. 
 
 
 £5 
 
 «j 
 
 
 .# 
 
 CL 
 
 re 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 1c 
 J5 
 
 
 *«» 
 
 IE 
 
 j ! 
 
 5 * 
 
 CL 
 
 
 : 
 
 £* * 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 $ 
 
 
 
 ^ S 
 
 C 
 
 
 ; 
 
 w o 
 
 bJl 
 
 
 # 
 
 
 "55 
 
 
 - 
 
 a 
 
 £ 
 
 
 S 
 
 *» B 
 
 <o 
 
 
 ,<o 
 
 55 g 
 
 CO 
 
 1 
 
 ^*i 
 
 2 
 
 oq 
 
 «k 
 
 5^ 
 
 S 
 
 
 .n 
 
 s> 
 
 f 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 % 
 
 c 
 
 <s 
 
 \ 
 
 0) 
 
 a> 
 
 Si 
 
 #> 
 
 £ 
 
 1* 
 
 < 
 
 scg 
 
 
 
 70^7 
 
 ^s 
 
 

 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
GLASGOW: 
 PUBLISHED BY JAMES MACLEHOSE. 
 
 LONDON! JACKSON AND WALFORD. 
 
 " • HAxMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 
 EDINBURGH: A. AND C. BLACK. 
 
 " OLIVER AND BOYD. 
 
DISSERTATION 
 
 OX TilE 
 
 SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY, NATURE, AND USES, 
 
 OF 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 By RALPH^WARDLAW, D.D. 
 
 THIRD EDITION. 
 
 WITH AN APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING 
 
 STRICTURES ON THE VIEWS ADVOCATED BY THE 
 REV. DR. HALLEY, 
 
 IN HIS VOLUME ENTITLED "THE SACRAMENTS," ON JOHN'S BAPTISM, AND ON 
 THE SCRIPTURAL REQUISITES TO CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 JAMES MACLEHOSE, BUCHANAN STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXLVI. 
 
GLASGOW: 
 
 PRINTED BY D. RUSSELL, BUCHANAN COURT, 
 
 75, ARGYLL STREET. 
 
K 
 
 
 fy 
 
 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 
 
 So long ago as the year 1807, I published "Three 
 Lectures on Romans iv. 9 — 25, designed chiefly to 
 illustrate the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant, and 
 its connexion with Infant Baptism ; with an Appen- 
 dix, on the Mode of Baptism." — It was my first publi- 
 cation : and, after the lapse of seventeen years, I have 
 seen very little reason to alter or to modify the gene- 
 ral principles of that work. — A Review of it appeared, 
 in the end of the same year, from the pen of the late 
 Mr Archibald Maclean of Edinburgh, a man held in 
 just estimation, not by his own party only, but by 
 all who knew him, for natural acuteness of intellect, 
 close application to the study of the scriptures, and 
 general consistency of character. I was satisfied that 
 my main positions were unshaken by the objections 
 and counter-reasonings of the reviewer ; and the chief 
 consideration that prevented me from then replying 
 was, the time it would necessarily occupy, which, I 
 thought, might, on the whole, be more profitably 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 employed. I am not now sure, whether this was a 
 correct judgment. 
 
 A desire has repeatedly been expressed to me for 
 the re-publication of these lectures. I could not, 
 however, think of publishing them again in the same 
 form. The great business of an expositor, I am fully 
 aware, ought to be, to give a clear view of the scope, 
 or main design, of the writer whom he expounds, 
 and to show how his reasonings establish, and his 
 illustrations elucidate, the point of which he treats. 
 All matter that is not immediately relevant for this 
 end, ought to be either omitted entirely, or very spar- 
 ingly introduced ; — if touched, not dwelt upon. The 
 reason why this principle was departed from in the 
 lectures, was one which I then thought, and still 
 think, sufficient to justify the deviation. It is obvi- 
 ous, that the same principles, which a writer lays 
 down as the foundation of the conclusions which it 
 is his object to establish, may often, with equal fair- 
 ness, be made the basis of other conclusions, besides 
 those which are at the time in his view ; and princi- 
 ples settled by Divine authority it is, on this account, 
 as well as for the sake of the inferences actually de- 
 duced from them, of the highest consequence to ascer- 
 tain. We then have at least determinate premises ; 
 and have only to show how they bear us out in our 
 deductions. Now, it may happen, that at the very 
 time when a minister, in the regular course of ex- 
 position, arrives at a particular passage, the minds of 
 fellow- christians, in his own religious connexions, or 
 more extensively, may be occupied and agitated by 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 subjects which, though not immediately connected 
 with the doctrine which it is the writer's direct object 
 to establish, may yet have a very intimate connexion 
 with the facts and principles brought forward by him 
 for its confirmation. In such circumstances, it is 
 surely warrantable for that minister, whilst he shows 
 how these principles bear upon the writer's imme- 
 diate object, to lay hold of them for a separate pur- 
 pose, and, even at some length, to dwell on the 
 particular subject respecting which he feels it to be 
 of consequence to settle the minds of his hearers. 
 The only proper question, in such a case, would be, 
 whether the principles were fairly stated, and whe- 
 ther the conclusions from them were legitimately 
 deduced. — Such was precisely the state of things, 
 when the lectures in question were delivered. But 
 I am sensible, that the same reason which justified 
 at the time, the introduction of discussions on the 
 Abrahamic covenant and infant baptism, to a length 
 so disproportionate in illustrating the fourth chapter 
 of the Epistle to the Romans, would hardly justify 
 the re-publication of the lectures at a distant period, 
 when the principles can be taken by themselves, and 
 the argument separated entirely from that of the 
 Epistle. — I have been led to make these remarks by 
 an observation of Mr Maclean, in the introduction 
 to his review, very much fitted to prejudice the 
 mind of his reader, — namely, that "he finds my main 
 " design to be, to support infant baptism, and that 
 " from two chapters, (Rom. iv. and Gal. hi.) where 
 "it is never once mentioned, nor does it appear in 
 
V1U PREFACE. 
 
 " the least degree to have entered into the mind or 
 "view of the sacred writer." — But Mr Maclean 
 does not accuse me of overlooking the object of the 
 apostle, or of failing to show how that object is 
 made out from his premises: — and the sole question 
 with him ought to have been, whether the same pre- 
 mises which authorised the one conclusion, were or 
 were not legitimately applied to the establishment of 
 the other. 
 
 The work which is now presented to the public 
 may be considered as a substitute for that part of the 
 former which immediately regarded the subject of the 
 Abrahamic covenant and baptism. It is, however, 
 in almost all respects, a new work. The discussions 
 are cleared from all the foreign matter, with which 
 they were unavoidably associated by the passages on 
 which the lectures were founded. The reasonings 
 are, by this means, rendered more distinct and con- 
 secutive. The subject is treated more at large, in all 
 its parts, and especially in some which before were 
 hardly, if at all, touched upon. To the whole train 
 of argument an arrangement has been given, such as, 
 it is hoped, may render it plain and easily followed, 
 and may serve to free the subject of it from some 
 portion at least of the confusion and difficulty, in 
 which, to not a few minds, it has always appeared to 
 be involved. Some of the leading objections, more- 
 over, have been met, and, to my own satisfaction at 
 least, exposed; — and what is said, in the third section, 
 of the uses of infant baptism, is wholly new. 
 
 It may be thought, that the necessity of publish- 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 ing at all was superseded by the late able work of 
 my esteemed friend and colleague, Mr Ewing. * The 
 larger proportion of his Essay, however, as the cir- 
 cumstances which gave rise to it might have led us to 
 anticipate, relates to the mode of baptism ; and, al- 
 though this is treated with a measure of originality, 
 and of classical and biblical learning, highly creditable 
 to its author, — there still seemed to be room left for 
 a fuller and more systematic discussion of the other 
 great branch of the controversy, — the subjects of 
 the ordinance, — which is touched in the Essay in- 
 deed, and touched with the same ability, but which 
 it is not the professed object of the writer to treat 
 extensively. This part of the field the circumstances 
 I have before stated had long determined me to 
 occupy anew, previously to the publication of Mr 
 Ewing' s work ; and my determination was quickened 
 to action by the appearance of an antagonist to him, 
 and to the late Dr. Dwight, and to myself. I refer 
 to the work of the Rev. F. A. Cox, of Hackney, 
 put forth with the ponderous and appalling title — 
 " On Baptism : chiefly in Reply to the Etymological 
 Positions of the Rev. Greville Ewing, in his • Essay 
 on Baptism :' the Polemic Discussions of the Rev. 
 Timothy Dwight, S. T. D., LL. D., in his Work, 
 
 * " An Essay on baptism : being an inquiry into the mean- 
 ing, form, and extent, of the administration of that ordinance. — 
 With an Appendix ; containing a vindication of the explanations 
 in the Author's Greek Grammar and Greek and English Scripture 
 Lexicon on the same subject, — in a letter to the Author from a 
 literary christian Friend." 1824. 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 entitled, ' Theology ;' and the Inferential Reasonings 
 of the Rev. Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. in his Lectures on 
 the Abrahamic Covenant." — In some of the adver- 
 tisements of this work, the first part of the title, I 
 observe, has undergone an alteration ; and, instead of 
 the " etymological positions" we have the "etymolo- 
 gical novelties" of Mr Ewing : and it is surely, in the 
 annals of controversy, a somewhat curious circum- 
 stance, that an opponent should formally announce, 
 in his title-page, a reply to precisely that part of the 
 work he sets himself to oppose, which its author had 
 himself declared to be unconnected with the course 
 and conclusiveness of his argument : — for thus Mr 
 Ewing had expressed himself: — "Such is my attempt 
 " to analyze /3oc7i-ru and its related words. If any 
 " shall reject it (I dare say many will) ; in that case, 
 " they will of course disallow my theory for illustrat- 
 ing the origin, and the connexion of the various 
 "meanings of those words. But they will not be 
 " able, thereby, to set aside the meanings themselves. 
 " These must still be tried by the force of the exam- 
 "ples which may be produced in support of each by 
 "itself. Although I shall, in what follows, refer to 
 " my theory of the derivation of the terms, for the 
 " sake of showing how well it tallies with the applica- 
 " tion of them in the examples in which they occur ; 
 " I shall, in no case, use an argument, in support of 
 " their meaning, which shall rest on that theory" — 
 To announce a formal reply to what an author has 
 thus previously intimated to be unessential to his 
 argument, a speculation of which the entire omission 
 
PREFACE. XI 
 
 leaves its force untouched; — to produce upon the 
 reader's mind, by the very phraseology of a title-page, 
 the impression, that that is the pith and substance of 
 a work, and what chiefly calls for notice and exposure, 
 which the writer himself announces he will not make 
 the basis of a single proof; — and then, to confirm 
 this false impression and prejudice, by applying ridi- 
 cule, as the test of truth, to what, even were it 
 overturned, would not, by its removal, affect, in the 
 slightest degree, a single conclusion ; — may be a con- 
 venient ruse de guerre, — but it is neither ingenuous 
 nor manly. It is very easy, however, and that adds 
 to the convenience. — Whatever diversity of opinion 
 may subsist on some unessential points, Mr Cox's 
 assault has, in my judgment, left the main positions, 
 on which Mr Ewing's argument rests, in their full 
 strength. 
 
 Although the appearance of Mr Cox's strictures 
 hastened the fulfilment of a previous intention, the 
 following pages are not to be considered as a reply 
 to his work. They are not a formal reply to any one. 
 I follow the train of my own argument, and take 
 notice of the objections of others, as they come in 
 my way. And I trust it will be found, I have not 
 shrunk from meeting my opponents (or rather, let 
 me say, the opponents, the conscientious opponents, 
 of the views I advocate) — fully and fairly, in the main 
 points of their strength. — I have had occasion, once 
 or twice, to allude to the strictures of the Rev. Mr 
 Birt, of Birmingham, on a sermon by my excellent 
 friend, the Rev. H. F. Burder, of Hackney, a neigh- 
 
Xll PREFACE. 
 
 bour and fellow-labourer of Mr Cox; — and I gladly 
 embrace the opportunity of saying, that although 
 there may be one or two minor statements in that 
 sermon in which I may not thoroughly acquiesce, it 
 appears to me distinguished by the clearness and 
 cogency and comprehensive brevity of its reasonings, 
 as well as by the piety and the christian meekness 
 of its spirit ; and to remain little, if at all affected, in 
 its great general principles, by the animadversions of 
 his opponent. — I have now and then referred to, and 
 quoted, other publications. But indeed these are 
 now, on both sides, so numerous, that I have found 
 it better not to cumber myself by looking into many, 
 and so exposing myself to the temptation of introduc- 
 ing matter, either quite extraneous, or but remotely 
 connected with my argument. 
 
 It has been my endeavour to adhere to the Latin 
 maxim, " Suaviter in mo do, for titer in re," familiarly 
 rendered in English " Soft words and hard argu- 
 ments." Whether I have succeeded or failed, the 
 reader must judge. If occasionally I may have ex- 
 pressed myself (of which, however, I am not con- 
 scious) with unbecoming asperity, may I find for- 
 giveness of Him, who has said, "The servant of 
 " the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all 
 "men!" — To his blessing I humbly commend this 
 part of my labours, in the conviction, — a conviction 
 that has gained strength by every new examination 
 of the subject, — that the cause is his, and that its 
 opponents, however plausible their scheme may be 
 rendered, (and it is admitted, in some of its points, 
 
PREFACE. Xlll 
 
 to be susceptible of great plausibility,) have not 
 a foot-breadth of solid scriptural ground to stand 
 upon. 
 
 R. W. 
 
 Glasgow, 
 \Wi January, 1825. 
 
 PREFATORY NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 In this Second Edition, there have been intro- 
 duced a number of slight alterations, and occasionally 
 some little enlargements, which I have not judged 
 it necessary to distinguish by any mark, but which, 
 it is hoped, will be found improvements. 
 
 R. W. 
 
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 This Dissertation has now, for a good many years, 
 been out of print. I have had repeated inquiries after 
 it, and urgent requests, from different quarters, for 
 its re-publication. To these requests various other en- 
 gagements have hitherto prevented me from paying 
 the only satisfactory attention, — not the intimation 
 of a purpose merely, but its execution. To this the 
 appearance of my friend Dr. Halley's volume* pre- 
 sented, I confess, a new and strong incitement ; the 
 impression on my mind having long been deep and 
 sorrowful of the unscriptural laxity of the sentiments 
 and practice of my Southern Congregational brethren, 
 in regard to the administration of baptism, — and that 
 volume containing a broader and more unqualified 
 
 * " The Sacraments. An inquiry into the nature of the 
 symbolic Institutions of the christian religion, usually called 
 the Sacraments. By Robert Halley, D.D. Part I. Baptism." 
 The volume is the tenth series of the Congregational Lecture. 
 
PREFACE. XV 
 
 assertion of the rectitude of those sentiments and of 
 that practice, as well as a more formal and extended 
 vindication of them, than I had ever met with. 
 The efficiency even of that stimulus, however, has 
 still been counteracted and retarded by other in- 
 fluences, such as it is needless to detail. I now, 
 at length, lay my strictures before both my English 
 and Scottish brethren ; requesting for them no more 
 than a candid examination, and desiring for myself 
 openness to conviction, if they can be proved erron- 
 eous. They have been written — portions of them 
 especially — amidst many interruptions, and, towards 
 the close, even in the snatches of time redeemable 
 from travelling, and official occupations at a distance 
 from home. But while this may plead in extenua- 
 tion of any defects that may appear in the mere 
 execution, it is not meant as a plea for any haste 
 in the formation of the sentiments. These, right or 
 wrong, have not been rashly adopted. They are old 
 and long matured. 
 
 It may seem strange that I should have made no 
 reference, in the Appendix, to any other works than 
 Dr. Halley's. In explanation of this, I have simply 
 to state, that I have purposely avoided even reading 
 the volumes of Dr. Godwin and Mr Stovel, being 
 desirous to avoid the confusion apt to arise from 
 replying to two or more at once, and, at the same 
 time, to shun the appearance of plagiarism, and pur- 
 sue my own course in my own way. For the same 
 reason, although my revered and able friend Dr. 
 Urwick (a friend from whom, as from Dr. Halley, 
 
XVI PREFACE. 
 
 I am timid as well as sorry to differ) has recently 
 re- published a tract on the subject which I many 
 years ago perused, I have denied myself also the 
 re- perusal of it. 
 
 The Dissertation has been very carefully revised; 
 and such improvements have been introduced, and 
 such occasional additions made, as the style, or the 
 argument, appeared to require. 
 
 Both it and the Appendix I commend to the 
 candid judgment of my brethren, and, as far as they 
 contain his own truth, to the blessing of my divine 
 Master. 
 
 R. W. 
 
 Mount Harriet, 
 July 1st, 1846. 
 

 \ 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introductory Observations, .... 1 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The divinely instituted practice previously to 
 the new testament dispensation, and the 
 
 ABSENCE OF ALL EVIDENCE AUTHORISING A DE- 
 PARTURE FROM THIS PRACTICE UNDER IT, . 20 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Evidence of the fact that, so far from the 
 ancient connexion between parents and chil- 
 dren having been abrogated, the children of 
 
 CONVERTS TO THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL WERE 
 ACTUALLY BAPTIZED ALONG WITH THEIR PARENTS, 
 IN THE TIME OF THE APOSTLES, .... 90 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 The important truths and duties which the 
 baptism of infants exhibits, and impresses on 
 
 our minds : and the perfect consistency of 
 
 the administration of this ordinance to them 
 with all that the bible teaches us respect- 
 ing them, as subjects of salvation, and of the 
 kingdom of heaven, 152 
 
XV111 CONTENTS. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 On the question of the identity or non-identity 
 of John's baptism and christian baptism : — and 
 ON the warranted extent of the administra- 
 tion OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, OR THE QUESTION, 
 
 WHETHER, AND HOW FAR, THE FAITH OF THE GOS- 
 PEL, OR THE KNOWLEDGE AND THE PROFESSED 
 FAITH OF IT, BE REQUISITE IN THE SUBJECTS OF 
 THE ORDINANCE, 221 
 
 I. On John's baptism, &c, 223 
 
 II. ON THE WARRANTED EXTENT OF THE ADMINISTRA- 
 TION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, &C, . . . 270 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 Some persons are disposed to deprecate all such 
 discussions as the one on which I am now entering, 
 under the common designation of unprofitable contro- 
 versy. That it is controversy, I admit ; — that it is 
 unprofitable controversy, I deny. If I thought it so, 
 I trust I should have grace to abstain from it. But 
 I think otherwise, for the following reasons : — 
 
 In the first place : As a peedobaptist, I am accus- 
 tomed, along with my brethren of the same persua- 
 sion, to administer the ordinance of baptism, as 
 occasions present themselves, both privately and 
 publicly, to the infant children of believers ; and we 
 are countenanced in so doing by our churches and 
 congregations. Now every thing that we do, as pro- 
 fessed subjects of the Lord Jesus, ought to be done, 
 not blindly, or in mere conformity to custom, but 
 from a scriptural and enlightened conviction of duty. 
 To call any institution an ordinance of God, and 
 persist in adherence to it, without knowing either 
 its import or the reason of observing it, is unworthy 
 
 A 
 
2 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 a professor of that religion, which enjoins nothing 
 but what is "reasonable service." 
 
 Secondly : In consequence of the universality of 
 the practice of infant baptism, and the consequent 
 frequency of the abuse and prostitution of the ordi- 
 nance, believers themselves are in no small danger 
 of attending to it as a mere matter of course, without 
 due consideration, either of the nature of the rite, 
 the grounds on which the administration of it to 
 their children rests, or the parental obligations, so 
 deep and so solemn, that are inseparably connected 
 with it. 
 
 Thirdly : I see no reason whatever, why psedobap- 
 tists should feel the slightest disposition to evade the 
 question, or the most distant fear, — although on both 
 sides there may be minute points of difficulty, — to 
 meet it fully, fairly, and openly, in all its great gene- 
 ral bearings. — There has sometimes appeared to me, 
 on the part of peedobaptists, too much of a disposition 
 to stand upon the defensive merely; — too much of 
 the mere negation of the conclusiveness of arguments 
 used on the side of their opponents, and too little 
 of the direct enforcement of positive evidence on 
 their own; — too much of the shield, and too little 
 of the sword : — I mean, of course, "the sword of 
 the Spirit." 
 
 Fourthly : There are too many, especially of the 
 young, who, in the outset of their christian profes- 
 sion, have not their minds directed at all to the 
 subject. It is an unexamined point. And these per- 
 sons, when, in this state of destitution or deficiency 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. ,5 
 
 of knowledge and information, they happen to fall 
 in with a baptist friend, a baptist book, or a baptist 
 argument, feel themselves unprepared to meet what 
 is new and startling ; their minds are in danger of 
 being immediately unsettled, and of hastily adopting 
 what is presented to them with no little plausibility, 
 and possibly too with much imposing confidence. — I 
 invite the attention of my young christian readers, — 
 not fearing, that if we are only enabled to come to 
 the subject without the heat of party opinionativeness, 
 in a cool, composed, and reasonable frame of spirit, 
 and especially in humble dependence on Divine 
 teaching, we shall be led into all truth, and estab- 
 lished in the due observance of every scriptural in- 
 stitution. 
 
 Fifthly : The discussion does not exclusively re- 
 gard a particular instituted observance; it involves 
 principles and topics, such as are very closely con- 
 nected with the right understanding of a large pro- 
 portion of the Old Testament scriptures, and of those 
 parts of the New of which the reasonings and illus- 
 trations are founded upon the Old; and also with 
 just views of the Divine procedure towards the 
 church, from the beginning to the end of its history. 
 — This must have been apparent to every person of 
 the slightest discernment, that has bestowed any at- 
 tention upon the controversy. There is a certain 
 style of speaking and writing regarding the Old and 
 New Dispensations, and the two revelations respec- 
 tively connected with them, by which, in general, 
 the supporters of the opposite sides of it may be 
 
4 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 readily distinguished. And this gives an importance 
 to the argument, beyond its direct conclusions re- 
 specting the single ordinance which forms its more 
 immediate subject. 
 
 Lastly : I am satisfied, that the argument respect- 
 ing the validity of infant baptism is. far from being 
 so difficult and formidable, as, from the numberless 
 pamphlets and volumes that have been written upon 
 either side of the question, many are ready, without 
 further inquiry, to suppose. They shrink from ap- 
 proaching the subject, under the apprehension (not 
 altogether unnatural) that if such a mass of contro- 
 versy must be gone through in order to bring their 
 minds to a settlement, it is a hopeless case. They 
 will not venture into the flood ; — it is frothy and tur- 
 bulent, and troublesome to pass, and they have little 
 certainty of finding solid footing beyond it. They 
 heave a desponding sigh ; and, as the easiest at least, 
 if not the best and safest way to dispose of the sub- 
 ject, they dismiss it with the trite and indolent re- 
 mark, that " much, it seems, may be said on both 
 sides." — And it is true, that a vast deal has been said 
 on both sides ; much more, in my apprehension, than 
 enough ; much that is needlessly abstruse, — much 
 that is very irrelevant, — much that has only involved 
 the combatants in clouds of "learned dust," which 
 has served to blind the eyes of common and unletter- 
 ed men, and almost at times, I fear, to blind their 
 own. 
 
 Nothing can be easier, on such a subject, especially 
 now, when we have so much criticism about it made 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. i) 
 
 up by others and ready to our hand, than even for 
 the veriest sciolist to make a mighty parade of learn- 
 ing: — nothing, I say, can be easier, — unless indeed 
 it be, speaking with great positiveness and dogmatism 
 — a figure of speech, which, on all subjects, has been 
 too much resorted to, as a substitute for the lack of 
 argument. — On no subject, it is granted, — and es- 
 pecially, on no subject that involves the obligations 
 of conscience towards God, are we to allow ourselves 
 to be determined by the weight of names and of 
 human authority. " He that judgeth us is the 
 Lord ;" and " What saith the Lord ? " ought to be 
 our sole inquiry. — But although our opinions and 
 practice are not to be decided by names ; yet the 
 manner of our treating any subject not only may be, 
 but ought to be, not a little affected by them. And 
 when I think of the names of high eminence, both 
 for intellect and for piety, both for scholarship and for 
 integrity, that are ranged on both sides of the pre- 
 sent controversy, I cannot but consider pertness and 
 dogmatism as indications, not of vigour of judgment, 
 but of the imbecility of self-conceit. — If, through in- 
 firmity and corruption, I should, in any part of my 
 argument, be found guilty of these evils, or of the 
 appearance of them, I have thus pronounced a previ- 
 ous verdict against myself. — My aim, however, shall 
 be to avoid them, and to state my views and reason- 
 ings, although with decision and firmness, (because 
 to this I do believe them, bona fide, to be entitled,) 
 yet with becoming simplicity, self- diffidence, and 
 charity. 
 
6 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 I am not about to bewilder the reader's mind by 
 multifarious and protracted discussions, — by entering 
 at large into all the topics that have been forced into 
 connexion with this subject. It has long been my 
 conviction, from observation of the writings of others, 
 and from any little experience I have myself had in 
 controversy, that in conducting an argument, the 
 principal difficulty consists, not in finding what to 
 say, but in knowing what not to say. The resolu- 
 tion to say all that can be said, has often led to the 
 introduction of a great deal of matter, that, if not 
 altogether irrelevant, is yet but remotely and by slight 
 association connected with the point in debate, and 7 
 being redundant, is enfeebling to the conclusion aim- 
 ed at. There may be self-denial at times in using the 
 pruning-knife ; but it is necessary to a vigorous fruc- 
 tification. A skilful gardener, who wishes his tree to 
 bear well, will lop off freely its green wood, and never 
 think of encumbering the wall by training in every 
 shoot that sprouts in the luxuriance of vegetation. 
 He may sometimes be at a loss, which to cut, and 
 which to spare : he must exercise his discretion : but 
 he will never hesitate to cut, when to spare promises 
 no produce. Branches that yield no fruit themselves 
 will mar the productiveness of others. — The present 
 argument has assumed much of the appearance of in- 
 tricate complexity and difficulty ; for which both sides 
 of it are in some degree answerable. My present 
 object is to simplify, — to divest the subject, as much 
 as possible, of its multiplied encumbrances, and to 
 present it in an easy intelligible form, and with as 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. / 
 
 much brevity as its own nature, and the previous 
 state of the controversy, will admit. 
 
 One ground of objection I must anticipate, and en- 
 deavour to remove, because it is frequently and confi- 
 dently urged against all inferential conclusions, and 
 all reasonings indeed together, on such a subject. — It 
 is alleged, that the case is one which does not admit 
 of a process of reasoning ; — one with which argument 
 and inference have nothing to do. The ordinance of 
 baptism, both in itself and in regard to the subjects 
 of it, is a positive institute ; and a positive institute 
 cannot be established by reasoning, but requires, to 
 warrant its observance, explicit terms of institution. 
 
 In reply to this view of the matter, let it be con- 
 sidered, in the first place ; — If any thing can be 
 made out from the word of God, as having Divine 
 authority to support it, it is surely our duty to obey, 
 whatever may have been the mode of arriving at the 
 conclusion. Only make the supposition that we can 
 show such authority for any practice ; — we certainly 
 can never consider ourselves as at liberty to decline 
 compliance, because the point has not been made out 
 exactly in the way which we had previously deter- 
 mined to be the only legitimate and right way. This 
 ought to be self-evident. The man who questions it 
 (with whatever assurance he may express himself) 
 betrays a secret want of confidence in his own views. 
 He hypothetically admits that the practice has the 
 support of Divine authority ; and yet declines compli- 
 ance, because the intimation of God's will has not 
 been conve ed in a manner according with his taste, 
 
P INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 and his preconceptions of propriety. He prefers his 
 own judgment to that of God, and presumptuously 
 refuses the substance of authority on account of the 
 mode in which its requirement has been expressed! 
 The simple and only question is, What saith the scrip- 
 ture ? not, In what way does the scripture say it ? It 
 is not ours, in this or in any thing else, to prescribe 
 to God. 
 
 Secondly : Those who make the objection may be 
 fairly called to consider, how far the principle of it, if 
 consistently applied and followed out, will necessarily 
 carry them. — I am not going to take up the ground 
 which by some paedobaptists has been assumed, that, 
 on the principle of the objection, we have no direct 
 and explicit authority for the admission of women to 
 the Lord's table ; — because this has always appeared 
 to me ground hardly consistent with manly fairness 
 and candour, and calculated to enfeeble rather than 
 to strengthen, to expose to a sneer rather than re- 
 commend to acceptance, the cause it is meant to 
 support. I have in my view a case of much higher 
 order, not inferior in importance to the question of 
 infant-baptism itself; — I mean the sanctification of 
 the first day of the week as the christian sabbath. — 
 The observance of a sabbath, — the consecration of a 
 part of our time to the worship of God and to spirit- 
 ual purposes, is not a merely positive, but a moral 
 duty. But the proportion of time, and the particular 
 day, are positive. It seems, however, impossible to 
 ascertain the change of the day from the seventh to 
 the first, and the consecration of the whole day to the 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 9 
 
 Lord, without a process of induction, in many respects 
 resembling that which is employed to vindicate the 
 authority of peedobaptism. I am myself, it is true, 
 of opinion, with some eminent critics and expositors, 
 that in the ninth and tenth verses of the fourth chap- 
 ter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, we have direct 
 intimation and express authority for the change : — 
 "There remaineth therefore a sabbatism * (or the 
 keeping of a sabbath) to the people of God : for he 
 that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from 
 his own works as God did from his." But the estab- 
 lishment of this depends upon a process of reasoning ; 
 of reasoning too, which has never yet occurred to the 
 minds, or settled the convictions, of the great majority 
 of Christians : and I am free to say, that although I 
 am perfectly satisfied as to the meaning of the pas- 
 sage, as an intended and explicit declaration of the 
 change of the sabbath, yet, had it not been accom- 
 panied with the commentary of facts in the recorded 
 practice of apostolic times, we could not with con- 
 fidence have founded our observance of the first day 
 of the week on its exclusive authority. Even from the 
 facts alluded to, we can only ascertain that on that 
 day the disciples were accustomed to meet together 
 for the worship of God, and the other sacred exercises 
 
 * The word in the original in this verse, rendered by our 
 translators rest, is rxfifiotrie-fios, being different from the word 
 so translated throughout the whole of the preceding and subse- 
 quent context, — which is uvuTretva-ig. The reader may see the 
 question as to the true import of the passage fully discussed in 
 the Author's " Discourses on the Sabbath" — Discourse IV. 
 
10 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 of christian fellowship. But the sanctification of the 
 entire day, as a day of "holy resting" from secular 
 engagements, and of spiritual occupation and prepara- 
 tion for eternity, must be made out on other grounds. 
 That it can be made out, and that most satisfactorily, 
 I am thoroughly convinced ; and especially by a com- 
 bination of the facts with the passage in the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews just referred to, and other collateral 
 expressions : — and I tremble for the interests of per- 
 sonal and social religion, in the individual mind, and 
 in the christian society, where this conviction has 
 begun to give way. Yet I am persuaded that no 
 antipaedobaptist can set about proving the obligation 
 of the sabbath, without adopting principles of reason- 
 ing, if not identically the same, certainly very closely 
 analogous to those which he is accustomed to con- 
 trovert, as inadmissible, when applied in support of 
 infant baptism. 
 
 Thirdly : I hope to be able immediately to show, 
 that the requisition, on the part of our baptist bre- 
 thren, of a positive precept for our practice, is unfair ; 
 and that we are rather entitled to require such expli- 
 cit authority from them. If we can succeed in estab- 
 lishing the previous existence of the connexion of 
 children with their parents, under the same " cove- 
 nant of promise" with that which constitutes the 
 ground of fellowship in the christian church ; — then 
 we have a title to demand an explicit statute of 
 repeal. Explicit authority for relinquishing a practice, 
 is quite as indispensable as explicit authority for 
 commencing one. But more of this by and by. 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 11 
 
 I must still further premise, because on all contro- 
 verted topics I feel the essential benefit of clearing 
 my ground as to the principles of reasoning ; — that 
 the question is not at all about adult baptism, or 
 about the necessity, to the baptism of adults, of a 
 profession of the faith. On this, baptists and psedo- 
 baptists are of one mind.* When, therefore, the 
 former adduce, in opposition to infant baptism, those 
 passages of the New Testament in which the subject 
 is the baptism of adults, and from them insist on the 
 universal necessity of understanding and faith, on 
 the part of the recipients of the ordinance, to its legi- 
 timate administration, they do nothing at all to the 
 purpose. They are guilty of a sophism. They bring 
 infants into their conclusion, whilst they are not in 
 the premises. The illusion is very much of the same 
 kind with one which abounds in the writings of Uni- 
 tarians, who have an inveterate habit of adducing 
 passages to prove that Christ is not God, which only 
 prove that he is man ; — as if to prove his humanity, 
 — the point in which we agree with them, and which 
 we are quite as desirous to establish as themselves, — 
 were to disprove his divinity, — the point in which we 
 differ from them, and which is not in the least degree 
 affected by the evidence of his real humanity. Anti- 
 psedobaptists seem to be chargeable with the same 
 description of fallacy, when they think to disprove 
 infant baptism by proving adult baptism. Instead 
 of establishing their own view of the subject on which 
 
 * See beginning of Appendix. 
 
12 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 we differ from them, they only establish (a thing 
 quite unnecessary) a point in which we are perfectly 
 agreed. — This observation narrows the limits of the 
 field of argument; bringing the subject of dispute 
 (which is always very desirable) into smaller compass. 
 — No one, I trust, will take groundless offence at my 
 having named a class of theologians whom I consider 
 as subverters of the gospel of Christ, in connexion 
 with those whom, notwithstanding our differences in 
 sentiment and practice, I esteem, and love, and hon- 
 our, as brethren in the faith. I have not compared 
 the men — God forbid! I have not compared their 
 views of divine truth. All that I have done has been, 
 to point out the nature of one fallacy in argument, by 
 comparing it with another of a similar description. 
 
 I have only further to observe, that, if the general 
 views which I am about to present on this subject 
 shall be fairly established from scripture, it is foolish 
 to allow our minds to be easily startled and shaken 
 by particular difficulties which may be suggested and 
 urged, as to what would be right practice in certain 
 supposed cases. Nothing can be easier than thus to 
 perplex and puzzle the mind ; and the mournfully 
 prevalent abuse of the practice of infant baptism has 
 given rise to cases of apparent difficulty, respecting 
 which there may be hesitation and diversity of 
 opinion, even amongst those who are of one mind as 
 to leading principles. Were it a becoming mode of 
 arguing, there are puzzles to be found for baptists, 
 as well as for psedobaptists ; although it may readily 
 be admitted, without the smallest disparagement to 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 13 
 
 the cause of the latter, that the abuse just referred to 
 has given their brethren who are opposed to them no 
 inconsiderable advantage for the invention of casuis- 
 tical questions. 
 
 That indiscriminate admission to the ordinances of 
 Christ which is involved in the very idea of a nation- 
 al religion, has produced, or at least maintained, a 
 very general ignorance, or gross misunderstanding, 
 of their true nature : — and I would entreat any whose 
 minds may have been startled on the subject of infant 
 baptism by the grievous prostitution and abuse of it, 
 and the various absurd notions entertained respect- 
 ing it, to consider, that the other ordinance has been 
 equally abused and prostituted; and that to suffer 
 this, in either case, to shake their convictions and 
 unsettle their practice, is the indication of a weak 
 mind, in which feeling has the ascendency over judg- 
 ment, and which is incapable of discriminating be- 
 tween the precepts of God and the corruptions of 
 them by men. The possibility, or even the existence, 
 of particular cases of difficulty should never be allow- 
 ed to take our minds off from the great general 
 principles, when these have been satisfactorily es- 
 tablished from the word of God. There are few of 
 the doctrines of that word, how clearly soever reveal- 
 ed, to which objections have not occasionally been 
 offered that may perples our minds and "give us 
 pause:" — but are we at once to renounce the faith, 
 because, on some of its articles, a puzzling question 
 may be put to us by a subtle adversary ? 
 
 Our baptist brethren are abundantly ready to im- 
 
14 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 pute our views and practice to the power of educa- 
 tional prejudice, and of prevailing custom, which, 
 when once introduced, goes on without consideration 
 or inquiry, — and to assume, with rather more than 
 enough at times of a happy self-complacency, the 
 certain rectitude of their own principles, — laying them 
 down as settled points, and, in conversation, when 
 speaking of the inveteracy of early prepossessions and 
 habitual associations of ideas, familiarly adducing the 
 sentiments of those who differ from them, amongst 
 their common-places of illustration, and "astonished 
 with a great astonishment" at the dimness which on 
 this subject rests upon the vision of minds that are 
 otherwise clear-sighted and intelligent. "My per- 
 suasion is," says Mr (now Dr.) Cox, "that the 
 " popular feeling is theirs, the argument ours. If an 
 "evidence of the latter were requisite, it might in 
 "part be deduced from the striking facts, that not 
 " only have the best paedobaptist writers made us re- 
 peated and most important concessions, while many, 
 " if not a majority, of their living teachers, constantly 
 "admit one half at least of our arguments for the 
 "mode of baptism : but their churches contain vast 
 "numbers of theoretic baptists, who have discern- 
 "ment enough to appreciate the force of evidence, 
 " but not piety enough to pursue the path of duty." * 
 Now this, it will not be questioned, is somewhat pro- 
 voking. That the "popular feeling" is ours, we do 
 not deny; that in a vast number of instances it is 
 
 * Preface to his Reply to Ewing, Dwight, and Wardlaw. 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. If) 
 
 ignorantly ours, we believe and regret ; while the 
 circumstances in which psedobaptism has been placed 
 leave us at no loss to account for the fact. But that 
 we have none of the argument, we cannot quite so 
 readily concede ; and we feel ourselves warranted to 
 say, that the reasoning of Dr. Cox, in the work the 
 preface to which contains the preceding extract, ought 
 to have been of a much firmer, more coherent, and 
 more conclusive texture, to have warranted this lofty 
 style. As to the christian charity of the allegation 
 in the close of the extract, I leave the reader to judge 
 of it ; simply reminding the respected writer, that the 
 charity which Paul so beautifully eulogises has for 
 one of its features, that it "thinketh no evil." — That 
 there may in our churches be some such hypocrites 
 as he describes, is very possible ; — and let them take 
 the merited reproof, and act accordingly : but his 
 "vast numbers" only show us, that there are other 
 figures besides arithmetical ones, by which the process 
 of multiplication can be effected. — We certainly are 
 not quite ready to submit to the alternative which is 
 here imposed upon us, by which the whole multitude 
 of psedobaptist professors is divided into two classes, 
 ■ — those who have "discernment enough to appreciate 
 the force of evidence, but not piety enough to pursue 
 the path of duty," — and those who have "piety 
 enough to pursue the path of duty, but not discern- 
 ment enough to appreciate the force of evidence." 
 We have the presumption to fancy, that a person may 
 have both discernment and piety, and yet be a predo- 
 baptist. — We desire, however, to be sensible of our 
 
16 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 danger. It is perfectly right that we should be re- 
 minded of it. We are in danger of doing, without 
 thought, what our forefathers have done before us. 
 Dissenters from established articles of faith, and non- 
 conformists to established usages, are generally better 
 acquainted with their principles than those from 
 whom they differ. They are bound to assign a reason 
 for leaving the beaten track ; whilst those who follow 
 it are apt to think it enough that it is beaten, and to 
 move indolently forward. But the danger is not 
 confined to one side. In proportion to the respective 
 numbers of baptist and psedobaptist families, perhaps 
 there may be found as many who hold their views 
 from education, in the one communion, as in the 
 other. And moreover, while the deceitfulness of our 
 hearts should put us on our -guard, on the one hand., 
 against adhering to any practice from the mere force 
 of custom ; it ought, on the other, to make us jealous 
 of the charms of novelty, lest we should too readily 
 renounce a principle or an observance, from fondness 
 of change, or from the secret, though una vowed wish, 
 to obtain a reputation for unusual candour. 
 
 Baptists and psedobaptists ought surely to yield to 
 each other the claim of mutual sincerity. The refusal 
 of this, while it springs from that self-sufficient confi- 
 dence in our own judgment, which questions the 
 possibility of others not seeing as we see, is, at the 
 same time, highly inconsistent with the charity before 
 referred to, which "thinketh no evil." And whilst 
 the suspicion itself, harboured in the mind, is a viola- 
 tion of the Saviour's law of love ; the expression of 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 1/ 
 
 such suspicion, in words or in conduct, tends to pro- 
 voke a temper not less opposed to the spirit of that 
 law, the passion of proud resentment and indignant 
 disdain. — Surely fellow-christians know, how little 
 need there is to stir one another's corruption. They 
 sin deeply against Christ when they do so. And all 
 expressions of contempt and bitterness have this ef- 
 fect, as well as the insinuated suspicion of insincerity. 
 The whole of such treatment, besides, has the tenden- 
 cy to frustrate the very end which, in all our discus- 
 sions, ought to be kept in view : for its effect is, to 
 shut the eyes against the light of truth, and to sum- 
 mon up into action every principle that can resist 
 conviction. "No doubt ye are the people, and wis- 
 dom shall die with you ; but I have understanding 
 as well as you, I am not inferior to you,"* — is the 
 language which all such treatment, and especially the 
 display of self-sufficiency and scorn, naturally prompts 
 us, with a return of similar feelings, to employ. And 
 there can be no state of mind more unfavourable than 
 this to the discovery and reception of truth. 
 
 Thinking ourselves right, and thinking those who 
 differ from us wrong, are expressions of equivalent 
 import : and if we feel the spirit of genuine brotherly 
 love, we cannot but be desirous that our fellow-chris- 
 tians should discern and relinquish what are, in our 
 apprehension, their errors. But let us beware of put- 
 ting any thing in the room of Christ. Let us be- 
 ware of refusing to acknowledge, in the character of 
 
 * Job xii. 2, 3. 
 B 
 
18 INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 ''brethren beloved/' any who give evidence that 
 " Christ has received them." To a believer's mind, 
 there is something inexpressibly awful in the idea of 
 his affections being confined within narrower limits 
 than the love of Jesus ; — of any consideration being a 
 bar against admission into his heart, that does not 
 exclude from the heart of his Divine Master ; — of any 
 being refused a part in his prayer for the household 
 of faith, who are subjects of the Saviour's intercession 
 within the vail ! 
 
 Pitiably dreary must be the mind of that man, who 
 can look round on the wide world, and count his 
 dozen or his score, whom alone he can salute as 
 brethren, or expect to accompany to heaven ! — Far 
 from me and from my christian friends be that self- 
 sufficient bigotry, which freezes the fountain of love, 
 and keeps the heart cold under the melting beams of 
 the sun of righteousness ! — While we seek the Spirit 
 of Christ for the discernment of truth and duty, and 
 for enabling us, meekly but firmly, to adhere to what 
 we deem his revealed will ; let us, on the point before 
 us, and on other similar particulars, bear with diver- 
 sity of judgment in those who "hold the Head," and 
 who give evidence, in their general character, that 
 they do not resist or trifle with the authority of the 
 same Lord — "both theirs and ours." 
 
 " Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus 
 Christ in sincerity !" — whose love to him is not the 
 faithless profession of lying lips, nor the lukewarm 
 fickleness of a heart divided between him and the 
 world, — but unfeigned, supreme, and constant ; — re- 
 
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS. 19 
 
 garding its object in his true character, as the Divine 
 and only Saviour ; — and evincing its reality by a life 
 of holy obedience and unreserved submission to his 
 will, — by a desire to know and to follow, in every 
 thing, the light of his word ! 
 
 Under the influence of such feelings as these, I 
 desire to pursue the present discussion. I shall divide 
 ray argument into three general heads, and shall allot 
 to each a distinct section : — 
 
 I. The divinely instituted practice, previously to 
 the New Testament dispensation, and the absence of 
 all evidence authorising a departure from that prac- 
 tice under it : — 
 
 II. Evidence of the fact, that, instead of such de- 
 parture being authorised, the children of converts to 
 the faith of the gospel were actually baptized along 
 with their parents, in the time of the apostles : — 
 
 III. The important truths and duties which the 
 baptism of infants exhibits, and impresses upon our 
 minds ; and the perfect consistency of the adminis- 
 tration of this ordinance to them with all that the 
 Bible teaches us respecting them, as subjects of salva- 
 tion, and of the kingdom of heaven. 
 
20 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 THE DIVINELY INSTITUTED PRACTICE PREVIOUSLY TO THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT DISPENSATION, AND THE ABSENCE OF 
 ALL EVIDENCE AUTHORISING A DEPARTURE FROM THAT 
 PRACTICE UNDER IT. 
 
 We state our argument thus : — Before the coming of 
 Christ, the covenant of grace had been revealed ; and 
 under that covenant there existed a divinely institut- 
 ed connexion between children and their parents ; the 
 sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant was, 
 by divine appointment, administered to children ; and 
 there can be produced no satisfactory evidence of this 
 connexion having been done away. 
 
 It is not my purpose to enter very largely into 
 the wide field which these propositions, directly and 
 indirectly, embrace. I shall endeavour, as briefly as 
 I can, to establish the two following points : — 1 . 
 That the covenant of promise made by God with 
 Abraham was, in substance, the new covenant, — the 
 covenant of grace, — the same covenant which, under 
 a fuller, and clearer, and simpler discovery of it, forms 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 21 
 
 now the basis of the christian church : — and, 2. That 
 the ordinance of circumcision was connected with the 
 Abrahamic covenant, in this view of it. 
 
 1 . Of the first of these two propositions, that the 
 covenant made with Abraham was the gospel cove- 
 nant, the proof is, or ought to be, very short. It is 
 the plain and positive declaration of an inspired 
 apostle. The reader will find it in the third chapter 
 of the Epistle to the Galatians, the 17th and 18th 
 verses : — " And this I say, that the covenant which 
 "was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, 
 ' 'which was four hundred and thirty years after, 
 "cannot disannul, that it should make the promise 
 "of God of no effect. For if the inheritance be of 
 "the law, it is no more of promise; but God gave 
 "it to Abraham by promise." — I have never, I con- 
 fess, been able to fancy to myself any thing plainer 
 than this ; and although much has been said and 
 written calculated to mystify the subject, and involve 
 it in perplexity, here it stands as plain as ever. The 
 covenant spoken of in these words was not the law, 
 or Sinaitic covenant ; for it existed four hundred and 
 thirty years before it, and was not at all disannulled 
 or set aside by it : — it was a covenant of promise, as 
 opposed, in the apostle's reasoning, to any thing rest- 
 ing on the conditions of law : — it was "confirmed 
 before of God in Christ" — an expression which, 
 translate it as you will, can be naturally applied to 
 no other covenant but one : — and believers in Christ, 
 under the New Testament dispensation, are declared, 
 in the concluding verse of the same chapter, to be 
 
22 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 •'heirs according to the promise" of that covenant. 
 Take the three expressions, in the 16th, the 18th, 
 and the 29th verses in connexion, (for there is no- 
 thing in the intermediate statement and reasoning to 
 disjoin them, hut only links that bring them toge- 
 ther), and this will be strikingly apparent : — " Now 
 to Abraham and his seed were the promises made :" 
 — "If the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of 
 promise ; but God gave it to Abraham by promise :" 
 — "and if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
 and heirs according to the promise.'" — Heirs of what? 
 Of the inheritance promised, in the covenant, to Abra- 
 ham and his seed. The covenant, therefore, contain- 
 ed the promise of the heavenly or eternal inheritance. 
 But, except as couched under the promise of the earth- 
 ly, the temporal, the typical inheritance, it contained 
 no such thing. Both the earthly and the heavenly, 
 then, were the subjects of promise ; and of both alike 
 it is affirmed, that they were obtained and held, not 
 by law, but by faith in the promise. Had it been 
 otherwise, the type would have failed in one of the 
 most important and interesting points of resemblance. 
 — The same lesson is taught with no less plainness 
 and decisiveness, in Rom. iv. 13, 14. "For the pro- 
 "mise, that he should be the heir of the world, was 
 "not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, 
 " but through the righteousness of faith. For if they 
 " who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and 
 "the promise made of none effect." — It is needless 
 to enlarge on the particular phrase here used, " the 
 promise that he should be the heir of the world.'" 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 23 
 
 It holds the same place in the reasoning in this pas- 
 sage, that the simpler designation " the inheritance " 
 does, in the epistle to the Galatians. It will be ad- 
 mitted to include the promise of the earthly Canaan ; 
 — for the literal terms of the covenant specified it, 
 and it alone ; and it were strange if the inheritance 
 specifically mentioned in the terms of the covenant, 
 should not be meant at all when the promise of the 
 covenant is spoken of: and there can be as little 
 doubt that in the apostle's reasoning the heavenly in- 
 heritance is assumed to be also included, since it is 
 respecting it that his inferences and conclusions are 
 drawn. — The covenant, then, which was "confirmed 
 of God in Christ," — which preceded the law by four 
 hundred and thirty years, and was entirely indepen- 
 dent of it, — which was founded in free promise, in 
 opposition to legal conditions, — and which contained 
 amongst its promises that of the heavenly inherit- 
 ance, of which New Testament believers are heirs ; — 
 this covenant must be in substance the same with 
 the gospel, or the covenant of grace. 
 
 2. Our second proposition, and one of primary 
 importance in the present discussion, is, that the rite 
 of circumcision was connected with this covenant, as 
 a covenant of spiritual blessings. I have dwelt the 
 more briefly on the first, because the discussion 
 of the second will serve further to illustrate and 
 confirm it. 
 
 This second proposition appears to me as evident, 
 as the terms of a plain historical narrative can make 
 it. The following is the account of the matter in 
 
24 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 the book of Genesis : — "And when Abram was 
 "ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to 
 "Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty 
 "God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And 
 " I will make my covenant between me and thee, 
 "and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram 
 "fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, 
 "As for me, behold a my covenant is with thee, and 
 "thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither 
 " shall thy name any more be called Abram ; but 
 "thy name shall be Abraham : for a father of many 
 " nations have I made thee. And I will make thee 
 " exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, 
 " and kings shall come out of thee. And I will 
 " establish my covenant between me and thee, and 
 " thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an 
 "everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and 
 " to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, 
 " and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou 
 "art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- 
 lasting possession; and I will be their God. And 
 " God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my 
 "covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, 
 "in their generations. This is my covenant, which 
 " ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed 
 " after thee : — Every man-child among you shall be 
 " circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of 
 " your foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the cove- 
 " nant betwixt me and you." Gen. xvii. 1 — 11. 
 
 Such are the terms of the covenant to which the 
 ordinance of circumcision was annexed, and which 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 25 
 
 we affirm to be in substance the covenant of grace. — 
 There are two theories of explanation, by which our 
 baptist brethren have attempted to evade the conclu- 
 sion to which this would lead. To each of these I 
 must beg the reader's attention. 
 
 1. The first of the two, and the more ordinary 
 one, is that which alleges, that the covenant made 
 with Abraham consisted properly of two distinct cove- 
 nants, the one a covenant of temporal promises, the 
 other of spiritual ; the former having reference to 
 the natural, and the latter to the spiritual seed of 
 Abraham ; and that it was with the former, and not 
 with the latter, that circumcision was connected. 
 
 On this representation of the case let it be ob- 
 served, 
 
 In the first place, that no such distinction appears 
 on the face of the narrative. Circumcision is enjoin- 
 ed, as the token of " the covenant" considered as 
 comprehending all the blessings enumerated as per- 
 taining to it. It is not said, that circumcision was 
 to be the token of that part of the covenant that 
 engaged for temporal blessings to Abraham's fleshly 
 seed ; but of the covenant throughout, as exhibited in 
 the above passage. There is nothing whatever in the 
 simple statement of the history, not even the most 
 remote insinuation, that warrants the introduction of 
 the distinction in question. 
 
 Secondly : No such distinction is any where dis- 
 cernible in the apostle's reasoning. It is neither di- 
 rectly made, nor even incidentally alluded to. The 
 blessings of the covenant in general, all its blessings, 
 
26* OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 temporal and spiritual, and especially the two inheri- 
 tances, the earthly and the heavenly, the typical and 
 the typified, are there represented as alike given by 
 promise, as obtained and held by the same seed, on 
 the same ground : — Gal. hi. 15, 16 — " Brethren, I 
 " speak after the manner of men : though it be but a 
 " man's covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man dis- 
 " annulleth, or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham 
 " and his seed were the promises made : he saith not, 
 " And to seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to 
 "thy seed, which is Christ." — What we have at 
 present to notice is, not the promises themselves, or 
 the seed to whom they were made, but the simple 
 fact, stated in terms the most plain and unequivocal, 
 that "the promises" of the covenant, without any 
 hinted discrimination, were made to the same seed 
 on the same ground. 
 
 Thirdly : The rite of circumcision itself is admitted 
 by our baptist brethren in general, to be significant 
 of spiritual blessings : — who, indeed, that attentively 
 reads either Old or New Testament, can question it ? 
 It is significant, according to a writer on that side of 
 the controversy, of "cleansing from sin" — and "not 
 " only of the purity of moral holiness, but also of the 
 "cleansing from the guilt of sin in justification." 
 And, agreeably to this spiritual import of the rite, we 
 so frequently read of the "circumcision of the heart," 
 with other equivalent phrases ; which the apostle fine- 
 ly explains, when he says, " He is not a Jew who is 
 "one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is 
 " outward in the flesh ; but he is a Jew who is one 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 2/ 
 
 " inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in 
 "the spirit and not in the letter; whose praise is not 
 "of men, but of God." Rom. ii. 28, 29. Now it 
 is not easy to perceive, with what propriety, or con- 
 sistency, a sign, admitted to be significant of the 
 highest spiritual blessings, should be made the seal, 
 or the token, of a covenant of temporal promises and 
 temporal blessings alone. — Consistency seems to re- 
 quire, either that the spiritual signification of circum- 
 cision should be given up, or that the covenant, of 
 which it was the appointed token, should be allowed 
 to have contained spiritual as well as temporal pro- 
 mises. 
 
 Fourthly : Circumcision is most expressly pronounc- 
 ed by the apostle, to have been a sign and a seal of 
 spiritual blessings, and especially of that first bless- 
 ing of the gospel covenant, justification by faith : — 
 "Abraham," says he, "received the sign of circum- 
 " cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which 
 " he had being yet uncircumcised ; that he might be 
 "the father of all them that believe, though they be 
 " not circumcised, that righteousness might be imput- 
 "ed unto them also," Rom. iv. 11 : — the meaning of 
 which words evidently is, not that the sign of circum- 
 cision was to Abraham the seal of his own personal 
 justification, — for this would have been incompatible 
 with subsequent trial, and with his " giving diligence," 
 like other believers, " to make his calling and election 
 sure," — inasmuch as it is impossible to arrive at a 
 greater degree of certainty, than that which is given 
 by the sealed testimony of God ; — but rather, that 
 
28 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 it was the seal of that covenant, according to whose 
 provisions, all sinners, believing as he believed, were, 
 like him, to be justified by faith. — To this covenant, 
 according to the apostle, circumcision was annexed. 
 
 Fifthly : By those who hold this distinction, the 
 temporal half of the covenant is supposed to have 
 been the same with the law or Sinai covenant, which 
 was entered into four hundred and thirty years after 
 with the people of Israel, the natural descendants of 
 Abraham. — Now I must beg the reader to observe, 
 how greatly this view mars the force, and invalidates 
 the conclusiveness, of the apostle's argument, with re- 
 gard to the ground of Abraham's justification. — In 
 those parts of his Epistles to the Romans and to the 
 Galatians where this subject is treated of, his leading 
 design is to prove, for the establishment of Jewish 
 and Gentile believers, for the conviction of his un- 
 believing countrymen, and for the refutation of false 
 teachers, the doctrine of justification by grace, as hav- 
 ing been, from the beginning, the doctrine of the word 
 of God. He selects, as an instance to his purpose, 
 the case of Abraham. He shows that this patriarch, 
 in whom the Jews were wont to glory, was himself 
 justified, not by the law, but on the footing of a cove- 
 nant which was made four hundred and thirty years 
 before it. Now, if this covenant be considered as 
 entirely distinct from the law, the argument is per- 
 spicuous and conclusive. But it requires no great 
 measure of penetration to perceive, how much its 
 force and decisiveness are impaired by the view which 
 I am opposing ; according to which, the law, instead 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 29 
 
 of being four hundred and thirty years after this 
 covenant, and altogether distinct from it, was in fact 
 coeval with it, and formed one of its branches. I 
 appeal to every candid and discerning mind, if this 
 does not introduce confusion and feebleness into the 
 apostle's reasoning. Surely, without some further ex- 
 planations and distinctions, which he has not thought 
 it necessary to introduce, it cannot be deemed a very 
 appropriate or satisfactory inference, — that Abraham 
 could not be justified by the law, because he was justi- 
 fied on the footing of a covenant of which the law 
 was a part ! 
 
 II. The second of the two theories of explanation, 
 by which our baptist brethren parry the conclusion, 
 deducible from the annexation of the rite of circum- 
 cision to a covenant of spiritual promises and bless- 
 ings, is this : — they distinguish between the different 
 appearances of God to Abraham, recorded, respective- 
 ly, in the twelfth, the fifteenth, and the seventeenth 
 chapters of the book of Genesis, and represent them 
 as having been, not repetitions of the same covenant, 
 in different forms, under different circumstances, and 
 with different degrees of enlargement and particular- 
 ity of detail, but so many distinct covenants. — That 
 which was made first, and which is contained in 
 the twelfth chapter, is conceived by them to be the 
 one referred to in the apostle's reasoning, as having 
 been four hundred and thirty years before the law, 
 because, upon calculation, this time corresponds with 
 the date of it, and, consequently, of it only. This 
 they admit to be the gospel covenant, containing the 
 
30 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 specific promise, " In thee shall all the families of the 
 earth be blessed." That, on the contrary, of which 
 we have so particular an account in the seventeenth 
 chapter, they conceive to be a covenant of temporal 
 blessings only, and to bear relation solely to the flesh- 
 ly seed or natural offspring of Abraham. To this 
 covenant, it is alleged, circumcision was annexed, and 
 not to the former; and it is it that is denominated 
 "the covenant of circumcision." 
 
 This is the view adopted by the late Mr Archi- 
 bald Maclean, in his Review of my Lectures on the 
 Abrahamic Covenant. In his previous publications, 
 he had avowed and argued upon the other. Whe- 
 ther, when he adopted this new theory, he had at all 
 felt his former ground insecure, I will not presume 
 to say. But although Dr. Cox, in his Treatise before 
 referred to, pronounces the Review a " masterly per- 
 formance," and, on the subject now before us, adopts 
 the ground on which it proceeds, it does, I con- 
 fess, appear to me to be ground far less tenable than 
 even the former. If the former was sand, this is 
 quicksand. 
 
 The following is the brief record of the transaction 
 in the twelfth chapter: "Now the Lord had said unto 
 " Abram, get thee out of thy country, and from thy 
 " kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land 
 " that I will show thee : and I will make of thee a 
 " great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy 
 " name great ; and thou shalt be a blessing : and I 
 " will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that 
 " curseth thee : and in thee shall all families of the 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 31 
 
 " earth be blessed." Gen. xii. 1 — 3. I have formerly 
 quoted the terms of the covenant of circumcision in 
 the seventeenth chapter. See page 24. It ought to 
 require no more than the simple reading of the two 
 passages together, to satisfy any unprejudiced mind, 
 that the latter, though not containing the precise words 
 which are alleged to be the gospel promise, is yet but 
 an amplification of the former : — especially when it is 
 considered, that the covenant recorded in the fifteenth 
 chapter, on the statement of which the apostle founds 
 his principal argument for the justification of Abra- 
 ham by faith without the deeds of the law, does not 
 contain the promise, on which so much stress is laid, 
 that " in him and in his seed should all the families 
 " of the earth be blessed." It contains no more than 
 the assurance of the increase of his seed : — " He 
 " brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now 
 " toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able 
 " to number them : and he said unto him, so shall 
 " thy seed be. And he believed the Lord, and he 
 " counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. xv. 5, 6. 
 The gospel, then, must have been involved in the 
 promise thus given and believed : — for it will not 
 surely be disputed, that it was by the faith of the 
 yospel that Abraham was justified. 
 
 But what most of all surprises me, in regard to this 
 hypothesis, is, that that particular covenant which is 
 supposed to be a covenant of temporal blessings only, 
 to the natural offspring of Abraham, should be the 
 very covenant of which the terms are most distinctly 
 and most frequently quoted, in the New Testament, 
 
32 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 with a spiritual interpretation. That Mr Maclean 
 should have been guilty of such an oversight, affords, 
 I fear, only one exemplification amongst many, of a 
 defect to which even the acutest and most vigorous 
 minds are liable, the unconsciously blinding influence 
 of attachment to system. — But let me bring a proof 
 or two of my position : — 
 
 1. Gen. xvii. 4, 5. "As for me, behold my cove- 
 nant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of 
 " many nations. Neither shall thy name be called any 
 " more Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham ; for 
 " a father of many nations have I made thee." — It 
 was not, a priori, probable, that the memorable cir- 
 cumstance, of the divinely intimated change of the pa- 
 triarch's name, should have been associated with any 
 covenant inferior to that which contained the best and 
 highest blessings ; which God here, as in many other 
 places, appropriately designates "my covenant."* — 
 
 * The change of Sarah's name on the same occasion, is far 
 from affording any valid objection to this remark. It is true 
 that the seal of the covenant was exclusively appropriate 
 to one sex. But to talk of this is mere trifling ; as if any 
 one ever alleged that Abraham's change of name had been 
 introduced on account of his circumcision ! No : it was on 
 account of the Covenant of which circumcision was the seal : 
 and of that covenant Sarah was, by faith, a subject, as well as 
 he, and equally interested in its provisions, both as they regard- 
 ed herself and her promised offspring. That the promise of 
 her being " a mother of nations " was " of purely temporal 
 reference," is by no means so manifest as has been hastily and 
 confidently assumed. Connected as it is, on the same occasion, 
 with Abraham's being a "father of many nations," there is 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 33 
 
 Accordingly, the very promise in the above verses is 
 most expressly applied, by the apostle, to the spiritual 
 seed of Abraham as the father of the faithful,- 1 - the 
 spiritual father of believers in all nations : — Rom. iv. 
 16, 17. "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be 
 « by grace ; to the end the promise might be sure 
 " to all the seed, not to that only which is of the 
 " law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abra- 
 " ham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, 
 " I have made thee a father of many nations,)" &c. 
 — Nothing can be more explicit than this. 
 
 I might ask, indeed, — if this covenant of circum- 
 cision was a covenant of temporal promises merely, 
 to whom were these promises made ? It will at once 
 
 nothing to forbid our understanding it in a similar spiritual 
 sense. The faith of Sarah, in "judging him faithful who had 
 promised," is spoken of with reprobation by the apostle Paul, 
 as well as that of Abraham. It is at the time of the birth 
 of Isaac that the names of both are changed ; and we know, 
 from apostolic explanation, that the promise " In Isaac shall 
 thy seed be called " had a spiritual significance : for thus it is 
 interpreted — "They are not all Israel who are of Israel; neither 
 because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children ; 
 but ' In Isaac shall thy seed be called : ' that is, they who are 
 the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but 
 the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this 
 is the word of promise, ' At this time will I come, and Sarah 
 shall have a son.' " — It seems to me, that the apostle Peter 
 intimates, not merely a resemblance in character, but a spiritual 
 relation, to Sarah, as well as to Abraham, when he says — 
 " Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord : whose 
 daughters ye are, so long as ye do well, and are not afraid with 
 any amazement." 1 Pet. iii. 6. 
 C 
 
34 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 be answered, To the natural offspring of Abraham 
 in the line of Isaac. — I ask, then, again, What con- 
 nexion has the promise " I will make thee a father 
 of many nations" with this part of Abraham's pos- 
 terity? — We can readily perceive its relation to the 
 new or Gospel covenant. It is a declaration regard- 
 ing the extent of the seed to whom its promises were 
 to be fulfilled. But what connexion has it with the 
 descendents of Abraham by Isaac ? It is not a state- 
 ment of the Seed to whom the subsequent promises 
 were to be verified; — for with the promises of such 
 a temporal covenant the "many nations" naturally 
 descended from Abraham had nothing to do — they 
 were expressly excluded from any share in them : — 
 neither is it itself a promise to the seed really intend- 
 ed ; — for that Abraham was to be the father of 
 various peoples and tribes, by Hagar and by Keturah, 
 was surely no peculiar privilege or promised blessing 
 to his seed by Isaac. — Let it not be said, the declara- 
 tion has both a literal, and a typical or spiritual 
 signification : — for this would be to admit the coven- 
 ant to be inclusive of a spiritual seed and spiritual 
 promises, contrary to the principle of the hypothesis 
 at present under consideration ; — according to which, 
 the covenant of circumcision is regarded as distinct 
 from the spiritual covenants admitted to have been 
 previously made. 
 
