sw^^
v-^
ife^-^
J^ -"^--^ 'J^'
^
Ln3RA.R Y
OP THE
Theological Seminar
y,
PRINCETON, N. J.
Case, .
She/f,
Book,
Division
Sec'.i.v.
N«,
"
A DISCUSSIOIV
OF
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM,
AS TO
ITS SUBJECT, ITS MODE, ITS HISTORY,
AND ITS EFFECTS UPON
CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS SOCIETY,
IN OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF
MR. AliEXANDER CAMPBELL,
AS EXPRESSED IN A SEVEN DAYs' DEBATE WITH THE AUTHOR, AT
WASHINGTON, KENTUCKY, October, 1823,
AND IN HIS SPURIOUS PUBIilCATION OF THAT DEBATE.
AND OF A PREVIOUS ONE, OF TWO DAYS, WITH THE
REV. JOHN WALKER, OF OHIO.
AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE VIEWS OF THE CELEBRATED
MR. ROBINSON, AND OTHER BAPTIST AUTHORS.
BY W. L. M'CALLA,
Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian Church, Philadelfihia, and
author of " A Discussion of Universalism,"
VOL. I.
PUBLISHED BY GEORGE M'LAUGHLIN.
""1828."'"
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, io wit:
BK IT REMEViBEHED, That on the seventh ilaj' of AiiRust, in the fifty thiid year of the
iiiiUpindei'ce of the United States of America, A. D. 1828, W. L. M-Calh-. of the said District,
lialh "It positf A in this office the title of a book, tlie light whereof he claims as author, in the
words following, to wit :
"^ Discussion of Christian Bafitism, as to its subject, its mode, its history,
and its effects upon civil ajid religiotis society. In opposition to the
vieii's- of Air. ./Alexander Campbell, as ex/iressed in a seven days' de-
bate with the author, at Washington, Kentucky, October, 1823, and in
his s/iurious publication of that Debate, and of a previous one of tii'o
days with the Rev. John Walker, of Ohio, ./ind in opposition to the
■views of the celebrated Mr. Robinson, and other Baptist mithors. In
two volumes. By W. L. M'Calla, Pastor of the Eighth Presbyterian
Church, Philadelphia, and author of 'A Discussion of Universalism.' "
In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, intituled, "An Act for the
Kncouiagi iiKiit f I-earning, by securing the C<i))ies of Maps, Charts and J'.ooks, to tJK Authors
nnd Propriitnisof such Copies, duiing the times therein mentioned ;— And also to the Act. enti-
tled. "An Act for the Eiicouiagenieni<ifI.e:iriiing. by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and
Books, to the Authors ancl Proprietors of such Copies diiiing the times therein mentioned,"
and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engiaving, and etching historical
and other prints." ,
1) CA I DWELL,
Clerk of the Eastern District of Fennsylvunia.
nussd 1 Z: Wartien, Printct. ^ ^ s'ii^>
PREFACE.
In consequence of a general challenge, long published by
Mr. Alexander Campbell, and at last accepted by the Author,
A debate was held in Washington, Kentucky, in October, 1823,
on Christian Baptism. With the expectation that it would
last three hours, or a day at most, Mr. Campbell came pre-
pared with a printed prospectus, promising that " All the ar-
guments on both sides shall be faithfully and impartially de-
tailed." As there was no stenographer, a detailed report was
literally impossible; and, as the debate occupied seven days,
instead of one, a detailed report would have been a losing, in-
stead of a lucrative enterprise. He therefore published 6000
copies of the promised volume, in which all the speeches were
composed by one man, in such a way as to answer the pur-
pose of one party. Providence enabled me afterward to ex-
pose this forgery, in an Octavo volume of 150 pages, entitled
"The Unitarian Baptist of the Robinson School exposed."
To this he replied in a Duodecimo of 24 pages. An exposure
of this pamphlet, and of the book which it is intended to sup-
port, is prefixed to the argument in this volume.
The public are already informed that want of time com-
pelled me to omit, in the debate, much matter which had been
prepared for it. This need not be suppressed in a pr nted
publication. As Mr. Campbell's report has taken the liberty
of making new speeciies, in part, for himself, as well as en-
tirely new ones for me, I shall, when necessary, answer such
interpolations, or, at any time, strengthen the cause of truth,
by introducing new matter on my part, and by very freely
condensing the matter delivered on the stage.
IV PREFACE.
As the audience who attended the debate was chiefly coih
posed of plain men, so it is my wish to adapt this publication
to the plainer class of readers. This may account for some
things which would otherwise appear very incorrect. One of
these things is, that all my references to the Bible are made
to suit that division of chapters and verses which is found in
our English Translation, although hundreds of those references
are professedly made to the Hebrew and Septuagint Scrip-
tures. Without this method, ordinary readers would be ut-
terly perplexed, in searching authorities, whereas, those of
better opportunities need be at no great loss by the adoption
of this plan. In quoting uninspired works, whether ancient
or modern, second-hand authorities are often more accessible
than originals. To the use of them, both parties were com-
pelled, in a great measure, by necessity, during the debate j
and where the credit of the reporters is untouched and almost
intangible, the plan may be sometimes continued in this pub-
lication. Detections of errors will be thankfully received.
If my friends and the friends of truth knew the difficulty
with which I write, the)^ would no longer censure me for un-
avoidable delays, but help me to give thanks to that God,
whose mercy has enabled me to progress thus far in the work.
To him it is sincerely and solemnly dedicated. May he be
pleased to accept the humble offering ; to pardon its faults and
imjjtrfections, through the atoning blood of the divine Re-
deemer; and to grant the influence of his divine Spirit, to bless
that portion of truth which it contains, to the good of aH
denominations.
MR. CAMPBELL'S LATE PAMPHLET.
It is amusing to observe the time and labour which Mr,
Campbell and his testifying satellites have spent, in assigning
to him and his Antagonist, their respective grades in the scale
of talents ; without being able to come to any certain estimate,
at last. If I were in his place, it seems to me, that I could set-
tle this darling question, upon a firm basis in a few words. I
would sit down and write a certificate declaring that Alexander
Campbell was a Solomon, and that Ms Antagonist was a Sim-
pleton. This certificate should be signed by Alexander Camp-
bell himself, and by a competent number of Neutral Unitarians
and Baptists, and Non-professing sons and brothers of Baptists
and Baptist preachers. If it were then published without ano-
ther word about the matter, it would save the party and his wit-
nesses, from the unhappy appearance of inconsistency and self-
complacency which they now assume. At present they certify
that he could change sides and beat me ; whereas he says that
he did once advocate my side, and was overcome by an old
woman. During the debate, he often represented me as incom-
petent and inadequate to the task which I had undertaken ; in
his book written afterward, he represented me as competent and
adequate: in his late pamphlet his witnesses certify that I am
incompetent and inadequate; yet in the same pamphlet he extols
my defence so far as to say that " nothing better has ever been
said, and nothing better can be said," on my side of the ques-
tion. After thus exalting me to a level with any Pedobaptist
who ever wrote, he gets three of his witnesses to certify, thai:
"Mr. Campbell was successful in argument, and greatly the
superior of Mr. M'Calla in point of talents." Therefore, of
course, he is greatly superior to any Pedobaptist wlio pvp-
wrote.
( vi )
As an apology for this strange proceeding, in a man of com-
mon sense, lie would liave the community believe, that it is only
a retaliation upi)n me, for claiming a superiority of talents over
him. If I have ever done so, it has entirely escaped my memory.
Nothing but inexcusable pride and ignorance could ever have
led me into such folly. My innocence of the charge is plain,
from the fact that my accuser has not been able to give one in-
stance, in which this offence has been committed. It is true, I
have claimed the victory in the debate; and I believe that a ju-
dicious community will admit my claims, when they read my
own argument, instead of one forged for me by an unprincipled
adversary. Yet, be it remembered, that I claimed the victory,
not on account of superior talents, but because I advocated
God's truth, and because the God of truth condescended to ena-
ble a feeble advocate to defend his cause against a powerful as-
sailant. With regard to Mr. Campbell's talents, we are all, in
a great measure, agreed. He considers them great, and so do I.
Their superiority to mine he has established by several certifi-
cates. I do not deny it. Why, then, so much about a matter,
on which there is no issue ?
We are not so well agreed on every thing said by him and his
witnesses. Mr- Vaughan has made a very dashing general ac-
cusation, about the atfair of Captain Buckner It is time enough
to make a particular answer, wlien he shall make a particular
allegation. Until then, I must be satisfied with pleading not
stilly to his general charge. (a) In the mean time, let it be re-
membered that Captain Buckner was a member of my church,
and so uniformly and perseveringly attached to me, as a Chris-
tian Pastor, that, before my leaving them, he declared that if he
were possessed of his former means, he would pay my salary out
(a) This reminds me, that Mr. Campbell mentions certain tilings,
■.vhich he says were published against me in Lexington, subsequent to my
departure from that place. Their truth he tiikes for granted, because
they have never been contradicted. To this I answer, that I have never
got a sight of them. I pubhcly solicited the writer and his phalanx to
come out, like men, while I was on the spot. But they chose, like Mr.
Vaughan, to shew their bravery, after the mountains lay between us.
( vii )
of his own pocket, rather tlian part with me, Mr. Vaughan ad-
mits that this warm friend is " a man of incorruptible integrity."
If so, it seems to me, that Mr. Vaughan himself must be some-
what deficient.
In another charge of his, he has not left us to mere presump-
tive proof. Unhappily for this witness, he does not always deal
in vague generalities, but, by venturing a specification, has
shewn himself indisputably guilty of the very crime, with which
he charges an innocent man. The following are the facts. In
my exposure of Mr. Campbell's report, I had written to Mr.
Edgar the following words, viz. " You were very well satisfied
"that I had encountered Mr. Campbell, until your mind was
" changed a few months afterward, by information received from
" his neighbourhood. You then told me, that, from unanswera-
" ble evidence, his character was too low to justify so formal a
'• notice by any respectable man ; and that, in defence of my
"own character, an apology should be made to the public.''
Compare this with Mr. Vaughan's certificate, and a note which
Mr. Campbell has published as Mr. Vaughan's, and which I will
here add in brackets, to that part of the text, from which he
refers to it by an asterisk. It is as follows, viz, " Edgar did
" not inform Mr. M'Calla by letter, that you were a man of too
" low a character for him to have any thing to do with. [This
" Mr. M'Calla said in his pamphlet.]" According to this pam-
phlet of mine, Mr. Edgar's communication to me, was a verba!
one. made a few months after the debate, and, of course, before
I had removed from Kentucky to Philadelphia. The words are,
" Vou then told wie." Mr, Vaughan certifies that my pamphlet
said that this communication was "by letter." Now it ap-
pears, from Mr. Vaughan's own shewing, that Mr Edgar has
never denied that he " ?oW me thi^, as my pamphlet declares;
he only denies that he communicated it by letter, a thing which
my book does not declare, but which Mr. Vaughan has forged for
it. Now where does the real falsehood lie ?
Another of Mr. Campbell's witnesses subjects himself to a
very easy refutation. " Mr. Moses Ryan, once a zealous Pedo
( viii )
baptist," as Mr. Campbell states, testifies as follows, viz.
*' I had to experience the mortification of seeing Mr. M'Calla
" exposed for misquoting the Scriptures to suit his own pur-
<' poses : and in reading extracts from Robinson, with the book
" in his hand and before his eyes, he would put language in Ro-
" binson's mouth that was no where to be found in it." " I can
*' unhesitatingly say, that Mr. Campbell has given a fair repre-
" sentation of all of Mr. M'Calla's arguments, during the four
" days that I attended, excepting the leaving out of Mr.
" M'Calla's vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language, to-
" gether with his base misquotations of the Scriptures and
" Robinson's History of Baptism."
From this certificate, it appears that I have been guilty of
vulgar, abusive, and ungentlemanly language; but Mr. Camp-
bell charitably dropped this from his report, while he faithfully
recorded every thing that was decent. It seems that I was
guilty of base misquotations of the scriptures, to suit my own
purposes ; and of basely interpolating and misquoting Robin-
son's History of Baptism, while the book was in my hand, and
before my eyes: but Mr. Campbell tenderly concealed these er-
rors from the public, while he faithfully reported all my correct
quotations from the Scriptures, and other books. If there is
any meaning in language, this is the meaning of the above
testimony.
Let it be remembered that this witness attended only four
days, and that two of these four were the sixth and seventh.
Then his testimony goes to show that Mr. Campbell, in his re-
port of the sixth and seventh days, omits nothing that I said,
except my vulgarities, and my misquotations of the Bible and
Robinson. On examining his report, it will be found, that, for
each of my half hours on tliese two days, he has allowed me,
upon an average, between one and two pages ; which, accord-
ing to my way of speaking, would be delivered in less than three
minutes. The result then is, that, during the two last days of
our debate, I occupied twenty-seven or eight minutes out of
every thirty, in gross vulgarities, or base misquotations of the
( ix )
Bible and Robinson ! This must be true, if Mr. Ryan's testi-
mony be true.
It is a general principle of all law, civil or military, ecclesi-
astical or social, that particular facts are necessary to support
general charges. Notwithstanding Mr. Ryan's testimony, it can
be proved, that, during the debate, Mr. Campbell ridiculed my
inaccurate quotations of scripture, and in his subsequent report,
accused me of making '■'"material alterations''^ of the sacred text.
It can also be proved that I called upon him for specifications.
He has never, to my knowledge, condescended to produce one
instance, in which I interpolated or misquoted Mr. Robinson,
whether before my eyes or not ; he has never produced one in-
stance of my misquoting the scriptures, when before my eyes j
nor one inaccurate quotation of them from memory, which would
favour my own cause. If niy charges against him, had depend-
ed upon the general certificates of such men as Mr. Ryan, he
would have justly laughed me to scorn. But when I accused
him of misquoting the scriptures, or Dr. Owen, or Mr. Walker,
or other writers, (and they were not a few,) I submitted to
the drudgery of producing Mr. Campbell's words, and compar-
ing them with the original. How gladly would he have done the
same, if I had ever given him an opportunity. May God accept
my sincere and humble thanks for preseiving me from such
crimes, and for giving me a cause wdiich needs not such artifices
to support it.
The most important object of Mr. Campbell's pamphlet was
to shew that his book, which is such a lucrative speculation to
him, is really a correct account of our debate. On this subject I
would observe, that he has a very unsatisfactory way of proving
the correctness of his reports, by the objections of those who im-
peach them Mr. Walker published several pages of exceptions
to Mr. Campbell's account of their debate; to which he added a
dozen pages of exceptions, by one of the Moderators. Mr. Camp-
bell would persuade the public that these " altogether would not
make one page ;" and then pretends that if all these exceptions
were well substantiated, his Report "would appear from Mr
B
( ^ )
•' Walker's own treatise to be a correct representation of the con
" troversy." My exposure of his Report in our case gave a very
great number of particulars. Of these he speaks as follows, viz,
''Even when all the particulars he gives are excepted, still the
"debate as published by me is worthy of the title and credit
" which it has received." Now let us examine the title and
credit which it has received, and compare these with my excep-
tions.
The title as published in the printed Prospectus, is "A De-
" bate on Baptism, between Mr. W. L- M'Calla, of Kentucky,
" and A. Campbell, of Virginia, held in Washington, Mason
" County, Kentucky, on the 15th of October, 1823, in the pre-
*' sence of many witnesses." The very next words of the Pi-ospec-
tus promise that '' All the arguments on both sides shall be
" faithfully and impartially detailed." Nothing less than this
detail would make it the debate which was held between the
parties mentioned, at the time and place specified, and in the
presence of many witnesses. In the title page of his book, he
is still more particular, informing us of the debate which he
reports, " commencing on the 15th and terminating on the 21st
[22a4} Octob. 1823." The title of the book, then, authorizes
us to expect a faithful and impartial detail of all the arguments
which I delivered in Washington, Kentucky, in a number of
speeches, ivhich commenced 07i the \5th and closed on the 22nd of
Octob. 1823, lasting seven days: for the sabbath was left out-
This is a fair account of the title of his book.
Now for the " credit which it has received." Mr. Campbell's
own explanation of this expression is to be found in the certifi-
cates of his witnesses, who profess to have heard the debate, as it
actually took place, and then to have read and compared his print-
ed report. They testify that so far as they " heard and read^''
" Mr. Campbell has given in his publication of the debate, both
" in substance and form, fairly and substantially, all the argu-
" mcnts offered on both sides of the question." One calls it "a
FULL, fair, and faithful exhibition of all the principal arguments
and topics.'''' Another says that it contains " all the matter and
( xi )
argument advanced by both disputants." Anotl)er adds, '' very
generally the pliraseolcgy itself.''^ Thus much for the credit of
the book. Now add this to the title ; and we are authorized by
<' the title and credit which it has received," to expect that
Mr. Campbell's book will furnish a detailed report^ full, faith-
ful, and impartial, in respect of matter, form, and phraseology,
of all my topics and arguments, in the seven days debate in Ken-
tucky, October, 1823.
Mr. Campbell has assured us that this is the real character of
the report, even after admitting all the exceptions which I have
made. The judgment of candour will consider him as virtually
admitting the correctness of my exceptions, in fact, since, sersous,
numerous, and tangible as they are, he has not overthrown a ^\n-
gle one of them ; but reposes himself upon their supposed harm-
lessness. Taking my objections, therefore, for granted, let us
compare them with some of the alledged features of his book,
and in the 'undisturbed possession of which he tliinks that my
exceptions leave it. This must, of course, be done with great
brevity.
1. He promises a detailed report. My objections, which
he has virtually admitted, prove from the book itself, that a
great part of it is professedly an ABiiDOED report.
2. He and his witnesses call it a full report. My objections
shew from his own book, that a great part of it confessedly
records short stwns, specimens and abstracts, instead oi full
speeches, while there is not even a specimen recorded of very
much that 1 said.
3. He and his certificates call it a faithful report My
objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew very nume-
rous misstatements, as to matters of fact; they shew that he has
written for me in his dialect, which is, in some instances, foreign
to my own, and foreign to correct English; they shew that while
using his own language, he has so transposed and altered my
sentiments, as to make them error, conlusion, and nonsense;
they shew that the body of my quotations he has suppressed,
while he has partly supplied their place, by greatly and stupidly
( xii )
enlarging others, and quoting for me, from books which I had
jieVer named, nor even seen.
4. It is called an impartial report. My objections shew tli^t
he, though one of the parties, constitutes himself a judge of the
weight of argument ; and when Mr. Campbell the Judge, has
decided against the relevancy of arguments opposed to Mr.
Campbell the Party, he then forbids Mr. Campbell the /Reporter
to record them. This is a very cheap sort of impartiality.
5. He and his witnesses alled;i,e that his report has the above
qualities in respect of matter. My objections prove from his
printed book and my manuscript notes, that the matter of my
speeches is not in his report. His very preface expressly pro-
fesses to abbreviate whole days of my matter as my publication
shewed at large.
6. They attach the above qualities to his report, with regard to
FORM and PHRASEOLOGY. Surely these men must know that there
is a difference in the/o>*m of a speech and a speoimf.n. They
must know that there is a difference in the form of an oration
occupying thirty minutes, and an abstract occupying three
minutes. Besides, the very face of the book shews that these
miniatures are given in his own phi'aseology, and my admitted
objections prove that where he pretends to use my language, he
actually substitutes his own phraseology, even to his idiomatic
violations of grammar.
7. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses insist upon the fulness and
excellency of his report, in relation to my topics. My manu-
script notes and my actual speeches contained seven topics : but
■where will you find these in Mr. Campbell's book? Where, for
instance, will you find the history of the mode of baptism? My
printed objections, which he has virtually admitted, shew, that
he, as well as other Baptists, claimed the most respectable
Pedobaptists, as advocating their views of the mode of baptism;
my objections shew, moreover, that these claims were most tri-
umphantly refuted, in my discussion of this topic. Perhaps there
was not another part of the debate, in which the gross dishonesty
of my Opponent, and Danvers, and other Baptist writers, ap-
( xiii )
peared in a more disgraceful light. To bury the remembrance of
such an exposure, he has suppressed the whole topic^ and then
persuaded his impartial, disinterested an I neutral followers,
such as Walker Reid, to certify that his report is " a faithful
representation of the Tovicsl''^ I would not be the writer of such
a declaration, for ten thousand times all the votes, and all the
fees, which this neutral certificate will procure ics author, from
the dense Baptist population around him. But let it not be
thought that the above is the only instance of dishonesty on this
subject. His report allows one page to my fifth topic ; he al
lows another page to my sixth and seventh topics, which are
directly called for by his challenge, and without which, I am
deprived of a defence. To the sixth topic, which was the most
important, he has allowed six lines of that one page. Thus he
has entirely suppressed one of my seven topics, and half of the
remaining six, he has reported in two pages, and that in his own
language.
8. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses, alledge, moreover, the
excellency and fulness of his report, in relation to my argu
MKNTS. This leads us to evidence from Mr. Campbell's own
pen, that he has laid violent hands upon another topic, which has
not yet been mentioned. His preface informs us that lie has
indulged in " abbreviating^^ " the argument from ecclesiastic
history." This argument occupied the third and fourth topics,
which related to the history of the subject of baptism, and the
history of the mode. One of these, I have shewn, he has entirelj*
suppressed ; and he expressly confesses that he has abbreviated
the other. -
9. Mr. Campbell and his witnesses consider his book as a
report of the Debate which took place between him and myself,
in Washington, Kentucky, on the 15th — to — 22nd days of Octo-
ber, 1823. If it be so, it must give my speeches, whether vulgar
or polished, relevant or irrelevant, during all the seven days,
on all my seven topics, relating to the nature or effects ef baptism,
and embracing the arguments from scripture and from ecclesias-
tical history. Instead ofthis, wefind one topic entirely suppress
xiv )
ed, three others occupying two pages, and a tifth abbreviated, by
the impartial guillotine of the opposite party. Two out of the
seven still remain. These I have exposed in a printed volume
of objections, not one of which he has refuted, and the validity
of which he has virtually admitted, by declining to make any
particular exception, and by asserting that when my objections
are admitted, his report " is worthy of the title and credit
which it has received.'' I have shewn that if these objections
be valid, they will prove, that, in reporting me, his work is a
mass of misstatements, Campbellisms, transpositions, supple-
ments, interpolations, suppressions, and alterations. The evi-
dence of this is found not only in my notes, but abundantly in
his own book, which, of itself, isground enough for contradicting
all his certificates. Even when he and his witness agree in
matter of fact, it is amusing to see how they will differ as to the
reason of the fact. After all that has been said about the fulness
of the report, Mr. Campbell, and his witness Mr. Ryan, can-
not help conceding that much is omitted j that is, that it is not
full, unless it can be full, while nine-tenths are wanting. Each
of them has his own reason for this great omission. Mr. Camp-
bell attributes it to the irrelevancy of such arguments as that
which is drawn from ecclesiastical history. Mr. Ryan will not
assree that this argument was suppressed at all, but insists that
every thing was reported, '-except the leaving out of Mr.
M'Calla's vulgar, abusive,and ungentlemanly language, together
with his base misquotations of the scriptures and Robinson's
Historyof Baptism," of which vulgarity and dishonesty, neither he
nor any other person can give a single instance ! ! These cannot
be reconciled.
When commencing this review, it was my design to examine
Mr. Campbell's neutral witnesses, a little more particularly.
This may possibly be done at some future period. At present
it seems unnecessary. So perfect an imposture cannot long
abide the test. The forgery of a Unitarian Baptist cannot
always be supported by the mere general ex parte certificates
( XV }
of Unitarians, and the sons and brothers of Baptist preach
ers, who choose to call themselves neutrals, because they
belong to no churchj especially while these certificates
contradict themselves and one another, and are obviously op-
posed to the very face of the record about which they testify.
God will take care of his own truth and his own people, and on
him do I relv, in Jesus' namf ■
DEFENCE
PEDOBAPTIS
Friends, Fellow-citizens, and Fellow- Christians,
The possession of a rational, responsible and
immortal nature, should ever make us view religion as
of paramount importance. Among innumerable dangers
of fatal error, the enjoyment of a full revelation, an infalli-
ble rule of faith and practice, is a blessing for which we
can never be sufficiently thankful. This blessed volume
contains the instruction of the Divine Father, sealed, by
the blood of the Divine Son, and applied to the heart
by the Divine Spirit. Depending upon the grace of
the only true God, we shoidd endeavour to give to
all his doctrines, precepts, and ordinances, that inherent
and relative weight which they claim in the inspired
volume. Our views of the Christian sacraments, as to
their nature, relations, and consequences, are thought
defective and erroneous, by some who are eminent for
piety and intelligence. Yet while they condemn us, they
accuse each other also. Mr. Booth, an advocate for
strict communion, says concerning his Baptist brethi'en
"who plead for free communion/' that they "treat
^' the ordinance [of baptism] as if it were a mere circum-
^' stance in divine worship; an indifferent thing; and dis-
*^ pense with it just as occasion requires." "The Lord's
( 18 )
*^ supper, however, is considered and treated by them in
^' a different manner; for they speak of it as a delightful,
^^ an edifying, an important institution. But what
^^ authority have they for thus distinguishing between
*^ two appointments of the same Lord, intended for the
** same persons, of equal continuance in the Christian
** church, and alike required of proper subjects?
''' They have indeed the example of some Socinians, and
'' the venerable sanction of the whole Council of Trent:
'^ for the title of one chapter in the records of that coun-
^' cil, is, ' Concerning the excellence of the most holy
''■ Eucharist, above the rest of the sacraments.' "(a) Con-
cerning this preference of one sacrament to another,
Mr. Booth asks, " Can such a conduct be pious, humble,
or rational?" Yet impious, proud, and irrational as this
conduct may be, it is feared that my Opponent has been
guilty of it. It is true that he does not, like the free-
communion Baptists, prefer the eucharist to baptism,
but he does what is equally condemnable in Mr. Booth's
esteem, he gives baptism a decided preeminence over
the eucharist, if not over faith and obedience. " Baptism,"
says he ''is an ordinance of the greatest importance and of
^* momentous significance. Never was there an ordinance
" of so great import or design." " He [Christ] does not
^^ say, he that believeth and keeps my commands shall
*' be saved : but he saith ' he tliat believeth and is bap-
^' tized shall be saved.' He placeth baptism on the right
^' hand of faith." ^^ To every believer therefore, bap-
'^ tism is a formal and personal remission, or purgation
(a) Booth's Apology, j)p. 177, 178. London Edition of 1812.
( 19 )
*' of sins. The believer never has his sins formally wash-
^^ ed away oi* remitted until he is baptized. The water
*^ has no efficacy but what God's appointment gives it,
^* and he has made it sufficient for this purpose. "(6)
He ** said that baptism is inseparably connected with
•^ a formal pardon of sin ; and spoke very boastingly of
^* having never, for an hour, felt guilt of conscience,
^' since his baptism. "(c) Those who hold such a religionas
this, will always harbour animosity against pious Pedo-
baptists, as naturally as the Western Indians opposed the
venerable Zeisberger, the Moravian Missionary, "in
^^ consequence chiefly of the insinuations of some Pagan
'^ teachers, who had strenuously recommended the use
^^ of emetics, as a speedy and infallible method of cleans-
" ing from sin."(c^) No doubt, there was many a de-
luded mortal among them, who " spoke very boastingly
*^ of having never, for an hour, felt guilt of conscience,
since his'' vomiting. How diflerent is this Pagan stuff
from the scriptural account of Baptism ! Paul says
'^ Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gos-
pel."(e) If he had viewed it as my Opponent does, he
would have considered the work of baptizing to be the
most important object of his mission. But he here uses
a negative as the strongest contrast, to show its great
inferiority to the essentials of Christianity.
When I speak of the relative diminutiveness of the
tangible sacraments, I would not be understood as insinu-
(6) Campbell's Spurious Debate in Kentucky, pp. 117. 135,
(c) Lowry's Notes, given tome.
(rf) Brown's History of Missions, Vol. l.p. 435. Philadelphia Edition of
1816. (e) i Cor, i. 17,
I 20 )
ating that they are unimportant. Far be it from me to
despise such valuable privileges ! May my soul ever
rejoice in that heavenly condescension which has be-
stowed them ! Our Fathers did well in reproving the
Man of sin for robbing the laity of the eucharistic cup ;
and they did as well in reproving certain Pseudo-refor-
mers for robbing infants of the baptismal seal. Since
the Pedobaptist world is arraigned before the public,
under the heaviest charges, and since I am providential-
ly called to confront our bold Accuser, the task is under-
taken, with a trembling cheerfulness, and in humble
reliance upon the Spirit of Christ, Vi'ithout whose help
I can do nothing.
The contested proposition, for the discussion of which
we have met on this occasion, is contained in a general
printed challenge, first uttered by my Opponent, several
years ago, at the close of a debate which he had with
a Pedobaptist Minister in another state, and afterward
printed for general circulation, in his professed report
of that debate, which I have in my hand. In that
challenge he undertakes to prove that " Infaut-sprink-
" ling is a human tradition, and injurious to the well-
*^ being of society, religious and political." As I
plead, not guilty , we join issue upon the very words
of the accusation which you have just heard.
To the language of the proposition I at first objected,
in part, because the term infant- sprinkling was in-
tended as a sneer. If we were to call them DipperSy
and call their baptism Duckings they would probably
think that a sneer was intended : yet they would not
have more reason for such a suspicion, than we have
( 21 )
in the present case. They call themselves Baptists^
'and not Dive?'s, Plungers, or Dippers. As convenience
requires that they should have a name, we allow them
the one which they assume ; but we do it from courtesy,
and not because we believe that they are Baptizers
more than ourselves. If the peculiarities of their system
were necesary to make a man a Baptizer, (which is the
original meaning of the word Baptist,) then the precursor
of our Lord should not be called John the Baptist, or
John the Bapiizer^ since there is satisfactory evidence
that he baptized infants, and that by sprinkling or
pouring. But as the Author of the accusation now
under discussion was not willing to remove or change
the offensive expression, infant- sprinkling, all that
we wish is, to have its meaning clearly settled. This
is done effectually by the context, in which he says,
•^ It is my time to give an invitation or challenge to
" any Pedo-baptist minister ;" and again, " I feel dis-
" posed to meet any Pedo-baptist minister, of any de-
'^ nomination," &c. As the challenge, therefore, is di-
rected to Pedo-baptists, it is evident that Pedo-
baptism is to be the subject of discussion, and that this
is what is meant by infant-sprinkling. The position,
then, which he has engaged to maintain is, that infant-
baptism, as practised by us, in the mode of sprinkling,
pouring, or washing, is a factitious and pernicious
institution. In his publications he has endeavoured to
establish this general charge, by many particulars of a
very odious character. If they be correct, we must
be the enemies of God and man : if they be incorrect,
he must a false Accuser and a bitter Adversary of
(22 )
Christ and his Church. If he has published more than
he tlieii meant, or more than he is willing now to pro-
secute, he is present to declare it. If no such declara-
tion is made, you will, of course, demand good evidence
in support of such formidable charges.
Against such allegations, by whomsoever brought, I
willingly stand on the defensive: against such affirmations,
by whomsoever made, I willingly espouse the negative.
In so doing, I would endeavour, conscientiously and
scripturally, to defend a command of God, and not those
adventitious errors which Papists or Protestants have
engrafted on it. If will -worship, self-righteousness and
superstition, schism and heresy, anarchy, oppression,
and persecution are ever found connected with our
system, I can only reply that this is an unnatural con-
nexion, since these evils are from hell, and infant-bap-
tism is from heaven. If my Opponent mean to prove
that the use of the cross, and of oil and wine, and milk
and honey in baptism, is a human tradition, I have no
objection: but while this is made out undeniably, it
\\ ill also appear that infant-baptism belongs to what he
calls '^ the traditions of the Apostles,*' and that this
Apostolical tradition or injiinction is no more answerable
for its illegitimate connexions, than the scriptures are
answerable for destroying souls, when, through human
depravity, they become a savour of death unto death ;
or than adult-baptism is answerable for the innumerable
evils with which it is accompanied. And let it be
remembered that tliis is practised by all Pedobaptists ;
for our system is to baptize believers and their seed.
Christian baptism, thus administered, has sometimes
( 23 )
been accompanied with much evil, as is the bible in
which it is commanded ; and infidels charge all this
evil upon God's word and ordinances; whether right-
eously or not, judge ye.
Whether infant-haptmn be right or wrong, useful
or hurtful, may be decided without any other evidence
than the simple word of God. This proof is the best,
because it is certain and infallible. That evidence
which is derived from uninspired writings, whether
doctrinal or historical, though strong, is nevertheless
inferior. It would save much time and strength to
omit it altogether. I mention this because my Opponent
has already asserted, more than once, that the true
church, from the A])ostles' days to the present time,
were Baptists. Although the challenge will certainly
allow him this latitude, he would do me a favour by con-
fining himself to the scriptures, at least in relation to the
subject and mode of baptism. Its injurious effects he
may prove in any way that he pleases: Let him produce
scripture only, to show that infant-baptism is forbidden,
and that immersion only is baptism, and then he shall
have proved that " infant-sprinkling is a human tradi
tion." But reasonable as this wish is, he intimates that
it cannot be gratified. In addition, then, to infallible
scriptural evidence in favour of our subject and mode
of baptism, I shall be required to produce what might
be called uninspired presumptive or probalifck evidence
to the same points. I shall have to show that the Chris-
tian Church has always baptized infants, and that it has
never considered submersion essential to this ordinance.
This will have to be followed by evidence that the Bap-
( 24 j
tists of England and America, instead of being born in
the first centtjry (as my Opponent has repeatedly assert-
ed,) had their origin in the sixteenth. The topics of
discussion, then, which my Opponent has cut out for
me, are the following ; viz.
1. The scriptural subject of baptism.
2. The scriptural mode.
3. The history of the subject.
4. The history of the mode.
5. The history of Anabaptism.
6. The effects of the subject.
7. The effects of the mode,
In discussing these topics, while I would avoid shrink-
ing from the duty of defending the truth, I would res-
pect the feelings of pious Baptists, and avoid unnecessary
recriminations against those mistaken Christians of that
denomination, who, uncharitably, unrighteously, and
untruly, make common cause with our Accuser, in
slandering their brethren for obeying a divine command.
To the true church, God has said, '^^ No weapon that is
'^ formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue
'^ that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt con-
^^ demn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
^^ and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord."
This we believe. In the exercise of a conscience
void of ojjfejice towards God and man, we are willing to
take shelter under this promise, for protection against
the accusations of our present Adversary, and of all those
who support him.
When a man brings such serious charges as those
( 25 )
which are now under consideration, he should have
some plan of attack. In opening the cause, which my
Accuser has professed to do, he should, as far as time
allowed, give us some general view of the law and the
testimony; something to which a reply may be made.
But, in what he calls the opening of the debate, he has
not laid before you as much as can be felt between the
thumb and finger. His whole speech was occupied
in a laboured effort to make his audience benevolent, at-
tentive, and docile, according to Cicero's instructions.
As I did not come here to set myself off by rhetorical
arts, but to recommend religion, by defending its sacred
institutions, and its pious professors, I have been compel-
led, though in the negative, virtually to open the cause
myself. I shall therefore proceed immediately to the
discussion of those topics which my Opponent's challenge
and present determination force upon our attention,
and which have been already enumerated in my division.
TOPIC I.
THE SCRIPTURAL SUBIECT OF BAPTISM.
On this subject, my opinion is accurately expressed
in the following words :
The Scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not
exclusive subjects of Christian Baptism.
The challenge asserts that ^' Infant-sprinkling is a
human tradition." Mv reply is, that the Scriptures con-
D
( ^6 )
sider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects
of Christian baptism. Instead of this proposition, some
would state that Pedobaptism is a divine institution. To
avoid repeated and unnecessary distinctions and circum-
locutions, I often use this declaration myself. But as a
proposition for discussion, it is thought to be deficient
in accuracy. We believe that adult baptism is a divine
institution, and that female baptism is a divine institution,
as well as male baptism : and so we might appear to
multiply institutions according to the ages, sexes, colours,
and conditions of mankind. Each of these has the
appearance of excluding the rest. Of this appearance,
Baptist controversialists take an unfair advantage. When
we advocate infant-baptism as a divine institution, they
try to make the world believe that we thereby reject
adult baptism, whereas we hold and practice both : when
the Bible teaches adult baptism, they conclude that il
rejects infant baptism, whereas the Bible teaches, and
the Apostles practised both. To shut the door against
such quibbles, my proposition formally admits that
infants are not the exclusive subjects of Christian bap-
tism, while it asserts that they are suitable subjects of
this divine institution, according to the testimony of
God% word.
But now that we are approaching the lively oracles,
my Opponent begins to dread an appeal to this irrefraga-
ble testimony. He insists upon my passing this over,
and engaging in a piHori reasonings, which he knows
would be much more inefficient in our defence than
inspired authority. For me to quote scripture, he
insinuates, would be only a fatiguing loss of breath and
( 27 )
waste of time. His words are these, viz : '^ Before we
^^ spend our breath, waste our timej or fatigue our bodies
" in this discussion, let us know, cut bono, for what
"good, or what benefit to infants we contend.'' "We
^^ know of no benefit," says he, "that could be conferred
" on them by sprinkling a few drops of water upon
" their faces."(/) Perhaps my Opponent knows that
these questions are often asked concerning his bap-
tism as well as ours, and with as much force. And
Booth complains that some eminent Baptists them-
selves seem to doubt the utility of adult immersion,
and thereby to approach that sect which denies the
utility and obligation of either baptism or the Lord's
supper. (§•) It is true that my Opponent professes to
have discovered great utility in adult immersion: it
purges from sin. In this he excels the Hemerobaptists,
who cleanse themselves from all sin by a daily immersion.
But Bishop Hobart is up with him even here ; for he
believes that infant baptism is regeneration; and both are
about as wise as those Western Indians who believed
that their sins were purged by emetics.
In demanding evidence of utility in the threshhold of
this discussion, my Accuser opposes Jews and Chris-
tians, inspired and uninspired, heretical and orthodox,
Baptist and Pedobaptist. Matt. v. 19. shews that the
least of God's commandments is binding, whether we
think it useful or not. In admirable consistency with
this, Booth quotes from Stapfer the following sentiments
of Orobius, a learned Jew, viz. "The ritual law dc-
(/) Debate, p. 46. (g-) Booth's Apology, p. 181.
( 28 )
'^ pends upon the will of the Legislator only ; sometimes,
^^ or generally, no foundation for it being discovered in
'' natural reason. But it does not obtain on that account
'^ an inferior degree of perfection, (supposing the wis-
'^ dom and goodness of the Legislator to be infinite,)
** but ought rather to be esteemed of a higher and
^' sublimer order : it being indeed supposed that an infi-
*' nitely good and wise God can never prescribe to man
^^ laws which are vain and unsuitable. In proportion as the
^^ reason of them is more hidden to us, so should we the
^^ more believe that it belongs to the secret of divine
^^ wisdom : so that we should not either curiously or
** philosophically scrutinize, but be in obedient subjec-
^* tion to his command, by which we may shew our
'^ love, and a becoming reverence to the Supreme Crea-
^^ tor : believing, with the whole heart, all things which
^^ his wisdom, infinitely worthy, exceedingly good, and
^^ most perfect, proposes to be observed by us, whether
^' [or not] that wisdom can or will dispense or intermit
^^ for some occasion. And it belongs to a more signal
*' obedience to observe those things, than such com-
*'^ mandments of God as we discover to be founded in
*^ our reason : for such as these, even if God had not
*^ enjoined, men may know and observe, as many of
^' the Gentiles have done, without any view to the
** authority of God." But merely from their opinion
of their cui bono.
On this subject, even Dr. Priestly is more correct
than my Opponent. As quoted by Booth, he declares
that ^^ Every divine command ought certainly to be
^' implicitly complied with, even though we should not
( 29 )
^^ be able to discern the reason of it.'' That is, the
cui bono of it. " In things of external appointmentj'^
(says Dr. Samuel Clarke, quoted by Booth.) *^ and
^' mere positive institution, where we cannot, as in
^^ matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning
" tlie natural reason and ground of the obligation, and
" the original necessity of the thing itself; we have
^' nothing to do but to obey the positive command. God
" is infinitely better able than we to judge of the pro-
^^ priety and usefulness [the cui boni~\ of the things, he
^Mnstitutes ; and it becomes us to obey with humility
•* and reverence." The same author quotes Bishop
Hall as saying, " It hath been ever God's wont, by
•^ small precepts to prove men's dispositions. Obedience
'' is as well tried in a trifle as in the most important
^^ charge : yea, so much more, as the thing required
^* is less: for oftentimes those who would be careful
•' in main affairs, think they may neglect the smallest.
*^ What command so ever we receive from God, or ouj
*' superiors, we must not scan the weight, [the mi bono']
•^ of the thing, but the authority of the commander.''
The same Baptist writer quotes Witsius as saying that,
^' One who resolves to obey God in some things only,
*^ but excepts others, which he does [or not] according
^•' to his own judgment [of their cui bono,] he does not
*^ serve God, but pleases himself. The true ground of
^^ obedience is the authority of him who commands;
" which, as it is the same in all precepts, all then, it is
'^ concluded, must be of equal obligation."
These are all Baptist authorites, because adopted
( 30 )
by Booth(/0 in support of his sentiments, which he
expresses in his own words as follows, viz. " As in the
^^ great concerns of religious worship, nothing should
" be done that is not required by Jehovah ; and as the
^^ lawfulness of all positive rites depends entirely on
'^ their divine Author and his institution ; so he who
^^ complies with some, and neglects others that are
" equally commanded and equally known, may please
^< himself, but he does not obey the Lord." ^^ For it is
" not the manifest excellence, or the great utility
^^ [the cui bono'] of any divine appointment, that is the
'^^ true reason of our submission to it; but the authority
^* of him that commands."
You have already perhaps observed that my Opponent
himself advocates this same doctrine at some times,
though he contradicts it at other times. He has quoted
a passage from Bishop Hoadly, in which he says, *^ All
^^ positive duties depend [not upon the question of
" cui bono, but] entirely upon the will and declaration
'^ of the person who institutes or ordains them, with
^^ respect to the real design and end of them, and con-
'^^ sequently to the due manner of performing them."
To the same purpose he has quoted largely from Bishop
Taylor, who says that "The will of the law-giver,
" [and not the question of ciii bono] is all the reason
'^ for obedience. "(^) But in the debate with Mr.
Walker we have my Opponent's own words to this
eifect as follows; viz. '^Having now distinguished
(A) Thev mav be found in the following pages of liis Apologv. 71.
100. 179. 180.
(?) Debate pp. 69. 70.
( 31 )
•^ positive and moral institutions, I proceed to shew that
^^ on no account whatsoever in positive reqiiirements,
" are we to attempt to reason upon the expediency
'' [the cui bono'] of the things enjoined, but implicitly
" to obey on all occasions. When Eve, the mother of
^^ us all, began to reason on the expediency [the cui
" bono] of eating the forbidden fruit, she began to sin.
'^ She reasoned that as the fruit of that tree was pleasant
'^ to the sight, and to be desired to make one wise,
'^ there could be no harm in eating of it; consequently
'* she concluded to taste it. Of the incorrectness of
^^ her [cui bono] reasoning, and of her incapacity, even
^^ when in Eden, to draw a correct inference, when
'^' reasoning on a positive institution, we have, alas !
** a melancholy proof" as we have in her
^^ cui bono descendant in this debate. (A)
Often as my Opponent contradicts himself, he hardly
ever does it without what he considers good policy. He
published a challenge, to shew his courage ; and after-
ward denied it, to throw the odium upon his Op-
ponent. Why did he say so much in his letters, about
his holding the negative of our question ? Because it
afforded what he thought a plausible pretext for demand-
ing the closing speech. Why does he now urge as
strongly that he holds the affirmative of the very same
question? The Moderators, to whom he has appealed,
can answer, that this is made a pretext for demanding,
that, as he has professedly opened the debate, I should
not be permitted to choose my own plan of defence, but
(A-) Debate with Mr. W. ]>. 46. On the same page in his Cnd debate
we find his ad bono contradiction.
( 32 )
be compelled to leave the solid evidence upon which
my cause rests, and follow the ignis fatuus of his decla-
mation. Again ; why is it that he insists so strongly
upon the good old doctrine, that we must unreservedly
obey every command of God, without waiting to discuss
its expediency, or its cui bono ? Because he hopes to
pervert this truth to the sophistical conclusion that
" nothing short of [what he means by] an express divine
command can authorize" infant baptism: as if an ifn-
plicit command were not binding at all! But when I
approach the subject too closely, and seem in danger of
producing a divine command, he complains that by
such a course we should only " spend our breath, waste
our time, and fatigue our bodies." Why does he then
insist, in opposition to his former principles, concerning
positive institutions, that we must first examine the ques-
tion of expediency, ^^ cui bono, for what goody or
f/or] what benefit to infants" is this institution intend-
ed? These questions you can answer.
I wish you to keep in mind the proposition v»'ith which
I have set out> on the scriptural subject of baptism. It
is, that " the scriptures consider infants as suitable,
though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism."
Baptist polemics generally take it for granted that this
is impossible in the nature of things ; and think that in-
ftuit baptism necessarily rejects adult baptism, and that
adult baptism necessarily excludes the other, as if these
were two distinct and irreconcileable baptisms. Booth
says, "If infant sprinkling be a human invention,
" disown it .... . but if it be from heaven, embrace
"it and lay the other absolutely aside, as des-
( 33 )
*' titute of a divine warrant; for as there is hut one God
^^ and one faith f so there is hut one baptis7n/\/) This
writer is much in the habit of illustrating the sacra-
ments of baptism and the eucharist by a reference to
circumcision and the Passover. (m) We all know that
there was only one circumcision as well as one baptism.
How then would it look to reason on the former, as he
has done on the latter? If infant circumcision be a
human tradition, disown it but if it be from
heaven, embrace it and lay adult circumcision
absolutely aside for as there is but one God
and onefaifhf so there is hut one circumcision !! ! Yes,
there was but one circumcision ; yet it .vas administered
to adults and infants : so there is but one baptism, which,
like circumcision, is the seal of the righteousness of one
faith ; yet this also is scripturally administered to believ-
ers and their seed.
Scriptural statements of the qualifications of adult
subjects are always quoted on this point ^*He that be-
" lieveth and is baptized .^hall be saved : but he that
^* believeth not shall be da.niied." "Go ye therefore
"^ and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
" the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;
^^ teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I
" have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always,
*^ even unto the end of the world. "(??) We are both
agreed that these passages exclude from baptism,
those adults who are destitute of knowledge, because
they must first be taught of faith, because they
(/) Close of his Apology. (m) See his Apology, pp. 145.149.
(n) Mark xvi. 16. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.
E
( 34 )
are I'equired to believe and of obedience, because
they are required to observe all things. We are both
agreed on another point also, which is as ])lainly tanglit
by these texts as the one just now stated. That is, that
those intelligent adults who are destitute of knowledge,
faith and obedience, are deprived of Christ's gracious
presence, by his Spirit, ynio the end of the world, and
of his salvation in eternity. We agree, in a third posi-
tion, that the privilege of baptism, the enjoyment of
Christ's Spirit, and eternal salvation are here secured
to believing adults. There is a fourth point in which
we can possibly meet. The Apostle Peter shews that
the promise of the Spirit of sanctification and salvation
is to believers and their children ; '^ The promise is
unto you and to your children.'' The fifth point is
the one on which we differ. Do these passages ex-
clude infants from baptism ? They affirm ; vve deny.
They say that Christ's command to teach and baptize
all nations, excludes infants as incapable of instruction:
then are they not excluded from his promise, " lo ! I am
with you alway, even unto the end of the world?" They
say that our Saviour's declaration, *^ he that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved," excludes infants as
incapable of faith: but the next clause says, "he that
jbelieveth not shall be damned." If, then the former
clause deprives them of baptisnj, because incapable of
faith, this latter one excludes from salvation all infants
who cannot believe. Mr. Robinson's "^ good Baptist,"
Michael Servetus, of the sixteenth century, saw the
necessity of this conclusion, and admitted its correctness.
He rejected infants fiom baptism and from salvation
( 35 )
together, because they could not believe ; and supported
his doctrine by that text which says, "He that believeth
not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth
on him.''(oj This mode of interpretation, if consistently
maintained, would exclude infants from daily bread,
as well as from baptismal water Paul says, *^ This we
commanded you, that if any would not work, neither
should he eat. ''(/>) Our Opponents should say, infants
cannot work^ therefore infants should not eat. Why
do they not reason and act thus? Because they know
that this command related to adults who ought to work,
and will not ; and not to infants who cannot work. Just
so Pedobaptists interpret the above texts concerning
baptism. They are intended to exclude adults who
ought to believe, but will not : and not infants which
are neither believers nor unbelievers. And to reason
otherwise, is as absurd as to say that the sheep on the
right hand of Christ, at the day of judgment, are in-
tended to exclude not only the goats, but the lambs also.
Such sentiments as the above texts contain, are
found in Pedobaptist writers, and Pedobaptist creeds,
in every age and country : and, what is remarkable,
Baptist writers quote them, as they do the scriptures,
in opposition to that system which their authors main-
tain. They cannot help confessing that after Cyprian's
day, Pedobaptism prevailed in the church; and yet
when Cyprian and other Fathers talk of the necessity of
believing and repenting before baptism, they quote these
expressions against infant baptism, although they know
(o) Calvin's Institutes. Book 4. ch. xvi. sect. 31.
{p) 2 Theirs, iii. 10. in Calv. lost, R, 4. ch. xvi. s. ?9,
( 36 )
that their authors were Pedobaptists, and never meant
them to apply to infants. Speaking of baptism, Cy-
prian declares that all " will perish," " unless they do
" come with repentance to that only salutary sacrament
'^ of the church." On the same subject Gregory Nyssen
says, ^' Prayer to God, and the imploring of the heavenly
'^ grace, and the water, and faith, are the things that
" make up the sacrament of regeneration." To the
same amount, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Augustine.
Basil says, ^^ One must believe first, and then be
*^^ sealed with baptism." ^Jerom says of the Apostles,
' that they first taught the nations, and then baptized
^ them ; *^ for it cannot be that the body do receive
^^ the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have before
^' received the true faith." \q) If the scriptures forbid
infant baptism, so do these Fathers : but both sides
know that these Fathers held infant baptism and requir-
ed faith as a qualification in adults only ; and so we be-
lieve the scriptures do.
But the inconsistency of our Opponents does not stop
with the scriptures and the Fathers. They have claim-
ed the Pedobaptist Reformers and reformed churches
and their successors to the present day. They even
quote against Infant baptism, the standards of the Pedo-
baptist churches with which we are conversant and
connected ; and most certainly, they are as much against
it as the scriptures are. Both alike require faith in
the subject. The Catechism of the Church of England
says, " There is required of persons to be baptized, faith
(y) Wall's Defence, pp. 346. 34",
( 37 )
'" and repentance.'' Our Catechism says that in a sacra-
ment, ^^ Christ and the benefits of the new covenant
" are represented, sealed and applied to believers."
The same work says tiiat their efficacy depends upon
^^ the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit
^^ in them that by faith receive them.'' r) In the close
of my Opponent's book against Mr. Walker, these
and similar passages of our Creed are explained just
as the scriptures are, in opposition to infant baptism.
On the first of them the writer says, ^^ Mark, only to
'^ believers. Are infants capable of believing?" On
the second passage he says, ^* Here mark again,
the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit
is wholly restricted to them that by faith receive
them. Is it possible to suppose that infants can so
receive? Then surely it would be wrong not to admit
them also to the Lord's table. But the thing being
insupposable, they are therefore equally debarred
from both." On the whole, he observes, " Are not
all the blessings and benefits specified in them exclu-
sively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the words
unequivocally declare, in express concurrence with
the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of the
page, under the respective answers. According to
the manifest scope and tenor of all those documents
taken together, what comes of infant-sprinkling? It
stands excluded to all intents and purposes. No room
is left for it, if the forecited documents contain words
of truth." (5)
(r) Larger Cat. Questions, 93. 91. (s) 2nd Edition, p. 290, 291.
( 38 )
Thus does this writer profess to prove that, by our
Catechisnij infants are "equally debarred from" baptism
and the Lord's supper; and that from our own creed,
Pedobaptism *' stands excluded to all intents and pur-
poses." It is no wonder, then, that he says this of the
scriptures. But on this subject I can tell him what proba-
bly never before entered his mind. It is this; that, accord-
ing to his rules of interpretation, it can be shewn that
our Catechism, as well as the scriptures, exclude in-
fants from salvation as well as from baptism, by requir-
ing faith for the one as well as the other. It speaks
as follows; viz. "To escape the wrath and curse of
" God due to us for sin, God requircth of us faith in
''•' Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent
" use of all the outward means whereby Christ commu-
^' nicateth to us the benefits of redemption. "(0 On this
article my Opponent might speak as follows; Mark! ! !
Only to believers, to penitents, to diligent seekers.
Can children believe? can children repent? can children
diligently use the means of grace? Is not salvation here
" exclusively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the
'' words unequivocally declare, in express concurrence
" with the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of
" the page." " According to the manifest scope and
'' tenor" of the article, "what comes of infant" salva-
tion? " It stands excluded to all intents and purposes."
To all such reasoning, whether on the scriptures or
the catechism, whether on infant salvation or infant
(/■) Shorter Cat. Quest. 85. See Lai-ger Cat. Qu. 153.
( 39 )
baptism, lean make no better answer than Goldsmith has
furnished me with : and that is, Fudge.
But the work from which I have quoted, professes
to admit that our standards advocate Pedobaptism, and
therefore accuses them of the inconsistency of approv-
ing it in one place^ and condemning it in anotlier. The
same, however, might as correctly be said of their
declarations on infant salvation. According to Baptist
rules of interpretation the above passage excludes
them all from heaven, for the want of faith : but another
passage says, ^^ Elect infants, dying in infancy, are re-
^^ generated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who
•^ worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.'^z^)
They must believe these to be contradictions. Be-
fore our ecclesiastical constitution is condemned for in-
consistency among the many alledged faults of that trans-
cendant production, let us try it by such sober rules as
practical wisdom has established for the interpretation
of our civil laws. Blackstone says, ^^ One part of a
*' statute must be so construed by another, that the
^^ whole may, (if possible) stand: lit res tnagis valeaf,
'^ quam pereatP According to this rule we can admit
that the church is sincere in professing to believe that
elect infants dying in infancy, are saved without faith;
and, in perfect consistency with thi:^, they believe that
faith, repentance, and the diligent use of the means of
grace, are necessary to the salvation of adults. In this
way we reconcile the declarations of our Saviour and
one of his Apostles. Peter says, concerning the
{li) Conf. of Faith, ch. x. sect 3.
( 40 }
promise of salvation by the blood and Spirit of Christ,
^^ The promise is unto you and to your children." Doubt-
less many of these children who died in infancy, were
saved without faith. Yet our Savour says, "he that
believeth not shall be damned." This, then, must be
understood of adults: ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
So when our church or other churches, or when Chris-
tian Fathers and Reformers, and ministers approve of
baptizing infants without faith, they are sincere : and
they are no less so, when they affirm that faith is neces-
sary to baptism ; because they mean this of adults ; so
that it is quite possible " that the whole may stand."
Thus we explain the scriptures. When they speak of
the ecclesiastical or ceremonial holiness of children,
and of circumcising and baptizing whole households
on the faith of the parent, when the infants cannot be-
lieve, we receive it as true : and it is no less true that
they often require personal piety as a qualification for
baptism; because they often speak of adult subjects.
This interpretation is of such a character, that the
whole may stand without contradiction ; that the thing
may have some meaning, rather than perish, by in-
consistency.
But my Opponent may tell me, ^ this is the point
^ to be tried. Prove that the scriptures do consider
' infants as suitable subjects of Christian baptism, and
^ we can easily prove that adults ^ are proper subjects;
• and we may possibly admit that the two may go to-
!^ gether without inconsistency.' To prove thai the
scriptures do admit infants to this ordinance, is the very
thing which I hope soon ro do : but before coming to this
( 41 )
point, it is necessary to declare what is meant by the
scriptures, and what weight is to be given to them in
this controversy. With the Westminster Assembly, I
can truly say that " Under the name of holy scripture,
^^ or the word of God written, arc now contained all
^^ the books of the Old and New Testament," " all
'^ which are given by inspiration of God, to be the
^^ rule of faith and life."(zj) With them, I can conscien-
tiously quote from the Old and New Testaments to
prove that '• the infants of one or both believing
'^ parents are to be baptized.'' Yet would you believe
that these very words, for the proof of which they have
referred to Genesis and Galatians, are in that same
Chapter on Baptism, which my Opponent quotes as
denying the authority of the Old Testament in this
controversy ; merely because it is there stated that
*^ Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, or-
dained by Jesus Christ. "(it>) This my Opponent takes
as his text, and professes to build upon it as follows, viz:
'•^1. We shall go to the New Testament, and not to
*^ the Old, to ascertain the nature, design, and subject
*^ of this ordinance. 2. We shall appeal to the words of
'^ Jesus Christ, for the institution of baptism, as our text
'* says, it is an ordinance of Jesus Christ ; we shall have
*' nothing to do with Moses in this matter, however
'^ useful he may be in others. No doubt our Opponent
*^ will feel his creed honored, and will acquiesce in
*^ our method as correct.'" " In establishing the first
*^ point, that a believer is the only subject of baptism,
{v) Chap. i. sect. 2. (w)Ch. xxviii. sect. 1. 4.
( 42 )
*^ I will, according to my text, appeal exclusively to
"the New Testament; and reason itself will justify
" me in this particular ; for who would go to the Old
" Testament to find an ordinance which is not in it,
" and which belongs exclusively to the JVew?^\x).
Whether this ordinance belongs exclusively to the
New Testament, is a point which we are about to try.
We are about to see whether the words immediately
preceding those which my Opponent has quoted are
not also true. They are as follows, viz. "The sacraments
" of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things
" thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance the
^' same with those of the New." I agree with the authors
of my Opponents text, that this initiatory rite, is, in its
present form, an ordinance of the New Testament ; but
I agree with them in believing moreover, that in its
substance, it is found in the Old Testament: and be-
cause it is there undeniably administered to infants,
therefore the opposers of infant baptism are too apt to
reject the authority of the Old Testament. Consider
well the following words of my Opponent, in the pros-
pectus of one of his publications. " The Editor ackiiow-
" ledging no standard of religious faith or works, other
" than the Old and New Testaments, and the latter as
'^ the only standard of the religion of Jesus Christ, will,
** intentionally at least, oppose nothing which it contains,
" and recommend nothing which it does not enjoin.'^
As it is the new Testament only, which he will not
intentionally oppose, we are left to infer that he will
(^)See Campbell's Spurious Debate, pp. 57,58.
( 43 )
intentionally oppose the Old Testament, as he most
assuredly does. But this he thinks justifiahle, since
it is not the standard, in whole nor in part, of the Chris-
tian religion, but of some other religion ; what this other
religion is, he may yet tell us.
In rejecting the authority of the Old Testament, my
Opponent only follows his instructor, the celebrated
disciple of Dr. Priestley. Robinson quotes with appro-
bation, the error of the Massalians, who '^' thought the
Old Testament a true history, but not a rule of Christian
action." The same thing he observes concerning the
Manicheans ; and then asks, " Who doth not see the
justness of this sentiment?'' He then observes that ^^ the
Fathers, particularly the Africans derived all the errors
that founded and supported their hierarchy [that is, they
derived Pedobaptism] from the Old Testament." These
observations belong to nine quarto pages, which the
American Editor has left out in one place; because,
in them, Robinson comes out as the advocate of Mani-
cheism, Socinianism, and every filthy thing which he can
lay his hands on.(y) If he be really sincere, in saying that
the African Fathers derived all their errors, as he calls
them, from the Old Testament, then he must consider
the Old Testament the worst book that was ever written,
not even the Westminster Confession excepted : for he
evidently considers the African Fathers the worst men,
and their system the worst religion, that can be found
on earth, or (I might say) in hell : but this great Baptist
champion did not believe that there was a hell.
(v) London Edition, pp 204 — 213.
( 44 )
After rejecting one lialf of Clod's word, Robinson and
his Socinians came very naturally to despise th other
half, and to throw contempt upon the external means
of grace in general. Pious Baptists of the present day
are not, perhaps, aware that this has been very much
the character of their sect from the begitining. This
arose in some measure, from their opposition to original
sin, and having too good an opinion of themselves. Stapfer
says, concerning them, '' Because they who had attained
^^ the highest grade of perfection and sanctity, no longer
*^ needed the external means of grace ; hence they set
^^ no great value upon the use of the sacred scriptures,
" and they deny that the reading of the Old Testament
^^ especially is useful to men of their society, either
*^^ that the doctrine of truth may be known, or the study
^^ of piety promoted. "(c)
Such sentiments as these, whether in Baptists or Pedo-
baptists, are essentially wrong. An inspired Apostle
of the New Testament says concerning the scriptures
of the Old Testament, '' All scripture is given by in-
'"' spiration of God, and is profitable for dot trine, for
^* reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteous-
^' ness.'Tw) If we were discussing the question of in-
fidelity instead of Christian baptism, I would, of course,
endeavour to prove the divine authority of the Scrip-
tures. At present we shall have to take this for grant-
ed. Whatever can be proved from the inspired vol-
ume, I shall consider as well proved ; and none but an
infidel will say otherwise. Indeed the latitude which
(;) Institutions of Polemic Theology, ch. xviii, sect. 10.
{a) 2 Tim. iii, 16.
( 45 )
I take is embraced in that very rule which my Opponent
has quoted with so much applause, concerning the in-
terpretation of one part of scripture by another. It
is also contemplated in another passage quoted from the
same excellent work, which declares the scriptui'es, in
regard to all essentials, sufficiently plain even to the un-
learned, "in a due use of the ordinary means. "(6) It
is to the unlearned, chiefly, that the argument of an
unlearned man is now addressed. To their satisfaction
I hope to shew, that the scriptures consider infants as
suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian bap-
tism. This proposition is based upon divine command
and Apostolical practice.
AMCiUMENT I.
DIVINE COMMAND.
On the authority of God, in relation to baptism, Booth
quotes a very precious sentiment of the great Cartwright,
the Father of the Puritans. " As the salvation of men
" ought to be dear unto us; so the glory of God, which
^^ consisteth in that his orders be kept, ought to be much
^^ more dear." A holy zeal for observing and enforcing
all God's commandments, out of regard to their Author,
is a lovely Christian grace: but as my Opponent has
just now observed that "all things in scripture are not
alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, "(c)
our zeal must be accompanied with knovyledge, or it
(6) See our Confession of Faith, ch. i. sect. 7. 9. quoted in the Spuri
cus Report, pp. 56. 57.
(c) Spurious Report, p. 56.
( 46 )
will degenerate into bigotry, or be converted into rebel-
lion. My Opponent seems to think that nothing but
what he calls an express command can authorize the bap-
tism of infants; as if God had no right to claim obedi-
ence to any law which was not framed according to my
Opponent's directions. Even if the scriptures were to
use the very words, baptize infants j or baptize childi'enj
it would not answer the purpose; because, according
to the criticisms with which his Master, Robinson, has
furnished him, infants and children, and all such words,
signify fnen and not babes. As such an express com-
mand would be unavailing, we do not think it disparag-
ing to the solid evidence which the scriptures contain,
to say, that this evidence does not satisfy his demands. In
my opinion, that person shews a divine command for
our system, who proves that God once gave to the
church a command, yet unrepealed, to administer to
infants that initiatory seal of which baptism is the New
Testament form ; who proves that this is included
in the command to disciple all nations, baptizing them ;
and in the declaration that children are holy ;
and should be suffered to come to Christ the
Head of the Church, because they are of the kingdom
of heaven, which is the church. He who shall prove
these, shews a divine command, although it is not what
my Opponent calls an express command.
Neither is this necessary in matters of doctrine or
practice, government or worship. It is well known
that Socinians deny that there is an express revelation
of the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, because these
words are not in the bible in this connexion : vet if it
( 47 )
can be proved from the bible that the Father is God,
and the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God,
and that these are not three Gods but one God, the doc-
trine is more firmly established than it would be by the
express words, Trinity in Unity. They also deny
the vicarious satisfaction of Christ for the same reason :
yet if it can be shewn that he was cut off for sins not his
own, and this to magnify God's law and make it honora-
ble, the doctrine is as fully proved as if the atonement
had been expressly defined by the words vicarious satis-
faction. There is not in the scriptures, an express pro-
hibition of duelling nor of lotteries, nor of gaming of
any sort; nor is there an express license for eating
swine's flesh ; neither is there any need of such expi-ess
statutes, for the scriptures are plain enough without them.
Where do the Baptists get an express command for their
independent form of Church government ? When they
will shew us a text saying. Ye shall be Independents,
and not Presbyterians, then 1 will shew one which says
expressly. Ye shall be Pedobaptists, and not Anabap-
tists. Where do pious Baptists find an express com-
mand for the observance of family prayer and the Chris-
tian sabbath, which they love, and my Opponent des-
pises? They would as soon look for an express com-
mand for drawing their breath: and rather than relin-
quish their domestic and sabbatical privileges, they
would, like Daniel, give up their breath.
On this subject my Opponent was completely posed
by Mr. Walker, his former Antagonist. My Opponent
asked him, <^ Was there ever a positive ordinance or
'^^ institution founded solely upon inference or reason?"
( 48 )
In reply, Mr Walker, on his part asked, ^^ Have we a
^^ positive command for all the acknowledged institutions
^^ of the church?" This was a true Socratic refutation.
It was so puzzling to my Opponent, that he chose not to
record it in his report of the Debate ; but, in its place,
he recorded (according to a custom of his) another ques-
tion which he manufactured for Mr. Walker, and
which he thought he could more easily answer. The
question which he made, is this; ^^ I ask him for a posi-
" tive command for the institution of a church." One
would suppose that, as he had the forming of the question
and the answer too, he would make the latter come up,
at least, to the level of his own demands. But this he
w^as very far from doing. You know that he will not
allow any passage of scripture to be a divine command
for infant baptism unless it has the word infant in it. It
is also a sine qua non with him that it should have the
word baptism in it. When Mr. Walker quoted authori-
ties which were destitute of these words, my Antago-
nist indignantly answered as follows, viz. ^' Is it possi-
" ble that my Opponent has no better support for his
"'^system? Is he obliged to prove a New Testament
*^ positive institution from the 17tli Chapter of Genesis?
'* from portions of scripture in wliich haptism is never
^' mentioned? In all the scriptures he has yet adduced,
^'^ baptism is not so much as once mentioned. "(c?j
Now let us see whether he has come up to his own
demands in answering his own question, which he intend-
ed to make very easy. If a divine command for the
(c/) Spurious Debate witli Mr. Walker, p. 23.
( 49 )
baptism of infants require the express mention of bap-
tism and iiifaatSj then an express command for the in-
stitution of a church must at least mention the words m-
stitution and church. He sets about his answer with
the bravery of Napoleon, when entering Moscow. He
refers us to the passage where our Saviour commands
his disciples to teach or disciple all nations, baptizing
them, and teaching them to observe all things. (e) This
is, like Mr. Walker's authority for infant baptism, very
good proof, but, like that, it is utterly destitute of those
words which his Opponent considered necessaryto con-
stitute it an express command. Mr. Walker might,
therefore, have answered, " Is it possible that my Op-
^^ ponent has no better support for his system ? Is he
'' obliged to prove the institution of a church from the
'^ 28th chapter of Matthew ? from portions of scripture
*^ in which neither institution nor church is ever men-
" tioned ?'' -
But he quotes another passage which has the word
churchy though it does not speak of its original institu-
tion, nor propoinid a command, but states a historical
fact, that ^^ The Lord added to the church daily such
'^ as should l)e saved. ''(/) This he triumphantly closes
with declaring, " Here there is a positive institution of
'^ a church, with the authority for it." We are not so
much disposed to quarrel with this declaration as he is
himself. Let us now compare his question with his an-
swer, and with the rules which he has dictated in rela-
tion to such subjects. His question requires " a positive
{e) Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. in the Spurious Debate with Mr. VV. p. 51.
(/) Acts ii. 47. in tlic Spurious Debate with Mr. VV. [). 51-
G
( 50 )
'* command for the institution of a church.'' His an-
swer states a historical fact, in which members were
added to a church, without any express mention either
of its charter or of its original institution. It seems pe-
culiarly inconsistent for him to call this historical fact,
(without a precept,) " a positive institution of a church,"
in the close of a paragraph, which commences by defin-
ing a positive institution to be a particular precept. His
own words are these, viz. " In positive institutions, all
" that we have to inquire after, is the meaning of the
^^ words of one particular precept, which, to an iota, we
'^ are bound to perform, in the manner in which it is
^* commanded." Now, I would ask, has Mr. Walker's
Opponent ever yet given us his ^^ one particular pre-
cept, which, to an iota," expressly gives " a positive
command for the institution of a church," in so many
words, according to his own requisitions, and according
to his own promise ? If, then, he has not answered his
own question, which he intended to make as easy as pos-
sible, it is no wonder that he has never answered Mr.
Walker's question, '^ Have we a positive command for
all the acknowledged institutions of the church ?"
Let it be remembered that this question of Mr.
Walker's was connected with one or two of his Oppo-
nent's, which asked, *' Was there ever a positive ordi-
'^ nance or institution founded solely upon inference or
^^ reason? Or can there be a positive institution, with-
^' out a positive precept or precedent authorizing it."(jg-)
These questions are framed witli an unfairness, which
(.£>•) Spurious Debate with Mr, W. p. 68.
