize  in  the  wilderness, 
 '  and,'  secondly, '  preach  the  baptism  of  repentance.'  Mark  i.  4. 
 '  Except  a  man  be  born,'  first,  '  of  water  and,'  second!//,  '  of 
 '  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 
 John  iii.  5.  'Ye  are,'  first,  'washed'  (baptized),  secondly, 
 '  ye  are  sanctified,'  thirdly,  '  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of 
 '  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.'  1  Cor.  vi.  1 1. 
 '  So  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
 '  baptized  into  his  death.'  Rom.  vi.  3.  Hence,  they  were  not 
 in  Christ,  nor  in  his  death,  before  they  were  baptized,  but 
 only  afterwards.  'As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into 
 '  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.'  Gal.  iii.  27-  Here  Christ  was 
 put  on  after  baptism,  and  in  consequence  of  it.  Surely,  the 
 order  of  words  in  these  passages,  and  especially  in  our  Lord's 
 final  commission,  on  apostolic  duty — and,  by  consequence,  the 
 people's  corresponding  obligations — is  as  worthy  of  regard  as 
 any  others  found  in  the  narratives  of  scripture  baptism.  The 
 way  in  which  our  sagacious  opponents  endeavour  to  meet  our 
 rejoinder  to  their  customary  reasonings  on  this  point,  is  by 
 remarking,  '  There  is  in  words  an  order  of  emphasis,  as  well 
 '  as  an  order  of  time.'  Noel,  p.  39.  This  is  a  very  convenient 
 discovery  ! 
 
 It  will  be  seen,  as  before  noticed,  that,  in  this  commission, 
 our  Lord  had  but  just  two  leading  obligations  to  unfold  and 
 inculcate  on  his  disciples,  first,  that  they  should  baptize,  for 
 the  future,  in  the  name  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost ;  and, 
 secondly,  that  they  should  extend  these  baptisms,  beyond  the 
 Jews,  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  made  willing  to  receive 
 the  rite.  Their  previous  commission  had  been  '  to  the  lost 
 4  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel '  only.  Matt.  x.  5,  6  ;  and  their 
 baptizings,  which,  probably,  they  continued  up  to  the  time  of 
 our  Saviour's  death,  and,  under  his  own  immediate  eye  and 
 direction,  had  therefore  been  confined  to  the  same  people. 
 But,  now,  their  sphere  of  ministration  was  to  be  extended, 
 
FULLY  SUSTAINS  INFANT  BAPTISM.  529 
 
 and  their  baptismal  phraseology  was  to  be  altered.  This  was 
 all  they  required  to  be  told  ;  and  this,  in  all  likelihood,  is  all 
 our  Lord  intended  to  enjoin  upon  them.  This  commission, 
 be  it  observed,  says  not  a  word  about  learning,  or  repentance, 
 or  faith,  in  the  baptized  ;  nor  exacts  any  promises  from  the 
 candidates  ;  nor  demands  any  resolutions  of  future  piety,  or 
 devotedness  to  God.  If  these  things  were  necessary,  they 
 were  assumed  to  have  been  known  to  the  apostles  beforehand. 
 They  are  not  mentioned  by  our  Lord.  All  he  says  is  as 
 appropriate  to  an  infant  as  to  an  adult,  if  not  more  so — make 
 them  disciples  by  baptism,  and  then  teach  them  the  gospel 
 of  Christ. 
 
 It  is  highly  probable,  that  some  opponent  may  urge,  that 
 there  is  Another  Commission  on  this  subject,  recorded  in 
 Mark  xvi.  15-17,  rendering  personal  faith  prerequisite  to 
 baptism  ;  and,  consequently,  precluding  infants  from  a  par- 
 ticipation in  this  rite.  '  And  he  said  unto  them,  Go  ye  into 
 'all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He 
 '  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved  ;  but  he  that 
 '  believeth  not  shall  be  damned  ;  and  these  signs  shall  follow 
 '  them  that  believe,'  &c.  That  this  address  was  not  delivered 
 to  the  disciples  at  the  same  time  nor  in  the  same  place  with 
 that  recorded  in  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  is  certain.  This  was  given 
 while  they  sat  at  meat,  and  that  on  a  mountain  in  Galilee.  It  seems 
 likely  it  was  spoken,  some  weeks  prior  to  the  latter,  and  in 
 quite  a  different  and,  probably,  in  a  distant  locality.  Another 
 opinion  is,  that  it  was  delivered  after  the  words  recorded  in 
 Matthew.  But  that  is  very  unlikely,  and  very  immaterial. 
 The  prime  question  is,  how  would  the  disciples  understand 
 the  language  ?  If  water-baptism  were  meant,  our  opponents 
 contend  it  was  to  be.  by  dipping,  because,  they  say,  proselyte 
 baptism,  among  the  Jews,  was  by  dipping.  As  no  specific 
 directions  were  given  respecting  the  mode ;  they  will  have  it, 
 we  must  go  back  to  that  ancient  institution  for  our  guidance. 
 Well,  then,  in  the  same  way,  we  must  go  back  to  proselyte 
 Hebrew  baptism,  to  learn  the  proper  subjects  of  Christian 
 baptism  ;  seeing  we  have  no  more  definite  information  on  this 
 head  than  on  the  other.  '  As  the  baptized  Jewish  proselyte 
 '  became,  byJewish  baptism,  entitled  to  all  the  Mosaic  ordinances, 
 '  so  the  baptized  Christian  proselyte  becomes,  by  Christian 
 '  baptism,  the  avowed  disciple  of  Christ,  entitled  to  all  Christian 
 '  ordinances.  The  Jewish  baptism  was  intended  for  none  but 
 '  believers  in  Moses  ;  the  Christian  baptism  is  intended  for 
 '  none  but  believers  in  Christ.'    Noel,  p.  49.     It  is,  however, 
 
 z 
 
530  OUR  lord's  last  commission 
 
 certain,  and  Mr.  Noel  will  not  deny  it,  that,  under  the  terms, 
 '  believers  in  Moses,'  infants  were  comprehended,  and,  as  such, 
 were  baptized — ten  thousand  of  them  to  every  adult  in  Israel 
 — and  it  is  but  just  to  conclude,  that  through  this  ancient 
 use  of  the  words,  the  apostles  baptized  '  believers  in  Christ,' 
 and  their  seed.  Without  a  fresh  revelation,  commanding 
 them  to  understand  the  language  differently,  they  could  not 
 reasonably  do  otherwise.  If  infants  were  baptized  under  the 
 law,  and  if  the  same  rule  held  good  under  the  gospel,  all  infants 
 in  Christendom  should  be  baptized  also. 
 
 I  remark,  further,  that  the  above  quotation  from  Mark, 
 contains  no  commission  or  command  whatever  to  baptize  any 
 person,  old  or  young ;  and  from  it  alone  the  disciples  could 
 not  have  gathered,  that  it.  was  their  duty,  or  that  of  any  other 
 preachers  of  the  gospel,  to  baptize  at  all  ;  any  more  than 
 they  could  have  learnt  it  from  Jolmiii.  5,  where  a  doctrine  of 
 parallel  import  was  delivered  by  the  Saviour  to  Nicodemus  : 
 '  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot 
 '  enter  the  kingdom  of  God.'  This  was  no  command  to  the 
 Rabbi,  nor  to  any  one  else,  to  go  and  baptize  the  people. 
 Similar  positive  declarations  are  of  frequent  occurrence  in 
 the  New  Testament.  '  Whosoever  shall  call  upon  the  name 
 '  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved  ;'  '  Without  holiness  no  man  shall 
 '  see  the  Lord ;'  '  He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned, 
 'but  he  that  believeth  not  is  condemned. already.'  Here  are 
 statements,  but  no  expressed  relative  commands  ;  doctrines 
 propounded,  but  no  ministerial  duties  enjoined.  And  such 
 is  the  manifest  import  of  the  passage  in  Mark.  Mr.  Evans 
 was  fully  warranted  in  saying,  '  that  there  is  no  positive 
 '  command  in  Scripture  to  baptize  believers,  much  less 
 '  believers  onll^.,  Mr.  Carson  asserts  that,  '  The  commission, 
 '  as  it  is  recorded  by  Mark,  commands  believers  to  be  baptized.' 
 p.  2GO.  This  is  not  correct.  The  language  of  our  Lord 
 commands  nothing  of  the  kind.  It  states  a  doctrine,  and 
 nothing  more.  Mr.  Tombes  justly  observes,  '  The  truth  is, 
 'Mark  xvi.  1G,  is  not  a  command,  but  an  enunciation.' 
 Serm.  p.  157-  The  questions  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
 belief,  the  character  of  the  subjects,  the  qualifications  of  the 
 administrators,  the  form  of  the  ceremony,  and  the  words 
 to  be  used  on  the  occasion,  are  here  left  perfectly  open,  and 
 must  be  answered  from  other  parts  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
 or  not  at  all. 
 
 Again,  the  apostles  must  have  inferred,  that  the  baptism 
 alluded  to  in  Mark,  was  as  essential  to  salvation  as  believing  ; 
 
FULLY  SUSTAINS  INFANT  BAPTISM.  531 
 
 and  that  the  lack  of  it  would  exclude  hoth  adults  and  children 
 from  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as  certainly  as  the  want  of  faith 
 in  Christ  Jesus.  The  apostles  might  readily  understand, 
 that  their  divine  teacher  referred  to  the  spiritual  regeneration, 
 or  the  haptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  vital  and  saving 
 importance  attached  to  this  baptism  renders  it  evident  that 
 water-baptism,  simply,  could  not  be  intended.  This  interpre- 
 tation of  the  language  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  tenor 
 of  divine  truth,  and  removes  every  difficulty  naturally  felt, 
 while  viewing  it  as  referring  to  water-baptism.  At  any  rate, 
 should  it  still  be  contended  that  water-baptism  is  really 
 meant,  then  reference  can  be  made  only  to  adults,  without 
 implicating  infants  in  any  way  or  degree — seeing  the  passage 
 would  as  literally  and  as  effectually  exclude  them  from  heaven, 
 for  want  of  faith,  as  it  would  the  veriest  infidel  in  the  country; 
 for  they  are  no  more  capable  of  believing  or  of  disbelieving 
 than  of  doing  all  the  commandments  of  God.  Of  this  fact 
 our  opponents  appear  to  be  conscious.  Mr.  Maclean,  in  his 
 reply  to  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Glass  on  this  text,  admits,  that 
 '  There  is  not  one  syllable  in  all  that  commission,  either  of,' 
 [or  relating  to]  '  the  infants  of  believers  or  infidels,  dying  in 
 'infancy,  or  otherwise.'  Led.  iii.  p.  18.  And  Mr.  Tombes, 
 in  a  passage  before-cited,  says,  the  text  in  question  has 
 absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  children.  Therefore,  it  can 
 offer  no  conditions  on  which  they  can  be  rejected  from  the 
 ordinance  of  baptism. 
 
 The  language  before  us  may  be  best  understood,  by  in- 
 quiring into  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  and  thence  inferring, 
 how  it  was  viewed  by  them.  Mr.  Parsons  observes,  '  Their 
 'conduct  most  decidedly  shows,  that  they  did  not  understand 
 '  this  text  in  the  same  sense  as  modern  Baptists ;  for  your 
 '  denomination  insist,  that  our  Lord  here  speaks  of '  [requiring] 
 '  saving  faith  ;  but,  nothing  is  more  evident,  than  that  the 
 '  apostles  never  waited  even  a  moment,  that  the  candidates 
 '  for  baptism  might  give  substantial  proofs  of  saving  faith. 
 'They  baptized  persons  the  same  hour — they  baptized  them 
 ifor  repentance,  &c. — in  a  word,  they  baptized  individuals 
 '  who  were  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bond  of  iniquity  ; 
 '  consequently,  the  apostles,  who  must  have  had  as  clear 
 '  apprehension  of  this  text,  as  any  Baptist  in  our  day,  could 
 '  not  have  understood  it  in  the  same  manner  as  your  denomi- 
 '  nation  ;  for,  if  they  did,  they  were  guilty  of  a  most  wilful 
 '  violation  of  the  command  of  the  King  of  Zion  ;  and,  if  this 
 '  latter  sentiment  must  be  admitted,  then  apostolic  precedent, 
 
532  OUR  lord's  last  commission 
 
 '  to  which  Mr.  Waterman  so  confidently  appeals,  must  be 
 '  destitute  of  all  authority.  And,  sir,  one  of  the  two  opinions 
 '  must  be  granted  :  either  the  apostles  understood  the  text  in 
 '  the  same  sense  as  modern  Baptists,  but  violated  it  in  their 
 '  practice  ;  or  else,  they  did  not  so  understand  it,  and,  conse- 
 '  quently,  were  not  Baptists  ;  and  then  the  question  to  be 
 '  settled  will  be,  who  is  in  the  right  ?  inspired  apostles,  or 
 •  uninspired  Baptists  ?  '  p.  65. 
 
 Mr.  Isaacs,  also,  has  afewremarks  on  the  passage  in  question 
 worthy  of  transcription.  'Our  differing  friends. ..  .insist, 
 '  that  to  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  means  the  same 
 '  as  to  disciple  all  nations.  (Matt,  xxviii.  20).  If  this  were 
 '  true,  all  to  whom  our  Lord  preached  the  gospel  were 
 '  discipled  by  it,  but  nobody  believes  this.  Through  the 
 '  whole  of  John  vi.,  and  indeed,  through  the  whole  evangelical 
 '  history,  there  is  a  marked  distinction  kept  up  between  the 
 '  multitudes  who  merely  heard  him  preach,  and  the  disciples. 
 '  The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  undoubtedly  one  means  of 
 '  inducing  people  to  become  disciples ;  but  they  must  go 
 '  further  than  hearing,  or  they  will  stop  short  of  discipleship. 
 'Acts  xiv.  21,  we  read — "And  when  they  had  preached  the 
 '  gospel  to  that  city  and  had  \_Matheteusantes]  discipled  many, 
 '  they  returned  again  to  Lystra."  '  If  preaching  the  gospel 
 '  and  discipling  mean  the  same  thing,  what  tautology  is  here  ! 
 'That  preaching  of  the  gospel,  which  is  prior  to  baptism,  is 
 1  supposed  by  the  Baptists  to  be  the  teaching  included  in 
 '  discipling.  If  so,  this  text  might  be  read,  "  And  when  they 
 'had  taught  that  city,  and  had  taught  many,"  &c,  nothing 
 '  can  be  plainer  than  that  two  distinct  acts  are  here  intended. 
 '  Their  preaching  in  this  place  was,  no  doubt,  the  same  as  in 
 'other  places — if  went  to  establish  the  heavenly  mission  of 
 '  Jesus.  The  hearers,  who  were  desirous  of  becoming  Christians, 
 '  would  be  discipled  to  Christ  by  baptism,  and  instructed  in 
 '  the  Christian  system.'  p.  97. 
 
 Dr.  Byron,  in  a  passage  before  quoted,  referring  to  Mark 
 xvi.  15,  1G,  says,  'Here  we  have  the  word  "preach,"  and 
 '  which  word  in  the  Greek  is  Keruxate  from  Kcrusso,  the 
 'literal  rendering  of  which  is  to  cry  out  aloud — to  make 
 '  publicly  known — to  proclaim  —  to  promulgate — to  announce 
 'openly — to  call  loudly  upon;  and  there  Matlietcusate — 
 'which,  rendered  literally,  signifies,  "to  make  disciples  of" 
 '  — and  Keruxate  alike  convey  the  preaching  of  the  gospel 
 '  in  its  fullest  sense.'  p.  21,  22.  But  the  different  terms 
 used  in  Matthew  and  Mark  indicate  that  they  were  employed 
 
FULL'S  SUSTAINS  INFANT  BAPTISM.  .533 
 
 on  different  occasions.  It  is  also  clear,  that  in  both  cases,  the 
 idea  of  systematic  '  teaching '  of  the  gospel  is  excluded.  We 
 have  a  public  proclamation,  an  open  announcement,  of  the 
 Messiahship  of  Christ,  but  no  regular  instruction,  as  the  doctor 
 teaches  his  pupils  in  his  class-room,  or  as  a  minister  teaches 
 his  regular  congregation.  If  Mark  throws  any  light  on  the 
 language  of  Matthew,  it  is  by  telling  us,  that  persons  were  to 
 be  prepared  for  discipleship  by  preaching  the  salvation  of  Christ 
 — a  fact  which  the  practice  of  the  apostles  daily  confirmed,  and 
 which  no  student  of  the  Scriptures  ever  denies.  And  if 
 Matthew  throws  any  light  on  the  language  of  Mark,  it  is  by 
 declaring,  that  baptism  was  designed  to  make  disciples  in 
 their  respective  audiences ;  leaving  their  religious  training 
 to  subsequent  agencies. 
 
 Conybeare  and  Howson  observe,  that  '  Kerussein  is  to 
 '  proclaim  (as  a  herald),  Katangellien,  to  declare  tidings  of 
 '(as  a  messenger),'  vol.  ii.  p.  521.  So  that  neither  of  them 
 express  the  idea  of  regular  and  systematical  training  conveyed 
 by  the  verb  Didaskein,  the  word  rendered  '  to  teach  '  in  our 
 Lord's  commission.  Mr.  Stovel  observes,  that  the  meaning 
 of  the  commission  is,  persuasion  generally  to  become  scholars 
 in  the  school  of  Christianity.  '  If  the  verb  disciple  be  suffered 
 'to  remain  in  the  text,  it  must  speak  its  own  meaning,  and 
 '  enforce  the  action  it  describes,  which  is  so  to  influence  the 
 '  parties  named,  that  they  may  become  disciples.'  Dis.  p.  238. 
 Different  means  may  be  adopted  to  effect  this  object,  as  shown 
 elsewhere.  When  he  subjoins,  '  that  repentance  and  faith 
 '  are  essential  to  discipleship,' p.  239,  he  must  intend,  not 
 an  ordinary,  but  some  special  discipleship  ;  or  his  assertion 
 is  manifestly  erroneous.  The  fact  is,  to  proselyte,  according 
 to  the  design  of  the  commission,  was  simply  to  make  people 
 practically  prefer  Christianity  to  Judaism  and  heathenism  ; 
 the  precise  measures  for  accomplishing  it  being,  in  a  great 
 degree,  indeterminate. 
 
 It  is  worthy  of  farther  regard,  that  the  instructions  given  to 
 the  baptized,  in  their  social  and  congregational  capacities,  were 
 much  more  particular  and  extended  than  were  communicated 
 to  the  unbaptized,  or  to  the  mere  casual  hearers  of  the  truth. 
 This  accords  with  the  design  of  the  commission.  That  the 
 apostles  sometimes  propounded  great  truths,  in  their  first 
 appeals  to  the  people,  we  know  ;  but  the  actual  teaching  or 
 education  of  their  initiated  disciples  was  much  more  gradual, 
 systematic,  and  minute,  as  in  our  Bible  classes,  or  our  ordinary 
 pulpit  ministrations.     Take  the  epistles,  sent  especially  to  the 
 
534  OUR  lord's  last  commission 
 
 baptized  congregations  ;  and  compare  the  contents  of  them 
 with  the  sermons  delivered  at  Jerusalem,  and  in  other 
 places,  by  Peter  and  his  colleagues,  in  their  efforts  to  proselyte 
 Jews  and  heathens  to  Christianity.  In  those  letters,  the 
 various  duties  and  obligations  of  professors  of  Christianity  are 
 fully  and  specifically  inculcated.  All  ranks  and  relationships 
 are  appealed  to,  and  the  claims  of  the  gospel  on  them  fully 
 evolved.  Masters  and  servants,  rich  and  poor,  husbands  and 
 wives,  parents  and  children,  rulers  and  subjects,  ministers 
 and  people,  the  pious  and  unholy  ;  all  are  addressed,  warned, 
 directed,  reproved,  encouraged,  or  comforted,  as  characters 
 and  occasions  required.  In  the  public  discourses  to  the 
 multitude,  it  is  evident  that  such  specific,  practical,  and 
 minute  advice  and  admonitions  are  not  given.  The  doctrines 
 of  grace,  man's  depravity,  helplessness,  and  the  necessity  of 
 faith,  love,  zeal,  and  holiness,  are  explained  and  enforced  on 
 those  who  were  'within,'  very  differently  from  on  those  who 
 were  '  without.'  '  The  fruits  of  the  Spirit — love,  joy,  peace, 
 '  long-suffering,  gentleness,  faithfulness,  meekness,  and  tem- 
 '  perance  ;  '  are  enumerated  in  an  epistle,  and  not  in  any 
 introductory  discourses,  on  the  value  and  verity  of  the  gospel 
 of  Christ. 
 
 The  fulness  of  their  instructions  may  be  further  inferred 
 from  some  of  the  concise  records  of  the  apostles'  procedure. 
 Thus  we  are  told,  that,  at  Antioch,  when  a  great  number  had 
 believed  and  turned  unto  the  Lord,  and,  of  course,  were 
 immediately  baptized,  the  church  at  Jerusalem  sent  forth 
 Barnabas  to  Antioch,  who  exhorted  them  all,  that  with  purpose 
 of  heart  they  would  cleave  unto  the  Lord.  And  having  afterwards 
 found  Paul,  they  assembled  themselves  a  whole  year  with  the 
 church,  and  the  disciples  were  called  Christians  first  at 
 Antioch.  Acts  xi.  22-26.  Paul  '  by  the  space  of  three  years 
 '  ceased  not  to  warn  the'  [baptized]  'Ephesians  night  and  day 
 '  with  tears  ;  '  and,  at  parting,  could  say,  '  I  kept  back  nothing 
 '  that  was  profitable  unto  you,  but  showed  you,  and  taught 
 '  you  publicly,  and  from  house  to  house.  I  take  you  to  record 
 '  this  day,  that  I  am  pure  from  the  blood  of  all  men.  For  I 
 •  have  not  shunned  to  declare  unto  you  all  the  counsel  of 
 '  God.'  Acts  xx.  20,  &c.  And  at  Rome,  Paul  '  dwelt  two  whole 
 'years  in  his  own  hired  house,  and  received  all  that  came  in 
 '  unto  him,  preaching  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  teaching  those 
 '  things  which  concern  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  with  all  confidence, 
 'no  man  forbidding  him.'  Acts  xxviii.  30,31. 
 
 These  passages  are  cited  as  specimens,  or  as  indications  how 
 
FULLY  SUSTAINS  IXFAXT  BAPTISM.         535 
 
 the  apostles  attended  to  the  commission  given  them  by  the 
 Lord.  They  taught  their  baptized  converts  or  disciples  all 
 that  Christ  commanded  them — '  the  whole  counsel  of  God.' 
 This  they  were  not  ordered  to  do  before  the  people  were 
 baptized.  Indeed,  from  the  haste  with  which  they  proceeded 
 from  conviction  to  baptism,  the  interim  would  nothave  admitted 
 such  building  up  of  their  converts  in  the  knowledge,  faith,  and 
 hope  of  the  gospel.  This  they  did  afterwards,  as  time  and 
 opportunity  offered.  They  proselyted  before  or  in  baptizing, 
 and  taught  afterwards.  So  our  Lord  uttered  various  parables 
 to  the  multitudes,  and  then  explained  them  in  private  to  his 
 disciples — stating,  '  unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  the  mysteries 
 '  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  but  to  others  '  [the  unbaptized,  the 
 uninitiated]  '  in  parables  ;  that  seeing  they  might  not  see,  and 
 '  hearing  they  might  not  understand,' — before  being  duly 
 recognized  as  disciples.  Luke  viii.  10. 
 
 It  is  worthy  of  serious  consideration,  that  our  Lord's 
 commission  as  plainly  and  forcibly  commands  Christian 
 ministers  to  baptize  the  proper  subjects  of  this  consecrating 
 ordinance,  throughout  the  world,  and  to  the  end  of  time,  as 
 to  preach  the  gospel  to  all  who  will  hear  them.  Hence,  their 
 voluntarily  failing  to  perform  the  latter  ritual  duties  would  be 
 as  really  an  act  of  disobedience  to  God,  as  willingly  to  omit 
 enunciating  divine  truth.  That  the  apostles  understood  the 
 commission  in  this  sense,  their  after  procedure  fully  evinces. 
 They  proselyted,  baptized,  and  taught,  the  people — either 
 personally  or  through  the  agency  of  others.  They  felt  that 
 these  three  acts  were  alike  imperative ;  and,  as  such,  they 
 were  duly  and  equally  performed  by  themselves  or  by  others, 
 at  their  request — -just  as  they  served  tables  through  the 
 instrumentality  of  deacons.  Proselyting,  it  is  true,  was  the 
 first,  most  difficult,  and  most  important  work  allotted  to 
 our  Lord's  apostles,  especially  at  the  beginning  of  the 
 Christian  dispensation.  Yet,  the  baptizing  and  subsequent 
 teaching  were  scrupulously  observed  by  them  or  their  assistants. 
 Paul  was  sent  chiefly  to  preach,  and  convert  mankind  to 
 Christianity.  That  was  his  prime  work.  That  he  assiduously 
 attended  to.  And  though  he  personally  baptized  but  compar- 
 atively few  of  his  converts  ;  yet,  doubtless,  he  saw  that  all 
 of  them  underwent  the  ceremony,  through  the  instrumentality 
 of  others, and  in  compliance  witlithelaw  of  the  great  commission. 
 To  neglect  either  baptizing  or  teaching  would  now  be  as  real, 
 though  not  as  fatal,  a  dereliction  of  duty,  as  omitting  to  preach 
 Jesus  Christ.     Indeed,  there  is  ground  for  supposing,  with 
 
536  our  lord's  last  commission 
 
 Mr.   Hall,  that   even  '  Paul  himself  baptized  multitudes  of 
 '  people,'  though  but  few  of  them  were  Corinthians. 
 
 This  view  of  the  commission  being  admitted,  it  legitimately 
 follows,  that  for  converts  to  Christianity  to  be  baptized,  and 
 for  adult  professors  of  it  to  have  their  families  baptized  also, 
 are  as  much  their  correlative  obligations,  as  to  hear  the 
 preaching  of  the  gospel,  or  to  teach  their  young .  ones  the 
 holy  and  sacred  doctrines,  duties,  and  privileges  of  Christianity. 
 If  to  neglect  their  obligations  would  be  an  act  of  disobedience 
 in  Christian  ministers  ;  then,  by  an  inevitable  inference,  it 
 follows,  that  for  adults  to  refuse  to  attend  the  ministrations  of 
 divine  truth,  and  for  Christian  heads  of  families  to  neglect 
 the  baptism  of  their  households,  must  be  equally  a  sinful 
 neglect  of  God's  imperative  commandment — as  much  so  as 
 not  to  train  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
 Lord.  If  it  be  the  duty  of  ministers  to  baptize  a  people,  it 
 is  the  duty  of  the  people  to  be  baptized.  Admitting  our 
 premises,  which  most  will  readily  do,  this  conclusion  no 
 reasonable  man  will  dispute.  Our  Antibaptist  friends  would 
 do  well  solemnly  to  consider  this  view  of  our  Lord's  final 
 commission  to  his  disciples,  and  their  own  corresponding 
 duties  arising  out  of  it. 
 
 In  fine,  no  person  can  carefully  read  the  Scriptures  without 
 clearly  perceiving  the  large  space  occupied  in  the  religious 
 operations  of  ministers,  in  their  washings,  purifications,  or 
 water-baptisms,  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  the  close  of  the 
 sacred  writings.  John  the  Baptist  made  this  ceremony  a 
 leading  subject  of  his  ministry — '  The  baptism  which  John 
 '  preached.'  Acts  x.  37  ;  and  the  chief  ministration  of  his 
 hands — 'And  were  all  baptized  of  him.'  Mark  i.  5.  Hence 
 his  name.  During  our  Lord's  labours  on  earth,  for  the 
 enlightenment  of  the  people,  his  disciples  were  much  engaged 
 in  baptizing  the  Hebrews.  And,  subsequently,  baptism  with 
 water  was  one  of  the  great  businesses  of  the  apostles  and  their 
 assistants.  Paul  places  the  '  Doctrine  of  baptisms '  in 
 conjunction  with  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  eternal 
 judgment.  Heb.  vi.  2.  Next  to  the  performance  of  miracles 
 and  the  gift  of  tongues,  the  ceremonial  of  baptism  must  have 
 been  the  most  observable  act  of  the  holy  apostles.  It  must 
 have  been  witnessed  in  every  place  where  Jews  and  heathens 
 were  brought  over  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  often  upon  a 
 large  scale.  By  it  all  were  taught,  that  people  must  be 
 purified  before  being  received  into  the  fraternity  of  the 
 professedly  sanctified  followers  of  the  Son  of  God.   This  rite  we 
 
FULLY  SUSTAINS  INFANT  BAPTISM.  ">37 
 
 know  to  have  been  continued  all  but  universally  and  uninter- 
 ruptedly to  the  present  times  ;  and  it  is  now  as  binding  as 
 ever.  It  is  still  equally  illustrative  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
 — teaching  us  also,  that  all  his  people  should  be  holy,  and 
 that,  in  dedicating  children  to  God,  the  latter  should  receive 
 the  sign  of  a  personal  sanctification.  A  service,  occupying 
 such  a  wide  space,  and  being  regarded  with  so  much  interest, 
 during  the  first  ages  of  the  gospel  economy,  is  not  to  be 
 neglected  now,  without  better  reasons  or  motives  than  Anti- 
 baptists  have  yet  adduced,  or,  I  believe,  than  they  can 
 ever  develope. 
 
 Or,>KK\"ATiON  II. —  The  religious  advantages  often  enjoyed 
 b/f  unbaptized  children  in  no  degree  invalidates  our  doctrine. 
 — We  do  not,  for  a  moment,  question  that  thousands  of 
 children,  who  never  received  the  rite  of  baptism,  are  much 
 better  taught  in  the  truths  of  the  gospel,  than  thousands 
 who  have  been  formally  inducted  to  the  school  of  Christi- 
 anity. This  is  occasionally  pleaded  by  our  opponents. 
 Mr.  Gibbs  remarks,  'The  baptism  of  believers  possesses  a 
 1  positive  significance,  that  it  has  a  close  relation  to  the  external 
 '  privileges  of  the  church  ;  but  the  sprinkling  of  infants  among 
 '  dissenters,  as  far  as  we  can  ascertain,  is  attended  with  neither 
 4  external  nor  internal  religious  benefit.'  p.  16.  'What  are 
 '  the  peculiar  benefits  resulting  to  the  children  of  Pedobaptist 
 '  dissenters  by  virtue  of  this  baptism  ?  Those  who  were 
 '  baptized  by  the  apostles  were  admitted  to  the  privileges  of 
 '  the  church,'  [or  congregation.]  '  Does  this  consequence 
 '  follow  the  baptism  of  infants  of  dissenters  ?  Certainly  not. 
 '  Are  they  holier  than  other  children — are  their  understandings 
 '  more  enlightened,  their  wills  better  regulated?  The  many 
 '  awful  instances  of  degeneracy  and  depravity  in  children  who 
 '  have  been  duly  baptized  loudly  answer,  No! '  [just  as  loudly 
 as  the  many  awful  instances  of  degeneracy  and  depravity  in 
 adults,  who  have  been  duly  dipped,  on  a  profession  of  .repentance 
 and  a  confession  of  faith,  among  Antipedobaptist  dissenters, 
 also  answer,  No  !]  lb.  p.  20. 
 
 Our  brethren  will  have  it,  that  during  the  first  200  years 
 after  Christ,  all,  or  nearly  all,  professors  of  Christianity  were 
 Antipedobaptists,  immersing  adults,  on  the  profession  of  faith, 
 and  the  manifestation  of  spiritual  regeneration.  Surely,  then, 
 all  the  churches  were  pure,  and  all  their  members  orthodox — 
 when  that  great  bane  and  curse  of  religion,  infant  sprinkling, 
 according  to  our  opponents,  was  either  unknown  or  in  a  very 
 incipient  and  uninfiuential  condition   among  them  !     Not  a 
 
 z  2 
 
538  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM  BJGIITLY 
 
 tit  of  it.  The  faith  of  large  portions  of  them  was  as  erroneous, 
 their  discipline  as  defective,  and  their  morals  as  inconsistent 
 with  the  gospel,  as  if  they  had  all  been  affused  in  babyhood ! 
 This  assuredly  was  the  fact,  if  the  most  reliable  histories  of 
 those  times  give  us  any  thing  like  a  true  account  of  the  creeds 
 and  doings  of  those  supposed  Antipedobaptists  ! 
 
 Mr.  Noel  says,  '  Infant  Baptism  is  not  of  the  slightest  use 
 '  to  children.  A  regenerate  child,'  [like  a  regenerate  man  or 
 '  woman],  '  is  just  as  safe  without  it,  and  an  unregenerate 
 'child,'  [like  an  unregenerate  man  or  woman]  'is  just  as 
 '  much  in  danger  with  it.  It  effects  no  change  in  children  ' 
 [or  adults]  ;  '  it  entails  on  them  no  new  obligations,  it  admits 
 '  them  to  no  new  means  of  instruction  ;  and  it  adds  little  to  the 
 '  obligations  laid  on  parents  to  train  them  up  in  the  nurture 
 '  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  It  is,  therefore,  as  useless  as  it 
 'is  unccmmanded  and  unauthorized.'  JWode,  p.  14.  With  a 
 portion  of  these  averments,  we  fully  accord.  But,  with  others 
 of  them,  we  are  at  issue.  We  contend,  that  baptism  does 
 effect  a  change  in  the  child's  relation  to  the  church  ;  that  it 
 increases  its  obligation;  that  it  legitimately  admits  ittoreligious 
 instruction  ;  and  that  it  adds  much  to  the  responsibilities  of 
 parents,  to  train  up  their  offspring  in  the  nurture  and 
 admonition  of  the  Lord. 
 
 To  reply,  that  Baptist  children  are  as  well  taught  as  others 
 devoted  to  God  in  this  ordinance,  affords  no  just  argument 
 against  our  principle.  Numerous  adults,  never  dipped  in 
 baptism,  are  as  holy  and  intelligent  as  those  who  duly 
 undergo  this  ceremony.  Besides,  many  people  sit  down  at 
 the  Lord's  table  who  ought  not  to  be  there — being  destitute 
 of  the  baptism  and  sanctification  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  qualify 
 them  for  so  spiritual  and  sacred  a  position.  Many  baptized 
 children  may  be  sadly  neglected  by  their  parents  and  by  the 
 church  of  Christ,  and  may  be  thereby  deprived  of  their 
 conditional.rights — just  as  many  duly  immersed  adults  may 
 be  sadly  neglected  by  their  pastors  and  fellow  worshippers. 
 Many  circumcised  children,  under  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
 were,  doubtless,  left  without  the  knowledge  of  the  holy  oracles, 
 to  which  they  were  specially  entitled  by  undergoing  this  rite. 
 But,  still  their  title  remained  the  same.  In  the  domestic 
 circle,  young  persons  may  be  deprived  of  the  protection, 
 care,  food,  and  other  comforts,  which  are  justly  their  due; 
 but,  still  their  right  to  these  blessings  remaius  unaffected  by  it. 
 
 Again,  persons  may  enjoy  benefits  from  societies  and 
 institutions  to  which   they  have  no  fair  claim.     Instead  of 
 
PItFXEDES  CHRISTIAN  TEACHING.  539 
 
 entering  the  sheepfold  by  the  door,  they,  like  thieves  and 
 robbers,  climb  up  some  other  way.  Many  are  treated  as 
 friends  of  Christ,  and  brethren  in  the  Lord,  who  are  aliens  in 
 heart  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  Many  children, 
 pertaining  to  Baptist  families,  may  be  as  well  trained  without 
 a  formal  dry  dedication  to  God,  as  others  are  with  it ;  and 
 there  are  not  a  few  adult  members  in  Baptist  churches,  of  the 
 open-communion  order,  who  have  never  been  dipped,  and  yet  are 
 enjoying  all  its  Christian  privileges.  But,  will  our  opponents 
 concede,  that,  therefore,  this  dedication  and  dipping  ought  not 
 to  be  duly  observed,  or  that,  in  those  cases,  these  rites  are 
 totally  useless?  The  real  point  in  question  is,  whether  the 
 unbaptized  are  scriptural'//  entitled  to  the  same  tuition, 
 training,  covenant-privileges,  and  standing,  in  a  professedly 
 religions  communion,  as  the  baptized;  or  whether,  in  the 
 arrangements  made  by  Christ,  the  children,  consecrated  to 
 him,  should  not  have  some  advantages  over  those  not  so 
 consecrated ;  as  circumcised  children  had  various  advan- 
 tages over  the  uncircumcised  P 
 
 One  rule,  in  all  other  parallel  cases,  is,  I  believe,  universally 
 observed  among  mankind  ;  that  before  people  of  any  age,  or 
 place,  or  sex,  or  rank,  can  be  rightly  treated,  as  actual  members 
 of  a  well-organized  fellowship  or  communion,  they  ought  to  be 
 personally,  properly,  and  officially,  introduced  to  its  obligations 
 and  advantages.  And  so,  according  to  the  order  observed  in  the 
 commission,  children  must  first  be  baptized,  and  then  taught 
 the  doctrines  of  Christ.  Our  brethren  have  repeatedly  told 
 us,  there  was  a  fair  analogy  between  circumcision  and  baptism. 
 And,  if  there  be,  surely,  among  other  things,  it  consisted  in 
 certain  advantages  the  young  derived  from  them.  Well,  then, 
 says  Mr.  Noel,  '  Under  the  Mosaic  economy,  which  was 
 '  exclusive,  circumcision  admitted  the  child  to  the  temple 
 '  worship,'  [when  old  enough  to  attend  it,]  'to  the  teaching  of 
 '  the  rabbins  or  priests,  to  the  passover  and  other  festivals,  to 
 1  association  with  the  chosen  people,  to  the  use  of  all  the  means 
 1  of  instruction  then  in  the  world,  from  which  the  uncircumcised 
 1  were  excluded.'  p.  282.  Whether  the  ancient  circumcision 
 or  baptism,  or  both,  expressly  conveyed  these  advantages  ; 
 it  is  certain  they  were  enjoyed  by  the  true  Israelite.  We 
 may,  therefore,  infer,  that  the  introductory  rite  of  the  gospel 
 confers  nothing  inferior  to  the  introductory  rite  of  the  less 
 perfect  economy  of  the  law,  and  that  the  unbaptized  are 
 canonically  excluded  from  them.  You  will  mark,  that  it 
 was  a  child,  and  not  an  adult,  Mr.  Noel  says,  was  introduced 
 
540  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM  RIGHTLY 
 
 to  the  above  enumerated  advantages.  Consequently,  a  child 
 may  now  be  introduced,  by  baptism,  to  analogous  privileges 
 under  the  gospel  economy,  unless  the  nature  of  children  is 
 radically  changed  since  the  incarnation  of  Christ. 
 
