>^h 
 
 ■^ ^• 
 
 ■E. 
 
 / 
 
 # 
 
 J^- 
 
 
w 
 
 OF THK 
 
 University of California. 
 
 Mrs. SARAH P. WALSWORTH. 
 
 Received October, i8g4. 
 Accessions No.S^ S^Q^- Class No. 
 
 ^/^^cUiUoPtM: 
 
 r 
 
 ^.y 
 
 i^ 
 
f 
 
 QJi^tt. 
 
 'ii^Jia 
 
 u- 
 
 i 
 
 '11. 
 
/ 
 
# 
 
 A DISCUSSION 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 AS TO 
 
 ITS SUBJECT, ITS MODE, ITS HISTORY, 
 
 AND ITS EFFECTS UPON 
 
 CIVIL. AND RELIGIOUS SOCIETY. 
 
 IN OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF 
 
 MR. ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, 
 
 AS EXPRESSED IN A SEVEN DATs' OE^aI'e WITH THE AUTHOR, AT 
 
 WASHINGTON, KENTUCKY, October, 1823, 
 
 AND IN HIS SPURIOUS PUBLICATION OF THAT DEBATE, 
 
 AND OF A PREVIOUS ONE, OF TWO DAYS, WITH THE 
 REV. JOHN WALKER, OF OHIO. 
 
 AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF THE CELEBRATES 
 
 MR. ROBINSON, AND OTHER BAPTIST AUTHORS. 
 
 BY W. L. M'CALLA, 
 
 Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, and 
 author of^^A Discussion of Universalism*^* 
 
 PUBLISHED BY GEORGE M'LAUGHLIN. 
 
 1831. 
 

 r7tvt 
 
 :to;.-['P 
 
i 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 In consequence of a general challenge, long published by 
 Mr. Alexander Campbell, and at last accepted by the Author, 
 a debate was held in Washington, Kentucky, in October, 1823, 
 on Christian Baptism. With the expectation that it would 
 last three hours, or a day at most, Mr. Campbell came pre- 
 pared with a printed prospectus, promising that " All the ar- 
 guments on both sides shall be faithfully and impartially de- 
 tailed.^' As there was no stenographer, a detailed report was 
 literally impossible; and, as the debate occupied seven days, 
 instead of one, a detailed report would have been a losing, in- 
 stead of a lucrative enterprise. He therefore published 6000 
 copies of the promised volume, in which all the speeches were 
 composed by one man, in such a way as to answer the pur- 
 pose of one party. Providence enabled me afterward to ex- 
 pose this forgery, in an Octavo volume of 150 pages, entitled 
 "The Unitarian Baptist of the Robinson School exposed.'* 
 To this he replied in a Duodecimo of 24 pages. An exposure 
 of this pamphlet, and of the book which it is intended to sup- 
 port, is prefixed to the argument in this volume. 
 
 The public are already informed that want of time com- 
 pelled me to omit, in the debate, much matter which had heen 
 prepared for it. This need not be suppressed in a pr nted 
 publication. As Mr. Campbell's report has taken the liberty 
 of making new speeches, in part, for himself, as well as en- 
 tirely new ones for me, I shall, when necessary, answer such 
 interpolations, or, at any time, strengthen the cause of truth, 
 by introducing new matter on my part, and by very freely 
 condensing the matter delivered on the stage. 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 As the audience who attended the debate was chiefly com- 
 posed of plain men, so it is my wish to adapt this publication 
 to the plainer class of readers. This may account for some 
 things which would otherwise appear very incorrect. One of 
 these things is, that all my references to the Bible are made 
 to suit that division of chapters and verses which is found in 
 our English Translation, although hundreds of those references 
 are professedly made to the Hebrew and Septuagint Scrip- 
 tures. Without this method, ordinary readers would be ut- 
 terly perplexed, in searching authorities, whereas, those of 
 better opportunities need be at no great loss by the adoption 
 of this plan. In quoting uninspired works, whether ancient 
 or modern, second-hand authorities are often more accessible 
 than originals. To the use of them, both parties were com- 
 pelled, in a great measure, by necessity, during the debate ; 
 and where the credit of the reporters is untouched and almost 
 intangible, the plan may be sometimes continued in this pub- 
 lication. Detections of errors will be thankfully received. 
 
 If my friends and the friends of truth knew the difficulty 
 with which I write, they would no longer censure me for un- 
 avoidable delays, .but help me to give thanks to that God, 
 whose mercy has enabled me to progress thus far in the work. 
 To him it is sincerely and solemnly dedicated. May he be 
 pleased to accept the humble oflfering ; to pardon its faults and 
 imperfections, through the atoning blood of the divine Re- 
 deemer; and to grant tl»e influence of his divine Spirit, to bless 
 that portion of truth which it contains, to the good of all 
 denominations. 
 
MR. CAMPBEIiLr'S LATE PAMPHLET. 
 
 It is amusing to observe the time and labour which Mr. 
 Campbell and his testifying satellites have spent, in assigning 
 to him and his Antagonist, their respective grades in the scale 
 of talents 5 without being able to come to any certain estimate, 
 at last. If I were in his place, it seems to me, that I could set- 
 tle this darling question, upon a firm basis in a few words. I 
 would sit down and write a certificate declaring that Alexander 
 Campbell was a Solomon, and that his Antagonist was a Sim- 
 pleton. This certificate should be signed by Alexander Camp- 
 bell himself, and by a competent number of Neutral Unitarians 
 and Baptists, and Non-professing sons and brothers of Baptists 
 and Baptist preachers. If it were then published without ano- 
 ther word about the matter, it would save the party and his wit- 
 nesses, from the unhappy appearance of inconsistency and self- 
 complacency which they now assume. At present they certify 
 that he could change sides and beat me ; whereas he says that 
 he did once advocate my side, and was overcome by an old 
 woman. During the debate, he often represented me as incom- 
 petent and inadequate to the task which I had undertaken ; in 
 his book written afterward, he represented me as competent and 
 adequate: in his late pamphlet his witnesses certify that I am 
 incompetent and inadequate; yet in the same pamphlet he extols 
 my defence so far as to say that " nothing better has ever been 
 said^ and nothing better can be said," on my side of the ques- 
 tion. After thus exalting me to a level with any Pedobaptist 
 who ever wrote, he gets three of his witnesses to certify, that 
 "Mr. Campbell was successful in argument, and greatly the 
 superior of Mr. M'Calla in point of talents." Therefore, of 
 course, he is greatly superior to any Pedobaptist who ever 
 wrote. 
 
( vi ) 
 
 As an apology for this strange proceeding, in a man of com- 
 mon sense, he would have the community believe, tiiat it is only 
 a retaliation upon me, for claiming a superiority of talents over 
 him. If I have ever don© so, it has entirely escaped my memory. 
 Nothing but inexcusable pride and ignorance could ever have 
 led me into such folly. My innocence of the charge is plain, 
 from the fact that my accuser has not been able to give one in- 
 stance, in which this offence has been committed. It is true, I 
 have claimed the victory in the debate ; and I believe that a ju- 
 dicious community will admit my claims, when they read my 
 own argument, instead of one forged for me by an unprincipled 
 adversary. Yet, be it remembered, that I claimed the victory, 
 not on account of superior talents, but because I advocated 
 God's truth, and because the God of truth condescended to ena- 
 ble a feeble advocate to defend his cause against a powerful as- 
 sailant. With regard to Mr. Campbell's talents, we are all, in 
 a great measure, agreed. He considers them great, and so do I. 
 Their superiority to mine he has established by several certifi- 
 cates. I do not deny it. Why, then, so much about a matter, 
 on which there is no issue ? 
 
 We are not so well agreed on every thing said by him and his 
 witnesses. Mr. Vaughan has made a very dashing general ac- 
 cusation, about the affair of Captain Buckner It is time enough 
 to make a particular answer, when he shall make a particular 
 allegation. Until then, I must be satisfied with pleading not 
 guilty to his general charge.(a) In the mean time, let it be re- 
 membered that Captain Buckner was a member of my church, 
 and so uniformly and perseveringly attached to me, as a Chris- 
 tian Pastor, that, before my leaving them, he declared that if he 
 were possessed of his former means, he would pay my salary out 
 
 (a) This reminds me, that Mr. Campbell mentions certain things, 
 ■which he says were published against me m Lexington, subsequent to my 
 departure from that place. Their truth he takes for granted, because 
 they have never been contradicted. To this I answer, that I have never 
 got a sight of them. I publicly solicited the wnter and his phalanx to 
 come out, like men, while I was on the spot. But they chose, like Mr. 
 Vaughan, to shew their bravery, after the mountains lay between us. 
 
( vii ) 
 
 of his own pocket, rather than part with me. Mr. Vaughan ad 
 inits that this warm friend is " a man of incorruptible integrity.'" 
 If so, it seems to me, that Mr. Vaughan himself must be some- 
 what deficient. 
 
 In another char|2;e of his, he has not left us to mere presump- 
 tive proof. Unhappily for this witness, he does not always de^l 
 in vague generalities, but, by venturing a specification, has 
 shewn himself indisputably guilty of the very crime, with which 
 he charges an innocent man. The following are the facts. In 
 my exposure of Mr. Campbell's report, I had written to Mr. 
 Edgar the following words, viz. " You were very well satisfied 
 "that I had encountered Mr. Campbell, until your mind was 
 " changed a few months afterward, by information received from 
 " his neighbourhood. Fou then told me, that, from unanswera- 
 *' ble evidence, his character was too low to justify so formal a 
 ** notice by any respectable man ; and that, in defence of my 
 *' own character, an apology should be made to the public. " 
 Compare this with Mr. Vaughan's certificate, and a note which 
 Mr. Campbell has published as Mr. Vaughan's, and which I will 
 here add in brackets, to that part of the text, from which he 
 refers to it by an asterisk. It is as follows, viz. '* Edgar did 
 ** not inform Mr. M*Calla by letter, that you were a man of too 
 " low a character for him to have any thing to do with. [This 
 " Mr. M'Calla said in his pamphlet.]" According to this pam- 
 phlet of mine, Mr. Edgar's communication to me, was a verbal 
 one, made a few months after the debate, and, of course, before 
 I had removed from Kentucky to Philadelphia. The words are, 
 " Fou then told me." Mr. Vaughan certifies that my pamphlet 
 said that this communication was "by letter." Now it ap- 
 pears, from Mr. Vaughan's own shewing, that Mr. Edgar has 
 never denied that he " /o/f/" me this, as my pamphlet declares,- 
 he only denies that he communicated it by letter, a thing which 
 my book does not declare, but which Mr. Vaughan has forged for 
 it. Now where does the real falsehood lie ? 
 
 Another of Mr. Campbell's witnesses subjects himself to a 
 very easy refutation. '* Mr. Moses Ryan, once a zealous Pedo- 
 
( viii ) 
 
 baptist," as Mr. Campbell states, testifies as follows, viz. 
 '* I had to experience the mortification of seeing Mr. M'Calla 
 '* exposed for misquoting the Scriptures to suit his own pur- 
 *' poses : and in reading extracts from Robinson, with the book 
 *' in his hand and before his eyes, he would put language in Ro- 
 " binson's mouth that was no where to be found in it." " I can 
 *' unhesitatingly say, that Mr. Campbell has given a fair repre- 
 " sentation of all of Mr. M*Calla's arguments, during the four 
 *' days that I attended, excepting the leaving out of Mr. 
 *' M'Calla's vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language, to- 
 *' gether with his base misquotations of the Scriptures and 
 *' Robinson's History of Baptism." 
 
 From this certificate, it appears that I have been guilty of 
 vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language; but Mr. Camp- 
 bell charitably dropped this from his report, while he faithfully 
 recorded every thing that was decent. It seems that I was 
 guilty of base misquotations of the scriptures, to suit my own 
 purposes ; and of basely interpolating and misquoting Robin- 
 son's History of Baptism, while the book was in my hand, and 
 before my eyes: but Mr. Campbell tenderly concealed these er- 
 rors from the public, while he faithfully reported all my correct 
 quotations from ihe Scriptures, and other books. If there is 
 any meaning in language, this is the meaning of the above 
 testimony. 
 
 Let it be remembered that this witness attended only four 
 days, and that two of these four were the sixth and seventh. 
 Then his testimony goes to show that Mr. Campbell, in his re- 
 port of the sixth and seventh days, omits nothing that I said, 
 except my vulgarities, and my misquotations of the Bible and 
 Robinson. On examining his report, it will be found, that, for 
 each of my half hours on these two days, he has allowed me, 
 upon an average, between one and two pages ; whicli, accord- 
 ing to my way of speaking, would be delivered in less than three 
 minutes. The result then is, that, during the two last days of 
 our debate, I occupied twenty-seven or eight minutes out of 
 every thirty, in gross vulgarities, or base misquotations of the 
 
( « ) 
 
 Bible and Robinson ! This must be true, if Mr. Ryan's testi- 
 mony be true. 
 
 It is a general principle of all law, civil or military, ecclesi- 
 astical or social, that particular facts are necessary to support 
 general charges. Notwithstanding Mr. Ryan's testimony, it can 
 be proved, that, during the debate, Mr. Campbell ridiculed my 
 inaccurate quotations of scripture, and in his subsequent report, 
 accused me of making *^ material alterations^^ of the sacred text. 
 It can also be proved that I called upon him for specifications. 
 He has never, to my knowledge, condescended to produce one 
 instance, in which I interpolated or misquoted Mr. Robinson, 
 whether before my eyes or not 5 he has never produced one in- 
 stance of my misquoting the scriptures, when before my eyes 5 
 nor one inaccurate quotation of them from memory, which would 
 favour my own cause. If my charges against him, had depend- 
 ed upon the general certificates of such men as Mr. Ryan, he 
 would have justly laughed me to scorn. But when I accused 
 him of misquoting the scriptures, or Dr. Owen, or Mr. Walker, 
 or other writers, (and they were not a few,) I submitted to 
 the drudgery of producing Mr. Campbell's words, and compar- 
 ing them with the original. How gladly would he have done the 
 same, if 1 had ever given him an opportunity. May God accept 
 my sincere and humble thanks for preserving me from such 
 crimes, and for giving me a cause which needs not such artifices 
 to support it. 
 
 The most important object of Mr. Campbell's pamphlet was 
 to shew that his book, which is such a lucrative speculation to 
 him, is really a correct account of our debate. On this subject I 
 would observe, that he has a very unsatisfactory way of proving 
 the correctness of his reports, by the objections of those who im- 
 peach them. Mr. Walker published several pages of exceptions 
 to Mr. Campbell's account of their debate; to which he added a 
 dozen pages of exceptions, by one of the Moderators. Mr. Camp- 
 bell would persuade the public that these ** altogether would not 
 make one page ;" and then pretends that if all these exceptions 
 were well substantiated, his Report "would appear from Mr» 
 B 
 
( X ) 
 
 ** Walker's own treatise to be a correct representation of the con- 
 " troversy." My exposure of his Report in our case gave a very 
 great number of particulars. Of these he speaks as follows, viz. 
 " Even when all the particulars he gives are excepted, still the 
 •'debate as published by me is worthy of the title and credit 
 ** which it has received." Now let us examine the title and 
 credit which it has received, and compare these with my excep- 
 tions. 
 
 The title as published in the printed Prospectus, is'' A De- 
 " bate on Baptism, between Mr. W. L M*Calla, of Kentucky, 
 " and A. Campbell, of Virginia, held in Washington, Mason 
 " County, Kentucky, on the 15th of October, 1823, in the pre- 
 " sence of many witnesses." The very next words of the Prospec- 
 tus promise that " All the arguments on both sides shall be 
 *' faithfully and impartially detailed." Nothing less than this 
 detail would make it the debate which was held between the 
 parties mentioned, at the time and place specified, and in the 
 presence of many witnesses. In the title page o\ his book, he 
 is still more particular, informing us of the debate which he 
 reports, " commencing on the 15th and terminating on the 21st 
 [22nd] Octob. 1823." The title of the book, then, authorizes 
 us to expect a faithful and impartial detail of all the arguments 
 which I delivered in H^ashingtonj Kentucky, in a number of 
 speeches, which commenced on the I5ih and closed on the 2Qnd of 
 Octob, 1823, lasting seven days; for the sabbath was left out. 
 This is a fair account of the title of his book. 
 
 Now for the *' credit which it has received. " Mr. Campbell's 
 own explanation of this expression is to be found in the certifi- 
 cates of his witnesses, who profess to have heard the debate, as it 
 actually took place, and then to have read and compared his print- 
 ed report. They testify that so far as they ''^ heard and read,^- 
 "^ Mr. Campbell has given in his publictition of the debate, both 
 *' in substance and form, fairly and substantially, all the argu- 
 " ments oft'ered on both sides of the question." One calls it "a 
 Ft'ij., fair, and faithful exhibition of all the prinripal arguments 
 and topics.'^'* Another says that it contains " all the matter and 
 
( xi ) 
 
 urguinent advanced by both disputants." Another adds, " very 
 generally the phraseology it&elf?^ Thus much f')r the credit of 
 the book. Now add this to the title ; and we are authorized by 
 '« the title and credit which it has received," to expect, that 
 Mr. Campbell's book will furnish a detailed report^ fidl^ faith- 
 ful^ and impartial^ in respect of matter ^ forms and. phraseology ^ 
 of all my topics and arguments, in the seven days debate in Ken- 
 tucky, October, 1823. 
 
 Mr. Campbell has assured us that this is the real character of 
 the report, even after admitting all the exceptions which 1 have 
 made. The judgment of candour will consider liim as virtually 
 admitting the correctness uf my exceptions, in fact, since, serious, 
 numerous, and tangible as they are, he has not overthrown a. sin- 
 gle one of them ; but reposes himself upon their supposed harm- 
 lessness. Taking my objections, therefore, for granted, let us 
 compare them with some of the alledged features of his book, 
 and in the undisturbed possession of which he thinks that my 
 exceptions leave it. This must, of course, be done with great 
 brevity. 
 
 1. He promises a detailed report. My objections, which 
 he has virtually admitted, prove from the book itself, that a 
 great part of it is professedly an abridged report. 
 
 2. He and his witnesses call it a full report. My objections 
 shew from his own book, that a great part of it confessedly 
 records short sums, specimens and abstracts, instead o^ full 
 speeches, while there is not even a specimen recorded of very 
 much that I said. 
 
 3. He and his certificates call it a faithful report My 
 objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew very nume- 
 rous misstatements, as to matters of fact; they shew that he has 
 written for me in his dialect, which is, in some instances, foreign 
 to my own, and foreign to correct English; they shew that while 
 using his own language, he has so transposed and altered my 
 sentiments, as to make them error, contusion, and nonsense; 
 they shew that the bod^ of my quotations he has suppressed, 
 while he has partly supplied their place, by greatly and stupidly 
 
( xii ) 
 
 enlarging others, and quoting for me, from books which I had 
 never ramed, nor even seen. 
 
 4. It is called an IMPARTIAL report. My objections shew that 
 he, though one of the parties, constitutes himself a judge of the 
 weight of argument ; and when Mr. Campbell the Judge, has 
 decided against the relevancy of arguments opposed to Mr. 
 Campbell the Party, he then forbids Mr. Campbell the Reporter 
 to record them. This is a very cheap sort of impartiality. 
 
 5. He and his witnesses alledj^e that his report has the above 
 qualities in respect of matter. My objections prove from his 
 printed book and my manuscript notes, that the matter of my 
 speeches is not in his report. His very preface expressly pro- 
 fesses to abbreviate whole days of my matter as my publication 
 shewed at large. 
 
 6. They attach the above qualities to his report, with regard to 
 FORM and PHRASEOLOGY. Surcly these men must know that there 
 is a difference in the form of a speech and a specimen. They 
 must know that there is a difference in the form of an oration 
 occupying thirty minutes, and an abstract occupying three 
 minutes. Besides, the very face of the book shews that these 
 miniatures ar» given in his own phraseology, and my admitted 
 objections prove that where he pretends to use my language, he 
 actually substitutes his own phraseology, even to his idiomatic 
 violations of grammar. 
 
 7. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses insist upon the fulness and 
 (excellency of his report, in relation to my topics. My manu- 
 script notes and my actual speeches contained seven topics : but 
 where will you find these in Mr. Campbell's book? Where, for 
 instance, will you find the history of the mode of baptism? My 
 printed objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew, that 
 he, as well as other Baptists, claimed the most respectable 
 Pedobaptists, as advocating their views of the mode of baptism; 
 my objections shew, moreover, that these claims were most tri- 
 umphantly refuted, in my discussion of this topic. Perhaps there 
 was not another part of the debate, in which the gross dishonesty 
 of my Opponent, and Danvers, and other Baptist writers, ap-r 
 
( xiii ) 
 
 peared in a more disgraceful light. To bury the remembrance of 
 such an exposure, he has suppressed the whole topic, and then 
 persuaded his impartial, disinterested and neutral followers, 
 such as Walker Reid, to certify that his report is '* a faithful 
 representation of the roFicsV^ I would not be the writer of such 
 a declaration, for ten thousand times all the votes, and all the 
 fees, which this neutral certificate will procure its author, from 
 the dense Baptist population around him. But let it not be 
 thought that the above is the only instance of dishonesty on this 
 subject. His report allows one page to my fifth topic ; he al- 
 lows another page to my sixth and seventh topics, which are 
 directly called for by his challenge, and without which, I am 
 deprived of a defence. To the sixth topic, which was the most 
 important, he has allowed six lines of that one page. Thus he 
 has entirely suppressed one of my seven topics, and half of the 
 remaining six, he has reported in two pages, and that in his own 
 language. 
 
 8. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses, alledge, moreover, the 
 excellency and fulness of his report, in relation to my argu- 
 ments. This leads us to evidence from Mr. Campbell's own 
 pen, that he has laid violent hands upon another tojjic, which has 
 not yet been mentioned. His preface informs us that he has 
 indulged in " abbreviating^^ *' the argument from ecclesiastic 
 history." This argument occupied the third and fourth topics^ 
 which related to the history of the subject of baptism, and the 
 history of the mode. One of these, I have shewn, he has entirely- 
 suppressed ; and he expressly confesses that he has abbreviated 
 the other. 
 
 9. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses consider his book as « 
 report of the Debate which took place between him and myself, 
 in Washington, Kentucky, on the 15th — to — 22nd days of Octo- 
 ber, 1823. If it be so, it must give my speeches, whether vulgar 
 or polished, relevant or irrelevant, during all the seven days, 
 on all my seven topics, relating to the nature or effects of baptism, 
 and embracing the arguments from scripture and from ecclesias- 
 tical history. Instead of this, we find one topic entirely suppress- 
 
xiv ) 
 
 ed, three others occupying two pages, and a fifth abbreviated,]} j 
 the impartial guillotine of the opposite party. Two out of tlie 
 seven still remain. These 1 have exposed in a printed volume 
 of objections, not one of which he has refuted, and the validity 
 of which he has virtually admitted, by declining to make any 
 particular exception, and by asserting that when my objections 
 are admitted, his report " is worthy of the title and credit 
 which t has received.'' I have shewn that if these objections 
 be valid, they will prove, that, in reporting me, his work is a 
 mass of misstatements, Campbellisms, transpositions, supple- 
 ments, interpolations, suppressions, and alterations. The evi- 
 dence of this is found not only in my notes, but abundantly in 
 his own book, which, of itself, is ground enough for contradicting 
 all his certificates. Even when he and his witness agree in 
 matter of fact, it is amusing to see how they will differ as to the 
 reason of the fact. After all that has been said about the fulness 
 of the report, Mr. Campbell, and his witness Mr. Ryan, can- 
 not help conceding that much is omitted j that is, that it is not 
 full, unless it can be full, while nine-tenths are wanting. Each 
 of them has his own reason for this great omission. Mr. Camp- 
 bell attributes it to the irrelevancy of such arguments as that 
 which is drawn from ecclesiastical history. Mr. Ryan will not 
 agree that this argument was suppressed at all, but insists that 
 every thing was reported, *• except the leaving out of Mr. 
 M*Calla's vulgar, abusive,and ungentlemanly language, together 
 with his base misquotations of the scriptures and Robinson's 
 History of Baptism," of which vulgarity and dishonesty, neither he 
 nor any other person can give a single instance ! ! These cannot 
 be reconciled. 
 
 When commencing this review, it was my design to examine 
 Mr. Campbell's neutral witnesses, a little more particularly. 
 This may possibly be done at some future period. At present 
 it seems unnecessary. So perfect an imposture cannot long 
 abide the test. The forgery of a Unitarian Baptist cannot 
 always be supported by the mere general ex parte certificate!^ 
 
( XV ) 
 
 of Unitarians, and the sons and brothers of Baptist preach- 
 ers, who choose to call themselves neutrals, because they 
 belong to no church; especially while these certificates 
 contradict themselves and one another, and are obviously op- 
 posed to the very face of the record about which they testify. 
 God will take care of his own truth and his own people, and on 
 him do I rely, in Jesus' name. 
 
 1 
 
DEPENCK 
 
 OF 
 
 PEDOBAPTISM. 
 
 Friends, Fellow- citizens, and Fellow- Christians, 
 
 The possession of a rational, responsible and 
 immortal nature, should ever make us view religion as 
 of paramount importance. Among innumerable dangers 
 of fatal error, the enjoyment of a full revelation, an infalli- 
 ble rule of faith and practice, is a blessing for which we 
 can never be sufficiently thankful. This blessed volume 
 contains the instruction of the Divine Father, sealed by 
 the blood of the Divine Son, and applied to the heart 
 by the Divine Spirit. Depending upon the grace of 
 the only true God, we should endeavour to give to 
 all his doctrines, precepts, and ordinances, that inherent 
 and relative weight which they claim in the inspired 
 volume. Our views of the Christian sacraments, as to 
 their nature, relations, and conseqiiences, are thought 
 defective and erroneous, by some who are Eminent for 
 piety and intelligence. Yet while they condemn us, they 
 accuse each other also. Mr. Booth, an advocate for 
 strict communion, says concerning his Baptist brethren 
 " who plead for free communiouj^' that they " treat 
 '' the ordinance [of baptism] as if it were a mere circum- 
 " stance in divine worship; an indifferent thing; and dis- 
 •^ pensAith it just as occasion requires.'' ^^The Lord's 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 ^^ supper, however, is considered and treated by them in 
 '' a different manner; for they speak of it as a delightful, 
 ^^ an edifying, an important institution. But what 
 ^^ authority have they for thus distinguishing between 
 " two appointments of the same Lord, intended for the 
 ^^ same persons, of equal continuance in the Christian 
 ^* church, and alike required of proper subjects? 
 '^ They have indeed the example of some Socinians, and 
 '' the venerable sanction of the whole Council of Trent: 
 ^^ for the title of one chapter in the records of that coun- 
 ^^ cil, is, ' Concerning the excellence of the most holy 
 '^ Eucharist, above the rest of the sacraments.' ^\a) Con- 
 cerning this preference of one sacrament to another, 
 Mr. Booth asks, " Can such a conduct be pious, humble, 
 or rational?'' Yet impious, proud, and irrational as this 
 conduct may be, it is feared that my Opponent has been 
 guilty of it. It is true that he does not, like the free- 
 communion Baptists, prefer the eucharist to baptism, 
 but he does what is equally condemnable in Mr. Booth's 
 esteem, he gives baptism a decided preeminence over 
 the eucharist, if not over faith and obedience. " Baptism," 
 says he ^*is an ordinance of the greatest importance and of 
 *^ momentous significance. Never was there an ordinance 
 '^ of so great import or design." '' He [Christ] does not 
 ^' say, he that believeth and keeps my commands shall 
 *' be saved : but he saith ' he that believeth and is bap- 
 '' tized shall be saved.' He placeth baptism on the right 
 ^' hand of faith." " To every believer therefore, bap- 
 ^^ tism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation 
 
 (c) Booth's Apology, pp. 177, 178. London Edition oBl2. 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 '^ of sins. The believer never has his sins formally wash- 
 '^ ed away or remitted until he is baptized. The water 
 " has no efficacy but what God's appointment gives it, 
 ^' and he has made it sufficient for this purpose. "(6) 
 He '' said that baptism is inseparably connected with 
 *^ a formal pardon of sin: and spoke very boastingly of 
 " having never, for an hour, felt guilt of conscience, 
 '' since his baptism, "(c) Those who hold such a religion as 
 this, will always harbour animosity against pious Pedo- 
 baptists, as naturally as the Western Indians opposed the 
 venerable Zeisberger, the Moravian Missionary, ^^in 
 " consequence chiefly of the insinuations of some Pagan 
 ^' teachers, who had strenuoiisly recommended the use 
 ^^ of emetics, as a speedy and infallible method of cleans- 
 ^' ing from sin."(fl^j No doubt, there was many a de- 
 luded mortal among them, who '' spoke very boastingly 
 ^' of having never, for an hour, felt guilt of conscience, 
 since his'' vomiting. How different is this Pagan stuff 
 from the scriptural account of Baptism ! Paul says 
 ^' Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gos- 
 pel. "(e) If he had viewed it as ray Opponent does, he 
 would have considered the work of baptizing to be the 
 most important object of his mission. But he here uses 
 a negative as the strongest contrast, to show its great 
 inferiority to the essentials of Christianity. 
 
 When I speak of the relative diminutiveness of the 
 tangible sacraments, I would not be understood as insinu- 
 
 {b) Campbell's Spurious Debate in Kentucky, pp. 117. 135. 
 (c) Lowry's Notes, given to me. 
 
 (g?) Broi^l Hi ston- of Missions, Vol. l.p. 435. Philadelphia Edition of 
 1816, W (<?) 1 Cor. i. 17, 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 ating that they are unimportant. Far be it from me to 
 despise such valuable privileges ! May my soul ever 
 rejoice in that heavenly condescension which has be- 
 stowed them ! Our Fathers did well in reproving the 
 Man of sin for robbing the laity .of the eucharistic cup ; 
 and they did as well in reproving certain Pseudo-refor- 
 mers for robbing infants of the baptismal seal. Since 
 the Pedobaptist world is arraigned before the public, 
 under the heaviest charges, and since I am providential- 
 ly called to confront our bold Accuser, the task is under- 
 taken, with a trembling cheerfulness, and in humble 
 reliance upon the Spirit of Christ, without whose help 
 I can do nothing. 
 
 The contested proposition, for the discussion of which 
 we have met on this occasion, is contained in a general 
 printed challenge, first uttered by my Opponent, several 
 years ago, at the close of a debate which he had with 
 a Pedobaptist Minister in another state, and afterward 
 printed for general circulation, in his professed report 
 of that debate, which I have in my hand. In that 
 challenge he undertakes to prove that '* Infant-sprink- 
 ^' ling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well 
 ^' being of society, religious and political." As I 
 plead, 7iot guilty, we join issue upon the very words 
 of the accusation which you have just heard. 
 
 To the language of the proposition I at first objected, 
 in part, because the term infant-sprinhling was in- 
 tended as a sneer. If we were to call them Dipperaj 
 and call their baptism Ducking, they would probably 
 think that a sneer was intended : yet they ^uld not 
 
 have more reason for such a suspicion, than we havf 
 
 •: 
 
I 
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 in the present case. They call themselves Baptists, 
 and not Divers, Plungers, or Dippers. As convenience 
 requires that they should have a name, we allow them 
 the one which they assume ; but we do it from courtesy, 
 and not because we believe that they are Baptizers 
 more than ourselves. If the peculiarities of their system 
 were necesary to make a man a Baptizer, (which is the 
 original meaning of the word Baptist,) then the precursor 
 of our Lord should not be called John the Baptist, or 
 John the Baptizer^ since there is satisfactory evidence 
 that he baptized infants, and that by sprinkling or 
 pouring. But as the Author of the accusation now 
 under discussion was not willing to remove or change 
 the offensive expression, iy\f ant- sprinkling, all that' 
 we wish is, to have its meaning clearly settled. This 
 is done effectually by the context, in which he says, 
 " It is my time to give an invitation or challenge to 
 " any Pedo-baptist minister y^ and again, " I feel dis- 
 '' posed to meet any Pedo-baptist minister, of any de- 
 ^' nomination,'^ &c. As the challenge, therefore, is di- 
 rected to Pedo-baptists, it is evident that Pedo- 
 baptism is to be the subject of discussion, and that this 
 is what is meant by infant-sprinkling. The position, 
 then, which he has engaged to maintain is, that infant- 
 baptism, as practised by us, in the mode of sprinkling, 
 pouring, or washing, is a factitious and pernicious 
 institution. In his publications he has endeavoured to 
 establish this general charge, by many particulars of a 
 very odious character. If they be correct, we must 
 be the enemies of God and man : if they be incorrect, 
 he must a false Accuser and a bitter Adversarv of 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 Christ and his Church. If he has published more than 
 he then meant, or more than he is willing now to pro- 
 secute, he is present to declare it. If no such declara- 
 tion is made, you will, of course, demand good evidence 
 in support of such formidable charges. 
 
 Against such allegations, by whomsoever brought, I 
 w^illingly stand on the defensive: against such affirmations, 
 by whomsoever made, I willingly espouse the negative. 
 In so doing, I would endeavour, conscientiously and 
 scripturally, to defend a command of God, and not those 
 adventitious errors which Papists or Protestants have 
 engrafted on it. If will -worship, self- righteousness and 
 superstition, schism and heresy, anarchy, oppression, 
 and persecution are ever found connected with our 
 system, I can only reply that this is an unnatural con- 
 nexion, since these evils are from hell, and infant-bap- 
 tism is from heaven. If my Opponent mean to prove 
 that the use of the cross, and of oil and wine, and milk 
 and honey in baptism, is a human tradition, I have no 
 objection: but while this is made out undeniably, it 
 will also appear that infant-baptism belongs to what he 
 calls " the traditions of the Apostles,'' and that this 
 Apostolical tradition or injunctio?! is no more answerable 
 for its illegitimate connexions, than the scriptures are 
 answerable for destroying souls, when, through human 
 depravity, they become a savour of death unto death: 
 or than adult-baptism is answerable for the innumerable 
 evils with which it is accompanied. And let it be 
 remembered that this is practised by all Pedobaptists ; 
 for our system is to baptize believers and thdr seed. 
 Christian baptism, thus administered, has sometimes 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 been accompanied with much evil, as is the bible in 
 which it is commanded ; and infidels charge all this 
 evil upon God's word and ordinances ; whether right- 
 eously or not, judge ye. 
 
 Whether infant-baptism be right or wrong, useful 
 or hurtful, may be decided without any other evidence 
 than the simple word of God. This proof is the best, 
 because it is certain and infallible. That evidence 
 which is derived from uninspired writings, whether 
 doctrinal or historical, though strong, is nevertheless 
 inferior. It would save much time and strength to 
 omit it altogether. I mention this because my Opponent 
 has already asserted, more than once, that the true 
 church, from the Apostles' days to the present time, 
 were Baptises. Although the challenge will certainly 
 allow him this latitude, he would do me a favour by con- 
 fining himself to the scriptures, at least in relation to the 
 subject and mode of baptism. Its injurious effects he 
 may prove in any way that he pleases: Let him produce 
 scripture only, to show that infant-baptism is forbidden, 
 and that immersion only is baptism, and then he shall 
 have proved that " infant- sprinkling is a human tradi- 
 tion." But reasonable as this wish is, he intimates that 
 it cannot be gratified. In addition, then, to infallible 
 scriptural evidence in favour of our subject and mode 
 of baptism, I shall be required to produce what might 
 be called uninspired presumptive or probable evidence 
 to the same points. I shall have to show that the Chris- 
 tian Church has always baptized infants, and that it has 
 never considered submersion essential to this ordinance. 
 This will have to be followed by evidence that the Bap- 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 tists of England and America, instead of being born in 
 the first century (as my Opponent has repeatedly assert- 
 ed,) had their origin in the sixteenth. The topics of 
 discussion, then, which my Opponent has cut out for 
 me, are the following ; viz. 
 
 1. The scriptural subject of baptism. 
 
 2. The scriptural mode. 
 
 3. The history of the subject. 
 
 4. The history of the mode. 
 
 5. Th^ history of Anabaptism. 
 
 6. The effects of the subject. 
 
 7. The effects of the mode. 
 
 In discussing these topics, while I would avoid shrink- 
 ing from the duty of defending the truth, I would res- 
 pect the feelings of pious Baptists, and avoid unnecessary 
 recriminations against those mistaken Christians of that 
 denomination, who, uncharitably, unrighteously, and 
 untruly, make common cause with our Accuser, in 
 slandering their brethren for obeying a divine command. 
 To the true church, God has said, '^ No weapon that is 
 ^^ formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue 
 ^^ that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt con- 
 ^^ demn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, 
 ^^ and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.^^ 
 This we believe. In the exercise of a conscience 
 void of offence towards God and man, we are willing to 
 take shelter under this promise, for protection against 
 the accusations of our present Adversary, and of all those 
 who support him. 
 
 When a man brings such serious charges as those 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 which are now under consideration, he should have 
 some plan of attack. In opening the cause, which my 
 Accuser has professed to do, he should, as far as time 
 allowed, give us some general view of the law and the 
 testimony; something to which a reply may be made. 
 But, in what he calls the opening of the debate, he has 
 not laid before you as much as can be felt between the 
 thumb and finger. His whole speech was occupied 
 in a laboured effort to make his audience benevolent, at- 
 tentive, and docile, according to Cicero's instructions. 
 As I did not come here to set myself off by rhetorical 
 arts, but to recommend religion, by defending its sacred 
 institutions, and its pious professors, I have been compel- 
 led, though in the negative, virtually to open the cause 
 myself. I shall therefore proceed immediately to the 
 discussion of those topics \yhich my Opponent's challenge 
 and present determination force upon our attention^ 
 and which have been already enumerated in my division. 
 
 TOPIC I. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURAL SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. 
 
 On this subject, my opinion is accurately expressed 
 in the following words : 
 
 The Scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not 
 exclusive subjects of Christian Baptism, 
 
 The challenge asserts that '' Infant-sprinkling is a 
 
 human tradition.'' My reply is, that the Scriptures con- 
 D 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 sider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects 
 of Christian baptism. Instead of this proposition, soKie 
 would state that Pedobaptism is a divine institution. To 
 avoid repeated and unnecessary distinctions and circum- 
 locutions, I often use this declaration myself. But as a 
 proposition for discussion, it is thought to be deficient 
 in accuracy. We believe that adult baptism is a divine 
 institution, and that female baptism is a divine institution, 
 as well as male baptism : and so we might appear to 
 multiply institutions according to the ages, sexes, colours, 
 and conditions of mankind. Each of these has the 
 appearance of excluding the rest. Of this appearance. 
 Baptist controversialists take an unfair advantage. When 
 we advocate infant-baptism as a divine institution, they 
 try to make the world believe that we thereby reject 
 adult baptism, whereas we hold and practice both : when 
 the Bible teaches adult baptism, they conclude that it 
 rejects infant baptism, whereas the Bible teaches, and 
 the Apostles practised both. To shut the door against 
 such quibbles, my proposition formally admits that 
 infants are not the exclusive subjects of Christian bap- 
 tism, while it asserts that they are suitable subjects of 
 this divine institution, according to the testimony of 
 God's word. 
 
 But now that we are approaching the lively oracles, 
 my Opponent begins to dread an appeal to this irrefraga- 
 ble testimony. He insists upon my passing this over, 
 and engaging in a priori reasonings, which he knows 
 would be much more inefficient in our defence than 
 inspired authority. For me to quote scripture, he 
 insinuates, would be only a fatiguing loss of breath and 
 
I 
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 waste of time. His words are these;, viz : '^ Before we 
 '' spend our breath, waste our time, or fatigue our bodies 
 " in this discussion, let iis know, cui bono, for what 
 ^' good, or what benefit to infants we contend." " We 
 ^^ know of no benefit," says he, ^^that could be conferred 
 '' on them by sprinkling a few drops of water upon 
 ^' their faces. "(/) Perhaps my Opponent knows that 
 these questions are often asked concerning his bap- 
 tism as well as ours, and with as much force. And 
 Booth complains that some eminent Baptists them- 
 selves seem to doubt the utility of adult immersion, 
 and thereby to approach that sect which denies the 
 utility and obligation of either baptism or the Lord's 
 supper. (^) It is true that my Opponent professes to 
 have discovered great utility in adult immersion; it 
 purges from sin. In this he excels the Hemerobaptists, 
 who cleanse themselves from all sin by a daily immersion. 
 But Bishop Hobart is up with him even here ; for he 
 believes that infant baptism is regeneration; and both are 
 about as wise as those Western Indians who believed 
 that their sins were purged by emetics. 
 
 In demanding evidence of utility in the threshhold of 
 this discussion, my Accuser opposes Jews and Chris- 
 tians, inspired and uninspired, heretical and orthodox^ 
 Baptist and Pedobaptist. Matt. v. 19. shews that the 
 least of God's commandments is binding, whether we 
 think it useful or not. In admirable consistency with 
 this, Booth quotes from Stapfer the following sentiments 
 of Orobius, a learned Jew, viz. " The ritual Jaw de- 
 
 ( /) Debate, p . 46. {g) Booth's Apology, p. \Hl. 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 '' pends upon the will of the Legislator only ; sometimes, 
 '' or generally, no foundation for it being discovered in 
 '^ natural reason. But it does not obtain on that account 
 " an inferior degree of perfection, (supposing the wis- 
 ^^ dom and goodness of the Legislator to be infinite,) 
 '' but ought rather to be esteemed of a higher and 
 ^^ sublimer order : it being indeed supposed that an infi- 
 ^' nitely good and wise God can never prescribe to man 
 ^' laws which are vain and unsuitable. In proportion as the 
 ^' reason of them is more hidden to us, so should we the 
 " more believe that it belongs to the secret of divine 
 ^^ wisdom: so that we should not either curiously or 
 '' philosophically scrutinize, but be in obedient subjec- 
 ^^ tion to his command, by which we may shew our 
 ^' love, and a becoming reverence to the Supreme Crea- 
 '' tor : believing, with the whole heart, all things which 
 '' his wisdom, infinitely worthy, exceedingly good, and 
 ^' most perfect, proposes to be observed by us, whether 
 '' [or not] that wisdom can or will dispense or intermit 
 '' for some occasion. And it belongs to a more signal 
 '' obedience to observe those things, than such com- 
 '^ mandments of God as we discover to be founded in 
 '' our reason : for such as these, even if God had not 
 '' enjoined, men may know and observe, as many of 
 '' the Gentiles have done, without any view to the 
 
 " authority of God.'' But merely from their opinion 
 
 of their cui bono. 
 
 On this subject, even Dr. Priestly is more correct 
 than my Opponent. As quoted by Booth, he declares 
 that "Every divine command ought certainly to be 
 " implicitly complied with, even though we should not 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 '' be able to discern the reason of it." ^That is, the 
 
 cui bono of it. " In things of external appointment," 
 (says Dr. Samuel Clarke, quoted by Booth,) '* and 
 '^ mere positive institution, where we cannot, as in 
 '' matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning 
 " the natural reason and ground of the obligation, and 
 " the original necessity of the thing itself; we have 
 '^ nothing to do but to obey the positive command. God 
 -^ is infinitely better able than we to judge of the pro- 
 " priety and usefulness [the cui boni] of the things, he 
 '' institutes ; and it becomes us to obey with humility 
 " and reverence." The same author quotes Bishop 
 Hall as saying, " It hath been ever God's wont, by 
 " small precepts to prove men's dispositions. Obedience 
 " is as well tried in a trifle as in the most important 
 '' charge : yea, so much more, as the thing required 
 " is less: for oftentimes those who would be careful 
 " in main affairs, think they may neglect the smallest. 
 '' What command so ever we receive from God, or our 
 '' superiors, we must not scan the weight, [the cui bono'] 
 " of the thing, but the authority of the commander." 
 The same Baptist writer quotes Witsius as saying that, 
 " One who resolves to obey God in some things only, 
 *^ but excepts others, which he does [or not] according 
 " to his own judgment [of their cui bono,] he does not 
 ^^ serve God, but pleases himself. The true ground of 
 ^' obedience is the authority of him who commands: 
 " which, as it is the same in all precepts, all then, it is 
 ^' concluded, must be of equal obligation." 
 
 These are all Baptist authorites, because adopted 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 by Booth(/i) in support of his sentiments^ which he 
 expresses in his own words as follows, viz. " As in the 
 '' great concerns of religious worship, nothing should 
 " be done that is not required by Jehovah ; and as the 
 " lawfulness of all positive rites depends entirely on 
 ^^ their divine Author and his institution ; so he who 
 '' complies with some, and neglects others that are 
 " equally commanded and equally known, may please 
 ^^ himself, but he does not obey the Lord/' " For it is 
 '' not the manifest excellence, or the great utility 
 '^ [the cui bono] of any divine appointment, that is the 
 " true reason of our submission to it; but the authority 
 ^^ of him that commands." 
 
 You have already perhaps observed that my Opponent 
 himself advocates this same doctrine at some times, 
 though he contradicts it at other times. He has quoted 
 a passage from Bishop Hoadly, in which he says, " All 
 '' positive duties depend [not upon the question of 
 ^' cni bono, but] entirely upon the will and declaration 
 ^^ of the person -who institutes or ordains them, with 
 '' respect to the real design and end of them, and con- 
 " sequently to the due manner of performing them.'" 
 To the same purpose he has quoted largely from Bishop 
 Taylor, who says that ^^The will of the law-giver, 
 '' [and not the question of cui bono] is all the reason 
 ^' for obedience. "(/) But in the debate with Mr. 
 Walker we have my Opponent's own words to this 
 eflfect as follows; viz. ^^ Having now distinguished 
 
 (A) They may be found in the following pages of his Apolog}-. 71. 
 100. 179. 180. 
 (0 Debate pp. 69. 70. 
 
( 31 ) 
 
 *^ positive arid moral institutions, I proceed to shew that 
 ^^ on no account whatsoever in positive requirements, 
 " are we to attempt to reason upon the expediency 
 '' [the cui bojio] of the things enjoined, but implicitly 
 '^ to obey on all occasions. When Eve, the mother of 
 '^ us all, began to reason on the expediency fthe cui 
 " bono"] of eating the forbidden fruit, she began to sin. 
 ^' She reasoned that as the fruit of that tree was pleasant 
 '' to the sight, and to be desired to make one wise, 
 '^ there could be no harm in eating of it; consequently 
 '^ she concluded to taste it. Of the incorrectness of 
 '^ her \_cui bono~\ reasoning, and of her incapacity, even 
 ^' when in Eden, to draw a correct inference, when 
 " reasoning on a positive institution, we have, alas ! 
 
 '' a melancholy proofs as we have in her 
 
 '' cui bono descendant in this debate. (^) 
 
 Often as my Opponent contradicts himself, he hardly 
 ever does it without what he considers good policy. He 
 published a challenge, to shew his courage ; and after- 
 ward denied it, to throw the odium upon his Op- 
 ponent. Why did he say so much in his letters, about 
 his holding the negative of our question ? Because it 
 afforded what he thought a plausible pretext for demand- 
 ing the closing speech. Why does he now urge as 
 strongly that he holds the affirmative of the very same 
 question? The Moderators, to whom he has appealed, 
 can answer, that this is made a pretext for demanding, 
 that, as he has professedly opened the debate, I should 
 not be permitted to choose my own plan of defence, but 
 
 {k) Debate with Mr. W. p. 46. On the same page in his 2nd debate 
 we find his cui bono contradiction. 
 
( 32 ) 
 
 be compelled to leave the solid evidence upon which 
 my cause rests, and follow the ignis fatuus of his decla- 
 mation. Again; why is it that he insists so strongly 
 upon the good old doctrine, that we must unreservedly 
 obey every command of God, without waiting to discuss 
 its expediency, or its cui bono ? Because he hopes to 
 pervert this truth to the sophistical conclusion that 
 '' nothing short of [what he means by] an express divine 
 command can authorize" infant baptism: as if an itn- 
 plicit command were not binding at all ! But when I 
 approach the subject too closely, and seem in danger of 
 producing a divine command, he complains that by 
 such a course we should only " spend our breath, waste 
 our time, and fatigue our bodies.'^ Why does he then 
 insist, in opposition to his former principles, concerning 
 positive institutions, that we must first examine the ques- 
 tion of expediency, ^^cui bono, for what good, or 
 [/or] what benefit to infants" is this institution intend- 
 ed? These questions you can answer. 
 
 I wish you to keep in mind the proposition with which 
 I have set out, on the scriptural subject of baptism. It 
 is, that '^ the scriptures consider infants as suitable, 
 though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism.^^ 
 Baptist polemics generally take it for granted that this 
 is impossible in the nature of things ; and think tliat in- 
 fant baptism necessarily rejects adult baptism, and that 
 adult baptism necessarily excludes the other, as if these 
 were two distinct and irreconcilea])le baptisms. Booth 
 says, ^^ If infant sprinkling be a human invention, 
 
 ^* disown it but if it be from heaven, embrace 
 
 "'Mt and lay the, other absolutely aside, as des- 
 
I 
 
 ( 33 ) 
 
 ^^ titute of a divine warrant; for as there is but one God 
 " and one faith, so there is but one baptism y I) This 
 writer is much in the habit of illustrating the sacra- 
 ments of baptism and the eucharist by a reference to 
 circumcision and the Passover. (m) We all know that 
 there was only one circumcision as well as one baptism. 
 How then would it look to reason on the former, as he 
 has done on the latter? If infant circumcision be a 
 
 human tradition, disown it but if it be from 
 
 heaven, embrace it and lay adult circumcision 
 
 absolutely aside for as there is but one God 
 
 and one faith, so there is but one circumcision !! ! Yes, 
 there was but one circumcision ; yet it was administered 
 to adults and infants : so there is but one baptism, which, 
 like circumcision, is the seal of the righteousness of one 
 faith ; yet this also is scripturally administered to believ- 
 ers and their seed. 
 
 Scriptural statements of the qualifications of adult 
 subjects are always quoted on this point. "He that be- 
 " lieveth and is baptized shall be saved : but he that 
 " believeth not shall be damned.'^ " Go ye therefore 
 " and teach all nations, baptizing them in 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: and lo, I am with you always, 
 " even unto the end of the world. '^(y«) We are both 
 agreed that these passages exclude from baptism, 
 those adults who are destitute of knowledge, because 
 they must first be taught of faith, because they 
 
 (/) Closeof his Apology. (m) See his Apology, pp, 145.149. 
 
 (w) Mark xvi. 16. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
 E .-, 
 
* ( 34 ) 
 
 are required to believe and of obedience, because 
 
 they are required to observe all things. We are both 
 agreed on another point also, which is as plainly taught 
 by these texts as the one just now stated. That is, that 
 those intelligent adults who are destitute of knowledge, 
 faith and obedience, are deprived of Christ's gracious 
 presence, by his Spirit, unto the end of the ivorld, and 
 of his salvation in eternity. We agree, in a third posi- 
 tion, that the privilege of baptism, the enjoyment of 
 Christ's Spirit, and eternal salvation are here secured 
 to believing adults. There is a fourth point in which 
 we can possibly meet. The Apostle Peter shews that 
 the promise of the Spirit of sanctification and salvation 
 is to believers and their children ; " The promise is 
 unto you and to your children." The fifth point is 
 the one on which we differ. Do these passages ex- 
 clude infants from baptism ? They affirm ; we deny. 
 They say that Christ^s command to teaeh and baptize 
 all nations, excludes infants as incapable of instruction : 
 then are they not excluded from his promise, " lo ! I am 
 with you alway, even unto the end of the world?" They 
 say that our Saviour's declaration, " he that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved," excludes infants as 
 incapable of faith: but the next clause says, "he that 
 believeth not shall be damned." If, then the former 
 clause deprives them of baptism, because incapable of 
 faith, this latter one excludes from salvation all infants 
 who cannot believe. Mr. Robinson's " good Baptist," 
 Michael Servetus, of the sixteenth century, saw the 
 necessity of this conclusion, and admitted its correctness. 
 He rejected infants from baptism and from salvation 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 together, because they could not believe ; and supported 
 his doctrine by that text which says, " He that believeth 
 not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth 
 on h\m,^\o) This mode of interpretation, if consistently 
 maintained, would exclude infants from daily bread, 
 as well as from baptismal water Paul says, " This we 
 commanded you, that if any would not work, neither 
 should he eat.''(/j) Our Opponents should say, infants 
 cannot work^ therefore infants should not eat. Why 
 do they not reason and act thus? Because they know 
 that this command related to adults who ought to work, 
 and will not ; and not to infants who cannot work. Just 
 so Pedobaptists interpret the above texts concerning 
 baptism. They are intended to exclude adults who 
 ought to believe, but will not : and not infants which 
 are neither believers nor unbelievers. And to reason 
 otherwise, is as absurd as to say that the sheep on the 
 right hand of Christ, at the day of judgment, are in- 
 tended to exclude not only the goats, but the lambs also. 
 Such sentiments as the above texts contain, are 
 found in Pedobaptist writers, and Pedobaptist creeds, 
 in every age and country : and, what is remarkable, 
 Baptist writers quote them, as they do the scriptures, 
 in opposition to that system which their authors main- 
 tain. They cannot help confessing that after Cyprian's 
 day, Pedobaptism prevailed in the church; and yet 
 when Cyprian and other Fathers talk of the necessity of 
 believing and repenting before baptism, they quote these 
 expressions against infant baptism, although they know 
 
 (o^ Calvin's Institutes. Book 4. ch. xvi. sect. 31, 
 Xfi) 2 Thess. iii. 10. in Calv, Inst. B. 4. ch. xvi. s. 29, 
 
( 36 ) 
 
 that their authors were Pedobaptists, and never meant 
 them to apply to infants. Speaking of baptism, Cy- 
 prian declares that all " will perish," " unless they do 
 " come with repentance to that only salutary sacrament 
 " of the church.'^ On the same subject Gregory Nyssen 
 says, '^ Prayer to God, and the imploring of the heavenly 
 " grace, and the water, and faith, are the things that 
 " make up the sacrament of regeneration." To the 
 same amount, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Augustine. 
 Basil says, '' One must believe first, and then be 
 ^^ sealed with baptism." ^Jerom says of the Apostles, 
 ' that they first taught the nations, and then baptized 
 * them ; ^^ for it cannot be that the body do receive 
 ^^ the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have before 
 '^ received the true faith." \q) If the scriptures forbid 
 infant baptism, so do these Fathers: but both sides 
 know that these Fathers held infant baptism and requir- 
 ed faith as a qualification in adults only ; and so we be- 
 lieve the scriptures do. 
 
 But the inconsistency of our Opponents does not stop 
 with the scriptures and the Fathers. They have claim- 
 ed the Pedobaptist Reformers and reformed churches 
 and their successors to the present day. They even 
 quote against Infant baptism, the standards of the Pedo- 
 baptist churches with which we are conversant and 
 connected ; and most certainly, they are as much against 
 it as the scriptures are. Both alike require faith in 
 the subject. The Catechism of the Church of England 
 says, " There is required of persons to be baptized, faith 
 
 (7) Wall's Defence, pp, 346. U7. 
 
I 
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 " and repentance." Our Catechism says that in a sacra- 
 ment, ^^ Christ and the benefits of the new covenant 
 " are represented, sealed and applied to believers." 
 The same work says that their efficacy depends upon 
 " the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit 
 " in them that by faith receive them."(r) In the close 
 of my Opponent's book against Mr. Walker, these 
 and similar passages of our Creed are explained just 
 as the scriptures are, in opposition to infant baptism. 
 On the first of them the writer says, " Mark, only to 
 ^^ believers. Are infants capable of believing?" On 
 the second passage he says, '' Here mark again, 
 ^' the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit 
 " is wholly restricted to them that by faith receive 
 " them. Is it possible to suppose that infants can so 
 '' receive? Then surely it would be wrong not to admit 
 '' them also to the Lord's table. But the thing being 
 " insupposable, they are therefore equally debarred 
 " from both." On the whole, he observes, " Are not 
 '^ all the blessings and benefits specified in them exclu- 
 " sively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the words 
 '' unequivocally declare, in express concurrence with 
 '' the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of the 
 '' page, under the respective answers. According to 
 '' the manifest scope and tenor of all those documents 
 " taken together, what comes of infant-sprinkling? It 
 " stands excluded to all intents and purposes. No room 
 '' is left for it, if the forecited documents contain words 
 "of truth." (5) 
 
 (r) Larger Cat. Questions, 92. 91. (*) 2nd Edition, p. 290, 291. 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 Thus does this writer profess to prove that, by our 
 Catechism, infants are ^^ equally debarred from'^ baptism 
 and the Lord's supper; and that from our own creed, 
 Pedobaptism " stands excluded to all intents and pur- 
 poses." It is no wonder, then, that he says this of the 
 scriptures. But on this subject I can tell him what proba- 
 bly never before entered his mind. It is this; that, accord- 
 ing to his rules of interpretation, it can be shewn that 
 our Catechism, as well as the scriptures, exclude in- 
 fants from salvation as well as from baptism, by requir- 
 ing faith for the one as well as the other. It speaks 
 as follows; viz. "To escape the wrath and curse of 
 " God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in 
 " Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent 
 " use of all the outward means whereby Christ commu- 
 '^ nicateth to us the benefits of redemption. ''(0 On this 
 article my Opponent might speak as follows; Mark! ! ! 
 Only to believers, to penitents, to diligent seekers. 
 Can children believe? can children repent? can children 
 diligently use the means of grace? Is not salvation here 
 " exclusively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the 
 " words unequivocally declare, in express concurrence 
 " with the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of 
 "' the page.'' " According to the manifest scope and 
 " tenor'' of the article, "what comes of infant" salva- 
 tion? " It stands excluded to all intents and purposes.^' 
 To all such reasoning, whether on the scriptures or 
 the catechism, whether on infant salvation or infant 
 
 . (/) Shorter Cat. Quest. 85. See Larger Cat. Qu. 153. 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 baptism, I can make no better answer than Goldsmith has 
 furnished me with : and that is, Fudge. 
 
 But the work from which I have quoted, professes 
 to admit that our standards advocate Pedobaptism, and 
 therefore accuses them of the inconsistency of approv- 
 ing it in one place^ and condemning it in another. The 
 same, however, might as correctly be said of their 
 declarations on infant salvation. According to Baptist 
 rules of interpretation the above passage excludes 
 them all from heaven, for the want of faith : but another 
 passage says, " Elect infants, dying in infancy, are re- 
 " generated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who 
 " worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.^'(t/) 
 They must believe these to be contradictions. Be- 
 fore our ecclesiastical constitution is condemned for in- 
 consistency among the many alledged faults of that trans- 
 cendant production, let us try it by such sober rules as 
 practical wisdom has established for the interpretation 
 of our civil laws. Blackstone says^ " One part of a 
 " statute must be so construed by another, that the 
 '' whole may, (if possible) stand: ut res magis valeat, 
 ^' quam pertat,^^ According to this rule we can admit 
 that the church is sincere in professing to believe that 
 elect infants dying in infancy, are saved without faith; 
 and, in perfect consistency with this, they believe that 
 faith, repentance, and the diligent use of the means of 
 grace, are necessary to the salvation of adults. In this 
 way we reconcile the declarations of our Saviour and 
 one of his Apostles. Peter says, concerning the 
 
 (m) -Conf. of Faith, ch. x, sect. 3. 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 promise of salvation by the blood and Spirit of Christy 
 " The promise is unto you and to your children.'' Doubt- 
 less many of these children who died in infancy, were 
 saved without faith. Yet our Savour says, '' he that 
 believeth not shall be damned." This, then, must be 
 understood of adults : ut res magis valeat quam pereat. 
 So when our church or other churches, or when Chris- 
 tian Fathers and Reformers, and ministers approve of 
 baptizing infants without faith, they are sincere : and 
 they are no less so, when they affirm that faith is neces- 
 sary to baptism ; because they mean this of adults ; so 
 that it is quite possible '' that the whole may stand," 
 Thus we explain the scriptures. When they speak of 
 the ecclesiastical or ceremonial holiness of children, 
 and of circumcising and baptizing whole households 
 on the faith of the parent, when the infants cannot be- 
 lieve, we receive it as true : and it is no less true that 
 they often require personal piety as a qualification for 
 baptism; because they often speak of adult subjects. 
 This interpretation is of such a character, that the 
 whole may stand without contradiction ; that the thing 
 may have some meaning^ rather than perish, by in- 
 consistency. 
 
 But my Opponent may tell me, ^this is the point 
 ' to be tried. Prove that the scriptures do consider 
 ' infants as suitable subjects of Christian baptism, and 
 ' we can easily prove that adults j are proper subjects; 
 ' and we may possibly adn>it that the two may go to- 
 ' gether without inconsistency.' To prove thai the 
 scriptures do admit infants to this ordinance, is the very 
 thing which I hope soon to do : but before coming to this 
 
I 
 
 ( 41 ) 
 
 point, it is necessary to declare what is meant by the 
 scriptures^ and what weight is to be given to them in 
 this controversy. With the Westminster Assembly, I 
 can truly say that " Under the name of holy scripture, 
 " or the word of God written, are now contained all 
 " the books of the Old and New Testament,'^ '' all 
 '' which are given by inspiration of God, to be the 
 ^' rule of feith and \\^t,'^\v) With them, I can conscien- 
 tiously quote from the Old and New Testaments to 
 prove that ^' the infants of one or both believing 
 ^' parents are to be baptized.^' Yet would you believe 
 that these very words, for the proof of which they have 
 referred to Genesis and Galatians, are in that same 
 Chapter on Baptism, which my Opponent quotes as 
 denying the authority of the Old Testament in this 
 controversy ; merely because it is there stated that 
 ^' Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, or- 
 dained by Jesus Christ/'^?/;) This my Opponent takes 
 as his text, and professes to build upon it as follows, viz: 
 '^1. We shall go to the New Testament, and not to 
 *^ the Old, to ascertain the nature, design, and subject 
 '^ of this ordinance. 2. We shall appeal to the words of 
 ^' Jesus Christ, for the institution of baptism, as our text 
 " says, it is an ordinance of Jesus Christ ; we shall have 
 ^' nothing to do with Moses in this matter, however 
 ^^ useful he may be in others. No doubt our Opponent 
 ^' will feel his creed honored, and will acquiesce in 
 ^' our method as correct." ** In establishing the first 
 ^' point, that a believer is the only subject of baptism;, 
 
 iy) Chap. i. sect. 2, (w) Ch, xxviii. sect. 1. 4. 
 
 F 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 '^ I will, according to my text, appeal exclusively to 
 ^^ the New Testament; and reason itself will justify 
 " me in this particular ; for who would go to the Old 
 '^ Testament to find an ordinance which is not in it, 
 '^ and which belongs exclusively to the JVew?^\x), 
 
 Whether this ordinance belongs exclusively to the 
 New Testament, is a point which we are about to try. 
 We are about to see whether the words immediately 
 preceding those which my Opponent has quoted are 
 not also true. They are as follows, viz. "The sacraments 
 '' of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things 
 " thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance the 
 '' same with those of the New.'^ I agree with the authors 
 of my Opponents text, that this initiatory rite, is, in its 
 present form, an ordinance of the New Testament ; but 
 I agree with them in believing moreover, that in its 
 substance, it is found in the Old Testament: and be- 
 cause it is there undeniably administered to infants, 
 therefore the opposers of infant baptism are too apt to 
 reject the authority of the Old Testament. Consider 
 well the following words of my Opponent, in the pros- 
 pectus of one of his publications. " Tlie Editor acknow- 
 " ledging no standard of religious faith or works, other 
 " than the Old and New Testaments, and the latter as 
 " the only standard of the religion of Jesus Christ, will, 
 " intentionally at least, oppose nothing which it contains, 
 " and recommend nothing which it does not enjoin. ^^ 
 As it is the new Testament only, which he will not 
 intentionally oppose, we are left to infer that he will 
 
 (x)See CampbcirsSpunous Deb rite, pp. 57,58. 
 
( 43 ) . - ** 
 
 intentionally oppose the Old Testament, as he most 
 assuredly does. But this he thinks justifiable, since 
 it is not the standard, in whole nor in part, of the Chris- 
 tian religion, but of some other religion ; what this other 
 religion is, he may yet tell us. 
 
 In rejecting the authority of the Old Testament, my 
 Opponent only follows ,his instructor, the celebrated 
 disciple of Dr. Priestley. Robinson quotes with appro- 
 bation, the error of the Massalians, who '' thought the 
 Old Testament a true history, but not a rule of Christian 
 action." The same thing he observes concerning the 
 Manicheans ; and then asks, ^^ Who doth not see the 
 justness of this sentiment?'' He then observes that '^ the 
 Fathers, particularly the Africans derived all the errors 
 that founded and supported their hierarchy [that is, they 
 derived Pedobaptism] from the Old Testament." These 
 observations belong to nine quarto pages, which the 
 American Editor has left out in one place; because, 
 in them, Robinson comes out as the advocate of Mani- 
 cheism, Socinianism, and every filthy thing which he can 
 lay his hands on.(?/) If he be really sincere, in saying that 
 the African Fathers derived all their errors, as he calls 
 them, from the Old Testament, then he must consider 
 the Old Testament the worst book that was ever written, 
 not even the Westminster Confession excepted : for he 
 evidently considers the African Fathers the worst men, 
 and their system the worst religion, that can be found 
 on earth, or (I might say) in hell ; but this great Baptist 
 champion did not believe that there was a hell. 
 
 (y) I.ondon Edition, j)p 204 — 213. 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 After rejecting one half of God's word, Robinson and 
 his Socinians came very naturally to despise th: other 
 half, and to throw contempt upon the external means 
 of grace in general. Pious Baptists of the present day 
 are not, perhaps, aware that this has been very much 
 the character of their sect from the beginning. This 
 arose in some measure, from their opposition to original 
 sin, and having too good an opinion of themselves. Stapfer 
 says, concerning them, '* Because they who had attained 
 " the highest grade of perfection and sanctity, no longer 
 ^' needed the external means of grace ; hence they set 
 ^^ no great value upon the use of the sacred scriptures, 
 ^^ and they deny that the reading of the Old Testament 
 " especially is useful to men of their society, either 
 " that the doctrine of truth may be known, or the study 
 '' of piety promoted.''(^) 
 
 Such sentiments as these, whether in Baptists or Pedo- 
 baptists, are essentially wrong. An inspired Apostle 
 of the New Testament says concerning the scriptures 
 of the Old Testament, *^ All scripture is given by in- 
 '' spiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for 
 " reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteous- 
 " ness.'Ya) If vve were discussing the question of in- 
 fidelity instead of Phristian baptism, I would, of course, 
 endeavour to prove the divine authority of the Scrip- 
 tures. At present we shall have to take this for grant- 
 ed. Whatever can be proved from the inspired vol- 
 ume, I shall consider as well proved ; and none but an 
 infidel will say otherwise. Indeed the latitude which 
 
 (z) Institutions of Polemic Theology, ch. xvjii. sect. 10. 
 (c) 2 Tim. iii. 16. 
 
I 
 
 ( 45 ) 
 
 I take is embraced in that very rule which my Opponent 
 has quoted with so much applause, concerning the in- 
 terpretation of one part of scripture by another. It 
 is also contemplated in another passage quoted from the 
 same excellent work, which declares the scriptures, in 
 regard to all essentials, sufficiently plain even to the un- 
 learned, ^^in a due use of the ordinary means.''(6) It 
 is to the unlearned, chiefly, that the argument of an 
 unlearned man is now addressed. To their satisfaction 
 I hope to shew, that the scriptures consider infants as 
 suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian bap- 
 tism. This proposition is based upon divine command 
 and Apostolical practice. 
 
 ARGUMENT I. 
 
 DIVINE COMMAND. 
 
 On the authority of God, in relation to baptism. Booth 
 quotes a very precious sentiment of the great Cartwright, 
 the Father of the Puritans. " As the salvation of men 
 " ought to be dear unto us ; so the glory of God, which 
 ^^ consisteth in that his orders be kept, ought to be much 
 '' more dear.'' A holy zeal for observing and enforcing 
 all God's commandments, out of regard to their Author, 
 is a lovely Christian grace: but as my Opponent has 
 just now observed that ^'all things in scripture are not 
 alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all,"(c) 
 our zeal must be accompanied with knowledge, or it 
 
 {b) See our Confession of Faith, ch. i. sect. 7. 9. quoted in the Spuri- 
 ous Report, pp. 56. 57. 
 (c) Spurious Report, p. 56, 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 will degenerate into bigotry, or be converted into rebel- 
 lion. My Opponent seems to think that nothing but 
 what he calls an express command can authorize the bap- 
 tism of infants; as if God had no right to claim obedi- 
 ence to any law which was not framed according to my 
 Opponent's directions. Even if the scriptures were to 
 use the very words, baptize infants, or baptize children, 
 it would not answer the purpose; because, according 
 to the criticisms with which his Master, Robinson, has 
 furnished him, infants and children, and all such words, 
 signify men and not babes. As such an express com- 
 mand would be unavailing, we do not think it disparag- 
 ing to the solid evidence which the scriptures contain, 
 to say, that this evidence does not satisfy his demands. In 
 my opinion, that person shews a divine command for 
 our system, who proves that God once gave to the 
 church a command, yet unrepealed, to administer to 
 infants that initiatory seal of which baptism is the New 
 
 Testament form ; who proves that this is included 
 
 in the command to disciple all nations, baptizing them ; 
 
 and in the declaration that children are holy ; 
 
 and should be suffered to come to Christ the 
 
 Head of the Church, because they are of the kingdom 
 of heaven, which is the church. He who shall prove 
 these, shews a divine command, although it is not what 
 my Opponent calls an express command. 
 
 Neither is this necessary. in matters of doctrine or 
 practice, government or worship. It is well known 
 that Socinians deny that there is an express revelation 
 of the doctrine of a Trinity in Tin ty, because these 
 words are not in the bible in this connexion : yet if it 
 
I 
 
 ( 47 ) 
 
 can be proved from the bible that the Father is God, 
 and the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, 
 and that these are not three Gods but one God, the doc- 
 trine is more firmly established than it would be by the 
 express words. Trinity in Unity. They also deny 
 the vicarious satisfaction of Christ for the same reason : 
 yet if it can be shewn that he was cut off for sins not his 
 own, and this to magnify God's law and make it honora- 
 ble, the doctrine is as fully proved as if the atonement 
 had been expressly defined by the words vicarious satis- 
 faction. There is not in the scriptures, an express pro- 
 hibition of duelling nor of lotteries, nor of gaming of 
 any sort; nor is there an express license for eating 
 swine's flesh ; neither is there any need of such express 
 statutes, for the scriptures are plain enough without them. 
 Where do the Baptists get an express command for their 
 independent form of Church government ? When they 
 will shew us a text saying, Ye shall be Independents, 
 and not Presbyterians, then 1 will shew one which says 
 expressly. Ye shall be Pedobaptists, and not Anabap- 
 tists. Where do pious Baptists find an express com- 
 mand for the observance of family prayer and the Chris- 
 tian sabbath, which they love, and my Opponent des- 
 pises? They would as soon look for an express com- 
 mand for drawing their breath: and rather than relin- 
 quish their domestic and sabbatical privileges, they 
 would, like Daniel, give up their breath. 
 
 On this subject my Opponent was completely posed 
 by Mr. Walker, his former Antagonist. My Opponent 
 asked him, *^ Was there ever a positive ordinance or 
 " institution founded solely upon inference or reason?'' 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 In reply, Mr Walker, on his part asked, ^^Have we a 
 '' positive command for all the acknowledged institutions 
 ^' of the church?*' This was a true Socratic refutation. 
 It was so puzzling to my Opponent, that he chose not to 
 record it in his report of the Debate ; but, in its place, 
 he recorded (according to a custom of his another ques- 
 tion which he manufactured for Mr. Walker, and 
 which he thought he could more easily answer. The 
 question which he made, is this; " I ask him for a posi- 
 *^ tive command for the institution of a church. '' One 
 would suppose that, as he had the forming of the question 
 and the answer too, he would make the latter come up, 
 at least, to the level of his own demands. But this he 
 was very far from doing. You know that he will not 
 allow any passage of scripture to be a divine command 
 for infant baptism unless it has the word infant in it. It 
 is also a sine qua non with him that it should have the 
 word baptism in it. When Mr. Walker quoted authori- 
 ties which were destitute of these words, my Antago- 
 nist indignantly answered as follows, viz. " Is it possi- 
 ^' ble that my Opponent has no better support for his 
 '' system ? Is he obliged to prove a New Testament 
 '' positive institution from the 17th Chapter of Genesis? 
 '' from portions of scripture in which baptism is never 
 ^' mentioned? In all the scriptures he has yet adduced, 
 " baptism is not so much as once mentioned. '\(// 
 
 Now let us see whether he has come up to his own 
 demands in answering his own question, which he intend- 
 ed to make very easy. If a divine command for the 
 
 {d) Spurious Debate with Mr.'W'alk.er, p. 23. 
 
II 
 
 ( 49 ) 
 
 baptism of infants require the express mention of bap- 
 tism and infants^ then an express command for the in- 
 stitution of a church must at least mention the words in- 
 stitution and church. He sets about his answer with 
 the bravery of Napoleon, when entering Moscow. He 
 refers us to the passage where our Saviour commands 
 his disciples to teach or disciple all nations, baptizing 
 them, and teaching them to observe all things. (e) This 
 is, like Mr. Walker's authority for infant baptism, very 
 good proof, but, like that, it is utterly destitute of those 
 words which his Opponent considered necessary to con- 
 stitute it an express command. Mr. Walker might, 
 therefore, have answered, " Is it possible that my Op- 
 ^' ponent has no better support for his system ? Is he 
 ^' obliged to prove the institution of a church from the 
 ^' 28th chapter of Matthew ? from portions of scripture 
 ^' in which neither institution nor church is ever men- 
 <' tioned ?'' 
 
 But he quotes another passage which has the word 
 church, though it does not speak of its original institu- 
 tion, nor propound a command, but states a historical 
 fact, that " The Lord added to the church daily such 
 " as should be saved. "(/) This he triumphantly closes 
 with declaring, " Here there is a positive institution of 
 ^^ a church, with the authority for it.'' We are not so 
 much disposed to quarrel with this declaration as he is 
 himself. Let us now compare his question with his an- 
 swer, and with the rules which he has dictated in rela- 
 tion to such subjects. His question requires " a positive 
 
 (e) Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. in the Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 5j. 
 (/) Acts ii. 47. in the Spurious Debate with Mr, W. p. 51, 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 ^' command for the institution of a church." His an- 
 swer states a historical fact, in which members were 
 added to a church, without any express mention either 
 of its charter or of its original institution. It seems pe- 
 culiarly inconsistent for him to call this historical fact, 
 (without a precept,) " a positive institution of a church,'' 
 in the close of a paragraph, which commences by defin- 
 ing a positive institution to be a particular precept. His 
 own words are these, viz. " In positive institutions, all 
 '' that we have to inquire after, is the meaning of the 
 " words of one particular precept, which, to an iota, we 
 ^^ are bound to perform, in the manner in which it is 
 ^' commanded.'' Now, I would ask, has Mr. Walker's 
 Opponent ever yet given us his " one particular pre- 
 cept, which, to an iota," expressly gives " a positive 
 command for the institution of a church," in so many 
 words, according to his own requisitions, and according 
 to his own promise ? If, then, he has not answered his 
 own question, which he intended to make as easy as pos- 
 sible, it is no wonder that he has never answered Mr. 
 Walker's question, " Have we a positive command for 
 all the acknowledged institutions of the church ?" 
 
 Let it be remembered that this question of Mr. 
 Walker's was connected with one or two of his Oppo- 
 nent's, which asked, " Was there ever a positive ordi- 
 '' nance or institution founded solely upon inference or 
 '' reason ? Or can there be a positive institution, with- 
 " out a positive precept or precedent authorizing it."(^) 
 These questions are framed with an unfairness, which 
 
 {g) Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 68, 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 says little in favour of their author's candour or of his 
 cause. Have we ever professed that infant-baptism was 
 " founded solely upon inference or reason ?'' Have we 
 not always appealed to positive precepts and precedents 
 of revelation for our authority ? Neither do I see the 
 danger of admitting, in the established meaning of the 
 words, his favourite principle that '^a limited commis- 
 3ion implies a prohibition of such things as are not con- 
 tained in it/'(A) We say that infant- baptism is contain- 
 ed in the commission, and therefore not prohibited by it: 
 and we prove this in the same reasonable and scriptural 
 way in which our Opponents prove the duty of female- 
 communion. They do not find a passage of scripture 
 which says expressly, ^' Females must commune ;" yet 
 they find evidence that Christ's believing disciples 
 should commune ; they therefore admit to that privilege 
 «uch females as answer that description. This is a legi- 
 timate inference from authority which contains no ex- 
 press mention of females. Suppose a person inquiring 
 whether the scriptures forbid him to demand from his 
 brother a hundred per centum, per annum, interest on 
 lent money. He is referred to Nehemiah v. 11, which 
 forbids him to receive the centesima, which is one per 
 cent, a month, or twelve per cent, a year. This does 
 not expressly mention the ratio in question : yet it as 
 really forbids that exorbitant usury, as it could do by 
 mentioning the identical words. This is according to 
 my Opponent's declaration, " that a man is not to reason 
 •^ whether he is to be just or honest ; but he may reason 
 
 (A) Spurious Debate with Walker, p. 209. with M-Calla, p. 114. 
 
* ( 52 ) 
 
 ^^ to know in what justice and honesty consist."(0 Thus 
 he does not consider himself at liberty to reason whether 
 believing disciples should commune or not, for this is 
 settled by revelation ; but he may reason to know in 
 what faith and discipleship consist. This course my 
 Opponent pursues, but he knows the consequences of 
 it, as is evident from the declamatory vituperation with 
 which his argument is bloated. In his spurious debate 
 with Mr. Walker, (y) he uses the following words, viz. 
 ^^ As to his second query concerning female communion, 
 ^' I have to observe that although sundry Pedobaptists 
 '' have made a salvo to soothe their minds, of this appa- 
 ^^ rent difficulty, it is a poor and a pitiful come off; it is 
 ^' the most puerile and childish retort that I ever heard 
 ^' used by adults that had any knowledge of words and 
 ^' things. Was the Lord's supper instituted to men or 
 ^' women as such ? Was it not appointed to the disci- 
 '' pies of Christ ? ' He gave it to his disciples, saying, 
 '^ partake ye all of it.' Here then is an express war- 
 ^^ rant for all disciples to participate of the Lord's sup- 
 ^•' per. Now it puts Mr. Walker, and all Pedobaptists 
 ^^ that humble themselves to such means to support their 
 ^^ cause, to prove or to show, that a woman is not a dis- 
 ^^ ciple of Christ, But should they attempt this, I have 
 '^ express authority to shew that they oppose the oracles 
 '^ of heaven, for a woman is expressly called a disciple, 
 ^^ Acts ix. 36. ^ For there was a certain disciple there 
 ^^ named Tabitha ;' so that these obstacles thrown in my 
 ^^ way, are but means to afford a clearer and fuller illus 
 
 (i) Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 50. U) P* ^' 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 *^ tration and confirmation of the truth of my reasoning 
 '' on positive institutions/' 
 
 " My reasoiiing on positive institutions^^ ! ! ! So it 
 seems that Pedobaptists are not the only ones who reason 
 on positive institutions. You have just now heard a 
 specimen of my Opponent's reasoning on these subjects. 
 It would be well if all his reasonings were as correct as 
 that which supports female communion, for which he is 
 not able to find what he calls an express command. His 
 pretending that Mr. Walker is opposed to this argument 
 is pretence only. He knows that we admit his inference 
 as legitimate ; but he knows also, that the same argu- 
 ment about discipleship will establish infant- baptism. In 
 our Saviour's commission, " teach all nations, baptizing 
 them," critics generally interpret the word rendered 
 teach, as meaning disciple, or make disciples of. My 
 Opponent says, " This is unquestionably the proper ren- 
 dering of the term. "(A) Pedobaptists have often proved, 
 and, in due time, I hope to prove, in this debate, that 
 the scriptures recognize the discipleship not only of 
 Tabitha, or of Lydia, but of their households, and of the 
 infants of all believers. And here it will not do to ob- 
 ject that if infants are disciples, they must partake of 
 the supper also, on account of a supposed universality 
 in our Saviour's command to his disciples, " Partake ye 
 all of it." So far is this command from requiring us 
 to admini>ter the supper to d s pies of all ages, that it 
 does not bind us to administer it to adult believing 
 fiisciples universally, since the discipline of Christ's 
 
 (X-) Spurious Debate with me, p« 113. 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 own appointment sometimes cuts them off from this 
 privilege. 
 
 But while my Opponent may be marshalling objec- 
 tions, I would remind him that his own argument, which 
 is admitted to be good, is liable to as serious objections 
 as any which he urges against ours. When we give di- 
 vine authority for the administration of the seal of the 
 righteousness of faith to infant disciples as well as adult 
 believers, he objects that circumcision never was the 
 seal of the righteousness of faith in any case except that 
 of Abraham only, because the only instance in which 
 this expression is used is in connexion with his name. 
 If this mode of expounding the scriptures be admitted, 
 how will my Opponent's argument for female communion 
 fare in the hands of a bold objector ? Recollect that it 
 rests upon female discipleship, and female discipleship, 
 according to my Opponent, rests upon the discipleship 
 of Tabitha. The objector, therefore, would take my 
 Opponent on his own ground, and say^ As circumcision 
 was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only, 
 and to no other male, so discipleship was attached to 
 Tabitlm only, and to no other female ! ! 
 
 Again ; when we say, 7/* disciples should be baptized, 
 and ?/the infants of believers are disciples, then these 
 infants should be baptized, my logical Opponent laughs 
 at our ifs, and would make you believe that sound logic 
 does not recognize hypothetical syllogisms at all ! Yet, 
 strange to tell ! his boasted argument for female com- 
 munion is virtually a hypothetical syllogism. It is as 
 follows: 
 
 ■#■ 
 
( ^5 ) 
 
 If disciples should commune ; and 
 
 If females be disciples^ then 
 
 Females should commune : but 
 
 Disciples should commune ; and 
 
 Females are disciples ; therefore 
 
 Females should commune. 
 Now in all this, where is my Opponent's express 
 command for female communion ? His vapouring argu- 
 ment does not even assert it : but only says that he has 
 ^' an express warrant for all disciples to participate of 
 ^' the Lord's supper ;" after which he has to shew that 
 females are disciples. So we have an express warrant 
 for baptizing disciples ; and we prove from scripture 
 that believers and their infants are subjects of this disci- 
 pleing and baptizing. When my Opponent pursues this 
 method of reasoning to establish the duty and privilege 
 of female communion, he would think it a breach of the 
 ninth commandment, for any one to tell him that he held 
 " a positive ordinance or institution, founded solely upon 
 inference or reason,'' ^^ without a positive precept." 
 His argument proves that there is a divine precept, 
 though not what he calls an express command. He 
 proves that the duty in question is not founded solely 
 upon reason, but upon revelation. That there is the 
 same authority for infant-baptism, racist be fairly con- 
 cluded from the establishment of the following propo- 
 sitions. 
 
 1 . Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a 
 visible church of God. 
 
 2. The Christian Church is a branch of the Abrahamic 
 Church : or, in other words, the Jewish Society before 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 Christy and the Christian Society after Christ, are one 
 and the same Church, in different dispensations. 
 
 3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and Christian 
 Baptism, after Christ, are one and the same seal in 
 substance, though in different forms. 
 
 4. The administration of this seal to infants was once 
 enjoined by divine authority ; that is, God once com- 
 manded it. 
 
 5. The administration of this seal to infants has never 
 since been prohibited by divine authority ; that is, this 
 command of God, originally given in the Old Testa- 
 ment, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather 
 confirmed. 
 
 Therefore, this command is still in force. And as it 
 is a command to administer to infants the initiatory seal 
 of the church, which, under the Christian dispensation, 
 is baptism, there is now a divine command for baptizing 
 the infants of believers. Admit the premises, and the 
 conchision is inevitable. Whether these propositions 
 be loved or feared, hated or revered, derided or res- 
 pected, they necessarily involve the conclusion. Logic 
 may exhibit its sophistry, rhetoric its rage, satire its 
 wit, and vulgarity its scurrility, but if these premises 
 be true, infant- baptism is a duty. My Opponent knows 
 that if he were to admit the truth of these propositions, 
 he would lose his cause at once. He therefore disputes 
 them ; and I therefore, with a good conscience, and 
 depending on divine help, proceed to prove them. 
 
