f* LIBRA.RY OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N.J. BV 811 .H3AA Halley, Robert, 1796-1876. A reply to the lectures of the Rev. Charles Stovel on i^AAAvCtij^rV^ oVs^^C, . vi lAWtM-OUj REPLY TO REV. C. STOVEL AND REV. DR. WARDLAW. By ROBERT HALLEY, D.D. LONDON : itArKBtJRN AND PARDOK. PRINTEKS. HATTON GARDEN. BAPTISM, THE DESIGNATION OF THE CATECHUMENS, NOT THE SYMBOL OF THE MEMBERS, OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. A REPLY LECTURES OF THE REV. CHARLES STOVEL, ON CHRISTIAN DISCIPLESHIP AND BAPTISM, AND TO THE STRICTURES OF THE REV. DR. WARDLAAV IN AN APPENDIX TO HIS DISSERTATION ON INFANT BAPTISM. By ROBERT HALLEY, D.D. LONDON : JACKSON & WALFORD, 18, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD. 1847. ADVERTISEMENT. It may be naturally expected that the following work should contain some formal defence of the principle implied in its title. That title has, how- ever, been selected to intimate the principle to which the several arguments of the work may be referred, rather than the manner in which its reasoning is conducted. In connexion with every apostolic church, was a class of persons under instruction and training for its fellowship. This is admitted, at least by implication, both by Mr. Stovel and by Dr. Wardlaw. That the persons under instruction were baptized at the commencement of their pre- paratory discipline, and that the delay of baptism until its conclusion, was an early departure from the apostolic practice, arising out of the prevalent opinion of the unpardonable criminality of sin committed after baptism, can, I think, be established on good and sufficient evidence. In pursuing the inquiry I have undertaken, respecting baptism and the Lord's VI ADVERTISEMENT. supper, it will be my duty to adduce that evidence, as showing the connexion between the two ordin- ances. As, however, I desire to free the inquiry from all personal considerations, I previously offer the following Reply to so much of the Lectures of Mr. Stovel, and Strictures of Dr. Wardlaw, as seems to impugn the principle which I imdertake to defend. With the greatest respect for the learning and theological attainments of one of my opponents, and for the Christian character of them both, I commend this Reply to the candid consideration of those who feel any interest in the subject on which it treats. ROBT- HALLEY. Plymouth Grove, Manchester, May \st, 1847. CONTENTS. Page Reply to Mr. Stovel 1 Reply TO Dr. Wardlaw 77 On John's Baptism 91 On the Extent of the Administration of Christian Baptism 120 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. Whether the arguments proposed by the Eev. Charles Stovel, in reply to my Lecture on " The Subjects of Christian Baptism," be a refutation of my reasoning, is a question which I am quite content to leave to the decision of his readers ; provided that they be so candid and ingenuous as, before they decide, to read what both parties have written. Had my opponent convinced me of the fallacy of any argu- ment, or the incorrectness of any citation, I should, without reluctance, have acknowledged the error into which I had fallen. As, however, I do not perceive that I have any such acknowledgment to make, for it appears to me that the reasoning, which Mr. Stovel has assailed, remains very much as it was before he commenced the assault, I should not have under- taken this notice of his volume, had he not (I am bound to believe through inadvertence,) misrepre- sented some of my arguments, imputed faults of which I am utterly guiltless, and alleged objections which I could not have imagined would have been advanced by any opponent who reads the authorities to which B I REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. he professedly appeals. One thing, at least, is cer- tain : either Mr. Stovel has strangely misunderstood me, or I strangely misunderstand him. To correct the misunderstanding, wherever it may be, I have to offer a few remarks, partly in explanation, partly in self-defence. With the greater part of Mr. Stovel's book, I cannot be said, in any fair construction of the words, to be engaged in controversy. Insomuch as he con- tends for the incorporation of true believers in church fellowship, under the discipline and laws of the Lord Jesus, he contends for no more than I maintain as firmly as he does himself. This he knows very well, for he says, that I " reason on the supposition that apostolical churches were assemblies of believers discriminated after baptism ;^^ and he compares my expressions " with the actual discipline of the Inde- pendent churches." p. 419. If he so understands both my reasoning and the discipline of the Inde- pendent churches, with which I most cordially concur, of what use for my confutation is the chief argument of his book respecting the purity of Chris- tian fellowship ? I may read it with satisfaction as the lecture of a friend, but I cannot attempt to refute my own doctrine, as if I were counterfeiting a con- troversy with an imaginary opponent. Although in dilating and amplificating his great argument over all parts of his book, Mr. Stovel introduces some inde- fensible opinions and expressions, I regard them only as awkward movements in an exercise the agility of which, upon the whole, I greatly admire, especially REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 3 as there is not the smallest fear of its coming into unpleasant collision with myself. If, however, I do not misunderstand Mr. Stovel, there is some difference of opinion between us as to the precise nature of that fellowship, whose purity we both equally desire to preserve inviolate. I speak of voluntary societies, whose members are mutually recognised as Christian brethren ; he seems to speak of some greater incorporation under the name of the Christian church. Of this greater incorporation the purity, in my opinion, is not entrusted to fallible men, because within its enclosure no man has the power of admission or of exclusion. As there can enter no- thing that defileth, its purity is maintained inviolable under the guardianship of God. Every Christian upon the face of the earth, baptized or unbaptized, recognised or unrecognised by his brethen, is safely brought within this invisible church. While its external signs and addresses are auspicious to all men, the discrimination of its true subjects is reserved for Him who searches the heart, and will be declared in that state to which baptism does not belong. Of voluntary societies, indeed, the recognition of the members must be vested in their officers or brethren. But the universal church is not in this sense a volun- tary society ; for a true believer would belong to it, were all other Christians upon the face of the earth to combine for his exclusion. In separate and volun- tary churches the members have a right to determine who do, or do not, belong to them. They may differ in their opinions a>! to the attestation of Christian cha- 4 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. i^acter which they should require ; but if the question be whether baptism is the proper sign of admission — the act of recognition by which a member of such a society is to be distinguished ; we maintain the nega- tive, and say that baptism is no such sign of incor- poration into a Christian church. We recognise a Christian brother by sitting down with him as a member of Christ's family at the Lord's table ; and ■we say this ordinance, as an act of recognition, has an obvious advantage, because it can be discontinued whenever the person is found to be unworthy of the distinction. So long as we distinctly avow this opi- nion, whether it be right or wrong, we are not to be confuted by long lectures on the purity of Christian fellowship, or the incorporation of Christian churches. When Mr. Stovel adduces sundry passages from the early fathers in proof of the Christian character, which the writers recognised in their several com- munities ; the obvious reply is. All these fine things might have been said of churches constituted upon the principles of the Independents as well as of those of their Baptist brethren. These citations do not controvert the principles of either sect : nor do I see why even the annual meeting of the Quakers, if they have any regard to the discipline and character of their society, might not, in repudiating water- baptism altogether, be moved to write to their distant friends in the very words which Mr. Stovel adduces from Clement of Rome in proof of his own doctrine : " Through occurrences and painful events which have happened to us, brethren, we have been reluct- REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 5 antly compelled tardily to make an observation con- cerning tlie matters, beloved, wliich have been ear- nestly requested from you; and the alienation and strangeness in the elect of God, the base and unholy rebellion, which a few persons having precipitately and daringly countenanced, they have kindled up with so much frantic rashness, that your venerable and celebrated name, worthy to be loved by all men, is greatly blasphemed. For, what individual, so- journing with you, has not verified your faith; filled with firmness and all virtue ? who has not admired your humble and well-regulated godliness in Christ ? who hath not proclaimed the bountiful habit of your hospitality, and blessed your perfect and safe know- ledge ? For ye did all things without respect of per- sons, and ye walked in the ordinances of God, being subject to your leaders, giving the appropriate honour to those who were elders with you. Ye recommended the younger persons to regard things moderate and reverential ; and the women, in a blameless and solemn and pure conscience, ye exhorted to perfect all things, loving, and, in the rule of obedience, ob- serving their own husbands, as they were bound to do ; ye taught them, with universal modesty to con- duct with reverence the household affairs. Epist. i. sect. ii. p. 8, 10."— pp. 319, 320. About twenty pages* are appropriated to such cita- tions from the epistles of Clement and to comments upon them : but as those citations may be recited in a * pp. 317-336. 6 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. church of Independents with quite as much propriety as in a church of Baptists, they decide nothing in this controversy which relates not to the purity or the discipline of a Christian church, but to the relation which baptism bears to the recognition of its members. Keeping this question steadily in view, we need take no trouble with the greater part of Mr. Stovel's citations or of his book. Most of his homilies from the Fathers might as appropriately garnish my pages as they do his own. I submit whether, if the above quotation from Clement, about hospitable men and modest women, had been found, not in a Father but in a modern writer^ any critic could have told whether the author was a Baptist, an Independent, or a Quaker? That baptism was not intended to be the recogni- tion of its subjects as the members of particular churches, appears to be fairly deduced from several considerations. When John baptized, there were no such voluntary societies as Christian churches ; nor were any such instituted for the multitudes who were baptized in the name of Jesus during his personal ministry upon earth. After the resurrection of our Lord, the evangelists and ministers of the word, so far as we can learn from the notices in the Acts, baptized without any reference to the authority or approval of the churches ; but, it appears to me, the reception or the exclusion of its members was vested in each voluntary society, and not in the teachers who baptized. I think so, because the Epistles con- tain directions given to the whole church for the REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 7 right use of this most important privilege. Again, the only test for the recognition of Christian cha- racter which a fallible man can safely apply, and which Christ has authorized him to apply, requires considerable time for its application. " By their fruits ye shall know them." But the baptisms re- corded in the New Testament, so far as we can ascer- tain, were administered on the first opportunity, and, in many instances, immediately after the parties had heard for the first time the doctrine of the Gospel. In these instances, baptism appears Kke the act of a teacher admitting a learner to a service sym- bolic of the purifying influence of his doctrine, and not of a church recognising in a candidate for fellow- ship the evidences of experimental religion. Having thus endeavoured to clear the controversy from the irrelevant discussion respecting the purity of church-fellowship, with which it has been unfairly implicated, I proceed to notice such statements as, unless corrected, will produce false impressions re- specting the authorities or reasoning of my lectures. In his introductory lecture, Mr. Stovel represents me as an authority, from which the general views of the " Congregational Paedobaptists may be under- stood." p. 11. I must object to this representation, as I should not have ventured to write a line with any such responsibility upon me. I have lectured and printed, without inquiring who of the Congre- gationalists would assent or dissent in any part of the argument. If Mr. Stovel will speak of things he does not understand, he must submit to plain contradic- 8 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. tion. When he says, " The subject was chosen for him [me] by his brethren," I am sorry that I can honestly offer no more courteous reply than that the subject was not " chosen for me by my brethren." Not a single brother knew, until my prospectus was printed, that I was about to lecture on the mode or the subjects of baptism. But the most offensive, and to me inexplicable, passage on this page 11 is, '•''After what has transpired, unless his brethren do openly and avowedly reject him, we are justified in using these lectures as an authority." I ask, (I trust with no unchristian feeling, but with some impatience,) what has transpired to give rise to this insinuation ? Nothing can have transpired respecting these lectures, or their connexion with the Congregational body, for I confidently assert, that nothing has been concealed. Mr. Stovel is too credulous in believing that some secret has " transpired" — been breathed through a crevice. I know not whether this insinuation refers to a statement which he makes on p. 419 : " Dr. Halley conciliates his brethren by professing to re- tain the exploded appeal to Jewish covenants and hereditary claims, whenever they may seem to be serviceable for defence. This is absurd. The here- ditary claim is either valid or fictitious : if valid, why has he so justly exposed its fallacy ? but if ficti- tious, how could he dare to retain its use ? It is not the part of a Christian disciple to act upon the errors which other men may be disposed to entertain." My reply is, I have dared to retain what I thought right : I have not knowingly " acted upon the errors of other REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. \) men." I have not sought to " conciliate my brethren by professing to retain the exploded appeal." Let Mr. Stovel expose the fallacy of my reasoning as severely as he pleases ; but he has no right to indulge in such insinuations about " what has transpired." Mr. Stovel seems to be a Httle displeased, that r have not noticed some previous doings of his own in this controversy. In reference to the argument of his " Wpolwich Lectures," he says, " It would have been kind in Dr. Halley, if, while engaged on the subject, he had considered its force, or shown its fal- lacy. It has been rendered notorious by the wrath it has provoked amongst his brethren, and these lec- tures on the sacraments which Dr. Halley delivered, appear to be presented as a shield to them in this ex- tremity.'''' p. 246. I would not knowingly neglect any opportunity of doing a kindness to Mr. Stovel; but I can plead in apology that unfortunately I had never before heard of these said " Woolwich Lectures." If it shows a kindly disposition to expose the fallacy of his reasoning, I may now congratulate myself upon the many opportunities, which his last volume affords, of convincing him that I am not remarkably deficient in that amiable propensity. As to the " extremity^ * in which my poor brethren were placed through terror of such an assailant, I can assure him that, however singular the coincidence, I was totally igno- rant of his great and " notorious" exploit. I hope, however, we have now recovered a little from our " extremity," and can venture to look him again in the face. 10 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. There is just reason to complain of the manner in which he has presented my statements to his readers, partly in my words, and partly in his own. It is, for instance, an unworthy artifice to close an argument, which professes to represent my reasoning on the Abrahamic covenant, in these words : " The one privilege was secured by a relation to Abraham, the other is secured only by a relation to Christ. But a personal relation to Christ is only to be attained by faith in him, and therefore if the analogy prevail at all, it can only apply to the baptism of such as are justified by faith in Christ. The steps of this argu- ment are stated almost in Dr. Halley's own words; and it is hard to conceive how he could have escaped the conclusion." p. 212. But why make the state- ment " almost'''' in my words ? If the correspondence were so close as it is represented, to have made it complete would have required very little more paper. I maintain that, under the colourable resemblance of words, an essential difference of ideas and reasoning is foisted upon the unsuspecting reader. When I contended that the Gentiles have succeeded to the external privileges of the Jews, by virtue of the rela- tion of Christ to all the nations; was it consistent with truth to change the whole force of the argument by inserting ^^ personaV for external^ under the pre- text of stating it " almost entirely''^ in my words? Although very few words may be changed, yet the meaning of my argument and the colouring of my commentator are as irreconcilably at variance as the terms general and personal, external and internal, the REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 11 relation of the world to Christ as announced in the universal proclamation of mercy, and the relation of a believer to Christ on his accepting the proposals of the Gospel. But this is far from being the most exceptionable instance. I complain of fallacious sentences, not only professing to contain the particulars of my reasoning, but actually inclosed between inverted commas, with references to my pages, as if they were verbal ex- tracts. Let the reader observe the following extract from Mr. Stovel's second Lecture, " on Jewish Bap- tism:"— " The whole chain of Dr. Halley's reasoning may be stated in six particulars : — 1. " Baptism," he says, " is a symbolical repre- sentation of evangelical truth," p. 7; and " a badge or profession of discipleship." Dr. Halley, p. 120. 2. " Such a baptism existed amongst the Jews, and it was used by them to initiate the disciples they obtained from heathenism, before Christ or John the Baptist came." Lect. II. passim. 3. " This baptism John administered indiscrimi- nately to all appHcants, as a symbol of the repentance which he taught, and a badge of discipleship under his dispensation ; and thus, by virtue of his commis- sion from God, that baptism first received its divine authority." p. 160, 163. 4. " The baptism of Jesus was the same as John's ; and became a perpetual ordinance by virtue of the commission given to the apostles." p. 121. 5. " The baptism of John was administered without 1 2 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. any discrimination, and the commission of our Lord imposed no discriminating condition ; and, therefore, Christian baptism is to be administered now with equal freedom to all applicants." p. 602 — 604. 6. " The Jews, in their proselyte baptism, bap- tized the children with their parents ; but the baptism of Christ and of John was the same, confirmed by Divine authority, without any formal exception of infants ; and, therefore, by virtue of our Lord's com- mission, infants are to be baptized now as they are supposed to have been in the Jewish nation, before the administrations of John." Ihid. " On these several points Dr. Halley has built his whole theory of infant and indiscriminate initiation to Christian discipleship. A direct and simple appeal to the independent meaning of inspired documents, does not appear in his work. His whole reasoning implies, that this notion of Jewish baptismal initiation, not expressed by the Divine Teacher, but understood by the learners of that time, gave its own character and colouring to every utterance and every Divine in- junction." pp. 52, 53. I have printed this extract at length, because I mean to found upon it a very serious charge. " The whole chain of Dr. Halley's reasoning" is not stated in these " six particulars." " On these several points Dr. Halley has" not " built his whole theory." " His whole reasoning" does not imply that " this notion of Jewish baptismal initiation" — " gave its own cha- racter and colouring to every utterance and every Divine injunction." Were it proved that Jewish pro- REPLY TO Mli. STOVEL. 13 selyte baptism had never existed, my reasoning on the subject of Christian baptism would remain unaf- fected. As Mr. Stovel could not fabricate the six links of this chain in my words, he has employed his own. With the exception of the first particular, I disown the phraseology, the statement, and the whole bearing of the reasoning. Of the other particulars, what mean the inverted commas ? They do not in- close my words, nor, throughout, my opinions. The argument, good or bad, is not mine, — it is of the kind called sorites, and I think a very sophistical specimen. What credit IVIr. Stovel may gain for refuting it, I do not know ; but if he has not clearly demohshed it to the satisfaction of his Baptist brethren, I shall be very happy to volunteer my assistance in so good a work. Let the reader compare the sixth particular on Jewish baptism with my own words, which Mr. Stovel assuredly read, for elsewhere he cites the pas- sages; and then let him judge between us whether I am not justified in saying, these inverted commas do not tell the truth. I have written " On this reasoning" [from Jewish baptism] " let me observe, whatever weight it may have, it rests ultimately not upon Scripture, but upon a custom of the Jews." " With the definite information of the Acts before me, I need not explore the sinuosities of the Talmuds." " I decline the aid of the Rabbi, who comes with his rolls of venerable parchment to tell me that his fathers always baptized the children of their proselytes. Elsewhere I have recorded his testimony ; but I am not disposed to endorse the Gospels with a superscrip- 14 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. tion of Chaldaic authorities." HalUy on the Sacra- ments^ p. 576, 577. Because I have recorded that testimony, Mr. Stovel represents me as endorsing the Grospels with it. On this subject I have been so mis- represented that I must clear up the matter a little more carefully. In the mean while, I assure Mr. Stovel, that if he can convict me of putting my own words into inverted commas, and appending to them references to his pages, as if they were verbal cita- tions from his book, in order to construct an easily refuted argument, apparently his, but really my own, he will bring this discussion to a very speedy termi- nation, for I shall ever after be ashamed to appear on the arena of honourable controversy. I repudiate the argument ascribed to me as decidedly as I disclaim the phraseology of the inverted commas. Mr. Stovel says, "A commandment should be in itself as clear as that * ThoU shalt not steal.' But Dr. Halley supposes the command, * Go forth, dis- ciple and baptize,' cannot be understood by the simple meaning of its own words, but that the words derive their sense from the preconceived notions of the Jewish people." p. 50. There is no such command as " disciple and baptize," for the command is, " dis- ciple baptizing." On " the simple meaning of those words," I mean to insist, and, in due time, to ask my opponent how the command, make disciples bap- tizing, can mean, do not baptize until you have made the disciples, and yet, withal, be as clear as the words, Thou shalt not steal ? But where do I attribute any ambiguity to this command ? The objection brought REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 15 against me by both Baptist and Scottish reviewers, is that I insist too much upon " the bald literality," the " mere grammatical construction," without paying due regard to the spirit and general analogy of the Christian doctrine. Even Mr. Stovel says, "Here, therefore, are at least ten articles of instruction given by the Lord himself, at the same time and in relation to the same work ; and Dr. Halley, crying out. The commission — the commission — I appeal to the com- mission! modestly takes three injunctions as the basis of his argument, and treats the rest as if they had never been given." p. 236. The basis of my argu- ment on the commission is " the simple meaning of its own words," without Mr. Stovel's " ten articles" on the one hand, or "the preconceived notions of the Jewish people," on the other. Let the candid reader observe how far Mr. Stovel, in his second lecture, acts fairly, in representing me as making Jewish baptisms the foundation of my argument in favour of infant baptism. I stated my reasons for thinking that the Jews, as early as the time of our Lord, baptized both proselytes and their children. My opponent has done nothing to refute those reasons. Some of the evidence he, with oracular brevity, pronounces to be " not worth a straw;" but some he admits to be " too great to be altogether dis- regarded." Moreover, he has himself discovered a new argument in my favour, existing in the phrase "divers baptisms," occurring in the Epistle to the Hebrews; which argument, although he kindly offers it, I cannot accept, as I do not see its connexion with 16 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. proselytes. Looking even beyond tlie Jews for the baptismal rite, he says I should have " been more accurate" in noticing the several heathen communities in whose initiation " a various and extensive use of water is traced." p. 67. He may, however, find my apology for the omission. " These classical allusions are familiar to every school-boy." Sacraments^ p. 114. On the litigated question of proselyte baptism among the Jews, I spoke with some hesitation. Mr. Stovel says I do myself and my cause " injustice by these vacillating expressions;" for, "though timid and variable in respect to his premises, Dr. Halley is confident and determined in asserting the conclusion." p. 59. " The conclusion," if it mean anything, must mean the conclusion in favour of my own opinion respecting baptism. How then, do my confidence and determination in asserting the conclusion, appear in contrast with my timidity and vacillation in stating the premises ? In my lecture on the subject, the fol- lowing were all the references to such a conclusion. " The bearing of this practice upon the controversy with our Baptist brethren must be reserved until we enter upon that subject." (p. 150.) " What bearing the Jewish practice has upon the argument in favour of infant baptism among Christians must be hereafter considered." (p. 154.) On turning to my lecture on " The Subjects of Baptism," I resume the subject in these words: — "On this reasoning let me observe, whatever weight it may have, it rests ultimately not upon Scripture, but upon a custom of the Jews." — " I decline the aid of the Eabbi, who comes with his REPLY TO mi. STOVEL. 17 rolls of parchment to tell me that his fathers always baptized the children of their proselytes."* Where are the confidence and determination of these conclu- sions ? I now assert, with all the confidence and determination with which Mr. Stovel charges me, and without a particle of the timidity and vacillation, these are the only conclusions I deduce from Jewish bap- tisms ; and Mr. Stovel, with all the aid he can derive from falsified extracts and inverted commas, can pro- duce no other.f * On the Sacraments, pp. 576, 577. f These misquotations may, possibly, be ascribed to the unfortunate habit which Mr. Stovel has contracted of citing authorities in the most careless manner. The reader will find some amusing instances noticed in this reply. But would it be believed that this negligent habit has gained such an ascen- dency over him, that he actually cites as Scripture, with chapter and verse prefixed, passages which do not exist, and then reasons upon the figment of his own imagination! When illustrating the meaning of the word fidirTu, he cites (p. 495,) " Rev. xix. 13. The woman was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood." Mr. Ewing had explained this passage, stained with blood as a warrior. Mr. Stovel strangely says, " it is the very gist of the description that the woman's garment had been dipped in blood by her own murderous havoc of God's people." Thus, " the very gist" is a fancy of Mr. Stovel. He reasons without taking the trouble to turn to the passage, which is not *' the woman," but " He was clothed in a vesture dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God." This mistake, however, is counterbalanced by one of an opposite character, in which the name of the woman, Mystery, is made a symbol of truth, to be used in the church of Christ. In commenting upon my inability to define the word ^'■sacrament," he thinks it strange that I do not know what is meant by the sacraments or mysteries of the word of God ; and says, " some stood by C 18 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. But Mr. Stovel, in noticing the passages in which I decline the aid of the Eabbi, says, " If this rule had been adopted from the beginning of Dr. Halley's work, much unnecessary trouble might have been spared to himself and his readers." p. 214. Had my lectures related exclusively to infant baptism, I might, probably, have spared myself this " unneces- sary trouble ;" but as I had engaged to consider a much wider subject, I felt it to be my duty to notice the way-side to enlighten by their import the path of daily obedience, while others rose like promontories looking out upon the sea where signals were exhibited." p. 33. Whether bap- tism be a sign-post by the way-side for landsmen, or a signal on a promontory for seamen, he does not determine. But he adds, " a great number of things have, in Scripture, been called ' mysteries,' or * sacraments,^ because, when rightly understood, they indicate the covenanted actions and movements of the king- dom of heaven." p. 34. In confirmation of this he refers to " a schedule of renderings" in his appendix, (p. 507,) showing that a mystery signifies " a symbol of truth to be used in the Christian church." Amotig them I find Rev. xvii. 5 — 7. Is then the name of the harlot. Mystery, or the mystery of the woman, " a symbol of truth to be used in the Christian church ?" With such knowledge of the " mysteries" of Scripture, Mr. Stovel may well smile contemptuously at my ignorance, when I still assert, that in all the twelve passages of his own schedule, the word /xvarr^piov means a secret, and not a symbol. In reply to Mr. Stovel's assertion, supported by his schedule of six versions, that '* the English translators have all rendered the word musterion, so as to prove that in their view it signifies a symbol of truth," I maintain that not one of them has so rendered it. As ignorance is bold, Mr. Stovel may not be surprised that, in my ignorance of mysteries, I add, he cannot find a single scholar in his own denomination who will endorse his schedule with its note. REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 19 the question of Jewish baptism as belonging to the general subject, and possibly, in some degree, illus- trating the origin of the rite. I did so, as carefully and impartially as I could, before I considered its bearing upon any other controversy, or examined the conclusions which, according to Mr. Stovel, I deduce from it with so much confidence. In laying the result before my readers, I have most scrupulously reserved the Scriptural argument unconnected with any deduction from the Jewish custom. I have, there- fore, to inquire what right has my opponent to charge me with founding my " theory of infant and indiscri- minate initiation" upon the Jewish practice; and to add, " a direct and simple appeal to the independent meaning of inspired documents does not appear in his work ?" p. 53. However, growing better acquainted with me as he proceeds, he subsequently uses the phrase, " these sacred documents to which Dr. Halley is, at last, obliged to appeal." p. 241. I constantly appeal to these documents, and with no more reluc- tance than ISIr. Stovel does himself. I leave this second lecture of my opponent with the remark that, as it contains a misrepresentation of the design of my argument on Jewish baptism, it forms a considerable addition of extraneous matter, to the irrelevant reasoning on the purity of Christian fellowship, which, as I have already observed, comprises a great part of his book. After these censures upon me, Mr. Stovel ought surely to have furnished a notable example of " direct and simple appeal to the independent meaning of 20 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. inspired documents." Let us, therefore, turn to his section entitled " The Personal Nature of Christian Baptism,"* as it refers to the question on which the whole controversy mainly depends. The reader will there look in vain for an appeal to a single text. I do not mean to insinuate that Mr. Stovel does not else- where adduce passages of Scripture, however inappro- priately; but in this section he introduces, instead of Scripture, an argument which, according to him, " does away with all hypothesis, and leaves no room for speculation." The reader will readily inquire what is this irrefragable argument, which absolutely and for ever settles all doubt by sweeping away all " hypo- thesis" and " speculation." Let him read Mr. Stovel's own words, italics, capitals, everything; and if he will not beheve my inverted commas, let him turn to p. 36 of the volume. " The language of the minister is, ' / baptize thee into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' The action does away with all hypothesis, and leaves no room for specula- tion : whatever the baptism communicates, be it grace, recognition, or instruction, or whatever other supposed or supposable thing, it is brought home to the indi- vidual baptized. / baptize thee/' This argument, this only argument, of the section on " The Personal Natiure of Christian Baptism," and, indeed, the only argument which can be required, if it really " does away with all hypothesis and leaves no room for spe- culation," and which is, therefore, consistently placed * p. 35—87. REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 21 in its own independence and authority, in a section by itself, is founded not upon Scripture, but upon " the language of the minister." He says, ^^ I baptize thee." I, however, venture to ask, Who taught the minister to use these words ? By what authority does he repeat them ? Has he found them in the Bible ? To have repeated them in the baptistery, I venture to suggest, is insiifficient authority for citing them as absolute demonstration in controversy. It is true Mr. Stovel adds, " To this personal character of the rite we have the most general and convincing testimony. The Scriptures so regard it in all the places." (Mr. Stovel produces no texts to authorise " the language of the minister," on which he reposes vArith so much security as if it were the immovable basis of his argument.) " Kome, Heidelberg, England, Scotland, and the Assembly, agree in all their documents. Drs. Campbell and Miller are in harmony. See Jethro." To Mr. Stovel, holding " all their documents" in his hands, and having the language of the minister upon his lips, I can only say, " Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye ?" They agree, Mr. Stovel might have added, "in all their documents," in harmony with Jethro — in the practice of infant baptism. Whatever may be the worth of this argument on " the language of the minister," I am compelled to say it is not original. The Pope may rightfully claim priority in its discovery. When the Romish church would sustain its doctrine that the mass is the repetition of the very sacrifice of the cross, because not only is the oblation the same, — the true body and 22 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. blood of Christ, but the priest is the same, — the Lord Jesus, (for the officiating " minister" is only acting a vicarious part, not in his own person, but repre- senting Christ and invested with his authority,) she appeals to the council of Trent. The council cites in proof of this dogma " the language of the minister," who " says in the act of sacrificing, not ' this is the body of Christ,' as if he were another person, but ' this is my body,' as if he were Christ himself." There is, however, one important distinction. The Catholic priest cites the words of Scripture, however unfairly, while Mr. Stovel's minister is quite satisfied with a tradition of the elders. We now notice the third Lecture, "on John's Baptism." As Mr. Stovel no where asserts that the persons baptized by John were incorporated into visible churches, or recognised as members of volun- tary societies, it appears to me that he introduces irrelevant discussion in his sections, entitled, " The Declaration of our Lord" respecting John, — "The Instructions given at John's birth," — " John's pre- dicted Character," — " The prophetical Declarations of his Work," — " The recorded Character of John," — " The Record of John's Ministry," — " The practical Result of John's Ministry." p. 98—125. In these sections, Mr. Stovel expends his reasoning in showing that there was a discriminating character in the public ministry of John. To a great extent I do not object to his representation. The preaching of John was faithful, discriminating, searching, distinguishing be- tween the righteous and the wicked. Mr. Stovel REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 23 incontrovertibly proves that he reproved sin, re- buked the impeuitent, and exhorted all to bring forth fruits meet for repentance. But how does all this determine the question, whether John baptized " unto repentance" or a/^er repentance ? Mr. Stovel might as well produce the earnest, searching, discriminating sermons of Latimer, or Baxter, or Whitfield, to prove that they would baptize no other than believers. I humbly venture to affirm that I have endeavoured, however imperfectly, to discriminate character in my preaching, but I do not suppose I shall be called a Baptist on that account. What is there in the discri- minating preaching of John, which an evangelical minister of the Independent denomination would not imitate as readily and cordially as the ministers of the Baptist communion? My opponent must be again reminded that our controversy is not, what was the searching character of John's preaching, but what was the signification of John's baptism. Was it a public recognition of all the baptized as already penitent, or was it a symbol of the cleansing influence of that doctrine in which they were to be instructed? As the conclusion from these several particulars, Mr. Stovel says, " On this brief statement of the case, therefore, it is observed, that to call the ministry and baptism of John indiscriminate is most unwarrantable." I call " the ministry'^ of John " indiscriminate" in no other sense than Mr. Stovel himself would call it so, that is, in no other sense than that in which he preached to all his hearers indiscriminately the same doctrine of repent- ance. Is this view of his ministry " unwarrantable?" 