 In  the  last  citation  but  one  from  Mr.  Noel,  he  opposes 
 Infant  Baptism,  on  the  assumption  of  its  conferring  no 
 advantage  on  children.  This  assumption  I  deny  ;  and  have 
 shown  it  to  be  groundless.  To  be  a  little  more  minute  on 
 this  point,  may  I  not  inquire,  what  advantage  does  an  adult 
 believer  in  Christ,  previously  baptized  by  affusion,  well 
 instructed  in  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  and  who,  probably, 
 for  years  has  practically  professed  his  love  to  Christ,  by  living 
 a  life  of  holiness  and  devotion  to  his  cause,  ever  obtain  by  being 
 immersed  in  the  name  of  the  adorable  Trinity  ?  He  was  as 
 regenerate  and  as  safe  before  this  dipping  as  after  it.  It  effected 
 no  change  in  his  heart ;  and  being,  we  will  suppose,  a  member 
 of  a  Pedobaptist  society  previously,  none  in  his  relation  to 
 the  people  of  God — unless  we  are  to  be  all  denounced  as 
 antichristians.  It  entailed  on  him  no  new  obligation  ;  for 
 he  had  before  consecrated  body,  soul,  and  all  he  had,  to  the 
 Redeemer.  It  did  not  entitle  him  to  hear  an  extra  sermon  ; 
 secure  to  him  better  preaching ;  nor  bring  him  nearer  to  God 
 in  spiritual  fellowship.  It  was,  therefore,  practically  useless. 
 And  unless  our  opponents  can  adduce  better  grounds  for 
 baptizing  a  Christian  adult — a  person  already  divinely  renewed 
 in  his  soul — than  the  supppsed  personal  benefits  of  the 
 individual,  he  has  nothing  at  all  upon  which  to  rest  his  practice. 
 A  child,  a  heathen,  and  a  Hebrew  adult,  legitimately  reap 
 great  relative  privileges  from  his  baptismal  consecration  to 
 Christ ;  while  the  converted  and  Christianized  adult  gets  none 
 whatever  from  being  dipped  under  water. 
 
 We  all  admit,  that  the  baptism  of  Jews  and  heathens,  like 
 every  religious  favour  conferred  on  mankind,  laid  them  under 
 greater  obligations  to  serve  and  devote  themselves  to  God  ; 
 and,  therefore,  tended  to  increase  the  heinousness  of  the 
 sins  subsequently  committed  by  them.  This,  according  to 
 Mr.  Stovel's  reasonings,  was  the  case  respecting  the  rebellious 
 Israelites,  whose  after  criminality  was  aggravated  by  their  extra 
 obligations  to  holiness,  submission,  and  zeal,  arising  from 
 dedication  to  God  and  his  cause,  by  circumcision  and  baptism. 
 1  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  : 
 '  therefore  will  I  punish  you  for  all  your  iniquities.'  Amos  iii.  2. 
 Hence,  we  infer,  that  Infant  Baptism,  as  a  divine  privilege, 
 like  a  religious  education,  is  calculated  to  be  a  check  to  the 
 
PRF.CEDES  CHRISTIAN  TEACHING.  541 
 
 iniquitous  propensities  oi'  the  rising  youth  ;  and  a  stimulus 
 to  obedience  to  that  God  to  whom  they  have  been  baptized. 
 Whether  the  beneficent  results  are  always  or  frequently 
 secured,  in  no  measure  effects  the  propriety  of  our  conclusions. 
 It  comes  under  the  too  common  category  of  neglected  obligations, 
 in  the  various  relations  of  life.  But  where  much  is  given,  there 
 much  will  be  required.  One  point  will  be  conceded  to  us, 
 by  all  our  candid  antagonists,  that  Evangelical  Pedobaptist 
 Dissenters,  do  not  pay  less  attention  to  the  teaching  and 
 training  up  of  their  children  than  their  opponents,  because 
 they  have  had  them  baptized.  So  that,  as  far  as  Christian 
 instruction  is  concerned,  their  offspring  lose  nothing  moral 
 or  religious  by  their  dedication  to  Christ.  And  the  heaviest 
 charge  an  opponent  can  bring  against  Infant  Baptism  is,  that 
 it  does  some  children  little  or  no  good — thus  placing  it  on  a  par 
 with  that  of  an  enlightened  and  pious  believer's  immersion. 
 
 Should  the  reader  inquire,  whether,  with  our  views,  we 
 would  afford  religious  instruction  to  children  who  have  never 
 been  baptized,  if  brought  to  us  for  that  sacred  purpose?  we 
 answer,  yes,  most  assuredly  ;  especially,  as  the  sinful  neglect 
 of  this  duty  rests  with  the  parents  ;  and  the  benefits,  fairly 
 arising  from  its  administration,  belong  to  the  children,  who 
 are  certainly  free  of  all  blame  in  the  matter.  We  should 
 feel  it  our  duty  to  baptize  them  first,  were  we  requested  or 
 permitted  to  do  it ;  but,  if  unable,  our  concern  for  their  best 
 interests  would  induce  us  to  overlook  this  ritual  defect,  and 
 almost  any  other,  to  further  the  important  object  of  their 
 religious  education  and  ultimate  salvation — just  as  we  admit 
 pious  people,  who  have  been  only  dipped,  or  not  baptized 
 at  all,  to  the  Lord's  table  ;  though  we  believe  a  previous 
 baptizing  to  be  proper,  and  that  dipping  is  not  Scriptural 
 baptism  at  all.  In  all  such  cases,  mercy  rejoices  against 
 judgment,  and  Christian  charity  triumphs  over  law.  Even 
 some  of  the  most  rigid  and  strictly-guarded  Baptist  churches 
 do  not  hesitate  to  admit  to  their  communion  people  whose 
 nerves,  or  delicate  health,  prevent  their  immersion  in  cold, 
 or  even  in  warm,  water.  Some  of  these  brethren  believe  in 
 close  communion  ;  yet,  for  what  they  deem  sufficient  reasons, 
 suffer  Pedobaptists,  or  unbaptized  people,  to  commune  with 
 them  at  the  Lord's  table.  Though  not  Aaronic  priests,  these 
 people  are  allowed  to  eat  the  sacred  shewbread  of  their 
 Baptist  sanctuary  ! 
 
 For  such  an  apparent  violation  of  evangelical  ceremonial  law, 
 as  in  the  case  before  us,  we   have   the   authority  of  Paul's 
 
.'542  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM  RIGHTLY 
 
 example.  '  And  he  took  Timothy,  and  circumcised  him 
 '  because  of  the  Jews  which  were  in  those  quarters.'  Acts  xvi.  3. 
 1  Unto  the  Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the  Jews  ; 
 '  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  as  under  the  law,  that  I 
 '  might  gain  them  that  are  under  the  law....  To  the  weak 
 '  became  I  as  weak,  that  I  might  gain  the  weak  ;  I  am  made 
 '  all  things  to  all  men,  that  I  might  by  all  means  save  some.' 
 1  Cor.  ix.  20,  22.  For  a  long  time  God  tolerated  a  plurality 
 of  wives,  and  divorcement,  for  other  causes  than  fornication, 
 because  of  the  previous  inveterate  habits  of  the  Hebrews,  and 
 the  hardness  of  their  hearts.  Matt.  xix.  3-9.  The  right  initia- 
 tion of  the  young,  though  important,  is  not  vital ;  and  because 
 parents  have  failed  to  perform  their  duty,  it  does  not  follow, 
 that  Christian  ministers  and  people  should  not  do  the  best 
 in  their  power  to  secure  the  enlightenment  and  salvation  of 
 the  young.  We  are  not  to  do  evil  that  good  may  come,  on 
 the  one  hand  ;  nor  are  we  wilfully  or  lightly  to  neglect  an 
 opportunity  of  spiritual  usefulness  on  the  other. 
 
 But  this  concession  to  necessity,  as  the  reader  will  readily 
 perceive,  in  no  measure  violates  or  abandons  the  principle  we 
 have  been  advocating.  The  law  of  the  Sabbath  might  be 
 broken,  when  the  claims  of  humanity  required  it ;  and,  in 
 many  cases,  the  laws  of  Heaven  have,  for  the  time  and  the 
 occasion,  relaxed  their  force  and  severity,  when  urgent 
 necessity  or  even  expediency  demanded  the  concession. 
 While,  therefore,  we  should  systematically  teach  the  unbap- 
 tized  child  or  adult  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  we  should,  at 
 the  same  time,  earnestly  maintain,  that  they  have  no  scriptural 
 right  to  such  theological  instruction,  till  they  have  undergone 
 this  initiatory  ordinance  :  and  that  their  parents  have  sinned, 
 and  are  still  sinning,  at  least,  by  omission,  for  neglecting  or 
 opposing  this  service  to  their  offspring. 
 
 An  Anonymous  writer  says,  '  Baptism  is  a  qualification 
 'necessary  for  all  Christians,  in  order  to  their  becoming 
 '  members  of  the  church  '  [or  congregation]  '  of  Christ,  and 
 '  to  their  obtaining  a  right  to  the  privileges  and  blessings  of 
 'the  Gospel  covenant.  This  proposition  is  a  direct  and  plain 
 'deduction  from  the  foregoing;  for,  as  baptism  was  there 
 'shown  to  be  the  initiating  ordinance  of  Christianity,  and  its 
 '  design  to  be  that  of  entering  persons  into  the  kingdom  and 
 '  church  of  Christ,  so  as  thereby  to  become  members  of  it, 
 '  and  entitled  to  its  privileges,  it  is  an  evident  consequence, 
 '  that  none  can  be  such  who  are  not  admitted  by  this  rite. 
 '  This  is  the  door  of  Christianity,  and  he  who  enters  not  in  by 
 
rEECEDES  CHRISTIAN  TEACHING.  543 
 
 *  this,  can  have  no  other  than  a  surreptitious  claim  to  the 
 '  Christian  name,  and  the  privileges  and  advantages  of  the 
 1  Gospel    dispensation.      There    is    a    manifest    absurdity    in 
 
 •  supposing  a  person  to  he  invested  with  any  character  or 
 '  office,  without  such  character  or  office  having  a  beginning ; 
 '  and  it  can  have  no  other  beginning  than  that  which  is 
 '  appropriated  to  its  solemn  investiture  and  admission.  This, 
 '  in  the  case  before  us,  has  been  made  to  appear  to  be  no 
 '  other  than  baptism  into  the  name  and  profession  of  Christ 
 'and  his  religion,  which  must  therefore  be  indispensably 
 'necessary  to  all  who  would  become  his  disciples,  and  be 
 '  made  partakers  of  his  blessing. 
 
 *  Whatever  advantages  we  have  by   Christ,   we  can   expect 
 
 *  only  to  have  them  in  the  way  cf  his  own  appointment ;  and 
 '  the  way  in  which  our  Lord  himself  has  appointed,  to  put  us 
 '  in  a  condition  to  receive  the  privileges  of  the  Gospel  covenant, 
 '  is  that  of  being  admitted  by  the  baptismal  ordinance  ;  the 
 1  words  of  Christ's  commission  are  a  strong  proof  of  this, 
 * "  Disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them."  The  Christian 
 "  economy  is  the  school  of  Christ,  and  the  ceremony  which  he 
 'has  ordained  for  the  entrance  and  matriculation  of  scholars 
 '  into  his  school,  is  their  baptism.  None,  therefore,  can  be  his 
 '  true  and  regular  disciples,  unless  they  are  introduced  by 
 '  this  rite.  Hereby  they  are  devoted  to  his  guidance  and 
 '  tuition,  and  are  subjected  to  his  direction  and  government ; 
 '  they  become  his  subjects  and  servants,  are  enlisted  into 
 1  his  service,  enrolled  under  his  banner,  and  bound  to  a  sub- 
 '  mission  to  his  discipline.  There  can  be  no  pretence  to  a 
 '  title  to  Christ's  gracious  protection  and  instruction  without  a 
 '  compliance  with  the  method  which  he  has  appointed  for 
 1  initiating  and  entering  his  followers  into  the  possession  of 
 '  those  privileges.  The  relations  in  which  we  stand  to  Christ, 
 '  the  duties  we  owe  him,  and  the  benefits  we  receive  by  him, 
 '  have  their  primary  and  initial  foundation  in  this  ordinance, 
 '  and,  by  consequence,  it  must  be  necessary  for  all  Christians.' 
 
 As  a  set  off  against  the  remarks  of  Gibbs,  Noel,  and  others, 
 on  the  alleged  uselessness  of  Infant  Baptism,  I  will  here  recite 
 the  language  of  one  of  their  own  denomination,  on  the  equal 
 uselessness  of  adult  or  believers'  baptism.  "  It  is  still,  indeed, 
 '  an  ordinance  of  proselytism  ;   but  here,  instead  of  being  used 
 
 •  in  proselyting  to  Christianity,  it  proselytes  to  a  particular 
 '  sect  of  Christians.  Hence,  we  have  often  witnessed,  when  a 
 '  truly  pious  character,  who,  for  a  series  of  years,  has  made 
 '  an  honourable  profession  of  religion,  and  even  been  eminently 
 
544  christian  baptism  mghtly 
 
 '  useful  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel,  adopts  these  views  of  the 
 '  ordinance,  and  acts  accordingly,  the  general  impression  is, 
 '  not  that  he  is  become  a  Christian,  but  that  he  is  turned 
 'Baptist.  His  personal  Christianity  was  previously  too  well 
 '  established  to  need  such  evidence  to  support  it.  Baptism, 
 '  in  such  cases,  appears  to  answer  no  end  whatever,  except 
 '  it  be,  to  tell  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  he  who  was 
 'formerly  a  Churchman,  an  Independent,  a  Methodist,  or  a 
 '  Quaker,  is  now  a  Baptist.  Thus  that  ordinance,  which 
 'was  originally  the  distinguishing  badge  of  Christianity,  is 
 '  become  the  mere  badge  of  a  sect,  adopted  to  excite  a 
 '  sectarian  spirit,  and  promote  sectarian  views.  Now,  we 
 '  cannot  persuade  ourselves  that  baptism  was  ordained  for 
 '  any  such  purpose  as  this  ;  least  of  all,  that  it  was  designed 
 '  to  furnish  one  particular  sect  with  the  arrogant  claim  of  an 
 '  exclusive  right  to  sit  down  at  the  table  of  the  Lord." 
 Agnostos,  p.  96. 
 
 The  reiterated  assertion  that  Infant  Baptism  is  unscriptural 
 — founding  it  on  the  assumption  that  many  unbaptized  children 
 are  as  religiously  educated  as  members  that  undergo  this  rite 
 — would  apply  with  equal  force  against  the  immersion  of 
 adults  ;  seeing  that  those  who  undergo  no  such  ceremonial 
 are  confessedly  as  well  instructed,  and  become  as  useful  and 
 holy  as  those  that  do.  '  If,'  says  Mr.  Parsons,  '  the  fact 
 '  that  Baptists,  albeit  they  never  sprinkle  their  children,  yet 
 '  train  them  up  in  as  godly  a  manner  as  those  who  do  baptize 
 '  them  in  infancy,  is  a  valid  evidence  against  administering 
 '  that  ordinance  to  babes  ;  then  the  corresponding  fact,  that 
 1  Pedobaptists,  although  they  are  never  immersed,  are  as  good 
 '  Christians  as  the  Baptists,  is  equal  proof  that  the  baptism 
 '  of  believers  is  altogether  unnecessary .  .  . .  If  the  Peilobaptist 
 'is  as  pious  as  his  dipped  brother,  why  plunge  him,  clothes 
 '  and  all,  for  a  second,  under  the  water,  seeing  he  will  not  be 
 '  a  better  man  than  he  was  before  ?  If  Baptists  manage  their 
 '  children  as  well  without  solemnly  dedicating  them  in  this 
 '  ordinance,  so  Pedobaptists  are  as  devout  and  spiritual 
 'without  immersion  as  their  brethren  are  with  it.  Your 
 '  argument  then,  sir,  sweeps  away  Infant  Baptism  and 
 '  adult  baptism  at  the  same  time.  You  slay  both  parties  with 
 '  the  same  weapon,  and  become,  as  regards  this  ordinance,  to 
 '  all  intents  and  purposes  a  Quaker!"  Our  foregoing  argu- 
 ments and  quotations  have,  I  think,  made  it  manifest  that  all 
 duly  baptized  children  are  scripturally  entitled  to  the  especial 
 instructions  of  the  gospel,   while  others  are  not.     Whether 
 
PRECEDES  CHRISTIAN  TEACHING.  545 
 
 baptized  adults  now  secure  any  secret  advantages  which  other 
 professors  of  Christianity  do  not  possess,  I  must  leave  it  with 
 our  opponents  to  explain  ;  I  have  never  yet  been  able  to 
 discover  them. 
 
 As  the  divine  Author  of  our  holy  religion  has  ever  had  great 
 moral  and  spiritual  ends  to  accomplish  in  all  the  rites,  cere- 
 monies, and  institutions,  of  his  gracious  word  ;  we  may  fairly 
 conclude,  that  he  had  the  like  in  view  when  Infant  Baptism  was 
 first  appointed.  Among  other  purposes,  we  believe  God 
 designed  to  oblige  his  churches — Mosaic  and  Christian — to 
 take  a  deeper  interest,  and  a  more  active  part,  in  training  up 
 the  rising  race  in  the  knowledge  and  love  of  Christ,  and  to 
 feel  bound,  by  additional  motives,  to  accomplish  this  great 
 work — one  of  the  most  important  and  interesting  in  the 
 Church  of  God.  Children,  baptized  and  consecrated  to  the 
 Saviour,  and,  hence,  necessarily  regarded  as  his  heritage, 
 pertaining  to  his  kingdom,  and  spoken  of  as  objects  of  his 
 affection,  must  surely  be  viewed  with  a  lively  interest  by  his 
 people,  who  should,  therefore,  redouble  their  diligence  to  bring 
 them  up  for  the  service  of  Christ.  Independent  of  this  obligation, 
 parental  wisdom  and  kindness  would  do  much,  as  in  the  case 
 of  many  of  our  opponents.  But  baptism  professedly  enlists 
 and  binds  the  church  itself  to  put  forth  all  practicable  efforts 
 for  children  openly  devoted  to  their  own  beloved  Lord  and 
 Master,  and  to  do  what  lies  in  their  power  to  bring  them  up  in 
 his  name  and  for  his  cause  and  glory.  The  dedicated  little 
 ones  are  formally  and  Scripturally  placed  also  under  the  care 
 of  the  congregation  and  its  officers  ;  and  it  is  expected  and 
 required  of  them,  (whether  realized  or  not,)  to  train  them  up 
 as  little  disciples  in  the  school  of  Christ ;  who  virtually  says 
 to  his  professed  people,  '  Take  these  children  and  nurse  them 
 '  for  me,  and  I  will  give  you  your  wages.'  This  introduction 
 of  the  young  to  the  seminary  of  the  gospel,  imposes  a  new, 
 high,  unmistakeabler  and  divine,  duty  on  the  teachers  and 
 their  assistants  occupied  in  guiding  untutored  minds  to  Christ. 
 This,  we  deem,  at  least,  a  leading  motive  of  the  divine  Being 
 in  instituting  the  introductory  ordinance  of  infant  baptismal 
 dedication  to  God — an  institution  as  important  in  its  object, 
 as  simple  and  beautiful  in  its  administration. 
 
 As  a  general  principle  of  Scriptural  interpretation,  it  is 
 material  to  bear  in  mind,  that  the  practical  purposes  of  all 
 divinely  instituted  rites  and  ceremonies  are  chief  i/  prospective. 
 The  theory  of  our  opponents  regards  them  principally  as  the 
 reverse.     As  stated  before,  they  make  baptism  a  seal  of  what 
 
546  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM  RIGHTLY 
 
 has  been  effected,  and  not  a  sign  of  what  is  to  he  done.  This 
 is  apparent  from  the  previous  statements  and  reasonings  of 
 Mr.  Noel  and  his  likeminded  friends.  But,  it  is  clear,  that 
 even  in  cases  where  the  antecedents  are  recognized,  and  con- 
 stitute the  ground  of  the  ceremony,  the  benefits  and  practical 
 effects  of  it  are  always  subsequent,  or  to  come.  For  example, 
 the  sacrifices  were  intended,  typically,  to  take  away  sin,  or  to 
 make  the  comers  thereunto  perfect,  for  the  future.  The 
 sprinklings  of  the  tabernacle  and  temple,  and  of  all  the 
 vessels  thereof,  were  not  designed  to  show  that  they  were 
 previously  holy,  but  to  render  them  so  afterwards.  The  Lord's 
 Supper,  while  a  memorial  of  the  death  of  the  Redeemer,  was 
 designed  to  show  forth  that  awful  and  glorious  event,  and,  by 
 faith,  to  feed  and  refresh  the  people  of  God,  for  their  future 
 walk  and  warfare.  Circumcision,  while  a  seal  of  the  covenant 
 God  made  before  with  Abraham,  was  a  token,  or  sign,  or  type, 
 of  the  subsequent  circumcision  of  the  heart,  and  an  introduc- 
 tion to  blessings  to  be  enjoyed  by  the  descendants  of  the 
 father  of  the  faithful,  in  coming  years.  The  baptism  of  the 
 Spirit  is  not  intended  to  bless  and  comfort  the  righteous,  or 
 to  indicate  that  they  had  previously  been  spiritually  holy  ;  but 
 to  render  them  so  in  future. 
 
 Now,  if  water-baptism  be  not  totally  different  from  every 
 other  rite  and  ceremonial  recorded  in  Scripture,  its  results 
 must  be  prospective  also.  It  is  an  initiation  to  a  position  we 
 were  not  in  before.  It  is  a  dedication  to  Christ,  to  whom  we 
 did  not  formally  pertain  before.  It  is  introductory  to  the 
 congregation  or  church  of  which  we  were  not  previously 
 members.  It  is  indicative,  that  we  must  be  holy,  which  we 
 were  not  before — not  that  we  had  been  renewed  by  the  Holy 
 Spirit,  but  that  we  must  be  before  we  can  enter  heaven. 
 Therefore,  a  scheme  which  runs  counter  to  the  entire  tenor 
 and  genius  of  Scripture,  as  adult  believers'  baptism  certainly 
 does,  must,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  be  viewed  with  very  grave 
 suspicions ;  and  can  be  adopted  only  on  the  production  of 
 testimonies  in  its  support,  such  as  our  opponents  have  never 
 yet  adduced.  If  there  be  an  exception  to  the  rule  now 
 referred  to,  of  which  I  am  not  aware,  we  must  look  to  our 
 opponents  for  the  production  of  it.  Baptism,  in  the  beginning 
 of  life,  is  certainly  more  in  harmony  with  the  Christian 
 scheme  than  in  the  middle  or  near  the  end  of  it. 
 
 That  ax TiiurTiSM  itself  receives  no  countenance  from  the 
 New  Testament,  is  to  us,  and  to  our  Baptist  opponents  also, 
 most  indubitable.      The  plea,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is 
 
PRECEDES  CHRISTIAN  TEACHING.  f)47 
 
 the  only  baptism  of  the  Gospel,  is  not  sustained  by  an  appeal 
 to  apostolic  times  or  teachings.  Water-baptism  was  adminis- 
 tered by  Stephen,  Ananias,  Peter,  Paul,  and,  probably,  by  all 
 the  other  apostles  and  their  assistants,  long  after  the  day  of 
 Pentecost.  And,  if  their  practice  is  to  be  our  pattern,  it  is 
 to  be  administered  in  our  day.  There  are  no  grounds  for  our 
 making  this  rite,  as  administered  by  them,  an  exception  to 
 their  other  actions,  designed  to  afford  direction  to  all  suc- 
 ceeding teachers  of  divine  truth.  We  have  no  intimation  that 
 baptism  was  to  be  confined  to  the  first  age,  any  more  than  we 
 have,  that  preaching,  prayer,  and  Christian  fellowship,  were  to  be 
 limited  to  that  period.  The  Saviour's  commission  made  water 
 baptism  as  extensive  and  enduring  as  preaching  the  Gospel ; 
 and  they  must  therefore  be  perpetually  combined. 
 
 It  is  observable,  that  most  of  those  who  object  to  this 
 ceremony,  also  object  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  though  enjoined 
 by  Christ  on  his  disciples,  and  expressly  sanctioned  by  Paul 
 nearly  thirty  years  after  its  institution  ;  and,  doubtless,  was 
 generally  attended  to  in  the  churches  of  Christ.  Indeed,  these 
 objectors  perceive  very  little  benefit  obtainable  from  observing 
 either  of  the  Christian  sacraments.  As  they  cannot  fancy 
 people  becoming  wiser,  stronger,  holier,  more  useful,  or 
 happy,  from  attending  to  them  ;  they  consequently  neglect 
 them  altogether,  and  everything  like  forms  and  rites  in  religion. 
 Others  of  the  like  class  go  so  far  as  even  to  imagine,  that 
 very  little  good  is  obtained  from  public  worship,  and  the 
 ordinary  means  of  grace  ;  and,  therefore,  attend  them  but 
 seldom,  or  with  but  little  interest,  or  only  as  examples  to 
 children  and  dependents,  or,  because  it  would  be  deemed 
 irreligious  or  heathenish  to  neglect  them  altogether.  They 
 do  not  deny  that  such  engagements  are  plainly  enjoined  on 
 all ;  but  they  will  obey  God  only  or  just  as  far  as  they  can 
 see  the  reason  or  the  good  of  doing  so  ! 
 
 The  substance  of  the  foregoing  remarks  may  indicate  the 
 grounds  on  which  so  many  persons  have  opposed  or  neglected 
 Christian  baptism  altogether.  That  the  abuse  or  perversion 
 of  the  ordinance  has  done  much  towards  effecting  this  object, 
 there  is  hardly  a  doubt.  I  believe  adult  baptism,  in  this 
 country,  originated  chiefly  in  the  abuse  of  infant  baptism  ; 
 and  not  in  any  convictions  primarily  based  on  the  Word  of 
 God,  declaring  or  intimating  that  it  was  unscriptural,  or  useless. 
 When  the  practice  of  believers'  baptism  only  was  once  adopted 
 by  the  few,  it  spread  among  the  many,  to  whom  it  appeared 
 
1 
 
 548  CHILDREN  BAPTIZED  OXLY  INTO  THE 
 
 plausible  and  reasonable  ;  and  naturally  was  soon  regarded  as 
 scriptural,  and,  as  such,  was  earnestly  and  devoutly  defended — 
 as  many  other  errors  of  a  similar  nature  have  been  in  every 
 age  of  Christianity.  But,  the  probability  is,  that  in  these 
 times  antibaptism  has  been  more  effectually  occasioned  and 
 spread  by  the  repeated  counter  averments  of  Baptists  and 
 Pedobaptists,  and  that  the  practices  they  severally  oppose  are 
 attended  with  no  religious  advantages  to  their  respective 
 subjects.  Disregarding  baptism  as  an  act  of  obedience  to  the 
 laws  of  Christ,  many  persons  simply  look  to  the  supposed 
 benefits  of  the  ceremony,  as  their  only  motive  to  submit  to  it 
 themselves,  or  to  have  it  practised  on  their  children.  Giving 
 credit  alternately  to  both  contending  parties,  they  arrive  at  the 
 conclusion,  that  there  is  no  profit  in  either  baby  or  adult 
 baptism.  The  consequence  is,  the  rite  is  entirely  overlooked, 
 even  by  many  persons  who  sincerely  profess  the  Christian 
 religion,  and  who  deem  themselves  among  the  wisest,  holiest, 
 and  most  consistent  of  the  disciples  of  Christ.  The  good  of 
 the  institution  they  do  not  perceive ;  and  the  laws  of  it  they 
 never  carefully  examine. 
 
 Observation  III. —  We  baptise  children  into  our  general 
 churches  ;  our  opponents  baptize  adults  into  their  particular 
 churches. — We  introduce  our  young  ones,  in  the  first  place, 
 to  the  Ecclcsia,  in  its  large  sense  ;  they  induct  their  people 
 into  the  Ecclesia'm  its  limited  sense;  and  both  of  us  by  baptism. 
 This  distinction  constitutes  a  leading  difference  between  our 
 opponents  and  ourselves,  respecting  the  right  subjects  of 
 this  ordinance.  When  I  say,  they  baptize  them  into  the 
 special  society  of  believers,  I  mean,  that  this  is  their  usual 
 practice,  and  that  they  do  not  deem  any  one  spiritually  and 
 morally  qualified  for  their  baptism  who  is  not,  at  the  same 
 time,  qualified  for  full  church  membership.  Noel :  '  The 
 '  church  of  God  now  is  composed  of  saints  and  faithful  brethren, 
 '  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  called  to  be  saints.'  p.  14.  The 
 writer  evidently  means,  not  the  congregation  generally  ;  but 
 the  congregation  in  particular.  On  the  other  band,  when  we 
 baptize,  it  is  into  the  general  body  of  worshippers,  or  to  the 
 means  and  benefits  of  the  training  schools  of  the  gospel. 
 Against  our  scheme,  it  is  impossible  to  discover  anything, 
 the  tendency  of  which  can  be  deemed  delusive  to  the  young, 
 or  offensive  to  Christian  feeling.  Into  this  relative  position, 
 with  its  means  and  ordinances  of  religious  education  and 
 improvement,  no  one  can  legitimately  enter,  but  through 
 baptism.     The  offspring  of  the  holiest  parents  are  born  out  of 
 
GENERAL  CHRISTIAN  CHURCH.  549 
 
 this  society,  and  must  be  formally  inducted  into  it,  before  they 
 can  be  Scripturally  entitled  to  its  privileges.  To  belong  to  the 
 body  of  disciples  is  not  a  relationship  derived  from  nature ; 
 but  through  the  wise  and  positive  arrangements  of  divine 
 grace  and  mercy. 
 
 Dr.  Neander  says,  '  The  application  of  the  idea  of  the 
 '  visible  church,  the  distinction  arises  between  the  collective 
 '  body  of  those  in  whom  the  appearance  corresponds  to  what 
 1  is  internal,'  [forming  the  inner  circle  of  the  Christian  com- 
 munity,] 'and  those  who  belong  to  the  church  in  appearance, 
 ■  without  having  internally  any  part  in  it,'  [constituting  the 
 outer  circle  of  the  professing  disciples  of  Christ.]  Hist.  v.  i. 
 p.  493.  '  The  idea  of  the  church  of  Christ  is  closely  con- 
 '  nected  in  the  views  of  Paul  with  that  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 '  .  .  .  .The  kingdom  of  God  was  not  first  founded  by  Christian- 
 '  ity  as  something  entirely  new,  but  the  original  kingdom  of 
 '  God,  of  which  the  ground-work  already  existed,  was  released 
 'from  its  limitation  to  a  particular  people  and  its  symbolical 
 'garb.'  lb. 499.  'All  who  acknowedged  Jesus  as  the  Messiah 
 '  were  baptized  '  [into  this  church  or  kingdom]  '  without  fuller 
 '  instruction,  such  as  in  later  times  has  preceded  baptism.' 
 lb.  p.  20.  '  We  are  not  justified  in  assuming  that  the 
 '  three  thousand  who  were  converted  in  one  day,  became 
 '  transformed  at  once  into  genuine  Christians.'  lb.  p.  22. 
 These  remarks,  though  here  not  precisely  in  their  right 
 position,  give  the  sanction  of  a  great  name  to  certain  points 
 of  interest  previously  advocated  in  our  inquiry.  The  writer's 
 views  of  the  early  church,  embracing  both  real  and  nominal 
 Christians  ;  the  similarity  between  the  kingdom  and  church 
 of  God ;  and  the  baptism  of  persons  giving  no  evidence  of 
 spiritual  conversion'  to  Christ — are  given  in  the  above  concise 
 quotations. 
 
 To  proceed  :  children  are  not  born  into  any  conventional 
 society,  secular  or  sacred.  They  may  early  become  members  of 
 Bible,  Missionary,  Tract,  and  other  societies  ;  but  it  is  always 
 by  a  formal  introduction — a  subscription  paid,  and  their  names 
 enrolled  among  the  pre-existing  constituents.  Through  the 
 payments  made,  in  the  children's  names,  by  their  parents  or 
 guardians,  they  are  virtually  and  righteously  constituted  true 
 members,  equally  with  the  largest  and  oldest  supporters  of 
 these  religious  institutions.  Circumcision  presents  a  parallel 
 case.  The  children  of  the  most  worthy,  as  well  as  the  most 
 worthless,  Israelites  must  be  inducted  to  the  rights  and 
 privileges    of    the    Abrahamic    covenant,    before    they    were 
 
550  CHILDREN  BAPTIZED  ONLY  INTO  THE 
 
 entitled  to  its  full  immunities.  Under  the  Mosaic  covenant, 
 in  the  same  way,  proselytes,  at  least,  must  enter  by  baptism 
 or  ceremonial  purification,  or  they  could  not  pertain  to  it. 
 And  now  no  child  can  be  regarded  as  a  Scriptural  member  of 
 the  general  church,  or  be  a  consistent  disciple  in  the  great 
 school  of  the  gospel,  who  is  not  duly  initiated  by  the  divinely 
 appointed  rite  of  baptism.  This  explains  our  view  of  the 
 advantages  of  Infant  Baptism  ;  and  the  inference  is,  that 
 without  undergoing  this  rite,  no  person,  old  or  young,  can 
 Scripturallg  and  properly  he  identified  ivith  the  congregation 
 of  the  Lord,  nor  he  canonically  entitled  to  its  religious 
 privileges. 
 
 Against  the  supposed  strictness  of  our  doctrines  on  this 
 point,  our  opponents,  at  any  rate,  cannot  consistently  demur. 
 They  admit  no  persons  into  their  inner  congregation  or  select 
 church,  as  full  members,  who  have  not  been  dipped  completely 
 under  water ;  though  the  operation  to  timid  and  delicate 
 people  may  be,  as  we  know  it  often  is,  a  most  formidable  affair. 
 Mr.  Killingworth  speaks  the  general  sentiment  of  his  denomi- 
 nation, when  he  says,  '  I  cannot  allow  those  Christians  to  be 
 '  members  of  the  true  visible  church  of  Christ,  who  have 
 '  never  put  on  Christ  by  baptism,'  that  is,  by  immersion.  See 
 Fleming's  Int.  p.  7-  If  there  be  any  exception  to  this  rule, 
 it  arises  from  the  surrender  of  a  fundamental  principle,  for 
 the  purpose  of  sustaining  denominational  interests  ;  or,  they 
 originate  in  the  assumed  erroneous  opinions  of  a  few  of  their 
 less  rigid  or  less  orthodox  brethren.  Into  the  general  church, 
 as  regular  hearers  and  learners  of  gospel  truth  and  duty,  we 
 admit  all  that  apply  for  themselves  and  their  families,  by  the 
 ordinance  of  baptism  ;  and  that,  too,  administered  so  simply 
 and  delicately,  that  none  can  be  deterred  by  any  apprehended 
 difficulty  or  danger  in  the  operation.  Hence,  as  before 
 remarked,  no  grounds  of  complaint  can  lie  against  our  plan, 
 as  being  rigid  or  exclusive.  As  consistently  might  a  man 
 complain  that  he  does  not  form  a  part  of  a  religious  or  edu- 
 cational society,  when  he  will  not  take  the  trouble  to  walk  to 
 the  place  of  meeting,  to  solicit  due  accommodation,  and  to 
 occupy  a  seat  among  the  congregated  audience.  The  assumed 
 strictness  of  the  terms,  on  which  religious  instruction  may  be 
 consistently  demanded  for  the  young,  are  but  in  keeping  with 
 other  regulations  of  the  Word  of  God.  It  might  have  been 
 deemed  rigid,  under  the  former  economies,  to  deny  uncircum- 
 cised  males  the  advantages  attached  to  the  reception  of  that 
 ceremony  ;  or  to  keep  the  accidentally  unclean  out  of  the 
 
GENERAL  CHRISTIAN  CIIU11CH.  551 
 
 Hebrew  camp,  or  from  the  altar,  or  the  passover,  till  they  were 
 purified  ;  or  to  prevent  the  priest  from  ministering  in  the 
 sanctuary  till  he  had  washed  his  hands  and  feet,  at  the  laver 
 of  the  temple.  Many  notoriously  ungodly  people  might  think 
 it  rigid  in  a  Baptist  brother,  not  to  allow  them  to  sit  down  at 
 the  Lord's  table.  The  only  question,  worth  a  reply,  is,  what 
 is  the  revealed  will  of  God  ?  Having  discovered  that,  our 
 duty  is,  fearlessly  to  perform  it  to  the  best  of  our  ability. 
 