( 51 )
says little in favour of their author's candour or of his
cause. Have we ever professed that infant-baptism was
" founded solely upon inference or reason?'' Have we
not always appealed to positive precepts and precedents
of revelation for our authority ? Neither do I see the
danger of admitting, in the established meaning of the
words, his favourite principle that " a limited commis-
sion implies a prohibition of such things as are not con-
tained in it."(A) We say that infant-baptism is contain-
ed in the commission, an ! therefore not prohibited by it:
and we prove this in the same reasonable and scriptural
way in which our Opponents prove the (hity of female-
communion. They do not find a passage of scripture
which says expressly, ^^ Females must commune ;'" yet
they find evidence that Christ's believing diseijles
should commune ; they therefore admit to tbat ])rivihge
such females as answer that description. This is a legi-
timate inference from authority which contains no ex-
press mention of females. Suppose a person inquiring
whether the scriptures forbid him to demand from his
brother a hundred per centum, per annum, interest on
lent money. He is referred to Nehemiah v. 11, which
forbids him to receive the centesima.f which is one per
cent, a month, or twelve per cent, a year. This does
not expressly mention the ratio in question : yet it as
really forbids that exorbitant usury, as it could do by
mentioning the identical words. This is according to
my Opponent's declaration, "^ that a man is not to reason
•'* whether he is to be just or honest ; but he may reason
[K) Spurious Debate with Walker, p. 209. with M-Calla, p. ll-^,
* ( 52 )
•* to know in what justice and honesty consist."(^) Thus
he does not consider himself at liberty to reason wiiether
believing disciples should commune or not, for this is
settled by revelation ; but he may reason to know in
what faith and discipleship consist. This course my
Opponent pursues, but he knows the consequences of
it, as is evident from the declamatory vituperation with
which his argument is bloated. In his spurious debate
with Mr. Walker,(j') he uses the following words, viz.
*^ As to his second query concerning female communion,
^^ I have to observe that although sundry Pedobaptists
^^ have made a salvo to soothe their minds, of this appa-
^^ rent difficulty, it is a poor and a pitiful come off; it is
'^ the most puerile and childish retort that I ever heard
^^ used by adults that had any knowledge of \Yords and
^' things. Was the Lord's supper instituted to men or
*^ women as such ? Was it not appointed to the disci-
'' pies of Christ? * He gave it to his disciples, saying,
^^ partake ye all of it.' Here then is an express war-
^' rant for all disciples to participate of the Lord's sup-
^^ per. Now it puts Mr. Walker, and all Pedobaptists
^' that humble themselves to such means to support their
^' cause, to prove or to show, that a woman is not a dis-
*' ciple of Christ. But should they attempt this, I have
^* express authority to shew that they oppose the oracles
^' of heaven, for a woman is expressly called a disciple,
^' Acts ix. 36. ^ For there was a certain disciple there
•^^ named Tabitha ;' so that these obstacles thrown in my
*^ way, are but mea.it- to afford a clearer and fuller illus-
(i) Spurious Debate with Mn Walker, p. 5Q. ( ;) p. 69.
( 53 )
•^ tration and confirmatioa of the truth of my reasoning
" on positive institutions."
1'^ Afy i^easonhig on positive institutions^^ ! ! ! Suo it
seems that Pedobaptists are not the only ones who reason
on positive institutions. You have just now heard a
specimen of my Opponent's reasoning on these subjects.
It would be well if all his reasonings were as correct as
that which supports female communion, for which he is
not able to find what he calls an express command. His
pretending that Mr. Walker is opposed to this argument
is pretence only. He knows that we admit his inference
as legitimate ; but he knows also, that the same argu-
ment about discipleship will establish infant- baptism. In
our Saviour's commission, '^'^ teach all nations, baptizing
them,'' critics generally interpret the word rendered
teach, as meaning disciple, or make disciples of. My
Opponent says, "^ This is unquestionably the proper ren-
dering of the term."(j^) Pedobaptists have often proved,
and, in due time, I hope to prove, in this debate, that
the scriptures recognize the discipleship not only of
Tabitha, or of Lydia, but of their households, and of the
infants of all believers. And here it will not do to ob-
ject that if infants are disciples, they must partake of
the supper also, on account of a supposed universality
in our Saviour's command to his disciples, '^ Partake ye
all of it." So far is this command from requiring us
to administer the supper to d.sciples of all ages, that it
does not bind us to administer it to adult believing
disciples universally, since the discipline of Christ's
{Ic) Spurious Debate with me, p. H",
( 54 )
own appointment sometimes cuts them ofi' from this
privilege.
But while my Opponent may be marshalling objec-
tions, I would remind him that his own argument, which
is admitted to be good, is liable to as seriotis objections
as any which he urges against ours. When we give di-
vine authority for the administration of the seal of the
righteousness of faith to infant disciples as well as adult
believers, he objects that circumcision never was the
seal of the righteousness of faith in any case except that
of Abraham only, because the only instance in which
this expression is used is in connexion with his name.
If this mode of expounding the scriptures be admitted,
how will my Opponent's argument for female communion
fare in the hands of a bold objector ? Recollect that it
rests upon female discipleship, and female discipleship,
according to my Opponent, rests upon the discipleship
ofTabitha. The objector, therefore, would take my
Opponent on his own ground, and say. As circumcision
was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only,
and to no other male, so discipleship was attached to
Tabitha only, and to no other female ! !
Again ; when we say, //"disciples should be baptized,
and if the infants of believers are disciples, then these
infants should be baptized, my logical Opponent laughs
at our ifs, and would make you believe that sound logic
does not recognize hypothetical syllogisms at all ! Yet,
strange to tell ! his boasted argument for female com-
munion is virtually a hypothetical syllogism. It is as
follows :
( 55 )
j//* disciples should commune; and
If females be disciples, then
Females should commune : but
Disciples should commune ; and
Females are disciples ; therefore
Females should commune.
Now in all this, where is my Opponent's express
command for female communion? His vapouring argu-
ment does not even assert it : but only says that he has
*^ an express warrant for all disciples to participate of
'^ the Lord's supper ;" after which he has to shew that
females are disciples. So we have an express warrant
for baptizing disciples ; and we prove from scripture
that believers and their infants are subjects of this disci-
pleing and baptizing. When my Opponent pursues this
method of reasoning to establish the duty and privilege
©f female communion, he would think it a breach of the
ninth commandment, for any one to tell him that he held
'^ a positive ordinance or institution, founded solely upon
inference or reason," '^ without a positive precept.'*
His argument proves that there is a divine precept,
though not what he calls an express command. He
proves that the duty in question is not founded solely
upon reason, but upon revelation. That there is the
same authority for infant-baptism, must be fairly con-
cluded from the establishment of the following propo-
sitions.
1. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a
visible church of God.
2. The Christian Church is a branch of the Abrahamic
Church : or, in other words,, the Jewisli Societv before
( 50 )
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 com-
manded it.
5. The administration of this seal to infants has never
since been prohibited by divine authority ; that is, this
command of God, originally given in the Old Testa-
ment, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather
confirmed.
Therefore, this command is still in force. And as it
is a command to administer to infants the initiatory seal
of the church, which, under the Christian dispensation,
is baptism, there is now a divine command for baptizing
the infants of believers. Admit the premises, and the
conclusion is inevitable. Whether these propositions
be loved or feared, hated or revered, derided or res-
pected, they necessarily involve the conclusion. Logic
may exhibit its sophistry, rhetoric its rage, satire its
wit, and vulgarity its scurrility, but if these premises
be true, infant- baptism is a duty. My Opponent knows
that if he were to admit the truth of these propositions,
he would lose his cause at once. He therefore disputes
them ; and I therefore, with a good conscience, and
depending on divine help, proceed to prove them.
( 57 )
PROPOSITION I.
Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a
visible church op god.
Many Baptists, such as Booth, Butterworth, and Jiid-
son, appear as if they could adopt this proposition just
as it stands. The second of these writers, in his Con-
cordance, gives, as the fourth meaning of the word
Church, '' The people of the Jews, ivho ivas the church
and people of God.'' In proof of this he refers to Acts
vii. 38, which says, " This is he that was in the church
in the wilderness." A person who is unacquainted with
the ways of my Opponent, might suppose, from some of
his declarations, that he also believed this doctrine. He
has even accused Dr. Rallston of misrepresentation for
denying it. In his Strictures at the end of his spurious
Debate with Mr. Walker, (/) he speaks as follows, viz.
" Mr. R. affirms that I * deny that there was a visible
^' church in the world until the day of Pentecost.' He
'^ refers to no page in the Debate, nor could he, for there
'^ is not such a declaration in the whole book. Nay, so
^^ far is the above from fact, that I again and again speak
'^ of a visible church in theworld from Moses' time to
^^ the day of Pentecost. Page 26, I called the Jews
'^ God's people, and spoke of their visible church state :
*' so also in pages 40, 41, 43, 44, 53, 98, I spoke of the
'* Jewish church, and of their visible church state ; and
(/)p. 223.,
H
I
( 58 )
^' repeatedly contrasted the Jewish Church with the
^* Christian Church — Yet Mr R. affirms that I denied
^^ there was a visible church on earth till the day of
^^ Pentecost ! !" From this, one would suppose that it
was a settled opinion with my Opponent that the Jewish
people were long the visible church of God, and that he
was much in the habit of insisting upon this point; and
that he had especially urged this doctrine in the many
pages to which he refers. The last of these references
must be a mistake, as it does not contain a word upon the
subject. If the first of them prove the ecclesiastical
state of the Jews, it goes far to shew their identity with
the Christian church. But this could not have been his
meaning, since it is in direct opposition to the two suc-
ceding references. His second and third are occupied
about Stephen's " church in the wilderness/' which
Butterworth, an eminent Baptist preacher, agrees with
Mr. Walker, in considering '' the people of the JewSf
who was the church and people of God." This my Op-
ponent disputes in the places referred to, by trying to
prove that the word translated church may mean a mob,
like that of Demetrius, at Ephesus, instead of a chwch
of God ! This is a curious way to prove the visible
church state of the Jews. The only remaining refer-
ence in the whole list is of "a piece with these. Instead
of saying, as he pretends, that the Jews were the visible
church of God, he tries to prove that they were not the
Church of Christ, by an argument which, if true, must
go equally to prove that they could not be the church
of God, unless he could shew that the latter was a dif-
ferent and inferior being to the former. It is evident
( 59 )
from his whole book, that he is far from being friendly
to the doctrine in question, so that instead of Dr.
Rallston's misrepresenting him, he has really misrepre-
sented himself.
It is true that he has, in this debate, offered to concede
the point, provided that I will pass on without taking
up time in proving it. This, however, has turned out
nothing more than a ruse de guerre, to induce me to
leave an enemy's garrison in the rear. For when he was
called upon to fulfil a stipulation which was of his own ask-
ing, he refused, and oiFered to substitute something of a
very different character, viz. ^'That the Jews, when call-
" ed out of Egypt, became a church, or a religious
*'^ assembly in some sense. "(w?) ^^ a church, or a
*' religious asse7nbly in some sense.^' In what sense,
pray ? His debate with Mr. Walker tells us. It is in
that sense in which the very religious assembly at
Ephesus was a church ; that assembly which was con-
vened and opened with a Hymn by the zealous Demetrius,
and, after much noise and bodily exercise, addressed and
dismissed by his Reverence the town clerk.
But this pretended concession denies that the Jews
were a church or a religious assembly in any sense, till
called out of Egypt. In accordance with this, he asserts
that " they were never called a church until in the
^^ wilderness. This," says he, "may be denied, but there
" lives not the man that can produce an instance to the
^' contrary." He farther assures us, that " the occur-
" rences at Sinai are ever afterwards referred to by
(m) Spurious Del)ate with me p. 386.
i 60 )
^^ Jewish and Christian Prophets as the commencement
^^ of their ecclesiastic existence. The covenant at
^^ Sinai, therefore, is the only national or ecclesiastic
^^ covenant from Adam to the Messiah, recorded in the
^^ Bible. "(n) That the Sinaitic covenant is the consti-
tution of the Jewish Church, (if church he will permit
it to be called,) my Opponent endeavours to prove by
two positions. One is that '^ the occurrences at Sinai
*^ are ever afterwards referred to by Jewish and Christian
^' Prophets as the commencement of their ecclesiastic
^' existence." As this language plainly intimates that
the Old and New Testaments are full of evidence to this
eifect, you might reasonably expect the author of so bold
an assertion to specify a few instances : but he has not
here given one ; and (to use his own language) I can
safely say, '^ there lives not the man that can produce
*^ an instance." His other argument or assertion that
" they were never called a church until in the wilder-
" ness," " at Sinai," is as irrelevant as it is incorrect.
It goes upon the assumption that churches are made by
names and not by acts. It is only a few years since the
name of Baptists was given to any body of men on earth ;
for even the followers of John were not called Baptists.
Is my Opponent willing to admit that they are no older
than their name? Again ; ^* the disciples were called
Christians first in Antioch." Were there no Christians
at all, until this name w^as given to them ? This shews
the utter irrel-^ vav y of the argument that the Jews
/^ were never called a church until" the Sinaitic cove-
(n) Spurious Debate, ]p. 398.
( 61 )
nant, even if this statement were true, which it assuredly
is not, although he has aflirmed it so roundly. I will
not say that our translation of the Old Testament calls
them a church before their arrival at Sinai ; but neither
does it call them a church subsequent to that period.
It is remarkable that our translators generally make
congregation in the Old. Testament correspond with
church in the New. This is very much condemned by
Dr. George Campbell, my Opponent's favourite critic,
who says that "they ought constantly to have rendered
" the original expression either church in the Old
" Testament or congregation in the New.'' " What I
'' blame, therefore," says he, " in our translators, is the
^' want of uniformity." In the same connexion, the Dr.
repeatedly declares that " the Hebrew word 7,1p
[rendered congregation in the Old Testament] exactly
corresponds to the Greek ixxxrimo.^^ [rendered church
in the New Testament. ](o) Although Dr. Campbell
belonged to a Pedobaptist church, I adduce his authority
without fear of opposition, because, in the passages
quoted, he is, as usual, an advocate for Baptist peculiari-
ties, in opposition to the creed which he had solemnly
adopted. A work, however, which my Opponent has
quoted against us,(j&) states, in the very passages which
he has read with approbation, the same thing substan-
tially which Dr. Campbell has declared, with this
addition, that another Hebrew word ni^^ is upon the
same footing with ^Hp^ since both alike are, in our
(o) See his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History. Lecture 10. Pac;e5
163. 164. Philadelphia Edition of 1807.
(/i) Dr. Mason on the Cliurch.
( 62 )
bible, rendered congregation, and both alike are used
to signify the church.
Now it is very easy for my Opponent to prove that
they were called and considered a visible church after
their arrival at Sinai, by such passages as Lev. iv. 14,
21j where it is said that '' ^T\'pr\ the church shall offer
a young bullock for the sin, and bring him before the
tabernacle of 1^")D the church,''^ as " a sin-offering for
vllpn the churchP It is certainly the true church of
God that is here intended, and not a mob like that of
Ephesus. But before this church had come to Sinai,
or even left Egypt, it is said in Ex. xii. 6, concerning
the sacrifice of the Passover, that " the whole H"!!^ /Up
assembly of the church, or church of the congregation
of Israel shall kill it in the evening.'' Concerning this
also it may be said that the true church of God is here
intended, and not a mob like that at Ephesus. An ex-
amination of Lev. viii. 3- xvi. 5, with the context, will
shew plainly that, after their arrival at Sinai, the Israelites
were called ni^^ the church in the ecclesiastical sense
of the word ; for they are represented as engaged in
ecclesiastical business. But in Ex. xii. 3, 47, the same
people are twice called by the same name, and repre-
sented as engaged in the same business, before they had
set out on their journey to Mount Sinai. After that
period, their discipline ordained that ^^ the man that shall
" be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul
*^ shall be cut off from among ^'HpH the church.^'iq) But
before they left Egypt, it was similarly ordained con-
(q) Num. xix. 20.
( 63 )
cerning the Passover, that "whosoever eateth that
^* which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off
" S^^'nti^* DI^D from the church of IsimelJ^ (r)
It will be recollected that my Opponent referred to
an instance in which he " called the Jews God's people*'
as a proof that he believed in "their visible church
state."(s) According to this, "God's people" must
mean the church of God. What is here plainly implied
by my Opponent, is expressly declared by Dr. George
Campbell, in a Lecture which is intended to build Con-
gregationalism (the Baptist form of Government) on the
ruins of Presbyterianism. After pointing out several
expressions as ^^ confessedly equivalent" to each other,
he adds, " The same may be said of the phrases 7np
^^ C3\1 7J< and D^H 7N D^'*? n ixxX'^Gia, Otov and o xoo; etot
" the church of Go(/and the people of God/\t) This was
evidently the understanding of Butterworth, the Baptist
writer, when he called the Jews " the church and peo-
ple of God." This is in conformity with Lev. xvi. 33,
which says " He shall make an atonement for the priests,
and for all the ^Hpn D^^? people of the church/'
Moses uses the word people alone, in a sense which can-
not easily be misunderstood. " Whatsoever soul it be that
" eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be
" cut off from his peopleP{d) The w^ord people here
evidently means the same church contemplated in Lev.
xix. 20, and Ex. xii. 9, from which church it is ordained
that a soul shall be cut oif for eating leavened bread, and
(r) Exodus xii. 19.
(s) Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 223, quoted above.
(0 See liis tenth Lecture on Ecclesiastical History, quoted above.-
(a) Lev. vii, 27.
( 64 ;
for neglecting to purify himself. And from premises*
which we have already shewn are admitted by Baptists
and Pedobaptists, we fairly conclude that this visible
church of God is meant by the people from whom the
uncircumcised man-child is said to be cut off in Gen.
xvii. 14. ^^ And the uncircumcised man-child, whose
*^ flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall
" be cut off from Vis people; [that is, from his church ;]
^' he hath broken my covenant;'' [that is my ecclesiastical
covenant,] made four hundred and thirty years before
my Opponent's ecclesiastical covenant, at Sinai.
If I be not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent's own
argument operates with irresistible force against himself.
He reasons that the Jews were not a church until they
came to Sinai, because they were not called a church
until that period. Then if they had been called a church
before, this would prove that they were really a church
before the Sinaitic covenant. But we have shewn
several proofs that they were called a church, in the
ecclesiastical sense of the word, before they left Egypt,
and we have shewn that they were called by a name " con-
fessedly equivalent" in the covenant with Abraham,
where the violation of that covenant is given as a reason
for excommunication from that church. This subject
we hope, witli divine permission, to pursue farther before
we are done with the proposition that *' Abraham and
his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of
God."
When we speak of Abraham's seed, take notice that
this is the language which the scriptures use on this very
subject. God says to Abraham, "This is my covenant
( 65 )
** which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy
'* SEED after thee ; every man-child among you shall be
*^ circumcised. ''(z/; This term is not used to embrace
the children of Hagar and Keturah. " And God said,
" Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed ; and thou
" shalt call his name Isaac : and I will establish my co-
" venant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with
<* HIS SEED after him."(i?) " And God said unto Abra-
" ham, let it not be grievous in thy sight, because of the
*^ lad, and because of thy bond- woman; in all that Sarah
" hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice : for in
" Isaac shall thy seed be csL[\ed.'\w) " Neither be-
" cause they are the seed of Abraham, are they all chil-
" dren : but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Tliat is,
" they which are the children of the flesh, these are not
" the children of God : but the children of the promise
" are counted for the seed. ''(a:)
This ecclesiastical seed does not embrace the de-
scendants of Isaac universally. Reprobate Esau, and,
to a great degree, his progeny, were excluded, with
every uncircumcised male of Jacob's posterity, accord-
ing to Gen. xvii. 14. Moreover, the excommunication
of even circumcised persons must have sometimes occur-
red. Instances are mentioned in the New Testament. (?/)
At an earlier period, Ezra proclaimed a general meet-
ing, from which, if any man were absent, ^^ all his sub-
" stance should be forfeited, and himself separated from
" the 7np church of those that had been carried away.*'
On this passage, Dr. Gill, the greatest Baptist Commen-
(u\ Gen. xvii. 10. {v\ Gen. xvii. 19. {v) Gen. xxi. 12.
(x) Rom. ix, 7. 8. \y) John ix, 22, romp. Luke vi. 22.
( 66 )
tator^ says that the absentee from this meeting ^^ should
be excommunicated from them as a churchy and be no
more reckoned of the body politic, or a freeman of
Israel, and so deprived of all privileges, both in church
and state. '^(z) That very excommunication w^hich the
Doctor says was here threatened, was afterward inflicted
upon the great body of the Jewish people, the old
branches of the ecclesiastical olive tree. Paul says,
*^ because of unbelief they were broken off. "(a) If,
therefore, there had been no engrafting of foreign cions,
the church v^^ould have been nearly or altogether ex-
tinct.
We observe, therefore, that the ecclesiastical seed
did not embrace the descendants of Isaac exclusively.
According to Moses, Edomites were permitted to "enter
into the \t\T> church of the Lord in their third genera-
tion.''(Z>) In Isaiah,(c) God has promised great additions
from Egypt and Assyria. And we are informed of the
actual accession of Ebed-Melech, the Ethiopian, Rahab
of Jericho, and Ruth the Moabitess.(fi?) Besides this,
there is an innumerable multitude whom Paul represents
as saying ^' The branches were broken off, that I might
be grafted m.^'{e) Concerning these he says, " They
which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham ;"(/)
upon the ground, that " to Abraham and his seed were
the promises made.''(^)
These materials afibrd the following definition, viz.
The SEED of Abraham are his descendants in the line of
(z) Gill's Commentary on Ezra x. «. {a) Rom. xi. 20.
lb) Deut. xxiii. 7, 8. {c) xix. 23, 24.
Id) Jer. xxxviii. 7—12. Matt. i. 5. (f)Rom. xi. 19.
(/)GuI. iii. 9. Ig)^-^^- iii- 16.
( 67 )
Isaac, in good standing as professors of the true religion,
with others added to them. Substituting this periphrasis
for the word seed, in the proposition now under discus-
sion, it will read as follows, viz. Abraham and his
descendants, in the line of Isaac, in good standing as
professors of the true religion, with others added to
them, were divinely constituted a visible church of God.
It will, of course, be understood that the phrase visible
church means a society, distinct from the body of the
elect, and distinct from that portion of the elect who
are already in glory. These are called the invisible
church, and the church triumphant ; from which the
visible church, whether under the old or the new dis-
pensation, is quite distinct. It is a visible society, acting
as the consecrated depository of the oracles and ordi-
nances of revealed religion. With the substitution of
this explanation, for the phrase which it is intended to
define, the proposition under consideration will read as
follows, viz. Abraham and his seed were divinely con-
stituted a visible society, acting as the consecrated
depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed
religion.
In oppugnation of this position, it will not avail to
prove that the Jews were a body politic ; for this is
quite consistent with their being an ecclesiastical body
also : and the fact of their being both a church and a
state, is admitted in the extract just now given from the
great Baptist commentator. Dr. Gill. It is equally
futile to produce instances of a simultaneous tenure of
civil and ecclesiastical offices ; for this is quite common
amongst us, where church and state are certainly
( 68 )
distinct. Neither will it do to alledge the moral turpi-
tude of individual members against the existence of the
Jewish, any more than the Christian church ; for spotless
purity belongs to the church triumphant only, and even
universal sincerity to the invisible church only. I would
also wish you to remember that the question is not now
concerning the sameness of the Jewish and Christian
churches, but whether the Jews were a church at all.
That they were, I shall endeavour to prove, by shewing
that they had the qualifications and constituents of a
church, in the following order :
1. The oracles of a church.
2. The ordinances.
3. The members.
4. The officers.
5. The constitution.
6. The inspired name of a church.
If all these points can be proved from the word of
God, we shall have good reason for believing that
Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible
church of God ; and we shall have advanced one step
to the conclusion that a command given to him, for
administering to infants the initiatory seal of the church,
is still binding.
POINT J.
The Jews had the oracles of a viaible Church of God.
Paul says, " unto them were committed the Oracles o(
♦* God. "(A) The character and design of these oracles
(A) Rom. iii. 2.
( 69 )
Were evidently not those of a mere political code ; but
to convey religious instruction, to testify of Christ, to
give us hope, life, wisdom and salvation. Concerning
them, Peter says, ^^ We have also a more sure word of
*^ prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as
^^ unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day
^^ dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts. "(/) Paul
says, ^^ From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures
^' [of the Old Testament] whicli are able to make thee
" wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ
'^ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
^' and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correc-
^^ tion, for instruction in righteousness ; that the man of
" God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all
'^ good works. "(y) John says, '^ The testimony of Jesus
*' is the spirit of prophecy. "(>^) In addressing the Jews,
our Saviour said, " Search the scriptures ; for in them
*^ ye think ye have eternal life ; and they are they
" which testify of me." ^^ For had ye believed Moses,
^^ ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me."(/)
When the rich man in hell besought the patriarch in
heaven, to send an extraordinary messenger to his five
brethren, " Abraham saith unto him, they have Moses
*^ and the prophets ; let them hear them.*' When the
rich man repeated his request that one might arise from
the dead, Abraham replied, ^' If they hear not Moses
" and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded,
^' though one rose from the dead.(m) By the mouth of
(0 2 Pet. i. 19. compare verses 20. 21. (J) 2 Tim. iii. 15— ir,
(k) Rev. xix. 10. (/) John v. 39. 46.
(m)Lukc xvi. 27 — 31.
( 70 )
Ezekielj one of those prophets, God says, " I gave them
*^ my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which,
'^ if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover,
"^ also, I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between
'^ me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord
" that sanctify them."(?i) The Psalmist says, '^ For he
^^ established a testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law
'^ in Israel, which he commanded our fathers, that they
'^ should make them known to their children, that the
" generation to come might know them, even the chil-
^' dren which should be born, who should arise and
" declare them to their children, that they might set
" their hope in God, and not forget the works of God,
*^ but keep his commandments. "(o) On the declaration
of the Psalmist, that ^'^he established a testimony in
'^ Jacob," the great Baptist commentator speaks as
follows, viz. " This is established in the house of Jacob,
** (as the Targum ;) in the church, which is the pillar
" and ground of truth, among the saints and people of
'^ God, to whom it is delivered, and by whom it will be
'^ kept, and with whom it will remain throughout all
^^ ages, for it is the everlasting gospel." It is pleasing
to find such high Baptist authority as Dr. Gill, admitting
that the Old Testament oracles contained the gospel,
and that this testimony was committed to Jacob as a
church f as the saints and people of God.
(n) Ez, XX. 11, 12. (o) Psalm Ixxviii. S—S
( 71 )
POIKT II.
The Jews had the ordinances of a visible Church of God.
*' Who are Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the adop-
^^ tion, and the glory, and the covenants, [among which
^^ that with Abraham is prominent,] and the giving of
'^ the law, and the service of God, and the promises ;
^* whose are the fathers, [among whom Abraham holds a
^' conspicuous place,] and of whom, as concerning the
** flesh, Christ [the substance of all the ordinances] came,
^^ who is over all, God blessed forever. "(j&) Long be-
fore the transactions at Sinai, the covenant with Abra-
ham recognized the ordinance of circumcision. " And
*^ God said unto Abraham, thou shalt keep my covenant,
'' therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in' their gene-
^' rations. This is my covenant which ye shall keep
'' between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; every
^^ man-child among you shall be circumcised. "(g') In
the wilderness God gave them the manna which was a
daily spiritual feast. ^^ For the bread of God is he
** which Cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto
'^ the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore
" give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am
'^ the bread of life : he that cometh to me shall never
" hunger ; and he that believeth on me shall never
^^ thirst."(r) On the words ^^ evermore give us this
bread," Dr. Gill observes, ^^ but to such who are true
*^ believers in Christ, who have tasted that the Lord is
(/O Rom. ix. 4, 5. (7) Gen. xvii. 9, 10. (r) John vi. 33 — 35.
( 72 )
^* gracious, Christ, the true manna and bread of God, is
" all things to them ; nor do they desire any other: they
*' taste every thing that is delightful, and find every
" thing that is nourishing in him/' Paul connects this
with the stream which quenched their thirst. " And
" did all eat the same spiritual meat ; and did all drink
^^ the same spiritual drink : for they drank of that spi-
*^ ritual rock which followed them, and that Rock was
** Christ. ''(s) On this passage, Dr. Gill remarks that
*^ Christ may be compared to the rock,"' " in the sup-
port of his church,''^ '^^ as he is the foundation of his
church and every believer,'' *' as the foundation of his
church, abiding forever." Now compare the text and
the Baptist commentary. The Apostle informs us that
the Jews, long before the Christian dispensation, were
supported by the spiritual Rock : the Commentator de-
clares that those who were thus supported, stand in re-
lation to Christ, as his church ; and the expression his
CHURCH is thrice repeated in a few lines. If there be
meaning in language, this points out the Jews before the
New Testament day, as the church of Christ.
But my Opponent professes to produce New Testa-
ment authority, to shew that the ordinances of the Jews
were not such as should belong to the spiritual and hea-
venly religion of the true God, but that they were
worldly and carnal ordinances. Paul says, " Then ve-
'^ rily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine
^^ service, and a worldly sanctuary." " Which stood
•** only in meats and divers washings, and carnal ordi-
[s) 1 Cor. X. .I, 4^
( 73 )
** nances imposed on them, until the time of reforma-
'^ tion."(/) To support him here, he adduces the trans-
lation and commentary of the learned Dr. Macknight, a
celebrated Pedobaptist. It would be well for him to
examine his notes, and see whether this is not a mistaken
reference. Although the Dr. had a tender regard for
almost all descriptions of error, he does not support my
Opponent, on the point for which he is cited. The Dr.
tells us that this worldly sanctuary was called so, '^ not
^' because it was a holy place on earth, and made of
^' materials furnished from the earth, but because it was
'^ a representation of the world or universe.'^ It may
surely be all this, and yet a proper sanctuary for the
worship of the true God by his visible church. As for
these carnal ordinances, he calls them '' ordinances con-
^^ cerning the fleshy''^ ^^ respecting the purifying of the
" body,^^ ^Miterally, righteousnesses of the flesh, things
*' which make the flesh, not the spirit righteous."
These are his own words, in his translation, commentary,
and notes. These words are correct, even where they
oppose Dr. Magee's opinion that, in some cases, the
Jewish sacrifices make a real satisfaction to divine
justice. On these and the various ordinances connected
with them, I believe, with Dr. Gill, " that they were all
^^ types and figures of Christ, and had their fulfilment in
'^ \i\vaj\u) He shews that Philo, the Jew, explained
this worldly sanctuary as Macknight does ; yet surely
Philo believed the Jews to be a church. In opposition
to them both, however, the Dr. says, *^ It was rather
(0 Hebr. ix. 1. 10. (u) On Hebr. ix. 1=
K
( 74 )
'^ either a type of the church, or of heaven, or of
" Christ's human nature : the better reason of its being
" so called is, because it consisted of earthly matter
^^ and worldly things ; it was in the world, and only had
" its use in the world, and so is opposed to the heavenly
^^ sanctuary."(M) None of these views have the least
bearing against the doctrine that this worldly sanctuary
is an ecclesiastical sanctuary, unless you will first prove
that no church can exist in the world. But that we may
not be at a loss concerning its ecclesiastical character,
God said to Solomon, " I have heard thy prayer, and
^* have chosen this place to myself, for an house of
^^ sacrifice." " Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine
" ears attent unto thy prayer, that is made in this place.
'^ For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that
*^ my name may be there forever : and mine eyes and
*^ mine heart shall be there perpetually. "(z?) If a holy
residence of God, consecrated to sacrifice and prayer,
is not dignified enough to be called an ecclesiastical
sanctuary, I should like to know where you would find a
church in our day. This doctrine was held by the
Jews, in opposition to the Samaritans, down to the time
of our Saviour, to whom the Samaritan woman applied
to decide the controversy. This gave him an oppor-
tunity of instructing her in the new dispensation, which
has laid the dispute asleep almost ever since, until, in
late days, it has been revived by some Baptists, who
have a zeal not according to knowledge. Among those
I am happy to find that the pious and learned Dr. Gill is
(w) On Hebr. ix. 1. {v) 2 Chr. vii, 12, 15, 16.
( 75 )
not numbered. He comments upon the words of the
Samaritan woman, as follows, viz. '' And ye say that in
^' Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship;
*' that is, in the temple there; who urged, and very
'' rightly, that God had chosen that place to put his
** name, and fix his worship there ; and had ordered
^^ them to come thither, and bring their offerings and sacri-
^' fices, and to keep their Passover and other feasts. "Y?^)
POINT III.
The Jeivish society had the members of a visible church.
The ordinances of which we have been speaking,
were emblematical of sanctification, and required
evidence of sanctification in their adult communicants.
It is true that this is a thing of which my Opponent has no
very high opinion, as he scoffs at the very Baptists
themselves, for requiring of candidates some account of
their religious experience, preparatory to initiation.
But with pious Baptists this is esteemed important. So
do the scriptures esteem it important in the subjects
of circumcision. *^ Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin
^^ of your hearts, and be no more stiff-necked. ''(^)
" The Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and
'^ the heart of thy seed, to love the lord thy God, with
^^ all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou may est
'' live. "(2/) '^ All these nations are uncircumcised,
'^ and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the
Qiv) Gill on John iv. 20. For proof he refers to Deut. xii. 5. 6. xvi. 2.
{x) Deut. X. 16. (y) Deut. xxx. 6.
( 76 )
'^ heart."(2:) " Ye stifFnecked and uncircumcised in
** heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost ;
*^ as your fathers did, so do ye.''(a) " And thou shalt
" say to the rebellious, even to the house of Israel, thus
** saith the Lord God, 0 ye house of Israel, let it suffice
** you of all your abominations, in that ye have brought
'^ into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart,
*^ and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to
*' pollute it, even my house, when ye offer my bread,
'* the fat and the blood, and they have broken my cove-
'* nant, because of all your abominations. ''(Z>)
It is one glorious feature of the visible church, that
it requires evidence of regeneration in those who are
candidates for membership. The scriptures which
have just now been read, plainly shew that the Jewish
society had this feature of a church : for, according to
these texts, they violated the constitution of the church,
whenever they received proselytes v/ithout evidence of
piety. This is so conspicuously the spirit of these
passages, that I know no way of escaping their force,
but by proving that they are not intended for the literal
Israel, but that they are prophecies exclusively appli-
cable to the Christian church. Dr. Gill says that the
last authority which I have quoted (Ez. xliv. 6, 7.*)
^^ well agrees with these declining churches in the latter
*^ day, and even in our times :" yet, unhappily for my
opponent, the Dr. says at the same time, that the picture
there given '' is a character of literal Israel from the
** beginning." The Dr. tells us that they are con-
(z) Jer. ix. 26. (a) Act?vii. 51.
(A) Ez. xliv. 6, r.
( 77 )
demned for introducing ^^ strangers," because they are
*^ unregenerate men, who are in a state of alienation and
*' estrangement to divine and spiritual things.'' The
*' uncircumcised in heart," whom they were forbidden
to receive as members, Dr. Gill understands to be those
'^ who never were pricked in the^heart for sin, or felt any
*' pain there on account of it; never had the hardness
'' of their heart removed, or the impurity of it dis-
'^ covered to them ; never were filled with shame and
*' loathing because of it ; or ever put off the body of
*^ sins in a course of conversation ; or renounced their
'* own righteousness." This last text censures the
church for polluting the sanctuary by the introduction
of persons who were even uncircumcised in flesh.
These, the Dr. says, were " carnal as they were born ;
*^ men in the flesh, in a state of nature, mind and savour
*^ the things of the flesh, and do the works of it ; having
^' never been taught by the grace of God, to deny un-
^^ godliness and worldly lusts, and to abstain from fleshly
'^ ones : or who put their trust in the flesh, in outward
'^ things, in carnal privileges, and external righteous-
" ness. These the Lord complains were brought to be
'^ in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house ; either
'^ to be members here, and partake of all the ordinances
^' and privileges of the Lordh house ; or to officiate
'^ here as priests and ministers of the Lord." Accord-
ing to these words of Dr. Gill, he must have thought,
that evidence of regeneration was as requisite to mem-
bership in the Lord's house, under the Old Testament
dispensation, as under the New. No wonder then, that
he thought the Jews a church. This opinion is confirm-
( 7S )
ed in the New Testament, by the allusions which it
makes to the Old; ^'and you being dead in your sins,
" and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he
" quickened together with him, having forgiven you all
*' trespasses. "(c)
On this subject I would wish you attentively to read,
and devoutly to consider Psalm 1. 7 — 23. On the first
of these verses, which begins, '^ Hear O my people,"
Dr. Gill remarks, *^ This is an address to the people of
'^ the Jews, whom God had chosen to be his people above
*'' all others, and who professed themselves to be hispeo-
'^ pie; but a lo-ammi was about to be written upon
'' them, being a people uncircumcised in heart and ears,
'' refusing to hear the great prophet of the church, him
*^ that spake from heaven." Here people and church
are used synonymously, as they are by my Opponent ;
and the Jews are justly said to be, by their own profes-
sio'n, and the choice of God, his people ; and Christ is
said to be the prophet of their church, as well as of the
New Testament church.
I have the same request to make concerning your
perusal of Is. i. 10 — 20. The ninth verse predicts the
destruction of Jerusalem, which threatened an utter
extinction of God's people, " except the Lord had left
*^ unto us a very small remnant." *^ And this," says
Dr. Gill, ^' was done unto us, for the sake of his church,
'* that that might continue, and he might have a seed to
'' serve him." Here the Dr. considers the Christian
'^ dispensation a continuance of the us to whom Isaiah
(r) Coll. ii. 13.
( 79 )
belonged ; and this us he calls a church. The context
to which I have referred you, shews that its members
were called to the same holiness which is required in
Christians. Thus does Dr. Gill explain God's command
by Moses, that the Jews should be " an holy nation. "(</)
He says that it means ^^ being separated from all others,
*^ and devoted to the worship and service of God, having
** holy laws and holy ordinances, and a holy service,
'^ and a holy place to perform it in, and holy persons to
*' attend unto it, as they afterwards had." The same
great Baptist writer declares the "• holy seed" mentioned
by Ezra,(e) to be ^^such as the Lord had separated
*' from other nations, chosen them to be an holy people
'* above all others, and devoted them to his service and
*' worship." When the most excellent of the Baptist
denomination speak thus of the Jews ; but especially
when the holy and infallible word of God speaks thus of
the constitutional obligations of members of the Jewish
society, can you wonder at us for calling them a visible
church ?
POINT IV.
The Jewish society had the office us of a visible church.
The priesthood was an office consecrated to ecclesiasti-
cal purposes, and therefore was guarded from intrusion by
severe penalties. After the earth had swallowed up
Korah, Dathan and Abiram, " There came out a fire
^^ from the Lord, and consumed the two hundred and
(f/) Ex. xix. 6. (e) ix. 2.
( 80 )
" fifty men that offered incense."(/) " And the anger
" of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and God smote
'' him there for his error, and there he died by the ark
" of God.'^(^) ^^ And they withstood Uzziah the king,
'^ and said unto him, it appertaineth not unto thee,
'^ Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the
'^ priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to
" burn incense : go out of the sanctuary ; for thou hast
*' trespassed ; neither shall it be for thine honour from
'^ the Lord God.'^(A)
There is a very great contrast between my Opponent
and the old fashioned Baptists, about the officers of the
church, and the manner in which they shall be support-
ed. My Opponent is for putting down the clergy at
a blow, as hot only unworthy of being maintained by
the church, but unworthy of any distinction by minis-
terial ordination. He is as complete a leveller as any
infidel. This arises not from any love for liberty and
equality, but from a desire to monopolize in his own
person, all that influence which is now divided among
the clergy of his own denomination and others, and
from a desire to pervert to the destruction of souls that
influence which they should use for edification. His
way to scatter the sheep is to smite the shepherd. Not
so our good old Dr. Gill, who, in every thing except
piiblic disputation, is worth a thousand of him. In
commenting upon one of EzekieFs appropriations for
the priests, he says, " This holy portion of land, ex-
*' cepting that which is for the sanctuary, is to be for the
(/) Num. xvi. 35. {g) 2 Sam, vi. 7.
(A) 2 Chr. xxvi. 18.
( 81 )
•' use of the priests, to build houses to dwell in ; signi-
' fying that the ministers of the gospel are to be taken
^ care of, and sufficient provision made for their main-
^ tainance/''(^) In another place he speaks of ^^ the
^ ministers of the gospel, who shall have a sufficient
* maintenance from the churches of Christ, as the
^ priests had under the law." This last is on a verse
n which the prophet mentions a spot which ^' shall be a
•^ place for their houses," on which the Dr. observes,
^ In this large spot shall be many congregated churches,
^ houses of the living God, where his priests and peo-
' pie dwell, and will be serving and praising him."(y)
On a similar subject, a little before this, he says,
^ These [chambers] were for holy persons to dwell in,
^ and for holy things to be done in, as the churches of
^ Christ are ; they consist of holy persons, men called
* with a holy calling, and in them the holy word of
' God is preached, and holy ordinances administer-
^ ed."(A) Thus does the existence of ecclesiastical
officers in the Jewish society, prove them to be a visible
church ; and thus does the best Baptist authority admit
that they were as real a church ^^ as the churches of
Christ are."
POINT V,
The Jeivhli Society had the constitution of a visible chirrch.
Whatsoever may have, been said to Abraham and his
seed concerning temporal and political blessings, God's
(0 Ez. xlviii, 10. ( /■) Ez. xlv. 4,
(A-) E/. xlii. 13.
L
( 82 ) ^
covenant with them did, nevertheless, contemplate
eternal, spiritual, and ecclesiastical favours. ^' And I
'^ will establish my covenant between me and thee,
** and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for
** an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and
*^ to thy seed after thee : and I will give unto thee and
^* to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a
*' stranger, all the land of Canaan for an everlasting pos-
*^ session, and I will be their God."(/) ^^ Now therefore,
*' if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my cove-
*' nant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me,
** above all people, for all the earth is mine ; and ye
** shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy
*' nation. "(m) " The chariots of God are twenty
'* thousand, even thousands of angels, the Lord is among
*' them, as in Sinai, in the holy place ; thou hast as-
** cended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou
** hast received gifts for men, yea, even for the rebel-
'^ lious also, that the Lord might dwell among them.
*^ Blessed be the Lord which daily loadeth us with
*^ benefits, even the God of our salvation. Selah. He
** that is our God is the God of salvation ; and unto God
^^ the Lord belong the issues from death. "(??) ** He
** sent redemption unto his people, he hath commanded
'^ his covenant forever ; Holy and reverend is his
*' name."(o) *^ For he remembered his holy promise,
*' and Abraham his servant, and he brought forth his
** people with joy, and his chosen with gladness. "'(/>)
** Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he hath visited
(/) Gen. xvii. 7. 8. (w) Rx. xix. 5. 6. («) Ps. Ixviii. 17—20
(o) Ps. cxi. 9. (/i) Ps. cv. 42. 43.
( 83 )
*^ and redeemed his people ;" " to perform the mercy
" promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy
'^ covenant, the oath which he svvare to our Father
^^ Abraham. ''(^)
Among the authorities just now quoted, one of them
mentions Sinai : but it will be observed that it does not
refer to the transactions at Sinai, for the origin of the
church. Yet that very passage proves that the Jews
were a church. It is in this capacity '^ that the Lord
'^ God" promises to '^ dwell among them ;" ^' that is,''
says Dr. Gill, ^^ that they by the gifts and graces of the
'^ Spirit bestowed on them, might become a fit habitation
^' for God ; or that they, the rebellious, being now
" partakers of the grace of God and his gifts, might
^^ dwell with the Lord God in his churches; enjoy
** his divine presence, and have communion with him
'^ in his word and oi'dinances.^^ The salvation men-
tioned in the very next verse. Dr. Gill does not fritter
down to a mere temporal deliverance, but calls it '* tem-
" poral, spiritual, and eternal salvation. "(r) It is true
that Gill calls the redemption mentioned in one of the
texts,(*) a " temporal redemption, as typical of the
^^ spiritual and eternal one ;" but in another of these
texts, he believes the spiritual and eternal redemption
to be meant, and the typical one only alluded to. The
following are his words, viz. ^^ For he hath visited and
^' redeemed his people, as he did Israel of old, Ex. iii.
^^ 16, 17, when the Lord looked upon them, and de-
" livered them out of the bondage of Egypt, and which
{q) Luke i. 68. 72. 73. (r) Gill on Ps. Ixviii. 18. 19. (») Ps. cxi. 9.
( 84 )
^* was a type and resemblance of redemption by Christ,
^^ and to which reference here seems to be had." But
although the redemption here contemplated, refers to a
temporal deliverance, the Dr. says that it " intends the
" spiritual and eternal redemption of them by the price
" of his blood, from the slavery of sin 5 the bondage of
*^ the law, and curse of it, and the captivity of Satan,
^^ and a deliverance out of the hands of every enemy ;
** a redemption which reaches both to soul and body,
^* and secures from all condemnation and wrath to come ;
" and includes every blessing in it, as justification,
'^ forgiveness of sins, adoption, sanctification, and
" eternal life, and is a plenteous, full, complete, and
" everlasting one."(/)
It is plain, then, that the redemption here mentioned
is not merely a temporal or political one, but a spiritual
and eternal redemption. It is also plain that it is con-
ferred upon God's "people,''^ a word which my Oppo-
nent considers equivalent to church. The text more-
over informs us that this was done, " to perform the
mercy promised to our fathers,'' not at Mount Sinai, but
" to remember his holy covenant, the oath which he
" sware to our father Abraham ;" many hundred years
before the transactions at Sinai.
It is in reference to this holy covenant, that Moses
said to Israel, " thou art an holy people P ^^ Not sanc-
** tified" says Dr. Gill, " in a spiritual sense, or having
" principles of grace and holiness in them, from whence
*'* holy actions sprang, at least, not all of them ; but
(0 Gill on Luke i. 68.
( 85 )
*^ they were separated from all other people in the
** world to the pure worship and service of God in an
^^ external manner, and therefore were to avoid all
^^ idolatry and every appearance of it." The remain-
der of the verse which speaks of their being chosen to
be a special people, the Dr. understands to mean ^^ for
*^ special service and worship, and to enjoy special
*^ privileges and benefits, civil and religioi(s.'\u)
Elsewhere, when Moses speaks of their being ^^anholi/
^^ people unto the Lord," Gill explains it, ^^ set apart
*^ by him from all other people, and devoted to his
^* worship and service, and many of them were sancti-
*^ fied and made holy in a special and spiritual sense."
The remainder of the verse calls them a peculiar peo-
ple. Gill explains this peculiarity as consisting ^^ espe-
^^ cially in things sacredy{v) My aim is to prove from
scripture, that Abraham and his seed have the constitu-
tion of a visible church ; that is, that they were a conse-
crated depository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed
religion. Dr. Gill has proved from scripture, that they
were " set apart" as a holy people^ a special people, a
peculiar people, " especially in things sacred" and
*^ religious :" all this, too, upon the constitution of ^'^ his
holy covenant, the oath which he sware to our father
Abraham." They were therefore a church.
(«) Gill on Ex. vii. 6. (x') Gill on Ex. xiv. 2.
. • ( 86 )
POINT VI.
The Jewish society had the express, inspired, and unequivocal
NAME of a church.
These points are professedly intended to support the
proposition that '^ Abraham and his seed were divinely
constituted a visible church of God." Soon after that
proposition was announced, some remarks were made,
and more were promised, on the naine of a church. My
farther progress on this subject, my Opponent has
endeavoured to obstruct by the authority of Dr. Mason,
who has the appearance of being against me. He speaks
as follows, viz. " The word church, derived from the
' Greek, xn^iaxoi/, signifies the house of the Lord,
* and marks the property which he has in it. But the
original words which it is employed to translate, sig-
nify a different thing. The Hebrew words 7np and
m^ in the Old Testament, and the corresponding one
exxxr^gia in thc New, all signify an assembly, espe-
cially one convened by invitation or appointment.
That this is their generic sense, no scholar will deny ;
nor that their particular applications are ultimately
resolvable into it. Hence it is evident that from the
terms themselves nothing can be concluded as to the
nature and extent of the assembly which they denote.
Whenever either of the two former occurs in the Old
Testament, or the other in the New, you are sure of
an assembly, but of nothing more. What that assem-
bly is, and whom it comprehends, you must learn
from the connexion of the term, and the subject of
( 87 )
*' the writer." {w) The Dr. then proceeds to give
instances of the diversified application of these several
words.
When this eminent scholar observes that we must
learn the meaning of the word ^^ from the connexion of
the term; and the subject of the writer/^ he says what
is true not only of the word church, but of those words
which all will confess to have been reduced from their
generic signification to an appropriate meaning. This
remark may be elucidated by the title of the most dis-
tinguished officer in the church. It is the word apostle.
Concerning this^ we may say as Dr. Mason has o^ churchy
** What an Apostle is, and whom it points out, whether
'' an ordinary or extraordinary agent, whether Christ,
'* one of the twelve, or any other person, you must
^' learn from the connexion of the term, and the sub-
'' ject of the writer.''^ The Greek word signifies a
messenger. (x) '' That this is its generic sense, no
scholar will deny, nor that its particular applications
are ultimately resolvable into it. Hence it is evident
that from the term itself, nothing can be concluded as to
the character of the messenger which it denotes.
Whenever it occurs in the Old or New Testament, you
are sure of a messenger, but of nothing more."
After thus applying all Dr. Mason's remarks to the
word apostle as well as church, suppose a question to
arise concerning the apostleship of Paul, as one has arisen
concerning the ecclesiastical standing of the Jews. Was
(w) Mason on the Church, pp. 8 — 10. Christian's Magazine, vol. 1.
pp. 54 — 56.
{t) See Phil. ii. 25. and 1 Kings xiv. fi, in the Greek.
( 88 )
Paul ail ordinary messenger of ordinary matters^ from
one ordinary man to another; or was he an extraordinary,
spiritual, ecclesiastical Apostle of Jesus Christ? I say
that he was the latter, and I very naturally try to prove
it, by shewing that the scriptures apply to him the
express, inspired, and unequivocal name of an Apostle.
This conclusion is so far from being forbidden by Dr.
Mason's remarks, that it is attained in the very way
which he points out, '^^ from the connexion of the term,
and the subject of the writer.'' From these we plainly
see that the term is applied to Paul, not in its generic
sense, but in its appropriate meaning. It points him
out, not as an ordinary, secular messenger from man,
but as an inspired ecclesiastical messenger from our
divine Redeemer. Shall we say then, that his being so
called, in such a connexion, is no evidence of his apos-
tleship, in the highest sense in which the term is applied
to men ? Shall we say that the mere fact that a word
originally has a generic sense, shall forever disqualify
it from pointing out a particular object? Shall we say,
that because it has a variety of meanings, it can have no
definite meaning at all ? If so, then let us be consistent,
and openly relinquish the common and well established
proof of Christ's divinity, from the fact that the express,
inspired, and unequivocal jiame of God is applied to him
in the scriptures. But if we admit, as all real Christians
do, that the application of this name to Christ, proves
him to be the true God ; and that the application of
another name to Paul, proves him to be an apostle of
God ; then the application of a third name to the Jews
will prove them to have been the chvrch of God.
( B9 )
When speaking on this subject before, I quoted some
texts which contained both in the Hebrew and in the
Septuagint, two words, both of which signify churchy
as Dr. Mason has correctly informed you. Other pas-
sages in which the same thing occurs, I shall have to
quote now. That these two synonimous nouns are
connected by a simple conjunction, is accounted for,
upon a principle, which is remarkable in the Hebrew,
though not peculiar to that language. It is, that nouns
are often attached to other nouns, to answer the purpose
of adjectives and participles. (5^) When, therefore, 7np
ike church, and mj^ ^he church, are put together, they
appear to signify the meeting met, or the congregation
congregated, or the church assembled. Thus does Dr.
Gill understand it in Prov. v. 14, where the Septuagint
translates these words by ixxx-qsia. and owayayri. "^ 1 was al-
most in all evil in the midst of the church assemhkd.^^
The Dr. understands this to mean, "in the house of
God, attending public worship,'' " even in the presence
and before the people of God." This great Baptist
Commentator evidently considered this text a proof that
the Old Testament worshippers were the visible church
of God : for what else can he mean by calling them the
people of God, attending public woj'ship, in the house
of God?
In the Septuagint of Levit. iv. 13, both these words
(y) " When one substantive is joined to another by a copulative, the
one must be translated as governing the other. " Macknight's fourth Pre-
liminary Essay, Section 19. "As the Jews had but few adjectives in their
language, they had recourse to substantives, in order to supply tlieir
place." Home's seventh rule on the Hebraisms of the New Testament.
The same examples, in part, are adduced by both.
M
( 90 )
are rendered ovfaycoy*;. ^' And if the whole m^
church of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing
be hid from the eyes of ^npH ^he church.^^ On this
text Dr. Gill quotes, with approbation, the following
words of Ainsworth ; " that the church may err, and
*^ the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, con-
gregation, or churchy so that they don't know that it is
a sin which they have committed/'
In Prov. xxi. 16, where the LXX has the same render-
ing, " the connexion of the term" shews that the word
7np does not mean the church of God, but " an assem-
*^ bly" of Unitarians or Papists, Polytheists or Atheists.
^' The man that wandereth out of the way of under
'^ standing, shall remain in the congregation of the
" dead."
In Prov. xix. 20, where the same words occur for
church, in the Hebrew and LXX, " the connexion of
*' the term" shews that it means the church of God, ex-
communication from which. Gill thinks may be intend-
ed, (z)
The following live texts have nij/ in the Hebrew,
and 6vvayu,yv^ in the LXX. " Whosoever eateth that
which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off
from the church of Israel. "(a) To be cut off *' from
^^ the Israelitish church-state, and have no communion
^* in it, or partake of the ordinances of it," is one of
several alternatives, which Gill thinks may be here in-
tended. On this and the last text, the existence of the
(z^ Compare his note on verse 13, to which he refers.
(a) Ex. xii. 19. Comp, 15, and Gill on the latter, to which he refers
from the former.
( 91 )
Tsruelitish church is taken for granted by this preemi-
nent scholar of the Baptist Society.
God directed Moses to have two silver trumpets made,
" for the calling of the churchy and for the journeying
'* of the camps. ^'(6) On this Gill says, *' Saints are
'^ pilgrims and travellers here ; they are passing through
" a wilderness, their way is attended with many diffi.-
" culties j Canaan is the place they are travelling to.''
When two and a half of the tribes of Israel built an
altar before they crossed the Jordan, the rest of the
church thought them apostates from the true religion,
and sent a deputation to them on this subject. Gill
copies our translation of the introduction of their messages,
and comments upon it as follows, viz. ^' ' Thus saitli the
** whole congregation of the Lord,' — By whom they
'^ were sent, and whom they represented ; and they
'^ don't call them the congregation of Israel, but of the
'^ Lord, because it was not on a civil but religious
'^ account they were come, and not to plead their own
'^ cause, but the cause of God ; and not so much to
^^ shew a concern for their own honour and interest, as
'^ for the glory of God." If they were a religious, and
not a civil assembly ; if they were a congregation of the
Lord, and not of man ; and if, (as the text proves, and
Gill admits,) they acted in these respects, as a visible
corporation, then they were just what you and I would
call the visible church of God.
In the same sense ought the following instance to be
understood. "Praise ye the Lord, I will praise the
{b) Num. X. 2.
w
( 92 )
*^ Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly of the
^^ upright, and in the chnrch.^\c)
The following authority seems to unite civil and
ecclesiastical privileges, and to refer them all, not to the
Sinaitic covenant made with their fathers, whose car-
cases fell in the wilderness, but to the older covenant
made with their father Abraham, and confirmed to Isaac
and Jacob. " And because he loved thy fathers, there-
fore he chose their seed after them."(G?) Gill confirms
my interpretation as follows, viz. '^ ^ And because he
" loved thy fathers,' — Not their immediate fathers,
" whose carcases fell in the wilderness, and entered not
" into the good land because of their unbelief, but their
^^ more remote fathers or ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and
^^ Jacob, who had some singular testimonies of the love
** of God to them. Abraham is called the friend of
" God, and Isaac was the son of promise in whom the
" seed was called ; and Jacob is particularly said to be
" loved by God, when Esau was hated : ' therefore he
*' chose their seed after them ;' not to eternal life and
^' salvation, but to the enjoyment of external blessings
*^ and privileges, to be called by his name, and to set up
*' his name and worship among them, and to be a special
^^ people to him above all people on the earth, as to out-
^^ ward favours, both civil and ecclesiastical.'^ By
denying that they were chosen, in a body, to eternal
life, the Dr. shews that he distinguishes them from the
invisible church ; but by saying that God had chosen
them to be a special people^ to have his worship among
them, and to enjoy great outward favours, both civil
(c) Ps. cxi. 1. (</) Deut. iv. 37.
( 93 )
and ECCLESIASTICAL, he shews that they are the visible
church.
I proceed to give some instances in which the words
Snp and exxirjaia are found in the Hebrew and the LXX,
to point out the church. On the account which Joshua
gives of his reading the law of Moses to the church,
Dr. Gill comments as follows, viz. " There was not a
*• word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read
*^ not before all the congregation of Israel, [who were
*' on this occasion called together, and not before the
*^ men only, but] with the women and the little ones,''
[who all had a concern in the things that were read to
them.] (e) A church of men, w^omen, and little ones, sounds
very much like Pedobaptism. In another instance, he
speaks still stronger in a similar strain. (/)
In David's address to Goliah, he says, " And all this
*^ assembly shall know that the Lord saveth not with the
^^ sword and spear." Dr. Gill says that the word assem-
bly means, ^^ The congregation of Israel, and church of
'^ the living God, great part of which was now gathered
*• together, and were spectators of this wonderful
*^ event."(^)
David says, " I will give thee thanks in the great
church ; I will praise thee among much people." Dr.
Gill explains this to mean, " the church and people of
*' God,^' " the people of God meeting together for
*•' solemn worship. "(A)
David again says, '• let them exalt him also in the
church of the people." Gill says, — " Of the people of
(f) Josh. viii. 35 (/) Gill on Joel ii. 16,
(g) 1 Sam. xvii. 1. 7. ( /;) Ps. xxxv. 18.
( 94 )
*^ God, who are gathered out of the world, into a church-
" state, and who gather themselves together to attend the
^^ worship and service of God in some one place. "(i)
It is not my intention to tax your patience so far as to
quote one fourth of the instances in which the Hebrew
and the Septuagint apply Sip and ixx%risi,a to the Jews,
as the visible church of God. Out of the comparatively
small number of examples which were selected for this
point, from the Old Testament, I shall, at present, pass
over twenty-two which are now before me. (J)
MR. CAMPBEIiL'S
NEW TRANSLATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
REVIEWED,
IN CONNEXION WITH THE POINT NOW IN HAND.
In the New Testament, ecdesia occurs one hundred and four-
teen timesj in more than one hundred of which it confessedly
means the visible church. I do not know that my Opponent will
confess this, but every other sort of Baptist will. My reason
for excepting him is, that he has such an aversion to the word
church, (a word inestimably precious to the Christian,) that he
appears determined to banish it from his vocabulary. He has
published an English translation of the New Testament, in
which, (strange to tell!) neither the word church nor the word
baptism is found once. By its title page, it professes to be
" The New Testament, translated from the original Greek, by
" George Campbell, James Macknight, and Philip Dod-
" DRiDGK, Doctors of the Church of Scotland." In the Preface
and the list of errata, he speaks of a " London edition of this
translation," which " departed in some instances from the origi-
(i) Ps. cvii. 32.
(j) 1 Kgs. viii. 14. 2 Chr. i. 3. 5. vi. 3. (comp. 2.) vi. 12. 13. xxix. 23.
28. 31. 32. XXX. 2. 13. 17. 23. 24. Ezr. x. 8. Neh. viii. 2. (comp. 3 — 8.)
Ps. xxii. 22. xl. 9. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1. Lam. i. 10>
( 95 )
nal works," of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. Such of
these alterations as affected " the style^^ only, he professes to
have "retained:"' but "some of these alterations affected the
sense ;" these he professes to have " brought back to the original
works" of Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. In this trans-
lation, then, we are to look for the meaning of a certain set of
men, clothed in another man's style. When the Ettric Shepherd
first saw Duncan Campbell, the little stranger, though only seven
years old, wore a coat originally made for a man. If this new
style should give George Campbell and his companions as
grotesque an appearance, my Opponent can account for it, upon
the ground that they are just escaped from prison, through his
benevolent interposition. Here a writer in the Western Lumi-
nary speaks as follows ', viz. "Mr. Campbell, on this part of his
" subject, says something about tlie works of Campbell, Dod-
*' dridi^e, and Macknight having been ' imprisoned^' and seems
*♦ to take credit to himself for having brought them out to pub-
*' lie gaze; and considers his own precious existence necessary
*' to prevent them from being again locked up."(A-) How envi-
able is the lot of my Opponent! in being the honoured instru-
ment of preserving these eminent scholars from rotting in a
dungeon. His agency in this business proves the rapid advance
of the Western Country in the march of mind. Let posterity
know, that, but for the labours of a certain inhabitant of Butfaloe
Creek, the works of three of the most celebrated Doctors of
Europe would soon have sunk into oblivion.
As his alterations of his originals are far more numerous than
one would expect from the title page, he tells us, in the close of
his Appendix, that these emendations " are preferred merely
** because of their being more intelligible to common readers,
"whose edification we have supremely in view." For these
alterations he has made ample amends to the admirers of his
three worthies, by stuffing their jugulated words into an Appen-
dix, with such novel and convenient references, that they are
(k) Western Lum. for Jan. 3, 1827.,
( 96 )
almost as easily found as a needle in a hay-stack. Speaking of
this in his preface, he says, " All that we can be praised or
" blamed for is this one circumstance, that we have given the
*' most conspicuous place, to that version which appeared to
♦' deserve it." That is, when the words of Campbell, Mac-
knight, and Doddridge appear to my Opponent the most deserv-
ing, he gives them in the text, and places others in the Appendix :
but when the words of these three men appear to my Opponent
less deserving, he packs them ofif to the Appendix, and substi-
tutes others in the translation, whose names are not mentioned
in the title page. Thus every word of this version may be con-
sidered as having passed through the crucible of my Opponent's
judgment. And who so well calculated to judge among the
jarring translations of jarring sects, as that man who possesses
the greatest literary and theological attainments, and is, at the
same time, perfectly divested of all sectarian feelings or preju-
dices, as is evident from the whole career of my Opponent, from
Mount Pleasant to Washington. Hear the words of his Preface
on this subject. " If the mere publication of a version of the
" inspired writings requires, as we believe it does, the publisher
" to have no sectarian object in view, we are happy in being
" able to appeal to our whole course of public addresses, and to
" all that we have written on religious subjects, to shew that we
" have no such object in view!!l" Perhaps so great a portion
of charity, anti-sectarian liberality, and 'the milk of human kind-
ness, can hardly be found in the island of Great Britain, as my
Opponent knows to exist in one little privileged spot on the
banks of BuiFaloe. It is reasonable, therefore, that he should
claim to his work superior praise, over the London copy, w hose
Editors probably spent much of their strength in sectarian de-
bates against infant-sprinkling, and the thirty-nine articles, and
the thirty-three Chapters, and male and female Missionaries,
and Bible and Benevolent Societies, and the observance of
family prayer, and the sabbath day. As my Opponent never
was known to whisper sectarian charges against other denomina-
tions, for holding doctrines or ordinances "injurious to the well-
( 97 )
being of society, religious or political," he must be indulged in
a little commendable boasting, such as the following, viz.
" Taking every thing into view^, we have no hesitation in saying,
" that, in the present improved state of the English language,
*' the ideas communicated by the Apostles and Evangelists of
•' Jesus Christ, are incomparably better expressed in this, than
*' in any volume ever presented in our mother tongue."(/)
Whenever, therefore, my Opponent's Translation of the New
Testament is mentioned in this discussion, remember, that,
" taking every thing into view," particularly his own rare quali-
fications for such a work, it is " incomparably" the best in the
language.
To set forth his unparallelled qualifications still more fully,
he says, in his Preface, "The whole scope, design, and drift of
*♦ our labours is to see Christians intelligent, united and happy."
With regard to uniting Christians, his labours, in one way or
another, appear to succeed in a small degree. The Western
Luminary, (m) informs us that my Opponent has made an inge-
nious effort to prove that his two bosom friends, a Unitarian,*
and Dr. James Fishback, are united in sentiment, in relation to
our Saviour's person, although the former openly rejects the
doctrine of his supreme and eternal Deity, and the latter would
be thought to receive this doctrine. Moreover, they are now
very cordially united in their opposition to creeds and confes-
sions, those stubborn things which have been so much in the way
of Unitarians, from the Council of Nice to the present day. If
Mr. Greatrake and the Orthodox Pastors and Editors, Associa-
tions and Conventions of the Baptist denomination have not
followed the amiable example of unity which these brethren have
set them, it is their own fault. Mr. Greatrake will not admit
that my Opponent is for peace abroad or unity at home. Writing
to the Western Baptist Churches concerning my Opponent, he
says, " Having had you for two or three years spectators of his
(/) Introduction to Appendix. (/n) For Jan. 3, 1827.
* The writer, through mistake, gave a wrong name to the Unitarian,
as lie afterwards intbrnietl me,
N
( 98 )
** own personal combats, or familiarized your minds to a view
*' of his own fightings, you will find, perhaps too late, that the
** object contemplated by Mr. C. was to prepare you fordissen-
*' tions and fightings among yourselves ; to the end that he
*' might share the spoils by making you a divided people."(n)
As my Opponent refers to his life for his antisectarian charac-
ter, so Mr. Greatrake says to the churches, " Yes, brethren,
search, search his whole life, as far as possible." He then tells
them that this scrutiny will irrefragably prove " that you [Bap-
♦* tists,3as a denomination, have been made the citadel of his safe-
** ty, while throwing the shafts of his hostility at other denomina-
** tions; particularly at that one with which you most assuredly
** stand in the greatest degree of fellowship. The question
•' then is, whether Mr. C. represents your feelings towards
" the Presbyterian and other Pedobaptist churches, against
*' whom he ' breathes out threatcnings and slaughter?' If he
*' does, let us know what cause they have given for this inter-
*' minable rage. But I need not put this sort of question to you,
^' being fully persuaded that your greatest partiality is towards
^* that very church which Mr. C. appears to hate with the most
^' deadly hatred. "(o) This is a righteous sentence pronounced
in the name of the Western Baptist Churches, by one of their
most respectable and worthy ministers, in exculpation of the
much injured, and grossly insulted Pedobaptists of this country.
It correctly represents my v/ould-be antisectarian Opponent, as
breathing threatenings and slaughter, and throwing the shafts of
his hostility with interminable rage, and the most deadly hatred,
at other denominations, particularly our own; and as doing this,
not to oppose error, (for he is rotten to the core,) but all this
zeal against others is, that he may prepare the Baptists for dis-
sentions and fightings among themselves, that he may share the
spoils of their divisions. He must surely be rarely qualified for
writing an incomparable translation of the New Testament!
One prominent feature of tiiis anomalous production is, that
{ji) Unitarian Baptist of the Robinson School Exposed, p. 88.
(o) Do. p. 87.
( 99 )
it professes to reject every adopted or anglicised word. Dr.
George Campbell's labours in favour of immersion give him some
aid in this particular. Complaining of our Translators, the Dr.
says, ''some words they have transferred from the original into
their language, others they have translated." He wishes that
they had not transcribed the word baptism, but given it a dipping
translation. He considers baptism, even now, " a foreign name.
" For this reason," says he, " I should think the word immer-
" sion (which, though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regu-
" larly formed from the verb to immerse,) a better English name
*' than baptism, were we now at liberty to make a choice. "(j9)
When great men sicken into a prurient longing to carry some
wrong point, what weak arguments they will sometimes use I
Now I would inquire of the literary world, if it be not as true,
that BAPTISM, though of Greek origin, is an English noun,
regularly formed from the verb to baptize, as that immersion,
•' though of Latin origin, is an English noun, regularly formed
from the verb to immerse?''^ Both these words were originally
foreign, and both are now naturalized ; and if there be any dif-
ference, it is in favour of baptism, because this, being more
generally known and understood, is more completely domesti-
cated. Besides, the connexion of the term, in the scriptures,
shews that immersion would be a perversion, instead of a trans-
lation, of the Original. It was evidently this consideration which
sometimes made Dr. Macknight follow our Bible in transcribing.
He does not say " All were immersed into Moses in the cloud
and in the sea," as my Opponent's incomparable has said for
him; but he says "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and
in the sea." When a. man's zeal against the adoption of Greek
words, leads him not only to publish Dr. Campbell's weak argu-
ment, but to invent a fact for Paul, and forge a translation for
Macknight, I am ready to say in reference to a reproof once
given to an incompetent imitator of Pindar, " Dr. Campbell
was bold, but thou art impudent."
(/') See Appendix to the incomparable. No, 4.
