IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) f/ mr {/ ^^ c^< :/ 5r «:/^ 1.0 li^ 1128 I.I 1.25 IM 2.2 III m '- *- 1 2.0 U. II 1.6 /a Vl O^ -c*! m Wy- ^;. ^. ■> m riiUlL'J^dpliiU Sciences Corporation rtV # <^ -u sj d plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrstions en couleur W- D D □ Bound with other material/ Relli avoc d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lareliure serree peut causer de i'ombre ou de la distorsion le long da la marge intarieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages benches ajout^es lors dune restauration apparaissent dans le texte. mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas AtA filmdes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm* le meilleur exempla-r. qu'il lui a at* possible de se procurer Les d .(ails de cet dxemplaire qu: sont peut-^tre uniqu ;j du point de vue bibliographiqua qui peuvent /nodifier une image :eproduite. ou qui peuveni ex :er une modification dans la mAthnde normale d .• fllriage sont indtquAs ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur Pages damsged/ Pages endommagees Pagjs restored and/or Pages restaurees et/ou pullirjul^es I I Pages danisged/ I I Pagjs restored and/or laniin;ited/ r~7 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ UZ- Pages decolorees. xachBti,,-, ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages detachees rV] Showthrough/ Ik— 1 Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de rim:}'ession □ Includes supplement^.' material/ Comprend du mo e;!< iupplementaire □ Only edition avatiabifj/ Seule Edition di ; r « e □ Pages wholly or slips, tissues e ensure the bes: Les pages tot?i obscurcies pa etc.. cnt *te f obtenir la mei^ i pan jlly obscured by errata ' ive been refilmed to .' ble image/ T nt ou partiellement ' -uillet d'errata. une pelure. r s k nouveau de facon a image possible This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqu* ci-dessous. ^OX 14X 18X 22X 2fcx lix 2UA 24X 30X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the eenerosity of: Harold Campball Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia Univenity L'exemplaire fllmA fut reproduit grtce A la ginArosit* de: Harold Campbell Vauglian Memorial Library Acadia Univenity The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame en each microfiche) shall contain the symbol -^^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too l3ige to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams iMustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont tti reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet* de l'exemplaire film*, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la souverture en papier est imprim«e sont film«s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont film*s en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernlAre image He cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signif le "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre fi!m*s i des taux de reduction d£ff*rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul clich«, il est film* A partir de I'angle sup*rieur gauche, de gauche * droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant la nombre d'images n*cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 • ni'. ■■■■ -^i CANDID REASONS roR RENOUNCING THE PRINCIPLES OF ANTIPiEDOBAPTISi.i. By peter EDWARDS, SEVERAL YEARS PASTOR OF A BAPTIST CHURCH AT PORTSEA, HANTS. LONDON: PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR} And fold by T. Chapman, No. 151, Fleet Street 5 S. CoNUER, Cheupfide; T. Conuer, Buckltilbuiy j W. Button, Paternofter Row J and J. Mathews, Strand. ^795' Ik IL. Il > To THE CHURCH AND CONGREGATION MEETING IN \VHlTr'« ttn,„ ^^"'TE S ROW, PORTSEA, lUNTS. DEARLY BELOVKDj, 1^0 eminent writers, Mr. Booth and Dr ^Vilhams, have both contributed to thl T^,: latter has my acknowledgments ; the fornK^r n v ammadverfions. As Mr^B. had no defi.n to di7 cover the fallacy of the Baptift fchemer Uhou^ht" the dkgn oAhe aJ.hor. '" "^"^^^' ^^^^^^^^ ^° 1 have prefented the whole fcheme to the reader n the fame pomt cf view in which it was exhibited my own mind. In compofing it I have endea raV^hrtrir^K^''"^ ^^'^'^^ ^^^^ ii'ir, as the truth has been mv obiec)- I xvilh^ i . pow m grace and in the knowledcre of Chr ft i remam, m the fame efteem and love, ' I'ORTSFA, •y . "i ours, in our common LofvJ, PETER EDWARDS. 'N •'m ■ CONTENTS. I Id LAN Introduction, wherein the Quefllon is f.iirJy ^^ Ibited _ . . pjoe I II. The Arguments of the Baptifts againll Iniant Baptifm : 1. From the Want of exprefs Precept, &c. 7 2. Frcm their Want of Faith and Repentance 21 Arguments in favour of Infant Baptifm : 1. From the Inftitution of their MemberQiip 38 2. From the Continuance of that Inftitution 45 A Scheme of the whole Controverfy - 90 V. Remarks on that Scheme; wherein the only Argu- ment of Mr. Booth againft the Continuance of Infant Membcrfliip is refuted - - 97 VI. An Appendix, in which the whole Syftcm of the Baptiits is overthrown by Confequences 1 1 2 Vll. The IVIode of Baptifm ; wherein the Force of the Term, the Circumftances, and Allufions, are confidered - - - '5^ VIII. The Pradical Ufe of Paedobaptifm. - 184 III. IV. ■J-ff Render is deftred to corrcEl the folloiuliig Errata. ■;ige 2 2, line 7 from bottom, ^or no, read, not. i^, — 8 from bottom,/*/- Baptift, ready PaedobaptilK 4'), — 4 from bottom, for was carried, rcad^ but. earned. 56, — 10, yirThc, read. That. <,4, - 119, 120, I J 71 J 74 — 2-\, for have double, ready have a double. — 4 from bottom, y — 4, > for right, read, rite. — laiU J _ — 4 from bottom, for Pierce, read. Pine. — 10, yir cuntcit, rend, context. — (-, fr prDpofition, read, pvepofition. THE INTRODUCTION: tONTAIMXC A FAIR STATEMENT OF THE INQJUIR ' THESIS I. THE only thing which, in riny dilpute, {houid engage our attentian, is this: " What is truth ?" And he who wifhes t^- find it, will endea- vour to adopt that plan which will brin? hira fooneft to that he feeks. There are two things, ia all matters of controvtrfy, which greatly facilitate our learch : Firft, that we fet afide a., thofe thinsrs about M hich we aie agreed, and fix our attention to that only on which a difference of opinion may fall ; and, fecondly, that this difference be ftatedin a manner the moft plain and fimple. To either of jvhich, no perfon who feeks the truth can form the Jeait objedion. THESIS II. As this inquiry lies between thofe who pafs under the denomination of Paedobaptilts and An- tipasdobapufts, it will be proper, in order to afcer- tarn wherein they differ on the fubjed of baptifm ■0 give the fentiments of each. Antipsdobaptifts ^ confider 2 INTRODUCTION. confider thofe perfons as meet fubjetfls of baptifm, who are fappofed to poflefs faith in Chrift, and thofc only. Pcedobaptifts agree with them in this, thit believers are proper fubjeds of baptiftn ; but deny that fuch only are proper fubjeds. I'hey think, that, together with fach believing adults who have not yet been baptized, their infants have a right to baptifm as well as their parents. I have lately converfed with many Baptifts, who knew fo little of the fentiment of their brethren, that they fuppofed adult baptifm was entirely re- jeded by Psedobaptifls ; and when 1 endeavoured, from their confeiiions of faith, &c. to convince my Baptiil friends that they held adult baptifm as well as themfelves, fome believed and marvelled, but others remained in doubt. THESIS III. From this view of the fentiments of each, it ap- pears that both parties are agreed on the article of adult baptifm, which muft: therefore be fet afide as a matter entirely out of difpute ; for it can anfwer no good purpole for one to prove what the other will not deny. Now feeing they are fo far of one mind (I fpeak of the fubjed, not of the mode), the difference between them concerns infants only j and the fimple queftion which remains to be de- cided, is this. Are infants fit fubjeds of baptifm, or are they not? On this queftion the whole turns. The Psedobaptifts affirm, and Antipasdobaptifts deny. THESIS IV. The fimple queftion being as I have now ftated it. Are infants fit fubjsa, of baptifm, or are they not ? it will clearly foiiow, that all thofe places which INTRODUCTION. ^ which relate to bch-evers' baptifm, can prove no- thing on the lide of Baptifls ; and the rcafon is, they have no relation to the queftlon. To illuf- frate this, I alk a Baptilt, Is an infant a fit fubicd oi baptjl.n ? No, fays he. Wherefore ? Becaufe the hcriptures lay, Repent, and be baptized.— If thou beheveft, thou mayeft —I interpofe, and fay, ^ our an(\ver is not in point. I aflced, Is an infant a lit lubject of baptifm .? You anf.ver by telling me that a penitent adult is fuch. But as I alked no quel ion concerning an adult, the anfwer is nothing at all to the purpofe. If I fhould a(k whether an inkuit were a creature of the rational kind, would It be a good anfwer, if any perfon fhould fav that adults were of that defcription .? No anfwer can be good if It do not directly relate to the queftion pro- pofed; for then, properly fpeaking, it is no anfwer to the queftion. And therefore, if I afk whether an infaiit is a proper fubjed of baptifm, and an- other fhould bring twenty places to prove the pro- priety of baptiring adults; as all this would be nothing to the queftion, fo nothing would be proved Thereby, either for or againft. We may from hence eftimate the neat ftrength of each party, as they refped one another. The I cedobaptift has iuft fo much ftrength againft a i5aptilt, as his arguments weigh oh the affirmative, and no more ; and the Baptift has no more Itrength againft him, but as his arguments weigh on the negative. Whatever arguments a baptifl may bring to evince infant baptifm to be wron? vtether they be many or few," good or bad, it is Jll his ftrength; he has not a grain more on his iide. tor as it lies on neither of thefe to prove adult baptifm (it being a thing profefTed and ufed B 2 Ijy # :' i iiBl iifc»iii.-ilteiigi*3 ^ INTRODUCTION. by both, and is therefore no fubjca of difpute), thofe arguments that prove it can have no place here. This being carefully obfcrvcd, we fliall fee w hich of thefe has the faireft pretenfion to truth. THESIS V. Whatever may, in reality, be the force of argu- ment on either fide, refpeding this queftion, there can be no doubt but that fide is the true one, on which the arguments are found to preponderate. If the arguments for infant baptifm are flronger than any that can be produced againfl it, then mfant baptifm mud be right ; and fo the eafy and fare way of coming to a decifion is, to colleft the ar- jTuments on both fides, try their validity, and com- pare them together. This, in the fear oi God, I Ihall endeavour to do. Firft, I will fet down the arguments againfl: infant baptifm, and examine them as I proceed ; and then thofe which make for it ; and after that I will compare them toge- ther in oppofite columns. By this procefs, which is the faireft I am acquainted with, we fliall fee whether Baptilh or Paedobaptifls have the truth on their fide. The whole import of thefe propofitions is— That both r-arties agree about adult baptifm— That when a Baptift has proved adult baptifm, he has proved nothing againft a Paedobaptift— That the only quel- tion being this, Are infants fit fubjeds of baptifm, or are they not ? it is evident that thofe pafTages oi Scripture, which prove adult baptifm, will not an- fwer this queftion— And, that arguments for and againft being compared, that fide is the true one, on which they preponderate. INTRODUCTIOK. 5 If any thing can make this matter plainer, and I wifh it to be made plain, perhaps the introdudlion of a (hort familiar dialogue may do it. We will therefore fuppofe a converfation between a Baptift and a Paedobaptiftj the Baptift fpeaking as fol- lows : Bap, I wonder very much you (hould not agree with me in fentiment, refpefting the fubjefts uf baptifm. Pado. There is nothing in this to wonder at, fince we all fee but in part ; it is our happinefs to believe to the faving of the foul. Bap. That which makes me wonder is this, (hat the fentiment I hold is fo clearly revealed in Scripture. Pado. What fentiment is that you hold, and which you fay is fo clearly revealed in Scripture ? Bap. I hold what is commonly called believer's baptifm ; or, that it is right to baptize a perfoa profefTmg faith in Chrift. Pado. If that be your fentiment, I grant it is clearly revealed ; but in this we are agreed, it is my fentiment as well as yours. Bap. But this is not the whole of my fenti- ment. I meant to have faid, that it is wrong to baptize infants. Pado. Then you and I differ only about in- fants. Bap. If you grant adult baptifm to be right, it is only about infants we differ. Pado. I do grant it. And then do you mean to fay, that it is clearly revealed in Scripture that it is wrong to baptize infants ? Bap. I do mean to fay that. B % Pado. 1. I If 6 INTRODUCTION. P^^(7. How do you prove it ? Bap. I prove it by Acts viii. T,y. If thou be- eveftwith all thine heart, ihou mayefl. Pado. You have indeed proved believers' bap- tifm to be right ; but I afked you, how you proved infant baptifm to be wrong ? Bap. Muft not infant baptifm be wrong, if be- lievers' baptifm be right ? Pado. No more than believers' baptifm mud be wrong, if infant baptifm be right. Would you think 1 had proved that infants would be loft, by proving that believing adults would be faved ? Bap. Certainly I fhould not. Pado. Why ? Bap. Becaufe the queftion would be only about infants ; and we cannot infer the lofs of an infant from the falvation of a believing adult. Pado. Very true. Then ihat v hich pioves in- fant baptifm wrong, mufl not bt the fame that proves adult baptifm to be right. Bap. I grant it;, and think there is fufficient prot>^ igainfl: it befidc. Pccu.. This is the very point. You produce your proof againft it, and I will produce mine for it. If your proof be found ftronger agahift, than mine f<->r, you have truth on your lide ; if not, the truth is on mine. Bap. Nothing can be more fair ; and I am willing to put it to the teit, [ 7 ] CHAPTER I. JHIS CHAPTER WILL CONTAIN ARGUMENTS AGArNST INFANT BAPTISM. — OF THESE, THERE ARE TWO ONLY ; FOR WHATEVER MAY BE URGED, WILL FALL UNDER ONE OR OTHER OF THESE. ARGUMENT I. A pcrfon ivJjQ has a right to a pojitive Injiitute miijl be exprefsly mentioned as having that right ; but infants are not fo mentioned, therefore they have not that right. AS the whole force of this argument turns upon the words expreTs and explicit, which Baptifl writers commonly ufe, the reader, in order to form a jufl opinion upon the fubjed, fliould clearly under- ftand their import. And fince I fhall often have occafion to ufe them, *:he reader will meec with an expianationof the term ' explicit' in another place. Atpreic^t it will befufllcient to fay, that both thefe terms Hand oppofed to inference, analogy, and im- plication. And when the Baptifts fay there is no exprefs command for infant baptifm, they mean there is no command * in fo many words,* as ' thou flialt baptize infants,' or fomething equiva- lent. This being premifed, I fay of the argument, it is affuming — contraded — falfe. It is very affum- T-» .If >l .K- ARGUMENTS AGAINST ing, becaufe it feems to didate to the ever-bleffei God in what manner he ought tt. fpeak to his crea- tures. Since it is no- where contained in his word, and he knows befl; how to communicate his mind to men, it little becomes fuch creatures as we are, to lay down rules by which he flrali proceed. To fuch who thus aflume, it may properly be faid, " Who hath known the mind of the Lord ? or who hath been his counfellor ?" For of him, and throuj^h him, and to hiin, are all things : To whom, be glory for ever. Amen. It is very contrafted, becaufe it fuppofes we can- not underltand what God fays, but when he fpcaks to us in one particular way. Certain it is that the moft Important things are fet forth in Scripture, in many different ways j and we may come at the truth by an indirect, as certainly as by a direft exprcflion : c. g. " When the Apoftle fays he was caught up into the third heaven, I certainly know th re is a firfl and a fecond, though I no-where had read exprefsly of any fuch thing. But what is moft material, I affirm that It is very falfe : Becaufe (to wave other in- flances, and fix on one only) a lubjed is admitted lo a pofitive inltitute, and that admiffion is accord- ing to truth, and fo held and pradifed by all, who life Chriftian rites ; when yet there is no exprefs law or example to fupport it, in all the word of God. it is the cafe of women to which I allude, i 1 d heir adiniflion to the Lord's table. I acknowledge it is right to ad:nir them, and fo do all, who ufe the Lord's Supper ; but as to ex- prefs law or example, there is no fuch thing in Scripture. If it bo faid, that women are fit fub- jcds of baptifm — that ihey are capable of religious advantages INFANT BAPTISM. advantages — that :heyhave a right to church-mem- berfliip, and therefore a right to the Lord's Sup- per, 1 grant it — And then the argument is falfe ; fwr if women are adniittcd becaufe they are fit fub- jeds of bapiifm, &c, they are admitted by fomc- thing, which is not exprefs law or example. But the argument I am oppofnig fays, " A perfonwho has a right to pofitive inftitutes, mufl be cxprcfsly mentioned as having that right." Now, if women are notfo mentioned with refpecl to the fupptr, the practice of admitting them is wrong, or this argu- ment is falfe. This argument indeed is falfe ; the pradice is by no means wrong. And to (liow the fallacy of the Baptifl fyftem at large, 1 will uiidcr- take, m the fequel, to prove thar, upon the prin- ciples and reafonings of the Baptiits, a woman, however qualified, can have no right whatever to the Lord's table. There is no exprefs command or example for infant baptifm I This being a favourite argument with Baptifts, and the cafe of women, in this re- fpecl, being the fame as that of infants, they will not fuffer an inftance, fo fatal to their iyltcui, to pafs by, without making an effort to overturn it. They know very well, 1 mean the thinking part, efpecially thofe who write, that they cannot main- tain this argument againlt infants, wirhout produ- cing an explicit warrant for female f^omniimion. They therefore affirm, that the Scriplures alrbrd fuch a warrant, and that it is i'ound in i Cor. xi. ::8. " Let a man [xi'^suivcc'] examine hlmicif, and lo let him eat of that bread, ^x." It is certainly here, or no-where. 1 have known many who took th's tor an exprefs word lor women. I did fo mv- felf lO ARGLiMENTS AGAINST il fclf for feme years, till Mr. Booth's attempt te prove it convinced me of the contrary. An exprefs word, in the prefeiu cafe, mufl be one that IVjecifies the fex ; as Ads vni 12. " they were baptized, both men and women.'' [y-^ipx: kca '■/■.I. ».;rf ^. But I aik, is x:^:-^Tro; an exprefs word for a woman r Mr. Booth affirms it is. Take it in his own words, vol ii. page 73. " In regard to the fuppofed want of an explicit warrant for admitting woir.en to the holy table, we reply by demanding, l^u.i not Paul;, when he fays. Let a man examine himlelf, and fo let him eat, enjoina reception of the facred fupper ? Does not the term izi3p-.)7roi, there ufed, often fland as a name of our fpecies, without regard to fex ? Have we not the authority of lexi- co'iraphers, and, which is incomparably more, the fanction of common fcnfe, for undcrihinding it thus in that palVdge ? When the frxcs are diftinguiflied and onpofed, the word for a man is not .'.!,crpi;7r:c, but ap'r:." This -s all about the word, except a quotation, which is not material. The reader is dcfncd to obfcrve, that, as Mr. B. has unuertaken to produce an cxjjlicit warrant for female communion, he can derive no help from ap.alogy, or inference, or any tlung of that kind. Tlic words he brings for proof mult contain their own unequi^ (^cal evidence, independent ol every other conlideration. If this be not the cafe, hii explicit warrant is a mere fidion. Now for the explicit warrant. Mr. B. fays, " Does not Paul, when he fays. Let a man exa- mine himfelf, and (o let him eat, enjoin a reception of the iacrcd fui.per r" Tiue. " Does not the term ;:.C;'o:ru;, there ufed. often fbnd as a name of INFANT BAPTISM. It our fpede?!, without re.,ar^ poie. », ». 14 ARGU.Mi.NTS AGAINST 1 1^; '.a »iJ i pofe. \Vhich indeed was very true ; for he, hav- ing all thT(.ufj;h his book infifted that infants (hould not be baptized, becaufe there was no ex- prels wa' !;int for it, was compelled, by his own reafoninj;, to bring forwartl an exj)licit warrant for female communion. And when he comes to prove that there is fucii a warrant in Scripture for female right to the Lord's fupper, he firft of all falls upon prefumptive jMoof, " Does not the terni rivS.w-o? often (land as a name of our fpe- cies ?" As if he had faid, If this word often Ihmd as a name of our fpccies, I profume it is pofliblc it may fo (Land in this text. In the next place he talis upon inferential proof, and fets a lexicographer and common ienfe to infer (for they could do no other) that fo it mufl: mean in the text. Andlafllv, to make it (HU worlc, he falls upon an evident f;'.lfehood, w! .n he fays, that, when the fexes are ililtinguilhed and oppofed, the word for a man is not j'.t3-p'x7rof, but y.'ip. This is all Mr. B. is pleated to give the reader, intuead of an explicit warrant, prefumption, inference, and faliehood ; and if either he, or any of his readers can fatisfy them- fcives v.id\ fuch an explicit warrant as this, they can neither of ihem be clteemed very nice in this article. Rut, to fet l\Tv. B. and his explicit warrant in a clear pf-;ni of light, the reader has only to contcai- ji'.ale thole tv.o iatls, which have juif paH'ed under ins c\ e ; namely, that a^r-wcro? is often ufed as a name oi' our fpecies, as Mr. B. afhrnis ; and like- wiic that it is often ui'eii to diilinguifh one fex from the other. Now with thefe two fads in view [w^. f.c:,!:-.ov-i.- is often ufed as a name of our fpecies, and often it is not fo ufed], if a queftion be itarted conccruin'J INFANT BAPTISM. 15 concerning its meaning in any text, let it be 1 Cor. xi. 28. the reader will fee at once that it is no explicit word, becaufe he will (land in need of a thiril thing, to determine in what fenfc it is ufed there ; whv'reas, if the word were explicit, nothing elie would be neceflfary to fix tlie lenfe. Now as the lacls weigh on both fides, ofj-ln againfl oFTKN, and as the reader wants a third thing to fettle the import ol' the word in this text, I a(k. What is this third thing ? Lexicographers and common fenfe, fays Mr. B, Nay, no ambiguity, bir, we are now talking of expliciin-rfs. Why did you not fay, analogy and inference ? Shocking ! What ! give up the caufe at once! But what, I fay :gain, is this third thing? Is Mr. B. afraid, of telling ? I wiih, however, he would write again, and lay in plain terms what it is. Is it what you fptak of in the latter part of the defence, viz. ' that women have the fame pre-requiTites as men, and that male and female are one in Chrifl: ?' Very good. — Procccii. — Tlierefore — 1 fay, go on, do not be afraid, this will bring you fale 10 your con- dufion ; for it is only ana!f);;y ana inference. \n- tcrence and analogy ! and u;)oa a poiitive inditute too! I cannot bear the tiiir.s ; 1 v.ould much ra- ther call them Lxicogr,' hers and common fenfe ; for were I to call them inference and analogy, it would ruin my whole uook. li is very true, Mr. B. ; but at the fame time, is it not Letter your book fliould be ruined by plain dealing, than ti.at your reputation ihnuld fecm to be llained by acling :in artful part .? Bui a'ter all, here is a thud thing naming to llrtle the :neani;;g of this anibiguous word. ;\nu what in the wurld does it fignify by what name we call tliis third thiivj; ? For whether we ^u 1' i * ,fm f. ■M i6 ARGUMENTS AGAINST we iKiniL It anal();];y, or inl'erencc, or lexicographer. or common knl'j (which two lall arc Mr. B.\. names, as he could not hear the others on a pofi- live in(litute), it comes (Ull to the fame thing; it Ihows that this «< noexphcit word for females, and confcqucntly, as there is no other, this argument i> ruined. What 1 have now animadverted upon is all Mr. B. fays, that can even pretend to evince an explicir warrant. But fince the whole of it, upon his prin- ciples, is as curious a defence of female right tothu Lord's table as ever was prefenied to the public, I will pay him the compliment of furveying it, and taking it to pieces, in due time and place. In the mean time I do not blame Mr. B, for not bein; able to produce an explicit warrant for wonien; i; is what no man is able to do ; but I do blame hin; for uling fuch realbning as he has done, and then pifTmg it upon the public under the colour of ex- plicii proof. Ii is a common opinion that Baptifls and Pa;do- baptills do reafon dilTcrently on poiitive inflitut«; that the former invariably infifl: upon exprefsprocl. ■while the latter admit the force of inferential roa- foning. It is true theyprofefs to reafon diiTercntlv, and they actually do fcmetimes ; but then it is onh according to the mood they may be in, and tin matter they may have in hand. Let the matter of debate be a little varied, and they reafon on poii- tive inftitutes precifely in the fame way. 1 have taken the hbcrty, in time pad, to a(k Ps- dobaptilts why they baptized their infants? On? has told me, that infants were circumcifed, aru. theref(M-e fliould now be baptized ; inferring their baptifm from circumcifion. Another has told me. tiu. INFANT BAPTISM. t7 that our Lord took infants into his arms, and blcircd them,^ and ("aid they were of the kin^r.jotn of heaven; fo iiif-rring their bapti fin from the lan- Qiiage and condud of C^hrift. At h.carinj^ this the Baptilts fmile, and think it very foohfli rcafonin^. I have alfo taken the hbe'rty to alk IJaptilts, why they admitted women to the Lord's tabic ? One informed me, that women were partakers of the grace of God ; inferring their right to com- municate from their grace. Another told me, that women had been baptized ; and inferred their ns^ht to the fupper from their baptifm. A third gave me to underlland, that women did eat of the pafchal Iamb, and from thence inferred their right to the Lord's table, A fourth told me that women were creatures of God as well as men -, and fo in- Itrred their right from their creation. Thefe Bap- tilts did all infer, and, as Mr. B. fays of Pxdobap- tifts, not feeling the ground on which they flood, they agreed in one conclufion, but did not agree in the premifes from which it fhould be drawn. It may perhaps be faid, that thefe perfons did not polfefs logical exadnefs ; that they were not aware of" the impropriety of demanding plain, exprefs, unequivocal proof; and then, as it fuited their convenience, flying diredly to inference, Implica- tion, and analogy ; and that too on a pofitive ordi- nance. I grant they were plain perfons, and did not fee the inconfiffenry of this condud. Well, we will betake ourfelves to men of fkill, to thofe \vho are acquainted with logical precifion ; and then let us fee how they aft in this bufmefs. What think you of Mr. Booth, as a man of erudition and logical attainment? Does Mr. B., lay you, employ inferential reafoning cm a pofitive inflitute? No- C thing * •xm 1)^ ARcnJMP.N' rs ACAINSr thinj; in the world more certain. WlvM ! Mr. B. ; he who has written fo many hundred p.if.ri.s with u view to expole it ! Yes, that ideinical Mr. J), to the reproaeh ot all confiltency, doc;., in that veiy work, when fad nccelliry comjiels, even deal in this fame inferential realonin.^. I will not evidviico this now, fince 1 have pTomifed to noilee iiis whole delenee ot svomen in a more proper place All I am eoncLincd to do in this place, is i;) fliow iliat this an.'iumeiit ol" the Bajnilts is fallc. The argument is this : " A perlon wlio has a right to a politive infliiute, mult be exj^relsly men- tioned as having that right ; but infants are not fo mentioned, ;?^c." That the argument is falfe, ap- pears from thefe facls : I. 