24 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. What is there inconsistent with his doctrine in suppos- ing, that he did by a sign what he did by his words, or that by " a visible word," as well as by an audible word, he taught all who would learn the necessity of being cleansed from sin? As to the ancillary arguments by which the gene- ral reasoning of my opponent is occasionally sup- ported, they have only to be fairly presented to the reader. The illustration will be found in the follow- ing sentence: " His strong language" (that is John's,) "coarse fare, eremitic garb, and stern separation from the society of his own priesthood and people, combined with a superficial doctrine and an indiscriminating baptism, would have presented the most ludicrous and despicable of all exhibitions that ever appeared in the history of mankind." p. 97. If the " strong language" of this sentence prove Mr. Stovel's point, it can suffer nothing by having the argument made a little stronger, and a little plainer. Let it be thus construed: — Because John used " strong language," lived upon "coarse fare," wore an " eremitic garb," and maintained a " stern separa- tion," therefore, — he was a Baptist ! If this be the just conclusion from the premises, let it be plainly avowed, and let IVIr. Stovel claim all the eremites of the eastern desert. If it be not, why should that be done covertly by insinuation, which cannot be done openly by argument ? In appealing to the general terms of the evan- gelists — " Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all REPLY TO MR. STO^^:L. 25 Judea, and all the region round abont Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt. iii. 5,6.) " And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins," (Mark i. 5 ;) although I did not interpret them literally, as if every person was baptized ; yet I maintained that according to them the people of those districts were generally baptized. This general language excludes the idea of discrimination. Let the reader consider, whether the separation of a certain class, as discriminated by their baptism, would be expressed in the terms " there went out to him the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized." This is surely not the appropriate language to describe a baptism intended to discrimi- nate a class from those who did not belong to it. The terms may be understood generally^ as not noticing the exceptions; but they cannot be understood speci/zcaZ/y, as denoting only a particular class. It is no reply to say, as Mr. Stovel does, all were not baptized, when the question is. Are the terms which describe the baptism universal or discriminating, — general or spe- cific ? It is, if possible, still less to the purpose to say, as he does, that " Herod was not baptized ;" for not only are exceptions readily admitted, but Herod was of Galilee, and of the baptism of the Galileans the evangelists say nothing whatever. But Mr. Stovel, speaking of the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to John's baptism, and whom he called " a generation of vipers," says, " It is not, 26 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. however, affirmed that they were baptized." p. 113. " The whole language is expressive of rejection." p. 1 14. The whole language is, indeed, " expressive of" the utter destitution of the qualifications for baptism on which Mr. Stovel insists. We are, therefore, coming upon the crisis of the controversy, for if John bap- tized the men whom he called " a generation of vipers," his baptism was not discriminating, nor confined to a class. John himself expressly affirms in his address to these persons, " I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance." There was a discriminating bap- tism to succeed, in which these Pharisees would be all included, without a single exception ; but the dis- crimination of the second baptism was to appear in its effects, either in the life of the Holy Ghost, or in the destruction of fire, as they might appear in its dis- criminating process to be as wheat or as chaff. In the first baptism of water, the language of John shows that he considered the discrimination as reserved for one mightier than himself, who could discern the hearts of the baptized. In reasoning upon the words addressed to the Pha- risees, — I baptize you with water unto repentance, — Mr. Stovel says, " the dis-junctive particle which begins the clause would lead to an opposite conclu- sion." p. 113. ^'■^ But he said to them,' in such a connexion would lead us to conclude, that while the persons were baptized confessing their sins, the Pha- risees and Sadducees did not confess their sins, and were not baptized. The disjunctive there imphes the negative." 114. It has been my ill fortune to have REPLY TO 3m. STOVEL. 27 toiled through a great deal of controversy, but never before have I encountered so extraordinary a piece of criticism. *' The disjunctive there impHes the nega- tive ! ! !" The word " luV causes the words " I bap- tize you with water unto repentance" to mean, I baptize other people with water after repentance ! It is not worth while to inquire whether Se in this pas- sage be continuative, or adversative, or transitive, or causative, or disjunctive, as Mr. Stovel says, (although I beheve there is not more than one passage in the New Testament in which be is a disjunctive particle,)* for, be it what it may, the translator who can turn it into a negative, may construe the Greek Testa- ment into whatever English he pleases. " Jesus came from Gahlee to the Jordan to be baptized of John, but John forbade him." According to this newly dis- covered canon of hermeneutics, " the disjunctive there implies the negative," and therefore John did not forbid him. As I have very innocently often referred to my opponent in the words " But, Mr. Stovel says," I must respectfully entreat him not to apply his canon to this phrase, as if, because " the disjunctive there implies the negative," my meaning were, he did not say anything of the sort. Mr. Stovel a little afterwards, in speaking of faith, tells us, *' the right understanding of this word is of great importance ; and the two works of Aristotle on this subject are, hence, of unspeakable value." p. 119. But, as we cannot agree about the meaning of the commonest * 2 Cor. vi. 14—16. 28 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. word in the Greek Testament, I dare not adventure to meet such a critic in a controversy upon the style of Aristotle. As the controversy ought to be restricted to the meaning of the rite of baptism, and not extended to the various subjects of inquiry, respecting Christian character and fellowship, which have been unfairly connected with it, there is nothing which properly belongs to it, as far as I can discover, in the fourth Lecture, on " the Example and Ministry of our Lord." The fifth Lecture is entitled " The Action of the Forty- seven Days," of which quaint title I was, for some time, utterly at a loss to conjecture what could be the meaning. The explanation, however, is thus given : " The scope of our present inquiry is confined within forty-seven days. Between the crucifixion and the Pentecost there were fifty days," — " and between the resurrection and the Pentecost forty-seven." p. 172. As Mr. Stovel is so precise in defining the time, and so confident in his accuracy, as to convert the result of his computation into the title of his lecture, we are induced to inquire by what calendar he computes the Jewish festivals. Be he right or wrong in his computation, he computes the Pentecost as no chrono- logist, Jew or Christian, ever computed it before him. In reckoning from the fourteenth day of the first month, he leaves us to inquire why he departs from the command of the Lord given to Moses : " And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sab- bath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 29 wave offering, seven sabbaths shall be complete, even unto the morrow after the seven sabbaths shall ye number fifty days, and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the Lord."* The usual interpretation of this passage is, that by the sabbath is to be understood the first holy day of unleavened bread, and therefore the morrow of that day was the six- teenth of the first month, or the second day after the paschal lamb was slain. Some few, however, have understood this sabbath to be the weekly sabbath, and therefore have computed from the morrow of one sabbath, seven weeks complete to the morrow of another sabbath, and so, let the passover fall on what day it might, they have brought the Pentecost to be on the first day of the week. Whichever computation be adopted, the Pentecost in the year of the resurrec- tion would fall on the first day of the week, and there- fore not forty-seven days, but seven weeks complete intervened between the resurrection and the Pentecost. As in another controversy respecting the observance of the Lord's day, it appears important to determine the Pentecost as having fallen on the first day of the week, I hope Mr. Stovel will not continue to affect so much exactness in the title of his lecture, unless he is prepared to offer some reasons for his singular mode of computation. I cannot persuade myself he affects to write thus precisely in utter ignorance of the common mode of reckoning the Jewish festivals ; but I say of his chronology as of his schedule, no man in his own denomination will support it. * Lev. xxiii. 15, 16. 30 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. But what was done in these forty- seven days ? During that time the commission of our Lord was given to his disciples, — " Going, disciple all na- tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." In my lecture I offered what appeared to me satis- factory evidence, that these words, according to their grammatical interpretation, enjoined upon the Chris- tian teacher the administration of the rite of baptism to all applicants without any restriction. It was not meant (as some persons have uncandidly pressed the objection) that we are to baptize by force, for neither are we to teach by force, nor to disciple by force. The true interpretation of the passage it was con- tended is, that we are to baptize in discipling, or in making disciples, and not to reserve the baptism until the disciples are previously made. Such a reservation would be to disciple and baptize, but not to disciple baptizing, which is the true version of the passage. As we are commanded to disciple all the nations, baptizing them and teaching them; the meaning is precisely the same, as if we were commanded to bap- tize and teach all the nations in iulfilhng our duty of making them disciples. The more I study this com- mission, the more I am convinced that to impose such a restriction upon its terms, as would confine the baptism to disciples already made, is to violate every principle of correct interpretation. It converts the command, " disciple baptizing,'"' into a very different REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 31 command, " disciple and afterwards baptize," which is to disciple without baptizing, the latter act being reserved until the former is accomplished. It appears to me that a Baptist might as well say, the expression, " he cried saying," means, he said nothing until he had ceased crying, as that the command, " disciple baptizing and teaching," means, do not baptize and teach until you have made the disciple. The parti- ciple must be connected with its verb, and not by separation be converted into another verb, as Mr. Stovel, in defiance of all grammar, expounds this command to be " disciple and baptize," instead of " disciple baptizing." My opponent charges me with some great sins of omission. " Here, therefore, are at least ten articles of instruction given by the Lord himself, at the same time, and in relation to the same work; and Dr. Halley crying out. The commission, the commis- sion, I appeal to the commission! modestly takes three injimctions as the basis of his argument, and treats the rest as if they had never been given." p. 236. It is, therefore, important to inquire what are these said " ten articles," without a knowledge of which the commission of our Lord is unintelligible? Mr. Stovel had mentioned " three acts which naturally precede baptism, — to proclaim the glad tidings, to bear witness to their truth and value, and to make disciples." p. 235. Let us consider these great omissions, and, if possible, correct the error. The first may be thus supplied, " Going, proclaim the glad tidings, and dis- ciple all the nations^ baptizing them;" the second. 32 REPLY TO MR, STOVEL. thus, " Going, hear witness to their truth and value, and disciple all the nations, baptizing them." Let the reader, if he please, supply my omission, or rather that of St. Matthew, and say, how the introduction of either clause affects the construction, or the sense, of the passage. So far from omitting the third parti- cular, " to make disciples," I employ it in connexion with its participle, — " make disciples baptizing, ^^ as the basis of my whole argument. The charge of omitting this particular is utterly false and absurd. Does Mr. Stovel attempt to reply to my reasoning without understanding it ? Be my argument good or bad, it rests assuredly upon the connexion of the words, — " Disciple all the nations, baptizing them :" without this third " article" I have no argument at all. But, according to Mr. Stovel, this " article" implies, " that such disciples must be made by teaching and testify- ing, before they can be baptized." p. 235. Was the writer serious in parading my modesty before his brethren, because I omit this " article" with this implication? Did he expect that I should concede the whole matter in dispute, that " disciples must be made by teaching and baptizing, before they can be baptized?" Before I saw this petitio principii in his print, I, certainly, never expected that any one would require me to make it the basis of an argument in favour of infant baptism. This one " article," with such an implication involved, is quite suf- ficient, without the superfluous aid of the other nine, to prove all that Mr. Stovel can possibly desire. Let him do as he would be done by, in putting at " the REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 33 basis" of his argument "an article," expressed in what terms he pleases, but implying that I am right, and I ^vill not trouble him with nine other " articles" to prove that he is wrong. i\lr. Stovel proceeds to notice the remaining *' arti- cles." " The next part of these instructions require the apostles to baptize, or initiate the disciples so made." p. 235. This fourth " article" is so wonderfully like the third, — this being, the disciples are to be iDaptized after they are made, — that, the disciples are to be made before they are baptized, — that the same answer will do very well for them both. " And to teach them to observe all things which Christ had commanded his disciples to observe." We teach peo- ple, whether they are baptized or not, to observe the commands of Christ, as far as we are able, and we hope our Baptist friends do precisely the same thing. " The last part is a covenant, first with the disciples themselves, that the Lord would be with them in this work ; and, secondly, with their converts, that those who believed, and were baptized, should be saved;" — *' And, thirdly, in respect to those who believe not, he covenants that they from that very fact shall be condemned : and if condemned from that fact, of course not justified in anything, much less in becom- ing sons of God." p. 236. These " articles" may be all very good, but I do not see what connexion they have with the controversy between the Independents and Baptists, unless, indeed, in the last particular it is implied that, because those who do not believe are not justified in anything, they are not justified in D 34 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. being baptized. To this we venture to inquire, may they not be allowed to understand the Gospel, and to examine its claims, before they believe it? May they not be admitted in a class of inquirers to a course of instruction, and even receive symbolic instruction, as well as verbal, before they commit themselves to the faith of Christ ? May they not sit in a sanctuary, and observe the Lord's day, in order to know the way of Christ more perfectly? It is obvious that Mr. Stovel here assumes his own opinion of the meaning of baptism to be that which I ought to have assumed also. He would send the inquirer to the catechetical school, and disciple him without baptizing, when I would baptize him; and in reply to his objection, I might say, — "Your inquirer without faith is not justified in anything," and therefore is not justified in being instructed any more than in being baptized. Having thus taxed the patience of the reader in considering these " ten articles," I must leave him to decide how far Mr. Stovel was warranted in his summary to apply to me these, and many similar ex- pressions, — " He evades the fact," — " He positively conceals the additional fact," — " He has retained only three instructions instead of ten,"" — " He casts one more word aside, and then interprets the other two in a wrong sense," — " It requires great courage to occupy such a position before a reading public." p. 237 ; that is, to suppose that a verse in Matthew might be understood by comparing its own terms together, without seeking " ten articles" from the other evangelists, in order to obtain the correct inter- REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 35 pretation. I will assert with " great courage," that never before were these " ten articles " brought toge- ther in expounding the verse under inquiry. My excuse for too " great courage " must be, that no writer had ever before favoured me with the benefit of so copious a commentary. It requires, however, something else than " great courage" to deal in these insinuations, and among them to WTite, " He gravely asks why baptism is put before teaching, and answers that he is not compelled to ex- plain," p. 237 ; when I have proposed no such question, nor any question Hke it, either gravely or playfully ; nor have I said "anything about baptism being put before teaching in the commission, in any part of my lectures ! I challenge Mr. Stovel to produce the pas- sage, adding that, if he propose in future to indulge his polemical propensities, he should confine his reading to the book which he means to answer; for, as he knows very well, this is not the only instance, in which subsequent reflection must convince him, that he is not able to keep distinctly in his mind the dif- ferent arguments of his opponents, if, unfortunately, he reads two or three books at the same time. The reader should be advertised that, in fol- lowing my opponent in his argument on the " ten articles" of the commission, we have travelled beyond the lecture on " the Action of the Forty-seven Days," and are brought into the Sixth Lecture, on " the Apostolical Examples." How so much of the rea- soning on the commission should be included in this lecture, I am not required to explain ; but, accord- 36 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. ing to this arrangement, I have now to notice the criticism, with which my interpretation of our Lord's words is vigorously assailed. Mr. Stovel begins with a discovery in the gram- matical construction of pronouns. " The word them, which follows the words baptize and teach, is used to translate the word avrovs, which is a masculine pro- noun, and falls under the rule that a pronoun agrees with its noun in the antecedent proposition in num- ber and gender." p. 221. I should not have paid the following compliment, had it not been first offered to me. " It requires great courage to occupy such a position before a reading public" — as he occupies who continually making the most ludicrous blunders in Greek printing, punctuation, syntax, criticism, and even in the spelling of Greek proper names,* attempts to convict an opponent of ignorance, by pro- pounding a new rule of Greek grammar. There is no such rule in Buttmann, in Matthiae, in Kiihner, in Eost, or in any other grammar, unless Mr. Stovel has made one for his own school. He adds, " if ex- ceptions to the rule could be found," " Dr. Halley should have produced the cases." When Mr. Stovel has found the rule, I will produce the exceptions to his heart's content. But, on p. 238, in referring again to " the rule," we begin to perceive the rule of which Mr. Stovel * As " Theophilact" eight times in great letters and small in as many pages — 338-344. " The apostle James quotes from the Alexandrine MS. of the Septuagint," p. 515, " Dyonitius the Areopagite," p. 318, and many more such monstrous things. REPLY TO ilR. STOVEL. 37 had in his mind an imperfect conception. It is here, not as before, every ^^ pronoun,'' but, more cor- rectly, " every relative must agree with its antecedent in gender as well as in number and person." But, unfortunately, avros is not a relative, and so this older edition of the rule has no application whatever to the passage ; but, even if it were, in reference to such a noun as Wvos, implying persons and not things, masculine in sense, although not in termina- tion, it might be used in the mascidine with quite as much propriety as in the neuter, agreeing with what grammarians call the natural gender. With the noun eBvos: even adjectives, as well as pronouns, mas- cuhne or feminine, may be connected, as the indivi- duals which constitute the race, are considered male or female. The feminine seems the more remarkable. Let Mr. Stovel, therefore, open his Homer, and con- strue, II. /3. 459 — 462, opviBoiV eSuea dyaXko^cvni TTTepvyeacTH/. Thus Mr. Stovel first propounds a rule of gram- mar which no where exists ; next he states a rule correctly which has no application to the passage ; lastly, he expresses his behef that no exceptions can be found, although the exceptions are known to every school- boy. I should not have thus exposed him, had it not been absolutely necessary to refute his charges and insinuations about my concealing facts, and violating rules of grammar, and doing a great many other things, which I am not one whit more likely to do than he is himself. But Mr. Stovel has something to say about the 38 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. meaning of the noun edvos. " In its first and primary sense, the word comprehends the organised parts of any people, incorporated under one government, as the Eoman people, which means the senate, the officers, and citizens of Kome, including every mem- ber of that republic who has arrived at age." " The children under age were rather the property than part of the nation." p. 224. We deny that this is the " primary sense," or the secondary sense, or any sense at all of the word eBvos. It has no reference whatever to organised parts, or to incorporation under one government. The edvos may be organised or inorganised, corporate or not corporate. As to the strange assertion that the " children under age were rather the property than the parts of the nation," Mr. Stovel might, with just as good reason, have asserted that neither the women, nor even the men^ were parts of the e'Bvos. But where does he find this " first and primary sense ?" He can trace the word to no earlier author than Homer, where it means a multitude or collection of individuals, having some resemblance or identity, by which they can be included in the generic term. Thus we have the Wvea, or flocks of birds, — the edveaf or swarms of bees, — the e^fea, or crowds of ghosts ascending from Hades. Were these birds and ghosts " incorporated under one government ?" or were the young bees, like young children, no part of the race ? The second sense suggested is " the heathen." p. 225. But that term, surely, includes the children of the REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 39 heathen as well as their parents, and then the com- mand will be, disciple baptizing " all the heathen," according to which my reasoning remains very much the same as if the version " all the nations" were retained. " The third sense of the phrase," says Mr. Stovel, " depends upon the word all, all the nations." p. 226. For this I contend, and my opponent says, " the national and universal sense of the words must be relinquished." p. 226. But why must this sense be. rehnquished ? How can " aZZ" be anything but universal? or ^^ the nations''' anything but national? He tells us " first, the Jewish nation, as a commu- nity, was rejected." Yet were the disciples to con- vert all the Jewish nation, if they could. " Secondly, no national initiation of any kind has ever taken place by Divine command." But to disciple a nation is nothing else than to disciple all the people who compose it. " Thirdly, the apostles did not, at first, conceive that any heathen could be discipled, and baptized into Christ." The obvious reply is, if they did not so " conceive," they did not understand their commission. But Mr. Stovel says "no man can baptize a nation at once." Nor could Paul baptize a household at once, by one act ; but he baptized the household of Stephanas, when he baptized aU the members individually. So a nation may be baptized, as it may be converted, or may be extirpated, not at once, or as a nation, but by its individuals in succes- sion. But if the children of the household, or of the nation, are not baptized, then neither the household. 40 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. nor the nation, is baptized. Is Mr. Stovel a defender of national establishments and national prayers, be- cause he finds the prophecy, " all nations shall call him blessed ;" or does he admit my interpretation, " all the people who constitute the nations shall call him blessed ?" But " a fourth sense is given to the phrase by assuming what has been called the pronominal attrac- tion. By this expression is meant the power which Greek pronouns appear to exert in drawing out of a foregoing noun of multitude, as of mder meaning, the part of its constituent elements, which forms the natural antecedent to the pronoun," p. 226 ; that is, Mr. Stovel is totally ignorant of the meaning of the common grammatical figure, called " attraction^ Instead of the pronoun attracting anything from its antecedent, as he supposes, it is itself attracted out of its proper case into the case of its antecedent. As in this verse no pronoun is attracted from its proper case, this fourth sense is perfectly delusive, and rests upon nothing better than a ludicrous misapprehension of a grammatical term. But Mr. Stovel proposes, " lastly, the common sense construction of our Saviour's words." p. 228. By " common sense constructions" most people mean their own constructions; and, I suppose, this is the meaning of our author, for it seems to require very uncommon sense in its management. Under this division it is said, " It is a law that pronouns may be used absolutely, an antecedent being understood, agreeing with the pronoun in gender, number, and REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 41 person. Such a noun is obviously suggested by the foregoing word. yia6r)Tr)s, a disciple, is masculine, and derived from the foregoing word fiaOerveiv (^adt]- T€V(iv, I suppose he means) ' to make disciples.' " p. 233. I am sorry to be compelled, sorely against my good temper, to repeat so frequently, that Mr. Stovel does not understand the most common gram- matical terms he employs. Pronouns are said to be used " absolutely," when they are not under the government of any other word in the sentence, being absolved or detached from the grammatical connexion, as in " the case absolute." There is no such " law" as my opponent cites. But passing from Mr. Stovel's use of grammatical terms, let us notice his exposition of our Lord's words. He can translate the verse under examination two different ways, and make both of them agree with his " common sense construction." To me, however, a man who can translate the same words two different ways, appears to soar far above the region of com- mon sense as well as common syntax, and to become a conjuror instead of a grammarian. One scheme is the " assuming what has been called the pronominal attraction. ' According to this mar- vellous " pronominal attraction," aU the nations is " a foregoing noun of multitude," from which is attracted " the part of its constituent elements which form the natural antecedent to the pronoun." p. 227. Inquiring what " natural antecedent" is drawn out of the foregoing noun, I find these words as the trans- lation, " Go forth, disciple the men and women who 42 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. compose all the nations, baptizing them (the men and women you disciple)." p. 228. According to this scheme, (let it be carefully observed,) the words, " all the nations," are the immediate object of the transi- tive verb " disciple." As in all other instances, the action of the transitive verb passes immediately to its objective case, Mr. Stovel here translates " disciple all the nations," (as every body else would translate,) and not " disciple through all the nations." He does not want a preposition to support his doctrine of be- lievers' baptism, and therefore, like other people, he translates without one. But, according to the second scheme, which Mr. Stovel proposes in his lecture, and supports at con- siderable length in his third Appendix, the words, " all the nations," are not the object of the verb " disciple," although they are in the objective case. He says, " the words ' disciple all the nations' must contain an ellipsis, since the discipling of a nation is not a work consistent with the facts of sacred history, the intentions of Divine love, or the powers with which the apostles were entrusted." p. 508. The ellipsis which he assumes is the preposition Kara, and his translation is, " disciple through, or in, all the nations." Of this most ingenious contrivance, he says, " by making all the nations the moral and social sphere, in which the work of making disciples should be performed, all the instructions of our Lord are made to harmonise, and the language he uses is sus- tained by the highest Greek authorities." p. 234. Before I notice the version according to the second REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 43 sclaeme, let me ask Mr. Stovel to say plainly and candidly, Avhetlier, independently of the doctrine he undertakes to support, there is, or is not, any gram- matical reason for supposing the ellipsis of the pre- position ? Does Greek grammar require or reject the ellipsis ? Let his theology be silent, while he considers whether, if nothing about baptism followed, he would translate, " disciple all the nations," or, " disciple through all the nations." If he has gramma- tical reason for either version, (and in his two schemes he makes use of both,) let him consistently main- tain that one throughout. If he has no grammatical reason for either version, he had better honestly say, that he is only guessing at the meaning of the text, and not translating it. The two versions cannot both stand; yet Mr. Stovel, who contends at great length that there must be an ellipsis of /caret, can very com- fortably translate and reason, without this ellipsis, when " pronominal attraction," in his singular use of that term, will answer his purpose nearly as weU. Having said enough about the scheme of " prono^ minal attraction," of which curious thing, unless Mr. Stovel has greater " courage" than I have, in appear- ing " before a reading pubUc," he wiU never say another word ; let us notice this original suggestion of the ellipsis of a preposition, between the transitive verb and the accusative case immediately following it. Here I feel the " great courage," which my opponent says I require, and meet him plainly and positively by asserting, that of all the strange things which have ever been suggested to strain and torture the 44 REPLY TO MK. STOVEL. sacred text, to assert the ellipsis of a preposition in sucli a connexion, is the most arbitrary, inconsistent, and untenable. To translate " disciple through all the nations," by making " all the nations" " the moral and social sphere in which the work of making disciples should be performed," is a scheme, accord- ing to which we might, -with as much propriety, translate the first verse of Genesis, " In the beginning God created through the heavens and the earth;" by making the heavens and the earth " the moral and social sphere in which the work" of creating some- thing else was " performed." By the discovery of such ellipses we may construe Scripture very much as we please. But we are told " the language he uses is sustained by the highest Greek authorities." I do not require Greek authorities for the language which our Lord uses, but for a very different thing, — the new version of it. For this Mr. Stovel can produce no Greek authority whatever, none to prove that " all the nations" mean " a moral and social sphere," places in which we are to disciple, and not people whom we are to disciple, — none to prove the ellipsis of a preposition between the transitive verb and the accusative noun immediately following, — none to prove that the prepo- sition should be Kara rather than any other which may be suggested. As, however, an Appendix is given, in order to produce and illustrate the " highest Greek authorities," in proof of this ellipsis of the preposition Kara, we are bound to undertake what an REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 45 intelligent reader will consider the very superfluous task of examining them. The first is Acts xiv. 21, according to Mr. Stovel's translation, " Having evangelised that city and having discipled a great number." p. 508. But Mr. Stovel himself does not here suggest the ellipsis of /caret, nor does he translate having discipled through a great number. We have here the accusative case Uavovsj following the participle iiadrjTevo-avTes, precisely as in the commission. But Mr. Stovel says there is an ellipsis in the phrase " evangelized the city," for " Paul did not proclaim the city, but he proclaimed in or through the city." p. 509. The reply is ob- vious. If Mr. Stovel considers the participle evay- yeXio-aiievoi to be transitive, he translates as in his first version, " evangelized the city," and then there is no ellipsis. If he considers it to be intransitive, he translates as in his second version " he proclaimed in or through the city," and there is an elHpsis. But in neither case have we, what we require, the ellipsis of the preposition hetween the transitive verb and the accusative case. But the appeal is carried to " Clement of Rome," who says, " the apostles having preached through regions and cities." p. 509. There is the word through very apparent ; and on turning to the text of Clement, there is also the preposition Kara, as plainly before our eyes. AVhat can be the use of producing a pas- sage where Kara appears, in proof of its omission ? We require a passage in which it does not appear, 46 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. to supply the least shadow of authority for its ellipsis. But then we are answered with a passage from Pindar, " through earth and sea and Tartarus," and with passages from the Septuagint, " The lamps throw their light through the space before the lamp-stand," — " The sixth covering shall be folded in the front of the tabernacle, — " The fowls that fly through the firma- nent of heaven," — " Mordecai walked through the court of the women," — " The people dwelt through or in the parts east of Gilead," — " Go ye through the midst of the camp ;" and passages from the New Testa- ment, " Their poverty extended into the depths," — " To navigate the places in Asia," — " Having passed through Mysia," — " They attempted to go through Bithynia," — " Jesus himself went through city and village," — " Proclaiming through all the city," — " through the towns" — " in their families" — " through the synagogues" — " along the streets" — " through the whole of Judea" — " in a dream" — " in places" — " in a retired place" — " through that region." p. 511. Mr. Stovel might have easily prolonged his series of examples through all his mortal life. But what do they all prove more than that Kara is to be prefixed, and not omitted, in such a construction ? Mr. Stovel's conclusion, however, is, " with these cases before us, it is hard to think that Jesus could have violated the genius of the language by saying, " Going out make disciples (fcara) Trdvra to. edvrj, in or through all the na- tions." p. 513. No one thinks that " Jesus would have violated the genius of the language," if he had said in REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 47 or through all the nations ; but we think, or rather know, that he did not say so. If Kara is expressed in all the instances cited from Clement, Pindar, the Septuagint, and the New Testament, why should it not appear in the words of our Lord ? These instances only prove that there is such a word as Kara in the Greek language, and that if our Lord wished to say through all the nations, it was so common that it could not well have escaped him. We want an instance of the ellipsis of Kara in a construction hke that of the text, and it is giving us stones for bread, to parade the instances in which it is supplied. Mr. Stovel no where attempts to reconcile either of his versions with the tense of the participle " baptiz- ing," which being present is to be construed as con- temporaneous with the verb. It cannot imply any postponement until the act of the verb be completed. The command is not, disciple and baptize, as if there were two distinct verbs ; nor yet, disciple with the intention of baptizing, as if the participle were future, but, disciple baptizing. Let Mr. Stovel produce any rule of the grammarians to justify his version, or any version which makes the present participle to denote an act dependent on the action implied in the verb. Sometimes the present participle denotes what, in other languages, is expressed by the relative and the verb, and then the version would be, — Ye who baptize, disciple. But then the article would be required, ol ^aTTTiCovTes. Sometimes it denotes a condition, as, if you baptize, disciple, and sometimes the time, as, when ye baptize, disciple. More frequently it implies 48 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. tlie terms, or mode, or some circumstance of the action of the verb, as in baptizing, or by baptizing, or in connexion with baptizing, disciple. I, however, need not examine the various usages of the present parti- ciple, in maintaining that there is no grammatical construction which will justify any translation which postpones the baptizing until after the discipling. If Mr. Stovel will produce a rule of syntax, according to which the present participle denotes an action subsequent to the action of its verb, and not contem- poraneous with it ; that is, if he will prove that the expression, " he cried saying," means he said nothing until after he cried, then I will abandon the contro- versy, by admitting that to " disciple baptizing" may mean not to baptize until after you have made dis- ciples. Let us have rules of the syntax of present participles, and not " ten articles" of declamation or theology. Until they are produced, we may safely refuse to hear any exposition of our Lord's commis- sion, founded upon the extraordinary assumption that to disciple baptizing is to defer baptizing until the disciples are made. Mr. Stovel appears somewhat discomposed, because I have not undertaken a formal refutation of the argument, which our Baptist friends have founded upon the passages in the Epistles, which, according to them, describe the character of baptized persons, and against which he says my " system has no de- fence." p. 253. I reply, it has quite as good a defence as any he can raise in the front of his own. Ac- cording to his enumeration, " The affirmations made REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 49 of baptized persons amount, at least, to nineteen." " Those who are baptized into Christ, are said to be baptized into his death, buried with him, planted with him ; their faith is said to have come, they are sons of God by faith in Christ, they have put on Christ, are one in Christ, a seed of Abraham complete in Christ, circumcised with the circumcision without hands, buried with him, risen with him, quickened with him, forgiven their sins, saved by the washing of a new birth, and by a renewing of the Spirit, justified, and heirs according to the hope of eternal life." p. 253. Does Mr. Stovel assert that these spiritual blessings belong to the baptized, to all the baptized, and to the baptized as such? If they belong to all unbaptized believers, and to no baptized unbe- lievers, they are connected with faith and not ^vith baptism. Invariably they belong to the baptism of the Spirit, but unless the Tractarian theory be true, they certainly do not belong to the baptism of water. Without doubt, Mr. Stovel tells us, Ananias and Sapphira were baptized, p. 264, as unquestionably was Simon the magician. Were their sins forgiven them ? Were they " sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus ?" Were they " saved by the washing of a new birth and by a renewing of the Spirit," " justified," and " heirs according to the hope of eternal life?" In whatever sense these words are true of the hypo- crites and false brethren, " of old ordained to this condemnation," immersed by our Baptist brethren, they are equally true of the infants sprinkled by our hands. When Mr. Stovel has constructed his own 50 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. " defence," we shall find impregnable security against the assault of these " nineteen affirmations." The only reply I can, at present, find to these observations is, that these unbelievers have professed to be regenerated, and therefore, on their own pro- fession, have been recognised and accredited. But as the profession was a falsehood, the recognition was a delusion, and consequently the baptism a worthless formality. We do not profess that our infants " are saved by the washing of a new birth " when we bap- tize them. But if we profess to administer believers' baptism, when faith is absent, the whole service is a vain and fallacious ceremonial. It is not what it professes to be, believers' baptism. The un- believer assumes what does not belong to him, and the fallacious assumption is accredited by the Christian teacher who recognises him as a son of God, saved by water, buried with Christ, and endowed with " nineteen" spiritual blessings in his baptism. When such a false professor is discovered, the Baptists no longer accredit him as a son of God, but, strange and inconsistent as it may seem, although they disown the man, they accredit his baptism, — although they utterly repudiate his profession, they recognise the act of immersion which depended upon that profes- sion. But falsehood can confer no vaUdity upon a rehgious rite. A lie upon his lips, however complete his immersion, cannot make the unbeliever a partaker of believers' baptism. But should this man subse- quently beheve, or subsequently be supposed to be- lieve, he has no need of believers' baptism, for his REPLY TO liR. STOVEL. 