 SECTION  NINTH.— Many  deeds  done  under  the  law 
 may  be  righteously  done  also  under  the  gospel. — What  was 
 written  aforetime  was  written  for  our  learning  ;  and,  of  course, 
 for  our  direction  in  religious  matters.  '  Now  all  these  things 
 '  happened  unto  them  for  ensamplcs  ;  and  they  are  written 
 1  for  our  admonition,  upon  whom  the  ends  of  the  world  are 
 '  come.'  I  say  nothing  here  of  the  doctrines  of  revelation, 
 nor  of  holiness  of  heart  and  life  ;  for  concerning  the  perpetuity 
 of  these,  no  Christian  can  cherish  or  tolerate  a  doubt.  Nor, 
 on  the  other  hand,  are  we  supposing,  for  a  moment,  that 
 many  acts,  rules,  rites,  and  institutions,  imperative  and 
 appropriate  under  the  former  system  of  religion,  were  not 
 done  away  on  the  establishment  of  the  present  economy  ;  or 
 were  not  rendered  inappropriate  and  inoperative,  either  by 
 the  direct  command  of  Christ,  or  of  his  apostles,  or  through 
 the  inapplicability  of  them  to  the  altered  circumstances  at  the 
 reformed  gospel  church.  I  think  it  may  be  laid  down  as  a 
 safe  rule  in  the  present  and  in  all  parallel  cases,  That 
 whatever  we  find  in  the  Old.  Testament,  not  manifestly 
 abolished  by  the  express  or  implied  command  of  Christ  or 
 of  his  apostles  ;  nor  evidently  consummated  and  terminated 
 by  Christ  when  he  ascended  to  glory  ;  nor  became  impracti- 
 cable through  the  changes  of  place,  and  the  alteration  of 
 human  circumstances  ;  is  still  in  full  force,  and  obligatory 
 on  all  the  people  of  God,  in  every  age  and  nation  of  the 
 earth. 
 
 For  example,  the  observance  of  our  weekly  rest,  from  ordinary 
 labour,  and  for  the  purpose  of  holy  convocations,  never  having 
 been  repealed  by  a  divine  command,  nor  having  yet  accom- 
 plished all  its  original  purposes,  nor  being  rendered  impracticable 
 in  our  time  and  country,  is  as  binding  on  us  now  as  it  was  on 
 the  Jews,  when  first  distinctly  aunounccd  on  Sinai,  and  reiterated 
 by  divine  injunctions  subsequently  to  the  giving  of  the  law. 
 The  same  may  be  predicated  concerning  erecting  places  of 
 worship,  preaching  divine  truth,  praying  to  God,  instructing 
 
552  MANY  OLD  TESTAMENT  DEEDS 
 
 the  young,  and  many  other  engagements  and  observances  of 
 the  old  dispensation,  which  are  as  obligatory  on  us  now  as  they 
 were  on  Israel  formerly.  Some  of  the  ancient  institutions 
 have  been  modified,  without  being  entirely  done  away  ;  but  in 
 no  degree  have  they  been  degraded  in  character  or  impaired 
 in  their  usefulness.  The  change  of  the  Sabbath,  from  the 
 last  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  the  appropriation  of 
 parts  of  the  elements  used  at  the  passover,  to  the  sacred 
 supper  of  the  Lord,  are  instances  of  this  nature. 
 
 In  this  last  class  stands  the  rite  in  question.  The  ancient 
 initiatory  baptism  has  been  subject  to  circumstantial  alterations  ; 
 while,  in  all  its  leading  principles  and  purposes,  it  remains  the 
 same  as  of  old.  There  is  '  One  Baptism,'  for  all  classes,  ages, 
 and  countries — that  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  ceremony, 
 which  symbolizes  this  divine  influence  on  the  mind,  must 
 preserve  all  its  original  and  essential  properties ;  or  it  would  fail 
 to  accomplish  its  object ;  just  as  the  '  One  God'  must  be 
 worshipped  essentially  alike,  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  by  all 
 people,  in  every  age  of  time  ;  and  just  as  the  '  One  Faith  ' 
 will  sanctify  and  bless  its  genuine  possessors  in  every  place 
 and  part  of  the  world's  history.  The  baptism  unto  Moses, 
 unto  purification,  and  unto  Israel,  from  the  ranks  of  the 
 heathen,  was  essentially  the  same  baptism,  as  now  administered 
 unto  Christ,  unto  his  death,  or  unto  the  glorious  Trinity — 
 finally  attaining  its  perfection  in  the  noon-day  glory  of  the 
 gospel  of  our  salvation.  Water-baptism,  most  evidently,  was 
 not  one  of  those  things  which  were  done  away  ;  nor  will  it  be 
 abrogated  while  the  Lord's  Supper  remains ;  as  botli  are 
 designed  to  teach — to  show  faith,  ocularly,  and  affectingly — 
 the  two  great  leading  doctrines  of  revelation— redemption  by 
 the  death  of  the  Saviour,  and  the  regeneration  and  sanctification 
 of  the  soul  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 Mr.  Stovel  objects,  '  Only  let  antecedent  Jewish  notions 
 '  and  practices  be  made  the  interpreters  of  Cbristian  law,  and 
 '  it  will  not  be  easy  to  form  an  exaggerated  statement  of  the 
 'evils  which  must  ensue....  It  assumes  two  facts  the  most 
 '  discreditable  to  any  one  entrusted  with  supreme  authority  : 
 *  first,  that  the  authoritative  communications  of  our  Lord  are 
 '  not  intelligible  in  themselves,'  [supposing  the  reader  ignorant 
 of  the  Scriptures  and  practices  of  the  preceding  dispensation  !] 
 '  and,  secondly,  that  their  interpretation  has  been  placed,  as  far 
 'as  possible,  beyond  the  reach  of  those  who  were  required  to 
 '  obey  them.'  p.  49,  50.  The  fallacy,  and,  I  might  even  add, 
 the  folly,  of  this   impressive  declamation   has   been   already 
 
CONTINUED  UNDER  THE  GOSPEL.  553 
 
 shown.  It  is  certain  that  our  Lord  and  his  disciples  did 
 employ  the  phraseology  of  the  Old  Testament  in  their  speeches 
 and  writings,  for  the  express  purpose  that  their  hearers  and 
 readers  might  hetter  understand  their  meaning ;  and  that 
 they  constantly  illustrated  their  doctrines  and  declarations 
 hy  recurring  to  the  rites,  observances,  and  ceremonials,  prac- 
 tised under  the  law.  This  they  felt  to  be  essential  in  order  to 
 be  understood  by  the  Jews,  who  were  the  first  hearers  of  the 
 gospel,  and  who  constituted  for  many  years  the  first  fellowships 
 of  the  New  Testament  saints.  Even  sage  law-makers,  of  our 
 own  day,  are  obliged  to  continue  much  of  the  well  understood 
 style  of  former  legal  phraseology,  if  they  would  readily  enlighten 
 the  public  as  to  their  duty  and  privileges.  We  must  teach 
 people  what  they  do  not  know  through  the  medium  of  what 
 they  already  comprehend. 
 
 As  formerly  remarked,  our  opponents  must  entertain  serious 
 suspicions  about  the  Old  Testament  favouring  their  adult 
 dipping,  when  they  are  so  much  against  our  consulting  its 
 pages,  to  assist  us  in  ascertaining  the  will  of  God  on  this 
 great  question.  Yet,  it  is  remarkable,  that  they  themselves 
 often  turn  to  the  Old  Testament  for  explanations  of  New 
 Testament  language  and  laws,  and  for  information  on  almost 
 every  topic — save  that  of  Infant  Baptism.  Even  on  this  very 
 subject  Mr.  Stovel  himself  refers  to  the  baptism  in  the  sea,  as 
 affording  '  a  powerful  confirmation  of  the  whole  doctrine  of 
 Christian  baptism  ;  '  '  as  affording  examples  to  us ... .  and  as 
 being  full  of  the  deepest  solemnity  ! '  And  Mr.  Noel  appeals 
 to  the  baptisms  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation  as  the 
 best,  if  not  the  exclusive,  directory  of  the  mode  in  which  the 
 rite  should  now  be  performed.  The  meaning  of  Mr.  Stovel's 
 protest  is  only  against  our  consulting  the  former  economy  in 
 defence  of  Infant  Baptism !  That  most  of  our  Lord's 
 communications  are  intelligent  in  themselves  to  many  godly, 
 thoughtful,  and  inquiring  readers  of  them,  previously  acquainted 
 with  the  doctrines,  ceremonies,  and  practices  of  the  Old  Tes- 
 tament, we  fully  grant.  But  that  they  are  not  all  so  '  intelligent 
 '  in  themselves '  to  ignorant  and  illiterate  persons,  unacquainted 
 with  the  preceding  oracles  of  God,  the  continual  expository 
 references  to  Moses,  and  the  Prophets,  by  our  opponents — 
 some  of  them  expensively  educated  and  paid  for  the  purpose 
 — is  fully  manifest  and  indisputably  admitted.  If  the  principle 
 of  the  objection  be  valid,  the  books  and  lectures  of  Baptist 
 authors  on  this  question,  at  least,  are  wholly  superfluous. 
 
 Some  of  our  opponents  talk  as  if  we  were  depreciating  or 
 
 AA 
 
554  MANY  OLD  TESTAMENT  DEEDS 
 
 almost  degrading  the  New  Testament  when  we  recur  to  the 
 Old  for  information  on  the  subjects  of  baptism  ;  but,  might 
 we  not  retort  and  ask,  whether  they  are  not  undervaluing  the 
 latter,  by  denying  its  utility  in  settling  the  question,  without 
 referring  to  its  inspired  and  venerable  pages  ?  Why  should 
 one  Testament  be  independent  of  the  other  any  more  than  the 
 Epistles  should  be  independent  of  the  Gospels?  or  why  should 
 not  half  the  sections  in  our  brethren's  books,  published 
 against  Infant  Baptism,  be  complete  without  the  others  ?  They 
 might,  with  equal  consistency,  require  us  to  confine  ourselves 
 to  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  to  sustain  our  views,  to 
 the  exclusion  of  the  Acts  and  all  that  follows ;  as  to  limit  our 
 investigations  to  the  New  Testament,  to  the  neglect  of  the 
 Old — while  both,  confessedly,  treat  of  water-baptism,  though 
 not  always,  in  precisely  the  same  phraseology.  To  use 
 Mr.  Stovel's  words,  '  It  will  not  be  easy  to  form  an  exaggerated 
 '  statement  of  the  evils  which  must  ensue,'  from  acting  on 
 the  ideas  which  he  and  his  party  advocate  in  this  case. 
 That  '  The  authoritative  communications  of  our  Lord  were 
 '  intelligible  in  themselves,'  as  addressed  to  the  Jews,  con- 
 versant with  the  Old  Testament  institutions,  is  not  questioned. 
 But  where  has  Christ  personally  and  avowedly  given  us 
 his  whole  mind  on  the  matter  under  present  consideration, 
 irrespective  of  what  was  written  aforetime  for  our  learning  ? 
 To  suppose  he  has  done  so,  is  to  base  an  assumption  on  grounds 
 which  cannot  be  sustained,  as  Mr.  Stovel's  own  books,  and 
 those  of  his  brethren,  fully  testify. 
 
 In  support  of  our  views,  respecting  the  essential  sameness 
 of  baptism,  from  the  beginning  till  now,  we  adduce  the 
 authority  of  Paul  in  the  text.  He  refers  to  the  administration 
 of  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea — notwithstanding  all  the  Saviour 
 had  personally  said  on  the  subject — without  giving  us  the 
 slightest  intimation,  that  it  had  ever  been  abrogated,  that  its 
 place  had  been  supplied  by  any  new  ordinance,  or  that,  in  its 
 leading  properties,  it  had  ever  been  changed.  Both  were 
 evidently  purifying  rites ;  both  inducted  to  the  congregation 
 of  the  professed  disciples  of  Christ  ;  and  both  laid  the  baptized 
 under  high  religious  obligations.  He  never  even  hints  at  the 
 idea,  that  there  should  be  the  smallest  alteration  in  the 
 characters,  or  ages,  or  relationships,  of  their  subjects,  or  in 
 their  covenant  duties  and  privileges.  He  does  not  say, 
 '  Though  infants  were  baptized  unto  Moses,  they  must  not 
 1  now  be  baptized  unto  Christ.'  He  does  not  deal  with  this 
 service  as  he  does  with  sacrifices,  the  priesthood,  and  circum- 
 
CONTINUED  UNDER  THE  GOSPEL.  555 
 
 cision,  which  he  pronounces,  virtually,  void  and  abrogated,  in 
 the  new  economy  of  the  church.  He  speaks  as  if  both 
 baptizings  were  essentially  alike  ;  and  the  Corinthians  must 
 necessarily  have  understood  him  in  this  sense.  In  fact,  they 
 must  have  been  remarkably  skilful  and  hypercritical,  could 
 they  have  arrived  at  any  other  probable  or  passable  conclusions 
 from  his  unequivocal  declarations. 
 
 Numberless  facts  place  the  perpetuity  of  the  baptisms 
 under  the  law  beyond  all  doubt.  Every  baptism  by  John  and 
 the  followers  of  Christ  is  a  full  confirmation  of  it.  As 
 Mr.  Noel  rightly  remarks,  they  only  did  what  the  Jews,  in 
 case  of  purification  or  proselytism,  had  done  before,  and  that 
 constantly.  We,  therefore,  feel  justified,  under  existing 
 circumstances,  in  regarding  this  Hebrew  baptism,  not  only  as 
 rightly  continued  among  Christians  ;  but  also  as  being,  in  its 
 leading  particulars,  a  directory  to  us  how  to  administer  this 
 rite,  and  who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  it.  With  the  unabrogated 
 Old  Testament  in  our  hands,  we  should  have  felt  warranted 
 and  bound  to  keep  holy  the  sabbath  day,  to  preach  the  truth, 
 to  admit  females  to  Christian  fellowship,  and  to  promote  the 
 moral  and  spiritual  good  of  mankind,  had  the  gospel  failed  to 
 afford  us  a  line  enforcing  these  ancient  obligations — provided 
 no  intermediate  commands  from  Heaven  were  given  to  prevent 
 it.  In  like  manner,  the  early  Hebrew  Christians,  in  all 
 probability,  would  have  been  induced  to  baptize  the  people, 
 converted  to  Christ,  with  their  families,  prior  to  their  entering 
 into  the  general  fellowship  of  the  gospel.  The  commission  of 
 Christ  and  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  however,  place  that 
 duty  on  a. foundation  that  admits  of  no  misunderstanding 
 or  passable  evasion.. 
 
 Before  Infant  or  Adult  Baptism,  as  administered  among 
 the  Jews,  can  be  successfully  resisted,  we  must  receive  the 
 clearest  evidence,  proving  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  purposely 
 and  positively  put  an  end  to  its  administration.  Or,  to  confine 
 the  case  to  Infant  Baptism,  it  must  be  shown,  that,  though 
 children  were  baptized  originally ;  yet  that,  after  Christ  came 
 into  the  world,  this  honour  and  benefit  were  always  to  be 
 denied  them.  We  have  adduced  the  baptism  of  millions  of 
 infants  under  the  ancient  economy  of  the  church  of  God,  as 
 initiatory  or  consecrating  rites.  If,  therefore,  the  practice  is  not 
 to  be  continued,  it  rests  entirely  with  our  opponents  to  establish 
 their  exclusion — just  as  an  adversary  to  keeping  the  ten 
 commandments  would  have  to  prove  that  they  were  all  annulled 
 by  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  observance  of  them  rendered  useless 
 
556  MANY  OLD  TESTAMENT  DEEDS 
 
 or  injurious  under  the  gospel,  before  he  could  convince  us 
 that  they  were  not  to  be  kept  as  in  ancient  times.  We  give 
 the  authority  of  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles  in  support  of  our 
 views  ;  and  our  antagonists  must  prove  that  we  have  grossly 
 or  totally  mistaken  his  meaning ;  or  they  must  give  us 
 a  greater  name  to  override  his  inspired  declarations  and 
 arguments ;  or  they  must  show  that  many  of  their  own 
 remarks  on  this  head  are  frivolous ;  and  that  the  inferences 
 we  have  drawn  from  the  Bible  are  entirely  invalid. 
 
 In  further  support  of  our  proposition,  I  may  again  recur  to 
 the  reasonings  of  Paul  in  his  address  to  the  Corinthians.  In 
 this  you  will  plainly  see,  that  he  does  not,  in  the  least  measure, 
 abrogate  baptism,  nor  modify  its  nature,  nor  speak  of  a 
 new  class  of  candidates  ;  but,  simply,  as  though  he  viewed  the 
 one  to  be  properly  the  predecessor  and  pattern  of  the  other. 
 In  effect,  he  says,  '  The  ancient  Hebrews,  of  all  ranks,  classes, 
 'and  ages,  were  baptized  unto  Moses;  and  yet  many  of  them 
 '  iniquitously  violated  their  baptismal  covenant,  and  perished 
 '  under  the  wrath  of  God,  in  the  wilderness.  You  also  are  a 
 '  baptized  people  ;  see  to  it,  that  you  do  not  fall  into  the  like 
 '  sin  of  unbelief.  They  all  ate  the  same  spiritual  food,  and 
 '  drank  the  same  spiritual  drink  ;  yet,  after  all,  many  of  them 
 '  transgressed  and  suffered.  You  have  also  received  numerous 
 '  advantages  in  religious  means  and  mercies  ;  take  heed  that 
 '  you  do  not  yield  to  temptation,  and  thereby  experience  the 
 '  anger  of  the  Lord  in  alike  tragical  manner.  This  interesting 
 '  and  important  fact  I  wish  to  bring  to  your  immediate  attention, 
 'and  by  it  to  direct  your  minds,  and  to  influence  your  hearts. 
 '  I  am  desirous  that  the  practical  lessons  it  teaches  should  be 
 '  carried  into  effect,  and  that  you  should  perform  your  Christian 
 '  duties  all  the  better  for  the  admonitions  given  you  through  the 
 '  baptism  in  the  sea,  and  the  punishment  many  of  the  baptized 
 '  subsequently  endured.' 
 
 Whatever  minor  differences  there  might  be  between  the 
 administrations  in  the  sea  and  in  the  city,  there  was  a  sufficient 
 agreement  in  the  modes,  subjects,  purposes,  and  extent,  of  both, 
 to  warrant  the  apostle  in  founding  on  it  his  argument  against 
 apostacy  ;  and  for  encouraging  believers,  in  the  Corinthian 
 congregation,  to  persevere  in  holiness  and  obedience  to  God. 
 Of  one  thing  we  may  feel  confident,  that  had  the  subjects  of 
 baptism  at  Corinth  been  adults  only,  comprehending  only 
 genuine  Christians  ;  or  had  the  mode  been  the  entire  dipping 
 of  persons  ;  the  reference  of  the  apostle  would  have  been  quite 
 irrelevant  to  his  purpose,  and  would  have  required  considerable 
 
CONTINUED  UNDER  THE  GOSPEL.  557 
 
 explanation  among  his  readers,  to  lead  them  to  infer  that 
 infants  should  he  excluded  from  the  ordinance.  If  our 
 opponents  think  Paul's  allusions  were  improper,  too  large, 
 too  limited,  or  too  vague,  to  sustain  his  apparent  positions,  or 
 rightly  to  guide  the  minds  and  operations  of  the  Corinthian 
 congregation,  they  must  settle  that  difficulty  with  the  venerable 
 apostle  himself — when  they  meet  him  in  heaven. 
 
 When  Paul  refers  the  self-confident  yet  uncertain  professors 
 of  the  gospel  at  Corinth  to  the  baptism  and  backsliding  of 
 the  ancient  Hebrews,  he  gave  them  two  instructive  and  impressive 
 lessons.  First,  that  his  allusion  was  appropriate  to  themselves, 
 they  having  been  also  and  likewise  baptized.  He  might 
 have  pointed  them  to  many  other  instances  of  blessings 
 conferred  on  the  Hebrews,  and  to  their  abuse  of  them, 
 followed  by  most  fearful  punishments.  But  they  would  have 
 wanted  the  similitude  requisite  to  implicate  their  consciences 
 and.  to  inspire  them  with  fear  of  falling  after  the  same  manner, 
 through  unbelief.  Had  he  told  them  that  Jehovah  gave  Israel 
 a  fertile  country,  gracious  protection,  great  victories,  and  a 
 splendid  temple  ;  and  that  by  these  they  were  laid  under  great 
 obligations  to  love  and  serve  hirn  ;  they,  not  having  received 
 similar  benefactions,  would  not  have  seen  nor  felt  the  force  of 
 his  logic,  at  least,  in  any  direct  or  powerful  application  of  it. 
 But,  as  both  the  Hebrews  and  the  Corinthians  had  been  baptized, 
 benefitted,  and  obliged,  in  the  same  kind  of  ordinance  ;  his 
 reasonings  were  appropriate  and  conclusive.  You  have  been 
 dealt  with  alike  ;  and,  if  you  sin,  you  will  likewise  suffer  for 
 it.  Secondly,  That  the  baptism  in  the  sea  was  a  great 
 covenant  benefit  to  the  Hebrews  ;  that  it  laid  them  under 
 the  strongest  obligations  to  love  and  serve  God ;  and  exposed 
 them  to  severe  punishments,  in  case  they  neglected  or  violated 
 their  corresponding  duty.  As  the  boon  was  great,  the  abuse 
 of  it  became  proportionately  aggravated — as  the  judgments  of 
 God  on  the  nation  fully  testified.  Wherefore,  the  Corinthians 
 would  naturally  conclude,  that  their  own  baptism  was  also  a 
 great  bond,  boon,  and  obligation — so  great,  that  if  they 
 neglected  or  violated  its  claims  on  their  profession  and 
 stedfastness,  some  great  and  fearful  evils  would  befal  them 
 also.  The  entire  scope  of  my  text  was  adapted  and,  doubtless, 
 designed  to  produce  this  moral  and  spiritual  result  in  their 
 hearts  and  conduct.  The  divine  writer  not  only  refers  to  the 
 former  economy  for  the  instruction  of  his  readers  ;  but  also 
 forewarns  them,  from  the  same  source,  of  the  evils  their 
 apostacy  would  bring  upon  their  souls. 
 
558  MANY  OLD  TESTAMENT  DEEDS 
 
 Should  it  be  still  objected,  that  we  go  to  the  ceremonial 
 law  to  understand  and  support  what  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
 a  purely  Christian  ordinance ;  I  reply,  as  before,  that  initiatory 
 baptism  unto  Moses  was  prior  to  the  Levitical  institutions ; 
 though  subsequently,  like  circumcision,  sacrifices,  and  the 
 passover,  it  was  incorporated  with  them.  Hence,  it  may  be 
 fairly  inferred,  that  the  appendages  and  peculiarities  of  the 
 Hebrew  economy  might  have  been  removed,  while  circumcision, 
 sacrifices,  the  passover,  and  baptism — all  of  a  prior  date — 
 might  have  remained  in  their  original  condition — just  as  the 
 ancient  spiritual  Abrahamic  covenant  remains  in  force  to  the 
 present  hour.  Preaching,  praying,  praise,  public  worship, 
 sabbath-sanctification,  and  the  like,  existed  before  the  promul- 
 gation of  the  laws,  statutes,  and  ordinances  of  Sinai,  and  the 
 ceremonial  precepts  of  Moses  ;  the  due  observance  of  which 
 has  been  continued  since  the  abolition  of  all  that  was  merely 
 local  and  temporary  in  their  laws  and  precepts. 
 
 Besides,  we  do  not  plead  the  baptism  in  the  sea  as  our 
 ground  or  authority  for  Christian  baptism  ;  but,  we  rather 
 refer  to  it  for  the  light  which  it  throws  on  the  proper  subjects 
 and  mode  of  this  New  Testament  sacrament.  We  have  not 
 read  for  our  text  the  words  of  Moses,  but  those  of  Paul. 
 We  did  not  first  hear  of  this  baptismal  rite  in  the  sea  from 
 the  writers  of  the  ancient  Covenant,  but  of  the  new;,  not 
 from  history,  but  from  the  apostolic  exposition  of  a  great 
 preceding  event.  And  this  principle  of  interpreting  the  laws 
 and  practice  of  New  Testament  baptisms  from  Old  Testament 
 precedents,  Mr.  Noel  and  others  have  shown  to  be  the  proper 
 method,  if  not  our  only  one ;  as  several  foregoing  extracts 
 from  their  writings  have  rendered  manifest. 
 
 Nor  is  the  present  a  singular  instance  of  learning  the  nature 
 and  purport  of  Old  Testament  deeds  from  New  Testament 
 writers.  That  the  law  was  given  by  the  disposition  of  angels, 
 and  that  the  bones  of  all  the  twelve  patriarchs  were  buried 
 in  Shechem,  we  gather  only  from  Stephen.  That  Michael  the 
 archangel  disputed  with  the  devil  about  the  body  of  Moses, 
 and  that  Enoch  prophesied  of  the  Lord's  coming,  with  ten 
 thousand  of  his  saints,  Jude  is  our  only  inspired  informant. 
 That  Moses  esteemed  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches 
 than  all  the  treasures  of  Egypt,  that  he  refused  to  be  called 
 the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter  ;  and  that  the  names  of  the 
 magicians,  who  contended  with  him,  in  the  miraculous  plagues 
 of  Egypt,  were  Jannes  and  Jambres,  we  learn  only  from  the 
 Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.     '  In  this  way,'  says  Dr.  Alexander, 
 
CONTINUED  UNDER  THE  GOSPEL.  559 
 
 *  we  become  aware  of  the  interesting  facts,  that  the  Creator 
 '  of  the  universe  was  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  that  it  was  he 
 '  who  guided  the  Israelites  through  the  wilderness,  and  against 
 '  whom  they  spake  their  rebellious  murmurings  ;  and  that  it 
 '  was  of  his  glory  of  which  Isaiah  had  a  vision,  when  he  saw 
 
 *  Jehovah  sitting  upon  a  throne  high  and  lifted  up,  and  his 
 '  train  filling  the  temple.     We  also  learn,  by  the  same  means, 
 
 *  that  the  real  tempter  of  our  first  parents  was  the  devil,  &c.' 
 Cong.  Led.  p.  23. 
 
 Let  it  be  observed,  that  we  do  not  baptize  either  young  or 
 old  merely  because  this  was  done  under  the  law;  but  because 
 we  are  commanded  by  Christ  to  do  so  under  the  gospel.  In 
 order  to  do  it  rightly,  we  listen  to  the  language  of  the  apostles, 
 and  observe,  as  closely  and  impartially  as  we  can,  how  they 
 performed  this  rite  themselves,  and  who  were  the  subjects  of 
 this  ordinance  in  their  day.  And  as  they  confessedly  followed 
 a  prior  practice  in  baptizing,  as  they  did  in  numerous  other 
 matters,  we  examine  the  originals,  and  get  from  them  all 
 the  information  they  afford  us — making  the  Old  Testament 
 contributory  to  the  explanation  of  the  New,  as  we  often  make 
 the  New  expository  of  the  Old.  As  there  were  water- 
 baptisms  before  Christ  as  well  as  after,  surely  we  may  look  to 
 both  of  them  to  ascertain,  as  well  as  we  can,  who  were  the 
 proper  subjects,  and  what  was  the  right  mode,  aforetime  in 
 order  to  conduct  the  service  now  in  a  proper  manner.  It  is 
 singular,  and  eveu  amusing,  that  our  opponents  are  frequently 
 turning  back  to  Moses  and  inquiring  of  the  Rabbis,  what  is 
 the  Mode  of  baptism? — because  they  think,  though  erroneously, 
 the  answer  is,  Dipping ;  but  we  must  not  ask  them  a  word 
 about  the  Subjects — fearing  the  response  might  be,  '  Children 
 '  as  well  as  their  parents  were  originally  baptized.' 
 
 Paul  says,  in  substance,  all  Our  Fathers  were  actually  and 
 intentionally  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
 sea.  The  knowledge  of  the  fact,  that  the  Israelites  tvere 
 actually  and  divinely  baptized,  while  crossing  the  sea,  we 
 derive  exclusively  from  him.  The  subjects  and  mode  of 
 this  baptism  we  gather  from  the  records  of  the  transaction  to 
 which  he  refers  us.  Paul  tells  us,  there  were  divers  baptisms 
 under  the  law.  He  announces  the  facts.  We  go  to  the  books 
 of  Moses  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  them.  He  tells  us  of 
 sacrifices  and  oblations  associated  with  the  former  covenant ; 
 and  we  turn  to  the  Pentateuch  to  understand  the  particulars 
 of  them.  Moreover,  Paul  refers  to  the  Mosaic  rites  and 
 ceremonials,   in   order   to   explain    more   clearly,   fully,   and 
 
560  MANY  OLD  TESTAMENT  DEEDS 
 
 specifically  to  his  Hebrew  brethren,  tbe  character  of  Christian 
 doctrines  and  privileges ;  just  as  ministers  of  all  denominations 
 now  refer  to  tbe  Old  Testament,  in  order  to  teach  more  plainly 
 the  duties,  obligations,  and  blessings  of  the  New.  The  first 
 gospel  preachers  and  writers,  for  the  most  part,  employ  the 
 terms  and  phraseology  of  Moses  and  the  prophets.  When 
 Paul  calls  Christ  our  Passover,  he  refers  to  the  great  feast 
 first  kept  just  prior  to  the  exodus  from  Egypt.  When 
 describing  the  death  of  Christ,  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  he 
 alludes  to  the  burnt  offerings  before  and  after  the  giving  of 
 the  law.  Many  of  the  rites,  rules,  practices,  and  privileges 
 of  the  gospel  are  explained  and  enforced  by  appeals  to  the 
 former  dispensations.  Indeed,  without  a  knowledge  of  those 
 economies,  much  that  Paul  and  his  brethren  wrote  to  the 
 Jews  would  have  been  exceedingly  obscure,  if  not  quite 
 unintelligible  to  us.  The  Old  Testament  was  their  text  book, 
 while  unfolding  and  advocating  the  gospel  of  the  Redeemer. 
 
 Our  evangelical  Baptist  friends  themselves  frequently  go  to 
 the  ten  commandments  for  direction  in  their  religious  and 
 moral  conduct.  Their  ministers  often  select  texts  from  the 
 Old  Testament  in  which  to  preach  gospel  sermons.  They 
 refer  to  Moses,  the  Psalms,  and  the  Prophets,  to  learn  how  to 
 keep  the  Sabbath  or  Lord's  day.  They  sing  the  sacred  poetry 
 of  the  Old  Testament  bards.  They  also  laud  the  Bereans  for 
 bringing  New  Testament  sermons,  even  when  delivered  by 
 inspired  preachers,  to  the  test  of  Old  Testament  doctrines. 
 Christ  told  the  Jews  to  search  the  ancient  Scriptures  to  learn 
 his  character  and  gracious  purposes.  Now,  if  men  may 
 properly  and  constantly  recur  to  the  ancient  law  and  testimony 
 for  the  better  exposition  and  confirmation  of  evangelical  truth, 
 obligations,  and  privileges;  why  not  for  the  explication  of 
 New  Testament  ceremonies  ?  We  only  follow  the  course 
 marked  out  by  the  apostle  himself,  who  refers  to  the  Old 
 Testament  act  of  baptism.  We  look  at  the  subject  he  sets 
 before  us  ;  we  listen  to  his  explanations  ;  and,  then,  we  learn 
 who  are  the  proper  subjects  of  this  rite,  under  the  gospel 
 dispensation,  according  to  the  judgment  of  this  inspired  man. 
 
 The  dependence  of  Christians  on  Old  Testament  instructions 
 and  admonitions  is  manifest  in  an  apartment  of  religious  duty 
 intimately  connected  with  the  matter  in  hand.  That  God  has 
 enjoined  on  his  people  the  necessity  of  religiously  educating 
 their  children,  we  all  believe  and  know.  But,  where  are  the 
 ample  injunctions  and  directions  found  for  doing  it?  Why, 
 almost  exclusively,  in  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the  prophets. 
 
CONTINUED  UNDER  THE  GOSPEL.  561 
 
 If  I  am  not  greatly  mistaken,  one  sentence  only,  directly 
 enforcing  the  scriptural  education  of  children,  is  to  be  met 
 with  in  all  the  New  Testament ;  and  that,  probably,  taken 
 from  the  Old.  Prov.  xxii.  G.  '  Bring  them  up  in  the  nurture 
 '  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.'  Eph.  vi.  4.  And  even  here  it 
 is  taken  for  granted,  that  the  parents  were  to  look  to  the 
 ancient  Scriptures  for  the  precise  mode  of  complying  with 
 Paul's  command.  A  few  instances,  alluding  to  youthful 
 instruction,  are  noticed  and  commended ;  but  this  is  the  only 
 plain  and  positive  precept,  on  this  point,  in  the  New  Testament. 
 Such  a  paucity  of  injunctions  could  not  have  been  occasioned 
 by  any  indifference  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  subject,  in  the 
 apostolic  age  ;  but  must  have  originated  in  the  fact,  that  the 
 duty  was  well  understood  from  the  former  Testament,  which 
 was  supposed  to  be  in  the  hands  of  the  people  ;  or  that  its 
 doctrines  and  duties  were  previously  known  to  those  addressed 
 by  our  Lord  and  his  apostles.  In  the  like  manner,  no 
 specific  directions  nor  express  commands  are  given  by  the 
 writers  of  the  New  Testament  respecting  the  purification  or 
 baptism  of  children,  for  this  simple  reason,  that  such  ceremonies 
 were  regularly  and  scrupulously  attended  to,  at  least,  by  all 
 the  descendants  of  Abraham,  and  those  who  had  been  formerly 
 proselyted  to  the  laws  of  Moses. 
 
 We  have  just  now  hinted,  that  the  baptism  unto  Moses  was 
 prior  to  the  giving  of  the  law,  and  the  regular  constitution  of  the 
 Hebrew  church.  It  may  be  worth  noticing,  that  all  baptizings 
 were  introductory,  and  that  the  parties  baptized  were  always 
 regarded  as  being  previously  without  the  circle,  the  system, 
 or  the  society,  into  which  this  rite  inducted  them.  All  the 
 newly-born  Hebrews  were  out  of  the  Mosaic  church  till  they 
 were  baptized,  and  thereby  inducted  to  it.  All  who  subsequently 
 rendered  themselves  unclean  were  deemed  to  be  out  of  the 
 pale  of  the  sanctuary  and  the  congregation,  and  remained 
 there  until  reintroduced  by  the  baptism  of  purification.  All 
 the  heathen  were  without  the  pale  of  the  Jewish  church  ;  and 
 could  enter  it  only  through  baptism.  In  the  days  of  John, 
 all  the  people  were  viewed  as  without  the  interim  dispensation 
 he  was  proclaiming ;  and  they  could  enter  it  only  by  baptism. 
 So,  after  the  gospel  was  fully  established,  all  nations,  both  Jews 
 and  gentiles,  were  without  its  confraternity,  and  could  formally 
 gain  admission  to  it  only  by  cleansing  or  baptism. 
 