 2. "And I will establish my covenant between me 
 " and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their genera- 
 " tions, to be a God to thee and to thy seed after 
 thee?' Chap. xvii. 7. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 35 
 
 As to this promise, which certainly sounds very 
 like one of the "exceeding great and precious pro- 
 mises" of the new covenant, it is of essential conse- 
 quence first of all to notice, that in whatever sense 
 God promises here to be a God to Abraham himself, 
 he promises, in the same sense, to be a God to his 
 seed. The promise is one. No hint is ever given of 
 his being the God of Abraham in one sense, and the 
 God of his seed in another. — Now who are the seed 
 to whom Jehovah thus engages to be a God ? Surely 
 the seed specified in the preceding terms of the cove- 
 nant. And who are they ? Have we not the answer 
 given us by inspired authority, in the apostle's inter- 
 pretation of the words — "Thou shalt be a father of 
 many nations ?" If this means, as Paul teaches us 
 it does, his being the spiritual father of believers in 
 all nations, then must not these be the seed of Abra- 
 ham to whom he promises to be a God? — If ob- 
 jections are offered to this, they ought, I think, to be 
 directed against the apostle. 
 
 The New Testament interpretation of the promise 
 itself "I will be a God to thee"— "I will be thy 
 God" — is in perfect accordance with this view of the 
 seed to whom the promise is made. — Jehovah has 
 been the God of his people, in every age, upon the 
 same ground ; and that ground is intimated by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ to be their connexion with him, 
 when he says to Mary Magdalene, after his resurrec- 
 tion, "Go, tell my disciples, I ascend to my Father 
 " and your Father, to my God and your God." John 
 xx. 17. — The full import of the interesting designa- 
 
3t> OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 tion may appear from the following passages of scrip- 
 ture : — 
 
 In Matt. xxii. 31, 32. Jesus concludes his reply 
 to the Sadducees, respecting the resurrection and a 
 future state, with these words, in evidence of his 
 doctrine : — " But as touching the resurrection of the 
 " dead, have ye not read that which was spoken to 
 " you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, 
 " and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? God 
 "is not the God of the dead, but of the living." — 
 From this passage it is evident, without entering into 
 any discussion of the nature and extent of the entire 
 argument, that as " their God," declaring himself to 
 sustain the relation so long after their decease, he had 
 received their spirits to blessedness with himself, and 
 also — the resurrection of the dead being the subject 
 in question — that he was to raise their bodies from 
 the grave, — to "show them the path of life," — to 
 put them in possession, in body and soul together, of 
 those "pleasures which are at his right hand for 
 evermore;" and so to fulfil to them the promise of 
 " everlasting inheritance." 
 
 Compare with this passage, Heb. xi. 13 — 16. 
 " These all died in faith, not having received the 
 "promises, but having seen them afar off, and were 
 " persuaded of them, and embraced them, and con- 
 " fessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on 
 "the earth. For they that say such things declare 
 " plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if 
 " they had been mindful of that country from whence 
 " they came out, they might have had opportunity 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 37 
 
 " to have returned : but now they desire a better 
 " country, that is, an heavenly : wherefore God is not 
 " ashamed to be called their God ; for he hath pre- 
 pared for them a city." The faith, and hope, and 
 desire of the patriarchs, are here represented as 
 having for their object the heavenly country. This 
 they expected to receive from God as their God, 
 according to the promise of his covenant ; and we are 
 assured, that as their God he would not disappoint 
 their most enlarged and elevated hopes, founded as 
 they were on his own word. " God is not ashamed 
 " to be called their God, for he hath prepared for 
 "them a city." Can any inference be more simple 
 or direct from such a passage, than that God would 
 have been ashamed to be called their God, had he not 
 provided for them such a city as is here referred to, 
 the " city which hath foundations, whose builder and 
 " maker he himself is," ver. 10. — that he would have 
 been ashamed to represent himself in so high, so 
 close, so endearing a relation to them, had the title 
 been accompanied with the bestowment of a mere 
 earthly inheritance — a temporal blessing only ; had 
 he prepared for them any thing that would have 
 fallen short of their hopes, and failed to satisfy the 
 utmost extent of their desires? The title and the 
 gift would have been incongruous ; as when a man 
 raises our expectations by high professions of friend- 
 ship, and then puts us off with a comparative trifle. 
 God's gifts are more worthy of himself, and of the 
 relations which he has graciously assumed, and re- 
 vealed himself as sustaining, towards his people. 
 
38 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 This promise, indeed, " I will be thy God," is 
 often expressed as a principal one amongst the en- 
 gagements of the new covenant, and has ever been 
 acknowledged and felt by his people, as " the fulness 
 " of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ." In evi- 
 dence of this, the reader may consult the following 
 passages of the Old and New Testament scriptures ; 
 and if he is well acquainted with his Bible, he will be 
 able to add to them many more. Jer. xxxi. 33. xxxii. 
 38—40. Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24; 30, 31. xxxvi. 25—28. 
 xxxvii. 27. Heb. viii. 10. 2 Cor. vi. 16—18. 
 
 It is no valid objection to this, that God is so fre- 
 quently spoken of as the God of the nation of Israel; 
 and that, in assuming this relation to them, as a 
 nation, he represents himself as " remembering his 
 covenant" with their fathers. Exod. vi. 4 — 8. Lev. 
 xxvi. 12, &c — It should be recollected, that the 
 nation of Israel, springing from Abraham, in the line 
 of Isaac and Jacob, was the Church of God. Now 
 God has been the God of his church, collectively con- 
 sidered, and regarded as containing the true Israel, in 
 the same sense, in all ages. I will not multiply pas- 
 sages in proof of this. Let the following, from the 
 prophecies of Isaiah, serve as a specimen. Any reader, 
 who is familiar with his Bible, will be able to add 
 parallels to an almost indefinite extent. Isa. xliii. 1 — 7. 
 ?' But now, saith the Lord that created thee, O Jacob, 
 "and he that formed thee, Israel, fear not : for I 
 "have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy 
 "name; thou art mine. When thou passest through 
 " the waters, I will be with thee ; and through the 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 39 
 
 " rivers, they shall not overflow thee : when thou 
 " walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burnt ; 
 " neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I 
 " am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy 
 " Saviour : I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia 
 " and Seba for thee. Since thou wast precious in my 
 " sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved 
 " thee : therefore will I give men for thee, and people 
 " for thy life. Fear not ; for I am with thee : I will 
 " bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from 
 " the west; I will say to the north, give up; and to 
 " the south, keep not back : bring my sons from far, 
 " and my daughters from the ends of the earth : even 
 " every one that is called by my name: for I have 
 " created him for my glory, I have formed him ; yea, 
 " I have made him." In these verses is a reference 
 to what God had done, in manifestation of his love to 
 his people, and of the value he set upon them ; and 
 there are, at the same time, promises of what he was 
 to do for them in future times : — yet he speaks of 
 himself as bearing the same relation to them all along 
 — from the beginning to the end — when he "gave 
 Egypt for their ransom," and when, in the latter 
 days, he " brings his sons from far, and his daughters 
 " from the ends of the earth :" — " I am Jehovah thy 
 " God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour." 
 
 It is worthy of particular notice, that the appear- 
 ance of Jehovah to Abraham recorded in the seven- 
 teenth chapter of Genesis, is the only occasion on 
 which this promise is made to the patriarch. It is not 
 to be found, either in the twelfth, or in the fifteenth, 
 
40 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 or subsequently in the twenty -second. If, therefore, 
 the covenant in the seventeenth chapter was a cove- 
 nant of temporal promises only, then this promise was 
 never made to Abraham at all in its spiritual meaning ; 
 in that meaning which alone gave it real worth, in 
 which alone it is applicable to the followers of Abra- 
 ham's faith, and in which the New Testament scrip- 
 tures explain and make so much of it ! Is this 
 credible, — is this possible ? 
 
 3. " And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed 
 " after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all 
 " the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession." 
 — The question is not, whether this is a promise of 
 the earthly Canaan. No one, I presume, ever ques- 
 tioned that. But is it a promise of the earthly 
 Canaan only ? That the promise of the temporal 
 inheritance does, in one or other or all of its occur- 
 rences, include under it the promise of the eternal, 
 must be very evident from this one consideration, that 
 if it be not so, the eternal inheritance was never, so 
 far as appears, promised at all. Yet surely it was 
 upon the ground of promises actually recorded, that 
 Abraham and the other believing patriarchs looked for 
 the heavenly country. That they did look for it, we 
 know ; and it is equally sure, from the apostle's lan- 
 guage in the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews, for- 
 merly quoted — that they founded their expectations 
 on Divine promise : — " By faith Abraham sojourned 
 " in the land of promise, as in a strange country, 
 " dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the 
 " heirs with him of the same promise: for," — on the 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 41 
 
 ground of that promise surely — " he looked for a city 
 " which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is 
 " God." Heb. xi. 9, 10. The hope of the heavenly 
 Canaan, then, was founded on the promise of the 
 earthly, understood as typical, and comprehensive of 
 higher blessings than the literal terms imported ; and, 
 at the same time, on the promise, " I will be thy 
 God," which also, as we have seen, included spirit- 
 ual and eternal blessings. — Indeed the whole of the 
 gospel revelation then was, and for ages afterwards 
 continued, under the vail of figurative language, and 
 of typical rites, objects, and events. To have given, in 
 clear and explicit terms, the full promise of the eternal 
 inheritance, would not have been consistent with the 
 divine scheme of gradual development, nor with the 
 fact of "life and immortality being brought to light 
 " by Jesus Christ." But that the promise was given, 
 is manifest from the apostolic representation, and 
 from his saying elsewhere, respecting those patriarchs 
 who, though they "sojourned" in the land of Canaan, 
 received " no inheritance in it, no not so much as to 
 " set their foot on," that on their following each 
 other, by death, to heaven, "through faith and pa- 
 " tience they inherited the promises." — I might show 
 the spiritual meaning of the phraseology in Gen. xvii. 
 in some other particulars ; but I am desirous to con- 
 fine myself to such as are expressly interpreted in the 
 New Testament scriptures. 
 
 From these considerations, it appears to me " pass- 
 ing strange," that this should be the covenant (sup- 
 posing it a distinct one from the rest) selected for 
 
42 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 degradation to a mere covenant of temporal promises 
 to the natural offspring ! The promises which it con- 
 tains are evidently the same in substance with those 
 given at previous appearances, only more amply un- 
 folded: — and that there is not the least necessity for 
 considering every successive appearance as a distinct 
 covenant, Mr Maclean himself may be cited as autho- 
 rity : for, after intimating the propriety of following 
 what he alleges to be the scriptural representation of 
 the case, and taking up the communications recorded 
 in the 12th, 15th, and 1/th chapters of Genesis, as so 
 many distinct covenants, he yet admits that the cove- 
 nant confirmed by oath in the twenty-second chapter, 
 at a period still later, was in substance the same as 
 that in the twelfth, the earliest of all. But if we are 
 warranted in considering the earliest and the latest as 
 the same, we cannot surely be very far wrong in so 
 considering the others that were intermediate. 
 
 It was with this covenant, then, which the apostle 
 so explicitly declares to have been the covenant of 
 grace, "confirmed before of God in Christ," — that 
 the rite of circumcision was connected. — There are 
 some, however, of our baptist brethren, who readily 
 admit the spiritual nature of the Abrahamic covenant, 
 but declare themselves incapable of perceiving the 
 legitimacy and conclusiveness of the inference we 
 deduce from it, and who therefore regard all our rea- 
 sonings in support of it, so far as the subject of bap- 
 tism is concerned, as thrown away. — This has always 
 appeared to me very surprising. If the connexion 
 between parents and children, recognised in that ordi- 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 43 
 
 nance, had belonged only to the old or Sinai covenant, 
 and if the ordinance of circumcision, instead of being 
 "of the fathers" had been exclusively " of Moses," 
 pertaining solely to that temporary dispensation of 
 which he was the mediator, — we should then have 
 seen a good reason why both the connexion itself and 
 the ordinance that marked it should have ceased toge- 
 ther, when the dispensation came to a close with which 
 they were associated. — But if (as our Lord himself 
 declares, John vii. 22,) circumcision was " not of 
 Moses, but of the fathers ;" — if it originally pertained 
 to a covenant that never " decayeth or waxeth old •" 
 and if, under that covenant, children were connected 
 with their parents in the application of the sign and 
 seal : — then we must insist upon it, that the burden 
 of proof rests upon our opponents. They demand of 
 us express precept for our practice. We are better 
 entitled to demand of them express precept for theirs. 
 If the covenant made with Abraham be indeed God's 
 everlasting covenant of grace, — and if the sign and 
 seal of this covenant was administered by God's com- 
 mand to the children of those who professed the faith 
 of xibraham, and to them in their turn became, as it 
 had been to him, a "seal of the righteousness of 
 faith" — (and who can deny that it was such to Isaac 
 and Jacob, the "heirs with him of the same pro- 
 mise ?" and if to them, why not to other believers ?) 
 — if these things, I say, be so, — then where, we ask, 
 is any change in the constitution of the covenant in 
 this respect pointed out? When were children ex- 
 cluded, and by what law ? Let an express repealing 
 
44 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 statute be shown us, and we will immediately relin- 
 quish our practice. The alteration of an old consti- 
 tution, or the setting aside of an old law, as was 
 formerly hinted, requires an express precept, as much 
 as the appointment of a constitution or law entirely 
 new. To speak of the abolition, tacit or express, of 
 the old economy, the Mosaic dispensation, is nothing 
 to the purpose: because the apostle assures us, that 
 the covenant of circumcision, so far from being a part 
 of the law, and partaking of its temporary and evanes- 
 cent nature, was a covenant which existed long before 
 it, which could not be disannulled either by its intro- 
 duction or its cessation, but which continues to this 
 day. — By confounding this covenant with the law, and 
 including any part of its gracious provisions in " that 
 which decayed, and waxed old, and vanished away," 
 you set the law " against the promises of God," and 
 throw into confusion and inconclusiveness the simple 
 and beautiful reasoning of the apostle, in both his 
 epistles, to the Romans and to the Galatians. — That 
 the particular rite is changed we have abundant evi- 
 dence ; and satisfactory reasons for the change might 
 be assigned, although it does not come within our 
 province with certainty to assign them, nor can they 
 reasonably be demanded of us.* But of any altera- 
 
 * Besides its import as denoting the " putting off the body of 
 the sins of the flesh," circumcision was, in all probability, in- 
 tended as a sign that the seed, in whom all nations were to be 
 blessed, should come from the loins of Abraham. Of this it 
 was a significant emblem and remembrancer. The promise of 
 the Messiah was restricted to the line of descent bv Isaac. In 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 45 
 
 tion as to the admission of children with their parents 
 to the sign and seal and blessing of the covenant, we 
 are destitute of evidence entirely. Nothing whatever 
 can be produced in the form of a direct repeal ; and as 
 to the inferential reasoning which has been employed 
 to set aside the previously existing connexion, we 
 shall have occasion to examine it in next section of 
 this treatise. 
 
 I am aware, indeed, how frequently and how con- 
 fidently it has been alleged, that the words of insti- 
 tution, as they have been improperly called — impro- 
 perly as to the rite itself at least, which was not at 
 that time first instituted, but had been practised be- 
 fore — involved a repeal, by declaring that none are to 
 be baptized but such as are capable of being taught. 
 The well-known words are : "Go ye, therefore, and 
 " teach (or disciple pxhTivcctn) all nations, baptizing 
 " them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 " and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe 
 
 this line, therefore, the rite became a memorial of the promise 
 that Messiah should he " made flesh " amongst them. And I 
 douht not that, in other lines also of descent from Abraham, 
 the same rite, originally administered by the command of God, 
 to all his family, had its influence, in a general way, in preserv- 
 ing the idea and expectation of the promised seed. If this he 
 well founded, we at once perceive a good reason why circum- 
 cision should he abolished ivhen this seed came ; and why 
 another rite should be substituted in its place, which as ex- 
 pressly, or more so, continued to signify the " putting off the 
 body of the sins of the flesh," while it ceased to be significant 
 of that part of the meaning of the former symbol, which had 
 noir received its fulfilment. 
 
46 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 "all things whatsoever I have commanded you." 
 Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 The reply to this is simple and satisfactory; al- 
 though I am sufficiently aware, how strongly a certain 
 habit of mind, in viewing a particular passage, tends 
 to prevent the clear perception of the validity of any 
 reasoning, directed against the sense thus habitually 
 and systematically affixed to it. — Suppose the ordi- 
 nance of circumcision had been to continue, and the 
 command had run in these terms : — " Go ye, there- 
 " fore, and disciple all nations, circumcising them in 
 " the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 " Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things," 
 &c. Had such language been used, we should have 
 known that children were to be the subjects of the 
 prescribed rite, as well as their parents : the previously 
 existing practice would have ascertained this. Now, 
 should we, even with this knowledge, have been sen- 
 sible of the smallest impropriety or inconsistency in 
 the use of such language? Would it have appeared to 
 us, in even the slightest degree, contradictory or incon- 
 gruous 1 Would it have been understood by the apos- 
 tles, as necessarily excluding children ? Would they 
 certainly have inferred from it, that although the same 
 rite was to continue, there was to be a change in the 
 subjects of it 1 — that none now were to be circumcised 
 but those who were capable of immediate instruction 
 in the will of Christ, and practical compliance with it ? 
 No : there is nothing in the terms of the commission 
 that could at all have led them to such a conclusion. 
 They would, without hesitation, have gone on to cir- 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 4/ 
 
 cumcise children with their parents as formerly, teach- 
 ing the parents the mind and will of Christ, and 
 charging them to instruct their rising offspring. And 
 if a commission to circumcise, given in these terms, 
 would not have been understood as necessarily exclud- 
 ing children, it can never be shown that a commission 
 in the same terms to baptize must have been so 
 understood. The practical evidence that the apostles 
 actually did not so understand it, will be afterwards 
 considered. — In the mean time, permit me to observe, 
 we have, in a parallel passage of scripture, most satis- 
 factory evidence of the justness of these remarks. I 
 refer to Gal. v. 2 — 5. "Behold, I Paul say unto you, 
 " that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you 
 "nothing. For I testify again to every man that is 
 " circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 
 " Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of 
 "you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from 
 " grace." — In the 27th verse of the third chapter of 
 the same Epistle, the apostle says : — " For as many 
 " of you as have been baptized into Christ (or, ye, 
 "whosoever have been baptized into Christ) have 
 " put on Christ." From this expression it has been 
 very confidently argued, that adults only were bap- 
 tized, because of " putting on Christ" adults only 
 were capable. — Now, let this principle of interpreta- 
 tion, or of inference, be applied to the passage quoted 
 from the fifth chapter. It is an address to adults : 
 — it expresses things of which adults only were 
 capable. Are we, then, to infer from this, that 
 adidts only were circumcised ? Such, certainly, ought 
 
48 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 to be our inference, on the same principle on Which 
 we infer, from the other, that adults alone were bap- 
 tized. There is precisely the same ground in the 
 former case, as there is in the latter. Yet we know, 
 that in the latter the inference would be contrary to 
 fact ; for nothing can be more certain than that, when 
 Gentile converts were circumcised, it was, in confor- 
 mity with Jewish practice, along with their children. 
 A principle of criticism, therefore, which, applied in 
 one case, leads to a conclusion at variance with known 
 facts, cannot with any fairness, nay, cannot, without 
 the risk, and more than the risk, of mistake and 
 error, be applied in another. — The truth is, that the 
 strict application of such a principle to language of 
 this general kind, would lead us into innumerable 
 absurdities. 
 
 I may here, by the way, take notice of a difficulty 
 which has been suggested, from the passage which I 
 have just quoted, in regard to the import of circum- 
 cision, and its identity under the one dispensation 
 with baptism under the other. How, it has been 
 asked, should circumcision exclude from the grace 
 and blessings of the gospel covenant, if it was con- 
 nected with that covenant, and signified the same 
 thing with baptism ? * But the moment we recollect 
 to what description of doctrine the apostle is here 
 opposing himself, the solution of the difficulty is at 
 once apparent. It is the doctrine of those who 
 taught the Gentile brethren, that, " except they were 
 
 * See Maclean, Rev. p. 21. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 49 
 
 circumcised after the manner of Moses they could not 
 be saved" — that "it was necessary," namely, to 
 their salvation, "to circumcise them, and to com- 
 mand them to keep the law of Moses." Acts xv. 
 1, 5, 24. — Now when, in such a connexion, the 
 apostle says, "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall 
 profit you nothing," it is equivalent to his saying, 
 "if ye embrace this doctrine, Christ shall profit you 
 nothing." This is clear from the circumstance, that 
 " being circumcised " in the one verse corresponds 
 to "being justified by the law" in the other: in 
 the one he says, " If ye be circumcised, Christ shall 
 profit you nothing;" — in the other, "Christ is be- 
 come of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are 
 justified by the law." — He reminds them, therefore, 
 that if they embraced this doctrine, they renounced 
 the grace of the gospel ; and that if they persisted 
 in seeking justification by circumcision and the law, 
 they should bear in mind what the law required of 
 them in order to their attaining their end; — that 
 nothing would suffice short of their " doing the whole 
 law," yielding to it a sinless obedience. — That such 
 is the import of the phrase "if ye be circumcised," 
 is further evident from the case of Abraham and 
 the original circumcision. Abraham was circumcised : 
 but surely " Christ " did not therefore " profit him 
 nothing;" — he did not "fall from grace." So far 
 from it, that his circumcision was the seal to him of 
 the righteousness, not of works, but of faith — not 
 of law, but of grace. — The Gentile Christians " being 
 circumcised," therefore, was not their mere submis- 
 
 D 
 
50 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 sion to the rite, but their dependence upon it, in 
 connexion with the law of Moses, for justification : 
 and no person, acquainted with the spirit of the 
 apostle's writings on this subject, will question the 
 position, that in similar circumstances, he would have 
 said the very same thing of baptism, that he says of 
 circumcision. He who now trusts for acceptance to 
 his baptism, as effectually falls from Christ and from 
 grace, as he who trusted of old to his circumcision. 
 
 Before closing this section, I may offer a few fur- 
 ther strictures, on the reasonings of some of the op- 
 ponents of peedobaptism, on one of the leading topics 
 discussed in it, — namely, the true nature of the cove- 
 nant of circumcision, and the import of the rite as 
 connected with it; strictures, which I have reserved 
 for this place, in order to avoid giving a dispropor- 
 tionate extension to one of the links in the chain of 
 my own argument, by which the reader might have 
 been in danger of losing sight of the connexion. 
 They will, however, serve to give further confirma- 
 tion to the general principles which it has been my 
 endeavour to establish. 
 
 Of the covenant in Gen. xvii. Mr Maclean thus 
 writes, contrasting it with the promise in the 12th 
 Chapter : "The first promise made to Abraham, Gen. 
 "xii. 3, is termed 'the covenant which was con- 
 " firmed before of God in Christ,' Gal. hi. 17, and 
 "contained a promise of blessing all nations, i.e. all 
 "Abraham's spiritual or believing seed of Jews and 
 " Gentiles. But the covenant of circumcision did not 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 51 
 
 "include the Gentiles, but was a peculiar covenant 
 "with the natural posterity of Abraham, who were 
 "to receive the token of it in their flesh in infancy, 
 " as a people separated unto God from all others, and 
 "of whom Messiah was to spring. Christian bap- 
 "tism, therefore, is not founded on the covenant of 
 "circumcision, which was peculiar to the natural 
 " seed of Abraham ; but on that covenant which ex- 
 " tends the blessing of Abraham to his spiritual seed 
 " of all nations. Accordingly, when the ancient cove- 
 nant of promise came to be actually ratified in the 
 "blood of Christ, the peculiar covenant of circum- 
 "cision with the fleshly seed of Abraham was set 
 "aside, and baptism was appointed to be adminis- 
 " tered to all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who appear- 
 ed to be his spiritual seed by faith in Christ, but 
 "to none else." Review, p. 104. — I must here be 
 permitted again to marvel, at the dimness of vision, 
 and the confusion of ideas, which the admission of 
 a false principle, and attachment to an erroneous sys- 
 tem, can produce in even the acutest and most dis- 
 cerning minds. The promise of blessing to " all 
 nations" is, in the above extract, admitted to mean 
 — of blessing to " all Abraham's spiritual or believ- 
 ing seed of Jews and Gentiles ;" and yet that cove- 
 nant is affirmed "not to have included the Gentiles" 
 but to have been " a peculiar covenant with the 
 natural posterity of Abraham" the very terms of 
 which are expressly applied by the apostle himself 
 to the "spiritual seed of all nations;" for thus, as 
 we have seen, he explains the promise " a father of 
 
52 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 many nations have I made thee." — How Mr Mac- 
 lean, with the apostolic interpretation of these words 
 before him, could have hazarded the assertion, that 
 the covenant which contains them "did not include 
 the Gentiles," is to me, I repeat, altogether unaccount- 
 able. — " Christian baptism," says Mr M'L., "is not 
 founded in the covenant of circumcision." True ; if 
 the covenant of circumcision was indeed only a cove- 
 nant of temporal blessings, peculiar to the natural 
 offspring of Abraham. In that case, it ivas " set 
 aside;" and Christian baptism does belong to a dif- 
 ferent covenant from that to which circumcision was 
 annexed. But if, on the contrary, we have succeeded 
 in showing, that the " covenant of circumcision " was 
 indeed a covenant of spiritual as well as temporal 
 blessings to the spiritual seed of Abraham, then have 
 we not here Mr Maclean's distinct concession, that, 
 instead of " being set aside," it still continues, and 
 that Christian baptism is founded in it, and holds a 
 similar place now, in connexion with the same cove- 
 nant, to that held of old by circumcision ? This 
 shows how much depends on a right view of the cove- 
 nant in Gen. xvii. with which circumcision was con- 
 nected. 
 
 But the amiable and excellent author of " eugenio 
 and epenetus," takes quite a different view of this 
 covenant of circumcision from Mr Maclean. He ad- 
 mits its spirituality : and when circumcision is de- 
 nominated " the token of the covenant" he considers 
 the phrase as of equivalent import with that other 
 phrase used by the apostle, " a seal of the righteous- 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. :)6 
 
 " ness of faith." — "It was," says he, "the token of 
 "a covenant made with Abraham as a believer, and 
 " essentially connected with that righteousness which 
 " was imputed to him by faith. Hence the recollec- 
 "tion of this covenant brought along with it the re- 
 " collection of that faith in connexion with which it 
 "was formed. And whatever could be properly de- 
 nominated a token of a covenant founded on a 
 "righteousness imputed by faith, might, with equal 
 "propriety, be termed a seal, or standing memorial 
 " of that righteousness of faith with which this cove- 
 nant was connected." Page 55. — I perfectly con- 
 cur with Mr Innes in the view which he gives, and 
 in support of which he, in my opinion, successfully 
 argues, of the meaning of the phrase, " a seal of 
 the righteousness of faith," as signifying, not a seal 
 to the individual of personal justification, but a seal 
 or symbolical certification, and standing memorial, 
 of the grand doctrine of justification by faith,' — of 
 which the justification of Abraham was, both to Jew 
 and Gentile, the pattern or exemplar. But this doc- 
 trine belongs to the new and everlasting covenant, 
 and constitutes its fundamental article. Mr Maclean, 
 in the passage above cited, by affirming the connexion 
 of circumcision with the temporal covenant only, in- 
 directly admits that, if it had been connected with the 
 other, there would have been some ground for the in- 
 ferences drawn by us as to Christian baptism ; — for 
 he makes the difference between circumcision and 
 baptism to consist in the former being connected 
 with the old and temporary covenant, and the latter 
 
54 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 with the new, spiritual, and everlasting one. — Mr 
 Innes, on the contrary, connects circumcision with the 
 spiritual covenant, that covenant according to which 
 Abraham and all believers since have been justified 
 by faith. But he is one of those referred to above, 
 who, granting the premises, do not perceive the le- 
 gitimacy of the conclusion. — Baptists have sometimes 
 said to psedobaptists, " You cannot be right ; you 
 differ so much amongst yourselves in your views of 
 the subject." They had as well be quiet on that 
 score. It is but " foolish talking," on both sides. 
 Our sole inquiry should be after truth and duty. 
 If one view of a subject be true, it is not the less 
 true that another has been held. 
 
 Dr. Cox embraces Mr Maclean's second view of 
 the covenant of circumcision. Whether he ever held 
 his first, I cannot say. But surely, never was there 
 published to the world a statement more thoroughly 
 at issue in every point, with that of the apostle, than 
 the following. After quoting the terms of the cove- 
 nant, in Gen. xvii. 2 — 14, — for which see the pre- 
 ceding pages, — he thus comments: — "Let a person 
 " unbiassed by any previous system, put into ordin- 
 " ary language the blessings covenanted in the above 
 cf recited paragraph ; let him impartially state its en- 
 " tire import. Would he not inevitably give the 
 "following interpretation? Circumcision was the 
 " sign of a covenant with Abraham and his posterity, 
 " denoting that it was the divine purpose to increase 
 " his family to a remarkable degree, that they should 
 " become a great nation, and even be diffused far 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 55 
 
 " over the surface of the earth ; to manifest a peculiar 
 " and unalterable regard to his family as their God, 
 " by the ample fulfilment of the agreement which he 
 " now condescended to form with their illustrious an- 
 " cestor, and which stipulated their extraordinary 
 " multiplication ; — and to give them Canaan* for an 
 "inheritance. All persons, however attached to the 
 " family, whether as children or servants, were to 
 " undergo the prescribed rite, in order to distinguish 
 "them from the surrounding nations, and to evince 
 " that they belonged to the people whom God had 
 " especially chosen. This token of association with 
 " Abraham, and participation of his privileges, was, it 
 " appears, bestowed irrespectively of personal charac- 
 '* ter, conduct, or faith ; for the purchased slave 
 " received it as well as the home-born child, whether 
 " a believer in the God of Abraham or not, and skn- 
 " ply as a part of his domestic establishment. But 
 u though they were to undergo the painful rite, the 
 "promise of inheritance was restricted to the pos- 
 u terity of the individual who stood as their federal 
 "representative, and who, by this ordinance, were 
 "separated and distinguished from all the Gentile 
 " nations."* 
 
 Now, with regard to the nature and amount of 
 the blessings covenanted in the passage in question, I 
 must be allowed to prefer, as my interpreters, our 
 Lord and his apostles, to Dr. Cox. They were surely 
 "unbiassed by any previous system;" and we have 
 
 * Essay, 131, 132. 
 
56 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 seen how very different from his are the views which 
 they hold forth. Dr. Cox appears to adopt as his 
 principle of interpretation, the sense which any read- 
 er, taking up the passage, without any previous know- 
 ledge at all, would naturally attach to its phraseology. 
 But the slightest reflection must satisfy him, that 
 this is far from being a legitimate principle. In in- 
 terpreting the Old Testament, the New, wherever it 
 gives us direction, is our surest guide. Dr. Cox's 
 ignorant reader might no doubt understand Abra- 
 ham's being "a father of many nations" literally; 
 — but if the apostle Paul interprets it spiritually, 
 which are we to follow? He would consider the 
 ''land of Canaan" as signifying the country on earth 
 so denominated, and no more ; but if Paul explains 
 the promise of Canaan as inclusive of "the better 
 " country, even the heavenly," the promise of which 
 is not to be found at all, unless under this form, — and 
 if, as he tells us, the patriarchs themselves so under- 
 stood it, and founded their hopes upon it accordingly, 
 which authority is to decide? — What idea might be 
 affixed by such a supposed reader, to the other pro- 
 mise, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after 
 " thee," is not perhaps so easily determined. But, 
 whatever it might be, the same question would still 
 present itself ; a question, the reply to which admits 
 of no hesitation. 
 
 It will not surely be denied, that circumcision 
 could not be intended for a purpose which it never 
 answered. "The promise of the inheritance," says 
 Dr. C. "was restricted to the posterity of the indivi- 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 57 
 
 "dual who stood as their federal representative, who, 
 " by this ordinance, were separated and distinguished 
 "from all the Gentile nations." He should have 
 added that it was restricted to this posterity, in a 
 particular line of descent, namely bij Isaac. Now 
 by the very circumstance of circumcision having been 
 administered to so many others besides Isaac, it failed 
 to serve the purpose thus assigned to it ; it was no 
 distinction of Abraham's posterity by Isaac; but w r as 
 common to them with other tribes and nations sprung 
 from the same stock, and yet having no part in the 
 promise of the earthly inheritance. Might not this 
 circumstance have suggested to Dr. Cox's mind, that, 
 connecting circumcision with the covenant of redemp- 
 tion, there was, in its administration to others besides 
 Isaac, an intimation intended, that although, to serve 
 particular purposes in the divine economy, the " cov- 
 enant was established with him" yet its best bless- 
 ings, were not to be confined to one portion of Abra- 
 ham's family, or even to his posterity at large, but 
 were to extend to others also ; — an intimation which 
 continued to be given in the admission, by circum- 
 cision, to the church of God, of all Gentile proselytes 
 professing the faith of Abraham. 
 
 That circumcision was administered to all the 
 adult domestics of Abraham, without regard to any 
 profession of the faith of their master, but "simply 
 as a part of his domestic establishment," is a gratui- 
 tous assumption, needful, it may be, to the support 
 of the baptist system, but of which there is no proof 
 beyond the brevity of the history. Nay, there is not 
 
58 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 even this. All the proof that really exists is proof 
 of the contrary. When Jehovah himself gives the 
 character of Abraham, as one whom he "knew to 
 "command his children and household after him, 
 " that they should keep the way of the Lord, to do 
 "justice and judgment," we must be permitted to 
 consider it as a slander upon the father of the faith- 
 ful, to suppose that there were any in his household 
 uninstructed in the knowledge and fear of God ; and 
 if we are to judge of the rest by the specimen we 
 have in the history, — Eliezer of Damascus, and 
 Hagar the Egyptian, it will be no unfavourable 
 estimate we shall form of the character of the in- 
 mates of his famuy. Let us not judge of the 
 "friend of God" by the example of an American 
 or Brazilian slaveholder. * 
 
 Dr. Cox conceives, and very confidently says, that 
 it is my "first and great mistake respecting the 
 "covenant itself, that perplexes the whole subject, 
 "pollutes all the subsequent reasonings, and con- 
 " founds together things which essentially differ." — 
 I agree with him, that if my view of the covenant of 
 circumcision be a mistaken one, it must necessarily 
 invalidate and overthrow the reasonings founded 
 upon it. But it unfortunately happens, that the 
 reasonings both of Dr. Cox and Mr Maclean have 
 
 * In former editions — " a West India Slaveholder." I give 
 thanks to God, on behalf of my country, that I can now blot 
 that out. Would to God that I could not have found, — and 
 would to God that soon I may be unable to find — a substitute ! 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 59 
 
 settled me more firmly in the conviction, that the 
 mistake and confusion are on their side, not on 
 mine. — Dr. Cox denies the truth of my position, 
 that circumcision "was a sign of the blessings be- 
 " stowed in justification ; representing the taking 
 "away of sin, both in its guilt and its pollution; 
 "that is, representing the two great blessings of 
 "justification and sanctification." "Will Dr. "W.," 
 says he, " or any of his brethren, have the goodness 
 "to point out the phrases, which represent the two 
 "great blessings of justification and sanctification? 
 "Here is not only a general statement of the exis- 
 "tence of a covenant between God and Abraham, 
 "but a specification of the design of that covenant, 
 "and the blessings of which it gave assurance to 
 " that eminent servant of God. Is justification men- 
 tioned? Is sanctification mentioned?" The read- 
 er, who has attended to the view before given, from 
 the new Testament, of the promises of the covenant 
 referred to, — the covenant of circumcision in the 
 seventeenth chapter of Genesis, — will be at no loss 
 for an answer to these questions. I know of no 
 writer, indeed, unless it be Dr. Cox himself, who 
 hesitates to admit the spiritual signification of the 
 rite of circumcision ; and that he really denies 
 it, I have found it difficult to persuade myself, in 
 the face of those expressions of scripture, which 
 occur so frequently, and with which his mind is 
 familiar : — such as, " Circumcise the foreskin of 
 "your heart;" — "All the seed of Israel are uncir- 
 " cumcised in heart ;" — " Circumcision is that of the 
 
GO OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 "heart, in the spirit and not in the letter;" — "We 
 " are the circumcision, who worship God in the 
 "spirit;" — "In whom also ye are circumcised with 
 " the circumcision made without hands, in putting 
 " off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circum- 
 "cision of Christ," — &c. &c. — Strange as would 
 have been the denial, in opposition to such phraseo- 
 logy, of the spiritual import of circumcision, yet, had 
 Dr. Cox been able to maintain it, it would have been 
 consistent with his view of the covenant with which 
 the rite was connected, as a covenant "solely of 
 temporal blessings :" and, startled as I was, on find- 
 ing him questioning whether circumcision at all 
 represented spiritual blessings, I really thought I 
 had found in him the first baptist whom I had ever 
 known consistent with himself upon this point. But 
 "nil fuit unquam tarn impar sibi." — He says, "I 
 "have already shown that the covenant of circum- 
 "cision included solely temporal blessings, and that 
 " the rite was instituted to distinguish the Jews from 
 "the other nations, and to show their title to the 
 "land of Canaan."* Had Dr. Cox, I repeat, been 
 able, in the face of his Bible, to adhere to this simple 
 view of the rite, his system, respecting the covenant 
 to which it was annexed, might at least have been 
 consistent with itself. But it will not do. After 
 quoting the Apostle's expression, respecting Abra- 
 ham, — "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal 
 " of the righteousness of the faith which he had 
 
 * Page 137. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 61 
 
 "being yet uncircumcised," — he says: "This lan- 
 " guage surely represents it as a token of his accept- 
 ance as a believer; — a seal of his justification, 
 " before he was circumcised ; — a public pledge that 
 "his faith was imputed to him for righteousness, or 
 "that God accepted his faith; and an exhibition of 
 " the doctrine that their faith should be imputed in a 
 " similar manner to all subsequent believers. Thus it 
 "involved essentially a personal reference, while it 
 " represented a general truth /" And again, in re- 
 marking on my sentiment, that, whatever circum- 
 cision signified and sealed to Abraham, it must have 
 signified and sealed also to Isaac and Jacob, the 
 heirs with him of the same promise: — " Undoubt- 
 " edly Isaac and Jacob were co-heirs with Abraham, 
 " and circumcision indicated to them what it did to 
 " all his posterity ; for indeed there is no reason for 
 " this discrimination in favour of these eminent pa- 
 " triarchs ; that is, it indicated to them their heirship 
 " by birth of the temporal promises, and their equal 
 "participation by faith of the spiritual blessings /" 
 
 From these premises, the following strange anoma- 
 lies may be directly deduced : — 
 
 1. The covenant to which circumcision was an- 
 nexed, as its token, contained promises exclusivelv 
 of temporal blessings ; and yet circumcision was 
 to Abraham, personally, the seal or pledge of his 
 possessing the first of spiritual blessings, including 
 in it the assurance of all the rest, — justification by 
 faith :— 
 
 2. The covenant of circumcision contained nothing 
 
G2 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 in it of the " two great blessings of justification and 
 sanctification," — and the rite was instituted simply 
 " to distinguish the Jews from other nations, and to 
 " show their title to the land of Canaan :" yet cir- 
 cumcision, connected as it was with this temporal 
 covenant only, "represented the general truth" of 
 justification by faith ; being " an exhibition of the 
 " doctrine that their faith should be imputed in a 
 " similar manner to all subsequent believers," — and 
 " indicating to Isaac and Jacob, and to all the poster- 
 " ity of Abraham, their equal participation by faith of 
 " the spiritual blessings :" — 
 
 3. Abraham obtained his justification, and all the 
 blessings of salvation connected with it, on the ground 
 of the Gospel covenant, or covenant of grace ; yet the 
 sign which he received, and by which these precious 
 blessings were pledged to him, had no connexion at 
 all with that covenant, on the ground of which he ob- 
 tained them : — and believers in all ages are designated 
 " the circumcision," although the rite, from which they 
 obtain the designation, not only was not spiritual in 
 itself (which no rite can be), but did not even signify 
 any of those peculiar blessings by which they are dis- 
 tinguished, nor bear any relation to the covenant whose 
 promises are fulfilled in the bestowment of them ! 
 
 Nor are the sentiments of Mr Maclean on this sub- 
 ject more self-consistent than those of Dr. Cox. — He 
 considers (as we have before seen) the covenant, of 
 which we have the record in Gen. xii. as essentially 
 distinct from that in Gen. xvii. The former alone 
 he regards as the gospel covenant, the latter as con- 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 63 
 
 taining exclusively promises of temporal blessings to 
 Abraham and his natural offspring. But he has not 
 only the difficulty to contend with, how it should come 
 to pass that the token annexed to a covenant of tem- 
 poral promises, should be, to Abraham himself, the 
 seal of the blessings of the higher and better covenant ; 
 — his system is embarrassed with another difficulty. 
 He admits that " both circumcision, and the temporal 
 " promises to which it was annexed, had also a mysti- 
 " cal or typical sense :" that " circumcision and what 
 "pertained to it had both a letter and a spirit, or a 
 " literal sense in relation to the fleshly seed of Abra- 
 ham, and a mystical or typical sense in reference 
 " to his spiritual seed."* — Now, without pressing on 
 this acute writer, the inconsistency of reasoning in 
 support of the second of his two successive theories 
 in terms that are applicable only to the first, — I 
 would merely observe : It is here admitted that the 
 covenant in Gen. xvii. contains promises ; — that these 
 promises have a mystical or spiritual sense, as well 
 as a literal and temporal; — and that circumcision, 
 the token of this covenant, has a similar spiritual as 
 well as literal meaning : — I have then to ask — Are 
 the blessings contained in this covenant to be con- 
 sidered as promised in the mystical or spiritual sense, 
 as well as in the literal and temporal 1 If they be ; 
 then does it not become, bona fide, a covenant of 
 spiritual as well as of temporal promises ; only that, 
 in the former sense, the promises are made in refer- 
 
 * Review, pages 22, 23, et passim. 
 
64 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 ence to the spiritual seed, and in the latter to the 
 natural ? — and does not circumcision, as annexed to 
 such a covenant, and itself possessing a mystical as 
 well as a literal meaning, become the token of the 
 covenant in its spiritual as well as its temporal im- 
 port 1 And does not this effectually subvert the 
 distinction contended for between the different cov- 
 enants (as they are alleged to have been) with Abra- 
 ham ? — and the more especially, when three things 
 formerly adverted to are recollected ; — first, that the 
 faith by which Abraham is declared to have been 
 justified is the faith of one of the promises in the 
 covenant of circumcision, namely, that of the multipli- 
 cation of his seed — See Gen. xv. 5, 6 : secondly, that 
 believers in all ages are represented as being heirs 
 according to another of its promises, namely, that 
 of the inheritance of Canaan ; for under no other 
 form is the promise of the "better country" ever 
 given in the divine communications with Abraham ; 
 see as before, Gal. iii. 18 — 29: — and thirdly, that 
 another still, a third of its promises, and one of which 
 so much is made in the New Testament, — that of 
 Jehovah being "his God and the God of his seed," 
 is nowhere to be found at all, in any covenant with 
 Abraham, except here. 
 
 I have before referred to various modes of expres- 
 sion in scripture which clearly show the spiritual im- 
 port of the right of circumcision. I might have no- 
 ticed more particularly, as not only a proof of this, 
 but also of baptism and circumcision being substan- 
 tially significant of the same things — (with the ex- 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 65 
 
 ception of the latter having contained a pledge of the 
 coming of Messiah out of the loins of Abraham, 
 which pledge of course ceased to be necessary when 
 the event had taken place,) — the language of the 
 Apostle Paul, in Col. ii. 11, 12, "In whom also ye 
 " are circumcised with the circumcision made without 
 "hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the 
 " flesh, by the circumcision of Christ : having been 
 " buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
 " risen with him, through the faith of the operation 
 "of God, who hath raised him from the dead." — 
 The more I consider this passage, I am the more 
 convinced, that it warrants our regarding baptism as 
 the Christian circumcision. The inquiry ought not 
 to be, Is it possible to interpret the language other- 
 wise ? — but, Is this its most natural meaning? I 
 think it is, first, because otherwise there is a feeble 
 tautology ; the " circumcision made without hands," 
 and the " circumcision of Christ," being rendered of 
 the very same import ; — as if the apostle had said — 
 " Ye are circumcised with the circumcision of the 
 " heart, in putting off the body of the sins of the 
 " flesh, by the circumcision of the heart," &c. : — and 
 further, because the connexion between the two verses 
 leads to this interpretation; — "having been buried 
 with him in baptism," being added in explanation of 
 the preceding phrase, " putting off the body of the 
 sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." And 
 the fact that baptism corresponds to circumcision, in 
 denoting the " putting off the body of the sins of 
 the flesh," goes to confirm this interpretation. "His 
 
 E 
 
66 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 "meaning is," says Mr Ewing, "that, as they were 
 " blessed with regeneration, which was the blessing 
 " signified by their baptism, they stood in no need of 
 " circumcision, since regeneration is the circumcision 
 " made without hands, that is, the circumcision of 
 " the heart, so often spoken of both in the Old and 
 " New Testament. Now, this reasoning is inconclu- 
 " sive, and the very language in which it is express- 
 " ed is unintelligible, not only unless the ordinance 
 " of baptism under the reign of Christ, and the ordi- 
 " nance of circumcision which was observed before 
 " his coming, (both equally done with hands) signify 
 " the same thing, but unless the one has come in the 
 " room of the other." 
 
 I have formerly (page 25,) stated my conviction 
 that the promises of the "covenant of circumcision," 
 considered as including both temporal and spiritual 
 blessings, were made, the one and the other alike, to 
 the same seed, on the same ground; — and that, in 
 this respect, there is no distinction recognized, either 
 in the narrative or in the reasonings of the Apostle, 
 between the two kinds of promises, as if the one had 
 been made to the natural seed, and the other to the 
 spiritual. — I believe both to have been made, (be- 
 cause, by speaking of the promises of the covenant 
 indiscriminately, the Apostle in effect says so,) to the 
 spiritual seed ; whilst there was, at the same time, a 
 primary respect to the natural offspring, amongst 
 whose successive generations that seed was, by divine- 
 ly appointed means, and especially parental instruc- 
 tion, to be raised up. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 0/ 
 
 Had my friend Dr. Cox understood my positions, 
 or duly attended to them, lie could never have written 
 as follows: — "The statement, that both promises are 
 " bestowed on the same seed and on the same foot- 
 " ing, is equally erroneous. Dr. Wardlaw will never, 
 " surely, attempt to prove that all the seed of Abra- 
 " ham according to the flesh were partakers of salva- 
 " tion — that they were all justified and sanctified ! If 
 " the promises of the covenant of circumcision were 
 " temporal, they were fulfilled ; if they are supposed 
 " to have been spiritual, they were not accomplish- 
 <<r ed."* — To the same purpose he elsewhere quotes 
 Mr Kinghorn as saying — " Surely none will main- 
 " tain that God engaged to bestow special spiritual 
 "blessings on all the natural seed of Abraham; for 
 " this was not the fact in any age ; and we cannot 
 " imagine the covenant intended to point out what 
 " was not fulfilled. "f — This way of representing the 
 case is very common with Baptists : but they are 
 chargeable in it with a glaring oversight. They for- 
 get, that to " all the natural seed of Abraham," even 
 in the line of Isaac, the temporal promises were not 
 fulfilled, any more than the spiritual. They forget, 
 that for nearly five hundred years from the time of 
 the promise, not a soul of Abraham's posterity inher- 
 ited a foot-breadth of Canaan; and that now, for more 
 than seventeen centuries, it has been given to the 
 Gentiles, the seed of the father of the faithful being 
 utterly dispossessed of it. — So far am I from fancying 
 
 * Pages 143, 14 L f Page 133. 
 
68 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 the covenant " intended to point out what was not 
 "fulfilled," that I do not see any satisfactory ground 
 on which the faithfulness of God to the promises of 
 the covenant, whether temporal or spiritual, can be 
 fully and clearly vindicated, but that which the Apos- 
 tle himself takes up, that " they are not all Israel 
 " who are of Israel."" — Let us recollect the occasion 
 on which he introduces this distinction. He supposes 
 the objection might be made to his statements, re- 
 specting the casting off of the Jewish people for their 
 unbelief and rejection of the Messiah, that it would 
 be a violation of the divine promises, which were 
 made to Abraham and his posterity. When he first 
 mentions this difficulty, he does not give the solution 
 of it, but only rejects, with indignation, every possi- 
 bility of God's failing in his word: — "For what if 
 "some did not believe? shall their unbelief make 
 " the faithfulness of God without effect ? God for- 
 " bid : yea, let God be true, though every man 
 "should be a liar," Rom. hi. 3, 4. — But he after- 
 wards resumes the subject, and states explicitly the 
 principle on which the divine veracity is cleared of 
 impeachment. Having expressed, in the beginning of 
 the ninth chapter of the same epistle, his " great 
 "heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for his 
 " brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh," anti- 
 cipating no doubt the impending judgments of God, 
 and their ejection from his church, he adds, verses 
 6 — 8, " Not as though the word of God hath taken 
 "none effect; for they are not all Israel, who are of 
 " Israel : neither because they are the seed of Abra- 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 69 
 
 " ham are they all children ; but in Isaac shall thy 
 " seed be called : that is, they who are the children 
 " of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but 
 " the children of the promise are counted for the 
 " seed." — It is evident, that in this ground of vindi- 
 cation, the principle is assumed, that the promises of 
 a faithful God must be fulfilled, in the sense, and to 
 the extent, in which they were made. Had the pro- 
 mises been made to all the natural posterity of Abra- 
 ham as such, — then to all of them, as such, they must 
 have been verified; and the "casting off" of the un- 
 believing Jews from the privileges of the church, 
 and from the possession of the earthly inheritance, 
 would, the Apostle tacitly admits, have been at vari- 
 ance with the truth of God. But the distinction 
 which he introduces reconciles the facts with the pro- 
 mises, showing that their accomplishment extends to 
 all to whom they were originally made. 
 
 If it should be objected to this, that the spiritual 
 seed have been deprived of the earthly Canaan as well 
 as the natural offspring, and that therefore, the pro- 
 mises, in their temporal sense, have not been fulfilled 
 universally to the former any more than to the latter ; 
 — I answer, first, that the difficulty attaches to both 
 sides of the present question, and therefore ought not 
 to be vehemently urged by the one or the other against 
 its opposite ; — and secondly, that the simplest princi- 
 ple of solution seems to be, that believers, since the 
 coming of Christ, are "inheritors of the promises," in 
 the same sense in which Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 
 themselves were, in which Moses and Aaron were, in 
 
70 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 which all the saints were, previously to the actual 
 possession of Canaan. If the instances that preceded 
 its occupation be not valid exceptions, neither are 
 those which have followed it, — or rather, perhaps, I 
 should say, which intervene between its forfeiture and 
 its re-occupation. Individual Jews, who are brought 
 to the knowledge of Christ, come to be heirs of the 
 promises in their higher sense, the less blessing being 
 absorbed, as it were, in the greater, till "the De- 
 liverer shall come to Zion, and turn away ungod- 
 " liness from Jacob." Not, however, that the tem- 
 poral promise is, to the people of God, done away. 
 Godliness has " the promise of the life that now is," 
 as well as of "that which is to come ;" and those who 
 " seek first the kingdom of God and his righteous- 
 " ness," have the assurance that " all these things" — 
 namely, the needful blessings of this life, — " shall be 
 added unto them." 
 
 These observations, respecting the seed to whom 
 the temporal inheritance was promised as well as the 
 eternal, are in full harmony with the ground on 
 which, according to the statements of scripture, the 
 earthly Canaan was obtained, and held, and lost. It 
 was obtained by faith ; held by faith ; and lost by 
 unbelief. 
 
 1 . What was the reason why the race that came out 
 of Egypt by Moses did not enter Canaan ? — what was 
 the cause of their exclusion ? — It was unbelief ; — un- 
 belief of the promises of God to their fathers ; which 
 promises, as we have already seen, contained the gos- 
 pel, in the state of its revelation at the time. This 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 71 
 
 is plainly declared, Heb. iii. 18, 19, "To whom 
 " sware he that they should not enter into his rest, 
 " but to them who believed not ? So we see, that 
 "they could not enter in because of unbelief:" and 
 chap. iv. 2, " For unto us was the gospel preached as 
 " well as unto them : but the word preached did not 
 " profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that 
 ° heard it." — The unbelief, thus imputed to this pro- 
 scribed generation, was not unbelief of the statements 
 of those who had been sent to search the land. For 
 if, in the representation given by these, there was any 
 material difference between Caleb and Joshua on the 
 one hand, and the remaining ten on the other, cer- 
 tainly, as far as respected human testimony, the 
 Israelites could not have been greatly to blame, for 
 receiving the declaration of ten in preference to that 
 of two. But it was unbelief of the declarations and 
 promises of God, made by Him to their fathers, re- 
 specting that land ; and, consequently, distrust of his 
 veracity, and his power, springing from "the fear of 
 man," and accompanied with rebellious complaints 
 and murmurings. It amounted to a rejection of 
 the word of God and the promises of his covenant, 
 — a rejection of God himself as the God of their 
 fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It was a denial 
 of his faithfulness, not in the promise of Canaan 
 only, but in all the promises respecting the seed of 
 Abraham, connected with it, and dependent upon 
 its fulfilment. These " sinners against their own 
 souls" were, doubtless, unbelieving and proud despis- 
 ers of all that the God of their fathers had engaged 
 
72 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 by covenant to do, — of the accomplishment of which 
 their own deliverance, by signs and wonders, from 
 Egyptian bondage, was a prelude and a pledge. 
 They were unbelievers of the Gospel, as then re- 
 vealed in the promises of the covenant made with 
 Abraham. 
 
 2. It is true, that the Israelites are spoken of as 
 continuing to hold the land of Canaan in possession 
 through obedience. But by this obedience we must 
 understand the obedience of faith. I say, we must so 
 understand it, not because it is necessary to the mak- 
 ing out of our present argument, but because the 
 principles laid down by the Apostle, respecting the 
 possession of the inheritance, indispensably require 
 it. " If the inheritance be of the law," he says, " it 
 " is no more of promise :" — " if they who are of the 
 "law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise 
 " made of no effect." — These expressions stand in per- 
 fect opposition to the idea of the land of Canaan ever 
 being held on the ground of law, or as the merited 
 reward of legal obedience. And there are, accordingly, 
 many passages, in which the obedience required of 
 Israel is described as being much more than mere 
 outward subjection ; as being nothing less than in- 
 ward spiritual principle, manifested in external con- 
 duct ; that is, in other words, the obedience of faith. 
 Let the reader, who is desirous to ascertain the truth 
 of this or the contrary, consult Deut. x. 12 — 22, 
 and vi. 1 — 19; and, as illustrative of the reasons 
 of Divine judgments and of restoration from them, 
 the whole of the thirtieth chapter of the same book. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 73 
 
 — If any choose to say, that their obedience was the 
 condition of their continuing to enjoy the promised 
 blessings, my approving or disapproving of the ex- 
 pression, (which is ambiguous, and therefore impro- 
 per) depends on the meaning which it is intended to 
 bear. If by condition be meant meritorious ground 
 or procuring cause, I decidedly object to the state- 
 ment, as contradictory of the Apostle's. But if by 
 obedience being the condition of enjoying the blessing, 
 nothing more is intended, than its being essentially 
 requisite, a sine qua non ; then the expression con- 
 veys an important truth, — a truth as applicable to 
 us as to them ; — for there is no enjoying the bless- 
 ings, of any kind, which God has promised, but in the 
 way of obedience to his commandments, under the 
 influence of " faith working by love." It is equally a 
 truth that " by grace we are saved," and that " with- 
 out holiness no man shall see the Lord ;" — that 
 " eternal life is the gift of God," and yet that we 
 must " seek for glory, honour, and immortality, by 
 "a patient continuance in well doing." 
 
 3. The reason why the Jews were at length, with 
 such awful judgments, cast out from the land of pro- 
 mise, corresponds with these views. It was unbelief 
 — rejection of the person and Gospel of the Son of 
 God. — " Because of unbelief they were broken off," 
 says Paul, "and thou standest by faith" — Bom. xi. 
 20. Moses, many hundred years before, had de- 
 nounced curses upon them if they should be disobedi- 
 ent. These curses were fulfilled, on account of their 
 unbelief. And this shows us what kind of disobedi- 
 
/4 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 ence was the ground of his denunciations, delivered 
 in the name of the God of truth. — See the following 
 passages: Luke xix. 41 — 44. Matt, xxiii. 34 — 39. 
 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16. Acts iii. 23, &c. 
 
 Thus it appears, that the promise of the inherit- 
 ance was originally through faith ; that it was as pro- 
 fessors of Abraham's faith that the Israelites entered 
 on the possession of Canaan ; that the possession was 
 continued through the obedience of faith ; and that on 
 account of their disobedience — disobedience spring- 
 ing from unbelief and including it — judgments were 
 threatened and inflicted : — in a word, that by faith 
 the inheritance was obtained ; that by faith it was 
 held ; and that by unbelief it was lost. 
 
 I have said, that, whilst the promises of the cove- 
 nant with Abraham were made to the patriarch and 
 his spiritual seed, there was in them at the same time 
 a primary respect to his natural offspring, among 
 whose successive generations that seed was to be rais- 
 ed up. This observation is of essential consequence 
 to our present subject ; and I have yet seen no reason 
 to shrink from the position. The following is the 
 argument of my former publication, referred to in the 
 preface, in support of it. 
 
 "It has been said, that ' if spiritual blessings were 
 " promised, in that covenant, to the fleshly seed as 
 " such, then it behoved all the fleshly seed to possess 
 " them, and to be saved ; which is contrary to fact, 
 " and therefore inconsistent with the faithfulness of 
 " God.' Those who make this objection conceive 
 "the temporal promise to have been made to the 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 75 
 
 "fleshly seed, and the spiritual promise to the spi- 
 " ritual seed. It ought to be remembered, however, 
 " that the reasoning which holds good as to the spi- 
 ritual promise is, in point of fact, equally conclu- 
 " sive as to the temporal. ' If the land of Canaan 
 " and its temporal blessings were promised by God 
 " to the fleshly seed of Abraham as such, then it be- 
 " hoved all the fleshly seed to inherit and enjoy them, 
 " which is contrary to fact, and therefore inconsistent 
 " with the faithfulness of God.' The truth is, as I 
 " have attempted to show, that neither the one pro- 
 " mise nor the other was made to the fleshly seed, 
 "merely as such; and that the principle 'they are 
 " not all Israel who are of Israel' is the only prin- 
 ciple on which, in either case, the Divine faithful- 
 ness can be vindicated and maintained. 'What if 
 " some did not believe ? Shall their unbelief make the 
 " faithfulness of God of no effect ? God forbid.' 
 
 " This view is by no means at variance with the 
 " idea of that primary respect, of which I now speak, 
 " as being had, in the promise, to the natural off- 
 " spring ; a respect, not merely primary according 
 " to the order of time, but according to a peculiarity 
 "of regard, and according to what may be termed 
 " the natural course of things. — That any peculiar 
 "regard or favour is shown to children on account 
 "of their parents, is by many strongly denied; as 
 " being inconsistent with the freedom of Divine grace. 
 " But that God does show such regard to children, for 
 "the sake of their parents, we find both intimated 
 " and exemplified, in many parts of the scripture 
 
76 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 ' ' history. God represents himself * as ' visiting the 
 " iniquities of the fathers upon the children, unto the 
 " third and fourth generation of them that hate him, 
 " and showing mercy unto thousands (of generations) 
 "of them that love him and keep his command - 
 " ments.' Now, without entering into any discus- 
 " sion of the precise or full meaning of these ex- 
 pressions, I would merely remark, that the latter 
 " surely cannot be considered as less consistent with 
 "the freedom of mercy, than the former with the 
 " strictness of justice. — There is an expression also 
 " used by Paul, respecting the Jews in their present 
 " state of unbelief, which appears to me inexplicable, 
 " except on some such principle : — • As touching the 
 "election,' says he, 'they are beloved for the fa- 
 " theri sakes.' f If in these words a peculiarity of 
 " regard is not expressed towards the natural • seed 
 " of Abraham, God's friend,' for the sake of him and 
 "of their other godly fathers, with whom Jehovah 
 " established his covenant, I am at a loss to imagine 
 " what meaning the expression can have. 
 
 " Besides : in the idea suggested there is nothing 
 " inconsistent with the free operation of Divine grace ; 
 " because, this grace, in its various blessings, being 
 "conveyed to sinners by means, it is quite according 
 " to the natural order of things, that it should accom- 
 " pany those means, and as it were, flow with them, 
 " in the same channel. If, therefore, the knowledge 
 "of God — (the means by which the blessings of 
 
 * Exod. xx. 5, G. f Rom. xi. 28. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. // 
 
 "salvation come to be enjoyed) — was appointed to 
 " be conveyed from generation to generation, we must 
 " suppose the blessings to be conveyed along witli it, 
 " and the conveyance of the blessings to be the grand 
 " design of the conveyance of the knowledge. There 
 " is no other design which we can imagine God to 
 " have had. And therefore, although the grace of 
 " God is not imparted by fleshly birth, all being 
 "'conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity;' 
 " yet, that when God's people are attentive to the 
 " means appointed, this grace should appear descend- 
 " ing through their successive generations, cannot at 
 " all be matter of wonder. If God has been pleased 
 " to make the promises of his covenant, with a pri- 
 '* mary reference to the generations of his people, as 
 " the line in which, by the communication of the 
 " knowledge of his name, the blessings of his grace 
 " should flow, (though not to the exclusion of others 
 " from being, in his sovereign pleasure, brought with- 
 " in the bond of his covenant ;) and if, in the token 
 " of his covenant, he has given his people encourage- 
 " ment to indulge the believing expectation of his 
 " mercy being imparted, through the use of appointed 
 " means, to their offspring, as well as to themselves ; 
 " it becomes a very serious matter, to treat this en- 
 " couragement, which regards the dearest and most 
 "interesting of all concerns to a believing parent's 
 " heart, with indifference or neglect. 
 
 " That the promise, then, really had a primary 
 " respect to the fleshly seed of believing Abraham, 
 " implying as its first import, not indeed that all his 
 
/O OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 " fleshly seed should be saved, but that amongst 
 " them there should be a seed to serve the Lord, 
 " may, I think, be established from the following 
 " passages of the word of God. 
 
 "1. Gen. xviii. 17 — 19. 'And the Lord said, 
 " shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do ; 
 " seeing that Abraham shall become a great and 
 "mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth 
 " shall be blessed in him ? For I know him, that 
 "he will command his children and his household 
 " after him, and they shall keep the way of the 
 " Lord, to do justice and judgment ; that the Lord 
 "may bring upon Abraham that which he hath 
 " spoken of him.' 
 
 "The most inattentive reader will perceive, that, 
 " in this passage, the character given of Abraham is 
 " connected with the fulfilment of God's promise to 
 "him. It is equally obvious, that the faithful and 
 " authoritative instruction of his family could have 
 " no influence whatever in accomplishing the promise 
 " of a carnal or natural seed; that its only imaginable 
 " connexion is with his having a spiritual offspring — 
 " < a seed to serve the Lord.' His acting in the 
 " manner described was the means, by which God 
 " verified his word ; giving him such a seed, from 
 " among his natural offspring, by the communication 
 " of the knowledge of God to his family, and from 
 " them downwards, through successive generations. 
 "By this means, God "brought upon Abraham that 
 " which he had spoken of him ;' proving ' a God to 
 " him, and to his seed after him in their generations' 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. /9 
 
 " And in the same manner, * the generation of the 
 "upright' continued to be 'blessed' — 'God's right- 
 " eousness being to children's children ; to such as 
 " keep his covenant, and to those that remember his 
 "commandments to do them.' Psa. ciii. 17, 18. 
 
 "2. Rom. xi. 1. 'I say then, hath God cast 
 "away his people? God forbid! For I also am an 
 " Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of 
 "Benjamin.' — The Apostle here begins to prove, 
 " that God had not cast off his people. And what 
 "is the first consideration which he suggests? That 
 "he himself, whom God had blessed with salvation, 
 'was a descendant of Abraham after the flesh. For, 
 " that he speaks of fleshly descent, is plain, from his 
 " mentioning ' the tribe of Benjamin' along with the 
 " ' seed of Abraham.' 
 
 " Two things may be observed from this passage. 
 " 1st. If there had not been such a primary respect 
 " to the fleshly seed as I am endeavouring to estab- 
 " lish ; the salvation of one belonging to the fleshly 
 " seed could never, with propriety, have been adduced 
 "as any peculiar or appropriate evidence that 'God 
 " had not cast away his people.' The salvation of a 
 " Gentile would have been quite as much to the 
 "purpose; the 'election' among the Gentiles being 
 " the people of God, as well as among the Jews : — and 
 " the Apostle might have quoted the case of Cor- 
 "nelius, or of the Philippiau jailor, with as much 
 " conclusive effect, as his own. 2dly. It seems equally 
 "evident, that, while there was a primary respect 
 " to the natural seed of those to whom the promises 
 
80 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 "were made, these promises never implied, that all 
 " who should descend from them, by fleshly birth, 
 " should partake of the blessings. For of this, the 
 " salvation of an individual, or of 'a remnant accord- 
 " ing to the election of grace,' however numerous, 
 " would have been a proof totally inconclusive. 
 