51 baptism without faith is recognised as if it were essentially the same thing as beUevers' baptism. To him are freely conceded all the nineteen privileges of Mr. Stovel's enumeration. But the objection is of wider extent. Many young persons, under the favourable influence of rehgious education and impressions, with no intention of de- ceiving others, have submitted to the rite of baptism. If, on subsequent reflection, they become convinced, that they were not at the time truly regenerate, ought they to be re-baptized ? Mr. Stovel says, that bap- tism is a sign not of that repentance, or purity, or union vdth Christ in his death which the subject ought to acquire ; but of that regeneration which at the time he has actually acquired. If it be so, in all these instances, it is a sign of falsehood, — an un- meaning symbol of which there is no corresponding reality, — the answer not of a good conscience, but of a conscience which has never been cleansed by the blood of Jesus. I doubt not a great many very pious people in Baptist churches have never been partakers of believers' baptism, because, I doubt not, a great many have been converted since their baptism and religious profession. I am not in the habit of citing from my own experience, but I have no doubt that my retrospect of a Christian profession corre- sponds with that of many members both of Baptist and Independent churches. A respectable Baptist minister, in a tract on baptism, says, that " unless Dr. Halley has been baptized since he became a Christian, he has never had Christian baptism." I 52 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. must tell him, that even his practice would not have aided me in this particular ; for having been favoured with such an education as must have produced some serious thought in any youth not unusually obdurate, I made a religious profession in very early life. But had I then received baptism, I could not, in the re- trospect of the errors and faults of so many years, have ventured to call it " believers' baptism." So that had I been from my boyhood a Baptist by profession, I could not now assure myself that a baptism on joining a church in my seventeenth year would have been " Christian baptism." * * The force of these remarks depends not upon the number of unbelievers who, although immersed by our brethren, do not receive believers' baptism ; but upon the principle involved, that in these instances the unbelievers' baptism is recognized as essentially the same as believers' baptism. Yet to prevent any from supposing that these instances are very uncommon, and that therefore the argument is of very limited application, I turn to the statistics of our Baptist brethren. In doing so, I protest against its being supposed that the Baptist churches are less scrupulous and careful in their admission of members than any other voluntary churches. I intend no such uncha- ritable reflection. As in our own denomination, some of their churches may be too strict, and others too lax ; but upon the whole I believe that they act upon a wise and honourable discrimination. I assume that these churches do not exclude many whom they believe to be true Christians, although in some instances, probably, they may have excluded true believers. But when we consider how many false professors remain un- discovered, and again, how many become true Christians after their profession, and again, how many may, in all our churches, have so declined that, while there is no tangible reason for their exclusion, there is so little evidence of their true piety REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 53 Of some remarks of this kind in reply to Dr. Car- son's assertions on believers' baptism, I find in Mr. Stovel no other notice than the following, (p. 482 :) *' Why should Dr. Halley, or any other man, be so filled with concern to make out the fallibility or infal- libility of his Baptist brethren ? The question is not what they are, but what they ought to be. His Baptist brethren may be shown to be wrong, but this will not prove Dr. Halley to be right." I was con- cerned with the " faUibility or infallibility" of Baptist arguments, not of "Baptist brethren;" and especially the argument which supports them in accrediting, as believers' baptism, the rite in which there is no faith, although there is immersion, and in refusing that, probably, as candidates, they would not be admitted to fellowship, must we not conclude, without the slightest reflec- tion upon the discipline of our Baptist brethren, (for had the Independents their statistics, they would appear, I believe, in much the same state,) that the majority of their baptisms are not believers' baptisms? In the Christian Witness, for April, 1846, "the tabular view of the churches and statistics of the Jamaica Baptist Western Union, for the year 1845, which presents an account of 36 churches," containing "21,161 members," gives us this account. Baptized, 947 — Excluded, 580 — Withdrawn, 54. More than 60 per cent, on the baptisms were excluded, I doubt not, on good and sufficient reasons, even according to the most charitable judgment which, in those circumstances, the brethren were bound to exercise. Such baptisms are truthful signs of what men ought to be, but very fallacious signs of what they really are. So in the statistics of 773 Bap- tist churches published in their Manual for 1845, there are reported the decrease, by death, 1739 — by exclusion, 1540 : nearly as many are annually excluded as die in fellowship. 54 REPLT TO MR. STOVEL. SO to accredit the rite in which there is faith, although there is no immersion. When Mr. Stovel says, I can " never show how evei'y baptized person may be designated a child of God by faith in Christ," may I not reply, without being chargeable with undue concern for the fallibility of the Baptists, neither can he, nor can any other man, whatever may be his theory, show how " every baptized person" — the bap- tized unbeliever^ " can be designated a child of God by faith in Christ ?" To the man, who is so far gone in Tractarianism, or something worse, as to make the attempt, we would reply, a baptized infant is a child of God by faith in Christ, as truly, at least, as a bap- tized unbeliever. According to Mr. Stovel, " the baptized hypocrite is marked for peculiar vengeance, he has no place among the common damned." p. 273. Although I copy these words, I dare not make them my own, nor dogmatize upon the statistics of final perdition. They, however, imply that the reception of baptism, on the part of an unbeliever, is an a\vful crime, imparting direful atrocity to his subsequent offences ; yet this a^vful crime is recognized, on sub- sequent belief, as the burial with Christ, — the being quickened with him, — the being saved by water, — and the nineteen other things which Mr. Stovel says baptism designates. To this he ought to find some better reply than, "the Baptist brethren may be proved to be wrong, but this will not prove that Dr. Halley is right." I have endeavoured to show from the instances related in the Acts, that the baptism of persons REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 55 usually took place on the first opportunity, which was afforded, after their hearing the Gospel. My argument was, that a rite so administered to thou- sands, who on the same day had been called upon to repent and be baptized, on their first convictions of rehgion, was much more appropriate as a sign of what they ought to be, and by submitting to the Gospel what they really would be, than a seal of what they actually were. Amidst many pages entitled " Practical Illustrations," " Demonstrative Cases," and " Classified Examples," in which are introduced various profitable remarks about " the temple of Eleusis," — " Diana who was great with the Ephesians," — " the war gods of Rome," the "offensively absurd affirmations" of Dr. Halley, and many other things, Mr. Stovel fortunately detects the source of my error, in expounding the instances of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. He says, " one source of error in this great inquiry is found in the contracted view which is taken of recorded facts." But, as if to explain how I came to take so contracted a view, it is added, " The few remains of apostoUcal action can form but a small part of what was done and said in those soul-stirring times by men so absorbed and devoted in their work." p. 289. My view of recorded facts is, certainly, contracted to the Hmits of the record, as I confess I cannot tell what else " was done and said in these soul-stirring times." I must, therefore, leave the reply to others, whose views have become more expanded by supplying the omissions of the sacred narrative. 56 REPLY TO MR. ST0^T:L. Mr. Stovel says, " if these splendid peculiarities" (that is, the facts not recorded) " could, by returning to their simphcity, be now procured, the unearthly acquisition would be well regained." p. 290. But until " these splendid peculiarities" do " return to their simplicity," we must be content with our con- tracted view of the sacred narrative. To read, in the Acts of the Apostles, of persons who were baptized in the hour of their first impressions, is my humble pro- vince: to invoke " unearthly acquisitions" to " return to their simplicity," is IVIr. Stovel's mode of assisting his argument. When the prophets are silent, I am not going, in company with Mr. Stovel, to a woman who hath a familiar spirit, that by "unearthly acquisitions" she may disquiet the dead, and bid " these splendid peculiarities," " returning to their simplicity," tell us more than the inspired historian has told of " what was done and said in those soul-stirring times." The Seventh Lecture, is " On the Testimony of the Ancient Christian Authors." The testimonies are classified, in accordance with the places in which they were delivered. We have first " the testimonies from Rome," including the Epistle to the Romans, the Gospel of Luke, the Acts, the Epistles of Paul written from Rome, and the " Evidence from Clement of Rome." Every one of these testimonies we are quite as ready to accredit, as being the fair exponent of our principles, as is IMr. Stovel himself. Let him specify the passages which the members of our deno- mination would repudiate. I have already alluded to the " testimony" of Clement, and I must again REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 57 inquire, "what can be the meaning or use of citing witnesses on one side of a controversy, when they do not offer a single word which both parties are not prepared to acknowledge ? By the same ingenious contrivance, I may find myself some day cited as a zealous Anti-paedo-Baptist. The next class, " The Testimonies from Greece," contains, ^^dth some references to the Epistle to the Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Philippians, only " The Testimony of Theophilact," (Theophylact, I suppose.) Why he should not be supported by other authorities from this region, I cannot imagine ; for if such statements as his be of any value in the contro- versy, they may be plentifully produced, and Mr. Stovel does his cause injustice, in selecting Theophy- lact as the only oracle of Greece. This solitary divine in Grecian costume is, however, adduced as a wit- ness of great importance. " Let Dr. Halley follow the expositions of Theophilact^ and show with equal suavity and calmness where he has missed the mean- ing of the inspired word. When a due attention has been paid to all the elements of his reasoning, his errors will be found comparatively few ; and from the rich mine of sacred truth which his writings compose, this testimony to believers' baptism will be obtained, which is too clear to be misunderstood, and so con- clmive as to admit of no possible refutation.''^ pp. 344, 345. The good bishop of Bulgaria, however he might deserve all the praise which is so liberally bestowed upon him, yet flourishing in the year 1070, is not so very ancient as to require particular attention. But, 58 REPLY TO ME. STOVEL. be this as it may, Theopliylact must somehow or other have contrived to misunderstand what was " too clear to be misunderstood," or have refuted to his own satisfaction what was " so conclusive as to admit of no possible refutation;" since with all his " suavity and calmness," and in despite of his own " testimony," he was a Psedobaptist. Is it not palpable absurdity to parade " the testimony" of an orthodox Greek bishop of the eleventh century as an authority against infant baptism ? The " Testimonies from Asia Minor," include those of Paul, John, Ignatius and Polycarp, which, at least, so far as Mr. Stovel has produced them, have not the slightest connexion with the subject of our con- troversy. He has not produced a single sentence from these writers in which I do not cordially concur. The " Testimonies from Syria" amount to only one, " the old Syriac versio7i,''^ of which, it is said, " the passages that relate to baptism are so translated, as to prove that, in the view of these churches, the disciples were to be initiated by an immersion in water, as Baptists now observe it, and that this initiating immersion was never administered except upon the ground of an accredited faith." p. 353. Let Mr. Stovel produce the passages, and we will examine his criticisms; but he can hardly expect us to take his bare assertion on a question of oriental literature, as if it were indisputable authority. The Testimonies from Palestine comprise " Theo- philus at Antioch," which would seem rather to belong REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 59 to Syria, and " Justin Martyr^ Theophilus says, according to Mr. Stovel's version, that " the churches of Christ were like islands in the troubled sea of life, to which the lovers of truth might flee for refuge, that believers were as fixed stars, the prophets and apostles of the first magnitude, eminent uninspired teachers of the second, and the rest of all degrees, yet fixed and luminous in the spiritual hemisphere, and that the recipients of truth were the persons born again, and receiving blessing of God in baptism." p. 354. What relation this " testimony" has to the controversy I cannot discover. If I say, good people " receive blessing" on going to church, am I to be produced as an authority for the opinion that no other than good people are to be allowed to go to church ? The passages from Justin Martyr have been noticed in my Lecture on Baptismal Kegeneration. Mr. Stovel says, " The point from which these testimonies derive their greatest importance is, at the present time, the light they throw upon the meaning of the word born again, and its derivatives, as used in Scripture." p. 357. That regeneration and the new birth are two different things ; the former preceding the latter, — the former efi'ected by the Spirit, — the latter accom- plished in baptism, is a doctrine which Mr. Stovel repeatedly avows, — ^his deduction from these cita- tions, if I correctly understand him, is that Justin Martyr gives testimony in favour either of *' the Tractmen," or of the Baptists, — of " the Tractmen," if he means regeneration, — of the Baptists, if he means 60 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. the new birth. I am wilUng to admit the alternative, and to maintain that Justin Martyr does, in a modified sense, support the doctrine of Baptismal Regenera- tion. The passage on which the controversy chiefly depends, is thus construed by Mr. Stovel: "After that they are led by us to where there is water, and are born again in that kind of new birth by which we ourselves were born again." p. 360. Elsewhere Mr. Stovel, citing my remark on Justin, " he calls baptism regeneration," corrects me by inserting as his version a new birth, and says, " here regeneration is confounded with the new birth." p. 257. He " requires the admission" " that conversion and regeneration are declared to precede baptism, and that baptism is the new birth of the converted person, and all will then be perfectly clear." I will make no such admission. K the distinction between regeneration and the new birth be found in Scripture, as Mr. Stovel asserts, but nowhere proves, then Justin speaks of regeneration and not of the new birth. The verb is dvayewdcoj and the noun dvayewrjo-is. Let Mr. Stovel say what right he has to correct my version, as if these words were referable, as he seems to suppose, to the act of the mother. Or if he would learn the meaning of the word in the New Testament, let him translate 6 dvayevvrjcras in 1 Pet. i. 3, and see if he can correct the common version, " who according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again," by substituting hath " brought us forth again ;" that is, according to his interpretation, hath baptized us. If he reply, this is not his rendering of this passage, why does he REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 61 correct my version of the same verb in other pas- sages ? " The Testimonies from Egypt" include Pantsenus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Of Pantaenus no more can be said than that he presided over the school of the faithful at Alexandria, which school, however, Mr. Stovel cannot describe without mistake or misrepresentation. He says, " the catechetical school we have traced, through Pantaenus to within eighty years of the Apostle John ; it was then called an ancient school." p. 380. It was not then called an ancient school. It was so called by Eusebius about one hundred and fifty years afterwards. Mr. Stovel is very angry with me for my treatment of Clement, who greatly extols the virtue of baptism, as being regenerative, enlightening, perfection, and very much else, all which is appropriated, as if it were favourable to the hypothesis of the Baptists, although it appears to me to belong exclusively to the Tracta- rians. But as he brings his charges against me in reference to Clement more distinctly in the succeeding lecture, I shall return to this subject. Tertullian, who objected to the baptism of infants, of virgins, and of •widows, on account of the heinousness of sins com- mitted after baptism, may be certainly claimed as " an authority" by Mr. Stovel,the value of which he would do well to estimate by carefully considering the many strange doctrines which it will support. As to the reply to my observations upon its value, " Whatever his faults, Tertullian's arguments stand, as far as they conform to Divine truth,'"' p. 381 ; I can only say, if 62 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. Mr. Stovel has established " the Divine truth" of his opinions, to adduce the authority of TertulHan is very superfluous labour. According to my reasoning, the authority of Tertullian is of very little value. Mr. Stovel says, how can that be, for his arguments " con- form to Divine truth," and " Dr. Halley can maintain his ground in no other way." Dr. Halley says, the arguments of Tertullian do not conform to Divine truth, and the question is settled by putting this saying into a section, entitled " Dr. Halley's Mistakes." Were the case of the Baptists as clear as the Gospel, the logic of such a defender would cover it with suspicion. The Lecture on " the Testimony of ancient Chris- tian Authors " concludes in the following language : " At the beginning the advocates of this holy law were so few and feeble, as to seem beneath contempt; the result was, that, in three hundred years, all society was so changed, that Constantine secured the empire by favouring its advocates." — " In Rome, Greece, Asia, Syria, Palestine, and Africa, churches were formed in the name of Christ and by his law, but in each and all of these countries, whatever the variation of circumstances and national taste, the churches produced by this law were, in constitution and dis- cipHne, the same. How should this be, that millions gave the document the same interpretation, and often under the most powerful motives to change its sense ? The only answer that can be given to this inquiry is this, — the law must have had a defined and fixed meaning, and the interpretation so generally and REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 63 effectively received must have been the right one. It is not only morally certain, it is absolutely and mathe- matically certain, that any wrong interpretation of the law could never have been so universally and so unanimously received." p. 374. By this triumphant decision the controversy is brought to absolute and mathematical certainty. So many witnesses could not be deceived. Not daring to offer any contradic- tion, I only venture to suggest to Mr. Stovel's recol- lection, in order to see whether his morals and mathematics will support the same argument when it is against him as well as when it is on his own side, that all the churches which covered the earth in the age of Constantine, and could receive no " A^Tong interpretation of the law," were " U7ii'cersalhj and unanimously''^ Pasdobaptists. The last lecture is on " the General Apostacy," of which the only section properly belonging to our controversy is entitled "Dr. Halley's Mistakes." As it occupies only four pages,* I may congratulate myself, that both the statement and exposure of my errors can be compressed into so small a compass. These "mistakes" amount to six, according to the formal enumeration of them, and they are introduced with this kindly remark, " where there is any doubt respecting Dr. Halley's meaning, the whole advantage of the doubt should go on his side." I am compelled to disclaim this kind of patronage, lest I should ap- pear to be indebted to Mr. Stovel's candour, to which • p. 380—383. 64 REPLY TO JIR. STOVEL. I owe nothing whatever. He has reiterated the charge of something worse than " mistakes," — of re- ferring to the painful defects of the Corinthian church " with too much exultation," although I have never referred to those painful defects, with or without exultation, in any part of my volume, and his only defence, on being asked for the reference, is, that he has been perplexed in his reading of several books, and so has ascribed to me what he has found in some other writer. As he has made this acknowledgment to me privately, I require no other defence, at least until his Lectures reach a second edition, when the injustice is to be repaired, than thus publicly to state the truth according to his own acknowledgment. My six mistakes must, however, be noticed. The Jt?'st is " in neglecting to supply the names and \vritings of those authors, in whom he thinks that he has traced the corruptions whieh marked what he calls the transitive age. He says I find this, and I find that, but he does not say where. This is wrong." p. 380. This may be my negligence, but how is it announced as a mistake ? However that may be, will the reader believe that my accuser is here guilty of the " wrong" which he attributes to me? He gives no references whatever to the passages in which I neglect to produce the reference. He too " says I find this," — " but he does not say where." Physician, heal thyself. I, however, firmly beHeve, notwithstanding this unsupported charge, that there is no authority to which I have appealed, without giving the reference fully and fairly. I challenge him to produce a single REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 65 instance. There maj be general allusions to prevalent opinions, or usages, or current expressions, to which no writer would think of giving references, because they are well known to every intelligent reader ; but I cannot find any authority, to which I appeal, with- out its appropriate reference. So long as such an assertion is unsupported, it can be met in no other way than by a plain and positive denial. At all events, Mr. Stovel is here guilty of the very sin of which he falsely accuses me. But " secondly, it was quite a mistake in Dr. Halley to affirm that the expressions and practice of authors who lived in the second century, and, in some cases, in the first, were characteristic of the third and fourth century." p. 380. Here again is no reference. What I have affirmed of " authors who lived in the second century," or " in the first," I am prepared to defend, if iVIr. Stovel will condescend to mention the particulars. Again, I deny the accusa- tion, and challenge him to produce the instances. " Thirdly, Dr. Halley pleads, and his whole argu- ment implies, that the transition which led to the apostacy commenced with catechetical schools and be- lievers' baptism ; but these did not begin in the third and fourth centuries." p. 380. I do not know that I have ascribed the commencement of the apostacy to the " catechetical schools," or to " believers' baptism," but if I have unfortunately made such a statement, it may remain, notwithstanding all Mr. Stovel says in its refutation, for neither did the apostacy " begin in the third and fourth centuries." As, however, there is 66 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. no reference, I can only challenge Mr. Stovel to im- pugn anything I have said of " these catechetical schools." " Fourthly, Tertullian is treated as if he were the first authority in favour of baptizing believers only." p. 381. Tertullian is, I believe, " the first authority in favour of baptizing" married people only, and Mr. Stovel has produced no earlier objector to the baptism of infants. " Fifthly, Dr. Halley is very hard on Clement of Alexandria, and condemns him with much severity and ridicule, because he calls the baptized believers (teleioi) perfect, a,nd. {p ho tizomenoi) enlightened', the use of these terms is called tumid, and traced to the heathen oracles and mysteries." " If Dr. Halley had been more careful, he might have found that these fathers had quoted these very words, in the very sense, and in reference to the very same subject, from the writings of the apostle Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Was Paul, then, the author of the apos- tacy ?" p. 381. It would certainly have been a sad mistake to have made Paul, even by implication, " the author of the apostacy." It is, therefore, fortunate for me to be able to affirm, that I nowhere condemn Clement, or any one else, with or without " severity and ridicule," because he calls the baptized beUevers " perfect" and " enUghtened." The charge is utterly false. The only passage in which I apply the word " tumid" to Clement occurs on p. 13 of my Lectures, where I say, " hence the tumid phraseology of the REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 67 philosopliieal fathers, as Clement of Alexandria, derived from the Eleusinian processions or Bacchan- alian orgies, of sacred mysteries, and awful initiations, and ecstatic visions, and torch-bearing leaders, and mystic dances of angels around the one true God." These expressions may be to the taste of Mr. Stovel, and with them many more of the same kind may be found in Clement. I referred to the passage in which Clement describes ** the mysteries of the Logos," and invites the Bac- chanalian to leave his thyrsus, and his mitre, and come to the mountain beloved of God — where, instead of the Maenades, the initiated daughters of God lead the dance — celebrating the chaste orgies of the Logos — where virgins sing and angels applaud — and the Lord is the hierophant who seals the initiated, with much more to the same effect — as Mr. Stovel may find in the twelfth chapter of the Cohortatio ad Gentes. In calling this language *' tumid," I am very easy under the accusation of ridicul- ing the style or sentiments of the Epistle to the Hebrews! But " Sixthly ^ another mistake equally glaring and improper, relates to the violation of the baptismal covenant. Because Tertullian and the ancients treated the crime with great seriousness, Dr. Halley becomes merry at their expense. This is doubly wrong." p. 382. Would any reasonable man have expected such an accusation to be intitled the sixth mistake ? Be it that " I have been ' doiMy wrong' in becoming 68 REPLY TO 3IR. STOVEL. merry at the expense" of TertuUian, or eyen of tlie Rev. Charles Stovel himself, how do my pleasurable emotions affect the merits of the argument ? Mr. Stovel says, in aggravation of this charge, " In stating what he supposes to be the objectionable 'views of Clement, Dr. Halley makes but little use of the author's own works, which are copious and greatly to the point ; but infers his sentiments from an abstract of doctrines taught by Valentine and Theodotus, which is printed \\dth Clement's works." p. 382. To this charge is appended a note, in which it is said, " In ascribing them to Clement, therefore. Dr. Halley has committed an error, for which the best apology that can be afforded, rests on the supposition that, through precipitancy, or the pressure of other duties, this imputation of Clement of Alexandria was written without acquiring an exact knowledge, either of his writings, or of his character, or of the abstract from which the slander has been fabricated."* These are hard words, but if any " slander has been fabricated," " without acquiring an exact knowledge either of the writings, or of the character" of the writer, let us convict the criminal. I have not, in any instance, " inferred the sentiments" of Clement " from an ab- stract of doctrines taught by Valentine and Theodotus." As Mr. Stovel gave no reference, and as I was unable to conjecture to what passage in my Lectures this heavy charge of fabricating slander could possibly refer, for I could easily verify every reference to * p. 383. REPLY TO MR. STOVEL, 69 Clement from his acknowledged works, I had no other defence against so wanton a charge than to write to my accuser, inquiring in what part of my work I had attributed to Clement anything found in " an abstract of doctrines taught by Valentine and Theodotus." I am compelled, in my own defence, to print Mr. Stovel's reply. He writes to me under date June 2nd, 1846:— " The statement in p. 258, with note b and other passages respecting the charge against Clement as that on p. 12 — 14, seemed to me to justify the conclusion that you inferred the sentiments of that author from the Abstract of Sentiments taught by Valentine and Theodotus, and the passage you have partially quoted in the note." I entreat the reader's attention, as he must judge between me and Mr. Stovel on this " slan- der" The passage referred to on p. 12 — 14 I have already produced from the De Cohort. Gent, of Clement, where Mr. Stovel would easily have found it, if he were as familiar with Clement as he ought to be, before he charges others mth slandering him. As to " the statement on p. 258," of my Lecture, my exact words are, " We now come to Tertullian, to Clement of Alexandria, to Origen, and to the other writers of the beginning of the third century; and here we are compelled to surrender the argument." The argument, be it observed, was on baptismal re- generation, and the concession was that the doctrine which I opposed, that is, baptismal regeneration, might be found " in a modified form in those writers." In the text there Is not another word about Clement. 70 REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. The note h I must repeat verbatim et literatim, for I am sure my readers would not give me credit for the assertion I am about to make, were it not justified by indubitable evidence. The note b, to which Mr, Stovel appeals in justification of the charge that 1 attribute to Clement, " the abstract of doctrines taught by Valentine and Theodotuy, which is printed with Clement's works," is as follows, although I fear the reader will not believe me, unless he turns to my own Lectures on the Sacraments, p. 258. "// the Epitome of Theodotus, appended to the works of Clement, can be supposed to represent his opinions on the subject of baptism, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration must, in his age, have ex- panded in its full bloom and perfection. More astonishing representation of the wonderful power of baptism is not to be found in the fourth or fifth cen- tury. Although in these passages, he they of Clement^ or of Theodotus, or of whatever divine^ there are some references to the internal baptism as distinct from the external, and the celestial water as distinguished from the earthly, which would intimate that the writer held some spiritual and correct views, yet baptism is. represented as exerting a mystic and most marvellous power upon the soul. The great danger is, lest the unclean spirits should go down with the man inta the water, and so acquire the holy seal of baptism with him. But the most extraordinary proof of the regenerating power of baptism, — the escperimenturti erucis, is that^ even destiny, the awful, resistless^ in- REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 71 flexible eluapixevrj, which, with absolute sway, ruled the Grecian gods, loses its power over the man when he enters the baptistery, for as he becomes a new creature, so the nativities of his horoscope are re- versed, and the astrologer can predict nothing more respecting him — fJ-expt tov ^anTiafxaTos ovv tj eifuipfjieuT], (pao-LV, akrjdrjs ' fJ-era Se tovto ovk en aXrjdevova-tv ol darpoXoyot. This book is often considered to repre- sent in epitome the lost Institutes of Clement, but I cannot believe, independently of the discrepancy in other particulars, that such absurdity existed in the church or the school of Alexandria, corrupted as it was with the new Platonism, so early as the age of Clement, much less that it was extracted by him, or by any one else, from an earlier author. Theodotus is usually regarded as a heretic, but such superstition would be unpardonable in a pagan. According to Photius, however, nothing can be too bad to attribute to the Hypotyposes of Clement." Let the reader now observe my words, and say whe- ther this note justifies Mr. Stovel, in asserting that I fabricate a slander against Clement, or infer his senti- ments from this Abstract of the Doctrines of Theodotus. Let the reader determine by whom, " without ac- quiring an exact knowledge, either of his writings or of his character," — " the slander has been fabricated." I do not like to repeat these words, even in inverted commas, but there they must remain, until Mr. Stovel confess that he has wrongly accused me of the fault of which he was himself, at that very moment, guilty. 72 EEPLY TO MR. STOVEL. The ugly word "slander" is his own — let it stand against himself until he confess he has wrongly accused me, and then let it be for ever forgotten. But this charge is, in another respect, more mar- vellous, although less offensive. I complained of the word " slander," and Mr. Stovel offers me the following explanation. " The word slander was intended to apply to the charge brought against Clement, which appears to me unsustained, the effect of which, falls first on him and Tertullian, then on the system you suppose them to have originated, and finally, on us who adhere to it, though we take it not from him but from Scripture." The alleged slander of Clement was, in charging liim with teaching, that in baptism, the nativities of the horoscope are reversed, and the astrologers at fault, because the man becomes a new creature. Does Mr. Stovel "adhere" to this opinion, and does he " take it from Scripture ?" I can explain this charge of fabricating slander, only by supposing that Mr. Stovel brought it in mere wantonness, and, being asked for an explanation, he was compelled to refer to the only passage in my Lectures which contained any reference whatever to " The Abstract of Doctrines taught by Valentine and Theodotus." As to the " other passages " which my accuser does not conde- scend to specify, I can only say, if he can produce a single passage in which I "infer the sentiments" of Clement " from the Abstract," I engage to suppress ■mj Lectures, and never to write another line upon the REPLY TO MR. STOVEL. 73 subject of baptism. Let him only give tbe words and the page, and I shall be satisfied ; but let him not evade this challenge under the pretext that I am angry, for this is the only mode of defence I have against such accusations. Let him, like an honest man, specify the passage, or retract the charge. So much for the six mistakes, which IMr. Stovel has detected in my Lectures, and paraded in great letters at the head of his pages. Mr. Stovel passes from those six mistakes by ob- serving, "these discrepancies show that if Dr. Halley's statements be received, the blame of the general apos- tacy must fall upon the Lord himself, his apostles, and the Spirit who inspired them." p. 384. How this consequence results from my slandering Clement, or making merry Avith Tertullian, I cannot conjecture; nor do I see what connexion the controversy has with the reasoning of this lecture in its remaining sections on " The Law of Power," " The Sacramental Efficacy," " The State Alliance," " The Protestant Reformation;' " The Protestant Dissenters," " The Last Resource" of Paedobaptist dissenters, which seems to be (although the language is not very clear,) my course of lectures, " The Missionary Field," and many other things with which I have no reason to interfere. I part with IVIr. Stovel, expressing my sorrow that he has chosen to write in a style, which left me no other defence than to show, that he has misconstrued my reasoning, brought against me charges which he cannot sustain, ascribed to me opinions which he has found in other writers, and mistaken the authorities 74 EEPLY TO MR. STOVEL. to which I have appealed. I regret this the more, because I believe his disposition to be generous, and his devotedness to his own opinions earnest and sin- cere. I ascribe his conduct partly to his ardour and impetuosity, preventing him from candidly examining the positions he controverts, — partly to a certain want of discrimination which occasions his frequent misap- prehension of the passages on which he comments, — and partly to the fact apparent in his allusions, his citations, his use of grammatical terms, his references to critical inquiries, even his Greek spelling and printing, as compared with his English, that he has not taken the trouble to acquire a moderate knowledge of the lan- guage of the principal authorities to which he appeals. Whatever courtesy may be due to him, he has no right to expect that his opponent should quietly remain under accusations, which can be refuted in no more courteous manner than by a contradiction so positive and unqualified as to render it necessary for the accuser to produce his evidence, or withdraw his charge. He charges me with violating the rules of Greek grammar ; I can defend myself only by showing that he is no grammarian. He charges me with fal- sifying authorities ; my only defence is to prove that he does not understand the citations. He charges me with making erroneous statements; my only reply is in saying, let him specify the places, and I will furnish the refutation. A more courteous mode of defence would have been far more agreeable, but against so impetuous an assailant no other could have been effective. Unsupported assertions can only REPLY TO 3IR. STOVf.L. 75 be met bj unqualified denial, or by a j^eremptory demand to produce tbe appropriate evidence. This reply may possibly be thought too small for so great a book ; but I can conscientiously say, that I have endeavoured to notice every argument which appeared to me to have any connexion with the con- troversy. Such things as " The State Alliance," " The Protestant Reformation," or " The Invasion of Tahiti," Mr. Stovel may discuss as freely as he pleases, without any interference or complaint from me. REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. In noticing the " Strictures" of Dr. Wardlaw " on the views advocated" by me " on John's baptism, and on the scriptural requisites to Christian baptism," I painfully feel that I have to encounter an opponent whose arguments deserve the most thoughtful consi- deration, and whose opinions I am bound to treat -with the greatest respect. As I regard my honoured friend with the esteem which belongs to one of the most distinguished theologians of the age, and, especially, as I have personally derived very great advantage from many of his writings, I should be glad if, with honour to myself, and justice to what appears to me the cause of evangelical truth, I could avoid any more direct controversy with him than that which is im- plied in the general defence of my own views respecting the quahfications for Christian baptism, and the hereditary claim to Christian privileges founded upon the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. But to select this course is, unhappily, out of my power. A covert and indirect kind of controversy, however it would shelter me from some severe reflections, is not so 78 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. consistent with a generous devotedness to Christian truth, as is the open, manly, and honourable defence of opinions, carefully and conscientiously formed, against the specified objections of any opponent, however reputable may be his position in general esteem, or however greatly he may be respected by the controvertist himself. Besides, Dr. Wardlaw is an author who cannot speak without being heard, and who cannot, therefore, be passed over in silence, if justice is to be done to the cause which he opposes. Nor is our difference a matter altogether unimpor- tant. If I thought it were, I would submit to the imputation of being afraid to meet the attack of Dr. Wardlaw, rather than incur the danger of saying anything that might appear, in the most remote degree, inconsistent with the respectful deference which I am bound to pay to every argument which appears under the sanction of his name. One opinion, at least, of those which he maintains, that there is some superiority in the evangehcal position, or the covenant relation, of the children of believers, as compared with the children of unbelievers ; appears to me peculiarly inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel, according to which, as I think, all infants are born in the same relation to Adam, the head of one covenant, whatever may be the faith of their parents, and equally in the same relation to Christ, the head of the other covenant, whatever may be the unbelief of their parents. I see not how those, who believe the doctrine of original sin, can fairly deny the former statement ; nor how, on the contrary, those who maintain the EEPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 79 universal character of the atonement, can consistently controvert the latter. That all infants are equally born in sin and redeemed by Christ, is a principle which, although it appears to me to lie at the founda- tion of the evangelical system, I cannot reconcile with the argument in favour of the hereditary covenant relation which some Paedobaptists deduce from the Abrahamic covenant. This must be my apology for meeting Dr. Wardlaw as an opponent, a most esteemed and honoured opponent it is true, but still an op- ponent, in so far as I have to explain some statements which he has misunderstood, and to defend others which he has impugned. I proceed the more cheer- fully, because I do not find, either from his remarks, or from those of his friends, that, in my former work, I have, in any respect, spoken inconsistently with these sincere professions of personal esteem. I can assure him that the complaint of any disrespectful word which I have incautiously uttered, would be the cause of far more painful feeling than could be the refutation of any argument on which I have relied. I am, therefore, sorry to find there are some things in my friend's appendix which must be noticed, and yet, in the notice, will require great care lest, in seeking to avoid giving offence, I should appear afraid, or ashamed, to offer for myself a fair and manly vindi- cation. Respect for my opponent ought not, in such instances, to make me forget the respect which is due to myself, or at least, is due from myself to my own conscientious opinions. JBefore I proceed, I have to notice a suggestion o^ 80 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. an esteemed friend, who, although agreeing with me upon the subject of baptism, was, in his early days, trained among the Scottish Congregationalists. He suggests that, in referring to Dr. Wardlaw's views of infant baptism, I ought not to have represented them as distinctive principles, to which the Scottish Con- gregationalists are, as a denomination, universally committed; and he refers me to another clarum et venerabile nomen among our northern brethren, the late Greville Ewing, whose opinions may be found in his Essay on Baptism. I certainly did not mean to say, that every Scottish Congregationalist holds the opinions of Dr. Wardlaw, because I have personal knowledge of the contrary. But I am correct, as I think, in attributing Dr. Wardlaw's views generally to our northern brethren, and in saying, if ever Mr. Ewing's book had any influence in Scotland, in the particulars in which he differed from his colleague, that influence has almost entirely passed away. I am, however, thankful for the reference to Mr. Ewing's work, as I ought to have given more attention to it in the previous discussion. In adverting to it, as my attention has been directed to the subject, I do so, not with the sUghtest intention of insinuating that the views of Dr. Wardlaw are one whit the less probable, because they differ from those of his late colleague, but to remind my Scottish brethren, that the objec- tions which are brought against me, as having " em- braced and defended a scheme so loose, so unscriptural, so mischievous," apply with equal, if not greater, force, to the scheme of a book on baptism, which has REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 81 been long known in their body, often recommended in their publications, and even highly approved by Dr. Wardlaw himself.