 As  among  our  opponents,  none  enter  their  particular  or 
 select  society  but  through  what  they  call  baptism  ;  so  no 
 persons  ever  scripturally  enter  the  general  church  or  congregation 
 
 AA  2 
 
562  MANY  OLD  TESTAMENT  DEEDS 
 
 of  professing  Christians,  except  through  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
 — the  sign  of  their  moral  purification  and  consecration  to  Christ. 
 This  was  God's  door  into  his  sacred  sanctuary ;  this  was  his 
 appointed  ordinance — teaching  us  that  we  must  be  purified 
 before  we  can  legitimately  join  the  religious  fellowship  of 
 believers,  or  be  reckoned  as  pertaining  to  the  number  of 
 religious  disciples — just  as  the  Perirranterion,  or  vessel 
 containing  purifying  water,  was  placed  at  the  door  of  ancient 
 heathen  temples,  thatfrom  it  the  worshippers  might  be  sprinkled 
 and  sanctified  before  entering  the  consecrated  buildings.  No 
 person  was  regarded  as  a  proselyte  to  God's  religion,  either 
 before  or  after  the  time  of  Christ,  till  he  was  ceremonially 
 cleansed,  or  washed,  or  baptized.  Baptism  is  God's  initiatory 
 rite  to  the  external  privileges  of  religion  ;  but  not  to  the 
 particular  and  elect  church  of  Christ.  To  enter  this  latter,  a 
 higher  baptism  must  be  administered,  and  greater  qualifications 
 obtained.  As  the  tabernacle  and  temple  of  old  had  their  outer 
 and  inner  courts,  for  the  gentiles,  the  Jews,  and  the  priests  ; 
 so  converts  enter  the  first  court  of  the  gospel-church  by  water- 
 baptism,  and  the  inner  by  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  symbolized 
 by  the  anointing  with  holy  oil.  Such  being  the  case,  it  follows, 
 that  none,  sincerely  seeking  water-baptism,  can  be  too  bad  to 
 obtain  it,  as  introductory  to  the  regular  teachings  referred  to 
 in  our  Lord's  commission  ;  and  no  children,  designed  by  their 
 parents  to  attend  the  school  of  the  gospel,  can  be  too  young 
 to  undergo  this  initiatory  rite  ;  just  as  no  person  can  be  too 
 unclean  to  be  purified,  nor  too  ignorant  to  be  tanght,  nor  too 
 profligate  to  be  reformed,  nor  too  wicked  to  be  forgiven.  Christ 
 came  to  call  not  the  righteous,  but  sinners  to  repentance — to 
 heal  the  sick,  and  not  those  that  were  already  whole.  This 
 principle  accords  with  the  entire  system  of  revealed  religion  ; 
 while  the  contrary  symbolical  practices  of  our  opponents,  are 
 opposed  to  its  benevolent  spirit,  and  its  beautifully  harmonised 
 arrangements.  Indeed,  their  scheme  manifestly  wears  the 
 aspect  of  cleansing  the  clean,  teaching  the  taught,  and  recover- 
 ing the  health  of  those  who  have  no  disease ! 
 
 While  referring  to  baptism,  as  designed  to  exhibit  a 
 consecration  to  God,  through  the  emblem  of  physically 
 cleansing  the  person,  I  must  notice  the  opinion  of  a  few 
 strenuous,  if  not  very  intelligent,  opponents  of  our  doctrine  on 
 this  head.  They  argue,  that  the  design  of  baptism  is  to 
 represent  a  modem  burial,  and  not  a  washing — which  two 
 services  are  certainly  most  incompatible  acts,  with  essentially 
 different  purposes.     They  refer  us  to  Rom.  vi.  4,  where  it  is 
 
CONTINUED  UNDER  TILE  GOSPEL.  563 
 
 said,  '  We  are  buried  with  him  by  '  \_dia,  through]  '  baptism 
 'into'  \_eis,  unto]  'death;'  and  to  Col.  ii.  12. 'Buried  with' 
 [en,  in]  'him  in  baptism.'  These  expressions,  they  contend, 
 plainly  settle  the  point  in  their  favour,  or,  at  least,  in  defence 
 of  immersion.  That  their  conclusions  are  erroneous,  I  have 
 shown  elsewhere,  when  discussing  the  Mode  of  Baptism  ; 
 (2  Ed.  p.  185-201);  and  in  which  it  will  be  seen,  that  the 
 apostle  refers  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit — producing 
 a  virtual  union  between  the  believer  and  Christ,  in  the  Saviour's 
 death,  burial,  and  resurrection  ;  and  making  no  reference 
 whatever  to  the  manner  in  which  the  rite  in  question  was,  or 
 should  be,  administered.  These  objectors,  probably,  conclude 
 that  baptism,  under  the  idea  of  a  burial,  is  less  congruous  with 
 that  of  infancy  than  of  adult  age ;  and,  hence,  they  are 
 influenced  by  a  double  motive,  to  cleave  to  and  defend  their 
 interpretation  of  the  above  eliptical  and  figurative  expressions 
 of  the  apostle.  But,  in  this  result,  they  are  manifestly 
 unsupported  by  Scripture  and  primitive  practice.  For  instance, 
 let  them  turn  to  the  Greek  church,  about  which  they  talk  so 
 triumphantly,  and  they  will  find,  that  while  babes  are  dipped, 
 or,  if  you  please,  buried  in  baptism  as  well  as  affused  ;  adults 
 are  simply  affused  or  sprinkled.  Our  brethren,  therefore,  in 
 reference  at  least  to  the  subjects  of  this  sacrament,  gain  nothing 
 by  shifting  the  figure  from  a  font  to  a  grave,  from  a  dedication 
 to  a  fuueral  service,  or  from  a  manual  application  of  a 
 purifying  element  to  a  solemn  interment !  That  the  idea  of 
 baptism,  as  an  act  of  cleansing,  is  all  but  universal  among  our 
 brethren,  no  student  of  the  controversy  will  doubt — nor  can  it 
 be  supposed,  that  two  such  opposite  purposes  would  be 
 symbolized  by  the  same  ceremony. 
 
 I  must  not,  in  this  place,  fail  to  notice,  that  in  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  as  Mr.  Hall  remarks,  there  is  a  doing  away  with  a 
 part  of  the  Paschal  feast,  and  the  appropriation  of  a  portion 
 of  its  elements  to  a  New  Testament  service.  This,  I  presume, 
 no  one  disputes  or  questions.  We  have  not  the  perpetuation 
 of  the  passover,  as  originally  instituted,  and  for  many  centuries 
 observed,  by  the  Hebrew  nation.  No  lamb  is  now  to  be 
 slain,  roasted,  and  eaten.  But  the  bread  and  wine  broken 
 and  poured  out,  and  taken  at  the  close  of  the  feast,  were  to 
 become  a  perpetual  memorial  of  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
 the  Redeemer  ;  and  to  be  thankfully  and  joyfully  received  by 
 his  friends,  to  the  end  of  time.  In  this  sacrament  we  have 
 respect  to  the  atonement  of  Christ.  We  are  therein  to  shew 
 forth  his  death  till  he  come  the  second   time,  without  sin  to 
 
564  MANY  OLD  TESTAMENT  DEEDS 
 
 salvation.  Here  is  an  ancient  rite,  abridged,  simplified,  and 
 perpetuated,  in  the  Christian  economy  ;  having  all  the  sym- 
 bolical force  of  the  original  institution.  In  like  manner,  we 
 have  the  purifications  of  the  former  system,  stripped  of  their 
 different  appendages,  simplified  and  continued  in  the  present 
 dispensation,  to  typify  or  symbolize  the  cleansing  and  renewing 
 work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  We  have  the  application  of  water 
 in  its  easiest,  most  feasible,  and  delicate,  form,  to  show  forth 
 the  outpouring  of  divine  influence  on  the  souls  of  men.  The 
 day  of  atonement,  and  the  day  of  pentecost,  are  recalled  to 
 our  minds  in  the  Eucharist,  and  in  the  ceremony  of  baptism  ; 
 while  the  pardon  of  sin,  and  the  renewing  of  the  heart  are 
 plainly  set  before  our  outward  senses. 
 
 It  appears  to  have  been  the  divine  purpose  to  introduce 
 into  the  New  Testament  dispensation,  as  few  novelties  as 
 possible,  consistent  with  its  efficiency.  We  have  nothing 
 new  in  doctrine,  faith,  love,  holiness,  meekness,  gentleness, 
 goodness,  nor,  probably,  in  divine  worship,  as  conducted  in 
 the  ancient  synagogue.  '  When  the  preachers  of  the  gospel 
 '  addressed  themselves  to  the  Jewish  mind,  they  never  insisted 
 '  on  their  reception  of  any  truth,  or  their  laying  aside  any 
 1  practice,  which  they  could  not  establish  to  them  out  of  their 
 '  own  Scriptures.'  Gold  and  the  Gospel,  p.  48.  The  great 
 work  effected  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  reforming  the 
 church  of  old,  consisted  in  removing  the  types,  abolishing 
 sacrifices,  destroying  the  temple  services,  &c,  which  were  of 
 no  due  significance  after  Christ  came,  and  when  the  political 
 theocracy  of  the  Jews  had  terminated  ;  and  in  shedding  more 
 light  on  what  was  previously  obscure.  The  Eucharist  was 
 retained  in  the  bread  and  wine;  so  was  baptism,  as  an 
 initiatory  and  purifying  rite.  In  the  former  there  was  an 
 abridgment ;  the  painful  and  expensive  were  omitted.  In 
 the  latter  also  there  was  an  abridgment;  the  ministerial 
 sprinkling  was  retained ;  while  the  bathing  of  the  body,  and 
 the  washing  of  the  clothes,  by  the  purified  themselves,  were 
 not  to  be  continued.  The  frequent  ablutions  for  ceremonial 
 defilement  were  done  away,  while  the  symbolical  sanctification, 
 which  was  introductory  to  the  service  and  worship  of  God, 
 was  preserved  to  all  coming  ages.  These  sacraments  stand 
 in  a  perfectly  analogous  order.  Both  of  them  are  preserved, 
 both  are  simplified,  both  are  rendered  more  feasible,  and  the 
 design  of  both  is  made  more  manifest,  if  not  more  impressive, 
 than  under  the  law.  The  ancient  yoke  of  rites,  sacrifices, 
 and  services,  formerly   so   burdensome,   is    made    easy   and 
 
CONTINUED  UNDER  THE  GOSPEL.  565 
 
 light  under  the  gospel ;  while  the  significance  of  the  latter 
 system  retains  all  its  primitive  instruction  and  power. 
 
 While  the  preceding  view  of  the  case,  as  between  the 
 passover  and  the  Eucharist,  plainly  illustrates  our  doctrine  ; 
 we  think  it  is  capable  of  even  a  still  more  striking  exposition. 
 It  is  a  fact  conceded  by  eminent  theologians,  and  by  some  of 
 our  respectable  opponents,  that  circumcision  and  baptism  were 
 simultaneously  administered  to  the  infant  Israelites;  and, 
 though  distinct  symbolical  acts,  formed  but  one  service.  Now, 
 as  in  the  institution  of  the  passover,  a  part  was  bloody  and 
 a  part  eucharistic ;  and,  as  under  the  gospel,  the  bloody 
 sacrifice  was  abolished,  and  the  cup  of  salvation  was  retained  ; 
 so,  in  the  ancient  consecration  of  the  young  to  God,  a  part  of 
 the  service  was  bloody  and  painful,  and  a  part  was  bloodless 
 and  painless  ;  under  the  new  economy,  the  bloody  act  was 
 abolished,  and  the  merely  purifying  was  continued.  This 
 being  true ;  the  analogy  between  the  abridgments  of  these 
 two  ancient  sacraments  is  manifest.  This  view  of  the  case 
 will  commend  itself  to  the  judgment,  and  readily  secure  the 
 approval,  at  least,  of  all  who  believe  with  Mr.  Tombes,  that 
 '  Baptism  was  a  concomitant  of  circumcision,  if  not  much 
 'ancienter;'  or  with  Dr.  Halley,  that  'baptism  and  circum- 
 'cision  accompanied  each  other;'  at  least,  in  the  case  of 
 male  proselytes. 
 
 Supposing  this  point  conceded,  we  can  readily  account  for 
 the  motives  which  influenced  the  early  Jewish  converts  to 
 Christianity,  to  insist  on  their  children  being  both  circumcised 
 and  baptized ;  and  why  they  complained  that  the  children  of 
 the  converted  gentiles  were  only  baptized  into  the  Christian 
 dispensation.  They  felt  that  this  dedication  of  the  latter  to 
 Jehovah  was  only  half  accomplished — and  that  the  easy, 
 simple,  and  painless  part  of  it  only  was  attended  to.  This 
 may  also  account  for  the  circumstance,  that  the  baptism  of 
 the  Hebrew  infants,  like  their  circumcision,  was  so  little  noted 
 by  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  service  was  so 
 common,  so  constant,  and  so  unostentatiously  administered, 
 as  not,  in  general,  to  require  a  record,  any  more  than  when 
 a  babe  was  wrapped  in  swaddling  clothes  and  laid  in  its 
 own  little  crib  ! 
 
 SECTION  TENTH. — Many  popular  arguments  brought 
 against  Pedobaptism  equally  apply  to  the  system  of  our 
 opponents. — When  we  say  '  popular  arguments,'  we  mean  such 
 as  are  chiefly  employed  by  the  less  intelligent  lay  advocates 
 
566  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 of  believers'  baptism  only ;  or  by  ministers — generally  the 
 least  informed  and  candid  among  them — in  addressing  their 
 own  confiding  hearers.  And,  when  we  say  '  against  Pedo- 
 baptism,'  we  mean,  rather,  against  our  mode  of  conducting  this 
 controversy,  than  against  our  views  of  the  leading  evidence 
 and  points  at  issue  between  tbem  and  ourselves.  It  is  well 
 known,  that  many  of  our  zealous  brethren  advance  various 
 arguments  in  their  ordinary  discourses,  and  before  their  own 
 acquiescing  congregations  and  friends,  which  they  would  not 
 venture  to  broach  before  intelligent,  critical  Pedobaptists. 
 In  private  conversations,  it  is  also  known,  that  many  assump- 
 tions, and  positive  dogmas,  are  advanced  and  defended  by 
 Baptist  ministers,  which  the  speakers  would  feel  very  reluctant 
 to  print,  and  submit  to  the  ordeal  of  a  public  investigation. 
 Yet,  these  observations,  in  certain  circles,  are  the  most 
 efficient  in  perplexing,  if  not  convincing,  parties  but  little 
 initiated  into  the  matters  and  merits  of  this  protracted  contro- 
 versy. But,  it  is  remarkable,  that  the  premises  on  which 
 many  of  these  gentlemen  so  much  rely,  for  confirming  their 
 doubtful  adherents,  and  for  converting  their  less  enlightened 
 Pedobaptist  neighbours,  involve  points  and  principles  which 
 equally  tell  against  themselves  and  their  own  proceedings. 
 The  principal  of  these  arguments  I  will  now  enumerate  and 
 plainly  refute. 
 
 Before  commencing  these  particulars,  an  observation  or 
 two  may  be  admissible.  The  treatises  published  by  our 
 opponents,  which  contain  the  least  reason,  argument,  and 
 fair  interpretation  of  Scripture,  in  opposition  to  Infant  Baptism, 
 are  by  far  the  most  effective  in  making  converts  to,  or  confirming 
 waverers  in,  the  belief  of  exclusive  adult  immersion.  Take 
 the  works  of  such  writers  as  Crapps,  Draper,  Pengelly,  and  of 
 the  Leicester  Tracts — which  are  mainly  characterized  by  bold 
 assertions,  garbled  quotations  from  unguarded  Pedobaptists, 
 perverted  passages  of  Scripture,  remarks  strongly  spiced 
 with  invectives,  expressions  of  contempt,  and  pity  for  our 
 ignorance  and  physical  cowardice — and  compare  the  results 
 of  them,  upon  a  large  class  of  ordinary  readers,  with  the 
 effect  produced  by  the  writings  of  such  men,  as  Gill,  Gibbs, 
 Cox,  Carson,  and  Bees — though  by  no  means  exempt  from 
 such  dogmatisms — and  it  may  be  safely  assumed,  that  where 
 the  latter  make  one  convert,  the  former  make  a  dozen. 
 These  are  not  only  more  numerous,  but  they  are  more  of  a 
 clap-trap  character — just  adapted  to  lay  hold  on  superficial 
 and  credulous  minds. 
 
EQUALLY  OPrOSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  567 
 
 Further,  the  works  written  in  defence  of  Adult  Immersion, 
 by  our  more  talented,  intelligent,  and  candid  opponents, 
 invariably  make  the  most  importantand damaging  concessions  to 
 the  cause  of  infant  affusion  baptism.  The  reader  has  only  to 
 review  the  many  quotations  previously  given  in  this  volume, 
 from  the  writings  of  Hall,  Noel,  Stovel,  Tombes,  and 
 their  compeers,  to  arrive  at  the  like  conclusion.  These 
 concessions,  it  is  true,  are  not  of  the  entire  doctrine  of 
 believers'  baptism  ;  but  of  facts,  principles,  and  interpretations 
 of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  without  the  resolute  maintenance  of 
 which  their  system  cannot  long  stand  against  the  assaults  of 
 competent  Pedobaptists.  The  character  and  amount  of  these 
 damaging  concessions  may,  in  some  measure,  be  learnt  from 
 our  foregoing  quotations. 
 
 Again,  it  is  found  that  the  most  superficially  instructed 
 ministers  and  members  of  the  Baptist  body  are  far  more 
 dogmatical  on  the  subject  of  baptism  than  their  better  informed 
 co-religionists.  Points  which  the  latter  yield,  though  reluct- 
 antly, the  former  maintain  with  confidence  and  unyielding 
 pertinacity.  Objections  which  wise  and  candid  Immersionists 
 have  long  since  abandoned  or  conceded,  these  gentlemen 
 reiterate  and  defend,  with  all  their  energy  and  perseverance,  as 
 if  unquestioned  and  immutable  propositions.  Men  who  have 
 hardly  read  a  hundred  pages  on  the  controversy  before  us 
 will  frequently  talk  about  it  with  a  grandiloquence  and 
 assurance,  seldom  exemplified  by  their  wiser  and  far  more 
 learned  brethren,  who  have  studied  as  many  volumes.  One 
 has  only  to  refer  to  the  original  Scriptures  for  the  purpose  of 
 elucidating  some  point  of  difficulty  or  importance,  to  draw 
 forth  ardent  condemnation  for  slighting  our  excellent  version 
 of  God's  blessed  Word — by  the  literal  sense  of  which  people 
 must  be  entirely  directed — just  as  Mr.  Stovel  would  confine 
 our  defence  of  Infant  Baptism  to  the  New  Testament.  And 
 as  to  the  admission  of  any  emendation  of  the  Greek  text,  if  it 
 happen  to  militate  against  their  preconceived  notions,  respecting 
 the  mode  or  subjects  of  baptism  ;  it  is  all  but  an  unpardonable 
 intermeddling  with  the  pure  oracles  of  heavenly  truth!  From 
 such  difficulties  in  debate  one  is,  in  a  good  degree,  exempt,  when 
 arguing  with  intelligent  and  candid  opponents.  I  have  no 
 doubt  but  most  of  my  brethren,  from  experience,  can  fully 
 corroborate  the  above  averments. 
 
 Argument  I. — Different  Pedobaptists  adduce  different 
 grounds  on  ivhicli  to  establish  Infant  Baptism  ;  therefore,  it 
 cannot  be  right. — Some  of  them,  it  is  said,  refer  us  to  the 
 
568       ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 Abrahamic  covenant ;  some  to  circumcision;  some  to  proselyte 
 baptism  ;  some  to  the  purifications  of  the  law ;  some  to 
 the  baptism  of  households  ;  some  to  our  Lord's  commission  ; 
 some  to  Scripture  consequences  ;  some  to  primitive  history  ; 
 and  now  you  urge  the  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea.  Mr.  Stovel 
 is  very  strong  on  this  head.  '  Some  rest  the  claim  of  infants, 
 '  to  that  ordinance,  on  a  forged  analogy  between  it  and  the 
 'Abrahamic  covenant;  and  thus  the  clear  and  beautiful  light, 
 '  which  the  whole  Jewish  dispensation  was  intended  to  throw 
 '  over  the  gospel,  is  rendered  not  only  obscure,  but  absolutely 
 '  delusive.  Others  rest  it  on  the  idea  of  household  baptism  ; 
 1  and  not  only  falsify  the  statements  of  Luke,  but  place  them 
 '  in  direct  opposition  to  those  advanced  by  Paul.  One 
 '  advocate,  as  if  in  wanton  boldness,  denies  the  fact,  that  any 
 '  believers' baptism  ever  existed  in  the  first  age;  and  thus 
 '  he  impeaches  the  character  of  the  apostles  themselves,  and 
 '  denies  the  whole  record  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Striking 
 '  out  the  leading  idea  of  John's  dispensation,  they  make  the 
 1  herald  of  Christ  no  better  than  a  Pharisee.  If  their  cause 
 1  were  good,  their  zeal  were  deserving  of  praise  ;  but  there  is 
 '  madness  in  this  method  of  reasoning  for  what  cannot  be 
 '  supported,  which  wearies  the  patience  in  describing  it.' 
 Reg.  Led.  iv.  p.  24. 
 
 It  is,  therefore,  concluded,  that  all  these  parties  and  pleas 
 indicate  not  simply  a  diversity,  but  even  a  contradiction,  of 
 principles  and  views,  in  defending  our  practice.  But,  surely, 
 this  variety  of  evidence  can  be  no  valid  argument  against 
 Infant  Baptism,  nor  against  our  modes  of  defending  it ;  for, 
 if  so,  the  advocates  of  our  Saviour's  divinity  and  atonement 
 would  be  in  a  most  painful  dilemma.  The  latter  go  to  many 
 more  sources  for  information  on  that  question,  and  in  defence 
 of  their  doctrines,  than  we  do  in  support  of  our  baptismal 
 practice.  Some  preachers  and  writers  lay  more  stress  on  one 
 species  of  evidence,  and  some  on  others.  But  it  does  not 
 follow,  that  they  are  at  fatal  issue  among  themselves.  All 
 real  Pedobaptist  writers  are  in  favour  of  the  rite  in  question, 
 and  all  feel  that  they  are  contributing  to  its  maintenance. 
 The  greater  the  variety  of  proof  adducible  in  support  of  a 
 proposition,  the  more,  in  general,  is  it  deemed  worthy  of 
 confidence.  Some  may  see  a  good  evidence  in  favour  of  their 
 practice  in  one  text  or  fact,  which  others  may  regard  as 
 feeble,  or  even  totally  irrelevant  to  the  question — so  various 
 are  the  perceptive  and  reasoning  faculties  of  the  human  mind. 
 And  yet  all  of  them  may  still  perceive  in  the  Bible  sufficient 
 
EQUALLY  OPPOSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  569 
 
 to  justify  the  rite  of  Infant  Baptism  against  everything  their 
 adversaries  can  adduce  in  opposition  to  it. 
 
 But  do  not  the  advocates  of  exclusive  adult  or  believers' 
 baptism  avail  themselves  of  every  variety  of  evidence,  while 
 labouring  to  maintain  their  doctrines  and  doings?  Now  they 
 are  appealing  to  Paul,  and  Peter,  and  John  the  Baptist ; 
 then  the  Babbis  are  referred  to,  particularly  in  support  of 
 dipping  their  candidates  ;  then  the  fathers  and  ecclesiastical 
 history  are  summoned  to  give  evidence  in  favour  of  adult 
 immersion  ;  then  learned  criticisms — the  sense  of  Greek 
 nouns,  verbs,  and  prepositions — are  paraded ;  and  then  the 
 real  or  supposed  concessions  of  Pedobaptists  are  arranged 
 in  long  catalogues  of  quotations,  in  order  to  make  baby- 
 sprinklers  contradict  and  beat  themselves.  Consequently,  if 
 our  cause  must  be  weak,  through  recurring  to  a  variety  of 
 testimonies  in  its  defence  ;  their  own  cannot  be  deemed  over 
 strong,  when  they  feel  obliged  to  adduce  such  a  variety  of 
 arguments  in  support  of  a  different  system !  Yet,  so  far  is  a 
 sincere  Baptist  from  regarding  their  own  various  sources  of 
 testimony  as  an  evil,  that  he  exults  over  them  as  a  manifest 
 advantage — as  so  many  pillars  to  prop  his  cause,  or  so  many 
 arrows  in  his  quiver  with  which  to  conquer  his  adversaries. 
 Some  of  our  opponents,  like  ourselves,  devote  their  attention 
 to  one  part  of  the  evidence,  and  some  to  another.  This 
 circumstance  is  far  from  evincing  a  weakness  in  their  evidence; 
 since,  if  valid,  it  only  tends  to  confirm  the  faith  of  those  who 
 believe  them.  Who  would  not  rather  have  ten  arguments  in 
 favour  of  their  doctrine  than  two  ?  All  we  demand  is,  to 
 build  up  our  cause,  if  we  can,  with  a  like  variety  of  materials. 
 For  our  antagonists  to  object  to  this  course  is  virtually  to 
 condemn  themselves. 
 
 Argument  II. — Pedobaptists  are  at  issue  among  themselves 
 on  the  question  of  baptism — it  must  therefore  be  wrong. — 'Are 
 '  there  not  various,  and  even  contradictory,  views  on  baptism 
 '  very  prevalent  among  the  advocates  for  infant  sprinkling?' 
 Draper,  p.  39.  They  tell  us,  in  substance,  you  are  not 
 agreed,  whether  the  children  of  parents,  who  are  not  members 
 of  some  Christian  church,  should  be  baptized  ;  or  whether 
 the  offspring  of  people,  not  reputably  moral  and  virtuous, 
 should  not  be  precluded  from  this  ceremony  ;  or  whether 
 you  should  baptize  all  who  are  brought  to  the  sanctuary  for 
 that  purpose.  You  differ  as  to  the  designation  you  give  the 
 ordinance — whether  it  be  a  token,  sign,  sacramental  seal,  or 
 pledge  of  promised  blessings,  the  exhibition  of  truth,  or  a 
 
570       ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 memorial  of  past  events.  Further,  some  of  you  sprinkle,  and 
 some  of  you  pour  water,  in  this  rite.  See  Gibbs,  p.  325-328. 
 These  are  the  chief  variations  among  evangelical  Pedobaptist 
 nonconformists.  That  others  attach  the  notion  of  saving 
 grace  to  this  rite,  as  they  do  equally  to  adult  baptism,  and 
 administer  it  ceremoniously  and  superstitiously,  absurdly  and 
 popishly,  I  freely  admit.  But,  then,  all  of  them  agree,  that 
 Infant  Baptism  is  Scriptural ;  or  they  would  either  not 
 practice  it,  or  not  feel  entitled  to  the  designation  of  Pedobaptists. 
 What  perversion  of  mind  to  imagine,  that  these  different  views 
 of  this  ordinance  militate  against  its  sacred  origin  and  our 
 sense  of  divine  obligations  respecting  it !  Have  not  the 
 advocates  and  sincerest  friends  of  Christianity  disagreed  about 
 Christianity — about  the  nature,  design,  and  results  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper  ?  And  have  not  the  advocates  of  protestantism 
 differed  about  protestantism  ?  Yet,  are  not  Christianity, 
 protestantism,  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  true,  after  all? 
 
 But  will  our  antagonists  subject  their  baptism  to  a  like 
 ordeal,  and  agree  to  renounce  the  rite  of  dipping  adults,  if 
 all  its  advocates  are  found  not  to  be  of  precisely  the  same 
 mind  concerning  it  ?  Do  they  not  differ  among  themselves 
 concerning  proselyte  baptism  ? — (Gibbs  and  Noel,  to  wit). — 
 Do  not  the  same  writers  differ  from  themselves  in  the  same 
 books?  Of  this  fact,  I  think,  I  have  given  several  confir- 
 mations in  the  preceding  pages.  Do  they  not  differ  about 
 the  value  to  be  attached  to  the  testimony  of  the  Christian 
 fathers  on  the  question  ;  the  validity  of  the  baptism  of  mere 
 nominal  professors ;  and  the  import  of  the  verb  baptizo  ? 
 Some  of  them  use  single,  and  some  trine  immersion,  the 
 latter  '  laying  on  of  hands  and  prayer,  while  the  recipient  yet 
 '  remains  kneeling  in  the  water.'  Some  of  them  regard 
 baptism  as  the  act  of  the  church,  and  others  simply  as  that 
 of  the  minister.  Some  view  it  as  introductory  to  the  general 
 church,  and  some  to  a  select  or  particular  fellowship.  Some 
 deem  it  an  essential  prerequisite  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  while 
 others  are  for  open  communion,  or  the  admission  of  the 
 unbaptized.  Have  our  objectors  never  read  of  the  contro- 
 versies between  John  Bunyan  and  Mr.  Paul,  long  since,  and 
 of  Mr.  Hall  and  Mr.  Kinghorn,  lately,  on  this  last  named 
 topic  ?  and  of  warm  disputes  among  their  predecessors,  as  to 
 whether  laymen  might  baptize  as  well  as  ministers  ? 
 
 Our  opponents  set  us  down  as  being  all  but  papists  and 
 conformists,  because,  like  them,  we  sprinkle  infants ;  forgetting 
 that,   on  a  similar  principle,   we  might  set  them   down   as 
 
EQUALLY  OPPOSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  571 
 
 Antinomians,  Arians,  Socinians,  and  Mormonites ;  because, 
 like  themselves,  many  of  those  people  practice  adult  immersion ! 
 As  the  state-religion  and  popery  sanction  adult  baptism  as 
 well  as  infant,  and  immersion  as  well  as  sprinkling ;  we 
 might  classify  them  all  as  an  adult-dipping  fraternity,  and 
 charge  our  brethren  with  approving  baptismal  regeneration, 
 and  all  the  other  evils  of  those  parties,  with  as  much  justice 
 and  truth  as  they  now  blend  us  with  them,  because  we  all 
 happen  to  affuse  infants  !  In  truth,  I  think  the  reader  will 
 find  several  statements,  fairly  quoted  from  the  writings  of 
 some  of  our  recent  leading  opponents,  which  indirectly,  if  not 
 expressly,  teach  baptismal  regeneration,  all  but  as  fully  as 
 the  mass-book  or  the  formularies  of  the  state-worship.  This 
 is  done  while  endeavouring  to  magnify  their  ordinance,  to 
 beat  their  antagonists,  and  to  get  reluctant  people  under 
 water !  Surely,  all  this  tells  as  truly  and  powerfully  against 
 their  principles  and  practices,  as  the  various  views  of  Pedo- 
 baptists  do  against  Infant  Baptism ;  and  until  all  our 
 opponents  are  entirely  agreed  on  this  question,  their  most 
 prudent  course  will  be  to  keep  a  profound  silence  respecting 
 our  immaterial  diversities.  Indeed,  the  Quakers  and  other 
 Antibaptists  might  just  as  consistently  say,  to  both  Pedo 
 and  Antipedobaptists,  '  Friends,  when  you  are  perfectly 
 •  agreed  among  yourselves,  you  may  consistently  employ  your 
 '  arguments  to  induce  us  to  embrace  water-baptism  ;  but,  till 
 1  then,  the  attempt  would  be  ineffectual;  and  we  must  continue 
 '  to  cleave  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  only ! 
 
 Argument  III. — Pedobaptisls  have  made  many  important 
 concessions  to  their  opponents  on  the  question  of  baptism, — 
 therefore  it  cannot  be  sustained. — The  premises  I  admit  to  the 
 fullest  extent  claimed  by  our  antagonists.  Some  good  men,  of  all 
 persuasions — through  lack  of  information,  or  through  fear  of 
 being  deemed  bigoted,  uncharitable,  self-conceited,  or  severe 
 — seem  to  do  little  else  than  make  concessions.  These 
 gentlemen  will  surrender  almost  any  secondary  point  for  the 
 sake  of  peace,  and  to  appear  amiable.  Many,  no  doubt,  surrender 
 tenable  positions,  because  they  do  not  see  their  relevant 
 importance,  or  understand  how  to  defend  them.  Alas  !  what 
 concessions  have  many  ignorant,  injudicious,  and  pliable 
 Christians  made  to  Infidels ;  many  Protestants  to  Papists ; 
 many  Dissenters  to  Conformists  ;  many  Trinitarians  to  Socin- 
 ians ;  and  many  good  men  to  bad  ones  !  But  this,  in  no 
 degree,  affects  the  genuine  truth  of  the  gospel ;  and  should 
 not,  for  a  moment,  override  the  judgment,  or  influence   the 
 
572       ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 practice,  of  persons  capable  of  forming  an  independent 
 opinion  on  a  controverted  question.  It  is  the  duty  of  every 
 man  to  '  prove  all  things,  and  to  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.' 
 If  Christianity  be  not  safe,  till  all  Christians  confessedly  view 
 it  in  the  same  light,  and  rightly  and  unanimously  understand 
 its  various  particulars,  it  will  be  a  long  while  before  we  shall 
 feel  that  our  faith  and  hope  are  founded  on  a  rock. 
 
 But  have  not  our  opponents  also  made  many  concessions 
 to  us,  and  these,  too,  on  points  as  important  as  any  they  have 
 received  from  us.  They  practically  admit — however  they  may 
 theoretically  deny  it — that  dipping  without  faith,  regeneration, 
 or  piety,  is  perfectly  valid  ;  since  a  man  or  woman,  immersed 
 while  destitute  of  these  graces,  is  deemed  to  have  been  rightly 
 baptized,  and  that  for  life.  This  is  a  concession  virtually 
 sacrificing  the  entire  doctrine  of  what  they  manifestly  under- 
 stand by  believers'  baptism.  To  this  rule,  I  believe,  they  rarely 
 ever  produce  an  exception.  They  also  frequently  admit  persons 
 into  their  select  societies,  and  to  the  table  of  the  Lord,  who 
 have  never  had  any  other  than  Infant  Baptism  by  affusion ; 
 thereby,  either  conceding  the  validity  of  this  rite,  for  all 
 social  purposes,  or  giving  up  baptism  entirely,  as  a  prerequisite 
 to  full  communion  in  Christian  churches. 
 
 The  thoughtful  reader  of  the  foregoing  sheets  cannot  have 
 failed  to  notice  the  many  concessions,  in  matters  of  detail 
 and  argument,  made  by  our  most  intelligent  opponents  ;  and 
 some  of  these,  too,  of  such  a  nature,  and  so  manifestly  vital, 
 as  to  damage  irretrievably  every  thing  else  advanced  in  defence 
 of  exclusive  adult  or  believers'  baptism.  In  fact,  he  must 
 perceive  certain  passages,  previously  quoted  from  the  works 
 of  Booth,  Hall,  Stovel,  and  particularly  of  Mr.  Noel,  in  which 
 they  have  entirely,  though  unconsciously  or  unintentionally, 
 abandoned  the  ground  on  which  many  of  their  less  intelligent 
 brethren  have  chiefly  built  their  scheme  of  exclusive  adult 
 believers'  baptism,  and  on  which  the  latter  have  long  erected 
 their  batteries  in  opposition  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  They 
 have  gone  so  far,  that  all  clear-sighted  observers  must  perceive 
 they  cannot  now  honourably  or  safely  retreat ;  and  that  they  have 
 nothing  left,  broad  and  firm  enough,  on  which  to  rest  any 
 plausible,  much  less  cogent,  arguments  in  defence  of  their 
 baptismal  assumptions.  While  these  facts  remain,  let  not 
 our  good  brethren  contend,  that  we  must  be  defending  an 
 unchristian  service,  because  certain  of  its  friends  have  made 
 unwarrantable  concessions  concerning  some  of  its  evidences  and 
 ultimate  designs. 
 
EQUALLY  OPPOSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  573 
 
 Argument  IV. — Some  of  the  greatest  and  best  men  in  the 
 world  have  opposed  Infant  Baptism — it  must,  therefore,  be  a 
 bad  thine/. — This  objection  weighs  mightily  with  the  mass  of 
 Baptist  people ;  and  I  believe,  too,  with  many  Baptist 
 ministers  and  gentlemen  who,  of  themselves,  evidently  possess 
 comparatively  little  information  on  the  matters  really  at  issue 
 between  them  and  their  opponents.  They  oftener  speak  in 
 the  language  of  their  teachers  than  in  their  own  ;  and  trust  to 
 the  dictates  of  celebrated  partizans,  rather  than  to  the  results 
 of  their  own  investigations.  They  do  not  profess  to  understand 
 much  of  the  merits  of  the  controversy  ;  but  they  have  great 
 confidence  in  the  judgments  of  such  excellent  men  as  Byland, 
 Hall,  Carson,  Cox,  Noel,  Stovel,  Gale,  Gill,  Booth,  Maclean, 
 Stennett,  Tombes,  and  of  hosts  besides — men  of  great  piety, 
 industry,  and  learning.  Further,  as  we  readily  admit,  that 
 among  the  advocates  of  dipping  adult  believers  only,  there 
 have  been  some  of  the  most  talented,  eloquent,  devout,  and 
 useful  persons  that  have  adorned  and  blessed  the  Christian 
 church  ;  our  objectors  cannot  imagine,  that  those  gentlemen, 
 who  have  prayed  for  divine  light  on  this  question,  have  inves- 
 tigated the  matter  most  diligently,  and  have  carried  out  their 
 views  at  the  cost  of  high  worldly  positions,  and  many  social 
 comforts,  could  possibly  have  been  mistaken.  Indeed,  they 
 would  deem  it  almost  criminal  to  question  the  conclusions  of 
 such  holy  and  worthy  divines.  I  admit,  that  the  masses  of  their 
 people  and  many  of  their  pastors,  also,  must,  in  most  cases 
 of  literary  criticisms,  historical  research,  and,  perhaps,  of 
 logical  inductions,  depend  on  others,  whose  talents,  time,  and 
 means,  enable  them  to  look  well  into  various  recondite  matters. 
 But,  still,  a  less  valid  objection  could  scarcely  be  brought 
 against  Infant  Baptism.  Had  all  great,  learned,  and  good 
 men,  after  praying  for  divine  guidance  and  earnestly  examining 
 the  subject,  brought  in  a  tolerably  unanimous  verdict  on  the 
 question,  and  in  favour  of  adult  dipping  only  ;  then  there 
 might  have  been  a  plausible  ground  for  acquiescing  in  their 
 conclusions.     But  in  the  present  case  there  is  none. 
 