( 57 ) 
 PROPOSITION I. 
 
 Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a 
 visible church of god. 
 
 Many Baptists, such as Booth, Butterworth, and Jud- 
 son, appear as if they could adopt this proposition just 
 as it stands. The second of these writers, in his Con- 
 cordance, gives, as the fourth meaning of the word 
 Churchy " The people of the Jews, ivho was the church 
 and people of God.^^ In proof of this he refers to Acts 
 vii. 38, which says, ^^This is he that was in the church 
 in the wilderness.'' A person who is unacquainted with 
 the ways of my Opponent, might suppose, from some of 
 his declarations, that he also believed this doctrine. He 
 has even accused Dr. Rallston of misrepresentation for 
 denying it. In his Strictures at the end of his spurious 
 Debate with Mr. Walker, (/) he speaks as follows, viz. 
 " Mr. R. affirms that I '' deny that there was a visible 
 ^^ church in the world until the day of Pentecost.' He 
 ^' refers to no page in the Debate, nor could he, for there 
 ^' is not such a declaration in the w^hole book. Nay, so 
 *' far is the above from fact, that I again and again speak 
 " of a visible church in the world from Moses' time to 
 '' the day of Pentecost. Page 26, I called the Jews 
 ^' God's people, and spoke of their visible church state : 
 ^' so also in pages 40, 41, 43, 44, 53, 98, I spoke of the 
 '^ Jewish church, and of their visible church state ; and 
 
 (/) p. 223. 
 
 H! 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 ^^ repeatedly contrasted the Jewish Church with the 
 " Christian Church — Yet Mr R. affirms that I denied 
 '' there was a visible church on earth till the day of 
 " Pentecost ! !'' From this, one would suppose that it 
 was a settled opinion with my Opponent that the Jewish 
 people were long the visible church of God, and that he 
 was much in the habit of insisting upon this point; and 
 that he had especially urged this doctrine in the many 
 pages to which he refers. The last of these references 
 must be a mistake, as it does not contain a word upon the 
 subject. If the first of them prove the ecclesiastical 
 state of the Jews, it goes far to shew their identity with 
 the Christian church. But this could not have been his 
 meaning, since it is in direct opposition to the two suc- 
 ceding references. His second and third are occupied 
 about Stephen's " church in the wilderness,'^ which 
 Butterworth, an eminent Baptist preacher, agrees with 
 Mr. Walker, in considering " the people of the Jews, 
 who was the church and people of God." Thi« my Op- 
 ponent disputes in the places referred to, by trying to 
 prove that the word translated church may mean a moh, 
 like that of Demetrius, at Ephesus, instead of a church 
 of God ! This is a curious way to prove the visible 
 church state of the Jews. The only remaining refer- 
 ence in the whole list is of a piece with these. Instead 
 of saying, as he pretends, that the Jews were the visible 
 church of God, he tries to prove that they were not the 
 Church of Christ, by an argument which, if true, must 
 go equally to prove that they could not be the church 
 of God, unless he could shew that the latter was a dif- 
 ferent and inferior being to the former. It is evident 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 from his whole book, that he is far from being friendly 
 to the doctrine in question, so that instead of Dr. 
 Rallston's misrepresenting him, he has really misrepre- 
 sented himself. 
 
 It is true that he has, in this debate, offered to concede 
 the point, provided that I will pass on without taking 
 up time in proving it. This, however, has turned out 
 nothing more than a ruse de guerre, to induce me to 
 leave an enemy's garrison in the rear. For when he was 
 called upon to fulfil a stipulation which was of his own ask- 
 ing, he refused, and offered to substitute something of a 
 very different character, viz. ^^That the Jews, when call- 
 '' ed out of Egypt, became a church, or a religious 
 
 '^ assembly in some sense.'^(m) " a church, or a 
 
 ^' religious asseinbly in some sense J^ In what sense, 
 pray ? His debate with Mr. Walker tells us. It is in 
 that sense in which the very religious assembly at 
 Ephesus was a church ; that assembly which was con- 
 vened and opened with a Hymn by the zealous Demetrius, 
 and, after much noise and bodily exercise, addressed and 
 dismissed by his Reverence the town -clerk. 
 
 But this pretended concession denies that the Jews 
 were a church or a religious assembly in any sense, till 
 called out of Egypt. In accordance with this, he asserts 
 that ^^ they were never called a church until in the 
 ^^ wilderness. This,'' says he, "may be denied, but there 
 ^^ lives not the man that can produce an instance to the 
 " contrary." He farther assures us, that " the occur- 
 *^ rences at Sinai are ever afterwards referred to by 
 
 (m) Spurious Debate with me p. S86. 
 
( 60 ) 
 
 ^^ Jewish and Christian Prophets as the commencement 
 ^' of their ecclesiastic existence. The covenant at 
 '' Sinai, therefore, is the only national or ecclesiastic 
 ^^ covenant from Adam to the Messiah, recorded in the 
 ^^ Bible. ''v^z) That the Sinaitic covenant is the consti- 
 tution of the Jewish Church, (if church he will permit 
 it to be called,) my Opponent endeavours to prove by 
 two positions. One is that " the occurrences at Sinai 
 '* are ever afterwards referred to by Jewish and Christian 
 ^* Prophets as the commencement of their ecclesiastic 
 ^' existence." As this language plainly intimates that 
 the Old and New Testaments are full of evidence to this 
 effect, you might reasonably expect the author of so bold 
 an assertion to specify a few instances : but he has not 
 here given one ; and (to use his own language) I can 
 safely say, " there lives not the man that can produce 
 '^ an instance.'^ His other argument or assertion that 
 ^^ they were never called a church until in the wilder- 
 ^' ness,^' " at Sinai,'^ is as irrelevant as it is incorrect. 
 It goes upon the assumption that churches are made by 
 names and not by acts. It is only a few years since the 
 name of Baptists was given to any body of men on earth ; 
 for even the followers of John were not called Baptists. 
 Is my Opponent willing to admit that they are no older 
 than their name? Again ; ^^the disciples were called 
 Christians first in Antioch."' Were there no Christians 
 at all, until this name was given to thyn ? This shews 
 the utter irrelevani y of the argument that the Jews 
 ^^ were never called a church until" the Sinaitic cove- 
 
 {j}) Spurious Debate, p. 39P. 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 nant, even if this statement were true, which it assuredly 
 is not, although he has aiFirmed it so roundly. I will 
 not say that our translation of the Old Testament calls 
 them a church before iheir arrival at Sinai ; but neither 
 does it call them a church subsequent to that period. 
 It is remarkable that our translators generally make 
 congregation in the Old Testament correspond with 
 church in the New. This is very much condemned by 
 Dr. George Campbell, my Opponent's favourite critic, 
 who says that " they ought constantly to have rendered 
 '' the original expression either church in the Old 
 " Testament or congregation in the New.'' " What I 
 " blame, therefore," says he, " in our translators, is the 
 " want of uniformity." In the same connexion;|,the Dr. 
 repeatedly declares that " the Hebrew word ^Hp 
 [rendered congregation in the Old Testament] exactly 
 corresponds to the Greek ixxxvi^io!^ [rendered church 
 in the New Testament. ](o) Although Dr. Campbell 
 belonged to a Pedobaptist church, I adduce his authority 
 without fear of opposition, because, in the passages 
 quoted, he is, as usual, an advocate for Baptist peculiari- 
 ties, in opposition to the creed which he had solemnly 
 adopted. A work, however, which my Opponent has 
 quoted against us,(p) states, in the very passages which 
 he has read with approbation, the same thing substan- 
 tially which Dr. Campbell has declared, with this 
 addition, that another Hebrew word T)1)} is upon the 
 same footing with lT][)y since both alike are, in our 
 
 (o) See his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. Lecture 10. Page<i 
 163. 164. Philadelphia Edition of 1807. 
 (/i) Dr. Mason on the Church. 
 
( 62 -) 
 
 bil)le, rendered congregation^ and both alike are used 
 to signify the church. 
 
 Now it is very easy for my Opponent to prove that 
 they were called and considered a visible church after 
 their arrival at Sinai, by such passages as Lev. iv. 14, 
 21, where it is said that " br\T>T} the church shall offer 
 a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the 
 tabernacle of TJ^IO the church^^ as " a sin-offering for 
 7npn the churchP It is certainly the true church of 
 God that is here intended, and not a mob like that of 
 Ephesus. But before this church had come to Sinai, 
 or even left Egypt, it is said in Ex. xii. 6, concerning 
 the sacrifice of the Passover, that " the whole illj^ /Up 
 assembly of the church, or church of the congregation 
 of Israel shall kill it in the evening.'' Concerning this 
 also it may be said that the true church of God is here 
 intended, and not a mob like that at Ephesus. An ex- 
 amination of Lev. viii. 3. xvi. 5, with the context, will 
 shew plainly that, after their arrival at Sinai, the Israelites 
 were called mj^ the church in the ecclesiastical sense 
 of the word ; for they are represented as engaged in 
 ecclesiastical business. But in Ex. xii. 3, 47, the same 
 people are twice called by the same name, and repre- 
 sented as engaged in the same business, before they had 
 set out on their journey to Mount Sinai. After that 
 period, their discipline ordained that " the man that shall 
 " be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul 
 " shall be cut off from among h'H'p'n the church^iq) But 
 before they left Egypt, it was similarly ordained con- 
 
 {q) Num. xix, 20. 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 cerning the Passover, that ^^ whosoever eateth that 
 ^^ which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off 
 '^ 7N^ii^^ tV\V^ fif'om the church of IsraeL^^ (r) 
 
 It will be recollected that my Opponent referred to 
 an instance in which he " called the Jews God's people'^ 
 as a proof that he believed in " their visible church 
 state. "(5) According to this, "God's people" must 
 mean the church of God, What is here plainly implied 
 by my Opponent, is expressly declared by Dr. George 
 Campbell, in a Lecture which is intended to build Con- 
 gregationalism (the Baptist form of Government) on the 
 ruins of Presbyterianism. After pointing out several 
 expressions as " confessedly equivalent'^ to each other, 
 he adds, " The same may be said of the phrases Sip 
 ^^ dl7N and £D^1 7^^ Di^? n ^xx^rjaia Osov and o xaoj esov 
 " the church of Goc/and the people of God,^\t) This was 
 evidently the understanding of Butte rworth, the Baptist 
 writer, when he called the Jews " the church and peo- 
 ple of God." This is in conformity with Lev. xvi. 33, 
 which says ^^ He shall make an atonement for the priests, 
 and for all the htlpil CDi^^ people of the churchJ^ 
 Moses uses the word people alone, in a sense which can- 
 not easily be misunderstood. " Whatsoever soul it be that 
 '' eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be 
 " cut off from his people. ^\a) The word people here 
 evidently means the same church contemplated in Lev. 
 xix. 20, and Ex. xii. 9, from which church it is ordained 
 that a soul shall be cut off for eating leavened bread, and 
 
 V) E 
 
 Exodus xii. 19. 
 
 •purious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 223, quoted above. 
 JO See his tenth Lecture on Kcclesiastical History, quoted abo\ p, 
 ,a) Lev, vii. 2f, 
 
{ 64 ; 
 
 for neglecting to purify himself. And from premises 
 which we have already shewn are admitted by Baptists 
 and Pedohaptists, we fairly conclude that this visible 
 church of God is meant by the people from whom the 
 uncircumcised man-child is said to be cut olF in Gen. 
 xvii. 14. " And the uncircumcised man-child, whose 
 ^' flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall 
 " be cut off from \i\^ people; [that is, from his church ;] 
 '' he hath broken my covenant;" [that is my ecclesiastical 
 covenant,] made four hundred and thirty years before 
 my Opponent's ecclesiastical covenant, at Sinai. 
 
 If I be not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent's own 
 argument operates with irresistible force against himself. 
 He reasons that the Jews were not a church until they 
 came to Sinai, because they were not called a church 
 until that period. Then if they had been called a church 
 before, this would prove that they were really a church 
 before the Sinaitic covenant. But we have shewn 
 several proofs that they were called a church, in the 
 ecclesiastical sense of the word, before they left Egypt, 
 and we have shewn that they were called by a name " con- 
 fessedly equivalent" in the covenant with Abraham, 
 where the violation of that covenant is given as a reason 
 for excommunication from that church. This su'nject 
 we hope, with divine permission, to pursue farther before 
 we are done with the proposition that " Abraham and 
 his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of 
 God." 
 
 When we speak of Abraham's seed, take notice that 
 this is the language which the scriptures use on this very 
 subject. God says to Abraham, " This is my covenant 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 ^^ vvhicli ye shall keep between me and you, and thy 
 ^^ SEED after thee ; every man-child among you shall be 
 " circumcised. '^(m; This term is not used to embrace 
 the children of Hagar and Keturah. " And God said, 
 ^•' Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed ; and thou 
 " shalt call his name Isaac : and I will establish my co- 
 '' venant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with 
 '' HIS SEED after him.''(z;) " And God said unto Abra- 
 '^ ham, let it not be grievous in thy sight, because of the 
 '' lad, and because of thy bond-w^oman; in all that Sarah 
 " hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice : for in 
 '' Isaac shall thy seed be called.^^(z^;j " Neither be- 
 '' cause they are the seed of Abraham, are they all chil- 
 '' dren : but in Isaac shall thy seed bccalled. That is, 
 '' they which are the children of the flesh, these are not 
 " the children of God : but the children of the promise 
 ^' are counted for the seed.'^(:c) 
 
 This ecclesiastical seed does not embrace the de- 
 scendants of Isaac universally. Reprobate Esau, and, 
 to a great degree, his progeny, were excluded, with 
 every uncircumcised male of Jacobus posterity, accord- 
 ing to Gen. xvii. 14. Moreover, the excommunication 
 of even circumcised persons must have sometimes occur- 
 red. Instances are mentioned in the New Testament. Cy) 
 At an earlier period, Ezra proclaimed a general meet- 
 ing, from which, if any man were absent, " all his sub- 
 ^' stance should be forfeited, and himself separated from 
 '' the ^T^'^ church of those that had been carried away.'' 
 On this passage. Dr. Gill, the greatest Baptist Commen- 
 
 
 ren. xvii. 10. (t^) Gen. xvii. 19. (w) Gen. xxi. 13. 
 
 lom. ix, 7, 8. (i/) John ix. 22. comp. Lijke vi, 22, 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 tator, says that the absentee from this meeting '^ should 
 be excommunicated from them as a church, and be no 
 more reckoned of the body politic, or a freeman of 
 Israel^ and so deprived of all privileges, both in church 
 and state. '^(z) That very excommunication which the 
 Doctor says was here threatened, was afterward inflicted 
 upon the great body of the Jewish people, the old 
 branches of the ecclesiastical olive tree. Paul says, 
 ^^ because of unbelief they were broken ofr.'^(a) If, 
 therefore, there had been no engrafting of foreign cions, 
 the church would have been nearly or altogether ex- 
 tinct. 
 
 We observe, therefore, that the ecclesiastical seed 
 did not embrace the descendants of Isaac exclusively. 
 According to Moses, Edomites were permitted to ^^ enter 
 into the Snp church of the Lord in their third genera- 
 tion. ''(6) In Isaiah, (c) God has promised great additions 
 from Egypt and Assyria. And we are informed of the 
 actual accession of Ebed-Melech, the Ethiopian^ Rahab 
 of Jericho, and Ruth the Moabitess.(«?) Besides this, 
 there is an innumerable multitude whom Paul represents 
 as saying " The branches were broken off, that I might 
 be grafted in.^'(e) Concerning these he says, " They 
 which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham ;"(/) 
 upon the ground, that " to Abraham and his seed were 
 the promises made."(^) 
 
 These materials afford the following definition, viz. 
 The ^EED of Abraham are his descendants in the line ol' 
 
 (2) Gill's Commentary on Ezra x. 8. (a) Rom. xi. 20. 
 
 {b) Deut. xxiii. 7, 8. (r) xix. 23, 24. 
 
 Id) Jer. xxxviii. 7 — 12. Matt. i. '>. ie) Rom. xi. 19. 
 
 (/)Gal. iii. 9. (5-) Gal. iii. 16, 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 Isaac, in good standing as professors of the true religion, 
 with others added to them. Substituting this periphrasis 
 for the word seed, in the proposition now under discus- 
 sion, it will read as follows, viz. Abraham and his 
 descendants, in the line of Isaac, in good standing as 
 professors of the true religion, with others added to 
 them, were divinely constituted a visible church of God. 
 
 It will, of course, be understood that the phrase visible 
 church means a society, distinct from the body of the 
 elect, and distinct from that portion of the elect who 
 are already in glory. These are called the invisible 
 church, and the church triumphant ; from which the 
 visible church, whether under the old or the new dis- 
 pensation, is quite distinct. It is a visible society, acting 
 as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordi- 
 nances of revealed religion. With the substitution of 
 this explanation, for the phrase which it is intended to 
 define, the proposition under consideration will read as 
 follows, viz. Abraham and his seed were divinely con- 
 stituted a visible society, acting as the consecrated 
 depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed 
 religion. 
 
 In oppugnation of this position, it will not avail to 
 prove that the Jews were a body politic ; for this is 
 quite consistent with their being an ecclesiastical body 
 also : and the fact of their being both a church and a 
 state, is admitted in the extract just now given from the 
 great Baptist commentator. Dr. Gill. It is equally 
 futile to produce instances of a simuUaneous tenure of 
 civil and ecclesiastical offices ; for this is quite common 
 amongst us, where church and state are certainly 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 distinct. Neither will it do to alledge the moral turpi- 
 tude of individual members against the existence of the 
 Jewish, any more than the Christian church ; for spotless 
 purity belongs to the church triumphant only, and even 
 universal sincerity to the invisible church only. I would 
 also wish you to remember that the question is not now 
 concerning the sameness of the Jewish and Christian 
 churches, but whether the Jews were a church at all. 
 That they were, I shall endeavour to prove, by shewing 
 that they had the qualifications and constituents of a 
 church, in the following order : 
 
 1. The oracles of a church, 
 
 2. The ordinances. 
 
 3. The members. 
 
 4. The ofiicers. 
 
 5. The constitution. 
 
 6. The inspired name of a church. 
 
 If all these points can be proved from the word of 
 God, we shall have good reason for believing that 
 Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible 
 church of God ; and we shall have advanced one step 
 to the conclusion that a command given to him, for 
 administering to infants the initiatory seal of the church, 
 is still binding. 
 
 POINT I. 
 
 The Jews had the oracles of a visible Church of God. 
 
 Paul says, " unto them were committed the Oracles of 
 '' God."(A) The character and design of these oj-acles' 
 
 i/i) Rom. iii. 2. 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 were evidently not those of a mere political code ; but 
 to convey religious instruction, to testify of Christ, to 
 give us hope, life, wisdom and salvation. Concerning 
 them, Peter says, ^' We have also a more sure word of 
 ^^ prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as 
 '^ unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day 
 *^ dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts.''(z) Paul 
 says, ^^ From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures 
 ^' [of the Old Testament] which are able to make thee 
 ^^ wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ 
 ^^ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, 
 ^' and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc- 
 ^^ tion, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of 
 *^ God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
 ^^ good works.'^Cy) John says, ^^ The testimony of Jesus 
 ^^ is the spirit of prophecy.'^(^) In addressing the Jews, 
 our Saviour said, ^^ Search the scriptures ; for in them 
 ^^ ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they 
 ^^ which testify of me/^ ^^ For had ye believed Moses, 
 ^^ ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.'^(/) 
 When the rich man in hell besought the patriarch in 
 heaven, to send an extraordinary messenger to his five 
 brethren, ^^ Abraham saith unto him, they have Mose& 
 " and the prophets ; let them hear them.^' When the 
 rich man repeated his request that one might arise from 
 the dead, Abraham replied, "If they hear not Moses 
 " and ihe prophets, neither will they be persuaded^ 
 " though one rose from the dead.(^) By the mouth of 
 
 (i) 2 Pet. i. 19. compare verses 20. 21. (J) 2 Tim. iii. 15— ir. 
 (A-) Rev. xix. 10. (/) John v. 39. 46, 
 
 Cm)Luke xvi. 27—31. 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 Ezekiel, one of those prophets, God says, " I gave them 
 " my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which, 
 ^^ if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover, 
 " also, I gave them my sahbaths, to be a sign between 
 '^ me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord 
 " that sanctify them."(n) The Psalmist says, '' For he 
 ^^ established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law 
 '^ in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they 
 " should make them known to their children, that the 
 ^' generation to come might know them, even the chil- 
 ^' dren which should be born, who should arise and 
 ^' declare them to their children, that they might set 
 '' their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, 
 '' but keep hiscommandments."(o) On the declaration 
 of the Psalmist, that "he established a testimony in 
 " Jacob,'^ the great Baptist commentator speaks as 
 follows, viz. " This is established in the house of Jacob, 
 *' (as the Targum ;) in the churchy which is the pillar 
 *'^ and ground of truth, among the saints and people of 
 " Godj to whom it is delivered, and by whom it will be 
 '* kept, and with whom it will remain throughout all 
 '• ages, for it is the everlasting gospel.'^ It is pleasing 
 to find such high Baptist authority as Dr. Gill, admitting 
 that the Old Testament oracles contained the gospel, 
 and that this testimony was committed to Jacob as a 
 churchy as the saints and people of God, 
 
 {n) Ez. XX, 11, 12. (o) Psalm Ixxviii. 5—8 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 POIIVT II. 
 
 The Jews had the ordinances of a visible Church of God. 
 
 '' Who are Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the adop- 
 " tion, and the glory, and the covenants, [among which 
 ^^ that with Abraham is prominent,] and the giving of 
 " the law, and the service of God, and the promises ; 
 " whose are the fathers, [among whom Abraham holds a 
 " conspicuous place,] and of whom, as concerning the 
 ^^ flesh, Christ [the substance of all the ordinances] came, 
 " who is over all, God blessed forever/'(j&) Long be- 
 fore the transactions at Sinai, the covenant with Abra- 
 ham recognized the ordinance of circumcision. " And 
 ^* God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant, 
 " therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in their gene- 
 '^ rations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep 
 " between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every 
 " man-child among you shall be circumcised. ^^(g) In 
 the wilderness God gave them the manna which was a 
 daily spiritual feast. " For the bread of God is he 
 '' which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto 
 '' the world. Then said they unto him. Lord, evermore 
 '^ give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am 
 " the bread of life : he that cometh to me shall never 
 *^ hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never 
 '' thirst.''(r) On the words " evermore give us this 
 bread,'' Dr. Gill observes, " but to such who are true 
 " believers in Christ, who have tasted that the Lord is 
 
 (/i) Rom. ix. 4, 5. (9) Gen. xvii. 9, 10. (r) John vi, 33 — 35. 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 " gracious, Christ, the true manna and bread of God, is 
 ^^ all things to them ; nor do they desire any other: they 
 " taste every thing that is delightful, and find every 
 " thing that is nourishing in him.'^ Paul connects this 
 with the stream which quenched their thirst. '^ And 
 ^^ did all eat the same spiritual meat ; and did all drink 
 ^^ the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spi- 
 ^^ ritual rock which followed them, and that Rock was 
 ^^ Christ.'^*) On this passage, Dr. Gill remarks that 
 '^ Christ may be compared to the rock,'^ ^^ in the sup- 
 port of his church,''^ " as he is the foundation of his 
 church and every believer,'^ *' as the foundation of his 
 churchy abiding forever.'' Now compare the text and 
 the Baptist commentary. The Apostle informs us that 
 the Jews, long before the Christian dispensation, were 
 supported by the spiritual Rock : the Commentator de- 
 clares that those who were thus supported, stand in re- 
 lation to Christ, as his church ; and the expression his 
 CHURCH is thrice repeated in a few lines. If there be 
 meaning in language, this points out the Jews before the 
 New Testament day, as the church of Christ. 
 
 But my Opponent professes to produce New Testa- 
 ment authority, to shew that the ordinances of the Jews 
 were not such as should belong to the spiritual and hea- 
 venly religion of the true God, but that they were 
 worldly and carnal ordinances. Paul says, " Then ve- 
 '' rily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine 
 '' service, and a worldhj sanctuary.'' " Which stood 
 ^' only in meats and divers washings, and carnal ordi- 
 
 («) 1 Cor, X. 3, 4. 
 
( 73 ) 
 
 ^^ nances imposed on them, until the time of reforma- 
 '' tion."(/) To support him here, he adduces the trans- 
 lation and commentary of the learned Dr. Macknight, a 
 celebrated Pedobaptist. It would be well for him to 
 examine his notes, and see whether this is not a mistaken 
 reference. Although the Dr. had a tender regard for 
 ahtiost all descriptions of error, he does not support my 
 Opponent, on the point for which he is cited. The Dr. 
 tells us thftt this worldly sanctuary was called so, " not 
 " because it was a holy place on earth, and made of 
 '' materials furnished from the earth, but because it was 
 '^ a representation of the world or universe. ^^ It may 
 surely be all this, and yet a proper sanctuary for the 
 worship of the true God by his visible church. As for 
 these carnal ordinances, he calls them '^ ordinances con- 
 ^' cerning the flesh,"^ '' respecting the purifying of the 
 '' body,^^ "literally, righteousnesses of the flesh, things 
 ^' which make the flesh, not the spirit righteous.'^ 
 These are his own words, in his translation, commentary, 
 and notes. These words are correct, even where they 
 oppose Dr. Magee's opinion that, in some cases, the 
 Jewish sacrifices make a real satisfaction to divine 
 justice. On these and the various ordinances connected 
 with them, I believe, with Dr. Gill, " that they were all 
 " types and figures of Christ, and had their fulfilment in 
 " him.''(w) He shews that Philo, the Jew, explained 
 this worldly sanctuary as Macknight does ; yet surely 
 Philo believed the Jews to be a church. In opposition 
 to them both, however, the Dr. says, " It was rather 
 
 (0 Hebr. ix. 1. 10. (m) On Hebr. ix. 1. 
 
 K 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 ^^ either a type of the church, or of heaven, or of 
 ^^ Christ's human nature : the better reason of its being 
 ^^ so called is, because it consisted of earthly matter 
 " and worldly things ; it was in the world, and only had 
 '' its use in the world, and so is opposed to the heavenly 
 ^^ sanctuary.''(w) None of these views have the least 
 bearing against the doctrine that this worldly sanctuary 
 is an ecclesiastical sanctuary, unless you will first prove 
 that no church can exist in the world. But that we may 
 not be at a loss concerning its ecclesiastical character, 
 God said to Solomon, " I have heard thy prayer, and 
 " have chosen this place to myself, for an house of 
 ^' sacrifice." " Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine 
 *^ ears attent unto thy prayer, that is made in this place. 
 '' For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that 
 " my name may be there forever : and mine eyes and 
 ^' mine heart shall be there perpetually."(z;) If a holy 
 residence of God, consecrated to sacrifice and prayer, 
 is not dignified enough to be called an ecclesiastical 
 sanctuary, I should like to know where you would find a 
 church in our day. This doctrine was held by the 
 Jews, in opposition to the Samaritans, down to the time 
 of our Saviour, to whom the Samaritan woman applied 
 to decide the controversy. This gave him an oppor- 
 tunity of instructing her in the new dispensation, which 
 has laid the dispute asleep almost ever since, until, m 
 late days, it has been revived by some Baptists, who 
 have a zeal not according to knowledge. Among those 
 I am happy to find that the pious and learned Dr. Gill is 
 
 (m) On Hebr. ix. 1. C^O 2 Chr. vil 12, 15, 16. 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 not numbered. He comments upon the words of the 
 Samaritan woman, as follows, viz. ^^ Jlnd ye say that in 
 '' Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship; 
 ^^ that is, in the temple there; who urged, and very 
 '^ rightly, that God had chosen that place to put his 
 '^ name, and fix his worship there ; and had ordered 
 '' them to come thither, and bring their offerings and sacri- 
 ^^ fices, arid to keep their Passover and other feasts.^Y^) 
 
 POINT III. 
 
 The Jewish society had the members of a visible church. 
 
 The ordinances of which we have been speaking, 
 were emblematical of sanctification, and required 
 evidence of sanctification in their adult communicants. 
 It is true that this is a thing of which my Opponent has no 
 very high opinion, as he scoffs at the very Baptists 
 themselves, for requiring of candidates some accownt of 
 their religious experience, preparatory to initiation. 
 But with pious Baptists this is esteemed important. So 
 do the scriptures esteem it important in the subjects 
 of circumcision. " Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin 
 ^' of your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked. '^(^) 
 ^' The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and 
 ^^ the heart of thy seed, to love the lord thy God, with 
 ^' all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest 
 '' live."(^) " All these nations are uncircumcised, 
 ^' and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the 
 
 (w) Gill on John iv. 20. For proof he refers to Deut. xii. 5. 6. xvj, 2, 
 {t) Deut, X. 16. {ij) Deut. xxx. 6, 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 ^' heart.''(2) '^ Ye stifFnecked and uncircumcised in 
 " heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost ; 
 ^' as your fathers did^ so do ye. ''(a) " And thou shalt 
 ^' say to the rebellious; even to the house of Israel, thus 
 ^' saith the Lord God, ye house of Israel, let it suffice 
 ^' you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought 
 ^' into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, 
 ^' and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to 
 ^^ pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread, 
 " the fat and the blood, and they have broken my cove- 
 ^^ nant, because of all your abominations.'^(6) 
 
 It is one glorious feature of the visible church, that 
 it requires evidence of regeneration in those who are 
 candidates for membership. The scriptures which 
 have just now been read, plainly shew that the Jewish 
 society had this feature of a church : for, according to 
 these texts, they violated the constitution of the church, 
 whenever they received proselytes without evidence of 
 piety. This is so conspicuously the spirit of these 
 passages, that I know no way of escaping their force, 
 but by proving that they are not intended for the literal 
 Israel, but that they are prophecies exclusively appli- 
 cable to the Christian church. Dr. Gill says that the 
 last authority which I have quoted (Ez. xliv. 6, 7.) 
 ^^ well agrees with these declining churches in the latter 
 *^ day, and even in our times :'^ yet, unhappily for my 
 opponent, the Dr. says at the same time, that the picture 
 there given " is a character of literal Israel from the 
 ^' beginning.'' The Dr. tells us that they are con- 
 
 (z) Jer. ix. 26. («) Acts vii. 51, 
 
 (A) Ez. xliv. 6, r, . 
 
X 
 
 ( 77 ) 
 
 demned for introducing '^ strangers," because they are 
 ^^ unregenerate men, who are in a state of alienation and 
 ^^estrangement to divine and spiritual things." The 
 ^^ uncircumcised in heart/' whom they were forbidden 
 to receive as members, Dr. Gill understands to be those 
 ^' who never were pricked in the heart for sin, or felt any 
 *^ pain there on account of it ; never had the hardness 
 ^^ of their heart removed, or the impurity of it dis- 
 ^^ covered to them ; never were filled with shame and 
 ^^ loathing because of it ; or ever put off the body of 
 ^^ sins in a coui;se of conversation ; or renounced their 
 *^ own righteousness." This last text censures the 
 church for polluting the sanctuary by the introduction 
 of persons who were even uncircumcised in flesh. 
 These, the Dr. says, were " carnal as they were born ; 
 ^^ men in the flesh, in a state of nature, mind and savour 
 '^ the things of the flesh, and do the works of it ; having 
 ^^ never been taught by the grace of God, to deny un- 
 ^' godliness and worldly lusts, and to abstain from fleshly 
 ^^ ones : or who put their trust in the flesh, in outward 
 ^^ things, in carnal privileges, and external righteous- 
 ^^ ness. These the Lord complains were brought to be 
 ^' in my sanctuary^ to pollute it, even my house ; either 
 ^^ to be members here, and partake of all the ordinances 
 ^^ and privileges of the Lord^s house; or to officiate 
 ^^ here as priests and ministers of the Lord." Accord- 
 ing to these words of Dr. Gill, he must have thought, 
 that evidence of regeneration was as requisite to mem- 
 bership in the Lord's house, under the Old Testament 
 dispensation, as under the New. No wonder then, that 
 he thought the Jews a church. This opinion is confirm- 
 
{ 78 ) 
 
 ed in the New Testament, by the allusions which it 
 makes to the Old ; '^ and you being dead in your sins, 
 '' and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he 
 ^^ quickened together with him, having forgiven you all 
 '^ trespasses.^^(c) 
 
 On this subject I would wish you attentively to read, 
 and devoutly to consider Psalm 1. 7 — 23. On the first 
 of these verses, which begins, '^ Hear my people,'^ 
 Dr. Gill remarks, '' This is an address to the people of 
 ^^ the Jews, whom God had chosen to be his people above 
 ^' all others, and who professed themselves to be hispeo- 
 ^^ pie; but a lo-ammi was about to be written upon 
 ^^ them, being a people uncircumcised in heart and ears, 
 '^ refusing to hear the great prophet of the churchy him 
 ^' that spake from heaven." Here people and church 
 are used synonymously, as they are by my Opponent ; 
 and the Jews are justly said to be, by their own profes- 
 sion, and the choice of God, his people; and Christ is 
 said to be the prophet of their churchy as well as of the 
 New Testament church. 
 
 I have the same request to make concerning your 
 perusal of Is. i. 10 — 20. The ninth verse predicts the 
 destruction of Jerusalem, which threatened an utter 
 extinction of God's people, '' except the Lord had left 
 ^^ unto us a very small remnant." "And this," says 
 Dr. Gill, ^' was done unto us, for the sake of his churchy 
 ^' that that might continue, and he might have a seed to 
 ^' serve him." Here the Dr. considers the Christian 
 ^^ dispensation a continuance of the us to whom Isaiah 
 
 ' (r) Coll. ii. 13. 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 belonged ; and this us he calls a church. The context 
 to which I have referred you, shews that its members 
 were called to the same holiness which is required in 
 Christians. Thus does Dr. Gill explain God^s command 
 by Moses, that the Jews should be " an holy nation.^^((/) 
 He says that it means '' being separated from all others, 
 '' and devoted to the worship and service of God, having 
 ^^ holy laws and holy ordinances, and a holy service, 
 ^* and a holy place to perform it in, and holy persons to 
 '^ attend unto it, as they afterwards had.'^ The same 
 great Baptist writer declares the ^' holy seed'^ mentioned 
 by Ezra,(^) to be ^^such as the Lord had separated 
 ^^ from other nations, chosen them to be k\\ holy people 
 '^ above all others, and devoted them to his service and 
 ^' worship. ^^ When the most excellent of the Baptist 
 denomination speak thus of the Jews; but especially 
 when the holy and infallible word of God speaks thus of 
 the constitutional obligations of members of the Jewish 
 society, can you wonder at us for calling them a visible 
 church ? 
 
 POINT IV. 
 
 The Jewish society had the officers of a visible church. 
 
 The priesthood was an office consecrated to ecclesiasti- 
 cal purposes, and therefore was guarded from intrusion by 
 severe penalties. After the earth had swallowed up 
 Korah^ Dathan and Abiram, " There came out a fire 
 '' from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and 
 
 (c?) Ex. xix. 6. (e) ix. 2, 
 
( 80 ) 
 
 ^' fifty men that offered incense. "(/) " And the anger 
 " of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and God smote 
 '' him there for his error, and there he died by the ark 
 " of God/^(^) " And they withstood Uzziah the king, 
 " and said unto him, it appertaineth not unto thee, 
 " Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the 
 ^' priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to 
 " burn incense : go out of the sanctuary ; for thou hast 
 '' trespassed ; neither shall it be for thine honour from 
 " the Lord God.'^(A) 
 
 There is a very great contrast between my Opponent 
 and the old fashioned Baptists, about the officers of the 
 church, and the manner in which they shall be support- 
 ed. My Opponent is for putting down the clergy at 
 a blow, as not only unworthy of being maintained by 
 the church, but unworthy of any distinction by minis- 
 terial ordination. He is as complete a leveller as any 
 infidel. This arises not from any love for liberty and 
 equality, but from a desire to monopolize in his own 
 person, all that influence which is now divided among 
 the clergy of his own denomination and others, and 
 from a desire to pervert to the destruction of souls that 
 influence which they should use for edification. His 
 way to scatter the sheep is to smite the shepherd. Not 
 so our good old Dr. Gill, who, in every thing except 
 public disputation, is worth a thousand of him. In 
 commenting upon one of EzekieFs appropriations for 
 the priests, he says, " This holy portion of land, ex- 
 cepting that which is for the sanctuary, is to be for the 
 
 ) Num. xvi. 35. {g) 2 Sam. vi. 7. 
 
 ) 2 Chr. xxvi. 18. 
 
 a 
 
( 81 ) 
 
 '^ use of the priests, to build houses to dwell in ; signi- 
 '' fying that the ministers of the gospel are to be taken 
 ^' care of, and sufficient provision made for their main- 
 ^' tainance/^(e) In another place he speaks of " the 
 " ministers of the gospel, who shall have a sufficient 
 ^^ maintenance from the churches of Christ, as the 
 ^' priests had under the law." This last is on a verse 
 in which the prophet mentions a spot which '^ shall be a 
 ^' place for their houses," on which the Dr. observes, 
 " In this large spot shall be many congregated churches^ 
 " houses of the living God, where his priests and peo- 
 ^' pie dwell, and will be serving and praising him."(y) 
 On a similar subject, a little before this, he says, 
 ^' These [chambers] were for holy persons to dwell in, 
 ^^ and for holy things to be done in, as the churches of 
 '^ Christ are ; they consist of holy persons, men called 
 '^ with a holy calling, and in them the holy word of 
 ^' God is preached, and holy ordinances administer- 
 ^^ ed.^^(A) Thus does the existence of ecclesiastical 
 officers in the Jewish society, prove them to be a visible 
 church ; and thus does the best Baptist authority admit 
 that they were as real a church '^ as the churches of 
 Christ are," 
 
 POINT V. 
 
 The Jewish Society had the constitution of a visible church. 
 
 Whatsoever may have been said to Abraham and his 
 geed concerning temporal and political blessings, God's 
 
 (0 Ez. xlviii. 10. {j) Ez. xlv. 4. 
 
 (A-)Kz, xlii. 13. 
 
 L 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 covenant with them did, nevertheless, contemplate 
 eternal, spiritual, and ecclesiastical favours. ^' And I 
 ' will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
 ' and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for 
 ^ an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and 
 ^ to thy seed after thee : and I will give unto thee and 
 ^ to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a 
 ' stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting pos- 
 ' session, and I will be their God.^^(/) " Now therefore, 
 ^ if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my cove- 
 ^ nant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me, 
 ' above all people, for all the earth is mine ; and ye 
 ' shall be unio me a kingdom of priests, and an holy 
 ' nation. '^(wi) " The chariots of God are twenty 
 ' thousand, even thousands of angels, the Lord is among 
 ^ them, as in Sinai, in the holy place ; thou hast as- 
 ' cended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou 
 ^ hast received gifts for men, yea, even for the rebel- 
 ' lious also, that the Lord might dwell among them. 
 ' Blessed be the Lord which daily loadeth us with 
 ' benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. He 
 ' that is our God is the God of salvation; and unto God 
 ' the Lord belong the issues from death. '^(??) " He 
 ' sent redemption unto his people, he hath commanded 
 ^ his covenant forever ; Holy and reverend is his 
 ^ name.^'(o) " For he remembered his holy promise, 
 ' and Abraham his servant, and he brought forth his 
 ' people with joy, and his chosen with gladness."(/;) 
 ^ Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited 
 
 (/) Gen. xvii. 7. 8. (m) Ex. xix. 5. 6. («) Ps. Ixviii. 17—20 
 
 (o) Ps. cxi. 9. (/?) Ps. cv. 42. 43. 
 
( 83 ) 
 
 " and redeemed his people ;'^ " to perform the mercy 
 " promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy 
 " covenant, the oath which he sware to our Father 
 '' Abraham. ^'(5') 
 
 Among the authorities just now quoted, one of them 
 mentions Sinai : but it will be observed that it does not 
 refer to the transactions at Sinai, for the origin of the 
 church. Yet that very ^passage proves that the Jews 
 were a church. It is in this capacity " that the Lord 
 " God'' promises to " dwell among them ;'' " that is,'' 
 says Dr. Gill, " that they by the gifts and graces of the 
 '' Spirit bestowed on them, might become a fit habitation 
 ^' for God ; or that they, the rebellious, being now 
 ^' partakers of the grace of God and his gifts, might 
 " dwell with the Lord God in his churches ; enjoy 
 ^' his divine presence, and have communion with him 
 '^ in his word and ordinances.^^ The salvation men- 
 tioned in the very next verse, Dr. Gill does not fritter 
 down to a mere temporal deliverance, but calls it ^' tem- 
 ^^ poral, spiritual, and eternal salvation."(r) It is true 
 that Gill calls the redemption mentioned in one of the 
 texts,(5) a " temporal redemption, as typical of the 
 ^^ spiritual and eternal one ;" but in another of these 
 texts, he believes the spiritual and eternal redemption 
 to be meant, and the typical one only alluded to. The 
 following are his words, viz. "^ For he hath visited and 
 " redeemed his people, as he did Israel of old, Ex. iii. 
 *^ 16, 17, when the Lord looked upon them, and de- 
 '' livered them out of the bondage of Egypt, and which 
 
 (7) Luke i. 68. 72. TS. (r) Gill on Ps. Ixviii, 18. 19. (,?) Ps. cxi. 9. 
 
( 84 ) 
 
 '^ was a type and resemblance of redemption by Christ, 
 ^^ and to which reference here seems to be had/^ But 
 although the redemption here contemplated, refers to a 
 temporal deliverance, the Dr. says that it " intends the 
 " spiritual and eternal redemption of them by the price 
 ^^ of his blood, from the slavery of sin ; the bondage of 
 ^^ the law, and curse of it, and the captivity of Satan, 
 '^ and a deliverance out of the hands of every enemy ; 
 " a redemption which reaches both to soul and body, 
 ^^ and secures from all condemnation and wrath to come ; 
 '^ and includes every blessing in it, as justification, 
 " forgiveness of sins, adoption, sanctification, and 
 '^ eternal life, and is a plenteous, full, complete, and 
 " everlasting one."(0 
 
 It is plain, then, that the redemption here mentioned 
 is not merely a temporal or political one, but a spiritual 
 and eternal redemption. It is also plain that it is con- 
 ferred upon God's " people,^^ a word which my Oppo- 
 nent considers equivalent to church. The text more- 
 over informs us that this was done, " to perform the 
 mercy promised to our fathers,'^ not at Mount Sinai, but 
 " to remember his holy covenant , the oath which he 
 ^' sware to our father Abraham ;'' many hundred years 
 before the transactions at Sinai. 
 
 It is in reference to this holy covenant, that Moses 
 said to Israel, " thou art an holy pcople.^^ " Not sanc- 
 '' tified'' says Dr. Gill, '^ in a spiritual sense, or having 
 " principles of grace and holiness in them, from whence 
 ** holy actions sprang, at least, not all of them ; but 
 
 (/) Gill on Luke i. 63. 
 
( 85 ) 
 
 ^^ they were separated from all other people in the 
 ^^ world to the pure worship and service of God in an 
 '^ external manner^ and therefore were to avoid all 
 ^' idolatry and every appearance of it.'^ The remain- 
 der of the verse which speaks of their being chosen to 
 be a special people, the Dr. understands to mean " for 
 ^' special service and worship, and to enjoy special 
 ^^ privileges and benefits, civil and religious,^\u) 
 Elsewhere, when Moses speaks of their being ^^ an holi/ 
 ^' people unto the Lord,'^ Gill explains it, " set apart 
 ^' by him from all other people, and devoted to his 
 '' worship and service, and many of them were sancti- 
 '' fied and made holy in a special and spiritual sense." 
 The remainder of the verse calls them a peculiar peo- 
 ple. Gill explains this peculiarity as consisting '^ espe- 
 " cially in things sacred,^^[v) My aim is to prove from 
 scripture, that Abraham and his seed have the constitu- 
 tion of a visible church ; that is, that they were a conse- 
 crated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed 
 religion. Dr. Gill has proved from scripture, that they 
 were '' set apart'^ as a holy people, a special people, a 
 peculiar people, " especially in things sacred" and 
 " religious :" all this, too, upon the constitution of " his 
 holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father 
 Abraham." They were therefore a church. 
 
 (m) Gill on Ex. vii. 6. (r) GUI on Ex. xiv, 2, 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 POIIVT VI. 
 
 The Jewish society had the express, inspired, and unequivocal 
 KAME of a church. 
 
 These points are professedly intended to support the 
 proposition that " Abraham and his seed were divinely 
 constituted a visible church of God.'^ Soon after that 
 proposition was announced^ some remarks were made, 
 and more were promised, on the name of a church. My 
 farther progress on this subject, my Opponent has 
 endeavoured to obstruct by the authority of Dr. Mason, 
 who has the appearance of being against me. He speaks 
 as follows, viz. " The word church, derived from the 
 " Greek, xv^iaxov, signifies the house of the Lord, 
 " and marks the property which he has in it. But the 
 '^ original words which it is employed to translate, sig- 
 " nify a different thing. The Hebrew words 7Hp and 
 " n^i^ in the Old Testament, and the corresponding one 
 ^' ixx-Kviaio, in the New, all signify an assembly, espe- 
 '' cially one convened by invitation or appointment. 
 '' That this is their generic sense, no scholar will deny ; 
 *^ nor that their particular applications are ultimately 
 '' resolvable into it. Hence it is evident that from the 
 " terms themselves nothing can be concluded as to the 
 " nature and extent of the assembly which they denote. 
 " Whenever either of the two former occurs in the Old 
 '' Testament, or the other in the New, you are sure of 
 " an assembly, but of nothing more. What that asseni- 
 " bly is, and wivom it comprehends, you must learn 
 '' from the connexion of the term, and the subject of 
 
I 
 
 ( 87 ) 
 
 ^^ the writer.'^ {tv) The Dr. then proceeds to give 
 instances of the diversified application of these several 
 words. 
 
 When this eminent scholar observes that we raust 
 learn the meaning of the word " from the connexion of 
 the term, and the subject of the writer/' he says what 
 is true not only of the word church, but of those words 
 which all will confess to have been reduced from their 
 generic signification to an appropriate meaning. This 
 remark may be elucidated by the title of the most dis- 
 tinguished ofiicer in the church. It is the word apostle. 
 Concerning this, we may say as Dr. Mason has oi church, 
 " What an Apostle is, and whom it points out, whether 
 '' an ordinary or extraordinary agent^ whether Christ, 
 '^ one of the twelve, or any other person, you must 
 " learn from the connexion of the term, and the sub- 
 " ject of the writer P The Greek word signifies a 
 messenger. (x) " That this is its generic sense, no 
 scholar will deny, nor that its particular applications 
 are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident 
 that from the term itself, nothing can be concluded as to 
 the character of the messenger which it denotes. 
 Whenever it occurs in the Old or New Testament, you 
 are sure of a messenger, but of nothing more." 
 
 After thus applying all Dr. Mason's remarks to the 
 word apostle as well as church, suppose a question to 
 arise concerning the apostleship of Paul, as one has arisen 
 concerning the ecclesiastical standing of the Jews. Was 
 
 (w) Mason on tKe Church, pp. 8—10. Christian's Magazine, vol, 1. 
 pp. 54— 5f). 
 
 (x) See Phil. ii. 25. and 1 Kings xiv. 6, in the Greek. 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 Paul an ordinary messenger of ordinary matters^ from 
 one ordinary man to another; or was he an extraordinary, 
 spiritual, ecclesiastical Apostle of Jesus Christ? I say 
 that he was the latter, and I very naturally try to prove 
 it, by shewing that the scriptures apply to him the 
 express, inspired, and unequivocal name of an Apostle. 
 This conclusion is so far from being forbidden by Dr. 
 Mason's remarks, that it is attained in the very way 
 which he points out, " from the co7%nexion of the term, 
 and the subject of the writer." From these we plainly 
 see that the term is applied to Paul, not in its generic 
 sense, but in its appropriate meaning. It points him 
 out, not as an ordinary, secular messenger from man, 
 but as an inspired ecclesiastical messenger from our 
 divine Redeemer. Shall we say then, that his being so 
 called, in such a connexion, is no evidence of his apos- 
 tleship, in the highest sense in which the term is applied 
 to men? Shall we say that the mere fact that a word 
 originally has a generic sense, shall forever disqualify 
 it from pointing out a particular object? Shall we say, 
 that because it has a variety of meanings, it can have no 
 definite meaning at all ? If so, then let us be consistent, 
 and openly relinquish the common and well established 
 proof of Christ's divinity, from the fact that the express, 
 inspired, and unequivocal name of God is applied to him 
 in the scriptures. But if we admit, as all real Christians 
 do, that the application of this name to Christ, proves 
 him to be the true God ; and that the application of 
 another name to Paul, proves him to be an apostle of 
 God ; then the application of a third name to the Jews 
 will prove them to have been the church of God. 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 When speaking on this subject before, I quoted some 
 texts wliich contained both in the Hebrew and in the 
 Septuagint, two words, both of which signify churchy 
 as Dr. Mason has correctly informed you. Other pas- 
 sages in which the same thing occurs, I shall have to 
 quote now. That these two synonimous nouns are 
 connected by a simple conjunction, is accounted for, 
 upon a principle, which is remarkable in the Hebrew, 
 though not peculiar to that language. It is, that nouns 
 are often attached to other nouns, to answer the purpose 
 of adjectives and participles. (y) When, therefore, 7np 
 the church, and HTJ^ the church, are put together, they 
 appear to signify the meeting met, or the congregation 
 congregated, or the church assembled. Thus does Dr. 
 Gill understand it in Prov. v. 14, where the Septuagint 
 translates these words by ixxxr^aio. and awayi^yri. " I was al- 
 most in all evil in the midst of the church assemhled,^^ 
 The Dr. understands this to mean, ^^in the house of 
 God, attending public worship,^^ " even in the presence 
 and before the people of God.'^ This great Baptist 
 Commentator evidently considered this text a proof that 
 the Old Testament worshippers were the visible church 
 of God : for what else can he mean by calling them the 
 people of God, attending public worship, in the house 
 of God? 
 
 In the Septuagint of Levit. iv. 13, both these words 
 
 (y) " When one substantive is joined to another by a copulative, the 
 one' must be translated as governing the other. " Macknight's fourth Pre- 
 liminary Essay, Section 19. ** As the Jews had but few adjectives in their 
 language, they had recourse to substantives, in order to supply their 
 place." Home's seventh rule on the Hebraisms of the New Testament. 
 The same examples, in part, are adduced by both. 
 
 M 
 
( 90 ) 
 
 are rendered ewayt^ytj, '' And if the whole n"iy 
 church of Israel sin through ignorance^ and the thing 
 be hid from the eyes of Snpll the church.'^ On this 
 text Dr. Gill quotes, with approbation^ the following 
 words of Ainsw^orth ; ^Hhat the church may err, and 
 *^ the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, con- 
 gregation, or church) so that they don't know that it is 
 a sin which they have committed." 
 
 In Prov. xxi. 16, where the LXX has the same render- 
 ing, ^^ the connexion of the term" shews that the word 
 Snp does not mean the church of God, but " an assem- 
 " bly" of Unitarians or Papists, Polytheists or Atheists. 
 *^ The man that wandereth out of the way of under 
 ^^ standing, shall remain in the congregatio7i of the 
 <^ dead." 
 
 In Prov. xix. 20, where the same words occur for 
 church) in the Hebrew and LXX, " the connexion of 
 ** the term" shews that it means the church of God, ex- 
 communication from which. Gill thinks may be intend- 
 ed.fe) 
 
 The following five texts have Hli^ in the Hebrew, 
 and ovvayu^y^ in the LXX. " Whosoever cateth that 
 which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off 
 from the church of Israel. "(a) To be cut off ^^ from 
 '^ the Israelitish church- state, and have no communion 
 " in it, or partake of the ordinances of it," is one of 
 several alternatives, which Gill thinks may be here in- 
 tended. On this and the last text, the existence of the 
 
 (z^ Compare his note on verse 13, to which he refers, 
 (a) Ex. xii. 19. Comp. 15, and Gjll on the latter, to which he refer* 
 fron> the former. 
 
( 91 ) 
 
 tsraelitish church is taken for granted by this preemi- 
 nent scholar of the Baptist Society. 
 
 God directed Moses to have two silver trumpets made, 
 ^' for the calling of the church, and for the journeying 
 '' of the camps/'(Z>) On this Gill says, " Saints are 
 ^' pilgrims and travellers here ; they are passing through 
 ^' a wilderness, their way is attended with many diffi- 
 ^^ culties ; Canaan is the place they are travelling to*'' 
 
 When two and a half of the tribes of Israel built an 
 altar before they crossed the Jordan, the rest of the 
 church thought them apostates from the true religion, 
 and sent a deputation to them on this subject. Gill 
 copies our translation of the introduction of their messages, 
 and comments upon it as follows, viz. " ' Thus saith the 
 " whole congregation of the Lord,* — By whom they 
 ^•' were sent, and whom they represented ; and they 
 ^' don't call them the congregation of Israel, but of the 
 ^' Lord, because it was not on a civil but religious 
 ^' account they were come, and not to plead their own 
 ^' cause, but the cause of God ; and not so much to 
 '^ shew a concern for their own honour and interest, as 
 ^^ for the glory of God." If they were a religious, and 
 not a civil assembly ; if they were a congregation of the 
 Lord, and not of man ; and if, (as the text proves, and 
 Gill admits,) they acted in these respects, as a visible 
 corporation, then they were just what you and I would 
 call the visible church of God, 
 
 In the same sense ought the following instance t6 be 
 understood. ^* Praise ye the Lord, I will praise the 
 
 {b) Num. X. 2, 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 *^ Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly of the 
 ^^ upright, and in the church,^\c) 
 
 The following authority seems to unite civil and 
 ecclesiastical privileges, and to refer them all, not to the 
 Sinaitic covenant made with their fathers, whose car- 
 cases fell in the wilderness, but to the older covenant 
 made with their father Abraham, and confirmed to Isaac 
 and Jacob. ^^ And because he loved thy fathers, there- 
 fore he chose their seed after them/'(c?) Gill confirms 
 my interpretation as follows, viz. '^ ' And because he 
 ^' loved thy fathers,' — Not their immediate fathers, 
 '' whose carcases fell in the wilderness, and entered not 
 ^' into the good land because of their unbelief, but their 
 '^ more remote fathers or ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and 
 ^^ Jacob, who had some singular testimonies of the love 
 *' of God to them. Abraham is called the friend of 
 ^' God, and Isaac was the son of promise in whom the 
 '' seed was called ; and Jacob is particularly said to be 
 ^^ loved by God, when Esau was hated : ' therefore he 
 *^ chose their seed after them ;' not to eternal life and 
 ^' salvation, but to the enjoyment of external blessings 
 ^^ and privileges, to be called by his name, and to set up 
 ^' his name and worship among them, and to be a special 
 '' people to him above all people on the earth, as to out- 
 ^' ward favours, both civil and ecclesiastical,^^ By 
 denying that they were chosen, in a body, to eternal 
 life, the Dr. shews that he distinguishes them from the 
 invisible church ; but by saying that God had chosen 
 them to be a special people, to have his worship among 
 them, and to enjoy great outward favours, both civil 
 
 (c) Ps. cxi. 1. i^d) Deut. iv. ST, 
 
( 93 ) 
 
 and ECCLESIASTICAL, he shews that they are the visible 
 church. 
 
 I proceed to give some instances in which the words 
 ^'n'D and ixx'KtiGio. are found in the Hebrew and the LXX, 
 to point out the church. On the account which Joshua 
 gives of his reading the law of Moses to the church, 
 Dr. Gill comments as follows, viz. " There was not a 
 ^' word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read 
 '^ not before all the congregation of Israel, [who were 
 ^^ on this occasion called together, and not before the 
 ^' men only, but] with the women and the little ones,'' 
 [who all had a concern in the things that were read to 
 them.](6;) A church of men, women, and little ones, sounds 
 very much like Pedobaptism. In another instance, he 
 speaks still stronger in a similar strain. (/) 
 
 In David's address to Goliah, he says, " And all this 
 '^ assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with the 
 '^ sword and spear." Dr. Gill says that the word assejn- 
 bly means, " The congregation of Israel, and church of 
 " the living God, great part of which was now gathered 
 ^•' together, and were spectators of this wonderful 
 '' event."(^) 
 
 David says, " I will give thee thanks in the great 
 church ; I will praise thee among much people." Dr. 
 Gill explains this to mean, " the church and people of 
 *' Godj^^ " the people of God meeting together for 
 ^' solemn worship. "(A) 
 
 David again says, '^ let them exalt him also in the 
 church of the people." Gill says, — " Of the people of 
 
 {e) Josh. viii. 35 (/) Gill on Joel ii. 16. 
 
 Ig) 1 Sam. xvii. 1. 7, (/;) Ps. xxxv. 18. 
 
( »4 ) 
 
 *^ God, who are gathered out of the world, into a church" 
 '^ state, and who gather themselves together to attend the 
 ^^ worship and service of God in some one place. "(/) 
 
 It is not my intention to tax your patience so far as to 
 quote one fourth of the instances in which the Hebrew 
 and the Septuagint apply JT\T> and ixx-Krioia. to the Jews, 
 as the visible church of God. Out of the comparatively 
 small number of examples which were selected for this 
 point, from the Old Testament, I shall, at present, pass 
 over twenty- two which are now before me.(y) 
 
 MR. CAMPBELL'S 
 
 NEW TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 
 REVIEWED, 
 
 IN CONNEXION WITH THE POINT NOW IN HAND. 
 
 In the New Testament, ecdesia occurs one hundred and four- 
 teen times; in more than one hundred of which it confessedly 
 means the visible church. I do not know that my Opponent will 
 confess this, but every other sort of Baptist will. My reason 
 for excepting him is, that he has such an aversion to the word 
 church, (a word inestimably precious to the Christian,) that he 
 appears determined to banish it from his vocabulary. He has 
 published an English translation of the New Testament, in 
 which, (strange to tell!) neither the word church nor the word 
 baptism is found once. By its title page, it professes to be 
 " The New Testament, translated from the original Greek, by 
 " George Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Dod- 
 ** BRIDGE, Doctors of the Church of Scotland." In the Preface 
 and the list of errata, he speaks of a "London edition of this 
 translation," which "departed io some instances from the origi- 
 
 (i) Ps. cvii. 32. 
 
 0) 1 Kgs. viii. 14. 2 Chr. i. 3. 5. vi. S. (comp. 2.) vi. 12. 13. xxix. 23. 
 28. 31. 32. XXX. 2. 15. 17. 25. 24. Ezr. x, 8.^ Neh. viii. 2. (comp. 3—8.) 
 Ps. xxii. 22. xl. 9. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1. Lam. 1. 10. 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 nal works," of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. Such of 
 these alterations as affected *' the styW^ onlj> he professes to 
 have •'•retained:*' but '*some of these alterations affected the 
 sense j" these he professes to have *' brought back to the original 
 works" of Campbell, Mackniglit, and Doddridge. In this trans- 
 lation, then, we are to look for the meaning of a certain set of 
 men, clothed in another man's style. When the Ettric Shepherd 
 first saw Duncan Campbell, the little stranger, though only seven 
 years old, wore a coat originally made for a man. If this new 
 style should give George Campbell and his companions as 
 grotesque an appearance, my Opponent can account for it, upon 
 the ground that they are just escaped from prison, through his 
 benevolent interposition. Here a writer in the Western Lumi- 
 nary speaks as follows ; viz. '' Mr. Campbell, on this part of his 
 *' subject, says something about the works of Campbell, Dod- 
 *' drid-e, and Macknight having been ' imprisoned;' and seems 
 ** to take credit to himself for having brought them out to pub- 
 ** lie gaze; and considers his own precious existence* necessary 
 *' to prevent them from being again locked up."(/t) How envi- 
 able is the lot of my Opponent! in being the honoured instru- 
 ment of preserving these eminent scholars from rotting in a 
 dungeon. His agency in this business proves the rapid advance 
 of the Western Country in the march of mind* Let posterity 
 know, that, but for the labours of a certain inhabitant of Buffaloe 
 Creek, the works of three of the most celebrated Doctors of 
 Europe would soon have sunk into oblivion. 
 
 As his alterations of his originals are far more numerous than 
 one would expect from the title page, he tells us, in the close of 
 his Appendix, that these emendations " are preferred merely 
 *' because of their being more intelligible to common readers, 
 <' whose edification we have supremely in view." For these 
 alterations he has made ample amends to the admirers of his 
 three worthies, by stuffing their jugulated words into an Appen- 
 dix, with such novel and convenient references, that they are 
 
 {k) Western Lum. for Jan. 3, 1827. 
 
( 96 ) 
 
 almost as easily found as a needle in a hay-stack. Speaking of 
 this in his preface, he says, " All that we can be praised or 
 ** blamed for is this one circumstance, that we have given the 
 " most conspicuous place, to that version which appeared to 
 *' deserve it." That is, when the words of Campbell, Mac- 
 knight, and Doddridge appear to my Opponent the most deserv- 
 ing, he gives them in the text, and places others in the Appendix : 
 but when the words of these three men appear to my Opponent 
 less deserving, he packs them off to the Appendix, and substi- 
 tutes others in the translation, whose names are not mentioned 
 in the title page. Thus every word of this version may be con- 
 sidered as having passed through the crucible of my Opponent's 
 judgment. And who so well calculated to judge among the 
 jarring translations of jarring sects, as that man who possesses 
 the greatest literary and theological attainments, and is, at the 
 same time, perfectly divested of all sectarian feelings or preju- 
 dices, as is evident from the whole career of my Opponent, from 
 Mount Pleasant to Washington. Hear the words of his Preface 
 on this subject. " If the mere publication of a version of the 
 *' inspired writings requires, as we believe it does, the publisher 
 ** to have no sectarian object in view, we are happy in being 
 '* able to appeal to our whole course of public addresses, and to 
 '' all that we have written on religious subjects, to shew that we 
 ** have no such object in view!!!" Perhaps so great a portion 
 of charity, anti-sectarian liberality, and the milk of human kind- 
 ness, can hardly be found in the island of Great Britain, as my 
 Opponent knows to exist in one little privileged spot on the 
 banks of Buffaloe. It is reasonable, therefore, that he should 
 claim to his work superior praise, over the London copy, whose 
 Editors probably spent much of their strength in sectarian de- 
 bates against infant-sprinkling, and the thirty-nine articles, and 
 the thirty-three Chapters, and male and female Missionaries, 
 and Bible and Benevolent Societies, and the observance of 
 family prayer, and the sabbath day. As my Opponent never 
 was known to whisper sectarian charges against other denomina- 
 tions, for holding doctrines or ordinances "injurious to the well- 
 
( 97 ) 
 
 ■1 
 
 being of society, religious or political," he must be indulged in 
 a little commendable boasting, such as the following, viz. 
 " Taking every thing into view, we have no hesitation in saying, 
 " that, in the present improved state of the English language, 
 *« the ideas communicated by the Apostles and Evangelists of 
 *' Jesus Christ, are incomparably better expressed in this, than 
 ** in any volume ever presented in our mother tongue."(/) 
 Whenever, therefore, my Opponent's Translation of the New 
 Testament is mentioned in this discussion, remember, that, 
 *' taking every thing into view," particularly his own rare quali- 
 fications for such a work, it is '* incomparably" the best in the 
 language. 
 
 To set forth his unparallelled qualifications still more fully, 
 he says, in his Preface, "The whole scope, design, and drift of 
 ** our labours is to see Christians intelligent, united and happy." 
 With regard to uniting Christians, his labours, in one way or 
 another, appear to succeed in a small degree. The Western 
 Luminary, (w) informs us that my Opponent has made an inge- 
 nious effort to prove that his two bosom friends, a Unitarian,* 
 and Dr. James Fishback, are united in sentiment, in relation to 
 our Saviour's person, although the former openly rejects the 
 doctrine of his supreme and eternal Deity, and the latter would 
 be thought to receive this doctrine. Moreover, they are now 
 very cordially united in their opposition to creeds and confes- 
 sions, those stubborn things which have been so much in the way 
 of Unitarians, from the Council of Nice to the present day. If 
 Mr. Greatrake and the Orthodox Pastors and Editors, Associa- 
 tions and Conventions of the Baptist denomination have not 
 followed the amiable example of unity which these brethren have 
 set them, it is their own fault. Mr. Greatrake will not admit 
 that my Opponent is for peace abroad or unity at home. Writing 
 to the Western Baptist Churches concerning my Opponent, he 
 says, " Having had you for two or three years spectators of his 
 
 (/) Introduction to Appendix. (m) For Jan. 3, 1827. 
 
 wri 
 rvva 
 
 N 
 
 ♦ The writer, through mistake, gave a wrong name to the Unitarian, 
 as he afterwards informed rae. 
 
•ai 
 
 ( 98 ) 
 
 ** own personal combats, or familiarized jour minds to a view 
 *' of his own fightings, you will find, perhaps too late, that the 
 ** object contemplated by Mr. C. was to prepare you fordissen- 
 *' tions and fightings among yourselves ; to the end that he 
 *' might share the spoils by making you a divided people."(n) 
 As my Opponent refers to his life for his antisectarian charac- 
 ter, 80 Mr. Greatrake says to the churches, " Yes, brethren, 
 search, search his whole life, as far as possible." He then tells 
 them that this scrutiny will irrefragably prove " that you [Bapr 
 ** tists,]as a denomination, have been made the citadel ofhissafe- 
 " ty, while throwing the shafts of his hostility at other denominar 
 *' tions; particularly at that one with which you most assuredly 
 ** stand in the greatest degree of fellowship. The question 
 ** then is, whether Mr. C. represents your feelings towards 
 " the Presbyterian and other Pedobaptist churches, against 
 " whom he ' breathes out threatenings and slaughter ?' If he 
 *' does, let us know what cause they have given for this inter- 
 *' minable rage. But I need not put this sort of question to you, 
 ** being fully persuaded that your greatest partiality is towards 
 *' that very church which Mr. C. appears to hate with the most 
 *' deadly hatred."(o) This is a righteous sentence pronounced 
 in the name of the Western Baptist Churches, by one of their 
 most respectable and worthy ministers, in exculpation of the 
 much injured, and grossly insulted Pedobaptists of this country. 
 It correctly represents my would-be antisectarian Opponent, as 
 breathing threatenings and slaughter^ and throwing the shafts of 
 his hostility with interminable rage, and the most deadly hatred, 
 at other denominations, particularly our own; and as doing this, 
 not to oppose error, (for he is rotten to the core,) but all this 
 zeal against others is, that he may prepare the Baptists for dis- 
 sentions and fightings among themselves, that he may share the 
 spoils of their divisions. He must surely be rarely qualified for 
 writing an incomparable translation of the New Testament! 
 One prominent feature of tliis anomalous production is, that 
 
 (n) Unitarian Baptist of the Robinson School Exposed, p. 88. 
 {o) Do. p. 87. 
 

 
 { 99 ) 
 
 it professes to reject every adopted or anglicised word. Dr. 
 George Campbell's labours in favour of immersion give him some 
 aid in this particular. Complaining of our Translators, the Dr. 
 says, '»some words they have transferred from the original into 
 their language, others they have translated." He wishes that 
 they had not transcribed the word baptism, but given it a dipping 
 translation. He considers baptism, even now, " a foreign name. 
 ** For this reason," says he, " 1 should think the word immer- 
 *' sion (which, though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regu- 
 " larly formed from the verb to immerse,) a better English name 
 '* than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice. "(/)) 
 When great men sicken into a prurient longing to carry some 
 wrong point, what weak arguments they will sometimes use I 
 Now I would inquire of the literary world, if it be not as true, 
 that BAPTISM, though of Greek origin, is an English noun, 
 regularly formed from the verb to baptize, as that immersion, 
 •' though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed 
 from the verb to immerse?''^ Both these words were originally 
 foreign, and both are now naturalized ; and if there be any dif- 
 ference, it is in favour of baptism, because this, being more 
 generally known and understood, is more completely domesti- 
 cated. Besides, the connexion of the term, in the scriptures, 
 shews that immersion would be a perversion, instead of a trans- 
 lation, of the Original. It was evidently this consideration which 
 sometimes made Dr. Macknight follow our Bible in transcribing. 
 He does not say *' All were immersed into Moses in the cloud 
 and in the sea," as my Opponent's incomparable has said for 
 him; but he says " all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and 
 in the sea." When a man's zeal against the adoption of Greek 
 words, leads him not only to publish Dr. Campbell's weak argu- 
 ment, but to invent a fact for Paul, and forge a translation for 
 Macknight, I am ready to say in reference to a reproof once 
 given to an incompetent imitator of Pindar, " Dr. Campbell 
 was bold, but thou art impudent" 
 
 i^fi) See Appendix to the incomparable. No, 4. 
 
( 100 ) 
 
 Scores of alterations, where this word is concerned, are con- 
 fessed in the Appendix; and after he was taxed with the fault 
 he shews that thej were promised in the Prospectus, which, 
 however, is not published with the work, and is in direct oppo- 
 sition to the promise contained in the title-page. His prospectus 
 reads as follows, viz. "There is also one improvement of con- 
 *' siderable importance which ought to be made in this work, 
 ♦* and to which we shall attend. Sundry terms are not trans- 
 ** lated into English, but adopted into those translations from 
 ** long usage. Those terms are occasionally translated into 
 *' English by Campbell and Macknightj but not always. We 
 '* shall uniformly give them the meaning which they have affixed 
 ** to them, wherever they occur, and thus make this a pure 
 '* English New Testament, not mingled with Greek words, 
 " either adopted or anglicised ."(^f) Here is a promise that he 
 will make his translation such pure English, that it shall not 
 contain any adopted words, such as Martyr, Archangel, Myriad^ 
 Mystery, Schism, Blasphemy, Denarius, Eurodydon, Tartarus, 
 Abyss, Hades. Some of these words, such as myriad, denarius, 
 tartarus, abyss, and hades, are translated and not adopted in our 
 bible: but his translation is greatly to excel ours in this respect, 
 and be much purer English. He promises to adopt none, but trans- 
 late all. After this, would you expect to hear me say that he had 
 actually adopted the whole of them, even those which our bible 
 translates? Yet such is the fact! 
 
 In one case, he copies Doddridge, concerning " the martyrs of 
 Jesus,"(r) though in another he alters Doddridge's martyr into 
 witness.[s) Angel is a Greek word anglicised; he therefore re- 
 jects it utterly, and always uses the word Messenger for it. 
 Archangel also is a Greek word transcribed, and might just as 
 properly be rendered Prime-messenger : yet this word he uni- 
 formly adopts. (/) Myriad is a Greek word anglicised, and 
 
 iq) See it quoted in West. Luminary for Jan. 3, 1827. 
 (r) Rev. xvii. 6. («) Rev. ii. 13, 
 
 ( t) In 1 Thess. iv. 16, Jude ix. the only places in which it occurs in the 
 Is. 1 . 
 
( 101 ) f 
 
 when used in connexion with angels, is rendered by Macknight 
 ** ten thousands of angels. "(w) My Opponent's incomparable 
 alters this into ^'myriads of messengers." How wonderfully 
 this elucidates the subjectl But in the Appendix he tells us 
 that such improvements are made, that the scriptures may be 
 *' more intelligible to common readers, whose edification," says 
 he, ''we have supremely in view." Some common readers, 
 however, are so stupid that they would think this improvement 
 worth very little more than a pair of leather spectacles. Besides 
 copying Doddridge in transferring the word mysiery,[v) and 
 Macknight in transferring the word schism^iw) he holds fast to 
 this adopted word twice, even where Macknight translates it^(a;) 
 in one of which instances he justifies himself by the authority of 
 Dr. George Campbell, who first taught him to condemn such 
 transcriptions, (y) The Dr. and \i\^ incomparable disciple some- 
 times translate blasphemy and blaspheme^ though poorly enough ; 
 yet at other times both the noun and the verb are adopted by 
 them.(z) As for denarius^ I believe they uniformly transfer 
 it5(a) although our American dime is a coin of the same value, 
 and would, (in our country at least,) afford a good translation. 
 He has adopted Euroclydon^ip) although he knows that Zcuanfcr 
 is a translation familiar to the commercial world. To be more 
 intelligible to common readers, he has adopted ^ar^«rM5,(c) in- 
 stead of translating it hell as our bible does. In one instance 
 now before me, {d) he follows Dr. Campbell in transferring the 
 word abyss, where our bible translates it the deep, notwithstand- 
 ing their censures against it for transferring instead of trans- 
 lating. In other cases he copies Doddridge's abyss;{e) besides 
 which he translates it the deep with Macknight,^'/) and the bot- 
 tomless pit, with Doddridge. («•) In relation to another word of 
 similar import, my Opponent says, " There being no one word 
 
 (u) Hebr. xii. 22. {v) Rev. xvii. 5. (w) 1 Cor. xii. 25. 
 
 (x) 1 Cor. xi. 18. i. 10. (y) 1 Cor. i. 10. and Appendix, No. 67. 
 
 [z) In Matl. xxvi. 65, both occur. 
 
 (a) I have examined them in Matt, xviii. 28. xx. 2. 9. 10. 13. xxii. IP. 
 
 {b) Acts xxvii. 14. (c) 1 Pet. ii. 4. {d) Luke viii. 31. • 
 
 (e) Rev. xi. 7, xx. 3. (/) Rom. x. 7. {g) Rev. ix. 11. xvii. 18. xx. 1. 
 
( 102 ) 
 
 in our language which corresponds to the term hades, he [Df. 
 George Campbell] is obliged to retain and explain it." He at 
 the same time says, '• We [Mr. Alexander Campbell] have uni- 
 formly followed his method in the books which he did not trans- 
 late. "(A) That is, the word hades is never translated, but always 
 retained in his New Testament. This he does in despite of Mac- 
 knight's grave,(i) and Doddridge's hell,{j) and his unseen 
 world[k) yet in this last translation my Opponent actually copies 
 Doddridge in three places, (/) notwithstanding his promise uni- 
 formly to retain hades after Dr. Campbell's example. From these 
 instances we may conclude that when he promises to adopt, he 
 will be sure to translate, and when he abuses our Translators 
 for adopting, he means to adopt twice as much as they have 
 done. 
 
 As my Opponent promised always to translate^ so his incom- 
 parable makes extraordinary pretensions to uniformity in its 
 translations. His three guides have rendered the same word 
 sometimes one way and sometimes another. This he seems 
 determined to avoid as an error. He says " Wherever the 
 " word church is found in the common version, congregation 
 '* will be found in this. We shall let Drs. Campbell and 
 ** Doddridge defentl the preference. For although they have 
 " not always so rendered it, they give the best of reasons why it 
 " should be always so translated. "(w) Here the arguments 
 of Doddridge and Campbell are given for a uniformity which 
 they did not approve nor practise. But on this subject my Op- 
 ponent is a professed disciple of Home Tooke, who was a great 
 enemy to allowing a diversity of significations to the same word. 
 After informing you that Dr. Johnson assigned forty-six mean- 
 ings to an English monosyllable, he says, " But the celebrated 
 '• Home Tooke demonstrates that it has but one meaning, and 
 *' that all the pretended meanings of Dr. S. Johnson are resolvable 
 " into it."(») He then goes on to apply the remark to the 
 
 (/;) Appendix No 21. (i) 1 Cor. xv. 55. (J) Rev. vi, 8. 
 
 (X-) licv. XX. 13. 14. (/) Acth ii. 27. 31. Rev. i. 18, 
 
 (7«) Appendix No. 10. 
 
 («> Spurious Debate with W. L. M. p. 313. Note. 
 
( 103 ) 
 
 Greek prepositions in opposition to Parkhurst, who allowed 
 sixteen meanings to one, and eighteen to another. Let it be 
 remembered that Home Tooke, in ascertaining his one meaning 
 of a word, is governed bj its etymology. Here also my Oppo- 
 nent follows him; and he gives this as a reason for banishing 
 the word church from his New Testament. He says, "The 
 *' term church or hirk^ i^ an abbreviation of the word xv^iov 
 *« oixo^ the house of the Lord, and does not translate the term 
 <' fxxx>j(yta," [a calling out.](o) Here the mere fact of two words 
 being differently derived, is given as a reason why they cannot 
 have the same signification, and why one of them cannot pro- 
 perly translate the other. If church cannot render ecclesia, 
 merely because it is etymologically the house of the Lord, and 
 not a calling out, then surely his favourite congregation cannot 
 render it, for this is, by derivation, a gathering together, and 
 not a calling out. This places ecclesia in the same predicament 
 in which he says that hades is, without a corresponding word in 
 our language. To be consistent, then, he should either tran- 
 scribe it, or form some new word, like evocation, of a similar 
 derivation. So completely has my Opponent entangled himself 
 by this position, that if it can be maintained, then he has de- 
 stroyed his whole new version. If the mere want of coincidence 
 in etymology is sufficient to disqualify church from rendering 
 ecclesia^ then his incomparable has not translated one verse of the 
 New Testament correctly. If he were tried by his own test, he 
 would fall infinitely below our own translators. This he knows 
 very well, and, therefore, in direct defiance of his own princi- 
 ples, he condemns them for paying too much attention to the 
 literal and etymological meaning of words. He says, "The 
 ** kings translators have frequentljr erred in attempting to be, 
 *' what some would call literally correct. They have not given 
 *' the meaning in some passages where they have given a literal 
 <' translation." More directly still to the point, he says, " that 
 ^^ what a classical scholar, or a critical etymologist [such as 
 
 (o) Appendix No, 10, 
 
( 104 ) 
 
 •♦ Home Tooke or his disciple] might approve, as a literal 
 *• version of some passages, is by no means the meaning of the 
 *♦ writer." These sentiments, he informs us, are the fruit of 
 his "better acquaintance with the idiomatic style of the Apostolic 
 •* writings, and of the Septuagint Greek;" while he stigmatizes 
 as " smatterers in the original Greek,"(/)) those who lean to the 
 closer and stricter rendering of our Translators. He would 
 have come nearer the truth if he had told you that instead of 
 obtaining these sentiments from his own better acquaintance 
 with the Greek Scriptures, he took them, second-handed, from 
 Dr. George Campbell, who published them, as an apology for his 
 extremely loose version of the four Gospels, which might more 
 correctly be called a paraphrase than a translation. In avoiding 
 the literal extreme of Arias Montanus, he went so com- 
 pletely into the liberal extreme, that he saw himself in danger 
 of being accused of licentiousness. In relation to my Opponent's 
 views of the words ecclesia and church, on account of their want 
 of etymological coincidence, permit me to give you a little more 
 from Dr. Campbell. In shewing how unsafe it sometimes is to 
 trust to the etymology of a word for its meaning, he says, 
 •> There are many cases wherein, though its descent may be 
 ** clearly traced, we should err egregiously, if we were to fix 
 ** its meaning from that of the primitive or root." " Thus the 
 " three words xw/tcxo? in Greek, paganus in Latin, and villain 
 '* in English, though evidently so conformable in etymology, that 
 ** they ought all to denote the same thing, namely villager; have, 
 ♦» for many ages, both lost that signification, and acquired others 
 M in which they do not in the least resemble one another. If 
 *♦ the use in these languages should ever come to be very little 
 *' known, and the history of the nations nearly lost, we may 
 *' form a guess at the absurdities in explaining those terms, into 
 " which men would be misled by etymology ."(^r) Doubtless my 
 Opponent will agree to all this when Dr. Campbell says it, just 
 ^s he agrees to the very opposite when Home Tooke says it. 
 
 (fi) Preface, p. 7. 
 
 (y) Dr. Campbell's fourth Preliminary Dissertation. Sections 16. 17. 
 
( 105 ) 
 
 When he sells himself to two masters, he is for yielding implicit 
 obedience to both, even when thej are diametrically opposed to 
 each other, and lead him into palpable contradictions and ab- 
 surdities. 
 
 The absurdity of his preferring congregation to church, as a 
 rendering of ecclesia, and then uniformly adhering to that render- 
 ing, will soon be evident. The word ecclesia is used to denote 
 the place of worship as well as the worshipping assembly. The 
 word church has the same latitude of signification: but congre- 
 gation has not. Paul says, "When ye come together in the 
 ecclesia, I hear that there be divisions among you."(7') Our 
 Bible says, *'when ye come together in the church,^^ Of this 
 Dr. Gill approves, and says that the word means "the/j/ace 
 where the church met together to perform divine service," which 
 exposition he proves by the context. Accordingly Dr. Mac- 
 knight says, " when ye come together in the churchP As usual, 
 my Opponent alters the word church, and says, " When ye 
 come together in the congregation.^^ 
 
 In another instance, according to Doddridge, *' The Saddu« 
 cees say, there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit."(s) 
 My Opponent's incomparable reads, ** There is no resurrection, 
 neither [good nor evil] messenger,^^ &c. What Doddridge calls 
 angel in the next verse, my Opponent calls '' heavenly messen- 
 ger,''^ without enclosing the word heavenly in brackets, as he 
 did the words " good and evil" in the former verse. This way 
 of translating leaves the common reader, (whose benefit my 
 Opponent had supremely in view,) perfectly at a loss to know 
 what is in Doddridge, what is in the Original, and what the 
 new translator would be at. 
 
 Another instance of the astonishing uniformity of my Oppo- 
 nent's New Testament. There are four texts in which Dod- 
 dridge, with some claims to uniformity, transfers the word 
 mystery, [t) In the first of these my Opponent agrees with him 
 
 (r) 1 Cor. xi. 18. (s) Acts xxiii. 8. 
 
 (0 Rev. xvii. 5. 7. (com. 22) x. 7. i. 20. 
 
 o 
 
( 106 ) 
 
 in transferring. In the second and third, he translates it secreL 
 In the fourth he renders it hidden-meaning. 
 
 Again; there are six texts in which Doddridge uniformly 
 transcribes the words blaspheme, blasphemer, blasphemy, blas- 
 phemously. {u) Only four of these are in those books of which 
 he professes to give Doddridge's translation. In the first of 
 these, my Opponent transcribes blasphemers as Doddridge does. 
 In the second he translates detractions, in the third, abusive 
 things, in the fourth reviled, in the fifth slander, and in the sixth 
 defamation. All this is for the sake of an extraordinary and 
 scrupulous uniformity! 
 
 Once more. The word anastasis occurs four times in the 
 compass of eight verses.(v) In the first of these instances, my 
 Opponent's incomparable uniformity renders itfuture life, in the 
 second resurrection, in the third that state, and in the fourth 
 revival, where Dr. Campbell has it quickening. Now in all these 
 places, our translation, which is so much censured for its want of 
 uniformity, uses the word resurrection, as Doddridge does. 
 With this uniform rendering agree the Latin translations of 
 Jerome, Castalio, Beza, and that of Junius and Tremellius: as 
 do also the German, Italian, and French, of Luther, Diodati, 
 and De Sacy, with a variety of others in different languages. 
 Even the Unitarian Improved Version, and the Universalist 
 double- distilled version by Mr. Kneeland, renders the word 
 uniformly resurrection as our bible does. My Opponent's su- 
 perfine is the only one which professes an unparallelled consis- 
 tency, and he and his pattern, whom he has altered, are the 
 only ones who have given four renderings to this word, in a 
 passage of eight verses. 
 
 Let it be remembered that my Opponent does not openly offer 
 to the public a new version of his own, but he proposes to give 
 us the works of Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. In 
 his Appendix he says, " we were scrupulously intent on giving 
 
 (u) Actsxix. 37. Mk. iii. 28. Luke xxii. 65. Actsxviii,6, Rev, ii. 9, 
 xiii. 6. (y) Mutt. xxii. 23. 28. 30. 31. 
 