* Mr. Ewing maintains (1) that not only the children, but every relation of a believer , by marriage^ as well as descent, ought to be baptized. Thus he says in his Essay, (p. 143) " Unless we admit that infants, nay, every relation, both of ajinity and descent, which can be considered as his property, are interested in the privileges of a believer's house, I see not a satisfactory meaning of 1 Cor. vii. 12 — 14." He maintains (2) that the adults in the family of a believer, ought to be baptized on account of his faith, if they have none of their own, as well as the infants. This may surprise some of his brethren — but his words are very express and decided, (p. 146.) " The truth is, infants and adults ar^ precisely on a footing in regard to the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, of which baptism is the figure, and in the original propagation of the Gospel, when the head of a family believed ' salvation is come to his house,' and, con- sequently, the whole house may be, nay, ought to be, baptized along with him, (with no exception because some of them may be young, but) except they have grown so old, and so rebellious against both their Father in heaven, and their parents on earth, as to refuse the ordinance, and to contradict and blaspheme the truth which it accompanies." Mr. Ewing here distinctly advocates a more extensive baptism than I • On Infant Baptism, pref. p. ix. G 82 KEPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. am prepared to defend ; for, as I make no difference between the adults in a believer's or an unbeliever's family, I could baptize only such as make a personal application, while he would forbear only on their being " so rebellious as to refuse the ordinance." He maintains (3) that except " in any new sphere of missionary labour, adult baptism is not the ordi- nary scriptural state of the administration of this ordi- nance." (p. 148.) In illustration of this opinion, he says, (p. 149,) " In thirty years' ministry, it has hap- pened to me to baptize three adults." "I conceive this to be quite a sufficient proportion of adult bap- tisms to that of infants in the ministry of one in my situation." In using this language, he evidently approves of the general practice of baptizing infants as he found it in Scotland, for he could not have meant that he was satisfied with admitting to church fellowship only three persons in thirty years who were not the children of believing parents. What may be the precise reference of the subsequent words, " occasions for adult baptism generally arise out of circumstances to be remembered with regret," I do not venture to determine ; but no interpretation of them which I can imagine, is reconcileable with the opinion that all baptisms ought to be those of adults, except such as are administered to the children of believers. He maintains (4) " that the estabhshing of God's covenant with Noah was confirmed by a sign, namely the ordinance of going into the ark ;" — that " although Noah (like Lydia) was the only believer in his family. REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 83 yet the whole family, its connections by affinity as well as by descent, were included in the sign, ' with thee will I establish my covenant, and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy soTis' wives, with thee,' " — and that this is connected with " the New Testament ordinance of baptism," by the words of Peter, " in the days of Noe while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water, the like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us." (pp. 154, 155.) He maintains (5) that the apostles " administered baptism as the Christian circumcision," and " observed the ancient extent of the administration." (p. 163.) " They were parents and children and servants, that is, slaves born in the house, or bought with money.'' " As all these classes were circumcised under the Old Testament, they were, and, therefore, are to be still, baptized under the New Testament." (p. 164.) He maintains (6) that the right to baptism belongs to the posterity of a believer in all generations. He says, p. 164, " This exceeding great and precious pro- mise, of ivhich family baptism is a sign, is not limited to one generation, but abides with the family, in every successive descent, as long as it shall exist upon earth.'' Again, p. 148, " He who refuses to baptize the infant offspring of a behever," " not only withholds the pri- vilege due to the individual parent, and the token of God's love to the children for their parents' sake, but he presumes (as it appears to me,) to sit in judgment on a whole lineage, the history of which, except for a very limited period, must be utterly unknown to hinij 84 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. as if God never till now established his covenant with any one of that family." In other passages, he insists that the great promise of the covenant, of which baptism is now, instead of circumcision, the seal, is, " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee," which promise is as applicable to the remote as to the immediate descendants, — and who will say that he is wrong in his interpretation ?* In several passages Mr. Ewing pleads for an exten- sive, and apparently an almost, if not absolutely, unlimited administration of the ordinance of baptism ; but as his expressions are not very precise, nor always quite consistent with one another, I do not insist upon them. Practically, however, there could be very little difference between my administration of bap- tism, and that of a minister, who would baptize, not only the children of a believer, but all his relatives * In connexion with this particular I find a sentence which I am at a loss to explain. Mr. Ewing says, " Unless we meet with a believer, we have no warrant to dispense any ordinance." (p. 148.) By this, I think, Mr. Ewing could not mean that unless the parent be a believer we ought not to baptize the child, or how could he represent the refusal to baptize as "sitting in judgment upon a whole lineage?" The most natural and consistent sense seems to be, unless we find a be- 1 iever somewhere in the lineage, we have no warrant to baptize. But, as I am assured by a friend who knew him well, he actually baptized a child of unbelieving parents on account of the faith of the grandfather then living, the more probable meaning may be, unless we find a believer in the lineage pre- senting the child, we are not warranted in baptizing it. Can- dour requires me to place the apparent inconsistency before the reader, and leave him to consider the explanation. REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 85 by affinity as well as descent; and not his relatives only, but his servants and slaves, and all in any way dependent upon him; and not infants only, but unbelieving adults also, and that through all genera- tions : and further, who would maintain, that three bap- tisms of adults in a successful ministry of thirty years are a fair and proper proportion in such a country as Scotland. The principal difference in practice seems to be, that he would baptize adults in the house of a believer, unless they were so obstinate as to refuse to submit to the command of their father or master, regarded as the head of the family; while I must receive the voluntary application of the person immediately concerned, as I acknowledge no autho- rity of parents or masters in administering an ordi- nance of Christ to those who are of age to judge for themselves. In theory I do not acknowledge the Abrahamic covenant, as furnishing the rule for the ad- ministration of baptism. Mr. Ewing did, and deduced from it the consequences to which I have referred. On the admission of his principle, his inferences seem to me incontrovertible; but I think he might, with equal justice, have added the compulsory baptism of all tribes of which the chieftain, like Abraham, was a beHever. I am now compelled to notice more distinctly the " Strictures" of Dr. Wardlaw. Although some of my arguments appear to be misrepresented, yet, as I never knew a controvertist who was satisfied with his own arguments as they appeared in the exhibition of his opponent, it would be unavailing to complain 86 REPLY TO DR. WABDLAW. of what seems inseparable from the polemics of theo- logy. I am sure my honoured opponent intended to do me no injustice. Possibly the appearance of in- justice may be rightly attributed to my partial judg- ment. There are^ however, some harsh words, which sound the more harshly, in contrast with the pleasant manner which my friend generally preserves, and which, as they contribute nothing in aid of the rea- soning, were assuredly not introduced for the sake of producing a favourable impression upon the mind of the opponent. My revered friend says, sincerely I am sure, he should be sorry to give me " one moment's pain ;" but he must have attributed to me a singular organi- zation of nerves and heart, if he thought I could read with pleasure, especially as coming from himself, such expressions as these, " There is a recklessness in all this for which I am unable to account" — " It is not true, — not true in any sense that can suit Dr. Halley's purpose, and I shrink from characterising the representation as I might have been tempted to do, had it come from some other quarter, where inge- nuous candour was less a distinguishing virtue." (p. 329.) Similar expressions elsewhere occur. That divine charity, which endureth all things, does not forbid me to feel Hke a man, and to say, "I will not submit to the charge of 'recklessness,'" or the insinuation of a disregard to the sacredness of truth, without replying. My censurer, greatly as I respect him, knows not, in this instance, what he says, nor whereof he affirms. In reply to the charge of reck- REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 0/ lessness, I am compelled to say, (what otherwise I should not have mentioned,) that in conducting this argument, my mind was oppressed with great anxiety; I reviewed the passages again and again, until, as my conviction became stronger on every review, I stated my conclusion, although firmly, and without hesitation, yet after very anxious and pro- longed thought. I therefore claim the right of say- ing it was a " reckless" thing of Dr. Wardlaw to charge me with " recklessness " in handling the word of God. As to the second citation I reply, my statement is " true," is hterally and strictly ^' true," and is true, as I will, in the course of my reply, endeavour to show, for the purpose for which I cited it. How my friend " might have been tempted" to " characterise" my statement, I do not know; but once for all, I must say, it would be far less painful to me, if he would " characterise" my statements as he thinks they deserve, instead of insinuating what he " might have been tempted" to do, had they come from some person who had not the happiness to obtain so large a share of his good opinion. On page 306, 1 read, " What can be the motive of so zealous a pleading for the taking off of restric- tions?" This is a question Dr. Wardlaw has no right to propose. Let him be content to answer the pleading, and leave the motive to the parties concerned. -But he afterwards proposes the fol- lowing inquiry — " Is it that it saves him the trouble, or the delicacy, or the sometimes painful fidelity, of 88 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. discrimination ? I am most unwilling to believe, or even surmise, a motive so umvorthy.^^ To pass over this passage without remark, might seem to intimate that I did not feel it. As I cannot answer it cour- teously, I will not answer it at all, but leave my honoured friend to suggest to the consideration of less charitable people than himself, the most un- worthy motives, which he is " most unwilling to believe, or even surmise." Justice to myself compels me to notice these ex- pressions. That I may the sooner relieve my mind, I notice them as early as possible in the discussion. Having done so, I gladly obliterate the painful im- pression from my heart, and hope never again to allude to it as long as I live. Another class of expressions, plentifully occurring in my friend's " Strictures," did at first make me somewhat uneasy, but I am happy to assure him, they are now regarded as quite inoffensive. Not content with refuting my arguments, he infuses some spirit and animation into his reasoning, by frequently expressing his surprise that I should ever have employed them. He " confesses him- self surprised," — my errors are " strange as fallen into by me," — he is " confounded at this," — one part " astonishes" him, — he was " startled," — " reflection augmented rather than abated the surprise," — " his wonder increases as he pro- ceeds," &c. On reading these expressions, so fre- quently occurring, I was grieved to find, that in REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 89 the estimation of so judicious a critic I con- tinually selected arguments, not only refutable, but " strange," *' surprising," " astonishing," and even " confounding." But better acquaintance with Dr. Wardlaw has completely reconciled me to these frequent interjec- tions. My friend has acquired the habit of being greatly surprised by the arguments of all with whom he comes into controversy. A man of war from his youth, he is still greatly astonished at the weapons or manoeuvres of every assailant. In this volume an argument of Mr. Maclean " most of all surprises" him, p. 31 ; another is " passing strange," p. 41 ; at another he " must be permitted to wonder," p. 51. Dr. Cox " startles" him and " surprises" him, p. 94 ; and he partakes of " astonishment that any man should ever have thought otherwise." Similar ex- pressions continually occur in his other controversial writings. I mention this because so great respect is generally due to the opinions of Dr. Wardlaw, that his expressions of surprise must create a pre- judice against my reasoning in the minds of those who have not observed this peculiarity in the writings of one of the ablest and best theologians among us. Dr. Wardlaw, in controverting my opinions, pro- fessedly and freely resorts to the argumentum ad hominem. He cannot, therefore, complain, if I should follow his example. He founds his reply, in part, upon " the inconsistency of the principle of Dr. 90 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. Halley's theory with his own incidental admissions." (p. 334.) I propose to show, as a part of my reply, but not the principal part, that the arguments which Dr. Wardlaw employs in writing against the Baptists in his " Dissertation," are inconsistent with the argu- ments which he employs in writing against me in his " Appendix." 91 ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. The identity of John's baptism and of Christian baptism, is a question to which I return with hesita- tion and great reluctance, partly because, however necessary its consideration might have been in giving completeness to a course of lectures on baptism, it does not appear to me of great importance ; and partly because, as I have already stated, I have not been able to arrive at a conclusion very satisfactory to my own mind. The preponderance of the evidence ap- peared to be in favour of the identity, that is, in the sense in which I explained that term. Justice to myself requires me to notice Dr. Wardlaw's " Stric- tures " on my reasoning ; and if, in doing so, I appear to assume anything like a tone of confidence in reply- ing to the objections of my friend, I must intimate to the reader that my confidence is restricted to the particular argument under consideration ; as upon the general question, I have arrived at no more decided conviction than I had in composing the lecture on the subject. On the contrary, I freely admit that the remarks of my friend, on what he calls " the theory of the case," deserve very serious consideration, and may possibly establish a greater difference than I have been willing to allow. See pp. 247 — 266. 92 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. That there was, in many respects, considerable difference between the baptism of John and that of Christ, I have carefully stated in the course of the discussion. My words, as correctly cited by Dr. Wardlaw, are, " Was the difference between the bap- tism of John and that of our Lord so important that those who had been baptized by John were, or ought to have been, rebaptized, on their becoming the dis- ciples of Christ ? 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, rebap- tized, or that the objects of Christian baptism were, or were not, sufficiently accomplished by the baptism of John." Sacraments, p. 180. The inquiry, therefore, is simply one of fact. Were the disciples of John rebaptized ? Or was the divine institution of his baptism so acknowledged by our Lord and his apostles as to supersede the necessity of a second baptism ? I must entreat the reader to keep this view of the subject before his mind, as I do not deny, nor ever have I denied, that there was consi- derable difference between the two rites. As a question of fact, the burden of proof is evidently upon those who assert the positive, that the apostles did rebaptize the disciples of John. This Dr. Wardlaw candidly admits, and " cheerfully ac- cepts the challenge." p. 226. Without, however, fencing with logic as an advocate, I would rather, as an inquirer, consider the facts adduced on both sides. ON John's baptism. 93 These are three, two adduced in favour of rebaptism, and one against it ; — the baptism of the twelve men at Ephesus, — the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, of whom, it is presumed, some were disciples of John, — and the acknowledged fact that the one hundred and twenty disciples in Jeru- salem at the resurrection were not rebaptized. One of the facts proposed as conclusive is the baptism of the twelve men at Ephesus, as stated, Acts xix. 1 — 5. That they were rebaptized, I readily admit, for I must confess that the arguments which have been offered against their rebaptism ap- pear very unsatisfactory. But when I venture to inquire, whether in the first instance they were bap- tized by John before the death of Christ, or by Apollos after that event, my friend interrupts me by saying. You have no right to insist upon that question. The reasons of his objection, if I do not misunder- stand him, may be reduced to three. 1. That I have no reasonable ground for the suspicion, and, therefore, have no right to raise the objection. 2. That " it is rather too bad to attempt to throw the omis probandi respecting the time of the first baptism" upon him. 3. That the time of the first baptism is nothing to the purpose, for if John's baptism had been sufficient before the death of Jesus, it would have been sufficient afterwards. I reply, 1. I have reasonable grounds for the suspicion, that these twelve men were baptized into John's baptism after the death of the Lord Jesus. On this particular I have to complain of some misrepresentation. The 94 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. probability is, (so it appeared to me when I ^vTote my lecture, but upon reconsideration it now seems to amount almost to a certainty,) that these twelve men were first baptized by ApoUos. Let the reader ob- serve the connexion of the narrative, Acts xviii. 24 to xix. 3. " And a certain Jew, named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was in- structed in the way of the Lord ; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue : whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them^ and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the dis- ciples to receive him : who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace : For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ, (xix.) And it came to pass, that, while ApoUos 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." I had observed that the commencement of the nine- teenth chapter, containing the account of these twelve ON John's baptism. 95 disciples, was connected with the concluding part of the eighteenth, containing the account of the ministrj of Apollos, by the words, " It came to pass when Apollos was at Corinth." My words were, " This clause connects the chapter with the preceding, and by its aid we correct the unfortunate interruption of the narrative by an inappropriate division." I never thought of adducing this clause for any other purpose, and Dr. Wardlaw admits this purpose is answered, for he says, " I am obHged to him for caUing the reader's attention to this, and correcting the unfor- tunate interruption of the narrative, for it is all in my favour." p. 237. My friend therefore accepts this clause, precisely for the same reason as I adduced it, that is, to connect the narrative, unfortunately in- terrupted by the division of the chapters. I then adverted to the account of Apollos at the close of one chapter, as corresponding with the account of the disciples at the commencement of the next. Can any misrepresentation be more grievous than the follow- ing, to which my friend, in some moment of forgetful- ness, has given the sanction of his authority ? " The supposition itself rests on grounds singularly slender. The supposition that these twelve men were disciples of Apollos, — and that they were baptized by Apollos while he was in ignorance of Christ's resurrection, is built upon the words with which the chaper 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 narrative : otherwise the mention 96 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. of his name would be superfluous and trifling. And then the nature of his connexion with the case of these twelve men is hypothetically fitted to the sup- port of the intended conclusion." (p. 236.) I " build" nothing more upon the clause cited than the connexion of the narrative, which Dr. Wardlaw distinctly acknowledges is fairly " built " upon it. I infer nothing else from these v/ords than that Apollos " had something to do with the transaction." The " nature of the connexion is" not " hypothetically fitted to the support of the intended conclusion." I did not even cite all the particulars of the connexion, as I might have done, but left the reader to ascertain them, trusting to his familiarity with the narrative. I am now compelled to adduce them, that the reader may decide whether they are " hypothetically fitted" together. Apollos was a Christian teacher, who knew only the baptism of John: the twelve men were Christian disciples (Dr. Wardlaw admits that they were Chris- tians) who had received only the baptism of John. Is this connexion " hypothetically fitted to the support of the intended conclusion," or is it a fact? As Apollos knew only the baptism of John, he must have been at that time ignorant of the events of the day of Pentecost when three thousand were baptized ; these disciples had not heard that there was a Holy Ghost, that is, according to Dr. Wardlaw, that " the Holy Ghost had been given." Is this connexion " hypo- thetically fitted to the intended conclusion?" Dr. Wardlaw says, " The case even thus imderstood is ON John's baptism. 97 extraordinary," and he calls the ignorance of these twelve disciples " singular ;" but was not " the case" as " extraordinary" and the ignorance as " singular" of a zealous Christian teacher, who taught accurately (aKpL^as) the things of the Lord, knowing onl^y the baptism of John. The "extraordinary" and "sin- gular" ignorance of the teacher, and that of the disciples, (I do not yet say his disciples) exactly correspond. So far as we can ascertain, there was no other Christian teacher in the history of the church, who knew only the baptism of John, and no other Christian disciple who knew nothing of the descent of the Spirit. Is this connexion " hypo- thetically fitted to the support of the intended con- clusion?" Apollos, mighty in the Scriptures, and fervent in spirit, spake and taught the things of the Lord in Ephesus : these twelve disciples were found in Ephesus. Is this connexion of place " hypothe- tically fitted" to the conclusion ? Soon after Apollos had left Ephesus, not before his visit, these twelve disciples were found in that city. Is this coincidence of time hypothetical ? The account of these twelve disciples immediately follows the account of the ministry of Apollos, and the two are connected in the narrative by the clause — " It came to pass when Apollos was in Corinth." Is all this hypothetical ? These were my probable reasons for supposing that these twelve men were the disciples of Apollos, and therefore received the only baptism with which he was acquainted. However feeble these reasons might have been, was it not grievously unjust to represent H 98 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. me as making this case of probability, arising out of the remarkable correspondence between this singular teacher and these extraordinary disciples, to rest upon nothing else than the very slender support of the clause — " It came to pass while Apollos was in Corinth ?"* But Dr. Wardlaw has here illogically managed his own part of the argument. He says, that my objec- tion is " hypothetical." p. 235. What else should it be ? Evidence is alleged on the other side, and I produce a probable hypothesis for which it does not provide. If these men might have been (I do not now say they were) baptized by Apollos, when he knew only the baptism of John, their evidence fails, unless it be assumed that their rebaptism would have been in effect the same, whether their previous baptism had been administered before or after the death of Christ. But this question being under dis- cussion is not to be assumed. My objection is hypo- thetical, but the hypothesis amounts to no more than this very obvious truth ; — it is not proved that these persons were baptized before the death of Jesus, because it is probable that they were baptized after- * Dr. Wardlaw in a private letter to me candidly admits that "the amount of probability in your supposition of the twelve disciples having been baptized by Apollos, does appear to me now greater than it did when I wrote the passage in question." Justice to Dr. Wardlaw requires me to make this statement, yet justice to myself requires me to reason upon the representation, just as in the published work it is known to the reader. ON John's baptism. 99 wards. Dr. Wardlaw's case is not proved, unless it is proof against all such hypotliesis. Dr. Wardlaw says there is " only one case, in which supposition is fairly admissible as a foundation of argument. When a thing has been satisfactorily proved other^vise, and a supposition is required to establish consistency in one particular, such supposi- tion may legitimately be made." — " This Dr. H. may allege is precisely the juncture, in which I have introduced my supposition." p. 236. Dr. H. would be very foolish were he to allege anything of the kind. There is no "case" in which " a supposition is fairly admissible as a foundation of argument." Whatever is built upon such a foundation can be no firmer than the foundation on which it stands. It can never grow into certainty, and, therefore, as an element of proof, it weakens the reasoning into which it is introduced. But hypothesis, although worthless as proof, is often incontrovertible as objection, be- cause the evidence ought to be proof against all hypothesis. Hypothesis is never the material of proof, but always the instrument of testing its strength. So I used it, in this instance, and shall still use it, maintaining that my friend is illogical in objecting to such a use of it. 2. Dr. Wardlaw says, *' It is rather too bad in my friend to attempt to throw the onus prohandi respect- ing the time of the first baptism of these twelve men upon us." p. 242. This depends upon the question, — is " the time of their first baptism " of any importance in the argument ? If it be, he must find the proof. 100 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. for the fact of tlae rebaptism is part of his case, not of mine ; and he, surely, does not expect me to prove the important points of his own case. If it be not important, neither of us need furnish proof of an irrelevant particular. In reply to my observation, " 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," Dr. Wardlaw says, " Before these twelve men can disprove the essential difference, they must show that the register of their first baptism is dated subsequently to the death of Christ." p. 242. But who calls them to disprove the essential difference? They are not my witnesses. I maintain that they neither prove nor disprove any- thing, but that, until the time of their first baptism is proved, their evidence is inadmissible on either side. The perfecting of the evidence belongs to him who cites the witnesses : when I call them to prove or dis- prove anything whatsoever, it will be time for me to produce their register. Dr. Wardlaw, by citing a part of a sentence, and citing it incorrectly, endeavours to make it appear that I demand the proof of a negative. " ' It must be shown that these men were not baptized by Apollos :' we cannot admit the obligation to make out this nega- tive." p. 242. May I ask, without giving offence, why Dr. Wardlaw, inserting but half the sentence, and shifting the position of the negative particle in the inverted commas, gave a colouring to his sug- gestion, that I required the proof of a negative ? My ON John's BAPTISM. 101 own words are, " It must be shown that these twelve men wert baptized, not by ApoUos, hut hy some one previously to the death of our Lord^ This is requiring proof of something positive. The meaning of the sentence evidently is, — In opposition to the probable reasons for supposing these persons were baptized by Apollos, it must be shown they were baptized pre- viously to the death of Christ. To give a contrary appearance, by shifting the place of the negative, and printing the altered sentence in inverted com- mas, as if they were my exact words, is not fair controversy. 3. It is alleged that the time of the first baptism is of no importance, for " To say that John's baptism was essentially the same with apostolic baptism, pro- vided that it was administered before the resurrection of Christ, but that it ceased to be the same, if administered after it, seems to me to amount to a denial of the identity and an admission of the essen- tial difference." p. 238. I must again request the reader to observe in what sense I have contended for their identity, namely, that the purposes of Christian baptism were sufficiently accomplished by the baptism of John, and that the persons baptized by John were not rebaptized on their becoming disciples of Jesus. I cannot admit that a form of baptism, administered according to the authority of God, is to be deemed invalid, because it was declared to be so, when it had lost the sanction of that authority. The contrary appears to me self- evident. The baptism of John, was it of heaven or of 102 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. men ? We reply, Of heaven, as John administered it, but of men, as Apollos knew it, after it had lost its authority. It is surely not good reasoning to say that, because certain persons, who had been baptized con- trary to the Divine appointment, were rebaptized, others, baptized with the same form, in submission to the Divine appointment, ought also to have been rebaptized. The assertion is not self-evident, and no proof is offered that the honour refused to John's baptism as administered by Apollos out of due time, was not conceded to it, as administered by the Baptist himself, according to the ordinance of God. The other fact is the baptism of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost. As this particular ought to have been noticed in my remarks upon Mr. Hall's reasoning, I am quite willing to admit the justice of Dr.Wardlaw's stricture, — " It was a faulty oversight." The oversight, however, arose, after an interruption of my studies occasioned by indisposition, from my forgetfulness of some papers which I had prepared on the subject. I must endeavour to take advantage of the opportunity which my friend has afforded of supplying the deficiency. Dr. Wardlaw thus puts his case. " 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 thousands more were added, so that they soon came to amount to myriads. Now we have ON John's baptism. lOS as clear proof as the simplicity of historical narrative can afford, that these thousands were all baptized. With regard to the three thousand on Pentecost, the statement is express, — ' then they that gladly received his word were baptized :' and unless it shall be contro- verted, 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." pp. 244, 245. It is evident that " the five thousand," and " all the rest," are only exaggerations of the argument, — surplusage of no weight in the consideration of the proof, for their " case" must be decided by " the case" of the three thousand. If John's disciples among the three thousand were rebaptized, they were also rebaptized among " the five thousand" and " all the rest." If they were not rebaptized on the day of Pentecost, neither were they rebaptized on the subse- quent occasions. The introduction of " the myriads " can only embarrass a question w£ich must be decided entirely by the case of the three thousand. Of these three thousand, I would observe that if a small proportion, having been the disciples of John, were not rebaptized, I do not think that, in accordance with the general phraseology of Scripture, those exceptions would have been distinguished from the multitude. Although my friend cites the general language of the evangelist — " There went out to him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were aU baptized of him in the river of Jordan," he does not infer that there was no unbaptized person left in the whole of that district. So if a small pro- 104 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. portion of those who gladly received the word, having been baptized by John, were not rebaptized, I do not see why these exceptions should be specifically noticed. General terms are continually employed by the evangelists without notice of the exceptions. If all the land of Judea is said to have been baptized, although some of the Pharisees were excepted, — if it was said the apostles should sit upon twelve thrones, although Judas the traitor was an exception, why should we demand, in the use of general terms, a specific notice of the exceptions (if there were any) in the narrative of the Pentecost ? Had the ex- ceptions been numerous, I wuU freely admit that they would have been noticed ; but if they were few, to pass them over without specific notice would only be in accordance with the usual style of Scripture. But Dr. Wardlaw says, " all exception is absolutely interdicted." He cites in his support the clause, " be baptized every one of you," and repeats the words in italics, with a note of admiration appended, — " Every one of you P^ But neither the repetition, nor the italics, nor the note of admiration, can convert these words into a correct version of the apostle's phrase, €Kao-Tos vixcbv, referring to the personality, and not to the universality of the address. Each was to act for himself, and not to wait for the example of others. What in these two words " absolutely interdicts" any exception, 1 cannot discover. But I do not afiirm that there were any exceptions. The certainty, I think, is that there could not have been many of the three thousand, who had been pre- ON John's baptism. 105 viously baptized by John : the probability, that none of them had been so baptized. Let us consult the narrative. " There were sojourning* in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude" (to nXridos, their multitude, not a promiscuous crowd of the inhabitants, or of inhabitants and sojourners mingled, but the many of the sojourners,) "came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed, and marvelled, saying one to another. Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans ? and how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born ? Parthian s, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderfid works of God." Acts ii. 5 — 11. Peter addressed this multitude of sojourners, among whom we do not know that there was a single stated inhabitant of Jerusalem. A few of the inhabitants might, or might not, have been mingled with them, but the sacred historian designates them as the multitude of strangers. They were " devout men out of every nation." That term usually designates Gentiles who observed the Jewish customs, * KaroLKovuTcs must be here used, as in other places, for TrapoiKovvres. See Schleusner and Wahl. 106 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. but here, as in some other passages, it evidently includes both Jews and proselytes, who came from a distance to observe the festival at Jerusalem. The only difficulty respects the dwellers in Judea. How should they be " devout men ?" Or how should they marvel that the apostles spake in their tongue ? Critics have suggested various conjectural readings instead of Judea, but undoubtedly there were " devout men," proselytes, and foreign Jews, who resided in the towns of Judea, especially on the coast, and who would, in the party feelings and associations which so generally prevailed, associate with the strangers rather than with the inhabitants. Unhappily the address of Peter is mistranslated, — " Ye men of Judea," as if they generally belonged to that country. " He said unto them, Ye men who are Jews, and ye sojourners in Jerusalem, all of you," proselytes as well as Jews. Of such a multitude of strangers it is probable, (I might say certain,) that very fcAV could have been baptized by John. Unable to obtain satisfactory in- formation, as to the frequency with which " devout men," or the foreign Jews generally, went up to the festivals in Jerusalem, I believe, that very many of them were content, if once in their lives " their feet could stand wdthin the gates" of Jerusalem. "We read of no extraordinary fleets from the ports of the Medi- terranean, or long processions from the cities of Asia, proceeding to Palestine at the time of the festivals. Vast crowds undoubtedly collected, but the greater part of them, we may suppose, were the inhabitants of Judea and Galilee. Many of the places mentioned ON John's baptism. 