BAP 
 
. 
 
 .*$ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 ♦ •NT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •5. 
 
 
 _c 
 
 
 n"V 
 
 
 _9- 
 
 
 *k 
 
 
 (0 
 
 
 *— 
 
 , 
 
 .— 
 
 
 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 cl 
 
 
 J? 
 
 fc 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 CD 
 
 C 
 
 bfl 
 
 
 
 
 <c 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 0) 
 
 4 
 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 <-* 
 
 M 
 
 E 
 to 
 
 •5 
 
 ^ 
 
 FM 
 
 
 
 
 
 -Q 
 
 « 
 
 S** 
 
 
 -a 
 
 ^ 
 
 >^. 
 
 
 CD 
 
 ^r 
 
 | 
 
 
 CD 
 </> 
 CD 
 
 <3 
 
 *> 
 
 CL 
 
 g 
 
 
 <: 
 
 £^£ 
 
 > ^ 
 
 *\ 
 
 AG 
 
 ,1 
 
THE 
 
 /letters 
 
 OF 
 
 C0NTAININ8 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS 
 
 UPON 
 
 THE LECTURES OF DR. WOODS 
 
 ON 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE COLUMBIAN STAR. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : 
 
 W. PILKINGTON AND CO. PRINTERS, 
 
 S. W. Corner of Sixth & Cherry sts. 
 
 1828. 
 
To the Editor of the Columbian Star. 
 
 Dear Brother — Soon after the Lectures of Dr. Woods on 
 Infant Baptism appeared, an intimate christian friend who lives 
 several miles from me, and myself, agreed that we would on 
 reading, make animadversions upon the work, and communi- 
 cate them to each other by letter. In pursuance of this 
 agreement, we wrote much more than either of us had intend- 
 ed. Believing that some good might accrue from the publi- 
 cation of our animadversions, we have, by alterations and 
 transpositions, brought them into the form of seven letters, 
 which are now offered for insertion in the Columbian Star, if 
 you deem them worthy of a place. Yours, &c. 
 
* 
 
 X.UTTER I. 
 
 My Dear Brother — According to our engagement, I send 
 you some of my thoughts on the Lectures of Dr. Woods on 
 Infant Baptism, hoping to be favoured in a short time with 
 your's in return. 
 
 THE QUESTION. 
 
 Our Paedobaptist brethren are not agreed among themselves 
 on the subject of Infant Baptism; some of them administering 
 it to all infants, indiscriminately, and others restricting its use 
 to the children of a believer. On this, as well as on other 
 accounts, it might have been well, if the lectures had com- 
 menced with a formal enunciation of the question to be dis- 
 cussed. 
 
 The question between Dr. Woods and us, on the doctrine 
 of Infant Baptism appears to be this; Are the infant children 
 of a believer proper subjects of baptism ? In this doctrinal 
 question, there appear to be involved the following questions 
 of duty: Is it the duty of every believing parent, to solicit 
 baptism for his infant children from a christian minister, and 
 in order to obtain it for them, to engage that he will bring 
 them up in the nurture and, admonition of the Lord ? Is, it 
 the duty of the minister, who may be applied to, if he is satis- 
 fied respecting the sincerity and piety of the parent, to admi- 
 nister the ordinance ? 
 
 The questions stated in the preceding paragraph, do not 
 cover the whole ground of dispute. We differ about believers' 
 baptism, as well as about infant baptism. To the question, 
 Are believers proper subjects of baptism ? our Paedobaptist 
 brethren answer affirmatively, as well as ourselves; and there 
 appears, at first view, to be an entire agreement between us 
 on this subject. But it will be seen we diner greatly if the 
 following questions of duty be proposed. — Is it the duty of 
 every believer to solicit baptism for himself from a christian 
 
4 Dr. Woods 1 Method of conducting the Controversy. 
 
 minister, and, in order to obtain it, to make a profession of 
 his faith ? — Is it the duty of the minister who may be applied 
 to, if he is satisfied respecting the sincerity and piety of the 
 candidate, to administer the ordinance ? We answer both 
 these questions in the affirmative, but they make an exception 
 in all cases in which the believer was baptized in infancy. 
 This difference is, in my estimation, much more important 
 than that which respects infant baptism. I do not so much 
 object to infant baptism, considered in itself, as to the use 
 which is made of it, to set aside believers' baptism; if it should 
 ever become universal on the present plan, believers' bap- 
 tism will be banished from the Church. 
 
 Our Paedobaptist brethren practise two baptisms, which are 
 distinct, and which might be practised without being suffered 
 to oppose each other. Infant baptism is, they think, a pa- 
 rental duty; v believers' baptism, a personal duty. These du- 
 ties need not interfere with each other. When it is conceded 
 to us that believers are proper subjects of baptism, we ought 
 to hold fast the concession in the full extent of its meaning, 
 and whatever may be proved respecting infants, we should 
 still ask, why are believers prevented from performing the 
 duty which is implied in this concession ? We owe it to the 
 cause of truth, to have the whole question fairly met, and to 
 let it be distinctly understood, that we are contending for the 
 privileges of believers, rather than against the privileges of 
 their children. 
 
 DR. WOODS' METHOD OF CONDUCTING THE CONTROVERSY. 
 
 The spirit, with which these lectures are written, is excel- 
 lent. I hope the time is coming when christians will be chris- 
 tians even in controversy. It would distress me much to see 
 a reply to this publication, that should exhibit the acrimonious 
 temper, which has been too much indulged by writers on both 
 sides of the question. While the Dr. firmly opposes our sen- 
 timents, he has written scarcely a sentence, of which we can 
 complain that it is calculated to excite prejudice against us. 
 What he has said in lecture 8, p. 171, 172, may be an excep- 
 tion, but as there is, perhaps, too much reason for his re- 
 marks, we ought rather to profit by them than complain. 
 
 The plan of investigating the subject differs in appearance 
 from that which Pgedobaptist writers commonly pursue. Dr. 
 
The Kind of Evidence. 5 
 
 W. has made the commission the great hinge of the question; 
 yet you will perceive, that arguments from the Abrahamic 
 covenant, and the ancient dispensation, are the weights on 
 which he relies to give the turn to the Paadobaptist side. To 
 justify his interpretation of the commission, he argues that the 
 covenant of which circumcision was appointed to be the seal, 
 was spiritual, gracious, and immutable, p. 35, and that the 
 authority, by which members are admitted to the privileges of 
 the christian church, is contained in that covenant, or char- 
 ter, perpetuated to the present time, with no other change 
 than a modification of its outward form, p.. 35. 
 
 THE KIND OF EVIDENCE. 
 
 The commission is the proper hinge of the question. In 
 professing to hang the whole upon this, Dr. W. has made an 
 important concession, in return for which, I would allow him 
 in the interpretation, to avail himself of every advantage, 
 which inference, in the sober use of it, can possibly afford. I 
 am not of opinion that inferences, even concerning positive 
 institutes, are to be discarded. The meaning of every word, 
 in the commands on which such institutes are founded, must 
 be determined by inference; and the meaning of the entire 
 commands, must be ascertained by inference from the mean- 
 ing of their several parts. Besides, if some duties are clearly 
 expressed in a command, there may be others as clearly im- 
 plied. If by the commission, v/e could, without the use of 
 inference, demonstrate that it is the duty of a minister to bap- 
 tize converts, we might infer, that it is the duty of the con- 
 verts to be baptized, and the proof in the latter case would be 
 just as satisfactory as in the former. 
 
 Dr. W. refers to tradition also as a source of evidence. 
 Some tilings which he has said respecting tradition, are start- 
 ling to a timid protestant. But we must concede, that the 
 will of God ought to be obeyed, however it is made known; 
 and that a mind rightly disposed, will seek to know that will, 
 without prescribing the method in which it shall be revealed. 
 The methods which God has taken in the different ages of 
 the world, have been sufficient for his purpose, and men have 
 been required to obey only according to the revelation made. 
 While tradition passed through but few hands, men were left 
 to learn the will of God from it. Since the life of man has 
 
 a 2 
 
6 The Christian Sabbath. 
 
 been shortened, God has committed his will to writing, be- 
 cause this method of communication is less liable to corrup- 
 tion. We are sure, therefore, that God regards tradition as 
 too uncertain in the present state of the world for the revela- 
 tion of his will. If he has still left some truths to be seen by 
 the light of reason and tradition, we are sure that he has judg- 
 ed wisely, what truths might be so left. A mind rightly dis- 
 posed, will in every case, avail itself of the best light within 
 its reach, and guided thereby, will follow on to know the 
 Lord. He will never follow tradition, where he has scripture 
 to guide him, and will avoid every approach toward the fault 
 of those, who make void the written law through tradition, 
 thereby rejecting the counsel of God against themselves, by 
 judging that to be more certain, which God has judged to be 
 less so. 
 
 I propose the following rules for the application of evidence 
 from inference and tradition. The justness of them, cannot, 
 I think, be questioned. 1 . Never allow an inference which is 
 direct and clear, to be set aside by one which is remote and 
 obscure. 2. Never admit any proof from tradition, which 
 will set aside what may be proved by scripture. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN SABBATH. 
 
 Dr. W. thinks that we have the same kind of proof for in- 
 fant baptism as for the christian Sabbath: and that we must 
 resort for proof of either, to inference and tradition. Let us 
 then receive from inference and tradition what light they can 
 afford, bearing in mind the rules prescribed above for the ap- 
 plication of evidence from these sources. 
 
 If the law of God is, remember every Saturday to keep it 
 holy, then no tradition can authorize us to profane that holy 
 day. If tradition should teach that the ancient christians con- 
 secrated Sunday to the Lord, though we might infer that Sun- 
 day ought to be observed, yet we ought rather to keep two 
 Sabbaths than to exalt the authority of tradition and inference 
 above the express command of the law. Either the fourth 
 command must be erased from the decalogue, or it will for 
 ever require that we remember Saturday to keep it holy, 
 whatever other days we may observe for sacred uses. In like 
 manner, if the Lord Jesus has commanded every believer to 
 be baptized, as an act of personal obedience, and has made 
 
The Christian Sabbath. 7 
 
 a clear revelation of his will in this particular in the written 
 word, then, though we should be able to prove by tradition, 
 and remote inference, that believers ought to have their chil- 
 dren baptized, yet this tradition and inference, should not be 
 allowed to set aside the clear command of scripture. Con- 
 vince me that the law of God requires Saturday to be kept 
 holy, and that tradition and fair inference sustain the claims 
 of the christian Sabbath, and I will not make void the law 
 through tradition, but will consecrate both days to the Lord.* 
 Convince me that the Redeemer, by a clear revelation of his 
 will in the written word, has commanded his disciples to be 
 baptized, and that tradition and inference require parents to 
 have their children baptized, then I will not make void the 
 command by tradition and inference, nor will I despise the 
 will of God when fairly discovered by these means, but I w iH 
 practise both baptisms. 
 
 Although the case of the christian Sabbath, and that of in- 
 fant baptism, may both be had in view, in fixing the rules of 
 evidence, yet they ought to be decided independently of each 
 other, according to the facts found in each respectively. If in 
 our judgment respecting the christian Sabbath, we have al- 
 lowed more weight to tradition and inference than to clear 
 scripture testimony, we have judged wrong, and we ought ra- 
 ther to undo the wrong than establish it as a precedent. 
 
 Should it be urged that the two baptisms proposed to be 
 practised together do necessarily conflict with each other, 
 then I should reply, that the baptism which is sustained by 
 the weaker evidence, must yield. But why do they necessari- 
 ly conflict with each other ? Many persons believe, that the 
 Apostles re-baptized those, whom John had baptized, or 
 whom they themselves had baptized during the Redeemer's 
 persona] ministry. They think it a sufficient reason for this 
 repetition of baptism, that the two baptisms differed from each 
 other. Why may not the same reason justify the administra- 
 tion of believers' baptism and infant baptism, to the same sub- 
 
 * If any one should say, the commandment requires six days of la- 
 bour, as well as one of rest, it might be replied in the words of Scott: 
 l * It is plain that the words Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy 
 work, were merely an allowance and not an injunction : for the Lord 
 forbade by other precepts all labour on some of these days. 1 " Notes 
 Exod. 20. 8. 10. Further, the Apostles kept both days. Doddridge's 
 Lectures, prop. 151. gr. 7. 
 
8 The Christian Sabbath. 
 
 ject ? Moreover, they who were circumcised in infancy, were 
 afterwards baptised upon becoming disciples of Christ. If 
 infant baptism takes the place of infant circumcision, believ- 
 ers' baptism may, with as much propriety, follow the one as 
 the other: and more especially, if the proselytes who were 
 baptized on the day of pentecost had been previously baptized 
 as well as circumcised, Acts ii. 10. 38. 41. It is no valid 
 objection, that circumcision itself was not repeated. We 
 may argue with Dr. W. what is suitable, p. 27. What is 
 manifestly unsuitable in one case is not so in the other. Cir- 
 cumcision was a token of God's covenant, that needed not to 
 be repeated, because it remained in the flesh; but it is far 
 otherwise with baptism. Indeed, how a man can be said to 
 have the seal of God's covenant upon him, who has it neither 
 in his flesh, nor in his memory, I cannot understand. I sup- 
 pose, the Israelites would have thought themselves authorized 
 to circumcise themselves, just as often as they had no other 
 proof of having been circumcised than the information of their 
 parents. 
 
 The facts upon which our judgment respecting the chris- 
 tian Sabbath must rest, are not concerned in the present 
 question. When that case shall come to be decided, the fol- 
 lowing things will be found among the number that deserve 
 to be considered. 1. In the very nature of things, it is im- 
 possible that we should have the authority of scripture for the 
 particular day which we observe. Should the scripture di- 
 rect to keep Saturday, or Sunday, or both, we know these 
 days from the other days of the week, only by the computa- 
 tion which is in common use, that is to say, only by the au- 
 thority of tradition. 2. It is impossible from the figure of 
 the earth, that any one day of the week should be observed in 
 all places. As Christianity spreads eastward and westward 
 from any given place, its professors will meet each other in 
 the opposite hemisphere of the earth with a difference of one 
 day in their computation of time, and will be Sabbath break- 
 ers to each other, if nothing is left to expediency and Chris- 
 tian prudence, as to the time of keeping the Sabbath. " As 
 it is impossible, says Dr. Doddrige, certainly to determine 
 which is the seventh day from the creation, and as (in conse- 
 quence of the spherical form of the earth, and the absurdity 
 of the scheme which supposed it one great plain) the change 
 of place will necessarily occasion some alteration in the time 
 
The Commission. 9 
 
 of the beginning and ending of any day in question, it being 
 always at the same time somewhere or other, sun-rising and 
 sun-setting, noon and midnight; it seems very unreasonable 
 to lay such a stress upon the particular day as some do. It 
 seems abundantly sufficient, that there be six days of labour, 
 and one of religious rest, which there will be upon the chris- 
 tian as well as the Jewish scheme." Lectures prop. 151. 
 schol. 8. 3. The commandment'of scripture does not fix a 
 particular day. It is not, Remember Saturday to keep it holy, 
 but, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days 
 shalt thou labour and do all thy icork ; but the seventh day is 
 the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. It does not require that 
 we keep the seventh day of the week, but the seventh day 
 that follows after six days of labour. This we do when we 
 keep what is called the first day of the week, that is (John xx. 
 1.) 'jj ftix rai ToL&fictTuv, the first according to the reckoning 
 of the Jewish Sabbaths: for the Sabbaths determine the 
 reckoning of the week, and not the reckoning of the week 
 the Sabbaths. 4. There is much evidence both from scrip- 
 ture and tradition, that the Apostles and primitive christians 
 observed for christian worship the day following that on which 
 the Jews kept their Sabbath. 
 
 In the case of infant baptism, we shall not find facts ana- 
 logous to those stated in the preceding paragraph. 1. The 
 nature of the case admits of scripture evidence, and the best 
 evidence that the nature of the case admits, we should seek 
 for as the ground of our decision. 2. The same character 
 of persons may be, and ought to be admitted to baptism all 
 the world over. 3. It is conceded that we have clear scrip- 
 ture authority for baptizing all believers, with the exception 
 of such as have been baptized in infancy, and that the autho- 
 rity for excepting these is to be made out in some other way 
 than by explicit scripture testimony. 4. It remains yet to be 
 shown that there is evidence either from scripture or tradi- 
 tion, that the Apostles and primitive christians ever omitted 
 to baptize any believers on the ground of their having been 
 baptized in infancy; nay more, that they ever practised infant 
 baptism. 
 
 THE COMMISSION. 
 
 Dr. W.'s rule for interpreting the commission is correct. 
 The meaning of such language at the time it was used is that 
 
10 The Commission. 
 
 by which we ought to abide. But we cannot affirm that what 
 Jesus meant is what the Apostles understood, so properly, as 
 that it is what they ought to have understood. He said, 
 Teach all nations, yet, for a considerable time, they preached 
 to Jews only. They allowed their Jewish prejudices to influ- 
 ence them too far. They should have interpreted the com- 
 mission less by their previous Jewish notions, and more by 
 their Master's words; and so, I think, ought Dr. Woods. 
 
 The meaning of the term pccS-wiva, 1 suppose, is given 
 correctly also, i. e. to make disciples, or to disciple, but a 
 proselyte and a disciple are not the same thing. The Jews 
 would not have said, Thou art his proselyte, but we are Mo- 
 ses* proselytes. John ix. 28. Had Dr. Woods confined him- 
 self to the term disciple, his reasoning would not have been 
 so plausible. A disciple sustains a relation to a teacher, and 
 it is this relation which constitutes him a disciple. John, and 
 Jesus, and also the Pharisees, had disciples among the Jews, 
 but when a Jew became discipled to any one of these teach- 
 ers, he did not thereby become proselyted from the Jewish 
 religion. It was well understood, that the relation which 
 constituted him a disciple, was something new, and wholly 
 distinct from that relation which constituted him a member of 
 the commonwealth of Israel, neither destroying it, nor serving 
 as a substitute for it. Hence it was that the Apostles every 
 where claimed to be Jews, and entitled to all the privileges 
 of Israelites, at the same time that they professed to be disci- 
 ples of Christ. It is therefore incredible, that they should 
 think of making disciples to Christ, just as if they were mak- 
 ing proselytes to Judaism. They had heard their Master fix 
 the terms of discipleship, except a man deny himself, and take 
 up his cross and follow me, he cannot be my disciple. They 
 had seen John make and baptize disciples, they had seen Je- 
 sus do the same, (John, iv. 1.) and they had for some years 
 been the agents of their Master in this work. It is not pro- 
 bable that they had ever compassed sea or land to make a 
 proselyte to Judaism, and if proselytes were baptized in those 
 days, and the proselyte makers administered that baptism, (all 
 which may be safely disputed,) still it is not likely that the 
 Apostles had any concern in it. It is sufficiently clear that 
 they had never seen either John, or Jesus, baptizing Jewish 
 proselytes. They baptized not even native Jews, until they 
 had first been made disciples. "Adult Jews," says Scott, " pro- 
 
The Commission. 11 
 
 fessing repentance, and a disposition to become Messiah's 
 subjects, were the only persons, as far as we can find, whom 
 John admitted to baptism." Notes on Matt. iii. 5, 6. These 
 baptisms to which they had been accustomed were their ex- 
 ample, and the commission was their authority to proceed in 
 like manner throughout all nations — Go, make disciples of all 
 nations, baptizing them, <$fc. 
 
 Occasionally, in the writings of Pasdobaptists, when they are 
 treating of Infant Baptism, we meet with intimations that in- 
 fants may be the disciples of Christ. " He is placed in a 
 school where he is to receive faithful instruction and disci- 
 pline," p. 140. " The children of believers were to be con- 
 sidered and treated as placed in the school of Christ," p. 96. 
 " If God is pleased to place our children in such a near rela- 
 tion to us, and if he requires us to consecrate them to him, 
 and to put upon them the sign of consecration, the mark of 
 discipleship, that is, the mark of their being placed as young 
 disciples in the school of Christ," &c. p. 97. Nay, that Dr. W. 
 will not contend for any authority in the commission to bap- 
 tize infants, unless those infants are disciples, may be inferred 
 from his so frequent mention of their baptism as the mark of 
 discipleship, and from what he has said, p. 106. " The word he 
 uses is (fAxB-yiTiv6^rx9, they were proselyted, or made disci- 
 ples ; the very word which Christ had used in his commission 
 to his apostles, " Go ye, make disciples of all nations." The 
 persons referred to, Justin says, were made disciples $k zrxi- 
 3<yy, from their early childhood. The w r ord is applied to the 
 little children whom Christ took in his arms, and blessed. It 
 is evident, therefore, that Justin understood the command of 
 Christ, to make disciples and baptize, as applicable to little 
 children." Now let the question be distinctly proposed, are 
 infants baptized because they are disciples of Christ ? Will 
 our Paedobaptist brethren affirm that the infants they baptize 
 are disciples in the scriptural sense and use of that term ? The 
 command, " Go make disciples, baptizing them," is scrip- 
 ture language, and to be interpreted accordingly. Dr. W. 
 does not venture to call infants disciples without prefixing the 
 epithet young, an epithet which, it is easy to perceive, has 
 some effect in reconciling our feelings to the unscriptural use 
 of the term. But neither Dr. W. nor any other Paedobaptist 
 writer, whose mind is imbued with divine truth, and who has 
 been habituated to scripture phraseology, will be likely to 
 
12 The Commission. 
 
 speak or write long, in consistence with the supposition, that 
 infants are disciples. For proof of this, I refer you to p. 100, 
 where you may read as follows, " Certain Judaizing Chris- 
 tians came from Judea to Antioch, and said to the brethren 
 there, ' Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, 
 ye cannot be saved.' Why did they not express all they 
 meant, and say, l Except ye and your children be circumcis- 
 ed, ye cannot be saved V And, afterwards, in v. 10. when 
 Peter spoke in opposition to the Judaizing Christians, in re- 
 gard to this same subject, and said, J Why tempt ye God to 
 put a yoke upon the disciples?' that is, why do ye require the 
 disciples to be circumcised, why did he not in so many words 
 object to laying this burdensome rite upon the disciples and 
 their children ? The answer to both questions is the same. 
 There w r as no occasion for the mention of children, because 
 it was perfectly understood by all, that children were to be 
 included with their parents." Beyond all doubt, when these 
 lines were written, the thought was not present to the writers 
 mind, that the infants were as truly disciples as their parents. 
 On the contrary, the whole force of his argument is lost, if 
 the term disciples be supposed to include, in the very mean- 
 ing of the term itself, the children with their parents. His 
 argument is, that in the language, the children are not in- 
 cluded ; for, though they were meant to be included, yet all 
 was not said that was meant: that is, the children were not 
 included in the meaning of the term disciples, but in the un- 
 expressed intention of Peter. Now, whatever hesitation we 
 may feel in following Dr. W. when he decides what the 
 apostle meant beyond what is written ; yet we may readily 
 perceive that, so far as the meaning of the term disciples 
 is concerned, he wrote according to those ideas of disci- 
 pleship which he had learned, not from the baptismal con- 
 troversy, but from the holy scriptures; and by allowing that 
 infants, however they may be connected with their parents 
 who are disciples, are not disciples themselves, and are 
 not included in the term disciples in the Apostles' use of it, 
 he has conceded a very important point. It appears that 
 something more is necessary to constitute a disciple than to 
 be the child of a believer. When that essential of disciple- 
 ship is found even in very young persons, the ordinance of 
 baptism is not to be denied. " Justin Martyr speaks of per- 
 sons who were made disciples to Christ from their infancy, 
 
The Commission. 13 
 
 tx w*i$ai from their early childhood," p .106, 107. So Paul 
 declares concerning Timothy, that cc&o /5^t(povg,from infancy 
 he had known the holy scriptures, 2 Tim. hi. 15. For a per- 
 son however young, to be descended from christian parents, 
 is one thing, to be made a disciple or to know the holy scrip- 
 tures, quite a different thing. In page 107, Dr. W. says, 
 " It is evident, therefore, that Justin understood the command 
 of Christ, to make disciples, and baptize, as applicable to lit- 
 tle children. And he wrote only about 100 years after Mat- 
 thew, who records that command." Here again w r e have 
 scriptural thought, and a scriptural mode of applying the com- 
 mission. Neither Justin, nor for the present, Dr. W. speaks 
 of the commission as applicable to any but disciples. It is 
 for this application precisely that I would contend, and this is 
 the plain and obvious meaning of the commission, " Go, make 
 disciples of all nations baptizing them," ««tss, that is, the 
 disciples. 
 
 It is a peculiar infelicity of error, that its ablest advocates 
 are often unwarily its opponents. Let the following things 
 in the Lectures be put together. 1. The great argument 
 for infant baptism is suspended upon the proper interpretation 
 and application of the commission, see p. 95. 2. The pro- 
 per application of the commission to baptize, is explained to 
 be to disciples, even when very young persons are in ques- 
 tion, yea, such as the Saviour took into his arms, and blessed, 
 p. 107. — 3. It is argued that the apostle did not so understand 
 and use the term disciples, as to include the children of be- 
 lieving parents, p. 100. Were it right to triumph over con- 
 cessions unwarily made, we might here close the argument, 
 and accept the concessions of Dr. W., as yielding to us all 
 that we wish. 
 
 In my next letter, I shall undertake an examination of th*e 
 Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Christian covenants or dis- 
 pensations. In the mean time, I am very affectionately, yours, 
 
 John. 
 
 
14 The Commission. 
 
 &ETTER 13. 
 
 Dear Brother — I have received, and carefully perused your 
 communication, containing remarks on Dr. Woods' Lectures 
 on Infant Baptism. I would, in like manner, offer a few re- 
 flections for your consideration. 
 
 I have been somewhat disappointed, in not finding more 
 originality in the work. True, the Dr. has given to his per- 
 formance some appearance of novelty, by fixing on the Com- 
 mission as the hinge of his argument, but many others have 
 toiled hard to find Infant Baptism in the Commission before, 
 and with as little success; for, of all the passages to which 
 our brethren appeal in this controversy, this, I think, is the 
 most likely to disappoint them. 
 
 THE COMMISSION. 
 
 To illustrate the manner in which the Apostles must have 
 understood the commission, Dr. W. has recourse to the ob- 
 solete rite of circumcision. " The same rite was appointed 
 for parents and their children," (male children only, I suppose, 
 he means,) and why did he- not add for servants also ? There 
 are, however, too many discrepancies, between circumcision 
 and baptism, to admit, without a plain declaration to that ef- 
 fect, that the latter came in the room of the former; or that 
 the Divine Legislator, had any reference to the one, when he 
 instituted the other. To what purpose is it to insist on the 
 excellency and spirituality of promises and requirements made 
 in the Old Testament ? That men were under moral govern- 
 ment then, as well as now, is readily admitted; but was any 
 thing more required in order to circumcision, than a proof of 
 lineal descent from Abraham ? Is not this, in effect, the ar- 
 gument from the covenant with the patriarch, " Abraham was 
 commanded of God to circumcise himself, and his male chil- 
 dren; and all that were born in his house and bought with his 
 money; therefore, all Christian parents, without any com- 
 
The Commission. 15 
 
 mand, ought to baptize, that is, sprinkle with water, all their 
 children, both male and female, but not their servants ?" I 
 confess, that I perceive not the remotest connexion between 
 the parts of this argument. The words sign, and seal, used 
 by the Apostle, Rom. iv. 11, are thought to furnish some sup- 
 port to the position, that baptism has come in the room of cir- 
 cumcision, but, if Dr. Lightfoot's version of that passage be cor- 
 rect, it will, in a great measure, overturn the argument built 
 upon it. " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
 of the righteousness of faith, which should be hereafter, 
 in uncircumcision. Not what had been to Abraham, as yet 
 uncircumcised; but which should be to his seed uncircumcis- 
 ed; that is, to Gentiles, that should hereafter, imitate the faith 
 of Abraham." Bryant's abridgement of Booth's Pcedobap- 
 tism examined, p. 199. 
 
 Dr. Woods seems to be very confident, that if a commission 
 had been given to twelve Jews, to proselyte and circumcise 
 all nations, or to proselyte, circumcise, and baptize all na- 
 tions, they would have necessarily understood infants to be 
 included; and that therefore, when the Apostles received a 
 commission, to proselyte and baptize all nations, they so un- 
 derstood it, p. 44, 45. If circumcision was the same in all 
 respects as baptism, and being proselyted to Judaism was 
 the same as being made disciples to Christ, the conclusion 
 would be just, but not otherwise. For as you observe, to 
 proselyte and to make disciples in some cases are very diffe- 
 rent things, and between circumcision and baptism there are 
 so many disparities, that they will not admit of comparison, 
 much less of substitution. 
 
 From the manner in which Dr. W. speaks of the commis- 
 sion, one would think that it was delivered in very ambiguous 
 language, and that it was of exceedingly difficult interpreta- 
 tion. " Our inquiry is, whether the language employed in 
 Christ's commission to baptize, would naturally be understood 
 by his Apostles as extending to the children of believers," 
 p. 57.; and to the same purport in other places. Such an in- 
 quiry seems to me, however, to contain in it something like 
 a reflection on the wisdom and benevolence of our Divine 
 Master. Where shall we look for perspicuity of language 
 and sense, if not in the commission ? Let us then read it, 
 and see. " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel 
 to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be 
 
16 Proselyte Baptism. 
 
 saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned. Go teach 
 all nations, baptizing them, &c. That repentance and re- 
 mission of sins should be preached in his name among all 
 nations." Of infants, the commission saith nothing. If you 
 inquire of their baptism, or even of their salvation, it remains 
 equally silent, and you must ask elsewhere. But, says Dr. 
 W., " As the Apostles were Jews, and had been accustomed 
 to see parents and their children taken into the church, it was 
 natural for them to suppose, that the commission included 
 children." If I inferred any thing from the commission on 
 this subject, it would be, that, as the gospel is to be preached 
 to all nations, to every creature, then, the distinction between 
 Jews and Gentiles is done away, and the peculiarities of the 
 Abrahamic covenant and of the Mosaic economy, are abolish- 
 ed. The Apostles were not ignorant, I apprehend, of the 
 doctrine which John the Baptist, a man who was sent from 
 God, had inculcated on his baptismal occasions. " Think 
 not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our Fa- 
 ther." Do not some of the arguments for Paedobaptism, sa- 
 vour of this very sentiment, which John the Baptist reprehends ; 
 and are they not calculated to foster the spirit which he 
 sought to repress ? Further, they knew that their Lord had 
 represented his kingdom, as not being of this world, and that, 
 in order to enter into it legitimately, a man must be born 
 again of water and of the spirit. 
 
 PKOSELYTE BAPTISM. 
 
 The remarks introduced, p. 47. &c, on Jewish proselyte 
 baptism, seem to me entirely irrelevant, for several reasons. 
 
 I. There is no evidence that such a practice obtained 
 among the Jews before the Christian era. To what is quot- 
 ed from Knapp. p. 47., I would oppose the opinions of such 
 men as Beza, and Dr. Owen, who, with many learned and 
 pious Pasdobaptists, unite in representing it as destitute of 
 any support. No trace of it appears before the second cen- 
 tury ; and as to the improbability of the Jews having borrow- 
 ed it from the Christians, it may be observed, that however 
 inconsistent it may seem, though they despised and rejected 
 Jesus of Nazareth, yet they thought highly of John the Bap- 
 tist, and were willing for a season to rejoice in his light; and 
 Josephus speaks respectfully of John, and of James the just. 
 
Proselyte Baptism. 17 
 
 When these things are considered, it will not, perhaps, seem 
 an incredible thing, that the Jews should have borrowed from 
 the Christians, or rather from John the Baptist, the practice 
 of immersion. Knapp appeals to the testimony of all the 
 Rabbies, and to the universality of the practice in the second 
 century; but Jewish Rabbies, and usages of the second cen- 
 tury are dubious evidence. 
 
 Dr. Gill, who was well qualified to judge on this subject, 
 writes as follows: " Now since it appears there was no men- 
 tion of any such rite or custom of admitting Jewish prose- 
 lytes by baptism, or dipping, to the Jewish religion, in any 
 writings and records before the times of John, Christ, and 
 his Apostles; nor in any age after them, for the first three or 
 four hundred years; or, however, before the writings of the 
 Talmuds, it may be safely concluded there was no such cus- 
 tom, which had obtained in that interval of time." Elsewhere 
 he writes thus, u If these several things can be made plain, it 
 is indeed, the earliest testimony we have of this custom, and 
 serves to confirm that this custom is a pure device of the 
 Jewish doctors, and is merely Rabbinical, and besides, at 
 most, it can only carry up this custom into the fifth century." 
 {Dissertation concerning the Baptism of Jeicish Proselytes.) 
 He does not agree with Dr. Owen, in thinking that it was 
 adopted in imitation of John's baptism, but that it arose from 
 a general notion of the uncleanness of the heathen, in«their 
 state of heathenism. 
 
 2. If we admit the existence of such a practice before the 
 time of John and Christ, still it does not appear that their 
 baptism could have been derived from it. The proselytes 
 dipped themselves, which was not the case in the baptisms of 
 the New Testament. Proselyte' baptism must not be per- 
 formed in the night, or on a feast day, or on the Sabbath, or 
 when there were not three witnesses present, whereas the 
 jailer was baptized in the night, the three thousand on the 
 feast of Pentecost, and Lydia seems to have been baptized on 
 the Sabbath, and it does not appear that there were any wit- 
 nesses present at the baptism of Paul. 
 
 3. Suppose after all, that such a practice did exist among 
 the Jews, either before or after the Christian era, and that 
 the children of proselytes were baptized with their parents, it 
 could be no more than a tradition of their own, as they had 
 no direction or authority for it in the Old Testament. And 
 
 b 2 
 
18 Household Baptism. 
 
 can we suppose, that our Lord had any regard to a mere hu- 
 man invention, when instituting one of the most sacred and 
 significant rites of his kingdom ? What ! he who told the Jews 
 to their faces, that they made void the law of God through 
 their traditions, would he countenance those traditions by in- 
 corporating one of them into his sacred code ? I must have 
 some very strong evidence before I can believe this. 
 
 HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 Dr. Woods, in common with many writers on his side of 
 the controversy, is disposed to make much, very much, of the 
 few household or family baptisms recorded in the New Tes- 
 tament. On this subject I offer three or four remarks. 
 
 1 . Although we read in the New Testament of the baptism 
 of many thousands of believers, yet we hear of but three 
 household baptisms among them all. The household of Ly- 
 dia, Acts xvi. 14, 15.; of the jailer, verse 33.; and of Ste- 
 phanas, 1 Cor. i. 16. Do not our brethren forget them- 
 selves when they insist so much on household baptism ? 
 Strange indeed, if among the myriads whose baptisms the 
 New Testament mentions or implies, there should not be found 
 at least, three households. I am sorry that Dr. Woods, liv- 
 ing as he does in the midst of Baptists, should think that the 
 baptism of households is such an uncommon thing among us, 
 p. 78-, 79.; surely he ought to have acquainted himself with 
 our history and practice, before he published his book. It is 
 by no means so rare a thing as he would represent, for whole 
 families to be baptized among us; but he will not on that ac- 
 count infer that we baptize infants. Our brethren, who com- 
 municate accounts of revivals and baptisms, frequently mention, 
 among other things, the bapfism of households, but we never 
 suspect that they baptize infants. Many families, as Booth 
 observes, consist only of the master, the mistress, andthe ser- 
 vants; or if there are children, they may be all grown up. It 
 seems to be altogether a childish thing, to insist that there 
 must have been children in those families mentioned in con- 
 nexion with baptism in the New Testament. It may be sug- 
 gested, that in any given neighbourhood, nearly one half of 
 the families will be found to have no mere infants in them. 
 Dr. Hammond pronounces it an unreasonable thing, to infer 
 infant baptism from household baptism. In general, we may 
 apply to the arguments founded on these premises, what Je- 
 
Household Baptism. 19 
 
 remy Taylor says of those drawn from the passage, " Suffer 
 little children to come unto me, &.c." " They prove nothing 
 so much as the want of better arguments." 
 
