Mormon Classics   |   Spalding Library   |   Bookshelf   |   Newspapers   |   History Vault

William L. McCalla
Discussion of Christian Baptism

(Philadelphia, George M'Laughlin, 1831)

    Part 1: (pp. 1-214)  |  Part 2: (pp. 215-397)
  • Title Page   Preface
  • Proposition III
  • Proposition IV
  • Proposition V
  • Argument II

  • Transcriber's Comments

  • 1st Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia

    "Rigdon Revealed, 1821-23"  |  Greatrake's 1824 pamphlets  |  Campbell's recollections of 1823
    1824 Walter Scott pamphlet  |  1824 Alex. Campbell reply  |  1825 Alex. Campbell pamphlet
    1827 Harp of Zion  |  c. 1828 Dialogue First  |  1830 Parallel & Pioneer  |  1836 Lights & Shades


    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 sigillistical identity of circumcision and baptism, and the unrepealed requirement that this seal shall be administered to infants, it will plainly appear, from infallible authority, that there is a divine command for infant-baptism.



    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 instrument; it sometimes signifies that confirmation which is imparted by this impression; and it sometimes denotes any significant act by which confirmation is effected even without a visible permanent impression. Ahab [[^had an implement called a seal; Jezebel made the impression of it upon the letters which she sent to the elders and to the nobles; and this royal attestation or confirmation procured the destruction of Naboth. (#) In order to bring the Jews to a similar end, Haman sent throughout the Persian empire, letters "sealed with the kings

    (r) 1 Kings xxi. 8.

    ( 216 )

    ring" (y) 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." (z) So Antiochus is represented as giving his signet (his ring in the Greek and Latin,) to Philip his regent; (a) and the dying Alexander 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," (b) 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 received 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 circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." (d) 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. (z) Gen. xli. 42. See Gill.

    (a) 1 Maccab. vi. 14. 15. So Cyrus is said to have "shut the door and sealed it with the kings signet," (or ring, as it is in the Greek of Bel and the Dragon, verses 11. 14.)

    (b) 1 Cor. ix. 2. See Gill.

    (c) John iii. 33. See GilL

    (d) Rom. iv. 11. See Gill, whom we have formerly quoted more fully on this passage.

    ( 217 )

    confirmation or attestation is what we mean by the substance of the seal; while the particular impression or significant ceremony is called the form 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 of form; 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 baptism 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 examined by every body? and what did it say? 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? 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

    ( 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 positively 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 seal, 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 Abraham. 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 righteousness 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 father'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 Glossographer. 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." fe) Harpocration also, in his Lexicon, explains the one word by the other, as follows, viz. "Signs, so they call seals." (g) Dr. Gill; who quotes

    (2) 2ayt3f j, 0.1 trti tw Saxtvlitov xa,i to,

    (r) errata OV-T'Q Af-yovrft fee?

    ( 220 )

    this with approbation, says that the text in question might be rendered "which sign was a seal." And Castallio's New Testament actually gives it this rendering [[^) After my Opponent's loud call to you, to "mark the Apostle's style," in this passage, you will be surprised to find, that, in his New Testament, he has followed 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 sign 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 translation 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

    (/) ac circnmcisionis notam accepit, quae .V/P-/////W rsset, &c,

    ( 221 )

    ordinances cannot be a seal of the righteousness of faith, 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 confirmed; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day of redemption." U') This author will very readily admit that justification by faith is a blessing which believers 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 "received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness 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 suspect, 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 Targum, as quoted by Dr. Gill, who says that "The Apostle 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 evidently the Passover, to which the sealing of circumcision was a prerequisite; and the number of those who were thus sealed, is, in the context, said to be "a great people whom I could not number." This passage 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 children of Israel." (k) 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 conformity with this Jewish usage, inspired and uninspired, the Shepherd of Hermas, in a passage quoted by my Opponent 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 Augustine drawing a parallel between Abraham and Cornelius,

    (y )2 Esdras ii. f>8. Comp. 42.

    (A) Rev. vii. 4. Comp. S.

    ( 223 )

    on the one hand, who were sealed with the initiatory 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 relation 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 female communion; and see whether he will admit its correctness. In his debate with Mr. Walker, he professed 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 saying that "female discipleship is mentioned only once, and in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual?" 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 furnish 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 any better evidence for it, than we have for infant-baptism, yet it is certainly good evidence, notwithstanding the fact that female discipleship is mentioned 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 image." 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 receiving it, but "he received the mark of circumcision as a seal" already appointed in that covenant which required 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 )

    is as truly sealed, confirmed, or attested in the circumcision of Ishmael as of Isaac, of Esau as of Jacob. It is true that some subjects of this ordinance have the inestimable advantage of having the inward grace accompanying the outward sign; but it is not this fact which makes it a SEAL: for if its significancy depended upon the certainty 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 confirms 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 ordinance 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-satisfying 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 Opponent insists upon it that baptism cannot be a seal at all, because water leaves no mark behind it. He triumphantly asks, "Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative mark on the forehead of a child?" (m) 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 denote

    (m) Spur, Deb. with me, p. 204, quoted above.

    ( 226 )

    "any act of confirmation," as the Baptist Lexicographer, Dr. Allison, says. But if a seal m ust 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 maliciously 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 children 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 confirmation" which we call Christian baptism. This interpretation 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 thousand, having his Father's name written in their fore-heads." (n) 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 seal," my Opponent's Version says, "The foundation of God standeth firm, having this inscription." 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 scaled or inscribed

    (n) Rev. vii. 5, xiv. 1.

    ( 227 )

    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 ancient 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 commentator tells us that "The Alexandrian copy, the Complutensian edition, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic 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 baptism, 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 ordinance, (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 Hermas, who, (as he informed the audience,) "is commonly supposed to be the Hermas, 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] Father should be inscribed or sealed upon his people. Hermas 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 Hernias 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, 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 expressly, (f Now 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 acquaintance of the Apostle Paul, 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) Rom. xvi. 14. Sec Spur. Del), with Mr, Walker. p v 101.

    ( 229 )

    Although circumcision is called a seal, and baptism is called a seal, yet the proposition now under discussion, contends that they are not radically two different seals, but different forms 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!!!' When the varnish is washed off this sophistry, such is its meaning such is its naked deformity. The rite of circumcision was circumcision itself, according to every body's views of rites. The form of circumcision, 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." (q)

    This desperate fluttering of my Opponent is introduced, 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

    (q) Spur. Deb, with me. p. 217.

    ( 230 )

    noticed a while ago, his object is, evidently, to deny that the form and the substance of a seal may differ from each other, and that a seal may change its form and retain 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 controversy 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 sovereignty; 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 esteemed them as having the [[/bnw]], but the king as having the substance: so when the king obtained the seal, the enemies of Toryism and of the Royal Prerogative, considered the king as having the form, but the Parliament the substance. My Opponent very pertly says "the rite [or form] of circumcision was circumcision itself." Very well; the Arabs and apostate Jews of the present day have this form. Again he tells us what is its substance 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 soldiers 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 mark, 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 allusion to the same custom substantially, Calasio translates Job xxxvii. 7, "He shall seal all men in the hand." 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 brand of slavery." M Now I would propound a few questions. Was the substance of an ancient military seal affected, by changing its device from a beast to a bird? Was the substance of a

    (r) See Mr. Walker's Reply, p. 156.

    (s) In his 5th Letter against Popery.

    ( 232 )

    Prince's seal affected by writing his name on the hands of one generation of subjects or servants, and on the foreheads 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 Federal 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 administered 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 substance? What is there, then, so extravagant in the position that the form and the substance of a seal are distinct things? and what is there so incredible in the doctrine, that a God of sovereignty and mercy, may, in respect of form, change the initiatory seal of the church from blood to water, and from the foot to the 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 formal identity. The substance is incalculably more important than the form. The circumcision of the Samaritans and Ishmaelites had the form of the Jewish seal; but because it lacked the substance, it was no seal at all. Unitarian baptism has sometimes the form 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 substance 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.

    The 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 sanctification.

    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 ordinances. To pass over it, therefore, in silence, would not be proper, howsoever generally its truth may be received.

    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 justify me in occupying your time. Is there one of you who doubts that a Gentile was esteemed an alien until he

    ( 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 intended to contradict it; and that the word there rendered cut off, cannot, from the very nature of the case, mean exclusion from privileges already enjoyed, but preclusion from privileges which might hereafter be enjoyed; as the same word in the Hebrew and in the Marginal translation of Joshua ix. 23,, is used to denote preclusion 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 delivered from sheol before he is dead?" and yet the Proverb says "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." U) Parental duty is here represented as a means of delivering, that is, of preventing the child from going to hell: so in the other case, parental neglect is represented as a means of cutting off, that is, of 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 otherwise, 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; [[v it is a language which

    (0 Pruv. 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 unsealed interest which they may have in the promises of God, and not their formal church-membership. As the holiness of the one unbelieving parent, amounts to nothing 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 to, initiation. In relation both to the visible and invisible church, I much like the ancient maxim, "CHRISTIAN! NON NASCIMUR SED (i FIMUS; We are not born but made Christians" As the inward graces of religion distinguish the invisible church from the world; so do the outward sacraments put a visible difference between those that belong unto the churchy and the rest of the world." (u] 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 initiation. Accordingly, he tells us, in support of his own views, that "Theological writers have often called baptism, the sacrament of re generation, or of initiation; (v) and the Lord's supper, the sacrament of nutrition" (v) My Opponent himself preaches this dictrine, 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; 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 of water too, or into Messiah's realm you'll never enter." (w) According to this, a man must be born again of water, as a term of admission into, as the way by which he shall enter, Christ's ecclesiastical kingdom; that is, Baptism is the way of initiation into the Christian church. After this I need not waste your time with a formal refutation of his quibbles against this doctrine, nor with an exposure of the impious solecism of his Master Robinson, 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 forefathers, 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 citizens of their kingdom." (x)

    II. THEY ARE BOTH SIGNS OF PARDON AND JUSTIFICATION. 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 me, p. 197. 198.

    (x) Staffer's Institutions. Chap. 18. Sect. 35. 10. "baptismus, ex mente illorum, sit signum initiationis ad veram ecclcsiam, et contessionis." "eos quos tanquam regni sui cives assume-bant, anabaptismoinitiabant."

    ( 237 )

    therefore, I find the one I shall take the other for granted.

    1. CIRCUMCISIONS a sign of pardon and justification. This is plainly proved by Rom. iv. 11, so often quoted already; which Dr. Gill considers as comprehending 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, for the remission of sins." But Paul tells us that God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation "to declare his righteousness, 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." (z)

    III. THEY ARE BOTH SIGNS AND MEANS OF SANCTIFICATION. The ordinances as well as the oracles of God, are intended as means of grace. It does not militate against this position in respect of either, that they

    (y) Gill on Gen. xvii v ll.

    (z) Acts H. 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 sanctification. "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." (a) On this subject my Opponent peaks 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 descendants? No, not one. Do, Mr. M'Calla, stop and prove this assertion if you can that circumcision was a sign of the circumcision of the heart. Don't assume every thing, don't beg every question. Have some respect to your hearers, and to the reputation of your own intellect." (b) This declamation of my Baptist Opponent shews that pride of intellect sometimes makes a man wise above what is written. In relation 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 letter." In relation not only to Abraham, but to his descendants,

    (a) Deut. xxx. 6. Comp. x. 16.

    (b) Spurious Debate with me. pp. 204. 205, 226.

    ( 239 )

    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." (a) Now it will not do to answer this, by begging our worthy and eminent Baptist writer to have some respect to his readers, and to the reputation of his own intellect.

    2. BAPTISM is a sign and means of sanctification* 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 STAPFER, 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 sealing 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, "Baptism does also now save us, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (c) To this he adds several appropriate authorities, to some of which I have already alluded. By this I do not mean to agree with

    (a) See Gill on Gen. xvii. 11. Rom. iv. 11. iii, 1. ii. 29.

    (b) Nine nc.c gratitc obsignantis signia et nigillia o/ius cut. Stapfer's Institutions. Chap. 13. Sect. 30. 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 opposite one of his forefathers, both alike flow from ignorance of true religion.


    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 circumcision, 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 circumcised; 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." (d] 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 as 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 circumcision to both; because, though both have, substantially,

    (d) Rom. iv, 11. 12.

    ( 241 )

    the same seal, they have not the same/m?* of the seal. As the use of the abstract for the concrete is a common Hebraism) 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 circumcised. 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 substance of circumcision remains under the form of baptism after the ancient form of the seal is abolished.

    2. Paul says, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision: for we are the circumcision, 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 [[a we are the circumcised." Why are Christians said to be circumcised? It must be, because they have received outward, or inward circumcision, or both. But my Opponent denies that it ever

    (e) Phill. iii. 2. 3.