107 were very distant. The " strangers of Rome," and of " the parts of Libya about Cyrene," could not often go up to the festivals, unless they were most of the year on pilgrimage going and returning. We may, therefore, consider it as certain, that a con- siderable part, and as probable, that the greater part, had never before been in Jerusalem. The proportion, however, I do not profess to define. But, although few foreign Jews went regulaidy to the feasts, some went frequently, that is to say, several times in the course of their lives. Of this proportion, be it larger or smaller, comparatively few would have .been there in any particular year, for instance, the fifteenth of Tiberius, in which John baptized. Only these few, be the proportion what it might, could have been baptized by John. But there is another inquiry. Was John baptizing at the season from the passover to the pentecost ? His ministry is commonly supposed to have continued about six months. Without insisting upon this pre- cise computation, I observe, if " the word of God came unto John" in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and if, as Dr. Wardlaw infers from the words of Luke, " the baptism of Jesus took place towards the close of John's public ministry," p. 251, — and if Jesus, born before the death of Herod the Great, " began to be about thirty years of age" at his baptism, — the public ministry of John could have continued but a very short time. On the comparison of the Gospels we learn, that Jesus, immediately after his baptism, passed forty days in the wilderness, and then, after 108 KEPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. "■ not many days, the Jews' passover was at hand." John ii. 12, 13. Some fifty or sixty days before that passover, therefore, John had completed, or nearly completed, his baptism, which, it is not probable, he had commenced at the preceding passover. But if John was not baptizing at the season from the passover to the pentecost, it is not probable that any of these strangers were baptized by him. But even if John were baptizing at that season of the year, is it not probable that he, being a prophet and a popular teacher, would, like the Saviour, spend those sacred weeks in Jerusalem ? If he did, as he did not baptize in Jerusalem, there was an interrup- tion in his baptizing at the season in which those strangers were in the country. Again, if he did not thus suspend his baptism, is it probable, that the sojourners of a few weeks would leave the holy city, in which they considered it their greatest privilege and honour to sojourn, and go on another journey to the banks of the Jordan where John baptized ? Finally, knowing, as we do, that the Hellenists were often at variance with their Hebrew brethren in their religious opinions, is it anything better than a mere assumption to say that they were at all favour- able to the baptism of John ? Was it not, at least, quite as probable that they were of the party of the Pharisees who rejected his baptism ? Was it not, probably, the great influx of strangers into Jerusa- lem, which changed the popular cry from the hosanna of one multitude to the demand of the crucifixion of ON JOHS'S BAPTISM. 10 J Christ ? As it does not appear that the people of Galilee acknowledged the baptism of John, why should we suppose that he baptized the Hellenists ?* On the fact that three thousand persons of this mul- titude of strangers w^ere baptized on the day of Pen- tecost, Dr. Wardlaw relies, as if it afforded absolute demonstration of the re-baptism of John's disciples. My esteemed friend says of me, *'I am persuaded that, if he just looks it fairly in the face, he will blush to say No to it. The case being at the begin- ning of the Gospel, he will find no Apollos to help him out." p. 247. I want no -' Apollos to help me out." But let me say, in reply to the taunt, had I found one introduced into the narrative, I should have regarded it as my duty to inquire, as I have done in the other instance, what connexion he had with the transaction. I have looked at this argument, not " in the face" only, but on all sides, and should " blush to say" Yes to it. Dr. Wardlaw, although " unable to imagine my resisting the conclusion," has, in noticing my reply to the argument founded upon the baptism of the twelve men at Ephesus, supplied me with good reasons for that resistance. The reasons, although suggested by himself, are powerless in his hand, because advanced against an objection ; but they become powerful when * I have to acknowledge that, in one sentence of my Lec- ture on the Mode of Baptism I have inadvertently suggested that a considerable proportion of the Hellenists were baptized by John. On reconsideration, that opinion, hastily received, appears destitute of all probability. 110 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. used in refutation of evidence. I return his own arguments in reply to his reasoning. 1. " /i is hypothetical p. 235. He does not know that a single individual of the three thousand had been previously baptized ; or that one Hellenistic Jew in the world had been ever baptized by John. 2. " The supposition itself rests on grounds singularly slender." p. 236. It implies that of the multitude of sojourners a great part had been in Jerusalem before, — that they had been there in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, — that John was baptizing at that season of the year, — that he continued his baptism from the passover to the pentecost — that they left Jerusalem during their sojourn to go down to the Jordan, — and that they were of the party of the native Jews, and not of the Pharisees. 3. " Even supposing all, in regard to the facts to be as Dr. H." (Dr. W.) '' would have it, his inference from them does not appear to me at all consistent." p. 238. Had some of these persons been baptized by John, and not re-baptized by the apostles, I do not think that, in accordance with the Scriptural use of general terms, they would have been specified as exceptions, if they were not very numerous. That the apostles, and especially the hundred and twenty disciples in Jerusalem, were not re-baptized, after the resurrection, is the fact alleged on the other side. This is conceded both by Mr. Hall and Dr. Wardlaw, and so far as I know by every writer on the subject. " That they were not seems far most likely; perhaps, may be held for certain." Wardlaw, ON John's baptism. Ill p. 268. As the fact is not denied, my friend attempts to explain it, but his explanation appears to me unfortunate. He says (1) " That if we are thus to proceed on strict matter-of-fact narrative, and to reckon nega- tives as equivalent to affirmatives — the simple ab- sence of a statement as amounting to a statement of the contrary; then, let it not be forgotten, that there is only one of the twelve apostles, respecting Avhom we have any record of his having been baptized even with John's baptism.'' p. 267. Can these be the words of Dr. Wardlaw ? Does he, on the one side, confidently propose an argument founded on the assumed fact that of three thousand unconverted strangers in Jerusalem, some must have been baptized by John, and, on the other, place the least dependence upon the assumption that one hundred and twenty dis- ciples had not been previously baptized ? He asks, is the former " within the limits of the possible ?" and I reply, " Is the latter within the limits of the possible ?"" No man ought to reason upon the pro- bability of a proportion of unconverted Jews having been baptized, and yet hesitate to admit that professed disciples had been baptized. Through inadvertence, as I will venture to say, my friend appears to have so acted, and I feel confident he will candidly admit that, as Jesus made and baptized his disciples, the one hundred and twenty disciples had certainly been baptized. He says (2) " It seems a very presumptuous thing, and as vain as presumptuous, to make the procedure 112 REPLY TO DIl. WARDLAW. of the Lord himself a standard for ours." p. 267. I was at some loss to perceive the meaning of these words, for it seems to me that the apostles, both in not baptizing the one hundred and twenty, and in baptizing the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, acted equally in accordance with the mind of Christ. But they are subsequently explained : " In the midst of the rushing mighty wind, and the cloven tongues of fire, and the illumination, and energy, and mira- culous utterance, of the Holy Spirit, — all direct from heaven, — Avithout any kind of human intervention, coming at once from the Divine source of all autho- rity, — it is surely little better than trifling to institute an inquiry, whether those on whom ' the promise of the Father' — the power from on high, so wonderfully came, were ever subjected to the sprinkling, or the immersion of water !" p. 268. " Truly the baptism with water might well be dispensed with for this." p. 269. Peter soon afterwards saw these extraordi- nary powers fall upon Cornelius and " his kinsmen and near friends," " all direct from heaven, without any kind of human intervention — coming at once from the Divine source of all authority," and heard them speak with tongues. Did he esteem it " little better than trifling to institute an inquiry whether those on whom ' the power of the Father' — the power from on high — so wonderfully came — were ever (to be) subjected to the sprinkling or immersion of water ?" Did he say, " Truly the baptism with water might well be dispensed with for this ?" Or did he say, " Can any man forbid water, that these ON John's baptism. 113 sliould not be baptized, ivhieh have received the Holy Ghost as well as we f That the miraculous attesta- tions of the Spirit were not regarded as affording any reason for dispensing with the baptism of water, is evident from the language of Peter, who could not otherwise with propriety have said, " as well as we;" for surely the same event could not supply, in the instance of the one hundred and twenty, a reason for the omission^ and in that of Cornelius a reason for the observance, of baptism. In thus noticing " the Strictures" of Dr. Wardlaw, I trust I have said nothing to convey the impression of my having arrived at any higher degree of satis- faction on the subject, than I had attained at the time of Avriting the Lecture on John's baptism. I then expressed myself doubtfully ; and I am still far from being assured of the truth of what appears to me the more probable opinion. There is, I must con- fess, one view of the subject, which, without affecting the question of the identity of John's baptism, would explain the fact that the one hundred and twenty disciples were not re-baptized. If Christian baptism, as distinct from John's baptism, were instituted by our Lord during his personal ministry, these disciples would have received Christian baptism before the crucifixion ; and had they been John's disciples, they might have been then previously re-baptized. That Christian baptism was instituted by Jesus when he made and baptized his disciples, in distinction from the disciples of John, is a view of the subject, to which my attention had not been previously directed. I 114 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. It is free from the objection alleged against the opi- nion that Christian baptism was instituted after the resurrection of our Lord. I am, however, ready to acknowledge, that I am not prepared to found any argument whatever, in favour of my views, respecting Christian baptism, upon its identity, in any particu- lar, with the baptism of John. In giving the reasons for my opinion, I must candidly confess, they are not such as I could with confidence introduce into the more important subject of our controversy, — the extent of the administration of Christian baptism. I offer them as probable, and make no more use of them. In saying that the Dissertation and the Appendix of my esteemed friend did not stand together on good terms, I referred not so much to the question of John's baptism, as to that of Christian baptism. But even on this comparatively unimportant point, the argu- ment against me is not consistent with the argument against the Baptists. The doctrine maintained in the Appendix is, that Christian baptism was not instituted until after the resurrection of our Lord. In the Disser- tation we learn that some Baptists, being of the same opinion, had cited the commission, " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," as the ivords of tlie institution. For such presumption they are thus reproved: "I am aware, indeed, how frequently and how confidently it has been alleged, that the words of the institution, as they have been improperly called, im- properly as to the rite itself, at least, which was 7iot at that time first instituted." p. 45. Dr. Wardlaw has ON John's baptism. 115 far too much candour to intimate that any Baptist, however " improperly" he might " call" these words, ever "called" them the institution of John's baptism. If he beUeves that only a rite of baptism, not Christian, had been previously practised, why does he reprove the Baptists for " improperly" calling " the words of the institution" of Christian baptism the words which, in his Reply to me, he maintains were so undoubtedly ? Some Baptists say they are the words of the institu- tion ; I think they are not ; and Dr. Wardlaw, in his " Dissertation," takes my side, by rebuking the Bap- tists ; in his Appendix, the side of the Baptists, by confuting me. Before I dismiss this subject, it may be right to observe that, although I have freely conceded that I can found no argument upon the identity of John's baptism with that of Christ, correct information respecting the nature and subjects of John's baptism may still afford considerable assistance in deciding some important questions respecting the Christian ordinance. It cannot be unimportant to ascertain whether he baptized children, or only their pa- rents, — all appHcants, or only a class, — unto re- pentance, or only after repentance, — as disciples in the sense of learners^ or only as disciples in the sense of those fully converted and committed to his doctrine. Although Dr. Wardlaw considers it important " to separate" the " vast multitudes" — the " all Jerusalem^ is the phrase used^'' (so says my friend, p. 245, although 116 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. I cannot find it in the Gospels,) whom John baptized, from the subjects of Christian baptism; he has, as might have been expected, much less than Mr. Stovel to say, respecting the discrimination of character ■which John observed in administering the ceremony. He, however, does briefly object to my statements respecting the general character of John's baptism, founded, as they were, not only upon the fact of the " vast multitudes" whom John baptized, and of whose character he could personally have no knowledge whatever, but especially upon the words addressed to the Pharisees, — a generation of vipers, — ^who came to his baptism — " I baptize you unto repentance," not after repentance. On this subject Dr. Wardlaw says, " 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 upon 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." p. 334. This sentence involves positions which cannot be passed over without notice. 1. This is a reply, ready-made, for any argument Avhatever, founded upon words spoken and recorded in Scripture, which the objector does not choose directly to answer. All disputants may easily learn to say, their opponent " has laid hold of particular expressions," and "made the most of them;" and, ON John's baptism. 117 furtliermore, he knows no more upon the subject than " the few short words which the Spirit has thought fit to put on record." Under the sanction of so honoured a name, this argument may become so popular, that Dr. Wardlaw will hear of it again in other controversies. 2. Wliat else should a man do, in appealing to Scriptui'e, than " lay hold of particular expressions," that is, cite the words of the sacred writers ? This I have done, and I fear, even under the correction of my venerable friend, I shall remain incorrigible, for it is my settled purpose, in whatever controversy I may be engaged, " to lay hold of particular ex- pressions" of Scripture, — to cite the passages which support my views. 3. How have I " made the most" of these ex- pressions ? I have said that the expression, — " all were baptized," does not specify a select number dis- criminated for the purpose, — that the words, addressed to the Pharisees, " I baptize yow," do not mean I bap- tize other people, — and that the phrase to " baptize unto repentance," does not denote " to baptize after repentance." If I am wrong, let the true exposition be adduced. Let my revered friend find, if he can, any authorised sense of the preposition et?, in the phrase, " I baptize you unto repentance," which will designate the repentance as the reason of the baptism, and not the object of it. Be ei? " into," or " unto," or " for," or " with a view to," or whatever it may, it tends towards its object, as something future, and not 118 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. from it, as something past. Fearing, lest incautiously I had made too much of this phrase, I have consulted every critical authority within my reach ; but I cannot find one, which gives any sense to els, according to which repentance can be made to precede baptism, in the phrase " I baptize you with water unto repent- ance." Dr. Campbell translates, " I baptize you with water that you may reform." Beza gives " ad recipiscentiam, id est, ut recipiscatis," and observes that baptism was a sign which admonished them of the duty of repentance, which I apprehend is the true sense of the passage. To prevent me from " making the most" of this phrase, I shall wait anxiously for my friend's translation of the two words els fierdvoiav. I hope he will not say, as he does elsewhere, " I see no necessity for nice grammatical disquisition," for he must see the necessity for correct grammatical trans- lation, and until this be given, there is nothing worthy of attention in the vague objection of " making the most" of words. 4. Where have I assumed that " no more was said by John than the few short words which the Spirit has thought fit to put on record ?" I, certainly, do reason upon the words that are " put on record," and leave other people to reason, if they please, upon such as are not " put on record." But if Dr. Wardlaw will tell me, in addition to these "/ew short ivords,''^ the many long words which John spake, I will carefully consider how far they affect the reasoning. I do, indeed, assume that aU John said was in accordance with the "few short words" which are "put on ON JOHN'S BAPTISM. 119 record," — that he did not correct his expressions, by- saying, " in my address to the Pharisees, I used the wrong pronoun and the wrong preposition, for instead of the words, ' I baptize you unto repentance,' it should have been, I baptize others after repentance." I assume nothinsr more. 120 ON THE EXTENT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. To prevent misunderstanding, I prefix a brief statement of my opinion, and entreat the reader to keep it in view throughout the discussion. I main- tain that every church ought to disciple by haptizing and teaching to the utmost extent of its ability, — that, for this purpose, it ought to receive as disciples^ or learners^ under training and instruction for all the privileges of its fellowship, the children of its mem- bers, all other children who are placed under its care, and all adults who apply for its instructions, or are willing to receive them, — that all such persons under instruction^ as disciples, ought to be received and desig- nated by the rite of baptism. I apprehend no persons will deny the propriety of receiving all children, and all adult applicants, to such a course of discipleship by teaching. The only ques- tion is, ought these disciples or learners, under in- struction and training for the fellowship of the church, to be baptized, — I maintain they ought. The Baptists say they ought not, until they make a credible pro- fession of being true believers. Dr. Wardlaw and the Scottish Congregationalists generally say, So many of them as are the children of believers ought to be baptized, but all the others ought to remain unbap- THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 121 tized. Yet so far as I can ascertain, our Scottish friends make no distinction whatever in the course of instruction, or in the nature of their connexion with the church, in any other respect, between the two classes of children, or adults, under instruction. On reference to this statement, the relative position of the several parties will be correctly understood. On directing my attention to this part of Dr. Ward- law's Appendix, I am very soHcitous to ascertain, with precision, the extent of the difference between myself and my esteemed friend. In several passages the difference appears to be very slight, and practically of no consequence ; but in others it seems to become very serious, and even to affect subjects of far more importance than that under discussion. For an in- stance of the former, I cite his words on p. 300. " I have no objection to the statement that the apos- tles baptized ' all applicants^ provided apjjlication be imderstood 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 explained." The utmost I can desire, in order to make this statement a fair exponent of my own views, is that, instead of the words, '^ p?'ofessing to receive their doctrine,''^ there be substituted the Avords " professing to he loilling to learn their doctriney That something was professed in making an application for 122 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. baptism, I never denied, or at least, never intended to deny. My definition of the kind of profession made, seems to be more in accordance with the instances of persons being baptized on the occasion of their first hearing the gospel. Had my friend invariably ad- hered to this explanation, I should have considered our difference not worth another page of controversy. But I am unable to reconcile with it many of his strictures upon me; at least, without finding myself at issue with him on other points of greater im- portance. My friend frequently intimates, that he wotdd administer baptism only to those adults whom he would receive to the Lord's supper. He contends at length for this opinion on pp. 284 — 287, and makes it a capital argument in his reply to my lecture. The satisfaction which I derived from the appearance of an approximation towards concord, is painfully dis- turbed by the prospect of a new controversy. I would, therefore, respectfiilly ask my friend, would he receive to the Lord's table " all applicants, provided applica- tion be understood to imply professing to receive the doctrine" of the apostles? Would he do so without " waiting till the genuineness of their profession had been tried and satisfactorily ascertained ?" If he would not, he does not adhere to his own statement ; if he would, I foresee another Appendix in the distance directed against my second volume on the Sacraments, in which I shall endeavour to vindicate the scriptural purity of the communion of the body of Christ against those who would throw it open to " all applicants, provided THE AD>nNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 123 application be understood to imply professing to receive their doctrine." This I thought was the practice, not of the Congregationalists, but of the Presbyterians; but be it whose practice it may, it deserves to be most strenuously opposed. I hope, however, my venerated friend is not prepared to maintain this view of the right of admission to the Lord's table; and so I shall be spared the disadvantage of another controversy with a scholar, a theologian, and a Christian, so deservedly esteemed as Dr. Wardlaw. To ascertain how far we agree, wherein we differ, and what is the exact breadth of the controversy between us, I must solicit the careful attention of the reader to the following statement of Dr. AYardlaw, selected from his Dissertation on Infant Baptism. I inclose in brackets the very few words I introduce to make this paragraph the complete exponent of my views respecting the subjects of baptism. " I am strongly inclined to agree with those who regard the children of believers" [and other persons under preparatory instruction] " in the Hght of dis- ciples. If their parents" [or instructors] " 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," [or other person] " under spiritual training, and the subject of beUeving prayer. And until the principles which are instilled into the child's" [or other person's] " mind by early tuition, recommended by a godly example, and impressed by affectionate and faithful admonition, are either avowedly rejected, or are shown to be pro- 124 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. fessed 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 Avhat is taught them ; and, as far as we can judge, are lambs of the flock of the good Shepherd. On the question, Are the baptized children of believers [and other persons under preparatory instruction] church members? vari- ous opinions have been entertained. I shall state, with diffidence, my own. " In the first place : — Baptism, it seems evident from the New Testament, is not to be regarded as a social or church ordinance. It did not, when adminis- tered to adults, introduce the persons baptized to connexion Avith 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, there- fore, merely recognized him as a professed disciple of Jesus, -svithout constituting him a member of any particular Christian church. And so it was with others. The converts [or learners] when baptized 'joined themselves,' whenever they had opportunity, * to the disciples ;' but their baptism was administered to them simply on a profession of their faith," [or desire to receive instruction ;] "it was previous to such union, and formed no part of the services of the church with which they might subsequently unite. THE AD-MINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 125 Secondly. This being the case, I am disposed to regard the children of believers " [and other persons under preparatory instruction] " 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 niu-ture and admonition of the Lord ;' and they are in training for the full fellow- ship 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 ' nur- tured and admonished,' — they must be treated accord- ingly, — they cannot he admitted to the communion of the church. If, on the contrary, they * abide in the truth,' ' holding fast the faithfid 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 exclusion, when they do not give evidence of the reception and influence of the Gospel ; for the reason just assigned, that their baptism has not consti- tuted them properly members of a particidar society, hut only disciples of Christ, under training for the duties ajid enjoyments of his kingdom.^' pp. 188 — 190. This paragraph, without the words inclosed in brackets, is Dr. Wardlaw's exposition of his own doctrine; with the words inclosed, it is the exposition of mine. I have now to ask the reader to compare every objection, which Dr. Wardlaw adduces in his 126 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. strictures upon me, with this statement, and to observe how it equally affects his own case upon his own showing of it. 1. It recognises a class of baptized persons "who are not admitted to the communion of the church," and are not " properly members of a particular society, but only disciples of Christ under training for the duties and enjoyments of his kingdom." The whole difference between my friend and myself may be referred to the extent of this class. He receives into it only the children of believers. But is not the character, which he here describes, appro- priate to many others as well as to the children of believers ? Are not many others " disciples''' in his sense of " learners f Although "they cannot be ad- mitted to the communion of the church," are they not " under training for the duties and enjoyments of his kingdom ?" All children placed by their parents or friends under the instruction of the chui-ch, as the children in our sabbath schools, and the children of all persons regularly attending the public ordinances of religion, (if the pastor do his duty) are " disci- ples" in the sense of " learners," and are, or ought to be, considered " under training for the duties and enjoyments of his kingdom." And so are all persons who wilHngly place themselves under the instruction and training of the church. They belong to one class, stand in the same relation to the chui'ch, and are equally under its instructions. In this sense any man may offer himself as a " disciple," or " learner," and the church is bound to place him among her THE ADillNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 127 catechumens, and, as I think, to disciple him by bap- tizing and teaching. Respecting the existence of such a class " in training for the full fellowship of the people of God," I suppose there will be no difference of opinion among evangelical Christians. The only question is, should they be baptized on being received under such training, or should their baptism be deferred until they have passed their " training," and are admitted to " the full fellowship of the people of God ?" Dr. Wardlaw baptizes some, and will not baptize others, — ^baptizes those who are the children of pious parents, and Avdll not baptize those who are not. Is there, it may be asked, any difference in the privileges, the state, or the character of those " learners" whom he baptizes, and those " learners" whom he does not ? We know of none. They are taught the same truths. They are to be received to the fellowship of the church on the same terms. They are equally invited, warned, and encouraged. They are addressed by the Gospel, as sustaining the same character, — accepted on the same proposals of grace, and if they do not beheve, condemned without respect of persons. There seems, in their character and posi- tion, no ground for so great a distinction, as is im- phed in baptizing some, and not baptizing others, who are equally " in training for the full fellowship of the people of God." Dr. Wardlaw nowhere notices a single blessing, which, being imparted to the children of believers, is denied to other children under religious instruction. 2. The baptizing of this class of learners no way 1 28 P.E PLY TO DR. WARDLAW. affects tlie purity of the fellowship of the church. The reason is obvious. They are not admitted by baptism into the fellowship of the church. I shall again have occasion to notice the charge, which is repeatedly brought against me, of corrupting the purity of the church. My reply at present is, the objection applies to Dr. Wardlaw as distinctly as it does to me. He calls learners " disciples," and so do I. He admits unbelievers " under training" for the church, and so do I. The only difference is, he restricts his terms to a class of learners, — I extend it to all. But if uncon- verted men corrupt the purity of the church by being brought under its instructions, and being considered as disciples in the sense explained, my friend brings these Greeks into the temple, as well as I, although in smaller numbers, and by virtue of a supposed right of inheritance. 3. Many of the objections which Dr. Wardlaw alleges in his strictures upon me, may, with equal force, be alleged against the statements of this para- graph of his own Dissertation. A glance over the particulars will show, that my friend rebukes me for doing the very things which, in his controversy with the Baptists, he claims the right of doing himself. Let the reader observe the instances. I have said that " to be baptized was to be initiated as a disciple or learner of the new doctrine." Am I right in calling " a learner'''' " a disciple ?" Dr. Wardlaw refuses to allow me to do so, while he claims the right to do it himself. Commenting on my words in his Appendix, he says, " Dr, Halley frees his theory of THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 129 any previous profession of faith in the doctrine taught by his definition, or explanation, of the designation, disciple^ contained in the words ' or learner J 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 comes to be taught, and submits to instruction without at all com- mitting himself to the doctrine of the teacher." " No- where is any one called a disciple there, who merely presented himself as a learner." p. 331. Dr. Wardlaw has rendered himself incapable of putting in this demurrer. He is bound by the definition, as firmly as I am, and adheres to it in the reprint of his Disser- tation, bound in the same volume as his Appendix. In the paragraph cited. Dissertation, p. 188, he " agrees with those who regard the children of believers in the light of disciples. If their parents do their duty, they surely are such.'^ If it be asked. How can their parents " surely'' make them disciples ? Dr. Wardlaw says, " How can we be entitled to say they are not disciples? They are learners.'' Again, on p. 189 — " 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." If my friend calls the children of believers " disciples," because they are learners, and have been baptized, and have become the subjects of spiritual instruction, I K 130 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. ask Him, wliy I may not also call the whole class of learners "disciples?" My friend will "surely" not notice these remarks without telling me why I may not use words in the sense in which he claims the right to use them, and which I probably learnt from my early and careful study of his own writings. Whatever becomes of his demurrer, I must "demur to" his founding a charge of inconsistency on my usage of a word in the sense in which he avowedly uses it himself. My friend appends to this objection, another: — " 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. We have before adverted to the terms of the evangeHst that ' Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John;' terms according to which they were not made by baptism, but made and then baptized^ p. 331. Yet Dr. Wardlaw says of the children of believers, " their baptism has not constituted them properly members of a particular society, but only disciples of Christ." p. 190. I appeal to the candid reader, whether it is not "too bad" in my friend, to put me upon my defence for having said their baptism made them dis- ciples, when he insists that their baptism constituted them disciples ? Has he authority for conducting the controversy with Baptists, cum privilegio, and for pro- hibiting me from using the same arguments, or the same phraseology, as he selects for himself ? Or is it that my plain Saxon word " made,'^ is not to be THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 131 allowed to stand by the side of his more classical term, " constituted ? " There is no other dif- ference. Again, in the Appendix, p. 285, Dr. Wardlaw, in commenting upon my expression, " Every Gentile now, as distinctly as was every Jew, is born entitled to the external privileges of the Gospel," says. Is not the Lord's supper one of these " external privileges ?" (I shaU hereafter show that it is not, according to my own definition of that phrase.) The Dr. continues — " If evei'y circumcised Jew was entitled to the pass- over, must not every baptized Gentile be entitled to the Lord's supper ?" Does then Dr. Wardlaw admit " every baptized GentiW^ to the Lord's supper ? Speak- ing of the children of believers who do not hold the truth, he says, " they cannot be admitted to the com- munion of the church." Be it also observed, that he who founds the right of infants to baptism on the circumcision of Jewish children, here denies to the same children, until they give evidence of " holding fast the faithful word as they have been taught," the right to sit down to the Lord's supper ; and then gravely proposes, as a flagrant instance of my incon- sistency, that, although " every circumcised Jew was entitled to the passover," I do not admit, that " every baptized Gentile is entitled to the Lord's supper." Against a Baptist I should know how to conduct a defence, but against such an opponent, what other defence have I than to say, when my friend admi- nisters the Lord's supper, on their coming to the 132 REPLY TO DK. WARDLAW. years of discretion, to all whom he has baptized in infancy, I shall be prepared to defend my own consistency ? Dr. Wardlaw, in the above extract, maintains that " the baptized children of believers are not " church iiiemhers-'^ yet in his reply to me he says, " Do all nations as such constitute now the church of God ?" " Ancient privileges were the privileges of the church, — of the church as then constituted, and are not New Testament privileges, privileges of the church too, — of the church as now constituted ?" p. 286. Am I to receive this as an objection from a friend who maintains that the children of believers are to be baptized, although they are not members of the church as now constituted ? Again, Dr. Wardlaw says in his Appendix, on p. 286, — " Let an instance be pointed out of any, who were baptized, not being added to the church, and consequently observing all church ordinances ; — an instance of a person or persons being baptized without a profession of faith, and being afterwards, on a profession of faith, admitted to church membership and to the Lord's table." According to the above extract from his Dissertation, every child of a believer, on becoming a church member, was " an instance" of all he requires from me. There is another passage in my friend's Disserta- tion, which I must now lay before the reader, because it supplies me with a defence, not so much against any one particular objection adduced in the Appendix, as against the general spirit of the arguments. The THE ADiDNISTRATlON OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 133 intelligent reader will observe that his reasoning depends very much upon the objection to my impart- ing the sign of regeneration to those who have not the thing signified. Take as an instance the following words, — " The reality of the thing signified must have been presupposed in every case of the administration 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." p. 342. On this argument Dr. Wardlaw founds many charges of incon- sistencies, incongruities, and various kinds of contra- dictions. But I find my defence already provided in my friend's Dissertation. In distress I draw the arrow which came from his bow, from the wounded body of a Baptist. His words are, " 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 appli- cation of the sign to those who are admitted to he capable of the thing signified'' p. 186. If the reader of the Appendix, when he comes to a paragraph charging me with " inconsistency or incongruity," will only remember the above passage, he "vvill find all the defence I can possibly require. As all children, and indeed all applicants for baptism, are capable of the thing signified., there is no " inconsistency or incon- gruity in the appUcation of the sign." At least, I must strenuously maintain, and shall be greatly mis- taken if Dr. Wardlaw deny, that all infants, whoever be their parents, are equally capable of the thing signified. I see no contradiction or incongruity in 134 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. Steadily maintaining, on the one hand, with the Bap- tists, that the sign should be administered only to those who have the thing signified, or, on the other, that it should be administered to those " who are capable of the thing signified ;" but I see great " contradiction or incongruity" in maintaining, in a Dissertation against the Baptists, that there is no incongruity " in the application of the sign to those who are admitted to be capable of the thing signified," and in an Appendix against me, that " the reality of the thing signified must have been pre-supposed in every case of the administration of the sign." To render the following remarks intelligible to a reader who may not have seen, or may not remember, the difference between myself and my venerated friend on the argument founded upon the Abrahamic covenant, I must briefly advert to that subject. The great principle which Dr. Wardlaw defends in his " Dissertation," is thus stated: " Under that cove- nant" (the Abrahamic) " there existed a divinely instituted connexion between children and their parents; and the sign and seal of the blessings of the cove- nant were, by Divine appointment, administered to children." p. 20. My reply, in a few words, was, " The sign of the Abrahamic covenant was given to every child on account, not of his immediate connexion with his parents, but of his remote connexion with the Head of the covenant." And again, " The privilege is resolved into the connexion with Abraham and his posterity." In reference to this objection Dr. Wardlaw says, THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 135 " Surprised as my friend may be by the concession, I have very little to object to this representation, provided only the posterity of Abraham in the line of Isaac be specifically understood." p. 276. So far as my argument is concerned, I see no objection to allow this limitation, although my friend will surely admit, that Ishmael and his descendants were circumcised as well as the descendants " in the line of Isaac." By this concession I am not at all " surprised,^^ because I had fiill confidence in the candour of Dr. Wardlaw ; but I do not see how the argument of his Dissertation can remain an hour after the subversion of its principal support. K the children of Israel were circumcised on account of their remote connexion with Abraham, according to the promise, "I will be a God to thee, and thy seed" (posterity, not immediate children only) " after thee" — or " I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations,^^ the children of Christians (to preserve the analogy) ought to be baptized, on account of their connexion with some one who occupies a position similar to that of Abraham. Does then the Christian parent in the new covenant occupy that position? Yes, said Mr. Ewing; and he who refuses to baptize an infant, sits in judgment upon the whole lineage of his ancestry, and so say some very able Paedo-baptists among my