 "3. Jer. xxxi. 31— 33. Heb. viii. 8— 10. 'Behold 
 " the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a 
 " new covenant with the house of Israel and with 
 " the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant 
 " that I made with their fathers, &c. For this is 
 " the covenant which I will make with the house of 
 " Israel,' &c. — When we consider what is so often 
 " repeated in the New Testament, respecting the 
 " gospel, or new covenant, as being Ho the Jew first' 
 " the meaning of these passages appears sufficiently 
 " obvious. They represent the new covenant as made 
 " with the same people with whom the old was made, 
 " — f the house of Israel,' — the natural seed of Abra- 
 " ham, Isaac, and Jacob. And this was fulfilled, 
 " when to them first, God, ' having raised up his Son 
 " Jesus, sent him to bless them, in turning away 
 " every one of them from their iniquities,' Acts iii. 26. 
 " These words immediately follow an address of the 
 " Apostle Peter, to the unbelieving Jews, which ap- 
 " pears to put this matter beyond a doubt: 'Ye are 
 " the children of the prophets, says he, and of the 
 " covenant which God made with our fathers, saying 
 " unto Abraham, and in thy seed shall all the families 
 " of the earth be blessed.' From this arises the 
 " encouraging declaration immediately added, • Unto 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 81 
 
 " you first? &c. If in the promises there had been 
 " no such primary reference of peculiar regard to 
 " the fleshly seed, I am at a loss to conceive, in what 
 " sense the Jews here addressed, who had no relation 
 "to Abraham but that of carnal descent, could be 
 " denominated the children of the covenant made 
 " with the fathers, not as containing the promise of 
 "temporal blessings only, but the promise of the 
 "glorious gospel of the blessed God. — 'To them' 
 " (says the apostle, in the ninth chapter of the 
 " epistle to the Romans, speaking of his ' kinsmen 
 "according to the flesh,') 'to them pertained the 
 " adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the 
 " giving of the law, and the service of God, and the 
 "promises.' Verse 4. 
 
 " If this primary respect to the fleshly seed be 
 "admitted, it is all that I am desirous to establish 
 " in behalf of the carnal or natural relation." 
 
 Mr Maclean's strictures on this reasoning have 
 only served to establish me in the conviction of its 
 truth. He first "freely admits, that the promises 
 " made to Abraham had a primary respect to his 
 " natural offspring." " But," he adds, " on this 
 " subject we must distinguish Abraham's natural 
 " offspring into the children of the fiesh and the 
 "children of the promise, and also the promises 
 " themselves into temporal and spiritual :" — and from 
 the laying down of this usual distinction, any reader 
 that has the slightest portion of sagacity, and of 
 acquaintance with this controversy, might anticipate 
 the manner in which it is applied. — The sagacity of 
 
 F 
 
82 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 the same reader, however, may enable him to per- 
 ceive, that the whole of my argument and illustra- 
 tion regarded the primary respect of the spiritual 
 promises to the fleshly seed. I should have been 
 doing a very useless thing indeed, had I set myself 
 to prove the primary reference to this seed of the 
 temporal promises ; for I should have been proving 
 what no one questioned. Now, what I have con- 
 tended for, Mr Maclean in substance admits : "As 
 " to the spiritual promises which are included in the 
 " blessing of Abraham, such as justification, the pro- 
 " mise of the Spirit, the true adoption of sons, &c. 
 " these had also a primary, though not a peculiar or 
 " exclusive respect to Abraham's natural offspring. 
 " That they had not an exclusive respect to them, is 
 " clear from the very words of the covenant with 
 " Abraham on which the Apostle's argument is found- 
 " ed, viz. s In thee,' or * in thy seed, shall all the 
 " nations of the earth be blessed,' which includes 
 " Gentiles as well as Jews, Gal. hi. 8, 14, 16, 17, 28; 
 " and with this the facts recorded in the accomplish- 
 " ment of that promise fully agree." * 
 
 These positions he proceeds to establish, much in 
 the same way as I have myself done above. And 
 when he subjoins, " Thus the spiritual promises had 
 " a primary respect to the natural offspring of Abra- 
 " ham : but as the bulk of that nation rejected Christ 
 " when he came, and persecuted his followers, nei- 
 " ther their being the circumcised seed of Abraham, 
 
 * Review, p. 88, 89. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 
 
 " nor their national relation to God by the Sinai cove- 
 " nant, could entitle them to the privileges of the free 
 " sons and heirs ; and so they were, like the bond- 
 M woman and her son, cast out of God's house :" — he 
 says what I heartily subscribe to. The distinctions 
 made are essential to my own argument. 
 
 Mr Maclean labours hard with the passage Rom. 
 xi. 28. " As touching the election, they are beloved 
 "for the fathers sakes" — After stating his objection 
 to its being understood as implying any regard, in 
 the bestowment of spiritual blessings, to the charac- 
 ter of their godly progenitors, — namely, the apparent 
 inconsistency of such a sentiment with the freedom of 
 grace, — he proceeds to say — "I apprehend, there- 
 fore, that when the Apostle says, 'As concerning 
 " the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes,* 
 " he means, for the sake of that which God promised 
 " to their fathers. The promise to Abraham was, 
 "'In thee,' or 'in thy seed, shall all the nations of 
 "the earth be blessed.' Gen. xii. 3, xxii. 18. This, 
 " the Apostle informs us, was the covenant which 
 "was confirmed before of God in Christ, and in 
 " which the gospel was before preached to Abraham ; 
 " and he explains this seed in whom the nations were 
 " to be blessed, and to whom the promises were 
 " made, to be Christ." Gal. hi. 8, 16, 17. * 
 
 This view of the passage is liable to the following 
 objections : — 
 
 1. Mr Maclean understands 'the election' as mean 
 
 * Review, p. 92, 93. 
 
84 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 ing the persons elected, — and the pronoun they as 
 having these persons for its antecedent, — " they (i. e. 
 "the election) are beloved for the fathers' sakes." 
 But the structure of the entire verse will hardly ad- 
 mit of this: — "As concerning the gospel, they are 
 " enemies for your sakes ; but as touching the elec- 
 tion, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes." — It 
 seems evident, that the pronoun "they," in the 
 two clauses of the verse, has the same antecedent. It 
 relates to the race of the Jews. — not the then existing 
 generation, but the race generally, considered as the 
 offspring of the ancient fathers. The same mode of 
 expression occurs in all the preceding context — where 
 the Apostle, speaking of the future restoration of Is- 
 rael, says — "And they also, if they abide not still 
 " in unbelief, shall be grafted in ; for God is able 
 "to graft them in again," &c. verses 23 — 27. Al- 
 though the pronoun them appears to refer to the 
 branches which were then broken off, yet the real 
 reference is, not to the generation at the time in 
 being, but only to the same people or race, at a dis- 
 tant period, considered as retaining its identity in its 
 continued connexion with the same original root or 
 stock. 
 
 It appears to me evident, that, in the verse under 
 consideration, things and persons are respectively set 
 in contrast: — "as concerning the gospel" — "as 
 touching the election:" — "enemies for your 
 sakes" — "beloved for the fathers' sakes." — "The 
 election," therefore, means, I think, not the persons 
 chosen, but the divine choice. The word is used in 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 85 
 
 both senses in the preceding part of the same chapter; 
 and this acceptation of it here accords with the verse 
 which follows; — "for the gifts and calling of God 
 are without repentance :" which in effect is the same 
 as saying, the divine choice is without repentance. 
 
 2. That the sense affixed by Mr Maclean to the 
 phrase "for the fathers' sakes" is not the natural 
 one, is evident from his own admission in the follow- 
 ing words, which conclude the paragraph of which I 
 have cited the beginning : — " So that whatever tem- 
 " poral blessings and outward privileges were promis- 
 " ed to, or conferred on, the nation of Israel, for 
 " the fathers' sakes, yet the spiritual blessings 
 "of redemption, which were peculiar to the elect 
 " among them, are promised and bestowed only for 
 " Christ's sake." — This is as much as to say, that 
 if the phrase " for the fathers' sakes" had been used 
 in regard to temporal blessings, it might have been 
 allowed to mean what it plainly and simply expresses ; 
 — but that as the Apostle is here speaking of the 
 restoration of Israel to the church of God, and of 
 their spiritual salvation, it must signify, not what it 
 plainly expresses, but "for Christ's sake." This is 
 arbitrary. Is there any inconsistency in holding, that, 
 whilst all the blessings of salvation are bestowed in 
 free mercy for Christ's sake, yet, in conferring them 
 on any of the posterity of his servants, the God of 
 grace may have a regard to the previous objects of his 
 love, and, in blessing the offspring, gratify, as it were, 
 an ancient affection to the fathers 1 iVnd is not this 
 in perfect harmony with the language, so frequent in 
 
86 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 scripture, which represents the love of God to the 
 fathers as terminating upon the children : — " The 
 " Lord had a delight in thy fathers, to love them, 
 " and he chose their seed after them, even you above 
 "all people, as it is this day' — circumcise therefore 
 " the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiflf- 
 " necked." * 
 
 3. The promise quoted by Mr Maclean, namely, 
 " In thee," or "in thy seed, shall all nations of the 
 earth be blessed" — affords no ground whatever for 
 the inference of a special or primary regard to the 
 election among the Jews. That promise relates alike 
 to the Gentiles and to the natural offspring of Abra- 
 ham : and any obligation on the part of God to fulfil 
 a promise relative to all nations, was not at all to the 
 purpose of the Apostle's argument. The election 
 among the Gentiles were as much beloved for the 
 sake of this promise, as the election among the Jews. 
 It left no room for a " how much more" on behalf of 
 the latter. If there was any primary respect in it at 
 all, it was rather to the world at large than to the off- 
 spring of Abraham : and so the Apostle interprets it 
 when he says — "And the scripture, foreseeing that 
 " God would justify the heathen through faith, 
 "preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, 
 " In thee shall all nations be blessed." Gal. iii. 8. 
 But that a peculiarity of regard to the "seed of 
 Abraham God's friend" is intended to be expressed, 
 is as clear as words can make it ; and an explanation 
 
 * Deut. x. 15, 16. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 87 
 
 that takes away the ground of this peculiarity, can- 
 not be the true one. 
 
 4. It ought to be observed, that the promise " In 
 thy seed shall all nations be blessed" is, according to 
 the Apostle, " the gospel" as "preached to Abraham." 
 If, therefore, "for the fathers' sakes" means for the 
 sake of that promise, it means for the sake of the gos- 
 pel. What, then, are we to make of the text 1 " as 
 " concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your 
 " sakes ; but as touching the election, they are belov- 
 "ed for the gospel's sake!" How entirely does this 
 destroy the antithesis, and subvert the argument of 
 the passage ! 
 
 5. It is very unfair in Mr Maclean, to introduce 
 the word merely into the argument, a word which 
 is neither the Apostle's nor mine: — "If they were 
 " thus beloved merely for the sake of the godliness of 
 " their fathers ; Ishmael and Esau with their posteri- 
 " ties, and, at any rate, the whole nation of Israel, 
 " must have had an equal claim to this peculiarity of 
 " divine regard ; for they all sprung from the same 
 " godly fathers." Who has ever said they were be- 
 loved merely for the sake of their fathers ? who ever 
 
 thought so ? As to what is said of " Ishmael and 
 
 Esau, with their posterities," I have only to say, let 
 the reader look at the text cited a little ago, where 
 Moses says to the Jewish people, "God had a de- 
 " light in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their 
 " seed after them, even you above all people." Is 
 there, or is there not, any connexion intimated here, 
 between the choice of the seed, and the delight in the 
 
88 OLD TESTAMENT PRACTICE, 
 
 fathers ? If there be, (and who can question it ?) the 
 answer to the objection lies not with me — namely, 
 why God did not choose Ishmael and Esau with their 
 posterities, on account of the same delight. The fact 
 that it was otherwise is all in our favour : for, seeing 
 the connexion between the delight and the choice, 
 as between a cause and its effect, is so unequivocally 
 intimated, it follows, that there is no inconsistency 
 between gracious sovereignty in the choice of the 
 seed, and a regard of love in it, at the same time, 
 to the fathers. 
 
 Mr Maclean further objects, that, " as the pro- 
 " mises made to Abraham had a primary respect to 
 " his natural offspring, it follows from this, that they 
 " can have no such respect to the natural offspring of 
 " Gentile believers, for this plain reason, that they 
 "cannot have two primary respects."* — But the ob- 
 jection is more specious than solid. The spiritual 
 seed amongst the posterity of Abraham, and the spi- 
 ritual seed amongst the Gentiles, are not two spiritual 
 seeds. They are one seed, of which Abraham is the 
 spiritual father. The primary respect for which I 
 contend, was not, if I may so speak, concentrated in 
 Abraham personally. It descended with the posses- 
 sion of his faith ; every follower of that faith sharing 
 in it, and deriving from it his encouragement in mak- 
 ing known God's "testimony and law" to his child- 
 ren, that they too might " set their hope in God." 
 When a Gentile received the faith of Abraham, and 
 
 * Review, p. 93, 94. 
 
AND NO PROOF OF REPEAL. 89 
 
 united himself to the Israelitish Church, the circum- 
 cision of his children along with him showed, that, 
 amongst other privileges, he became a partaker in 
 this primary respect of the promises to the natural 
 offspring. At the fulness of time, the Gentiles, be- 
 lieving the gospel, and received into the church, 
 became the people of God. The blessing of Abra- 
 ham came upon them. They became partakers and 
 heirs of the promises : — and the continuance among 
 them of the primary respect to the natural offspring 
 no more constitutes two primary respects, than their 
 reception into the church produced two peoples of 
 God, or two spiritual seeds of Abraham. 
 
90 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 EVIDENCE OF THE FACT THAT, SO FAR FROM THE ANCIENT 
 CONNEXION BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILDREN HAVING 
 BEEN ABROGATED, THE CHILDREN OF CONVERTS TO THE 
 FAITH OF THE GOSPEL WERE ACTUALLY BAPTIZED 
 ALONG WITH THEIR PARENTS, IN THE TIME OF THE 
 APOSTLES. 
 
 In the preceding section, I have endeavoured to show, 
 that the covenant made with Abraham was the gos- 
 pel covenant, the covenant of grace, under which we 
 live, and which is the basis of the New Testament 
 church : — that the ordinance of circumcision was at- 
 tached to that covenant, and, as the sign of its bless- 
 ings and the seal of its promises, was, by divine 
 command, administered to children : — that, although 
 there is abundant evidence of a change in the rite or 
 ordinance, there is none whatever of any such change 
 in its administration, as excludes children from being 
 any longer the legitimate subjects of its observance : 
 — and that, therefore, whilst our baptist friends call 
 upon us for the production of express precept, author- 
 izing the baptism of children, we are better entitled 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 91 
 
 to require the production of such precept from them, 
 repealing and setting aside the ancient injunction and 
 practice, which existed under the same covenant, and, 
 not belonging to the old economy, the dispensation of 
 Moses, did not necessarily cease when that economy 
 "waxed old, and vanished away." 
 
 The excellence of any process of reasoning consists 
 in its successfully eliciting and establishing truth. 
 The philosopher who contrives an experiment, or a 
 course of experiments, by which a controverted point 
 in science may be satisfactorily settled, should certain- 
 ly be regarded with gratitude. Should any brother 
 philosopher have previously laid down to himself cer- 
 tain principles and rules, according to which all scienti- 
 fic inquiries and experiments ought to be conducted, — 
 and, because the process has not been in perfect agree- 
 ment with his pre-ordained regulations, should he not 
 only refuse to be satisfied by the experiments, but 
 even so much as to examine them ; — he would justly 
 be reprimanded as unreasonable, as a bigot to modes 
 and forms, and an enemy to knowledge unless it has 
 been attained by a particular route. No man has any 
 title to complain of any mode of discussion, or of 
 the sources from which arguments are drawn, if he 
 is conducted by them to true conclusions and right 
 principles. — I refer, in these remarks, to the excep- 
 tion, so generally and so strongly taken by our bap- 
 tist brethren, against all reasonings in support of a 
 New Testament practice, drawn from the Old Testa- 
 ment scriptures. It has even been said, that "those 
 " who attempt to prove infant baptism from the Abra- 
 
92 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 "hamic covenant, follow the same course as those 
 "who try to prove the propriety of the alliance be- 
 tween the church and the world. Many subtle ar- 
 guments, which may perplex, are also brought for- 
 " ward on this subject from the Old Testament ; but 
 " if any one attends to the nature of the kingdom of 
 "Christ, and to the apostolic instructions and ex- 
 " amples, the truth appears clear and manifest." * — 
 It does so : but why ? — because the arguments drawn 
 from the Old Testament, in support of the alliance 
 between church and state, have been deduced from 
 a perverse misapplication to the conduct of other na- 
 tions, of the peculiarities of the Jewish people ; pecu- 
 liarities, which were such as no other people can be 
 authorized to apply to themselves, unless they can 
 show, that, like Israel of old, they have been singled 
 out by Jehovah for special purposes, that they have 
 been taken into the same peculiar relation to himself, 
 and have been endowed with the same peculiar pri- 
 vileges. There never has been a divinely authorized 
 national church but one. If it could be shown, that 
 we found our argument for infant baptism on any of 
 the peculiarities of that constitution ; that we build 
 our reasonings upon the specialties of the old and 
 temporary covenant ; that we would bind the con- 
 sciences of Christians by what was purely and ex- 
 clusively Mosaic; — there might be some justice in 
 the above comparison. But it is not so. The argu- 
 
 * Mr Haldane's Reasons of a Change in Sentiment and Prac- 
 tice on the Subject of Baptism, p. 93. 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 93 
 
 ment drawn from the Abrahamic covenant, is found- 
 ed on the very consideration, that it is not exclusively 
 Mosaic ; that, on the contrary, it existed centuries 
 before the Sinaitic constitution, and was entirely in- 
 dependent of it ; that it is the covenant of grace ; 
 and that, in arguing from it, we do not argue from 
 one covenant to another, but from the same covenant 
 in different states of its progressive revelation. — The 
 only question with regard to any argument ought to 
 be, Is it scriptural ? — not, From which of the two 
 Testaments has it been drawn ? If both be scripture, 
 it may be as scriptural when drawn from the one as 
 from the other : and if it be scriptural, it is valid ; 
 for " all scripture is given by inspiration of God." 
 There is a glorious and beautiful harmony in divine 
 revelation. If my argument from Moses makes him 
 inconsistent with Paul, I must be in the wrong; but 
 if another's argument from Paul makes him inconsist- 
 ent with Moses, he must be equally in the wrong. 
 That system is the right one, which harmonizes the 
 different discoveries of the Divine mind, and shows 
 the consistency of scripture with itself. 
 
 It has been alleged, moreover, as a general reply 
 to the strain of reasoning in the preceding section, 
 that, in regard to infant baptism, the New Testament 
 is silent ; — and that this silence alone is sufficient to 
 set it aside. The passage usually quoted in support 
 of this sentiment, — quoted by men of sense and dis- 
 crimination, and reiterated by men of neither, — is 
 Heb. vii. 14. " For it is evident, that our Lord 
 "sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake 
 
94 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 "nothing concerning priesthood." — I have been sur- 
 prised, I confess, at the citation of this text for such 
 a purpose. The two cases are essentially different. 
 In the first place, the express command of God con- 
 fined the priesthood in Israel to a particular tribe, — 
 the tribe of Levi. The intrusion of others was un- 
 hallowed presumption, and punished with death. The 
 phrase, therefore, "Moses spake nothing" evidently 
 means more, in this connexion, than mere silence ; — 
 namely, that the law which restricted the priesthood 
 to the tribe of Levi, was a law exclusive of all others, 
 — so that, by this limiting and excluding statute, 
 Judah had nothing to do with the priesthood. When 
 our brethren shall have made out, from scripture, as 
 exclusive a law for believer baptism, as the law which 
 confined the priesthood to the tribe of Levi, they will 
 have done something to the purpose. Their argu- 
 ment will then bear some resemblance in validity to 
 that of the apostle. But until they shall have done 
 this, their reference to such a passage will continue 
 a mere begging of the question. — Secondly, We deny 
 the truth of the affirmation, that the New Testament 
 is silent on the subject. We think it contains intima- 
 tions of the connexion of children with their parents, 
 in the promises of the covenant, and the blessings of 
 the kingdom of heaven, and also of the apostolic 
 practice in regard to their baptism, exactly such as 
 the circumstances of the case might have led us to 
 expect. 
 
 I must repeat, that proofs of the fact of adult or 
 believer baptism, are nothing to the purpose ; because 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 95 
 
 they are proofs of what nobody disputes. The ques- 
 tion stands thus : — Our baptist brethren adduce pas- 
 sages on their side of the controversy, in which per- 
 sons are said to have " believed and been baptized " 
 — to have been " baptized both men and women " — 
 to have "gladly received the word and been baptiz- 
 ed" &c. But we, on our part, say, these passages 
 prove what to us requires no proof. They prove 
 adults to have been baptized on a profession of the 
 faith — but they do not disprove the baptism of the 
 children of proselytes. Yes, say the baptists, they 
 do disprove it ; for, as to the baptism of any besides 
 the believing adults themselves, the scriptures are 
 silent. They " speak nothing " concerning the bap- 
 tism of infants : therefore infants ought not to be 
 baptized. Now, this is what we deny. It is pre- 
 cisely here that we are at issue. We say, they are 
 not silent. We affirm, in the terms of the second 
 of our three propositions, that there is satisfac- 
 tory EVIDENCE OF THE FACT, THAT, INSTEAD OF 
 ANY CHANGE, EXCLUSIVE OF CHILDREN, HAVING 
 TAKEN PLACE UNDER THE NEW TESTAMENT DIS- 
 PENSATION, THE CHILDREN OF CONVERTS TO THE 
 FAITH OF THE GOSPEL WERE ACTUALLY BAPTIZED 
 ALONG WITH THEIR PARENTS, IN THE TIME OF 
 THE APOSTLES AND THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES. 
 
 To the establishment of this proposition I now pro- 
 ceed. I shall state and illustrate a series of observa- 
 tions, all bearing us forward towards our conclusion, 
 and some of them, in my apprehension, sufficient of 
 themselves to settle it. 
 
 . 
 
96 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 1. It is very common, to speak of the Old and 
 New Testament churches, as if they were quite dis- 
 tinct from each other ; as if, when the latter was in- 
 troduced, the former had been entirely removed, and 
 succeeded by something totally new. But this is far 
 from being the style in which the matter is repre- 
 sented, either in the Old Testament scriptures, or 
 in the New. In both, the ancient church is spoken 
 of, not as annihilated, and followed by another, but 
 as visited, comforted, purified, raised up, and glori- 
 ously restored from decline and corruption. If in 
 some passages the idea of complete renovation ap- 
 pears to be suggested, we need not be surprised that 
 such language should be applied to a change in the 
 state of the church so remarkable, — to a revival so 
 eminently glorious. The prosperity of the church 
 in the latter days is represented by the "creation 
 " of new heavens and a new earth, so that the former 
 "should not be remembered, nor come into mind." 
 — If such language is employed to elevate our con- 
 ceptions and anticipations of that blessed era, we 
 might surely expect terms somewhat similar to be 
 used, in reference to the time when " God was to be 
 "manifested in the flesh," "a light to lighten the 
 " Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel." 
 
 The fact is, that when the prophets of the Old 
 Testament predict the calling of the Gentiles at the 
 fulness of time, they represent them as brought in to 
 the previously existing church, although in its reno- 
 vated and remodelled state : — and when the prophets 
 of the New Testament foretell the restoration of the 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 97 
 
 Jews, it is under the idea of being brought in again 
 to the same church from which, on account of their 
 unbelief, they had beeu ejected. I might multiply 
 passages in proof of these positions. I shall content 
 myself with two as a specimen,' — one from the Old 
 Testament, and one from the New. * 
 
 The first of the two is Amos. ix. 11, 12 ; of which 
 we have an inspired interpretation, in perfect harmony 
 with the principle we are endeavouring to establish : — 
 " In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David 
 "that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; 
 M and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as 
 " in the days of old : that they may possess the 
 " remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which 
 " are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth 
 " this." How is this prediction explained in the 
 New Testament? How was the tabernacle of David 
 to be raised up? How was the remnant of Edom 
 and of all the heathen to be possessed by the ancient 
 church? The answer is, by the bringing in of the 
 Gentiles into the church of Christ : — Acts xv. 14 — 17. 
 " Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit 
 " the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his 
 "name. And to this agree the words of the pro- 
 
 * In the former editions, I quoted also Isaiah xlix. 20 — 22. 
 1 now omit it, because I feel uncertain whether it relates to 
 the gathering of the Gentiles into the church, or to the em- 
 ployment of the Gentiles as agents in effecting the future 
 restoration of the Jews. The passage which I retain has the 
 advantage of heing expressly cited, in proof of my position, 
 by inspired authority, in the New Testament Scriptures. 
 G 
 
98 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 " phets ; as it is written, After this I will return, 
 " and will build again the tabernacle of David, which 
 " is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins 
 " thereof, and I will set it up ; that the residue of 
 " men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gen- 
 " tiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the 
 " Lord, who doeth all these things." The attentive 
 reader of the Old Testament prophecies will be at 
 no loss to add to these quotations not a few more. 
 
 The other passage is a very decisive one, from the 
 New Testament, Rom. xi. 23, 24. "And they also, 
 " if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted 
 " in : for God is able to graft them in again. For 
 "if thou wert cut out of the olive-tree, which is wild 
 " by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a 
 " good olive-tree ; how much more shall these, which 
 " be the natural branches, be grafted into their own 
 "olive-tree?" Were the Old and New Testament 
 churches entirely different, having no substantial 
 points in common, it is not easy to see with what 
 propriety the Jews, in being brought into the latter, 
 could be said to be grafted into their own olive-tree 
 — grafted in again, that is into the same olive-tree 
 from which they had been cut off. — Mr Maclean 
 indeed argues, that by this tree cannot be meant the 
 national church of Israel, because into that church 
 the believing Gentiles were not grafted. But does 
 not the reader at once perceive, that, upon the same 
 principle, it might be said, it cannot mean the New 
 Testament church, because from that church the 
 unbelieving Jews were not cut off? And if it was 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 99 
 
 neither the Old Testament church, nor the New 
 Testament church, what church was it ? Is it not 
 very clear, that the believing Gentiles were grafted 
 into the same stock from which the unbelieving Jews 
 were broken off? and if they were grafted into the 
 same stock, they certainly became branches of the 
 same tree — branches, occupying the place of those 
 that had been cut away. The tree is not repre- 
 sented as cut down, or rooted up ; but as having 
 "some of the branches broken off" verse 17. If 
 some were broken off, the rest surely remained ; and 
 when the branches from the wild-olive were engrafted, 
 the tree continued. It is not a new tree planted, but 
 an old tree, mutilated by the cutting off of a number 
 of its branches, and filled up with grafts upon the 
 lopped boughs : " Thou wilt say then, the branches 
 " were broken off that I might be grafted in : well ; 
 " because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou 
 " standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear." 
 The branches that were broken off were the unbe- 
 lieving Jews ; — those that remained were the spiritual 
 members of the ancient church, and such as received 
 the testimony of Jesus previously to the time of 
 judicial excision ; — and those that were added, in the 
 room of the cast-away, were the converted Gentiles. 
 It is true, there was an overturning of the national 
 form of the church. Its constitution was remodelled. 
 And the Gentiles were introduced, though not into 
 the national church of Israel, yet into the church of 
 the living God in its remodelled state : and I can 
 imagine nothing clearer, than that when the unbe- 
 
100 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 lieving Jews are represented as, at a period yet future, 
 to be "grafted in again to their own olive-tree," the 
 figure means their being reintroduced to the same 
 church, though under a new form, from which their 
 ancestors were ejected. I have nowhere represented 
 their being "grafted in again" as signifying their 
 being "put into their former Jewish church state " 
 but only their being restored to the church of God, 
 in its New Testament form.- — It should be recollected, 
 that the church which had Abraham, and Isaac, and 
 Jacob for its original stock — (we might go even 
 farther back, but this is the point of time to which 
 the Apostle's reasonings usually refer) — that this 
 church existed for more than four centuries before its 
 national constitution was formally organized at Sinai. 
 The natural offspring of these patriarchs, along with 
 proselytes from among the Gentiles, formed all along 
 the visible church of God ; at times indeed in a state 
 of fearful corruption, but still containing in it his 
 true spiritual people, until "the time of restoration." 
 Then "the wicked were to be shaken out of it." 
 Those " children of the stock of Abraham " who 
 were not his children by faith, though, on account 
 of their fleshly connexion with him, denominated 
 "the natural branches," were to be cut off; and 
 Gentiles, becoming by faith children of Abraham, 
 were to be grafted in, in their room, and to "partake 
 of the root and fatness of the olive-tree;" — that is, 
 to share in the special and enlarged privileges of the 
 church, of which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were 
 the original stock ; which wag rooted in the covenant 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 101 
 
 made with these patriarchs ; and which, though vary- 
 ing its form and external constitution and aspect, 
 has been substantially the same from the beginning. 
 I might venture to say, that the whole style of pro- 
 phetic representation of that which was to come, pro- 
 ceeds upon the principle of the substantial identity of 
 the church ; — and with this the language of the New 
 Testament writers agrees. — I have before referred to 
 the terms in which the prophets describe the church 
 as, at the fulness of time, to be visited, restored, 
 and purified. It is ridiculous to speak of this as if 
 it meant its entire annihilation, and the substitution 
 of another in its room. Some of the passages are 
 very remarkable. Let one suffice. Speaking of the 
 coming of the Messiah, the " Messenger of the cov- 
 enant," the prophet Malachi says, chap. hi. 2, 3. — 
 " But who may abide the day of his coming ? and 
 "who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like 
 "a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap : and he shall 
 "sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall 
 "purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold 
 "and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an 
 " offering in righteousness." This purification of his 
 church was effected, by casting out the wicked in 
 wrath, and by bringing the remnant through the fire 
 in mercy : See the subsequent verses, and Zech. xiii. 
 8, 9.— When the prophet Malachi adds, " Then shall 
 " the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant 
 "unto the Lord, as in the days of old and as in 
 "former years," — there can be no doubt that he 
 refers to the spiritual worship of the New Testament 
 
102 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 church: — which, however, is not the worship of a 
 church entirely new, but of the old church renovated 
 and purified; — and is accordingly compared, in its 
 acceptableness, to that of the church in former times, 
 in the purest and best periods of her ancient history. 
 When the Gentiles are brought in to the church of 
 Christ, they are described as having been previously 
 " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel" but as 
 now "no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow- 
 " citizens with the saints, and of the household of 
 "God." Eph. ii. 12, 19. 
 
 But it would be endless to dilate. Enough has 
 been said in support of my first position. 
 
 2. My second is, that we ought to bear in mind, 
 what was the previous state of things in regard to 
 children, and their connexion with their parents in 
 the application of the sign and seal of the covenant. 
 — What this was, I need not repeat. I merely 
 remind the reader of it. The connexion, and the 
 symbolical recognition of it, existed not only amongst 
 Jewish families themselves, but extended to the case 
 of Gentiles professing the faith of Abraham, — pro- 
 selytes to Judaism. A head of a family was received 
 into the community of Israel, with his household. 
 When I say, with his household, I mean his infant 
 children, and such of the adults as professed the same 
 faith with himself. I make this restriction, because 
 the notion which some have entertained, that adults in 
 a family were, upon the conversion of the head of it, 
 compelled, upon pain of death, to go over with him to 
 the new religion, is so revolting to every principle of 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 103 
 
 justice and reason, involving the establishment, by 
 divine authority, of a system of persecution unto 
 death for conscience sake, — that I cannot assent to 
 it ; nor do I conceive that there is any thing in the 
 record, that may not be fairly explained, without the 
 admission of a supposition so monstrous. But on 
 this I must not here insist.* What I wish the 
 
 * When any interpretation of a divine law proceeds on a sup- 
 position, that is diametrically at variance with the grand moral 
 principles of the Bible, and the divinely sanctioned rights of 
 conscience, I feel myself warranted, in not merely suspecting, 
 but concluding, that it involves some mistake. The excellent 
 author of " Eugenio and Epenetus," previously to the publica- 
 tion of that work, submitted to me, as a friend, some parts of 
 the manuscript, requesting my remarks. I offered a few stric- 
 tures in reply. These are repeatedly referred to in the work, 
 though, in conformity with my desire, without the mention of 
 my name, which, as the remarks were but brief and hasty, I did 
 not wish at the time to be introduced. I have now no objec- 
 tions to avow myself the writer of the following paragraph, at 
 p. 85 of those " Conversations," designed to illustrate, by a 
 parallel case, what I conceive to be the true spirit of the injunc- 
 tion that "all the males" of Gentile proselytes should be cir- 
 cumcised, before these proselytes themselves could be admitted 
 to eat the passover. — " Suppose the government of any country 
 " to enact a law, that all foreigners desirous of settling in the 
 " country as subjects, should, in order to their enjoying the pri- 
 " vileges of subjects, have a particular mark affixed in their 
 " forehead or right hand. Apply this enactment to the case of 
 " + he head of a family having, let us say, twenty adults. Sup- 
 " pose four of these are unwilling to receive the necessary 
 " mark : would it be at all a rational interpretation of the law, 
 " that therefore he could not leave these four, and settle in the 
 
104 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 reader now to bear in mind, is simply this — that the 
 connexion of children with their parents, of which I 
 have been speaking, existed of old, and was inter- 
 woven with all the thoughts, and feelings, and prac- 
 
 " country with the remaining sixteen, who were willing to 
 " accompany him on the prescribed condition ? The obligation 
 " arising from such a law would never be interpreted as amount- 
 " ing to — ' You must have a mark affixed to the body of every 
 " adult, as well as every infant, now in your family. You can- 
 " not settle in the country, if but one of these refuses to submit 
 " to this mark, not even on the ground of that one being ex- 
 " eluded and left behind.' It would be understood as amount- 
 " ing only to this — ' No one who does not receive this mark 
 " must come with you ; for none such can be admitted to the 
 " privileges of subjects.' — The apphcation of this to circumcision 
 " is obvious. When all the members of a man's family are 
 " required to be circumcised, on the head of the family's passing 
 " into the communion of Israel, all that is implied appears to be, 
 " that, as many as passed with him into this communion, and 
 " became partakers with him of its privileges, must have this 
 " mark put upon them." 
 
 The parallelism of this illustrative case appears from the very 
 reason assigned for the injunction — " For no uncircumcised per- 
 son shall eat thereof" If the declared object of the law is 
 perfectly attained, without the monstrous supposition adverted 
 to in the text, of every adult member of a household being com- 
 pelled, upon pain of death, to follow the faith of its head, are 
 we not fairly warranted to conceive the supposition erroneous ? 
 — " In the supposed parallel case," says Mr limes, in reply, 
 " of a person enjoying, on certain conditions, the privileges of a 
 " particular community, there is one very important point 
 " omitted, viz., that it was an essential part of the law, that 
 " if any one of a man's family did not receive the mark he was 
 " to be cut off, i. e. to be put to death. The case alleged sup- 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 105 
 
 tices of the ancient church. It had place in the 
 reception of proselytes. It pervaded and character- 
 ized the entire style and language of their sacred 
 books. The connexion of this observation with our 
 argument will appear immediately when we have 
 remarked, 
 
 3. In the third place, — The language of the pro- 
 phets, in looking forward to New Testament times, ap- 
 
 " poses, that it was an optional thing in the members of the 
 " family to submit to the prescribed mark or not ; and that if 
 " any of them did not, they might leave the family, while the 
 " head of it was not to blame. Now this is a case totally differ- 
 " ent from the institution of circumcision. According to it, a 
 " man was deeply criminal, if he had not all his males circum- 
 " cised. Such as were not so, were not authorized to separate 
 " from him, but were commanded to be put to death." — I need 
 not say much in answer to this, because it is only a re-affirma- 
 tion of his interpretation of the law. Granting that being " cut 
 off from his people " means being put to death ; as the design of 
 the law was to prevent any uncircumcised person from partaking 
 of the passover or being a member of the Israelitish community, 
 which was the church of God, the punishment I understand to 
 apply to such as should presume, without circumcision, to in- 
 trude themselves into the congregation of the Lord. This is 
 evident, from the nature of the case ; from the original law, 
 that " every uncircumcised manchild should be cut off from his 
 people," — which manifestly signifies every manchild found in 
 connexion with the congregation of Israel, — the very phrase 
 " from his people" implying this; and from the fact of the 
 judgments of God being denounced against Israel by the pro- 
 phets, for having, amongst other evils, " brought strangers, 
 " uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in 
 " his sanctuary, to pollute it." 
 
106 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 pears to assume, or even to affirm, the continuance in 
 those times of the same connexion that existed of old. 
 Jeremiah, speaking of the blessedness of the house 
 of Israel, when they shall turn to the Lord in the 
 latter days, says, in the name of Jehovah : — " I will 
 " gather them out of all countries whither I have 
 " driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in 
 " great wrath ; and I will bring them again unto this 
 " place, and I will cause them to dwell safely : and 
 " they shall be my people, and I will be their God. 
 " And I will give them one heart, and one way, that 
 "they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, 
 " and of their children after them : and I will make 
 "an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not 
 "turn away from them, to do them good; but I will 
 " put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not 
 "depart from me."* — I cannot readily imagine any 
 consistent interpretation of this passage, if it does not 
 contain a promise of spiritual blessing to the offspring 
 of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, now in a state of dis- 
 persion, and likewise to their children after them, in 
 their generations ; or, as the prophet Ezekiel expresses 
 it (chap, xxxvii. 25,) " to their children, and to their 
 " children's children, for ever." I have tried to ap- 
 ply the passage to the restoration of the Jews of the 
 captivity from Babylon: — but the terms are too 
 strong to be understood as having had their meaning 
 exhausted then ; when, in so comparatively short a 
 period, a "turning away from them" so much more 
 
 * Jer. xxxii. 37—40. 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 107 
 
 fearful and lasting actually awaited them, as the result 
 of a " departure" so much more fearful, on their part, 
 " from Him." And, as this language respecting the 
 Jews seems therefore to be used in prospect of their 
 union with the Gentiles in the New Testament church, 
 when they shall acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ ; 
 it follows, that the terms employed concerning them 
 are descriptive of the state and privileges of all the 
 subjects of the new covenant, Gentiles as well as Jews. 
 The passage, then, as referring to gospel times, ap- 
 pears to contain an intimation, that the same con- 
 nexion should then continue between the people of 
 God and their offspring, which had existed from the 
 days of Abraham. 
 
 The prophet Isaiah, predicting the glory of the 
 church in the latter days, gives the following, among 
 other declarations, of the blessedness of God's people : 
 — " They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for 
 " trouble : for they are the seed of the blessed of the 
 " Lord, and their offspring with them." Isa. lxv. 23. 
 They are " the seed of the blessed of the Lord," that 
 is, as I apprehend, the spiritual seed of the fathers, 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were peculiarly the 
 blessed of the Lord; — " and their offspring with 
 them ;" that is, connected with them in the promise 
 of the covenant, as in the days when it was made with 
 these blessed of the Lord, and partaking with them of 
 his blessing. This appears to be assigned as the rea- 
 son of their " not bringing forth for trouble," — the 
 blessing of the Lord resting on the offspring in con- 
 nexion with their parents. 
 
108 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 In replying to any argument, candour always re- 
 quires, that we bear in remembrance the precise point 
 which it is intended to establish. The above passages 
 are adduced, simply to show, that the prophets, in 
 anticipating the spiritual times of the New Testament 
 church, employ language such as indicates the future 
 continuance of the connexion between parents and 
 children which formerly subsisted. The proper way 
 of answering them, therefore, is, to show that they do 
 not, in any degree, warrant or countenance such an 
 inference. I say, in any degree. It is not enough to 
 show that they are not, in themselves, and apart from 
 all other proof, conclusive. Each link of a chain, 
 however remote, has a connexion with the final point 
 of fixture, as real and as necessary, though not so im- 
 mediate, as the last. Each in its own proper place, by 
 its junction with that which precedes and that which 
 follows it, contributes to the continuity and strength 
 of the chain. And so does each argument, in a series 
 of proofs, conduct to a conclusion. If each bears legi- 
 timately its own proportion of inference, this is all 
 that should be expected from it. To reply to it, by 
 showing that it does not bear more, that it is not in 
 itself conclusive as to the ultimate point, is not candid. 
 Thus, in answer to the above passages, it has been 
 said, " We want direct 'proof, that the * good ' pro- 
 " mised in them to the people of God and ' their 
 " children after them, includes their baptism ichile 
 " infants." This is banter, not argument. The sole 
 question should be, Do the passages give any counten- 
 ance to the inference, that the connexion between 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 109 
 
 parents and children, which subsisted from the insti- 
 tution of the covenant with Abraham, and charac- 
 terized the ancient dispensations, was to continue 
 under the new 1 If the negative of this precise point 
 is not made out, the passages are not fairly met, but 
 evaded. — It has been further said, "We want positive 
 "proof that their children mean their infant chil- 
 " dren" But this too is little better than evasion. 
 There can be no question, that in the promise of the 
 original covenant, " I will be a God to thee, and to 
 "thy seed after thee in their generations," infant chil- 
 dren were included ; for the token of the covenant was 
 applied to them at eight days old : — this was the con- 
 nexion between parents and children which existed 
 anciently, and which was familiar to the Israelites ; 
 and the question is, as before, whether the above, and 
 other similar passages, do or do not contain any inti- 
 mation that, in the predicted New Testament period of 
 the church, the same thing was to continue. — I am 
 satisfied they do, — the attempt to explain them away 
 having confirmed the conviction. 
 
 4. I go on now to remark, in the fourth place, 
 that the language of the New Testament intimates the 
 continuance of the same connexion ; and intimates it 
 exactly in such a way as, from the previous state of 
 things, might naturally have been expected. 
 
 It is of essential importance, in interpreting the 
 New Testament, that we should keep in mind the 
 state of things preceding it. The reason is obvious. 
 It is surely natural to expect, that its language should 
 be affected by these existing circumstances; and the 
 
110 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 import of the expressions used we shall, in many in- 
 stances, be unable correctly to appreciate, unless we 
 take into account, as a principle of interpretation, 
 a reference, in the mind of the writers, to what 
 already existed and was familiarly known, and the 
 existence and familiar knowledge of which rendered 
 greater enlargement, and minuteness, and precision, 
 unnecessary. This is a principle so obvious, and its 
 influence so natural and unavoidable, that, with the 
 man who should question the admission of it as a 
 legitimate canon of interpretation, I should consider 
 reasoning as thrown away. The strongest considera- 
 tion alleged against it, we shall have occasion to 
 notice by and by. 
 
 I have before observed, how the burden of proof 
 lies on the side of the opponents of infant baptism. 
 They seek a precept in positive terms, such as — Let 
 the infant children of proselytes to the faith of the 
 gospel be baptized with their parents. But we de- 
 mand a precept in similar positive terms — Let the 
 children of proselytes be no longer admitted, as for- 
 merly, to the sign and seal of the blessings of the 
 covenant of God. — We call for the production of an 
 express declaration, that such admission is inconsist- 
 ent with the spirituality of the new dispensation. 
 But no such thing is ever said : no hint of such a 
 thing is ever given. So far from it, that let us mark 
 in general terms, how the case stands. — After finding 
 the connexion in question pervading the Old Testa- 
 ment, in the manner we have stated; — the children 
 of the professed people of God circumcised with their 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 parents ; and the children of Gentile proselytes to the 
 faith of Abraham introduced with their children, by 
 the same rite, to the privileges of the ancient church ; 
 — we then come forward to the history of the new 
 dispensation. If this previous state of things were 
 really inconsistent with its spiritual nature, it seems 
 not unreasonable to expect that the language on this 
 point should be plain and decisive. But what is the 
 fact ? Instead of plain and decisive intimations of 
 this inconsistency, and of the necessary discontinu- 
 ance of the practice, we meet with language in perfect 
 accordance with the previous state of things : precisely 
 such as writers whose minds were habituated to it 
 would naturally use, and such as readers in similar 
 circumstances could not understand in any other way 
 than one. — " They brought young children to him, 
 " that he should touch them ; and his disciples re- 
 " buked those that brought them. But when Jesus 
 " saw it he was much displeased, and said unto 
 "them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, 
 " and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 
 " God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not 
 " receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he 
 " shall not enter therein. And he took them up 
 " in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed 
 "them:" — "Jesus said unto him, This day is sal- 
 " vation come to this house : forasmuch as he also 
 "is a son of Abraham:" — "Then Peter said unto 
 " them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, 
 " for the remission of sins ; and ye shall receive 
 " the gift of the Holy Ghost : — for the promise is to 
 
112 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 " you, and to your children, and to all that are afar 
 " off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call :" 
 — " A certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of pur- 
 "ple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God, 
 " heard us : — whose heart the Lord opened, that she 
 " attended to those things which were spoken of Paul. 
 " And when she was haptized, and her household, she 
 "besought us," &c. — "They said unto him, Believe 
 " in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, 
 " and thy house : and they spake unto him the word 
 " of the Lord, and to all that were in his house : — 
 "and he was baptized, he and all his, straightway:" 
 — " I baptized also the household of Stephanas :" — 
 " The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the be- 
 " lieving wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified 
 "by the believing husband; — else were your children 
 "unclean; but now are they holy."* — It is not on 
 one or another of these texts, taken separately, that I 
 am resting my argument under the present particular. 
 It is on the intimation which, when taken together, 
 they so clearly afford, of the continuance of the same 
 state of things, in regard to families, as had formerly 
 subsisted. I profess myself unable to account for the 
 language, on any thing like easy and natural princi- 
 ples of interpretation, unless upon this hypothesis. 
 The unnatural straining which is employed, to get rid 
 of some of the passages, we shall see immediately. — 
 But, before leaving this particular, I must take notice 
 
 * Mark x. 13—16. Luke xix. 9. Acts ii. 39; xvi. 14, 15, 
 and 31, 33. 1 Cor. i. 1G. 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 113 
 
 of a highly ingenious, and, at first view, very plausible 
 and imposing light, in which the objection has been 
 placed to the mode of reasoning in general from the 
 previous state of things, and of the minds of the Jews 
 in reference to it. " By the same kind of reasoning," 
 it is alleged, "it might, with equal plausibility, be 
 " proved, that the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of 
 " this world. It might be argued, That though the 
 " kingdom of ancient Israel was a worldly kingdom, 
 "including their carnal seed, it was the kingdom of 
 " God : that the prophecies relating to the kingdom 
 " of Messiah frequently represent it as a worldly mon- 
 " archy, like the kingdom of Israel under the reigns 
 " of David and Solomon : — that the Jews in general 
 " interpreted these prophecies of a worldly kingdom ; 
 " their minds were habituated to this idea, and it was 
 " an idea deeply rooted in their hearts : they must 
 " therefore have understood John the baptist, or 
 " Christ and his apostles, when preaching that king- 
 " dom, in a sense consistent with their previous views, 
 " as intimating a continuance of the same worldly 
 " kingdom as formerly, but now to be restored to 
 " Israel, and raised to a higher pitch of worldly power 
 " and prosperity than ever."* 
 
 Now, ingenious and plausible as this mode of put- 
 ting the question may seem, it is more than fallacious. 
 I am sincerely obliged to the reviewer for it, because 
 it serves to set my argument in a still clearer light, 
 and to give it additional force and conclusiveness. It 
 
 * Maclean's Rev., pp. 119, 120. 
 H 
 
114 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 is admitted, that the minds of the Jews were habit- 
 uated to the expectation of a worldly kingdom, and 
 that the idea was deeply rooted in their hearts. Let 
 the passages, then, be pointed out, in which John the 
 baptist, or Christ and his apostles, acted or spoke in 
 a manner that harmonized with this expectation, and 
 was calculated to countenance and to cherish, instead 
 of unsettling and doing it away. The cases will then 
 be parallel ; and the reasoning from the parallelism 
 such as could not easily be rebutted. But it is very 
 far otherwise. Instead of parallelism, there is con- 
 trast. The whole conduct and discourse of our Lord 
 are framed, as if for the very purpose of opposing 
 their worldly and unscriptural conceptions. Every 
 thing about him was fitted to put such conceptions 
 down, and to thwart, and mortify, and wither the 
 hopes arising out of them. His whole preaching, 
 when he proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was 
 at hand, was pointedly directed against the prevailing 
 ideas of its nature. The very first sentence of his 
 sermon on the mount was enough to dissipate them 
 for ever — " Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs 
 "is the kingdom of heaven" — Matt. v. 3: and the 
 whole description of character which follows has the 
 same tendency. It is all spiritual, opposed to every 
 worldly principle, to every carnal and earthly expecta- 
 tion. — Of the same description is his first address to 
 Xicodemus, intimating the necessity of a spiritual 
 birth, in all the subjects of his kingdom — "Verily, 
 "verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, 
 "he cannot see the kingdom of God." John iii. 3. — 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 115 
 
 And how flatly and explicitly does he contradict what 
 he knew to be the views and hopes of the Pharisees, 
 when they asked him c 'when the kingdom of God 
 "should come" — "The kingdom of God," said he, 
 " cometh not with outward show : neither shall they 
 " say, Lo here, or Lo there ; for behold the kingdom 
 "of God is within you." Luke xvii. 20, 21.*— All 
 this is in harmony too with the "good confession" 
 which he subsequently "witnessed before Pontius 
 Pilate," "My kingdom is not of this world." — In 
 fact, the very existence of these false preconceptions 
 makes him evidently studious to avoid whatever might 
 encourage them, and to embrace every opportunity ot 
 exposing and warning against them. — This is what 
 might have been expected. And I have only to 
 request the candid reader, to consider the marked 
 difference between the two cases ; and to put the 
 question to his own mind, whether, if the continuance 
 of the pre-existing connexion between children and 
 parents had been inconsistent with the spirituality oi 
 his kingdom, he who showed himself so jealous of 
 that spirituality, and set himself so decidedly against 
 the worldly views and expectations of his deluded 
 countrymen, would not have acted, in regard to it, 
 upon the same principle, and have avoided whatever 
 was fitted to countenance and confirm such erroneous 
 preconceptions ? 
 
 * I am aware that some translators render the words — " the 
 kingdom of God is among you." I am satisfied that our own 
 translation is decidedly preferable ; but, as the difference is not 
 material to my present argument, I may spare criticism. 
 
116 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 5. Having taken this general view of the passages, 
 and shown their bearing, let me now, in the fifth 
 place, request the reader's attention to two or three of 
 them separately. 
 
 Acts ii. 38, 39. "Then Peter said, Repent, and 
 " be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
 " Christ, for the remission of sins ; and ye shall re- 
 " ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise 
 " is to you, and to your children, and to all that are 
 " afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 " call" 
 
 These words were addressed by a Jew to fellow 
 Jews. How would such an audience understand 
 them ? When they heard of a promise to them and 
 to their children, could their minds fail, on such an 
 occasion, to go back to the promise of the covenant 
 made with their fathers, and declared to be to them 
 and to their seed after them? And in that case, 
 there was but one sense in which the hearers of Peter 
 could understand the designation "your children." 
 Yet it is on the ground of the promise made to them 
 and to their children, that the apostle founds his as- 
 surance of "the gift of the Holy Ghost:" and this 
 gift another apostle (Paul) denominates " the blessing 
 of Abraham," — or declares it at least to be included 
 in that blessing, Gal. hi. 14. — Recollect, then, that the 
 minds of Peter's auditors were habituated to the idea 
 of the connexion of their children with themselves in 
 the promise of the covenant. The idea was deeply 
 and familiarly settled in their minds and hearts. Is 
 it unreasonable, then, to say, that they must have un- 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 117 
 
 derstood Peter's words, — the words of Divine promise 
 to themselves and to their children — addressed to 
 them by an inspired prophet, — in a sense consistent 
 with that which they were accustomed to affix to simi- 
 lar modes of expression, when used of old to their 
 fathers, — and consistent with all their previous habits 
 of thought? And if they did so understand them, 
 they must have conceived of them as assuming, and 
 intimating, the continuance of the same connexion. — 
 Are we then to suppose, that this " holy man of God, 
 " speaking as he was moved by the Holy Ghost," 
 would, without explanation or restriction, at the very 
 " beginning of the gospel," in his first address to his 
 countrymen, when a right impression was of so much 
 consequence — employ expressions, that were fitted to 
 convey to their minds a false and worldly view of the 
 nature of the Messiah's kingdom ? 
 
 Mark x. 13 — 16. "And they brought young child- 
 " ren to him, that he should touch them ; and his 
 " disciples rebuked those that brought them. But 
 " when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and 
 " said unto them, Suffer the little children to come 
 " unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is the 
 " kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whoso- 
 " ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little 
 "child, he shall not enter therein. And he took 
 " them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and 
 "blessed them." 
 
 "The kingdom of God" is the New Testament 
 church, — the spiritual kingdom of Christ, begun on 
 earth, and perfected in heaven, — the gospel dispen- 
 
118 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 sation, including both its state in this world, and its 
 state in the world to come. This comprehensive 
 view of the designation readily accounts for its being 
 sometimes applied to the church below, and at other 
 times to heaven itself. It is the same kingdom, in 
 the two great stages of its progress. — Of this king- 
 dom, young children (fipQoi, infants) are here most 
 explicitly declared to be subjects, — partakers of its 
 privileges and blessings. — If (as some allege) the 
 phrase " of such" means of ]ierso?is possessing the 
 dispositions of children, still, beyond all question, it 
 means this, inclusively of the children themselves. 
 If not, the reason for receiving them would have been 
 as applicable to lambs, or doves, as to children, both 
 of these creatures being used as examples and em- 
 blems of the dispositions in question. And besides, 
 the words which follow ascertain their being included, 
 — " Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God 
 "as a little child, (i. e. surely as a little child re- 
 ceives it,) he shall in no case enter therein." — The 
 Sovereign of this kingdom, then, distinctly recognises 
 little children amongst his subjects; and he is "much 
 displeased" with those who would prevent their being 
 brought to him for his blessing. Recollect, then, 
 reader, the previous state of things ; and let me ask 
 you, is this at all like the language of exclusion ? 
 Is it not, on the contrary, language which delightfully 
 teaches us, that such little children are capable of 
 possessing the blessings of his kingdom, and that a 
 large proportion of those who shall glorify and enjoy 
 him in heaven consists of such? — Am I then to be- 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 119 
 
 lieve, that whilst Jesus makes this interesting declar- 
 ation, pronouncing them objects of his tender love, 
 subjects of his spiritual kingdom, and partakers of its 
 blessings, he, at the same time, cuts off all such from 
 any external sign of connexion with the kingdom he 
 was establishing? — that he declares them partakers 
 of the blessings of the promise, and yet forbids the 
 outward token of such participation to be any longer 
 administered to them? — that he receives them, with 
 the melting eye of benignity and kindness, and ac- 
 knowledges their intimate connexion with him, and 
 yet excludes them from every external indication of 
 such connexion, leaving them no mark or token of the 
 love he so emphatically expresses for them ? — I must 
 have proof of this, more explicit and satisfactory than 
 any I have yet seen, before I can believe it. The 
 words of Christ appear to me very plainly to warrant 
 the inference, or even to involve a declaration, that, 
 as the great promise of the covenant made with the 
 fathers was now receiving its accomplishment, it was 
 still to include, according to its original constitution, 
 the people of God and their seed. The persons by 
 whom these children were brought to Jesus, professed, 
 in the very act of bringing them, their faith in him, 
 and the value they set on his blessing. 
 
 If it shall be objected, that salvation is not confined 
 to the seed of believers, — I gladly admit the fact. 
 I delight in the conviction of the salvation of all that 
 die in infancy, though it would be foreign to my pur- 
 pose to enlarge here on the grounds of this convic- 
 tion. Let one observation suffice. I see God actually 
 
120 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 taking of the offspring of ungodly men, and calling 
 them by his grace, in their adult years ; and, resting 
 on this matter of fact, I can see nothing to hinder his 
 taking also, as the objects of his sovereign mercy, such 
 of their offspring as die in infancy. I am not, how- 
 ever, to forget, that God's sovereign dealing in the 
 case of others, is not to be considered as interfering 
 with his special promises to his people ; and that the 
 administration of ordinances must run in the line of 
 the Divine promise and prescription. We have no 
 title, whatever God's sovereignty may do, to go be- 
 yond or out of the course of these. The appropria- 
 tion of the promise and seal of the covenant to the 
 line of descent from Abraham by Isaac, was not such 
 as to preclude the gracious admission of proselytes 
 from among the Gentiles. 
 
 Luke xix. 9. " Jesus said unto him, This day is 
 " salvation come to this house, for-so-much as he also 
 " is a son of Abraham :" — Acts xvi. 15. "When she 
 "was baptized, and her household:'"' — Acts xvi. 31, 
 33. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou 
 " shalt be saved, and thy house :" — "He was bap- 
 " tized, he and all his, straightway:" — 1 Cor. i. 16. 
 " I baptized also the household of Stephanas." 
 
 These passages relating to families, I take of course 
 together. The general argument from them, arising 
 from the continuance of a phraseology corresponding 
 to the previous state of things, I have considered un- 
 der the preceding particular. As to that view of the 
 argument, I feel no anxiety about the question, whe- 
 ther there were infant children in those families or 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 121 
 
 not. As the passages, however, have been the occa- 
 sion of no small controversy, a few additional obser- 
 vations are indispensable. 
 
 In the first place, then, there is one point of fact 
 undeniably clear, namely, that the apostles baptized 
 households, or families. As to this there can be no 
 question. — It should be noticed, too, that a man's 
 house (oiko?) most properly means his children, his 
 offspring, his descendants, — and is generally used to 
 denote these even exclusively. I refer the reader to 
 the following instances, which he may consult. Ruth 
 iv. 12. 1 Kings xiv. 10—14; xvi. 3; xxi. 22. 1 Tim. 
 iii. 4, &c. 
 
 Secondly : To an unprejudiced reader of the New 
 Testament, it must, I think, be equally clear, that the 
 baptism of families is mentioned in a way that indi- 
 cates its being no extraordinary occurrence, — but a 
 thing of course. This is remarkably the case as to 
 Lydia. " The Lord opened her heart, that she at- 
 tended to the things which were spoken by Paul. 
 " And when she was baptized and her family, she 
 " besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be 
 " faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide 
 "there." I cannot but consider any person unrea- 
 sonable, who will not admit, that the mode of ex- 
 pression here is one which would naturally be used 
 respecting a thing that was customary. And it is 
 worthy of notice, moreover, that the baptism of her 
 family is immediately connected in the record with 
 her own reception of the truth ; and that upon her 
 own faithfulness to the Lord she founds her plea for 
 
122 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 their coming under her roof. — Similar remarks might 
 be made as to the case of the Philippian jailor, who 
 " was baptized, he and all his straightway." 
 
 Thirdly ; — Having thus the unquestionable fact of 
 the baptism of families, — a fact according with the 
 ancient practice of the circumcision of families — and 
 supported by the use of a word that properly denotes 
 a man's children or offspring, — we are warranted to 
 assume, that such was the usual practice, unless our 
 baptist brethren can show, that the cases of Lydia, 
 the jailor, and Stephanas, were in the circumstances 
 of them extraordinary, and therefore not fair speci- 
 mens of what was customary. Here is the turning 
 point on this part of the argument. If they cannot 
 make out this, — or if they cannot make it out with- 
 out unnatural straining and inadmissable suppositions, 
 our ground is firm. 
 
 Let us then, in the fourth place, examine a little 
 the principles on which they endeavour to set aside 
 the inference from the examples in question. — "We 
 "really," they allege, "cannot help its appearing 
 "unnatural to suppose that there were no little 
 " children in those families ; we have to do only with 
 " the fact ; and in each of the cases, we have clear 
 " evidence that there were none." What then is this 
 evidence ? 
 
 First, it has been said, there were no children in 
 the family of Lydia ; for when Paul and Silas were 
 released from their imprisonment, " they entered into 
 " the house of Lydia ; and when they had seen the 
 "brethren, they comforted them, and departed." 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 123 
 
 We are here informed, it is alleged, that the family 
 of Lydia were "brethren," who were capable of being 
 " comforted" by Paul and Silas at their departure. — 
 Now, let the reader observe the wonderfully slender 
 ground on which this argument rests. It is simply 
 this, "They saw these brethren in the house of 
 "Lydia, — therefore they were Lydia's family — and 
 " Lydia's family only !" Surely, compared with this, 
 
 " The spider's most attenuated thread 
 Is rope, is cable." — 
 
 How preposterously absurd, to be sure, to suppose 
 that any persons should ever come into a man's 
 house, except the members of his own family ! and 
 especially when a common friend is there, the object 
 of deep interest and warm attachment, about to take 
 a last farewell, whom none of course, in such circum- 
 stances, could have any wish to see ! Seriously, is 
 it inconceivable that the converts at Philippi should 
 have met in the house of Lydia ? Is it very improb- 
 able, that they should have been there at a season 
 so intensely interesting, — waiting the result, and en- 
 gaged in prayer for the suffering preachers of the 
 word, like those who met for this exercise, in the 
 house of John Mark, on behalf of Peter? — or that 
 they should have convened there for the purpose of 
 taking farewell of Paul and Silas? — Let the reader 
 further observe, what an improbable and heartless 
 supposition is involved in this argument; — a suppo- 
 sition wilich no one surely would willingly admit, 
 
124 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 unless necessitated by an express declaration : — 
 namely, that Lydia and her family were the only 
 converts, except the jailor and his, made during Paul's 
 stay at Philippi. But this is not only contrary to all 
 probability ; it is opposed to obvious fact. The his- 
 tory is very brief; and the particular incidents se- 
 lected for detail are only a few out of many, dis- 
 tinguished by the peculiarity of their circumstances 
 or consequences. Sometimes nothing is recorded at 
 all, but the fact of the preachers having visited the 
 countries, although we afterwards learn, incidentally, 
 that they had met with much success. Thus in Acts 
 xviii. 23, we are informed, that Paul " went over the 
 " countries of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strength- 
 " ening all the disciples :" yet all that is said of these 
 countries before, is, " When they had gone through - 
 "out Phrygia and the region of Galatia" — Acts xvi. 
 6. Are we then to suppose, that Paul and his asso- 
 ciates remained at Philippi "many days," (verses 12, 
 18,) at a time, too, when God was so remarkably 
 blessing the labours of his servants, — "always," as 
 the apostle himself expresses it, " causing them to 
 " triumph in Christ, and making manifest the savour 
 " of his knowledge by them in every place," — and 
 that the entire product of their preaching for that 
 time in the chief city of Macedonia, was one family ? 
 — for the jailor's was at the very close of their stay, 
 and arose from very peculiar circumstances. I refrain 
 from saying what I think, of the argument that re- 
 quires such a supposition to support it. — But still 
 further. From the manner in which the apostle 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 125 
 
 writes to the church at Philippi, it appears evidently 
 to have been, from the first, a numerous and flourish- 
 ing one. Let the reader consult the following pas- 
 sages of that epistle — chap. i. 4 — 7; i. 30; ii. 12; 
 iv. 3 ; iv. 15, 16, — or, if he please, peruse the whole ; 
 and draw the inference for himself, whether the 
 apostle had seen no more fruit of his labours, when 
 there, than the members of two families ! 
 
 Equally futile are the proofs adduced, that there 
 were no infant children in the households of the jailor, 
 and of Stephanas : — namely, that respecting the for- 
 mer it is said, Paul " spoke the word of the Lord to 
 " all that were in his house," Acts xvi. 32, — which 
 supposes them all capable of understanding and re- 
 ceiving what he spoke : and respecting the latter, that 
 they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the 
 "saints," 1 Cor. xvi. 15, which shows them to have 
 been all capable of feeling and practising Christian 
 benevolence. The simple answer to this is, that such 
 general expressions are perfectly common, both in 
 conversation and in writing. When we ascribe to a 
 family anything of which infants are universally un- 
 derstood to be incapable, we never think of making a 
 formal exception of them. The man who from my 
 saying " I spoke to the whole family — to all in the 
 house," — or " They are a very benevolent family — 
 they lay themselves out for doing good," — should 
 conclude that I was certainly speaking of a family in 
 which there were no infant children, — I should be apt 
 to regard either as in jest, or as a hypercritical fool. 
 "When Joshua says, " As for me and my house, we 
 
126 POSITTVE EVIDENCE 
 
 will serve the Lord" does any one ever think of infer- 
 ring, that his family could not contain any infants, 
 because infants were incapable of serving the Lord? 
 Yet the inference would be as legitimate in this case, 
 as in either of the others : and it may not be amiss 
 for our baptist brethren, to make it the subject of a 
 little self-examination, by what principle it is that 
 they are led to such a conclusion in the one case, 
 when they never think of it in the other : — what is 
 the precise difference in the state of their minds, when 
 they read the 15th verse of the twenty-fourth chapter 
 of Joshua, and when they read the 34th verse of the 
 sixteenth chapter of the Acts, or the 16th verse of 
 the sixteenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corin- 
 thians. 
 