    ( 242 )

    relates to inward circumcision. He says, "Was it the sign of the circumcision of the heart of one of Abraham'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 practised; for that is here called, by way of contempt, concision, 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 evidently alludes; while it certainly does not exclude, but primarily intends that spiritual circumcision, the existence of which my Opponent is unwilling to admit.

    3 "Also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting [[off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." (/) 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 saying that water-baptism is here intended, then we are

    (/) Col. ii. 11. 12.

    ( 243 )

    taught by this passage, that there is an external circumcision, 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 little 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 Martyr, who lived very near the time in which Paul wrote it. "The question there, is, Why, if circumcision were a good thing, we do not use it as the Jews did? The answer is, We are circumcised by Baptism with Christ's circumcision, &c. And he brings this text for his proof." (g) In allusion to the same text, both Basil and Chrysostom say that Baptism is the "circumcision 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." (/0

    But if, in opposition to my Opponent, you should understand this passage to relate to spiritual circumcision and baptism, as I do, it makes no difference in the conclusion; for the identity of the thing signified 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) Wall's History of Baptism. Chap. 2, Sect. 2. From him quoted by the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, in his First series of Facts and Evidences on the subject of Baptism.

    (/O 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 spiritually, then you will not long reject the doctrine that baptism is the sigillistical successor and substitute of circumcision.

    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 answer to Mr. Emlin will do for my answer to my Opponent. 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 difference 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 subject."

    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 righteousness 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 administered 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.

    (i) Wall's Defence against Gale, p. 31. 32,

    ( 246 )

    Those who believed baptism on the eighth day obligatory, 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 lawfulness 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 unlawful 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 purifications, as laid down in the twelfth Chapter of Exodus; in the prospect of which it was probably at first commanded. But if you think differently, I would advise to do as Fidus did; Baptize on the eighth day and onward, the sooner the better.

    4. "Circumcision was administered by parents, not by priests ex afficio. Baptism, its substitute, ought likewise to be administered by parents, not by priests, or clergy, ex officio."

    My Opponent, doubtless, knows that his Master, Robinson, asserts "the right of every Christian to enlarge the kingdom of Christ, by teaching and baptizing others." You know that my Opponent has followed this Infidel in making baptism every thing, and yet in waging 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 affecting 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 cannot 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 fourteen 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 circumcision 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 binding upon thousands of adult subjects who followed him? If, therefore, it is admitted that, under the Old Testament, unsealed adults were bound to receive circumcision

    ( 249 )

    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 ordinances? 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 doctrine 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 training. They are expressly called his trained servants, before the institution of circumcision: (/) and the word there used does not appear to relate to military discipline, but to spiritual instruction and ecclesiastical initiation; 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 concerning household circumcision, is true concerning.

    (7)Gen, xiv, 14. I i

    ( 250 )

    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 contrary, think more correctly, that granting church privileges 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 baptism are the same seal.

    9. "Circumcision imported that its subject was entitled 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 propositions be true, then Providence has deprived very many of their rights. Instead of this, I would say that circumcision is a seal of the righteousness 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 Genesis; 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 Genesis 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 insinuation that baptism cannot be a token of the covenant, because it is a watery one. If so, I would again remind him, that the token of the Noachic covenant was a watery one. "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." (A)

    11. "Circumcision was not to be performed in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism, 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 ceased to baptize in the name of the Trinity. But as this Triune God has instituted circumcision and baptism, an
    (*) 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. Baptism 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 because one form of a seal is abolished, therefore its substitute 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 whosoever 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 circumcision which has not yet come to that crisis. It is that

    ( 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 circumcision, or] the circumcision of Christ, [being] buried with him in baptism." This is a sort of circumcision 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 received it.

    14. "Circumcision did not exempt one of the Jews from baptism, when they believed in Christ; therefore, its substitute, baptism, ought not to exempt a believer from being baptized again and again. " (/)

    My Opponent probably knows that the fact of baptism 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, therefore, without a change of dispensation, the form ought to be repeated, when there is no abolition to make it necessary.

    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.

    ( 254 )

    [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 before 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 fifteenth is the same as his third, which I have answered already. My Opponent's endeavour to multiply objections, 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 Presbyterians signed a petition to stop the mail on the Sabbath, so that my son in Indiana might be killed by the Indians, 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.

    ( 255 )

    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." (0)

    In answer to this, I would remind you of the sorrowful confession of pious and candid Baptists, like Mr. Greatrake, 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 concerning hereditary descent, my Opponent concludes that, according to our system "The children of the flesh are counted for the seed," (/0 contrary to the Apostle's declaration that "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." ^)

    To this I answer, that "the children of God" and the seed" here mentioned, are the members of the invisible church; and the Apostle's remark was made to shew that membership in the church invisible was not always according to hereditary descent, among Jews or

    () Mr. Lowry, in his written abstract, now before me,

    (o) Lowry's Abstract. (/) Spur. Deb. with me, p. 400.

    (y) Rom. ix. 8.

    ( 256 )

    Christians; although a right to visible church membership descended from parent to child, among both Jews and Christians.

    19. In order to help out my 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 Pedobaptists cannot account baptism to be instead of circumcision, 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 taking 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 deprive us of those texts, which shew that spiritual circumcision 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 substitute of the outward form, to the exclusion of baptism, which the scriptures represent as a visible substitute; while they always teach inward circumcision, both before 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 principal. He insists upon it that this quadration must be universal and perfect; so that if one feature of difference, 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 difference; 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 particulars, 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 sigillistical 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 a substitute still, and every objection which they have made will go for nothing. For this reason my Opponent has pressed his doctrine of quadratiom 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 substitute 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 corruption, 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 remember that when my Opponent enlarged his objections, so as to number nine points of difference between circumcision and baptism, I produced nine particulars in which a military substitute might differ from his principal, and yet be legally and joyfully recognized as a substitute. You remember that he enlarged his list to eleven, and I mine to twelve. He afterward went on to fourteen, then fifteen, and I have helped him to gather his scattered forces until they amount to twenty. At present, 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 cheerfully and correctly recognized, as a true and legal [[siib-)]] if he should differ from his principal, in[[ bciritj]]

    ( 259 )

    1 Taller

    2 Younger

    3 Straighter

    4 Stronger

    5 Swifter

    6 Sprightlier

    7 Thicker

    8 Thriftier

    9 Heavier

    10 Healthier

    11 Handsomer

    12 Happier

    13 Holier

    14 Humbler

    15 Hardier

    16 Honester

    17 Wittier

    18 Soberer

    19 Graver

    20 Braver

    21 Gentler

    22 Genteeler

    23 Kinder

    24 Cleanlier

    25 Lovelier

    26 Chaster

    27 Meeker

    28 Quieter

    29 Wiser

    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 Testament [[/0r/?2, 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 five, he would probably have had all that deserve the name. Baptism differs from circumcision, 1. In its being an aspersion, 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 parents. 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 original form. My Opponent, therefore, might have spared the remark that I had illustrated the subject by a military substitute, on account of "finding the points of difference between circumcision and baptism so numerous and so glaring." (s) They are few in number, and indifferent 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 military 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 offices or duties, which the substitute is obliged to perform for his principal. Had we made objection to baptism as a substitute for circumcision, 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. 237.

    ( 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 performed 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 mentioned under the idea of blood and water." That is, he would not deny that baptism was a substitute for circumcision, merely "because the one was a watery rite, and the other a bloody one." How can these things be reconciled?

    (0 Spur, Deb. p. 237.

    ( 262 )

    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 between 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 substitute, 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 essential 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 justification; 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; howsoever contradictory it may be to his exploded doctrine of quadrations.

    Mr. Gale (w) says that "the argument for infant baptism from circumcision was not insisted on by those called Ancient Fathers; and though he might have instanced 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 insisted on by them, for aught he finds!" Perhaps a more diligent and candid search would have enabled him to find it. The audience will recollect, that, before I formally commenced the defence of the present proposition, my Opponent was eager to enter upon it; and in doing so, "declared that Calvin and Beza were the first who argued Infant-baptism from Jewish circumcision." (v) 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 contents, that its author was Dr. Fishback of Lexington, I

    (u) As reported by Dr. Wall, in his Defence, p. 570. The words quoted are the Doctor's.

    (v) 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 century, and for the first time by Calvin and Beza." (w) 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, immediately after he had retreated from his quad-rations, noticed 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 introduced baptism in the room of circumcision, in the sense contended for by Mr. M
    As the testimony of the church on this subject, belongs 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.

    (tt>) Fishback's Letters, p. 09.

    (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 baptism"

    His cotemporary, EPIPHANIUS,, 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 we 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 thenceforward 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. L< I

    ( 266 )

    the righteousness of faith went before, and circumcision 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 righteousness of faith went before, and (as he was a follower of his Father's faith) the righteousness itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy, came after; so in infants baptized the sacrament 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." (;z)

    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." He then quotes the words of Chrysostom, which are the same as those of Basil; after which he adds, "You see how this man, established 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 affirm that they have nothing which needs to be put off: for you do not confess them to be dead

    (z) Wall's Hist. Chap. 15. Sect. 3.

    ( 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 circumcision, 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 without hands; in which there is no trouble to be undergone, 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: because 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.

    (A) Ibid. Chap. 14, Sect, 1,

    ( 268 )

    from sin, that they may be saved. Both the home-born 66 and the foreigner, the just and the sinful, must be circumcised by the forgiveness of sins, so as not to practice sin any more: for no person comes to the kingdom 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 circumcised the eighth day shall be cut off from his people: and dost thou put off the circumcision made without hands in putting off the flesh, which is performed in baptism, when 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 ?> (c)

    CYPRIAN, and the rest of the Bishops who were present 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) Wall's Hist. Chili). 13. Sect. 2. (e) Ibid. Chap. 12. Sect. 5.

    ( 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 [[baptism,^ by the law that is now appointed: and that the spiritual 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 Lord hath shewn me that no person 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 circumcision, 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 receive it by the same way." A work entitled "Questions to the Orthodox," is ascribed to Justin Martyr. My Opponent, in his spurious publication against Mr. Walker, (g) 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 by Baptism with Christ's circumcision." (h]

    Thus is this doctrine clearly traced from Augustine

    (g) Wall's Hist. Chap. 6. Sect, 1. (tf) 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 established in the Christian church, in the place of circumcision 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 writer, 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 Tertullian himself, who was opposed to baptizing infants, still admitted that there was a divine command for baptizing

    ( 271 )

    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 difficult 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. Epiphanius calls it a pattern. Chrysostom, as reported by Austin, calls it a type. Cyprian calls it [[a y type going before in a shadow and resemblance." 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." (i) For this reason, Augustine, Chrysostom, 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 received it by baptism." Epiphanius calls baptism 'the truth of" circumcision. Cyprian calls it "the substance" of circumcision. They all used this language, 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 in

    (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 several of them give my explanation to that text; besides which Chrysostom calls our circumcision, the grace of baptism; and Justin expressly says, "We are circumcised 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 seal, 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 seal, and the form of a seal; 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 respective dispensations; that they are both signs of pardon and justification; and both signs and means of sanctification; that Christians are called the circumcision; and that baptism is called the circumcision of Christ; that the real points of difference 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, stature, activity, and bravery, would forbid the acknowledgement

    ( 273 )

    of a military substitute; 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 ratified by the great Dr. Gill, who, in speaking of the covenant, doctrines, and ORDINANCES of the New Testament, 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 SUBSTANCE," (a) We shall, therefore, consider it as proved that Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Christian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal IN SUBSTANCE, though in different forms.



    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 Christian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal in substance, though not in form. The command for administering

    (a) Gill on Eccles. i. 9.

    ( 274 )

    this seal to infants is contained in the following 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 covenant." y ) Now, as the particular form here enjoined, has been abrogated, while the substance of the seal continues 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 command, will stand good. That it is not repealed, then, will be the subject of fifth and last proposition.



    As I have already exposed every thing of my Opponent's, which could be considered an effort to prove a

    ( ) Gen. xvii. 10. 11. 14.

    ( 275 )

    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 infants.

    POINT I.

    Our Saviour so recognizes the CHURCH-MEMBERSHIP of infants, 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 f( rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, 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," as another Evangelist reads it. (A)

    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 punishment; 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 innocent 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

    () Luke xviii. 15, 16. Matt, xix, 14,

    ( 276 )

    blood of Christ, and have the passive work of the Spirit 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 kingdom of heaven: by these I may instruct and point out to you, what converted persons should be, who have a place in my church below, and expect to enter into my kingdom and glory above. (/)

    If I understand the Doctor in these remarks, he admits that by "the kingdom of God," and "the kingdom of heaven," our Saviour meant "my church below," "a gospel church-state;" as preparatory to eternal happiness above. Even when our Saviour says, "My kingdom is not of this world," Gill very properly understands him to mean "His mediatorial kingdom," which includes the whole gospel dispensation, Christ's visible church-state on earth, and the whole election of grace." (ra) 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. (n) 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 expected in another world," says Dr. Gill; "It is the

    (/) Gill on Matt, xix, 14. (m) Gill on John xviii. 3f>.