( 107 ) 
 
 ^* every word of the works proposed, "(z^) It is true that in 
 making this declaration, he may have had his eye upon the notes, 
 in which, however, he has not given every word of the works 
 proposed, as may be seeii in the alteration last mentioned, and 
 others without number. But if he had scrupulously given every 
 word of theirs in the notes, would that justify him in imposing 
 the work upon the community, as the " New Testament trans- 
 ♦* lated from the original Greek, by George Campbell, James 
 *' Macknight, and Philip Doddridge, Doctors of the Church of 
 ** Scotland?" He ought rather to have called it, the translation 
 of one man, accompanied with the various readings of three 
 others: or, at least, he should have given it such an honest title 
 as that of the Unitarian translation ; " The New Testament, in 
 " an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop New- 
 " come's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical 
 " and explanatory." The authors of this work did not dare to 
 offer it to the British public, as <• the New Testament translated 
 " by Newcome, a Primate of the Church of England," but only 
 a new version "upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's." 
 What then would they think of a Unitarian Baptist, who would 
 publish a translation, purporting to be the work of three " Doc- 
 tors of the Church of Scotland," and yet containing more varia- 
 tions from these Doctors, by three or four, if not ten times, than 
 the Improved Version has alterations of Newcome's translation? 
 Mr. Kneeland's New Testament is as good a copy of either Scar- 
 lett or the Improved Version, as my Opponent's is of the three 
 Doctors : yet he had not the audacity to palm it upon the public as 
 either of these works, but was satisfied with the puerile vanity 
 of being the author of a new version, between which and its 
 models there was no important difference. 
 
 In some important instances, nly Opponent agrees with these 
 corrupt versions, in opposition to those which he promised to 
 copy. It is well known that the Unitarians endeavour to fritter 
 flown the interview between Paul and the jailer to little more 
 
 (Ty) p. 38, 
 
{ 108 ) 
 
 than a consultation about temporal safety from civil punishment 
 by the Roman government. This has been attempted I am told, by 
 Dr. Holley in Lexington. With a view to this, the Unitarian 
 Improved Version makes the jailer say, '^ Sirs, what must I do 
 to be safe?^^ And it makes Paul and Silas answer, '* Believe in 
 " the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe and thine house- 
 " hold."(ic) To the word s«/e, they append a note informing 
 us that Newcome has the word saved in accordance with our 
 translation: after which the note says "Mr. Wakefield explains 
 it, to avoid punishment for what has befallen the prisoners and 
 the prison. *' This," he adds, "is beyond all doubt, the sense 
 *« of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a 
 " more extensive signification : a practice common in these 
 " writings." Kneeland copies the translation and the note 
 without giving credit for either. My Opponent translates, **0 
 " Sirs, what must I do that I may be safe ? And they said, Be- 
 " lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe, and 
 '< thine house." As there is nothing about this passage in the 
 margin, and as there is no note referring from this or any other 
 part of the chapter to the Appendix, any reader, who has not 
 been accustomed to catching eels, would take it for granted that 
 Doddridge had given the above translation in accordance with 
 ^he Unitarian and Universalist versions. But on examining the 
 Appendix, half of Doddridge's translation is found wedged in 
 between notes to which reference is made from the preceding and 
 succeeding chapters. In connexion with this half-reading, he gives 
 the reason why he had thus hidden Doddridge, and '^given the most 
 conspicuous place to that [Unitarian] version, which appeared 
 to deserve it." This reason is given in the words of Wakefield 
 the Unitarian, as follows, viz. *' The jailer meant no more than, 
 " what shall I do to be safe from punishment? for what had be- 
 *< fallen the prisoners and the prison ? This is, beyond doubt 
 " the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the 
 " words in a more extensive signification; a practice common in 
 
 (x) Acts xvi. 30. 31. 
 
\ ( 109 ) 
 
 *' these writings." These words in the Appendix are preceded 
 and followed by the name of Wakefield, as the author of the 
 translation and note. Thus, while there is a happy agreement 
 between Doddridge and our translation, there is also a sweet 
 harmony between the Socinian version of London, the Univer- 
 salist of Philadelphia, and the Arian Baptist of Buffaloe Creek. 
 It is well known that the exhortation of Paul *'to feed the 
 church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood, "(y) 
 is shocking to the feelings of those who do not believe in the 
 supreme deity and true humanity of him whose blood has satis- 
 fied divine justice for the sins of his people. It even wounds 
 weak Christians, on account of its appearing to attribute blood 
 and suffering to God who is impassible. For this reason various 
 transcribers and translators, ancient and modern, have softened 
 . down the Apostle's expression, by substituting, some, one word, 
 and, some another, which may not be so. shocking to their feel- 
 ings. Some of these transcribers and translators are adduced 
 by the Unitarian Improved Version, to prove that the word 
 Lord is a better reading than that of the received text. Mr. 
 Kneeland's Universalist Version also prefers the word Lord; 
 and so does my Opponent's edition of Dr. Doddridge's transla- 
 tion, without one marginal note or reference to the Appendix 
 from any part of the Chapter to shew that he was not reporting 
 the Dr. correctly. On this account, "A Friend to Truth" in 
 " The Western Luminary, "(js:) in noticing this alteration, says 
 that my Opponent " passes over it silently." This mistake was 
 owing to the violation of a promise made by my Opponent in his 
 Preface. His words are these, viz. " instead of crowding the 
 " margin with different translations and critical notes, we have 
 '* placed them in an Appendix and made references to them at 
 *' the bottom of the page."(a) After having generally dis- 
 regarded this engagement until he gets to the 224th page 
 of his translation, he then refers to a note in the Appendix, 
 which gives notice that he will violate this promise on a greater 
 
 (y) Acts XX, 28. (z) For Jan. iii, 1827. («) p. 10. 
 
( 110 ) 
 
 scale "in the Bubsequcnt books of the New Testament, than in 
 the preceding," and assigns as a reason for this course, that so 
 many references "at the bottom of the page" "would rather 
 have disfigured the page." I confess that if his work were 
 bespangled with asterisks and other marks as numerous as the 
 instances in which he has altered his three great men, it would 
 give his page some resemblance to whortle berries and milk : 
 but the right way to remedy this evil, is not to conceal the 
 alterations, but to remove them, by giving a fair copy of his 
 Doctors. At present, however, he saves his page at the expense 
 of his veracity and honesty. Instead of making his notes plain 
 for common readers, and opening them by distinct references, 
 he makes them short, contracted, and to most men, unintelligi- 
 blej and then wraps up a great number of them in a bundle, 
 not with the order of a pedlar's pack, but with the confusion of 
 a rag-man's sack. With the exception of one little note of less 
 than a line, all my Opponent's notes on eight chapters now 
 before me, are squeezed into one of these bales, to which there 
 is only one reference in the whole translation. Snugly enclosed 
 in the centre of this astonishing hurra's nest, you find the fol- 
 lowing note, viz. '*v. 29. ' Church of God;' Dod. * Of the Lord;' 
 Griesbach." This I perceive to be a note on the 29th verse of 
 something. Going very little farther back, I find " Chap, xx." 
 This therefore must be the 29th verse of the 20th Chapter of 
 some book. Anxious to find the name of the book, I in vain 
 explore this branch of notes to its source. Being disappointed 
 here, I examine the batch of notes preceding it, and the one 
 preceding that, until I have tried as many as you have fingers 
 and toes, without being able to discover the name of the book to 
 which one note belongs. Here he will say that this defect in 
 the notes is supplied by the "references to them at the bottom 
 of the page," where the text is found in the translation. This 
 would have been the case in some measure, if he had performed 
 his promise in making those references at the bottom of the page. 
 But the text to which this note belongs, is on page 266. Here 
 there is no reference, nor on any preceding page nearer than 
 
* ( 111 ) 
 
 259, where another verse of another chapter gives occasion to 
 refer to this mass of notes, seven pages before the text in ques- 
 tion, and thirteen pages before the last text contained in the 
 mass. After a tedious search you can discover that his "v,fi9," 
 means not the 29th, but the 28th verse of the 20th Chapter of 
 the Acts of the Apostles; and that his ♦' * Church of Godj' Dod. 
 * Of the Lord;' Griesbach," means that Doddridge agrees with 
 our bible in giving the name of God to him who purchased the 
 church with his blood, whereas my Opponent had rejected Dod- 
 dridge, and followed Griesbach, in substituting the word Lord, 
 In answer to his detector in the Western Luminary (6) he de- 
 fends this substitution by observing, '* I said in the preface I 
 " gave the most conspicuous place to that reading or rendering 
 " which I thought deserved it^-and so it happens here." Yes, 
 let it be remembered that he puts into the text of this new 
 translation, whatever he thinks deserves it, and then publishes 
 this compilation of a Unitarian Baptist, as the work of three 
 Presbyterian Pedobaptist Doctors 1 1 1 
 
 As my Opponent in connexion with the above remark, gave 
 his reason at large, for supplanting Doddridge with another read- 
 ing, indulge me with the liberty of paying a moment's attention 
 to them. They are three. One is that Griesbach " decides in 
 favour of the latter." Another is that Ireneus '* quotes it as in 
 the new translation." A third is that " The Syriac translation, 
 the oldest in the world, has it Zon/." 
 
 The two last reasons are alledged facts which he observes, 
 ** I fMr. Campbell] added in my own mind to the authority of 
 Griesbach." Thus my Opponent, with all his professed oppo- 
 sition to creeds and confessions of human composition, is not yet 
 escaped from human authority. In favour of a Unitarian trans- 
 lation of Acts xvi. 30, he gives no other authority than that of 
 Wakefield, a Unitarian writer: and in favour of a Unitarian 
 reading of Acts xx. 28, he gives " the authority of Griesbach," 
 whom the Unitarians claim. Real Christians call no man 
 
 (6) For Jan 3, 1827. 
 
( 11^ ) . 
 
 Father; and they adopt a human creed, as they would preach or 
 hear a human sermon; because they believe it to be founded 
 upon the scriptures. But many unregenerate persons receive 
 this creed, as my Opponent once did the Westminster Confes- 
 sion, upon no other ground than human authority; and they 
 afterwards reject it, as my Opponent has done, because they 
 prefer a Unitarian Master to any other. Here also it may jiot 
 be improper to observe, as the writer in the Western Luminary 
 has done, that the celebrated Nolan has proved that the criteria 
 by which Griesbach has made his decision, are fundamentally 
 erroneous, and Wakefield himself has decided against him in 
 this instance. 
 
 In answer to my Opponent's second reason, drawn from the 
 testimony of one of the Fathers, in favour of his reading, I 
 would observe that Middleton, who is not decided in favour of 
 our reading of the passage, still says that " it is quoted or re- 
 ferred to by a great many of the Fathers." 
 
 My Opponent's third reason exhibits, if I mistake not, a 
 greater degree of moderation than he is accustomed to. He 
 only says that "The Syriac translation, the oldest in the world, 
 has it Lord,^^ Considering the liberties which he usually takes, 
 we should expect him to claim the Latin Vulgate, which is the 
 next oldest in the world; and the Arabic and Ethiopic which 
 are highly esteemed by some. Griesbach, my Opponent's Mas- 
 ter, actually did claim the Ethiopic; in consequence of which 
 his professed brother Wakefield declared his testimony on this 
 point, ^^ infamously false. ^\c) Yet it is not more false than the 
 testimony of a certain translator, in claiming the Syriac Ver- 
 sion in favour of his reading. The Syriac Version has neither 
 his reading nor ours,(c?) but a reading which is found in no 
 Manuscript, and which both parties consider unsupported by 
 evidence. But my Opponent, no doubt, thinks that he has as 
 good a right to alter ancient translations as modern ones; and 
 in this I agree with him. 
 
 (c) Middleton on the text, {d) But Messiah or Christ. 
 
 J 
 
( 113 ) 
 
 Before I dismiss this incomparable of my Opponent, permit 
 me to notice his last refuge from that infamy to which the voice 
 of an insulted and defrauded people will consign him. When 
 his Prospectus says that he will translate such words as the 
 three Doctors had adopted, he adds, '^ But in doing this [that is, 
 ** in translating,] we shall not depart in any instance from the 
 ** meaning which they have declared those words to convey?^ In 
 answering his newspaper antagonist, the ** Friend of Truth," 
 he refers to this as a '^ promise of great importance," and adds, 
 *< Now it can be proven in any court of law or equity where the 
 *' English language is spoken, that I have not, in one instance, 
 ** departed from this promise. I challenge all the colleges and 
 " divines on this continent, to shew that I have not, in every 
 ** instance, so done. Let this Doctor of divinity, this * Friend 
 " to Truth' make an attempt." 
 
 This pompous challenge would make some take it for granted 
 that my Opponent never alters the meaning of either of his 
 Doctors, although he may alter his words. But if this bf. the 
 case, why does he, according to his Preface, (e) substitute the 
 words of Dr. Campbell for those of Doddridge or Macknight, 
 in every passage whicl,i he has translated ? and why does he 
 give as a reason for this, the superior '* correctness and elegance" 
 of his translations ? Is there no difference of meaning between 
 Dr. Campbell's correct and elegant translations, and those for 
 which they are substituted ? But correct and elegant as Dr. 
 Campbell is, he is not to compare with my Opponent, to whose 
 translations, those of Dr. Campbell as well as Macknight and 
 Doddridge must give way, in order to form a book concerning 
 which it may be said, that *'the ideas communicated by the 
 Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, are incomparably 
 better expressed in this than in any volume ever presented in 
 our mother tongue." Can this much altered translation be 
 incomparably better than its models, as published by themselves, 
 or in the London Edition, without any change in the meaning of 
 
 {€) p. 10. 
 
( 114 ) 
 
 one word ? If there be no dift'erence in meaning, how comes it 
 to pass that when he substitutes hades for Doddridge's hell, he 
 gives as a reason that the word " is very improperly translated 
 hell?^^{f) Is there no difference between the original and a 
 very improper translation ? Taking the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 as a specimen of the whole work, he says, in his answer to the 
 « Friend of Truth," " About ffty times you will find Mac- 
 knight in the Appendix in this one Epistle," and then otfers a 
 guess that there are as many as three thousand such alterations 
 in the whole work, instead of the reduced calculation of fifteen 
 hundred which his Antagonist had made. Are we to understand 
 that he has altered the words of his authors fifty times in one 
 Epistle, and three thousand times in all, without once changing 
 their meaning? 
 
 But the letter of his challenge calls for an instance in which 
 his New Testament gives a meaning different from his Doctors, 
 by translating a word which they had adopted. The word heresy 
 is translated by my Opponent, and adopted by his author. 
 Doddridge says, " After the way which they call heresy, so do 
 I worship the God of my Fathers." My Opponent says, 
 *' After the way which they call a sect, so worship I the God of 
 my fathers." Now if it can be shewn that my Opponent under- 
 stands the word sect in an indifferent sense, and that Doddridge 
 understands the word heresy in an evil sense, then my Opponent 
 has altered his author's meaning by translating a word which 
 his author had adopted. In a note to which my Opponent refers 
 from this text, his meaning is conveyed to us in the language of 
 Dr. Campbell. After explaining the original by class, party, 
 sect, he observes, " The word was not, in its earliest accepta- 
 " tion, conceived to convey any reproach in it, since it was 
 " indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one dis- 
 " approved by the writer." Thus my Opponent's word sect is 
 understood indifferently. Now although Doddridge gives the 
 word sect in his paraphrase, he gives a reason for preferring tlie 
 
 (/) Rev. vi. 8. Compare Appendix No, 21. 
 
( 115 ) 
 
 word heresy in the text. He admits that on account of the cir- 
 cumstances of the primitive Christians, " they might properly 
 be called a sect or party oim^n^''^ but he says, " I cannot but think 
 ** this a place, where the word ai^fcrtf, which I own to be often 
 ** indifferent^ is used in a bad sense ; for Paul plainly intimates, 
 ** that Christianity did not deserve the name they gave it." 
 Thus my Opponent's translation gives a word in an indifferent 
 sense, which Doddridge thinks might properly be applied to 
 Christians instead of his author's adoption of a word in an evil 
 sense, which Doddridge thinks the Christians did not deserve. 
 Yet my Opponent's promise says, *'We shall not depart in any 
 *' instance from the meaning which they have declared those 
 ** words to convey." 
 
 Paul once preached Christ to the Jews. My Opponent says, 
 " But when they set themselves in opposition, and reviled, he 
 shook his garments."(^) Would not any common reader un- 
 derstand from this, that the Jews reviled Paul ? and was not this 
 what my Opponent meant that they should understand ? Yet 
 Doddridge says, *' they set themselves in opposition, and blas- 
 phemed" that glorious name on which he was pressing them to 
 fix their dependence. To the same amount, in other places,(A) 
 Doddridge adopts blasphemy, and my Opponent translates 
 slander, defamation. It is well known that in common language, 
 reviling, slander, and defamation, denote an offence against our 
 fellow men; whereas Dr. Allison, a Baptist Preacher, in his 
 English Dictionary, says that " blasphemy is an offering of some 
 ** indignity unto God himself." In accordance with this, Dod- 
 dridge in describing the Roman Beast, says that it was ** full of 
 blasphemous names, "(2) which his paraphrase explains by its 
 "ascribing to itself, and the harlot upon it, properties and 
 glories which belong to God alone." My Opponent, instead of 
 '^blasphemous names," translates '' slanderous names." 
 
 My Opponent might here urge in extenuation, that he was 
 following his perfectly correct and elegant pattern, Dr. George 
 
 (5-) Acts xviii. 6. {h) Rev. ii, 9. 13, 1. (/) Rev. xvii, 3. 
 
{ 116 ) 
 
 Campbell, as he promised in his preface. If this were true, it 
 would only shew that he made two promises which were incon- 
 sistent with each other: one is that he would always substitute 
 Campbell's words for those of the other two Doctors; and the 
 other is that he would never depart from their meaning. But if 
 I mistake not, while Campbell justifies him in one departure 
 from Doddridge(y) his principles and practice condemn him in 
 all the rest. He admits that the word blaspheme should be 
 retained when God is the object of this offence. In the last 
 text the Beast is said to be full of blasphemous names, because 
 he claims divine attributes and honors. For this very thing the 
 Jews repeatedly accused our Saviour of the same offence; and 
 in no such case does either Dr. Campbell or my Opponent ren- 
 der it reviling^ slander^ or defamation^ but they both retain the 
 word blasphemy. "Who is this that speaketh blasphemies? 
 Can any one forgive sins beside God ?'' " For a good work we 
 do not stone thee, but for blasphemy^ because thou, being [a] 
 man, makest thyself God. "(A:) In these texts my Opponent has 
 exactly followed his model, except in the insertion of our in- 
 definite article before the word man, which, among three thou- 
 sand alterations, can hardly be noticed. 
 
 According to ray Opponent's translation, Paul's reason for 
 delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was **that they 
 might be taught by chastisement, not to defame.'* Although 
 Macknight, whom he here professes to copy, uses the word revile 
 in his commentary, yet as he expressly declares ** Christ or his 
 doctrine" to be the object of this reviling, he retains blasphemc'm 
 the text, according to the principles of my Opponent's favourite. 
 Dr. Campbell ; '* that they might be taught by chastisement not 
 to blaspheme. '\l) In another instance [m) he retains blasphemers^ 
 where my Opponent substitutes defamers., although Macknight's 
 commentary explains it " blasphemers of God, by the injurious 
 ^* representations which they give of him." I cannot tell how 
 
 ij) Actszviii. 6. See his Prelim. Dissert. 9. Part 2. Sect 12. 
 
 {k) Luke V. 21. John x. 33. (/) 1 Tim. i. DO. (w) 2 Tim. iii. 2. 
 
( 117 ) 
 
 many cases of this sort his book contains^ but I have very little 
 doubt that one whose time and patien<:e would permit him to 
 wade through this mass of perversion, would discover many 
 otiier instances, in addition to the seven which I have pointed 
 out, in which my Opponent's authors adopt a word with 
 one meaning, and my Opponent translates it with another mean- 
 ing : yet the promise of his Prospectus is, " But in doing this, 
 " we shall not depart in any instance, from the meaning which 
 *< they have declared those words to convey." And after the 
 \york was published, he challenges **all the colleges and divines 
 *' on this continent to shew" that he has " in one instance, de- 
 " parted from this promise." 
 
 My Opponent may be called a challenge-monger. The Re- 
 formers used to challenge that they might debate : my Opponent 
 debates that he may challenge. A Reformer once contended 
 ten days upon the ground of one challenge: my Opponent 
 does not stop at ten challenges in one day, and sometimes 
 in one speech. When used as a manoeuvre, it sometimes 
 appears ingenious^ although it may be disingenuous. If a 
 man accuse him of Unitarianism, he challenges him to prove 
 him a Socinian, as if Unitarianism did not embrace his darling 
 Arianism, as well as his brother Holley's Socinianism. A. accuses 
 B. of stealing one of his cattle, B. challenges A. and all the 
 colleges and lawyers on the continent to prove that he has stolen 
 a cow ; thinking thereby to conceal the fact that he had stolen a 
 calf. But in the present case his right hand appears to have lost its 
 cunning: for he challenges the continent to shew one instance 
 in which he has departed from a promise, which he has directly 
 violated in the seven specified cases, and we know not how 
 many more. 
 
 There was a time when I thought the Unitarian Improved 
 Version a non-pareU in theological atrocity: but, in respect of 
 fraud and falsehood, this Arian Baptist's New Translation is 
 incomparably beyond it. I am not sorry, therefore, that the 
 word Church, which introduced it to our notice, is not once 
 found in this master-piece of deception. 
 
( 118 ) 
 THE POINT 
 
 WHICH WAS, IN PART, INTERRUPTED BY THE REVIEW, 
 
 RESUMED. 
 
 It has already been shewn that the application of this 
 word to the Jews in the Old Testament proves that they 
 were once the visible church of God. You have heard, 
 moreover, that it is confessedly used more than a hun- 
 dred times in the New Testament, to signify the visible 
 church. Now if we or our Baptist friends who agree 
 in this matter, were asked for our proof, how could we 
 answer more properly than by quoting such passages of 
 the New Testament as shew, by their connexion, that 
 the people called the church, were a visible society, 
 acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and 
 ordinances of revealed religion ? There are now before 
 me nine authorities(n) which give the name of ecclesia 
 to those who had the worship, discipline, character and 
 condition of such a society. Perhaps, there is not a 
 regular Baptist on earth who will deny the conclusion, 
 or deny that it is authorized by these passages of the 
 New Testament. But a good rule will work both ways. 
 Jf these premises prove the existence of a New Testa- 
 ment church, they will also, if they can be found, prove 
 the existence of an Old Testament church. We are 
 then to look for the worship, discipline, character, and 
 condition of a visible church among the Jews. 
 
 (n) Acts xi. 26. xx. 17. xiii, 1. xii. 5. xiv. 23. (comp. 3S.)xv. 41. xvi. 
 ^. Matt, xviii, 17. xvi. 18. 
 
( 119 ) 
 
 I. Worship. ^^And all the church worshipped.'' 
 ^^ And the whole church took counsel to keep other 
 ^' seven days:'' ' in religious exercises/ as Gill says.(o) 
 The religious exercises of the Old Testament were 
 such as the following. 
 
 1. Sacrifices, "Yov Hezekiah^ king of Judah, did 
 ^^ give to the church a thousand bullocks, and seven 
 ^' thousand sheep : and the princes gave to the church 
 '^ a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep : and a 
 ^^ great number of priests sanctified themselves." 
 '' And they brought forth the he-goats for the sin-ofFer- 
 '^ ing before the king and the church ; and they laid 
 ^' their hands upon them." '' Then Hezekiah answer- 
 ^^ed and said, Now ye have consecrated yourselves 
 ^^ unto the Lord, come near, and bring sacrifices, and 
 ^^ thank-offerings into the house of the Lord. And the 
 ^^ church brought in sacrifices and thank-offerings ; and 
 ^^ as many as were of a free heart, burnt offerings. And 
 '' the number of the burnt-offerings which the church 
 *^ brought, was," &c.(j&) 
 
 2. Festivals. '' For the king had taken counsel, and 
 ^' his princes, and all the church in Jerusalem, to keep 
 '' the passover in the second month." " And there as- 
 '' sembled at Jerusalem much people, to keep the feast 
 '^ of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great 
 ^^ churchP " For there were many in the churchy that 
 '' were not consecrated : therefore the Levites had the 
 '' charge of the killing of the passovers, for every one 
 
 (o) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. xxx. 23. 
 
 (A) 2 Chr. XXX, 24. xxix, 23, 31. 32. xxx. 2. 
 
( 120 ) 
 
 ^^ that was not clean, to consecrate them unto the 
 '^Lord.((7) 
 
 3. Prayer, ^^And he stood before the altar of the 
 ^^Lord in the presence of all the church of Israel, and 
 ^' spread forth his hands. For Solomon had made a 
 '' brazen scaffold,'' '' and upon it he stood, and kneeled 
 '' down upon his knees before all the church of Israel, 
 '^ and spread forth his hands toward heaven. "(r) Com- 
 pare this with certain passages of the New Testament, 
 in which Baptists themselves see evidence that the visi- 
 ble church of God is meant. " Peter, therefore, was 
 " kept in prison ; hut prayer was made without ceasing, 
 ^^ of the church, unto God for him." ^^Now there 
 ^^ were, in the church that was at Antioch, certain pro- 
 ^^ phets and teachers." " And when they had ordained 
 ^^ them elders in every church, and had prayed with 
 ^^ fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom 
 ^^ they believed.''^ 
 
 4. Praise. ^* I will give thee thanks in the great 
 ^^ church, I will praise thee among much people." The 
 ^^ great congregation," as our bible has it in the first 
 clause of this verse. Dr. Gill explains, " the church and 
 ^^ people of God." The expression in the last clause, he 
 explains, " the people of God meeting together for so- 
 ^Memn worship." The Psalmist says again, ^^The 
 *^ heavens shall praise thy wonders, Lord ! thy faith- 
 ^' fulness also, in the church of the saints." Here Gill 
 says " holy men are meant, such as are called to be 
 '' saints, and are gathered together in a gospel church- 
 
 (r/) i Chr. XXX. 2. 13. 17. (r) 2 Chr. vi. 12. 13. 
 
 (v) Acts xii. 5. xiii. 1. xiv. 23. (comp. 22. ; 
 
( 121 ) 
 
 state. '^ The same explanation lie gives of the following: 
 ^* Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song, 
 ^-'and his praise in the church of saints.^^ It is plain that 
 this is directly applicable to the Israelitish churchy as 
 well as prophetical of the Christian church. The same 
 may be said of the following: " I will declare thy name 
 '' unto my brethren ; in the midst of the church WiW I 
 '' praise thee.'^(/) Several of these texts mention sing- 
 ings one important means of ecclesiastical praise, (w) 
 
 5. Reading, expounding , 9,nd preaching, ^* There 
 " was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which 
 ^^ Joshua read not before all the church of Israel, with 
 " the women and the little ones, and the strangers that 
 ^^were conversant among them.'^ ^^And Ezra the 
 " priest, brotight the law before the churchP '* So 
 ^* they read in the book, in the law of God distinctly, 
 '^ and gave the sense, and caused them to understand 
 ''the reading y "1 have preached righteousness in 
 '* the great churchJ\v) Compare this with the decla- 
 ration that God anointed Isaiah '' to preach good ti- 
 '' dings unto the meek ;'^ that he anointed our Saviour, 
 the Antitype of Isaiah, '' to preach the gospel to the 
 " poor;'' that he actually "preached in the synagogues of 
 " Galilee :" and compare the whole with what is said of 
 Paul and Barnabas, ^^that a whole year they assembled 
 " themselves with the church, and taught much people. 
 " And the disciples were called Christians first in An- 
 '' \AOc\iJ\w) Thus does the connexion of the word 
 
 (0 Ps. XXXV. 18. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1. xxii. ?5. 
 {u) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. Ps. cxlix. 1. 
 {■v) Josh. viii. 35. Neh. viii. 2—8. Ps. xl. 9. 
 {w) Isa. Ixi. 1. Liik. iv. 18. 44. Acts xi, 26. 
 
 Q 
 
( 122 ) . 
 
 shew that it denotes a society consecrated to religious 
 purposes, both in the Old and New Testaments. 
 
 6. Implements dind places for worship. ^^The brazen 
 ^' altar that Bezaliel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had 
 ^' made, he put before the tabernacle of the Lord : and 
 " Solomon and the church sought unto it.'^ " So Solo- 
 ^^ mon and all the church with him, went to the high 
 ^' place that was at Gibeon ; for there was the tabernacle 
 ^' of the church of God, which Moses the servant of the 
 ^' Lord had made in the wilderness.'^ " The heathen 
 ^' entered into her sanctuary^ whom thou didst com- 
 " mand that they should not enter into thy churchP 
 ^' And Ezra the priest brought the law before the 
 ^' churchP " And he read therein.'' " And Ezra the 
 ^' scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood which they had 
 " made for the purpose." " And the king turned his 
 " face, and blessed the whole church of Israel^ and all 
 *^ the church of Israel stood." " Even them will I 
 ^' bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in 
 " m^ house of prayer : their burnt offerings and their 
 ^' sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar ; for mine 
 ^' house shall be called an house of prayer for all peo- 
 ^' pie." " It is written, My house shall be called a 
 ^' house of prayer ; but ye have made it a den of 
 ^' thieves. "(07) Can any one suppose that when the word 
 church occurs in the above passages, it means any thing 
 short of a visible society, acting as the consecrated de- 
 pository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed re- 
 ligion ? 
 
 (or) 2 Chr. i. 5. 3. Lam. i. 10. Neh. vlii. 2. 5. 4. 2 Chr. vi. 3. Isa, 
 Ivi. 7. Mat. xxi. 13. 
 
( 123 ) 
 
 II. Discipline. The rules by which a society re- 
 fuses candidates, or expels members, will easily deter- 
 mine whether it is an ecclesiastical body or not. 
 
 1. Preclusion. Moses points out some characters who 
 " shall not enter into the church of the Lord/^ until the 
 third generation, others until the tenth, and others 
 never. (?/) If this law goes no farther than to forbid 
 their being invested with ecclesiastical offices, this, ne- 
 vertheless proves the existence of a church to which 
 those offices are attached. This will appear in the 
 following words of Dr. Gill upon one of these statutes, 
 which, he says, ^^ is to be understood, not of the sanctu- 
 ^' ary of the Lord, or of being refused admittance into 
 '' the church of God, and to join in religious rites, and 
 ^' partake of sacred ordinances, which all Israelites, and 
 " strangers that were proselytes, had a right unto ; such 
 " might bring their offerings, keep the passover, &c.(z) 
 
 2. Exclusion, ^^ But the man that shall be unclean, 
 '' and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off 
 ^' from among the churchy because he hath defiled the 
 '' sanctuary of the Lord: the water oi separation hath 
 " not been sprinkled on him.'^U) What it is to be 
 thus " cut off,'' Gill professes not certainly to know, but 
 among three conjectures, to '^ be excommunicated from 
 " the chureh,^^ is one. To be cut off '^ from the Is- 
 ^ raelitish church-state,'^^ is one of three alternatives 
 which he gives us on another similar statute ;(Z> and to 
 
 (y) Deut. xxiii. 1 — 8. 
 
 (z) For this, Gill on Deut. xxiii. 1, quotes Ex. xii. 48. 49. Lev, xxii. 
 18. Num. ix. 14. xv. 14. 15. 
 
 (a) Num. xix. 20. (comp. 13, to which Gill refers from the 20th.) 
 
 {b) Ex. xii. 19. (comp, 15, to which Gill refers for a fuller explana- 
 tion. 
 
( l'i4 ) 
 
 '^ be excommunicated from them as a church^^ is only a 
 part of the punishment which Dr. Gill believes to be 
 contemplated in one of Ezra's decrees. (c) 
 
 III. Character. They were no synagogue of Satan, 
 or ^^congregation of the dead/' as such are called by 
 Solomon. (^) They were not a confused and unlawful 
 assembly, like Demetrius and his Ephesians.Ce) Neither 
 were they a civil society, although they were connected 
 with such a body. When, in a certain case, they were 
 called ^^the whole church of the Lord,''(/) Dr. Gill 
 says, " they don't call them the congregation of Israel, 
 " but of the Lord, because it was not on a civil, but 
 ^^ religious account they were come." As they were 
 not a civil, so they were not a military body, although 
 they were the militant church, and when providentially 
 called, entered the military establishment of their coun- 
 try: as in the case of David and the Assembly who 
 were with him, which Dr. Gill says, was a " great part 
 of " the congregation of Israel, and church of the 
 living God."(^) Its members were consecrated to 
 religious privileges and enjoyments. It was given in 
 charge to the Levites "to sanctify them unto the 
 Lord."(/i) This was to prepare them to "worship at 
 his holy hill," which " holy hill of Zion," Dr. Gill tells 
 us, means " the church. "(z) To the same amount does 
 he explain JoePs proclamation for a religious fast, al- 
 though it speaks of children as belonging to the congre- 
 gation, and partaking of their consecration and their 
 
 (c) Ear. X. 8. (f/) Pi-ov. xxi. 16. (e) Acts xix. 32. 39. 
 
 (/) Josh. xxii. 16. {g) 1 Sam. xvii. 47. (A) 2Chr. xxx. 17. 
 (/) Ps. xcix. 9. 
 
( 125 ) 
 
 humiliation. *^ Gather the people^ sanctify the church, 
 assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that 
 suck the breast.''(y) In accordance with this, Gill says 
 that Joshua's reading to the congregation was ^"^not 
 before the men only, but ' with the women and the little 
 ones,^ who all had a concern in the things that were 
 read to them.'^(^) From this consecration, the officers 
 of the church were, of course, not excluded. " A 
 great number of priests consecrated themselves.'^(/) 
 This ecclesiastical consecration, as well as spiritual 
 sanctification, appears to be contemplated in calling 
 the Jews and the Christians, ^^ the church of saints.''(m) 
 Their imperfection in spiritual sanctification is confessed 
 by all parties, and taught in the scriptures. Sacrifices 
 are appointed for a case in which " the whole church of 
 Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from 
 the eyes of the church.^\n) This is the text by which 
 Gill and Ainsworth prove ^^that the church may err.'' 
 But on account of their perfect Head, and that degree 
 of sanctification which they enjoy, the scriptures call 
 them ^^ the church of the upright,"(o) and recognize an 
 evident incongruity between church- membership and a 
 life of iniquity. '' I was almost in all evil in the midst 
 of the church assembled, ^Kp) These things evidently 
 shew that they are a visible society, acting as the con- 
 secrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of 
 revealed religion. 
 
 IV. Condition. On that text which speaks of the 
 
 (y) Joel ii. 16. (comp. 15. 17.) {k) Josh. viii. 55. 
 
 (/) 2Chr. XXX. 24. (m) Ps. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1. 
 
 in) Lev. iv. 13. (o) Ps. cxi. 1. {fi) Prov. v. 14. 
 
( 126 ) 
 
 trumpets which were made ^^for the calling of the 
 church, and for the journeying of the camps^l^') Dr. 
 Gill takes occasion to remark that the Christian church 
 is in the same condition : " Saints are pilgrims and tra- 
 " vellers ; they are passing through a wilderness^ their 
 ^' way is attended with many difficulties ; Canaan is the 
 '^ place they are travelling to, and the gospel [like 
 ^' the trumpets] is of singular use to them by the way 
 " both to refresh them with its joyful sound, and to 
 '' direct them in the path in which they should go.'^ 
 But an inspired writer has said concerning Christ's pre- 
 sence with the Israelites, ^^This is he that was in the 
 " church in the wilderness, with the angel, which spake 
 " to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers, who 
 '' received the lively oracles to give unto us.'^(r) The 
 context shews that this person who was with them, was 
 the Divine prophet, priest and king of the visible 
 church, and it connects him and them with the taber- 
 nacle and temple which were ecclesiastical buildings ; 
 and thus shews that " the church in the wilderness'' was 
 really, and not nominally only, the visible church of 
 God. Dr. Gill says that this " must be understood of 
 *• the children of Israel, who were the then church of 
 '' God, whom he had chosen and separated from the rest 
 '' of the world, to be a peculiar people to himself, to 
 ^' whom were given the z^orc/and ordinanccsy the sei^vice 
 <•' of God, and the promises ; and God always had, and 
 '' will have a church ; though that is sometimes in the 
 ^' wilderness ; which has been the case under the gospel 
 
 (7) Num. X. ?. (r) Actsvii. 08. (comp. o7. 44. 47.) 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 '^ dispensation^ as well as before ; See Rev. xxii. 6. 14, 
 ^' and it was a peculiar honour to Moses, that he was in 
 " this church, though it was in the wilderness ; even a 
 ^' greater honour than to be in Pharaoh's court.'' In 
 accordance with this, Paul quotes David, as saying for 
 himself and for his Antitype, concerning Jews and 
 Christians, " I will declare thy name unto my brethren ; 
 '' in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto 
 ^' thee."(5) 
 
 You were told some time ago, of my Opponent's 
 statement, that ^' the term church or kirk, is an abbre- 
 ^' viation of the word xv^iov otxoj, the house of the Lord, 
 and does not translate the term 5xxx»;cria." But if ^xx^tiovo. 
 church, has a different meaning from xv^vov oi«oj, the house 
 of the Lord, then it must certainly have a different 
 meaning from b^ov ocxo?, the house of God, Yet let us 
 hear Paul's account of this matter, according to Mac- 
 knight's version, from which my Opponent, contrary to 
 promise, has grievously departed, in his New Transla- 
 tion. The Apostle gives certain instructions to Timo- 
 thy, ^' that thou may est know how thou oughtest to 
 ^' behave thyself BvMixi^Ssov, in the house of God, which 
 ^' is ixx-Kricid Biov li^vtoi thc ckurch of the living God,^\t) 
 Here is an inspired declaration that the church means 
 the same as the house of God, and of course, that it 
 means the same as the house of the Lord, my Opponent's 
 declaration to the contrary notwithstanding. When 
 
 (») Hebr. ii, 12. (comp, context.) (j) 1 Tim. iii. 15. 
 
( 128 ) 
 
 Peter tells the churches that " the time is come that 
 judgment must begin at the house of God ;'^U0 Dr. Gill 
 says, " By the house of God is either meant the temple 
 of Jerusalem^'^ ^* or else the church of God, which is 
 frequently called the house of God.'^ When Paul sajs 
 that we have '' an high priest over the house of God/'(z;) 
 Gill says that it means '^ the church of God, over which 
 Christ is as prophet, priest, and king, and as the son 
 and owner of it.'' When Paul says " every house is 
 builded by some man,'' Gill understands it of ^^ the 
 whole church in general, of particular congregations, 
 and of individual believers." When Paul says ^^he 
 that built all things is God/' Gill explains it '' of Christ, 
 and of his building the church.^^[w) This explanation 
 he still continues, when it is intimated that Moses be- 
 longed to that house, as it is repeatedly, in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. (^) When it is said, that ^^ Moses verily 
 was faithful in all his house, as a servant,''(y) Gill says, 
 ^^ a servant in holy things ;" He says, ^' he was not 
 a servant in the world, and with respect to civil 
 things, and the affairs of Providence, but in the church 
 of God, and in divine things." And as the scriptures 
 never once intimate that this church began with Moses, 
 so neither does our great Baptist Qpmmentator ; but in 
 the very same passage in which he says that " it was a 
 peculiar honour to Moses that he was in this church," 
 he also says that ^^God always had, and will have a 
 church. "(z) 
 
 [w) 1 Pet. iv. 17. {v) Hebr. x. 21. (comp. v. 6.) {tj) Hcbr. iii. 4. 
 ;x) Hebr. iii. 2. 3. (y) Hebr. Iii. 5. 
 
 ^r) Crill on Acts vii, f^8, quoted above. 
 
( 129 
 
 To mc it seems that a small part of the evidence which 
 has been adduced, ought to convince any one of the 
 truth of the proposition, that Abraham and his seed were 
 divinely constituted a visible church of God. They 
 have been shewn to have the oracles and ordinances of a 
 visible church, the members and officers of a visible 
 church, with the constitution and the express, inspired, 
 and unequivocal name of a church. Under this last 
 point, they have been shewn to have the worship of an 
 ecclesiastical body, such as sacrifices and festivals, pray- 
 er and praise, reading, expounding and preaching, to- 
 gether with ecclesiastical implements and places for 
 worship, such as the altar and pulpit, the tabernacle and 
 temple, which latter is called, in the Old and New Tes- 
 tament, the house of prayer. Under this point, it was 
 proved, moreover, that they had the discipline of a 
 church, in respect of preclusion and exclusion, and that 
 the scriptures attributed to them the character and con- 
 dition of a visible church. The existence, therefore, of 
 the Patriarchal or Old Testament church, is as certain 
 as the existence of the Christian or New Testament 
 church. And some of you are ready to say that if my 
 remaining propositions are as irrefrugably proved as this 
 first one, then the conclusion in favour of infant- baptism 
 
 is inevitable. We proceed then to 
 R 
 
( 130 ) 
 
 PROPOSITION II. 
 
 The Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamtc 
 
 CHURCH : OR, IN OTHER WORDS, THE JeWISH SoCIETY RE- 
 FORE Christ, and the Christian Society after Christ, 
 
 ARE one and the SAME CHURCH IN DIFFERENT ADMINIS- 
 TRATIONS. 
 
 You will be at no loss to account for my calling the 
 Christian church a branch of the Abrahamic, when you 
 remember that this is the figure used by Paul on the 
 same subject. The Jews he considers the natural branch- 
 es which are now cut ofF, and the Gentiles he treats as 
 foreign branches engrafted in their place. (a) As our 
 proposition is scriptural, both in phraseology and doc- 
 trine, my Opponent, for the want of argument, falls into 
 a rhetorical ecstacy, about the inferiority of a branch 
 to the stock, and the consequent inferiority of the Chris- 
 tian to the Jewish church, if my language be correct. 
 On this ground he says that I can ^^ be put to silence by 
 ^^ every stripling who could ask the following question ; 
 ^^Is not a branch inferior to the stem or trunk from 
 ^' which it grows ?"(3) I suppose my Opponent's strip- 
 pling would hardly deny that the superiority of a branch 
 to the trunk into which it is inserted, is the very reason 
 why engrafting is generally practised. But the scrip- 
 tures say, '' behold the man whose name is The 
 " Branch.'^ ^' Behold I will raise unto David a right- 
 ^^ eous Branch. ^^ ^^ And there shall come forth a rod 
 <^ out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out 
 
 (a) Rom. xi. 16—24. 
 
 (A) Mr. Campbell's Spurious Dcl> 
 
 ►ate with me, p. 1^4. 
 
( 131 ) ^ 
 
 ^* of his roots. ^^(^) These passages evidently represent 
 Immanuel as a branch of the stock of David, and David 
 as a branch of the stem of Jesse. Now I will let my 
 Opponent or his stripling say, whether Messiah the 
 Branch was not greater than the stock of David, and 
 whether David the branch was not greater than the 
 stem of Jesse. 
 
 The proposition in hand is sufficiently guarded in 
 respect of the sameness of the Jewish and Christian so- 
 cieties. It says nothing more than that they are the 
 same church; and nothing more than ecclesiastical iden- 
 tity is intended. You know that that lofty tree has not 
 changed its identity since it was a plant of a foot high. 
 Each of my hearers believes that he has, at this moment, 
 the same body with which he was born. The constant 
 mutation of its constituent particles never makes you 
 doubt your personal identity. The adjacent town of 
 Washington ((/) is governed by the same board of Trus- 
 tees from its foundation to the present day, although, 
 perhaps, not one individual remains of those who origi- 
 ginally composed it. When the Baptist church claims 
 the Petrobrussian church, and the Waldensian church, 
 and the Primitive church as belonging to their church, 
 they must mean nothing more than that ecclesiastical 
 identity which v/e say subsists between the Jewish and 
 Christian societies. The change of administration can 
 hardly make a greater difference between these, than 
 the change of condition makes between the church mili- 
 tant and the church triumphant, which are nevertheless 
 
 (c) Zech. vi. 12. Jcr. xxiii. 5. Is. xi. 1 
 (<0 The first two days of the debate w 
 
 were in a forest near the town, 
 
( 132 ) 
 
 the same church in different states ; my Opponent to the 
 contrary notwithstanding. (e) 
 
 This view of ecclesiastical sameness j my Opponent 
 considers '' as absurd as to say^ that the human body and 
 the soul are one and the same thing," as if there were 
 no difference between '' flesh and spirit."(/) As the 
 human soul and body, though distinct beings, do really 
 form one person, they would afford a good illustration, if 
 they did not exist simultaneously, but in succession, as 
 do the Jewish and Christian churches. My Opponent's 
 sophism concerning the supposed identity of a horse and 
 an elephant, because they are both creatures '^{g) or, (if 
 he would prefer it,) the identity of a quibbler, and a 
 monkey, because they are both empty chatterers, would 
 answer very well, provided he will first establish the 
 doctrine of metempsychosis, a doctrine fully as correct 
 as some which he holds at present. 
 
 On this subject the Appendix to my Opponent's spu- 
 rious Debate with Mr. Walker(/0 has several questions 
 which it is convenient to answer. 
 
 " 1. Are not a constitution, laws, ordinances, sub- 
 '' jects, and privileges, the chief constituents of a 
 ^^ church state ?'' 
 
 The visible church is a visible society, acting as the 
 consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of 
 revealed religion. 
 
 " 2. Was the constitution that erected the Jewish 
 " nation into a national church, the same as the New 
 ^' Testament, or constitution of the Christian Church ?" 
 
 U) Spur. Deb. with nic. p. 19?. ('/)Si)ur. Deb. with me. p. 155, 
 is) i^i^ur. Deb. with lue. p. 83. . (h) p. 195. 
 
( 133 ) 
 
 The Abrahamic covenant is the constitution of the 
 visible church under the Jewish and Christian adminis- 
 trations. 
 
 " 3. Were the laws that regulated the worship, 
 ^' discipline, political economy, judicial proceedings, 
 " and common intercourse of the Jews, the same as 
 " those under which the disciples of Christ act ?'' 
 
 It has been ably proved by Pedobaptists, and is main- 
 tained by Dr. Gill, the greatest Baptist that ever lived, 
 that the political economy of the Jews was distinct from 
 their ecclesiastical economy. But, in the present case, 
 the one serves as a very convenient illustration of the 
 other. As the national identity of Israel was not de- 
 stroyed by the change of their government from judges 
 to kings, so the ecclesiastical identity of God's people is 
 not destroyed by the transfer of their privileges from Jews 
 to Gentiles. After this transfer, the Baptists themselves 
 must confess that the government of the church-general 
 underwent many alterations, while the body remained the 
 same. If I mistake not, the Baptists generally believe 
 in opposition to us, that the government of the Apostoli- 
 cal churches was an Independent Congregationalism. 
 This they probably admit gave place to a confederated 
 parochial Episcopacy, or what is now called Presbyte- 
 rianism, as early as the days of Ignatius and Polycarp.. 
 And they cannot deny that Dioscesan Episcopacy, or 
 full-blooded Prelacy, was the government of the same 
 church, in the days of Cyprian and Augustine. Neither 
 can they deny, that, at present, there is a great variety 
 of laws and modes of discipline, in the various branches 
 of the Baptist church, which in their view, do not 
 
( 134 ) 
 
 destroy their identity with the church of John the 
 Baptist, or with one another. (2) 
 
 ^^ 4. Were the ordinances of the Jewish state, the 
 *^ same, with regard to their import, times of obser- 
 *' vance, number, the character and quality of the ob- 
 ^^ servers or participants of them?'' 
 
 There was a difference in form, yet a substantial same- 
 ness in the passover, and the eucharist, and in circum- 
 cision and baptism, as we hope to shew fully in its place. 
 Circumstantial differences effect not the substance. 
 
 " 5, Are the subjects of the Christian church to be 
 *^ such in birth, education, temper, and character, as 
 ^^ the subjects of the commonwealth of Israel?'' 
 
 They are the same thus far, that they should be 
 believers and their seed. 
 
 ^^ 6. Are the privileges enjoyed by Christians in the 
 ^^ church of Christ, just the same as those enjoyed by 
 "the Jews?" 
 
 Privileges, whether in church or state, may be en- 
 larged or restricted, created or suppressed, without 
 affecting the identity of the body. The repeal of the 
 ediot of Nantz did not annihilate the French nation, 
 neither did the toleration act under William the Third, 
 create a new nation in England : neither did these 
 decrees affect the identity of churches. Popish or Pro- 
 testant, Conformist or Non- conformist, in France or 
 England. Virginia would still be Virginia, if she were 
 
 (f) If, by common intercourae, in this third question, is meant domestic 
 intercourse, such as is contemplated in Lev. xx. 18. Ez. xviii. 6, I say 
 that those particular laws are still binding. It he have regard to social 
 intercourse, I say that we are now permitted to eat with unbelievers. 
 
( 135 ) 
 
 to extend the right of suflragc to her poorest citizen, 
 and Pennsylvania would still be Pennsylvania, if she 
 were to compel Preachers and Quakers to perform 
 military duty. These United States would still be the 
 same, Cthough somewhat disgraced,) if they were to give 
 constitutional permission to the society of Cincinnati, 
 to wear an empty honorary title of nobility. And the 
 Presbyterian ehurch would be the same, (though some- 
 what enhanced in value,) if, while they advocate a 
 parity of clergy, they Would, like Martin Luther, leave 
 their Doctorates in Egypt, where those vain and invi- 
 dious distinctions were born. If a change in respect of 
 privilege must destroy identity, then Joseph was not the 
 same person in prison and in the office of prime-minister 
 to Pharaoh. 
 
 '' 7. When he(y) has answered the first question in 
 '^ the affirmative, and the next five, in the negative, 
 ^' (which, if he consults the holy oracles, he must,) then 
 '' how are two things the same, which differ in every 
 ^^ essential particular?" 
 
 The author of the above questions does not know what 
 is essential^ and what is not essential to a church. He 
 considers not only ordinances, but ^^ times of obser- 
 vance," essential. The excommunication of the Asiatic 
 church, by the Roman Bishop, because they diifered 
 from him in their time of observing Easter, must please 
 my Opponent much : for they ought to be out of the 
 church, when they lack that which is es?>ential to the 
 church. If uniformity in ^Uimes of observance" be 
 
 (y) Thet>e questions were addressed to Dr. Ely. 
 
( 136 ) 
 
 essential to ecclesiastical identity, then those whose 
 sabbath begins at sunset, and those whose sabbath begins 
 at midnight, cannot both belong to the Christian church ; 
 because they lack that which is essential to being in the 
 same church. He might as well say that two persons 
 cannot be members of the same family, or citizens of the 
 same state, unless they observe precisely the same time 
 in eating and sleeping. There are four things essential 
 to the visible church: visibility, association, consecra- 
 tion, and investiture ; by which last I mean, being in- 
 trusted with the oracles and ordinances of revealed reli- 
 gion. Now the Jewish and Christian societies were thus 
 invested, and were consecrated to this trust, for which 
 they were visibly associated. As both, therefore, were 
 visible associations, and both were consecrated deposito- 
 ries, they both had all the essentials of God's church on 
 earth ; and no possible difference could hinder their amal- 
 gamation, any more than the difference between olive 
 trees w^ould make engrafting impossible, or the differ- 
 ence between different countries would prove an insur- 
 mountable obstacle to making a British subject an 
 American citizen by naturalization. 
 
 My Opponent's eleven objections to the sameness of 
 the Jewish and Christian societies, I shall have to notice 
 concisely in an order of my own. 
 
 1. My Opponent's sixth argument is founded upon 
 our Saviour's consolatory address to his small family ; 
 " Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good 
 " pleasure to give you the kingdom. "(s) It was pru- 
 
 (r) Luke XX. 32. Spur. Deb. with ruc. \.. — .^. 
 
 \ 
 
( 137 ) 
 
 dent for my Opponent to spend but little of his breath in 
 showing that this text excludes the Old X^stament so- 
 ciety from God's ecclesiastical kingdom, because if it 
 does prove that, it must also prove that the Christian 
 church must always be a little flock, even in the millen- 
 nium, and in the kingdom of glory. 
 
 2. My Opponent's seventh argument is founded upon 
 Matt. xix. 28. ^^ And Jesus said unto them, verily I say 
 ^^ unto you, that ye which have followed me in the rege- 
 " neration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne 
 ^^ of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
 ^^ judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "(a) He gives it 
 to us in Campbell's translation, which uses the word re- 
 novation instead of regeneration^ intimating that this 
 renovation means the institution of the Christian church. 
 My Opponent then says, " Observe here the erection of 
 " this new kingdom is called emphatically the reno- 
 '' VATTON ; in the common translation the regenera- 
 " TiON, not the continuation of the Jewish church." 
 
 My Opponent has considerable versatility of ge- 
 nius. When he is at a loss for proof, he can turn any 
 thing into evidence by merely making it emphatical. 
 By this means he can even impress opposite arguments 
 into his service. All that they need is a due degree of 
 emphasis. When our Saviour promised to build his 
 church, my Opponent discovered that to build a church 
 was very different from rebuilding or repairing a 
 church ; for rebuilding and repairing supposed a pre- 
 vious existence of a church which had fallen into decay. 
 
 (a) Matt. xix. 28. in Spur. Deb. against me, p. 228. 
 
 s 
 
( 138 ) 
 
 But now he lays an emphasis upon regeneration and re- 
 novatio7i, words equivalent to rebuilding and repairing ^ 
 and makes out that they do not presuppose existence, 
 but the very contrary. 
 
 3. His tenth argument is founded upon a passage 
 which, (strange as it may seem,) is a direct proof of the 
 identity of the Jewish and Christian societies, according 
 to my proposition. " For he is our peace, who hath 
 ^' made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall 
 ^' of partition between us ; having abolished in his flesh 
 ^' the enmity, even the law of commandments contained 
 ^^ in ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new 
 '' man, so making peace.''(6) According to him, this 
 proves that Jews and Gentiles are emphatically made 
 
 BOTH ONE, ONE NEW MAN, that is, ONE NEW CHURCH. 
 
 Very well. So says Dr. Gill also. And so be it. My 
 Opponent, however, believes it to be a new church, as 
 to its essence, and I believe it to be a new church, as 
 to its administration. The second temple was, in one 
 sense a new temple, but in another, it was only a reno- 
 vation of the old temple. So the higher gate of the 
 temple, which Jotham repaired, is twice called by Jere- 
 miah ^' the new gate,"(c) in consequence of its repairs^ 
 although it was as old as the temple. This same prophet 
 says concerning the Lord^s mercies *^they are new every 
 ^' morning ;"(rf) which Gill justly explains, by saying that 
 they are " daily renewed in the manifestations thereof.'^ 
 John says, " I write no new commandment unto you, 
 ^' but an old commandment, which ye had from the be- 
 
 (A) Eph. ii. 14. 15. Sjmr. Deb. ag. me, p. 235. 
 
 (c) Jer. xxvi. 10. xxxvi. 10. (comp, 2 Kgs. xv, 55.) 
 
 ((/) Lam. iii. 2J, 
 
( 139 ) 
 
 ^' ginning." This, Dr. Gill thinks, is the law of love. 
 And the same law of love, he thinks, is meant in the 
 next verse, which says, " A new commandment I write 
 ^^ unto you.''(e) This he says, ^^is the same with the 
 " former, considered in different respects. The com- 
 '' mand of brotherly love is a new one ; that is, it is an 
 " excellent one, as a ntw name is an excellent name, 
 " and a new song is an excellent one.'' So the Jews 
 and Gentiles are now united in one new man, or new 
 church, because there is now a new administration, and 
 one which far excels the old, 
 
 4. My Opponent's eleventh argument is based upon 
 PauPs declaration that we have received " a kingdom 
 which cannot be moved. "^) He thinks the word king- 
 dom here means the New Testament church, and that 
 these words, with the context, amount to a proof that 
 there is an essential difference between the Jewish and 
 Christian societies, as the one can be moved and the 
 other cannot. 
 
 If this argument prove that these two bodies cannot 
 be one church, then it will also prove that a human soul 
 and body cannot form one person ; for the one can be re- 
 moved by death, and the other cannot. But, if Provi- 
 dence permit, I hope, in due time, to lay before you 
 plain scriptural evidence that the ecclesiastical kingdom 
 of God embraces both the Jewish and Christian adminis- 
 trations. When, however, the word kingdom is used to 
 denote the latter administration to the exclusion of the 
 former, it has, of course, the precedency in point of dig- 
 
 (f ) 1 John, ii. 7. 8. 
 
 (/) Hebr. xii. 28. Spur, Deb. with me. p. 236. 
 
( 140 ) 
 
 nity and stability, as the soul excels the body with which 
 it is united. That this word does sometimes signify ad- 
 ministration^ both in church and state, will not be diffi- 
 cult to prove by my Opponent himself. Where our 
 translation says, " the kingdom of heaven is likened un- 
 ^' to a certain king,'^ my Opponent's New Testament 
 reads, '^ the administration of heaven resembleth that 
 ^' of a king.'^(/i) This is a copy of Dr. George Camp- 
 bell, and accords with his Preliminary Dissertation on 
 this word, in which he says that " in some of the para- 
 '' bles, it evidently means administration ^ or method of 
 '' governing. ^^[i) Now that the Jewish administration 
 is removed, and that the Christian administration of the 
 church never will be removed, I have never denied. 
 But in the same part of Dr. Campbell's dissertation, he 
 mentions a parable, in which ^^ the word denotes royalty 
 " or royal authority f^ and it so happens that the phra- 
 seology of that parable is exactly parallel to that of the 
 text on which this argument of my Opponent rests. 
 This text speaks of our " receiving a kingdom which 
 ^^ cannot be moved." The parable uses such an ex- 
 pression twice. '^ A certain nobleman went into a far 
 country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to re- 
 turn/' " having received the kingdomP[j) 
 
 Instead of ^^to receive for himself a kingdom," Dr. 
 Campbell's translation has it, " to procure for himself 
 royaltyy^ and instead of ^^ having received the king- 
 dom," the Dr. renders it ''vested with royal power .'^'^ 
 My Opponent promised that his translation should be a 
 
 Ui\ Matt, xviii. 23. (z) Dissert. 5. Part. 1. Sect, 7. 
 
 \f) Luke xix. 12. 15. 
 
( 141 ) 
 
 copy of Dr. CampbelPs ; and, for a remarkable thing, 
 he has made no other alteration than to insert our defi- 
 nite article before royalty. Remember that my Oppo- 
 nent has pronounced Dr. Campbell ^^the first translator 
 " in point of correctness and elegance that ever gave a 
 " version of any part of the scriptures.^' And for this 
 reason he has altered the versions of Macknight and 
 Doddridge, to make them conformable to him. Why, 
 therefore, did he not read his favourite text, " being 
 vested with a royalty which cannot be moved V^ He 
 cannot plead a scrupulous regard to his promise that he 
 would copy Macknight : for that very verse which he 
 has given us as Macknight's translation, is a heteroge- 
 neous mixture of Macknight, Thomson, and a certain 
 gentleman who boasts much of his critical acumen. 
 Neither can he plead that the proposed rendering would 
 materially differ from Macknight, in sentiment: for 
 Macknight, in his commentary, expressly declares that 
 the word kingdom in that text, means " that excellent 
 dispensation of religion," which I have called the 
 Christian administration. Another hint of his, which 
 may tend to the farther elucidation of this text, is, that 
 this kingdom which we receive, was ^^ foretold by Daniel 
 to be given to the saints." Daniel says, " The saints of 
 the Most High shall take the kingdom. "(A) Gill says, 
 " or receive it, as a free gift from God :" which latter 
 translation he informs us is agreeable to Munster, Pis- 
 cator, and the Tigurine version. He claims the Chaldaic 
 Original also : but this may be rendered either take or 
 
 {k) Dan. vii. la 
 
( 142 ) 
 
 receive, as may also the Septuagint, although it has the 
 identical verb which is correctly rendered receive^ in 
 Paul's text, quoted as the basis of my Opponent's argu- 
 ment. Now let us compare the Prophet and Apostle. 
 The latter says, '' We having received a kingdom [or 
 royalty'] which cannot be moved." The former says, 
 '' The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom 
 \ov royalty'] and possess the kingdom [or royal power] 
 for ever, even for ever and ever." It is remarkable 
 that this view is as unequivocally approved by Dr. Gill's 
 Commentary as by Dr. Campbell's Dissertation. Daniel's 
 promise that the saints " shall receive the kingdom," 
 Dr. Gill explains by saying ^^they shall have the rule 
 and government in the world." This interpretation is 
 corroborated by many passages in the Septuagint, 
 which I need not take time to repeat.(/) Permit me, 
 however, to add one more instance from my Opponent's 
 translation to the same amount. John speaks of a woman, 
 who (literally) '^ hath a kingdom over the kings of 
 the earth. "(m) Instead of *^ hath a kingdom," our 
 Translation says, reigneth, and my Opponent says 
 ruleth. This supports Dr. Gill's interpretation that to 
 receive the kingdom, is to have the rule and govern- 
 ment ; or to obtain royalty, according to Dr. Campbell. 
 Peter tells believers that they are " a royal priesthood." 
 But the Septuagint applies tliis very same title to 
 pious Jews, and it is translated, " a royal priesthood," 
 by Thomson, (n) Their ecclesiastical administration, 
 
 (/) See particularly Dan. v. 31. 2 Sam. v. 12. Also ISam. xxiv. 20. 
 xxviii. 17. 2 Sam. iii. 10. 1 K^js. ii. 22, and a number of other places, 
 (m) Rev. xvii. 18, (n) Ex. xix. 6. 1 Pet. ii. 9. 
 
( 143 ) 
 
 however, was moveable ; whereas the present adminis- 
 tration is ^^ a royalty which cannot be moved :" but is 
 like the believer's '^ crown of glory that fadeth not 
 away.'' 
 
 5. Several of my Opponent's eleven reasons for 
 denying the ecclesiastical identity of the Jewish and 
 Christian societies have now been answered. His first, 
 second, third, fifth and eighth, (o) which have not yet 
 been noticed, all relate to this kingdom or ecclesiastical 
 house, of which we have already been speaking, and may 
 be more conveniently answered in that part of my 
 defence, in which I hope to prove more fully, that the 
 house, or the kingdom of God, embraces the Jewish and 
 Christian administrations. His fourth and ninth rea- 
 sons(/?) relate to the terms of admission, circumcision 
 and baptism. These will be effectually answered by 
 proving, as I hope to do, under my third proposition, 
 that circumcision and Baptism are one and the same seal 
 in substance, though in different forms. 
 
 After the attention which has now been given to my 
 Opponent's objections to the proposition in hand, the 
 evidence upon which I rest my belief that the Jewish 
 and Christian societies are the same church, may rea- 
 sonably be expected. This shall be given under three 
 heads ; the sameness of their religion, of their names, 
 and of their covenant. The first amounts to a strong 
 probability, the two last to an absolute certainty. 
 
 (o) Spur. Deb. pp, 195. 197. 209. 229. (/i)Spur. Deb. pp. 197. 234» 
 
( 144 ) 
 
 POINT I. 
 
 God gave to the Jewish society before Christ, and the Chris- 
 tian society after Christ, essentially the same religion. 
 
 An eminent writer^ (g) in explaining the word reli- 
 gion, says that " in a practical sense, it is generally 
 considered as the same with godliness J^ It is godliness, 
 or piety, or experimental religion that is meant, when 
 some entreat their friends to get religion, or express a 
 hope that they have got heart-religion ; expressions 
 which my Opponent considers ^^ very vague,^' and 
 ^^ very much at random/^(r) Perhaps he knows more 
 of what the Apostle James calls a vain religion. 
 
 ^^ The religions which exist in the world have been 
 generally divided into four, the Pagan, the Jewish, the 
 Mahometan, and the Christian. '^(5) Paul says, ^^ After 
 the most straitest sect of our religion, I lived a Phari- 
 see.''(^) The same Apostle tells the Galatians that he 
 Jiad his " conversation in time past in Judaism,'^ and 
 that he ^^proiited in Judaism,^ in both of which instances, 
 our translators render it ^^the Jews^ religionP{u) In 
 one of the few times in which the word for religion 
 occurs in the Greek Testament, it is rendered worship- 
 ping : " Let no man beguile you of your reward in a 
 '' voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels.^^(i;) 
 This angcl-religion is very general, and embraces all 
 the four sorts which have been mentioned. It is an 
 
 ^] 
 
 Buck, in his Theologicjil Dictionaiy. 
 S]jTir. Deb. pp, 150. 151. (s) Buck's Theol. Diet. 
 (0 Acts xxvi. 5. (u) Gal. i. 13. 14. (v) Col, il 18. 
 
( 145 ) 
 
 important and conspicuous feature in the religion 
 of the Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Chris- 
 tians. But this religion was not known to the Jews, 
 until their subjection to the Babylonians, and it was not 
 called Christianity, until the Anti-christian apostacy. 
 We see, therefore, that there are two sorts of Judaism, 
 as Paul informs nsyiw) and two sorts of Christiani- 
 ty, as James assures us. (a:) Now I will very readily 
 admit, with my Opponent, that degenerate Judaism is 
 essentially different from Primitive Christianity : but it 
 was also essentially different from Primitive Judaism, as 
 found in their inspired standards; just as Popish 
 Christianity is essentially different from Primitive 
 Christianity, as found in our infallible standards. 
 
 When I say that God gave the same religion to Jews 
 and Christians, I mean that the religion of the Old 
 Testament and that of t}ie New are essentially the same, 
 notwithstanding the great difference in the two adminis- 
 trations. My Opponent says, Nay. While I undertake 
 to prove this point, it gives me pleasure to remember 
 that all real christians are in my favour ; not even the 
 Baptists excepted. In speaking of the two silver 
 trumpets used by the Jewish Church, Dr. Gill says, 
 ^^ The number two may be applicable to the two dispen- 
 ^^ sations, under which the gospel has been ministered, 
 ^^ directing to the same Saviour, and to the same way of 
 ^^ salvation, by his grace, his blood, righteousness, and 
 " sacrifice ; and to the two Testaments, which agree in 
 ^^ the same truths respecting his person, offices, obe- 
 
 (w) Rom. ii. 28. 29. (jc) James i. 26. 27. 
 
 T 
 
( 146 ) 
 
 " dience, sufferings, and death ; and to the prophets 
 ^* and apostles of both dispensations and testaments, who 
 " have united in laying Christ as the foundation. ''(y) 
 
 The Dictionary of Dr. Allison, the Baptist preacher, 
 says that the word religion means '' a system of divine 
 faith and worship, as opposite to others." If the Old 
 and New Testaments contain not only the same system 
 of faith, but of practice, not only the same worship 
 substantially, but the same system of government and 
 discipline, then they must contain the same religion. 
 As this is a subject, which alone might occupy more 
 than a week, I can do little more than point out the 
 general features of the Jewish and Christian systems, 
 and refer you to a few obvious scripture proofs. This 
 shall be done under the following particulars. 
 
 I. Theology. The scriptures of both Testaments 
 contain the doctrine of the unity of essence, and Trinity 
 of persons, in the true God ; of the person, offices, and 
 work of Christ ; of original sin, regeneration, justifica- 
 tion, &c. Paul says, " We declare unto you glad tidings, 
 " how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers, 
 " [the Jews,] God hath fulfilled the same unto us, their 
 '^ children, [the Christians,] in that he hath raised up 
 ^' Jesus again.'' '^ Seeing it is one God which shall 
 ^^ justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision 
 " through faith. ''(2r) Peter says, '' We believe that 
 " through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we, 
 '^ [the Christians,] shall be saved, even as they, [the 
 '^ Jews.] "(a) Understanding him here to mean " the 
 
 (y) Gill on Num. x. 2. (z) Acts xiii. 32. Rom. iii. 30. (a) Acts xv. 11. 
 
( 147 ) 
 
 Jewish fathers/' Gill says, '*• For they were justified, 
 pardoned, accepted, and saved, in the same way, as 
 " the saints under the New Testament are : They could 
 '' not keep the law perfectly, nor was there then, nor 
 " even now, salvation hy it, only by the grace of Christ ; 
 '' and in that way, and that only, Old and New Testa- 
 " ment believers, Jews and Gentiles, whether circum- 
 ^' cised or uncircumcised, are saved. The Gentiles 
 '' were not saved by the light of nature, nor the Jews 
 " by the law of Moses ; the one were^ not lost for 
 " want of circumcision, nor the other saved by it ; the 
 '^ only way of salvation to both, and under all dispen- 
 " sations, is the Lord Jesus Christ.'' Paul says, '^ They 
 '^ which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." 
 " Which shews," says Dr. Gill, '' that iht faith of Old 
 '^ and New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles, is the 
 '' same ; their blessings the same, and so their eternal 
 '' happiness ; they have the same God and Father, the 
 " same Mediator and Redeemer, are actuated and influ- 
 " enced by the same Spirit, partake of the same grace, 
 ^^ and shall share the same glory. "(6) 
 
 II. Morality. Moses and the Prophets contain a 
 perfectly pure moral law, of which the Decalogue may 
 be considered an inspired compend. Concerning this 
 our Saviour says, ^^ Think not that I am come to 
 '^ destroy the law, or the prophets ; I am not come to 
 " destroy, but to fulfil."(c) Moses says, " Thou shalt 
 '' love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart, and with 
 '^ all thy soul, and with all thy might." Christ says. 
 
 (6) Gal. iii. 9, is thus expounded by Gill in his commentan' on Matt. 
 vHi. IX. (c) Ex. XX. 3—17. Matt. v. 17/ 
 
( 148 ) 
 
 ** Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, 
 *' and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and 
 ^^ with all thy mind ; and thy neighbour as thyself."(c?) 
 Moses says, ^' Speak unto all the congregation of the 
 ^' children of Israel, and say unto them. Ye shall be 
 ^^ holy, for I the Lord your God am holy." Peter says, 
 '^ As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in 
 ^^ all manner of conversation : because it is written, Be 
 *^ ye holy, for I am holy.''(e) 
 
 IIL Worship. Here I need not dwell on the sub- 
 stantial evidence of the most important ordinances, the 
 Passover and the Eucharist, or of circumcision and 
 baptism, which may be fully considered hereafter, but 
 I would merely refer you to what has been already 
 proved concerning the worship of the Jewish church ; 
 such as reading and preaching, praying and praising, &c. 
 
 IV. Government. This was by Presbyters or 
 Elders. Moses says, '' And the Elders of the congre- 
 gation shall lay their hands," &c» The Psalmist says, 
 '' Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the 
 people, and praise him in the assembly of the Elders,''^ 
 Luke says " And when they had ordained them Elders 
 in every church."(/) 
 
 V. Discipline. This concerns disciples, in respect 
 of their initiation and their regulation. 
 
 1. Initiation. That faith is necessary in an adult 
 proselyte, under the New Testament, is urged by both 
 parties, from the words, '^ He that believeth and is bap- 
 tized, shall be saved." But one of the most remark- 
 
 (d) Deut. vi. 5. Luke x. 27, (r) Lev. xix. 2. 1 Pet. i. 15. 16. 
 
 (/) Lev. iv. XS. Ps. cvii. 3:.. Acts xiv. 2.". 
 
( 149 ) 
 
 able proofs of this is found in the words of Paul, where 
 he shews that God demanded the same prerequisite to 
 legitimate membership in the Jewish church. " Well ; 
 '^ because of unbelief, they [the Jews] were broken off, 
 ^' and thou [the Christian church] standest by 
 ^^ faith. ^'(^) And let it be marked, that in both churches, 
 believers and their households are initiated. 
 
 2. Regulation. Without taking time to quote the 
 authorities at large, I will just tell you, in a few words, 
 what you know can be easily proved on this subject. In 
 both the Old and New Testament churches, an offender 
 must be told of his fault ;(A) in both, a penitent must be 
 forgiven ;(e) and 'in both, the impenitent must be cut 
 off.O') 
 
 POIXT II. 
 
 The Scriptures give to the Jewish and Christian societies 
 the same names, in such a manner as plainly to prove 
 that they are the same church. 
 
 This has the appearance, and only the appearance, of 
 contradicting the following prophecies. " The Gentiles 
 " shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and 
 " thou [the Jewish church] shaltbe called by a ntwname^ 
 " which the mouth of the Lord shall name?^ " And 
 " ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen ; 
 " for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants 
 '^ by another namePiJk) A diversity of names, in one 
 
 i^g) Mk. xvi. 16. Rom. xi. 20. {Ji) Lev. xix. 17. Mat. xviii. 15. 
 
 (i) Lev. iv. 20. Luke xvii. 3. (y ) Deut, xvii. 12. Mat. xviii. 17. 
 
 {k) Is. Ixii. 2. Ixv. 15. 
 
( 150 ) 
 
 respect, is consistent with an identity of names in another 
 respect. But even this prophecy concerning the change 
 of name, proves the sameness of the churches. It is 
 not said that the Jews had been called by one name, 
 and another people should be called by another name ; 
 bat it is, in a certain sense, the same people, whose 
 name is to be altered. ^^ And thou shalt be called by a 
 new name.'^ While the name was to be altered, the 
 people were to continue the same. Yet how the same ? 
 Not nationally ; for those who bore the old name were 
 Jew's, and those who were to bear the new name were 
 Gentiles: they were the same people, therefore, con- 
 sidered as the church, the professed servants of 
 God ; for he says that he will " call his servants by ano- 
 ther name.'^ This change of name only points out the 
 change of administration, while an inter-community of 
 names shews the sameness of the church. 
 
 This inter-community of names is visible throughout 
 the scriptures. Moses calls the Jews? God's peculiar 
 treasure, a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. 
 Peter calls the Christians " a chosen generation, a royal 
 priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people. ''(/) There 
 are also many other figurative appellations which, in 
 their connexion, shew clearly that these two adminis- 
 trations are called by the same name, because they are, 
 ecclesiastically, the same thing. It is in this sense, that 
 they are called a tree and vineyard ; a foundation,' floor, 
 and house ; a kingdom and commonwealth ; man and 
 body; brethren, bride, and children. 
 
 (/) Ex. xix. 5. 6. \ Pet. ii. 9. 
 
( 151 ) 
 
 I. Tree. Of this the Apostle Paul speaks largely in 
 his Epistle to the Romans.(m) My Opponent, in his 
 Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, (n) speaks of it as 
 follows, viz. ^^Distinguished commentators have found 
 ^^ it extremely difficult to comprehend every thing the 
 " Apostle says in this eleventh chapter. Therefore, we 
 '^ find the ablest of them differing among themselves. 
 " One cause of this difficulty, I presume, is the Apos- 
 '^ tie's so frequently referring from one part of the sub- 
 
 ^^ject to another so often stating and applying his 
 
 " remarks in sudden transitions from Jews to Gentiles. 
 "Another difficulty in expounding the metaphors is, 
 '^ that the engrafting spoken of, appears to be predica- 
 " ted upon a mistaken view of grafting. A wild olive 
 " into a good olive, doe» not improve the wild olive ; the 
 '' fruit being similar to the cion engrafted, and not simi- 
 " lar to the stalk. But the Apostle's design was to shew 
 " that the Gentiles partook equally with the Jew, as the 
 '' engrafted cion equally partakes with the natural 
 '' branch, in the sap and vigour of the root.'' 
 
 If I am not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent has, 
 in this extract, displayed a modesty to which he is usu- 
 ally a stranger. He generally speaks as if those subjects 
 which puzzled and divided the ablest commentators 
 were perfectly translucent to his penetrating eye. He 
 not unfrequently spurns the opinion of the most distin- 
 guished expositors, Baptist as well as Pedobaptist ; and 
 advances his own dogmas with the lofty confidence, of 
 one who had a grain of intelligence diluted with an 
 
 (m) Rom. xi. 16—24, (n) p. 28. Note. 
 
( 152 ) 
 
 ounce of self-conceit. But when he comes to the Abra- 
 hamic Olive-tree, with its Jewish and Gentile branches, 
 his confidence for a while forsakes him ; it is all involved 
 in obscurity, to himself and to the ablest commentators, 
 if not to Paul also. He even sees something in the sa- 
 cred text, very much resembling those " far-fetched 
 analogies and inaccurate reasonings'' which Unitarians 
 often discover in the Apostle's writings. He tells us that 
 ^' the engrafting spoken of appears to be predicated 
 upon a mistaken view of grafting." If the Apostle was 
 not mistaken^ my Opponent certainly is, for they differ 
 very much from each other. But there is no reason to 
 believe that the Apostle's views of grafting were differ- 
 ent from those of every practical man among you. You 
 practice engrafting, that you may improve the fruit, by 
 a change of the branches, while there is no change in 
 the root, the trunk, or the sap. So Paul, with the eccle- 
 siastical Olive-tree. Its root, trunk, and fatness remain- 
 ed ; its branches only were changed : and whether it was 
 not an improvement, to exchange infidel for believing 
 branches, to exchange the Jewish for the Christian ad- 
 ministration, judge ye. This opinion does not suffer by 
 a closer examination. 
 
 1. The root. It is equally consistent with the Pedo- 
 baptist system, to consider this as referring to Christ or 
 to Abraham, the original or derived root. When the 
 figure of a building instead of a tree is used, the pro- 
 phets and apostles are spoken of as a foundation^ but 
 Christ is the foundation of foundations. When Christ is 
 
{ 153 ) 
 
 said to be '^ the root and the offspring of David/'(o) the 
 sense is, that he is the Father as well as the son of David. 
 But Abraham is said to be ^' the Father of circumcision 
 *^ [that is, of ecclesiastical initiation] to them who are 
 '^ not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the 
 '' steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he 
 '^ had, being yet uncircumcised.'^(j&) His very name 
 Ahraharrij signifies a high fatJier^ and it was given to 
 him, because he was to be a father not to the Jews only, 
 but to many nations : that is, he was the root of that ec- 
 clesiastical tree, which bore both Jewish and Christian 
 branches. 
 
 If, instead of to Abraham, you should apply this figure 
 to the seed of the woman, revealed to Adam, and wor- 
 shipped by Abel, Seth, Enoch, and Noah, I see no 
 ground of objection ; since Christ is really the Head of 
 the church visible, as well as invisible. This is evident 
 from his representing himself as a vine, from which 
 fruitless branches are cut off. The invisible church has 
 no.fruitless branches, and from it none can be cut off. My 
 Opponent says, "Pardon, justification, sanctification, 
 '' and salvation, are inseparably connected 5" and gives 
 Paul on perseverance, to prove it. Dr. Gill says, 
 '' There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine ; 
 ^' the one sort are such who have only an historical 
 ^^ faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed ; 
 ^^ they are such who only profess to believe in him, as 
 ^^ Simon Magus did ; are in him by profession only.'^ 
 ^^ These are the other sort of branches, who are 
 
 (0) Rev. xxii. 16. (Ji) Rom. iv. 12. 
 
 u 
 
( 154 ) 
 ^^ truly and savingly in Christ ; such as are rooted in 
 
 2, The fatness. The engrafted branches are said to 
 partake " of the root and fatness of the olive-tree." 
 This means ecclesiastical ordinances ; as when David 
 says, '^ They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fat- 
 ^^ness of thy house. "(r) Dr. Gill says, ^^By his house 
 ^' is meant the church of God, of his buildings and where 
 ^^ he dwells ; by the fatness of it, the provisions there, 
 ^' the word and ordinances, and the blessings of grace 
 '^ which they hold forth. '^ 
 
 3. The trunk. This must mean the visible church of 
 God, or the invisible church, or no church at all. If no 
 church at all, then the Roman converts must be here ad- 
 dressed, as having the privilege of being engrafted into 
 some worldly kingdom, contrary to the authority of our 
 Lord, who said, '' My kingdom is not of this world." 
 The Jews also are to be considered as broken off from 
 a worldly kingdom by unbelief! whereas their unbelief, 
 instead of breaking them off from a temporal dominion, 
 riveted the Roman yoke more closely upon them, and 
 made it at last the means of their destruction. 
 
 Neither can the trunk of this tree mean the invisible 
 church, for from it no branches are ever broken off. 
 This is an argumentum ad hoininern^ for I have the 
 pleasure of quoting my Opponent's approbation of this 
 principle. After citing Paul on the perseverance of 
 the saints, he says, '^ There is one proposition which 1 
 ^' shall here submit ; it is an universal negative, viz. 
 
 Jy) Gill on John xv. 2. (r) Ps. xxxvi. 8. 
 
( 155 ) 
 
 ^' there never was^ there never will be, a child of Adam 
 " lost, that had but one sin of all his sins forgiven him. 
 ^' The converse of which is, tliat there never was a child 
 ^* of Adam that had one sin forgiven him that had not 
 " all his sins forgiven. The reason is, the Almighty 
 '^ does not his work by halves; where he begins to work 
 " he finishes. He does not resemble a foolish artificer or 
 " mechanic, who begins a piece of workmanship, and 
 ^^ after he has blocked it out, or begun to work upon it, 
 '^ throws it away, either from versatility or incapacity to 
 ^' execute and perfect W\s) It seems therefore, from my 
 Opponent's own shewing, that when a person is once at- 
 tached to the invisible church, he is always attached to 
 it, and can never be broken ofF. 
 
 As this trunkj then, cannot mean no church at all, 
 and as it cannot mean the church invisible, it must, ac- 
 cording to the dilemma stated a little while ago, mean 
 the visible church. Here another inquiry arises. Does 
 it mean the Jewish administration as distinct from the 
 Christian? or the Christian administration as distinct 
 from the Jewish ? or does it mean the visible church 
 general of God and of his Christ, which embraces both 
 these administrations, which began with Abraham, or 
 with Adam, and which will continue to the end of the 
 world? This stern cannot mean the Jewish administra- 
 tion, because it is in this very trunk that the engrafted 
 Gentiles flourish, long after the Jewish administration is 
 at an end. Neither can it mean the Christian adminis- 
 tration distinctly, because the trunk existed long before 
 
 (s) Appendix to Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 176. 
 
( 156 ) 
 
 that administration commenced. But my Opponent says 
 that ^^ in a still more enlarged and exalted sense, the 
 ^^ Christian Church is the good olive tree.''(^) If by 
 this still more enlarged and exalted sense, he means the 
 visible church of Christ, as constituted with Adam or 
 Abraham, and as embracing the Jewish and Christian 
 administrations, he means what the premises compel us 
 to believe. Dr. Gill says, ^^ particular believers and 
 '' the whole church of God are sometimes compared to 
 '' it ;'^ as when Hosea says, ^' His branches shall spread, 
 and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree, and his smell as 
 Lebanon. "(w) Jeremiah says, "The Lord called thy 
 '' name a green olive-tree, fair and of goodly fruit : 
 ^^ wdth the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire 
 ^' upon it, and the branches af it are broken.'^ (a;) 
 
 4. The branches. As the stock of this tree has been 
 proved to mean the whole visible church of God these 
 branches must be visible constituents, either individual 
 or corporate. Of these there are two kinds. Concern- 
 ing ane of them Jeremiah says '' The branches of it are 
 " broken." This Dr. Gill interprets of " the high and 
 " principal ones'' of " the Jewish church and people." 
 Concerning the other kind of branches, Hosea says, "His 
 ^' branches shall spread." Dr. Gill says, "This respects 
 " the propagation of the church of God, and the in- 
 " terest of Christ in the world, as in the first times of 
 " the gospel, and will be in the latter day.'^ Paul 
 
 (0 Spur. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 28. 
 
 (w) Hos. xiv. 6. comp. Ps. X\u 8. cxxviii. 3. 
 
 (t) Jer. xi. 16. Althouvjh (;ill believes that Paul alludes to this in 
 Rom. xi. 17. he does not explain the olive-tree in either place with en- 
 tire accuracy, nor in perfect consistency with what he says on Hosea xiv. 
 6. as quoted above. 
 
( 157 ) 
 
 Speaks of both kinds of branches, as belonging to the 
 same tree, though not at the same time. The first he 
 tells us were ^^ broken off/^ The second he says were 
 " grafted in among them/' or " in their place/^ as Gill 
 tells us the Syriac and Ethiopic versions have it. Paul 
 expressly gives the name of Israel and Jacob to the re- 
 jected branches, and of Gentiles to those which were 
 engrafted, (i^) He does not limit these branches, (as Dr. 
 Gill sometimes does,) to the '' principal members'^ of 
 churches or nations : but he uses these general terms, 
 with a general (though not a universal) application. 
 Neither does my Opponent understand Paul as speaking 
 of the high and principal ones ^ but of Jews and Gentiles, 
 without regard to their dignity or power. This is evi- 
 dent from his remark concerning Paul's '' sudden tran- 
 ^' sitions from Jews to Gentiles," and from his decla- 
 ration that ^' the Apostle's design was to shew that the 
 " Gentiles partook equally with the Jew, as the engraft- 
 '^ ed cion equally partakes with the natural branch, in 
 '' the sap and vigour of the root.''(a7) This root^ my 
 Opponent declares, ^' was Jesus Christ.'' Dr. Gill 
 says, " This is not to be understood of an ingrafture into 
 " Christ, unless by a visible profession." This visible 
 profession must be in the true church of God, and, of 
 course, the breaking off of the old Jewish branches, 
 must be an excommunication from the visible church of 
 God. Both, then, must be branches of the visible church 
 of God, though at different times ; and if Abraham be 
 their ecclesiastical father or rootj then the Christian 
 
 (w) Rom. xi. 17. 25. 26. 
 