'i'he Scriptures do not countenance it. For as it is not proved by any part of the word of God, being neither fet down in the words, nor yet in the fenll of holy writ, and therefore a hction, invented by men to fupport a particular opinion ; fo it flands directly againll God's holy word. And this is evident from hence ; that though women are exprefsly faid to have been baptized, they are never iaid to have received the I ord's fupper. The Scriptures, t''ereforc, in plain oppoiition to this lalfe argument, leave us to conclude their right to the Lord's fupper from their bapf'''ii[. "ogetherwith other grounds. Thus h has vv lupport Ircn Scripture. II. The Baptlfls themfelvcs do not countenance it ; foi though tiiey have written whole books on the Ifrength of it, they are compelled to defert it, and do defert it the moment the fubjecl is varied. For after they have vapoured ever fo long, and ever fo loud, about " no exprefs law — no explicit "I i-r 1 f INFANT iiAl'TISM. I9 w.irrant for Inf.mt bai)U;'in —infant bantinn is no- wliv-rc nuntioncci ill Scripture ;" let any one pnt it 111)011 than to provc/lhc ri;^lit of women to tl e fii|)i!er, and I will aiifwer for it lie will hear no more of exnrefs Lw on ihat head. He will find ih.u all thib hollow found, which fi^nihcs nothing, will die away, and each will (hift for hinifelf the hell way he can, and Hy for aid to analogy and in- ference. Women, fay they, may be gracious. — Women were baptized — Women did eat of the pafchal lamb — Women are crer.t^.es of God, as well as men, and therefore, — Therefore what? Why therefore they fliould receive the Lord's fup- per. What now is become of their exprefs law ? |[ is deferted, completely deferted ; nor will they ;ui>^pt it again till infant baptifm is refumed. — The Baptilts, therefore, do not countenance it. HI. Mr. Booth Iiimfelf does not countenance it; I lULan, not always countenance it : For though he has demanded explicit proof for infant baptifm, iiiid has contended th^t if fuch proof cannot bead- I'liced, the baptifm of infants inufl: be wrong, yet, v.licn he ct)mes to produce an explicit warrant tor feaialc communion, he is content. — Nay, flop — I ciiinot fay he is content— but he is compelled to fly to prefuming — to implication — to analogy — to iiuicnce — to make oat au explicit warrant; All till-; wc engage to prove, and ro iiv.ke a proper ufe of in the fecjuel. And 1 cannot help obferving, tiuu if ft.'inale communion cannot he i'upported on the praicip'e of this argument, how idle a thing it is to forge a rule to operate againit infants only. luiullv, -IS this argument militates againit female communion, as well as infant baptifm, they mult tiiher both be wrong, or the argument itfclf mud c 2 L>« so I ARGUMENTS AGAINST be i^ilfe. That the argument is falfc, Is fufficiently evident, as it not only has no fupport from Scrip. ture, but lies direftly againft it ; and from what I have obferved, in many recent converfations, I do not fuppofe there is a finale Baptift in the kingdom that will even dare to (tick to it. For after they had urged this argument upon me, I have turned the quellion from infant bapiifm to female commu- nion, and I do not recolleft one, either minifter or private perfon, but har., In little mere than a qu.a- ter of an hour, entirely given up the argument. And if Mr. B. fliould think proper to take up his pen once more on this fubjeft, I have not a doubt but 1 fhould be able to compel even him, as well as many of his brethren, to relinquifli it as a falfe ar- gument ; and I hope he will take up his pen once again, and vindicate his defence of female commu- nion. I have been the longer on this argument, be- caufe as it is very frequently urged, fo it contains precifely one half of the Baptift (Irength. This argument, therefore, being deRroyed, juft half dieir ftrength is gone. And if any one fhould be inclined to cry out, " There is no explicit example —there is no exprefs law for infant baptifm, kc" any perfon has it in his power to quiet him almoft in an inftant, fliould he only alk him to produce his explicit law^, &c. for female communion.— Thus much for this bad argument : and I pafs to the Other ^ i-^ INFANT BAPTISM. ARGUMENT II. CI The Scriptures require faith and repentance as rcqui- fitc to baptifm ; but as infants cannot have thefe, they are not proper fubjals of baptifm.— Infants, fay the Baptifis, cannot believe, cannot repent ; and nonejhoidd be baptized without faith, ^c. The mod expeditious way of deflroying this ar- gument, would be this. They fay the Scriptures require faith and repentancs in order to baptifm. I alk. Of whom ? The anfwer muft be. Of adults ; for the Scriptures never require them of infants, in order to any thing. Then frame the argument thus : — The Scriptures require faith and repent- ance of ADULTS, in order to baptifm. — Now' you fee infants are gone, they have nothing to do with the argument ;— or if they muft be brought in, the argument will run thus :— The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in order to bap- tifm ; but as infants cannot hav thefe, they are unfit fubjeds of that ordinance. Now it is a glar- ing fophifm ; with adults in one propofition, and infants in the orl.er. Were I only to leave the ar- gument thus, and fay no more upon it, it would not be pofTibk to fave it from perdition ; but fmce it is the only remaining half of the Baptift ftrength, 1 will examine it more at large. In order to judge of the real worth of an argu- ment, I lay down this rule : " Every argument that will prove againft an evident truth ; or, which 1^ the fame thing, every argument which will fup- poit a falfehuod, is clearly a bad argument." This C ?> rule -,r 12 ARGUMENTS AGAINST rule is fclf evident; for thnt mud needs be filf« vvhicii tends to prove a fallehood. I wiil proceed by this rule, and atlemnt to fliow, I. That this argument is entirely fallaeiuus, II. Point out vvherv.in its fallacy confifts. I. Of the fallacy of this argument. The pijn. clple of t is, that infants are excluded from bap- tifni, becaufe fomcthiiig is faid of ba;itifm which will not agree to infants. To lee therefore the tend- ency of this argument, whether it wiil prove oa the fide of truth or error, 1 will try its operation on thefe four fubjecls. I. On the circumcifion of infants. — That in- fants were circumcifeJ, is a facl. — That they were circunicifed by the exprefs command of God, is a jiroof of right. — They were actually cir cumcifcd, and it was ri ;;ht they fliould be fo. — Therefore that they were proper fubjecl:s of that inllitute, is an evident truth. Now on this truth I mean to try the argument, to fee if it will prove for, or againfl it. Circumcifion, as it was a folemn entering in*o the Church of God, did fix an obligatioi; on th cir- cumcifed to conform to the laws and ordinances of that church. Hence that fpeech, Acfs, xv. 24, *' Ye mud be circumcifed, and keep the law ;" which would have been jull, if circumcifion had no been abolilhed. The Apoille lays, Gal. v. 3. *' Every man who is circumcifed, is a debtor to do the whole law." His meaning is, if circumcifion be in force, fo mull its obligation to i. And Rom. ii. 25. he fays, " Circumcifion profiteth if thou keep the law ; but, if thou h^ a breakc'- of -he law, thy tircuiucirion is made unciicumcilion. 'fhe funi irTAXT BAPTISM. 23 finr. of this is, he that was cIrcumcIfcJ became a debtor ; if he kept the law to which he was bound, his circumcifion would profit ; but if he violated it, his circumcifion becatr- nullity. Now I afk, Did it -^ to an infant to become a debtor? Did it a",iv, .0 an infant to break or keep the law ? Mr. Booth fiiall anfwer both. To the (irll he fays, vol. ii. page 151, " Infants are not capable of contractinf,^ either with God or man. That, to fuppofe any fuch thiu,c;, infults the underftanding and feelings of mankind. For, as Biihop Sandcrfon obferves. In perfonal obligations no man is bound without his own confcnt." To the other he anfwers, " The minds of mere infimts are not capable of comparing their own conduct with the rule of duty ; they have, proptrly fpeak- ing, noconfeience at all." Infants therefore could not become debtors ; they could not keep the law. Very well. Then it is clear there was fomething faid of circumcifion which did no more agree to infants, than if it had been faid, Repent, and be baptized. In this refpeft baptifi.i and circumcifion are upon a level ; for there is fomething faid ..oncern- ing both, which will by no means agree to infants. Infants, on the one hand, can neither believe nor repent ; and thefe are connected with baptifin ; and, on the other hand, infants cannot become debtors, the) cannot keep the law ; and thele are c imected with circumcifion. And thenifwefav, as the Baptifls do, that infants, fince they cannot believe or repent, mufl: not be baptized, bccaufe iaith and repent mce are connected with baptifm ; wcinult faylikewife, inf.iuts cannot become debtors, they cannot keep the law; and becaule ihefe are c: 4 connected vf '■-■I ^4 ARGUMENTS AGAINST m ^f LM i connected with circumcifjon, they mufl: not be circuw-^lfed. And then it follows that this arfru- ment by proving againlt a known truth, appears a fallacious argument. But it may be faid, circumcifion of infants was commanded of God, and was thcrdore certainly right To tliis I anfwer, that that is the very principle on which I proceed, and it is that very thing which proves fatal to this argument ; furilie circ^'inciilon of infants being an evident truth, and the argument befoie us proving again't i', it is a plain demoulLraticn of its abh'rdity and lallacv. Now if this argument be fuch, that had it b 'en ufed by a Jew in the land of Canaan, it v\ouK', have proved againH: an ordinance of God, 1 would fain know, if its nature can in any meafure be changed, merely on its being ufed by a Bapiiit, and in a dif- ferent climate ? I proceed to try it, 2. On the bapiifm of Jcfus Chrifl. The bap- tifm of Chrifl is a known iact ; and that he was a fit fubject, is an acknowledged truth. It is like- wi e certain, that, as he was no finner, he could have no repentance ; and fince he needed no falva- tion from fin, he could not have the faith of God'i elect ; that is, he could not have that faith which the Scriptures require to baptilm. Now the tendency of this argument being to prove that thofc who cannot have faith and repent- ance are unfit fubjects of baptifm ; and Scripture informing us that our Lord Jefus was baptized, who could have neither, the dilemma therefore will be t'^is ; either the baptifm of Chrifl was wrong, or elfe this ar«;ument is falfe. It is inipolTible to fuppofe the tirft, that the baptifin of ' ' rifl was wrong J wc mult therefore afhrni the la, . .iiat this lUii INFANT BAPTISM. 25 argument is falfe : Becaufe that argument mufl be hhc which proves againft an evident truth. Again, when it is faiti '. '^- argument, that the Scriptures requiic faith -ep. nranre, in (^rder to baptifm ; 1 afk, Do ihey require them of ail, or 01" lome only ? If it is iaid, they are r^'qui-cd of a!! ;_ then, as before noi^d, it proves a-ain'!: the baptir.n of Jefus Chrilt. U it b'j f dd, they require them (f for.e only; then tl^e argument' has no force : For, in that cafe, it would run thus — Faith and repentance are required only of fome, in order to baptifm : iVnd now the confjqucnt will be, that fume may be baptized without them. And nothing uould remain then, but that it be determined, vho fliould be baptized without faith, and who \uth. View it which way we will, the argument is lair^rably bad. The Baptids however, in this ciife, fly to its relief by laying, « that Jefus Chrilt, on account of the dignity of his perfon, was ex- tPipied from this rule." How this will mend the matter I fee not j for now it is acknowledged to be a rule which will admit of exception, /ind then I have only to alk, how many exceptions does it admit, and what are they ? Neither would it be better to fay, that Chrifl was baptized, to fet us an example. For then we fhould have an example ot one, who, being incapable of faith and repent- ance, was baptized without them, - nd in this view, his example will weigh in favour of infant baptifm. I will try it again", 3 On the falvation of infants. That infants •nay be the fubjedh of falvation is univerfallv ad- mitted ; that thole, w'lo die in infancy, are acVuaily glorilicdj is alio granted : And yet there is fome- thiiig ■■<# \§ * * ;k; M i^\ -"i: i t?; m ■J. 'W 6 ARGUMENTS AGAINST thing fakl concerning falvation, which v.'ill by r.o means agree to infants — " lie that believcth (liall be laved j le that believeth not fliall be damned," What fhall we fay in this cafe ? Why, the fame as before. If infants mud not be baptized, bc- caufe fomething is faid ot baptifm, which does not agree to infants ; then, by the fame rule, -nfantj muft not be faved, bccaufc fomething is faid of falvation, which docs not agree to infants. Ami then, the fame conJequtnce again follows, that this argument, by proving againll an ai^knowledgcd truth, proves itielf to be fallacious. And now, fince it falls in with my preftnt de- fign, and may fcrve to relieve and inform the reader, 1 will prefent him witii two f|?ccimens of rcafoning on the fame text ; one of which concludts againft infant baptifm, and the other for it. The reader may adopt that which pleafes him beft. The firlt fpecimen fhall be that of I\Ir. B. vol. ii. page 309, where he adopts the remark of Mr. C hambcrs : " What they [the German Baptilts] chiefly funported their great doclrine on, ..as thofe words of our Saviour ; ' He that believeth, and is baptized, firall be faved.' As none but adults are capable of be'ieving, they argued, that no others are capable of baptifm." — If thefe had gone on^ flep farther, their argument would have been loll. c. ^!f. As none but adults are capable of believing, none but a^lults are capable of being faved. This with t!ie Baptilts is a favourite text ; and they ar- gue upon it from the order of the words : If, fiv they, faith goes bert)re baj)tifm, then infants niUii not be baptized, bccaufe they have no faith. iiiC Infant baptism. The other is thr.t of Dr. Walk 27 er, out of his M.'Jcfl PL^a, j.a-c i/r;. His words are ihcfc: '' Ir iio!;c inuit be baprixeJ but he that believes, Ixraiiie i.cHcving is let fiifl ; then none muil be i,;ad but he that is baptized becaufe baptizing is I.! firft. /\nd then, v. hat better arojuniL'nt ean be nalc for infant baptihn ? They muit be baptized If \v.' will have them favec! • '^ '"■ •'■ - - 1; u L'J lavet Avithour bcin eanle toev cannot bai-)ti:-:ed ; for bnotizinir ;ii .' 1 s before facing. And yet from the fanie text, ! by rhr fame way ofaro'uing, it may be i)r()ved, thit no infants are laved, but ihoie that believe; bL-cau!_e believing is fa l)efcre f iving : /\nd not only (o, but whereas it is not laid, he that be- lieve' h not fliali not be baptised ; it is faid, he that believcth not fliall be damned." 'i'lie diilerence betv.een the reafoning of thefe two, lies in ihis : '1 he i^aptiils reafon on a part of thj text only.and theDoclor re:ifoned on the whole. i\!Uito (]^o\v Ikjw miferaljly fallacious the reafoning of \hc Rapiiffs is, I will !,iy down a plan of their lo^ic on this text, v. hich will produccniore coii- tuifions than there are principal v\f;rds in that part the verfe. i'he pdacc is, Mark. xvi. 16. " He that believeth, and is baptized, fliall be faved." N(VA' as the Bap;ilts reafon from the order of the words, I will mark them with figures— belie'veih— baptized — faved. 'fhe logic IS as follows : Take the firll and fe- conu— believeth— baptized— and fay with the I'aptiih — I. None arc to be baptized but fuch as believe, :xcaufe believing niufl be before baptizing.— * *' Be. -*-' 4:-^ 28 ARGUMENTS AGAINST ... I «« Believeth"— " baptized.' This will conclude againH: infant baptiun. Next, take the firlt and third — believcth faved — and fay in the fame way : 2. None are to be faved, but fuch as believe, becaufe believing nuift be before favin'^— " Bclicveth"— fr.ved." This concludes againft infant falvation. Now take the fcccnd and third— baptized— faved — and argue in the fame manner : 3. None are to be faved but fuch as are bap- tized, becaufe bupiizing muft go before faving.— *' Baptized"—'' la.cd." This will conclude, on the fule of infant bap- tifm, they \\\\\{i be baptized, or they cannot be faved. As Dr. Walker rcafons. Laflly, take all three — believeth—baptized— faved — and fay : 4. None ar-e to be faved but fuch as believe and are baptized, becaufe believing and baptizing muft t I be before faving. — " Believeth'* — " baptized"— " faved." This concludes agaiuil tlie falvation of believers in Jefus Chrift, if they have noc been baptized. And lo ujion the principle of the Baptifts, it con- cludes againll the falvation of all Piedobaptifts. All thefe coucluiions, arifing from the fame T\-ay of reafoning, may ferve as a fpecimen to fliow the lallacious mode of arguing againft infant bap- tifm, adopted by the Bantills. Let it be tried once more, 4. On the temporal fubfutence of infants. M the reader may perc*;ive the drift of tlic reafuiiing, INFANT BAPTISM. 29 4" I on thefc inflancc-s I will ufe but few words en ri-c prcicnt one. Now that infants fliould be f.i>. ported, not only Scripture, but Nature iirdf .caches. And yet, if we form the Baptift arg i- mmt on a tew places of Scripture, it may be proved, in oppofltion to Nature and Scripture both, that infants fliould adually be left to P -rve. We have nothing to do but to mention the texts* and apply their reafonin- to them. Ifaiah, i. in. U ye be wilhmj; and obedient, ye fliall eat the good of the land." 2 ThefT. iii. 10. " If any would not work, neither fhould he eat." Take the firft, and fay with the Baptift in another cafe* U Ulingncfs and obedience are required of thofe vho are to eat the good of the land ; but fmce in- tants can neither will nor obey, they muil not eat the good of the land.—In the fame v ay let the other be taken : He that will not work, neither iiall ne eat j infants cannot ^^ ill to work, then in- tants mull not eat. This argument, in whatever way it is viewed .ould fubhft I h.s argument proves a^rainfl it. 1^ U a truth, that infants may be laved ? ^Jlils argu- ment will prove the contrary. Was Chrift rightly baptized ? According to this argument it could not be. Were infants proper fubjecls of circumcifion ? Ihis argument will prove thev were not.—Then' >t It invariably lupport a iailchood, we are com! pellcd to fay it is a fa'.le argument. II. J will point out wherein this fallacv confifls. AS this argument, noiwithftandino- it is falfe ii dchtl [Aus iJJl cli'fione qUiV.n ci\ii in prcn:;jj in (Oil- A'.// 10 ;/.' ^ifi il Cl ■L Ilia conclulio cdincniia cji ex prcm'ijjis " 1 hat is, ' There Oiould not be more in die conelufion than vvns in ih( )rcnn! I'h e rea'on is i)laiii, bt.c,iii fe the conelufion is to be chawn from the preniifcs, both We will iry to make this plain, by examples of tru^' and falle reafoning. 1. Intiie Eaptiit way of rcnfeming. — When the Scriptures fay, " Repent and be baptized ;" and, " if thou befievell thou mayelt," 6cc. they addrcfi only ihiful adults ; and then, an argument fonncJ upon them ihould reach no farther than adults of the fanvj d^-teription. But the Baptiils form their fallacious argument on thefe pafTages, by brin,;in^ infants into the conelufion, who, as they are m>t nddreffed, are not at all concerned in the premifes. 'I'his will appear plain by three inltances on the Baptiil ])lan. The Banti:! aruument runs thus : The Scrip', ires require faitli and repentance in oruer to bapiil but intam. have not faith ami repentance ; the m; 10- for ' thev are not to be bantized. Ne,\v as the of ■nt. Scriptures require faith and repentance only adul'is, we mufi place that word in the ar;.ume and then it will itand in this form : The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in orucr io Ualuiilil i uUt i I>" i- .-i In i S CaliUOl iiilVw ;;;-;■- There- -v.; Int re INI- ANT BAPTISM. ore infants are not fit fubjccls c ihmc way, \vc may form (he two 3t if baptil Ml. foil (n\ intr lih ices 1'/;:: c ocrijnurcs require faith and apcntancc of adults in on'cr to falval ion bur in- fants cannot have thele: '1 hercfore infants cannot be \AeJ. Ainiin, He [an auuh] who will not work, neither Hioukl he car; but an in- t.ut cannot will to work, therefore an infant luoulJ not eat.— 'Ihe reader may ])erceive, tliat bv pliciiig the word adults in one propofition, and inhiuts in the other (which makes it :\ fophilm^ there are three thin-s prc-d in the fame wav' r,=. That infants cannot b. faved — that infai.ls :hoiiId not eat— hat infants fliould not be ban- iiy.id. And fo, for the fame reafon, that an in- |:;it cannot be faved, that ?.n infant fhould not cat ; r ill follow, that an infant fliould not be bap- iiad. For all thele are equally true, and fup- poricd by the fame reafoninij And it is in the I'-meway, that this argument proves againft the Ixiptiim of Chrift, and the ciicumcilion of infants. V\c will now view thele thtee inlfanccs. 2. !;i the Piedobaptiil way of reafoning. — We yill} hict the fame word in each propofuion, thus : I'll: Scriptures require faith and repentance of 2uulfs_ hi order to baptilm ; but fome adults have !io iiith, no repentance ; therefore fbme adults 2^e r.Mi to be baptized. Again, Tlie Scriptures ^^nc faith and repentance of adults in order to '^Ivatin'); bur fl-nie adults do not believe nor re- F'-i" ; tlierLfoie iome adults will not be faved. ()i!ex- iirse— lie '^an adult] who will not workj !i^ii'ier ilKHi'd he e^f ; but fome adult will not J^rk; therefore fome adult fliould not cat. Now bv nl '1— 'iiv t> wi Li UVlUit ili CaCii pi()|,oiUlon, wiih- m 1*1 i 4 4 J 5 32 ;\Rr.t;Mr.NT.s aoain^st T-1 fj^l Pt without which it woukl be a fophiUical argument, the rc.ui r may (l.'C, that as infants cm have ';;> place in cither, there is notliin^ to iorhid their iupport, their lalvation, or tiieir hapiil'm. 'I'hcy only prove, that an idle a 'ult ih(uild not be fup. ported ; ihat an iinpcniteni aduh will ntu be favd ; and, that he h i-i no ri,'j;!it at all to biptilm. Once ni(5re. — As I have notliing in view, h much as trath, 1 have a great ikfne to make this matter {dain to the nieanelt capacily. I'or it I iii.i clearly nnderfLOod in this part, my end, on the prefent ar;;ument, is attained; and what I have beiore advanced upon it will be, in a -rcat mea- fure, uielels. T' e reader, therefore, is clefircd to obferve, that the defip;n of this arj^nnncnt is to con- clude a;^ainll the baptifm of infants. Then, as infants are to be in the conclufion, they mult alio be in the premifes ; for the rule fays, " there fhould not be more in the conclufion than was in the premifes ; becaufe the conclufion is to be drawn from the prtmiles. Now to make the argument of t!ic Baptids con- fiftent with itfelf, we mult place infants -- 'le p/eniifes as well as in the conclufion ; md then the argument will Itand thus: The Scriptures u- quire faith and rcpentaiice of infants in order to baptifm ; but infants have not faith, &c. ; their- lore infants are not to be baptized. The reader may dilcein an agreement, in the parts of the ar- gument, with each 'lii.T; it has infants in eacli part, as wcU in the prer.iifes, as in the conclufion. JJut, then, the fallacy of it is more ftrikingly evi- dent than before- For the error, wdiich before crept into the middle, does here (land in fr^^'^ J Ir lo In tliij nr.-innfitinn thf> Srrint lirps renuue faita i% S. u: • •;• j • ■ 1 ; - -- 1 i , INI ANT JJ.vI'TISM. 1 t v.k\ repentance of infants in orJer to Ixiptlfm, which is not .rue ; for infants arc never required to repent or believe in onler either to b.ipiilia or l.ilvation. Whereas before, when it was laid, the Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults ill order to baptifrn ; l)ut infants have not faith, .vc. the error confided in putting in the word ' infants,' who liave no concern at all in the re- I'jUircinent. 15) placin;:; one thing in the prcmifes, and ano- t!icr in ihe conciufion, wliich is done by the 13ap- tiifs, in this argument, we may be able to evince 2\\y abfurdity, however glaiing. This being the r.uiniier of the Baptiff argument, nothing more is neceCa.y to take off its force agairifl inlants, but to nnl;e the premifes and conciufion to correlpond with each other. That is, while it continues to be a fophifm, it proves againit infants ; but it ..cafes ro prove againd them, as foon as it is made ;i good argu lent. c. g. Faith and repentance are Kquired of .dults in orHerto baptifrn ; but infants have not thcfe : Therefore infants are not to be l';iptiv:ed. 'I'his is nothing more than a pure I'phifm, and, as fuch, it concludes againft in- t.;iits ; but all its force againfl infants is fet afide hx making it good, thus : Faith and repentance are required in adults in order to baptifrn ; but lome adults have not faith and repentance : There- fore fome adults are not to be baptized. The reader may fee, that now it is a fair argument, all its force againfl infants is gone. Slaving laid thus much on the fallacy of tnis ar- gument, I ihall only add one fpecimcn of its mode -f operation ; and that is a fpecimcn, in which it ^^'!1 conclude two contrary ways, on one place of ■il >0 ,f ■■• ■ D Sc rip- u ARi'.N'MF.KTS AOAIWIT 1)1" circu mcifi on Scripture, Rom. il. ly lily j-iiMlitcih, it" thou keep the l:i\v ; but if thou \hc I .'."•V, tl ly circunicilioii is made be ;i iMCiikcr ol uncirt-'unicilioii." Now the r>apiilt nr^uirent, on the Hrfl nieuiher o[ this text, will opLi-ate thus: Circujntilion ve- rily proliteth, it thou keej) the law ; but inlant,; f HiUl not keep the l.iw : 'I'heretore their ci'-cuiu- llon nuill be unprolitable, that is, as no clrcura- cilion, a nn re nuliity; and tliio rellects on tjic \vi fdoin ment on o F CoJ. l>ut iF w [orni the fame ar i;'u- th o her member, it wi 11 be no nullity neit her. for tluis it will run : 11 thou be a breaker V f tin h ihv eireumeilion is made uneirevnnci fion : l)ut ii\rants eould not break the law; there- fore th-"ir eireumeilion c )uld not be ma 'e uncir- cumcifion, /'. c. a nullity. Such is this Bajitill argfl- juent, that ii v.ill |Mo\e inhmt eireumeilion to b. fomelhin;;, or notliir. ., accordin;v to that part ei the text on v. hieh it is lormed ; ;md it is the^ evidently no nnire than a A|plnlm. 1 h; d t 1. ave en(!ea\ repu-iiant to the laws ol truth, if the method I have tikento ihow wherein t be familiar to a:iy lull eon! ih ou! no tlie f reader, it i,^ p'Oilible he may nut apprehend in^ I NT.'. NT BAPTISM. J3 i; !o, I would advifc liini to read it repeatedly, and ii fcrious attention ; lor I am not vviihout Iio]^^, w 1 1 i:'.t even the ir.oit ccnunon capaeiry, wiiJi due e!e;!rly couipreluiid ni) ineaniu'T. itention \\\[ On the oilier hand, I ha\e no dduht, but many v.ill readily entjr inio tlu method, and Ice what a tallacious ar;.'unicnt is made ufe (;f to iu'jport nini), I am eompelled lo defeit. poi :1. two arcrumLnts l)e'-v.r taken aw an ap- D'l Ins Tiotinn left to ii;;v; not met wi th piaee a'^amlt nirant ivipnhn. a nno:! rierion, wlio. ,1 en I'.lied to ])r<,)i.luce the llrongei't arguments af!;ainih mlanis, eould advance any tiling more than what: ;■; cr.ht.ined in thei'e tvvo. "Wiiile I lhou;;!it it r:^ht to oppole the l)aptirm o[' infants, 1 i nade ule di lllL them '; re:d am {{ It but ^\llea tliev apnea red. as iv are, ver y erroneous and hatl, I p;avt m up ; and from that ti;ne hdw- never been abh I law that ih. noil. > ])re;'.eh a Ixiptizing !lr; diole lircn:.Tili ot a Baptid was cone. * . *■ ' liy the removal of thefe wo arguments, thus maeli i,- g' unee 1; tl lat wliate\ er iU )e au\',meec 'y.\ I he part of infants, will Hand with uniliminilivjd orce. ]' ill :{l or It will now a\'au notlmiu- to I,;, '}■ w ith tie lirit argumenr, tlvere is no exprelt; law tor in- fuit baptiha; nor will it be of any ufe to allirm, according to the feeond, that infants have no faith, III) repentance : Becaufe tlve ar 'uiik ni^ themlelvcs bcini tiiLU'., will be entirely devoid of acious, wha.iever may I h; ur'iee .oree again 1 fr il inf om. mt bapttim. Having now fmiflied what I intended on the ar- g''mcuts, on one i\'^^.