 Let us only consider for a moment, into what ridi- 
 culous absurdities we should be led by the general 
 adoption of such a principle of criticism. — The child- 
 ren of Israel were commanded, in preparing the pass- 
 over, " to take a lamb for a house, according to the 
 " number of souls." Are we to infer from this, that 
 they numbered the mouths of sucking infants? — or 
 that there were no such infants at that time in the 
 families of Israel? — They were enjoined to eat it 
 " with their loins girt, and their shoes on their feet, 
 and their staff in their hand :" — children could not 
 do this ; therefore we conclude again that there must 
 have been none : — and the conclusion is irresistibly 
 confirmed, by the testimony of the Psalmist respect- 
 ing the passage through the Red Sea, — for " they 
 went through the flood," he says, "on foot;" which 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 127 
 
 infants, none will dispute, were incapable of doing. — 
 When the paralytic Eneas was cured by Peter, it is 
 said, " all that dwelt in Lydda and Saron saw him, 
 and turned to the Lord;" — from which, amongst other 
 inferences, it will follow, that these places presented 
 the singular anomaly, of a population without infants ! 
 — Paul writes to the Thessalonians, that " if any 
 would not work, neither should he eat :" — were the 
 babes of Thessalonica, then, to be left to starve, be- 
 cause they were incapable of earning, or of being will- 
 ing to earn, their daily bread? — Let no baptist say 
 indignantly, " This is ridiculous, — it is making a joke 
 of the matter." I grant it is. It is fit for nothing 
 else. But let him recollect, that the materials of the 
 joke are furnished by his own friends. Let the ar- 
 gument (if it must have a name to which it has no 
 title) be withdrawn, and there will be no room left for 
 the joke. I am only ashamed indeed of being obliged 
 to argue it at all. It is not worth the ammunition. 
 
 6. I add, as a sixth general observation, the ex- 
 treme improbability, that a change, which must have 
 been felt so important by those whose minds had 
 been all along habituated to the connexion of their 
 children with themselves in the covenant of promise, 
 should have taken place, without the slightest record- 
 ed symptom of opposition or demurring. 
 
 We know the strength of attachment to ancient in- 
 stitutions, felt and manifested by the Jewish converts 
 to the faith of the gospel, — their extreme reluctance 
 to part even with those observances which belonged 
 exclusively to that system of shadows, of which the 
 
128 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 body was Christ. They were still "zealous for the 
 law;" and they showed their zeal by their indigna- 
 tion at Paul, for having, as they had been informed, 
 taught their countrymen that they should not " cir- 
 " cumcise their children, neither walk after the cus- 
 "toms." Is it likely, then, nay is it at all conceivable, 
 on the supposition of the new system entirely exclud- 
 ing children from its appropriate rites, that not a hint 
 should appear of any one having been startled by the 
 change, — that not a symptom should have discovered 
 itself of any disposition to object or complain? — nay 
 more — that none of the bitter adversaries of the 
 Christian scheme should ever have cavilled at this, 
 or founded upon it any part of their disputatious op- 
 position ! — That to Jewish eyes it must have appear- 
 ed an innovation of no trifling magnitude, will not 
 be questioned by any one, who duly considers how 
 strongly the connexion, supposed to be disannulled, 
 was sanctioned in their minds, by the sacred provi- 
 sions of God's covenant with their venerated fathers, 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; — how firmly it was set- 
 tled in their practice, not only by the regular circum- 
 cision of their own offspring, but also by the admis- 
 sion of Gentiles by families into the communion of 
 Israel ; and how intimately it was incorporated with 
 all their most favourite and cherished conceptions. — 
 Considering, therefore, the attachment of the believ- 
 ing Jews to ancient practices on the one hand, and 
 the eagerness of their unbelieving countrymen, on the 
 other, to avail themselves of every possible ground of 
 objection, — the circumstance of no opposition having 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 129 
 
 been made to such a change, and no appeal rested 
 upon it against the Christian doctrine, and the claims 
 of Jesus of Nazareth, when it might have been done 
 with so much plausibility and effect, — is in my mind 
 a proof, of no inconsiderable weight, that no such 
 change had actually been introduced. 
 
 7. Another remarkable circumstance, akin to the 
 preceding, is, — that when the judaizing teachers in- 
 sisted on the Gentile converts submitting to circum- 
 cision, — although there can be no doubt that this 
 was done, in every case, in connexion ivith their child- 
 ren ; — yet, when the doctrine and practice of these 
 perverters of the gospel came to be discussed in the 
 assembly of the apostles and elders and brethren at 
 Jerusalem, no notice whatsoever is taken of the incon- 
 sistency with the spirituality of the new dispensation 
 of administering any sign to children, on the admis- 
 sion of their parents into the Christian common- 
 wealth, — or of treating them as if they continued to 
 have any connexion at all with their parents, in refer- 
 ence to the blessings of the covenant, or of the church 
 of God. — Now, surely, if such connexion really was 
 inconsistent with the spirituality of the Gospel and 
 the New Testament church, it must have been an 
 error of no trifling moment ; and it is reasonable to 
 conclude, that, upon an occasion which brought the 
 subject so immediately and formally under notice, 
 some disapproval should have been intimated and re- 
 corded, of the error itself, and the practice founded 
 upon it : and the absence of all such intimation is a 
 collateral evidence, that there was no such inconsist- 
 i 
 
130 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 ency, and that children were to be held, and treated, 
 as sustaining the same covenant relation to their pa- 
 rents as formerly. — I hope I am clearly understood. 
 When these judaizing teachers insisted on the circum- 
 cision of Gentile proselytes to the faith and profession 
 of the gospel, they doubtless administered the rite 
 according to the instituted and universal practice, — 
 the children being circumcised with the parent. But 
 if this covenant relation of parent and child had, 
 under the gospel, been abolished, as being inconsistent 
 with its spiritual nature, it is hardly conceivable, that, 
 on such an occasion, on so natural and fair an oppor- 
 tunity, no notice whatever should be taken of such 
 abolition, and of such inconsistency. This, I say, 
 forms an additional corroborative indication of the 
 continuance, in this respect, of the former state of 
 things. 
 
 8. Let it be further considered, that we have 
 no recorded instance of the baptism of any person, 
 grown to manhood, that had been born of Jewish 
 converts, or of Gentile proselytes to the faith of 
 Christ ; — nor have we, in any of the apostolic epistles 
 to the churches, the remotest allusion, in the form of 
 direction or of warning, to the reception of such 
 children by baptism into the Christian church, upon 
 their professing the faith in which they had been 
 brought up. 
 
 To every mind that duly considers the case, this 
 must appear a very remarkable circumstance. The 
 class of individuals alluded to must have been a very 
 numerous one indeed, and one too exceedingly im- 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 131 
 
 portant and interesting. But although, in the epistles 
 to the churches, instructions, various and minute, are 
 given, on points connected with their order, and pu- 
 rity, and increase, respecting some of which inquiries 
 had been made by them at the apostles, we have 
 nothing, in any shape whatever, on this subject. 
 
 " I have heard it alleged," says Mr Walker,* 
 " that this is drawing an inference from the silence of 
 " scripture, which that silence does not warrant. But 
 " the objection is made by those who do not, or will 
 " not, understand the argument. I do not argue 
 "from the mere silence of the scriptures, that the 
 " thing about which they are silent was, or was not. 
 " But this I say, that so far as it is probable, from 
 " the nature of any thing, that if it were so or so, the 
 " scriptures would not be silent about it, so far is 
 " their silence about it a probable argument that it 
 " was not so. Now, it appears to me, that baptism, 
 "upon the baptist principles, is such a thing; and 
 " from the silence of scripture on the subject, I cannot 
 " but see a confirmed probability that these principles 
 "are false. — And it is vain to say, that what the 
 " scriptures relate of the baptism of adult believers is 
 " sufficient, and shows that there is not that silence 
 " of which I speak. For every instance of adult bap- 
 " tism recorded in the Bible is an instance — not of 
 " the baptism of one brought up from childhood in 
 " the profession of Christianity — but of one who had 
 " never before professed Christianity. So that there 
 
 * Thoughts on Baptism, &c. 
 
132 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 " is that absolute silence on the subject which I have 
 " asserted — so far as the baptist principles are con- 
 " cerned in it." 
 
 Our baptist brethren present us, in support of their 
 system, with instances of the baptism of adults. 
 They would do something more to their purpose, if 
 they could produce one or two examples of the bap- 
 tism of such adults as those mentioned. These would 
 be in point. But nothing of the kind is to be found ; 
 — nothing in the form either of fact, or allusion, or 
 advice, or precept. And the simplest explanation, 
 and one in every respect sufficient and satisfactory, of 
 the total absence of everything of the sort, is the sup- 
 position of what so many other proofs concur to estab- 
 lish, — that the children of the converts who composed 
 the churches had been baptized with their parents, on 
 these parents entering as disciples into the fellowship 
 of the New Testament church. 
 
 9. This supposition, let it be further noticed, is 
 in coincidence with the fact, of children being ad- 
 dressed in the apostolic epistles to the churches of 
 Christ. Thus in Ephes. vi. 1, " Children, obey your 
 "parents in the Lord, for this is right." Col. hi. 20, 
 " Children, obey your parents in all things ; for this 
 " is well-pleasing unto the Lord." 
 
 That such preceptive intimations of the Lord's will 
 are not to be understood as addressed merely to those 
 adult members of families, who were at the same time 
 members of churches, but as including children from 
 their earliest capability of instruction and admonition, 
 will be admitted by every candid mind that considers 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 133 
 
 their connexion with the injunctions to parents which 
 immediately follow : — " And ye fathers, provoke not 
 " your children to wrath ; but bring them up in the 
 "nurture and admonition of the Lord." — "Fathers, 
 " provoke not your children to anger, lest they be dis- 
 " couraged." The duties of parents, in the bringing 
 up of their children in the nurture and admonition of 
 the Lord, commence with the first dawn of reason, 
 and must keep pace with the gradual opening of the 
 mind : — and it is a part of this duty, to point out to 
 their children, as early as they are capable of under- 
 standing, the above commands of the Lord as ad- 
 dressed to them ; to show them how the Lord, the 
 Head of the Church, the good Shepherd, who 
 " gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them in 
 " his bosom," — the kind and condescending Saviour, 
 who said " Suffer the little children to come unto me, 
 '* and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of 
 " heaven," — how He in these words tells them their 
 duty, and shows them the motives, — motives of grate- 
 ful love to himself, — by which they should be influ- 
 enced in the fulfilling of it. Do our baptist brethren 
 wait till their children are members of churches, be- 
 fore they venture to put their finger on the passages 
 we have quoted, and say, "This is addressed to 
 you?" If they do not, they act inconsistently with 
 their principles ; for if the words were not originally 
 addressed to the young children of the parents in the 
 churches, neither are they now : — and yet if they do, 
 they discharge their parental trust, as it appears to 
 me, in a very defective and unscriptural manner. Of 
 
134 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 many of them whom I know, and esteem, and love, 
 I am persuaded better things. Yet every baptist, 
 who, in the christian tuition of his family, opens his 
 Bible, and points out to his little interesting charge 
 the words " Children obey your parents in the Lord, 
 " for this is right," — and tenderly inculcates the duty 
 by the motives that are involved in the " nurture and 
 " admonition of the Lord," — tacitly admits by his 
 practice that young children were addressed by the 
 apostles, — and that, not merely as members of fami- 
 lies, but, since the epistles were directed to churches, 
 as in some way connected, by virtue of their relation 
 to their parents, with the christian communities to 
 which the apostles wrote. And this is in perfect har- 
 mony with the baptism of families, and with all the 
 preceding particulars ; — and in harmony too with all 
 the directions given as to the treatment of children in 
 the Old Testament Scriptures, when their covenant 
 relation to their parents, and their connexion with 
 the community of the people of God, are not ques- 
 tioned. 
 
 10. The circumstances of the early history of the 
 church, after the apostolic age, are unaccountable on 
 antipsedobaptist principles. 
 
 I am not about to refer to, or argue from, the au- 
 thority of the Fathers, — or to found any conclusions 
 on the practice of the post-apostolic age. If I did 
 not think my principles, on this or any other subject, 
 borne out by the scriptures alone, I should relinquish 
 them. But a question of fact may derive corrobora- 
 tion from the records of antiquity; and I am the 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 135 
 
 more induced to refer to those records, because my 
 baptist brethren hold them to be so decisive in their 
 favour. They are accustomed to allege, that the first 
 writer by whom infant baptism is expressly mention- 
 ed, is Tertullian, who lived in the beginning of the 
 third century, a hundred years and more after the 
 apostolic age : — and he, says Dr Cox, " in fact con- 
 demns it!" Emphasis is thus laid on the peculiar 
 opinion of this father. But the question before us is 
 not one of opinion, but of fact. Tertullian was re- 
 markable for singular and extravagant opinions. 
 " He was endowed," says Mosheim, " with a great 
 " genius, but seemed deficient in point of judgment. 
 " His piety was warm and vigorous, but, at the same 
 " time, melancholy and austere. His learning was 
 "extensive and profound; and yet his credulity and 
 " superstition were such as might have been expected 
 " from the darkest ignorance. And with respect to 
 " his reasonings, they had more of that subtlety that 
 " dazzles the imagination, than of that solidity that 
 " brings light and conviction to the mind." — On the 
 particular subject before us, he not only advised the 
 delay of baptism in the case of infants, but also of un- 
 married persons. Will our baptist brethren admit the 
 inference as to the latter, which they draw so compla- 
 cently as to the former? The truth is, that, as to both 
 the legitimate inference is the very contrary. The 
 very advice to delay, or, if you will, the condemnation 
 of baptism in infancy (though these two are far from 
 being the same, and the former alone properly belongs 
 to Tertullian) is a conclusive evidence of the previous 
 
136 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 existence of the practice. This is the point. The 
 opinion is nothing to the purpose. It has no author- 
 ity. If our baptist friends think it has, let them do 
 the good old father justice, and follow it fully. — His 
 condemning the practice of baptizing infants, so far 
 from being in their favour, militates against them. It 
 not only proves its previous existence; it proves more. 
 It proves that it was no innovation. When a man 
 condemns a practice, he is naturally desirous to sup- 
 port his peculiar views by the strongest arguments. 
 Could Tertullian, therefore, have shown, that the 
 practice was of recent origin ; that it had been intro- 
 duced in his own day, or even at any time subsequent 
 to the lives of the apostles ; we may be very sure he 
 would have availed himself of a ground so obvious, 
 and so conclusive. It proves still further, that the 
 baptism of infants was the general practice of the 
 church in Tertullian' s time. His opinion is his own. 
 It is that of a dissentient from the universal body of 
 professing christians. He never pretends to say, that 
 any part of the church had held or acted upon it. Of 
 his opinion and advice, then, we may say, Valeant 
 quantum valere possunt. But the total absence of 
 any attempt to support and recommend them by ap- 
 peal to the practice of the church in apostolic times, 
 or of any part of the church at any intervening period 
 between those times and his own, certainly goes far to 
 prove the matter of fact, with which alone we have to 
 do, — that infant baptism was the original and univer- 
 sal practice. 
 
 "Origen, who was contemporary with Tertullian, 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 137 
 
 " expressly declares infant-baptism to have been the 
 " constant usage of the church from the apostles. 
 " He says, ' The baptism of the church is given for 
 " the forgiveness of sins : but why are infants, by the 
 " usage of the church, baptized, if there is nothing in 
 " them that needs forgiveness V 
 
 " Further, he says, 'In/ants are baptized for the 
 ' ' remission of sins ; for none is free from pollution, 
 "though his life be but the length of one day upon 
 " the earth. And it is for that reason, because by 
 " baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, 
 " that infants are baptized.'' 
 
 " Again, he observes, ' The church had from the 
 " apostles an order to give baptism to infants ; for 
 " they, to whom the Divine mysteries were com- 
 " mitted, knew that there was in all persons the 
 " natural pollution of sin, which must be done away 
 " by water and the Spirit.' 
 
 " Now, as Origen, in these passages, argues from 
 " infant-baptism to prove original sin, we may con- 
 " elude it was an uncontroverted usage of the church : 
 " for otherwise, he could not with propriety have used 
 " it as an argument to establish another point."* 
 
 This remark is judicious and strong. The reader 
 will also bear in mind, that it is solely with matter of 
 fact that we are at present concerned, and not with 
 the particular opinions of fathers, whether right or 
 wrong. 
 
 * Sermons on the Mode and Subjects of Baptism, &c. By 
 Joseph Lathrop, D.D., New England. 
 
138 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 "Cyprian, who wrote about a hundred and fifty 
 " years after the apostles, gives a fuller testimony to 
 " this fact" (of the baptism of infants being the un- 
 contro verted usage of the church). "In his time, a 
 " question was started by one Fidus, not whether 
 "infants iriight be baptized, but whether baptism 
 "ought not to be given them on the eighth day, ac- 
 " cording to the law of circumcision ? This question 
 " was proposed to a council of sixty-six bishops, con- 
 " vened at Carthage, who unanimously resolved, that 
 " the baptism of infants ought not to be deferred to 
 " the eighth day, but might be given them at any time 
 " before. And a large letter to this purpose, contain- 
 ing the reasons of the resolve, was written and 
 " signed by Cyprian, in the name of the council. 
 
 " Now if infant-baptism had been a usage lately 
 
 " introduced, some or all of these ministers must have 
 " known its recent origin. And if so, it was very 
 " strange that not one of them intimated any scruple 
 "about it. Whether infants should be baptized, 
 " seems not to have been at all a question ; but only 
 " whether their baptism needed to be deferred till the 
 " eighth day, which, without hesitancy, was deter- 
 " mined in the negative. * 
 
 " Austin, about three hundred years after the apos- 
 " ties, had a controversy with Pelagius about original 
 " sin ; and to prove it, he frequently urges infant 
 "baptism, demanding why infants are baptized for 
 " the remission of sins, if they have none ? Pelagius, 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 139 
 
 " though greatly puzzled with the argument, yet never 
 " pretends that infant baptism was an unscriptural in- 
 " novation, or a partial usage in the church ; which, 
 " had it been true, a man of his very extensive 
 " acquaintance with the world must have known : 
 " and had he known it, he doubtless would have 
 " said it, when he found himself embarrassed with 
 " the argument. * But, far from intimating any such 
 " thing, when some charged upon him the denial of 
 " infant baptism, as a consequence of his opinion, he 
 " disavows the consequence, and complains that he 
 " had been slanderously represented as denying bap- 
 " tism to infants. He asks, ' Who can be so im- 
 " pious, as to hinder infants from being baptized, 
 
 * Mr Milner justly deduces the same inference from the in- 
 stance of Ccelestius, the supporter of the Pelagian heresy in 
 Africa, in the beginning of the fifth century. — " He was accused 
 " of denying original sin; and when he was pressed with the 
 " custom of the church in baptizing infants, as a proof of her 
 " belief in all ages that infants needed redemption, he declared 
 " that they had no need of remission, and yet ought to be 
 " baptized, that they might be sanctified in Christ." — "On being 
 " asked, whether he had not asserted, that infants are born in 
 " the state in which Adam was before transgression, all that 
 " could be obtained from him was, that infants needed baptism, 
 " and ought to be baptized." — The first of two inferences drawn, 
 in a note, from this case, is : " That the right of baptizing infants 
 " was allowed on all sides to have been of apostolical and primi- 
 " tive authority. It is impossible that men so shrewd and 
 " learned as Ccelestius and his master would not have objected 
 " to the novelty of infant baptism, had it been a novelty." — 
 Chap. III. Cent. V. 
 
140 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 "and born again in Christ.' And, citing those 
 "words, * Except one be born of water and of the 
 "Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,' 
 "he says, who can be so impious as to refuse to an 
 "infant, of whatever age, the common redemption 
 " of mankind ? And many other expressions he 
 " uses, which plainly suppose, that infant baptism 
 " had been practised universally, and time out of 
 "mind."* 
 
 This last citation shows, whence the application ori- 
 ginated of the term regeneration to baptism ; namely, 
 from our Lord's language, "Except a man be born of 
 " water y and of the Spirit." The phrase, " born of 
 water," very naturally accounts for the early appli- 
 cation of the terms significant of the spiritual change, 
 to the external symbol. The phraseology indeed 
 gives no countenance to the unscriptural and irration- 
 al figment of baptismal regeneration^ any more than 
 the declaration, "This is my body," gives to tran- 
 substantiation, or the real presence. It may show us, 
 however, whence the foolish and pernicious fancy 
 arose ; and at all events, it explains the early use of 
 similar phraseology, by the christian writers, in re- 
 gard to baptism. — The phraseology of Pelagius, in 
 the preceding quotation, appears to have come clown 
 current from an earlier age. — " Irenseus, who wrote 
 " about sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was 
 "born, it is said, before the death of St. John, and 
 " was acquainted with Polycarp, who was John's dis- 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 141 
 
 " ciple, says concerning Christ, He came to save all 
 "persons by himself, who by him are regenerated 
 "unto God, infants, little ones, youths, and elderly 
 " persons." — That by being "regenerated unto God" 
 he means being baptized, candour, I think, ought to 
 admit, when the expression is compared with that 
 of Pelagius, and when the explanation of Irenseus 
 himself is considered — "When Christ gave his dis- 
 " ciples the command of regenerating unto God, he 
 " said, Go, teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. 
 Now, our baptist brethren themselves being judges, 
 infants are incapable of being "regenerated unto 
 God" by means of human instruction. So far as the 
 agency of man is concerned, they could only be par- 
 takers of the external sign. 
 
 " Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after 
 " the apostolic age, says, * We have not received the 
 " carnal but the spiritual circumcision by baptism — 
 " and it is enjoined to all persons to receive it in 
 " the same way.' Here he plainly considers bap- 
 " tism as succeeding in the place of circumcision, 
 "and consequently as being designed for infants, as 
 " that was : which opinion he could not easily have 
 " fallen into, if the apostles had universally, both in 
 " doctrine and practice, rejected infants. In one of 
 " his apologies for the Christians, he says, ' Several 
 "persons among us, of sixty and seventy years old, 
 "who were made disciples to Christ from their child- 
 " hood, do continue uncorrupt.' Made disciptles. 
 " He uses the same word which is used in the 
 "commission, Disciple all nations, baptizing them. 
 
142 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 " If they were made disciples, they were doubtless 
 "baptized."* 
 
 Does the reader marvel that infant baptism should 
 not be spoken of more frequently, and in more direct 
 and explicit terms, during the first century after the 
 apostles? Let him only suppose the uncontroverted 
 universality of the practice from the beginning, and 
 his wonder will cease. That which goes on as the 
 understood and established usage, it is quite natural 
 to expect should be but seldom spoken of, and, when 
 it is, only in the way of indirect and incidental allu- 
 sion. Circumcision is never alluded to for more than 
 a century and a half after its institution, when an 
 occurrence in the history (the violation of Jacob's 
 daughter, the proposal of marriage with her by the 
 prince of Shechem, and the artful revenge of the pa- 
 triarch's sons) leads to the incidental mention of it ; — 
 and from that time, it is never noticed again for near- 
 ly two centuries and a half, till the circumcision of 
 the younger son of Moses by his mother Zipporah. — 
 The case is similar, during the first century after the 
 apostles, with regard to infant baptism. It is occa- 
 sionally alluded to, in terms, on which, we arc not 
 disposed to deny, an adversary, now that it has come 
 to be controverted, may plausibly put another con- 
 struction ; and the first that speaks of it in plain 
 language, and by its proper name, is the first that 
 questions and objects to it. And on what grounds 
 does he object? Not that the practice was without 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 143 
 
 apostolic authority ; — not that it was a recent and un- 
 scriptural innovation ; — not even that it was only par- 
 tially observed in the church : — no ; he never hints 
 any such things as these. His objections proceed, 
 chiefly, on a superstitious notion he had come to at- 
 tach to the rite, on which he founds a proposal for 
 the delay of its administration ; — a proposal, includ- 
 ing not merely infants, but unmarried persons, and 
 having precisely the same authority as to both, — the 
 authority, that is, of Tertullian's fanciful singularity. 
 
 " Curcellaeus remarks," says Dr. Cox, " The bap- 
 " tism of infants in the first two centuries after Christ, 
 " was altogether unknown." But of what amount 
 is the gvatis-dictum of Curcellseus, or of any man ? 
 With regard to the first of these two centuries, which 
 we may denominate the apostolic century, we claim 
 the privilege, whatever Curcelleeus may remark, of 
 forming our own judgment from the apostolic records 
 themselves, till other and higher authority be pro- 
 duced. And as to the second; even supposing we 
 were wrong in our interpretation of Justin Martyr 
 and Irenseus, — what are we to make of Tertullian 
 and Origen in the beginning of the third? According 
 to the remark of Curcellseus, the practice of infant 
 baptism was " altogether unknown" till after the be- 
 ginning of this century ; which amounts to the same 
 thing as saying, that these fathers witnessed its intro- 
 duction, and were aware of its being a practice totally 
 new and unheard of before ! How then comes 
 Tertullian to assume its previous existence, without 
 the remotest hint of its novelty or its partial extent ? 
 
144 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 And how comes Origen to speak of it as the " usage 
 of the church," and received as " an order from the 
 apostles?" — And how comes it, I ask further, and I 
 ask it emphatically, — that no baptist has ever been 
 able to discover, and to point out, the time when 
 infant baptism was introduced — to trace the practice 
 to any origin on this side of the apostolic age ? Had 
 nothing of the kind existed originally, then there was, 
 from the first, throughout all the churches, a standing 
 practical testimony against it. Yet not the slightest 
 vestige is to be found, by which its introduction into 
 the christian church, and its early and universal re- 
 ception, can be traced. The time of Tertullian was 
 the time, not when it began to be practised, but only 
 to be questioned ; and questioned, not as unauthorised 
 and unlawful, but, on certain grounds of the author's 
 own, as generally (for he admits of exceptions) inex- 
 pedient. — It has been said, indeed, that about the end 
 of the second century, an opinion began to prevail, of 
 the necessity of baptism to salvation ; that parents 
 naturally took the alarm for the salvation of their 
 children ; and that hence arose infant baptism. Now, 
 it is very convenient to find a fact in history, on which 
 we can found a plausible hypothesis. But we must 
 still distinguish between the hypothesis and the fact. 
 The latter is history, the former is fancy only, and 
 conjecture. And, if we are to deal in theory and hy- 
 pothesis at all, to me it appears, in the present case, 
 an incomparably more natural and reasonable conjec- 
 ture, that the opinion arose from the practice, than 
 that the practice arose from the opinion. If about 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 145 
 
 the end of the second century, "parents took the 
 " alarm for the salvation of their children," and had 
 them, on this account, baptized, then the whole Chris- 
 tian church must have previously, for nearly two hun- 
 dred years, believed in the salvation of their children 
 without baptism. Now, when we have hypothesis on 
 both sides, that is most entitled to credit which is 
 simplest and most natural. The question therefore 
 is, (since no historian has recorded this alarm of pa- 
 rents, as the origin of infant baptism,) whether is it 
 most likely, that the universal practice of the baptism 
 of infants should have led the minds of men to con- 
 nect their baptism with their salvation, and thus to 
 fall into the opinion of its necessity, and the danger of 
 omitting it ; or whether, in opposition to the previous 
 conviction of two centuries, the opinion came first to 
 be entertained, and the baptism of infants to be 
 founded upon it, and to have become almost instan- 
 taneously universal? — I must honestly say, that I 
 can entertain but a low estimate of that man's per- 
 spicacity, or candour, that can hesitate between these 
 two suppositions. 
 
 A similar remark may be made, respecting certain 
 other practices, which were early introduced into the 
 church, and which our antipsedobaptist brethren are 
 very fond of quoting, as on the same footing with 
 infant baptism : — the early practice, for example, of 
 administering the Lord's Supper to infants. The pre- 
 vious existence of the admission of infants to one 
 Christian ordinance, affords a very natural origin for 
 the practice of introducing them to another. The 
 
 K 
 
146 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 one might very readily be grafted upon the other ; 
 whereas it is very far from being so easily accounted 
 for, that both should have taken place so early, and 
 the former so universally, without the least opposition 
 or noise. 
 
 1 1 . I have only one other particular to add to this 
 series. It is the remarkable fact, of the entire ab- 
 sence, so far as my recollection serves me, of any 
 thing resembling the baptism of households or fami- 
 lies, in the accounts of the propagation of the gospel 
 by our baptist brethren. That the apostles baptized 
 families, no believer of the scripture history can doubt; 
 and we have seen, that the manner in which such 
 baptisms are recorded, or referred to, indicates that 
 it was no extraordinary thing. Now it surely is an 
 extraordinary thing, that in the journals and periodi- 
 cal accounts of baptist missions in heathen countries, 
 we should never meet with anything of the kind. I 
 question, whether, in the half century of the history 
 of the baptist mission in India, there is to be found a 
 single instance of the baptism of a household. When 
 do we find a baptist missionary saying, ""When she 
 " was baptized and her family" — or, " I baptized the 
 "family of Krishnoo," or any other convert? "We 
 have the baptism of individuals ; but nothing corres- 
 ponding to the apostolic baptism of families. This 
 fact is a strong corroborative proof, that there is some 
 difference between their practice and that of the 
 apostles. If the practice of both were the same, 
 there might surely be expected some little correspond- 
 ence in the facts connected with it. 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 147 
 
 In reply to this matter-of-fact observation, I have 
 been told of baptist ministers by whom whole house- 
 holds have been baptized. I have asked in return, 
 whether these have been families to which the gospel 
 has for the first time been preached, and by whose 
 members it has been simultaneously embraced, — fami- 
 lies, that is, of converts ; or whether they have not 
 rather been families already christian, not converts to 
 the faith of the gospel, but converts to the principles 
 of antipsedobaptism. To this question I have not, as 
 yet, received any satisfactory answer. My readers 
 must be sensible, that it is only cases of the former 
 description that are at all in point : — and if in the 
 reports of baptist missions such cases are to be 
 found, sure I am that they are marvellously rare ; and 
 moreover, that the manner in which they are related 
 is widely different from the matter-of-course maimer 
 in which they are mentioned in the narrative of the 
 New Testament, or alluded to in the epistles. — I am 
 not at all anxious, however, about establishing the 
 fact in question. I have referred to it only as corro- 
 borative of an argument that is sufficiently complete 
 without it. 
 
 Let me, in concluding this section, entreat the 
 reader to take all these things together, calmly, dis- 
 passionately, candidly. — I have endeavoured to show, 
 that the Old and New Testament churches, though 
 different in their constitutional forms, and in the 
 degree of their spirituality, are most clearly and dis- 
 tinctly represented, both by prophets under the for- 
 mer, and apostles under the latter dispensation, as 
 
148 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 substantially the same : — that the connexion of chil- 
 dren with their parents, in the promises of the cove- 
 nant, and in the application of its sign and seal, 
 existed under the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensa- 
 tions, was interwoven with all the thoughts and 
 feelings and practices of the Old Testament church, 
 and pervaded and characterized the entire style and 
 language of their sacred books : — that the prophets, 
 in their inspired predictions relative to New Testa- 
 ment times, employ language, such as directly affirms, 
 or evidently implies and assumes, the continuance of 
 the same connexion under the approaching reign of 
 the Messiah : — that, on coming forward to the New 
 Testament records themselves, so far from finding 
 any direct repeal, or even any indirect intimation of 
 change in the previous state of things, we find lan- 
 guage in perfect accordance with it, exactly such as, 
 on the supposition of its continuance, we might, a 
 priori, have expected the writers to use ; — instead of 
 an express declaration that children were no longer 
 to be admitted to the seal of the covenant, and ac- 
 knowledged as visible subjects of the reign of Christ, 
 we have Christ himself saying, " Suffer the little 
 " children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for 
 " of such is the kingdom of God ;" we have the 
 apostles, in the very outset and establishment of that 
 kingdom, declaring to Jews, without explanation or 
 comment, " The promise is unto you and unto your 
 children ;" and we have the unquestioned fact of the 
 baptism of families, recorded in terms such as indicate 
 its having been, not an extraordinary, but a customary 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 149 
 
 thing, on the professed faith of their respective heads : 
 — that it is exceedingly improbable, that a change of 
 such magnitude and importance as the entire exclu- 
 sion of children from the place they were accustomed 
 to hold, should have been introduced without the 
 slightest recorded symptom of opposition or demur- 
 ring amongst the Jewish converts, tenacious as they 
 showed themselves of the established usages, — or of 
 objection and cavil on the part of those who lay at 
 the catch for whatever they could get hold of against 
 the new system : — that, so far from this, when the 
 Judaizing teachers insisted on the necessity of the 
 Gentile converts submitting to circumcision, which 
 must of course have been administered to their chil- 
 dren as well as to themselves, no notice whatever is 
 taken by the apostles and elders assembled at Jerusa- 
 lem, of the inconsistency with the spiritual nature of 
 the new dispensation of administering to children, 
 on the admission of their parents to the christian 
 church, any sign of covenant connexion with them. 
 — although an inconsistency so great as, in the opin- 
 ion of our baptist brethren, to amount to a subversion 
 of the spirituality of Messiah's kingdom : — that we 
 have no recorded instance of the baptism of any adult 
 that had been born of baptized proselytes, Jewish or 
 Gentile, into the faith of Christ — although this class 
 of persons must, on the antipsedobaptist hypothesis, 
 have been very numerous indeed : — that in the apos- 
 tolic epistles to the churches, children are expressly 
 addressed, not merely adults, but such as were yet 
 to be " brought up in the nurture and admonition of 
 
150 POSITIVE EVIDENCE 
 
 the Lord ;" and, although the spiritual training of 
 them is especially devolved upon their parents, yet 
 their heing so addressed shows that they were con- 
 sidered by the writers as having connexion with the 
 christian community : — that the circumstances of the 
 early history of the church, after the time of the apos- 
 tles, were such as do not admit of a satisfactory ex- 
 planation on baptist principles, — whilst they are in 
 perfect harmony with the supposition of psedobaptism 
 having been the original practice, — this most dimply 
 and naturally accounting for other facts, rather than 
 requiring to be accounted for by them : — and that the 
 entire absence, in the history of the propagation of 
 the gospel by antipsedobaptists, of any thing resem- 
 bling the baptism of families which we find in apos- 
 tolic times, should lead our brethren more than to 
 suspect a difference between their views and practice, 
 and those of the first preachers of the kingdom of 
 Christ. — I say, let the reader take all these things 
 together ; let him connect them with the argument 
 of the preceding section ; and let him form his own 
 conclusion. Nothing could be easier, than to blow 
 trumpets, and to make a flourish, and to shout and 
 vaunt with the triumphant confidence of victory. 
 But it is not victory that should be our object : — it is 
 solely the discovery of truth and duty. — I prefer no 
 claims to originality, in almost a single statement or 
 argument I have advanced. If I have succeeded in 
 bringing old arguments into a well connected and 
 luminous form, it is all that I have aimed at. Truth 
 does not suffer by time ; nor is a good old argument 
 
OF INFANT BAPTISM. 151 
 
 at all the worse for its age. I can only say for my- 
 self, coolly and deliberately, and with perfect sincerity, 
 that the more I have considered this case, I have ever 
 felt my ground the firmer. Whether I may have 
 conveyed the same impression to the minds of my 
 readers, I cannot tell. It is certainly my prayer to 
 God that I may, because I believe the conclusion, 
 which I have been endeavouring to establish, has the 
 sanction and authority of his word. 
 
152 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 THE IMPORTANT TRUTHS AND DUTIES WHICH THE BAPTISM 
 OF INFANTS EXHIBITS, AND IMPRESSES ON OUR MINDS : 
 AND THE PERFECT CONSISTENCY OF THE ADMINISTRA- 
 TION OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THEM WITH ALL THAT THE 
 BIBLE TEACHES US RESPECTING THEM, AS SUBJECTS OF 
 SALVATION, AND OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. 
 
 It has often been asked by antipeedobaptists, What 
 are the uses of infant-baptism ? What good ends are 
 answered by it ? And their own reply to the question 
 may be given in the words of Mr Birt;* "It is, on 
 " every ground hitherto taken for its support, a cause 
 "that in this world produces no effect — a means con- 
 " nected with no end — a child that affords no rain — 
 " a tree that yields no fruit." — This representation, I 
 hope to show, has a great deal more in it of boldness, 
 than of truth. 
 
 It ought first to be observed, however, that, with 
 regard to all such questions as the one so often put 
 and so confidently answered, there is obviously a pre- 
 
 * Strictures, p. 10. 
 
TAUGHT EY INFANT BAPTISM. 153 
 
 vious question, namely, that which we have been 
 considering in the preceding sections, Is it, or is it 
 not, a divine institution ? If it be once shown to pos- 
 sess the authority of the supreme Lawgiver, it will 
 not be disputed, that our first and immediate duty is 
 compliance. What he appoints, it is ours to observe. 
 Questions of a similar kind might have been asked 
 respecting circumcision. Multitudes of those to whom 
 that rite was administered died in infancy : of what 
 use was it to them ? Multitudes who lived till man- 
 hood, never obtained the blessings of the temporal 
 inheritance ; what was the benefit of it to them ? — 
 But it is not with questions of this nature that we 
 have, in the first instance, to do. Our first inquiry 
 should be, What is God's will? not Why is it his 
 will? 
 
 Still, however, we freely admit, it is reasonable to 
 expect that there should be some uses apparent of 
 whatever the God of infinite wisdom enjoins : — and 
 on the present occasion, we feel no difficulty in meet- 
 ing the inquiry. Of baptism as administered to 
 infants we are at no loss to point out uses, which we 
 conceive to be of no trivial magnitude. We shall en- 
 deavour to show these by considering it in the two 
 following lights: — 1. As a memorial of funda- 
 mental truths: — 2. As a remembrancer of 
 
 IMPORTANT DUTIES, AND AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO 
 THEIR PERFORMANCE. 
 
 1. In considering infant-baptism in the former of 
 these views, as a memorial of fundamental truths, it 
 becomes necessary to take some notice, in the first 
 
154 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 place, of the general signification of the rite itself. It 
 appears, then, to me very evident, that the emble- 
 matic significance of baptism is to be found in the 
 •purifying nature of the element employed in it, — in 
 the cleansing virtue of water. Almost every instance 
 in which the ordinance is spoken of, or alluded to> 
 with any intimation of its meaning, might be adduced 
 in proof of this. The following passages are but a 
 specimen of many: Acts xxii. 16, "And now, why 
 " tarriest thou ? Arise and be baptized, and wash 
 " away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
 Eph. v. 25, 26, "Christ loved the church, and gave 
 " himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it 
 " by the washing of water, through the word ; that 
 " he might present it to himself a glorious church, 
 " not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but 
 "that it should be holy and without blemish." In 
 this latter passage, spiritual purification is no doubt 
 intended ; but it contains such an allusion to the 
 ordinance of baptism with w^ater, as leads us to con- 
 clude, that this spiritual purification is what it is 
 designed principally to represent. — A similar allusion 
 there seems to be in Tit. hi. 5, "Not by works of 
 " righteousness which we have done, but according to 
 " his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regenera- 
 " tion, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 From these and other passages it appears, that bap- 
 tism, by the emblem of the cleansing virtue of water, 
 denotes the removal of sin, in its guilt, and in its pol- 
 lution. Of such allusions, indeed, the scriptures are 
 full. And surely, that view which is most frequently 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 155 
 
 exhibited to our attention, and which both on the 
 subject of justification and of sanctification, imparts, 
 if I may so speak, a peculiar figurative complexion to 
 the current language of scripture, I am warranted to 
 consider as at least the principal, if not even the ex- 
 clusive import of the institution. 
 
 But according to the views of our baptist brethren, 
 washing, or cleansing, so far from being the exclusive, 
 is not even the principal, but only a secondary mean- 
 ing of the rite. — Whilst the general tenor of the 
 language of scripture, as well as a number of par- 
 ticular passages, seems to place its symbolical mean- 
 ing in the nature of the element employed, it is by 
 them placed principally, and by some of them indeed, 
 as would appear from their manner of expressing 
 themselves, almost solely, in the mode in which that 
 element is used. 
 
 The passages referred to by them, in support of 
 this notion, are the two following : Rom. vi. 3, 4, 
 " Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized 
 "into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 
 " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
 " death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the 
 " dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
 "should walk in newness of life." Col. ii. 12, 
 " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
 " risen with him, through the faith of the operation 
 " of God who hath raised him from the dead." — In 
 these passages, our brethren conceive, there is an 
 obvious reference to the mode of baptism by immer- 
 sion. The apostle represents this ordinance, to use 
 
15G LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 the language of Mr Maclean, in his Commission, 
 p. 137, as "exhibiting the death, burial, and resur- 
 " rection of Christ, together with the christian's com- 
 " munion with, and conformity to him therein." The 
 baptized person's communion with Christ in his death 
 and burial, is represented by his being laid under the 
 water ; and his communion with him in his resurrec- 
 tion, by his being raised out of it. 
 
 Two things may just be noticed here, before pro- 
 ceeding to the explanation of the passages. The first 
 is, that it is obviously incorrect, to speak of the ordi- 
 nance as " exhibiting the death of Christ," as well as 
 his burial and resurrection ; for whatever resemblance 
 fancy may imagine to the two latter, there is surely 
 no representation of the former. The death can only 
 be considered as implied in the burial. — The second is, 
 (what has been largely shown by others,*) that even 
 to the burial and resurrection of Christ, the immer- 
 sion of a body under water, and its emersion from it, 
 bear but a very indistinct and remote resemblance. 
 The mind may easily indeed habituate itself to the idea 
 of likeness, between being let down under earth and 
 raised out of it, and being let down under icater and 
 raised out of it. But where is the likeness, between 
 the latter of these and the carrying of a body, by a 
 lateral door into a cavern hewn out of a rock, and 
 that body reviving, and coming forth by the same 
 door? — which were the real circumstances of the 
 burial and resurrection of the Saviour. I confess this 
 
 * See particularly Mr Ewing's essay. 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 15/ 
 
 resemblance, on which so much stress is laid by our 
 baptist brethren, has always appeared to me but a 
 far-fetched fancy. I shall say nothing stronger, lest 
 I should possibly be in the wrong in so considering 
 it. Of one thing, however, I must express my firm 
 conviction, namely, that any allusion at all to the 
 mode of baptism, is in no respect necessary to the 
 right and easy understanding of the passages in ques- 
 tion. And if this can be shown, it will follow of 
 course that they form but a flimsy foundation for the 
 superstructure, of sentiment and practice, that has 
 been reared upon them. Let it not be said, that other 
 paedobaptists have thought differently, have admitted 
 an allusion, and endeavoured to explain it in other 
 ways. I cannot help that. I state my own views, 
 and wish them to be tried, not by comparison with 
 those of others, but by the test of the Bible. It is a 
 puny and pitiful way of carrying on a controversy, to 
 prowl about amongst different writers on the same 
 side of a question, for the purpose of detecting, and 
 setting forth in contrasted columns, every little dis- 
 crepancy between them ; with the view, covert or 
 avowed, of drawing the reader to the conclusion, that 
 they cannot be right who so differ from one another. 
 Our baptist friends are rather too fond of this attempt 
 to divide us against ourselves. Yet were it altogether 
 an honourable description of warfare, it is one in 
 which we might venture on competition, without des- 
 pairing of success. 
 
 With regard to the passages in question, Mi- 
 Maclean, the eminent baptist writer referred to a 
 
158 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 little ago, well explains their spiritual meaning to 
 be — that, Christ having "died substitutionally " for 
 our sins, and "risen again for our justification," be- 
 lieving sinners are regarded as having been, "by a 
 "gracious constitution," "so comprehended in, and 
 " accounted one with him, as to have died in his 
 " death, been buried in his burial, and raised again 
 "in his resurrection."* This I take to be the true 
 principle of interpretation for the whole context of 
 the passage in Rom. vi. But that this blessed truth, 
 (with which, as the same writer justly observes, the 
 scriptures abound,) is " signified to believers in their 
 " baptism, wherein the death, burial, and resurrection 
 " of Christ are re-acted, in a figure, upon their own 
 "persons," — the language employed does not seem, 
 either necessarily or naturally, to imply. 
 
 To be "baptized into Christ" is to be baptized into 
 the faith of him as the Messiah ; — into the faith of 
 his divine mission, character, and work. To be "bap- 
 tized into his death" is to be baptized into the faith 
 of his death, in the view which the gospel gives of 
 it, as the death of a surety or substitute, making 
 atonement for the sins of those for whom he died. 
 — Now, by being thus "baptized into his death," 
 says the apostle, we are "buried with him." The 
 simple meaning of this expression evidently is, that 
 by being baptized into the faith of his death, as the 
 death of our surety and substitute, we become par- 
 takers with him in it. When the apostle, pursuing 
 
 * Commission, page 140. 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 159 
 
 his beautiful illustration of the spiritual connexion of 
 believers with Christ, and the practical obligations 
 thence arising, says in the eighth verse, "Now if 
 "we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall 
 " also live with him," he uses a phrase of equivalent 
 import with the one before us. To be dead with 
 Christ, and to be buried with Christ, are the same 
 thing. The latter of the two phrases appears to be 
 used in the fourth verse, chiefly for the sake of com- 
 pleting the apostle's figure. As it was necessary, in 
 order to Christ's rising, that he should be laid in the 
 grave ; so, in the figure, it is necessary that we should 
 be viewed as buried with him, in order to our rising 
 with him to newness of life : — 
 
 " Ours the cross, the grave, the skies." 
 
 The simple meaning is this : — Since, in our being 
 baptized into Jesus Christ, we were baptized into his 
 death, — into the faith of his death as the death of a 
 surety ; we may be considered as, by faith, partaking 
 with him in his death, — as buried with him; and 
 that, with the special end of our rising with him, 
 in a spiritual resemblance to his resurrection, and 
 " walking in newness of life." Now it is quite ob- 
 vious, that the argument of the apostle has not the 
 remotest connexion with the mode of baptism. There 
 is not the most distant occasion for the supposition 
 of any such allusion, in order to render the passage 
 intelligible ; nor does the allusion, when supposed, 
 impart to it any addition of force or propriety. The 
 
160 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 meaning does not, in the least degree, depend on 
 the manner of performing the ceremony : it turns 
 entirely on its being baptism into Christ's death. 
 Provided it was this, it makes not the smallest differ- 
 ence to the apostle's statement, or argument, or con- 
 clusion, whether we suppose it to have been by im- 
 mersion, by pouring, or by sprinkling. 
 
 The same observations apply, with at least equal, 
 if not greater force, to the parallel passage — Col, ii. 
 12. Believers are there said to be "risen as well as 
 "buried with Christ in baptism." — They were not 
 baptized into the faith of Christ's death alone, as the 
 death of their surety ; they were baptized also into 
 the faith of his resurrection, as the resurrection of 
 their surety. And as, by the former, they became, 
 in virtue of their connexion with him as a surety, 
 partakers with him in his death ; so, by the latter, 
 they became, in the same way, partakers with him 
 also in his resurrection. Being baptized into the 
 faith of both, they had, by faith, fellowship or union 
 with him in both. How is it, accordingly, that they 
 are said to be "risen with him?" It is "through 
 " the faith of the operation of God ivho raised km 
 "from the dead ;" that is, through the faith of his 
 resurrection, as effected by the operation, or mighty 
 power, of God. — Their being "risen with him m 
 "baptism" does not, therefore, refer to any emble- 
 matic representation of a resurrection in the mode of 
 the ordinance ; but to their being one with him in 
 his resurrection, through faith in him as the surety 
 of sinners. And in this view they might, with per- 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 161 
 
 feet propriety, be said to be risen with him in bap- 
 tism, whatever was the mode of its administration, 
 provided only it was baptism into the faith of his 
 resurrection. 
 
 It has, indeed, been alleged, that, in whatever 
 sense believers are said to be buried and risen with 
 Christ, they could not be represented as so buried 
 and risen in baptism, unless there were, in that ordi- 
 nance, some representation of that burial and resur- 
 rection. — I observe in reply: 1st. Although the 
 expression in Col. ii. 12, is "buried with him in 
 baptism" (Ev ra> &x7FTur(t.etTi\) yet in Rom. vi. 4, it 
 is different — "buried with him by baptism into his 
 death," (A<« rev /3u7rricr^,xrog ug rov Socvccrev oevrov ;) 
 which does not at all imply any such similitude in the 
 ordinance, but directs the attention to that into which 
 they were baptized ; which, indeed, as I have noticed, 
 is the point on which the whole reasoning turns. — 
 2dly. Although it was, strictly speaking, in believing, 
 that these converts became partakers with Christ in 
 his death and resurrection ; yet it is not unusual to 
 speak of things as taking place in baptism which 
 properly took place by faith, because baptism was 
 the first public declaration of the faith of the con- 
 verts, and of their belonging to the body of Christ. 
 It is on the same principle, that they are spoken of 
 as in baptism " washing away their sins," and "put- 
 " ting on Christ." — 3dly. In Rom. vi., the language 
 of the whole passage is figurative. The same prin- 
 ciple of interpretation, according to which the ex- 
 pression " buried with Christ" is explained as refer- 
 
162 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 ing to the representation of interment by the immer- 
 sion of the body under water, should lead us also to 
 understand the phrase which immediately follows, 
 " planted together in the likeness of his death" as 
 referring to an emblematic representation of planting 
 — which accordingly some have stretched and strained 
 their fancy to make out ; or the phrase " crucified 
 with him" to some similar exhibition of crucifixion. 
 
 There is still another view of this subject, which I 
 have never seen adduced, but which has struck my 
 own mind as having in it no little weight. — The sal- 
 vation revealed in the gospel consists essentially of two 
 ingredients, — deliverance from guilt and condemnation, 
 and deliverance from the moral pollution of sin, — jus- 
 tification and sanctification. The former is effected by 
 the work of Christ, the latter by the work of the Spirit. 
 Between these two essential parts of salvation and the 
 two principal classes of divine ordinances, there has 
 all along from the beginning subsisted a remarkable 
 divinely instituted correspondence. The two descrip- 
 tions of ordinances under the law, and before it, were 
 the rites of sacrifice and the rites of purification. 
 The one bore a typical reference to the work of Christ 
 and justification ; the other to the work of the Spirit 
 and sanctification. And the same correspondence 
 continues in the two simple rites of New Testament 
 celebration. This gives a beautiful consistency and 
 completeness to the system of ritual observance, 
 whether typical or commemorative. — Now, in order 
 to this consistency and completeness, it is necessary 
 that the true significance of baptism be considered 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 163 
 
 as lying in the purifying virtue of the element em- 
 ployed. If our baptist friends be right in regarding 
 the proper import of baptism as lying in the form of 
 it, — that is, in the representation, by immersion and 
 emersion, of the death and burial and resurrection of 
 Christ, and the believer's participation in them, — it 
 will follow, that both ordinances relate to the work 
 of Christ, and neither of them to the work of the 
 Spirit ; and so the completeness of the ritual repre- 
 sentation is destroyed ; — the Holy Spirit's work being 
 deprived of its appropriately significant rite. — But 
 why should this be? Why should both the Lord's 
 supper and baptism hold forth emphatically, and as 
 their primary import, the death and resurrection of 
 Jesus, and neither of them the purifying power of the 
 divine Spirit ? Is not the work of the latter as essen- 
 tial to salvation as that of the former ? And is not 
 the fulness and harmony of divine ordinances marred 
 by what I may call the monopolizing of both for 
 Christ, and depriving the Spirit of his due honour ? — 
 Consider the Lord's supper as the emblematic com- 
 memoration of the death or finished work of Christ, 
 and baptism as the representation by symbol of the 
 regenerating and sanctifying power and work of the 
 Holy Spirit, — and all is complete ; and the harmony 
 of the New Testament rites with those of the patri- 
 archal and Mosaic periods, is effectually and satisfac- 
 torily maintained. But appropriate both to Christ, 
 and leave the Spirit out, or give him a place only 
 indirectly and by implication; and the perfection is 
 marred. 
 
164 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 Being myself thoroughly convinced, that the signi- 
 ficance and appropriateness of the rite arise from the 
 cleansing nature of the element employed, and not 
 from the mode of its application, I am disposed to 
 consider the mode as of comparatively inferior im- 
 portance. It is in the application of water, as the 
 emblem of the purifying influence of the Spirit of 
 truth, that the ordinance properly consists. A bap- 
 tist brother may smile at me when I say, that on this 
 ground I have no hesitation in admitting immersion 
 to be valid baptism : and if it be a brotherly smile, I 
 have no objection to return it. But if it be the smile 
 of implied derision, which, if turned into words, 
 would say — " A great concession truly ! admit im- 
 " mersion to be valid baptism ! why, immersion alone 
 " is baptism : — it is the only scriptural mode ; — it is 
 " the only meaning of the original word ; — it is the 
 " only representation of the death, and burial, and 
 " resurrection of Christ :" — I could return it on quite 
 sufficient grounds, if derision were a brotherly feel- 
 ing ; but I would not wish to do it, because christian 
 charity forbids me. 
 
 Although it is somewhat foreign to my main object, 
 to pursue the discussion of the mode to any great 
 length, yet I cannot pass it over without a few re- 
 marks. Others have successfully shown, by a detail 
 of learned criticism, the consistency of the practice of 
 psedobaptists, with the usages of classical Greek 
 writers. My present remarks shall be for the un- 
 learned ; being designed to show, that there is no 
 occasion to go beyond the plain intimations of the 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 165 
 
 Bible itself, for a satisfactory settlement of the point 
 in dispute. 
 
 Even were it to be admitted, that immersion is the 
 original or primary import of the word baptism — 
 (which is only the Greek word Anglicised) — yet every 
 one at all versant in languages is aware, that it is not 
 by tracing back a word to its earliest etymology, that 
 its actual meaning is to be ascertained, in particular 
 applications of it, at subsequent periods in the history 
 of the tongue to which it belongs. Even in our own 
 language, we should run ourselves into innumerable 
 mistakes and absurdities, by the adoption of such a 
 test of the import of terms. The sole inquiry ought 
 to be, — not, what is the strict, original, etymological 
 sense of the word ; but, what is the sense in which it 
 is used by the scripture writers ? And it has long 
 appeared to me, that the reading, and comparing with 
 each other, of such texts as the following, should be 
 enough to satisfy any candid man, that sprinkling and 
 pouring, so far from being without the countenance 
 of these writers in their use of the term, are uniform- 
 ly recognized by them, in their incidental explanations 
 of it, as its true and proper counterparts ; and should 
 therefore lead the deriders of infant-sprinkling, (as 
 even the most diminutive of our opponents have 
 learned from their superiors sneeringly to designate 
 our practice) to consider, on what and on whom their 
 contempt must ultimately fall. 
 
 Mark vii. 3, 4. " For the Pharisees, and all the 
 " Jews, except they wash their hands oft eat not, 
 " holding the tradition of the elders. And when they 
 
166 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 " come from the market, except they wash they eat 
 " not. And many other things there be, which they 
 " have received to hold, as the washing (fiaimo-fiovs, 
 " baptisms,) of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of 
 " tables." — Do our brethren really believe, that the 
 couches on which the Jews reclined at their meals, — 
 (which are meant by the word rendered improperly 
 in the latter of these verses tables) were immersed, or 
 plunged entirely under water? Is this likely in itself; 
 especially where water was seldom so abundant as to 
 be lavishly expended? And is it not much more 
 reasonable to suppose, that in adding to the extent of 
 the law of purification, the legal mode of purification 
 should still be retained ; and that the cleansing was 
 similar to that prescribed, Num. xix. 18. "A clean 
 " person shall take hyssop and clip it in the water, 
 " and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the ves- 
 sels?" — At any rate, whatever be supposed as to 
 the "pots, and cups, and brazen vessels," it surely 
 requires the prejudice of system, to fancy the immer- 
 sion of the beds or couches. 
 
 In Heb. ix. 10, the apostle says of the ancient dis- 
 pensation, that it " stood only in meats and drinks 
 and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances." — The 
 word rendered washings is /3«7rT«7^*T* (baptisms ;) un- 
 der which are certainly to be included all the various 
 modes of ceremonial purification, or cleansing, that 
 were enjoined under the law. The principal and most 
 frequent of these was sprinkling. The cases in which 
 the bathing of the body was prescribed are no doubt 
 also intended ; but it is enough for my purpose, if the 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 16" 
 
 expression, is admitted to comprehend other modes of 
 purifying. 
 
 1 Cor. x. 2, " They were all baptized into Moses in 
 the cloud and in the sea." — Are our brethren not sen- 
 sible of the straining that is necessary to make out im- 
 mersion baptism here ? — of the absolute ridiculousness 
 of the conceit (I cannot view it in any other light) 
 that the Israelites were baptized, by having the cloud 
 over them, and the waters of the sea on either side of 
 them ? I cannot help the miud that has brought 
 itself to fancy this quite simple and natural. A dry 
 baptism ! without the contact at all of the baptismal 
 element, in any way ! Would our brethren consider a 
 man duly baptized, by his being placed between two 
 cisterns of water, with a third over his head ? 
 
 When the baptism of the Holy Spirit, signified by 
 baptism with water, is spoken of, it is almost invaria- 
 bly associated with the idea of pouring out, or effu- 
 sion ; — and it is surely not unreasonable to conclude, 
 that there should be a correspondence between the 
 emblematic rite and that which it represents ; nor is 
 the charge of inconsiderate presumption destitute of 
 ground, against those who indulge themselves in ridi- 
 cule and mockery of this correspondence. — As a speci- 
 men of the language of the scriptures, let the following 
 passages suffice. Isa. xliv. 3, " I will pour water on 
 " him that is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground : 
 " I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my bless- 
 w ing upon thine offspring :" — Joel. ii. 28, 29, quoted 
 as fulfilled, Acts ii. 17, 18, " It shall come to pass 
 "afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all 
 
168 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 " flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall pro- 
 " phesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your 
 " young men shall see visions : and also upon the 
 " servants and upon the hand-maidens in those days 
 " will I pour out my Spirit :" Acts ii. 34, " There- 
 " fore, being by the right hand of God exalted, and 
 "having received of the Father the promise of the 
 " Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth (ifjfi^ee, poured out) 
 " this, which ye now see and hear :" — Tit. iii. 5, 6, 
 " Not by works of righteousness which we have done, 
 "but according to his mercy he saved us, by the 
 " w ashing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
 " Ghost, which he shed (s|g;tjs«v, poured out) on us 
 "abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." 
 
 That this pouring out of the Spirit was the same as 
 the baptism of the Spirit, we have an authority which 
 my reader, I hope, will deem satisfactory — the express 
 and pointed testimony of an inspired apostle. In 
 giving his account of the effect of his mission to the 
 household of Cornelius, Peter says, " And as I began 
 " to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at 
 " the beginning. Then remembered I the word of 
 " the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized 
 " with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Ilobj 
 " Ghost." Acts xi. 15, 16. That the Spirit falling 
 upon these converts, is equivalent to his being poured 
 out upon them, appears, from comparing this account 
 of Peter with the narrative itself of the event : " As 
 " Peter began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on all 
 " them who heard the word. And they of the cir- 
 " cumcision were astonished, as many as came with 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. lGi) 
 
 " Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured 
 " out the gift of the Holy Ghost." — Look, then, 
 reader, at Peter's words. The Holy Spirit was poured 
 out ; and Peter called to mind the promise, which of 
 course he considered as being then fulfilled — " Ye 
 shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit." According 
 to Peter, then, baptism was effected by pouring out. 
 Till better authority be produced, I desire to bow to 
 this. The argument, I am aware, is very simple, and 
 may be contemned as being an unlearned one ; — but 
 my very object is to show, that learning is not neces- 
 sary to determine the question, in what sense a writer 
 uses a particular word, when that writer himself 
 favours us with his own explanation. This is done 
 here, in terms as explicit as it is possible to devise. 
 And when Peter himself tells me that he did consider 
 effusion as baptism, the learning of all the etymologists 
 in Europe will not persuade me, against his own word, 
 that it was impossible he should. 
 
 I have said, it is surely not unreasonable to sup- 
 pose, that baptism with water, which represents bap- 
 tism with the Spirit, should bear an analogy to it in 
 this particular. The language, accordingly, of the 
 subsequent part of the same narrative, most naturally 
 leads to the conclusion, (so naturally, indeed, that I 
 might almost say it directly expresses it,) that such 
 was the fact, — that the converts, on whom the Spirit 
 had fallen, were not conducted to a river, or else- 
 where, where they might be conveniently immersed, 
 but that water was brought, and that they were bap- 
 tized immediately, upon the spot. Peter said, " Who 
 
170 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 can forbid water, that these should not be baptized?" 
 an expression which the ear itself of every candid 
 reader at once interprets to his mind, as intimating 
 the apostle's desire that water should be brought. 
 All assenting, he commanded them to be " baptized 
 in the name of the Lord Jesus." It was immediately 
 done ; and they " prayed him to tarry with them 
 certain days." 
 
 I only further remark, that the same authority, 
 namely, that of scripture itself, warrants me so ex- 
 plicitly, to consider sprinkling, or pouring, as suffi- 
 ciently expressive of washing or cleansing from pollu- 
 tion, that I have no deference to pay to any affirma- 
 tions of the contrary. Let the following examples be 
 attended to: — Ezek. xxxvi. 25, "Then will I sprinkle 
 " clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ; from 
 " all your filthiness and from all your idols will I 
 " cleanse you." Sprinkling is here represented as 
 having the effect of cleansing. — Psal. li. 7, " Purge 
 " me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; wash me, 
 " and I shall be whiter than snow." The hyssop was 
 used for sprinkling either water or blood, or both, 
 upon the person to be ceremonially purified ; so that 
 here too sprinkling is held sufficient for cleansing. — 
 So it is also in Heb. ix. 13, 14, " For if the blood of 
 "bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, 
 " sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
 " (xccSec^oTYiru) of the flesh; how much more shall the 
 "blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, 
 " offered himself without spot unto God, purge" 
 (xx$x£iu, purify or cleanse) " your conscience from 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 171 
 
 "dead works, to serve the living God?" The blood 
 of Christ is, with the same allusion to its cleansing 
 virtue, called the blood of sprinkling. — Isa. lii. 15, 
 " So shall he sprinkle many nations :" that is, " with 
 " his atoning blood, and by the pouring out of his 
 " Spirit as purifying water ; of which," (adds Mr 
 Scott, and it belongs to our baptist brethren to show 
 how unreasonably) "baptism should be the outward 
 "and visible sign." — Surely such passages of scrip- 
 ture as these ought at least to rescue sprinkling and 
 pouring from the misplaced and pitiful ridicule, 
 which has so often been directed against them by the 
 abettors of immersion. It is, I repeat, in the applica- 
 tion of water as a cleansing element, that the appro- 
 priateness of the rite consists. Were this admitted, 
 I should not be disposed, as I have before hinted, to 
 consider the mode of its application as essential to the 
 validity of the ordinance. I must, however, declare 
 my conviction, that, whilst I have produced decisive 
 instances of baptism, in the phraseology of the New 
 Testament, being equivalent to effusion, I have never 
 yet seen an instance established, of its necessarily or 
 certainly signifying immersion.* I have already said, 
 that it is not by etymology, but by usage, that this 
 point can be fairly determined; and the attempts 
 
 * The reader will therefore perceive, that when I say I can 
 admit immersion to be valid baptism, I do not mean that it has 
 been administered according to the mode practised by the apos- 
 tles. All that I mean is, that if baptism has already been ad- 
 ministered by immersion, I should not reckon it necessary to 
 administer it again by effusion or sprinkling. 
 
172 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 made to determine it by usage, from the New Testa- 
 ment, in favour of immersion, have ever appeared to 
 me entire failures. Two or three brief remarks shall 
 suffice on some of the modes of reasoning. 
 