friends. But, No, says Dr. Wardlaw, (in reply to my inference^) *' Had I in any part of my reasoning represented every believer as another Abraham, there would have been force in this." p. 279. ]36 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. But if a believer be not " another Abraham," how comes it to pass that his children are baptized on account of their connexion with him ? The analogy of the covenant with Abraham might, with some show of reason, be pleaded on behalf of the children of " another Abraham," and equally so for all his posterity. But Dr. Wardlaw says, " His spiritual relation to Abraham does not make the man himself an Abraham, — the head of a covenant." p. 280. My reply is, if it does not make him, like Abraham, the head of a covenant, it does not entitle any others to receive privileges on account of their connexion with him. He is only a member of the covenant, on the same terms as all other members. The explanation offered by my friend is, that " His spiritual relation to Abraham entitles his children to privilege, just as formerly the parent's natural relation to Abraham entitled his." The obvious reply, which a child could hardly, fail of noticing, is, — The Jewish parent trans- mitted the natural relation to his child, and, of course, transmitted its privileges, hut the Christian parent does not transmit the spiritual relatio7i, and therefore does not transmit its privileges. But, says Dr. Wardlaw, "If it is not denied that descent from Abraham in the line of Isaac, associated with a tacit or avowed belief in Jeho- vah as Abraham's God, — the God of the Jewish fathers — was the term of membership in the church of Israel, — nothing is denied that I ever affirmed." p. 278. Then certainly I have never denied (nor, I should think, has any one else,) anything that my THE ADinNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 137 friend has here affirmed. But if the Jew lost his membership through atheism, as this sentence im- plies he might have lost it, might not his child claim all his privileges as a descendant of Abraham ? If he might, he inherited through the father, but not of the father. In other words, he had no other con- nexion with his father, than he had with his grand- father, or with any other ancestor in the whole lineage through whom the natural relation was transmitted. I amend Dr. Wardlaw's proposition, " Before the coming of Christ the covenant of grace had been revealed, and under that covenant there existed a Divinely instituted connexion between children and their parents," (p. 20,) by adding. And equally be- tween children and the Hne of their progenitors, in all their generations, ascending to Abraham, the head of the covenant. My friend says, " A parentage in accordance with the constitution of that church Avas necessary to any one's possessing a title to visible membership." p. 277. I reply, and so in the same sense was an ancestry " in accordance with the con- stitution of that church," — although a servitude " in accordance with the constitution of that church" would have been sufficient. The case of the prose- lyte, whose children were admitted, may be thought an objection, but on his admission he was recognised as a new-born man, — not a Gentile, but a true son of Abraham. But I am told that I overlook " one im- portant element in the argument," and that is, " while the privileges of the covenant, and the covenant sign and seal, were confined to the descendants of Abra- 138 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. ham in the line of Isaac, — all the descendants in that line constituted under the existing dispensation the visible church of God.'''' p. 276. My reply is, No " descendants''' of any person, in any line whatever, now constitute the visible church of God ; and, there- fore, no line has to be distinguished from others by the seal of the covenant. In confirmation of these remarks I maintain, that no Hebrew child was ever circumcised on account of the faith or jyiety of his father, except the sons of Abraham^ My reason is, " No infant could have been circumcised on account of the faith or piety of his father, when he would have been, with as much pro- priety, circumcised, according to the Divine law, had his father been a notorious unbeliever, or an open profli- gate.'' My illustration is, the sons of David were cir- cumcised according to the same law, and, therefore, for the same reason, as the sons of that worshipper of Baal, Ahab, and of that wicked woman, Jezebel. We do not find, that to all his sins, Ahab added the horrid crime of neglecting in his family the great law of circum- cision ; but even if he had, it would, with propriety, have been restored after his death, on account of the descent of his children from the patriarch Abraham, K, therefore, any believer now receives the sign of the covenant, as it is called, for his children, on ac- count of his own piety, he has an honour, which no saint, except Abraham, however exalted his piety, neither Moses nor David, ever acquired under the former dispensation. Yet, says Dr. Wardlaw, the believer is not " another Abraham." K he be not, THE ADinNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 139 how comes he with Abraham's privilege so far as his immediate offspring are concerned ? But Dr. Wardlaw proposes this view of the sub- ject: "Whatever was requisite to parents being con- nected with the visible church, as then constituted, was requisite to the circumcision of their children ; — whatever is requisite now to parents being connected with the visible church, is requisite now to the baptism of their children." p. 278. So far from " overlooking" this, as my friend suggests, I make it the life of my argument. He says, " What was then necessary to children partaking in it, was just what was necessary for the membership of their parents in the ancient church." p. 278. So I say, and add, this sentence of his Appendix is fatal to the whole argu- ment of his Dissertation. Dr. Wardlaw will not affu-m the application of his own argument to the Christian church. He will not say of baptism what he says of circumcision, " What was then [now] necessary to children partaking in it, was [is] just what was necessary for the membership of their parents in the ancient [modern] church." Accord- ing to him, descent from a pious parent is the reason for admitting children to baptism, but he will not say this is the reason of the admission of their parents to the membership of the visible church. On the con- trary, faith in Christ is requisite to the membership of the parents, but he will not say, faith is requisite to the baptism of their children. It is true he does say, "Whatever is requisite now to parents being connected with the visible church, is requisite now to 140 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. the baptism of their children." But by these words he must mean, the requisite thing, — faith in Christ, is found not in the child, but in the parent. On the contrary, in the Jewish church, the requisite thing, — descent from Abraham, was found in the child as well as in the parent. The son was horn a Jew, as well as his father, and was therefore circumcised. Will Dr. Wardlaw aflGLrm, the son is horn a Christian as well as his father, and is therefore baptized ? The son was a natural descendant of Abraham as well as his father, and therefore was circumcised. Will Dr. Wardlaw affirm, that the son is a spiritual descendant of Abraham, as well as his father, and therefore is bap- tized ? Or does he mean that the child of a believer, dying in its infancy, is safe in Christ ? So, I respond, is every infant, by whatever parentage it comes into the world. This seems the proper place to notice the charge of overlooking the purity of the church, as in con- nexion with this part of the argument, it is distinctly alleged. In denying the right of children to church- membership on account of the faith of their parents, as absolutely as I deny the right of all unbelievers, I thought that I was protecting the purity of the church. But Dr. Wardlaw says, " He dwells em- phatically 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." p. 280. After reciting a long paragraph, he says, " Here is the omission of which I complain in all its THE ADXnNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 141 glaringness, the increased extension of the church, to the entire overlooking of what was equally predicted — its increased spirituality and purity. I am con- founded at this. On reading the paragraph I was ready to ask, Has my worthy nonconforming friend relinquished dissent, and become an advocate of national churches ?" p. 283. The latter question I need not answer. I have " confounded" my friend; and, in his confusion, he has said some strange things both about "national churches" and about "the church under the Gospel." But what " church under the Gospel" does he mean, when he says, I have overlooked " its increased spirituality and purity ?" I have not used the word " church'' in the extract cited, and therefore I can obtain no answer from it. Does he, by the word " church," mean a voluntary society ? I have ex- pressly said that baptism does not initiate any one as a member of such a church, and my friend has asserted the same thing, as we have already seen. Does he, by the " church," mean the aggregate of all the members of all the voluntary churches in the world, — the visible church in that general sense ? J£ baptism does not constitute a person a member of a separate church, it cannot introduce him into that great aggregate of all the visible churches. Does he mean the general assembly or church of the first- born, whose names are written in heaven, or that part of it living upon earth ? Baptism can introduce no person whatsoever into this church, for all believers, baptized or unbaptized, belong to it, and no unbe- 142 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. lievers, baptized or unbaptized, can be admitted. All infants, I hope, belong to it, but if they do not, they cannot be introduced by baptism, unless baptism be regeneration. How do I overlook the spirituality and purity of the church in any one of these senses, seeing I firmly maintain baptism introduces no man into it, and seeing also that in this opinion Dr. Ward- law agrees with me ? Has he distinctly before his mind some other church, not a voluntary church, — nor the aggregate of the voluntary churches, called the visible church, — nor yet the invisible church of aU believers ? If he has, I should Hke to know a little more about it, for, certainly, I have "over- looked" not only " its spirituality and purity," but even its existence. This may suffice for the repeated charge of overlooking the purity of the church, until my friend distinctly teUs me what church he means, and then I will trouble him with a more distinct reply. Another, and, as it appears to me, a fatal objection to Dr. Wardlaw's Dissertation, is founded upon his use of the word " children.^'' When he says, " Under that covenant there existed a Divinely instituted connexion between children and their parents," what does he mean by the word ^'' children V Does he mean " children" in the sense of infants ; or in the sense of sons and daughters, including men and women as well as infants ? If he means the former, his argument is bad at its commencement ; if the latter, it is bad at its conclusion. If by " children'' he means infants, or little children, we reply, that this is not the meaning of the word in the documents THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 143 of the Abrahamic covenant, and that, therefore, his argument has no better foundation than the wrong use of an ambiguous term in the English version. My friend, throughout his first section, speaks gene- rally of the covenant, as having " a primary respect to his natural offspring," and this, I agree with him, is the correct sense of the terms, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations^ If then the meaning be, " there existed a Divinely instituted connexion between children [the natural offspring, adults as well as in- fants] and their parents," whatever connexion with his parents is attributed to the infant is equally attri- buted to the adult. The son of Abraham, of what- ever age, from eight days old and upwards, was to be circumcised, including the man of ninety and nine years old, and every man-servant of whatever age: the covenant of circumcision had no reference what- ever to infants, as such, but only to infants, as in- cluded together with adults, in the posterity of Abra- ham. K the rite had been neglected in infancy, the son of Abraham in mature age must submit to the sign of the covenant of which his ancestor was the head. The formula, as cited by Dr. Wardlaw from the authorized version, is, " * Every man child among you shall be circumcised.' " But in the original words there is no reference whatever to a child, the translation being " Every male among you shall be circumcised." No connexion between parents and children, in any sense, which does not include adults as well as infants, is ever acknowledged in the Abrahamic covenant. 144 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. But if, on the other hand, in the term children he intends to include adults, how can the consistency of the second " general head," through which Dr. Ward- law conducts his argument, be established, that " So far from the ancient connexion between parents and children having been abrogated, the children of con- verts to the faith of the Gospel were baptized ?" p. 90. The ancient connexion was between parents and adult as well as infant children, (conceding for the sake of the argument that it existed at all,) and, therefore, I ask, has that ancient connexion never been abrogated ? Mr. E^ving, acting consistently, would have baptized all the children of whatever age, unless " they were so rebellious as to refuse" to submit to him. Dr. Ward- law has his choice of four propositions. The ancient connexion was not with all children, but only with infants, which is contrary to the terms of the institu- tion. Or, it was with all children, and, therefore full-grown men and women are to be baptized on the faith of their parents. Or, it is abrogated, so far as adults are concerned, but it is not, so far as infants are concerned, which is a change of the covenant. Or, the argument of his Dissertation is founded on a wrong principle. If he can produce a fifth proposi- tion, I shall be happy to consider it. Another objection to the reasoning of my friend, which appears to me to nullify his argument, is, that the visible or national church of Israel was the creation, not of the Abrahamic covenant, but of the Mosaic law. Dr. Wardlaw carefully distinguishes in his Dissertation between the covenant with Abraham and THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 145 the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after. Was the national church of Israel constituted by the mediation of Abraham or of Moses? The Abrahamic covenant was made with the descendants of Abraham, in the line of Isaac, according to my friend. The Jewish national church excluded the posterity of Esau, who, although circumcised, were not to enter into the congregation of the Lord until the third generation, when the Egyptian was also eligible. (Deut. xxiii. 7, 8.) The Abrahamic covenant con- tained no ordinances of worship. The Jewish church was, like its tabernacle, made according to the pat- tern showed to Moses on the mount. The Abrahamic covenant, essentially the Gospel, was to abide for ever : the national church of Israel was abolished with the Mosaic law, which was really the law of that visible church. When, therefore, my friend charges me with overlooking the great difference in the character of the two dispensations, I reply, if he means by the former dispensation the Mosaic law, with its national church, it is for ever abolished, and its constitution is totally irrelevant to the argument; — but if he means the Abrahamic covenant, I agree with his opinion, as elsewhere stated, that there is no essential difference between it and the Gospel. When, therefore, he insists that every circumcised Jew was admitted to the passover and all the other privileges of the con- gregation of the Lord, I reply, these things were not of iibraham but of Moses, and were determined by another law, which constituted a national church. On this subject the Dissertation of my friend sup- 146 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. ports my views in opposition to the objections of his own Appendix. In saying, " So far as my argument is concerned I see no objection to allow the limitation, namely, that my representations respecting the privi- leges of the posterity of Abraham, of which circum- cision was the sign, were restricted to the line of Isaac, I did not mean to admit that this limitation, on which my respected friend so strenuously insists, was consistent with the argument of his Dissertation as against the Baptists. He complains, that " there is one important element in my argument, which by Dr. Halley has been entirely overlooked. It is, that, while the covenant sign and seal were confined to the descendants of Abraham in the line of Isaac, aU his descendants in that line constituted, under the then existing dispensation, the visible church of Gody p. 276. Again, " The laxity with regard to the faith and character of the immediate parentage of children then admitted to the initiatory ordinance of the cove- nant, arose from the nature of the existing dispensa- tion. What was then necessary to children partaking of 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 IsraeUtish nation being a member of that church." p. 278. I might here inquire if the covenant sign and seal were restricted to the Kne of Isaac, and if the membership of the Jewish church was co-extensive with that line. On the one hand, were not the Ishmaelites, although not in the ancient church, circumcised ? On the other, were not the THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 147 Edomites, although circumcised in the line of Isaac, excluded from the ancient church? What then becomes of the argument, which I have overlooked, founded upon the supposed co-extension of the sign of the Abrahamic covenant and the membership of the national Jewish church? But I would rather explain, why I did not notice this " important element" in my friend's argument. The omission arose from my great familiarity with his writings. I know not that he has printed a sentence which I have not read, and very much that he has printed I have read over several times, and every time with great advantage. The Baptists had said that circumcision was a sign and seal of the right and title to the land of Canaan, as confidently as my friend has said that it " existed in the church, and was co-extensive with it, under its mere carnal, worldly, and national form." p. 277. I recollected, as distinctly as if I had read it the day before, how completely and triumphantly my friend had refuted this argument. He had said that the right to Canaan was restricted to the line of Isaac, but circumcision was not so re- stricted ; and, therefore, as the two were not co-exten- sive, the one could not have been intended to be the sign and seal of the other. So he refuted Dr. Cox ; and so by anticipation he has refuted his own Appendix. My reply is but the echo of his own syllogism. Membership in the Jewish national church (as he clearly shows) was restricted to the line of Isaac, (proselytes being excepted ;) circum- cision was not so restricted. The two were not 148 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. co-extensive, and therefore the one could not have been intended to be the sign of the other. In reply to Dr. Cox, Dr. Wardlaw says, " Circumcision could not be intended for a purpose which it never an- swered." Most convincingly he shows that it never answered its purpose of being a sign of the earthly promise of Canaan, in terms which I am sure must have silenced all his Baptist opponents on that part of the argument. " By the very circumstance of cir- cumcision 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 was common to them with other tribes and nations sprung from the same stock, and yet having no part in the earthly inheritance. Might not this circumstance have suggested to Dr. Cox's mind, that, connecting circumcision with the covenantof redemption, there was, in its administration to others besides Isaac, an intimation intended, that, although to serve particular purposes in the Divine economy, the covenant was established with them, yet its best blessings were not to be confined to one portion of Abraham's family, or even to his posterity at large ?" Wardlaw on Baptism, p. 57. With these words of my friend before my eyes, how could I gravely regard, as " an important element in his argu- ment," that " the covenant sign and seal were confined to the descendants of Abraham in the line of Isaac ?" When he says that the national church was restricted to the line of Isaac, and that circumcision was " in that church and co-extensive with it." does he retract THE ADMESISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 149 his own refutation of the Baptists ? My reply to his objection, that I do not make the sign and the church co-extensive, is, that he has demonstrated the contrary for me, by showing in his Dissertation that circum- cision was not confined to the national church in the line of Isaac, although in his Appendix he repre- sents that co-extension as an element of his argument which I have overlooked. In confirmation of Dr. Wardlaw's opinion, as stated in his Dissertation, but in reply to the objection of his Appendix, I may observe that, if circumcision had been the express seal or sign of membership in the national church confined to the line of Isaac, it would scarcely have been suspended during the forty years when the ritual and institution of that church were first ordained. The tabernacle was set up according to the pattern shown on the mount, the priests, sacrifices, and services ordained, the Mosaic covenant ratified with blood, Judaism instituted and perfected, under a suspension of the great law of circumcision. I infer no more from this fact, than that it does not appear reconcileable with the opinion, nowhere asserted in Scripture, that circumcision was the initiatory rite or peculiar privilege of the Jewish national church. But if circumcision was not the ex- clusive privilege of the church in the line of Isaac, what becomes of the argument, which, from the analogy, would confine baptism to a Christian parentage ? On this part of the Appendix I observe nothing which requires further notice, unless it be my friend's strictures on my reference to the eleventh chapter of 150 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. the Epistle to the Romans. He points out several " incongruities," which are certainly incongruous enough with his interpretation of the chapter. Pos- sibly, however, I ought not to have made any reference to the language of that chapter, without adducing and defending, at length, my own interpretation of the apostle's argument. I have, therefore, no right to complain, except in those points in which I had distinctly stated the sense in which I employed my own terms. When, therefore, my friend asks, " Why are the Jews as a nation cut off?" p. 287, I can only say I do not believe the Jews, as a nation, were cut off, but only a great number of its people, as individuals, for their own sins. When he says the olive-tree " sym- bolizes the church of God," p. 289, 1 can only say, as I have nowhere admitted this interpretation, any argument deduced from it has no application to me. But as the interpretation of this chapter would occupy more time than would be fitting in this controversy, and involves particulars of great importance, I must leave the incongruities, to which my friend refers, to make their impression upon the mind of his readers, until I can find an opportunity, which probably the kindness of one of our religious periodicals will afford, to submit, at length, my views of the whole chapter. At present, even without that interpretation, I think I can clearly explain my meaning in two particulars which require notice. Dr. Wardlaw expresses his trust that on " mature reconsideration," I may be " sensible of the incon- THE ADJnNISTRATION OF CHEISTIAN BAPTISM. 151 gruity of regarding tlie Abrahamic covenant, essen- tially the covenant of grace, which, previously to the death of Christ, recognised only the posterity of Abraham, as having subsequently to that event re- ceived all the nations, — in such an indiscriminating and wholesale sense as that in which he uses and reiterates the term." p. 289. As whatever is done to " all the nations," must be " indiscriminating and wholesale." J am not greatly alarmed at those two words. Strip this passage of its theological techni- calities, and what is its meaning ? I agree with Mr. Baxter, that " God's covenant with man is nothing else but the universal promise of the Gospel,"* which was once made with the posterity of Abraham, and is now, in "an indiscriminating and wholesale" sense, made to " all the nations." If, however. Dr. Wardlaw means by the "covenant" the engagement with be- lievers to bestow upon them eternal life, this never could have been made with any unbeliever, and there- fore was never made with the Jewish nation. The covenant, as an unconditional promise, was never made with the Jew as such, — as a conditional pro- mise, it was made with him, and is now, in the same "wholesale and indiscriminating" sense, made with every Gentile who hears the Gospel. In maintaining that all the Gentiles have succeeded to the privileges which formerly belonged to aU the Jews, — I mean that the believing Gentiles have the privi- leges of the believing Jews, — the unbelieving Gentiles * Christian Institutes, p. Ill, ch. iii. § 5. ]52 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. have the privileges of the unbelieving Jews, (chiefly that to them are now committed the oracles of God, which are to be preached to all nations,) and the infant Gentiles have the privileges of the infant Jews. All the Gentiles are under the Gospel as distinctly as were all the Jews under the law, to be brought by religious ordinances to the knowledge of the truth ; and all the Gentiles, as were all the Jews, on the rejection of the truth, are condemned to die without mercy. The other particular refers to the quotation of my words — " Every Gentile now, as distinctly as was every Jew, is born entitled to the external privileges of the Gospel;" on which Dr. Wardlaw asks, " Is not the Lord's supper one of the external privileges ?" It is not, in the sense in which I have expressly used the term, and, as I think, have rightly used it. But whether my use of the term " external privilege" be right or wrong, I had so explained it, as ought to have protected me from the trouble of answering this inquiry. I have, indeed, recently heard in Scotland the expression " people require their privileges," meaning baptism for their children, and the Lord's supper for themselves ; but at the time I wrote my Lecture, I was not aware that such language was prevalent. I had borrowed the term from Episcopalian writers, whose opinions on that subject I had controverted. On p. 215 of my volume their doctrine is thus stated: " Baptism so introduces a person into the evangelical covenant, as to give him a right to all its external privileges J by the good use of which he may acquire a THE .\DiUNlSTRATIOK OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 153 title to everlasting life." In refuting this proposition I stated, pp. 216, 217, that every unbaptized man is already in possession of these pri\dleges, that is, may use every means of grace to obtain his title to ever- lasting life. Throughout the whole discussion I distinguished " the privileges" from the signs of privileges, and said that the sacraments were only their signs. Even in this Lecture, speaking on this very subject, I had carefully observed the same distinction. In saying, for instance, on p. 553, " baptism is nothing else" than " a sign of external privilege," I could not have meant, it was " the external privilege'' of which it was only the sign. According to my own repeated explanation of the term, the Lord's supper is not an " external privilege" of the Gospel. I have now to notice the objections, which are offered to what Dr. Wardlaw calls my " more general reasonings." As he commences by entreating my " earnest and candid attention," I may be allowed to say, that I have given most " earnest and candid atten- tion" to this subject for above twenty years, — that few persons, in such an inquiry, have passed through a more painful process of anxious thought than I have done, — that I was first excited to the inquiry by reading the Dissertation of my friend ; and that, although at the time I was disappointed, it is pleasant to stop in the midst of the controversy, and thank him most cordially as the instrument of producing, although a painful, yet salutary, exercise of mind. It is more than probable that, had he not written his 154 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. Dissertation, I should not have written the Lecture which he controverts. On coming to the " Strictures" on my interpreta- tion of our Lord's commission, I looked with con- siderable interest for my friend's exposition of the words, for I had previously found as many differ- ent expositions as there were hostile reviewers of my Lecture. One critic expounded, " Go, disciple all nations," — a general term, and therefore disciple gene- rally ; but " baptizing them,''^ — a personal pronoun, and therefore baptize personally. Another said, " Go, disciple all the nations and baptize only such as you disciple." A third said, my grammar was incon- trovertible, " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them," every one of them, as far as you can, but adding that to baptize was to do something which could not be done to any other than believers and their children. A fourth said, the Greek word rendered " nations " is neuter, and the pronoun rendered " them" is masculine, and therefore the former could not be the antecedent, to which the latter refers. A fifth, in a Baptist pub- lication,* writing, as I think, by far the most sensible review of my Lecture which I have seen, suggests that the evangelists do not always use the pronouns with grammatical exactness, and supplies some in- stances of an inaccurate usage. Were I compelled to surrender my position, I should certainly do so upon the principle here suggested. Mr. Stovel construes the passage, (or can so construe it, for he also * The Baptist Record. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 155 patronises other constructions,) " disciple through all the nations," — " a great moral and social sphere,''^ — baptizing them. Dr. Wardlaw says, " disciple, bap- tizing, I repeat, limits the baptizing to the extent of their success in discipling." p. 294. In repeating, respectfully but firmly, it does not, I must not be understood as intimating, that there is no connexion between discipling and baptizing. There would not, in my apprehension, have been any neces- sity for this remark, had not my friend animadverted upon my interpretation of the passage, as if I had given some such intimation. He says, " On first reading these sentences I was startled at the unhesi- tating confidence with which the assumption contained in them is made, — of the identity of meaning of the phrases, — " Go, disciple all the nations, baptizing them ; — and, Go, baptize all the nations." p. 292. And again, " I am quite at a loss to imagine on what principle Dr. H. reached his conclusion, that ' dis- ciple, baptizing,' is the same thing with baptize." p. 293. The words, although printed in inverted commas, are not mine, and I may compose the nerves of my friend, who has been so much " startled," by saying that I utterly repudiate any such absurdity. The words which have "startled" my friend are, " So far as the grammatical construction is concerned, the meaning of the terms is precisely the same as it would be, if the words of the commission were, bap- tize all the nations." By the words of the commission I intended, not all the words, but only the words of the clause which related to baptism. Had not my friend 156 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. been " startled," lie would not have imputed to me the gross absurdity of assuming that all the words of the commission, — " Go, disciple all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- manded you," conveyed no idea whatever, being all included in the clause " baptizing them." So far from assuming anything of the kind, I feel that such an assumption would be fatal to my own argument, which is founded upon the connexion of the verb, " disciple," and the participle, " baptizing." My argument is, that the participle, " baptizing," being construed with the imperative verb, " disciple," implies a command as distinctly as if it had been the imperative, " baptize.^'' This cannot be denied. The commission certainly contains a command to baptize, however it be explained. If Dr. Wardlaw asks for the principle, I have only to cite any common sentence ; as when I say, "read standing," I command the person as imperatively to stand, as I do to read. I observed further, that the pronoun "them" refers to the antecedent, " all the nations," and, therefore, stands in the place of that antecedent. Dr. Wardlaw admits the reference is correct. I therefore say that the words of that clause, " baptizing them," is equivalent to a command, " baptize all the nations." Dr. Wardlaw has now both my " conclusion" and " the principle," by which I obtain it. But Dr. Wardlaw elsewhere observes, if my con- clusion be correct, " the words of the commission might with equal propriety have run, ' Go, baptize all nations, discipling them.'" p. 311. And what is THE ADmNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 157 the difference in the signification of the two phrases, " Disciple all nations, baptizing them," and " baptize all nations, discipling them?" I confess, I have not sufficient acuteness to detect the slightest shade of difference. It is no more apparent than in the phrases, "they were baptized, confessing their sins," and " they confessed their sins, being baptized." The former verbs are imperatives, the latter are indicatives ; but their connexion with their respective participles is precisely the same. If Dr. Wardlaw infers from the order of the words, we are to disciple first, and to baptize afterwards, he has a good reason for inferring, on the same principle, that the disciples of John were baptized first, and confessed their sins afterwards. But I have to notice the connexion, which, accord- ing to this commission, exists between discipling and baptizing. We are commanded to disciple, baptizing and teaching, or, what is the same thing, to baptize and teach in making disciples. If we are to disciple baptizing, it appears to me that those who reserve baptism until the disciples are made, depart from the plain terms of the injunction, for they disciple without baptizing; that is, they baptize, not in making disciples, but after the disciples are made. Dr. Wardlaw represents a certain class of baptized per- sons as " under training for the fellowship of the church," and the full privileges of disciples. If he would admit all applicants into that class by baptism, and teach them to observe all things which Christ hath commanded ; and then, on the evidence of suc- cess in this training or discipling, admit them, as 158 KEPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. Christians, to the fellowship of saints, it appears to me he would observe literally the injunction of our Lord. He does so in part, that is, so far as the children of believers are concerned. I only propose to him to disciple, by baptizing and teaching, other children under his ministry, and all other applicants, exactly as he disciples, by baptizing and teaching, the children of believers. I notice this evident connexion between discipling and baptizing, because my friend seems to write as if I had disconnected the two parts of the Saviour's commission. Not supposing that I should be so mis- understood, I have possibly not explained myself with sufficient clearness in this particular. In speaking of indiscriminate baptism I meant not that baptism was to be administered as if it had no relation whatever to discipleship, but that it was to be administered with reference, not to the present character of the person, as a disciple already acknowledged, but to the instruc- tion, which he would receive from the teacher. I connect the two together, so that I am neither to disci- ple without baptizing, nor to baptize without attempt- ing to disciple. I baptize all whom I attempt to disciple, — I am bound to attempt to disciple every applicant whom I baptize. In calling this adminis- tering baptism indiscriminately, I never thought I should be understood to recommend baptism with any other intention than that of making disciples. It is evident, that my reasoning hitherto does not depend upon the sense in which the word " disciples" is used, that is, it does not depend upon their being THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 159 either " learners," or " believers," — " under training," or "in fellowship." I mention this, because the unlearned reader may suppose, from the frequent use of the word, that there is some corresponding noun in the original commission. We have there a verb, rendered " disciple," the exact meaning of which, it is not necessary I should stay to ascertain. Although it is usually an intransitive verb, denoting to learn or to be a disciple, it must be here used in a transitive sense, to teach, or to make disciples. Let it mean what it may, the phraseology of its connexion proves that it is to be accomplished by baptizing and teaching, — " Disciple all nations, baptizing and teaching them." With these explanations I have to notice Dr. Wardlaw's assertion, " Disciple, baptizing, I repeat, limits the baptizing to the extent of their success in discipling." p. 294. On this most important point in the controversy, I repeat it does not. It does not, according to the grammatical construction of the words. It does not, according to Dr. Wardlaw's ex- position of its syntax. It does not, according to his own statement in his Dissertation, however incon- sistent it may appear with this assertion of his Ap- pendix. 1. The words, " disciple baptizing," do 7iot " limit the baptizing to the extent of their success in dis- cipling," according to the grammatical construction of the phrase. I have, in my Lecture, assigned my reasons for maintaining that, according to the fair grammatical 160 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. construction of the several terms, the verb, the noun, the participle, and the pronoun, the command is to disciple all nations, baptizing them, or that the parti- ciple, *' baptizing," being so connected with the verb, *^ disciple," must denote an act to be done, in accom- plishing the action expressed by the verb ; that is, we are to baptize in making disciples, and not after the disciples are made. " To make disciples baptizing," is surely to be distinguished from " to make disciples without baptizing." Yet he, who refuses to baptize until the disciples are made, makes them without baptizing. Let Dr. Wardlaw produce a present par- ticiple, like " baptizing," in construction with a verb, and yet not connected with the action of the verb, as a present or contemporaneous act^ and he will do some- thing to refute my reasoning. Such a construction of a verb and present participle, I will venture to say, he has never seen. The syntax of my friend, if it were applied to the passage, " they were baptized, confessing their sins," would teach, that they were first baptized, and afterwards confessed their sins. 2. The words, " disciple baptizing," do not " limit the baptizing to the extent of their success in dis- cipling," according to Dr. Wardlaw's own exposition of the syntax. My friend in the following words admirably ex- pounds the syntax of the phrase, " disciple baptizing." *' 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.' " p. 293. This is my interpretation much THE ADMNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 161 more clearly and correctly expressed than it appears in any part of my own work. Baptizing is "an act to be done, or a form to be observed, in fulfilling the injunction to disciple:'" not, be it observed, after the injunction " to disciple" is fulfilled. But if the words, " * disciple baptizing,' limit the baptizing to the extent of the success in discipling," baptizing must be " an act to be done, or a form to be observed," after the injunction is fulfilled, and not in fulfilling it ; that is, after we have ascertained our " success in discipling." But this is contrary to the exposition of my friend, suggested when as a gram- marian, and not as a theologian, he was critically studying *' the verb of injunction," and " the parti- cipial adjunct." I greatly admire him as a theologian, on all subjects except baptism; but there the gram- marian so eclipses the theologian, that I confidently appeal from Wardlaw the theologian, to Wardlaw the critic, and affirm with the latter, in direct oppo- sition to the former, that baptizing is " an act to be done, or a form to be observed," i?i making disciples, and not after they are made. 3. The words, " disciple baptizing," do not " limit the baptizing to the extent of their success in dis- cipling," according to Dr. Wardlaw's own argument in his Dissertation on Infant Baptism. My respected opponent is not the first person who has said, " the extent of success in discipling" is the proper limit of baptism. The Baptists, from the first day of the controversy until now, have insisted upon this interpretation of our Lord's words. Dr. u 162 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. Wardlaw was too well-informed and too candid to pass over, without notice, this popular objection. In his Dissertation on Infant Baptism, he considers it, as it is more commonly proposed in the form, " none are to be baptized but those who are capable of being discipled." His reply is, " Suppose the ordinance of circumcision had been to continue, and the command had run in these terms, 'Go ye, therefore, and dis- ciple all nations, circumcising them,' " — " Had such language been tised, 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." " And if a commission to circumcise given in these terms would not have been understood as necessarily excluding children, it can never be shown that a commission in the same terms to baptize must have been so under- stood." pp. 46, 47. I have nothing to do with the logic of assuming that our Lord might have expressed himself in terms, which the consistency of the Baptist opponent compels him to deny that our Lord ever could have used, unless he meant to restrict the ancient rite to disciples only. But if the phrase " disciple baptizing" does not limit the baptizing to adults, as Dr. Wardlaw in his Dissertation asserts, how can that phrase limit the baptizing to " the extent of their success in discipling," as in his Appendix he main- tains ? I am not disposed to be confined within the limits which my friend prescribes, when I see him, on appeal to the Jewish law, asserting his right to THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 163 expatiate so freely without the boundary of his OAvn inclosure. But how, it will be asked, does my honoured opponent determine the grammatical construction of the passage, so as to show that the words " disciple baptizing, limit the baptizing to the extent of their success in discipling ?" I can find in his volume no such attempt. On the contrary, he says, " I see no necessity for any nice grammatical disquisition or controversy." " Admitting Dr. Halley's reference of the pronoun to * all the nations' as its antecedent, there is still, on the principles I have been laying down, and independently of all grammatical nicety and casuistry, evident ground for such limitation. This I shall endeavour more fully to establish in two ways. 1. By showing that other parts of Scripture are in harmony with our interpretation of this. 2. That the views of Dr. H. himself, at various times through- out his volume, of the nature and ends of the rite, are themselves inconsistent with the unrestricted adminis- tration of it." p. 296. This, I must say, although I say it with reluctance, is but evading the controversy, so far as this passage is concerned. For, 1. Principles, laid down " independently of all grammatical nicety," are utterly worthless in deter- mining the sense of a disputed passage. 