    (j) 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) Moreover, our Saviour tells us that ever since the time of John, "The kingdom of God is preached." "The gospel dispensation," says Gill. The visible church-state, says my Opponent's third argument, (p] These facts are intended to shew that the Pedobaptist understanding of this important phrase "the kingdom of heaven," is conceded by the greatest Baptist commentator, and the most zealous Baptist Polemic in the world: and remember that the Commentator has admitted this interpretation 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 containing 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 thereof." (^) As the Jews and their children were admitted to church privileges, this threat indicated that they and their children should be deprived of church privileges: 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, See Matt. iii. 2. and Gill on it,

    ( ) Gill on Luke xvi. 16. Spur. Debate, p. 197.

    Matt, xxi, 43.

    ( 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; but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into utter 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, "Suffer 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 endeavours 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 considers 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. (s) Gill on Mat, xix. 14.

    (0 Ps. cxxxi. 2. Matt, xviii. 16. 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 he initiated until they resemble infants, then the fitness of infants for initiation 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 labour 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, (V) as this little child, in my name, receiveth me." In Mark x. 14. this Version reads "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid 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 synonimous. 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 examples:

    (v) wn T

    ( 280 )

    two or three must suffice. The little Lexicon of Gutbirius explains DAIK by the Latin word TALIS, such as, and refers to Matt. ix. 8. to prove it. Here the Syriac Version is as follows: "But when this multitude 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 healing "the sick of the palsy;" an outward miracle intended to set forth his omnipotent energy in healing our inward 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 multitude meant, in the view of the Syriac Translators, when they spoke of a "power such as this" act of healing? Did they mean the outward miracle, or the inward grace? That they meant the latter, no man from Syria, Persia, or Arabia, is simple enough to believe: if they meant the former, Dr. Gill's 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 this" they meant literally, the power of working miracles, and not figuratively, the power of saving souls, which resembled it; let us then be consistent, and interpret such expressions literally of infants, and not confine them by figures, to professing adults, because they resemble infants. This therefore settles the meaning of Dr. Gill's parallel passage, just now quoted; "Whosoever shall receive as this little 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 Syriac which reads "POTESTATEM HUJCJSMODI," for, "power such as this;" where the literal miracle, and not the figurative grace, is confessedly 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 Syriac reads, "Ye glory in your inflations: all glorying, DAIK EN A, such as this, is from evil." The Dr. refers to the Syriac of this passage, but, forgetting his doctrine of resemblances, he gives these Syriac 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 Syriac 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 implied, and where there is only a little addition of the characteristic verbosity of the Syriac language?

    It is vain to contend that the authors of the Syriac Version had doubts about the application of these passages 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 propriety of obeying it. In advocating the delay of baptism

    ( 282 )

    in the case of unmarried and bereaved believers, (a whim of his own,) he says, "PRECIPUE TAMEN CIRCA PARVULOS; but especially concerning little ones; [[v 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


    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 prudential 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 ones, 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, aura, them, in Luke xviii. 16. "which shews that these infants were not new born 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 opposing this flimsy conceit, I need not lay much stress upon the Ethiopic Version which he confesses is pointedly 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 Saviours calling, [[<">*a, them, unto him, will shew that he expected the call to be answered

    ( 283 )

    by those parents who brought them to him, or those disciples who forbade them.

    In Luke xviii. 15. it is said, "And they brought unto him also, * P e *i> infants" In the next verse, Jesus says, "Suffer, [[*a rtcuSta, 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 controversialist of England, has expressed as follows, viz. "Every word should be taken in the primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in the connexion or in the nature of things which requires it to be taken otherwise." (w) And here let it be observed, that in the time of Hesychius, the ancient Glossographer, "the primary, obvious and ordinary meaning" of Pais was so decidedly child, that he did not define it, but took this meaning for granted in his explanation of, rtcuSttfxot, boys, which he said were "o* ex rtaiSw sis avflgas petnGnwovess, those who are changing "from children to men" One reason of the wonder expressed on the occasion of "the children, [[tovs yttufas, 9 ' crying in the temple, was their tender age; for they were called "babes and sucklings." (x) The age, however, of those who suffered under Herod, cannot be easily mistaken, since it is said that he "sent forth and slew, [[Ttavi-aj *ov$ rtatSaj, all the children, that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under." (y)

    (w)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, Symmaehus renders Ps. viii. 2, "Out of the mouth of babes, [[/3pt^ and sucklings, if thou hast perfected praise." He, of course, meant literal infants, as Dr. Gill admits that "the Jewish writers 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, [[p^^ avt^v, their young children." (z) A reference to the first chapter of Exodus will shew that these were what Peter calls "[[a^ttysw^a,]], new-born babes" (a) Our new-born Redeemer was twice called BREPHQS, the Babe, lying in a manger." &) John the Baptist is twice called "BREPHOS EN TE KOILIA, the unborn infant" (c) The use of it in Apocryphal writings is to the same end. In the Maccabees, it is said concerning children lately circumcised, that the Officers of Antiochus "hanged, [[*a ^^^, the. infants, about their necks." (cO For administering circumcision in another instance, the Officers of Ptolemy are said to have led the captive mothers round about the city, "[[** ^n, 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 BKKPHOS,

    (z) Acts vii. 19.

    (a) 1 Pet. ii. 2.

    (b) Luke ii. 12. 16.

    (c) Luke i. 41, 44.

    (d) 1 Mac. i. 61.

    (e) 2 Map. vi. 10.

    ( 285 )

    according to Eustathius and Phavorinus, is, "a new-born child, nourished by the teat, from his birth, until he be four years old" Dr. Wall has shewn(w) that Mr. Gale's supercanonical book of the fourth century, called Clement's Constitutions, produces this text in support of infant baptism, as follows, viz. "Baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition 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," (0) has quoted their interpretation of this text, as exhibited in their own Confession of Faith, presented at different periods to Ladislaus and Ferdinand, kings of Bohemia, in which this language occurs, viz. "Likewise they teach that children are to be baptized, 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 heaven.'"

    Seeing that Inspired usage, and Classical and Apocryphal usage harmonize in proving that these words denote literal infants; and seeing that the Primitive church and that of the Waldenses considered the text in question as authorizing infant-baptism 5 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 requires it to be taken otherwise." In the present case,

    (w) Defence against Mr. Gale, p. 45.

    (o) Page 48.

    ( 286 )

    however, both the connexion and the nature of things are in our favour. With regard to the doctrine of resemblances, 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 interpretation. Is it said that these persons came to Christ themselves? No, their parents brought them; "and his disciples rebuked those that brought them," from the apparent impropriety of obtruding children, such as Ignatius was at that time, (for he is said to have been one of these infants,) upon the attention of one who 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 reported by Dr. Gill: so that the context and exigency of the case conspire with the best usage and the most authentic definitions, to prove that our Saviour held literal 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 )


    An inspired Apostle so recognizes the SEMINAL HOLINESS of infants, 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 holy. (f)

    In common with Pedobaptists in general, I am conscientiously 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 advocates of other sorts of holiness, I am willing, with the leave of my hearers, to give a candid and patient attention 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 interpretation 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, (g) where he says, "If, then, their sin or sins, previous to sprinkling, had been forgiven them, they would have had all their sins forgiven

    (f) 1 Cor. vii. 14.

    (g) p. 175,

    ( 288 )

    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 holiness 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 pretending 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 attended 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 5 thus reasoning in a circle, by making the Essay prove the note, and the note the Essay.

    3. Civil holiness. As the former interpretation related to the domestic comforts of the married state, this

    ( 289 )

    relates to the lawfulness of marriage, as a civil transaction. It is as old as the seventeenth century; for it was then urged by the Anabaptists, in their public Debate with Doctor Featley. (h) The amount of it is this; that the sanctification of the parents to each other, is simply their marriage to each other; and the holiness of the children is simply their legitimacy. Dr. Gill espouses this scheme very decidedly; and rests his whole defence of it, upon "the Misnic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic writings!!!" From these he gives a long quotation, in which he correctly asserts that "the word which is used to sanctify, or be sanctified, in the Hebrew 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 Rabbinical 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 converting marriage into sanctification, or, into a sacrament. Now it would have been very easy for Dr. Gill to produce from a Popish writer, one passage, in which marriage was called a sacrament ten times; and to give this instead of a thousand that might have been produced.

    (h) See the 8th page of the Doctor's account of that combat.

    ( 290 )

    Why, then, does not Dr. Gill believe marriage to be a sacrament, as well as that sanctification is marriage? The evidence for both is much the same, as to weight and respectability. The one is supported by the traditionary 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 Papists say, by Jerome's Latin Vulgate, in Eph. v. 32, where he expressly says, concerning marriage, "SACRAMENTUM HOC MAGNUM EST, this is a great Sacrament." 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 several hundred years after the Apostles, and having no more right to an arbitrary dictation in sacred criticism, 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 espouses himself

    ( 291 )

    the Christian 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 intended 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 supposed 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 object 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 without 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 marriage, when, in the text under review, he spoke of sanctification; especially, when sanctification does not signify 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 illustrating and supporting the New Testament. It was after this invidious apostacy from the ancient style of their nation, that they began to call marriage, sanctification: 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 newspaper 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 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 evident from this important consideration 5 that he had never before heard such language with such a meaning. Notwithstanding this, the language would be perfectly 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 holy land and ground 5 (1) holy mountains and hills; ( /) holy cities and houses, chambers, instruments, and vessels; U) holy tithes and first-fruits, gifts, offerings, oblations, and portions;(/)

    (0 '/ech. ii. 12. Ex. iii. 5. ( Is. xxvii. 12. Ps. xcix. 9.

    (*) Is. Ixiv. 10. 1 Chr, xxix 3. Ez. xlii. 13. Num. xxxi. 6. 1 Sam. xxi. 5.

    (0 Lev. xxvii. 30. Ez, xlviii. 14, Ex. xxviii. 38. 2 Chr. xxxv. 13. Ez. xlviii. 10. xlv. 14.

    ( 293 )

    holy garments and crowns;(w) holy nation, congregation, and flock, (ra) holy persons, and holy seed. (o)

    The holy flock here mentioned, Dr. Gill justly considers as meaning "Flocks of sheep which were consecrated 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. (p) 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 insists, 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 examining the New Testament regulations concerning holy children; for they are the holy seed, to which he considers 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.

    (n) Ex. xix. 6. Num. xvi. 3. Ez. xxxvi. 38.

    (o) Ps. Ixxxvi. 2. Ex. xiii. 2. (Comp. Luke ii, 23.)Ezr. ix, 2. ft ) On Ez. xxxvi. 38. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 79,

    (p) John xxi. 15. 16. Taylor's Fourth Letter to a Deacon of a Baptist church, p. 28.

    ( 294 )

    think that our scheme refutes itself, by understanding sanctificati6n in different senses. They should remember, 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 Maimonides, says, "NOTISSIMUM EST ET QUOD SANCTUM, ET QUOD A SANCTITATE LONGISSIME REMOTUM EST:

    It is very remarkable that [it signifies] both what is holy, and what is farthest removed 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 Pedobaptist explanation of the text. The Old Testament law passed an indiscriminate sentence of desecration upon all foreign and mingled seed. It made no distinction between a child born of a Jew and Heathen, and a child born of two Heathens. They were both alike unholy, 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 believing 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 Christian circumcision, as if both parents were believers.

    ( 295 )

    But now let us try Mack night and Gill by their own rule, and read the text upon their plans, with that consistency 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 married 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 certainly your children would be" ' unclean, unfitted to remain married to their parents, for want of affection, but now are they holy, fitted by their affection to remain in the married state.' This is making sanctification 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 without 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 consistent 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, and the unbelieving wife is espoused to the husband [[:'* f else were your children unmarried; but now are they married.' This makes holiness signify marriage, consistently 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 infants

    ( 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 dispute. We say, that it means seminal holiness* or a hereditary 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 Scriptures; but he evidently wishes his reader to believe that his Jewish writers support this interpretation by innumerable 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 legitimacy 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 incompatible with the other: for if holiness mean marriage, then Jeptha, the deliverer of Israel, was holy; but if it mean legitimacy, then Jeptha was unholy. According to the Doctor's own account, therefore, his interpretation is perfectly destitute of support, from the Bible, the Talmud, or any thing else.