 (x) Spiir. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 28. Note, this was quoted a little 
 above. 
 
( 158 ) 
 
 church must be a branch of the Abrahamic church : 
 and if the Seed of the woman be their root, then the 
 Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society 
 after Christ, are only different branches of the same 
 ecclesiastical tree; or, in other words, they are one 
 and the same church in different administrations. 
 
 This conclusion is not at all affected by what Dr. Gill 
 says about the " Gentiles being grafted into a gospel 
 '' church-state with the believing Jews ;" unless it can 
 be shewn that one truth must contradict another. Re- 
 member that the old branches were not believing Jews ; 
 for they were broken off on account of unbcliej\ from 
 that very stock, into which believing Gentiles were en- 
 grafted. It is true, therefore, that there is a simulta- 
 neous union of believing Jews and Gentiles, both before 
 and after Christ : but it has been proved to be equally 
 true, that there is an asynchronous identity between the 
 Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society 
 after Christ. 
 
 II. Vineyard. Our blessed Lord, in one of his 
 parables, informs us of a man who planted a vineyard, 
 and let it out to husbandmen, and then went into a far 
 country, whence he sent several inferior messengers 
 successively for the fruits which were due. Failing in 
 these, he sent his own Son, whom the husbandmen 
 killed. He then asks the question, ^^ What shall there- 
 " fore the Lord of the vineyard do ?'' Mark well his 
 answer : '' He will come and destroy the husbandmen, 
 ^' and will give the vineyard [the same vineyard] unto 
 '^ others.'^ As the context says that the Jews ^' knew 
 " that he had spoken thp parable against them," they 
 
( 159 ) 
 
 are therefore the husbandmen. Dr. Gill says, that 
 when the Master went into a far country, he " left the 
 " people of the Jews to these husbandmen or rulers, 
 '' whether civil or ecclesiastical, but chiefly the lattery 
 '' to be instructed and directed by them, according to 
 ^' the laws and rules given them by the Lord.''(^) But 
 after these Jewish husbandmen abused their trust it is 
 said that the Lord " will miserably destroy those wick- 
 '' ed men, and will let out his vineyard unto other hus- 
 ^*bandmen.'' On this Dr. Gill remarks that ^^ it was 
 '^ a righteous thing with God, to remove the church- 
 '' state, gospel and ordinances, from the Jews, and de- 
 '' liver them to the Gentiles, which shall render him the 
 '' fruits in their seasons.'^(2:) Here the Baptist Com- 
 mentator agrees with his Divine Master, in considering 
 the vineyard as the church with its oracles and ordinan- 
 ces ; and in considering the Jews as the first tenants, 
 and the Christians as the last occupants of the same 
 ecclesiastical vineyard. 
 
 III. Foundation. " Now therefore ye are no more 
 " strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the 
 "saints, and of the household of God; and are built 
 " upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, 
 " Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner sto7ie,^\a) 
 Here the Prophets and Apostles are one common foun- 
 dation, for the Jewish and Christian societies, who are 
 supported and connected by Jesus Christ, who is the 
 chief corner stone, or connecting foundation stone of 
 Apostles, prophets, and churches. 
 
 (y) Gill on Mk. xii. 1. (r) Gill on Matt. xxi. 41. 
 
 (a) Eph, ii. 19. 20. 
 
( 160 ) 
 
 IV. Floor. ^^ Whose fan is in his hand, and he will 
 ^^ thoroughly purge his floor , and gather his wheat into 
 ^^ the garner ; but he will burn up the chaiF with un- 
 " quenchable fire."(^) ^' O my threshing, and the corn 
 '^ of my floorP\c) On this last text, which was spo- 
 ken by Isaiah, Dr. Gill says, " it is the Lord that speaks 
 ^^ by him, calling the church of the Jews his floor ^ and 
 *^ the people his corn.'' If he does not intend to restrict 
 ** the church of the Jews,'' to the Jewish administration, 
 he is perfectly correct : for the floor does mean the vi- 
 sible church, and the corn means the Jewish people who 
 were then its members. But in the fulness of time, this 
 ecclesiastical floor was found so full of Jewish chaff, as 
 to require a thorough cleansing. This cleansing was an 
 excommunication of the unbelieving Jews. This was 
 not laying a new floor y but only purging the old one ; 
 and who occupied John the Baptist's ecclesiastical plat- 
 form after its judicial ventilation, let Baptists say. 
 
 V. House. '^ And thou shalt say to the rebellious, 
 ^' even to the houae of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God, 
 ^^ O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your 
 '' abominations, in that ye have brought into my sanctu- 
 '^ ary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircum- 
 *^ cised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, 
 '^ even my housed ^^ They shall be abundantly satis- 
 <* fled with the fatness of thy house,'^ " I am like a 
 ^^ green olive tree in the house of God."(c?) This, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Gill, is to " be in a vtTy flourishing con- 
 ^* dilion, in the church of God, which is here meant by 
 
 (*) Mat. iii. 12. (c) Isa. xxi. 10. 
 
 Id) Ez. xliv. 6. 7. Ps, xxxvi. 8. Iii. 8. 
 
( 161 ) 
 
 *^ tlie houst of God,^^ The same explanation he gives 
 of the word house in all the cases which have just been 
 quoted. It is, then, an undoubted truth, that long be- 
 foi;e the New Testament administration, the Jewish so- 
 ciety were the visible church of God. They were not 
 only the genealogical, but the ecclesiastical house of 
 Jacob, Now the question is, whether their ecclesiasti- 
 cal house was utterly annihilated, and a new one erected 
 at the coming of Christ ; or whether the ecclesiastical 
 house of Jacob continued, but with a change of adminis- 
 tration. That it does continue, is evident from the an- 
 gePs words to Mary, when he said concerning the Mes- 
 siah, ^^He shall reign over the house of Jacob, for 
 ^^ ever.'^(6;) This house of Jacob is meant, when Paul 
 says, ^^ Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a 
 ^^ servant;'^ ^^but Christ as a Son over his own 
 ^' housePf) Now take notice that Moses and Christ 
 are here spoken of as belonging to the Old and New 
 Testament administrations ; yet the one serves in, and 
 the other rules over the same house, even the house of 
 Jacob, over which Christ shall reign for ever, although 
 Jacob's natural descendants have long been ejected. 
 
 My Opponent's fifth reason for denying this doctrine, 
 is founded upon our Saviour's declaration to Peter, 
 ^' Upon this rock I will build my church. "(/) " This 
 ^' church, then," says he, ^^was not the Jewish, for that 
 '' was built long ago — the building of Christ's church — 
 " MY churchn said he, is yet future — I ivill build it, 
 '^ the foundation will be laid in this truth concerning 
 
 (e) Luke i, 33, (/) Heb. iii. 2—6. (/) Matt. xvi. 18, 
 
 X 
 
( 162 ) 
 
 ^^ me. — This truth was fully established in his death and 
 ^' resurrection ; and then the building commenced. To 
 " build a church and to repair one, are actions so dif- 
 '^ ferent, that babes and sucklings can distinguish them. 
 '' Mr. M^Calla's theory is subverted upon this evidence 
 " alone, if there were no other proof of its falsity. — Re- 
 ^* member, my friends, that the Messiah came to build a 
 " new church, and not to repair an old one.'' At ano- 
 ther time he represents this fifth argument as drawn 
 " from the fact, that Jesus taught that he was, in the fu- 
 " ture time, to build his church upon a foundation dif- 
 '^ ferent from that on which the Jewish commonwealth 
 ^' was built."{m) 
 
 I take it for granted, that by Jewish commonwealth 
 in this last declaration, he means the Jewish church of 
 which he spoke in the former passage ; and the amount 
 of this argument is, that when Christ says, '^ 1 will 
 ^' build^^^ he means not that he will repair an old ruin, 
 such as the Jewish church, but that immediately after 
 his death and resurrection, he will commence a building 
 which shall be entirely new, and entirely different from 
 the Jewish church, both as to its foundation and its su- 
 perstructure. And these things he thinks so evidently 
 taught by this one single Greek word, rendered '' I will 
 ** build," that they must be obvious to ^^ babes and suck- 
 lings," and that this one word is sufficient to subvert my 
 proposition concerning the sameness of the Jewish and 
 Christian societies, " if there were no other proof' at 
 alt. 
 
 (m) Spui\ Deb. with mc, pp, 209. 228. 
 
( 163 ) 
 
 It sometimes happens that bahes and sucklings under- 
 stand a word in one way, and men of learning understand 
 it in another way. My Opponent thinks it perfectly 
 plain that to build never means to rebuild or repair, but 
 Dr. Gill^ who was no babe, but the greatest giant, in the 
 languages, that the Baptist church ever boasted, thought 
 otherwise, and supported his opinion by infallible evi- 
 dence. The Scriptures say that the sons of Elpaal 
 ^^ built Ono and Lod, with the towns thereof. '^(w) Dr. 
 Gill agrees with the Talmudists in saying that " Elpaal 
 ^^ came and rebuilt them.'' The Scriptures say that 
 Joth^m ^' built the higher gate of the house of the 
 ^^ Lord."(o) Dr. Gill believes that this, like the rest of 
 the gates, was originally ^^ built by Solomon ;" but that 
 Jotham ^^ repaired and beautified, or added something 
 ^^ to it.'' Yes, the Dr. actually makes out that Jotham's 
 building the gate, was only repairing it. After the de- 
 struction of the first temple, it is written, ^* Thus saith 
 Cyrus, King of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath 
 ^' given me all the kingdoms of the earth ; and he hath 
 '^ charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which 
 ^^ is in Judah."(j&) Dr. Gill says that Isaiah's prophecy, 
 Cyrus '^ had seen and read, and believed it to be a 
 ^' charge upon him, and a command unto him to rebuild 
 ^^ the temple at Jerusalem." Thus, to build was, in his 
 opinion, to rebuild. Concerning a greater than Cyrus, 
 Isaiah says, ^^ He shall build my City."(^) Dr. Gill ap- 
 plies this to ^^ Christ, the builder of the church, often 
 compared to a city ;'' and then refers to my Opponent's 
 
 (n) 1 Chron. viii. 12. (o) 2 Kgs. xv. 35. 
 
 ifi) Ear. i. 2. (y) isa. xlv. U. 
 
( 164 ) 
 
 text, ^^ upon this rock I will build my church/^ "By the 
 '' church is meant/' says Gill, on this text, "the elect of 
 '^ God, the general assembly and church of the First-born, 
 ^^ whose names are written in heaven. '^ When the Psalm- 
 ist says, "The Lord shall build up Zion,"W it does not 
 throw Dr. Gill into a rhapsody about future tenses, and 
 the folly of identifying Zion with the true church, and 
 of confounding the building of a new house with the re- 
 building of one that is fallen down. He tells us plainly 
 that, in this text, Zion is " the church of God, fallen 
 '^ down, and in a ruinous condition ;" and that this pro- 
 mise to '' build up Zion'^ is fulfilled " in rebuilding his 
 ^' church. '^ The same explanation he makes of that pas- 
 sage which says, '^ The Lord doth build up Jerusalem : 
 " he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel. "(5) Al- 
 though there is a certain sort of "babes and sucklings'' 
 who cannot abide the thought of building decayed 
 places, yet those who are acquainted with the poetical 
 parallelisms of the prophets, will admit that raising up 
 decayed places, is sometimes exegetical of building ; as 
 when God says " to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, 
 " and I will raise up the decayed places thereof."(/) 
 Dr. Gill believes that Judah and all the adjacent country 
 were to be " in a ruinous condition," and that then they 
 " should be rebuilt, and restored to a flourishing state 
 " again." To the same amount he explains the follow- 
 ing text; "And they shall build the old wastes, they 
 "' shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall 
 ^< repair the waste cities, the desolations of many gcne- 
 
 (r) Fsalm cii. 16. (s) Psalm cxlvii. 2. (0 Isa. xliv. 26. 
 
 1 
 
( 165 ) 
 
 ^^ ratlons/'(w) In the prospect of the Christian sPTa, 
 when the Gentiles were to he engrafted on the Ahraha- 
 mic stock, Isaiah says to the Jews, ^' The sons of stran- 
 ^* gers shall build up thy walls.'^(z^) But in the follow- 
 ing passage a person who builds is again expressly called 
 a repairer in our translation, and in this it most exactly 
 agrees with the translations of Castallio, Tremellius, and 
 Diodat, and with the commentary of Dr. Gill. " And 
 '^ they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste 
 " places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many ge- 
 " nerations ; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of 
 '' the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.^' Dr. 
 Gill says, '' As the cities in Israel and Judea, which had 
 ^' been long laid waste by the Assyrians and Chaldeans, 
 '' were rebuilt by those of the Jewish nation, who re- 
 '' turned from the captivity of Babylon, to which there 
 " is at least an allusion ; and as the church of God, the 
 '' tabernacle of David, which was fallen down, and had 
 " lain long in ruins, through corruptions in doctrine and 
 " worship, to the times of Christ, when the Apostles, 
 ^' who were of the Jews, those wise master-builders, 
 " were instruments of raising it up again, and repairing 
 *' its ruins, so, in the latter-day, the ivaste places of the 
 " world, as the words may be rendered, shall be built 
 " by a set of men, that shall be of the church of God, 
 " who shall be instruments in his hand of converting 
 '' many souls, and so of peopling it with Christians ; such 
 ^' places as before were desolate, where before there 
 ^' was no preaching of the word, no administration of or- 
 
 . (w) Isa. Ixi. 4. {v) Isa. Ix. 10. 
 
( 166 ) 
 
 ^' dinances, nor any Gospel churches.'^ In this extract, 
 this great Baptist commentator calls the tabernacle of 
 David the church of God. He represents it as fallen 
 down and lying long in ruins, until the times of Christ, 
 the Divine Architect, who appointed twelve Apostolical 
 builders, and made them " instruments of raising it up 
 ^' again^ and repairing its ruins.'' Thus, '^ the stone 
 ^' which the builders disallowed, the same is made the 
 '^ head of the corner,'' (zi^) or, as Dr. Gill says,(^) '^ the 
 *^ chief corner-stone, that adorns, strengthens, knits, and 
 '' keeps together, the whole building ; in which Jews 
 '^ and Gentiles, saints in all ages and places, even all the 
 ^' elect of God are united together." He says, "By the 
 ^' builders are meant the rulers of the Jews, both civil 
 ^' and ecclesiastical, and especially the latter, the 
 '' Scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests, who set up for 
 " builders of the church of God, but were miserable 
 ^' ones." " These disallowed of Christ in the build- 
 fi ing;" "but to their great mortification, he is not only 
 ^' laid and retained as the foundation and corner-stone, 
 ^^ but made the head of the building." For this reason, 
 Paul, in allusion to the temple and Jerusalem, the 
 house and city of God, says to the Ephesian Christians, 
 ^' Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreign- 
 " ers, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the 
 '' household of God, and are built upon the foundation of 
 ^^ the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
 " the chief corner- stone. "(y) Dr. Gill says that these 
 
 (v>) 1 Pet. ii. 7. 
 
 (c) (iillon Actsiv. 11. (comp. alsf> 1 IVt, ii. vi.) 
 
 {y) Eph. ii, ly. 20, 
 
( 167 ) 
 
 are ^^The prophets of the Old Testament, and the 
 " apostles of the New, who agree in laying ministerial- 
 ^^ ly the one and only foundation, Jesus Christ.'^ Now 
 let any reasonable person say whether the words, ^^ upon 
 ^^ this rock I will build my church,'^ are alone sufficient 
 to refute my proposition concerning the ecclesiastical 
 identity of the Jewish and Christian societies. 
 
 VI. Kingdom. This figure is used by our Saviour, 
 in the same discourse, and in immediate connexion with 
 what he said about the transfer of the same vineyard 
 from one set of husbandmen to another. After speaking 
 of the unworthiness of the Jewish husbandmen, in re- 
 jecting the Son of their Lord ; and the wicked folly of 
 the Jewish builders in rejecting the chief corner-stone, 
 he adds, " Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of 
 ^' God shall be taken from you, and given to a na- 
 '^ tion bringing forth the fruits thereof.''(^) Here is 
 only one kingdom ; yet it embraces the Jewish and 
 Christian administrations. So in the following ; ^' And 
 '' I say unto you that many shall come from the east and 
 ^^ west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and 
 " Jacob in the kingdom of heaven : but the children 
 " of the kingdom shall be cast out into utter dark- 
 " ness.'^(A) This is as much as to say that the Gentiles 
 shall take their seat in the Abrahamic church, while the 
 Jews are cast out of it. That this cannot mean the king- 
 dom of heaven above, is evident, because no man shall 
 be cast out of that kingdom, after he has once obtained 
 admittance. Dr. Gill says that the children of the 
 
 (iO Matt. xxi. 4 J. (A) Matt. viii. 11. 12. 
 
( 168 ) 
 
 kingdom are ^' The Jews, who were subjects of the 
 
 '^ kingdom, and commonwealth of Israel, from which 
 
 " the Gentiles were aliens ; and who were also in the 
 
 " church of God, which is his kingdom on earth ; and 
 
 ^' besides, had the promise of the gospel dispensation, 
 
 ^' sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, and by them, 
 
 " often, the world to come ; and were, by their own 
 
 ^' profession, and in their own apprehension and expec- 
 
 ^^ tation, children and heirs of the kingdom of glory.'** 
 
 The kingdom of heaven is, therefore, the Abrahamic 
 
 church, the church of God. The Jews were once its 
 
 children, but they are now cast out. The Gentiles were 
 
 once aliens, but are now subjects, not in a new kingdom, 
 
 nor in one which commenced even with Moses at Mount 
 
 Sinai ; but in that kingdom in which Abraham, Isaac 
 
 and Jacob were. 
 
 My opponent's second argument against the sameness 
 of the Jewish and Christian societies, is founded upon 
 the preaching of our Saviour and his Precursor and in- 
 spired servants, ^^ Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven 
 ^^ is at hand.''(^;) He says, " This is proof positive that, 
 ^' at this time, the new kingdom was not yet set up, 
 ^^ and that the old Jewish was yet standing.'' In this 
 place our translation uses, the word kingdom ; my Op- 
 ponent's paraphrase calls it neW kingdom; his New 
 Testament follows Dr. Campbell in calling it the reign 
 of heaven ; but Dr. Campbell's preliminary dissertation 
 says that the word sometimes means admiyiistration ; 
 and Dr. Gill here explains it dispensation. That there 
 
 {v) Matt. hi. 2. and other places quoted by my Opponent, in hisbpun 
 Dtb. after his own fabliion, in page Vj7. 
 
( 169 ) 
 
 is a new administration I have never denied ; that there 
 is any thing more, my Opponent is the only one to assert; 
 and he asserts it, not in translating, but in debating. 
 
 His third argument is founded upon our Saviour's 
 declaration, " The law and the prophets were until 
 " John : since that time the kingdom of God is preached, 
 '^ and every man presseth into iV\w) Here also Gill 
 justly calls the kingdom of God, the gospel dispensa- 
 tion : and so he does the same word in the text on which 
 my Opponent feebly rests his eighth argument ; ^^ My 
 ^' kingdom is not of this world. 'V^) This passage he 
 uses in such a way as strongly to infer that the Waldenses, 
 whom he claims as good Baptists, could not be Chris- 
 tians, because they sometimes bravely defended them- 
 selves from their oppressors. But this was my Oppo- 
 nent's way of paying court to the Quakers. 
 
 But his first argument deserves more notice. It is as 
 follows, viz. ^^ My first argument, for aflirming that 
 ^' the Christian religion and Christian church differ es- 
 '^ sentially from the Jewish, is drawn from Dan. ii. 44. 
 ^^ 45. ^ And in the days of these kings shall the God of 
 
 * heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroy- 
 ^ ed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, 
 ^ and it shall break in pieces and consume all these king- 
 
 * doms, and it shall stand forever. The great God has 
 ^ made known to the king what shall come to pass here- 
 ^ after.' ''(i) To make this passage prove that there is 
 an essential difference between the Old and New Tes- 
 
 (w) L. xvi. 16. Spur. Deb. p. 197. 
 (jc) John xviii. 36. Spur Deb. p. 229. 
 (?) Spur. Deb. with me, pp. 195. 196. 
 
( 170 ) 
 
 lament kingdoms, he claims our particular attention to 
 three things. One is, that the prophecy was written by 
 Daniel, centuries before the Jews were cut off. I say, 
 yea. Another is that it was to be fulfilled ^Oiereafter," 
 that is, when Christ came. Very well. The third is, 
 that at that time God should set up a kingdom. No ob- 
 jection. But there is an objection to what he afterwards 
 says, when he endeavours to persuade you that setting 
 up a kingdom is a creation or original constitution of a 
 kingdom, as in the following words, viz. " This king- 
 '^ dom of God which he would set up or constitute, 
 ^' under the reign of his Son, was not to commence until 
 '^ the last days of the Jewish kingdom — Now to consti- 
 ^' tute a kingdom, and to continue one already in exis- 
 '' tence, are as different as the building of a new house, 
 '' is from the repairing or keeping up of a house already 
 '' built. To set up a house, or to set up a kingdom, is 
 ^' essentially different from either reforming an old one, 
 *^ or constituting it under new regulations." 
 
 We have already shewn that the Bible and the best 
 Baptist authority consider the word build as often equiv- 
 alent to rebuild or repair. And if, as my Opponent in- 
 timates, the expression, set up, is tantamount to build, 
 then to set up a kingdom may mean to reinstate or re- 
 establish ; and thus the whole of his argument, which 
 rests entirely upon a perversion of this single word, 
 must fall to the ground. In order to make this apparent, 
 1 would inquire, What do you understand from another 
 passage of this same prophet Daniel, where we have the 
 same original word with the same rendering ? Concern- 
 ing Nebuchadnezzar's golden image, we are told " that 
 
( 171 ) 
 
 he set it up in the plain of Dura.'' Does this mean 
 that he created or made or constituted it in the plain of 
 Dura ? By no means; for the manufacture of it was ex- 
 pressly mentioned as having taken place before its erec- 
 tion ;(y) as the existence of God's ecclesiastical king- 
 dom is often mentioned before its resuscitation by the 
 Messiah. Although the Tabernacle was originally con- 
 stituted immediately after the departure from Egypt, (;^) 
 yet it was set up at many subsequent periods. (/) Indeed 
 it was a law of Moses, that " when the Tabernacle set- 
 ^' teth forward, theLevites shall take it down ; and when 
 ^^ the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it 
 '^ up,^\7n) The same word is used by Solomon to denote 
 such an act as lifting up a person who '' falls from his 
 ^^ horse, or out of his carriage, or into a ditch. ''(??) In 
 the use of the same original word, Saul complains that 
 Jonathan had set up or stirred up David against him.(o) 
 Did Saul suppose that Jonathan had just then given to 
 David his original constitution ? Our Bible renders the 
 same word raise in application to him who is the Root 
 and Offspring of David. '■' Behold the days come, 
 ^' saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a right- 
 ^^ eous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and 
 '' shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. ''(p) 
 God also says, " I will raise them up a Prophet from 
 '' among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put 
 ^^ my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them 
 ^' all that I shall command \i\m,^\q) Had the Messiah 
 
 {j ) Dan. iii. 1. {k) Ex. xl. 17. (/) Num. yii. 1. ix. 15. x. 21, 
 
 hn) Num. i. 51. (w) See Gill on Eccl, iv. 10. 
 
 (o) iSam. xxii. 8. (/z ) Jer. xxiii, 5. {q^) Deut/xviii, 18. 
 
( 172 ) 
 
 no constitution before his incarnation ? or rather, does 
 he not himself say, ^^I was set up from everlasting, from 
 " the beginning, or ever the earth was."{r) The name 
 of this glorious personage is an answer to the question of 
 Amos, " Who will raise up or lift up, or set up Jacob?''(5) 
 The same word is rendered, e5?a6/z5 A, in a promise record- 
 ed by Moses. Long after Jacob had been constituted 
 a holy people, Moses said " The Lord shall establish 
 '' thee an holy people unto himself.''(/) Dr. Gill un- 
 derstands it that he " should continue them as such.'^ 
 Exactly to the same purport does he explain the pro- 
 phecy of Daniel quoted by my Opponent. " And in 
 '' the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up 
 '' a kingdom.^' The Doctor says, " which kingdom is 
 ^' no other than his church on earth, where he reigns, 
 " has his throne ; holds forth his sceptre, gives out his 
 " laws, and is obeyed : and, though this is already in the 
 ^' world, yet it is not so visible, stable, and glorious, as 
 ^' it will be at the close of the fourth monarchy, which 
 ^' is meant by its being set up, confirmed, and establish- 
 '^ cJ." That this kingdom was already in the world, be- 
 fore the New Testament administration, is as evident as 
 that the kingdom of Israel had an existence before it was 
 set up or established in David's hands, according to 
 the words of Jonathaii, " the kingdom of Israel shall 
 '' be established m thine hand."(iO 
 
 [r) Prov. viii. 23, where, however, the original has a different word. 
 
 [h) Amos vii. 2. Gill tells us that it is rendered •* quis suscitabit Jaha- 
 cob?" by Pagninus, Montanus, andVatablus. To these he mii^ht have 
 added Calasio and the Vulgate. In accordance with tliese, Castallio says, 
 ♦* quis Jacobeum eriget ?" and the Septuagint, t'ij avaitisn tov laxw/J ; 
 
 (/) Dcut. xxviii. 9. (") ^ ^*^"™' ^^^'^' ^0. 
 
 I 
 
( 173 ) 
 
 It appears, th«n, after a patient examination, that 
 those arguments upon which my Opponent relies, are 
 perversions of scripture ; and mere fancies of his own ; 
 in which he is as much opposed to the views of the Co- 
 lossus of Baptist theology, as he is to the view which I 
 defend. Contrast this with the evidence by which our 
 opinion is supported. The scriptures do not say that 
 one ecclesiastical kingdom shall be destroyed and ano- 
 ther created ; but they assure us that the same kingdom 
 of God shall be taken from the Jews and given to the 
 Gentiles. Concerning the same kingdom of heaven it is 
 said that the Jews shall be cast out, while the Gentiles 
 shall enter and sit down : neither are they restricted to 
 the honor of sitting with Moses and Aaron and Joshua, 
 but they are admitted to a seat with Abraham and Isaac 
 and Jacob, in this ecclesiastical kingdom, or Abrahamic 
 church. 
 
 VII. Commonwealth. Paul tells the Ephesians that 
 they were once ^^ Aliens from the commonwealth of 
 " Israel ;'' but he soon informs them that they " are no 
 ^' more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens 
 " with the saints, and of the household of God.^^(^) 
 Dr. Gill tells us that a stranger was the name " by 
 ^' which the Jews called the Gentiles ;'' that the Gen- 
 tiles were originally ''foreigners in the commonwealth 
 '' of Israel, in the church of God f^ '' being aliens 
 '' from the commonwealth of Israel, both from their 
 ^' civil and cAwrcA-state." That the city in which they 
 become fellow citizens with the saints is " the church 
 
 (ty) Eph. ii. 12. 19. 
 
( 174 ) 
 
 ^^ below, which is the city of God,'' and " heaven 
 '^ above, which is a city of God's preparation and 
 " building also." In this most valuable Baptist Com- 
 mentary, we learn that the commonwealth of Israel 
 means the church of God, to which the Jews once be- 
 longed, and from which the Gentiles were once stran- 
 gers and foreigners : but the New Testament adminis- 
 tration has naturalized them in the city of God, which is 
 his church below, even that church of w hich the Jews 
 were once members. 
 
 VIII. Man. " But now, in Christ Jesus, ye [Gen- 
 ^' tiles] who sometimes were far off, are made nigh 
 '' [even as the Jews,] by the blood of Christ. For he 
 '' is our peace, who hath made both [Jews and Gentiles] 
 ^^ ontj and hath broken down the middle wall of parti- 
 '' tion between us; having abolished in his flesh the 
 ^' enmity, even the law of commandments contained in 
 '' ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new 
 ^' man, so making peacc^Cz) 
 
 IX. Body. " And that he might reconcile both [Jews 
 f ^ and Gentiles] unto God in one body by the cross, hav- 
 ^' ing slain the enmity thereby."(a) The connexion of 
 this and the last particular, and the 7th also, shews that 
 man and body, as well as commonwealth, relate to the 
 visible church. It is not said that they relate to that 
 exclusively ; nor is it necessary that they should. 
 
 X. Brethren. In Ps. xxii. 22, Christ calls the 
 Jewish church his brethren: in Hebr. ii. 11. 12, this 
 is quoted as intended for Christians. They must there- 
 
 (r) Eph. ii. 13—15. («) Kph. ii. 16. 
 
( 175 ) 
 
 fore be one in some sense. The connexion shews that 
 they are ecclesiastically one. 
 
 XL Bride. Jeremiah says that Jehovah is married 
 to the Jewish church ;(6) John tells us that the Chris- 
 tian church is the bride, the Lamb's wife ;(c) yet God 
 says^ by the pen of Solomon, " My dove, my undefiled, 
 " is but one ; she is the only one of her mother ; she is 
 ^' the choice one of her that bare hovJ^d) It seems then 
 that Christ has but one bride or church ; but the Jewish 
 and Christian societies are both that church ; therefore 
 they are one church. That this passage relates to eccle- 
 siastical unity, Gill himself is inclined to believe. 
 
 XIL Children. The scriptures represent Jewish 
 and Gentile professors as the children of the church. 
 When the Jews are cut off, the church is represented 
 as a widow : but she is comforted by the accession of 
 Gentile children. " The [Gentile] children which thou 
 " shalt have, after thou hast lost the other [the Jewish], 
 ^' shall say again in thine ears, the place is too strait for 
 ^' me: give place to me that I may dwell. Then shalt 
 " thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these, 
 '^ seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a cap- 
 '' tive, and removing to and fro ? and who hath brought 
 " up these ? Behold I was left alone ; these, where had 
 " they been? Thus saith the Lord God, behold, I will 
 ^' lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my stand- 
 ^' ard to the people : and they shall bring thy sons in 
 ^' their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon 
 ^* their shoulders."(e) Some who admit the identity of 
 
 (A) Jer. iii. 14. (c) Rev. xxi. 9. 
 
 id) Cant, vi. 9, (e) Isa. xlix, 20— -22, 
 
( 176 ) 
 
 the Jewish and Christian societies are inclined to doubt 
 that the former is intended by either of these classes of 
 children. Their mistake ought to be corrected by the 
 preceding context, in which " Zion said, The Lord 
 '' hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me/' 
 Messiah says, ^^ Though Israel be not gathered, yet 
 '' shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my 
 ^^ God shall be my strength." The Father says to him, 
 ^' It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant, 
 ^' to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the pre- 
 '' served of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the 
 ^^ Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the 
 '^ end of the earth. "(/) I do not deny that the ultimate 
 accomplishment of these prophecies is yet future : yet 
 that their primary fulfilment was in the Apostolic day, 
 is too plain to admit of a doubt. Can any one suppose 
 that Zion, Jacob, and Israel, have no reference to the 
 Jews, even when they are expressly contrasted with the 
 Gentiles ? Here, then, are two distinct sets of ecclesi- 
 astical children, sent before and after the afiliction of 
 their mother; just as Job had two sets of children sent 
 before and after his affliction. These Patriarchal de- 
 cades form a good illustration of the subject, and were 
 probably intended to do so ; and this opinion may have 
 weighed with the Jews in con^dering the number ten^as 
 forming a congregation. But Job's two congregations 
 had only one father, and thus formed one family : so the 
 Jews and Gentiles had only one ecclesiastical mother ; 
 that is, they were one church. 
 
 (/) Isa. xlix. 14. 5. 6. 
 
( 177 ) 
 
 If not very much mistaken, the evidence which has 
 been laid before you, goes clearly to the establishment 
 of the point in question ; that is, that the Scriptures give 
 to the Jewish and Christian Societies the same names, in 
 such a manner as plainly to prove that they are the same 
 church. This evidence my Opponent endeavours to 
 rebut in the following words, viz. '' Mr. M^Calla (for 
 ^^ we must now look back a little,) yesterday entertained. 
 ^' you for a long time, by telling you of the different 
 ^' names applied to the Jewish society, and also to the 
 *' Christian, as expressive of their identity ; as their be- 
 ^^ ing equally called the house, bride, people, vineyard, 
 '' kingdom, <S:c. of God. To all this argument we would 
 ^' m the mass reply. That suppose I might be so fortu- 
 '^ nate as to have a house in Washington and one in Lex- 
 *^ ington, each of them might with the greatest propriety 
 '' be called my house ; the same might be said concerning 
 ^^ barn, vineyard, floor, kingdom, &c. But who would 
 ^^ argue thence that because they were both called my 
 ^^ house, vineyard, barn, &c. they were one and the same 
 ^^ house, vineyard, barn, &c. This would shock common 
 ^' sense. But it may be objected that the Lord, meta- 
 *^ phorically speaking, had but one bride, that he could 
 '' not be said to have had two. To such an objection I 
 " would reply by saying that he always had but one 
 ^' bride, one house, one vineyard, one kingdom, &c. at 
 " one time ; but that Israel having broken the marriage 
 " covenant was divorced, and ceased to be his married 
 Z 
 
( 178 ) 
 
 ^^ wife, in the metaphorical style ; and that in their stead 
 ^^ another bride was chosen, another house was built, 
 ^^ another vineyard was planted, another kingdom was 
 ^' constituted, to which the same figurative names were 
 '' applied. And after all that Mr. M^Calla has said on 
 ^' this subject, it amounts to precisely the same thing ; 
 ^' for he will not say, with all his fortitude and zeal, he 
 ^' cannot say, that the Jewish and Christian societies are 
 '' identically the very same — no, he will say, he has 
 ^' said, they are under diiTerent dispensations, and this 
 '^ is saying a great deal, if he is aware of the import of 
 ^' it, for, in fact, a different dispensation is tantamount to 
 ^' a different covenant. At all events, he makes the two 
 ^^ societies different in some respects, and thus esta- 
 ^^ Wishes my views and saps the very basis of his own 
 " system.'^(^) 
 
 The question whether the two societies are under dif- 
 ferent covenants or not, will, with divine permission, 
 soon be tried. It is true that a difference of administra- 
 tion, and a difference in many other respects, has been 
 admitted. I never undertook to prove their per- 
 sonal or political, their chronological or geographical 
 identity. In my explication of the 2d proposition^ I 
 expressly declared that ^^it says nothing more than that 
 '' they are the same chwch^ and nothing more than ec- 
 '' clesiastical identity is intended.'' While this can be 
 shewn, they may differ in ten thousand respects, without 
 sapping the foundation of my system. But if I mistake 
 not, my Opponent considers his own system not perfect- 
 
 (iO spurious Debate with me, p. 186. 
 
( 179 )■ 
 
 ly tenable, as he has changed it to meet the present 
 emergency. He would now make you believe that it 
 " amounts to precisely the same thing" with what I 
 have said ; except that instead of the Jews and Christians 
 being one and the same church, they are two essentially 
 different churches, but one has come in the stead of the 
 other. He says that the great Head of the church " al- 
 '^ ways had but one bride" " at one time ; but that Is- 
 " rael having broken the marriage covenant, was di- 
 vorced," '' and that in their stead another bride was 
 chosen, another house was built," &c. Has he not at 
 last admitted the truth of my first proposition that the 
 Jews were once the visible church of God? But where 
 does he find evidence that this church was destroyed, 
 and a perfectly new one instituted ? How does he prove 
 what he has said on this subject, that " another vineyard 
 was planted, another kingdom was constituted," " ano- 
 ther bride was chosen, another house was built?" What 
 Scripture has he quoted to shew that the Jewish church 
 was as different from the Christian, as a house in Wash- 
 ington is different from a housfe in Lexington ? It is evi- 
 dent that nothing but the sad necessities of the times 
 have driven him to this flimsy subterfuge. According 
 to this theory, can we believe that the Messiah shall 
 reign over the house of Jacob forever? The house over 
 which he now reigns must be essentially different, in all 
 respects, from the house of Jacob. It must also be built 
 upon the foundation of the Apostles only, and not 
 '' upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets," as 
 Paul has declared. We must moreover give up tiie doc- 
 trine of John the Baptist, that the Messiah 
 
roughly purge his floor/' My Opponent teaches that 
 he does not cleanse his floor, but that he destroys it, and 
 lays a new one, as difierent from it, as two floors in 
 Washington and Lexington are diff*erent from each 
 other. It may be that some Baptist farmer in this as- 
 sembly is sufficiently prejudiced to believe this exposi- 
 tion. It may be also that when you came to this debate 
 you left to your servants a barn floor full of wheat, with 
 directions to clean it well before your return. What 
 would you think if they should set Are to the barn in- 
 stead of to the chaff? Would you not say that there was 
 a great difference between cleaning a floor and destroy- 
 ing it ? If some tidy housewives were to destroy their 
 floors as often as they clean them, they would keep the 
 carpenters busy. Suppose that you have let out your 
 farm or vineyard to tenants who will pay no rent. You 
 send officers to eject them. Instead of this, these officers 
 destroy the vineyard and leave you to plant a new one 
 near Lexington, according to my Opponent's doctrine. 
 Would this be in accordance with the text which says, 
 ^' He will destroy the husbandmen, and will give the 
 vineyard unto others ?" My Opponent teaches that the 
 kingdom of God was not taken from the Jews and given 
 to the Gentiles ; but that the Jewish kingdom was des- 
 stroyed, and '' another kingdom was constituted'' for the 
 Gentiles. Compare this with the words of the King. 
 ^' Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be 
 taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the 
 fruits thereof." According to my Opponent's theory, 
 the Head of the church '* had but one bride" '^ at one 
 time ;" but difl'erent brides at different times. So the 
 Jews were one man and one hoflij^ but the Christians ana- 
 
( 181 ) 
 
 ther man and another body essentially different. But the 
 Spirit says that this bride " is the only one of her mo- 
 ther:'^ and concerning the Jews and Gentiles, it declares 
 that Christ hath made " in himself of twain one new 
 ^^ manf^ and that he hath reconciled " both unto God 
 " in one body.^' When they are called children, it is 
 not said, as my Opponent would have it, that the Jewish 
 children had one mother, and the Gentile children had 
 another mother essentially different, like two mothers in 
 Washington and Lexington ; but the same mother who 
 lost the Jewish children is represented as obtaining com- 
 fort from the birth of her Gentile children. You do 
 not find it said, that the Jews were one olive-tree, from 
 which certain branches were broken off, and the Gen- 
 tiles another olive-tree, into which other branches were 
 engrafted ; but the Gentile branches are engrafted into 
 the same olive-tree from which the Jewish branches 
 were broken off. How different this from two olive- 
 trees in Washington and Lexington ! 
 
 We conclude, therefore, that if the fact that the 
 scriptures call the Jewish and Christian societies the 
 same peculiar treasure and priest-hood, nation and peo- 
 ple, the same ecclesiastical tree and vineyard, kingdom 
 and commonwealth, the same foundation, floor, and house, 
 the same man and body, brethren, bride, and mother, 
 and if an express declaration of unity, as in several in- 
 stances just quoted, will prove them to be the same 
 church, then their ecclesiastical identity has been 
 proved. 
 
. ( 182 ) 
 
 POINT III. 
 
 The Jewish and Christian societies must be the same 
 church, because they have the same constitution, the 
 Mrahamic covenant. 
 
 On this subject, my Opponent has spoken as follows, 
 viz. '' Mr. M^Calla has asserted that the covenant or 
 '^ constitution of both churches is one and the same ; 
 ^' that this covenant is the Abrahamic, and that this 
 ^' Abrahamic covenant was an ' ecclesiastical covenant.'^ 
 '' Circuitous and intricate are the paths of error. What 
 ^' a labor, what a toil to establish infant-membership. 
 ^' The Rev. Samuel Rallston, it seems, borrowed this 
 '' ecclesiastical covenant from Dr. John Mason, and 
 ^^ Mr. M^Calla appears to have borrowed it from Fa- 
 ^^ ther Rallston. What a valuable acquisition! How 
 ^' much more are we indebted to philosophical di- 
 " vines for their discoveries, than to the Spirit of 
 '^ revelation that guided the tongues and the pens of the 
 ^' holy Apostles ! The old and the new covenant 
 ^^ were the 'covenants on which the Apostles wrote 
 " and talked. They, poor, simple, and unlettered men, 
 ^^ never used such phrases as the covenant of works, the 
 '' covenant of grace, the ecclesiastic covenant. No, it 
 ^' was reserved to the age of reason, to unfold the cov- 
 ^' enant of works and of grace ; and, to the last centu- 
 ^' ry, together with the urgent demands of infant- 
 ^^ sprinkling, are we indebted for this last discovery, 
 ^' this ecclesiastic covenant. But where this covenant 
 ^' may be found, my Antagonist has not condescended 
 ^' to inform us. We shall then, as a favour, request him 
 
( 183 ) 
 
 ^^ to specify where this covenant may be found. Is it 
 '^ in the 12th, 15th, or 17th Chapter of Genesis? Till 
 '' then we must merely conjecture. In our Appendix to 
 " the Debate at Mount Pleasant, we were somewhat 
 '' particular in fixing the meaning of the terra covenant 
 '' as used in the holy scripture. Mr. M^Calla, so 
 ^' often as has referred to that Debate, has not called in 
 " question the facts there stated. The term diatheke 
 " is there exhibited as signifying, either appointment^ 
 " constitution, covenant, or testament, and it is there 
 '^ proven from matter of fact, that promises and com^ 
 " mands are called covenants.'^(A) 
 Thus far, my Baptist Opponent. I confess myself attach- 
 ed to the old-fashioned technical theology. That it was 
 the fruit of much labour and toil, as my Opponent has 
 insinuated, cannot be denied. Our Fathers were ad- 
 dicted to prayers and pains, and, at the same time, gifted 
 with piety and parts, very far beyond that superficial race 
 of apostates which have learned to despise their attain- 
 ments. Some of this motley brood deny that there is a 
 covenant of works or a covenant of grace, and others 
 deny that the original words ever signify a covenant be- 
 tween God and man at all, and say that our Translatoi*s 
 have been guilty of encouraging " a very erroneous and 
 " dangerous opinion,'^ by using the word covenant in 
 such a connexion. Such extravagant folly as" this, my 
 Opponent is not now willing to avow. He admits that 
 the original words are properly translated, testament, 
 constitution, covenant ; although they may sometimes 
 
 (A) Spur. Ueb. p. 173. 
 
( 184 ) 
 
 signify an appointment, command, or law. Between 
 these two there is no more discrepancy, than there is 
 in saying with one breath that the constitution of the 
 United States is the supreme law of the land^ and with 
 another breath, that it is our great political covenant or 
 federal compact. 
 
 My Opponent speaks of our ecclesiastical covenant 
 as a novelty. I boast no new discoveries of my own, 
 nor am I conscious of following any novelty of the last 
 or of the present century, on this subject. An enlight- 
 ened and candid examination of the seventh chapter of 
 the Westminster Confession, and the scriptures ^there 
 referred to, ought to convince any one, not only that 
 the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace were 
 held by the Puritans and by the Apostles, but that both 
 the Reformed Presbyterians and the Primitive Chris- 
 tians believed that the Abrahamic covenant was an eccle- 
 siastical exhibition of the covenant of grace, diiferent- 
 ly administered, in the Old and New Testament dis- 
 pensations ; and of course different from the Sinaitic 
 covenant which has vanished long ago. 
 
 When my Opponent calls upon me so loudly and so 
 frequently to point out that particular chapter in Gene- 
 sis to which I refer as containing the covenant with 
 Abraham, I wish him to understand that I refer to all 
 the chapters which he has specified, and to every other 
 in which any part of the Abrahamic covenant is contain- 
 ed. The opinion that all these passages record the same 
 covenant appears to be founded on inspired authority. 
 The scriptures say " Ye are the children of the covenant 
 *• which God made with our Fathers, saying unto Abra- 
 
( 185 ) 
 
 '' liam, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the 
 '' earth be blessed. '^ " For the Lord thy God is a mer- 
 '' ciful God ; he will not forsake thee, neither destroy 
 '' thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers, which 
 " he sware unto them/^ '' To remember his holy cov- 
 " enanty the oath which he sware to our Father Abra- 
 " ham.'^ '' I sware unto thee, and entered into a 
 '' covenant with thee? saith the Lord God." '^ Re- 
 '' member, break not thy covenant with \is,^\i) 
 
 Against this familiar language of scripture, in which 
 only one Abrahamic covenant is mentioned, my Oppo- 
 nent quotes one or two instances in which Paul speaks 
 of covenants, without intimating that they were Abra- 
 hamic covenants. '' Who are Israelites ; to whom per- 
 '' taineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants^ 
 " and the giving of the law, and the service of God, 
 " and the promises.''(y ) Although " some copies, and 
 '' the Vulgate Latin and Etliiopic versions, read the 
 '' covenantj'^^ in the singular number instead of the 
 plural, it is evident that the common is the correct 
 reading. But why must we believe all these cove- 
 nants to have been made with Abraham ? Dr. Mack- 
 night, whose version my Opponent professes to copy, 
 in his New Testament, calls these " the two covenanis,^^ 
 ^^ the covenant with Abraham," "^ and the covenant at 
 ^' Sinai." Some suppose them to mean the two testa- 
 ments : but Dr. Gill says that these covenants are 
 ^^ not the two Testaments, Old and New, but the 
 
 (i) Acts iii. 25. Dent. iv. 31. Luke i. 72. 73. Ez. xvi. S, Jcr. xiv. 21. 
 I J ) Rom. ix. 4. in Spur, Deb. p. 175. 
 
 A a 
 
( 186 ) 
 
 ^^ covenant of circumcision^ made with Abraham their 
 '' father, and the covenant at Sinai, they entered into 
 ^^ with the Lord.'^ But my Opponent says, ^' Besides, 
 ^^ and prior to the covenant at Sinai, there was a plurality 
 ^^ of covenants ;'^ and he connects these covenants with 
 the fathers, in a manner quite too ingenious for me to imi- 
 tate. He does it by altering the text, in such a manner as 
 to give it a meaning different from the Original, and from 
 his own Incomparable New Testament, and from every 
 other translation. The following is given by him, as 
 the word of God, in Rom. ix. 4. ^^ Who are Israelites 
 ^^ to whom pertaineth the adoption and the giving of the 
 ^^ law and the covenants, whose are also the fathers.'' 
 In his New Testament, the covenants^ are separated 
 from the fathers, by a dozen words, three commas, and 
 one semicolon ; all of which he has here suppressed, ex- 
 cept one expression, " the giving of the law,'' which 
 he has put out of the way by transposition, in order 
 that he may connect the covenants with the fathers, 
 which he attempts to do more effectually by interpola- 
 ting the word also. This alteration, however, is not 
 much more outrageous, than one contained in bis book 
 against Mr. Walker, where he puts " by the Father,''^ 
 instead of, " to our Fathers,^^ in Luke j, 72. (^) If he 
 cannot prove a plurality of covenants with Abraham 
 without making scripture for the purpose, you will pro- 
 bably believe that he cannot prove it all. 
 
 But in the text under cpnsideratipn, my Opponent 
 says that " the giving of the law" means " the covenant 
 
 (A-) Spur. Deb. against Mr. W. p. 159. 
 
( 187 ) 
 
 at Horeb," or the Sinaitic covenant, and therefore " the 
 covenants'^ mentioned along with it, cannot mean the 
 same thing. This, however, is an assertion, not only 
 without proof, but in opposition to proof. The Greek 
 word here used for " the giving of the law," either sig- 
 nifies the right of giving law, or the act of giving law^ 
 or the laio itself. As it is said to pertain to the Israel- 
 ites, it cannot signify the right of giving lata ; as it per- 
 tained to Paul's contemporaries, it cannot mean the act 
 of giving law ; it must therefore mean the law itself 
 Kype remarks that ^^by voiioetaia.\s here to be understood, 
 " not so much the promulgation of the law, which be- 
 " longed only to the Mosaic age, as the law itself i. e. 
 '^ the whole system of his lawP '' And he shews," 
 says Parkhurst, ^^that this is not an unusual sense of 
 
 The other instance quoted by my Opponent for a plu- 
 rality, of Abrahamic covenants, is where Paul tells the 
 Ephesians that they were once " strangers from the co- 
 venants of promise.^' Whether or not this is a Hebraism, 
 in which the plural is used for the singular, need not 
 here be discussed. Dr. Gill says that this refers " to 
 " the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham ; and 
 '^ to the covenant at Mount Sinai, made with Israel ; 
 '^ and to the dispensation of the covenant of grace to that 
 " people, sometimes called the first covenant and the old 
 '' covenant, and which peculiarly belonged to them, 
 " Rom. ix. 4. One copy reads, strangers to the pro- 
 '' mises of the covenant; which is natural enough. ''(/) 
 
 (0 Gin on Eph. ii. 12. See Spur. Deb. with me, p. 183. 
 
( 1B8 ) 
 
 ^^ But,'' says my Opponent, ^^ we have shewn that 
 '^ there were diflbrent covenants made with Abraham, 
 ^^ distinct in their nature, time, place, and circum- 
 " stances. One was made with him. Gen. xii. when 75 
 " years old, in Haran : this was 430 years before the co- 
 " venant at Sinai. This is called by the Apostle, Gal. 
 " iii. 17, the covenant conjii^med concerning ChHst, as 
 " Macknight renders it. This covenant was afterward 
 " confirmed by an oath, Gen. xxii. when Abraham of- 
 " fered up his son upon the altar. Eight years after this 
 "covenant. Gen. xv. God ^MADE A COVENANT' 
 ^^ with Abraham, in the most formal manner, concern- 
 " ing Canaan. Sixteen years after this time, (Gen. xvii.) 
 " he makes another covenant, called by Stephen the 
 '^ ' covenant of circumcision.^ Yet you were gravely told 
 ^^ that there was but one covenant made with Abraham ; 
 ^^ and this an ecclesiastic covenant. Yet there is no 
 ^^ church, no ecclesia mentioned in it, nor^for hundreds 
 " of years afterwards. What a daring spirit does infant- 
 " sprinkling inspire ! Covenants made in different coun- 
 " tries, and at the intervals of eight, sixteen, and twen- 
 " ty-four years, it calls one P\m) 
 
 This rhapsody of my Baptist Opponent considers the 
 number of the Abrahamic covenants as plain as the noon- 
 day. They must be three, exactly three ; and this is so 
 obvious and so important, that nothing but the daring 
 spirit of error will ever doubt it. Yet in another case 
 my Opponent himself seems to doubt whether ^^wc 
 " should say there were three covenants, or only tivo 
 
 (;«) Sjmv. Delx uitii mc, p. 1S3. 
 
( 189 ) 
 
 ^^ covenants made with Abraham." At that time he 
 could not make out the number three without adding 
 the Sinaitic covenant, which was not made with Abra- 
 ham, but with Moses. The following are his words, viz. 
 ^' The Scriptures on this subject are very plain. They 
 ^^ speak of a plurality of covenants belonging to the 
 " Jews. There was the covenant ' confirmed of God in 
 '' relation to Christ,' 430 years before the giving of the 
 ^' law ; and there was the covenant of circumcision, 24 
 '' years after the former. There was the covenant at 
 " Horeb, 430 years after the covenant confirmed of God 
 " in relation to Christ. Here are three covenants. The 
 " latter Mr. M^Calla has discarded as that covenant on 
 " which the Christian church is founded, but which of 
 " the tivo former is his ecclesiastical covenant he saith 
 " not.(n) 
 
 If my Opponent has found only two Abrahamic cove- 
 nants after all, you must not be surprised if I can find 
 only one ; especially if I am supported in this opinion 
 by the Bible and by Baptist authority. He has said 
 much about these two alledged covenants being 24 years 
 apart, the first in Gen. xii. in the year Before Chris 
 1921 ; the second in Gen xvii. in the year 1897 Before 
 Christ. His book against Mr. Walker contains some 
 pompous chronological trifling on this subject, in which 
 he appeals to a table at the end of Johnson's Dictionary. 
 Thinking it probable that Dr. Allison, the Baptist 
 preacher, had the same or a similar chronological table 
 at the end of his English Dictionary, I consulted it, and 
 
 {7i) 9ijur. Deb. with mc, pp. 174. 175. 
 
( 190 ) 
 
 found the following items in relation to the 12th and 
 17th chapters of Genesis. They are as follows, viz : 
 
 '' 1921. The covenant made by God with Abram^ 
 when the 430 years of sojourning commenced. 
 
 1897. The covenant renewed with Abram ; his name 
 changed to Abraham ; circumcision instituted.'' 
 
 So far are these two places from recording diiferent 
 covenants, that the covenant with Isaac, and the cove- 
 nant with Jacob, are only the same one Abrahamic cove- 
 nant reneived, as Dr. Allison expresses it. David says 
 ^^ He hath remembered his covenant forever, the w^ord 
 "which he commanded to a thousand generations: 
 " which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath 
 ^' unto Isaac ; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a 
 ^^ law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant.'' As a 
 reason for its being everlasting. Dr. Gill says that ^^ being 
 '' remembered, commanded, repeated, and confirmed, 
 ^^ it can never be broken."(o) To shew that he some- 
 times(j&) thought Gen. xii. xvii. and xxii. to contain 
 only this oite Abrahamic covenant, ^^ commanded, re- 
 peated, and confirmed," he expressly refers to these chap- 
 ters in his exposition of this passage, and then requests 
 the reader to compare with them Luke i. 72. 73. " To 
 " perform the mercy promised to our Fathers, and to 
 ^^ remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware 
 '' to our father Abraham." When the Psalmist says, 
 *' Have respect unto the covenant,'' Gill says that this 
 means ''' not the covenant of works," " but the covenant 
 " of grace, made with Christ before the world was, 
 
 0^ Clill on Ps. cv. 8—10. 
 
 i) Dr. Gill somttinies considers these as distinct covenants. 
 
( 191 ) 
 
 ^^ and made manifest to Adam^ to Noah;, to Abraham, 
 " Isaac, and Jacob, to David, and others.'^(5') 
 
 Much of my Opponent's opposition to the oneness of 
 the Abrahamic covenant, rests upon the untenable po- 
 sition, that all the parts and appendages of a constitution 
 must be drafted and published at the same moment ; that 
 it is annulled by any subsequent enlargement or amend- 
 ment ; that distant and different editions destroy its in- 
 tegrity ; that every such edition, especially if accompa- 
 nied with additions, even verbal or circumstantial, 
 makes it essentially a new constitution. But if this be 
 correct, we shall have to believe that God made eight 
 covenants with Abraham, instead of two or three, 
 ^' He certainly appeared to him, and addressed him in 
 '^ covenant language, at eight different times. Nor is 
 '' there any thing in the subjects on which he addressed 
 '' him, which would lead us to fix on two covenants, 
 '^ rather than eight. Those, therefore, who do not be- 
 " lieve that he made eight distinct covenants^ with him 
 '^ have no reason to suppose that he made with him more 
 ^^ than one,^\r) The same criterion should lead its ad- 
 vocates to believe that there have been half as many 
 constitutions of the United States. Our political cove- 
 nant, as proposed by the Convention, in 1797, had 
 seven articles. The first Congress, at its first session, 
 proposed ten additional articles. The eleventh article 
 was proposed by the first session of the third Congress, 
 and the twelfth by the first session of the eighth Con- 
 
 {q) Ps. Ixxiv. 20. 
 
 (?') Pond's Reply to Judson. p. 74. He refers to Geri. ^ii. 1. and T. 
 xiii. ;4. XV. 1. xvii. %\\\\, xxi. 12. and xxii. 15, 
 
( 192 ) 
 
 gress. All these articles now form one and the same 
 constitution, yet as drafted and adopted at four different 
 times, and published in distant and different editions. 
 Neither would its oneness be at all affected, if a thir- 
 teenth article were now added, appointing a governmen- 
 tal seal, or altering the seal now in use, as circumcision 
 was added as a seal to the Abrahamic covenant, twenty - 
 four years after its alledged origin, and as this seal was 
 altered to baptism, near two thousand years after that 
 period. 
 
 The two titles which the New Testament gives to the 
 Abrahamic covenant, make a delightful subject of decla- 
 mation for my Opponent. Stephen calls it " The cove- 
 ^^ nant that was confirmed before of God in Christ ;'^ 
 and Paul calls it *^the covenant of circumcision. '^(5) 
 When Stephen says that it " was confirmed before,^^ he 
 means before " the law, which was four hundred and 
 ^' thirty years after." Here my Opponent sets all his 
 chronological apparatus to work, to shew that this 430 
 years before the law, will take us back, not to Gen. 
 xvii. when circumcision was instituted, but to Gen. xii. 
 to ^^ the ever-memorable charter of all the blessings 
 '^ which Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy through 
 '' Christ ;'^ as a certain Baptist writer styles this first 
 publication of the Abrahamic covenant. But mark well 
 a distinction between the promulgation and the confir- 
 mation of this " covenant confirmed." The p7'om2il' 
 gation may be in Gen. xii. and this may be 430 
 years before the law : but that the confirmation is in this 
 
 («) Acts vii. 8, (ial. iii, 17. 
 
( 1^3 ) 
 
 chapter or at this date, is not asserted by Stephen, nor, 
 (I believe,) by the Baptists themselves. My Oppo- 
 nent, in a passage already quoted, instead of referring 
 to Gen. xii. sends us to Gen. xxii. for this confirma- 
 tion. His words are " This covenant was afterwards 
 '^ confirmed by an oath. Gen. xxii. when Abraham 
 " offered up his son upon the Altar.''(/) Dr. Gill does 
 not believe that Stephen refers to Gen xii. for one thing 
 or another, but that his mention of the covenant is to 
 be understood, " of a peculiar confirmation of it to 
 " Abraham, either by a frequent repetition thereof, or 
 " by annexing an oath unto it ; or rather, by those rites 
 " and usages, and even wonderful appearances, record- 
 " ed in Gen. xv. 9. 10. 12. 13. 17. 18, and which 
 ^^ ^Nd^sfour hundred and thirty years before the law was 
 ^^ given, which are thus computed by the learned 
 ^' Pareus.'^ He then gives us the computation of Pa- 
 rens. 
 
 My Opponent looks for the confirmation in Gen. xxii. 
 Dr. Gill looks for it in Gen. xv. one on each side of 
 Gen. xvii. where it is really to be found. Circumcision 
 gives this seventeenth chapter a repulsive aspect. It 
 resembles many a mud- hole in the road from Washington 
 to Lexington. The way of safety lies right through it : 
 but a span of horses will try hard to go one on each side 
 of it. There is Dr. Gill, with the chronological traces 
 of Parens, pulling hard to the left ; Here is my Oppo- 
 nent, with his chronological harness, tugging and slip- 
 ping and floundering toward the right. But it will no| 
 
 (0 Spur. Deb. with me. p. 183, 
 
 B I) 
 
( 194 ) 
 
 all do ; the middle is the road, and through it the church 
 will go. 
 
 Dr. Gill is that reasonable sort of a man who is apt to 
 make a poor advocate for a bad cause ; because he ad- 
 mits enough of the truth to refute his own errors. In 
 the extract just now given, he admits a frequent repeti- 
 tion of the covenant to Abraham. While he allows, with 
 my Opponent, that it may be confirmed by an oath, he 
 admits that it is confirmed, ^^ rather by those rites and 
 ^' usages^ and even wonderful appearances recorded in 
 " Gen. xv.^^ Perhaps you think that he will, at no 
 time, admit circumcision among those rites and usages 
 by which the Abrahamic covenant was confirmed. If 
 so, you are mistaken. On the New Testament he tells 
 us '^ that circumcision was a seal, not for secresy, but 
 ^' for certainty ; it being a confirmation not only of the 
 '' sincerity of Abraham's faith, but of his justifying 
 ^^ righteousness, which was not his faith, but that 
 '^ which his faith looked to.''(iO Even in Gen. xvii. 7, 
 when God says, " I will establish my covenant between 
 '^ me and thee,'^ Gill explains this as a declaration that 
 he will " not only renew it, but confinn it by the follow- 
 ^' ing token of circumcision." Thus it appears that 
 the covenant of circumcision was not a new one, but a 
 renewal of a former one, with the addition of a seal by 
 which it was confirmed of God in Christ, to whose 
 righteousness Abraham's faith looked, when ^^he re- 
 ^^ ceived the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the right- 
 eousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircum- 
 
 (w) Rom. iv. 7, 
 
 ii 
 
( 195 ) 
 
 ^' cised." There is^ in truth, no more difference be- 
 tween the covenant of circumcision and the covenant 
 of confirmation, than there is between our great political 
 compact and our federal constitution. They mean the 
 same covenant as certainly as that the scriptures and 
 the bible mean the same book. 
 
 All parties appear to agree that the promises of Gen. 
 xii. contemplate spiritual blessings, and are given to 
 Abraham's spiritual seed: but my Opponent, in his 
 book against Mr. Walker, (t;) assures us that the promises 
 in Gen. xvii. are confined to Abraham's natural descen- 
 dants, and to temporal blessings. To do entire justice 
 to the subject, it may not be amiss to institute a brief in- 
 quiry concerning the persons and things contemplated 
 in both places. 
 
 I. The persons. The proof given by the Baptists, 
 that Gen. xii. was in behalf of Abraham's spiritual 
 seed, is found in the following words of the third verse ; 
 ^^and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." 
 Now let us see whether there is not something like this 
 in the seventeenth chapter. In the 2nd verse, God 
 promises that he ^^will multiply thee exceedingly." 
 Gill says that " this may include his natural seed by her 
 ^' [Sarah], and his spiritual seed among all nations, who 
 '' are of the same faith with him, see ch. xii. 2, and 
 ^' xiii. 16, and xv. 5." Here the Dr. expressly refers 
 to the 12th chapter as containing promises co-extensive 
 with those of this chapter. But read on. Gen. xvii. 
 4, says, "Thou shalt be a father of many nations." 
 
 (v) p, 160. 
 
( 196 ) 
 
 After enumerating the many nations naturally descended 
 from Abraham;, Gill says, " and, in a spiritual sense, 
 '' the father of all that believe, in all the nations of the 
 " world, circumcised or uncircumcised, as the Apostle 
 ^^ explains it, Rom. iv. 11. 12. 16. 17. 18.'^ The 
 5th verse says, " thy name shall be Abraham,'^ which 
 Gill interprets " the father of a numerous offspring; 
 ^' and with this agrees the reason of it as follows ; 'for 
 ^' ' a father of many nations have I made thee:^ ^' on 
 which he says, " Abraham has not only been the father 
 ^/ of many nations, in a literal sense, as before observed, 
 ^^ but in a mystical sense, of the whole world ; that is, 
 ^^ of all in it that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles.'^ 
 Verse 6th says, " and kings shall come out of thee.'^ 
 Gill's remarks on this are closed with the following words, 
 \\z. ^^ . . . the king Messiah : to which may be added, in 
 " a mystical sense, all Christian kings and princes of the 
 '^ same faith with him ; nay, all believers, who are all 
 ^' kings and priests unto God.'' The 7th verse says, 
 '' And I will establish my covenant between me and 
 '' thee." Gill says, " Not only renew it, but confirm 
 ^' it by the following token of circumcision." The same 
 verse adds, '^ and thy seed after thee in their genera- 
 " tion, for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto 
 '' thee, and to thy seed after thee :" in commenting 
 upon which. Gill thrice declares that the promise is to 
 '' his spiritual seed." Here we have the greatest Bap- 
 tist Commentator producing abundant inspired evidence 
 that the covenant promises of Gen. xvii. are not only 
 to Abraham's natural, but to his spiritual seed also. 
 II. The blessings. i\re they spiritual, or arc tliey 
 
( 197 ) 
 
 temporal only ? My Opponent says that they are the 
 latter ; for which he gives five reasons, (t^;) 
 
 1. '^^That they should be a numerous and powerful 
 ^^ people." But the same promise is contained in Gen. 
 xii. 2, which is confessedly spiritual ; and the same is 
 repeatedly made to the church militant, and even to the 
 church triumphant, after all temporal things have 
 ceased. 
 
 2. " That they should inherit the land of Canaan for 
 " a perpetual possession." It is true that this is a tempo- 
 ral blessing; but let it be remembered, that, as Dr. 
 Gill observes, it is one " which was a figure of the 
 " heavenly inheritance, which is an eternal one, and 
 '' will be enjoyed by all his spiritual seed, to all eternity." 
 It is on this principle that my Opponent has follow- 
 ed Dr. George Campbell in translating our Saviour's 
 words, '' Happy the meek, for they shall inherit the 
 ^' land ;^\x) meaning the land of Canaan, here used 
 as a figure, referring not only to temporal, but '' to 
 '^ eternal benefits,^' as Dr. Campbell expressly declares 
 in his note on the place. Thus did Paul view this pro- 
 mise to Abraham when he says, " 'Qy faith he sojourned 
 " in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwel- 
 " ling in tabernacles, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs 
 " with him of the same promise ; for he looked for a 
 " city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker 
 <^isGod."(3^) 
 
 3. You will, no doubt, be astonished to hear that the 
 ground of my Opponent's third reason is, that in the 7th 
 
 (iv) spur. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 160. (jc) Matt. v. 5. 
 
 ly) Hcbr. xi. 9. 10. 
 
( 198 ) 
 
 verse God promises ^^ to be a God unto thee, and to thy 
 ^* seed after thee ;'' and in the eighth verse he says, " I 
 " will be their God.'^ In the 7th verse Gill believes 
 that his Maker enters into covenant with Abraham's 
 ^^ spiritual seed, as the God of all grace, supplying them 
 ^^ with grace here, and bestowing upon them glory here- 
 *"' after/' The eighth verse he explains in a similar 
 manner. 
 
 4. '^ It was conditional/' This assertion my Oppo- 
 nent endeavours to support, by saying '^ See Gen. xvii. 
 ^* throughout." But fearing that this would not answer, 
 he quotes "and the uncircumcised man-chiid....he hath 
 " broken my covenant :" that is, says Dr. Gill ^^ made 
 " it null and void, neglecting the token of it, circum- 
 '^ cision." As this does not appear sufficient, my 
 Opponent tacks to it, as belonging to the same chapter, 
 the following words of Isaiah, viz. " If ye be willing 
 <^ and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land." The 
 next verse adds, '' but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall 
 " be devoured with the sword-^te) This may do very 
 well to shew the character of the Sinaitic covenant ; for 
 it is almost transcribed from Leviticus xxvi. which Gill 
 declares related to " the covenant made with them at 
 " Sinai."(a) My Opponent may excuse his disingenu- 
 ousness, by recurring to a pretended amalgamation of 
 these two covenants. I hope soon to shew you, with 
 the help of heaven, that this also is a fiction. 
 
 5. "It was a covenant in the flesh and not in the 
 " spirit. ' My covenant shall be in your flesh,' Gen. 
 
 (z) Is. i. 19. 20. 
 
 {a) Lev. xxvi. 3. 4. 14. 17. Thcnienti6nof the covenant is in verse 15. 
 
( 199 ) 
 
 '^ xvii. 13. The rite of circumcision was the seal of 
 this covenant/' ! ! ! ! What an admirable argument ! ! 
 Well may its author boast of his " critical accumen," 
 and his '' respectability as a scholar." We have been 
 accustomed to thinking that the expression, " My cov- 
 '' enant shall be in your flesh/' meant, that circumci- 
 sion, the seal or token of the covenant, should be in the 
 flesh, while the thing signified by it might, nevertheless 
 be in the spirit, according to an express promise that 
 '' the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the 
 *^ heart of thy seed.'' (6) So we have always thought 
 that the application of baptism to the body did not ex- 
 clude the answer of a good conscience : but my Oppo- 
 nent has discovered that an application of the sacerdo- 
 tal knife, or of the baptismal water to the body, proves 
 that the covenant with which they are connected is 
 wholly temporal, and has no relation to spiritual bles- 
 sings at all ! According to Dr. Gill, however, ^^ cir- 
 ^* cumcision was a typical sign of Christ, as all the qere- 
 ^^ monies of the law were, and of the shedding of his 
 ^' blood, to cleanse from all sin, original and actual, and 
 ^' also of the circumcision of the heart ; and was more- 
 ^^ over a seal of the righteousness of faith. "(c) 
 
 That you may feel a proper interest in this discussion, 
 it is necessary to keep in mind the reason, why there 
 has been such a waste of industry and ingenuity, in en- 
 deavouring to debase and destroy the holy ordinance of 
 
 (6) Deut. XXX. 6. 
 
 (c) Gill on Rom. iv. 11. In relation to this subject, the Doctor's oppo- 
 sition to Pedobaptism makes him sometimes speak in such a manner as 
 to contradict himself, and to reject truths whicii he, at other times, ad- 
 mits. 
 
( 200 ) 
 
 circumcision. If the substance of this ordinance be 
 permitted to continue as the seal of a permanent cove- 
 nant^ my Opponent knows that it can be found no where 
 in the Christian church, except in the form of baptism. 
 If baptism, therefore, be the Christian circumcision, as 
 it was considered by the Apostles and primitive Chris- 
 tians, then it must, like the Jewish circumcision, be 
 administered to believers and their households. Here 
 would be infant baptism at once ; and all this, on account 
 of circumcision, that obnoxious institution. To avoid 
 this he must destroy circumcision both in its form and 
 substance. But this cannot be done without destroying 
 the covenant of which it is a seal. To accomplish this 
 they must either deny the perpetuity of the one Abra- 
 hamic covenant, which they are not prepared to do, or 
 they must find two Abrahamic covenants, one of which 
 may lay exclusive claims to circumcision, and be de- 
 stroyed with it. Because circumcision is found in Gen. 
 xvii. that chapter is marked for destruction, as contain- 
 ing a covenant w^hich is temporary in its duration, and 
 temporal in its benefits, and essentially diflerent from 
 the covenant which is recorded before and after it. But 
 this plurality of Abrahamic covenants is not only un- 
 known to the inspired writers, but is, as we have shewn, 
 in direct opposition to their repeated declarations, both 
 in the Old and New Testaments : and so far is Gen. 
 xvii. from containing a temporary covenant with tempo- 
 ral benefits, that its evidence of spirituality and perpe- 
 tuity is more abundant than that of any other publication 
 of the Abrahamic covenant in the whole book. To an 
 .unprejudiced mind, it is plain, that the covenant which 
 
( 201 ) 
 
 was published and repeated in the twelfth and fifteenth 
 chapters, was ratified or established, or, as Dr. Gill ex- 
 plains it, renewed and confirmed^ in the seventeenth, 
 where circumcision was given as a seal. 
 
 Even those who make this latter a distinct and de- 
 structible covenant, have to give it entirely a new name, 
 before they can find any Scripture that will put it to 
 death. There is not a word in the bible, for destroying 
 any Abrahamic covenant : they are obliged, therefore, 
 to call it the Sinaitic covenant, or the covenant of Ho- 
 reb. Ask my Opponent how it obtained this new name, 
 and he will tell you that it was by amalgmnation. Yes, 
 it was not by inspiration, but by a process unknown to 
 the Scriptures, or the ancient church ; a federal amal- 
 gamation^ elaborated in the flimsy prejudices of modern 
 theological alchymists. As it has been proved that there 
 are not two distinct Abrahamic covenants, permit me 
 now to shew that the Abrahamic and Sinaitic are two 
 distinct covenants, which never have coalesced and 
 never will. According to the Scriptures, they differ in 
 the following features. 
 
 1. They are said to be two, ^^ Which things are an 
 ^^ allegory : for these are the tvx) covenants.'^(Gf) 
 
 2. They differ in their tendency. This is proved by 
 the words immediately following those just now quoted. 
 ^^ The one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to 
 " bondage, which is Agar.(c/) 
 
 3. They are distinguished as my and thy covenants ; 
 the Lord claiming the one which tends to promote liber- 
 
 (of) Gal. iv. 24. 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 ty. ^'Nevertheless, I will remember my covenant with 
 '* thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish [or 
 '^ confirm it] unto thee [as] an everlasting covenant. 
 ^' Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed, 
 ^' when thou shalt receive thy sister, [the Gentiles] 
 ^' thine elder and thy younger : and I will give them 
 *' unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant. And 
 '^ I will establish [or confirm] my covenant, [made in 
 ^' the days of thy youth] with thee.''(€) My Opponent 
 justly remarks that Ezekiel here '^ promises the union of 
 ''Jews and Gentiles under a covenant positively de- 
 " clared to be not the Sinaitic,'^ for he says, " not by 
 " thy covenant.^' The next question is, what is that 
 everlasting covenant, which, in this short passage, the 
 Lord twice promises that he will establish or confirm on 
 the union of the Jews and Gentiles ? Dr. Gill says it is 
 " the covenant of grace, made with the Messiah and his 
 " spiritual seed ; which is confirmed of God in Christ.'^ 
 But both he and my Opponent believe the '^ covenant 
 confirmed of God in Christ'^ to be the Abrahamic cove- 
 nant. And where is this everlasting covenant first said 
 to be established or confirmed ? It is in Gen. xvii. Yes, 
 in the seventh verse of that oficnsive chapter, God says, 
 '' I will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
 " and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an 
 " everlasting covenant.*' It is here also that Gill's ad- 
 mirable commentary says that this establishing of the 
 covenant, means that God will " not only renew it, but 
 '* confirm it by the following token of circumcision." 
 
 (f) Ez. xvi. 60— 62* -V , 
 
( 203 ) 
 
 This, tlierefore, is '' my covenant with tliee in the days 
 '' of thy youth/^ Gill's Baptist prejudices make him 
 anxious to confine the days of their youth to the Sinaitic 
 covenant. He nevertheless approves of the declaration 
 of Kimchi, who says that " all the while they were in 
 " Egypt, and until they came into the land of Canaan, 
 ^' were called the days of their youth.'' This account 
 of their youth embraces many centuries before the Si- 
 naitic covenant, during all of which time they were un- 
 der the Abrahamic covenant, in which God had pre- 
 dicted their bondage in Egypt, and deliverance from 
 \t.[f) This was done in a covenant which was made be- 
 fore the institution of circumcision, and only "renewed" 
 and " confirmed" in the appointment of that seal. This 
 covenant which God confirmed with them in their 
 youtK, by circumcision, he promises to confirm with 
 them on the union of Jews and Gentiles, that it may in- 
 deed be an everlasting covenant, after that of Sinai is 
 abolished. 
 
 4. They differ in their dates. Moses says, "The 
 '^Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 
 '^The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, 
 '^ but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this 
 ^' day."(^) Gill supposes that the fathers here men- 
 tioned, may " be understood of their more remote an- 
 ^' cestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with whom the 
 '' covenant of grace was made, or afresh made manifest, 
 ^' especially with the former ; when the law, the cove- 
 ^^ nant here spoken of, was not delivered until 430 years 
 
 (/) Gen. XV. 13—16. (^) Deut. v. 7, 3, 
 
( 204 ) 
 
 *^ after. Gal. iii. 16. 17." These references read as 
 follows: '^ Now to Abraham and his seed were the pro- 
 '' mises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; 
 '' but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And 
 '' this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before 
 ^^ of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred 
 ^' and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should 
 ^^ make the promise of none efFect.^^ 
 
 5. They differ in their qualities. " But now hath he 
 '' obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also 
 ^' he is the Mediator of a better covenant which was es- 
 ^' tablished upon better promises. For if the first cove- 
 '' nant had been faultless, then should no place have 
 ^^ been sought for the second. For finding fault with 
 ^^ them, he saith. Behold the days come, saith the Lord, 
 ^' when I will make a new covenant with the house of 
 ^^ Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to 
 ^' the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the 
 ^' day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of 
 ^' the land of Egypt ; because they continued not in my 
 ^' covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.'^(A) 
 Notwithstanding the obscurity of what my Opponent 
 says on this passage,{f) you may perceive that he admits 
 the Sinaitic covenant to be the old and faulty one which 
 gives way to the new and better covenant. Thus also 
 Dr. Gill ; " That the Sinai covenant is intended, is clear 
 '' by the following circumstance : ' In the day that I 
 ^' ' took them by the hand to bring them out of the land 
 ^'^of Egypt;' that is, immediately after their being 
 
 (A) Heb. viii. 6 — 9. (n Spur. W-h. with n)e, p. 246. 
 
( 205 J 
 
 '' brought out of Egypt, the covenant was made with 
 " them/^(;) But the question in dispute is, What is 
 meant by the new and better covenant, which is so far 
 superior to that of Sinai ? My Opponent can give no 
 other account of it than to assure you that it is a neiv 
 covenant, essentially different from the Mrahamic, If 
 so, it must be newly made, or newly revealed, or both 
 newly made and revealed. My opinion is, that it is no 
 new constitution or revelation, but a new administration 
 of a covenant revealed to Abraham. 
 
 My Opponent has sometimes made a show of quoting 
 our Confession of Faith against me. Permit me to quote 
 it on this occasion. It is an excellent expositor of Scrip- 
 ture ; it speaks my sentiments in better words than my 
 own ; and it gives me an opportunity of shewing the ex- 
 act agreement which there is between the highest Bap- 
 tist and Pedobaptist authorities on this subject. In rela- 
 tion to the covenant of Grace, our Confession speaks as 
 follows, viz. "This covenant was differently adminis- 
 ^' tered in the time of the law, and in the time of the 
 " gospel : under the law it was administered by pro- 
 " mises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Pas- 
 " chal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered 
 " to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to 
 " come, which were for that time sufficient and effica- 
 '* cious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct 
 '^ and build up the elect in faith in the promised Mes- 
 '' siah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and 
 ^' eternal salvation ; and is called the Old Testament. 
 
 (/) Gill on Jer. xxxi. 32, which Paul quotes. 
 
( 206 ) 
 
 ** Under the gospel, when Christ the substance, was cx- 
 ^^ hibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dis- 
 ^' pensed are the preaching of the word, and the admin- 
 ^^ istration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's 
 '' supper ; which, though fewer in number, and admin- 
 *' istered with more simplicity and less outward glory, 
 '^^ yet in them it is held forth, in more fulness, evidence, 
 ^' and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and 
 ^^ Gentiles ; and is called the New Testament. There 
 '^ are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in 
 ^' substance, but one and the same under various dis- 
 ^' pensations/''(/) In support of these sentiments, the 
 Confession refers to those passages in which Jeremiah 
 and Paul speak of the old and faulty covenant giving 
 way to the new and better one. It also refers to several 
 texts which relate to the Abrahamic covenant and its 
 seal. The extract, with its proofs, goes to shew that 
 the authors of the Confession believed with me, that the 
 new covenant of Jeremiah and Paul, was no new consti- 
 tution or new revelation, but a new administration of a 
 covenant revealed to Abraham. 
 
 The coincidence of Dr. Gill's opinion will appear in 
 the following extract, viz. '" That I will make a new 
 ^' ^covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house 
 ^^^Judah;' by this covenant is meant the covenant of 
 *' grace ; called new, not because newly made, for it 
 '^ was made with the elect in Christ from everlasting ; 
 ^^ so early was Christ set up as the Mediator of it ; and 
 ^^ so early were promises made, and blessings given to 
 
 (/) Confession, Ch. 7. Sect. 5. 6. 
 
( 207 ) 
 
 *' them in him : nor because newly revealed ; for it was 
 ^^ made known to all the saints more or less, under the 
 " former dispensation, particularly to David, to Abra- 
 " ham, yea, to our first parents immediately after the 
 " fall, though more clearly manifested under the gospel 
 ^' dispensation ; but because of its new mode of exhi- 
 " bition ; not by types, and shadows, and sacrifices, as 
 '' formerly ; but by the ministry of the word, and the 
 " administration of gospel ordinances ; and in distinc- 
 " tion from the former covenant, which is done away, 
 " as to the mode of it ; and because it is a famous cov- 
 '' enant, an excellent one, a better covenant, best of all ; 
 ^^ better than the covenant of works, and even better 
 '' than the covenant of grace, under the former admin- 
 " istration.^'(??i) There is no difficulty in seeing from 
 this extract, that Dr. Gill believes that the new and bet- 
 ter covenant which supplants the Sinaitic, is no new 
 constitution or revelation, but only a new administration 
 of the covenant of grace, revealed to Abraham, and 
 even to Adam ; and exhibited to God's people both in 
 the Old and in the New dispensations, in ecclesiastical 
 ordinances ; so that it is an ecclesiastical exhibition of 
 the covenant of grace. Dr. Gill himself being judge. 
 
 But this is not all. The same sentiments, as far as is 
 necessary for the point now in hand, have been officially 
 declared by the Regular Baptist churches of England 
 and America, in " A Confession of Faith put forth 
 " by the Elders and Brethren, of many Congregations 
 ^' of Christians J (baptised upon profession of their 
 
 (m) (iill on Jcr. xxxu al. 
 
( 208 ) 
 
 ^' faith, J in London and the country. Adopted by the 
 " Baptist Association met at Philadelphia, September 
 ^' 25, 1742.'' In relation to the subject now before 
 us, this Baptist Formulary says, ^^This covenant is re- 
 ^^ vealed in the gospel first of all to Adam in the pro- 
 ^^ mise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and after- 
 ^^ wards by farther steps, until the full discovery there- 
 ^' of was completed in the New Testament ; and it is 
 ^^ founded in that eternal covenant transaction, that was 
 ^^ between the Father and the Son about the redemption 
 '' of the elect ; and it is alone by the grace of this cov- 
 ^^ enant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that 
 '^ ever were saved, did obtain life and blessed im- 
 ^^ mortality ; man being now utterly incapable of accep- 
 ^^ tance with God upon those terms on which Adam 
 ^^ stood in his state of innocency.''(?i) I would call your 
 attention to a particular doctrine stated in this extract, 
 in connexion with the texts referred to in the bottom of 
 the page to support it. The doctrine is, that ^* it is 
 *^ alone by the grace of this covenant, that all of the 
 ^^ posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did 
 '* obtain life and blessed immortality." In support of 
 this doctrine, this Baptist Confession refers to John viii. 
 56. ^^ Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day ; 
 ^^ and he saw it, and was glad." But lest this should 
 leave us in doubt, whether they meant the Abrahamic 
 covenant, with or without the seal of circumcision, this 
 same Baptist Confession refers us to Rom. iv. through- 
 out ; which dwells almost wholly upon the Abrahamic 
 
 (n) Chap. 7, Sect. 3. 
 
( 209 ) 
 
 Covenant as recorded in Gen. xvii. where Abraham 
 ^' received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right- 
 ^' eousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir- 
 ^' cumcised.'' This shews from the highest Baptist 
 authority in the world, that the new and better covenant 
 of the New Testament church, which supplants the 
 Sinaitic covenant, is no new constitution or revelation, 
 but only a new administration of the eternal covenant of 
 grace, which was revealed to Adam in Gen. iii. and 
 which was visibly and ecclesiastically exhibited to Abra- 
 ham, in Gen. xvii. where it was sealed with circumci- 
 sion. 
 