 What  great  and  good  men  have  there  not  been  arrayed 
 against  each  other  on  almost  every  question  of  theological 
 interpretation  ?  What  pious,  and  learned,  and  able  men  have 
 seen  differently  on  the  subject  of  Arminianism  and  the 
 doctrines  of  grace ;  on  the  scriptural  form  of  church  govern- 
 ment ;  on  the  extent  of  the  atonement ;  on  the  interpretation 
 of  prophecy  ;  and  on  the  true  import  of  numerous  passages 
 of  the  word  of  God  ?     Now,  all  of  them  cannot  be  right ; 
 
574        ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BATTISM 
 
 and,  consequently,  some  of  them  must  be  sadly  in  the  wrong. 
 Again,  what  numbers  of  great  and  good  men  have  strenuously 
 and  most  conscientiously  advocated  the  Presbyterian  form  of 
 church  order  and  government,  which  Congregationalists  do 
 not  deem  scriptural ;  or  the  coercively  sustained  national 
 worship,  with  all  its  peculiarities,  which  voluntaries  do  not 
 approve  ;  and  the  system  of  Popery,  with  all  its  errors  and 
 evils,  which  our  brethren  devoutly  dislike,  and  so  on, 
 through  all  the  differing  and  contending  sects  into  which  the 
 avowed  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  has  been  divided?  All  this  is 
 patent  to  every  thoughtful  observer.  But  is  our  religion, 
 after  all,  made  of  wax  or  clay,  to  be  melted  or  moulded  into 
 any  form — either  that  of  a  dragon,  griffin,  or  monster,  as  well 
 as  into  that  of  a  saint,  a  seraph,  or  an  angel — just  because 
 men,  great,  wise,  and  good,  differ  materially  about  it  ? 
 
 But  some  man  will  say,  when  doctors  disagree,  what  are 
 their  disciples  to  do  ?  Why,  just  as  well  as  they  can  ;  and,  by 
 pondering  over  the  whole  debate,  form  the  fairest  judgment 
 in  their  power.  They  must,  like  the  Bereans,  bring  the 
 arguments  adduced  to  the  test  of  Scripture,  and  conclude  in 
 the  fairest  way  they  are  able.  The  difficulty  is  admitted, 
 and  is  felt  on  all  sides  of  certain  recondite  questions,  sacred, 
 social,  and  scientific.  But  one  thing  no  man  should  do  ;  he 
 should  not  take  it  as  granted,  that  certain  views  are,  and 
 must  be  true,  simply  or  chiefly  because  certain  wise,  holy, 
 and  sincere  partizans  maintain  them.  Look  on  the  other  side 
 of  the  subject,  in  immediate  controversy  ;  what  great,  learned, 
 and  holy  men,  after  fully  and  patiently  investigating  the  points 
 in  dispute,  have  arrived  at  a  conscientious  conclusion,  that 
 Infant  Baptism  is  perfectly  agreeable  to  the  revealed  will  of 
 Christ  ?  And,  when  their  comparative  numbers  are  taken 
 into  account,  you  will  see,  that  this  argument  against  Infant 
 Baptism,  founded  on  the  judgment  of  other  great  and  holy 
 men,  amounts  to  absolutely  nothing.  I  admit,  that  the  few 
 may  be  right,  and  that  the  many  may  be  in  error — as  a  minority 
 in  the  jury  box,  or  in  parliament,  may  judge  most  properly — 
 but  the  usual  conclusion  is,  that  the  majority  is  not  always 
 and  necessarily  wrong. 
 
 It  is  probable,  that  many  Pedodaptists  reason  in  support 
 of  Infant  Baptism  as  their  opponents  do  against  it — from  the 
 great  names  which  have  supported,  defended,  and  practised 
 it.  They  cannot  imagine,  that  such  excellent,  talented,  and 
 conscientious  writers  as  Baxter,  Owen,  Henry,  Williams, 
 Wardlaw,  Ewing,  Edwards,  Halley,  Wilson,  Taylor,  Beecher, 
 
EQUALLY  OPPOSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  575 
 
 Isaacs,  and  numbers  beside,  of  equal  intelligence  and  sincerity, 
 can  be  mistaken ;  and  that,  therefore,  the  baptism  of  infants 
 must  surely  be  in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God.  But,  if  a 
 reliance  on  the  bare  opinions  of  others  constitute  the  grounds 
 on  which  to  rest  one's  practice,  it  will  avail  little,  when  the 
 wily  and  fervent  advocates  of  the  contrary  opinion  are  arrayed 
 against  one  ;  and  when  energetically  assailed  by  the  plausible 
 and  strongly  pronounced  sentiments  of  clever  opponents.  If 
 the  evidence  and  arguments  adduced  by  the  supporters  of 
 Infant  Baptism  have  satisfied  their  judgments  and  armed  them 
 with  weapons  in  defence  of  their  practice ;  that  is  quite 
 another  affair,  and  stands  widely  apart  from  the  influence  and 
 dogmas  of  the  great  and  honourable  names  by  which  they  are 
 given.  In  truth,  neither  party  can  fairly  or  safely  avail 
 itself  of  the  notion  involved  in  the  objection,  with  any  material 
 advantage  to  its  cause,  or  any  great  credit  to  its  own  intellectual 
 abilities.  Though  the  talents,  intelligence,  and  numbers, 
 adopting  and  advocating  one's  distinctive  views  on  this  question, 
 may  be  the  ground  of  congratulation,  they  afford  no  argument 
 worth  a  moment's  consideration  on  either  side.  Many  Baptists 
 of  this  country  often  boast  of  the  popularity  of  their  creed 
 and  practice  in  the  United  States,  as  affording  conclusive 
 evidence,  that  they  are  exclusively  in  the  right ;  yet  they 
 ought  to  be  reminded,  that  full  three  out  of  every  four  of  the 
 ministers  and  professors  of  Christianity,  even  across  the 
 Atlantic,  are  practical  and  earnest  Pedobaptists.  See  Hinton's 
 Voluntary  Principle,'  &c.  p.  65. 
 
 It  is  a  fact  known  to,  and  admitted  by,  most  observing  and 
 reflecting  persons,  that,  probably,  in  eight  cases  out  of  every 
 ten,  people,  and  even  preachers  also,  are  of  their  present 
 religious  opinions  and  parties  from  the  mere  accident  of  birth, 
 early  associations,  or  some  trivial  occurrence  of  life.  It  is  not 
 from  any  primary  personal  investigation  of  principles  and 
 enlightened  convictions,  that  the  sentiments  they  hold,  and 
 the  professions  they  make,  are  now  viewed  and  maintained  as 
 being  most  accordant  with  the  will  of  the  Almighty.  People 
 are  Catholics  or  Protestants,  Churchmen  or  Dissenters, 
 "Wesleyans  or  Congregationalists,  Quakers  or  Socinians,  Bap- 
 tists or  Pedobaptists,  chiefly  because  their  parents  were  so 
 before  them,  or  because  they  were  brought  into  a  favorable 
 connexion  with  such  a  particular  section  of  religionists.  The 
 opinions  thus  imbibed,  by  a  kind  of  inheritance,  casual 
 association,  or  personal  attachments,  many  feel  disposed  to 
 defend  to  the  fullest  extent  of  their  power,  and  to  the  last  day 
 
576       ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 of  their  lives.  They  would  even  deem  it  cowardice,  apostacy, 
 and  dishonorable  to  their  party,  to  abandon  a  fraction  of  their 
 former  profession  or  creed,  even  though  convinced  that  it  is 
 not  indubitably  sustained  by  the  word  of  God.  They  are 
 unconsciously  biassed  to  a  purblind  contemplation  of  what  is 
 advanced  adverse  to  their  own  sectarian  opinions.  Their 
 readings,  hearings,  and  meditations  are  all  designed  to  justify 
 their  first  adopted  views  ;  and  to  meet  and  refute  whatever 
 is  opposed  to  them.  Hence,  they  seldom  give  conflicting 
 doctrines  or  practices  a  candid  hearing,  or  allow  them  due 
 weight  in  their  own  judgment.  The  churchman  sees  little  or 
 no  force  in  what  the  dissenter  advances  ;  and  the  latter  just 
 returns  the  compliment.  In  general,  the  Baptist  sees  nothing 
 of  interest  or  moment  in  the  statements  and  arguments  of  a 
 Pedobaptist ;  who,  on  the  other  hand,  is,  probably,  quite  as 
 insensible  to  all  the  former  advances  in  favour  of  adult 
 immersion.  In  truth,  few  of  us  are  what  we  profess  to  be, 
 from  a  primary,  personal,  and  intelligent  examination  of 
 principles,  but  rather  from  accidental  circumstances — a  fact 
 which  should  admonish  us  all  to  strive  against  a  blind 
 prejudice,  and  to  consider  fairly  what  may  be  said  in  opposition 
 to  our  notions,  as  well  as  in  favour  of  them. 
 
 Argument  V. — Infant  Baptism  requires  a  vast  deal  of 
 inquiry,  criticism,  and  logic,  to  defend  it. — It  is  thence 
 inferred,  that  it  cannot  be  agreeable  to  the  will  of  God ;  for, 
 otherwise,  it  would  have  been  rendered  plain,  as  Mr.  Booth 
 remarks,  even  to  the  ordinary  ploughman.  Gibbs  says,  'It 
 •  is  manifest  from  the  mode  of  defence  adopted  by  the  advocates 
 1  of  this  theory  ' — [Infant  Baptism]—'  that  it  can  be  only  made 
 '  to  appear  plausible  by  a  laborious  process  of  moral  reasoning 
 '  and  by  inferences  drawn  from  remote  premises.'  p.  230. 
 This,  like  the  foregoing  objections,  is  founded  either  on 
 ignorance  of  the  nature  of  the  controversy,  as  conducted  since 
 the  time  of  the  Reformation  ;  or  on  a  want  of  consideration 
 respecting  the  points  in  dispute.  Can  the  objector  be  really 
 unacquainted  with  the  fact,  that  the  dipping  of  adults  has 
 been  advocated  and  defended  in  volumes,  pamphlets,  and  tracts, 
 almost  countless  in  numbers,  and  as  elaborate,  inferential, 
 and  critical,  as  any  written  in  support  of  infant  sprinkling? 
 This,  being  known  to  all  persons,  versed  in  the  writings  of 
 our  opponents;  must  it,  therefore,  follow,  that  dipping  rege- 
 nerated and  well-taught  adults  only  cannot  be  agreeable  to 
 the  will  of  God.  If  it  be  so  plain,  that  the  unlettered 
 peasant  may  readily  discover  it  to  be  the  only  scriptural  way  ; 
 
EQUALLY  OPPOSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  577 
 
 then  all  this  preaching  and  book-making  on  the  subject  would 
 be  entirely  superfluous.  If  the  above  species  of  reasoning 
 really  militated  against  the  baptism  of  infants  ;  it  would  tell 
 equally  against  immersing  none  but  Christian  adults. 
 
 By  the  way,  let  our  opponents  only  point  out  one  passage 
 in  God's  Word,  clear,  plain,  and  unequivocal,  stating,  that 
 no  children  were  to  be  baptized  by  Christian  ministers,  as 
 they  had  been  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  that  of  John  ;  that 
 only  men  and  women,  duly  taught  the  truths  of  the  gospel — 
 the  sincere,  the  regenerate,  and  the  holy — were  to  be  baptized ; 
 and  undoubtedly  proving,  that  the  original  mode  of  baptism 
 was  always  and  only  by  putting  the  subjects  entirely  under 
 water — then  the  controversy  would  soon  be  at  an  end.  In  fact, 
 with  such  unequivocal  evidences  in  the  Word  of  God,  against 
 baby-sprinkling,  however  concisely  stated,  Pedobaptists  would 
 never  have  had  a  being  in  Christian  communions.  We  affuse 
 infants,  because  our  good  brethren  have  never  shown  us,  that  it 
 was  not  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  revealed  will  of  God.  They 
 have  never  produced  such  a  plain  passage  as  above  required  ; 
 and  all  their  reasonings  from  others  appear  to  us  defective, 
 and  totally  inconclusive  on  these  subjects.  Hence,  we  pursue 
 our  present  system  of  baptizing.  They,  doubtless,  deem  us 
 very  perverse  or  stupid ;  but  the  real  fact  is,  as  I  have  just 
 now  stated.  Respecting  the  cause  of  it,  they  must  form 
 their  own  opinions. 
 
 Moreover,  the  like  species  of  argument  would  equally  apply 
 to  all  other  matters  of  theological  controversy.  Numerous 
 works,  of  the  most  elaborate  and  critical  nature,  have  been 
 published  in  defence  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  his  atonement 
 for  sin,  the  personality  and  work  of  the  Spirit ;  the  inspiration 
 of  the  Bible,  and  its  sufficiency  as  a  complete  guide  to  holiness 
 and  heaven  ;  and,  indeed,  in  defence  of  almost  every  other 
 glorious  and  cardinal  doctrine  of  revelation.  But  does  this 
 circumstance  ever  suggest  to  the  mind  of  a  sincere  evangelical 
 protestant,  that,  because  so  much  learned  labour  has  been 
 employed  in  the  maintenance  of  these  great  truths,  therefore, 
 they  cannot  be  plainly  made  out  from  Scripture?  Or,  must 
 a  suspicion  hang  over  the  averments  of  their  divinity  ?  It 
 only  proves,  that  the  opponents  of  these  doctrines  have  been 
 numerous,  erudite,  and  persevering.  That  so  many  recondite 
 and  lengthy  defences  of  Infant  Baptism  have  appeared,  only 
 proves  that  much  has  been  written  against  it — as  there  has 
 been  against  almost  every  other  doctrine,  rite,  and  duty  of 
 
 BB 
 
578  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 divine  revelation ;    and  not   that,  consequently,  it  must   be 
 opposed  to  the  true  meaning  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
 
 Argument  VI. — You  take  more  pains  in  defending  Infant 
 Baptism  than  the  rite  is  really  worth. — To  them,  it  is  much 
 ado  about  nothing.  The  baby  we  baptize  is  such  a  tiny 
 creature ;  its  eyes  are  scarcely  open ;  it  hears  nothing  of  all 
 the  minister  says  ;  and  the  people  around  get  no  recognition 
 from  it.  And,  then,  so  little  water  is  sprinkled  over  it ;  the 
 words  pronounced  on  the  occasion  are  so  few ;  and  the  time 
 occupied  in  the  ceremony  is  so  brief,  that  it  seems  hardly 
 worth  doing.  Whereas,  on  the  other  hand — to  be  a  little 
 descriptive — when  a  man  of  six  feet,  or  a  woman  nearly  as 
 tall,  is  to  be  immersed,  it  presents  an  occasion  of  some  manifest 
 importance.  There  is  a  previous  examination  by  the  minister, 
 and,  perhaps,  too,  before  the  church.  Suitable  male  and 
 female  bathing  attire  is  made  for  the  solemn  and  ceremonious 
 occasion ;  and  then  public  notice  is  given  of  the  coming 
 event.  In  the  meantime,  pumps,  or  buckets,  are  employed, 
 probably,  half  the  preceding  night,  to  get  '  much  water  '  for 
 the  operation  ;  and  occasionally  a  few  buckets  of  hot  are  got 
 ready  to  be  slyly  thrown  into  the  '  sacred  flood.'  Then  the 
 candidates  are  attended  in  the  vestry  by  deacons  or  deaconesses 
 to  aid  them  in  stripping  and  dressing  for  the  dipping — as 
 bridegrooms  and  brides  are  provided  for  a  wedding.  Then 
 they  solemnly  walk  to  the  water's  side  ;  the  people  look  over 
 the  galleries  ;  and  the  choir  sings  an  encouraging  hymn,  to  a 
 lively  tune.  Then  the  minister  and  the  party  go  '  down  into 
 '  the  water ' — and  the  latter  are  plunged  backward  under  the 
 '  sanctifying  element.'  Then  the  baptizer  lifts  the  baptized 
 on  their  legs  in  the  '  sacred  pool,'  who  then  step  '  up  out  of 
 '  the  water,'  walk  off  to  the  vestry,  unrobe,  wipe  themselves 
 dry,  put  on  their  usual  apparel,  hang  up  the  wet  to  drain, 
 and,  perhaps,  take  a  glass  of  wine  or  warm  spirits  and  water, 
 to  prevent  a  chill.  They  are  then  regarded  as  duly  initiated 
 disciple*  of  Christ;  receive  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  and 
 are  recognized  as  dear  Christian  brothers  or  sisters  in  Christ. 
 Now,  it  is  not  surprising  that  an  opponent,  conversant  with 
 such  a  grand  and  bustling  service  as  this,  should  think  little 
 of  baby-sprinkling,  and  deem  it  hardly  worth  doing,  or 
 defending,  in  a  large  book  of  several  hundred  pages. 
 
 But  let  the  objector  now  turn  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's 
 Supper,  and  he  will  see,  that  this  might  also  be  described  as 
 a  very  small  matter — eating  a  little  morsel   of  bread    and 
 
 \ 
 
EQUALLY  OPPOSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  5  /  9 
 
 drinking  a  tiny  sup  of  wine — quite  as  simple  as  sprinkling 
 a  few  drops  of  water  on  a  baby's  forehead.  Nor  did  infant 
 circumcision  present  any  deed  very  sublime  and  imposing. 
 Under  the  law,  the  priest  or  the  clean  person  sprinkling  the 
 unclean,  with  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  or  with  a  little  water  from 
 the  tips  of  their  fingers,  apparently  performed  a  very  trivial 
 operation  ;  yet  we  all  know  the  results  were  of  great  import 
 and  of  vast  moment  to  the  subjects  acted  upon.  As  previously 
 remarked,  it  is  not  the  quantity  of  the  element  used,  nor 
 the  imposing  ceremonial  of  a  rite,  that  gives  it  significance 
 and  importance.  A  babe  is  as  immortal  as  an  adult  ;  and, 
 though  just  come  into  the  world,  is  of  much  more  promising 
 utility  to  the  cause  of  truth  than  an  old  man,  soon  to  go  out  of 
 it.  It  has  the  elements  of  intelligence,  vigour,  and  greatness  ; 
 and  may  be  the  medium  of  teaching  momentous  truth,  as 
 much  so  as  a  proselyted  heathen  prince.  Observe,  our  Lord 
 did  not  take  a  big  godly  man  by  the  hand,  or  even  a  stout 
 chubby  boy  or  girl  on  his  knee ;  but  a  little  child  or  infant 
 in  his  arms,  through  the  medium  of  which  to  teach  his 
 disciples  Christian  humility. 
 
 We  know  how  deep  an  interest  the  Saviour,  his  disciples, 
 and  other  good  and  wise  men  and  women  of  old,  took  in  the 
 young — in  their  piety,  education,  and  ultimate  salvation. 
 Surely,  then,  the  great  concern  we  take  in  defending  what 
 we  believe  to  be  their  rights,  and  in  the  defence  of  what  we 
 regard  as  the  duty  of  the  Christian  church  towards  them,  must 
 not  be  viewed  as  about  a  slight  affair,  though  the  act  of  their 
 dedication  to  God  be  concise,  and  the  elements  employed — 
 like  those  of  the  Lord's  Supper — are  materially  inconsiderable. 
 Baptist  parents  do  not  talk  of  their  little  ones  as  insignificant 
 in  nature,  nor  look  upon  them  as  trifling  things,  when  they 
 dedicate  them  to  God,  by  supplication  and  prayer ;  nor  do 
 they  think  it  a  small  matter  when  they  commence  training 
 them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  If  any 
 sin  can  be  fairly  laid  to  the  charge  of  religious  people,  in  respect 
 of  infants,  it  is,  after  all,  that  they  think  too  little  of  them,  and 
 are  too  listless  in  conveying  to  their  minds  the  knowledge  of 
 divine  truth,  according  to  their  baptismal  claims. 
 
 Further,  if  we  are  supposed  to  expend  too  much  time, 
 thought,  and  money,  in  defending  what  our  opponents  deem 
 an  insignificant  rite;  do  they  not  equally  devote  too  much 
 zeal,  labour,  and  cash,  in  opposing  it?  Thousands  of  sermons 
 are  preached  every  year  against  this  service.  Books  and 
 tracts  by  cart-loads  are  circulated — for  the  most  part,  quietly 
 
580  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 and  privately — among  the  lower  classes,  warning  them  against 
 practising  or  countenancing  such  a  service.  All  the  stronger 
 passions  of  Baptist  bosoms  are  roused  into  action  against 
 baby- sprinkling.  Neither  the  diminutive  size  of  the  subjects, 
 nor  the  simplicity  of  the  ceremony,  is  now  taken  into  calcu- 
 lation. The  evil,  it  seems,  is  very  great — though  the  babies 
 are  ever  so  small — and  is  deemed  worthy  of  all  the  means 
 they  can  employ  for  its  prevention.  I  think  it  may  be  safely 
 assumed,  that  though  the  Wesleyan  and  Independent  bodies, 
 in  this  country,  are  probably  six  times  as  large  as  the  Baptist 
 denominations ;  where  the  two  former  preach  one  sermon  in 
 defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  the  latter  deliver  twenty  against  it. 
 Indeed,  it  Is  the  stock  in  trade  of  many  proselyting  Baptist 
 ministers ;  and  they  are  most  diligent  in  displaying  and 
 disposing  of  their  commodity.  If  there  be  any  fuss,  bustle, 
 or  contention,  about  baby-sprinkling,  the  Baptists  directly 
 make  it,  or  mainly  cause  it  to  be  made  by  others. 
 
 Viewing  the  case  in  perfect  contrast  to  themselves,  surely 
 we  may  consistently  defend  our  practice  with  as  much  zeal 
 as  they  display  in  opposing  it !  If  they  deem  their  labours 
 worthily  employed  against  baby-sprinkling;  they  cannot  fairly 
 deem  ours  frivolously  bestowed  in  defending  our  convictions 
 and  procedure  on  the  question.  If  our  battlements  are 
 regarded  as  worthy  of  so  much  assault  by  our  antagonists, 
 they  will  naturally  be  viewed  as  entitled  to  strenuous  defence 
 by  ourselves.  The  subject  need  not  be  considered  of  less 
 importance  on  our  side  than  on  theirs.  Let  them  cease  the 
 attack,  and  we  shall  soon  cease  the  defence.  How  much 
 more  the  dipping  of  men  and  women  is  worthy  of  all  the 
 expositions  and  defences  of  our  brethren,  than  Infant  Baptism 
 is  entitled  to  ours  ;  will  be  determined  differently,  as  parties 
 view  these  rites  and  services  to  be  either  Scriptural  or  of 
 mere  human  dictation. 
 
 The  foregoing  remarks  remind  one  of  certain  Pcdobaptists, 
 both  ministers  and  people,  who  appear  to  make  very  light  of 
 this  initiatory  sacrament.  They  will  not  oppose  it,  they  will 
 not  defend  it ;  yet,  as  it  is  customary,  they  regularly  practise 
 it.  Now,  the  truth  really  is,  these  people  have  never 
 examined  much  into  the  question ;  and  know  little  about 
 it.  They  assume,  that  •  had  it  been  a  matter  of  moment, 
 1  they  should  have  received  direct,  ample,  and  explicit 
 ■  instruction  from  God,  as  to  both  its  mode  and  subjects.' 
 To  them  the  matter  is  all  in  a  maze  ;  and  they  wonder  how 
 many  learned  and  intelligent  pastors  and   their  flocks   can 
 
EQUALLY  (tPPOSE  ADULT  DIPriXG.  581 
 
 take  so  much  pains  about  it.  This  indifference,  however, 
 is  manifestly  based  on  their  inattention  to  the  merits  of  the 
 question.  What  men  view  confusedly,  they  feel  unimpressively, 
 or  not  at  all.  Hence,  they  make  light  of  it,  as  well  as  of  many 
 other  uninvestigated  matters.  They  have  no  distinct  idea  on 
 the  subject;  and,  therefore,  are  little  affected  or  influenced 
 by  it.  They  feel  surprised  it  should  occupy  so  much  of  other 
 people's  thought,  labour,  and  time.  On  some  other  points, 
 equally  obscure,  ritual,  and  unimportant,  they  are  most 
 strenuous,  anxious,  andresolute.  But,  then,  they  have  examined 
 them ;  have  formed  a  distinct  idea  about  them,  and  believe 
 them  to  be  divine.  Now,  till  this  be  the  case  on  the  subjects 
 and  modes  of  baptism  also,  their  notions  concerning  this  rite 
 will  be  both  vague  and  evanescent.  Unprepared  to  sustain 
 their  avowed  doctrine  and  practice  against  clever  antagonists, 
 they  seek  refuge  in  the  common  plea,  that  it  is  not  worth 
 their  grave  investigation.  In  fact,  you  may  take  it  for  granted, 
 that  whenever  you  meet  with  Pedobaptists  treating  this 
 question  as  one  not  worthy  of  an  earnest  defence,  you  may 
 rest  assured  they  are  quite  at  sea  respecting  it.  They  are 
 like  ignorant  politicians  who  care  nothing  about  politics  ;  or 
 like  unread  persons  who  care  little  about  literature ;  or  like 
 unmusical  brains  who  think  little  about  chants  or  anthems. 
 What  we  religiously  practise,  in  obedience  to  divine  law  or 
 inspired  intimations,  we  ought  to  be  willing  to  defend  to  the 
 utmost  of  our  ability. 
 
 Aegumext  VII. — Pedobaptists  found  their  doctrine  of 
 Infant  Baptism  on  a  very  contracted  basis. — This  and  a 
 preceding  objection  may  appear  at  variance  ;  but  we  will 
 assume  they  come  from  different  quarters.  Some  of  our 
 opponents  would  require  of  us  not  simply  a  few  texts,  but 
 even  the  amount  of  several  chapters,  on  which  to  support  our 
 practice.  This  charge  will  probably  be  brought  against  the  writer 
 of  the  present  discussion,  as  having  made  one  short  sentence, 
 in  Paul's  letter  to  the  congregation  at  Corinth,  the  textual 
 ground  of  his  arguments  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism.  This, 
 however,  is  not  precisely  a  full  view  of  the  subject.  Though 
 he  has  taken  the  apostle's  language  to  the  Corinthians  as  the 
 basis  of  his  dissertation  ;  he  has  frequently  referred  to  other 
 parts  of  the  Word  of  God,  as  explaining  and  corroborating 
 his  views  of  that  important  passage.  He  might  have  taken 
 several  other  foundation  passages,  and  adduced  the  present,  in 
 explanation  and  confirmation  of  the  same  doctrine. 
 
 For  reasons  previously  assigned,  he  preferred  Paul's  allusion 
 
582  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 to  any  other  expressions  the  New  Testament  afforded  him,  as 
 the  principal  basis  of  his  subsequent  reasonings.  Some 
 writers  start  from  the  commission ;  some  dwell  especially  on 
 family  baptisms ;  and  others  on  circumcision  ;  making  all 
 other  evidence  auxiliary  to  their  main  proposition — and,  yet, 
 all  arrive  at  the  like  practical  conclusions.  However  concise 
 the  words  of  the  apostle,  they  are  sufficient  of  themselves, 
 with  the  Mosaic  narrative  before  us,  to  maintain  and  defend 
 our  practice  against  all  that  ever  was,  and,  I  believe,  that 
 ever  can  be,  fairly  brought  against  it  from  the  Scriptures. 
 The  argument  is  open  to  scrutiny  and  attack  ;  and  if  proved 
 to  be  irrelevant  or  invalid,  it  will  be  candidly  abandoned  ; 
 but  not  before.  The  reader,  however,  will  find  every  text  of 
 Scripture,  and  every  material  argument  and  criticism  usually 
 adduced  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  interwoven  with  the 
 materials  of  this  discourse — not  as  leading  evidence — but  as 
 subsidiary  proofs,  which  are  adduced  in  reply  to  the  various 
 objections  brought  by  our  opponents  to  our  practice.  In 
 fact,  I  am  not  aware  that  anything  important  on  the  question, 
 on  either  side,  has  been  omitted  in  the  present  pages. 
 
 Few  people  are  aware  on  what  limited  or  isolated  portions 
 of  divine  truth  certain  doctrines  and  doings  are  based,  and 
 that,  too,  properly  and  firmly.  Take  the  Lord's  Supper  as  an 
 instance.  We  have  its  institution  at  first  by  Christ,  and  one 
 clear  but  incidental  allusion  to  it  afterwards  in  the  New 
 Testament.  We  have  nothing  more  that  we  can  confidently 
 refer  to  in  support  of  its  observance  and  perpetuity.  Take 
 the  change  of  the  Sabbath.  One  or  two  indirect  declarations 
 are  all  the  inspired  men  afford  us  on  this  subject ;  yet  these 
 are  deemed  sufficient  to  induce  all  but  a  universal  observance 
 of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the  seventh.  It  will 
 be  found,  that  many  sentiments  entertained,  and  duties  per- 
 formed, are  grounded  on  single  passages  of  God's  word,  or 
 deduced  by  inference  from  some  few  sentences  or  allusions  of 
 the  sacred  writers.  He  that  objects  to  receive  any  part  of 
 the  will  of  God,  because  he  has  not  given  it  line  upon  line, 
 betrays  a  disposition  not  to  acquiesce  in  it  at  all,  were  it 
 reiterated  a  dozen  times,  and  in  the  plainest  forms  of  speech. 
 A  single  command  from  a  master  should  be  sufficient  for  his 
 servant ;  and  he  is  a  naughty  dependent,  subject,  or  son,  who 
 insists  on  having  it  repeatedly  enjoined,  before  he  will  obey  it. 
 One  thing  is  hardly  questionable,  that  if  the  apostle  had  but 
 once  stated  in  simple  terms,  what  I  have  proved  his  language 
 clearly    and    necessarily   implies — that    '  some    hundreds    of 
 
EQUALLY  OrPOSE  ADULT  DITPING.  5 S3 
 
 *  thousands  of  infants  and  children  were  baptized  by  God 
 '  himself  in  the  Red  Sea,'  and  that  this  ancient  baptism  was 
 "a  '  pattern  and  prelude  of  baptism  under  the  gospel,'  there 
 had  probably  never  existed  an  Antipedobaptist  society  in 
 the  world. 
 
 But,  may  I  be  allowed  again  to  ask,  Can  our  opponents 
 find  a  single  instance  in  the  Word  of  God  commanding  the 
 baptism  of  such  characters  as  they  contend  should  only 
 undergo  this  rite — people  trained  up  to  adult  age  in  the 
 knowledge  and  belief  of  the  gospel  ?  If  once  discovered, 
 how  would  they  dwell  and  enlarge  upon  it,  as  conclusive  in 
 their  favour !  But  not  a  case  nor  a  text,  of  the  kind  can  they 
 discover  in  the  whole  inspired  volume.  They  cannot  place 
 their  hand  on  a  single  passage  which  plainly  says  or  clearly 
 implies,  that  spiritual  regeneration,  or  a  good  Christian 
 education,  is  a  necessary  prerequisite  to  Christian  baptism. 
 Nor  can  they  discover  the  slightest  intimation,  in  the  entire 
 compass  of  the  holy  oracles,  that  infants  should  not  still,  as  far 
 as  capable,  participate  in  all  the  rites  and  privileges,  enjoyed 
 by  their  parents,  in  the  church  of  God.  Were  such  a  text 
 to  be  found,  though  it  were  alone  in  God's  book,  and  were  it 
 as  concise  as  Paul's  reference  to  the  baptism  in  the  Red  Sea; 
 our  opponents  would  triumphantly  avail  themselves  of  it 
 against  Infant  Baptism,  and  feel  that  they  required  nothing 
 further  to  establish,  on  an  immovable  foundation,  the  doctrine 
 of  exclusive  adult  believers'  baptism  ! 
 
 Further,  if  only  one  new  and  well  authenticated  emendation 
 of  the  Greek  Testament  were  discovered,  stating,  or  satisfac- 
 torily implying,  that  infants  were  not  baptized  by  the  apostles, 
 and  that  these  holy  and  inspired  men  were  verily  opposed  to 
 the  ceremony  ;  it  would  .be  hailed  as  a  heavenly  wind-fall, 
 and  cited  in  a  thousand  publications,  as  a  striking  proof,  that 
 baby-sprinkling  was  unlawful,  and  should  no  longer  be 
 administered  among  Christian  people  !  If,  further,  they  could 
 only  find  one  verse  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  proving,  from 
 Jewish  purifications  and  proselyte  baptism,  that  children  and 
 infants  were  precluded  from  them  ;  and  that,  in  administering 
 this  rite,  the  priests  themselves  actually  dipped  the  unclean, 
 instead  of  sprinkling  them  with  water  ;  what  joy  and  rejoicing 
 would  there  be  in  their  ranks  ;  and  their  many  pulpits  would 
 ring  with  loud  and  exulting  acclamations  !  Or,  if  it  could  be 
 demonstrated  by  but  one  single  passage,  that  Baptizo  did  really, 
 truly,  unequivocally,  mean  to  dip  under  water,  and  nothing 
 less  or  more  ;  Ave  may  feel  confident  of  the  delight  with  which 
 
584  ARGUMENTS  AGAINST  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 such  a  discovery  would  be  hailed  among  our  earnest 
 immersionists  !  In  a  word,  when  they  can  produce  a  single 
 text  supporting  these  practices  more  plainly  and  firmly  than  " 
 that  we  have  cited  from  Paul,  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism, 
 we  shall  he  prepared  to  surrender  our  special  argument,  and 
 labour  to  raise  our  assumptions  on  some  other  Scriptural  data. 
 
 In  perusing  the  numerous  successive  volumes  written  by  our 
 opponents,  in  support  of,  what  they  term,  adult  believers' 
 immersion  only,  you  will  discover  not  only  how,  in  most 
 instances,  one  author  follows  the  course  pursued  by  his 
 predecessors,  but  also  how  very  few  are  the  texts  on  which 
 all  of  them  really  wely,  in  order  to  maintain  their  practice. 
 For  example — to  prove  that  people  should  be  made  disciples 
 before  they  are  baptized,  we  are  always  and,  as  far  as  I 
 recollect,  only  referred  to  John  iv.  I  :  '  Jesus  made  and 
 '  baptized  more  disciples  than  John.'  For  the  baptism  of 
 spiritual  believers  we  are  invariably  pointed  to  Mark  xvi.  16  : 
 '  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,'  and  to 
 Acts  viii.  37  :  '  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart  thou 
 '  mayest  be  baptized  ' — though  this  latter  passage  is  deemed 
 an  interpolated  and  unauthorized  sentence  by  nearly  all 
 competent  scholars  ;  while  the  former,  if  authentic,  is  freely 
 admitted  to  have  no  reference  whatever  to  infants  or  young 
 children.  As  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  two  or  three  texts  are 
 chiefly  relied  on.  Mr.  Noel  lays  his  chief  stress  on  that  of 
 the  Eunuch.  Mode,  p.  92.  Mr.  Pengelly,  on  that  of  Christ 
 baptized  in  the  Jordan,  p.  37.  And  most  others  rely  on  the 
 expression, '  Buried  with  him  in  baptism.'  None  of  which  pas- 
 sages, fairly  construed,  will  support  their  system  of  dipping. 
 
 To  hear  a  Baptist  talk  or  preach  on  this  subject,  one  might 
 fancy  the  New  Testament  was  full  of  passages  clearly  and 
 directly  proving,  that  none  but  regenerated  and  well- trained 
 adult  believers  were  baptized  by  John,  or  by  any  immediately 
 succeeding  administrators  of  this  rite.  And  that,  as  to  the 
 act  of  dipping  them,  it  was  discoverable  in  almost  every  page 
 of  the  New  Testament !  That  these  writers  have  misinterpreted 
 the  few  texts  on  which  they  chiefly  rely,  in  defence  of  both 
 their  mode  and  subjects  of  baptism,  I  devoutly  believe,  and 
 think  I  have  clearly  shown.  In  the  present  remarks,  my  aim 
 is  simply  to  notice,  that,  if  I  may  be  regarded  as  building  my 
 argument  on  a  contracted  basis,  our  opponents  are  confessedly 
 doing  the  like.  Which  side  of  this  debate  has  the  better  and 
 broader  foundation  for  its  superstructure,  let  the  intelligent 
 and  impartial  critic  decide. 
 
EQUALLY  OPI-OSE  ADULT  DIPPING.  585 
 
 This  section  may  be  suitably  closed  with  the  following 
 extract  from  Mr.  Isaacs'  valuable  work, '  Baptism  Discussed.' — 
 ■  Having  replied  to  the  objections  against  Infant  Baptism,  it 
 'may  not  be  improper  to  turn  the  tables  upon  our  opponents, 
 *  and  to  show  them  that  their  believers'  baptism  is  not  the 
 '  believers'  baptism  of  the  New  Testament.  Our  Lord  and 
 'his  apostles  placed  baptism  at  the  commencement  of  a 
 '  Christian  life;  while  our  opposing  brethren  do  not  administer 
 'it  till  the  candidate  has  made  considerable  progress  hi 
 '  Christianity.     I  will  enumerate  several  particulars. 
 
 1. — '  The  apostles  never  delayed  baptism  after  a  person 
 '  believed  in  the  divine  mission  of  our  Lord.  If  our  brethren 
 '  followed  their  example  they  would  baptize  children  of  three 
 '  or  four  years  of  age,  because  at  that  period  they  believe  in 
 'Christ;  and  then  the  controversy  might  be  ended;  for 
 '  it  would  not  be  worth  while  to  contend  for  an  earlier 
 '  administration. 
 