( 100 )
Scored of alterations, where this word is concerned, are con-
fessed in the Appendix; and after he was taxed with the fault
he shews that they were promised in the Prospectus, which,
however, is not published with the work, and is in direct oppo-
sition to the promise contained in the title-page. His prospectus
reads as follows, viz. "There is also one improvement of con-
'* siderable importance which ought to be made in this work,
** and to which we shall attend. Sundry terms are not trans-
** lated into English, but adopted into those translations from
*' long usage. Those terms are occasionally translated into
" English by Campbell and Macknight; but not always. We
♦' shall uniformly give them the meaning which they have aflSxed
" to them, wherever they occur, and thus make this a pure
** English New Testament, not mingled with Greek words,
*' either adopted or anglicised ."(<7) Here is a promise that he
will make his translation such pure English, that it shall not
contain any adopted words, such as Martyr, Archangel, Myriad,
Mystery, Schism, Blasphemy, Denarius, Euroclydon, Tartarus,
Abyas, Hades. Some of these words, such as myriad, denarius,
tartarus, abyss, and hades, are translated and not adopted in our
bible: but his translation is greatly to excel ours in this respect,
and be much purer English. He promises to adopt none, but trans-
late all. After this, would you expect to hear me say that he had
actually adopted the whole of them, even those which our bible
translates? Yet such is the facti
In one case, he copies Doddridge, concerning " the martyrs of
Jesus, "(r) though in another he alters Doddridge's martyr into
witness. [s) Angel is a Greek word anglicised; he therefore re-
jects it utterly, and always uses the word Messenger for it.
Archangel also is a Greek word transcribed, and might just as
properly be rendered Prime-messenger: yet this word he uni-
formly adopts. (^) Myriad is a Greek word anglicised, and
((7) See it quoted in West. Luminary for Jan. 3, 1827.
(r) Rev. xvii. 6. (s) Rev. ii. 13.
(0 In 1 Thess. iv. 16. Jude ix. the unly places iu which it occurs in the
N. T.
( 101 )
when used in connexion with angels, is rendered by Macknight
♦< ten thousands of angels, "(m) My Opponent's incomparable
alters this into ^^ myriads of messengers." How wonderfully
this elucidates the subjecti But in the Appendix he tells us
that such improvements are made, that the scriptures may be
♦' more intelligible to common readers, whose edification," says
he, "we have supremely in view." Some common readers,
however, are so stupid that they would think this improvement
worth very little more than a pair of leather spectacles. Besides
copying Doddridge in transferring the word mystery,[v) and
Macknight in transferring the v/ord schism, (w) he holds fast to
this adopted word twice, even where Macknight translates it5(a;)
in one of which instances he justifies himself by the authority of
Dr. George Campbell, who first taught him to condemn such
transcriptions, [y) The Dr. and his incomparable disciple some-
times translate blasphemy and blaspheme, though poorly enough ;
yet at other times both the noun and the verb are adopted by
them.(z) As for denarius, I believe they uniformly transfer
it;(a) although our American dime is a coin of the same value,
and would, (in our country at least,) afford a good translation.
He has adopted Euroclydon,{p) although he knows that Ze?;an^er
is a translation familiar to the commercial world. To be more
intelligible to common readers, he has adopted tartarus,{c)\n'
stead of translating it hell as our bible does. In one instance
now before me, {d) he follows Dr. Campbell in transferring the
word abyss, where our bible translates it the deep, notwithstand-
ing their censures against it for transferring instead of trans-
lating. In other cases he copies Doddridge's abyss;{e) besides
which he translates it the deep with Macknight,('/) and the bot-
tomless pit, with Doddridge. (g") In relation to another word of
similar import, my Opponent says, " There being no one word
{u) Hebr. xii. 22. {v) Rev. xvii. 5. (w) 1 Cor. xii. 25.
(x) 1 Cor. xi. 18. i. 10. {y) 1 Cor. i. 10. and Appendix, No. 67.
(z) In Matt. xxvi. 65, both occur.
(a) I have examined them in Matt, xviii. 28. xx. 2. 9. 10. 13. xxii. 1?.
{b) Acts xxvii. 14. (r) 1 Pet. ii. 4. (f/) Luke viii. ."1.
{e) Rev. xi. 7. xx. 3. (/) Rom. x. 7. (,§■) Rev. ix. 11. xvii. 18. xx. 1.
( 102 j
in our language which corresponds to the term hades, he [Df.
George Campbell] is obliged to i-etain and explain it." He at
the same time says, •' We [Mr. Alexander Campbell] have uni-
formly followed his method in the books which he did not trans-
late."(A) That is, the word hades is never translated, but always
retained in his New Testament. This he does in despite of Mac-
knight's grave, (i) and Doddridge's hell,[j) and his unseen
world{k) yet in this last translation my Opponent actually copies
Doddridge in three places, (/) notwithstanding his promise uni-
formly to retain hades after Dr. Campbell's example. From these
instances we may conclude that when he promises to adopt, he
will be sure to translate, and when he abuses our Translators
for adopting, he means to adopt twice as much as they have
done.
As my Opponent promised always to translate, so his incom-
parable makes extraordinary pretensions to uniformity in its
translations. His three guides have rendered the same word
sometimes one way and sometimes another. This he seems
determined to avoid as an error. He says " Wherever the
" word church is found in the common version, congregation
" will be found in this. We shall let Drs. Campbell and
" Doddridge defend the preference. For although they have
" not always so rendered it, they give the best of reasons why it
" should be always so translated, "(m) Here the arguments
of Doddridge and Campbell are given for a uniformity which
they did not approve nor practise. But on this subject my Op-
ponent is a professed disciple of Home Tooke, who was a great
enemy to allowing a diversity of significations to the same word.
After informing you that Dr. Johnson assigned forty-six mean-
ings to an English monosyllable, he says, ''But the celebrated
'• Home Tooke demonstrates that it has but one meaning, and
" that all the pretended meanings of Dr. S. Johnson are resolvable
" into it."(n) He then goes on to apply the remark to the
{li) Appendix No 21. {i) 1 Cor. xv. 55. ( ;') Rev. vi, 8.
Ik) Rev. XX. 13. 14. (/) Actb ii. 27. 31. Rev. i. 18.
{m) Appendix No. 10.
(?/) Si)urious Debate M'ith W. L, M. p. 313. Note.
( 103 )
Greek prepositions in opposition to Parkhurst, who allowed
sixteen meanings to one, and eighteen to another. Let it be
remembered that Home Tooke, in ascertaining his one meaning
of a word, is governed by its etymology. Here also my Oppo-
nent follows him; and he gives this as a reason for banishing
the word church from his New Testament. He says, " The
" term church or kirk^ is an abbreviation of the word xv^lov
*' ovxoi the house of the Lord, and does not translate the term
*' sxxxrjgia,^^ [a Calling out.](o) Here the mere fact of two words
being differently derived, is given as a reason why they cannot
have the same signification, and why one of them cannot pro-
perly translate the other. If church cannot render ecclesia,
merely because it is etymologically the house of the Lord, and
not a calling out, then surely his ftivourite congregation cannot
render it, for this is, by derivation, a gathering together, and
not a calling out. This places ecclesia in the same predicament
in which he says that hades is, without a corresponding word in
our language. To be consistent, then, he should either tran-
scribe it, or form some new word, like evocation, of a similar
derivation. So completely has my Opponent entangled himself
by this position, that if it can be maintained, then he has de-
stroyed his whole new version. If the mere want of coincidence
in etymology is sufficient to disqualify chxtrch from rendering
ecclesia, then his incomparable has not translated one verse of the
New Testament correctly. If he were tried by his own test, he
would fall infinitely below our own translators. This he knows
very well, and, therefore, in direct defiance of his own princi-
ples, he condemns them for paying too much attention to the
literal and etymological meaning of words. He says, "The
*' kings translators have frequently erred in attempting to be,
*' what some would call literally correct. They have not given
" the meaning in some passages where they have given a literal
" translation." More directly still to the point, he says, "that
." what a classical scholar, or a critical etymologist [such as
(ci) Appendix No. 10.
( 104 )
<* Home Tooke or his disciple] might approve, as a literal
<' version of some passages, is by no means the meaning of the
*< writer." These sentiments, he informs us, are the fruit of
his "better acquaintance with the idiomatic style of the Apostolic
" writings, and of the Septuagint Greek;" while he stigmatizes
as " smatterers in the original Greek,"(/3) those who lean to the
closer and stricter rendering of our Translators. He would
have come nearer the truth if he had told you that instead of
obtaining these sentiments from his own better acquaintance
with the Greek Scriptures, he took them, second-handed, from
Dr. George Campbell, who published them, as an apology for his
extremely loose version of the four Gospels, which might more
correctly be called a paraphrase than a translation. In avoiding
the literal extreme of Arias Montanus, he went so com-
pletely into the liberal extreme, that he saw himself in danger
of being accused of licentiousness. In relation to my Opponent's
views of the words ecchsia and church, on account of their want
of etymological coincidence, permit me to give you a little more
from Dr. Campbell. In shewing how unsafe it sometimes is to
trust to the etymology of a word for its meaning, he says,
*' There are many cases wherein, though its descent may be
•♦ clearly traced, we should err egregiously, if we were to fix
" its meaning from that of the primitive or root." "Thus the
" three words xco/xixoi in Greek, paganus in Latin, and villain
" in English, though evidently so conformable in etymology, that
" they ought all to denote the same thing, namely ^J^7/ag•er; have,
" for many ages, both lost that signification, and acquired others
*' in which they do not in the least resemble one another. If
♦' the use in these languages should ever come to be very little
" known, and the history of the nations nearly lost, we may
." form a guess at the absurdities in explaining those terms, into
♦' which men would be misled by etymology."(<7) Doubtless my
Opponent will agree to all this when Dr. Campbell says it, just
as he agrees to the very opposite when Home Tooke says it.
(/i) Preface, p. 7.
{q) Dr. Campbell's fourth Prcliminarv Dissertation. Sections 16. 17.
( 105 )
When he sells himself to two iTiasters, he is for yielding implicit
obedience to both, even when they are diametrically opposed to
each other, and lead him into palpable contradictions and ab-
surdities.
The absurdity of hi? preferring congregation to church, as a
i-endering of ecc/esia, and then uniformly adhering to that render-
ing, will soon be evident. The word ecclesia is used to denote
the place of worship as well as the worshipping assembly. The
word church has the same latitude of signification: but congrC'
gation has not. Paul says, " "When ye come together in the
ecclesia, I hear that there be divisions among you."(r) Our
Bible says, "when ye come together in the church.''^ Of this
Dr. Gill approves, and says that the word means ^^ the place
where the church met together to perform divine service," which
exposition he proves by the context. Accordingly Dr. Mac-
knight says, " when ye come together in the church.''^ As usual,
my Opponent alters the word church, and says, " When ye
come together in the congregation.^^
In another instance, according to Doddridge, '* The Saddu-
cees say, there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit."(s)
My Opponent's incomparable reads, "There is no resurrection,
neither [good nor evil] messenger,^' &c. What Doddridge calls
angel in the next verse, my Opponent calls " heavenly messen-
ger," without enclosing the word heavenly in brackets, as he
did the words " good and evil" in the former verse. This way
of translating leaves the common reader, (whose benefit my
Opponent had supremely in view,) perfectly at a loss to know
what is in Doddridge, what is in the Original, and what the
new translator would be at.
Another instance of the astonishing uniformity of my Oppo-
nent's New Testament. There are four texts in which Dod-
dridge, with some claims to uniformity, transfers the word
myslery.it) In the first of these my Opponent agrees with him
(r) 1 Cor. xi. 18. (s) Acts xxiii, 8.
{t) Rev. xvii. 5. 7. (com. 22) x, 7. i. 20.
o
( 106 )
in transferring. In the second and third, he translates it secret.
In the fourth he renders it hidden-meaning.
Again; there are six texts in which Doddridge uniformly
transcribes the words blaspheme, blasphemer, blasphemy, blas-
phemously.(u) Only four of these are in those books of which
he professes to give Doddridge's translation. In the first of
these, my Opponent transcribes blasphemers as Doddridge does.
In the second he translates detractions, in the third, abusive
things, in the fourth reviled^ in the fifth slander, and in the sixth
defamation. All this is for the sake of an extraordinary and
scrupulous uniformity!
Once more. The word anastasis occurs four times in the
compass of eight verses. (v) In the first of these instances, my
Opponent's incomparable uniformity renders it future life, in the
second resurrection, in the third that state, and in the fourth
revival, where Dr. Campbell has it quickening. Now in all these
places, our translation, which is so much censured for its want of
uniformity, uses the word resurrection, as Doddridge does.
With this uniform rendering agree the Latin translations of
Jerome, Castalio, Beza, and that of Junius and Tremellius: as
do also the German, Italian, and French, of Luther, Diodati,
and De Sacy, with a variety of others in different languages.
Even the Unitarian Improved Version, and the Universalist
double-distilled version by Mr. Kneeland, renders the word
uniformly resurrection as our bible does. My Opponent's su-
perfine is the only one which professes an unparallelled consis-
tency, and he and his pattern, whom he has altered, are the
only ones who have given four renderings to this word, in a
passage of eight verses.
Let it be remembered that my Opponent does not openly offer
to the public a new version of his own, but he proposes to give
us the works of Drs. Campbell, Macknight, and Doddridge. In
his Appendix he says, " we were scrupulously intent on giving
(m) Acts xix. 37. Mk. iii. 28. Luke xxii. (>5. Acts xviii. 6. Rev. ii. 9.
xiii. 6. iy) Matt. xxii. 23. 28. 30. 31.
( 107 )
"every word of the works proposed, "(id?) It is true that in
making this declaration, he may have had his eye upon the notes,
in which, however, he has not given every word of the works
proposed, as may be seen in the alteration last mentioned, and
others without number. But if he had scrupulously given every
word of theirs in the notes, would that justify him in imposing
the work upon the community, as the " New Testament trans-
*' lated from the original Greek, by George Campbell, James
" Macknight, and Philip Doddridge, Doctors of the Church of
*' Scotland?" He ought rather to have called it, the translation
of one man, accompanied with the various readings of three
others: or, at least, he should have given it such an honest title
as that of the Unitarian translation ; " The New Testament, in
" an Improved Version, upon the basis of Archbishop New-
" come's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical
" and explanatory." The authors of this work did not dare to
offer it to the British public, as '• the New Testament translated
<' by Newcome, a Primate of the Church of England," but only
a new version "upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's."
What then would they think of a Unitarian Baptist, who would
publish a translation, purporting to be the work of three " Doc-
tors of the Church of Scotland," and yet containing more varia-
tions from these Doctors, by three or four, if not ten times, than
the Improved Version has alterations of Newcome's translation?
Mr. Kneeland's New Testament is as good a copy of either Scar-
lett or the Improved Version, as my Opponent's is of the three
Doctors : yet he had not the audacity to palm it upon the public as
either of these works, but v/as satisfied with the puerile vanity
of being the author of a new version, between which and its
models there was no important difference.
In some important instances, my Opponent agrees with these
corrupt versions, in opposition to those which he promised to
copy. It is well known that the Unitarians endeavour to fritter
down the interview between Paul and the jailer to little more
(w) p. 38.
( 108 )
than a consultation about temporal safety from civil punishment
by the Roman government. This has been attempted I am told, by
Dr. Holley in Lexington. With a view to this, the Unitarian
Improved Version makes the jailer say, '^ Sirs, what must I do
to be safeP"* And it makes Paul and Silas answer, "Believe in
" the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be so/e and thine house-
" hold."(x) To the word safe, they append a note informing
us that Newcome has the word savnl in accordance with our
translation: after Avhich the note says "Mr. Wakefield explains
it, to avoid punishment for what has befallen the prisoners and
the prison. " This," he adds, "is beyond all doubt, the sense
" of the passagej though Paul, in his reply, uses the words in a
*' more extensive signification: a practice common in these
" writings." Kneeland copies the translation and the note
without giving credit for either. My Opponent translates, "O
" Sirs, what must I do that I may be sajt ? And they said, Be-
" lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be safe, and
" thine house." As there is nothing about this passage in the
margin, and as there is no note referring from this or any other
part of the chapter to the Appendix, any reader, who has not
been accustomed to catching eels, would take it for granted that
Doddridge had given the above translation in accordance with
the Unitarian and Universalist versions. But on examining the
Appendix, half of Doddridge's translation is found wedged in
between notes to which reference is made from the preceding and
succeeding chapters. In connexion with this half-reading, he gives
the reason why he had thus hidden Doddridge, and ''given the most
conspicuous place to that [Unitarian] version, which appeared
to deserve it." This reason is given in the words of Wakefield
the Unitarian, as follows, vi/,. " The jailer meant no more than,
" what shall I do to be safe from punishment ? for what had be-
" fallen the prisoners and the prison ? This is, beyond doubt
" the sense of the passage; though Paul, in his reply, uses the
'^ words in a more extensive signification; a practice common in
{x) Acts xvi, 30. 31.
( 109 )
" these writings." These words in the Appendix are preceded
and followed by the name of Wakefield, as the author of the
translation and note. Thus, while there is a happy agreement
between Doddridge and our translation, there is also a sweet
harmony between the Socinian version of London, the Univer-
salist of Philadelphia, and the Arian Baptist of BufFaloe Creek.
It is well known that the exhortation of Paul "to feed the
church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood, "(2/)
is shocking to the feelings of those who do not believe in the
supreme deity and true humanity of him whose blood has satis-
fied divine justice for the sins of his people. It even wounds
weak Christians, on account of its appearing to attribute blood
antl suffering to God who is impassible. For this reason various
transcribers and translators, ancient and modern, have softened
down the Apostle's expression, by substituting, some, one word,
and, some another, which may not be so shocking to their feel-
ings. Some of these transcribers and translators are adduced
by the Unitarian Improved Version, to prove that the word
Lord is a better reading than that of the received text. Mr.
Kneeland's Universalist Version also prefers the word Lord ;
and so does rny Opponent's edition of Dr. Doddridge's transla-
tion, without one marginal note or reference to the Appendix
from any part of the Chapter to shew that he was not reporting
the Dr. correctly. On this account, ?' A Friend to Truth" in
" The Western Luminary, "(2^) in noticing this alteration, says
that my Opponent " passes over it silently." This mistake was
owing to the violation of a promise made by my Opponent in his
Preface. His words are these, viz. " instead of crowding the
" margin with different translations and critical notes, we have
*' placed them in an Appendix and made references to them at
" the bottom of the page."(a) After having generally dis-
regarded this engagement until he gets to the 224th page
of his translation, he then refers to a note in the Appendix,
which gives notice that he will violate this promise on a greater
(t/) Acts XX. 28. (z) For Jan. iii. 182r. («) p. 10.
( 110 )
scale "in the subsequent books of the New Testament, than in
the preceding," and assigns as a reason for this course, that so
many references " at the bottom of the page" " would rather
have disfigured the page." I confess that if his work were
bespangled with asterisks and other marks as numerous as the
instances in which he has altered his three great men, it would
give his page some resemblance to whortle berries and milk :
but the right way to remedy this evil, is not to conceal the
alterations, but to remove them, by giving a fair copy of his
Doctors. At present, however, he saves his page at the expense
of his veracity and honesty. Instead of making his notes plain
for common readers, and opening them by distinct references,
he makes them short, contracted, and to most men, unintelligi-
blej and then wraps up a great number of them in a bundle,
not with the order of a pedlar's pack, but with the confusion of
a rag-man's sack. With the exception of one little note of less
than a line, all my Opponent's notes on eight chapters now
before me, are squeezed into one of these bales, to which there
is only one reference in the whole translation. Snugly enclosed
in the centre of this astonishing hurra's nest, you find the fol-
lowing note, viz. "v. 29. 'Church of Godj'Dod. * Of the Lord;'
Griesbach." This I perceive to be a note on the 29th verse of
something. Going very little farther back, I find " Chap, xx."
This therefore must be the 29th verse of the 20th Chapter of
some book. Anxious to find the name of the book, I in vain
explore this branch of notes to its source. Being disappointed
here, I examine the batch of notes preceding it, and the one
preceding that, until I have tried as many as you have fingers
and toes, without being able to discover the name of the book to
which one note belongs. Here he will say that this defect in
the notes is supplied by the " references to them at the bottom
of the page," where the text is found in the translation. This
would have beerv the case in some measure, if he had performed
his promise in making those references at the bottom of the page.
But the text to which this note belongs, is on page 266. Here
there is no reference, nor on any preceding page nearer than
( 111 )
259, where another verse of another chapter gives occasion to
refer to this mass of notes, seven pages before the text in ques-
tion, and thirteen pages before the last text contained in the
mass. After a tedious search you can discover that his " v. 29,"
means not the 29th, but the 2Sth verse of the 20th Chapter of
the Acts of the Apostlesj and that his " ' Church of God;' Dod.
* Of the Lord;' Griesbach," means that Doddridge agrees with
bur bible in giving the name of God to him who purchased the
church with his blood, whereas my Opponent had rejected Dod-
dridge, and followed Griesbach, in substituting the word Lord.
In answer to his detector in the Western Luminary [b) he de-
fends this substitution by observing, "I said in the preface I
" gave the most conspicuous place to that reading or rendering
" which I thought deserved it— and so it happens here." Yes,
let it be remembered that he puts into the text of this new
translation, whatever he thinks deserves it, and then publishes
this compilation of a Unitarian Baptist, as the work of three
Presbyterian Pedobaptist Doctors 1 1 1
As my Opponent in connexion with the above remark, gave
his reason at large, for supplanting Doddridge with another read-
ing, indulge me with the liberty of paying a moment's attention
to them. They are three. One is that Griesbach *' decides in
favour of the latter." Another is that Ireneus " quotes it as in
the new translation." A third is that " The Syriac translation,
the oldest in the world, has it Lordy
The two last reasons are alledged facts which he observes,
" I [^Mr. Campbell] added in my own mind to the authority of
Griesbach." Thus my Opponent, with all his professed oppo-
sition to creeds and confessions of human composition, is not yet
escaped from human authority. In favour of a Unitarian trans-
lation of Acts xvi. SO, he gives no other authority than that of
Wakefield, a Unitarian writer: and in favour of a Unitarian
reading of Acts xx. 28, he gives " the authority of Griesbach,"
whom the Unitarians claim. Real Christians call no man
(6) For Jan. 3, 1827.
( 112 )
Father; and they adopt a human creed, as they would preach or
hear a human sermon; because they believe it to be founded
upon the scriptures. But many unregenerate persons receive
this creed, as my Opponent once did the Westminster Confes-
sion, upon no other ground than human authority; and they
afterwards reject it, as my Opponent has done, because they
prefer a Unitarian Master to any other. Here also it may not
be improper to observe, as the writer in the Western Luminary
has done, that the celebi'ated Nolan has proved that the criteria
by which Griesbach has made his decision, are fundamentally
erroneous, and Wakefield himself has decided against him in
this instance.
In answer to my Opponent's second reason, drawn from the
testimony of one of the Fathers, in favour of his reading, I
would observe that Middleton, who is not decided in favour of
our reading of the passage, still says that " it is quoted or re-
ferred to by a great many of the Fathers."
My Opponent's third reason exhibits, if I mistake not, a
greater degree of moderation than he is accustomed to. He
only says that "The Syriac translation, the oldest in the world,
has it Lord." Considering the liberties which he usually takes,
we should expect him to claim the Latin Vulgate, which is the
next oldest in the world; and the Arabic and Ethiopic which
are highly esteemed by some. Griesbach, my Opponent's Mas-
ter, actually did claim the Ethiopic; in consequence of which
his professed brother Wakefield declared his testimony on this
point, *■* infamously false." (c) Yet it is not more false than the
testimony of a certain translator, in claiming the Syriac Ver-
sion in favour of his reading. The Syriac Version has neither
his reading nor ours,((/) but a reading which is found in no
Manuscript, and which both parties consider unsupported by
evidence. But my Opponent, no doubt, thinks that he has as
good a right to alter ancient translations as modern ones; and
in this I agree with him.
(c) MidrUeton on the text. (r/) But Messiah or Christ.-
i
( 113 )
Before I dismiss this incomparable of my Opponent, permit
me to notice liis last refuge from that infamy to vvliich the voice
of an insulted and defrauded people will consign him. When
his Prospectus says that he will translate such words as the
three Doctors had adopted, he adds, ^^ But in doing this [that is,
" in translating,] ive shall not depart in any instance from the
*' meaning which they have declared those words to convey?'' In
answering his newspaper antagonist, the "Friend of Truth,"
he refers to this as a " promise of great importance," and adds,
«* Now it can be proven in any court of law or equity where the
" English language is spoken, that I have not, in one instance,
" departed from this promise. I challenge all the colleges and
" divines on this continent, to shew that I have not, in every
" instance, so done. Let this Doctor of divinity, this ' Friend
" to Truth' make an attempt."
This pompous challenge would make some take it for granted
that my Opponent never alters the meaning of either of his
Doctors, although he may alter his words. But if this be the
case, why does he, according to his Preface, (e) substitute the
words of Dr. Campbell for those of Doddridge or Macknight,
in every passage which he has translated ? and why does he
give as a reason for this, the superior " correctness and elegance"
of his translations ? Is there no difference of meaning between
Dr. Campbell's correct and elegant translations, and those for
which they are substituted? But correct and elegant as Dr.
Campbell is, he is not to compare with my Opponent, to whose
translations, those of Dr. Campbell as well as Macknight and
Doddridge must give way, in order to form a book concerning
which it may be said, that "the ideas communicated by the
Apostles and Evangelists of Jesus Christ, are incomparably
better expressed in this than in any volume ever presented in
our mother tongue." Can this much altered translation be
incomparably better than its models, as published by themselves,
or in the London Edition, without any change in the meaning of
{€) p. 10.
( 114 )
one word ? If there be no difference in meaning, how comes it
to pass that when he substitutes hades for Doddridge's hell^ he
gives as a reason that the word " is very improperly translated
hell?^\f) Is there no difference between the original and a
very improper translation ? Taking the Epistle to the Hebrews
as a specimen of the whole work, he says, in his answer to the
"Friend of Truth," ^^ About Jifty times you will find Mac-
knight in the Appendix in this one Epistle," and then offers a
guess that there are as many as three thousand such alterations
in the whole work, instead of the reduced calculation of fifteen
hundred which his Antagonist had made. Are we to understand
that he has altered the words of his authors fifty times in one
Epistle, and three thousand times in all, without once changing
their meaning I
Hut the letter of his challenge calls for an instance in which
his New Testament gives a meaning different from his Doctors,
by translating a word which they had adopted. The word heresy
is translated by my Opponent, and adopted by his author.
Doddridge says, " After the way which they call heresy, so do
I worship the God of my Fathers." My Opponent says,
*' After the way which they call a sect, so worship I the God of
my fathers." Now if it can be shewn that my Opponent under-
stands the word sect in an indifferent sense, and that Doddridge
understands the word heresy in an evil sense, then my Opponent
has altered his author's meaning by translating a word which
his author had adopted. In a note to which my Opponent refers
from this text, his meaning is conveyed to us in the language of
Dr. Campbell. After explaining the original by class, party,
sect, he observes, " The word was not, in its earliest accepta-
" tion, conceived to convey any reproach in it, since it was
*' indifferently used, either of a party approved, or of one dis-
" approved by the writer." Thus my Opponent's word sect is
understood indifferently. Now altljough Doddridge gives the
word sect in his paraphrase, he gives a reason for preferring the
(/) Rev, vi, 8. Compare Appendix No. 21.
( 115 )
word heresy in the text. He admits that on account of the cir-
cumstances of the primitive Christians, " they might properlj
be called a sec^orpar/yof men," but he says, "I cannot but think
*♦ this a place, where the word di^ffftj, which I own to be often
" indifferent, is used in a bad sense ; for Paul plainly intimates,
** that Christianity did not deserve the name they gave it."
Thus my Opponent's translation gives a word in an indifferent
sense, which Doddridge thinks might properly be applied to
Christians instead of his author's adoption of a word in an evil
sense, which Doddridge thinks the Christians did not deserve.
Yet my Opponent's promise says, "We shall not depart in any
*' instance from the meaning which they have declared those
*' words to convey."
Paul once preached Christ to the Jews. My Opponent says,
" But when they set themselves in opposition, and reviled, he
shook his garments. "(^'•) Would not any common reader un-
derstand from this, that the Jews reviled Paul ? and was not this
what my Opponent meant that they should understand ? Yet
Doddridge says, " they set themselves in opposition, and blas-
phemed" that glorious name on which he was pressing them to
fix their dependence. To the same amount, in other places, (A)
Doddridge adopts blasphemy, and my Opponent translates
slander, defamation. It is well known that in common language,
reviling, slander, and defamation, denote an offence against our
fellow men; whereas Dr. Allison, a Baptist Preacher, in his
English Dictionary, says that " blasphemy is an offering of some
" indignity unto God himself." In accordance with this, Dod-
dridge in describing the Roman Beast, says that it was " full of
blasphemous names, "(t) which his paraphrase explains by its
"ascribing to itself, and the harlot upon it, properties and
glories which belong to God alone." My Opponent, instead of
^^blasphemous names," translates ^^ slanderous names."
My Opponent might here urge in extenuation, that he was
following his perfectly correct and elegant pattern. Dr. George
(i') Acts xviii. 6. (A) Rev. ii. 9. 13. 1. (i) Rev. xvii. 3.
( 116 )
Campbell, as he promised in his preface. If this were true, it
would only shew that he made two promises which were incon-
sistent with each other: one is that he would always substitute
Campbell's words for those of the other two Doctors; and the
other is that he would never depart from their meaning. But if
I mistake not, while Campbell justifies him in one departure
from Doddridge(y) his principles and practice condemn him in
all the rest. He admits that the word blaspheme should be
retained when God is the object of this offence. In the last
text the Beast is said to be full of blasphemous names, because
he claims divine attributes and honors. For this very thing the
Jews repeatedly accused our Saviour of the same offence; and
in no such case does either Dr. Campbell or my Opponent ren-
der it reviling, slander, or defamatioyi, but they both retain the
Vf or d blasphemy. "Who is this that speaketh blasphemies?
Can any one forgive sins beside God ?'' " For a good work we
do not stone thee, but for blasphemy, because thou, being [a]
man, makest thyself God.''(^) In these texts my Opponent has
exactly followed his model, except in the insertion of our in-
definite article before the word man, which, among three thou-
sand alterations, can hardly be noticed.
According to my Opponent's translation, Paul's reason for
delivering Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan, was " that tliey
might be taught by chastisement, not to defame." Although
Macknight, whom he here professes to copy, uses the word revile
in his commentary, yet as he expressl}' declares " Christ or his
doctrine" to be the object of this reviling, he retains i/as/j/iemc in
the text, according to the principles of my Opponent's favourite,
Dr. Campbell : '^ that they miglit be taught by chastisement not
to blaspheme." (J) In another instance [in) he retains blasphemers,
where my Opponent substitutes defamers, althougli Mucknight's
commentary explains it ^'■blasphemers of God, by the injurious
"representations whiclx tliey give of him." I cannot tell how
(;■) Actsxviii. 6. See his Prelim. Dissert. 9. Part 2. Sect. 12.
(k) Luke V. 21. John x. 33. (/) 1 TiiTi. i. 20. (???) 2 Tim. iii. 2.
( 117 )
many cases of this sort his book contains; but I have very little
doubt that one whose time and patience would permit him to
wade through this mass of perversion, would discover many
other instances, in addition to the seven which I have pointed
out, in which my Opponent's authors adopt a word with
one meaning, and my Opponent translates it with another mean-
ing : yet the promise of his Prospectus is, " But in doing this,
" we shall not depart in any instance, from the meaning which
" they have declared those words to convey." And after the
work was published, he challenges "all the colleges and divines
" on this continent to shew" that he has " in one instance, de-
" parted from this promise."
My Opponent may be called a challengt -monger . The Re-
formers used to challenge that they might debate : my Opponent
debates that he may challenge. A Reformer once contended
ten days upon the ground of one challenge: my Opponent
does not slop at ten challenges in one day, and sometimes
in one speech. . When used as a manoeuvre, it sometimes
appears ingenious, although it may be disingenuous. If a
man accuse him of Unitarianism, he challenges him to prove
him a Socinian, as if Unitarianism did not embrace his darlinir
Arianism, as well as his brother Holley's Socinianism. A. accuses
B. of stealing one of his catile. B. challenges A. and all the
colleges and lawyers on the continent to jfrove that he has stolen
a cow ; thinking thereby to conceal the fact that he had stolen a
calf. But in the present case his right hand appears to have lost its
cunning: for he challenges the continent to shew one instance
in which he has departed from a promise, which he has directly
violated in the seven specified cases, and we know not how
many more.
There was a time when I thought the Unitarian Improved
Version a ron-pareil in theological atiocity: but, in respect of
fraud and falsehood, this Arian Baptist's New Translation is
incomparably beyond it. I am not sorry, therefore, that the
word Church, which introduced it to our notice, is not once
foifnd in this master-piece of deception.
( 118 )
THE POINT
WHICH WAS, IN PART, INTERRUPTED BY THE REVIEW,
RESUMED.
It has already been shewn that the application of this
word to the Jews in the Old Testament proves that they
were once the visible church of God. You have heard,
moreover, that it is confessedly used more than a hun-
dred times in the New Testament, to signify the visible
church. Now if we or our Baptist friends who agree
in this matter, were asked for our proof, how could we
answer more properly than by quoting such passages of
the New Testament as shew, by their connexion, that
the people called the churchy were a visible society,
acting as the consecrated depository of the oracles and
ordinances of revealed religion ? There are now before
me nine authorities(?2) which give the name of ecclesia
to those who had the worship, discipline, character and
condition of such a society. Perhaps, there is not a
regular Baptist on earth who will deny the conclusion,
or deny that it is authorized by these passages of the
New Testament. But a good rule will work both ways.
If these premises prove the existence of a New Testa-
ment church, they will also, if they can be found, prove
the existence of an Old Testament church. We are
then to look for the worship, discipline, character, and
condition of a visible church among the Jews.
{n) Acts xi. 26. xx. 17. xiii. 1. xii. 5. xiv. 23. (comp. 22.) xv. 41. xvi.
5. Matt, xviii. 17. xvi. 18.
( 119 )
I. Worship. '^ And all the church worshipped."
" And the whole church took counsel to keep other
** seven days:" ^ in religious exercises,' as Gill says.(o)
The religious exercises of the Old Testament were
such as the following.
1. Sacrifices. " For Hezekiah;, king of Judah, did
" give to the church a thousand bullocks, and seven
'* thousand sheep : and the princes gave to the church
'^ a thousand bullocks and ten thousand sheep : and a
*' great number of priests sanctified themselves."
^' And they brought forth the he-goats for the sin-offer-
'^ ing before the king and the church ; and they laid
*^ their hands upon them." " Then Hezekiah answer-
*^ ed and said, Now ye have consecrated yourselves
*' unto the Lord, come near, and bring sacrifices, and
*' thank-offerings into the house of the Lord. And the
^' church brought in sacrifices and thank- off*erings ; and
'' as many as were of a free heart, burnt offerings. And
^' the number of the burnt- offerings which the church
'* brought, was," &c.{p)
2. Festivals. " For the king had taken counsel, and
'^ his princes, and all the church in Jerusalem, to keep
^^ the passover in the second month." ^'^ And there as-
^^ sembled at Jerusalem much people, to keep the feast
" of unleavened bread in the second month, a very great
" cAwrcA." " For there were many in the church, that
'^ were not consecrated: therefore the Levites had the
" charge of the killing of the passovers, for every one
(o) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. xxx. 23.
(//) 2 Chr, xxx, 24. xxix. 23. 31. 32. xxx, 2.
( 120 )
" that was not clean, to consecrate them unto the
3. Prayer. "And he stood before the altar of the
"Lord in the presence of all the church of Israel, and
" spread forth his hands. For Solomon had made a
" brazen scaffold," " and upon it he stood, and kneeled
" down upon his knees before all the church of Israel,
" and spread forth his hands toward heaven. '^(r) Cora-
pare this with certain passages of the New Testament,
in which Baptists themselves see evidence that the visi-
ble church of God is meant. " Peter, therefore, was
^^ kept in prison ; but prayer was made without ceasing,
"of the church, unto God for him." "Now there
" were, in the church that was at Antioch, certain pro-
" phets and teachers." " And when they had ordained
" them elders in every church, and had prayed with
" fasting, they commended them to the Lord on whom
" they believed."(«)
4. Praise. " I will give thee thanks in the great
*^ church, I will praise thee among much people." The
"great congregation," as 'our bible has it in the first
clause of this verse. Dr. Gill explains, " the church and
''people of God." The expression in the last clause, he
explains, " the people of God meeting together for so-
" lemn worship." The Psalmist says again, "The
" heavens shall praise thy wonders, 0 Lord ! thy faith-
" fulness also, in the church of the saints." Here Gill
says " holy men are meant, such as are called to be
" saints, and are gathered together in a gospel church-
{<l) 2 Chr. XXX. 2. 13. 17. (r) 2 Chr. vi. 12. 13.
(a) Actsxii. 5. xiii. 1. xiv. 23, (conip. 22.)
( 121 )
state." The same explanation he gives of the following:
*' Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song,
'^ and his praise in the church of saints." It is plain that
this is directly applicable to the Israelitish church, as
well as prophetical of the Christian church. The same
may be said of the following: " I will declare thy name
** unto my brethren ; in the midst of the church will I
^^ praise thee."(^) Several of these texts mention sing-
ing, one important means of ecclesiastical praise, (m)
5. Reading, expounding, ^nd preaching. '^ There
'' was not a w^ord of all that Moses commanded, which
'^ Joshua read not before all the church of Israel, with
'^ the women and the little ones, and the strangers that
"^were conversant among them." "And Ezra the
'' priest, brought the law before the churchP ^' So
'* they read in the book, in the law of God distinctly,
" and gave the sense, and caused them to understand
''the reading.^' "'I have preached righteousness in
'' the great church.'\v) Compare this with the decla-
ration that God anointed Isaiah '' to preach good ti-
" dings unto the meek ;" that he anointed our Saviour,
the Antitype of Isaiah, " to preach the gospel to the
" poor;" that he actually ''preached in the synagogues of
" Galilee :" and compare the whole with what is said of
Paul and Barnabas, " that a whole year they assembled
" themselves with the church, and taught much people.
" And the disciples were called Christians first in An-
^' tioch.^'iiv] Thus does the connexion of the word
(0 Ps. XXXV. 18. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix, 1. xxii. 22.
(m) 2 Chr. xxix. 28. Ps. cxlix. 1.
(v) Josh. viii. 35. Neh. viii. 2 — 8. Ps. xl. 9.
(lu) Isa. Ixi. 1. Luk. iv. 18. 44. Acts xi. 2fi.
Q
( 122 )
shew that it denotes a society consecrated to religious
purposes, both in the Old and New Testaments.
6. Implements Sind places for worship. "The brazen
*^ alta?' that Bezaliel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had
^* made, he put before the tabernacle of the Lord : and
'' Solomon and the church sought unto it." " So Solo-
'^ mon and all the church with him, went to the high
^' place that was at Gibeon ; for there was the tabernacle
'^ of the church of God, which Moses the servant of the
*^ Lord had made in the wilderness." " The heathen
^^ entered into her sanctuary, whom thou didst com-
'^ mand that they should not enter into thy church.'^
*^ And Ezra the priest brought the law before the
^^ churchP ^' And he read therein." " And Ezra the
'^ scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood which they had
" made for the purpose." " And the king turned his
^^ face, and blessed the whole church of Israel, and all
*^ the church of Israel stood." " Even them will I
^^ bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in
'^ my house of prayer : their burnt offerings and their
^^ sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar ; for mine
*^ house shall be called an house of prayer for all peo-
'' pie." '^ It is written. My house shall be called a
*^ house of prayer ; but ye have made it a den of
" thieves. "(a;) Can any one suppose that when the word
church occurs in the above passages, it means any thing
short of a visible society, acting as the consecrated de-
pository of the oracles and ordinances of revealed re-
ligion ?
{x) 2 Chr. i. 5. 3. Lam. i. 10. Ncli. \iii. 2. ". A. 2 Chr. vi. S. Isa.
Ivi. 7. Mat. xxi, l".
( 123 )
II. Discipline. The rules by which a society re-
fuses candidates, or expels members, will easily deter-
mine whether it is an ecclesiastical body or not.
1. Pi^€clusio7i. Moses points out some characters who
*^ shall not enter into the church of the Lord,^' until the
third generation, others until the tenth, and others
never. (?/) If this law goes no farther than to forbid
their being invested with ecclesiastical offices, this, ne-
vertheless [)roves the existence of a church to which
those offices are attached. This will appear in the
following words of Dr. Gill upon one of these statutes,
which, he says, *^ is to be understood, not of the sanctu-
'^ ary of the Lord, or of being refused admittance into
^^ the church of God, and to join in religious rites, and
'''^ partake of sacred ordinances, which all Israelites, and
" strangers that were proselytes, had a right unto ; such
^^ might bring their offerings, keep the passover, &c.{z)
2. Exclusion. " But the man that shall be unclean,
'* and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off
^^ from among the church, because he hath defiled the
^^ sanctuary of the Lord: the water qI separation hath
^^not been sprinkled on him.''(«) What it is to be
thus '^ cut off," Gill professes not certainly to know, but
among three conjectures, to ^' be excommunicated from
'' the church,'''^ is one. To be cut off ^^ from the Is-
*' raelitish church-state,"^ is one of three alternatives
which he gives us on another similar statute ;(6 and to
(j/) Deut. xxiii. 1 — 8.
\z) For this, Gill on Deut. xxiii. 1, quotes Ex. xii. 4S. 49. Lev. xxii.
18. Num. ix. 14. xv. 14. 15.
(a) Num. xix. 20. (comj). 13, to which Gill refers from the 50th.)
{b) Ex. xii. 19. (comp. 15, to which Gill refers for a fuller explana-
tion.
( 124 )•
'* be excommunicated from them as a church,''^ is only a
part of the punishment which Dr. Gill believes to be
contemplated in one of Ezra's decrees. (c)
III. Character. They were no synagogue of Satan,
or *^ congregation of the dead," as such are called by
Solomon. (c?) They were not a confused and unlawful
assembly, like Demetrius and his Ephesians.(e) Neither
were they a civil society, although they were connected
with such a body. When, in a certain case, they were
called ^'the whole church of the Lord,"(/) Dr. Gill
says, " they don't call them the congregation of Israel,
^* but of the Lord, because it was not on a civil, but
'^ religious account they were come." As they were
not a civil, so they were not a military body, although
they were the militant church, and when providentially
called, entered the military estalblishment of their coun-
try: as in the case of David and the Assembly who
were with him, which Dr. Gill says, was a ^^ great part
oV ^^ the congregation of Israel, and church of the
living God."(^) Its members were consecrated to
religious privileges and enjoyments. It was given in
charge to the Levites ^^to sanctify them unto the
Lord. "(A) This was to prepare them to "worship at
his holy hill," which " holy hill of Zion," Dr. Gill tells
us, means " the church. "(?') To the same amount does
he explain Joel's proclamation for a religious fast, al-
though it speaks of children as belonging to the congre-
gation, and partaking of their consecration and their
(c) Ezr. X. 8. {d) Prov. xxi. 16. (r) Acts xix. 32. 39,
(/") Josh. xxii. 16. (^) 1 Sam. xvii. 47. (A) 2Chr. xxx. 17.
Q) Ps. xcix. 9.
( 125 )
humiliation. *^ Gather the people, sanctify the churchy
assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that
suck the breast."(J) In accordance with this, Gill says
that Joshua's reading to the congregation was "not
before the men only, but ^ with the women and the little
ones,' who all had a concern in the things that were
read to them.^\k) From this consecration, the officers
of the church were, of course, not excluded. " A
great number of priests consecrated themselves. "(/)
This ecclesiastical consecration, as well as spiritual
sanctification, appears to be contemplated in calling
the Jews and the Christians, " the church of saints. ''(m)
Their imperfection in spiritual sanctification is confessed
by all parties, and taught in the scriptures. Sacrifices
are appointed for a case in which " the whole church of
Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from
the eyes of the church.^\n) This is the text by which
Gill and Ainsworth prove ^Hhat the church may err."
But on account of their perfect Head, and that degree
of sanctification which they enjoy, the scriptures call
them " the church of the upright,''(o) and recognize an
evident incongruity between church-membership and a
life of iniquity. " I was almost in all evil in the midst
of the church assembled. ^^[p) These things evidently
shew that they are a visible society, acting as the con-
secrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of
revealed religion.
IV. Condition. On that text which speaks of the
{j) Joel ii. 16. (comp. 15. 17.) {k) Josh. viii. 35.
{[) 2Chr. XXX. 24. (w) Ps. Ixxxix. 5. cxlix. 1.
(rj) Lev. iv. 13, (o) Ps. cxi. 1. (/O Prov. v. 14.
( 126 )
trumpets which were made "for the calling of the
churchy and for the journeying of the camps^l^r) Dr.
Gill takes occasion to remark that the Christian church
is in the same condition : '^ Saints are pilgrims and tra-
" vellers ; they are passing through a wilderness^ their
'^ way is attended with many difficulties ; Canaan is the
" place they are travelling to, and the gospel [like
'^ the trumpets] is of singular use to them by the way
'^ both to refresh them with its joyful sound, and to
" direct them in the path in which they should go."
But an inspired writer has said concerning Christ's pre-
sence with the Israelites, '^This is he that was in the
" church in the wilderness, with the angel, which spake
" to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers, who
" received the lively oracles to give unto us."(r) The
context shews that this person who was with them, was
the Divine prophet, priest and king of the visible
church, and it connects him and them with the taber-
nacle and temple which were ecclesiastical buildings ;
and thus shews that " the church in the wilderness" was
really, and not nominally only, the visible church of
God. Dr. Gill says that this ^^ must be understood of
" the children of Israel, who were the then church of
'^ God, whom he had chosen and separated from the rest
" of the world, to be a peculiar people to himself, to
^^ whom were given the word and ordinances^ the service
" of God, and the promises ; and God always had, and
" will have a church; though that is sometimes in the
*• wilderness ; which has been the case under the gospel
(7) Num. X. r. (r) Actsvii. 38. (comp. 37. 44. 47.)
( 127 )
'' dispensation, as well as before ; See Rev. xxii. 6. 14,
" and it was a peculiar honour to Moses, that he was in
^^ this church, though it was in the wilderness ; even a
'^ greater honour than to be in Pharaoh's court." In
accordance with this, Paul quotes David, as saying for
himself and for his Antitype, concerning Jew^s and
Christians, " I will declare thy name unto my brethren ;
'' in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto
" thee."(5)
You were told some time ago, of my Opponent's
statement, that ^^ the term church or kirk, is an abbre-
" viation of the word xi)^ tou oixoj, the house of the Lord,
and does not translate the term ?xxx?jcyia." But if fxxjii^cyttt
church, has a different meaning from xd^iov otxoj, the house
of the Lord, then it must certainly have a different
meaning from stov otxoj, the house of God. Yet let us
hear Paul's account of this matter, according to Mac-
knight's version, from which my Opponent, contrary to
promise, has grievously departed, in his New Transla-
tion. The Apostle gives certain instructions to Timo-
thy, '^ that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to
*^ behave thyself iv otxw Obov, in the house of God, which
^^ is ixx-Krint-a Oiov iiovtoi thc church of the living God.^\t)
Here is an inspired declaration that the church means
the same as the house of God, and of course, that it
means, the same as the house of the Lord, my Opponent's
declaration to the contrary notwithstanding. When
(.?) Hebv. ii. 12. (comp. context.) {t) 1 Tim. iii. 15.
( 128 )
Peter tells the churches that " the time is come that
judgment must begin at the house of God ;"(m) Dr. Gill
says, ^* By the house of God is either meant the temple
of Jerusalem," '* or else the church of God, which is
frequently called the house of God.'' When Paul says
that we have ^^ an high priest over the house of God,"(z^)
Gill says that it means " the church of God, over which
Christ is as prophet, priest, and king, and as the son
and owner of it.'" When Paul says " every house is
builded by some man,'' Gill understands it of ^^ the
whole church in general, of particular congregations,
and of individual believers." When Paul says **he
that built all things is God," Gill explains it '^ of Christ,
and of his building the church.^^w) This explanation
he still continues, when it is intimated that Moses be-
longed to that house, as it is repeatedly, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. (^) When it is said that "Moses verily
was faithful in all his house, as a servant,''(//) Gill says,
'^ a servant in holy things ;" He says, ''^ he was not
a servant in the world, and with respect to civil
things, and the affiiirs of Providence, but in the church
of God, and in divine things." And as the scriptures
never once intimate that this church began with Moses,
so neither does our great Baptist Commentator ; but in
the very same passage in which he says that " it was a
peculiar honour to Moses that he was in this church,"
he also says that "God always had, and will have a
church. "(2:)
(u) 1 Pet. iv. 17. {v) Hcbr. x. 21. (comp. v. 6.) (w) Hebr. iii. 4.
(,r) Hebr. iii. 2. 3. {y) Hebr. iii. .5.
(2) Gill on Acts vii. 38, quoted above,
( 129
To me it seems that a small part of the evidence which
has been adduced, ought to convince any one of the
truth of the proposition, that Abraham and his seed v^^ere
divinely constituted a visible church of God. They
have been shewn to have the oracles and ordinances of a
visible church, the members and officers of a visible
church, with the constitution and the express, inspired,
and unequivocal name of a church. Under this last
point, they have been shewn to have the worship of an
ecclesiastical body, such as sacrifices and festivals, pray-
er and praise, reading, expounding and preaching, to-
gether with ecclesiastical implements and places for
worship, such as the altar and pulpit, the tabernacle and
temple, which latter is called, in the Old and New Tes-
tament, the house of prayer. Under this point, it was
proved, moreover, that they had the discipline of a
church, in respect of preclusion and exclusion, and that
the scriptures attributed to them the character and con-
dition of a visible church. The existence, therefore, of
the Patriarchal or Old Testament church, is as certain
as the existence of the Christian or New Testament
church. And some of you are ready to say that if my
remaining propositions are as irrefragably proved as this
first one, then the conclusion in favour of infaiit-baptisui
is inevitable. We proceed then to
H
( 130 )
PROPOSITION II.
The Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic
CHURCH : OR, IN OTHER WORDS, THE JeWISH SoCIETY BE-
FORE Christ, and the Christian Society after Christ,
ARE one and the SAME CHURCH IN DIFFERENT ADMINIS-
TRATIONS.
You will be at no loss to account for my calling the
Christian church a branch of the Abrahamic, when you
remember that tliis is the figure used by Paul on the
same subject. The Jews he considers the natural branch-
es which are now cut off, and the Gentiles he treats as
foreign branches engrafted in their place. («) As our
proposition is scriptural, both in phraseology and doc-
trine, my Opponent, for the want of argument, falls into
a rhetorical ecstacy, about the inferiority of a branch
to the stock, and the consequent inferiority of the Chris-
tian to the Jewish church, if my language be correct.
On this ground he says that I can " be put to silence by
" every stripling who could ask the following question ;
^^ Is not a branch inferior to the stem or trunk from
'' which it grows ?"(Z>) I suppose my Opponent's strip-
pling would hardly deny that the superiority of a branch
to the trunk into which it is inserted, is the very reason
why engrafting is generally practised. But the scrip-
tures say, ^' behold the man whose name is The
" Branch." ^^ Behold I will raise unto David a right-
** eous Branch.'' " And there shall come forth a rod
<* out of the %tem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out
(a) Rom. xi. 16—24.
\h\ Mr, Campbell's Spuitofis Dc'^.ite with me, p. 134,
( 131 )
" of his roots. ''(c) These passages evidently represent
Immanuel as a branch of the stock of David, and David
as a branch of the stem of Jesse. Now I will let my
Opponent or his stripling say, whether Messiah the
Branch was not greater than the stock of David, and
whether David the branch was not greater than the
stem of Jesse.
The proposition in hand is sufficiently guarded in
respect of the sameness of the Jewish and Christian so-
cieties. It says nothing more than that they are the
same church; and nothing more than ecclesiastical iden-
tity is intended. You know that that lofty tree has not
changed its identity since it was a plant of a foot high.
Each of my hearers believes that he has, at this moment,
the same body with which he was born. The constant
mutation of its constituent particles never makes you
doubt your personal identity. The adjacent town of
Washington^) is governed by the same board of Trus-
tees from its foundation to the present day, although,
perhaps, not one individual remains of those who origi-
ginally composed it. When the Baptist church claims
the Petrobrussian church, and the Waldensian church,
and the Primitive church as belonging to their church,
they must mean nothing more than that ecclesiastical
identity which we say subsists between the Jewish and
Christian societies. The change of administration can
hardly make a greater difference between these, than
the change of condition makes between the church mili-
tant ?nd the church triumphant, which are nevertheless
(r) Zech. vi. 12. Jcr. xxiii. 5. Is. xi, 1.
((/) The first two days of the debate were in a forest near the town.
( 132 )
the same church in different states ; my Opponent to the
contrary notwithstanding, (e)
This view of ecclesiastical sameness, my Opponent
considers " as absurd as to say, that the human body and
the soul are one and the same thing," as if there were
no difference between ^^ flesh and spirit."(/) As the
human soul and body, though distinct beings, do really
form one person, they would afford a good illustration, if
they did not exist simultaneously, but in succession, as
do the Jewish and Christian churches. My Opponent's
sophism concerning the supposed identity of a horse and
an elephant, because they are both creatures ',{g) or, (if
he would prefer it,) the identity of a quibbler, and a
monkey, because they are both empty chatterers, would
answer very well, provided he will first establish the
doctrine of metempsychosis, a doctrine fully as correct
as some which he holds at present.
On this subject the Appendix to my Opponent's spu-
rious Debate with Mr. Walker(/i) has several questions
which it is convenient to answer.
^^ 1. Are not a constitution, laws, ordinances, sub-
^^ jects, and privileges, the chief constituents of a
^' church state ?"
The visible church is a visible society, acting as the
consecrated depository of the oracles and ordinances of
revealed religion.
^^ 2. Was the constitutiori that erected the Jewish
^^ nation into a national church, the same as the New
*^ Testament, or constitution of the Christian Cliurch?"
(e) Spur. Deb. with me. p. 19". ( /) Spur. Deb. with nic. p. 155.
(|r) Spur. Deb. with me. p. 83. (h) p. 195.
( 133 )
The Abrahamic covenant is the constitution of the
visible church under the Jewish and Christian adminis-
trations.
^^ 3. Were the laws that regulated the worship,
'^ discipline, political economy, judicial proceedings,
'^ and common intercourse of the Jews, the same as
'^ those under which the disciples of Christ act ?''
It has been ably proved by Pedobaptists, and is main-
tained by Dr. Gill^ the greatest Baptist that ever lived,
that the political economy of the Jews was distinct from
their ecclesiastical economy. But, in the present case,
the one serves as a very convenient illustration of the
other. As the national identity of Israel was not de-
stroyed by the change of their government from judges
to kings, so the ecclesiastical identity of God's people is
not destroyed by the transfer of their privileges from Jews
to Gentiles. After this transfer, the Baptists themselves
must confess that the government of the church-general
underwent many alterations, while the body remained the
same. If I mistake not, the Baptists generally believe
in opposition to us, that the government of the Apostoli-
cal churches was an Independent Congregationalism.
This they probably admit gave place to a confederated
parochial Episcopacy, or what is now called Presbyte-
rianism, as early as the days of Ignatius and Polycarp.
And they cannot deny that Dioscesan Episcopacy, or
full-blooded Prelacy, was the government of the same
church, in the days of Cyprian and Augustine. Neither
can they deny, that, at present, there is a great variety
of laws and modes of discipline, in the various branches*
of the Baptist church, which in their view^ do not
( 134 )
destroy their identity witli the church of John the
Baptist, or with one another. (z)
*^ 4. Were the ordinances of the Jewish statC;, the
'^ same, with regard to their import, times of obser-
** v*ance, number, the character and quality of the ob-
** servers or participants of them ?''
There was a difference in form, yet a substantial same-
ness in the passover, and the eucharist, and in circum-
cision and baptism, as we hope to shew fully in its place.
Circumstantial differences effect not the substance.
^* 5. Are the subjects of the Christian church to be
'^ such in birth, education, temper, and character, as
^^ thesubjects of the commonwealth of Israel?"
They are the same thus far, that they should be
believers and their seed.
'' 6. Are the privileges enjoyed by Christians in the
*^ church of Christ, just the same as those enjoyed by
"the Jews?"
- Privileges, whether in church or state, may be en-
larged or restricted, created or suppressed, without
affecting the identity of the body. The repeal of the
edict of Nantz did not annihilate the French nation,
neither did the toleration act under William the Third,
create a new nation in England : neither did these
decrees affect the identity of churches. Popish or Pro-
testant, Conformist or Non-conformist, in France or
.England. Virginia would still be Virginia, if she were
(j) If, by common intercourse, in this third question, is meant domestic
lintercourse, "such as is contemplated in Lev. xx. 18. Ez. xviii. G, I say
I that'those particular laws arc still binding. If he have regard to social
intercourse, I say that wc arc now jiermittcd to cat with unbelievers.
( 135 )
to extend the right of suffrage to her poorest citizen,
and Pennsylvania would still be Pennsylvania, if she
were to compel Preachers and Quakers to perform
military duty. These United States would still be the
same, Tthough somewhat disgraced,) if they were to give
constitutional permission to the society of Cincinnati,
to wear an empty honorary title of nobility. And the
Presbyterian church would be the same, (though some-
what enhanced in value,) if, while they advocate a
parity of clergy, they would, like Martin Luther, leave
their Doctorates in Egypt, where those vain and invi-
dious distinctions were born. If a change in respect of
privilege must destroy identity, then Joseph was not the
same person in prison and in the office of prime-minister
to Pharaoh.
" 7. When he{j) has answered the first question in
'' the affirmative, and the next five in the negative,
'^ (which, if he consults the holy oracles, he must,) then
^' how are two things the same^ which differ in every
'^ essential particular?"
The author of the above questions does not know what
is essentialj and what is not essential to a church. He
considers not only ordinances, but "times of obser-
vance," essential. The excommunication of the Asiatic
church, by the Roman Bishop, because they differed
from him in their time of observing Easter, must please
my Opponent much : for they ought to be out of the
church, when they lack that which is essential to the
church. If uniformity in "times of observance" be
{j) Tliebe queslions were addressed to Dr. tUy.
( 136 )
essential to ecclesiastical identity, then those whose
sabbath begins at sunset, and those whose sabbath begins
at midnight, cannot both belong to the Christian church ;
because they lack that which is essential to being in the
same church. He might as well say that two persons
cannot be members of the same family, or citizens of the
same state, unless they observe precisely the same time
in eating and sleeping. There are four things essential
to the visible church : visibility, association, consecra-
tion, and investiture ; by which last I mean, being in-
trusted with the oracles and ordinances of revealed reli-
gion. Now the Jewish and Christian societies were thus
invested, and were consecrated to this trust, for which
they were visibly associated. As both, therefore, were
visible associations, and both were consecrated deposito-
ries, they both had all the essentials of God^s church on
earth ; and no possible difference could hinder their amal-
gamation, any more than the difference between olive
trees would make engrafting impossible, or the differ-
ence between different countries would prove an insur-
mountable obstacle to making a British subject an
American citizen by naturalization.
My Opponent's eleven objections to the sameness of
the Jewish and Christian societies, I shall have to notice
concisely in an order of my own.
1. My Opponent's sixth argument is founded upon
our Saviour's consolatory address to his small family ;
^'' Fear not, little Hock, for it is your Father's good
^' pleasure to give you the kingdom. "(s) It was pra-
{z) Luke XX, 32. Spur. .D«.b. with me. \u 226.
( 137 )
dent for my Opponent to spend but little of his breath in
showing that this text excludes the Old Testament so-
ciety from God's ecclesiastical kingdom, because if it
does prove that, it must also prove that the Christian
church must always be a little flock, even in the millen-
nium, and in the kingdom of glory.
2. My Opponent's seventh argument is founded upon
Matt, xix, 28. "And Jesus said unto them, verily I say
" unto you, that ye which have followed me in the rege-
" neration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne
'^ of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
^'judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "(a) He gives it
to us in Campbell's translation, which uses the word re-
novation instead of regeneration, intimating that this
renovation means the institution of the Christian church.
My Opponent then says, " Observe here the erection of
" this new kingdom is called emphatically the reno-
^^ VATION ; in the common translation the regenera-
*^ TioN, not the continuation of the Jewish church."
My Opponent has considerable versatility of ge-
nius. When he is at a loss for proof, he can turn any
thing into evidence by merely making it emphatical.
By this means he can even impress opposite arguments
into his service. All that they need is a due degree of
emphasis. When our Saviour promised to huild his
church, my Opponent discovered that to huild a church
was very different from rebuilding or repairing a
church ; for rebuilding and repairing supposed a pre-
vious existence of a church which had fallen into decay.
(a) Matt. xix. 28. in Spur. Deb. against me, p. 228.
s
( 138 )
But now he lays an emphasis upon regeneration and re-
novatiotif words equivalent to 9'ebuilding and repairing,
and makes out that they do not presuppose existence,
but the very contrary.
3. His tentli argument is founded upon a passage
which, (strange as it may seem,) is a direct proof of the
identity of the Jewish and Christian societies, according
to my proposition. *^ For he is our peace, who hath
*' made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall
^^ of partition between us ; having abolished in his flesh
^' the enmity, even the law of commandments contained
^^ in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new
^^ man, so making peace. "(i) According to him, this
proves that Jews and Gentiles are emphatically made
BOTH ONE, ONE NEW MAN, that is, ONE NEW CHURCH.
Very well. So says Dr. Gill also. And so be it. My
Opponent, however, believes it to be a new church, as
to its essence, and I believe it to be a new church, as
to its administration. The second temple was, in one
sense a new temple, but in another, it was only a ?'eno-
vation of the old temple. So the higher gate of the
temple, which Jotham repaired, is twice called by Jere-
miah '^ the new gate,"(c) in consequence of its repairs,
although it was as old as the temple. This same prophet
says concerning the Lord's mercies '^they are new every
'^ morning ;"( J) which Gill justly explains, by saying that
they are ^^ daily renewed in the manifestations thereof."
John says, " I write no new commandment unto you,
'^ but an old commandment, which ye had from the be-
{b) Eph. ii. 14. 15. Spur. Deb. ag. nie, p. 235.
((•■) Jcr. xxvi. 10. xxxvi. 10. (conip. 2 Ku;s. xv. 35.)
{d) Lam. iii. 23. •
,( 139 )
'^ ginning." This, Dr. Gill thinks, is the law of love.
And the same law of love, he thinks, is meant in the
next verse, which says, " A new commandment I write
^* unto you. "(e) This he says, ^*^ is the same with the
^^ former, considered in different respects. The com-
^* mand of brotherly love is a new one ; that is, it is an
*^ excellent one, as a 7itiv name is an excellent name,
'^ and a new song is an excellent one." So the Jews
and Gentiles are now united in one new man, or new
church, because there is now a neiv administration, and
one which far excels the old.
4. My Opponent's eleventh argument is based upon
Paul's declaration that we have received " a kingdom
which cannot be moved. "^) He thinks the word king-
dom here means the New Testament church, and that
these words, with the context, amount to a proof that
there is an essential difference between the Jewish and
Christian societies, as the one can be moved and the
other cannot.
If this argument prove that these two bodies cannot
be one church, then it will also prove that a human soul
and body cannot form one person ; for the one can be re-
moved by death, and the other cannot. But, if Provi-
dence permit, I hope, in due time, to lay before you
plain scriptural evidence that the ecclesiastical Imigdotn
of God embraces both the Jewish and Christian adminis-
trations. When, however, the word kingdom is used to
denote the latter adininistration to the exclusion of the
former, it has, of course, the precedency in point of dig-
((=■) 1 John, ii. 7. 8.
(/) Hebr. xii. 28. Spur. Deb. witli mc. p. 236.
( 140 )
nity and stability, as the soul excels the body with which
it is united. That this word does sometimes signify ad-
ministration, both in church and state, will not be diffi-
cult to prove by my Opponent himself. Where our
translation says, ^^ the kingdom of heaven is likened un-
^^ to a certain king," my Opponent's New Testament
reads, "the administration of heaven resembleth that
'^ of a king."(A) This is a copy of Dr. George Camp-
bell, and accords with his Preliminary Dissertation on
this word, in which he says that '^ in some of the para-
'^ bles, it evidently means administration, or method of
'' governing. '^^{i) Now that the Jewish administration
is removed, and that the Christian administration of the
church never will be removed, I have never denied.
But in the same part of Dr. Campbell's dissertation, he
mentions a parable, in which ^^ the word denotes royalty
" or royal authority ;" and it so happens that the phra-
seology of that parable is exactly parallel to that of the
text on which this argument of my Opponent rests.
This text speaks of our " receiving a kingdom which
^' cannot be moved." The parable uses such an ex-
pression twice. '^ A certain nobleman went into a far
country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to re-
turn," " having received the kingdom.^^{j)
Instead of "to receive for himself a kingdom," Dr.
Campbell's translation has it, '^ to procure for himself
royalty,''^ and instead of ^^ having received the king-
dom," the Dr. renders it " vested with royal poiver.^^
My Opponent promised that his translation sliouhl be a
(A) Matt, xviii. 2?>. (/) Dissert. 5. I'iirt. 1, Sect. T.
\j) Luke xix. 12. Ij
( 141 )
copy of Dr. CamphelFs ; and, for a remarkable thing,
he has made no other alteration than to insert our defi-
nite article before royalty. Remember that my Oppo-
nent has pronounced Dr. Campbell ^^the first translator
'^ in point of correctness and elegance that ever gave a
*^ version of any part of the scriptures." And for this
reason he has altered the versions of Macknight and
Doddridge, to make them conformable to him. Why,
therefore, did he not read his favourite text, '^ being
vested with a royalty which cannot be moved ?" He
cannot plead a scrupulous regard to his promise that he
would copy Macknight: for that very verse which he
has given us as Macknight's translation, is a heteroge-
neous mixture of Macknight, Thomson, and a certain
gentleman who boasts much of his critical acumen.
Neither can he plead that the proposed rendering would
materially differ from Macknight, in sentiment: for
Macknight, in his commentary, expressly declares that
the word kingdom in that text, means '^ that excellent
dispensation of religion," which I have called the
Christian administration. Another hint of his, which
may tend to the farther elucidation of this text, is, that
this kingdom which we receive, was "foretold by Daniel
to be given to the saints." Daniel says, " The saints of
the Most High shall take the kingdom. "(A) Gill says,
" or receive it, as a free gift from God :" which latter
translation he informs us is agreeable to Munster, Pis-
cator, and the Tigurine version. He claims the Chaldaic
Original also : but this may be rendered either take or
{k) Dan. vii. 18.
( 142 )
receive^ as may also the Septuagint, although it has the
identical verb which is correctly rendered receive, in
Paul's text, quoted as the basis of my Opponent's argu-
ment. Now let us compare the Prophet and Apostle.
The latter says, ^^ We having received a kingdom [or
royalty'] which cannot be moved." The former says,
'^ The saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom
\ov royalty] and possess the kingdom [or royal power]
for ever, even for ever and ever." It is remarkable
that this view is as unequivocally approved by Dr. Gill's
Commentary as by Dr. Campbell's Dissertation. Daniel's
promise that the saints ^^ shall receive the kingdom,"
Dr. Gill explains by saying ^^they shall have the rule
and government in the world." This interpretation is
corroborated by many passages in the Septuagint,
which I need not take time to repeat. (/) Permit me,
however, to add one more instance from my Opponent's
translation to the same amount. John speaks of a woman,
who (literally) " hath a kingdom over the kings of
the earth. "(m) Instead of '•' hath a kingdom," our
Translation says, reigneth, and my Opponent says
ruleth. This supports Dr. Gill's interpretation that to
receive the kingdom, is to have the rule and govern-
ment; or to obtain royalty, according to Dr. Campbell.
Peter tells believers that they are '^ a ro?/^/ priesthood."
But the Septuagint applies this very same title to
pious Jews, and it is translated, '^ a royal priesthood,"
by Thomson. (n) Their ecclesiastical administration.
(/) See particularly Dan. v. 31. 2 Sam. v. 12. Also iSam. xxiv. 20.
xxviii. 17. 2 Sam. iii. 10. 1 K|),s. ii. 22, and a number of other places.
(ttz) Rev. xvii. 18. (w) Ex. xix. 6. 1 Pet. ii. 9.
( 143 )
however, was moveable ; whereas the present adminis-
tration is ^^ a royalty which cannot be moved :" but is
like the believer's " crown of glory that fadeth not
away.''
5. Several of my Opponent's eleven reasons for
denying the ecclesiastical identity of the Jewish and
Christian societies have now been answered. His first,
second, third, fifth and eighth, (o) which have not yet
been noticed, all relate to this kingdom or ecclesiastical
house, of which we have already been speaking, and may
be more conveniently answered in that part of my
defence, in which I hope to prove more fully, that the
house, or the kingdom of God, embraces the Jewish and
Christian administrations. His fourth and ninth rea-
sons(/>) relate to the terms of admission, circumcision
and baptism. These will be effectually answered by
proving, as I hope to do, under my third proposition,
that circumcision and Baptism are one and the same seal
in substance, though in different forms.
After the attention which has now been given to my
Opponent's objections to the proposition in hand, the
evidence upon which I rest my belief that the Jewish
and Christian societies are the same church, may rea-
sonably be expected. This shall be given under three
heads ; the sameness of their religion, of their names,
and of their covenant. The first amounts to a strong
probability, the two last to an absolute certainty.
{o) Spur, Deb. pp. 195. 197. 209. 229. (/a) Spur, Deb. pp. 197, 234,
( 144 )
POINT I.
God gave to the Jewish society before Christ, and the Chris-
tian society after Christ, essentially the same religion.
An eminent writer, (^) in explaining the word reli-
giorif says that *^ in a practical sense, it is generally
considered as the same with godliness.''^ It is godliness,
or piety, or experimental religion that is meant, when
some entreat their friends to get religion, or express a
hope that they have got heart-religion ; expressions
which my Opponent considers " very vague," and
*^ very much at random." (r) Perhaps he knows more
of what the Apostle James calls a vain religion.
