the believing descendants of Christians from the obligation of making a personal profession of their faith in Christ be pleaded from this passage, as that in regard to Baptism. Another passage which has been forcibly dragged into the same service, is that in 1 Cor. vii. 14. "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." From these words it has been argued and insisted upon, "That if one of the parents of any child, and much more, if both its parents be in a state of holiness, or in the profession of Christianity, that child is a Christian, or holy in the sight of God, and entitled to all the privileges of the religion of Jesus Christ, without Baptism." In answer to which it may be observed, not only that the sense here put on the word holy appears very doubtful, if not inadmissible; but also that the passage itself does not speak of Baptism, or any way refer or allude to it; and that whatever conclusion is drawn from it, with respect to the offspring, where one of the parents is a believer, the same holds also with respect to the unbelieving parent, who is expressly said to be sanctified, or made holy by the Christian or believing partner. At any rate, this passage cannot affect the question about the perpetuity of Baptism. It is curious enough, however, to see this and the former passage, so often and warmly urged to prove the right of the children of Christian parents to Baptism, alleged as a proof that it is improperly administered to such*. In both cases they appear to be very ill applied: and surely such applications of Scripture can be no better than what the apostle calls, "handling the word of God deceitfully." Other passages sometimes employed in this service (not, indeed, as direct proofs against the perpetuity of BAPTISM, but rather as proofs of its insignificance, or its being of but small moment), are, John iv. 1. where it is observed that, "Christ himself did not baptize;" and 1 Cor. i. 17. where Paul says that, "He was not sent to baptize, but to preach." In answer to which it has been alleged†, that "If the disciples of Christ baptized under his direction, the practice hath the same authority, as if it had been performed by himself. As to the declaration of Paul, it can mean no more than, that to preach was the principal thing he was to do in person:"-to baptize, he might, and did appoint others, who might be fitter than he was for that service; especially, if we may give any credit to the report, that he was himself but a small and feeble man. At the same time it ought to be remembered, that we learn from his own testimony, that he himself sometimes administered this ordinance: which seems very plainly to indicate, that he did not think so very lightly of it, as some of * See Toulmin's Essay on Baptism, note, p. 37. our opponents would have us to imagine. That both the apostle Paul, and our blessed Lord himself, were very far from thinking lightly of Baptism, or deeming its observance dispensable or temporary, may be justly inferred from their own memorable example; for they both paid it the highest honour, by a zealous and solemn compliance with the divine law or precept by which it had been enjoined. Such examples are, surely, highly worthy of our imitation, and ought to confirm and establish our attachment to this venerable and sacred institution. But no argument, perhaps, has been urged with greater confidence, or deemed more decisive against the perpetuity of BAPTISM, or for its not being binding on the descendants of Christians, than that which is founded upon a pretended Jewish Baptism, supposed to exist at and before the coming of Christ, and from which it is presumed the Christian ordinance has been derived. On this ground the opposers of the perpetuity of Baptism contend, that the practice of Proselyte Baptism among the Jews, was the rule and model of the Apostles, in regard to the administration of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM; and that it must have induced and directed them to understand our Lord's commission, (Matt. xxviii. 19.) as implying that BAPTISM was only to be used by those who should be converted to Chris tianity from a different profession, the pollutions of which were considered as washed away by it. And they assert, that though the children of such converts were to be baptized with their parents, all that descended from them, after they were initiated into the Christian church, were to be considered as baptized in them. "Such (say they) was the case with the Jewish Proselytes who were baptized together with their children, upon their admission into the Jewish church; whereas, all those who descended from them afterwards, were looked upon as having no need of Baptism." To all this it may be replied, 1. That it proceeds altogether on a ground or principle about which the New Testament is totally silent. Nothing is there so much as hinted, of the Apostles being to follow such a model, or even that there existed such a rite as this pretended Proselyte Baptism: what a work of darkness, therefore, must the managers of this argument have taken upon themselves! 2. No proof has yet appeared from any quarter whatever, of the existence of such a practice among the Jews, either at, or near the time of Christ; which, surely, ought to have been done, to give the argument any degree, or any appearance of weight and force; and till it be actually done, the argument, if it may be so called, is entitled to no reply, and ought to be treated with contempt. 3. Some of the most eminent writers, even among the Pædobaptists, have given up the point, as utterly untenable and a mere fiction such as Dr. Owen, Dr. Jennings, and Dr. Lardner; men whose knowledge of Jewish customs and antiquities must have been very extensive, and very accurate, so that it may be very safely concluded, that no such practice or ceremony did really exist among the Jews in our Lord's time. 4. Dr. Gale also, and Dr. Gill, among the Baptists, have gone upon the same grounds, and denied that there existed such a rite as the Baptism of Proselytes among the Jews, in John the Baptist's or our Lord's time, and even long, very long after that period. The latter (Dr. Gill) has elaborately and fully investigated that question, in his "Dissertation concerning the Baptism of Jewish Proselytes," published by Keith, in 1771; where he makes it appear, that there are no traces whatever to be met with in Jewish writings, of such a baptismal rite existing among that people, till several hundred years after the death of Christ; and then it appears, and is to be classed amongst their most stupidly senseless inventions and corruptions. To this dissertation no writer on the other side has ever yet attempted a reply; so that the fact may be concluded to be incontrovertible. This being the case, we may safely venture to look upon this ancient-jewish-proselyteBaptism as a mere Jewish fable, an idle figment, totally unworthy of the least credit; and, consequently, incapable of rendering the smallest service to the cause of the opposers of the perpetuity of Baptism, or yet to any other cause. Here also it may be noted, as another curious circumstance, that this pretended Jewish-proselyte-rite, which some of the opposers of the perpetuity of Baptism have considered as a most substantial proof, that the ordinance ought not to be administered to the children or descendants of believers, has, on the other hand, |