 I have mentioned above that cases of household baptism 
 often occurred in revivals, but no revivals of modern times 
 can be compared with the powerful effects of the Holy Spirit 
 which accompanied the preaching of the Apostles, when mul- 
 titudes in an assembly were converted at once, and when all 
 that were gathered together in a house received the Holy 
 Ghost at the same moment, as was the case in the house of 
 Cornelius, so that no man could forbid water for the baptism 
 of any individual in the whole company. Dr. W., to illustrate 
 what would probably occur in those days does not select times 
 of revivals for his purpose. He does not even choose the 
 common progress of religion in Christian lands, but refers to 
 the slow introduction of it in heathen countries, by the pain- 
 ful efforts of ordinary and uninspired men. He asks, p. 79., 
 " Should we not think it very singular to find accounts of fa- 
 mily baptisms in a history of Baptist Missions." This is treat- 
 ing the subject with manifest injustice ! 
 
 2. The argument from household baptisms if insisted on, will 
 prove too much; it will require that not infants only, but 
 wicked and impenitent children and servants also should be 
 baptized, whenever the head of a family submits to that ordi- 
 nance; for the hinge of the argument is the term household, 
 and they are a part of the family as well as the infants who 
 may be in it; and this consequence taken in connexion with 
 the argument from circumcision cannot well be avoided. 
 Some Paedobaptists, urged on by something like an idea of 
 consistency, have admitted this, and have contended, in theo- 
 ry, at least, that all the household should be baptized; but I 
 presume that there are not many who would be willing to go 
 so fir in practice. 
 
 The following incident will illustrate the difficulty into 
 which this argument from household baptisms, brings our Pae- 
 dobaptist brethren. During a revival of religion in the town 
 
 of N. in a neighbouring state, a plain man, who was a 
 
 farmer, was, among others, hopefully converted, and felt it 
 his duty to join some church. He himself was inclined to the 
 Baptists, but his wife was a member with the Presbyterians. 
 He thought it would be convenient on many accounts to go 
 with his wife, and was desirous to be accommodating, but had 
 
20 Household Baptism. 
 
 some scruples, especially about the children being baptized. 
 He called one day on Dr. R., the Presbyterian minister, a 
 friendly, pleasant man, when the following dialogue ensued. 
 
 Farmer. I have come to converse with you on the subject 
 of making a profession of religion. As my wife is a Presby- 
 terian, it would be very desirable that we should walk toge- 
 ther; but, I have some difficulties on my mind : perhaps, you 
 can remove them. I suppose, if I should join your church, 
 it will be expected that I should bring forward my children 
 for baptism. 
 
 Dr. R. Yes, we should expect it, as it is customary among 
 us. 
 
 Farmer. I have one child four years old, can that be bap- 
 tized on my faith ? 
 
 Dr. R. O, yes. 
 
 Farmer. I have another seven years old, can that be ad- 
 mitted likewise ? 
 
 Dr. R. Yes, it is often done; T see no difficulty. 
 
 Farmer. Well, I have one that is twelve years old, can that 
 be baptized on my faith ? 
 
 Dr. R. (With some hesitation,) Yes, we do sometimes; I 
 see no difficulty. 
 
 Farmer. Well, but Dr., I have one that is fourteen years 
 old, can that one be baptized on my faith ? 
 
 Dr. R. (With considerable embarrassment,) Yes, I sup- 
 pose so — yes, I see no difficulty. 
 
 The farmer, turning away somewhat abruptly, exclaimed, 
 Ah ! Dr., I have not half enough faith for myself. 
 
 3. The things which are spoken of the three households of 
 whose baptism the New Testament furnishes information, for- 
 bid the conclusion, that there were any mere infants in them, 
 in our sense of the term. Of the jailer it is said, " they spake 
 to him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house." 
 Moreover, u he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house." 
 The household of Stephanas " addicted themselves to the 
 ministry of the saints." There is not a particle of evidence 
 that Lydia had either a husband, or children. She was of 
 Thyatyra, and Philippi does not appear to have been the 
 place of her residence. Her household is understood by many 
 to be afterwards called " brethren." There are three house- 
 holds mentioned in the New Testament, of whose faith and 
 piety we can have no doubt. The family of the nobleman at 
 
Household Baptism. 21 
 
 Capernaum, John iv. 53. The family of Cornelius at Cesa- 
 rea, Acts x. .2.; and the family of Crispus at Corinth; Acts 
 xviii. 8. And is it not as credible that the three households 
 baptized by the Apostles and their fellow labourers consisted 
 of believers ? 
 
 Our author is disposed to make much of the silence of scrip- 
 ture, p. 38, 39. I had thought that Protestants had given up 
 arguing from this uncertain source ever since they left Rome; 
 but it seems now that I was mistaken. Well, let us apply 
 this rule to the subject of household baptisms. I would pro- 
 pose to prove by it, first; that Crispus' household, Acts xviii. 
 8., though they were believers were not baptized at all; while 
 it is clear enough, that he himself was baptized by Paul; 1 
 Cor. i. 14. Again, I would prove that, although Stephanas' 
 household was baptized, 1 Cor. i. 15., he himself never was; 
 and, finally, I would prove, that the household of the jailer 
 were not only baptized on his faith, but that they might be 
 saved also on the same principle, for the Apostle said, " Be- 
 lieve (thou,) and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." It 
 would be just as easy to prove, that this text contains a pro- 
 mise of salvation to all the household, when the head becomes 
 a believer, as that any other text conveys to them the right of 
 being baptized upon the same condition. 
 
 Dr. W. would have it understood that accounts of house- 
 hold baptisms occur in the New Testament in a cursory man- 
 ner, as if they were very common things. It so happens, 
 however, that in the narratives of those transactions several 
 important hints and circumstances are so interwoven, that no 
 unprejudiced inquirer need be at a loss as to the description 
 of persons of which those households were composed. 
 
 Yours very affectionately, 
 
 David. 
 
22 The Mosaic Covenant — The Congregation of the Lord. 
 
 X.ETTEH HE. 
 
 My Dear Brother — In the close of my last, I proposed to 
 consider the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Christian cove- 
 nants. A clear and accurate conception of the nature of these 
 covenants is indispensable, in order to a just appreciation of 
 the arguments in favour of Infant Baptism. I shall devote 
 the present letter to these subjects, and shall allow myself to 
 profit in some degree by the labours of a former occasion, on 
 which some essays that you may have seen were prepared for 
 a religious periodical. 
 
 The scriptural meaning of the word covenant, Dr. Woods 
 has given very satisfactorily, p. 121. et seq.; I have nothing to 
 add to what he has said, or to take away. I am happy to find 
 also, that I shall agree with him in believing that the Mosaic 
 dispensation was that covenant, which is called the first cove- 
 nant, in the epistle to the Hebrews, and distinguished from 
 the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, p. 124.: and, that 
 the divine transactions with Abraham are to be carefully dis- 
 tinguished from the Mosaic covenant, p. 34.; though, with 
 respect to these transactions, he has, I conceive, fallen into 
 some mistakes, which I shall hereafter attempt to point out. 
 
 THE MOSAIC COVENANT THE CONGREGATION OF THE LORD. 
 
 Although, in the divine purpose, a sufficient sacrifice for 
 sin had been provided from eternity, yet, it did not seem good 
 to Infinite Wisdom that it should be immediately offered, 
 when sin first entered into the world, Jehovah looked over 
 four thousand years of ignorance and crime, to that period 
 denominated " the fulness of time," when it would best dis- 
 play the divine perfections, for the Redeemer to atone for 
 transgression ; and repentance, and remission of sins to be 
 preached in his name, among all nations. As, in the exer- 
 cises of an individual Christian, the discovery of salvation in 
 Christ is withheld, until an anxiety is excited in his breast, 
 that makes the discovery welcome; so in the history of the 
 world, the Messiah makes not his appearance, until mankind 
 
The Mosaic Covenant — The Congregation of the Lord. 23 
 
 have felt the necessity of such a deliverer; then he comes, the 
 desire of all nations. It pleased God that a full experiment 
 should be made of man's power and skill, to find a remedy 
 for his moral disease, before God's remedy for the healing of 
 the nations should be revealed and applied. " After that, in 
 the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it 
 pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save them 
 that believe." 
 
 The experiment which, in the wisdom of God, opened the 
 way for the Redeemer's entrance into the world, was of a 
 two-fold nature; or, rather, there were two distinct experi- 
 ments, demonstrating distinct truths. When the bolder ene- 
 mies of God and religion make their appeal from the volume 
 of inspiration to the volume of nature, and assert the suffi- 
 ciency of the latter to enlighten and direct them in the search 
 after God; we can refer to actual experiment, to ascertain 
 how far fallen man, without the oracles of God, can advance 
 toward the knowledge of the Divine character. With the 
 light of nature, the bright beams of science, and the keen eye 
 of natural genius, the wisest men of antiquity stilly^ in the 
 dark, after the unknown God, Acts xvii. 27. 
 
 When the more insidious enemies of religion assert, that 
 man has sufficient native virtue, if properly cultivated, to ren- 
 der him acceptable to God; that there are influences of the 
 word, or spirit, common to all men, which are sufficient, 
 without any additional special influence, to bring him to know, 
 and enjoy the Most High; we have in the wisdom of God, an- 
 other completed experiment, which decides against this doc- 
 trine, with as much certainty as is any where to be found 
 within the limits of experimental philosophy. In the sacred 
 record is the history of a people, who had the advantage over 
 every other people much, every way. They were not left to 
 read the volume of nature only; but to them were committed 
 the oracles of God. They were not left with unmeaning 
 forms, and unauthorized rites of religion; but they had ordi- 
 nances of divine service, instituted on the authority of God. 
 " To them pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the co- 
 venants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and 
 the promises." Nor were they without instructors in reli- 
 gion; but holy men were raised up among them, who spake 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Neither were they 
 without motives to obedience; but a covenant was made with 
 
24 The Mosaic Covenant — The Congregation of the Lord. 
 
 them, containing every threat which might deter — every pro- 
 mise that might allure. The experiment was made fairly and 
 completely. Jehovah himself said, " What could have been 
 done more to my vineyard, that I have not done ?" And 
 what was the result ? It was clearly demonstrated that man 
 is totally depraved; that the best institutions, instructions, and 
 motives, with all common influences of the Spirit, whatever 
 such there may be, are altogether insufficient to restore his 
 fallen nature; and that a direct, special influence upon his 
 heart, by the effectual working of Divine power, is indispen- 
 sably necessary, in order to make him delight in the law of 
 God, and render acceptable obedience to its holy requirements. 
 See Heb. viii. 8, 9, 10. 
 
 That society of persons which was the subject of the last 
 mentioned experiment, is frequently denominated the congre- 
 gation of the Lord. It appears to have been the only divine- 
 ly instituted society, organized for religious worship that ever 
 existed before the coming of Christ. That God designed by 
 the Mosaic dispensation, of which this congregation was the 
 subject to give a clear demonstration of man's depravity, may 
 be inferred from the end which has actually been accomplish- 
 ed, and from such declarations of scripture as the following: 
 " The law was added because of transgression until the seed 
 should come. The law entered that the offence might abound." 
 Since unto God all his works from the beginning are known, 
 he well knew the imperfections of the Mosaic covenant, even 
 from the time of its institution, and what would be the result 
 of the experiment. He found fault with it long before its ab- 
 rogation; and so prepared it at first, that it typified and fore- 
 told a better covenant that should succeed it, established upon 
 better promises. 
 
 The first account that the scriptures give of the congrega- 
 tion of the Lord, we find in the twelfth chapter of Exodus. 
 When a new order of things was introduced; when the year 
 received a new beginning, and became, as it has been called, 
 the ecclesiastical year; when God tbok his people by the hand, 
 to lead them out of the land of Egypt; (Heb. viii. 9.) when 
 that code of laws for the regulation of religious worship, which 
 the Apostle means by the first covenant throughout his epis- 
 tle to the Hebrews, began to be promulgated; and the pass- 
 over, as one of the ordinances of divine service pertaining to 
 the first covenant was instituted; then, first, are the Israelites 
 
The Mosaic Covenant — The Congregation of the Lord. 25 
 
 recognised as a worshipping congregation. Before this, the 
 word of the Lord had come to individuals, and individuals had 
 performed religious rites; but now, the word is sent to a whole 
 congregation, and that congregation, by divine appointment, 
 perform a rite of divine worship simultaneously. Before this, 
 the Israelites had indeed been distinguished from the rest of 
 mankind; but, not by the characteristics of a worshipping so- 
 ciety. That there were persons among them who worship- 
 ped God, in sincerity and truth, will not be disputed. But 
 where were their public altars ? Where was their sanctuary ? 
 Where were their public ministers of religion ? Where were 
 their appointed sacrifices ? Where their statute book, the laws 
 of their worship, the rules of their society, &c? A worship- 
 ping society, without forms, and rites, -and rules of worship, 
 God never constituted. 
 
 The seed of Abraham were destined to be the subjects of 
 special dispensations, throughout all their generations. This 
 appears no less in their history since the Christian era, and 
 before their deliverance from Bgyptinn bondage, than in the 
 intermediate time. But, during all this intermediate time, 
 they were the subjects of that peculiar, experimental, prepa- 
 ratory dispensation, which we have been considering. They 
 were constituted, and continued to be the Lord's peculiar 
 people, his only worshipping congregation, 1 Chr. xxviii. 8. 
 Mic. ii. 5. But while the ordinances of their worship were 
 wisely contrived to be types and prophecies of Christ, at the 
 same time that they afforded to the world that experiment, 
 which appears to have been so important a part of their de- 
 sign; in like manner, an instructive intimation of the future 
 exclusion of the Jews from gospel privileges, and of the ad- 
 mission of the Gentiles, appears to have been given, in the 
 characters of those members who composed this sacred con- 
 gregation. The great body of its constituents were the de- 
 scendants of Abraham; but provision was made in its charter, 
 that Israelites should be excluded, and that Gentiles might be 
 admitted. Deut. xxiii. 1. 8. Exod. xii. 43. 47. Nothing like 
 this can be found in the covenant made with Abraham and 
 his seed, as recorded in the 17th chapter of Genesis. This 
 covenant received into its arms every circumcised son of Ja- 
 cob, (in whom the seed was ultimately called,) without any 
 exception; and thrust from its embrace every G|enti!e, with- 
 out any distinction. It was, indeed, one of its stipulations 
 
 c 
 
26 The Mosaic Covenant — The Congregation of the Lord. 
 
 that every Israelite should have all the males of his house cir- 
 cumcised; but there is no intimation that they were all there- 
 by incorporated among the covenant seed, or that they had 
 more right to the territory granted in the covenant, than had 
 Ishmael, or the sons of Keturah. Jacob's servants were cir- 
 cumcised; but they did not become heads of tribes in Israel; 
 which they must have been, had circumcision endowed them 
 with the privileges of the covenant seed. 
 
 When the end for which any society was instituted has been 
 accomplished, it is natural to expect its dissolution. The ex- 
 periment for which the congregation of the Lord had been 
 organized, was completely made, when the Redeemer appear- 
 ed, in the end of the world, " to take away sin by the sacri- 
 fice of himself." The first covenant established upon condi- 
 tional promises, was proved, upon due trial, to be faulty, weak, 
 and unprofitable; and the necessity of a better covenant, 
 whose better promises should be all yea and amen in Christ 
 Jesus was clearly demonstrated: " He taketh away the first, 
 that he may establish the second." When, " There was a dis- 
 annulling of the commandment going before," in which was 
 contained the charter of the congregation of the Lord, the 
 society was dissolved. Deprived of the character of a wor- 
 shipping congregation, it lost its existence. The wall that 
 had enclosed it from the rest of mankind, was broken down, 
 when its ordinances were nailed to the cross of Christ. Eph. 
 ii. 14. 15. 
 
 Dr. W. admits, p. 129, that a very great change took place 
 when the people of God passed from the Mosaic to the Chris- 
 tian economy. Whether the change was the extension of a 
 charter, the Apostle decides. " For there is verily, a disan- 
 nulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness 
 and unprofitableness thereof. If the first covenant had been 
 faultless, then should no place have been sought for the se- 
 cond. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the se- 
 cond." Heb. vii. 18., viii. 7., x. 9. Between the disannulling 
 and the extending of a charter, the difference is too obvious 
 to be overlooked. But Dr. W. thinks, that there ran through 
 the Mosaic dispensation, and was contained in it, a spiritual 
 and unchangeable covenant, the same as that made with 
 Abraham. Respecting this covenant we shall next inquire. 
 
The Abrdhamic Covenant — The Seed of Abraham. 27 
 
 THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT THE SEED OF ABRAHAM. 
 
 What is said by the Apostle in the third chapter of Gala- 
 tians, is relied on for proof, that the Abrahamic covenant was 
 distinct from the Mosaic, and that it was spiritual and un- 
 changeable, p. 34. But, the covenant of which the Apostle 
 there speaks, is not the covenant of circumcision. It was 
 made 430 years before the giving of the Law. By comput- 
 ing this period backward from the giving of the law, we ar- 
 rive at the time when Abraham was called out of Ur of the 
 Chaldees, twenty-four years before the covenant of circum- 
 cision. But I would not rely so much on this computation of 
 years, were it not that the promise to which the Apostle re- 
 fers in verse 8, was made to Abraham precisely at this time. 
 " A/«0h%d, appointment, plan, establishment, is sometimes a 
 will, or testament ; sometimes a promise ; sometimes a pre- 
 cept ; sometimes a compact ; and sometimes an economy, or 
 method of acting." p. 121, 122. The hce^x,*}, covenant, 
 referred to in Gal. hi., is a promise. It is expressly called so 
 in v. 17. The promise intended, and which is cited in v. 8, 
 having been originally made 24 years before the covenant of 
 circumcision, is mentioned again a short time after the mak- 
 ing of that covenant. " All the nations of the earth shall be 
 blessed in him." Gen. xviii. 18. During all this time, Isaac, 
 in whom the seed was to be called, was in the loins of his fa- 
 ther Abraham. Several years after the birth of Isaac, this 
 promise was renewed and confirmed by an oath. Gen. xxii. 
 16. 18. It is not now made as before, to Abraham, but to 
 his seed, because of the circumstance that Isaac had been 
 born. " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be bless- 
 ed." It was afterwards repeated to Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 4, and 
 to Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 14. This is the great promise which 
 Peter called, " The covenant which God made with our fa- 
 thers." Acts iii. 25. Because of the spiritual import of this 
 promise, Paul calls it the gospel, Gal. iii. 8., a name which 
 he no where gives, either to circumcision, or to the covenant 
 of circumcision. The circumstance that this gospel promise 
 was made before the giving of the law, and before circum- 
 cision, is insisted on by the Apostle in this chapter, and in 
 Rom. iv., as proof that gospel blessings belong not to those 
 who are of the law or of circumcision, but to those who are 
 
28 The Abrahamic Covenant — The Seed of Abraham. 
 
 of faith. That there were persons under the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision before the time of Moses, and under the law af- 
 terwards, who obtained the inheritance of Abraham, namely, 
 that gospel blessing which was his chief wealth, is abundant- 
 ly clear; but then they obtained this blessing not by the law, 
 nor by circumcision, but by that faith which distinguished the 
 Patriarch at the time he received the promise. It is on this 
 ground the Apostle argues, that Gentiles without the law and 
 without circumcision, may by faith, obtain the gospel blessing 
 as Abraham did. Their connexion is not with the circum- 
 cised, but with the uncircumcised Abraham, and the line of 
 that connexion runs down aside, both from the law and from 
 the covenant of circumcision. That the gospel promise ran 
 also through the covenant of circumcision and through the 
 law is not denied, but it perpetuated neither. Both the co- 
 venant of circumcision and the giving of the law, may be re- 
 garded as proofs of God's favour as promised to Abraham on 
 the ground of his faith, but their being added long after the 
 original promise, proves that they are not essential to it, and 
 the promise may be made good to all who believe as did Abra- 
 ham, though they be not circumcised, and keep not the law. 
 
 As that covenant which consisted in 'promise made to the 
 believing, uncircumcised Abraham, differed from the covenant 
 of circumcision and the law; so there are two seeds of Abra- 
 ham, differing from each other; the one, the children of pro- 
 mise, Gal. iii. 18. 29. iv. 28.; the other, they who are the 
 children of the flesh, Rom. ix. 7, 8. The former are the 
 spiritual, the latter, the literal seed. That circumcision and 
 the law are to be coupled together, in contrast to faith and 
 the promise, is clear from Rom. iv. 9. 14. 
 
 Many persons err greatly in their interpretation of the sa- 
 cred volume, by overlooking the plain, simple meaning of its 
 language, and searching for mystical allusions, or spiritual 
 meaning, in almost every text they read. There may be 
 others who err on the opposite extreme, by refusing to receive 
 that instruction which the Holy Ghost intended to convey in 
 figures and types. But the most absurd interpreters are those 
 who unite the mystical or spiritual, with the literal, and de- 
 termine, by the dictates of an uninspired judgment, or of a de- 
 praved will, how much is simple truth, and how much is figure. 
 
 The seed of Abraham, in the strictly literal sense, are 
 doubtless, his descendants by ordinary generation. His im- 
 
The Abrahamic Covenant — The Seed of Abraham. 29 
 
 mediate offspring, were Isaac, Ishmael, and the six sons by 
 Keturah, named in Gen. xxv. 2. These last are not said to 
 be the seed of Abraham; yet, without doubt, they were his 
 seed in the sense in which Ishmael is so termed, in chap. xxi. 
 13. By a sovereign act of God, the covenant which secured 
 the literal Canaan to the literal seed of Abraham was esta- 
 blished with Isaac, to the exclusion of Abraham's other sons; 
 and with Jacob to the exclusion of Esau. Instructive inti- 
 mations were hereby given, of which the Apostle has spoken, 
 Rom. ix. 
 
 The all wise God, who instituted, for the congregation of 
 the Lord, such ceremonies of worship, as would serve for 
 types of things to come, in his providence, so regulated the 
 events of ancient times, that much of the Old Testament his- 
 tory also was typical We learn from Paul's epistle to the 
 Galatians, that the history of Abraham, and his two sons was 
 an allegory. Isaac was the representative of all the spiritual 
 sons of God: Ishmael, of those who are under the bondage 
 of the law, and have only a natural relation to the great Fa- 
 ther of all. To be as Isaac was, is to be heir of the promise 
 of future glory. Isaac's birth was out of the course, and 
 above the powers of nature, and was effected by Divine power, 
 in fulfilment of a promise going before. In like manner the 
 spiritual Isaacs are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the 
 flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God; and according to 
 his purpose and grace, given in Christ Jesus, before the world 
 began. The circumcision of Isaac, the persecution which he 
 suffered, and his right, by virtue of a divine covenant, to the 
 land of Canaan; serve to represent the regeneration of the 
 spiritual seed, the persecutions they endure, and their right 
 to eternal life, founded on the promise of God that cannot lie. 
 In the literal sense, Abraham's seed was called in Isaac, and 
 the inheritance was made exclusively his. In the allegorical, 
 Abraham's seed are those, and those only, who are the chil- 
 dren of promise as Isaac was : " If ye be Christ's, then are 
 ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Nei- 
 ther because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all chil- 
 dren: but, in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they which 
 are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: 
 but the children of promise are counted for the seed. He is . 
 not a Jew which is one outwardly ; neither is that circum- 
 cision which is outward in the flesh. He is a Jew which 
 
 c2 
 
30 The Abrahdmic Covenant — The Seed of Abraham. 
 
 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." Can any doctrine be proved from 
 scripture, if these texts do not prove that Abraham's 
 seed may be interpreted both literally and allegorically; and 
 that in the allegorical sense, none are his seed but real Chris- 
 tians ? If any doubt can remain on this last point, let it be 
 removed by this text: " Therefore it is of faith, that it might be 
 by grace ; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." 
 
 There are other instances in scripture, of such figurative 
 language, as that by which regenerated persons are called the 
 seed or children of Abraham. As Jabal was the father of 
 such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle: as Jubal 
 was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ; Gen. 
 iv. 20, 21; as Satan is the father of all who do his works;. 
 John viii. 44. 1 John hi. 10; so Abraham is the father of all 
 who walk in the steps of his faith, and are justified by the 
 same righteousness, Rom. iv. 11, 12. " If ye were Abra- 
 ham's children, ye would do the work of Abraham." John 
 viii. 39. 
 
 Either to the literal descendants of Abraham, or to the 
 spiritual seed, who are characterized as possessing genuine 
 faith, and having the sure promise of eternal life; every text 
 of scripture, it is presumed, refers, in which mention is made 
 of the seed of Abraham. Though commentators find some 
 difficulty in fixing the sense of Gal. iii. 16, yet, they agree, 
 that, either Christ personal, as a literal descendant of Abra- 
 ham, is meant; or Christ mystical, as including the spiritual 
 seed just mentioned. 
 
 That the covenant of circumcision, made with Abraham 
 respected his literal descendants, the instrument itself, and the 
 fulfilment of its stipulations to the natural seed clearly prove. 
 Men's minds have been confused by interpreting this cove- 
 nant partly literally, and partly allegorically; and, in the ob^ 
 scurity which has arisen from this confusion, inferences have 
 been deduced, that a consistent interpretation will by no 
 means warrant. Who will affirm that no part of the cove- 
 nant is to be understood literally ? Who will maintain that 
 the nations which were to be made of Abraham, were to be 
 spiritual nations ? that the kings which were to come out of 
 him, were spiritual kings ? that the circumcision which was 
 enjoined upon him, to be performed un^n himself and his 
 
The Abrahamic Covenant — The Seed of Abraham. 31 
 
 household was the circumcision of the heart ? and that the 
 territory granted in the covenant was the heavenly Canaan ? 
 It is, by no means, necessary to deny that such an allegorical in- 
 terpretation may be made out, as will be both scriptural and 
 full of important instruction. But it may be affirmed, if some 
 parts must be understood literally, that either the whole is 
 susceptible of a literal interpretation, or it admits of no inter- 
 pretation that is consistent with itself. 
 
 A particular examination of the several parts of this cove- 
 nant would be tedious, and for the present purpose, unneces- 
 sary. It may be well, however, to observe, that the promise, 
 " I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee," secur- 
 ed special divine protection and favour to the Hebrew nation, 
 without a necessary implication of spiritual blessing, to the 
 individuals comprising that nation. The promise that Abra- 
 ham should be the father of many nations, has been thought 
 incapable of a literal interpretation, and has been supposed to 
 mean, that Abraham was constituted the head of the church, 
 throughout all nations and generations. He who will take 
 the pains to read, Gen. xxv. 16. will learn that twelve nations 
 sprang from one of Abraham's sons; and, if he will bear in 
 mind that Abraham had seven other sons, he will be con- 
 strained to acknowledge that Abraham was the father of 
 many nations, in a sense as literal as that in which Ishmael 
 was the father of twelve. The Apostle, it is true, in Rom. 
 iv. 17. interprets this clause alkgorically; but to deny the 
 literal interpretation of the words, because they are suscepti- 
 ble of an allegorical, is as absurd, as to deny that Abraham's 
 natural seed had the promise of the earthly Canaan, because 
 his spiritual seed are the heirs of eternal glory. 
 
 In the literal sense, in which Abraham's seed are his natu- 
 ral descendants, no others are included. Whoever may en- 
 joy divine favour, and inherit exceedingly great and precious 
 promises; no provision was made in this covenant, for the 
 extension of its grant beyond the seed of Abraham. By the 
 precept contained in the covenant, the children of Israel, 
 throughout their generations were required to circumcise all the 
 males of their household: but it does not appear that the pro- 
 mises of the covenant were inherited by any but the real seed. 
 Abraham's other sons, and Esau, and all the male servants of 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were circumcised in obedience 
 to this precept; but the blessings of the covenant were not 
 
32 The Abrahamic Covenant — The Seed of Abraham. 
 
 thereby secured to them. Surely the servants of Jacob's sons 
 were not more highly privileged than the servants of these pa- 
 triarchs themselves. Nay, it is expressly said, that these ser- 
 vants were not his seed, " Every man-child in your genera- 
 tion, which is not of thy seed, must needs be circumcised." 
 Gen. xvii. 12, 13. When the congregation of the Lord was 
 instituted, proselytes were admitted to its privileges; but the 
 covenant with Abraham was unchanged. The congregation 
 of the Lord has long been dissolved, but the seed of Abraham 
 still exist, and will hereafter be gathered to their own Messiah. 
 
 The spiritual sense includes all regenerate persons, and no 
 others. Some have thought that church membership, or pro- 
 fessed faith, rather than regeneration, or real faith constitutes a 
 child of Abraham; but hypocritical professors and counterfeit 
 faith cannot be meant, in such texts as these; " If ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro- 
 mise. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to 
 the end the promise might be sure to all the seed." Others 
 have carried the unscriptural thought further, and have in- 
 cluded with professing believers, all their infant children. But 
 in what sense are these the seed of Abraham ? In the literal, 
 or spiritual ? Not in the spiritual, unless they possess faith; 
 not in the literal, if they are of Gentile extraction. If to be- 
 come a church member were to become a child of Abraham; 
 then believers' baptism is the doctrine to which the correct 
 interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant would lead. Gen- 
 tiles cannot be the seed of Abraham but by faith. 
 
 What a work of confusion does it make to begin with the 
 allegorical interpretation, and demonstrate that believers are 
 Abraham's seed; and then, having substituted professed faith 
 for real, to introduce a detached fragment of the literal inter- 
 pretation, and so incorporate it with the allegorical, as to in- 
 clude with these professed believers, their natural offspring; 
 taking care, by a rule of one's own fancy and contrivance, to 
 limit this literal seed, to the immediate and infant descendants ! 
 By this mixture of interpretations, the immediate, infant, lite- 
 ral offspring of those who ought to be according to their pro- 
 fession, the spiritual children of Abraham, are reckoned for 
 the seed: but they are a seed, who, alas ! inherit neither the 
 literal, nor the spiritual promises of the patriarch. Surely a 
 faith and practice, dependant on such interpretations of scrip- 
 ture as this, have a poor claim to divine authority. 
 
The Abrahamic Covenant — The Seed of Abraham. 33 
 
 Dr. W. says, " the covenant of which circumcision was 
 appointed to be the seal, was spiritual, gracious, and immu- 
 table." We have seen that it was both literal and spiritual. 
 In both senses it was gracious. Whether it was immutable 
 in the literal sense, and whether it was immutable in the spi- 
 ritual sense, are distinct questions. That a covenant may 
 have a spiritual meaning which remains imperishable, when 
 as to its literal meaning, it has been disannulled, the epistle to 
 the Hebrews clearly decides; for a large part of that epistle 
 was written to prove, that the Mosaic covenant was done 
 away, as to its literal meaning, but perpetuated, as to its 
 spiritual. The covenant of royalty with David seems to be 
 another of this kind. That the covenant of circumcision, in 
 its spiritual meaning, is unchangeable, will not be denied. 
 Let it be remembered, however, thai in this meaning it re- 
 quires the spiritual circumcision: not that circumcision which 
 is outward in the flesh, nor any other outward ordinance, 
 which may be supposed to be a substitute for it; but " the 
 circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, 
 whose praise is not of men, but of God." Whether the co- 
 venant of circumcision in its literal import, has, like the Mo- 
 saic covenant, been disannulled, is a question on which I would 
 not speak decisively. If the children of Abraham have now 
 a divine warrant to expect the future possession of their an- 
 cient land; whether their reliance upon the promise of God 
 involves in it an obligation to perpetuate circumcision among 
 them, or whether they also may look beyond the covenant of 
 circumcision to the previous grant made and secured by co- 
 venant to their uncircumcised progenitor, I am not prepared 
 to say. The covenant with Abraham, did not like the Mo- 
 saic, provide for the admission of Gentiles; and since the 
 death of Christ, for a Gentile to receive circumcision, is a 
 tacit acknowledgment, that the congregation ofthe Lord still 
 exists, that its sacrifices still are necessary, and that Christ 
 has died in vain. But it is not so easy to decide, that an Is- 
 raelite may not retain circumcision as a token of his relation 
 to Abraham, and of his interest in the blessings which ihe 
 covenant of circumcision, in its literal import, secured to 
 Abraham and to his seed in their generations; See Acts xxi. 
 21, 25.; but this appears clear, that a Jew, who felt himself 
 obliged to perpetuate the token of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 in hope that his children would in future, possess the land of 
 
34 The New, or Christian Covenant — The Church. 
 
 Canaan, would have no authority to substitute baptism for 
 circumcision, and it appears equally clear, that the child of a 
 Gentile cannot be incorporated by baptism among the seed 
 of Abraham. 
 
 THE NEW, OR CHRISTIAN COVENANT THE CHURCH. 
 
 u Now indeed was formed," says Dr. Campbell, "a coramu- 
 munity of the disciples of Jesus, which was called his church, a 
 word that signifies no more than society or assembly, and is 
 sometimes used in the New Testament with evident analogy to 
 the common use, to signify the whole community of Christians 
 considered as one body, of whom Christ is the head, and some- 
 times only a particular congregation of Christians." Ecc. 
 Hist. Lee. 2. He insists, that more than these two appli- 
 cations of the term did not prevail in the primitive times, 
 Lee. 6. 8. 10., and, that the application of the term in the 
 singular number to several congregations, or to rulers, or ju- 
 dicatories, as constituting the church representative, is a cor- 
 ruption in the use of the term. 
 
 Whether the term church, in its Catholic sense, includes 
 any but real Christians, is an important question. An un- 
 baptized believer appears to belong to the church which Christ 
 loved and gave himself for; Eph. v, 26.; the church of God, 
 which he has purchased with his own blood; Acts xx. 28.; 
 the church of the first born, who are written in heaven; Heb. 
 xii. 23.; the church, against which the gates of hell shall not 
 prevail; Matt. xvi. 18.; the church which is the body of 
 Christ, 1 Cor. xii. 12. 27, 28., with Eph. iv. 11, 12. 15, 16.; 
 — i. 22, 23.;— v. 23. 29, 30.; and Col. i. 18. 24;— ii. 19.— 
 but that a baptized unbeliever is a member of this church, I 
 have never been able to discover. It was predicted of the 
 persons whom the new covenant embraces, that they should 
 all kn^wthe Lord, from the least to the greatest, and although, 
 'in allusion to the first covenant, they are styled Israel and 
 Judah, they are persons who have the law in their hearts and 
 written on their minds. 
 
 Although none but the Infinitely Wise can infallibly deter- 
 mine, who belong to the new covenant, yet, such a descrip- 
 tion of their character is given in the inspired word, as ena- 
 bles them, in general, to know each other, and such rules of 
 
The New, or Christian Covenant — The Church. 35 
 
 intercourse are prescribed, as tend to their spiritual inter- 
 course, and the spread of true religion. Among these regu- 
 lations there is one which establishes organized worshipping 
 congregations, consisting of persons, who in the judgment of 
 charity, are regarded by each other as belonging to the new 
 covenant. Each of these congregations is denominated a 
 church in the second scriptural use of the term. 
 
 Baptism, the Lord's supper, the church Catholic, and 
 churches congregational, all belong to the new covenant. 
 Concerning baptism, Dr. W. says, " When this Christian rite 
 is applied to believers, it is a seal of the new dispensation to- 
 wards them," p. 136, 137: Concerning the supper, p. 124, 
 " This cup of wine represents my blood, by which the new 
 dispensation, or the Christian covenant is confirmed." That 
 the church catholic, or " the sanctified," belong to the new 
 covenant, is plain fromHeb. x. 14. 16. That congregational 
 churches belong to the new covenant, or the new order of 
 things established by Christ in the Gospel, I presume, none will 
 dispute. It is evident that neither the Abrahamic, nor the Mo- 
 saic covenant, instituted such distinct worshipping assemblies. 
 
 Should any one urge, that there is a third sense of the term 
 church, in which it means the great body of professors of the 
 true religion, the visible church catholic; I would ask where 
 is this body, and what constitutes it a whole ? Has it a visible 
 head ? If it is an organized whole, what are its general or- 
 gans ? If it has a visible union, what is that union ? If it has 
 visible dimensions, what are their boundaries ? Does it in- 
 clude Catholics, Universalists, Socinians, &,c. ? Does it in- 
 clude, or exclude, Quakers ? If it requires omniscience to 
 perceive its boundaries, and the connexion of its parts, why 
 is it called a visible whole ? But suppose there does exist a 
 visible church catholic, when was it organized ? The congre- 
 gation of the Lord, as instituted by the Mosaic covenant, was 
 dissolved when its charter expired, and a worshipping con- 
 gregation was not instituted by the Abrahamic covenant. 
 