\ I j)rocced to tliole on the ?her. I am well perfuadcd, that the Scriptures ■mnot favv)ur both fi \IA' lllil ll:u1 1 1 D t ! 1 e a r o" ii n i c ! 1 1 s au'aii'.il". -..t m i. i ' ^B^H »,. ■ iftj^^H 1^^ IriH 1. M n ■ •'i 1-' ■1 [|^ ;•! im 36 ARGUMENTS AGAINST INFANT BAPTlSxM. againfl infant baptifm been good, I am conviK''ed that nothing in the word of God would have given it any countenance. But fince the truth muft be either for Ci againfl: the baptifm of infants, and the arguments againfl: being futile, it is certain the truth mail lie on the other fids. [ 37 3 iWil C H A P T E R II. LONTAINING ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF INFANT BAPTISM. ^■im INFANT baptifm is to be proved, in the fame way, as female communion. In the cafe of female communion, all the Baptifls I have ever converfed with, on that fubjed, make ufe of infer- ence and analogy ; and, though m them " ' is ri- diculous, they are not able to prove it in an> other way. And this method is even adopted by Mr. Booth, as I fliall more plainly evince in another place i though glaringly inconfiftent with his own principles. As I am now to advance proof in favour of in- fant baptifm, the funple method I mean to adopt will be the following. In the firft place, it is a fcia acknowledged by the Baptills themfelves, that infants were at an early period conflituted members of the church of God. In the next place, I fhall produce prcof, that they have a right to be fo now ; a. id that the conltitution of God by which they were made members, has not been altered to this day. In the lait place, I (hall lay down this dilemma, which will conclude the whole bufinefs, namely : As infan by a divine and unaltered con- ltitution hav. a right to be received as church ^s ARGUMENTS Oli Till' SIRE o: member-, they iinht be received either with br:i- li.in or without it. It they are not lo be r.eeivt'rd withoMt l.apti'iiii, then, the conJequent is,tli'tthcv ntiid. be bapt'./,.d, 'jccar.le they mult be Vlcuv^J. — I no V requL,' the reader's attention to each ef thele in their order. ARGUMENT I. God has conftitutcd in hh Church iljc nicnihsrjh'ip rj infants^ and adinhttd them to it by a re Unions rite. n -' ^ h m * In this argument it U prorcr to take notice of two parts. 1. The cliuvch-mcn-iheifp.ip of infants.— A churv:h- is a fociety th:;t Hand:, in i'};ccl;d rehinoii tn God, 'oeb;'.^ iniliuuei! for vu H;.','oiis pu; jKifes. When the perions coinpofuig th: Ib-cictv oppe;.r o^ eit'y in fuch rehui{*n to Ood, it is called a Nif'ble ciiurch ; nnd of ii:ch an ore I now Ipeak. 'I'he relaticn, between v^od and this fociety, is u)nncd by Cod himfeh, bv cleciarini?- he is, ai:d v.ili Ix' their GoJ. This dechiration cf God .. hich conUitutcd that relation, which indeed did oid troni the be-in- ninp;, had an equal re;!;ard to auuhs and iahiuts ; wdi be a Ciod unto thee, aihi to thy leei] alter " And hence l^oth voimi*; and old, who had been d'.dy CiUcred, wer • ccnfieiered as children or the (dvcnant and the kingdom, that i->, cd th': chineh. The rite of circumtdfion being per- formed, the circunicifcd was prerenied to the Lord ; which is a mode of cxpreliiov: to figniiy ;i nid)lic catering uito chmxh-icnowfnip. Th^ thee. INFANT BAPTISM. It, '['he Ccifc as now dated, is, I I'uiipofc, commonly hnitted. It is granted b> Baptilts, who are the ll Ukclv of any to deny it, that inhmts were bers of the Jcwilh church. Mr. Booth grants 1. ii. 224. So docs Mr. Keach, Go.d^ re- " Thar children were aUmittcd And mo in cm ,0 Wi fined, page • .3 members of the Jewifli church i>' graine*i. indeed ii is not pollibleto deny this, witiiout deny that adults themlelves were mem.bers, w hich wou. church in the w coullituted by God hianelf, memoers or ins own vifible church. 11 Infants, in o Id be the fiime as denying that God haJ a orld. Infants, therefore, were If, rdcr to vifible member flnp, \vere the lubjects of a religious rite. _ That circumciilon was a reliQious rite, is as e illlv proved, as that Mr. -ie b:iptirm and the Lord's fupper are Inch. Booth, in this cafe, is in a Itrait betwixt two is not willing llatly to den) it, nor yet cdu \w ■-re- vpal on himVelf to ael;no\\ ledge it. He is very as if ire law foiue iornii- beneath it. See what tender upon the iubie<.u d:ible confequenco lurkini he favs, vol. ii. : ment pure Ba}jtil'm is an appoint- Iv reli-nous, and intended for purpofes ciuirelv fpiritual : liUt cnxu mcilion, befides the Ipliitual inltruclion fuggelted by it, was a hgn of carnal delcent, a mark of national diitinebon, and a token of imerelt in thofe temporal bleilings that 1 to Abraham." Now can any livmg vere promilec foul tell from whence Mr. 15= had all this ? Was it from the Koran, or TalnuK .1 r 'Vo Ihow he never \oo[ his notion am tfiken v.as trom the Bible, I will let the Bible ll him, and him agauiil \i.— Booth. It was a oi inlerelt in temporal bleilings — lL\ It a token of the cove uant betwecii God and Abraham. ■yi ARC;U?''^.NTS OX THE rJDE OF Abrnh.-.T-, to be a God to hiiu and his feed.— B'.oil). It was a fign of carnal dclcent.- y;/7;.V.' Jt uusa figu of ciuuiiicifion, /. c. of the heart and fpiiit —Booth. It WHS a marl; of national (Hltinc- t\on.— Bible. It was a feal of the right. uufnefs of laith. Now compare ]\Ir. B. with fad. - Bry,:h. L was a token of interefl in temporal blellin-s.-J Fact. Many had the interefl without the token, and many had the token without the interdi.— .' Booth. It WAS a mark of national dillindion.— Futl. Many other nations had the lame mark. So it was a diftinclion which did not diftin-uiOi.— Booth. It was a fign of carnal defcent.— M. All Abiaham's male fervants, and many prorelytcs,\vcrc circumciled. Kither thefe were defcended from Abraham, or Mr. B.'s fign was, as one calls it, a fign of a lie. — See what the love of hypothtfis can do! Could any man have given a poorer account of circumcifion than Mr. B. has done ? But was it not, after all, a truly religious infli- tute ? Mr. B. is not willing to deny this alto'^e- ther. He feems to grant, at leail by implication, that it was half a religious rite. " Baptifm," lays lie, " is an appointment purely religious, for pur- pofcs entirely fpiritu^." By his uhng the words J'ure'y and entirely as applied to baptifm, and then comparing it to circumciiion, he feems to admit that circumcifion was partly a religious rite. All hp will grant in j^lain terms, concerning the reli- gious n..an-e of this inftitute, is, that it " fug- gelled Ipiriiual inflrudion ;" which is not pecu- liar to any rite either jewiHi or C:hriftian. I am forry to iee a man, of Mr. B.'y ability, trifle alter this fort. He certainly knew not what to make of ft. ; he fa.w Ibmeihing in its afped dreadfully formi- INFANT BAPTISM. 4 I liblo to his fyflem, and \vns afraid of its niipear- in;T, in iliat form, in which it is fet forth in the word of God. Thefe llrokes in Mr. B.'s book, :;ul kich as thefe, which I intend- to notice, con- ^ince me more than any thing 1 have ever read, of the fallac; oi' the baptiffs' fcheme. Leavinj; Mr. B.'s difrorted account of thi,^ ordi- n:;nce, we will view it as reprefentcd in the v.ord of God. To fee, then, whether it is a religious rite, we have only to view it, in its various rela- tions to religion ; and circumciilon thus viewed will appear to have been of that defcription, as truly zi baptifm, or the Lord's fupper. Let it be conli- Jercd in its inditution — in its application— in its obligation— and connexion with religious things. 1. In its inftitution. In this view of it, it was a token of God's covenant made with Abraham, in which he promifed to be a God unto him, and his feed after him. And then, as an appendage, he promifed to give him r.nd his feed the land of Ca- iKian for his temporal fubfiftence. For earthly 'hings are appendages to the covenant of grace, they are things added, as our Lord expreffes it, to help a faint through this world. 2. We may view it farther, in its application, under the threefold notion of a token, a fign, and a feal. As a token it is a ratification of God's Srant in covenant, to be a God to AbraL^.n and his feed. As a fign, it denotes the grace of God oil the heart, whereby it is enabled to love God, to worfliip him, and to have no conhdence in the flefli. Deut. xxx. 6. Rom. ii. 2S, 29. Phil. iii. 3. And therefore called a fign of cir- cumcifion, /. e. of the circumcifion of the heart. As a feal It applies to the righteoufncfs of faith, /'. c. the i^i i -42 ARCUMf.Nl " OV T![:: r-IDE O F- the ri-hteoufMefo ol Cl'.riil In which tucn a.,- jLidiiiLv!. •;. We may colli:. icr it, ia its (onnexlun. Ar,J ihis is, with the Scriptuies, Rom. iii. 2. '• Tu them were coiiuuitted the oracles ol God " "With the proTuifes [M0111, XV. 8.] " Now I iV.v — that Jel'iKs Clirilt Vi'.s .1 niinilter ol the circuinciilon for the truth o'' God, to coutlrin the promiiLj made unto the tacuei.;." Witli baptifni, Col. ii. 11,1:. wherein thefe two are Ipokeii ot as Itandiivj; on a level with each other, as being each of them of the fume religious kind. If we view it in ita obligation, we may obfervc, that as it wai an entering into the vifible church rt God, fo it bound the perlon, who received it, to a conlorniity to ail other inftitutcs. Gal. iii. 3, V/ 111, out t is couJorniity it profited nothing;, for where this was wanting, it was deemed a nudit". . 'i'h;;t rite therefore winch obligLS to a conic rnity to religion mult be a religious rite. When, tl.erefore, wc ccnfider this inftltute, in its ulc and applica i^u, under all thefe views, there can be no doubt of its b.lng a religious inilitute; becaui^ '.s Vv hole ufe and application are i'o. _ And as nothing more can be i'aid to prove the religious nature of baptifni and the Lord's fupper ; a man niiglit as well dei.-y thefe to be religious or- diiutnccs, as the other. And hence it is, that Mr. B.'s conducl: is the more to be admired, who, noiwiih iaitding he mutt have feen all this in iLrip- tnre, does, of''\is own head (the word of GoJ. givn-.g him no uuihority), transform it into ?. mere kcular, political rite. And this is done to de- flroy all analogy between it and baptiim, for fear ^ • that IX'.AKT nAPTIsr.T. 4' '..'.t anriljj^y Hioulu jnovo die u.dructlun of his J\W. B. in Ills preface f;iy?, /•;■.;: /.?// iiuxiHo, iicr '..'.:. j\nbus iji^s. This is to intimate to the reader, :i..it ;i good caufc dc^cs iiOt iiei d ii bad defence. N ;^v, it v,e uvj to form a jud';inent of the caufe \c i :.-; ur.dortaken to fupport, froiu the means he 1 :; vS ufe of, to fupport it, we cannot fupj^ofc the s.iic he has taken is hand, is any other than a viiv b:.d one. I quellion if the inoti: carnal Jew, ;h;ii ever fat in the region of darkni,fj, and fliadow ( t death, conld have given a \\\o\c frigid, de- grading ;iccoLuit of an inliitetion of God than he ;:,is do:ie. According to him, it was only a fr,ii if carnal defcent — a mark oi national didlnc- tiou — a token of interciL in temporal bleUinp-s — i'h.id a political afpect — it Vvas pertornied v/iih ])o- litic:d views — and (not knowing very wlH vhat 'o cio with it, he imioilnces a irned word, and iliy.O it was luJapted to an ecclehaiuco-poiiticjd con- fiiiiition. 'Ihus he. But one thing he forgot- he h.isiiut j,!\en all this the fanction of the facred text. lii(1ttd, ii it agree to anv thing in the Bible, it a;rces bell of all to the circumcifion of thoic pw^r Shcthemites, who were lirit deceived, ar.d then djiircycd by the fons of Jacob. Gen. xxxiv. Thcle two parts ot the propcilition being evinced; nnir.t'y, i. I'hc church inembe. (];!]) oi infa.nts ; ^i;u, 2. thjir adnildion to it, by a religious rite; til'.- whole propoiition w liich I undertake to main- tain, and to lay as a ground-work, from which to Ciu'.clade the baptilm of infants, is this ; God has couiiitutcd in his church the mendxrlnip of in- ^."'yit, and has admiitcd thcni to it by a religicuis rite. , *" m Wl^ '^k1 m : i 44 ARc;t::.:ENTs on tiif. side of rite. Before I pafs to the next argument, I will iiKik' a icnnrk on each part. t. From this fnct, we learn fo much of the mind of Go I, as to be able to conclude, that there is r.othin;:;, in a ftate of infancy, incompatible with <:h!irch-niembcrniin. The reafon is evident ; for had there b.cn imy thinp; \>:ii'u!table in fiich a praclice, CJod, who is an infinitely wile judge of vleccticv and tune Is would never have ordained it. This condiii:!: of the in'mitely wile GoJ, and the pradlce of abo'it two thoulaiid years, (land in di- rec': repugnancy in tiic weak prejudice ot liaptifls; v.iio, from thj fciuimjut they have adopted, are \j\ to fuppo'e that there i;; nothing in nature more ridiculous, than the idja of iulants being church- members. This is one inftance of human depra- \itv ; whereby tlie weaknefs of m"n ilts itlelf ti'/againit the wiii'.oui of God : Aad as this is the inore to be adniirtd in thofe perlous, who in other Tefpects are delirous 'i( fubiuitting to the whole will of G(h1 ; fo it f.trves to ihow, what a very un- happy inlkience the admidion of an erroneous ientiment may gain over the mind. 11. It app'ins from this part of the divine con- <]\icf, in phdu oi'pofir'on to the views of Baptills, that the ignorap.c-, nnd want o[' faith, infep.u-ablc from a ilatc ol'ini;uicv, are no impediments to the ;i;hninii'tr,.tii-n oi a re'igious ordinance: And this truth Ihould be ilu more regarded by us, a? it Hands fiippnr:ed by the high authority of God; ;nul i-. as n tj.oufarv.l arguments againii all thofe ]>lcas wliicii .wc ..ra^^ n from the incapacity ot in- ■.'.•!vv. v,c fee thofe declared fit fubjeOs taut- of a ve! jrdir.aiu:;; who couid know noihu.g 01 INFANT EAPTISM. 45 of Its nature or ufe ; with what prudence or piety- can any man prefume to ailirm, tiiat infants are incapable of fuch an G.din;i".ce? But if any one lliculJ take fo much authoitv ou himf^lf, as fi> arbitrate againft the wifdoni of C.od, he would Jo well to confidcr., ihat God is true, and every man a lia'", /. that judges difTercntly. ARGUMr.NT II. The chiirch-fncmbcrjijip of infants ivas never fct afldc by God or nian ; but continues in force, under the fa n^ ion of God, to the prcfent d'-y. Vhe force of this and the prccedinq; argument, taken together, may be comprehended by "ny man of common reafoning powers. Every cac knows, that what was once done, and never undone, muft of courfe remain the fame: And, that what vas once granted, and never revoked, mult n^c^^i. continue as a grant. There can be no fallacy in all this. — Thefe arguments, therefore, being fairly maintained, will carry us forv/ard to a dilemma : and that dilemma will bring us home to the con- dufion. In good theory, the proof of this argument fhould not lie upon the Baptift. For if I ailirm, and prove, that God did fettle a certain plan re- fpecling church-members, and another Ihouid co.ne and alBrm that that plan was now altered ; u Ihould lie on him to produce his proof that fuch an alteration has taken place ; and the reafon is, that whatever God has eitabli{]-ied fhould be fup- f hnil'Th mm ll?^-, piool AUfa .Mr.KTs ON Tirr. stdp. of proof of its ci-ntiim:incc, unLfi wc arc plair.lv toltj th.it ill' lias t)ititrcd it oilu rwifc. Ami ihcii. ilU'C tluro is nor a i!ii;^lc tiNt ir. SciipMirc to pri)vc tha J,thi tuc I hurcii inuiiUK'riLp^ i;i;.iiU:, i; a:nu: ari^uiucnt flir.'j.lJ. rciiKiJ!! i:i {orte without further pro(>f. — lI()v.L;vcr, I will v.a\ c ihis privilc^.'C, v.hicli I nii^ht julUy claim, and proceed to evince 'he ;\r. gunienr i have l;iid dov.n. i' Ther; 1 evL.;i Hits w was o.;!',/ c.Tic noiii' o[ tun; IM W hich ippo.e A tl ic cp.i!reli-ine h-i ibtril m or in- as fct afidc ; and tli;\t was, when tlie (] n- tiles were tal.Li) into a vllilde church Hate. In ih:.t period fcveral iiilfitulions did ceafe, and ionir nc' ones were or.lain'.'c O ur en ly qi ueliion IS, \vh .clier the chun h.meinbcifi'ip or' inlanis did ccafe at tlie tUi time. It is evident that the mere cnanox* or cellaiion oi inlliriites co fii ^•ork no chance upon rnemoer \H rfiii anv mo than ri;ia's having l.ds clotlies chang'jd can roduce ;, clian'/e upon the man. /Jl inftitutes, \\hcthcr typical or ratll)i.. ,._, .iiat is, ill iidtitutes oi cverv 1< md 10 be confidered. i.i reihL d K in em bers, as means of grace, and nouriiiir.ii'nts for i'aitii, re!i;^, will, in itfelf, p: cluU'; no nio', , 1 alteration m ricmben; ot tik 1 a chani U-- llrov ihe idcniif OI th e mun. 1 am now to jM'ove that the cliurcii-m<'niber- iin (jt \n. whlCl aving been ordainei f God, was never annulled, Avas carried for- :t!Y ward into the i-^entile cliurch; and fo confeq;;.: is in i'orce at the preiijii iiir.e. And this I f proceed to de\. riini INFAXT RArrr.M. ■M Vr-T-i Scripture view: ot" CmhIs Jirpcnf.aion to- aru- ihc C Jcntilc-^ Much li^^ht might bo thrown ui^on this rubjccl, !v confidcrin;; thole prophecies ol" the OKI IciLi- :",-nt MhicineKUi' lo th; cillii.; in oM'i.j Gentiles. Thi; Dr. ■\Villiajii:-. h ' ; done to \r:^:x ndvuntaTC : But my \\, that i!i times pai^., the Cihurch of (iod, vhich is \\\s kin;.;dom, was limiteil to Judea ; fo, in future, he ould have u churc'n in tlie Gcnill akin;; of the kin;;dom from th.e j V e w .1. T K eVv itlo the ren'il ilenotes. 1 lie ceafinr^ of a re<::uiar church "• eivuiT ite a;non;r the IcX'i^. And this actually took phicL, ')v the de- ilniction of fome, and the diipcrfion of others, who did not receive the l.ur jeius (Jh.rin: as fent of God ; while thole wlio did receive him, were ar lb inunh emov \\ irom ju ^ca, aiid by detrrees ioi't th name of Jew, in thai of l.jniit' m. 1^ o'u. a. I. Th e lettuii;- up a rcowiar ^'iurcli iiaie airion the Genii!es. This, as ih.- celiaiion ci rhe church amun^r ,hc Jev.'s, was -^radualiy brouoht about. I'oi the Gentiles who rame ov.r to Chrilf, join- in- thcmleives to the Jewifii church, ber-^me in time the larger part. So th't bv the '.e Gentiles, and the break 1 .r.. ins: o bra nces amonir the .^ f of nothing iiKTcaie or tnp wor rernamec th- 1 -ut an eluire Gentile church. The 43 ARor^.IENTS ON TIIF. SIDE OK 1^ 3. The famenefs of the church ftate, anionp; the Gciitiles, v ith ihat among the Jews. For vAmr away and giving cannot import a change in the tiling taken and given ; but a transfer, the palfing of a thing From one to the other. I'he kingdom ^iveii to the (ientiles was the fame that was taken from the jews : For all that was taken irom the jews was given to the Gentiles. Now, if \vc \\ould kni)w what was to be the church ftare ;unong the Gentiles, we have only to learn v,liut it had been among the jews : For in both cafes th^ church llc'te was the fame. And then, as it has before been proved, and admitted by the Baptifl:^, that the church Hate among the jews conhi'ed in tl^e mcmbv-rfhip of adults and infants, the church ftate among the Gentiles mull confiit of adults and infunts'too : Bccaufc the fame that was taken from the je /S was given to the Gentiles. x\nd fo it appears from CJod's difpenfation to the Gen- til'-s, that the chuich-memberlliip of infants \va,> not fet afide.— 1 will anticipate two objeftions in this pl.ice, \\hich may be urged on eaeh "t the pallages I ihall allege. J. It may.be laid, that in this way of viewing the uil;jec\, all the ordinances and rituals ot .he jew nil church muit be adopted by the Gentile. To this 1 anfwer, that thcfe things were not ofih. c;"Liu-e of a church Hate ; but only means of j^raci, and helps to faith for the time being. Neither were thelc taken and given, but annulled ; tluv were not tr uisfened, but abolifhed. i<.ituals r.'-' to a church, as diet ur oi]i;iments are to a nun; L the die; l)c chajigcd, and the ornanuniN le- lU cliuu'h ct j..oved, the clVence of t!,e n;an will be itiH fauic. ^o ih.e ilato and e'lciicc oH t!te 0' INFANT BAPTISM. 40 Goc), before thefe rituals were ordained, and while they were in force, and after their abol'tion, was and is, and muft be the fame. This will be handled more fully in another place. 2. U any lliould fay, it does not appear that women in the Jewilh church were admitted to an iniriatintr rite; and if fo, there is a difference be- tween the prefent church and the Jewilh ; I ob- lerve in anfwer, that this difference does not im- ply a removing or changing of any thing ; but merely that of adding. That whereas the church (late among the Jews included males both adult ^nd infant; fo to the Gentile church, together with thefe, there is, by the exprefs order of God, the fuperaddition of females. I would obferve further, that the addition of •emales feems to me to be very favourable to the arc^ument I am upon ; becaufe it is a new provi- fion annexed to an old law. Now an alteration made in a law, gives an additional firmnefs to all thofe parts which are not altered. And the rea- lon is, it fuppofes that all the unaltered parts are perfeenly agreeable to the legiflator's mind. And lo, when the Lord exprefly took away the parti- tion between Jew and Gentile, and male and "iiiale ; and paifed over infrits without making ihc lealt alteration in their c-.ile ; he thereby gave aiuperaddcd confirmation, that the church-mem- 'i'-r(hip of infants, which had been before eftablifh- til, was in every refped agreeable to his will, n. Rom. xi. 2 7, 24. " Andthty alio, if thev ii'uie not ftill in unbelief, fh:ill be grafted in again': ^'or (iod is able to graft them in again. l\^r if j'lou Wert cur out of the olive-tree, which is wild ''V natnip, •inil wprt '.•■'••! ft ^\'1 r.-^Tlfr•:^-• t--. ^ :.-.^ mto a good olive tree; liow much more fliail thelj -tl which I ill 5^^ .AKMIMIINTS ON THE SIDP, OF uliiili he tlu' nalural branches, be grafted 1 llK:ir own olivc-trcc ?" nto nat( I. l lie (ilivf tret' is to cic-nolc a vifiblc chnrcli Tiir Jews arrlliiil to bi- natural brandi cs. bccaiirc tiny tlclLcnilcil lioiu Abraham, t (ho protailc was niaili', " I uill be a CJod ihce aiul to ihy Iced. The (Jcntilcs , to wnnni unto were brou;;hi into the lanic churc h Hate, Irom which the lews \\(. ic brtikcn oil", 4. 'I he Apoitlc fug- y,i lUlh, that the b'ws will a};ain be giattcd int Hair own olivj-tree, to my juirpi )lr, 1 1- lld roni wnence, wi th a view woukl iiotue, i. Ihr liiturc llaie o{ the jews, who, he fays, if thiy abide not in unbelief, (hall b«: grafted in again, (irabing in ai;ain is the bringing of a pcr- lon ((V iliinr; inio the f;iine condition in which it was beltMe. .'u> the grafting in again of the Jews, inr.tiu;; thiin into ijie fame church llatc, in which iluy wc ve betorc lliev were broken oil". What w;is their church llatc before they were broken oil"? I anfwcr, as before proved, that it confifted of I lie incnibernup oi ;ululls and infants. Why ilien, it M bclorc conlilled of adults and infants, it will aiain e"nlill of the fame: I>ecau!c grafting in again is the phuing ol j)crrons lo grafted, in their former ll.iie. And thai is in lact the fame Hate, in which iliey wouKl havi; coniinucd, if they had ne\ ei been broken oil". 'I'har is, if it had not been loi il.v ir unbeiiel (lor which they were cut o\\\ i!k V wtnild have C(Miiinued, both they and thciv inlams, as members ot the c'uirch ot (Jod. So when it Ihall pleale CIihI to give fhem failh, tlic wii! be K'inllated, /. r. tluv ;uul iheir infants will be members of the church of C'khI a!;ain. la cg^npbance with this idea, I will juir turn INFANT BAPTISM. -j I .., I ,. » ' ,' *"^^ 't 's natural for one error to ^f'^ ';" f'' ^^'o^J^ct; and that this is not more Lf •i^m in any, than it is in theHaptifts The. "': horribly alannin, to thci^^ K r ^nrn" were once members of the church of God then I .'lu then the queftion will be, when d.M tV. r' .^ c ,ne,„bcr.^ and why arj the; no'f t'w ' i^ l-dly any churdr"r ZQZl tT' Wh': ;« .he Jcwift church? Mr. Z,h, 'oi iiTcf W . r '^"''^'i-'lli'^o-poH.ical conditu ion': Mr. B nnpr,.^ ™"'" ™s "><-■ church-mftitutc? fMvi-nLrtfi;l:r„^;:rH,^iraT°ir'^;i„Yr I. f^' ••HI. i.ti(.lc 1.1 l(j E 2 great a diilercntc bji ween the 5* ARGUMENTS 0^f THE SIDE OF the church that now is, and that which once was (or rather never was), that though infants were members of the one, they have no right, no capa- city, to be members of the other. This is one (hift to ward off the confequence I have mentioned. But now we want another fhift, to efcape the confequence that is yet to come. *♦ And they, if they abide not ftill in unbelief, fhall be grafted in again." Grafting in again is the bringing of perfons or things into their former condition. Now, if the former Jewifh church (late Nvas all political, as Mr. B. will have it ; then the confequent will be, that when the Jevys ijiall confefs the Lord Jefus Chrift, and beUeve with their heart, that God raifed him from the dead, kc. and fliall in confequence be reingrafted into their own olive-tree ; they will be all political again ! A mere ecclefiaftico-political conftitution ! wherein an obe- dient fubjea of civil government, and a complete member of a church,will be the fame thing !— W ell, when this fhall take place, infant church-member- fliip may come about again. Bat 1 return from this digrelTion to notice, ^. The prefent date of the Gentiles. It ap- pears from the text that the church ilate is the fame to the Gentiles, as it had been to the Jews, and as it \\\\\ be to the Jews, in fome future period, when it fliall pleafe God to graft them in again. And the reafon of this is, becaufe each in their turn belong to the fame olive-tree, /. 5. the vilible church (tate. And therefore, as intants made a part of the church before the jews were cut otf, and will again make a parr, uhen they ihall be rein-rafted ; they muft likcwije make a p'Ji" t among liic ucnrucs; i>cei . r_ ,u nine INFANT BAPTISM. Si olive-tree, /. e. church-ftate, muft confer the fame privilege on all who fhall be in it. This truth will receive additional confirmation, and the contrary error will be more evident, if we confider, that fince infants were once members among the Jews ; and when their reingrafting fhall take place, will be fo again ; fo, if among the Gentiles they are d cmed improper fubjeds of memberfhip, and, i. confequence of that, are uni- verfally rejected, two things will follow-, i. There will be, in the mean time, a very unhandfome Ichifm in the ecclefiaftical chain. For though infants were faund members in the firfh ages of the church, and will be fo in the laft, there will be none to fill up the middle. And, 2. there will alfo be, in future time, a very unpleafant difcord- ancy. For when the Jews fhall be grafted in again, they will adopt their old pradice of receiv- ing^ infants to memberfhip ■, while the Gentiles de- nying they have any fuch right, will perfifl in ihuttmg them out ; and all this, as fome fuppofe, in the fpiritual reign of Chrift. III. Rom. xi. 1 7. « And if fome of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a w"!d olive-tree, vvcrt grafted in among them, and with them pari takeft of the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree ; boalt not thyfelf againft the branches." 1. The olive-tree, as before noted, is the vifi- D.e church ftate. 2. The branches are members of th vifible church. 3. Some of thefe were broken off, and fome remained. 4. The Gen- "les who were called of God, were united to this remnant, for they were grafted in among them. irom this view of the paffage, I draw thcle three foiichirioiis : E 3 I. Th;u (.. .ar vSJi 54 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF 1. That there was no difcontinuance of the anci- ent church ilate ; in its effence, it remained the fame as it had always been. That this is a true con- clufion appears from hence ; the text informs us that fome of the branches were broken off; and if only fome, then not all ; and that remnant, con- tinning in their former (late, conilituted the dill exifting church of God. And then it follows, that as the church ftate continued as before, the memberfhip of infants muft likewife continue: Becaufe the memberfliip of infants was a part of that church (late. And this is the reafon, that no new regulation, refpecting infants, was made, or was necelTary to be made ; for all, who knew what God had ordained refpeding memberfhip, knew very well what to do with their infants, without any further information on that fubjeft. This is the firfl: conclufion, viz. that the ancient church ftate was not diflblved when the Gentiles were called in. — And hence it follows, 2. That the bringing in of the Gentiles did not conftitute a new church. This paflage informs us, that when the Gentiles were called in, they be- came members of the church already conftituted ; *' They were grafted in among them," and fo he- came one t.ody, one fold ; that " with them they might partake of the root and fatnefs of the olive- tree." The lirft Gentiles of whole calling we read, are laid to hiivc been added to the church ; but there wa« no church ex; ring to which they couki be add 1, but the ancient Jewifli church, of which all :he apodles and difciples of our Lord were metvibers. If the vientiles, therefore, \ve"e added to the old church, or, as the text has it, were grafted in among them, and with them did partake INFANT BAPTISM. 