mitted, but commanded, to participate in the different rites of his religion. Three times a year, the whole male population were enjoined to appear before Jehovah, to keep the appointed feasts, whatever might be their religious knowledge or spiritual character.

The Epistle in which the passage in question occurs, on the other hand, is addressed to the church of God at Corinth ;'to a society composed of individuals, who had been all washed from their sins by baptism into the faith of the gospel :—who had been all 'justified' and 'sanctified'-called out of the world, and in religious matters, separated by their profession of Christianity, from all who were not their joint professors, however nearly connected with them, in the civil and natural relations of life. In their collective capacity, these individuals were constituted the temple of God, in which He dwelt by his Spirit; and we find, they were solemnly warned, that whoever 'defiled this holy temple, him would God destroy.' When one of their number, accordingly, was found guilty of this profanation, the society was commanded to put away from them, that wicked person.' Now, to confound societies of this purely spiritual character, with the Jewish theocracy; and to imagine, that parents under both, are holy by outward profession in the same sense; so that infants are to be admitted to holy ordinances, as much in the one case as in the other, seems contrary alike to reason and to Scripture.

Were this view of the passage, indeed, to be admitted as proving any thing in favour of the baptism of infants, it is difficult to conceive, how it must not be equally valid in proof of the right of infants to the Lord's Supper. For as all Jewish children who were circumcised, had a right to the passover; if 'fœderal holiness' gives a right under the gospel to one ordinance, why does it not give a right to all? This natural inference, however, Mr. will, of course refuse

to admit; but I need not remind you, that an argument which proves too much, proves nothing.

When it is considered that baptism is not the subject of which the apostle is here treating, not being once mentioned or referred to in the whole chapter, it seems very strained and unnatural, to found on the passage, any argument respecting that ordinance. The words plainly refer, not to the connexion between parents and children as being in covenant with God, but to the duties of the marriage relation, in the case of a Christian's being united to an unbeliever. The apostle had been asked, whether a Christian, who had an unbelieving wife, was justified in retaining her, or obliged to put her away, as the Jews were directed to do, by the law of Moses. His reply is, if any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away;' and he assigns as a reason, that the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.' This sanctification of the unbelieving wife, it is natural to think, must mean her being a truly wedded wife, on the ground of mutual affection; for we cannot conceive her, so long as she remained an unbeliever, capable of Christian sanctification or holiness. The apostle adds, that were it otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now are they holy.' Of course, if the term sanctified' express that which constitutes the marriage relation, the words unclean and holy, must be understood as signifying spurious and lawful. This interpretation of the terms harmonizes satisfactorily with the apostle's design, which was to prove, that the converted party had no reason to be uneasy on account of being married to a person who was not a Christian, inasmuch as their union being authorized by the law of marriage, they were mutually sanctified, (i. e. set apart) the one to the other; and it is well known, that in the idiom of the Hebrews, by sanctified, was understood what was fitted

for use; and by unclean, the reverse.

From the circumstances of the case, indeed, it is manifest, that the sanctification or holiness spoken of, must be materially different from that under the old covenant. For, when a Jew married a Gentile woman, the children were not reckoned holy; (Ezra ix. 2. Neh. ix. 2,) and the people were commanded to put away their heathen wives, even after they had children by them. Respecting the case of a Christian convert who had married an idolator, on the other hand, the apostle assures us, that as the marriage is lawful, so are the children holy;— and that there is nothing in Christianity, which requires the parties to separate. This, in my view, is the natural meaning of the words viewed in connexion with the context; but whatever may be their, precise import, (and I am far from maintaining that this interpretation is not open to some plausible objections) this much seems sufficiently clear, that no legitimate argument can be founded on them, in support of infant baptism as an institute of Christianity.

LETTER VII.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

In concluding his notes, Mr.

remarks, that the abuse of this divine ordinance of infant baptism, which prevails to such an awful extent in the Episcopal and Romish churches, is no argument against the right and Scriptural use of it.' You are aware, it is by every one granted, that the abuse of an ordinance is no valid argument against its proper use, and much less against its divine authority; but it is deserving of notice, that while, in the eyes of strict Presbyterians, infant baptism seems seriously abused both by Romanists and Episcopalians, it is undeniable, that the practice of these communities, however much at variance with the standards of the church of Scotland, is much more in accordance than that of Presbyterians themselves, with the sentiments that prevailed on the subject, when the mention of the baptism of children, first occurs in ecclesiastical history. The relation of infant baptism to the Abrahamic covenant-the theory of 'fœderal holiness,' and similar notions, now usually advanced by Calvinistic divines in support of their practice, are comparatively of modern use : they seem to have been invented a little more than two centuries ago, and were found peculiarly adapted to a particular system of theology and ecclesiastical polity then in vogue; but however ingeniously contrived, this much is certain, that they derive no countenance from the records of Christian antiquity. We search in vain the pages of the early fathers, for the doc

A A

trine of children having a claim to holy ordinances from their relation to the Abrahamic covenant, or from their parents being holy by outward profession.' These doctrines were evidently invented in support of an adopted practice; instead of infant baptism being deduced from these doctrines. For though it is unquestionable, that the custom of baptizing children or very young persons obtained, in some degree, as early as the beginning of the third century, it is equally certain, that the practice was not advocated by its first supporters, on such grounds at all; but on the universally prevailing opinion of baptism being essential to salvation. The passage adduced in its support was John iii. 5; and in like manner, John vi. 53, was adduced in support of infant communion: for it is matter of history, that the practice of giving children the Lord's Supper, was nearly contemporaneous with that of baptizing them. According to the traditions of the church, which it is to be remembered were recognized at that time by all as authoritative, both ordinances were regarded as essential to salvation. Without baptism and partaking of the Lord's Supper,' says Augustin, 'none can come to the kingdom of God or eternal life.' Along with this tradition, the notion of the outward efficacy of these ordinances prevailed; and as the salvation of every one to whom they were administered, was deemed secure, (if they did not sin afterwards) every encouragement was given in cases of urgency, such as alarming sickness, to observe baptism; so much so, that the ceremony was recognized as valid, even when performed by a layman, or by a female. We find, in conformity with this, that in urgent cases, the ceremony is allowed to be performed by persons not in orders, and by women, by the churches of Rome and England at the present day. 'The ancient church from the highest antiquity after the apostolic times,' says Vitringa, ' appears generally to have thought that baptism is absolutely