2. How, Avithout " nice grammatical disquisition or controversy," are we to determine the sense of those " other parts of Scripture" concerning which we are 164 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. not agreed ? His " interpretation" of those *' other parts," undoubtedly agrees with his " interpretation" of this passage ; but my " interpretation" of them equally agrees with my " interpretation" of this. The discordant interpreters have to determine the meaning of several passages, and it is right they should begin with the commission to baptize, and afterwards con- sider the incidental notices of baptism as they occur in the New Testament. 3. Be it that Dr. H. has said many things incon- sistent with his interpretation of this passage, he is quite willing to correct those inconsistencies, whenever they are detected, and to leave, as it ought to be left, the meaning of the text in Matthew to be ascertained by " grammatical disquisition." I am thus compelled to notice those " other parts of Scripture," and the " variety of expressions incidentally used by Dr. H." inconsistent with his interpretation of our Lord's commission. Under the first head, my esteemed friend com- mences by reciting a number of passages in which faith or repentance is mentioned before baptism, as, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," — " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you." pp. 297, 298. On these citations he says, " One should think the connexion between faith and repentance ought to be sufficiently ascertained to the satisfaction of any ingenuous mind, by the simple reading of such texts as these." p. 298. Whatever may be the effect of " the simple reading of such texts as these," I cannot persuade myself, THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 165 (although several expressions seem to intimate that such is his meaning) that Dr. Wardlaw intends to lay down an absolute rule, that if two things are men- tioned, the order of time is to be determined by the succession of the words. Were one of his students to propose as a grand discovery, that Jesus was not crucified, until after his death, because it is said, " whom they slew and hanged on a tree," he would only smile with that benignant expression, which, somehow or other, as in no one else I have ever seen, pleasantly irradiates even the curl of his lip, which would be very sarcastic and scornful, were it not softened by the blandness and suavity of all the features around it. Yet his pupil might reply, the same order of the words is observed in another pas- sage, and hanging on a tree is " a participial adjunct," and therefore limits the hanging "to the extent of their success in" previously slaying ; and much more to the same effect. We interpret the verse, " whom they slew by hanging on a tree," as we interpret the commission, " disciple by baptizing and teaching." But my friend asks, " Is there any phraseology of a different kind?" p. 302. I reply, there is phrase- ology of a different kind. I adduced some instances in my Lecture, but unfortunately my friend seems to have thought I was reasoning upon the collocation, because I said, " This ingenuity may be employed on the other side." When I cited the words, " Be bap- tized and wash away thy sins," as "an argument from the order of the words, sound or unsound, let others determine, that baptism should precede the washing 166 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. away of sins," — I intended to intimate that the argu- ment from the order of the words was unsound, although it might be employed on one side, as well as on the other. But Dr. Wardlaw replies, as if I was directly constructing the argument in my own favour, " Is my friend in earnest ?" — " I can more easily beheve him reduced by the pinching poverty of his cause, to the use of a weak argument, than capable of employing a dishonest one." p. 307. The weakness of the argument was the strength of my objection, because it was proposed as a specimen of a class of arguments, against the use of which I was earnestly protesting. Instead of collecting a series of passages myself, I would rather, to prevent a similar misunderstanding, adduce them from another writer. In a work, en- titled " Baptism Discussed," by Daniel Isaacs, an eminent Wesleyan minister, we find a column of texts quite as imposing as those which Dr. Wardlaw has produced on the other side of the question. This book contains some able reasoning, and was strongly recommended to young ministers and students by the late Mr. Thomas Wilson. I cite its columns, not as evidence in my favour, for I decline the aid of such authority, but only as showing that arguments founded upon the order of words may be employed on both sides of this controversy. The author cites, in parallel columns, the authorised version, and that which he proposes as an amended version for the Baptists. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 167 AUTHORISED VERSION. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark i. 3. AMENDED VERSION. John did preach the baptism of repentance for the remis- sion of sins, and then baptized in the wilderness. John preached, saj-ing, I John preached, saying, I indeed have baptized you indeed have not baptized you, with water, but he shall bap- and will not baptize you with tize you with the Holy Ghost, water, till he shall have bap- Mark i. 7, 8. tized you with the Holy Ghost. I indeed baptize you with I indeed will not baptize water unto repentance. Matt, you with water, till ye have iii. 11. brought forth fruits meet for repentance. Except a man be born of Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he the Spirit and of water, he cannot enter into the king- cannot enter into the kingdom dom of God. John iii. 5. of God. Go ye and make disciples of all nations ; baptizing them .... and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. Matt, xxviii. 19,20. Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins. Acts ii. 38. Go ye and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all things what, soever I have commanded, and baptizing them. Repent and believe every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and then be baptized. When Peter and John were They prayed for them that come down, they prayed for they might receive the Holy 168 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. AUTHORISED VERSION. them that they might receive the Holy Ghost (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them, only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Acts viii. 15—17. AMENDED VERSION. Ghost (for as yet he was fallen upon none of them.) And they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Then they were bap- tized in the name of the Lord 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 upon them. Acts xix. 5, 6. "When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them. And when they felt this, they were baptized. And now why tarriest thou ? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Acts xxii. 16. And now, tarry awhile, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord ; and then arise and be baptized. But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justi- fied. ICor.vi.ll. But ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, but ye are washed. As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Gal. iii. 27. As many of you as have put on Christ, have since been baptized. Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. Eph. v. 25, 26. .... that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the word and then with the washing of water. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 169 AUTHORISED VERSION. AMENDED VERSION. According to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of .... by the renewing of the regeneration and renewing of Holy Ghost and washing of the Holy Ghost. Titusiii..5. regeneration. This is a specimen of " the ingenuity," which, I said, might be used on both sides of the question. " What ingenuity," inquires Dr. Wardlaw, " does the argument require to bring it out ? The argument itself lies on the very surface ; and yet it is not super- ficial." p. 307. Possibly I may have overrated the ingenuity of my friend. " The argument lies on the very surface" of Mr. Daniel Isaacs's passages, as clearly and as abundantly as on those of Dr. Ward- law's. Equally dissatisfied with both lists, I must examine the passages in detail. Let us, therefore, consider Dr. Wardlaw's " Stric- tures" on my examination of particular passages. On Acts viii. 37. "And Philip said, If thou believest ■with all thy heart, thou mayest, — And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God." he observes, " 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." p. 297. Yet the very next passage he cites, (Mark xvi. 16,) and on which he builds a great deal of reasoning, extending from page 308 to 313, besides frequent references elsewhere, and which, he says, is " no appendage" to the baptismal commission, but " is itself the baptismal commission in other words," — is " thus disputed and dubious in the estimation of 170 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. Griesbach,* Schulz, Lachmann, and succeeding editors." I must not be understood as venturing to regard this passage as probably spurious, even after the weight of such authority. Notwithstanding some early and important testimony against it, the great majority of manuscripts which contain it, ought to make every person seriously regard its strong claim to be received as genuine. It may not be candid to press an opponent with it in controversy, at least, without apprising the reader of the opinion of dif- ferent editors ; but I have that confidence in this text, that if it appeared to me to support anything more than the argument founded upon the collocation of the words, I should instantly acknowledge the objection. On the contrary, it appears, as I have already observed, to suggest a consideration favourable to the administration of baptism for which I contend. In some way or other, it connects baptism with salvation. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." On this account, Mr. Godwin and others, contend that it refers not to water-baptism, which is no term of salvation, but to the baptism of the Holy Ghost. If this be the reference, the text is altogether irrele- * In the editions of Griesbach it is not marked as probably spurious, except in the smaller edition, printed at Leipzig, 1805, containing his last emendations on the text of the Gospels, and noticed in the synoptical table of readings pre- fixed to the London edition, 1818. See also his Commentar. Grit. Gr. N.T. ii. p. 197. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 171 vant in our controversy. But if baptism with water be intended, who will venture to refuse to an applicant that which is represented as in any way aiFecting his salvation ? The personal responsibility is the greater, because, as Dr. Wardlaw affirms, baptism is not a church ordinance, and, therefore, the church does not, as in the admission of a member, assume that which belongs exclusively to the teacher. Not being en- trusted with "the power of the keys," I dare not assume the responsibihty of rejecting an apphcant for baptism, who makes his application, without any obvious impropriety, under the pretext that I, a poor fallible creature, am constituted the judge of his qualifications. If I am required to justify my con- sistency in rejecting the scoffing apphcant, I reply, if, in a scoffing tone and offensive manner, he proposed the inquiry, — What must I do to be saved ? I would tell him to come again in a better temper, and I would give him the answer. It has been said in reply, not by Dr. Wardlaw, but by certain reviewers, " Is Dr. Halley so ignorant as not to know that all church privileges are dependent upon the good opinion of others ? " I am so ignorant as not to know that any text of Scripture says, " He that beheveth and obtains church privileges shall be saved;" but if there be such a text, I can no longer refase church privileges to any one. Furthermore, I maintain that the admission to church privileges is the act of the whole church, gathered together in the name of Christ, having the promise of his Spirit, and entrusted with the awful responsibility of " de- 172 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. livering such an one to Satan, that he may learn not to blaspheme." In speaking of these texts I had said, " Good men were baptized by the apostles, and so were bad men. No argument 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 applicants." I solicit the attention of the reader to the clause in italics, in which I disclaim any argument founded upon the fact, that " bad men" were baptized by the apostles. Dr. Wardlaw replies as if I had assumed the argument which I decidedly and expressly dis- claimed. " ' The apostles,' Dr. H. says, (in terms that would almost tempt one to imagine that to the apostles, so far as baptism was concerned, it was a matter of no consideration whether those they bap- tized 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 insincere, or turned back, are not to the pur- pose." pp. 300, 301. Would not any reader suppose that I had built some kind of argument upon the fact that bad men were baptized by the apostles ? Dr. Wardlaw logically refutes the argument which I had disclaimed, by discussing the sentence immediately preceding my own disclaimer. As to the manner in which he introduces his refutation, I claim the right of a reply. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 173 which shall be as courteous as the observation will admit. When my respected friend is " almost tempted to imagine^'' some bad thing of an opponent, he had better print the offensive " terms," on which he founds his surmise, exactly as he finds them, instead of improving upon them by altering the turn of the expression. The words between inverted commas, attributed to me, are not mine. Peter said to the inquirers, "Eepent and be baptized each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." As to the fact, he exhorted them to repent and be baptized, that is, to repeat my own words, " he exhorted those whom, without discrimina- tion, he called to repent, to be also baptized." This seems to me absolutely undeniable. My friend, how- ever, says, " I do most confidently deny that he did by any means 'exhort those whom, without discrimi- nation, he called to repent, to be also baptized, every one of them,' that is, if the also have any meaning, indiscriminately and independently of their repent- ance." p. 315. To please my friend, I will eject the offensive word ^^also" and "most confidently" re-affirm that he did " exhort those whom, without discrimination, he called to repent, to be baptized each of them." I can, it must be candidly acknow- ledged, offer no clearer evidence than the words themselves, " Repent and be baptized." Of this argument I must notice, however reluctantly, an unfair representation. Dr. Wardlaw inquires to what does it " amount, if not to this, — that when Peter exhorts his auditors, ' Repent and be baptized,' he 174 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. means, ' Be baptized whether you repent or not?'" p. 315. Does my friend think that I am to be frightened by such a caricature ? Repentance, in my opinion, is infinitely more important than baptism : neither was to be neglected, but least of all repent- ance. Dr. Wardlaw knows very well that it would be most unjust and ungenerous for me to turn this taunt upon himself, and say, " to what does his reason- ing amount, if not to this, that ' when the apostle exhorts his hearers to repent, and be baptized,' he means, ' Repent, whether you are baptized or not ?' " Yet his argument is thus caricatiu"ed, with less torture than mine, because he asserts they were exhorted immediately to repent, and subsequently to be bap- tized, while I maintain that they were exhorted both to repent and to be baptized without delay. But Dr. Wardlaw supports his " confident denial," by this explanation, " The time when Peter so ex- horted them was not the time of their baptism. Their baptism was still future — still to be. ' RepenV comes between." p. 315. I have anticipated this objection in my Lecture, and therefore will compress in a few sentences the remarks which I have elsewhere con- sidered. 1. The apostles were prepared on that same day to baptize the applicants, for they actually baptized before the evening three thousand persons, whom in the morning they addressed as impenitent. 2. The time would allow the apostles to undertake no personal examination, no prolonged inquiry, no satisfactory discrimination of character. THE ADinNISTKATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 175 3. Although the greater part of these persons, I doubt not, were on their baptism sincerely penitent ; yet the time had not come for them to ascertain the evidence of a change of heart, nor to act upon the assurance that they were penitent, regenerate, par- doned sinners. The first hour of conviction is not the time for giving or receiving assurances of true conversion. Dr. Wardlaw, in speaking of John's baptism, says, " Baptism into the name of Jesus as the Christ would have been quite premature. It would have been requiring, in order to baptism, a profession of faith in that of which the evidence was yet to he •produced^ p. 257. So I rejoin, if these persons were baptized on a profession of their personal repentance, it was a profession of that " of which the evidence was yet to he produced.''' 4. Dr. Wardlaw, in his beautiful description of the marvellous power of the testimony then delivered, seems to intimate that the evidences of genuine peni- tence were more decisive and obvious than on ordinary occasions ; while Mr. Godwin, on the contrary, and I think much more reasonably, supposes that amidst events so extraordinary, the excitement of feeling would be greater than usual, and therefore would require even more carefiil and prolonged inquiry than was usually requisite to distinguish it from true con- version. Be that as it may, there is no intimation whatever in the sacred history that there was any- thing peculiar in the case of the three thousand, who were exhorted to repent and be baptized, and who were baptized on the same day. 176 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 5. Dr. Wardlaw says, in reply to similar statements whicli I have made at greater length, — " It is alto- gether a gratuitous assumption, that we require waiting until the professed repentance and faith be subjected to a certain process or period of probation. Who contends for such a thing?" p. 319. I thought my friend did contend for some " such a thing;" but if he does not, there is happily no controversy between us. I am here "almost tempted" to relieve my weary hand by laying down my pen. I shall, however, have to meet Dr. Wardlaw again upon the subject, for lam prepared to contend, that no man ought to be received as a member of a Christian church without being " subjected to a certain process or period of pro- bation." 6. Dr. Wardlaw says, " What we plead for is, that there must be profession, — a profession believed at the time to be genuine, and this is the plain meaning of — * Repent and be baptized,' " p. 319. If profession mean a profession of having repented, I reply, no one ought to profess repentance, nor to encourage another to profess it, without evidence of its being " genuine'' But evidence cannot be obtained, or is utterly worth- less and fallacious, without " a process or period of probation," which my friend rebukes me for sup- posing he requires. 7. Dr. Wardlaw suggests, that he may account for my explanation " on the ground of his (my) taking a mistaken view of the repentance required." p. 315. I shall be very glad if a good understanding can be restored on the ground of such a mistake. By the THE ADMNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 177 repentance enjoined I understand the repentance not to be repented of, respecting which every man should carefully " subject himself to a process and period of probation," and knowing the deceitfulness of his own heart, not hastily assume that he has acquired it. If my friend understands anything less than this repent- ance, as a favourable opinion of the Gospel, or a willingness to become a learner of its doctrines as a catechumen of the church, I can have no objection to admit that a " tacit profession," as he calls it, of some such feeling is implied in the application for baptism. 8. I have to inquire, what does my honoured friend " most confidently deny ?" Does he " most con- fidently deny," that these persons were exhorted " to he baptized for the remission of sinsf This important question he has entirely overlooked. I have again to ask, what is the meaning of the preposition eis, in the phrase ^^ for the remission of sins?" Dr. Wardlaw says elsewhere, he sees no " necessity for any nice grammatical disquisition ;" but I am " almost tempted to imagine" he must see the necessity of correct grammatical translation. Can the preposition etV have reference to the succeeding noun in any other relation than that which is prospective in time, or in place, or in intention, or in some way or other ? I have admired my friend's gram- matical exposition of another passage, — I solicit an exercise upon this preposition. He says, " Their baptism was still future, — still to be. Repent comes between." I might reply, their remission of sins was N 178 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. " Still future, — still to be, — ' Be baptized^ comes be- tween." My friend says, I must not separate the repentance and the baptism ; neither may he. I do not say that remission is given as the consequence of baptism, for I abhor that doctrine. But I do say the language of the apostle, " Eepent and be baptized for the remission of sins," represents the remission of sins as something prospective and future. Dr. Wardlaw contends that the persons were not to be baptized until they could profess their repentance. Does he mean to assert that, after their repentance^ their sins would not be pardoned until they were baptized ? I am sure he does not mean any such thing. But on his interpretation, how does the apostle exhort these persons to repent, and be baptized for the remission of sin, or unto the remission of sin, or whatever be the prospective relation intended ? It may be asked, how is my argument on this clause noticed in his " Appendix ?" I have written, " The conclusion appears to me inevitable, that persons who were not supposed to have repented, a?id whose sins were therefore not thought to be pardoned, were exhorted indiscriminately to be baptized." INIy friend " confidently denies" the conclusion, excepting the words in itahcs, which, I observe, are excluded from the terms of his denial, p. 315. He asks for " a single text in which the collocation is inverted, — in which the preacher admonishes his hearers. Be baptized and repent every one of you." He has it before his eyes in the continuation of his own text, — " be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus for the THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 179 remission of sins." And he has more than the col- location in the prospective relation to the remission of sins implied in the preposition. Dr. Campbell, on the same principle as that by which he translates the words of John, would have rendered this passage — " Eepent and be baptized, that your sins may be remitted." I do not like this version. But I have a right to say that, until my friend will give me his version of the preposition els, so as to make the words, be baptized for the remission of sins, accord with his principle, and support it by competent author- ities, he must hold me excused from the slightest obligation to notice anything else in this part of the controversy. On the case of Simon Magus, my friend seems to have misapprehended the bearing of my argument. As if I had adduced an instance of the baptism of a very wicked man, he says, " Grant that he sub- sequently turned out a wicked man. What of that ? Who ever argued that in those times the adminis- trators of baptism were, in all cases, guided by any infallible discernment of spirits ?" p. 303. I ought to have been protected from any such remarks, for my words are, " I lay no stress upon the numbers who were baptized in Samaria, nor upon the fact that a very wicked man was baptized with them. I only refer to the extreme ignorance of the baptized magi- cian." I adduced this case, and still adduce it, as an instance of the baptism of a man who was totally unacquainted with the simplest principles of the Gospel. I quite agree with my friend that " Philip 180 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. was not to blame ;" and I think my friend will agree with me that any church, under any circumstances, would be greatly "to blame," if it were to receive and recognise a member so utterly ignorant of the whole theory of the Gospel, as to suppose he could buy the Holy Ghost for money. Dr. Wardlaw has set me the example of searching the records of the Baptist Mis- sion, in order to find instances of baptism analogous to that of households. I beg to inquire if in his researches he has ever heard that any Baptist church, or any Paedobaptist church, professing the slightest regard to jDurity of communion, received a member, whose ignorance was so gross as to induce him to believe that the powers of the Holy Ghost were purchaseable commodities. If I believe that no such man could have been received, as a saint, into the fellowship of an apostolic church, it may be justly asked, what do I suppose was done with him ? Dr. Wardlaw, in his Dissertation, furnishes me with the answer. Having spoken of the baptism of the eunuch, as not " constituting him a member of any particular Christian church," he says, " I am disposed to regard the children of believers as disciples in a sense some- what analogous to the one described." Analogies are reciprocal. If Caesar be like Pompey, Pompey is like Caesar. Those baptized by the apostles were in a situation " analogous " to that of the children of be- lievers, of whom my friend says, " 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 THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 181 of the people of God in all the ordinances of his house." p. 189. Unless Dr. Wardlaw destroy his own analogy, Simon was " in training for the full fellowship of the people of God." He believed what Philip said, to such an extent as to apply for baptism, and to be admitted under " training ;" but that he could have given credible evidence of being a rege- nerate man I cannot admit, for gross ignorance is of all things the most easily discovered. How long baptized adults continued "in training for full fellow- ship," my friend does not say ; but that they were "in training," he must admit, or what becomes of the analogy between their " situation" after baptism, and that of the baptized children of believers ? I earnestly hope my respected opponent will explain his views more at length upon the " analogous situation" of the baptized adults of the apostolic age, and of the bap- tized children of believers " in training for the fellow- ship" of the church. This analogy will, I venture to hope, reconcile many of our apparent differences. A class of baptized adults, found in the Acts of the Apostles, " analogous" to the class of baptized youth in Dr. Wardlaw's congregation at Glasgow, " in training for the fellowship of the church,''' is all I wish to dis- cover in this controversy. I find it introduced into my friend's Dissertation, but excluded from his Appendix. My friend commences his animadversions upon my remarks on the baptism of Saul, by observing, that I adduce the record " not in the direct narrative of Saul's conversion in Acts ix., but in the account given 182 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. of the interview by Saul himself to his countrymen in Acts xxii., and especially the terms of verse 16, ' Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.' " To those who believe the apostle gave a true account of the inter- view, what difference it makes whether the words be found in his account, or in " the direct nar- rative," I cannot imagine. I have said that " Ananias did not require the washing away of his sins as a pre- requisite to baptism." He directed Saul not to be bap- tized, because he had washed away his sins previously, but to " be baptized and wash away his sins." This seems undeniable. If Ananias believed that Saul had previously washed away his sins, why did he command the inquirer to do what he had already done ? If he did not believe it, it follows that the washing away of sins, as the term is here used, was not a pre- requisite to baptism. This, be it observed, is an argument founded not upon the order of the words, but upon the nature of the injunction. The only logic of the reasoning is implied in the assumption that, when one person directs another to do a thing, he regards the other as not having already done it. If Dr. Wardlaw does not deny the reasonableness of this assumption, the only controversy must depend upon the meaning of the direction, " Wash away thy sins." And I must say, after aU " the wondering" of my friend at my infatuation in reasoning after this sort, and among all his notes of admiration plentifully interspersed amidst his strictures, I cannot find a THE ADinNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 183 distinct statement of his opinion respecting the mean- ing of this phrase. A Tractarian finds no difficulty with the passage, for he says, sins are washed away in the waters of baptism ; but Dr. Wardlaw would, I am sure, disavow this interpretation as earnestly as I can possibly do myself. He says, in p. 321, " The real amount of the injunction is — Make the requisite profession of faith in him whose blood cleanseth from all sin." I contend, the real amount of the injunction is — " Believe on him whose blood cleanseth from all sin." I ask my friend to find me a passage from any part of holy Scripture in which " the real amount of an injunction" to perform a duty is — " Make the requisite profession of having already performed it." Where does the command " believe" mean, profess that you have believed, — or " repent" mean, profess that you have repented, — or " do justly" mean, pro- fess that you have done justly, — or " love your enemies" mean, profess that you do love your ene- mies ? If no such passages can be adduced, on what authority is the command, " Wash away your sins" to be expoimded, " Make the requisite profession that you have done so?" Until some scriptural authority be found for this exposition, it must be regarded as created by the exigence of controversy. I am not sure that ray friend adheres to his own. interpretation. On reading my inquiry, " 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?" he exclaims, " Oiily! But 184 EEPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. who says only?" p. 321. I tliouglit Dr. Wardlaw said, only. If " the real amount of the injunction" be something more than " to observe the ritual which represents the duty," how is it " to make the requisite profession ?" Did Ananias mean anything more than "make the requisite profession?" If he did, what else was Saul to do which he had not done in obeying the injunction, " wash away thy sins ?" If he did not, my friend endorses the " ow/?/," for if nothing else were to be done, this " onlif was to be done. But as it is a foolish thing to wrangle about a word, I will omit the " on/?/," and propose the question without it: "What right have any to represent the command to perform a spiritual duty, as if it meant to observe the ritual which represents that duty ?" Dr. Wardlaw says, " To wash away sins we agree with Dr. H. is a solemn reality, not a ceremonial representation." p. 325. Everything is here con- ceded which I require. Ananias, in saying, " Wash away thy sins," did not exhort Saul to perform " a ceremonial representation." But Dr. Wardlaw declares it is beyond a question, that, in the address of Ananias, " there is an injunction to observe the sign, or ceremonial representation, in token of the reception of the thing signified, or the solemn reality." p. 325. Here it is admitted, that the washing away of sin is " the solemn reality ;" but a new and false construction is put upon the passage. The words are not, Be bap- tized " in token!'' of having washed away your sins; but " Be baptized and wash away your sins^ To suggest THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 185 such a construction is virtually to substitute other words for the text of holy Scripture. But Dr. Wardlaw appeals to another passage of Scripture : " The case is similar, when it is said, * Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' " p. 322. I agree with my friend, " The case is similar." To illustrate or confirm my own argument, I could not have selected a more appropriate verse. He continues, " Here, as in the other case, the sign and the thing signified are placed in juxta-position, to convey, we presume, the sentiment, that the former without the latter is of no avail." I cordially concur. Be bap- tized and wash aAvay thy sins, " the sign and thing signified^ are placed in juxta-position to convey the senti- ment that the former without the latter is of no avails My friend asks, " May not our Lord's words be in- tended to convey to Nicodemus the assurance that his having received the water baptism of John was not enough ?" Unquestionably it may. " 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." pp. 323, 324. It is just so. The " being bap- tized," and the " washing away of sins," are two different things, " the sign and the thing signified ;" just as " water and the Spirit" are two different things. As to be born of water is one thing, — the sign, and to be born of the Spirit, is another, — the thing signified ; so to " be baptized" is one thing, — 186 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. the sign ; and to " wash away sin" is another, — the thing signified. Ananias exhorts Saul to do both these things, and " conveys the sentiment that the former without the latter" (baptism without washing away sin) "is of no avail." My readers, however, have a right to inquire, in what state of mind I suppose Saul to have been, when Ananias said to him, " Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus." I desire to answer this question as if nothing in the controversy depended upon it ; and I can conscientiously say, if the verse in discussion were not found in the narrative, the conclusion at which I arrive respecting the state of Saul's mind, would appear to me the most natural, the most reasonable, and the most accordant with the evan- gelical doctrine. That Saul passed through a process of conversion, commencing in deep and distressing convictions of sin, and terminating in a joyful reception of the assurance that the blood of Christ clean seth from all sin, is surely no unreasonable nor unscriptural sup- position. The terrors of the Lord overtook the persecutor and blasphemer. His proud spirit was subdued, and trembling and astonished he said, " Lord, what mil thou have me to do ?" Dr. Ward- law observes, that " he had seen the Lord Jesus," — that " he heard the voice of his mouth," — that " he owned him, and owned his authority, in the question, Lord, what will thou have me to do ?" — that " he had received from him his commission to Jews and THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 187 Gentiles." All this I readily admit. But to learn what he was to do to secure his personal salvation, he was ordered to go into the city. Three days he spent in prayer and fasting, in such a state of conviction and distress that he could neither eat nor drink. Who was to teach him that the blood of Christ cleanseth from all his sins, and to exhort him, in his distress, to wash away his guilt in " the fountain opened for sin and uncleanness ?" Was not Ananias appointed to preach the Gospel to his troubled spirit ? Saul waiting for Ananias was, as it appears to me, in the same situation as Cornelius waiting for Peter. Saul had prayed, and so had Cornelius. Saul had seen the light of the Lord, and heard his voice, assuring him of his salvation, and Cornelius had seen an angel and heard quite as distinctly the assurance of mercy. But to Saul, as to Cornelius, the opportunity was to be given by the preaching of the Gospel for the exer- cise of faith in the evangelical doctrine of the washing away of sin by the blood of Christ. Peter preached the Gospel to one, Ananias to the other. The dif- ference in the state of mind between Cornelius, calm and peaceful, and Saul, agitated and distressed, is only what might have been expected between the con- scientious distributer of alms and the bitter perse- cutor. Both needed the Saviour ; both were penitent waiting for salvation, but neither was a behever, until he accepted Christ Jesus, whose blood cleanseth from all sin. I ask the reader to review these thoughts, and to consider, whether this was not the state of Saul's mind, when Ananias preached the Gospel to 188 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. liim. He was tlien obedient to the evangelical testimony. He did arise, and was baptized, and washed away his sins, by faith in the cleansing influence of the blood of Christ. But, says Dr. Ward- law, Ananias called him " Brother Saul." And would there have been any impropriety if Peter had called Cornelius, or any man in the same state of earnest and prayerful inquiry, a brother ? Paul called the whole Jewish council " brethren," although there was not a Christian among them, so general was the use of that term. As to the inference, " so that, when Saul had been baptized he was to remain unforgiven and unrenewed, and was to lay to heart these spiritual concerns there- after," (p. 322,) it is only a caricature of my opinion. If I have anywhere given expression to such an opinion, I am quite ready to expunge the objection- able sentence. But for anything I can find, as well might Dr. Wardlaw say that, because we have two exhortations in the words, " Enter thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father," the disciples were to enter their closets, and shut their doors, and to remain unforgiven and prayerless for a time, and " to lay to heart these spiritual con- cerns thereafter !" As it respects the case of the Philippian jailor, I am disposed meekly to submit to one part of Dr. Wardlaw' s reproof, because I find I have inaccu- rately stated my own meaning. I unfortunately wrote, — " after his baptism, not previously to it, we are told he believed in God with all his house." Dr. THE ADiHNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 189 Wardlaw prints this in italics, and has to say" some- thing which he would rather not have had to say." It is, that my "wonted candour seems, in this in- stance, to have misgiven." p. 326. The truth is, my attention must " have misgiven." My meaning was, although inaccurately expressed, after the men- tion of his baptism, not previously to it, we are told he believed in God. That this must have been my meaning is evident from my own words, — " As to the jailor, we do not know that he was a believer, when he was baptized. He was not a believer a short time before, he was a believer a short time after- wards, but whether his baptism preceded his belief, or his belief preceded his baptism, we do not know.'''