 Notwithstanding the great inferiority of the covenant 
 of Sinai, its institutions were an obscure publication of 
 the gospel. It was therefore subservient to the covenant 
 of grace. But, that it made, comparatively, a very 
 slender provision for the consolation and salvation of the 
 church, is evident from the fact that Moses, by whom 
 it was given, goes past his own ceremonial and legal cov- 
 enant, and resorts to that of Abraham, when interceding 
 for rebellious Israel. In the same chapter of his law, 
 the legal character of the one covenant, and the gracious 
 character of the other are plainly marked. Speaking 
 the language of the Sinaitic covenant, he says, '^ But 
 '' if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all 
 '' these commandments, and if ye shall despise my 
 ^^ statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that 
 '^ ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break 
 ^' my covenant, I also will do this unto you.'' Then 
 he denounces ^multiplied and aggravated curses upon 
 
 them. Dr. Gill says that this was '' the covenant made 
 Dd 
 
( 210 ) 
 
 ^^ with them at Sinai, when they promised on their part, 
 ^' that they would hearken and be obedient. ''(o) Im- 
 mediately after this Moses adds, '^ If they shall confess 
 '^ their iniquity," '^ then will I remember my covenant 
 ^^ with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also 
 ^^ my covenant with Abraham will I remember ; and I 
 ^' will remember the land/^ Gill says that this cove- 
 nant " chiefly respects the multiplication of their seed, 
 '^ the continuance of them, and the Messiah springing 
 ^* from them ; which is the mercy promised to these fa- 
 ^^ thers, and the principal part of the covenant made 
 ^^ with them, and which was remembered and performed 
 '^ when God visited and redeemed his people by him, 
 *' Luke i. 68— 73."(p) Immediately after the Sinaitic 
 covenant was given, and Aaron and the people had pro* 
 voked the Lord with the golden calf, Moses says, " Turn 
 ^^ from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against 
 ^' thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel 
 ^' thy servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own 
 '' stW^q) To this was God's mercy ascribed in after 
 days. " And the Lord was gracious unto them, and 
 ^^ had compassion on them, and had respect unto them, 
 ^^ because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Ja- 
 ^' cob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them 
 '' from his presence as yet.''(r) In the Jewish syna- 
 gogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Paul shewed that the Abra- 
 hamic covenant may well serve as a text for a gospel 
 sermon. " And we declare unto you glad tidings, how 
 ^' that the promise which was made unto the fathers, 
 
 (o) Gill on Lev. xxvi. 15. {fi) Gill on Lev. xxvi. 42. 
 
 (</) Ex. xxxii. 12. 13. (r) 2 Kings xiii. 23. 
 
 \ 
 
( 211 ) 
 
 ^' God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in 
 ^' that he hath raised up Jesus again. '^ Dr. Gill says 
 that this promise is '' not barely and solely that which 
 '' respects the resurrection of Christ, but the mission 
 ^' of him, the exhibition of him in human nature, his 
 '^ incarnation, his work and business he was to do, 
 ^^ namely, to obtain salvation for his people ; it chiefly 
 '' regards the promise of his coming into the world to 
 ^' do the will of God, which promise was made to Abra- 
 ^' ham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah.'^W 
 
 6. There is such a difference in the duration of the 
 Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants, as totally to forbid 
 the amalgamation system. We have already found that 
 Paul meant the covenant of Sinai, when he said, ^' Now 
 ^' that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to van- 
 '' ish away.^'(^) This covenant vanished soon after the 
 coming of Christ : but where is the evidence that the 
 Abrahamic covenant vanished at that period? Instead 
 of that, Paul represents Abraham as the father of be- 
 lieving Gentiles as well as Jews, (w) It was concerning 
 this period that God said, ^^ Then will I remember my 
 '' covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, 
 ^' and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember.'' 
 Dr. Gill expressly says that this covenant '^ was remem- 
 ^^ bered and performed when God visited and redeemed 
 '' his people by him [Christ] Luke i. 68—73.^' The 
 Psalmist says " He hath remembered his covenant for 
 " ever, the w^ord which he commanded to a thousand 
 
 {s) Gill on Acts xiii. 32. (r) Hebr. viii. 13. 
 
 (m) Rom. iv. 11. 12. Compare Is. Iv. 3—5. Ivi. 4 — 8, where the ex- 
 tension of the covenant to Gentiles is foretold. ^ 
 
( 212 ) 
 
 ^' generations : which covenant he made with Abraham, 
 '' and his oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto 
 " Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting cove- 
 '' nant/^ Dr. Gill says that this covenant " shall 
 ^' stand good, and be punctually performed, ' to a thou- 
 '' ' sand generations,' that is, forever."(i;) For this 
 also, as well as the last text, he refers to the latter part of 
 the first Chapter of Luke. " Blessed be the Lord God 
 '' of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his peo- 
 ^' ple,'^ " to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, 
 ^' and to remember his holy covenant,'' *^ which," says 
 Dr. Gill, '' was made between him and his Son from 
 *^ all eternity ; and was, at various times, dispensed and 
 ^^ manifested to the patriarchs, and eminent saints, as 
 ^^ Adam, Noah, Abraham, &q,^\w) This is confirmed 
 by the very next verse, which says, '' the oath which 
 ^^ he sware to our father Abraham." Besides referring 
 us to this passage from the Psalm just now quoted, the 
 Doctor sends us to three different places in Genesis, 
 among which we find the seventeenth chapter, where 
 this covenant is confirmed of God in Christ, by the seal 
 of circumcision. It is not, therefore, some other Abra- 
 hamic covenant, but the covenant of circumcision, which 
 God has " ^ commanded to a thousand generations,' that 
 ^^ is, forever," as the Doctor says. If, therefore, the 
 Abrahamic covenant of circumcision is eternal in its 
 duration, and the Sinaitic covenant has already perished, 
 their amalgamation must be a work of imagination only. 
 
 {v) Gill on Ps. cv. 8. (w) Gill on Luke i. Ixxii. 
 
( 213 ) 
 
 It appears, therefore, from the bible and the highest 
 Baptist authority, that the one Abrahamic covenant, 
 sealed with circumcision, is perpetual ; that notwith- 
 standing the change of administration, the covenant is 
 the same ; and that this ecclesiastical exhibition of the 
 covenant of grace is the common constitution of the Jew- 
 ish society before Christ, and of the Christian society af- 
 ter Christ ; wherefore these societies having one consti- 
 tution, are one church; which was the point to be 
 proved. 
 
 We have now finished the evidence promised in sup- 
 port of the second proposition, that " the Christian 
 ^' church is a branch of the Abrahamic church ; or in 
 " other words, the Jewish society before Christ, and the 
 " Christian society after Christ are one and the same 
 '' church in different administrations. '^ We have proved 
 this by the substantial sameness of their religion : they 
 have the same theology, morality, worship, government, 
 and discipline. This has, moreover, been shewn from 
 the manner in which the same names are given to them : 
 they are both God's peculiar treasure, a royal priesthood, 
 and an holy nation. They are both God's ecclesiastical 
 tree and vineyard ; foundation, floor, and house ; king- 
 dom and commonwealth ; man and body ; brethren, 
 bride and children. And it has just now been shewn 
 that the same ecclesiastical exhibition of the eternal co- 
 venant of grace is the one common constitution of the 
 
( 214 ) 
 
 two societies : wherefore they must be one church, 
 though in different dispensations. Both the premises 
 and the conclusion have been supported by the Scrip- 
 turesj and it has been shewn that they are both ratified 
 by Doctor Gill; the greatest Baptist writer who ever 
 lived. If, through prejudice or forgetful ness, any one 
 doubt the correctness of this statement, let him candidly 
 attend to what the Doctor says, on that declaration of 
 Solomon, that " Wisdom hath builded her house ; she 
 hath hewn out her seven pillars.'^(A) This, Gill says, is 
 ^' the church of Christ on earth, the house of the living 
 '^' God, the pillar and ground of the truth. ^^ '^ Such a 
 ^' house there was under the Old Testament, and such an 
 ^' one there is under the New; and which is continually 
 *^ building up by Christ, by means of the word and ordi- 
 '^ nances, and will continue to the end of the world." 
 When Solomon says, '^ There is no new thing under 
 the sun,'^(2) Dr. Gill says, that even " spiritual things,'^ 
 ^^ though in some sense new, are also old; or there have 
 ^' been the same things for substance in former ages, 
 <^ and from the beginning, as now ; such as the new cove- 
 ^'nant of grace ; the new and living way to God ; new 
 '^ creatures in Christ; a new name ; the JVew Testament, 
 '^ and the doctrines of it ; new ordinances, and the new 
 '^ commandment of love; and yet these, in some sense, are 
 '^ all old things, and indeed are the same in sub- 
 ^^ STANCE," These are the words of Dr. Gill. In them 
 you find express and repeated acknowledgments of the 
 scriptural truths, that the church and covenant, doc- 
 
 (A) Prov. ix. 1. (0 Eccles. i. 9. 
 
( 215 ) 
 
 trines and ordinances, of the Old and New Testament, 
 are ^' the same things for substance ;'' '' the same 
 IN SUBSTANCE.'^ If, in relation to these ordinances, 
 Providence enable me to prove, from Scripture, the si- 
 gillistical identity of circumcision and baptism, and the 
 unrepealed requirement that this seal shall be adminis- 
 tered to infants, it will plainly appear, from infallible 
 authority, that there is a divine command for infant- 
 baptism. 
 
 PROPOSITION III. 
 
 Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and Christian Bap- 
 tism AFTER Christ, are one and the same seal in sub- 
 stance, though in different forms. 
 
 The word seal sometimes signifies an instrument for 
 making an impression upon wax or some other substance; 
 it sometimes means the impression made by this instru- 
 ment ; it sometimes signifies that confirmation which is 
 imparted by this impression ; and it sometimes denotes 
 any significant act by which confirmation is eff*ected 
 even without a visible permanent impression. Ahab^had 
 ^Ti implement called a sea/; Jezebel made the impres- 
 sion of it upon the letters which she sent to the elders 
 and to the nobles ; and this royal attestation or confirm- 
 ation procured the destruction of Naboth.(a:) In order 
 to bring the Jews to a similar end, Haman sent through- 
 out the Persian empire, letters " sealed with the kings 
 
 (~) 1 Kings XXI. 8. 
 
( 216 ) 
 
 ringJ^^iy) That instrument of authority which these 
 persons obtained for the worst purposes, the Egyptian 
 monarch conferred upon his favourite Joseph, for the 
 public good ; " And Pharaoh took off his ring from his 
 hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand.'^Cz) So Antiochus 
 is represented as giving his signet (his ring in the Greek 
 and Latin,) to Philip his regent ;(a) and the dying Alex- 
 ander is said to have given his ring to Perdicas for the 
 same reason. When Paul says to the Corinthians, " The 
 seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord,''(Z>) he does 
 not mean that they are the instrument or the impression^ 
 but the attestation or confirmation of his Apostleship. 
 Dr. Gill considers it as '' alluding to the sealing of deeds 
 '' and writings, which renders them authentic; or to the 
 '' sealing of letters, confirming the truth of what is 
 '' therein expressed.'' Christ says, '' He that hath re- 
 '' ceived his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is 
 ^' true."(c) Dr. Gill tells us that " he seals, ratifies, 
 ^' and confirms^^ this doctrine. Sealing, in this passage, 
 is certainly used in the sense of attestation. It moreover 
 has this meaning and that of confirmation where Paul 
 says that " He [Abraham] received the sign of circum- 
 " cision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he 
 ^^ had yet being uncircumcised.(f/) Here Dr. Gill justly 
 remarks that " circumcision was a seal^ not for secresy, 
 " but for certainty; it being a confirmation ^^^ &c. This 
 
 (y) Esth. iii. 12. (2) Gen. xli. 42. See Gill. 
 
 la) 1 Maccab. vi. 14. 15. So Cyrus is said to have " shut the door and 
 sealed it with the kings ^ii^net," (or ringt as it is in the Greek of Bel and 
 the Draj^on, verses 11. 14.) 
 
 (/)) 1 Cor. ix. 2. See Gill. (c) John iii. 33. See Gill. 
 
 (d) Roin. iv. 11. See Gill, whom we have formerly quoted more tully 
 on this passage. 
 
( 217 ) 
 
 confirmation or attestation is what we mean by the sub- 
 stance of the seal ; while the particular impression or 
 significant ceremony is called tlie/orm of the seal. As 
 the form is arbitrary, it may be changed indefinitely, 
 while the substance remains the same. The text just 
 now quoted shews that circumcision, as to its substance ^ 
 is an attestation of the righteousness of faith ; that is, it 
 is a confirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith : 
 but this is the substance of baptism also, however it may 
 differ from circumcision in respect oiform ; and for this 
 reason those who have received Christian baptism are 
 said, in the Apocalypse, to have ^^ the seal of God in 
 their foreheads/^ That these two rites are one and the 
 same seal in substance, though in different forms, can be 
 proved from Scripture. 
 
 In opposition to this, my Opponent believes that bap- 
 tism never was a seal at all; that even circumcision 
 never was a seal to any but Abraham; and that the 
 form of a seal is essential to its existence, so that the form 
 cannot be changed without destroying the substance. 
 His reasoning is as follows, viz. ^^ Was not circumcision 
 ^^ significant of something? could it not be seen and ex- 
 ^^ amined by every body ? and what did it say ? It said 
 '' ' Ia?n a Jew of the seed of Abraham^ entitled to every 
 " ' thing promised my father, when God told him 
 '^ ' to make this mark xipon me,^ Deface this mark in 
 " the flesh, and sprinkle a few drops of water upon the 
 " face, and then say, it is the same seal significant of the 
 
 " same thing that is, this watery seal can be seen on 
 
 " the flesh, examined by every body, and says. What? — 
 
 ^•' Just what circumcision said, — ' I am a JeW; of the seed 
 E e 
 
( 218 ) 
 
 " ^ of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my 
 '' ' father, when God told him to make this mark upon 
 '^ ' me ! !' It surely lies, if it tell such a tale. 
 
 " A seal, Mr. M^Calla says, is a confirmative mark, 
 ^^ Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative 
 ^^ mark on the forehead of a child ? But remember, my 
 ^^ friends, I called upon my Opponent to tell us where 
 ^^ baptism is called a seal. No where I say in the bible. 
 ^^ to presume that baptism is a seal, and to presume that 
 '^ it is substituted in the place of circumcision, and that 
 ^^ the seal is changed, is taking too much liberty in an 
 ^^ argument. One presumption might, in some instances, 
 " be tolerated, but it is too presumptuous to demand 
 ^^ three, nay to adopt them without any ceremony, and 
 ^* place them as the basis of an argument. 
 
 ^^ I deny that circumcision was ever changed into any 
 ^^ thing — that baptism is a seal of any covenant in the 
 ^^ legitimate use of language : — and consequently that 
 '*' baptism came in the room of circumcision. And, I po- 
 ^^ sitively say that Mr. M^Calla cannot produce one text 
 ^^ in the Bible in proof of the contrary. — I say again, it 
 ^/ is quite too presumptuous , to presume so far as to take 
 ^^ three suppositions as facts acknowledged, and place 
 " them as the foundation of an important part of the 
 ^^ system.'' 
 
 ^^ And after all that has been said of circumcision as 
 ^^ a sealn it is only called a seal once, and in relation to 
 '^ one circumstance, in the life of one individual. It 
 ^' never was a seal to one of Adam's race in the same 
 ^^ sense, and for the same purpose, as it was to Abra- 
 " ham. Mark the Apostle's style — He received the 
 
( 219 ) 
 
 ^^ SIGN of circumcision^ this was its common import to 
 ^^ all the Jews — he received the sign, its common name; 
 ^^ to him in particular a seal; of what? of his interest 
 '^ in the covenant ? — No, this he had guaranteed by the 
 ^' veracity of God. — A seal of what ? — Of the righteous- 
 ^' ness of that faith — what faith ? of the faith which he 
 '' should afterwards have ? — No, no : but of the faith he 
 " had. — When? Sixteen years before this time ; when 
 '' his faith was counted unto him for righteousness : and 
 ^' twenty-four years before this time he believed the 
 '^ promise of God, and left his own country and his fa- 
 '' ther's house in the obedience of faith. The whole 
 '^ mystery dissolves at the touch of common sense, when 
 '' it is simply known, that Abraham received the usual 
 ^^ sign of circumcision, which to him was a pledge or 
 '' mark of the divine acceptance of his faith.'' 
 
 My Baptist Opponent is unhappy in his distinction 
 between signs and seals. He pretends that circumcision 
 was a sign both to Abraham and his descendants, but 
 that it was a seal to Abraham only, and not to one of his 
 descendants. It may be safely affirmed that this is one 
 of my Opponent's original discoveries. It was entirely 
 unknown even to Hezechius, the ancient Greek Glosso- 
 grapher. Of two significations which he gives to the 
 word sign, seal is one :{a) and in explaining the word 
 seals, he says that they are ^^ those signs which are upon 
 rings and clothes."(2r) Harpocration also, in his Lexi- 
 con, explains the one word by the other, as follows, viz. 
 ^' Signs, so they call seals.^^g) Dr. Gill; who quotes 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 this with approbation^ says that the text in question 
 might be rendered ^^ which sign was a seaV^ And 
 Castallio's New Testament actually gives it this render- 
 ing.(A) After my Opponent's loud call to you, to ^^mark 
 ^' the Apostle's style,'^ in this passage, you will be sur- 
 prised to findj that, in his New Testament, he has fol- 
 lowed Macknight, in a translation which agrees with 
 our views. His version is as follows, viz. " And he 
 received the mark of circumcision as a seal,'^^ &c. 
 Here is nothing about circumcision being a sign to the 
 Jews in general, but a seal to Abraham only. This 
 translation informs you that a sign is a mark ; and he 
 has repeatedly told you in this debate, that a seal is a 
 confirmative mark. Now if, according to my Opponent's 
 own shewing, a sig7i is a mark^ and a seal is a mark^ and 
 if Abraham received the sign or mark of circumcision 
 AS a seal or mark of the righteousness of faith, then 
 where is my Opponent's distinction between signs and 
 seals? It is surely not in Dr. Macknight, whose trans- 
 lation he has copied with approbation ; for the Doctor 
 confirms my interpretation, in his version, commentary, 
 and critical note. 
 
 But some Baptists who acknowledge that the view of 
 my Opponent makes a distinction without a difference, 
 are still unwilling to admit that circumcision was a seal 
 of the righteousness of faith to any but Abraham. Yet 
 the reason which they give for this opinion, is not only 
 a gratuitous assumption, but is in manifest opposition to 
 inspired authority. It is a mere assertion that outward 
 
 (/i) ac circumcisioins notam accepit, quae sigilluin esset, &c. 
 
{ 221 ) 
 
 ordinances cannot be a seal of the righteousness of faitfi, 
 and that nothing less than Christ and the Divine Spirit 
 can be this seal. The greatest man among them speaks 
 as follows ; viz. ^^ But alas! not ordinances^ but other 
 " things more valuable than they^ are the seals of the 
 '' covenant^ and of believers ; the blood of Christ is the 
 '^ seal^ and the only seal of the covenant of grace, by 
 '^ which its promises and blessings are ratified and con- 
 '' firmed ; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest 
 ^' pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day 
 '^ of redemption.'^(f) This author will very readily 
 admit that justification by faith is a blessing which be- 
 lievers derive from the covenant of grace : if therefore, 
 his assertion be true, that ordinances are not the seals 
 of the covenant and of believers, then it is also true 
 that ordinances are not the seal of the righteousness of 
 faith : but this, as we observed, is in manifest opposition 
 to the scriptures, which declare that Abraham ^^re- 
 " ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right- 
 " eousness of faith. 
 
 Some, however, admit that Abraham received this 
 ordinance as a seal, but deny that it was a seal in the 
 case of any other person except Abraham. This is a 
 sentiment, and a mode of interpretation, which, I sus- 
 pect, neither Jew nor Gentile ever thought of, until it 
 was found necessary to the enemies of infant- baptism. The 
 opinion of the Jews may be ascertained from their Tar- 
 gum, as quoted by Dr. Gill, who says that " The Apos- 
 ^' tie uses the word seal concerning circumcision, it being 
 
 (0 Gill on Rom. iv. 11. 
 
( 222 ) 
 
 ^* a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke 
 ^' of it ; thus, paraphrasing on Cant. iii. 8. [comp. iv. 
 ^' 12.] they say, ^ every one of them was sealed with the 
 '' 'seal of circumcision upon their flesh, as Abraham 
 '^ ' was sealed in his flesh.' '' Moreover, in one of their 
 Apocryphal books, the Jewish author represents God as 
 saying to him, ^^ Behold the number of those that be 
 sealed in the feast of the Lord.''(/) This feast was evi- 
 dently the Passover, to which the sealing of circumci- 
 sion was a prerequisite ; and the number of those who 
 were thus sealed, is, in the context, said to be "^ 
 " great people whom I could not number." This pas- 
 sage is referred to by Dr. Gill, in illustration of John's 
 declaration that ^^ there were sealed an hundred and 
 '' forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the child- 
 ^^ ren of Israel. "(A) The context of this passage shews 
 that they were sealed by the application of the outward 
 sign, as well as by the inward grace. In perfect conform- 
 ity with this Jewish usage, inspired and uninspired, the 
 Shepherd of Hermas, in a passage quoted by my Oppo- 
 nent against Mr. Walker, repeatedly calls the initiatory 
 ordinance of the church a seal in relation to all who 
 receive it. Among the Christian Fathers who followed 
 him in this usage, we find Epiphanius saying, ^^The 
 ^^ law had the circumcision in the flesh, serving for a 
 '^ time, till the great circumcision came, that is, Baptism; 
 '^ which circumcises us from our sins, and seals us unto 
 ^^ the name of God." In the same strain, we find Au- 
 gustine drawing a parallel between Abraham and Cor- 
 
 0)2 Esdrasii. 38. Comp. 42. (A) Rev. vii. 4 Comp. S. 
 
( 223 ) 
 
 nelias, on the one hand, who were sealed with the initia- 
 tory ordinance, after they had believed ; and on the 
 other hand, Isaac and Christian infants, who, in maturity, 
 enjoy that righteousness of faith, ^^ the seal whereof had 
 '' gone before." 
 
 But to confine the seal to Abraham exclusively, my 
 Opponent says, ^^It is only called a seal once, and in re- 
 lation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual.'^ 
 Does he mean by this, that we are not to believe the 
 Scriptures, if they say a thing only once ? But let us 
 try such reasoning in refutation of his argument for fe- 
 male communion; and see whether he will admit its 
 correctness. In his debate with Mr. Walker, he pro- 
 fessed to have express authority for female communion. 
 It was in the following words, viz. " For there was a 
 certain disciple there named Tabitha,^\l) What would 
 he do with an antagonist who would seriously deny the 
 force of this evidence, and pretend to refute it, by say- 
 ing that ^^ female discipleship is mentioned only oncef and 
 in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one indi- 
 vidual ?'' I will tell you what he would do ; he would 
 almost dance with ecstacy at obtaining, at last, one solid, 
 though solitary evidence of his Antagonist's insincerity, 
 or the weakness of his cause ; and it would serve him for 
 matter of declamation in almost every speech throughout 
 the remainder of the debate. I am not disposed to fur- 
 nish him with such provender, although he has gone on 
 many a foraging excursion in pursuit of it. Although 
 the case of Tabitha is not an express command for female 
 
 (/) Acts ix. 36. See his Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 69. 
 
( 224 ) 
 
 communion^ nor aay better evidence for it^ than we have 
 for infant-baptism, yet it is certainly good evidence, 
 notwithstanding the fact that female discipleship is men- 
 tioned only once, and concerning only one person. So, 
 if it were true that circumcision is called a seal only 
 once, and that in the history of one person, this is so far 
 from proving that it is a seal in no other case, that it 
 proves the very contrary. In the history of Adam, it is 
 said only once, and concerning one individual, that he 
 " begat a son in his own likeness, after his imaged 
 Does this prove that Seth was the only descendant of 
 Adam who was born in his likeness, and after his image, 
 or does it not rather prove the contrary ? Circumcision 
 did not become a seal by the mere fact of Abraham's re- 
 ceiving it, but " he received the mark of circumcision 
 flw a seaV^ already appointed in that covenant which re- 
 quired him to be circumcised : neither did his reception 
 of it make it cease to be a seal, for Isaac and Jacob were 
 as much interested in the covenant of circumcision as 
 Abraham himself; and in their case, and in the cases of 
 all others to whom it was lawfully administered, whether 
 infants or adults, saints or sinners, it was a seal of the 
 righteousness of faith ; that is, it was a visible attestation 
 or confirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith, 
 and not by works ; the doctrine of salvation by the grace 
 of God, through the blood and Spirit of Christ. It is 
 not true, as some suppose, that this ordinance was a seal, 
 only when administered to an heir of heaven, whether in 
 infancy or maturity : the word of God is as true when 
 it becomes a savour of death unto death, as when it is 
 received in faith : so the doctrine of justification by faith 
 
( 225 ) 
 
 k as truly sealed, confirmed , or attested in the circum- 
 cision of Ishmael as of Isaac, of Esau as of Jacob. It is 
 true that some subjects of this ordinance have the inesti- 
 mable advantage of having the inward grace accompany- 
 ing the outward sign ; but it is not this fact which makes 
 it a SEAL : for if its significancy depended upon the cer- 
 tainty of grace in the receiver, it would be an empty form 
 to all but the searcher of hearts, and those of his children 
 who have attained the full assurance of faith : but it con- 
 firms the same truth to the weak believer as to the strong ; 
 and it attests the same doctrine of justification by faith, 
 to the unbeliever as to the believer ; for the unbelief of 
 man can never make the faith of God of none effect, or 
 make him alter his plan of saving sinners. This ordi- 
 nance was not intended to seal a fact but a doctrine : it 
 was not intended to declare that the individual receiver 
 should be saved, but to teach that if he be saved, it must 
 be through the blood and righteousness of his law-satis- 
 fying Surety ; and that every one who has an interest in 
 this Divine Redeemer, whether he be an infant or adult, 
 shall be saved. 
 
 Although circumcision sealed this truth, my Oppo- 
 nent insists upon it that baptism cannot be a seal at all, 
 because water leaves no mark behind it. He trium- 
 phantly asks, '' Now who ever thought that water left 
 " a confirmative mark on the forehead of a child V^im) 
 My Opponent forgets that the rainbow is the token of 
 the Noachic covenant, and that the word seal is used 
 not only for a visible permanent impression, but to de- 
 
 Cm) Spur, Deb. with me, p. 204, quoted above. 
 
 Ff 
 
( 226 ) 
 
 note *^ any act of confirmation," as the Baptist Lexi- 
 cographer, Dr. Allison, says. But if a seal must mean a 
 visible wound and a permanent mark or scar made in 
 the flesh by a knife, will my Opponent be so good as to 
 inform us what mark was made by the angels, when they 
 '' sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads?'' 
 Dr. Gill thinks that these ^^ servants of our God" are the 
 Waldenses and Albigenses. Now although it was mali- 
 ciously said against them, that their children were born 
 with wattles hanging to their throats, it was never even 
 suspected that they took a knife, and tattooed their child- 
 ren in the face, after the manner of the heathen. I hope 
 however, in due time, to shew that they sealed the 
 foreheads of their children by that " act of coniirma- 
 ^' tion" which we call Christian baptism. This inter- 
 pretation is rather confirmed than confuted by the same 
 Apostle's declaration that " A Lamb stood on the mount 
 " Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thou- 
 '^ sand, having his Father's name written in their fore- 
 '' heads."(w) When I say that this inscription is a seal, 
 I am in no danger of contradiction from my Opponent, 
 who has substituted the word inscription for the word 
 seal^ in his Translation of the New Testament. Where 
 our bible says '' The foundation of God standeth sure^ 
 " having this sea/," my Opponent's Version says, 
 f ' The foundation of God standeth firm, having this in- 
 '^ scription." Now as this seal or inscription was put 
 upon this foundation without any literal visible mark, 
 so was the name of the Lamb's Father sealed or inscrib- 
 
 («) Rev. vii. 3, xiv, 1. 
 
( 227 ) 
 
 ed upon his people's foreheads without a permanent 
 mark. But my Opponent may object, that in baptism, 
 not the name of the Father only, but the name of the 
 Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is written on 
 his people. This suggests the fact that some very an- 
 cient Manuscripts had the names of these three persons, 
 if we may believe the authors of the Ethiopic Version, 
 as reported by Dr. Gill. The same Baptist commenta- 
 tor tells us that ^^ The Alexandrian copy, the Complu- 
 ^' tensian edition, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ara- 
 ^^ bic versions, read, ' Having his name [the Lamb's] 
 ^^ ^ and his Fathers name written in their foreheads.' " 
 This reading Griesbach has adopted. It is, however, 
 unnecessary to our purpose, because, in relation to bap- 
 tism, the bible elsewhere mentions the name of only one 
 person, when all are evidently implied by the writer, 
 and were expressed in the administration of the ordi- 
 nance, (o) 
 
 These various readings handed down by transcribers 
 and translators shew the understanding of the ancient 
 church, in relation to the question whether baptism is a 
 seal. My Opponent himself has suggested an additional 
 evidence of this sort, which is very striking indeed. In 
 his debate with Mr. Walker, he made very pompous 
 use of the Primate's Translation of the Apostolical 
 Fathers. He professed to quote largely from the 
 writings of the Shepherd of Hernias^ w^ho, (as he inform- 
 ed the audience,) " is commonly supposed to be the 
 '' Hermasj of whom Paul speaks," in his Epistle to 
 
 (o) Acts xix. 5. 
 
( 228 ) 
 
 the Romans. (p) If this be so, he must have caught the 
 sentiments and language of the Apostles in relation to 
 seals. Certain it is, that he mentions the word, with as 
 much familiarity and rapidity of repetition, as I have 
 done in this conference. In the 17th Section of his 9th 
 Similitude, he speaks much like the Apostle John when 
 foretelling that the name of the [Lamb and of his] Fa- 
 ther should be inscribed or sealed upon his people. Her- 
 mas says, '^ All the nations which are under heaven, 
 ^^ have heard and believed in the same one name of the 
 '' Son of God by whom they are called ; wherefore, 
 ^^ having received his seal, they have all been made 
 ^^ partakers of the same understanding and knowledge, 
 ^' and their faith and charity have been the same.'' 
 When Hermas speaks of receiving the seal of the Son 
 of God, in being called by his name, does he, or does he 
 not, mean that baptism y which initiates into the church, 
 and gives us the name of Christian ? This question is 
 fully answered, in the preceding Section, in which, 
 among seven repetitions of this word, Hermas says ex- 
 pressly, '^ *N*ow that SEAL is the water of baptism." 
 Here we have my Opponent's own Author, whom he 
 has introduced to you, as a personal friend and ac- 
 quaintance of the Apostle PauK confirming our view of 
 that seal of God, that seal of the righteousness of faith, 
 or as Hermas would have it, that seal of " understanding 
 '^ and knowledge," of " faith and charity," which 
 takes the place of circumcision : '^ Now that seal is the 
 " water of baptism P 
 
 (/O Horn. xvi. 14. See Sp»ir. Deb. with Mr, Walker. \k 10^ 
 
( 229 ) 
 
 Although circumcision is called a sealy and baptism is 
 called a seal, yet the proposition now under discussion, 
 contends that they are not radically two different seals, 
 but different /orm^ of the same seal. It is substantially 
 the same now, that it was in the Old Testament church. 
 Among the Jews, '' The rite of circumcision was no 
 more than the form in which the seal was applied ;" 
 as Dr. Mason has correctly remarked. Much of the 
 force of my Opponent's reasoning against this doctrine, 
 may be found in his polite, dignified, argumentative, and 
 eloquent explosion against this remark of Dr. Mason's. 
 On it he speaks as follows, viz. '^ What sophistry ! 
 '^ What disregard to common sense ! What an insult to 
 '' the human understanding ! The rite of circumcision ! 
 " What was that ? the making of a mark in the flesh. 
 ^' The rite was the form of the seal ! The making of 
 '^ the mark was the mark of the ' confirmative mark UP 
 ^' When the varnish is washed off this sophistry, such 
 ^^ is its meaning — such is its naked deformity. The 
 ^^ rite of circumcision was circumcision itself, accord- 
 '' ing to every body's views of rites. The/orm of cir- 
 '' cumcision, was the form of the rite. Take away 
 '' the form of a mark or of a seal, and then shew it to 
 ^* us. It is invisible. Hence the whole distinction is 
 ^' absurd. "(g') 
 
 This desperate fluttering of my Opponent is intro- 
 duced, not to follow him in every dash or splash which 
 he may make, but to call your attention to his general 
 course. In this rhapsody, as well as others which were 
 
 (.;) Spur. Deb. with me. p. 21/. 
 
( 230 ) 
 
 noticed a while ago, his object is, evidently, to deny 
 that Xh^form and the substance of a seal may differ from 
 each other, and that a seal may change its form and re- 
 tain its substance. It is in relation to this that he says, 
 " The whole distinction is absurd^ According to him 
 they are inseparable : where the one is found, there is 
 the other ; and where the one is not, there the other is 
 wanting. This would very readily decide the contro- 
 versy between king Charles the First and his Parliament. 
 According to this doctrine, while the Parliament held 
 the seal of state, they were invested with the sovereign- 
 ty ; and Lord Clarendon restored the sovereignty to the 
 king, by stealing the seal and taking it to him. This 
 view of the subject, however, did not suit the religion or 
 the politics of either party in that momentous struggle. 
 While the Parliament had the seal, the royalists es- 
 teemed them as having th^form, but the king as having 
 the substance : so when the king obtained the seal, the 
 enemies of Toryism and of the Royal Frerogative, con- 
 sidered the king as having the form, but the Parliament 
 the substance. My Opponent very pertly says ^^the 
 rite [or/orm] of circumcision was circumcision itself.'^ 
 Very well ; the Arabs and apostate Jews of the present 
 day have Xhisform. Again he tells us what is its sub- 
 stance or signification. According to him " it said, ^I 
 am a Jew of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every 
 thing promised my Father, when God told him to make 
 this mark upon me.^ '' Does my Opponent consider 
 this the language of the circumcision of the Arabs and 
 of the excommunicated Jews of the present day ? If not, 
 then we have the rite distinct from the signification ; 
 
( 231 ) 
 
 that is^ we have the form without the substance. In 
 sacred and profane antiquity we find seals affixed to sol- 
 diers and servants. The form of their devices would 
 often doubtless differ^ far more than the bald eagle differs 
 from the American turkey, which Dr. Franklin proposed 
 as a substitute for the bird of prey, on the seal of the 
 United States ; and would differ more than a cross marky 
 formerly appointed by our government, as a seal for 
 bonds and notes, differs from a circular mark, which, as 
 Mr. Walker informed my Opponent, they have lately 
 ordained as a substitute. (r) Besides this difference in 
 the figure of the seal affixed to soldiers and servants, 
 there was a difference in the place upon which it was 
 impressed. The command of God by Ezekiel, to '' set 
 a mark upon the foreheads'^ of his afflicted followers, 
 Dr. Gill thinks to allude probably " to the marking of 
 " servants in their foreheads, by which they were known 
 " who they belonged to.'' For the word mark in this 
 text, the Septuagint and Tremellius read sign, which, 
 either in Greek or Latin,' is equivalent to seal. In allu- 
 sion to the same custom substantially, Calasio translates 
 Job xxxvii, 7, " He shall seal all men in the handP 
 With this translation the Septuagint and Vulgate Latin 
 agree. With the same allusion, Blanco White says that 
 the Council of Trent " has converted the sacrament of 
 '' Baptism into an indelible 6r«nc/ of slavery. "(5) Now 
 I would propound a few questions. Was the substance 
 of an ancient military seal affected, by changing its de- 
 vice from a beast to a bird ? Was the substance of a 
 
 (r) See Mr. Walker's Reply, p. 156. 
 (&•) In his 5 th Letter agamst Popery. 
 
( 232 ) 
 
 Princess seal affected by writing his name on the hands 
 of one generation of subjects or servants, and on the/ore- 
 heads of their children ? Was the substance of the seal 
 affected by changing the letters from square to round, or 
 the words from Hebrew to Samaritan, or the ink from 
 red to green ? Has the change of our seal from a cross 
 mark to a circular mark affected those bonds and notes 
 to which it is affixed ? Would the substance of our Fe- 
 deral seal be affected by undergoing the change which 
 Dr. Franklin recommended ? Would Popish baptism be 
 either more or less a brand of slavery, by being adminis- 
 tered to the head, the hands, or the feet, in the mode of 
 aspersion, affusion, ablution or immersion? And is it not 
 a fact that the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac have, at 
 this day, the form of circumcision without the sub- 
 stance ? What is there, then, so extravagant in the po- 
 sition that the form and the substance of a seal are dis- 
 tinct things ? and what is there so incredible in the doc- 
 trine, that a God of sovereignty and mercy, may, in re- 
 spect of form^ change the initiatory seal of the church 
 from blood to water ^ and from the foot to \\{^ forehead^ 
 while the substance remains the same ? 
 
 A little unbiassed reflection will shew an intelligent 
 hearer that it is much more to our purpose to prove a 
 substantial identity of the Jewish and Christian seals/ 
 than to prove their fonnal identity. The substance is 
 incalculably more important than the form. The cir- 
 cumcision of the Samaritans and Ishmaelites had the 
 for7n of the Jewish seal; but because it lacked the sub- 
 stance, it was no seal at all. Unitarian baptism has some- 
 times the forfn of Christian baptism ; but because they 
 
( 233 ) 
 
 deny justification by faith in the vicarious satisfaction, 
 and the imputed righteousness of a Divine Redeemer, 
 they lack the substance of the Christian seal ; and the 
 form without the subsiayice is no more a true seal than 
 a counterfeit is true coin. 
 
 My evidence in favour of the sigillistical identity of 
 Jewish circumcision and Christian baptism, shall be 
 drawn from the Scriptures, which shew their common 
 use and signification ; and which substitute the name of 
 one form for the other. 
 
 POINT I. 
 
 7%e use and signification of Jewish Circumcision and 
 Christian Baptism^ will shew that they are the same 
 SEAL in SUBSTANCE, though in different forms. 
 
 This will appear from three particulars ; that they 
 are both initiatory seals, that they are both signs of 
 justification, and both signs and means of sanctifca- 
 tion. 
 
 I. They are both initiatory seals. If you and I 
 have heard alike, you have understood my Opponent as 
 denying this position in relation to either of these ordi- 
 nances. To pass over it, therefore, in silence, would 
 not be proper, howsoever generally its truth may be re- 
 ceived. 
 
 1. Circumcision was the seal of initiation to the 
 Jewish church. On this item, I had prepared several 
 texts to lay before you : but it is really too plain to jus- 
 tify me in occupying your time. Is there one of you 
 who doubts that a Gentile was esteemed an alien until he 
 Gg 
 
{ 234 ) 
 
 was circumcised? and is there one who doubts^ that 
 from the moment of his circumcision he was esteemed a 
 member ? And if there be any one who is stumbled by 
 Gen. xvii. 14, under the apprehension that a native Jew 
 may be a member of the church without circumcision, I 
 would observe that that passage itself is evidently in- 
 tended to contradict it; and that the word there ren- 
 dered cut off, cannot, from the very nature of the case, 
 mean exclusion from privileges already enjoyed, but 
 preclusion from privileges which might hereafter be en- 
 joyed ; as the same word in the Hebrew and in the Mar- 
 ginal translation of Joshua ix. 23, is used to denote pre- 
 clusion from that bondage on which the subjects had not 
 yet entered. If any one, after this, should still ask, 
 ^^ How can a child be cut off from the church before he 
 is a member ?'' I would ask, ^' How can a child be deli- 
 vered from sheol before he is dead ?'^ and yet the Pro- 
 verb says '^ Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt 
 deliver his soul from hell.^'(if) Parental duty is here re- 
 presented as a means of delivering, that is, oi preventing 
 the child from going to hell : so in the other case, pa- 
 rental neglect is represented as a means of cutting off, 
 that is, o{ preventing the child from being a church 
 member. 
 
 2. Baptism is the seal of initiation to the Christian 
 church. With due deference to those who think other- 
 wise, I would humbly maintain the same doctrine, on 
 this item, as on the last. I do not object to saying that 
 children are born in the church ; it is a language which 
 
 (0 Prov. xxiii. 14. Comp. Ps. xxx. 3. Ixxxvi. 13. 
 
( 235 ) 
 
 I use myself: but then it is used in a general and familiar, 
 and not in a technical sense ; or it contemplates the un- 
 sealed interest which they may have in the promises of 
 God, and not t\ie\Y formal church-membership. As the 
 holiness of the one unbelieving parent, amounts to no- 
 thing more than a removal of an Old Testament obstacle 
 to the initiation of the child, so the holiness of the child 
 is understood as entitling him tg initiation. In relation 
 both to the visible and invisible church, I much like 
 the ancient maxim, " Christiani non nascimur sed 
 ^' FiMus ; We are not born but made Christia?2S/^ As 
 the inward graces of religion distinguish the invisible 
 church from the world ; so do the outward sacraments 
 ^^ pitta visible difference betiaeen those that belong unto 
 '^ the church, and the rest of the worldJ^iu) All that 
 Booth has quoted from ancient fathers and worthies, to 
 shew the necessity of Baptism as a prerequisite for the 
 Eucharist, presupposes that baptism is the seal of initia- 
 tion. Accordingly, he tells us, in support of his own 
 views, that ^^ Theological writers have often called bap- 
 ^' tism, the sacrament of re generation , or of initiation ; 
 ^^ and the Lord's supper, the sacrament oi nutrition, ^\v) 
 My Opponent himself preaches this ddctrine, when 
 it seems likely to answer his purpose. His ^' Fourth 
 " reason for asserting'^ ^' a radical difference between 
 '' the two religions and the two churches [of the Old and 
 ^' New Testaments,] is found in the terms of admission 
 '' into this new kingdom.'^ Under this head, he says, 
 ^' Nicodemus, ye must be born again 5 though sprung 
 
 {u) Westminister Confession, Chap. 27, Sect. 1. 
 {v) Booth. Apology, pp. 11. 48. 
 
( 236 ) 
 
 ^^ from Abraham, ye must be born again ; yes and ofwa- 
 '' ter toO; or into Messiah's realm you'll never enter ^{w) 
 According to this, a man must be horn again oficater, 
 as a term of admission into, as the way by which he 
 shall enter, Christ's ecclesiastical kingdom ; that is, Bap- 
 tism is the way of initiation into the Christian church. 
 After this I need not waste your time with a formal refu- 
 tation of his quibbles against this doctrine, nor with an 
 exposure of the impious solecism of his Master Robin- 
 son, who " took baptism not for a church ordinance, 
 '' but for a profession of Christianity at large ! !'' 
 
 Although this Infidel writer has been long circulated 
 among you by the deluded Baptist preachers of our 
 country, he has perhaps never yet persuaded you that 
 baptism is not a church ordinance. In your faith and 
 practice, you still treat baptism as the initiating church 
 ordinance ; and this faith and practice can be traced 
 through the line of your fore-fathers, even up to their 
 primitive days in Germany. According to Staffer, 
 '' Baptism is, in their view, a sign of initiation to the 
 *^ true church, and of confession." ^^They initiated 
 " by ana-baptism, those whom they received as citi- 
 ^' zens of their kingdom."!^) 
 
 II. They are both signs of pardon and jus- 
 tification. These benefits always presuppose or infer 
 each other. Like the foreknowledge and foreordination 
 of God, they are distinct, but not separate. Wherever, 
 
 (w) Spur. Deb. with mc", p. 197. 198. 
 
 {k) Stapfer's Institutions. Chap. 18. Sect. 35. 10. ^^" baptismus, 
 
 ex mente illorum, sit signum initiationis ad veram ecclesiam, et con- 
 
 fessionis." *' cos quos tancjuam regni sui pives assuinebaiit, anabap- 
 
 t-ismoinitiabant.** ' \ 
 
( 237 ) 
 
 therefore, I find the one I shall take the other for 
 granted. 
 
 1. Circumcision zs a sign of pardon and justifica- 
 tion. This is plainly proved by Rom. iv. 11, so often 
 quoted already ; which Dr. Gill considers as compre- 
 hending pardon along with justification : for he says 
 that " circumcision was a sign of Christ, as all the 
 '' ceremonies of the law were, and of the shedding of 
 '' his blood, to cleanse from all sin, original and actual^ 
 ^^and also of the circumcision of the heart; and was, 
 '^ moreover, a seat of the righteousness of faith, ^^ He 
 says that " The Apostle explains it to be a seal, or 
 *^ what gave assurance to Abraham, or was a sure token 
 '' to him, that righteousness would be wrought out by 
 ^' Christ, by his obedience, and the shedding of his 
 " blood, which is received by faith ; and that this was 
 '' imputed to him,^' &c.(y) 
 
 2. Baptism is a sign of pardon and justification, 
 '^ Then Peter said unto them. Repent and be baptized, 
 ^' every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, /or the 
 ^^ remission of sins.'^ But Paul tells us that God hath set 
 forth Christ to be a propitiation ^^ to declare his right- 
 ^^ eousness, for the remission of sins,^' ^^ through faith in 
 ^' his blood ;'' and the end of this was ^^ that he might 
 " be just, and the justifier of him that believeth.^'(^) 
 
 III. They are both signs and means oe sanc- 
 TiFicATiON. The ordinances as well as the oracles of 
 God, are intended as means of grace. It does not mili- 
 tate against this position in respect of either, that they 
 
 (t/) Gill on Gen. xvii» 11. (z) Acts il 38, Rom. iii. 25. 26, 
 
( 238 ) 
 
 are both sometimes a savour of death unto death. It is 
 sovereign grace which makes the gospel the power of 
 God unto salvation ; and this same grace often connects 
 the outward with the inward circumcision ; the out- 
 ward washing of regeneration with the inward renewing 
 of the Holy Ghost ; so that the infant is, at the same 
 moment, circumcised in flesh and heart, and born of 
 water and of the Spirit. 
 
 1. Circumcision is a sign and means of sanctijica' 
 Hon, ^^And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine 
 '' heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy 
 '^ God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that 
 ^' thou mayest live.'^(«) On this subject my Opponent 
 speaks as follows, viz. " Was circumcision a sign of the 
 ^' circumcision of the heart to the whole Jewish nation 
 ^^ that fell in the wilderness ? Was it the sign of the 
 ^^ circumcision of the heart of one of Abraham's de- 
 ^' scendants? No, not one. Do, Mr. M^Calla, stop and 
 ^^ prove this assertion if you can — that circumcision was 
 f^ a sign of the circumcision of the heart. Don't as- 
 ^' sume every thing, don't beg every question. Have 
 f^ some respect to your hearers, and to the reputation of 
 ^^ your own intellect."(c) This declamation of my 
 Baptist Opponent shews that pride of intellect some- 
 times makes a man wise above what is written. In re- 
 lation to many of Abraham's descendants, it is written, 
 ^^ He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision 
 " is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the let- 
 ^^ ter." In relation not only to Abraham, but to his de- 
 
 (a) Deut. XXX. 6. Comp. x. 16. 
 
 (e) Spurious Debate with hic. pp. 204. 205. 226. 
 
( 239 ) 
 
 scendants, Dr. Gill says, " The only true circumcision is 
 '' internal, spiritual, and in the heart." And he expressly 
 says that the ^' circumcision of the flesh was typical of 
 " this/' and again, that it was " an emblem of spiritual 
 ^' circumcision, or circumcision of the heart.''(/) Now 
 it will not do to answer this, by begging our w^orthy and 
 eminent Baptist writer to have some respect to his read- 
 ers^ and to the reputation of his own intellect, 
 
 2. Baptism is a sign and means of sanctif cation* 
 Here the primitive Anabaptists of Germany do not agree 
 with me as they did in a former case : but they were 
 consistent enough to reject the scriptures also from being 
 a means of grace. Their doctrine, according to Staf- 
 fer, was as follows viz. ^^ And if perseverance depend 
 ^^ upon man, nor is there need of divine assistance, 
 ^^ hence neither is there need of signs and seals of seal- 
 '^ ing grace ;[b) whence they hold that the sacraments 
 ^* are only signs of our confession. And since they who 
 '' have attained the highest degree of perfection and 
 '^ sanctity, no longer stand in need of the means of 
 " grace, hence they do not highly esteem the use of the 
 ^' sacred scripture. '^ In opposition to this erroneous 
 doctrine my Opponent quotes Peter, who says, " Bap- 
 " tism does also now save us, by the resurrection of 
 "Jesus Christ from the dead.''(60 To this he adds 
 several appropriate authorities, to some of which I have 
 already alluded. By this I do not mean to agree with 
 
 (/) See Gill on Gen. xvli. 11. Rom. iv. 11. iii, 1. ii. 29. 
 \b) Hinc ncc gratiic obsiguantis signis et aigiilia opus est. Stapfer's In- 
 stitutions. Chap. 18. Sect. oO. 31. 
 (c) 1 Pet. iii. 21. 
 
( 240 ) 
 
 my Opponent, in considering baptism more important 
 than faith. He might as well say that sacrifice was 
 better than obedience. This error of his, and the op- 
 posite one of his forefathers, both alike flow from igno- 
 rance of true religion. 
 
 POIIVT II. 
 
 The substitution of the name of one form for the other, 
 proves that their substance is the same. 
 
 On this subject I would solicit your attention to 
 two verses; one of which has very often passed under 
 your review. " And he received the sign of circumci- 
 ^' sion, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he 
 ^' had yet being uncircumcised : that he might be the 
 ^^ father of all them that believe, though they be not cir- 
 '^ cumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto 
 '' them also : and the father of circumcision to them who 
 ^^ are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the 
 ^^ steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he 
 ^' had being yet uncircumcised. "(c?) By the consent of 
 all parties, this passage represents Abraham as the father 
 of God's people, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. Here 
 the Jews are not represented as believers and the Gentiles 
 .18 unbelievers; both have the same 'faith, because the 
 faith of the church has undergone no change : but the 
 Jews are represented as circumcised, and the Gentiles as 
 uncircumcised, altho' Abraham is the Father of circum- 
 cision to both 5 because, though both have, substantially, 
 
 {d) Rom. iv, 11. 12. 
 
( 241 ) 
 
 the same seal, they have not the same/orm of the seaL 
 As the use of the abstract for the concrete is a common 
 Hebraismy we are here to understand '' the father of the 
 circumcision^^ to mean ^^the father of the circumcised,^^ 
 This will preserve the antithetical relation of the two 
 aspects in which Abraham's character is here presented. 
 One is, that he was the father of the uncircumcised 
 believers ; another is, that he was the father of the cir- 
 cumcised. The sense of one will illustrate the other. 
 Dr. Gill says that the first means that he was the father 
 '' of them AS they were believers/' whether they were 
 Jews or Gentiles. The meaning of the second, then, 
 must be that he is the father of the circumcision as they 
 were circumcised) whether Jews or Gentiles. This is 
 the plain meaning of the passage. The Gentile church 
 is evidently represented as circumcised in one sense, 
 and as uncircumcised in another sense. The two cannot 
 be reconciled on any other principle, than that the sub- 
 stance of circumcision remains under the/orm of bap- 
 tism after the ancient /on?? of the sealh abolished. 
 
 2. Paul says, " Beware of dogs, beware of evil work- 
 " ers, beware of the concision : for we are the circum- 
 ^^ cision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice 
 *^ in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, (e) 
 In this passage, as in the former, the noun is used for a 
 participle ; it means ^^ we are the circumcised.'' Why 
 are Christians said to be circumcised ? It must be, be- 
 cause they have received outward^ or inivard circum- 
 cision, or botJi, But my Opponent denies that it ever 
 
 (e) Phill. iii. 2. 3. 
 
 Hh 
 
( 242 ) 
 
 relates to inward circumcision. He says, '^Wasittbe 
 ^' sign of the circumcision of the heart of one of Abra- 
 ^^ braham's descendants ? No, not one/^ Then, of 
 course, the word here must mean external circumcision. 
 But it cannot mean that form of it which the Jews prac- 
 tised ; for that is here called, by way of contempt, con- 
 eision^ in allusion to the savage and cruel manner in 
 which the heathen cut their flesh : it must, therefore, 
 mean some Christian ordinance which, while it does not 
 wound the flesh, is substantially the same with Jewish 
 circumcision, in being a seal of initiation, and a sign of 
 justification and sanctification. This ordinance we have 
 shewn to be Christian Baptism. To this the text evi- 
 dently alludes ; while it certainly does not exclude, but 
 primarily intends that spiritual circumcision, the exist- 
 ence of which my Opponent is unwilling to r dmit. 
 
 3» " Also ye are circumcised with the circumcision 
 " made without hands, in putting oiF the body of the 
 '' sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Chnst, buried 
 ^' with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with 
 ^^ him, through the faith of the operation of God, who 
 '' hath raised him from the dead.'^(/) Here also we find 
 circumcision in the Christian church. Yet it was not 
 Jewish circumcision, nor that Judaizing circumcision 
 which the Ebionites practised ; but it is said to be '^ the 
 circumcision of Christ,'' or Christian circumcision. 
 Now if my Opponent be correct in denying that there 
 is any inward circumcision, and if he be correct in say- 
 ing that water-baptism is here intended, thea we are 
 
 (/) Col. iL 11. 12. 
 
( 243 ) 
 
 taught by this passage, that there is an external circum- 
 cision, which is not after the Jewish, but the Christian 
 form ; and that this Christian form of circumcision is, 
 " being buried with him in baptism,^' as it is correctly 
 translated. The Greek of Oriesbach, and the Latin of 
 Castallio have only a comma at the close of the eleventh 
 verse. This punctuation only makes a plain truth a lit- 
 tle more obvious, that is, that baptism is the Christian 
 circumcision. It is worthy of remark, that this very 
 text was so explained, in a work ascribed to Justin Mar- 
 tyr, who lived very near the time in which Paul wrote 
 it. " The question there, is, Why, if circuincision 
 ^' were a good thing, we do not use it as the Jews did ? 
 " The answer is. We are circumcised by Baptism ivith 
 '' Chris fs circumcisiouy&c. And he brings this text 
 ^^ for his proof.''(^^) In allusion to the same text, both 
 Basil and Chrysostom say that Baptism is the " circum- 
 cision made without hands.^^ And Austin declares it 
 one of the errors of the Pelagians, to " say that in 
 ^' the baptism of infants, there is no putting off the flesh, 
 ^^ that is, no circumcision made without hands.'^(/i) 
 
 But if, in opposition to my Opponent, you should 
 understand this passage to relate to spiritual circum- 
 cision and baptism, as I do, it makes no difference 
 in the conclusion ; for the identity of the thing signi- 
 fied is an evident deduction from the substantial 
 identity of the outward signs. When the Apostle 
 tells us that the spiritual ^^ putting off the body of 
 
 {g) Wairs History of Baptism. Chap. 2, Sect. 2. Fi'om him quoted 
 by the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, in his First series of Facts and 
 Evidences on the subject of Baptism. 
 
 (A) Wall's History. Chap. 14. Sect. 1. 2. Chap. 12. Sect. 5, 
 
( 244 ) 
 
 the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ/^ 
 is the same as ^^ being buried with him in baptism/' 
 does he not evidently teach that they point out the 
 same inward benefits because they are substantially 
 the same ecclesiastical seal ? If you can believe that 
 Christian baptism is the Christian circumcision spiritu- 
 ally, then you will not long reject the doctrine that bap- 
 tism is the sigillistical successor and substitute of cir- 
 cumcision. 
 
 In reply to this language, my Opponent insists that 
 one thing cannot be a substitute for another, unless it 
 completely quadrates, that is, agrees in all points. He 
 then urged what he considered nine points of difference 
 between circumcision and baptism. I then shewed nine 
 points of difference which might easily be found between 
 a drafted militia-man and his hired substitute, who 
 might, nevertheless, be received as a legal substitute, 
 and be esteemed greatly preferable to his principal ; as 
 baptism certainly is to circumcision. He then enlarged 
 his list to eleven points, and I mine to twelve. He has 
 now brought them up to fourteen ; to which I will add, 
 from other quarters, enough to make them amount to 
 twenty, and concisely notice them in detail. They are 
 as follows, viz. 
 
 1. " Circumcision was administered to males only : its 
 substitute then should be confined to males only." 
 
 This is an objection urged by all the Baptists ; even 
 by Mr. Emlin, who admits that in the text which we 
 last discussed, Paul does speak of baptism as being to 
 Christians, instead of circumcision. Yet he says, '^ It 
 
( 245 ) 
 
 does not follow that the subjects of each must be the 
 same ;'^ and instances in the females. Dr. Wall's an- 
 swer to Mr. Emlin will do for my answer to my Op- 
 ponent. He says, ^^ It does follow that they should be 
 ^' the same, except where the gospel-rules do direct an 
 '' alteration ; but St. Paul, discoursing of baptism, (Gal. 
 '' iii. 27. 28.) says, that in respect of it, ' there is neither 
 '' ' Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is 
 ^^ ' neither male nor female/ &c. that is, there is no differ- 
 '' ence between them."(z) Now if he can shew as plain 
 authority for excluding infants, as this is for receiving 
 females, it will be to the purpose. 
 
 2. ^^ Circumcision required not faith in its subject. — 
 Baptism therefore ought not to require faith in its sub- 
 ject.'^ 
 
 To this I answer, that although neither circumcision 
 nor baptism requires faith in an infant subject, yet as 
 they are only different forms of the seal of the right- 
 eousness of faith, they surely demand faith in the adult 
 subject, and in the parent or guardian who presents 
 an infant subject. In relation to circumcision, this is 
 proved by the very first administration of it ; and by 
 very many other scriptures, which, as they have already 
 occupied much of your time, need not here be repeated. 
 
 3. " Circumcision was administered according to law 
 on the eighth day. Its substitute then should be ad- 
 ministered on the eighth day.'^ 
 
 My Opponent well recollects that this difficulty was 
 agitated in the time of Fidus and Cyprian : but with 
 them it was a difficulty in relation to duty, not doctrine. 
 
 it) Wall's Defence against Gale, p. 3X. 35, 
 
( 246 ) 
 
 Those who believed baptism on the eighth day obligato- 
 ry, and those who did not believe it obligatory, both 
 believed it to be the Christian circumcision. As 
 there were no Anabaptists in those days, the doctrine 
 that circumcision and baptism were substantially the 
 same seal, was clear enough to the whole church. 
 The only difficulty with Fidus was, to discover 
 the lawfulness of baptizing an infant before he was 
 eight days old. He expressed no doubt of the lawful- 
 ness of baptizing a child when he had arrived to that 
 age, or at any subsequent period ; for this was the law 
 of circumcision : but in a Council of sixty Bishops, he 
 could not find one to agree with him, in thinking it un- 
 lawful to baptize under the age of eight days. I agree 
 with them, because this limitation of time formed a part 
 of the complicated machinery of Old Testament puri- 
 fications, as laid down in the twelfth Chapter of Exodus; 
 in the prospect of which it was probably at first com- 
 manded. But if you think differently, I would advise 
 to do as Fidus did ; Baptize on the eighth day and on* 
 ward, the sooner the better. 
 
 4. '^ Circumcision was administered by parents, not 
 by priests ex officio. Baptism, its substitute, ought 
 likewise to be administered by parents, not by priests, 
 or clergy, ex officioP 
 
 My Opponent, doubtless, knows that his Master, Rob- 
 inson, asserts '' the right of every Christian to enlarge 
 f^ the kingdom of Christ, by teaching and baptizing 
 f ^ others." You know that my Opponent has followed 
 this Infidel in making baptism every thing, and yet in 
 \vaging a war of extermination against the whole order 
 
( 247 ) 
 
 of clergy, as such. If he be correct in denying that 
 baptism is a church- ordinance^ then it is of but little 
 importance, to have church-officers to administer it ; 
 nor do I believe that he wishes the existence of a church 
 to observe it. It is plain, however, that this objection 
 about lay-baptism, is, like the preceding one, entirely 
 irrelevant to the question in hand. It may be decided 
 either the one way or the other, without in the least af- 
 fecting the identity of circumcision and baptism. This 
 will appear from the slightest examination of the subject, 
 and from the fact, that lay-baptism has been advocated 
 and opposed by both Baptists and Pedobaptists, while 
 they still held their peculiar and contrary views, on the 
 question of identity. This argument, however, will 
 serve to increase his numerical force of objections, and 
 to shew his eager desire to destroy the clergy ; for he 
 knows that ^f he can smite the shepherds, their flocks 
 can be scattered. 
 
 5. ^' Circumcision was a mark made upon, not the 
 face of the subject. Baptism, its substitute, ought 
 not to be performed on the face.^' 
 
 This objection has already been answered ; and I can- 
 not help still thinking, that if an earthly Prince has a 
 right to change a civil or military seal, as to its form, 
 its device, its letters, and its place of administration, 
 such as the hand or the forehead, without altering its 
 substance, then our heavenly Prince has a right to do 
 the same. 
 
 6. ^^Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the child, 
 but upon the parents ; it was an act of the parent, the 
 subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not a duty 
 
( 248 ) 
 
 of the subject, but of the parent ; it is the parent's act^ 
 the subject is passive.^^ 
 
 It is a pleasant proof of the strength of our cause, when 
 a man of such a fruitful invention, cannot muster four- 
 teen objections to it, without making this pitiful evasion 
 one of them. The whole force of it depends upon the 
 ambiguity of the word subject, as it may mean either an 
 infant or an adult. He knows that if he had left out this 
 word, or if he had used it uniformly and exclusively, he 
 would have appeared like a man talking in his sleep. Let 
 us try it first without this ambiguous word. It would 
 read as follows, viz. ^^Circumcision was not a duty 
 binding upon the child, but upon the parents ; it was an 
 act of the parent, the child was passive. Baptism^ 
 therefore, is not a duty of the child but of the parent : 
 it is the parent's act, the child is passive." Would not 
 this be a powerful objection to the identity of circumci- 
 sion and baptism ? It is at least as passive as any child 
 that I ever saw baptized. Now let us read it with the 
 ambiguous word subject, uniformly substituted for child, 
 ^' Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the subject, 
 but upon the parents ; it was an act of the parent, the 
 subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not -a duty 
 of the subject, but of the parent : it is the parent's act, 
 the subject is passive." Does my Opponent believe such 
 doctrine as this ? Does he believe that circumcision was 
 not a duty binding upon Abraham its first subject, but 
 upon his parents ? Does he believe that it was not bind- 
 ing upon thousands of adult subjects who followed him ? 
 If, therefore, it is admitted that, under the Old Testa- 
 ment, unsealed adults were bound to receive circumci- 
 
( 249 ) 
 
 sion for themselves and their children ; and if, under the 
 New Testament, unsealed adults are bound to receive 
 baptism for themselves and their children, where is the 
 force of his objection against the identity of these ordi- 
 nances ? All the force that it has goes to prove their 
 identity. 
 
 7. ^' Circumcision was administered to all a man's 
 slaves, all born in his house and bought with his money. 
 Baptism, therefore, ought to be administered to all the 
 slaves of a householder, as well as to his own seed.'' 
 
 In answer to this, I would observe, that the true doc- 
 trine of circumcision was, that this ordinance should be 
 administered to every believer and his infant household; 
 which embraced his own infants, those which he had 
 adopted, and those which were bound to him ; all of 
 which he had an opportunity of training up in the way 
 they should go. When Abraham's adult servants were 
 circumcised, there is reason to believe that it was with 
 their own consent, and upon their own profession, (as 
 was the case with the Israelites at Gilgal,) because these 
 servants of Abraham had previously received this train- 
 ing. They are expressly called his trained servants, 
 before the institution of circumcision :(/) and the word 
 there used does not appear to relate to military disci- 
 pline, but to spiritual instruction and ecclesiastical ini- 
 tiation ; as in the Proverb which says " Train up a 
 child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he 
 will not depart from it." All that I have said here con- 
 cerning household circumcision, is true concerning. 
 
 (y ),Gen. xiv. 14. 
 li 
 
( 350 ) 
 
 household baptism ; as I hope to shew in my argument 
 for infant baptism, from Apostolical practice. 
 
 8. " Circumcision required no piety in the parent to 
 entitle his child to this ordinance ; neither faith nor 
 piety were ever required of a parent to entitle his child 
 to circumcision. Piety or faith ought not then to be 
 demanded as necessary in parents to the baptism of their 
 children." 
 
 I am sorry to say that thousands of Pedobaptists agree 
 with every word of this unscriptural stuff : yet they are 
 so far from thinking it an objection to the doctrine that 
 baptism is the Christian circumcision, that they seriously 
 believe it an argument in its favour. Others, on the con- 
 trary, think more correctly, that granting church privi- 
 leges to those who do not even profess the circumcision 
 of the heart, is a crying sin of both dispensations. These 
 also think that the agreement of the two dispensations, in 
 this feature, is an evidence that circumcision and bap- 
 tism are the same seal, 
 
 9. " Circumcision imported that its subject was enti- 
 tled to all the promises made to Abraham concerning his 
 natural seed. Baptism, its substitute, therefore, imports 
 that its subject is entitled to a share in all the temporal 
 blessings promised to the seed of Abraham.'' 
 
 In reply, I would remark, that if either of these pro- 
 positions be true, then Providence has deprived very 
 many of their rights. Instead of this, I would say that 
 circumcision is a seal of the rigliteousness of faith, and 
 baptism is the same. We shall then have the Scriptures 
 on our side, as has been already proved. 
 
 10. " Circumcision was a token or sign in the flesh, of 
 
( 251 ) 
 
 the covenant made in the seventeenth chapter of Gene- 
 sis ; Baptism, is therefore, a token or sign in the flesh, 
 of the covenant made with Abraham in the seventeenth 
 chapter of Genesis/^ 
 
 I answer, as it has been proved that the best Baptist 
 authorities answer, that the seventeenth chapter of Gen- 
 esis contains a revelation of the covenant of grace. I 
 moreover answer, that circumcision and baptism are 
 only different forms of the same sign or token of the 
 one covenant of grace in different administrations. It 
 is possible that the objector here means to renew his in- 
 sinuation that baptism cannot be a token of the covenant, 
 because it is a watery one. If so, I would ^gain remind 
 him, that the token of the Noachic covenant was a wa- 
 tery one. '' I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall 
 ^^be for a token of a covenant between me and the 
 ^' earth/^(« 
 
 11. '' Circumcision was not to be performed in the 
 name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Bap- 
 tism, its substitute, is, therefore, not to be performed 
 in these names.'^ 
 
 My answer is, that if I believed, with a certain 
 objector, that the second of these adorable persons is 
 not the supreme and eternal God, and that the third 
 had no existence until the day of Pentecost, then I would 
 not baptize in this name. It is for this reason, that some 
 more sincere and consistent Unitarians have actually ceas- 
 ed to baptize in the name of the Trinity. But as this 
 Triune God has instituted circumcision and baptism, and 
 
 (k) Gen. ix. 13, 
 
( 252 ) 
 
 made them one and the same seal, we administer the 
 Christian form as he has directed, without knowing or 
 inquiring what words were originally used in the Jewish 
 form, 
 
 12. " Circumcision was identified with the law of 
 Moses, (John vii. 23.) and shared the same fate. Bap- 
 tism is, therefore, identified with the law of Moses, 
 and must share the same fate.'^ 
 
 I answer, that according to Gill's understanding of the 
 passage referred to, it affords no better argument against 
 the doctrine that baptism is the Christian circumcision, 
 than against the doctrine that the first day of the week 
 is the Christian sabbath. But the whole objection rests 
 upon ground which is perfectly preposterous; that be- 
 cause one form of a seal is abolished, therefore its sub- 
 stitute must be abolished. He might as well say that 
 because a drafted militia-man stays at home, therefore 
 his hired substitute must stay at home. 
 
 13. " Circumcision has come to such a crisis that who- 
 soever is circumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing ; 
 therefore, baptism, its substitute, will also come, or has 
 now come, to such a crisis, that whosoever is baptized, 
 Christ shall profit him nothing.'' 
 
 I answer, that this is true enough with respect to that 
 baptism which lays a man's conscience perfectly asleep, 
 from the moment of his coming up out of the water. 
 The reason is, that he puts his baptism in the place of 
 Christ, as the Jews put their circumcision in the place 
 of Christ. Therefore, as they reject Christ, he will 
 profit them nothing. But there is one sort of circumci- 
 sion which has not yet come to that crisis. It is that 
 
m 
 
 ( 253 ) 
 
 which Paul had in view, when he said, ^^ We are the 
 ^^ circumcision, which worship God in the Spirit, and 
 *' rejoice in Christ, and have no confidence in the 
 ^^ flesh. '^ ^^ In whom also ye are circumcised, with the 
 ^^ circumcision made without hands, in putting off the 
 ^^ body of the sins of the flesh, by the {^Christian cir- 
 ^^ cumcision^ or] the circumcision of Christ, [being] 
 ^^ buried with him in baptism.^^ This is a sort of cir- 
 cumcision in which Christ profits us much ; and 
 which does not lead his true church to boast that 
 their conscience has not troubled them since they re- 
 ceived it. 
 
 14. '' Circumcision did not exempt one of the Jews 
 from baptism, when they believed in Christ; there- 
 fore, its substitute, baptism, ought not to exempt a 
 believer from being baptized again and again.'^(/) 
 
 My Opponent probably knows that the fact of bap- 
 tism having been rightly administered to those who had 
 been rightly circumcised, is disputed. I, however, do 
 not dispute it. Yet I am far from perceiving the force 
 of his objection. It is as much as to say, that because, 
 on the change of dispensation, the New Testament form 
 of the seal was administered to those who had received 
 the Old Testament form which is now abolished, there- 
 fore, without a change of dispensation, the form ought 
 to be repeated, when there is no abolition to make it ne- 
 cessary. 
 
 15. Some time after my Opponent had got through 
 his fourteen objections, he speaks as follows, viz. ^^If it 
 
 (/) For all these objections, Sec Spur. Deb. with me, pp. 219. 220. 
 
( 264 ) 
 
 [the infant] was about to die, one hour before it was 
 eight days old, the Jews would not circumcise it. If 
 baptism came in the room of circumcision, why then do 
 many seem so anxious to have their infants sprinkled be- 
 fore they die ! ! This is a fifteenth contradiction of the 
 doctrine of substitution, in which the practice of the 
 Paido-baptists differs from their principles.'^(m) 
 
 I could answer this objection by observing that his fif- 
 teenth is the same as his third, which I have answered 
 already. My Opponent's endeavour to multiply objec- 
 tions, by making one serve for two numbers, reminds me 
 of a defence which I once heard before a Session, by a 
 delinquent who was charged with abandoning church 
 ordinances. He very formally said, ^^ I will divide my 
 '^ defence into three parts. The First; The Presbyte- 
 '^ rians signed a petition to stop the mail on the Sabbath, 
 '^ so that my son in Indiana might be killed by the In- 
 ^^ dians^ and I not hear of it, till it would be a day too 
 ^' late. The Second ; The Presbyterians want to join 
 '^ church and state. The Third the same as the first.'^ 
 Although the Moderator of the Session asked him if it 
 was not through mistake, that he had made " the third 
 the same as the first,'' he insisted upon it, and it was so 
 recorded. As I do not expect my Opponent easily to 
 relinquish his fifteenth reason, I have allowed it to him, 
 although it is the same as the third? and although it 
 really does not deserve to be uttered and repeated, any 
 more than the old gentleman's objection to stopping the 
 mail on the Sabbath.. 
 
 (m) Spur. Deb. p. 226. 
 
( ^^^ ) 
 
 16. I am reminded by a friend,(n) that my Opponent 
 has urged as one objection, that ^^Pedobaptists are bound 
 to sprinkle all infants of sprinkled parents.'^ 
 
 As this is the same as the eighth, my answer to it has 
 been given under that number. He might as well object, 
 in the next place, that the Pedobaptists want to join 
 church and state. 
 
 17. My Opponent has, moreover, said, '^ that among 
 the Jews, good and bad alike eat the Passover on the 
 ground of circumcision.''(o) 
 
 In answer to this, I would remind you of the sorrowful 
 confession of pious and candid Baptists, like Mr. Great- 
 rake, who mourn, that good and bad too often eat the 
 Eucharist, on the ground of adult immersion. This fact, 
 therefore, will argue more for than against the sameness 
 of circumcision and baptism. 
 
 18. In reply to some of Dr. Mason's remarks concern- 
 ing hereditary descent, my Opponent concludes that, 
 according to our system " The children of the flesh are 
 counted for the seed,''(j&) contrary to the Apostle's de- 
 claration that "They which are the children of the 
 " flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the chil- 
 " dren of the promise are counted for the seed. "(5') 
 
 To this I answer, that " the children of God'' and 
 " the seed" here mentioned, are the members of the in- 
 visible church ; and the Apostle's remark was made to 
 shew that membership in the church invisible was not al- 
 always according to hereditary descent, among Jews or 
 
 (w) Mr. Lowiy, in his written abstract, now before me. 
 
 ' r\\ T r\wT*v's A |-». <■*-••»>*-• 4- f 4t\ ^tAiii" T^r»l* ^i/ifn m*^ 
 
 [q) Rem. ix. 8. 
 
 fo) Lowry's Abstract. {/i) Spur. Deb. witli me, p. 400. 
 
( 256 ) 
 
 Christians ; although a right to visible church member- 
 ship descended from parent to child^ among both Jews 
 and Christians. 
 
 19. In order to help out ray Opponent with a round 
 number of objections, permit me to notice one of Mr. 
 Gale's, as reported by Dr. Wall.(r) It is that Pedobap- 
 tists cannot account baptism to be instead of circumci- 
 sion, because purification of heart and life is instead of 
 it. This, however, is in opposition to my Opponent's 
 doctrine, that it never was ^^ a sign of the circumcision 
 of the heart." Here then, we have two errorists tak- 
 ing directly opposite ways to arrive at the same point. 
 The object of both is, to prove that baptism cannot be 
 the Christian circumcision. With this view, one of them 
 rejects the circumcision of the heart, in order to de- 
 prive us of those texts, which shew that spiritual cir- 
 cumcision and spiritual baptism are the same ; but the 
 other boldly asserts the circumcision of the heart, in 
 order that he may make it the sole successor and substi- 
 tute of the outward form, to the exclusion of baptism, 
 which the scriptures represent as a visible substitute ; 
 while they always teach inward circumcision, both be- 
 fore and after the change of the outward form. 
 
 20. But the most powerful objection of all, I have 
 reserved for the last. It is a supposed necessity that a 
 substitute should perfectly '' quadrate" with its prin- 
 cipal. He insists upon it that this quadration must be 
 universal and perfect ; so that if one feature of differ- 
 ence, howsoever minute, can be ascertained between 
 
 (r) Defence, p. 233. 
 
( 257 ) 
 
 two things, it is impossible that one of them can be a 
 substitute for the other. They must fit one another 
 with as much exactness as the impression on the wax 
 corresponds with the seal ; nay, they must quadrate 
 much more perfectly ; for between some seals and their 
 impressions, you may perhaps find twenty points of dif- 
 ference ; but between a substitute and its principal there 
 must be no point of difference. For this reason it is, 
 that my Opponent has been so anxious to multiply par- 
 ticulars, thinking that every additional one, even though 
 it were a repetition of a former one, made his refutation 
 the more triumphant. He knows moreover, that this 
 principle is at the bottom of every objection which he 
 or any other Baptist has ever urged against the sigillisti- 
 cal identity of circumcision and baptism. Let it once 
 be admitted that a substitute may differ in one point, and 
 in many points from its principal, and be^ a substitute 
 still, and every objection which they have made will go 
 for nothing. For this reason my Opponent has pressed 
 his doctrine of quadrations with remarkable solicitude, 
 confidence and animation. He has literally taught you 
 quadrations with both hands, by spreading, or may I 
 say, spraddling all his fingers, to shew you that a substi- 
 tute and its principal must quadrate as exactly as the 
 fingers of the right hand agree with those of the left. 
 But what an unhappy illustration ! Is there no difference 
 between the right hand and the left ? Are there any two 
 hands, or fingers, or teeth, or eyes, in this house, which, 
 when minutely examined, do not differ in more than 
 twenty particulars ? This doctrine is also at war with 
 
 Mr. Gale's position that purification of heart and life is 
 K k 
 
( 258 ) 
 
 instead of circumcision. Is there no difference between 
 an outward sign and an inward grace? But remember 
 that our Saviour himself became a substitute for his 
 people. Is there no difference between holiness and cor- 
 ruption, the Creator and the creature? How would the 
 enemies of his vicarious satisfaction be pleased ! how 
 would the gates of hell rejoice, if my Opponent could 
 establish his ambidextral quadrations! ! 
 
 But without continuing to point so awful a truth 
 against a theory so supremely preposterous, I will refer 
 you to an illustration which may occupy your familiar 
 attention in detail. It is that of a military substitute, of 
 which a slight mention has been made already. You re- 
 member that when my Opponent enlarged his objections, 
 so as to number nine points of difference between cir- 
 cumcision and baptism, I produced nine particulars in 
 which a military substitute might differ from his princi- 
 pal, and yet be legally and joyfully recognized as a sub- 
 stitute. You remember that he enlarged his list to eleven, 
 and I mine to twelve. He afterward went on to four- 
 teen, then fifteen, and I have helped him to gather his 
 scattered forces until they amount to twenty. At pre- 
 sent, therefore, you will not think it necessary for me 
 to enlarge my list to more than thirty. To spare your 
 time, I shall get over them with all possible speed, even 
 to the neglect of grammatical accuracy. To proceed 
 then ; A man who is hired to take the place of a drafted 
 militia-man, who wishes to stay at home, will be cheer- 
 fully and correctly recognized, as a true and legal sub- 
 ^stifriff ,^ if he should difler from his |)rin(M])al. in bcinij 
 
( 259 ) 
 
 1 Taller 
 
 2 Younger 
 
 3 Straighter 
 
 4 Stronger 
 
 5 Swifter 
 
 6 Sprightlier 
 
 7 Thicker 
 
 8 Thriftier 
 
 9 Heavier 
 10 Healthier 
 
 11 Handsomer 21 Gentler 
 
 12 Happier 22 Genteeler 
 
 13 Holier 23 Kinder 
 
 14 Humbler 24 Cleanlier 
 
 15 Hardier 25 Lovelier 
 
 16 Honester 26 Chaster 
 
 17 Wittier 27 Meeker 
 
 18 Soberer 28 Quieter 
 
 19 Graver 29 Wiser 
 
 20 Braver 30 Better 
 You will observe, that in all these points of difference 
 
 between the principal and his substitute, there is not one 
 which, in the least, invalidates the vicarious character 
 of the latter; nor one which does not make him superior 
 to his principal. Just so it is with the two forms of our 
 initiatory seal : there is not one feature of difference 
 which disqualifies baptism from serving as a substitute 
 for circumcision ; nor one feature which does not make 
 it superior to it. If, therefore, my Opponent could 
 muster thirty points instead of fifteen or twenty, they 
 would only shew the great superiority of the New Tes- 
 ment/orm, to that of the Old Testament, without, by 
 any means, impugning their substantial identity. 
 
 But I am far from admitting that there are as many 
 points of difference as my Opponent's increasing zeal 
 may choose to enumerate. If he had stopped at fiwQ, he 
 would probably have had all that deserve the name. 
 Baptism differs from circumcision, 1. In its being an «,?- 
 persion, or ablution^ or affusion of water, instead of an 
 effusion of blood. 2. In its being administered usually 
 to the head, forehead, or face. 3. In its being lawful to 
 
( 260 ) 
 
 administer it to infants of any age, as well under as over 
 eight days. 4. In its admitting subjects of both sexes. 
 5. In its not requiring a profession of faith in both pa- 
 rents. Any person who knows the nature of seals, must 
 see that all these points are merely circumstantial; not 
 one of them belonging to the essence of a seal. Any one 
 may perceive, moreover, that there is not one of them,, 
 which does not make the substitute superior to the ori- 
 ginal form. My Opponent, therefore, might have spared 
 the remark that I had illustrated the subject by a mili- 
 tary substitute, on account of " finding the points of dif- 
 ference between circumcision and baptism so numerous 
 and so glaring.''(5) They are few in number, and in- 
 different in their nature. 
 
 My Opponent would persuade you that the case in 
 question does not deserve an answer : yet it is amusing 
 to see that he is obliged to answer it ; and in doing so, is 
 compelled to relinquish his original ground. His words 
 are as follows, viz. " He [M^Calla] introduces a mili- 
 ^' tary substitute instead of a theological one. And this 
 ^^ is not all, nor the worst of it ; he draws his conclusion 
 '' from the personal differences between the substitute 
 ^' and his principal, and not from any difference in the 
 '^ performance of the of&ccs or duties, which the substi- 
 " tute is obliged to perform for his principal. Had we 
 " made objection to baptism as a substitute for circum- 
 '^ cision, because the one was a watery rite, and the 
 " other a bloody one, there would have been something 
 ^* more specious in his sophistry. But we objected to 
 
 (*) spur. Deb. p. 2J7. 
 
( 261 ) 
 
 ^' the substitute, as differing from the principal, on the 
 '' ground of its not performing the offices or duties of 
 ^' the principal. If a military substitute performs all the 
 " duties incumbent on the principal, he is completely a 
 ^^ substitute, although his person might differ in one 
 ^' hundred respects from him. Now if baptism perform- 
 ^^ ed all the offices and duties of circumcision, neither 
 ^^ more or less, we would not object to it, as a substitute, 
 '^ because of its personal or characteristic differences, 
 ^^ already mentioned under the idea of blood and 
 " water :\t) 
 
 So much for my Baptist Opponent. Now in these 
 remarks, I say, he has made a retrograde movement. In 
 his original ground, he required that the principal and 
 the substitute should quadrate^ not only entirely ^ but 
 completely ; not only in their nature and ends, but in 
 their appendages and circumstances. On this ground 
 his first, third, and fifth objection, required that they 
 should both be confined to one sex, both be applied to 
 one part of the body, and both be administered on the 
 eighth day. His fifteenth objection will not admit of the 
 administration of the substitute to a child, ''one hour 
 before it was eight days old.^^ But now he says, " We 
 '' would not object to it as a substitute, because of its 
 " personal or characteristic differences already mention- 
 " ed under the idea of blood and water P That is, he 
 would not deny that baptism was a substitute for circum- 
 cision, merely " because the one was a watery rite, and 
 the other a bloody one." How can these things be re- 
 
 (0 Spur. Deb. p. 237. 
 
( 262 ) 
 
 conciled ? Is not a change from the shedding of blood 
 to the application of water as important as changing the 
 part of the body to which the seal is applied ? Is not a 
 change from blood to water as important as subtracting 
 ^' one hour^^ from eight days ? and is it not as essential as 
 any feature of difference which can be discovered be- 
 tween circumcision and baptism? If so^ then all the 
 twenty objections^ according to my Opponent's new 
 principle^ have no more weight against the identity of 
 the two rites^ than my thirty objections have against the 
 vicarious standing of the military substitute. 
 
 But in taking his new ground^ my Opponent would 
 persuade you that he has reserved a secure refuge. He 
 says^ ^^If a military substitute performs all the duties 
 " incumbent on the principal, he is completely a substi- 
 ^' tute, although his person might differ in one hundred 
 " respects from him.^^ This, however, is so far from 
 being a formidable principle to the Pedobaptists, that it 
 is the very ground upon which their doctrine rests. We 
 admit that the Christian rite differs from the Jewish, in 
 five non-essential particulars, just as one man may differ 
 from another in a hundred non-essential particulars ; yet 
 we say that baptism and circumcision have the same es- 
 sential qualities, as seals ; just as these two men may be 
 able to perform the same essential duties, as soldiers. In 
 despite of all my Opponent's sophistry on this subject, 
 it has been shewn that circumcision is an initiatory seal; 
 so is baptism : circumcision is a sign of pardon and jus- 
 tification ; so is baptism : circumcision is a sign and 
 means of sanctification ; so is baptism. And while they 
 agree in these essentials, (as it has been proved at large 
 
( 263 ) 
 
 that they do agree;) they may differ in one hundred 
 particulars, and yet the one may be the substitute of the 
 other, according to my Opponent's own shewing; howso- 
 ever contradictory it may be to his exploded doctrine of 
 quadrations. 
 
 Mr. Gale(t^) says that " the argument for infant bap- 
 tism from circumcision was not insisted on by those call- 
 ed Ancient Fathers; and though he might have in- 
 stanced in some of them, who, indeed, do not mention its 
 succeeding circumcision, he unluckily picks out for his 
 only instances St. Cyprian and St. Austin, who are 
 known to have mentioned it ; but he says it was not in- 
 sisted on by them, for aught he finds V^ Perhaps a more 
 diligent and candid search would have enabled him to 
 find it. The audience will recollect, that, before I form- 
 ally commenced the defence of the present proposition, 
 my Opponent w^as eager to enter upon it; and in doing 
 so, " declared that Calvin and Beza were the first who 
 '' argued Infant-baptism from Jewish circumcision. ''(i^) 
 You recollect how^ emphatically I called upon you to 
 mark that declaration. Startled at my request, and 
 fearing that exposure which I promised to make, in due 
 time, if Providence allowed, he came forward to support 
 his assertion by what he called a respectable writer. 
 Suspecting from the outside of the pamphlet, as well as 
 from the ignorance and rashness displayed in its con- 
 tents, that its author was Dr. Fishback of Lexington, I 
 
 (w) As reported by Dr. Wall, in his Defence, p. 370. The words quo- 
 ted are the Doctor's. 
 {y) Lowry's Abstract of notes taken at the Debate. 
 