55 of the root and fatnefs of the olive-tree ; then it is evident, that the ancient church continued to ex- iit, and no new one was formed at the calling in of the Gentiles. And then I conclude, 3. That infants were in a ftate of membeifliip, in that very church to which th. Gentile? were joined. And this muft certainly be true ; '. ecaufc ihey were grafted into that church, of which in- fants are, by the Baptifts themfelves, granted to have been members. And then, it is plain that infants made a part of that church, called by fume the Gofpel Church, the pure church of primitive ipoftolic times. This conckifion muft needs be admitted, unlefs any one will affirm, that the an- dent church Ifate was enrirelv dillblved ; or elfe, that the Gentiles were not united to this ancient church. .And to affirm either of thefe, will be to affirm againfl the word of God in general, and this text in particular. And herein the caufe of the Baptilts is ruined both ways ; for if they main- tain, that the old church w:is dilTolvcd, and t!ie Gentiles formed into a new one, their cauie i.-; ruined, by maintaining agaiidl the word of God. But if they grant that the Jewifh church continued, and that the Gentiles were grafted in ainono- them, \yhich is the real truth ; then their caule is'inined that way. For then, as infants were in cliurch- fcHowfliip, in what is called the primitive arolto- lic church, if follows, thai thofe focieties, who ad- mit infants to fellowfliip, ucl a'^^recal.'le to th.e iipoffolic pattern ; and confcquen'dy al! thofe lo- cielics, who refufe to admit them, are in a;i error. IV. Eph. ii. 14. " For lie is cur pea;-.-, wh.o hath made both one, and luuh broken down tiic middle wall of partition beiv.ccn us." J^ + I. The 1I I: f r ,pg|| si 1.-/ 56 ARGUMENTS ON TH£ SIDE OI \. The terms [both and us] in this place, mean Jews and Gentiles. 2. A partition is that which feparates one fociety or family from another. 3. It is faid to have been broken down, by Jefus Chrift, who is called our peace, becaufe he made peace, by the blood of his crofs. 4. The break- ing down of a partition-wall brings the two fo- cieties, or families, into one. — From this paffage, the very fame conclufions mufl: be drawn, as from the preceding : 1. That the Jewifh church continued as before, and was not diflblved at the calling in of the Gen- tiles ; and the reafon is, the taking down of a par- tition implies no diffolution of any fociety. 2. That the Gentiles were not formed into a new church : Becaufe the breaking down of a par- tition united them to the Jewifh church, and " made both one." 3. The infants were in actual memberftiip, in that church to which the Gentiles were united: Becaufe adults and infants being in fellowfhip among the Jews, the removal of the partition brought adults and infants into union with the Gentiles. — And then, the point is clearly gained, namely, that infants hold the fame place among the Gentiles as they held before among the Jews. I again affirm, that the point is evidently car- ried, unlefs one of thefe three things can be main- tained : I . That God excluded infants before the partition was taken down; or, 2. at the time it was taken down ; or, 3. at fome time after. For if one or other of thefe cannot be fupported, then iufants retain their right to church-mcmberfhip to this day. — Can any one maintain the firli: ; that God excluded infants before the partition-wall was broken IKFANT BAPTISM. 57 broken down? — Upon what period will he fix? — And by what fcripture will he fupport it ? — Will any one affirm the third; that God excluded them after the partition was taken down? — I I'uppofe not. For that would be granting that the Gen- tiles continued fome time. i.e. " the exclufioft took place in fellowfhip, in that v jrch in which infants were members. And then, I might afk again, at what time did the expulfion take place? And where is it recorded in the word of God ?^ But I fuppofe, that he who contends for fuch an exclufion, will affirm the i'econd ; that infants were excluded at the time the partition-wall was broken down. If fo, I alk, who did exclude them? And how was it done ? It could not be done by the mere taking down of the partition-wall ; for the taking down of a partition unites thofe who before were feparate, but does not exclude any. But if they were excluded, it mull be done either exprelly or implicitly. The firfl is not true; fur there is no exprefs exclufion of infants in all the Scriptures. And the fecond will not do for a Baptiil ; for, as he will not admit implicit proof on the fide of infants, fo neither can he urge im- phcit proof againft them. — But let him take the advantage of implication; and fay, that infants are excluded from church- memberfliip, by all thofe places which require faith and rcpcatancf, Sec. in order to baptifm. To this I reply, that thefe places of Scripture can no more exclude infants nom memberlhip, than they c.vclude them from glory. And the lallacy of all this has been already fully evinced, when the fecontl argument againlt nilant baptifm was confidcred : And to that part, ior his f;^tisfaction, 1 refer the reader. — If then they \M 5? ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF they were not excludcil before the partition was taken down, nor at the time, nor at any time fintc, they were not excIud<.J at all. And then thecon- fequence will be, that inrants, according to the will of God, are poiVeiled of a right to church-fcllow- ftiip under the prefent difpenfation, and to the pre- fent day. By thefe four prjrages, all relating to God's difpenfation towards the Gentiles, it appears, that the churcb-memberfliip of j'-fants was left undif- turbed, ai 1 was carried forward into the Gentile church ; where it continues Hill the fame as when firfl: inftltuted. And the importance of this fad, in the prefent inquiry, is fo very confidera- ble, that whoever admits it, mull be compelled to admit tl.e right of infants t and baptii'm ; yet he affirms that the requirement of faith and repentance doei W^i 1^;-- I €o ARGUMLNTS ON THE SIDE OF tiocs of itfclf exclude infants. This is the purport of the Baptlfts' fccond argument againft infants which I have proved to be a mere fc^phifm. Forwhcii laith and repentance are required, in order either to baptifm or falvation ; a very eafy diltinc^ion will make it plain, that infants are not excluded in tither cafe. And this diflindion is eaiy and ob- viout to every perfon. 1. It was a very eafy one to a Jew. For v^hile he knew that infants were received into the church by circumciiion, he likevvife knew that every adult who was circumcifcd, put himfelf under iin- mediate obligation to confefs his fins, to bring his iacrilice, and to conform to all the laws of thai church, lie was very fenfible an infant could not do this ; and yet he faw it right to circumcife the infant. So when he heard of faith, and repentance, and confellion of fin, refpecting baptifm, as a me- dium of entering into the church ; he had nothinpf to do^ but to ufe the lame dillindion, and all would be plain and eafy as before. 2. The diitindion is eafy to a Pcedobaptift. For he knows, that if the perfon be an adult, he mud difcover a difpofition fuitcd to the nature and de- lign of the ordinance j but !ie knows, at the fame time, that this was never defigned to affect an ant, and that it can be no bar to his baptifm, or bleifeduiifs. 3. This diflindion is eafy to a Baptift. For notvvithltanding he is well perfuaded, that he who believeth not fhall not be faved ; yet he knows an infant may be laved, though an infant do not be- lieve All this to him is eafy and natural, and nothing in the world more plain. If this be ib iCafy a diitindion, it may be alked, why cannot a Baptill INFANT BAPTISM. 6i Baptiri carry it to ba tifm as well as to anv thing ellc? I anfwer, he can ^ he plcafe ; for it arifet from no defefl of uiulerftanding that he does not do it ; — but it is an unpleaiant thing to employ a diflindion, fo a . to deRroy one's own fenii- menrs. in fliort, it is only confidering, that an infant Is not an adult and that an adult is not an infant, than which nothing can be more eafy ; anil then the requirement of faith and repentance is n'O more a law againfl the memberfliip and baptifm of infants, than it ii againfl their falvation. — All I meant here was to afhrm that there is no law, ia the New Tefhinient, to over-rule tho jhurch-mem- bcrfhip of infants ; and this is a corroborating evi- dence, that their memberfhip, which had been divinely inftituted, continues the fame down to the prelent time. 2. The Jews, at large, had no apprehcnfion of the exclufiou of infants ; they neither oppol'e nor approve, which (hcj 'oubticis would have done, if fiich an cxclufion had taken place. This is a circumffance which merits particular attention, and has no fmall influence upon tii'^ prcfent queflion. For as every material alteration in old cuftoms is apt to ftir up fotne oppoiiiion -, fo, had fuch a change as this beiMi introduced, 1 y which the infant olfspring would liave been put b;\ck from their former place in the church of (^oJ, it mufl have turniflied occafion to a varictv (if auimadverfinns : Some, j)erhap3, might haw; been for it, while many would have opjiof-d tlie new plan. That this wouK' have happened had fuch' a revolution taken place, will :i;rpear ffil! more itiUiin, if weconiider the naLure ol lurh a chanifi, And hn 62 yvRCLMrNTS ON TIIF. SIDE OT and tlic iKTlbiis \v''n v.oiild Ikivo felt thcmfel hurt bv i'lS inir(HludIo!i. V(.= I. As [0 the chaii';c itfd!' it li:ul ailed lii a very Icnfible part. And thi; a tendency to cafe, wIkiIkt wr conlii'cr — the tend ear the fubied s — '>: t!icir niiinbcr — (ir th( is a cl ge privilege t( !er a which ihey \vi';\ ;iJ!nitt(jd — ov the IciiMih ol t hrf;u;;h v.hii h 'he pi utiee had b hidi line 'een carried -or y, th.c (livi-i ■ piithorlry which gave rife to th practice . lb ■|"h ■n icis a pi.idiccot two thoufand year> e j)riv ijcge was that ol" admitting iii. fants to nicmlxrfhip in the church of Ood- thefc infants lortncd a nunilier in lihic! exceeding !v great. — And this i)ra.lice did not take its rile from ibmc dark verbal or written tradition; but flood lupporied hv ilu lively oracles of God. Such was thecudotn which thelJapiills fuppofe was anuulkd about this time. 2. (>n the other hand, if-e take into confi- deration the chari-der ot thole perf. Mh cir.iii'crer or tnoie perlons among llviin had prevailed, and among whom is lupj-t^lcil to have cealld, we fhall ha^'e lufli. oni IMS Cll cient r n to linn k it imi ^illl )lc tliat a cuilom of thi, nature liiould be ahnxiated, and th ev not f} oppole a lii; vie wt^d. As t(^ their charad'cr, it isceitai-:, ilijf. a few onlv excepted, they were upo: thv. deadly enemies of (diriit and hi 'liiev were ilrom-lv attached to tlii til e w tliH'u me Ic onus ;iiul c>.reu!ii;iies of lel icion. Tin •y V ould wrangle lor a rife, quarrel ior a fall, and almolt lieht ior a new melon. 1 verv one knows wlnt lllliUl 111. A made ia the cluireli of G in! ai'out kicii ihiii! Now i> ii broc It about, the th. iuch a clianiTC could and ai.'uuiu tuch a people, in a INFANT BAPTISM, C"' ..inner fo Hill and filent, that in all the New Tef- 'anKnt \vc do not read, that they ever iaid a word aDou: It, for or agahiit ? No priefl nor publican; nopharifee, lawyer, or libcriine ; neither pious nor profane ; ncitner xealous, moderate, or luke- v.arm, in all the land of llVael, oppofe a fingle Icntcnce, or aflc a rcafon v.hy. Bui hnce this mull have been a ch;ui<^re fo rennukable; and they, anunig whom it is luppofed to have happened, not •tie ir.on: mod.i;, ; how can -hey to be lo filent, fa !hy? What made them fo Jive, f) peaceable fo complying? Nothing.— Tney were n-ithe/ com- ;ilving, palhve, nor peaceabU , norru;Y to fpeak, nor i!ow^ to wrath, when any old iorms were in- iidcd-, but they were very much fo about the JiangL 11 qL;eition And the true reafon of it is, it never took place.— 'i here is another evl'lence, that thj church-memberlhip of infants was never .inmil'ed by Cod or man; ar.d that i ■. this: 3. Our [,urd and h.is ano!i!e>^ take fnccial notice •;t mi.ius, and, inllcad. of excluding 'tlicm, they ipk oi ih.m a.; iiiU poilllliug a right to member- ''hip :n ti-e church of God. Ihe notice taken o^ infants, by our i.ord and ::s:inoilles, i call fpecial ; becaule it is not fuch '> ('od takes of his creatures in :i way of common r^^vidence; as the giving; of i..oJ -o a 11, pn«-er, i'Khuislying tiie d.iire of every living thin v;\n- n^armg the cry ()[ a young raveu uh.n he calls 'po-i_ him. Such notice- as this God takes of ;" -:. creatures, ikit th:it \\]iU!i I now i.ean re- ;u.. ro matters of auoih.:- natur-, rei: jeus mat- ^-^^luc things ,r the kiii_;Jo'n .^f- (:,,a, and our •''i->i jefiis C:hr..t. Ihc palla-^es i Ihili hr'ng are '■■^t i:iUiided to p-ove :\\\: itcw inflitulion rclpea. ■i ,£ I 1- 1 i' \ ■ 1 I "1 it ^ b M '■ .i.** t' 64 ARGUMENTS ON TnE.*i©E OF ing infants, for nothinj^ of this kind took place ' but as their church -tiienibcrfliip had been long fettled, 1 only mean to fnow that our Lnrk fpeaks of them, under lh;;t idea, ns the acknowledged meiViutis 1)1 iiic LiiLiiLii ui \jiiu. ^md iierebv I mean to evince, that their memberfliip, which had been long eflablifhed, was never annulled to the prefent day. To this end I allege, I. Luke, ix. 47, 40. " And jefus took a child, and fet him by him, and [" when he had taken him in his arms," Tvlaik, ix. 36.] he faid unto them, Whofoever Ihall receive this child, in my name, receiveth me : And whofoever fliall receive me, receiveth him that lent me : For he that is Icalt among you all, the fame Ihall be great." hi this paflage wc have three things very obfervable : I. The iubjecl fpoken of, a little child. There can be no doubt, but this was a chiKl in re- gard of his age ; as the circumftance of our Lord's taking him in his arms, makes this certain bcvond difpute. And it is alfo evident, that v.hat our Lord iaiJ, did nut apply to this child alor.c, a^ though foincthing peculiar to hiuTcU led our ]>ord i'o to Ipcak; lince he makes it a thing general and common to other children. The words of Mark ar,% " \Vhofoe\er Ihall receive one of fuch children ia my name." lie meant, therefore, that child iu I'.is arms, and other little children like him. ■:.. 'Ihc action relpeding this child. " Whole- e\-r Ihall receive this child in my name." To leceive a perfou is to treac him fuitably to hi; cliaractt r, phicc. arul llation. John, i. 1 r. " lie cuvv unto lii> mvn, and his ov.ii received iiii'i not." Roi'.i. xiv. I. " llimthat is weak iu tlu; laith rccei.e ye." To receive a perfon in the nam* •^'?t of Chria, is to treat him as one beIonoin likely they were broutrht to receive the benediction of Chrilt. Mark, x%6. That this palfage regards infants, as continuino- in a Itate of church-mcmbern)ip, which is all 1 produce it for, will aj^pear by coiifidering of whom 'Hir Lord fpake, ami what he fpake of them. I. Of whom he lpak(s '{"here can be very little 'hrticulty on this part of the lul.i'.d, as: v. (■ :ire r^lainlv \ -^ ,f-. M 1- .-.-.■> :^. ^ •1 ' 6R ARf;I'Mi:NT,S ON THr. SIDE OT toUl, wliAt the pcrloiis were who were brought to him, aiul ot" whom ii is evident he Ipake. Some of the IVaptilh remarking; upon the phrafe rm roinlui, ollucli, or ol" liuh like, aflirm that our Lord meant aduhs i>t" a child-like diipolition, and that of thcfc, and not of the infants, he faid, Of fueh is thu kingdom oi' Cod. 'This conllrudion, wiiich in- deed has nothing to fupport it, will appear very uneouth, when we conlider thefe words of our I.(ird, as a realon for bringing and permitting the little children to come to him : Sufter them to come unto me, lor of Inch is the kingdom of God. But this cxpoiition, belides that it makes our Lord fpcak obieurely, reprefents him as giving a reaibn quite dillant from the fubjea: he was upon. I'or whereas a reafon for coming fliould be taken from thole who are to come, and not from others; this cxpofition makes our Lord lay, Sufter tbcfe to come, becaufe /bo/'c belong to the kingdom. To lav, adults belong to the kingdom of God, is no good reafon for bringing infants to Chrift. It is iT much better one to fay, fuller thefe little children to come, becaufe thefe little children, and others like them, belong to the kingdom of God. fJut if it lie faid, others belong to the kingdom ol God, becaufe they are like infants, then infants n\ulf belong to the kingdom of God, be«.aufe they •are like them. The truth is, our Lord evidently Ipeaks of inlauls as he had done before, in the pre- ceding paUage. . , • < c. What he fp ike of them : Of fuch is the kin<;doi i of (iod ; that is, fuch belong to the king- doni. (Hir inquiry is, vhai kingdom did our Lord mean ? ^.as it the church, or a Itate of glory? Ij .' r \.iy:d meant the eh -'-h, then he has aikrted \vh;u INFANT BAPTISM. 69 what I contend for, that infants wrre fpokeh of by him, as nicinbcrs of the church; anJ, therefore, the faft is cIlabHftied. But the Baptifts in general uiuierltaml this of a Hate of glory, and allow in- fants to belong to that, but deny that they belong to tile church. This, indeed, is granting the greater, and denying the Icfs ; and therefore an argument may be taken, from what they grant, to dedroy wliat they dt iiy ; that is, an argument a majorc tiil mi/ii/s. If infants belong to a Ihue of i;iory, which is the greater; then much more do they belong to a church-Hate, which is the lefs. Bclides, as the inllituiian of a church is a dif|jcn- lation ol God, which leails to glory ; ii is a'ofurd to grant perfons a i)lace in glory, and at the fame time deny iiiem a place in that difpenfation which leads to it. Though to aflirm, that (uir I.drd, by the king- ilnm ol Cod, intended a (late of glory, does noi militate againlt, but rather concludes ior the liuirch-memberfhip of infants ; there are fome con- liJcraiions which ferve to evince, that our Lord iiifnuled the church on ear'li chiefly, if not only; l«ir I have fome iloubr wliether he did not intend IhuIi, tiiough the church more particularly. It is ii' be oblerved, in the lirlt jjlace, that thel'e words, •'t luch is the kingtlom of Ood," were fpokea 01 fo the apo.'lles, as a realbn for their fullering, and a rebuke for their hindering, little children to conic unto him. Now it is always more natural, when we intend to reafon with, or rebuke any perion, to (ix u})on that as a reaioiT, which is molt I'lmiliar to him. 'I'he apoitles were well acquainted With ihe memberfliip of infants in the church, as a pi'aCticc which had prevailed in their nation for V 3 many i\! i ^^H L^ :flH| ^IS *■ . JliH 70 ARGUMENT.^ ON THE SIDE OF mr.ny centuries ; vvherens they could know but little of the Itiitc of infants wih n.iptjcl to glory. Now as the rcafon, why tb.efe I'tle children fhoukl be fufFered to come, v.;-', iiyt they belonged to the kingdom of God ; r.r.i as this was dcllgiicc!, at the fame tir.vj, as a vjbiike ; ir nudt be c /ulciit, that our Lord i.-t';;'.-'..d tlat idea oi the ki:K, Join v/ith which ihey v.tT.; rvil f;:,ini!:ar. For had i'. been meant ot a lla:.. (>i p,lory, the apoftles might vcrv Wv.dl Lave ]/eaded i'.qiOi'ar'.ce ; but they could not'be igiioran'- iluii ini\*uts bclo.i-edto the church, and thereloru the reproof co-.ild wot come liome to them, but uudei that idea. Vorin ihat, they acted contrary to a i-iinciplc they i-.i.ev/ in keepin;.pholc, who belonged to the chuicli, from the church's Head. It may f.iithcr be remarked, that it is highly reafonable to conclude, that our Lor.! intended the fame reafon, for infants cominji to him, as he had urged to other?, for r.^lr receiving them. Others were to receive infant, in Ids name ; and with this to enforce it, that whofocver received them in his nan^c, received him, &:c. Thi=' exp'.eiTion denotes a relation to hinifelf, as if he had faid, Receive them, becaufe they belong to me, receive them ai vou would a dl!ciple. This is a reafon that has vcfnect to pre fent relation ; and if it be natural to fuppofe, th... our Lord gives a fimilar reafon for iheir comii'g to him, ;hc kingdom of God will not mean a future itatc of blelTediicfs, but a pre- lent church Ifate, to which they belong. More- over, it may be faid with much more trutlr of ia- fants in ^neral ; and it is of fuclr our Lord fpeaks, that they belong to a church on earth, than to a iU:^- of glorv : Becaufe many muy belong _to the iui ui^< INFANT BAPTISM. 7I former who do not belong to the latter. And whereas it cannot be faid of infants, as fuch, that they belong to a ftate of glory, for then all would be faved, becaufe all have been infants; but it could be faid of infants, as infants, where our Lord .vas, that they belonged to the church on earth. r only introduce this to Ihow, that our Lord, in faying. Of fuch is the kingdom of God, did recog- nize infants as church-members. And againft this fenfe of the kingdom, as meaning the church, the Baptifls bring only one objection, viz. the incapa- city of infants. IJut this is removed by the prac- tice of many centuries ; which fhows that God does not judge of incapacity, after the manner of men. What our Lord fiiid, as it proves the mem- berfhip of infants, which is all I brought it for, fo it is no more than what was familiar to the whole nation. Ads, ii. 38, 39. " Then Peter faid unto them. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jefus Chrill, for the remiffion of fms, and ye fhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoft. For the promife is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God fhall call." As this pafiage is only brought forward to (how, that infants are fpoken of in the New Teftament, as chuvcli-members, agreeable to the ancient dif- penfutioa of God ; I Ihall confine myfelf to thefe three conclufions. I. That the phrafe, ** to you, and to your children," intends adults and infants. II. That this promife mufl: compreherd adults and infants, wherever it comes, even as long as God lliall continue his word to us. ITT liUil iiiiiUili iliC ¥ 4 ,u^ r. irt^} n _ iilFil tion 72 ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF tion to baptifm, as they were of old to circum. ' " • iliall now proceed to evince ; and in the iirn place I aliirni, I. 'Miat the phra.'e, To you and to your children intends aduUs and infants. This niay be proved bv confulcrir,.-, I. The : .^mMance I.tween tliis proinifc, and that ia Goi. xvii. 7. " To be a God unto thee, and unto ih\ feed after thee." The reiemblance between thcie two lies in two thin;^s ; i. Kach flands conncclcd with an ordinance, by which perio!:s wcic to be admitted into church-fcllovv- fliip ; the one by circunicifion, the other by bap- tihn. Both agree in phrafeology ; rlic one is, "to thee, and to tliy feed ;" the other is, " to you, and to your cliildren." Now every one knows that the word feed means children ; and that children means feed ; ana that they aie jreciiely the fam.e. From thcie two flronglv leiembling features, i'/~. their connexion with a fimiiar ordi- nance, and the famcnefs of the phrafeologv, I infer, that the fubj eels exprefied in cnch, are the very fame. A;id as it is certain tliat parents an ^ in^ant^ were intended by the o-?.q ; it muil: be equailv cer- tain iliat both are in.'.-idi ti in' the Mthcr. c. 'I'he fenfe, In v,hi;'h the fpeaker muft have underRood the feutenee^ i;-' qucllion. Ihepromiic is, to you and to your cuildren. In order to know this, we muR confider who ff.e fpcaker was, and from wliat fource he received his religious knowledge. The Apofilc, it is evident, was a Jew, and brought up in the Jewifli church. lie knew tije rraciice of that church, with refpcvl INTANT nAPTISM. ^J iLofe who were admitted to he Its members, lie icw, that he hiinfLh' hatl been admitted in in- ;cy, and that it was the ordinary praclicc of the Mic!i to admit irdants to iritir.bevlliip. And he cwlle knew, tliat in this ;j:cy acted on t;ic au- ity (A that place, wh.re (" lIlOT Abraham, oil a to God promilLS ta ito him, and to lii: ICc'U Now it" the /Apoflle knew all this ; inw'iat luile coi ui;lin'';i!i d h tl le undcruand the term cinliiren, as led Irom tli^ir parent.- ? I 1, J an clmdrtri and mean r , ti fa. tl i\u And as tiie Aiiiofile well katv.-, that the term feed intended iulants, thoiiul^. not mere m- fciiu-: onl\- : anc 1 tliat inlanL- were circumeiled, an.d rcL-ciwcl into the church beii!';; the feed ; what die could he underhand, bv the ter m c hild ren. when menfioned with tlicir parents? Thofe wlio will ha\e th.e ApolUe to niean, by the turm chnldren, ;ialt podcritv only, have thii inL-licity attcndi/i'^- ihcin, that tlu'\iniderihind the term dilFerentlv tVoni all other men; and this abfurdiLy, that th.cy attribute to the . ApolU e a Icnle or tlie word, whicli to Inni niuit have been the moll untam: And, therciorc an d i: ore I i the Wv,/-d ior w! ieh that iLiiie o thev contend, is the niolh unlikely oi all to be the tiue one, becaufc it is utterly impro' able that aptrlon fhould ui'e a word in that leiife which to him, ;.:ij toall theworld bcride,was altoo;^-theruntannliar. V In wliat ieiife his hearers mult Inive undet- ■omile is to vou. him, when he laid, " 1 lie p Ii'JDl iJid to vour children. context nnorn '1 r, that many of St. Peter 4l^ tiU illlillCli -I !i accuiLomed ror man dfc ')' hund :re J e.vs. The ) red years to receive i"l;':u>, 1)\' circuincilion. into the church : an i tl us :U 1 47 ARO'JMr.NTS ON THE SFTjE OF they (Jill, as before oblerveil, bccaufe God had proinifed to be a God to Abraham, and to his feed. They h.ad underdood this proinire, t :> nie;in parents and 1 heir infant offspring; and this idea was become familiar by the pradlice of n.anv cen- turies. "What then niuft have been their views, wli'jn one ot^ their own community fays to them, *' Tlie promife is to you, and to your children?" If their practice of receiving infants was founded en a promile cxadly iimilar, as it certaiidy was; liov.' could they polhbly underftand him, but as meaning the fame thing, fince he himfelf ufed the fame mode of Ipech ? This muh. have been the cafe, unlels we admit this abfurdity, that they un- ilerllood him in a fenfe to which they h"d never been accuftomed. How idle a thing it is, in a Baptift, to come with a lexicon in his hand, and a criticifm in his head, to iniorm us that rsxi^ar, children, means polteritv ! Ccrt.iinly it docs, and fo means i le youngclt infants. The verb nyl ■, from which it comes, fignilies, to bring forlh, !. . tiie ollVpring-. And are not infants of that n'lmbcr ? Bui liie Baptilfs will have it that Tf>:^;.', ciiikirc'n. In ihl,; pl.ice, nivuns (nily adult pnf- terity. An■ in- rccf.vinjT n i.'tT tlu CiiU!