* From these words, it is quite evident, I could not have intended to say, that we are told the jailor was baptized first, and believed afterwards. I meant to say, that we have no information of the priority of either his baptism or his belief. He might have been in the state of conviction in which Cornelius was, and in which we suppose Saul to have been, ready to receive the Gospel as soon as he clearly understood it. This he must have done about the time of his baptism, either immediately before or very soon after it. Dr. Wardlaw continues, "As for the latter part of the statement, that his baptism is mentioned first, and his believing with his house is reported afterwards ; it is not true in any sense that can suit Dr. Halley's purpose." p. 329. How it may suit my purpose is a question of reasoning, not of veracity. But as to " the truth''' of my statement, 190 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. " his baptism witli his household is mentioned first," that is, in the thirty-third verse ; — "his beheving is reported afterwards," that is, in the thirty-fourth -verse. My friend has some fears that my " intellect is foundering altogether," but I have enough saved from the wreck to know, that what is mentioned in the thirty-third verse is mentioned before what is mentioned in the thirty-fourth ; and farther to know, (what is quite as obvious) that my friend's suggested improvement of the common version, " he rejoiced beheving," into " he rejoiced having beheved," is not to be justified by any rule for the construction of the perfect participle, which is as often a present perfect as a past perfect. As to the believing being ex- pressed in a past tense as my friend asserts, I reply, so is the baptizing, and much more definitely. How, then, do the two expressions, " He was bap- tized, and " He rejoiced believing ;" or " having believed," if so it must be, determine whether he was first baptized, or he first believed. As to the purpose for which I cited them I have been misun- derstood. I adduced this case as an instance of the baptism of a heathen, of whose belief we are not informed until after the mention of his baptism, on the night in which he, for the first time, heard the preaching of the Gospel, without " his repentance and faith being subjected to a certain process or period of probation." Dr. Wardlaw says he requires no such process. The controversy will, therefore, come to this, whether he was admitted immediately, without such process, to the fuU enjoyment of the THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 191 fellowship of the church, or whether he was in a situation " analogous," (according to the analogy suggested in my friend's " Dissertation ") to the bap- tized children of believers training for that fellow- ship." I have now to request the reader to consider, whether these instances of baptism, as they are men- tioned in the New Testament, confirm, or confute, the opinion that the persons baptized were admitted to a class, " somewhat analogous " to that in which Dr. "Wardlaw places the children of believers, " in training for the full fellowship of the people of God." As Dr. Wardlaw baptizes the children of believers, as "disciples" in training for the fellowship of the church, what objection can there be to baptizing other persons in " a situation somewhat analagous," having precisely the same connexion with the church, being " discii3les or learners " "in training for its fellowship ?" He would exclude no child from " the spiritual instruction," or " the training" of the disci- pleship, because he is the child of an unbeliever. Why make a distinction in the outward sign of discipleship, when there is no difference in the re- ality ? As learners, all children and other persons under the instruction of the church, belong to one class, and they are all equally excluded from " the full fellowship," until after a period and process of probation," — or, to cite the appropriate words of my friend, " If they abide in the truth, holding fast the faithful word, as they have been taught, then they are at liberty to unite in fellowship." p. 1 90. 192 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. I have now briefly to notice Dr. Wardlaw's stric- tures on the inconsistency of my views. He undertakes to show, " 2, That the views given by Dr. H. himself, at various times, throughout his volume, of the nature and order of the rite, are themselves inconsistent with the unrestricted admi- nistration of it, for which he so earnestly pleads, and consequently that Dr. H. himself ought in consistency to admit our interpretation." p. 296. It does not necessarily follow that, because I reason inconsistently, I am bound to admit the doctrine of my opponent. There is certainly, the alternative of correcting the inconsistency, by renouncing the views which are proved to be inconsistent with the doctrine defended. But with the greatest respect for my opponent, I deny his charge altogether. After care- fully reading his strictures, I see no reason for chang- ing a single expression, except in a few instances in which my language has been misunderstood. A stricturist (my friend will allow me to coin a word, which will obviate the necessity of a circumlo- cution,) may, in various ways, make out a plausible case of inconsistency in the reasoning of the patient of his strictures. I suggest the following : — 1. The stricturist may refuse to allow his patient to employ terms in the sense in which the patient himself has defined them, and then the inconsistency will appear very obvious and glaring. This stricture is aggravated, when the stricturist himself uses the same terms in the sense in which he will not allow his patient to use them. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 193 2. The stricturist may propose an extreme view of the subject, not maintained by his patient, and with this view easily show the inconsistency of many expressions. 3. The stricturist may adduce objections which equally belong to both parties, and so gain an advan- tage from the apparent inconsistency of his patient. 4. The stricturist may represent some admission of his patient in limiting, guarding, or explaining the subject, as an inconsistency, when it only appears so by being separated from its connexion. 5. The stricturist may represent his patient as saying something directly opposite to the thing he really says, and so make him appear the most glar- ingly inconsistent writer upon the face of the earth. 6. The stricturist may find a proposition of his patient, which may be understood in two different senses, and by presenting it in the sense in which it was not used by its author, establish a charge of inconsistency. This stricture is also aggravated when the stricturist himself uses the terms of the proposition in the sense on which he animadverts. Whether there are any other ways in which a charge of inconsistency can be plausibly supported, I do not know; but in the six modes which I have enumerated my friend has done me this wrong — I do not mean that he has done so intentionally, for I am sure he is quite incapable of doing an injury inten- tionally ; but whether it be through haste, or mis- understanding, or over-eagerness to refute a theory which he so zealously opposes, or whatever be the 1 94 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. cause, he has put me on my defence, and I must assert my innocence plainly and manfully. 1. My stricturist attempts to establish his charge of inconsistency by refusing to allow me to use my terms in the sense in which I define them for myself. The first passage from my volume, which Dr. Wardlaw cites in proof of his charge, will furnish the illustration. I there freely use the term " disciple," in the sense of a learner ; and to prevent misunder- standing, I so define it. The paragraph concludes with this sentence : — " To be baptized, then, was to be initiated as a disciple^ or learner^ of the new doc- trine — the speedy coming of Christ." Had I employed the term disciple to denote a pledged and faithful adherent of his master, I admit the inconsistency would be apparent. But as I employ it to denote a learner, and so define it, how does my friend support his charge of inconsistency ? By saying I have no right to use the term in that sense, while he virtually admits that, used in that sense, it frees me from the charge of inconsistency. His criticism is, " First, — baptism is designated the initiatory right to disciple- ship — whether to Jesus or to John. ' To be baptized was to be initiated as a disciple or learner of the new doctrine.' Secondly, Dr. Halley frees his theory of any previous profession of faith in the doctrine taught by his definition or explanation of the designation ' dis- ciple,^ contained in the words, ' or leariier.' I demur to this. Though a disciple does mean a learner, yet in the New Testament this is not the sense in which. THE ADinXISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 195 as already observed, the designation is employed." p. 331. But what has this to do with my consistency ? The charge to be proved is not the improper use of a term, but the inconsistency of the passage, as I use the term, be it right or wrong. To convict me of incon- sistency, Dr. Wardlaw must scrupulously take the terms as I employ them, and show that in my sense of my own words, the inconsistency is proved. When I say, " disciple or learner,^'' it is not for him to say, " disciple or avowed adherent,''^ in order to show that, in the latter sense of the term, I write inconsistently. A child may see, that if I had omitted the word " disciple," and merely said " learner," the sense would have been precisely the same, and there would have been no room for the stricture. But I have said this stricture is aggravated if the stricturist himself uses the term in the sense in which he mil not allow his patient to use it. Dr. Wardlaw in his " Dissertation," reasoning against the Baptists, distinctly represents a disciple as a learner. In his Appendix he demurs to my representation of the same thing, exactly in the same way, and founds upon it his charge of inconsistency. He has no right to plead the usage against the Baptists, and to put in his demurrer against the same plea on my part. Is a disciple a learner ? Yes, says Dr. Wardlaw, in a passage of his Dissertation which I have already cited, p. 188. No, he says in his Appendix. I demur to this. p. 331; and as the conclusion of the whole 196 EEPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. matter, with becoming gravity, reproves me for inconsistency in agreeing with his " Dissertation," which I had read, in opposition to his " Appendix," which had not then been printed. 2. My stricturist proposes a view of the subject which I do not maintain, and with that supposititious view very effectively produces instances of my incon- sistency, and might very easily have produced a great many more. With several instances before me, I select the second passage which he adduces in proof of my inconsistency, and which is, " Have we, then, any right to assume, in contradiction to the letter of the text, that there was any selection, any test of fitness, anything required beyond the application of the parties to receive the sign of his doctrine ?" On this Dr. Wardlaw remarks, " If baptism was the sign of his doctrine, did not application for, and actual sub- mission to, the sign, imply the professed reception of the doctrine ?" p. 334. My reply is, I think it did. I have no where denied, so far as I can discover, that the application for baptism implied an approval of the doctrine, so far as it was known, although I have said there was no test of fitness imposed, no qualifica- tion demanded. My words in this very passage are, '^ anything required beyond the application of the parties." Whatever the application may imply, is another question. Dr. AVardlaw speaks of a " pro- fession of faith avowed or tacit." p. 249. That which he calls a " tacW^ profession, a silent speaking forth, I may probably have regarded as no profession at all, THE ADillNISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 197 and so he may have misunderstood me. If I have anywhere said that no profession is required, my meaning must have been, as I have often expressed it, required as a quahfication, not as implied in the application or in the act ; or else that the profession was not one of personal piety, or one submitted to the judgment of the administrator. I apprehend there is a considerable difference in our meaning of the terms, " profession," " avowed," " adherent," and similar words, and possibly we may appear to contra- dict each other when we only differ about the use of our terms. As an illustration, I may recur to what my friend says upon the meaning of the word " disciple^''' as it is used in the New Testament. " It invariably denotes, there, not one who comes to be taught, and submits to instruction, without at all committing himself to the doctrine of the teacher, but one who has heard, and who professes to receive the lessons, and becomes an avowed adherent of the master." p. 331. When, therefore, my friend, ac- cording to this invariable usage of the New Testament, regards " Joseph of Arimathea being a disciple, but concealed for fear of the Jews," as a '-'- professed'"' dis- ciple, an ^''avowed adherent" of Jesus, he must employ these words, " professed" and " avowed," in a sense which I do not acknowledge. Be that as it may, if Dr. Wardlaw represents me as denying that some " tacit" profession, in his sense of tlie word, is implied in the application for baptism, because I deny that any "avowed" profession of personal religion, is represented as a qualification; he proposes a view of 198 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. the subject which I do not maintain, and moreover, which I believe that no sane man, woman, or child, on the face of the earth, does maintain, ever did maintain, or ever will maintain. If he supposes that such was my doctrine, his fear for the safety of my intellect was quite excusable. To convict me of this inconsistency, he must be a little more explicit concerning the secrecy of the avowal and profession of the " disciple," Joseph of Arimathea. 3. My stricturist supports his charge of incon- sistency by adducing objections, which apply equally to himself and to me. In support of this statement I might quote largely from various parts of his Appendix, but I wiU take the next instance adduced of my alleged incon- sistency. On page 336, he cites several designations which I have given to baptism as " the initiatory rite of the church," — " a symbolic representation of evan- gelical truth," — " the sign of discipleship," — " the sign of purification," — " the emblem of the cleansing of the heart," — " the visible sign of the new birth." The question refers not to the propriety of these expressions, for Dr. Wardlaw uses most of them him- self, but to their consistency with my theory. His comment is, " And yet to a rite of which such things are said, there is to be indiscriminate admission, — no faith, no repentance, no purification, no new birth, no cleansing of the heart, no one of these things of which it is the sign and symbol." p. 336. Are these the words of the author of " The Dissertation on Infant Baptism," bound in the same volume as this THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. 199 " Appendix ?" The Dissertation is the answer to the Appendix, or the Appendix is the answer to the Dissertation. Where in the infant baptism, which Dr. Wardlaw so zealously defends, are the faith and repentance and other " things, of which it is the sign and symbol ?" In ninety-nine of the hundred bap- tisms, which my friend administers, there is " no faith," — " no repentance," — " no one of these things of which it is the sign and symbol." Why should he become so scrupulous about the consistency of his brother in the hundredth instance ? I cheerfully com- mit my consistency to the keeping of the author of the Dissertation against the attack of the writer of the Appendix. In doing so, I must observe, that I depend upon the candour of Dr. Wardlaw in maintaining that there is only " one baptism" in the Christian church, and consequently that adult baptism and paedo-baptism are not two distinct ordinances, — distinct emblems, having different significations, and agreeing only in the outward sign. He who represents the use of water, as not signifying the same essential truth in both cases, contends virtually for two baptisms in the Christian church. But if Dr. Wardlaw wdll main- tain that baptism signifies the same truth, as adminis- tered to infants and to adults, he will ably defend me from the inconsistency of administering the sign to those who have not the thing signified. His defence of himself in his Dissertation is, " there is surely no contradiction, or incongruity, in infant baptism, that is, in the application of the sign to those who are 200 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. admitted to he capable of the thing signified.''^ p. 186. Here is ample defence for me, unless the Avriter can show, that I baptize any who are incapable of the thing signified. Before Dr. Wardlaw can with the shadow of con- sistency allege this charge, he ought to show what thing of which baptism is the sign and symbol, " faith," or " repentance," or " justification," or " new birth," or " cleansing of the heart," belongs to the children of believers and does not belong to other children. If these be the things signified, and Dr. Wardlaw insists upon my inconsistency, in adminis- tering the sign without evidence of the thing signified, his argument taken in connexion with his practice, amounts to this : The children of believers have the things signified, and are regenerate ; but other children have not the things signified, and are not regenerate. I put it to the candour of Dr. Wardlaw either to avow this principle, or to retract his charge of incon- sistency. On recovering from such a charge, I am disposed to act as the assailant, and to contend, that my administration of infant baptism is more consistent with the extent of the things signified than his, allowing his own exposition of them to be correct. Dr. Wardlaw, in his Dissertation, maintains that " Baptism, administered to infants, is ' a standing visible memorial in the church of important truths J " p. 183. Let us then inquire of himself, which of us best preserves the perfect parallelism, — the exact coincidence, in the range and extent of the sign and THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 201 thing signified, the " standing memorial," and " the important truths," whicli he says are commemorated. Three " important truths " are, according to my friend, taught in the baptism of infants. 1. " Infant baptism contains a constant memorial of original sin."" p. 183. But whose baptism preserves the most correct parallelism between the memorial and this important truth, — the closest coincidence in the extent of the sign and the thing signified ? Are only the children of believers partakers of this original corruption ? To restrict such a memorial to a certain class would seem to teach, that only that class is implicated in the original sin commemorated. Here, at least, the consistency between the memorial and the truth is with me. Dr. Wardlaw says, (2,) " Infant baptism reminds us that little children are not incapable of heing subjects of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ, and parti- cipating in its blessings. ^^ p. 185. But does my friend assert that only the little children of behevers are " not incapable of being subjects " of Christ's kingdom ? Are not the children of unbelievers, dying in infancy, as safe in Christ, the promised seed of the Abrahamic covenant, as the children of believers ? K they survive their infancy, are they not to be taught the same Gospel and to be assured of the same hope of eternal life on precisely the same terms ? Dr. Wardlaw teaches, (3,) that infant baptism is " calculated to impress " " the highly important doc- trine," that " when an infant receives the blessings of the kingdom, it is gratuitously.''' Under this particular, 202 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. we are told that the lesson of the service is, " The man who receives the kingdom, must receive it on the same terms as the child; not for a life of virtue, not for liis faith, his repentance, or his obedience, as if these could merit anything from God." p. 191. But do only the infants of behevers receive the blessings of the kingdom " gratuitously ?" If this ordinance teaches that a man must receive the king- dom " 071 the same terms as the child;'''' to administer it on account of the faith of the parent, would be to teach that the adult " receiving the kingdom on the same terms," receives it on account of his parent's faith, although, like the infant, he has none of his own. My reply to this charge of inconsistency is, — my friend who makes it, declares that infant baptism is the memorial of three truths^ (1,) of original sin, of which all are partakers ; (2,) of the truth that little children are not incapable of being subjects of Christ'^s kingdom, as all children are not incapable ; and (3,) of the truth' that adults must receive the kingdom gratuitously as infants, that is, as all infants who equally have no merit ; and thus because I baptize according to the extent of the things signified, as he himself expounds them, and he baptizes not according to the extent of the thijigs signified, he charges me with great inconsistency in not preserving the parallel and due coincidence between the sign and things signified. 4. My stricturist represents some admissions which I have made as inconsistencies, although they appear THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 203 SO only when considered without reference to their connexion. This is illustrated by the next stricture. I had said, in speaking of baptismal regeneration, " If he does not believe, he does not receive the sacrament worthily." My friend observes, " if faith be neces- sary to the sacrament's being worthily received, the question arises, ought it by any to be received other- wise than worthily ?" p. 338. This seems, as thus presented, a case of glaring inconsistency. Yet on consideration, it will appear, if it be an inconsistency which admits of no explanation, to subvert the whole system of theology, as maintained by my friend in common with myself. The two principles involved in my friend's representation are, that without faith no religious service can be worthily performed, — and that no religious service ought to be unworthily per- formed. This doctrine is true, assuredly true, in both its parts, yet the application of it, as my friend applies it, is the support of a heresy, which has appeared in Scotland and Ireland, of which the great principle is, that as no service ought to be unworthily performed, unbelievers are to be allowed to unite in no act of prayer or praise, — in no religious service or worship of any kind. Almost in Dr. Wardlaw's words, it is said, if faith be necessary to religious worship, ought imbeUevers to be allowed to join in its celebration ? Ought the children in the class under " training for fellowship" to be taught to sing hymns, seeing that, until they believe, they can make no melody in their hearts unto the Lord ? Let the 204 REPLY TO DR. AVARDLAW. unbelievers sit in an outer circle, as spectators, if they please, but let them not affect to pray by standing, or to praise by singing. Dr. Wardlaw can reply to these questions a great deal more effectively than I can, and therefore I leave him to expound the application of his principle, that without faith it is impossible to please God, to their acts of worship. " I cannot pray with you, but I will pray for you," Dr. Malan, of Geneva, is reported to have said to a youth, suddenly impressed by something he had heard. This incorrect application of a good principle is similar to that which my friend makes in reference to baptism. I confess, I should have said to the youth, Kneel down by my side, and we will pray together. The sabbath is a sacrament, or sacred sign, as much as baptism ; and the religious observance of the first day of the Week implies a profession of Chris- tianity, in the same sense as baptism does. Because no man can worthily celebrate the first day, who has not fellowship with Christ in the power of his resur- rection, am I to exhort all unbelievers to refrain from its observance, and spend the sabbath on the rail- ways ? Yet in this instance, and many others, the same inconsistency may be alleged, as it may be truly said, without faith the sabbath cannot be worthily observed, and no man ought to observe it unworthily. The principle here involved I consider to be of far greater importance in some other con- troversies than in the dispute about baptism. 5. My stricturist represents me as saying the thing THE ADMIXISTRATION OF CHRISTIAX BAPTIS^f. 205 directly opposite to what I did say, and so makes me appear very inconsistent. Dr. Wardlaw cites from my work the following passage : — " If, however, by this seal is meant nothing more than the sign or emblem of our receiving the cove- nant by faith, on that supposition the sacraments are only sacred signs, symbohc observances, as we believe them to be, although not of our act of faith, but of the life-giving power of the Gospel." The reader will observe, that in this sentence I distinctly deny that the sacraments are " 5/^725 of our acts of faiths Dr. Wardlaw comments as if I had said directly the opposite, — that they were " signs of our acts of faith." " If it" (baptism) " 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." p. 340. So my express denial is represented as an affirmation of a principle, which I everywhere repudiate, and thus my inconsistency, in my friend's representation, appears outrageously extravagant. 6. My stricturist has found propositions which may be explained in two different senses, and has expounded them in the sense in which they were not employed. This stricture is agravated by my friend's use of the terms in the sense which he refuses to accredit in my volume. I am willing to admit that blame, in some of the instances, may be owing to my want of precision. Yet when a doubtful expression bears a sense directly opposed to all I have stated upon the subject, my friend should have hesitated before he ascribed that 206 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. sense to my words. I select an instance in which Dr. Wardlaw uses the ambiguous term in the sense in which I am forbidden to use it. I have said that baptism is " the initiatory rite of the Christian church." The stricture is, " If it was the initiatory rite of the Christian church, it was the rite by which members were initiated, or introduced, into the Christian church." p. 335. Be it observed, that Dr. Wardlaw calls baptism the " initiatory rite," and the " act of initiation." Yet he distinctly says, "/it did not, when administered to adults, introduce the persons baptized to connexion with any particular church." p. 189. I am sure he will not affirm that the " initiatory rite," introduces persons into the invisible church of Christ. Let me endeavour to vindicate my friend's consistency in the words with which I defend my own. There is no standard by which we can determine the meaning of the term " initiatory," because, I believe, there is no such word in the English language. Both my friend and myself, as I imagine, have formed it from the verb " to initiate." One sense of this verb given in the lexicons is " to instruct in the rudiments of an art." According to this definition, our adjec- tive " initiatory" would mean, belonging to the instruction in the rudiments of the Christian religion ; that is, it would designate the rite, not of introduction into the church, but of those " disciples in training" for the church, — not of members, but of catechumens. In this sense I employed the term, and in this sense my friend must have employed it, or it would not THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 207 agree with his representation. Why, then, should he make out a case of inconsistency, by ascribing to me another sense ? I beheve the reader may arrange all the specimens of my inconsistency under one of these six classes, and I %vish to dwell upon this painful subject no longer than is necessary for my own vindication. Before I conclude, I must notice an inquiry which occurs in several places, — What do we mean by bap- tism? On p. 305, for instance. Dr. Wardlaw asks, " Is baptism a Christian rite, — an institution of the spiritual kingdom of Christ? What is it? What does it mean ? What does it teach ?" To these inquiries my answer, whatever others may think of it, must be satisfactory to my friend. However rash or chivalrous he may think my proposal, I wiU accept any answer to these inquiries or any definition of the meaning of baptism, which occurs anpN'here in his own writings, or in the writings of any other Pgedo- baptist, which he will acknowledge. I mean, of course, a definition of baptism, or of the truth signified by it, in all the instances of its administration, not a definition of adult baptism, nor of infant baptism, proposed as if they were two ordinances. It would appear presumptuous in me to say, that the ingenuity of my friend can construct no definition of baptism which I would not acknowledge ; but, if I am ready to receive his own definition, what more can he demand ? I find in his Dissertation the foUowing definition : " Baptism itself, whether administered to infants or 208 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. 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." p. 183. This I am quite willing to accept, and to say, if bap- tism be " the remembrancer" of these great truths, let us employ it to put all nations in remembrance of them. But if the questions be proposed in especial refer- ence to our administration of baptism, — " What is it ? What does it mean ? Is it a Christian ordinance ?" I find the answer in the Dissertation, and I find it repeated in the practice of its author. It is time Dr. Wardlaw knew what our baptisms mean, and whether they are Christian ordinances, for in his Dissertation he advises others to recognise them, and in his practice he recognises them himself as Chris- tian ordinances. According to the reasoning of the Appendix, these baptisms are unchristian, or rather antichristian, administered in opposition to the law of Christ, " unscriptural " and " pernicious." Being against law they are without authority. In the course of his ministry, this subject must have fre- quently been to him a practical question; and if his valuable life be spared, (that it may be long spared, a precious treasure to the churches of Christ, is my fervent prayer, while I lay down my pen a few moments to oiFer it more feelingly and earnestly,) it wiU frequently come before him. He believes in the permanent obligation of the baptismal rite, and would not encourage believers to remain unbaptized. THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 209 According to the practice, whatever be the theory, the Scotch are a baptized people. Dr. Wardlaw probably regrets the fact, but he does not venture to deny the statement ; that is, he does not venture to pronounce his countrymen to be unbaptized. His late colleague, Mr. Ewing, thought three or four adult baptisms, during a prolonged ministry in Scotland, quite as many as were desirable in the circumstances of that country. Dr. Wardlaw would probably not assent to this statement, but his practice coincidef with that of his friend. He recognises all his hearers as baptized, for I am siu-e he would not make void an ordinance of Christ by encouraging them to remain unbaptized. Yet, according to the reasoning of his Appendix, most of these baptisms are administered contrary to the law of Christ. To give the slightest encouragement to such parents as offer their children for baptism generally in England, (and I will add in Scotland too,) to suppose that, on account of the pro- fession implied, they, and their children on their account, are entitled to the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant in any other sense than as aU men receive them, is to maintain a most awfid delusion. Per- sons go from England who have been baptized by Episcopalian, Methodist, and Congregational ministers, who never could have recognised their parents as true Christians. If such baptisms were administered con- trary to the law of Christ, how can they be anything more than vain, or rather antichristian, ceremonies ? Whence have they the slightest authority ? If such baptisms are " unscriptural" and " pernicious," it r 210 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. follows that they are not Christian ordinances at all. Yet our northern brethren do not rebaptize such persons, when they are admitted to their fellowship. The sprinkling with water can be nothing but a delusion, — the observance of a form nothing but a mockery, if it be not an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, administered in accordance with his will. Yet Dr. Wardlaw, referring in his Dissertation to such persons as may have scruples respecting their baptism, because " their parents at the time were living without God," addresses to them this consoling advice. " The recognition of the ordinance, with a right understanding, and an honest heart, should be considered as sufficient." p. 216. To recognise what ordinance? The "unscriptural" and "pernicious" service of English Congregationalists ? Does he " recognise," or advise others to recognise, what in his Appendix he repudiates as contrary to the law of Christ ? If he reply, that he confines this advice to those children whose parents made a credible pro- fession of religion, I rejoin, it will not justify his own practice, for he recognises the baptism of all and sundry aroimd him, by whomsoever administered, in England as well as in Scotland. To establish the consistency of his practice by his principle, would require that all English and Scottish parents should be recognised as making a credible profession, for no converts are rebaptized on the ground of their early baptism having been administered contrary to the law of Christ. My friend speaks of the laxity of our THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 211 practice in tlie south , but we can never allow so lax a principle to be the rule of a Christian church, as that a " pernicious" and " unscriptural " service, not only unauthorised by the law of Christ, but admin- istered in direct opposition to it, should be subse- quently recognised as a Christian ordinance. The general baptism of infants by English Episcopalians, Congregationalists, Methodists, and others, is it of heaven, or of men ? If our northern brethren say, From heaven, why do they controvert its authority in their books ? If they say, Of men, why do they recognise its authority in their practice ? Had Dr. Wardlaw convinced me that my administration of baptism was contrary to the law of Christ, I should have been compelled to look upon the baptisms so administered as idle ceremonies. By refuting my arguments, he might have made me an Anabaptist, so far as all the children of unbelievers are concerned ; but he could not have induced me to occupy his position, which appears untenable on every inter- pretation of the law of Christ, controverting in theory, but recognising in practice, the psedo-baptism of the whole nation. He says — " In regard to adults, I am one with them" — the Baptists, p. 345. How so ? The Baptists consistently rebaptize the adults because their previous baptism was unscriptural. Dr. "Wardlaw, in these instances, says in his theory, the baptism was unscriptural, and replies in his practice, it is quite sufficient. In conclusion, I must express my regret that, in defence of what appears to me to be scriptural 212 REPLY TO DR. WARDLAW. doctrine, I have been brought into some unpleasant collision with a Christian minister, whose writings I so greatly admire. Far more pleasant is it to find the opportunity of acknowledging my obUgations for the benefit I have derived from his works, which I gratefully assure him have been invaluable to me. As to the Scottish CongregationaHsts I must be per- mitted to say, lest they misunderstand me, that I consider they occupy a position of great importance to the cause of evangehcal truth in their own country, and occupy it with a firmness and consistency most honourable to themselves, and to the grace of God which has been revealed to them. On most of the smaller points of diiFerence between them and the English churches, I believe I look more favourably than many of my brethren. Their weekly adminis- tration of the Lord's supper, — the more simple mode in which that ordinance is administered, — the closer and more fraternal union of their members, — the more social character of their churches, — their more complete organization and general union as one associated body, without interfering with the rights of each society, — ^their greater care in the recognition of other churches, and prompt disavowal of their connexion with churches of the same order, but of another faith, appear to me to be points of dif- ference which we ought seriously to consider, and might to some considerable extent advantageously adopt. I desire to see among them great prosperity, and only one alteration. They have, as Dr. Wardlaw tells us, a class of baptized disciples " under training THE ADMINISTRATION OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 213 for the full fellowship of the church." I wish that interesting class were more prominent in their arrangements, and I wish they could receive into it all young people placed under their instruction, whatever may be- their parents, — and all other persons willing to submit to such training. They disciple by baptizing and teaching, so far as the children of their members are concerned, — I would see them carry out the same great scriptural prin- ciple in every direction, as they have the oppor- tunity. Blackburn and Pardon, Printers, 6, Hatton Garden, London. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In 8vo., price 14*., cloth, AN INQUIRY IKTO THE NATURE OF THE SYMBOLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, USUALLY CALLED THE SACRAMENTS. Part I.— Baptism. Being the Tenth Series of the Congregational Lecture. "Works just Published BY JACKSON AND WALFORD, 18, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD. In 8vo., price 10*. 6d., cloth, A SECOND SERIES OF LECTURES, By JOHN FOSTER. Selected from the Author's Manuscripts, and Edited by J. E. Rylaxd. In One Large Volume, Svc, price 9*., cloth, The REVEALED DOCTRINE of REWARDS and PUNISHMENTS: Being the Twelfth Series of the Con^egational Lecture, delivered at New Broad- street Chapel, in October and November, 1846. By Richard Winter Hamilton, LL.D., D.D. In 2 vols. 8vo., with Portrait, price \l. 4s., cloth, THE LIFE AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN FOSTER, Author of " Essays on Decision of Character," &c. &c. Edited by J. E Ryland._ With Notices of Mr. Foster as a Preacher and a Companion, by John Sheppard, Author of "Thoughts on Private Devotion," &c. &c. Third Edition, enlarged. Foolscap 8vo., price 6* , cloth, FOUR DISCOURSES on the SACRIFICE and PRIESTHOOD of JESUS CHRIST, AND THE ATONEMENT AND REDEMPTION THENCE ACCRUING. With Supplementary Notes and Illustrations. By John Pye Smith, D.D., F.R.S. In foolscap 8vo., price is. &d., cloth, CURiE ROMANS: A Revised Translation of the Epistle to the Romans: with Notes Explanatoi-y and Critical. By W. Walfokd, Author of "A Ne>Y Translation of the Psalms," &c. WORKS PUBLISHED BY JACKSON AND WALFORD. In foolscap 8vo., price 4«. 6d. cloth, a Second Series of T ETTERS OX PUEITAXISM AND NONCON- -L FORMITY. By Sir John Bickerton Williams, Knt., LI*D , F.S.A., Author of " Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of Sir Matthew Hale, Knt." Second Edition, in foolscap 8vo., price 6«. cloth, TECTUEES BY JOHN FOSTEK, deUvered at Ju Broadmead Chapel, Bristol. Selected from the Author's Manu- scripts, and Edited by J. E. Ryland. ^n 8vo., price 10#. M. cloth, THE D0CTL:NE of original sin ; or, The JL Native State and Character of Man unfolded. By the Rev. Dr. Payne, of Exeter ; being the Eleventh Series of the Congregational Lecture. Second Edition. In foolscap 8vo., price &g. cloth, THE EXISTENCE of EVIL SPIRITS PROVED; -L and their Agency, particularly in Relation to the Human Race, Explained and Illustrated. By Walter Scott, President and Theological Tutor of Airedale College. fourth Edition. Foolscap Svo., price 6«. 6d., cloth, CHRISTIAN ETHICS ; or, Moral Philosophy on \J the Principles of Di\-ine Revelation. By Ralph Wardlaw, D.D. In Svo., price 12*., cloth, OERMONS BY THE LATE R. S. McALL, LL.D. O Preached in the ordinary coiu-se of his Ministry, and chiefly at Manchester. With a finely engraved Portrait, by Wqolnoth. Printed uniformly vpith, and forming a Tliird Volume to " Discourses on Special Occasions . ' ' Two Volumes . In Four Volumes, 12mo., price U. 4*., cloth, CKETCHES OF SERMONS, preached in Various O Parts of the United Kingdom, and on the European Continent. Furnished by their respective Authors, with an Index of Texts, &c. A New Edition, carefully Revised and Corrected, (the Eight Volumes reprinted in Four.) *^« Either Volume may be had separately, containing 100 Sermons, price 6«. BOUND BY 1 i__L-^'iiiii2Mlj Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Li 1 1012 01021 3488 II '