    A few minutes ago, I mentioned that the Doctor differed 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 Translators, "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 Doctor's agreement with us. For the true meaning of ecclesiastical holiness, he refers to Ex. xix. 10. 11. 14. 15, where he shews that sanctification 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 espousals. When ablution is used as an outward sign of spiritual and ecclesiastical holiness, we call it baptism: yet according to Dr. Gill, the washing just now mentioned, signifies inward and outward 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 sanctification 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 children: for it is, in fact, a confirmation of the Old Testament command that they should receive that seal of initiation, 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 notion in the present case, for the sake of what they think a more important point. They all consider it high treason against criticism, for us to say that EN AINON, means at Enon, and that EN JORDANE, means, at the Jordan:

    ( 298 )

    yet when it will serve a turn against Pedobaptism, 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 themselves, 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 preposition 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 scriptures against such a construction, where verbs of sanctifying and not marrying 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 common than that Dr. Gill, and my Opponent, and all the Baptists, agree with us in translating it by instead of to. In order that you may perceive the exact resemblance 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 ANDIII, 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 sanctified, EN MESO, in the midst," Gill, "by the children of Israel." "I will be sanctified, EN DOXE MOU, Gill, by my glory." Besides which, half a dozen other examples

    (r) Or, I might rather say, the means, agent, or author.

    ( 299 )

    from the Septuagint are at hand. (s) To these we add the following from the New Testament, viz. "Sanctified, EN ALETHEIA, by the, truth" "Sanctified, EN THEO PATKI, by God the Father" "EN HO, by which, he was sanctified." "Sanctified, EN PNEUMATI HAGIO, by the Holy Spirit." "Sanctified, EN CHRISTO JESOU, by Christ Jesus" "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, EN TO ONOMATI, in or by the name of the Lord Jesus, and EN TO PNEUMATI, by [so my Opponent renders it,] by the Spirit of our God." (t) 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 Tremellius, that the preposition used by the Apostle is a Hebraism, for PER, by; which Castallio and the ancient Vulgate have adopted, notwithstanding Dr. Gill's unproved assertion, that Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, favoured his interpretation.

    The truth is, the Epistle of Jerome to Leta, whose Christian mother had married Mbinus, 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 converting,

    (s) Lev. xxii. 32. Ex. xxix. 43. Ez. xx. 41. xxxvi. 23. xxviii. 22. 25. xxxix. 27. xxxviii. 16.

    (t) John xvii. 19. Jude i. Heb. x. 29. Rom. xv 16. 1 Cor. i. 2, vi. It,

    ( 300 )

    or probability of converting him." (u) 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 Paulinus to Tertullian's explanation of this text. Now, although Tertullian is very vehemently claimed by my Opponent, it will appear, on examination, that Tertullian saw nothing of marriage or legitimacy in this text, but that sort of holiness which is enjoyed in being born of water and of the Spirit, or, (as he understood it,) "in baptism and sanctification." 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 discipline: [or, the discipline of institution :] else, says he, were they born unclean: but yet meaning to be understood 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 marriages which he would have to be continued. Otherwise, [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, Part. 1. Chap. 19. Sect. 19,

    ( 301 )

    into the kingdom of God." (v) From such evidence as this, Dr. Wall very honestly concludes "that Tertullian differs from them [that is, from Augustine and Pelagins in their comments on this text,] only in this, that he [Tertullian] expounds the holiness that such children have by the prerogative of their birth, by these words, SANCTITATI DESiGNATi, designed for holiness, 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." (w)

    Tertullian calls baptism, by which the infants of believers are made holy, INSTITUTIONS DISCIPLINA, the discipline of institution; that is, an ordinance by which they are made disciples, according to Christ's appointment. 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 Christians, or to the pardon of sins, unless they be made believers, FIDELES, [according to him, infants can be made Christians and believers] CHRISTIANA ET ECCLESIASTICA INSTITUTIONE ET SACRAMENTIS, by the Christian and ecclesiastical institution and sacramerits." That he here means the sacrament of baptism, which is the initiatory institution of the Christian church, is evident from the words immediately following

    (v) "Hinc enim et Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos procreari ait; tarn ex seminis prerogativa quam ex institutionis disciplina," &c. See Wall's History, Part 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Chap. 19. Sect. 19.

    (w) 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. (x) 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." (y) Here he speaks of baptized infants as those which were sanctified by parental authority. .In proof that he undoubtedly meant baptismal sanctification, 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?' In answer to which he distinguishes 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.

    (y) Wall's History, Part 1. Chap. 15. Sect. 2.

    (z) 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 sanctification means "the laver, [viz. of baptism,] the cleansing." () In accordance with this, Bingham informs us that u Theodoret and others explain the word, 'aytot, saints, or sanctified ones, to be such as were vouchsafed the honour and privilege of baptism." ^) 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. (c) 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!!" (^) These assertions are equally wise, and they both resemble 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 sanctify,

    (a) Wall's Hist. Part. 1. Chap. 11. Sect. 19.

    (b) Bingham's Antiquities, Book 1. Chap. 1. p. 3. quoted in Wall's Defence against Gale, p. 384.

    (c) Hebr. ix. 10. Wall's Hist. Part 1. Chap. 11. Sect 19. Baxter's Report of the Debate, p. 208.

    ( 304 )

    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 controversialists 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 expressly renounces the idea of legitimacy as denoted by the term holy in reference to children; and I understand 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. Anderson's words. They are as follows, viz. "To interpret holy ('ayta) 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 stipulating 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 plausible. 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.

    (f) p. 64.

    ( 305 )

    longer believe that Paul's infant holiness signified legitimacy, 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 boarding 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 more 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 would 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 "more probable than any other that has been proposed," and if it be, at the same time, such decisive evidence of Baptist principles, how comes it that it "contradicts 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 Pedobaptist interpretation was followed by them, as has been Qq

    ( 306 )

    shewn from the testimony of Paulinus and Jerome, Chrysostom and Augustine, and even my Opponent's Baptist brother Tertullian, 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 translating and expounding this passage: whereas, both in translating and expounding, the Baptists, not only oppose the scriptures and the Fathers, but contradict themselves and one another, and substitute their own arbitrary inventions and incongruous assertions for fair criticism and solid exegesis.

    We have now given that candid hearing which was promised, to the respective claims of spiritual, 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 intended by the Apostle, when he says, "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 holy:" or [[1* designed for holiness;" as the Baptist Father Tertullian paraphrases it; meaning that by "seminal prerogative," 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, express!) calls "the visible sanctification" Instead, therefore, of a repeal, we here have a New Testament confirmation

    ( 307 )

    of the command for administering to infants the initiatory seal of the church.


    As the Scriptures recognize the discipleship of infants, infants must be contemplated in our Lord's command to his Apostles, 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 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (g-)

    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 disciples, but that this discipleing is equivalent to conversion, 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 stupidity, 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

    (g) Matt, xxv iii. 19, 20.

    ( 308 )

    favouring his cause; for it gives the verb his rendering 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 English 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 66 at their request, baptize their children, into the same covenant; and while all took it so, there was no hurt 66 in letting the word teach stand." (A) It is very correctly granted by Dr. Wall, "that where the circumstances 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 6i teach; because, as I said before, in most places where the word occurs, the discipleing is by present teaching: " (i*) But, on the other hand, the Dr. observes that This very thing of choosing a new word on purpose for this sacrament, (viz. discipleing in general)

    //) Wall's Defence against (ialc, p. 172. i) Wall's Defence, p. 176.

    ( 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 66 been to express teaching, there were plenty of common and known words in use for that [[."^' ) 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 [[W 7 as not there to be considered as perfectly synonimous with matheteuein.

    The second course is pursued by Dr. Gill, who would have discipleship to mean conversion, and to be so essentially 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 teach, 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 MATHETEUSATE, the verb here rendered teach, is conceded by all intelligent Paido-baptists to signify, make disciples, u or disciple. This is unquestionably the proper rendering

    (./ ) Wall's Defence, p. 177.

    ( 310 )

    of the term MATHETEUSATE. The verb MATHETEUO, when governing an accusative, Parkhurst, the Paido-baptist lexicographer says, signifies ' to make a disciple.' p. 412. It is not the nations indiscriminately, that were commanded to be baptized; for TA ETHNE, the nations, being neuter, is not the antecedent to AUTOUS, [themi] which is masculine, and which is the accusative governed by MATHETEUSATE. Its antecedent is MATHETAS in the verb MATHETEUSATE. 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 commandments. 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 DIDASKONTES, a word importing the office of a preceptor to a those who had been put under his tuition. It is expressive 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 commission. The first was the work of discipleing or making disciples. The second was the education of those disciples collected into churches or schools. 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 66 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 under a limited commission, for the very term itself imports something committed from a superior, or from [[^ the supreme. " (A)

    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 conversion before baptism, I would not only admit, but insist upon. That they and their infants were formally discipled in baptism, I hope to shew. The only obstruction presented by my Opponent's argument, is his endeavour 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 overpowered, notwithstanding all his philosophy and

    () Spurious Debate with me, pp. 58, 1!3, 114

    ( 312 )

    divinity. (/) Not long ago I observed a housewife sending a messenger with thread to a seamstress. Her commission ran thus; if 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 this answer, she were to report the thing to a recruiting officer in the neighbourhood, he would probably give a commission to his sergeant in the following words; "Go and enlist that Philosopher, giving him the bounty." On this commission my Opponent could meet the officer sword in hand, and prove that giving 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 military men, signifies to make a soldier. It is not philosophers indiscriminately that are commanded, in this commission, to be enlisted. Philosopher is not the antecedent to him; its antecedent is soldier, in the verb enlist. For our Constitution did never command philosophers 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 commands them to submit to military regulations. As, therefore, the bounty was to be given to none but soldiers, they

    (/) Spurious Debate with me, Preface, p. x.

    ( 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 baptizing disciples proves that they must have been disciples before they were baptized; then "Perverting the deceitful balances" proves, that they were deceitful before 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; it giving the bounty to a soldier makes him a soldier; if falsifying deceitful balances makes them deceitful balances; if sewing a seam makes it a seam; and if grinding meal makes it meal, then why may not baptizing disciples make them disciples?

    It is certainly my Opponent's aim to prove that discipleing 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 enlightened adult can be the subject. It is for this reason that, instead of "disciple all nations," his New Testament

    (m) 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.

    ( 314 )

    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 MATHETEUSATE, 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, instruction 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 instruction. But 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 conversion, 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 commission, they are to be first instructed. This, by the immediate agency of the Divine Spirit, becomes an instrument of their conversion. Then, when there is evidence 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 marginal

    ( 315 )

    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 relation 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 infants, it may be truly said, as my Opponent has most inconsistently 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 admonition 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 certain disciple there named Tabitha." (0) She, therefore, 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

    w) Matt. xxvi. 26. Spur. Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 69,

    o) Acts ix. 36.

    ( 316 )

    all nations, baptizing them." We then shew that infants 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 circumcision.

    In reference to this severe discipline, which was imposed 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 probably 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 Jewish 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 apostles 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, I 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 Proselyte." (p) Even Dr. Gill tells us, that "Jarchi interprets these children [mentioned in Prov. xxxi. 28.] of disciples." 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 of &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. [[~\" (r] That Tertullian really used this expression to signify the ordinance of baptism, by which Christ requires us to initiate adult and infant disciples into the visible church, will 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, which I hope will be heard with all the impartiality you can command. It accounts for more than the origin of infant baptism. It is doubtless one of the best authenticated testimonies of antiquity. 5 ' 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

    (fi) Wall's Hist. Introduction, Sect. 4.

    (r) Wall's Hist. Part 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. The Doctor has mistaken the meaning of the word discipline here, as the Baptists do in other places.

    ( 318 )

    Father calls disciplines) but which my Opponent's translation 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 translated 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 disciplines, we find the sign of the cross, and the use of milk and honey, and trine immersion in baptism. Doubtless, Mr. Walker, against whom this passage was so vauntingly produced, will agree with Tertullian, that the sign of the cross and the baptismal use of milk and honey, are unauthorized in scripture, and that trine immersion or any other immersion, is unauthorized there: but he will also agree with the same Father in believing that Christian 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 personal 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 ejnsmodi discifilmarum si legem expostulas scripturarum, nullam 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 authenticated testimonies of antiquity," in relation to "the origin 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 [[pssdon, the one which enters into the composition of Psedobaptism; and the word which he uses for discipled, is emaiheteuthesan, (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 discipleship of infants, infants must be contemplated in our Lord's command to his apostles to disciple all nations by baptism?"

    You cannot now wonder, if I consider it proved, according to the tenor of my fifth proposition, that after the authoritative command recorded in the Old Testament, [[il 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

    j di tx rtai&w

    ( 320 )

    is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirmed." According to promise, this has been shewn from what is said in the new Testament, concerning "the membership of infants, the holiness of infants, and the discipleship of infants."