\-!l. And [hen, conld wc i in :ij; in l; imij ot our own nation and vjligion, to addrcls us in the vcrv h.nguage of Tcter in this tc::t, Th. Vv in" cli ild rcn let promiic IS to y ou inc \ Uoa. whether CO ! iclvc>, as in tlic Ti^dit crcr fupp.crt him to v.u:\n adult poltcrity only ? Or if, Initcad of pnit- tin^ ourfelvcs in the fitu/.tion of Jc as, v/e iliouid fuppole the Apolllc to ad.ircfs the members of the eltaijliihment, in the fame phrafeolosjv, as he did would underltand him to mean ad.ulis and infant, ? And vv'hv ? Becaufc ews, can an y perfon doubt, v. hether thev ■ !;iv!, It IS certauily unpojlioie ihev have been lor aees in the habit of receiviiio- fants into the church. Jult i'o it was with the la J ews w hen the A^^oitle acldrclfed tlu m therefore, they could no rnore have undeiuood him, as meaning to exclude iniaius, than tiie men rers of the eftablilluneiit would by the ufc of the fame phrafe I have been cndcavourin.i; to piove that both P er, who iix^Ke, •w cU'ers, lira !l h: AC un :t to mean aduirs r!t( in; lOU o w:re his the OI; nte b aiie lueh miannii wou ■'C to llK tn'j ir, OIVIMU- lor'i irnni i;v ir >v;n h;ihi !t natural and and pracVicc, u\ its exact reicmblancc to that proniife on V. li.ieh their nraclicc was fn aided, and by which ilk o 4 Nf 'i i ■ rfi ARC I- All NTS ON Tim SIDL. Or tlu'ir habit vas f.uincd. But liiice Mr. Booth and all the Baptilts Mill have 't to mean no luch thin-^-, I fhall only f?y, as Mr. B. does in hi; anfwer to Dr. Williams, page 274, " ThenDi. Samuel johnlon might well fay, though a man accuflomcd to Ritisfy himfell" with the obvious and natural meaning of a fcntence, does not eafily fliake off his habit, yet a true-bred lawver never contents himlelf with this i'enfe v. hen there is an- other to be found. I\Iy opponent, fays Tur. B. to Dr. W. feems to have imbibed the fpirit of Dr. Johnfon's true-bred lawyer; for he cannot be at all content witn the obvious and natural meanino-, kc." Mutiilo nomine, iifc. This ic true of I\Ir. Booth. 1 am to prove in the next place, II. That this promife mull comprehend adults and infants wherever it comes, let it come wherever it may. The Apoftle, in applying this promife, diP.in- guiihes thofe to whom it is to apply into prefent and abfent. 'llic firil clafs were his hearers ; the Iccond he dcfcnbes two wa\-s — all t];at arc ;;fir c-^, — iis nuir.v iis the '.ord our Cod .'■ a''! .. ' each of thuie ciafu-, ■:•/:::. riujle \l\o wc fent, and ihoijv. ho uc-. e nbil'nr, iic aopn. proivw'.v; ill the lex*^. To linrlc v.ho were p. the pr,.m! e is, to von -lij \v. \\>.iy cliilili.'n tnole cA.xr oii, a:ui tlie pirmii' is to you aiv.l t. vcur rhiidren ; — to r.s mauv a.s the i.oid our (iod . c- the -to call f.K' promife is to you and to your chil- m Ihall d;\:n. i/_; the proi^ilfe corac to what pcrlbiis lorvcr it ..ray, it mult: otnc to them and lu thtir ihiidrcn, becauJ'e the promife mul! j)e the func v.hcrever God lliall fend it. I have alrcadv p:oved :!:at the vvoid^ [)"-" and chi'drciij niuiii INFANT BAPTISM. *fj kiults an*l infants ; and both being in the pro- mifc, it mull thcrctore belong to each : 'i'o yoa aduUs and to your infants, who are prefcnt ; to you aduhs, who are far olF, and to your iniants ; lO as many aduks as the Lord our God fliall call, ,uiJ ♦iheir infant:'. That this is true may be proved by confidciing the dicnce or nature of the proniife. There are tv.o things which enter into the cilence of a promife : It tnuil cont lin I'onie cood — i' nuill he made to fomc pcrlbn or ju nons. That thefe two belong to the ciicnce ot a proniife ap- pears by this, that if either be taken away, there can be no promife — c. ^. I will be a God to thee and to thy feed ; the good in this promife is God hiinfelf — the perfon* were Abraham and his feed. It" the good be taken away, it will then be no promife ; 1 will — to thee and to thy feed. The I ale will be the fame if the perfons are taken away j hvill be a (Jod — in either cafe it is no promife. So when a promife is mavle to dillerent peifons, one perfon is as clfcntial to the promife as the other— you and to your children.'' Both parts, thirelore, hclDng to the promife ; it is efleiitial to the promife thai it be — fo you; — it is likcwife eiTential to ir ih;it it be to your children. And I'.ie eaic bein-j; 'o, we cannot take away either part v.imoat vioiaring 'he elfence of the promiil. We lur\e :\o wioxc ri he I -f' t t •i„i I ^f 7» ARGUMLN'TS ON THE SIDE OF r" lit to f;iy, Ine promife is to you, but net t ■ w'^r chiluren, than the promife is to your eiiM.h-en, but not to you ; for as it was the defjgn of God tint the promife fhould be to both, it was his cicfign that it fliould be to their children as truly as to themfelves. And fo the promife muil be to Peter's hearers and their children— to all that are afar oil, and to their cliildren — to as many as the Lord our Go 1 fliall call, and to their children ; and the reafon is, both enter into the clfence of the pro: ifc. So when God faid, *' I will be a God unto ihce and to thy feed," it \vould apply, in the lame form, " to thee and to thy feed," to every man and e\ery generation of men of the otTsorinfr of Abraham, as lonsr as the promife was in force. Mr. Ijooth objects to this, in vol. ii. p. 355, and fays, " 'riiefe words [as many as the Lord our God fliall call] arc, as plainly as pollible, a limiting claufe, and extend a rcltrictive force to the term, children, as much as to the pron^^un, you, or to t'lat defcriptive lannuage, all that are afar oil." To thi; I rcpl\-, t!;at ilic Apoftle himielf did not nake life of tliat limit vvhich Mr. IJ. iavs is fo I'l.ihi ; {r,r the Ap/Oil!e adualiy fpoke to thofe who, in ?vlr. B.'s lenfe, were already awakened and called ; and ih^n, as plainly as ])oilible, dil- tinu-uillics bet'.vecn tli.ciu and tin-ir cinklren. Now if the Apoitle addreikd [hofj v.'.o v/erc already called, and extemled tki jironrife ikvond theni, even to ihdr childri.)!, i'i-j: the ]n'.;.iife was not limited to the called. But this the Apoille actu- ally liid as plainly ,r> v. orJr^ ctniid exprefs it; lor he l])oke to thofe wh.o v,::re pricked in their heart, pndlkkk" Men and bmhreiu what ih:!l! we d^ r" To INFANT BAPTISM. 79 To tbefc he faid, " The proniifc is unto you" and, inftead of confining it to thcni only, he ex- tends it to their children alio ; and fo palfcs over that limit which Mr. B. is plealed to lay down. And as the Apoftle extends the proniife hevond :hc called in the iirft claufe, we nuifl follow his uxaniple, and extend ir beyond the called in the Liit ckiLile — thus the proniiie is to as many as the Lord our God fliall call, and to their children : And then Mr. B.'s limiting claufe will be nothing liiore than a very lame evafion. Notwithllanding this, there is fonie truth in -Mr. B.'s idea rtfpeding the limiting claufe, though he himfelf, by mifapplication, has done violence to that .. uth. 'J'hat claufe, " to as many as the Lord our God ihall call," is really a limiting daufe, but not in tluit way Mr. B. fuppofes. This, like evuy othu- promife, has two limits, and thefe two are hxed by two limiting claufes : One limit ddcrmines how wiele the promife fhail extend ; ;Iic other hnw fai it is to run — ipj one is a limit <.!i latitude, the other of longitude The limit of latitude extends to parents and children — that of L'n<^;tude reaches down " to as many as the Lord our God Ihall call." And as there is a perfeft harmony between thefe two, there is no !ieed to ^^Icltroy the one in order to preferve the other ; for both limits being fettled and fixed, that of lati- '^iJe, which e- ^ends to parents and children, iiuili: continue III ii., rdi, through fuccelhve a^es, It comes down t- that of longitude, which readies to as nrany as the Lord our God faall call ; that is, ■'i long as ' d Ihall continue to call ^lall pertain to parents and children. ^h: B., (herefoie, wa^ vi rv rii'ht in miikino- this the pro r": he L^r-^" 8o AllGL'AlEKTS ON THE oIDE 01' •9 i .'fa if this a limiting claufc, for i^o it really is ; but he was very wron^ when, indt-ad of prefcrvinp; both, he fct one limit to deltroy the other. And as it ofren falls out that thole, who do violence to the fpiiit of a text, are led to utter fonie rafli expref- fion againft the 'cttcr of it, jufl fo it has fallen out iii Mr. B.'s cafe, lie has violated one limit in the text, and has fo exprcifed himftif as to ex- ceed all limits of truth. In vol. ii. p. 354, he ha-: fidd, " There is nothing faid about the promife reipecling any befides thole who were then awa- kened." Thofe, who were awakened, are diftin- guillied by the pronoun " \ou ;" and it is certain fomclhing is faid about th<: ])romire rcfpecling them. But, fays Mr. B. " Tliere is nothir.g faid nbout the prondfe rcfpecting any bcficles." Mr. B. fliouid not have fi\id this with the text before his eyes. He fuould firll have crafed that claufe of it, " and to your children," and not have let it itand to flare hhn in the face, and convict him of falfehood. As fomcthing was laid about the promife refpeding thofe v\ho were awakened, anJ iheir children both, he might as well hav;; denied it rtfpccling the awakened, as to deny it relped- ing their children : But it is often the fare of thofewln. opp-:^re truth to loie truth and modefly together. When anv difpute happ-, ns on a place of Scrip- ture, arid it earuiot be fettled from th-; eoutext, the bell: way is to pais to a finvlar jilace, and ob- ferve ^^if tiiere be any p'...'n indications) in wint manner tluit was underilood, and wh^t practice took place u\:oi\ it. 'J iiat pafiage, tn which the text bears the {Irongeit refemblance, is Genefis xvii. 7. " ^ \^'ii" ':llabliih my covenant — to be a ' God r. B. I his fe of et it him the INFANT BAPTISM. St God unto thee and to thy feed." There is no place in Scripture fo like the text as this; they are both worded in the fame way—" to thee and to thy feed"— to you and to your children : The ' ure both conneded with a religious ordinance'. By feed, which is the fame as children, was meant an infant of eight days old and upwards ; and becaufc a promife is made to the feed, an in- fant becomes the fubjecl of a religious ordinance. Now, if the language of the text be flmilar, and if It be conneded with a religious ordinance as that was, what better comment can be made upon It than what that paffage fuggefts ? Why fliould not the ideas be alike, if the language and circum- fiances be lo ? The reafon why a comparing ot Scripiurc '.^nth Scripture ailifts the underftanding IS this : WI.en God ufes the fame kind of lanl ::uagein two plates of Scripture, and the circum. itances are alike, it is plain he n.jans to be un- derflood as intending fimilar things. This is ib fure a rule of interpretation, that we are not afraid of venturing our everlafling interefts upon It. And, by adopting it in this inflance, the re- ■m will be clearly this : That the Holy Ghofl, by the phrafe, « you and your children," meant ;'dults and infants ; that thefe are placed together in the fame promife ; and that the promile^, thus inade to adults and infants, is connected with baptilni,— And from hence it may be proved, HI. That infants are placed in the fame relation 'C'baptifm, as they were of" old to circtimcifion. U't any one compare the two plac-s together, - Oen. xvii. 7, 9, 10. and this now "^before ^\ and he will fee that parents and children are '^"'ted, in each promife, in the fame way— there C' the 'fe (1 ; -■ ; -•III ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDL OF ■SI ' -• Wm i the pi •omue IS, " to thci; and to thv feed"— here it i>s " to you and to your children ;"— that the proniilc, in each place, is connected with a reli- gior.s ordinance : In Genelis it is connecled with circinnciiion~in th'^ text with baptifm;— that, in both places, the ordinance is made to refult from the vMomite — the one is let down as a reafon tor the other ; Gen. xvii. 9. " Thou flialt keep my covenant therefore;" that is, becaufe God had given a promife. So here, *' Repent, :md let every one of you, of vour's, be baptized, for (r^-s becaufe) the promife is to you and to vour children :" Infants, therefore, in this pal- iage, are placed in the fame relation to baptifm as they were anciently to circumcifion. This being fo, I reafon thus ; o. j • u When a pofitive inllitute is connetled with a promife, all, who are contained in the promife, have a right to the inllitute. I think anyone mav be compelled to grant this, as it is certainly an undeniable truth ; for if parents muft, there- fore, be circumciled becaufe they are included in the promife, then, as infants are alio irrcluded in the promife, they too nmft be circumcifed. All this is evinced by the hillory of circumcifion, and is indeed a felf-evident cafe ; becaufe if a pro- mife "ive a right to an inftitute, the mftitute mult beloii- to all who are interelted in the promife. And,''theref()rc, we may reafon thus : U parent, mull b« baptized becaufe the nromile belongs 10 them, then mud tlicir infants be oaptized, be- caufe the promife is to tlicm alfo. This mode oi reafcning is the mor. ccvrain, as it is confirmul, b-jvond all doubt, by the divine procedure; lo. ll' vou Wlij ',>. trc to be< •:c urn died? the reply is, INFANT BAPTISM. 8 is, Thofe to whom the promife was made. If you inquire again, To whom was the promife made ? we aniwer, To aduks and infants. Again, if yoa afk, Who are to be baptized ? the anfwer is, Thofe to whom the promife is made. But to whom is it made ? 'I'he Apoftie fays, « To you and to your children." Now what proof more dired can be made or defired for infant baptifm ? From thefe premifes the refult is plainly this : That as infants Hand, in this text, in the fame relation to baptifm as they did to circumcifion, their right to the one muft be the fame as it was to the other. The cafe, in both inflances, Hands fairly thus : The promife connects itfelf with the ordinance ; that with circumcifion— this with baptifm. It alfo conneds two parties together, infants and parents, and unites them both to that ordinance with which itfelf is conneded. It is by virtue of the union of the promife with the or- dinance that thofe who have an intereft in the one have a right to the other ; and when two parties, parents and children, are interefted in the fame promife, and that promife gives a right to the ordinance, it gives the fame right to both the parties who are inrerelted in it. And hence, as parents and children are interelled in the proinife, the right of the children to the ordinance is the' lame as that of parents. I produce thefe three paflages only to fliow that fpecial notice is taken of infants, and that they are fpoken of agreeable to the idea of their church memberfhip. In Luke, ix. 47. 48, our Lord propofes them for reception in 'his name, jiiid thereby owns them as vifibly related to him. icif. He indicates that the reception was to be *G2 of li^J >iKi I ^^ >)l t^ ARGUMTiNTS ON THE SIDE Of ■ j ii 1- -tm of the fame kind as that which might be claimed by his Ovvn difciples ; and that receiving them, as vifibly relatud to himfelf, /. e. in his name, was fhowing a proper refpcd to him, and to his Father who fent him : " Whofoever Ihall receive this child in my name, rcceiveth me ; and whofo- ever ftiall receive me, receiveth him that fent me," &c. In Mark, x. 14, our Lord explicitly de- clares what was the ground of that reception, by cxpreflirg their vifible relation to the church, and fo to himfeif;— " Of fuch is the kingdom of God ;" as fuch ihey w -re to be brought to him, and no one was to forbid them to come. In Ai^cs, ii. 3*, 39, infants are placed in the fame relation to baptifm as they were before to circum- ciiion. The Apoftle unites them with their pa- rents in the promife, and conneds that promife with baptifm, thereby copying the divine pattern in Genelis, xvii- and allotting them the fame Ita- fion, with refpeft to baptifm, as they had before -«i'ith regard to circumciiion. In each of thefe cafes infants are fpoken of agreeable to that conftiturion of God, by which ihey were admiited to church-memberfliip, and to a religious ordinance. And this being all that urv argi-ment requires, I (hall proceed to notice one thing more, viz. ^ , , t c IV. The hiitorical account of the baptilm ot houfehoUls as recorded in the Scripture. The inilanccs of this kii^d are three : The family of Ly'dia, Ad,> xvi. 1 :. ; the lamily of the jailer, Acls xvi. 31.; i'Od that of Stephanus. i<^o[- ; lb. The cnfe of the jailer and his tamlly is Thus 'defcribc.l : " And he took them the lame Uour of the rdght, and waflied their ftripes, and W-, iNFANr UAPTISM. «5 HAS baptized, he and all his, ftraightwnv. And when he had brought them into his houfe, he let icving in God 9iv. He rejoiced domefHcally, beiievine in God; /'. u^s fo naturally fall in with the views of P:\;dobaptifl:s, that I am inclined to think it paflV: with the common people, inllead or a hundred ar- guments. For though they do not reafon by rnooil iind ligure, neither do they confrne themfelves to lo- gical accuracy, in any form ; yet they have logic enough to fee, that the bapiizing of a man, and all his, and likewife of this and the other houfehold, is l)v no means afrreeable to the plan, and that it ha-; no refemblance to the praaicc of the Baptiils. It is in this way, 1 confider thefe accounts 0} baptizing as having weight in the prefent inquiry. Here are i acts recorded, relative to baptizing; 1 take thelL facliS, and compare them with the pro- icedings of diii'erent baptizers ; and I find they will not agree to cme clafs, but very well with the other: 1, tlicrctore, am led to conclude that tliai .clafs of bapiizcis agree belt to the primitive prac- tice. INFANT RAl'TISM. 87 ticc, to wliom thcfL- r.icU will L-^ft a;.';rcf^. Tor, ns the pradice ofthc Apoftles has no alliniiy with that ot the Baptills, it is very reafonable to inter that tlicir views of the fubjecl could not be the lanie. This beinj; tlic la(t corroboratirj^ art^unicnt I mean to brinj;, I will coiled the force of tlie whole into one view. The whole defence of infants relts on two .irgunicnts ; — i. That God did conditute, in his church the menilicvniij) o[ infants, and ad- niitieii them to it by a r(.'li;.',i(uis ordinance. — 2. That the right of infants to church- niemberniiji was never taken away : The confequenck- of which is, that their right to nieinberfhip continues to the prefent moment. 'Ihc lirlt of thefe arguments is granted by the Baptilfs thcmfelvcs. The other I have evinced from five topics: i. From (Jod's difpcr- fation towards the Gentiles, in forming ihcm into a church-flate. 2. That God never did, by any law, take away that right which liad 1-ccn lx*fo/o granted to infants. 3. That none ol' the Jews had any apprehcnfion of the rejection of infants, w!ii :h they muft have had, if infants had been rejecled. 4. ThiW Jefus Chritt fpake of tliem as vifibly be- longing to the church, and to himfelf, :i9 tlie head of the church : And that the apofUe Peter plaoed them in the fame rehition to baptifm, as they bail been before to circumcifion. 5. That the a'pofUe Paul, in baptizing whole families, acled a_L,reeable to, and fo evinced the validity of all the preceding arguments. The evident refult of the whole is, that infants, according to divine appointment, have a rigb.t to church-memberfliip, to the prefent hour. Then, the only queftion that remains, and bv anfucring ot which, I fhall be brought to the clofe of the in- G 4 quit)', I • '* I iM IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) f/ A (/ / 5-' :/- i/. .<$> # 10 k^|28 17 5 [ SO ■•^ HMi 1^ 112.2 I.I i'-° 111112.0 1.25 1.4 1.6 ^ % "^ "-l. el ■e, ^i ^^^ ^^X > ^/'/ ..^ w ^^. w W Sciences Corporation #> V \\ o^ '^%^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER NY. I4S80 (716) 87J.4503 4p< i^ ^ 1 88 ARGUMENTS, &C. ^• quiry, is this; Have i:*iaii?b (any infants, for I take them indefinitely) any right lo chriftian bap- tifm? To th's I reply, i. That thofe perfons who have a right to be members, fhouid ceuainly be admitted to memberfhip ; /. e. folemnlv recop- nifed. And the reafon is, becaufe everv one fliould have his right. 2. If perfoiu. who have a right to be members, fhouid be received 10 mem- berfhip ; the:., they are to be received, either with- out b iptifni, or with it. I fuppofe none will fay they are to be received without baptifm ; for then, if one may be fo received, fo may all, and thus baprifm will be excluded. I expedl no oppofiuon from a Baptifl in this place. For if the right of infants to mernberfhip be once evinced, the oppo- fition of a Baptift is over. And therefore, if he be able to do any thing in this controverfy, it mult be done !)e+"ore it comes to this. On the other hand, if no perfon is to be received to mem- berfhip without bapiifm ; then every one, who fhouid be received, mufl of necefTity be baptized. And fo the conclufion of the whole will be this; Since infanis, tl.ereiore, have a right to member- fhip, and all who have fuch right mud be received as members, and none fhouid be received without being baptized; then it follows, that as infants have a right to be received, they mufl: alfo have a right to be baptized ; becaufe they cannot be re- ceived without baptifm. [ 89 } A. CHAPTER III. HAVING advanced what I judged efTential on both fides, I will now, agreeable to my defign, give the reader a fchenie of the ^.hoIe. By this fcheme the reader will be able to difcover \vhat IS common to both fides, and what is the neat force of each. It was in this way, the fubjecl: pre- lented itfelf to my mind, when I was led a fecond time to take it under confideration. And I perfuade myfelf, that, by adopting this method, the reader will be more capable of judging, in this contro- verted queftion, which fide of the two is the ftronger, and confequently which is the true one I will place the whole on one page, that the reader may have it at once under his eye. I fhall place thole Scriptures, that weigh equal on both fides at the top of the page; and the arguments againft mtant baptifm m one column, and thofe for their baptifm in the other. I do this, becaufe I know ot no method more fair, or more calculated to lead to the truth, as it is in Jefus. 9o SCIIEiME OF THE CON FROVERSY A Scheme of the Controvcrfy on Baptifni. baptized." Acts, viil. 27. " And Philip faid, if thou be licvell with all thine heart- thou maycfl," iffc. N. B, Th,.'ie placfs, and others of the ("ime kimi, as 'h; y prove tii; baptiim of an :iil\ilt to be ris:fhr, are txpicirive of tli;; (critiintnt of Baptilts and P^iobaptilh with rtfpefl to an rtdiilt fub'ed : For iiotli think it riglit to h iptize an aihiit. Ami as tlisy prove equally on both fr.lesj they cannot be iirped by eitlur party agalntl the other. II. Thofe arguments, which are peculiar to each, compared. N. B. The qiic(tion is not of adults, in tliis b ili arc agreed; JJut, " Are infants to be baptized ?" Arguments ngahijl Infant Bapt'ifm. X . \^Tioever has a right to a pofitive ordinance iftull be exprefly mentioned, as hav- ing that right ; but infants are not fo mentioned, with refpcd to baptifm : There- fore infants arc not to be bap- tized. 2. The Scriptures require faith and repentance, in or- der to baptifm; but infants bave not faith or repentance : Tlievcfore infants ;irc not pi o- civ iulvjccls of baptifm. Arguments far Infant B:ip. tifm. 1. God has conftitiited in his church the memberfhip of infants, and admitted them to it by a religious rite. 2. The chiirch-mcmhcrfl.:p of infants was never fet afide, by God or man ; and conle- quently continues in force to the prefent day. N. B. The Baptifls admit • the firlt. The other is, by a variety of evidence, clearly evir.rc.!. r,,, ',• — As (joil h.!c haprifm of Chrift — iigainit the temporal iuhhftcnce of infants — and, iafliy, againil their eternal falvation. 1 have like- wile lliown wherein it:; lallacy eonfifted, -zj;-. in bringing more inio rhe conclufion than was in the premifes : All this ihe reader may obferve by- recurring »o the phue where it if examined. The oonfequence is, thac the jjaptiils h;.ve nothing to place againfl infant i^ap'iim but two unfound, fophiflical, decci.lul argunients. This is the fum rotal of the Baptiit fide ; but if any Baptiil think he is able either to maintaia thefe tv/o arguments, or to produce any ihiiig bctrer, I ferioui.'y invite him to tlie talk, ]. On the oppofite column I have placed the arguments for infant Vaptilm. Thdr order is the njoft hmple, and the vvlu)le confiils of three parts : 1. That God formed a church >n earth, and con- liltuted infants members of that church : — 2. That the memberfhip of infants, from that time to this, hi'o never been iet afide by any order of God ; confequently it ftill remains:— 3. That as ini^nti have a divine right to memberllnp, they mult be received as members ; and as they muH: not be received without being baptized/ they mult be baptized in order to be received. Thefe are the arguments in one column, vhich are to be compared with thofe two on the Baptiit fide in the other ; and by comparing tiiein together. ^P^ W m\ y 9^ SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSY together, the reader may fee on which fide the CAulcnce preponderates, and confequently on which fida the truth actually lies. There are three parts on the right column, which link into each other, and form a ftrong chain of evidence to be placed in oppofiiion to two falfe fophiflical arguments, which conftitute the whole force on the Baptift fide ; that is, there is fomething to be placed againd nothing— fubflantiai evidence againd a pair of fophifms: And this is to be done, that the reader may fee which has tile ftronger fide, and which the true. As far as concerns myfelf, I only fay 1 have, after many fupplications for the belt teaching, examined, compared, and decided, and am well fatisfied with the decifion : The read- er, if he be a man fearing God, will go and do likewife. — So much for the comparifon ; a few words on the evidence, by itfelf, will finilh this part of the bufinefs. The nature of this proof, on the fide of infants, is fuch, that Baptilts can only attack it in oi.e part : e. g. If I affirm, as in the firft part, tliat God did conditute infants members of his cliiiich, the Baptiiis grant they were once church-members. If I affirm, as in the third, that every one who has a right to be a church-member, has a right to be baptized, they are compelled to grant that too. So there remains but one point on which a Baptift can form an attack, and that is the fecond part, wherein I fay, that tiie church-mcmberlliip ot infants having been once an inftitution of God, it was never fet afide either by God inmiediatcly, or by any man ading under the authority of God. 'J'his is the point then that decides the queftion.-— 1 will fpend a few words in vindicating this turn- , ing ' I ON BAPTISM. 