 The argument from etymology has been supported 
 by the observation, that, in most of its occurrences, 
 the verb is connected with the preposition EN — gv 
 v^xti, — tv 7rvivfto&Ti ciyico, — &c. — in water, — in the Holy 
 Spirit, &c. — It is truly surprising, that so much stress 
 should be laid on the frequently vague import of a 
 Greek preposition. This preposition (sv) in many of 
 its occurrences is necessarily rendered with. Of this 
 not a few instances might be quoted. I shall content 
 myself with one, because it bears an immediate rela- 
 tion to the present subject. In Heb. ix. 22, it is said, 
 " almost all things are by the law purged (or purified 
 " xx6ot£i?jiToti) with blood (EN ulpocu) and without 
 "shedding of blood is no remission." — Now these 
 purifications with blood were effected by sprinkling ; 
 and to render the phrase here " in blood," would be 
 absurd. Our baptist friends are sufficiently aware of 
 this frequent signification of the preposition. And 
 yet, this being the case, the use of it in the present 
 instance determines nothing ; because, before it can be 
 made out that the preposition should be rendered in, 
 it must be previously proved that the verb signifies 
 exclusively to immerse — the propriety of the one trans- 
 lation obviously depending upon the establishment of 
 the other. — Nor is this all. We have, in the very 
 case before us, the clearest evidence of the fallacy of 
 the criticism : for, as we have seen a little ago, the 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 1/3 
 
 promise " Ye shall be baptized EN 7tviv(*octi ayim" 
 was verified by the pouring out of this Spirit upon the 
 disciples. — To be immersed, or plunged, in the Holy 
 Ghost and in fire, are expressions not merely harsh 
 and grating to the ear, — I should not rest much upon 
 that, because there are few or no modes of speech, 
 to which both the ear and the mind may not, by 
 custom, become habituated and reconciled ; — but 
 they are expressions in direct opposition to the in- 
 variable representations of scripture respecting the 
 gift of the Spirit. — Dr. Cox asks, " What reason can 
 "be assigned, if pouring be the proper method of 
 " administering baptism, for the constant use of a term 
 "in the New Testament, which, every critic admits, 
 " signifies immersion, and which even Mr Ewing 
 " allows to mean immersion as much as pouring ; 
 " and the entire omission of all those Greek words 
 "which contain, in their primary, or general appli- 
 " cation, the sense of effusion or pouring ? Either 
 "of the following verbs," says he, "might have 
 " answered the purpose ; fixXXa, jacio, acy^ia effundo, 
 " nciyjio) infundo, ik-^wu effundo, koctoc^iw effundo, 
 " ttzoo-xw adfundo : they are moreover all made use 
 " of in the writings of the apostles, and yet they are 
 "never applied to the ordinance of baptism. The 
 " same may be affirmed of favri^co I sprinkle."* — But 
 this is either inconsiderate, or uncandid. It is true, 
 that such terms do not happen to be used with 
 immediate application to the ordinance of baptism, 
 
 * Cox on Baptism, p. 47. 
 
174 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 because fictmita is the appropriate term, the vox 
 signata, for that ordinance. But to insinuate that 
 they are never used as equivalent to baptism, is 
 to insinuate what is most untrue. Either ncy^a or 
 zKXvvej (to pour out) is uniformly employed, as has 
 been already noticed, to express the baptism of the 
 Spirit. They on whom the Spirit was poured out 
 are most explicitly affirmed to have been baptized 
 with the Spirit. There is no getting over this. The 
 /3x7rrt<rf&st is effected by the ix%vG-ts. It will never be 
 alleged that ucfcvw signifies to immerse ; yet the apos- 
 tle Peter declares the iy*%v(h<; to have been the accom- 
 plishment of the promise, fietwrurfaawdi. — As to the 
 verb favrtfy, I shall only observe, that amongst the 
 " divers washings" (PoMrrnrf/utra, baptisms) of the old 
 dispensation, referred to Heb. ix. 10, must surely be 
 included all the modes of Jewish purification, and 
 consequently the (etvrteftetrx, or sprinklings, which 
 were the most numerous. The passages, moreover, 
 formerly cited, show, that, in scripture phraseology, 
 sprinkling is equivalent to washing or cleansing. 
 
 Equally uncertain, as to the conclusion deducible 
 from them, are the expressions, that John baptized 
 " in Jordan," "in the river of Jordan" — sv tu ufixvy 
 — iv t« Io$ccvyi 7rorx^a: — Matt. iii. 6. Mark i. 5. 
 Such expressions are inconclusive, for this obvious 
 reason, that they are equally suitable, on the suppo- 
 sition of pouring having been the mode of baptism, 
 as on that of immersion. Had John stood in the 
 water, however shallow, or had he stood in the bed 
 of the river at the water's edge, and poured the water 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 1/5 
 
 on those who came to him for baptism, — the historian 
 not only might have used the same expression with 
 propriety, but could hardly have used another. — An 
 argument, then, is brought from the use of a parti- 
 cular preposition, to fix the verb to one of two alleg- 
 ed meanings : — but if the preposition may be used 
 with equal propriety, whichsoever of the meanings 
 be affixed to the verb, it is superfluous to say that the 
 use of it determines neither. — The truth is, that our 
 baptist friends have their own sense of the verb pre- 
 viously fixed in their minds ; and, instead of ascer- 
 taining the sense of the verb by the use of the pre- 
 position, they determine the sense of the preposition 
 from its connexion with the verb. 
 
 This will be further evident, from the sense affixed 
 by some of them to another preposition, on one occa- 
 sion at least used in connexion with fiuirrfy, — the 
 preposition EIS. It is said, Mark i. 9, "Jesus came 
 "from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John 
 "EIZ tov 'ufiotvw" — By some antipsedobaptists, this 
 is translated into Jordan; and is considered as set- 
 tling the point, because being "baptized to or to- 
 wards Jordan" is nonsense. And nonsense no doubt 
 it is. But the remark settles no point whatever, un- 
 less it be the inconsideration or prejudice of such 
 critics. They surely know, that, in such connexions 
 ug not unusually has the signification of at. So it 
 is correctly rendered in Acts viii. 40, "Philip was 
 found at Azotus." Acts xxv. 15, "About whom, 
 when I was at Jerusalem," &c. ; and in other places. 
 The phrase does not signify that the persons baptized 
 
1/6 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 were plunged us rov lo^uvnv into the Jordan ; but 
 simply that the baptized and the baptizer were at, 
 or, if you will, in Jordan, when the rite was admin- 
 istered. Nothing is determinately affirmed by it of 
 the mode of its administration. — If it be alleged, that 
 in the instances quoted as examples of us signifying 
 at, the persons were at the places mentioned certainly 
 so as to be in them ; — granting the truth of the criti- 
 cism, the utmost that can be deduced from it is what 
 I have just mentioned, that the parties were in Jor- 
 dan when the ceremony was performed. But the 
 phrase might be used with perfect propriety upon the 
 supposition of their having been only on the margin 
 or bank of the river. 
 
 " In remarking upon Matt. iii. 16," says Dr. Cox, 
 " Mr Ewing expresses himself thus : — ' I suppose no 
 " man upon earth who can read #vs/3»j tvOug ano rov 
 " l^ccroq, imagines it to be any thing else than * he 
 " went up straightway from the water.' ' It is pre- 
 " sumable, notwithstanding the hostility against Dr. 
 " Campbell, that he was at least able to read the 
 " words recited ; and yet he imagined them to mean 
 " * he no sooner arose out of the water.' Vossius, 
 " Venema, Doddridge, and a thousand others, were 
 " certainly able to read these words, and yet they 
 " imagined them to have a meaning different from 
 " the interpretation of our Glasgow friend, and con- 
 " formable to that of the Principal of Marischall 
 " College, and of almost all the critics, both baptist 
 " and paedobaptist."* 
 
 * Page 87. 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 1/7 
 
 Now the man who names three critics, and refers 
 to the rest by thousands, should be sure of his cor- 
 rectness at least in his small sample. I happen not 
 to have Vossius and Yenema by me ; but I have 
 just looked into Doddridge, and find his translation 
 in harmony, not with Dr. Campbell's, but with Mr 
 Ewing's! It is — "And after Jesus was baptized, 
 " as soon as he ascended out of the water to the 
 " bank of Jordan." This needs no comment. It 
 is true that Dr. Doddridge renders the preposition 
 out of, while Mr Ewing renders it from. — But the 
 mere verbal rendering of the preposition itself is 
 nothing. Dr. Campbell's translation is a baptist 
 one, evidently representing the phrase as signifying 
 emerging from under the water, — and it is astonish- 
 ing that he or any critic should ever have so under- 
 stood it. — Dr. Doddridge's translation is as far as 
 Mr Ewing's from being in harmony with this. The 
 only difference is, that Mr Ewing's does not directly 
 convey the idea — (though neither does it exclude it) 
 of the person baptized having been standing in the 
 water when the rite was administered, which Dr. 
 Doddridge's does. Nothing, indeed, can be more un- 
 necessary than to go through a thousand critics, to 
 ascertain the meaning of the phrases xxTufixtntv u? to 
 w>u(>, and otvxfixmiv una (or ix) rov v^xrog. We need 
 not go beyond the New Testament ; for in it we have 
 the clearest and most explicit proof that they are 
 phrases totally unconnected with the act of baptizing. 
 In Acts viii. 38, 39, it is said, U They went down both 
 " into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he 
 
 M 
 
1/8 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 " baptized him. And when they were come up out 
 " of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away 
 " Philip, that the Eunuch saw him no more." — 
 Nothing can be clearer than this. The act of bap- 
 tizing is something quite distinct from either the 
 going down into the water, or the coming up out 
 of it. If these two phrases had any reference at all 
 to the mode of baptism, it would follow, that Philip 
 was immersed under the water, and emerged out of 
 it, as well as the Eunuch; which no one supposes, 
 The plain meaning is, that Philip and the Eunuch 
 descended together from the chariot to, or if you will 
 into the water; that, when they had so descended, 
 Philip baptized the Eunuch, but in what way, not 
 a hint is given ; and that, this being done, they 
 ascended together again out of, or from, the water. 
 Both went down, and both came up, but one only 
 was baptized. I cannot imagine that our baptist 
 friends should not perceive, how entirely the plain 
 statement of the historian, in this passage, sets aside 
 the whole of their argument derived from the modes 
 of expression employed — going down into and com- 
 ing up out of the water; the one being so clearly 
 previous, and the other subsequent, to the act of bap- 
 tizing. — J partake with Mr Ewing in his astonish- 
 ment that any man should ever have thought other- 
 wise : — and I think I may add, that a baptist should 
 ever have thought otherwise is "passing strange." I 
 have been accustomed to understand, that our friends 
 consider the subject or recipient of the ordinance as 
 passive, — not himself going down under the water, 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 1/9 
 
 and coming up out of it, but being laid under it, and 
 raised out of it, by another. But the xurifivi and the 
 uvifiy) express actions of the baptized person himself, 
 and are quite distinct from his being baptised. 
 
 I have dwelt a great deal longer on the subject of 
 the mode of baptism than was my original intention. 
 The remarks made are intended to show, from the 
 plain statements of the New Testament itself, that 
 baptism was performed by sprinkling or pouring, and 
 that there is no necessity for any learned appeal to 
 other authorities. This appeal has been made by 
 psedobaptists, and made, in my judgment, with suc- 
 cess. They do not deny that the verbs faittu and 
 /3ei7TTi^oj signify to dip or immerse ; but they do deny 
 that this is their only signification, and that it is 
 their signification when thev are used by the sacred 
 writers. In insisting that immersion is the sole sig- 
 nification of the verbs, our baptist brethren appear 
 to me to discover a deficiency of critical candour ; to 
 be much more ingenious than ingenuous; and some- 
 times, without perceiving it, to employ a sophistry, 
 of which the conclusions, even if they were sound, 
 are nothing to their purpose. — For example : Dr. Cox 
 is somewhat testy with Mr Ewing for referring to 
 the use of fanru in application to Nebuchadnezzar, 
 Dan. iv. 33. "His body was wet (or wetted) with 
 the dew of heaven." This is at least the twentieth 
 time, he alleges, that this instance has been produced 
 in the controversy. But the question is, not how 
 often it has been produced, but how often it has been 
 refuted. If it has not been fairly met and set aside. 
 
180 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 it is not frequency of repetition that will deprive it 
 of its force. There is no term of prescription that 
 transmutes truth into falsehood ; or in the course of 
 which an argument becomes weak, that once had 
 strength. It is not repetition for twenty times, nor 
 for twenty times twenty, that can ever impair it. 
 On the contrary, the longer it stands unrepelled, it 
 gets stronger and stronger. — Let us see, then, what 
 Dr. Cox makes of this case. He thinks the ordinary 
 reply satisfactory, "That a body exposed to eastern 
 " dews would be as wet as if plunged in water :" but 
 considering the passage as "meriting a little more 
 "detailed explanation," he goes on to observe: — 
 " The verb here used is in the passive voice, in the 
 " second aorist, and the indicative mood, implying 
 " consequently that the action was past and indefinite 
 " as to time. It does not imply the manner in which 
 " the effect was produced, but the effect itself ; not 
 " the mode by which the body of the king was wetted, 
 " but its condition, as resulting from exposure to the 
 " dews of heaven. Suppose, by way of illustration, 
 " we select another word, and put it into the same 
 " voice and tense ; as, e/3A*/3» Iko <rov ; ' he was hurt 
 "by you.' It is obvious, that this representation 
 "might refer to an injury done long ago, and would 
 " predicate nothing of the manner in which it was 
 " inflicted : it simply expresses the fact and the con- 
 " dition of injury which resulted."* — Now what is 
 the amount of all this? Twenty times twenty have 
 
 * Pages 40, 41. 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 181 
 
 we poor psedobaptists been told, that there is no room 
 for reasoning ; that the idea of immersion is in the 
 very words fama and /3«7rT<£<y ; that immersion bap- 
 tism is consequently a tautology, and baptism by 
 pouring a contradiction. And yet here, on Dr. Cox's 
 own showing, is an instance, in which (ZcLnro "pre- 
 dicates nothing of the manner." It does not denote 
 immersion ; it does not denote being wet as the effect 
 of immersion ! — Suppose we admit that it signifies the 
 state of being wet : still it cannot be denied, that it 
 signifies this state, as the result, not of plunging, but 
 of the very gentlest of possible affusions. Bunr*) is 
 used, and expresses nothing of immersion — "not the 
 mode" — to use Dr. Cox's own words — "by which 
 the body of the king was wetted ! " I have only to 
 ask my esteemed friend, whether he would consider a 
 person duly baptized, if water were poured upon him 
 till he were thoroughly wetted. If he would, then 
 what would become of the favourite idea of the em- 
 blematic representation, in baptism, of a burial and 
 resurrection? — The truth is, that Dr. Cox's illustrative 
 parallel is not a parallel. Why is it that the aorist 
 passive g/3A«e/3>j " predicates nothing of the manner" in 
 which the hurt had been inflicted? Simply because 
 the verb /3a#tttw does not signify to hurt in a particu- 
 lar way, but to hurt in any way. Did /ZXxttto/, for in- 
 stance, exclusively signify to hurt by beating, then the 
 phrase ifixxfin vtc <tov must have meant " he was hurt 
 by having been beaten by you." The aorist expresses 
 indefiniteness as to time, but does not surely deprive 
 the verb of any definiteness that belongs to it in 
 
182 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 sense. If Dr. Cox admits $x%ra to be on a footing 
 with fiXa7TTtk> in the indefiniteness of its sense, so that, 
 as the latter verb means to hurt in any way, the for- 
 mer means to wet in any way ; then will it be true, 
 that, as the aorist of the one " predicates nothing of 
 the manner'''' of hurting, so does the aorist of the other 
 predicate nothing of the manner of wetting. But 
 such an admission would be fatal to the entire argu- 
 ment of the baptists derived from what they affirm 
 to be the proper and the only meaning of the verb. 
 If /S^Trr^y does exclusively denote to dip, to immerse, 
 then ifix(pY) must mean that Nebuchadnezzar had 
 been dipped, had been immersed, had been wetted 
 by dipping or immersion, at some indefinite p)ctst time, 
 — this being the only indefiniteness that belongs to 
 the aorist. If the definite sense of dipping per- 
 tains essentially to the verb, it pertains to it in the 
 aorist as much as in any other tense. But with this 
 essential sense of the verb " being wetted with the 
 dews of heaven'''' can never be reconciled ; for this, I 
 repeat, is being wetted by an effusion the softest and 
 gentlest in nature. 
 
 Considering, then, as I have repeatedly mentioned, 
 the emblematic import of baptism, to be derived from 
 the cleansing or purifying nature of the element 
 employed, not from the mode of its application, 
 although affusion appears to have the decided coun- 
 tenance of the New Testament scriptures ; I proceed 
 to illustrate my first position, — that baptism, and that 
 baptism administered to infants, is a standing visi- 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 183 
 
 BLE MEMORIAL, IN THE CHURCH, OF IMPORTANT 
 TRUTHS. 
 
 Baptism itself, whether administered to infants or 
 to adults, is a permanent remembrancer of guilt and 
 pollution, ■ — of the consequent necessity of cleansing 
 from both,- — and of the means provided for such 
 cleansing, the blood and Spirit of Christ. But, on 
 these general views of the import of the ordinance, it 
 is not needful for me to dwell. There are additional 
 truths brought to mind, by the administration of the 
 ordinance to children, which it is more to my present 
 purpose to notice. 
 
 1 . Infant baptism contains a constant memorial of 
 original sin — that is, of the corruption of our nature 
 being not merely contracted, by the moral contagion 
 of education and example, — but inherent. Every 
 time it is administered to an infant, it emblematically 
 reminds all who witness it of the truth expressed by 
 the Psalmist, " Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and 
 in sin did my mother conceive me." And this doc- 
 trine of original corruption, of which infant baptism is 
 a standing practical recognition, is one of fundamental 
 importance ; one, I am satisfied, to inadequate con- 
 ceptions and impressions of which may be traced all 
 the principal perversions of the gospel. In proportion 
 to its relative importance in the system of Divine 
 truth, is it of consequence that it should not be 
 allowed to slip out of mind. The baptism of even- 
 child brings it to view, and impresses it. If in any 
 case it should be otherwise, the fault is not in the 
 ordinance, but in the power of custom, and in the 
 
184 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 stupidity and carelessness of spectators, of parents, of 
 ministers. It teaches, very simply, but very signifi- 
 cantly, that, even from the womb, children are the 
 subjects of pollution ; that they stand in need of a 
 participation in the pardon of the original apostacy, 
 and of purification from the inherent depravity of their 
 nature, in order to their entering heaven, and seeing 
 God. — The impression of such truths is of the very 
 highest importance, especially to parents, in fixing the 
 principles on which their children are to be trained 
 and instructed, and in directing their practical appli- 
 cation. Let not an institution, then, which serves to 
 sustain the remembrance and impression of such 
 truths, be represented as destitute of use. 
 
 That infant baptism contains a practical testimony, 
 from the Divine author of the institution, to the 
 necessity of regeneration, is a very different thing 
 from its being regeneration itself, or invariably ac- 
 companied by it in its infant subject. The doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration is, in many respects, as 
 pernicious in its tendencies, as it is absurd on princi- 
 ples of reason, and destitute of foundation in scrip- 
 ture. It is an abuse, for which, as for many others, 
 the ordinance itself is not responsible. The only 
 wonder is, that any man of common sense should 
 ever have maintained it. 
 
 It is a doctrine of the church of Rome, and it har- 
 monizes well with the innumerable absurdities of that 
 antichristian communion. It is contained also in the 
 catechism and baptismal service of the church of Eng- 
 land, constituting one of the remnants of popery, of 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 185 
 
 which there are too many in the constitution and 
 ceremonies of our Episcopalian Establishment : — and 
 it is hardly necessary to add, that, as a part of the 
 more general doctrine of the saving virtue of the 
 sacraments, when administered by duly consecrated 
 hands, it forms an essential element in modern Anglo- 
 catholicism. I am aware, indeed, that, on the present 
 subject, the sense in which the terms employed are 
 to be understood has been the ground of very vehe- 
 ment controversy ; but their simple and prima facie 
 meaning is, without question, favourable to this fool- 
 ish and mischievous tenet. — But when Mr Birt re- 
 presents "the majority of psedobaptists in general 
 as believing in baptismal regeneration," he writes, to 
 say the least of it, unguardedly. He ought to have 
 explained, that, in making this statement, he included 
 papists ; of whom, in a discussion of the psedobaptist 
 controversy, not one in a hundred of his readers, I am 
 well persuaded, would ever think.* 
 
 2. Whilst infant baptism reminds us of the hum- 
 bling doctrine of original depravity, it brings before 
 our minds a truth of a different kind, — eminently 
 cheering and encouraging, — namely, that little chil- 
 dren are not incapable of being subjects of the spirit- 
 ual kingdom of Jesus Christ, and participating in its 
 blessings. — I need not set about proving this; be- 
 cause their capability is granted by baptists them- 
 selves : — they are admitted to have even been pro- 
 
 * On this point, the reader is again referred to my Reply to 
 the Letter of Mr Birt of Manchester — pages 14 — 17. 
 
186 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 noimced by Christ visible subjects of his kingdom. 
 On that beautiful passage, Mark x. 13 — 16, Mr 
 Maclean says, " Here are children brought to Christ, 
 " declared of his kingdom, and blessed, and thus be- 
 coming visible subjects; yet we read nothing of 
 " their baptism." With the latter clause we have at 
 present no concern. Far be it from us to deny, that 
 " infants may be acknowledged to be of the kingdom 
 " of God, without baptizing them." Far be it from 
 us to pass any such sentence of exclusion against the 
 children of our baptist brethren, however much we 
 may think their parents mistaken. We do not con- 
 sider the outward rite as thus essential to salvation. 
 But this we say, that if infants are capable subjects of 
 the kingdom, and are pronounced such by the Lord 
 himself, there is surely no contradiction or incongruity 
 in infant baptism ; that is, in the application of the 
 sign to those who are admitted to be capable of the 
 thing signified. There is certainly nothing in this that 
 can warrant the scorn and ridicule with which it has 
 been assailed. To admit an infant to be a " visible 
 subject" of the spiritual kingdom, and to laugh at the 
 application to such an infant of the rite which signifies 
 the peculiar blessings of that kingdom, and talk of it 
 as a " solemn farce," does not seem to indicate great 
 consistency of thought or feeling. 
 
 Let it not be said, the ground of ridicule is, that 
 infants are incapable of that faith, which the New 
 Testament affirms to be necessary to baptism, and of 
 which baptism is the profession. It has often been 
 remarked, and it has never been satisfactorily an- 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 18/ 
 
 swered, that this mode of reasoning, if valid for the 
 exclusion of infants from baptism, must be equally 
 valid for their exclusion from salvation. If it be a 
 correct syllogism — Believing is necessary to baptism ; 
 infants are incapable of believing : therefore, no in- 
 fants ought to be baptized ; — then the following must 
 be correct too — Believing is necessary to salvation : 
 infants are incapable of believing : therefore infants 
 cannot be saved. — Dr. Cox and our baptist friends 
 may be angry at the twentieth repetition of this too. 
 But it is simply impossible to get rid of the second 
 conclusion, if the first be sound. When it is said, 
 " He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: he 
 " that believeth not shall be condemned ;" it is very 
 manifest, from the nature of the thing, and from the 
 charge in the preceding verse, " Go, preach the gos- 
 pel to every creature," — that the language refers to 
 all mankind in general to whom the gospel could be 
 preached ; that is, to adults, who were capable of 
 hearing and understanding what was said.' — It is one 
 of those cases, in which baptists themselves are con- 
 strained to have recourse to the ground of general 
 language. They apply this principle to that part of 
 the verse that connects salvation with faith, because, 
 if they took this strictly and universally, it would 
 inevitably exclude infants from being saved. Have 
 we not reason, then, to complain of want of can- 
 dour, when they will not allow the application of the 
 same principle of interpretation to that clause which 
 connects baptism with faith ? The connexion of 
 both with faith is stated in the same sentence, in 
 
188 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 the same unqualified terms ; and the same principle of 
 explanation which warrants or condemns the one infer- 
 ence, must equally warrant or condemn the other. 
 
 I am strongly inclined to agree with those, who 
 regard the children of believers in the light of disci- 
 ples. If their parents do their duty, they surely are 
 such. It is quite impossible for us to say, how soon 
 the Holy Spirit may begin his secret operations in the 
 soul of a child, under spiritual training, and the sub- 
 ject of believing prayer. And until the principles 
 which are instilled into the child's mind by early 
 tuition, recommended by a godly example, and im- 
 pressed by affectionate and faithful admonition, are 
 either avowedly rejected, or are shown to be professed 
 without influence on the heart and life, — how can we 
 be entitled to say, that they are not disciples ? They 
 are learners ; they assent to what is taught them ; 
 and, as far as we can judge, are lambs of the flock of 
 the " good shepherd." Indications of the contrary 
 may present themselves, sometimes earlier, and some- 
 times later : and in forming our estimate, we should 
 never lose sight of the necessity of making all allow- 
 ance for the childishnesses of childhood ; not foolishly 
 looking for the same manifestation of the power of 
 the truth, in a babe, which we expect in a full-grown 
 man. 
 
 On the question, Are the baptized children of 
 believers church members? — various opinions have 
 been entertained. I shall state, with diffidence, my 
 own. 
 
 In the first place : — Baptism, it seems evident from 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 189 
 
 the New Testament, is not to be regarded as a social 
 or church ordinance. It did not, when administered 
 to adults, introduce the persons baptized to connexion 
 with any particular church, or society of christians. 
 They were simply baptized into the faith of Christ, 
 and the general fellowship of the gospel. We have 
 one clear and decisive exemplification of this, in the 
 case of the eunuch of Ethiopia. He was baptized by 
 Philip in the desert, when on a journey, where there 
 was, of course, no church ; nor was there any, where 
 the eunuch was going. His baptism, therefore, 
 merely recognized him as a professed disciple of Jesus, 
 without constituting him a member of any particular 
 christian church. And so it was with others. The 
 converts, when baptized, "joined themselves," where- 
 ever they had opportunity, " to the disciples ;" but 
 their baptism was administered to them, simply on a 
 profession of their faith ; it was previous to such 
 union, and formed no part of the services of the 
 church, with which they might subsequently unite. 
 
 Secondly : This being the case, I am disposed to 
 regard the children of believers as disciples, in a 
 situation somewhat analogous to the one described. 
 They have been baptized ; they have become the 
 subjects of spiritual instruction, — of " the nurture and 
 admonition of the Lord ;" and they are in training for 
 the full fellowship of the people of God, in all the 
 ordinances of his house. — If, on growing up, they do 
 not hold the truth, in the knowledge of which they 
 have been instructed, and on the principles of which 
 they have been " nurtured and admonished ;" — they 
 
190 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 must be treated accordingly ; — they cannot be ad- 
 mitted to the communion of the church. If, on the 
 contrary, they " abide in the truth," " holding fast 
 the faithful word as they have been taught," then 
 they are at liberty to unite in fellowship wherever 
 their judgment and conscience, on examination of the 
 word of God, may direct them. — I do not go so far 
 as to speak of their being separated from the church 
 at any particular age, by a formal sentence of exclu- 
 sion, when they do not give evidence of the reception 
 and influence of the gospel ; for the reason just 
 assigned, that their baptism has not constituted them 
 properly members of a particular society, but only 
 disciples of Christ, under training for the duties and 
 enjoyments of his kingdom. — I feel confirmed in this 
 view of the case, by the consideration, that, when the 
 apostle Paul, in any of his epistles, addresses himself 
 to the children of the believers, — whilst by so doing 
 he recognizes them as sustaining a relation to the 
 christian community, he yet does not commit the in- 
 struction and training of them to the church, or to the 
 pastors of the church, but enjoins it upon the parents, 
 as a matter as yet of private and domestic concern/ 1 
 Eph. vi. 1—4. 
 
 * 1 was not aware, when I was led, by my own reflection, to 
 adopt the view which I have given in the text of the church- 
 membership of the children of believers, that it was in perfect 
 coincidence with that given by the late Dr. Dwight, in the 
 157th Sermon of his Theology. I leave the reader to consult 
 it for himself. 1 had not looked into the work, on this subject, 
 till after my own manuscript was ready for the press. 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 191 
 
 3. Before proceeding to the duties which this ordi- 
 nance brings to mind, and enforces, I must notice one 
 other highly important doctrine, — which it is beau- 
 tifully calculated to impress. — When our blessed Re- 
 deemer took the little children in his arms and said, 
 "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," — he added 
 solemnly to his disciples, "Verily I say unto you, 
 " whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as 
 " a little child, he shall not enter therein." — When an 
 infant receives the blessings of the kingdom, it is gra- 
 tuitously ; not as the reward of works of righteous- 
 ness ; not in the exercise of high-minded self-confi- 
 dence. So must it be with you, says the Saviour, the 
 Lord of the kingdom. You must be "justified freely 
 by the grace of God ;" you must own yourselves 
 undeserving, and receive all as a gift ; whatever you 
 have done, you must come for the blessings of my 
 kingdom, as if you had done nothing, and receive 
 them as little children. This was levelled at the 
 spiritual pride and self-righteousness of the Pharisees, 
 against which, on other occasions also, he warns his 
 disciples. — The man who receives the kingdom, must 
 receive it on the same terms as the child ; — not for a 
 life of virtue, — not for his faith, his repentance, his 
 obedience, as if these could merit any thing from God. 
 He must, as to his title to its blessings, be divested 
 of every thing. — Now this is one of the essential 
 articles of gospel truth ; one of the immutable laws of 
 the kingdom ; one of the indispensable characters of 
 its genuine subjects. And this truth is constantly 
 exhibited, and affectingly impressed, in infant bap- 
 
192 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 tism. Every time the ordinance is administered to a 
 child, all who witness it may be considered as having 
 the words of Christ symbolically repeated in their 
 hearing — " Verily I say nnto you, whosoever shall not 
 " receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child, 
 " he shall not enter therein." It is not the fault of 
 the ordinance, but of its administrator and witnesses, 
 if such impressions are not made. 
 
 These are lessons for all, — lessons of essential con- 
 sequence ; and the wisdom of God has not only 
 revealed and oft repeated them in his word, but has 
 also embodied them in emblematic institutions, which 
 serve as visible memorials of them in his church, to 
 all generations. Such are both baptism and the 
 Lord's supper. And the former, when, according 
 to God's appointment, administered to infants, con- 
 tains a constantly renewed intimation of the delight- 
 ful truth, that whilst they are the subjects of guilt, 
 and pollution, and curse, in consequence of the ori- 
 ginal apostasy, they are, at the same time, through 
 Jesus Christ, partakers of the blessings of the king- 
 dom of mercy. 
 
 II. Having considered infant baptism as a memo- 
 rial of fundamental truths, let me now proceed to 
 view it as a remembrancer of important duties, and 
 an encouragement to their performance. 
 
 I shall, on this part of my subject, offer a few brief 
 remarks on the duties of parents, of children, and 
 of churches. 
 
 1 . The ordinance is inseparably connected, and all 
 christian parents ought so to regard it, with the in- 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 193 
 
 cumbent duty of " bringing up their children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord." If this con- 
 nexion is lost sight of, — if it is not contemplated at 
 the time, and is practically disregarded afterwards, 
 the ordinance becomes nothing better than a useless 
 ceremony, and an idle and profane mockery of its 
 Divine author. — Much has been said, and said some- 
 times very loosely, by psedobaptists, of the rights 
 and privileges of infants, and of the impropriety 
 of abridging their privileges, and abstracting their 
 rights, in refusing them baptism. But I would have 
 it seriously considered, that the right and the privi- 
 lege are not worth the contending for, unless the 
 ordinance be connected with parental instruction, 
 discipline, and prayer. It is evident, that the pour- 
 ing of a little water on an infant's face, can, in itself, 
 do it no good ; and as little would the immersion of 
 its whole body. The mere external recognition of its 
 connexion with the christian community, can be of no 
 benefit, except as associated with subsequent training, 
 for the performance of the duties, and the enjoyment 
 of the blessings, of that community. The profit to 
 the child must be through the medium of the parent : 
 and it has long appeared to me, that in the first in- 
 stance, it is to the parent, rather than to the child, 
 that infant baptism is to be reckoned a privilege. It 
 is an ordinance, in which there is brought before 
 the minds of pious parents, a pleasing and animating 
 recognition of the covenant promises of God to them 
 and to their offspring, which form so great an en- 
 couragement to them in the discharge of duty, and 
 
194 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 in looking, by prayer, for the divine blessing upon 
 the objects of their tender love. That multitudes 
 who have their children baptized never think of the 
 ordinance in any such light, and are quite regardless 
 of the obligations which, I will not say it imposes, 
 but which it implies, and brings to mind,- — is a mel- 
 ancholy truth. And I would earnestly admonish 
 those parents, of the guilt they are contracting, by 
 their solemn mockery of heaven, in the careless pro- 
 fanation of a Divine institution. The abuse is awfully 
 extensive ; and it is one of the evils which we owe, 
 not entirely indeed, but in a very great degree, to 
 the nationalizing of Christianity by its incorporation 
 with our civil polity, and the consequent universality 
 of its profession. This abuse has afforded a great 
 advantage to the adversaries of infant baptism ; but 
 there is both weakness and unfairness in having 
 recourse to it. It shows a mind incapable of dis- 
 tinguishing between the precepts of God and the 
 perversions of them by men. The Lord's supper, 
 from the same cause, has been as extensively per- 
 verted and abused as infant baptism. But, while we 
 regret and mourn the prostitution of any ordinance 
 of God, this can never be a valid reason for our 
 neglecting its legitimate and scriptural use. I am 
 fully persuaded of the truth of the remark, that if 
 infant baptism had not been so much abused, it would 
 not have been so much opposed. 
 
 Let it not be said, that parents may have a suffi- 
 ciently strong feeling of their duty to their children, 
 and may fulfil that duty equally well with others. 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. If).") 
 
 although they do not see the scripture authority for 
 their baptism. I do not deny, that a baptist may be 
 exemplary in the christian tuition of his family, and 
 that many a psedobaptist may be very much the con- 
 trary. But this is not the question. I can conceive 
 of a christian, from certain conscientious but unscrip- 
 tural and groundless scruples, living for successive 
 years in the neglect of the ordinance of the Lord's 
 supper, and yet, to all appearance, influenced as 
 much as others, in his general character, by the 
 habitual remembrance of his Redeemer. We should 
 never infer from such a case, that the ordinance was 
 useless. Neither ought we in the other. If God 
 has given promises to his people and their seed, pro- 
 mises fitted to stimulate believing parents to the 
 fulfilment of their sacred trust, and has instituted an 
 ordinance in which these promises are recognized 
 and pledged to them, it does not become us to ne- 
 glect the gracious and pleasing rite, on the ground 
 that we can keep the promises sufficiently well in 
 mind without it. It is kind in that God who " know- 
 eth our frame," not only to give us his word, but 
 to embody, as it were, that word to our senses, to 
 confirm it to our faith, and to impress it upon our 
 memories and hearts, by significant outward institu- 
 tions. " Quam enim suave piis animis," says Calvin 
 very beautifully, " non verbo tan turn, sed oculari 
 " etiam spectaculo, certiores fieri, tantum se gratia 
 "apud patrem coclestem obtinere, ut posteritas sua 
 " illi curae sit." " How pleasing to the minds of 
 " the godly, not merely to have a verbal assurance, 
 
196 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 " but to have it certified to them by visible signs, 
 " that the grace of their heavenly Father is so great, 
 " as to extend, not to themselves only, but to their 
 "offspring!" — If christian parents do not feel, as they 
 ought, the practical encouragement to duty which the 
 ordinance, as a recognition of Divine promise, pre- 
 sents, and do not act accordingly, (and all of us must 
 be sensible of criminal deficiency) — the fault lies, not 
 with the institution, or with its author, but with their 
 own want of faith, and of right disposition. 
 
 We consider baptism, as an ordinance for believers 
 and their children. I am aware, indeed, that I do 
 not express the sentiment of all paedobaptists, when 
 I say, that the administration of it to children ought 
 to be confined to those of believers only ; meaning of 
 course, by the designation, such as we have reason, at 
 the time, to acknowledge as believers. In regard to 
 adults, there is an obvious difference between the 
 ground of title to the reception of baptism, and the 
 ground of warrant for its administration. The for- 
 mer is sincere and genuine faith : the latter is the 
 profession of faith, uncontradicted by any circum- 
 stance which deprives it of credibility. That "the 
 belief of the truth " was the true ground of title to 
 the reception of the ordinance, the entire tenor of 
 New Testament phraseology on the subject might be 
 adduced to prove. Being baptized is ever associated 
 with previous believing. — But it was not according to 
 any secret "discernment of spirits," that baptism was 
 administered ; and mistakes might be made respect- 
 ing the genuineness of profession. When the same 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 197 
 
 Philip, in the city of Samaria, " preached the things 
 " concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of 
 " Jesus Christ," Simon Magus was amongst those 
 who professed to receive his testimony : and on this 
 profession he was baptized. — Here, then, appears the 
 distinction, between the right to baptism, and the 
 warrant for its administration. Simon Magus had not 
 the same right to baptism as the Ethiopian eunuch ; 
 for, instead of "believing with all his heart," it 
 appeared afterwards that he was still "in the gall 
 of bitterness and the bond of iniquity :" but, in both 
 cases, Philip was equally warranted in administering 
 the ordinance; at least, we have no ground to pre- 
 sume, that there were any circumstances in Simon's 
 profession, which ought to have destroyed its credit, 
 and which would have justified Philip in refusing 
 to baptize him. 
 
 I am not aware, from any facts or principles in the 
 New Testament, of any profession of faith being suf- 
 ficient for admission to baptism, that is not sufficient 
 for admission to the Lord's supper, and the full fel- 
 lowship of the church of Christ. Baptism was not 
 administered to adults on a mere declaration of will- 
 ingness to be instructed, but on a profession of faith 
 in the testimony delivered. Although the statements 
 of the history are very brief, — so brief, as occasion- 
 ally to produce oversights and hasty conclusions, — I 
 do not recollect any exception to this representation. 
 When the profession of faith was made, upon hearing 
 the gospel, and witnessing its accompanying evidence, 
 it was, in the judgment of charity, supposed to be 
 
198 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 sincere, — to be " with all the heart :" nor am I aware 
 of the existence, in apostolic times, of any such ano- 
 malous description of persons, as those who were bap- 
 tized, but were not admitted to church-fellowship. 
 The three thousand who, on the day of Pentecost, 
 "gladly received Peter's word, were baptized; and 
 " the same day" they were "added to the church." 
 — " John's baptism " may be considered as debatable 
 ground, and, therefore, I shall not enter upon it ; but 
 I ask for an instance, subsequently to the commence- 
 ment of apostolic preaching, and the first formation of 
 a church, of a person making a profession of faith 
 which was sufficient for his admission to baptism, and 
 yet not sufficient for his reception to other christian 
 ordinances. I know of none. The genuineness of 
 the profession, made at baptism, was tried in the 
 church, not in an intervening period between baptism 
 and admission to the church. — Now the same princi- 
 ples which the New Testament teaches me to apply 
 to the baptism of adults, it of course prescribes for 
 the baptism of their children. As I should not con- 
 ceive myself warranted to baptize an adult, on any 
 profession of faith which would not warrant my re- 
 ceiving him to the table of the Lord ; — neither do I 
 consider it right and scriptural, to baptize the child 
 of any man, on a profession that would not justify his 
 admission into the church. I can think of no prin- 
 ciple, which, as a rule of practice, is definite and in- 
 telligible, but this. I am well aware of the different 
 sentiments entertained, and the different course pur- 
 sued, by many (I might, I fear, say, by most) of my 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 190 
 
 psedobaptist brethren in the south. I cannot but 
 think them very far in the wrong : — and I have never 
 been able to find any thing like fixed and precise 
 ground amongst them, on this subject. Some place 
 the warrant for baptizing, in a willingness to be in- 
 structed ; some, in a general profession of Christianity, 
 and of faith in the Bible ; others, in the attendance 
 of the party applying for it at church, and bringing 
 his family with him, so as to put them in the way 
 of good ; while others still, I believe, go so far as 
 to concur with the established church of England, 
 and administer it to all who apply, considering it as 
 the privilege of the child, without regard to the pro- 
 fession and character of the parent at all. Now, in 
 all this, there is an undefined arid unsettled laxity, 
 which appears to me highly pernicious in its practical 
 consequences ; and which, moreover, tends to weaken, 
 and even, if followed fairly out, to overthrow, the 
 whole of the argument for infant baptism that is 
 founded on the covenant relation, so distinctly re- 
 cognized in scripture, between parent and child. — 
 Let me not be misunderstood. I do not say that I 
 would not baptize the child of any man, who is not 
 a member of a church, or who does not immediately 
 join one. What I say is, that I would not baptize, 
 where I could not conscientiously receive to commun- 
 ion on the same profession of faith. — I have before 
 noticed the extent to which the lax administration 
 and abuse of the ordinance prevails : — and I should 
 rejoice to see my dissenting brethren setting their 
 countenance and their practice decidedly against it. 
 
200 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 The chief ground on which a looser principle than 
 the one I have assumed, has been usually vindicated 
 by our southern brethren, has been derived from 
 the practice of the Jewish Church in regard to cir- 
 cumcision. All children that were Jews by birth, it 
 is alleged, were indiscriminately admitted to the pre- 
 scribed ordinance, their parents professing faith in 
 the God of Abraham, and no evidence being required 
 at the time of the genuineness of that profession : and 
 we should proceed on a similar principle in regard 
 to baptism. — The legitimacy of this conclusion, how- 
 ever, appears to me to be much more than ques- 
 tionable. Those who act upon it would do well to 
 consider, how far, if fairly carried out, it will lead 
 them. All the parents, who had their children cir- 
 cumcised, were themselves admitted to the passover, 
 and other institutions of the Jewish church. If, 
 therefore, the alleged parallelism in the one case jus- 
 tifies the admission of children to baptism to the same 
 extent to which they were admitted to circumcision, 
 it must equally justify the admission of their parents 
 to the Lord's supper, and all the institutions of chris- 
 tian fellowship. I do not see how this inference can 
 be evaded. It will not do to say, that there is not 
 the same established parallelism between the pass- 
 over and the Lord's supper, as there is between cir- 
 cumcision and baptism. For supposing this to be 
 true, my argument does not rest on any such paral- 
 lelism. It would be the same, though there were 
 no resemblance at all between the two former institu- 
 tions. It rests simply on the fact of the admission 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 201 
 
 to the ordinances, whatever they might be, which 
 formed the outward distinction of the Jews, as the 
 professors of faith in the God of Abraham, and of 
 such Gentile proselytes as adopted that faith — the 
 admission to these ordinances of all parents whose 
 children were admitted to the initiatory rite of cir- 
 cumcision. Let an instance be pointed out of a pa- 
 rent, whose child was admitted to circumcision, while 
 he himself was not admitted to all the ordinances 
 of the Jewish church. If no such instance can be 
 produced, let the parallelism be fairly followed on 
 both sides. Admit to the ordinances for adults all 
 the parents whose infant offspring you admit to the 
 ordinance for children. — This is precisely what I 
 contend for. It was what was actually done then : 
 it is what, in my judgment, ought to be done now. — 
 The great and essential difference lies in this, — that 
 the New Testament state of the church is uniformly 
 represented, both by prophetic intimations, and by 
 apostolic instructions, as intended of God to be a 
 state of greater purity and spirituality of communion 
 than had previously existed. The Jewish church 
 was national. When the new dispensation was intro- 
 duced, it was no longer to be so. Its constitution 
 was to be remodelled. The wicked were to be 
 shaken out of it. It was to be revived and purified. 
 It was not to consist of nations, but of individuals of 
 all nations, separated from the world by the grace of 
 God. It is evident from the addresses of the different 
 inspired Epistles, " what manner of persons " they 
 were who ought to have been received and retained 
 
202 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 as members of churches, associates in the worship, 
 and sharers of the privileges, of the new state of 
 things. They are "beloved of God, called, saints," 
 Rom. i. 7, " sanctified in Christ Jesus," 1 Cor. i. 2, 
 "saints and faithful in Christ Jesus," Eph. i. 1, 
 such as had "obtained like precious faith with the 
 apostles," 2 Pet. i. 1, &c. That persons of a dif- 
 ferent description did find their way into the com- 
 munion of the saints, on a false profession of the 
 faith, is too true. But then the churches are blamed, 
 and severely reprimanded, for retaining such persons 
 in their fellowship, after they had, by their conduct, 
 discovered their true character. See particularly the 
 Epistles to the Corinthians, and those in the Book of 
 Revelation to the seven churches of the lesser Asia. — 
 My argument, therefore, which is a very simple, and, 
 as it appears to me, a very conclusive one, stands 
 thus. In the national church of Israel, all parents 
 whose children were circumcised, were themselves ad- 
 mitted to the passover and the other ordinances of 
 that communion. This was accordant with the con- 
 stitution of the church at that time. The same prin- 
 ciple applies in the Church of Christ. All parents, 
 whose children are admitted to baptism, should them- 
 selves be admissible to the Lord's supper, and the 
 other social ordinances of its communion. But, while 
 the principle in both cases is the same, there is, in 
 the latter of the two cases, a restriction in the appli- 
 cation of it, corresponding to the superior purity of 
 New Testament fellowship. We are not authorized 
 to receive into communion any individuals, respecting 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 203 
 
 whom we have not reason to believe that " Christ has 
 received them ;" and if, after their reception, we dis- 
 cover that we have been mistaken in our judgment 
 of their profession, we are bound to separate them 
 from the church. And of those, whom we are not 
 warranted, by the laws of Christ, to receive, and to 
 retain in communion, we are not, in my opinion, 
 warranted to baptize the children. The procedure 
 of those who act otherwise appears to me to be con- 
 sistent neither with Jewish nor with Christian princi- 
 ples. If we are to proceed at all according to the 
 former, let us give them their full extent of applica- 
 tion, and have national churches at once. But if we 
 cannot admit of these, in a "kingdom which is not 
 of this world," let us not apply the old principles of 
 communion, in a partial and inconsistent way, to the 
 New Testament church. — All national establishments, 
 under the Christian dispensation, instead of deriving 
 any scriptural authority from the constitution of the 
 Jewish church, are utterly subversive of the declared 
 will of God, in regard to the purer and more select 
 and spiritual communion of New Testament times. 
 And I cannot but regret, when any of my dissenting 
 brethren adopt and act upon principles that have the 
 same unhappy tendency.* 
 
 One evil resulting from that prevailing abuse in the 
 administration of infant baptism, to which I have re- 
 peatedly alluded, is, its promoting the thoughtlessness 
 
 * On the principal subject of this and the three preceding 
 paragraphs, — pages 196 — 203, — see Appendix II. 
 
204 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 of parents, as to the connexion between the ordinance 
 and their duty. — "I know him," said the God of 
 Abraham, " that he will command his children and 
 " his household after him, and they shall keep the 
 " way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment : that 
 " the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he 
 "hath spoken of him." — Gen. xviii. 19. — I do not 
 enter here into the illustration of parental duties, and 
 of the manner in which they ought to be fulfilled. 
 But I press upon christian parents the example of the 
 father of the faithful, as an instance in which the dis- 
 charge of duty is connected with the fulfilment of pro- 
 mise. All the promises of God, indeed, are intended 
 to operate, not as inducements to indolence, but as 
 stimulants to activity. The assurance, that " it is 
 " God who worketh in us, both to will and to do, of 
 " his good pleasure," is not to encourage us to expect 
 spiritual progress without the use of means : but to 
 excite us to " work out our own salvation," in the 
 diligent employment of these means, " with fear and 
 trembling." — Abraham's bringing up his family in the 
 fear of the Lord is connected, in the above-quoted 
 passage, with the Lord's " bringing upon him that 
 " which he had spoken of him." But how could it 
 contribute to this ? On the promise of a fleshly seed, 
 I have before said, it could have no conceivable influ- 
 ence. But on that of a spiritual seed, " a seed to 
 serve the Lord," its influence is immediate and appar- 
 ent. The means are suited to the end, — the cause to 
 the effect. Jehovah begins the fulfilment of his pro- 
 mise, to make him the spiritual " father of many 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 205 
 
 nations," and " to be a God to him and his seed after 
 him," by Abraham's own instrumentality, in the reli- 
 gious training of his family ; and in this way " race 
 unto race" was made to " praise him," and " one 
 generation to tell of his wonderful works to another :" 
 — for " he established a testimony in Jacob, and ap- 
 " pointed a law in Israel, which he commanded our 
 "fathers that they should make them known unto 
 " their children, that the generation to come might 
 " know them, and the children which should be born, 
 " who should arise and declare them unto their chil- 
 " dren ; that they might set their hope in God, and 
 " not forget the works of the Lord, but keep his com- 
 " mandments." — It is still by the agency of parents, 
 that God fulfils his word. It is while they " bring up 
 their children in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord," that he "pours out his Spirit upon their seed 
 and his blessing upon their offspring," so that they 
 " grow up as among the grass, and as willows by the 
 water-courses :" and if we are looking for the blessing 
 apart from the discharge of the duty, we are not exer- 
 cising commanded confidence, but guilty of unwar- 
 ranted and irrational presumption. 
 
 Christian parents, — the charge intrusted to you is 
 one, the most momentous and interesting that can be 
 imagined by the human mind. It is the charge of 
 immortal souls. Every child, when born into the 
 world, enters upon an existence that is never to ter- 
 minate, upon a short and precarious life on earth, 
 which must be succeeded by eternal blessedness, or 
 eternal woe. How solemn the consideration ! — And 
 
206 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 with regard to your own children, to you is commit- 
 ted the sacred trust, of imparting to them that know- 
 ledge, which, through the blessing of God, shall make 
 them " wise unto salvation." These lights, lighted 
 for eternity, it is yours to feed with holy oil from the 
 sanctuary of God, that they may burn, with pure and 
 lovely radiance, before the throne above. — These 
 never-dying plants, it is yours to rear and to cherish, 
 bringing down upon them, by your prayers, the dews 
 and rains of heaven, that so they may flourish and 
 bear fruit for ever, in the paradise of God. — The lan- 
 guage of the " Heavenly Father" to every christian 
 parent, is that of Pharaoh's daughter to the mother 
 of Moses, " Take this child, and nurse it for me." O 
 forget not the sacred obligation. Let it be engraven 
 on your hearts, " as with a pen of iron and the point 
 of a diamond." You love your children. They arc 
 dear to you as the apple of your eye, — precious as your 
 own souls. What is there that you would not part 
 with, to secure their well-being ? And are not their 
 eternal interests first in your thoughts, and first in 
 your desires for them ? If you feel as christians, they 
 are, — they must be. Let them, then, be first in your 
 prayers, and first in your exertions. Seek to impress 
 early on their hearts a sense of the unspeakable im- 
 portance of eternal things. Teach them the know- 
 ledge and fear of the Lord, when you sit in the house, 
 and when you walk by the way ; never with the repul- 
 sive austerity of a master, but with all the engaging 
 tenderness of parental love. Let no prospect of tem- 
 poral advantage induce you to expose their souls to 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 20/ 
 
 unnecessary hazards, from the snares and temptations 
 of a deceitful world. Let no corporeal attractions, and 
 no mental accomplishments, however gratifying they 
 may lawfully be, appropriate that peculiar joy, which, 
 in the hearts of godly parents, must ever be reserved 
 for " seeing their children walking in truth." — Set 
 your hearts, with intense and unquenchable desire, on 
 the salvation of your offspring. Ask it of God with 
 the fervour and importunity of faith. Show the sin- 
 cerity of your prayers, by unwearied attention to the 
 use of necessary means : — and I doubt not, you will 
 have the blessedness of seeing, amongst your offspring, 
 a seed arise to serve the Lord. 
 
 If in any case there should be an apparent failure of 
 the blessing, there is a call to much searching of 
 heart, and close investigation of the whole process 
 of training. It is surely safer, to question our own 
 fidelity to duty, than God's fidelity to promise. — Are 
 you sure, that the salvation of your children has en- 
 gaged your desires, with a fervour and a constancy 
 proportioned to its infinite importance ? — Have you 
 pursued this object with sufficient seriousness, as 
 " the one thing needful" to your parental happiness ? 
 — While you have been teaching the truths of God, 
 have you been careful to " walk before your house in 
 a perfect way," exemplifying, in your whole deport- 
 ment, their holy, heavenly influence? — Have you, 
 in no measure, been guilty of sacrificing the souls 
 of your children to their temporal interests ? — Have 
 your efforts, and your prayers been engaged about 
 this object, with any thing like a proportion to its 
 
208 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 unutterable magnitude ? — Have your exertions been 
 believing exertions, — your prayers, the prayers of 
 faith ? — or has there not been, in both, a lamentable 
 deficiency of firm, and simple-hearted, and practical 
 confidence in God ? 
 
 May the "God of the families of Israel" impress, 
 more deeply than ever, upon your minds, the duty 
 enjoined upon you ! Let the baptism of your own 
 children, and every baptism you are called to witness, 
 remind you of your obligations, and bring you to your 
 knees, with tears of conscious short-coming, and of 
 earnest entreaty for grace to fulfil them ! 
 
 2. To the children of godly parents, I would briefly 
 but affectionately say : — In your connexion with such 
 parents, and in their instructions and example, you 
 enjoy, or you have enjoyed, a most precious privi- 
 lege, — a blessing for which you cannot be suffi- 
 ciently thankful. But the privilege may, like every 
 other, be abused or neglected, and the blessing, by 
 this means, be converted to a curse. Every favour of 
 heaven heightens the responsibility of those on whom 
 it is conferred, and, through the perversity of the 
 human heart, exposes to the danger of augmented 
 guilt ; responsibility being according to privilege. If 
 your parents considered aright what they were doing, 
 when they presented you to the Lord in the ordi- 
 nance of baptism, it was not, with them, a season of 
 thoughtless merriment, on the giving of a name to 
 their child ; but a time of tender feeling, of serious 
 reflection, of solicitous anticipation, of solemn prayer. 
 They brought you in faith to Jesus. They implored 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 209 
 
 his blessing upon you. They felt the weight of the 
 sacred trust. They placed believing reliance on the 
 divine promises. They resolved that you should be 
 trained in the fear of the Lord, — in his " nurture and 
 admonition ;" and they looked, with earnest desire, for 
 the grace of God, to enable them to fulfil their resolu- 
 tion. I speak not of vows made by them in your 
 name ; and far less, of god-fathers and god-mothers, 
 stepping in between you and your parents, and taking 
 upon themselves a gratuitous responsibility in your be- 
 half; because I find none of these things in my Bible, 
 and regard them, along with some other practices, as 
 inventions of men, — human appendages to a simple 
 divine institution. But at your baptism, your parents 
 had before them an impressive remembrancer of the 
 obligations, on their part, arising from the promises 
 of God's covenant ; they avowed their sense of these 
 obligations, and their determination, in the strength of 
 grace, to fulfil them ; and, if they have acted in con- 
 sistency with the professions then made, and with the 
 design of the ordinance, they have brought you up as 
 young disciples of the Saviour, instructing you in his 
 truth, and affectionately admonishing you in his name. 
 They have sought, on your behalf, the guidance of the 
 " good Shepherd," who " gathers the lambs in his 
 arms and carries them in his bosom," that under his 
 gracious eye you might be induced to "follow the 
 footsteps of the flock." 
 
 Have you, then, my young friends, improved and 
 profited by your connexion with your parents, and 
 the privileges thence arising ? Have you entered into 
 o 
 
210 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 their desires? — have you valued the promises and 
 blessings of God's covenant ? — have you sought, that 
 the emblematical import of your baptism may be 
 realized in your experience ? — and that your names 
 may be found, with those of your parents, in the 
 Lamb's book of life? O beware of "forsaking the 
 " guide of your youth, and forgetting the covenant of 
 "your God;" else, to use his own expression, "you 
 shall know his breach of promise," and "bring upon 
 yourselves a curse, and not a blessing." Remember 
 the warnings, " To whom much is given, of them will 
 "much be required:" — "The servant that knew his 
 " Lord's will, and did commit things worthy of 
 " stripes, shall be beaten with many stripes :" — 
 " Thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven. 
 " shalt be brought down to hell ; for if the mighty 
 " works which have been done in thee had been done 
 " in Sodom, it would have continued unto this day. 
 " But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for 
 " the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for 
 "thee!". 
 
 If you have received, in the love of it, the "instruc- 
 tion of wisdom," the duty of walking in fellowship 
 with the church of Christ, in all his ordinances, ought 
 to be seriously pondered by you. It is true, that 
 " except a man be born again, he cannot enter into 
 " the kingdom of God :" he cannot be received into it 
 above, and is not a fit member of it below. But, in 
 the case of children, brought up in "the nurture and 
 admonition of the Lord," the change which is thus 
 expressed may often be, nay often is, so imperceptible 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 211 
 
 in its first commencements, and gradual in its subse- 
 quent progress, — that time and circumstances can- 
 not be specified. This is what, from the nature of 
 the case, we might reasonably anticipate. I do not 
 say, there is such a thing as hereditary grace : but, 
 since the grace of God, in its various blessings, is 
 conveyed to sinners by means, it quite accords with 
 the natural order of things, that it should accompany 
 those means, and flow, as it were, in the same channel 
 with them. So that, if the knowledge of God, the 
 great means by which the blessings of salvation come 
 to be enjoyed, was appointed to be conveyed from 
 generation to generation, we must suppose the bless- 
 ings to be conveyed along with it, and the conveyance 
 of the blessings to be the grand design of the convey- 
 ance of the knowledge. There is no other design, 
 which we can imagine God to have had, in such ap- 
 pointment. And, therefore, although his grace is not 
 imparted by fleshly birth ; yet that, when his people 
 are attentive to the means appointed, this grace should 
 appear descending through their generations, cannot 
 at all be matter of wonder. — Not that, in religious 
 education, there is freedom from danger. Beware, 
 my young friends, of thinking so. The natural de- 
 pravity of our hearts has infused danger into every 
 thing. The danger here is imminent. It is that of 
 growing up in the form of godliness, without its 
 power ; in profession, without real principle ; in out- 
 ward virtue, without inward piety. Beware of this 
 danger. But let not the jealous dread of it carry you 
 to the extreme, of keeping back from those ordinances, 
 
212 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 which you know it to be the duty of all to observe, 
 who believe in Christ, and fear God. If you are con- 
 scious of this faith and fear, and of your need of all 
 the instituted means of stability and growth, neglect 
 not those institutions, which are designed for the 
 spiritual improvement of the disciples. Nothing 
 ought to be more delightful to the churches of Christ 
 and their pastors, than the admission amongst them 
 of the children of the members, — the fruits of the 
 Divine blessing on parental duty. 
 
 Some may belong to parents, who had them bap- 
 tized in their infancy, as a mere matter of form, in 
 compliance with national custom, making them like 
 others, giving them their name, and fancying that 
 their being christened made them christians of course. 
 But, if the profession of Christianity made by your 
 parents has been careless and worldly, destitute of 
 spirituality and of scriptual evidence, — I have only to 
 say beware of following it. — Some have perplexed 
 themselves with the question, whether, in such circum- 
 stances, they ought not to be re-baptized ; and anti- 
 peedobaptists are apt to feel a kind of triumphant self- 
 complacency in such difficulties, and to urge them on 
 weak consciences in their most puzzling forms. But 
 nothing can be more unfair. Even if the difficulty 
 were ever so perplexing, it could not, in the least 
 degree, affect the conclusiveness of our general argu- 
 ment. A difficulty, which has resulted from the abuse 
 of an ordinance, can never be fairly urged against the 
 proper and legitimate use of it. — Our baptist friends 
 suppose, that adult baptism only was the original 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 213 
 
 practice of the New Testament churches, and, conse- 
 quently, that it early gave place to the practice of 
 infant baptism in ninety-nine hundredths of the chris- 
 tian community. It is allowable for the sake of 
 argument to suppose the case reversed. Suppose, 
 then, infant baptism to have been the original prac- 
 tice, and to have been early renounced by ninety- 
 nine hundredths of professing christians, the remain- 
 ing hundredth alone retaining the custom : — suppose, 
 that, when Christianity came to be incorporated with 
 the kingdoms of this world, adult instead of infant 
 baptism had been the prevailing usage ; and that as 
 free an admission of adults to baptism had taken 
 place, as there is now of parents to the baptism of 
 their children, whilst the small minority (the psedo- 
 baptists) were conscientiously scrupulous as to the pro- 
 fession and character of those whose children they 
 baptized : — it is not difficult to conceive how many 
 perplexing cases, and puzzling questions must have 
 arisen from this state of things, to those antipaedo- 
 baptist dissenters from the established church, who 
 did not approve of its nationality, and separated from 
 its unavoidable corruption. And these cases and 
 questions the paedobaptist minority would have had 
 the same ground for pressing upon them, as they now 
 have for pressing upon psedobaptists those which have 
 resulted from the actually existing circumstances. But 
 it would have been as unfair in the one case as it is in 
 the other. The great matter is, to ascertain scriptural 
 principles ; and then, when any case of difficulty is 
 suggested, to make it our simple inquiry, What line 
 
214 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 of practice will be most consistent with those princi- 
 ples ? Even if, in some little points, we should con- 
 tinue at a loss, we are not to renounce a practice which 
 we are satisfied rests on the broad basis of scriptural 
 authority, merely because, in consequence of abuses, 
 questions can be framed by a subtle adversary, which 
 may carry in them a practical difficulty. 
 
 Simon Magus was baptized on his professing the 
 faith, although it afterward appeared he was still " in 
 the gall of bitterness, and bond of iniquity." Sup- 
 pose that the rebuke of Peter had taken hold of his 
 conscience, that he had been brought to true repent- 
 ance, that the " thought of his heart had been for- 
 given him," and that he had renewed his profession, in 
 sincerity and right understanding ; would it have been 
 necessary to baptize him again ? or would not a be- 
 lieving recognition of his former baptism have been 
 enough ? — When our baptist brethren themselves are 
 disappointed in the profession of any one whom they 
 have admitted to the ordinance, and are constrained 
 to disown him, and to separate him from their fellow- 
 ship ; — if their dealings with him, and the discipline 
 of the house of God, should subsequently bring him 
 to a right mind, and he should acknowledge his for- 
 mer profession to have been without a proper spiritual 
 understanding and feeling of the truth ; — would they 
 reckon it their duty to baptize him anew? — Even if 
 the fault had in part lain with the elder by whom the 
 person had been baptized, — if he had been chargeable 
 with lightness and haste, — would they reckon re- 
 baptism necessary? — It is possible, that different 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 215 
 
 individuals amongst them may be disposed to answer 
 this question differently ; — and, in like manner, it is 
 possible, that some psedobaptists may hold one opin- 
 ion, and some another, as to the propriety of re-bap- 
 tizing those children, when they come to maturity and 
 profess the faith, whose parents, at the time of their 
 baptism, were living without God; — (a point of fact, 
 however, it may be observed, in all cases of delicate, in 
 many of difficult, and in some of impossible determina- 
 tion :) — but no ground of objection to the views either 
 of baptists or of peedobaptists could be more futile. — 
 For my own part, my young friends, I see little cause 
 for your distressing yourselves upon the subject. 
 When your parents had the ordinance administered to 
 you, it ought to have been understood by them. If 
 they understood it not, or did not properly consider 
 its import, and its connexion with their duty, and did 
 not act according to the obligations and the encour- 
 agements recognized in it ; they were to be blamed, 
 and you were to be pitied. But the meaning of the 
 ordinance was not thereby altered ; and, if you are 
 now satisfied of the scriptural ground for infant bap- 
 tism, any suspicion or conviction of the want of faith in 
 your parents can no more be a valid reason for your 
 being re-baptized, than the suspicion, or conviction, 
 of the inadequacy of a previous profession would be a 
 valid reason to the believer in adult baptism only, for 
 re-baptizing an adult, who should come to make that 
 profession in earnest, which he had before made with 
 carelessness or insincerity. In either case, the recog- 
 nition of the ordinance, with a right understanding 
 
216 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 and an honest heart, should be considered as sufficient. 
 The baptism of children, on the professed faith of 
 their parents, stands, in this respect, on precisely the 
 same footing, as the baptism of an adult upon his own 
 profession. An adult may himself be baptized on a 
 profession that is hollow-hearted and thoughtless ; 
 and a parent may have his children baptized on such 
 a profession : — both the baptized adult and the parent 
 may afterwards be brought under the saving power 
 of the truth: — and, in these circumstances, whatever it 
 would be right to do in the one case, it would be right 
 to do in the other. If it would be right to re-baptize 
 the adult, it would be right to re-baptize the children 
 of the parent ; if no necessity would be felt for this in 
 the case of the adult, neither is there such necessity in 
 the case of the children. The adult and the parent 
 would both recognize what before they had overlooked 
 or disregarded — the spiritual import of the rite, — and 
 show the sincerity of their new profession, by acting 
 according to it in their respective circumstances. And 
 the very same principle extends to the child of a care- 
 less parent, when that child is brought to know the 
 Lord, and to possess the blessings which the ordin- 
 ance represents. 
 
 3. With regard to the duty of churches in reference 
 to the children of the members, there is little said in 
 the scriptures, and I shall not therefore enlarge. That 
 they ought to feel an interest in the rising generation, 
 cannot be questioned. The interest ought to be lively 
 and tender. But the different ways in which this in- 
 terest should practically express itself, are not authori- 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 217 
 
 tatively prescribed, being, like some other matters, left 
 to discretion. 
 