 2. — '  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  apostles  baptized  "  unto 
 '  repentance."  That  cannot  be  done  by  those  who  require 
 '  repentance  unto  life  as  a  necessary  preliminary. 
 
 3.—'  Paul  and  the  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
 '  were  baptized  "for  the  remission  of  sins."  Our  brethren 
 '  contend  for  justifying  faith  as  a  qualification  ;  and  they 
 'grant  that  justifying  faith  includes  forgiveness;  they  cannot 
 '  therefore  baptize  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
 
 4. — '  The  apostles  exhorted  people  to  be  baptized,  that 
 '  they  might  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Our  brethren 
 '  look  for  proofs  of  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Ghost  before 
 '  they  give  the  ordinance  once. 
 
 5. — '  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  administered  the  rite 
 '  before  they  taught  the  peculiarities  of  the  Christian  religion. 
 '  Our  brethren  require  a  knowledge  of  these  peculiarities  as  a 
 '  qualification  for  it. 
 
 6. — 'The  primitive  Christians  "  were  baptized  into  Christ." 
 'Our brethren  insist  upon  our  being  in  Christ  preparatory  to 
 '  the  ordinance. 
 
 7. — '  The  apostles  placed  baptism  before  the  putting  on  of 
 '  Christ.  Gal.  iii.  27.      Our  brethren  the  contrary. 
 
 8. — 'Baptism  stands  before  sanctification.  1  Cor.  vi.  11.' 
 1  And  is  the  appointed  means  of  producing  it.  Eph.  v.  2(5. 
 '  Our  brethren  reverse  this  order. 
 
 9. — 'The  apostle  says,  "  Baptism  does  save  us."  And  the 
 '  apostle  Paul,  to  the  same  purpose,  says,  "  He  saved  us  by 
 '  the  washing  of  regeneration,"  &c.     Our  brethren  require  us 
 
 bb  2 
 
586  OBJECTIONS  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 '  to  be  in  a  state  of  salvation  prior  to  baptism  ;  and,  therefore, 
 '  according  to  them,  there  is  no  sense  in  which  we  can  be 
 '  said  to  be  saved  by  baptism. 
 
 '  I  cannot  find  any  other  ends  of  the  ordinance  mentioned 
 1  in  the  New  Testament,  than  what  are  contained  in  the  above 
 1  particulars.  Now,  as  none  of  these  ends  are  answered  by 
 *  the  adult  washings  of  our  brethren,  I  am  quite  at  a  loss  to 
 '  know  what  utility  they  possess.  All  the  above  particulars 
 '  apply  to  the  baptism  of  infants  of  three  years  old,  and  the 
 1  more  important  ones  to  infants  of  any  age.  It  is  not 
 f  necessary  that  all  the  ends  should  meet  in  every  individual 
 '  who  receives  it.  Our  Lord  was  not  baptized  unto  repentance, 
 '  or  for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  but  that  he  might  be  enabled 
 '  "to  fulfil  all  righteousness."  '  p.  2G0. 
 
 SECTION  ELEVENTH.— Most  objections  raised  against 
 Infant  Baptism  now,  would  have  equally  applied  to  the 
 baptisms  in  the  Red  Sea,  and  under  the  ceremonial  law. — 
 To  this  topic  we  have  occasionally,  if  not  repeatedly,  alluded 
 before.  Still,  at  the  risk  of  being  charged  with  needless,  if 
 not  endless,  repetitions,  we  must  recur  to  it  more  in  detail, 
 and  present  the  argument  in  a  more  concise  and  connected 
 point  of  observation.  This  part  of  our  discussion  is  too 
 important  in  the  inquiry,  and  too  relevant  to  our  purpose,  to 
 be  partially  noticed  or  hastily  dismissed.  I  must  here 
 premise,  that  though  we  have  not  based  baptism  on  the  same 
 ground  as  circumcision ;  yet,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that 
 many  of  the  objections  of  our  opponents  to  this  Christian 
 ordinance,  equally  apply  to  the  admitted  facts  and  principles 
 involved  in  that  ancient  Abrahamic  institution.  Indeed,  it  is 
 surprising  to  hear  intelligent  and  Christian  men  arguing  as 
 if,  by  circumcising  little  children,  God  had  performed  an  act 
 not  only  useless,  but  absolutely  ridiculous.  They  do  so,  not 
 directly,  but  by  inference.  For  example,  they  contend  that 
 it  must  be  absurd  to  baptize  babies,  because  they  cannot 
 understand  or  consent  to  the  ceremony !  But  it  must  have 
 been  equally  so  to  have  circumcised  children  of  eight  days 
 old  !  They  argue  that  the  baptism  of  infants  must  be  useless, 
 because  children  might  have  every  advantage  without  it. 
 But  the  like  would  have  applied  to  infants  consecrated  to 
 Abraham.  In  a  word,  whether  sensible  of  it  or  not,  they 
 charge  God  foolishly,  or  as  acting  on  principles  which  will 
 not  bear  the  test  of  a  fair  and  manly  investigation  ! 
 
 Objection  I. — Infants,  having  no  religious  knowledge, 
 
ANSWERED  BY  THAT  IN  THE  SEA.  58/ 
 
 nor  faith,  nor  piety,  nor  personal  guilt,  cannot  be  fit  subjects 
 for  baptism. — But  the  like  was  the  case  with  the  ancient 
 Hebrew  infants.  And  if  the  objection  be  valid  in  the  former 
 instance,  it  must  have  been  so  in  the  latter.  The  young 
 Israelites  were  as  ignorant,  faithless,  guiltless,  and  as  destitute 
 of  manifested  religion,  as  any  that  were  born  in  the  days  of 
 Paul,  or  as  any  existing  at  the  present  time.  Yet,  the 
 blessed  God,  who  is  infinitely  wiser  than  we  are,  and  who 
 perfectly  knows  the  proper  subjects  for  this  ordinance,  actually 
 baptized  hundreds  of  thousands  of  these  little  ones  in  the  Red 
 Sea,  as  well  as  having  caused  millions  of  them  to  be  baptized 
 afterwards.  Paul  pleads  this  fact  for  our  learning  and 
 guidance.  So  also,  without  faith,  knowledge,  guilt,  or 
 religion,  Jehovah  caused  multitudes  of  children  to  be  cir- 
 cumcised, and  then  took  them  into  a  religious  covenant  with 
 himself.  These  apparent  disqualifications,  therefore,  can  be 
 no  just  obstacle  to  the  baptism  of  infants  now. 
 
 Objection  II. —  Children  may  have  all  the  advantages  of 
 religious  instruction  without  baptism  as  well  as  with  it. — 
 This,  too,  might  have  been  the  case  with  the  young  Israelites 
 in  the  wilderness  and  in  Canaan.  But  God,  in  wisdom  and 
 love,  baptized  them  first ;  and  the  fact  of  his  doing  so  shows 
 that,  according  to  his  plan,  they  would  not  have  been  properly 
 entitled  to  these  privileges  without  a  due  initiation  into  them. 
 The  Abrahamic  covenant  blessings  might  have  been  enjoyed 
 without  circumcision  ;  but  God  ordered  all  the  male  infants 
 to  be  first  circumcised.  Baptists  might  admit  persons  to  full 
 communion  in  their  societies  without  dipping  them  ;  but  yet 
 they  dip  them  first.  The  possession  of  property  is  one  thing; 
 a  legitimate  title  to  it  is  another.  Besides,  the  baptism  of  a 
 real  Christian  adult  confers  not  a  single  benefit  or  privilege 
 which  millions  do  not  as  fully  enjoy  without  being  immersed. 
 Still  our  opponents  contend  that  all  of  them  should  first  be 
 thoroughly  washed.     This  objection  is  also  invalid. 
 
 Objection  III. — Religion  is  a  personal  thing,  which 
 children  cannot  possess,  and  should  not  therefore  be  religiously 
 baptized. — This,  however,  would  have  held  equally  true  of 
 the  children  baptized  in  the  sea,  circumcised  to  the  Abrahamic 
 covenant,  or  dedicated  to  Christ  by  a  Baptist  minister  ;  for 
 personal  religion  was  then,  and  still  is,  as  requisite  in  those 
 cases  as  in  our  water-baptism.  If  by  personal  piety,  we  are 
 to  understand  the  regenerating  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
 it  is  admitted,  that  a  child  may  be  the  subject  of  this  gracious 
 work  as  well  as  an  adult;  and,  probably,  it  takes  place  ten  times 
 
588  OBJECTIONS  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 as  often.  But  where  is  it  said,  that  vital  religion  is  essential  to 
 a  valid  baptism  ?  It  surely  was  not  so  in  the  case  of  the 
 Israelites  ;  nor  in  that  of  the  disciples  of  John  ;  nor  those  of  our 
 Lord's  apostles ;  nor  is  it  so  now,  even  among  the  Baptists 
 themselves,  as  the  consecration  of  a  hypocrite  is  as  passable, 
 and  as  permanent,  in  its  ecclesiastical  character,  as  that  of  a 
 person  whose  religion  is  the  divine  work  of  grace  in  the  heart. 
 To  confound  profession  with  genuine  piety,  would  outrage  all 
 the  great  principles  of  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
 
 Objection  IV. —  Children  ought  not  to  be  bound  by  bap- 
 tismal covenants,  to  which  the//  cannot  give  their  intelligent 
 consent. — So  the  mere  rational  Hebrew  might  have  objected, 
 respecting  the  baptismal  covenant  in  the  Red  Sea,  the  covenant 
 of  circumcision,  the  covenant  of  Sinai,  and  other  subsequent 
 Jewish  covenants.  Yet,  as  our  opponents  admit,  God  bound 
 tens  of  thousands  of  babies  in  these  covenants,  by  circumcision, 
 or  by  baptism,  without  their  knowledge  or  consent.  So 
 Baptist  parents  often  bind  their  children  by  deeds,  wills, 
 and  conditions,  of  which  the  little  ones,  at  the  time, 
 are  totally  unconscious  ;  and  of  which  they  can  come  to  the 
 knowledge  afterwards  only  by  hear-say — just  as  adult  Pedo- 
 baptists  subsequently  learn  that  they  were  dedicated  to  Christ 
 by  baptism  in  childhood  ;  or  just  as  the  grown-up  children  of 
 our  Baptist  friends  discover  that  they  were  consecrated  to  Christ 
 in  infancy,  without  the  symbolical  purification  of  water. 
 
 Objection  V. — Infants  mag  be  saved  without  baptism  as 
 well  as  ivith  it. — So  the  infants  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea 
 might  have  been  saved  without  their  baptism  ;  and  so  might 
 pious  unbaptized  adults,  in  every  part  and  age  of  the  world. 
 The  male  seed  of  Abraham  might  have  been  saved  without 
 circumcision,  as  well  as  the  female  ;  and  so  might  the  children 
 of  Baptists  without  being  formally  dedicated  to  God.  But, 
 may  not  children  be  the  subjects  of  any  rite  or  service  which 
 does  not  save  their  souls  ?  Are  professors  of  the  gospel  to 
 do  nothing  but  what  is  saving — nothing,  as  an  act  of  obedience 
 to  the  divine  will ;  to  preserve  the  orders  of  God's  house,  or 
 to  confer  on  their  offspring  a  good  standing  in  religious 
 society,  and  proper  relative  advantages  in  the  seminary  of  the 
 gospel?  This  objection  involves  a  mean,  mercenary,  and 
 untenable  principle  of  religious  reasoning. 
 
 Objection  VI. — Christian  baptism  is  a  New  Testament. 
 rite,  but  you  regard  it  as  an  Old  Testament  Institution. — 
 I  reply,  preaching,  prayer,  praise,  and  adoration,  are  New 
 Testament  duties,  performed  by  all  devout  disciples  of  Christ; 
 
ANSWEHED  BY  THAT  IN  THE  SKA.  5S9 
 
 yet,  they  were  also  Old  Testament  duties,  performed  by  all 
 holy  Israelites.  A  deed  is  not  less  Christian  because  it  was 
 also  Jewish.  Infant  Baptism  of  ancient  date  intimates,  that 
 it  was  essential  in  the  remotest  times  of  the  church  ;  and  its 
 perpetuity  under  the  gospel  dispensation  assures  us,  that  it  is 
 still  an  important  institution,  and  to  be  continued  for  ever. 
 It  might  be  said,  with  equal  truth,  the  Christian  Passover  is 
 a  Xew  Testament  ceremonial ;  but  that  says  nothing  against 
 its  having  been,  in  another  form,  an  Old  Testament  one  also. 
 In  fact,  as  previously  shown,  the  latter  contains  little 
 or  nothing  new ;  or  that  had  not  pre-existed,  though  its 
 associations  and  developments  were  not  precisely  similar. 
 
 Objection  VII. — Adult  baptism  is  expressly  affirmed — 
 Infant  Baptism  is  founded  only  on  inference. — The  like  may  be 
 averred  of  the  people  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea.  None  are  literally 
 named.  The  presence  of  women  and  children  is  only  implied  ; 
 and,  yet,  the  latter  were  as  certainly  present  and  baptized  as 
 the  men.  In  all  cases  a  fair  deduction  is  as  valid  as  a  positive 
 declaration ;  and  is  sometimes  acted  on  when  unequivocal 
 injunctions  are  neglected,  and  that,  too,  by  our  opponents,  as 
 well  as  by  other  Christian  people.  Males  only  are  said  to 
 have  communed  at  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  but  our  brethren  infer, 
 that  females  also  partook  of  the  sacramental  elements  ;  and 
 they  act  on  the  inference,  and  disregard  the  literal  language  of 
 Scripture  !  To  keep  the  seventh  day,  is  plainly  and  positively 
 commanded,  while  the  observance  of  the  first,  instead  of  it,  is 
 founded  only  on  inference  ;  and,  yet,  our  objectors,  with  very 
 few  exceptions,  neglect  the  positive  command,  and  act  only  on 
 the  inference  !  Our  opponents  have  positive  evidence  that 
 none  but  persons  immediately  proselyted  from  Judaism  and 
 heathenism  were  baptized  by  the  apostles  ;  yet,  they  infer 
 that  adult  Christians — trained  and  educated  in  gospel  principles 
 — may  be  also  baptized;  and,  without  the  least  positive  proof, 
 they  immerse  only  the  latter!  In  fact,  numerous  cases  might 
 be  named  to  shew  that  our  opponents  frequently  and  entirely 
 disregard  facts,  examples,  and  unequivocal  injunctions,  and 
 act  on  mere  deductions  !  And,  yet,  they  gravely  condemn  us 
 for  being  guided  by  inference  in  the  case  of  Infant  Baptism  ! 
 That  our  conclusion  in  favour  of  baptizing  children,  is  drawn 
 from  better  premises  than  those  on  which  the  baptism  of 
 well-instructed,  regenerated,  and  pious  Christian  adults,  is 
 founded,  I  think  most  competent  and  candid  judges  would 
 readily  decide. 
 
 Objection  VIII. — Belief  is  placed   before   baptism   in 
 
.590  OBJECTIONS  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 most  statements  of  this  gospel  ordinance. — And  so  belief 
 must  have  been  exercised  by  the  adult  Hebrews  before  their 
 baptism  in  the  Red  Sea.  The  grown-up  people  believed 
 Moses,  or  they  would  not  have  followed  him  out  of  Egypt 
 into  the  desert  and  the  deep.  Ex.  iv.  29-31.  Abraham's 
 faith  preceded  his  own  circumcision  and  that  of  his  household. 
 Before  a  Baptist  parent  dedicates  his  child  to  God,  he,  himself, 
 must  have  faith  in  Christ.  But  faith  was  not  required  of 
 Abraham's  infant  dependents,  nor  of  the  infants  baptized  in  the 
 sea,  nor  at  Corinth,  nor  at  the  Jordan,  as  a  prerequisite  to 
 infant  baptism,  infant  salvation,  infant  circumcision,  or  infant 
 dedication  in  the  vestry  of  a  Baptist  chapel.  Our  friends 
 usually  consecrate  their  children  to  God,  before  the  latter 
 have  the  least  notion  of  faith ;  why,  then,  may  not  our  little 
 ones  have  a  capacity  for  baptism  without  faith  ?  Let  it  be 
 remembered,  that  systematic  teaching  of  religion  is  placed 
 after  baptism  in  Christ's  commission  ;  and  that  water-baptism 
 is  placed  before  spiritual  baptism  in  his  conversation  with 
 Nicodemus.  I  may  add,  that  in  the  language  of  the  gospels, 
 love  goes  before  salvation,  holiness  before  heaven,  and  labour 
 before  eating.  Must  infants,  then,  love  or  be  lost,  be  holy 
 or  forfeit  heaven,  and  labour  or  starve  ! 
 
 Objection  IX. — Many  baptized  children  are  neither 
 morally  nor  spiritually  better  for  having  undergone  this 
 ceremony. — The  same  may  be  said  of  thousands  baptized  unto 
 Moses  by  Jehovah  himself,  for  they  perished  in  the  wilderness. 
 The  case  is  strikingly  exemplified  among  those  of  twenty 
 years  old  and  upwards,  who  were  baptized  in  the  sea,  nearly 
 all  of  whom  died  in  the  desert  because  of  their  transgressions. 
 Yet  God,  who  foresaw  this,  baptized  them  all,  old  and  young, 
 in  a  manner  the  most  solemn  and  impressive,  in  the  cloud  and 
 in  the  sea.  Millions  of  children,  afterwards,  circumcised  and 
 baptized  at  God's  command,  were  not  personally  the  better  for 
 it,  either  morally  or  spiritually.  Numerous  children,  dedicated 
 to  God  by  Baptist  parents,  openly  or  privately,  are  no  better 
 for  it.  The  like  may  be  said  of  thousands  of  adults,  dipped 
 by  some  of  the  greatest  divines  of  their  own  denominations ;  for 
 they  certainly  are  no  better  for  it.  Many  who  are  religiously 
 and  carefully  educated,  who  have  long  heard  the  gospel,  and 
 been  taught  at  home  by  Christian  parents,  are  no  better  lor  it. 
 How  weak  and  frivolous  must  that  objection  be,  which,  when 
 its  principle  is  fairly  and  extensively  applied,  would  not 
 negative  Infant  Baptism  only,  but  numerous  other  admitted, 
 important,    and    imperative,    duties    of   Christianity !       The 
 
ANSWERED  BY  THAT  IN  THE  SEA.  591 
 
 question  is,  not  success,  but  duty.  It  is  enough  for  us,  that 
 Infant  Baptism  was  intended  and  calculated  to  benefit  the 
 young  ;  and  so  was  infant  circumcision — or  the  little  Hebrews 
 would  not  have  been  subject  to  these  ceremonies  in  the  sea, 
 or  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  and  for  centuries  afterwards. 
 These  institutions  are  not  invalidated  because  success  does 
 not  always  follow  their  observance.  Besides,  they  were 
 appointed  as  symbols  of  doctrine,  as  well  as  services  for 
 individual  advantages,  and,  consequently,  are  always  useful. 
 
 Objection  X. — No  immediate  mental,  or  bodily  benefits 
 result  from  baby -sprinklings. — Nor,  that  we  are  aware  of, 
 did  any  direct  benefits  of  the  kind  spring  from  the  baptism 
 in  the  sea,  or  in  the  wilderness  ;  nor  do  any  arise  now  from  the 
 dedication  of  Baptist  children  in  chapel  vestries.  This 
 objection  is  suggested  by  the  frequent  remark,  in  certain 
 quarters,  that  adult  bathing  is  very  beneficial  to  people's 
 nerves  and  physical  strength  ;  while  sprinkling  a  few  drops 
 of  water  on  the  head  of  a  man,  woman,  or  child,  can  be  of  no 
 real  advantage  to  any  of  them.  Cases  are  recorded  and 
 current,  among  our  antagonists,  shewing,  that  some  people 
 have  lost  their  pains  and  complaints  in  the  baptistry ! — 
 intimating  that  God  has  evidently  placed  his  mark  of  approval 
 on  adult  dipping,  by  making  it  a  sanatory  blessing.  Long 
 dissertations  are  given  us  on  the  benefits  of  bathing  in  salt 
 and  fresh  water — designed  to  display  the  wisdom  and  goodness 
 of  God  in  instituting  immersion  as  the  mode  of  baptism — a 
 single  plunge  in  a  person's  lifetime!  But,  then,  on  the  other 
 hand,  stories  are  neither  few  nor  imperfectly  authenticated,  of 
 persons  who  have  injured  their  health,  and  even  lost  their 
 lives,  through  being  dipped  in  cold  water  !  We  may  fairly 
 put  the  one  argument  over  against  the  other.  However,  we 
 never  heard  it  even  hinted  that  an  infant  ever  lost  its  life  or 
 its  health  by  affusion  baptism  ! 
 
 Objection  XL — How  useless  to  baptize  the  children  of 
 ignorant  and  ungodly  parents. — This  objection  is  based  on 
 the  supposition  that  such  people  will  not  follow  out  the 
 purposes  involved  in  their  children's  dedication  to  God.  In 
 this  way  God  might  have  reasoned  at  the  Red  Sea,  and  might 
 have  separated  certain  hapless  infants  from  those  who  had 
 wise  and  holy  parents,  and  have  baptized  only  the  latter. 
 There  were,  doubtless,  in  Israel,  many  very  unrighteous 
 fathers  and  mothers — and  God  knew  them  well  beforehand — 
 who  neglected  the  obligations  specially  due  to  their  circum- 
 cised children.     But  the  children  of  the  ignorant  and  unholy 
 
592  OBJECTIONS  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 were  baptized  and  circumcised  the  same  as  the  offspring  of 
 the  most  godly  and  devout  in  Israel.  If  parents,  who  bring 
 their  children  to  the  font,  neglect  their  subsequent  duties,  or 
 know  not  how  properly  to  fulfil  them,  this  forms  no  good 
 argument  against  their  attending  a  prior  duty.  It  was  never 
 pleaded  against  circumcising  certain  infants,  that  their  parents 
 did  not  possess  the  qualifications  or  dispositions  necessary 
 for  training  up  their  little  ones  in  the  religion  of  the  patriarch. 
 Indeed,  I  question  if  any  Baptist  minister,  when  requested  to 
 dedicate  the  children  of  his  hearers  to  God,  ever  refused, 
 because  he  feared  the  latter  were  not  truly  and  spiritually 
 converted,  or  were  unlikely  to  train  them  up  as  Christian 
 parents  ought  to  do.  Nor,  is  it  likely,  that  any  opponent 
 would  advise  ungodly  people  not  to  send  their  children  to  a 
 sabbath  school,  because  there  existed  a  danger  lest  the  home 
 teaching,  in  the  week,  might  counteract  the  religious  teaching 
 of  the  Lord's  day  ! 
 
 Because  a  man  is  not  likely  or  able  to  perform  a  second 
 relatively  good  act,  that  constitutes  no  reason  why  he  should 
 not  perform  the  first.  If  parents  cannot  or  wiil  not  duly 
 teach  their  baptized  children,  the  ministers  and  friends  of 
 Christ  will  rejoice  to  have  the  opportunity  of  doing  it  for  them. 
 The  baptism  of  infants  into  the  congregations  of  the  Lord 
 supposes  that  the  people  of  God  will  take  a  lively  interest  in 
 their  religious  welfare.  This  is  frequently  done,  as  in  our 
 sabbath  schools  and  similar  institutions  ;  and,  if  not  done 
 universally,  the  evil  arises  from  the  inactivity  of  the  churches, 
 or  the  sin  of  their  parents,  and  is  not  to  be  traced  to  the 
 doctrine  of  baptism,  which  enjoins  those  who  baptize  people 
 to  teach  them  the  gospel  of  Christ.  Besides,  as  previously 
 stated,  how  perplexing  for  ministers  to  have  to  determine,  in 
 all  cases,  the  line  of  demarcation  between  the  parents  whose 
 children  might,  or  might  not,  be  devoted  to  God  in  the 
 ordinance  of  baptism.  Moreover,  this  rite  was  intended  to 
 be  a  benefit  to  the  church  as  well  as  to  the  infants  ;  being  a 
 standing  memorial  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit ;  an  ordi- 
 nance teaching  the  necessity  of  divine  influence,  and  the 
 purity  of  heart  and  life.  To  be  the  medium  of  such  instruc- 
 tion, and  the  recipients  of  such  advantages,  the  children  of 
 ungodly  parents  are  as  fully  qualified  as  those  of  the  best 
 Christians  in  the  world. 
 
 Objection  XII. —  There  is  no  explicit  command  or  clear!// 
 recorded  instance  of  Infant  Baptism  in  the  New  Testament. 
 — Nor  is  there  a  clear  or  express  declaration  in  the  Word  of 
 
ANSWERED  BY  THAT  IN  THE  SEA.  593 
 
 God,  showing  that  a  single  infant  was  baptized  in  the  Red 
 Sea,  or  ate  the  manna  in  the  wilderness.  Nor  is  there  any 
 literal  record  that  a  single  child  passed  through  the  Red  Sea ; 
 nor  are  we  told  that  any  women  were  baptized  unto  Moses  in 
 crossing  the  deep.  But,  unquestionably,  females  were  baptized 
 in  the  sea,  and  children  passed  through  with  them,  and  were 
 also  baptized,  for  all  that.  The  omission  of  the  names,  infant, 
 child,  baby,  or  little  one,  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  question, 
 or  in  the  decision  of  it.  They  are,  undoubtedly,  included 
 under  the  terms,  '  our  fathers,'  '  all  the  people,'  '  families,' 
 and  '  nations.'  We  never  read  that  the  apostles  baptized 
 young  men,  young  women,  old  men,  matrons,  husbands,  or 
 wives,  shoemakers,  tailors,  drapers,  or  builders.  Are  we, 
 thence,  to  infer,  that  no  such  persons  were  ever  baptized, 
 because  they  are  not  specifically  designated,  and  should  not 
 be  in  the  present  day  !  Where  is  there  any  account  of  the 
 baptism  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  of  Mary  Magdalene,  of  Lazarus 
 and  his  sisters,  or  of  the  twelve  apostles,  or  of  numbers  more, 
 of  historical  note,  in  the  sacred  pages  ?  Must  we,  therefore, 
 conclude,  that,  because  they  are  not  named  among  the  baptized, 
 they  never  received  this  rite  ?  And,  if  we  dare  not  do  that, 
 why  must  we  assume,  that  children  were  not  baptized,  simply 
 because  they  are  not  distinguished  among  the  people,  and 
 particularly  mentioned  by  the  sacred  historian  ? 
 
 Because  Paul  is  said  to  have  baptized  adults,  it  is  argued, 
 that,  therefore,  he  did  not  baptize  children.  It  might  as  justly 
 be  argued,  that  as  John  and  Peter  are  said  to  have  baptized 
 only  men,  therefore,  they  never  baptized  women.  It  would 
 be  deemed  a  very  unsatisfactory  kind  of  reasoning,  were  one 
 to  infer  that,  because  a  person  is  recorded  to  have  drank  wine, 
 he,  therefore,  never  drank  water ;  or,  because  he  is  said  to 
 wear  silk,  he  never  wears  cotton  !  Our  opponents,  who  enlarge 
 so  eloquently  on  Scripture  precedent,  and  on  the  necessity  of 
 cleaving  closely  to  them,  would  do  well  to  bear  in  mind,  that 
 no  adults,  except  such  as  were  immediate  converts  from 
 Judaism  or  heathenism,  are  ever  said  to  have  been  baptized 
 to  Christianity.  How  would  they  meet  the  arguments  of 
 some  clever  Quaker  opponent,  without  inference  ?  '  Friend, 
 '  give  me  a  clear  example,  or  a  plain  command,  from  the  New 
 '  Testament,  to  baptize  persons  trained  up  in  Christian  prin- 
 '  ciples.'  This  would  be  a  poser  to  our  most  confident  and 
 vaunting  antagonists. 
 
 Whether  conscious  of  it  or  not,  our  brethren  employ  nothing 
 but  inference — and  that  most  illogical — in  support  of  believers' 
 
594  OBJECTIONS  TO  INFANT  BAPTISM 
 
 and  immersion  baptism.  They  merely  dogmatize,  or  act  the 
 oracle,  when  they  should  occupy  the  form  of  modest  Christian 
 inquirers.  Their  objecting  to  our  reasoning  out  our  convictions 
 and  practice,  indicates  a  fear  of  the  results  of  our  logic.  While 
 they  boldly  and  continually  challenge  us  to  produce  an 
 instance  of  purely  infant  baptism,  we  can,  with  equal  con- 
 fidence, reiterate  our  demands  of  them  to  produce  a  single 
 instance  of  what  may  be  called  purely  Christian  adult  baptism. 
 A  person  untaught  the  religion  of  Christ  generally,  and  merely 
 crying  for  mercy,  is  rather  seeking  to  become  a  Christian  or 
 disciple  of  Christ,  than  having  consciously  attained  to  that 
 distinction.  The  adults  originally  baptized,  submitted  to  the 
 rite,  not  because  they  felt  they  were  already  Christians,  but 
 from  a  desire  to  become  so,  and  to  be  regarded  as  such  through 
 baptism.  Our  opponents  admit,  that  no  person  was  a  recognized 
 disciple  of  Christ  till  he  was  baptized.  Then,  surely,  he  could 
 not  have  been  a  recognized  Christian  before  undergoing  this 
 initiatory  rite.  Convinced  or  impressed  sinners,  imploring 
 the  pardon  of  their  sins,  are  surely  distinguishable  from  truly 
 enlightened  and  sanctified  Christian  people  !  As  said  before, 
 a  person  is  not  viewed  as  a  freemason,  till  he  is  duly  inducted 
 to  the  masonic  craft ;  nor  an  apprentice  to  a  trade,  till  he  is 
 bound  ;  nor  a  pupil  in  a  school,  till  he  is  properly  matriculated. 
 An  Anonymous  writer,  on  this  last  important  point,  justly 
 observes,  '  But  the  examples  of  Scripture,  our  brethren  are 
 'wont  to  urge,  are  all  on  their  side. .  .  .This  is  confidently, 
 '  indeed,  asserted ;  but,  upon  a  closer  examination,  will  be 
 '  found  a  manifest  mistake — there  being  not,  in  the  whole 
 '  Scriptures,  one  single  instance  of  the  baptism  for  which  the// 
 'plead,  and  which  is  practised  among  them,  viz  : — -that  those 
 '  who  were  born  of  Christian  parents  are  to  be  suffered  to 
 *  become  adults  before  they  are  baptized.  This,  it  is  to  be 
 '  observed  carefully,  is  the  point  in  question  betwixt  us.  As 
 '  for  the  case  of  adult  proselytes,  or  converts  to  Christianty, 
 '  these,  we  all  agree,  are  not  to  be  baptized  till  they  profess 
 '  faith.  The  Scripture  instances,  therefore,  of  such  proselytes, 
 '  baptized  upon  such  profession,  are  of  no  pertinence  nor 
 '  weight  at  all  in  the  controversy  before  us ;  for  these  are 
 '  exactly  consonant  to  our  sentiments  and  practice.  The  only 
 '  point  in  debate  is — what  is  to  be  done  with  the  infants  of 
 1  these  proselytes  ?  Are  they  to  be  baptized  with  their  parents  ? 
 '  Or,  are  they  to  be  let  alone  till  they  become  adult,  and  then 
 '  be  baptized  upon  their  personal  profession  ?  This  latter 
 '  our  brethren  say  ;  but  have  not  in  the  whole  Scriptures,  I 
 
ANSWERED  BY  THAT  IN  TIEE  SEA.  595 
 
 '  again  affirm,  one  instance  of  such  practice  ;  no,  nor  any 
 '  shadow  or  appearance  of  it.  Their  boasts,  therefore,  of 
 '  Scripture  instances,  precedents,  examples,  are  mere  sound, 
 '  and  nothing  else.  Whereas,  the  instance  of  Lydia,  Acts 
 1  xvi.  14,  15,  (not  to  mention  Stephanas  and  the  jailor,) 
 '  strongly  favours  our  practice,  whose  faith  alone  is  mentioned, 
 '  and  immediately  it  is  added,  "  Her  household  "  [or  family] 
 1  "  were  baptized."  ' 
 
 Mr.  Noel  admits  that  there  is  no  instance  recorded  '  in  the 
 '  New  Testament  where  the  persons  baptized  are  said  to  be 
 '  the  children  of  believing  parents.'  p.  239.  His  mode  of 
 accounting  for  it  is  quite  unsatisfactory.  He  says,  the  history 
 of  the  churches  is  too  short  to  have  admitted  such  a  result. 
 But  the  church  at  Rome  was  not  less  than  thirty  years  old 
 when  Paul  preached  to  the  brethren  there  in  his  own  hired 
 house.  (See  Barnes  on  Rom.  p.  15.)  The  church  at  Jerusalem, 
 which  dated  back,  at  least,  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  is  known 
 to  have  been  in  existence  when  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles 
 was  sent,  under  escort,  to  Csesarea,  about  thirty- one  years 
 afterwards.  When  John  wrote  his  epistles  to  the  seven 
 churches  of  Asia,  most,  if  not  all,  of  them,  were,  probably,  not 
 of  less  than  forty  years  standing — periods  long  enough,  in 
 all  conscience,  for  infants  and  children  of  baptized  parents  to 
 have  been  themselves  baptized  in  adult  age,  had  such  been 
 the  custom  ;  and,  one  might  suppose,  of  sufficient  interest 
 to  have  come  out  somewhere  in  the  sacred  narrative,  if  of 
 frequent  occurrence.  We  lay  no  other  stress  on  this  circum- 
 stance than  to  shew  that  no  instance  is  on  record  of  the 
 baptism  of  grown-up  children,  whose  parents  were  baptized 
 when  they  were  babes  or  little  ones ;  or,  in  other  words,  to 
 prove  that  Christian  Baptism,  as  now  generally  practised  by 
 our  opponents,  is  unnoticed  in  the  New  Testament — every 
 instance  on  record  being  simply  that  of  a  proselyte  from  the 
 ranks  of  the  gentiles  or  the  Jews — baptized  immediately 
 after  his  belief  of  Christianity. 
 
 Dr.  Mayo  having  remarked,  that  the  Baptists  '  have  not  a 
 '  single  precedent,  in  Scripture,  of  their  subjects  of  baptism, 
 1  the  children  of  Christian  parents,  whose  baptism  was  delayed 
 '  till  they  were  of  adult  years  to  make  a  profession  of  faith  ;' 
 Mr.  Booth  replied,  '  But,  if  this  objection  have  any  weight,  it 
 '  must  be  with  equal  force  against  the  continuance  of  baptism 
 
 *  among  Christians  ;  or  the  administration  of  it  to  any  des- 
 '  cription  of  subjects,  except  in  reference  to  such  persons  as 
 
 *  are  converted  from  Judaism,  Mahomedanism,  or  Paganism.' 
 
596  CONCLUDING  REMARKS SUBSTANCE 
 
 To  this,  Mr.  Isaac  rejoins,  '  I  think  exactly  with  Mr.  B.  upon 
 '  this  point.  I  only  regret  that  he  did  not  sooner  discover 
 '  the  fallacy  of  this  argument.  In  the  mouth  of  Dr.  Mayo  it 
 '  was  only  a  retort.  Mr.  B.  had  been  toiling  through  seventy 
 '  pages,  to  prove  the  unlawfulness  of  Pedobaptism,  because 
 '  there  are  neither  precepts  nor  precedents  for  it  in  the  New 
 '  Testament.  When  he  had  nearly  finished  his  demonstration, 
 '  he  recollected  how  the  Dr.  had  used  this  Baptist  weapon 
 '  against  the  Baptist  system.  Mr.  B.  does  not  pretend  that 
 '  he  can  find  his  subjects  of  the  ordinance  in  the  Bible  ;  and 
 '  yet,  he  will  not  allow  us  to  retort  his  argument  about  precepts 
 '  and  precedents.  Why  ?  because  it  would  destroy  the  per- 
 '  manency  of  the  rite  :  he  therefore  concludes  that  it  is  of  no 
 '  weight.  Astonishing  !  What  we  complain  of  is,  that  our 
 '  brethren  should  continue  to  press  us  with  an  argument  which 
 '  they  grant  is  good  for  nothing,  and  which  will  just  as  well 
 '  overturn  their  system,  and  the  ordinance  altogether,  as 
 '  Infant  Baptism.'  p.  8.  The  fact  is,  that  baptism,  like 
 circumcision,  was  intended  principally  for  infants  and  children; 
 and  that  the  circumcision  or  baptism  of  adults,  was  the 
 exception,  arising  from  the  introduction  of  the  rite,  at  once, 
 among  the  first  converts  to  Judaism  and  Christianity. — On 
 this  last  objection  I  have  enlarged,  because  every  Baptist 
 reiterates  it,  as  though  unanswerable  and  conclusive,  in 
 opposition  to  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 It  now  only  remains  to  bring  the  present  investigation  to  a 
 close.  This  I  shall  do,  by  giving  the  reader  a  concise  review 
 of  the  principal  evidence  previously  adduced,  and,  I  presume, 
 fully  and  clearly  established,  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism ; 
 and  by  noting  the  consequent  obligations  of  parents  to  dedicate 
 their  offspring  to  the  glorious  Trinity,  through  the  Christian 
 rite  of  water-baptism ;  of  congregations  to  take  special  interest 
 in  the  children  baptized  in  them ;  and  of  the  baptized 
 themselves,  in  advancing  life,  to  carry  out  the  design  of  their 
 early  dedication  to  God. 
 