97 ''? ^fu^^^^'l^ ^^^ ^^rgumcntUKi ad homlnem made ufe of by Mr. Booth. In fupport of thic I have argued from five topics: God's method of acVng in brmeing the Gemdesmto a church flate ,- -there never was a law ot God to fet their memberfliip afide :-the Jews, in Chrift's time, had no apprehenfi^n of any fuch thing ;~Chrift fpoke of infants as actually belonging to the church, and his Apoftle placed them in the fame relation to baptifm as they had been in to circumcifion ;-and St, Paul, in con- form ty to this fcheme, baptized families, parti- cularly the jailer and all his flraightway. Each of thefe IS already fet forth, and evinced in its proper place. But what do the Baptifls place agalnft this evi- f .h • r v'k^T^* "^ anfwering Dr. Williams on this fubjeft, does neither produce one Scrip- ture to prove that the church-memberfliip of in- iants, which he grants to have exifled once, was ever fet afide, nor does he anfwer thofe Scrio- tures which the Dotlor had alleged to evince the continuance of their memberfliip. What then oes Mr. B. do Whoever will be at the pains to read his books, will find his mode of reafon- 'ng to be of this kind. He inftances a variety of Idlings belonging to the Jewifli church, fuch as Its being national— its priefthood— its tithes— its various purifications— its holy places, holy gar- jnents, &c j and then argues moft erroneoufly, 'hat as thefe things are done away, the member- lip ot infants muft be done away too. This I I ay, is the mode of his arguing, and indeed the nly argument he brings, as may be feen by anv one who reads his works with care. Now this II reafoning V 'I ■ m m ?v;Ja r,ud fay, the conftitution of the vifible churcti -' being iifl ON D.AI'TIS.Vf. 99 l)cinc: manllclUv aiul cni-ntlally a!tcrco\ the hw rdamig to quahiications for conmiunion in it! muf ot ncoclity he changed. Confcqucntly no ^.llKl inference can he draun from the member. Ihip of infants, under th<> former difpenfation, to a nmuarity of externa! privilege unller the iew covenant/' Now in what way could me confti- tution of the church be efientially altered by a change m the hw of ordinances, unlefs upon that abfurd idea that the ordinances and members were lo compounded and incorporated with each otfier, as to form, in this incorporated Itaie, the very effence of the church ? ' One thing we may remark in this quotation, which ,s, that Mr. B. grants infants\o have been church-members under die former difpenfa- Inf'l'.t . rr '' ^''u "''"^' "'y ^'■'^ argument for infant baptilm ; there is onlv one more to be mamtamcd, ^iz. That the memberfhip of infants has never been annuiied; and this being evinced, the oppofition of a Baptift is at an end, fuice he cannot by any means deny the conclufion. And " now the whole debate is brouglit into this narrow Trt r ^^"'•'■'h-membcrfhip of infants at any tune been fet afide, or has it not ? I have ad- vanced five arguments to prove it never has been fet afide. Mr. B. f.ys it has. If vou a(k him1o prove it he tells you " the conftitution of the v.fiWe church is manife^lly and effentiallv altu-ed." 1 you afk him how he proves this eifential alter- ation ? he tells you that tithes, and puriHca- tions and pnellhood, and other things of this kmd belonging to the Mofaic code, ar'e changed or taken away; and then mod abfurdlv infers that infant memberfhip is taken away toe. : As if «' "icjiioer 100 SCHEME 0? THE CONTROVERSY a member of a church and a Mofaic rite had been the fame; as if infant member/hip, which was long before Mofes, had been nothing more than a Mofaic rite. But let us obferve how grandly he reafons do ivn infant memberfhip — " We may, therefore," fays he, " adopt the facred writer's principle of reafoning, and iay." — I have been at fome pains to inform myfelf re- fpeding this fentence— whether Mr. 3. meant to imitate the Apoftle's phrafeology, or to reafon after the f-^me method, or to reafon from the ApoRle's datum or principle, viz. *' the prieltw hood being changed." I was at length inclined to view the' latter as his meaning ; becaufe it feem- ed too trivial to tell the reader in that pompous Way, " We may adopt the facred writer's prin- ciple of reafoning," when nothing more was meant but imitation of phrafeology. For the lame reafon I thought he could nof mean an imitation of the Apoftle's method, fc hat Wculd be only faying, he (hould lay dowvi a datum as the Apo- ftlc had done, and then draw an inference as the Apcftle did. All this is very well, and fecundum artem ; but then he might as well have told the reader that he would adopt Ariftotle's principle of reafoning as the facred writer's. For if Mr. B. only meant that he would lay down a datum or principle to begin with, and then proceed to infer, it can fignify nothing to any man living unlefs his datum be a true one. And if^ this be all, he need not have introduced it with fuch pomp as the " facred writer's principle of reafon- ing ;" for what other would any perfon adopt unlefs he were an ideot ' This, as well as the other, being t(» trifling to be Mr. B.'s meaning, 1 there- ON BAPTISM. lei I therefore concluded he meant to adopt the Apo- ftle's datum, viz. " The priefthood being chang- ed,'* ana from thence to draw an inference againft infants. I was the more inclined to think he intended this, fince he had juft cited the Apc- ftle's words, and Dr. OwenV explanation of them ; and this being done, he immediately proceeds to adopt. The Apoftle does indeed fay, " The prieAhood bemg changed, there is made of neceflity a change alfo of the law." I'he priefthood implied fer- vants of the church to minifter in holy things ; the law was a comnicindment contained in ordi- nances, and was, as Dr. Owen faid, a rule of worfhip and obedience to the church. The priefts, who were to minifier, and the law, which was to regulate, _ were both changed: The law was changed in confequence of a change in the priefl- hood. Well, and what then ? Why, according to Mr. B., the argument will run thus : The priefts were chan^ .1, and the rule of worihip was changed, therefore the church was eflentially altered, ther. foie infants were excluded. — Is not this a good inference, The priefts were changed, therefore infants were excommunicated ? It might have been fo if the priefts had all been in- fants ; but even then it would only have con- cluded againft infant priefts. Every argument Ml. B. has brought againft the continuance of inbnt church-memberihip is of the iame kind tithes, purifications, holy places, &c. and of thefe the reader may take which he pleafes, and mfer accordingly. Tithes are abrogated, there- fore infants are excluded. Purifications are fee afide, therefore infants are (hut out. Holy places, H 3 iVc! .» Mr. B."s arguir.cnt has the api:ea]an<. ol itrength, if ON BAPTISM. if ufed agalnft a difl; 1 07 may reject the idea of cntinL minifter; bccaufc h( hood, the right of tithes, &c. • b DC urged againft a cle national church, priclt- all its force is gone ; hut il the fame eigynian who admits thefe. Th IS argument derives all It is even good for noth nments of the perfon againlt vh Its force from the 1 mil en- itniay be very itrong againlt cal< \\ error 3 againlt another s well as truth, and, therefore, wh >ni It is ufed i one man, and very It will ferve to fupport -^ndance whatever en It IS a folitary ar' ^'- -^eej'°;hic clcpcncls on one fohtary argument that will either cr l\ r. 13 in oppolmg the continuance of inftnt \vaal er luch kind of reafoidn.^ is fir to (}uA agaiufi a plan of God. ° "''"'^ . Now weak as this argument is in itfelf there .one thing in Mr. iVs cafe which maklsi 1 - vor e he is nideoted for the ufe of it to a verv pual abfurdity. As he is not able to prove aa elential alteration in the conftitution^ of the do 1 'to - n l'"'"^^7 '^^^ ''^^^'^' ^"ftitutes do n cluKh of God; lor what clfe but fuch an abiurd Idea could induce him to affir lint the church was eirentially altered, and fo i^ km mrbr"f-|p"v''^'V"'^'^^^^^°^^hechm^ v^eic abiogatcd? JNow, thoi.o-h tU\. ■^^■^umcut of *'ow, though this ar hi io8 SCHEME OP THE CONTROVERSY his Is fo exceedingly weak, and the principle on which it is built fo very abfurd, that no one need be under any appreheiifion fhould it remain qui- etly m his pofleflion, I mean, notwithftanding, to take the liberty of changing his place, and fixing him in that ftation, where he (hall feel himfelf totally deprived of its afliflance. Mr. B. muft certainly know that the national form of the church, the inftitution of pricflhood, tithes, and other Mofaic ordinances, were of a much later date than infant church-memberfhip. I take the liberty, therefore, of changing Mr. B.'s ftanding, and putting him as far back as the pa- triarchal aje, the times of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob. And now having placed Mr. B. among the patriarchs, I wifli him to take a view of their eccleuaflical affairs, and to indulge me at the fame time with a Ittle free converfation on that fubjeft. Now, Sir, what do you peceive in this age of the church ? Here you fee the venerable patriarchs, obedient to the divine order, admitting infants to church-memberfhip. But on the other hand, you fee here no national church, no infbituted prieft- hood, no law of tithes, nor indeed any Mofaic rites. Your favourite argument againfl the con- tinuance of infant memberfhip, derived trom a na- tional church, the lovitical priefthood, tithes, &c. is, by falling back about the fpace of three hun- dred years, fairly and irrecoverably loft. You had formed fo clofe a connexion between infant memberfhip, a national church, a priefthood, tithes, and Mofaic rites ; as if they all rofe into exiflence at the fame time, and were all to expire together. But here they fland entirely apart ; infant mCin- berfhip is in no alliance with a national church, is totallv ON BAPTISM. IG^ totally unconneded with levitical priefthood, and has nothing at all to do with Mofaic inllitutes. The clofe union you fancied exilled between thefe does here vanifti away. And now, Sir, what will you do with a difleruing minifter in this cafe ? Your I argumeittwn ad hominem, the only argument you ! had, is lod. Loft, did I fay ? — Nay, now I think of it, it is not loft neither. Oh no! fo far from it, that 1 believe I can put you in a way, whereby you may manage your matters to far greater advantage. For though^ by putting you back to the patri- archal age, I deprive you of thofe topics with which you have been able to combat a diflentlng I ininifter, viz. a national church, an inftituted priefthood, Mofaic rites, ^'c. ; yet all is not loft, you will here find topics, which, if managed whh dexterity, will make no inconfiderable impreflior. on a clergyman. You obferve, Sir, that infant memberfliip has nothing to do with a national church, priefthood, tithes, &:c. ; and then, fliould '' any clergyman rife to defend the continuance of j infant memberftitp, you may fay to him : My good Sii, if you infift upon infant church-mem» berftiip now, which I myfelf grant to have exifted in the times of Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob ; pray obferve tlie confequt ce ; you muft relinquifh the n idea of a national church, you muft ceafe to call ' yourfelf a prieft, you muft lay afide your holy garments, and finally, you muft give up all your tithes. For, if you will be a patriarchal profciror in infant memberfhip, you muft be fo in every thing elfe. If you wil' :onform to the patrirrchd in one particular ; in the name of confiflency and com- mon .. ! r- ;•= ^:i\ ITO SCHEME OF THE CONTROVERSV nion honefty, I afk, why are you not a coaformif in every particular ? You fee, Mr. B. that this is argimcnium ad hm miian againit a clergyman with a witnefs, and will make hnn feel according to its importance; fol certainly it will bring him into as great a difficult] as your other argument of the fame kind broughj l)r. XViUiams.— Well, what a happy invention Here is an expedient, by which you will be abletJ annoy either a clerical, or a non-con opponent] Before, when you fixed your ftatior among thfl Mofaic rites, you coi-kl only acl with advantage agamlt a m^n-con ; but now, if you only (tep back three hundred years, you may employ youi artillery as fuccefsfully againfl a clerical antaoo] nifL ^ And thus by ftepping backward or forward] according to the cail of your adverfary, which is a thing eafily done, vou will have it in vour povvel to ur-;e fonicthing againll all comers. 'This is onj of the bcR inventions in the world for your caufe- lor as you ftand forth a^ a great difputant agaiufJ inhuit mc.nberflnp, it is probable you will mee( \yith antagonifts of all kinds. This expedient- hke the tv.o edges of a fword, or the two horni of a dilemma— u ill enable you to meet an advert larv at all points. Should you attack a diffjnting mir.iftcr, be fure you fix ujjon Molaic rites ; bul if a clergyman flioulj prove an antagonift, you know your cue, quit that Ihaion, and fall back to the patriarchal age ; andfo by humouring the bufinefs, you will be a match for both. Excufe my offici- oufnefs in luggefling any thing, efpecially to you, \\ho are fo well verfed in all the turns of difputa-, lion ; I only do it, bccaufe this thought feemed toj elcape you. Candid! ON rJAPTISM. Itl Candul I^cnJer, I hcive now done wltli this part of the fuhjcJl, and have only to fay, that of all the niifcrabje oppofitions that were ever fet up a^rainit an ordinance of God, I mean infant member/hip in its perpetuity, I think there never was a more milerable oppolition than this. The Baptifls i^rant infant church-mendx-rinip to have exilted once. I have affirmed that it Itill cxills ; and this being proved, the oppofition of a Baptifl is at an end. I have argued from five dilierenr topics in proof of the perpetuity of infant memberfhip. Mr. 15. who denies this, urges againft it one folitary ar- gument ; -,nd that even the weakeft of all argu- ments, the argumcntum ad hominav ; and this fame folitary weak argument is founded on a grofs ab- furdity ; and finally, by removing Mr. B. from the Mofaic rites to the patriarchal age, this folitary ab- furd argument vaniihes like a ghoft, and utterly forliikes him. r n^ ] APPENDIX. A SHORT METHOD WITH THE BAPTISTS. IT is a certain facl, that when any fentiment Ig falfe, it will appear the more glaringly fo itie more it is examined, and the farther it is drawn out. I have been very attentive to the tendency of Mr. booth's reafoning, and have pledged myfell more than once to take fome notice of it. '»\'hen a writer docs not wiOi to be prolix in an- fwcring a large work, it is bell, if he think the work erroneous, to pitch upon fome prominent parts, in which the fallacy of the author is fuFici- enfly pali)able to run down and ruin his wnole fyltem. I will adopt this method with Mr. B.'s perform- nee, wherein he expreiles the fentiments, and purines the reafoning of the Baptlfts in gene- ral. It is his fecond edition '^P P>cdobaptifm Exsu mined, to which my ancntiou ^.-, ' . chiefly dhfcl- ed, as that fubj^^cl, on wh'ch I Ihai.' more'oireftly animadvert, is not handled in the anfwer to Dr. Williams, the Dodlor, in his piece, having urged nothing upon it : And indeed it does not flgnify which (if Mr. B.'s books is quoted, fo fdr as I fhall notice him. The ^IB^P WITH THE BAPTISTS. II3 The fentltnent of the Bapfifls, r. fpeding a fit fubjed of the baptiiinal ordinance, divides itfeif into two parts : They affirm that believing adults are fit fubjeds of baptifm ; — they deny tijat bap- tifm (hould be adminiftercd to infants When fupporting what they affirm, the fubjeft runs very fmoothly ; and no man that 1 know, except per- haps a C^aker, will deny the conclufion. For my own part, I am as well perfuaded that a believing adult is a fit fubjed for baptifm as ever I was in my life ; and I neither have, nor mean to fay, one word againft it. This is the common fentiment of Baptifls and Paedobaptifts, and is not, as Mr. B. falfely and boaftingly calls it, the Bap- tifls' fide. As far, therefore, as the proof of adult baptifm goes, it is all very well, and ''x:- ceedingly plain from Scripture, and is admitted, without difpute, by both parties. But when the Bapiifls are brought to anfwer for their negative part, viz, infants are not to be baptized, their difficulties infbntly conimence, and the mode they adopt of conducing the debate, drives them into fuch extremities, as ruin the caufe they mean to carry, e. g. Is an infant to be baptized ? No, fays a Baptilt. Why ? Becaufe baptifm, fays he, being a pofitive ordinance, no one can be deemed a proper fubjeft of it but by virtue of fome plain exprefs command of God. This idea of exprefs command they raife fo excef- fively high, that lure enough they have done the bufinefs of infants in cutting them off from bap- tifm ; bu', at the fame time, and by the famepro- cefs, a breach is made in female communion, and women ,ue cut off from the Lord's table. — This is the firlt thing that riles out of their fyftem, and 1 which ''M r. 114 A SHORT METHOD which will co-operate with others to ruin it. I undertake to prove that, according to the princi- pies and reafonings of the Baptilts, a woman, how- ever qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord's fupper. Again, the Baptilts, in order to patch their fvlicni, and give it tlie appearance of confift- ency, are under the neccHhy of maintaining the right of feniiLles to the Lord's table, upon the fame principle on v. Inch they oppofe infant baptifm ; but when they fet about this, they make a fhift to lofe their principle, are transformed into r:edo. baptilts, reafon by analogy and inference, and fall into prevarication and felf-contradidion, the mofl miferable. — 'J his is the fecond thing. I, there- fore, undertake to (how, that the Baptifts, iu proving againll infants, and in defending female communion, do fliift their ground, contradict themfelves, and prevaricate mod pitifully. Further, when an argument is urged againft die Baptills iVom the memberlhip of infants in the 'ancient churcli, and their being, all infants as they were, the fubjeds of a religious rite, the Baptilb do not deny the fad of their memberfhip ; but, in order to evade the confequence, they lay vio- lent hands on the church, the memberfliip, and ilie inltituted religious rito, and in this way they endeavour to effecl their efcape. — This is the third thing. I, therefore, undertake to prove that, according to their principles md reafonings, the ever blelVed God had no church in this world for at lead fifteen hundred years. There is another thing Tthought of introducing againft the Bap'Uis in this way ; but as 1 know not how the\ will anlwer it (fince Mr. B. has laid WITH THE BAPTISTS. falJ nothinpr about it, tho us L- 1 1 , V "' ^^'ffh it was in a wnrle wh-ch he h.mfelf has noticed), I intend no7 o put It in another part in the form of n . which I fhall fubmit to any Bamift J^o^ ''' think proper to write on the fubieft ^° "^'^ nf!h'/TW ^ cauic I fi ii6 A SHORT METHOD caufe that is llkewife a pofitive rite. This Mr. R. will not deny, nor can he deny it, without over- turning his own fyftem. Then, as tht inilitutcs are both pofitive, and the fame reafoning will ap- ply to both, I undertake to prove, I : That, according to the principles and re^- fonings of the Baptiits, a woman, however quali- lied, an have no right at all to the Lord's fupper. That I may make this matter as plain as polliblc to the reader, it will be needful to fet down vari- ous topics from which female right to the Lord's t'uj^per may be, or is at any time evinced. I f;iy then if women have a right to the Lord's table, that right muft be proved fiom fome or all of the following confiderations : -clz. From their being in the favour of God — from their fitncfs for fuch an ordinance as godly perfons — from the ben "t it may be to them — from their church-meinber- fliip — from their baptifm — or, lartly, fiom fome exprefs precept or example in the word of God. Let us form each of theie into a qucllion. QiielHon i . Can the right of women to the Lord's table be proved from their intcreil in God's favour ? Ant'wer. Mr. Booth fays. No. Vol. ii. p. 227. '* But fuppofing it were clearly evinced that all th€ children ot believers arc intcrclted in the cove- nant of grace, it would not certainly follow that ihcy are entitled to baptifm. For baptifm, being a branch of pofitive worlhip [and fo the Lord's fupper], depends cntirclx on tiic fovereign will of its author ; which will, revealed in pofuive pre- cepts, or by apoliolic examples, Is the o///v rule of its adminldraiion." •' So far is it f^om being a fuel:, that an iiitercft: in the new covenant, and WITH THE BAPTISTS. H - a title to poHtlvc inftitutes [baptifm and the Lord's tuppcr], may be inferred the one from the other." lage 228 « AH rcafoning from data of a moral Kuid IS wide of th- mark." Note. No i. 1 in the covenant of grace, or the new covenr. .lowcvcr clearly evinced, can give any right to a pof.tive inlUtute, i.e. either to baptihu or the Lord's fiippcr. Then a woman, being 111 the covenant of grace, or in God's fa- vour, has no rignt on that account to the Lord's Ijpper ; ior nil this depends only on pofiti^'e pre- cept or example. Ouertion 2. Can the right of females be prov- ed from their fuitablcnefs to that ordinance as godly perlons ? Anfwer. Mr. Booth affirms it cannot. Vol. i. P: ^f.l'. " But when our divine Lord, addrefling his dilciples in a pofitive command, fays, * It fliall be lo ;' or, when fpeaking by an apodolic exam- pie, he declares, * It is thus,' all our own reafon- ings about /itnefs, expediency, or utility, mufl hide their impertinent heads." V^ol. ii. p. -^28 *' This being the cafe, we may fafely conclude that all rearoning from data of a mc-il kind, anr? the luppoled fitnefs of things, is wide of the mark." Vol. ii. p. 3 8 9. " But were we to admit the great Vitringa's prefumptions as fads, viz. That the in- iants of^ believing parents are fanaified by the Holy Spirit, p. 377, yet while pofitive appoint- n.ents arc under the direaion of jwruive laws, it would not follow that fuch children fhould'be baptizL-d." Note. Our being fandified, and thereby pof- fefTing a fitnels for a pofitive inllitute, gives us no right at all to that inltltutc, be it v.h.ir if n.-.-. ■I: \\ i I --; N o 118 A SHORT METHOD No right to any inftitute, according to Mr. B., can be inferred from fan ctificat ion of tlie Spiiit;' and all our reafoning from litnefs, or fuppoled fitnefs, is altogether impertinent, and mull hide its impertinent head. So no woman, Mr. B. being judge, has a right to the Lord's table on account of her being a fandified or godly perfoa. Qjefllon 3. Can the right of females to the Lord's table be proved from the benefit or ufeful- iicfs of thi't ordinance to them ? Anfwer. Mr. Booth denies that it can. Vol. i. p. 23. " Seeir.g baptifm [. i the Lord's fupper too3 is as really and entirely a pofitive inftltution as any that were given to the chofen tribes, we cannot with fafety infer either the mode or the fubjcd of it from any thing fhort of a precept, or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance." Vol. i. p. 227. " When our divine Lord, addreiTing his difciples in a pofi- tive command, fays, ' It (hall be fo,' or, when fpeaking by an apoltollc example, he declares, ' It is thus, 'all ourownreafonings about fitnefs, expedi- ency, or uiiiity^ mu(l hide their impertinent heads." Note. To leaf u from the utility or benefit of an infiitute is quite an impertinent thing ; fo that we cannot fay, the Lord's fupper may be ufeful to females, therefore females fhould be admitted to the Lord's i'upper : Fi^r, as Mr. B. affirms, we cannot viih i'alety infer either mode or fubjecl from any thin^; fhort of precept, or precedent, recordeci in Scripture, and relating to the very ordinance. (^icfiion 4. Can this right of females be proved from their church-iuemberi v-^* WITH THE BAPTISTS. 119 Anfwer. Mr. B. fays it cannot. Vol. i. p. 22. *' Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Teftament, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritual \ " '.p, he left either the fub- jeds of it or the .... of adminiftration to be in- ferred by the people, from the relation in which they ftood to himfelf, or from general moral pre- cepts, or from any branch of moral worfhip.'* In the anfwer to Dr. WiUiams, p. 441, Mr. B. fays, «• But had our author proved that infants are born members of the vifible church, it would not thence have been inferrible, independent of a divine precept, or an apoltolic example, that it is our duty to baptize them. For as baptifm is a pofitiveinftitute, &c." ^ Note. Mr. Booth fays we cannot infer the right of a fubjeft to a pofitive ordinance from the relation he Hands in to God, not even from church-memberfliip ; confequently the member- fliip of a female gives her no right to the Lord's table. Queftion 5. Can the right of females to the fupper be proved from their baptifm ? Anfwer. No, fays Mr. Booth. Vol. 1. p. 22. *'^ Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Teftament, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritual worfhip, he left either the fubjeds of it, or the mode of adminiftration, to be inferred by the people, from the relation in which they flood to himfelf, or from general moral precepts, nor yet from any other ivell-knoivn pofitive right.'' Page 23. " We cannot with fafety infer either the mode or the fubject of it [a poiitivc ordinance] from any thiug fliort of a precept 01 ii precedent I 4 recorded ■«■[ 'i' i m ■J I20 A SHORT METHOD recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance.'* This is the burden of Mr B 's fonfr. ' * Note. .,aptifm is a well- known pofitive^ieht • and Mr. B. denies that the mode or fubjea of one rite could be inferred from another, confequently baptifm can infer no right to the Lord's fupper • For upon Mr B.'s word, we cannot infer either mode or fubjed from any thing fhort of mecept or example relating to that very ordinance. Now as the right of females to the Lord's table cannot upon the principles of the Baptifts- be proved from any of the preceding topics, there remains nothing to fcreen them from that confequence which I am now faftening upon them, but fome exprefs command or explicit example. I come in the laft place, to inquire, Qiieftion 6 Can the right of women to the Lord 8 table be proved f om any exprefs law or example in holy Scripture ? Anfwer Here Mr. B. affirms ;— and I deny. It will be necefTary here to give the reader a complete view of Mr. B.'s defence of female com- munion. This defence is very fhort, but, on his principles, it is the moft curious, moft diverting, mofl mean, that (I thfnk) was ever offered to the Public. It is in vol. ii. pp. 73, 7^, and is as follows : « In regard to the fuppofed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we reply by demanding : Does not Paul, when he fays. Let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him cat, enjoin a reception of the facred fupper ?— I. Does not the term M^punoc, there ufed, often Hand 'WITH THE BAPTISTS. 121 ftand as a name of our fpecies, without regard ♦o fex ? —2. Have we not the authority of lexicogra- phers, and, which is incomparably more, fhe fandlion of common fenfe, for underftanding it thus in this paffage ?— 3. When the fexcs are dif- tinguiflied and oppofed, /.le word for a man is not xi^puiro;, but cc^np. This diftinftion is very ftrongly marked in that celebrated faying of Thales ; the Grecian fage was thankful to fortune that he was av^pwTrof, one of the human fpecies, and not a bead — that he was ai^r.p, a man, and not awoman.~4. Befides, when the Apoflle deliver- ed to the church at Corinth what he had received of the Lord, did he not deliver a command— a command to the whole church, confiding of wo- men as well as men ? When he further fays. We, being many, are one bread and one ' body j for we are all partakers of that one bread ; does he not fpeak of women as well as of men ? — 5. Again, are there any pre-requifites for the holy fupper, of which women are not equally capable as men ? -—6. And are not male and female one in Chrift ?" This is the whole of the defence, and I confefs I have been often diverted in reading it ; I thought it a curiofity as it came from the pen of Mr. B., who is fo great an enemy to all inference and ana' logy refpefting pofitive inftitutes ! The whole of this defence I have divided into fix parts, and thefe, for the fake of greater plain- nefs, are diftinguifhed by itrokes and fi^^ures. Mr. B., in thefe fix parts, aims at three d'?ltlnc> arguments: The firft is taken from the word M^pccTTo?, man, which includes the three firfl: parts ; the fecond is taker, from Paul's addrefs to the church as a body, and takes in the fourth part : the f fit ■I m 122 A SHORT METiron the third is from tlie condition and qualification of fcmal.-s, and comprchcn''s the two hifl parts. Since Mr. B. offers this defence to the PiibHc as proving an explicit warrant for female communion ; we muft, therefovc, firfl of all lay down the pre- cife idea of the term explicit. Explicit denotes that which is direct, open, and plain ; and which immediately llrikes the mind without reafonin"- upon it; e, g. Ads, viii. 12. " They were baptized^, both men and women." Here the reader inftantly difcerns both fexes, without inferring from any other place. And hence the term explicit is op- pofed to implication, /'. e. any thing included under a general word. And it is likevvHc oppofcd to in- ference, i. c. pr . -if drawn from fome other placi. An explicit warrant, therefore, is fuch as flrikes at once ; and precludes the necellity of implication, reafoning, or inferring from fome other topic. Such a warrant Mr. B. inlifts upon for infant baptifm j and this brings him under the necellity of producing the fame for fmiale conmiunion. Which if he be unable to do, all he has faid againft infants will literally fhmd for nothing, and his books on that fubiecl will be even worfe than walle paper. — Now tor the explicit warrant for female communion. I. We begin with tiie argument from the word ei/^pw-:.-, man, concerning v^' h Mr. B. fays three things to evince an explicit warrant. And tirll:, Does not the term :r..l-f.'