    My evidence in favour of a divine command for infant 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 numerous contradictions and objections. None of these were advanced against my fourth proposition; and therefore, 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 evidence, 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 affected, by the fact that we arrive at the conclusion by a circuitous route; since the very same complication has been shewn to attend 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 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 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 confirmed. Therefore, there is now in force, an unrepealed divine command, for administering to believers arid 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, according to the infallible word of God.




    According to custom, my Opponent represents the argument drawn from household baptism as destitute of probability; and, if I remember rightly, there are some Pedobaptists who speak of it, as if it amounted to little or nothing more than probable evidence. I would ask such persons, upon what sort of authority do they receive 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 disciples it was instituted. Yet our Saviour gave no express command to administer it to a female; there was no female 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 embrace females. Now we have evidence, 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 baptized households of the New Testament, I shall, of course, make liberal use of Taylor's "Facts and Evidences," much of which Dr. Rice, of Virginia, has copied, with valuable additional matter of his own.

    But the strength of our argument cannot be duly appreciated, 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.

    ( 323 )

    Mr. M'Calla has adopted the criticism of Rice and Taylor on the words oikos and oikia, and is to give us positive 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 adopted the same, and mightily boasts of the importance of the criticism. Mr. M'Calla tells us it is founded on the decisions 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 f 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 attention to the households baptized, or ' family baptisms" as some call them, mentioned in the New Testament. 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 hesitation 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 utterly 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 arguments 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 practice 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 journey of 200 miles, mostly by sea. 5. That her children were then infants, and 6. That they were actually baptized. All this must be done before Mr. M'Calla's positive can be adduced. Now let me ask, can Mr. M'Calla prove ANY ONE of these circumstances? I positively answer, No, not one. Where, then, is his positive evidence to be obtained from Lydia? 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 proprietor 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 giving the invitation, which indeed is the most singular invitation on record, [[* If ye have judged me faithful 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 me 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 woman 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 probable 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 promise 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. Perhaps this was the case with Mr. Rallston and my Opponent. Be this as it may, we are sure it is a refuge of lies, and that the alleged difference between oikos 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 positively assert that in the bible, there is no more difference betwixt the use and application of the words oikos and oikia than there is between the words brothers 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. 15, he calls this family the oikia of Stephanas. ( Ye

    ( 326 )

    know/ says he, [[ the household (TEN OIKIAN) of Stephanas 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 declaration, 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 whenever it occurs. Thus said Paul, Chap. i. I baptized the infants, (OIKOS) of Stephanas, and Chap. xvi. Ye know the servants, (OIKTA) of Stephanas that they were the first fruits, &c. and thus make the apostle give a representation 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 own disposal. What contradictions and inconsistencies appear in a bold advocate 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 difference 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 difference exists. As oikos signifies the master's dwelling house, it figuratively 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 called oikos. Once here it appears evidently to refer to the family, ' Thou shalt 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 fix to the word, it affects not the point for which we contend; for the fact still remains, and it is undeniaable, 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 ! ! ! The oikia was not baptized, but the oikos was. Paul and Silas, then, were more successful in discipleing the oikos than the oikia. Mr. R's infants, they were more easily converted than the servants. They spake the word of the Lord to all the jailer'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 register 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 synonymous. The Centurion's house, whose faith was so famed, and whose servant the Messiah cured, is, by Luke, in the VI. 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 synagogue,

    ( 328 )

    whose daughter the Messiah brought to life, had a house, which Luke calls oikos, ChaJ). 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 parable 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, recorded 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 chapter 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 evidences 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 metaphorically signifies the servants themselves. Thus Dr. Hallston, 'oikia signifies a man's household or servants.' Let us test the correctness of this assertion. Matt. x. 1 2. Salute the house when ye enter it, (oikia) i. e. salute the servants only. Matt. x. 13. If the house, (oikia} be worthy, i. c. the servants. Matt. xii. 25. Every house divided, (oikia) i. c. servants, divided come to desolation. The Centurion, whose son Jesus healed, John iv.

    ( 329 )

    50, believed, with all his house, (oilcia ok] i. c. all his servants only believed. Matth. xiii. 57, A prophet hath no honour in his own house, (oilcia} i. e. among his slaves or servants. Joshua said, as for me and my house, (oilcia) 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, (oilcia) there are vessels of gold and silver, &c. i. e. in every great hut or cabin. In my Father's house, (oilcia) are many mansions. I forbear to expose this criticism farther. Hundreds of instances similar to those adduced can be given. But we must not pass by the most important point, viz. that oilcos 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 oilcos, 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 circumstances of the case, who are the constituents or members of the family; and thus, after all your boasted discovery, you have to confess yourselves to be just where you were; unable to prove that there ever was an infant in any house, oilcia, 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 PATENTED PRIESTHOOD. For, Gentlemen, you must know that oilcos and oilcia 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 oilcos hundreds of times is applied to denote every kind of house or family. The very first time it occurs is Gen. vii. 1, where Noah is commanded to take all his house into the ark, oilcos. Now we all know that Noah's oilcos was composed of three other oikoi, and that each of these oilcos [[T t

    ( 330 )

    was composed of adults: four oikoi composed (pas o oikos) all the house of Noah. The youngest child or infant in this house (oikos) was about 98 years old. This same oiJcos occurs 14 times in the first chapter of Numbers, 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 furnish instances where oiJcos signifies a man's servants. Thus Gen. xvii. 27, all the men of Abraham's house, oiJcos, 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 order his children, (hoi huioi) and his household, oiJcos, yes, oikos, his servants, not oikia. Joseph was placed over the house of Pharaoh, (oiJcos,) i. e. over all his servants, 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 consumption 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. cfec. 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 distinction 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 [[f f 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 imagination, say the best of it. Were it necessary I could fill, from Classical authority, a respectable pamphlet of refutations 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 farther, and calls it positive proof. We will call it positive proof of positive presumption." (u)

    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 remind you, that it is merely grounded upon his holding a different opinion from my Opponent. Mr. Rallston thinks, that even when oilcos 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 boisterously 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 oikos and oikia, he has unreservedly asserted that "Mr. R.? ' is the man "from whom

    (?/) 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. 262265. 278283.

    ( 332 )

    the criticism is taken." (v) Now this 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 CalmetY 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 oiJcos and oikia" (iv) Knowing this, what invectives could have conveyed his indignation against Mr. R. if Mr. R. himself had so far forgotten the truth, as to claim originality in this argument, or to assert that I had taken it from him? Yet an assertion, which, in the judgment of our Greek scholar, would have constituted Mr. R. guilty of falsehood and lying, my Opponent, to answer a purpose(a?) can make, without a blush.

    But whosoever originated this argument, my Opponent is determined that no one shall make it good, if he can prevent it, by prejudgments and arbitrary restrictions. 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 undertaking impossible, as he thinks, he insists repeatedly and emphatically, that I must "prove POSITIVELY, that there were infants in this family/' By this word POSITIVELY, he means, according to the context, that I must find out Lydia's husband, and the number, age, education, and residence of her children. Upon such terms as these, I should be glad to know how my Opponent

    T;) Spurious Deft. p. 280. This and the context are copied above, w) Spurious Deb. p. 262, copied above.

    (x) Mr. Campbell's Spurious Debate divulges the reason of this wild statement. There it appears that he was not possessed of either Taylor's or Rice's, or my argument, and, therefore, copied Mr. Rallston's forme. My Collateral Papers, published some time ago, shew, that this is only one of many "refuges of' lies" to which he was driven by the scantiness of his materials and the badness of his cause.

    (//) 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 connexion 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 declining 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 walk.

    ** 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 syllogism, 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 female believers: ergo, the communion was administered to female believers. So we say, Baptism was administered to households: households include infants: therefore, baptism was administered to infants. Now the question in both these cases is this; Do disciples include females? Do households include infants? To shew that households do not embrace infants, my Opponent quotes Noah's household consisting height 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 without one, FEMALE? Does this shew that disciples do not include females? My Opponent says, No. Then neither does the case of Noah, or any other case, shew that households 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 convenient

    ( 334 )

    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 Opponent, 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 acknowledged, either expressly or practically, by all men of real learning, who undertake the explanation of words, whether in the scriptures or elsewhere. These principles 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 bearing 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 ancients," 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 as near as may be 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 word 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 )

    kind of natural compact between those who write and those who speak a language; by which they are mutually bound to use words in a certain sense: he, therefore, who uses such words in a different signification, in a manner violates that compact, and is in danger of leading men into error" ** The received signification of a word is to be retained, unless weighty and necessary reasons require that it should be abandoned or neglected" (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 ordinary meaning, unless, there be something in the connexion, 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 depart from the primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning of a word, we should depart as little as possible from that meaning; and even with reluctance." (b) To these rules I have no objection, though an experienced polemic will easily perceive that in the construction of them, Dr. Ryland had his eye on the Baptist controversy. The same prejudice is so obvious in another rule, as to make it perfectly nugatory. It is as follows, viz. u Whatever is expressed in scripture, is conclusive argument: whatever is not expressed, is not conclusive [[^' 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.

    (A) Taylor's second publication of Facts and Evidences on the subject of Baptism, p. 23.

    ( 336 )

    fants, as the word disciples includes females? 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, obvious, and ordinary meaning" of the words. 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 positions, therefore, I shall, with divine assistance, endeavour to make good, in the examination of the following Greek words and phrases. [[Ocxca, rfavotxia, ^oueta, ?taca rtagoixia: Otxoj, 67,0$ oixo?, jta,$ otxoj, rtavoixf (Tea, rtaKuxtoj, rtavoixi, otxo5o ( ata. otxoSofjLtjj jtaffa otxo8o^vj) otxooju.a. 1 JlCSe]] We Shall endeavour to consider, as they are used in relation to the material or spiritual HOUSE, the ecclesiastical [[orn celestial, the national or sectional, the royal or pontifical, the patriarchal or domestic HOUSE: all of which, if we mistake not, will confirm and illustrate the doctrine, that a household includes infants, and that the household baptism 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 infants. 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 Calmet'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 infants, 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 wall shew from the texts themselves, and from the comments and criticisms of my Opponent and other Baptists, that infants are included in both. One of these passages says, u If a house, OIKIA, be divided against itself, that house, OIKIA, cannot 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 family, small or great." Now we know that the majority of families, both small and great, have infants -- and that these infants are liable to be the greatest 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." According to this translation, the name of oikos is expressly given to every 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 infants? 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

    () Mark iii. 55. (d] Luke xi. 17.

    ( 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 obstructions in our way, by his laborious criticisms on oikoSy and oikia, he has aided in proving, that a household, whether called by the one Greek name or the other, ordinarily includes infants.

    If I understand those who make a distinction between oilcos and oikia, they consider the first as comprehending 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 nothing of baptizing any person's oikia, but the oilcos 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 [[/amzVy]], exclusive of attendants;" and "that OIKOS has the sense of family y including domestics." U/) 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 brethren:" yet, inconsistent as it may seem, Mr. Anderson 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; because 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 already "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.

    (r) (len. xiv. 14.

    ( 339 )

    with the sentiments expressed by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, A. D., 1786, and by our General 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 are 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 contrary." The subsequent Act of our General Assembly reads thus: "The Committee to whom was referred the following question, viz. Ought baptism, on the profession and promise of the master, to be administered 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 members 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 doctrine, 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.

    ( 340 )



    This word has, in one instance at least, been the occasion 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 ministry of the saints,) that ye submit yourselves unto such 9 and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth." On this passage an able writer of our own country, Dr. Rice, in his Pamphleteer, (0) speaks as follows, viz. "I confess, however, that this passage, as it stands in the Original, presents difficulties 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 Original 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 Facts and Evidences on the subject of Baptism." Dr. Rice then gives a long extract 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 regularly construed. All commentators have felt this, and have attempted to force it into sense by supplementary words." At last this eminent scholar concludes that we should drop from the text all that part of the 15th verse, which our Translators have enclosed

    (o) p. 58.

    ( 341 )

    in parenthesis, and that we should consider it as only intended by 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 necessary, to preserve the passage from the absurdity, of commanding the whole Corinthian church, and Stephanas 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, ungratnmatical, 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 portion 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 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 passages 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 benevolent ministry, or DEACONRY, to Christians, they,

    ( 342 )

    thereby, acquire a right to govern their parents, contrary 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 letting 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 DEACONLY, ministration, they glorified God for your professed HYPOTAGE, submission, to the gospel of Christ." It seems, therefore, that SUCH cannot refer to the 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 yourselves unto the elder: yea, all of you, HYPOTASSOMENOI, submit yourselves one to another." (p) In accordance with this, Paul, the penman of our text, says to the Ephesian saints, "HYPOTASSOMENOI, submining, yourselves one to another, in the fear of God." (<7) Let us now paraphrase the passage according 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 the family of Stephanas, that it is the first fruit of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the DEACONRY, ministry, to the saints. I entreat 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 perfectly scriptural; it preserves the text from any need of

    (0} 1 Tim. iii. 12. (fi) 1 Pet. v, 5, (?) Eph. v. 21.