 The most plausible argument that I have met with in favour 
 of the opinion, that there exists the same church organization, 
 in the present as in the former dispensation, may be thus stated: 
 The writers of the Neio Testament used words in the sense 
 in which they had been accustomed to read them in the scrip- 
 tures of the Old Testament. The word g x *A»o-/a, church, was 
 not a new word, since it is the very word by which the LXX 
 
36 The New, or Christian Covenant — The Church. 
 
 have rendered the Hebrew /Hp congregation. That must have 
 been meant and understood by this word which had been usu- 
 ally meant and understood. Therefore the New Testament 
 church and the Old Testament congregation are the same 
 thing. In reply to this argument, I would suggest the follow- 
 ing considerations : 1 . The identity of organized societies is 
 not proved by the similarity, or even the perfect coincidence 
 of their names. The names Assembly, Convention, Asso- 
 ciation, &c. are applied to bodies, which differ from each 
 other. It is always unsafe to infer from the mere name of 
 a society the principles of its organization. 2. There are 
 two Hebrew words Snp and «TW which are used for the 
 congregation of Israel ; but f««^nff is, by no means, the uni- 
 form rendering of either. They both occur in Exodus xii. 
 6. (the very chapter in which the congregation first appears,) 
 where the LXX. render neither of them ikkXvo-ix ; but the 
 former is rendered by ttAjjSoj, and the latter by vv»xy»y\. In 
 Num. xvi. 3. both are rendered a-wxyayn. 3. Because the 
 Hebrew term for congregation is sometimes rendered by the 
 LXX. irXnSo? or crvvetyayv, it by no means follows that the 
 New Testament writers, whenever they have used these terms, 
 meant by them the congregation of the Lord. As the <rvvx~ 
 yay?) synagogue of the New Testament, differed from the 
 o-wxyetyn congregation of the Septuagint, so the eKtchno-tx 
 church of the one, differed from the ikk^tix congregation of 
 the other. 4. The Israelites are often spoken of collectively 
 in the New Testament : but, (with one exception which shall 
 be noticed hereafter,) in no place whatever are they designated 
 by the term tKK^ncix. The house of Israel, the common- 
 wealth of Israel, the seed of Abraham, &c. they were; but 
 would we know that they were the church, the church of God, 
 we shall search the sacred volume in vain for the information. 
 The exception alluded to above is Acts vii. 38. " This is 
 he that was in the church in the wilderness." On this pas- 
 sage Dr. Doddridge has the following note : " I follow Beza, 
 Heinsius, and the Prussian translators, in rendering ixkM*ix 
 assembly, as our translators do, Acts xix. ult. because 1 am 
 persuaded it refers not in the general to their being incorpo- 
 rated into one church in the appropriate sense of that word, 
 but their being assembled round the mountain on the solemn 
 day when the law was given. Ex. xix. 17. et seq." Dr. 
 Doddridge's opinion is greatly confirmed by the manifest re- 
 
The New, or Christian Covenant — The Church. 37 
 
 ference in these words of Stephen to Deut. xviii. The 37th 
 verse is a quotation from the 15th of that chapter ; and the 
 38th, the verse in question, refers to the same event, which is 
 alluded to in the 16th cf that chapter^ in which the very word 
 tKxXYiTtec. is also found in the translation of the LXX., but in 
 such a connexion as forbids its being taken in the appropriate 
 sense. Who would think of rendering r» tus^ec tjjj ixxXntrixg, 
 (which are the words of the LXX., Deut. xviii. 16.) in the 
 day of the church. 
 
 The use of the term in the New Testament, instead of fa- 
 vouring the opinion for which the preceding argumentis urged, 
 discountenances it. If I mistake not, it may be shown that in 
 the sense in which this term was appropriated, to an organ- 
 ized religious body, it was totally incapable of being applied 
 to the nation of Israel. 
 
 In Matt, xviii. 17., we have this direction of the Redeemer, 
 M And if he neglect to hear them, tell it to the church: but if 
 he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an hea- 
 then man, and a publican." Now if the term ikk^fi* in 
 its scriptural use, could possibly have meant the Jewish peo- 
 ple, as an organized religious body, it was the meaning of 
 Christ here. If it could possibly have been so understood by 
 the disciples, they must have understood it so here. As yet, 
 the hand writing of ordinances was not nailed to the cross; 
 the middle wall of partition was not broken down, and the 
 regularly organized New Testament churches did not exist to 
 hear complaints, and to administer censures. The Master of 
 the house was present: and they of the household needed not, 
 and possessed not, such authority. There were fit materials 
 for gospel churches, but they were not yet put together. Of 
 what then did the Saviour speak, when he said, " tell it to the 
 church ?" Did he speak by way of anticipation ? It is natu- 
 ral enough, on the supposition that no churches then existed, 
 to understand the master of the bouse, as giving directions to 
 his household, while he was yet with them, by which their 
 conduct should be regulated after he had left them. But this 
 interpretation ceases to be possible, the moment we suppose 
 a church was then in existence, of which he might be under- 
 stood to speak. No one, who means to be understood, ever 
 uses, without explanation, the name of a thing that is now 
 existing, and at hand, and known to his hearers, if he intends 
 a thing that does not now exist, that his hearers never knew, 
 
 D 
 
38 Arguing from one Dispensation to another. 
 
 and that never did exist. What follows ? Did the Lord Jesus 
 direct his disciples to lay their grievances before the 
 Jews, their most rancorous enemies; to abide by the de- 
 cision, and to regulate their feelings and conduct by the judg- 
 ment of persons who cast the disciples out of the synagogues, 
 and. nailed their Master to the cross ? Impossible ! — Yet, all 
 this follows, if the term eKKXyrta could possibly be used to 
 signify the house of Israel. 
 
 Having thus, my dear brother, made it appear as I con- 
 ceive, that the Mosaic covenant is disannulled, and the con- 
 gregation of the Lord dissolved; — that the covenant of cir- 
 cumcision in its literal import respected the literal seed of 
 Abraham, and that in the spiritual seed of Abraham none but 
 believers are included; — and that the church of Christ is 
 founded upon neither of these covenants, but belongs with the 
 ordinances of Baptism and the Supper, to a new covenant dis- 
 tinct from both of the former — I shall here close this epistle. 
 Yours affectionately, John. 
 
 &XSTTXSR IV. 
 
 My Dear Brother — Tn my last letter I gave you my views 
 of the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, and the Christian covenants: 
 I propose in the present to inquire into the conclusiveness of 
 that reasoning from one dispensation to another, by which, 
 Infant Baptism is inferred from Infant Circumcision. 
 
 AROUING FROM ONE DISPENSATION TO ANOTHER. 
 
 I have expressed my opinion, that the use of inference 
 ought to be admitted, even with respect to positive institutes. 
 It should be remembered, however, that inferences differ in 
 their degree of clearness, and directness, and that those which 
 are obscure and remote, have inferior claims to our conside- 
 ration. Whether that kind of inference which consists in 
 arguing from one dispensation to another, is admissible, with 
 respect to positive institutes, is an important question. 
 
Arguing from one Dispensation to another. 39 
 
 To illustrate the principle laid down, that different kinds of 
 inference are admissible in different degrees, it may be proper 
 to enumerate a few, which have unequal claims, in this re- 
 spect. 1. There are inferences purely philological, or which 
 are used merely to ascertain the meaning of words and 
 phrases. These are to be admitted freely in every part of 
 the scriptures. No man in his senses, one might presume, 
 will ever deny their use. It is by this kind of inference, that 
 we determine whether the word iro^vopuh in tne commission, 
 means go, or stay; whether ^x^tva means teach or disci- 
 ple; and, whether fix^-riga means immerse or sprinkle; and, 
 whether the word *v0g»7ro$, 1 Cor. xi. 28. means ixmale, or a 
 human being without regard to sex. A command is not the 
 less positive, because this kind of inference is used to explain 
 it. 2. There are inferences concerning necessarily implied 
 duties. From the command, " forsake not the assembling of 
 yourselves together," may be inferred the duty of appointing 
 times and places of religious meeting. 3. There are infer- 
 ences concerning correlative duties. From the command 
 given to ministers to baptize may be inferred the duty of con- 
 verts to be baptized. 4. There are inferences concerning 
 analogous duties. We may infer the duty of obeying instruc- 
 tors or masters, from the command honour thy father and thy 
 mother. 
 
 In that kind of inference, which consists in arguing from 
 one dispensation to another, there is considerable variety ac- 
 cording to the nature of the subjects to which it is applied. 
 1. Moral duties under one dispensation may be freely infer- 
 red from moral duties under another: because the great du- 
 ties of morality are independent of the peculiarities of any dis- 
 pensation. Thus the Apostle argues from the precepts of the 
 decalogue, that christians are under obligations to love their 
 neighbours. Rom. xiii. 8. 10. 2. Moral duties in one dis- 
 pensation, may be argued from positive institutes of another. 
 Thus the Apostle argues the duty of supporting the ministers 
 of the Gospel, from the precept of Moses, " Thou shalt not muz- 
 zle the ox that treadeth out the corn." 1 Tim. v. 17, 18. 1 
 Cor. ix. 1. 10. In like manner, moral truths may be argued 
 from positive institutes, as in the epistle to the Hebrews, the 
 spiritual things of the gospel are argued from the typical 
 things of the law. 3. Whether a positive institute of one dis- 
 pensation may in any case be inferred from a positive institute 
 
40 Arguing from one Dispensation to another. 
 
 of another, I cannot tell. I do not know, that there is in 
 the scripture, any example of this kind of inference. I would 
 much rather grant to an opponent the privilege of using it, 
 than claim it for myself. Mr. Scott says; " John's baptism 
 and Christian baptism were not exactly the same: and infer- 
 ences from the one respecting the other, are inconclusive." 
 Note on Matt. iii. 5,*6. 
 
 Whoever ventures to argue a positive institute of one dis- 
 pensation, from a positive institute of another, ought at least 
 to look well to it, that he has a clear view of those dispensa- 
 tions. Dr. W.'s views of the covenants, (I speak with defe- 
 rence,) do not seem to me to be clear. He says, p. 35. " the 
 covenant, of which circumcision was appointed to be the seal, 
 was spiritual, gracious, and immutable." Among other 
 meanings, which he gives of the word covenant, he says, p. 
 122. that it means an economy : and he gives the same ex- 
 planation, p. 124. where also, he uses the term dispensation. 
 In p. 131. he says, "no reason against Infant Baptism can 
 arise from the difference between the Christian and the Abra- 
 hamic economy" and concerning the change, from one dis- 
 pensation to the other, he says, " this change is admitted to 
 be great and extensive." Now how is it, that a covenant i3 
 an economy, and yet, the Abrahamic covenant is unchange- 
 able, and the Abrahamic economy has changed greatly and 
 extensively; yea, so greatly and extensively, as to cease, and 
 give place- to another economy ? I doubt not, but Dr. W. 
 has some method of reconciling this apparent inconsistency, 
 but he could scarcely have been betrayed into such apparent 
 contradiction in his language, if in his thoughts there had 
 been no obscurity. I have before noticed his appearing to 
 have given up a main argument, respecting the application of 
 the commission. Is it not remarkable that a controvertist of 
 such ability should even seem to abandon the very strongest 
 positions that he has assumed ? 
 
 It is, I think, a further proof of darkness in Dr. W.'s view 
 of the covenants, that a reader of the Lectures finds it so very 
 difficult to perceive, what it was in the Abrahamic covenant, 
 which being established by that covenant, is immutable, and 
 which, in the midst of great and extensive changes has con- 
 tinued the same through the Christian dispensation. I have 
 bestowed some labour in order to di.-cover what that thing is, 
 but have been able to find out nothing whatever, but the very 
 
Arguing from one Dispensation to another. 4 1 
 
 thing now in dispute; viz. that the natural relation between 
 parents and children, then was, and now is, marked by a re- 
 ligious rite, p. 31. " The divine economy, though circum- 
 stantially different, is the same in substance now, as before 
 the coming of Christ, the same most evidently, so far as re- 
 lates to the connexion between parents and children, and the 
 high interest which that connexion involves," p. 136. Nei- 
 ther the relation between parents and children, nor the moral 
 obligations growing out of that relation originated in the Abra- 
 hamic covenant. The connexion between parents and chil- 
 dren in the rite of circumcision did originate there, and, if 
 that connexion between them is perpetuated in the rite of 
 baptism, it is all, so far as I can see, that now exists, for 
 which we are indebted to that covenant. We have, there- 
 fore, the whole immutability of the Abrahamic covenant re- 
 duced to the very point in dispute. Nay, even this point itself 
 has not remained without change, for neither is the relation 
 that is marked, the same, nor the religious rite by which it is 
 marked, the same, nor the time and circumstances of applying 
 the mark, the same. Where then is the immutable covenant? 
 And, moreover, why is it called spiritual? To mark with 
 an external mark, a connexion founded upon a natural rela- 
 tion, one would think, ought to be called a natural covenant, 
 rather than a spiritual. It appears a like solecism, to say that 
 children by nature have a right to the kingdom of grace : com- 
 pare p. 59 and 66. The new covenant recognises no privi- 
 leges founded on natural relations. It knows no man after 
 the flesh. 
 
 Whoever ventures to argue a positive institute of one dis- 
 pensation, from a positive institute of another, should also see 
 to it, that his inference be fairly drawn. Because the rela- 
 tion between father and child was once marked by a religious 
 rite, Dr. W. infers, that it ought still to be so, and that be- 
 cause this relation is founded in nature, the obligation to 
 mark it by a religious rite must continue through every change 
 of dispensation. But Abraham's remote descendants, as well 
 as his immediate offspring, had their relation to him marked 
 by circumcision, and the relation of an ancestor, to grand- 
 children, and great grand-children, is as truly founded in na- 
 ture, as his relation to his children. This argument, there- 
 fore, if it proves any thing, will prove that baptism ought to 
 be perpetuated in the family of the believer to the remotest 
 
 d 2 
 
42 Circumcision and Baptism. 
 
 generations, not by a right dependent on the moral character 
 of intermediate parents, but by virtue of their natural relation 
 to that ancestor, who first professed Christ. 
 
 CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM. 
 
 When the principle of inferring a positive institute of one 
 dispensation from a positive institute of another is admitted, 
 its application to the present case consists in inferring Infant 
 Baptism from Infant Circumcision. To justify this inference, 
 it is pleaded, that baptism comes in the place of circumcision. 
 p. 118. 
 
 When it is said that baptism comes in the place of circum- 
 cision, it is meant, either that it occupies the same place in 
 the same covenant, or the corresponding place in a similar 
 covenant. If baptism comes in the place of circumcision in 
 the former sense, it is an exact substitute and ought to be ap- 
 plied to the same subjects: if in the latter sense it is not an 
 exact substitute; and, whether it ought to be applied to the 
 same subjects or not, will depend upon the extent of agree- 
 ment between the two covenants, if inference from one cove- 
 nant to the other in such a case is admissible. Though it 
 should be made to appear, that there is a general similarity 
 between the Abrahamic and the Christian covenant; yet, a 
 general similarity between them as wholes, by no means im- 
 plies a perfect agreement between particular parts: and those 
 parts which respect the relation of children to baptism and 
 circumcision may be supposed to differ, until it be shown to 
 be otherwise. 
 
 If baptism is an exact substitute for circumcision consider- 
 ed as the token of the Abrahamic covenant, then it should be 
 administered to those persons, who were in that covenant 
 required to be circumcised, namely, the literal male descend- 
 ants of Abraham, at the age of eight days, in all their gene- 
 rations, together with all their servants born in their houses, 
 or bought with their money. If baptism is an exact substi- 
 tute for circumcision, considered as a prerequisite for the 
 admission of Gentiles into the congregation of the Lord, then 
 it should be administered to all the children and servants of 
 every proselyte, and the congregation of the Lord should be 
 allowed still to exist, with its wall of partition, its worn out 
 covenant, and hand writing of ordinances; and we should 
 
Circumcision and Baptism. 43 
 
 tremble at the language of Paul; " behold, I Paul, say unto 
 you, that if ye be baptized, Christ shall profit you nothing." 
 
 That baptism does not come in the room of circumcision, 
 in any sense, which justifies arguments from one to the other 
 to ascertain the proper subjects of either, may be inferred 
 from the discussions at Jerusalem, recorded, Acts xv. re- 
 specting the obligation of Gentiles to be circumcised. Dr. 
 Woods says, p. 102. u The unbelieving Jews, and even some, 
 who professed to believe, were ready enough on ail occasions, 
 to complain of innovation, and of every tiling in Christianity, 
 which implied the giving up of what belonged to the Jewish 
 religion. How earnestly did they object to giving up cir- 
 cumcision, although baptism was introduced as a mark of 
 discipleship." How readily did it strike the mind of Dr. W. 
 that the substitution of baptism for circumcision was a weighty 
 argument for the disuse of the latter. Had he lived in the 
 time of the Apostles and been a member of the council at 
 Jerusalem, I am constrained to believe, that this would have 
 been his main argument. Why did not the Apostles think of 
 this argument ? I can assign no reason for it, unless it be, 
 that they did not think on this subject as he does. 
 
 Dr. VV. does not contend for an exact substitution of bap- 
 tism for circumcision. He only argues from one dispensa- 
 tion to the other, and maintains, that " there is a general 
 agreement between these rites as to the object sought, or the 
 end to be answered, how different soever they may be in 
 other respects." This substitution is that of correspondence. 
 Baptism, in the new dispensation, is supposed to occupy the 
 place corresponding to that, which circumcision occupied in 
 the old. Now until it be shown that these parts of the two 
 different dispensations, not only correspond, but also exactly 
 agree, the argument that deduces infant baptism from infant 
 circumcision will be inconclusive. The necessity of this 
 exact agreement, in order to justify such an inference, Dr. 
 W. seems to admit when he says: the economies are " the 
 same, so far as relates to the connexion between parents and 
 children." That there is not a perfect agreement between 
 these parts of the two different dispensations the following 
 consideration, among many that might be adduced, sufficient- 
 ly shows. Baptism, so far as we can learn from the Chris- 
 tian dispensation, was a personal duty. Circumcision in the 
 
44 Circumcision and Baptism. 
 
 Abrahamic dispensation, was a parental duty, and became a 
 personal duty only by an exception from the general rule. 
 
 To illustrate the nature of that substitution for which he 
 contends, Dr. W. adduces instances, that he deems similar: 
 namely, the substitution of Christian meeting houses for Jew- 
 ish synagogues; of the Christian ministry for the Levitical 
 priesthood, &c. p. 117, 118. From these instances I will 
 select the one last quoted, and show from it the inconclusive- 
 ness of his reasoning. Between the Christian ministry and 
 the ancient priesthood there is a general agreement. So 
 great is this similarity in their office, as leaders in the divine 
 worship, and instructers of the people, that the very name 
 priest, is of easy application to a Christian minister. Let us 
 now argue from one dispensation to the other. In the an- 
 cient priesthood there was a connexion between the parent 
 and his children, so that " the infant children of the priests, 
 were infant members of the priesthood." p. 145. Now as 
 the Christian ministry comes in the place of the Levitical 
 priesthood, as the connexion between parents and children 
 is founded on a natural relation, which is not affected by the 
 change of dispensation, and as a subsequent charter is not to 
 be interpreted so as to abridge the privileges of the previous 
 grant; beyond doubt, the infant children of a Christian minis- 
 ter are infant members of the Christian ministry. Will Dr. 
 W. admit this consequence ? Yet, it must be admitted, or his 
 argument for infant baptism must be given up. 
 
 The inconclusiveness of the argument may be illustrated by 
 an instance of a less sacred kind. A presidential inaugura- 
 tion is a substitute for a kingly coronation. Suppose the son 
 of the chief magistrate of the United States, should publish 
 the following address to his fellow citizens: — " My country- 
 i% men — The relation between parents and children, is one on 
 " which depend some of the dearest privileges and most va- 
 " luable blessings that we enjoy. It is a relation which has 
 %t not only been consecrated by the warmest affections of the 
 " human heart; but has been recognised in the laws and usages 
 " of the British realm, even from ancient times. Our happy 
 14 revolution has, indeed, changed our circumstances in many 
 " respects, but it has not diminished the venerableness of this 
 " relation, nor abridged the privileges which it conveys. Under 
 J* the British constitution, when the king ceases to reign, the 
 
Circumcision and Baptism. 45 
 
 " ceremony of coronation is performed upon the son. Now, 
 " as our constitution is formed upon the model of the British 
 11 constitution, and retains much of its spirit, under some mo- 
 " difications, as to outward form, and as a presidential inau- 
 " guration comes in the room of kingly coronation, I must 
 " insist, that when my father's term of service shall have ex- 
 " pired, you will allow me the privilege and honour of the 
 M ceremony of inauguration just as they were enjoyed by my 
 " father. The fact that the king's authority ends only with 
 ci his life, and that the president's authority ends with his ap- 
 " pointed number of years, is a mere accidental circumstance, 
 " not at all affecting the relation between parents and chil- 
 " dren." If he should here close his address, do ycu think, he 
 would receive the honour, or the ridicule of his countrymen. 
 Perhaps some might say, in compassion to his weakness, " If 
 the ceremony will do him any good, let him have it; we know 
 that mere ceremony will not constitute him president:" just 
 as some Baptists would say, " If the sprinkling of children 
 will do either them or their parents any good, let them be 
 sprinkled." But, if the claimant of presidential inauguration, 
 should proceed in his address after this manner: " I must 
 " moreover insist, my countrymen, that you will never repeat 
 " the ceremony of inauguration, so as to invalidate that 
 " which shall have been performed upon myself. Such a 
 " repetition would be a political sacrilege, as execrable as 
 " the sin of anabaptism. It is true, our constitution speaks 
 •'of the election of a president and prescribes the mode, but 
 " this is only to be understood of those cases in which an 
 " election is necessary, but no election is necessary so long 
 " as I shall live, having upon me the mark of official inaugu- 
 " ration, as certain a seal of authority as the wearing of the 
 " crown, under the old constitution." If he should thus pro- 
 ceed, think you, that it would be the ridicule or the indigna- 
 tion of his countrymen that would burst upon him ? Would 
 they not say, u How will this man swear to maintain the con- 
 stitution of his country, when his very claim is at war with 
 the plain language of that constitution ?" — But I forbear to 
 make the application. Though our brethren when they per- 
 form their baptism, which they consider to be a sacrament, or 
 oath of allegiance to the new covenant, offer violence to the 
 very terms of that sacred instrument : yet, it is not ours to 
 
46 Testimony of Ecclesiastical History, 
 
 vent upon them either ridicule or indignation. It befits us, 
 rather to confess our own sins; and, to pity our erring bre- 
 thren, love them, and pray for them. That we may ever have 
 grace to do so, is the desire of your brother, 
 
 John. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 Dear Brother — There are two more topics in Dr. Woods' 
 Lectures, on which \ am inclined to offer a few remarks. 
 The first is his argument from Ecclesiastical History ; and 
 the second, his observations on the mode of baptism. 
 
 TESTIMONY OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY. 
 
 In reference to Ecclesiastical History, Dr. W. informs us, 
 that his intention is, to give citations enough to show the na- 
 ture of the argument, referring to Wall, &c. for further in- 
 formation — p. 106. We may take. for granted, I presume, 
 that in the selection which he has made, he has summoned 
 those witnesses, whose testimony he supposed was the most 
 favourable to his own cause. I will not complain of this, but 
 shall take the liberty to cross-examine these witnesses for a 
 few moments, and to weigh carefully the import of their de- 
 positions. 
 
 The first citation is from Justin Martyr, who says, " There 
 were many of both sexes, who were made disciples to Christ 
 from their infancy." "The word he uses is tftxSvTivBvirecv ; the 
 very word used by Christ in the commission. The persons 
 referred to, Justin says, were made disciples to Christ, tx 
 irattai from their early childhood. The word is applied to 
 those little children whom Christ took in his arms and bless- 
 ed."— p. 106. 
 
 This last remark must, I presume, have been an oversight. 
 The word used by the Evangelists for the children, which 
 Jesus took up in his arms and blessed, is netttio*'. Mark x. 
 15. Mat. xix. 13, 14, and Luke xviii. 16: whereas **<}*», 
 the word used by Justin is the genitive plural not of this 
 
Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 47 
 
 word, but ofircttf. Every Greek scholar knows, that there is 
 a difference between these two words, the former being a di- 
 minutive of the latter ; and although some diminutives are 
 used merely to denote affection, this is not the case with 
 rccihor. " Some diminutives," says Dr. Campbell, " are in- 
 tended to mark a distinction only in age or in size, as 
 $vyctT£io*, x-ecihovtircct'frxpiov. Tskvicv appears, on the contra- 
 ry, more expressive of affection than of size." Prelim. Diss. 
 12. p. 1. § 19. He makes a similar remark in his notes on 
 John xiii. 33 ; " Diminutives answer a double purpose ; they 
 express either the littleness or fewness in respect of size or 
 number of that to which they .are applied, or the affection of 
 the speaker. In Greek, when the first is only, or chiefly in- 
 tended, the word answering to little children is nxthx, or 
 irect'frecptcc, not Tg«w«." Had Justin written sk vroiihav, instead 
 of iK w«/^w», still the argument of Dr. W. would not have 
 been conclusive, that Justin meant mere infants, for even the 
 diminutive ironho* is used for a child twelve years old ; Mark 
 v. 39, 40, 42. The ancient Greeks and Romans used their 
 terms which correspond to our infant and child with great 
 latitude of meaning. Hence we read in history of infants, who 
 contended for crowns and governed empires. Even the 
 Greek word wrtos which corresponds precisely to the Latin 
 infans, and which, Parkhurst says, signifies " Properly, an 
 infant, a child not yet able to speak plain" is used by the 
 Apostle Paul for a minor, or one under age, Gal. iv. 1, 3; 
 u whom," says Parkhurst, " our law likewise calls aninfant" 
 That the word Truig, which Justin uses,, does not of itself sig- 
 nify an infant, may be inferred from what Parkhurst further 
 observes in the word v^*^ : " It is used by Homer as an ad- 
 jective in the expressions *u?r<o; 'vioi-, **&(•$ 7r*tg, an infant 
 son: vwrtos ruts occurs also in the prose writers." If «•«/$ 
 of itself denoted an infant there would be no necessity to join 
 the word tnzrtoq with it. The meaning of the word *■#*?, 
 Parkhurst thus gives : u 1. A child, whether a young child, 
 an infant, as Mat. ii. 16: or a child more advanced, a boy or 
 girl, Mat. xxi. 15. Luke ii. 43, viii. 31, 54. Acts xx. 12. 
 Comp. v. 9. 2. A child in respect to his fither without re- 
 gard to age, a son, Acts iii. 13, 26. iv. 27, 30. Comp. Luke 
 i. 54. 3. A servant, attendant, Mat. viii. 6V' Let it be 
 particularly observed that *•*<?, in one instance denotes the 
 young man Eutychus, who fell down from the third loft, while 
 
48 Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 Paul was preaching. In Robinson's Lexicon, published at 
 the Seminary where Dr. W. teaches, we have the following 
 given for the sense of *■«*?: " A child, a boy, youth; a girl, 
 maiden. It is spoken of all ages from infancy up to man- 
 hood. Compare Mat. ii. 16, with Acts xx. 12. Coll. v. 9." 
 The instance referred to by both these lexicographers in 
 which this term is used for an infant is Mat. ii. 16. On this 
 verse Dr. Campbell has a remarkable note: " The historian 
 seems here purposely to have changed the term vetihot 
 which is used for child, no less than nine times in this 
 chapter ; as that word being neuter, and admitting only the 
 neuter article, was not fit for marking the distinction of 
 sexes; and to have' adopted a term, which he no where 
 else employs for infants, though frequently for men-servants, 
 and once for youths or boys." It therefore appears, 1. 
 That the term used by Justin Martyr, is not, as Dr. W. 
 has stated,* the same which the evangelists used for the 
 children that Christ took up in his arms and blessed. All 
 the three Evangelists who mention these children use Truth**; 
 but not one of them nctis. 2. Had Justin used the diminu- 
 tive Troti^iov, even that might mean, on the authority of the 
 same evangelist, Mark, children twelve years old. 3. The 
 word which Justin uses is spoken of any age up to manhood, 
 ind does not of itself denote infancy, but requires an adjec- 
 tive to be prefixed in order to confine it to this sense. So far 
 from denoting infancy necessarily, it was used for infants only 
 when the writer, by a peculiar circumstance, was limited in 
 his choice of terms. Let these things be well considered, and 
 further, that Justin was under no necessity to employ this 
 term to denote infants or persons of a very tender age, since 
 
 * The word zrudav, quoted in Dr. W's book, is not a typo- 
 graphical error for ztxi^u-jv, as one is led by this statement to 
 suspect ; but is really the word used by Justin — The London 
 edition of his Works, A. D. 1722, page 22, line 18. The 
 Latin translation given in this edition, is " qui a pueris disci- 
 plinam Christi sunt assectati :" which literally rendered into 
 English is, who, from boys have attended upon the instruc- 
 tion of Christ. The translations of Dr. W. l from their in- 
 fancy,' — l from their early childhood ,' cannot be justified. 
 Would he translate -u-xtiotg infants, where it first occurs in 
 Justin, " TvttttKecs tfitt%e9<rxv, »ut Trainees Jifp^ffgfcr," p. 10 ? 
 
Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 49 
 
 &£i$os, or tnzrtog, or even w*<JVo*, would have suited this pur- 
 pose much better. I say, let these things be considered, and 
 then let any candid man decide whether Justin Martyr gives 
 testimony in favour of infant baptism. Persons even under 
 the age of twelve have been baptized, upon a satisfactory pro- 
 fession of faith, in our days as well as in the days of Justin. 
 Such paedobaptism we do not oppose. 
 
 The next witness is Irenaais. " Christ," says this Father, 
 " came to save all persons who by him are born again unto 
 God, infants, and little ones, and children, and youth, and 
 elder persons." This testimony is claimed in favour of Paedo- 
 baptism, because we are told " Being- born again," in the 
 writings of Irenaeus, and his cotemporaries, means being bap- 
 tized. Suppose that they did use the phrase sometimes in 
 this sense, does it follow that they had no other idea of being 
 born again ? If so, surely they were miserable theologians. 
 Besides, we might ask this venerable witness, whether any 
 persons in his day, after they had been baptized, ever re- 
 lapsed into their former habits of sin ; and died in a state of 
 apostasy ; and if so, whether their baptism saved them in 
 such a case ? For that construction of this testimony, w r hich 
 is made to favour infant baptism, requires that it be so under- 
 stood ; for Irenaeus says expressly, that Christ came to save 
 all who are born again, &c. But if by " being born again," 
 he meant a change of heart, we have good sense, and correct 
 doctrine, without any force being on the words of this wit- 
 ness. Again, can we suppose that Irenaeu.; excluded all per- 
 sons from salvation who had not been baptized with water ? 
 
 Tertullian is brought forward as the next evidence in the 
 case. Our author informs us, that this witness entertained 
 some singular notions on the subject of baptism. To me, 
 however, it appears plain, that in all which Tertullian says in 
 reference to this matter, he has regard to minors and cate- 
 chumens ; and that there is not the most distant allusion to 
 mere infants. The persons of whom he speaks could ask 
 for baptism ; for the advocates of their baptism urged in fa- 
 vour of the practice the words of Christ, Give to him that 
 asketh: but Tertullian did not think that this was sufficient 
 ground for baptizing them. " Let them come and learn, says 
 he. and when they understand Christianity, let them profess 
 themselves Christians." This is a fine Baptist sentiment. 
 Now it is evident from all this, that these young persons 
 
 E 
 
50 Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 had not been baptized in infancy ; since they ask for baptism, 
 and both Tertullian, and those whom he opposes, are willing 
 to grant it to them. The only question being, whether it 
 shall be administered now, or deferred until they have ac- 
 quired a knowledge of Christianity. There is no ground, 
 then, for the assertion, " That infant baptism was a common 
 thing in those days." 
 
 u Origen," we are told, " is very explicit,' ' If so, it is a 
 rare thing. He has been called " an everlasting allegorizer." 
 But it seems he could, nevertheless, be explicit for once. Our 
 author does not inform us, whether he quotes from the genu- 
 ine Greek fragments of Origen, or from Ruffians' pretended 
 translation of Origen's works. If from the former, we refer 
 him back to Dr. Wall, who has shown that Origen meant 
 babes in Christ, such as Peter speaks of, who " desire the 
 sincere milk of the word," &lc. If he quotes from Ruffinus, 
 (and we may take it for granted he does so, seeing he gives 
 it to us in Latin ; etiam parvulis dare baptismum ;) then, in- 
 stead of its being of great weight, as he affirms, it is in fact of 
 no weight at all ; for it is well known that Ruffinus, in pre- 
 tending to translate the works of Origen, interpolated and 
 altered just where he pleased. 
 
 The agitation of the question in the famous Council, in 
 the time of Cyprian, " whether children should be baptized 
 on the second day after their birth, or whether it should be 
 deferred till the eighth day," shows clearly, that the good 
 Bishops found no directions in their Bibles on the subject. 
 We acknowledge however, that infant baptism, (not sprink- 
 ling) began to be considerably current in Africa about this 
 time, but. it was many years after this, before it was patron- 
 ized any where else. Many pernicious errors however, had 
 been propagated long before the time of Cyprian. 
 
 Augustine who was born near the middle of the fourth 
 century says, " The whole Church practice infant baptism. 
 It was not instituted by councils but was always in use." 
 He adds " That he does not remember to have heard of any 
 persons, whether Catholic or Heretic, who maintained that 
 baptism is to be denied to infants." This testimony might 
 be disposed of lawfully, by the single remark, that it is by 
 far too late to be of any importance. I have some curiosity 
 however, to examine the paw of this dead lion. Either 
 then, the above words are an interpolation, or Augustine con- 
 
Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 51 
 
 tradicts himself. t; The whole Church," he says, M practice 
 infant baptism." f* Was he himself then baptized in infancy? 
 Wan Ambrose, who baptized hirn, baptized in infancy ? W a3 
 his own natural son baptized in infancy ? Was his Father 
 Patncius baptized when an infant ':'' See Robinson's History 
 of baptism, Benedict's ed. p. 202 feaeq. Li The parents of St, 
 Austin." says Bishop Taylor, - and St. Hierom and St. Am- 
 brose, though they were Christians, yet did not baptize their 
 children till they were over 30 years of age : and St. Chry- 
 sostom, who was instituted and brought up in religion by the 
 famous and beloved Bishop Melet.ius, who was yet not bap- 
 tized until after he was twenty years of age ; and Gregory of 
 Nazianzurn-, though he was the son of a Bishop, yet he was 
 not christened till he came to man's age." Again. Augustine 
 says, that he M never heard of any one who maintained that 
 baptism is to be denied to infants." •• Had he, who pre- 
 tended that he had been a Manichean. never heard that they 
 did not baptize infants ? Had all other heretics escaped his 
 notice ? Had he forgot himself when he taxed the Pelagians 
 with denying infant baptism ; and when he complained in 
 another book of people who denied it V 
 
 I cannot admit the testimony which is said to come from 
 Pelagius. If the half that has been reported of him is true, 
 his testimony, even if we had it directly from himself, is inad- 
 missible. Besides he, like Augustine, is entirely too modern. 
 We admit that in their day infant baptism prevailed ; but this 
 i3 nothing to the purpose of making it a divine institution. 
 
 It must be noticed that we have no writings of Pelagius 
 extant, at least under his name, only some passages quoted 
 by his adversaries, by which we can judge what were his sen- 
 timents about infant baptism. Moreover Augustine affirms 
 that the Pelagians themselves did deny baptism to some in- 
 fants, namely, to the infants of believers, and for this reason 
 because they were holy, and that Pelagius' denial of this was 
 a shift to which he resorted in his argument. This fact should 
 lead us to suspect that there must be some mistake about the 
 testimony of Pelagius. Dr. Gill in a Tract written in reply 
 to the Dissenting Gentleman, has shown that Pelagius did not 
 mean what Dr.W. says he declared, viz. ■• (hat he never heard 
 of any one, even the most impious heretic, who asserted thai 
 infants are not to be baptized." His words are "that he 
 never heard, no not any impious heretic, that would say con- 
 
52 Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 cerning infants, what he proposed or mentioned." The 
 phrase what he proposed or mentioned, Dr. G. shows does 
 not mean that infants are not to be baptized. 
 
