the Rev. W. Turner , Jun. , MA., Lives of the eminent Unitarians

[84] of the death of Christ. It is true these terms are so explained as to do away with the inference founded upon their employment in scripture by the patrons of the common doctrine of satisfaction, that Christ is to be considered as our substitute, bearing the punishment due to our sins from vindictive justice; but still there is a degree of confusion arising from the unnecessary introduction of this phraseology, and one is almost inclined to suspect a sort of lurking wish by the use of familiar terms commonly understood in an orthodox sense, to beguile some into an acceptance of the doctrine recommended, who would have been startled by the exhibition of it in an undisguised form.

In 1710, a remarkable tract appeared from Mr. Emlyn's pen, entitled, ‘The previous Question relating to Baptism.’ Before entering upon the controversy between the advocates of infant and adult baptism, it appears necessary first to settle the question, “ What reason we have for supposing that baptism under any form was prescribed as an ordinance of perpetual obligation, to be practised not on converts merely, but on the offspring of Christian parents?” Mr. Emlyn, though disposed on the whole to agree with the paedo-baptists, supposing this ‘previous question’ to be granted, is rather disposed to answer it in the negative; and, among other arguments, urges the undeniable fact, that no instance is to be found in the New Testament of the baptism of either the infant or the adult descendants of persons already members of the church. If there were any cases of the baptism of infants, (which is only a somewhat doubtful inference from Acts XVI., 15 and 33,) these were baptized