    ( 343 )

    jugulation; 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 Stephanas 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 difficulty, 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. Admitting, then, that oikos and oikia have the same meaning, 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 positions, both equally false. One is, that there is no other ministration allowed in the Scriptures, besides an official deaconry. But they might as well say that submission 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 ministrations or deaconrics, which the saints may and do receive 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 was it above the capacity of children under thirteen years old, whom Jews and Christians consider subjects of infant circumcision and baptism? There are, probably, 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 DEACONIZE, minister, unto the saints. (p) If this pecuniary ministration was an official deaconry, then Paul held the office of a deacon in the church, although this

    (9) Jno. xii, 2, (ft) Rom. xv, 2.5.

    ( 344 )

    office was originally instituted for the relief of the Apostles, whose office was entirely distinct. Dr. Gill, therefore, praises the Apostle's condescension, in submittingto 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 sabbatical 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 money to pious and benevolent objects, rather than for the mere gratification of their palate. Thus the first position of our opponents will not stand. And as for the second, 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 designates places or property. Such is thought to be the case, when our Saviour, as reported by three of the Evangelists, (g-) censures the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees, or devouring widows' houses. Dr. Gill believes it to mean the goods deposited in their houses. My Opponent's New Testament, however, in all three of these places, renders it families; ye "devour the families of widows." Now if widows have infants, and these infants 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. (h) We all know what sort of a family Jacob had, to occupy these tents. This

    Matt, xxiii. 14. Mark xii. 40, Luke xx. 47,

    Gen. xxv. 17.

    ( 345 )

    word is used in that text also, which says, "As for the stork, the fir-trees are her house." Now we know that the house or nest of birds is usually huilt 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 translation 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." (r) 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;" (/) and said to the Hebrews, "Every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe." (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 house." (I) Dr. Gill explains it, "To them and their families, by which they were comfortably provided for." Here the word is applied to every family in that miraculously fruitful nation, 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 servants." 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. (j) 1 Cor. iii. 1. (*) Heb. v. 13.

    (/) Deut. xxvi. 11. (in} Jcr. xxxviii. 17.

    ( 346 )

    OIKIAS, households." (n) The Hebrew word (o) which is here translated OIKIAS by the Septuagint, is a collective noun, signifying, as Parkhurst says, "young children" Calasio explains it by "CCETUS SEU MULTITUDO PUERORUM ET INFANTIUM, a collection or multitude of children and infants" 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. Robinson, 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 children" as our translation has it, from old men and women, from young men and maids. (p) And the history preceding 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." (q) 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. "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 designation of infants. If, then, as Mr. Anderson and my Opponent allege, OIKIA and OIKOS are synonymous, OIKOS also must designate infants; and the household baptism of the New Testament be infant baptism.

    (n) Gen. 1. 21. (o) f|D

    (/) Ez. ix. $. (?) Gen. xlv. 19. xlvi. 5.

    ( 347 )



    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." (f) 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." (M) It must be evident to "every candid and intelligent person, that it was Hainan's intention to destroy every Jewish subject with his whole household, "young and old, little children and women;" that it was the intention of Mordecai and Esther to destroy every assailant, with his a LITTLE ONES and women :" in consequence of which retaliation, thousands of infants actually perished, some of whom most probably belonged to the numerous panoikia of Haman.



    "Now these are the names of the children of Israel, which came into Egypt; every man and his household came with Jacob." (v) For household here the Septuagint reads PAROIKIA.U #) Dr. Gill considers it as embracing "their families, wives, children, and servants." After the armed adventurers of the tribe of Dan had secured Micah's priest, it is said "They turned and departed,

    (s) Apocryphal Esther xvi. 18. (Gr. 12.) in Bap. Self-convict, p. 45.

    J Esther viii. 11. (u} Esth. iii. 13, (v) Ex. i. 1.

    (w) I observe that the Margin of Calasio reads fianoiki. This is the reading of Grab: but the Septuagint of Wechelius, and the Venetian edition, both weighty, read [[/zarozfa'a]].

    ( 348 )

    and put the little ones and the cattle and the carriage before them." (a?) 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 Hebrew Concordance, and found in the text of the Francfort Septuagint, used by Kircher and Trommius in their Concordances to the Septuagint. Here then, is an instance 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.



    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 their families." 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 panoikia, which appears intended to magnify oikia doubly.



    Like oikia this sometimes signifies property, BONA, FACULTATES, as Hedericus explains it. The Lord said

    (jc) Judg. xviii. 21. (y) *

    ( 349 )

    to David, "I gave thee thy Master's house." () Gill says "his family, his wives, servants, wealth and riches." 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 house." (d) Gill says, "have the care of his domestic affairs, and be the principal man in his palace and court." While with Potiphar, Joseph said, "Behold my master wotteth not what is with me in the house." (e) Gill says, "what goods or money are in it." Concerning the dinner which Joseph gave to his brethren, he gave orders "to the ruler of his house." Gill says, "his steward;" and so Moses 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 infant baptism, as we shall see in the following particulars.

    1. The Material or Mechanical House. For a few examples we would refer to the house of Zacharias and Mary; (g) the house which the owner suffered to be broken through; (A) the king's house, and houses of the people, which the Chaldeans burned with fire. (t) They burnt moreover the house of the Lord, which was a figure of the church, with all its members, infant and adult. (/) Our Translators have once rendered OIKOS, temple; (k) and where they say, "Your house is left unto you desolate," (/) Gill considers it as including "the

    z) 2 Sam. xii. 8. (a) Cant. viii. 7.

    6) Prov. vi. 31 (c) 2 Chr. xxi. 17.

    rf) 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,

    ) Luke i. 40. 56. (//) Luke xii. 39.

    i) Jer. xxxix, 8. ^j ) Jer. Hi. 13.

    k) Luke xi. 51, (/) Matt, xxiii. 58.

    ( 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 daughters;(m) and the Septuagint considered Ezra as implicitly recognizing this connexion, when he calls it "The house of the great God, which is builded with elect stones," (n) 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. (o) In this they are copied by the Apostle Peter, where he speaks of the spiritual house being built up of lively stones. (p) 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 Confession. ^) As almost all errorists believe in the universal 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." (s) 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 Gentiles;" if there are infants to be found "from one

    (m) Ez.xxiii. 47. (n) Ezr. v. 8.

    (o) Is*, xxviii. 16. (A) 1 Pet. ii. 5. 6.

    (7) Chap. 10. Sect, 3. (r) Hcbr. iii. 6. (*) Luke i. 33.

    ( 351 )

    end of the earth to the other;" and if there are infants to be found among "all the elect of God;" then, according to this commentary of the great Dr. Gill, infants 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 regeneration, 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, O 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." (/) In reference to this desolate church it is said, "God setteth the solitary in families." (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 righteousness, for he is a babe." (w) Concerning the excellent woman, Solomon says, "She riseth also while it is yet night; and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens." (57) Dr. Gill says that "spiritually may be meant by her household or family, the same with the family of Christ, that is named of himself, 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 are clothed with scarlet." (y) Gill

    (0 Isa. liv. 1. Comp. Gal. iv. 26. 27.

    (w) Ps. Ixviii. 6. (v) 1 Cor. iii. 1.

    (iv) Hebr. v. 13. (.r) Prov, xxxi. 15.

    (v) 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 regeneration, by no means refutes the doctrine that there are literal infants in the spiritual household, but rather establishes it. When Peter says, "Ye also, as lively f( 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 belonging 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 destroy the house of the proud," (a) Gill understands it generally, as including all proud persons, "their families, their children, and 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 baptism is really infant baptism; although 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, primarily 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 Israel; 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 household. "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." (b) Here the Jewish and Christian 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 infant circumcision; and if the Jewish household included 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 were 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

    Eph. ii. 1922.

    ( 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 Israel" had infants or not, judge ye. It is undeniable that infants did belong to the Jewish ecclesiastical house. But Paul's 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 commentary would have been more correct and perspicuous, if he had told us the same of this last verse, which belongs 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 Doctor 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 cemented together, in a gospel church-state, become the house of God in a spiritual sense." (/) In conformity with these views, the ecclesiastical house to which I belong, considers itself a spiritual house built upon a spiritual foundation. In speaking of the judicatories of the church, our Constitution says, "These assemblies 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:" (h) even he of whom it is said, "The stone which the builders refused, is become the head stone of the corner." (0 Gill tells us that those rejecters

    (c) Gill on Hebr. iii. 5. and Num. xii. 7.

    (a?) Hebr. iii. 6. (e) 1 Tim. iii. 15.

    (/) Gill on 1 Pet. ii. 5.

    (?) Form of Gov. Chap. 8. Sect. 2.

    (/) Confess, of Faith. Chap. 25. Sect. 6,

    (0 Ps, cxviji. 22.

    ( 355 )

    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 ecclesiastical 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 notoriously verified in them." (t 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, abject 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 infants 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 infants, Christ came "unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," (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:" () for even in the New Testament dispensation, "the promise is unto you and to your children."

    j ) Matt, xxvii. 25.

    /) Matt. xv. 24.

    n) Luke i. 33.

    (*) 1 Pet. iv. 17.

    Hebr. x. 21.

    ( 356 )

    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. (p) 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." (g) 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 National House. As the passages to be adduced under this particular, can hardly be understood without the doctrine of imputation, it will be well to remember a few plain authorities in support of this important scriptural truth. Concerning the wicked, Job says, "God layeth up his iniquity for his children." (s) 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. 5." 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;" () 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 people, 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

    (o) Job xvii. 13. (/z) Job xix. 25, (a) Jno. xiv. 2.

    (r) 2 O>r. v. 1. (a) Job xxi. 19. (/) Num. xiv. 32, 33.

    (u) Lam. 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 language of the great and pious Baptist Commentator, from that of the impious and Deistical Robinson, my Opponent's master: and, at present, the darling of the Baptist church!! The same doctrine is plainly taught in the following passages. Prepare slaughter for his children 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 perished 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." ^) The same is true of Babylon, which, in one place, Jeremiah calls "that nation" (y) in another, "the daughter of Babylon." (z) 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 remarkable 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 "O house of Israel!" (a) When the Original condemns Mount Sier for slaughtering "the children of Israel," the Septuagint has it "the house of Israel:" (b) 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, fas Trommius shews,) use HUIOI, children; (c] thus shewing, that house and children were interchangeable terms. This is farther confirmed from the

    ) Isa. xiv. 21. (>) 2 Kings xxi. 9. (.r) Matt xxiii. 36.

    ) Jer. xxv. 12. (z) Jer. li. 33. (a) Am. iii. 1.

    ) 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 Septuagint. 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, (c/) according to the Septuagint, in such a way as to embrace every infant 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, whether this domestic house be designated by oikos or oikia, orpanoiki, and whether the children of this house be mere infants, or 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, house." The Syriac Translation says, "to all the children of his house." Immediately after we are told that the jailer "rejoiced, believing in God, PANOIKI, with all his house." The Syriac says, "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." (f) 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." (g*) 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. (#) 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 u 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 sectional houses into which the national house of Israel was distributed. That each of these houses had a great proportion of infants, will not probably be disputed; especially 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 Septuagint 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 families, by the home of their fathers." (t) Gill says, "[[After]] their families; into which their tribes were divided: 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 declaration was made in such a way as to strike your minds with

    (A) Num. xvii. 2. 3. (p Num, i, 2.

    y ) 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 infant; 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 war." In this respect, they resembled 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." (A) At a subsequent period of the Jewish history it is said that Nashon 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 infants 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 Gibeonites said that they would not accept a pecuniary ransom "of Saul, nor of

    (*) Gill on Num. i. 44. 45. (/) 1 Clir. ii. 10.

    (?T?) See Joshua xvii. 17. xviii. 5. Ez. xxv. 12. Hos. i. 7.

    ( 361 )

    his housef'" 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 daughter 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, {f 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." (0) 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:" (/>) 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," (q) Gill considers it to mean "the family of Jeroboam." When it is said that Zimri "slew all the house of Baasha," (Vj Gill says that it means "his whole family, all the children that he had;" and "not only his posterity, but all any way related to him." Were there no infants related to him? When it is said that "Jehu was executing judgment upon the house of Ahab [[/YsJ]] 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 bowels, 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.