'^ The religions which exist in the world have been
generally divided into four, the Pagan, the Jewish, the
Mahometan, and the Christian."(5) Paul says, " After
the most straitest sect of our religion^ I lived a Phari-
see."(/) The same Apostle tells the Galatians that he
had his " conversation in time past in Judaism,^^ and
that he ^^profited in Judaism,''^ in both of which instances,
our translators render it " the Jews^ religion.^' (u) In
one of the few times in which the word for religion
occurs in the Greek Testament, it is rendered worship-
ping : " Let no man beguile you of your reward in a
^^ voluntary humility, and worshipping of angels."(z;)
This angel-religion is very general, and embraces all
the four sorts which have been mentioned. It is an
(7) Buck, in his Theological Dictionary.
(r) Spur. Deb. pp. 150. 151. (s) Buck's Theol. Diet.
(0 Acvs xxvi. 5. {u) Gal. i. 13. 14. {y) Col. ii. IS.
( 145 )
important and conspicuous feature in the religion
of the Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, and Chris-
tians. But this religion was not known to the Jews,
until their subjection to the Babylonians, and it was not
called Christianity, until the An ti- christian apostacy.
We see, therefore, that there are two sorts of Judaism,
as Paul informs us,{w) and two sorts of Christiani-
ty, as James assures us.(x) Now I will very readily
admit, with my Opponent, that degenerate Judaism is
essentially different from Primitive Christianity : but it
was also essentially different from Primitive. Judaism, as
found in their inspired standards ; just as Popish
Christianity is essentially different from Primitive
Christianity, as found in our infallible standards.
When I say that God gave the same religion to Jews
and Christians, I mean that the religion of the Old
Testament and that of the New are essentially the same,
notwithstanding the great difference in the two adminis-
trations. My Opponent says. Nay. While I undertake
to prove this point, it gives me pleasure to remember
that all real christians are in my favour ; not even the
Baptists excepted. In speaking of the two silver
trumpets used by the Jewish Church, Dr. Gill says,
" The number two may be applicable to the two dispen-
" sations, under which the gospel has been ministered,
" directing to the same Saviour, and to the same way of
'^ salvation, by his grace, his blood, righteousness, and
^^ sacrifice ; and to the two Testaments, wliicli agree in
" the same truths respecting his person, offices, obe-
(w) Rom. ii. 28. 29. (x) James i. 26. 27.
T
( 146 )
*' dience, sufferings, and death ; and to the prophets
'* and apostles of both dispensations and testaments, who
'* have united in laying Christ as the foundation.^'(^)
The Dictionary of Dr. Allison, the Baptist preacher,
says that the word religion means " a system of divine
faith and worship, as opposite to others." If the Old
and New Testaments contain not only the same system
oi faith, but oi practice, not only the same worship
substantially, but the same system of government and
discipline, then they must contain the same religion.
As this is a subject, which alone might occupy more
than a week, I can do little more than point out the
general features of the Jewish and Christian systems,
and refer you to a few obvious scripture proofs. This
shall be done under the following particulars.
I. Theology. The scriptures of both Testaments
contain the doctrine of the unity of essence, and Trinity
of persons, in the true God ; of the person, offices, and
work of Christ ; of original sin, regeneration, justifica-
tion, &c. Paul says, '^ We declare unto you glad tidings,
** how that the promise which was made unto the Fathers,
'* [the Jews,] God hath fulfilled the same unto us, their
** children, [the Christians,] in that he hath raised up
*' Jesus again." '^ Seeing it is one God which shall
*' justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision
" through faith. "(2:) Peter says, ^^ We believe that
" through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we,
'^ [the Christians,] shall be saved, even as they, [the
** Jews.]"(a) Understanding him here to mean " the
[ij) Gill on Num. x. 2. (r) Acts xiii. 32. Rom. iii. 30. (a) Acts xv. 11.
( 147 )
Jewish fathers/' Gill says, " For they were justified,
" pardoned, accepted, and saved, in the same way, as
^' the saints under the New Testament are : They could
" not keep the law perfectly, nor was there then, nor
'' even now, salvation by it, only by the grace of Christ ;
" and in that way, and that only. Old and New Testa-
" ment believers, Jews and Gentiles, whether circum-
'^ cised or uncircumcised, are saved. The Gentiles
*^ were not saved by the light of nature, nor the Jews
<* by the law of Moses ; the one were' not lost for
" want of circumcision, nor the other saved by it ; the
'^ only way of salvation to both, and under all dispen-
" sations, is the Lord Jesus Christ." Paul says, " They
" which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.''
'( Which shews," says Dr. Gill, « that the faith of Old
" and New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles, is the
^* same ; their blessings the same, and so their eternal
" happiness ; they have the same God and Father, the
" same Mediator and Redeemer, are actuated and influ-
** enced by the same Spirit, partake of the same grace,
** and shall share the same glory."(i)
II. Morality. Moses and the Prophets contain a
perfectly pure moral law, of which the Decalogue may
be considered an inspired compend. Concerning this
our Saviour says, " Think not that I am come to
^* destroy the law, or the prophets ; I am not come to
^' destroy, but to fulfil. "(c) Moses says, '^ Thou shalt
" love the Lord thy God, with all thine heart, and with
" all thy soul, and with all thy might." Christ says.
(A) Gal. iii. 9, is thus expounded by Gill in his commentary on Matt,
viii. 11. (c) Ex, XX, 3—17, Matt, v, 17,
( 148 )
*^ Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
'^ and with all thy soul, and with all thy strengtii, and
^^ with all thy mind ; and thy neighbour as thyse]f.''(f?)
Moses says, '^ Speak unto all the congregation of the
'^ children of Israel, and say unto them. Ye shall be
'^ holy, for I the Lord your God am holy/' Peter says,
'' As he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in
'^ all manner of conversation : because it is written, Be
*^ ye holy, for I am holy."(e)
IIL Worship. Here I need not dwell on the sub-
stantial evidence of the most important ordinances, the
Passover and the Eucharist, or of circumcision and
baptism, which may be fully considered hereafter, but
I would merely refer you to what has been already
proved concerning the worship of the Jewish church ;
such as reading and preaching, praying and praising, &c.
IV. Government. This was by Presbyters or
Elders. Moses says, " And the Elders of the congre-
gation shall lay their hands," &c. The Psalmist says,
^' Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the
people, and praise him in the assembly of the Elders^
Luke says '' And when they had ordained them Elders
in every church. "(/)
V. Discipline. This concerns disciples, in respect
of their initiation and their regulation.
1. Initiation. That faith is necessary in an adult
proselyte, under the New Testament, is urged by both
parties, from the words, '^ He that believeth and is bap-
tized, shall be saved.'' But one of the most remark-
et/) Deut. vi. 5. Luke x. 27. {e) Lev. xix. 2. 1 Pet. i. 15. 16,
If) Lev. iv. 15, Ps. cvii. 32. Acts xiv. 23.
( 149 )
able proofs of this is found in the words of Paul, where
he shews that God demanded the same prerequisite to
legitimate membership in the Jewish church. " Well ;
" because of unbelief, they [the Jews] were broken oif,
*^ and thou [the Christian church] standest by
**' faith. "(^) And let it be marked, that in both churches,
believers and their households are initiated.
2. Regulation. Without taking time to quote the
authorities at large, I will just tell you, in a few words,
what you know can be easily proved on this subject. In
both the Old and New Testament churches, an offender
must be told of his fault ;(A) in both, a penitent must be
forgiven ;(«) and in both, the impenitent must be cut
POINT II.
The Scriptures give to the Jewish and Christian societies
the same names, in such a manner as plainly to prove
that they are the same church.
This has the appearance, and only the appearance, of
contradicting the following prophecies. '^^ The Gentiles
^^ shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and
^^ thou [the Jewish church] shaltbe called by a new?2ame,
" which the mouth of the Lord shall name.''^ ^^ And
'* ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen ;
'* for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants
*' by another name.^'ik) A diversity of names, in one
(.§•) Mk. xvi. 16. Rom. xi. 20. (h) Lev. xix. 17. Mat, xviii. 15.
( z) Lev. iv. 20. Luke xvii. 3. (7)Deut. xvii. 12. Mat. xviii. 17.
Ik) Is, Ixii. 2. Ixv. 15.
( 150 )
respect, is consistent with an identity of names in another
respect. But even this prophecy concerning the change
of name, proves the sameness of the churches. It is
not said that the Jews had been called by one name,
and another people should be called by another name ;
but it is, in a certain sense, the same people, whose
name is to be altered. '^ And thou shalt be called by a
new name." While the name was to be altered, the
people were to continue the same. Yet how the same?
Not nationally ; for those who bore the old name were
Jews, and those who were to bear the new name were
Gentiles: they were the same people, therefore, con-
sidered as the church, the professed servants of
God ; for he says that he will " call his servants by ano-
ther name." This change of name only points out the
change of administration, while an inter-community of
names shews the sameness of the church.
This inter-community of names is visible throughout
the scriptures. Moses calls the Jews, God's peculiar
treasure, a kingdom of piHests, and an holy nation,
Peter calls the Christians '^ a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people."(/) There
are also many other figurative appellations which, in
their connexion, shew clearly that these two adminis-
trations are called by the same name, because|they are,
ecclesiastically, the same thing. It is in this sense, that
they are called a tree and vineyard ; a foundation, floor,
find house ; a kingdom and commonwealth ; man and
body ; brethren, bride, and children.
(/) F:.x. xix. 5. 6. 1 Pet. ii. 9.
( 151 )
I. Tree. Of this the Apostle Paul speaks largely in
his Epistle to the Romans. (m) My Opponent, in his
Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker,(72) speaks of it as
follows, viz. *^ Distinguished commentators have found
^^ it extremely difficult to comprehend every thing the
'^ Apostle says in this eleventh chapter. Therefore, we
^* find the ablest of them differing among themselves.
" One cause of this difficulty, I presume, is the Apos-
*^ tie's so frequently referring from one part of the sub-
'^ject to another so often stating and applying his
" remarks in sudden transitions from Jews to Gentiles.
*' Another difficulty in expounding the metaphors is,
'^ that the engrafting spoken of, appears to be predica-
'' ted upon a mistaken view of grafting. A wild olive
'' into a good olive, does not improve the wild olive ; the
*' fruit being similar to the cion engrafted, and not simi-
^' lar to the stalk. But the Apostle's design was to shew
'^ that the Gentiles partook equally with the Jew, as the
^* engrafted cion equally partakes with the natural
^' branch, in the sap and vigour of the root."
If I am not egregiously mistaken, my Opponent has,
in this extract, displayed a modesty to which he is usu-
ally a stranger. He generally speaks as if those subjects
which puzzled and divided the ablest commentators
were perfectly translucent to his penetrating eye. He
not unfrequently spurns the opinion of the most distin-
guished expositors, Baptist as well as Pedobaptist ; and
advances his own dogmas with the lofty confidence, of
one who had a grain of intelligence diluted with an
(;n) Rom. xi. 16—24, (;i) p. 28. Note.
( 152 )
ounce of self-conceit. But when he comes to the Abra-
hamic Olive-tree, with its Jewish and Gentile branches,
his confidence for a while forsakes him ; it is all involved
in obscurity, to himself and to the ablest commentators,
if not to Paul also. He even sees something in the sa-
cred text, very much resembling those " far-fetched
analogies and inaccurate reasonings" which Unitarians
often discover in the Apostle's writings. He tells us that
" the engrafting spoken of appears to be predicated
upon a mistaken view of grafting.'' If the Apostle was
not mistaken^ my Opponent certainly is, for they differ
very much from each other. But there is no reason to
believe that the Apostle's views of grafting were differ-
ent from those of every practical man among you. You
practice engrafting, that you may improve the fruit, by
a change of the branches, while there is no change in
the root, the trunk, or the sap. So Paul, with the eccle-
siastical Olive-tree. Its root, trunk, and fatness remain-
ed ; its branches only were changed : and whether it was
not an improvement, to exchange infidel for believing
branches, to exchange the Jewish for the Christian ad-
ministration, judge ye. This opinion does not suffer by
a closer examination.
1. The root. It is equally consistent with the Pedo-
baptist system, to consider this as referring to Christ or
to Abraliam, the original or derived root. When the
figure of a building instead of a tree is used, the pro-
phets and apostles are spoken of as a foundation, but
Christ is the foundation of foundations. When Christ is
( 153 )
said to be '^ the root and the offspring of David/'(o) the
sense is^ that he is the Fatlier as well as the sou of David.
But Abraham is said to be ^^ the Father of circumcision
^^ [that is, of ecclesiastical initiation] to them who are
^^ not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the
'' steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he
'^ had, being yet uncircumcised."(/>) His very name
Abraham, signifies a high father, and it was given to
him, because he was to be a father not to the Jews only,
but to many nations : that is, he was the root of that ec-
clesiastical tree, which bore both Jewish and Christian
branches.
If, instead of to Abraham, you should apply this figure
to the seed of the woman, revealed to Adam, and wor-
shipped by Abel, Seth, Enoch, and Noah, I see no
ground of objection ; since Christ is really the Head of
the church visible, as well as invisible. This is evident
from his representing himself as a vine, from which
fruitless branches are cut off. The invisible church has
no fruitless branches, and from it none can be cut off". My
Opponent says, ^"^ Pardon, justification, sanctification,
'' and salvation, are inseparably connected ;" and gives
Paul on perseverance, to prove it. Dr. Gill says,
'^ There are two sorts of branches in Christ the vine ;
" the one sort are such who have only an liistorical
*^ faith in him, believe but for a time, and are removed ;
''' they are such who only profess to believe in him, as
*^ Simon Magus did; are in him by profession only.''
" These are the other sort of branches, who are
(o) Rev. xxii. IG. (/O Rom. iv. 12.
u
( 154 )
'^ truly and savingly in Christ ; such as are rooted in
2. The fatness. The engrafted branches are said to
partake " of tlie root and fatness of the olive-tree."
This means ecclesiastical ordinances ; as when David
says, " They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fat-
^^ ness of thy house."(r) Dr. Gill says, ^^By his house
'^ is meant the church of God, of his buildings and where
" he dwells ; by the fatness of it, the provisions there,
^*^ the word and ordinances, and the blessings of grace
^^ which they hold forth."
3. The trunk. This must mean the visible church of
God, or the invisible church, or no church at all. If no
church at all, then the Roman converts must be here ad-
dressed, as having the privilege of being engrafted into
some worldly kingdom, contrary to the authority of our
Lord, who said, '' My kingdom is not of this world."
The Jews also are to be considered as broken off from
a worldly kingdom by unbelief! whereas their unbelief,
instead of breaking them off from a temporal dominion,
riveted the Roman yoke more closely upon them, and
made it at last the means of their destruction.
Neither can the trunk of this tree mean the invisible
church, for from it no brandies are ever broken off.
This is an argumentum ad hominem, for I have the
pleasure of quoting my Opponent's approbation of this
principle. After citing Paul on the perseverance of
the saints, he says, '^ There is one proposition which I
^^ shall here submit ; it is an universal negative, viz.
{q) C.ill on John xv. 2. (;•) Ps. xxxvi. a.
( 155 )
" there never was, there never will be, a child of Adam
^^ lost, that had hut one sin of all his sins forgiven him.
'^ The converse of which is, that there never was a child
^' of Adam that had one sin forgiven him that had not
'^ all his sins forgiven. The reason is, the Almighty
^' does not his work by halves; where he begins to work
^' he finishes. He does not resemble a foolish artificer or
^^ mechanic, who begins a piece of workmanship, and
^^ after he has blocked it out, or begun to work upon it,
'^ throws it away, either from versatility or incapacity to
^^ execute and perfect it. ''(5) It seems therefore, from my
Opponent's own shewing, that when a person is once at-
tached to the invisible church, he is always attached to
it, and can never be broken oiF.
As this trunk, then, cannot mean no church at all,
and as it cannot mean the church invisible, it must, ac-
cording to the dilemma stated a little while ago, mean
the visible church. Here another inquiry arises. Does
it mean the Jewish administration as distinct from the
Christian? or the Christian administration as distinct
from the Jewish? or docs it mean the visible church
general of God and of his Christ, which embraces both
these administrations, which began with Abraham, or
with Adam, and which will continue to the end of the
world? This stem cannot mean the Jewish administra-
tion, because it is in this very trunk that the engrafted
Geniiles flourish, long after the Jewish administration is
at an end. Neither can it mean the Christian adminis-
tration distinctly, because the trunk existed long before
(s) Appendix to Spuiioui Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 1~6.
( 156 )
that administration commenced. But my Opponent says
that '^ in a still more enlarged and exalted sense, the
^^ Christian Church is the good olive tree."(/) If by
this still more enlarged and exalted sense, he means the
visible church of Christ, as constituted with Adam or
Abraham, and as embracing the Jewish and Christian
administrations, he means what the premises compel us
to believe. Dr. Gill says, " particular believers and
^^ the whole church of God are sometimes compared to
^■^ it ;" as when Hosea says, ^^ His branches shall spread,
and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree, and his smell as
Lebanon. ''(i/) Jeremiah says, '^^ The Lord called thy
^^ name a green olive-tree, fair and of goodly fruit :
" with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire
" upon it, and the branches of it are broken. "(i?)
4. The branches. As the stock of this tree has been
proved to mean the whole visible church of God these
branches must be visible constituents, either individual
or corporate. Of these there are two kinds. Concern-
ing one of them Jeremiah says '^^ The branches of it are
^' broken." This Dr. Gill interprets of '"'■ the high and
'^ principal ones" of " the Jewish church and people."
Concerning the other kind of branches, Hosea says, ^'His
" branches shall spread." Dr. Gill says, "This respects
" the propagation of the church of God, and the in-
" terest of Christ in the world, as in the first times of
"' the gospel, and will be in the latter day." Paul
(0 spur. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 28.
(») Hos. xiv. 6. comp. Ps. Hi. 8. cxxviii. 3.
(■(') Jcr. xi. 16. Althouijh Gill Ijclieves that Paul alludes to this in
Rom. xi. 17. he docs not ex|)hiiii the olive-tree in either place with en-
tire accuracy, nor in perfect consistency with what he says on Hosea xiv,
6. us quoted above.
( 157 )
speaks of both kinds of branches; as belonghig to the
same tree, though not at the same time. The first he
tells us were ^^ broken off." The second he says were
" grafted in among them/' or " in their place," as Gill
tells us the Syriac and Ethiopic versions have it. Paul
expressly gives the name of Israel and Jacob to the re-
jected branches, and of Gentiles to those which were
engrafted. (z^;) He does not limit these branches, (as Dr.
Gill sometimes does,) to the " principal members" of
churches or nations : but he uses these general terms,
with a general (though not a universal) application.
Neither does my Opponent understand Paul as speaking
of the high and principal ones, but of Jews and Gentiles,
without regard to their dignity or power. This is evi-
dent from his remark concerning Paul's " sudden tran-
^^ sitions from Jews to Gentiles," and from his decla-
ration that '' the Apostle's design was to shew that the
" Gentiles partook equally with the Jew, as the engraft-
" ed cion equally partakes with the natural branch, in
" the sap and vigour of the root."(x) This root, my
Opponent declares, '^ was Jesus Christ." Dr. Gill
says, " This is not to be understood of an ingrafture into
^^ Christ, unless by a visible profession." This visible
profession must be in the true church of God, and, of
course, the breaking off of the old Jewish branches,
must be an excommunication from the visible church of
God. Both, then, must be branches of the visible church
of God, though at different times ; and if Abraham be
their ecclesiastical father or root, then the Christian
(to) Rom. xi. 17. 25. 26.
(x) Spur. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 28. Note, this was quoted a little
above.
( 158 )
church must be a branch of the Abrahamic church :
and if the Seed of the woman be their root, then the
Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society
after Christ, are only different branches of the same
ecclesiastical tree; or, in other words, they are one
and the same church in different administrations.
This conclusion is not at all affected by what Dr. Gill
says about the '^ Gentiles being grafted into a gospel
" church-state with the believing Jews ;" unless it can
be shewn that one truth must contradict another. Re-
member that the old branches were not believing Jews ;
for they were broken off on account of unbelief, from
that very stock, into which believing Gentiles were en-
grafted. It is true, therefore, that there is a *zy?2i^//«-
wfOM5 union of believing Jews and Gentiles, both before
and after Christ : but it has been proved to be equally
true, that there is an asynchronous identity between the
Jewish society before Christ, and the Christian society
after Christ.
II. Vineyard. Our blessed Lord, in one of his
parables, informs us of a man who planted a vineyard,
and let it out to husbandmen, and then went into a far
country, whence he sent several inferior messengers
successively for the fruits which were due. Failing in
these, he sent his own Son, whom the husbandmen
killed. He then asks the question, " What shall there-
'' fore the Lord of the vineyard do ?" Mark well his
answer : " He will come and destroy the husbandmen,
'^ and will give the vineyard [the same vineyard] unto
•^ others." As the context says that the Jews ^' knew
'• that he had spoken the parable against them," they
( 159 )
are therefore the husbandmen. Dr. Gill says, that
when the Master went into a far country, he " left the
^' people of the Jews to these husbandmen or rulers,
'^ whether civil or ecclesiastical, but chiefly the latter,
"" to be instructed and directed by them, according to
'' the laws and rules given them by the Lord. ''(?/) But
after these Jewish husbandmen abused their trust it is
said that the Lord " will miserably destroy those wick-
^^ed men, and will let out his vineyard unto other hus-
^'bandmen." On this Dr. Gill remarks that '"^ it was
'^ a righteous thing with God, to remove the church-
'* state, gospel and ordinances, from the Jews, and de-
'' liver them to the Gentiles, which shall render him the
'^fruits in their seasons.'^(c^) Here the Baptist Com-
mentator agrees with his Divine Master, in considering
the vineyard as the church with its oracles and ordinan-
ces ; and in considering the Jews as the first tenants,
and the Christians as the last occupants of the same
ecclesiastical vineyard.
III. Foundation. *^ Now therefore ye are no more
^* strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the
*^ saints, and of the household of God; and are built
" upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets,
" Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner sto7ie.^\a.)
Here the Prophets and Apostles are one common foun-
dation, for the Jewish and Christian societies, who are
supported and connected by Jesus Christ, who is the
chief corner stone, or connecting foundation stone ol'
Apostles, prophets, and churches.
(v) Gill on Mk. xii. 1. (r) Gill on Matt. xxi. 41.
{a) Kph. ii. 19, 20.
( IGO )
IV. Floor. ^^ Whose fan is in his hand, and he will
'^ thoroughly purge his floor , and gather his wheat into
*' the garner ; but he will burn up the chafF with un-
*^ quenchable lire. "(6) '^ 0 my threshing, and the corn
^' of my floorP\c) On this last text, which was spo-
ken by Isaiah, Dr. Gill says, " it is the Lord that speaks
^' by him, calling the church of the Jews his floor^ and
^' the people his corn." If he does not intend to restrict
" the church of the Jews," to the Jewish administration,
he is perfectly correct : for the floor does mean the vi-
sible church, and the corn means the Jewish people who
were then its members. But in the fulness of time, this
ecclesiastical floor was found so full of Jewish chaff, as
to require a thorough cleansing. This cleansing was an
excommunication of the unbelieving Jews. This was
not laying a new floor, but only purging the old one ;
and who occupied John the Baptist's ecclesiastical plat-
form after its judicial ventilation, let Baptists say.
V. House. " And thou shalt say to the rebellious,
^' even to the haunt of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God,
'' O ye house of Israel, let it suffice you of all your
" abominations, in that ye have brought into my sanctu-
** ary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircum-
** cised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it,
** even my housed " They shall be abundantly satis-
*' fled with the fatness of thy houseP '^ I am like a
*' green olive tree in the house of God."(f/) This, ac-
cording to Dr. Gill, is to "be in a very flourishing con-
" dilion, in the church of God, which is here meant by
{b) Mat. iii. 12. (r) Isa. xxi. 10.
\d) Ez, xliv. fi. 7, Fs, xxxvi, 8. Iii. 8.
( 161 )
*^ the house of God?^ The same explanation he gives
of the word house in all the cases which have just been
quoted. It is, then, an undoubted truth, that long be-
fore the New Testament administration, the Jewish so-
ciety were the visible church of God. They were not
only the genealogical, but the ecclesiastical house of
Jacob. Now the question is, whether their ecclesiasti-
cal house was utterly annihilated, and a new one erected
at the coming of Christ ; or whether the ecclesiastical
house of Jacob continued, but with a change of adminis-
tration. That it does continue, is evident from the an-
gel's words to Mary, when he said concerning the Mes-
siah, '^ He shall reign over the house of Jacob, for
^^ ever."(e) This house of Jacob is meant, when Paul
says, "Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a
^^ servant ;" " but Christ as a Son over his own
^^ housed [f) Now take notice that Moses and Christ
are here spoken of as belonging to the Old and New
Testament administrations ; yet the one serves in, and
the other rules over the same house, even the house of
Jacob, over which Christ shall reign for ever, although
Jacob's natural descendants have long been ejected.
My Opponent's fifth reason for denying this doctrine,
is founded upon our Saviour's declaration to Peter,
^' Upon this rock I will build my church. "(/) " This
^' church, then," says he, *'• was not the Jewish, for that
*^ was built long ago — the building of Christ's church —
" MY church, said he, is yet future — I loill build it,
"' the foundation ivill be laid in this truth concerning
(e) Luke i. 2o, {/) Htb, iii. 2—6. (0 Malt. x\ i. IS.
X
( 1S2 )
'^ me. — This truth was fully established in his death and
'* resurrection ; and then the building commenced. To
*^ build a church and to repair one, are actions so dif-
'^ iei'ent, that babes and sucklings can distinguish them.
'^ Mr. M^Calla^s theory is subverted upon this evidence
" alone, if there were no other proof of its falsity. — Re-
" member, my friends, that the Messiah came to build a
'' new church, and not to repair an old one." At ano-
ther time he represents tliis fjith argument as drawn
*^ from the fact, that Jesus taught that he was, in the fu-
" ture time, to build his church upon a foundation dif-
^^ ferent from that on wliich the Jewish commonwealth
" was built."{?w)
I take it for granted, that by Jewish commonwealth
in this last declaration, he means the Jewish church of
which he spoke in the former passage ; and the amount
of this argument is, that when Christ says, " 1 luill
" build,^^ he means not tliat he will repair an old ruin,
such as the Jewish church, but that immediately after
his death and resurrection, he will commence a building
which shall be entirely new, and entirely different from
the Jewish church, both as to its foundation and its su-
perstructure. And these things he thinks so evidently
taught by this one single Greek word, rendered ^^ I will
^^ build," that they must be obvious to ^^ babes and suck-
lings," and that this one word is s)ifjicient to subvert my
pro])osilion concerning the sameness of the Jewish and
Christian societies, ^^ if there were no other proof" at
all.
(/;;) Spur. Deb. wiUi inc, pp. i09. 2-3.
( 163 )
r
It sometimes hnppens that babes and sucklings under-
stand a word in one way, and men of learning understand
it in another way. My Opponent thinks it perfectly
plain that to build never means to rebuild or repair, but
Dr. Gill, who was no babe, but the greatest giant, in the
languages, that the Baptist church ever boasted, thought
otherwise, and supported his opinion by infallible evi-
dence. The Scriptures say that the sons of Elpaal
'^ huilt Ono and Lod, with the towns thereof."(/2) Dr.
Gill agrees with the Talmudists in saying that " Elpaal
^^ came and rebuilt them." The Scriptures say that
Jotham " built the higher gate of the house of the
'' Lord."(o) Dr. Gill believes that this, like the rest of
the gates, was originally '' built by Solomon ;" but that
Jotham '' repaired and beautified, or added something
'^ to it." Yes, the Dr. actually makes out that Jotham's
building the gate, was only repairing it. After the de-
struction of the first temple, it is written, ** Thus saith
Cyrus, King of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath
*^ given me all the kingdoms of the earth ; and he hath
*' charged me to build him an house at Jerusalem, which
'^ is in Judah."(j&) Dr. Gill says that Isaiah's prophecy,
Cyrus ^^ had seen and read, and believed it to be a
" charge upon him, and a command unto him to rebuild
" the temple at Jerusalem." Thus, to build was, in his
opinion, to rebuild. Concerning a greater than Cyrus,
Isaiah says, " He shall build my City.'- ((7) Dr. Gill ap-
plies this to ^^ Christ, the builder of the church, often
compared to a city ;" and then refers to my Opponent's
(ra) 1 Chron. viii, 12, (o) 2 Kgs. xv, 35,
(/O Ezr. i, 2. {(j) Isa xlv, 13
( 164 )
text, ^^upon this rock I will biiild my church." '^By the
"^ church is meant," says Gill, on this text, ^^the elect of
'^ God, the general assembly and church of the First-born,
^' whose names are written in heaven." When the Psalm-
ist says, *^ The Lord shall hidld up Zion,"(r) it does not
throw Dr. Gill into a rhapsody about future tenses, and
the folly of identifying Zion with the true church, and
of confounding the building of a new house with the re-
huilding of one that is fallen down. He tells us plainly
that, in this text, Zion is " the church of God, fallen
^^ down, and in a ruinous condition ;" and that this pro-
mise to ^^ build up Zion" is fulfilled "' in rebuilding his
'^ church." The same explanation he makes of that pas-
sage which says, ^^ The Lord doth build up Jerusalem i
'^ he gathereth together the outcasts of Israel. "(*) Al-
though there is a certain sort of " babes and sucklings"
who cannot abide the thought of building decayed
places, yet those who are acquainted with the poetical
parallelisms of the prophets, will admit that raising up
decayed places, is sometimes exegetical of building ; as
when God says "to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built,
'^ and I will raise up the decayed places thereof."(/)
Dr. Gill believes that Judah and all the adjacent country
were to be " in a ruinous condition," and that then they
^^ should be rebuilt^ and restored to a flourishing state
'^ again." To the same amount he explains the follow-
ing text ; '^ And they shall build the old wastes, they
" shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall
^< repair the waste cities, the desolations of many gene-
(r) Psalm cii. 16. (.v) Psalm rxlvii. 2. U) Isa. xliv. 26.
( 165 )
** rations/'(z<) In tlie prospect of the Christian spra,
when the Gentiles were to he engrafted on the Abraha-
mic stock, Isaiah says to the Jews, " The sons of stran-
^* gers shall build up thy walls.''(z7) But in the follow-
ing passage a person who builds is again expressly called
a repairer in our translation, and in this it most exactly
agrees with the translations of Castallio, Tremellius, and
Diodat, and with the commentary of Dr. Gill. '^ And
^' they that shall be of thee shall build the old waste
^^ places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many ge-
'^ nerations ; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of
^^ the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in." Dr.
Gill says, ^' As the cities in Israel and Judea, which had
'■' been long laid waste by the Assyrians and Chaldeans,
^^ were rebuilt by those of the Jewish nation, who re-
'' turned from the captivity of Babylon, to which there
*^ is at least an allusion j and as the church of God, the
^' tabernacle of David, which was fallen down, and had
" lain long in ruins, through corruptions in doctrine and
'^ worship, to the times of Christ, when the Apostles,
^' who were of the Jews, those wise master-builders,
" were instruments of raising it up again, and repaiinns;
*^ its ruins, so, in the latter-day, the waste places of the
'' world, as the words may be rendered, shall be built
" by a set of men, that shall be of the church of God,
" who shall be instruments in his hand of converting
" many souls, and so of peopling it with Christians; such
'^ places as before were desolate, where before there
" was no preaching of the word, no administration of or-
{u) Isa. Ixi. 4 (x.) Isa. Ix, 10.
( 166 )
'^ dinances, nor any Gospel churches." In this extract?
this great Baptist commentator calls the tabernacle of
David the church of God. He represents it as fallen
down and lying long in ruins, until the times of Christ,
the Divine Architect, who appointed twelve Apostolical
builders, and made them '^ instruments of raising it up
^^ agcmif and repairing its ruins." Thus, '^ the stone
^' which the builders disallowed, the same is made the
^^ head of the corner,"(zt>) or, as Dr. Gill says,(:r) ^^ the
*^ chief corner-stone, that adorns, strengthens, knits, and
^^ keeps together, the whole building ; in which Jews
'^ and Gentiles, saints in all ages and places, even all the
^^ elect of God are united together." He says, ^^By the
^^ builders are meant the rulers of the Jews, both civil
^^ and ecclesiastical, and especially the latter, the
'' Scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests, who set up for
^^ builders of the church of God, but were miserable
^^ ones." ^' These disallowed of Christ in the build-
ii ing," ^^but to their great mortification, he is not only
*^ laid and retained as the foundation and corner-stone,
^' but made the head of the building." For this reason,
Paul, in allusion to the temple and Jerusalem, the
house and city of God, says to the Ephesian Christians,
^^ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreign-
'^ ers, but fellow citizens with tlie 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. ''(3/) Dr. Gill says tliat these
{w) 1 Pet. ii. 7.
(r) Gill on Acts iv. 11. (rxinip also 1 Pet. ii. vi )
(y) Eph. ii. ly. 20.
( 167 )
are ^^The prophets of the Old Testament^ and the
'* apostles of the New, who agree in laying ministerial-
" ly the one and only foundation, Jesus Christ." Now
let any reasonable person say whether the words, ^^ upon
'^ this rock I will build my church," are alone sufficient
to refute my proposition concerning the ecclesiastical
identity of the Jewish and Christian societies.
VI. Kingdom. This figure is used by our Saviour,
in the same discourse, and in immediate connexion with
what he said about the transfer of the same vineyard
from one set of husbandmen to another. After speaking
of the unworthiness of the Jewish husbandmen, in re-
jecting the Son of their Lord ; and the wicked folly of
the Jewish builders in rejecting the chief corner-stone,
he adds, '^ Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of
^' God shall be taken from you, and given to a na-
" tion bringing forth the fruits thereof."(^) Here is
only one kingdom ; yet it embraces the Jewish and
Christian administrations. So in the following , ^^ And
" I say unto you that many shall come from the east and
" west, and shall sit down with Abraham and Isaac and
'^ Jacob in the kingdom oi heaven : but the children
** of the kingdom shall be cast out into utter dark-
'' ness."(A) This is as much as to say that the Gentiles
shall take their seat in the Abrahamic church, while the
Jews are cast out of it. That this cannot mean the king-
dom of heaven above, is evident, because no man shall
be cast out of that kingdom, after he has once obtained
admittance. Dr. Gill says that the children of the
(5-) Matt. XXI. 4J, (/«) Matt, viii, 11. 12.
( 168 )
kingdom are '^ The Jews, who were subjects of the
" kingdom, and commonwealth of Israel, from which
'^ the Gentiles were aliens ; and who were also in the
" church of God, which is his kingdom on earth ; and
'^ besides, had the promise of the gospel dispensation,
** sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, and by them,
'' often, the world to come ; and were, by their own
" profession, and in their own apprehension and expec-
'' tation, children and heirs of the kingdom of glory."
The kingdom of heaven is, therefore, the Abrahamic
church, the church of God. The Jews were once its
children, but they are now cast out. The Gentiles were
once aliens, but are now subjects, not in a new kingdom,
nor in one which commenced even with Moses at Mount
Sinai ; but in that kingdom in which Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob were.
My opponent's second argument against the sameness
of the Jewish and Christian societies, is founded upon
the preaching of our Saviour and his Precursor and in-
spired servants, ^* Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven
** is at hand."(^;) He says, " This is proof positive that,
*^ at this time, the new kingdom was not yet set up,
*^ and that the old Jewish was yet standing." In this
place our translation uses, the word kingdom ; my Op-
ponent's paraphrase calls it new kingdom ; his New
Testament follows Dr. Campbell in calling it the reign
of heaven ; but Dr. Campbell's preliminary dissertation
says that the word sometimes means administration ;
and Dr. Gill here explains it dispensation. That there
((') Malt. hi. 2. and other places counted by my Opponent, in his spur.
Deb. after his own fabhion, in page 197.
( 169 )
is a new administration I have never denied ; that there
is any thing more^ my Opponent is the only one to assert;
and he asserts it, not in translating, but in debating.
His third argument is founded upon our Saviour's
declaration, ^^ The law and the prophets were until
^^ John : since that time the kingdom of God is preached,
'^ and every man presseth into it/''(t^) Here also Gill
justly calls the kingdom of God, the gospel dispensa-
tion : and so he does the same word in the text on which
my Opponent feebly rests his eighth argument ; '^ My
*^ kingdom is not of this world. ''(:r) This passage he
uses in such a way as strongly to infer that the Waldenses,
whom he claims as good Baptists, could not be Chris-
tians, because they sometimes bravely defended them-
selves from their oppressors. But this was my Oppo-
nent's way of paying court to the Quakers.
But his first argument deserves more notice. It is as
follows, viz. ^^My first argument, for afiirming that
'^ the Christian religion and Christian church differ es-
^^ sentially from the Jewish, is drawn from Dan. ii. 44.
*' 45. ' And in the days of these kings shall the God of
* heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroy-
^ ed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people,
^ and it shall break in pieces and consume all these king-
^ doms, and it shall stand forever. The great God has
* made known to the king what shall come to pass here-
* after.' "(z) To make this passage prove that there is
an essential difference between the Old and New Tes-
{w) L. xvi. 16. Spur. Deb. p. 197.
(jt) John xviii. 36. Spur Deb. p. 229.
0) Spur. Deb. with me, pp. 195. 196.
( 170 )
lament kingdoms;, he claims our particular attention to
three things. One is, that the prophecy was written by
Daniel, centuries before the Jews were cut off. I say,
yea. Another is that it was to be fulfilled "hereafter,"
that is, when Christ came. Very well. The third is,
that at that time God should set up a kingdom. No ob-
jection. But there is an objection to what he afterwards
says, when he endeavours to persuade you that settirig
up a kingdom is a creation or original constitution of a
kingdom, as in the following words, viz. " This king-
^^ dom of God which he would set up or constitute,
"• under the reign of his Son, was not to commence until
'^ the last days of the Jewish kingdom — Now to consti-
^^ tute a kingdom, and to continue one already in exis-
*^ tence, are as different as the building of a new house,
'•' is from the repairing or keeping up of a house already
" built. To set up a house, or to set up a kingdom, is
*^ essentially different from either reforming an old one,
^^ or constituting it under new regulations.''
We have already sliewn that the Bible and the best
Baptist authority consider the word build as often equiv-
alent to rebuild ov repair. And if, as my Opponent in-
timates, the expression, set up, is tantamount to build,
then to set up a kingdom may mean to reinstate or re-
establish ; and thus the whole of his argument, which
rests entirely upon a perversion of this single word,
must fall to the ground. In order to make this apparent,
1 would inquire, What do you understand from another
passage of this same prophet Daniel, where we have the
same original word with the same rendering ? Concern-
ing Nebuchadnezzar's golden image, we are told " that
( in )
he set it up in the plain of Dura." Does this mean
that he created or made or constituted it in the plain of
Dura? By no means; for the manufacture of it was ex-
pressly mentioned as having taken place before its erec-
tion ;(y ) as the existence of God's ecclesiastical king-
dom is often mentioned before its resuscitation by the
Messiah. Although the Tabernacle was originally con-
stituted immediately after the departure from Egypt,(y^)
yet it was set up at many subsequent periods. (/) Indeed
it was a law of Moses, that ^^ when the Tabernacle set-
" teth forward, theLevites shall take it down ; and when
^^ the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it
^^ up.'^M The same word is used by Solomon to denote
such an act as lifting up a person who "falls from his
^'^ horse, or out of his carriage, orintoa ditch."(?2) In
the use of the same original word, Saul complains that
Jonathan had set up or stirred up David against him.(o)
Did Saul suppose that Jonathan had just then given to
David his original constitution ? Our Bible renders the
same word raise in application to him who is the Root
and Offspring of David. " Behold the days come,
^^ saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a right-
^' eous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and
*' shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. ''(p)
God also says, " I will raise them up a Prophet from
" among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put
'^'my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them
'' all that I shall command him. "(5-) Had the Messiah
{j ) Dan. iii. 1. {k) Ex. xl. 17. (/) Num. vii. 1. ix. 15. x. 21.
(m) Num. i. 51. {n) See Ciill on Eccl. iv. 10.
(o) 1 Sam. xxii. 8. (// ) Jer. xxiii. 5. (y) Deut. Xviii. 18.
( 172 )
no constitutio7i before his incarnation ? or rather, does
he not himself say, ^^I was set up from everlasting, from
^^ the beginning, or ever the earth was."(r) The name
of this glorious personage is an answer to the question of
Amos, ^^ Who will raise up or lift up, or set up Jacob?"(s)
The same word is rendered,e5/«6/2Vi, in a promise record-
ed by Moses. Long after Jacob had been constituted
a holy people, Moses said " The Lord shall establish
^^ thee an holy people unto himself. "'(/) Dr. Gill un-
derstands it that he ^^ should continue them as such."
Exactly to the same purport does he explain the pro-
phecy of Daniel quoted by my Opponent. " And in
'^ the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up
'* a kingdom.'' The Doctor says, ^^ which kingdom is
*^ no other than his church on earth, where he reigns,
'^ has his throne ; holds forth his sceptre, gives out his
'^ laws, and is obeyed : and, though this is already in the
^' worl(li yet it is not so visible, stable, and glorious, as
" it will be at the close of the fourth monarchy, which
^' is meant by its being set up, confirmed, and establish-
^^ ec?." That this kingdom was already in the world, be-
fore the New Testament administration, is as evident as
that the kingdom of Israel had an existence before it was
set up or established in David's hands, according to
the words of Jonathan, " the kingdom of Israel shall
^' be established in thine hand.'ViO
(r) Prov. viii. 23, where, however, the original has a different word.
(&■) Amos vii. 2. Gill tells us that it is rendered " qnis suscitubit Jaha-
cob?" by Pagninus, Montanus, andVatabkis. To these he might have
added Calasio and the Vulgate. In accordance with tliese, Castallio says,
f» quis Jacobeum eriget ?" and the Septuagint, I'tj avairiati, tov laxwjS ;
(/*) Deut. xxviii. 9. (>/) 1 Sam. xxiv. 20.
( 173 )
It appears, then, after a patient examination, that
those arguments upon which my Opponent relies, are
perversions of scripture , and mere fancies of his own ;
in which he is as much opposed to the views of the Co-
lossus of Baptist theology, as he is to the view which I
defend. Contrast this with the evidence by which our
opinion is supported. The scriptures do not say that
one ecclesiastical kingdom shall be destroyed and ano-
ther created ; but they assure us that the same kingdom
of God shall be taken from the Jews and given to the
Gentiles. Concerning the same kingdom of heaven it is
said that the Jews shall be cast out, while the Gentiles
shall enter and sit down : neither are they restricted to
the honor of sitting with Moses and Aaron and Joshua,
but they are admitted to a seat with Abraham and Isaac
and Jacob, in this ecclesiastical kingdom, or Abrahamic
church.
VII. Commonwealth. Paul tells the Ephesians that
they were once " Aliens from the commonivealth of
'^ Israel ;'' but he soon informs them that they ^^ are no
'^ more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens
" with the saints, and of the household of God."G/)
Dr. Gill tells us that a stranger was tlie name " by
*^ which the Jews called the Gentiles ;" that the Gen-
tiles were originally '' foreigners in the commonwealth
" of Israel, in the church of God ;" " being aliens
'* from the commonwealth of Israel, both from their
^^ civil and cAwrcA- state." That the city in which they
^-ecome fellow citizens with the saints is " the church
(i/) Kph. it, 12. 19.
( 174 )
*' below, which is the city of God," and ^' heaven
'^ above, which is a city of God's preparation and
" building also.'' In this most valuable Baptist Com-
mentary, we learn that the commonwealth of hrael
means the church of God, to which the Jews once be-
longed, and from which the Gentiles were once stran-
gers and foreigners : but the New Testament adminis-
tration has naturalized them in the city of God, which is
his church below, even that church of which the Jews
were once members.
VIII. Man. '' But now, in Christ Jesus, ye [Gen-
'^ tiles] who sometimes were far off, are made nigh
" [even as the Jews,] by the blood of Christ. For he
" is our peace, who hath made both [Jews and Gentiles]
" one, and hath broken down the middle wall of parti-
^^ tion between us; having abolished in his flesh the
'^ enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
'* ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new
'^ man, so making peace. "(sr)
IX. Body. " And that he might reconcile both [Jews
'^ and Gentiles] unto God in one body by the cross, hav-
'^ ing slain the enmity thereby."(a) The connexion of
this and the last particular, and the 7th also, shews that
man and body, as well as commonwealth, relate to the
visible church. It is not said that they relate to that
exclusively ; nor is it necessary that they should.
X. Brethren. In Ps. xxii. 22, Christ calls the
Jewish church his brethren : in Hebr. ii. 11. 12, this
is quoted as intended for Christians. They must there-
(z) Eph. ii. 13—15. («") Eph. ii. 16.
( 175 )
fore be one in some sense. The connexion shews that
they are ecclesiastically one.
XI. Bride. Jeremiah says that Jehovah is married
to the Jewish church ;{b) John tells us that the Chris-
tian church is the bricks the Lamb's wife ;{c) yet God
says, by the pen of Solomon, *^ My dove, my undefiled,
" is but 07ie / she is the only one of her mother ; she is
*^ the choice one of her that bare her."(c?) It seems then
that Christ has but one bride or church ; but the Jewish
and Christian societies are both that church ; therefore
they are one church. That this passage relates to eccle-
siastical unity, Gill himself is inclined to believe.
XII. Children. The scriptures represent Jewish
and Gentile professors as the children of the church.
When the Jews are cut oif, the church is represented
as a widow : but she is comforted by the accession of
Gentile children. " The [Gentile] children which thou
" shalt have, after thou hast lost the other [the Jewish],
'^ shall say again in thine ears, the place is too strait for
" me: give place to me that I may dwell. Then shalt
" thou say in thine heart, Who hath begotten me these,
'' seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a cap-
" tive, and removing to and fro ? and who hath brought
'^ up these? Behold I was left alone ; these, where had
" they been? Thus saith the Lord God, behold, I will
" lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my stand-
^^ ard to the people : and they shall bring thy sons in
^^ their arms, and xhy daughters shall be carried upon
^* their shoulders. ''(e) Some who admit the identity of
(b) Jer. iii. 14. (c) Rev. xxi. 9.
(f/) Catit. vi. 9. (e) Isa. xlix. 20—22.
( 176 )
the Jewish and Christian societies are inclined to doubt
that the former is intended by either of these classes of
children. Their mistake ought to be corrected by the
preceding context, in which '^ Zion said, The Lord
'^ hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me."
Messiah says, "Though Israel be not gathered, yet
*• shall I be glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my
^^ God shall be my strength.'' The Father says to him,
*^ It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant,
^^ to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the pre-
^' served of Israel; I will also give thee for a light to the
^* Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the
^^ end of the earth. ''(/) I do not deny that the ultimate
accomplishment of these prophecies is yet future : yet
that their primary fulfilment was in the Apostolic day,
is too plain to admit of a doubt. Can any one suppose
that Zion, Jacob, and Israel, have no reference to the
Jews, even when they are expressly contrasted with the
Gentiles ? Here, then, are two distinct sets of ecclesi-
astical children, sent before and after the affliction of
their mother; just as Job had two sets of children sent
before and after his affliction. These Patriarchal de-
cades form a good illustration of the subject, and were
probably intended to do so ; and this opinion may have
weighed with the Jews in considering the number ten as
forming a congregation. But Job's two congregations
had only one father, and thus formed one family : so the
Jev/s and Gentiles had only one ecclesiastical mother ;
that is, they were one church.
(/) Ibu. xhx. 14. 5. 6.
( 177 )
If not very much mistaken, the evidence which lias
been laid before you, goes clearly to the establishment
of the point in question; that is, that the Scriptures give
to the Jewish and Christian Societies the same names, in
such a manner as plainly to prove that they are the same
church. This evidence my Opponent endeavours to
rebut in the following words, viz. ^^ Mr. M^Calla (for
^^ we must now look back a little,) yesterday entertained
''' you for a long time, by telling you of the different
"' names applied to the Jewish society, and also to the
**' Christian, as expressive of their identity ; as their be-
" ing equally called the house, bride, people, vineyard,
''■ kingdom, &c. of God. To all this argument we would
" in the mass reply. That suppose I might be so fortu-
^^ nate as to have a house in Washington and one in Lex-
'' ington, each of them might with the greatest propriety
'' be called my house ; the same might be said concerning
'^ barn, vineyard, floor, kingdom, &c. But who would
'' argue thence that because they were both called my
'' house, vineyard, barn, &c. they were one and the same
'' house; vineyard, barn, &c. This would shock common
'^ sense. But it may be objected that the Lord, meta-
'^ phorically speaking, had but one bride, that he could
"■ not be said to have had two. To such an objection I
'^ would reply by saying that he always had but one
" bride, one house, one vineyard, one kingdom, &c. at
''■ one time ; but that Israel having broken the marriage
" covenant was divorced, and ceased to be his married
Z
( 178 )
'' wife, in the metaphorical style ; and that in their stead
^' another bride was chosen, another house was built,
^' another vineyard was planted, another kingdom was
'^ constituted, to which the same figurative names were
" applied. And after all that Mr. M^Calla has said on
" this subject, it amounts to precisely the same thing ;
" for he will not say, with all his fortitude and zeal, he
^^ cannot say, that the Jewish and Christian societies are
^' identically the very same — no, he will say, he has
** said, they are under different dispensations, and this
** is saying a great deal, if he is aware of the import of
^* it, for, in fact, a different dispensation is tantamount to
*^ a different covenant. At all events, he makes the two
'^ societies diflferent in some respects, and thus esta-
*' blishes my views and saps the very basis of his own
^* system. "(^)
The question whether the two societies are under dif-
ferent covenants or not, will, with divine permission,
soon be tried. It is true that a difference of administra-
tion, and a difTerence in many other respects, has been
admitted. I never undertook to prove their per-
sonal or political, their chronological or geographical
identity. In my explication of the 2c? proposition, I
expressly declared that '^it says nothing more than that
*^ they are the same churchy and nothing more than ec-
*^ clesiastical identity is intended." While this can be
shewn, they may differ in ten thousand respects, without
sapping the foundation of my system. But if I mistake
not, my Opponent considers his own system not perfect-
(§■) spurious Debate with me, p. 186.
( 179 )
ly tenable, as he has changed it to meet the present
emergency. He would now make you believe that it
" amounts to precisely the same thing" with what I
have said; except that instead of the Jews and Christians
being one and the same church, they are two essentially
different churches, but one has come in the stead of the
other. He says that the great Head of the church ^' al-
** ways had but one bride" ^^ at one time ; but that Is-
^^ rael having broken the marriage covenant, was di-
vorced," ^^ and that in their stead another bride was
chosen, another house was built," &c. Has he not at
last admitted the truth of my first proposition that the
Jews were once the visible church of God? But where
does he find evidence that this church was destroyed,
and a perfectly new one instituted ? How does he prove
what he has said on this subject, that " another vineyard
was planted, another kingdom was constituted," ^^ ano-
ther bride was chosen, another house was built?" What
Scripture has he quoted to shew that the Jewish church
was as different from the Christian, as a house in Wash-
ington is different from a house in Lexington ? It is evi-
dent that nothing but the sad necessities of the times
have driven him to this flimsy subterfuge. According
to this theory, can we believe that the Messiah shall
reign over the house of Jacob forever? The house over
which he now reigns must be essentially different, in all
respects, from the house of Jacob. It must also be built
upon the foundation of the Apostles only, and not
" upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets," as
Paul has declared. We must moreover give up the doc-
trine of John the Baptist, that the Messiah *^ will tho-
( 180 )
roughly purge hh floor.'"' My Opponent teaclies that
he does not cleanse his floor, but that he destroys it, and
lays a new one, as different from it, as two floors in
Washington and Lexington are diiferent from each
other. It may be that some Baptist farmer in this as-
sembly is sufficiently prejudiced to believe this exposi-
tion. It may be also that when you came to this debate
you left to your servants a barn floor full of wheat, with
directions to clean it well before your return. What
would you think if they should set fire to the barn in-
stead of to the chaff? Would you not say that there was
a great difference between cleaning a floor and destroy-
ing it ? If some tidy housewives were to destroy their
floors as often as they clean them, they would keep the
carpenters busy. Suppose that you have let out your
farm or vineyard to tenants who will pay no rent. You
send oflicers to eject them. Instead of this, these officers
destroy the vineyard and leave you to plant a new one
near Lexington, according to my Opponent's doctrine.
Would this be in accordance with the text which says,
/* He will destroy the husbandmen, and will give the
vineyard unto others ?" My Opponent teaches that the
kingdom of God was not taken from the Jews and given
to the Gentiles ; but that the Jewish kingdom was des-
stroyed, and ^^ another kingdom was constituted" for the
Gentiles. Compare this with the words of the King.
*^ Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be
taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the
fruits thereof." According to my Opponent's theory,
the Head of the church ^' had but one bride" ^' at one
time ;" but different brides at different times. So the
Jews were one 7nan and one hndi/, \m{ the Christians ano-
( 181 )
ther man and another body essentially different. But the
Spirit says that this bride " is the only one of her mo-
ther:" and concerning the Jews and Gentiles, it declares
that Christ hath made ^^ in himself of twain one new
''- man ;^^ and that he hath reconciled ^^ both unto God
^^ in one body.^^ When they are called children, it is
not said, as my Opponent would have it, that the Jewish
children had one mother, and the Gentile children had
another mother essentially different, like two mothers in
Washington and Lexington ; but the same mother who
lost the Jewish children is represented as obtaining com-
fort from the birth of her Gentile children. You do
not find it said, that the Jews were one olive-tree, from
which certain branches were broken off, and the Gen-
tiles another olive-tree, into which other branches were
engrafted ; but the Gentile branches are engrafted into
the same olive-tree from which the Jewish branches
were broken off. How different this from two olive-
trees in Washington and Lexington !
We conclude, therefore, that if the fact that the
scriptures call the Jewish and Christian societies the
same peculiar treasure and priest-hood, nation and peo-
ple, the same ecclesiastical tree and vineyard, kingdom
and commonwealth, the same foundation, floor, and house,
the same man and body, brethren, bride, and mother,
and if an express declaration of unity, as in several in-
stances just quoted, will prove them to be the same
church, then their ecclesiastical identity has been
proved.
( 18^^ )
POINT III.
The Jewish and Christian societies must be the same
church, because they have the same constitution, the
Mrahamic covenant.
On this subject, my Opponent has spoken as follows,
viz. ^^ Mr. M^Calla has asserted that the covenant or
'^ constitution of both churches is one and the same ;
'* that this covenant is the Abraharaic, and that this
^' Abrahamic covenant was an ' ecclesiastical covenant,^
'* Circuitous and intricate are the paths of error. What
*' a labor, what a toil to establish infant-membership.
^' The Rev. Samuel Rallston, it seems, borrowed this
*^ ecclesiastical covenant from Dr. John Mason, and
*' Mr. M'^Calla appears to have borrowed it from Fa-
** ther Rallston. What a valuable acquisition! How
'* much more are we indebted to philosophical di-
'' vines for their discoveries, than to the Spirit of
" revelation that guided the tongues and the pens of the
^' holy Apostles ! The old and the new covenant
*' were the 'covenants on which the Apostles wrote
" and talked. They, poor, simple, and unlettered men,
^^ never used such phrases as the covenant of works, the
'^ covenant of grace, the ecclesiastic covenant. No, it
^' was reserved to the age of reason, to unfold the cov-
^* enant of works and of grace ; and, to the last centu-
** ry, together with the urgent demands of infant-
*' sprinkling, are we indebted for this last discovery,
** this ecclesiastic covenant. But where this covenant
** may be found, my Antagonist has not condescended
<^ to inform us. We shall then, as a fiivour, request him
( 183 )
^' to specify where this covenant may be found. Is it
<^ in the 12th, 15th, or 17th Chapter of Genesis? Till
^^ then we must merely conjecture. In our Appendix to
'' the Debate at Mount Pleasant, we were somewhat
'^ particular in fixing the meaning of the term covenant
*^ as used in the holy scripture. Mr. M^Calla, so
*^ often as has referred to that Debate, has not called in
'^ question the facts there stated. The term diatheke
^^ is there exhibited as signifying, either appointment^
" constitution, covenant, or testament, and it is there
^^ proven from matter of fact, that promises and com-
*' mands are called covenants. ''(^)
Thus far, my Baptist Opponent. I confess myself attach-
ed to the old-fashioned technical theology. That it was
the fruit of much labour and toil, as my Opponent has
insinuated, cannot be denied. Our Fathers were ad-
dicted to prayers and pains, and, at the same time, gifted
with piety and parts, very far beyond that superficial race
of apostates which have learned to despise their attain-
ments. Some of this motley brood deny that there is a
covenant of works or a covenant of grace, and others
deny that the original words ever signify a covenant be-
tween God and man at all, and say that our Translators
have been guilty of encouraging " a very erroneous and
'^ dangerous opinion,'' by using the word covenant in
such a connexion. Such extravagant folly as' this, my
Opponent is not now willing to avow. He admits that
the original words are properly translated, testament,
constitution, covenant ; although they may sometimes
(A) Spur. Deb. p. 175.
( 184 )
signify an appointment, command^ or law. Between
these two there is no more discrepancy, than there is
in saying with one hreath that the constitution of the
United States is the supreme law of the land, and with
another breath, that it is our great political covenant or
federal compact.
My Opponent speaks of our ecclesiastical covenant
as a novelty. I boast no new discoveries of my own,
nor ami conscious of following any novelty of the last
or of the present century, on this subject. An enlight-
ened and candid examination of the seventh chapter of
the Westminster Confession, and the scriptures ^there
referred to, ought to convince any one, not only that
the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace were
held by the Puritans and by the Apostles, but that both
the Reformed Presbyterians and the Primitive Chris-
tians believed that the Abrahamic covenant was an eccle-
siastical exhibition of the covenant of grace, different-
ly administered, in the Old and New Testament dis-
pensations ; and of course different from the Sinaitic
covenant which has vanished long ago.
When my Opponent calls upon me so loudly and so
frequently to point out that particular chapter in Gene-
sis to which I refer as containing the covenant with
Abraham, I wish him to understand that I refer to all
the chapters which he has specified, and to every other
in which any part of the Abrahamic covenant is contain-
ed. The opinion that all these passages record the same
covenant appears to be founded on inspired authority.
The scriptures say " Ye are the children of the covenant
»• which God made with our Fathers, saying unto iVbra-
( 185 )
*^ ham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the
<* earth be blessed." ^^ For the Lord thy God is a mer-
^^ ciful God ; he will not forsake thee, neither destroy
*' thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers, which
*^ he sware unto them." " To remember his holy cov-
'^ enanty the oath which he sware to our Father Abra-
^' ham." ^^ I sware unto thee, and entered into a
" covenant with thee, saith the Lord God." '^ Re-
^* member, break not thy covenant with us."(i)
Against this familiar language of scripture, in which
only one Abrahamic covenant is mentioned, my Oppo-
nent quotes one or two instances in which Paul speaks
of covenants, without intimating that they were Abra-
hamic covenants. '^ Who are Israelites ; to whom per-
'^ taineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenantsy
'^ and the giving of the law, and the service of God,
'^ and the promises. "(7 ) Although ^^ some copies, and
*^ the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, read the
*' covenant^ in the singular number instead of the
plural, it is evident that the common is the correct
reading. But why must we believe all these cove-
nants to have been made with Abraham ? Dr. Mack-
night, whose version my Opponent professes to copy,
in his New Testament, calls these ^' the two covenants,'^
'^ the covenant with Abraham," '^ and the covenant at
** Sinai." Some suppose them to mean the two testa-
ments : but Dr. Gill says that these covenants are
*' not the two Testaments, Old and New, but the
(i) Acts iii. 25. Deut. iv. 31. Luke i. 72. 73. Ez. xvi. 8. Jer. xiv. 21.
(;■ ) Horn. ix. 4. in Spur. Utb. p. 175.
A a
( 186 )
^^ covenant of circumcision, made with Abraliam their
" father, and tlie covenant at Sinai, they entered into
'^ with the Lord." But my Opponent says, '' Besides,
''' and prior to the covenant at Sinai, there was a plurality
'^ of covenants ;" and he connects these covenants with
the fathers, in a manner quite too ingenious for me to imi-
tate. He does it by altering the text, in such a manner as
to give it a meaning different from the Original, and from
his own Incomparable New Testament, and from every
other translation. The following is given by him, as
the word of God, in Rom. ix. 4. '^ Who are Israelites
'^ to whom pertaineth the adoption and the giving of the
^' law and the covenants, whose are also the fathers."
In his New Testament, the covenants y are separated
from the fathers, by a dozen words, three commas, and
one semicolon ; all of which he has here suppressed, ex-
cept one expression, '^ the giving of the law," which
he has put out of the way by transpK)sition, in order
that he may connect the covenants with the fathers,
which he attempts to do more eiTectually by interpola-
ting the word also. This allocation, however, is not
much more outrageous, than one contained in his book
against Mr. Walker, where he puts " by the Father,''^
instead of, " to our Fathers,''^ in Luke i. 72. (A) If he
cannot prove a plurality of covenants with Abraham
without making scripture for the purpose, you will pro-
bably believe that he cannot prove it all.
But in the text under consideration, my Opponent
,snvs tliat ^^ the giving of the law'" means ^* the covenant
(/t) Spur. Deb aj^ainst Mr. W. p. 159
( 187 )
at Horeb," or the Sinaitic covenant, and therefore " the
covenants" mentioned along with it, cannot mean the
same thing. This, however, is an assertion, not only
without proof, but in opposition to proof. The Greek
word here used for '^ the giving of the law," either sig-
nifies the right of giving law, or the act of giving law,
or the law itself As it is said to pertain to the Israel-
ites, it cannot signify the right of giviyig law ; as it per-
tained to Paul's contemporaries, it cannot mean the act
of giving law ; it must therefore mean the law itself.
Kype remarks that "^^by voixoOfsca is here to be understood,
*^ not so much the protniilgation of the lavj, which be-
'^ longed only to the Mosaic age, as the law itself i. e.
^* the whole system of his lawP ^'' And he shews,"
says Parkhurst, ^^that this is not an unusual sense of
voy,o9cclia.
The other instance quoted by my Opponent for a plu-
rality, of Abrahamic covenants, is where Paul tells the
Ephesians that they were once " strangers from the co-
venants of promise." Whether or not this is a Hebraism,
in which the plural is used for the singular, need not
here be discussed. Dr. Gill says that this refers ^^ to
'^ the covenant of circumcision given to Abraham ; and
'^ to the covenant at Mount Sinai, made with Israel ;
*^ and to the dispensation of the covenant of grace to that
^^ people, sometimes called the first covenant and the old
^* covenant, and which peculiarly belonged to them,
'^ Rom, ix. 4. One copy reads, strangers to the pro-
^' mises of the covenant; which is natural enough. "(/)
(0 Gill on Eph. ii. 12. See Spur. Deb. with me, p. 183.
( 188 )
" But," says my Opponent, " wc have shewn that
" there were difFerent covenants made with Abraham,
"distinct in their nature, time, place, and circum-
" stances. One was made with him. Gen. xii. when 75
" years old, in Haran : this was 430 years before the co-
*^ venant at Sinai. This is called by the Apostle, Gal.
*^ iii. 17, the covenant confirmed concerning Christ, as
" Macknight renders it. This covenant was afterward
" confirmed by an oath. Gen. xxii. when Abraham of-
" fered up his son upon the altar. Eight years after this
"covenant. Gen. xv. God ^MADE A COVENANT'
" with Abraham, in the most formal manner, concern-
" ing Canaan. Sixteen years after this time, (Gen. xvii.)
*^ he makes another covenant, called by Stephen the
** ' covenan t of circumcision .' Yet you were gravely told
^' that there was but one covenant made with Abraham ;
" and this an ecclesiastic covenant. Yet there is no
" church, no ecclesia mentioned in it, nor^^for hundreds
" of years afterwards. What a daring spirit does infant-
" sprinkling inspire ! Covenants made in different coun-
" tries, and at the intervals of eight, sixteen, and twen-
" ty-four years, it calls 07ieP\m)
This rhapsody of my Baptist Opponent considers the
number of the Abrahamic covenants as plain as the noon-
day. They must be three, exactly three ; and this is so
obvious and so important, that nothing but the daring
spirit of error will ever doubt it. Yet in another case
my Opponent himself seems to doubt whether "we
" should say there were three covenants, or only tivo
(m) Spur. Deb. with me, p. 183.
( 189 )
"covenants made with Abraham." At that time he
could not make out the number three without adding
the Sinaitic covenant, which was not made with Abra-
ham, but with Moses. The following are his words, viz.
^' The Scriptures on this subject are very plain. They
*^ speak of a plurality of covenants belonging to the
" Jews. There was the covenant ^ confirmed of God in
" relation to Christ,' 4-30 years before the giving of the
" law ; and there was the covenant of circumcision, 24
" years after the former. There was the covenant at
" Horeb, 430 years after the covenant confirmed of God
'' in relation to Christ. Here are three covenants. The
" latter Mr. M^Calla has discarded as that covenant on
" which the Christian church is founded, but which of
*^ the two former is his ecclesiastical covenant he saith
*' not.(n)
If my Opponent has found only two Abrahamic cove-
nants after all, you must not be surprised if I can find
only one ; especially if I am supported in this opinion
by the Bible and by Baptist authority. He has said
much about these two alledged covenants being 24 years
apart, the first in Gen. xii. in the year Before Chris
1921 ; the second in Gen xvii. in the year 1897 Before
Christ. His book against Mr. Walker contains some
pompous chronological trifling on this subject, in which
he appeals to a table at the end of Johnson's Dictionary.
Thinking it probable that Dr. Allison, the Baptist
preacher, had the same or a similar chronological table
at the end of his English Dictionary, I consulted it, and
(n) Spur. Deb. with mc, pp. 174. 175.
( X90 )
found the following items in relation to the 12th and
17th chapters of Genesis. They are as follows, viz :
*^1921. The covenant made by God with Abram,
when the 430 years of sojourning commenced.
1897. The covenant renewed with Abram ; his name
changed to Abraham ; circumcision instituted."
So far are these two places from recording different
covenants, that the covenant with Isaac, and the cove-
nant with Jacob, are only the same one Abrahamic cove-
nant renewed, as Dr. Allison expresses it. David says
'^ He hath remembered his covenant forever, the word
'' which he commanded to a thousand generations :
'' which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath
'' unto Isaac , and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a
" law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant.'' As a
reason for its being everlasting, Dr. Gill says that ^^ being
^' remembered, commanded, repeated, and confirmed,
** it can never be broken. "(o) To shew that he some-
times(/j) thought Gen. xii. xvii. and xxii. to contain
only this one Abrahamic covenant, " commanded, re-
peated, and confirmed," he expressly refers to these chap-
ters in his exposition of this passage, and then requests
the reader to compare with them Luke i. 72. 73. '' To
^"^ perform the mercy promised to our Fathers, and to
*' remember his holy covenant, the oath which he sware
'' to our father Abraham." When the Psalmist says,
'' Have respect unto the covenant,'' Gill says that this
means ^' not the covenant of works," " but the covenant
*' of grace, made with Christ before the world was,
(o) Gill on Ps. cv. 8—10.
(/?) Dr. Gill sometimes conbiders these as dibtiuct covenants.
( 191 )
^' and made manifest to Adam, to Noah, to Abraham,
•^^ Isaac, and Jacob, to David, and others."(<7)
Much of my Opponent's opposition to the oneness of
the Abraliamic covenant, rests upon the untenable po-
sition, that all the parts and appendages of a constitution
must be drafted and published at the same moment ; that
it is annulled by any subsequent enlargement or amend-
ment ; that distant and different editions destroy its in-
tegrity ; that every such edition, especially if accompa-
nied with additions, even verbal or circumstantial,
makes it essentially a new constitution. But if this be
correct, we shall have to believe that God made eight
covenants with Abraham, instead of two or three.
''' He certainly appeared to him, and addressed him in
^^ covenant language, at eight different times. Nor is
^^ there any thing in the subjects on which he addressed
^' him, which would lead us to fix on two covenants,
** rather than eight. Those, therefore, who do not be-
^^ lieve that he made eight distinct covenants, with him
'^ have no reason to suppose that he made with him more
'^ than one.^\r) The same criterion should lead its ad-
vocates to believe that there have been half as many
constitutions of the United States. Our political cove-
nant, as proposed by the Convention, in 1797, had
seven articles. The first Congress, at its first session,
proposed ten additional articles. The eleventh article
was proposed by the first session of the third Congress,
and the twelfth by the first session of the eighth Con-
{q) Ps. Ixxiv. 20.
(r) Pond's Reply to Judson. p. 74 lie refers to Gen. xji. 1. and 7.
xiii. 14. XV, 1. xvii. xviii: xxi, 12, and xxii. 15,
( 192 )
gress. All these articles now form one and the same
constitution, yet as drafted and adopted at four different
times, and published in distant and different editions.
Neither would its oneness be at all affected, if a thir-
teenth article were now added, appointing a governmen-
tal seal, or altering the seal now in use, as circumcision
was added as a seal to the Abrahamic covenant, twenty -
four years after its alledged origin, and as this seal was
altered to baptism, near two thousand years after that
period.
