notion of the one rite having been regarded as the substitute of the other, seems irreconcilable with the attempt of the Judaizing teachers at Antioch, to impose circumcision on the Gentile converts. For, as these converts had already been baptized, had the two rites been generally regarded in this light, it is inconceivable that the Judaizers would have made the attempt at all: but when they did, the fact of these persons being already baptized, would, doubtless, have been adduced as obviously superseding the necessity of their being also circumcised. We find, however, that when the question was fully debated at Jerusalem, this obviously silencing argument was not once mentioned. See Acts xv.

When we keep these various circumstances in view, it seems incredible, that pædobaptists should attach any importance to a theory, which is so manifestly irreconcilable with the facts of sacred history. But this notion of the one rite being substituted for the other, is usually assumed in their writings as a principle so clearly established, as to admit of no dispute. Precisely the same,' says Mr. Greville Ewing, 'is the meaning of circumcision, and the meaning of baptism. But there never were two ordinances of the same signification, the observance of which was enjoined at the same time . . . . . . Since then, the ordinance of circumcision is removed, and the meaning of it is found in the ordinance of baptism, the latter has evidently come in the room of the former.'* But it is obvious, that had baptism come in the room of circumcision in the apostolic age, the former would have ceased when the latter commenced: we have seen, however, that circumcision did not then cease; and it has been shown, moreover, that there is no evidence of the early believers being aware of its ever ceasing at all. On the other hand, were this notion of the meaning

* Ewing's Essay on Baptism. p. 209.

of the two ordinances being so precisely the same,' that the one was naturally substituted for the other, correct; it follows on pædobaptist principles, that all the male infants of Jewish believers continued for forty years, to have two ordinances administered to them of precisely the same signification. But Mr. Ewing informs us, there never were two ordinances of the same signification, the observance of which was enjoined at the same time.' On this writer's own principles then, it follows, that these infants were not baptized; for it is matter of unquestionable history, that they were all circumcised.

I am, &c.

LETTER VI.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

We thus find, that respecting

the positive duty of baptism, the obligation and circumstances of which depend on an express revelation of the divine will, there is not merely the absence of any command to administer the ordinance to infants, as also the absence of any scriptural precedent for the practice; but that the remote relations and inferential reasonings, adduced by pædobaptists in its support, are founded entirely on erroneous interpretations of Scripture ; or derive their whole show of plausibility from the fallacy of confounding the ordinances, and peculiar character, of Judaism, with those of Christianity. That there is neither precept nor precedent for infant baptism in Scripture, pædobaptists are obliged to admit; but with a view to counteract the effect of this undeniable truth, Mr. alleges, we have neither precept nor example for a woman partaking of the Lord's Supper.' This assertion, however, were it available, as an argumentum ad hominem for his purpose, seems advanced on very insufficient grounds.

Of the fact, that females did eat the Lord's Supper, there is abundant and decisive evidence. For it being on all hands admitted, that the term disciple comprises all who were baptized, since we read in the book of Acts, that both men and women were baptized,' it follows, that women come under this designation as much as men. Now, it being on record, that the disciples' came together to break bread on the first

Y

day of the week at Troas, since women are undeniably designated disciples,' there is the same evidence of them eating the Supper, as there is of men's eating it. Besides, it is certain there were female members in the church at Corinth, there being repeated mention made of women in Paul's Epistles to that church. As the apostle, therefore, delivered the Lord's Supper, and the other ordinances, to the church at Corinth, without any exception, he must have delivered it to women as well as to men. It is thus sufficiently clear, that for the practice in question, there is both precept and example. Let Mr. produce evidence equally decisive as this, in proof of infant baptism, and he will find few, if any, to call its divine authority in question; but he may rest assured, that cavilling objections of this kind, are little calculated to do any cause service. That we have no express and explicit authority for the admission of women to the Lord's Supper, says another advocate of pædobaptism, has always appeared to me, ground hardly consistent with manly fairness and candour; and calculated to enfeeble rather than strengthen, to expose to a sneer rather than recommend to acceptance, the cause it is meant to support.'*

Mr. adds, but, as we never for a moment suppose, that for want of this, women are to be excluded; so we are not to suppose, that on such ground, infants are to be denied baptism.' As there is no want of either precept, or example, for women eating the Supper, it is not correct to say, that it is on such grounds, infants are denied baptism. The grounds of the denial are very different: they consist in the absence of precept, of precedent, and of all authority whatever.

The last statement I find in this note is, that as women are included in the more general terms: 'man,'' mankind,'

* Wardlaw on Infant Baptism, p. 5.

་

'disciples,' &c. children are included in the general terms 'household,' 'family,' &c. You are aware, I doubt not, that the recorded fact of the apostles baptizing households,' is regarded by many, as furnishing important evidence on the point at issue; but on what slender grounds, this notion is entertained, a slight consideration of the circumstances of the case, may suffice to show.

It is freely admitted, that it is possible, nay probable, there were children in some of the households mentioned: and there can, of course, be no objection to include children in the number of those baptized, if they were of sufficient age, and actually professed their faith in the gospel.* To include unconscious infants, however, is a mere begging of the question for it admits of no proof that there were infants in these households; or supposing this, it still remains to be proved, that such infants were baptized. This much is indubitable, that what is recorded respecting the households in question, namely, their 'fearing God,' addicting themselves to the ministry of the saints,' rejoicing and believing in God,' &c. applies to intelligent agents, but not to unconscious infants. Every one on reflection, must perceive, that these family baptisms can be regarded as furnishing evidence in favour of pædobaptism, only by those, who assume the certainty of the very point in debate; and who accordingly, allow their imaginations to conceive, that it was as common for the apostles to baptize infants, as it is common to hear of them being baptized now. But let such allow their imaginations to conceive also, that the apostles acted conformably to their commission, (which is the correct conception) and that the baptizing of unconscious infants, was an idea that never once entered their minds.

* It consists with my knowledge, that children, as young as nine or ten, are occasionally baptized at the present day, on a profession of their faith.