 In the Tract of Dr. Gill, alluded to above, various other 
 rites, as well as infant baptism are shown to have the same 
 authority for antiquity and Apostolic origin. Augustine 
 affirms infant communion to be an Apostolic tradition. We 
 have an instance of infant communion explicitly stated in the 
 time of Cyprian : and there is no explicit mention of an in- 
 stance of infant baptism so ancient. The sign of the cross 
 in baptism, the form of renouncing the Devil and all his 
 works, exorcisms, and exsufflations, trine immersions, the 
 consecration of the water, anointing with oil, the giving of 
 milk and honey were maintained by Augustine and others as 
 rites to be used in baptism on the authority of ancient and 
 Apostolic tradition. Baptism with sponsors was in use in 
 the time of Tertullian, for he dissuaded from the baptism of 
 very young persons on the ground that it was dangerous to 
 their sponsors. 
 
 " Thus," says Dr. W. p. 109, " it appears that we have 
 evidence as abundant, and specific, and certain, as history af- 
 fords of almost any fact, that infant baptism universally pre- 
 vailed from the days of the Apostles through four centuries." 
 Whether this confident and triumphant assertion be correct, 
 let the facts which I have adduced above determine. I can- 
 not but regret that the Dr. should have suffered himself to 
 pen the above sentence. I regret that he should have said 
 any thing which may occasion the slightest suspicion of his 
 candour, but this declaration, is made in direct contradiction 
 to the most learned, pious, and candid writers of his own 
 sentiments. 
 
 Dr. Doddridge has examined the very witnesses, which 
 Dr. W. has brought forward, except the last two and thus 
 reports their testimony. " Justin Martyr speaks of some, 
 ' who had been made disciples from their infancy:' but this 
 may only refer to their having been early instructed in the 
 principles of the Christian religion." 
 
 " Irenams'" it is argued, u mentions infants among the re- 
 generate i. e. the baptized, as the word generally signifies in 
 his writings. Answer. We have only a Latin translation of 
 this work, and some critics have supposed this passage spu- 
 rious, or allowing it to be genuine, it will not be granted, that 
 
Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 53 
 
 to be regenerate always in his writings signifies baptized, nor 
 i3 it certain, how far the fathers extended the period of infan- 
 cy; but this last answer, (he does not say so of the former,) 
 can be of no avail, as he distinguishes infants from parvuli 
 andpweri." 
 
 " Tertullian is known to have declared against infant bap- 
 tism, except in case of danger. Gregory Nazianzen [A. D. 
 381,] advises to defer it till three years old. Basil blames 
 his auditors for delaying it, which implies that there were 
 many unbaptized persons among them : but these might not 
 perhaps have been the children of Christian parents." 
 
 "It is allowed there are many passages in Origen, that ex-, 
 pressly refer to infant baptism : but they are chiefly to be 
 found in those translations of his Greek works, which were 
 done by Rujjinus and Jerome, who made some very bold al- 
 terations according to their own judgment and taste : but 
 this is not applicable to all the passages brought from him." 
 [Is it not applicable to those which are at all explicit?] 
 
 " Cyprian is allowed by all to speak expressly of infant 
 baptism, as generally used in the church, but it is justly an- 
 swered, that he speaks as expressly of infant communion in 
 the eucharist : and consequently that the divine original of 
 the latter may as well be argued from him as that of the for- 
 mer ; yet almost all paedobaptists allow that to be an inno- 
 vation." 
 
 " It is indeed surprising that nothing more express is to be 
 met with in antiquity upon this subject ; but it is here to be 
 remembered, that when infant baptism is first apparently 
 mentioned, we read of no remonstrance made against it as 
 an innovation ; and that as we have no instance of any 
 
 PERSONS EXPRESSLY ASSERTED TO HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED IN 
 
 TnEiR infancy, so neither of any children of christian pa- 
 rents baptized in years of discretion ; for it is certain Con- 
 stantine's father did not profess himself a Christian, till long 
 after he was born." Dr. Doddridge says: " It is indeed 
 surprising that nothing more express is to be met with in 
 antiquity upon this subject." Dr. W. says : u We have evi- 
 dence as abundant, and specific, and certain, as history affords 
 of almost any fact, that infant baptism universally prevailed 
 from the days of the Apostles through four centuries." 
 
 To these extracts from Dr. Doddridge mav be added the 
 E 2 
 
54 i Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 following from other Paedobaptist writers out of a number 
 quoted by Mr. Booth. 
 
 Salmasius and Suicerus : " In the two first centuries no 
 one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith, and 
 acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to pro- 
 fess himselfa believer." 
 
 Curcellaius : " The baptism of infants, in the two first 
 centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown ; but in the 
 third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and 
 following ages it was generally received." 
 
 Episcopius, denies that any tradition can be produced for 
 Paedobaptism, till a little before the Milevitan Council, A. D. 
 418 ; and maintains that it was not practised in Asia till near 
 the time of that Council. Mr. Brandt speaks to the same 
 effect. 
 
 Our author speaks, p. 114, of the zeal with which our 
 writers have laboured to show, that infant baptism was not 
 the universal practice of the early Christian Churches ; and 
 adds, " If they could produce one plain declaration, or even 
 a suggestion, or a hint, from Origen, from Augustine, or from 
 Pelagius, showing that infant baptism was not practised by 
 the first Christian Churches, and that no order or tradition in 
 favour of it was ever received from the Apostles, would they 
 not consider this an unquestionable proof against infant bap- 
 tism ?" It would seem from this, my brother, that we are 
 much put to it indeed for arguments in support of our cause, 
 if a suggestion from such a man as Pelagius, would be con- 
 sidered as an unquestionable proof. As for the declarations 
 &c. of the above named individuals, we are little solicitous, 
 for reasons already given, whether they - be for us or against 
 us. It may be worth bearing in mind however, that we have 
 proved that one of them, viz. Augustine, a child of christian 
 parents, was not baptized, till he was able to act for himself. 
 This is worth a thousand "hints, or suggestions" from him 
 or any other person of his time. And we have seen he 
 was by no means singular in this respect, as the list of honor- 
 able names, which I have given from Bishop Taylor plainly 
 shows. How could Dr. W. then affirm, that we have suffi- 
 cient evidence to conclude that infant baptism was the 
 uniform practice? With respect to the zeal which our 
 writers have shewn, to discover any thing in the history of 
 the Church against infant baptism, I would observe, if they 
 
Testimony of Ecclesiastical History. 55 
 
 have done so, it was altogether needless ; for it should be 
 enough for us, that we have neither precept nor example for 
 it in the New Testament ; no, nor yet any thing by which it 
 may be fairly inferred. But if our Paedobaptist brethren, in 
 the entire absence of any proof from scripture, will urge pre- 
 tended arguments from the practice of the early christians, 
 the Fathers &c, I trust we shall always have sufficient zeal 
 to detect any misrepresentations which may be made, and 
 this is all about which we have any cause to be concerned, 
 for I have seen enough to convince me, that the writings of 
 the Fathers, as they are called, of the first centuries will, on 
 a candid examination, afford as little support to the cause of 
 infant baptism as the New Testament itself. It may be re- 
 garded as proof of this that while the advocates of infant 
 baptism resort for testimony to the interpolated translation of 
 Origen's works, Dr. Gill found it easy to produce testimony 
 from the Greek of Origen in favour of adult baptism to the 
 exclusion of infant baptism, and manifestly against the latter. 
 See his Tract called Anti Pcedobaptism, or infant baptism 
 an innovation. 
 
 Justin Martyr, who is the first of Dr. W's witnesses, has 
 given testimony, (p. 88 — 96 of his works,) as satisfactory as 
 can be demanded in proof of a negative, that infant baptism 
 was not practised in his days. It is also a fact worthy to be 
 remembered that so late as about the year 600, Augustine, the 
 monk, who had been sent as a Missionary to the British Isles, 
 desirous to bring the British Churches to conform to the 
 practices of the Church of Rome, proposed among other 
 things necessary to accomplish his object, that they should 
 baptize their children ; but they would not consent. See 
 Ii-imcy's History of the English Baptists, or Morgan's pre- 
 face to his Welch Concordance. 
 
 In dismissing the witnesses which Dr. W. has brought 
 forward it strikes my mind to ask whether they have often 
 been called upon before for testimony in this case. Upon 
 inquiring I find, these writers out of all the ancient fathers, 
 and precisely these passages of their writings, have been re- 
 lied upon by Paedobaptist writers from the time of Dr. Wall 
 down to the present time : and although Dr. Wall's mistakes 
 respecting the interpretation, and application of this meagre 
 testimony have been pointed out again and again, yet, re- 
 gardless of all this, Dr. Wall's statements have been repeated 
 
56 On Matt. xix. 13, 14— -Suffer Little Children, $c. 
 
 and repeated, sometimes with reference to him, and some- 
 times without any such acknowledgment, and the shout of 
 triumph is heard on every side, that there is clear and unan- 
 swerable testimony from ecclesiastical history, that infant 
 baptism was universally practised in the earliest ages of Chris- 
 tianity ! 
 
 What I may have to say on the mode of baptism, I reserve 
 for another communication. Meanwhile I am your affec- 
 tionate brother, 
 
 David. 
 
 &ETTEH VI. 
 
 My Dear Brother — In the course of argument which I 
 have pursued, I have attempted to show, that believer's baptism 
 ought to be practised, even if the obligation of parents to 
 have their children baptized could be made out from inference 
 and tradition. I have also examined whether infant baptism 
 may be made out by inference from the commission or from 
 the covenant of circumcision. You have shown that it can- 
 not be inferred from household baptism or learned from tra- 
 dition. But may it be inferred from any instructions of 
 Christ to his Apostles, previous to the final commission he 
 gave them, or from any declarations in the writings of the 
 Apostles? To one text under each of these heads Dr, W. 
 refers; us namely Matt. xix. 13, 14. 1 Cor. vii. 14 : these 
 texts I shall now proceed to consider. 
 
 ON MATT. XIX. 13, 14 — SUFFER LITTLE CHILDREN, fcc 
 
 Dr. W. seems to have written on this text with much 
 candour. I have admired how equally poised the scales 
 appear to be after he has thrown into them the authorities 
 and arguments on both sides ; and have concluded, that there 
 is good reason to say with Bishop Taylor, whom you quote, 
 that to rely upon this text for proof of infant baptism ■" proves 
 nothing so much as the want of better argument," 
 
On Matt. xix. 13, 14 — Suffer Little Children, $c. 57 
 
 Let the following things be taken into consideration re- 
 specting this text. 
 
 The phrase rotevrov -srxthor, in the preceding chapter ac- 
 cording to Dr. Ws. own explanation, p. 64, means " a per- 
 son of a child-like disposition :" and if rotovrut [zrcttita*] 
 in this place means the same, (excepting the difference in 
 number and case) then it is conceded that the whole argu- 
 ment/or infant baptism as founded upon this text falls to the 
 ground. That it does mean the same we have the judgment 
 of a very large number even of Paedobaptist writers. Dr. 
 W. says, p. 72 «* the most respectable authors are divided." 
 He mentions Rosenmuller and Kuinoel as authorities against 
 himself: other names might easily be added. Dr. Doddridge 
 considers the word toiovtm as ambiguous, and declines to con- 
 fine the sense by a translation, though he gives the following 
 paraphrase ; " For of such is the kingdom of God, persons 
 of such a character are the true subjects of my kingdom and 
 heirs of eternal glory," He says, Lectures, Prop. 144, it 
 " may signify not those that are infants in age, but persons 
 who in the temper and disposition of their minds resemble 
 the simplicity and innocence of children, which the connexion 
 seems to favour.-" Wakefield whose criticisms are valuable 
 when his peculiar tenets are not concerned, actually trans- 
 lates thus ; «* Suffer these little children to come unto me, 
 and forbid them not : for of those] who resembles them, is 
 the kingdom of heaven." Dr. Macknight explains it thus ; 
 "The church of God on earth and the kingdom in heaven, 
 is composed of persons who resemble little children in their 
 dispositions," Harmony, §104. 
 
 If it could be determined, that the phrase does not mean 
 the same in both chapters, we have still to pursue a long an<l 
 uncertain course of reasoning before we can arrive at the 
 conclusion, that the infant children of believing parents ought 
 to be baptized. Let us suppose the word such to be changed 
 to another which shall refer, with certainty, to the identical 
 children that were then in the Saviour's presence, and let us 
 read the passage according to W's method of translating it, 
 thus: " Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come 
 unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," would it strike 
 any plain and honest man, who should read it, that it meant 
 the infant children of believing parents ought to be baptized? 
 Would he not ask, if the disciples were in the habit of bap- 
 
58 On Matt. xix. 13, 14— Suffer Little Children, $c. 
 
 tizing children why did they reject these ? If Jesus designed 
 to teach that children ought to be baptized, why did he not 
 teach it by a clearer precept ? And why did he not set the 
 example in the present case ? If the phrase, "Theirs is the 
 kingdom of heaven," means they have a right to church mem- 
 bership in the visible church, why were they sent away without 
 being admitted ? If it should be said they had been admitted 
 at the time of their circumcision, then, what need was there 
 that Jesus should tell his disciples, that these children belong 
 to the commonwealth of Israel? and why should he use a 
 phrase to express this truth, which at other times, from his 
 lips, had a meaning so very different? See Matt. v. 3, 10. 
 If it be said, that the phrase " theirs is the kingdom of hea- 
 ven" means that they have a right to church ordinances, then 
 why are they not admitted to the supper as well as to bap- 
 tism? Dr. W. quotes with an expression of pleasure p. 74, 
 from Knapp's Theology the following remark concerning 
 this very text : " But if children can and should have a share 
 in the Christian church, and in all Christian privileges it can- 
 not be improper to introduce them into the Christian church 
 by this solemn rite of initiation." Have children a share in 
 all Christian privileges while the communion-of the supper is 
 denied them ? If the phrase means, that they have a right to 
 the spiritual and eternal blessings of the kingdom, and of 
 consequence are not to be denied inferior privileges, whether 
 is this rite conditional or unconditional ? If they shall obtain 
 the spiritual and eternal blessings only on the condition, 
 either that they die in infancy, or that they repent and believe 
 after they shall have arrived at sufficient age, why do we in- 
 fer that they have a right to the inferior privilege without ei- 
 ther of these conditions, but on a condition of a very differ- 
 ent nature, namely, that one of their parents is a believer? 
 To say that these blessings belong to children unconditionally, 
 involves the doctrine of universal salvation. 
 
 But to return to the meaning of the word rotovTw, Dr. 
 Woods having so accurately baianced the authorities and ar- 
 guments determines at length in favour of that sense, which 
 he supposes to be on the side of infant baptism. He ad- 
 duces instances of its use, and finds but one, Matt, xviii. 5, in 
 which it is supposed to have the other sense. Now I ask 
 whether it is the part of true criticism to look at the number 
 of the instances or at their similarity ? Of all the instances re- 
 
On Matt. xix. IS, U—Suffer Little Children, $c. 59 
 
 ferred to by the Dr. there is not one that can be called simi- 
 lar except that in the 18th of Matthew, and that is similar to 
 a remarkable extent. In both cases a child or children were 
 present. In both cases the Saviour taught the disciples s'hould 
 resemble little children, and that none but those who resemble 
 little children can enter into the kingdom of heaven. In 
 both cases toiovto* is found in connexion with the same noun; 
 for zsciihiu* is the noun understood after rotovrai in Matt. 
 xix. 14. Now the idea of resemblance in Matt, xviii. 5, is 
 conveyed either by the adjective toivtov or by the use of the 
 noun ^os<3<e», in connexion with a discourse in which a child 
 is made an emblem of the moral qualities necessary in order 
 to admission into the kingdom of heaven. In either way the 
 phrase toivrov ircuhoi means a person of a child-like disposi- 
 tion, and the same phrase used by the same speaker, and re- 
 corded by the same writer in circumstances so similar and in 
 connexion with discourse so similar, ought to be interpreted 
 the same way. There is a dissimilarity which the Dr. noti- 
 ces. In chap, xviii. the words " except ye be converted and 
 become as little children," come in the discourse before the 
 words " whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, 
 &c," whereas in the other discourse see Mark x. 14, 15. 
 Luke xviii. 16, 17. the words, "whoso shall not receive the 
 kingdom of heaven as a little child shall in no wise enter 
 therein," come after the words " suffer little children to come 
 unto me &c," but how long after do they come ? They are 
 in the very next verse, and are as though they had been ut- 
 tered by the very same breath, for they precede the act of 
 laying on hands. Moreover they were uttered with a mani- 
 fest design to illustrate and enforce the preceding sentence. 
 Would they have affected the phrase rotevre/f zrctthwv different- 
 ly, if they had stood in the verse preceding ? If the mere 
 circumstance of being uttered before hand is to have so 
 much effect rather than the closeness of the connexion, let itbe 
 recollected, that the whole of the discourse recorded in Matt, 
 xviii. preceded that in Matt. xix. and might have served to de- 
 termine its meaning, even if all the evangelists had omitted 
 the explanatory verse, as Matthew has done. On this cir- 
 cumstance, namely, that the explanatory verse is introduced 
 M after he had shown his affection for the little children, who 
 were brought to him, and had declared that the privileges of 
 his kingdom belonged to them," Dr. W. relies for the re- 
 
60 On Matt xix. 13, 14— Suffer Little Children, S$c. 
 
 moval of " the last and the greatest difficulty." p. 68,69. 
 By this grain at last the scale is turned, which had been, with 
 so much candour, so equally poised ! 
 
 But, after all, does the meaning even of the discourse in the 
 18th chapter depend either upon the meaning of the single 
 word Toivrog or upon the circumstance that tx^ioi is used in 
 a connexion, whether before or after, in such a manner as to 
 intimate that it must be taken figuratively in. the particular 
 phrase to/ «Tey ar«,/5Vey? Suppose none of the evangelists had 
 given an account of this discourse but Luke, what would 
 have been the meaning of his statement, chap. ix. 48, " And 
 Jesus perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and 
 set him by him, and said, whosoever shall receive this child 
 in my name receiveth me, and whosoever shall receive me, 
 receiveth him that sent me, for he that is least among you 
 nil, the same shall be great." Here the word toiovtos is not 
 used, nor is the word nuitioi used by the Redeemer, so far 
 as this evangelist records the discourse, except in the single 
 phrase rovro to irxiht* this child; but Luke has recorded the 
 same discourse that is found in the 18th of Matthew, and his 
 account of it, though more brief, is certainly capable of be- 
 ing understood. To me it appears that the meaning is to be 
 ascertained rather by considering the whole transaction as 
 symbolical, than by assigning a peculiar sense to any single 
 word. Notwithstanding all the instructions and rebukes they 
 received, the Apostles retained their expectation of a tempo- 
 ral kingdom, and of temporal honours, until they saw their 
 Master nailed to the cross. To be greatest in that kingdom, 
 to sit on the right hand and on the left, was the object of 
 their carnal ambition. What then did the action mean, 
 when he took a child and set him by him, at the very moment 
 when they were contending for the honour of being nearest 
 to his person ? It was as if he had said, " this child shall be 
 my prime minister." When he added, " whosoever shall re- 
 ceive this child in my name receiveth me," it was as if he 
 had said "this child shall be my representative, my ambas- 
 sador." What action could he have performed, what words 
 could he have uttered, better calculated to check the ambi- 
 tion of his disciples ? 
 
 The preceding method of interpretation appears to me 
 equally applicable to the discourse recorded in Matt. xix. 
 The disciples were slow of heart to learn and had profited 
 
On Matt. xix. IS, 14 — Suffer Little Children. Sec, 
 
 little by their former lesson. Either the phrase, to became 
 <is a little child. Matt, xvhi. 3, had been understood by them 
 carnally, as Nicodemas had understood the phrase, to be bom 
 again ; or tbey had forgotten its spiritual import. Certain it 
 15 that tbey were again, as Dr. W. observes, p. €9 '"in special 
 need of the instruction then given them." In eastern courts, 
 as for example that of Ahazuerus, the Persian monarch, the 
 sovereign was far removed from the people, and it was in 
 some degree within the power of his courtiers to guard the 
 way of approach to him. This power the Apostles never 
 attempted to exercise but in the case of the httie children 
 brought to him on this occasion. But, an application for 
 blessings Jesus never rejected himself, and the power to re- 
 ject he never delegated to his Apostles. This usurpation on 
 their part greatly displeased him. Mark x. 14. What tbeir 
 motives were we know not : whether they designed only that 
 their Master should not be troubled, or whether, in tbeir sim- 
 plicity, they had become jealous of these young cane; 
 for his favour, we need not determine. Possibly they had 
 feared, when they saw a young child set in the place that 
 they had so much coveted, lest the King Messiah, who tbey 
 believed was never to die, entertained thoughts of postponing 
 the establishment of his kingdom, until the young rival and 
 others such as he should be grown: or lest araon^ the str 
 things which he did, he would give them even at their pre- 
 sent age, by supernatural power, qualifications to fill the 
 highest offices of his kingdom. Whatever tbeir particular 
 views and motives may have been, their conduct seems to 
 have proceeded from the same ambitious spirit, that he had 
 before rebuked, for they received a like rebuke : and his dis- 
 course on this occasion may be understood as if be had I 
 " Give place, ye ambitious and worldly-minded, who need to 
 be changed into children. Think not, by this usurpation to 
 secure to yourselves the honours ye covet. The privileges and 
 honours of my kingdom shall be given to these children, and 
 to other children such as they." This he said with the same 
 symbolical meaning as in the former case, and it is no mere 
 to be taken literally than the phrase ■ whosoever shall re- 
 ceive this child in my name receiveth me," is to be taken liter- 
 ally, as importing that this child should be in fact the 
 viour's ambassador and representative. Thus understood, 
 the words have an animation that suitably expresses the great 
 
 F 
 
62 On 1 Cor. vii. 14 — The unbelieving Husband, 6$c. 
 
 displeasure, which the Redeemer manifested on the occasion. 
 According to the other interpretations which have been 
 proposed, his displeasure does not appear in his words, but 
 they are comparatively cold and lifeless. Yet if this inter- 
 pretation should not be satisfactory, there is no need to insist 
 on it. Enough else has been said, to show that infant bap- 
 tism cannot be proved by this text. 
 
 ON 1 COR. VII. 14 THE UNBELIEVING HUSBAND, &C. 
 
 Dr. W. compares his own interpretation of this text with 
 that which Dr. Gill has given. I shall not think it necessary 
 to defend the interpretation of Dr. Gill, as a different one, 
 which is contained in a note p. 42 of Pengilly's Scripture 
 Guide to Baptism published by the Baptist General Tract 
 Society, appears to me to give the true sense of the passage. 
 It may be seen in the following extract, in which I think it 
 is also clearly demonstrated, that the text is decisive against 
 infant baptism. 
 
 u The Jews considered all Gentiles to be unclean, and 
 thought it unlawful for a Jew to be in the house, keep com- 
 pany, or eat with, or touch a Gentile. By some means, pos- 
 sibly from the influence of Judaizing teachers, the church at 
 Corinth seems to have been agitated with the question whe- 
 ther the same rule ought not to be established to regulate the 
 intercourse of the members of the church with other per- 
 sons ; that is, whether the church ought not to decide, that 
 all who were without were unclean to them who were within ; 
 just as Gentiles were unclean to Jews ; and that therefore it 
 was inconsistent with Christian purity to dwell, keep company, 
 or eat with, or to touch them. While this question was un- 
 dergoing discussion in the church, it was perceived that it 
 involved a very important case. Some of their members were 
 married to unbelievers, and if such a rule should be establish- 
 ed, these members would be compelled to separate from their 
 unbelieving husbands or wives. Although the lawfulness of 
 the marriage was not questioned, yet it would be unlawful 
 for a believing husband to dwell with his wife, until God had 
 converted her. The church resolved, probably after much 
 discussion of the question, to write to the Apostle respecting 
 it. This letter he had received, as appears from the first 
 verse of this chapter. On the general question of inter- 
 
On 1 Cor. vii. 14 — The unbelieving Husband, dfc. 63 
 
 course with unbelievers he treats in the fifth chapter, and de- 
 cides that, to keep company or eat with persons who make 
 no pretensions to religion is not unlawful, and that, were all 
 such persons to be esteemed unclean, and their touch polluting, 
 Christians must needs go out of the world. On the particu- 
 lar case of those members of the church who were married 
 to unbelievers, the Apostle treats in the chapter before us. 
 He decides in v. 12 and 13 that they may lawfully dwell 
 together, and in v. 14, for the conviction and silencing of any 
 members of the church, who might object to his decision, he 
 in substance says ; the unbelieving husband is not unclean, so 
 that his wife may not lawfully dwell with him : the unbeliev- 
 ing wife is not unclean, so that her husband may not lawful- 
 ly dwell with her. If they are unclean, then your children 
 are unclean, and not one parent in the whole church must 
 dwell with or touch his children, until God shall convert 
 them ; and thus Christianity will be made to sever the ties that 
 bind parents to their children, and to throw out the offspring 
 of Christian parents into the ungodly world from their very 
 birth, without any provision for their protection, support, or 
 religious education. 
 
 u It will be perceived in the preceding interpretation that 
 the phrase your children is taken in a different sense from 
 that which it obtains in any of the interpretations usually of- 
 fered. It is here supposed to refer to the whole church. 
 Had the Apostle designed to speak of those children only, 
 who have one parent a believer and the other an unbeliever, 
 he would have said (rtKy* itvrai) their children , instead of 
 (rgKvec 'vpa*,) your children. In addressing the church, and 
 in giving general precepts, he uses the pronouns ye and you. 
 See preceding chapter throughout, and verses 1 and 5 of this 
 chapter. But in v. 8, where he gives directions applicable 
 to particular cases, although he introduces the phrase, " I say 
 to the unmarried and widows," he makes reference to these 
 persons, not by the pronoun you, but them: "It is good for 
 them to abide even as I." The same mode of speaking he 
 continues to use as far down as to the verse in question : " let 
 them marry, — let him not put her away,— let her not leave 
 him." After the same manner he would have said, " else 
 were their children unclean," had he intended only the chil- 
 dren of such mixed cases of marriage as are referred to in 
 the preceding part of the verse. What further confirms this 
 
64 On 1 Cor. vii. 14 — The unbelieving Husband, $c. 
 
 opinion, is, that in the original text the substantivo verb is in 
 the present tense; " your children are unclean," — a mode of 
 speaking more suited for the stating of a parallel than a de- 
 pendent case." 
 
 " The general principles of the preceding interpretation 
 fall in precisely with the course of the Apostle's argument 
 commenced in the 5th chapter. When these principles have 
 been established, it is not of vital importance to the sense of 
 the passage to determine the translation of the preposition «». 
 Many have translated it to as it is in the very next verse. 
 This sense accords well with our interpretation. The unbe- 
 lieving husband is sanctified to the wife, just as it is said in 
 Titus i. 15, " unto the pure all things are pure." But per- 
 haps the more literal rendering, in, will give the Apostle's 
 sense more accurately. While both parents lived in unbelief 
 they were unclean, to themselves, and to each other : " unto 
 them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure, but 
 even their mind and conscience is defiled." Titus i. 15. 
 According to the Jewish rules respecting ceremonial clean- 
 ness the conversion of one party would not render the other 
 party holy. But in gospel ceremonies it is different. By 
 the abrogation of the Jewish ceremonial law, and by the con- 
 version of the wife, the unbelieving husband (^ytsccrrut) has 
 become holy, not in] himself, but (*» t« yvmini) in the wife. 
 That the Jews considered Gentiles unclean as stated above, 
 may be proved from various passages of scripture. See Acts 
 x. 28, xi. 3. John xviii. 28. Gal. ii. 12. Dr. Adam Clark 
 states in his note on John xviii. 28, " The Jews considered 
 even the touch of a Gentile as a legal defilement." 
 
 " It is clearly implied, in the Apostle's argument, that all 
 the children of the Corinthian Christians had no nearer rela- 
 tion to the church than the unbelieving husband of a believ- 
 ing wife. He declares that their cases are parallel ; and that 
 rules of intercourse, which would require the believing hus- 
 band to separate from his unbelieving wife, would require 
 believing parents to separate from their children. But there 
 is no conclusiveness in this argument, if the children had 
 been consecrated to God in baptism, and brought within the 
 pale of the church ; for then the children would stand in a 
 very different relation to the church and to their parents 
 from that of the unbelieving husband or wife. Therefore, 
 unless we charge the Apostle with arguing most inconclu- 
 
On 1 Cor. vii. 14 — Tfie unbelieving Husband, <$fc. 65 
 
 sively, infant baptism and infant church membership were 
 wholly unknown to the Corinthian church, and if to the 
 Corinthian church, unquestionably to all the churches of those 
 times." 
 
 A note appended to Wilson's Scripture Manual exhibiting 
 the same general view of this text concludes thus, " The 
 Apostle in effect says, S If it is unlawful for a member of the 
 church to dwell, keep company, or eat with, or touch an un- 
 believer, then it is unlawful for you to dwell, keep company, 
 or eat with, or touch, your children, and consequently the 
 care, support, and especially the religious education of them 
 must be wholly neglected.' The laws of the commonwealth 
 of Israel are not applicable to gospel churches, because of 
 their different organization. That children are not members 
 of the latter, is the very fact upon which the Apostles seizes, 
 for the foundation of his argument in this text, which is 
 therefore decisive, against infant baptism." 
 
 I am sorry that we cannot be favoured with remarks from 
 Dr. W. on the preceding interpretation. It corresponds so 
 nearly with much that he has w r rittsn, that I am ready to con- 
 clude, it will commend itself to his judgment. He says p. 
 86. " Ax«$wgros, according to Schleusner, signifies, that 
 which is prohibited by the Mosaic law, or that from which 
 the people of God were required to separate themselves.'' " Re- 
 ferring to Acts xiv. 28, he says ; " A man is there called 
 «*«,9-<*gTo$, unclean, with whom the Jews thought it unlawful 
 to have any familiar intercourse." He represents it, as of- 
 ten used to denote a pagan, an alien from the worship of the 
 true God, or one who does not belong to the people of God, 
 or to the society of Christians. The text under consi- 
 deration he renders thus.: " Alioquin et liberi vestri re- 
 moti essent a societate Christianorum. Otherwise your 
 children also would be removed from the society of Chris- 
 tians." Dr. W. urges it as of the first importance to no- 
 tice the peculiar Hebrew sense of the principal words found 
 in the passage before us, because Paul was by birth and edu- 
 cation a Hebrew. Let us then take the very sense of 
 atKxB-ot£Te<; given above : " that from which the people of God 
 were required to separate themselves : a man with whom the 
 Jews thought it unlawful to have any familiar intercourse." 
 With this explanation of the term in our minds, Jet us 
 come to the interpretation of the text in question : " Other-- 
 
 p 2 
 
66 
 
 On 1 Cor. vii. 14 — The unbelieving Husband, fyc. 
 
 wise your children also would be removed from the society of 
 Christians." If the society of Christians means the familiar 
 intercourse of Christians, then Schleusner's interpretation is 
 precisely that which is given in the preceding extract. 
 
 Dr. W. explains the sanctification of the unbelieving hus- 
 band thus : p. 90. " By his connexion in marriage with a 
 believing wife, he is, in some sort, separated from the society 
 of heathen, certainly from the familiar intercourse with them 
 which he once had : that, on account of the pious woman 
 with whom he is so closely connected, he is to be regarded in 
 a light different from that, in which he could be regarded, if 
 he were altogether a pagan, and had no such relation to a 
 Christian partner ; and that by the effect which her faith pro- 
 duces upon him, he is brought into such a state, that she may 
 with propriety continue to live with him. Their inter- 
 course comes under a sanctifying influence by means of her 
 piety." Let the holiness of the children be understood in 
 precisely the same way, as relating to familiar intercourse, 
 and to the propriety of their parents' living with them : the 
 interpretation of Dr. W. will then agree in what relates to 
 themeaning of the principal terms, with that which is con- 
 tained in the preceding extract. With this agrees also what 
 he has said, p. 92, " Now the Apostle virtually told the Co- 
 rinthian Christians, that the ancient, national law was not 
 binding upon them, any more than the law of circumcision ; 
 that those believers who were lawfully married to unbelievers 
 had no occasion to dissolve the marriage bond. And he 
 suggested to them one consideration of great weight, namely, 
 that if according to the Mosaic law, and the example of the 
 people in the time of Ezra, they were to put away their un- 
 believing partners, and so treat them as pagans, tocu^a^ru, 
 unclean, they must consider their children also as unclean, 
 i. e. heathen children, and put them away likewise, as 
 the people did in the case referred to." These three ex- 
 tracts from Dr. W's. book, might almost take the place of 
 the note quoted from Pergilly's Scripture Guide, so nearly 
 do they coincide with it. If our Pasdobaptist brethren could 
 but admit it into their minds that children may, without being 
 baptized, have familiar intercourse with their Christian pa- 
 rents, and continue to live with them, with just as much pro- 
 priety as an unbelieving husband and believing wife may 
 continue to live together ; the sense of the Apostle, in this 
 
On 1 Cor. vii. 14 — The unbelieving Husband, 6$c. 67 
 
 much disputed text, would-be obvious and clear. Is not the 
 unbaptized child of a Baptist holy, in precisely the same sense 
 in which the unconverted wife of a Paedobaptist can be so 
 regarded ? 
 
 To the argument from this text in favour of infant baptism 
 it has ever been an insuperable objection, that it makes the 
 holiness of the children different from that of the unbelieving 
 husband or wife. Tn meeting this objection Dr. W. at first 
 argues that the difference might be admitted especially since 
 a verb is used in one case and an adjective in the other. But 
 how shall it be determined whether it is the adjective holy 
 which is applied to the children, or the verb to make holy 
 which is applied to the unbelieving husband or wife, that has 
 baptism in it ? We are all certain that one of them does not 
 include baptism : who is certain that the other does ? But if 
 there is uncertainty whether the term holy includes baptism, 
 then infant baptism derives, at the most, only a doubtful sup- 
 port from this text : and the doubt is increased just in propor- 
 tion to the improbability that the Apostle would use these 
 words in different senses in the same sentence: and to the 
 possibility that a clear and consistent meaning may be assign- 
 ed into which baptism does not enter. But Dr. W. finally la- 
 bours to show that, according to his interpretation, "the 
 two words, though the one is a verb and the other an adjec- 
 tive, have really the same general sense." He accounts for 
 it that baptism is included in the one case and not in the 
 other by saying " tho difference so far as there is any, arises 
 from the obvious difference of the subjects. " See p. 90 to 
 the end of the paragraph. In all this a discerning mind will 
 perceive, that there is a begging of the question. This text 
 is brought to prove that infants are proper subjects of bap- 
 tism. The holiness which in this text, in the same general 
 sense, is predicated of two different subjects, it is said either 
 includes baptism, or does not include it according to the 
 difference in the subjects. Now suppose we affirm that nei- 
 ther of the subjects is such that the holiness thereof can 
 properly include baptism, will this text prove the contrary ? 
 When an unbelieving husband and an infant child are before 
 the mind, who knows that there is such a difference in these 
 subjects, that baptism may, with propriety, be administered 
 to the one and. not to the other? Any one who knows this 
 beforehand may adopt Dr. W's. interpretation. This fa- 
 
68 Mosheim's Account of Baptism. 
 
 mous text, on which so much reliance has been placed, can 
 prove infant baptism to none but those who already be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 MOSHEIM S ACCOUNT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 To the examination, which you have made of the testimony 
 from ecclesiastical history, I feel disposed to subjoin a remark 
 founded on the account given by Dr. Mosheim. He says, 
 Cent. 2, Chap. 4, Sect. 13, " Adult persons were prepared 
 for baptism by abstinence, prayer, and other religious exer- 
 cises. It was to answer for them that sponsors or godfa- 
 thers were first instituted, though they were afterwards ad- 
 mitted also in the baptism of infants." This is the first inti- 
 mation which he gives, that infants were baptized. In the 
 first century he speaks of the baptism of none others than 
 Christian converts, and having stated that baptism was ad- 
 ministered " by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal 
 font," he adds, " It was customary that the converts should 
 be baptized and received into the church, by those under 
 whose ministry they had embraced the Christian doctrine." 
 In the second century he says, " The persons that were to 
 be baptized after they had repeated the creed, confessed and 
 renounced their sins, and particularly the Devil and his 
 pompous allurements, were immersed under water and re- 
 ceived into Christ's kingdom by a solemn invocation of Fa- 
 ther, Son and Holy Ghost, according to express command 
 of our blessed Lord." 
 