 First. — A  brief  review  of  the  foregoing  Discussion. 
 
 (1.)    I   shall  assume,   that    the    preceding   evidence    and 
 
 arguments  have  satisfactorily  proved,  that  Paul,  in  his  address 
 
OF  TIIE  FOREGOING  DISCUSSION.  597 
 
 to  the  Corinthians,  fully  recognizes,  and  plainly  sanctions, 
 Infant  Baptism,  under  the  gospel  dispensation.  I  do  not 
 argue,  that  he  does  this  hy  a  direct  assertion  or  a  positive 
 command,  hut  by  an  allusion,  which  cannot  be  rightly 
 construed,  except  on  the  supposition,  that  he  viewed  this 
 service  as  existing,  common,  and  proper,  in  his  own  day. 
 The  inference  drawn  from  the  whole  is,  that  Infant  Baptism, 
 in  which  parents,  through  their  pastors,  dedicate  their  children 
 to  Christ,  and,  thereby,  induct  them  into  the  teachings, 
 privileges,  and  obligations  of  Christianity,  is  a  scriptural, 
 interesting,  and  most  important  duty. 
 
 Numerous  other  passages  of  the  Word  of  God,  sustaining 
 the  same  doctrine  and  practice,  I  believe,  are  found  in  the 
 inspired  records,  and  which,  when  judiciously  and  carefully 
 examined,  by  competent  persons,  fully  corroborate  our  con- 
 clusions. These,  I  have  shown,  cannot  be  understood  in  any 
 consistent  sense  but  on  the  assumption,  that  Infant  Baptism 
 was  a  universal  and  unquestioned  practice  among  the  early 
 Christian  people.  These  texts  I  have  repeatedly  referred  to 
 in  this  treatise,  and  have  shown  their  bearing  on  the  question 
 before  us.  The  numerous  and  excellent  works  in  which  they 
 have  been  more  systematically  and  largely  discussed,  I  have 
 repeatedly  cited  or  referred  to  ;  and  to  them  I  beg  to  direct 
 the  attention  of  those  readers  who  desire  to  see  the  evidences 
 founded  upon  them  more  largely  given  than  the  limits  of  this 
 treatise  would  fairly  allow.  My  object  was,  to  establish  an 
 argument  in  support  of  Infant  Baptism  chiefly  based  on  a 
 portion  of  divine  truth,  not,  I  think,  hitherto  adequately 
 regarded,  in  reference  to  the  proper  subjects  of  this  religious 
 rite.  I  have  examined  this  text  the  more  attentively,  because 
 it  refers  to  the  first  general,  and,  in  all  its  leading  particulars, 
 the  '  prelude  and  pattern '  of  baptism,  administered  to  the 
 people  of  God  in  all  subsequent  ages.  To  this  the  apostle 
 especially  and  expressly  alludes  in  his  appeal  to  the  congre- 
 gation at  Corinth. 
 
 (2.)  It  was,  I  believe,  in  initiation  of  this  ancient  baptism 
 in  the  Red  Sea,  that  John,  when  preparing  the  multitudes  for 
 the  approaching  kingdom  of  Christ,  baptized  them  in  the 
 Jordan.  I  believe  also  that  the  other  apostles  of  our  Lord 
 had  this  transaction  in  their  mind  when  they  administered 
 baptism  to  their  converts,  the  same  as  Paul  had  in  his,  while 
 referring  to  it  in  his  writings — for  all  the  inspired  men  were 
 taught  the  proper  sense  and  application  of  the  sayings  and 
 doings  of  the  Old  Testament  by  one  and  the  selfsame  infallible 
 
598  CONCLUDING  REMARKS SUBSTANCE 
 
 Spirit.  It  is  certain  that  this  apostle  viewed  the  baptism  in 
 the  sea  with  deep  interest ;  and,  doubtless,  his  divinely 
 enlightened  colleagues  in  the  ministry  did  the  same  ;  though 
 they  wrote  nothing  concerning  it,  any  more  than  they  did 
 about  the  Lord's  Supper  and  many  other  matters  admitted  to 
 be  of  divine  origin  and  of  deep  interest  to  religious  Christian 
 people.  Indeed,  that  great  Hebrew  administration  of  baptism 
 must  be  contemplated  as  the  key  to  open  several  otherwise 
 obscure  matters  connected  with  this  question  in  the  New 
 Testament — just  as  many  other  allusions  to  the  rites  and 
 ceremonies  of  the  former  dispensation  must  be  clearly  com- 
 prehended, before  certain  declarations  in  the  New  Testament 
 can  be  correctly  and  fully  understood.  Who,  among  us, 
 could  properly  enter  into  the  purport  cf  the  baptismal 
 commission  of  Christ,  without  looking  to  preceding  practice 
 in  such  cases  ?  Even  John  and  the  apostles,  unless  they  had 
 received  immediate,  full,  and  specific,  instructions  on  the 
 point — which  is  nowhere  recorded — must  have  been  at  a  loss 
 to  comprehend  their  duty  in  this  matter,  without  a  previous 
 knowledge  of  the  baptism  of  the  unclean,  of  Heathen  proselytes, 
 and  of  the  Hebrews  in  the  Red  Sea. 
 
 (3.)  I  have  shown  that  the  baptism  commenced,  or,  possibly, 
 revived  at  the  Red  Sea,  was  continued  to  the  time  of  John 
 the  Baptist,  in  the  form  of  purification  and  consecration  of  the 
 unclean,  and  of  all  infants,  (most  probably,  in  conjunction  with 
 circumcision,  soon  after  their  birth),  and  in  the  baptism  of 
 the  proselyted  stranger  and  his  seed.  In  support  of  this 
 assumption,  I  have  cited  the  opinions  of  several  of  the  most 
 intelligent  and  candid  writers  among  our  opponents,  who 
 would  certainly  have  withheld  such  damaging  avowals,  unless 
 thoroughly  convinced  that  they  were  too  true  to  be  questioned, 
 and  too  patent  to  the  inquiring  divine,  to  be  buried  in  oblivion. 
 I  have  established,  or  rendered  highly  probable,  an  uninter- 
 rupted succession  of  those  rites,  administered  to  the  young,  as 
 well  as  to  others,  from  the  time  of  Moses  to  that  of  Christ, 
 with  such  variations  in  their  modes  and  ends,  as  circum- 
 stances rendered  necessary.  All  this  being  taken  as  granted, 
 I  think  we  are  entitled  to  demand  of  the  opponents  of  Infant 
 Baptism,  the  most  clear  and  positive  evidence,  from  the  holy 
 Scriptures,  to  prove,  were  it  practicable,  that,  in  the  reformed 
 and  revived  church  of  Christ,  after  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
 children  were  no  longer  associated  with  their  parents  in 
 baptism,  nor  subsequently  baptized  at  their  request,  before  we 
 surrender  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  Infant  Baptism.     I  feel 
 
OF  THE  FOREGOING  DISCUSSION.  599 
 
 assured,  that  whoever  fails  to  refer  to  the  baptism  of  Moses, 
 the  '  Divers  Baptisms  '  under  the  law,  and  the  baptisms  of 
 proselytes  to  Judaism,  as  admitted  by  Noel,  Stovel,  and  others, 
 can  never  properly  understand  the  question  of  baptism,  as 
 spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  that,  being  guided  by 
 these  ancient  administrations,  he  will  necessarily  arrive  at  the 
 conclusion,  that  Infant  Baptism  is  of  God. 
 
 (4.)  To  render  the  duty  of  baptizing  infants,  under  the 
 gospel  economy,  still  more  manifest  and  indispensable,  it  has 
 been  shown,  that  the  two  dispensations  of  the  Old  and  New 
 Testaments  constituted  only  one  sacred,  continuous,  and 
 uninterrupted  society,  fellowship,  or  church,  in  all  their 
 essential  principles  and  holy  purposes  ;  that  the  differences 
 between  them  consisted  in  certain  rites,  ceremonies,  and 
 observances,  political  and  Levitical,  which  were  virtually  done 
 away  at  the  death  of  Christ ;  and  that  baptism,  the  passover, 
 preaching,  prayer,  and  numerous  other  ancient  practices, 
 were,  with  certain  modifications,  retained  and  continued  in 
 the  economy  of  the  Gospel.  In  both  the  ancient  and  the 
 reformed  communions  there  were  the  same  Lord,  Lawgiver, 
 and  Redeemer ;  the  same  Spirit  to  renew,  enlighten,  and 
 sanctify  men  ;  the  same  spiritual  lessons  to  be  taught  and 
 exemplified  ;  and  the  same  great  moral  and  religious  neces- 
 sities to  be  supplied.  It  seems  not  too  much,  therefore,  to 
 assume,  that,  as  infants  and  children  were  members  of  the 
 former  congregation,  they  should  also  be  of  the  succeeding. 
 As  they  entered  the  former  religious  economy  by  an  act  of 
 purification,  divinely  called  Baptism  ;  it  is  reasonable  to 
 expect,  that  they  would  be  introduced  into  the  second,  by  a 
 similar  symbolical  rite  ;  especially  as  that  rite  was  existing, 
 and  confessedly  applied  to  all  adults  inducted  to  the  gospel 
 dispensation.  Certainly,  it  rests  entirely  with  the  opponents 
 of  Infant  Baptism,  to  shew  when,  where,  and  how,  they  were 
 excommunicated — if  such  were  the  real  fact.  To  prove, 
 that  men  were  received  into  the  Christian  church  or  con- 
 gregation, on  repentance,  confession  of  faith,  and  the  like, 
 even  were  it  universally  true,  would  in  no  degree  affect 
 the  question  of  infants,  nor  establish  the  slightest  intention 
 of  Christ  to  exclude  them  from  the  religious  position  they 
 always  formerly  sustained. 
 
 (5.)  It  may  be  thought,  that  an  undue  proportion  of  the 
 preceding  pages  has  been  occupied  in  answering  the  objections 
 which  have  been,  or  which  are  likely  to  be,  made  against 
 Infant  Baptism,  or,  rather,  against  the  arguments  generally 
 
600  CONCLUDING  UEMAEKS SUBSTANCE 
 
 adduced  in  its  support.  Many  of  these  objections  will  appear 
 to  some  persons  of  too  little  weight  to  have  demanded  so 
 much  space  and  attention.  But,  it  must  not  be  overlooked, 
 that  this  part  of  our  discussion,  though  not  very  interesting  or 
 important  to  the  more  intelligent  reader,  is  of  no  small  moment 
 to  the  generality  of  inquirers,  who  are  more  frequently 
 perplexed  with  trivial  objections,  dogmatically  asserted,  than 
 well-read  persons  are  with  more  formidable  and  recondite 
 allegations  against  our  procedure.  I  have  studiously  aimed 
 to  supply  the  less  intelligent  Pedobaptists  with  replies  to  all 
 that  has  been  advanced  against  Infant  Baptism,  or  that  is 
 likely  to  be  brought  in  opposition  to  it.  Nor  do  I  know  of 
 any  objections  to  this  service,  which  have  not  been  fairly 
 stated  and  fully  met.  At  all  events,  I  believe  there  are  none 
 overlooked  which  can  be  viewed  as  very  formidable  to  the 
 usual  class  of  members  constituting  dissenting  Pedobaptist 
 congregations.  This  part  of  our  treatise  has  required  much 
 examination  into  our  opponents'  publications  ;  has  prompted 
 much  conversation  and  private  debate  with  Baptist  ministers 
 and  people  ;  has  materially  added  to  the  extent  of  this  volume ; 
 and  has  frequently  occasioned  the  repetition  of  the  same 
 sentiments,  while  meeting  the  like  objections,  expressed  in 
 varying  terms,  and  placed  in  different  aspects. 
 
 I  should  here  emphatically  remind  or  inform  the  general 
 reader,  that  the  only  two  passages  of  Scripture  which  might 
 lead  him  to  suppose,  that  personal  faith  was  necessary  before 
 Christian  baptism,  are  of  no,  or  of  but  very  doubtful,  authority. 
 These  texts  are  Acts  viii.  37,  and  Mark  xvi.  16.  That  the 
 former  is  an  interpolation,  I  have  proved  before — and  that  the 
 latter  is  a  very  doubtful  reading,  is  equally  maintained  by 
 Griesbach,  Shulz,  Tischendorf,  and  others.  And  though,  in  the 
 body  of  the  work,  I  have  discussed  this  verse,  as  if  it  were  a 
 genuine  part  of  inspired  truth,  in  order  to  show  that,  literally,  it 
 contained  nothing  valid  against  Infant  Baptism  ;  I  feel  it  due 
 to  my  argument  to  state  the  preceding  fact ;  and  to  prevent 
 the  candid  student  of  this  question  from  laying  or  allowing 
 any  stress  upon  it,  as  upon  a  genuine  part  of  the  original 
 and  inspired  oracles  of  God.  While  the  unlettered  advo- 
 cates of  adult  believers'  baptism  only,  may  still  tenaciously 
 cleave  to  the  above  texts,  in  our  common  version,  as  true 
 and  divine — because  apparently  upholding  their  opinion  and 
 practice ;  our  intelligent  and  honest  opponents  must  cease  to 
 press  them  into  their  service  in  defence  of  their  principles — 
 while  the  sincere  Pedobaptist  will  not  fail  to  regard  their 
 
OF  TIIE  FOREGOING  DISCUSSION.  G01 
 
 lack  of  positive  divine  authority  as  so  far  sanctioning  his  own 
 religious  views  and  practice.  In  fact,  they  must  hoth  now  be 
 deemed  perfectly  neutral  in  this  controversy. 
 
 (6.)  The  reader  will  not  do  himself  justice,  while  examining 
 this  question,  who  does  not  keep  in  mind,  that  our  opponents 
 have  hut  two  objections,  which  can  be  even  remotely  denom- 
 inated Scriptural,  against  the  baptizing  of  infants.  Others 
 branch  out  from  them  ;  some  are  made  without  any  apparent 
 reference  to  the  Word  of  God  ;  and  many  others,  if  not  by 
 far  the  more  numerous,  are  brought  against  the  abuse  of  the 
 rite,  and  the  varying  character  of  its  advocacy.  But,  still, 
 two  only  can  be  regarded  as  based,  on  the  assumed  sense  of 
 the  New  Testament.  These  are  both  negatives — First,  '  that 
 '  we  have  no  express,  positive,  or  explicit,  precept,  command, 
 '  or  example,  for  Infant  Baptism,  in  the  writings  of  the 
 1  evangelists  or  apostles.'  And,  Secondly,  '  that  certain 
 '  qualifications  are  required  in  candidates  for  this  ordinance, 
 '  which  infants  do  not  and  cannot  possess.'  That  these 
 objections  are  either  irrelevant  to  the  question,  or  entirely 
 invalid,  as  applied  to  Infant  Baptism,  I  have  proved  beyond, 
 all  fair  contradiction.  I  recur  to  them  here,  simply  to  request, 
 that  what  we  have  advanced  in  defence  of  this  ordinance,  may 
 be  fully  and  candidly  weighed  against  these  two  negative 
 objections  to  Infant  Baptism.  Viewing  the  question  in  this, 
 its  true  light ;  comparing  what  can  be  properly  adduced 
 against  Infant  Baptism,  as  administered  by  Protestant  Dis- 
 senting Pedobaptists,  and  what  has  been  said  in  its  defence 
 in  this  volume  ;  and  even  overlooking  many  excellent  works, 
 discussing  the  subject  on  other  kindred  grounds,  with  much 
 more  ability  and  learning  ;  I  fully  anticipate,  from  the  intelli- 
 gent and  candid  reader,  a  verdict  in  favour  of  consecrating  all 
 children  to  Christ,  brought  to  the  font  for  water-baptism. 
 
 (7.)  From  the  list  of  works  published  on  both  sides  of 
 this  long  protracted  disputation,  inserted  at  the  end  of  this 
 volume,  nearly  every  one  of  which  I  have  carefully,  and  most 
 of  them  repeatedly,  perused,  besides  examining  numerous 
 others,  referring  incidentally  to  the  points  under  discussion  ; 
 the  reader  will  perceive,  that  I  have  given  the  subject  an 
 extensive,  and  very  patient  investigation.  From  those  written 
 by  our  opponents,  I  have  extracted  all  the  arguments  they 
 contain  against  infant-sprinkling.  I  have  also  quoted  many 
 concessions  from  their  publications  in  favour  of  my  own 
 views  and  conclusions — taking  care,  in  this  latter  case,  to 
 quote  nothing  from  their  writings  in  defence  of  our  practice 
 
 cc 
 
G02  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 which  is  not  manifestly  based  on  data  they  could  not  well 
 dispute,  and  which  was  not  felt  to  be  true  and  just,  irrespec- 
 tive of  any  such  admissions  on  the  part  of  Baptist  writers. 
 The  extent  of  my  reading  and  researches  on  this  question  I 
 mention,  not  from  a  spirit  of  ostentation,  but  to  satisfy  the 
 reader,  that  I  have  done  my  best  to  master  the  subject,  and 
 to  place  him  in  possession  of  the  substance  of  the  entire 
 controversy  on  Infant  Baptism. 
 
 From  the  learning,  industry,  and  talent,  hitherto  employed 
 by  so  many  good,  great,  and  wise,  men,  to  disprove  the  divine 
 right  of  infants  to  Christian  baptism ;  it  can  hardly  be 
 expected  that  anything  further,  of  moment,  can  be  brought 
 by  our  opponents  in  support  of  their  opinions.  The  arguments 
 on  their  side  of  the  question  appear,  to  me,  to  have  been 
 long  since  perfectly  exhausted.  If,  therefore,  the  testimonies 
 I  have  given  from  the  Word  of  God,  directly,  and  the 
 numerous  citations  I  have  made  from  others,  in  support  of 
 my  assumptions,  have  invalidated  the  interpretations,  asser- 
 tions, and  reasonings,  of  our  Baptist  brethren — as  I  believe 
 they  have  done  ;  and  if  the  reader  is  of  the  like  judgment,  he 
 may  safely  conclude,  that  our  point  has  been  fully  gained  ; 
 that  our  verdict  cannot  be  fairly  disturbed  by  any  subsequent 
 special  pleadings  of  our  antagonists :  and  that,  notwithstanding 
 all  their  eloquence,  learning,  and  logic,  it  clearly  accords 
 with  the  revealed  will  of  God,  that  children  should  most 
 certainly  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son, 
 and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
 
 But  even,  if  after  all,  any  reader  should  suppose  that  some  of 
 my  statements,  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism,  are  incautiously 
 made,  and  some  of  my  conclusions  illogically  drawn — of 
 which,  however,  I  have  not  the  slightest  conception — yet,  I 
 believe,  that,  independent  of  such  exceptions,  he  will  find 
 abundance  of  other  important  and  irrefragable  testimonies, 
 gathered  from  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  concessions  of 
 several  of  our  most  talented  opponents,  to  sustain  our  doctrine, 
 beyond  all  fair  disputation.  There  are  a  few  leading  points 
 previously  and  incontestibly  established  which,  viewed  apart 
 from  numbers  beside,  leave  the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism  as 
 undoubtedly  proved  as  though  it  were  also  sustained  by 
 numerous  other  corroborative  testimonies,  and  as  fully  so  as 
 any  other  sentiment  or  practice  gathered  by  induction  from 
 the  Holy  Scriptures.  In  fact,  if  a  tithe  of  my  leading 
 arguments  and  evidences,  in  favour  of  this  service,  be 
 admitted  to  be  true  and  valid,  my  object  may  be  viewed  as 
 
PARENTAL  OBLIGATIONS.  003 
 
 fullv  and  fairly  established — for  truth   can  never  contradict 
 itself. 
 
 Second. — The  Corresponding  Duties  of  Parents  to- 
 wards their  Children. — To  establish  and  enforce  the  duty 
 of  baptizing  children  into  Christianity,  in  the  name  of  the 
 Blessed  Trinity,  has  been  the  purport  of  the  foregoing  treatise. 
 The  arguments  therein  adduced  apply  to  Ministers  and 
 Christians  generally,  and  are  designed  to  prove,  that  it  is  their 
 duty  to  advocate  and  practise  the  Christian  rite  of  Infant 
 Baptism.  But  as  Parents  are  the  parties  more  intimately 
 concerned  in  this  service,  and  without  whose  sanction  and 
 co-operation  it  cannot  be  performed ;  I  shall  offer  a  few 
 remarks  more  particularly  appropriate  to  them. 
 
 (1.)  I  believe  it  has  been  fully  and  fairly  established  from 
 the  Word  of  God,  that  all  parents  professing  the  Christian 
 religion  are,  in  duty  and  consistency,  bound  to  have  their 
 children  dedicated  to  Christ,  or  formally  introduced  to 
 some  Christian  school  or  congregation,  by  water  baptism. — 
 It  has  been  proved,  that  the  obligation  is  as  clearly  and  firmly 
 established  as  many  others  which  all  believing  and  godly 
 parents  carefully  perform ;  and  the  neglect  of  which  they 
 would  feel  to  be  highly  inconsistent  with  the  profession  of 
 the  religion  of  the  New  Testament.  I  use  the  word  Christian, 
 in  its  general  sense,  for  all  who  believe  Jesus  to  be  the 
 Christ,  and  regard  the  gospel  as  the  exposition  of  his  heavenly 
 will.  As  previously  proved,  we  have  no  clearer  or  stronger 
 Scriptural  evidence  in  favour  of  female  communion — keeping 
 holy  the  first  day  of  the  week — or  for  erecting  places  of 
 worship — attending  public  week-day  religious  services — or 
 for  supporting  Bible,  Missionary,  or  Tract  Societies — or  for 
 teaching  children  in  Sabbath  seminaries — maintaining  the 
 schools  of  the  prophets — family  worship — and  many  other 
 Christian  duties — than  we  have  in  support  of  Infant  Baptism. 
 All  those  obligations  we  gather  from  hints,  inferences,  and 
 the  holy  and  benevolent  genius  of  the  gospel — and  not  from 
 any  express  commands,  or  clear  examples,  which  it  contains. 
 Some  of  these  duties  we  deduce  from  the  practice  of  the  Old 
 Testament  saints,  rather  than  from  that  of  the  first  Christians. 
 Indeed,  in  favour  of  many  religious  services  and  operations, 
 which  are  felt  to  be  pious,  scriptural,  and  imperative,  half  so 
 much  cannot  be  truly  said,  as  in  defence  of  Infant  Baptism  ; 
 and  against  which,  as  previously  evinced,  nothing  valid  and 
 of  moment  can  be  fairly  and  satisfactorily  advanced.     In  fact, 
 
G04  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 if  you  have  any  parental  duties  towards  your  infant  offspring, 
 plainly  and  fully  established,  this  is  certainly  among 
 them. 
 
 (2.)  But,  while  enforcing  on  parents  the  obligation  of  having 
 their  children  baptized  unto  God,  it  must  not  be  overlooked, 
 that  they  are  equally  bound  to  have  the  service  performed 
 in  a  manner  consistent  with  his  revealed  will. — Ancient  and 
 modern  superstition  has  had  its  inventions  in  relation  to  this 
 rite,  as  it  has  also  had  in  respect  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
 grades  of  the  Clergy,  and  most  other  ritual  and  religious 
 arrangements.  The  employment  of  sponsors  is  unscriptural ; 
 and  when  these  gossips  are  induced  to  make  vows  to  do  what 
 they  are  unable  to  perform — were  they  ever  so  desirous — it 
 is  perfectly  antichristian.  Therefore,  never  comply  with  any 
 custom  which  cannot  be  attended  to  without  mischief  and  sin. 
 Again,  never  have  your  children  dedicated  to  God  in  a  rite 
 which  teaches  the  soul-deluding  heresy  of  baptismal  regene- 
 ration. The  service,  as  stated  in  our  Lord's  commission,  is 
 a  dedication  of  the  child  to  God,  or  a  simple  initiation  of  it  to 
 the  systematic  teaching  of  the  doctrines,  duties,  and  privileges 
 of  the  gospel.  No  passage  of  God's  truth,  fairly  construed, 
 inculcates  the  fearful  sentiment,  that  when  an  adult  or  child 
 is  baptized,  he  or  it  is  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  made 
 a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ; 
 or,  in  other  words,  justified,  sanctified,  and  eternally  saved. 
 Whatever  sacrifices,  in  worldly  concerns,  the  refusal  may 
 occasion,  on  no  account  suffer  your  little  ones  to  be  conse- 
 crated to  the  Lord  in  a  ceremony  involving  and  teaching  such 
 popish,  superstitious,  and  pernicious  errors.  As  true  and 
 good  ministers  of  Christ  are  now  found  in  almost  every  limited 
 locality  of  our  land,  who  will  perform  the  service  for  you 
 readily,  devoutly,  and  without  charge,  apply  to  them ;  keep 
 your  conscience  clean ;  and  avoid  implicating  others  in  the 
 sin  of  uttering  such  solemn  and  pernicious  falsehoods. 
 
 (3.)  Remember,  that,  for  'parents  to  neglect  the  baptism 
 of  their  children,  is  to  sin  against  God. — By  sin  here,  I 
 mean,  the  sin  of  omission,  or  the  neglect  of  a  duty,  which  the 
 Scriptures  have,  directly  or  indirectly,  enjoined,  as  plainly  as 
 many  other  duties,  which  it  would  be  felt  exceedingly  sinful 
 to  omit.  In  some  cases,  this  may  have  been  the  sin  of 
 ignorance;  or,  of  educational  prejudice  ;  or,  of  indolence;  or, 
 of  procrastination  ;  but  if,  as  I  have  proved,  it  is  a  Christian's 
 duty  to  have  his  children  baptized,  the  neglect  of  it  must  be 
 a  sin — not  unpardonable,  like  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost — 
 
PARENTAL  OBLIGATIONS.  605 
 
 but  a  criminal  neglect  of  a  divine  obligation,  independent  of 
 the  motives  which  occasion  or  induce  it. 
 
 Nor  am  I  using  this  language  respecting  the  neglect  of  this 
 ceremonial  ordinance  without  highly  respectable  corroborative 
 precedents. — Mr.  Keach  says,  '  It  is  a  great  sin  for  believers 
 '  to  neglect '  being  baptized.  Mr.  Gibbs  remarks,  '  Though 
 '  baptism  is  not  necessary  to  salvation,  it  is  essential  to  that 
 '  perfect  obedience  to  the  will  of  Christ,  which  recognizes  his 
 '  authority  in  all  things  ;  nor  can  that  institution  be  trivial 
 '  and  unimportant,  which  is  founded  on  his  positive  command, 
 'and  sanctioned  by  his  personal  example.'  p.  15.  And,  for 
 believers  to  neglect  the  baptism  of  their  children,  cannot  be 
 less  culpable  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord.  Without  this  formal 
 and  official  dedication  to  Christ,  and  the  initiation  of  them  to 
 the  church  or  congregation  of  professors  of  the  gospel,  children 
 have  no  legitimate  Christian  claim  to  religious  education,  or 
 to  a  seat  in  the  school  of  heavenly  instruction.  They  may, 
 indeed,  obtain  this  teaching  without  an  official  religious 
 matriculation;  but,  they  cannot  get  it  scripturally,  or  according 
 to  the  order  which  God  has  laid  down — first,  baptize,  and  then, 
 teach  them. 
 
 Moreover,  as  previously  proved,  Infant  Baptism  implies  a 
 pledge,  on  the  part  of  parents,  to  train  up  their  children  for 
 Christ ;  and  constitutes  an  extra  obligation  on  the  baptized 
 themselves,  to  serve  him  when  they  arrive  at  years  ef  dis- 
 cretion, or  become  qualified  for  active  Christian  duty.  The 
 vows  of  God  are  upon  them.  To  omit  this  covenanting  rite, 
 therefore,  is  to  commit  an  offence  against  God,  and  to  violate  a 
 high  obligation  to  your  own  offspring.  In  the  Assembly's 
 Confession  of  Faith,  the  authors  declare,  '  It  is  a  great  sin  to 
 '  contemn  or  neglect  this  ordinance.'  Dr.  Williams  says, 
 '  Those  principles,  whereby  infant  children  are  debarred  from 
 '  their  parents'  privileges,  from  a  visible  standing  in  the 
 '  church  of  Christ,  and  particularly  from  baptism,  which  is, 
 1  itself,  a  privilege,  and  the  only  introductory  rite  to  that 
 '  visible  standing  among  God's  people,  are  unreasonable, 
 '  unscriptural,  and  highly  uncharitable.  The  neglect  of  bap- 
 '  tism,  in  proportion  as  it  is  a  duty,  is  sinful ;  but  it  is  guarded 
 '  by  no  penal  sanction.'  Booth  says,  '  If  infants  be  solemnly 
 '  sprinkled  by  divine  right,  it  must  be  the  indispensable  duty 
 '  of  Pedobaptists  to  contend  for  it.'  As  such  we  regard  it, 
 and  should,  therefore,  deem  it  sinful  not  to  contend  for  and 
 practise  it.  Fleming  remarks,  '  The  parent  must  be  greatly 
 '  guilty  or  criminal,  if  he  saw  '   [as  all  real  Pedobaptists  do] 
 
606  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 '  that  it  was  the  will  of  his  Lord  and  Master,  that  infants 
 '  should  be  thus  acknowledged,  as  taken  within  the  enclosures 
 '  of  infinite  love  and  goodness,  and  yet  neglected  it.' 
 
 (4.)  Further,  most  parents  are  left  without  excuse,  on  the 
 ground  of  any  supposed  difficulties  in  the  way  of  having 
 their  children  scripturally  baptized. — The  rite  is  so  innoxious 
 as  not  to  injure  the  health  of  the  most  delicate  infant;  thereby 
 being  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  other  sacrament  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper,  and  stands  in  contrast  to  the  fuss,  fearful 
 apprehensions,  and  occasional  dangers  of  baptism  by  dipping. 
 It  may  be  done  so  quickly,  as  to  occupy  little  of  the  parents' 
 time  ;  and  so  cheaply,  that  people,  without  money  or  worldly 
 respectability,  may  always  get  it  done,  almost  any  Lord's  day 
 in  the  year.  The  natural  protectors  of  the  little  ones  need 
 only  attend  the  service ;  no  baptistries  have  to  be  refilled,  no 
 especial  garments  for  the  occasion  are  required ;  no  bustle 
 about  dressing  and  undressing  requires  to  be  made.  The 
 ceremony,  as  performed  by  evangelical  nonconformists,  is  in 
 harmony  with  the  simplicity,  unostentatiousness,  and  purity, 
 of  the  Christian  religion,  and  which,  in  accordance  with  God's 
 usual  plans,  may  be  followed  by  gracious  and  benign  results 
 from  such  apparently  insignificant  operations.  By  the  way, 
 it  may  be  here  remarked,  that  were  Infant  Baptism  attended 
 with  the  many  inconveniences  associated  with  adult  immersion, 
 our  opponents  would  not  fail  to  adduce  them  as  a  strong 
 objection  against  our  rite;  and  make  a  vast  deal  of  them  too; 
 though  our  arguments  against  their  system,  based  on  the  like 
 grounds,  are  treated  as  entirely  invalid ;  and  our  adducing 
 them,  is  resented,  as  arising  from  ignorance  and  most  unrea- 
 sonable and  unrighteous  motives. 
 
 But  even,  if  after  all  that  parents  have  read  in  the  Scriptures, 
 in  the  present,  or  in  any  other,  publications,  they  should  feel, 
 that  our  doctrine  has  not  been  so  perfectly  established  as  to 
 remove  every  doubt  or  difficulty  in  the  matter ;  or  to  answer 
 every  question  that  objectors  might  suggest  on  the  subject ; 
 should  they  still  think  that  something  important  might  be 
 said  on  the  other  side,  and  in  favour  of  what  is  called 
 believers'  baptism  only ;  yet,  so  harmless  is  this'  act,  as 
 administered  by  Protestant  Dissenters,  so  exempt  from  all 
 danger,  so  free  from  all  pernicious  results — physical,  moral, 
 and  religious — that  they  should  give  their  children  the  benefit 
 of  the  doubt,  and  certainly  have  them  baptized  to  Christ — 
 formally  inducted  into  his  school,  and  numbered  with  his 
 young  disciples.     If  on  arriving  at  adult  age,  their  offspring 
 
PARENTAL  OBLIGATIONS.  607 
 
 should  imbibe  different  sentiments  on  this  subject,  they  will 
 lind  no  difficulty  in  then  being  dipped  by  the  advocates  of 
 adult  immersion. 
 
 Dr.  Wall  observes,  '  If,  upon  such  weighing  and  consider- 
 '  ation,  the  reasons  from  God's  word,  for  doing  anything,  do 
 '  clearly  outweigh  those  that  may  be  brought  against  the  doing 
 *  it,  our  duty  is  to  do  it.'  And  we  sin,  if  we  neglect  it. 
 Dr.  Dwight  also  remarks,  '  If  the  duty  of  baptizing  infants 
 'can  be  certainly  inferred,  or  inferred  with  a  probability 
 '  superior  to  that  which  is  supposed  to  justify  the  omission 
 '  of  it,  the  Scriptures  require  that  infants  should  be  baptized.' 
 That  such  is  the  fact,  I  think,  the  thoughtful  reader  of  this 
 discussion  will  admit  to  have  been  fully  established.  What- 
 ever God  has  enjoined  upon  his  people,  as  a  duty,  they  are 
 bound  to  perform,  however  immaterial  that  duty  may  appear 
 to  any  of  them.  God  threatened  to  slay  Moses  for  merely 
 neglecting  to  circumcise  his  son.  Ex.  iv.  24-26.  In  fact, 
 the  baptism  of  infants  is  the  highest,  the  holiest,  and,  for  the 
 time,  the  only  religious  deed,  parents  can  perform  towards 
 them.  What  other  act,  besides  prayer,  can  be  equal  to  the 
 formal  dedication  of  them  to  the  Lord,  and  thus  placing  them 
 among  his  disciples  ?  Let  parents  view  the  matter  in  its 
 true  light ;  and  such,  I  think,  will  be  the  impression  left  on 
 their  own  hearts. 
 
 (3.)  Let  not  parents  neglect  this  duty,  because  it  may  not 
 be  considered  essential  to  their  children's  salvation. — 
 Doubtless,  many  persons  are  sufficiently  informed  on  this 
 question  to  see,  that  it  should  be  done,  as  a  matter  of  order, 
 and  in  accordance  with  the  revealed  will  of  God.  But  then, 
 they  say,  '  It  is  not  a  saving  ordinance,  and  their  children  will 
 '  get  to  heaven  without,  as  well  as  with,  it.  If,  like  Papists  and 
 '  certain  Conformists,  they  thought  their  children  might  be  lost 
 1  for  want  of  baptism,  they  would  hasten  with  them  to  the  font.' 
 Besides,  they  add,  '  Baptismal  Registers  are  not  now  requisite 
 '  for  determining  the  age  of  their  offspring,  in  a  court  of  law  ; 
 '  consequently,  it  is  of  no  secular  advantage  to  them.'  On 
 these  grounds,  many  theoretical  Pedobaptists  entirely  neglect 
 this  early  Christian  dedication  of  their  children  to  God.  But, 
 a  moment's  devout  reflection  must  convince  these  professors 
 of  Christianity,  that  the  principle  on  which  they  act,  in  this 
 case,  is  vicious  and  sinful.  Are  there  not  numerous  other 
 acknowledged  obligations,  the  omission  of  which  might  not 
 be  regarded  as  endangering  immortal  souls  1  Children  may 
 be  saved  without  being  taught  in  early  life  to  know,  love,  and 
 
608  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 serve  God.  They  may  not  be  lost,  because  they  are  not  induced 
 to  read  the  Scriptures,  or  to  pray,  or  to  keep  the  Sabbath  day, 
 or  to  attend  a  place  of  worship.  But,  will  godly  parents 
 tolerate  such  juvenile  omissions,  simply  because  their  children 
 may  get  to  glory  in  spite  of  them  ? 
 
 The  question  ought  not  to  be,  whether  baptism  saves  the 
 souls  of  the  young,  but  whether  God  has  made  it  manifest 
 that  it  is  his  will,  that  they  should  be  baptized  ?  Many  duties 
 are  more  tests  of  submission  to  divine  law,  than  sources  of 
 personal  benefit.  The  prohibition  to  eat  certain  apples  in 
 Eden,  was  given  rather  as  a  trial  of  obedience,  than  as  a 
 preventive  of  any  physical  evil  arising  from  eating  them.  You 
 will  find  some  persons  neglecting  public  worship,  frequently 
 or  constantly,  on  the  assumption,  that  they  may  be  saved 
 without  attending  it.  Others  never  approach  the  Lord's  table, 
 nor  attend  a  prayer-meeting,  nor  week-evening  lectures,  nor 
 a  Sabbath  school,  nor  labour  to  promote  the  cause  of  human 
 salvation,  nor  conduct  family  worship,  nor  keep  holy  the 
 Sabbath  day,  nor  support  the  means  of  grace,  nor  aid  the 
 spread  of  the  gospel  in  the  world,  because  they  consider  their 
 doing  so  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  get  to  heaven  !  But, 
 what  truly  Christian  people  would  not  deem  the  state  of  that 
 heart  sad  indeed,  which  frames  selfish  and  sinister  excuses 
 for  neglecting  God's  commands — however  little  or  large, 
 manifest  or  obscure — on  the  ground  that,  possibly  or  probably, 
 hell  may  be  escaped,  and  heaven  at  length  attained,  without 
 duly  observing  them  ?  We  are  to  keep  all  God's  command- 
 ments always,  whether  or  not  we  can  understand  the  reasons 
 on  which  they  are  founded.  So,  whether  parents  regard 
 baptism  as  a  mere  form,  or  as  of  great  good  to  their  children, 
 is  not  so  much  the  question,  as  whether  it  is  the  revealed  will 
 of  God,  that  it  should  be  administered  to  them.  That  it  is  so, 
 the  foregoing  discussion  has,  I  think,  rendered  very  manifest. 
 
