As to the word Brephos, Symmachus renders Ps. viii. 2, "Out of the mouth of babes, ßpepar, and sucklings, "thou hast perfected praise." He, of course, meant literal infants, as Dr. Gill admits that "the Jewish wri"ters generally so understand it ;" though the Doctor himself very sagely confines it to adults, notwithstanding the authority of the New Testament, which applies it to infants. The New Testament gives farther evidence of this, in what the Martyr Stephen says concerning the cruelty of the Egyptians to the Israelites. He says that "they cast out a ßçɛon ȧvrwv, their young children.”(z) A reference to the first chapter of Exodus will shew that these were what Peter calls " αρτιγέννητα βρέφη, new-born babes."(a) Our new-born Redeemer was twice called "BREPHOS, the Babe, lying in a manger."(b) John the Baptist is twice called "BREPHOS EN TE KOILIA, the unborn infant."(c) The use of it in Apocryphal writings is to the same end. In the Maccabees, it is said concerning children lately circumcised, that the Officers of Antiochus "hanged, ra ßger, the infants, about their necks."(d) For administering circumcision in another instance, the Officers of Ptolemy are said to have led the captive mothers round about the city, "ra Beson, τα βρεφη, the babes, hanging at their breast."(e) And in Ecclus. xix. 11, it denotes an infant as yet unborn. Damm, in his Homeric Lexicon, shews that both these meanings of the word are in accordance with Classical usage: and the Editor of Calmet's Dictionary has shewn that "the primary, obvious, and ordinary meaning" of BREPHOS, Acts vii. 19. (c) Luke i. 41, 44. (a) 1 Pet. ii. 2. (b) Luke ii. 12. 16. (e) 2 Mac. vi. 10. according to Eustathius and Phavorinus, is, "A new"born child, nourished by the teat, from his birth, un"til he be four years old." Dr. Wall has shewn(w) that Mr. Gale's supercanonical book of the fourth century, called Clement's Constitutions, produces this text in support of infant baptism, as follows, viz. "Baptize your "infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admo“nition of God; for he says, "Suffer little children to "come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the "kingdom of God."" And the author of a "Defence of the Waldenses,”(o) has quoted their interpretation of this text, as exhibited in their own Confession of Faith, presented at different periods to Ladislaus and Ferdinand, kings of Bohemia, in which this language occurs, viz. "Likewise they teach that children are to be bap"tized, and to be consecrated to Christ, according to "his word, 'Suffer little children to come unto me, and "forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of hea❝ ven." " Seeing that Inspired usage, and Classical and Apocryphal usage harmonize in proving that these words denote literal infants; and seeing that the Primitive church and that of the Waldenses considered the text in question as authorizing infant-baptism; then we are bound by Dr. Ryland's own rule, to believe that infants must be here intended, according to "the primary, obvious, "and ordinary meaning, unless there be something in "the connexion or in the nature of things, which re66 quires it to be taken otherwise." In the present case, (w) Defence against Mr. Gale, p. 45. (0) Page 48, however, both the connexion and the nature of things are in our favour. With regard to the doctrine of resemblances, would it not be as well to hold up lambs or doves to the audience, and say, "of such is the church below," meaning, "of such adults as resemble these lambs or doves in innocence ?" But suppose that they were Dr. Gill's adults instead of infants, who were set forth to the audience. Then it would mean, "of such adults as resemble these adults, is my church below." But let us see how the connexion supports this interpretation. Is it said that these persons came to Christ themselves? No, their parents brought them; "and his disciples rebuked those that brought them," from the apparent impropriety of obtruding children, such as Ignatius was at that time, (for he is said to have been one of these infants,) upon the attention of one who was so much occupied with adults. But the context says, moreover, that "he took them up in his arms," or, as the Syriac says, "upon his arms," or, "into his bosom," according to the Ethiopic and Persic translations, as reported by Dr. Gill: so that the context and exigency of the case conspire with the best usage and the most authentic definitions, to prove that our Saviour held literal infants in his arms, and that, of such literal infants, he declared his "church below" to be composed. If then, they be members of the Christian church, they became so, by receiving baptism, the initiatory seal; wherefore, instead of a repeal of the Old Testament law on this subject, we here have an evident confirmation of it. POINT II. An inspired Apostle so recognizes the SEMINAL HOLINESS of infants, as to confirm the command for administering to them the initiatory seal of the church. "For 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."(f) In common with Pedobaptists in general, I am conscientiously convinced, that the holiness here attributed to the infants of believers, is that seminal holiness which entitles them to the initiatory seal of the church. But as this is warmly and pertinaciously disputed by the advocates of other sorts of holiness, I am willing, with the leave of my hearers, to give a candid and patient attention to every interfering claim. If, then, ecclesiastical holiness be not here intended, what sort was intended? Was it spiritual holiness, or domestic holiness, or civil holiness? Let us examine their respective claims. 1. Spiritual holiness. Might I not say that this interpretation is quashed by matter of fact? as also, by what the scriptures say of the small proportion of those who are sanctified from their birth, whether one or both parents professed religion. On this subject, I agree with a remark of my Opponent, in his spurious publication against Mr. Walker, (g) where he says, "If, then, their "sin or sins, previous to sprinkling, had been forgiven "them, they would have had all their sins forgiven (g) p. 175. (ƒ) 1 Cor. vii. 14. 1 65 them, and would have led lives quite different. They "would have been sanctified as well as pardoned: for 66 pardon, justification, sanctification, and salvation, are "inseparably connected." 2. Domestic holiness. Dr. Macknight, who misses very few opportunities of declining from the good old way, thinks that each of the parties is sanctified or made fit, by his own affections, to live with the other: else were their children unholy; that is, their parents would not love, nor (on that account,) feed and educate them. One of the most imposing of his remarks in support of this theory, is, a very plausible insinuation that the holiness of the children depends "on their parents living together." This, like a thousand other things of his, is a mere figment of his own fancy. So also is his pretending that a separation of the parents would deprive the children of food and education. Is this the conduct of a believing father, when deserted by an idolatrous wife? or would the scriptures have sanctioned a separation attended with such consequences? As there was a want of evidence in his Commentary and note, he refers for additional light to his Essay 4th, Section 38th, where he shews that the word common means unclean; a thing which no one denies. He refers also to the 53d Section of the same Essay, where he endeavours to prove that the word sanctify has the desired meaning, by referring to 1 Cor. vii. 14, the very text in question; thus reasoning in a circle, by making the Essay prove the note, and the note the Essay. 3. Civil holiness. As the former interpretation related to the domestic comforts of the married state, this |