scription, makes no part of the institution, or law of baptism; and consequently should have no influence upon our practice. No; whether the candidate be descended from real, or from barely nominal Christians; whether his parents be Jews, Turks, or Pagans; nay, whether he be old or young; it is, properly speaking, a mere circumstance; provided he make a credible profession of faith-equally a circumstance, with learning or illiteracy, riches or poverty. The character of parents, and family relations, have nothing to do in the new economy, which is entirely spiritual-are of no avail in that kingdom which "is not of this world;" the subjects of which" are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." If the candidate give evidence of his being a disciple of Christ, it is all the institution demands, and all that apostolic practice required. Such being the true state of the case, why should our opposers insist on a scriptural precedent for baptizing the adult offspring of Christians? Why call for an example of that which makes no part of the institution, but is merely circumstantial? We sometimes baptize persons of sixty or seventy years of age. As well, therefore, might it be objected, that there is no instance in sacred writ of any person so far advanced in years being baptized by the apostles. How far the following observation of Dr. Owen will here apply, is left with my reader. "It is merely from a spirit of contention that some call on us, or others, to produce express testimony, or institution, for every circumstance in the practice of religious duties in the church; and on a supposed failure herein, to conclude, that they have power themselves to institute and ordain such ceremonies as they think meet, under a pretence of their being circumstances of worship."* As to the Lord's day, our opponents themselves allow, that we have not only apostolical examples of as* Enquiry into the Orig. and Nat. of Churches, p. 14. sembling on the first day of the week for the solemnities of public devotion, but plain intimations that this was the common practice of the primitive churches; and therefore, the objector himself being judge, there is no force in what is alleged. Besides, there is something of a moral nature in the observation of a sabbath; but not so in the administration of baptism. In regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we reply by demanding; Does not Paul, when he says, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat," enjoin a reception of the sacred supper? Does not the term avρwos, there used, often stand as a name of our species, without regard to sex? Have we not the authority of lexicographers, † and, which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that passage? When the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not avoрwπоs, but amp. This distinction is very ανθρωπος, strongly marked in that celebrated saying of Thales, as given in his Life, by Diogenes Laertius. The Grecian sage was thankful to Fortune, "that he was avoρaños, * Acts xx. 7; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 2. I † Mr. Parkhurst says: Aparos is a name of the species, without respect to sex."- -Mintert: 66 Homo, in genere, sive mas sit, sive fœmina.". -Schwarzius: "Homo, i. e. humanâ naturâ præditus, habens ea quæ hominis natura postulat."-" Sæpissimè," says the learned Schaubius, "in scripturâ sacrâ filii pro utroque sexu occurrunt, ut 1 Joh. ii. 1; iii. 7, 18; v. 12. 28. Imo pro totâ posteritate et prole, vid. Ps. ciii. 17; Prov. xiii. 22.... Etenim, tam a Græcis, quam in jure Romano, pronunciatio sermonis in masculino sexu, ad utrumque sexum plerumque porrigit; et semper sexus masculinus foemininum continet." Bib. Bremens. class iv. p. 722,723. Vid. Bezam, in 1 Cor. xiii. 11. Stockium, Interpres Græcus, cap. ii. § 28. So the words, D, Homo, and Man, are frequently used for one of the human species, without regard to sex. See, amongst a multitude of instances, 1 Cor. xi. 3—12. § Lib. i. cap. i. § 7. Lips. 1759. Thus Mr. Blackwall : "Avopamos-is generally, in the best writers, used to include both sexes, all the human race. Herodotus uses it for you." Sacred Classics, vol. i. parti. chap. ii. § 9. one of the human species, and not a beast; that he was avnp, a man, and not a woman; that he was born a Greek, and not a barbarian. Besides, when the apostle delivered to the church at Corinth what he had received of the Lord, did he not deliver a command-a command to the whole church, consisting of women as well as men? When he farther says, "We, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we all are partakers of that one bread;" does he not speak of women, as well as of men? Again: Are there any prerequisites for the holy supper, of which women are not equally capable as men? And are not male and female one in Christ? When we oppose the baptism of infants, it is not because of their tender age; but because they neither do nor can profess faith in the Son of God. Whenever we meet with such as are denominated by the apostle, Teкva moтa, faithful, or believing children, † whoever may be their parents, or whatever may be their age, we have no objection to baptize them. A credible profession of repentance and faith being all we desire, in reference to this affair, either of old or young. * 1 Cor. x. 17, and xi. 28. Compare Acts i. 13, 14, with Acts ii. 42, 47. † Tit. i. 6. CHAPTER II. No Evidence of Padobaptism, before the latter End of the Second, or the Beginning of the Third Century. SALMASIUS and Suicerus." In the two first centuries no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer; because of those words, He that believeth and is baptized.' First, therefore, he was to believe. Thence the order of catechumens in the church. Then, also, it was the constant custom to give the Lord's supper to those catechumens, immediately after their baptism." Epist. ad Justum Pacium, apud Van Dale Hist. Baptism. Suiceri Thesaur. Eccles. sub voce Evvatis, tom. ii. p. 1136. 2. Ludovicus Vives." No one in former times was admitted to the sacred baptistery, except he was of age, understood what the mystical water meant, desired to be washed in it, and expressed that desire more than once. Of which practice we have yet a resemblance in our baptism of infants; for an infant of only a day or two old, is yet asked, 'Whether he will be baptized?' and this question is asked three times. In whose name the sponsors answer, He does desire it."" Annot. in Aug. de Civ. Dei, l. i. c. xxvii. 3. M. Formey.-"They baptized from this time, [the latter end of the second century,] infants as well as adults." Abridg. Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 33. 4. Curcellæus." The baptism of infants, in the two first centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth, and following ages, it was generally received ....The The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages no trace of it appears-and it was introduced without the command of Christ." Institut. Relig. Christ. 1. i. c. xii. Dissert. Secund. de Pecc. Orig. § 56. 5. M. De la Roque." The primitive church did not baptize infants; and the learned Grotius proves it in his Annotations on the Gospel. Even the practice of the Romish church is an evident token of it; for with them baptism must be desired before they enter into the church, and it is the godfather that asks it in the name of the child. A formal and express profession of faith must be made, which the godfather also makes in the child's name; a promise must be made, to renounce the world and the pomps of it, the flesh, and the devil; all which is done by the godfather in the name of the child. Is not this a visible sign, that formerly it was the persons themselves, who in their own name desired baptism, made a profession of their faith, and renounced their past life, to consecrate themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ for the time to come?" In Mr. Stennett's Answer to Mr. Russen, p. 188, 189. Cyclo 6. Mr. Chambers." It appears, that in the primitive times none were baptized but adults." pædia, article Baptism. 7. Johannes Bohemius." Baptism of old was administered to none (unless upon urgent necessity) but to such as were before instructed in the faith and catechized. But when it came to be judged necessary to everlasting life, it was ordained that infants should be baptized, and that they should have godfathers and godmothers, who should be sureties for infants, and should renounce the devil in their behalf." In Thomas Lawson's Baptismalogia, p. 88. 8. Rigaltius." In the Acts of the Apostles we read, that both men and women were baptized, when they believed the gospel preached by Philip, without any mention being made of infants. From the apostolic age, therefore, to the time of Tertullian, the matter is |