^ar,c^ man, often iland as a name of our fpecies without regard to fex ? What a lame fet-out towards an explicit warrant ! Often ftaud as a name of our Ipecics I That's ad- mirable on our (iJe ! This is what the learned call prefumptivc evidence, and this is what Mr. B, produces tQ\v-iriJs an explicit warrant. Does he tliink £ V.ITH TUT. BAPTISTS. 123 thinly prefumptivo and explicit are the fame ? Whatever atlvantage Mr. B. niaywifli to take, yet 1 would not grant this were 1 in his place. Idi Ibnre Predobaptill: fliould take an advantage of it too. This prehiiiiptive mode of arguing on ", po- fitive inititutc will not do l\lr. B. much credit he ?null certainly jjut on a better appearance than •his. Well then, in the fecond })lace ; *' Hive wc not," fays Mr. B. " the authority of lexicogra- phers, and, which is incomparably more, the fanc- rlon of common fenfe, for underftanding it thus in that pallager" i Cor. xi. 28. The authority of lexicographers ' and common fenfe ! Hen is help |, for the learned, and the unlearned, that both may * be able, after confultation had, to pick out an ex- plicit warrant ! For my own part, I do not much I like the labour of turning over lexicographers at the ^ befl of times, and efpecially for an explicit war- % rant; /. c. a warrant that (hikes the mind at once. f: I rather thmk Mr. B., if he willied people to labour for that which fhould be ha . w-thout any labour at all, fliould have fent his inquirers to commenta- tors a: well as to lexicographers, to know how the Apoftle ufed the word in queftion But fuppofe we depend on the authority of thefe lexicogra- phers, it may ftill be proper to alk, how it is thev know in what manner the ApolUe ufed this word? Do they know by analog^', or by inferring from other premifes ? Ah 1 Mr. B. 1 I fear ihele gentry would betray you. And to give you your tiue, you do not feein to place much confidence in tliein ; for you fay, that the authority of common fenfe is incomparably mor* 1 IV i! ^ fii ) • ■ ui'ii fe--^ f i 124 A SHORT METHOD Common fenfe! Hardly one in five hundred is able to confult a lexicographer, and therefore Mr. B. in order to make his explicit warrant explicit* furnifhes help to the unlearned. Weii, common fenfe, fincc it pleafes Mr. B. though you do not imderftand Grcel', to fubmit to your deteimina- tion, whether ay^puTroi be an explicit word for a woman ; and fo, whether there be any explicit warrant for female communion : I will take the li- berty of afking a few quefUons. Do you know what Mr. B. means to prove from i Cor. xi. 28. I*et a man, ai/^pwTro,-, examire himfelf, &c. ? Ye;? he means to prove an explicit warrant for female communion. Very well. What is an explicit war- rant f*^ It is that, the fenfe of which you inftantly perceive, without the neceflity of f'afoning upon it, or infen'-ng it from fome other part. Can a warrant be deemed explicit, if it be not founded on explicit words ? Certainly not, for the words coiiititute the warrant. If the word av^pojTroc, man, be ufed fonielimes for a male infant of eight days old, John, vii. 22, 23; and perhaps a hundred tines in the New Teftament for a male adult only ; and nineteen times in the Septuagint and New Teftament, todiftinguifh the male from the female when both are named ; would you, after all this, confider it as an explicit word for a woman? No, it is impoilible. Mr. B. fays, he has your autho- rity for under (landing it, as a name of our Spe- cies, /. e. comprehending male and female, in this place ; but if this word be not an explicit word for a wnnian, how do you know that women as well as men are included in it ? I conclude it from this, that women as well as men were baptized, that they were received into the church ; and therefore .,-.., a I WITH TKE BAPTISTS, 12 %. & ? muft be Iniplied in this word. — So, fo ! You con- elude it by analogy, implication, aiul iiilercnce ! 'I'hefc are fine materials Jor an explicit warrant. Cifo in cclLim abi^ and take your aiuh riiy with vou, left Mr. B. fliouUl Hop; you in his next publi- cation for talk.ii\c; lo nuich liivC a Paidobaptift. But if the authority of Icxicographi^rs and com- mon fenfewiil not brin^^ the buiuicla lionie, Mr. B. is determined to make ulc of his ov.u authority. He has no othei way or preiervii.;; the credit of his book i and, therefore, he will even riik his own reputation rather than lofe his explicit warrant. He ventures in the third part to fay, that, " when the fexes are diftinguifhed and oppofed, the word for a man is not x>cpur but ;- n ." This is Mr. B.'s own, anil he himfeif is accountable tor it. The aflertion is .^i-de ufe of to give a colour lo his explicit warrant j and it was, no doubt, the ne- eflity of his cafe that drove him to this. He had prefled the Pcxdobaptifls, through a great part of his 875 pages, to produce an explicit warrant for infant baptifm ; and having thereby forged a chain for himfeif, he is now entangled in his turn. It is fufficient for me, in this place, to fay, that this aflprtion of Mr. B. is utterly falle. I have already prefented the reader with nineteen Inftances out of the Septuagint and New Teftament, which lie di- rectly againft him. Mr. B. in order to pafs otl" this aifertion of his with a beuer grace, has given us a quotation, though not at all to the point, from Diogenes, out of his Life of Thalcs. \Vhnt I have to fay refpecling the quotation is this, that had Dio- genes, or any one elfe, affirmed the iame as Mr. B. (which he has not, nor Thales neither j, I would have linked them together as tvo falfe witnelfes. And 4^ ftiv. 126 A 5I10RT .MF.Tirot> Aiul I fay farther, it ftcms a marvellous th'vvr that Mr. B. fhould be (o wdl ac(juaintal • hU Thalcs,^ aiul his bios^rjjjhcr Diogenes; aiul at the fame t!:.ij lu cxcedivcly ignorant of his own Bible. 'ITiis is Mr. B 's firO argument to prove an r\- plicit warrant; and tht- pars ul' whieh it is eon- poled a!o thre-. It is l.iiJ, indeed, " a three if Id cord is not eafily brokLn." But SuK-mon did n"t mean iuch a cord as Mr. B.'s ; his is what p-oj^lc coinmcnly call a ro])e of fand, which will hy no means endure fLretchiiig. Were we have, in this part, a prefuniptiiMi to begin with ; and next, ini- plieatiou and inl^jrc^^e ; ;'.nd laltly, a broad lailV- hood to elrfe th.e wiu-k-. This is'iMr. B.'s metr.od of mal:irg up an > .t-licit warrant ! And everv one know., t!:at wh.n prelinnption takes the lead, ii is no wonder if falll-hood Ihould bring up the rear. 2. I come now to take notice of his fecond ar<^u- ment, taken from Paul's acldrcfs to the church" as a body ; and which takes in tlie lourih part of his defence- of female coniruinion. His words arc thefe: " Befides, when the Apndle tlelivered to the church at Corinth what i;- had received ol' .' Ixrd ; did he not deliver a conu'.iand — a c 'miand to the whole church, coriliiting of women as well as men r" When he further fay?, " We being nnuiv, arc one bread and one body ; for we are all par- takers of that one bread ; does he not fpcak of women as well a^ men?" Tiiis is Mr. B.'s way of producing an explicit ;, --rant ; did he not deliver a command to the wn,!'.: church, confilHng of v.o- men as well as nie:i r and did lie n'^t ij-eak ot women as well as uieu r It was Mr. B.'s plac.^ to l!io*; k •.VIVir THE BAPTISTS. 127 fliow by explicit words, tlui he did fpeak of women as well as men ; but finec he has only pro- poled his que'' ions, and has not himlelf affirmed any thing, he leems willing to throw the work of inferring olF ironi hinifelf upon the reader. Mr. 13. i,^ an artful diiputant, he k.-.ew that reafoning bv inference, w'lich he had lb often exploded, would be highly unbecoming in him ; and therefore, to ■avoid that, he puts it into the form of a quellion, as if he would fay, I leave you, my reader, to draw the inference. if by the command in this argument Mr. 15. means ihefe words, " Let a man examine him- lelf, 6cc." he had fpoken upon it in his way be- fore ; ^nd if it had contained any explicit war- rant for female communion, it was certainly in his po'ver to fliow it : I'hcre could, therefore, be no neceflity to produce it again, and efpecially in the obfcure manner he has done. But if that hz the command he iniends, 1 defy him to fhow one explicit word for female ''ommunion in any part of it. He ha? indeed, in what he thought fit to ad- vance upon it, ventu 'd a prefumption, an in- ference, and a falfehood ; cf
and its own evidence is the ftrongeft it can have : The confequence is, that he, who really produce ; one, neither can, nor does he need, to flrengthen it by any reafons he can advance, e. g. Were I called upon to produce an explicit warrant for female baptifm, I would only allege thofe words in Ads, viii. 12. " They were baptized both men and women." Thefe words (Irike the mind at once, and no reafoning whatever can add any thing to their ftrength or evidence ; bui Mr. B., by introducing fix particulars, fhows plainly that neither of them is explicit, and that it is not in his power to produce any explicit warrant at all : For had any one of thefe been explicit for female communion, he might very well have thrown away all the red. ■J- ■ ' 'll WItH triE BAPTISTS* »3« I' P:^ s^- In this view there is another thing remarkable m his defence, and that isj that every fentence but cne runs in the form of a queftion to the reader. Inftead of advancing his explicit proof, Mr. B. comes to the reader in forma pauperis^ with his petition in his mouth, as if he would fay, generous reader, grant me what I alk, or— my caufe is ruined ! I have been driving againft in- fant ^ baptifm with all my might, crying out, No explicit warrant, no explicit warrant for infant baptifm in all the word of God ! And now, as 1 ani called upon myfelf to give an explicit warrant for female communion, I befeech thee, indulgent reader, to admit my prefumption, falfehood, im- plication, inference, and analogy, for explicit proof, and thus in pity fave my finking reputation : And your petitioner, as in duty bound, wi 1 ever ' . I faid that ever)' fentence in this defence but one was put in the form of a queftion. Now what ''s ftill more remarkable is this, that that one fentence, which is the only affirnative in the whole defence, fhould be the very falfehood againft which I have already produced nineteen Inftances. If we pafs from the number of parts which are contained in this defence, and the manner in which they are prefented to the reader, and come to the matter of it, we may fay of that, that there is not a fm^le article in it but what is either falfe, or prefumptive, or inference, or analogy, or im- plication. Every part is reducible to one or other of thefe ; and there is not one explicit word for female communion throughout the whold. Such a defence as his would not have done very ell in the hand SHORT Mr.THOD of females hcuill rcafon from the fitnefs of tlvn.- — .;>re ♦here any pre-rec)uiru« for the holy funn,'/ of wh.ch uomen are not eqt.ally capable aJ m^n "' As the oppoler of infants, he infiRcd that all inch reafomngs ihouMhiJe their impertinent h^^'ls If he patron of females and the oppoier of h. fant's be thefan.e perfon he mud be guilty of a miferable preyancation; for he attempts to pafs off that re fonmg upon others which he himfelf declares to be wide of themark ; and will needs bring thofe heads of reafoning to light, which he brands with the name of impertinenr, and fays that their im- pertinent heads mud be hid. This in and out proceeding of the patron of females and oppgfer of infants I fubmit to the judgment of the reader ana leave the patron and oppofcr to fettle the mat! tir the belt way he can. II. Again, Mr. R., when oppofing infant hap- tilm, fays vol. i. p. 23. " Seeing baptlfm i^ really and entirely a poht.ve inflirution, we cannot with fafety infer eith. .• the mode or the lubiea of it fromanythingfhortofa precept, or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance." Vol u p. 227. " Baptifm, being a branch of pofitive worfhip, depends entirely on the fovereign will of its Author; which will, re- vealedin pofitive precepts, or by apodolic exam- pies is the only rule of its adminillration." Andin vol. 11. p. 44, he fay.^ - The inquirer has nothing to do but open the New ledanc: t, and conlult a few expreis commands and phnn exam- p^es, and confider the natural and proper fenfe of the words, and then, without the aid of commenta- tors, or the help of critical acumen, he may de- fide on the quelfion before him." 4. little after he wivu Tin: BAi'Tisr; J 37 !)C fpcaks of exnrefs commands and cxprcfs ex- .iinples, which is his uniform mode of expreflion when oppoling infants. But wlicn Mr. B. comes to defend female com- ruinion, he exprefils himfelfthus : Vol. ii. p. 73. " In regard to the fuppofed want of an explicit '.varrant for adniittin-x women to the holy table, ue reply by denuuiding — Does not the term cy-'-pxr,-^ there uled,, r^ftn (land as a name of our Ipecies without regard to fex ? Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incom- parably more, the fandion of common fenfe, for underlbnding it thus in that pafTage .^ When the (exes are diftinguiflied and oppofed, the word for a man is not a^^-cwTc-,- but c.r'-p." The reader is requeued to notice, that Mr. B., as an oppofer of infant baptifm, contends for pre- cept, pofitive precept, exprefs comtv,ands, or exprefs examples, and fays, in his index, that thelaw of inditutes muft be e- 'cfs, &c. ; but, as a defender of fer.iale communion, he takes up with an ambiguou., word, a mere prefumptivc proof—" Does not," fays he, " the terin aiSrpw7r'>r c//t-n Jland as a name of our fpecies ?" and this preiumption he attempts to Itrengthen by a iuiie- hood, of which I have already fpoken. As an oppofer of infants lie fays the inquirer may decide the queftion without the aid of commentators, or the help of critical acumen ; but, as a patron of ianales, he hrit furnifhes his reader with an am- biguous word, and then fends him to lexicoo-r.-'- phcrs to have it manufaiftured into a-pofitive out. ■Since it was not in Mr. B.'s power to form a poH- ^ tive precept out of an ambiguous word, without •| 'he aid of a little inference, he very artfully lllIO\\> ,\\ I . li- ft 138 A SHORT METHOD throws it into the hands of lexicographers and common fcnfe to efFed this buunefs for him. And one cannot fufficiently admire how tenacious he is of exprefs precept when an oppofer of infants while at the fame time, as the patron of females he is fo very complying, that he can even admit prefumptive evidence to pafs for an explicit warrant. III. Further, Mr. B , in oppofing infant bap. tifm, exprelfes himfelf thus : Vol. i. p. 22. " Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Te/la- ment, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritual worfhip, he left either the fubjects of it, or the mode of adminiftration, to be inferred by the people from the relation in which they ftood to himfelf, or from general moral precepts, or from any branch of his moral worfhip, nor yet from any other well-known pofitive rite ; but he gave them fpecial direftions relating to the very cafe." In vol. ii. p. 127, he fays, * But fuppofmg it were clearly evinced that all the children of be- lievers are interefted ui the covenant of grace, it would not certainly follow that they are entitled to baptifm ; for baptifm, being a branch of pofi- tive worfhip, depends entirely on the fovereign will of its Author, which will, revealed in pofitive precepts, or by apoftolic examples, is the only rule of its adminiftration.'* And in the fame page he fays, " So far is it from being a fad, that an intereft in the new covenant, and a title to pofi- tive inftitutes, may be inferred the one from the other." But in proving the right of women to the Lord's table, he fays, vol. ii. p. 73, 74. " In regard to the fuppofed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women WITH THI? BAPTISTS. »39 women to the holy table, we reply by demanding —Are not male and female one in Chrifl ?" A$ ifhefhould fay, if a female be in Chrifl, which is the fame as being jn ^he covenant of grace, fhe mud have a right to a pohtive Jrjftitute. Here .: art and inference togethe ! The art appears in this, that R!r. B. ^>")uld aot be feen to draw the inference hi-felf, but leaves that to a Paedobap- tift, wno is more accuftomed to that kind of work. But leaving Mr. B.'s piece of art in fhunning to draw the inference, I would defire the reader to attend him once more in his double capacity. In that of an oppofer of infants he affirms, that a right to a pofitive ordinance is not to be inferred from i'\e relation we Itand in to God ; when a patron cf females, he will infer their right to the Lord's fupper from theii being one in Chrifl with males. As an oppofer of infants, he infifls that an 1. erefl in the covenant of grace, though clearly evinced, gives no claim to an inflituted rite ; as a patron of females, he contends that if a woman be interefl- ed in Chrift, fhe has therefore a right to fuch an inflitute. As an oppofer, he declares it is far from being a fa£l, that an interefl in the new cove- nant, and a title to pofitive inflitutes, may be in- ferred the one from the other; as a patron,, he will do that which is fo far from being a fa£l : He infers the one from the other, the rigiit from the interefl— are not male and female one in Ctrifl ? He is very inflexible as an oppofer, and very pliant as a patron. Subjeda mutata funt, et il'.e cum I'Hs, So that, however the oppofer of infants may differ in his mode of reafoning from Paedobaptifls, the patron of females finds it neceffary to reafon in the fame ii 4i !■.« I40 A STioRT MrriroD f.imeway. It is pity the patron and oppofcr do not agree as .t xvould certainly be for ,lic credit of both to fettle on lome uniform modeof lo-jc Berore I turn from this phaenomenon in the "re hgious world, I would ju(t glance at Mr. B 's de' fence of female communion bv itfelf. l\lr }] fliould have made this a diRindl cha.^ter, 'and fhould have placed a title at the head of it • but as he has not done this, I will take the liberty of t omg It for hnn : and the reader may obferve in ■he mean tmie, how the chapter and title will jigree. Mr. B. begins his defence in thefe words • ' In regard to the fuppofed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table we reply," &c. This will furnifh with a title' which will run thus : * T/jc R,;^ht of Women to the Lord's Table, founded on explicit Warrant. N. B. An explicit warrant for females is one wlierein their fex is rpecificc;. 1 is oppofed to all implicaiion, analogy, and inference.— Now for the Chapter. " Does no^P.iul, when he fays, 'Let a .nanex- amine himfelf, and fo let him eat,' enjoin i re- ception of the facred fupper ? Does not the term ai.irpu)7.c-, there ufed, of en (land as a name of our fpecies without regard to fex r" j'l'his is pre- fimiptive proof.] " Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably more, the fandion of common fenf,\ for underltandii; it thus in that paflage ?" (This is inference.] ** When the fexcsare diflinguifhed and oppofed, the word for a man is not izvS/jajTroj but *^*;p." I I I WITH THE BAFTi<ight have likevvife conflde^red, hat, as nothmg m jjature differs more than po! Iicy among men, and piety towards God, they mud be viewed in all bodies of men, whether large or fniall, as thmgs totally, and at all times uift.nc-t But this Mr. B.'s fy'lem would not ad! nnt. Now in a large body, as the Jews for in- Itance, all law^ pertaining to human fociety, as fuch were civillaws; and all laws, though in thefimecode ^vlth the others, relating to the worfliip of God. were, properly fpeaking, eccldlaftical laws. So with refpea to men, when they are united in promoting order and mutual fecurity, they are to be confT- dered as a political ftate; but if fome. or all of hefe profefs piety towards God, and unite m his And X 1?^' T^ '""K 'r'^ ^' " ^^^'ble church. And though all the inhabitants of Judea belonged .? ct'\ " V^^ "^' ^""°^ ■'^''^' ^Jl belonged to :i)e vifible church. There were without doubffon e excommunicated perlbns, fome who volun.arilv >vuWrevv. and there niight be many, who caml- mo the land of frael, that did not join themfelves to the Lord. 1 here was, therefore no iun r..r.n ** Avhy 'iii'l 146 A SHORT METHOD •why Mr. B. fhould confound things, whic!: hi their own nature arc, and ever mufl be, fepurate. Neither is ir probable he would have done it, if he had not been compelled by his oppofition to the continuance of infant member Oiip. Though Mr. B., by the phrafe ecclefiaflico- pol'tical conftiiutionj has confounded the church and fhite, the one being a kingdom of this world, the other the kingdom of Chrift; vet as lonirthing of church flill makes its appearance, the C( nfequence charged on Baptift principles may not ftem to be clearly evinced. 'Tis true he Teems to grant tv. o parts, the political and eccleiiaftical ; but if we look more narrowly into his book, the eccleliaiiical part dilappears, and nothing will re- main but the political only. In vol. ii, p. 251, Mr. B. has thefe emphatic words, " 1 o be an obedient fubjeft of their ;the Jews] civil government, and a complete member in their church-ltate, were the fame thing " Every one knows, that a civil government, be it where it may, is converfant about prcfent things, it is a government among [r/ir.*] citizens as fuch, and is defigncd to regulate their worldly concerns. An obedient fubjecl: of fuch a government, is one who quietly and cheerfully fubmits to its regulations, and fceks the peace and fecurity of that commu- nitv to which he belongs. Now Mr. B. affures us that fuch was the nature of thin^';s among the Jews, that " an obedient fubjedt of the civil go- vernment, and a complete member of the church- flate, were the fame." If this were fo, it mud be becaufe the civil government was nothing lefs than the church ; and the church was nothing piore than the civil government j that is, they I were ■VVITir THE B.Ar-TlST.^. f. M7 were both the fame thin^^. It fi.nifies nothlnir bv what name ^ye call this communitv, whetl e a^a tional church, or ar. ecclefiaftico-poht^^d onftl" tution; It means no more at lad than a clviUo vernment : For, as Mr. B. informs us, il rev^a" nothmg more required in a complete member of wha he calls the church, than hirbeing an obedi cnt fubje.^ of the c il government. Now as tht whatever ,t u as, ccJd be no church of God and as' It IS not fuppofcd there was a church of a hH,e nature m any orher part; it will follow, that'ac cording to Mr. B.'s principle., God had fo nnnv centuries no fuch thing as a church, propeT fo called, in this W(^rld. ^ ^ ^ What a dreadful ecclefia^cide is this fame Mr B. ! And when we confider that all this r.fu t^ Irom principle and is carried on bv regu ar t' oalprocels; what a liorrid principle inuft hat be Sod' Tho'\T? ^^ f^'-'^y '^-verychurc o- God Though I have been a Baptift myfelf for ieveral years, I never till lately difcerned th L fliock ii^conlequence o[ the .aptiit fentimcnt. And I m much indebted to Mr. B for an infight into tnis as well as other confequences ..hich necef- v reiult from the Baptilt Icheme. And 1 av n^ oubt but his book, when nicely examined, will o more good this way than an/thing which h4 hitherto been written on the ful) e^ As Mr. B., to prelerve his fyftem, has laid violent hun. , on the ancient church of God • we nnnn^ %po e th:a that which was connecled^ith it "j pol-blyelcape. He that could reduce th 1 ",1 mo a civil governmau. uili „ot think it inuc lo anuhic^ure a reho.H.s inllitute into a polit cd nte. What was circumciiionr Accurding^o m / i'5 f '•■', '.-I, i { i i. ^ B. :h 148 A SHORT METHOD B.'s Talmud, " it was a fign of carnal defceiit, a mark of national diftindtion, and a token of in- tereft in temporal bleiTmgs.'* Here indeed is a good match ; a civil inftitute, and a civil govern- ment ! Now, though there is not a word of truth in all this ; yet this honour Mr. B. (hall have, and it is an honour I cannot always give him, that in this he is actually confident with himfelf : He has fecularized the church and the inftitute together. I will not now contend with Mr. B. whether he has given a true account of the ancient church, and its members ; it is fufficient for my prefent purpofe to take notice of what he has affirmed. Yet I could wifh, fhould he write again upon the fubjed (as I hope he will), to fee a fuller account of that church, the complete members of which ■were only obedient fubjeds of the civil govern- ment. I have never, in my fmall reading, met with a definition of a church like this ; it is enough for me now that Mr. B. has. My bufmcfs is not to difpute, but to take it upon his word. I only fay, that if fuch a church did ever exift, whatever it was, it could be no church of God. And as there was no better church, /. e. a civil govern- ment, in any other part ; there was not, on Mr. B.'s principles, for many centuries, a church of God, properly fo called, in all the world. " An obedient fubjeft of their civil government, and a complete member of their church ftate, were the fame thing " a he fame thing ! If, then, the complete member was no more than an obedi- ent lubjeft ; the church ftate could be no more than a civil government : For, according to Mr. B., they were precifely the fame thing. What might be the rcafon of all this ? Mr. B. fliall in- form f^ i h M m WITH THE BAPTISTS. 149 rorm us himfelf J it was, " Becaufe by treating Jehovah as their pohtical fovereign, they avowed hnn as the true God." As it is not my buflnefs m his place to oppofe any thing Mr. B. fays I ftall on y take the hberty to explain. What is' a political fovereign? He is one who rngns over others in civil things J that is, he govern? and re- gulates the affairs of this prefent world. This is the reafon then, that an obedient fubjeft of civil government, and a complete church-member, were the fame thing; becaufe all that God had to do with them was, as a political fovereign, to regu- late the affairs of the prefent world. ^ But where would have been the harm of fup- pofing the ever-bleffed Jehovah to have been more infinitely more, than a political fovereign .? And that he gave his word and ordinances to lead to the faith of Chrift .? That he fent his prophets to bearwitnefs, that through his name whofoever be- lieved in him fhould receive remiflion of fins? 1 hat he formed a people for himfelf, to fhew forth his praife ? Where, I fay, would have been the harm of fuppofing this .? None at all in reality • the harm would only have been to Mr. B.'s fvdem For had Jehovah been a religious fovereign, he Would fiavehad a re igious community,and that community would have been a religious church, /. e, a church profelTing godlinefs ; and then, an obedient fub- lett ot civil government would not have been a complete member ; and then, thdr inflitute would have been a religi.-us inftirute; and then-what then? And then Mr. B.'s fytlem would have eone to ruin. But he, wilely fcH-efecing this, takes mea- lures to leculanze the wiiole. He beoins at th^ head, and goes down fo tlic inftimrc." Jehovah lif ifU J ^o A -.riORT Mr.THOU luuft be a political fovercij^n, that the church may be political ; the church muil be political, that, the nif inbcrihip may be fo too ; the membcr- Ihip mult be political, that the inllitute may be political alio. So all was political ; a political ibveroign, a j^olitical church, a political member, and a political iallitute. And now Mr. B. has ;:;ained his point ; lur i"'c enough there can l;e no analogy between a church and no church ; and conlcijucntly no argument can be cirawn in favour of infant meruberrnip fron; a church which never was, to a church that now exilts. Yes, he has gained his pcnnt, he has run down infant baptifm ; but, at the fame time, he has eradicated the church of God. Nay, he was un- der a nLceility of eradicating the church of God, that infant baptifm might be run down. This has given me a notion of infant baptifm far dilferent from what 1 ever had And, if I could fay, that any one thing has latisfied my mind refpecling it miM-e than another, it has been this : I faw that infant baptifm could by no means be overthrown, nithout overthrowing the church of God. And Jor this conviction I am indebted to that very book, on which 1 have taken the liberty to animadvert. Nothing, therefore, in nature can be [ilainer than this confequence, that the fylteoi of Mr. B. has luhvcned the church of God. 