    (fi ) 2 Sam. xii. 10. 11. 14. (q} Am. vii. 9.

    fr) 1 Kgs. xvi. 11. 12. (*) 2Chr. 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 regard to a future son of his not yet born; not Absalom nor Adonijah, nor any of the rest born in Hebron were to succeed him in the kingdom, but one as yet "unborn." 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 prophecy concerning one of his royal successors: viz. "Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name." (w) But these prophecies contemplate 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 conception. 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." (v) Gill says, "In David'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 parents.

    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

    () 1 Kgs. xiii. 2. To this add 1 Chr. xvii, 25. 2 Sam. vii. 27. I Kg*, xi. 38.

    (i') Luke i. 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, (w) Here is a numerous house without 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 house." With this Dr. Gill's Commentary agrees: for he says that his arm means "his children, which are the strength of a man, and the support of his family :" as when Jacob calls Reuben "the beginning of my strength" (x) 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 Ichabod, 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 mourning 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 mother's anguish, when she called his name EENONI, the son of my sorrow; and it was perfectly consistent with the language

    (w) 1 Sam, ii. 3033.

    Gen. x'ix. 3.

    ( 364 )

    of the scriptures for his first smile to be construed into a participation of his father's joy, when he called his name BENJAMIN, the son of my right hand.

    9. The Patriarchal House. In accounting for Daniel'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 Xenophon, 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, house, and to requite their progenitors;" (z) which are their own house. It more generally means family -descent. Lycophron calls the adulterer, a "KOPHTHORON,# corrupter of houses;" and Ignatius, writing to the Ephesians, says that HOI OIKOPHTHOROI, corrupters of houses, shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Houses are evidently thus corrupted 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." (#) This is a prominent feature in the definitions of a house, which the same author has given us from Aristotle and Cicero. 'The for-mer says, "A house is a society connected together according to the course of nature, for long continuance." (b] To this long continuance Cicero adds the relation of affinity, which the Old Testament recognizes in the daughters-in-law of the house of Noah, and which

    (v 1 ) 2d edition of Taylor's Facts and Evidences, p. 33.

    C-T) 1 Tim. v. 4. (a] Taylor's 2d Ed. of Facts & Evid. p. 33.

    (b) FaUr, 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) Facts and Evid. 2nd Ed.

    (d) 2 Sam. vii. 29.

    (/)Ex. xx. 5.

    (A) Gen. xlvi. 27. 31.

    p. 34.

    (f ) 2 Sam. xii. 10.

    (g) Gen. ix. 22 25.

    Gen. xlv. 11,

    ( 366 )

    Beriah, because it went evil with his house." (j) 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." (k) 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 w r e find the house-holds of Lydia and the jailer, which have been the innocent 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, ft to the inhabitants of this house;" as Dr. Gill informs us the Arabic Version renders it.] On this passage the Dr. says, "Sometimes the Lord takes one of a city, and two of a family; 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, (w) 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." (0) In the same church, the Apostle baptized Crispus and Gaius, (p) without telling us whether 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

    ) iChr. vii. 23. (c. 21. 22.)

    ) Luke ii. 4. The same may be said of Mary. Luke i. 27.

    /) Luke i. 69. (TO) Luke xix. 9.

    w) Asserted by Dr. Gill on 1 Cor, i, 16.

    o) 1 Cor. xvi. 15. & Gill there, (/z) 1 Cor. i. 14.

    0) 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 mentioned 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 Alexandrinus says, "Spread itself over the whole world, converting equally Greeks and Barbarians, in every nation and village, and in all cities, whole houses and separate individuals." (r)

    To prove that the Apostles practised household baptism, it is not necessary to find a multiplicity of instances in scripture. If many cases of household baptism be necessary 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 r e must give up even male communion also, since there are not as many recorded cases of male communion as there are of household baptism.

    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 [[/ami'/?/]], 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 circumstances of the case, who are the constituents or members of the family; and thus after all your boasted discovery, you have to confess yourselves to be just where you were; unable to prove that there was an infant in any house, OIKIA, or family

    (r) Taylor's 2nd Edit. p. 116.

    ( 368 )

    "that was baptized." (s) .The amount of this reasoning of my Anabaptist Opponent, is as follows; A house or family embraces adults and infants: Therefore, 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 embrace 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 includes 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 evidence 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 females communed, or males either, without additional evidence!!

    To shew the absurdity of this, let us see how it will affect what 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

    () Spurious Deb. with me. p. 282. Note.

    (0 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 household-baptism of the New Testament, which, as we have shewn, was taken from the household-circumcision 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 countrymen to attest his marriage with Ruth, "All the people 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 Bethlehem: 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 Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bare a son." (w) 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

    3 A

    () Ruth iv. 1113.

    ( 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 seedy [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 meaning 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 children, build up an HOUSE, see Ruth iv. 31, hence a son, in Hebrew, is called BEN, from BANAH, to build." Other passages of scripture giving it the same signification, 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 joyful mother of children." (w) As Achan and his family perished together; (#) 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 swallowed 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

    00 Ps. Ixviii. 0, Hcbr. LXX. & Eng. Marg.

    (?y) l\s. cxiii. 9. Hbr. LXX. & Eng. 'Marg.

    ( (.) Ju.h. vii. 24. ({/) Jer. xxxix. 6. (r) Num. xvi. 32. (comp. 2

    ( 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 interpolate 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." (b) The word tabernacle here, which Dr. Gill says, "includes all that dwell in his house, 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 connected 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 example. "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 66 generality of interpreters, for the family of the righteous 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 Solomon says, "Through wisdom is an house builded; and by understanding it is established;" the Doctor's Commentary 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, Mordecai'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

    Verse 30.

    d) Acts ii. 39,

    Job v. 24.

    Esth. iv. 14.

    (c) Prov. xii. 7.

    (/) Job xx. 28.

    ( 372 )

    down;" (#) which, Gill says, is a promise of "increase in numbers, 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 Goliath; 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 to family, and neither he nor any other will probably deny that infants are included. The people are required to support the priest, "that the blessing may rest in thine house." (0) "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." (r) "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 house." (t)

    When it is said again, "Then David returned to bless his household." (u) Gill says, "his wife, children and servants." When it is said that "Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house," (v) Gill interprets, "his men-servants and maid-servants that were born 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?" (*#) When the prophet tells us that wicked

    $) Jer. xlii. 10. (/i) 1 Sam. xvii. ?5.

    /) Luke x. 5. (o) Ez. xliv. 30.

    (fi ) 2 Sam. vi. 11. (
    (r) 2 Sam. vii. 29. (*) 1 Chr. xvi. 43.

    (/) Habb. ii. 9. () 2 Sam. vi. 20,

    (v) Gen, xxxvi. 6, (iv) Gen. xxx, 30.

    ( 373 )

    governours "oppress a man and his house." (x) Dr. Gill interprets that they "distressed a man and his family for the present, and his posterity after him. My Opponent's New Testament reads, "By intestine broils any kingdom may be desolated, one family (house) a falling after another [[\Jious e.~\^(y}]] If these families 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, one family being baptized 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 jailer; 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 "house," (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 buildeth 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 ways of her household:" (b) Gill considers 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. Paul says that a bishop must be "One that ruleth well his

    (x z

    Mic. ii. 2.

    1 Chr. vii. 23.

    Prov. xxxi. 2r

    y) Luke xi. 17.

    a Prov. xiv. 1.

    Prov, .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." (d) These houses Gill considers as embracing "the family, wife, children and servants."

    Sometimes Moses directs the priests to eat the sacrifices with their sons and daughters, all of which are infants 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, children, and servants." While they eat together God says, "Thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household." (k) According 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 diminished, 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. t( 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 this much, does not exclude infants, would the expression of the words exclude them? The scriptures condemn him, who eateth not of faith," [[W]] They also say, "If any would not work, neither should he eat." (m) Because infants cannot believe or work, are they to be excluded

    (d) 1 Tim. iii. 4. 5. 12.

    (j ) Lev. x. 14. Num. xviii, 11. 13. 31. Deut. xv. 20.

    (X-) Deut. xiv. 26. (/) Rom. xiv. 23.

    (m) 2 Thess, iii. 10.

    ( 375 )

    from eating? But if precepts and prohibitions concerning faith do not extend to infants, as far as faith is concerned, why may not this hold true with regard to narratives?

    Yet it is not admitted that the narrative of the jailer is encumhered with this difficulty, except with those who misunderstood our translation. The jailer "rejoiced, believing in God with all his house" This, it is confessed, 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 perversion. It is the following. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin." (n) Is it Christ or ourselves 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 translators, who themselves follow the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Original. "For him who knew 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 en Lieu: 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 credcns deo: And he rejoiced with all his house believing

    (n) 2 Cor. v. 21.

    ( 376 )

    in God." Such is the construction of these languages, as to make the word, believing, applicable to the jailer only. These translations strictly follow the original in arrangement and sense. [[" *<" ??awuasaT'o i < rtuvoixt, 7
    But if the sacred writer had expressly said that the converted jailer had a believing 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, having faithful children," ^) then they may be bishops or elders. Now if these faithfuls are intelligent converts, 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 in 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 [[" M most,"]] though a little

    (r) Tit. i. 6.

    ( 377 )

    short of the mark, is much better than an interpretation 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 Mat. 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 attempted 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 principles, doctrines, and ways of Christianity, or in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." This is admitting, that, according to Scripture, infants may be called faithfuls, because their parents are bound to bring them up in the faith. As parents formally recognize this obligation, 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, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and all the Greek Scholiasts," as reported by Taylor, call certain New Testament families "Faithfuls," not because they were all believers, or capable of believing, but because they were "baptized families." (f) Augustin, as reported by Wall, tells Boniface, that "An infant, though he be not yet constituted a faithful, by that faith which consists in the will of believers; is yet [[constituted a faithful.]]

    (/) Baptists Self-convicte4. p, 39,

    ( 378 )

    by the sacrament of that faith: for as he is said to believe, so he is called a faithful, not from his having the thing itself in his mind, but from his receiving the sacrament of [[W(g)]] According to Dr. Gill, an infant may be called a faithful in the Scriptures, because he should be brought up in [[\hzfaith]]; but, according to the ancient church, an infant is called a faithful, because he receives the sacrament of faith, in baptism. Admitting, then, that the jailer's household is said to believe, (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 being 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 invitation for one to give, who had not a settled abode there herself, as some insinuate, but was only a travelling adventurer. 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, Silas is placed in the same company. Of these four per-sons, only two, Paul and Silas, were dragged to prison; (/) 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 departed;" (/) leaving them, as is thought, still in the house of Lydia, to organize and nourish the Philippian church.

    (?) Wall's Hist, of Bap. Book 1. Chap. 15. Sect. 4. fiubsect. 4.

    (/;) AcU xvi, (/) Vi-rscs 19. 25. 29, (;') 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 Timothy 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 comforted, were the same persons; and adults, of course. They, therefore, wish you to believe that Lydia's servants and grown children were her household, and that her grown children and servants and other adult converts 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 Philippian 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 Lydia'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 under the influence of Christian prayers, instruction, and example, this household became as worthy of notice, as that of Stephanas, which, though baptized on the father's profession, was afterwards commended for ministering 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 natural 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 constraining Paul and his companions to enter their common residence

    ( 380 )

    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 ordinance with her. It is Lydia alone who resorts to the sea-shore; Lydia alone whose heart is opened; Lydia alone who attends to Paul's 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 household!" and thus proves household baptism to be infant baptism.



    This appears to be generally considered as synonymous with pas oikos. Accordingly, while Luke points out the household of Cornelius by the latter phrase, Eusebius describes it by the former. (k) It will not be denied that when Baasha "smote the whole house of Jeroboam," (/) 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:" (m) 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 t( Moses verily was faithful in his whole house, as a servant," (w) 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 houses," (o) the Baptists answer, that "whole houses could not be subverted) unless they had first been converted;" and, taking it for granted that no infant can be said to believe or be converted, they would have us conclude

    (* ) Arts x. 2. See Taylor's "Baptists Self-convicted," p. 41, Note.

    (/) 1 Kings xv. 29. (m) 1 Kings y vi. 1 1. 12. where this is twice said,

    (n) Hebr. iii. 2. 5. where this is twice said. (o) Tit. i. 11.

    ( 381 )

    that these whole houses, subverted [[x]] 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." (p) But to this it is answered that this baptism of believers, each on his own profession, would not be called household baptism, but the baptism of separate individuals.