 Now, if the facts were just as they appear jn this history 
 is it at all probable that infant baptism was an original practice? 
 If both believer's baptism and infant baptism had been prac- 
 tised together from the times of the Apostles without spon- 
 sors, is it at all probable that when sponsors were introduced, 
 they should have been xisedfrst for adults and afterwards for 
 infants? Is it not much more probable that baptism with 
 sponsors just as it appears on the face of this history, was an 
 intermediate step between believer's baptism and the baptism 
 of infants ? When sponsors had been admitted in behalf of 
 adults, to repeat the creed and the ceremony of confessing 
 and renouncing their sins, the Devil and his pompous allure- 
 ments, probably at first with some token of assent on the 
 part of the candidates ; it became easy to introduce gradu.- 
 
Infant Dedication. 69 
 
 ally the baptism of very young persons : and this appears to 
 be precisely the state of things of which Tertullian com- 
 plained. 
 
 INFANT DEDICATION. 
 
 The idea that the baptism of infants, is a ceremony by 
 which they are dedicated to God, is that which I suppose hai 
 the strongest hold on the feelings of Christian parents ; and 
 tends above all others, to give it respect in their eyes. It is 
 by keeping this idea steadily in view, that Dr. VV. has shown 
 how well the practise accords with parental affection. He 
 says p. 104, " It must surely be the wish of pious parents to 
 give up their children to God ; and to do this in the temple 
 of God, where the prayers of many will ascend with their 
 own to the Lord of heaven and earth in behalf of their chil- 
 dren." But if we may argue from one dispensation to ano- 
 ther, the ceremony of public dedication "in the temple" was 
 not made anciently by circumcision, but by certain appoint- 
 ed sacrifices, and therefore it ought not now to be made by 
 baptism, but by the spiritual sacrifices of prayer and praise. 
 Circumcision might be performed, and I presume generally 
 was performed in the family, and without any officiating 
 priest, and so far was it from being considered as consecrating 
 the infant or rendering him holy to the Lord, that the child 
 was considered to be, with the mother, unfit to touch a hal- 
 lowed thing or enter the sanctuary until three and thirty days 
 afterward, when the sacrifices were offered which were re- 
 quired in the ceremony of purification, and when the infant 
 might be publicly presented to the Lord. See Doddridge, 
 Clark, and especially Campbell on Luke ii. 22. It is true 
 that no sacrifices whatever could purify or consecrate an un- 
 circumcised male, and therefore the circumcision of male in- 
 fants must precede their purification and presentation ; but it 
 is equally true that circumcision was not the dedicating rite. 
 The sacrifices of purification were allowed to be made for fe- 
 male infants, without any previous prerequisite rite, at the end 
 of eighty days ; and in our freer dispensation, infants both 
 male and female may from their very birth be given up to the 
 Lord, with the sacrifices of prayer and praise, without any 
 prerequisite rite whatever ; and this, I presume, every pious 
 parent will be inclined to do, and will often carry them on his 
 
70 Mode of Baptism. 
 
 heart before the Lord ; and, glad that no purifying ceremony 
 is now necessary in order to their admission, he will delight 
 to take them with him to " the temple of God," whatever he 
 may think as to the necessity cr propriety of making a public 
 solemn presentation of them there. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ■ I shall wholly decline to follow Dr. Woods in his arguments 
 on the mode of baptism, and the rather as you propose to 
 take up this part of the subject. At present I feel, as to this 
 matter, more inclined to lament than to argue. I lament in 
 the first place, with Dr. Campbell, who, in his note on Matt, 
 iii. 11, after having stated that "the word /3««rrj£«fy, both in 
 sacred authors, and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to 
 immerse" subjoins : " It is to be regretted that we have so 
 much evidence that even good and learned men allow their 
 judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the 
 sect which they prefer : and in the second place I lament 
 that this ordinance of Christianity should have been so cor- 
 rupted as to give entirely a false view of the gospel we pro- 
 fess." 
 
 Perhaps, some explanation on this last point is necessary. 
 When a soul comes to Christ, it often happens, that one of 
 the last strong holds of Satan, from which it is delivered, is 
 a trust in its own evangelical obedience. We soon learn to 
 distinguish between the righteousness of Christ, and our own 
 legal righteousness; but to distinguish between the work of 
 Christ for us, as the object of our faith, and the effects of 
 grace within us, communicated by the Holy Spirit, is far less 
 easy. But that faith which fixes upon internal sanctification, 
 instead of Christ, is not the faith of Christ. The gospel ex- 
 hibits Christ; the supper exhibits Christ: and surely, that or* 
 dinance by which we first profess the faith of Christ, ought 
 not to hide him from view. When a believer is immersed, 
 the burial and resurrection of Christ are exhibited, and the 
 very ceremony, by which he takes upon him the profession 
 of Christ, significantly tells, that his faith is not fixed upon 
 internal grace, but upon him who was delivered for our of- 
 fences, and raised again for our justification. But, when an 
 infant is sprinkled, is Christ exhibited ? Let Dr. Woods an- 
 swer. " When adult believers receive baptism themselves. 
 
Mode of Baptism. 71 
 
 they hereby express their belief, that they are by nature pol» 
 luted with sin and must be sanctified by the Spirit, in order 
 to be admitted into heaven; and they express their desire for 
 such sanctification, and their determination to seek after it, 
 in the diligent use of all appointed means. When we pre- 
 sent our infant children for baptism, we express our belief 
 that they are the subjects of moral pollution, and must be 
 born of the Spirit, in order to be admitted into the kingdom 
 of heaven: and, we express our earnest desire that they may 
 experience this spiritual renovation, and our solemn deter- 
 mination to seek after it, by fervent prayer to God, and by 
 faithful attention to all the duties of christian parents. This 
 seems to me a perfectly natural and satisfactory view, of what 
 is signified by the baptism of children," p. 137. Baptism, I 
 know, is a mere outward ordinance, a mere sign; and so the 
 word Christ, is a mere word, a mere sign. Neither the or- 
 dinance nor the word, can save the soul. Yet, is it not highly 
 important, in preaching the gospel, that the name Christ 
 should represent the true Saviour ? and is it not in like man- 
 ner important in administering baptism, that it should repre- 
 sent the true object of faith ? 
 
 May you, my dear brother, ever be faithful to keep all the 
 commandments of our Lord, just as they have been delivered 
 to us; neither breaking the least of them yourself, nor teach- 
 ing others to do so: and while you are careful to observe 
 even a mere ceremony, if he was careful to institute it, may 
 the better things of the kingdom, even righteousness, peace, 
 and joy, in the Holy Ghost, be yours for ever. 
 
 I am, as ever, your affectionate brother, 
 
 John, 
 
 SETTER VIZ. 
 
 Dear Brother — In my last I offered some remarks on the 
 testimonies which Dr. Woods adduces from Ecclesiastical 
 History in favour of Infant Baptism ; and intimated that I 
 would also notice his observations on the Mode of Baptism. 
 I now proceed to fulfill my engagement. 
 
72 The common Signification of Baptize. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 An honest disciple of Christ will cheerfully accompany Dr. 
 W. to the Commission, to ascertain what is his duty as to the 
 ordinance of Baptism. He will desire to know simply what 
 was the mind of Christ ; and having learned this, he will yield 
 implicit obedience. If it should seem to him that baptism 
 and the washing of feet are duties equally obligatory upon all 
 the followers of Christ, so far as it appears from his com- 
 mands; (p. 168) then he will be governed by the same rules 
 in his observance of these institutions. He will either con- 
 tent himself in both cases with the moral signification of these 
 rites, wholly disregarding the outward ceremony : or he will, 
 in both cases, literally obey the commands. But if it should 
 appear to him that the command of Christ to baptize was in- 
 tended to be understood literally, and to be obeyed literally 
 to the end of time, (and this, so far as I can perceive, is Dr. 
 W's. opinion, and certainly he will not argue that the neglect 
 of one commandment will justify the neglect of another,) 
 then, however he may decide concerning the washing of feet, 
 he will be satisfied with nothing short of literal obedience to 
 the command by which baptism is enjoined. He will there- 
 fore look to the commission as his rule of duty, not only when 
 he is inquiring who are the proper subjects of baptism, but 
 also when he is inquiring how this rite is to be administered: 
 and as in the one case, so in the other, he will avail himself 
 of every light within his reach, which may assist him to dis- 
 cover what was the mind of Christ. He finds the whole di- 
 rection in the commission as to the manner of administering 
 this rite, contained in the term fiecirTtfyiTif. It will therefore 
 be his single inquiry, what Christ meant by this word. 
 
 THE COMMON SIGNIFICATION OF BAPTIZE. 
 
 In explaining the terms used in 1 Cor. vii. 14. Dr. W. re- 
 fers to the usus loquendi. He says, p. 86, " The chief argu- 
 ment Which I shall now urge in its support is the usus loquendi, 
 that is, the sense generally attached in other parts of scrip- 
 ture to the principal words, on which the interpretation 
 must depend ; and especially the sense which these words 
 have, when applied to the same subjects." Precisely this rule 
 of interpretation should be applied to the case now before us. 
 
The common Signification of Baptize. 73 
 
 Whatever was usually meant when a man was said to be bap- 
 tized, the Saviour meant when he gave his commission. 
 There are few words in any language, which are not used 
 occasionally in a sense different from the prevailing one ; but 
 in such cases we always expect to find something either in 
 the nature of the subjects to which they are applied, or in the 
 connexion in which they are used, that will guide us to the 
 peculiar sense they then obtain. If every sentence shall be 
 declared to be ambiguous or indefinite in its meaning, the 
 words of which are occasionally used in a sense different from 
 the prevailing one, then it will be next to impossible to com- 
 pose a sentence which shall have a certain and definite mean- 
 ing. Had the commission been given in the English lan- 
 guage, '* Go, teach all nations, immersing them, or plunging 
 them, or dipping them," every Englishman would conceive 
 the meaning sufficiently certain and definite, and would think 
 himself a prevaricator, rather than an honest disciple, if he 
 should contend, that sprinkling or pouring was meant, or any 
 thing whatever different from the usual sense of these terms. 
 Yet in Johnson's Dictionary, the verb to immerse has three 
 senses ; to plunge, four ; and to dip four : and, what is remark- 
 able, one of the senses of the last verb is to moisten, to wet ; 
 the example for which use of it is the following from Milton : 
 
 M And though not mortal, yet a cold shudd'ring dew 
 Dips me all o'er, as when the wrath of Jove 
 Speaks thunder." 
 
 When used in a neuter sense, one of the meanings of the 
 same verb is to enter slightly into any thing: the example is 
 given from Pope : " When I think all the repetitions are 
 struck out in a copy, I sometimes find more upon dipping in 
 the first volume." But what would we think of any one, 
 who should argue hence, that the command, Go teach all 
 nations, dipping them, means no more than to moisten or to 
 wet, or to cause to enter slightly into water, as by stepping 
 into the edge of the stream ? We should refer such a one to 
 the usus loquendi, and if he would not submit to this supreme 
 law in language, we should cease to reason with him. 
 
 To ascertain what is the usual sense of baptize, since it is 
 a Greek word, our ultimate recourse must be to the instances 
 of its use in Greek authors. 
 
74 
 
 The common Signification of Baptize, 
 
 The following are the instances in which fixirr* is used in 
 the Greek Scriptures. 
 
 
 Rendered in our 
 
 In Thomson's 
 
 
 common version. 
 
 translation. 
 
 Exodus xii. 22. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Lev. iv. 6. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 iv. 17. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 ix. 9. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 xi. 32. 
 
 put into. 
 
 plunge. 
 
 * — xiv. 16. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 xiv. 51. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Num. xix. 18. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Peut. xxxiii. 24. 
 
 dip. 
 
 bathe. 
 
 Joshua iii. 15. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Ruth ii. 14. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 t Sam. xiv. 27. 
 
 dip. 
 
 stuck. 
 
 2 Kings viii. 15. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Job ix. 31. 
 
 plunge. 
 
 plunge. 
 
 Ps. lxviii. 23. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Dan. iv. 33. 
 
 wet. 
 
 bathe. 
 
 v. 21. 
 
 wet. 
 
 bathe. 
 
 Luke xvi. 24. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 John xiii. 26. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Rev. xix. 13. 
 
 dip- 
 
 dip. 
 
 following are the instances in which 
 
 /9ctzrri£* OCCU 
 
 jrreek Scriptures and the Apocrypha. 
 
 
 2 Kings v. 14. 
 
 dip. 
 
 dip. 
 
 Isaiah xxi. 4. 
 
 __# 
 
 overwhelm. 
 
 Judith xii. 7. 
 
 wash. 
 
 
 Ecclesiasticus xxxiv 
 
 . 25. wash. 
 
 
 Matt. xx. 22, 23. 
 
 baptize. 
 
 
 Mark vii. 4. 
 
 wash. 
 
 
 ~ x. 33, 39. 
 
 baptize. 
 
 
 Luke xi. 38. 
 
 wash. 
 
 
 Luke xii. 50. 
 
 baptize. 
 
 
 1 Cor. x. 2. 
 
 baptize. 
 
 
 B«jrT(£* is used more than seventy times in the New Tes- 
 tament to denote the Christian ordinance, in all which cases 
 it is rendered baptize. 
 
 * Ti» Hebrew word differs from the Greek, and is rendered affright. 
 
The common Signification of Baptize. 75 
 
 It will be seen from this table of references, that to dip is 
 most evidently the usual sense of fiontru. The derivative 
 ,5*wt^4» is rendered dip, overwhelm, and wash, expressing in 
 all these instances an immersion of the whole body, as will 
 appear from considering the passages in which it is so ren- 
 dered. Compare Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 35, with Numbers xix. 
 19, and Mark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, with Dr, Campbell's 
 note on John xiii. 10. Several of the instances in which it is 
 rendered baptize, refer to overwhelming sufferings, and one of 
 them to the children of Israel being completely surrounded 
 by the cloud and by the sea, as described Exodus xiv. 29. 
 
 In determining what, according to the usus loquendi, is the 
 sense of uKccB-ct^rag, Dr. W. refers, p. 80, to the authority of 
 Schleusner. Let us see what the same author has said on the 
 word frx-xriTji. — " flAwnZ*. 1. Properly; immergo ac intin- 
 go, in aquam mergo : [to immerse, to dip, to plunge into wa- 
 ter.] — 2. It denotes abluo, lavo, aqua purgo ; [to wash away, 
 to wash, to cleanse with water.] Mark vii. 4. Luke xi. 38. 
 — 3. Hence it is transferred to the solemn rite of baptism. 
 Matt, xxviii. 19. — 4. Metaphorically, like the Latin imbuo, 
 large et copiose do atque suppedito, large profundo ; [to give 
 and supply largely and abundantly, to pour out largely.] Matt, 
 iii. 11, Mark i. 8, Luke iii. 16, John i. 33, Acts i. 5, coll. 
 Acts ii. 17, xi. 16. — 4. By metaphor /3xTi£ior§at signifies ca- 
 lamitatum fluctibus obrui, mergi miseriis ; [to be overwhelmed 
 in the billows of calamities, to be plunged in miseries. ]" 
 
 Quotations might easily be made from Josephus'and hea- 
 then authors, (as the late Dr. Ryland has done in his Candid 
 Statement) and also from eminent critics and lexicographers, 
 which would abundantly confirm the declaration of Dr. 
 Campbell, that " fa-art^a, both in sacred authors and in clas- 
 sical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse : and is always 
 construed suitably to this meaning." But the references and 
 quotations already made, are sufficient to show, that a man is 
 not baptized in the sense of that term, which was usual in the 
 days of Christ and his Apostles, when a very small part of 
 his body is made wet with a very small quantity of water. 
 
 But Christ must be understood to have meant definitely 
 and precisely, what the word he used imported, in the usual 
 sense of it, unless it can be shown from its connexion, or the 
 circumstances in which it was uttered, that it was meant to 
 be taken in a different sense. "The rule of interpretation, 
 
76 The common Signification of Baptize. 
 
 which is of the highest consequence, and which will aid us 
 most in discovering the true meaning of the scriptures, in re- 
 lation to this suhject now before us is, that we put ourselvcSi 
 as far as may be, in the place of those who gave instruction, 
 and of those who received zV." p. 42. Now, as an argumen- 
 tum ad hominem, proselyte baptism, it is admitted on all hands, 
 was performed by immersion; and therefore, if the Apostles 
 would naturally think of this, when interpreting and execut- 
 ing their commission, they must have supposed that immer- 
 sion was intended. 
 
 It happens that (ZxTrri^at is less frequently used in the Greek 
 scriptures, than its primitive, /3*?tta/, except where it refers to 
 the ordinance in question. Advantage is taken of this cir- 
 cumstance. Dr. W. says, " There are many reasons for sup- 
 posing that SccxTtl^a, being a derivative from fixm*, has a 
 less definite, and less forcible sense than the original," p. 15 k 
 But why did the Saviour use the lengthened derivative to ex- 
 press his intense sufferings, if the primitive would have been 
 more forcible ? There are many derivatives that are more 
 forcible than their primitives; and it should not be has- 
 tily concluded that this is less so. It would scarcely have 
 been preferred to the primitive word to express the sinking 
 of a ship, or the immersing of a man until he was drowned, 
 if it had been less forcible in its signification. See Jose- 
 phus' Antiq., book 9., ch. 10., § 2.; and book 15., ch. 3., § 
 3.; and Wars of the Jews, book 1., ch. 22., § 2. The true 
 power of "the Greek termination *£*>, is explained in the fol- 
 lowing extract from Judson's sermon on baptism. M The 
 word denoting baptism is derived from the verbal of this pri- 
 mitive word, by a change in the termination, which, accord- 
 ing to an established principle of the Greek language, never 
 affects the primary idea; but when made on words express- 
 ing a quality or attribute, merely conveys the additional idea 
 of causing or making. 
 
 ' " The termination <£*, in Greek derivatives, is precisely of 
 the same import, as the termination/^, in English derivatives, 
 from the Latin fio, to make; as, sanctify, to make holy, from 
 sanctus, holy; mollify, to soften, from mollis, soft, &c. On 
 the same principle, in Greek; 
 
 ayvi^a, to purify, from ityvti pure ; 
 retpigu, to make wise, from <r«P«$ wise,' 
 Vtpt&i to fill, from ytp*, to be full, &c» 
 
The common Signification of Baptize. 77 
 
 " And derivatives are thus formed, not only from adjectives 
 
 and neuter verbs, but also from the verbals of transitive verbs: 
 
 xi$e», to choose; *^jt««, chosen; xi^tlt^, to make chosen. 
 
 to choose. 
 lufxtru, to show ; tfc<pcc*ni> shown ; tfcfetvfy, to make shown. 
 
 to show; 
 ku.6ui£h, to cleanse ; xxOx^os, clean; xx6x%i£a>,to make clean. 
 
 to cleanse; 
 *•», to drink ; «r«7«s, drank; noli^a, to cause to be drank : 
 pcctra/, to sprinkle; pxvros, sprinkled; ^xir^u, to makt 
 
 sprinkled, to sprinkle. 
 And according to the same analogy; /3**-r<v, to immerse. 
 flttx-Tos, immersed; /Zxzrrig*, to make immersed, to immersed 
 From this explanation it appears that Bx^t^u is neither 
 less forcible, nor less definite in its signification, than fix-*?*. 
 Dr. Campbell says, they are synonymous; notes on Mark,v\i. 
 4., and Matt. xx. 22. 
 
 It may here be added, that the force of the Greek termina- 
 tion i£» is often expressed in English by ize ; as, 
 legal; legalize, to make legal; 
 harmonious; harmonize, to make harmonious ; 
 from system, systematic, has been formed systematize, 
 
 to make systematic ; 
 so from to jeopard, to hazard, some have formed to 
 jeopardize, to make hazarded, to liazard. 
 According to the same analogy may be formed, 
 from to bapt, (for so fixx-ru may be Anglicised, or made 
 English,) to dip, to baptize,^o make dipped. 
 Dr. W. says, p. 151., " Yet even fix-wra does not always 
 signify a total immersion. This might be made evident from 
 classic usage; and it is perfectly evident from the New Testa- 
 ment. See Matt. xxvi. 23. He that dippeth his hand with me 
 in the dish; tfA^ct-^et^ rnt x i, i el - Mark has it o tp/Zxirrepfit;, 
 he, the person that dippeth with me in the dish. Now, what- 
 ever liquid the dish contained, it cannot be supposed, that Ju- 
 das plunged his hand all over in that liquid. Nothing more 
 can be meant, than that he took the bitter herbs that were 
 eaten at the passover, or other articles of food , and with his 
 fingers dipped them in the sauce prepared. And yet it is said 
 by Matthew, that Judas dipped his hand, and by Mark, that 
 he himself dipped in the dish." I have given this quotation 
 
 o 2 
 
78 The common Signification of Baptize. 
 
 entire, because it contains all the author has said against our 
 acceptation of Pxtt*. "It does not always signify a total 
 immersion." I grant this. To dip the hand as in this in- 
 stance, or the tip of the finger, as in Luke, xvi. 24., does not 
 mean an immersion of the whole body, but only of that part 
 which is said to be dipped. If it could be made to appear, 
 that Christ commanded to baptize the head, or the face, or 
 the hands, or the feet of his disciples, then we should content 
 ourselves with the immersion of these parts only; but our 
 brethren maintain, that they have baptized the whole man, 
 when they have applied a very little water to a very small 
 part of his body. "It cannot be supposed that Judas plung- 
 ed his hand all over in that liquid." This I also grant. To 
 dip the hand in a dish, does not mean to plunge it all over in 
 a liquid. I suppose, a hand may be dipped in an empty dish, 
 or in a dish containing solids. Does Dr. W. think the evan- 
 gelist meant that Judas washed, or wet, or sprinkled his hand 
 with this liquid ? No. He does not think so. He chooses 
 none of these terms by which to explain this Greek verb. But 
 what term does he use for this purpose ? " Nothing more," 
 he says, " can be meant, than that he took the bitter herbs 
 which were eaten at the Passover, or other articles of food, 
 and with his fingers dipped them in the sauce prepared." The 
 word, after all, is dipped. Though the noun hand is explain- 
 ed to mean the herbs, or food, which it held, and the noun 
 dish, to mean the liquid which it contained, the verb amidst 
 all these figurative interpretations, still retains its literal sig- 
 nification, to dip, even according to Dr. W.'s decision; and 
 this decision must be regarded as the more important, because 
 it is upon the only case adduced, as an exception to the pre- 
 vailing sense. But Dr. W. further notices, that Mark uses 
 the middle voice of the verb, o epPccrTtpivos, which he renders 
 he himself dipped. Does he mean hereby, (for I know not 
 what he means,) that the subject and the object of the verb 
 in the middle voice must be the same ? '* The middle voice 
 signifies what we do, first, to ourselves, second, for ourselves." 
 Valpy's Greek Grammar. Now, whatever it was that Judas 
 dipped, there is no difficulty in accounting for the use of the 
 middle voice, since he dipped for himself. Eminent critics 
 understand the middle voice, fiwrri^aivrui, in Mark, vii. 4., in 
 this way, and suppose it means the washing of the articles 
 brought from market, an interpretation by no means unfavour- 
 able to immersion. 
 
The common Signification of Baptize. 79 
 
 Concerning the word /3#stt<£*, Dr. W. says, " it does in- 
 deed signify to immerse or dip in water ; but it also signifies 
 to wash, and to wash in different ways." If it does indeed 
 signify to immerse or to dip in water, then, is it not likely that 
 it was used in this sense by Christ, in the commission ? Does 
 not the etymology of the word, and its prevailing sense, and 
 the frequent use of immersion among the Jews, favour this 
 supposition ? It must be insisted on, that the language of a 
 speaker or writer, is not ambiguous, because the words which 
 he uses have sometimes different senses, from those in which 
 he designs to employ them. Every speaker, or writer, who 
 intends to be understood, will always guard against the use of 
 a word, if there is not, at least, sufficient preponderating pro- 
 bability, from the connexion and circumstances in which he 
 uses it to point out to an honest uncaptious mind, the sense 
 which he intends. Did Christ intend to be understood ? Surely 
 he did. Let then every disciple weigh the probabilities, whe- 
 ther he intended by this word, that which Dr. W. says it cer- 
 tainly does mean, namely, to immerse, or dip in water, and if 
 the probability is in favour of this sense, then he may he as- 
 sured, that Christ meant so, and ought to practise accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 Dr. W, says, " Bxvrt^M signifies to wash, and to wash in 
 different ways." I do not deny, that there are many sen- 
 tences, in which the sense to wash, is sufficiently expressive 
 of the meaning of this word, to be a suitable rendering for it, 
 but I deny it is the proper sense of it. Every one, who is 
 accustomed to translate from another language, knows that 
 his mind is prone to seek out, and fix upon, some one sense to 
 every word, and to explain all special uses of it as modifica- 
 tions of this general sense, arising from the peculiar circum- 
 stances of its use in those cases. A word becomes in reality, 
 two words, if it has two leading senses, that are independent 
 of each other; thus, to lie, in English, has two independent 
 leading senses, but it constitutes in each of these senses a dis- 
 tinct word. But no one, I believe, will affirm that there are 
 two Greek verbs, /3#7rTi£#, one meaning to immerse, and the 
 other to wash. These senses are not, therefore, independent 
 of each other, and one of them must be the principal sense of 
 the verb, and the other a subordinate sense, since no one pre- 
 tends that there is a more general sense than either, from 
 which they are both derived. 
 
80 The common Signification of Baptize. 
 
 Now, I deny, that to wash, is the principal leading sense of 
 the verb j8«tt/{». If the general sense attached to it be to 
 immerse, to dip, then all the peculiar modifications will be 
 found to follow from this sense naturally, and in a way, easily 
 to be accounted for; but they cannot be derived from the 
 sense to wash. Who can make sense of our Saviour's words, 
 Luke, xii. 50., if thus rendered; " I have a washing to be 
 washed with." The mind revolts at the idea of interpreting 
 this figurative language of our Saviour, with a reference to 
 wash, as the general literal sense of the verb; but, how ex- 
 pressive is the rendering of Dr. Campbell, " I have an immer- 
 sion to undergo !" Many other sentences of the same kind 
 might be produced. The following shall be given from Jus- 
 tin's dialogue with Trypho, part 2. p. 327. " Christ has 
 redeemed US, fiifixzi-Tirfifvovs rxn Bet£VTctjecis a ptt^Ttctts, sub- 
 mersos gravissimis peccatis, immersed in most heavy sins." 
 Who could make sense of this passage, if he had it in his 
 mind, that to wash instead of to immerse, is the sense of the 
 verb ? If among the various modifications of sense which 
 this word may receive from peculiar circumstances, it may 
 mean '■' to wash in different ways." One of these ways un- 
 questionably is, by immersion; and if the commission were 
 read, " Go teach all nations, washing them, &c," to me it 
 appears there would be sufficient reason for supposing this 
 mode of washing to have been intended. But Dr. W. says, 
 14 The most common mode of ceremonial purification among 
 the Jews, was, " the sprinkling of consecrated water." But, 
 without waiting to dispute the comparative frequency of this 
 mode, will Dr. W. affirm that in the numerous instances in 
 which unclean things were required to be washed, they were 
 washed for the most part, or even frequently, or even in any 
 case, by the sprinkling of consecrated water ? • Will Dr. W. 
 affirm, that any Jewish priest, ever purified, by the sprinkling 
 of consecrated water, any unclean thing, which Moses had 
 commanded to be put into, or dipped in water, as expressed 
 by the verb Bxtttv ? Alas; the disciples of Christ are in this 
 particular, less observant of their Master's words, than were 
 the disciples of Moses. 
 
 But what proof is there, that BxTtr^a in the commission, 
 may signify so imperfect and partial a washing, as our bre- 
 thren practise. They do not wash the whole body, but the 
 face only, and,, for what reason they fix upon this part of the 
 
The common Signification of Baptize. 8 i 
 
 body, I cannot tell, since I know not that any of the sprink- 
 lings of consecrated water, among the Jews, were made upon 
 the face, and certain I am, there is no command, or example, 
 or even hint, or suggestion, in the NewTestament, for wash- 
 ing, or baptizing the face. Further, this very partial wash- 
 ing is also very imperfectly done, since it often consists in 
 sprinkling on the face a few drops of water, and that not con- 
 secrated, but common water. I ask, what reason is there to 
 believe, that, when our Saviour commanded that his disciples 
 should be baptized, he meant only, that they should receive 
 this very imperfect and partial washing by sprinkling. Dr. W.'s 
 reasons consist in remarks made upon the use of the noun 
 PttstTHrpts, in two passages of scripture; Heb. ix. 10., Mark, 
 vii. 4. But fixzrTHrpos is not the word used in the commis- 
 sion. We might say, using the phraseology of Dr. W., there 
 are many reasons for supposing that pxzrrt7ft.os, being a deri- 
 vative from /3#7tt<£», has a less definite, and less forcible sense. 
 Why may we not, with an assertion of this kind, silence all 
 his argument, since it depends entirely upon the use of this 
 derivative fieczTTtcrpos ? But let us not resort to this expedient, 
 for, I apprehend, that though we should affirm many such 
 reasons exist, we should be put to it, if called upon to produce 
 them. It is true, that Schleusner, though he renders fixnrt&i 
 to immerse, to dip, renders ficrsrTtrpos washing, cleansing, ab- 
 lution; but, we are not to infer that such a washing, or ablu- 
 tion is properly meant by this word, as does not convey the 
 idea of immersion which prevails in the primitive. It should 
 be recollected, that dipping, or plunging, may be for the pur- 
 pose of polluting, as well as of purifying, see Job. ix. 31. 
 Whenever either /Zxznu, or /Zuznt^oi, or pefrrttrftos, is used in 
 such circumstances, as show evidently that the immersion is 
 performed for the purpose of purification, then the general 
 sense of the word may be considered to be so modified by these 
 circumstances, as to include in it the idea of purification. 
 fixTTTtTftos, always, in the New Testament, is so used, as to 
 include this idea, and this accounts for the fact, that this lexi- 
 cographer renders the noun fletimTfitt, washing, ablution, 
 while the noun ^T^c-p, which is used in the New Testa- 
 ment, in such circumstances as do not imply purification, Matt. 
 xx. 22., &c. is rendered by him immersion. As ponrrt^e* in 
 several instances, is rendered wash, so £«*■*•«, in Job. ix. 31. 
 might be rendered defile, and the rendering is even more ex- 
 
82 The common Signification of Baptize. 
 
 pressive than plunge, of the prominent idea in the passage. 
 But however prominent the idea of defilement or of purification 
 may be, it is still an accidental idea, dependent upon the cir- 
 cumstances and connexion in which the word is used: but the 
 idea, which, though less prominent in the sentence or the de- 
 sign of the writer, is yet essential to the true sense of the 
 word, is immersion. So, purification is a prominent accidental 
 idea ot fiawrtrfft, where it occurs in the New Testament, 
 yet the essential idea in the sense of the word, is immersion ; 
 and this cannot be denied on any better ground, than we might 
 deny immersion to be intended, in Job ix. 31.* because de- 
 filement is the prominent idea. 
 
 Stockius renders the word /3#9rT<<r^, lotio, ablutio, baptis- 
 mus; (washing, ablution, baptism;) yet, in explaining further, 
 he says, " Generally, and according to the force of the word, 
 it denotes immersionem ac intinctionem; (immersion, dip- 
 ping.) Specially, it denotes, first, properly, the immersion, 
 or dipping of a thing into water, that it may be washed, hence 
 it is transferred to sacramental baptism, in which, formerly, 
 the person to be baptized was immersed into water, that he 
 might be washed from the filth of sin, and received into the 
 covenant of grace. Second, figuratively, by metonymy, or 
 metalepsis, it denotes washing, Mark. vii. 4. 8., Heb. ix. 10." 
 If the judgment of this lexicographer be taken, ficarTtrp,**;, in 
 both the texts from which Dr. W. argues, is used in a special 
 figurative sense, and therefore no valid argument can be 
 drawn from them, to do away either the general or special 
 proper sense, in which last it applies to the ordinance of bap- 
 tism. But is not immersion intended even in these two texts? 
 Dr. Macknight renders, Heb. ix. 10. " divers immersions :" 
 and on Mark vii. 3., 4., his observations (see Harmony, sec, 
 64.) are important, showing both the frequency and manner 
 of Jewish baptismal purifications, and also the true sense, as 
 I conceive, of the 3d verse of that chapter. " The law of 
 Moses required external cleanness, as a part of religion, not, 
 however, for its own sake, but to signify with what carefulness 
 God's servants should purify their minds from moral pollutions. 
 Accordingly, these duties were prescribed by Moses in such 
 moderation, as was fitted to promote the end of them. But, 
 in process of time, they came to be multiplied prodigiously. 
 For the ancient doctors, to secure the observation of those 
 precepts that were really of divine institution, added many 
 
The common Signification of Baptize* 83 
 
 commandments of their own as fences unto the former; and 
 the people, to show their zeal, obeyed them. For example, 
 because the law, Lev. xv. 11., saith, " Whomsoever he touch- 
 eth that hath the issue, (and hath not rinsed his hands in wa- 
 ter,) he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, 
 and be unclean until the even;" the people were ordered to 
 wash their hands carefully, and to bathe themselves immedi- 
 ately on their return from places of public concourse, and 
 before they sat down to meat, lest by touching some unclean 
 person in the crowd, they might have defiled themselves. 
 The Pharisees, therefore, being very zealous in these trifles, 
 would eat at no time, unless they washed their hands with the 
 greatest care; and when they came from the market place, 
 they would not sit down to table, till they had first bathed 
 themselves. From this source came that endless variety of 
 purifications not prescribed in the law, but ordained by the 
 elders, such as the washing of cups, and pots, and brazen ves- 
 sels, and of tables, not because they were dirty, but from a 
 principle of religion, or rather, of superstition." Calmet 
 says, Article Baptism: " All legal pollutions were cleansed by 
 .baptism, or by plunging into water. Certain diseases, natu- 
 ral to men and worsen, were to be purified by bathing;" Dr. 
 Gill has shown, in his notes on Mark vii. 4., that the Jews 
 did use immersion, in the ceremonial purification, not only of 
 cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables, but also of beds, 
 couches, pillows, and bolsters; and has quoted canons in which 
 immersion of these is explicitly enjoined. The argument, 
 therefore, that " to suppose that beds or couches were im- 
 mersed, would be unreasonable," is an argument founded on 
 a supposition, that is contrary to demonstrated fact. Dr. W. 
 says, " Divers washings are mentioned, Heb. ix. 10. The 
 original is diet<P$£ot$ /3*TT<(rp(j, divers baptisms. These were 
 not all performed in one way; and certainly not by immersion. 
 The clivers baptisms, or ablutions, mentioned Heb ix. 10., 
 doubtless, included all the different ablutions, or ceremonial 
 cleansings, prescribed in the Mosaic law. These were per- 
 formed in different ways, but chiefly, by sprinkling consecrat- 
 ed water." That all the ceremonial purifications were in- 
 tended by the apostle to be included in the phrase divers bap- 
 tisms, is a supposition entirely gratuitous. His words are: — 
 " Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, 
 and carnal ordinances;" or according to the translation of 
 
84 The Ritual Signification of Baptize. ' 
 
 Macknight, r Divers immersions and ordinances concerning 
 the flesh." The carnal ordinances are certainly much more 
 comprehensive in signification, than the divers baptisms or 
 immersions, and include all the ceremonies for the purifica- 
 tion of the flesh, such as that mentioned in verse 13 of the 
 chapter: " The ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:" that is, the sprink- 
 ling of the consecrated water, made of the ashes of the red 
 heifer, was an ordinance for the purifying of the flesh, a car- 
 nal ordinance, an ordinance concerning the flesh. There is, 
 therefore, no ground for the affirmation, that the purifications 
 which were performed by sprinkling consecrated water, were 
 " doubtless included" in the divers baptisms mentioned by the 
 Apostles. But it is said, " The adjective huVcps, signi- 
 fies different, of various kinds, dissimilar, as in Rom. xii. 6. 
 But when the Apostle says, in Rom. xii., 6.; "Having 
 then, gifts differing according to the grace given us," 
 did he mean that some of these gifts were not really gifts, 
 but something different from gifts ? Certainly, he meant no 
 such thing: but as the context clearly shows, he meant that 
 they were all truly gifts, but given for different purposes; for 
 prophecy, for ministry, for teaching, for exhortation, &c. In 
 like manner, when he says divers baptisms, or immersions, he 
 means that they are all really baptisms or immersions, how- 
 ever they may differ in other respects. The immersion on 
 divers occasions, for divers purposes, of divers persons and 
 things, as of priests and people, sacrifices, vessels, &c. con- 
 stituted divers immersions, without the necessity of supposing 
 that some of those immersions were performed by sprinkling. 
 Had the words been $tct<p6£ots pxtrirpots, divers sprinklings; 
 would Dr. W. have argued that some of the sprinklings were 
 performed by immersion ? 
 