( 264 ) 
 
 called for the name; but my Opponent had, by that 
 time, become so modest, that I could not distinguish 
 what name he announced. However, here we have it in 
 the Doctor/ whose pamphlet I have taken the trouble to 
 bring along with me. His words are as follows, viz. ^^I 
 ^^ had been accustomed to hear it said, that baptism 
 '^ was established in the Christian church, in the place 
 ^^of circumcision under the Jewish economy. In 
 '^ MY investigation of the subject, I found that that 
 '' opinion was comparatively of a recent date. I could 
 '' not find in church-history or any where else, that it 
 ^' had been introduced earlier than the sixteenth cen- 
 ^^ tury, and for the first time by Calvin and Beza.'^(ti;) 
 While I was proving to you that the early church agreed 
 with the scriptures in calling baptism a seal, it became 
 necessary to read some testimonies from the Fathers, 
 which shew, at the same time, that they considered it as 
 coming in the place of circumcision. Notwithstanding 
 this, my Opponent renews his gross assertion, immedi- 
 ately after he had retreated from his qjiadrations, no- 
 ticed a few minutes ago. He says, '' The quotations 
 ^^ read from Dr. Wall's History does not disprove our 
 ^^ assertion, that Calvin and Beza were the first who in- 
 ^' troduced baptism in the room of circumcision, in the 
 ^^ sense contended for by Mr. M^Calla."(:r) 
 
 As [the testimony of the church on this subject, be- 
 longs to the fourth general topic, it was my intention to 
 reserve it for that place. Its anticipation, we hope, will 
 be excused, especially as it will occupy very little time. 
 
 (w) Fishback's Letters, p. 69. (x) Spur. Deb. p. 237. 
 
( 265 ) 
 
 The evidence is plain, and, strange to tell, it may be 
 found in that very paragraph of Dr. Fishback's book, 
 from which I have just now read an extract. He there 
 informs us that Athanasius, who lived twelve hundred 
 years before Calvin and Beza, says that " Circumcision 
 '' was appointed on the eighth day, to be a figure of that 
 '^ regeneration made by haptismP 
 
 His cotemporary, EpiphaniuS;i says, '^ The law had 
 '' the patterns of things in it ; but the truth of them is 
 " in the gospel. The law had the circumcision in the 
 '^ flesh, serving for a time, till the great circumcision 
 '' came, that is baptism; which circumcises us from our 
 " sins, and seals us unto the name of God.'^(y) 
 
 His contemporary, Augustine, speaks as follows, viz, 
 ^' Yet w^e may besides take a true estimate, how much 
 " the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the 
 ^' circumcision which God's former people received. 
 " For Abraham was justified before he received that, as 
 " Cornelius was endued with the Holy Spirit before he 
 '' was baptized : and yet the Apostle says of Abraham, 
 " that * he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 
 " the righteousness of the faith,' by which he had in 
 ^' heart believed, and it had been counted to him for 
 '' righteousness. Why then was he commanded thence- 
 " forward to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth 
 '^ day, when they could not yet believe with the heart, 
 " that it might be counted to them for righteousness, 
 '' but for this reason, because the sacrament itself is of 
 itself of great import? Therefore, as in Abraham 
 
 {y) Wall's Hist. Chap. 21. Sect. 5. 
 
 LI 
 
( 266 ) 
 
 ^^ the righteousness of faith went before, and ciixum- 
 ^' cision the seal of the righteousness of faith came after; 
 ^' so in Cornelius the spirit of sanctification by the gift 
 ^^ of the Holy Spirit went before, and the sacrament of 
 ^^ regeneration by the laver of baptism came after. And 
 ^^ as in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day, the 
 ^^ seal of the righteous ness of faith went before, and (as 
 ^^ he was a follower of his Father's faith) the righteous- 
 ^^ ness itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his in- 
 *^ fancy, came after ; so in infants baptized the sacra- 
 ^^ ment of regeneration goes before, and (if they put in 
 ^^ practice the Christian religion) conversion of the 
 ^^ heart, the mystery whereof went before in their body, 
 ^^ comes after/^(2r) 
 
 Austin, moreover, tells us concerning Chrysostom, 
 ^^ Even he, as well as the martyr Cyprian, teaches, that 
 ^^ the circumcision of the flesh was commanded in the 
 ^^ way of a type of baptism J^ He then quotes the words 
 of Chrysostom, which are the same as those of Basil ; 
 after which he adds, ^^ You see how this man, establish- 
 ^^ ed in ecclesiastical doctrine, compares circumcision to 
 ^^ circumcision, and threat to threat : that which it is, 
 ^^ not to be circumcised on the eighth day ; that it is, 
 ^^ not to be baptized in Christ : and what it is, to be cut | 
 ^' off from his people ; that it is not to enter into the 
 ^^ kingdom of heaven. And yet you [Pelagians] say 
 ^' that in the baptism of infants there is no putting off the 
 ^^ flesh, that is, no circumcision made without hands; 
 ^^ when you afiirm that they have nothing which needs 
 
 tQ be put off^: for you do not confess them to be deacl 
 
 (z) Wall's Hist. Chap. 15. Sect. 3. 
 
 (i 
 
( 267 ) 
 
 *^ in the uncircumcision of the flesh, by which is meant 
 ^^ sin, especially that sin which is derived originally : 
 ^' for by reason of this, our body is the body of sin, 
 ^' which the Apostle says is destroyed by the cross of 
 '' Christ.^^(a) 
 
 Chrysostom says, '^ But our circumcisioriy I mean 
 ^^ the grace of baptism^ gives cure without pain, and 
 ^^ procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the 
 ^^ grace of the Spirit : and it has no determinate time, as 
 ^^ that had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his 
 ^^ age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in 
 ^^ his old age, may receive this circumcision made with- 
 ^^ out hands ; in which there is no trouble to be under- 
 ^' gone, but to throw off the load of sins, and receive 
 '^ pardon for all foregoing offences.''(6) 
 
 Ambrose says, " For a very good reason does the law 
 ^^ command the males to be circumcised in the beginning 
 '^ of infancy, even the bondslave born in the house : be- 
 ^^ cause as circumcision is from infancy, so is the disease. 
 ^^ No time ought to be void of the remedy, because none 
 ^^ is void of guilt.'' ^^ Neither a proselyte that is old, 
 ^^ nor an infant born in the house is excepted ; because 
 ^^ every age is obnoxious to sin, and therefore every age 
 *^ is proper for the sacrament." ^^ The meaning of the 
 *^ mystery is plain. Those born in the house are the 
 ^^ Jews, those bought with money are the Gentiles that 
 ^^ believed : for the Church is bought with the price of 
 ^^ Christ's blood. Therefore, both Jew and Gentile, and 
 '^ all that believe, must learn to circumcise themselves 
 
 (a) Wall's Hist Chap. 14. Sect. 2. (d) Ibid. Chap. 14. Sect, 1, 
 
( 237 ) 
 
 ^^ from sin^ that they may be saved. Both the home-born 
 ^^ and the foreigner, the just and the sinful, must be cir- 
 " cumcised by the forgiveness of sins, so as not to prac- 
 " tice sin any more : for no person comes to the king- 
 '^ dom of heaven but by the sacrament of baptism.^^ 
 '' You see, he excepts no person, not an infant, not one 
 ^' that is hindered by any unavoidable accident.''(c) 
 
 Basil, in reference to that text which occasioned the 
 last sentence quoted from Ambrose, speaks as follows, 
 viz. " A Jew does not delay circumcision, because 
 ^^ of the threatening that every soul that is not circum- 
 ^' cised the eighth day shall be cut off from his people : 
 ^' and dost thou put oiT the circumcision made without 
 ^^ hands in putting off the flesh, which is performed in 
 ^^ baptism, whea thou hearest our Lord himself say, 
 ^^ ^ Verily, verily, I say unto you, except one be born of 
 '' ' water and of the Spirit, he shall not enter into the 
 ^^ ^kingdom of God ?'''W 
 
 Cyprian, and the rest of the Bishops who were pre- 
 sent at the Council, sixty-six in number, in their letter 
 to Fidus, in favour of baptizing a child before he is eight 
 days old, notwithstanding the law of circumcision on that 
 point, argue as follows, viz. ^^That the eighth day was 
 " observed in the Jewish circumcision, was a type going 
 " before in a shadow and resemblance, but on Christ's 
 " coming was fulfilled in the substance. For because 
 " the eighth day, that is, the next to the sabbath day, 
 " was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise from 
 ^' the dead, and quicken us, and give us the spiritual 
 
 (c) WaU's Hist. Chap. 13. Sect. 2. (e) Ibid. Chap, 12. Sect. 5. 
 
 < 
 
 1 
 
( 269 ) 
 
 ^^ circumcision, this eighth day, that is, the next day to 
 " the sabbath, or Lord's day, was signified in the 
 '' type before ; which type ceased when the substance 
 ^' came, and the spiritual circumcision was given to us. 
 '' So that we judge that no person is to be hindered from 
 ^^ obtaining the grace, [or, as it is elsewhere expressed, 
 '' ' it is not for us to hinder any person from hapti8mj'\ 
 " by the law that is now appointed : and that the spirit- 
 '' ual circumcision [that is, baptism,'] ought not to be 
 ^' restrained by the circumcision that was according to 
 '' the flesh : but that all are to be admitted to the grace 
 " of Christ ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the 
 '' Apostles, says, ' The L(trd hath shewn me that no per- 
 " ' son is to be called common or unclean.' '^(/) 
 
 Justin Martyr says, ^^ We also who by him have 
 '^ had access to God, have not received this carnal cir- 
 ^' cumcision, but the spiritual circumcision, which 
 " Enoch, and those like him observed. And we have 
 " received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, because 
 '^ we were sinners : and it is enjoined to all persons to re- 
 /* ceive it by the same way.'^ A work entitled " Ques- 
 ^' tions to the Orthodox,'^ is ascribed to Justin Martyr. 
 My Opponent, in his spurious publication against Mr. 
 Walker, (^) recognizes its authenticity. In answer to 
 the question, why, if circumcision were a good thing, 
 we do not use it as well as the Jews did ; the answer by 
 Justin is, "We are circumcised hy Baptism yfilh. Chris fs 
 cir cumcision, ^\h) 
 
 Thus is this doctrine clearly traced from Augustine 
 
 ( /') Wall's Hist. Chaj). 6. Sect 1. {g) p. 103. 
 
 (h) Wall's Hist. Chap. 2. Sect. 1. 2. 
 
( 270 ) 
 
 back to Justin Martyr, who lived in the second century^ 
 immediately after the Apostles, from whom, as we have 
 already shewn, they received it. Dr.Fishback professes to 
 make some quotations from Wall's History of Baptism, 
 in which they are interspersed, and from which I have 
 now read them. If he has read the whole of this work, 
 he could well say, ^^ I had been accustomed to hear it 
 ^^ said, [even by the early Fathers] that baptism was es- 
 ^^ tablished in the Christian church, in the place of cir- 
 ^^ cumcision under the Jewish economy.'' But instead 
 of tracing it to the ancient Fathers, this man of deep 
 research says ^' In my investigation of the subject, I 
 '^ found that that opinion was comparatively of a recent 
 '' date. I could not find in church history, [not even 
 ^' in Wall's History,] or any where else, [not even in 
 *^ the writings of the Ancients themselves,] that it had 
 ^^ been introduced earlier than the sixteenth century, 
 '' and for the first time by Calvin and Beza." And my 
 Opponent echoes the declaration of his respectable wri- 
 ter, by saying, " The quotations read from Dr. Wall's 
 ^^ History does not disprove our assertion that Calvin 
 *^ and Beza were the first who introduced baptism in the 
 '' room of circumcision, in the sense contended for by 
 " Mr. M^Calla." 
 
 If my Opponent were to deny, as he did with Mr. 
 Walker, that this doctrine was urged by the Fathers as 
 a professed argument in proof of a divine command for 
 Infant-baptism, that would be another thing. The truth 
 is, they had no one to argue with on this subject. Even 
 TertuUian himself, who was opposed to baptizing infants, 
 still admitted that there was a divine command for bapti- 
 
( 271 ) 
 
 zing them : as I hope to shew under the fourth Topic of 
 this discussion. 
 
 After your hearing my sentiments and the sentiments 
 of the Christian Fathers so distinctly, it is perhaps dijfi- 
 cult for you to imagine what my Opponent means, when 
 he pretends that their view of this doctrine is different 
 from ^^ the sense contended for by Mr. M^Calla.'^ If these 
 be not words spoken at random, I would conjecture that 
 he may refer to their imitation of the Apostle Paul, in 
 speaking of the Christian church as a spiritual and 
 even celestial dispensation, of which the Jewish church 
 was, in a certain sense, only a figure. Circumcision is 
 called ^^ a figure^^ of baptism, by Athanasius. Epi- 
 phanius calls it a pattern. Chrysostom, as reported by 
 Austin, calls it a type. Cyprian calls it ^^a* type 
 going before in a shadow and resemblance J^^ This, 
 however, is owing to the superior spirituality of 
 the Christian dispensation ; for which reason, Paul 
 calls the New Testament church, ^^ Jerusalem which 
 is above. "(z) For this reason, Augustine, Chrysos- 
 tom, and Basil, call baptism, the circumcision made 
 without hands ; and Cyprian and Justin Martyr call 
 it the spiritual circumcision : or rather the latter of 
 these, who lived before them all, says, " We have re- 
 ^^ ceived it by baptism.'^ Epiphanius calls baptism 
 ^* the truth of' circumcision. Cyprian calls it ^' the 
 ^' substance^^ of circumcision. They all used this lan- 
 guage, however, not to deny that the one has come in the 
 place of the other, but to express that doctrine ; because 
 every one knows that now, the substance has come iu 
 
 (i) Gal. iv. 26. 
 
( 272 ) 
 
 place of the shadow, and the anti-type in the place of 
 the type. And that they do this in the sense in which 
 I understand Paul's words, where he calls baptism the 
 circumcision of Christ, is evident from the fact that seve- 
 ral of them give my explanation to that text ; besides 
 which Chrysostom calls our circumcision^ the grace of 
 baptism ; and Justin expressly says, ^^ We are circum- 
 cised by baptism with Christ's circumcision.'' While 
 they thus considered them the same in substance^ it has 
 been already shewn that they considered circumcision a 
 sealf and baptism a seal. They evidently therefore held 
 the doctrine of the proposition now under discussion, 
 from ten to fifteen hundred years before Calvin and Beza 
 came on the stage. 
 
 After what has been said, we shall consider it certain, 
 because it has been proved to be true, that there is a real 
 distinction between the substance of a s'eal^ and the form 
 of a seat; that circumcision and baptism are denominated 
 a seal by the scriptures and the early church ; that they 
 are both the initiatory seal of the church in their respec- 
 tive dispensations ; that they are both signs of pardon 
 and justification ; and both signs and means of sanctifi- 
 cation ; that Christians are called the circumcision ; and 
 that baptism is called the circumcision of Christ ; that 
 the real points of dijfference are comparatively few, and 
 these relating to the form, and not to the substance, and 
 therefore not forbidding the substitution of baptism for 
 circumcision, any more than a superiority in health, sta- 
 ture, activity, and bravery, would forbid the acknow- 
 
( 273 ) 
 
 ledgment of a military substitute 5 and that this doctrine, 
 so far from being invented by Calvin and Beza, is as old 
 as Christian baptism itself. It has been also shewn that 
 the truth of this proposition^ as well as the former, is ra- 
 tified by the great Dr. Gill, who, in speaking of the cov- 
 enant, doctrines, and ordinances of the New Testa- 
 ment, says, " There have been the same things for 
 ^^ SUBSTANCE in former ages.^^ " These, in some sense, 
 are all old things, and indeed are the same in sub- 
 STANCE."(a) We shall, therefore, consider it as pro- 
 ved that Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Chris- 
 tian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal in 
 SUBSTANCE, tliough in different forms. 
 
 PROPOSITIO^r IT. 
 
 The ADMINISTRATION OP THIS SEAL TO INFANTS WAS ONCE 
 ENJOINED BY DIVINE AUTHOUITY ; THAT IS, GoD ONCE COM- 
 MANDED IT. 
 
 It has already been shewn that Abraham and his seed 
 were divinely constituted a visible church of God ; that 
 the Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic 
 church ; or, in other words, the Jewish society before 
 Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, are one 
 and the same church in different administrations, and 
 that Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Chris- 
 tian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal in 
 substance, though not in form. The command for ad- 
 
 (a) Gill on Eccles. i. 9. 
 M m 
 
( 274 ) 
 
 ministering this seal to infants is contained in the follow- 
 ing words, viz. '' This is my covenant which ye shall 
 '' keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; 
 ^' every man-child among you shall be circumcised. 
 " And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and 
 ^^ it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and 
 ^' you.'' '' And the uncircumcised man-child, whose 
 '' flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall 
 " be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my cove- 
 '^ nant.(y ) Now, as the particular form here enjoined, 
 has been abrogated, while the substance of the seal con- 
 tinues under the form of baptism ; and as we have no 
 more right to decline obeying a divine command, than 
 we have to invent a religious ordinance, this command 
 must remain obligatory until it is repealed ; and if it has 
 not yet been repealed, it is now binding ; so that my first 
 argument for infant-baptism, drawn from a divine com- 
 mand, will stand good. That it is not repealed, then, 
 will be the subject of fifth and last proposition. 
 
 PROPOSITION Y. 
 
 The ADMINISTllATION OP THIS SEAL TO INFANTS HAS NEVER 
 SINCE BEEN PROHIBll'El) BY DIVINE AUTHORITV ; THAT IS, 
 THIS COMMAND OF GoD, ORIGINALLY GIVEN IN THE OlD 
 
 Testament, is not repealed in the New Testament, 
 
 BUT rather confirmed. 
 
 As I have already exposed every thing of my Oppo- 
 nent's, which could be considered an effort to prove a 
 
 (»Gen. xvii, 10. 11. 14. 
 
( ^^73 ) 
 
 repeal of this command, I shall proceed immediately to 
 point out some of those New Testament authorities, by 
 which it is rather confirmed than repealed. In doing 
 this, we shall consider, 1. The membership of infants. 
 2. The holiness of infants. 3. The discipleship of in- 
 fants. 
 
 POINT I. 
 
 Our Saviour so recognizes the church-mempership of in- 
 fantSy as to confirm the command for administering to 
 them the initiatory seal of the church. 
 
 ^•' And they brought unto him also infants, that he 
 ^^ would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they 
 '^ rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto liim, and 
 '^ said. Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid 
 " them not : for of such is the kingdom of God," or " the 
 '' kingdom of heaven," asanother Evangelist reads it. (/i) 
 
 There is great diversity of opinion concerning the 
 scope of this passage. Some think it chiefly intended to 
 teach that all infants are in a state of guiltless purity ; 
 that they are neither corrupt, nor deserving of punish- 
 ment; and that they will, of course, go to heaven, 
 either through their own innocence, or the atonement of 
 Christ, for a sin which, in their view, did not deserve 
 punishment : thus teaching that we are not depraved and 
 guilty in Adam, and that Christ's atonement was for in- 
 nocent people, who did not need it. 
 
 In opposition to this opinion. Dr. Gill remarks, that 
 little children " may be chosen of God, redeemed by the 
 
 {Ji) Jl,ukp xviii. 15, 16. Matt, xix, 14, 
 
( 276 ) 
 
 ^^ blood of Christ, and have the passive work of the Spi- 
 ^^ rit on their souls, and so enter into heaven ; but this 
 ^' is not the sense of this text/^ The Doctor observes, 
 that " It is as if our Lord should say, Don't drive away 
 ^^ these children from my person and presence ; they are 
 " lively emblems of the proper subjects of a gospel- 
 ^' church state, and of such that shall enter into the king- 
 '^ dom of heaven : by these I may instruct and point out 
 '' to you, what converted persons should be, who have 
 '^ a place in my church beloiv, and expect to enter into 
 ^^ my kingdom and glory above.(/) 
 
 If I understand the Doctor in these remarks, he ad- 
 mits that by '^ the kingdom of God,^^ and " the kingdom 
 of heaven ^^ our Saviour meant "my church helow,^^ ''a 
 gospel church-state ;'' as preparatory to eternal happi- 
 ness above. Even when our Saviour says, " My king- 
 dom is not of this world," Gill very properly under- 
 stands him to mean " His mediatorial kingdom,'' which 
 ^^ includes the whole gospel dispensation, Chinsfs visi- 
 ^^ ble church-state on earth, and the whole election of 
 ^^ grace."(?72) That the expression in this place does 
 mean the visible church, is admitted in my Opponent's 
 eighth argument against the ecclesiastical identity of the 
 Jewish and Christian societies. (?^) The same general 
 statement may be made concerning John's preaching, 
 '' Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
 '' By which is meant not the kingdom of glory to be ex- 
 " pected in another world," says Dr. Gill ; " It is the 
 
 (I) Gill on Matt, xix, lA, (m) Gill on John xviii. 56. 
 
 (7z) Spurious Debate, p. 229. 
 
( 277 ) 
 
 ^^ gospel dispensation which was about to take place," 
 says the Doctor ; and this interpretation my Opponent 
 makes the foundation of his second argument, (o) More- 
 over, our Saviour tells us that ever since the time of 
 John, '*• The kingdom of God is preached.'^ " The gos- 
 '^ pel dispensation,'^ says Gill. The visible church- 
 state, says my Opponent's third argument, (p) These 
 facts are intended to shew that the Pedobaptist under- 
 standing of this important phrase '^ the kingdom of hea- 
 ven," is conceded by the greatest Baptist commentator, 
 and the most zealous Baptist Polemic in the world : and 
 remember that the Commentator has admitted this inter- 
 pretation in the very text now in hand, in which he says 
 that the expression means the " gospel church-state," 
 '' my church below." Embody the commentary in the 
 text, and how will it read ? " Suffer little children to 
 ^^ come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is my 
 
 '' CHURCH BELOW." 
 
 This is evidently the import of other passages con- 
 taining the same expression. Our Saviour said to the 
 Jews, '' The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, 
 ^' and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits there- 
 '^ oV\q) As the Jews and their children were admit- 
 ted to church privileges, this threat indicated that they 
 and their children should be deprived of church privi- 
 leges : and when he promises to transfer these privileges 
 to the Christian church, where is the word which says, 
 ^' The promise is not unto you and to your children ?" 
 
 (o) Spur. Deb. p. 197. Sec Matt iii. 2. and Gill on it, 
 'Ji) (iill on Luke y ' 
 [q) Matt. xxi. 43. 
 
 (//) (iill on Luke xvi. 16. Spur. Debate, p. 197. 
 
( 278 ) 
 
 Again, '' I say unto you, that many shall come from 
 ^^ the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham 
 '^ and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven ; bat 
 ^^ the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into ut- 
 ^^ ter darkness.'^(r) On this passage, Dr. Gill correctly 
 remarks that ^^ the kingdom of heaven" means " The 
 ^^ church of God, which is his kingdom on earth.'' When 
 Jews sat in this kingdom, their infants sat with them, 
 by express permission from the king himself. His 
 language then was, ^^ Suffer little children to come 
 ^^ unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the 
 ^^ kingdom of heaven.'' When this great Head of 
 the church appeared in the flesh, to commence a new 
 administration of this same kingdom, did he tell them 
 that a rejection of infants was one of its features? His 
 language still was, ^^ SuflPer little children to come unto 
 ** me, and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom 
 ^^ of God," " my church below." 
 
 This conclusion which is inevitable, Dr. Gill endeav- 
 ours to avoid, by resorting to the Persic, Arabic, and 
 Syriac translations ; the last of which is far the most 
 ancient, and the one on which he most relies : as he con- 
 siders the first of them ^^ rather paraphrasing than 
 translating. '\s) From this he endeavours to shew that 
 the persons of whom our Saviour speaks as composing 
 his church below, were not real infants, but such adults 
 as resembled infants. The importance of our resembling 
 infants, is a sentiment which is certainly contained in 
 both the Old and New Testaments :(/) yet this is so far 
 
 (r) Mat viii. 11. 12. («) Gill on Mat, xix. 14. 
 
 (0 Ps. cxxxi. 2. Matt, xviii. 1—6. Mk. x. 15. 
 
( 279 ) 
 
 from militating against the church-membership of infants, 
 either among Jews or Christians, that it is an argument 
 in its favour. If adults ought never to be initiated until 
 they resemble infants, then the fitness of infants for initi- 
 ation is taken for granted. 
 
 But let us see what assistance Dr. Gill has obtained 
 from the Syriac version, in proving that it is adults, 
 and not infants, who belong to the church. A little la- 
 bour and attention in examining and comparing different 
 passages of that version, with what he has said about 
 them, will shew that he has refuted himself. In Matt, 
 xix 14, the Syriac reads, ^^ Suffer little children to 
 " come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of those who 
 ^^ are, daik elin,(w) such as these^ is the kingdom of 
 ^^ heaven.'' In Mark ix. 37. it reads, ^^ Whosoever 
 ^^ shall receive aik ena,(z;) as this little child, in my 
 *^ name, receiveth me.'' In Mark x. 14. this Version 
 reads '' Suffer little children to come unto me, and for- 
 ^^ bid them not ; for of those who are, daik elin, such 
 " as these, is the kingdom of God." I wish it noticed 
 that this passage reads, daik, such as, and the preceding 
 passage reads, aik, as, but that Dr. Gill reads aik, as, 
 in both texts, and in both he renders it by the 
 word like, which alteration and mistranslation are 
 both more favourable to his views, than if he had 
 recorded and translated it with perfect accuracy. It 
 may be, however, that he considers aik and daik sy- 
 nonimous. If so, we shall take him at his word, and 
 explore only one of them to ascertain the force of both. 
 But do not think that I shall weary you with many exam- 
 
 (m) r'yn yKi (v) wn y» 
 
( 280 ) 
 
 pies : two or three must suffice. The little Lexicon of 
 Gutbirius explains daik by the Latin word talis, 
 such asy and refers to Matt. ix. 8. to prove it. Here 
 the Syriac Version is as follows : ^^ But when this multi- 
 " tude saw, they feared and glorified God, that he had 
 '' given power, daik ena, such as this, to the sons 
 '' of men.'^ This was occasioned by our Saviour's heal- 
 ing " the sick of the palsy ;'' an outward miracle intend- 
 ed to set forth his omnipotent energy in healing our in- 
 ward diseases; just as our Saviour held up infants to the 
 view of his disciples, to set forth the necessity of the 
 new-birth. But the question is, what power the multi- 
 tude meant, in the view of the Syriac Translators, 
 when they spoke of a " power such as this^^ act of heal- 
 ing? Did they mean the outward miracle, or the in- 
 ward grace ? That they meant the latter, no man from 
 Syria, Persia, or Arabia, is simple enough to believe : 
 if they meant the former. Dr. GilPs whole fabric of 
 Syrian resemblances tumbles to pieces. On this subject 
 every man of common sense is compelled to adopt one 
 opinion, and Dr. Gill among the rest, as may be seen in 
 his Commentary. If, then, when the multitude spoke of 
 ^' power, DAIK ENA, such as thisy^^ they meant literal- 
 ly, the power of working miracles, and not figuratively, 
 the power of saving souls, which i^esembled it ; let us 
 then be consistent, and interpret such expressions literal- 
 ly of infants, and not confine them by figures, to pro- 
 fessing adults, because they resemble infants. This there- 
 fore settles the meaning of Dr. Gill's parallel passage, 
 just now quoted ; " Whosoever shall receive as this lit- 
 '* tie child in my name, receiveth me.'' There is also 
 
( 281 ) 
 
 another association between the two passages which need 
 not be overlooked. In Matt. ix. 8. there is a Latin 
 Translation of the Syriae which reads " potestatem 
 ^^ HUJUSMODi/^ for, ''power such as this ;^^ where 
 the literal miracle, and not the figurative grace, is con- 
 fessedly intended. So in Mark. ix. 37. the ancient 
 Vulgate Latin says, " Whosoever shall receive one, ex 
 ^' HUJUSMODI puERis, of children of this sort ;^^ that 
 is, real, literal, and not figurative children. 
 
 One more example will shew that Dr. Gill refutes 
 himself. It is Jas. iv. 16. The Syriae reads, " Ye 
 '' glory in your inflations: all glorying, daik en a, such 
 ^' as this, is from evil /' The Dr. refers to the Syriae 
 of this passage, but, forgetting his doctrine of resem- 
 blances, he gives these Syriae words precisely the same 
 rendering which our English Translators have given to 
 the original Greek. Instead of saying " all rejoicing 
 like this,^' he says, '^ all such rejoicing.'' Why could 
 he not understand the Syriae of Mark ix. 37. in the 
 same way ? ^' Whosoever shall receive one of such 
 *' children in my name." And why could he not thus 
 interpret the same word, in Matt. xix. 14, and Luke 
 xviii. 16. where the word children is confessedly im- 
 plied, and where there is only a little addition of the 
 characteristic verbosity of the Syriae language? 
 
 It is vain to contend that the authors of the Syriae 
 Version had doubts about the application of these passa- 
 ges to infant-baptism, when Tertullian himself, the boast 
 of the Baptists, admitted that it was a command to this 
 effect, although he became so wise as to dispute the pro- 
 priety of obeying it. In advocating the delay of bap- 
 N n 
 
( 282 ) 
 
 tism in the case of unmarried and bereaved believers, 
 (a whim of his own,) he says, " precipue tamen circa 
 ^' PARVULOS ; hut especially concerning little ones ;'^ the 
 very name which Jerome gives to the children which 
 our Saviour blessed. Then Tertullian, knowing that 
 this passage lay in his way, observes, "Ait quidem 
 
 '' DOMINUS, NOLITE ILLOS PROHIBERE AD ME VENIRE. 
 
 '' The Lord indeed saith, Forbid them not to come unto 
 " me :'^ a prohibition, the application of which to infant- 
 baptism he never once denies, but only urges pruden- 
 tial reasons for delaying obedience, "si non tam 
 ^' NECESSE, except when absolutely necessary, ^^ 
 
 As Robinson, in his History of Baptism, saw that this 
 testimony was fatal to his cause, he directed his artillery 
 against our understanding of the word, parvulos, little 
 onesj pretending that it meant adults. After all Dr. 
 Gill's ingenuity on the subject of resemblances, he found 
 that the Syriac could not help him out, if those were 
 real infants whom our Saviour blessed. He thinks that 
 there is evidence in the little Greek pronoun, auta, themy 
 in Luke xviii. 16. '' which shews that these infants were 
 ^^not new bom babes^ or children at the breast, but 
 *^ such as were more grown up, since they were capable 
 " of being called to, and of coming to Christ." In op- 
 posing this flimsy conceit, I need not lay much stress 
 upon the Ethiopic Version which he confesses is point- 
 edly against him ; I shall be satisfied with proving that 
 the infallible original, to which he has appealed, is 
 against him. If it can be shewn that these children 
 were not adults, then our Saviour's calling, o.vto., them, 
 unto him, will shew that he expected the call to be an- 
 
 \ 
 
( 283 ) 
 
 swered by those parents who brought them to him, or 
 those disciples who forbade them. 
 
 In Luke xviii. 15. it is said, " And they brought un- 
 ^^ to him also, <•» H^^n^ in f ants, ^^ In the next verse, Jesus 
 says, " Suffer, fa rtat$ta, little children, to come unto me.'^ 
 Now the question is, what do Brephos and Pais mean ? 
 In making out an answer, it would be well to follow a 
 rule which Dr. Ryland, an eminent Baptist controver- 
 sialist of England, has expressed as follows, viz. " Every 
 " word should be taken in the primary, obvious, and or- 
 '' dinary meaning, unless there be something in the 
 *^ connexion or in the nature of things which requires 
 *^ it to be taken otherwise. '^(i^;) And here let it be ob- 
 served, that in the time of Hesychius, the ancient Glos- 
 sographer, " the primary, obvious and ordinary mean- 
 '^ ing" of Pais was so decidedly childy that he did not 
 define it, but took this meaning for granted in his expla- 
 nation of, rtatSKJxot, boySy which he said were " o* «« 
 ^^ TtatSwv st5 avS^aj ^efaSau/ovT'fj, tJiose who avB changing 
 '^ from children to men,^^ One reason of the wonder 
 expressed on the occasion of '^ the children, tov^ TtatSaj,'^ 
 crying in the temple, was their tender age ; for they 
 were called " babes and sucklings."(^) The age, how- 
 ever, of those who suffered under Herod, cannot be 
 easily mistaken, since it is said that he " sent forth and 
 '' slew, rtttvfaf tovi rtatSaj, all the children, that were in 
 '^ Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two 
 '^ years old and under, ^^[y) 
 
 («;) Taylor's 4th Letter to a Deacon oF a Baptist Church, p. 28, 
 \x) Matt. xxi. 15. 16. {y) Matt. ii. 16. 
 
( 284 ) 
 
 As to the word Brephos^ Symmachus renders Ps. viii. 
 2, " Out of the mouth of bahes, /Spj^Qr, and sucklings^ 
 *^ thou hast perfected praise/' He, of course, meant 
 literal infants, as Dr. Gill admits that " the Jewish wri- 
 ^^ ters generally so understand it ;'' though the Doctor 
 himself very sagely confines it to adults, notwithstanding 
 the authority of the New Testament, which applies it to 
 infants. The New Testament gives farther evidence of 
 this, in what the Martyr Stephen says concerning the 
 cruelty of the Egyptians to the Israelites. He says that 
 '' they cast out to. iic^^Tj dvT-wr, their young childrenJ\z) 
 A reference to the first chapter of Exodus will shew that 
 these were what Peter calls ^' a^t^yzwrino. ?^t^ri^ new-born 
 babesy[a) Our new-born Redeemer was twice called 
 ^^ BREPHOS, the Babe, lying in a manger.'Y^) John the 
 Baptist is twice called " brephos en te koilia, the 
 unborn infanty{c) The use of it in Apocryphal writ- 
 ings is to the same end. In the Maccabees, it is said 
 concerning children lately circumcised, that the Offi- 
 cers of Antiochus " hanged, to. i3^ft»:? the infants, about 
 their necks."(c?) For administering circumcision in 
 another instance, the Officers of Ptolemy are said to have 
 led the captive mothers round about the city, " ta /3^£t»7, 
 the babes, hanging at their breast.''(e) And in Ecclus. 
 xix. 11, it denotes an infant as yet unborn. Damm, in 
 his Homeric Lexicon, shews that both these meanings 
 of the word are in accordance with Classical usage : and 
 the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary has shewn that " the 
 primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning" of Bkephos, 
 
 (z) Acts vii. 19. (a) 1 Pet. ii. 2. (A) Luke ii. 12. 16. 
 
 (c) Luke I 41, 44. (d) 1 Mac. i. 61. (e) 2 Map. vi. 10. 
 
( 285 ) 
 
 according to Eustathius and Phavoriniis^ is, " A new- 
 " horn child, nourished by the teat, from his birth, un- 
 " til he be four years oldP Dr. Wall has shewn(t(;) that 
 Mr. Gale's supercanonical book of the fourth century, 
 called Clemenfs Constitutions, produces this text in 
 support of infant baptism, as follows, viz. ^^ Baptize your 
 '' infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admo- 
 '' nition of God ; for he says, ' Suffer little children to 
 " come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the 
 '' kingdom of God.' '' And the author of a ^^ Defence 
 of the Waldenses,''(o) has quoted their interpretation of 
 this text, as exhibited in their own Confession of Faith, 
 presented at diiferent periods to Ladislaus and Ferdi- 
 nand, kings of Bohemia, in which this language occurs, 
 viz. " Likewise they teach that children are to be bap- 
 ^' tized, and to be consecrated to Christ, according to 
 '' his word, ' Suffer little children to come unto me, and 
 ^* forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of hea- 
 '' ven.' '' 
 
 Seeing that Inspired usage, and Classical and Apocry- 
 phal usage harmonize in proving that these words de- 
 note literal infants; and seeing that the Primitive church 
 and that of the Waldenses considered the text in ques- 
 tion as authorizing infant-baptism ; then we are bound 
 by Dr. Ryland's own rule, to believe that infants must 
 be here intended, according to " the primary, obvious, 
 " and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in 
 ^^ the connexion or in the nature of things, which re- 
 ^' quires it to be taken otherwise." In the present case, 
 
 (w) Defence against Mr. Gale, p. 45. (o) Pagp 48, 
 
( 286 ) 
 
 however, both the connexion and the nature of things 
 are in our favour. With regard to the doctrine of re- 
 semblances, would it not be as well to hold up lambs or 
 doves to the audience, and say, " of such is the church 
 below,'' meaning, " of such adults as resemble these 
 lambs or doves in innocence ?'' But suppose that they 
 were Dr. Gill's adults instead of infants, who were set 
 forth to the audience. Then it would mean, " of such 
 adults as resemble these adults, is my church below." 
 But let us see how the connexion supports this interpre- 
 tation. Is it said that these persons came to Christ them- 
 selves ? No, their parents brought them ; " and his 
 disciples rebuked those that brought them," from the 
 apparent impropriety of obtruding children, such as Ig- 
 natius was at that time, (for he is said to have been one 
 of these infants,) upon the attention of one w^ho was so 
 much occupied with adults. But the context says, 
 moreover, that " he took them up in his arms," or, as 
 the Syriac says, ^^upon his arms," or, ^^into his bosom," 
 according to the Ethiopic and Persic translations, as re- 
 ported by Dr. Gill : so that the context and exigency of 
 the case conspire with the best usage and the most au- 
 thentic definitions, to prove that our Saviour held lite- 
 ral infants in his arms, and that, of such literal infants, 
 he declared his " church below" to be composed. If 
 then, they be members of the Christian church, they 
 became so, by receiving baptism, the initiatory seal; 
 wherefore, instead of a repeal of the Old Testament law 
 on this subject, we here have an evident confirmation of 
 it. 
 
( 287 ) 
 
 POINT II. 
 
 4^n inspired Apostle so recognizes the seminal holiness of in- 
 fonts, as to confirm the command for administering to them 
 the initiatory seal of the church. 
 
 '^ For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the 
 ^^ wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
 '^ husband : else were your children unclean ; but now 
 ^^ are they holyP{f) 
 
 In common with Pedobaptists in general, I am consci- 
 entiously convinced, that the holiness here attributed to 
 the infants of believers, is that seminal holiness which 
 entitles them to the initiatory seal of the church. But 
 as this is warmly and pertinaciously disputed by the ad- 
 vocates of other sorts of holiness, I am willing, with the 
 leave of my hearers, to give a candid and patient atten- 
 tion to every interfering claim. If, then, ecclesiastical 
 holiness be not here intended, what sort was intended ? 
 Was it spiritual holiness, or domestic holiness, or civil 
 holiness ? Let us examine their respective claims. 
 
 1 . Spiritual holiness. Might I not say that this inter- 
 pretation is quashed by matter of fact? as also, by what 
 the scriptures say of the small proportion of those who 
 are sanctified from their birth, whether one or both 
 parents professed religion. On this subject, I agree with 
 a remark of my Opponent, in his spurious publication 
 against Mr. Walker,(^) where he says, '' If, then, their 
 ^' sin or sins, previous to sprinkling, had been forgiven 
 *' them, they would have had all their sins forgiven 
 
 (/) 1 Cor. vii. 14. (5") p. 175, 
 
( 2&8 ) 
 
 '^ them, and would have led lives quite different. They 
 '' would have been sanctified as well as pardoned : for 
 ^^ pardon, justification, sanctification, and salvation, are 
 ^^ inseparably connected.'^ 
 
 2. Domestic holiness. Dr. Macknight, who misses 
 very few opportunities of declining from the good old 
 way, thinks that each of the parties is sanctified or made 
 fit, by his own affections, to live with the other : else 
 were their children unholy ; that is, their parents would 
 not love, nor (on that account,) feed and educate them. 
 One of the most imposing of his remarks in support of 
 this theory, is, a very plausible insinuation that the ho- 
 liness of the children depends '' on their parents living 
 together.'^ This, like a thousand other things of his, is a 
 mere figment of his own fancy. So also is his pretend- 
 ing that a separation of the parents would deprive the 
 children of food and education. Is this the conduct of 
 a believing father, when deserted by an idolatrous wife? 
 or would the scriptures have sanctioned a separation at- 
 tended with such consequences ? As there was a want 
 of evidence in his Commentary and note, he refers for 
 additional light to his Essay 4th, Section 38th, where 
 he shews that the word common means unclean ; a thing 
 which no one denies. He refers also to the 53d Section 
 of the same Essay, where he endeavours to prove that 
 the word sanctify has the desired meaning, by referring 
 to 1 Cor. vii. 14, the very text in question ; thus reason- 
 ing in a circle, by making the Essay prove the note, and 
 the note the Essay. 
 
 3. Civil holiness. As the former interpretation relat- 
 ed to the domestic comforts of the married state, tliis 
 
( 289 ) 
 
 relates to the lawfulness of marriage., as a civil transac- 
 tion. It is as old as the seventeenth century ; for it was 
 then urged by the Anabaptists, in their public Debate 
 with Doctor Featley.(/i)- The amount of it is this ; that 
 the sanctijication of the parents to each other, is sim- 
 ply their marriage to each other ; and the holiness of 
 the children is simply their legitimacy. Dr. Gill es- 
 pouses this scheme very decidedly ; and rests his whole 
 defence of it, upon ^^ the Misnic, Tahnudic, and Rab- 
 '' binic writings !! P^ From these he gives a long quo- 
 tation, in which he correctly asserts that "^e word 
 ^' which is used to sanctify, or be sanctified, in the He- 
 ^' brew language, is used to espouse, or be espoused, no 
 '^ less than ten times." He professes to give this extract 
 ^^ instead of a thousand that might be produced." Does 
 not this armament loom as formidably as the Spanish 
 Armada? But there is something else belonging to 
 Spain which can match it exactly. The writings of 
 Popes and Cardinals, Bishops and Monks, are to the 
 Roman Catholics, as the Misnical, Talmudical, and Rab- 
 binical writings are to the Jews, and, (in the present 
 pinch,) to Dr. Gill : and, mark it well, that the Jewish 
 writers are not more clear in converting sanctification 
 into marriage, than the Popish writings are, in convert- 
 ing marriage into sanctification, or, into a sacrament. 
 Now it would have been very easy for Dr. Gill to pro- 
 duce from a Popish writer, one passage, in which mar- 
 riage was called a sacrament ten times ; and to give this 
 instead of a thousand that might have been produced. 
 
 (A) See the 8th page of the Doctor's account of that combat, 
 
 O o 
 
( 290 ) 
 
 Why, then, does not Dr. Gill believe marriage to be a 
 sacrament J as well as that saiictijication is marriage ? 
 The evidence for both is much the same, as to weight 
 and respectability. The one is supported by the tra- 
 ditionary legends of Jewish Rabbi's, written several 
 hundred years after Christ ; the other is supported by 
 the traditionary legends of Popish Doctors, written 
 several hundred years after the Apostles. The one is 
 supported, as Dr. Gill says, by the writings of Jerome, 
 a Christian Father ; the other is supported, as the Pa- 
 pists say, by Jerome's Latin Vulgate, in Eph. v. 32, 
 where he expressly says, concerning marinage, '^ sa- 
 ^' CRAMENTUM HOC MAGNUM EST, this ts a great sa- 
 *^ cramentJ^ Here we have Jerome and the Rabbi's 
 for the Baptist error, and Jerome and the Doctors for 
 the Popish error ; all of them living and writing se- 
 veral hundred years after the Apostles, and having 
 no more right to an arbitrary dictation in sacred criti- 
 cism, than Dr. Gill or the Pope. For this I have 
 the authority of Dr. Gill himself; for although 
 he pleads Jewish inventions, to relieve him from a 
 New Testament authority, which they have never 
 expounded, yet he refuses to follow them in the very 
 same view of an Old Testament text which they have 
 explained. While he is endeavouring to prove that 
 Paul's sanctification means marriage, he strengthens 
 his cause by saying, '' So the Jews interpret the 
 word sanctified, in Job. i. 5. he espoused to them 
 ^^ wives,'^ Yet when you turn over to the Doctor's 
 commentary upon Job. i. 5. you find that he pays no 
 attention to these Jewish espousals, but espoiises him- 
 
{ 291 ) 
 
 self the Cliristiaii interpretation of the passage, in such a 
 manner as to favour our cause in more respects than one. 
 
 On this subject, I have a question to propose to the 
 learned world. I wish information. If marriage is in- 
 tended in 1 Cor. vii. 14. then I ask, Is there another 
 instance to be found, in the Greek Scriptures, from 
 Genesis to Revelation, where the object is governed 
 by the preposition en ? In the present text, the suppo- 
 sed marrying verb is in the Passive voice, and the object 
 in the dative case, governed, not by the verb, but by 
 the aforesaid preposition. We have marrying verbs in 
 the passive, in Mk. x. 12. Rom. vii. 4. Gen. xx. 3. 
 Deut. xxi. 13. xxii. 22. but these verbs govern the ob- 
 ject in the dative, without an intervening preposition. 
 We have such verbs in the active, in Is. Ixii. 5. Deut. 
 xxv. 5. with which you might collate Ecclus. xxv. 8. 
 16. 2 Mace. i. 14. but these verbs also govern the dative 
 of the object, without an intervening preposition. We 
 have, moreover, such verbs in 1 Chr. ii. 21. Neh. xiii. 
 23. Matt. V. 32. xix. 9, 2ice. Mk. vi. 17. x. 11. 
 Luke xiv. 20. but they all govern the accusative with- 
 out an intervening preposition. If, therefore, we may 
 judge by the style of the Apostles, and Evangelists, and 
 Alexandrian Jews, who formed the style of the whole 
 nation, it is extremely improbable that Paul meant mar- 
 riage, when, in the text under review, he spoke of sane- 
 tijication ; especially, when sanctijication does not sig- 
 nify marriage nor legitimacy in any other place in the 
 whole scriptures. 
 
 But Dr. Gill well knew, that after the Apostles were 
 dead, and his Jewish Rabbi's of a later date came on the 
 
( 292 ) 
 
 stage, they cultivated an .invincible hostility, not only to 
 the New Testament, but to their own most venerable 
 Septuagint, because it was so eminently useful in illus- 
 trating and supporting the New Testament. It was 
 after this invidious apostacy from the ancient style of 
 their nation, that they began to call marriage^ sanctifi- 
 cation : but as this usage is a mere innovation, perfectly 
 unknown in the Old or New Testament, it is of no more 
 authority in controlling sacred criticism, than is a news- 
 paper published last year in Modern Greek. 
 
 Let us, therefore, turn to an unadulterated Hellenist 
 of the first Century, and ask how he would understand 
 the text. ^^ For the unbelieving husband is sanctified 
 f^ by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by 
 ^ the husband : else were your children unclean ; but 
 ^^ now are they holy." That he would never conjecture 
 that marriage and legitimacy were here intended, is evi- 
 dent from this important consideration ; that he had 
 never before heard such language with such a meaning. 
 Notwithstanding this, the language would be per- 
 fectly familiar, and the meaning perfectly obvious. 
 Every part of the Old Testament, and every part 
 of Jerusalem and Judea brings consecrated things to 
 his view. There he sees a holi/ land and ground ;(/) 
 hall/ mountains and hills ; ( /) holi/ cities and houses, 
 chambers, instruments, and vessels; (A) holi/ tithes and 
 first-fruits, gifts, off*erings, oblations, and portions ;(/} 
 
 (i) Zech. ii. 12. Ex. iii. 5. (j) Is. xxvii. 12. Ps. xcix. 9. 
 
 {k) Is. Ixiv. 10. 1 Chr. xxix 3. Ez. xlii. 13. Num. xxxi. 6. 1 Sam. 
 xxi. 5. 
 
 (/) Lev. xxvii. 30. Ez. xlviii, 14. Ex. xxviii. 38. 2 Chr. xxxv. 13. Ez. 
 xlviu. 10. 3tlv. 14. 
 
( 293 ) 
 
 holy garments and crowns ;(m) holy nation^ congrega- 
 tion, and flock, (;?) holy persons, and holy seed.(o) 
 
 The holy flock here mentioned, Dr. Gill justly con- 
 siders as meaning " Flocks of sheep which were conse- 
 '' crated and set apart for holy uses, for sacrifices/' 
 These flocks of sheep Ezekiel expressly compares to 
 ^' flocks of men.'' The Doctor reminds us, that in one 
 of these holy flocks of sheep, there were as many as 
 thirty thousand lambs given by king Josiah alone. (j&) 
 The sheep and lambs of these holy flocks, corresponded 
 with the adults and infants of those " flocks, of men.'' 
 which they typified ; for the first-born of the one and 
 the other were sanctified, or made holy, to the Lord. 
 The Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, therefore, justly in- 
 sists, that when our Saviour said to Peter, " feed my 
 '^ sheep," ^' feed my lambs," he had regard to the 
 Apostle's duty toward the adults and infants of the 
 church \{q) and these were assuredly embraced in the 
 holy seed mentioned by Ezra. Our Hellenistic Jew, 
 then, would find himself perfectly at home, when ex- 
 amining the New Testament regulations concerning holy 
 children ; for they are the holy seedy to which he con- 
 siders himself as belonging, from his infancy. He 
 would therefore say, as we have done, that the Apostle 
 here speaks of 
 
 4. Seminal holiness. Dr. Macknight and Dr. Gill 
 
 {m) Lev. xvi. 4. Ex. xxix. 6. 
 In) Ex. xix. 6. Num. xvi. 3. Ez. xxxvi. 38. 
 (o) Ps. Ixxxvi. 2. Ex. xiii. 2. (Comp. Luke ii, 23.)Ezr. ix. 2. 
 Ifi) OnEz, xxxvi. 38. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 7 — 9, 
 (</) John xxi. 15. 16. Taylor's Fourth Letter to a Deacon of a Bap- 
 tist church, p. 28. 
 
( 294 ) 
 
 think that our scheme refutes itself, by understanding 
 sanctificati6n in different senses. They should remem- 
 ber, however, that this is correct with regard to many 
 words, and with none more than the one in question. 
 Dr. Pocock, in his notes on the Porta Mosis of Maimo- 
 nides, says, '' Notissimum est et quod sanctum, 
 
 ^^ ET QUOD A SANCTITATE LONGISSIME REMOTUM EST : 
 
 ^' It is very remarkable that [it signifies] both ivhat is 
 " holy, and what is farthest reinoved from holiness,^^ 
 No Hebrew scholar will probably deny, that it signifies 
 one who is separated or consecrated to purity , and one 
 who is consecrated or separated to prostitution ; which 
 latter sort of consecration the sacred writers knew to 
 exist among the Heathen. Yet even in this diametrical 
 opposition of meanings, you find the general idea of 
 separation consistently maintained. So it is in the Pedo- 
 baptist explanation of the text. The Old Testament 
 law passed an indiscriminate sentence of desec7*ation 
 upon all foreign and mingled seed. It made no distinc- 
 tion between a child born of a Jew and Heathen, and a 
 child born of two Heathens. They were both alike un- 
 holy, and, on that account, not to be circumcised. But 
 what says the New Testament law ? It informs us that 
 there is now a distinction between mingled seed, and 
 that which is entirely foreign ; so that the former is holy, 
 although the latter is not. The connexion of the believ- 
 ing with the unbelieving parent, so far separates the 
 unbeliever from the mass of the Heathen world, that the 
 child is not, as formerly, polluted by his Heathenism ; 
 but is holy^ and, on that account, has a right to the Chris- 
 tian circumcision, as if both parents were believers. 
 
( ^95 ) 
 
 But now let us try Macknight and Gill by their own 
 rule, and read the text upon their plans, with that con- 
 sistency which they demand of others. In making 
 Macknight consistent, I shall read his own paraphrase of 
 the two first clauses of the text, and then make the rest 
 to accord with them. It is as follows, viz. ^^ For the 
 '^ Infidel husband is sanctified^ is fitted to remain mar- 
 '' ried to the believing wife, by his affection for her ; 
 '' and the infidel wife is sanctified, to the believing 
 ^' husband, by her affection for him, otherwise certain- 
 '' ly your children ivotild be^^ ' unclean, unfitted to re- 
 ^ main married to their parents, for want of affection, 
 ' but now are they holy, fitted by their affection to re- 
 ' main in the married state.' This is making sanctifica- 
 tion the same thing throughout ; that is, a fitness for 
 marriage, by means of affection : whereas, in one part 
 of the text, Macknight makes it mean the reception of 
 food and education, which many doubtless receive with- 
 out being fit for marriage. 
 
 But as Dr. Gill asserts that holiness is marriage itself, 
 instead of a fitness for marriage, let us try how a consis- 
 tent translation upon this plan will do. I shall give the 
 two first clauses in his own words, as follows, viz. " For 
 " the unbelieving husband is espoused to the wife, andj 
 '' the unbelieving wife is espoused to the husband :''• 
 ^ else were your children unmarried ; but now are they 
 ' married.' This makes holiness signify marriage, con- 
 sistently throughout the verse : whereas the Doctor 
 makes it mean the marriage of an adult in one place, and 
 in another the legitimacy of an infant ; which are two 
 distinct things, since there are many legitimate infa^s^its 
 
( 296 ) 
 
 which are not married, and many illegitimate adults who 
 are married. 
 
 In this procedure there is a grossness of inconsistency 
 which deserves your particular attention. What Paul 
 means by the holiness of infants, is the very point in dis- 
 pute. We say, that it means seminal holiness^ or a he- 
 reditary qualification for initiation into the church, a 
 meaning which is abundantly established by scriptural 
 usage. Dr. Gill says, that it means the civil legitimacy 
 of infants, in which sense it is not used in the Scrip- 
 tures ; but he evidently wishes his reader to believe that 
 his Jewish writers support this interpretation by innu- 
 merable examples. Would you suppose, that after his 
 dazzling display of ^^Misnic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic'^ 
 authorities, he has not quoted one single proof that even 
 an infidel Jew ever understood holiness to mean legiti- 
 macy of birth ? The ten cases which he has cited, and 
 the ten thousand to which he refers, prove, without one 
 alledged exception, that his Jewish writers considered it 
 to mean marriage, a signification which is sometimes in- 
 compatible with the other: for if holiness mean mar- 
 riage, then Jeptha, the deliverer of Israel, was holy; but 
 if it mean legitimacy, then Jeptha was unholy. Accord- 
 ing to the Doctor's own account, therefore, his interpre- 
 tation is perfectly destitute of support, from the Bible, 
 the Talmud, or any thing else. 
 
 A few minutes ago, I mentioned that the Doctor dif- 
 fered from the Jewish writers in their interpretation of 
 Job i. 5, and that, on that passage, he favoured our cause 
 in more respects than one. He agrees with our Trans- 
 lators, *^ Job sent and sanctified them.*' The Jews read 
 
( 297 ) 
 
 it, ^^ He espoused them to wives/' On examination, we 
 shall find that their discrepancy is very remarkable ; but 
 not more so, than the Doctors agreement with us. For 
 the true meaning of ecclesiastical holiness, he refers to 
 Ex. xix. 10. 11. 14. 15, where he shews that sanctifi- 
 cation is an external washing of the body and garments, 
 and abstaining from sensual pleasures, even from lawful 
 marriage ! This is the very opposite of the Jewish es- 
 pousals. When ablution is used as an outward sign of 
 spiritual and ecclesiastical holiness, we call it haptism: 
 yet according to Dr. Gill, the washing just now mention- 
 ed, signifies inward and ontward holiness ; and, as if he 
 were going to turn Pedobaptist outright, he produces 
 Gen. XXXV. 2. 3, to shew that it extended to households. 
 Here we have the Doctor proving that sanctijication 
 means, not marriage^ but a washing to purify a man 
 and his household. This is the way in which he should 
 have explained Paul's declaration concerning holy chil- 
 dren : for it is, in fact, a confirmation of the Old Testa- 
 ment command that they should receive that seal of ini- 
 tiation, which is a sign of pardon and justification, and a 
 sign and means of sanctification ; the form of which seal, 
 in the days of Paul, was an application of water. 
 
 It should not be passed without notice, that Dr. Gill 
 and Dr. Macknight, and my Opponent, who for the sake 
 of immersion, are generally anxious to prove that, ev, \_en,'] 
 signifies in, are nevertheless willing to give up this no- 
 tion in the present case, for the sake of what they think 
 a more important point. They all consider it high trea- 
 son against criticism, for us to say that en Ainon, means 
 at Enony and that en Jordane, means, at the Jordan: 
 
 pp 
 
( 298 ) 
 
 yet when it will serve a turn against Pedobaptisnij they 
 can prove^ as Dr. Gill has formally undertaken to do, 
 that en sometimes means to. Notwithstanding this, I 
 hope to prove from the writings of these men them- 
 selves, that in such places as our text, it signifies by. 
 
 Some time ago, I suggested a very serious doubt, 
 whether one instance could be found in the whole Greek 
 Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, in which, after 
 a marrying verb, the object was governed by the pre- 
 position en. To prove the improbability that such an 
 instance can be found, I shewed that the current of 
 Scripture is against such a construction. But can 
 it be said that the current of Scripture is against such 
 a construction, where verbs of sanctifying and not mar- 
 rying are concerned ? In such cases there is nothing 
 more common than for the object(r) to be governed 
 by the preposition en ; and there is nothing more com- 
 mon than that Dr. Gill, and my Opponent, and all 
 the Baptists, agree with us in translating it hy instead 
 of to. In order that you may perceive the exact re- 
 semblance in the construction of the text and other 
 passages, I wish you to mark the way in which it 
 reads; *^For the unbelieving husband is sanctified, en 
 TE GUNAiKi, by the wife^ and the unbelieving wife 
 is sanctified, en to andui, by the husband,'^ To save 
 your time we shall quote parallels, in as few words as 
 possible. They are as follows, viz. ^' I will be sancti- 
 fied, EN MESO, in the midst^ Gill, by the children of Is- 
 rael.'' " I will be sanctified, en doxe mou, Gill, by my 
 ^loryJ^^ Besides which, half a dozen other examples 
 
 (r) Or, I might rather say, the nitans, agent, or author. 
 
( 299 ) 
 
 from the Septuagint are at hand.(s) To tliese we add 
 the following from the New Testament, viz. ^^Sanctilied, 
 EN ALETHEiAj hy the truthP " Sanctified, en Theo 
 Patki, hy God the Father,''^ " En ho, hy which, he 
 was sanctified/^ " Sanctified, en Pneumati hagio, 
 hy the Holy Spirit J' " Sanctified, en Christo Jesou, 
 hy Christ Jesus,^^ " But ye are washed, but ye are 
 sanctified, but ye are justified, en to onomati, in or 
 hy the name of the Lord Jesus, and en to Pneumati, 
 hy [so my Opponent renders it,] hy the Spirit of our 
 God/^(/) The two last passages are in the same Epistle 
 with our text : and all of them are so plain, that neither 
 Macknight, Gill, nor my Opponent insinuates that they 
 relate to marriage or legitimacy, or that en signifies to. 
 If, then, sanctification always means sanctification, when 
 connected as it is in our text, why should we make our 
 text an exception ? and if marriage or legitimacy can 
 never be found so connected, why should we force them 
 into the text ? Should we not rather say with Tremel- 
 lius, that the preposition used by the Apostle is a He- 
 braism, for PER, hy ; which Castallio and the ancient Vul- 
 gate have adopted, notwithstanding Dr. Gill's unproved 
 assertion, that Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, fa- 
 voured his interpretation. 
 
 The truth is, the Epistle of Jerome to Leta, whose 
 Christian mother had married Albinus, a heathen priest, 
 expressly gives this text the sanctifying interpretation, 
 even in a stronger sense than I have advocated. He 
 makes the sanctifying of an unbeliever to be the con- 
 
 (s) Lev. xxii. 32. Ex. xxix. 43. Ez. xx. 41. xxxvi. 23. xxviii. 22. 
 25. xxxix. 27. xxxviii. 16. 
 (0 John xvii. 19. Jude i. Heb. x. 29. Rom. xv. 16. 1 Cor. i. 2. vi, U. 
 
( 300 ) 
 
 verting, ov prohahility of converting him."(t/) This is 
 certainly very wide of that marrying or legitimating 
 interpretation which is, without evidence, attributed to 
 him by Dr. Gill. His pretext for this may be, that in a 
 certain instance, Jerome refers Paulinas to Tertullian's 
 explanation of this text. Now, although Tertullian is 
 very vehemently claimed by my Opponent, it will ap- 
 pear, on examination, that Tertullian saw nothing of 
 marriage or legitimacy in this text, but that sort of holi- 
 ness which is enjoyed in being born of water and of the 
 Spirit, or, (as he understood it,) in baptism and sancti- 
 fication, " Paulinus writes to Jerome this question, 
 ' How are they holy, when as without the gift of the 
 ' grace [viz. baptism] given them afterward [after their 
 ' birth] and preserved, they cannot be saved ?'^ ^ Among 
 other solutions of this question, Jerome refers Paulinus 
 to the explanation which Tertullian had given of this 
 text, as follows, viz. ^^The Apostle says that when born 
 ' of a sanctified parent of either sex, children are holy ; 
 ^ as from seminal prerogative, so from the instituted dis- 
 ' cipline : [or, the discipline of institution :] else, says 
 ^ he, were they born unclean : but yet meaning to be 
 ^ undei'stood thus : that the children of the faithful are 
 ' designed for holiness^ and so for salvation ; that by a 
 ^ pledge of such hope he might plead for those mar- 
 ' riages which he would have to be continued. Other- 
 ' wise, [or, as for any other meaning] he knew well 
 ' enough what our Lord had determined, Except one 
 ' be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter 
 
 (u) Wall's History, Pait 1. Chap. 19. Sect. 19. 
 
( 301 ) 
 
 '^ into the kingdom of God.''(z^) From such evidence as 
 this, Dr. Wall very honestly concludes " that Tertullian 
 '' differs from them [that is, from Augustine and Pela- 
 '' gius in their comments on this text,] only in this, that 
 ^^ he [Tertullian] expounds the holiness that such chil- 
 ^^ dren have by the prerogative of their birth, by these 
 '' words, SANCTiTATi DESiGNATi, designed for holi- 
 " ness, because he reckons and proves from Scripture, 
 " that they cannot be actually holy, till they are actually 
 ^' baptized ; and that Jerome and Paulinus speak to the 
 " same effect. ''(t(;) 
 
 Tertullian calls baptism, by v^hich the infants of be- 
 lievers are made holy, institutionis disciplina, the 
 discipline of institution ; that is, an ordinance by which 
 they are made disciples, according to Christ's appoint- 
 ment. Thus Augustine considers it in the following 
 passage, viz. " But that is to be held without any doubt, 
 " that whatever that holiness, illa sanctificatio, 
 '' may be, it is not available to the making of them Chris- 
 " tians, or to the pardon of sins, unless they be made be- 
 '' lievers, fideles, [according to him, infants can be 
 '' made Christians and believers] Christiana et eg- 
 
 " CLESIASTICA INSTITUTIONE ET SACRAMENTIS, by the 
 
 " Christian and ecclesiastical institution and sacra- 
 " menisP That he here means the sacrament of bap- 
 tism, which is the initiatory institution of the Christian 
 church, is evident from the words immediately following 
 
 {y) ''Hinc enim et Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos 
 procreari ait ; tarn ex seminis prerogativa quam ex institutionis discipli- 
 na," &c. See Wall's History, Part 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Chap. 19. 
 Sect 1 9. 
 
 (7y) Wall's Hist Part. 1. Chap. 11, Sect 11. 
 
( 302 ) 
 
 those which have just been quoted, viz. '^ For neither 
 ^' are unbelieving husbands or wives, how holy and just 
 " partners soever they have, cleansed from the iniquity 
 '' which keeps them from the kingdom of God, and 
 " brings them to damnation ; nor are infants? of how holy 
 '' and just parents soever they come, pardoned the guilt 
 '' of original sin, unless they [that is, the one and the 
 ^^ other,] be baptized in Christ. (^) The same Father, 
 in explaining this text in relation to the Apostolic 
 churches, says, " For there were then Parvuli 
 '^ Christiani, Christian infants, that were sanctified, 
 '' some by the authority of one of their parents, some by 
 " the consent of both."(?/) Here he speaks of baptized 
 infants as those which were sanctified by parental autho- 
 rity. .In proof that he undoubtedly meant baptismal 
 sanctificatiouj I would read another passage reported by 
 Dr. Wall ; according to whom, " St. Austin, in his 
 ^^ questions on Leviticus, has this inquiry ; How it is 
 ^* meant that Moses should sanctify the high priest, 
 ^^ Lev. xxi. 8. when God says, verse 15, ^I the Lord 
 ^' do sanctify him V In answer to which he distinguish- 
 ^^ es between the visible sanctification and the invisible: 
 ^' and after some discourse that the invisible is the chief, 
 ^' but yet that the other is not to be neglected, says, 
 ^' 'Hence Cornelius and they that were with him, when 
 ^' ' they appeared to be already sanctified invisibly by 
 ^' ^ the Holy Ghost coming on them, were, for all that, 
 '^ ' baptized : nor was the visible sanctification counted 
 '^ ' needless because the invisible was before.^ ^^{z) 
 
 (x) Wall's History. Part 1. Chap. 19. Sect. 19. 
 ly) Wall's History, Part 1. Chap. 15. Sect. 2. 
 (r) Wall's History, Part 1. Chap, 11. Sect. 19. 
 
( 303 ) 
 
 That Chrysostom also had substantially the same views, 
 will appear from his comment on 1 Cor. i. 2. where he 
 says^ that sanctijication means " the laver^ [viz. of bap- 
 tism^] the cleansing.^^(a) In accordance with this, 
 Bingham informs us that " Theodoret and others ex- 
 plain the word^ ay tot, saints ^ or sanctified ones, to be 
 such as were vouchsafed the honour and privilege of bap- 
 tism. ^^(Z>) Wall cites Ainsworth, Lightfoot, Hammond, 
 &c. as shewing most fully and clearly that this was the 
 understanding of the Jews, in relation to the ceremonial 
 sanctifications of their law, which indeed Paul himself 
 calls diverse baptisms Xc) These authorities go to shew 
 that the Ecclesiastical Fathers expounded 1 Cor. vii. 14. 
 of infants' holiness in our sense : yet, as Dr. Fishback 
 and my Opponent pretended, that, Calvin and Beza had 
 originated our doctrine, that circumcision and baptism 
 were the same seal ; so Mr. Tombes, in his Debate with 
 Mr. Baxter asserts, that we " cannot find any one author 
 that expoundeth 1 Cor. vii. 14. of infants holiness in'' 
 Mr. Baxter's ^^ sense, before Luther and Zuinglius!!"(c?) 
 These assertions are equally wise, and they both resem- 
 ble that of the Roman Catholic priest, who said, that the 
 Reformers originated the Greek Testament. 
 
 But in Mr. Baxter's Report of his Debate with Mr. . 
 Tombes, he reminds him of a singular concession which 
 he made in relation to this text. Says he to Mr. Tombes, 
 the Baptist champion, " You yielded that the word sane- 
 
 (a) Wall's Hist. Part. 1. Chap. 11, Sect. 19. 
 
 \b) Bingham's Antiquities, Book 1, Chap. 1. p. 3. quoted in Wall's De- 
 fence against Gale, p. 384. 
 (c) Hebr. ix. 10. Wall's Hist. Part 1. Chap. 11. Sect 19. 
 {d) Baxter's Report of the Debate, p. 208. 
 
( 304 ) 
 
 '^ tify, and holy, is taken in my sense near six hundred 
 '' times in scripture, and no where else once in your 
 " sense ; and yet pleaded, that here it must be taken in 
 '' yours, and not in mine, without showing any ground 
 " for a necessity of it!^^(e) Strange as this may seem, 
 the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary has furnished us with 
 a concession no less remarkable on the same text, from 
 one of the most learned and zealous Baptist controver- 
 sialists now living. In the close of the preface of a work 
 called ^^The Baptists Self- convicted," the Editor speaks 
 as follows: viz. ^^Mr. Anderson [the learned Baptist,] 
 '' abandons the brethren (servants) of Lydia ; he ex- 
 '' pressly renounces the idea Q>i legitimacy as denoted by 
 ^' the term holy in reference to children ; and I under- 
 " stand that nobody now thinks of arguing on the ' much 
 '' water' of Enon ! These are hopeful symptoms.'' In the 
 same Author's second series of " Facts and Evidences 
 ^' on the subject of Baptism."(/) he quotes Mr. Ander- 
 son's words. They are as follows, viz. " To interpret 
 " holy (Vyta) as signifying legitimate, is not authorized 
 ^^ by any example, from sacred or profane writers!!" 
 Some would think this a surrender ; but it is intended 
 only as a capitulation : for while this zealous Anabaptist 
 was relinquishing one untenable position, he was stipu- 
 lating for another, which he vainly thought impregnable. 
 He was just exchanging an old exposed perversion of the 
 text, for a novel perversion which he thought more plau- 
 sible. He fled from Gill's civil holiness, to take shelter 
 under Macknight's domestic holiness. He could no 
 
 {e) Baxter's Report of the Debate, p. 208. (/) p. 64. 
 
( 305 ) 
 
 longer believe that PauFs infant holiness signified legi- 
 tlmacy, for the very good reason* that this meaning '' is 
 '' not authorised by any example, from sacred or profane 
 '' writers.'^ From this we should expect at least a few 
 collations of the word in his newly discovered meaning. 
 But what examples has he given us, in which either 
 Sacred or Profane writers have spoken of the holiness 
 of infants, to mean their clothing and lodging, their board- 
 ing and schooling, as being " the objects'^ of parental 
 " affection and care?" It has been shewn that Macknight 
 is not only without proof, but in opposition to proof; and 
 as for Anderson, he comes off with saying that " If this 
 '' interpretation, which is movo, probable than any other 
 '' that has been proposed, be admitted, the text will not 
 '' afford the least countenance to the baptism of babes." 
 To this I wouM reply, that if many other interpretations 
 of that cold-blooded traitor be admitted, the respective 
 texts will not afford the least countenance to the Gospel 
 plan of salvation. But if this novel fancy of Macknight's 
 be '^ raore probable than any other that has been pro- 
 posed," and if it be, at the same time, such decisive evi- 
 dence of Baptist principles, how comes it that it ^^contra- 
 ^' diets all Baptist writers for more than a century past ? 
 " How comes it that this obvious meaning never occurred 
 to ^^Drs. Gill, Stennett, Ryland, Mr. Booth, &c. &c?" 
 all of whom " assert that the term holy in this passage 
 " signifies legitimate .^" And how comes it that neither 
 the interpretation of these legitimates, nor the " more 
 probable^^ one of Macknight and his illegitimates^ was 
 adopted by the ancient Fathers ? but that the Pedobap- 
 tist interpretation was followed by them, as has been 
 Q q 
 
( 306 ) 
 
 shewn from the testimony of Paulinus and Jerome, Chry-^ 
 sostom and Augustine, and even my Opponent's Baptist 
 brother TertuUian, and his heretical brother Pelagius? 
 Mr, Tombes can afford us a clue to this mystery, in his 
 concession to Mr. Baxter, that the word sanctify, and 
 holy, is taken in the Pedobaptist sense near six hundred 
 times, and no where else once in the Baptist sense. The 
 truth is, we follow broad scriptural usage, both in transla- 
 ting and expounding this passage : whereas, both in trans- 
 lating and expounding, the Baptists, not only oppose the 
 scriptures and the Fathers, but contradict themselves 
 and one another, and substitute their own arbitrary in- 
 ventions and incongruous assertions for fair criticism and 
 solid exegesis. 
 
 We have now given that candid hearing which was 
 promised, to the respective claims oi spmtual, domestic, 
 civil, and seminal holiness, in the interpretation of 1 Cor. 
 vii .14. after which it appears plain, that the seminal, or, 
 if you choose, the ecclesiastical holiness of infants, is in- 
 tended by the Apostle, when he says, ^^For the unbeliev- 
 ^' ing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the ynbe- 
 '' lieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were 
 ^^ your children unclean, but now are they holy :" or 
 f ^ designed for holiness ;'' as the Baptist Father Tertul- 
 lian paraphrases it ; meaning that by " seminal prero- 
 f ^ gative,^^ as well as " the discipline of institution," the 
 infants of pious parents are designed for baptism ; an 
 ordinance which Augustine, in conformity with Jewish 
 and Christian usage, inspired and uninspired, expressly 
 calls '^ the visible sanctijication.'^^ Instead, therefore, of 
 a repeal, we here have a New Testament confirmation 
 
( 307 ) 
 
 of the command for administering to infants the initiato- 
 ry seal of the church. 
 
 POINT III. 
 
 *ds the Scriptures recognize the discipleship of infants, in." 
 faults must be contemplated in our Lord's command to 
 his Apostles J to disciple all nations by baptism, 
 
 " Go ye therefore, and teach {disciple) all nations, 
 '^ baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the 
 '' Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to ob- 
 " serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you : 
 " and, lo, I am with you alway, eVen unto the end of 
 '' the world. Amen."(^) 
 
 The Baptists have two different and contradictory 
 schemes, for resisting the force of this text. One is, to 
 make the verb matheteuein signify to teach those who 
 are capable of believing, and thus to exclude infants who 
 do not believe. The other plan is, to admit and even to 
 urge that matheteuein signifies to disciple or make 
 disciplesy but that this discipleing is equivalent to con- 
 version^ which conversion, according to them, the text 
 makes a prerequisite to baptism ; and thus they exclude 
 infants who give no evidence of conversion. 
 
 The first of these courses is pursued by Mr. Gale. In 
 advocating it, Dr. Wall convicts him of as gross stupid- 
 ity, or dishonesty, or both, as can perhaps be found any 
 where else. But admitting, as Dr. Wall certainly 
 proves, that Mr. Gale was incapable of discussing the 
 Original, still our Translation has the appearance of 
 
 (ff) Matt. xxviiL 19. 20. 
 
( 308 ) 
 
 favouring his cause ; for it gives the verb his renderin, 
 '' teach all nations.'^ To this I would reply that the 
 same Translators have left us the other rendering also. 
 Their margin reads, " or make disciples or Christians 
 " of all nations.'^ Dr. Wall, moreover, argues that the 
 reason of their putting the word teach into the text 
 ^^ was, that in the time of making the old translations, 
 '' there were no Antipedobaptists (and when the En- 
 ^' glish Translation was made, none in England,) who 
 " should thence take occasion for their error, viz. to 
 '^ conclude that infants, though a part of the nation, 
 '' must not be baptized, as not being yet taught. All 
 ^^ people then understood it thus: That the Apostles, 
 '^ going into the Heathen nations, must first teach and 
 ^^ convert the adult persons and baptize them ; and then 
 '' at their request, baptize their children, into the same 
 " covenant ; and while all took it so, there was no hurt 
 " in letting the word teach stand.^^(A) It is very cor- 
 rectly granted by Dr. Wall, " that where the circum- 
 '^ stances of the passage and of the persons spoken of 
 " do shew it to be meant of adult persons now in the 
 " state of learning, there to make disciples does import 
 '' teaching of them ; and in such places it does often 
 " best fit the construction of the sentence to express it 
 '^ teach ; because, as I said before, in most places where 
 " the word occurs, the discipleing is by present teach- 
 '' ing :"(f) But, on the other hand, the Dr. observes that 
 " This very thing of choosing a new word on pur- 
 " pose for this sacrament, (viz. discipleing in general) 
 
 h) Wall's Defence against Gale, p. 172. 
 i) Wall's Defence, p. 176. 
 
I 
 
 ( 309 ) 
 
 ^^ iS; of itself, a proof that it is not to be taken in the 
 " same limited sense as the word teaching ; for if it had 
 *' been to express teachings there were plenty of com- 
 " mon and known words in use for that/^(y ) And let 
 it be observed that one of these common and known 
 words for teaching is used by our Saviour in the same 
 sentence, in such a manner as to shew that it was not 
 there to be considered as perfectly synonimous with 
 matheteiiein. 
 
 The second course is pursued by Dr. Gill, who would 
 have discipleship to mean conversion, and to be so essen- 
 tially prerequisite to baptism as to exclude infants. On 
 John iv. 1. he says, ^^ The method Christ took was, 
 " he first made men disciples, and then baptized them ; 
 " and the same he directed his Apostles to, saying, ^ go 
 '' ' and teachy or disciple all nations, baptizing them 
 '^ ' &c.^ '^ My Opponent's New Testament goes so far 
 as to translate it '^ Convert all the nations, immersing 
 ^' them!'' On the present occasion he has treated this 
 text as follows, viz. " I will appeal directly to the law 
 '' of Christ concerning this ordinance of his, which I 
 '' find in the commission to baptize." " The law of 
 " Christian baptism, as expressed in the commission, is, 
 " Baptize the disciples, or the believers of the gospel. 
 " It thus reads, ' Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
 " ' baptizing them in the name' &c. Now Matheteu- 
 '' SATE, the verb here rendered teach^ is conceded by 
 '^ all intelligent Paido-baptists to signify, make disciples^ 
 '' or disciple. This is unquestionably the proper ren- 
 
 U ) Wuira Defence, p. 177, 
 
( 310 ) 
 
 ^^ dering of the term matheteusate. The verb ma- 
 " THETEUo, when governing an accusative, Parkhurst, 
 " the Paido-baptist lexicographer says, signifies ' to 
 ^' ' make a disciple,^ p. 412. It is not the nations in- 
 " discriminately, that were commanded to be baptized; 
 ^' for TA ETHNE, the nations^ being neuter, is not the 
 *^ antecedent to autous, [them,'] which is masculine, 
 " and which is the accusative governed by matheteu- 
 " SATE. Its antecedent is mathetas in the verb ma- 
 " theteusate. Again the phrase, ' teaching them to 
 " ' observe all things which 1 have commanded you,^ 
 " respects the disciples exclusively. For Christ did 
 " never command nations indiscriminately to observe his 
 " ordinances, but only his disciples. He commanded 
 " all nations to repent and believe the gospel, and then, 
 " as his disciples, he commanded them to keep his com- 
 " mandments. Hence the word rendered teach in the 
 " 20th verse of Matt, xxviii. is not the same as the 
 '' word rendered teach in the 19th verse. It is didas- 
 ^' KONTES, a word importing the office of a preceptor to 
 ^' those who had been put under his tuition. It is ex- 
 '^ pressive of that tuition which teachers owe to their 
 '' disciples or pupils. Two things or two classes of 
 " duties were enjoined on the Apostles in this commis- 
 '' sion. The first was the work of discipleing or ma- 
 " king disciples. The second was the education of those 
 " disciples collected into churches or scLaols. Now 
 " inasmuch as the Apostles were authorized by the law 
 '' of Christ to baptize disciples, this law, in fact, amounts 
 " to a prohibition of the baptism of those who are not 
 " disciples. This I cannot now illustrate better than 
 
( 311 ) 
 
 ^^ by a reference to the Appendix of Debate with Mr. 
 " Walker, to which Mr. M^Calla so often refers, p. 209. 
 " ^ A limited commission implies a prohibition of such 
 " things as are not contained in it, and positive laws 
 " imply their negative.' The commission under which 
 '^ the Apostles acted was limited, as every Christian will 
 ^' confess. The duties of those who act under it are 
 '^ pointed out : and indeed every creature must act un- 
 " der a limited commission, for the very term itself im- 
 *^ ports something committed from a superior, or from 
 ^' the supreme.''(^) 
 
 In this argument my Baptist Opponent has certainly 
 shewn, that all that Mr. Gale has written on the same 
 text, is lost labour. In opposition to him, he proves that 
 the Apostles were commanded to '^ disciple all nations, 
 baptizing them.'' Yet he tries to criticise us out of the 
 opinion, that the apostles discipled them in baptizing 
 them. That adults gave evidence of knowledge and con- 
 version before baptism, I would not only admit, but in- 
 sist upon. That they and their infants were formally 
 discipled in baptism, I hope to shew. The only obstruc- 
 tion presented by my Opponent's argument, is his en- 
 deavour to shew, that if the apostles baptized disciples, 
 they must have been disciples before they were baptized, 
 and, of course, could not be made disciples in baptism. 
 When I hear such a plea from a man of such pretensions, 
 I feel considerably inclined to hand him over to that old 
 lady, by whose common sense, he tells us, he was once 
 pverpowered, notwithstanding all his philosophy and 
 
 {k) Spurious Debate with me, pp. SS, 1!3, 114. 
 
( 312 ) 
 
 divinity. (/) Not long ago I observed a housewife send- 
 ing a messenger with thread to a seamstress. Her com- 
 mission ran thus; *^ Remember and tell her that this 
 black thread is to sew the seams,^^ My Opponent^ on 
 hearing this commission^ would have said, ' Madam, if 
 she is to sew the seams, they must be seams before her 
 sewing them, and therefore her sewing cannot make 
 them seams.^ If, on receiving tliis answer, she were to 
 report the thing to a recruiting officer in the neighbour- 
 hood, he would probably give a commission to his ser- 
 geant in the following words; ''^ Go and enlisi that Phi* 
 losopher, giving him the bounty, ^^ On this commission 
 my Opponent could meet the officer sword in hand, and 
 prove that gitnng the bounty does not make a soldier ; 
 although he would probably be very reluctant to try the 
 experiment of receiving the bounty. The following 
 argument on this subject will quadrate with the one 
 which he has given, to prove that baptizing does not 
 make disciples. It is as follows, viz. '^ The verb enlist, 
 when governing an accusative, it is conceded by all mili- 
 tary men, signifies to make a soldier. It is not philoso- 
 phers indiscriminately that are commanded, in this com- 
 mission, to be enlisted. Philosopher is not the ante- 
 cedent to him; its antecedent is soldier, in the verb 
 enlist. For our Constitution did never command /;A27o- 
 sophers indiscriminately to observe the rules and articles 
 of war, but only United States' soldiers. It commands 
 all citizens to obey the laws, and then as soldiers, it com- 
 mands them to submit to military regulations. As, there- 
 fore, the bounty wsiS to be given to none but soldiers, they 
 
 (/) Spurious Debate with me, Preface, p. x. 
 
 I 
 
( 313 ) 
 
 must have been soldiers before the bounty was given. 
 Wherefore, giving the bounty, does not make a soldier; 
 and ' All my philosophy and divinity/ my verbs 
 and accusatives, my antecedents and relatives, would be 
 perfectly safe in receiving the bounty ; although at the 
 same time I should not like to try it." 
 
 My Baptist Opponent thinks it of great importance to 
 prove that our Saviour's commission does not authorize 
 the baptizing of the nations but the disciples. But when 
 this point is gained, how does it help his cause ? If bap- 
 tizing disciples proves that they must have been disci- 
 ples before they were baptized; then ^' Perverting the 
 deceitful halances,^^ proves, that they were deceitful be- 
 fore they were perverted — " Grind meal,^^ means that 
 it was meal before it was ground — and " Stripped the 
 naked of their clothing/' means that they were naked 
 before Job stripped them ;(m) which things are absurd. 
 If, therefore, stripping the naked makes him naked; 
 i^ giving the bounty to a soldier makes him a soldier; if 
 falsifying deceitful balances makes them deceitful ba- 
 lances; if sewing a seam makes it a seam; and li grind- 
 ing meal makes it meal, then why may not baptizing dis- 
 ciples make them disciples ? 
 
 It is certainly my Opponent's aim to prove that dis- 
 cipleing does not, in any case, mean mere initiation, of 
 which an infant may be the subject ; but that it means 
 that conversion, of which none but an educated or en- 
 lightened adult can be the subject. It is for this reason 
 that, instead of " disciple all nations," his New Testa- 
 Cm) Isa. xlvii. 2. Job, xxii. 6. Am. viii. 5., on which last see Hebr, 
 and Engl. Margin and Pool's Annotations on Job, xxii, 6. 
 