    This distinction was expressly recognized among the Greek and Latin Fathers, who certainly had some acquaintance with the Greek language. Clemens Alexandrinus, 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 Barbarians, in every nation and village, and in all cities, whole houses, and separate individuals." (q) Here we find that separate individuals, making a personal profession, are distinguished from whole houses, embracing infants incapable of this profession: yet both are said to be converted. How this was understood, before the refinements of Anabaptism perplexed the church, may be learned from a passage of Augustine, which has, if I mistake not, been quoted in relation to the jailer's household. His words are as follows, viz. "When an infant that has not yet the faculty of faith, is said to believe, he is said to have faith, because of [baptism] the sacrament of faith; and to be converted (CONVERTERS SE) to God, because of [baptism] the sacrament of conversion." And so an infant, though he be not yet constituted a believer, by that faith which consists in the will of believers, yet he is, by [baptism'] the sacrament of that faith; for as he is said to believe, so he is called a

    (fi) Acts xviii. 8. (y) oixovs
    Facts and Evidences, first edition, London 1818, p, 116. London, 1819, p. 106.

    Taylor's Second edition,

    ( 382 )

    believer, not from his having the thing itself in his mind, but from his receiving [baptism] the sacrament [[-oftt>%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 covenant-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 language 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 Latin Vulgate, which reads convertatur; as a modern French Bible reads, "que chacun se convertisse;" the very phraseology used by Augustine, when he said that it is possible for infants "CONVERTERE SE; to convert themselves, or be converted," in a certain sense, by receiving the sacrament of conversion. These, then, belonged to the whole house of Crispus, 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. iii. 8.

    ( 383 )



    In the use of this word, Thucidides speaks as follows, viz. "In the manner above mentioned, were the Athenians, for a long series of time, scattered about the country, in towns and communities, at their own discretion. 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-mained where they were." (^)

    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 a of these had removed, PANOIKESIA, with their whole households, and leaving their [dwelling-] houses empty, lived in the country." (v)

    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, [[sx jtavto? *ov EMuptxow t( ,*,- fvnvn]] all the whole household of Greece" (iv)

    [/) Taylor's "Baptists self-convicted." p. 49.

    (u) Do. p, 48. (T) Do. p, 49, (w) Da p. 49.

    ( 384 )

    From the speeches, which, for historic effect, are put into the mouths of the seven celebrated Maccabean brothers, one would suppose that none of them were infants; 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/' Gregory Nazianzen makes them say, "Let the issue be fixed and unmoveable as to us, [[*avoixc


    According to Diodorus Siculus, the Carthaginians intended, 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 whole households, into that island." (y\

    In another passage, the same ancient writer explains panoikioi by [[texvw xat, ywaixw]] children and wives; whom certain Roman fathers and husbands were afraid to hazard by a protracted and disorderly flight. They, therefore, "removed, jtavowoi, with their whole households" [that is their wives and children, mentioned above,] "to the neighbouring towns and villages." (*)

    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 Roman colonies. From the two former he conveyed to Rome many volunteer emigrants, together with their "wives and children" In like manner, from the latter,

    (x) 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 considerable powers, together with PANOIKIA, their "whole households;" (a) evidently embracing their wives and children.



    The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, "who shall tell thee words, whereby thou, and all thy house shall be saved." [[Y^j]] The 'historian tells us that this was "a devout man, and one that feared God, with all "his house." (c] By this, Dr. Gill understands that "he brought up his family in a religious way." * From this the -Dr. certainly believed that Cornelius had children; 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, a 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 believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth 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 own wishes. Accordingly, 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.

    (A) Acts xi. 14. (c) Acts x. 2. (d) Josh. ii. 12,

    ( 386 )

    "HOUSEHOLD, home unto thee." (e) 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 suffer them to come to him, declaring that of such is the visible church.



    Of the jailer it is said, [[qya,M.iaaa-to Ttavoixi, rttrti$vxus *o fw]], believing in God he rejoiced WITH ALL HIS HOUSE. On this, Taylor says, "Observe, he rejoiced 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 mind." (/) 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 whole, 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 absolutely inapplicable. And this accounts for the infrequent 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 [[irivalida- ]]

    (0 Josh. ii. 18. (/') Baptists self-convicted, 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 family, old and young, strong and feeble, male and female, without admitting a single exception. It is the family of Pithius the Lydian, as related by Herodotus. The faithful subject wished only his eldest son to remain at home, while all the rest, capable of bearing arms, accompanied Xerxes in the Grecian 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." (/j)

    Admitting the correctness of these statements in part, still an antagonist of Mr. Taylor, "argues, that the jailer's family must have been adults, because they ' rejoiced in God." (/) Yet why may not infants participate 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 themselves. When the prophet orders the church to assemble for a solemn fast, he says, "Gather the children, and those that suck the breast," (f) Gill speaks of these sucklings, as those "who were involved in the common calamity and distress, were obliged to fasting, and whose cries might affect their parents, and engage them the more to humiliation and repentance for their sins, which brought such miseries, not only upon themselves, but upon their tender infants; and they might think their cries would move the pity and compassion of God." It is not at all uncommon for the Scriptures to attribute rejoicing to bodies of men, which include

    (K] Baptists Self-convicted, p. 50.

    (z) Second Edition of Facts and Evidences, p. 122.

    O") Joel ii. 16.

    ( 388 )

    thousands and millions of infants. To save time, I pass over several instances, which are now before me. (A) 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 goodness of the Lord "unto thee and unto thine house." (m) He says, "rejoice thou and thine household," (n) by which Dr. Gill understands [[' i he and his family, his wife and children, or as many as are with him."

    On the same subject of sacerdotal families being supported 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." (0) 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 universe; 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." (p) Where Moses speaks of the Israelites who went into Egypt, some ancient Greek translators, as Trommius informs us, reckon them to be, "every man, PANOIKI with all his house." (q) which Dr. Gill says, includes u their families, wives, children, and servants."

    In a rare Apocryphal book, we have an account of Ptolemy's cruel persecution of the Jews, [[pno, ywa&v xac ttxvois,]] with their wives and children." He forbade any one to harbour even the youngest of them, at the peril

    (*) 2 Chr. xxx. 25. Ps. xcvi. 11. xcvii. 1. xiv. 7. cxlix. 2.

    (/) Ps. viii. 2. Matt. xxi. 16.

    (;/i) Deut. xxvi. 11.

    (/>) Dcut. xiv. 26.

    (o) Baptists Self-convicted, p. 44.

    '/O Do. p. 52. Second Edition of Facts and Evidences, p. 105. ) Ex. i. 1.

    ( 389 )

    of losing his own infants and all belonging to him. The following is a part of the edict. "Whoever, therefore, shall protect any one of the Jews, [[arto y^atov ^%^i vqitiov, ptzt> **v vfto fia^a^v,]] from the elder to the younger, to the babes at the breast; he shall be punished with ignominious torments, PANOIKI, with all his house:" (r) that is, the oldest and the youngest, even tender sucklings; according to a retaliation customary in those times, as already noticed in the history of Esther. (s)

    The learned Editor of Calmet's Dictionary is confident in the opinion that panoiki designates a numerous family. (/) This appears to be the understanding of Eschines, who compares the Athenians, when offended, to a nest of wasps, who never cease their molestations," until some one attack and destroy them, PANOIKI, with all their house." (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 their 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 intention 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 but in Aldus, now before me,

    (*) Esth. iii. 13. viii. 11.

    (0 Second Ed. of Facts &Ev. Revised, p. 113. 114.

    (u) Baptists 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." (v) With these he rejoiced, and with these he was baptized.



    The first of these words is used to denote spiritual edification; (>) so also is the second, in a great measure: (#) 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 bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death." (#) The Psalmist says, "Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood." Cr)

    In the use of the third phrase, Paul says, "In whom, PASA OIKODOME, all the building, fitly framed together, groweth up unto an holy temple in the Lord." (a) Dr. Gill believes that this house "grows by an accession "of new stones, or of souls called by grace [[; ??]] and is destined 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.

    (fy) 1 Tim. i. 4.

    (JT) 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. Jobxx. 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.

    ( 391 )



    The use of the verb, to build, may throw much light upon the present question. This word is used in relation 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 built will I break down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up, "even this whole land." (&)

    Paul says, "Every house is builded 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 kindred built? All are willing to admit infants into such buildings. Paul says, moreover, "He that built 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 farther, under the following particulars; as it relates to

    1. The Spiritual Building. It is in relation to spiritual things that Paul says, "If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." (rf) "Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up." (e) There are many similar instances, in which our Translators 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 intended, as Dr. Gill teaches. "For which of you intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?" "This man began to build, and was not able to finish." (g)

    Jer. xlv. 4.

    1 Cor. viii. 1.

    1 Cor. xiv, 17. 4. Acts ix/31.

    Heb. iii. 4,

    1 Thess. v. 11.

    (d) Gal. ii. 18.

    1 Cor.

    O) Luke xiv. 28. 30.

    ( 392 )

    A saint is likened to a 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 Gil's commentary on this passage; in which he represents all men as lying naturally in the same quarry: but some are graciously dug out, "and made fit for the spiritual 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 ospelrAwrc/j -state]], 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 distinguished from a political body. Concerning church courts, our excellent standards say, {( These assemblies 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." () Omitting many passages which might be quoted we shall refer to a very few, and those in Jeremiah only. He says, "Again I will build thee, and

    f//) Matt vii. 24. 25. Luke vi. 48. 49.

    (i) 1 Pet. ii. 4. 5. (y) Deut. xxv. 9,

    [*) 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." (7) "I will build you, and not pull you down." (ra) "I will build them as at the first:" (#) 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 people:" (rc) 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 Domestic Building. Here we come to the primary meaning of the law of Moses, which commands a survivor to 6( build up his brother's house." (/?) Solomon says, "Through wisdom is an house builded, and "by understanding, it is established," ^) that is,, says Gill, "The prosperity of a man's family is continued and secured by his prudent conduct." Again, 44 Every wise woman buildeth her house." (r) Gill says that this is done, in part, "by her fruitfulness, as Leah and Rachel built up the house of Israel." Rachel desired thus to build up the house of Israel; and for that reason she "said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die." (s) Her reason for giving Bilhah to her husband, was "that I also may be built by her," as the Hebrew and our English Margin read: or "that I also may have children by her;" U) as the Septuagint and the English Text read. From this passage, Dr. Gill refers 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

    [/) Jer. xxxi. 4. 28.

    (o) Do. xxxiii. 7

    [r) Prov. xiv. 1.

    3 D

    'm) Do. xlii. 10.

    [ fi ) Deut. xxv. 9.

    (?) Gen. xxx. 1.

    (n) Do. xii. 16.

    (q) Prov. xxiv. 3.

    (0 Do. xxx. 3.

    ( 394 )

    "children by her;" [[^]] 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, 66 from BANAH, to build" To this same passage in Ruth, the Doctor refers concerning another of the Proverbs, 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 maintain 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 [[(f]] 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 building, and that when women desired children, they expressed a hope that they might be built it [[up]].

    We will now recall your attention to the rules of interpretation by which we were all agreed that this discussion 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

    ''0 Gen. xvi.

    2. (t>) Prov. xxiv. 27.

    ( 395 )

    to this very controversy. They are as follows, viz. f6 Every word should be taken in its primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in the connexion, 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, ice are obliged to depart from the primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning of a word, [[ive]] should depart, as little as possible, from that meaning, and even with reluctance." Our 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 include infants, as the word disciples 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 cognates, embrace infants, in the "primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning" of the words. (w) 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 embraces 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.

    ( 396 )

    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 consists; Divine command, and Apostolical practice. In support of the first argument, we established, upon a scriptural basis, the five following propositions, viz. 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 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 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 confirmed. Regardless of their own prejudices or the empty declamation of others, let my hearers examine these premises in detail; let them calmly contemplate every article, 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 believers 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 for the baptism of infants.

    ( 397 )

    On the Second Argument, Apostolical practice, we have carefully examined the Household Baptism of the New Testament.; To ascertain the meaning of OIKOS, house, or household, we have patiently explored the words Oikos Oikia, Oikodomeo, with their numerous conjugates, whether 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 promise 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 house, infants die; that the death of 'infants is the rolling and flowing away and destroying of a house; that the moving of a house is the moving of infants; and the establishing of a house, the settling of '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 house eats, infants eat. According to uniform Scripture usage, the circumcision of a house, would mean the circumcision of infants; 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 Scriptures 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 Opponent 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 observing a factitious and pernicious ordinance. May your judgments be formed by grace, according to truth and justice. As for ourselves, we feel bound to stand by our present scriptural 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 COMMAND and APOSTOLICAL PRACTICE.



    Rev. McCalla's 1831 Reply to
    Alexander Campbell

    Elder Alexander Campbell engaged in an 1820s public debate

    (under construction)

    Return to top of the page

    Sidney Rigdon "Home"   |   Rigdon's History   |   Mormon Classics  |  Bookshelf
    Newspapers  |  History Vault  |  New Spalding Library  |  Old Spalding Library

    last revised Aug. 18, 2007