 THE RITUAL SIGNIFICATION OF BAPTIZE. 
 
 The most plausible argument ever urged in favour of a par- 
 tial application of water, for baptism, is that which Dr. W. 
 thus states, p. 152. But even if it were the case, that fixir- 
 n^tt always signifies to dip, or immerse all over in water, 
 when applied to other subjects; it would by no means certain- 
 ly follow that it has this signification, when applied to the 
 Christian rite of baptism. There may be sufficient reasons, 
 
The Ritual Signification of Baptize. 85 
 
 use, should not be performed in a manner exactly in conform- 
 ity with the common signification of that word. This we well 
 know is the case with the word by which the other Christian 
 ordinance is denoted. The word supper, in English, and 
 hiirw, in Greek, have a very different sense, when applied to 
 that institution, from what they have in ordinary cases. Eat- 
 ing a morsel of bread does not constitute a supper, a princi- 
 pal meal ; although this is the common signification of h ittw. 
 But in this religions rite, eating a small morsel of bread is 
 called a supper, 1 Cor. xi. 20. And the apostle charged the 
 Corinthians with abusing the ordinance, because they made 
 use of more food, than the design of the ordinance required. 
 Now if the word which denotes one Christian rite, has a sense 
 so widely different from its usual sense; why may it not be so 
 with the word which denotes the other Christian rite ? As 
 hi7rtov, in reference to one rite, signifies, not a usual meal, 
 but only a very small quantity of bread ; why may not /3#7rr/- 
 £», in reference to the other rite, signify not a complete dip- 
 ping or washing, but the application of water in a small de- 
 gree? This would present the two institutions in the same 
 light." 
 
 This argument is provided as a resort, in case it should be 
 proved that fictTTt^a means to dip, or immerse all over in wa- 
 ter. So far, therefore, as this argument is concerned, we may, 
 in our reply, take it as granted to us, that this is the common 
 signification of the word, and that both in the commission 
 and every where else, it may be rendered immerse, with as 
 much propriety as ht-rvov is rendered supper in 1 Cor. xi. 20. 
 
 We should here consider the fact, that there is but a single 
 instance of the use of ^unvot, in which it is supposed to have 
 this peculiar signification, namely, 1 Cor. xi. 20. The in- 
 stances are exceedingly numerous in which other words are 
 used with reference to religious rites, and even fottrw is re- 
 peatedly used with reference to the paschal supper. In all 
 these instances it is an invariable rule, that words when ap- 
 plied to religious rites have the same signification as in other 
 cases, and are subject to the same rules of interpretation. If 
 ^tiTTfo* in 1 Cor. xi. 20., is an exception, it is a solitary excep- 
 tion. It is certainly the part of true criticism, in determining 
 the meaning of /3*wt<£#, to follow the general rule, rather than 
 the single exception. Besides, we have frequent use of fixtr- 
 ttt with reference to religious rites. See the examples before 
 
 m 
 
86 The Ritual Signification of Bapiize. 
 
 quoted from the LXX. The Jewish priests seem never to 
 have thought, that when Moses enjoined dipping in religious 
 rites, he meant a diminutive dipping, or one that might be 
 performed by sprinkling, and no one has suggested, that these 
 priests mistook the meaning of their lawgiver. Is it not in- 
 finitely more probable that fieczrrt^oi follows peca-ru, in obeying 
 the general rule, than that it follows a very different word in 
 a solitary deviation from all rule and analogy ? 
 
 If upon a single instance, we should establish it as a rule, 
 that words, when applied to a religious rite, may have a mean- 
 ing which they obtain no where else, who will limit the ap- 
 plication of this rule, and tell us, how many of the words which 
 relate to a religious rite, have an extraordinary meaning, or 
 how widely their meaning differs from that which they obtain 
 elsewhere ? Perhaps the words erSia, and vrtw, although they 
 mean every where else to eat and to drink, do, when applied 
 to a religious rite, mean only to handle and to look upon. Who 
 will determine for us ? Has the legislator of the church com- 
 mitted to any one a lexicon of ritual terms, by which his sim- 
 ple hearted disciples may find out what he meant ? Or has 
 he given to any persons on earth, an authority to decree what 
 ceremonies they may think proper, by assigning to all the 
 ritual terms of scripture what sense they please ? That the 
 terms used in reference to religious rites may sometimes have 
 a figurative rather than the literal meaning, sometimes a se- 
 condary sense rather than the primary, every one will admit: 
 but this is what happens in all other speaking or writing, and 
 the same rule of criticism is to be applied in this as in other 
 cases: namely, to prefer the literal and primary signification, 
 if nothing forbids. Thus we understand the word is, in the 
 phrase u this is my body," to have the sense of represents: 
 because the literal primary signification would makethe sense 
 absurd and false: but the word has the same sense when not 
 applied to a religious rite, as in the phrase, " The field is the 
 world, 1 ' For the same reason, the phrase, " As often as ye 
 drink this cup," is to be interpreted according to a common 
 figure of speech, '" As often as ye drink of the liquor contain- 
 ed in this cup." But the same literal sense of the terms, and 
 the same rules of figurative interpretation are found here, as 
 in all other cases. 
 
 It deserves to be noticed further, that /3*?rnf#, and ht m*r r 
 are differently circumstanced in their application to the two 
 
The Ritual Signification of Baptize. 87 
 
 ordinances: one of them is found in the words of Christ's com- 
 mand; the other is not, but is, at most, only a name which 
 the ordinance has received. Our conduct, in obeying the 
 commands of Christ, i3 to be regulated, not by the names 
 which his institutions may receive, but by the words of his 
 commands. We conceive that believers are said in scripture 
 to ,be buried in baptism, at least, twice as often as the eucha- 
 rist is called a supper : baptism may, therefore, be called a 
 burial, yet no one would infer hence, that the body should be 
 left for a long time under water, as in a real interment. Bap- 
 tisms represent a real burial, in which the body of Christ 
 continued three days in the grave. The eucharist represents 
 the free and abundant communion, in which the Lord sups 
 with his people, Rev. iii. 20., in which the great supper is 
 spread, Luke xiv. 16, and which will be perfected at the 
 marriage supper of the Lamb, Rev. xix. 9. Yet Christ did 
 not say, "Go teach all nations burying them," nor, " Take a 
 supper in remembrance of me." His command in the latter 
 case is, eat this bread, and drink this cup, and he did not in- 
 stitute this ordinance as a supper, but after supper. Now if 
 the command is eat, drink, could this command be obeyed 
 any otherwise than by eating and drinking ? Would it suf- 
 fice only to apply the bread and cup to the lips ? In like 
 manner, when Christ said, u Go, teach all nations immersing 
 them," can the command be obeyed any otherwise than by 
 performing a real immersion * In the eucharist, he com- 
 manded to eat bread, and drink wine, but not to take a full 
 meal; and we know from the circumstance that this ordinance 
 was instituted immediately after the disciples had taken a full 
 meal, that a full meal was not intended. The Corinthians, 
 when they converted this ordinance into a full meal, did truly 
 eat and drink, yet they did not fulfil the command more strictly 
 and literally than we do; while on the other hand, they depart- 
 ed from the example and manifest intention of Christ, and 
 were censured for so doing by the Apostle. If we do not 
 literally and fully obey the divine command, when we restrict 
 ourselves in this ordinance to a morsel of bread, and a few 
 drops of wine, we do wrong so to restrict ourselves, and as 
 you have observed in another case, we ought rather to undo 
 the wrong than establish it as a precedent. 
 
 What gives the argument we are considering much greater 
 plausibility, than it would otherwise possess, is the fact that 
 
88 The Ritual Signification of Baptize. 
 
 the name, the Lord's Supper, has become the name generally 
 applied to this ordinance, both in common discourse and theo- 
 logical writing, just as baptism is to the other ordinance. 
 However freely this name may be tolerated in common dis- 
 course, it should be remembered, when important arguments 
 are concerned, that it is not a name commonly used in Scrip- 
 ture. We every where meet with the terms, baptism and 
 baptize, as applied to one ordinance, but in all the word of 
 God, there is only a single instance, in which the term supper 
 is supposed to be applied to the other, and concerning this 
 solitary instance, we have the following remark of Parkhurst, 
 under the word hivrvov : " Kyg«**ov fonrw, the Lord's Sup- 
 per, occurs in 1 Cor. xi. 20. Jt appears, from this and the 
 following verses, that the appellation does not strictly mean 
 the eucharist, but a supper in imitation of that of which our 
 Lord partook, when he instituted the eucharist. For this 
 remark I am indebted to Dr. Bell." Dr. Guyse says on this 
 verse: " I see no reason to suppose, as many do, that the 
 Apostle here refers to their Love Feasts." Schoettgen, in 
 his enlargement of Pasor's Lexicon, Article ATAXIA I, [Love 
 feasts,] says; " So were called those feasts, which were cele- 
 brated by Christians either before or after the use of the holy 
 communion. See 1 Cor. xi. 20, 21. Joach. Hildebrandi 
 Antiq. p. 176. Schurzfleischii diss. 86. de veteri agaparum 
 ritu. ,J See also Calmet's dictionary, article AGAPJE, at 
 the close of which article [Taylor's edition,) we have the fol- 
 lowing sentence: " However, we must, at any rate, vindicate 
 the Corinthians from that gross profanatiou of the eucharist, 
 with which, from our translation, or rather from our common 
 acceptation of the phrase ' Lord's Supper,' they have been 
 reproached." It seems, therefore, that in the judgment of 
 many eminent men, we have not a single instance in scripture, 
 in which the eucharist is called the Lord's supper. Their 
 opinion, if correct,, sweeps away at once, the whole founda- 
 tion on which this plausible argument rests. 
 
 1 think, it deserves to be inquired whether the Apostle, in 
 this verse, intended Kv^taxov htzrvov for the name of any insti- 
 tution either divine or human. Had he so intended, it would 
 have been natural to prefix the definite article which he has 
 not done. Middleton says, 4< The article may here be omit- 
 ted by the same license by which it is so frequently wanting 
 before Jtvg/«s: in the same maimer as national appellations 
 
Circumstantial Evidence. 89 
 
 partake of the license which is allowed to proper names." 
 This is, perhaps, one of the instances meant by professor 
 Stewart, (Translation of Winer's Greek Grammar, p. 59.) 
 in which he says, Middleton has " cut the knot without unty- 
 ing it." The translation of Wakefield expresses all that is in 
 the original: " So then, when ye meet together, it is not to 
 eat a supper of the Lord." The Corinthians took a. full mealy 
 a real supper, even to excess, both in eating and drinking. 
 The Apostle denies that this was a supper of the Lord. But 
 he no where affirms that " the eating of a small morsel, is a 
 supper," as Dr. W. has stated in the premises of his argu- 
 ment. Middleton has made the following quotation from 
 Michaelis: " In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, we find 
 the plainest indications that they celebrated Sunday. They 
 assembled on the first day of the week, (x<*t# ptctv rct8fietT#r:) 
 and the expression xv£tx>cof hi-a-w, 1 Cor. xi. 20. may be 
 translated as in the Syriac version, •• a meal which is proper 
 for the Lord's day, or a Sunday meal." But it is of no im- 
 portance to our present argument, whether the phrase, " it is 
 not to eat a supper of the Lord," means, it is not to eat a feast 
 which the Lord has instituted, or it is not to eat a feast which 
 the Lord can approve ; or, it is not to eat a feast proper for 
 the Lord's day. According to any of these interpretations, 
 the phrase has no definite reference to an institution either 
 human or divine. 
 
 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 
 
 Having ascertained, that according to fair rules of scrip- 
 ture interpretation, fiecxri^et means to immerse, when applied 
 to the Christian ordinance; we have before us, in the com- 
 mission, a positive command for immersion; and in the scrip- 
 ture history positive proof that believers were anciently im- 
 mersed. Every declaration, that any were baptized, is proof 
 as direct and positive as language can make it, that they were 
 immersed. Therefore, if Dr. W. could succeed in showing, 
 that the circumstances, which attend the several instances of 
 baptism recorded in the New Testament, do not prove that 
 immersion is the only proper mode, he would only take away 
 from us the circumstantial proof, leaving us in full possession of 
 that which is positive. If, even all the circumstances could 
 be shown to be against the probability of these persons having 
 
 h 2 
 
90 Circumstantial Evidence. 
 
 been immersed, they would operate against the credibility of 
 the history, but would not disprove that the facts are so stated. 
 But, upon due examination, it will be found, that the circum- 
 stantial proof and the positive are on the same side. In the 
 examination of the circumstantial evidence, I shall be more 
 brief, as it is of less importance. 
 
 " John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because 
 there was much water there." John iii. 23. This circum- 
 stance is manifestly favourable to immersion. To evade its 
 force, the 'much water' is supposed by Dr. W. to have been 
 necessary for the accommodation of the crowd that attended 
 his ministry, and not for the purpose of baptizing, but this is not 
 the sense which naturally strikes the mind on reading the pas- 
 sage. The suggestion that vlxrec ^©aa* means i many springs 
 er streams of water,' I did not expect from Dr. W. See Dr. 
 Doddridge's note on the place. 
 
 That John baptized in Jordan, Mat. iii. 6, is another cir- 
 cumstance favourable to immersion. With this agrees the 
 statement, that both the candidate and the administrator went 
 down into the water for the performing of this duty, and when 
 it had been performed, came up out of the water, Acts viii. 
 38, 39. The translations in, into, out of, are in these con- 
 nexions unquestionably correct, according to the usus loquen- 
 di; and according to the same rule, Mat. iii. 11, should be 
 rendered, ' I indeed baptize you in water, &c.' See Dr. 
 Campbell's note. If 4 to baptize in Jordan,' and ' to baptize 
 in water,' mean that the baptized were put in the water of 
 the river, they furnish positive proof of immersion. If they 
 mean that the baptizer and the baptized stood in the river, 
 (and the first of the phrases may mean nothing more,) they 
 contain only circumstantial proof. * To go down into the 
 water,' and « to come up out of the water,' do not express the 
 act of immersion, but preparatory and consequent acts, and 
 are therefore only circumstantial proof; but it is circumstan- 
 tial proof exceedingly strong, that the administrator and the 
 subjects should go down into the water or stand in the river 
 for the performance of the rite. The preposition ex, out of, 
 is used to express the coming forth of Philip and the Eunuch 
 from the water after baptism, but that which is used in the 
 case of the Saviour, is not tx but *«••. Dr. W. has laid hold 
 of this fact, and says, (which I am willing to grant,) that this 
 preposition generally signifies from. After having been im- 
 
Circumstantial Evidence. 91 
 
 mersed, Jesus 1, emerged from the water in which he had 
 been baptized ; 2, and then came up out of the water into 
 which he had gone down ; 3, and lastly, departed from the 
 river to which he had come. If the phrase <*»gy3» a-xt rev 
 v&xToq, means the first of these, as Dr. Campbell seems to 
 have thought, it affords positive proof of immersion ; if it 
 means the second, as was perhaps the opinion of our transla* 
 tors, it contains exceedingly strong circumstantial proof to 
 the same effect ; if it means the third, as Dr. W. thinks, the 
 proof is less strong, but it is certainly still favourable to im- 
 mersion. Why on the supposition of any other mode than 
 immersion did they go " into the river where the water was a 
 few inches deep," or " to the edge of the river," or, I may 
 add, even in sight of it ? Do those who practise sprinkling, go 
 to rivers ? If much water was necessary for the multitude, 
 yet why go to the river for baptism ? We might here by way 
 of retort, ask, should we expect to hear of repairing to rivers 
 for baptism in a history of Padobaptist Missions ? 
 
 On the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, the Dr. observes, 
 M that if going down into the water proves that he was 
 wholly immersed, it proves the same of Philip;" but this is a 
 mutilated account of the matter, for it is said, that " they went 
 down both of them into the water, and he baptized him ; that is, 
 one of them immersed the other. Was there no immersion 
 then, on that occasion ? If not, by what words could a Greek 
 writer describe such an action ; or cannot that copious lan- 
 guage express this action at all, even when it describes a 
 combination of the strongest circumstances, and subjoins 
 thereto an express declaration ? See Dr. Doddridge's note 
 on this place. 
 
 In reference to the case of the Jailer, it is abundantly suf- 
 ficient for us, simply to keep in mind, that Philippi was situ- 
 ated by a river side, and that it was easy to baptize in the 
 night, and safer, under existing circumstances, to attend to it 
 in the night than in the day time. The historian affirms that 
 the Jailer was baptized, i. e. immersed, and there is certainly 
 no circumstance mentioned that implies an impossibility of 
 immersion. On the contrary, it is a circumstance unfavour- 
 able to any other supposition, that the baptism was performed 
 out of the house, for it is said expressly, that after having been 
 baptized, "he brought them into his house." This circum- 
 stance will have still more weight, if we suppose that when 
 
92 Circumstantial Evidence. 
 
 " they preached the word of the Lord to him and to all that 
 were in his house," they were assembled in the house, since 
 in that case it will appear that they went out of the house for 
 the purpose of performing the baptism. Dr. W. says, that at 
 the time of preaching to the household, " they were clearly 
 not out of the limits of the prison," but for the proof of this 
 fact, (to use the words with which he concludes his para- 
 graph,) " I would merely ask what evidence he finds of this 
 in the New Testament ?" We affirm, that there was a river 
 near, and have Scripture proof, see ver. 13, of the chapter ; 
 but although it is usual in eastern countries to have tanks of 
 water in their prison yards, as well as in the yards and gar- 
 dens of their private houses, (see Judson's sermon on bap- 
 tism preached at Calcutta,) we do not affirm that the prison 
 at Philippi may not have been an exception, and we have not 
 the scripture evidence Dr. W. calls for on this point, unless he 
 will allow us the privilege used by himself on another occa- 
 sion, p. 98, 99, of urging the silence of scripture for proof. 
 The remarks, p. 156, on the baptism of the three thousand, 
 remind me of the statements which some have made concern- 
 ing the river Jordan. It has been affirmed, that it was a 
 mere rivulet, and that it was impracticable to immerse a per- 
 son in it ! Can any one, who reflects a moment on it, sup- 
 pose, that a city so populous and of such consequence as Jeru- 
 salem was, should be so destitute of water as the Dr. repre- 
 sents it? He ought to have borne in mind, that Jerusalem 
 contained a very great multitude of people beside its own in- 
 habitants at the time referred to, and, according to him, they 
 needed much water at all events. Men forget to be consistent 
 oftimes, when supporting a favourite hypothesis. " It was 
 about the twentieth of March," he informs us, " and there 
 was no rain in Jerusalem at that season." This is a mistake, 
 for the twentieth of March was about the time of the latter rain 
 in Judea. To do justice to Dr, W., we must suppose this a 
 typographical error. The feast of Pentecost corresponding 
 to our Whitsuntide, happened near the last of May. But even 
 at this season an absolute scarcity of water at Jerusalem can- 
 not be supposed, since all the tribes of Israel were required 
 to assemble there annually for the celebration of this feast. 
 Dr. Macknight, speaking of the six water-pots, mentioned 
 John ii. 6, says, see Harmony, sec. XIX. " They were 
 placed there some of them for the cleansing of cups and tables, 
 
Circumstantial Evidence. 93 
 
 and others for such purifications as required the immersion 
 of the whole body. They were therefore of great capacity." 
 If in Cana, a remote village of Galilee, a poor family not able 
 to furnish a marriage feast with wine, were thus provided 
 with the means necessary for ceremonial purification by im- 
 mersion, how abundant must have been the provision for this 
 purpose in the city of Jerusalem, the centre of all their cere- 
 monial worship ; and this provision was necessary not for the 
 inhabitants of the city only, but also for the immense crowds 
 who attended their religious festivals, and who on these occa- 
 sions must have had access to such places of purification. 
 "The brook Kidron," says Dr. W., M was dry." — <I would 
 merely ask what evidence he finds of this in the New Testa- 
 ment ?' — He says, further, u And there was no stream or 
 fountain of water in Jerusalem, or near it, except the pool of 
 Siloam or Siloah; (also called Gihon, 2 Chron. xxxii. 30,) 
 which is a fountain of water not far from the southeast cor- 
 ner of the city, at the foot of Mount Zion and Moriah." A 
 reader of this statemeut should consult Calmet's Dictionary, 
 articles Gihon and Siloam ; or Dr. Clarke, on 2 Chron. 
 xxxii. 30, Isaiah xxii. 9, and John ix. 7 ; also, Fragment No. 
 66, by the editor of Calmet's Dictionary.* See moreover, 2 
 
 * Chateaubriand visited Jerusalem about twenty years ago. 
 The following extracts are from his Travels, pages 311, 312, 
 353. — '« Having descended Mount Sion on the east side, we 
 came, at its foot, to the fountain and pool of Siloe, where 
 Christ restored sight to the blind man. The spring issues 
 from a rock, and runs in a silent stream. — The pool, or ra- 
 ther the two pools of the same name, are quite close to the 
 spring. — Here you also find a village called Siloan. At the 
 foot of this village is another fountain, denominated in Scrip- 
 ture Rogel. Opposite to this fountain is a third, which re- 
 ceives its name from the blessed Virgin. The Virgin's foun- 
 tain mingles its stream with that of the fountain of Siloe. 
 
 " We have now nothing left of the primitive architecture of 
 the Jews at Jerusalem, except the pool of Bethesda. This 
 is still to be seen near St. Stephen's gate, and it bounded the 
 temple on the north. It is a reservoir, one hundred and fifty 
 feet long, and forty wide — The pool is now dry, and half 
 filled up. — On the west side may also be seen, two arches, 
 
94 Circumstantial Evidence. 
 
 Chron. xxxii. 4, with 2 Kings xviii. 17, and xx. 20 ; Neh. if. 
 14, and iii. 15, 16, and John v. 2, and ix. 7 ; and Dr. Gill on 
 Acts ii. 41. Whatever places of bathing and ceremonial 
 purification by immersion were open to the immense multi- 
 tudes from every nation under heaven, assembled on this 
 memorable occasion, were of course accessible to the Apos- 
 tles and their converts ; for they had such favour with the 
 people, that opposers seem to have been struck dumb. As to 
 changes of raiment, about which our author make a diffi- 
 culty, they certainly needed to have brought these with them 
 for their convenience in attending upon the feast; and if any 
 were by chance destitute, those warm hearted converts, who 
 called none of the things which they possessed their own, 
 would certainly have been ready to furnish them. In seasons 
 of revivals as that was, people's hearts and hands were open, 
 and trifles would not hinder them from obeying their Lord, 
 and following his example, as they appear to have been in 
 good earnest. They would not stand long to reason and cavil 
 about immersion, as cold critics do ; but in the ardour of 
 their love, would submit, without delay, to every divine insti- 
 tution. But there is another difficulty, we are told, more 
 serious still. How could so many be immersed in so short a 
 time ? This formidable mountain is soon removed. I would 
 ask then, how much longer would it take to immerse a per- 
 son, than to sprinkle him ? The difference, every thing else 
 being equal, would be very trifling. There is no necessity of 
 supposing that all the converts were baptized by the Apos- 
 
 which probably led to an aqueduct, that carried the water into 
 the interior of the temple." 
 
 The dimensions of the pool of Bethesda, as given by Maun- 
 drell, are 120 paces long, 40 broad, and 8 deep. According 
 to the dimensions as given by Chateaubriand, it measures 
 380 feet around, so that 80 administrators of baptism might 
 stand within its verge, 4 feet from each other, and be en- 
 gaged in baptizing at the same moment: and each one, not 
 having 40 to baptize, the whole 3000 might have been bap- 
 tized in this single pool in less than one hour. But there 
 were other pools, and twelve baptizing places, mentioned by 
 Dr. Gill, in the temple, and, no doubt, many cisterns, or 
 tanks, belonging to such of the converts as dwelt in Jerusa- 
 lem. 
 
Importance of the Mode. 95 
 
 ties. The seventy Disciples, whom Jesus had commissioned 
 to preach his gospel, were in all probability present, and the 
 Apostles might readily command the services of such assist^ 
 ants. See Acts x. 48. In this case there were not forty to 
 be baptized by each administrator, including the Apostles. 
 
 The allusions in scripture to the ordinance of baptism, espe- 
 cially those in Rom. vi. 3, 4, Col. ii. 12, contain, in my opi- 
 nion, notwithstanding what Dr. W. has said, circumstantial 
 proof in favour of immersion ; but as we are in no need of 
 this argument, I shall not follow him in his laboured attempt 
 to set it aside. As he admits the authority of Dr. Doddridge 
 to have weight, p. 89, I would refer to what that writer has 
 said on this subject. " It seems," says Dr. D., " to be the 
 part of candour to confess, that here is an allusion to the 
 manner of baptizing by immersion, as most usual in these 
 early times." Note on Rom. vi. 3, 4; see also Mack- 
 night, on both these passages. Dr. W. says, p. 160, " After 
 all, it will be seen, that there is no small difficulty in finding 
 any great resemblance between a man's being dipped or 
 plunged in water, and Christ's being laid in a sepulchre, 
 which was hewn out of a rock." The same might be said 
 with respect to the resembance between a loaf of bread and 
 the body of Christ. A well executed picture of the crucifix- 
 ion, such as may be seen in Catholic chapels, has much more 
 resemblance to the body of Christ, than is furnished by a 
 piece of bread ; yet considering all the ends to be answered 
 by the eucharist, the Divine wisdom has determined that we 
 should keep Christ's death in memory, not by looking at a 
 crucifix, but by the eating of bread. In like manner some 
 means might have been devised for representing the burial 
 and resurrection of Christ, which would have borne a nearer 
 resemblance thereto than immersion in water does. But 
 when we consider that baptism not only represents the burial 
 and resurrection of Christ, but also our fellowship therewith, 
 and the removal or washing away of our guilt thereby, nothing 
 could more conveniently, aptly, and instructively accomplish 
 all these ends at once. 
 
 Dr. Woods, after some further remarks, comes finally to 
 the conclusion, that Christ and his Apostles left the mode of 
 baptism undecided. That our English translators, by retain- 
 ing a Greek word instead of translating it, have done so, we 
 admit ; but that the sacred writers have done so, we shall not 
 
96 Importance of the Mode. 
 
 soon concede. The Greek church have continued to im- 
 merse from the earliest times. One would think that the 
 Greeks understood their own language better than strangers, 
 and that in a controversy between them and men of other 
 nations, as to the meaning of a word in their native tongue, 
 we need not long hesitate whose definition to prefer. Indeed, 
 as already stated, a number of the most learned and pious 
 Psedobaptists have candidly conceded all for which we plead 
 in reference to the import of the language of scripture on this 
 subject. 
 
 Dr. Woods assumes, p. 164, that we rely on the testimony 
 of Ecclesiastical History as a conclusive argument in favour 
 of baptizing by immersion, and that, therefore, we ought to 
 admit the same testimony in favour of infant baptism. We 
 can inform him, that in reference to ecclesiastical history, 
 while he admits it to be a valid argument in favour of im- 
 mersion, we esteem it as collateral evidence only ; and fur- 
 ther, that he is welcome to all the aid which the history of 
 the church during the first two centuries, will afford him in 
 support of infant baptism. 
 
 IMPORTANCE OF THE MODE. 
 
 "Baptism, as to the mode of it," we are told, " is not of 
 any essential consequence," p. 164. This I think is very 
 dangerous ground to go upon. He who is now indifferent as 
 to the mode, may become indifferent as to the thing itself, 
 and to other things that God has commanded, and who can 
 tell where his indifference will end ? We, my brother, have 
 a very instructive lesson in the condition of the Society of 
 Friends in this vicinity at this moment. The founders and 
 leaders of this people taught them that baptism and the Lord's 
 supper were useless things, and now how much further have 
 they gone! The result seems to be, that the vital and dis- 
 tinguishing principles of Christianity, total depravity, regene- 
 ration, trinity, atonement, and resurrection, by the majority 
 of that people, are either totally discarded, or fritted away into 
 allegories. The same thing may be observed of the whole 
 tribes of Arians, Socinians, Universalisls, &,c. ; they all in 
 general hold, what have been rightly termed positive institu- 
 tions, as being very unimportant things, and we see where 
 they have landed, or rather we see where they have been 
 
Importance of the Mode. 97 
 
 wrecked, and should take warning. The sentiment expressed 
 by Bishop Taylor, commends itself to my mind with reference 
 to any positive institute. " That it be obeyed or not obeyed 
 is all the question and all the variety. — If it can be obeyed, it 
 must: if not, it must be let alone." \ would oppose this no- 
 ble sentiment, to all that Dr. W. has written about usage, 
 decency, and conveniency. 
 
 That God blesses his cause among both Baptists and Pasdo- 
 baptists, is a proof, not that different modes of baptism are 
 equally acceptable to him, as our author insinuates, p. 169, 
 but that he is gracious to us, notwithstanding our errors and 
 disobedience. We are informed, " that there are some Chris- 
 tians and some teachers of religion, who show an unaccount- 
 able forwardness to introduce discussions on the mode of bap- 
 tism.'" I too might relate some things which I have known 
 on the subject of party zeal in religion. I have heard it said, 
 in a time of revival, such a person has embraced religion, and 
 has come out in sentiment a decided Baptist. At this I did 
 not wonder, for to me it is natural enough to suppose, that a 
 sincere inquiring soul, with the Bible in his hand, would feel 
 it his duty to follow the example of the Saviour, and thus 
 begin to keep his commandments. But no sooner has this 
 been noised abroad, than the individual has been visited by 
 many for the purpose of persuading him that something else 
 than immersion would answer ; and it is well, if, when no- 
 thing else would avail, he was not told that the Baptists ori- 
 ginated with the mad men of Munster, and that, moreover, 
 they held that most dreadful tenet, close communion. I sin- 
 cerely wish, with our author, that the number of those who 
 act thus, may be few, and that persons may be left to do 
 what their consciences and their Bibles unite in teaching 
 them to be an incumbent duty. Further, a little of that 
 charity and forbearance which the Dr. so highly recommends, 
 will enable our Paedobaptist brethren to make some allow- 
 ance for us in this matter. The mode of baptism, as they 
 term it, is with us baptism itself; and they must be fully ap- 
 prized, that in our estimation a person who has not been 
 immersed, has not been baptized. On the other hand, if a 
 believer has been immersed, they never question his having 
 been baptized. As, therefore, we do not stand on equal 
 ground, we think that we are entitled to some indulgence. 
 
 i 
 
98 Concluding Reflections. 
 
 According to their own account, they contend for the mode 
 only of doing the thing ; but we contend for the thing itself. 
 There are many other topics in these Lectures, on which I 
 might offer some remarks, but I have already indulged in ob- 
 servations far beyond what I intended. I conclude, therefore, 
 by a few general reflections. 
 
 CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS. 
 
 1. The method of conducting the Baptismal Controversy, 
 seems to be greatly improving. It is now managed with 
 more of Christian temper. We have reason to praise God, 
 and congratulate our brethren on this state of things. 
 
 2. The progress of truth on the subject of baptism in this 
 country, especially since the Revolution, has been astonish- 
 ing. Thanks be given to the Author of all good, that not- 
 withstanding our numerous deficiencies and great unworthi- 
 ness as a denomination, he has made us the instruments of 
 propagating to such a degree, correct sentiments relative to 
 an important institute of the Christian religion, as well as of 
 the conversion of many sinners unto himself. 
 
 3. I trust we feel disposed promptly and fully to recipro- 
 cate the friendly and exalted sentiments with which Dr. 
 Woods closes his treatise. Although we feel it to be an im- 
 perious duty to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered 
 to the saints, even if in so doing we should differ from those 
 whom we otherwise love and esteem, yet we look forward 
 with unspeakable delight to the period when, by the progress 
 of light and truth, Christians shall dwell together in unity of 
 sentiment and feeling. And this we think will be brought 
 about, not by their neglecting or treating as nonessential, any 
 of the commands of their Lord ; but by their being of one 
 heart and one soul, in believing what God says, and in doing 
 what he enjoins. 
 
 4. Finally, while we have cause to lament the diversity of 
 sentiment and practice which prevails among the professed 
 followers of Jesus Christ, let us rejoice in prospect of that com- 
 plete felicity, where all our errors and imperfections shall be 
 exchanged for truth and consummate holiness. " Here we 
 know in part, and we prophecy in part ; but when that which 
 is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away. 1 ' 
 
 I remain your brother in the Lord, 
 
 David. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 FROM DR. RYLAND. 
 
 BccTvra is thus used in Heathen authors. 
 
 Homer. — As when a smith, to harden an iron hatchet, or 
 pole-ax, €*arrg< dips it in cold water. — Odyssey, book ix. 
 line 392. 
 
 Plato uses the word several times in one paragraph. Ot 
 €x?et<, ezri^ecv ZovX^axri £*^cci eptu, The Dyers, when they 
 are minded to dip wool, &c. — evra h ZaTrrowt, and so they 
 dip it, &c. Be Repnblica, Book iv. p. 637. Or, Serranus't 
 edition of Plato's Works, Vol. II. p. 429. 
 
 Lycophron. — The child Qa-^et shall plunge his sword into 
 the viper's bowels. — Cassandra, ver. 1121. 
 
 Euripides. — Go, take the water-pot — and Ca-vf^j' dip it in 
 the sea. — Hecuba, Act iii. ver. 609. 
 
 Theocritus. — Every morning my servant Gx^ou shall dip 
 me a cup of honey. — Idyllium v., ver. 126. 
 
 The boy let down a capacious pitcher, making haste Zw^oci 
 to dip it. — Idyllium xiii. ver. 47. 
 
 Marcus Antonius. — A conqueror in that noble strife of 
 mastering the passions, GiGeif&fcevev immersed entirely in justice. 
 (penitus justitia imbutum.) — Lib. iii. p. 37. 
 
 The mind Qxzrreroci is imbued by the thoughts, fionrrs dip 
 or imbue it, therefore, in the constant meditation of such 
 thoughts. — Lib. v. p. 85. Glasgow edition. 
 
 Dionysius Halicarnassensis. — One plunging €«ij/«$ hi* 
 spear between the other's ribs, who, at the same instant, 
 pushed his into his enemy's belly. — Antiq. Rom. lib. v. p. 
 278. 
 
 Josephus, whose authority must be of singular weight, as 
 being nearly contemporary with the apostles, and, like them, 
 a Jew, writing in Greek, repeatedly uses the word /S«*-r/£*. 
 
100 Appendix. 
 
 Describing the purification of the people at Sin, he says, 
 " When any persons were defiled by a dead body, they put a 
 little of these ashes into spring water, with hyssop, and (&mt- 
 n<retvrsg,) baptizing, i. e. dipping, or immersing, part ofthese 
 ashes into it, (e^xivov) they sprinkled them with it." Lib. 
 iv. c. iv. § 6. p. 146. This quotation clearly shows the dif- 
 ference between baptizing or dipping, and rhantizing or 
 sprinkling. 
 
 He says, concerning the ship in which Jonah attempted to 
 flee from the presence of the Lord, the ship was about to be 
 baptized, (fietwrtfyrOett) i. e. sunk, or overwhelmed. Antiq. 
 lib.ix. c. x. § 2. Hudson's edition, Vol. I. p. 419. 
 
 He uses the same word twice concerning the death of Aris- 
 tobulus, the brother of Mariamne, who was drowned at Jeri- 
 cho, according to Herod's order, by certain Greeks, who en- 
 ticed him into the water, to swim, and then, under pretence 
 of play, {Zazrit^ovres ovk ccvvjkuv icoe, x,xi 7rcwra.-5ra.tr1v X7r/>7rvt^ctt, 
 baptizing, i. e. immersing, or putting him under water, they 
 did not leave off until they had quite suffocated him. Jewish 
 Antiq. book xv. vol. I. page 666. 
 