The two titles which the New Testament gives to the
Abrahamic covenant, make a delightful subject of decla-
mation for my Opponent. Stephen calls it " The cove-
*^ nant that was confirmed before of God in Christ ;"
and Paul calls it '^the covenant of circumcision. "(5)
When Stephen says that it '^ was confirmed before," he
means before ^^ the law, which was four hundred and
*^ thirty years after." Here my Opponent sets all his
chronological apparatus to work, to shew that this 430
years before the law, will take us back, not to Gen.
xvii. when circumcision was instituted, but to Gen. xii.
to '^ the ever-memorable charter of all the blessings
^^ which Jewish and Gentile believers enjoy through
^^ Christ ;" as a certain Baptist writer styles this first
publication of the Abrahamic covenant. But mark well
a distinction between the promulgation and the confir-
mation oi \\i\s ^^ covenant confirmed." T\\q promul-
gation may be in Gen. xii. and this may be 430
years before the law : but that the confirmation is in this
(.v) Acts vii. S. G;il. iii. 17.
( 193 )
chapter or at this date, is not asserted by Stephen, nor,
(I believe,) by the Baptists themselves. My Oppo-
nent, in a passage already quoted, instead of referring
to Gen. xii. sends us to Gen. xxii. for this confirma-
tion. His words are ^'This covenant was afterwards
" confirmed by an oath. Gen. xxii. when Abraham
'^ offered up his son upon the Altar.''(^) Dr. Gill does
not believe that Stephen refers to Gen xii. for one thfng
or another, but that his mention of the covenant is to
be understood, " of a peculiar confirmation of it to
*^ Abraham, either by a frequent repetition thereof, or
*' by annexing an oath unto it ; or rather, by those rites
*^ and usages, and even wonderful appearances, record-
" ed in Gen. xv. 9. 10. 12. 13. 17. 18, and which
*' was/owr hundred and thirty years before the law was
*^ given, which are thus computed by the learned
'' Pareus." He then gives us the computation of Pa-
reus.
My Opponent looks for the confirmation in Gen. xxii.
Dr. Gill looks for it in Gen. xv. one on each side of
Gen. xvii. where it is really to be found. Circumcision
gives this seventeenth chapter a repulsive aspect. It
resembles many a mud-hole in the road from Wjishington
to Lexington. The way of safety lies right through it :
but a span of horses will try hard to go one on each side
of it. There is Dr. Gill, with the chronological traces
of Pareus, pulling hard to the left ; Here is my Oppo-
nent, with his chronological harness, tugging and slip-
ping and floundering toward the right. But it will not
(/) Spur. Deb. with mc. p. 183,
Bb
( 194 )
all do ; the middle is the road, and through it the church
will go.
Dr. Gill is that reasonable sort of a man who is apt to
make a poor advocate for a bad cause ; because he ad-
mits enough of the truth to refute his own errors. In
the extract just now given, he admits a frequent repeti-
tion of the covenant to Abraham. While he allows, with
my Opponent, that it may be confirmed by an oath, he
admits that it is confirmed, ^^ rather by those rites and
^^ usageSf and even wonderful appearances recorded in
<^ Gen. xv.'' Perhaps you think that he will, at no
time, admit circumcision among those rites and usages
by which the Abrahamic covenant was confirmed. If
so, you are mistaken. On the New Testament he tells
us " that circumcision was a seal, not for secresy, but
'^ for certainty ; it being a confirmation not only of the
^^ sincerity of Abraham's faith, but of his justifying
*' righteousness, which was not his faith, but that
^^ which his faith looked to."(i^) Even in Gen. xvii. 7,
when God says, ^^ I will establish my covenant between
*^ me and thee," Gill explains this as a declaration that
he will ^' not only renew it, but confirm it by the follow-
y^ ing token of circumcision." Thus it appears that
the covenant of circumcision was not a new one, but a
renewal of a former one, with the addition of a seal by
which it was confirmed of God in Christ, to whose
righteousness Abraham's faith looked, when ^* he re-
^^ ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right-
*^ eousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircum-
{^il) Rorp. iv. 7.
( 195 )
'*' cised.^' There is, in truth, no more difference be-
tween the covenant of circumcision and the covenant
of confirmation, than there is between our great political
compact and our federal constitution. They mean the
same covenant as certainly as that the scriptures and
the bible mean the same book.
All parties appear to agree that the promises of Gen.
xii. contemplate spiritual blessings, and are given to
Abraham's spiritual seed t but my Opponent, in his
book against Mr. Walker,(z;) assures us that the promises
in Gen. xvii. are confined to Abraham's natural descen-
dants, and to temporal blessings. To do entire justice
to the subject, it may not be amiss to institute a brief in-
quiry concerning the persons and things contemplated
in both places.
I. The persons. The proof given by the Baptists,
that Gen. xii. was in behalf of Abraham's spiritual
seed, is found in the following words of the third verse ;
^^ and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
Now let us see whether there is not something like this
in the seventeenth chapter. In the 2nd verse, God
promises that he "will multiply thee exceedingly."
Gill says that " this may include his natural seed by her
'^ [Sarah], and his spiritual seed among all nations, who
" are of the same faith with him, see ch. xii. 2, and
** xiii. 16, and xv. 5." Here the Dr. expressly refers
to the 12th chapter as containing promises co-extensive
with those of this chapter. But read on. Gen. xvii.
4, says, "Thou shalt be a father of many nations."
(f) p. 160,
( 1% )
After enumerating the many nations naturally descended
from Abraham, Gill says, " and, in a spiritual sense,
^^ the father of all that believe, in all the nations of the
*^ world, circumcised or uncircumcised, as the Apostle
<< explains it, Rom. iv. 11. 12. 16. 17. 18." The
5th verse says, " thy name shall be Abraham,'' which
Gill interprets *^ the father of a numerous offspring;
*^ and with this agrees the reason of it as follows ; 'for
** ' a father of many nations have I made thee:'' " on
which he says, '' Abraham has not only been the father
" of many nations, in a literal sense, as before observed,
^^ but in a mystical sense, of the whole world ; that is,
** of all in it that believe, whether Jews or Gentiles."
Verse 6th says, " and kings shall come out of thee."
Gill's remarks on this are closed with the following words,
viz. ^' . . . the king Messiah : to which may be added, in
'* a mystical sense, all Christian kings and princes of the
" same faith with him ; nay, all believers, who are all
*' kings and priests unto God." The 7th verse says,
^^ And I will establish my covenant between me and
" thee." Gill says, " Not only renew it, but confirm.
'' it by the following token of circumcision." The same
verse adds, ** and thy seed after thee in their genera-
" tion, for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto
*' thee, and to thy seed after thee :" in commenting
upon which, Gill thrice declares that the promise is to
*^ his spiritual seed." Here we have the greatest Bap-
tist Commentator producing abundant inspired evidence
that the covenant promises of Gen. xvii. are not only
to Abraham's natural, but to his spiritual seed also,
II. The blessings. Arc they spiritual, or are they
( 197 )
temporal only ? My Opponent says that they are the
latter ; for which he gives five reasons. (w;)
1. "That they should be a numerous and powerful
" people.'' But the same promise is contained in Gen.
xii. 2, which is confessedly spiritual ; and the same is
repeatedly made to the church militant, and even to the
church triumphant, after all temporal things have
ceased.
2. " That they should inherit the land of Canaan for
^^ a perpetual possession." It is true that this is a tempo-
ral blessing; but let it be remembered, that, as Dr.
Gill observes, it is one " which was a figure of the
*' heavenly inheritance, which is an eternal one, and
^' will be enjoyed by all his spiritual seed, to all eternity."
It is on this principle that my Opponent has follow-
ed Dr. George Campbell in translating our Saviour's
words, ^' Happy the meek, for they shall inherit the
^' land ,*"(a7) meaning the land of Canaan, here used
as a figure, referring not only to temporal, but " to
^^ eternal benefits," as Dr. Campbell expressly declares
in his note on the place. Thus did Paul view this pro-
mise to Abraham when he says, '^ By faith he sojourned
'^ in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwel-
*^ ling in tabernacles, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs
" with him of the same promise ; for he looked for a
*^ city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker
^^isGod."(3/)
3. You will, no doubt, be astonished to hear that the
ground of my Opponent's third reason is, that in the 7th
(iv) Spur. Deb. with Mr. W. p. 160. (a) Matt, v, 5.
(y) Hebr. xi. 9. 10.
( 198 )
verse God promises " to be a God unto thee, and to thy
^* seed after thee ;" and in the eighth verse he says, " I
^^ will be their God." In the 7th verse Gill believes
that his Maker enters into covenant with Abraham's
" spiritual seed, as the God of all grace, supplying them
*^ with grace here, and bestowing upon them glory here-
** after." The eighth verse he explains in a similar
manner.
4. ^* It was conditional." This assertion my Oppo-
nent endeavours to support, by saying '^ See Gen. xvii.
*' throughout." But fearing that this would not answer,
he quotes ^•and the uncircumcised man-child.... he hath
*• broken my covenant :" that is, says Dr. Gill '* made
" it null and void, neglecting the token of it, circum-
*^ cision." As this does not appear sufficient, my
Opponent tacks to it, as belonging to the same chapter,
the following words of Isaiah, viz. ^' If ye be willing
*^ and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land." The
next verse adds, ^' but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall
^^ be devoured with the sword. "(^) This may do very
well to shew the character of the Sinaidc covenant : for
it is almost transcribed from Leviticus xxvi. which Gill
declares related to ^^ the covenant made with them at
" Sinai. "(a) My Opponent may excuse his disingenu-
ousness, by recurring to a pretended amalgamation of
these two covenants. I hope soon to shew you, with
the help of heaven, that this also is a fiction.
5. "It was a covenant in the flesh and not in the
^'spirit. * My covenant shall be in your flesh,' Gen.
(t) Is. i. 19. CO.
(a) Lev. xx\i. 3. 1. 11. 17. The mention of the liovenanl is in vcrbC \o.
( 199 )
'* xvii. 13. The rite of circumcision was the seal of
this covenant." ! ! ! ! What an admirable argument ! !
Well may its author boast of his " critical accumen,"
and his ^^ respectability as a scholar." We have been
accustomed to thinking that the expression, " My cov-
^^ enant shall be in your flesh," meant, that circumci-
sion, the seal or token of the covenant, should be in the
flesh, while the thing signified by it might, nevertheless
be in the spirit, according to an express promise that
*' the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the
*^ heart of thy seed. "(6) So we have always thought
that the application of baptism to the body did not ex- I
elude the answer of a good conscience : but my Oppo-|
nent has discovered that an application of the sacerdo-'
tal knife, or of the baptismal water to the body, proves
that the covenant with which they are connected is
wholly temporal, and has no relation to spiritual bles-
sings at all ! According to Dr. Gill, however, ^^ cir-
** cumcision was a typical sign of Christ, as all the cere-
'^ monies of the law were, and of the shedding of his
" blood, to cleanse from all sin, original and actual, and
*• also of the circumcision of the heart ; and was more-
*^ over a seal of the righteousness of faith. "(c)
That you may feel a proper interest in this discussion,
it is necessary to keep in mind the reason, why there
has been such a waste of industry and ingenuity, in en-
deavouring to debase and destroy the holy ordinance of
\^ (b) Deut. XXX. 6.
\^ (c) Gill on Rom. iv. 11. In relation to this subject, the Doctor's oppor
sition to Pedobaptism makes him sometimes speak in such a manner as
to contradict himself, and to reject trutlis wliich he, at other times, ad-
puts.
( 200 )
circumcision. If the substance of this ordinance be
permitted to continue as the seal of a permanent cove-
nant, my Opponent knows that it can be found no where
in the Christian church, except in the form of baptism.
If baptism, therefore, be the Christian circumcision, as
it was considered by the Apostles and primitive Chris-
tians, then it must, like the Jewish circumcision, be
administered to believers and their households. Here
would be infant baptism at once ; and all this, on account
of circumcision, that obnoxious institution. To avoid
this he must destroy circumcision both in its form and
substance. But this cannot be done without destroying
the covenant of which it is a seal. To accomplish this
they must either deny the perpetuity of the one Abra-
hamic covenant, which they are not prepared to do, or
they must iind two Abrahamic covenants, one of which
may lay exclusive claims to circumcision, and be de-
stroyed with it. Because circumcision is found in Gen.
xvii. that chapter is marked for destruction, as contain-
ing a covenant which is temporary in its duration, and
temporal in its benefits, and essentially different from
the covenant which is recorded before and after it. But
this plurality of Abrahamic covenants is not only un-
known to the inspired writers, but is, as we have shewn,
in direct opposition to their repeated declarations, both
in the Old and New Testaments : and so far is Gen.
xvii. from containing a temporary covenant with tempo-
ral benefits, that its evidence of spirituality and perpe-
tuity is more abundant than that of any other publication
of the Abrahamic covenant in the whole book. To an
unprejudiced mind, it is plain, that the covenant which
( 201 )
was published and repeated in the twelfth and fifteenth
chapters, was ratified or established, or, as Dr. Gill ex-
plains it, renewed and confirmed, in the seventeenth,
where circumcision was given as a seal.
Even those who make this latter a distinct and de-
structible covenant, have to give it entirely a new name,
before they can find any Scripture that will put it to
death. There is not a word in the bible, for destroying
any Abrahamic covenant : they are obliged, therefore,
to call it the Sinaitic covenant, or the covenant of Ho-
reb. Ask my Opponent how it obtained this new name,
and he will tell you that it was by amalgamation. Yes,
it was not by inspiration, but by a process unknown to
the Scriptures, or the ancient church ; a federal amal-
gamation, elaborated in the flimsy prejudices of modern
theological alchymists. As it has been proved that there
are not two distinct Abrahamic covenants, permit me
now to shew that the Abrahamic and Sinaitic are two
distinct covenants, which never have coalesced and
never will. According to the Scriptures, they differ in
the following features.
1 . They are said to be two. ^^ Which things are an
*' allegory : for these are the two covenants. "(</)
2. They differ in their tendency. This is proved by
the words immediately following those just now quoted.
*' The one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to
'^ bondage, which is Agar.(c?)
3. They are distinguished as my and thy covenants ;
the Lord claiming the one which tends to promote liber-
(c/) Gal. iv, 24.
C c
( 202 )
ty. ^^Nevertheless, I will remember my covenant with
'' thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish [or
'^ confirm it] unto thee [as] an everlasting covenant.
'^ Then thou shalt remember thy ways, and be ashamed,
'' when thou shalt receive thy sister, [the Gentiles]
^' thine elder and thy younger : and I will give them
*^ unto thee for daughters, but not by thy covenant. And
^' I will establish [or confirm] my covenant, [made in
" the days of thy youth] with thee. "(e) My Opponent
justly remarks that Ezekiel here ^'promises the union of
'' Jews and Gentiles under a covenant positively de-
'' clared to be not the Sinaitic," for he says, '^ not by
*^ thy covenant." The next question is, what is that
everlasting covenant, which, in this short passage, the
Lord twice promises that he will establish or confirm on
the union of the Jews and Gentiles? Dr. Gill says it is
*^ the covenant of grace, made with the Messiah and his
*^ spiritual seed ; which is confirmed of God iji Christy
But both he and my Opponent believe the '^ covenant
confirmed of God in Christ" to be the Abrahamic cove-
nant. And where is this everlasting covenant first said
to be established or confirmed? It is in Gen. xvii. Yes,
in the seventh verse of that ofiensive chapter, God says,
'' I will establish my covenant between me and thee,
'^ and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an
" everlasting covenant." It is here also that Gill's ad-
mirable commentary says that this establishing of the
covenant, means that God will ^^ not only renew it, but
'•' confirm it by the following token of circumcision."
(r) Ez. xvi. 60—62. '^
( 203 )
This, therefore, is ^^ my covenant with thee in the days
^' of thy youth.'' Gill's Baptist prejudices make him
anxious to confine the days of their youth to the Sinaitic
covenant. He nevertheless approves of the declaration
of Kimchi, who says that ^^ all the while they were in
^^ Egypt, and until they came into the land of Canaan,
^^ were called the days of their youdi.*' This account
of their youth embraces many centuries before the Si-
naitic covenant, during all of which time they were un-
der the Abrahamic covenant, in which God had pre-
dicted their bondage in Egypt, and deliverance from
it.{f} This was done in a covenant which was made be-
fore the institution of circumcision, and only "renewed''
and " confirmed" in the appointment of that seal. This
covenant which God confirmed with them in their
youth, by circumcision, he promises to confirm with
them on the union of Jews and Gentiles, that it may in-
deed be an everlasting covenant, after that of Sinai is
abolished.
4. They difl^'er in their dates. Moses says, "The
'^ Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
** The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers,
'^ but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this
^' day."(^) Gill supposes that the fathers here men-
tioned, may ^^ be understood of their more remote an-
'^ cestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with whom the
*^ covenant of grace was made, or afresh made manifest,
*' especially with the former ; when the law, the cove-
^' nant here spoken of, was not delivered until 430 years
(/) Gen. XV. 13—16. {g) Dent. v. ?. 3.
♦ 4
( 204 )
** after. Gal. iii. 16. 17." These references read as
follows: " Now to Abraham and his seed were the pro-
'^ raises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ;
^^ but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And
*' this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before
*^ of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred
^' and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should
'^ make the promise of none effect.'^
5. They differ in their qualities. '^ But now hath he
'^ obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also
*^ he is the Mediator of a better covenant which was es-
^^ tablished upon better promises. For if the first cove-
'^ nant had been faultless, then should no place have
*' been sought for the second. For finding fault with
*^ them, he saith. Behold the days come, saith the Lord,
'^ when I will make a new covenant with the house of
*' Israel, and with the house of Judah : not according to
*^ the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the
'^ day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of
** the land of Egypt ; because they continued not in my
'* covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord."(^)
Notwithstanding the obscurity of what my Opponent
says on this passage,(e) you may perceive that he admits
the Sinaitic covenant to be the old and faulty one which
gives way to the new and better covenant. Thus also
Dr. Gill ; ^^ That the Sinai covenant is intended, is clear
*^ by the following circumstance : * In the day that I
^^ * took them by the hand to bring them out of the land
^^ ' of Egypt ;' that is, immediately after their being
{h) Heb. viii. 6 — 9. (j) Spur. De-b. with me, p. 24.6,
( 205 )
'* brought out of Egypt, the covenant was made with
*' them.''(/) But the question in dispute is, What is
meant by the new and better covenant, which is so far
superior to that of Sinai ? My Opponent can give no
other account of it than to assure you that it is a new
covenant, essentially different from the Abrahamic. If
so, it must be newly made, or newly revealed, or both
newly made and revealed. My opinion is, that it is no
new constitution or revelation, but a new administration
of a covenant revealed to Abraham.
My Opponent has sometimes made a show of quoting
our Confession of Faith against me. Permit me to quote
it on this occasion. It is an excellent expositor of Scrip-
ture ; it speaks my sentiments in better words than my
own ; and it gives me an opportunity of shewing the ex-
act agreement which there is between the highest Bap-
tist and Pedobaptist authorities on this subject. In rela-
tion to the covenant of Grace, our Confession speaks as
follows, viz. ^'This covenant was differently adminis-
*' tered in the time of the law, and in the time of the
'^ gospel : under the law it was administered by pro-
*^ mises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Pas-
^* chal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered
f* to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to
'^ come, which were for that time sufficient and eflica-
*•' cious, througli the operation of the Spirit, to instruct
*^ and build up the elect in faith in the promised Mes-
*^ siah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and
^^ eternal salvation ; and is called the Old Testament.
(y) Gill on Jer. xxxi. "2, which Paul quotes.
( 206 )
'' Under the gospel, when Christ the substance, was ex-
^' hibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dis-
*^ pensed are the preaching of the word, and the admin-
*^ istration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's
" supper 5 which, though fewer in number, and admin-
^* istered with more simplicity and less outward glory,
^^ yet in them it is held forth, in more fulness, evidence,
** and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and
^^ Gentiles , and is called the New Testament. There
*' are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in
^' substance, but one and the same under various dis-
^' pensations.''(/) In support of these sentiments, the
Confession refers to those passages in which Jeremiah
and Paul speak of the old and faulty covenant giving
way to the new and better one. It also refers to several
texts which relate to the Abrahamic covenant and its
seal. The extract, with its proofs, goes to shew that
the authors of the Confession believed with me, that the
new covenant of Jeremiah and Paul, was no new consti-
tution or new revelation, but a new administration of a
covenant revealed to Abraham.
The coincidence of Dr. Gill's opinion will appear in
the following extract, viz. ^^ ^ That I will make a new
'^ ^covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house
^* ' Judah ;' by this covenant is meant the covenant of
^' grace ; called new, not because newly made, for it
'^ was made with the elect in Christ from everlasting ;
'* so early was Christ set up as the Mediator of it ; and
*' so early were promises made, and blessings given to
(/) Confession, Ch. 7. Sect. 5. 6.
( 207 )
'^ them in him : nor because newly revealed ; for it was
'* made known to all the saints more or less, under the
^^ former dispensation, particularly to David, to Abra-
^^ ham, yea, to our first parents immediately after the
'^ fall, though more clearly manifested under the gospel
'^ dispensation ; but because of its new mode of exhi-
'^ bition ; not by types, and shadows, and sacrifices, as
'' formerly ; but by the ministry of the word, and the
^^ administration of gospel ordinances ; and in distinc-
*' tion from the former covenant, which is done away,
*^ as to the mode of it ; and because it is a famous cov-
^^ enant, an excellent one, a better covenant, best of all ;
*^ better than the covenant of works, and even better
^^ than the covenant of grace, under the former admin-
*^ istration."(w) There is no difficulty in seeing from
this extract, that Dr. Gill believes that the new and bet-
ter covenant which supplants the Sinaitic, is no new
constitution or revelation, but only a new administration
of the covenant of grace, revealed to Abraham, and
even to Adam ; and exhibited to God's people both in
the Old and in the New dispensations, in ecclesiastical
ordinances ; so that it is an ecclesiastical exhibition of
the covenant of grace. Dr. Gill himself being judge.
But this is not all. The same sentiments, as far as is
necessary for the point now in hand, have been officially
declared by the Regular Baptist churches of England
and America, in '^^ A Confession of Faith put forth
'•' hy the Elders and Brethren, of many Congregations
^^ of Christians, f baptised upon profession of their
(m) Gill on Jer. xxxi. 31.
( 208 )
^' faith,) in London and the country. Adopted by the
^^ Baptist Association met at Philadelphia, September
'^ 25, 1742." In relation to the subject now before
us, this Baptist Formulary says, ^^This covenant is re-
^^ vealed in the gospel first of all to Adam in the pro-
^'' mise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and after-
^^ wards by farther steps, until the full discovery there-
*• of was completed in the New Testament , and it is
'* founded in that eternal covenant transaction, that was
^'^ between the Father and the Son about the redemption
*^ of the elect ; and it is alone by the grace of this cov-
'^ enant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that
'^ ever were saved, did obtain life and blessed im-
*^ mortality ; man being now utterly incapable of accep-
^•^ tance with God upon those terms on which Adam
'^ stood in his state of innocency.''(n) I would call your
attention to a particular doctrine stated in this extract,
in connexion with the texts referred to in the bottom of
the page to support it. The doctrine is, that '^ it is
'^ alone by the grace of this covenant, that all of the
'^ posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did
*^ obtain life and blessed immortality." In support of
this doctrine, this Baptist Confession refers to John viii.
56. ^^ Your Father Abraham rejoiced to see my day ;
^^ and he saw it, and was glad." But lest this should
leave us in doubt, whether they meant the Abrahamic
covenant, with or without the seal of circumcision, this
same Baptist Confession refers us to Rom. iv. through-
out ; which dwells almost wholly upon the Abrahamic
(n) Chap. T, Sect, 3.
( 209 )
Covenant as recorded in Gen. xvii. where Abraham
*' received the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the right-
'* eousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir-
** cumcised." This shews from the highest Baptist
authority in the world, that the new and better covenant
of the New Testament church, which supplants the
Sinaitic covenant, is no new constitution or revelation,
but only a new administration of the eternal covenant of
grace, which was revealed to Adam in Gen. iii. and
which was visibly and ecclesiastically exhibited to Abra-
ham, in Gen. xvii. where it was sealed with circumci-
sion.
Notwithstanding the great inferiority of the covenant
of Sinai, its institutions were an obscure publication of
the gospel. It was therefore subservient to the covenant
of grace. But, that it made, comparatively, a very
slender provision for the consolation and salvation of the
church, is evident from the fact that Moses, by whom
it was given, goes past his own ceremonial and legal cov-
enant, and resorts to that of Abraham, when interceding
for rebellious Israel. In the same chapter of his law,
the legal character of the one covenant, and the gracious
character of the other are plainly marked. Speaking
the language of the Sinaitic covenant, he says, " But
*' if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all
'^ these commandments, and if ye shall despise my
'^ statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that
" ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break
**^ my covenant, I also will do this unto you.'' Then
he denounces multiplied and aggravated curses upon
them. Dr. Gill says that this was ^- the covenant made
Dd
( 210 )
^^ with them at Sinai, when they promised on their part,
*^ that they would hearken and be obedient."(o) Im-
mediately after this Moses adds, ^^ If they shall confess
" their iniquity,'' '^ then will I remember my covenant
^^ with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac, and also
^^ my covenant with Abraham will I remember ; and I
*^ will remember the land," Gill says that this cove-
nant '^ chiefly respects the multiplication of their seed,
^' the continuance of them, and the Messiah springing
^' from them ; which is the mercy promised to these fa-
^' thers, and the principal part of the covenant made
'* with them, and which was remembered and performed
" when God visited and redeemed his people by him,
** Luke i. 68 — l^.^Kp) Immediately after the Sinaitic
covenant was given, and Aaron and the people had pro-
voked the Lord with the golden calf, Moses says, '^ Turn
^^ from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against
'^ thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel
" thy servants, to whom thou swearest by thine own
*^ self."(g') To this was God's mercy ascribed in after
days. " And the Lord was gracious unto them, and
^^ had compassion on them, and had respect unto them,
" because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Ja-
^' cob, and would not destroy them, neither cast he them
'' from his presence as yet."(r) In the Jewish syna-
gogue of Antioch in Pisidia, Paul shewed that the Abra-
liamic covenant may well serve as a text for a gospel
sermon. '^ And we declare unto you glad tidings, how
*" that the promise which was made unto the fathers,
(o) Gill on Lev. xxvi. 15. ( /i ) Gill on Lev. xxvi. 42.
{q) Ex. xxxii. 12. 13. (;) 2 Kings xiii. 23.
r4
( 211 )
'* God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in
'^ that he hath raised up Jesus again." Dr. Gill says
that this promise is "not barely and solely that which
^' respects the resurrection of Christ, but the mission
*^ of him, the exhibition of him in human nature, his
^^ incarnation, his work and business he was to do,
^*^ namely, to obtain salvation for his people ; it chiefly
*^ regards the promise of his coming into the world to
'^ do the will of God, which promise was made to Abra-
^^ ham, Isaac, Jacob, and Judah.''(5)
6. There is such a difference in the duration of the
Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants, as totally to forbid
the amalgamation system. We have already found that
Paul meant the covenant of Sinai, when he said, ^' Now
^^ that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to van-
" ish away."(^) This covenant vanished soon after the
coming of Christ : but where is the evidence that the
Abrahamic covenant vanished at that period ? Instead
of that, Paul represents Abraham as the father of be-
lieving Gentiles as well as Jews. (?/) It was concerning
this period that God said, ^^Then will I remember my
^^ covenant with Jacob, and also my covenant with Isaac,
" and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember.'*
Dr. Gill expressly says that this covenant ^' w^as remem-
" bered and performed when God visited and redeemed
" his people by him [Christ] Luke i. 68—73.'- The
Psalmist says '^ He hath remembered his covenant for
" ever, the wwd which he commanded to a thousand
(s") Gill on Acts xiii. 52. {t) Hebr. viii. 13.
(w) Rom. iv. 11. 12. Compare Is. Iv. 3—5. Ivi. 4 — 8, whero the ex-
tension of tlie covenant to Gentiles is foretold. ■<■,
( 21'^ )
** generations : which covenant he made with Abraham,
'^ and his oath unto Isaac, and confirmed the same unto
^' Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting cove-
" nant.^' Dr. Gill says that this covenant ^' shall
^^ stand good, and lie punctually performed, ^ to a thou-
^' ^ sand generations,' that is, forever."(«;) For this
also, as well as the last text, he refers to the latter part of
the first Chapter of Luke. " Blessed be the Lord God
^^ of Israel, for he hath visited and redeemed his peo-
^^ pie," " to perform the mercy promised to our fathers,
'^ and to remember his holy covenant," '^ which," says
Dr. Gill, '^ was made between him and his Son from
'* all eternity ; and was, at various times, dispensed and
*^ manifested to the patriarchs, and eminent saints, as
'* Adam, Noah, Abraham, &c."(zf) This is confirmed
by the very next verse, which says, *^ the oath which
^^ he sware to our father Abraham." Besides referring
us to this passage from the Psalm just now quoted, the
Doctor sends us to three different places in Genesis,
among which we find the seventeenth chapter, where
this covenant is confirmed of God in Christ, by the seal
of circumcision. It is not, therefore, some other Abra-
hamic covenant, but the covenant of circumcision, which
God has '* * commanded to a thousand generations,' that
'^ is, forever," as the Doctor says. If, therefore, the
Abrahamic covenant of circumcision is eternal in its
duration, and the Sinaitic covenant has already perished,
their amalgamation must be a work of imagination only,
(t') Gill on Ps. cv. 8. {no) (iill on Luke i. Ixxii.
w*
( 213 )
It appears, therefore, from the bible and the highest
Baptist authority, that the one Abrahamic covenant,
sealed with circumcision, is perpetual ; that notwith-
standing the change of administration, the covenant is
the same j and that this ecclesiastical exhibition of the
covenant of grace is the common constitution of the Jew-
ish society before Christ, and of the Christian society af-
ter Christ ; wherefore these societies having one consti-
t'ltion, are one church; which was the point to be
proved.
We have now finished the evidence promised in sup-
port of the second proposition, that '' the Christian
" church is a branch of the Abrahamic church ; or in
'^ other words, the Jewish society before Christ, and the
*^ Christian society after Christ are one and the same
** church in different administrations." We have proved
this by the substantial sameness of their religion : they
have the same theology, morality, worship, government,
and discipline. This has, moreover, been shewn from
the manner in which the same names are given to them :
they are both God's peculiar treasure, a royal priesthood,
and an holy nation. They are both God's ecclesiastical
tree and vineyard ; foundation, floor, and house ; king-
dom and commonwealth ; man and body ; brethren,
bride and children. And it has just now been shewn
that the same ecclesiastical exhibition of the eternal co-
venant of grace is the one common constitution of the
( 214 )
two societies : wherefore they must be one church,,
though in different dispensations. Both the premises
and the conclusion have been supported by the Scrip-
turesj and it has been shewn that they are both ratified
by Doctor Gill, the greatest Baptist writer who ever
lived. If, through prejudice or forgetful ness, any one
doubt the correctness of this statement, let him candidly
attend to what the Doctor says, on that declaration of
Solomon, that ^^ Wisdom hath builded her house ; she
hath hewn out her seven pillars. ''(A) This, Gill says, is
^^ the church of Christ on earth, the house of the living
'^ God, the pillar and ground of the truth. '^ '^ Such a
^^ house there was under the Old Testament, and such an
^^ one there is under the New; and which is continually
** building up by Christ, by means of the word and ordi-
^' nances, and will continue to the end of the world.''
When Solomon says, '^ There is no new thing under
the sun,'^(z) Dr. Gill says, that even " spiritual things,''
*' though in some sense new, m^e also old; or there have
^* been the same things for substance in former ages,
*^ and from the beginning, as now ; such as Ihe neiv cove-
'^ nant of grace j the new and living way to God ; new
'^ creatures in Christ; a new name; the JVew Testament,
^^ and the doctrines of it ; new ordinances, and the new
'^ commandment of love; and yet these, in some sense, are
''all old things, and indeed are the same in sub-
'' stance." These are the words of Dr. Gill. In them
you find express and repeated acknowledgments of the
scriptural truths, that the church and covenant, doc-
(/j) Prov. ix. 1. {i) Eccles. i. 9.
( 215 )
trines and ordinances, of the Old and New Testament,
are ^^the same things for substance ;" "the same
IN SUBSTANCE." If, in relation to these ordinances,
Providence enable me to prove, from Scripture, the si-
gillistical identity of circumcision and baptism, and the
unrepealed requirement that this seal shall be adminis-
tered to infants, it will plainly appear, from infallible
authority, that there is a divine command for infant-
baptism.
PROPOSITION III.
Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and Christian Bap-
tism AFTER Christ, are one and the same seal in sub-
stance, though in different forms.
The word seal sometimes signifies an instrument for
making an impression upon wax or some other substance;
it sometimes means the impression made by this instru-
ment ; it sometimes signifies that confirmation which is
imparted by this impression ; and it sometimes denotes
any significant act by which confirmation is eifected
even without a visible permanent impression. Ahab^had
2iW implement called a «e«// Jezebel made the impres-
sion of it upon the letters which she sent to the elders
and to the nobles ; and this royal attestation or confirm-
ation procured the destruction of Naboth.(a7) In order
to bring the Jews to a similar end, Haman sent through-
out the Persian empire, letters '^ sealed with the kings
(r) 1 Kings xxi. 8.
( 216 )
ring.^^i/) 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 oJfF his ring from his
hand, and put it upon Joseph's hand. ''(2^) So Antiochus
is represented as giving his signet (his ring in the Greek
and Latin,) to Philip his regent ;(«) and the dying Alex-
ander is said to have given his ring to Perdicas for the
same reason. When Paul says to the Corinthians, " The
seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord,"(Z>) he does
not mean that they are the instrument or the impression,
but the attestation or confirmation of his Apostleship.
Dr. Gill considers it as ^^ alluding to the sealing of deeds
'^ and writings, which renders them authentic; or to the
'* sealing of letters, confirming the truth of what is
'* therein expressed.'' Christ says^ ^^ He that hath re-
^' ceived his testimony, hath set to his seal that God is
*^ true."(c) Dr. Gill tells us that '' he seals, ratifies,
*' and confirms'^ this doctrine. Sealing, in this passage,
is certainly used in the sense of attestation. It moreover
has this meaning and that of confirmation where Paul
says that ^^ He [Abraham] received the sign of circum-
** cision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he
" had yet being uncircumcised.W) Here Dr. Gill justly
remarks that " circumcision v/as 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 rmg, as it is in the Greek of Bel and
the Dragon, verses 11. 14.)
f A) 1 Cor, IX. 2. See (iill. (c) John iii. 33. See Gill.
(ci)Rom. iv, 11. See Gill, whom we have formerly quoted more fully
Oil this passage.
( 217 )
confirmation or attestation is what we mean by the sub-
starice of the seal ; while the particular i?npression or
significant ceremony is called \\\^ 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 bap-
tism never was a seal at all; that even circumcision
never was a seal to any but Abraham; and that the
form of a seal is essential to its existence, so that the form
cannot be changed without destroying the substance.
His reasoning is as follows, viz. '^ Was not circumcision
'^ significant of something? could it not be seen and ex-
^^ amined by every body ? and what did it say ? It said
^^ * lam 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
E e
( 218 )
*^ ' of Abraham, entitled to every thing promised my
" ' father, when God told him to make this mark upon
^^ ^ me ! V It surely lies, if it tell such a tale.
^* A sealj Mr. M^Calla says, is a confirmative mark,
'^ Now who ever thought that water left a confirmative
'^ mark on the forehead of a child ? But remember, my
'^ friends, I called upon my Opponent to tell us where
*^ baptism is called a seal. No where I say in the bible.
^^ to presume that baptism is a seal, and to presume that
'^ it is substituted in the place of circumcision, and that
^^ the seal is changed, is taking too much liberty in an
'' argument. One presumption might, in some instances,
^' be tolerated, but it is too presumptuous to demand
^* three, nay to adopt them without any ceremony, and
'' place them as the basis of an argument.
" I deny that circumcision was ever changed into any
'^ thing — that baptism is a seal of any covenant in the
" legitimate use of language : — and consequently that
^* baptism came in the room of circumcision. And, I po-
'^ sitively say that Mr. M'Calla cannot produce one text
'^ in the Bible in proof of the contrary. — I say again, it
*^ is quite too presumptuous y 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 tlie life of one individual. It
^^ never was a seal to one of Adam's race ii\ the same
'^ sense, and for the same purpose, as it was to Abra-
" ham. Mark the Apostle's style — He received the
( 2U) )
" SIGN of circumcision, this was its common import to
*^ all the Jews — he received the sign, its common name;
*^ to him in particular a seal; of what? of his interest
^' in the covenant ? — No, this he had guaranteed by the
^^ veracity of God. — A seal of what? — Of the righteous-
" ness of that faith — what faith ? of the faith which he
'^ should afterwards have ? — No, no : but of the faith he
'^ had. — When? Sixteen years before this time ; when
^^ his faith was counted unto him for righteousness : and
'^ twenty-four years before this time he believed the
'^ promise of God, and left his own country and his fa-
'^ ther's house in the obedience of faith. The whole
^^ mystery dissolves at the touch of common sense, when
'^ it is simply known, that Abraham received the usual
^^ sign of circumcision, which to him was a pledge or
'^ mark of the divine acceptance of his faith.''
My Baptist Opponent is unhappy in his distinction
between signs and seals. He pretends that circumcision
was a sign both to Abraham and his descendants, but
that it was a seal to Abraham only, and not to one of his
descendants. It may be safely affirmed that this is one
of my Opponent's original discoveries. It was entirely
unknown even to Hezechius, the ancient Greek Glosso-
grapher. Of two significations which he gives to the
word sign^ seal is one :[a) and in explaining the word
seals, he says that they are ^"^ those sig7is which are upon
rings and clothes. "(:r) Harpocration also, in his Lexi-
con, explains the one word by the other, as follows, viz.
" Signs, so they call seals.^\g) Dr. Gill, who quotes
(a) Sj^uftoi/, ff^as, t) T(J)^ay£j.
(2) 2$gttyt5fj, dt t7t(> itov haxtvXnuv xat, -ia tojv (uattuv rtyj^cta.
(p-) ir^fxeiLi, ovru Xiyovat, raj rt^^aytSaj.
( 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 render-
ing. (A) After my Opponent's loud call to you, to " mark
^^ the Apostle's style," in this passage, you will be sur-
prised to find, that, in his New Testament, he has fol-
lowed Macknight, in a translation which agrees with
our views. His version is as follows, viz. " And he
received the 7na?'k of circumcision as a secd/^ &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«2ar/f, and a seal is a 7nark, and
if Abraham received the sign or mark of circumcision
AS a seal or mai'k of the righteousness of faith, then
where is my Opponent's distinction between signs and
seals? It is surely not in Dr. Macknight, whose trans-
lation he has copied with approbation ; for the Doctor
confirms my interpretation, in his version, commentary,
^nd 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
(A) ac circumcisionis iiotam accepit, qiiae sigilhan esset, &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 con-
^^ firmed ; and the Holy Spirit is the only earnest
'^ pledge, seal, and sealer of the saints, until the day
*^ of redemption.''(z) This author will very readily
admit that justification by faith is a blessing which be-
lievers derive from the covenant of grace : if therefore,
his assertion be true, that ordinances are not tlie seals
of the covenant and of believers, then it is also true
that ordinances are not the seal of the righteousness of
faith : but this, as we observed, is in manifest opposition
to the scriptures, which declare that Abraham ^"^re-
*^ ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the right-
*' eousness of faith.
Some, however, admit that Abraham received this
ordinance as a seal, but deny that it was a seal in the
case of any other person except Abraham. This is a
sentiment, and a mode of interpretation, which, I sus-
pect, neither Jew nor Gentile ever thought of, until it
was found necessary to the enemies of infant-baptism. The
opinion of the Jews may be ascertained from their Tar-
gum, as quoted by Dr. Gill, who says that " The Apos-
'' tie uses the word seal concerning circumcision, it being
(z) Gill on Rom. iv. 11.
( 222 )
^* a word his countrymen made use of when they spoke
'^ of it; thus, paraphrasing on Cant. iii. 8, [comp. iv.
'^ 12.] they say, ^ every one of them was sealed with the
*^ ^ seal of circumcision upon their flesh, as Abraham
^^ ^ was sealed in his flesh.' " Moreover, in one of their
Apocryphal books, the Jewish author represents God as
saying to him, ^^ Behold the number of those that be
sealed in the feast of the Lord."(/) This feast was evi-
dently the Passover, to which the sealing of circumci-
sion was a prerequisite ; and the number of those who
were thus sealed, is, in the context, said to be ''' a
^^ great people whom I could not number." This pas-
sage i§ referred to by Dr. Gill, in illustration of John's
declaration that ^^ there were sealed an hundred and
'' forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the child-
'^ ren of Israel. ''(>^) The context of this passage shews
that they were sealed by the application of the outward
sign, as well as by the inward grace. In perfect conform-
ity with this Jewish usage, inspired and uninspired, the
Shepherd of Hernias, in a passage quoted by my Oppo-
nent against Mr. Walker, repeatedly calls the initiatory
ordinance of the church a seal in relation to all who
receive it. Among the Christian Fathers who followed
him in this usage, we find Epiphanius saying, ^"^The
*' law had the circumcision in the flesh, serving for a
'^ time, till the great circumcision came, that is. Baptism;
'^ which circumcises us from our sins, and seals us unto
'' the name of God.'' In the same strain, we find Au-
gustine drawing a parallel between Abraham and Cor-
{j)2 Esdras ii. s"S. Comp. AZ. (A-) Rev. vii. 4. Comp. 3.
( 223 )
nelius, on the one hand, who were sealed with the initia-
tory ordinance, after they had believed; and on the
other hand, Isaac and Christian infants, who, in maturity,
enjoy that righteousness of faith, " the seal whereof had
'^ gone before."
But to confine the seal to Abraham exclusively, my
Opponent says, *^It is only called a seal once, and in re-
lation to one circumstance, in the life of one individual."
Does he mean by this, that we are not to believe the
Scriptures, if they say a thing only once ? But let us
try such reasoning in refutation of his argument for fe-
male communion ; and see whether he will admit its
correctness. In his debate with Mr. Walker, he pro-
fessed to have express authority for female communion.
It was in the following words, viz. ^^ For there was a
certain disciple there named Tahitha.''\l) What would
he do with an antagonist who would seriously deny the
force of this evidence, and pretend to refute it, by say-
ing that "female discipleship is mentioned only o??ce, and
in relation to one circumstance, in the life of one indi-
vidual ?" I will tell you what he would do , he would
almost dance with ecstacy at obtaining, at last, one solid,
though solitary evidence of his Antagonist's insincerity,
or the weakness of his cause ; and it would serve him for
matter of declamation in almost every speech throughout
the remainder of the debate. I am not disposed to fur-
nish him with such provender, although he has gone on
many a foraging excursion in pursuit of it. Although
the case of Tabitha is not an express command for female
(/) Acts ix. 36. Bee hib Spurious Debate with Mi'. 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 men-
tioned only once, and concerning only one person. So,
if it were true that circumcision is called a seal only
once, and that in the history of one person, this is so far
from proving that it is a seal in no other case, that it
proves the very contrary. In the history of Adam, it is
said only once, and concerning one individual, that he
^^ begat a son in his own likeness, after his linage P
Does this prove that Seth was the only descendant of
Adam who was born in his likeness, and after his image,
or does it not rather prove the contrary ? Circumcision
did not become a seal by the mere fact of Abraham's re-
ceiving it, but " he received the mark of circumcision
as a seaV^ already appointed in that covenant which re-
quired him to be circumcised : neither did his reception
of it make it cease to be a seal, for Isaac and Jacob were
as much interested in the covenant of circumcision as
Abraham himself; and in their case, and in the cases of
all others to whom it was lawfully administered, whether
infants or adults, saints or sinners, it was a seal of the
righteousness of faith ; that is, it was a visible attestation
or confirmation of the doctrine of justification by faith,
and not by works ; the doctrine of salvation by the grace
of God, through the blood and Spirit of Christ. It is
not true, as some suppose, that this ordinance was a seal,
only when administered to an heir of heaven, whether in
infancy or maturity : the word of God is as true when
it becomes a savour of death unto death, as when it is
received in faith : so the doctrine of justification by faith
( 225 )
Is as truly sealed, confirmed, or attested in the circimi»
cision of Ishmael as of Isaac, of Esau as of Jacob. It is
true that some subjects of this ordinance have the inesti-
mable advantage of having the inward grace accompany-
ing the outward sign ; but it is not this fact which makes
it a SEAL : for if its signiiicancy depended upon the cer-
tainty of grace in the receiver, it would be an empty form
to all but the searcher of hearts, and those of his children
who have attained the full assurance of faith : but it con-
firms the same truth to the weak believer as to the strong ;
and it attests the same doctrine of justification by faith,
to the unbeliever as to the believer ; for the unbelief of
man can never make the faith of God of none effect, or
make him alter his plan of saving sinners. This ordi-
nance was not intended to seal a fact but a doctrine : it
was not intended to declare that the individual receiver
should be saved, but to teach that if he be saved, it must
be through the blood and righteousness of his law-satis-
fying Surety ; and that every one who has an interest in
this Divine Redeemer, whether he be an infant or adult,
shall be saved.
Although circumcision sealed this truth, my Oppo-
nent insists upon it that baptism cannot be a seal at all,
because water leaves no mark behind it. He trium-
phantly asks, ^^ Now who ever thought that water left
*^ a confirmative mark on the forehead of a child V^{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 de-
(w) Spur. Deb. with mc, p. 204, quoted above.
Ff
( 226 )
note " any act of confirmation/' as the Baptist Lexi-
cographer^ Dr. Allison, says. But if a seal must mean a
visible wound and a permanent mark or scar made in
the flesh by a knife, will my Opponent be so good as to
inform us what marlf'was made by the angels, when they
'^ sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads?"
Dr. Gill thinks that these ^^ servants of our God" are the
Waldenses and Albigenses. Now although it was mali-
ciously said against them, that their children were born
with wattles hanging to their throats, it was never even
suspected that they took a knife, and tattooed their child-
ren in the face, after the manner of the heathen. I hope
however, in due time, to shew that they sealed the
foreheads of their children by that *^ act of confirma-
'' tion" which we call Christian baptism. This inter-
pretation is rather confirmed than confuted by the same
Apostle's declaration that "^ A Lamb stood on the mount
'^ Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thou-
^^ sand, having his Father's name written in their fore-
" heads. "(;2) 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 se«/," my Opponent's Version says,
*' The foundation of God standeth firm, having this in-
'' scription." Now as this seal or inscription was put
upon this foundation without any literal visible mark,
so was the name of the Lamb's Father sealed or inscrib-
(m) Rev. vii, 3. xiv, 1.
( 227 )
ed upon liis people's foreheads without a permanent
mark. But my Opponent may object, that in baptism,
not the name of the Father only, but the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is written on
his people. This suggests the fact that some very an-
cient Manuscripts had the names of these three persons,
if we may believe the authors of the Ethiopic Version,
as reported by Dr. Gill. The same Baptist commenta-
tor tells us that " The Alexandrian copy, the Complu-
^^ tensian edition, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ara-
^' bic versions, read, ^ Having his name [the Lamb's]
*^ ^ and his Fathers name written in their foreheads.' "
This reading Griesbach has adopted. It is, however,
unnecessary to our purpose, because, in relation to bap-
tism, the bible elsewhere mentions the name of only one
person, when all are evidently implied by the writer,
and were expressed in the administration of the ordi-
nance, (o)
These various readings handed down by transcribers
and translators shew the understanding of the ancient
church, in relation to the question whether baptism is a
seal. My Opponent himself has suggested an additional
evidence of this sort, which is very striking indeed. In
his debate with Mr. Walker, he made very pompous
use of the Primate's Translation of the Apostolical
Fathers. He professed to quote largely from the
writings of the Shepherd of Hennas, w^ho, (as he inform-
ed the audience,) ^^ is commonly supposed to be the
" Hennas, of whom Paul speaks," in his Epistle to
(o) Acts xix. 5.
( 228 )
the Romans.!/^) If this be so, he must have caught the
sentiments and language of the Apostles in relation to
seals. Certain it is, that he mentions the word, with as
much familiarity and rapidity of repetition, as I have
done in this conference. In the 17th Section of his 9th
Similitude, he speaks much like the Apostle John when
foretelling that the name of the [Lamb and of his] Fa-
ther should be inscribed or sealed upon his people. Her-
raas 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 Hennas speaks of receiving the seal of the Son
pf 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 ex-
pressly, ^^ JVow that SEAL is the water of baptism."
Here we have my Opponent's own Author, whom he
has introduced to you, as a personal friend and ac-
quaintance of the Apostle PauK confirming our view of
that seal of God, that seal of the righteousness of faith,
or as Hermas would have it, that seal of ^' understanding
^^ and knowledge," of ^^ faith and charity," which
takes the place of circumcision : ^' Now that seal is the
^^ water of baptis?n.^^
ip) Rom. xvi. 14. See Spur. Dclx with Mr. Walker, p. 101.
( 229 )
Although circumcision is called a sealy and baptism is
called a seaiy yet the proposition now under discussion,
contends that they are not radically two different seals,
but different yb?'W26f of the same seal. It is subsiantially
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 HP
'* When the varnish is washed off this sophistry, such
^^ is its meaning — such is its naked deformity. The
^* rite of circumcision was circumcision itself, accord-
^^ ing to every body's views of rites. Theybrwz of cir-
*^ cumcision, was the form of the rite. Take away
^' the form of a mark or of a seal, and then shew it to
^' us. It is invisible. Hence the whole distinction is
'^ absurd. "(g-)
This desperate fluttering of my Opponent is intro-
duced, not to follow him in every dash or splash which
he may make, but to call your attention to his general
course. In this rhapsody, as well as others which were
(7) Spur. Du'b. with mc. p, 217, x
( 230 )
noticed a wliile ago, his object is, evidently, to deny
that the/orm and the substance of a seal may differ from
each other, and that a seal may change its form and re-
tain its substa7ice. It is in relation to this that he says,
^^ The whole distinction is absurd.^^ According to him
they are inseparable : where the one is found, there is
the other ; and where the one is not, there the other is
wanting. This would very readily decide the contro-
versy between king Charles the First and his Parliament.
According to this doctrine, while the Parliament held
the seal of state, they were invested with the sovereign-
ty ; and Lord Clarendon restored the sovereignty to the
king, by stealing the seal and taking it to him. This
view of the subject, however, did not suit the religion or
the politics of either party in that momentous struggle.
While the Parliament had the seal, the royalists es-
teemed them as having the/on??, but the king as having
the substance : so when the king obtained the seal, the
enemies of Toryism and of the Royal Prerogative, con-
sidered the king as having the/orm, but the Parliament
the substance. My Opponent very pertly says *^ the
rite [ov form'] of circumcision was circumcision itself."
Very well ; the Arabs and apostate Jews of the present
day have this/orm. Again he tells us what is its sub-
stance or signification. According to him '^it said, ^ I
am a Jew of the seed of Abraham, entitled to every
thing promised my Father, when God told him to make
this mark upon me.' " Does my Opponent consider
this the language of the circumcision of the Arabs and
of the excommunicated Jews of the present day? If not,
then we have the rite distinct from the signification ;
( 231 )
that is, we have the form without the substance. In
sacred and profane antiquity we find seals affixed to sol-
diers and servants. The form of their devices would
often doubtless differ, far more than the bald eagle differs
from the American turkey, which Dr. Franklin proposed
as a substitute for the bird of prey, on the seal of the
United States; and would differ more than a cross 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 sig7iy which,
either in Greek or Latin, is equivalent to seal. In allu-
sion to the same custom substantially, Calasio translates
Job xxxvii. 7, ^^ He shall seal all men in the 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. "(s) Now
I would propound a few questions. Was the substance
of an ancient military seal affected, by changing its de-
vice from a beast to a bird ? Was the substance of a
(r) See Mr. Walker's Rci)ly, p. \56.
(«) In his oth Letler against Popery.
( 232 )
Prince's seal affected by writing his name on the hand^
of one generation of subjects or servants, and on t\\c fore-
heads of their children? Was the substance of the seal
affected by changing the letters from square to round, or
the words from Hebrew to Samaritan, or the ink from
red to green ? Has the change of our seal from a cross
mark to a cireular mark affected those bonds and notes
to which it is affixed ? Would the substance of our Fe-
deral seal be affected by undergoing the change which
Dr. Franklin recommended? Would Popish baptism be
either more or less a brand of slavery, by being adminis-
tered to the head, the hands, or the feet, in the mode of
aspersion, affusion, ablution or immersion? And is it not
a fact that the descendants of Ishmael and Isaac have, at
this day, the form of circumcision without the sub-
stance ? What is there, then, so extravagant in the po-
sition that the forin and the substance of a seal are dis-
tinct things ? and what is there so incredible in the doc-
trine, that a God of sovereignty and mercy, may, in re-
spect of form, change the initiatory seal of the church
from blood to ivater, 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 sealsy
than to prove their formal identity. The substance is
incalculably more important than the form. The cir-
cumcision of the Samaritans and Ishmaelites had the
form of the Jewish seal; but because it lacked the sub-
stance, it was no seal at all. Unitarian baptism has some-
times 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 coiii.
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 sanctifica-
tion.
I. They are both initiatory seals. If you and I
have heard alike, you have understood my Opponent as
denying this position in relation to either of these ordi-
nances. To pass over it, therefore, in silence, would
not be proper, howsoever generally its truth may be re-
ceived.
1. Circumcision was the seal of initiation to the
Jewish church. On this item, I had prepared several
texts to lay before you : but it is really too plain to jus-
tify me in occupying your time. Is there one of you
who doubts that a Gentile was esteemed an alien until he
< 234 y
was circumcised? and is there one who doubts, that
from the moment of his circumcision he was esteemed a
member ? And if there be any one who is stumbled by.
Gen. xvii. 14, under the apprehension that a native Jew
may be a member of the church without circumcision, I
would observe that that passage itself is evidently in-
tended to contradict it ; and that the word there ren-
dered cut off, cannot, from the very nature of the case,
mean exclusion from privileges already enjoyed, but
preclusion from privileges which might hereafter be en-
joyed ; as the same word in the Hebrew and in the Mar-
ginal translation of Joshua ix. 23, is used to denote pre-
clusion from that bondage on which the subjects had not
yet entered. If any one, after this, should still ask,
^^How can a child be cut off^vom the church before he
is a member?" I would ask, ^' How can a child be deli-
vered from sheol before he is dead ?" and yet the Pro-
verb says ^^ Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt
deliver his soul from hell.''(^) Parental duty is here re-
presented as a means of delivering, that is, oi preventing
the child from going to hell : so in the other case, pa-
rental neglect is represented as a means of cutting off,
that is, 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 other-
wise, I would humbly maintain the same doctrine, on
this item, as on the last. I do not object to saying that
children are born in the church ; it is a language which
(0 I'rov. xxiii. 14, Comp, Ps. xxx, 3, Ixxxvi. 13.
( 235 )
I use myself: but then it is used in a general and familiar,
and not in a technical sense ; or it contemplates the un-
sealed interest which they may have in the promises of
God, and not their foi-mal church-membership. As the
holiness of the one unbelieving parent, amounts to no-
thing more than a removal of an Old Testament obstacle
to the initiation of the child, so the holiness of the child
is understood as entitling him to initiation. In relation
both to the visible and invisible church, I much like
the ancient maxim, " Christiani non nascimur sed
^^ FiMus ; JVe are not born but made Christians.-' As
the inward graces of religion distinguish the invisible
church from the world ; so do the outward sacraments
'^ puta visible difference between those that belong unto
^^ the church, 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 initia-
tion. Accordingly, he tells us, in support of his own
views, that '' Theological writers have often called bap-
^' tism, the sacrament oiregenei^ation, or of initiation ;
^^ and the Lord's supper, the sacrament oi nutrition. ''\v)
My Opponent himself preaches this doctrine, 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
(w) Westministei' Confession, Chap, 27. Sect. 1,
(t) Booth. Apology, pp. 11. 48.
( 236 )
'^ from Abraham, ye must be born again ; yes and ofwa-
*^ ter too, or into Messiah's realm you'll never enter. '^\iu)
According to this, a man must be botm again of water,
as a te?'m of admission into, as the way by which he
shall enter, Christ's ecclesiastical kingdom ; that is, Bap-
tism is the way of initiation into the Christian church.
After this I need not waste your time wnth a formal refu-
tation of his quibbles against this doctrine, nor with an
exposure of the impious solecism of his Master Robin-
son, who ^^ took baptism not for a church ordinance,
^^ but for a profession of Christianity at large ! V^
Although this Infidel writer has been long circulated
among you by the deluded Baptist preachers of our
country, he has perhaps never yet persuaded you that
baptism is not a church ordinance. In your faith and
practice, you still treat baptism as the initiating church
ordinance ; and this faith and practice can be traced
through the line of your fore-fathers, even up to their
primitive days in Germany. According to Staffer,
" Baptism is, in their view, a sign of initiation to the
'^ true church, and of confession." ^^They initiated
^' by ana-baptism, those whom they received as citi-
*^ zens of their kingdom. "(A)
II. They are both signs of pardon and jus-
tification. These benefits alv/ays presuppose or infer
each other. Like the foreknowledge and foreordination
of God, they are distiiict, but not separate. Wherever,
(w) Spur. Deb. with me, p. 197. 198.
\k) Stapfer's Institutions. Chap. 18. Sect. o5. 10. "baptismus,
ex mente illorum, sit signum initiationis ad veram ecclesiam, et con-
fessionis." " eos quos tanquam rcgni sui cives assumcb?vnt, anabap-
tismoinitiabant."
( 237 )
therefore, I find the one I shall take the other for
granted.
1. Circumcision is a sign of pardon and justifica-
tion. This is plainly proved by Rom. iv. 11, so often
quoted already ; which Dr. Gill considers as compre-
hending pardon along with justification : for he says
that ^^ circumcision was a sign of Christ, as all the
^^ ceremonies of the law were, and of the shedding of
'^ his blood, to cleanse from all sin, origi^ial 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 right-
'^ eousness, for the remission of sins," '^ through faith in
" his blood ;'^ and the end of this was ^^ that he miglit
" be just, and the justifier of him that believeth."(r)
III. They are both signs and means oe sanc-
TiFicATiON. The ordinances as well as the oracles of
God, are intended as means of grace. It does not mili-
tate against this position in respect of either, that they
(l/) Gill on Gen. xvii. 11. (r) Acts ii. 38. Rom. iii. 2.1. 26,
( 338 3
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 j 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 sanctifica-
tion. " 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
speaks as follows, viz. '^ Was circumcision a sign of the
'' circumcision of the heart to the whole Jewish nation
*^ that fell in the wilderness ? Was it the sign of the
'' circumcision of the heart of one of Abraham's de-
^' scendants? No, not one. Do, Mr. M'^Calla, stop and
^* prove this assertion if you can — that circumcision was
'^ a sign of the circumcision of the heart. Don't as-
*^ sume every thing, don't beg every question. Have
'' some respect to your hearers, and to the reputation of
*^ your own intellect."(e) This declamation of my
Baptist Opponent shews that pride of intellect some^
times makes a man wise above what is written. In re-
lation to many of Abraham's descendants, it is written,
^^ He is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision
'^ is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the let-
^* ter." In relation not only to Abraham, but to his de-^
(c) Deut. XXX. 6. Comp. x. 16.
\e) Spurious Debate with me. pp. 204. 205. 226.
( 239 )
scendants, Dr. Gill says> '' The only true circumcision is
^^ internal, spiritual, and in the heart." And he expressly
says that the ^^ circumcision of the flesh was typical of
'' this," and again, that it was " an emblem of spiritual
^^ circumcision, or circumcision of the heart."(y*) Now
it will not do to answer this, by begging our worthy and
eminent Baptist writer to have some respect to his read-
ers j and to the reputation of his own intellect.
2. Baptism is a sign and means of sanctif cation.
Here the primitive Anabaptists of Germany do not agree
with me as they did in a former case : but they were
consistent enough to reject the scriptures also from being
a means of grace. Their doctrine, according to Stap-
KER, was as follows viz. ^^ And if perseverance depend
*^ upon man, nor is there need of divine assistance,
*^ hence neither is there need of signs and seals of seal-
<i ing grace ;{b) whence they hold that the sacraments
** are only signs of our confession. And since they who
*' have attained the highest degree of perfection and
'^ sanctity, no longer stand in need of the means of
^' grace, hence they do not highly esteem the use of the
*^ sacred scripture." In opposition to this erroneous
doctrine my Opponent quotes Peter, who says, ^^ Bap-
^^ tism does also now save us, by the resurrection of
*^ Jesus Christ from the dead. "(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
(/) See Gill on Gen. xvli. 11. Rom. iv. 11. iii. 1. ii. 29.
(/;) Hinc i7ec gratix obsii^nantis signis et di^illis opus est. Stapfer's In-
stitutions. Chap. 18. Sect, 30. 31.
(c) 1 Pet. iii. 21.
%tc.
( 240 )
my Opponent, in considering baptism more important
than faith. He might as well say that sacrifice was
better than obedience. This error of his, and the op-
posite one of his forefathers, both alike flow from igno-
rance of true religion.
POINT II.
The substitution of the name of one form for the other ^
proves that their substance is the same.
On this subject I would solicit your attention to
two verses, one of which has very often passed under
your review. '' And he received the sign of circumci-
^' sion, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he
^' had yet being uncircumcised : that he might be the
^^ father of all them that believe, though they be not cir-
*^ cumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed unto
^' them also : and the father of circumcision to them who
'^ are not of the circumcision only, but also walk in the
'^ steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he
'^ had being yet uncircumcised. ''(</) 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 circum-
cision to both ; because, though both have, substantially,
{d) Rom. iv. 11. 12.
( 241 )
the same seal, they have not the same /orm of the seal.
As the use of the abstract for the concrete is a common
Hebraism^ we are here to understand ^^ the father of the
circumcision^^ to mean ^^ the father of the circumcisedJ'^
This will preserve the antithetical relation of the two
aspects in which Abraham's character is here presented.
One is, that he was the father of the uncircumcised
believers ; another is, that he was the father of the cir-
cumcised. The sense of one will illustrate the other.
Dr. Gill says that the first means that he was the father
'^ of them AS they were believers," whether they were
Jews or Gentiles. The meaning of the second, then,
must be that he is the father of the circumcision as they
were circumcised^ whether Jews or Gentiles. This is
the plain meaning of the passage. The Gentile church
is evidently represented as circumcised in one sense,
and as uncircumcised in another sense. The two cannot
be reconciled on any other principle, than that the sub-
stance of circumcision remains under the /orm of bap-
tism after the ancient/brm of the seal'is abolished.
2. Paul says, ^^ Beware of dogs, beware of evil work-
^' ers, beware of the concision : for ive are the circum-
'' cision, which worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice
*' in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. (e)
In this passage, as in the former, the noun is used for a
participle ; it means " we are the circumcised." Why
are Christians said to be circumcised ? It must be, be-
cause they have received outward, or inward circum-
cision, or both. But my Opponent denies that it ever
{e) Phill. iii. 2. 3.
Hh
( 242 )
relates to inward circumcision. He says, *^Wasitthe
^' sign of the circumcision of the heart of one of Abra-
^' braham's descendants ? No? not one." Then, of
course, the word here must mean external circumcision.
But it cannot mean that form of it which the Jews prac-
tised ; for that is here called, by way of contempt, con-
cision, in allusion to the savage and cruel manner in
which the heathen cut their flesh : it must, therefore,
mean some Christian ordinance which, while it does not
wound the flesh, is substantially the same with Jewish
circumcision, in being a seal of initiation, and a sign of
justification and sanctification. This ordinance we have
shewn to be Christian Baptism. To this the text evi-
dently alludes ; while it certainly does not exclude, but
primarily intends that spiritual circumcision, the exist-
ence of which my Opponent is unwilling to 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 ihe 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 jbe correct in denying that there
is any inward circumcision, and if he be correct in say-
ing that water-baptism is here intended, then we are
(/) Col. ii. 11. 12.
( 243 )
taught by this passage, that there is an external circum-
cision, which is not after the Jewish, but the Christian
form ; and that this Cliristian form of circumcision is,
'' being buried with him in baptism," as it is correctly
translated. The Greek of Griesbach, and the Latin of
Castallio have only a comma at the close of the eleventh
verse. This punctuation only makes a plain truth a lit-
tle more obvious, that is, that baptism is the Christian
circumcision. It is worthy of remark, that this very
text was so explained, in a work ascribed to Justin Mar-
tyr, who lived very near the time in which Paul wrote
it. " The question there, is, Why, if 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."(^^) In allusion to the same text, both
Basil and Chrysostom say that Baptism is the " circum-
cision made without hands." And Austin declares it
one of the errors of the Pelagians, to ^^ say that in
** the baptism of infants, there is no putting off the flesh,
^* that is, no circumcision made without hands. "(A)
But if, in opposition to my Opponent, you should
understand this passage to relate to spiritual circum-
cision and baptism, as I do, it makes no difference
in the conclusion ; for the identity of the thing signi-
fied is an evident deduction from the substantial
identity of the outward signs. When the Apostle
tells us that the spiritual ^^ putting off the body of
{g) Wall's History of Baptism. Chap. 2, Sect. 2. From him quoted
by the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary, in his First sei-ies of Facts and
I:.vidences on the subject of Baptism.
(A) Wall's History. Chap. 14. Sect. 1. 2. Chap. 12. Sect. 5.
( 244 )
the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ/'
is the same as "being buried with him in baptism,"
does he not evidently teach that they point out the
same inward benefits because they are substantially
the same ecclesiastical seal ? If you can believe that
Christian baptism is the Christian circumcision spiritu-
ally, then you will not long reject the doctrine that bap-
tism is the sigillistical successor and substitute of cir-
cumcision.
In reply to this language, my Opponent insists that
one thing cannot be a substitute for another, unless it
completely quadrates, that is, agrees in all points. He
then urged what he considered nine points of difference
between circumcision and baptism. I then shewed nine
points of difference which might easily be found between
a drafted militia-man . and his hired substitute, who
might, nevertheless, be received as a legal substitute,
and be esteemed greatly preferable to his principal ; as
baptism certainly is to circumcision. He then enlarged
his list to eleven points, and I mine to twelve. He has
now brought them up to fourteen j 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 circumcisipUo Yet he says, ^* It
( 245 )
does not follow that the subjects of each must be the
same ;" and instances in the females. Dr. Wall's an-
swer to Mr. Emlin will do for my answer to my Op-
ponent. He says, '^ It does follow that they should be
" the same, except where the gospel-rules do direct an
^' alteration ; but St. Paul, discoursing of baptism, (Gal.
'^ iii. 27. 28.) says, that in respect of it, ^ there is neither
^^ ' Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is
^' ' neither male nor female/ &c. that is, there is no differ-
^' ence between them."(z) Now if he can shew as plain
authority for excluding infants, as this is for receiving
females, it will be to the purpose.
2. ^^ Circumcision required not faith in its subject. —
Baptism therefore ought not to require faith in its sub-
ject."
To this I answer, that although neither circumcision
nor baptism requires faith in an infant subject, yet as
they are only different forms of the seal of the right-
eousness of faith, they surely demand faith in the adult
subject, and in the parent or guardian who presents
an infant subject. In relation to circumcision, this is
proved by the very first administration of it ; and by
very many other scriptures, which, as they have already
occupied much of your time, need not here be repeated,
3. ^^ Circumcision was administered according to law
on the eighth day. Its substitute then should be ad-
ministered on the eighth day.'^
My Opponent well recollects that this difficulty was
agitated in the time of Fidus and Cyprian : but with
them it was a difficulty in relation to duty, not doctrine.
(J) Wall's Defence against Gale, p. 31. 32.
( 246 )
Those who believed baptism on the eighth day obligato-
ry, and those who did not believe it obligatory, both
believed it to be the Christian circumcision. As
there were no Anabaptists in those days, the doctrine
that circumcision and baptism were substantially the
same seal, was clear enough to the whole church.
The only difficulty with Fidus was, to discover
the lawfulness of baptizing an infant before he was
eight days old. He expressed no doubt of the lawful-
ness of baptizing a child when he had arrived to that
age, or at any subsequent period ; for this was the law
of circumcision : but in a Council of sixty Bishops, he
could not find one to agree with him, in thinking it un-
lawful to baptize under the age of eight days. I agree
with them, because this limitation of time formed a nart
of the complicated machinery of Old Testament puri-
fications, as laid down in the twelfth Chapter of Exodus;
in the prospect of which it was probably at first com-
manded. But if y.flu think differently, I would advise
to do as Fidus die til aptize on the eighth day and on-
ward, the sooner the oetter.
4. ^' Circumcision was administered by parents, not
by priests ex officio. Baptism, its substitute, ought
likewise to be administered by parents, not by priests,
or clergy, ex officio.''^
My Opponent, doubtless, knows that his Master, Rob-
inson, 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 1
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-oflicers to administer it ;
nor do I believe that he wishes the existence of a church
to observe it. It is plain, however, that this objection
about lay-baptism, is, like the preceding one, entirely
irrelevant to the question in hand. It may be decided
either the one way or the other, without in the least af-
fecting the identity of circumcision and baptism. This
will appear from the slightest examination of the subject,
and from the fact, that lay-baptism has been advocated
and opposed by both Baptists and Pedobaptists, while
they still held their peculiar and contrary views, on the
question of identity. This argument, however, will
serve to increase his numerical force of objections, and
to shew his eager desire to destroy the clergy ; for he
knows that if he can smite the shepherds, their flocks
can be scattered.
5. *^ Circumcision was a mark made upon, not the
face of the subject. Baptism, its substitute, ought
not to be performed on the face.''