 R r 
 
( 314 ) 
 
 ment reads ^^ Convert all the nations." But let us see 
 how this will tally with his argument. There he informs 
 us that, DiDASKONTES, teaching^ as well as matheteu- 
 SATEj disciple, " respects the disciples exclusively :" 
 that is, teaching respects converted persons exclusively; 
 since disciple and convert are, in his view", convertible 
 terms. This he expresses more fully as follows, viz. 
 " Two things, or two classes of duties, were enjoined on 
 '' the Apostles in this commission. The first was the 
 " work of discipleing or making disciples. The second 
 ^^was the education of those disciples collected into 
 ^' churches or schools.^^ That is, the Apostles were 
 commanded, first to disciple or convert adults, and then 
 to educate or instruct them ! ! Conversion first, instruc- 
 tion last ! ! This is bad enough ; but I am afraid that it 
 leads to worse. As my Opponent is for abolishing the 
 whole order of the gospel ministry, he would teach the 
 people that they should have neither instructors nor in- 
 struction. Bjit as he is opposed to the operations of the 
 Spirit of God in regeneration, he is equally opposed to 
 their conversion : so that, in reality, he is for no con- 
 version, no instruction. Now we are for both the one 
 and the other, and in their proper order. We believe that 
 as far as adults are contemplated in our Saviour's com- 
 mission, they are to be first instructed. This, by the 
 immediate agency of the Divine Spirit, becomes an in- 
 strument of their conversion. Then, when there is evi- 
 dence of their conversion, they are baptized. It was, as 
 Dr. Wall intimates, with a view to this process, in the 
 case of adults, that our English Translators put into the 
 text the word teach instead of disciple. But their mar- 
 
( 315 ) 
 
 ginal reading, which my Opponent has shewn to be 
 strictly conformable to the Greek, evidently leaves room 
 for another order of things in the case of infants. In re- 
 lation to them^ my Opponent's exposition of the text, 
 loses a portion of its absurdity, and looks like solid, 
 scriptural reality. Infants, and infants only, should be 
 first discipled, then instructed. In contemplation of in- 
 fants, it may be truly said, as my Opponent has most in- 
 consistently and improperly said concerning adults; that 
 " Two classes of duties were enjoined on the apostles in 
 " this commission : the first was the work of discipleing 
 ^' or making disciples ; the second was the education of 
 ^' those disciples collected into churches or schools.*' 
 This is only saying that infants should first be discipled 
 by baptism, and then brought up in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord. 
 
 With this view of the subject, which my Opponent's 
 own comment has made necessary, we discover that this 
 text affords the same authority for infant baptism, which 
 another passage quoted by him, furnishes for female 
 communion. The passage is, that Christ " gave it [the 
 bread] to his disciples, and said, Take, eat."(w) He then 
 produces another passage to shew that ^^ there was a cer- 
 tain disciple there named Tabitha."(o) Sne, tI;erefore, 
 being a disciple capable of discerning the Lord's body, 
 must have been admitted to communion. Wherefore, all 
 other female disciples of the same description should be 
 admitted to the same* privilege. In a similar way, we 
 shew that the apostles were commissioned to " disciple 
 
 (n) Matt. xxvi. 26. Spur. Debate with Mr. Wallcer, p. 69^ 
 (o) Acts ix. 36. 
 
( 316 ) 
 
 all nations^ baptizing them.'^ We then shew that in- 
 fants were recognized as disciples ; and conclude, that 
 the apostles must have made them so by baptizing them, 
 as they were made disciples among the Jews by circum- 
 cision. 
 
 In reference to this severe discipline, which was im- 
 posed upon Jewish professors and their infants, Peter 
 says, '' Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a 
 ^^ yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither 
 '' our fathers nor we were able to bear?'^ Dr. Gill says, 
 that these disciples are '' Gentile believers ;'^ thus pro- 
 bably meaning to frown upon infant discipleship, because 
 infants cannot believe. He admits, however, that this 
 yoke embraces circumcision, though he says, that " by 
 it here is meant not circumcision only and barely, ^^ Now 
 I would ask. What sort of disciples they were, on whose 
 neck this yoke was first imposed? They were chiefly Jew- 
 ish infants. I would again ask. What sort of disciples were 
 they, on whose necks these Judaizing teachers wished to 
 impose this grievous yoke when Peter spoke? Were 
 they ^*' Gentile believers'^ only? No, it was Gentile and 
 Jewish believers and their infants ; which would have 
 still thrown the burthen of circumcision chiefly upon the 
 infants, because a great proportion of the adults had been 
 already circumcised. This then, shews, that the apos- 
 tles understood their commission as we do ; and, that in 
 discipleing all nations, they discipled believers and their 
 seed, '' baptizing them." 
 
 That Jews and Christians thus understood the Old 
 and New Testaments, cannot be reasonably disputed. 
 Out of Dr. Wall's many instances of Jewish usage, \ will 
 
( 317 ) 
 
 report only one, from Maimonides, as follows, viz. ^^ An 
 '' Israelite that takes a little Heathen child, or that finds 
 ^' an Heathen infant, and baptizes him for a Proselyte : 
 '' behold, he is a Fro8elyteP{p) Even Dr. Gill tells us, 
 that " Jarchi interprets these children [mentioned in 
 " Prov. xxxi. 28.] QidisciplesP The ancient Christian 
 usage may be gathered from Tertullian, the great boast 
 of the Baptists. His views of infant discipleship may 
 be seen in a passage quoted already under the last point. 
 He there tells us, that " The Apostle says, [in 1 Cor. 
 " vii. 14.] that children born o^id^holy parent of either 
 '' sex, are themselves holy^ [that is fit for baptism,] as 
 '^ well from seminal prerogative, as from the discipline 
 '^ of institution [that is, Christ's institution for making 
 '' disciples, y\r) That Tertullian really used this ex- 
 pression to signify the ordinance of baptism, by which 
 Christ requires us to initiate adult and infant disciples 
 into the visible church, wall appear by another passage, 
 from the same author, which my Opponent introduces 
 against Mr. Walker, in the following pompous manner, 
 viz. " But I have another testimony of Tertullian to 
 '^ read, w^hich I hope will be heard with all the impar- 
 '' tiality you can command. It accounts for more than 
 " the origin of infant baptism. It is doubtless one of 
 '' the best authenticated testimonies of antiquity." He 
 then proceeds to give Tertullian's account of certain 
 unscriptural customs, by which he professed to initiate 
 and build up disciples ^ and which, for that reason, this 
 
 (Ji) Wall's Hist. Introduction, Sect. 4. 
 
 (r) Wall's Hist. Part 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. The Doctor has mis- 
 taken the meaning of the word discipline hei-e, as the Baptists do in otlitr 
 places. 
 
( 318 ) 
 
 Father calls discipli?ies, but which my Opponent's trans- 
 lation calls practices^ as follows, viz. '^ If you demand 
 ^^ a law for these practices^ taken from the scriptures, 
 ^^ we cannot find one there.'' He should have trans- 
 lated it in something like the following manner, viz. ^^ If, 
 ^^ for these disciplines^ and others of the same sort, you 
 ^^ require scriptural authority, you can find none."(5) 
 Among these unauthorized </wc2/?/m 65, we find the sign of 
 the cross, and the use of milk and honey, and trine im- 
 mersion in baptism. Doubtless, Mr. Walker, against 
 whom this passage was so vauntingly produced, will 
 agree with Tertullian, that the sign of the cfoss and the 
 baptismal use of milk and honey, are unauthorized in 
 scripture, and that trine immersion or any other im- 
 mersion, is unauthorized there : but he will also 
 agree with the same Father in believing that Chris- 
 tian baptism is Christ's instituted discipline ^ by which 
 discipleship is conferred upon those who have a seminal 
 prerogative derived from a holy parent of either sex. 
 These infant disciples are thus initiated into the visible 
 church and have been considered as visible Christians, 
 ever since the day that ^^The disciples were called 
 '' Christians first in Antioch." Some infants must have 
 been thus discipled, immediately after this change of 
 ^ denomination, because, in old age they were the person- 
 al aquaintances of Justin Martyr, who speaks of them 
 in the following language, viz. " Several persons among 
 ^^ us, of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who 
 
 («) ** Harum et aliarum ejufsmodi discifilinarum si legem expostiilas 
 scripturarum, nuUam invenies." This is quoted in a note in Dr. J. P. 
 Campbell's Review of Robinson, p. 133. 
 
( 319 ) 
 
 ^^ were discipled to Christ in their childhood^ do continue 
 '' uncorrupted.^^ They were discipled to Christ; an 
 expression which shews that they were discipled, not 
 by instruction or conversion or by an unauthorized 
 practice, as my Opponent would have it, but by baptism, 
 the instituted discipline of Tertullian, who has declared 
 baptism to be a discipline, even in that passage which 
 my Opponent praises as " one of the best authentica- 
 " ted testimonies of antiquity/^ in relation to " the ori- 
 " gin of infant baptism/' It ought not to be omitted that 
 when Justin Martyr speaks of their being discipled in 
 their childhood, he uses the word pxdon, the one which 
 enters into the composition of Psedobaptism ; and the 
 word which he uses for discipled, is ematheteuthesan,{t) 
 the very word used by our Saviour in commanding his 
 apostles to " disciple all nations, baptizing them/' Is 
 there then any room to doubt the correctness of my 
 third point, that '' As the scriptures recognize the dis- 
 " cipleship of infants, infants must be contemplated in 
 '' our Lord's command to his apostles to disciple all na- 
 '' tions by baptism ?" 
 
 You cannot now wonder, if I consider it proved, ac- 
 cording to the tenor of my fifth proposition, that after 
 the authoritative command recorded in the Old Testa- 
 ment, ^' The administration of this seal to infants has 
 never since been prohibited by divine authority ; that 
 is, this command of God, originally given in the Old Tes- 
 
( 320 ) 
 
 tament, is not repealed in the New Testament, but ra- 
 ther confirmed. ^^ According to promise, this has been 
 shewn from what is said in the new Testament, concern- 
 ing " the membership of infants, the holiness of infants, 
 and the discipleship of infants.'^ 
 
 My evidence in favour of a divine command for in- 
 fant baptism has occupied more time than is usually spent 
 on this subject. Respect to the good cause of truth, 
 and to the understandings of my audience, required that I 
 should pay a becoming attention to my Opponent's nu- 
 merous contradictions and objections. None of these 
 were advanced against my fourth proposition ; and there- 
 fore, that proposition, though occupying one-fifth of the 
 ground of my argument, was passed over in a few words. 
 But when the other propositions were contradicted, it 
 became necessary not only to refute those objections, but 
 to develope an unusual portion of the ample stores of 
 authority, which the scriptures contain in support of 
 those propositions. These copious proofs are an evi- 
 dence, not of the difficulty, but of the facility with 
 which infant baptism is established. They shew, not 
 the doubtfulness, but the certainty of the divine will. 
 Neither is this certainty in the least afiected, by the fact 
 that we arrive at the conclusion by a circuitous route ; 
 since the very same complication has been shewn to at- 
 tend the argument for female communion and many other 
 things equally plain. Let any one take the propositions, 
 and duly consider them, distinctly, and in their mutual 
 relation, and ponder well the evidence by which they 
 
( 321 ) 
 
 are supported, and the conclusion to which they tend, 
 and he will not wonder that the great body of Christ's 
 people, from the beginning, have been Pedobaptists. 
 To them the scriptures shew plainly, that, 1. Abraham 
 and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church 
 of God. 2. The Christian Church is a branch of the 
 Abrahamic Church : or, in other words^ the Jewish 
 Society before Christ, and the Christian Society after 
 Christ, are one and the same Church, in different dis- 
 pensations. 3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and 
 Christian Baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal, 
 in substance J though in different /orm^. 4. The admin- 
 istration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by di- 
 vine authority; that is, God once commanded it. 
 5. The administration of this seal to infants has never 
 since been prohibited by divine authority ; that is, this 
 command of God, originally given in the Old Testament, 
 is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather con- 
 firmed. Therefore, there is now in force, an unre- 
 pealed divine command, for administering to believers 
 and their infants, the initiatory seal of the Church, 
 which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism. If 
 the premises be true, the conclusion is inevitable : but 
 the premises have been proved to be true ; therefore 
 the conclusion stands ; and my first argument for infant 
 baptism, drawn from a divine command, is valid, accord- 
 ing to the infallible word of God. 
 
 Ss 
 
( 322 ) 
 
 ARGUMENT II. 
 
 APOSTOLICAL PRACTICE. HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. 
 
 According to custom, my Opponent represents the 
 argument drawn from household baptism as destitute of 
 probability ; and, if I riemember rightly, there are some 
 Pedobaptists who speak of it, as if it amounted to little 
 or nothing more Xhdiw probable evidence. I would ask 
 such persons, upon what sort of authority do they re- 
 ceive females to communion ? Is it probable or certain ? 
 They will say, with my Opponent, that the evidence is 
 indubitable, because females are disciples, and for disci- 
 ples it was instituted. Yet our Saviour gave no express 
 command to administer it to a female ; there was no fe- 
 male among the disciples to whom he administered it ; 
 and there is no express record of Apostolical practice, 
 in favour of female communion. If, without these, the 
 evidence is certain, how much more so, if, like infant 
 baptism, it could be supported by divine command and 
 apostolical practice. This practice of the apostles would 
 have been taken as positive evidence, fully made out, if 
 the Acts of the Apostles had recorded several instances 
 in which heads of families communed; because heads 
 of families would tmhvdiO^ females. Now we have evi- 
 dence, in the Acts of the Apostles, that they baptized 
 households^ and we hope to shew that households embrace 
 infants ; and the fact that some households are without 
 infants, is of no more avail in the one case, than the fact 
 that some families have no female head, will avail in the 
 other. In proving that infants are included in the bap- 
 tized households of the New Testament, I shall, of 
 course, make liberal use of Taylor's " Facts and Evi- 
 dences," much of which Dr. Rice, of Virginia, has co- 
 pied, with valuable additional matter of his own. 
 
 But the strength of our argument cannot be duly ap- 
 preciated, without giving some attention to that of my 
 Opponent. He speaks as follows, viz.* 
 
 * The reader will notice, that from p. 223 to note (w) on p. 331, is Mr. 
 Campbell's argument. 
 
( 223 ) 
 
 ^' Mr. M^Calla has adopted the criticism of Rice and 
 Taylor on the words oihos and oikla, and is to give us posi- 
 tive evidence of infant baptism from the import of these 
 words, Mr. Rallston, who has written what he calls a 
 ' Brief Review' of the Debate at Mount Pleasant, has adop- 
 ted the same, and mightily boasts of the importance of the 
 criticism. Mr. M^Calla tells us it is founded on the de- 
 cisions of Aristotle and Plato, and lays the greatest stress 
 upon it. Now we have not read Rice's Pamphleteer, 
 but we have read some [all] of the writings of Aristotle 
 and Plato in the original, and we have read Dr. Samuel 
 Rallston's ' Condensed View' of the criticism, and we 
 boldly pronounce that it is a ^ refuge of lies. ^ And we 
 will go a little farther yet, and affirm, that not only is the 
 criticism erroneous, but that assertions are made in the 
 ' Condensed View' referred to, that are downright 
 falsehoods. Mark it well, my friends, we have said 
 falsehoods. Whether intentional or not, is not my duty 
 to say. But if I do not prove to the satisfaction of every 
 one who understands English, and especially to any one 
 who knows only the Greek alphabet, all that I have now 
 affirmed concerning this criticism and those assertions, I 
 will say that I know neither English nor Greek. But 
 this we will not attempt until Mr. M'Calla gives us the 
 whole it. In the mean time, we will request your at- 
 tention to the households baptized, or ^ family bap- 
 tisms,' as some call them, mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment. Of these there are but four. Of three of these 
 we have positive proof that all baptized were professed 
 disciples, capable of hearing, believing and obeying the 
 word. The only family that admits of the least hesita- 
 tion with respect to the members of it, is that of Lydia : 
 and if there had not been another family baptized in 
 the narrative than this one, or if there had been the 
 same want of particularity in describing, incidentally or 
 explicitly, the baptism of the others, it would be utter- 
 I ly impossible for any man living to furnish a positive 
 evidence of infant baptism from Scripture testimony. 
 We have, indeed, already shewn, that the apostles 
 
( 324 ) 
 
 baptized none but professed disciples, by facts and ar- 
 guments that Mr. M^Calla dared not to impugn ; and 
 therefore might be excused from noticing this ten 
 thousand times refuted notion of infants having been 
 baptized in these four families. But that the fullest 
 satisfaction may be afforded to all interested, we will 
 again condescend to visit the families alluded to. 
 With respect to Lydia's family, of the circumstances 
 of which there is the least said, and therefore the more 
 room for conjecture, as we see in all the references to 
 it by the Paido-baptists, we will just mention, that six 
 things must be proved, before it can be proved from 
 it, that we have positive evidence of apostolic prac- 
 tice of infant baptism. 1. That Lydia ever had a 
 husband. 2. That she had a husband lately. 3. That 
 she ever had children. 4. That she had brought her 
 children with her from Thyatira to Philippi, a jour- 
 ney of 200 miles, mostly by sea. 5. That her chil- 
 dren were then infants, and 6. That they were actu- 
 ally baptized. All this nhist be done before Mr. 
 M^Calla's positive can be adduced. Now let me ask, 
 can Mr, M'Calla prove any one of these circum- 
 stances ? I positively answer, JVb, not one. Where, 
 then, is his positive evidence to be obtained from Ly- 
 dia's house ? Indeed there is not probable evidence, 
 much less positive evidence, of infant baptism in this 
 family.'' ^^But just let us look at the circumstances 
 of Lydia's family, and consider what is most probable 
 in the case. 1. She shews herself to be the sole pro- 
 prietor of her house, and precludes the idea of having 
 a husband, in these words. Acts xvi. 15. ' Come into 
 my house, and tarry with me.' 2. That she was an 
 unmarried woman is probable from her manner of giv- 
 ing the invitation, which indeed is the most singular 
 invitation on record, ' If ye have judged rue fuitltfvl 
 to the Lord, come into my house.' It is equivalent to 
 saying, if you have formed a good opinion of my being 
 under subjection to Christ, you will not impeach my 
 modesty, or suppose mc actuated by any other motive 
 
( 325 ) 
 
 than the love of my Master, in inviting you to sojourn 
 with a woman. 3. That she was an unmarried wo- 
 man at this time, is further evident from her manner 
 of life. She was a travelling merchant, and far from 
 her own city. 4. It is also probable that the brethren 
 mentioned in 4th verse, were members of her family, 
 servants or relatives in her employ. ^^ ^^Thus, from 
 a fair and full consideration of all the circumstances of 
 Lydia's house, there is not the least probability that 
 there was an infant in it. But if even it had been pro- 
 bable that infants belonged to Lydia's house, we are 
 absolutely certified from other portions of the divine 
 testimony, that they were not baptized.'^ ^^The time 
 has fully come when it becomes my duty, from a pro- 
 mise already given you, my friends, to prove that this 
 new discovery made on purpose to aid the falling 
 cause of infant baptism, is a refuge of lies. I have said 
 that it is a refuge of lies. Many seek shelter under 
 such refuges without knowing them to be such. Per- 
 haps this was the case with Mr. Rallston and my Op- 
 ponent. Be this as it may, we are sure it is a refuge 
 of lies, and that the alledged difference between oiJws 
 and oikia is not only an erroneous criticism, but that 
 statements made concerning these terms are absolutely 
 false. Whether intentional or not, lies not in my way 
 to judge or to express. We are only concerned in 
 what is said, on the present occasion, and not in the 
 motive or design of the speaker or writer. I then po- 
 sitively assert that in the bible, there is no more dif- 
 ference betwixt the use and application of the words 
 oikos and oikia than there is between the words bro- 
 thers and brethren, I suppose you all know that the 
 difference betwixt the words brothers and brethren is 
 only in the orthography or spelling of the words, and 
 that there is no difference in the sense. Now for the 
 proof. Paul says, 1 Cor. i. 16, I baptized the oikos of 
 Stephanas, and in the same Epistle, addressed to the 
 same church, in speaking of the same family, Chap. xvi. 
 13, he calls this family the oikia of Stephanas. ' Ye 
 
( 326 ) 
 
 know,^ says he, ' the household (ten oikian) of Stepha- 
 nas that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have 
 addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints/ Here 
 the same family, by the same writer, is called, in the 
 same letter, both oikos and oikia. Any person that 
 knows the Greek alphabet can see that this is as I have 
 said. Where now is the truth of Mr. Rallston's decla- 
 ration, p. 19. ^ Hence,' says he, when we read of 
 Cornelius and his house, of Lydia and her house, of the 
 Jailer and his house, and of Stephanas and his house, in 
 all of which, oikos and not oikia is used. He says, not 
 oikia is used, but here I have shewn that it is ! This 
 proves the assertion false. And that you may see that it 
 is erroneous, we have only to observe that Mr. Rallston 
 and Mr. Rice and Mr. M^Calla say, that oikia denotes 
 servants, as the servants of Cesar's household, (oikias) as 
 Mr. Rallston quotes it; and then so to translate it when- 
 ever it occurs. Thus said Paul, Chap. i. I baptized the 
 infants, (oikos) of Stephanas, and Chap. xvi. Ye know 
 the servants, (oikia) of Stephanas that they were the 
 first fruits, &c. and thus make the apostle give a repre- 
 sentation of Stephanas as a father, in one place, as a 
 slaveholder or master in another ; having servants that 
 were not servants, but freemen, addicting themselves to 
 the service of the saints, when they were their master's 
 property, and having no time at their ow^n disposal. What 
 contradictions and inconsistencies appear in a bold ad- 
 vocate of this human tradition! But that oikos and oikia 
 are applied in the bible to the self-same family, and to 
 the self same house, will appear from a few references. 
 I would only premise one remark, viz. that the differ- 
 ence betwixt the families called oikos and those called 
 oikia, is plead upon the allegation that oikos literally 
 denotes the dwelling place of the master or father of the 
 house, and that oikia denotes the house, cabin, or hut, 
 in which the servants or slaves lived. It is said that in 
 their figurative application the same diiference exists. 
 As oikos signifies the master's dwelling house, it figura- 
 tively denotes his children : and as oikia denotes the 
 
( 327 ) 
 
 servant's house, it figuratively denotes the servants that 
 lived in it. The jailer's house is called, verse 31, oikos ; 
 in V. 32, it is called oikia ; and in v. 34, it is again call- 
 ed oikos. Once here it appears evidently to refer to the 
 family, ^ Thou slialt be saved, and thy house.' ' They 
 spake the word of the Lord to all that were in his house, 
 (oikia).' This evidently refers to the house, literally 
 considered. And 34, ' He led them into his house,'' 
 (oikos) the place of abode. But whatever meaning we 
 may ^yi to the word, it affects not the point for which 
 we contend ; for the fact still remains, and it is undenia- 
 able, that the jailer's house is called both an oikos and 
 an oikia. Mr. M^Calla, or rather Mr. R. from whom 
 the criticism is taken, aware that oikia is applied to the 
 jailer's house, as well as oikos, will have it, contrary to 
 appearance of probability, used metaphorically, and says 
 that it means the jailer's servants, to whom he spake the 
 word of the Lord. This is an evident assertion to suit 
 the hypothesis. But suppose we should admit it for 
 the sake of argument, then how does it stand ? It stands 
 thus, he preached to the servants, and baptized only the 
 oikos, the infants ! ! I The oikia was not baptized, but 
 the oikos was. Paul and Silas, then, were more success- 
 ful in discipleing the oikos than the oikia, Mr. R's in- 
 fants, they were more easily converted than the ser- 
 vants. They spake the word of the Lord to all the jail- 
 er's servants, but not to his wife nor children, if he had 
 any ! Partial preachers these. Assuredly they were 
 Paido-baptists ! !" " We shall, for the sake of giving 
 sufficient data to explode this absurd criticism, here re- 
 gister more circumstantially and methodically, a number 
 of plain evidences or proofs of its falsehood. We shall 
 first shew that oikos and oikia are used by the inspired 
 penmen of the New Testament as completely synoni- 
 mous. The Centurion's house, whose faith was so famed, 
 and whose servant the Messiah cured, is, by Luke, in 
 the VL Chapter, called, verse 6th, oikia^ and in verse 
 10th it is called oikos The same house is by Matthew 
 called oikia, Chap. viii. 6. Jairus^ the ruler of the sy- 
 
( 328 ) 
 
 nagogue, whose daughter the Messiah brought to life, 
 had a house, which Luke calls oihos, Chap. viii. 41 ; and 
 and in the same chapter, verse 51, he calls the same 
 house oikia. Mark calls the same house oikos, Chap. v. 
 38, and Matthew calls it oikia^ Chap. v. 23. In the pa- 
 rable concerning the house divided against itself, which 
 is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is called 
 oikia, Matt. xii. 25, also oikia, Mark iii. 25, but it is 
 called oikos epi oikon, Luke xi. 17. In the parable 
 concerning the house being attacked by thieves, record- 
 ed by Matthew and Luke, Matthew calls it oikia, Chap, 
 xxiv. 43, and Luke calls the same house oikos, Chap, 
 xii. 39. The same house is called both oikos and oikia 
 in the same verse, Luke x. 5. Into whatever house, 
 {oikia) ye enter, say peace be to this house, (oikos.) The 
 Messiah calls his Father's house both oikos and oikia, 
 John ii. 16, and xiv. 2. The house of Martha and 
 Mary is called oikos, John xi. 20, and in the same chap- 
 ter it is called oikia, verse 31. These few instances, 
 selected from the four Gospels only, will show how much 
 dependence ought to be placed on such critics, the very 
 foundation of whose criticisms is laid in a falsehood, viz. 
 that oikos and oikia literally signify a house, but not the 
 same kind of a house. We have produced from the very 
 portion of the Bible where they say this distinction is 
 observed with the greatest accuracy, unequivocal evi- 
 dences that both words are used to denote the same kind 
 of an house. Many instances more can be produced. 
 We shall expose the fallacy of this new discovery a little 
 farther. These sagacious Doctors of divinity say, that 
 oikia literally signifies the servants' house, and meta- 
 phorically signifies the servants themselves. Thus Dr. 
 kallston, ^ oikia signifies a man's household or servants.' 
 Let us test the correctness of this assertion. Matt. x. 12. 
 Salute the house when ye enter it, {oikia) i. e. salute the 
 servants only. Matt. x. 13. If the house, {oikia) be 
 worthy, i. e. the servants. Matt. xii. 25. Every house 
 divided, {oikia) i. c. servants, divided come to desola- 
 tion. The Centurion, whose son Jesus healed, John iv= 
 
( 329 ) 
 
 50, believed, with all his house, {oihia ok) i. e. all his 
 servants only believed. Matth. xiii. 57, A prophet 
 hath no honour in his own house, ioikia) i. e. among his 
 slaves or servants. Joshua said, as for me and my house, 
 (oikia) we will serve the Lord, i. e. myself and my 
 Servants. Receive him not into your house, {oikia) i. e. 
 into your kitchen among your servants. In every great 
 house, {oikia) there are vessels of gold and silver, &c. i. e. 
 in every great hut or cabin. In my Father's house, 
 {oikia) are many mansions. I forbear to expose this cri- 
 ticism farther. Hundreds of instances similar to those 
 adduced can be given. But we must not pass by the 
 most important point, viz. that oikos signifies sometimes 
 children, and even infants, apart from their parents. 
 And what of this, ye sagacious critics ! The word family 
 in English, very often signifies the same thing! But does 
 that prove any thing favourable to your hypothesis ! So 
 long as the word family, which you say is the meaning 
 of oikos, frequently denotes all that live under one 
 father, mother, master, or mistress, whether infants or 
 adults, so long it remains to be determined, from the cir- 
 cumstances of the case, who are the constituents or mem- 
 bers of the family ; and thus, after all your boasted disco- 
 very, you have to confess yourselves to be just where 
 you were ; unable to prove that there ever was an infant 
 in any house, oikia, or family that was baptized. But 
 you intended to carry some point by the discovery, and 
 we know of nothing you could propose, except to lead 
 captive the ignorant and unwary admirers of the pa- 
 tented PRIESTHOOD. For, Gentlemen, you must know 
 that oikos and oikia are used interchangeably in all 
 books, and by all Greek writers, if you know any thing 
 of Greek; and you must know, if you have read the 
 Septuagint of the Old Testament, that oikos hundreds 
 of times is applied to denote every kind of house or fa- 
 mily. The very first time it occurs is Gen, vii. 1, where 
 Noah is commanded to take all his house into the ark, 
 oikos. Now we all know that Noah's oikos was com- 
 posed of three other oikoi, and that each of these oikosi 
 T t 
 
( 330 ) 
 
 was composed of adults : four oikoi composed [pas o 
 oiJcos) all the house of Noah. The youngest child or in- 
 fant in this house [oilcos] was about 98 years old. This 
 same oikos occurs 14 times in the first chapter of Num- 
 bers, and includes under 12 occurrences 603^550 adults 
 from 20 years and upwards. And so extremely far from 
 truth and correctness is this criticism, that we can fur- 
 nish instances where oikos signifies a man's servants. 
 Thus Gen. xvii. 27, all the men of Abraham's house, 
 oikosy of which there were 318 servants born in his oikos, 
 were circumcised when Abraham's eldest son was 13 
 years old. Observe, not oikia, household, but oikos, 
 house ! But observe, God said of Abraham, he will or- 
 der his children, {hoi huioi) and his household, oikos, 
 yes, oikos, his servants, not oikia, Joseph was placed 
 over the house of Pharaoh, {oikos,) i. e. over all his ser- 
 vants, noble and ignoble. Gen. xli. 40. Solomon gave 
 Hiram 20,000 measures of wheat, and 20 measures of 
 pure oil every year for the use, for the annual consump- 
 tion of his oikos. Assuredly Hiram must have had many 
 infants to consume all this ! ! Again, the whole house of 
 Jacob is sometimes called oikos, and pan oikia, Gen. 1. 
 22. xlvi. 31, &c. &c. To round off this bold period of 
 learned criticism, Mr. Rallston adds, * It is true, indeed, 
 that the English Translators have sometimes rendered 
 both words house, and sometimes household, but the dis- 
 tinction is generally observed with accuracy,' (mark 
 this,) and, adds he, ^certainly it would have been better 
 to have uniformly rendered oikos house, and oikia 
 household, as they have done, (once) Phil. iv. 22.' Now, 
 courteous reader, [hearer,] don't be startled when I tell 
 you that it is a fact that our Translators, in the New 
 Testament, have only once translated oikia, household, 
 and oikos three times, and that of forty three times 
 household in the English Old Testament forty one times 
 it is oikos, in the Septuagint, and only twice oikia! ! 
 When this is denied, we shall give chapter and verse. 
 So speaks the Paido- baptist, and so speaks fact. Now 
 judge ye. Thus I have shewn that the whole of this 
 
( 331 ) 
 
 criticism is a mere fabrication of an overweening imagi- 
 nation, say the best of it. Were it necessary I could fill, 
 from Classical authority, a respectable pamphlet of refu- 
 tations of this miserable refuge* But as the Old and New 
 Testament were only referred to on this point, I confine 
 myself exclusively to them/^ ^^and design it to stand 
 here as a refutation of Taylor's, Rice's, Rallston's, and 
 M^Calla's new theory of positive proof. I should except 
 Mr. Rallston, for he only calls the argument derived 
 from the family baptism, ' presumptive evidence' of 
 apostolic practice. Mr. M^Calla presumes a little far- 
 ther, and calls it positive proof. We will call it positive 
 proof of positive presumption. "(w) 
 
 Thus has my Baptist Opponent entertained you. His 
 ingenuity, wit, and severity, I leave you to admire. The 
 charge of falsehood, which he has so liberally brought 
 against Mr. Rallston, needs no other notice than to re- 
 mind you, that it is merely grounded upon his holding a 
 different opinion from my Opponent. Mr. Rallston 
 thinks, that even when oihos and oikia are applied to 
 the same tenement or the same domestic community, 
 they do not mean the same part of that tenement or the 
 same persons of that community. My Opponent boister- 
 ously asserts that they do mean the same, and that ^^any 
 person that knows the Greek alphabet can see that" his 
 opinion is right, and that Mr. Rallston or any other person 
 who holds a different opinion is guilty of falsehood and 
 lying, which charges are so agreeable to him in this sad 
 dearth of argument, that he repeats them as often as three 
 times in one breath. 
 
 Yet while my Opponent would thus stigmatize Mr. R. 
 for a mere difference of opinion, ought he not to be more 
 careful of his own statements as to matters of fact ? In 
 relation to this criticism on oiTcos and oikia^ he has unre- 
 servedly asserted that ^'Mr. R.'' is the man ^^from whom 
 
 (m) This argument, chiefly elaborated since the real debate, is copied 
 from Mr. Campbell's Spurious Report, where it will be found in the text 
 and a large note of pp. 262 — 265. 278—283. 
 
( 332 ) 
 
 the criticism is taken, '^(z;) Now tliis whole audience^ 
 whether acquainted with the Greek alphabet or not, 
 knows that I did not take it from Mr. R. They know 
 also that the Pamphleteer does not even publish it as the 
 production of Dr. Rice of Virginia, but as taken from 
 Taylor, the Editor of Calmet's" Dictionary. With this 
 fact my Opponent shews himself to be acquainted : for 
 in a former speech he called it " the criticism of Rice 
 and Taylor, on the words oikos and oikia^^iiv) Know- 
 ing this, what invectives could have conveyed his indig- 
 nation against Mr. R. if Mr. R. himself had so far for- 
 gotten the truth, as to claim originality in this argument, 
 or to assert that I had taken it from him ? Yet an asser- 
 tion, which, in the judgment of our Greek scholar, would 
 have constituted Mr. R. guilty of falsehood and lying, 
 my Opponent, to answer a purpose(a7) can make, with- 
 out a blush. 
 
 But whosoever originated this argument, my Oppo- 
 nent is determined that no one shall make it good, if he 
 can prevent it, by prejudgments and arbitrary restric- 
 tions. He says, '' Mr. M'Calla affirms, that there were 
 *^ infants baptized in Lydia's house, let him prove it 
 ^^ then. But it is impossible. Ergo, Mr. M^Calla affirms 
 '' that which he cannot prove. '^y) To make this under- 
 taking impossible, as he thinks, he insists repeatedly and 
 emphatically, that I must " prove positively, that 
 there were infants in this family. '' By this word posi- 
 tively, he means, according to the context, that I must 
 find out Lydia's husband, and the number, age, educa- 
 tion, and residence of her children. Upon such terms 
 as these, I should be glad to know how my Opponent 
 
 M Spurious Deft. p. 280. This and the context are copied above. 
 
 (ty) Spurious Deb. p. 262, copied above. 
 
 \x) Mr. Campbell's Spurious Debate divulges the reason of this wild 
 sUitement. There it appears that he was not possessed of either Taylor's 
 orUice*s, or my argument, and, therefore, copied Mr. Rallston's forme. 
 My Collateral l^apers, published some time ago, shew, that this is only 
 one of many •* retugcs of lies" to which he was driven by the scantiness 
 of his materials and the badness cf his cause. 
 
 (y) Spurious Debate, p. 266. 
 
( 333 ) 
 
 would set about proving positively from the scriptures, 
 that Tabitha, or any other female^ was ever admitted to 
 the Lord's table. Let him give us her name, in con- 
 nexion with a direct statement of the fact, accompanied 
 with the name of the administrator, and the time, place, 
 and circumstances of the communion. After his declin- 
 ing this undertaking, as he certainly will, would you 
 not think me a wonderful logician, to close the question 
 of female communion, as he has done that of household 
 baptism ? Let us see how the argument would waTk. 
 
 " My Opponent affirms that females communed with 
 the Apostles. 
 
 Let him prove it then. 
 
 But it is impossible. 
 
 Ergo, my Opponent affirms that which he cannot 
 prove !!'' 
 
 If those whom my Opponent politely calls " The 
 Patented Priesthood,^^ were to compose such a syllo- 
 gism, he would hardly give them credit for patented 
 powers of reasoning. In opposition to this he would tell 
 us, as he has done, that the communion was administered 
 to disciples: disciples include ye/?2«/e believers: ergo, 
 the communion was administered to female believers. So 
 we say. Baptism was administered to households: house- 
 holds include infants: therefore, baptism was adminis- 
 tered to infants. Now the question in both these cases 
 is this ; Do disciples include females? Do households in- 
 clude infants? To shew that households do not embrace 
 infants, my Opponent quotes Noah's household consist- 
 ing 0^ eight adults without one infant. Would he think 
 it conclusive in the other question, to remind him, that 
 the first company of ^communicants in the Christian 
 church, consisted of eleven or twelve disciples ivithout 
 one FEMALE? Does this shew that disciples do not in- 
 clude females? My Opponent says. No. Then neither 
 does the case of Noah, or any other case, shew that house- 
 holds do not embrace infants. To prove his point, my 
 Opponent produces one passage of scripture, calling 
 Tabitha a disciple. To prove mine, it will be conve- 
 
( 334 ) 
 
 nient to shew that infants belong to households, by as 
 many authorities as your patience can endure : and after 
 so much has been said on oikos and oikia by my Oppo- 
 nent, it is to be feared that indulgence will be almost as 
 difficult for you, as it is necessary for me. 
 
 There are certain principles which are acknowledg- 
 ed, either expressly or practically, by all men of real 
 learning, who undertake the explanation of words, 
 whether in the scriptures or elsewhere. These princi- 
 ples my Opponent takes for granted, and to them he 
 virtually appeals for a verdict in his favour. As they 
 are really in my favour, an express recognition of them 
 would be an advantage ; and the time occupied in stating 
 them would be compensated by their shewing the bear- 
 ing of the evidence adduced. They shall be transcribed 
 from Classical and Theological scholars, and among the 
 latter, from Baptist as well as Pedobaptist authority. 
 The celebrated Duke de Montausier, who was the first 
 promoter of what we call the Dauphin edition of the 
 Classics, used often to say that in " The difficulties 
 which occur to us in reading the works of the An- 
 cients^^^ arising "from our not knowing in what sense 
 they used such a word formerly ^^^ " the commentator 
 should endeavour to determine the meaning of the word 
 in question, by consulting how it is used by the same 
 author, in other places, where the meaning of it may be 
 more evident ; or by any other of the same country, and 
 fas near as may be J of the same times. ^\z) On the 
 same subject, the celebrated Thomas Harlwell Home, 
 in his Introduction to the Bible, directs us to " ascertain 
 the notion affixed to a word by the persons in general^ 
 by whom the language either is now or formerly was 
 spoken, and especially in the particular connexion in 
 which such notion is affixed,^^ " The meaning of a 
 ivord used by any writer, is the meaning affixed to it by 
 those for whom he immediately wrote. For there is a 
 
 (z) Quoted in the Preface of Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, from 
 Spcnce's Polymetis, p. 286. 
 
( 335 ) 
 
 Tcind of natural compact between those who write and 
 those who speak a language ; by ivhich they are mutu- 
 ally bound to use words in a certain sense : he, there- 
 fore, who uses such words in a different signification, in 
 a inanner violates that compact, and is in danger of 
 leading men into error P *^ The received signification 
 of a word is to be retained, unless weighty and necessary 
 reasons require that it should be abandoned or neglect- 
 ed,^\a) To the same purport, the late Dr. Ryland, an 
 eminent Baptist clergyman of England, says, ''Every 
 word should be taken in its primary, obvious, and ordi- 
 nary meaning, unless, there be something in the con- 
 nexion, or in the nature of things, which requires it to 
 be taken otherwise?^ " Whenever, by the connexion of 
 a term, or by the nature of things, we are obliged to de- 
 part from the primary, obvious, and ordinary meanitig 
 of a word, we should depart as little as possible from 
 that meaning; and even ivith reluctance. ^\b) To these 
 rules I have no objection, though an experienced po- 
 lemic will easily perceive that in the construction of 
 them, Dr. Ryland had his eye on the Baptist contro- 
 versy. The same prejudice is so obvious in another 
 rule, as to make it perfectly nugatory. It is as follows, 
 viz. '"'V^h^i^y^v \s expressed m scripture, is conclusive 
 argument: whatever is not expressed, is not conclusivd^^ 
 If Dr. Ryland, or my Opponent, or any other person can 
 shew that female communion is expressed in scripture, 
 then I will shew that infant baptism is expressed there. 
 But if they consider the communion of disciples an 
 expression of female communion, then the baptism of 
 households IS an expression of infant baptism. 
 
 The application of the canons now read, to the matter 
 in hand, is plainly this. There is a dispute about the 
 meaning of the word household, as it is used a few times 
 in the New Testament, in connexion with baptism. 
 The question is, Does this word household include in- 
 
 (a) Home's Introd. vol. 2. Part. 2. Chap. 2. 
 
 {b) Taylor's second publication of Facts and Evidences on the subject 
 
 of Baptism, p. 23. 
 
( 336 ) 
 
 fants, as the word disciples mQ\ni\e^ feinales? We affirm; 
 they deny. Both Baptists and Pedobaptists agree that 
 it must embrace infants^ if the following statements can 
 be made good, viz. 1. The word household and its 
 cognates, embrace infants, in the " primary, obv ious, and 
 ordinary meaning'' of the w^ords. 2. In the disputed 
 passages, there is ! nothing connected with the word 
 household, which requires it to be taken otherwise than 
 in its ^^ primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning." 3. 
 This was the meaning of the word household, among 
 those for whom the authors of the disputed passages 
 " immediately wrote.'' 4. This was the meaning of the 
 word household and its conjugates, in other writings of 
 the same authors, and of cotemporary authors, and 
 of former authors. Sacred and Profane, with whose 
 writings they were more or less familiar. These posi- 
 tions, therefore, I shall, with divine assistance, endeav- 
 our to make good, in the examination of the following 
 Greek words and phrases. Oixta, jtavoixta^ rta^otxia, ?taca 
 
 Tta^ocxia: Otxo^, o^oj otzoj, rtag* oixo^j rtavoixsdvaj TiatoLXLOS, riavoixi^ 
 oixoSofiia, ovxodo/x'rj, Ttatsa otxoSo/x-jjj otxoSojafca. 1 fiese WC Snail 
 
 endeavour to consider, as they are used in relation to the 
 material or spiritual house, the ecclesiastical or celes- 
 tial, the national or sectional, the 7^oyal or pontifical, 
 the patriarchal ov domestic house: all of which, if we 
 mistake not, will confirm and illustrate the doctrine, that 
 a household includes infants, and that the household bap- 
 tism of the New Testament is infant baptism. 
 
 You now see the scope of my argument, and you see 
 what ought to be the scope of my Opponent's argument. 
 It is incumbent upon me to shew that oikos, house^ or 
 household, and its kindred words, include infants. His 
 object is properly to shew that they do not include in- 
 fants. Yet is this the aim of the argument which he has 
 actually given us? The greater part of his time and 
 strength have been spent in trying to shew the identity 
 of oikos and oikia, A Baptist preacher of England, Mr. 
 Anderson, the learned antagonist of the Editor of Cal- 
 met's Dictionary, has wasted his strength in the same 
 
 \ 
 
{ 337 ) 
 
 way. If this course is really calculated to defeat them 
 in the main question, whether a household includes in- 
 fants, then their argument lays no obstruction in my way, 
 but is an actual assistance to me. Let us examine this 
 matter for a moment. Among those passages which 
 speak of a house divided against itself, Anderson shews 
 that one Evangelist uses the word oikos, and two others 
 use the word oikia. My Opponent has shown the same 
 thing in your presence. If they have gained their point, 
 they have established the identity of these words : but 
 does this prove that neither of them includes infants? A 
 more minute investigation will shew from the texts 
 themselves, and from the comments and criticisms of 
 my Opponent and other Baptists, that infants are in- 
 cluded in both. One of these passages says, ^' If a house^ 
 oiKiA, be divided against itself, that house^ oikia, can- 
 not stand. '-'(c) Instead of translating the word oikia by 
 house, my Opponent's New Testament, in both these 
 places, renders it family ; and Dr. Gill says that it 
 means *^ any /amf/y, small or great." Now we know 
 that the majority ot families ^ both small and great, have 
 infants, and that these infants are liable to be the great- 
 est sufferers in domestic broils. Another of these texts 
 says, '' Every kingdom divided against itself, is brought 
 to desolation ; and, oikos epi oikon, a house divided 
 against a house falleth.''(c?) But my Opponent's New 
 Testament gives this quite another turn, as follows, viz. 
 "By intestine broils any kingdom may be desolated, one 
 family, oikos, falling after another, oikon." Accord- 
 ing to this translation, the name of oikos is expressly 
 given to ^w^v^ family in the kingdom : for the kingdom 
 is desolated in detail, family falling after family. Is it 
 possible to find a kingdom whose families have no in- 
 fants ? This itself would soon bring them to desolation, 
 if there were no divisions among them. But perhaps my 
 Opponent means to deny the existence of infants in any 
 of these households throughout the kingdom, however 
 
 (c) Mark iii. 35. {d) Luke xi. 17. 
 
 V u 
 
( 338 ) 
 
 numerous and fruitful their Lydia's may be, until, for 
 the honor of the sex, we can obtain some account of their 
 husbands, as he requires in the case of our converted 
 Lydia. I hope you now see that instead of laying ob- 
 structions in our way, by his laborious criticisms on 
 oikos, and olkiaf he has aided in proving, that a house- 
 holdy whether called by the one Greek name or the 
 other, ordinarily includes infants. 
 
 If I understand those who make a distinction between 
 oikos and oikia, they consider the first as comprehend- 
 ing the children of the householder, and the second as 
 including the rest of the family, particularly the servants. 
 These appear to consider the servants as excluded from 
 household baptism, because the New Testament says no- 
 thing of baptizing any person^s oikia, but the oikos only. 
 As this position was taken by some Pedobaptists, Mr. 
 Anderson of England thought it, of course, his duty to 
 say the very contrary. He accordingly makes a great 
 display of learning to prove ^^that oikia signifies fa?nili/, 
 exclusive of attendants ;'' and ^^that oikos has the sense 
 Q>i family^ including domestics.'^ (c/) You may perhaps, 
 ask how this will comport with my Opponent's very 
 positive assertion that '' there is no more difference 
 betwixt the use and application of the words oikos and 
 oikia^ than there is between the words brothers and 
 hrethren:'^^ yet, inconsistent as it may seem, Mr. Ander- 
 son also labours to prove that they are synonimous ; and 
 it does not lie in my way to dispute the matter with 
 them. Household circumcision was administered to the 
 infants of servants, as well as those of the master; be- 
 cause they were all to be trained up in the way they 
 should go: and, as for the difficulty suggested by the 
 circumcision of so many adults in Abraham's family, this 
 is removed by inspired testimony ; that they were al- 
 ready " trained up by him in religious exercises,'^ as 
 Dr. Gill expressly admits. (e) On this subject I agree 
 
 {d) Taylor's pamphlet, entitled, ** The Baptists Self-convicted, by the 
 Rev. William Andersen," p. 30, 
 {e) Gen. xiv. 14, 
 
( 339 ) 
 
 with the sentiments expressed by the Synod of New 
 York and Philadelphia^ A. D., 1786, and by our Gene- 
 ral Assembly, in the year 1816. The Act of the former 
 reads thus : " The following case of conscience from 
 ^' Donnegal Presbytery was overtured, viz. Whether 
 " Christian masters, or mistresses, ought in duty to have 
 " such children baptized, as are under their care, 
 '^ though born of parents not in the communion of any 
 " Christian church ? Upon this overture Synod are of 
 " opinion, that Christian masters and mistresses whose 
 '^ religious professions and conduct arc such, as to give 
 " them a right to the ordinance of baptism for their own 
 ^' children, may, and ought to, dedicate the children 
 '' of their HOUSEHOLD to God, in that ordinance, 
 " when they have no scruple of conscience to the con- 
 '' trary." The subsequent Act of our General Assem- 
 bly reads thus : " The Committee to whom was referred 
 '' the following question, viz. Ought baptism, on the 
 ^^ profession and promise of the master, to be adminis- 
 '^ tered to the children of slaves? reported, and their 
 " report being amended, was adopted, and is as follows, 
 " viz. 1. That it is the duty of masters who are mem- 
 ^' hers of the church, to present the children of parents 
 " in servitude to the ordinance of baptism, provided 
 '' they are in a situation to train them up in the nurture 
 '' and admonition of the Lord, thus securing to them the 
 '' rich advantages which the gospel provides. 2. That 
 " it is the duty of Christ's ministers to inculcate this doc- 
 " trine, and to baptize all children of this description, 
 ^' when presented to them by their masters."!/) Our 
 church, then, has already agreed with my Opponent 
 and Mr. Anderson in believing that oikos, house or 
 household^ includes servants. That it certainly includes 
 infants, we now proceed to prove, from the proposed 
 examination of itself and the words related to it, in the 
 following sections and particulars. 
 
 (/) Assembly's Digest, pp. 96, 97. 
 
( 540 ) 
 
 I. 
 
 OIKIA. 
 
 This word has, in one instance at least, been the oc- 
 casion of much stumbling to Baptists and Pedobaptists. 
 This one instance is 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16. " I beseech 
 '' you, brethren, (Ye know the house of Stephanas, 
 '' that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have 
 ^' addicted themselves to the minutry of the saints,) 
 " that ye submit yourselves unto such^ and to every one 
 " that helpeth with us, and laboureth." On this pas- 
 sage an able writer of our own country, Dr. Rice, in his 
 Pamphleteer,(o) speaks as follows, viz. " I confess, 
 " however, that this passage, as it stands in the Original, 
 " presents difiiculties in its grammatical structure, 
 '^ which I do not know well what to do with. I speak 
 ^' here not as a theologian or polemic, but simply as a 
 " grammarian. And adopt what system of doctrine I 
 ^' may, the difficulty presses on me : nor do I stand alone 
 " in this case. The harshness and difficulty of the Ori- 
 '^ ginal has embarrassed every commentator that I have 
 " seen. The best solution of the sentence that I have 
 '' met with, is to be found in the pamphlet already 
 ^^ quoted, under the title of Fach and Evidences on the 
 '' subject of Baptism. ^^ Dr. Rice then gives a long ex- 
 tract from one of the able pamphlets of Taylor, the English 
 Editor of Calmet's Dictionary ; a part of which reads 
 
 as follows, viz. ^* The passage respecting the 
 
 ^' household of Stephanas is a tissue of difficulties. The 
 ^' first remark on it is, that, as it stands, it is neither 
 ^' Greek, grammar, nor common sense. It cannot be re- 
 ^' gularly construed. All commentators have felt this, 
 ^' and have attempted to force it into sense by supple- 
 '^ mentary words. '^ At last this eminent scholar con- 
 cludes that we should drop from the text all that part 
 of the 15th verse, which our Translators have enclosed 
 
 (o) p. 58. 
 
 i 
 
 \ 
 
( 341 ) 
 
 in parenthesis, and that we should consider it as only 
 intended hy the Apostle as a marginal note ; but one 
 which was unskilfully introduced into the text too early 
 to leave any trace in our ancient manuscripts or versions. 
 This conjectural emendation, he thinks absolutely ne- 
 cessary, to preserve the passage from the absurdity, of 
 commanding the whole Corinthian church, and Stepha- 
 nas among them, to submit to his servants^ or, at best, 
 his children^ intended by household, as some think. 
 
 I confess myself utterly averse to taking such liberties 
 with the Original text, merely because it appears harsh, 
 ungrammatical, and hard to be understood. Would not 
 this plan, generally and uniformly pursued, make a new 
 bible? or, rather, would it not make bibles as numerous 
 and various as the tastes and understandings of critics 
 and commentators ? This would certainly make sad work 
 of our only infallible standard, not excepting that por- 
 tion of it which was written by Paul, the penman of the 
 text ; in whose epistles, as Peter tells us, " are some 
 things hard to be understood.'' 
 
 I am inclined, however, to doubt, whether Peter would 
 attribute this character to our text. The difficulty, with 
 us, monstrous as it is said to be, appears to arise only from 
 a slight inadvertency in interpreting the reference of a 
 single word. The word such in the 16th verse, may be 
 understood to refer to one of two things in the 15th verse; 
 that is, either house or saints. If to the former, then 
 i! the passage is difficult : but if to the latter, it is easy 
 
 and consistent. This will appear, I think, when the 
 subject has received that patient investigation, which 
 our highly respectable objectors have given to other pas- 
 sages of scripture. 
 
 If the word such refer to the house of Stephanas^ 
 then the Apostle seems to require, that as the household 
 or children of Stephanas had ministered to the saints, 
 therefore, the church of Corinth, and even Stephanas 
 himself, must submit to these children. This would 
 teach, that where a house of children exercises a be- 
 nevolent ministry J or deacon ry, to Christians, they, 
 
( 342 ) 
 
 thereby, acquire a right to govern their parents, con- 
 trary to the Apostle's instructions to Timothy, that 
 Deacons should have a character for " ruling their 
 children and their own houses well ;''(o) instead of let- 
 ting their houses rule them. Instead of this ministration 
 to the saints giving a right to rule, the same Apostle, in 
 the next epistle, declares, that it is itself an evidence 
 of submission. " Whiles by the experiment of this 
 DEACoJfuY, ministration, they glorified God for your 
 professed hypotage, submission, to the gospel of 
 Christ.'' It seems, therefore, that such cannot refer to 
 tho; house of Stephanas, as Christians are not required to 
 submit to children. 
 
 If, however, we can lawfully construe the word such, 
 as referring to the saints, there is no difficulty in the 
 matter ; because the scriptures as uniformly require us 
 to submit to saints, as to govern children. Peter says, 
 ^' Likewise, ye younger, hypotagete, submit your- 
 ^' selves unto the elder: yea, all of you, hypotas- 
 " soMENOi, submit yourselves one to another P[p) In 
 ^' accordance with this, Paul, the penman of our text, 
 says to the Ephesian saints, " Hypotassomenoi, sub- 
 ^' mitting, yourselves one to another, in the fear of 
 ^^ God.^l^') Let us now paraphrase the passage ac- 
 cording to this view, reading the translation given by 
 Macnight, and approved by my Opponent, and, (strange 
 to tell,) copied into his New Testament. It is as follows, 
 viz. " Ye know \ht family of Stephanas, that it is the 
 first fruit of Achaia, and that they have devoted them- 
 selves to the deaconry, ministry, to the saints. I en- 
 treat you, therefore, brethren, that ye hypotassesthe, 
 submit yourselves to such, [that is to the saints,] and 
 to every joint worker and labourer, [in the gospel, 
 especially.]" 
 
 This interpretation has the advantages of containing 
 no monstrous sentiment, but a meaning which is per- 
 fectly scriptural ; it preserves the text from any need of 
 
 (o) 1 Tim. iii. 12. (/z) 1 Pet. v, 5. {q) Epb. v. 21. 
 
( 343 ) 
 
 jugiilation; and it makes the pronoun such, refer to a 
 nearer and more natural antecedent, instead of one more 
 remote. The amount of the passage is this ; that Paul 
 beseeches the Christians of Corinth to submit to the 
 saints, by ministering to them, as the household of Ste- 
 phanas had ministered to them, and thus submitted to 
 them ; and as all saints should submit to one another, 
 and serve one another. This should remove the diffi- 
 culty, on the part of the Pedobaptists. 
 
 But it was observed that the Baptists also stumble at 
 this passage : for they insist that it proves that the 
 oiKiA, household^ of Stephanas, consisted of adults, 
 who officiated as deacons, or preachers, or both. Ad- 
 mitting, then, that oikos and oikia have the same mean- 
 ing, they consider this as proof that the baptized oikos, 
 household^ of Stephanas, consisted of these same adults, 
 who officiated as deacons or preachers, or both. This 
 conclusion, however, must rest upon one of two posi- 
 tions, both equally false. One is, that there is no other 
 mmistration allowed in the Scriptures, besides an offi- 
 cial deaconry. But they might as well say that submis- 
 sion is always official, and that none but adults can yield 
 submission and obedience. It may be easily shewn from 
 Scripture that there are personal and pecuniary minis- 
 trations or deaconriesj which the saints may and do re- 
 ceive from children. When Jesus went to Bethany, it 
 is said, " There they made him a supper, and Martha 
 DEACONizED, served.^^(o) Was hers an official deaconry^ 
 or w^as it above the capacity of children under thirteen 
 years old, whom Jews and Christians consider subjects 
 of infant circumcision and baptism ? There are, proba- 
 bly, few of us who are not in the habit of seeing such 
 ministrations from children, black and white, bond and 
 free. Again; Paul says, ^^But now I go unto Jerusalem, 
 to DE AGONIZE, minister, unto the saints. (/?) If this pe- 
 cuniary ministration was an official deaconry, then Paul 
 held the office of a deacon in the church, although this 
 
 (o) Jno. xii, 2, (Ji) Rom. xv. 25. 
 
( 344 ) 
 
 office was originally instituted for the relief of the Apos- 
 tles, whose office was entirely distinct. Dr. Gill, there- 
 fore, praises the Apostle's condescension, in submitting 
 to this inofficial ministration, *^ though this might seem 
 ^^ below his office as an apostle, and as what more became 
 '' an inferior officer, a deacon in the church.'^ But if 
 children may minister food to the saints, surely they may 
 minister money also. Let the collectors of the sabbati- 
 cal contributions in our churches say, whether children 
 never throw in their mite. Many of us are acquainted 
 with interesting anecdotes upon this subject ; and they 
 are becoming more common, as it is more common for 
 parents to teach their children to give their pocket mo- 
 ney to pious and benevolent objects, rather than for the 
 mere gratification of their palate. Thus the first posi- 
 tion of our opponents will not stand. And as for the se- 
 cond, that household always excludes infants, we hope to 
 shew that this is equally untenable. To this we now 
 more directly proceed. 
 
 The word oikia, now under consideration, often desig- 
 nates places or property. Such is thought to be the case, 
 when our Saviour, as reported by three of the Evangel- 
 ists,(^) censures the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees, 
 for devouring widows' hnuses. Dr. Gill believes it to 
 mean the goods deposited in their houses. My Oppo- 
 nent's New Testament, however, in all three of these 
 places, renders it families , ye '* devour the families of 
 widows.'^ Now if widows have infimts, and these in- 
 fants belong to their families^ then infants are included 
 in the word oikia, by the decision of my Opponent's 
 own incomparable translation of the New Testament. 
 Even where this word does signify property, it is apt to 
 be that sort which has infant tenants. The Septuagint 
 uses this word for those " tents^^ in which the '^ plain 
 man" Jacob was said to dwell. (^) We all know what 
 sort 0^ di family Jacob had, to occupy these tents. This 
 
 (g) Matt, xxiii. 14 Mark xii. 40. Luke xx. 47, 
 (X) Gen. XXV. ir. 
 
( 345 ) 
 
 word is used in that text also, which says, " As for the 
 stork, the fir-trees are her housed Now we know that 
 the house or nest of birds is usually built for no other 
 end than the accommodation of their young. Indeed 
 Mr. Thomson, a favourite translator of my Opponent, 
 considers these directly intended in the text. His trans- 
 lation of the Septuagint says " The family of the stork 
 account them their own/' Akin to these texts is that one 
 which says, " But in a great house, there are not only 
 vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth, 
 and some to honour, and some to dishonour.''(t) This 
 great house is literally the place and the property of the 
 owner: but Gill considers it a figure of the church. 
 Whether this great house contains any small vessels or 
 not, may be learned from the same Apostle, who spoke 
 to the Corinthians, " even as unto babes in Christ ;'^y) 
 and said to the Hebrews, ^^ Every one that useth milk 
 is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a 
 babeP[k) Passing over many instances in which this 
 word directly denotes families with infants, we shall only 
 specify two or three. Moses says to Israel, '^ Thou shalt 
 rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God 
 hath given unto thee, and unto thine houseP[l) Dr. Gill 
 explains it, ^^To them and \\\€\v families, by which they 
 were comfortably provided for.'' Here the word is ap- 
 plied to every family in that miraculously fruitful na- 
 tion, and is used in connexion with that provision which 
 God made for the youngest infants in those families ; 
 with which the parents are said to rejoice, as the jailer 
 did with all his house, Jeremiah said to Zedekiah, 
 ^^and thou shalt live, and thy house.^\m) Dr. Gill says, 
 '^not only himself, but his wives and children and ser- 
 vants,^^ It appears, then, that oikia is used in the Greek 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to include 
 children and servants. The same thing appears more 
 glaring, if possible, in that passage in which Joseph says 
 to his brethren, ^^Fear not; I will nourish you and your 
 
 (0 2 Tim. ii. 20. 0) 1 Cor. iii. 1. {k) Heb. v. 13. 
 
 (/) Deut. xxvi. 11. (w)Jer. xxxviii. 17. 
 
 X X 
 
( 346 ) 
 
 oiKiAS, households y[n) The Hebrew word(o) whicli is 
 here translated oikias by the Septuagint, is a collective 
 noun, signifying, as Parkhurst says, ''young childretiJ^ 
 Calasio explains it by ^^Ccetus seu multitudo pueuo- 
 RUM ET iNFANTiUM, a colltction Or multitude of child- 
 ren and infantsP The latter, with the Vulgate and 
 Tremellius, has rendered it in the text, by the word 
 PARVULOS, little ones; exactly the rendering of our 
 English Bible, ^^I will nourish you and your little ones,^^ 
 The manner in which the word is used throughout the 
 Scriptures, proves this to be its real meaning. Robin- 
 son, after his fashion, would make them all young men 
 and women, as he does the " little ones^^ of Tertullian : 
 but Ezekiel expressly distinguishes these " little child- 
 ren^^ as our translation has it, from old men and women, 
 from young men and maids. (/?) And the history prece- 
 ding our text, speaks of these little ones as nurslings 
 which need to be carried in waggons, with their mothers 
 and the aged Patriarch Jacob, Pharaoh says, " Take 
 you waggons out of the land of Egypt, for your little ones, 
 and for your wives, and bring your father, and come.^^ 
 ^' And Jacob rose up from Beer-sheba ; and the sons of 
 Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, 
 and their wives, in the waggons which Pharaoh had sent 
 to carry him.''(<7) It is no wonder, therefore, that when 
 Joseph promises to nourish them and their oikias, Dr. 
 Gill should explain it, as he has done, in the following 
 words, viz. '^ I will nourish you and your little 
 ^' ONES ; provide food for them and their families, not 
 " only for themselves and their sons, now grown up, but 
 ^' their grand children, and even the youngest and latest 
 ^' of their families should share in his favours.'^ In this 
 instance the Septuagint uses oikia not as a general term 
 including infants, but as a particular and distinct design 
 nation of infants. If, then, as Mr. Anderson and my 
 Opponent alledge, oikia and oikos are synonimous, 
 oiKOS also must designate infants; and the household 
 baptism of the New Testament be infant baptism. 
 
 (n) Gen. 1. 21. (o) f]t3 
 
 (Ji) Ez. ix. 0. {q) Gen. xlv. 19. xlvi. 5. 
 
I 
 
 ( 347 ) 
 
 ir. 
 
 PANOIKIA. 
 
 Taylor quotes from Apocryphal Greek, that Haman 
 was '' hanged at the gates of Susa, sun te panoikia, 
 '' with all his household ;^\s) among whom were ten 
 sons. This was in consequence of Esther's obtaining a 
 decree, empowering " the Jews which were in every 
 ^^ city, to gather themselves together, and to stand for 
 '^ their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, 
 '^ all the power of the people and province that would 
 ^^ assault them, both little ones and women. '^(/) This 
 decree was intended as an offset to a preceding one " to 
 " destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both 
 '' young and old, little children and women. "(w) It must 
 be evident to every candid and intelligent person, that 
 it was Haman's intention to destroy every Jewish sub- 
 ject with his whole household, " young w[\(\. oMl, little 
 children and women ;'' that it was the intention of Mor- 
 decai and Esther to destroy every assailant, with his 
 " LITTLE ONES and women :'' in consequence of which 
 retaliation, thousands of infants actually perished, some of 
 whom most probably belonged to the nxxm^vow^ panoikia 
 of Haman. 
 
 III. 
 
 PAROIKIA. 
 
 ^' Now these are the names of the children of Israel, 
 which came into Egypt ; every man and his household 
 came with Jacob. ''(i;) For household here the Septua- 
 agint reads Paroikia.(z^) Dr. Gill considers it as em- 
 bracing " their families, wives, children, and servants.'^ 
 After the armed adventurers of the tribe of Dan had se- 
 cured Micah's priest, it is said " They turned and de- 
 
 (s) Apocryphal Esther xvi. 18. (Gr. 12.) in Bap. Self-convict, p. 45. 
 
 (t) Esther viii. 11. (w) Esth. iii. 13. {y) Ex. i. 1. 
 
 (w) I observe that the Margin of Calasio reads fianoikU This is the 
 reading of Grab : but the Septuagint of Wechehus, and the Venetian edi- 
 tion, both weighty, read /zaroifcfa. 
 
( 348 ) 
 
 parted, and put the little ones and the cattle and the 
 carriage before them.'^Co:) Dr. Gill believes that these 
 predatory emigrants carried their wives with them, 
 though they are not mentioned. As for these " little 
 ones,^^ the Doctor considers them their ^' children,^^ 
 " Little ones^^ is a literal translation of the Hebrew,(y) 
 and is an exact accordance with the parvulos of the 
 Latin Vulgate, of Junius and Tremellius, ofTrommius, 
 and of Sebastian Castallio. The Vatican Septuagint has 
 TA TEKNE, children, a good rendering, though a bad 
 reading. Grab has a better reading, panoikia ; and 
 best of all, the Aldine Septuagint reads paroikia. This 
 reading is reported by Calasio, in the margin of his He- 
 brew Concordance, and found in the text of the Franc- 
 fort Septuagint, used by Kircher and Trommius in their 
 Concordances to the Septuagint. Here then, is an in- 
 stance in which this ancient version uses paroikia, not 
 as a general term including infants, but as a particular 
 and distinct designation of infants. The conclusion to 
 which analogy would lead us is obvious. 
 
 IV. 
 
 PASA PAROIKIA or PANOIKIA. 
 The first is the reading of the Francfort edition, and 
 the second of the Vatican and others, in Gen. 1. 22. ^^And 
 ^' Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his brethren, and all 
 " his father's numerous household.''^ Dr. Gill says, 
 " Not only he but his brethren and \\\€\v families P The 
 preceding verse shews that these families were composed, 
 in great part, of " little ones," there called oikia. These 
 infants, then, must, of course, be included in pasa pa- 
 noikia, which appears intended to magnify oikia doubly. 
 
 V. 
 
 OIKOS. 
 
 Like oikia this sometimes signifies property, bona, 
 FACULTATES, as Hcdcricus explains it. The Lord said 
 
 (jt) Judg. xviii. 21. (y) ^ 
 
( 349 ) 
 
 to David, '' I gave thee thy Master's house,^\z) Gill 
 says " his family, his wives, servants, wealth and rich- 
 '' es.'^ Solomon says, " If a man would give all the 
 " substance of his house for love, it would utterly be 
 " contemned. ^'(a) So the thief " shall give all the 
 '' substance of his house,^\b) So Jehoram's enemies 
 " carried away all the substance that was found in the 
 '' king's house,^\c) Pharaoh says to Joseph, '' Thou 
 '' shalt be over my houseP{d) Gill says, '' have the 
 '^ care of his domestic aifairs, and be the principal man 
 ^^in his palace and court.'^ While with Potiphar, Jo- 
 seph said, " Behold my master wotteth not what is 
 " with me in the houseP{t) Gill says, " what goods or 
 '^ money are in it.'^ Concerning the dinner which Jo- 
 seph gave to his brethren, he gave orders '^ to the ruler 
 " of his house.^^ Gill says, " his steward ;'' and so Mo- 
 ses calls him in the context.(/) The steward of the 
 house was to take care of the property which was in the 
 house. But when this word denotes the building itself, 
 and still more when it is applied to persons, it illustrates 
 and confirms the doctrine that household baptism is in- 
 fant baptism, as we shall see in the following particu- 
 lars. 
 
 1 . The Material or Mechanical House, For a few 
 examples we would refer to the house of Zacharias and 
 Mary ;(^) the house which the owner suffered to be 
 broken through; (A) the king's Aow^e, and houses of the 
 people, which the Chaldeans burned with fire.(i) They 
 burnt moreover the house of the Lord, which was a 
 figure of the church, with all its members, infant and 
 adult.r/) Our Translators have once rendered oikos, 
 temple ;{h) and where they say, " Your house is left 
 unto you desolate,"(/) Gill considers it as including ^^the 
 
 (z) 2 Sam. xii. 8. («) Cant. viii. 7. 
 
 b) Prov. vi. 31 (c) 2 Chr. xxi. 17. 
 
 d) Gen. xli. 40—4. So Gen. xlv. 8. and Acts vii. 10. 
 
 e) Gen. xxxix. 8. 
 
 (/) Gen. xliii. 16. 19. So Gen, xxxix. 4. 5. Ps. cv. 21. 
 
 {g) Luke i. 40. 56. (/z) Luke xii. 39. 
 
 (?) Jer. xxxix, 8, (^J ) Jer. Hi. 13. 
 
 {k) Luke xi. 51. (/) Matt. Xxiii. 38. 
 
( 350 ) 
 
 ^' temple, formerly the house of God, but now only 
 '^ theirs/' With the burning of this house, Ezekiel 
 expressly connects the slaying of their sons and daugh- 
 ters ;(/?2) and the Septuagint considered Ezra as impli- 
 citly recognizing this connexion, when he calls it " The 
 " house of the great God, which is builded with elect 
 ^^ stones,'*(w) according to their rendering. As they 
 have here called the constituents of the material temple, 
 elect stones, so they have elsewhere applied the epithet 
 elect, to the foundation and chief-corner stone of the 
 spiritual temple. («j In this they are copied by the Apos- 
 tle Peter, where he speaks of the spiritual house being 
 built up of lively stones. ip) It is evident, therefore, 
 that the building of the material house of elect stones, 
 is intended to illustrate the building of the spiritual 
 house of elect stones, and of infants, of course, if there 
 be any elect infants. That there are elect infants, is 
 admitted even by the most rigid Calvinists; among 
 whom I desire always to be ranked. On this subject my 
 sentiments are exactly expressed by our excellent Con- 
 fession. C^') As almost all errorists believe in the univer- 
 sal election of infants, both sides should agree that they 
 belong to this house. 
 
 2. The Spiritual House, Paul says of Christ, that 
 he is a faithful ruler ^^ a son over his own house ; 
 " whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and 
 '' the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end."(r) The 
 angel said to Mary, " He shall reign over the house of 
 '' Jacob forever."(«) Dr. Gill says, " As his father 
 " David reigned over the Idumeans, Syrians, and others, 
 '^ as well as over the house of Judah, and Israel, so this 
 '' his son shall reign over both Jews and Gentiles : his 
 '' kingdom shall be from one end of the earth to the 
 '' other, even over all the elect of God.'' Now if 
 there are infants to be found among ^' Jews and Gen- 
 *' tiles ;" if there are infants to be found '^ from one 
 
 (m) Ez.xxiii. 47. («) Ezr. v. 8. 
 
 (o) Is^ xxviii. 16. (A) 1 Pet. ii. 5. 6. 
 
 (7) Chap, 10. Sect, 3. (r) Hcbr. iii. 6. (») Luke i. M. 
 
( 351 ) 
 
 ^^ end of ihe earth to tlie other ;" and if there are in- 
 fants to be found among " all the elect of God ;" then, 
 according to this commentary of the great Dr. Gill, in- 
 fants must be included in that " house of Jacob/^ over 
 which Christ shall reign for ever. The fact that every 
 converted adult becomes a spiritual infant in regenera- 
 tion, will be found, on examination, to be more for us 
 than against us. In relation to this spiritual birth, the 
 scriptures speak as follows. " Sing, barren, thou 
 that didst not bear ; break forth into singing, and cry 
 aloud, thou that didst not travail with child : for more 
 are the children of the desolate, than the children of the 
 married wife, saith the Lord."(0 In reference to this 
 desolate church it is said, " God setteth the solitary in 
 farailies,(w) Gill understands this of converts, who '' are 
 ^' set in families, or placed in gospel churches, which, 
 '' as families, have a master over them, who is Christ the 
 ^' Son and first born, of whom they are named ; where are 
 ^' saints of various ages, sizes, and standing; some fathers, 
 '' some young men, and some children^ Paul had to 
 speak to the Corinthians, ^^even as unto babes in 
 '' Christ. '^(f) To the Hebrews he said, " For every 
 " one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of right- 
 '' eousness, for he is a babe.^'(i^) Concerning the ex- 
 cellent woman, Solomon says, ^' She riseth also while it 
 is yet night; and giveth meat to her household, and a 
 portion to her maidens. ''(:c) Dr. Gill says that ^^spirit- 
 " ually may be meant by her household or family, the 
 ^' same with the family of Christ, that is named of him- 
 " self, which consists of various persons, fathers, young 
 " men and children.'' As to the maidens, the ministers, 
 these are to distribute " milk indeed to babes, and meat 
 '' to strong men.'' Of this same woman, Solomon says, 
 " She is not afraid of the snow for her household ; for 
 ^^ all her household Sire clothed with scarlet."(y) Gill 
 
 (0 Isa. liv. 1. Comp. Gal. iv. 26. 27. 
 {u) Ps. Ixviii. 6. (x>) 1 Cor. iii. 1. 
 
 (w) Hebr. v. 13. (x) Prov. xxxi. 15, 
 
 (y) Prov. xxxi. 21. 
 
( 352 ) 
 
 admits that this passage has a literal meaning, and that 
 of course, literal infants are included in this woman's 
 household : but when he spiritualizes it, and considers 
 the scarlet clothing as pointing to Christ's blood, does 
 he mean that no literal infants have the benefit of this 
 crimson covering? Certainly not. Then, as I said before, 
 the fact that adults become spiritual infants by regenera- 
 tion, by no means refutes the doctrine that there are 
 literal infants in the spiritual household, but rather es- 
 tablishes it. When Peter says, " Ye also, as lively 
 " stones, are built up a spiritual house,^\z) Gill says 
 that these lively stones '' lie in the same quarry, and 
 '' are the same by nature, as the rest of mankind, till 
 *^ dug out and separated from thence, by the powerful 
 ^' and efficacious grace of God.'' Now I would ask, 
 are there no literal infants in nature's quarry ? and are 
 there no literal infants which are " dug out from thence 
 " by the powerful and efficacious grace of God ?" You 
 will answer, Yes. Then there are literal infants belong- 
 ing to the spiritual house. But the Doctor believes 
 that there is a spiritual house of Antichrist as well as 
 of Christ. When Solomon says, " The Lord will de- 
 '' stroy the house of the proud, "(«) Gill understands 
 it generally, as including all proud persons, " their/am- 
 '' Hies, their children, djad posterity ;^^ and particularly, 
 '' the house of the foolish and adulterous woman, the 
 '^ idolatrous church of Rome." Now I ask, are there 
 no infants in the families, children, and posterity of the 
 proud ? Are there no infants in the house of the Roman 
 Harlot? The Anabaptists say that infant baptism is a 
 main pillar of Popery. Yet they themselves must and 
 do acknowledge that the spiritual house of Christ has 
 infants, as certainly as the spiritual house of Antichrist. 
 Analogy, therefore, would teach us that household bap- 
 tism is really infant baptism ; alihough we should be 
 very far from following the Roman Antichrist in their 
 corruptions of this ordinance. 
 
 (r) 1 Pet ii. 5. (a) Prov. xv. 25. 
 
( 353 ) 
 
 3. The Ecclesiastical House, Several texts quoted 
 on the spiritual house, are instances which apply, prima- 
 rily and literally, to the domestic house hereafter to be 
 considered: but Dr. Gill, by an allowable allegorizing, 
 applies them to the invisible church, and also, in general, 
 to the visible church, the ecclesiastical house. On that 
 passage in which Solomon^s woman " giveth meat to her 
 household, and a portion to her maidens ;'' Gill says, 
 '' It is by these the church gives meat to her household.''^ 
 When Solomon says, " He maketh the barren woman to 
 " keep house, and to be a joyful mother of children." 
 Gill says, '' This may be applied to the church of God, 
 " as it is to the congregation of Israel by the Targum." 
 But if this application be made, it must recognize literal 
 infants in the church of God ; for they belong to the 
 congregation of Isi^ael ; and they are certainly included 
 in the house here mentioned, in the literal sense of the 
 passage, according to an express statement of Dr. Gill, 
 which we may take a future opportunity of quoting. The 
 membership of infants in the Jewish and Christian 
 churches alike, shews itself plainly, to one who traces 
 through the New Testament, this important word house- 
 hold. ^' Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and 
 foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the 
 household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of 
 the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
 the chief corner stone. '^(^j Here the Jewish and Chris- 
 tian societies are considered as one household, built upon 
 a common foundation, and united by a common corner. 
 But it is certain that household circumcision was in- 
 fant circumcision; and if the Jewish household in- 
 cluded infants, why not the Christian household ? It 
 is said moreover, that " Moses verily was faithful in all 
 " his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things 
 ^' which w^ere to be spoken after.'' Dr. Gill says, ^^He 
 '^ was not a servant in the world, and with respect to 
 " civil things, and the affairs of Providence, but in the 
 
 {b) Eph. ii. 19—22. 
 
 Yy • - 
 
( 354 ) 
 
 ^^ church of God,^^ even " in the house of Israel, or 
 ^^ among that people which were the Lord/ s family ''(c) 
 Whether the " Lord's family,''^ as it existed in the 
 '' house of IsraeV^ had infants or not, judge ye. It is 
 undeniable that infants did belong to the Jewish ecclesi- 
 astical house. But PauFs words which immediately 
 follow those just now quoted, prove the identity of the 
 Jewish and the Christian ecclesiastical house: ^^ But 
 '^ Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house are 
 ^^ we,^'[d) In the preceding verse, Dr. Gill could see 
 plainly that an ecclesiastical house was meant : His com- 
 mentary would have been more correct and perspicuous, 
 if he had told us the same of this last verse, which be- 
 longs to the same sentence ; especially when the same 
 Apostle tells a Christian minister how to behave himself 
 ^* in the house of God, which is the church of the living 
 ^^ God. "(e) But there is reason to suppose that the Doc- 
 tor meant a church, when he spoke of a spiritual house, 
 as he does in his exposition of Peter's " spiritual house,''- 
 where he says, ^^ These living stones, being laid and ce- 
 ^^ mented together, in a gospel church-state, become 
 ^^ the house of God in a spiritual sense. "(/) In con- 
 formity with these views, the ecclesiastical house to 
 which I belong, considers itself a spiritual house built 
 upon a spiritual foundation. In speaking of the judica- 
 tories of the church, our Constitution says, ^' These as- 
 ^' semblies ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction, 
 ^* nor to inflict any civil penalties. Their power is 
 ^^ wholly moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial 
 ^^ and declarative. "(^) Accordingly they say, " There 
 ^' is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus 
 ^' Christ r'T^) even he of whom it is said, " The stone 
 '• which the builders refused, is become the head stone 
 ^^ of the corner.''(e) Gill tells us that those rejectors 
 
 (0 Gill on Hebr. iii. 5. and Num. xii. 7. 
 
 Hebr. iii. 6. (f) 1 Tim. iii. 15. 
 
 ) Gill on 1 Pet. ii. 5. 
 \g) Form of Gov. Chap. 8. Sect. 2. 
 \K) Confess, of Faith. Chnp. 25. Sept. 6, 
 [O Ps. cxviii. 22. 
 
 n. 
 
( 335 ) 
 
 are ^' those who were the support of their civil state, 
 ^^ and the maintainers of it ; but more especially their 
 ^^ ecclesiastical builders.^' " They refused to make use 
 '' of him in the spiritual building/^ This spiritual ec- 
 clesiastical house in which the Jews refused to use this 
 head corner stone, had infants, beyond all contradiction; 
 and one instance in which they rejected him from their 
 building, was, when ^^All the people answered and 
 ^^said. His blood be on us and on our "children,^\j) Dr. 
 Gill says, " It is a notion of the Jews, that the guilt of 
 " innocent blood, and the blood of that innocent man's 
 '' children, lie not only upon the persons immediately 
 " concerned but upon their children to the end of the 
 " world." " This imprecation of theirs has been no- 
 ^^ toriously verified in them.'' ^^On the generality of 
 ^' them his blood was, in the sense they wished it." 
 '' And to this day this dreadful wish of the blood of 
 " Christ upon them is to be seen in their miserable, ab- 
 ^^ ject and captive state ; and will be, until such time 
 ^' as they look to him whom they have pierced and 
 '' mourn. '^ This appears to be contemplated by that 
 prediction that " Judgment must begin at the house of 
 " God. ''(A) When this judgment did begin, the in- 
 fants of this house of God were in some cases actually 
 eaten by their own mothers, as we are informed both by 
 scripture prophecy and the history of Josephus. But 
 before this just and dreadful judgment against the Old 
 Testament ecclesiastical house, with its adults and in- 
 fants, Christ came '^ unto the lost sheep of the house of 
 '' Israelj^\l) with its adults and infants: and he is still 
 " an High Priest over the house of God,^\m) with its 
 ^' adults and infants, and " he shall reign over the house 
 " of Jacob forever :"(/2) for even in the New Testament 
 dispensation, " the promise is unto you and to your 
 " children.'' 
 
 ( ;■ ) Matt, xxvii. 25. {k) 1 Pet. iv. If, 
 
 (0 Matt. XV. 24. (m) Hebr. x. 21. 
 
 (n) Luke i. 33. 
 
( 356 J 
 
 4. The Celestial House. The Septuagint makes Job 
 say, " Hades is my oikos.^\o) If the unseen world is 
 here meant, it must be that state of departed spirits in 
 which Job's Redeemer lived. (j&) There must certainly 
 be infants there. Whether Job referred to this happy 
 rest or not, we know that our Saviour did, in a passage 
 where the evangelist uses a word, which my Opponent 
 says differs from oikos, no more than brothers differs 
 from brethren. He says, ^^ In my Father's oikia, house, 
 '' are many mansions."(5') Some of the mansions in this 
 house must certainly have infant tenants. So Paul says, 
 " We have a building of God, an oikia, house, not made 
 with hands, eternal in the heavens. "(r) 
 
 5. The JVational House. As the passages to be ad- 
 duced under this particular, can hardly be understood 
 without the doctrine of imputation, it will be well to re- 
 member a few plain authorities in support of this im- 
 portant scriptural truth. Concerning the wicked. Job 
 says, " God layeth up his iniquity for his children. "(5) 
 Dr. Gill says, ^' God does not punish them [the wicked] 
 '' now for their sins in their own persons, yet he will 
 ^' punish them in their children, for whom he reserves 
 " the punishment of their iniquity." " And when they 
 " have filled up the measure of their fathers' sins, by 
 ^^ their own transgressions, the deserved punishment 
 ^^ shall be inflicted, according to Ex. xx. 3." The Lord 
 said to Israel, " But as for you, your carcases, they shall 
 ^" fall in this wilderness. And your children shall wan- 
 ^^ der in the wilderness forty years, and bear your 
 ^' whoredoms ;"r^) that is, '' the punishment of their 
 ^' idolatries," as Dr. Gill says ; for, says he, " It was 
 ^' on account of them, their children wandered so long 
 *' in the wilderness." Jeremiah, in speaking for his peo- 
 ple, says, " Our fathers have sinned, and are not, and 
 " we have borne their iniquities ;'^(wj that is, according 
 to Dr. Gill, ^' the punishment of them, or chastisement 
 
 {u') .lob xvii. 13. (fi) Job xix. 25, {q) Jno. xiv, 2. 
 
 (r) 2 Cor. v. ]. («) Job xxi. 19. (r) Num. xiv. 32, 33. 
 
 (m) Lani. V. 7. 
 