 He mentions the same event in his Wars of the Jews, book 
 I. ch. xxii. § 2. " The young man was sent to Jericho, and 
 there, according to his order, being immersed ((Sock rt^o (twos,} 
 in a fish-pond, he came to his end." Vol. II. 1012. 
 
 N. B. Archbishop Usher, uses a word on this occasion, 
 which being now become ludicrous, is sometimes chosen to 
 describe our practice, (especially by such of our brethren as 
 are most violent for candour,) " ducking him as he was swim- 
 ming, as it were in sport and jest," &c. Should not our 
 brethren be certain that their Lord w r as not immersed, before 
 they prefer this low synonym to immersion ? 
 
 Josephus, in his Life, speaking of his own voyage to Rome, 
 and providential deliverance when shipwrecked, says, " fixir- 
 Titr6ivroi y*§ ypav rov nrXoiov, for our own ship being bap- 
 tized (or overwhelmed) in the midst of the Adriatic Gulf, we 
 being about the number of 600 persons, swam all night, and 
 at day-break, about 80 were taken up by another ship." — 
 Hudson's Josephus, II. 905. 
 
 He uses the same word figuratively in two other places. 
 
 In the Wars of the Jews, he says, M Many of the noble 
 Jews, as though the city was en the point of being overwhelm-* 
 
Appendix. 101 
 
 ed y (/9*TT/f#/tftf»e$,) swam away, as it were, from the city."— 
 Vol. II. 1105. 
 
 Again, speaking of the heads of the robbers getting into 
 Jerusalem, he says, " These very men, besides the seditions 
 they made, baptized the city, {tfiaimruv tu» *-*\n>,) i. e. over- 
 whelmed it, plunged it into ruin, or were the cause of its utter 
 destruction."— Vol. II. 1169. 
 
 The same author uses vn^etTrrt^a figuratively for totally 
 overwhelming. So, speaking of the sons of Herod, he says, 
 " This, as the last storm, («5r/C*VT«re>) epibaptized or utterly 
 overwhelmed, the young men, already weather-beaten." — Vol. 
 II. 1024. 
 
 And when the inhabitants of Jotapata urged him to stay 
 (here, they pressed him not " to leave his friends, nor, as it 
 ^ere, to leap out of a ship enduring a storm, into which he 
 had come in a calm. For the city must be epibaptized, or 
 utterly overwhelmed, (iiriGocTrrio-ftf) no one daring to oppose 
 its enemies, if he, who kept their courage up, should depart." 
 Vol. II. 1132. 
 
 BxTTiga occurs in the following passages from heathen au- 
 thors. 
 
 Esop's Fables, Oxford edition, 1698, p. 88. Fable 156, 
 the Ape and the Dolphin. — " The dolphin vexed at such a 
 falsehood, Zcfxrt^af uvrov xzs-exrutn, immersing him, killed 
 him, i. e. by plunging him into the water. Let any child 
 judge what the word means here. 
 
 Orpheus, in his Argonautics, line 510, p. 78. — Aax' »rs 
 Qntxfot* it<* GazFTtgeTo Tirxv — But when the sun immerse* 
 himself in the water of the ocean. 
 
 Anacreon, White and Miller's edition, 1802, p. 92, $$. 
 ascribed in some editions to Julian the Egyptian. In an old 
 edition there is a Latin translation by the celebrated Philip 
 Melancthon. — "Platting a garland once, I found Cupid among 
 the roses: — taking hold of him by the wings, eZccittit ett t«» 
 •iror, I immersed him, or plunged him into wine, and drank him 
 up with it," &c. 
 
 An old verse has often been quoted from Plutarch, — Ar*«f 
 C*5rr/£ij, tvt»t h r«t cvtipts eft, — The bladder may be dipped, 
 but never drowned, or it may be immersed, but it cannot be 
 kept under water. 
 
 Polybius, speaking of a sea-fight between the Carthagi- 
 It 
 
102 Appendix. 
 
 mans and the Romans, says, " They immersed, (or sunk) 
 iZxttt^ov, many of thevessels of the Romans." 
 
 Basil, the Christian father, speaks of " suffering with those 
 that were immersed or plunged in the sea." (£x7rTtgppivots.) 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen. — "■ That we may not be immersed or 
 sunk with the ship and the crew." (Goc7TTi<r6o/xtv.) 
 
 Polybius. — " Such a storm suddenly arose, through all the 
 country, that the ships were baptized, or immersed in the Ty- 
 ber." 
 
 Polybius, III. c. 72. (See Elzivir's Livy, book xxi.) — 
 " The infantry crossed it with difficulty, baptized or immersed 
 up to their breasts." 
 
 Porphyry, speaking of Styx, the fabulous river of hell, says, 
 44 The person that has been a sinner, having gone a little way 
 into it, is plunged, or immersed up to the head." £«xt/£st«}< 
 (AEffli xe<px\tf. p. 282. 
 
 Straho uses, piyji tutyuxov Zc&TrTt^opevuv. Immersed up to 
 the middle. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus. — " Many land animals, carried away 
 by the river Nile, being immersed, are destroyed; others escape, 
 fleeing to higher places." 
 
 Plutarch uses this word figuratively, speaking of Otho's 
 " being immersed, or overwhelmed, or sunk, (fiefix7rTi<rf>ttvt$) 
 in debts of fifty millions of drachmas." 
 
 Plato speaks of his " knowing the youth to be overwhelmed 
 or immersed in sophistry." 
 
 Strabo. — " But the lakes near Agrigentum have indeed the 
 taste of sea- water, but a different nature, for it does not befal 
 the things which cannot swim to be immersed, (fixTwgte-dxi,) 
 but they swim on the surface like wood." Geography, I. ix. 
 p. 421. 
 
 He speaks of a river, in another place, whose waters are 
 so buoyant " that if an arrow be thrown in, poXXis fix7rT i£t<r6xt, 
 it would scarcely be immersed, or would hardly sink." I. xii. 
 p. 809. 
 
 .He mentions also a lake on the top of which bitumen floats, 
 in which a man cannot be immersed, fixnTi^vrbxi, but is borne 
 up by the water. I. xvi. p. 1108. 
 
 Dion Cassius. — " Such a storm suddenly pervaded all the 
 eountry, that the ships that were in the Tyber were immersed 
 or sunk." ru irXoix ret n ret T iZe fdi Zxn-TirSnwt. Book xxxvii. 
 § 57. Vol. I. p. 148. 
 
Appendix. 103 
 
 (2) — " how would not his ship be immersed or sunk Zxirmr- 
 iem by the multitude of our rowers ?" Book 1. § 18. Vol. L 
 p. 617. 
 
 (3) — " they were either immersed, {iZxttti^cvto,) their ships 
 being bored through, or," &-C. 
 
 (4) — " these from above immersing (Zccmi^ovTes) or sink- 
 ing them (i. e. the ships) with stones and engines." — Book 
 1. § 32. Vol. I. 647. 
 
 Diodorus Siculus. — " Most of the land animals, if they are 
 intercepted by the river, are destroyed, being immersed. (£«*■- 
 Tigouevx.) lib. 1. § 36. Vol. I. pa'ge 43. Amsterdam, 1746. 
 
 (2) — tovs $e itiaTacs av Qx7r-t<?ov<Ti rxii urtytyxiq. But the 
 
 common people they do not overwhelm with taxes. — lib. 1. § 
 67. Vol. I. p. 85. 
 
 (3) — T>j? hvewi Gv6te4enrn, in the text, "whose ship being 
 sunk." In the note, u Gx7TT(<r6ei<rns, being immersed, is the 
 Coislinian reading, which is sufficiently elegant. See Poly- 
 bius, 1. 51." lib. xi. § 15. Vol. 1. 417. 
 
 (4) — " the river being borne on with a more violent stream, 
 (noXXovg i^xrrrKre,) immersed, or overwhelmed many ." lib. 16. 
 § 80. Vol. 11. 143. 
 
 Heliodorus. — ; ' killing some on the land, and immersing or 
 plunging (&ec7TTK?ovTM) others into the lake, with their boats 
 and their little huts." Ethiopia, lib. i. cap. xxx. page 55. 
 
 (2) — " perceiving that he was altogether abandoned to 
 grief, and overwhelmed or immersed in calamity." — tsj <rv(A- 
 <po£oi Zi&cnrTiGfAsvcv. Lib. ii. cap. iii. p. 65. 
 
 (3) — i; since the things you met with have overwhelmed you. 
 (*6«5m£s». Casus tui obruebant ac demergebant") lib. v. cap. 
 xvi. p. 227. 
 
 Life of Homer, ascribed to Dionysius Halicarnensis, " Ho- 
 mer speaks of the whole sword being so immersed (S*5TT<<r- 
 6erTos) in blood, as to grow warm with it." — Opuscula My- 
 thologica, page 297. 
 
 Aristotle uses this word when speaking of the Phenicians 
 that dwell at Cadiz, " who, sailing beyond the pillars of Her- 
 cules, came to certain uninhabited lands, which at the ebb, 
 are used not to be immersed or covered over with water, &»*•- 
 rt^e<rdcci, but when the tide is at the full, the coast is quite in- 
 undated." — De Mirabilibvs, page 735. 
 
 Lucian represents Timon the man-hater as saying " if any 
 one being carried away by a river, should stretch forth his 
 
104 Appendix. 
 
 hands to me for aid, I would push him down when sinking, 
 CxTTTigttTct, that he should never rise again." Vol. I. page 139. 
 
 The two most diminutive instances produced by Schwar- 
 zius are these: 
 
 JEschylus. — " Immersing his two edged sword in slaugh- 
 ters." Doubtless by plunging it into their bodies, not by hold- 
 ing it before a small puncture to be sprinkled. 
 
 Aristophanes, in Plato, says, " I am one of those who were 
 baptized yesterday." — meaning, who drank much, or as an 
 Englishman would say, who had well soaked ourselves, or 
 were immersed in wine. 
 
 An instance has been quoted against us from Homer's 
 BccTpx^of^vo^tc^tei, or battle of the frogs and mice, where it is 
 said of the death of the frog Crambophagus, 
 
 And the lake was tinged or dyed with purple blood: or it 
 was overwhelmed with blood. 
 
 But let the burlesque nature of the poem be considered, 
 where every thing is heightened to the most extravagant de- 
 gree, and the gods are introduced as consulting about this 
 tremendous war, and the word immerse would not be too 
 strong for the Poet's design. The heart of this gigantic and 
 heroic frog was so full of blood, that it made the lake so red, 
 that a solid body dipped in blood could not have been redder. 
 
 But one passage is produced from Origen, on which more 
 stress is laid than on all others, in which he speaks of the 
 wood of Elijah's sacrifice as being baptized, though the wocd 
 was certainly not dipped in water, but four barrels of water 
 poured upon it three times over. Very true. But read the 
 account in 1 Kings, xviii. 33 — 35, consider the object of the 
 prophet to prevent all possibility of collusion, and then say if 
 Origen had written in English, might he not have used the 
 word immerse with propriety, and without rendering its usual 
 meaning ambiguous ? Also, would not any of our opponents 
 think such a three-fold soaking, as bad as even a trine immer- 
 sion ?t 
 
 References to immersion in the Fathers might by produc- 
 ed without end. 
 
 * This is from C«ttt«, not from C*vt<£*. 
 
 t The Reviewer in the Evangelical Magazine for 18 13, p. 
 
Appendix. 103 
 
 I will only mention one in Chrysostom, on Col. ii. 12. 
 *T«<pj) np*v o spares uiSfaxo?, says he, ercc<pn ov* it yn uXX* tv 
 vtetrt, Our first (or former) man is buried, he is buried not 
 in earth, but in water. 
 
 Surely if these instances will not suffice, we must despair of 
 settling the meaning of any word in a dead language; and if 
 English should be as long disused as Greek, it may by and 
 by be questioned, if the English Baptists themselves intended 
 by pleading for immersion,* to insist on the propriety of put- 
 ting the whole body under water. 
 
 No man can have a greater respect than myself, for my 
 dear and venerable friend Mr. Scott, whom I consider as the 
 best practical Expositor of Scripture that ever I read; but I 
 think, if he were to re-examine the subject, and consider all 
 the evidence here produced, he would hardly attribute it to 
 our regarding " Jewish traditions more than either the lan- 
 guage of Scripture or the Greek idiom," that we contend that 
 Baptism always signifies immersion. See Note on Matt. iii. 6. 
 
 On the most impartial consideration, I am compelled in 
 my conscience to believe, that there never was a word in any 
 language, with which so much pains, management, and vio- 
 lence was ever used, to deprive it of its original meaning, as 
 hath been employed with tac-za-ru and Zorxri^a. And I verily 
 think, that if Christian baptism had never been instituted or 
 never been altered, there is no word in the Greek language, 
 whose meaning would have been less disputed. 
 
 Isaac Causabo:;, at the end of Whitaker's Greek Testa- 
 ment, London, 1633, referring to Matt. iii. 5, 6, has these 
 words, " Hie enim fuit baptizandi ritas, ut in aquas immer- 
 gerentur : quod vel ipsa vox QocvTifytv declarat satis, qua: non 
 significat $vvstv, quod estfundum petere cum sua pernicie, ita 
 profecto non est entTroheigeiv. Differunt enim hcec tria, e7rt7ro- 
 Aa^eo, £«?»•*■<£«<», $uveiv. Unde intelligimus , non esse abs re 
 quod jampridem nonnulli disputarent, de toto corpore immer- 
 gendo in ceremonia baptismi : Vocem enim Qxierifyiy urgebant. 
 For this was the ancient rite of baptizing, that they should be 
 
 461, refers to a passage in Aristotle. Why did he not in- 
 sert the whole passage from Dr. Gale, pp. 116, 117 ! 
 
 * All that the Reviewer of Mr. Booth says, respecting Dr. 
 Gale*s confession that Qetnrra does not always import a total 
 immersion, applies equally to the English word dip. See Dr. 
 Gale, p. 140, 
 
106 Appendix, 
 
 immersed in water, which even the word G*irrtgw sufficiently 
 declares; which does not signify tweiv, which is to sink fatal- 
 ly to the bottom;* so certainly it is not vrt7roXoigeir, to swim 
 on the top. For these three differ, e-srisroXu^eiv, Gxirrtgeiv, tv- 
 n$v, to swim on the surface, to immerse, to sink to the bot- 
 tom. Whence we understand that it is not without ground, 
 that some have disputed long ago, respecting the immersion 
 of the whole body in the ceremony of baptism; for they urged 
 the word 6a*-<r<£ej>»." 
 
 I close with a remark of Dr. Campbell. " Another error 
 in disputation, which is by far too common, is when one will 
 admit nothing in the plea or arguments of an adversary to 
 have the smallest weight. T have heard a disputant of this 
 stamp, in defiance of etymology and use, maintain that the 
 word rendered in the New Testament Baptize, means more 
 properly to sprinkle, than to plunge, and in defiance of all 
 antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and for 
 many centuries the most general practice in baptizing. One 
 who argues in this manner, never fails, with persons of know- 
 ledge, to betray the cause he would defend; and though with 
 respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as 
 well as arguments, sometimes better; yet a candid mind will 
 disdain to take the help of a falsehood, even in support of 
 truth." Lectures on Systematic Theology and Pulpit Elo- 
 quence, p. 480. 
 
 Some of our modern Paedobaptists are determined, how- 
 ever, that no one shall detect them in making the least con- 
 cession, on either branch of this controversy; and they main- 
 tain that no concession is of any avail as to the meaning of 
 the term, or the practice of the primitive church, unless the 
 person who makes it, immediately alters his practice, and 
 even though he retain his Paedobaptist sentiment, yet refuses 
 to baptize any child except by immersion. Dr. Wall, Dr. 
 Campbell, and hundreds more of their greatest scholars, ac- 
 cording to these gentlemen, will have hard work to vindicate 
 their integrity. We leave them to settle this controversy. We 
 conceive that the force of truth, constrained them to make 
 concessions which the force of custom prevented them from 
 carrying into practice. 
 
 * Yet Josephus, Polybiits, Dion, Strabo, Diodqrus, and 
 Hbliodorus, sometimes used it in this sense. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page Line 
 
 5, 1 1— for p. 35, read p. 55. 
 
 11, 13 — after as, read scholars. 
 
 13, 22— for p. 85, read p. 94. 
 35, 1 — -for intercourse, read improvement. 
 
 43, 13 — after introduced, read in its place. 
 
 49, 10 — for youth, read youths. 
 
 52, 12 — for immersions, read immersion. 
 
 59, 31 — -for izr, read tea. 
 
 68, 24 — after according to, read the. 
 75, 6— for xxiv. 35, read xxxiv. 25. 
 78, 4 from the bottom, for £, read <r. 
 
 84, 14 — for Apostles, read Apostle. 
 
 84, at the bottom, supply why a religious rite, though de- 
 
 noted by a word in common 
 
 85, 3 — for word, read words. 
 94, 9 — for make, read makes. 
 
THREE 
 
 ADDITIONAL LETTERS 
 
 OF 
 
 DAVID AND JOHN, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 ANIMADVERSIONS 
 
 UPON 
 THE LECTURES OF DR. WOODS 
 
 ON 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 FIRST PUBLISHED IN THE COLUMBIAN STAR. 
 
 RE-PUBLISHED AT THE DEPOSITORY OP 
 
 THE BAPTIST GENERAL TRACT SOCIETY. 
 
 NO. 36 NORTH FIFTH STREET. 
 PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 1830. 
 
To the Editor of the Columbian Star and Christian Index: 
 Dear Brother — You had the kindness formerly to al- 
 low a place in your paper to the Letters, written by a chris- 
 tian friend and myself, containing animadversions upon the 
 Lectures of Dr. Woods on Infant Baptism. These Lec- 
 tures have passed through a second edition; and the altera- 
 tions and additions that have been made, have given occa- 
 sion for three additional Letters, which are now offered to 
 you for publication. Yours, &c 
 
LETTER VXH. 
 
 Dear Brother — You have been apprized for a consid- 
 erable time that the Lectures of Dr. Woods on Infant Bap- 
 tism have passed through a second edition. I obtained a 
 copy yesterday and will send it to you by the earliest op- 
 portunity for your perusal. It contains thirty-one pages 
 more than the former edition, besides an appendix of six- 
 teen pages, and an additional preface of two pages. 
 
 Kind notice of the Letters of David and John. 
 
 In the additional preface, Dr. W. has noticed our Letters 
 in a very kind manner. Though you may regret, as I do, 
 that he did not feel himself at liberty to reply to our argu- 
 ments, yet I am sure you will be gratified to perceive the 
 good spirit that his remarks evince. They are as follows: 
 
 " I wish to express my particular respect for those who 
 have made remarks on my Lectures; particularly for those 
 who wrote the Letters of David and John, and for the Au- 
 thor of the Numbers in the Christian Watchman, by Se- 
 nex. Both these publications were kindly forwarded to me. 
 The pamphlet containing the Letters above mentioned, 
 which exhibits very respectable talents as well as candid 
 and fraternal feelings, was rendered still more valuable to 
 me, by a private and affectionate letter which accompanied 
 it, from one of the authors. 
 
 To the reasoning contained in the publications above 
 named, I decline any formal answer, in conformity with 
 my previous, and uniform resolution. But it will not be 
 difficult for men aecostomed to controversy to see, that my 
 silence in this case must be a matter of some self denial. 
 
 I take pleasure in acknowledging, that the strictures of 
 my Baptist Brethren have been of real use to me, and have 
 led me to correct some mistakes, to give to some of my ex- 
 pressions and arguments a more unexceptionable form, and 
 to establish my position by some new considerations. — 
 
4 Concessions. 
 
 Had I more time to devote to the subject, I should be able 
 to derive more benefit still from the remarks of my oppo- 
 nents." 
 
 concessions. 
 The next, which is the concluding paragraph of the pre- 
 face, mentions that he has been induced to give a new ex- 
 amination to the arguments from ecclesiastical history; and 
 that in this examination he has requested and obtained the 
 aid of his colleague, the Rev. Professor Stuart. The re- 
 sult of this examination he states is an increased and full 
 conviction that Ecclesiastical History affords a conclusive 
 argument in favor of Infant Baptism. I was induced by 
 these remarks to direct my first attention to the Lecture 
 which contains the argument from Ecclesiastical History; 
 and I find that, in this part of the work, the present edition 
 differs considerably from the former. As I purpose to send 
 you the book that you may read and judge for yourself what 
 additional strength the argument has acquired in the pre- 
 sent edition, I shall content myself with stating the altera- 
 tions that have been made in so much of the argument as 
 relates to the testimony of Justin Martyr and lrenaeus, the 
 the first and oldest witnesses that are cited. 
 
 Justin Martyr. 
 
 Former Edition. Present Edition. 
 My first citation is from Jus- A citation has commonly been 
 tin Martyr, who was born near made from the apology of Justin 
 the close of the first century, Martyr, written about the mid- 
 and who wrote his apology, from die of the second century.— 
 which the citation is made, near Among those who were mem- 
 the middle of the second centu- bers of the church, he says, there 
 ry. Among those who were were many of both sexes, some 
 members of the church, he says, sixty, and some seventy years 
 there were many of both sexes, old, who were made disciples to 
 S07ne sixty, and some seventy Christ £* 7iai8cov, from their 
 years old, who were made disci- infancy or childhood, the word he 
 pies from their infancy The usesis ^a^ev^av }t heywere 
 word he uses is tfxa^yjttvprjaav, proselyted or made disciples, 
 they were proselyted, or made dis- Though I have no doubt of ap- 
 eries; the very word which plying this word to infant chil- 
 Christ had used in his commis- dren, who are publicly conse- 
 sion to his Apostles—" Go ye crated to God, and whom their 
 and make disciples of all na- parents and the church engage 
 tions," fia^ttv6at£. The per- to instruct and train up for 
 sons referred to, Justin says, Christ; yet as the phrase, ** 
 were made disciples tx rtatSwv, rtatScov, may relate to children 
 from their ea,rly childhood. The who have come to years pf under- 
 
Concessions* 5 
 
 word is applied to the little chil- standing, as well as to infants, 
 dren whom Christ took in his I am satisfied on a review of the 
 arms and blessed. It is evident testimony of Justin, that it can- 
 therefore that Justin understood not well be urged as conclusive 
 the command of Christ to in favor of paedobaptism. Still 
 make disciples and baptize, as I think it altogether probable, 
 applicable to little children, and beyond any reasonable 
 And he wrote only about one doubt, that Justin meant in this 
 hundred years after Matthew, place to speak of those who 
 who records that command. were made disciples, or intro- 
 
 duced into the school of Christ 
 by baptism when they were in- 
 fants. 
 
 You will perceive, from this comparison, that your stric- 
 tures upon the argument which was founded upon the testi- 
 mony of Justin Martyr, appear to have been of" real use;'' 
 but it is certain that they have not produced an" increased 
 and full conviction, 1 ' that this testimony " affords a conclu- 
 sive argument in favor of Infant Baptism." The erroneous 
 statement which you pointed out respecting the word used 
 by the evangelists, for the children which Christ took up 
 in his arms and blessed has been corrected; or, I ought ra- 
 ther to say it is not repeated. The argument is really 
 given up. It is indeed still thought to be " beyond any rea- 
 sonable doubt, that Justin meant those who were made dis- 
 ciples when they were infants." But opinions which are 
 acknowledged to be without proof do not constitute argu 
 rnent. In your strictures it was satisfactorily demonstra- 
 ted, as it appeared to me, not only that the word rtatjis ap- 
 plicable to any age from infancy to manhood, but also that 
 in ordinary cases, it is not the term which would be used to 
 denote a mere infant. It fell in with the design of Justin 
 to give as early a date as possible to the discipleship of the 
 persons whom he mentions. And since he carries back this 
 date, not to their infancy, but to their youth or boyhood, 
 the proper inference to be drawn, is, that these persons had 
 not been made disciples when they were infants. Some 
 consideration is due also to the fact, that the persons of 
 whom Justin speaks, were, at the time, far advanced in 
 age. Persons who have just entered upon their manhood, 
 are not accustomed, when they speak of their boyhood, to 
 include in it so many years as very aged persons do. It is 
 altogether unnatural, in reviewing the history of one who 
 has attained to the age of sixty or seventy years, to limit 
 the period of his boyhood, to the first one, two, five, or even 
 fifteen years of his life. 
 
 a2 
 
Accusation* 
 Iren^us. 
 
 Former Edition. 
 Irenaeus, a disciple of Poly- 
 carp who was a disciple of John, 
 was born near the close of the 
 first century. He says, " Christ 
 came to save all persons, who 
 by him are born again unto God, 
 (renascuntur in Deum,) infants, 
 and little ones, and children, and 
 youths, and elder persons."....In 
 this argument we are not con- 
 cerned at all with the opinions 
 of Irenaeus, as to the efficacy of 
 baptism. Our only enquiry is, 
 whether it appears from his 
 writings, that Infant Baptism 
 was the prevailing practice. — 
 The passage above cited con- 
 tains satisfactory proof of this, 
 as it fairly admits of no con- 
 struction which can lead to any 
 other conclusion. 
 
 Present Edition. 
 Irenaeus, a disciple of Poly- 
 carp, who was a disciple of 
 John, was born near the close of 
 the first century. He says; 
 " Christ came to save all per- 
 sons, who by him are born 
 again unto God, (renascuntur 
 in Deum ) infants, and little ones, 
 and children, and youths, and 
 elder persons.".. ..In this argu- 
 ment we are not concerned at 
 all with the opinions entertain- 
 ed by Irenaeus as to the efficacy 
 of Baptism. Our only inquiry 
 is, whether it appears from his 
 writings, that Infant Baptism 
 was the prevailing practice. — 
 The passage above cited is sup- 
 posed to contain proof of this. 
 But though it is quite evident 
 that the word renasci was used 
 by Irenaeus, as well as by the 
 Christian Fathers generally, to 
 denote baptism, I shall not 
 count this passage among those 
 which are to be regarded as of 
 chief importance and as most 
 decisive in favor of Infant Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 You will perceive that much less confidence is expressed 
 in the proof which this testimony has been supposed to con- 
 tain. You have shown that the passage quoted from Ire- 
 naeus receives abetter interpretation, when the word renas- 
 ci, to be born again, is taken in its scriptural sense; and 
 with this Bcriptural sense Irenaeus cannot be supposed to 
 have been unacquainted. That Christian writers of so ear- 
 ly an age should have wholly lost the scriptural sense and 
 use of the terms regenerated and born again, which denoted 
 the essential distinction of the christian character, is even 
 more incredible than that infant baptism should have been 
 introduced. 
 
 Accusation. 
 
 At the end of the Lecture, which contains the argument 
 from Ecclesiastical History, a note is added of which the 
 following is the first paragraph: 
 
 "I am reluctant to say what truth and justice seem to 
 require me to say, respecting the manner in which several 
 
Accusation. 7 
 
 Baptist writers have treated the historical argument in fa- 
 vor of Infant Baptism. I make the appeal to men of any 
 denomination, who have the requisite qualifications, and 
 can find opportunity to give the subject an impartial and 
 thorough examination, whether an instance can easily be 
 found, of greater unfairnsss in reasoning, or of a more de- 
 termined effort to discolor facts, and evade all arguments 
 on the opposite side, than is exhibited in the writers refer- 
 red to." 
 
 There is a very grievous accusation implied in these sen- 
 tences; but I am not willing to believe that it was intended 
 for us. To be thought by Dr. W. to be so uncandid, would 
 be extremely painful. But I am willing to indulge the plea- 
 sure of believing that he judges us to possess " candid and 
 fraternal feelings." Besides I do not know any thing in 
 your Letter on this subject which could furnish ground for 
 so grievous an accusation. Almost every thing which you 
 have advanced is sustained by the authority of Dr. Dod- 
 dridge, whose reputation for candor is well established, and 
 who in this instance, had no temptation to " discolor facts." 
 When we say on the subject of Infant Baptism what Dod- 
 dridge, Taylor, Salmasius, Suicerus, Curcellceus, and Epis- 
 copius, have said before us, whatever may be thought of 
 the truth of our statements, our candor ought not to be 
 questioned. 
 
 I have another reason for believing that these accusations 
 were not intended for us. Your Letter pointed out mis- 
 takes of Dr. W. respecting the testimony of Justin Martyr, 
 which a person of a more suspicious mind than yourself 
 might have pronounced to be an " effort to discolor facts:" 
 but no suspicion of this kind was expressed. When you 
 noticed the error in which a fact respecting the use of rtcuj 
 had been wholly mis-stated, you simply called it an over- 
 sight. In animadverting upon that complete discoloring of 
 Justin Martyr's testimony, which had been produced by 
 giving such a translation to rtcwj as bound its sense down 
 to the period of mere infancy; you simply stated, that this 
 translation cannot be justified, and adduced the authority of 
 Justin Martyr himself and of the very Lexicon which has 
 been published at the Seminary where Dr. W. teaches. — 
 Dr. W. has become sensible of these errors; and I think he 
 cannot be insensible of the kind manner in which they were 
 pointed out, and I conclude that he would not have return- 
 
8 Baptismal Regeneration. 
 
 ed this kindness by bringing against you the accusation con- 
 tained in the preceding quotation. 
 
 The only part of our Letters which, so far as I can dis- 
 cover, has received a formal reply, is what relates to the in- 
 terpretation of 1 Cor. vii. 14. A refutation of this inter- 
 pretation is attempted in a note at the end of Lecture V. 
 I design to enter into a very careful examination of this 
 refutation, and will give you the result at a future day. 
 Very affectionately yours, JOHN- 
 
 LETTER XX. 
 
 Dear Brother — I thank you for the privilege of peru- 
 sing the copy you sent me of the 2d edition of Dr. Wood's 
 Lectures on Infant Baptism. I am pleased with the kind 
 manner in which he notices our publication. Although he 
 has declined a formal reply, yet, he has given particular at- 
 tention to some of our animadversions. Your exposition of 
 1 Cor. vii. 14, has claimed special regard, and credit must 
 be given to our Author for the ingenuity with which he has 
 attempted a refutation of your views on that passage. I 
 have, however, no misgiving on that subject, and I am per- 
 suaded that the ground you have occupied is still tenable. 
 1 shall be glad, therefore, to receive from you further re- 
 marks on that text, which, of all others in the New Testa- 
 ment, has been deemed, by some of our Predobaptist breth- 
 ren, of the greatest importance in this controversy. 
 
 Baptismal Regeneration. 
 
 While the citations from the early writers fail to support 
 infant baptism, a strong argument against it may be derived 
 from the language they have used when speaking of bap- 
 tism. They call it Regeneration and Illumination. They 
 have in this used a similar mode of speaking to that which 
 is employed by the Redeemer: " This bread is my body." — 
 They understood baptism to be a sign of Regeneration or 
 Illumination: or, in other words, they regarded the baptized 
 as Regenerated or Illuminated persons, that is, Believers. 
 
 It is well known that the church of England uses the 
 same kind of language with regard to baptized persons, 
 
Baptismal Regeneration* 9 
 
 which is found in the early Christian Fathers: and her 
 meaning has been thus explained by a late writer. " I con- 
 tend, then, that the ground on which the church speaks of 
 all those, whom she has baptized, as regenerate, is neither 
 more nor less than the supposition — the assumption, of 
 their sincerity in their professions." An Inquiry in- 
 to the Effect of Baptism by the Rev. Joseph Scott, M. A. p. 
 136. The same writer says, p. 5, "It is well known, that 
 in very early times, strong language came into use, in the 
 Christian church, concerning baptism, and the blessings 
 connected with it:" and he accounts for the use of this 
 strong language, in the following manner: p. 172. " An 
 easier and mone obvious solution is, that of under- 
 standing professed Christians to be addressed upon the 
 ground of their profession — upon the supposition of their 
 sincerity. This, we have seen, is continually done by our 
 church: more or less it is done at all times: and never could 
 it be so natural to do it, as when the profession of Chris- 
 tianity brought with it many dangers to men's property, to 
 their liberty, and even to their lives. In such times the 
 apostles wrote, and in similar times the language was in- 
 troduced, which has led men too frequently to confound 
 the outward sign with the inward grace of baptism; or at 
 least to suppose, that the latter necessarily accompanies 
 the former. In such times it was natural and reasonable 
 to believe, that profe ssed Christians were real Christians — 
 that those who were baptized were indeed regenerate by 
 the Spirit of God. And this affords a most easy account 
 of the means by which the strong language, that has been 
 so long in use, was brought into the church." These re- 
 marks appear to me to contain sound sense and a satisfac- 
 tory explanation of the manner in which the strong lan- 
 guage under consideration came into use. And as it was 
 then, " natural and reasonable to believe, that those who 
 were baptized were indeed, regenerate by the Spirit of 
 God;" so it would have been unnatural and unreasonable 
 to apply this strong language concerning baptism to per- 
 sons who could give no evidence of being regenerate. — 
 When he comes to account for the use of this strong lan- 
 guage by the church of England to baptized infants, this 
 author finds great difficulty. On this subject he writes 
 thus: " These questions are addressed as to the child him- 
 self; the answers considered as his answers. It is as if, by 
 a sort of legal fiction, to which we are no strangers in the 
 most important temporal transactions, the soul of the child 
 
10 Tertullian. 
 
 were considered as transferred to his sponsor, and as speak- 
 ing in and by him One is certainly somewhat at 
 
 a loss for words, in which to speak of engagements, sup- 
 posed to be made by an infant incapable of any knowledge 
 
 of the transaction But, as the case of infants 
 
 is obviously attended with difficulties peculiar to itself, the 
 
 church has entered into explanation on the subject 
 
 If it be thought that there has been some more difficulty in 
 making out this case than that of adults; I beg to suggest, 
 that it is nothing more than what naturally results from the 
 condition of infants, supposed to make vows, and on the 
 faith of those vows, pronounced regenerate; while they can 
 give no evidence, in their conduct, either of a regenerate 
 or unregenerate state." p. 141 — 146. Mr. Scott may have 
 stated correctly the ground on which the church of Eng- 
 land declares baptized infants to be regenerate: but was 
 this " sort of legal fiction" understood and practiced upon 
 in the days of Irenaeus? If it was not, " it was natural and 
 reasonable to believe that those who were baptized were 
 indeed regenerate by the Spirit of God;" and not regene- 
 ate, merely by a sort of legal fiction. 
 
 Tertullian. 
 
 Tertullian condemned the baptism of very young persons, 
 which was gaining ground in his day. Dr. Wardlaw, of 
 Glasgow, is quoted (Appendix p. 207) as affirming, in op- 
 position to Mr. Cox, that Tertullian did not condemn such 
 baptisms, but only advised delay. The truth is, however, 
 that Tertullian did condemn all rash administration of bap- 
 tism; and quotes against it, the scriptures, Give not that 
 which is holy to dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine; 
 and, Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of 
 other men's sins. Among the condemned rash baptisms, he 
 reckons [prcecipue] especially the baptism of children. He 
 advises delay, therefore, not because the admission of such 
 persons to baptism was merely inexpedient or questionable, 
 but because it was in his opinion wrong. He maintained 
 that the administrator was not at liberty to give it to every 
 applicant. The opinion evidently was acted upon, in the 
 days of Tertullian, that the whole responsibility of baptism 
 rested upon the applicant; and that the administrator had 
 no inquiry to make as to the condition, disposition, or age 
 of the person; but was at liberty to give to every one that 
 asked. To the prevalence of this doctrine, connected with 
 the notion that baptism was necessary to salvation, the 
 
Tertullian. 11 
 
 practice of infant baptism may be traced- The sponsors 
 took the whole responsibility upon themselves. It was on- 
 ly necessary that the candidate should ask, and the admin- 
 istrator was at liberty to give. Tertullian opposed this doc- 
 trine, and maintained that the administrator shared the res- 
 ponsibility, and was bound to regard the condition, disposi- 
 tion, and age of the candidate; and he warned him lest by 
 administering it to improper persons he should be partaker 
 of other men's sins. 
 
 There are two important particulars in which the argu- 
 ment fails, which Dr. W. has founded upon the quotation 
 from Tertullian. 
 