This objection has already been answered ; and I can-
not help still thinking, that if an earthly Prince has a
right to change a civil or military seal, as to its form,
its device, its letters, and its place of administration,
such as the hand or the forehead, without altering its
substance, then our heavenly Prince has a right to do
the same.
6. ^^Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the child,
but upon the parents ; it was an act of the parent, the
subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not a duty
( 248 )
of the subject, but of the parent ; it is the parent's act^
the subject is passive."
It is a pleasant proof of the strength of our cause, when
a man of such a fruitful invention, cannot muster four-
teen objections to it, without making this pitiful evasion
one of them. The whole force of it depends upon the
ambiguity of the word subject, as it may mean either an
infant or an adult. He knows that if he had left out this
word, or if he had used it uniformly and exclusively, he
would have appeared like a man talking in his sleep. Let
us try it first without this ambiguous word. It would
read as follows, viz. ^'^Circumcision was not a duty
binding upon the child, but upon the parents ; it was an
act of the parent, the child was passive. Baptism,
therefore, is not a duty of the child but of the parent :
it is the parent's act, the child is passive." Would not
this be a powerful objection to the identity of circumci-
sion and baptism ? It is at least as passive as any child
that I ever saw baptized. Now let us read it with the
ambiguous word subject, uniformly substituted for child.
'^ Circumcision was not a duty binding upon the subject,
but upon the parents ; it was an act of the parent, the
subject was passive. Baptism, therefore, is not a duty
of the subject, but of the parent : it is the parent's act,
the subject is passive." Does my Opponent believe such
doctrine as this ? Does he believe that circumcision was
not a duty binding upon Abraham its first subject, but
upon his parents ? Does he believe that it was not bind-
ing upon thousands of adult subjects who followed him ?
If, therefore, it is admitted that, under the Old Testa-
ment, unsealed adults were bound to receive circumci-
\w!^-.)i
( 249 )
sion for themselves and their children ; and if, under the
New Testament, unsealed adults are bound to receive
baptism for themselves and their children, where is the
force of his objection against the identity of these ordi-
nances ? All the force that it has goes to prove their
identity.
7. '^ Circumcision was administered to all a man's
slaves, all born in his house and bought with his money.
Baptism, therefore, ought to be administered to all the
slaves of a householder, as well as to his own seed."
In answer to this, I would observe, that the true doc-
trine of circumcision was, that this ordinance should be
administered to every believer and his infant household;
which embraced his own infants, those which he had
adopted, and those which were bound to him ; all of
which he had an opportunity of trainmg up in the way
they should go. When Abraham's adult servants were
circumcised^ there is reason to believe that it was with
their own consent, and upon their own profession, (as
was the case with the Israelites at Gilgal,) because these
servants of Abraham had previously received this train-
ing. They are expressly called his trained servants,
before the institution of circumcision :(/) and the word
there used does not appear to relate to military disci-
plinef but to spiritual instruction and ecclesiastical ini-
tiation ; as in the Proverb which says " Train up a
child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he
will not depart from it." All that I have said here con-
cerning household circumcision, is true concerning
{} ) Gen. xiv. 14.
li
( 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."
1 am sorry to say that thousands of Pedobaptists agree
with every word of this unscriptural stuff : yet they are
so far from thinking it an objection to the doctrine that
baptism is the Christian circumcision, that they seriously
believe it an argument in its favour. Others, on the con-
trary, think more correctly, that granting church privi-
leges to those who do not even profess the circumcision
of the heart, is a crying sin of both dispensations. These
also think that the agreement of the two dispensations, in
this feature, is an evidence that circumcision and bap-
tism are the same seal,
9. " Circumcision imported that its subject was enti-
tled to all the promises made to Abraham concerning his
natural seed. Baptism, its substitute, therefore, imports
that its subject is entitled to a share in all the temporal
blessings promised to the seed of Abraham.'^
In reply, I would remark, that if either of these pro-
positions be true, then Providence has deprived very
many of their rights. Instead of this, I would say that
circumcision is a seal of the 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 Gene-
sis ; Baptism, is therefore, a token or sign in the flesh,
of the covenant made with Abraham in the seventeenth
chapter of Genesis.'^
I answer, as it has been proved that the best Baptist
authorities answer, that the seventeenth chapter of Gen-
esis contains a revelation of the covenant of grace. I
moreover answer, that circumcision and baptism are
only different forms of the same sign or token of the
one covenant of grace in different administrations. It
is possible that the objector here means to renew his in-
sinuation that baptism cannot be a token of the covenant,
because it is a watery one. If so, I would again remind
him, that the token of the Noachic covenant was a wa-
tery one. ^^ I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall
*^ be for a token of a covenant between me and the
" earth."(y^)
11. '^ Circumcision was not to be performed in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Bap-
tism, its substitute, is, therefore, not to be performed
in these names.''
My answer is, that if I believed, with a certain
objector, that the second of these adorable persons is
not the supreme and eternal God, and that the third
had no existence until the day of Pentecost, then I woufd
not baptize in this name. It is for this reason, that so/iie
more sincere and consistent Unitarians have actually ceas-
ed to baptize in the name of the Trinity. But as this
Triune God has instituted circumcision and baptism, and
(X) Gen. ix, \o.
( 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
fgrm.
12. '^ Circumcision was identified with the law of
Moses, (John vii. 23.) and shared the same fate. Bap-
tism is, therefore, identified with the law of Moses,
and must share the same fate."
I answer, that according to Gill's understanding of the
passage referred to, it affords no better argument against
the doctrine that baptism is the Christian circumcision,
than against the doctrine that the first day of the week
is the Christian sabbath. But the whole objection rests
upon ground which is perfectly preposterous ; that be-
cause one form of a seal is abolished, therefore its sub-
stitute must be abolished. He might as well say that
because a drafted militia-man stays at home, therefore
his hired substitute must stay at home.
13. '^ Circumcision has come to such a crisis that who-
soever is circumcised, Christ shall profit him nothing ;
therefore, baptism, its substitute, will also come, or has
now come, to such a crisis, that whosoever is baptized,
Christ shall profit him nothing."
I answer, that this is true enough with respect to that
baptism which lays a man's conscience perfectly asleep,
from the moment of his coming up out of the water.
The reason is, that he puts his baptism in the place of
Christ, as the Jews put their circumcision in the place
of Christ. Therefore, as they reject Christ, he will
profit them nothing. But there is one sort of circumci-
sion which has not yet come to that crisis. It is that
( 253 )
which Paul had in view, when he said, '^ We are the
^' circumcision, wliich worship God in the Spirit, and
^* rejoice in Christ, and have no confidence in the.
^^ flesh." ^^ In whom also ye are circumcised, with the
^^ circumcision made without hands, in putting off the
'* body of the sins of the flesh, by the \_Christian cir-
'^ cumcision, or] the circumcision of Christ, [being]
^^ buried with him in baptism?'" This is a sort of cir-
cumcision in which Christ profits us much ; and
which does not lead his true church to boast that
their conscience has not troubled them since they re-
ceived it.
14. ^^ Circumcision did not exempt one of the Jews
from baptism, when they believed in Christ ; there-
fore, its substitute, baptism, ought not to exempt a
believer from being baptized again and again. "(/)
My Opponent probably knows that the fact of bap-
tism having been rightly administered to those who had
been rightly circumcised, is disputed. I, however, do
not dispute it. Yet I am far from perceiving the force
of his objection. It is as much as to say, that because.
On the change of dispensation, the Nevv^ Testament form
of the seal was administered to those who had received
the Old Testament form which is now abolished, there-
fore, without a change of dispensation, the form ouglit
to be repeated, when there is no abolition to make it ne-
cessary.
15. Some time after my Opponent had got througli
his fourteen objections, he speaks as follows, viz. "" If it
(/) For all these objections,' Sec Spur. DLlj.,\yith nic, 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 be-
fore they die ! ! This is s^ fifteenth contradiction of the
doctrine of substitution, in which the practice of the
Paido-baptists differs from their principles.'^(??2)
I could answer this objection by observing that his fif-
teenth is the same as his third, which I have answered
already. My Opponent's endeavour to multiply objec-
tions, by making one serve for two numbers, reminds me
of a defence which I once heard before a Session, by a
delinquent who was charged with abandoning church
ordinances. He very formally said, " I will divide my
^' defence into three parts. The First; The Presbyte-
^' rians signed a petition to stop the mail on the Sabbath,
'^ so that my son in Indiana might be killed by the In-
'^ dians, and I not hear of it, till it would be a day too
'^ late. The Second ; The Presbyterians want to join
'' church and state. The Third the same as the first."
Although the Moderator of the Session asked him if it
was not through mistake, that he had made " the third
the same as the first," he insisted upon it, and it was so
recorded. As I do not expect my Opponent easily to
relinquish his fifteenth reason, I have allowed it to him,
although it is the same as the third, and although it
really does not deserve to be uttered and repeated, any
more than the old gentleman's objection to stopping the
mail on the Sabbath.
(7?j) Sjmn 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. "(o)
In answer to this, I would remind you of the sorrowful
confession of pious and candid Baptists, like Mr. Great-
rake, who mourn, that good and bad too often eat the
Eucharist, on the ground of adult immersion. This fact^
therefore, will argue more for than against the sameness
of circumcision and baptism.
18. In reply to some of Dr. Mason's remarks concern-
ing hereditary descent, my Opponent concludes that,
according to our system ^^ The children of the flesh are
counted for the seed,''(/j) contrary to the Apostle's de-
claration that " They which are the children of the
'^ flesh, these are not the children of God ; but the chil-
*^ dren of the promise are counted for the seed. ''(5')
To this I answer, that ^^the children of God" and
" the seed" here mentioned, are the members of the in-
visible church ; and the Apostle's remark was made to
shew that membership in the church invisible was not al-
always according to hereditary descent, among Jews or
(;j) Mr. Lowry, in \m wrlUcii abslvact, now before me.
[o) Lowry's Abstract. (/;) Spur. Deb. with me, p. 400,
((/) Rom. ix. 8.
( 256 )
Christians ; although a right to visible church member-
ship descended from parent to child, among both Jews
and Christians.
19. In order to help out 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 Pedobap-
tists cannot account baptism to be instead of circumci-
sion, because purification of heart and life is instead of
it. This, however, is in opposition to ray Opponent's
doctrine, that it never was ^^ a sign of the circumcision
of the heart." Here then, we have two errorists tak-
ing directly opposite ways to arrive at the same point.
The object of both is, to prove that baptism cannot be
the Christian circumcision. With this view, one of them
rejects the circumcision of the heart, in order to de-
prive us of those texts, which shew that spiritual cir-
cumcision and spiritual baptism are the same ; but the
other boldly asserts the circumcision of the heart, in
order that he may make it the sole successor and substi-
tute of the outward form, to the exclusion of baptism,
which the scriptures represent as a visible substitute ;
while they always teach inward circumcision, both be-
fore and after the change of the outward form.
20. But the most powerful objection of all, I have
reserved for the last. It is a supposed necessity that a
substitute should perfectly ^'^ quadrate" with its prin-
cipal. He insists upon it that this quadration must be
universal and perfect ; so tliat if one feature of differ-
cuce, howsoever minute, can be ascertained between
(r) Defence, \). 233.
( 257 )
two things, it is impossible that one of them can be a
substitute for the other. They must fit one another
with as much exactness as the impression on the wax
corresponds with the seal ; nay, they must quadrate
much more perfectly ; for between some seals and their
impressions, you may perhaps find twenty points of dif-
ference ; but between a substitute and its principal there
must be no point of difference. For this reason it is,
that my Opponent has been so anxious to multiply par-
ticulars, thinking that every additional one, even though
it were a repetition of a former one, made his refutation
the more triumphant. He knows moreover, that this
principle is at the bottom of every objection which he
or any other Baptist has ever urged against the sigillisti-
cal identity of circumcision and baptism. Let it once
be admitted that a substitute may differ in one point, and
in many points from its principal, and be a substitute
still, and every objection which they have made will go
for nothing. For this reason my Opponent has pressed
his doctrine of quadrations with remarkable solicitude,
confidence and animation. He has literally taught you
quadrations with both hands, by spreading, or may I
say, spraddling all his fingers, to shew you that a substi-
tute and its principal must quadrate as exactly as the
fingers of the right hand agree with those of the left.
But what an unhappy illustration ! Is there no difference
between the right hand and the left? Are there any two
hands, or fingers, or teeth, or eyes, in this house, w hich,
when minutely examined, do not differ in more than
twenty particulars ? This doctrine is also at war with
Mr. Gale's position that purification of heart and life is
K k
( 258 )
instead of circumcision. Is there no difference between
an outward sign and an inward grace? But remember
that our Saviour himself became a substitute for his
people. Is there no difference between holiness and cor-
ruption, the Creator and the creature? How would the
enemies of his vicarious satisfaction be pleased ! how
would the gates of hell rejoice, if my Opponent could
establish his ambidextral quadrations! !
But without continuing to point so awful a truth
against a theory so supremely preposterous, I will refer
you to an illustration which may occupy your familiar
attention in detail. It is that of a military substitute, of
which a slight mention has been made already. You re-
member that when my Opponent enlarged his objections,
so as to number nine points of difference between cir-
cumcision and baptism, I produced nine particulars in
which a military substitute might differ from his princi-
pal, and yet be legally and joyfully recognized as a sub-
stitute. You remember that he enlarged his list to eleven,
and I mine to twelve. He afterward went on to four-
teen, then fifteen, and I have helped him to gather his
scattered forces until they amount to twenty. At pre-
sent, therefore, you will not think it necessary for me
to enlarge my list to more than thirty. To spare your
time, I shall get over them with all possible speed, even
to the neglect of grammatical accuracy. To proceed
then ; A man who is hired to take the place of a drafted
militia-man, who wishes to stay at home, will be cheer-
fully and correctly recognized, as a true and legal sub-
stitute^ if he should differ from his principal, in being
( 259 )
1 Taller
2 Younger
3 Straighter
4 Stronger
5 Swifter
6 Sprightlier
7 Thicker
8 Thriftier
9 Heavier
10 Healthier
11 Handsomer 21 Gentler
12 Happier 22 Genteeler
13 Holier 23 Kinder
14 Humbler 24 Cleanlier
15 Hardier 25 Lovelier
16 Honester 26 Chaster
17 Wittier 27 Meeker
18 Soberer 28 Quieter
19 Graver 29 Wiser
20 Braver 30 Better
You will observe, that in all these points of difference
between the principal and his substitute, there is not one
which, in the least, invalidates the vicarious character
of the latter; nor one which does not make him superior
to his principal. Just so it is with the two forms of our
initiatory seal : there is not one feature of difference
which disqualifies baptism from serving as a substitute
for circumcision ; nor one feature which does not make
it superior to it. If, therefore, my Opponent could
muster thirty points instead of fifteen or twenty, they
would only shew the great superiority of the New Tes-
ment/on72, 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 a*-
persion, or ablution, or affusion of water, instead of an
effusion of blood. 2. In its being administered usually
to the head, forehead, or face. 3. In its being lawful to
( 260 )
administer it to infants of any age, as well under as over
eight days. 4. In its admitting subjects of both sexes.
5. In its not requiring a profession of faith in both pa-
rents. Any person who knows the nature of seals, must
see that all these points are merely circumstantial ; not
one of them belonging to the essence of a seal. Any one
may perceive, moreover, that there is not one of them,
which does not make the substitute superior to the ori-
ginal form. My Opponent, therefore, might have spared
the remark that I had illustrated the subject by a mili-
tary substitute, on account of " finding the points of dif-
ference between circumcision and baptism so numerous
and so glaring.'^Cs) They are few in number, and in-
diiferent in their nature.
My Opponent would persuade you that the case in
question does not deserve an answer : yet it is amusing
to see that he is obliged to answer it ; and in doing so, is
compelled to relinquish his original ground. His words
are as follows, viz. " He [M^Calla] introduces a mili-
'^ tary substitute instead of a theological one. And this
" is not all, nor the worst of it ; he draws his conclusion
*^ from the personal diiFerences between the substitute
" and his principal, and not from any difference in the
" performance of the ofRces or duties, which the substi-
" tute is obliged to perform for his principal. Had we
^^ made objection to baptism as a substitute for circuni-
^' cision, because the one was a watery rite, and the
^' other a bloody one, there would have been something
*' more specious in his sophistry. But we objected to
(>■) Spur. Deb. \). 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 perform-
*^ ed all the offices and duties of circumcision, neither
'' more or less, we would not object to it, as a substitute,
" because of its personal or characteristic differences,
<^ already mentioned under the idea of blood and
" water J^{t)
So much for my Baptist Opponent. Now in these
remarks, I say, he has made a retrograde movement. In
his original ground, he required that the principal and
the substitute should quadrate, not only entirely, but
completely; not only in their nature and ends, but in
their appendages and circumstances. On this ground
his first, third, and fifth objection, required that they
should both be confined to one sex, both be applied to
one part of the body, and both be administered on the
eighth day. His fifteenth objection will not admit of the
administration of the substitute to a child, ''one hour
before it was eight days old." But now he says, '' We
'' would not object to it as a substitute, because of its
" personal or characteristic differences already mention-
" ed under the idea of blood and water P That is, he
would not deny that baptism was a substitute for circum-
cision, merely '' because the one was a watery rite, and
the other a bloody one." How can these things be re-
(0 Spur. Deb. p. 237,
( 262 )
conciled ? Is not a change from the shedding of blood
to the application of water as important as changing the
part of the body to which the seal is applied ? Is not a
change from blood to water as important as subtracting
'' one hour^'' from eight days ? and is it not as essential as
any feature of difference which can be discovered be-
tween circumcision and baptism? If so, then all the
twenty objections, according to my Opponent's new
principle, have no more weight against the identity of
the two rites, than my thirty objections have against the
vicarious standing of the military substitute.
But in taking his new ground, my Opponent would
persuade you that he has reserved a secure refuge. He
says, ^' If a military substitute performs all the duties
" incumbent on the principal, he is completely a substi-
^^ tute, although his person might difPer 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 j yet
we say that baptism and circumcision have the same es-
sential qualities, as seals ; just as these two men may be
able to perform the same essential duties, as soldiers. In
despite of all my Opponent's sophistry on this subject,
it has been shewn that circumcision is an initiatory seal^
so is baptism : circumcision is a sign of pardon and jus-
tification ; so is baptism : circumcision is a sign and
means of sanctification j so is baptism. And while they
agree in these essentials, (as it has been proved at large
( 263 )
that they do agree;,) they may differ in one hundred
particulars, and yet the one may be the substitute of the
other, according to my Opponent's own shewing; howso-
ever contradictory it may be to his exploded doctrine of
quadrations.
Mr. Gale(^^) says that " the argument for infant bap-
tism from circumcision was not insisted on by those call-
ed Ancient Fathers; and though he might have in-
stanced in some of them, who, indeed, do not mention its
succeeding circumcision, he unluckily picks out for his
only instances St. Cyprian and St. Austin, who are
known to have mentioned it ; but he says it was not in-
sisted on by them, for aught he finds !'' Perhaps a more
diligent and candid search would have enabled him to
find it. The audience will recollect, that, before I form-
ally commenced the defence of the present proposition,
my Opponent 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. "(i^)
You recollect how emphatically I called upon you to
mark that declaration. Startled at my request, and
fearing that exposure which I promised to make, in due
time, if Providence allowed, he came forward to support
his assertion by what he called a respectable writer.
Suspecting from the outside of the pamphlet, as well as
from the ignorance and rashness displayed in its con-
tents, that its author was Dr. Fishback of Lexington, I
(w) As reported by Dr. Wall, in his Defence, p. 270. The words quo-
ted are the Doctor's.
(-(') Lowry's Abstract of notes taken at the Debate.
( 264 )
called for the name; but my Opponent had, by that
time, become so modest, that I could not distinguish
what name he announced. However, here we have it in
the Doctor, whose pamphlet I have taken the trouble to
bring along with me. His words are as follows, viz. ^^I
'^ had been accustomed to hear it said, that baptism
*' was established in the Christian church, in the place
^^ of circumcision under the Jewish economy. In
'^ MY investigation of the subject, I found that that
'* opinion was comparatively of a recent date. I could
^^ not find in church-history or any where else, that it
^^ had been introduced earlier than the sixteenth cen-
'^ tury, and for the first time by Calvin and Beza."(t^))
While I was proving to you that the early church agreed
with the scriptures in calling baptism a seai^ it became
necessary to read some testimonies from the Fathers,
which shew, at the same time, that they considered it as
coming in the place of circumcision. Notwithstanding
this, my Opponent renews his gross assertion, immedi-
ately after he had retreated from his quadrationSy no-
ticed a few minutes ago. He sa^s, '^ The quotations
'^ read from Dr. Wall's History does not disprove our
^' assertion, that Calvin and Beza were the first who in-
^^ troduced baptism in the room of circumcision, in the
^^ sense contended for by Mr. M^Calla."(a7)
As [the testimony of the church on this subject, be-
longs to the fourth general topic, it was my intention to
reserve it for that place. Its anticipation, we hope, will
be excused, especially as it will occupy very little time.
(w) Fishback's Letters, p. 69. {x) Spur. Deb. p. 23r.
( 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 ^^ Circinncision
^' 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 thence-
'^ forward to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth
** day, when they could not yet believe with the heart,
^^ that it might be counted to them for righteousness,
'^ but for this reason, because the sacrament itself is of
itself of great import? Therefore, as in Abraham
(y) Wall's Hist. Chap. 21. Sect. 5.
LI
( 266 )
^' the righteousness of faith went before, and circimi-
^^ cision the seal of the righteousness of faith came after;
'* so in Cornelius the spirit of sanctification by the gift
^' of the Holy Spirit went before, and the sacrament of
'' regeneration by the laver of baptism came after. And
*' as in Isaac who was circumcised the eighth day, the
*^ seal of the righteous ness of faith went before, and (as
^^ he was a follower of his Father's faith) the righteous-
^^ ness itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his in-
*^ fancy, came after ; so in infants baptized the sacra-
^^ ment of regeneration goes before, and (if they put in
'^ practice the Christian religion) conversion of the
^' heart, the mystery whereof went before in their body,
^^ comes after.''(2r)
Austin, moreover, tells us concerning Chrysostom,
^^ Even he, as well as the martyr Cyprian, teaches, that
'^ the circumcision of the flesh was commanded in the
*^ way of a type of haptismP He then quotes the words
of Chrysostom, which are the same as those of Basil ;
after which he adds, ^^ You see how this man, establish-
*^ ed in ecclesiastical doctrine, compares circumcision to
^* circumcision, and threat to threat : that which it is,
*^ not to be circumcised on the eighth day; that it is,
'' not to be baptized in Christ : and what it is, to be cut
" off from his people ; that it is not to enter into the
<* kingdom of heaven. And yet you [Pelagians] say
'' that in the baptism of infants there is no putting off the
^^ flesh, that is, no circumcision made without hands;
^^ when you affirm that they have nothing which needs
" to be put off*: for you do not confess them to be dead
(:) Wall's Hist. Ch.ip, 15. ^cct. 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.''(«)
Chrysostom says, ^^ But oar circuincision, I mean
'^ the grace of baptism, gives cure without pain, and
^^ procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the
'^ grace of the Spirit : and it has no determinate time, as
^^ that had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his
'^ age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in
'^ his old age, may receive this circumcision made with-
'' out hands ; in which there is no trouble to be under-
'^ gone, but to throw off the load of sins, and receive
'* pardon for all foregoing ofrences."(6)
Ambrose says, " For a very good reason does the law
'^ command the males to be circumcised in the beginning
^' of infancy, even the bondslave born in the house : be-
^' cause as circumcision is from infancy, so is the disease.
*^ No time ought to be void of the remedy, because none
*^ is void of guilt." ^^ Neither a proselyte that is old,
'^ nor an infant born in the house is excepted ; because
*^ every age is obnoxious to sin, and therefore every age
^' is proper for the sacrament." " The meaning of the
^' mystery is plain. Those born in the house are the
'' Jews, those bought with money are the Gentiles that
^^ believed : for the Church is bought with the price of
*' Christ's blood. Therefore, both Jew and Gentile, and
'' all that believe, must learn to circumcise themselves
(a) Wall's Hist. Chap. U, Sect. 2. (6) Ibid. Ciiup. 14. Sect. 1.
( 237 )
*' from sin, that they may be saved. Both the home-born
*^ and the foreigner, the just and the sinful, must be cir-
" cumcised by the forgiveness of sins, so as not to prac-
'^ tice sin any more : for no person comes to the king-
^^ dom of heaven but by the sacrament of hapiismP
^' You see, he excepts no person, not an infant, not one
^^ that is hindered by any unavoidable accident."(c)
Basil, in reference to that text which occasioned the
last sentence quoted from Ambrose, speaks as follows,
viz. '' A Jew does not delay circumcision, because
'' of the threatening that every soul that is not circum-
'^ cised the eighth day shall be cut off from his people :
'' and dost thou put 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?' "(e)
Cyprian, and the rest of the Bishops who were pre-
sent at the Council, sixty-six in number, in their letter
to Fidus, in favour of baptizing a child before he is eight
days old, notwithstanding the law of circumcision on that
point, argue as follows, viz. '^ That the eighth day was
'^ observed in the Jewish circumcision, was a type going
" before in a shadow and resemblance, but on Christ's
" coming was fulfilled in the substance. For because
" the eighth day, that is, the next to the sabbath day,
^' was to be the day on which tlie Lord was to rise from
'^ the dead, and quicken us, and give us the spiritual
(c) Wall's Hist. Chup. 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 spirit-
" ual circumcision [that is, baptism,'] ought not to be
*^ restrained by the circumcision that was according to
'^ the flesh : but that all are to be admitted to the grace
'' of Christ ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the
" Apostles, says, ' The Lord hath shewn me that no per-
" ^ son is to be called common or unclean.' ''(/)
Justin Martyr say5, '* We also who by him have
^' had access to God, have not received this carnal cir-
*' cumcision, but the spiritual circumcision, which
^' Enoch, and those like him observed. And we have
" received it by baptism, by the mercy of God, because
** we were sinners : and it is enjoined to all persons to re-
^* ceive it by the same way." A work entitled ^' Ques-
" tions to the Orthodox," is ascribed to Justin Martyr.
My Opponent, in his spurious publication against Mr.
Walker, (^) recognizes its authenticity. In answer to
the question, why, if circumcision were a good thing,
we do not use it as well as the Jews did ; the answer by
Justin is, *^ We are circumcised hjBaptismyf\\h Chris fs
circum cision . " (A )
Thus is this doctrine clearly traced from A-ugustine
( /•) Wall's Hist. Chap. 6. Sect. 1. {g) p. 103.
(A) 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 WalPs History of Baptism,
in which they are interspersed, and from which I have
now read them. If he has read the whole of this work,
he could well say, ^' I had been accustomed to hear it
^' said, [even by the early Fathers] that baptism was es-
^^ tablished in the Christian church, in the place of cir-
^^ cumcision under the Jewish economy.'' But instead
of tracing it to the ancient Fathers, this man of deep
research says ^^ In my investigation of the subject, I
^' found that that opinion was comparatively of a recent
'^ date. I could not find in church history, [not even
^' in Wall's History,] or any where else, [not even in
*^ the writings of the Ancients themselves,] that it had
** been introduced earlier than the sixteenth century,
^^ and for the first time by Calvin and Beza." And my
Opponent echoes the declaration of his respectable wri-
ter, by saying, ^^ The quotations read from Dr. Wall's
'^ History does not disprove our assertion that Calvin
^^ and Beza were the first who introduced baptism in the
*^ room of circumcision, in the sense contended for by
" Mr..M''Calla."
If my Opponent were to deny, as he did with Mr.
Walker, that this doctrine was urged by the Fathers as
a professed argument in proof of a divine command for
Infant-baptism, that would be another thing. The truth
is, they. had no one to argue with on this subject. Even
Tertullian himself, who was opposed to baptizing infants,
still admitted that there was a divine command for bapti-
( 271 )
zing them : as I hope to shew under the fourth Topic of
this discussion.
After your hearing my sentiments and the sentiments
of the Christian Fathers so distinctly^ it is perhaps diffi-
cult for you to imagine what my Opponent means, when
he pretends that their view of this doctrine is different
from " the sense contended for by Mr. M^Calla." If these
be not words spoken at random, I would conjecture that
he may refer to their imitation of the Apostle Paul, in
speaking of the Christian church as a spiritual and
even celestial dispensation, of which the Jewish church
was, in a certain sense, only a figure. Circumcision is
called " a figure'^ of baptism, by Athanasius. Epi-
phanius calls it a pattern, Chrysostom, as reported by
Austin, calls it a type. Cyprian calls it "^ a"* type
going before in a shadow and resemblance.'''' This,
however, is owing to the superior spirituality of
the Christian dispensation ; for which reason, Paul
calls the New Testament church, ^^ Jerusalem which
is above. ''(z) For this reason, Augustine, Chrysos-
tom, and Basil, call baptism, the circumcision made
without hands ; and Cyprian and Justin Martyr call
it the spiritual circumcision : or rather the latter of
these, who lived before them all, says, '^ We have re-
''ceived it by baptism.'' Epiphanius calls baptism
'* the truth of circumcision. Cyprian calls it ^^ the
'' substance'^ of circumcision. They all used this lan-
guage, however, not to deny that the one has come in the
place of the other, but to express that doctrine ; because
every one knows that now, the substance has come 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 PauFs words, where he calls baptism the
circumcision of Christ, is evident from the fact that seve-
ral of them give my explanation to that text ; besides
which Chrysostom calls our circumcision^ the grace of
baptism ; and Justin expressly says, " We are circum-
cised by baptism with Christ's circumcision." While
they thus considered them the same in substance, it has
been already shewn that they considered circumcision a
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 Eeza
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
fi seal by the scriptures and the early church ; that they
are both the initiatory seal of the church in their respec-
tive dispensations ; that they are both signs of pardon
and justification; and both signs and means of sanctifi-
cation ; that Christians are called the circumcision ; and
that baptism is called the circumcision of Christ ; that
the real points of 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, sta-
t:ure, activity, and bravery, would forbid the acknow-
( 273 )
ledginent 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 ra-
tified by the great Dr. Gill, who, in speaking of the cov-
enant, doctrines, and ordinances of the New Testa-
ment, says, " There have been the same things for
'^ SUBSTANCE in former ages." '^ These, in some sense,
are all old things, and indeed are the same in sub-
stance.''(a) We shall, therefore, consider it as pro-
ved that Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Chris-
tian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal in
SUBSTANCE, though in different forms.
PROPOSITIOJV IV.
The administration of this seal to infants was once
enjoined by divine authority j that is, god once com-
manded it.
It has already been shewn that Abraham and his seed
were divinely constituted a visible church of God ; that
the Christian church is a branch of the Abrahamic
church ; or, in other words, the Jewish society before
Christ, and the Christian society after Christ, are one
and the same church in different administrations, and
that Jewish circumcision before Christ, and Chris-
tian baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal in
substance, though not in form. The command for ad-
(a) Gill on Ecclcb. i. 9.
M m
( 274 )
ministering this seal to infants is contained in the follow-
ing words, viz. ^^ This is my covenant which ye shall
'^ keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee ;
'^ every man-child among you :^hall be circumcised.
'^ And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and
** it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and
'* you." " And the uncircumcised man-child, whose
'^ flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall
'^ be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my cove-
'^ nant.(/) Now, as the particular form here enjoined,
has been abrogated, while the substance of the seal con-
tinues under the form of baptism ; and as we have no
more right to decline obeying a divine command, than
we have to invent a religious ordinance, this command
must remain obligatory until it is repealed ; and if it has
not yet been repealed, it is now binding; so that my first
argument for infant-baptism, drawn from a divine com-
mand, will stand good. That it is not repealed, then,
will be the subject of fifth and last proposition.
PROPOSITIOX V.
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.
As I have already exposed every thing of my Oppo-
nent's, which could be considered an effort to prove a
0')Gen. xvii.'lO. 11. 14.
( ^^75 )
repeal of this command, I shall proceed immediately to
point out some of those New Testament authorities, by
which it is rather confirmed than repealed. In doing
this, we shall consider, 1. The membership of infants.
2. The holiness of infants. 3. The discipleship of in-
fants.
POINT I.
Our Saviour so recognizes the church-membership of in-
/anlSy as to confirm the command for administering to
them, the initiatory seal of the church.
*' And they brought unto him also infants, that hVs^
'^ would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they
^^ rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and
'* said, Sufier 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 \i.[k)
There is great diversity of opinion concerning the
scope of this passage. Some think it chiefly intended to
teach that all infants are in a state of guiltless purity ;
that they are neither corrupt, nor deserving of punish-
ment; and that they will, of course, go to heaven,
either through their own innocence, or the atonement of
Christ, for a sin which, in their view, did not deserve
punishment : thus teaching that we are not depraved and
guilty in Adam, and that Christ's atonement was for in-
nocent people, who did not need it.
In opposition to this opinion. Dr. Gill remarks, that
little children " may be chosen of God, redeemed by the
{k) Luke xviii. 15. 16. Matt. xix. l-i
( 276 )
'* blood of Christ, and have the passive work of the Spi-
^* rit on their souls, and so enter into heaven ; but this
^' is not the sense of this text." The Doctor observes,
that ** It is as if our Lord should say, Don't drive away
^' these children from my person and presence ; they are
^^ lively emblems of the proper subjects of a gospel-
'' church state, and of such that shall enter into the king-
** dom of heaven : by these I may instruct and point out
^* to you, what converted persons should be, who have
^' a place in my church heloiv, and expect to enter into
^^ my kingdom and glory above. (/)
If I understand the Doctor in these remarks, he ad-
mits that by ^^ the kingdom of God,^^ and ^'^the kingdom
of heaven j^^ our Saviour meant ^^my church below,^^ '^a
gospel church-state ;" as preparatory to eternal happi-
ness above. Even when our Saviour says, ^' My king-
dom is not of this world,'' Gill very properly under-
stands him to mefiu ^' His mediatorial kingdom," which
** includes the whole gospel dispensation, Chrisfs visi-
f* ble church-state on earth, and the whole election of
'^ grace. "(m) That the expression in this place does
mean the visible church, is admitted in my Opponent's
eighth argument against the ecclesiastical identity of the
Jewish and Christian societies. («) The same general
statement may be pade concerning John's preaching,
*^ Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
^^ By which is meant not the kingdom of glory to be ex-
^^ pected in another world," says Dr, Gill ; " It is the
(/) Gill on Matt. xix. 14. {m) Gill on John xviii. 3G.
\n) Spurious Debate, p. 229.
( 277 )
^^ gospel dispensation which was about to take place,"
says the Doctor; and this interpretation my Opponent
makes the foundation of his second argument. (o) More-
over, our Saviour tells us that ever since the time of
John, ^^The kingdom of God is preached." " The gos-
" pel dispensation," says Gill. The visible church-
state, says my Opponent's third argument. (/j) These
facts are intended to shew that the Pedobaptist under-
standing of this important phrase ^^ the kingdom of hea-
ven," is conceded by the greatest Baptist commentator,
and the most zealous Baptist Polemic in the world : and
remember that the Commentator has admitted this inter-
pretation in the very text now in hand, in which he says
that the expression means the *^ gospel church-state,"
" my church below." Embody the commentary in the
text, and how will it read ? " Suffer little children to
" come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is my
^' CHURCH BELOW."
This is evidently the import of other passages con-
taining the same expression. Our Saviour said to the
Jews, " The kingdom of God shall be taken from you,
'' and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits there-
^^ of."(^) As the Jews and their children were admit-
ted to church privileges, this threat indicated that they
and their children should be deprived of church privi-
leges : and when he promises to transfer these privileges
to the Christian church, where is the word which says,
^' The promise is not unto you and to your children ?"
(o) Spur, Deb. p. 197. See Matt. iii. 2. and Gill on it,
Ifi) Gill on Luke xvi. 16. Spur. Debate, p. 197.
{q) 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 ut-
^^ ter darkness. ''(r) On this passage, Dr. Gill correctly
remarks that '^ the kingdom of heaven'' means ^' The
*' church of God, which is his kingdom on earth.'' When
Jews sat in this kingdom, their infants sat with them,
by express permission from the king himself. His
language then was, ^^ Suffer little children to come
^^ unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
^' kingdom of heaven." When this great Head of
the church appeared in the flesh, to commence a new
administration of this same kingdom, did he tell them
that a rejection of infants was one of its features? His
language still was, ^^ 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 endeav-
ours to avoid, by resorting to the Persic, Arabic, and
Syriac translations ; the last of which is far the most
ancient, and the one on which he most relies ; as he con-
siders the first of them '^ rather paraphrasing than
translating. ^\s) From this he endeavours to shew that
the persons of whom our Saviour speaks as composing
his church below, were not real infants, but such adults
as resembled infants. The importance of our resembling
infants, is a sentiment which is certainly contained in
both the Old and New Testaments :(/) yet this is so far
(r) Mat. viii. 11. 12. (s) Gill on Mat. xix. 14.
(0 Ps. cxxxi. 2. Matt, xviii. 1—6. Mk. x. 15.
( 279 )
from militating against the church-membership of infants,
either among Jews or Christians, that it is an argument
in its favour. If adults ought never to be initiated until
they resemble infants, then the fitness of infants for initi-
ation is taken for granted.
But let us see what assistance Dr. Gill has obtained
from the Syriac version, in proving that it is adults,
and not infants, who belong to the church. A little la-
bour and attention in examining and comparing different
passages of that version, with what he has said about
them, will shew that he has refuted himself. In Matt,
xix 14, the Syriac reads, " Suffer little children to
^' come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of those who
'^ are, daik elin,(i/) such as these, is the kingdom of
'^ heaven." In Mark ix. 37. it reads, ^^ Whosoever
^' shall receive aik ena,(«;) as this little child, in my
*^ name, receiveth me." In Mark x. 14. this Version
reads '^ Suffer little children to come unto me, and for-
'^ bid them not ; for of those who are, datk elin, such
" as these, is the kingdom of God." I wish it noticed
that this passage reads, daik, such as, and the preceding
passage reads, aik, as, but that Dr. Gill reads aik, as,
in both texts, and in both he renders it by the
word like, which alteration and mistranslation are
both more favourable to his views, than if he had
recorded and translated it with perfect accuracy. It
may be, however, that he considers aik and daik sy-
nonimous. If so, we shall take him at his word, and
explore only one of them to ascertain the force of both.
But do not think that I shall weary you with many exam-
( 280 )
pies : 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 niulti-
^^ tude sawj they feared and glorified God, that he had
^^ given power, daik ena, such as this, to the sons
'* of men." This was occasioned by our Saviour's heal-
ing " the sick of the palsy ;" an outward miracle intend-
ed to set forth his omnipotent energy in healing our in-
ward diseases; just as our Saviour held up infants to the
view of his disciples, to set forth the necessity of the
new-birth. But the question is, what power the multi-
tude meant, in the view of the Syriac Translators,
when they spoke of a '^ power such as this^' act of heal-
ing? Did they mean the outward miracle, or the in-
ward grace ? That they meant the latter, no man from
Syria, Persia, or Arabia, is simple enough to believe :
if they meant the former, Dr. GilPs whole fabric of
Syrian resemblances tumbles to pieces. On this subject
every man of common sense is compelled to adopt one
opinion, and Dr. Gill among the rest, as may be seen in
his Commentary. If, then, when the multitude spoke of
'^ power, DAIK ENA, such as this," they meant literal-
ly, the power of working miracles, and not figuratively,
the power of saving souls, which rese^nbkd it ; let us
then be consistent, and interpret such expressions literal-
ly of infants, and not confine them by figures, to pro-
fessing adults, because they resemble infants. This there-
fore settles the meaning of Dr. Gill's parallel passage,
just now quoted ; '^ Whosoever shall receive as this lit-
'* tie child in my name, receiveth me," There is also
( 281 )
another association between the two passages which need
not be overlooked. In Matt. ix. 8. there is a Latin
Translation of the Syriac which reads " potestatem
*' HUJusMODi," for, '^ power' such as this;'' where
the literal miracle, and not the figurative grace, is con-
fessedly intended. So in Mark. ix. 37. the ancient
Vulgate Latin says, ^* Whosoever shall receive one, ex
^^ RVjusMOin vxjBRis, 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 ena, such
" OS ihisy is from evil/' The Dr. refers to the Syriac
of this passage, but, forgetting his doctrine of resem-
blances, 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 im-
plied, 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 passa-
ges to infant-baptism, when Tertullian himself, the boast
of the Baptists, admitted that it was a command to this
effect, although he became so wise as to dispute the pro-
priety of obeying it. In advocating the delay of bap-
Nn
( 282 )
tism in the case of unmarried and bereaved believers;
(a whim of his own,) he says, " precipue tamen circa
*^ PARVULOS ; but especially concerning little ones ;^^ the
very name which Jerome gives to the children which
our Saviour blessed. Then Tertullian, knowing that
this passage lay in his way, observes, "Ait quidem
^' DOMINUS, NOLITE ILLOS PROHIBERE AD ME VENIRE.
'^ The Lord indeed saith, Forbid them not to come unto
** me ;" a prohibition, the application of which to infant-
baptism he never once denies, but only urges pruden-
tial reasons for delaying obedience, " si non tam
*^ NECESSE, except when absolutely necessary J^^
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. *^ v^^hich 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 op-
posing this flimsy conceit, I need not lay much stress
upon the Ethiopic Version which he confesses is point-
edly against him ; I shall be satisfied with proving that
the infallible original, to which he has appealed, is
against him. If it can be shewn that these children
were not adults, then our Saviour's calling, avua, them,
unto him, will shew that he expected the call to be an-
( 283 ) i»'
swered by those parents who brought them to him, or
those disciples who forbade them.
In Luke xviii, 15. it is said, " And they brought un-
^* to him also, to- H^^n, infantsP In the next verse, Jesus
says, ^^ Suffer, to- rtatSia, little children, to come unto me.''
Now the question is, what do Brephos and Pais mean ?
In making out an answer, it would be well to follow a
rule which Dr. Ryland, an eminent Baptist controver-
sialist of England, has expressed as follows, viz. " Every
^^ word should be taken in the primary, obvious, and or-
'' dinary meaning, unless there be something in the
*^ connexion or in the nature of things which requires
'* it to be taken otherwise. "(?/;) And here let it be ob-
tJerved, that in the time of Hesychius, the ancient Glos-
sographer, '"• the primary, obvious and ordinary mean •
'' ing" of Pais was so decidedly child, that he did not
define it, but took this meaning for granted in his expla-
nation of, rtaiSttyxot, hoys, which he said were '^ oi f*
*' ^otStov £tf o.vhe,o.i fiitaSaivovtsi, those who are changing
^' from children to menP One reason of the wonder
expressed on the occasion of '^ the children, t-ovj rtaiSaj,"
crying in the temple, was their tender age ', for they
were called " babes and sucklings."(a^) The age, how-
ever, of those who suffered under Herod, cannot be
easily mistaken, since it is said that he " sent forth and
'' slew, no.via.i iovi rtai,5ai, all the children, that were in
*^ Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, fro?7i two
** i/ea7's old and under. ^^{y)
(to) Taylor's 4th Letter to a Deacon of a Baptist Church, p. 28.
(.r) Matt. xxi. 15. 16. (t/) Matt. ii. 16.
( 284 )
As to the word Brephos, Symmachus renders Ps. viii.
2, '^ Out of the mouth of babes, ^pt^wj/, and sucklings,
^' thou hast perfected praise." He, of course, meant
literal infants, as Dr. Gill admits that '' the Jewish wri-
^* ters generally so understand it ;'' though the Doctor
himself very sagely confines it to adults, notwithstanding
the authority of the New Testament, which applies it to
infants. The New Testament gives farther evidence of
this, in what the Martyr Stephen says concerning the
cruelty of the Egyptians to the Israelites. He says that
^^ they cast out ta^^c^ri avtcjvy their young children. ''{z)
A reference to the first chapter of Exodus will shew that
these were what Peter calls '* a^tiyBwri-ta /s^f^i?, new-born
babes^ia) Our new-born Redeemer was twice called
^^ BREPHos, the Babe, lying in a manger.'Y^) John the
Baptist is twice called " brephos en te koilia, the
unborn infantP{c) The use of it in Apocryphal writ-
ings is to the same end. In the Maccabees, it is said
concerning children lately circumcised, that the Offi-
cers of Antiochus '^ hanged, to. is^e $»;, the infants, about
their necks."(J) For administering circumcision in
another instance, the Officers of Ptolemy are said to have
led the captive mothers round about the city, *^ *a ?^i<pr,,
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 Brephos,
(z) Actsvii, 19. (c) 1 Pet. ii. 2. {b) Luke ii. 12. 16.
(c) Lukei. 41. 44. (rf) 1 Mac. i. 61. {e) 2 Mac. vi. 10.
according to Eustathius and Phavorinus, is, " j1 new-
^' bom child, nourished hy the teat, from his birth, un-
^' til he be four years oldP Dr. Wall has shewn(?^) that
Mr. Gale's supercanonical book of the fourth century,
called Clemenfs Constitutions, produces this text in
support of infant baptism, as follows, viz. "Baptize your
'^ infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admo-
^^ nition of God ; for he says, ^ Suffer little children to
"" come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
'^ kingdom of God.' " And the author of a "Defence
of the Waldenses,"(o) has quoted their interpretation of
this text, as exhibited in their own Confession of Faith,
presented at different periods to Ladislaus and Ferdi-
nand, kings of Bohemia, in which this language occurs,
viz. " Likewise they teach that children are to be bap-
" tized, and to be consecrated to Christ, according to
** his word, ^ Suffer little children to come unto me, and
'* forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of hea-
" ven.' "
Seeing that Inspired usage, and Classical and Apocry-
phal usage harmonize in proving that these words de-
note literal infants ; and seeing that the Primitive church
and that of the Waldenses considered the text in ques-
tion as authorizing infant-baptism ; then we are bound
by Dr. Ryland's own rule, to believe that infants must
be here intended, according to " the primary, obvious,
'^ and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in
** the connexion or in the nature of things, which re-
" quires it to be taken otherwise." In the present case,
(w) Defence agaipst 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 re-
semblances, would it not be as well to hold up lambs or
doves to the audience, and say, " of such is the church
below,'' meaning, '^ of such adults as resemble these
lambs or doves in innocence ?" But suppose that they
were Dr. Gill's adults instead of infants, who were set
forth to the audience. Then it would mean, ^^ of such
adults as resemble these adults, is my church below."
But let us see how the connexion supports this interpre-
tation. Is it said that these persons came to Christ them-
selves? No, their parents brought them; "and his
disciples rebuked those that brought them," from the
apparent impropriety of obtruding children, such as Ig-
natius was at that time, (for he is said to have been one
of these infants,) upon the attention of one 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 re-
ported by Dr. Gill : so that the context and exigency of
the case conspire with the best usage and the most au-
thentic definitions, to prove that our Saviour held lite-
ral infants in his arms, and that, of such literal infants,
he declared his "church below" to be composed. If
ihen, they be members of the Christian church, they
became so, by receiving baptism, the initiatory seal ;
wherefore, instead of a repeal of the Old Testament law
on this subject, we here have an evident confirmation of
it.
( 287 )
POINT ir.
Jin inspired Apostle so recognizes the semikal holiness of in-
fants^ as to confirm the command for administering to them
the initiatory seal of the church.
^^ For the unbelieving husband is sanctijied by the
^^ wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctijied by the
'^ husband : else were your children unclean ; but now
'^ are they holyy{f)
In common with Pedobaptists in general, I am consci-
entiously convinced, that the holiness here attributed to
the infants of believers, is that seminal holiness which
entitles them to the initiatory seal of the church. But
as this is warmly and pertinaciously disputed by the ad-
vocates of other sorts of holiness, I am willing, with the
leave of my hearers, to give a candid and patient atten-
tion to every interfering claim. If, then, ecclesiastical
holiness be not here intended, what sort was intended ?
Was it spiritual holiness, or domestic holiness, or civil
holiness ? Let us examine their respective claims.
1. Spiritual holiness. Might I not say that this inter-
pretation is quashed by matter of fact ? as also, by what
the scriptures say of the small proportion of those who
are sanctified from their birth, whether one or both
parents professed religion. On this subject, I agree with
a remark of my Opponent, in his spurious publication
against Mr. Walker,{^) where he says, " If, then, their
*^ sin or sins, previous to sprinkling, had been forgiven
'^ them, they would have had all their sins forgiven
(/) 1 Cor. vii. 14. (5") P- 175.
( 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 ho-
liness of the children depends " on their parents living
together." This, like a thousand other things of his, is a
mere figment of his own fancy. So also is his pretend-
ing that a separation of the parents would deprive the
children of food and education. Is this the conduct of
a believing father, when deserted by an idolatrous wife?
or would the scriptures have sanctioned a separation at-
tended with such consequences ? As there was a want
of evidence in his Commentary and note, he refers for
additional light to his Essay 4th, Section 38th, where
he shews that the word common means unclean ; a thing
which no one denies. He refers also to the 53d Section
of the same Essay, where he endeavours to prove that
the word sanctify has the desired meaning, by referring
to 1 Cor. vii. 14, the very text in question ; thus reason-
ing in a circle, by making the Essay prove the note, and
the note the Essay.
3. Civil holiness. As the former interpretation relat-
ed to the domestic comforts of the married state, this
( 289 )
relates to the lawfulness of marriage, as a civil transac-
tion. It is as old as the seventeenth century ; for it was
then urged by the Anabaptists, in their public Debate
with Doctor Featley.(A) The amount of it is this ; that
the sanctijication of the parents to each other, is sim-
ply their marriage to each other ; and the holiness of
the children is simply their legitimacy. Dr. Gill es-
pouses this scheme very decidedly ; and rests his whole
defence of it, upon ^' the Misnic, Talmiidic, and JRab-
'' hinic writings !! P^ From these he gives a long quo-
tation, in which he correctly asserts that "the word
*^ which is used to sanctify, or be sanctified^ in the He-
'^ brew language, is used to espouse, or be espoused, no
*^ less than ten times.^' He professes to give this extract
*^ instead of a thousand thai might be produced/** Does
not this armament loom as formidably as the Spanish
Armada? But there is something else belonging to
Spain which can match it exactly. The writings of
Popes and Cardinals, Bishops and Monks, are to the
Roman Catholics, as the Misnical, Talmudical, and Rab-
binical writings are to the Jews, and, (in the present
pinch,) to Dr. Gill : and, mark it well, that the Jewish
writers are not more clear in converting sanctification
into marriage, than the Popish writings are, in convert-
ing marriage into sanctification, or, into a sacrament.
Now it would have been very easy for Dr. Gill to pro-
duce from a Popish writer, one passage, in which ma?'-
riage was called a sacrament ten times ; and to give this
instead of a thousand that might have been produced.
(A) See the 8th page of the Doctor's account of that combat,
O 0
( 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 tra-
ditionary legends of Jewish Rabbi's, written several
hundred years after Christ ; the other is supported by
the traditionary legends of Popish Doctors, written
several hundred years after the Apostles. The one is
supported, as Dr. Gill says, by the writings of Jerome,
a Christian Father ; the other is supported, as the Pa-
pists say, by Jerome's Latin Vulgate, in Eph. v. 32,
where he expressly says, concerning 7narriage, ^^ sa-
" CRAMENTUM HOC MAGNUM EST, tMs is a great sa-
'^ crament.^^ Here we have Jerome and the Rabbi's
for the Baptist error, and Jerome and the Doctors for
the Popish error ; all of them living and writing se-
veral hundred years after the Apostles, and having
no more right to an arbitrary dictation in sacred criti-
cism, than Dr. Gill or the Pope. For this I have
the authority of Dr. Gill himself; for although
he pleads Jewish inventions, to relieve him from a
New Testament authority, which they have never
expounded, yet he refuses to follow them in the very
same view of an Old Testament text which they have
explained. While he is endeavouring to prove that
Paul's sanctification means marriage, he strengthens
his cause by saying, ^* So the Jews interpret the
word sanctified, in Job. i. 5. he espoused to them
^^ ivivesy Yet when you turn over to tlie Doctor's
commentary upon Job. i. 5. you find that he pays no
attention to these Jewish espousals, but espouses him-
* ( 291 )
self 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 in-
tended in 1 Cor. vii. 14. then I ask. Is there another
instance to be found, in the Greek Scriptures, from
Genesis to Revelation, where the object is governed
by the preposition en ? In the present text, the suppo-
sed marrying verb is in the Passive voice, and the object
in the dative case, governed, not by the verb, but by
the aforesaid preposition. We have marrying verbs in
the passive, in Mk. x. 12. Rom. vii. 4. Gen. xx. 3.
Deut. xxi. 13. xxii. 22. but these verbs govern the ob-
ject in the dative, without an intervening preposition.
We have such verbs in the active, in Is. Ixii. 5. Deut.
XXV. 5. with which you might collate Ecclus. xxv. 8.
16. 2 Mace. i. 14. but these verbs also govern the dative
of the object, without an intervening preposition. We
have, moreover, such verbs in 1 Chr. ii. 21. Neh. xiii.
23. Matt. V. 32. xix. 9, 2ice. Mk. vi. 17. x. 11.
Luke xiv. 20. but they all govern the accusative with-
out an intervening preposition. If, therefore, we may
judge by the style of the Apostles, and Evangelists, and
Alexandrian Jews, who formed the style of the whole
nation, it is extremely improbable that Paul meant mar-
riage, when, in the text under review, he spoke of sanc-
tijication ; especially, when sanctijication does not sig-
nify marriage nor legitimacy in any other place in the
whole scriptures.
But Dr. Gill well knew, that after the Apostles were
dead, and his Jewish Rabbi's of a later date came on the
( 292 )
stage, they cultivated an invincible hostility, not only to
the New Testament, but to their own most venerable
Septuagint, because it was so eminently useful in illus-
trating and supporting the New Testament. It was
after this invidious apostacy from the ancient style of
their nation, that they began to call marriage, sanctifi-
cation : but as this usage is a mere innovation, perfectly
unknown in the Old or New Testament, it is of no more
authority in controlling sacred criticism, than is a news-
paper published last year in Modern Greek.
Let us, therefore, turn to an unadulterated Hellenist
of the first Century, and ask how he would understand
the text. '^ For the unbelieving husband is sanctified
*' by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by
*' the husband : else were your children unclean ; but
*^ now are they holy.'^ That he would never conjecture
that marriage and legitimacy were here intended, is evi-
dent from this important consideration ; that he had
never before heard such language with such a meaning.
Notwithstanding this, the language would be per-
fectly familiar, and the meaning perfectly obvious.
Every part of the Old Testament, and every part
of Jerusalem and Judea brings consecrated things to
his view. There he sees a holi/ land and ground ;(«)
holi/ mountains and hills ; ( /) holy cities and houses,
chambers, instruments, and vessels;, A) holy tithes and
first-fruits, gifts, offerings, oblations, and portions ;(/)
(z) Zech. ii. 12. Ex. iii. 5. (y ) Is. xxvii. 13. Ps. xcix. 9.
(k) Is. Ixiv. 10. 1 Chr. xxix 3. Ez. xlii. 13. Num. xxxi. 6. 1 Sam.
XXI. 5.
(I) Lev. xxvii. 30. Ez. xlviii. 14. Ex. xxviii. 38. 2 Chr. xxxr. 13. Ez.
xlviii. 10. xlv. 14.
( 293 )
holy garments and crowns ;(m) holy nation, congrega-
tion, and flock, (??) holy persons, and holy seed.(o)
T\\Q holy flock here mentioned. Dr. Gill justly con-
siders as meaning " Flocks of sheep which were conse-
^^ crated and set apart for holy uses, for sacrifices."
These flocks of sheep Ezekiel expressly compares to
^' flocks of men." The Doctor reminds us, that in one
of these holy flocks of sheep, there were as many as
thirty thousand la?nbs given by king Josiah alone. (/))
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, jtistly in-
sists, that when our Saviour said to Peter, " feed my
^^ sheep," *' feed my lambs," he had regard to the
Apostle's duty toward the adults and infants of the
church :(q) and these were assuredly embraced in the
holy seed mentioned by Ezra. Our Hellenistic Jew,
then, would find himself perfectly at home, when ex-
amining the New Testament regulations concerning holy
children ; for they are the holy seed, to which he con-
siders himself as belonging, from his infancy. He
would therefore say, as we have done, that the Apostle
here speaks of
4. Seminal holiness. Dr. Macknight and Dr. Gill
(m) Lev. xvi. 4. Ex. xxix. 6.
(n) Ex. xix. 6. Num. xvi. 3. Ez. xxxvi. 38.
(o) Ps. Ixxxvi. 2. Ex. xiii. 2. (Comp. Luke ii. 23.)Ezr. ix. 2.
(fi) On Ez. xxxvi. 38. Comp. 2 Chr. xxxv. 7 — 9.
(q) John xxi. 15. 16. Taylor's Fourth Letter to a Deacon of a Bap-
tist church, p. 28.
( 294 )
think that our scheme refutes itself, by understanding
sanctification in different senses. They should remem-
ber, however, that this is correct with regard to many
words, and with none more than the one in question.
Dr. Pocock, in his notes on the Porta Mosis of Maimo-
nides, says, '^ Notissimum est et quod sanctum,
^^ ET QUOD A SANCTITATE LONGISSIME REMOTUM EST t
^^ It is very remarkable that \it signifies'] both ivhat 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 Pedo-
baptist explanation of the text. The Old Testament
law passed an indiscriminate sentence of desecration
upon all foreign and mingled seed. It made no disti?ic-
tion between a child born of a Jew and Heathen, and a
child born of two Heathens. They were both alike un-
holy, and, on that account, not to be circumcised. But
what says the New Testament law ? It informs us that
there is now a distinction between mingled seed, and
that which is entirely foreign ; so that the former is holy,
altliough the latter is not. The connexion of the believ-
ing with the unbelieving parent, so far separates the
unbeliever from the mass of the Heathen world, that the
child is not, as formerly, polluted by his Heathenism j
but is holy, and, on that account, has a right to the Chris-
tian circumcision, as if both parents were believers.
( 295 )
But now let us try Macknight and Gill by their own
rule, and read the text upon their plans, with that con-
sistency which they demand of others. In making
Macknight consistent, I shall read his own paraphrase of
the two first clauses of the text, and then make the rest
to accord with them. It is as follows, viz. ^^ For the
'^ Infidel husband is sanctified, is fitted to remain mar-
" ried to the believing wife, by his affection for her ;
^^ and the infidel wife is sanctified, to the believing
^^ husband, by her affection for him, otherwise certain-
'' ly your children ivould 6e" ' unclean, unfitted to re-
' main married to their parents, for want of affection,
' but now are they holy, fitted by their affection to re-
' main in the married state.' This is making sanctifica-
tion the same thing throughout; that is, a fitness for
marriage, by means of affection : whereas, in one part
of the text, Macknight makes it mean the reception of
food and education, which many doubtless receive with-
out being fit for marriage.
But as Dr. Gill asserts that holiness is marriage itself,
instead of a fitness for marriage, let us try how a consis-
tent translation upon this plan will do. I shall give the
two first clauses in his own words, as follows, viz. '^ For
" the unbelieving hvisband is espoused to the wife, and
'^ the unbelieving wife is espoused to the husband :"
' else were your children unmarried ; but now are they
* married.' This makes holiness signify marriage, con-
sistently throughout the verse : whereas the Doctor
makes it mean the marriage of an adult in one place, and
in another the legitimacy of an infant ; which are two
distinct things, since there are many legitimate 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 dis-
pute. We say, that it means seminal holiness,, or a he-
reditary qualification for initiation into the church, a
meaning which is abundantly established by scriptural
usage. Dr. Gill says, that it means the civil legitimacy
of infants, in which sense it is not used in the Scrip-
tures ; but he evidently wishes his reader to believe that
his Jewish writers support this interpretation by innu-
merable examples. Would you suppose, that after his
dazzling display of " Misnic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic"
authorities, he has not quoted one single proof that even
an infidel Jew ever understood holiness to mean legiti-
macy of birth ? The ten cases which he has cited, and
the ten thousand to which he refers, prove, without one
alledged exception, that his Jewish writers considered it
to mean marriage, a signification which is sometimes in-
compatible with the other : for if holiness mean mar-
riage, then Jeptha, the deliverer of Israel, was holy; but
if it mean legitimacy, then Jeptha was unholy. Accord-
ing to the Doctor's own account, therefore, his interpre-
tation is perfectly destitute of support, from the Bible,
the Talmud, or any thing else.
A few minutes ago, I mentioned that the Doctor dif-
fered from the Jewish writers in their interpretation of
Job i. 5, and that, on that passage, he favoured our cause
in more respects than one. He agrees with our Trans-
lators, "Job sent and sanctified them." The Jews read
( 297 )
it, ^^ He espoused them to wives." On examination, we
shall find that their discrepancy is very remarkable ; but
not more so, than the 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 sanctifi-
cation is an external washing of the body and garments,
and abstaining from sensual pleasures, even from lawful
marriage ! This is the very opposite of the Jewish es-
pousals. When ablution is used as an outward sign of
spiritual and ecclesiastical holiness, we call it baptism:
yet according to Dr. Gill, the washing just now mention-
ed, 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 sanctijication
means, not marriage, but a washing to purify a man
and his household. This is the way in which he should
have explained Paul's declaration concerning holy chil-
dren : for it is, in fact, a confirmation of the Old Testa-
ment command that they should receive that seal of ini-
tiation, which is a sign of pardon and justification, and a
sign and means of sanctification ; the form of which seal,
in the days of Paul, was an application of water.
It should not be passed without notice, that Dr. Gill
and Dr. Macknight, and my Opponent, who for the sake
of immersion, are generally anxious to prove that, zv, \en,'\
signifies in, are nevertheless willing to give up this no-
tion in the present case, for the sake of what they think
a more important point. They all consider it high trea-
son against criticism, for us to say that en Ainon, means
at Enon, and that en Jordane, means, at the Jordan:
pp
( 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 them-
selves, that in such places as our text, it signifies by.
Some time ago, I suggested a very serious doubt,
whether one instance could be found in the whole Greek
Scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, in which, after
a marrying verb, the object was governed by the pre-
position en. To prove the improbability that such an
instance can be found, I shewed that the current of
Scripture is against such a construction. But can
it be said that the current of Scripture is against such
a construction, where verbs of sanctifying and not mar-
rying are concerned ? In such cases there is nothing
more common than for the object(r) to be governed
by the preposition en ; and there is nothing more com-
mon than that Dr. Gill, and my Opponent, and all
the Baptists, agree with us in translating it by instead
of to. In order that you may perceive the exact re-
semblance in the construction .of the text and other
passages, I wish you to mark the way in which it
reads; "'^For the unbelieving husband is sanctified, en
TE GUNAiKi, by the wife, and the unbelieving wife
is sanctified, en to andri, by the husband."^ To save
your time we shall quote parallels, in as few words as
possible. They are as follows, viz. " I will be sancti-
fied, EN MESO, in the midst, Gill, by the children of Is-
rael." " I will be sanctified, en doxe mou, Gill, by my
gloryJ'^ Besides which, half a dozen other examples
(r) Or, I might rather say, the mraiis, agent, or author.
( 299 )
fron> the Septuagint are at hand.(5f) To these we add
the following from the New Testament^, viz. ^'Sanctified^
EN ALETHEiA, hy the truthP " Sanctified, en Theo
PatrIj hrj God the Father P ^^ En ho, hy which, he
was sanctified.'' ^' Sanctified, en Pneumati hagio,
by the Holy Spirits ''' Sanctified, en Christo Jesou,
hy Christ Jesus.'^ '^ But ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified, en to onomati, in or
by the ncune of the Lord Jesus, and en to Pneumati,
hy [so my Opponent renders it,] hy the Spirit of our
God."(/) The two last passages are in the same Epistle
with our text : and all of them are so plain, that neither
Macknight, Gill, nor my Opponent insinuates that they
relate to marriage or legitimacy, or that en signifies to.
If, then, sanctification always means sanctification, when
connected as it is in our text, why should we make our
text an exception ? and if marriage or legitimacy can
never be found so connected, why should we force them
into the text ? Should we not rather say with Tremel-
lius, that the preposition used by the Apostle is a He-
braism, for per, by ; which Castallio and the ancient Vul-
gate have adopted, notwithstanding Dr. GilFs unproved
assertion, that Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, fa-
voured his interpretation.
The truth is, the Epistle of Jerome to Leta, whose
Christian mother had married ,Blbinus, a heathen priest,
expressly gives this text the sanctifying interpretation,
even in a stronger sense than I have advocated. He
makes the sanctifying of an unbeliever to be the con-
(s) Lev. xxii. 32. Ex. xxix. 43. Ez.xx. 41. xxxvi. 23. xxviii. 22.
25. xxxix. 27. xxxviii. 16.
(0 John xvii. 19. Judc i. Heb. x. 29. Rom. xv. 16. 1 Cor. i. 2, vi. IJ,
( 300 )
verting, ov prohahility of converting him."(t<) This is
certainly very wide of that marrying or legitimating
interpretation which is, without evidence, attributed to
him by Dr. Gill. His pretext for this may be, that in a
certain instance, Jerome refers Paulinas to Tertullian's
explanation of this text. Now, although Tertullian is
very vehemently claimed by my Opponent, it will ap-
pear, on examination, that Tertullian saw nothing of
marriage or legitimacy in this text, but that sort of holi-
ness which is enjoyed in being born, of water and of the
Spirit, or, (as he understood it,) in baptism and sancti-
fication. '^ Paulinus writes to Jerome this question,
' How are they holy, when as without the gift of the
* grace [viz. baptism] given them afterward [after their
' birth] and preserved, they cannot be saved?" ' Among
other solutions of this question, Jerome refers Paulinus
to the explanation which Tertullian had given of this
text, as follows, viz. ^^The Apostle says that when born
'^ of a sanctified parent of either sex, children are holy ;
" as from seminal prerogative, so from the instituted dis-
'^ cipline : [or, the discipline of institution :] else, says
'' he, were they born unclean : but yet meaning to be
'' 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 mar-
^' riages which he would have to be continued. Other-
'^ wise, [or, as for any other meaning] he knew well
*^ enough what our Lord had determined, Except one
*^ be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter
(?/) Wall's History, Part. 1. Chap. 19. Sect. 19.
( 301 )
*^ into tlie kingdom of God.'^i?) From such evidence as
this, Dr. Wall very honestly concludes ^^ that Tertullian
^^ differs from them [that is, from Augustine and Pela-
^^ gius in their comments on this text,] only in this, that
'^ he [Tertullian] expounds the holiness that such chil-
^' dren have by the prerogative of their birth, by these
*^ words, SANCTiTATi DESiGNATi, designed for holi-
'' nesSi 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."(zfj)
Tertullian calls baptism^ by v^^hich the infants of be-
lievers are made holy, institutionis disciplina, the
discipline of institution ; that is, an ordinance by which
they are made disciples, according to Christ's appoint-
ment. Thus Augustine considers it in the following
passage, viz. " But that is to be held without any doubt,
^^ that whatever that holiness, illa sanctificatio,
^' may be, it is not available to the making of them Chris-
^^ tians, or to the pardon of sins, unless they be made be-
" lievers, fideles, [according to him, infants can be
^^ made Christians and believers] Christiana et ect
^' CLESIASTICA INSTITUTIONE ET SACRAMENTIS, by the
** Christian and ecclesiastical institution and sacra-
'^ ments.^' That he here means the sacrament of bap-
tism, which is the initiatory institution of the Christian
church, is evident from the words immediately following
(y) "Hinc enim et Apostolus ex sanctificato alterutro sexu sanctos
pi-ocreari ait ; tam ex seminis prerogativa quam ex institutionis discipli-
na," fee. See Wall's History, Part 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Chap. 19.
Sect. 19.
(7(0 Wall's Hist. Part. 1. Chap. 11. Sect. 11.
( 302 )
those which have just heen 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. (.t) The same Father,
in explaining this text in relation to the Apostolic
churches, says, ^^ For there were then Parvuli
^* Christiani, Christian infants^ that were sanctijitd,
'' some by the authority of one of their parents, some by
'^ the consent of both. ''(?/) Here he speaks of baptized
infants as those which WQve sanctified by parental autho-
rity. 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 V In answer to which he distinguish-
'^ es between the visible sanctification and the invisible:
^^ and after some discourse that the invisible is the chief,
" but yet that the other is not to be neglected, says,
^^ ^ Hence Cornelius and they that were with him, when
'^ ' they appeared to be already sanctified invisibly by
*' * the Holy Ghost coming on them, were, for all that,
^* ^ baptized : nor was the visible sanctification counted
<* ' needless because the invisible was before.' "'(^)
(x) Wall's History, Piirt 1. Chap. 19. Sect. 19.
(//) Wall's History, Part 1. Chap. 15. Sect. 2.
(z) Wall's Historv, Part 1. Chap. 11. Sect. 19.
( 303 )
That Chrysostom also had substantially the same views,
will appear from his comment on 1 Cor. i. 2. where he
says, that sanctijication means ^^thelaver, [viz. of bap-
tism,] the cleansing. "(«) In accordance with this,
Bingham informs us that ^^ Theodoret and others ex-
plain the word, Vycoi, saints, or sanctijied ones, to be
such as were vouchsafed the honour and privilege of bap-
tism."(6) 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
sanctijications of their law, which indeed Paul himself
calls diverse baptisms.ic) These authorities go to shew
that the Ecclesiastical Fathers expounded 1 Cor. vii. 14.
of infants' holiness in our sense: yet, as Dr. Fishback
and my Opponent pretended, that, Calvin and Beza had
originated our doctrine, that circumcision and baptism
were the same seal ; so Mr. Tombes, in his Debate with
Mr. Baxter asserts, that we " cannot find any one author
that expoundeth 1 Cor. vii. 14. of infants holiness in''
Mr. Baxter's ^^sense, before Luther and Zuinglius!!"(c?)