( 357 ) 
 
 ^^ for them : this is not said by way of complaint, much 
 " less as charging God with injustice, in punishing them 
 '' for their fathers^ sins, or to excuse theirs, for they 
 '^ were ready to own that they had consented to them, 
 " and were guilty of the same; but to obtain mercy and 
 " pity at the hands of God."' How different this lan- 
 guage of the great and pious Baptist Commentator, from 
 that of the impious and Deistical Robinson, my Oppo- 
 nent's master : and, at present, the darling of the Bap- 
 tist church! ! The same doctrine is plainly taught in the 
 following passages. " Prepare slaughter for his chil- 
 " dren for the iniquity of their fathers ; that they do 
 '' not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the 
 '^ world with cities. "(«;) Millions of infants thus perish- 
 ed in " the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the 
 '' children of Israel \^\w) and afterward in the Jewish 
 nation itself, concerning which, Christ said, " All these 
 '' things shall come upon this generation. "(:c) The same 
 is true of Babylon, which, in one place, Jeremiah calls 
 '' that nation, '^\y) in another, " the daughter of Baby- 
 " Ion \^Uz) in which latter place the Septuagint uses 
 oiKOS, house, for daughter. That all these national 
 houses are full of infants cannot be denied. It is re- 
 markable that the Septuagint often puts the word house 
 for children, and children for house. Thus, when the 
 Original reads " children of Israel !'^ the Septuagint 
 reads " house of Israel !"(a) When the Original con- 
 demns Mount Sier for slaughtering " the children of Is- 
 rael," the Septuagint has it " the house of Israel :"(Z>) in 
 which national house, infants are certainly included ; as 
 in many other instances of a similar description ; in one 
 of which, while the Septuagint has oiKos, house, other 
 Greek translators, Tas Trommius shews,) use huioi, chil- 
 dren ;{c) thus shewing, that house and children were in- 
 terchangeable terms. This is farther confirmed from the 
 
 (y) Isa. xiv. 21, (^w) 2 Kings xxi. 9. (jt) Matt xxiii. 36. 
 (y) Jer. xxv. 12. (z) Jer. li. 33. (a) Am. iii. 1. 
 
 (o) Ez. xxxv. 5. (c) Ez. ii 3. For other cases alledged, see Ez. 
 xxxvii. 21. Jer. xxiii. 7. xvi. 14. Ez. xliv. 9. xxxvii. 21. 
 
( 358 ) 
 
 other fact just mentioned ; that where house is in the 
 Original, the word children is often found in the Sep- 
 tuagint. When Ezekiel distributes his two sticks to 
 the two nations into which the twelve tribes had 
 been long divided, he assigns one to " all the house 
 of Israel,'^ or to the " children'^ of Israel,((/) accord- 
 ing to the Septuagint, in such a way as to embrace 
 every inftmt in the nation. Many other instances of this 
 rendering also are at hand.(e) Analogous to this ancient 
 way of translating Hebrew into Greek, is the way in 
 which the Ancients rendered Greek into Syriac ; when 
 speaking not of the national, but of the domestic house j 
 whether this domestic house be designated by oikos or 
 oikia, ovpanoiki, and whether the children of this house 
 be mere infants, ov children of an age to hear the gospel 
 and receive instruction, yet young enough to be discipled 
 upon the faith of their parents. In the New Testament 
 we are told that Paul and Silas spoke the word of the 
 Lord to the jailer '' and to all that were in his oikia, 
 houseJ^ The Syriac Translation says, " to all the 
 children of his houseJ^ Immediately after we are told 
 that the jailer " rejoiced, believing in God, panoiki, 
 with all his house.*^ The Syriac saysj " and, or then, 
 rejoiced both he and all the children of his house, in the 
 faith of God." In the same chapter it is related that 
 Lydia " was baptized and her oikos, house." The 
 Syriac says " and the children of her house^if) That 
 this was done upon her faith, is evident from the language 
 of her invitation to her instructors, which my Opponent 
 says, " is the most singular invitation on record. 'Y^) He 
 may well be amazed at the whole transaction ; since it 
 not only proves, that through Lydia's faith, she and her 
 household was baptized, but gives us reason to believe, 
 that the joy of the jailer's household, was just that sort 
 of happiness which must have been diffused through the 
 household of Lydia, and is generally communicated to 
 
 (rf) Ez. xxxvii. 16. (e) Joshua xxi. 45. Lev. xvii. 3. xxii. 18. 
 
 2 Sam. vi. 5. Jer. ii. 26. Ez. iii. 1. xii. 24. iv. 3. 
 (/) Acts xvi. 15. 32, 34. {g) Spurious Debate with me, p. 265. 
 
( 359 ) 
 
 the household of a pious Pedobaptist, through the faith 
 of the head, and the covenant blessings of the baptized 
 members. 
 
 6. The Sectional House, As the whole nation was 
 called a house, so was each section or tribe. To decide 
 the dispute concerning Aaron's priesthood, the Lord 
 commanded Moses to ''' Speak unto the children of Israel, 
 " and take of every one of them a rod^ according to the 
 " house of their fathers, of all their princes, according 
 '' to the house of their fathers, twelve rods. "(A) These 
 twelve rods were for the twelve tribes or twelve section- 
 al houses into which the national house of Israel was 
 distributed. That each of these houses had a great pro- 
 portion of infants, will not probably be disputed ; espe- 
 cially as we can give an authentic account of their twelve 
 fathers, which my Opponent thinks so important in the 
 case of Lydia? In this sense oikos occurs in the Septu- 
 agint as often as fifteen times in one Chapter. In one 
 of these places, God says, " Take ye the sum of all the 
 ^^ congregation of the children of Israel, after their fami- 
 ^' lies, by the house of their fathers. ''(f) Gill says, "Af- 
 '' ter their families ; into which their tribes were divi- 
 " ded : by the house of their fathers; for if the mother 
 '^ was of one tribe, and the father of another, the family 
 ^' was according to the tribe of the father, as Jarchi 
 ^' notes, a mother's family being never called a family, 
 ^' as Aben Ezra observes." Out of these sectional houses 
 Moses made a selection of such as were over twenty 
 years and not superannuated, nor otherwise unfit for war. 
 The selection shews that the million of children from 
 whom they were drafted, belonged to the houses as well 
 as themselves. This passage my Opponent has treated 
 in the following artful manner, viz. " This same oikos 
 '' occurs 14 times in the first chapter of Numbers, and 
 ^^ includes under 12 occurrences, 603,550 adults from 
 ^' 20 years and upwards.''!/) This sweeping declara- 
 tion was made in such a way as to strike your minds with 
 
 {h) Num. xvii. 2, 3. {t) Num, i, 2. 
 
 Ij) Spurious Debate with me, p. 282, Note. 
 
( 360 ) 
 
 the impression that these twelve houses were composed 
 of adults only, and that the including, of which he 
 speaks, referred to the sum of the twelve particulars, 
 each of which consisted of male adults exclusively. If 
 so, it would be a far more brilliant case than the house 
 of Noah, which consisted of eight adults without one in- 
 fant; and far more impressive than the family of Christ, 
 which consisted of more than eight disciples, without 
 one female communicant. But on examination, it turns 
 out far otherwise. Instead of these warriors constituting 
 the tribe, family, and house of their fathers, they were, 
 as Dr. Gill says, only *^all in every tribe, family, and 
 '' house, that were above 20 years of age, healthful and 
 ^^ strong, and fit for w^ar.^^ In this respect, they resem- 
 bled the twelve princes who drafted them. Instead of 
 their composing the house themselves as Noah's adults 
 did, it seems, according to Moses, that ^^each one was 
 FOR the house of his fathers;" as Dr. Gill says, ^^for 
 " the tribe he belonged to, with which it might reason - 
 '^ ably be supposed he was best acquainted, and could 
 ^' more readily take the number of them.''(^) At a sub • 
 sequent period of the Jewish history it is said that Na- 
 shon was a ^^ Prince of the oikos of Judah."(/) Now 
 it may be asked, were there any infants in this oikos ? 
 and did or did they not owe allegiance to Nashon as 
 members of the oikos over which he was a prince ? In 
 this place the Hebrew reads children instead of house, 
 as the Septuagint reads children in several other places 
 where the sectional '' house'^ is found in the Original, 
 embracing ini\ints in it.(m) 
 
 7. The Royal House. Under this particular we have 
 again to notice the punishment of children and grand 
 children for the sins of parents. The Lord told David 
 that the famine was "for Saul and his bloody house; 
 '^ because he slew the Gibeonites.'' On which account, 
 long after Saul was dead, the Giheonites said that they 
 would not accept a pecuniary ransom " of Saul, nor of 
 
 (it) GUI on Num. i. 44. 45. (/) 1 Clir. ii. 10. 
 
 (w) See Joshua xvii. 17. xviii. 5. Ez. xxv. 12. Hos. i. 7. 
 
( 361 ) 
 
 1 
 
 '' his hou8e^^\n) but demanded that seven of that house 
 should be executed by way of retaliation. Five of the 
 seven were Saul's grandchildren, the sons of his daugh- 
 ter Michal, by Barzillai. Concerning the royal son of 
 Nebat, God says, " I will bring evil upon the house of 
 Jeroboam," " and will take away the remnant of the 
 " house of Jeroboam." In this house there was a child, 
 concerning which it is said, " All Israel shall mourn for 
 '^ him and bury him ; for he only of Jeroboam shall 
 " come to the grave, because in him there is found some 
 '^ good thing, towards the Lord God of Israel in the 
 ''house of Jeroboam. "(o) When God said to David, 
 " The sword shall never depart from thy house^^^ " I 
 '* will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house,^^ 
 he says, '* the child also that is born unto thee shall 
 '^ surely die :"(j&) leaving us to conclude that this child 
 belonged to his house, as the child of Jeroboam belonged 
 to his house. When God said by the Prophet Amos, 
 " I will rise against the house of Jeroboam, "(^'J Gill con- 
 siders it to mean " \h^ family of Jeroboam." When it 
 is said that Zimri '^slew all the house of Baasha,'Y^j 
 Gill says that it means " his whole f ami li/, all the child- 
 " ren that he had ;" and '' not only his posterity, but 
 all any way related to him." Were there no infants re- 
 lated to him ? When it is said that " Jehu was executing 
 " judgment upon the house of Ahabj'Y^J Gill says that 
 this royal house of Ahab included " Joram his son and 
 " seventy more sons." Strange if there were no infants 
 among them ! When Nathan said to David, " The Lord 
 " telleth thee that he will make thee an house,'\t) this 
 house prominently contemplated an infant yet to be 
 born. The very next verse says, " I will set up thy 
 " seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bow- 
 " els, and I will establish his kingdom." From the first 
 of these verses, Gill understands that God will '' not only 
 
 (n) 2 Sam. xxi. 1. 4. (o) 1 Kings xiv. 10. 13. Comp. xv. 29. 
 
 (/z ) 2 Sam. xii. 10. 11. 14. {<j) Am. vii. 9. 
 Ir) 1 Kgs, xvi. 11. 12. (») 2Clir. xxii. 8. 
 
 (/) 2 Sam. vii. 11. Comp. 12—16. 
 
 Z z 
 
( 362 ) 
 
 '^ build up his family and make that numerous, [by 
 " giving him many infants, of course,] but establish the 
 '' house of his kingdom.'' The next he says " has re- 
 ^^ gard to a future son of his not yet born ; not Absa- 
 '' lom nor Adonijah, nor any of the rest born in Hebron 
 '^ were to succeed him in the kingdom, but one as yet 
 '^ unbornJ^ It will not do to say that this prophecy 
 contemplated this unborn son as grown to maturity, and 
 fit to reign, before he belonged to his father's royal 
 house. There is incontrovertible evidence at hand 
 that he belonged to his father's royal house the moment 
 that he was born. This evidence is contained in a pro- 
 phecy concerning one of his royal successors: viz. 
 *^ Behold, a child shall be horn unto the house of Da- 
 *'^ vid, Josiah by name.^ft^) But these prophecies con- 
 template ultimately that King who is the Root and off- 
 spring of David, whom Dr. Gill considers as introduced 
 into the house of David from the moment of his concep- 
 tion. The rapturous song of Zacharias tells us that 
 God '^ hath raised up an horn of salvation for us, in the 
 ^' house of his servant David. '^(?;) Gill says, '' In Da- 
 ^' vid's family, he being now conceived by a virgin of 
 ^' his house, and who, in a little time, would be born in 
 ^' Bethlehem the city of David." There is no need, 
 therefore, to go in search of Lydia's husband, or of the 
 jailer's wife, in order to tell what sort of houses they 
 were, which were baptized upon the faith of the pa- 
 rents. 
 
 8. The Pontifical or Sacerdotal House, Eli, the 
 High Priest, of the house of Ithamar, was addressed 
 as follows ; " Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, 
 ^^ I said indeed that thy house and the house of thy fa- 
 ^' ther should walk before me forever : but now the 
 ^' Lord saith, Be it far from me ; for them that honour 
 *^ me I will honour, and they that despise me, shall be 
 
 (w) 1 Kgs. xiii. 2. To this add 1 Chr. xvii. 25. 2 Sam, vii. £7. I Kgs, 
 xi. 38. 
 (v) Lukei. 69. 
 
( 363 ) 
 
 ^' lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come that I will 
 " cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, 
 ^' and there shall not be an old man in thine house. And 
 '' thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the 
 '' wealth which God shall give Israel : and there shall 
 ^* not be an old man in thine house forever. And the 
 " man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine 
 " altar, shall be to consume thine eyes and to grieve 
 ^* thine heart : and all the increase of thine house shall 
 " die in the flower of their age.'' (or " die men,") as 
 the Margin reads, (i^j Here is a numerous house with- 
 out one old man. As to these young men, the question 
 is, were they in the flower of their age, when they first 
 became the increase of Eli's house ? If so, they were 
 the only instance of the kind since the days of Adam. 
 Instead of '^ thine arm and the arm of thy father's 
 ' house/^ the Septuagint reads " thy seed and the seed 
 *^ of thy father's hoiise,^^ With this Dr. Gill's Commen* 
 tary agrees : for he says that his arm means " his child- 
 ". reuj which are the strength of a man, and the sup- 
 '' port of his family :" as when Jacob calls Reuben 
 " the beginning of my strength^'^ix) the Septuagint 
 calls him " the beginning of my children ;" and this he 
 was, the moment that he was born. This arm of Eli's 
 house, therefore, would have embraced his infants, if 
 he had had any, and did actually, as Dr. Gill admits, 
 embrace the children of his sons, concerning which the 
 Dr. says, " The children they left were very young:" 
 and if the memorable Ichabodj one of these very young 
 children, who was born just after the death of his father, 
 had been said to join his bereaved mother in the mourn- 
 ing of despair, it would have no more proved him an 
 adult, than the fact that the jailer's house participated 
 in his joy of faith, proves them to be adults. Rachel's 
 new born son did actually participate in his mothers an- 
 guish, when she called his name Benoni, the son of my 
 sorrow ; and it was perfectly consistent with the lan- 
 
 (7y) 1 Sam, ii. 30—53, {x) Gen. x'ix. 3. 
 
( 364 ) 
 
 guage of the scriptures for his first smile to be constru- 
 ed into a participation of his father's joy, when he call- 
 ed his name Benjamin, the son of my right hand. 
 
 9, The Patriarchal House, In accounting for Da- 
 niel's calling Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 when he was really his grandson^ Prideaux remarks 
 that ^^This is to be understood in the large sense, where- 
 " in any ancestor upward is often called father, and any 
 '' descendant downward, son, according to the usual 
 ^' style of Scripture.'^ This extensive range of family- 
 ascent and family-descent is sometimes comprehended in 
 the patriarchal house. Pindar, in an address to Xeno- 
 phon, calls him, and his father, and grandfather, " the 
 [oiKOS,] house, thrice victor in the Olympic games. '^(y) 
 Taylor has shewn that Paul once uses oikos for family- 
 ascent. " If any widow have children or grandchildren, 
 [as my Opponent justly renders it,] let them learn first 
 to shew piety to their own oikos, hquse, and to requite 
 their progenitors ;^^{z) which are their own house. It 
 more generally means idiVaWy- descent, Lycophron calls 
 the adulterer, ^^oikophthoron,^ corrupter of houses f'' 
 and Ignatius, writing to the Ephesians, says that " hoi 
 oiKOPHTHouoi, corrupters of houses, shall not inherit 
 the kingdom of God.'^ Houses are evidently thus cor- 
 rupted by the introduction of illegitimate infants : for, as 
 Taylor, (from whom these cases are borrowed,) observes, 
 the adulterer is " not merely the seducer of wives, but 
 ^' the corrupter of the blood, of the family-descent, by 
 " introducing a spurious brood. "(a) This is a promi- 
 nent feature in the definitions of a hoifse, which the same 
 author has given us from Aristotle and Cicero. 'The for- 
 mer says, " A house is a society connected together ac- 
 *^ cording to the course of nature, for long continu- 
 '^ ance.^\h) To this long continuance Cicero adds the 
 relation of afilnity, which the Old Testament recognizes 
 in the daughters-in-law of the house of Noah, and which 
 
 (v) 2(i edition of Taylor's Facts and Evidences, p. 33. 
 
 (t) 1 Tim. V. 4. (a) Taylor's 2d Ed. of Facts & Evid. p. ZX 
 
 {h) Facts and Evid. 1st Ed. p. iSl. 
 
( 365 ) 
 
 the New Testament recognizes in the house divided 
 against itself, the daughter-in-law against her mother- in- 
 law. (c) There is also a very express scriptural recog- 
 nition of Aristotle's idea of long continvancey in one of 
 David's prayers. ^^ Therefore now let it please thee to 
 " bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for 
 " ever before thee : for thou, O Lord God, hast spoken 
 '^ it, and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant 
 '' be blessed for ever.'^(6/) The long continuance of 
 David's house is implied even in the threat, '^ Now, 
 therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy 
 house,^\e) Dr. Gill says that this was fulfilled in the 
 slaughter of " his posterity, through their wars with the 
 children of Israel and other nations." It has already 
 been shewn, under a former particular, that his posterity 
 numbered many infants which were devoured by the 
 sword. These infants, then, belonged to his house. Ac- 
 cording to this plan, of visiting the iniquities of the fa- 
 thers upon the children, to the third and fourth genera- 
 tion of them that hate him,(/) he punished the posterity 
 of polluted Ham, in the line of Canaan. (^) Not only so, 
 but with the pious patriarchs, God blessed their houses 
 also; as may be seen in ^"^the house of Jacob, which 
 came into Egypt.''(A) This house consisted of seventy 
 souls, including many infa7its. To his father, Joseph 
 says, " There will I nourish thee, (for yet there are five 
 years of famine,) lest thou, and thy household, and all 
 that thou hast, come to poverty."(e) Here the Septua- 
 gint does not use the word oikos, but other Greek Trans- 
 lators do, as Trommius informs us, and Gill informs us 
 that his household here means ^^ his whole posterity ;" 
 which certainly embraces infants. Upwards of seventy 
 years after this, the Patriarch Ephraim, the son of Jo- 
 seph, lost a son and three grandsons by the sword of cer- 
 tain plunderers from Gath; subsequent to which mourn- 
 ful loss, his wife '' bare a son, and he called his name 
 
 (c) Facts and Evid. 2nd Ed. p. 34. 
 
 [d) 2 Sam. vii. 29. (f ) 2 Sam. xii. 10, 
 (/) Ex. XX. 5. iff) Gen. ix. 22--25. 
 (A) Gen. xlvi. 27. 51. (i) Gen. xlv. 11, 
 
( 366 ) 
 
 Beriah, because it went evil with his hoiiseJ'ij) Gill 
 observes that this infant '^ in some measure made up for 
 the loss he had sustained," in his house : then of course 
 this child must belong to his house, as soon as he comes 
 into the world. So^ as soon as Joseph the reputed father 
 of Jesus was born, he '' was of the house and lineage of 
 " David. "(A:) But Christ was said to be '' in the house 
 of his servant David/'(/) before he was born ; ^^ He 
 being now conceived by a virgin of his house,^' as Dr. 
 Gill observes. 
 
 10. The Domestic House. Here we find the house- 
 holds of Lydia and the jailer, which have been the in- 
 nocent occasion of so much dispute. Along with these, 
 Dr. Gill reckons the house of Zaccheus, concerning 
 which our Saviour says, " This day is salvation come 
 to this house :^\m) [that is, ^^ to the inhabitants of 
 this house ;" as Dr. Gill informs us the Arabic Version 
 renders it.] On this passage the Dr. says, '^ Some- 
 *' times the Lord takes one of a city, and two of a fami- 
 '^ ly ; and sometimes whole families, as Lydia's and the 
 " jailer's, and here Zaccheus's, as seems probable.'' In 
 this controversy, it is of no great importance whether, 
 on the one hand, we lose Stephanas, upon the authority 
 of some Greek writers, (yz) who believe him to be the 
 jailer, removed from Philippi to Corinth ; or whether, 
 on the other hand, we gain Fortunatus and Achaicus, 
 upon the authority of some Greek manuscripts and the 
 Vulgate, which associate these names and their houses 
 with " the house of Stephanas," as the Apostle's " first 
 fruits of Achaia."(o) In the same church, the Apostle 
 baptized Crispus and Gaius,(/^) without telling us whe- 
 ther they baptized their households, or whether they 
 had any or not. With respect to Crispus the defect is 
 made up by another writer, who informs us that he had 
 a large household,[q) But even then it is not mentioned 
 
 j) iChr. vii. 23. (c. 21. 22.) 
 
 k) Luke ii. 4. The same may be said of Mary. Luke i. 27. 
 
 /) Luke i. 69. (m) Luke xix. 9. 
 
 n) Asserted by Dr. Gill on 1 Cor, i, 16. 
 
 0) 1 Cor. xvi. 15. Sc Gill there, {fi) 1 Cor. i. 14. 
 
 q) Acts xviii, 8. 
 
( 367 ) 
 
 that the household was baptized. Of this, however, 
 there can be no doubt, since there is the same reason for 
 baptizing his house that there is for baptizing the jailer's; 
 and the baptism of "• many of the Corinthians'' is men- 
 tioned in the very same sentence. There is reason to 
 believe that these " Many" were composed of whole 
 houses and separate individuals; and that this was not 
 applicable to Corinth only, but that this gospel ordinance 
 followed the gospel itself, which, as Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus says, " Spread itself over the whole world, con- 
 ^' verting equally Greeks and Barbarians, in every nation 
 ^' and village, and in all cities, whole houses and sepa- 
 ^' rate individuals. "(r) 
 
 To prove that the Apostles practised household bap- 
 tism, it is not necessary to find a multiplicity of instances 
 in scripture. If many cases of household baptism be ne- 
 cessary to prove apostolical practice, then many cases of 
 female communion are as necessary to prove apostolical 
 practice. But if such evidence be requisite, we shall 
 not only have to relinquish female communion, as an 
 apostolical practice, but w^e must give up even male 
 communion also, since there are not as many recorded 
 cases of male communion as there are of household bap- 
 tism. 
 
 Neither is it necessary to have a minute detail of 
 names and ages in a household, to ascertain the presence 
 of infants, since this is implied in the very word itself. 
 On this subject my Opponent reasons as follows, viz. 
 ^' So long as the word famili/, which you say is the mean- 
 ^^ ing of oiKOS, frequently denotes all that live under 
 ^' one father, mother, master, or mistress, whether in- 
 ^^ fants or adults, so long it remains to be determined, 
 ^^ from the circumstances of the case, who are the con- 
 *^ stituents or members of the family ; and thus after all 
 ^^ your boasted discovery, you have to confess your- 
 ^^ selves to be just where you were; unable to prove 
 ^^ that there was an infant in any house, oikta, or fa?nili/ 
 
 (r) Taylor's 2nd Edit, p. 116. 
 
( 368 ) 
 
 ^^ that was baptized. 'Y*) .The amount of this reasoning 
 of my Anabaptist Opponent^ is as follows ; A house or 
 family embraces adults and infants: Tfierefore, when 
 we are told that a house or family is baptized, we are to 
 understand that there are no infants in it, unless there 
 is additional proof of this fact! ! But if a house em- 
 brace adults and infants alike, why is additional proof 
 required for one, and not for the other ? To be consistent, 
 he ought to reason as follows ; A house or family in- 
 cludes adults and infants : Therefore, when we are told, 
 even by infallible testimony, that a house or family is 
 baptized, this is no proof that there was a baptism of 
 either adults or infants, unless there is additional evi- 
 dence of one or the other, or both ! ! So in relation to 
 the other ordinance. The word disciples embraces 
 males and females : Therefore, when we are told that 
 disciples communed, we are not to understand that fe- 
 males communed, or males either, without additional 
 evidence ! ! 
 
 To shew the absurdity of this, let us see how it will 
 aifectwhat Dr. Judson, the Baptist missionary to India, 
 has said about houses, in his journal of Nov. 11, 1822. 
 It is as follows, viz. " Understand that, according to 
 ^^ the public registers, 40,000 houses have removed from 
 ^^ Ah-mah-rah-pore to Ava the new capital, and that 
 ^' 30,000 remain. The Burmans reckon ten persons, 
 ^^ great and small, to a house, which gives 700,000, for 
 " the whole population of the metropolis of Burmah.''(/) 
 Now I ask, Is any additional proof necessary to shew 
 that half of the persons included in these 70,000 houses 
 were of the age to which infant baptism is administered. 
 But suppose that they had all renounced Paganism and 
 embraced Judaism ; and Dr. Judson had told us that 
 70,000 houses were circumcised : would this alter the 
 case? Suppose again, that this Baptist missionary had 
 
 proselyted them all to Christianity, and had told us that 
 
 t 
 
 U') Spurious Deb. with me. p. 282. Note. 
 (If) Missionary Herald, Vol. 19. p. 392. 
 
( 369 ) 
 
 70,000 houses; reckoning '^ ten persons, great and small, 
 to a house,'^ had been baptized by his hands ; could any- 
 one doubt that he had turned Pedobaptist again? But the 
 very •^circumstances of the case/^ which my Opponent 
 demands, are found here, in the Christianizing of Jews, 
 who are accustomed to introducing infants into the 
 church. Yet these circumstances were found in the 
 house ho Id-hdiptism of the New Testament, which, as 
 we have shewn, w^as taken from the ^ow^eAo/^- circumci- 
 sion of the Jews. 
 
 When Dr. Judson found the jails of modern Asia fur- 
 nished with tanks of water, he gave it instead of proof 
 that the jailer of ancient Europe was immersed. It 
 would be much more reasonable for him to have said 
 that as the modern Asiatics " reckon ten persons, great 
 ^' and small, to a house/^ therefore the baptized houses 
 of the ancient Asiatics included infants. 
 
 We do not, however, depend upon modern usage, for 
 the doctrine that a household includes infants. This 
 appears to have been the general understanding, at least 
 as far back as the time of Boaz, the great-grand- father 
 of David. When this pious man called upon his coun- 
 trymen to attest his marriage with Ruth, ^^ All the peo- 
 ^^ pie that were in the gate, and the elders, said. We 
 ^^ are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is 
 '' come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, 
 " which two did build the house of Israel ; and do thou 
 ^^ worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Beth-lehem : 
 " and let thy house be as the house of Pharez, whom 
 ^^ Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord 
 ^^ shall give thee of this young woman. So Boaz took 
 *^ Ruthj and she was his wife : and when he went in 
 ^* unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare 
 '^ a son."(i^) How did Rachel and Leah build the house 
 of Israel ? By giving him infants. What sort of a house 
 was the house of Pharez ? One which rapidly increased 
 
 (m) Ruth iv. 11—13. 
 
 3 A 
 
( 370 ) 
 
 by the accession of numerous infants. Of what materials 
 did these friends and witnesses wish the house of Boaz 
 built^ that it might resemble that of Pharez? ^' Of the 
 seed, [the infant offspring,] which the Lord shall give 
 thee of this young woman." And how was his house 
 built in fact? '^ She bare a son.*' And, as Taylor has 
 already reminded us, this passage shews, that the mean- 
 ing here attached to the word house, was familiar to " all 
 the people that were in the gate, and the elders." To 
 consider the word house, as embracing infants, was then 
 common to civil courts and ordinary conversation : and 
 from the manner in which they refer to their ancestors, 
 they evidently considered this the meaning attached to 
 the word, by the earliest patriarchs, and in the very first 
 book of Moses. To this very passage of Ruth, Dr. Gill 
 refers, in illustration of our Marginal rendering of Gen. 
 xvi. 2, where Sarai, after giving her handmaid to Abram, 
 says, '^ It may be that I may be builded by her.'' On 
 this text the Doctor says, " For women, by bearing chil- 
 '^ dren, build up an house, see Ruth iv. 1 1, hence a 
 '' son, in Hebrew, is called ben, from banah, to build.^^ 
 Other passages of scripture giving it the same signifi- 
 cation, are numerous. " God setteth the solitary in a 
 house ;^\v) that is, in a family of children. " He maketh 
 the barren woman to dwell in an house, and to be a joy- 
 ful mother of children .''\w) As Achan and his family 
 perished together ',[x) and as the sons of Zedekiah were 
 slain before his eyes ;(y) so it is said of Korah and his 
 company, ''* And the earth opened her mouth, and swal- 
 lowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that 
 pertained unto Korah, and all their goods. "(z) Who 
 these houses are, is explained in the context, " And 
 Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood in the door 
 of their tents, and their wives, and their sons, and 
 their little children, parvulis suis," as Junius and 
 
 {v) Ps. Ixviii. 6. Hcbr. LXX. & Eng;. Marg. 
 w) Ps. cxiii. 9. Hbr. LXX. & Eng. Mai-g. 
 c) Josh. viL 24. {y) Jer. xxxix. 6. (z) Num. xvi, 32. (comp. 27. ) 
 
 
( 371 ) 
 
 Tremellius render it. Dr. Gill thinks it possible that 
 houses here may mean tents. Not so the Septuagint : 
 for, in the immediately preceding context, they inter- 
 polate oiKOUs and skenas, houses and tents. [a) There 
 is an instance now before me, in which both these words 
 include the family. '^ And thou shalt know that thy 
 tabernacle shall be in peace ; and thou shalt visit thy 
 habitation^ and shalt not sin. "(6) The word tabernacle 
 here, which Dr. Gill says, " includes all that dwell in 
 his houscj his family,'^ is oikos, house, in the Septuagint. 
 The word habitation " including his family also,'' as 
 Dr. Gill says, is Skene, tent^ in the Septuagint. 
 
 The very great frequency with which infants are con- 
 nected with their parents in the domestic house of the 
 scriptures, looks so much like the spirit of Pedobaptism, 
 that Dr. Gill sometimes makes a fruitless attempt to 
 escape this consequence. The following text is an ex- 
 ample. " The wicked are overthrown and are not ; 
 but the house of the righteous shall stand. ''(c) The 
 Doctor denies that house here means " family ^ as the 
 '' generality of interpreters, for \he family of the righte- 
 " ous may be extinct, and especially not continue as 
 " righteous." The same reason might be given for 
 '' contradicting the inspired declaration of Peter, " The 
 promise is unto you and to your children. '^(d) But Dr. 
 Gill cannot continue such a strain uniformly. When So- 
 lomon says, '^ Through wisdom is an house builded ; and 
 by understanding it is established ;" the Doctor's Com- 
 mentary says, " The prosperity of a man's family is 
 continued and secured by his prudent conduct.*' 
 
 In case of Esther's refusal to act for the Jews, Mor- 
 decai's denunciation was '' Thou and thy father's house 
 shall be destroyed."(e) When it is said in Job, ^^ The 
 increase of his house shall depart,"(/) Gill says, ^^ Either 
 his children or his substance." Compare this with the 
 prophecy, " Then will I build you, and not pull you 
 
 (a) Verse 30. {b) Job v. 24. (c) Prov. xii. 7. 
 
 {(l) Acts ii. 39. {e) Esth. iv. 14, (/) Job xx. 28. 
 
( 372 ) 
 
 down ;''(^) which, Gill says, is a promise of *^ increase 
 in nwnberSj wealth and riches.'^ It is by the birth of 
 children that a house is built up or increased in numbers. 
 These are also embraced in the promise of Saul to the 
 man who should slay Goliah ; that he would " make his 
 father's house free in Israel. ''(A) Also, in the prayer 
 which our Saviour directed the apostles to make, 
 '' Peace be to this house.^\i) 
 
 In the following half dozen instances, Gill considers 
 the word house as equivalent tofarnili/^ and neither he 
 nor any other will probably deny that infants are in- 
 cluded. The people are required to support the priest, 
 ^' that the blessing may rest in thine house."(o) '' And 
 '' the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household, ""'{p) 
 ^' And thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the 
 ^' Lord thy God hath given unto thee and unto thine 
 '^ house,^\q) " Therefore now let it please thee to bless 
 ^^ the house of thy servant." " And with thy blessing 
 ^^ let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever.'Xr) 
 ^^ And all the people departed every man to his house, 
 ^^ and David returned to bless his house'"{s) " Woe to 
 ^' him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his 
 ^^ housey(t) 
 
 When it is said again, '* Then David returned to 
 ^^ bless his household.^\u) Gill says, '^ his wife, child- 
 " ren and servants.'^ When it is said that " Esau took 
 '^ his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the 
 <^ persons of his housejHv) Gill interprets, " his men- 
 ^' servants and maid-servants that were horn in his house, 
 " or bought with his money.'' When Jacob " had a 
 *^ large family to provide for," as Gill observes, then 
 he said to Laban, '' When shall I provide for mine own 
 ^^ house also?"(t(;) When the prophet tells us that wick- 
 
 er) Jer. xlii. 10. {h) 1 Sam. xvii. 25. 
 
 (j) Luke X. 5. (o) Ez. xliv, SO. 
 
 (fi ) 2 Sam. vi. 11. (y) Deut. xxvi. 11. 
 
 (r) 2 Sam. \\\. 29. («) 1 Chr. xvi. 43. 
 
 (/) Habb. ii. 9. (w) 2 Sam. vi. 20, 
 
 {v) Oen. xxxvi, 6, (iv) Gen, xxx, .^0. 
 
 I 
 
( 373 ) 
 
 ed governours ^^ oppress a man and his house,*\x) Dr. 
 Gill interprets that they " distressed a man and \iis family 
 for the present, and his posterity after him. My Op- 
 ponent's New Testament reads, " By intestine broils 
 '' any kingdom may be desolated, one family {house) 
 " falling after another \Jiouse.~y\y) If these farnilits 
 had no infants, they would come to desolation without 
 intestine broils. No doubt my Opponent will admit that 
 they may generally have infants, as there is nothing said 
 about their baptism. But suppose the text to read in 
 this way ; '^ By the Spirit and ordinances of God, any 
 " kingdom may be Christianized, qw^ family being bap- 
 " tized after another.^^ How sadly that would alter the 
 case. All the infants in the realm would immediately 
 disappear, like those of Lydia, Stephanas, and the jail- 
 er ; and the Moloch of Anabaptism would make it as 
 desolate in a moment, as intestine broils could make it 
 in many years. If, after this devastation, more general 
 than that of Pharaoh or Herod , if while every subject 
 was mourning, like Ephraim, that " it went evil with his 
 '' hou8e^^\z) Providence should give to each a Beriah^ 
 as he did to that venerable Patriarch, then it may be 
 said of this infant son in every family, as Dr. Gill said of 
 Beriah the son of Ephraim, that he " in some measure 
 *^ made up for the loss he had sustained" in his house. 
 
 When the wise man says, " Every wise woman build- 
 '' eth her house,^'(a) Gill understands that she does it 
 not only by her piety, prudence, and industry ; but " by 
 '' her fruitfulness, as Leah and Rachel built up the 
 ''house of Israel." When it is said, ^^ She looketh 
 " well to the wayb of her household i'^ (h) Gill considei^s 
 it as meaning "her children and servants.'' When it is 
 said of this wise woman, that " She giveth meat to her 
 " household \"(c) Gill, in spiritualizing the passage, 
 makes household to include children and babes. Paql 
 says that a bishop must be " One that ruleth well his 
 
 (.r) Mic. ii. 2. (j/) Luke xi. 17. 
 
 (z) 1 Chr. vii. 23. (a) Prov. xiv. 1. 
 
 \b) Prov. xxxi. 27. (c) frov, .xxxi. 15^ 
 
( 374 ) 
 
 ^^ own house, having his children in subjection with all 
 '' gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own 
 " house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" 
 ^^Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling 
 " their children and their own houses well.'Y^J These 
 houses Gill considers as embracing " the family, wife, 
 '' children and servants." 
 
 Sometimes Moses directs the priests to eat the sacrifi- 
 ces with their sons and daughters, all of which are in- 
 fants before they are adults; and frequently he says, 
 ^' Every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it."(/) 
 Gill says, " Their families, wives, childreyi, and ser- 
 " vants." While they eat together God says, " Thou 
 ^' shalt rejoice, thou, and thine householdy(k) Accord- 
 ing to Gill, this requires that they should " eat their 
 '^ food with cheerfulness and gladness, making a feast of 
 " it, and keeping it as such, he and his whole family, 
 ^' his wife and children, or as many as were with him." 
 That the households here meant, embraced myriads of 
 infants, no one will deny. A question might arise, 
 Would the number of these infants be in the least dimin- 
 ished, if, in both passages, we were to add the words, 
 ^' believing in God," which have stumbled so many, in 
 the baptism of the jailer's household ? The addition of 
 the words will not make the least difference in the sense, 
 because without faith it is impossible to please God by 
 eating and rejoicing. " Every one that is clean in thy 
 ^' house shall eat of it, [believing in God.]" ^^ Thou 
 ^' shalt rejoice, thou and thine household [believing in 
 ^^God.]" If the fact, that the command implies \h\s 
 much, does not exclude infants, would the expression of 
 the words exclude them? The scriptures condemn him, 
 ^' who eateth not of faith,"(/y> They also say, '' If any 
 '' would not work, neither should he eat."(/72^ Because 
 infants cannot believe or work, are they to be excluded 
 
 (rf) 1 Tim. iii. 4. 5. 12. 
 
 {j ) Lev. X. 14. Num. xviii. 11. 13. 31. Deut. xv. 20. 
 Ik) Deut. xiv. 26. (/) Rom. xiv. 23. 
 
 (w) 2 Thess. iii. 10. 
 
( 375 ) 
 
 from eating ? But if precepts and prohibitions concern- 
 ing faith do not extend to infants, as far as faith is con- 
 cerned, why may not this hold true with regard to nar- 
 ratives ? 
 
 Yet it is not admitted that the narrative of the jailer 
 is encumbered with this difiiculty, except with those who 
 misunderstood our translation. The jailer "rejoiced, 
 " believing in God with all his house.^' This, it is con- 
 fessed, affords some pretext for attributing faith to the 
 jailer's house : yet I could soon point you to a passage 
 which no one misunderstands, and which the collocation 
 of our Translators has made much more liable to perver- 
 sion. It is the following. " For he hath -made him to be 
 ^' sin for us, ivho knew no sin,''(n) Is it Christ or our- 
 selves who knew no sin ? To give a correct answer, the 
 relative, who in our Translation, must not be allowed to 
 refer to the last antecedent, as in common cases. My 
 Opponent's favourite Thomson of our own country, has 
 placed the relative by its proper antecedent. ^' For he 
 ^^ hath made him who knew no sin, a sin offering for us.^^ 
 In this he follows the great body of the European trans- 
 lators, who themselves follow the Latin Vulgate and the 
 Greek Original. " For him who Jf new no sin, he hath 
 ^^ made sin (or a sin offering) for us.'^ This is the order 
 in which the Greek and Latin words stand, as far as the 
 pronouns in question are concerned ; and it seems strange 
 that our Translators should alter this order, when it 
 could have no other effect than to obscure the sense. 
 
 The great difficulty in the narrative of the jailer, 
 arises from a similar misplacing of words. In this text, 
 De Sacy, the Roman Catholic Translator, has hit the 
 meaning more obviously, by more closely following the 
 order of the original : " Et il se rejouit avec toute sa 
 " maison croyant e7i Dieu : And he rejoiced with all 
 " his house believing in God." In this he follows the 
 ancient Latin Vulgate " Et Isetatus est cum omni domo 
 sua credens deo : And he rejoiced with all his house be- 
 
 (n) 2 Cor. v. 21. 
 
, ( 376 ) 
 
 lieving in God.'^ Such is the construction of these lan- 
 guages, as to make the word, believing^ applicable to 
 the jailer only. These translations strictly follow the 
 Original in arrangement and sense. "s^ac Tiya-kT^ia^ato 
 '^ TiavQixi TffTttffvxwj T'lo Of Cot" atid kc rejoiced with all his 
 house believing in God.^^ The meaning of it is evidently 
 this, that " He, believing in God, rejoiced with all his 
 *• house. ^^ The Apostle commanded him to believe, and 
 promised that he and his house should be saved. Ac- 
 cordingly he did believe, " and was baptized, he and 
 " all his straightway.^^ And it was no more difficult for 
 his infant household to catch the infection of his joy, than 
 for the children of the Jewish priests to rejoice with 
 them as mentioned above, on the text, " Thou shalt re- 
 ^^ joice, thou and thine household^ 
 
 But if the sacred writer had expressly said that the 
 converted jailer had a believiyig household, or "faithful 
 children^^^ as Paul requires that bishops or elders should 
 have, it would have been no certain evidence that 
 these infants were converted. Whether I can give you 
 a satisfactory reason for this or not, I shall endeavour to 
 support the position. The Apostle says, ^^If any be 
 blameless, the husband of one wife, \\2i\m^ faith fulchi I d- 
 ren,'^\e) then they may be bishops or elders. Now if 
 these faithfuls are intelligent converts j then converted 
 children are a necessary qualification for the ministerial 
 office ; and that man who has an infant incapable of faith, 
 is not fit for this office. This is too absurd. Dr. Gill, 
 therefore, says, " By faithful children cannot be meant 
 " converted ones, or true believers in Christ; for it is not 
 " m the power of men to make their children such ; and 
 " their not being so can never be an objection to their 
 '' being elders, if otherwise qualified. At most, the 
 " phrase can only intend, that they should be brought 
 " up in the faith, in the principles, doctrines, and ways 
 •' of Christianity, or in the nurture and admonition of 
 " the Lord.'' The Doctor's "Jit most,'^ though a lit- 
 
 (<r) Tit. i. 6. 
 
( 377 ) 
 
 tie sliort of the mark, is much better than an interpre- 
 tation which he had offered a few lines before. There 
 he says that these faithful children meant " Legitimate 
 ones, born in lawful wedlock ;'^ and adds, that it is, '' in 
 the same sense as such are called godly and holy, in Mai. 
 ii. 15. 1 Cor. vii. 14.^^ In the second Point of the fifth 
 Proposition of my first Argument, it was shewn that the 
 word holy^ in 1 Cor. vii. 14, did not mean legitimate ; 
 and you were reminded that the Baptists of the present 
 day are inclined to relinquish this interpretation. We 
 need not occupy your time, in refuting the notion that 
 faithful means legitimate^ since neither Doctor Gill, nor, 
 as far as I know, any other human being, has ever at- 
 tempted to prove it. There is no more evidence that 
 the legitimacy of the elder's children is here intended, 
 than there is, that the jailer and his children rejoiced in 
 their legitimacy. But the Doctor has given us a part 
 of the truth, when he says that these faithfuls are such 
 as " should be brought up in the faith, in the princi- 
 ples, doctrines, and ways of Christianity, or in the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord.'' This is admitting, 
 that, according to Scripture, infants may be called faith- 
 fuls, because their parents are bound to binng them up 
 in the faith. As parents formally recognize this obliga- 
 tion, in the baptism of their children, why not say at 
 once, that unconscious infants may be called faithfuls^ 
 when they are baptized? This would be the whole truth, 
 as it was held by the ancient church, unsophisticated by 
 modern Anabaptism. ^' Theodoret, Oecumenius, Chry- 
 sostom, Theophylact, and all the Greek Scholiasts," as 
 reported by Taylor, call certain New Testament idimi- 
 liGS ^' Faithfuls/' not because they were all believers,. 
 or capable of believing, but because they were " bap- 
 tized families, ''\f) Augustin, as reported by Wall, 
 tells Boniface, that " An infant, though he be not yet 
 " constituted a faithful, by \haX faith which consists in 
 ^' the will of believei^s ; is yet [constituted a faithful,'^ 
 
 (/) Baptists Self-conviptea. p, 39. 
 
 3 B 
 
( 378 ) 
 
 ^^ by the mcramtnt of that faith : for as he is said to be- 
 " lieve, so he is called a faithful, not from his having 
 ^' the thing itself in his mind, but from his receiving the 
 " sacrament of it.''(^) According to Dr. Gill, an in- 
 fant may be called a faithful in the Scriptures, because 
 he should be brought up in the faith ; but, according to 
 the ancient church, an infant is called a faithfuh be- 
 cause he receives the sacrament of faith, in baptism. 
 Admitting, then, that the jailer's household is said to be- 
 lieve , (which is not the fact,) still these interpretations 
 would place them where they ought to be. 
 
 In the case of Lydia,(A) there is nothing said about 
 any one htm^ faithful except herself. ^^If ye have 
 judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my 
 house, and abide there. ^' This would be a strange invi- 
 tation for one to give, who had not a settled abode there 
 herself, as some insinuate, but was only a travelling ad- 
 venturer. That it was her fixed residence, appears, 
 from her occupation in a wealthy line of business, and 
 from her being able to entertain four missionaries for an 
 indefinite time. That there were four in company, is 
 plain from the context. The beginning of the chapter 
 informs us, that Paul found Timothy at Lystra, and that 
 he took him on this expedition. In the very text which 
 records the baptism, Luke, the author of the narrative, 
 associates himself with them, and in the 19th verse, Si- 
 las is placed in the same company. Of these four per- 
 sons, only two, Paul and Silas, were dragged to pri- 
 son ;(/) leaving the other two, Timothy and Luke, still 
 in the house of Lydia; whither the prisoners returned 
 to comfort, not to baptize them, as soon as they obtained 
 their liberty. ^^ And they went out of the prison, and 
 entered into the house of Lydia : and when they had 
 seen the brethren, they comforted them and depart- 
 ed ;"(/) leaving them, as is thought, still in the house of 
 Lydia, to organize and nourish the Philippian church. 
 
 {g) Wall's Hist, of Bap. Book 1. Chap. 15. Sect, 4. Ruhsect. 4. 
 (/;) Act» xvi, (J) Verses 19. 25. 29. {j) Verse 40. 
 
( 379 ) 
 
 But although Lydia was pleased with the company of 
 these brethren, the Baptists appear to wish that they had 
 sought other quarters. It will not do to say that Timo- 
 thy and Luke were the household of Lydia, which Paul 
 baptized : and yet they try to believe that the household 
 which was baptized, and the brethren who were com- 
 forted, were the same persons ; and adults, of course. 
 They, therefore, wish you to believe that Lydia's ser- 
 vants and grown children were her household, and that 
 her grown children and servants and other adult con- 
 verts were the brethren whom Paul and Silas comforted. 
 This, however, is conjecture, without evidence, and 
 against evidence. It is without evidence, because this 
 adult assembly of children, servants, and other Philip- 
 pian converts at Lydia's house, is no where recorded nor 
 hinted at, except in uninspired conjectures, and those, 
 it appears, of a modern date. It is against evidence ; 
 because the inspired record furnishes us with the names 
 of the brethren whom Paul and Silas comforted at Ly- 
 dia's house, while the whole tenor of the narrative marks 
 the absence of adults in her baptized household. It is 
 quite possible that after they had been for some time un- 
 der the influence of Christian prayers, instruction, and 
 example, this household became as worthy of notice, as 
 that of Stephanas, which, though baptized on the fa- 
 ther's profession, was afterwards commended for minis- 
 tering to the saints, according to their age, ability, and 
 opportunity. Much more would this commendation 
 have been deserved and received, if, instead of being 
 promising children, Lydia's household had consisted of 
 converted adults. If such had been the case, how natu- 
 ral would it have been, for the historian to tell us that 
 Lydia's household, as well as herself, resorted to the sea 
 shore to worship ; that the Lord opened their hearts as 
 well as hers ; that they, as well as she, attended to the 
 things which were spoken of Paul ; that they, as well as 
 she, were faithful to the Lord ; and that for this reason, 
 they joined her in beseeching, and aided her in constrain- 
 ing Paul and his companions to enter their common resi- 
 
( 380 ) 
 
 dence. How different the account which the sacred 
 writer has given ! If it were not for baptism, we should 
 never have known that she had a household. They are 
 never once mentioned, except in receiving this ordi- 
 nance with her. It is Lydia alone who resorts to the 
 sea-shore; Lydia alone whose heart is opened; Lydia 
 alone who attends to PauPs preaching ; Lydia alone who 
 is faithful to the Lord; she alone beseeches the preachers 
 to visit her ; and she alone constrains them to enter her 
 house. But " She was baptized^ and her householdP^ 
 and thus proves household baptism to be infant baptism. 
 
 VI. 
 
 HOLOS OIKOS. 
 
 This appears to be generally considered as synony- 
 mous with pas oikos. Accordingly, while Luke points 
 out the household of Cornelius by the latter phrase, Eu- 
 sebius describes it by the former. (A) It will not be de- 
 nied that when Baasha " smote the whole house of Jerobo- 
 am,^'!/) there were some children in that house. Nor will 
 this be denied in another instance ; where it is said that 
 Zimri '' slew the whole house of Baasha :''(?w) where 
 Dr. Gill says, that it means " his whole family^ all the 
 children that he had,'' " that not only his posterity, but 
 " all any way related to him should be cut off." When 
 Paul says, that '' Moses verily was faithful in his ivhole 
 house, as a servant,"(?2) Gill properly understands this 
 whole house to mean the Old Testament church, which 
 had millions of infants. Yet when the same Apostle says, 
 that certain deceivers of his day " subvert whole 
 ho7ises,^\o) the Baptists answer, that " whole houses 
 could not be subverted, unless they had first been con- 
 vertedf^ and, taking it for granted that no infant can be 
 said to believe or be converted, they would have us con- 
 
 ik^ Acts X. 2. See Taylor's *♦ Baptists Self-convicted," p. 41, Note. 
 (/) 1 Kings XV. 29. (m) 1 Kings xvi. 11. 12. where this is twice said, 
 (n) Hehr. iiL 2. 5. where this is twice said. (o) Tit. i. 11. 
 
( 381 ) 
 
 elude that theseivhole houses, suhvertedhy false teachers, 
 were composed of adult converts, instead of unbelieving 
 and unconverted infants. And so they think of the family 
 of Crispus, when it is said, that " Crispus, the chief 
 ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with his 
 whole house.^Kp) But to this it is answered that this 
 haptism of believers, each on his own profession, would 
 not be called household baptism, but the baptism of sepa- 
 rate individuals. 
 
 This distinction was expressly recognized among the 
 Greek and Latin Fathers, who certainly had some ac- 
 quaintance with the Greek language. Clemens Alexan- 
 drinus, who lived in the second century, says, " The 
 " doctrine of the Master of Christianity did not remain 
 " confined to Judea only, as the philosophy of the Greeks 
 ^^ was confined to Greece : but it spread itself over the 
 '' whole world, converting equally Greeks and Barba- 
 '' rians, in every nation and village, and in all cities, 
 '' whole houses, and separate individuals J'^q) Here we 
 find that separate individuals, making a personal pro- 
 fession, are distinguished from whole houses, embracing 
 infants incapable of this profession : yet both are said to 
 be converted. How this was understood, before the refine- 
 ments of Anabaptism perplexed the church, may be 
 learned from a passage of Augustine, which has, if I mis- 
 take not, been quoted in relation to the jailer's house- 
 hold. His words are as follows, viz. ^' When an infant 
 '' that has not yet the faculty o^ faith, is said to believe, 
 '' he is said to hdive faith, because of [baptism] the sacra- 
 " ment of faith; and to be converted {co^YEnTEUE se) 
 ^^ to God, because of [baptism] the sacrament ofconver- 
 " sion.^^ And so an infant, though he be not yet consti- 
 ^^ tuted a believer, by th?it faith which consists in the will 
 ^^ of believers, yet he is, by [^baptism^ the saci'ajneiit of 
 " that faith; for as he is said to believe, so he is called a 
 
 (/i) Acts xviii, 8. {q) oixov^ 6%ovi xat tSta txa^ov. Taylor's 
 
 Facts and Evidences^ first edition, London 1818, p. 116, Second edition, 
 London, 1819, p, 106. 
 
( 382 ) 
 
 ^^ believer, not from his having the thing itself in his 
 ^' mind, but from his receiving [baptism] the sacrament 
 ''ofit,''{r) 
 
 Let it not be said that this is giving human authority 
 in divine things. This common-sense understanding 
 which the church of God has always had of the subject, 
 has already been shewn to be founded upon the infallible 
 word. Remember that children are there declared to 
 have entered into covenant ; and, certainly, faith and 
 conversion may be ascribed to them as correctly as cove- 
 nant-making, and they are ascribed to them in the same 
 sense, as the Fathers, just now quoted, have explained. 
 If this language may not be used, concerning infants, on 
 account of their participation in the external ordinances 
 of religion, I should like to know what the Baptists 
 would make of a passage of scripture, in which such lan- 
 guage is applied to irrational domestic animals, on account 
 of their participation in the privations of a public fast. 
 The proclamation of the king of Nineveh says, " Let 
 ^' man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry 
 '^ mightily unto God : yea, let them be converted every 
 ^' one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in 
 their hands. "(5) The word converted is here used, be- 
 cause, that is the force of the Original and of all our 
 translations, and is expressly used by the ancient Latim 
 Vulgate, which reads convertatur ; as a modern French 
 Bible reads, '^ que chacun se convertisse f^ the very 
 phraseology used by Augustine, when he said that it is- 
 possible for infants " convertere se; to convert them- 
 selves^ or he converted,^ in a certain sense, by receiving 
 the sacrament of conversion. These, then, belonged ta 
 the whole house of Crisp us, and the whole houses which 
 were subverted by false teachers. 
 
 (r) Wall's History of Baptism, Book 1. Chap. 15. Sect. 5. Subsect. 4. 
 (») Jon. ill. 8. 
 
( 383 ) 
 
 VII. 
 
 PANOIKESIA. 
 
 In the use of this word, Thucidides speaks as follows, 
 viz. '^ In the manner above mentioned, were the Athe- 
 " nians, for a long series of time, scattered about the 
 '' country, in towns and communities, at their own dis- 
 " cretion. And as not only the more ancient, but even 
 '' the latter Athenians, quite down to the present war, 
 '' had still retained the custom of dwelling about the 
 " country panoikesia, with their whole households, ^\t) 
 In this place, panoikesia is used to include the millions 
 of children, which are born to a whole nation, in many 
 successive generations. 
 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus, uses the same word in 
 the same meaning, in the following passage, viz. '^ And 
 *' very great numbers removed, panoikesia, with their 
 " whole households^ some of whom returned when the 
 ^' affairs of the city were composed : but others re- 
 '' raained where they were. "(2/) 
 
 The same writer says, ^^ And by this usage they forced 
 " those who were unable to bear it, to leave the country, 
 " with their wives and children, and to take refuge in 
 '' the neighbouring cities .... but the greatest part also 
 " of these had removed, panoikesia, with their ivhole 
 " households^ and leaving their [dwelling-] houses 
 " empty, lived in the country.''(t;) 
 
 Thucidides uses the word to embrace all the infants of 
 Greece in general. He says, '' How horrible will it 
 " seem for Platea to be destroyed by Lacedaemonians ! 
 ^^ — that your fathers inscribed the city on the tripod of 
 " Delphos, in justice to its merits ; — and that, to satisfy 
 ^' the Thebans, you expunged it, ix rtavtog tov v^wkrivixov 
 '^ navoixr^Giaj from all the whole household of Greece.^\iu) 
 
 (/) Taylor's "Baptists self-convicted. " p. 49. 
 
 (m) Do. p. 48. {v) Do. p. 49. (w) Da p, 49. 
 
( 384 ) 
 
 From the speeches, which, for historic effect, arc put 
 into the mouths of the seven celebrated Maccabean 
 brothers, one would suppose that none of them were in- 
 fants : yet ^' this family appears by the history to have 
 ^^ consisted of sons from under the age of eighteen, to 
 ^^ about three years old ; that is, lately weaned.'^ Gre- 
 gory Nazianzen makes them say, ^' Let the issue be 
 " fixed and unmoveable as to us, navotxeata ifrpavoiOtjvaif 
 ^' that the ivhole household obtain the crownJ\x) 
 
 VIII. 
 
 PANOIKIOS. 
 
 According to Diodorus Siculus, the Carthaginians in- 
 tended, if urged by necessity, to emigrate, in a body, to 
 a certain island. His words are, " For they hoped, 
 ^^ that being masters at sea, as they then were, they 
 ^^ might easily, (unknown to the conquerors,) transport 
 ^^ themselves, panqikious, with their ivhole households, 
 " into that island. ''(y) 
 
 In another passage, the same ancient writer explains 
 panoihioi by tsxvi^v xa^ yvvatxcov children and wives ; whom 
 certain Roman fathers and husbands were afraid to ha- 
 zard by a protracted and disorderly flight. They, there- 
 fore, '^ removed, Ttavoixvoi,, with their whole households, 
 ^' [that is their wives and children, mentioned above,] 
 ^^ to the neighbouring towns and villages. 'Y^^) 
 
 There is similar evidence in Dionysius of Halicarnas- 
 sus. He informs us that the country of the Antemnates 
 and Caeninenses, and the city of Crustumerium were 
 conquered by Romulus, and reduced to the rank of Ro- 
 man colonies. From the two former he conveyed to 
 Rome many volunteer emigrants, ^* together with their 
 " wives and childi^en.^' In like manner, from the latter, 
 
 (jt) Taylor's " Baptists self-convicted. " p. 50 Taylor, of course, refuses 
 to translate by the word household, 
 (y) Do. p. 46. 47, and Note. (z) Do. p. 47, 
 
( 385 ) 
 
 " several brave men joined him, bringing with them con- 
 " siderable powers, together with Panoikia, their 
 ''whole households ;^\a) evidently embracing their 
 wives and children, 
 
 IX 
 
 PAS OIKOS. 
 
 The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, '' who 
 '.' shall tell thee words, whereby thou, and all thy house 
 " shall be saved. 'Y^/' The historian tells us that this 
 was " a devout man, and one that feared God, with all 
 " his houseP(c) By this. Dr. Gill understands that " he 
 " brought up his family in a religious way.'^ From 
 this the i)r. certainly believed that Cornelius had child- 
 ren ; and that they were included in all his house, 
 
 Rahab's house in which her relatives obtained safety, 
 Dr. Gill seems to think a figure of the church of Christ. 
 According to him, the spies whom she entertained, 
 " represent the ministers of the gospel, who are the 
 '' messengers of Christ and the churches.'^ When they 
 directed her to bind the scarlet thread in the window, 
 Dr. Gill considers them as preaching, by this figure, the 
 same doctrine taught in Mk. xvi. 16. " He that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be- 
 lieveth not shall be damned.'^ Now let us see whether 
 these typical ministers of the gospel, allowed infants to 
 enter their figurative church, or not. Rahab's request 
 was, " Shew kindness unto my father's house.^\d) She 
 made no express stipulation about infants, because they 
 were included in the house; and to exclude them, 
 would be as inconsistent with the religion of the Jews, 
 as it was inconsistent with her ow n wishes. According- 
 ly, the spies said, ^^Thou shalt bring thy father, and thy 
 '' mother, and thy brethren, and all thy fathers 
 
 (a) 
 
 Taylor's *• Baptists self-convicted," p, 47. 48. 
 
 Acts xi. 14. (c) Acts x. 2. {d) Josh. ii. 12, 
 
 3 C 
 
( 386 ) 
 
 '^ HOUSEHOLD, homc unto thee.'^(c) It probably never 
 entered into any one's mind, to suppose that the children 
 of Rahab's connexion were excluded from this refuge ; 
 and it ought never to have entered their mind to suppose 
 that the children of believers were to be excluded from 
 that visible church, of which her house is thought a 
 figure : especially as our Saviour has required us to suf- 
 fer them to come to him, declaring that of such is the 
 visible church. 
 
 X. 
 
 PANOIKI. 
 
 Of the jailer it is said, r^yaT^Uaaato jtavoixt, Ttertiisvxui Tfa 
 
 ©fw, believing in God he rejoiced with all his house. 
 On this, Taylor says, ^^ Observe, he veioiced panoiki ; 
 ^' but he did not believe panoiki. Rejoicing was an act 
 ^' of the person ; believing was an act of the mind : 
 ^' there is no instance known of panoiki being referred 
 '^ to an act of the jnind."(/) He observes that as this 
 word '' is referred to bodily action, in which infants share 
 ^^ without volition, without understanding, or expression 
 ^' of any kind, on their part, so it always signifies the 
 '' ivhoky the entire of a family : every individual with- 
 ^' out exception : it includes all and excludes none : for, 
 ^' if a single one be excluded, the term becomes abso- 
 ^' lutely inapplicable. And this accounts for the infre- 
 ^' quent use of it ; as it is not constantly that a whole 
 ^' family resides together, or continues so combined as to 
 ^^ form one band, and to be capable of one and the same 
 ^' individual action, the same fate, (&c. at the same time. 
 ^^ And this, again, agrees with a young family, since the 
 ^^ separation of the members of a family usually takes 
 '^ place, after the elder are grown up ; and if but one 
 '' be detached from the family, the term is invalida- 
 " ted."(^) 
 
 (e) Josh. ii. 18. (/) Baptists sclf-convictcd. p. 42. 
 
 {g) Baptists self-convicted, p. 51. 52. 
 

 ( 387 ) 
 
 Among the instances collated by this able writer, 
 there is one which appears to give peculiar countenance 
 to this position. It is a case in which panoiki includes 
 every member of the fi\mily, old and young, strong and 
 feeble, male and female, without admitting a single ex- 
 ception. It is the family of Pithius the Lydian, as re- 
 lated by Herodotus. The faithful subject wished only 
 his eldest son to remain at home, while all the rest, ca- 
 pable of bearing arms, accompanied Xerxes in the Gre- 
 cian expedition. To his humble petition, the haughty 
 tyrant made the following reply ; '' Infamous man ! you 
 " see me embark my all in this Grecian war : myself, 
 '' my CHILDREN, my brothers^ my domestics, and my 
 '' friends ; — how dare you^ then, presume to mention 
 " your son, you who are my slave, and whose duty is to 
 '' accompany me on this occasion, panoikie, with all 
 ^' your house, and even your wife.''(/i) 
 
 Admitting the correctness of these statements in part, 
 still an antagonist of Mr. Taylor, " argues, that the jail- 
 er's family must have been adults, because they ^re- 
 joiced in God.' "(2*) Yet why may not infants partici- 
 pate in their parents' joy, in one religious ordinance, 
 as well as partake of their sorrow, in another ordinance? 
 That they do the latter is admitted by the Baptists them- 
 selves. When the prophet orders the church to assem- 
 ble for a solemn fast, he says, ^^ Gather the children, and 
 those that suck the breast."(/) Gill speaks of these suck- 
 lings, as those '' who were involved in the common ca- 
 " lamity and distress, w^ere obliged to fasting, and whose 
 " cries might aifect their parents, and engage them the 
 " more to humiliation and repentance for their sins, 
 ^^ which brought such miseries, not only upon them- 
 '' selves, but upon their tender infants ; and they might 
 '' think their cries would move the pity and compassion 
 '^ of God." It is not at all uncommonvfor the Scrip- 
 tures to attribute rejoicing to bodies of men, which in- 
 
 (A) Baptists Self-convicted, p. 50. 
 
 (i) Second Edition of Facts and Evidences, p. 122. 
 
 O) Joel ii. 16. 
 
( 388 ) 
 
 dude thousands and millions of infants. To save time, 
 I pass over several instances, which are now before 
 me.(^) Although Dr. Gill would have it, that the babes 
 and sucklings which rejoiced at our Saviour's coming, 
 were adults,(/) yet he admits, as has been shewn already, 
 that rejoicing is attributed to literal infants, in the law of 
 Moses, where he tells the priests to rejoice in the good- 
 ness of the Lord " unto thee and unto thine house.^'{7n) 
 He says, ^^ rejoice thou and thine household, '^\n) by 
 which Dr. Gill understands " he and his family, his wife 
 and children, or as many as are with him.'' 
 
 On the same subject of sacerdotal families being sup- 
 ported by the sacrifices and other emoluments, Josephus 
 uses the word panoiki ; " So that he, panoiki, with all 
 his house, might eat them in the holy city."(o) That 
 infants are here included is absolutely certain. But to 
 them, in company with their parents, Eusebius attributes 
 conversion ; because, as Austin said, they received the 
 sacrament of conversion. His words are as follows, viz. 
 ^* And by the same word of the gospel, many of all ranks 
 ^/ were converted to the worship of the God of the uni- 
 ^' verse ; so that at Rome itself, many who were eminent 
 '' for their riches, and for their descent, did, panoiki, 
 '' with all their house, and their kindred, embrace the 
 '' way of salvation."(/?) Where Moses speaks of the Is- 
 raelites who went into Egypt, some ancient Greek trans- 
 lators, as Trommius informs us, reckon them to be, 
 " every man, panoiki. ivith all his house,^\q) which 
 Dr. Gill says, includes '' their families, wives, children, 
 *' and servants." 
 
 In a rare Apocryphal book, we have an account of 
 Ptolemy's cruel persecution of the Jews, iitta. yrvattiv xac 
 tixvoii, with their wives and children^ He forbade any 
 one to harbour even the youngest of them, at the peril 
 
 {k) 2 Chr. XXX. 25. Ps. xcvi. 11. xcvii. 1. xlv. 7. cxlix. 2. 
 
 (/) Ps. viii. 2. Matt, xxi, 16. (w) Deut. xxvi. 11. 
 
 («) Dent. xiv. 26. 
 
 (o) Baptists Self-convicted, p. 44. 
 
 Iji) Do. p. 52. Second Edition of Facts and Evidences, p. 105. 
 
 iu) iix. i. 1. 
 
( 389 ) 
 
 of losing his own infants and all belonging to him. The fol- 
 lowing is a part of the edict. ^^Whoever, therefore, shall 
 " protect any one of the Jews, ano ya^atov (Jisx^^ vrjrttov, 
 ^' ^sxc'' f^^v vTto fiaiia.io,v,from tlu tliier to theyounger^to the 
 *' babes at the breast; he shall be punished with ignomi- 
 ^^ nious torments, panoiki, ^^^7/^ all his house:^\r) that is, 
 the oldest and the youngest, even tender sucklings ; ac- 
 cording to a retaliation customary in those times, as 
 already noticed in the history of Esther. (5) 
 
 The learned Editor of Calmet's Dictionary is confident 
 in the opinion that panoiki designates a numerous fami- 
 ly. (/) This appears to be the understanding of Es- 
 chines, who compares the Athenians, when offended, to a 
 nest of wasps, who never cease their molestations, " until 
 some one attack and destroy them, PxVnoiki, with all 
 their houseP{u) Let it be remembered that one female 
 wasp is the mother of ten thousand young, in a few 
 weeks ; and the Athenians had more than this number of 
 infants in \\i€\v panoiki. If the jailer had one for a thou- 
 sand, some of them must have been infants, if he were 
 young enough for his charge, and for the character and 
 actions attributed to him in the inspired narrative. '' If 
 we investigate it, we shall find that he could not be an 
 old man ; but rather in the hey-day of life. His first in- 
 tention after the earthquake — ' he drew his sword, and 
 would have killed himselF — is not the character of age, 
 which usually takes events more coolly, and is much 
 more deliberate in determination. The action is that of a 
 fervid mind. In like manner, ' he called for lights, and 
 sprang in:' the original well expresses the strenuous 
 action of a robust body ; — of a man in the vigour of life : 
 here is no decrepitude, no old age, with creeping steps, 
 forcing an attempt to advance with some rapidity : it is 
 the vehement burst of a man in full strength : yet this 
 
 (r) 3 Mace. iii. 18. Baptists Self-convicted, p. 46. where rtavotxta, 
 but in Aldus, now before me, rtavotxc 
 (») Esth. iii. 13. viii. 11. 
 
 (0 Second Ed. of Facts &Ev. Revised, p. 113. 114, 
 (w) Baptibts Self-convicted, p. 51. ^ 
 
( 390 ) 
 
 man had a numerous family. He appears to have been 
 a soldier ; — soldiers seldom marry very early in life : his 
 numerous family, then, according to nature, must have 
 contained young children." (z;) With these he rejoiced, 
 and with these he was baptized. 
 
 XI. 
 
 OIKODOMIA, OIKODOME, AND PAS A OIKODOME. 
 
 The first of these words is used to denote spiritual 
 edification '^[lo) so also is the second, in a great measure:(;r) 
 yet even here, our doctrine is supported by analogy : 
 for the house of the mind, whether good or bad, is built 
 up, not only by mature thoughts, but by those which are 
 new-born, or even not yet brought to light. James says, 
 " When lust hath conceived^ it bringeih forth sin ; and 
 sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death."(^) The 
 Psalmist says, " Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and 
 hath coyzcefyec? mischief, and brought forth falsehood. ''(2^) 
 
 In the use of the third phrase, Paul says, " In whom, 
 " PASA OIKODOME, all the buildings fitly framed toge- 
 " ther, groweth up unto an holy temple in the Lord.'Y^) 
 Dr. Gill believes that this house " grows by an accession 
 " of new stones, or of souls called by grace ;'' and is des- 
 tined at last to receive the whole " number of God's 
 " elect." If, therefore, there are any elect infants; any 
 infants saved by grace ; then there must be an accession 
 of infants to this building. Macknight, my Opponent's 
 standard, considers this building as the gospel church. 
 Their accession to it, then, must be by baptism. 
 
 {v) 2nd Ed. of Facts & Ev. Revised, p. 114. 
 
 (<y) 1 Tim. i. 4. 
 
 (jc) Rom. xiv. 19. xv. 2. 2 Cor. xii. 9. 1 Cor. xiv. 3. 5. 12. 26. x. 8. 
 xiii. 10. Eph. iv. 29. 16. 1 Cor. iii. 9. Eph. iv. 12. Job xx. 28. 2 Cor. v. J. 
 
 (y) James i. 15. See Gill, who here quotes Kimchi on Ps. vii. 14. 
 
 (z) Ps. vii. 14. See also Prov. xix. 27. Job xv. 35. |Is. lix. 4. 13. Jer. 
 xlix. 30. Rom. vii. 5. 
 
 (a) Eph. ii. 21. 
 
 ■V^ 
 
( 391 ) 
 
 XII. 
 
 OIKODOMEO. 
 
 The use of the verb, to build, may throw much light 
 upon the present question. This word is used in rela- 
 tion to all the infants of " the Jewish nation, both as to 
 church and state/' as Dr. Gill thinks, in that passage, 
 where God says, '' That which I have huilt will I break 
 " down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up, 
 ^' even this whole land.''(6) 
 
 Paul says, '' Every house is huilded by some one.^' 
 Gill says, " This is true of houses properly taken, or 
 ^' improperly, as nations, tribes, families, and kindred.'^ 
 I would ask. How are nations, tribes* families and kin- 
 dred Z>i/27^.^ All are willing to admit infants into such 
 buildings. Paul says, moreover, " He that huilt all 
 things is God. ''(c) Dr. Gill understands this ^^ of Christ, 
 and of his building the church :'^ but there must be no 
 infants there. Let us, however, examine this word far- 
 ther, under the following particulars ; as it relates to 
 
 1. The Spiritual Building. It is in relation to spi- 
 ritual things that Paul says, " If I build again the things 
 which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. '"(5) 
 " Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up,^\e) 
 There are many similar instances, in which our Trans- 
 lators render this word by, edify , which is etymologically 
 synonimous. '' Edify one another.'^ ^' All things do 
 not edify. ''(/) They frequently render the Original by 
 the word build, when spiritual things are ultimately in- 
 tended, as Dr. Gill teaches. " For which of you in- 
 tending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and count- 
 eth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?'' 
 " This man began to build, and was not able to finish. "(^'•) 
 
 (b) Jer. xlv. 4. (c) Heb. iii. 4. {d) Gal. ii. 18. 
 
 (e) 1 Cor. viii. 1. (/) 1 Thess. v. 11. 1 Cor. x. 23. See also 
 
 1 Cor. xiv, 17. 4. Acts ix. 31. {g) Luke xiv. 28. 30. 
 
( 392 ) 
 
 A saint is likened to " a wise man, which built his house 
 upon a rock. ''(A) Are no infants built on this rock? 
 
 The Apostle Peter says, " Ye also, as lively stones, 
 are built up a spiritual house. '^(i) We have already 
 had occasion to notice GilPs commentary on this passage; 
 in which he represents all men as lying naturally in the 
 same quarry : but some are gracioudy dug out, " and 
 made fit for the spiintual building. "^^ If any infants are 
 dug out of nature's quarry, and made subjects of grace, 
 then some infants " are built up a spiritual house." The 
 law of Moses ordained that the man who refused to 
 '^ build up his brother's house,''(y) should have his foot 
 bared like a slave. No one doubts that literal infants 
 are here meant. Dr. Gill says, " In the mystical sense 
 of it, as Ainsworth observes, it spiritually signified, that 
 such as would not beget children unto Christ, (or preach 
 his gospel for that purpose,) it should be declared of 
 them, that their feet are not shod with the preparation 
 of the gospel of Christ.'^ Thus, whether it be literally, 
 or spiritually understood, babes are included. 
 
 2. The Ecclesiastical Building. This is intimately 
 connected with the former, as are the church visible and 
 invisible. Even when Peter says that Christians are 
 built up a spiritual house, Gill says that they, " in a 
 ^^ gospel church-stdite, become the house of God in a 
 ^^ spiritual sense." The church is said to be a spiritual 
 society, not as opposed to a visible society, but as dis- 
 tinguished from a political body. Concerning church 
 courts, our excellent standards say, ^' These assemblies 
 ^^ ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction, nor to in- 
 ^^ flict any civil penalties. Their power is wholly 
 '^ moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial and de- 
 ^' clarative.''()^) Omitting many passages which might 
 be quoted we shall refer to a very few, and those in Jere- 
 miah only. He says, " Again I will build thee, and 
 
 th) Matt vii. 24. 25. Luke vi. 48. 49. 
 1 Pet. ii. 4. 5. {j) Deut. xxv. 9. 
 
 [k) Form of Gov. Chap. 8. Sect. 2. 
 
( 393 ) 
 
 thou shall be built; O Virgin of Israel." ^^ And it 
 '* shall come to pass, that like as I have watched over 
 '" them, to pluck up, and to break down, and to throw 
 " down, and to destroy, and to afflict ; so will I watch 
 " over them to build, and to plant, saith the Lord.'YO 
 " I will build you, and not pull you down.''(?n) " I will 
 " build them as at the first :''(o) that is, with believers 
 and their seed. As for the Gentiles, that is, the Christian 
 church, " They shall be built in the midst of my peo- 
 " pie :"(/z) that is, engrafted on the old stock, as Paul 
 teaches us ; and, as Dr. Gill says, " partaking of the 
 " same privileges and ordinances as the people of God.'' 
 The administration of the seal of initiation to infants, 
 was once a highly valued privilege and ordinance of the 
 people of God. Believers scripturally demand the same 
 privilege and ordinance now. 
 
 3. The Doinestic Building, Here we come to the 
 primary meaning of the law of Moses, which commands 
 a survivor to " build up his brother's house. "(/?) Solo- 
 mon says, " Through wisdom is an house builded, and 
 "'^ by understanding, it is established, "((7) that is, says 
 Gill, " The prosperity of a man's family is continued 
 " and secured by his prudent conduct." Again, 
 " Every wise woman buildeth her house. "W Gill says 
 that this is done, in part, " by her fruitful ness, as Leah 
 " and Rachel built up the house of Israel." Rachel de- 
 sired thus to build up the house of Israel ; and for that 
 reason she '' said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else 
 " I die. "(5) Her reason for giving Bilhah to her hus- 
 band, was '' that I also rnay be built by her," as the He- 
 brew and our English Margin read : or " that I also 
 " may have children by her ;"(/) as the Septuagint and 
 the English Text read. From this passage. Dr. Gill re- 
 fers to a former one, in which Leah, acting the same 
 part, says, " It may be that I may be builded by her ;" 
 according to the Margin : ^^ It may be that I may obtain 
 
 {I) Jer. xxxi. 4. 28. (m) Do. xlii. 10, {n) Do. xii. 16. 
 
 (0) Do. xxxiii. 7 ( fi ) Deut. xxv. 9. (q) Prov. xxiv, 3. 
 
 (r) Prov. xiv. 1. (?) Gen. xxx. 1. (0 Do. xxx. 3. 
 
 3 D 
 
( 394 ) 
 
 ^' children by her;'Ywj according to the Text : On both 
 of which, Gill comments in the following words, viz. 
 " For women, by bearing children^ build up an house, 
 '' see Ruth iv. 11. hence a son in Hebrew is called ben, 
 " from BANAH, to buildJ^ To this same passage in 
 Ruth, the Doctor refers concerning another of the Pro- 
 verbs, which contains the command, ^^ build thine 
 ^^ house ;^'(v) to confirm Jarchi's interpretation, that a 
 man should '^ take a wife, when he is able to mantain her, 
 ^^ whereby his house may be built up; see Ruth iv. 11." 
 This passage we have already discussed in the tenth 
 Subsection of the fifth section of this Argument on 
 Household Baptism. It was there shewn, that this 
 phraseology was generally used and understood, as we 
 use and understand it, by '' all the people that were in 
 the gate, and the elders" of the Jewish nation, in the 
 time of Boaz, the great grand father of David ; that 
 such language with such a meaning, was common to 
 civil courts and ordinary conversation ; and that, from 
 the manner in which they refer to their ancestors, they 
 evidently considered this the meaning attached to such 
 words and phrases, by the earliest patriarchs, and in the 
 very first book of Moses, where Dr. Gill has shewn that 
 a new born son is called ben, because he forms a part of 
 the domestic buildings and that when women desired 
 children, they expressed a hope that they might be 
 built up. 
 
 We will now recall your attention to the rules of in- 
 terpretation by which we were all agreed that this dis- 
 cussion should be conducted. I will not now repeat 
 those which were copied from the Duke de Montausier 
 and Thomas Hartwell Home ; but only those which 
 were received from the Baptist Dr. Ryland, with a view 
 
 {u) Gen. xvi. 2. {v) Prov, xxiv. 27. 
 
( 395 ) 
 
 to this very controversy. They are as follows, viz. 
 " Every word should be taken in its primary, obvious j 
 and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in 
 the connexion, or in the nature of things^ which re- 
 quires it to be taken otherwise.'^ " Whenever, by the 
 connexion of a term, or by the nature of things, we 
 are obliged to depart from the primary, obvious, and 
 ordinary meaning of a word, ive should depart, as lit- 
 tle as possible, from that meaniyig, and even with reluc- 
 tance,^^ Oar object is to ascertain the meaning of the 
 word household, connected with the baptism of several 
 families in the New Testament. The question is, Does 
 this word household moAwAG, infants, as the word disci- 
 ples includes females ? In support of the affirmative of 
 this question, I have, according to Dr. Ryland's rules, 
 and others which were quoted, proved the following 
 statements, viz. 1. The word household and its cog- 
 nates, embrace infants, in the " primary, obvious, and 
 ordinary meaning'^ of the words.(t(;) 2. In the disputed 
 passages, there is nothing connected with the word 
 household, which requires it to be taken otherwise than 
 in its '^ primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'^ 
 3. This was the meaning of the word household, among 
 those for whom the authors of the disputed passages 
 immediately wrote. .4. This was the meaning of the 
 word household, and its conjugates, in other writings 
 of the same authors, and of contemporary authors, and 
 of former authors, Sacred and Profane. We, therefore, 
 conclude, legitimately, that household emhrsices infants, 
 and that household baptism is infant baptism, 
 
 (w) That is, when these words are used in relation to the animate, and 
 not the inanimate world. 
 
( 39G ) 
 
 As we are now closing my first Topic, The scriptural 
 subject of baptism, it would not be amiss to take a very 
 cursory review of the two arguments of which it con- 
 sists ; Divine command^ and Jipostolical practice. In 
 support of the first argument, we established, upon a 
 scriptural basis, the i\\^ following propositions, viz. 1. 
 Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visi- 
 ble church of God. 2. The Christian church is a branch 
 of the Abrahamic church : or, in other words, the Jew- 
 ish Society before Christ, and the Christian Society af- 
 ter Christ, are one and the same church in different dis- 
 pensations. 3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and 
 Christian Baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal 
 in substance, though in different /or;725. 4. The admi- 
 nistration of this seal to infants was once enjoined ^by di- 
 vine authority ; that is, God once commanded it. 5. 
 The administration of this seal to infants has never since 
 been prohibited by divine authority ; that is, this com- 
 mand of God, originally given in the Old Testament, is 
 not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirm- 
 ed. Regardless of their own prejudices or the empty 
 declamation of others, let my hearers examine these pre- 
 mises in detail; let them calmly contemplate every arti- 
 cle, and weigh the consequence of admitting them all. 
 There is no person of candour and intelligence who can 
 deny, that if these propositions are true, then there is 
 now in force, both in the Old and New Testaments, an 
 unrepealed divine command, for administering to believ^ 
 ers and their infants, the initiatory seal of the church, 
 which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism. 
 But let it be remembered, that I have not asked you to 
 take the premises on trust. They have been put to the 
 most rigid test, and the more they are tried by the word 
 of God, the more does their truth appear. We must, 
 therefore, in good conscience, believe the inevitable 
 conclusion from these scriptural premises, that there is a 
 DIVINE COMMAND ybr thc baptism of infants. 
 
( 397 ) 
 
 On the Second Argument, Apostolical practicey we have 
 carefully examined the Household Baptism of the New Testa- 
 ment. ' To ascertain the meaning of Oikos, house, or house- 
 hold, we have patiently explored the words Oikos Oikia, Oiko- 
 c?(wieo, with their numerous conjugates, whet her used in relation 
 to the material or spiritual house, the ecclesiastical or celestial, 
 the national or sectional, the royal, or pontifical, the patriarchal 
 or domestic house. In this investigation we have seen, that a 
 
 |)romise of a house or household, is a promise of infants ;-. 
 
 that a house is given or built, repaired or increased, by the 
 
 birth of infants ; that where good is said to be in a house, 
 
 it is in infants ; that when evil is threatened or sent upon 
 
 a hou^e, infants die ; that the death ofinfants is the rolling 
 
 and flowing away and destroying of a housh ; that the 
 
 moving of a house is the moving o{ infants ; and the establish- 
 ing of a house, the settling oi infants. — infants have been shewn 
 to participate in the riches and poverty of a house, in the joys 
 and sorrows of a house, in the blessings and curses of a house, 
 
 and in the mercies and judgments of a house. When the 
 
 solitary man is set in a house, he is placed among children ; 
 and when the barren woman sits in a house, the meaning is, 
 
 that she has an infant offspring. To govern a house, is to 
 
 govern children ; and to provide for a house, is to take care of 
 children. — To feed a house, is to feed infants ; and when a 
 
 hoiise eats, infants eat. According to uniform Scripture 
 
 usage, the circumcision of a house, would mean the circumci- 
 sion of infajits ; and under the teaching of God's Word and 
 Spirit, we are compelled to believe, that the baptism of a house 
 or household, IS infant baptism. Wherefore, the proposition 
 with which this Topic commences, is true, that " The Scrip- 
 tures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects 
 of Christian Baptism." 
 
 If, then. Infant baptism be found in the scriptures, it is no 
 *'human tradition," as the Challenge asserts, and as my Oppo- 
 nent has undertaken to prove. You have heard and weighed 
 his evidence. I am not aware of having unduly neglected to 
 meet any thing of his, which deserved the name of argument. 
 I am yet disposed to plead, not guilty, to the charge of observ- 
 ing a factitious and pernicious ordinance. May your judg- 
 ments be formed by grace, according to truth and justice. As 
 for ourselves, we feel bound to stand by our present scriptu- 
 ral system, in the midst of reproach and opposition, looking to 
 the Spirit of Christ for strength, and hoping for the blessing of 
 God upon an institution which is founded upon divine com- 
 mand and APOSTOLICAL PRACTICE. 
 
[# 
 
 
 ^ 
 
■•(1^ 
 
 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $I.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 SEP 11 19o- 
 APfi 17 194! 
 
 ' 7QnoV49CS 
 DEC 2 n 194SG|lRGUl.AT10N 
 
 19Jan'50tH 
 
 'Nov'SOHJ 
 9 
 
 \^^ 
 
 \«66 
 
 REC'D LD 
 
 DEC 2 9 1976 
 
I 
 
 yc 426; 
 
 U.C.BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 CDMmES7H0 
 
 /vl5- 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 

 m 
 
 ■r^ 
 
 '. ">;.