 When the apostle, in his epistles, addressing him- 
 self to the churches, introduces the subject of the 
 instruction and spiritual care of children, it is evident, 
 that he devolves the important charge, not upon the 
 associated body of believers, but on the parents 
 amongst them to whom the children belonged. The 
 very address, it is true, to children, as connected with 
 the community of God's people, testifies the interest 
 felt in them by the apostle himself, and contains a 
 virtual admonition to the churches, to take care that 
 they were not neglected. By connecting this with 
 the immediately subjoined charge to parents, we are 
 naturally led to the conclusion, that the principal way 
 in which the care of the churches for the spiritual 
 interests of the children connected with them ought 
 to show itself, is their seeing to it that the parents 
 discharge their duty faithfully. The parents have, by 
 apostolic authority, as well as by the dictate of nature, 
 the immediate charge of the children ; and the church, 
 by the same Divine authority, has the immediate over- 
 sight of the parents. The discipline of the churches 
 ought certainly to be considered as extending to every 
 description of sin, The violation, or neglect, of the 
 parental trust, is a sin, of which cognizance ought to 
 be taken, as well as of others. If parents, who are 
 members of a church, are allowed to go on in such 
 violation and neglect, the church is chargeable with 
 an omission of duty. " Bring up your children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord," is as plain and 
 
218 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY 
 
 explicit a command, as " Thou slialt not steal," or 
 " Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God 
 in vain." The violation of the one may not be of so 
 easy detection, as that of the others. There may 
 even, in certain cases, be circumstances of delicacy and 
 difficulty, that require any cognizance of parental con- 
 duct to be gone about with great prudence, and cau- 
 tious discrimination. But the principle of discipline 
 is, in both cases, the same. We must not allow sin 
 to be committed, and persisted in, without endeavour- 
 ing, by scriptural means, to bring the offender to re- 
 pentance. And, surely, there is no sin which it is of 
 more consequence to have corrected by repentance, 
 than one which affects the best interests of the rising 
 generation, and thus tends deeply to injure the pros- 
 perity of the church, and the cause and glory of 
 Christ. If undutifulness to parents, on the part of 
 children, would be a proper subject of ecclesiastical 
 reprehension, so surely should the neglect of children, 
 on the part of parents. If the man who, in temporal 
 things, "provides not for his own, and especially for 
 those of his own house," is to be treated as one who 
 "has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel ;" 
 can we hesitate, in so regarding the man, who, as far 
 as his influence is concerned, leaves his children des- 
 titute of ie the meat which endureth unto life eter- 
 nal ?" No parent can do this, that deserves the name 
 of christian ; and no such parent, therefore, should be 
 a member of any christian church. There may be 
 various degrees of the sin ; and each case must be 
 dealt with according to its own peculiar circumstances. 
 
TAUGHT BY INFANT BAPTISM. 219 
 
 But I am verily persuaded, " there is utterly a fault 
 amongst us," upon this subject. The pastors of the 
 churches ought to feel it their duty, in public and in 
 private, to press upon parents the fulfilment of their 
 trust, and upon children the improvement of their 
 privileges ; — to ascertain, by domiciliary visits, the 
 state of domestic instruction, and, with affectionate 
 fidelity, to commend or admonish accordingly ; — and, 
 by occasional or stated meetings, of a more public 
 kind, — of the children, for example, in different dis- 
 tricts of local residence, — to stimulate both children 
 and parents, and provoke the one and the other, re- 
 spectively, to a holy emulation. And, in the use of 
 all such means, the deacons and members of churches 
 should show all possible countenance to the pastors, 
 aid them to the full extent of their power, and " by 
 love serve one another." 
 
 I conclude with one general caution. — Let all be- 
 ware of trusting, in any measure, for their salvation to 
 any outward observance. The Jews, who trusted and 
 gloried in their circumcision, mistook and perverted 
 its design, to the dishonour of Abraham, and of the 
 God of Abraham, and to their own everlasting perdi- 
 tion. You have been baptized. As to the present 
 view of the matter, it is of no consequence whether by 
 sprinkling or immersion, whether in infancy or in 
 adult years : if you fancy yourselves christians be- 
 cause you have been baptized, you are in the same 
 fatal error in which the Jews were, who imagined 
 themselves the children of Abraham and of God, be- 
 cause they were circumcised. Be not deceived. Those 
 
220 LESSONS OF TRUTH AND DUTY, ETC. 
 
 Jews perished without remedy, notwithstanding their 
 circumcision, who refused to " submit themselves un- 
 to the righteousness of God," of which, when properly 
 understood, it was the sign and the seal. So must 
 all, without remedy, perish, notwithstanding their bap- 
 tism and their other outward privileges, who are not 
 " born again" by being made partakers of like pre- 
 cious faith with Abraham. Circumcision could not 
 save the one ; neither can baptism save the other. 
 Mere natural descent from Abraham could not save 
 the one ; neither can mere natural relation to godly 
 parents save the other. All the variety of external 
 privilege and observance could not save the one ; — 
 outward connexion with the purest church on earth, 
 and the most punctilious attendance upon all its insti- 
 tutions, cannot save the other. " He was not a Jew 
 " who was one outwardly, neither was that circumci- 
 " sion which was outward in the flesh ; but he was a 
 " Jew who was one inwardly, and circumcision was 
 " that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, 
 " whose praise is not of men, but of God." He is not 
 a christian, who is one outwardly; neither is that bap- 
 tism which is outward on the flesh ; but he is a chris- 
 tian, who is one inwardly, and baptism is that of the 
 heart, in the spirit and not in the letter, whose praise 
 is not of men, but of God. " In Christ Jesus neither 
 " circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, 
 " but a new creation." * 
 
 * Rom. ii. 28, 29. Gal. vi. 15. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 on the question of the identity or non-identity of 
 John's baptism and christian baptism : — and on 
 the warranted extent of the administration of 
 
 christian baptism, or the question, whether, and 
 
 how far, the faith of the gospel, or the know- 
 ledge and the professed faith of it, be requisite 
 in the subjects of the ordinance. 
 
 In the " introductory observations" to the preceding 
 dissertation, I have said — " that the question is not at 
 all about adult baptism, or about the necessity, to the 
 baptism of adults, of a profession of the faith. On 
 this, baptists and psedobaptists are of one mind." 
 p. 22. — Such was my full conviction when that sen- 
 tence was written. Towards the close of the second 
 section of the dissertation, I have adverted to a cer- 
 tain amount of indefmiteness and prevailing laxity on 
 the subject among my paedobaptist brethren in the 
 south. But, until of late, I had no idea of the de- 
 gree, or of the extent, of this laxity, — both as to the 
 requisites in adults to their own baptism, and in 
 parents to the baptism of their children. It has been 
 
222 APPENDIX. INTRODUCTION. 
 
 a cause of equal surprise and concern to me to rind, 
 from the publications of more than one of those bre- 
 thren which have recently appeared, that in my first 
 statement I have been so very wide of the truth. 
 The lax views to which I now refer, have been pro- 
 pounded and argued at length in the " Congrega- 
 tional Lecture" for 1844, by my esteemed friend 
 Dr. Halley, of Manchester. To the sentiments and 
 reasonings of that work, in as far as they bear upon 
 the announced subjects of this Appendix, I shall, in 
 endeavouring to vindicate and establish my own views, 
 (which I have seen no sufficient reason to alter, or 
 even to modify) exclusively confine myself; leaving 
 to the reader the application of such general princi- 
 ples as I may succeed in proving scriptural, to the 
 reasonings of others. The work I have mentioned 
 has many excellencies. Its historical and critical 
 learning, its clearness and force, its manly independ- 
 ence, its ingenuous candour, its general acuteness 
 and cogency of argumentation, and its thoroughly 
 evangelical tone, rendered the perusal of it to myself 
 a source of no ordinary gratification. To a very large 
 proportion of the sentiments maintained and vindi- 
 cated in the volume I append with pleasure my ex 
 animo subscription ; and from a man who writes as 
 he does, — so faithfully, and so powerfully, on the 
 great essential articles of saving truth, I am loath, 
 even on any point, to differ. But on the topics to 
 which this Appendix is devoted I think him wrong. 
 The views which he broaches and defends are charac- 
 terized by a latitudinarian laxity, which, in my eyes, 
 
ON JOHN S BAPTISM. 223 
 
 is as mischievous as it is unscriptural, — the former, 
 because the latter. I may be mistaken ; and should 
 I ever come to a conviction of mistake, I trust I shall 
 have grace to own it, and to thank the friend by 
 whom it has been rectified. And, on the other hand, 
 should I succeed in carrying conviction to the mind 
 of my friend, I am persuaded that the christian can- 
 dour and love of truth which he has evinced will in- 
 duce a similar grateful avowal of it. I thank him for 
 the terms of friendly and christian courtesy in which 
 he expresses himself, even while fixing his lance in 
 the rest to have a tilt at me ; and at once infer from 
 them, that the tilt is not at me, but at what he con- 
 scientiously believes to be my misapprehensions of 
 truth. Let him regard in the same light any little 
 encounter I may now have with him in return. 
 
 I. ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 
 
 While the subject of " John's baptism " is far 
 from being without an interest of its own, it derives 
 an interest still greater from its bearings upon other 
 points ; and especially on those views, to which I 
 have just adverted as peculiarly objectionable, respect- 
 ing the lax administration of Christian baptism. On 
 the ground of its identity with that of the Apostles 
 after our Lord's ascension, his practice has been ap- 
 pealed to as an exemplification of the " indiscriminate 
 administration " of the Christian ordinance "to all 
 applicants t" to all who profess, not the belief of what 
 
224 APPENDIX. 
 
 is taught, but a mere willingness to learn it ; and also 
 to children indiscriminately, without any respect what- 
 ever to the faith or character of their parents. — The 
 question of the identity or distinctness of the two was 
 discussed by the late Mr Hall in connexion with 
 another subject. The opponents of his free com- 
 munion principles had alleged the priority of the 
 institution of baptism to that of the Lord's supper 
 as " a presumptive evidence that it has, and ever will 
 have, a prior claim to obedience," and as a proof 
 of the consequent unwarrantableness of admitting to 
 Christian communion those who, according to anti- 
 peedobaptist views, remained unbaptized. Into the 
 relevancy of the argument on the subject of " Terms 
 of Communion," it belongs not to me at present to 
 enter. The reader who is desirous to see it discussed 
 with the power of a master, may have recourse to 
 Mr Hall. — I have only to do with the assumption 
 on which the priority, in point of time, of the one 
 ordinance to the other rests, — namely, " the identity 
 of John's baptism with that of our Lord." If this 
 identity has been, or can be, fairly established, then 
 must we submissively acquiesce in all the conse- 
 quences which can be shown legitimately to follow 
 from it : — and it would be very inconsistent with that 
 candour and openness of mind to the admission of 
 truth which every subject of Christ ought conscien- 
 tiously to cherish, to set about any attempt to dis- 
 prove it, in order to evade those consequences. The 
 question is one of fact : — is it so, or is it not so ? If 
 the answer to the question were otherwise doubtful, 
 
ON JOHN S BAPTISM. 22.") 
 
 the scriptural or unscriptural character of obviously 
 legitimate consequences, on either side, might fairly 
 be allowed their weight in bringing it to a settlement. 
 But to endeavour to set aside a point of fact, because 
 of our aversion to any of its implications and results, 
 would be a disingenuousness unworthy of the sincere 
 and fearless inquirer after truth. Of every such Mass- 
 ing prepossession such an inquirer will, with vigilant 
 self-jealousy, beware. Apart altogether from the bear- 
 ing of the question of identity either upon Mr Hall's 
 subject or my own, I have from the first entertained 
 the same opinion respecting it which he has so ably, 
 and, in my apprehension, so conclusively advocated. 
 Not that I would commit myself to every sentiment 
 which he may have incidentally blended with the dis- 
 cussion, or even concur with him in either the legiti- 
 macy or the force of every argument he employs. 
 But the main pillars of his conclusion, notwithstand- 
 ing all that Dr. Halley and others have done to un- 
 dermine or to shake them, do still appear to me to 
 stand in all their strength. 
 
 It is chiefly on the ground that " by carefully at- 
 tending to it (John's baptism) we may obtain some 
 " assistance in the more important inquiry respecting 
 "the nature of christian baptism,"* that Dr. Halley 
 introduces the discussion. It is, of course, on the 
 same ground that I now set myself to examine the 
 views he takes of it. — I have no objection to the state- 
 ment of the question as given by him — page 182. 
 
 * Sect. iv. p. 162. 
 p 
 
226 APPENDIX. 
 
 "John baptized; the disciples of Jesus baptized dur- 
 " ing his ministry ; the apostles baptized after his 
 "resurrection. Were these baptisms essentially dif- 
 " ferent ; or, if different in form, were they identical 
 " in their design and import? The several persons are 
 " said to have done the same thing. It therefore de- 
 " volves upon those who maintain that their baptisms 
 " were different, to show the difference, and upon us 
 " to examine the particulars which they adduce." — I 
 might contrive, indeed, to place the question in such a 
 position as to throw the onus probandi on the other 
 side of it. I might invert the order of the process. I 
 might affirm and demonstrate the essential difference 
 between the state of things before, and the state of 
 things after, the death, resurrection, and exaltation 
 of Jesus, and then challenge to the proof that, in cir- 
 cumstances thus essentially different, the same sym- 
 bolical and initiatory act could mean the same thing. 
 I admit at once, however, the superior naturalness 
 and fairness of Dr. Halley's position, and cheerfully 
 accept the challenge. 
 
 I have hesitated about the order in which it might 
 be best to take up the different branches of the dis- 
 cussion. On the whole it seems the preferable course 
 to begin with points of fact. Fact, and then theory, 
 is the order which all sound philosophy dictates. — 
 There is, on the present subject, one question of fact, 
 the satisfactory settlement of which, Dr. H. himself 
 candidly admits, would render further investigation 
 unnecessary with regard to the difference of the bap- 
 tisms. It is the question, whether we have any exam- 
 
on john's baptism. 227 
 
 pies of those who had heen the subjects of John's 
 baptism being rebaptized under the ministry of the 
 apostles after the day of Pentecost. Dr. H.'s language 
 here is explicit and decided : — " Was the difference," 
 says he, " between the baptism of John and that of 
 " our Lord so important, that those who had been 
 " baptized by John were, or ought to have been, re- 
 " baptized on their becoming the disciples of Christ 1 
 " That there was some variation in the form, or at 
 " least in the words employed, there can be no doubt 
 " whatever ; but we should say the difference was or 
 " was not essential, according as it appears that the 
 "parties were or were not rebaptized, or that the 
 " objects of Christian baptism were not sufficiently 
 " accomplished by the baptism of John."* Again: — 
 " Here we must acknowledge, if it can be clearly 
 " demonstrated that St. Paul, or any other inspired 
 "teacher, knowingly rebaptized any who had duly 
 " and properly received the baptism of John, the es- 
 " sential difference is incontrovertible proved" f 
 
 This explicit admission of the conclusiveness of 
 the fact, if the fact can be established, makes our way 
 plain, and our case comfortable. We feel that we 
 are not "beating the air," — contending for a point 
 which, even should we succeed in establishing it, 
 involves no sure results ; but that what we aim at is 
 worth our pains. Of the fact of re-baptism I have 
 myself no doubt. My conviction of it rests upon two 
 cases, — one more particular, the other more general, 
 
 * Sect. iv. page 180. t Ibid, page 194. 
 
228 APPENDIX. 
 
 — one of a more positive, the other of a more nega- 
 tive, yet not less conclusive character. 
 
 I. The first of the two is that recorded in the be- 
 ginning of the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the 
 Apostles; which I shall give in the words of the 
 inspired historian : — " And it came to pass, that, 
 " while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed 
 " through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus : and, 
 "finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have 
 " ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? And 
 " they said unto him, We have not so much as heard 
 " whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said 
 " unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And 
 "they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, 
 " John verily baptized with the baptism of repent- 
 " ance, saying unto the people, that they should 
 " believe on him which should come after him, that 
 "is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they 
 " were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And 
 " when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the 
 " Holy Ghost came on them ; and they spake with 
 " tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were 
 " about twelve." 
 
 It will not be necessary to enlarge in proof of the 
 fact of re-baptism in this remarkable case ; since by 
 Dr. Halley, with commendable candour, it is frankly 
 admitted : — " That these twelve men were rebaptized 
 must, I think, be candidly acknowledged." And, 
 having mentioned various "ingenious suggestions," 
 which "have been offered by the old reformers to 
 escape the conclusion," — he adds — "We must confess 
 
on john's baptism. 229 
 
 " these disciples of the eloquent Apollos constitute 
 "the most formidable phalanx in this engagement, 
 "without whose aid neither Tractarians nor open 
 " communionists could do much to damage the credit 
 "of John's baptism."* 
 
 As to "damaging the credit of John's baptism," 
 I would have it understood, that of nothing divine 
 do we "damage the credit," but rather do the only 
 legitimate credit both to it and to its Author, when 
 we assign to it its true place and its real intention ; 
 — that we " damage its credit," when we either raise 
 it higher or sink it lower, when we either make more 
 or make less of it, than was in the divine purpose in 
 its appointment. — And as to those "twelve men" 
 being either the only or the " most formidable phal- 
 anx" on our side of the present "engagement," that 
 remains to be seen. If I mistake not, we shall find 
 another, still more numerous, and not less stalwart 
 and indomitable. 
 
 The matter of fact, that these twelve disciples of 
 John were rebaptized, has ever appeared to me to 
 be as clear from the narrative as words could render 
 it. Even with the aid of the piv and the h } — were 
 the genuineness of the former less questionable than 
 it is — the attempt to make out the contrary would 
 be a straining and a failure : — for what could well be 
 more drivelling than to suppose the Apostle formally 
 employing the contrariety implied in the use of these 
 two particles to express what, instead of a contrariety, 
 
 * Ibid, pages 195, 196. 
 
230 APPENDIX. 
 
 is only, in Dr. Halley's appropriate language, the 
 "unmeaning repetition, that John baptized in the 
 " name of Him that was to come, and his hearers were 
 " baptized in that name ?" To introduce the phrases 
 "on the one hand" and "on the other" in such 
 a case, is to impose upon ourselves or others by a 
 form of speech which means nothing. It would be 
 at variance with the candour for which I have been 
 commending my friend, were I to say that there is in 
 the case no difficulty. These twelve men are called 
 " disciples ;" which, in the book of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, never has another meaning than "disciples 
 of Jesus." — They are addressed by Paul as having 
 " believed " which, in that book, can signify noth- 
 ing else than their having believed in Jesus. And 
 their being disciples of Jesus, and believing in Jesus, 
 must mean, if it mean any thing at all, their having 
 the knowledge that Jesus was the Christ. — I was 
 wont to consider the words — " that is, on Christ 
 Jesus" as implying the contrary of this; their hav- 
 ing, as partakers of John's baptism, believed in "him 
 who should come after him," — that is, on the Mes- 
 siah as about to appear, — without their having yet 
 been aware that Jesus was that Messiah ; and that 
 into the faith of this primary truth of the Gospel Dis- 
 pensation they were now baptized anew. But the fact 
 of their being called " disciples" and being said to 
 have " believed," I am unable to reconcile with this 
 hypothesis. The difficulty, however, when rightly 
 viewed, may be found rather to strengthen my argu- 
 ment than invalidate it. — Paul asked them — "Have 
 
on john's baptism. 231 
 
 ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" They 
 answered, — -"We have not so much as heard whether 
 there be any Holy Ghost." The answer is surely not 
 to be understood as meaning that they were ignorant 
 of the existence of the third person in the Godhead. 
 The mode of expression, in the original, is the same 
 as in John vii. 30. The words in that passage — ovttu 
 y<*£ yiv 7rvivp.cc, uytov — are translated, with a supplement, 
 — "for the Holy Ghost was not yet given.'" On the 
 same principle the words before us — axx ovh iv irvivpet 
 uyiov torn nKova-ocyiv — ought surely to be interpreted. 
 They had not heard of the Holy Ghost's having been 
 given; not that they had not heard of his personal 
 existence, but they had not heard of his existence 
 in his miraculous gifts in the church. The case is, 
 even thus understood, an extraordinary one. But it 
 is not incumbent on us to explain the circumstances 
 in which these disciples had been placed, and by 
 which this their singular ignorance is to be accounted 
 for. It is the fact alone that is stated ; and it is 
 with the fact alone that we have to do. — Now, when 
 Paul follows up their declaration of ignorance with 
 the further question — "Into what, then, were ye 
 baptized?'''' — and this question is connected with his 
 former one — " Have ye received the Holy Ghost since 
 ye believed ?" — one thing seems clear, — namely, the 
 assumption, on the part of the Apostle, that when 
 they believed they had been baptized. There would 
 seem, indeed, a further assumption, that on their 
 being baptized, they should either have received in 
 themselves, or witnessed in others baptized along with 
 
232 APPENDIX. 
 
 them, the final certification of the great truth that 
 Jesus was the Christ, in the supernatural pentecostal 
 gifts of the Spirit. I am of Dr. Halley's opinion, that 
 the impartation of these spiritual gifts was far from 
 having been individually universal. Yet their ignor- 
 ance of such gifts was manifestly matter of surprise to 
 the Apostle. — It appears, then, that these men had re- 
 ceived "John's baptism," — that is, baptism into the 
 faith of "him who should come after him," — into 
 the faith that the expected coming one was at hand. 
 At what time, subsequently, they came to the know- 
 ledge and belief of the farther truth that Jesus was 
 this coming one, the Messiah — the Christ, — does not 
 appear. But whensoever it was, they had not been 
 baptized when they received and avowed it. Were 
 they of Dr. Halley's mind, that their being baptized 
 again was unnecessary? It really would appear so. 
 But the fact of their re-baptism, admitted by Dr. 
 Halley, is sufficient proof that, if they thought so, 
 they were wrong. The ground of this may appear 
 by and by. 
 
 Meantime, let us attend to the position which 
 Dr. Halley takes up, to account for this admitted in- 
 stance of re-baptism in consistency with his principle 
 of the identity of the two baptisms. — " But if we 
 "believe, as we do," says he, "that these twelve 
 " men were rebaptized by St. Paul, it may be asked, 
 " how do we escape the conclusion that the disciples 
 " of John were baptized a second time by the Apos- 
 " ties ? I acknowledge the difficulty." And to do 
 the Dr. justice, I must give his solution of it at 
 
ON JOHN S BAPTISM. 233 
 
 length and in his own terms : — " Let us observe the 
 " connexion of the passage ; and if we cannot escape 
 " the conclusion that these men were baptized by 
 "John, and rebaptized by Paul, we must resign this 
 " fact, as one argument against us which is not dam- 
 " aged on examination. The question is suggested, 
 " Were they baptized by John or his disciples pre- 
 " viously to the death of Christ, or were they sub- 
 " sequently baptized by Apollos, in his ignorance of 
 "the death of Christ, after the manner of John's 
 " baptism 1 
 
 " 'It came to pass, when Apollos was in Corinth.' 
 " These words suggest the inquiry, why the absence 
 " of Apollos should be mentioned, and what connex- 
 " ion he had with the narrative ? Had he no con- 
 " nexion with it, the mention of his name would be 
 " superfluous and trifling. This clause connects the 
 " chapter with the preceding, and by its aid we cor- 
 " rect the unfortunate interruption of the narrative by 
 " an inappropriate division. Of Apollos it is said a 
 " few verses before, ' Being fervent in the spirit, he 
 " spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, 
 " knowing ' and therefore administering, ' only the 
 " baptism of John.' To know only the baptism of 
 " John, seems to intimate that he was acquainted 
 " with Jesus as the Messiah whom John taught, but 
 " not with his death and resurrection. This man, 
 " having been a disciple of John, and believing his 
 " testimony, that Jesus was the one mightier than he, 
 " preached with great power and success the religion 
 " of John, before he was taught the way of the Lord 
 
234 APPENDIX. 
 
 " more perfectly by Aquila and Priscilla, probably 
 " giving prominence to the great doctrine of the bap- 
 " tist, that Jesus was the Lamb of God who taketh 
 " away the sin of the world. Imperfectly acquainted 
 " with the gospel, he baptized his disciples after the 
 " manner which John employed, probably as John 
 " had done, into the profession of repentance prepa- 
 " ratory to the reception of the Messiah. But if his 
 " form of baptism were proper and valid, as we be- 
 "lieve it was, when administered before the resurrec- 
 " tion of Jesus, for the apostles and early disciples 
 "had no other, it was manifestly improper, if so 
 " administered subsequently to that event. Apollos 
 " might have most firmly believed that Jesus was the 
 " Christ, and yet, when he baptized these men, have 
 " known nothing of his death and resurrection, as he 
 " was residing at a great distance from Judea, and 
 " knew nothing of the effusion of the Holy Ghost. 
 " Had they been converted by any other ministry, it 
 " is not probable they would have been ignorant of 
 "the existence of the Holy Ghost. What teacher 
 " who knew the things which had been done at Jeru- 
 salem, would have said nothing of the -effusion of 
 " the Pentecost, nothing of the baptism of the Spirit ? 
 " Apollos knew not this baptism. St. Paul says, 
 " * John indeed baptized with the baptism of repen- 
 " tanee, saying that they should believe on him who 
 " should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.' 
 " It was, therefore, the only proper baptism for his 
 " time. But, sufficient as was its administration dur- 
 " ins: the life of our Lord, so that none who then 
 
 
on john's baptism. 235 
 
 " received it, so far as we know, were rebaptized, it 
 " was not suitable after his resurrection, and therefore 
 " the disciples of Apollos were rebaptized in the name 
 " of the Lord Jesus. It is remarkable we do not read 
 "that Apollos himself, who had received John's bap- 
 " tism, was rebaptized, when taught the way of the 
 " Lord more perfectly. It may be, that I cannot 
 " prove all these particulars ; but their probability, 
 " even their possibility, is sufficient for my purpose. 
 " It must be shown, that these twelve men were 
 "baptized, not by Apollos, but by some one pre- 
 " viously to the death of our Lord, to establish the 
 "invalidity of John's baptism: — but the aspect of 
 "the narrative being opposed to such a supposition, 
 " suggests the opinion that they were the disciples 
 " of Apollos : — and if Apollos, knowing only the bap- 
 " tism of John, baptized these men in ignorance of 
 " the resurrection of Christ, (and who shall say he 
 " did not ?) the argument against us falls to pieces. 
 " Before these men can prove the essential difference, 
 " they must show that the register of their first bap- 
 " tism is dated previously to the death of Christ."* 
 
 With regard to the ground thus taken for invalid- 
 ating the conclusion against the identity of John's 
 baptism and that of the Apostles after our Lord's 
 resurrection, — a conclusion, according to Dr. Halley 
 himself, otherwise sound and irresistible, — I offer the 
 following observations : — 
 
 1 . It is hypothetical. Now, on controverted points, 
 
 * Pages 198—200. 
 
236 APPENDIX. 
 
 there is one case, and, if I mistake not, only one, in 
 which supposition is fairly admissible as a foundation 
 of argument. When a thing has been satisfactorily 
 proved otherwise, and a supposition is required to 
 establish consistency in one particular, such supposi- 
 tion may legitimately be made. In other words, when 
 two states of a fact are supposable, that one not only 
 may fairly be preferred, but ought to have the pre- 
 ference, which best harmonises with what has been 
 previously established. — 'This,' Dr. H. may allege, 
 ' is precisely the juncture in which I have introduced 
 c my supposition. I consider the identity of the bap- 
 i tisms as otherwise satisfactorily shown ; and on this 
 c account conceive myself entitled to dispose of the 
 ' difficulty in this particular case by means of that 
 ' supposition.' But this I regard as greatly too bold 
 an assumption. The case must be a far clearer one 
 than his, that would justify such a proceeding. — I ob- 
 serve, therefore — 
 
 2. The supposition itself rests on a ground singu- 
 larly slender. — The supposition, that these twelve 
 men were disciples of Apollos, — that they were bap- 
 tized by Apollos, — and that they were baptized by 
 Apollos while he was in ignorance of Christ's re- 
 surrection, — is built upon the words with which the 
 chapter opens — " It came to pass, while Apollos 
 was at Corinth." From this mention of Apollos 
 it is inferred that he must have had something to 
 do with the transaction which follows in the narra- 
 tive ; — otherwise " the mention of his name would 
 be superfluous and trifling." And then the nature 
 
on john's baptism. 237 
 
 of his connexion with the case of these twelve men 
 is hypothetically fitted to the support of the in- 
 tended conclusion.' — But how exceedingly narrow and 
 feeble is the ground for all these inferential deduc- 
 tions ! To use a phrase of his own on another part of 
 the subject — " the foundation is too small for the 
 superstructure." Dr. H. takes notice of the con- 
 nexion of the introductory clause of this chapter with 
 the close of the preceding. I am obliged to him for 
 calling the reader's attention to this, " and correcting 
 the unfortunate interruption of the narrative ;" for it 
 is all in my favour, as contributing to weaken the 
 validity of his ground. It is this very connexion of 
 the verses that undermines it. In the immediately 
 preceding sentence, the fact had been mentioned of 
 Apollos having " passed into Achaia," with recom- 
 mendatory letters from Ephesus. What, then, more 
 natural for the historian, in pursuing his narrative, to 
 intimate that the next incident he was about to relate 
 took place while Apollos was away ? Nay, more than 
 this. Just before the mention of the coming of Apol- 
 los to Ephesus, it had been stated that Paul had 
 arrived there, and, after a very short stay, had left it 
 — verses 19 — 21. Then, after Paul's departure, 
 Apollos came : — and, having remained, it is not said 
 how long, but apparently only a short time, he too 
 left it for Achaia. Then, last of all, during his ab- 
 sence in Achaia, Paul, having accomplished his visit 
 to Jerusalem, returned ; and, on his return, the in- 
 cident took place relative to the twelve men and their 
 re-baptism. To infer from this simple statement even 
 
238 APPENDIX. 
 
 so much as that these men had been baptized by 
 Apollos at all, seems more than the premises will 
 warrant ; but to carry the inference so far as to con- 
 clude that the reason of their re-baptism was, not 
 that their former baptism had been only John's bap- 
 tism, but that it had been the administration of that 
 baptism at so late a period as to destroy its validity, 
 is surely beyond all the limits of moderation. For 
 my own part, I think it highly probable, — and I 
 conceive myself to have quite as good if not better 
 grounds for so thinking it, — that but for Apollos' s 
 absence from Ephesus at the time, Paul would have 
 pursued the same course with him as with them; — 
 asking him the same question, baptizing him along 
 with them, and, by the laying on of his hands, con- 
 ferring on him also the gifts of the Holy Spirit. And 
 were I to take a fancy to suppose, that the reason why 
 the absence of Apollos is adverted to was to account 
 for the same thing not having been done in his case 
 as in theirs, I might have about as much to say 
 for my fancy as Dr. H. has for his. — But let it be 
 observed — 
 
 3. Even supposing all, in regard to the facts, to 
 have been as Dr. H. would have it, his inference from 
 them does not appear to me at all consistent with his 
 own views about the identity of the baptisms. If they 
 really were identical, I do not see how difference of 
 time and circumstances could destroy that identity. 
 To say that John's baptism was essentially the same 
 with apostolic baptism provided it was administered 
 before the resurrection of Christ, but that it ceased to 
 
on John's baptism. 239 
 
 be the same if administered after it, seems to me to 
 amount to a denial of the identity, and an admission 
 of the essential difference. John's baptism, according 
 to Dr. H., was baptism in the name of Jesus as the 
 Messiah. Such, then, must have been the baptism 
 of Apollos. In the case of those who had been bap- 
 tized by John himself before the death and resurrec- 
 tion of Christ, Dr. Halley's sentiment is that this was 
 valid Christian baptism, and that the intervention of 
 these facts and the difference of time altered not its 
 essential character, — so that re-baptism would only 
 have been a repetition of the same thing. The two 
 vi ere formally different, but essentially one. If so, — 
 if the diversity in the forms of administration before 
 and after the resurrection made no difference in the 
 nature and essence of the rite, I am at a loss to ima- 
 gine how its being administered in the first form, 
 through the mere ignorance of Apollos, should have 
 made this essential difference after the resurrection of 
 Jesus any more than before it. It was still the same 
 baptism ; and the question has still the same force in 
 it — if it was the same baptism, why repeat it ? The 
 admission that by the intervention of the facts of the 
 death and resurrection of our Lord, baptism according 
 to the first form — that is, John's baptism — was ren- 
 dered invalid, — amounts to an admission of the " es- 
 sential difference;" for it implies, that when these 
 facts had taken place, the baptism was changed ; not 
 the form merely, but the thing, — for, as the form did 
 not change the identity, neither could the time of the 
 form so change it, — nor could the ignorance of Apollos 
 
240 APPENDIX. 
 
 so change it. But after Christ's death and resurrec- 
 tion, it became baptism into something new, — some- 
 thing more; — and the new and the more not matters of 
 inferior and trivial moment, but the most important 
 and vital of all. — The apostle Paul, accordingly, des- 
 cribes true Christian baptism in these terms — " Know 
 " ye not that as many of us as" (that we whosoever) 
 " were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into 
 " his death T" Rom. vi. 3. — Do not his words imply, 
 that baptism into Christ's death is the only Christian 
 baptism ? — and, as a consequence, that John's bap- 
 tism, not having been baptism into his death, was not 
 Christian baptism? — and accordingly, in the passage 
 under review, the language of Paul, used to express 
 the reason of their re-baptism, contains not the re- 
 motest hint as to the time of their former baptism ; 
 nor does he put to them any inquiry either as to that 
 particular or the person by whom it had been admin- 
 istered ; it is simply a description of John's baptism : 
 — he asks the one question — " Unto what, then, were 
 ye baptized?" — not at all at ivhat time? but "unto 
 what ?" — the answer is simply — " Unto John's bap- 
 tism" without allusion to period or person — and the 
 rejoinder, with an equal absence of all such allusion, 
 is, as I have said, a simple description of John's bap- 
 tism — " Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the 
 "baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that 
 " they should believe on him who should come after 
 "him; that is, on Christ Jesus." — Who, from any- 
 thing here, could ever be led to imagine, that the rea- 
 son of the re-baptism was, not their having been 
 
ON JOHN S BAPTISM. 241 
 
 before baptized only with John's baptism, but their 
 having been baptized with John's baptism at a wrong 
 time ? The truth is, — if the words of Paul — " That 
 is, on Christ Jesus" — are not to be considered as ex- 
 planatory of John's "him that should come after 
 him'''' — and as implying that Christian baptism was 
 baptism into something more than John's, — namely, 
 into the faith not only of an immediately coming 
 Messiah, but of Jesus as that Messiah, of the death 
 of Jesus as the finishing of his commissioned work, 
 and of the resurrection of Jesus as the proof of the 
 divine acceptance of that work, the assurance of 
 salvation wrought, and the pledge of its blessings to 
 every believer, — if they are not so to be considered, 
 I am unable to attach any definite meaning to the 
 terms which record their re-baptism, and assign the 
 reason for it — "And when they heard that, they 
 were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus :" — 
 words which, in the connexion in which they thus 
 stand, appear incapable of any other meaning than 
 that they were now for the first time baptized into 
 that name, and that they were baptized into it as 
 having now for the first time " heard " of the re- 
 surrection and exaltation of Jesus, and of the pente- 
 costal outpouring of the Spirit as the closing evidence 
 of both. 
 
 On such grounds as these, I feel impressed with 
 the conviction of the utter inadequacy of Dr. Halley's 
 supposition to make good his conclusion, — even were 
 the supposition admitted to have been a reality ; while, 
 at the same time, the supposition itself has no such 
 Q 
 
242 APPENDIX. 
 
 amount of verisimilitude as to entitle it to be made 
 the ground of any conclusion. 
 
 I may just add, that it is rather too bad in my 
 friend to attempt to throw the onus probandi respect- 
 ing the time of the first baptism of these twelve men 
 upon us ; — " It must be shown, that these twelve men 
 " were baptized, not by Apollos, but by some one pre- 
 viously to the death of our Lord, to establish the 
 ''invalidity of John's baptism: — but the aspect of 
 " the narrative being opposed to such a supposition, 
 " suggests the opinion that they were the disciples 
 " of Apollos ; and if Apollos, knowing only the bap- 
 " tism of John, baptized these men in ignorance of 
 " the resurrection of Christ (and who shall say he 
 "did not?) the argument against us falls to pieces. 
 " Before these twelve men can prove the essential 
 " difference, they must show that the register of their 
 " first baptism is dated previously to the death of 
 " Christ."— Pages 199, 200.— This, I repeat, is too 
 bad. "It must be shown that these men were not 
 baptized by Apollos ! " We cannot admit the obli- 
 gation to make out this negative ; but, notwithstand- 
 ing the ground (whose feebleness we have pointed 
 out,) on which Dr. H. rests his assumption, feel 
 ourselves entitled to ask — Why must it not be proved 
 that they were ? In answer to the question — 
 "Who shall say he did not?" we put the counter- 
 question — "Who shall say he did?''' — And in re- 
 joinder to the legal disqualification of the witnesses 
 in the last sentence, we should deem it enough, as 
 their counsel, simply to turn that sentence the other 
 
ON JOHN S BAPTISM. 243 
 
 way : — " Before these twelve men can disprove the 
 " essential difference, they must show that the regis- 
 ter of their first baptism is dated subsequently to 
 " the death of Christ." — And even if they made good 
 the proof of this, we have endeavoured to show that 
 it would not avail them. 
 
 2. I proceed to my second case ; — the case which 
 I have described as more general, and, although more 
 of a negative character, yet by no means less pertinent 
 and conclusive. — It is quite simple, — resting on re- 
 corded and indubitable facts. The facts are these. 
 In the first place, vast multitudes were baptized by 
 John. This is not denied, but, although for a dif- 
 ferent purpose, strongly admitted. The language of 
 the sacred narrative is very unqualified: — "There 
 " went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all 
 " the region round about Jordan, and were baptized 
 " of him in Jordan, confessing their sins " — Matt, 
 iii. 5, 6. "There went out to him all the land of 
 " Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized 
 "of him in the river of Jordan" — Mark i. 8. — 
 "Although," says Dr. H., "we do not understand 
 " these expressions literally, yet they must imply that 
 " great multitudes followed him, and the language of 
 " Mark is express, they were all baptized of him." 
 — It is needless here to guess at the numbers, — how 
 many thousands, or myriads, there might be. Dr. 
 Halley himself repeatedly expresses his conviction 
 that the terms of the narrative cannot mean less than 
 "a majority of the population." He mentions Mi 
 Thorn's estimate of the numbers, namely " two mil- 
 
244 APPENDIX. 
 
 lions/' and adds that for his own argument (he is 
 reasoning at the time against immersion) he would 
 himself be " content with a fourth, or a tenth, or 
 even a twentieth of it." And although this seems 
 scarcely consistent with the " majority of the popu- 
 lation," I think I might be content with it for my 
 argument, as well as he for his, different as the sub- 
 jects of them are. But any attempt to determine 
 definite numbers, or even an approach to them, is 
 altogether needless. It is enough that the flocking 
 to John was very general, and that his baptism was 
 thus very extensively administered. The requisites 
 to its administration, on the part of the recipients, 
 is a totally distinct question, — of which by and by. 
 At present my argument requires no more than the 
 unquestioned fact. — We pass forward, then, to the 
 day of Pentecost, and the administration of baptism 
 by the Apostles, and observe, secondly, as another un- 
 questioned fact, that on that day, when the testimony 
 was delivered, with the Holy Ghost sent down from 
 heaven, respecting the death and resurrection and 
 exaltation of Jesus, there were no fewer than three 
 thousand who embraced it ; and that during the days 
 and weeks of a brief succeeding period, many thou- 
 sands more were added, so that they soon came to 
 amount to myriads * — Now, we have as clear proof 
 as the simplicity of historical narrative can afford, 
 that these thousands were all baptized. With re- 
 
 * See Acts ii. 41; iv. 4; vi. 7; ix. 31 ; xxi. 20, in the 
 Greek. 
 
on john's baptism. 245 
 
 gard to the three thousand on Pentecost, the state- 
 ment is express, — "Then they that gladly received 
 his word were baptized :" — and, unless it shall be 
 controverted, I hold myself entitled to assume the 
 same to have been the case with the "five thousand" 
 in the fourth chapter, and with all the rest. — The 
 argument, then, lies here : — is it within the limits of 
 the possible, — looking at the vast extent of John's 
 baptism, and at the largeness of the numbers baptized 
 by the Apostles, — that among those who were the 
 subjects of the latter baptism there were none who 
 had been the subjects of the former ? " All Jerusa- 
 lem " is the phrase used respecting the multitude of 
 its inhabitants who went out to be baptized of John ; 
 and it was in Jerusalem that the pentecostal baptism 
 of the three thousand took place. Is it imaginable 
 that of these three thousand there were none that 
 had been included in the "all Jerusalem?" — nay, 
 none of the "all Judea, and all the region round 
 about Jordan ?" — is it to be credited that the three 
 thousand consisted exclusively of strangers then in 
 Jerusalem from distant countries ? — and that all the 
 subsequent thousands were of the same description ? 
 — Yet not the remotest hint is to be found of any 
 exception being made, in the charge to be baptized, 
 of those amongst the multitudes addressed who had 
 been baptized already ! If the baptisms were identi- 
 cal, and re-baptism was not only unnecessary, but 
 irregular and unconstitutional, this does appear to 
 me altogether unaccountable. — And yet we have not 
 done. Not only is no exception actually hinted ; all 
 
246 APPENDIX. 
 
 exception is absolutely interdicted : — for, in answer 
 to the question of the awakened thousands — "Men 
 and brethren, what shall we do?" what says Peter, 
 — "Repent, and be baptized," — not "as many of you 
 as have not already been baptized in that name," 
 but — " every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
 for the remission of sins." — "Every one of you!" 
 Was there not so much as one, then, among all whom 
 he addressed, that had been "baptized with the bap- 
 tism of John ?" As I am unable to imagine a man 
 of Dr. Halley's candour supposing this, I am unable 
 to imagine his resisting the conclusion, that baptism 
 by John did not preclude baptism by the Apostles. — 
 And, if this conclusion be irresistible, the identity of 
 the baptisms is, by his own admission, disproved, and 
 the " essential difference " established. 
 
 I have commended, and sincerely commended my 
 friend's candour. I am not about to recall the com- 
 mendation. The fact, however, is a somewhat extra- 
 ordinary one, that, although Mr Hall complains of 
 the author of " a plea for primitive communion," to 
 whom he replies in his Tract on " the essential dif- 
 ference between Christian baptism and the baptism of 
 John," in these terms — " To the argument founded 
 " on the extreme improbability that none of the num- 
 " erous converts on the day of Pentecost were pre- 
 " viously disciples of John, no reply is attempted,"- — 
 Dr. Halley has maintained, respecting this argument, 
 the same silence with the author of the " plea." — I 
 am quite disposed to treat this as an oversight. I 
 cannot believe it intentional. His mind was occupied 
 
on john's baptism. 24/ 
 
 with the special case of the "twelve men" in Acts 
 xix. and he forgot the thousands in Acts ii. To 
 suppose him to have purposely omitted the notice 
 of the argument from these, is to suppose him to have 
 been secretly convinced by it, and unwilling to avow 
 the conviction. I have a far higher opinion of him 
 than to admit such a supposition into my mind for 
 a moment. And, as I do not believe him capable 
 of any thing so disingenuous, — of any such " hand- 
 ling of the word of God deceitfully," — not only from 
 all that I know of his manly openness as well as his 
 reverence for truth, but from the very candour dis- 
 played by him in his treatment of the special case on 
 which he has commented, — I at once impute it to the 
 cause I have mentioned. But it was a faulty over- 
 sight. The argument is by no means one of such 
 minor importance and weight as to justify so light 
 a treatment of it. I am persuaded that, if he just 
 looks it fairly in the face, he will blush to say No to 
 it. The case being one at the very "beginning of the 
 gospel," he will find no Apollos to help him out. 
 
 I have thus stated my two cases, on which I rest 
 my own conviction of the fact of re-baptism. I hold 
 them to be quite conclusive : — and, if they are con- 
 clusive as to the fact, they are admitted by Dr. H. 
 himself to be conclusive as to the " essential differ- 
 ence." 
 
 Still, however, the theory of the case is interesting ; 
 — the question, I mean, as to what constituted this 
 essential difference, — wherein it consisted. It appears 
 to me, that, while the fact, ascertained as above, goes 
 
248 APPENDIX. 
 
 to settle the theory, a correct view of the theory 
 might prepare our minds to anticipate the fact. The 
 question, indeed, regarding the theory is itself a ques- 
 tion of fact. It is the question, What was the 
 substance of John's preaching, and the substance of 
 our Lord's preaching, by himself or by his Apostles, 
 during his personal ministry ? — and What was the 
 substance of the preaching of the Apostles after Pente- 
 cost ? The baptism of each bore reference to the 
 teaching of each : — and if we find an essential differ- 
 ence in the teaching (not of course in the way of 
 contrariety, but in the way of amount) we may be 
 prepared to expect an essential difference in the bap- 
 tism ; — such a difference as at once to account for 
 the fact of re-baptism. 
 
 The first thing, then, to be here noticed, is the 
 fact that the teaching of John the Baptist and the 
 teaching of our Lord and his Apostles during his pub- 
 lic ministry, was substantially the same. — What was 
 it ? The evangelical record answers — " In those days 
 " came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness 
 " of Judea, and saying — Repent ye ; for the kingdom 
 " of heaven is at hand" — Matt. iii. 1, 2. — "From 
 " that time Jesus began to preach, and to say — 
 "Repent ; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" — 
 Matt. iv. 17. — And when Jesus, during the time of 
 his personal ministry, sent forth the twelve and the 
 seventy to preach in his name, the instructions given 
 them were in full accordance with his own and the 
 Baptist's practice. To the former he said — " As ye 
 " go, preach, saying — The kingdom of heaven is at 
 
on John's baptism. 249 
 
 " hand" — Matt. x. 7 : — to the latter — " Into whatso- 
 " ever city ye enter — heal the sick that are therein, 
 " and say unto them, The kingdom of heaven is come 
 " nigh unto you'' — Luke x. 8, 9. — Here there can be 
 no dispute. I speak now of the great general purport 
 of the ministry of the two — of John and of Jesus. 
 As to what more the one or the other taught occa- 
 sionally, I may notice it by and by. 
 
 From this general purport of both the ministries, — 
 the substantial identity of what each, in his preaching, 
 proclaimed, — it seems a fair and natural sequence 
 that at that time the baptism of the one and of the 
 other must have been substantially the same. The 
 rite administered, submission to which involved a 
 profession of faith, avowed or tacit, (this I must for 
 the present be allowed to assume) must of course 
 have been in correspondence with the doctrine taught. 
 Those who received the baptism of John did, in the 
 very act of such reception, profess faith in his divine 
 commission, and in the truth of what he was com- 
 missioned to proclaim : — and those who submitted to 
 the baptism of Jesus made the same profession in 
 regard to his commission, and the doctrine taught 
 by him. If the doctrine was the same, the baptism 
 was the same ; the profession of faith required in 
 order to it being the same.* 
 
 * The connexion between the doctrine and the haptism is 
 admitted, and strongly stated, by Dr. Halley : — " John had to 
 teach a new doctrine. * * * * So closely were the bap- 
 tism and the new doctrine connected, that the one term seems 
 
250 APPENDIX. 
 
 There is another point of fact, then, to be attended 
 to : — namely, that John administered his baptism, — 
 and administered it extensively, — before he himself 
 personally knew Jesus. This is clear from a compar- 
 ison of Luke hi. 21, 22, with John i. 32—34. In 
 the former passage we have this statement: — "Now, 
 when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, 
 that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the 
 heaven was opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in 
 a bodily shape, like a dove upon him ; and lo, a voice 
 came from heaven, which said, " Thou art my beloved 
 Son, in thee I am well pleased :" — and in the latter : 
 — " John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit des- 
 cending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon 
 him. And I knew him not : but He that sent me 
 to baptize with water, the same said unto me, upon 
 whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and 
 remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth 
 with the Holy Ghost : — and I saw, and bare record, 
 that this is the Son of God." — It will not be ques- 
 tioned, then, surely, that previously to the baptism of 
 Jesus by John, John's preaching related, in general 
 terms, to "him that should come after him" without 
 any declaration of who that was, — without his point- 
 ing out Jesus personally as the individual whom he 
 meant. Now Luke expressly tells us, that before 
 John himself received the divine intimation that Jesus 
 
 to be employed for the other." " The baptism of John," (the 
 new doctrine) " was it from heaven, or of men ?" — " After the 
 baptism," (the doctrine) "which John preached," &c. p. 162. 
 
on john's baptism. 251 
 
 was He, "all the people" had been "baptized;" 
 which cannot mean less than that the baptism of 
 Jesus took place towards the close of John's public 
 ministry. 
 
 From this the conclusion seems to me inevitable, 
 that John did not baptize in the name of Jesus. 
 Suppose we grant, that John could not but know of 
 the birth and life of Jesus in the family of his kins- 
 woman Mary and her husband Joseph, — and that 
 neither could he be ignorant of the extraordinay cir- 
 cumstances of that birth and early private life ; or, at 
 any rate, that of such knowledge there is the highest 
 degree of probability ; — still, nothing can well be 
 more unlikely, than that he should have baptized in 
 the name of one who as yet was unrevealed and un- 
 attested, — at once unknown to others, and unknown 
 to himself ! — And if this does not in itself amount to 
 absolute certainty, (in my own mind it does) — it is 
 converted into certainty by another matter of fact, — 
 namely, that of the prevailing surmises whether John 
 himself might not be the Christ, and of the message 
 actually sent to him for the purpose of ascertaining 
 that point. Luke expressly tells us, that "as the 
 "people were in expectation, and all men mused in 
 " their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ 
 " or not, John answered saying unto them all, I in- 
 " deed baptize with water ; but one mightier than I 
 " cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy 
 " to unloose : He shall baptize you with the Holy 
 " Ghost and with fire" — Luke hi. 15, 16. And this 
 is said at the very time when the multitudes were 
 
252 APPENDIX. 
 
 flocking to and receiving his baptism. — And John (the 
 evangelist) relates the incident of the message: — "This 
 " is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and 
 " Levites from Jerusalem, to ask him, Who art thou? 
 " And he confessed, and denied not ; but confessed, I 
 "am not the Christ" — John i. 19, 20. — Now, the 
 question is — how could these things have been, if 
 John in his general ministry had named Jesus as the 
 Messiah, and administered his baptism in that name ? 
 How could there have been any such "musings" in 
 the minds of the people " whether he himself were the 
 Christ," when, at the very time, he was baptizing the 
 thousands that came to him in the name of another 
 as the Christ ? — and how, in the face of such a fact, 
 had it been one, are we to account for the formal de- 
 putation sent to wait upon him for the purpose of set- 
 ting the public mind at rest upon the question 1 
 
 I must confess myself surprised at the ease with 
 which Dr. H. assumes the identity of baptism in the 
 name of " the coming one " and baptism in the name 
 of Jesus as that coming, or rather that already come 
 one ; and with which too he asserts the impossibility 
 of our Lord's own disciples baptizing, during his life- 
 time, otherwise than " in the proper name of their 
 Master, then present with them." — It is evident that 
 baptism into the name of " the coming one " was 
 not baptism into a name at all. It was really no 
 more than baptism into the faith of the testimony 
 that " the kingdom of heaven was at hand ;" which 
 was the same proposition as that the Messiah was at 
 hand, — just about to be "made manifest to Israel." 
 
ON JOHN S BAPTISM. 253 
 
 — I quite agree with Dr. H. when he represents it 
 as a thing " not to be credited," that " John bap- 
 tized merely into the belief of the coming of a Mes- 
 siah," — that being the universal doctrine and ex- 
 pectation of all sects among the Jews. What he 
 immediately subjoins, seems to be precisely the truth : 
 — " he baptized in the name of one coming after him, 
 " soon to be declared :" — only that, for reasons already 
 assigned, baptizing "in the name" of that coming 
 one must be understood generally, as meaning into 
 the belief of the Messiah's immediate appearance ; 
 not into the personal name of Jesus as that coming 
 one. — And, with regard to our Lord's own disciples, 
 the necessity of their baptizing in the proper per- 
 sonal name of their Master as the Christ, is by no 
 means to me so manifest as to justify Dr. Halley 
 in treating the contrary supposition as an incredible 
 one — " is it credible that the disciples of Jesus did 
 "not baptize in the proper name of their Master, 
 "then present with them?" I frankly avow that 
 I think it is. If by baptizing in his " proper name " 
 is to be understood the connecting of baptism with 
 the publication of the truth that Jesus of Nazareth 
 was the Christ, I conceive their having so baptized 
 so improbable as to be very near to, if not altogether, 
 impossible. 
 
 Let us still look at facts. There is one, which 
 can hardly fail to strike every reader of the evan- 
 gelical history. It is the fact of the reserve of Jesus, 
 in his public teaching, on the subject of his Messiah- 
 ship. He did not, indeed, like his forerunner, deny 
 
254 APPENDIX. 
 
 his being the Christ. Nay, he did, at times, avow it. 
 But the declaration of it was not a part of his or- 
 dinary teaching. And with regard to his Apostles, 
 during his own ministry, we find him, on various 
 occasions, charging them to silence on that subject. 
 When, in answer to the question — "Whom say ye 
 that I am?" Peter answered, for himself and the 
 rest, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
 God;" it follows immediately — "Then charged he 
 "his disciples that they should tell no man that he 
 "was the Christ."* — And there is the same reserve, 
 and the same injunction of secrecy, respecting par- 
 ticular incidents in his life which involved the most 
 striking proofs and divine attestations of his Messiah- 
 ship. When he and the three disciples whom he had 
 chosen as the witnesses of his glory, were coming 
 down from the mount of transfiguration, we read that 
 " he charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, 
 " until the Son of Man be risen from the dead." — 
 Matt. xvii. 19. — Let the reader mark the time until 
 which they were to keep it to themselves. And they 
 obeyed the injunction : — " They kept it close, and 
 "told no man in those days any of those things 
 "which they had seen" — Luke ix. 36. — They told 
 the vision afterwards ; when to their previous testi- 
 mony that "the kingdom of heaven was at hand," 
 they had to add that the kingdom was come and was 
 
 * In our translation — "that he was Jesus the Christ.'' 
 But the genuineness of the name Jesus is more than doubtful 
 in the judgment of the best critics. 
 
on John's baptism. 255 
 
 established ; God having " made that same Jesus 
 whom their countrymen had crucified" — and the 
 prelude to whose coming glory they had witnessed 
 on the holy mount — " both Lord and Christ." My 
 present question is — Whether it be at all imaginable, 
 that the disciples of Jesus were in the practice, when 
 they " made and baptized more disciples than John," 
 of administering their baptism in the name of their 
 Master as the Messiah, at the very time when he 
 was thus charging them not to make him known in 
 that character ; — of baptizing, that is, into the faith 
 of an article, on which, notwithstanding, they were 
 enjoined to keep silence ? 
 
 Let me not be misunderstood. I am far from 
 meaning to assert that Jesus, during his life-time, 
 never declared himself the Christ ; or that his at- 
 tached followers did not know him and own him in 
 that capacity. He did so declare himself; and they 
 did so own him, and were commended and blessed by 
 him for the believing acknowledgment. — Nay more : 
 — his forerunner, after he had the intimation from 
 heaven respecting him, pointed him out in his su- 
 preme dignity as "the Son of God," and in the na- 
 ture of his work as " the Lamb of God, which taketh 
 away the sins of the world." And Jesus himself 
 spoke of his approaching death as the atonement for 
 sin, as well as of his personal and official dignity. 
 But there is not the remotest evidence that the in- 
 culcation of these truths was connected with the bap- 
 tism administered either by John or by the disciples 
 of our Lord during his life. The reference to these 
 
256 APPENDIX. 
 
 truths in Christ's public discourses, was rare, re- 
 served, and obscure : — and as to his disciples, they 
 could not teach them ; for till the day of Pentecost 
 they gave abundant evidence that they had no distinct 
 apprehension of them themselves. The fact is, that 
 Jesus was then rather executing his work than fully 
 making known the doctrine concerning it. The atone- 
 ment was not to be published, till it was made. A 
 time of more clear and full discovery was at hand. 
 To that time he refers in John xvi. 12, 13 — "I 
 "have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot 
 " bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of 
 " truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth : for 
 "he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he 
 " shall hear, that shall he speak ; and he will show 
 " you things to come." — To the same period he looks 
 forward, I presume, when to those Jews who are 
 said to have "believed in him" he says — John viii. 
 3 1 , 32, " If ye continue in my word, then are ye 
 " my disciples indeed ; and ye shall know the truth ; 
 " and the truth shall make you free." The great 
 difference between his genuine disciples and others 
 lay at that time in this ; that, although the views of 
 the former were still dark and confused, — although 
 they had little or no conception of the nature of his 
 work, as a work to be effected by sufferings and death, 
 — yet they "continued in his word:" they had a 
 firm conviction, resting on all they saw and heard, of 
 his being the Christ : — they did not fly off from him, 
 and forsake his instructions in disgust and pride ; 
 they were not "offended in him:" — and thus, abid- 
 
on john's baptism. 257 
 
 ing by him as their acknowledged and authoritative 
 teacher, they, in due time, experienced the verifica- 
 tion of his promise — " Ye shall know the truth, and 
 the truth shall make you free." 
 
 My next observation is, that in all this there ap- 
 pears to be an obvious reasonableness. To every re- 
 flecting mind, I cannot but think, it must be mani- 
 fest, that, in the time of John, and in the early 
 part at least of our Lord's ministry — I may say in- 
 deed during the whole of it, — baptism into the name 
 of Jesus as the Christ would have been quite prema- 
 ture. It would have been requiring, in order to 
 baptism, a profession of faith in that of which the 
 evidence was yet to be produced. The observation 
 has a speciality of application, no doubt, to the be- 
 ginning of the ministry of our Lord, before "the 
 "works which the Father had given him to do had 
 "borne witness of him that the Father had sent 
 "him." But it may, as I have said, be extended 
 to the whole : — for, until his resurrection, — nay, until 
 the pouring out of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, 
 — the evidence of his claims, although from the be- 
 ginning growing in strength, and in every miracle 
 wrought by him sufficient, — ivas not complete. Now 
 it would have been utterly preposterous to have bap- 
 tized into the faith of a truth antecedently to evi- 
 dence. And yet this is what they must believe to 
 have been done, who consider the baptism of John 
 as having been baptism into the name of Jesus as the 
 Christ. — I conclude, therefore, that, although the 
 doctrine was declared, — and although important colla- 
 
 R 
 
258 APPENDIX. 
 
 teral truths respecting the work of Jesus and the na- 
 ture and ends of his death, were declared along with it, 
 yet it was not an article of which the professed faith 
 was then required in order to baptism ; — either by 
 John, or by our Lord himself during his ministry, 
 when he was only finishing his work, and furnishing 
 a part of the evidence on which the faith of it was to 
 rest. 
 
 "We have thus, then, if I mistake not, arrived at the 
 true difference between the baptism of John, and the 
 baptism of the apostles ; between baptism before, and 
 baptism after, the death and resurrection of Jesus. 
 The " good tidings" proclaimed by John, and pro- 
 claimed by the disciples of Jesus during the life of 
 their Master, were — that " the kingdom of heaven was 
 at hand ;" that the great promised Deliverer was now 
 about to appear, to finish his divinely commissioned 
 work, and on the basis of that finished work to erect 
 his kingdom. The work was not finished till the 
 death of Jesus : — the evidence of its having been 
 finished was not completed till the resurrection of 
 Jesus, and the pentecostal effusion of the Spirit. Then 
 commenced the difference. The baptisms correspond- 
 ed, respectively, to the extent of the truth revealed. 
 The baptism of John was baptism into the faith of the 
 immediate appearance and kingdom of the promised 
 Messiah. He " baptized with the baptism of repent- 
 ance, saying unto the people that they should believe 
 on him who should come after him." But his baptism 
 was not, as we have endeavoured to show, baptism 
 into the name of Jesus, or into the faith of Jesus per- 
 
on john's baptism. 259 
 
 sonally as that promised Messiah. Administering his 
 baptism even previously to the divine discovery of 
 Jesus to himself, he could not possibly baptize into his 
 name, or into the faith of that which he himself did 
 not know. — But when the work of Jesus was finished, 
 and the evidence of Jesus being the Christ was com- 
 pleted, — then came baptism into the faith of this far- 
 ther and fundamental truth : — then came what was 
 properly christian baptism. The truth now discovered 
 and established, was an essential advance beyond the 
 former. It was new, and all-important. Let the 
 reader compare the commission given by our Lord to 
 his apostles during his life with that given to them 
 after his resurrection; and he cannot fail to be im- 
 pressed with the vast amount of the difference. To 
 the former we have before adverted. It ran in these 
 terms : — " As ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of 
 heaven is at hand :" — " Into whatsoever city ye enter, 
 " and they receive you, eat such things as are set be- 
 "fore you; and heal the sick that are therein, and say 
 " unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto 
 " you. But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they 
 " receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of 
 " the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city 
 " which cleaveth on us we do wipe off against you : — 
 " notwithstanding, be ye sure of this, that the kingdom 
 " of God is come nigh unto you." Matt. x. /• Luke 
 x. 8 — 11. — The latter stands thus: — "Then opened 
 "he their understandings, that they might under- 
 " stand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is 
 " written, and thus it behoved the Christ to suffer, 
 
260 APPENDIX. 
 
 "and to rise from the dead the third day; and that 
 " repentance and remission of sins should be preached 
 " in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusa- 
 lem. And ye are witnesses of these things." Luke 
 xxiv. 45 — 48. " Go ye into all the world, and preach 
 " the gospel (the glad tidings) to every creature. He 
 " that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he 
 " that believeth not shall be condemned." Mark xvi. 
 1 5, 1 6 . But the " glad tidings" of which the faith was 
 then to be professed by submission to baptism was 
 not merely, nor at all, that " the kingdom of heaven 
 was at hand," but that " Jesus was the Christ, the 
 Saviour of the world," that by his dying for sin the 
 work of atonement had been completed, and that God 
 had attested this by the fact of his resurrection. This 
 was a new profession; and with this new profession 
 there was connected a new baptism. That neither 
 John, nor our Lord's apostles during their Master's 
 life, baptized into the faith of a Messiah that was to 
 suffer and die and rise again, is abundantly evident. 
 The apostles, to the very last, continued themselves in 
 a state of wondering incredulity on these points, when 
 they were pre-admonished of them by Jesus ; " un- 
 derstanding none of these things," and " questioning- 
 one with another, what the rising from the dead 
 should mean." But afterwards, when, under the Spir- 
 it's teaching, they obtained the full knowledge of the 
 truth, their baptism was into the faith of a suffering, 
 dying, rising, glorified Messiah, and of Jesus being 
 that Messiah. These were the two points of the doc- 
 trine preached by Paul, and argued by him with his 
 
on john's baptism. 2fil 
 
 countrymen: — "Three Sabbath-days" (in the Syna- 
 gogue at Thessalonica — Acts xvii. 2, 3,) "he reasoned 
 " with them out of the scriptures, opening and alleg- 
 " ing, that the Christ must needs have suffered, and 
 " risen again from the dead''' (that is, in fulfilment 
 of the "prophecies that had gone before concerning 
 him") " and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto 
 you, is the Christ." — In the baptism to which Peter 
 invited his assembled countrymen on the day of pen- 
 tecost, there was included the faith of that truth 
 with which he had closed his awakening address — 
 "Wherefore, let all the house of Israel know assur- 
 " edly, that God hath made that same Jesus whom 
 "ye crucified, both Lord and Christ" Acts ii. 36. 
 
 If I am now asked the question — In what light, 
 then, do you regard the baptism of John, as to the 
 position it holds among divine dispensations? — Does 
 it belong to Moses ? or does it belong to Christ ? — to 
 the former economy, or to the latter? — my answer 
 must be — It belongs to both ; and it belongs to nei- 
 ther. It is not a part of the Mosaic economy ; nor is 
 it a part of the Christian. It stands between the two; 
 and it bears a relation to each. It may be regarded 
 as an appendix to the one, and as an introduction to 
 the other. It was intermediate between Moses and 
 Christ ; not the abolition of the old system, — not the 
 establishment of the new ; but a brief distinct dispen- 
 sation in itself, preparatory to the downfall of the first, 
 and to the full establishment of the second. I was 
 pleased to see the same idea so happily expressed by 
 Chrysostom, as quoted by Dr. Halley : — " The bap- 
 
262 APPENDIX. 
 
 " tism of John was, indeed, far superior to the 
 "Jewish, but inferior to ours: — it was a kind of 
 " bridge between the two baptisms, leading from that 
 " to this." 
 