 Because Tertullian opposed the baptism of children, it is 
 argued that it was the common practice. This argument 
 however is by no means conclusive. Particular instances 
 of error may be opposed long before that error becomes 
 established into a common practice: and a common prac- 
 tice may be opposed long before it becomes the common and 
 much less the universal practice. What notions will be 
 entertained respecting the present age of the world, a thou- 
 sand years hence, if it shall be believed that every thing is 
 with us a common practice which any of our writers object 
 to as rash. A psedobaptist minister of this vicinity, in con- 
 versation with a friend of mine, not long since, objected to 
 the conduct of a Baptist minister, for receiving into his 
 church, persons of very tender years, whose christian ex- 
 perience was not sufficiently tried. He thought this rash, 
 and that delay was better. Will posterity, if they ever 
 hear of this objection, argue, that the admission of infants 
 into Baptist churches was the common practice of our 
 time? 
 
 The argument fails in another particular. It is urged, 
 that the parvuli of Tertullian were infants who needed 
 sponsors; who had not developed their dispositions; who 
 were not grown up; were not able to know Christ, and 
 could not ask baptism for themselves. As to the need of 
 sponsors, we have the authority of Mosheim for saying, 
 that sponsors were used first for adults and afterwards 
 for infants. If this authority may be relied on, the very 
 argument of Dr. W., may be converted into a demonstra- 
 tion, that infants who would more naturally require spon- 
 sors, were not used to be baptized, when the practice of 
 having sponsors was introduced. All the other proofs, 
 that those little ones were mere infants, are manifestly de- 
 fective- They may have been children even younger than 
 
12 Tertullian* 
 
 those received by the Baptist minister above mentioned; 
 but that they were mere infants cannot be proved, unless 
 by the last particular referred to, namely; " Let them know 
 how to ask for salvation, that you may seem to give to him 
 that asketh." But when it is considered, that Tertullian, 
 in the beginning' of the paragraph quoted by Dr. W., had 
 objected to the doctrine, that baptism ought to be given to 
 every one that asketh, and that it is the rashness of com- 
 mitting or entrusting it, (non temere credendum esse,) to 
 every applicant that he condemns; the last sentence should, 
 in consistence with the tenor of the quotation, be interpre- 
 ted of persons, who, though they ask for baptism, are sup- 
 posed not to know the value of that for which they ask; 
 and this accounts for the use of the word videaris, that you 
 may seem to give to him that asketh. It appears to me 
 pretty clear, that the necessity of a candidate's asking for 
 baptism was admitted even by those whom Tertullian op- 
 posed; and that the inarticulate cries of new born infants 
 were not, in his time, construed to be an asking for baptism, 
 although afterwards in the days of Cyprian they seem to 
 have been thus interpreted. Dr. W., I presume, does not 
 use sponsors in baptism. If the baptism of children which 
 Tertullian opposed, was the prevailing custom, then the 
 use of sponsors was the prevailing custom, and the argu- 
 ment which proves the propriety of the one, will prove also 
 the propriety of the other. 
 
 In this earliest account of the baptism of children, we 
 perceive that the professions and engagements necessary 
 to baptism were required to be made by sponsors in the 
 name of the child; and that the sponsors were considered, 
 by Tertullian at least, to be in danger, if the child proved 
 to be of a perverse disposition, and did not keep the Grace 
 that had been committed to him. It is easy to account for 
 the use of sponsors in the baptism of children, if, in the 
 original baptism, a profession of faith and repentance was 
 required of all who were baptized. But if all the infants of 
 believers were baptized by the Apostles, merely upon the 
 engagement of their parents to train them up in the ways 
 of the Lord, the introduction of sponsors was altogether 
 unnatural. The baptism of children which existed in the 
 days of Tertullian, is, therefore, more nearly allied to the 
 baptism which we practice, than to that which is practised 
 by Dr. W. 
 
R. Robinson, 13 
 
 WRITERS AFTER TERTULLIAN. 
 
 The three quotations from Origen which are urged in fa- 
 vor of infant baptism, are taken from suspected translations; 
 and Dr. Wall himself, has been able to produce no others. 
 What both he and Dr. Gill have quoted from the Greek of 
 Origen is rather unfavorable. One passage from Rufinus' 
 translation speaks of it as a received tradition. The pas- 
 sage from Jerome speaks less favorably. It appears there- 
 fore, that nothing can be obtained from Origen himself to 
 favor this cause; and that, of his translators, the most fa- 
 vorable is the most suspected. 
 
 In Cyprian's time we admit that infant baptism did exist 
 in Africa; and we shew that infant communion existed 
 there also. 
 
 APOSTOLIC TRADITION* 
 
 There was in very early times, a controversy between 
 the Church at Rome, and the Churches of Asia, with re- 
 gard to the proper time of keeping Easter. In this con- 
 troversy Polycarp, a disciple of St. John took part. The 
 following quotation on this subject is taken from the pre- 
 liminary discourse prefixed by the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, to his translation of the Epistles of the Apostolical 
 Fathers: chap. 6, sec. 7. " Nor was his care of the church 
 confined within the bounds of the Lesser Asia, but ex- 
 tended even to Rome itself whither we are told he went 
 upon the occasion of the Quatodeciman controvery then on 
 foot between the Eastern and Western Churches, and 
 which he hoped to have put a stop to, by his timely in- 
 terposition, with those of Rome. But Anicelus and he 
 could not agree upon that point, each alleging Apostolical 
 tradition, to warrant them in their practice.*' 
 
 If within 60 years of the death of the Apostle John, 
 apostolical tradition could not be determined, how could 
 it be determined by Rufinus and Austin? And how can 
 a christian with a good conscience, build his faith on their 
 decisions? 
 
 R. ROBINSON. 
 
 Dr. W. makes great objection to the writings and spirit 
 of Mr. Robinson; in which he is sustained by his colleague, 
 Professor Stuart. I shall not attempt a vindication of Mr. 
 Robinson's sentiments and temper in general, yet, I feel 
 myself called upon to make a few remarks. 1. In the lan- 
 guage of Dr. W., I may observe that," The strange opin- 
 B 
 
14 Value of the Historical Argument. 
 
 ions which he held, have nothing to do with the facts" 
 which he states. " In regard to such facts,*" if his state- 
 ments are corroborated by respectable writers, and especi- 
 ally by those of opposite sentiments and practice to himself, 
 " his testimony is entitled to full credit." Our Author 
 finds it necessary to caution his readers repeatedly against 
 confounding the peculiar opinions of his witnesses and 
 their testimony to facts. See pp. 113, 114,122, 124; of 
 the present edition. T claim the same privilege. Did Rob- 
 inson hold stranger sentiments than Origen? — 2. I think 
 there is more severity in the professor's remarks, than the 
 occasion called for. " Shallow criticism, palpable unfairness? 
 profane levity, the most gross and palpable indecency. ." 
 These are hard terms. I have looked over the pages to 
 which be refers us, and think that the incidents and anec- 
 dotes related by Mr. Robinson might as well have been 
 omitted, as they seem to have but a very remote, if any, 
 connexion with his main subject; but I doubt whether the 
 cause of Infant Baptism can be said to have suffered in the 
 hands of Mr. R., on the ground of decency, since its history 
 furnished facts that even he declined to record — see his his- 
 tory, p. 385. 3. It is said, p. 140, that the Baptists in 
 America refer to Robinson's History of Baptism as good 
 authority. What others have done, I cannot tell; but on 
 turning to our 5th letter, it will be seen, that we did not 
 rest our statements on the authority of Mr. Robinson, but 
 corroborated them by the testimony of eminent Paedobap- 
 tist writers. In justice however to Mr. Robinson, it ought 
 to be observed, that he seldom makes any important state- 
 ment without exhibiting vouchers, and thus giving the rea- 
 der an opportunity of examining for himself. 
 
 VALUE OF THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 Dr. W., has written several pages on the value of the 
 argument from Ecclesiastial History. In our former an- 
 imadversions we briefly noticed some things which he had 
 said on that subject: but I have two or three observations 
 to make in addition. 1. He insists that it appears from the 
 testimony of the Fathers, that Infant Baptism was the " uni- 
 form practice" of the primitive church. Now, in the lan- 
 guage of Dr. W. I make my appeal to men of any denom- 
 ination, who have the requisite qualifications, and can find 
 opportunity to give the subject an impartial and thorough 
 examination, whether this be fair, after the list of names 
 which we had given who were not baptized in Infancy? 
 
Value of the Historical Argument. 15 
 
 This ought to have prevented the repetition of the phrase 
 ** uniform practice," at all events, if ever it could be proved 
 that it was practiced to any considerable extent — 2. He 
 urges the competency of these witnesses, from their con- 
 tiguity to the days of the Apostles, their interest in the subject 
 &c. Here israther a singular case. Several witnesses are 
 brought forward to prove, that Infant Baptism was the uni- 
 form practice in their time, and had been from the days of 
 the Apostles; and yet some of these persons themselves, 
 though born of Christian parents, were not baptized in in- 
 fancy. We must suppose either that their testimony is 
 misconstrued, or, that it is inconsistent with facts, i. e. 
 false; in either case, it cannot be of any weight in the present 
 controversy. I ask again, would our good brother at An- 
 dover admit the testimony of these witnesses in the case of 
 the use of sponsors, and of infant communion? But the in- 
 stance of the dispute about the time of keeping Easter 
 sufficiently admonishes us, with what caution we are to 
 receive the testimony of the Fathers concerning Apostoli- 
 cal traditions. 3. He urges the consequences of rejecting 
 the testimony of the Fathers in the case of infant baptism. 
 " What evidence have you, except the testimony of unin- 
 spired men, that the several books which constitute the 
 Old Testament as we now have it, are the very books, to 
 which Christ and the apostles referred as the word of 
 God?" This surely is a strange question! What evidence? 
 We have the books themselves containing the very passa- 
 ges to which they appealed; cannot we determine for our- 
 selves, whether the books of the Old Testament contain 
 the passages quoted in the New? Again " We have no voice 
 from heaven, and no express testimony of any inspired 
 writer that the several books which compose the entire 
 canon of the New Testament, were given by inspiration 
 of God, or that they were all written by Apostles, or even 
 by christians. But we go to Eusebius, and to other unin- 
 spired writers, and we find that they regarded these books 
 as the genuine productions ofthose to whom they are com- 
 jnonly ascribed, and as having divine authority." Here 
 two very different things seem to be confounded, or at least 
 put upon a level; namely, the ascertaining of the writers of 
 the several books of Scripture, and the evidence of the in- 
 spiration of those books. This kind of reasoning adopted 
 by Br. W., when I consider that it was addressed to 
 young men designed for the christian ministry, is some- 
 what alarming. Does the proof of the inspiration of the 
 
16 The Anti-Padobaptist interpretation 
 
 books of holy Scripture depend on identifying the penmen? 
 Have we no other, or no better evidence of inspiration, than 
 we derive from Ecclesiastical history? I hope that on 
 more mature reflection, our author would be willing to mo- 
 dify the statements made on p. 138—139. " In sober truth,'* 
 this manner of writing, is calculated to injure his own cause. 
 But what is of infinitely greater moment, it is suited to pro- 
 duce doubts so far as it may have influence, in reference to 
 the divine authority of the holy Scriptures. Indeed, the 
 cause which requires such arguments to support it, ought 
 to be considered as desperate and should be given up. 
 
 It ought however to be carefully remembered, that if all 
 the writers of ecclesiastical history had united, in giving un- 
 equivocal testimony of the prevalence of a practice, for which 
 we have confessedly, neither precept nor example in the 
 New Testament, it would have been entirely inadequate 
 to prove it to be a divine institution; for our faith should 
 stand not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 
 
 In conclusion I would remark, that however irksome this, 
 or any other controversy may be in itself, yet when we re- 
 collect that it is the means, frequently, of eliciting truth, 
 and that it may be conducted in the spirit of the Gospel, it 
 should not be despised and condemned, seeing it may be 
 made to answer very important purposes, connected with 
 the glory of God and the best interests of men. I do not, 
 therefore, regret, for my own part, the attention which I 
 have paid to these Lectures, as thereby 1 have had occa- 
 sion to explore again the field of controversy, and I think I 
 have profited by the labor, and shall be more ready to give 
 to every one that asketh me, a reason of my faith and prac- 
 tice. 
 
 May God preserve you and me from all error is the 
 prayer of your brother in the Lord. DAVID. 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 TKE ANTI-P.EDOBAPTIST INTERPRETATION OF 1 COR. 7, 
 14. DEFENDED. 
 
 My Dear Brother, — I have read no part of the lectures 
 of Dr. Woods, with so much interest as his remarks on the 
 interpretation of 1 Cor. 7, 14. which has been given by the 
 Baptist General Tract Society, and which we had quoted 
 in our letters. It is indeed the only part of our letters to 
 
of 1 Cor. 7, 14. defended. 17 
 
 which he has given a formal reply. I had feared lest my 
 confidence in the correctness of this interpretation was too 
 great; and I was, on this account, exceedingly desirous to 
 know, what objections an able piedobaptist could bring 
 against it. I am at length gratified, and am able to state 
 to you, that my confidence is rather increased, than lessen- 
 ed, both in the correctness of the interpretation, and in the 
 conclusiveness of the argument against infant baptism 
 founded upon it. 
 
 The chief objection brought against the interpretation 
 of Dr. Gill, is, thaTlt gives a sense to the words holy, and 
 sanctified, which is contrary to the ususloquendi. Against 
 our interpretation no objection of this kind is even hinted, 
 In our interpretation, it is one peculiarity that the verse 
 throughout, is understood to be an address to the whole 
 church. The admission of this alone, wonld overthrow 
 the paedobaptist interpretation at once; and of course it is 
 opposed by Dr. W. That the words, ' else were your chil- 
 dren unclean,' do not refer to the whole church, he says is 
 perfectly clear and unquestionable; but I find no proof ad- 
 duced, except what relates to a general view of the apos- 
 tle's argument. He seems to admit that the use of the pro- 
 noun your, instead of their, is a reason in favor of our view: 
 though he considers it by no means conclusive, " as there 
 are," he says, "instances which cannot be numbered in 
 every part of the Bible, of a similar change in the pronoun, 
 when the game persons are addressed." Although I think 
 much more attention is due to these little words than is of- 
 ten paid to them, yet I will by no means undertake to main- 
 tain that irregularities of style in the use of pronouns, do 
 not occur. But I am of opinion, that their existence is not 
 to be supposed, unless it be for some sufficient reason. In 
 the present case, if the Paedobaptist interpretation is sense, 
 and ours nonsense, ours, notwithstanding its grammatical 
 accuracy, ought to be rejected, and the other though gram- 
 matically inaccurate, to be preferred. But if I am not 
 greatly mistaken, it is far less with respect to accuracy of 
 expression, than to soundness of sense, that our interpre- 
 tatioa of the text is decidedly superior. 
 
 The proposition which the apostle has undertaken to de- 
 monstrate, is, that a believer may lawfully dwell with an 
 unbeliever to whom he is married. The argument which 
 he adduces in proof, is, that the contrary position cannot be 
 maintained without an evil consequence which he thus ex- 
 presses, " else were your children unclean." The argu- 
 b2 
 
18 The Anti-Ptedobaptist interpretation 
 
 merit is just, if the evil is truly a consequence; and it is the 
 more forcible, (other things being equal,) according as the 
 evil is greater. 
 
 In our interpretation, holiness is understood to signify 
 fitness for familiar intercourse; and it is taken in the same 
 sense, whether it is applied to the children, or to the unbe- 
 lieving husband or wife. The apostle is understood to ar- 
 gue, that, as the children are fit for familiar intercourse, so 
 the unbelieving busband or wife, is fit for familiar inter- 
 course. The Paedobaptist interpretation, supposes the ho- 
 liness to vary in its application to the two different subjects. 
 In one case it implies, a fitness for familiar intercourse; in 
 the other, a fitness for ecclesiastical relation; and the apos- 
 tle is understood to argue, that, since the children are fit 
 for ecclesiastical relation, the unbelieving husband or wife, 
 is fit for familiar intercourse. According to our interpre- 
 tation, the apostle is understood to say, that, if the unbe- 
 lieving husband or wife, were unfit for familiar intercourse, 
 the children would, in like manner, be unfit for familiar in- 
 tercourse. According to the other interpretation, he is un- 
 derstood to say, that, if the unbelieving husband or wife 
 were unfit for familiar intercourse, the children would be 
 unfit for ecclesiastical relation. Now I maintain, that our 
 interpretation is preferable even if the text had read, else 
 were their children, &c. for the following reasons: 1. The 
 holiness of which the text speaks is taken in the same sense 
 throughout. The objection which has been made on this 
 ground against the paedobaptist interpretation has never 
 been removed, notwithstanding the labor that has been ta- 
 ken for this purpose- 2. The argument is at least equally 
 just. If an unbelieving wife were required to be separated 
 from the familiar intercourse of her believing husband, the 
 separation of their children from the familiar intercourse of 
 their father, must inevitably follow on the very same prin- 
 ciple. So Dr. W. has stated. " He suggested one con- 
 sideration of great weight, namely: that if according to the 
 Mosaic law, and the example of the people in the time of 
 Ezra, they were to put away their unbelieving partners, and 
 so treat them as pagans; they must consider their children 
 also as unclean, i. e. heathen children, and put them away 
 likewise, as the people did in the case referred to," p. 95. 
 That branch of the apostle's argument, therefore, in which 
 he wards off an evil consequence, will appear to as great 
 advantage, if that evil be supposed to be a separation of the 
 children from familiar intercourse, as it does on the suppo- 
 
of 1 Cor. 7, 14. defended. 19 
 
 sition, that the evil guarded against was a separation from 
 ecclesiastical relation. But there is another branch of the 
 argument, in which the children are affirmed to be holy, on 
 the supposition that the husband or wife is holy. That a 
 fitness for familiar intercourse must belong to children, if it 
 belongs to their unbelieving parent, is an inference so clear- 
 ly just as to be admitted at once by every one: but it is by 
 no means so clear, that a fitness of the children for ecclesi- 
 astical relation may be justly argued from a fitness of the 
 unbelieving parent for familiar intercourse. 3. The argu- 
 ment is stronger, since the evil guarded against is greater. 
 Admission to familiar intercourse may exist without admis- 
 sion to ecclesiastical relation; but exclusion from the for- 
 mer necessarily implies exclusion from the latter, and is con- 
 sequently a greater evil. The apostle had been led, by the 
 nature of his subject, to that view of holiness in which it 
 implies a fitness for familiar intercourse; and had he kept 
 this before his mind, the way was prepared for a strong ar- 
 gument against the principle which he opposed, by show- 
 ing, as an appalling consequence of it, that it would require 
 the exclusion of the children from the familiar intercourse 
 of that parent who would be concerned for their eternal 
 welfare, and of all other persons who might guide their 
 feet into the way of life. One of these interpretations sup- 
 poses that he did enforce this argument: the other suppo- 
 ses that he did not; but that, introducing another view of 
 holiness, he contented himself with laying to the charge of 
 the principle which he opposed, no other evil consequence 
 than that of injuring the children in respect of ecclesiastical 
 relation. 
 
 In the preceding paragraph a comparison has been in- 
 stituted between two interpretations, one of which is that 
 commonly given by paedobaptists, and the other agrees in 
 all respects with ours, except that it yields the point as to 
 the extent of the apostle's address, and admits that, not the 
 children of the whole church, but those children only are 
 intended who had one unbelieving parent. There are two 
 cases of frequent occurrence, which the apostle's argument 
 will not reach, if understood according to either of these 
 methods of interpretation. The first case is, when a be- 
 liever and an unbeliever joined in marriage, are without 
 children. Here there is no evil consequence to guard 
 against; and, for aught that the argument says to the con- 
 trary, the principle may be maintained that such persons 
 ought to separate. The second case is, when the children 
 
20 The Anti-Padobaptist interpretation 
 
 of such a marriage have become grown, or, when the con- 
 version of one parent takes place after the children are 
 grown. Here, though the separation of the children from 
 familiar intercourse is an evil, yet it is not a greater evil 
 than the separation of the unbelieving parent, and there- 
 fore the argument, according to one interpretation, is weak: 
 but, according to the other interpretation, it is positively 
 false. If one parent was a believer when the children were 
 young, then they had a right to the covenant, which the 
 future separation of their parents would not affect. Of 
 course the propriety of such future separation might be 
 maintained in spite of the apostle's argument. If the con- 
 version of one parent takes place after the children are 
 grown, no argument whatever can be raised against their 
 separation, founded upon any injury which the children 
 would sustain in respect to ecclesiastical relation; for the 
 effect upon the children in this respect is the same whether 
 the parents continue together or separate. Indeed, the 
 psedobaptist interpretation not only represents the apostle's 
 argument as false, in its application to this particular case, 
 but even his very language is not true as a statement of 
 fact: for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, 
 and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; and 
 yet the children being adults, are not holy, but are exclud- 
 ed from ecclesiastical relation because of their own unbe- 
 lief. 
 
 The interpretation which we gave in our letters, from 
 the Baptist General Tract Society, embraces every case of 
 marriage between a believer and an unbeliever, whether 
 they have infant children, adult children, or no children. — 
 It places the apostle's argument upon the broad principle, 
 that a separation is not more requisite between husband 
 and wife, than between parent and child. It has the fur- 
 ther advantage of rendering the argument much stronger 
 than the other interpretations do. The evil consequence 
 which it shows to be involved in the principle that is oppos- 
 ed consists in a separation not merely from ecclesiastical 
 relation but from familiar intercourse; and extends not to a 
 few, but to all the children of the church; and makes Chris- 
 tianity to oppose parental feeling, to destroy parental obli- 
 gation, and to ruin the offspring of all pious parents. It is 
 therefore not true that " there is not any reason for consid- 
 ering it as addressed to the church at large, except that 
 you and your, the pronoun of the second person, is used in- 
 stead of the third person, they" This method of interpre- 
 
of 1 Cor. 7, 14. defended. 21 
 
 tation not only makes the use of the pronoun correct, but 
 it keeps up the same idea of holiness throughout the text, 
 it makes the language of the apostle true, and his argument 
 forcible. Neither of these is done by the interpretation 
 which Dr. W. advocates. 
 
 The refutation which Dr. W. has attempted of our in- 
 terpretation, depends upon three principles, which need on- 
 ly to be stated distinctly, in order that one of them shall ap- 
 pear false,'and the other two a begging of the question. 
 
 The first principle is, that no case must be introduced in a 
 demonstration which is not brought to view in the proposi- 
 tion. The following words have no force unless this prin- 
 ciple be established: " It is perfectly clear from the pas- 
 sage, that the apostle refers to only one particular case^ 
 namely, that of a believing husband connected with an un- 
 believing wife, and a believing wife with an unbelieving 
 husband. This was the subject before the mind of the 
 apostle. And the judgment which he expresses, his rea- 
 soning, his conclusion, — all that he says, relates to this 
 case." I grant that the case which is here mentioned, is 
 the only one proposition that was before the apostle's mind, 
 and that the whole demonstration must therefore relate 
 to this case. But it is perfectly clear, nevertheless, that 
 another case is introduced in the demonstration: for, what- 
 ever children may have been intended, they constitute a 
 case which is not contained in the proposition, and whish. 
 is introduced merely for the sake of the argument that the 
 apostle derives from it in support of the proposition. Twen- 
 ty distinct cases might have been introduced in the same 
 manner; and it might nevertheless have been true that every 
 thing which the apostle said, related to the one case that 
 was before his mind in the proposition. All this objection, 
 therefore, about the unity of the case comes to nothing. — . 
 The apostle does introduce the case of certain children: 
 and whether they were the children of the whole church, 
 or only of a part, must be learned from his words, and not from 
 this false principle of reasoning to which Dr. W. himself 
 would not agree to submit; since, while infant baptism is 
 the case before his mind in the Lectures which he has pub- 
 lished, he has thought it justifiable to introduce the case of 
 the Christian Sabbath, and of female communion, in the ar- 
 guments which he has advanced. With regard to the ex- 
 tent of the apostle's address, Dr. W. makes the following re- 
 marks: " Speaking of a believing wife who is connected 
 with an unbelieving husband, he says, such a husband is 
 
22 The Anti-Pmdobaptist interpretation 
 
 sanctified by his wife so that she is under no necessity to 
 leave him; — and the same as to a believing husband and an 
 unbelieving' wife; and then he adds, addressing- himself, un- 
 questionably to the same persons, otherwise .... your 
 children would be unclean." This confident assertion, "ad- 
 dressing himself unquestionably to the same persons," stands 
 instead of all further argument. And what does this asser- 
 tion mean? Whom had the apostle been addressing? Was 
 it the unbelieving husband whom he had declared to be 
 sanctified by his wife; or the unbelieving wife whom he had 
 declared to be sanctified by her husband? These persons 
 were not members of the church, and therefore they could 
 not be addressed in an epistle directed to the church. — 
 Can an instance be found in any part of the apostle's wri- 
 tings, in which he turns suddenly from the persons to whom 
 he wrote in order to address unbelievers, without giving 
 any notice whatever of this sudden apostrophe? The ad- 
 dress in the first verse of the chapter is manifestly to the 
 church; and is continued to the church down to the verse 
 in question. Even the phrase, " I say to the unmarried and 
 widows," does not divert the apostle from his address to the 
 church; since he immediately applies to these persons, not 
 the pronoun you, but them. In the verse immediately fol- 
 lowing the one under consideration the church is again ad- 
 dressed. And in the next verse though individuals are ad- 
 dressed they are members of the church and not unbeliev- 
 ers; and due notice is given of this change in the address 
 by introducing the vocatives, O husband, O wife. After 
 this the apostle immediately resumes the address to the 
 church; and intimates that what he had said was intended 
 to be an ordinance for the church. I ask then who was it 
 the apostle had been addressing? It was unquestionably 
 the church. I therefore recall all objection to the confi- 
 dent assertion of Dr. W. and freely acknowledge its perfect 
 accuracy. The apostle was addressing himself unquestion- 
 ably to the same persons, the very same that he had been 
 addressing in all the preceding part of the chapter, name- 
 ly, the CHURCH. 
 
 The second principle upon which the refutation depends, 
 is, that the children of two believers must necessarily be holy, 
 and the children of two unbelievers necessarily unclean. We 
 believe that, with respect to holiness, all infant children are 
 alike, whether their parents are believers or unbelievers. — 
 If by holiness be meant a fitness for familiar intercourse, 
 even the children of two unbelievers are holy, and stand on 
 
of 1 Cor. 7, 14. defended, 23 
 
 the same ground with the unbelieving 1 spouse of a believer. 
 Both may be admitted to familiar intercourse when the du- 
 ties of life require it. If a fitness for ecclesiastical relation 
 be meant, the infant children of two believers are, in our 
 judgment, unholy; standing, as before, on the same ground 
 with the unbelieving husband or wife. The contrary of 
 this, however, is taken for granted by Dr. W. The argu- 
 ment on which his refutation may be said wholly to de- 
 pend, proceeds thus: " What sense can the passage have, 
 if we understand it as addressed to Christian husbands and 
 wives generally, both parties being believers? Else were 
 your children unclean! How? Why? The apostle says, 
 it would be so, were it not that the unbelieving partner is 
 sanctified by the believing. But here according to the sup- 
 position, there is no unbelieving partner. And then what 
 sort of relation has the conclusion to the premises? The 
 reasoning supposed consists of two parts. First; if the un- 
 believing partner were not sanctified by the believing part- 
 ner, the children of all other christians would be unclean. — 
 Second; but now as the unbelieving partner is sanctified by 
 the believing partner, the children of all other christians are 
 holy. The first could not be true. If the unbelieving part- 
 ner were not sanctified by the believing, it would indeed 
 follow that their children would be unclean, but it would 
 not follow that other children would be unclean, where both 
 parents were believers. The conclusion in the second part 
 is true; but it does not follow at all from the premises. — 
 The children of the church generally, where both parents 
 are believers, are indeed holy, in the sense of the apostle; 
 but not because a believing partner sanctifies an unbeliev- 
 ing." — The first part of the apostle's argument is hypothe- 
 tical. The hypothesis is, If the principle be true which he op- 
 poses. He does state, according to our interpretation, that, 
 on this hypothesis, the children of two believing parents 
 would be unclean. " This," says Dr. W. " could not be 
 true. Why? Is it because the hypothesis will not warrant 
 the conclusion? No. It is, he says, because there is no un- 
 believing parent. So then, be the hypothesis what it may, 
 the children of two believing parents must be holy: and this 
 assumed principle is so self-evident that it needs no proof, 
 and so certain that it may be used for a test of the accuracy 
 of apostolical reasoning. This assumed principle truly re- 
 futes our interpretation most effectually. It will also effec- 
 tually sustain the cause of infant baptism. If it holds good 
 on every possible hypothesis; let the hypothesis be that ho- 
 
24 The Anti-Padobaptist interpretation 
 
 liness when predicated of children always implies a right to 
 baptism. The argument is now very short. The children 
 of two believing parents, are, upon every hypothesis, holy. 
 One hypothesis is, that holiness, when predicated of children 
 always implies a right to baptism. It follows, therefore, 
 that the children of two believing parents always have a 
 right to baptism. So easy is it to prove infant baptism, or, 
 I may add, any thing we please. We have only to vary the 
 hypothesis, and this accommodating principle will allow us 
 to prove that the children of two believing parents are any 
 thing and every thing that we would have them to be. 
 
 The third principle is, that the case of the children is a 
 dependant, and not a parallel case. It is taken for granted 
 that their holiness depends upon, and is derived from the 
 holiness of the persons who are mentioned in the preceding 
 part of the verse. This assumption having been made, it 
 follows necessarily, that none but the children of these 
 persons could be intended. Our interpretation proceeds 
 upon a different principle. It supposes that the children 
 constitute a parallel case; and that their holiness stands 
 upon the same ground with that of the unbelieving hus- 
 band or wife, both being derived from the application of 
 the same general rule. For the principle which we as- 
 sume, a reason was given. " In the original text the sub- 
 stantive verb, is in the present tense; * your children are un- 
 clean,' — a mode of speaking more suited for the stating of 
 a parallel, than a dependant case." But should we admit 
 that this is a reason of no weight, what follows? Both 
 principles must have their merit tried by the comparative 
 excellence of the interpretations, founded on them; and that 
 neither interpretation, should be required to agree with 
 the principle upon which the other is founded. Yet ours 
 is tried and condemned, because it does not agree with the 
 principle which has been assumed for the other. Dr. W. 
 says, as quoted above; " The conclusion in the second part 
 is true; but it does not follow at all from the premises." In 
 other words, the sanctification of an unbelieving wife, can- 
 not be the premises from which the holiness of any children 
 shall be concluded except her own. This objection is va- 
 lid, if the case of the children is dependant; but if it is a 
 parallel case, the objection is without force. If the wife 
 of one believer, and the child of another, stand on the same 
 level, each of them sustaining a natural relation, and neither 
 of them an ecclesiastical; where is the absurdity of arguing 
 from one case to the other? 
 
of \ Cor. 7, 14. defended, 25 
 
 The concluding paragraph of Dr. W., ia taken up in 
 stating the principles which he deems essential to a just in- 
 terpretation of the passage. They involve the principles 
 which I have already shown to be either not true, or a 
 begging of the question. He states them thus. 
 
 " If we would give a just interpretation to this passage, 
 we must remember the following things." 
 
 " 1. That it related to a particular case, and to that only. 
 2. That the uncleanness spoken of in the children, was an 
 uncleanness which would be the consequence of their ha- 
 ving an unbelieving parent, supposing that the faith of the 
 other parent had no influence to prevent it. 3. That the 
 holiness the apostle attributed to children, was a holiness 
 they had in consequence of being the children of a believ- 
 ing parent. Had both parents been heathen, the children 
 would certainly have been unclean in the sense intended. 
 And even one of the parents being a heathen, or an unbe- 
 liever, would have rendered the children unclean, had it not 
 been for the influence of the other parent's faith. They 
 were to be regarded as holy, purely because one of their pa- 
 rents was a believer, and because the faith of that parent 
 prevented the uncleanness which would otherwise have 
 belonged to them, in consequence of their having an unbe- 
 lieving parent. It was the faith of the believing parent, 
 which put the children upon a level with the other children 
 of the church. Those were holy in consequence of the 
 faith of both their parents. These were holy in consequence 
 of the faith of one of their parents." 
 
 " Now I think no interpretation of the passage which 
 does not accord with these principles, can be admitted as 
 correct." 
 
 In all this it is manifestly taken for granted, that the apos- 
 tle argued about the holiness or unholiness of the children, 
 not as dependant upon the establishment or rejection of 
 some general principle, that might equally affect other 
 cases, but as necessarily dependant upon the holiness or 
 unholiness of their parents, whatever general principle 
 might be imagined to exist. The position that the children 
 of two unbelieving parents must necessarily be unclean in 
 the sense of the apostle, 1 utterly reject. They would be 
 unclean on the principle which he opposed; but on that 
 which he established, they are holy; that is, capable of be- 
 ing admitted to familiar intercourse. Unto the pure, all 
 things are pure. There is not a word in the apostle's ar- 
 gument which intimates that the holiness of the children 
 
2Q The Anti-Padobaptist interpretation 
 
 depended upon their parentage. It depended solely upon 
 the establishment or rejection of the general principle 
 which he was applying to a parallel case. To assume the 
 contrary of this in undertaking the refutation of our inter- 
 pretation, is, to take for granted the very thing in question, 
 and to condemn our interpretation, because it does not 
 agree with this assumption, is to condemn it merely be- 
 cause it differs from a preconceived opinion. 
 
 To compare the justness and force which the argument 
 possesses, according to the two interpretations, it will be 
 convenient to put down distinctly and in order, the propo- 
 sitions of which the reasoning consists. The holiness of 
 the children is not the conclusion of the apostle. It is the 
 conclusion which our pcedobaptist brethren seem to have 
 before their minds when investigating this text; but the 
 conclusion upon which the apostle's mind was fixed, was, 
 that a believer might lawfully dwell with an unbelieving 
 spouse; and the holiness of the children constitutes a part 
 of the premises from which the conclusion is drawn. The 
 apostle did not write in syllogisms, placing his conclusion 
 last; but he stated his conclusion first, and then pointed to 
 the sources of proof. To bring out his conclusions last, 
 we should reverse the order of his proposition, thus: 
 
 1. Your children are holy: therefore, 
 
 2. The unbelieving spouse is sanctified: and therefore, 
 
 3. The believer may lawfully dwell with his unbelieving 
 spouse. 
 
 There is no difficulty in perceiving, how the third of these 
 propositions follows from the second; and the only question 
 is, how the second follows from the first. Our interpreta- 
 tion supposes that the two cases are parallel, and that the 
 apostle argues the truth of the second from the truth of the 
 first, on the ground of their being parallel. The pasdobap- 
 tist interpretation, makes the first proposition express an 
 effect, of which the second expresses the cause; and the 
 truth of the second is supposed to be inferred from the 
 truth of the first, on the ground that a cause must exist for 
 the effect. According to our view, the first proposition 
 from which the others are derived, expresses the fact, that 
 a believing parent may lawfully dwell with his children — 
 a truth sufficiently obvious to be the foundation of the apos- 
 tle's argument. According to the paedobaptist interpreta- 
 tion, the first proposition expresses the supposed fact, that 
 the children of one believing parent, are fit subjects of bap- 
 tism. But this fact could not be better known to the Co. 
 
of 1 Cor, 7, 14. defended, 27 
 
 rinthians, than the lawfulness of the believing parent's 
 dwelling with the unbelieving. The apostle therefore ac- 
 cording to this view, proves what is doubtful by what is 
 equally doubtful. Again, according to our interpretation, 
 the second proposition is a legitimate inference from the 
 first; because of the parallelism of the two cases. But ac- 
 cording to the other view, it is difficult to conceive how 
 the second proposition can be a legitimate inference from 
 the first; or how the sanctification of a mother, which does 
 not qualify her for baptism, can be the cause of a holiness 
 in her child, which shall include a fitness for baptism. Thus 
 the propriety of the reasoning according to the two differ- 
 ent interpretations may be compared; and certainly that 
 interpretation which makes the apostle argue with proprie- 
 ty and conclusiveness, and express his argument in lan^ 
 guage consistent and just, ought to be preferred. 
 
 The interpretation which I have been defending, may 
 with propriety be called anti-poedobaptist, since it directly 
 opposes infant baptism. If the interpretation can be sus- 
 tained, the controversy may be regarded as decided. 
 
 Yours very affectionately, JOHN 
 
m 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 H