These assertions are equally wise, and they both resem-
ble that of the Roman Catholic priest, who said, that the
Reformers originated the Greek Testament.
But in Mr. Baxter's Report of his Debate with Mr.
Tombes, he reminds him of a singular concession which
he made in relation to this text. Says he to Mr. Tombes,
the Baptist champion, " You yielded that the word sanc-
(a) Wall's Hist. Part. 1. Chap. 11. Sect. 19.
(b) Binsi;ham's Antitjuitics, Book 1. Chap. 1. p. 3. quoted in Wall's De-
fence against Gale, p. 384.
(c) Hebr. ix. 10. Wall's Hist. Part 1. Chap. 11. Sect. 19.
((/) Baxter's Report of the Debate, p. 208.
( 304 )
^^ tify, and holy, is taken in my sense near six hundred
" times in scripture, and no where else once in your
'^ sense ; and yet pleaded, that here it must be taken in
^' yours, and not in mine, without showing any ground
" for a necessity of it!''(e) Strange as this may seem,
the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary has furnished us with
a concession no less remarkable on the same text, from
one of the most learned and zealous Baptist controver-
sialists now living. In the close of the preface of a work
called ^^The Baptists Self- convicted," the Editor speaks
as follows: viz. ^^Mr. Anderson [the learned Baptist,]
'' abandons the brethren (servants) of Lydia ; he ex-
^^ pressly renounces the idea o{ legitimacy as denoted by
*^ the term holy in reference to children ; and I under-
'^ stand that nobody now thinks of arguing on the ' much
^' water' of Enon ! These are hopeful symptoms." In the
same Author's second series of ^"^ Facts and Evidences
'^ on the subject of Baptism. "(/) he quotes Mr. Ander-
son's words. They are as follows, viz. ^^ To interpret
^' holy ('ayio) as signifying legitimate, is not authorized
^^ by any example, from sacred or profane writers!!"
Some would think this a surrender ; but it is intended
only as a capitulation : for while this zealous Anabaptist
was relinquishing one untenable position, he was stipu-
lating for another, which he vainly thought impregnable.
He was just exchanging an old exposed perversion of the
text, for a novel perversion which he thought more plau-
sible. He fled from Gill's civil holiness, to take shelter
under Macknight's domestic holiness. He could no
{e) Baxter's Report of the Debate, p. 208. (/) p. 64.
( 305 )
longer believe that Paul's infant holiness signified legi-
timacy ^ 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 vvhi(^i either
Sacred or Profane writers have spoken of the holiness
of infants, to mean their clothing and lodging, their board-
ing and schooling, as being '^ the objects" of parental
" affection and care?" It has been shewn that Macknight
is not only without proof, but in opposition to proof; and
as for Anderson, he comes off with saying that '' If this
" interpretation, which is 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 pro-
posed," and if it be, at the same time, such decisive evi-
dence of Baptist principles, how comes it that it "contra-
'^ diets all Baptist writers for more than a century past?
^^ How comes it that this obvious meaning never occurred
to ^<Drs. Gill, Stennett, Ryland, Mr. Booth, &c. &c?"
all of whom ^^ assert that the term holy in this passage
^^ signifies legitimate ?" And how comes it that neither
the interpretation of these legitimates, nor the " more
probable^^ one of Macknight and his illegitimates, was
adopted by the ancient Fathers ? but that the Pedobap-
tist interpretation was followed by them, as has been
( 306 )
shewn from the testimony of Paulinus and Jerome, Chry-
sostom and Augustine;, and even my Opponent's Baptist
brother Tertullian, and his heretical brother Pelagius?
Mr. Toinbes can afford us a clue to this mystery, in his
concession to Mr. Baxter, that the word sanctify, and
holy, is taken in the Pedobaptist sense near six hundred
times, and no where else once in the Baptist sense. The
truth is, we follow broad scriptural usage, both in transla-
ting and expounding this passage : whereas, both in trans-
lating and expounding, the Baptists, not only oppose the
scriptures and the Fathers, but contradict themselves
and one another, and substitute their own arbitrary in-
ventions and incongruous assertions for fair criticism and
solid exegesis.
We have now given that candid hearing which was
promised, to the respective claims o^ 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 in-
tended by the Apostle, when he says, ''^For the unbeliev-
** ing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbe-
^'^ lieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were
^^ your children unclean, but now are they holy :" or
^^ designed for holiness ;'' as the Baptist Father Tertul-
lian paraphrases it ; meaning that by ^'^ seminal prero-
'^ gative,^' as well as "^ the discipline of institution," the
infants of pious parents are designed for baptism ; an
ordinance which Augustine, in conformity with Jewish
and Christian usage, inspired and uninspired, expressly
calls ''^ the visible sanctification .^^ Instead, therefore, of
a repeal, we here have a New Testament confirmation
( 307 )
of the command ibr administering to infants the initiato-
ry seal of the church.
POINT III.
»ds the Scriptures recognize the discipleship of infants, in-
fants must be contemplated in our Lord's command to
his ^^postlesy to disciple all nations by bajjtism.
^^ Go ye therefore, and teach (disciple) all nations,
'^ baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
^^ Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to ob-
'* serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you :
^^ and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
^^ the world. Amen."(^)
The Baptists have two different and contradictory
schemes, for resisting the force of this text. One is, to
make the verb matheteuein signify to teach those who
are capable of believing, and thus to exclude infants who
do not believe. The other plan is, to admit and even to
urge that matheteuein signifies to disciple or make
disciples, but that this discipleing is equivalent to con-
version, which conversion, according to them, the text
makes a prerequisite to baptism ; and thus they exclude
infants who give no evidence of conversion.
The first of these courses is pursued by Mr. Gale. In
advocating it, Dr. Wall convicts him of as gross stupid-
ity, or dishonesty, or both, as can perhaps be found any
where else. But admitting, as Dr. Wall certainly
proves, that Mr. Gale was incapable of discussing the
Original, still our Translation has the appearance of
(5-) Matt, xxviii. 19. 20.
*'
( 308 )
favouring his cause ; for it gives the verb his renderin,
^^ teach all nations." To this I would reply that the
same Translators have left us the other rendering also.
Their margin reads, ^^ or make disciples or Christians
^^ of all nations.'' Dr. Wall, moreover, argues that the
reason of their putting the word teach into the text
" was, that in the time of making the old translations,
" there were no Antipedobaptists (and when the En-
^^ glish Translation was made, none in England,) who
^^ should thence take occasion for their error, viz. to
^^ conclude that infants, though a part of the nation,
•^^ must not be baptized, as not being yet taught. All
" people then understood it thus : That the Apostles,
" going into the Heathen nations, must first teach and
<^ convert the adult persons and baptize them; and then
" at their request, baptize their children, into the same
^^ covenant ; and while all took it so, there was no hurt
" in letting the word teach stand. "(A) It is very cor-
rectly granted by Dr. Wall, '^ that where the circum-
" stances of the passage and of the persons spoken of
"^ do shew it to be meant of adult persons now in the
'' state of learning, there to make disciples does import
^^ teaching of them ; and in such places it does often
^'^ best fit the construction of the sentence to express it
^' teach ; because, as I said before, in most places where
'' the word occurs, the discipleing is by present teach -
" ing :"(z) But, on the other hand, the Dr. observes that
^' This very thing of choosing a new word on pur-
^^ pose for this sacrament, (viz. discipleing in general)
{h) Wall's Defence againsL Gale, p. 172.
(i) Wall's Defence, \\ 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
'' been to express teaching, there were plenty of com-
^^ mon and known words in use for that.''(y ) And let
it be observed that one of these common and known
words for teaching is used by our Saviour in the same
sentence, in such a manner as to shew that it was not
there to be considered as perfectly synonimous with
matheteuein.
The second course is pursued by Dr. Gill, who would
have discipleship to mean conversion, and to be so essen-
tially prerequisite to baptism as to exclude infants. On
John iv. 1. he says, ^"^ The method Christ took was?
^' he first made men disciples, and then baptized them ;
" and the same he directed his Apostles to, saying, ' go
" ^ and 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 Matheteu-
^^ SATE, the verb here rendered teach, is conceded by
*^ all intelligent Paido-baptists to signify, make disciples,
" or disciple. This is unquestionably the proper ren-
(7 ) Wall's Defence, p. 177.
0
( 310 )
'^ dering of the term matiieteusate. The verb ma-
'^ THETEUO, when governing an accusative, Parkhurst,
^*^ the Paido-baptist lexicographer says, signifies ^ to
^^ ' make a disciple.'' p. 412. It is not the nations in-
'' discriminately, that were commanded to be baptized;
'^ for TA ETHNE, the nations, being neuter, is not the
*^ antecedent to autous, {Jheni,'] which is masculine,
'^ and which is the accusative governed by matheteu-
'^ SATE. Its antecedent is mathetas in the verb ma-
^^ theteusate. Again the phrase, ' teaching them to
'* ' observe all things which I have commanded you,^
'^ respects the disciples exclusively. For Christ did
'' never command nations indiscriminately to observe his
'' ordinances, but only his disciples. He commanded
'' all nations to repent and believe the gospel, and then,
'' as his disciples, he commanded them to keep his com-
'^ mandments. Hence the word rendered teach in the
'^' 20th verse of Matt, xxviii. is not the same as the
^' word rendered teach in the 19th verse. It is didas-
^^ KONTES, a word importing the office of a preceptor to
" those who had been put under his tuition. It is ex-
'* pressive of that tuition which teachers owe to their
" disciples or pupils. Two things or two classes of
'^ duties were enjoined on the Apostles in this commis-
" sion. The first was the work of discipleing or ma-
'' king disciples. The second was the education of those
^^ disciples collected into churches or 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
^* disciples. This I cannot now illustrate better than
( 311 )
^^ by a reference to the Appendix of Debate with Mr.
'^ Walker, to which Mr. M^Calla so often refers, p. 209.
^^ ^ A limited commission implies a prohibition of such
'^ things as are not contained in it, and positive laws
^^ imply their negative.' The commission under which
'^ the Apostles acted was limited, as every Christian will
'^ confess. The duties of those who act under it are
'^ pointed out : and indeed every creature must act un-
'^ der a limited commission, for the very term itself im-
'^ ports something committed from a superior, or from
^^ the supreme. ''(^)
In this argument my Baptist Opponent has certainly
shewn, that all that Mr. Gale has written on the same
text, is lost labour. In opposition to him, he proves that
the Apostles were commanded to '^ disciple all nations,
baptizing them." Yet he tries to criticise us out of the
opinion, that the apostles discipled them in baptizing
them. That adults gave evidence of knowledge and con-
version before baptism, I would not only admit, but in-
sist upon. That they and their infants were formally
discipled in baptism, I hope to shew. The only obstruc-
tion presented by ray Opponent's argument, is his en^
deavour to shew, that if the apostles baptized disciples,
they must have been disciples before they were baptized,
and, of course, could not be made disciples in baptism.
When I hear such a plea from a man of such pretensions,
I feel considerably inclined to hand him over to that old
lady, by whose common sense, he tells us, he was once
overpowered, notwithstanding all his philosophy and
{k) Spurious Debate with me, pp. 58, 1!3, 114.
( 312 )
divinity. (/) Not long ago I observed a housewife send-
ing a messenger with thread to a seamstress. Her com-
mission ran thus; <^ Remember and tell her that this
black thread is to sew the scams.^^ My Opponent, on
hearing this commission, would have said, ^ Madam, if
she is to sew the seams, they must be seatns 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 oflicer in the neighbour-
hood, he would probably give a commission to his ser-
geant in the following words; ^^ Go and enlist that Phi-
losopher, 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 mili-
tary men, signifies to make a soldier. It is not philoso-
phers indiscriminately that are commanded, in this com-
mission, to be enlisted. Philosopher is not the ante-
cedent to him; its antecedent is soldier, in the verb
enlist. For our Constitution did never command ///izYo-
sophers indiscriminately to observe the rules and articles
of war, but only United States' soldiers. It commands
all citizens to obey the laws, and then as soldiers, it com-
mands them to submit to military regulations. As, there-
fore, the bounty wdiS to be given to none but soldie?^s, they
(/) Spurious Debate with me, Preface, p. x.
( 313 )
must have been soldiers before tlie bounty was given.
Wherefore, giving the bounty, does not make a soldier;
and ' All my philosophy and divinity/ my verbs
and accusatives, my antecedents and relatives, would be
perfectly safe in receiving the bounty ; although at the
same time I should not like to try it."
My Baptist Opponent thinks it of great importance to
prove that our Saviour's commission does not authorize
the baptizing of the nations but the disciples. But when
this point is gained, how does it help his cause ? If bap-
tizing disciples proves that they must have been disci-
ples before they were baptized; then '^ Perverting the
deceitful balances,^^ proves, that they were deceitful be-
fore they were perverted — " Griyid 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 \{ni) which things are absurd.
If, therefore, stripping the naked makes him naked;
yI giving the bounty to a soldier makes him a soldier; if
falsifying deceitful balances makes them deceitful ba-
lances; if sewing a seam makes it a seam; and \{ grind-
ing meal makes it meal, then why may not baptizing dis-
ciples make them disciples ?
It is certainly my Opponent's aim to prove that dis-
cipleing does not, in any case, mean mere initiation, of
which an infant may be the subject ; but that it means
that conversion, of which none but an educated or en-
lightened adult can be the subject. It is for this reason
that, instead of " disciple all nations," his New Testa-
(m) Isa. xlvii. 2. Job, xxii. 6. Am. viii. 5., on which last see Hebr.
aiid Engl. Margin and Pool's Annotations on Job, xxii. 6.
R r
( 314 )
ment reads '^ Convert all the nations." But let us see
how this will tally with his argument. There he informs
us that, DiDASKONTES, teaching, as well as matheteu-
SATE, disciple, ^^ respects the disciples exclusively :"
that is, teaching respects converted persons exclusively;
since disciple and convert are, in his view, convertible
terms. This he expresses more fully as follows, viz.
" Two things, or two classes of duties, were enjoined on
" the Apostles in this commission. The first was the
^^ work of discipleing or making disciples. The second
^^was the education of those disciples collected into
*^ churches or schools." That is, the Apostles were
commanded, first to disciple or convert adults, and then
to educate or instruct them ! ! Conversion first, instruc-
tion last ! ! This is bad enough ; but I am afraid that it
leads to worse. As my Opponent is for abolishing the
whole order of the gospel ministry, he would teach the
people that they should have neither instructors nor in-
struction. 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 con-
version, no instruction. Now v.e are for both the one
and the other, and in their proper order. We believe that
as far as adults are contemplated in our Saviour's com-
mission, they are to be first instructed. This, by the
immediate agency of the Divine Spirit, becomes an in-
strument of their conversion. Tlien, when there is evi-
dence of their conversion, they are baptized. It was, as
Dr. Wall intimates, with a view to this ])rocess, in the
case oi" adults, that our English Ti-anslators put into the
text the word teach instead of diiciple. But their mar-
( 315 )
ginal reading, which my Opponent has shewn to be
strictly conformable to the Greek, evidently leaves room
for another order of things in the case of infants. In re-
lation to them, my Opponent's exposition of the text,
loses a portion of its absurdity, and looks like solid,
scriptural reality. Infants, and infants only, should be
first discipled, then instructed. In contemplation of in-
fants, it may be truly said, as my Opponent has most in-
consistently and improperly said concerning adults; that
^^ Two classes of duties were enjoined on the apostles in
^^ this commission : the first was the work of discipking
'^ or making disciples ; the second was the education of
" those disciples collected into churches or schools."
This is only saying that infants should first be discipled
by baptism, and then brought up in the nurture and ad-
monition of the Lord.
With this view of the subject, which my Opponent's
own comment has made necessary, we discover that this
text affords the same authority for infant baptism, which
another passage quoted by him, furnishes for female
communion. The passage is, that Christ " gave it [the
bread] to his disciples, and said. Take, eat."(?i) He then
produces another passage to shew that ^Hhere was a cer-
tain disciple there named Tabitha."(o) 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 v.ay; we
shew that the apostles were commissioned to '^' disciple
{n) Matt. xxvi. 26. Spur. Debate with Mr. Walker, p. C.9.
(o) Acts ix. 36.
( 316 )
all nations^ baptizing them." We then shew that in-
fants were recognized as disciples ; and conclude, that
the apostles must have made them so by baptizing them,
as they were made disciples among the Jews by circum-
cision.
In reference to this severe discipline, which was im-
posed upon Jewish professors and their infants, Peter
says, ^^ Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a
*^ yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither
" our fathers nor we were able to bear?'^ Dr. Gill says,
that these disciples are " Gentile believers ;" thus pro-
bably meaning to frown upon infant discipleship, because
infants cannot believe. He admits, however, that this
yoke embraces circumcision, though he says, that ^^ by
it here is meant not circumcision onhj and barely. ^^ Now
I would ask. What sort of disciples they were, on whose
neck this yoke was first imposed? They were chiefly Jew-
ish infants. I would again ask, What sort of disciples were
they, on whose necks these Judaizing teachers wished to
impose this grievous yoke when Peter spoke? Were
they '^' Gentile believers" only? No, it was Gentile and
Jewish believers and their infants; which would have
still thrown the burthen of circumcision chiefly upon the
infants, because a great proportion of the adults had been
already circumcised. This then, shews, that the apos-
tles understood their commission as we do ; and, that in
discipleing all nations, they discipled believers and their
seed, ^^ baptizing them.''
That Jews and Christians thus understood tlie Old
and New Testaments, cannot be reasonably disputed.
Out of Dr. WalTs many instances of Jewish usage, I vvili
( 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.] oi 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 oH a. holy parent of either
^^ sex, are themselves holy, [that is fit for baptism,] as
^^ well from seminal prerogative, as from the discipline
'^ of institution [that is, Christ's institution for making
'^ disciples. y^r) That Tertullian really used this ex-
pression to signify the ordinance of baptism, by which
Christ requires us to initiate adult and infant disciples
into the visible church, 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 impar-
'^ tiality you can command. It accounts for more than
" the origin of infant baptism. It is doubtless one of
^^ the best authenticated testimonies of antiquity." He
then proceeds to give Tertullian's account of certain
unscriptural customs, by which he professed to initiate
and build up disciplesy and which, for that reason, this
(Ji) Wall's Hist. Introduction, Sect. 4.
(r) Wall's Hist. Part 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. The Doctor has mis-
taken the meaning of the word discipline here, as the Baptists do in other
places,
■^i^^ ( 318 )
Father calls disciplines, but which my Opponent's trans-
lation calls practices, as follows, viz. " If you demand
^^ a law for these practices, taken from the scriptures,
'^ we cannot find one there." He should have trans-
lated it in something like the following manner, viz. " If,
'^ for these disciplines, and others of the same sort, you
^^ require scriptural authority, you can find none. "(5)
Among these unauthorized </wczp/me5, we find the sign of
the cross, and the use of milk and honey, and trine im-
mersion in baptism. Doubtless, Mr. Walker, against
whom this passage was so vauntingly produced, will
agree with Tertullian, that the sign of the cross and the
baptismal use of milk and honey, are unauthorized in
scripture, and that trine immersion or any other im-
mersion, is unauthorized there : but he will also
agree with the same Father in believing that Chris-
tian baptism is Christ's instituted discipline, by which
disciplesliip is conferred upon those who have a seminal
prerogative derived from a holy parent of either sex.
These infant disciples are thus initiated into the visible
church and have been considered as visible Christians,
ever since the day that ^^The disciples were called
'^ Christians first in Antioch." Some infants must have
been thus discipled, immediately after this change of
denomination, because, in old age they were the person-
al aquaintances of Justin Martyr, who speaks of them
in the following language, viz. '^ Several persons among
" us, of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who
(s) " Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciJiHiiarum si legem expostulas
scriptural-urn, nuUam invenies." This is quoted in a note in Dr. J. P.
Campbell's Review of Robinson, p. 13o.
( 319 ) ..
'' were discipkd to Christ in their childhood^ do continue
^^ uncorrupted." They were discipkd to Christ; an
expression which shews that they were discipkd, not
by instruction or conversion or by an unauthorized
practice, as my Opponent would have it, but by baptism,
the instituted discipline of Tertullian, who has declared
baptism to be a discipline, even in that passage which
my Opponent praises as ^^ one of the best authentica-
^^ ted testimonies of antiquity/^ in relation to " the ori-
'^ gin of infant baptism.'' It ought not to be omitted that
when Justin M5rtyr speaks of their being discipled in
their childhood, he uses the word psedon, the one which
enters into the composition oi Pscdobaptism ; and the
word which he uses for discipled, is ematheteuthesan,{t)
the very word used by our Saviour in commanding his
apostles to '' disciple all nations, baptizing them." Is
there then any room to doubt the correctness of my
third point, that ^* As the scriptures recognize the dis-
^' cipleship of infants, infants must be contemplated in
^^ our Lord's command to his apostles to disciple all na-
'^ tions by baptism ?"
You cannot now wonder, if I consider it proved, ac-
cording to the tenor of my fifth proposition, that after
the authoritative command recorded in the Old Testa-
ment, ^' The administration of this seal to infants has
never since been prohibited by divine authority ; that
is, this command of God, originally given in the Old Tes-
■M ( 320 ) ^
tament; is not repealed in the New Testament, but ra-
ther confirmed." According to promise, this has been
shewn from what is said in the new Testament, concern-
ing " the 7nembership of infants, the holitiess of infants,
and the discipleship of infants."
My evidence in favour of a divine command for in-
fant baptism has occupied more time than is usually spent
on this subject. Respect to the good cause of truth,
and to the understandings of my audience, required thati
should pay a becoming attention to my Opponent's nu-
merous contradictions and objections. None of these
were advanced against my fourth proposition ; and there-
fore, that proposition, though occupying one-fifth of the
ground of my argument, was passed over in a few words.
But when the other propositions were contradicted, it
became necessary not only to refute those objections, but
to develope an unusual portion of the ample stores of
authority, which the scriptures contain in support of
those propositions. These copious proofs are an evi-
dence, not of the difficulty, but of the facility with
which infant baptism is established. They shew, net
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 at-
tend the argument for female communion and many other
things equally plain. Let any one take the propositions,
and duly consider them, distinctly, and in their mutual
relation, and ponder well the evidence by which they
( 321 )
are supported, and the conclusion to which they tend,
and he will not wonder that the great body of Christ's
people, from the beginning, have been Pedobaptists.
To them the scriptures shew plainly, that, 1. Abraham
and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church
of God. 2. The Christian Church is a branch of the
Abrahamic Church : or, in other words, the Jewish
Society before Christ, and the Christian Society after
Christ, are one and the same Church, in different dis-
pensations. 3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and
Christian Baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal,
in substance, though in different /orms. 4. The admin-
istration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by di-
vine authority ; that is, God once commanded it.
5. The administration of this seal to infants has never
since been prohibited by divine authority ; that is, this
command of God, originally given in the Old Testament,
is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather con-
firmed. Therefore, there is now in force, an unre-
pealed divine command, for administering to believers
and their infants, the initiatory seal of the Church,
which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism. If
the premises be true, the conclusion is inevitable : but
the premises have been proved to be true ; therefore
the conclusion stands ; and my first argument for infant
baptism, drawn from a divine command, is valid, accord-
ing to the infallible word of God.
1
Ss
0 ( 322 )
ARGUMENT II.
APOSTOLICAL PRACTICE. HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM.
According to custom, my Opponent represents the
argument drawn from household baptism as destitute of
probability; and, if I remember rightly, there are some
Pedobaptists who speak of it, as if it amounted to little
or nothing more than /jroZ>«Z*/e evidence. I would ask
such persons, upon what sort of authority do they re-
ceive females to communion? Is it probable or certain ?
They will say, with my Opponent, that the evidence is
indubitable, because females are disciples, and for disci-
ples it was instituted. Yet our Saviour gave no express
command to administer it to a female ; there was no fe-
male among the disciples to whom he administered it ;
and there is no express record of Apostolical practice,
in favour of female communion. If, without these, the
evidence is certain, how much more so, if, like infant
baptism, it could be supported by divine command and
apostolical practice. This practice of the apostles would
have been taken as positive evidence, fully made out, if
the Acts of the Apostles had recorded several instances
in which heads of families communed; because heads
of families would Q\\\hv?LCQ. females. Now we have evi-
dence, in the Acts of the Apostles, that they baptized
households, and we hope to shew that households embrace
infants ; and the fact that some households are without
infants, is of no more avail in the one case, than the fact
that some families have no female head, will avail in the
other. In proving that infants are included in the bap-
tized households of the New Testament, I shall, of
course, make liberal use of Taylor's ^' Facts and Evi-
dences," much of which Dr. Rice, of Virginia, has co-
pied, with valuable additional matter of his own.
But the strength of our argument cannot be duly ap-
preciated, without giving some attention to that of my
Opponent. He speaks as follows, viz.*
* The reader will notice, that from p. 223 to note {ii) on p. 331, is Mr.
Canqjljeirs arii,umcnt.
( 223 )
" Mr. M'^Calla has adopted the criticism of Rice and
Taylor on the words oihos and oiJdaj and is to give us posi-
tive evidence of infant baptism from the import of tliese
words, Mr. Rallsion, who has written what he calls a
^Brief Review' of the Debate atMountPleasant, has adop-
ted the same, and mightily boasts of the importance of the
criticism. Mr. M'Calla tells us it is founded on the de-
cisions of Aristotle and Plato, and lays the greatest stress
upon it. Now we have not read Rice's Pamphleteer,
but we have read some [all] of the writings of Aristotle
and Plato in the original, and we have read Dr. Samuel
Rallston's ^ Condensed View' of the criticism, and we
boldly pronounce that it is a ^ refuge of lies. ^ And we
will go a little farther yet, and affirm, that not only is the
criticism erroneous^ but that assertions are made in the
' Condensed View' referred to, that are downright
falsehoods. Mark it well, my friends, we have said
falsehoods. Whether intentional or not, is not my duty
to say. But if I do not prove to the satisfaction of every
one who understands English, and especially to any one
who knows only the Greek alphabet, all that I have now
affirmed concerning this criticism and those assertions, U
will say that I know neither English nor Greek. But
this we will not attempt until Mr. M'Calla gives us the
whole it. In the mean time, we will request your at-
tention to the households baptized, or ^ family bap-
tisms,' as some call them, mentioned in the New Testa-
ment. Of these there are but four. Of three of these
we have positive proof that all baptized were professed
disciples, capable oi hearing , believing and obeying the
word. The only family that admits of the least hesita-
tion with respect to the members of it, is that of Lydia :
and if there had not been another family baptized in
the narrative than this one, or if there had been the
same want of particularity in describing, incideatally or
explicitly, the baptism of the others, it would be utter-
ly impossible for any man living to furnish a positive
evidence of infant baptism from Scripture testimony.
We have, indeed, already shewn, that the apostles
( 324 )
baptized none but professed disciples, by facts and ar-
guments that Mr. M^Calla dared not to impugn; and
therefore might be excused from noticing this ten
thousand times refuted notion of infants having been
baptized in these four families. But that the fullest
satisfaction may be aiforded to all interested, we will
again condescend to visit the families alluded to.
With respect to Lydia's family, of the circumstances
of which there is the least said, and therefore the more
room for conjecture, as we see in all the references to
it by the Paido-baptists, we will just mention, that six
things must be proved, before it can be proved from
it, that we have positive evidence of apostolic prac-
tice of infant baptism. 1. That Lydia ever had a
husband. 2. That she had a husband lately. 3. That
she ever had children. 4. That she had brought her
children with her from Thyatira to Philippi, a jour-
ney of 200 miles, mostly by sea. 5. That her chil-
dren were then infants, and 6. That they were actu-
ally baptized. All this must be done before Mr.
M^Calla's positive can be adduced. JVow let me ask,
can Mr. M'Calla prove any one of these circum-
stances ? I positively answer, JVb, not one. Where,
then, is his positive evidence to be obtained from Ly-
dia's house ? Indeed there is not prohable evidence,
much less positive evidence, of infant baptism in this
family.'' ^^But just let us look at the circumstances
of Lydia's family, and consider what is most probable
in the case. 1. She shews herself to be the sole pro-
prietor of her house, and precludes the idea of having
a husband, in these words. Acts xvi. 15. * Come into
my house, and tarry with me.' 2. That she was an
unmarried woman is probable from her manner of giv-
ing the invitation, which indeed is the most singular
invitation on record, ^ If ye have judged 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 wo-
man at this time, is further evident from her manner
of life. She was a travelling merchant, and far from
her own city. 4. It is also probable that the brethren
mentioned in 4th verse, were members of her family,
servants or relatives in her employ."' " Thus, from
a fair and full consideration of all the circumstances of
Lydia's house, there is not the least probability that
there was an infant in it. But if even it had been pro-
bable that infants belonged to Lydia's house, we are
absolutely certified from other portions of the divine
testimony, that they were not baptized." "The time
has fully come when it becomes my duty, from a pro-
mise already given you, my fi'iends, to prove that this
new discovery made on purpose to aid the falling
cause of infant baptism, is a refuge of lies. I have said
that it is a refuge of lies. Many seek shelter under
such refuges without knowing them to be such. Per-
haps this was the case with Mr. Rallston and my Op-
ponent. Be this as it may, we are sure it is a refuge
of lies, and that the alledged difference between 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 po-
sitively assert that in the bible, there is no more dif-
ference betwixt the use and application of the words
oikos and oikia than there is between the words bro-
thers and brethren. I suppose you all know that the
difference betwixt the words brothers and brethren is
only in the orthography or spelling of the words, and
that there is no difference in the sense. Now for the
proof. Paul says, 1 Cor. i. 16, I baptized the oikos of
Stephanas, and in the same Epistle, addressed to the
same church, in speaking of the same family, Chap. xvi.
15, he calls this family the oikia of Stephanas. ' Ye
( 326 )
know,' says he, ' the household (ten oikian) of Steplia-
nas that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have
addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.' Here
the same family, by the same writer, is called, in the
same letter, both oikos and oikia. Any person that
knows the Greek alphabet can see that this is as I have
said. Where now is the truth of Mr. Rallston's decla-
ration, p. 19. ^ Hence,' says he, when we read of
Cornelius and his house, of Lydia and her house, of the
Jailer and his house, and of Stephanas and his house, in
all of which, oihos and not oikia is used. He says, not
oikia is used, but here I have shewn that it is ! This
proves the assertion false. And that you may see that it
is erroneous, we have only to observe that Mr. Rallston
and Mr. Rice and Mr. M^Calla say, that oikia denotes
servants, as the servants of Cesar's household, (oikias) as
Mr. Rallston quotes it ; and then so to translate it when-
ever it occurs. Thus said Paul, Chap. i. I baptized the
infants, (oikos) of Stephanas, and Chap. xvi. Ye know
the servants, (oikia) of Stephanas that they were the
first fruits, &c. and thus make the apostle give a repre-
sentation of Stephanas as a father, in one place, as a
slaveholder or master in another ; having servants that
were not servants, but freemen, addicting themselves to
the service of the saints, when they were their master's
property, and having no time at their own disposal. What
contradictions and inconsistencies appear in a bold ad-
vocate of this human tradition! But that oikos and oikia
are applied in the bible to the self-same family, and to
the self-same house, will appear from a few references.
I would only premise one remark, viz. that the differ-
ence betwixt the families called oikos and those called
oikia, is plead upon the allegation that oikos literally
denotes the dwelling place of the master or father of the
house, and that oikia denotes the house, cabin, or hut,
in which the servants or slaves lived. It is said that in
their figurative application the same difference exists.
As oikos signifies the master's dwelling house, it figura-
tively denotes his children : and as oikia denotes the
( 327 )
servant's house, it figuratively denotes the servants that
lived in it. The jailer's house is called, verse 31, oikos ;
in v. 32, it is called oikia ; and in v. 34, it is again call-
ed oikos. Once here it appears evidently to refer to the
family, ^Thou 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 undenia-
able, that the jailer's house is called both an oikos and
an oikia. Mr. M'Calla, or rather Mr. R. from whom
the criticism is taken, aware that oikia is applied to the
jailer's house, as well as oikos, will have it, contrary to
appearance of probability, used metaphorically, and says
that it means the jailer's servants, to whom he spake the
word of the Lord. This is an evident assertion to suit
the hypothesis. But suppose we should admit it for
the sake of argument, then how does it stand ? It stands
thus, he preached to the servants, and baptized only the
oikos, the infants ! ! I The oikia was not baptized, but
the oikos was. Paul and Silas, then, were more success-
ful in discipleing the oikos than the oikia. Mr. R's in-
fants, they were more easily converted than the ser-
vants. They spake the word of the Lord to all the jail-
er's servants, but not to his wife nor children, if he had
any ! Partial preachers these. Assuredly they were
Paido-baptists ! !" " We shall, for the sake of giving
sufiicient data to explode this absurd criticism, here re-
gister more circumstantially and methodically, a number
of plain evidences or proofs of its falsehood. We shall
first shew that oikos and oikia are used by the inspired
penmen of the New Testament as completely synoni-
mous. The Centurion's house, whose faith was so famed,
and whose servant the Messiah cured, is, by Luke, in
the VL Chapter, called, verse 6th, oikia, and in verse
10th it is called oikos The same house is by Matthew
called oikia, Chap. viii. 6. Jairus, the ruler of the sy-
( 328 )
Tiagogue, whose daughter the Messiah brought to life,
had a house, which Luke calls oikos, Chap. viii. 41 ; and
and in the same chapter, verse 51, he calls the same
house oikia. Mark calls the same house oikos, Chap. v.
38, and Matthew calls it oikia^ Chap. v. 23. In the pa-
rable concerning the house divided against itself, which
is recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it is called
oikia, Matt. xii. 25, also oikia, Mark iii. 25, but it is
called oikos epi oikon, Luke xi. 17. In the parable
concerning the house being attacked by thieves, record-
ed by Matthew and Luke, Matthew calls it oikia, Chap,
xxiv. 43, and Luke calls the same house oikos, Chap,
xii. 39. The same house is called both oikos and oikia
in the same verse, Luke x. 5. Into whatever house,
[oikia) ye enter, say peace be to this house, {oikos.) The
Messiah calls his Father's house both oikos and oikia,
John ii, 16, and xiv. 2. The house of Martha and
Mary is called oikos, John xi. 20, and in the same chap-
ter it is called oikia, verse 31. These few instances,
selected from the four Gospels only, will show how much
dependence ought to be placed on such critics, the very
foundation of whose criticisms is laid in a falsehood, viz.
that oikos and oikia literally signify a house, but not the
same kind of a house. We have produced from the very
portion of the Bible where they say this distinction is
observed with the greatest accuracy, unequivocal evi-
dences that both words are used to denote the same kind
of an house. Many instances more can be produced.
We shall expose the fallacy of this new discovery a little
farther. These sagacious Doctors of divinity say, that
oikia literally signifies the servants' house, and meta-
phorically signifies the servants themselves. Thus Dr.
Rallston, ^ oikia signifies a man's household or servants.'
Let us test the correctness of this assertion. Matt. x. 12.
Salute the house when ye enter it, (oikia) i. e. salute the
servants only. Matt. x. 13. If the house, (oikia) be
v/orthy, i. e. the servants. Matt. xii. 25. Every house
divided, (oikia) i. e. servants, divided come to desola-
tion. The Centurion, whose son Jesus healed, John iv.
( 329 )
50^ believed, with all his house, {oikia ok) i. e. all his
servants only believed. Matth. xiii. 57, A prophet
hath no honour in his own house, {oikia) i. e. among his
slaves or servants. Joshua said, as for me and my house,
(oikia) we will serve the Lord, i. e. myself and my
Servants. Receive him not into your house, {oikia) i. e.
into your kitchen among your servants. In every great
house, {oikia) there are vessels of gold and silver, &c. i. e.
in every great hut or cabin. In my Father's house,
{oikia) are many mansions. I forbear to expose this cri-
ticism farther. Hundreds of instances similar to those
adduced can be given. But we must not pass by the
most important point, viz. that oikos signifies sometimes
children, and even infants, apart from their parents.
And what of this, ye sagacious critics ! The word family
in English, very often signifies the same thing! But does
that prove any thing favourable to your hypothesis ! So
long as the word family, which you say is the meaning
of oikos, frequently denotes all that live under one
father, mother, master, or mistress, whether infants or
adults, so long it remains to be determined, from the cir-
cumstances of the case, who are the constituents or mem-
bers of the family ; and thus, after all your boasted disco-
very, you have to confess yourselves to be just where
you were ; unable to prove that there ever was an infant
in any house, oikia, or family that was baptized. But
you intended to carry some point by the discovery, and
we know of nothing you could propose, except to lead
captive the ignorant and unwary admirers of the pa-
tented PRIESTHOOD. For, Gentlemen, you must know
that oikos and oikia are used interchangeably in all
books, and by all Greek writers, if you know any thing
of Greek ; and you must know, if you have read the
Septuagint of the Old Testament, that oikos hundreds
of times is applied to denote every kind of house or fa-
mily. The very first time it occurs is Gen. vii. 1, where
Noah is commanded to take all his house into the ark,
oikos. Now we all know that Noah's oikos was com-
posed of three other oikoi, and that each of these oikos
T t
( 330 )
was composed of adults : four oiJcoi composed (pas o
oikos) all the house of Noah. The youngest child or in-
fant in this house [oikos) was about 98 years old. This
same oikos occurs 14 times in the first chapter of Num-
bers, and includes under 12 occurrences 603,550 adults
from 20 years and upwards. And so extremely far from
truth and correctness is this criticism, that we can fur-
nish instances where oikos signifies a man's servants.
Thus Gen. xvii. 27, all the men of Abraham's house,
oikos, of which there were 318 servants born in his oikos,
were circumcised when Abraham's eldest son was 13
years old. Observe, not oikia, household, but oikos,
house ! But observe, God said of Abraham, he will or-
der his children, [hoi huioi) and his household, oikos,
yes, oikos, his servants, not oikia. Joseph was placed
over the house of Pharaoh, (oikos,) i. e. over all his ser-
vants, noble a'ud ignoble, Gen. xli. 40. Solomon gave
Hiram 20,000 measures of wheat, and 20 measures of
pure oil every year for the use, for the annual consump-
tion of his oikos. Assuredly Hiram must have had many
infants to consume all this ! ! Again, the whole house of
Jacob is sometimes called oikos, and pan oikia. Gen. 1.
22. xlvi. 31, &c. &c. To round off this bold period of
learned criticism, Mr. Rallston adds, ' It is true, indeed,
that the English Translators have sometimes rendered
both words house, and sometimes household, but the dis-
tinction is generally observed with accuracy,' (mark
this,) and, adds he, * certainly it would have been better
to have uniformly rendered oikos house, and oikia
household, as they have done, (once) Phil, iv. 22.' Now,
courteous reader, [hearer,] don't be startled when I tell
you that it is a fact that our Translators, in the New
Testament, have only once translated oikia, household,
and oikos three times, and that of forty three times
household in the English Old Testament forty one times
it is oikos, in the Septuagint, and only twice oikia! J
When this is denied, we shall give chapter and verse.
So speaks the Paido-baptist, and so speaks fact. Now
judge ye. Thus 1 have shewn that the whole of thi^
. ( 331 )
criticism is a mere fabrication of an overweening imagi-*
nation, say the best of it. Were it necessary I could fill,
from Classical authority, a respectable pamphlet of refu-
tations of this miserable refuge. But as the Old and New-
Testament were only referred to on this point, I confine
myself exclusively to them," *^and design it to stand
here as a refutation of Taylor's, Rice's, Rallston's, and
jVPCalla's new theory of positive proof. I should except
Mr. Rallston, for he only calls the argument derived
from the family baptism, ^ presumptive evidence' of
apostolic practice. Mr. M'-'Calla presumes a little far-
ther, and calls it positive proof. We will call it positive
proof of positive presumption. *'(w)
Thus has my Baptist Opponent entertained you. His
ingenuity, wit, and severity, I leave you to admire. The
charge of falsehood, which he has so liberally brought
against Mr. Rallston, needs no other notice than to re-
mind you, that it is merely grounded upon his holding a
different opinion from my Opponent. Mr. Rallston
thinks, that even when oihos and oikia are applied to
the same tenement or the same domestic community*
they do not mean the same part of that tenement or the
same persons of that community. My Opponent boister-
ously asserts that they do mean the same, and that ^*^any
person that knows the Greek alphabet can see that" his
opinion is right, and that Mr. Rallston or any other person
who holds a different opinion is guilty of falsehood and
lying, which charges are so agreeable to him in this sad
dearth of argument, that he repeats them as often as three
times in one breath.
Yet while my Opponent would thus stigmatize Mr. R.
for a mere difference of opinion, ought he not to be more
careful of his own statements as to matters of fact ? In
relation to this criticism on oikos and oikia, he has unre-
servedly 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. 262—265. 2r8— 283,
( 332 )
the criticism is taken. "(«^) 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 Calmet's Dictionary. With this
fact my Opponent shews himself to be acquainted : for
in a former speech he called it ^* the criticism of Rice
and Taylor, on the words oikos and oikia^\iv) Know-
ing this, what invectives could have conveyed his indig-
nation against Mr. R. if Mr. R. himself had so far for-
gotten the truth, as to claim originality in this argument,
or to assert that I had taken it from him ? Yet an asser-
tion, which, in the judgment of our Greek scholar, would
have constituted Mr. R. guilty of falsehood and lying,
my Opponent, to answer a purpose(a:) can make, with-
out a blush.
But whosoever originated this argument, my Oppo-
nent is determined that no one shall make it good, if he
can prevent it, by prejudgments and arbitrary restric-
tions. He says, ^' Mr. M'^Calla affirms, that there were
*^ infants baptized in Lydia's house, let him prove it
"then. But it is impossible, ^r^o, Mr. M^Calla affirms
*^ that which he cannot prove. ''(y) To make this under-
taking impossible, as he thinks, he insists repeatedly and
emphatically, that I must " prove positively, that
there were infants in this family." By this word posi-
tively, he means, according to the context, that I must
find out Lydia's husband, and the number, age, educa-
tion, and residence of her children. Upon such terms
as these, I should be glad to know how my Opponent
(t') Spurious Deb. p. 280. This and the context are copied above.
(to) Spurious Deb. p. Ml, copied ubove.
{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.
]M\ Collateral Papers, jmblished some time ago, shew, that this is only
one of many " refuges of lies" to which he was driven by the scantiness
uf his materials and the baldness of his cause.
((/) Spuri(X.is Debate, p. 266.
( 333 )
would set about proving positively from the scriptures,
that Tabitha, or any other female^ was ever admitted to
the Lord's table. Let him give us her name, in con-
nexion with a direct statement of the fact, accompanied
with the name of the administrator, and the time, place,
and circumstances of the communion. After his declin-
ing this undertaking, as he certainly will, would you
not think me a wonderful logician, to close the question
of female communion, as he has done that of household
baptism ? Let us see how the argument would 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 syllo-
gism, he would hardly give them credit for patented
powers of reasoning. In opposition to this he would tell
us, as he has done, that the communion was administered
to disciples: disciples mc\\\(\e female believers t ergo,
the communion was administered to female believers. So
we say, Baptism was administered to households : house-
holds include infants: therefore, baptism was adminis-
tered to infants. Now the question in both these cases
is this ; Do J/^czp/e* include females? Do households m-
clude infants ? To shew that households do not embrace
infants, my Opponent quotes Noah's household consist-
ing 0^ eight adults ivithout 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 in-
clude females? My Opponent says, No. Then neither
does the case of Noah, or any other case, shew that house-
holds do not embrace infants. To prove his point, my
Opponent produces one passage of scripture, calling
Tabitha a disciple. To prove mine, it will be conve-
( 334 )
nient to shew that infants belong to households, by as
many authorities as your patience can endure : and after
so much has been said on oikos and oikia by my Oppo-
nent, it is to be feared that indulgence will be almost as
difficult for you, as it is necessary for me.
There are certain principles which are acknowledg-
ed, either expressly or practically, by all men of real
learning, who undertake the explanation of words,
whether in the scriptures or elsewhere. These princi-
ples my Opponent takes for granted, and to them he
virtually appeals for a verdict in his favour. As they
are really in my favour, an express recognition of them
would be an advantage ; and the time occupied in stating
them would be compensated by their shev/ing the bear-
ing of the evidence adduced. They shall be transcribed
from Classical and Theological scholars, and among the
latter, from Baptist as well as Pedobaptist authority.
The celebrated Duke de Montausier, who w?is the first
promoter of what we call the Dauphin edition of the
Classics, used often to say that in ^^ The difficulties
lo/iich occur to us in reading the works of the Jln-
cients,^^ arising ''from our not Icnoiving in what sense
they used such a word formerly,''^ " the commentator
should endeavour to determine the meaning of the luord
in question^ by consulting how it is used by the same
author^ in other places, where the meaning of it may be
more evident ; or by any other of the same country., and
fas near as may he J of the same ti')nes.^\z) On the
same subject, the celebrated Thomas Hartwell Home,
in his Introduction to the Bible, directs us to '' ascertain
the notion affixed to a luord by the persons in general,
by whom the language either is now or formerly luas
spoken, and especially in the particular connexion in
which such notion is affixedP '' The meaning of a
tvord used by any winter, is the meaning affixed to it by
those for whom he immediately wrote. For there is a
(r) Quoted in the Preface of Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, from
Speiice's Poly metis, p. 286.
( 335 )
hind of natural compact between those who w?'ite and
those ivho speak a language ; by which they are mutu-
ally bound to use ivords in a certain sense : he, there-
fore, ivho uses such ivords in a different signification^ in
a manner violates that compact, and is in danger of
leading m,en into error. ^^ "^ The received signification
of a word is to be retained, unless weighty and necessary
reasons require that it should be abandoned or neglect-
ed.^'ia) To the same purport, the late Dr. Ryland, an
eminent Baptist clergyman of England, says, '^ Every
word shoidd be taken in its primary, obvious, and ordi-
nary mecming, unless, there be something in the con-
nexion, or in the nature of things, ivhich requires it to
be taken otherwise.^^ '"■ Whenever, by the connexion of
a term, or by the nature of things, loe are obliged to de-
part from the primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning
of a word, we should depart as little as possible from
that meaning; and even with reluctance J'\b) To these
rules I have no objection, though an experienced po-
lemic will easily perceive that in the construction of
them, Dr. Ryland had his eye on the Baptist contro-
versy. The same prejudice is so obvious in another
rule, as to make it perfectly nugatory. It is as follows,
viz. '^ Whatever is €:r/jrg5'5ef/ in scripture, is conclusive
argument: whatever is not expressed, is not conclusive J'
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 cominunion of disciples an
expression of female communion, then the baptism of
households is an expjression 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.
Thfe question is, Does this word household include in-
(a) Home's Introcl. vol. 2. Part. 2. Chap. 2.
{b) Taylor's second publication of Facts and Evidences on the subject
of Baptism, p. 23.
( 336 )
fants, as the word disciples inclades/ema/es? 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 autliors of the disputed passages
'^ immediately wrote." 4. This was the meaning of the
word household and its conjugates, in other writings of
the same authors, and of cotemporary authors, and
of former authors. Sacred and Profane, with whose
writings they were more or less familiar. These posi-
tions, therefore, I shall, with divine assistance, endeav-
our to make good, in the examination of the following
Greek words and phrases. Otxta, Ttavoi^xia, na^oixia, rtaaa
ita^oixia: Otjsoj, 6^05 otxoj, rtaf oixo^, rtarocxEaia, rtaioixioi, rtavoixi,
OixoSofiia, oi,xo6o/A.7^, jtaaa ocxoSo^aj;, otxoSo^f co. 1 hCSC WC Shall
endeavour to consider, as they are used in relation to the
material or spiritual house, the ecclesiastical or celes-
tial, the national or sectional, the 7m/ al or pontifical,
the patriarchal or domestic house : all of which, if we
mistake not, will confirm and illustrate the doctrine, that
a household \\\c\w(S.GS infants, and that the household bap-
tism of the New Testament is infant baptism.
You now see the scope of my argument, and you see
what ought to be the scope of my Opponent's argument.
It is incumbent upon me to shew that oikos, house^ or
household, and its kindred words, include infants. His
object is properly to shew that they do not include in-
fants. Yet is this the aim of the argument which he has
actually given us? The greater part of his time and
strength have been spent in trying to shew the identity
of oikos and oikia. A Baptist preacher of England, Mr.
Anderson, the learned antagonist of the Editor of Cal-
met's Dictionary, has wasted his strength in the same
( 337 )
way. If this course is really calculated to defeat them
in the main question, whctlier a household includes in-
fants, then their argument lays no obstruction in my way,
but is an actual assistance to me. Let us examine this
matter for a moment. Among those passages which
speak of a house divided against itself, Anderson shews
that one Evangelist uses the word oikos, and two others
use the word oikia. My Opponent has shown the same
thing in your presence. If they have gained their point,
they have established the identity of these words : but
does this prove that neither of them includes infants? A
more minute investigation will shew from the texts
themselves, and from the comments and criticisms of
my Opponent and other Baptists, that infants are in-
cluded in both. One of these passages says, " If a house^
OIKIA, be divided against itself, that house, oikia, can-
not stand/°'*(6') 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 y<2mf/y, small or great." Now we know
that the majority ot families, both small and great, have
infants^ and that these infants are liable to be the great-
est sufferers in domestic broils. Another of these texts
says, " Every kingdom divided against itself, is brouglit
to desolation ; and, oikos epi oikon, a house divided
against a house h]\et.h.'\d) But my Opponent's New
Testament gives this quite another turn, as follows, viz.
^^By intestine broils any kingdom may be desolated, one
family, oikos, falling after another, oikon." Accord-
ing to this translation, the name of oikos is expressly
given to 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 in-
fants ? This itself would soon bring them to desolation,
if there were no divisions among them. But perhaps my
Opponent means to deny the existence of infants in any
of these households throughout the kingdom, however
(<r) Mark iii. 25, . (f/) Luke xi. 17.
Uu
( 338 )
numerous and fruitful their Lydia's may be, until, for
the honor of the sex, we can obtain some account of their
husbands, as he requires in the case of our converted
Lydia. I hope you now see that instead of laying ob-
structions in our way, by his laborious criticisms on
oikos, and oikiaj he has aided in proving, that a house-
hold, whether called by the one Greek name or the
other, ordinarily includes infants.
If I understand those who make a distinction between
oilcos and oilcia, they consider the first as comprehend-
ing the children of the householder, and the second as
including the rest of the family, particularly the servants.
These appear to consider the servants as excluded from
household baptism, because the New Testament says no-
thing of baptizing any person^'s oikia, but the oikos only.
As this position was taken by some Pedobaptists, Mr.
Anderson of England thought it, of course, his duty to
say the very contrary. He accordingly makes a great
display of learning to prove ^Hhat oikia signifies/«mz7y,
exclusive of attendants ;''' and ^Hhat oikos has the sense
oi family, including domestics.'' (f/) 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. Ander-
son also labours to prove that they are synonimous ; and
it does not lie in my way to dispute the matter with
them. Household circumcision was administered to the
infants of servants, as well as those of the master; be-
cause they were all to be trained up in the way they
should go: and, as for the difficulty suggested by the
circumcision of so many adults in Abraham's family, this
is removed by inspired testimony ; that they were al-
ready " trained \\[) 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. VViiliam Anderson," p. 30,
{c) Gen. xiv, 14,
( 339 )
with the sentiments expressed by the Synod of New-
York and Philadelphia, A. D., 1786, and by our Gene-
ral Assembly, in the year 1816. The Act of the former
reads thus: '* The following case of conscience from
^^ Donnegal Presbytery was overtured, viz. Whether
'^ Christian masters, or mistresses, ought in duty to have
" such children baptized, as are under their care,
''' though born of parents not in the communion of any
^^ Christian church ? Upon this overture Synod are of
^^ opinion, that Christian masters and mistresses whose
a 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 con-
'^ trary.'' The subsequent Act of our General Assem-
bly reads thus : '^ The Committee to whom was referred
^' the following question, viz. Ought baptism, on the
'^ profession and promise of the master, to be adminis-
'^ tered to the children of slaves? reported, and their
" report being amended, was adopted, and is as follows,
'^ viz. 1. That it is the duty of masters who are mem-
^^ hers of the church, to present the children of parents
'^ in servitude to the ordinance of baptism, provided
'' they are in a situation to train them up in the nurture
" and admonition of the Lord, thus securing to them the
'' rich advantages which the gospel provides. 2. That
'"■ it is the duty of Christ's ministers to inculcate this doc-
'^ trine, and to baptize all children of this description,
'' when presented to them by their masters. "(/) Our
church, then, has already agreed with my Opponent
and Mr. Anderson in believing that oikos, house or
household, includes servants. That it certainly includes
infants, we now proceed to prove, from the proposed
examination of itself and the words related to it, in the
following sections and particulars.
(/) Assembly's Dig<ist, pp. 96, 97.
( 340 )
I.
OIKIA.
This word has, in one instance at least, been the oc-
casion of much stumbling to Baptists and Pedobaptists.
This one instance is 1 Cor. xvi. 15, 16. ^^ I beseech
" you, brethren, (Ye know the iioUvSe 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 suchf and to every one
" that helpeth with us, and laboureth." On this pas-
sage an able writer of our own country, Dr. Rice, in his
Pamphleteer,(o) speaks as follows, viz. ^' I confess,
'^ however, that this passage, as it stands in the Original,
" presents difliculties in its grammatical strucfure,
''■ which I do not know well what to do with. I speak
'^ here not as a theologian or polemic, but simply as a
'' grammarian. And adopt what system of doctrine I
^' may, the difficulty presses on me : nor do I stand alone
''■ in this case. The harshness and difficulty of the Ori-
^^ ginal has embarrassed every commentator that I have
" seen. The best solution of the sentence that I have
" met with, is to be found in the pamphlet already
" quoted, under the title of Facts and Evidences on the
^^ subject of Baptism. ^^ Dr. Rice then gives a long ex-
tract from one of the able pamphlets of Taylor, the English
Editor of Calmet's Dictionary ; a part of which reads
as follows, viz. '^' The passage respecting the
^* household of Stephanas is a tissue of difficulties. The
" first remark on it is, that, as it stands, it is neither
" Greek, grammar, nor common sense. It cannot be re-
^^ gularly construed. All commentators have felt this,
*^' and have attempted to force it into sense by supple-
" mentary words." At last this eminent scholar con-
cludes that we should drop from the text all that part
of the 15th verse, which our Translators have enclosed
(c) p. 58.
( 341 )
in parenthesis, and that we should consider it as only
intended hy the Apostle as a marginal note ; but one
which was unskilfully introduced into the text too early
to leave any trace in our ancient manuscripts or versions.
This conjectural emendation, he thinks absolutely ne-
cessary, to preserve the passage from the absurdity, of
commanding the whole Corinthian church, and Stepha-
nas among them, to submit to his se?^vants, or, at best,
his children^ intended by household, as some think.
I confess myself utterly averse to taking such liberties
with the Original text, merely because it appears harsh,
ungrammatical, and hard to be understood. Would not
this plan, generally and uniformly pursued, make a new
bible? or, rather, would it not make bibles as numerous
and various as the tastes and understandings of critics
and commentators ? This would certainly make sad work
of our only infallible standard, not excepting that por-
tion of it which was written by Paul, the penman of the
text; in whose epistles, as Peter tells us, "are some
things hard to be understood."
I am inclined, however, to doubt, whether Peter would
attribute this character to our text. The difficulty, with
us, monstrous as it is said to be, appears to arise only from
a slight inadvertency in interpreting the reference of a
single word. The word such in the 16th verse, may be
understood to refer to one of two things in the 15th verse;
that is, either house or saints. If to the former, then
the passage is difficult: but if to the latter, it is easy
and consistent. This will appear, I think, when the
subject has received that patient investigation, which
our highly respectable objectors have given to other pas-
sages of scripture.
If the word such refer to the house of Stephanas,
then the Apostle seems to require, that as the household
or children of Stephanas had ministered to the saints,
therefore, the church of Corinth, and even Stephanas
himself, must submit to these children. This would
teach, that where a house of children' exercises a be-
nevolent ministrij, or deaconky, to Christians, they,
( 342 )
thereby, acquire a right to govern their parents, con-
trary to the Apostle's instructions to Timothy, that
Deacons should have a character for ^' ruling their
children and their own houses well ;"(o) instead of let-
ting their houses rule them. Instead of this ministration
to the saints giving a right to rule, the same Apostle, in
the next epistle, declares, that it is itself an evidence
of submission. '^ Whiles by the experiment of this
DEACONUY", ministration, they glorified God for your
professed hypotage, sub?nission, 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, sub?nit your-
" selves unto the elder: yea, all of you, hypotas-
'^ soMENOi, submit yourselves one to another ^[p) In
^^ accordance with this, Paul, the penman of our text,
says to the Ephesian saints, ^' Hypotassomenoi, sub-
" mitting, yourselves one to another, in the fear of
*^ God."((/) Let us now paraphrase the passage ac-
cording to this view, reading the translation given by
Macnight, and approved by my Opponent, and, (strange
to tell,) copied into his New Testament. It is as follows,
viz. '^ Ye know the family of Stephanas, that it is the
first fruit of Achaia, and that they have devoted them-
selves to the DEACONRY, mi?iist?y, to the saints. I en-
treat you, therefore, brethren, that ye hypotassesthe,
submit yourselves to such, [that is to the saints,] and
to every joint worker and labourer, [in the gospel,
especially.]"'
This interpretation has the advantages of containing
no monstrous sentiment, but a meaning which is per-
fectly scriptural ; it preserves the text from any need of
(c) 1 Tim. hi. 12. (/t) 1 Pet. v. 5. {q) Epli. v. 21.
( 343 )
jugulatlon; 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 themj as the household of Ste-
phanas had ministered to them, and thus submitted to
them ; and as all saints should submit to one another,
and serve one another. This should remove the diffi-
culty, on the part of the Pedobaptists.
But it was observed that the Baptists also stumble at
this passage : for they insist that it proves that the
oiKiA, household, of Stephanas, consisted of adults,
who officiated as deacons, or preachers, or both. Ad-
mitting, then, that oikos and oikia have the same mean-
ing, they consider this as proof that the baptized oikos,
household, of Stephanas, consisted of these same adults,
who officiated as deacons or preachers, or both. This
conclusion, however, must rest upon one of two posi-
tions, both equally false. One is, that there is no other
ministf^ation allowed in the Scriptures, besides an offi-
cial deaconry. But they might as well say that submis-
sion is always official, and that none but adults can yield
submission and obedience. It may be easily shewn from
Scripture that there are personal and pecuniary minis-
trations or deaconriesn which the saints may and do re-
ceive from children. When Jesus went to Bethany, it
is said, ^' There they made him a supper, and Martha
DEACONizED, servedP[o) Was hers an q^cz«/ 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, proba-
bly, few of us who are not in the habit of seeing such
ministrations from children, black and white, bond and
free. Again; Paul says, ^^But now I go unto Jerusalem,
to DEACONizE, minister, unto the saints. (/>) If this pe-
cuniary ministration was an official deaconry, then Paul
held the office of a deacon in the church, although this
(e) Jbo. xii. 2, (M Rom, xv, 25.
( 344 )
office was originally instituted for the relief of the Apos-
tles, whose office was entirely distinct. Dr. Gill, there-
fore, praises the Apostle's condescension, in submitting
to this inofficial ministration, *' though this might seem
'• below his office as an apostle, and as what more became
''• an inferior officer, a deacon in the church.'' But if
children may minister food to the saints, surely they may
minister money also. Let the collectors of the sabbati-
cal contributions in our churches say, whether children
never throw in their mite. Many of us are acquainted
with interesting anecdotes upon tbis subject ; and they
are becoming more common, as it is more common for
parents to teach their children to give their pocket mo-
ney to pious and benevolent objects, rather than for the
mere gratification of their palate. Thus the first posi-
tion of our opponents will not stand. And as for the se-
cond, that household always excludes infants, we hope to
shew that this is equally untenable. To this we now
more directly proceed.
The word oikia, now under consideration, often desig-
nates places or property. Such is thought to be the case,
when our Saviour, as reported by three of the Evangel-
ists,(_§*) censures the hypocritical Scribes and Pharisees,
for devouring widows' houses. Dr. Gill believes it to
mean the goods deposited in their houses. My Oppo-
nent's New Testament, however, in all three of these
places, renders it families ; ye '^ devour the families of
widows." Now if widows have infants, and these in-
fants belong to their families, then infants are included
in the word oikia, by the decision of my Opponent's
own incomparable translation of the New Testament.
Even where this word does signify property, it is apt to
be that sort which has infant tenants. The Septuagint
uses this word for those ^'^ tenls''^ in which the '^ plain
man" Jacob was said to dwell. (/z) We all know what
sort 0^ d. family Jacob had, to occupy these tents. This
(^) Matt, xxiii. 14. Mark xii. 40. Luke xx. 47.
(h) Gen. xxv. 27.
( 345 )
word is used in that text also, which says, "As for the
stork, the fir-trees are her housed Now we know that
the house or nest of birds is usually built for no other
end than the accommodation of their young. Indeed
Mr. Thomson, a favourite translator of my Opponent,
considers these directly intended in the text. His trans-
lation of the Septuagint says '* The family of the stork
account them their own.'' Akin to these texts is that one
which says, " But in a great house, there are not only-
vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth,
and some to honour, and some to dishonour.''(i) 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/'[h) 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 slialt
rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God
hath given unto thee, and unto thine house.^\l) Dr. Gill
explains it, "To them and their fa7niUcs, by which they
were comfortably provided for.'' Here the word is ap-
plied to every family in that miraculously fruitful na-
tion, and is used in connexion with that provision which
God made for the youngest infants in those families ;
with which the parents are said to rejoice, as the jailer
did with all his house. Jeremiah said to Zedekiah,
^^and thou shalt live, and thy house.'\m) Dr. Gill says,
"not only himself, but his wives and children and ser-
vants.'^ It appears, then, that oikia is used in the Greek
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to include
children and servants. The same thing appears more
glaring, if possible, in that passage in which Joseph says
to his brethren, "Fear not; I will nourish you and your
(n 2 Tim. ii. 20. {j) 1 Cor. iii. 1. (A") Heb. v. 13.
(/) Deut. xxvi. 11. (w) Jer. xxxviii. \7.
X X
( 346 )
oiKiAS, households y{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 puero-
RUM ET INFANTIUM, « collection Or multitude of child-
ren and infantsP The latter, with the Vulgate and
Treraellius, 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 onesJ^
The manner in which the word is used throughout the
Scriptures, proves this to be its real meaning, Robin-
son, after his fashion, would make them all young men
and women, as he does the " little ones^^ of Tertullian :
but Ezekiel expressly distinguishes these ^^ little child-
ren^^ as our translation has it, from old men and women,
from young men and maids. (/j) And the history prece-
ding our text, speaks of these little ones as nurslings
which need to be carried in waggons, with their mothers
and the aged Patriarch Jacob. Pharaoh says, " Take
you waggons out of the land of Egypt, for your little ones,
and for your wives, and bring your father, and come."
^^ And Jacob rose up from Beer-sheba ; and the sons of
Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones,
and their wives, in the waggons which Pharaoh had sent
to carry him. "(5') It is no wonder, therefore, that when
Joseph promises to nourish tliem and their oikias, Dr.
Gill should explain it, as he has done, in the following
words, \\%. *^ / 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 Septuagiiit uses oikia not as a general term
including infants, but as a particular and distinct desig-
nation of infa7iis. If, then, as Mr. Anderson and my
Opponent alledge, oikia and oikos are synonimous,
oiKos also must designate infants; and the household
baptism of the New Testament be infant baptism.
(n) Gen. 1. 21, (0) ^jD
ifi) Ez. jx, 6, (y) Gen, xlv. 19. xlvi 5,
( 347 )
ir.
PANOIKIA.
Taylor quotes from Apocryphal Greek, that Haman
was " hanged at the gates of Susa, sun te panoikia,
'^ with all his household f^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. "(0 This
decree was intended as an offset to a preceding one '^ to
^^ destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both
^^ young and old, little children and women. "(w) It must
be evident to every candid and intelligent person, that
it was Haman's intention to destroy every Jewish sub-
ject with his whole household, " z/ozm^ and old, little
children and women ;" that it was the intention of Mor-
decai and Esther to destroy every assailant, with his
'^ LITTLE ONES and women :'' in consequence of which
retaliation, thousands of infants actually perished, some of
whom most probably belonged to the nnmevons panoikia
of Haman.
III.
PAROIKIA.
" Now these are the names of the children of Israel,
which came into Egypt ; every man and his household
came with Jacob. ''(z;) For household here the Septua-
agint reads PAROiKiA.(zt>) Dr. Gill considers it as em-
bracing ^' their families, wives, children, and servants."
After the armed adventurers of the tribe of Dan had se-
cured Micah's priest, it is said " They turned and de-
(?) Apocryphal Esther xvi. 18. (Gr. 12. ) in Bap. Self-convict, p. 45.
\t) Esther viii. 11. (ji) 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 edi-
tion, both weighty, vtdA jiaroikia.
( 348 )
parted, and put the little ones and the cattle and the
carriage before them.''(^) 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,!?/)
and is an exact accordance with the parvulos of the
Latin Vulgate, of Junius and Tremellius, ofTrommius,
and of Sebastian Castallio. The Vatican Septuagint has
TA TEKNE, children^ a good rendering, though a bad
reading. Grab has a better reading, panoikia ; and
best of all, the Aldine Septuagint reads paroikia. This
reading is reported by Calasio, in the margin of his He-
brev^ Concordance, and found in the text of the Franc-
fort Septuagint, used by Kircher and Trommius in their
Concordances to the Septuagint. Here then, is an in-
stance in which this ancient version uses paroikia, not
as a general term including infants, but as a particular
and distinct designation of infants. The conclusion to
which analogy would lead us is obvious.
IV.
PASA PAROIKIA or PANOIKIA.
The first is the reading of the Francfort edition, and
the second of the Vatican and others, in Gen. 1. 22. *^And
'^ Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he and his brethren, and all
'' his father's numerous houstholdP Dr. Gill says,
" Not only he but his brethren and \\\^\v families P The
preceding verse shews that these families were composed,
in great part, of ^' little ones," there called oihia. These
infants, then, must, of course, be included in pasa pa-
noikiay which appears intended to magnify oikia doubly.
V.
OIKOS.
Like oihia this sometimes signifies property, bona,
FACULTATES, as Hcdcricus explains it. The Lord said
(.r) Judg. xviii. 21. (y)
^C
( 349 )
to David, ^' I gave thee thy Master's honse.^\z) Gill
says " his family, his wives, servants, wealth and rich-
*^ es." Solomon says, '^ If a man would give all the
'^ substance of his house for love, it would utterly be
^^ contemned. '''(«) So the thief '^ shall give all the
*^ substance of his hoiise.'\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, Jo-
seph 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 Jo-
seph gave to his brethren, he gave orders '^to the ruler
^' of his house.^^ Gill says, ^' his steward;'' and so Mo-
ses calls him in the context.(/) The steward of the
house was to take care of the property which was in the
house. But when this word denotes the building itself,
and still more when it is applied to persons, it illustrates
and confirms the doctrine that household baptism is in-
fant baptism, as we shall see in the following particu-
lars.
1. The Material ov 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 ;(/i) the king's Ao^^^e, and houses of the
people, which the Chaldeans burned with fire.(z) They
burnt moreover the house of the Lord, which was a
figure of the church, with all its members, infant and
adult. ry) 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.
{b) Prov. vi. 31 (c) 2 Chr. xxi. 17.
\d) Gen. xli. 40 — 4. So Gen, xlv. 8. and Acts vii, 10.
(f) Gen. xxxix. 8.
(/) Gen. xliii. 16. 19. So Gen. xxxix. 4. 5. Ps. cv. 21.
{g) Luke i. 40. 56, {h) Luke xii. 39.
(z) Jer. xxxix. 8. (y ) Jer. lii, 13.
{k) Luke x\ 51. (0 Matt, xxiii. 38.
( 330 )
" temple, formerly the house of God, but now only
*' theirs." With the burning of this house, Ezekiel
expressly connects the slaying of their sons and daugh-
ters ;(m) and the Septuagint considered Ezra as impli-
citly recognizing this connexion, when he calls it '^ The
^^ house of the great God, which is builded with elect
^^stones,"(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. (oj In this they are copied by the Apos-
tle 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 Con-
fession, (g') As almost all errorists believe in the univer-
sal election of infants, both sides should agree that they
belong to this house.
2. The Spiritual House. Paul says of Christ, that
he is a faithful ruler ^^a son over his own house;
*^ whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and
** the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end."(r) The
angel said to Mary, " He shall reign over the house of
*^ Jacob forever."(5) Dr. Gill says, ^^ As his father
'^ David reigned over the Idumeans, Syrians, and others,
^'^ as well as over the house of Judah, and Israel, so this
^' his son shall reign over both Jews and Gentiles : his
<^ kingdom shall be from one end of the earth to the
^^ other, even over all the elect of God." Now if
there are infants to be found among ^» Jews and Gen-
*' tiles ;" if there are infants to be found ^^ from one
{m) Ez.xxiii. 47. («) Ezr. r. 8.
{o) Isa. xxviii. 16. (A) 1 Pet. ii. 5. 6.
(7) Chap. 10. Sect. 3. (r) Hebr. iii. 6. (s) Luke i. 33.