 I conceive that there were three distinct periods, — 
 the Mosaic, the Christian, and the intermediate one of 
 the Baptist. In one important sense, all the three 
 were christian : — inasmuch as they all contained the 
 gospel. But, at the same time, they were distinct in 
 sufficiently marked characteristics. A truly enlight- 
 ened and intelligent belief in the dispensation and 
 ministry of Moses, implied a belief in the ancient 
 promises of God's covenant, — in the import of the 
 typical rites of sacrifice and blood-sprinkling, — in the 
 predictions of Moses himself and the prophets, — in 
 the future coming of the predicted and typified Mes- 
 siah, — the work he was to do, — the kingdom he 
 was to establish. This would have been an enlight- 
 ened and intelligent faith in Moses. That by the 
 mass of the Jewish people the faith of Moses was 
 held very unintelligently, cannot be questioned. Nay 
 more, it cannot be questioned, that the views even of 
 those who " looked for redemption in Jerusalem" 
 were exceedingly limited, confused, and dark ; and 
 that, true as it is that the faith of believers, in differ- 
 ent periods, could not go beyond the amount of divine 
 discovery in the age in which they lived, yet was there 
 no small measure of culpability in the moral causes 
 by which they were prevented from more clearly dis- 
 cerning the covert meaning of the promises, prophe- 
 cies, and types of the previous dispensation, — in " the 
 
on John's baptism. 263 
 
 vail" which, " when Moses was read," continued 
 " upon their hearts." — The Mosaic, then, was a pre- 
 paratory or introductory dispensation, — prophetic, 
 promissory, typical ; — by which a greater knowledge 
 of the gospel by far than was actually obtained might, 
 — and therefore, it may be presumed, we are war- 
 ranted to say, ought to have been acquired, under 
 the influence of an unprejudiced and spiritual mind 
 guided by the supplicated Spirit of God. — When, 
 therefore, Dr. Halley, in comparing the baptism of 
 John and the baptism of the apostles, says, in proof 
 of their identity, " John baptized because the king- 
 " dom of heaven was approaching ; the apostles, be- 
 " cause it was announced. But why should the 
 " announcement of the kingdom of Christ invalidate 
 " the baptism of its precursor 1 Is it credible, that 
 " the event which proved the truth of John's baptism, 
 " and conferred upon it all its importance, should, in 
 " the same moment, nullify its significance, and re- 
 " quire from its possessors a second ablution?" page 
 192, — when, I say, he writes thus, not only might we 
 ask how the "second ablution" could "nullify the sig- 
 nificance" of the first, when that significance was that 
 " the kingdom of heaven was at hand," and when to 
 that significance, signally established, there was only 
 an addition made, — but, as it appears to me, we 
 might carry the principle of his reasoning a step fur- 
 ther back. It will not be denied, that in the sprink- 
 lings and ablutions of the Jewish ceremonial there 
 was a typified gospel, — that Judaism was Christianity 
 in emblem. Why, then, should not the baptisms of 
 
264 APPENDIX. 
 
 Moses be reckoned christian baptism, as well as the 
 baptism of John ? Is not the same reasoning fairly 
 and fully applicable in the one case, as well as in the 
 other? May we not put the very question, in the 
 very terms of it — " Is it credible that the very events 
 which proved the truth of the Jewish baptisms, and 
 conferred upon them all their importance, should, in 
 the same moment, nullify their significance, and re- 
 quire from their possessors a second ablution?" Thus 
 we should have the Mosaic and the Christian identi- 
 fied, as well as that of John and the apostles, — and 
 ground laid for the conclusion, that to those who had 
 received the baptisms of the ancient Mosaic ceremonial 
 baptism by the apostles would have been re-baptism, 
 as well as to those who had been the subjects of John's 
 — and therefore, in the one case as well as in the- 
 other, a " vain repetition," — all the three being essen- 
 tially Christian ! 
 
 Then we have the intermediate period, with its dis- 
 tinct and peculiar ministry, — that, namely, of John 
 the Baptist, and of Jesus and his disciples during his 
 own life. This period could not be said indeed, to 
 succeed the Mosaic, for the Mosaic was not yet come 
 to a close : — but it was the period during which the 
 Messiah's commission was executed, — his work 
 wrought out and finished. John's was a distinct 
 commission, — a commission of great importance, deep 
 interest, and high honour, — a commission which had 
 been predicted in terms of sublime elevation and de- 
 lighted hope, by those " holy men of God who spoke 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost :" — see Isa. 
 
on john's baptism. 265 
 
 xl. 3—5 ; Mai. iv. 5, 6 ; with Matt. xi. 13, 14 ; xvii. 
 10 — 13 ; Luke i. 17. — But still, the very terms which 
 affirmed the greatness of John the Baptist affirmed, at 
 the same time, that " the kingdom of heaven was only 
 at hand/' — still unestablished ; — the new and anti- 
 cipated economy not begun, — not yet fully introduced. 
 He was but a forerunner ; — only a voice that called — 
 " prepare." And while Jesus says of him — " Among 
 them that are born of women there hath not arisen a 
 greater than John the Baptist," — he, in the same sen- 
 tence, adds — "Notwithstanding, he that is least in 
 the kingdom of heaven, is greater than he" — Matt, 
 xi. 11. The kingdom of heaven, then, according to 
 this testimony, was not begun. John had the spirit 
 of that kingdom ; just as they had who lived at a 
 greater distance back from its commencement, who 
 " saw the promises afar off, and died in the faith of 
 them :" — but he was the precursor and herald of its 
 establishment, rather than a subject of it ; inasmuch 
 as being a subject of a kingdom implies the existence 
 of the kingdom itself. — Now, the baptism of John was 
 baptism into the faith of what was the special testi- 
 mony of that brief intermediate dispensation, — namely, 
 the immediately approaching establishment of the 
 New Testament kingdom, — the " coming of the Just 
 One," — his work and reign. Although other impor- 
 tant truths were, with more or less plainness, taught, 
 this was the faith of the particular period ; and 
 the baptism correspondent to it. 
 
 Then came the third period ; to which both the 
 others, though in different ways, were introductory ; 
 
266 APPENDIX. 
 
 — the period succeeding the resurrection of Jesus, — 
 the "dispensation of the Spirit," — "the acceptable 
 year of the Lord," — the reign of grace. And this 
 period too has its appropriate faith, and its correspond- 
 ing appropriate baptism. The faith is — " That if thou 
 " shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and 
 " shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised 
 " him from the dead, thou shalt be saved" — Rom. x. 
 9. And the baptism, as we have seen, corresponds to 
 the faith. This baptism is "into Christ's death;" and 
 into his death as connected with his resurrection : — 
 " We are buried with him by baptism into his death ; 
 " that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
 " the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
 "in newness of life" — Rom. vi. 4. — The dispensation 
 was new : — the profession of faith was new : — the 
 baptism was new. 
 
 " It is remarkable," observes Dr. Halley, " we do 
 "not read that Apollos himself, who had received 
 " John's baptism, was rebaptized, when taught the 
 " way of the Lord more perfectly." — It is true. But 
 first of all, the mere silence of the narrative on that 
 point is not decisive of the fact of its not having been 
 done : — then, even were it so decisive, the question 
 would still remain, whether those concerned were, in 
 this instance, right in neglecting it ; — inasmuch as, 
 not being apostles, or acting under the influence of 
 inspiration, their example could have had no binding 
 authority : — and, last of all, we cannot allow this soli- 
 tary instance, supposing it real, to countervail the 
 recorded re-baptism of the twelve disciples in the 
 
on john's baptism. 267 
 
 nineteenth chapter of the Acts, and (as to my mind it 
 appears, although not expressly, or in so many words, 
 recorded) the no less certain re-baptism of multitudes 
 of the Jewish converts on and after the day of Pen- 
 tecost. 
 
 It is also true, that we have no recorded account of 
 the baptism of the twelve, or of the hundred and 
 twenty, on the day of Pentecost. — And on this I 
 would observe — 1. That if we are thus to proceed on 
 strict matter-of-fact narrative, and to reckon negatives 
 as equivalent to affirmatives, — the simple absence of 
 a statement as amounting to a statement of the con- 
 trary ; then, let it not be forgotten, that there is only 
 one of the twelve Apostles, respecting whom we have 
 any record of his having been baptized even with 
 John's baptism. That record we have, in John i. 40, 
 compared with verse 35, respecting " Andrew, Simon 
 Peter's brother :" — and I am not aware of any other 
 of the twelve, or of the hundred and twenty, being 
 expressly named as having received the baptism of 
 John. There is thus the very same lack of positive 
 evidence of their being at all cases in point ; — lack of 
 positive evidence, I mean, that their having been bap- 
 tized by John was the reason why they were not bap- 
 tized again : — for, upon the principle of taking the 
 mere absence of the mention of a fact as equivalent to 
 a denial of it, we are entitled to assume that Andrew 
 was the only one of the entire number that had been 
 baptized of John, or was one of John's disciples. — 
 2. It seems a very presumptuous thing, and as vain 
 as presumptuous, to make the procedure of the Lord 
 
268 APPENDIX. 
 
 himself, in such circumstances, a standard for ours. 
 Surely he who had the power to impart, in a manner 
 so signal and glorious? the baptism of the Spirit, — of 
 which the baptism with water was but an emblem, — 
 had a sovereign title, in laying the foundation of his 
 own kingdom, to supercede his own rite. The rite 
 might be one very appropriate for administration to 
 all who should own his sceptre after the proclamation 
 of his reign went forth, — while it could be of little 
 avail to those whom, by so sudden, direct, and illustri- 
 ous a manifestation of his exaltation and power, he 
 qualified to be its founders and ambassadors ! In the 
 midst of the "rushing mighty wind," and the " cloven 
 tongues of fire," and the illumination, and energy, 
 and miraculous utterances, of the Holy Spirit, — all 
 direct from heaven, without any kind of human inter- 
 vention, — coming at once from the divine source of all 
 authority, — it is surely little better than trifling to in- 
 stitute an inquiry whether those on whom " the pro- 
 mise of the Father" — the "power from on high" — so 
 wonderfully came, were ever subjected to the sprink- 
 ling or the immersion of water ! In such a case, it was 
 a matter of very little moment indeed, whether they 
 were or were not. — That they were not seems far most 
 likely ; perhaps may be held for certain. They were 
 already believers in the resurrection of Jesus : — and 
 their baptism — not the mere emblem, but the celestial 
 reality — came immediately from the hand of their 
 glorified Master ; who, having " ascended on high, 
 leading captivity captive," had received these " gifts 
 for men." " He, being by the right hand of God 
 
on john's baptism. 269 
 
 exalted, shed forth that which" the assembled mul- 
 titudes " saw and heard " with such overwhelming 
 amazement. Truly the baptism with water might 
 well be dispensed with for this. And He, moreover, 
 who was " Lord of the Sabbath," was Lord also, and 
 equally, of all his own institutions. 
 
 In these remarks on John's baptism, I have con- 
 fined myself chiefly to two points, — the matter-of-fact 
 as to re-baptism, and the principle on which the fact 
 is to be accounted for, or the really essential differ- 
 ence between the two baptisms. In this way, the two 
 parts of the argument reciprocally strengthen each 
 other. The proof of the fact establishes the differ- 
 ence ; and the proof of the difference establishes the 
 fact. 
 
 It is not my purpose to convert this part of my 
 Appendix into a lengthened dissertation, by entering 
 into the merits of Dr. Halley's strictures on the rea- 
 sonings of the late Mr Hall. In one or two points, he 
 has, I am satisfied, successfully shown their inconclu- 
 siveness, or, at least, their doubtful validity : — but it 
 does not appear to me, generally speaking, that he 
 does them justice. The little that he has succeeded 
 in disproving or invalidating, is no more than can 
 easily be spared without in the least exposing to haz- 
 ard the point at issue. The one or two weak or open 
 parts are not at all such as to admit an adversary 
 into the citadel. 
 
170 APPENDIX. 
 
 II. — On the warranted extent of the administra- 
 tion of Christian Baptism : — or, on the question, 
 whether the knowledge and professed faith of 
 the gospel be requisite in the subjects of it. 
 
 This is the point of real practical importance to us. 
 And its importance, as will appear before we have 
 done with it, is not small. The subject of the pre- 
 ceding section of this Appendix, how interesting so- 
 ever, under certain aspects of it, it may be in itself, 
 has more in it of relative than of intrinsic consequence, 
 and principally from its bearing on that of the present 
 section. 
 
 " The several principles," says Dr. H. " variously 
 " modified, of the three classes, may, I think, be thus 
 " expressed. The first class maintain that baptism 
 " is exclusively the privilege of true believers ; the 
 " second, that, by virtue of a covenant relation be- 
 " tween parents and children, it belongs also to the 
 " children of believers ; the third, that, as no restric- 
 " tion is imposed upon baptism in the New Testament, 
 " none ought to be imposed by the ministers of the 
 " gospel." — Page 497. — I have no objection to offer 
 against this threefold distribution of opinions. I must 
 observe, however, that my present inquiry is neces- 
 sarily restricted. The question as to the baptism of 
 the children of believers forms no part of it. It is not 
 properly a question between baptists and paedobap- 
 tists. I hold, of course, with the second of the three 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 271 
 
 classes enumerated by Dr. Halley. But now, my dis- 
 pute is not with those who belong to the first of the 
 three, but with those who belong to the third. This 
 will appear, when I have stated my own view. I 
 state it thus : — that no child ought to be admitted to 
 baptism, but the child of a parent who would himself 
 be a proper subject of the rite. I would baptize no 
 child, unless I could conscientiously baptize the pa- 
 rent. The inquiry, therefore, evidently becomes one 
 restricted to the qualifications of adults. The ques- 
 tion as to parents and children becomes identically the 
 same ; inasmuch as, whatever qualifications render it 
 warrantable to baptize the parent's self, render it war- 
 rantable to include his infant offspring with him in the 
 administration of the ordinance ; and whatever quali- 
 fications in the parent render it warrantable to baptize 
 his children, render it equally warrantable to baptize 
 himself. Thus the inquiry now resolves itself into 
 that of believer baptism ; the inquiry, whether faith, 
 that is, whether a credible profession of faith, should 
 be required in adults to justify its being administered 
 to them. The question respecting the association of 
 their offspring with them in such administration has 
 here no place. It is laid aside. For I fully concur 
 with Dr. H. in the position, that if he has succeeded 
 in making good the point that any besides believers — 
 that is, besides professors of the faith — should be 
 baptized, he has succeeded also in proving that there 
 should be no restriction as to children. If the neces- 
 sity of a profession of the faith of the gospel to bap- 
 tism were given up, I certainly should not think aught 
 
2/2 APPENDIX. 
 
 that remained worth contending for. If there is to be 
 the indiscriminate baptism of adults, who would ever 
 waste a moment in resisting the indiscriminate bap- 
 tism of children ? This indiscriminate baptism of 
 adults, and consequently of children, is the theory — 
 the third in his own classification — which Dr. H. 
 adopts. It is a matter of sincere concern to me, that 
 such a man should have embraced and defended a 
 scheme so loose, so unscriptural, so mischievous. 
 This will be characterized as bold assumption. It 
 shall be my endeavour to justify it,' — and to show that 
 I do no injustice to the theory in so designating it. 
 
 Having, in the Dissertation, stated and vindicated 
 my own sentiments, and those generally held in Scot- 
 land, I have now rather to do with combating the 
 reasonings of others in support of a laxer and less re- 
 strictive system. And in doing this, it is my purpose- 
 to confine myself to Dr. Halley ; satisfied that if I can 
 successfully refute his views and reasonings, I shall 
 succeed in settling such general principles as there 
 will be no difficulty in applying to the views and rea- 
 sonings of others : — and this, at the same time, will 
 contribute both to unity and brevity. 
 
 In Section III. of the dissertation, I have adverted 
 to the loose notions on this subject prevalent amongst 
 our Congregationalist brethren in the south. See 
 pages 19C — 203. Of the manner in which the case 
 is briefly argued there, Dr. H. has taken no notice ; 
 probably from the observations not occurring in con- 
 nexion with that particular portion of my treatise 
 which he sets himself chiefly to oppose. The reader 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 2/3 
 
 must not be surprised, should he find here a repeti- 
 tion of one or two of the arguments adduced there. 
 This is unavoidable for giving completeness to the 
 present discussion ; which I could not, with propriety, 
 leave to be supplemented, in any essential particular, 
 by a mere reference to what had been said elsewhere ; 
 — and in which, at the same time, a fuller view is 
 taken of the whole case. 
 
 With regard to the order of discussion, it occurs to 
 me as the most natural and reasonable course, that I 
 should begin with the objections which my friend has 
 brought forward and urged against the argument in 
 the preceding Dissertation, in support of infant bap- 
 tism, drawn from the constitution of the Abrahamic 
 covenant. This argument (which has generally been 
 considered as one of the strongholds of psedobaptism) 
 he entirely abandons. In this I think him wrong, — 
 seriously wrong. I feel it, however, so far satisfactory, 
 to find Dr. Halley so distinctly admitting the co?isis- 
 tency of the scheme generally held by Scottish Inde- 
 pendents, — and I presume I might add, in general, 
 Scottish Presbyterians too, — and of the reasonings by 
 which that scheme is vindicated. After a personal 
 compliment, which I have sufficient vanity thus to re- 
 fer to, though not quite enough to quote, he says : — 
 " Besides, as the proposition is, that especial privileges 
 " are conferred exclusively upon the children of be- 
 " lievers, of which privileges baptism is the seal, the 
 " reasoning of such theologians as Dr. Wardlaw, and 
 " the Scottish Congregationalists, is at least consistent 
 " throughout : — but when I meet upon this ground 
 • s 
 
274 APPENDIX. 
 
 "our English friends of the Episcopal, Methodist, or 
 " Independent denominations, who, like myself, ad- 
 " minister baptism to children irrespective of the faith 
 1 ' of their parents, I am ready to ask, What doest 
 "thou here? Your argument will justify but one 
 " moiety of the baptisms which you solemnize." — 
 Page 532. — This is perfectly correct. The argument 
 and the practice are, in such cases, decidedly at vari- 
 ance. If, on the one hand, we hold the argument 
 for infant baptism from the Abrahamic covenant, 
 consistency certainly requires that our administration 
 of the ordinance be restricted to the infant seed of 
 believers. If, on the other, we practise its indiscri- 
 minate administration, we must give up the argu- 
 ment. Thus far Dr. Halley is consistent. He does 
 give up the argument. He does it broadly and 
 openly : — " In all arguments, however, which assume 
 " any distinction of privileges among children on ac- 
 " count of the faith of their parents, we must dis- 
 11 claim all participation." Page 533. 
 
 Dr. H. agrees with me respecting the evangelical 
 character of the covenant with Abraham. "Agree- 
 ing with Dr. W. in the commencement of his state- 
 " ment, — ' before the coming of Christ, the covenant 
 " of grace had been revealed,' I am compelled to 
 " hesitate, and the longer I hesitate the more I de- 
 " mur, on its conclusion, 'and under that covenant 
 " there existed a divinely instituted connexion between 
 " children and their parents, according to which the 
 " sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant were, 
 "by divine appointment, administered to children; 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 2/ 5 
 
 " and there can be produced no satisfactory evidence 
 " of its having been done away.' " Pages 535, 536. 
 Of course I freely grant what follows, that " no one 
 u is bound to produce ' satisfactory evidence of its 
 " having been done away,' until some one produce 
 "satisfactory evidence of its having ever existed." 
 This, he conceives, I have not done ; — neither " satis- 
 factory evidence, nor, indeed, any evidence at all." — 
 Of this I must leave the reader to judge who has, 
 with any care, perused the dissertation. The ground 
 taken by Dr. Halley, in opposition to it, is this : — 
 that the privilege, of having the sign and seal of that 
 covenant applied, did not arise from immediate pa- 
 rentage, but from ultimate connexion with him who 
 was " the head of the covenant," — that is, with 
 Abraham himself. " That the sign of the blessings 
 " of that covenant was by divine appointment admin- 
 " istered to children, I, of course, admit : — but it is 
 " implied in the argument that it was so administered 
 " on account of the connexion between those children 
 " and their parents. The sign of the Abrahamic 
 " covenant was given to every child, as it appears 
 " to me, on account not of his immediate connexion 
 " with his parents, but of his remote connexion with 
 " the head of the covenant." Page 536. And again : 
 " The privilege, then, is resolved into the connexion 
 " between Abraham and his posterity ; and no other 
 " seems to be recognized in the Abrahamic covenant : 
 " — of no other can I find the slightest trace, in all 
 " the reasonings upon the analogy of signs and seals 
 " in the ancient and christian dispensation." Page 
 
2/6 APPENDIX. 
 
 5/3. — Now, surprised as my friend may be by the 
 concession, I have very little to object to this repre- 
 sentation, provided only the posterity of Abraham in 
 the line of Isaac be specifically understood ; agreeably 
 to the restrictive terms of the promise — "In Isaac 
 shall thy seed be called." Dr. Halley shows that 
 the administration of the sign of the covenant — cir- 
 cumcision namely — was not restricted at all to the 
 immediate seed of the godly. " A father," says he, 
 " might by unbelief cut himself off from the people, 
 " incur the forfeiture of his privileges ; but he could 
 " not, by that act, prevent his child from claiming 
 " restoration as a son of Abraham : but if the for- 
 " feiture was not hereditary, neither was the privi- 
 " lege. The proof of ancestry would have been 
 " sufficient, however broken might have been the 
 " link of connexion. In ascertaining the covenant 
 " relation of the children, the character of the im- 
 " mediate parents was never taken into the account. 
 " They might, or they might not, be believers," &c. 
 Pages 537, 538. 
 
 There is one important element in my argument on 
 this subject, which by Dr. Halley has been entirely 
 overlooked. It is, that, while the privileges of the 
 covenant, and the covenant sign and seal, were con- 
 fined to the descendants of Abraham in the line of 
 Isaac, — all his descendants in that line constituted, 
 under the then existing dispensation, the visible church 
 of God. It was, in the full and proper sense of the 
 designation, a national church ; the only national 
 church that ever had the divine sanction. Our in- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 2/3 
 
 quiry now is, not why the church was so constituted, 
 but simply whether it was so constituted or not. And 
 as to this, there is and can be no question. It will 
 not be denied, that descent from Abraham in the line 
 of Isaac, — that is, that a parentage in accordance with 
 the constitution of that church, — was necessary to 
 any one's possessing a title to visible membership, 
 or to a participation in its outward privileges and ob- 
 servances. But under the new or gospel dispensa- 
 tion, there has been a change. The church is no 
 longer national. It consists now of " the Israel of 
 God" in a very different sense, — of a spiritual people, 
 — of the children of Abraham by faith and character, 
 — of the "chosen generation," the "royal priest- 
 hood," the "holy nation," the "peculiar people," 
 who " show forth the praises of Him who hath called 
 them out of darkness into his marvellous light." The 
 conditions of membership are thus, under the new 
 economy, essentially altered. They are more spir- 
 itual ; and thus more restricted. And according to 
 the change in the terms of membership, is the cor- 
 responding change in regard to the connexion of chil- 
 dren with their parents, in the promises of the cove- 
 nant, and in the administration of its outward sign 
 and seal. The privilege existed in the church — and 
 was co-extensive with it — under its more carnal, 
 worldly, national form : and with the spiritual re- 
 striction of church-fellowship there was introduced, 
 as a matter of manifest consistency, the restriction 
 in the application, alike to adults and children, of the 
 outward initiatory rite. — On this point — of distinc- 
 
278 APPENDIX. 
 
 tion between the Old Testament church and the New 
 — I have, in the dissertation, dwelt at some length. 
 Dr. H. does not at all advert to it. And in such 
 omission, for which I am at a loss to account, he has, 
 as I have already said, left out an element in my 
 reasoning essential to its continuity and conclusive- 
 ness. I complain of this. The laxity with regard 
 to the faith and character of the immediate parentage 
 of children then admitted to the initiatory ordin- 
 ance of the covenant, arose from the nature of the 
 existing dispensation. What was then necessary to 
 children partaking in it, was just what was necessary 
 for the membership of their parents in the ancient 
 church. That was, descent from Abraham in the 
 line of Isaac ; — every subject of the Israelitish nation 
 being a member of that church. It will not be de- 
 nied, I presume, that such was the constitution of the 
 church at that time : — and if it is not denied that 
 descent from Abraham in the line of Isaac, associated 
 with a tacit or avowed belief in Jehovah as Abraham's 
 God, the God of the Jewish fathers, was the term of 
 membership in the church of Israel, — nothing is de- 
 nied that I ever affirmed. 
 
 This overlooking of the characters, respectively, of 
 the two dispensations, has, I apprehend, led my friend 
 wide of his mark in this part of his argument. What- 
 ever was requisite to parents being connected with the 
 visible church, as then constituted, was requisite to 
 the circumcision of their children : — whatever is re- 
 quisite now to parents being connected with the visible 
 church, is requisite now to the baptism of their chil- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 2/9 
 
 dren. In this way, the argumentum ad absurdum 
 adduced by my friend, at page 539, is at once bereft 
 of its point. Having shown that of old it was the 
 connexion of children, not with their immediate pa- 
 rentage but, through them, with the "great ancestor," 
 that entitled them to covenant privileges, he there 
 says — " The inference from the analogy, or, if it so 
 " please, the identity of the covenants, according to 
 " this mode of reasoning, would be, that the posterity 
 " of a believer throughout all generations ought to 
 " be baptized." — Had I, in any part of my reason- 
 ings, represented every believer as another Abraham, 
 there would have been force in this. But what I 
 have endeavoured to show has been this ; that under 
 the ancient economy, Israel after the flesh, — the chil- 
 dren of Abraham in the line of Isaac, " in whom his 
 seed was to be called," — constituted the visible church 
 of God, — this connexion with Abraham being the 
 requisite to the enjoyment of covenant privileges ; — 
 whereas now, under the new dispensation, the visible 
 church of God consists (or ought to consist, for abuse 
 and the contravention of divine authority cannot in- 
 validate our argument) of Israel after the Spirit, — of 
 the children of Abraham, not according to the flesh, 
 either in the line of Isaac or in any other line — but 
 according to faith and to spiritual birth ; — and, as a 
 consequence, that, just as, under the former state of 
 things, the connexion with Abraham that constituted 
 a man a member of the Israelitish church did not 
 make that man himself an Abraham — the head of a 
 covenant, — so, under the present state of things, the 
 
280 APPENDIX. 
 
 spiritual relation to Abraham, by which any man is 
 constituted a worthy member of the gospel church, 
 does not make that man himself an Abraham — the 
 head of a covenant. His spiritual relation to Abra- 
 ham entitles his children to privilege, just as formerly 
 the parent's natural relation to Abraham entitled his. 
 And, as in the one case so in the other, the man who 
 does not sustain the required relation has no right to 
 have the initiatory sign and seal of the covenant trans- 
 mitted to his offspring. 
 
 In this point there appears to me to be, on the part 
 of Dr. Halley, a very important error; — strange, as 
 fallen into by him, — and most mischievous in its 
 legitimate consequences. He dwells, emphatically, 
 upon the greater enlargement of the church under the 
 Gospel dispensation ; while he leaves almost entirely 
 out of his reckoning a no less momentous change in 
 its constitution, — its increased spirituality. It must 
 not be forgotten, that, while in one way there is en- 
 largement, in another there is limitation. — To do him 
 full justice, I must here introduce a pretty long para- 
 graph. He might have reason to complain of me, 
 were I either to abridge it, or to attempt giving the 
 sense of it in my own words : — "The most important 
 " difference, as it appears to me, between the views of 
 " my respected friend and my own, consists in his re- 
 " garding circumcision as having been performed on 
 " the infant on account of the interest of his parents 
 "in the Abrahamic covenant, and my regarding it as 
 " having been performed on account of his own per- 
 " sonal interest in it, even though his parents, like 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 281 
 
 " the Jews who fell in the wilderness, had forfeited 
 "the grace of the covenant, and never received its 
 "sign. So, under the gospel, my friend makes the 
 " application of his argument depend upon a relative 
 " interest of the children of believers, through their 
 " parents, in the evangelical covenant ; — I make it to 
 " depend, so far as I adopt it, upon the personal in- 
 " terest of the children, irrespective of the faith of 
 "their parents, in that covenant. The principal 
 " change, as it appears to me, which the Abrahamic 
 " covenant, essentially the covenant of grace, has sus- 
 " tained, is, that, although previous to the death of 
 " Christ, it recognized only the posterity of Abraham, 
 " subsequently to that event it has received ' all the 
 " nations.' In that state of covenanted privilege, 
 " whatever it be, in which Dr. Wardlaw places the 
 " children of believers, do I, without respect of per- 
 " sons, place the children of all men. Before the 
 " advent of Christ, one nation was blessed in Abra- 
 " ham ; since the advent, in him are blessed all the 
 " families of the earth. Before the advent, Abraham 
 " was inheritor of Canaan ; since, he is become heir 
 " of the world. The termination of the special pri- 
 vileges of the Jews, is the equal bestowment of 
 "them, without their speciality, upon all mankind: 
 " — the fall of Israel is the riches of the world : — the 
 " casting away of Israel is the reconciling of the 
 " world. The seed of the woman, represented by 
 " Christ, has succeeded, in external privilege, to the 
 "race of Abraham. All the Gentiles are branches 
 " engrafted into the holy root of Abraham, not on 
 
282 APPENDIX. 
 
 " account of their faith, (for the Jews were not en- 
 " grafted by faith), and yet standing by faith, as by 
 " unbelief they, like the Jews, may be cut off. The 
 " relation, therefore, is merely external, like that of 
 " Israel, and refers to external privileges. On account 
 " of that relation, no man can now be called common 
 " or unclean. Every Gentile now, as distinctly as was 
 " every Jew, is born entitled to the external privileges 
 " of the gospel. Dying in infancy, he is saved by the 
 " death of Christ ; — surviving, he has an inceptive 
 " right, conferred by grace, to salvation by faith in 
 " Christ, the forfeiture of which he incurs by unbelief, 
 " or by what may be considered the guilty act, equiva- 
 " lent to unbelief, which, in Heathen darkness, leaves 
 " him without excuse. On these principles, we claim 
 " all that is valuable in the reasonings of Dr. Wardlaw 
 " on the Abrahamic covenant (how much is valuable 
 " let those say who have carefully studied it) for all 
 " Gentile children ; who are, as we believe, in the 
 "exact position, as to privilege, in which he places 
 " the children of believers. Should it be asked, Were 
 " not Gentiles in this state before the advent of 
 " Christ ? — we reply, In so far as they were, it was 
 " * the mystery ' hidden from the foundation of the 
 " world ; and therefore, under the law of circumcision, 
 " no rule of administration for the ancient church. I 
 " have — and I ought to confess it candidly — some 
 " serious objections to the acknowledgment of bap- 
 " tism as the substitute for circumcision ; but how far 
 " these objections on the one hand, and the argument 
 " from the analogy on the other, should avail, the 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 283 
 
 " more appropriate place to consider will be in an- 
 " other lectnre on the specific reasons in favour of 
 " infant baptism, and the objections which are alleged 
 "against it. All I at present assert is, that the 
 " reasoning of my friend, be it valid or invalid, cannot 
 "limit the commission to the children of believers ; 
 " and, so far as it is valid, I put in a claim to it on 
 " behalf of ' all the nations.' " — Pages 543—545. 
 
 Here is the omission of which I complain, in all its 
 glaringness ; the increased extension of the church 
 under the Gospel dispensation, to the entire over- 
 looking of what was equally predicted — its increased 
 spirituality and purity. I am confounded at this. 
 On reading the paragraph, I was ready to ask, Has 
 my worthy non-conforming friend relinquished dissent, 
 and become an advocate of national churches ? Here 
 he is, taking up, and that in its widest and most 
 licentious extent, the very ground which such advo- 
 cates occupy, when they plead the example of the 
 church of Israel ; when they insist upon placing Gen- 
 tile nations in a corresponding ecclesiastical position 
 to that of the nation of Israel ; upon having now, as 
 of old, the nation and the church co-extensive. In 
 contradistinction to this, the sentiment which I have 
 ever maintained, — and beyond which I should be 
 sorry to think that any reasoning of mine could be 
 made available, — is, that the church's nationality is at 
 an end, — that it ceased, and ceased for ever, when the 
 old dispensation " vanished away," and the new was 
 introduced and established. The church became 
 more select and spiritual. Gentiles and Jews, it is 
 
284 APPENDIX. 
 
 true, were, on equal terms, incorporated in it ; but 
 they were converted Jews and converted Gentiles, 
 " washed, and sanctified, and justified in the name of 
 the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God," — con- 
 stituting, unitedly, the "holy nation." — I must re- 
 peat my amazement at the oversight of this essential 
 part of the argument. The principles avowed in the 
 preceding extract, if fairly followed out, go far, in my 
 apprehension, to obliterate the distinction between the 
 church and the world. If the sentence — " the ter- 
 " mination of the special privileges of the Jews, is the 
 " equal bestowment of them, without their speciality, 
 " upon all mankind " — contains a truth, in the sense 
 in which the designation "all mankind" is used by 
 Dr. Halley, — that is, as embracing " all the nations " 
 without discrimination of faith or character; — then 
 must this truth extend to all New Testament ordin- 
 ances. The ' * special privileges " of the Jews included 
 of course all the ordinances of the church under the 
 former economy. And if the " special privileges " of 
 the church under the new economy are now the equal 
 right of "all mankind," on what principle is it possible 
 for Dr. Halley to exclude from the Lord's Supper — 
 the great commemorative ordinance of the New Testa- 
 ment — any one who asks admission to it 1 Every Jew 
 could demand admission to the passover : and if " all 
 mankind" — "all the nations" — are, in regard to the 
 new institutions, on the same footing with the Jews 
 in regard to the old, then may every Gentile demand 
 his place at the Christian festival, as every Jew de- 
 manded his at the Jewish. " Every Gentile now, as 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 285 
 
 ' ( distinctly as was every Jew, is bora entitled to the 
 " external privileges of the gospel." Is not the Lord's 
 Supper one of these "external privileges?" Has 
 every man, then, a birth-right privilege to sit down 
 there ? So he ought to have, if this representation be 
 a correct one. Yet Dr. Halley is far from allowing 
 free admission to the one christian ordinance, though 
 he demands it, indiscriminately, to the other. Re- 
 specting the Lord's Supper, he says, page 502 — 
 " Faith is a prerequisite ; and therefore we maintain 
 " that no unbeliever has ever sacramentally commemo- 
 " rated the death of Christ." I am unable to make 
 out the consistency of this. Every circumcised Jew, 
 unless when under any temporary ceremonial disquali- 
 fication, was entitled and bound to keep the passover. 
 On what principle, then, — if the cases are parallel 
 except in the one particular of extension, can there be 
 restriction in regard to the Lord's Supper, when there 
 is none as to baptism ? If every circumcised Jew was 
 entitled to the passover, must not every baptized 
 Gentile be entitled to the Lord's Supper? Can a 
 single proof be produced from the New Testament, 
 of persons having been baptized and yet not being 
 admissible to church-membership, and the table of 
 the Lord? On the day of Pentecost — "As many 
 "as gladly received Peter's words were baptized: — 
 " and the same day there were added unto them 
 " about three thousand souls. And they continued 
 " stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and the fel- 
 " lowship, and the breaking of bread, and the pray- 
 "ers." Acts ii. 41, 42. In what case do we find 
 
286 APPENDIX. 
 
 it otherwise? Let an instance be pointed out of 
 any who were baptized not being " added unto the 
 church," — and, consequently, observing all church 
 ordinances : — an instance of a person or persons being 
 baptized without a profession of faith, and being after- 
 wards, upon a profession of faith, admitted to church- 
 membership and to the Lord's table. If faith was not 
 a prerequisite to baptism, — and faith was a prerequi- 
 site to communion at the Lord's Supper, — how comes 
 it that we have no such cases? The entire New 
 Testament, in its historical and epistolary parts alike, 
 bears me out in the affirmation that no further pro- 
 fession than that which was made in order to baptism 
 was, in any case, required in order to admission to 
 the church and to the table of the Lord. I know of 
 no other evidence of a profession of faith having been 
 called for in order to admission to church-fellowship, 
 than that which exists of such profession preceding 
 baptism, and being a prerequisite to its administra- 
 tion. — Dr. Halley " puts in a claim for my reasoning 
 " — on behalf of 'all the nations.'" But do "all 
 nations," as such, constitute now the church of God ? 
 It is surely for no such ''enlargement" as this that 
 my friend means to plead. And yet, if it be not, it is 
 nothing to his purpose. Ancient privileges were the 
 privileges of the church — of the church as then con- 
 stituted. And are not New Testament privileges 
 privileges of the church too — of the church as now 
 constituted ? — Had Dr. Halley limited his conclusion 
 to the church as gathered out of all nations, it would 
 have been correct. But when he insists on baptism 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 287 
 
 unrestrictedly for "all the nations" as such, independ- 
 ently of faith or the profession of it, — and yet equally 
 insists on the necessity of a restriction in regard to 
 church-membership and the Lord's table, and on the 
 indispensableness of faith to these, — he institutes a 
 distinction which the New Testament does not seem 
 to me anywhere to recognize. 
 
 No part of the extract on which I am commenting, 
 astonishes me more than the use made of the cutting 
 off of the Jews and the grafting in of the Gentiles, — 
 the figure employed by the Apostle in the eleventh 
 chapter of the epistle to the Romans ; — especially 
 when I look at the connexion of the figure in the 
 chapter. The previous context relates to the casting 
 off of the mass of the Jewish people for their unbe- 
 lief, and the retaining of the believing and spiritual 
 portion of that people designated the " remnant ac- 
 cording to the election of grace" — verse 5. Now, it 
 is with them — with this spiritual remnant — that the 
 Gentiles are " grafted in." Is it, then, all the Gen- 
 tiles that are so grafted ? We might reasonably ask 
 — how can it be ? It would be a strange incongruity 
 indeed. Why all the Gentiles, any more than all the 
 Jews? Why an " election of grace" among the lat- 
 ter, and not among the former ? Why are the Jews 
 as a nation cut off, that the Gentiles as nations may 
 be grafted in ? And yet such is the position my 
 friend lays down : — " All the Gentiles are branches 
 " engrafted into the holy root of Abraham, not on 
 " account of their faith (for the Jews were not en- 
 " grafted by faith) ; and yet standing by faith, as by 
 
288 APPENDIX. 
 
 " unbelief they, like the Jews, may be cut off." — 
 This is truly surprising. I grant, and in the Disser- 
 tation have insisted on it, that the whole argument of 
 the Apostle goes to prove the Church into which the 
 Gentiles are introduced to be the same with that out 
 of which the Jews were cast, only in a re-modelled 
 and purified form, " the wicked being shaken out of 
 it." But, if Dr. H. be right, instead of increased 
 spirituality and purity, there would only be the exten- 
 sion of corruption and worldliness. The Gentiles are 
 grafted in, it seems, "not on account of their faith, 
 for the Jews were not engrafted by faith." Strange ! 
 Did not the Jews, when they were taken into cove- 
 nant with the God of their fathers, " avouch Jehovah 
 to be their God?" Did they not, when Moses 
 " sprinkled the Book and all the people, saying, This 
 "is the blood of the covenant which God hath en- 
 " joined unto you," — reply "All that the Lord hath 
 " said unto us will we do, and be obedient ?" And 
 was not this obedience, — thus promised, though the 
 engagement was so often falsified, — the obedience of 
 faith ? And surely when the Apostle says that " for 
 unbelief they were broken off," and that " if they 
 " abide not still in unbelief, they shall be grafted in 
 " again," it is a natural and fair conclusion that it was 
 on the ground of professed faith they were grafted in 
 before. And if it is " by faith that the Gentiles 
 stand" — that is, retain their connexion with the root 
 and their covenant blessings, how can it be that it was 
 not by their faith that they were brought into this 
 connexion? Must they not have obtained by faith 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 289 
 
 that which by faith alone they keep? — In a word, 
 how can Dr. H. make it out that " all the Gentiles" 
 are " branches engrafted into the holy root," when 
 the Apostle so manifestly specifies the distinction 
 between those who were " cut out of the olive tree 
 " which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary 
 " to nature into the good olive tree," and those who 
 continued in connexion with the wild olive tree, or 
 rather continued to constitute that tree? — Let the 
 reader consider all these incongruities, — and especially 
 the incongruity of all the Gentiles being engrafted 
 into the olive tree (which symbolizes the Church of 
 God) with the believing remnant of the Jews ; and I 
 cannot but think he will see reason to agree with me, 
 that the Apostle is speaking, not of all the Gentiles 
 any more than of all the Jews, but of the converted 
 portions of both, as united by their common faith, 
 and " partaking together of the root and fatness of 
 the same tree," — the privileges, and blessings, and 
 hopes of " the Israel of God." I fondly trust, that 
 my friend himself, on mature re-consideration, may 
 perceive the unsoundness of his principle of reason- 
 ing; that he will be sensible of the incongruity of 
 regarding " the Abrahamic covenant, essentially the 
 covenant of grace," which, " previously to the death 
 of Christ, recognized only the posterity of Abraham," 
 as having "subsequently to that event, received all 
 the nations'' — in such an undiscriminating and whole- 
 sale sense as that in which he uses and reiterates the 
 phrase. For, in that case, what good reason can be 
 assigned for the national rejection of the Jews at the 
 
290 APPENDIX. 
 
 fulness of time ? If " all the nations" as such came to 
 be embraced in the covenant, why should the Jewish 
 nation as such be thrown out ? Their national char- 
 acter was just a compound of faith and unbelief, of 
 godliness and wickedness, like that of other nations : 
 so that if others, in this their mixed condition, came 
 to be embraced in the covenant, why should they not 
 be retained in it ? I do hope too that he will perceive 
 the defectiveness of his argument, when he dwells so 
 exclusively on the enlargement of the covenant's com- 
 prehensiveness under the new dispensation, and so 
 sadly overlooks the predicted improvement in the 
 selectness and spiritual character of its subjects. — Dr. 
 H. speaks of all children as being alike entitled to 
 baptism, and of no unbelief on the part of the parent 
 having any power to exclude his children from the 
 precious birthright. But I would put it to my friend, 
 to tell me, wherein consists its preciousness ? What 
 is the amount of its value to the children of unbeliev- 
 ers ? — what the benefit they derive from it ? Unless 
 the ordinance, when administered to children, is felt 
 as a privilege by the parent, — such a recognition of 
 covenant promise as proves a stimulus to the dis- 
 charge of the duties of the parental trust, and to the 
 exercise of believing and importunate prayer to the 
 God of the covenant for a blessing on the duties dis- 
 charged, and for the verification, by this means, of 
 his gracious engagements, — what is the rite, in the 
 way of boon or benefit, to them ? When so viewed 
 and so felt, I see a rational ground on which I can 
 understand and interpret the words privilege, and 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 291 
 
 benefit, and blessing, in regard to children. I cannot 
 otherwise. 
 
 Did I consider these points of difference between 
 my friend and myself as merely speculative, and pos- 
 sessing no practical bearing, I should not think it 
 worth my while thus to expend time and argument 
 upon them. But they are far from being of this de- 
 scription. They have a practical bearing. I regard 
 them as not only unscriptural, but perilously so to the 
 constitution and character of the New Testament 
 Church ; as tending, if consistently followed out, to 
 undermine and destroy it as a spiritual and separate 
 community. This may appear more fully, — as also 
 the inconsistency of Dr. H.'s principles with his 
 actual practice, — -when, having thus adverted to his 
 direct attack on my own argument, I return to the 
 discussion of his more general reasonings. And s fbr 
 the sake of the best interests of the Church of God, 
 and, through the Church, of the world at large, I 
 entreat my friend's earnest and candid attention. 
 
 Dr. Halley begins with a critical discussion of the 
 terms of the commission given by our Lord to his 
 apostles — Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, " Go ye, therefore, 
 " and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name 
 " of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 " Spirit ; teaching them to observe all things whatso- 
 " ever I have commanded you." — There are two verbs 
 in these verses, which by our translators are rendered 
 in the same way — teach and teaching. The former of 
 the two Dr. Halley, with most other critics, renders 
 " disciple" — " Go, therefore, disciple all the nations, 
 
292 APPENDIX. 
 
 baptizing them," &c. And he thus critically com- 
 ments : " The question respecting the subjects of 
 " baptism is here resolved into one of grammar and 
 " criticism. It is simply, what is the antecedent to 
 " the word them, or for what noun is that pronoun 
 " substituted ? Going forth, disciple all the nations 
 " (7rclvrei res, Uvvi) baptizing them (avrovi) — all the na- 
 " tions, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 " and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them, all the 
 " nations, to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 " commanded you. So far as the grammatical con- 
 " struction is concerned, the meaning of the terms is 
 " precisely the same as it would be, if the words of 
 " the commission were — baptize all the nations. Ad- 
 " hering, therefore, to the grammar of the words, we 
 " say the commission, which no man has a right to 
 "alter, is — baptize all the nations." Pages 488, 489. 
 — On first reading these sentences, I was startled at 
 the unhesitating confidence with which the assump- 
 tion contained in them is made — of the identity in 
 meaning of the phrases — " Go, disciple all the na- 
 tions, baptizing them" — and " Go, baptize all the 
 nations." I had fancied it self-evidently otherwise, — 
 that the phrases were not, by any means, identical ; 
 — but, aware of my friend's superior scholarship, I 
 became distrustful of my own judgment. Reflection, 
 however, has only confirmed me in my former opinion , 
 and has augmented rather than abated my surprise. — 
 Let the reader observe : — there are three things en- 
 joined to be done — "Disciple" — "baptize" — "teach." 
 I say, then, at once — if Dr. II. be correct in affirm- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 293 
 
 ing, " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them" — to be 
 equivalent to " Go, baptize all the nations;" then am I 
 equally entitled to say, that — "Go, disciple all nations, 
 " baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, 
 "and the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all 
 " things whatsoever I have commanded you" is equi- 
 valent to — " Go, teach all nations to observe all things 
 whatsoever I have commanded you." If we may pass 
 over the discipling, and go directly to the baptizing, we 
 may pass over both the discipling and the baptizing, 
 and go directly to the teaching. If the baptizing may 
 be taken independently of the previous discipling, the 
 teaching may be taken independently of the previous 
 discipling and baptizing. In other words — if the 
 baptizing does not imply their having been first dis- 
 cipled, — neither does the teaching imply their hav- 
 ing been first discipled and baptized. And in that 
 case, we shall have a charge to "teach all nations" 
 to observe christian institutes, and perform christian 
 functions, without their having been either discipled 
 or baptized ; — that is, to teach duty apart from doc- 
 trine, and enjoin christian observances on those who 
 have made no profession of christian truth ! 
 
 I am quite at a loss to imagine, on what principle 
 Dr. H. reached his conclusion, that — " disciple, bap- 
 tizing" is the same thing with " baptize." In the 
 former case, the verb of injunction is — " disciple :" — 
 the participial adjunct " baptizing" expresses an act 
 to be done, or a form to be observed, in fulfilling the 
 injunction to " disciple." I admit that the " disci- 
 pling" and the " baptizing" have the same extent of 
 
2!)i APPENDIX. 
 
 signification ; that they both relate to " all the na- 
 tions." But the form of expression — " Go, disciple, 
 baptizing," I must contend, limits the latter to the 
 measure of success attending the attempt at the for- 
 mer. " Discijrfe" — is the charge : — " all the nations" 
 is the extent of the charge. But the charge does not 
 imply any assurance that all the nations were to be 
 actually made disciples ; or a command to effect what 
 depended, not upon them, but upon the grace of God 
 accompanying their ministry. It expresses only the 
 amplitude of the range to be embraced by them in the 
 execution of their trust ; amounting, in effect, to much 
 the same thing with the parallel charge — " Go ye into 
 " all the world, and preach the gospel to every crea- 
 " ture." The charge to " disciple" is manifestly 
 equivalent to a charge to preach with the view of 
 making disciples. And this was to be done, not 
 among the Jews only, but among the Gentiles, — 
 among " all the nations." And — " disciple, baptiz- 
 ing," I repeat, limits the baptizing to the extent of 
 their success in discipling. Separate the one from the 
 other, and what have we ? A charge, surely, very 
 unlike the Saviour's ordinary style; — very unlike the 
 spiritual character of his kingdom, and the " reason- 
 able service" required of its subjects. Understand the 
 commission as meaning — " Baptize all the nations," 
 independently of their being " discipled ;" and we 
 may well ask cui bono ? What end could it serve ? 
 What good could this opus operatum do them ? But 
 take the three parts of the commission together, in 
 their connexion with one another ; and all is intelligi- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 295 
 
 l)lc, consistent, beautifully appropriate. The gospel is 
 preached ; disciples are made ; these disciples have 
 the rite of discipular initiation administered to them ; 
 and then these baptized disciples are instructed in all 
 the observances and duties, personal and social, of the 
 christian economy. This is rational. But the charge 
 — " Go, baptize all the nations" — taken in this ab- 
 stract and independent form — seems to me to require 
 a very close search to find in it either reason or 
 common sense. 
 
 The sense we put upon the words may be confirmed 
 by the simple phraseology of the evangelist John, 
 when stating the comparative success of John the 
 Baptist's ministry and Christ's : — " When therefore 
 the Lord knew how the pharisees had heard that 
 Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John" — 
 John iv. 1 . Here is the same order. The disciples 
 are first "made," then "baptized." They are bap- 
 tized as professed disciples. — This leads me to ob- 
 serve, what is really meant by a disciple. And the 
 question here is not whether, according to its etymo- 
 logy, the word may mean simply one that learns. 
 This is not denied. But throughout the New Testa- 
 ment, the designation is used for one who professes to 
 have received the distinguishing tenets of the teacher 
 whose disciple he is. I am not in the recollection of 
 a single instance to the contrary. And this, as all are 
 aware, is in harmony with universal usage ; — the dis- 
 ciples of any philosopher or political leader being those 
 who profess adherence to his peculiar principles. We 
 may have occasion to revert to this observation again. 
 
2<jG APPENDIX. 
 
 Meanwhile we only remark, that it was those who 
 were made disciples who were baptised. They were 
 initiated by baptism, as the professed adherents, or 
 followers, of John or of Jesus. 
 
 I see no necessity for any nice grammatical disquisi- 
 tion or controversy. There are two rules of grammar, 
 respecting the reference of pronouns to their antece- 
 dents, to the one of which Dr. Halley appeals, and 
 to the other Dr. Carson. I shall not. contend for 
 either ; because I do not feel myself at all shut up 
 to the one adopted by Dr. Carson, in order to make 
 out the limitation of the " them" in the commis- 
 sion ; conceiving, as I do, that, even admitting Dr. 
 Halley' s reference of the pronoun to " all the na- 
 tions" as its antecedent, there is still, on the prin- 
 ciples I have been laying down, and independently of 
 all grammatical nicety and casuistry, evident ground 
 for such limitation. This I shall now endeavour 
 more fully to establish, in two ways: — 1. By show- 
 ing that other parts of scripture are in harmony 
 with our interpretation of this ; that they prove faith 
 — profession of faith — repentance — discipling — to pre- 
 cede, and to be a requisite to — the administration 
 of baptism ; and, consequently, that what Dr. Halley 
 calls the " great law of baptism," as contained in 
 the commission, must be understood accordingly : — 
 and, 2. That the views given by Dr. H. himself, at 
 various times throughout his volume, of the nature 
 and ends of the rite, are themselves inconsistent with 
 the unrestricted administration of it for which he 
 so earnestly pleads ; and, consequently, that Dr. II. 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 297 
 
 himself ought, in consistency, to admit our inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 1 . I am first to show, that other parts of scripture 
 are in accordance with my interpretation of the com- 
 mission. And in showing this, some additional re- 
 marks may fall to be made on the commission itself. 
 
 I certainly was wont, on this point, to lay consider- 
 able stress on the language of the evangelist Philip to 
 the Eunuch of Ethiopia, in reply to his question — 
 " What doth hinder me to be baptized?" — "if thou 
 believest with all thy heart, thou mayest" — Acts viii. 
 36, 37. I had not adverted to the more than doubt- 
 ful genuineness of the words. As I have ever made 
 it one of my canons in controversy, to build nothing 
 upon any text that is thus disputed and dubious, I at 
 once give it up : — and, if there were no other on which 
 to rest my cause, I should of course give up my cause 
 too. But the truth is, my cause can well spare it. 
 There is enough, and more than enough, without it. 
 In support of the connexion between baptism and pre- 
 vious faith, — that is, profession of faith, I first of all 
 quote the following passages : — Mark xvi. 1 6, " Go — 
 preach the gospel to every creature : he that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved :" — Acts ii. 38, " Re- 
 pent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
 of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins :" — Acts ii. 
 41. " Then they that gladly received his word were 
 baptized:'" — Acts viii. 12. "When they believed 
 Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
 of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were bap- 
 tized, both men and women :" — and verse 13, " Then 
 
298 APPENDIX. 
 
 Simon himself believed also ; and when he was bap- 
 tized, he continued with Philip," &c. : — Acts xvi. 
 14, 15. " Whose heart the Lord opened, that she 
 attended to the things which were spoken of Paul : — 
 and, when she was baptized and her household," &c. : 
 — Acts xvi. 31 — 34. And they said — " Believe on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and 
 thy house. And they spake unto him the word of 
 the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And 
 he took them the same hour of the night, and washed 
 their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straight- 
 way. And when he had brought them into his house, 
 he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in 
 God with all his house :" * — Acts xviii. 8. " And 
 many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were 
 baptized "— Gal. hi. 26, 27. "For ye are all the 
 children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
 many of us as have been baptized into Jesus Christ, 
 have put on Christ." 
 
 One should think the connexion between faith and 
 baptism ought to be sufficiently ascertained to the 
 satisfaction of any ingenuous mind, by the simple 
 reading of such texts as these. — " Our assertion is," 
 says Dr. H. " that there is no text of Holy Scripture 
 "which requires faith, or any other christian princi- 
 " pie, as a necessary prerequisite for baptism — no 
 " passage which rejects any candidate for not possess- 
 " ins it. If we are correct in this assertion, our 
 
 * It will appear by and by why I quote this passage thus at 
 length. 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 299 
 
 " Baptist friends limit the commission of our Lord ; 
 " that is, alter its terms, without any sc?'iptural antho- 
 " rity whatsoever ." * — Page 504. — Of the terms of 
 the commission we have already in part spoken, and 
 may speak again. I deny that in our interpretation 
 of it there is any limitation of those terms. My 
 surprise is, that, with such texts before him, Dr. H. 
 should make such an assertion. And my surprise is 
 not lessened, when he proceeds in these words — 
 " When we say that as the restriction is not in the 
 " commission, we must require express authority for 
 " its insertion, it is surely nothing to the purpose to 
 " tell us that ' many believed and were baptized ;' 
 ''because the question is not whether we ought to 
 " baptize believers, but whether we ought to baptize 
 " no other than believers. Good men were baptized 
 " by the Apostles, and so were bad men. No argu- 
 "ment can depend upon the one fact or the other, 
 " unless it can be shown, on the one side, that the 
 " Apostles and their assistants baptized only such as 
 " they believed to be genuine converts, or, on the 
 " other, that they baptized indiscriminately all appli- 
 " cants, leaving their characters to be formed and 
 "tested by subsequent events" — page 505: — and 
 when, a little further on, he goes one or two steps 
 further in giving emphasis to his assertion : — " We 
 " maintain, there is no direct, nor indirect, nor inci- 
 " dental evidence in favour of limiting baptism to 
 "believers:" — and again — "Have they (the Bap- 
 
 * The Italics here are Dr. Halley's. 
 
300 APPENDIX. 
 
 " tists), a text, which indirectly supports them by 
 " excluding from baptism unbelievers, or unconverted 
 " men, or, in short, excluding any persons whatever?" 
 —Page 506. 
 
 On these extraordinary sentences (for to me they 
 are very extraordinary) I offer the following brief 
 remarks ; for in truth I feel as if I might leave it to 
 my reader to form his own judgment of them, after a 
 simple perusal of the before-cited texts. — 1. I have 
 no objection to the statement that the apostles bap- 
 tized " all applicants," — provided application be un- 
 derstood to imply professing to receive their doctrine : 
 — nor have I any objection, further, to the statement 
 that they received such applicants, "leaving their 
 characters to be formed and tested by subsequent 
 events :" — that is, not waiting till the genuineness of 
 the professed reception of the doctrine, involved in the 
 application, had been tried and satisfactorily ascer- 
 tained. I have frequently thought that missionaries 
 have gone to an extreme in the opposite direction from 
 Dr. Halley, when they have kept professed converts 
 for a length of time in the position of candidates for 
 baptism. — 2. The true and only question is — whe- 
 ther the apostles ever baptized, or ordered to be bap- 
 tized, any who did not thus profess to have received 
 their doctrine ; — and whether they ever baptized but 
 on the assumption of the truth of such profession. 
 Let a solitary instance be produced of any one being 
 baptized without such profession. " The apostles," 
 Dr. H. says, (in terms that would almost tempt one 
 to imagine it his opinion that to the apostles, so far as 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 301 
 
 tism was concerned, it was a matter of no con- 
 sideration whether those they baptized were the one 
 or the other) " baptized bad men as well as good." I 
 ask — knowing them to be such? — or not regarding 
 them at the time as the subjects of an incipient 
 change ? Cases of men who afterwards proved insin- 
 cere, or turned out bad, are not to the purpose. The 
 question relates, not to the established sincerity of the 
 faith professed, but to the profession of it ; not to the 
 proved and developed change of heart and character, 
 but to the assumption of its commencement. In- 
 stances of the baptism of believers, my friend alleges, 
 are nothing to the purpose, when the question is "not 
 whether we ought to baptize believers, but whether 
 we ought to baptize no other than believers." Where, 
 then, are his instances of the baptism of unbelievers ? 
 And they must be instances, be it remembered, not of 
 persons turning out unbelievers after their baptism, 
 but of persons regarded as unbelievers when they 
 were baptized. — 3. While there are no such instances 
 of unbeliever baptism that can be produced, — of the 
 baptism, that is, of known unbelievers, or of persons 
 not regarded at the time as believers, — neither is there 
 any language, in the history, or in the epistles, con- 
 firmatory of the interpretation put by Dr. H. upon 
 the commission, similar to that which we have been 
 quoting on the other side. If Dr. H.'s interpretation 
 of the commission were the true one, it might surely 
 be reasonably expected that we should find a phrase- 
 ology corresponding to it in the rest of the New Tes- 
 tament. Where is it? We have seen how, in New 
 
302 APPENDIX. 
 
 Testament phraseology, baptism is connected with 
 faith, with repentance, with the glad reception of the 
 word, with the opening of the heart to attend to it, 
 &c. Is there any phraseology of a different kind ? — 
 any corresponding to the unrestricted administration 
 of the ordinance, — to the indiscriminate admission to 
 it of believers and unbelievers, of penitent and impeni- 
 tent, of those who had heard the truth and professed 
 acquiescence in it, and those who were only willing or 
 even desirous to hear it, and who, having heard it, 
 might turn away from it ? If, then, in every instance 
 in which apostolic baptism is spoken of, whether in the 
 history, or in the epistles, the phraseology employed 
 is in harmony with one view of the commission, and, 
 apart from the commission itself, there is actually no 
 phraseology to be found in harmony with the other, — 
 ought not the conclusion to be, that my friend is under 
 some mistake in his application of his grammar rules, 
 and that the other is its real meaning? — 4. Where are 
 the instances, in point of fact, by which Dr. Halley es- 
 tablishes his position that the apostles made no discri- 
 mination, but baptized unbelievers as well as believers, 
 bad men as well as good ? If he has not correspond- 
 ing phraseology, has he corresponding cases? We 
 think we have deprived him of the cases which he 
 alleges to have occurred in such multitudes under 
 John's baptism, by disproving its identity with chris- 
 tian baptism. — He must not have recourse to those 
 epistles, in which Paul writes so doubtfully about the 
 faith and character of some of the members ; for he 
 must bear in mind that these members, even supposing 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 303 
 
 them as numerous and as unworthy as he will, had 
 been admitted not to baptism merely, but to the 
 Lord's Supper and all the privileges of church-fellow- 
 ship ; which would warrant the inference of a great 
 deal more than he himself would subscribe to, and 
 thus, by proving too much, prove nothing ; and the 
 inscriptions of the epistles show "what manner of 
 persons" they ought all to have been, and he had 
 believed them all originally to be. One case, how- 
 ever, there is ; and, like that of Onesimus with the 
 advocates of slavery, being a rare, it is a favourite 
 one. It is that of Simon Magus. But it is at least 
 as surprising that it should be cited in evidence on 
 this subject, as that Onesimus should be summoned 
 as a witness on the other. It is not enough to say 
 that it furnishes no proof on Dr. Halley's side, — it 
 ranks amongst proofs against him. Nothing can be 
 clearer, than that it was on a profession of his faith 
 that he was baptized: — "Then Simon himself be- 
 lieved also ; and when he was baptized,"" &c. This 
 follows the general statement already cited among 
 examples of prevailing phraseology — "When they 
 " believed Philip preaching the things pertaining to the 
 "kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they 
 " were baptized, both men and women." Is it not a 
 legitimate inference from these words, that if there 
 had been no believing, there would have been no bap- 
 tizing ? Well : — Simon, like the rest, professed faith, 
 and, like the rest, was baptized on the credit of that 
 profession. Grant that he subsequently turned out a 
 wicked man. What of that? Who ever argued that 
 
304 APPENDIX. 
 
 in those times the administrators of baptism were, in 
 all cases, guided by any infallible " discernment of 
 spirits?" — that they knew the heart of every one 
 whom they baptized? All that is pleaded for is a 
 previous profession of faith, and such a profession as 
 there was not, at the time, reason to question in regard 
 to its sincerity. Was there such reason here ? We 
 are apt to think so, because we know the result. But 
 it does not at all appear that there was ; or even that, 
 on the part of Philip, there was any undue precipitancy. 
 Simon professed to believe what Philip preached : — 
 and he " continued with Philip " after his baptism, 
 both "hearing" his instructions and "seeing the 
 miracles which he did." Appearances would seem to 
 have been in favour of his sincerity. It was not for 
 Philip to fathom the depths of deceit that were in 
 such a heart. The very circumstance of his being 
 what he was, a thorough adept in the arts of imposi- 
 tion, leads us to conclude that the insincerity of the 
 profession was the better covered, — that the feint was 
 the liker to a reality. If we are not to suppose that 
 Simon was for the time really and powerfully awakened 
 and impressed by what he heard and saw, and under 
 the sway of a strong, though, as it proved, a passing 
 conviction ; then must we believe that he was " very 
 deep," — that he affected to wonder at the miracles, 
 and to own supernatural and divine power in them, 
 while he was only wishing, with inquisitive and self- 
 interested curiosity, to find out how they were done. 
 His worldly sordidness afterwards discovered itself. 
 But at the time of his baptism, it was the secret of 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 305 
 
 his own bosom. Philip was not to blame. There 
 was no hasty and reprehensible credulity. The very 
 relinquishment of magic, with all its credit, and all its 
 profit, and all its influence, for the profession of the 
 gospel, might appear in his eyes one of the most sig- 
 nal triumphs the truth had won. It was, then, on a 
 profession of faith, and a profession which, at the time 
 and in the circumstances in which it was made, there 
 was no ground to question, that Simon Magus was bap- 
 tized. And is this one instance of such a profession 
 turning out a deception to be set against all the evi- 
 dence of a profession of faith being connected with 
 baptism, as a prerequisite and a preliminary ? — especi- 
 ally when it is itself a case of such profession? — I only 
 add — 5. Is baptism a christian rite, — an institute of 
 the spiritual kingdom of Christ? — Regarding it as 
 such, I see in it propriety, congruity, sense, and 
 beauty, when administered as the form of initiation 
 into the profession of the gospel, and the new life of 
 purity and separation from the world, and subjection 
 to Christ. But a christian rite, to be administered 
 indiscriminately to believers and unbelievers, to bad 
 men as well as to good ; a christian rite that indicates 
 nothing distinctively christian, — no knowledge and 
 faith of christian truth, or profession founded upon 
 them, — no transition from the world to the christian 
 church, — no incipient Christianity, — no adoption of 
 christian principles, or commencement of a christian 
 course : — this is a thing I cannot understand. What 
 is it? What does it mean? What truth does it 
 teach ? What benefit does it confer ? It is a rite 
 
306 APPENDIX. 
 
 connected with a kingdom which is not of this world, 
 yet whose administration serves to confound the world 
 with the kingdom, instead of keeping the two apart : 
 — a rite in which the true convert professes his faith, 
 but which, at the same time, does not mean that he is 
 a believer, for unbelievers may legitimately be baptized 
 along with him ! What privilege, in these circum- 
 stances, can it be, either to believer or unbeliever? 
 Not to the former, for it is common to him with the 
 unbeliever, and indicates no distinction; not to the 
 latter, for, being thus common, it can have no other 
 effect than to deceive him. — I am at a loss to imagine 
 what the satisfaction or pleasure can be to a christian 
 minister in this indiscriminate administration of a 
 christian rite ; or what can be the motive of so zealous 
 a pleading for the taking off of restrictions, and for 
 liberty to baptize where baptism can only delude. Is 
 such freedom really a privilege 1 Wherein does the 
 privilege consist — to the administrator, any more than 
 to the subject, of the ordinance ? Is it that it saves 
 him the trouble, or the delicacy, or the sometimes pain- 
 ful fidelity, of discrimination ? I am most unwilling to 
 believe, or even surmise, a motive so unworthy. But 
 if, in any instance, it does, even unconsciously, oper- 
 ate, I fear it is at the cost of others, — the fearful cost, 
 in some cases, of the delusion of their souls. It is a 
 liberty which savours too much of licentiousness, to 
 be a part of that wherewith Christ has made us free. 
 
