those instances too it is used in the endless sense....Awv, whether in the singular or plural, governed by the preposition es, invariably in the New Testament signifies an endless duration. Nor does the Greek language furnish any word more determinately expressive of endless duration; and notwithstanding what Dr. C. says to the contrary, it appears, that they [aws and aw] do as properly and determinately express an endless duration, as the English words eternal and eternity. If, therefore, these words be explained away to mean a mere temporary duration, it is impossible that any words be used which would not suffer the same treatment from the same hands."*

Thus, also, Mr. Stephen Johnson, when writing on the same subject: "There is something indelicate, incongruous, and absurd, in criticising the words of a capital sentence, [or the principal enacting terms of a law,] to set aside the spirit and energy of it; because, from the nature of the thing, they are always supposed to be the most plain, clear, and determinate. Suppose one of the carpers of this world should criticise the word death, in a capital sentence pronounced upon a murderer: he addresses the criminal, [and says,] You must note, the word death is ambiguous, and certainly used in a variety of different constructions in scripture, and in common language; and therefore is doubtful, as connected in the sentence passed upon you. Sometimes it means natural death; sometimes, though seldom, a violent death; at other times, moral death. Sometimes, neither of these, but only the fear and danger of death: in deaths oft, says Paul. Not that he often died, but was oft in fear and danger of it. So the sentence may put you in fear and danger, and not be literally executed. Or it may mean death in law; that you shall be an outlaw, and suffer loss and damage by it.-Would not every man of com

*The Salvation of all Men strictly Examined, p. 248, 249, 251, 252, 255, 258, 283.

mon sense reprobate such an unnatural, barbarous kind of criticism, as a shocking, abusive imposition upon the prisoner, and the highest indignity offered to the judge?"*

It appears, I think, with striking evidence, that if our Lord's meaning in the baptismal statute must be learned from those mediums of proof which Dr. W. has adopted, it cannot be known by the common people; which is contrary to axiom the second. No; the illiterate must entirely depend for intelligence, respecting the act of baptizing, on the learning, the ingenuity, and the integrity of their teachers. For my opponent will not permit them, though quite incapable of reading the Greek Testament, to have either the original name of the ordinance, or the verb which expresses the action required of an administrator, to be translated; but each of the Greek terms, like the Hebrew Higgaion Selah, must by all means be retained. As if, respecting this affair, he wished to keep the illiterate entirely dependant on the dictates of their learned guides, and leave room for the most vigorous exercise of critical acumen !-Nay, supposing the original enacting term, expressing the action to be performed, were literally translated into our language; yet, according to my opponent, mere English readers in general must still depend on the acumen and impartiality of their teachers: because, even then it would be highly necessary well to distinguish between the etymological and the legal sense of any term that might be used by a translator. But the bulk of real Christians are not capable of distinguishing either between the generic and the specific signification of any word, or between the philological and the ceremonial sense of a term. Of these distinctions, being those of learned men, they never heard; or if they did, could not understand them. If they read of sprinkling water on a person, of pouring water upon him, or of dipping him

* Everlasting Punishment of the Ungodly Evinced, p. 138.

in it; the unadulterated dictates of common sense immediately lead them to think of the subject concerned, having water scattered upon him in drops, of water falling upon him in a stream, or of his whole body being put into water; without ever imagining that there is any legal or ceremonial sense of those terms that is of a different nature. No; of our author's epithets, generic and specific, etymological and sacramental, they have no more idea, than they have of his learned language, when he talks of the Israelites " TINGING their feet" in Jordan "INTINGING even his hand".

Yet, I am

-of a person or of any one being "INFECTED" by a "CONTACTION of his person and the element" of pure water. persuaded, that multitudes of our Lord's disciples, were they to read those elegant expressions, would have no more notion of their meaning than they have of abracadabra. The distinctions on which he strenuously insists, as necessary to support his cause, being so foreign to all the notions of illiterate Christians respecting this matter, may be justly considered as affording a very strong presumption against the conclusion for which he pleads.To which I will add, were Dr. W.'s principles of reasoning, relative to the word Barrie, admitted as just, the natural import and true design of enacting terms in any law whatever might easily be evaded.

But there is another particular of which he is extremely fond, as entering deeply into the foundation of his plea for sprinkling, respecting which the learned and the illiterate must for ever be on a level; and that is, his insisting on Christian baptism as a ceremonial purification. For as it is impossible there should be a purification, where there is no impurity; or a ceremonial purification, where there is no ceremonial impurity; so, neither our author himself, nor any other mortal can tell, what that ritual pollution is from which Christian baptism cleanses. Equally at a loss, in this respect, are the literati and the vulgar. For any thing I perceive, it

must, therefore, for ever continue "a latent mystery;' except my opponent should again "show his opinion," and condescend to develope the wonderful secret.

On our author's pleas for pouring and sprinkling, or for a mere "contaction of the person and the element," from the design of baptism, and from the practice of ancient, or of modern times, I shall make no remarks. My reasons are, because they have so little apparent force; because they generally proceed on the principles already discussed; and because I would avoid proxility, by referring the reader for particulars of that kind, to the second edition of Pædobaptism Examined.*

* See Part I. Chapters III. IV. V. VI. and VII. Vol. I. pp. 132, 171, 239, 245, 253, this edition.

CHAPTER VI.

The General Principles on which Dr. W. founds the Right of Infants to Baptism.

THAT the baptismal statute, recorded by Matthew and Mark, should ever be considered, respecting both mode and subject, as the RULE of baptizing, has been sufficiently proved. But as the divine Lawgiver, in that sacred statute, says nothing of infants, my opponent is obliged to lay his foundation in something very different from the LAW of baptism; contrary to his own rule, as expressed in axiom the third: for the general grounds of his reasoning are moral principles, as contained in the law of nature; and the peculiarities of ancient Judaism, as recorded in the books of Moses.

The first thing that demands our notice is the manner in which he states the question to be discussed. Thus he speaks: "The question is not, whether scripture expressly enjoins infant baptism, by a direct specification, but whether it enjoins baptism to all proper subjects, and whether the administrator, who has a discretionary right of judging about qualifications, has sufficient reasons to conclude, or such evidence as the nature of the case requires, that infants are such as are included within our Lord's intention, when he instituted the ordinance."* -An extremely cautious, and a very singular statement of the question! but in a measure similar to that of the learned Vitringa, who says; "He, in my opinion, that would argue prudently against the Anabaptists, should not state the point in controversy thus: Whether infants, born of Christian parents, ought necessarily to be baptized? but, Whether it be lawful, according to the Christian discipline, to baptize them? Or, what

*Vol. i. 17.