 (0.)  Carry  out  the  ultimate  end  of  baptism  in  the  subse- 
 quent education  of  your  children.— having  dedicated  them  to 
 the  Saviour,  and  so  inducted  them  to  the  rights  and  privileges 
 of  religious  teaching  ;  see  that  they  are  rightly  taught,  either  by 
 yourselves,  or  by  others  you  may  carefully  select  for  that 
 purpose.  Baptism  is  but  the  entrance  into  the  school  of 
 Christ,  or  into  the  congregation,  where  Christianity  is  taught, 
 preparatively  to  their  entering  the  particular  church  or  society 
 of  persons,  having  attained  to  a  competent  knowledge,  and 
 spiritual  experience,  and  a  holy  life,  in  Christ  Jesus.  Parental 
 responsibility,  in  the  religious  training  of  families,  in  the  way 
 
PARENTAL  OBLIGATIONS.  609 
 
 in  which  they  should  go,  can  hardly  he  sufficiently  appreciated. 
 The  future  course  of  the  young  is  chiefly  determined  while 
 living  in  the  domestic  circle ;  and  will,  for  the  most  part,  he 
 pursued  through  life.  Let  pains  be  taken  for  the  moral  and 
 religious  education  of  your  little  ones,  more  than  for  their 
 intellectual  attainments,  or  their  worldly  prosperity.  As  the 
 soul  is  more  excellent  than  the  body ;  as  salvation  is  more 
 important  than  any  exemption  from  earthly  troubles  ;  and,  as 
 eternity  is  of  infinitely  greater  moment  than  time  ;  see  to  it 
 that  you  make  the  highest  interests  of  your  children  the  chief 
 concern  of  your  parental  efforts.  Nature  dictates  the  care  of 
 them  as  portions  of  your  own  flesh  and  blood  ;  and  religion 
 commands  you  to  bring  them  up  piously  and  scripturally. 
 Having  dedicated  them  to  God,  the  additional  obligation  of 
 consistency,  and,  at  least,  of  your  own  tacit  vows,  urge  you 
 to  the  highest  efforts  for  their  spiritual  welfare. 
 
 See,  too,  that  they  are  religiously  taught  only  the  truth  as 
 it  is  in  Christ.  Bear  in  mind,  that  bad  doctrines  bring  forth 
 evil  fruits.  Never,  on  any  consideration,  if  you  can  possibly 
 prevent  it,  suffer  them  to  imbibe  principles  and  notions  not 
 in  accordance  with  evangelical  truth.  As  you  would  not 
 suffer  your  children  to  attend  a  school  where  the  pupils  are 
 taught  or  tolerated  to  work  even  one  sum  in  a  score  incorrectly, 
 or  to  tell  one  lie,  with  every  twenty  truths  that  they  utter ; 
 so,  in  selecting  places  of  religious  education  for  your  children, 
 if  it  cannot  be  done  at  home,  see  that  they  are  taught  nothing 
 unrighteous,  nor  imbibe  any  false  doctrines  elsewhere — either 
 in  private  seminaries  or  public  institutions.  Sabbath  schools 
 are  seminaries  destined  of  heaven  to  impart  holy  knowledge, 
 and  Christian  impressions,  to  the  youthful  mind.  But,  then, 
 they  must  be  conducted  by  persons  who  are  too  wise  and  too 
 conscientious  to  lead  their  scholars  into  error  on  any  sacred 
 matters.  The  seeds  of  heresy,  as  small  as  that  of  the  mustard, 
 sown  in  the  virgin  soil  of  childish  minds,  will  grow  to  plants 
 and  trees  sufficiently  large  for  the  demons  of  darkness  to 
 lodge  in  the  branches  thereof. 
 
 In  a  word,  feed  them  with  the  pure  milk  of  divine  truth, 
 provided  for  babes  devoted  to  Christ ;  and  lead  their  feet 
 gently  into  the  paths  of  peace  and  holiness.  Confer  upon 
 them  all  the  spiritual  instruction  they  are  capable  of  receiving, 
 and  to  which  they  are  specially  entitled,  by  their  dedication 
 to  the  Redeemer.  View  and  treat  them  as  formally  lent  or 
 given  to  the  Lord,  in  baptism  ;  and  train  them  up  for  his 
 service  and  honour.     Pray  for  them,  as  daily  becoming  more 
 
610  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 and  more  exposed  to  temptation,  transgression,  and  death ; 
 as  having  hearts  naturally  defiled  by  sin ;  and  which  must 
 he  renewed  by  divine  grace  before  they  can  be  meet  for  the 
 spiritual  communion  of  saints  on  earth,  or  prepared  to  join 
 the  glorified  church  in  heaven.  Let  your  holy  example  be  a 
 pattern  fit  for  them  to  copy ;  your  amiable  temper,  the  spirit 
 they  ought  to  breathe ;  and  your  zeal  for  the  cause  of  God, 
 the  holy  glow  that  should  burn  in  their  youthful  hearts. 
 Do  these  things,  and  then  we  may  truly  say, '  The  promise  is 
 '  to  you  and  to  your  children,'  as  well  as  to  others  that  are 
 afar  off,  whom  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call  by  his  word  and 
 Holy  Spirit. 
 
 Third. — The  Claims  of  children  on  the  Congregations 
 IN  which  they  are  baptized. — In  accordance  with  the  creed 
 and  customary  practice  of  our  opponents,  persons  baptized 
 (with  rare  exceptions)  are  at  once  inducted  into  their  spiritual 
 and  select  fellowships,  and  become  full  members  of  their 
 inner  communion  of  saints.  In  this  position  they  are  regarded 
 as  brethren  in  Christ,  to  be  specially  watched  over,  admonished, 
 corrected,  and  comforted,  by  the  previously  existing  fraternity, 
 as  occasions  may  demand.  Means  are  employed  to  preserve 
 them  from  error  and  sin,  and  to  promote  their  piety  and 
 usefulness  in  the  world.  In  such  extra  attentions  to  their 
 duly  inducted  members,  our  brethren  act  with  a  consistency 
 which  all  must  approve,  and  in  which  we  recognize  a  principle 
 we  may  wisely  and  beneficially  adopt,  in  reference  to  the 
 young  baptized  into  our  general  fellowships. — A  remark  or 
 two  on  this  head  may  be  proper  and  useful.  What  I  wish 
 to  enforce  is — 
 
 (1 .)  That  all  duly  baptized  children  should  be  viewed  as  per- 
 taining to  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  as  claiming  the  special 
 oversight,  attention,  and  care,  of  the  adult  members  of  Christian 
 churches,  and  of  all  ministers  of  the  gospel. — Though  we  have 
 no  detailed  accounts  of  the  conduct  of  the  apostles  and  their 
 first  adult  converts  to  Christianity,  in  reference  to  this  point ; 
 yet,  from  what  we  know  of  their  proceedings,  and  of  the  spirit 
 in  which  they  generally  acted,  we  readily  conclude,  that  the 
 baptized  children  of  baptized  parents  received  unusual  attention 
 and  care  from  them.  This  was  natural,  and,  no  doubt,  uni- 
 versally observed.  And,  in  the  present  day,  very  general  and 
 serious  attention  is  paid  by  Christian  people,  of  all  parties,  to 
 the  rising  generation.  A  numerous  host  of  worthy  and 
 excellent  people  enter  heartily  into  this  department  of  religious 
 
DUTY  OF  CONGREGATIONS.  Gil 
 
 duty,  and  persevere  in  it  with  a  zeal  and  feeling  which  do 
 themselves  much  honor ;  are  repaid  with  a  conscious  delight 
 of  being  so  divinely  employed  ;  and  are  frequently  cheered, 
 by  seeing  their  labours  followed  by  much  success.  This  fact, 
 more  than  most  others,  encourages  a  pleasing  hope,  that  the 
 next  adult  generation  will  be  intellectually  wiser,  and  religiously 
 better,  than  this ;  and  the  following,  an  improvement  on  its 
 predecessor.  Much,  however,  will  depend  on  the  doctrines 
 instilled  in  the  youthful  mind  and  heart ;  the  manner  of  its 
 communication  ;  and  the  temper  and  deportment  of  those  who 
 are  employed  in  this  momentous,  interesting,  and  delightful 
 work. 
 
 (2.)  But  what  I  wish  more  particularly  to  impress  on  the 
 mind  of  Dissenting  Pedobaptist  congregations  is,  That  all 
 children  baptized  in  and  into  them  should  be  regarded  and 
 treated,  as  special!//  belonging  to  their  respective  fellowships  ; 
 and  as  preferring  paramount  claims  on  the  attention  and  the 
 religious  care  of  their  pastors  and  members. — Let  it  be  an 
 understood  and  recognized  rule,  that  when  children  are  dedi- 
 cated to  God,  through  baptism,  in  a  Christian  congregation, 
 it  involves  an  obligation,  on  the  part  of  the  regular  attendants, 
 to  use  their  best  endeavours  to  train  them  up  in  the  ways  of 
 the  Lord.  Let  parents  also  understand,  that  the  community, 
 in  which  their  little  ones  are  baptized,  feel  a  particular  interest 
 in  them,  and  will  do  the  best  in  their  power  to  benefit  their 
 youthful  minds  and  hearts,  in  conjunction  with  the  efforts 
 made  in  the  domestic  circle.  This  would  render  the  baptismal 
 service  of  more  importance  in  the  views  of  parents,  than  it 
 now  generally  occupies,  and,  doubtless,  be  followed  with 
 beneficial  results  to  the  young  themselves.  Nor  could  it  fail 
 to  impress  mankind  with  the  thought,  that  Infant  Baptism 
 was  an  ordinance  of  heavenly  origin,  and  also  of  great  signi- 
 ficance and  utility.  It  would  constrain  the  members  of  the 
 congregation  to  look  on  the  young  as  their  special  charge  ; 
 and  would  naturally  inspire  fervent  prayer  to  God  for  their 
 spiritual  good,  and,  doubtless,  draw  down  heavenly  blessings 
 on  their  youthful  hearts. 
 
 It  is  not  here  intended  to  suggest,  that  other  children  should 
 not  be  benefitted  by  religious  congregations  ;  or  that  efforts 
 should  not  be  made  for  their  spiritual  benefit  also,  when  they 
 can  be  brought  within  the  reach  of  Christian  edification. 
 But,  it  is  meant,  that  the  children  consecrated  to  God,  in  a 
 particular  congregation  of  Christian  professors,  should  be 
 regarded  as  their  peculiar  charge  ;   and  should  have  their  first 
 
612  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 regard  and  help — just  as  good  parents  look  first  to  their  own 
 families ;  and  then  to  others  around  them,  requiring  similar 
 assistance.  Nor  is  it  supposed  that  the  right  and  control  of 
 parents  over  their  own  children  are  in  any  degree  to  be  invaded 
 by  Christian  congregations,  because  they  have  been  baptized 
 in  them.  All  we  mean  is,  that  the  former  should  receive  the 
 first  and  most  cordially  proffered  co-operation  in  the  moral  and 
 religious  education  of  their  little  ones  ;  just  as  we  give  our 
 relatives  the  first  and  chief  aid  in  the  time  of  need,  without 
 ever  thinking  of  abridging  their  social  liberties ;  and  that 
 parents,  before  they  bring  their  children  to  us  for  baptism, 
 should  know  that  such  would  be  the  consequence  of  having 
 it  administered  among  us. 
 
 It  also  accords  with  the  above  suggestions,  to  remark,  that 
 all  private  and  domestic  baptisms  should  be  discouraged  ;  and, 
 except  on  peculiar  and  pressing  occasions,  should  not  be 
 practised.  If  baptism  be,  as  we  have  shown  it  is,  an  in- 
 duction of  persons,  adult  or  infant,  to  the  public  teachings 
 and  congregational  privileges  of  Christianity  ;  it  seems  proper 
 that  the  rite  should  be  administered  in  the  presence  of  the 
 people  whose  subsequent  duties  it  will  be  to  carry  out  its  holy 
 and  benevolent  intentions.  Moreover,  if  it  be  an  ordinance 
 designed  openly  to  symbolize  the  gracious  outpouring  of  the 
 Holy  Spirit,  as  the  Lord's  Supper  is  intended  to  show  forth 
 the  death  of  Christ ;  it  harmonizes  with  the  genius  of  the 
 gospel,  that  it  should  be  performed  before  as  many  others  as 
 possible,  for  their  enlightenment  and  spiritual  profit.  Whatever 
 is  designed  for  our  learning  should  not,  if  preventable,  ever 
 be  done  in  a  corner.  I  am  aware  that  many  difficulties  lie 
 in  the  way  of  universally,  or  even  generally,  carrying  out 
 my  suggestion.  But,  where  it  is  practicable,  it  should  be 
 accomplished. 
 
 (3.)  The  recognition  of  the  principle  here  advocated,  and 
 carried  wisely  and,  generally  into  practice,  would  greatly 
 tend  to  illustrate  the  utility  and  significance  of  Infant  Bap- 
 tism.— The  intention  and  scriptural  advantages  of  this  Christian 
 ordinance  have  been  shown  before.  This  would  give  the 
 rite  an  additional  value  in  the  estimation  of  the  community, 
 and  would  conduce  to  silence  much  of  the  opposition,  now 
 offered  by  many  adult  immersionists,  against  its  administrations. 
 As  before  observed,  Pedobaptist  congregations  are  labouring 
 assiduously  in  educating  the  young  in  the  doctrines  and  duties 
 of  Christianity,  and  God  is  graciously  blessing  their  laudable 
 endeavours.  But,  let  it  be  felt  and  known,  that  their  attention  was 
 
ADDRESS  TO  THE  YOUNG.  613 
 
 to  be  particularly  directed  to  the  children  baptized  in  their  body ; 
 that  these  were  deemed  the  lambs  in  their  respective  folds, 
 the  special  charge  of  our  pastors  and  their  assistants ;  and  a 
 form  and  a  force  are  given  to  this  initiatory  sacrament  which 
 could  not  fail  greatly  to  enlist  mankind  in  its  favour.  This 
 view  also  agrees  with  the  attention  the  Hebrews  paid  to  the 
 young  originally  circumcised  and  baptized  in  their  communion; 
 and  with  the  care  the  primitive  Christians  unquestionably  took 
 of  those  little  ones  inducted  to  their  fraternity.  The  baptized 
 adults  became,  in  a  certain  sense  and  measure,  subject  to 
 the  laws  and  supervision  of  the  brotherhood,  for  their  mutual 
 good.  And  their  baptized  children  were  mutually  cared  for 
 and  benefitted  by  both  parents  and  their  fellow-worshippers — 
 the  latter  receiving  essential  help,  and  the  former  great 
 benefits,  from  such  a  wise  and  holy  arrangement.  Let  all 
 modern  congregations  go  and  do  likewise. 
 
 Fourth. — A  few  words  to  young  people  baptized 
 unto  Christ  in  their  childhood. — This  treatise  would  be 
 incomplete  without  a  few  admonitions  addressed  to  my  youthful 
 readers  formerly  dedicated  to  the  Lord  in  baptism.  They 
 shall  be  concise  and  plain.  May  they  be  understood,  felt, 
 remembered,  and  duly  acted  upon  ! 
 
 (1.)  Fully  and  clearly  understand,  then,  That  you  were 
 not  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  when  you  were  baptized 
 with  water,  nor  as  a  consequence  of  it ;  any  more  than  the 
 Jewish  infants  were  circumcised  in  heart,  when  they  were 
 circumcised  in  the  flesh  ;  or  than  the  Hebrew  children  were 
 bom  from  above,  through  their  baptism  in  the  cloud  and  in 
 the  sea. — The  person  that  would  persuade  you  to  believe  the 
 contrary,  must  himself  be  fearfully  deluded,  and  must  be 
 acting,  though  unconsciously,  as  the  messenger  of  Satan,  sent 
 to  ensnare  and  injure  your  souls.  Your  own  eyes  and  ears 
 must  teach  you,  every  day,  that  water-baptism,  by  whom- 
 soever administered,  in  whatever  form,  and  surrounded  by 
 whatever  pomp,  parade,  or  circumstances,  or  be  the  subjects 
 adults  or  infants,  does  not  change  the  heart,  nor  insure  its 
 renovation — for  it  does  not  and  cannot  sanctify  the  life  of  its 
 subjects.  The  rite  has  its  uses,  and  is  scripturally  attended 
 with  many  external  privileges  ;  but  it  was  never  designed  to 
 make  you  new  creatures  in  Christ  Jesus.  It  is  a  sign  or  a 
 symbol  of  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  but  not  that  baptism 
 itself;  any  more  than  eating  the  material  elements  of  the 
 Lord's    Supper,    is    necessarily    conjoined    with    spiritually 
 
614  CONCLUDING  REMARKS. 
 
 eating  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  unto  everlasting  life. 
 Indeed,  the  error  of  transubstantiation  is  not  more  manifest 
 to  our  ordinary  senses,  than  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regene- 
 ration, and  not  half  so  pernicious  in  its  results. 
 
 This  great  spiritual  change,  however,  if  not  already  effected, 
 must  be  made  in  your  souls  before  you  can  become  Christ's 
 disciples  indeed,  in  whom  there  is  no  guile  ;  and  Christians,  in 
 sincerity  and  truth  ;  before  you  can  be  prepared  for  joining 
 the  spiritual  church  of  the  first-born  here,  in  its  select  and 
 holy  reunions,  and,  hereafter,  in  the  regions  of  heaven  above. 
 Rest  not  in  outward  ordinances,  nor  till  Christ  be  formed  in 
 your  hearts  the  hope  of  glory ;  till  your  minds  are  imbued 
 with  all  divine  influences ;  till  you  are  born  from  above,  and 
 are  passed  from  death  unto  life ;  or  till  you  have  really  been 
 made  the  partakers  of  the  divine  nature.  To  attain  this  glo- 
 rious consummation  of  renovated  humanity,  you  must  earnestly 
 study  the  revealed  mind  of  God,  pray  fervently  for  the  Spirit 
 of  grace,  and  diligently  and  devoutly  attend  those  means  which 
 God  has  promised  to  bless  to  the  salvation  of  your  souls. 
 
 (2.)  Bear  in  mind,  that  you  are  imperatively  bound  to 
 cleave  unto  the  Lord. — In  your  baptism  you  were  consecrated 
 to  Christ,  by  those  who  had  a  just  right  and  a  divine  command 
 to  do  it :  and  by  this  relative  act  you  are  obliged — unless  you 
 subsequently  learn,  that,  unquestionably,  it  was  contrary  to 
 the  expressed  will  of  God,  and  to  your  own  everlasting  welfare. 
 This  you  never  can  feel  concerning  your  dedication  to  truth, 
 to  holiness,  and  to  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  '  Say  not  in  your 
 '  wicked  heart,'  I  knew  nothing  of  the  deed  ;  I  did  not  consent 
 *  to  it ;  I  was  devoted  to  God  when  I  was  "  as  unconscious  as 
 '  a  stone ;  "  '  and  am  not  thereby  brought  under  obligations  to 
 observe  it.  You  might  as  justly  say,  I  did  not  agree  to  learn 
 to  read,  to  write,  to  talk,  to  be  truthful  in  my  speech,  to  be 
 honest  in  my  dealings,  or  to  be  virtuous  in  my  conduct ;  and, 
 therefore,  I  neither  shall  do  nor  be  either !  And  yet,  your 
 parents,  if  they  were  wise  and  kind,  bound  you,  as  far  as  lay 
 in  their  power,  to  be  all  this,  and  more. 
 
 Had  they  put  your  name  into  a  deed,  or  a  will,  or  any  other 
 document,  guaranteeing  to  you  the  enjoyment  of  ease,  wealth, 
 or  honour ;  would  you  say,  '  Their  act  was  nothing  to  me,  I 
 '  never  consented  to  it  ? '  The  question  is,  did  not  your  parents 
 perform  a  Christian  duty,  when  they  devoted  you  to  the  Lord 
 in  baptism  ;  did  they  not  obey  the  command  of  God ;  was 
 it  not  his  doing  indirectly,  rather  than  theirs — as  it  is 
 God's  word  you  hear,  though  ministers  preach  and  teach  it  ? 
 
ADDRESS  TO  THE  YOUNG.  615 
 
 and  would  not  a  departure  from  the  terms  of  your  baptismal 
 covenant  be  an  apostacy  from  that  glorious  Being  to  whom 
 you  were  piously  given  ?  Had  he  not  a  right  to  bind  you  to 
 obey  his  laws,  and  embrace  his  gospel  ?  God  puts  into  the 
 hands  of  Christian  parents  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in 
 their  families,  and  they  are  responsible  for  their  children's 
 good,  while  under  their  control  and  direction.  And  when 
 they  do  what  is  right  towards  you,  it  might  be  said  to  them, 
 as  Christ  said  to  his  chief  disciples,  'The  child  that  heareth 
 '  you  heareth  me,  and  he  that  despiseth  you  despiseth  me, 
 1  and  him  that  sent  me.' 
 
 The  Hebrew  children,  who  were  circumcised,  and  likely 
 baptized  too,  on  the  eighth  day,  when  they  could  not  understand 
 the  nature  of  the  deed,  nor  give  their  consent  to  it,  were  yet 
 bound  by  it,  and  became  debtors  to  do  the  whole  law.  The 
 little  Israelites,  baptized  in  the  Ked  Sea,  with  their  parents 
 and  relations,  were  thereby  brought  into  a  new  covenant 
 relation  to  God  ;  were  bound  to  keep  laws,  and  statutes,  and 
 ordinances,  of  which,  at  the  time,  they  were  utterly  uncon- 
 scious, and,  for  the  breaking  of  which,  probably  many  of 
 them  perished  miserably  in  the  wilderness.  Your  initiation 
 into  the  general  church  of  Christ  binds  you  to  learn  and 
 do  his  revealed  will,  to  the  utmost  of  your  power.  And 
 remember,  that  you  will  be  far  more  criminal  than  the 
 unbaptized  and  untaught  heathen,  if  you  voluntarily  fail  to 
 fulfil  your  baptismal  obligations. 
 
 (3.)  Finally,  persevere  in  the  good  way  into  which  your 
 baptism  introduced,  you. — You  were  placed  among  Christians 
 as  distinguished  from  Jews,  Heathens,  infidels,  and  open 
 sinners.  You  are  entitled  to  be  designated  Christians,  in 
 the  wide  and  general  sense  of  that  term.  You  were  recognized 
 as  young  disciples  of  the  Son  of  God.  So  far,  all  was  right 
 and  promising.  The  religious  duty  of  parents  towards  you 
 was,  and  still  is,  onerous  and  urgent.  But,  as  you  advance  in 
 years,  and  arise  to  self-control,  those  obligations  gradually 
 diminish  in  reference  to  them,  and  increase  with  respect  to 
 yourselves — just  as  it  rested  with  them  first  to  support  you  ; 
 and  then,  in  time,  for  you  to  support  yourselves.  Ministers 
 officially  devoted  you  to  the  Lord,  and  prayed  for  his  blessing 
 to  follow  you  all  through  life.  Your  parents  said,  Amen,  to 
 the  supplications  of  the  men  of  God.  See  to  it,  then,  that  you 
 do  not  disappoint  their  reasonable  expectations.  As  John  said- 
 to  the  elect  lady  and  her  children,  so  say  these  good  men, 
 who  first  consecrated  you  to  him,   '  Look  to  yourselves,  that 
 
616  CONCLUDING  EEMARKS. 
 
 '  we  lose  not  those  things  which  we  have  wrought,  but  that 
 '  we  receive  a  full  reward.  Whosoever  transgresseth  and 
 '  abideth  not  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  hath  not  God.  He 
 '  that  abideth  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  hath  both  the  Father 
 '  and  the  Son.'  2  Epist.  8,  9. 
 
 Thousands  are  instructed  in  vain ;  in  vain  they  hear  the 
 gospel ;  and  even  suffer  many  things  in  vain.  Numerous 
 adults  are  dipped  in  vain,  and  numerous  children  are  affused 
 in  vain.  Take  heed  that  this  be  not  your  own  case.  '  Circum- 
 '  cision,'  says  the  apostle,  '  verily  profiteth,  if  thou  keep  the 
 '  law ;  but,  if  thou  be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision 
 '  is  made  uncircumcision '  Rom.  ii.  25.  In  the  same  way, 
 baptism  profiteth,  if  you  observe  the  duties  which  it  teaches 
 and  imposes  on  you.  But  if  you  do  not,  your  baptism,  as 
 far  as  your  profit  is  involved,  becomes  no  baptism.  The 
 benefits  your  ought  to  derive  from  it,  you  forfeit  by  a  neglect 
 of  the  duties  which  it  righteously  enjoins  upon  you.  See  to 
 it,  therefore,  that  your  consecration  to  the  Lord  be  ever  kept 
 in  mind ;  and  that  you  ever  act  as  persons  on  whose  faith, 
 love,  and  obedience,  he  has  especial  claims.  Live  to  his  glory, 
 and  promote  his  cause  and  honour  in  the  world.  Rest  not 
 without  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  his  progressive 
 work  in  your  hearts.  '  Grow  in  grace  and  in  the  knowledge  of 
 '  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.'  And  may  you,  at  last, 
 through  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  belief  of  the 
 truth,  attain  to  the  joys  and  the  glories  of  eternal  life  ! 
 
 Wbi  95nfc. 
 
2Hovfej5  on  iljt  baptismal  ©onttobersg. 
 
 BAPTIST.  Edits. 
 
 Agnostos — Thoughts  on  Baptism 1819 
 
 Anderson — Introduction,  &c,  to  Taylor's  Baptist  Justified    ..  1S18 
 
 Birt,  Isaiah — Defence  of  Scripture  Baptism n.  d. 
 
 „           Vindication  of  the  Baptists 1 793 
 
 „           Strictures  on  Mends'  Pamphlet 1 797 
 
 J.           Letter  to  Dr.  Wardlaw 1825 
 
 Booth,  A. — Pedobaptism  Examined — 2  vols 1787 
 
 „         Defence  of  ditto 1792 
 
 „          Apology  for  the  Baptists   1813 
 
 Burt — Treatise  on  Baptism 1 732 
 
 Butterworth — Conference  Weighed 1784 
 
 „            Vindication  of  ditto   1785 
 
 Byron — Remarks  on  the  Doctrine  of  Baptism 1843 
 
 Carson — Baptism  in  its  Mode  and  Subjects 1844 
 
 Countryman — On  the  Candour  of  P.  Edwards 1795 
 
 Cox— Reply  to  Ewing,  Dwight,  &c 1824 
 
 Coxhead — Remarks  on  Christian  Baptism   1832 
 
 Cowe — Antipedobaptism   1840 
 
 Daniell— What  is  Baptism  ? 1838 
 
 D'Anvers — Treatise  on  Baptism,  &c 1075 
 
 Dore — Preface  to  Antipedobaptism,  &c 1795 
 
 „      Sermons  on  Baptism 1829 
 
 Draper — Infant  Sprinkling  not  Scripture  Baptism 1837 
 
 Evans,  Dr.  &c. — Lectures  on  Baptism 182G 
 
 Fisher — Good  Old  Way  of  Dipping 1653 
 
 Foot — Practical  Discourse  concerning  Baptism   1S20 
 
 Gale— Reflections  on  Wall's  History    1820 
 
 Gibbs — Believer's  Baptism  by  Immersion    1820 
 
 Gill — Sermons  and  Tracts  on  Baptism — Works,  vol.  ii 1773 
 
 Gotch — Critical  Examination  of  baptizo    1841 
 
 Hall,  R.— Works,  vol.  iii 1S51 
 
 Jenkins — Reply  to  De  Courcy's  Rejoinder  1778 
 
 ,,        Inconsistency  of  Infant  Sprinkling,  &c 1784 
 
 Keach — Answer  to  Mr.  James  Owen   1G9G 
 
G18  WORKS  ON  THE  BAPTISMAL  CONTROVERSY. 
 
 Edits. 
 
 Kinghorn — Reply  to  P.  Edwards 1 795 
 
 Lamb — Confutation  of  Infant  Baptism    1643 
 
 Maclean — Letters  to  Mr.  John  Glass   17G7 
 
 Newman — Baptismal  Immersion,  &c 1819 
 
 „         Perpetuity  of  Baptism     1820 
 
 „         Sermons  on  Baptism  1829 
 
 Noel — Essay  on  Christian  Baptism 1849 
 
 „            „         External  Act  of  Baptism    1850 
 
 Owen — Female  Communion  and  Infant  Baptism     1840 
 
 Paice — Infant  Baptism  Considered 1796 
 
 Peace — Scripture  Doctrine  of  Baptism     1794 
 
 Pengelly— Scripture  Guide    1836 
 
 Ilees,  D. — Infant  Baptism,  no  Institution  of  Christ    1734 
 
 Robinson — History  of  Baptism 1 790 
 
 Ryland — Candid  Statements     1S27 
 
 Stennett,  I. — Answer  to  Russen    1 707 
 
 „        S. — Answer  to  Addington 1775 
 
 Stovel — Lectures  on  Baptismal  Regeneration 1843 
 
 „       Christian  Discipleship 1846 
 
 Tombes — Exer citation  about  Infant  Baptism 1646 
 
 „        Antipedobaptism    1652 
 
 PEDOBAPTIST. 
 
 Addington — Christian  Minister's  Reasons,  &c 1771 
 
 Anon. — The  Baptism  of  Infants  a  Reasonable  Service    1753 
 
 Plain  Reasons  for  Infant  Baptism   1 750 
 
 Pedobaptism  Defended,  against  Dr.  Gill     1754 
 
 Inquiry  into  the  Nature  and  Design  of  Baptism    ....  1757 
 
 Baptism  of  Infants  founded  on  Reason   1S13 
 
 Right  of  Infants  to  Christian  Baptism    1825 
 
 Confessions  of  a  Convert  from  Baptism,  &c 1848 
 
 Bass — Christian  Baptism 1822 
 
 Baxter,  R. — Infant  Church  Membership 1651 
 
 Baxter,  A.  J. — Baptism,  its  Mode,  Design,  and  Subjects    ....  lS5!t 
 
 Bottomley — Plea  in  Favour  of  Infant  Baptism    1781 
 
 Bowden — Covenant  Right  of  Infants   1808 
 
 Dewhirst— Parents'  Gifts  to  Baptized  Children 1835 
 
WORKS  ON  TIDE  BAPTISMAL  CONTROVERSY.  G19 
 
 Edits. 
 
 Dorrington — Vindication  of  the  Christian  Church,  &c 1701 
 
 Edwards,  P. — Candid  Reasons,  &c 1 799 
 
 Evans — Conference,  &c,  on  Baptism 1805 
 
 Ewing — Essay  on  Baptism    1824 
 
 Fleming — Plea  for  Infants,  &c 1 742 
 
 Gamble — Scripture  Baptism 1850 
 
 Halley— On  the  Sacrament— Part  1 1854 
 
 Part  II 1855 
 
 Godwin — Christian  Baptism 1845 
 
 Henry,  M. — Treatise  on  Baptism 1783 
 
 Jackson,  G. — Subjects  and  Mode  of  Baptism 1828 
 
 Jerram — Conversation  on  Infant  Baptism    1819 
 
 Isaac — Baptism  Discussed     1824 
 
 Melsom — Scripture  Baptism 1S24 
 
 Mends — The  Baptism  of  Infants  Authorized,  &c 1797 
 
 Miller — Pedobaptist  Mode,  &c,  Vindicated     1794 
 
 Mills— On  the  True  Mode  of  Baptism 1849 
 
 Monro — Inquiry  on  the  Subjects  and  Mode  of  Baptism 1825 
 
 „       Modern  Immersion  Opposed  to  Scripture  Baptism   . .  1S42 
 
 Osgood — Validity  of  Baptism  by  Sprinkling,  &c 1809 
 
 Pirie — Dissertation  on  Baptism    1806 
 
 Parsons,  B. — (John  Bull) — Dialogues  on  Baptism 1835 
 
 Pamphleteer — Richmond,  America 1819 
 
 Postlewaite — The  Doctrine  of  Baptism    1811 
 
 '  Recantation ' — Antipedobaptism  found  Antiscriptural 1842 
 
 Russen — True  Picture  of  the  Anabaptists    
 
 Spence — Connexion  between  Believers,  &c 1822 
 
 Taylor — Tracts  and  Evidences  on  Baptism 1815 
 
 Towgood — Dipping  not  the  only  Mode,  &c 1813 
 
 Tyerman — Essay  on  Baptism    1 806 
 
 Urwick — Concise  View  of  the  Doctrine  of  Baptism    1822 
 
 Walker — Doctrine  of  Baptism 1678 
 
 Walt— History  of  Infant  Baptism 1819 
 
 AVardlaw — Dissertation  on  Infant  Baptism 1825 
 
 Williams — Antipedobaptism  Examined    1 789 
 
 Wilson — Infant  Baptism  a  Scriptural  Service 1847 
 
 Wills — Infant  Baptism,  Asserted  and  Vindicated    1674 
 
 Young — Infant  Baptism,  Reconsidered  and  Defended    1818 
 
%\\  tjjB  met  Sltttjinr. 
 
 MODERN     IMMERSION 
 NOT  SCRIPTURE  BAPTISM. 
 
 Second  Thousand.— In  12mo.  cloth  boards,  gilt  lettered,  pp.  420,  price  6s.  Gd. 
 
 "  That  department  of  inquiry  which  he  has  selected,  is  the  mode  of 
 administering  the  ordinance ;  and  it  is  but  justice  to  him  to  state,  that 
 he  has  investigated  it  with  a  patience  of  research,  an  acuteness  of 
 observation,  and  a  copiousness  and  variety  of  evidence,  which  have 
 seldom  been  equalled,  and,  perhaps,  never  surpassed.  The  man  who 
 is  in  doubt  respecting  the  mode  of  administering  this  ordinance,  would 
 not  do  justice  to  himself,  or  the  subject,  were  he  not  to  peruse  this 
 volume." — Congregational  Mag. 
 
 "  It  is  a  work  of  great  research ;  the  argumentation  is  remarkably 
 clear  and  strong ;  the  ground  which  the  Author  takes  is  often  new; 
 and  the  work  cannot  fail  to  make  a  deep  impression  upon  every  candid 
 mind.  We  cordially  recommend  it  to  those  who  are  perplexed  by  the 
 disputations  of  men  who  labour  in  the  vocation  of  proselytism,  and  to 
 all  who  wish  to  understand  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  concerning  the 
 mode  of  Christian  Baptism." — Methodist  Mag. 
 
 "  This  is  a  laborious,  well-arranged,  and  excellent  book.  It  must 
 have  cost  the  respected  Author  much  time  and  study :  it  exhibits 
 extensive  reading  and  extensive  acquaintance  with  the  subject. .  . .  We 
 have  not  read  so  much  well- written,  well-arranged,  and  delightfully 
 collected  matter,  upon  the  subject  of  baptism,  for  a  long  time.  We  hope 
 the  Author's  labours  will  be  duly  appreciated." — Home  Miss.  Mag. 
 
 "  We  regard  his  work  as  a  very  able  treatise ;  and  considering  that 
 it  relates  to  a  much  controverted  topic,  which  has  not  always  been 
 handled  with  perfect  modesty  and  good  humour,  cannot  but  commend 
 it  for  the  absence  of  all  rancorous  and  unholy  feeling. — Mr.  Thorn 
 has  put  forth  a  great  deal  of  research,  and  has  furnished  a  long  train 
 of  most  interesting  facts,  which,  together  with  his  scriptural  reasonings, 
 cannot  fail  to  render  his  volume  an  object  of  interest  to  all  candid, 
 philosophical,  and  Christian  minds." — Evangelical  Mag. 
 
 "  It  is  a  question  with  us  if  any  man,  living  or  dead,  has  examined 
 the  Baptist  library  with  more  keenness  and  good  effect.  We  cannot 
 but  think  the  impartial  will  maintain  that,  as  a  general  in  this  warfare, 
 he  has  displayed  splendid  talents." — Imp.  Mag. 
 
 "  We  conclude  with  hearty  thanks  to  Mr.  Thorn  for  one  of  the  most, 
 if  not  the  most,  valuable  work  on  immersion  which  has  appeared." — 
 Evan.  Register. 
 
 DIPPING  NOT  BAPTIZING. 
 
 New  Edition  of  JjOOO  copies,  Crown  Svo.  pp.  24,  price  Sd. 
 
 T