( 351 )
*' end of the earth to the other ;" and if there are in-
fants to be found among " all the elect of God ;" then,
according to this commentary of the great Dr. Gill, in-
fants must be included in that '^ house of Jacob/' over
which Christ shall reign for ever. The fact that every
converted adult becomes a spiritual infant in regenera-
tion, will be found, on examination, to be more for us
than against us. In relation to this spiritual birth, the
scriptures speak as follows. " Sing, 0 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
farailies,(M) 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 J'^ Paul had to
speak to the Corinthians, '^ even as unto babes in
** Christ. "(f) To the Hebrews he said, "For every
^^ one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of right-
'^ eousness, for he is a babe."(t<;) Concerning the ex-
cellent woman, Solomon says, *^ She riseth also while it
is yet night; and giveth meat to h^v household, and a
portion to her maidens. ''(^) Dr. Gill says that "spirit-
" ually may be meant by her household or family, the
" same with the family of Christ, that is named of him-
^^ self, which consists of various persons, fathers, young
" men and children." As to the maidens, the ministers,
these are to distribute '' milk indeed to babes, and meat
" to strong men." Of this same woman, Solomon says,
" She is not afraid of the snow for her household ; for
^^ all her household are clothed with scarlet.'*(y) Gill
(/) Isa. liv. 1. Comp. Gal. iv. 26, 27.
(«) Ps. Ixviii. 6. (-u) 1 Cor. iii. 1.
(7y) Hebr. v. 13. (jc) Prov. xxxi. 15.
(i/) Prov. xxxi. 21.
( 352 )
admits that this passage has a literal meaning, and that
of course, literal infants are included in this woman's
household : but when he spiritualizes it, and considers
the scarlet clothing as pointing to Christ's blood, does
he mean that no literal infants have the benefit of this
crimson covering? Certainly not. Then, as I said before,
the fact that adults become spiritual infants by regenera-
tion, by no means refutes the doctrine that there are
literal infants in the spiritual household, but rather es-
tablishes it. When Peter says, ^* Ye also, as lively
" stones, are built up a spiritual house,'^\z) Gill says
that these lively stones *' lie in the same quarry, and
^' are the same by nature, as the rest of mankind, till
" dug out and separated from thence, by the powerful
^^ and efficacious grace of God." Now I would ask,
are there no literal infants in nature's quarry? and are
there no literal infants which are " dug out from thence
" by the powerful and efficacious grace of God ?" You
will answer, Yes. Then there are literal infants belong-
ing to the spiritual house. But the Doctor believes
that there is a spiritual house of Antichrist as well as
of Christ. When Solomon says, ^' The Lord will de-
" stroy the house of the proud, "(«) Gill understands
it generally, as including all proud persons, " their/am-
^^ Hies, their children, 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 bap-
tism is really infant baptism : although we should be
very far from following the Roman Antichrist in their
corruptions of this ordinance.
(z) 1 Pet. ii. 5. (a) Prov. xv. 25.
( 353 )
3. The Ecclesiastical House. Several texts quoted
on the spiritual house, are instances which apply, prima-
rily and literally, to the do?7iestic 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 Targuni.^'
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 wovd. house-
hold. '"' Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the
household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of
the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner stone.'\b) Here the Jewish and Chris-
tian societies are considered as one household, built upon
a common foundation, and united by a common corner.
But it is certain that household circumcision was in-
fant circumcision; and if the Jewish household in-
cluded infants, why not the Christian household ? It
is said moreover, that *' Moses verily was ftiithful in all
^* his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those ihings
*^ 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
(A) Eph. ii. 19—52,
( 354 )
*' church of Gody^^ even " in the house of Israel, or
'^ among that people which were the Lor cV s family '\c)
Whether the ^' Lordh family,''^ as it existed in the
^^ house of IsraeV had infants or not, judge ye. It is
undeniable that infants did belong to the Jewish ecclesi-
astical house. But PauFs words which immediately
follow those just now quoted, prove the identity of the
Jewish and the Christian ecclesiastical house: ^^ But
^^ Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house are
^^ we.''{d) In the preceding verse, Dr. Gill could see
plainly that an ecclesiastical house was meant : His com-
mentary would have been more correct and perspicuous,
if he had told us the same of this last verse, which be-
longs to the same sentence; especially when the same
Apostle tells a Christian minister how to behave himself
^* in the house of God, which is the church of the living
^^ God. ''(<?) But there is reason to suppose that the Doc-
tor meant a church, when he spoke of a spiritual house,
as he does in his exposition of Peter's '' spiritual house,^'
where he says, ^^ These living stones, being laid and ce-
*^ mented together, in a gospel church-state, become
*' the house of God in a spiritual sense. "'(/) In con-
formity with these views, the ecclesiastical house to
which I belong, considers itself a spiritual house built
upon a spiritual foundation. In speaking of the judica-
tories of the church, our Constitution says, ^^ These as-
^' semblies ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction,
*^ nor to inflict any civil penalties. Their power is
*^ wholly moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial
^* and declarative. ''(o-) Accordingly they say, " There
^^ is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus
'^ Christ :"CA) even he of whom it is said, '^' The stone
'*' which the builders refused, is become the head stone
" of the corner."(/) Gill tells us that those rejectors
(f) Gill on Htr'br. iii. 5. and Num. :<ii. 7.
(d) Hebr. iii. 6. (f ) 1 Tim. iii. 15.
(/) Gill on 1 Pet. ii. 5.
(e-) Form of Gov. Ch.ip. 8. Sect. 2.
(/;) Confess, of Faith. Chap. 25. Sect. 6.
(») Ps. cxviii. 22.
( 355 )
are '^ those who were the support of their civil state,
^* and the maintainers of it ; but more especially their
" ecclesiastical huiklersP " They refused to make use
^^ of him in the spiritual building." This spiritual ec-
clesiastical house in which the Jews refused to use this
head corner stone, had infants, beyond all contradiction;
and one instance in which they rejected him from their
building, was, when '^ All the people answered and
^^said. His blood be on us and on our '^childrenJ\j) Dr.
Gill says, " It is a notion of the Jews, that the guilt of
^ innocent blood, and the blood of that innocent man's
* children, lie not only upon the persons immediately
^ concerned but upon their children to the end of the
^ world." ^* This imprecation of theirs has been no-
* toriously verified in them.'* ^^ On the generality of
' them his blood was, in the sense they wished it."
^ And to this day this dreadful wish of the blood of
^ Christ upon them is to be seen in their miserable, ab-
^ ject and captive state ; and will be, until such time
' as they look to him whom they have pierced and
' mourn. '^ This appears to be contemplated by that
prediction that ^' Judgment must begin at the house of
'^ God. ''(-4) When this judgment did begin, the in-
fants of this house of God were in some cases actually
eaten by their own mothers, as we are informed both by
scripture prophecy and the history of Josephus. But
before this just and dreadful judgment against the Old
Testament ecclesiastical house, with its adults and in-
fants, Christ came " unto the lost sheep of the house of
'^ 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 i'\n) for even in the New Testament
dispensation, ^^ the promise is unto you and to your
" children."
{j ) Matt, xxvii. 25. {k) 1 Pet. iv. 17.
(/) Matt. XV. 24. (w) Hebr. x. 21.
\ri) Luke i. 33,
( 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. (j&) There must certainly
be infants there. Whether Job referred to this happy
rest or not, we know that our Saviour did, in a passage
where the evangelist uses a word, which my Opponent
says differs from oikos, no more than hrothtrs differs
from brethren. He says, ^' In my Father's oikia, house,
^^ are many mansions. "(<7) 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 ad-
duced under this particular, can hardly be understood
without the doctrine of imputation, it will be well to re-
member a few plain authorities in support of this im-
portant scriptural truth. Concerning the wicked. Job
says, '' God layeth up his iniquity for his children. "(5)
Dr. Gill says, '^ God does not punish them [the wicked]
^' now for their sins in their own persons, yet he will
^' punish them in their children, for whom he reserves
'^ the punishment of their iniquity." '' And when they
'' have filled up the measure of their fathers' sfns, 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 ;'Y0 that is, ^' the punishment of their
'•^idolatries," as Dr. Gill says ; for, says he, '^ It was
*' on account of them, their children wandered so long
" in the wilderness." Jeremiah, in speaking for his peo-
ple, says, " Our fiithers have sinned, and are not, and
'^ we have borne their iniquities ;"(i^j that is, according
to Dr. Gill, *' the punishment of them, or chastisement
(0) Job xvii. 13. {{i) Job xix. 25. {(f) Jno. xiv. 2.
(r) 2 Cor. v. 1. («) Job xxi. 19. {J) Num. xiv. 32, 33.
(«) Lam. V. 7.
( :i57 )
" for them : this is not said by way of complaint, much
*^ less as charging God with injustice, in punishing them
^* for their ftithers' sins, or to excuse theirs, for they
'^ were ready to own that they had consented to them,
" and were guilty of the same; but to obtain mercy and
" pity at the hands of God/' How different this lan-
guage of the great and pious Baptist Commentator, from
that of the impious and Deistical Robinson, my Oppo-
nent's master : and, at present, the darling of the Bap-
tist church! ! The same doctrine is plainly taught in the
following passages. *' Prepare slaughter for his chil-
*^ dren for the iniquity of their fathers ; that they do
^^ not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the
^^ world with cities. "(y) Millions of infants thus perish-
ed in " the nations whom the Lord destroyed before the
" children of Israel ;'^{iv) and afterward in the Jewish
nation itself, concerning which, Christ said, " All these
^* things shall come upon this generation. ''(:r) The same
is true of Babylon, which, in one place, Jeremiah calls
" that nation,^^{y) in another, " the daughter of Baby-
" Ion \'^(z) in which latter place the Septuagint uses
oiKOS, hoiisej, for daughter. That all these national
houses are full of infants cannot be denied. It is re-
markable that the Septuagint often puts the word house
for children, and children for house. Thus, when the
Original reads '^ 0 children of Israel !" the Septuagint
reads '^ 0 house of Israel !"(a) When the Original con-
demns Mount Sier for slaughtering ^'^ the children of Is-
rael,^' the Septuagint has it " the house of Israel :"(Z') in
which national house, infants are certainly included ; as
in many other instances of a similar description ; in one
of which, while the Septuagint has oikos, house, other
Greek translators, Tas Trommius shews,) use iiuioi, chil-
dren ,'(c) thus shewing, that house and children were in-
terchangeable terms. This is farther confirmed from the
(xi) Isa. xiv. 21. (w) 2 Kings xxi. 9, {x) Matt xxiii. 36.
{ij) Jer. XXV. 12. (r) Jer. li. 33. (a) Am. iii. 1.
(A) Ez. XXXV. 5. (c) Ez. ii 3. For other cases alledged, see Ez.
xxxvii. 21. Jer. xxiii. 7. xvi. 14. Ez. xliv. 9. xxxvii. 21.
( 358 )
other fact just mentioned ; that where house is in the
Original, the word children is often found in the Sep-
tuagint. When Ezekiel distributes his two sticks to
the two nations into which the twelve tribes had
been long divided, he assigns one to " all the house
of Israel," or to the ^' children" of Israel,(d') accord-
ing 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
v>^hich 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, ovpanoiki, and whether the children of tliis house
be mere itifants, 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 childreyi 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. 'Y^) He
may well be amazed at the whole transaction ; since it
not only proves, that through Lydia's faith, she and her
household was baptized, but gives us reason to believe^
that the joy of the jailer's household, was just that sort
of happiness which must have been diffused through the
household of Lydia, and is generally communicated to
{d) Ez. xxxvii. 16. (e) Joshua xxi. 45. Lev. xvii. ?. xxii. 18.
2 Sum. vi. 5. Jer. ii. 26. Ez. iii. 1. xii. 24. iv. 3.
(/) Acts xvi. 15. 32. oA. {g) Spurious Debate withmc, p. 2iS.
( 359 )
the liousehold of a pious Pedobaptlst, through the faith
of the head, and the covenant blessings of the baptized
members.
6. The Sectional House. As the whole nation was
called a house, so was each section or tribe. To decide
the dispute concerning Aaron's priesthood, the Lord
commanded Moses to *' Speak unto the children of Israel,
" and take of every one of them a rod, according to the
'^ house of their fathers, of all their princes, according
*^ to the house of their fathers, twelve rods.''(^) These
twelve rods were for the twelve tribes or twelve section-
al houses into which the national house of Israel was
distributed. That each of these houses had a great pro-
portion of infants, will not probably be disputed ; espe-
cially as we can give an authentic account of their twelve
fathers, which my Opponent thinks so important in the
case of Lydia? In this sense oikos occurs in the Septu-
agint as often as fifteen times in one Chapter. In one
of these places, God says, " Take ye the sum of all the
^' congregation of the children of Israel, after their fami-
^^ lies, by the house of their fathers. "(z) Gill says, ^',Af^
" ter their families ; into which their tribes were divi-
*' ded : by the house of their fathers; for if the mother
^^ was of one tribe, and the father of another, the family
^^ was according to the tribe of the father, as Jarchi
^^ notes, a mother's family being never called a family,
^' as Aben Ezra observes." Out of these sectional houses
Moses made a selection of such as were over twenty
years and not superannuated, nor otherwise unfit for war.
The selection shews that the million of children from
whom they were drafted,, belonged to the houses as well
as themselves. This passage my Opponent has treated
in the following artful manner, viz. " This same oikos
'^ occurs 14 times in the first chapter of Numbers, and
^^ includes under 12 occurrences, 603,550 adults from
'^ 20 years and upwards.'^!;) This sweeping declara-
tion was made in such a way as to strike your minds with
(A) Num. xvii. 2. 3. (0 Num, i. 2.
(j) Spurious Debate with rrip, p. 2S2, Note.
( 360 )
the impression that these twelve houses were composed
of adults only, and that the including, of which he
speaks, referred to the sum of the twelve particulars,
each of which consisted of male adults exclusively . If
so, it would be a far more brilliant case than the house
of Noah, which consisted of eight adults without one in-
fant; and far more impressive than the family of Christ,
which consisted of more than eight disciples, without
one female communicant. But on examination, it turns
out far otherwise* Instead of these warriors constituting
the tribe, family, and house of their fathers, they were,
as Dr. Gill says, only ^' all in every tribe, family, and
^^ house, that were above 20 years of age, healthful and
" strong, and fit for war." In this respect, they resem-
bled the twelve princes who drafted them. Instead of
their composing the house themselves as Noah's adults
did, it seems, according to Moses, that ^'each one was
FOR the house of his fathers;" as Dr. Gill says, "for
" the tribe he belonged to, with w^hich it might reason -
^^ ably be supposed he was best acquainted, and could
" more readily take the number of them. "(A) At a sub •
sequent period of the Jewish history it is said that Na-
shon was a "Prince of the oikos of Judah."(/) Now
it may be asked, were there any infants in this oihos ?
and did or did they not owe allegiance to Nashon as
members of the oikos over w hich 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 \t.{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
{k) Gill on Num. i. 44. 45. (/) 1 Chr. ii. 10,
(w) See .Tosluia xvii. 17". xviii. 5. F.z. xxv. 12. Hos. i. 7.
( 361 )
^^ his house/\n) but demanded that seven of that house
should be executed by way of retaliation. Five of the
seven were Saul's grandchildren, the sons of his daugh-
ter Michal, by Barzillai. Concerning the royal son of
Nebat, God says, " I will bring evil upon the house of
Jeroboam/' " and will take away the remnant of the
^' house of Jeroboam." In this hoi^se there was a child,
concerning which it is said, '^ All Israel shall mourn for
" him and bury him ; for he only of Jeroboam shall
^^ come to the grave, because in him there is found some
*^ good thing, towards the Lord God of Israel in the
^^ house of Jeroboam. "(o) When God said to David,
" The sword shall never depart from thy house,'^ "^ I
^^ will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house,'^
he says, " the child also that is born unto thee shall
" surely die :"(p) leaving us to conclude that this child
belonged to his house, as the child of Jeroboam belonged
to his house. When God said by the Prophet Amos,
^' I will rise against the house of Jeroboam, "(^j Gill con-
siders it to mean '^ the family of Jeroboam.'' When it
is said that Zimri ^^slew all the house of Baasha,"('rJ
Gill says that it means '^ his whole /amz'/y, all the child-
" ren that he had;" and ^^ not only his posterity/, but
all any way related to him." Were there no infants re-
lated to him ? When it is said that " Jehu was executing
'' judgment upon the house of Ahab,'^^^ 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 housc'^t) this
house prominently contemplated an infant yet to be
born. The very next verse says, ^^ I will set up thy
" seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bow-
^^ els, and I will establish his kingdom." From the first
of these verses, Gill understands that God will " not only
(n) 2 Sam. xxi. 1. 4. (o) 1 King^xiv. 10. 13. Comp. xv. 29.
Ifi) 2 Sam. xii. 10. 11. 14 (<?) Am. vii. 9.
(r) 1 Kgs. xvi. 11. 12. (■■5) 2Chr. xxii. 8.
(/) 2Snm. vii. 11. Comp. 12— IC.
Z Z
( 362 )
^' build up his family/ and make that nwnero7/s<, [by
" giving him many infants, of course,] but establish the
^' house of his kingdom.'' The next he says " has re-
*' gard to a future son of his not yet born ; not Absa-
" lorn 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 7^oyal
house. There is incontrovertible evidence at hand
that he belonged to his father's .ro?/«/ house the moment
that he was born. This evidence is contained in a pro-
phecy concerning one of his royal successors : viz.
*^ Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of Da-
*'^ vid, Josiah by name. "(2/) But these prophecies con-
template ultimately that King who is the Root and off-
spring of David, whom Dr. Gill considers as introduced
into the house of David from the moment of his concep-
tion. The rapturous song of Zacharias tells us that
God ^^ hath raised up an horn of salvation for us, in the
" house of his servant David. "(?;) Gill says, ^^ In Da-
*^ vid's family, he being now conceived by a virgin of
*^ his house, and who, in a little time, would be born in
^' Bethlehem the city of David." There is no need,
therefore, to go in search of Lydia's husband, or of the
jailer's wife, in order to tell what sort of houses they
were, which were baptized upon the faith of the pa-
rents.
8. The Pontifical or Sacerdotal House. Eli? the
High Priest, of the house of Ithamar, was addressed
as follows ; ^'^ Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith,
" I said indeed that thy house and the house of thy fa-
'^ ther should walk before me forever: but now the
'^ Lord saith, Be it far from me ; for them that honour
*' me I will honour, and they that despise me, shall be
{u) 1 Kgs. xiii. 2. To this add 1 Chr. xvii. 25. 2 Sam. vii. 27. 1 Kgs.
xi. 38.
(7') Lnkci. 69.
( 363 )
' lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come that I will
' cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's houHe,
' and there shall not be an old man in thine house. And
' thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the
^ wealth which God shall give Israel : and there shall
' not be an old man in thine house forever. And the
^ man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine
^ altar, shall be to consume thine eyes and to grieve
' thine heart : and all the increase of thine house shall
^ die in the flower of their age." (or " die men,'') as
the Margin reads. (i^'j Here is a numerous house with-
out one old man. As to these young men, the question
is, were they in the flower of their age, when they first
became the inci^ease of Eli's house ? If so, they were
the only instance of the kind since the days of Adam.
Instead of '^ thine arin 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 Commen-
tary agrees : for he says that his arm means ^^ his child-
^"^ ren, which are the strength of a man, and the sup-
^* port 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 mourn-
ing of despair, it would have no more proved him an
adult, than the fact that the jailer's house participated
in his joy of faith, proves them to be adults. Rachel's
new born son did actually participate in his mother's an-
guish, when she called his name Benoni, the son of my
sorrow ; and it was perfectly consistent with the lan-
(«) 1 Sam. ii. 30—33. (x) Gen. xlix. 3.
( 364 )
guage of the scriptures for his first smile to be constru-
ed into a participation of his father's joy, when he call-
ed his name Benjamin, the son of my right hand.
9. The Patriarchal House. In accounting for Da-
niel's calling Evilmerodach, the son of Nebuchadnezzar,
when he was really his grandson, Prideaux remarks
that ^^This is to be understood in the large sense, where-
'' in any ancestor upward is often called father, and any
'* descendant downward, son, according to the usual
'' style of Scripture." This extensive range of family-
ascent and family-descent is sometimes comprehended in
the patriarchal house. Pindar, in an address to Xeno-
phon, calls him, and his father, and grandfather, " the
(oiKOS,) house, thrice victor in the Olympic games. "(y)
Taylor has shewn that Paul once uses oikos for family-
ascent. ^^If any widow have children or grandchildren,
[as my Opponent justly renders it,] let them learn first
to shew piety to their own oikos, house, and to requite
ihew progenitors f\z) which are their own house. It
more generally means hsci^^- descent. Lycophron calls
the adulterer, ^^oikophthoron,« 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 cor-
rupted by the introduction of illegitimate infants : for, as
Taylor, (from whom these cases are borrowed,) observes,
the adulterer is ^^ not merely the seducer of wives, but
*^ the corrupter of the blood, of the family -descent, by
" introducing a spurious brood. "(«) This is a promi-
nent feature in the definitions of a house, v.hich the ?ame
author has given us from Aristotle and Cicero. The for-
mer says, ^' A house is a society connected together ac-
*'^ cording to the course of nature, for long continu-
" ance.^\l)) 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) 2d edition of Taylor's Facts and FA'idences, p. 33.
(:) 1 Tim. v. 4. {a) Taylor's 2d Kd. of Facts & F.vid. p. 3".
{b) Facts and Evid. 1st Kd. p. 131.
( 365 )
the New Testament recognizes in the house divided
against itself, the daughter-in-law against her mother- in-
law.(c) There is also a very express scriptural recog-
nition of Aristotle's idea of long continuance, in one of
David's prayers. '''Therefore now let it please thee to
** bless the house of thy servant, that it may continue for
'^ ever before thee : for thou, 0 Lord God, hast spoken
'^ it, and with thy blessing let the house of thy servant
" be blessed for ever."(5) The long continuance of
David's house is implied even in the threat, '^ Now,
therefore, the sword shall never depart from thy
*houseP{e) Dr. Gill says that this was fulfilled in the
slaughter of ^^ his posterity, through their wars with the
children of Israel and other nations.'' It has already
been shewn, under a former particular, that his posterity
numbered many infants which were devoured by the
sword. These infants, then, belonged to his house. Ac-
cording to this plan, of visiting the iniquities of the fa-
thers upon the children, to the third and fourth genera-
tion of them that hate him,(/) he punished the posterity
of polluted Ham, in the line of Canaan. (^) Not only so,
but with the pious patriarchs, God blessed their houses
also; as may be seen in ''the house of Jacob, which
came into Egypt."(A) This house consisted of seventy
souls, including many infants. To his father, Joseph
says, " There will I nourish thee, (for yet there are five
years of famine,) lest thou, and thy household, and all
that thou hast, come to poverty. "(z) Here the Septua-
gint does not use the word oikos, but other Greek Trans-
lators do, as Trommius informs us, and Gill informs us
that his hoxisehold here means " his whole posterity ;''
which certainly embraces infants. Upwards of seventy
years after this, the Patriarch Ephraim, the son of Jo-
seph, lost a son and three grandsons by the sword of cer-
tain plunderers from Gath; subsequent to which mourn-
ful loss, his wife " bare a son, and he called his name
(c) Facts and E\ id. 2nd Ed. p. 34.
Xd) 2 Sam. vii. 29. (c ) 2 Sam. xii. 10.
( /■) Ex. XX. 5. (5-) Gen. ix. 22 — 25.
(A) Gen. xlvi. 27. 31. (t) 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. "(A') But Christ was said to be " in the house
of his servant David, "(/) before he was born ; " He
being now conceived by a virgin of his house/' as Dr.
Gill observes.
10. The Domestic House. Here we find the house-
holds of Lydia and the jailer, which have been the in--
nocent occasion of so much dispute. Along with these,
Dr. Gill reckons the house of Zaccheus, concerning
which our Saviour says, '^ This day is salvation come
to this house :^\m) [that is, *^ to the inhabitants of
this house f^ as Dr. Gill informs us the Arabic Version
renders it.] On this passage the Dr. says, *^ Some-
*^ times the Lord takes one of a city, and two of a fami-
*My ; 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, (^2) who believe him to be the
jailer, removed from Philippi to Corinth ; or whether,
on the other hand, we gain Fortunatus and Achaicus,
upon the authority of some Greek manuscripts and the
Vulgate, which associate these names and their houses
with *' the house of Stephanas," as the Apostle's " first
fruits of Achaia."(o) In the same church, the Apostle
baptized Crispus and Gaius,(/)) without telling us whe-
ther they baptized their households, or whether they
had any or not. With respect to Crispus the defect is
made up by another writer, who informs us that he had
a large household.{q) But even then it is not mentioned
(7) iChr. vii. 23. (c. 21. 22.)
{Jc) Luke ii. 4. The same may be said of Mary- Luke i. 27.
(/) Luke i. 69. (m) Luke xix. 9.
(ji) Asserted by Dr. Gill on 1 Coi-. i. 16.
(0) 1 Cor. xvi. 15. &: Gill there. (/j) 1 Cor. i. 14.
{q) Acts xviii. 8,
( 367 )
that the household was baptized. Of this, however,
there can be no doubt, since there is the same reason for
baptizing his house that there is for baptizing the jailer's;
and the baptism of " many of the Corinthians'' is men-
tioned in the very same sentence. There is reason to
believe that these ^^ Many" were composed of whole
houses and separate individuals; and that this was not
applicable to Corinth only, but that this gospel ordinance
followed the gospel itself, which, as Clemens Alexan-
drinus says, '^ Spread itself over the whole world, con-
^^ verting equally Greeks and Barbarians, in every nation
^* and village, and in all cities, whole houses and sepa-
** rate individuals. "(r)
To prove that the Apostles practised household bap-
tism, it is not necessary to find a multiplicity of instances
in scripture. If many cases of household baptism be ne-
cessary to prove apostolical practice, then many cases of
female communion are as necessary to prove apostolical
practice. But if such evidence be requisite, we shall
not only have to relinquish female communion, as an
apostolical practice, but we must give up even male
communion also, since there are not as many recorded
cases of male communion as there are of household bap-
tism.
Neither is it necessary to have a minute detail of
names and ages in a household, to ascertain the presence
of infants, since this is implied in the very word itself.
On this subject my Opponent reasons as follows, viz.
'* So long as the word family^ which you say is the mean-
" ing of oiKOS, frequently denotes all that live under
"one father, mother, master, or mistress, whether in-
*' fants or adults, so long it remains to be deterniined,
'^ from the circumstances of the case, who are the con-
** stituents or members of the family ; and thus after aU
** your boasted discovery, you have to confess your-
*^ selves to be just where you were; unable to prove
^^ that there was an infant in any house, oikia, qv family
(/■) Taylor's 2nd Edit. p. 116.
( 3G8 )
'^ that was baptized. 'Y*) '^he 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 ov family is baptized, we are to
understand that there are no infants in it, unless there
is additional proof of this fact! ! But if a house em-
brace adults and infants alike, why is additional proof
required for one, and not for the other ? To be consistent,
he ought to reason as follows ; A house or family in-
cludes adults and infants : Therefore, when we are told,
even by infallible testimony, that a house or family is
baptized, this is no proof that there was a baptism of
either adults or infants, unless there is additional evi-
dence of one or the other, or both ! ! So in relation to
the other ordinance. The word disciples embraces
males and females ; Therefore, when we are told that
disciples communed, we are not to understand that fe-
males communed, or males either, without additional
evidence ! !
To shew the absurdity of this, let us see how it will
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, ^0^000 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."(i!')
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
{s) Spurious Deb. with me. p. 282. Note,
{t) Missionary HenUd, \dl. 19. p. 392.
( 369 ) .
70^000 houses ; reckoning "^ ten persons, great andsmall^
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 ray Opponent
demands, are found here, in the Christianizing of Jews^
who are accustomed to introducing infants into the
church. Yet these circumstances were found in the
house ho ld-haL]}t\sm of the New Testament, which, as
we have shewn, was taken from the house ho Id- circumci-
sion of the Jews.
When Dr. Judson found the jails of modern Asia fur-
nished with tanks of water, he gave it instead of proof
that the jailer of ancient Europe was immersed. It
would be much more reasonable for him to have said
that as the modern Asiatics ^' reckon ten persons, great
^' and small, to a house/'' therefore the baptized houses
of the ancient Asiatics included infants.
We do not, however, depend upon modern usage, for
the doctrine that a household includes infants. This
appears to have been the general understanding, at least
as far back as the time of Boaz, the great-grand- father
of David. When this pious man called upon his coun-
trymen to attest his marriage with Ruth, ^^ All the peo-
'^" pie that were in the gate, and the elders, said. We
^' are witnesses. The Lord make the woman that is
^' come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah,
*" which two did build the house of Israel ; and do thou
^^ worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Beth-lehem :
^* and let thy house be as the house of Pharez, whom
*^ Tamar bare unto Judah, of the seed which the Lord
" shall give thee of this young woman. So Boaz took
•"^ 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
(m) Ruth iv. 11— i:
3 A
( 370 )
by the accession of numerous infants. Of what materials
did these friends and witnesses wish the house of Boaz
builtj that it might resemble that of Pharez ? ^' Of the
seed, [the infant offspring,] which the Lord shall give
thee of this young woman." And how was his house
built in fact? " She bare a son." And^ as Taylor has
already reminded us, this passage shews, that the mean-
ing here attached to the word house, was familiar to ^^ all
the people that were in the gate, and the elders." To
consider the word house, as embracing infants, was then
common to civil courts and ordinary conversation: and
from the manner in which they refer to their ancestors,
they evidently considered this the meaning attached to
the word, by the earliest patriarchs, and in the very first
book of Moses. To this very passage of Ruth, Dr. Gill
refers, in illustration of our Marginal rendering of Gen.
xvi. 2, where Sarai, after giving her handmaid to Abram,
says, ^' It may be that I may be builded by her." On
this text the Doctor says, " For women, by bearing chil-
" dren, hdld up an house, see Ruth iv. 1 1, hence a
'^ son, in Hebrew, is called ben, from banah, to build.^^
Other passages of scripture giving it the same signifi-
cation, are numerous. '^' God setteth the solitary in a
house ;^\v) that is, in a family of children. '^ He maketh
the barren woman to dwell in an house, and to be a joy-
ful mother of childrenP{w) As Achan and his family
perished together ;{x) and as the sons of Zedekiah were
slain before his eyes \[y) so it is said of Korah and his
company, *' And the earth opened her mouth, and swal-
lowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that
pertained unto Korah, and all their goods. "(£;) 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
(r) Ps. Ixviii. 6. Hebr. LXX. & Ene. Mare-.
(71-) Ps. cxiii. 9. Hbr. LXX. & Eng. Marg "
{x) Joih. vii. 24. (y) Jev. xxxix. 6. {z) Num. xvi. 32. (comp. 27.')
( 371 )
Tremellius render it. Dr. Gill thinks it possible that
houses here may mean tents. Not so the Septiiagint :
for, in the immediately preceding context, they inter-
polate oiKOUs and skenas, houses and tents. [a] There
is an instance now before me, in which both these words
include the family. ^^ And thou shalt know that thy
tabernacle shall be in peace ; and thou shalt visit thy
habitation f and shalt not sin. "(6) The word tabernacle
here, which Dr. Gil! 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 con-
nected with their parents in the domestic house of the
scriptures, looks so much like the spirit of Pcdobaptism,
that Dr. .Gill sometimes rnake^ a fruitless attempt to
escape this consequence. The following text is an ex-
ample. " The wicked are overthrown and are not j
but the house of the righteous shall stand. "(c) The
Doctor denies that house here means '^family, as the
" generality of interpreters, for i\\Q family of the righte-
" ous may be extinct, and especially not continue as
^^ righteous." The same reason might be given for
^^ contradicting the inspired declaration of Peter, " The
promise is unto you and to your children." (d) But Dr.
Gill cannot continue such a strain uniformly. When So-
lomon says, ^^ Through wisdom is an house builded ; and
by understanding it is established ;" the Doctor's Com-
mentary says, '' The prosperity of a man's family is
continued and secured by his prudent conduct."
In case of Esther's refusal to act for the Jews, Mor-
decai's denunciation was ^' Thou and thy father's hcuse
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
(n) Verse 30. (6) Job v, 24. (f ) Prov. xii. 7.
{(1) Acts ii. 39. (e) Esth. iv, 14. (/) Job xx. 28.
( 372 )
down f\g) 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 num1)ers.
These are also embraced in the promise of Saul to the
man who should slay Goliah ; that he would " make his
father's house free in Israel. "(/i) 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 in-
cluded. The people are required to support the priest,
^^ that the blessing may rest in thine house."(o) <^ And
^^ the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household.^\p)
^^ And thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the
'^ Lord thy God hath given unto thee and unto thine
'^ house.^\q) " Therefore now let it please thee to bless
^^ the house of thy servant." '^ And with thy blessing
^^ let the house of thy servant be blessed for ever."(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
*^ housey(t)
When it is said again, '* Then David returned to
''bless \i\s household. ''\u) Gill says, *Miis wife, cAz7fl?-
'' ren and servants.'" When it is said that " Esau took
^' his wives, and his sons^ and his daughters, and all the
*' persons of his house,^Hv) Gill interprets, '' his men-
f' servants and maid-servants that wevGhorn 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 wick-
(§•) Jer. xlii. 10. (/;) l Sam. xvii. 25.
(i) Luke X. 5. (o) Ez. xliv. ."0.
(fi) 2 Sam. vi, 11. (y) ])eut. xxvi. 11.
(r) 2 Sam. vii. 29. («) 1 Chr. xvi. 43.
(0 Habb. ii. 9. (u) 2 Sam. vi. 20.
(v) Gen. :-:xxvi. 6. ('U') Gm. xxx. SO.
( 373 )
ed governours " oppress a man and his house,'- [x] Dr.
Giil interprets that they " distressed a man and \\h family
for the present, and his posterity after him. My Op-
ponent's New Testament reads, " By intestine broils
'^ any kingdom may be desolated, one family {house)
'■^ fidling after another ^houseJWy) 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 bap-
'^ tized after another.'^ How sadly that would alter the
case. All the infants in the realm would immediately
disappear, like those of Lydia, Stephanas, and the jail-
er ; and the Moloch of Anabaptism would make it as
desolate in a moment, as intestine broils could make it
in many years. If, after this devastation, more general
than that of Pharaoh or Herod : if while every subject
was mourning, like Ephraim, that ^^ it went evil with his
^^ 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 build-
" eth her house,^''(a) Gill understands that she does it
not only by her piety, prudence, and industry ; but " by
" her fruitfulness, as Leah and Rachel built up the
" house of Israel." When it is said, " She looketh
" well to the 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 ;'Ycj Gill, in spiritualizing the passage,
makes household to include children and babes. Paul
says that a bishop must be ^^ One that ruleth well his
(jt) Mic. ii. 2. {y) Luke xi. 17.
(z) 1 Chr. vii, 2". (a) Prov. xiv. 1.
(b) Prov. xxxi. 9.7. (c) 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.'Y^J These
houses (j\\\ considers as embracing ^'' \\\e family, wife,
" children and servants."
Sometimes Moses directs the priests to eat the sacrifi-
ces with their sons and daughters, all of which are in-
fants before they are adults ; and frequently he says,
'^ Every one that is clean in thy house shall eat of it."(/)
Gill says, " Their families, wives, children, and ser-
^^ vants." While they eat together God says, " Thou
^^ shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household.'" (k) Accord-
ing to Gill, this requires that they should " eat their
^' food with cheerfulness and gladness, making a feast of
^^ it, and keeping it as such, he and his whole family,
^' his wife and children, or as many as were with him."
That the households here meant, embraced myriads of
infants, no one will deny. A question might arise,
Would the number of these infants be in the least dimin-
ished, if, in both passages, we were to add the words,
" believing in God," which have stumbled so many, in
the baptism of the jailer's household ? The addition of
the words will not make the least difference in the sense,
because without faith it is impossible to please God by
eating and rejoicing. ^'^ Every one that is clean in thy
^^ house shall eat of it, [believing in God.]" ^* Thou
•^^ shalt rejoice, thou and thine household \hc\\Q.wm^ m
*^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, "(/j They also say, '' If any
^^ would not work, neither should he eat."(?wj Because
infants cannot believe or work, are they to be excluded
(rf) 1 Tim. iii. 4. 5. 12.
{j ) Lev. X. 14. Num. xviii. 11. 13. 31. Deut. xv. 20.
Ik) Deut. xiv. 26. (/) Rom. xiv. 23.
l?n) 2 T'^ss. iii. 10.
( 375 )
from eating ? But if precepts and prohibitions concern-
ing faith do not extend to infants, as far as faith is con-
cerned, why may not this hold true with regard to nar-
ratives ?
Yet it is not admitted that the narrative of the jailer
is encumbered with this difliculty, except with those who
misunderstood our translation. The jailer " rejoiced,
*^ believing in God w'ith all his house." This, it is con-
fessed, affords some pretext for attributing faith to the
jailer's house: yet 1 could soon point you to a passage
which no one misunderstands, and which the collocation
of our Translators has made much more liable to perver-
sion. It is the following. " For he hath made hiin to be
^^ sin for us, icho knew no sin.' Y^O Is it Christ or our-
selves w ho 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 hi7n ivho knew no sin, a sin offering for us,^^
In this he follows the great body of the European trans-
lators, who themselves follow the Latin Vulgate and the
Greek Original. '' For him who 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 difliculty 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 Dieu : And he rejoiced with all
^' his house believii]g in God." In this he follows the
ancient Latin Vulgate '' Et Isetatus est cum ojimi domo
sua credens deo : And he rejoiced with all his house be-
{n) 2 Cor. v, 21.
( 376 )
lieving in God." Such is the construction of these lan-
guages, as to make the word, believing, applicable to
the jaiier only. These translations strictly follow the
Original in arrangement and sense. "««' viya-KXiaaato
" rtavoixi. TtsTtiicvxi^i fco Oeo.:" a72d lie rejoiced with all his
house believing in God?^ The meaning of it is evidently
this, that " He, believing in God, rejoiced with all his
'• house." The Apostle commanded him to believe, and
promised that he and his house should be saved. Ac-
cordingly he did believe, •^ and was baptized, he and
*' all his straightway." And it was no more difficult for
his infant household to catch the infection of his joy, than
for the children of the Jewish priests to rejoice with
them as mentioned above, on the text, " Thou shalt re-
^^ joice, thou and thine household.^^
But if the sacred writer had expressly said that the
converted jailer had a 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 child-
ren,'\e) 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 ^^ .4t most,'^ though a lit-
(0 Tit. i. 6.
( 377 )
tie short of the mark, is much better than an interpre-
tation which he had offered a few lines befoj^e. There
he says that these faithful childi-en mesint '^ Legitimate
oneS; born in lawful wedlock ;" and adds, that it is, ^' in
the same sense as such are called godly and holy, in Mai.
ii. 15. 1 Cor. vii. 14." In the second Point of the fifth
Proposition of my first Argument, it was shewn that the
word holy, in 1 Cor. vii. 14, did not mean legitimate ,*
and you were reminded that the Baptists of the present
day are inclined to relinquish this interpretation. We
need not occupy your time, in refuting the notion that
faithful means legitimate, since neither Doctor Gill, nor,
as far as I know, any other human being, has ever at-
tempted to prove it. There is. no more evidence that
the legitimacy of the elder's children is here intended,
than there is, that the jailer and his children rejoiced in
their legitimacy. But the Doctor has given us a part
of the truth, when he says that these faithfuls are such
as " should be brought up in the faith, in the princi-
ples, doctrines, and ways of Christianity, or in the nur-
ture and admonition of the Lord.'' This is admitting,
that, according to Scripture, infants may be called faith-
fuls, because their parents are bound to bring them up
in the faith. As parents formally recognize this obliga-
tion, in the baptism of their children, why not say at
once, that unconscious infants may be called faithfuls,
when they are baptized? This would be the whole truth,
as it was held by the ancient church, unsophisticated by
modern Anabaptism. ^' Theodoret, Oecumenius, Chry-
sostom, Theophylact, and all the Greek Scholiasts," as
reported by Taylor, call certain New Testament fami-
lies " Faithfuls,''^ not because they were all believers,
or capable of believing, but because they were ^^ bap-
tized families.^^f) Augustin, as reported by Wall,
tells Boniface, that " An infant, though he be not yet
^'^ constituted a faithful, by that faith which consists in
^'' the will of believers ; is yet [constituted a faithful,!^
(/) Baptists Self-convicted, p. 39,
3 B
( 3^8 )
*' by the sacrament of that faith : for as he is said to be-
^^ lieve, so he is called a faithful, not from his having
^* the thing itself in his mind, but from his receiving the
^^ sacrament of it.''(^) According to Dr. Gill, an in-
fant may be called a faithful in the Scriptures, because
he should be brought up in the faith ; but, according to
the ancient church, an infant is called a faithful, be-
cause he receives the sacrament of faith, m baptism.
Admitting, then, that the jailer's household is said to be-
lieve, (w^hich is not the fact,) still these interpretations
would place them where they ought to be.
In the case of Lydia,(/0 there is nothing said about
any one hem^ faithful except herself. ''If ye have
judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my
house, and abide there.'' This would be a strange invi-
tation for one to give, who had not a settled abode there
herself, as some insinuate, but was only a travelling ad-
venturer. That it was her fixed residence, appears,
from her occupation in a wealthy line of business, and
from her being able to entertain four missionaries for an
indefinite time. That there were four in company, is
plain from the context. The beginning of the chapter
informs us, that Paul found Timothy at Lystra, and that
he took him on this expedition. In the very text which
records the baptism, Luke, the author of the narrative,
associates himself with them, and in the 19th verse, Si-
las is placed in the same company. Of these four per-
sons, only two, Paul and Silas, were dragged to pri-
son;(«) leaving the other two, Timothy and Luke, still
in the house of Lydia; whither the prisoners returned
to comfort, not to baptize them, as soon as they obtained
their liberty. ^' And they went out of the prison, and
entered into the house of Lydia : and when they had
seen the brethren, they comforted them and depart-
ed ;"(/) leaving them, as is thought, still in the house of
Lydia, to organize and nouris'a the Philippian church.
{g) Wall's Hist, of Bap. Eook 1. Cliap. 15. 5^cct. 4. Sn'nsect. 4.
{h) Actsxvi. (?) Verses 19. 25. 29. (7) Verse 40.
( 379 )
But although Lydia was pleased with the company of
these brethren, the Baptists appear to wish that they had
sought other quarters. It will not do to say that Timo-
thy and Luke were the household of Lydia, which Paul
baptized : and yet they try to believe that the household
which was baptized, and the brethren who were com-
forted, were the same persons ; and adults, of course.
They, therefore, wish you to believ^e that Lydia's ser-
vants and grown children were her household, and that
her grown children and servants and other adult con-
verts were the brethren whom Paul and Silas comforted.
This, however, is conjecture, without evidence, and
against evidence. It is without evidence, because this
adult assembly of children, servants, and other Philip-
pian converts at Lydia's house, is no where recorded nor
hinted at, except in uninspired conjectures, and those,
it appears, of a modern date. It is against evidence ;
because the inspired record furnishes us with the names
of the brethren whom Paul and Silas comforted at Ly-
dia's house, while the whole tenor of the narrative marks
the absence of adults in her baptized household. It is
quite possible that after they had been for some time un-
der the influence of Christian prayers, instruction, and
example, this household became as worthy of notice, as
that of Stephanas, which, though baptized on the fa-
ther's profession, was afterwards commended for minis-
tering to the saints, according to their age, ability, and
opportunity. Much more would this commendation
have been deserved and received, if, instead of being
promising children, Lydia's household had consisted of
converted adults. If such had been the case, how natu-
ral would it have been, for the historian to tell us that
Lydia's household, as well as herself, resorted to the sea
shore to worship ; that the Lord opened their hearts as
well as hers ; that they, as well as she, attended to the
things which were spoken of Paul ; that they, as well as
she, were faithful to the Lord ; and that for this reason,
they joined her in beseeching, and aided her in constrain-
ing Paul and his companions to enter their common resi-
( 380 )
dence. How different the account whicli the sacred
writer has given ! If it were not for baptism, we should
never have known that she had a household. They are
never once mentioned, except in receiving this ordi-
nance with her. It is Lydia alone who resorts to the
sea-shore; Lydia alone whose heart is opened; Lydia
alone who attends to 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 P^
and thus proves household baptism to be infant baptism.
VI.
HOLOS OIKOS.
This appears to be generally considered as synony-
mous with pas oikos. Accordingly, while Luke points
out the household of Cornelius by the latter phrase, Eu-
sebius describes it by the former. (A) It will not be de-
nied that when Baasha ^^ smote the whole house of Jerobo-
am,"!/) there were some children in that house. Nor will
this be denied in another instance ; where it is said that
Zimri '^ slew the whole house of Baasha :"(m) where
Dr. Gill says, that it means '^ his whole family^ all the
childf^en that he had,'' ^^ that not only his posterity, but
'^ all any way related to him should be cut off." When
Paul says, that ^' Moses verily was faithful in his whole
house, as a servant,"(n) 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 cofi-
verted f^ and, taking it for granted that no infant can be
said to believe or be converted, they would have us con-
{k) Acts X, 2. See Taylor's " Baptists Self-convicted," p. 41, Note.
(/) 1 Kings XV. 29. {ni) 1 Kings xvi. 11. 12. where this is twice said.
{n) Hebr. iii. 2. 5. where this is twice said. (o) Tit. i. 11.
( 381 )
elude that thesewhole houses, subvertedhy false teachers,
were composed oi adult converts, instead of unbelieinng
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
ivhole house.^'ip) 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 sepa-
rate individuals.
This distinction was expressly recognized among the
Greek and Latin Fathers, who certainly had some ac-
quaintance with the Greek language. Clemens Alexan-
drinus, who lived in the second century, says, ^^ The
^^ doctrine of the Master of Christianity did not remain
" confined to Judea only, as the philosophy of the Greeks
^' was confined to Greece : but it spread itself over the
^' whole world, converting equally Greeks and Barba-
^^ rians, in every nation and village, and in all cities,
^^ whole houses, and separate individuals. ^\q) Here we
find that separate individuals, making a personal pro-
fession, are distinguished from whole houses, embracing
infants incapable of this profession : yet both are said to
be converted. How this was understood, before the refine-
ments of Anabaptism perplexed the church, may be
learned from a passage of Augustine, which has, if I mis-
take not, been quoted in relation to the jailer's house-
hold. His words are as follows, viz. ^^ When an infant
'^ that has not yet the faculty o? faith, is said to believe,
'^ he is said to hsive faith, because of [baptism] the sacra-
'^ meni of faith; and to be C072verted [co'sverteiib se)
" to God, because of [baptism] the sacrament of conver-
" sion.^'' And so an infant, though he be not yet consti-
'^ tuted a believer, by th'^X. 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
(/j) Acts xviii. 8. (y) oixovi o%ovi xot tSta sxajor. Taylor's
Facts and Evidences, first edition, London 1818, p. 116, Second edition,
London, 1819, p. 106.
( 382 )
'^ believe)', not from his having the thing itself in his
** mind, but from his receiving [baptism] the sacrament
'^ of it:-{r)
Let it not be said that this is giving human authority
in divine things. This common-sense understanding
which the church of God has always had of the subject,
has already been shewn to be founded upon the infallible
word. Remember that children are there declared to
have entered into covenant ; and, certainly, faith and
conversion may be ascribed to them as correctly as cove-
nant-making, and they are ascribed to them in the same
sense, as the Fathers, just now quoted, have explained.
If this language may not be used, concerning infants, on
account of their participation in the external ordinances
of religion, I should like to know what the Baptists
would make of a passage of scripture, in which such lan-
guage is applied to irrational domestic animals, on account
of their participation in the privations of a public fast.
The proclamation of the king of Nineveh says, ^^ Let
^' man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry
" mightily unto God : yea, let them be converted every
^^ one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in
their hands. "(«) 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 f^ the very
phraseology used by Augustine, when he said that it is
possible for infants " convertere se; to convert them-
selves, 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.
(s) Jon. iii. 8.
( 383 )
yii.
PANOIKESIA.
In the use of this word, Thucidides speaks as follows,
viz. ^^In the manner above mentioned, were the Athe-
'^ nians, for a long series of time, scattered about the
^^ country, in towns and communities, at their own dis-
^' cretion. And as not only the more ancient, but even
^' the latter Athenians, quite down to the present war,
^' had still retained the custom of dwelling about the
*^ country PANOIKESIA, with their whole households. ^\t)
In this place, panoikesia is used to include the millions
of children, which are born to a whole nation, in many
successive generations.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, uses the same word in
the same meaning, in the following passage, viz. *^ And
*' very great numbers removed, panoikesia, with their
^' whole households, some of whom returned when the
*^ affairs of the city were composed : but others re-
^^ mained where they were."(w)
The same writer says, "And by this usage they forced
^^ those who were unable to bear it, to leave the country,
'^ with their wives and children, and to take refuge in
'^ the neighbouring cities .... but the greatest part also
^^ of these had removed, panoikesia, with their whole
^^ households^ and leaving their [dwelling-]] houses
^* empty, lived in the country. ''(?;)
Thucidides uses the word to embrace all the infants of
Greece in general. He says, " How horrible will it
^^ seem for Platea to be destroyed by Lacedaemonians !
'' — that your fathers inscribed the city on the tripod of
'' Delphos, in justice to its merits ; — and that, to satisfy
^^ the Thebans, you expunged it, ix Tto^v-ioc, tov E%-Kr,v.xov
" rtavoLxti6i.a,from all the whole household of Gi^eece.^'^iv)
(t) Taylor's *' Baptists self-convicted." p. 49.
(u) Do. p. 48. (v) Do. p. 49.
(Tf) Do. 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 in-
fants : yet '^ this family appears by the history to have
^^ consisted of sons from under the age of eighteen, to
'^ about three years old ; that is, lately weaned/' Gre-
gory Nazianzen makes them say, ^^ Let the issue be
" fixed and unmoveable as to us, Ttaroixeaca. isfav^^efivaif
" that the ichole household obtain the crown. ^\x)
VIII.
PANOIKIOS.
According to Diodorus Siculus, the Carthaginians in-
tended, if urged by necessity, to emigrate, in a body, to
a certain island. His words are, " For they hoped,
*^ that being masters at sea, as they then were, they
'^ might easily, (unknown to the contjuerors,) transport
^* themselves, panqikious, ivith their whole households,
"■ into that island. "(y)
In another passage, the same ancient writer explains
panoikioi by tExv^^v xa.i -ivva.ixujv children and ivives ; whom
certain Roman fathers and husbands were afraid to ha-
zard by a protracted and disorderly flight. They, there-
fore, ^^ removed, ^avotxtot, ivith their ivhole households,
'^ [that is their wives and children, mentioned above,]
^^ to the neighbouring towns and villages. "f^:)
There is similar evidence in Dionysius of Halicarnas-
sus. He informs us that the country of the Antemnates
and Cseninenses, and the city of Crustumerium were
conquered by Romulus, and reduced to the rank of Ro-
man colonies. From the two former he conveyed to
Rome many volunteer emigrants, ** together with their
^* wives and children^ In like manner, from the latter,
(.r) Taylor's "Baptists self-convicted." p. 50 Taylor, of course, refuses
to translate by the word household.
{y) Do. p. 46. 47. and Note. (r) Do. p. 47.
( 385 )
^^ several brave men joined him, bringing with them con-
** siderable powers, together w^ith Panoikia, their
^^ whole households ;'\a) evidently embracing their
wives and children.
IX.
PAS OIKOS.
The angel told Cornelius to send for Peter, ^^ who
'^ shall tell thee words, whereby thou, and all thy house
'^ shall be saved. 'Y^y* The historian tells us that this
was "a devout man, and one that feared God, with a//
*^ his houseP(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 child-
ren ; and that they were included in all his house.
Rahab's house in which her relatives obtained safety.
Dr. Gill seems to think a figure of the church of Christ.
According to him, the spies whom she entertained,
" represent the ministers of the gospel, who are the
*^ messengers of Christ and the churches." When they
directed her to bind the scarlet thread in the window,
Dr. Gill considers them as preaching, by this figure, the
same doctrine taught in Mk. xvi. 16. ^' He that be-
lieveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be-
lieveth not shall be damned." Now let us see whether
these typical ministers of the gospel, allowed infants to
enter their figurative church, or not. Rahab's request
was, " Shew kindness unto my father's house.^\d) She
made no express stipulation about infants, because they
were included in the house; and to exclude them,
would be as inconsistent with the religion of the Jews,
as it was inconsistent with her own wishes. According-
ly, the spies said, "Thou shalt bring thy father, and thy
*^ mother, and thy brethren, and all thy fatheus
(a) Taylor's '-Baptists self-convicted," p. 47. 48.
ib) Acts xi. 14. (c) Acts x. 2. (f/) Josh. ii. 12.
3 C
( 386 )
<^ HOUSEHOLD, homc 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 suf-
fer them to come to him, declaring that of such is the
visible church.
X.
PANOIKI.
Of the jailer it is said, i^yaXUanato ftavoixi, Ttifti,icvxoii fw
©fw, believing iri God he rejoiced with all his house.
On this, Taylor says, "Observe, he vt^oic^d panoiki ;
*^ but he did not believe panoilci. Rejoicing was an act
^'^ of the person ; believing was an act of the mind :
'^ there is no instance known of panoilci 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 abso-
*^ lutely inapplicable. And this accounts for the infre-
'' quent use of it ; as it is not constantly that a whole
'^ family resides together, or continues so combined as to
'' form one band, and to be capable of one and the same
*^ individual action, the same fate, &c. at the same time.
'^ And this, again, agrees with a young family, since the
'^ separation of the members of a family usually takes
^' place, after the elder are grown up ; and if but one
'^ be detached from the family, the term is invalida-
'' ted."(^)
(e) Josh. ii. 18. (/) Baptists self-convicted, p. 42,
(^) 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 ex-
ception. It is the family of Pithius the Lydian, as re-
lated by Herodotus. The faithful subject wished only
his eldest son to remain at home, while all the rest, ca-
pable of bearing arms, accompanied Xerxes in the Gre-
cian expedition. To his humble petition, the haughty
tyrant made the following reply ; '^ Infamous man ! you
^^see me embark my all in this Grecian war: myself,
*^ my CHILDREN, my hrothtrs, 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."(^)
Admitting the correctness of these statements in part,
still an antagonist of Mr. Taylor, ^^ argues, that the jail-
er's family must have been adults, because they ^re-
joiced in God.' "(z) Yet why may not infants partici-
pate in their parents' joy, in one religious ordinance,
as well as partake of their sorrow, in another ordinance?
That they do the latter is admitted by the Baptists them-
selves. When the prophet orders the church to assem-
ble for a solemn fast, he says, "Gather the children, and
those that suck the breast. "(/) Gill speaks of these suck-
lings, as those "who were involved in the common ca-
^' lamity and distress, 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 them-
^^ selves, but upon their tender infants ; and they might
*^ think their cries would move the pity and compassion
^^ of God." It is not at all uncommon, for the Scrip-
tures to attribute rejoicing to bodies of men, which in-
{h) Baptists Self-convicted, p. 50.
(z) Second Edition of Facts and Evidences, p. 122.
\j) Joel ii. 16.
( 388 )
elude 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 good-
ness of the Lord " unto thee and unto thine Ii0use.^\m)
He says, "^^ rejoice thou and thine houstholdy\n) by
which Dr. Gill understands ^^ he and his family, his wife
and children, or as many as are with him."
On the same subject of sacerdotal families being sup-
ported by the sacrifices and other emoluments, Josephus
uses the viovA panoiki ; ^' So that he, panoiki, ivith all
his house, might eat them in the holy city."(o) That
infants are here included is absolutely certain. But to
them, in company with their parents, Eusebius attributes
conversion ; because, as Austin said, they received the
sacrament of conversion. His words are as follows, viz.
^' And by the same word of the gospel, many of all ranks
" were converted to the worship of the God of the uni-
*• verse ; so that at Rome itself, many who were eminent
''^ for their riches, and for their descent, did, panoiki,
^^ with all their house, and their kindred, embrace the
^^ way of salvation. "(/?) Where Moses speaks of the Is-
raelites who went into Egypt, some ancient Greek trans-
lators, as Trommius informs us, reckon them to be,
*' every man, panoiki, luith all his house.^^iq) which
Dr. Gill says, includes '^ their families, wives, children,
*' and servants."
In a rare Apocryphal book, we have an account of
Ptolemy's cruel persecution of the Jews, ima yvt-ai^iv xac
ttxvoi^, ivith their wives and children.^^ He forbade any
one to harbour even the youngest of them, at the peril
(A?) 2 Clir. XXX. 25. Ps, xcvi. 11. xcvii. ]. xiv. 7. cxlix. 2.
(/) Ps. viii. 2. Matt. xxi. 16. (?«) Deut. xxvi. 11.
In) Deut. 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 fol-
lowing is a part of the edict. ^ ^Whoever, therefore, shall
" protect any one of the Jews, a^o ys^atou ixsx^t, vrjTtoov,
^^ i-'fx^i' ■t'^v vTio naiia.i.cov,from tlic elder to the younger ^to the
"•' hahes at the breast^ he shall be punished with ignomi-
^^ nious torments, panoiki, with all his house:^\r) that is,
the oldest and the youngest, even tender sucklings ; ac-
cording to a retaliation customary in those times, as
already noticed in the history of Esther.(5)
The learned Editor of Calmet's Dictionary is confident
in the opinion that panoiki designates a numerous fami-
ly.(^) This appears to be the understanding of Es-
chines, who compares the Athenians, when offended, to a
nest of wasps, who never cease their molestations, '^* until
some one attack and destroy them, panoiki, toith all
their house^iu) 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 t\\Q\v panoiki. If the jailer had one for a thou-
sand, some of them must have been infants, if he were
young enough for his charge, and for the character and
actions attributed to him in the inspired narrative. '^' If
we investigate it, we shall find that he could not be an
old man ; but rather in the hey-day of life. His first in-
tention after the earthquake — ^ he drew his sword, and
would have killed himself — is not the character of age,
which usually takes events more coolly, and is much
more deliberate in determination. The action is that of a
fervid mind. In like manner, ^ he called for lights, and
sprang in:' the original well expresses the strenuous
action of a robust body ; — of a man in the vigour of life :
here is no decrepitude, no old age, with creeping steps,
forcing an attempt to advance with some rapidity : it is
the vehement burst of a man in full strength : yet this
(r) 3 Mace. iii. 18. Baptists Self-convicted, p. 46. where ftavoixia^
but in Aldus, now before me, TCavotxo.
(s) Esth. iii. 13. viii. 11.
(;) Second Ed. of Fact., & Ev. Revised, p. 113. 114.
(u) Baptii)t3 Self-couvictcd, p. 51.
( 390 )
man had a numerous family. He appears to have been
a soldier ; — soldiers seldom marry very early in life : his
numerous family, then, according to nature, must have
contained young children. "(z;) With these he rejoiced,
and with these he was baptized.
XI.
OIKODOMIA, OIKODOME, AND PASA OIKODOME.
The first of these words is used to denote spiritual
edification ;(zf ) so also is the second, in a great measure:(a7)
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. "(y) The
Psalmist says, " Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and
hath CO/? cezt^ec? mischief, and brought forth falsehood. ''(2:)
In the use of the third phrase, Paul says, ^^ In whom,
'^ PASA OIKODOME, all the building, fitly framed toge-
^^ ther, groweth up unto an holy temple in the Lord. "fa)
Dr. Gill believes that this house " grows by an accession
^^ of new stones, or of souls called by grace ;" and is des-
tined at last to receive the whole *^ number of God's
" elect." If, therefore, there are any elect infants; any
infants saved by grace ; then there must be an accession
of infants to this building. Macknight, my Opponent's
standard, considers this building as the gospel church.
Their accession to it, then, must be by baptism.
(r) 2nd Ed. of Facts 6c Ev. Revised, p. 114.
(w) 1 Tim. i. 4.
{x) 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. 1.
(z/) 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.
zlix. 30. Rom. vii, 5.
(a) Eph. ii. 21.
( 391 )
XIT.
OIKODOMEO.
The use of the verb;, to build, may throw much light
upon the present question. This word is used in rela-
tion to all the infants of *^ the Jewish nation, both as to
church and state,'- as Dr. Gill thinks, in that passage,
where God says, ^^ That which I have built will I break
*^ down, and that which I have planted I will pluck up,
^^ even this whole land."(6)
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 kin-
dred 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 far-
ther, under the following particulars ; as it relates to
1. The Spiritual Building. It is in relation to spi-
ritual things that Paul says, " If I build again the things
which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor."(f/)
^' Knowledge puiTeth up, but love buildeth upP{e)
There are many similar instances, in which our Trans-
lators render this word by, edify<f which is etymologically
synonimous. *^ Edify one another." " All things do
not edify."(/) They frequently render the Original by
the word build, when spiritual things are ultimately in-
tended, as Dr. Gill teaches. " For which of you in-
tending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and count-
eth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?"
''' This man began to build, and was not able to finish. "(^)
(A) Jer. xlv. 4. (c) Heb. iii. 4. {d) Gal. ii. 18.
(0 iCor. viii. 1. ( /) 1 Thess. v. 11. 1 Cor. x. 23. See also
J Cor. xiv. 17. 4. Acts ix. "31. (j^) Luke xiv. 28. 30.
( 392 )
A saint is likened to " a wise man, which hidlt 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. ''(/) We have already
had occasion to notice Gill'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 Ainsw^orth observes, it spiritually signified, that
such as would not beget childi-en unto Christ, (or preach
his gospel for that purpose,) it should be declared of
them, that their feet are not shod with the preparation
of the gospel of Christ.'' Thus, whether it be literally^
or spiritually understood, babes are included.
2. The Ecclesiastical Building. This is intimately
connected with the former, as are the church visible and
invisible. Even when Peter says that Christians are
built up a spiritual house, Gill says that they, *^ in a
*^ gospel chu?^ch-stiite, become the house of God in a
" spi?ntual sense." The church is said to be a spiritual
society, not as opposed to a visible society, but as dis-
tinguished from a political body. Concerning church
courts, our excellent standards say, '^ These assemblies
'^ ought not to possess any civil jurisdiction, nor to in-
*' flict any civil penalties. Their power is wholly
"'•^ moral or spiritual, and that only ministerial and de-
" clarative."(/i) Omitting many passages which might
be quoted we shall refer to a very few, and those in Jere-
miah only. He says, " Again I w^ill build thee, and
(h) Matt. vii. 24. 25. Luke vi. 48. 49.
(z) 1 Pet. ii. 4. 5. (j) Tieut xxv, 9.
[k) FormofCiov. Chap. 8, Sect. 2.
( 393 )
thou shall be built; O Virgin of Israel." ^^x\ndit
'^ 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 ])lant, saith the Lord.'Y/)
^^ I will bidld you, and not pull you down."(m) ^^ I will
^^ build them as at the first :"(o) that is, with believers
and their seed. As for the Gentiles, that is, the Christian
church, ^^ They shall be built in the midst of my peo-
^* pie :"(n) 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 ^^ build up his brother's house. "(/?) Solo-
mon says, ^'^ Through wisdom is an house builded, and
'^ by understanding, it is established, ''((7) that is, says
Gill, " The prosperity of a man's family is continued
^^ and secured by his prudent conduct." Again,
" Every wise woman buildeth her house. 'Trj Gill says
that this is done, in part, ^^ by her fruitfulness, as Leah
'^ and Rachel built up the house of Israel." Rachel de-
sired thus to build up the house of Israel ; and for that
reason she " said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else
" I die."(s) Her reason for giving Bilhah to her hus-
band, w^as ^^ that I also may be built by her," as the He-
brew and our English Margin read : or ^'^ that I also
*^ may have children by her ;"(/) as the Septuagint and
the English Text read. From this passage. Dr. Gill re-
fers to a former one, in which Leah, acting the same
part, says, *^ It may be that I may be bidlded by her ;"
according to the Margin : " It may be that I may obtain
(/) Jer. xxxi. 4. 28. (wz) Do. xlii. 10. {n) Do. xii. 16.
(o) Do. xxxiii. 7 \p) Deut. xxv. 9. (y) Prov. xxiv. 3.
(r) Pi-Qv. xiv. 1. (s) Gen. xxx. 1. (;) Do. xxx. 3.
3 D
( 394 )
^' children by her;'YMj according to the Text: On both
of which, Gill comments in the following words, viz.
•• For women, by bearing children^ build up an house,
** see Ruth iv. 11. hence a son in Hebrew is called ben,
^* from BANAH, to buildP To this same passage in
Ruth, the Doctor refers concerning another of the Pro-
verbs, which contains the command, " build thine
'^ house ;'Y^/* to confirm Jarchi's interpretation, that a
man should ^^ take a wife, when he is able to mantain her,
^' whereby his house may be built up; see Ruth iv. 11."
This passage we have already discussed in the tenth
Subsection of the fifth section of this Argument on
Household Baptism. It was there shewn, that this
phraseology was generally used and understood, as we
use and understand it, by " all the people that were in
the gate, and the elders" of the Jewish nation, in the
time of Boaz, the great grand father of David ; that
such language with such a meaning, was common to
civil courts and ordinary conversation ; and that, from
the manner in which they refer to their ancestors, they
evidently considered this the meaning attached to such
words and phrases, by the earliest patriarchs, and in the
very first book of Moses, where Dr. Gill has shewn that
a new born son is called ben, because he forms a part of
the domestic building, and that when women desired
children, they expressed a hope that they might be
built up.
We will now recall your attention to the rules of in-
terpretation by which we were all agreed that this dis-
cussion should be conducted. I will not now repeat
those which were copied from the Duke de Montausier
and Thomas Hartwell Home ; but only those which
Vv'ere received from the Baptist Dr. Ryland, with a view
(u) Gen. xvi. 2. (tj) Prov. xxiv. 27.
( 395 )
to this very controversy. They are as follows, viz.
^^ 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 re-
quires it to bejaken 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 ivord, ive should depart, as lit-
tle as possible, fro?ji that meaning, and even with reluc-
tance.^^ 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 disci-
ples includes females ? In support of the affirmative of
this question, I have, according to Dr. Ryland's rules,
and others which were quoted, proved the following
statements, viz. 1. The word household and its cog-
nates, embrace infants, in the " primary, obvious, and
ordinary meaning" of the words. (ly) 2. In the disputed
passages, there is nothing connected with the word
household, which requires it to be taken otherwise than
in its ^' primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning.'^
3. This was the meaning of the word household, among
those for whom the authors of the disputed passages
immediately wrote. 4. This was the meaning of the
word household, and its conjugates, in other writings
of the same authors, and of contemporary authors, and
of former authors. Sacred and Profane. We, therefore,
conclude, legitimately, that household emhrsices infants,
and that household baptism is infant baptism.
{w) That is, when these words arc used in relation to the animale, anrl
not the inanimate world.
( 39C. )
As we are now closing my first Topic, The scriptural
subject of baptism, it would not be amiss to take a very
cursory review of the two arguments of which it con-
sists 5 Divine command, and Jlpostolical 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 visi-
ble church of God. 2. The Christian church is a branch
of the Abrahamic church : or, in other words, the Jew-
ish Society before Christ, and the Christian Society af-
ter Christ, are one and the same church in different dis-
pensations. 3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and
Christian Baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal
in substance, though in difi'erent/orm^. 4. The admi-
nistration of this seal to infants v/as once enjoined ^^by di-
vine authority ; that is, God once commanded it. 5.
The administration of this seal to infants has never since
been prohibited by divine authority ; that is, this com-
mand of God, originally given in the Old Testament, is
not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirm-
ed. Regardless of their own prejudices or the empty
declamation of others, let my hearers examine these pre-
mises in detail ; let them calmly contemplate every arti-
cle, and weigh the consequence of admitting them all.
There is no person of candour and intelligence who can
deny, that if these propositions are true, then there is
now in force, both in the Old and New Testaments, an
unrepealed divine command, for administering to believ-
ers and their infants, the initiatory seal of the church,
which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism.
But let it be remembered, that 1 have not asked you to
take the premises on trust. They have been put to the
most rigid test, and the mure 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 /or the bctptism of infants.
( 397 )
On tlie 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 nation-
al 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 in-
fants ; that a house is given or built, repaired or in-
creased, 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 cir-
cumcision 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 com-
mences, is true, that " The Scriptures consider hi f ants
as suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian
BaptismJ'^
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
( 398 )
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 dis-
posed to plead, not guilty^ to the charge of observing a
factitious and pernicious ordinance. May your judg-
ments be formed by grace, according to truth and jus-
tice. 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 aposto-
lical PRACTICE.
END OF VOL. I.
w
NOTICE,
The Prospectus informed the public, of the Author's
reasons for publishing the first volume separately, and
before the matter of the second was written out. What
remains to be treated, can be seen by looking over the
division in page 24. It is hoped that those who may be
satisfied with the discussion of the first topic, which oc-
cupies this first volume, will be no less so with the six
remaining Topics, which we hope will occupy no more
than a second volume. Whether life, health, and op-
portunity, will be granted the Author, or not, is known
to our all wise and gracious Sovereign only. His will
be done. His name be glorified. The prayers of read-
ers are requested for the writer.
I hardly know how to close this volume, without mak-
ing some sort of acknowledgment, howsoever inade-
quate, of my obligations to Mr. Joseph P. Engles, an
elder of our church, and one of the best linguists and
teachers in America, for his friendship in procuring
books, and revising the MS.
^
#
H-
-i r
:^T'
^orr*
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11