 Dr. Halley speaks in terms rather contemptuous 
 of the " ingenuity " with which some " most respect- 
 able writers" " elicit a sort of argument that faith and 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 307 
 
 repentance should precede baptism" from such expres- 
 sions as those we have been referring to — " Whoso- 
 ever believeth and is baptized shall be saved" — " Re- 
 pent and be baptized." " As little to the purpose," 
 he says, " is it to cite such passages ;" nor would he 
 have thought it worth his while to " detain his 
 readers with such a remark," but for the respectability 
 of the writers by whom this ingenuity is practised. 
 But what ingenuity does the argument require to 
 bring it out ? The argument itself lies on the very 
 surface ; and yet it is not superficial. Let any reader 
 only re-peruse the texts cited, and say whether he can 
 resist the conclusion that they imply professed faith 
 and repentance as a prerequisite to baptism ; — or the 
 order — " hearing, believing, and being baptized" — as 
 the order of apostolic practice, and consequently of 
 Christ's appointment. — "This ingenuity," adds Dr. 
 H. " may be employed on the other side. ' And now, 
 " why tarriest thou V said Ananias to Saul ; f Arise 
 "and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.' The 
 " argument, from the order of the words, sound or 
 " unsound let others determine, — is, that baptism 
 "should precede the remission of sins." Page 505. 
 Is my friend in earnest? He is — he must be. High 
 as my estimate is of his intellect, I can much more 
 easily believe him reduced by the pinching poverty 
 of his cause to the use of a weak argument, than 
 capable of employing a dishonest one. I question 
 whether, of all the intelligent readers that ever 
 perused the narrative of the interview of Ananias 
 with Saul, there has been one who has understood 
 
308 APPENDIX. 
 
 the words of the former to the latter just cited, as 
 meaning anything else than that in the act itself of 
 being baptized there was an emblematic representation 
 of the washing away of sins, and a profession of that 
 faith through which the remission of sins is obtained. 
 Who ever thought otherwise than that " be baptized " 
 and "ivash away thy sins" referred to the same thing 
 — in the emblem and in the reality, — just as " being 
 born of water and of the Spirit " means having the 
 reality signified by the emblem, as well as the em- 
 blem itself? — "When the apostle Paul says — " If thou 
 shalt confess ivith thy mouth the Lord Jesus," " and 
 shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him 
 from the dead, thou shalt be saved," — it were a 
 strange conclusion to draw from his words, that con- 
 fessing with the mouth must precede believing in the 
 heart. The true order is given immediately after — 
 " For with the heart man believeth unto righteous- 
 ness, and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation." — And to me it appears that the passages 
 before enumerated express as plainly and explicitly the 
 precedence of faith to baptism as this does the prece- 
 dence of faith to confession ; — the baptism, in truth, 
 being the form of incipient confession, — the emble- 
 matic avowal of having embraced Christ's cause. 
 
 But we must now follow Dr. Ilalley a little in his 
 examination of particular passages. Our argument 
 will lose nothing by this, but gain at every step. 
 
 Mark xvi. 16, "Go ye into all the world, and 
 preach the gospel to every creature : — he that believ- 
 eth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that be- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 309 
 
 lieveth not shall be damned." — " In answering the 
 question," says Dr. Halley, " 'Who will be saved?' by 
 " saying ' he that believeth and is baptized,' we have 
 " the full and complete meaning of the passage. But 
 " this is no answer to the question, Who are to be 
 " baptized ?" Page 507. No ! I grant that the words 
 institute a connexion between the first two and the 
 third, — between " believing and being baptized " and 
 " being saved :" but do they express no connexion 
 between the first and the second, — between the faith 
 and the baptism ? It is the denial of this that sur- 
 prises me. It is matter-of-fact, that in the words our 
 Lord connects both with being saved. There is no 
 questioning this. On what principle, then? we ask. 
 If a connexion be admitted between the faith and the 
 baptism, the principle is at once manifest. The bap- 
 tism is the avowal of the faith, — the profession of 
 discipleship, — the incipient confession of Christ. So 
 that " he that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved " amounts to very much the same thing with 
 the apostle's statement just adverted to, in which he 
 connects salvation not only with " believing in the 
 heart" but with " confessing with the mouth." The 
 baptism, in our Lord's phraseology, holds the same 
 place as the confession in the apostle's. 
 
 I would not cite this text " as if it were an append- 
 age to the baptismal commission and spoken by our 
 Lord in immediate continuation of the words recorded 
 by Matthew," — as my friend alleges is sometimes 
 done. It is no " appendage." It is no " con- 
 tinuation." It is itself the baptismal commission in 
 
310 APPENDIX. 
 
 other words. Without at all inquiring into the parti- 
 cular interviews at which the words in Matthew and 
 the words in Mark were respectively addressed to the 
 apostles by their master, it is enough to observe that 
 by both evangelists they are considered as final 
 charges. Immediately on recording them, Mark adds 
 — " So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, 
 he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right 
 hand of God :" — and that the commission, as given by 
 Matthew, is final, no one denies. Now to me it ap- 
 pears very plain, that in the one and in the other the 
 order prescribed is the same, and that by each that of 
 the other is confirmed. Comparing the words — " Go, 
 disciple all nations, baptizing them," with the words 
 — " Go, preach the gospel to every creature ; he that 
 believeth and is baptized shall be saved," I cannot 
 hesitate in avowing my conviction that the compari- 
 son shows the natural meaning of the former to be 
 — " he that becomes a disciple and is baptized shall 
 be saved," — that the one is thus equivalent to the 
 other. 
 
 " If it be asked," Dr. H. subsequently remarks, 
 " why belief should be mentioned before baptism, we 
 " reply, — as one must be mentioned before the other, 
 " there may have been no specific reason for the 
 " preference ; — or the reason may have been in the 
 c< circumstances of the address, and now may be of no 
 11 importance ; — or usually it was to be expected, that 
 " persons would first believe and then apply for bap- 
 " tism." Page 509. This is taking the matter 
 lightly enough, to be sure. Were the words of him 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 311 
 
 who " spoke as never man spoke " thus ill-assorted 
 and inexplicit 1 No matter whether faith precedes 
 baptism, or baptism precedes faith, — 'tis all the same! 
 There is something in this so devoid of all definiteness 
 and precision, that I cannot imagine it the language 
 of a commission. Dr. H. himself contends for ex- 
 plicitness in the terms of such a commission, and 
 demands that they shall not be altered. But is there 
 any explicitness in the sense he affixes to either form 
 of it ? and is it no unwarrantable tampering with the 
 terms, to invert the order of the leading particulars, 
 — and, when our Lord places discipling and believing 
 before baptizing, to affirm that baptizing may as 
 well be first? If believers and unbelievers were to 
 be baptized indiscriminately, we might expect to find 
 occasionally such an inversion. The words of the 
 commission might, with equal propriety, have run — 
 "Go, baptise all nations, discipling them:" — and 
 " Go, preach the gospel to every creature ; he that 
 is baptized and believeth shall be saved." I repeat 
 the question, is there ever anything of the kind to be 
 found ? My worthy friend appears, in spite of him- 
 self, to be somewhat fretted at the uniformly iden- 
 tical collocation of the words ; and testy at being 
 questioned at all about its cause or causes. After 
 assigning, as above, the various reasons that might 
 account for it, he adds — "We, however, must pro- 
 " test against the assumption that reasons for the 
 " collocation of words are to be demanded in contro- 
 " versy. That he who believeth and is baptized shall 
 " be saved, we are bound to believe ; but why be- 
 
312 APPENDIX. 
 
 " lief should be mentioned before baptism, we are not 
 "bound to explain." No ! not even when an impor- 
 tant principle, and one that must regulate practice in 
 the administration of a divine ordinance, depends on 
 the collocation ? — and when that collocation is uniform 
 too, — without a solitary exception? Let my reader 
 present me with a single text in which the collocation 
 is inverted ; in which the preacher admonishes his 
 hearers — "Be baptized and repent every one of you;" 
 or the historian relates — " Many hearing, were bap- 
 tized and believed :" — and I shall yield my point. 
 
 I think it not unworthy of notice, in confirmation 
 of the remarks on this text, that they so happily 
 accord with the fact of baptism being omitted in the 
 second, or negative portion of it. It is not said " He 
 that believeth not, and is not baptized" — but simply 
 " He that believeth not — shall be damned." The 
 consistency and propriety of the omission are instantly 
 apparent on the principle of interpretation for which 
 we contend. Understanding " He that believeth and 
 is baptized" as signifying (what it naturally does 
 signify) — he that believeth and by submission to the 
 initiatory rite, avows his faith, — thus " confessing 
 Christ," — we are prepared for the omission. The 
 supposition is never made that "he that believeth 
 not " should be baptized. Baptism being the profes- 
 sion of faith, — " he that believeth not and is not bap- 
 tized" would have been tautological and superfluous : 
 — as superfluous as if we should suppose it said, " He 
 that believeth and confesseth shall be saved ; but he 
 that believeth not and confesseth not shall be con- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 313 
 
 demned. — There may be another reason for the omis- 
 sion, I freely grant ; namely, that it is not the absence 
 of the baptism, but the absence of the faith, that is to 
 condemn. Had the non-baptism been associated with 
 the unbelief as procuring the condemnation, — grievous 
 as the amount of self-delusion has been in attaching 
 virtue to the opus operatum, there is reason to appre- 
 hend it might have been incalculably more extensive 
 and fatal. But the reason I have assigned is in per- 
 fect harmony with this ; so that both may have their 
 respective proportions of weight. 
 
 By Dr. Halley's remarks on Acts ii. 37, 38, I must 
 confess myself utterly confounded. When Peter's 
 hearers, on the day of Pentecost, "were pricked in 
 their hearts, and said — Men and brethren, what shall 
 we do V — he replied — " Repent, and be baptized, 
 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the 
 remission of sins." — Surely, from the form of address, 
 it is very natural to consider their repentance as in order 
 to their baptism, and their baptism as the declaration 
 or profession of their repentance or change of mind. 
 If this is not natural, I know not what is. But no : — 
 nothing of the kind. " Peter exhorted every inquirer 
 " to repent. We cannot suppose that, in exhorting 
 " them to repentance, he made any selection ; and the 
 " exhortation itself implies that, however anxious 
 " might have been their inquiry, they had not then 
 " repented, or at least were not then to be recognized 
 " as penitents. Nevertheless, he exhorted those 
 "whom, without discrimination, he called to repent, 
 " to be also baptized every one of them. It would be 
 
314 APPENDIX. 
 
 " to our purpose to prove, that without any discri- 
 " urination he exhorted a multitude of inquirers to be 
 " baptized. It is more to our purpose to show, that 
 " those who were regarded as not having repented 
 " were exhorted without delay to be ' baptized every 
 " one in the name of Christ.' They were told to be 
 " baptized for the remission of sins. Neither we nor 
 " our opponents believe that baptism would procure 
 " the remission of sins : but, whatever our opponents 
 " may understand by the phrase, we cannot explain it 
 " upon their theory, that the parties were not to be 
 " baptized until after their sins were forgiven. The 
 " conclusion appears to me inevitable, that persons 
 " who were not supposed to have repented, and whose 
 " sins were therefore not thought to be pardoned, were 
 " exhorted indiscriminately to be baptized. Is this 
 " compatible with the opinion that faith and repent- 
 "ance were prerequisites for baptism? Would any 
 " Baptist minister at this time exhort a multitude of 
 " strangers, in the first moments of alarm, to repent 
 "and be baptized every one of them? Would he 
 "exhort them in one breath to repent and be bap- 
 " tized ; that is, would he exhort any, being con- 
 " sidered at the time as not having repented, to be 
 "baptized?" Pages 513, 514. 
 
 Were I not well aware of the depth of keel and 
 the breadth of beam by which my friend's intel- 
 lect is characterized, I really should have feared that, 
 through some mysterious fatality, it had foundered 
 here altogether. For to what does this entire para- 
 graph amount, if not to this — that when Peter ex- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 315 
 
 horts his auditors — " Repent, and be baptized," he 
 means "Be baptized, whether you repent or not?" 
 — I do most confidently deny, that he did by any 
 means " exhort those whom without discrimination 
 " he called upon to repent, to be also baptized every 
 "one of them;" — that is, (if the also have any 
 meaning) indiscriminately, and independently of their 
 repentance. I most confidently deny, that " those 
 " who were regarded as not having repented were 
 " exhorted without delay to be baptized every one in 
 " the name of Christ." On what principle of exe- 
 gesis does Dr. H. proceed, when with a " that is" he 
 identifies the exhortation to " repent and be baptized" 
 with " exhorting any, being considered at the time as 
 "not having repented, to be baptized?" That at the 
 time when Peter exhorted them to repentance, they 
 were " not considered as having repented," who 
 denies ? But the time when Peter so exhorted them 
 was not the time of their baptism. Their baptism 
 was still future — still to be. "Repent" comes be- 
 tween. It precedes the exhortation to baptism, and 
 the baptism follows upon the repentance. — I am un- 
 able to account for the explanation given by my friend 
 of this passage, except on the ground of his taking a 
 mistaken view of the repentance required. Peter had 
 borne his testimony, along with the other ten apostles, 
 to the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus of Nazar- 
 eth ; — had declared " Him whom by wicked hands 
 they had crucified and slain" to have been "made 
 both Lord and Christ." Before their eyes, and in 
 their ears, were the most marvellous and overpowering 
 
316 APPENDIX. 
 
 evidences of the truth of the testimony. But the 
 blood of this very Jesus they had, with infatuated 
 rashness and impiety, imprecated upon themselves 
 and upon their children. They were now, there- 
 fore, filled with alarm. Their consciences were 
 awakened ; and their awakened consciences " pricked 
 their hearts." They experienced the agony of a 
 "wounded spirit." Their guilt, they saw and felt, 
 was deep. The question of questions was — Could it 
 be forgiven ? Yes, says Peter, it can be forgiven : — 
 " repent and be baptized, every one of you, for the 
 remission of sins." Repent — of the wickedness with 
 which you stand chargeable in the rejection and cruci- 
 fixion of Him to whom God has borne his unequivocal 
 attestation. Let what you now see and hear convince 
 you of your error and your sin. Change your minds. 
 Relinquish your opposition, and acknowledge in Jesus 
 the true Messiah and Saviour. In testimony of this 
 change of mind, and of this penitent acknowledgment, 
 submit to the initiatory rite of baptism in his name. 
 Thus, heavy as the load of their guilt is, your sins 
 shall be remitted, freely, fully, and for ever ! — We are 
 not left to suppose that the admonition — " repent and 
 be baptized every one of you for the remission of 
 sins," — or even that all which appears in the record of 
 what Peter delivered, was the whole amount of in- 
 struction previously communicated to the converts : 
 — for it is added immediately — "With many other 
 words did he testify and exhort, saying, save your- 
 selves from this untoward generation." Nor was 
 Peter the only speaker. All the other apostles, 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 317 
 
 there is every reason to believe, were more or less 
 engaged. It was a day's work. "The same day 
 there were added to them about three thousand 
 souls." And how were they added? The answer 
 is — " Then they that gladly received his word were 
 baptized." All is thus still consistent. The passage 
 is in perfect harmony with the others. — And yet 
 here again I am confounded : — "If he said to the 
 " crowd of inquirers — Be baptized every one of you, 
 " it is obvious that he was ready to baptize any one." 
 But he said no such thing. He said "Repent, and 
 be baptized." Dr. H. is not entitled thus to separate 
 the one from the other. " If, however," he says, 
 "contrary to all fair interpretation, any insist that 
 " they were to repent, and, after satisfactory evi- 
 " dence of repentance, they were to be baptized, we 
 " are brought to appeal again to the sacred history. 
 " 'Then they that gladly received his word were bap- 
 " tized ; and the same day there were added to them 
 " about three thousand souls.' But evangelical re- 
 "pentance is not a thing of which any sinner can 
 " assure himself in a few hours, — not a thing of which 
 " he can furnish satisfactory evidence to others in ' the 
 ". same day,' — nor of which he ought to receive an 
 " assurance at the moment of his first serious impres- 
 "sions." Pages 515, 516. — Surely, when the terms 
 of exhortation are — " repent and be baptized," we may 
 be permitted strongly to demur to its being repre- 
 sented as " contrary to all fair rules of interpretation " 
 to " insist that they were first to repent." We con- 
 ceive this to be what every reader will naturally con- 
 
318 APPENDIX. 
 
 elude, who follows any " fair rules of interpretation " 
 at all. — But it is in the latter part of the sentences 
 just cited that I conceive my friend's error to lie. The 
 evidence by which the sincerity of professed repent- 
 ance is evinced, may be a thing of more than hours or 
 even days : — although the period of probation will be 
 shorter or longer according to the special circumstances 
 of each case ; there being some cases, in which the 
 very character of the crisis in which the repentance is 
 professed may be held as an adequate guarantee of its 
 unfeignedness : — nor ought we to forget the rapidity 
 with which the Holy Spirit can open the mind to the 
 perception, and the heart to the subduing influence, 
 of the truth of God. The present was a case of ex- 
 traordinary peculiarity. The repentance was the re- 
 sult of evidence such as, under that Spirit's influence, 
 flashed instantaneous conviction upon their minds ; 
 gave them to see what they had felt and said and 
 done against Jesus of Nazareth in a new light ; filled 
 them with emotions unfelt before, — the emotions of 
 conscious guilt, and trembling apprehension, and in- 
 tense anxiety : — so that, the instant the offer of forgive- 
 ness and mercy was set before the penitent, the heart 
 was melted, the fear quelled, the anxiety relieved, the 
 fountain of godly sorrow opened, and opened along 
 with a secret spring of new and inexpressible joy. — In 
 such circumstances, the avowal of a change of mind, 
 the acknowledgment of him whom they had "despised 
 and rejected" as the true Messiah and the only Savi- 
 our, — and that too in the face of exasperated authori- 
 ties and a still hostile multitude, — was a sufficient 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 319 
 
 voucher for the sincerity of those by whom it was 
 made. It is altogether a gratuitous assumption, that 
 we require waiting till the professed repentance and 
 faith be subjected to a certain process or period of 
 probation. Who contends for such a thing ? What 
 we insist upon is simply such a profession as, in the 
 circumstances in which it is made, there is no reason, 
 in the judgment of charity, to suspect. Such a pro- 
 fession, surely, was that made by the thousands of the 
 pentecostal converts. We admit, as the general rule, 
 — from which there ought to be no departure but in 
 reasonably suspicious cases, — that the genuineness of 
 the profession is to be tested subsequently to the bap- 
 tism. What we plead for is, that there must be pro- 
 fession, — and profession believed at the time to be 
 genuine : — and that this is the plain meaning of — 
 "Repent, and be baptized." 
 
 If Dr. Halley's " opinion is confirmed as he pro- 
 ceeds," so is mine ; and so is my wonder at his. His 
 next text is Acts viii. 12, 13, "But when they be- 
 lieved Philip, preaching the things concerning the 
 kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they 
 were baptized both men and women. Then Simon 
 himself believed also : and when he was baptized, he 
 continued with Philip, wondering, and beholding the 
 miracles and signs which were done." On this pas- 
 sage, however, in both its parts, I have already had 
 occasion to comment, and must not resume its discus- 
 sion. — But " still the wonder grows," as I proceed to 
 another. It is that which records the baptism of Saul 
 by Ananias : — not in the direct narrative of Saul's 
 
320 APPENDIX. 
 
 conversion in Acts ix., but in the account given of the 
 interview by Saul himself to his countrymen in Acts 
 xxii. : and especially the terms of verse 16 — "And 
 now, why tarriest thou ! Arise, and be baptized, and 
 wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the 
 Lord." — " Ananias," Dr. H. says, " did not require 
 " the washing away of sin as a prerequisite to bap- 
 " tism ; that is, Ananias did not administer believer's 
 "baptism." Page 520. Indeed! and is Saul to be 
 regarded as still not a believer, after he had "seen 
 Jesus Christ the Lord," — had "heard the voice of 
 his mouth," — and, after hearing him say "I am 
 Jesus whom thou persecutest," had owned him, and 
 owned his authority, in the question, "Lord, what 
 wilt thou have me to do?" — had received from him 
 his commission, to Jews and Gentiles, "to open their 
 eyes, and to turn them from darkness unto light, 
 and from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
 might receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance 
 among all them that are sanctified, by faith that is 
 in him!" — Saul not a believer, when Ananias ad- 
 dresses him by the Christian designation of " Brother 
 Saul!" — "Ananias went his way" (in obedience 
 to the command of Jesus given him in vision) " and 
 entered into the house ; and, putting his hands on 
 him, said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus that 
 appeared unto thee in the way as thou earnest, hath 
 sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and 
 be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately 
 there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; and 
 he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was bap- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 321 
 
 tized." — Acts ix. 17, 18. And was he an unbeliever 
 still, — even when, by the restoration of his sight, he 
 had a fresh miraculous attestation that He by the 
 vision of whose glory he had been struck blind was 
 indeed " Jesus whom he had persecuted?" — Surely, 
 if ever there was a case in which there was evidence 
 of faith previous to baptism, this is one. The very 
 question — "Why tarriest thou?" — has a meaning 
 which, in such circumstances, can hardly be mistaken. 
 The question implies, on the part of Ananias, a con- 
 viction that there was no room for delay ; that, as one 
 to whom the Lord had shown mercy, and who had 
 " believed through grace," Saul should instantly offer 
 himself to the initiatory rite of baptism, which was 
 the appointed and customary mode of avowing the 
 faith, and entering on the Christian service. There 
 ought not, I think, to be any doubt that the injunction 
 "wash away thy sins" has reference to the use of 
 the cleansing element of water in the ordinance. The 
 real amount of the injunction is — Make the requisite 
 profession of faith in him " whose blood cleanseth 
 from all sin." Dr. H. does not hold the doctrine that 
 either justification or sanctification is conferred by 
 the opus operatuin of baptism. Neither did Ananias. 
 And neither, allow me to say, do those who interpret 
 " arise and be baptized" as expressing in the emblem 
 what "wash away thy sins" expresses in the reality. 
 Dr. H. says — "What right have any to represent 
 " the performance of a spiritual duty, as if it meant 
 " only to observe the ritual which represents that 
 " duty ?" Page 521. " Only /" But who says only ? 
 • x 
 
322 APPENDIX. 
 
 Who says that the " washing away of sins" is only 
 baptism ? — that the thing signified is only the sign ? 
 If a Tractarian chooses to look upon and to represent 
 baptism as literally and really the washing away of 
 sin, whether in its guilt, or its pollution, or both, it 
 does not follow that we are precluded from regarding 
 it as emblematically the washing away of sin. Ac- 
 cording to the sentence just quoted, we are to regard 
 " baptism" and the "washing away of sins" as two 
 distinct things ; and the injunctions " be baptized " 
 and " wash away thy sins " as two distinct injunc- 
 tions ; of which the one was first to be obeyed, and 
 then the other to be attended to subsequently : so 
 that, when Saul had been baptized, he was to remain 
 unforgiven and unrenewed, and was to lay to heart 
 these spiritual concerns thereafter ! — after his baptism, 
 he was to be justified and regenerated ! I can hardly 
 avoid fancying myself mistaken in supposing my friend 
 to attach such a meaning to the words ; and yet I 
 cannot understand him otherwise. Does not every 
 simple-minded reader of the passage consider the 
 command or exhortation " wash away thy sins " as 
 bearing reference to the previous command " be bap- 
 tized?" "Arise, and be baptized, and" in being thus 
 baptized " wash away thy sins?" Have we, then, in 
 this, it may be asked, baptismal regeneration ? No. 
 But we have, what is not unfrequent in scripture, the 
 sign placed in association with the thing signified ; an 
 intelligent and believing submission to the one being 
 the recognition and appropriation of the other. — The 
 case is similar, when it is said — " Except a man be 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 323 
 
 born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven" — John iii. 5. We agree that 
 there is in reality no such thing as being " born of 
 water." But here, as in the other case, the sign and 
 the thing signified are placed in juxtaposition, to con- 
 vey, we presume, the sentiment that the former with- 
 out the latter is of no avail ; that unless a man have 
 the thing signified as well as the sign, — regeneration 
 by the Spirit as well as its symbol, he cannot have a 
 spiritual status in the kingdom of God, either on earth 
 or in heaven. And that the baptism with water is 
 simply introduced as the emblem of what follows, is 
 further indicated by the circumstance of its being left 
 out in the subsequent statements — " The wind bloweth 
 where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, 
 but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it 
 goeth : — so is every one that is bom of the Spirit" — 
 verse 8. Indeed, I am strongly inclined to think that 
 the idea intended to be conveyed by our Lord is akin 
 to that expressed by the Baptist, when, comparing 
 his own ministry with that of Him whose forerunner 
 he was, he says — " I indeed baptize you with water ; 
 
 but one mightier than I cometh' he shall baptize 
 
 you with the Holy Ghost." May not our Lord's 
 words, then, be intended to convey to Nicodemus the 
 assurance that his having received the water-baptism 
 of John was not enough, — that in order to his being 
 a true subject of Messiah's kingdom, it was neces- 
 sary that he should be a partaker of that baptism of 
 the Spirit which John had declared it the peculiar 
 prerogative of " Him who should come after him" to 
 
324 APPENDIX. 
 
 confer. — At any rate, just as " water and the Spirit" 
 are placed together in this instance, as sign and thing 
 signified, — so in the other are "being baptized" and 
 "the washing away of sins," — "The name of the 
 "sign may be used to denote the thing signified ; but 
 " the name of the thing signified never denotes the 
 " sign. Baptism may mean holiness ; but holiness 
 " never means baptism. Such a mode of interpreta- 
 " tion we reject, as totally unauthorised, and as being 
 " the life and spirit of Tractarianism. There are no 
 " instances of it to be adduced. It is contrary to all 
 " the analogies of speech. To dilute the washing 
 " away of sins to a figurative representation, is as un- 
 " authorized a process as to convert the grace of the 
 " Holy Ghost into the emblems of the pentecost." 
 Page 521. Most freely granted. And yet, may not 
 even the emblems of the pentecost furnish us with an 
 additional illustration of the union of the thing signi- 
 fied with its emblem, without, any intention to repre- 
 sent them as properly distinct things, — but as one 
 and the same thing emblematically and literally ex- 
 pressed? Thus — "He shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Ghost and with fire." Fire was one of " the 
 emblems of the pentecost." It is coupled here with 
 "the Holy Ghost," — not as a distinct baptism, far 
 less as " converting the grace of the Holy Ghost into 
 its emblem ;" but simply as the symbol which was to 
 accompany and denote the reality : — " He shall bap- 
 tize you with the Holy Ghost — and with fire" as the 
 outward sign of the spiritual effusion. Thus the 
 language of Ananias to Saul — " Arise, and be bap- 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 325 
 
 tized, and wash away thy sins"' — may be considered 
 as amounting to — Submit to the outward rite, which 
 emblematically represents the washing away of sins, — 
 thus confessing thy faith in the source from which the 
 blessings of remission and purification come.' — "To 
 wash away sin," we agree with Dr. H., "is a solemn 
 " reality, not a ceremonial representation." Ibid. But 
 the question is — not whether it be, but whether it 
 have, a ceremonial representation. That it has, will 
 not be denied, — nor that baptism is that representa- 
 tion. Now to me it appears equally beyond a ques- 
 tion, that in the address of Ananias to Saul there 
 is no "converting" of the thing signified into its 
 sign, — of the "solemn reality" into its "ceremonial 
 representation ;" but an injunction to observe the 
 "sign," or "ceremonial representation," in token of 
 the reception of the thing signified, or the " solemn 
 reality." 
 
 In regard to the baptism of Cornelius and his 
 household, — of Lydia, — and of the Philippian jailor, 
 — Dr. H. finds the same difficulty as in the former 
 case, from the suddenness of the change, and the im- 
 possibility of its reality being duly tested and ascer- 
 tained when the rite of baptism was administered. 
 In the first of these cases, " the parties were baptized 
 on the day in which they first heard the preaching of 
 the gospel :" — in the second, Lydia " was baptized 
 with her household on her interview with the apostle 
 Paul, before she returned to her house, having then, 
 for the first time in her life, heard the preaching of 
 the gospel :" — and in the third, the Philippian jailor 
 
326 APPENDIX. 
 
 " was baptized on the night of the earthquake, within 
 an hour or two of the time in which he was about to 
 commit suicide." Page 523. — What of that? I re- 
 peat. Can the gospel, under the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit, not prove itself " the power of God unto 
 salvation" at one hearing? — and take such an imme- 
 diate and mighty hold of the heart too as to produce 
 instant and manifest indications of the sincerity with 
 which it is received? — indications, such as, in the 
 judgment of even a discriminating charity, to leave no 
 reasonable doubt of the work being divine ? — Was not 
 the descent of the Spirit on Cornelius and his house- 
 hold the divine certificate that " to the Gentiles God 
 had" by the preaching of Peter " granted repentance 
 unto life?" — and does not Peter place his plea for 
 baptism on this very ground — "Who can forbid 
 water, that these should not be baptized, who have 
 received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" — Was not 
 the baptism of Lydia the consequence of " the Lord's 
 opening her heart that she attended to the things 
 which were spoken by Paul," — and the evidence of 
 Paul and Silas (to use her own expression) " having 
 judged her to be faithful to the Lord ?" — And as to 
 the Philippian jailor, a similar question might, with 
 the same confidence, be put. But I have something 
 more to say of that case, — something which I would 
 rather not have had to say. It is, that my friend's 
 wonted candour seems, in this instance, to have some- 
 how misgiven. He says — " For no evidence of repen- 
 tance did Paul wait. The same hour of the night 
 the jailor was baptized : — and after his baptism, not 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 327 
 
 previously to it, we are told he believed in God with 
 all his house."* Page 524. Now this last repre- 
 sentation is by no means correct. And yet it is on 
 the correctness of it that all depends. Look at the 
 facts. In reply to the jailor's question, "What must 
 I do to be saved?" Paul and Silas had given the 
 brief, simple, and memorable reply — " Believe in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
 house." Then they more fully "spake the word of 
 the Lord unto all that were in his house." Then 
 the jailor was baptized with his household, — "he 
 and all his straightway." When it is added — "And 
 when he had brought them into his house, he set 
 meat before them and rejoiced, believing in God with 
 all his house;" — nothing, surely, can be clearer than 
 that this is a statement, not of his believing subse- 
 quently to his having been baptized, but of his re- 
 joicing in that which he had previously believed, — 
 of the gladness of heart with which his belief of the 
 truth had filled him. With equal conclusiveness 
 might Dr. Halley, from the mere collocation of the 
 words, have inferred that his believing came after 
 his rejoicing, as that it came after his being baptized. 
 The very expression — "he rejoiced, believing"' — 
 manifestly implies his being at the time in a believing 
 state of mind, and his experiencing a happiness unfelt 
 before from the truth which he had received, — a 
 happiness in which his believing family participated. 
 — This interpretation of "he rejoiced believing" 
 
 * The Italics are mine. 
 
328 APPENDIX. 
 
 into an intimation that it was then that he believed, 
 is, if possible, even more untenable (though proceed- 
 ing on the same mistaken principle) than the identi- 
 fication of — " Go, disciple, baptizing" with " Go, 
 baptize." The jailor's is still a case of " hearing, 
 believing, and being baptized." He had been bap- 
 tized into the faith of the gospel testimony; and 
 the faith filled himself and family with personal and 
 social joy. — And all this is confirmed by the circum- 
 stance of the participle in the original, translated 
 "believing," being in the perfect tense — 7rt7ri<rTivKa<;, 
 — "having believed." 
 
 The statement, therefore, which follows, I am con- 
 strained to say, is very wide of the plain truth : — " As 
 " to the jailor, we do not know that he himself was a 
 " believer when he was baptized. He was not a be- 
 " liever a short time before ; he was a believer a short 
 " time afterwards : but whether his baptism preceded 
 " his belief, or his belief preceded his baptism, we do 
 " not know. All I know is, that his baptism with 
 " his household is mentioned first, and his believing 
 "with his house is reported afterwards, in the sacred 
 "narrative." Page 525. This, I repeat, is wide of 
 the truth. The first injunction is — "Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
 house:" — the instruction as to what w r as to be believed 
 came next: — and when we find the baptism of himself 
 and household following, — and compare the fact with 
 the words of our Lord's commission to his apostles, 
 the order of which Paul without question observed, 
 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," — 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 329 
 
 we should be quite warranted in the conclusion that 
 the jailor professed his faith of the truth spoken to 
 himself and family before he was baptized. As for the 
 latter part of the statement, — that " his baptism with 
 his household is mentioned first, and his believing 
 with his house is reported afterwards," — it is not 
 true; — not true in any sense that can suit Dr. Halley's 
 purpose : — and I shrink from characterizing the re- 
 presentation as I might have been tempted to do, had 
 it come from some other quarter, where ingenuous 
 candour was less a distinguishing virtue. The jailor 
 is not said to have believed afterwards, but to have 
 "rejoiced believing." It is the joy, not the faith, 
 that is recorded as subsequent. 
 
 Finally, I must say that few things have ever as- 
 tonished me more than the broad unqualified conclu- 
 sion to which Dr. Halley comes: — "Were any one 
 " to form his opinion from these historical notes with- 
 " out any previous bias, would he not conclude that 
 " baptism was indiscriminately administered, without 
 " any qualification whatever ? There is not in one of 
 " them the slightest intimation of any prerequisite." 
 Page 526. " Not the slightest ! " — "Not in any one 
 of them ! " — " None whatever !" There is a reckless- 
 ness in all this, for which I am unable to account. I 
 must not presume to pronounce myself " without any 
 previous bias." I have, however, endeavoured as 
 much as possible to divest myself of it ; and the con- 
 clusion to which I have come is, — without the slight- 
 est hesitation, — without one if or but, — the precise 
 opposite of what Dr. H. thinks so manifest. And 
 
330 APPENDIX. 
 
 my wonder at his so thinking does not abate when 1 
 reflect on what my respected friend has himself ad- 
 mitted — passim, in every part of his volume — about 
 the nature and design of christian baptism, and the 
 designations and descriptions under which he intro- 
 duces it. — This was the second point which I under- 
 took to show. 
 
 2. I did feel surprise, in perusing the volume, at the 
 variety of expressions incidentally used by Dr. H. 
 which seemed to imply the sentiment that baptism 
 presupposed a profession of faith in the doctrine 
 taught. — Thus, even with regard to the baptism of 
 John, he says — page 162 — "John had to teach a 
 " new doctrine. He was commissioned to declare that 
 " the kingdom of heaven was at hand. The older 
 " prophets had described the reign of Messiah ; John 
 " announced his advent. The near approach of that 
 " reign was the new doctrine, which attracted the 
 " attention of great multitudes, who received baptism 
 "from him, and were thenceforward called his dis- 
 " ciples. That his baptism was regarded as the in- 
 " itiatory rite by which the Jews were made disciples 
 " of John, is evident from the words of the evange- 
 " list : — ' the Pharisees heard that Jesus made and 
 "baptized more disciples than John/ Those that 
 " Jesus baptized were called his disciples ; those that 
 " John baptized were his disciples. So closely were 
 "the baptism and the new doctrine connected, that 
 "the one term seems to be employed for the other. 
 "'The baptism of John' (the new doctrine) 'was 
 " it from heaven or of men?' 'After the baptism' 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 331 
 
 " (the doctrine) * which John preached.' To be bap- 
 tized, then, was to be 'initiated as a disciple, or 
 " learner of the new doctrine — the speedy coming of 
 " Christ.' " 
 
 Many remarks suggest themselves here. First : — 
 baptism is designated the "initiatory rite" to dis- 
 cipleship, — whether to Jesus or to John. "To be 
 " baptized was to be initiated as a disciple, or learner, 
 " of the new doctrine — the speedy coming of Christ." 
 — Secondly : — Dr. Halley frees his theory of any 
 previous profession of faith in the doctrine taught, 
 by his definition, or explanation, of the designation 
 disciple, contained in the words — "or learner." I 
 demur to this. Though a disciple does mean a 
 learner, yet in the New Testament, this is not the 
 sense in which, as already observed, the designation is 
 employed. It invariably denotes there, not one who 
 merely comes to be taught, and submits to instruc- 
 tion, without at all committing himself to the doc- 
 trine of the teacher — but one who has heard, and 
 who professes to receive, the lessons, and becomes an 
 avowed adherent of the master from whom he has 
 learned them. Nowhere is any one called a disciple 
 there, who merely presented himself as a learner, 
 holding himself at liberty to receive or reject what 
 was taught when he had heard and considered it ; nor 
 can a single example be produced of any one having 
 been baptized in such a predicament. — Thirdly : — 
 When Dr. Halley speaks of baptism as the rite by 
 which "the Jews were made disciples of John," I 
 am not sure of the correctness of the representation. 
 
332 APPENDIX. 
 
 We have before adverted to the terms of the evange- 
 list, that "Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
 than John ;" terms, according to which they were 
 not made by baptism, but made and then baptized, 
 — made disciples by their acceptance of the doctrine, 
 and initiated by baptism into their new position, as 
 the followers of the Master whose doctrine they had 
 embraced. " Those that Jesus baptized were called 
 " his disciples ; those that John baptized were his 
 " disciples." Does not the designation in this very 
 sentence mean, not merely persons come to learn, 
 but followers, adherents, of Jesus and John respec- 
 tively, — professed believers in their authority, and 
 in the truth of what they taught ? — Fourthly : — let 
 my reader mark the close connexion, as stated by 
 Dr. H., between the doctrine and the baptism, — 
 a connexion so close, that the one is used, interchange- 
 ably, for the other ; "the baptism of John " for 
 " the new doctrine " taught by him : — and yet the 
 baptism is not to be understood as implying any pre- 
 vious understanding, or professed reception, of the 
 doctrine ! If the baptism and the doctrine are thus 
 interchangeable, it is surely not easy to imagine any 
 one submitting to the baptism otherwise than as re- 
 ceiving the doctrine. Does not the very question put 
 by our Lord — "The baptism of John, was it from 
 heaven, or of men?'* — imply that those who sub- 
 mitted to that baptism acknowledged it, with John's 
 commission and doctrine, to be from heaven ? — 
 Fifthly : — It would seem as if Dr. H. conceived that 
 not all but some only of the baptized were taught 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 333 
 
 John's doctrine ; and even these subsequently to their 
 baptism. He writes — "The amount of what we 
 "learn from the evangelical history is, that multi- 
 " tudes received the rite of baptism from John, and 
 "many of them were taught the new doctrine on 
 "which he founded his exhortation to repentance." 
 Page 163. But is not this entirely a gratis dictum ? 
 Where is the proof of one more than another being 
 baptized ivithout being " taught the new doctrine on 
 which he founded his admonition to repentance ? " 
 Is not the very same thing said in the narrative res- 
 pecting all alike ? Nay, the very next sentence in 
 Dr. H. himself overturns every such distinction be- 
 tween the taught and the untaught, — between the 
 baptized with instruction and the baptized without 
 it : — " It is, indeed, said, they were baptized confess- 
 " ing their sins ; but whether they uttered an audible 
 " confession as they stood in crowds listening to his 
 " preaching, or their baptism itself was an act of 
 " confession, an acknowledgment that they needed re- 
 " pentance, we are not able to ascertain." Nor is it 
 at all necessary that we should; for it is no matter 
 which. It is quite enough that they were baptized 
 " confessing their sins ;" such confession amounting 
 to the very same thing with professing repentance. 
 And there cannot be a reasonable question, when the 
 call to repentance was enforced by the proclamation 
 of "the new doctrine" as the motive, that their sub- 
 mission to baptism involved, along with confession of 
 sin and profession of repentance, an avowal of faith in 
 that doctrine, — of their belief in the immediate ap- 
 
334 APPENDIX. 
 
 proach of the kingdom of God. — It appears to me, 
 that in laying hold of particular expressions, and 
 making the most of them, Dr. H. has forgotten the 
 extreme brevity of the narrative, and has proceeded 
 on the manifestly false assumption that no more was 
 said by John, and that no more passed between him 
 and the people that " came to his baptism," than the 
 few short words which the Spirit has thought fit to 
 put on record. 
 
 Another exemplification of the inconsistency of the 
 principle of Dr. Halley's theory with his own inci- 
 dental admissions — (not accidental, for the admissions 
 are essential to his reasoning at the time when they 
 are introduced, — but incidental) — occurs in page 1 64 
 — " Have we, then, any right to assume, in contradic- 
 tion to the letter of the text, that there was any 
 " selection, any test of fitness, any thing required be- 
 " yond the application of the parties to receive the 
 " sign of his doctrine ? It seems to have been the duty 
 " of every Jew to enrol himself as an expectant of the 
 " coming Messiah, or, what was the same thing, as a 
 " disciple of John. The pharisees and lawyers, in not 
 " being baptized of him, "rejected the counsel of God 
 " against themselves." — Now here observe — First : — 
 if baptism was "the sign of his doctrine," did not 
 application for, and actual submission to, the sign, 
 imply the professed reception of the doctrine ? The 
 doctrine was that of the Messiah being immediately 
 to come; and those Jews who "enrolled themselves" 
 by baptism as "the disciples of John" eurolled them- 
 selves, at the same time, as is here admitted, as 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 335 
 
 "expectants of this coming Messiah," — which is the 
 same thing with enrolling themselves, or being bap- 
 tized, as believers of his doctrine. — And secondly : — 
 this is confirmed by what is here said of the pharisees 
 and the lawyers ; for if, in not being baptized of John, 
 they "rejected the counsel of God against themselves," 
 those who ivere baptized of him must be regarded as, 
 by profession at least, receiving that counsel. This 
 is enough. Let the numbers have been as great as 
 you may choose to make them ; let the profession 
 have been made in what way soever you may conceive 
 most likely ; and let it, in as many instances as facts 
 can prove or fancy may please to imagine, have proved 
 insincere and abortive : — that which we plead for is, 
 that the profession was made, and that on the foot- 
 ing of it baptism was administered ; and that this 
 is essential to the consistency of Dr. Halley's own 
 statements. 
 
 The entire strain, indeed, of my esteemed friend's 
 phraseology, does seem to me remarkably out of har- 
 mony with the great general principle of his theory. — 
 At page 7, baptism is represented as " the initiatory 
 rite of the christian church," and, in common with 
 the Lord's Supper (the church's " commemorative 
 institution") " a symbolic representation of evangeli- 
 cal truth:" — at page 81, as "the sign of disciple- 
 ship," and as "in the first instance, enjoined upon 
 every proselyte," — If it was " the initiatory rite of 
 the christian church," it was the rite by which mem- 
 bers were initiated, or introduced, into the christian 
 church. And was this in dependant of any profession 
 
336 APPENDIX. 
 
 of faith and repentance ? — And if it was " enjoined 
 on every proselyte," — what was a proselyte but a pro- 
 fessed recipient of the new doctrine, — a professed 
 convert to the new faith ? — At page 95, it is — " the 
 sign of purification on being admitted into the king- 
 dom of Christ :" — at page 293, " the emblem of the 
 cleansing of the heart by the truth and spirit of 
 Christ : " — at page 229, " the visible sign of that new 
 birth, of which regeneration is the internal reality." 
 And yet to a rite of which such things are said there 
 is to be indiscriminate admission : — no faith, no re- 
 pentance, no purification, no new birth, no cleansing 
 of the heart, no one of those things of which it is the 
 sign and the symbol, and which are indispensable to 
 any one's "introduction into the church of God," — 
 is at all to be regarded ! — every prerequisite being an 
 unauthorised limitation of an unrestricted and un- 
 qualified commission! Is there not great incongruity, 
 — nay, is there not something very like profanation, 
 — in the administration of an ordinance of which such 
 representations are given, thus indiscriminately — to 
 believing and unbelieving, to penitent and impenitent, 
 to renewed and unrenewed, to men of any character or 
 of no character, to bad as well as good ? 
 
 But still more. On various occasions Dr. H. actu- 
 ally admits faith — that is, faith in profession — to be a 
 prerequisite to baptism ; even although his whole ar- 
 gument on this subject is in support of the contrary. 
 He cannot get quit of the connexion. So reasonable 
 is it, and so clear is the New Testament about it, — 
 that he finds it in spite of himself, and it comes out 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 337 
 
 at unawares. " That central point of controversy 
 "respecting infant baptism, on which the whole de- 
 " pends, appears to be, so far as I can judge, whether 
 " faith be or be not the proper qualification for bap- 
 "tism" — page 113. Of this " central point of con- 
 troversy," it is his leading object to affirm and argue 
 the negative. Yet, when reasoning, and reasoning 
 admirably, on the subject of baptismal regeneration, 
 we find him thus expressing himself — I quote at large, 
 that I may shun the charge of partial citation : — " If 
 " the sinner believe in Christ, or believe the evangeli- 
 " cal message, that Christ Jesus is the only Saviour, 
 " who died for his sins and lives again for his justifi- 
 " cation, he is regenerate and justified : but if he do 
 " not so believe in Christ, he can be neither regener- 
 " ate nor justified. The man is not at this point to 
 " be taught to look to the charm of a sacrament ; he 
 "is not to be told that he will certainly believe, or 
 " will be more likely to believe, or, believing, will be 
 " regenerate, if he be baptized, baptism being the in- 
 " variable, or the usual means of regeneration. Such 
 " a direction is felt to be inconsistent with the simple 
 " declaration of the gospel ; yet such a direction is the 
 " natural and proper consequence of regeneration by 
 " baptism, in whatever manner it be explained. If a 
 "person receives the sacrament with proper disposi- 
 " tions, with faith, without which it is impossible to 
 "please God, he is already a believer, and therefore 
 " regenerate : he believes in the mystery of baptism, 
 " the truth set forth in the sign. If he does not 
 " believe, he does not receive the sacrament worthily, 
 
 Y 
 
338 APPENDIX. 
 
 " and therefore lie is not regenerate by the observance 
 " of the means. For spiritual blessings a man must 
 " look, not to the sacraments, but to the cross ; and 
 " instantly, before his believing eye, without a shade, 
 " Christ Jesus is made of God unto him wisdom, 
 "righteousness, sanctification, and redemption." — 
 Pages 103, 104. — Thus writes my friend, judiciously 
 and well, when he is not in the act of maintaining an 
 untenable theory. Let the reader mark the tenor of 
 the entire passage ; and especially the sentiment in 
 the sentences marked by me in italics. If " right 
 dispositions" — if "faith" be necessary to the sacra- 
 ment's being "worthily" received, the question arises, 
 ought it by any to be received otherwise than wor- 
 thily? — and if not, ought it, with the knowledge 
 of the administrator, to be administered otherwise 
 than worthily,- — administered, that is, to those whom 
 he has no reason to consider as receiving it with 
 "right dispositions," "with faith," — nay of whom 
 he has reason to think the contrary ? Surely, that 
 which would not be right in the recipient cannot well 
 be right in the administrator. — In the close of 
 the extract too, the language implies the just senti- 
 ment, in opposition to all that we have found him 
 saying about the time requisite for testing professed 
 faith and repentance, and ascertaining satisfactorily 
 the genuineness of conversion, that, under the en- 
 lightening influence of the Spirit of God, the sinner's 
 perception of the suitableness of the gospel to his 
 exigencies, and his apprehension of it to his personal 
 salvation, may at once be immediate and immediately 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 339 
 
 apparent — " For spiritual blessings a man must look 
 " not to the sacraments but to the cross ; and in- 
 <e stantly, before his believing eye, without a shade, 
 " Christ Jesus is made of God unto him wisdom, and 
 "righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption" 
 Is there any need for the delay of baptism in such a 
 case? And a large proportion of the early conver- 
 sions, — the conversions made by " the preaching of 
 the cross" in " the beginning of the gospel," there is 
 reason to think were of this description. That in 
 some instances there was appearance without reality, 
 — temporary excitement without permanent impres- 
 sion ; — that there were hasty and superficial pro- 
 fessors, who, though they had "heard the word, and 
 "anon with joy received it, had no root in them- 
 " selves, and in time of temptation fell away," — and 
 others who, after making a profession, were " choked 
 "with the cares and riches and pleasures of this 
 " life, and brought no fruit to perfection," — is not 
 denied. But these were the exceptions : and even 
 these were admitted to baptism, not indiscriminately, 
 and with no inquiry and no concern whether they 
 were believers or not, but upon a profession made of 
 faith and repentance ; just as in the case of the many 
 who " having heard the word, kept it in an honest 
 " and good heart, and brought forth fruit with pa- 
 " tience," — genuine, spiritual converts. 
 
 Again — at page 108, Dr. H. says : — " If, however, 
 " by this seal is meant nothing more than the sign or 
 " emblem of our receiving the covenant by faith, — on 
 " that supposition, the sacraments are only sacred 
 
340 APPENDIX. 
 
 " signs, symbolic observances, as we believe them to 
 " be ; although not of our acts of faith, but of the 
 " purifying and life-giving blessings of the gospel." — 
 I agree with Dr. Halley, that " faith in itself, is the 
 " reception of the covenant," and that " immediately 
 " on our belief the covenant is sealed and certain, with- 
 " out the possibility of a failure :" — but I understand 
 the hypothetical sentence now quoted as expressing a 
 view of baptism coincident with his own ; — and if it 
 is to be regarded in the light of a " sign or symbol 
 of our receiving the covenant by faith" — this is all 
 that I am desirous to establish. 
 
 In speaking, at page 119, of the case of Nicodemus, 
 Dr. H. says : — "Without at present citing the Jewish 
 " authorities, in support of the opinion that the Rab- 
 "bins, as early as the time of our Lord, called a 
 " change of religion a new birth, it is manifest, if 
 (t such was their customary language, that a master in 
 " Israel, acquainted with the traditions and usages of 
 " the people, might have been expected to understand 
 " the words of our Lord, as implying, unless a man 
 " became a subject of a change, of which baptism was 
 " the symbol and profession, he could not be ac- 
 credited as a disciple of Christ." — If our Lord's 
 words are admitted to have implied this, — that bap- 
 tism was, not the " s} T mbol" only, but the " profes- 
 sion" of that spiritual change by which a man became 
 an accredited disciple of Christ, — what can we wish 
 for more ? 
 
 In reference to the same case of Nicodemus, it is 
 said — page 14/ — " John had baptized great numbers 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 341 
 
 " of all classes, with the 'profession of the new doc- 
 " trine." What can this mean, but into the pro- 
 fessed faith of the doctrine? Hence it follows, in 
 explanation of our Lord's words — ("Verily, verily, 
 " I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and 
 " of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of 
 " God") " unless he become a proselyte by baptism, 
 "he is not, ostensibly, and as entitled to its external 
 " privileges, a member of that kingdom ; unless he 
 "become a convert by the Spirit, he is not, really 
 "and as entitled to its everlasting rewards, a mem- 
 " ber of that kingdom." — Now, besides that " be- 
 coming a proselyte by baptism" can mean nothing 
 short of professing in baptism to have embraced the 
 doctrine of the kingdom, — we may here ask, whether 
 it would have been right — consistent with the nature 
 and design of the ordinance — to admit to baptism a 
 man known not to be " a convert by the Spirit," — to 
 admit to the external rite a man known not to be a 
 partaker of the inward reality. Would my friend 
 himself do this ? — not merely not knowing the man to 
 be such, but knowing him not to be such ? Accord- 
 ing to the principles of his theory, he should have no 
 scruple to baptize an unbeliever more than a believer, 
 an unconverted more than a converted man. And yet 
 we are constrained to answer for him in the negative 
 the questions just asked. For how, with any consist- 
 ency, could he baptize a known unbeliever, when he 
 writes as follows — (he is comparing the language of 
 Rom. x. 9, with that of Tit. iii. 5, in opposition to 
 the baptismal regenerationists ; — pages 236, 237): — 
 
342 APPENDIX. 
 
 "All christians agree, that the confession was re- 
 garded only as the appropriate and obligatory ex- 
 " pression of the faith of the heart ; and so it would 
 "follow that baptism was regarded as the appropriate 
 " and only sign of the renewal of the Holy Ghost. 
 "As the apostle wrote to professed and baptized 
 " christians, his meaning, allowing him to be his own 
 " expositor, must have been, in one instance — if the 
 " confession of the mouth corresponded as a true 
 " sign with the faith of the heart, the person would be 
 " saved ; so in the other, if the washing of regenera- 
 " tion corresponded as a true sign with the renewal of 
 " the Holy Ghost, the person would be saved. Pro- 
 " fessed and baptized men were taught that their pro- 
 " fession and their baptism were or were not of avail, 
 " as they were true signs of the great and momentous 
 "realities, — faith, and the renewing of the Holy 
 " Ghost." — It is too obvious to require notice, that 
 baptism, being a sign or symbol of the regenerating 
 and purifying influence of the Holy Spirit, can never, 
 in this its simple ritual import, be anything else than 
 "a true sign." When this phrase is used, it must 
 necessarily have respect, not to baptism considered in 
 itself, but to baptism in the particular case of its 
 administration. It is a true or a false sign, according 
 as the subject of it is or is not a partaker of the 
 " great and momentous reality — the renewing of the 
 Holy Ghost ;" — and, since this renewing can only be 
 by the truth, and by the faith of the truth, — it is true 
 or false according as he is or is not a partaker of this 
 faith. The reality of the thing signified, then, must 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 343 
 
 have been presupposed in every case of the admin- 
 istration of the sign ; else we must suppose the 
 Apostles and first preachers administering the sign 
 when they knew it to be not a true sign but a false ; 
 and thus, if not uttering, acting a falsehood, and con- 
 tributing to the delusion of men's souls ! — Would 
 my friend do this 1 I answer for him in the nega- 
 tive — he ivould not. 
 
 Consistent with this is what follows, in reference 
 still to the same case : — " If to be born of water is not 
 " baptism, what was it as distinguished from the birth 
 " of the Spirit ? — This interpretation exactly applies 
 " to the character and conduct of Nicodemus. He 
 " hoped, in his timidity, or probably on account of his 
 " pharisaical connexions, to be saved without confess- 
 " ing Christ ; and Jesus would expose the vanity of 
 "the hope. The badge of a disciple must be worn 
 "by Nicodemus. Although a ruler, he was to be 
 " allowed no exemption from the ordinary profession 
 "of the members of Christ's kingdom. He must 
 " take up his cross, and enter the kingdom of God, in 
 " the same manner as a despised publican or a pol- 
 " luted Gentile." — page 148. It had just before been 
 said of Nicodemus, that, as " a ruler and a rabbi, he 
 " had not courage to submit to the baptismal service." 
 It is to it, therefore, that the language now cited re- 
 lates. In that language, baptism is " confessing 
 Christ ;" — assuming " the badge of a disciple" — i. e. 
 of a believer in and follower of Jesus ; — " the ordin- 
 ary profession of the members of Christ's kingdom ;" 
 — the initiatory rite by which, " in the same manner 
 
344 APPENDIX. 
 
 as publicans and Gentiles," he " entered that king- 
 dom." — And how all this is consistent with baptism 
 being administered promiscuously to believers and 
 unbelievers, independently of faith, or repentance, or 
 profession, or any prerequisite whatever, — I am utterly 
 at a loss to imagine. 
 
 The last thing I shall quote in evidence of my 
 second proposition — the difficulty, the impossibility, 
 experienced by Dr. Halley, of writing on the subject 
 in any thing like harmony with the principle and 
 spirit of his theory, — shall be the general sentiment, 
 tersely and forcibly expressed, in page 295 — " In any 
 " sacrament, there is nothing moral, nothing holy, 
 " nothing religious, nothing of the least worth, except 
 " conscientious obedience to Christ." — Although the 
 sentence has more immediate reference to the differ- 
 ence between baptists and paedobaptists respecting 
 the mode of baptism, yet it expresses an important 
 general principle. If " conscientious obedience to 
 Christ " be the only thing in a sacrament that can 
 impart to it any morality, or holiness, or religion, 
 or worth of any sort, what are we to think of pleading 
 for the administration of this sacrament to those who, 
 making no profession of faith, can be rendering, in 
 their submission to it, no such " conscientious obedi- 
 ence ;" seeing all acceptable obedience to Christ must 
 be the obedience of faith ? Or are we to understand 
 my friend as meaning to place the morality, the 
 holiness, the religion, the worth, of the sacrament in 
 the "conscientious obedience" of him who admin- 
 isters, not of him who receives it ? He cannot mean 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 345 
 
 this. He is not so much of a Puseyite as to place 
 either the value or the virtue of a sacrament in the 
 secret character of the administrator, or his conscien- 
 tiousness in any particular case of its administration. 
 And if, on the part of its recipient, it is altogether 
 without principle or worth, unless submitted to as an 
 act of "conscientious obedience to Christ," — where 
 is his theory of indiscriminate administration, without 
 prerequisite of any kind, to all who are willing to 
 receive it, good, bad, or indifferent ? 
 
 It is in statements such as those I have now been 
 quoting, that I regard my valued friend as right, — 
 soundly, scripturally right. But I am at a loss to 
 understand how he can consistently hold at once 
 these views and that which is involved in his general 
 theory, — and which, indeed, constitutes its very basis. 
 The one or the other, as it appears to me, must be 
 relinquished. We have seen how unsatisfactorily he 
 endeavours to explain various passages of scripture 
 so as to quadrate with the principles of that theory. 
 But those very passages require no effort to harmonize 
 them with the views which we have selected from 
 other portions of his volume. The accordance of the 
 two is manifest and perfect. And they are the only 
 views which on this subject will harmonize the Bible. 
 
 My Baptist friends will be apt to think that in the 
 second part of my appendix, I have been advocating 
 their cause, — maintaining believer baptism. And so 
 I have. In regard to adults, I am one with them. I 
 hold them, though baptists, right, and my friend 
 Dr. Halley, though a paedobaptist, wrong. But the 
 
346 APPENDIX. 
 
 question whether there be scripture authority, in the 
 form of precept, or example, or obvious implication, 
 or legitimate inference, or all the four, for baptizing 
 the infant seed of adult believers along with their 
 believing parents, is a question altogether distinct 
 from the one we have been discussing, and one 
 which must be settled by totally different evidence. 
 That evidence it has been the object of the pre- 
 ceding dissertation to produce, and to place in a 
 light as clear and convincing as I could. With 
 what success either that argument or the present 
 has been conducted, must be left with others to 
 judge. I have written freely and unreservedly, be- 
 cause I have written under a deep and grave con- 
 viction that the points in debate are very far from 
 being points of mere externalism, unimportant in 
 themselves, affecting no vital interests, and drawing 
 after them no serious consequences; — that, on the 
 contrary, they involve principles, — principles closely 
 connected with the safety and prosperity of individual 
 souls, and pregnant with good or with evil to the 
 church of God, especially in regard to its purity, and 
 spirituality, and separation from the world; the fea- 
 tures of its character that are most essential to its 
 fitness, as an instrument, both for displaying the 
 glory of Christ, and for promoting the best interests 
 of mankind. — But while, for this reason, I have writ- 
 ten freely, I have written in the conscious spirit, and 
 therefore, I may trust, also in the terms and manner, 
 of christian respect and affection. I do not say I 
 have endeavoured to do this ; for I have been sensible 
 
EXTENT OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 347 
 
 of not the slightest inclination to the contrary. Well 
 aware, however, how apt particular modes of speech 
 are to be differently interpreted by the opposite parties 
 in a discussion, I conclude by assuring the esteemed 
 and able friend and christian brother whose views I 
 have been impugning, that if, in any one instance, 
 a word or phrase has escaped my pen that has seemed 
 to his mind to indicate a state of feeling at variance 
 with what I have just expressed, and has thus given 
 him one moment's pain, it will give me still greater 
 pain to learn it ; that I must have used the word 
 or the phrase in ignorance or inconsideration of its 
 capabilities of meaning ; and that, if it is not to be 
 supposed that he should have misunderstood the one 
 or the other, he has at all events, beyond a doubt, 
 misunderstood me. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 PRINTED BY D. RUSSELL, BUCHANAN COURT, 
 
 ARGYLL STREET. 
 
WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 JAMES MACLEHOSE, 
 
 SOLD BY 
 
 BLACKS, EDINBURGH : JACKSON & WALFORD, AND 
 HAMILTON, ADAMS, & Co., LONDON. 
 
 WARDLAW.— THE LIFE OF JOSEPH, and the LAST 
 YEARS OF JACOB. A book for Youth and for Age. In one 
 Vol., small 8vo., price 6s. By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. 
 
 WARDLAW.— MEMOIR OF THE LATE REV. JOHN 
 
 REID, of Bellary, East Indies, comprising Incidents of the 
 Bellary Mission, for a period of eleven years, from 1830 to 1840. 
 By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. In one Volume, small 8vo., price 
 65. 6& Cloth. 
 
 WARDLAW. — LECTURES ON THE NATURE AND 
 
 EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST. By Ralph 
 Wardlaw, D.D. Fourth thousand, 5s. 6d. Cloth. 
 
 WARDLAW.— LECTURES ON FEMALE PROSTITU- 
 TION: ITS NATURE, EXTENT, EFFECTS, GUILT, CAUSES, 
 AND REMEDY. By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. Third Edition. 
 2s. 6d. Cloth. 
 
 WARDLAW.— REVIEWERS REVIEWED, or REMARKS 
 
 ON THE REVIEWS in the Scottish Presbyterian and United 
 Secession Magazines of " Discourses on the Nature and Extent 
 of the Atonement," being the Prefatory Matter to the New 
 Edition of that Work; printed so as to bind up with the First 
 Edition. Price Is. in stiff cover. By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. 
 
 WARDLAW'S SERMON ON THE PRINCIPLES OF 
 CHRISTIAN COMMUNION. Price Is. 
 
 WARDLAW'S SERMON ON THE DEATH OF THE 
 LATE REV. JOHN MORELL MACKENZIE. 3d Edit. Price Is. 
 
 CAMPBELL.— SELECT REMAINS OF THE LATE 
 
 REV. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, of Greenock. With the 
 Funeral Sermon Preached on the Occasion of his Death, by 
 Dr. Wardlaw, and an Introductory Memoir. By Rev. John 
 Kennedy, A.M., Aberdeen. In one Vol., sm. 8vo. 6s. Gd. Cloth. 
 
 HEUGH.— NOTICES OF THE STATE OF RELIGION 
 IN GENEVA AND BELGIUM. By H. Heugh, D.D. One Vol., 
 small 8vo. 4s. bd. Cloth. 
 
MR MACLEHOSES PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 LEECHMAN. — LOGIC : DESIGNED AS AN INTRO- 
 DUCTION TO THE STUDY OF REASONING. By Rev. John 
 Leechman, A.M. One Vol., sm. 8vo. 2d Edit. 4s. 6d. Cloth. 
 
 RUSSELL.— ON THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS. 
 By David Russell. D.D. 2d Edition, enlarged. One thick Vol. 
 6s. 6d. Cloth. 
 
 RUSSELL.— INFANT SALVATION : OR AN ATTEMPT 
 TO PROVE THAT ALL WHO DIE IN INFANCY ARE 
 SAVED. By David Rdssell, D.D. 3d Edition. 3s. 6d. Cloth. 
 
 RECOLLECTIONS OF EBENEZER WARDLAW. 
 Is. M. Cloth. 
 
 MEMOIR OF THE REV. W. LINDSAY, OF LETHAM. 
 ISmo. Is. Cloth. 
 
 THE ENTIRE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE 
 
 FOUR CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES in Glasgow, and the 
 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES at Hamilton, Bellshtll, 
 Bridgeton, Camboslang, and Ardrossan; on the Doctrines of 
 Election and the Influence of the Holt Spirit in Conversion. 
 Price 2s. M. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE INFLUENCE VINDI- 
 CATED. Containing Remarks on Mr Kirk's Way of Life 
 Made Plain. Price 2d., or 15s. per 100. 
 
 ON THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.— 
 
 By Rev. Dr. Russell. Price 2d., or 15s. per 100. 
 
 A CATECHISM ON THE CONSTITUTION AND 
 
 ORDINANCES OF THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST. By Rev. 
 William Orme. Price 3d., or 20s. per 1U0. 
 
 A CATECHISM ON THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF 
 
 THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, for the Use of Young People. 
 By Rev. Dr. Russell. Price 3d., or 20s. per 100. 
 
 In the Press, 
 
 SWITZERLAND AND THE SWISS CHURCHES; 
 being Notes of a Tour, and Notices of the Principal Religious 
 Bodies in that Country. By W. L. Alexander, D.D., F.S.A.S. 
 
 II. 
 
 THE MOSAIC CREATION VIEWED IN THE 
 
 LIGHT OF MODERN GEOLOCY. By the Rev. G. Wigut, 
 Doune.— Published by request. 
 

 
t BOUND BY ** 
 r LONDON ft 
 
;;