'J hefe are the three confequcnces which rife out of the Baptift fylfem, and which, I have faid, will operate to ruin that fyltem out of which they arife : Namely, 1. That, according to the principles and reafon- ings of the liaptifls, a woman, however qualified, can have no right to the Lord's table. 2. Thai WITH THE BAPTISTS. «5« 2. That theBaptifts, in oppofmg infiint baptifm, and defending female communion, do vary their mode of reafoning, contradid themfelves, and prevaricate moll wretchedly. 3. That, according to their principles and tea.* foning, God had no church in this world for many centuries. I fhall now clofe the Appendix oy an appeal to the reader j and this I mean to do in three quef- tions. I. Are thefe confequences real ? To anfwer this queftion I need only appeal to the Appendix itfelf. There the reader may fiuisfy himfelf refpeding their reality. As to the firit, it is there evident, that there is no explicit command for female com- munion ; and, according to the Baptift fyftem, they are not to communicate without : The confequence is, that they have no right to communicate at all. With regard to the fecond, I have placed Mr. B.'s defence of female communion againfl his oppj- fition to infant baptifm ; and what repugnancy, prevarication, and felf-contradiclion, are difco- verable in thefe two, I have piefented to the rea- der. The third fpeaks openly for itfelf, that the beft church in the world for many centuries was nothing elfe but a civil government. 2. Do thefe confequences rife out of the Bap- tifts* fyftem ? For an anfwer to this 1 might refer the reader to the former part of the Appendix ; where he may fee in what way they adually do arife out of their fyftem. Their fyftem deftroys the right of females to the Lord's fupper, by de- manding explicit proof for infant baptifm ; becaufe there is no fuch proof for female communion. L 4 Their •52 Their att em A SHORT METHOD pt to prove the right of femal commune, involves them in the moft mean preva- rication and felf-contradiaion. And in over throwing the argument for infant baptifm taken from the memberfhip of infants in God's ancien church, they overthrow the very church itfelf In this way, thefe horrid confequences owe their birth to that bad fyftem. 3. Are fuch confequences as thefe v^hich rife out of the Baptift fyftem, fufficient to ruin that fyftena our ot which they ri:. ? To this l" anfwer. that It an confequences are fufficient to ruin a ^ftem thefe are they It is a rule in reafoninR, lUelh Ihe fame is alfo true of a fvftem • the M tern tha^ proves (00 much mu^t follow the fate of Its kincred argument, and prove its own deftruc- tion. Ihis fyftem, it is true, proves againft infant baptifm ; but there it Joes not ftop, it carries its force ftill farther it proves agai.^ft female commu- nion, and againft the exiftence of God's church • and to complete the whole, it proves againft the author who patronizes it. So that if infant bap- t.lm fall they all fall together; female commu- \'-Z f^r ''^n '^"',?'' °^ ^°^ ^^"«' the author InmfeU, Mr. B. falls, and all by the fame fatal lynem. ^ tor if this fyftem make infant baptifm a nullity, it makes female communion a nullity too • and turns the church itfelf into a civil government! and turns the patron of it into a felf-contradiclor'. Ihis, li any thing can be, is proving too much; and, therefore, that fyftem which is productive of fuch confequences muft itfelf be deftroved by the confequences it produces. And I appeal to the conici- WiTU Tlir DAI'TrSTS. »5: cnnfnchce of any rccider whether thefe confc qiiences have not been proved, and whether tlicv are not fufficient to deflroy anv fyftcm I call this a Short Method with the Baptin^, be- caufe, whatever courle they may take, it will ferve to rum their fcheine. 11, on the one hand, thele confequences are fuifered to remain as they J now la Mr. B.'s book, their khcmc will be ruine^ this Avay. For that fylltm can have no prctcnfion at all to truth, whjch in its confequences militates againlt female communion, and the very exi.lence oi the church of God ; and moreover exhibits the patron of It under the fiKipc of a ihifter, prevaricator, and lell-contradictor. But if, on the other hand, iliey alter their mode of defence fo as to avoid ihefe conlequences, their fcheme will be ruined that way: For then, they will lofe thofe very ar?u. ments by which they endeavour to fupport it. So that let a Baptiil, Mr. B. for inftance, take which way he will, his fclieme will either be overwhelmed vvith Its own confequences or it will fall for want of arguments. Ihus huich I fny at prefcnt concernincr the Ap- pendix : And ihall now commit it into the hands ')f God, the eicrual patron of truth, and to every J-cidcr's judgment aftd coufcience in his fight. 'I r 154 1 A CASE SUBMITTED TO THE CONSIDERATION OF BAPTISTS. BEFORE I enter on the Mode of Baptlfm, I would take the liberty of propofing to my Baptill: friends a plain cafe ; not fo much a cafe of confcicnce as a cafe of criticifm. That on which this cafe is founded is as follows : It is well known that under the prefcnt difpenf.uion there are two inftituted or- dinances ; the one in Scripture is exprefled by the term &£i7ri/of, a fuppcr, the other by [ixz^ltTy-x^ baptifm. The proper and obvious meaning of SuzTuou is a feafl or a common meal, Mark, "i. 21 ; John, xxi. 22 ; the proper meaning of (ixzTliTuj. is faid to be the immerfion of the whole body. The cafe then is this : If, becaufe the proper meaning of the term paarl;!r/x^, baptiim, is the immerfion of the whole body, a perfon, who is not immerfcd, cannot be faid to have been baptized, fince not! 'ii^ fjiort of immerfion amounts to the full import ot the word baptifm. If this be true, i fnouUI be glad to know that as (?£»^uo;, a fui)per, properly means a feafl or a common meal, whether a perfon who, in the ufe of that ordinance, takes onlv a piece of b' ad oi halt an inch fquare, and drinks a table- Ip.on lull of wine, which is neither a feafl nor a common meal, and fo does not come up to the proper meaning of the word, can be faid to have received the Lord's fuppcr ? Mr. Booth, I prcfumc, law this in Mr, Pierce's book, but has not taken any notice of it,; I therefore rcquefl feme Bantiil friend to turn his attention to it, OF f C ^55 3 I. ■ • P OF THE MODE OF BAPTIS^r. IT appears to tno, from the following clrcuni- fiance, tliat the IJaptilts arc not fo tenacious of the mode as of tlie fubject of baptihn. I iiaJ been convinced more than four years ago, in readmg Dr. William-': book, that iaimerfion was not ef- fential to baptifm ; and though I preached fince that period fe' eral baptizing fermons without fay- ing a word about the mode, I never heard of any of our Baptift friends that ever oi;erved that omif- fion; whereas, on the contrary, had I infifted on the mode, and omitted the fubjccf, I have not a doubt but they would have noticed it in the firit fermon : And I remember fome years back to have heard a Baptifl minifter fay, that the mode ot baptifm, by immerfion only, did not appear equally plain as t! . fubjeQ. Indeed I am perluad- ed that if it can be made plain to the Baptifts that it is wrong to rejed an infant, they will foon give up the idea of immerfion only i and it is for this realon that I have been the more dill'ufe on the fubject, and fhall now be fliort on the mode. All our knowledge of the manner of baptizing muft, at this diftance o^ time from the firit inftf- tution, be colledcd from the word " baptize," the circumihmces of baptifm, and the allufion,, of Scripture to that ordinance : Thefe three I will en- deavour to examine Impartially, confining myfelf to Scripture, and the word made ufe of iii the in- ititule. The queltion^ on which this examinatiou is I p^^. \-' 15^ OF THE MODE is to proceed, is this : Is immerfion eHentiai to bap. tifm? or, in other v.ords. Is there no b;>ptiVm but what IS by imtlierfion ? I fliall begin the in- quiry with that precife term wiilch the ScriptureS always ufe when this ordinance is fpoken of, namely |3:*7r7»^«, and examine thofe places iii vhich it occurs either as a noun or a verb, where the ordinance is not intended. There is a word commonly introduced into this debate, viz. ^x^V^^ though it is never ufed in Scripture, refpeding this ordinance; and this being the faft, I fee no great propriety in bringinrr it mto_ the debate at all ; for let it mean what i1 may, it can fignify nothing to the queftion in hand unlefs it had been ufed by the infpired wri- ters to exprefs this ordinance. I do not, however, fhun this term becaufe it would be unfavourable to my fentiment, but becaufe I judge it beft to examine that word, and that only, which the Holy Ghoft, when fpeaking jf this ordinance, has thought proper to adopt. Neverthelefs, that I may not omit it altogether, I would fay thus much of die term ^xy>y^ that it is a term of fuch latitude, that he who fhall at- tempt to prove, from its ui'e in various authors, an abfolufe and total immerfion, will find he has undertaken thr.t whic'^ he can never fairly per- form. Of the truth of this aflertion I would give the plain reader a talte in the following inlbnces. The term P^cc^rlx then is ufed to exprefs, 1. The throwing of a perfon into the mire. Job, ix. 3f. £i/pa.7rw;x= £e.;.].>,r, Thou fhalt plunge, baptize, or make me foul in the mire. 2. A partial uipping. Matt. xxvi. 2 ^ O iu~ ^cc'^xq [ait' tu^si> Tu> Tp„C-Aiaj rru 'y:ioa.^ He that dip^ Ixq [AIT lu-nii Tu; T/3'wcAiaj rv.v vnpa. . aI- 1 -• -t 1 • t . I • i 4ici ip^i^criJ , iub liuiiu wiui me 111 me uni. A OF BAPTISM. ^S7 i. I ^3. A flamed garment. Rev. xix. 13. IfAc^nov [t.i^xy.u.ivov a.^axi, A vefture dipped, baptized Itained with blood. * 4. A human body wet with the dew, Dan. iv. 2)2,' a'ro Tt^ ii. He baptized, fmeared [his face] v.! tawny wafh ; fpeaking of Magnes, the cometlian, who ufed to colour his face inflead of ufing a malk. 7. The ftaining of the hand by prefllng a fub- ftance. Ariftotle, SA.g.^r^.f ^ ^^^7,, ^„, ^ Being prclled, it baptizes, flains the hand. So various is the ufe of the term jS^^Toj, that we can only view it as meaning to «ret or ftain, and t .at by whatever mode the nature of the thing to be wetted or ilained may require. And I can trulv iay I have often been heartily fick and forry when 1 have obferved perfons of eminence for learning, efpecially Dr. Gale, labouring, in oppo. tion to the .-ery inftances which they thcmfelves had produced, to prove that this term intended immerfion, total inunerfion, and notMng elfe. But as this word is never ufcd with refpcd to the ordinance in queftion, and can therefore give us no mformation concerning the mode of it, I fhall immediately difmifs it without further notice. I come now to conlider ilie term I^xttIC,:^ which IS the only term made ufe of to exprefs "this ordi- nance, and this 1 fhall do by fetting down thofe u I places I^8 OF THE MODE places wh.rc it :s ufed as a verb or a noun v/hcn places are the orclin;uice is not intended. Th.ft pi as follow: Ilcb. ix. lo. " Which flood in meats and drinks and divers waH-iing, — ^''J'-^sps.i o^,.7',.t- P5fc, divers baptifms" Mark, vii. 4 " And when they come irom the market, except they M-afli, ".-I o>ix■uo■aJ^.a , except they baptize, thev eat not. And many other thinp^s there be which 'they have veceived to hold, as the wafliing, i*i-7i,v.ss, baptifins of cups and pots, brazen veOels and of tables." Luke, xi. 38. " And when the Pha- rifee liiw it, he marvelled that he had not hrlt waflied, iS^szc-l.o-^-n, baptized, before dinner." The word, in thefe inltanccs, is ufed, 1 . For thofe various ablutions among the Jews, by fprinkling, pouring, &c. 2 For a cuifom among the Pharifees of \\?.Cci- In(T before meals ^ 3. For a fupcrltitious wafliing of houfehold fur- niture, cups, pots, Cvc. With thefe inltanccs in view 1 would propofe to the reader two queilions : I. Is the word baptize uled in thefe iuilances to exprcfs immcrfion only ? '1 he reader may obferve that the very fnii: inihmce proves it is not. U1ie Apoftle plainly expreifes the Jewifli ablutions by the term " baptifms ;" and any man, by looking into his Bible, and reading the account of the Jewifh fervice, may fee what kind of baptifms thefe were. Mr. Booth himfelf, in his anlwer to Dr. Williams, p. 34;, will grant, for the fake of argument,_ that the Apodle ufes the term bap- tifms in this place to denote pouring and fprinkling as well as immcrllon ; nor does he, in v;hat he has advanced on thi; fubjeJl, deny this to have bceri OF BAPTISM. '59 been the fad ; and inaeed a man mufl be very deficlive in point of modcfly who will even at- tempt to deny this. Well then, if the word bap- tiini IS not u(ed in thcfo inlbnces, as it is certain it is not, : , cxprefs iinmerfion only, I aik, in the next l^lao.^ - Is it uied to exprefs any imnierfion at all ? I will apply thii; quelilon to each of the inftances : 1. TheApofllelpeaksof the [ewifh fervice, and fays It flood in " divers baptifms.' I aik whether immerlion ot the whole body was any part of that fervice ? It is clear that the ApolUe,' by the ^vord " baptifms," iatended fprinkhng and pour- ing; but I believe it is not clear from any part of the Jewifli feivice, that any one was ordered to immerle himfell, or to be iinmcrfed by another. If this, however, can be proved, it muft then be granted that the Apoftle ufesthc word "■ bnptifms" to denote immcrfion as well as ponring and fprink- Img ; but if this cannot be proved, it will then be evident that no immerfion at all is intended by the word baptifms. 2. I will apply the queftion to the fccond cafe —the baptizing before meals. Jt is laid, '' that \vhen they come from market, except they bap- tize they eat not ;" and " the Pharifee marvelle^d that our Lord did not baptize (that is, hinifelf) before dinner." 1 afk. Is there any immerfion at all here ? 1 ne Pharifee marvelled that our Lord did not baptize himfelf before dinner— did he marvel that he did not immerfe himfelf? The P!^arilecs,_ when they come from market,' excei>t they baptize [themfdvesl, they eat not— did they too immeile themftlvcs every time they came from -1 market ? I know it is not an iinpoflible cafe ; but I am a/king whether it is at all a probable Vhing r i in M $i jii i6o OF TIIL MODE lie thing? And if it be not, then it is impro' u that the word baptii^e in thefe places fhould intend any immcrHon at all. Perhaps fome one will fav ■that nothing more is intended than the wafhing oi" hands, as this is agreeable to the tradition of the elders mentioned in Matt. xv. 2 : and it is well known that we dip our hands in order to wafli them. Suppofmg this to be the fad, I reply, that if we dip our hands in order to baptize [uafhl them, then it is certain, that dipping and baptiz- ing [wafhmg] are diiferent things';— that bap- tizing [wanting] is the end, and dipping a mean rothatend;— that we o:iJv dip fo much of our h.ands as may be nncelfary to baptize [wafli] them J— and that our dipping the hands in ordtr to baptize thcru depends entirely on circunifhm- ce? : c g. Ij" I Lapiize [wafli] my hands in a ba- fon, I dip fo mucli of them as may be necefTary to baptise tliem ; but if I baptize fwafh] them at a cock, I do not dip them at all— I only receive the water as it falls, and baptize [wafli] them without dipping. And ic figuifies nothing to us how they baptized fwafliedj "their hands, whether m a bafon or at a cock ; for the word " baptize" does not exprefs the manner of doing, whether by immerfion or affuilon, but or.ly the thing done, namely " wafliing." 3. I now carry the quellion to the third cafe— the fuperffitious baptizing "wafliing] of houfe- hold furniture, cups, pots, brazen vefTels, and tables. Cups, urcrrcix — thcfe, it a])pears from the name, were drinking-vcllels ; pots, ^^fxi— thofe veffels out of which wine or water was pour- ed, pitchers or flagons. Brazen vefTels, 'x^' - — were, it is probable, for culinary ufe.s, for boiling. -. 1-. 1 ^ I?:. K iT ¥ OF BAPTISM. l6l Tables, jOui/y.— fome take this word as it is here rendered, others think it means thofe feats or benches on which they fat at meals ; and thefe are fometimes called " Iccli," beds, perhaps from the leanmg pofture then in ufe. The Jews, our Lord obferves, held and praclifed the baptizing of thefe ; novv we afk. Does the word baptize in this place' expr'^*" any immerfion ? Thefe things, it is plain, were baptized [wafli- ed] ; but how they were baptized, no creature hvmg can determine. One thing, however, may be remarked, which is, that 'all thefe articles might very conveniently be baptized [v.-iHied] by pouring, &c., wjile, on the contrary, it would have been very i'lconveni-nt, and even im- proper, to baptize [wafh' others, -uiz. the bra- zen, veflTel^ and tables, by immernon. I. is, [ be- lieve, a general opinion that fome of thefe 'things were baptized by dippin'^— a ; the cups and pot's, and that others were baptized [waHicdj by pour- ing, fprinkling, &c. : And hence manv l-arned men have confulered the word baptize ;;', exprelT- ing all thefe modes. In this, however, 'Jiey appear to me to have been miftaken ; for the word baptize [wadi', though it has been appli- ed to all modes of wafhiiig, is not properly ex- preffive of any mode, but intends onlv the walh- ing itfelf, which may be done by either. The conclufion, therefore, from thefe inflances IS this : It is evident that the word baptize does not intend immerfion only; the various fprinklings, pourings, &c. among the jews are plamly called " baptifms." N.iy, f-.rrhcr, it is not certam that there was any immerfiun at all in Cither of the baptifms [waihingsj before us; and J n T It ■Gi OF THE MODE it is very certain that whether tiicfc perfons and things were baptized by immerfion, alperfion, or afiulion, the word baptize does not exprefs either of the modes by which any pcrfon or thing was waflied, but only the wafliing itfelf. And though there has been much difpule about the word '"'• baptize," fome afiirming it to mean im- merfion only, others afperfion and affufion as well as immerfion, yet, properly fpeaking, it means neither ot" them. It has indeed been ufcd lor all the modes of wafliing — fprinkling, pour- ing, and immerfing ; whereas it does not exprefs the one nor the other, but wafhing only ; and this may be done in either of the modes : And, there- fore, when we read of any perfon or thing being baptized, we cannot conclude from the word itfelf whether it was done by afTufion, afperfion, or immerfion. As the word " baptize,'* which means fimply to wafh, does not determine the mode in which perfons fhould receive baptifm, I will attend, in the next place, to the circumftances of that ordi- nance. Thofe I mean to confider are, firft, The places where baptifm was adminiflered, and, fecondly. The preparations for baptifm. 1. The places chofen for this ordinance were, among others, tl;e river Jordan, and Enon near Salim, where, it is laid, there were many waters. This is a circumdancc -^hat appears to weigh on the fide of immerfion ; and if we give it that weight in the fcale of reafon, for which the Bap- tifts contend, it wil' amount to this — it is a prc- fumptive, but not a certain, proof of immerfion. .That it is a prcfumptive pr^of appears by this — t^iat here was, v.s far as we know, a fair oppor- ■& OF BAPTISM. ,5. tunity for immerfion ; that it is no more than a prelumptive proof is evident from hence— that ail this might be, and yet no inimerfion. If we fay they baptized m or at a river, therefore they bap- tixed by immerhon, tills would be a ffood conf-- quence if it were impoflible to baptise at or in a river in any other way : But fince a perfon can baptize in or at a river by affufion as well as im- mcr/ion, we can only draw a conclufion in favour of immerfion by an adl of the fancy. However let It be a proof of the prefumptive kind, and it cannot polTibly be any thing more. Now;, as it is the nature of prefumptive proof to admit or increafe or diminution, this, like all proof of the fame kind, may be increafed or dimi- 111 hed. rhat, on the one hand, which ferves to increafe the prefumption on the fide of immerfion 1.S this : 1 hat of all who adminifter baptifm there are none at this time (as far as 1 know) that ban- tize m or at a river, but inch as ufe immerfion. It may indeed be faid that all this may be account- ed for : 1 he cafe of John differed very murh irorn our s ; he had va(t congregations and many to baptize, and no houfe fit to contain them: bo that hjs chuling a river, though he had bapti- zed by affufion, would, in his cafe, have been on the wjole, the wifell plan. And although perfons who baptize by affufion, do not now lo to a river yet were they circumdanced, with re- Ipect to their congregations and accommodations as John was, they would, in their choice of place' act in the lluiie manner he did. Something like his,^ I fuppofe, might be faid ; but I was willing to give the prefumption all its force. Nj M On 164 OF THE MODE On the other hand, the prc^imption may b? dniilnilhed by oblerving, firit, that there were many bapti-ings which do not ap;)ear to have taken place at or hi any liver — as that oF Paul, of the jailer, of Cornelius, of thofe of Samaria, and of the three thouHmd. And, fccondly, there is another thing : It cannot be proved with certainty that even thofe who were baptized in or at Jordan, Enon, &c. were — 1 will not fay totally immerfed, but that they were fo much as in the water at all. Whoever is acquainted with the indetermi- nate fenfe of the prepofitions f!/, £i.-, £}; , and a^T' on which this proof mult depend, will be very fenfi- ble of this. Thefe occur in the following Scrip- tures : Matt iii. 6. " They were baptized of him, 11/ Tw IsjiJa^r, in Jordan ;" — £^ means not only " in," but '« nigh, near, at, by, &c." Afts, viii. 38. *'Thcy went down both, £■>: ro -00^0^ into the water ;" but £«?, befides *« into," often means " towards, near, &c." Matt, iii 16. " And Jefus, when he was baptized, went up (Iraightw^ay, xzro m l Jarof, out of the water." Ads, viii. 39. *' And when they were come up, ?>« rn jJxto;, out of the water ;"— ^uto and £;-. very often fignify "from/" So that where- as it is rend in our tranllation — In Jordan, into the water, out of the water, it will read as well in the Greek — at Jordan, to the water, from the water. This * a truth beyond all difpute, and well known to every one who is at all converfant with the Clreek. And whoever duly confiders this will easily be perfuadcd that it is utterly im- polliblc to prove that any one, who is faid in Scripture to have been i)apt!zcd, uas fo much as in the water at all, or iliat he even wet the fole of his foot. I »j A, OF BAPTISM. I^r ^ 2. The Other circuniflance relates to a prepara- tion for the ordinance. Kvery one who has been accuftonied to baptize bv imnierlion, mart cer- tanily know, that it is ncccilary, with refpeft to dc- cency and (alety, to chan-e the drelles, and to have kparate apartments for men and women. Ihis IS evidently necellarv, v^hether we baptize in a river or in a baptillry. Now it is certain, that although we read of many baptizings, there is not the lealt intimation uiven, either of chanerin? the drefs, or of any fuitable accommodation for the different fexes. This, though a circumaance that weighs againft iminerfion, I confider as being UVe the other, only of the prefumptive kind : For, no doubt, it would be very illogical to fav, we read of no change of drefd, or Icparate apartments for baptizing, therefore there was no immeriion. 1 his prefuinption, like the other, may be made Itronger or weaker. It may be made weaker in thrs way ; that though we read of no changing of garments, or any feparate apartments, yet there might have been both ; as many things mi^ht be done of which theScriptures take no notice. On the other fide, the prefumption may be made ftrono-er by obferving that there are other cafes in which mention is made of garments, where there could be no more neceflity of mentioning them, than in the cale of baptilm ; luppofmg baptifm to have been performc 1 by immerfion. To inllance only in two cafes , v\ hen our Lord waflied his difciples* cet, It is faid, he laid afuie his garments. And l^iike, fye^knvr of thofe who ifoned Stephen, fays they hud down their clo.hes at a young man's feet, whofe name was Saul." Now, if the Scrip tures take notice of the^puiting off of g;u-ments for tile I T\T - ill i66 OF THK MODE the purpofe of vvafliin;^ feet, and ftoning a man to dcnth : how comes it to pals, that as thoufands, 11 ^or j^i ;ition tliey were bapti/.ed by imnicr- !■ ' 'c entirely have changed their garments, or have done worie, tlie Scriptures fhould not drop a fingle hint about it ? Both thefe prcfumptions may be toiled and turned, and ftrengthened and ■weakened, iit icy may didate ; whereas. when all is laid and dene, tiiey are no more than prelumptions Itill. And when we have only pre- fumption in the premifes, we can have nothing more than prefump'ion in the conclufion. To conclude this part refpecting the circum- flances of baptlfm : 1 will only fay, we have here a goodly combat ; prefumption contending with prefumption. One prefumption fays, that as they fometimes made ufe of a river for baptizing, it is likely they baptized by immerfion. The other prefumption anfwers, ihat fincc it does not app'. :ar, that the fexes were decently accommodated for immerfion, or that there was any changing of gar- ments, it is tb.erefore likely they did not immerfe. That prefumption replies, that the kxcs might be very decently accommodated with change of drefs, and feparate apartments, though the Scriptures jhould notice neither. This prefumption affirms, that perfons might be baptized in or at a river, and yet no inmierfion after all. Now, inflead of determining whicli of thefe prcfumptions is the ftronger ; we may learn thus much from the circumltances of baptifm, and in- deed it is all we can learn ; and that is, that it is interlv impo/fiblc to determine, from any informa- tion they give, whether baptized perfons were im- merfed or not. Nav, fo far are circumrtancos from fettling i OF BAPTISM. i(jj fettling this point, tliat \vc cannot be certain there was a fingle pcrfon of all the baptized, vho went into the water even ankle deep. This is the true Hate of fads as they ilrikc me, and all beyond this is the llight of fancy. ^ Since neither the term " baptize," nor yet the circumllances of baptifm, determine any thing con- cerning the mode, whether it is immerfion or af- fufion ; I (hall in the next place confuler the allu- fions to that ordinance. I know not whether I fpeak accurately when I call them allufions ; but the con- fequence either vv;iy is not material, as every one will eafily underftand what I intend. Now thefe alluhons being of two kinds, I will, for the fake of diftindion, and without any defign of olfence, call one the " Baptift allufion," and the other, the *' Picdobaptiit allufion." — 1 begin with, I. 'Fhc Baptilt allufion. The reader will find this in Rom. vi. 4 " Tlierefore we are buried with hiui by baptifm into death," &c. A fimilar phrafe occurs in Col. ii. 12. The Baptifls think there is an allufion in thefe words to the manner of baptizing ; and as the .Xpoflle fpeaks of being buried with him, they conclud' 'le mode to have been immerfion. On ihis conci^.ion of theirs, I. I obferve that thefe words are an inference from the third verfe, in which the Apoftle fays. Know ye not that fo many of us as were bap- tized into Jefus Chrifl were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptifin." We have here three things; i. a baptizing into Jefus Chnft ;^ 2. into his death ; 3. into his burial: And the laff is ma^' the confequence of the firft. Therefore we are buried with him. bccaufe we were baptized into him. To form the antithefis, M 4 ^ve s •tt OF TiiF. Mo.nr: vc mud dIRIiiquifh between the life and death of C:hiili ; anj then it will be, We are baptized firfl ir.ro the hi f) t ChiiiU then into the death of Chrilt, and lad of all into his burial. \V )rou(;ht ht by b c are baivilm inro his lite, into his deaih, nnd into his buria!. Now, if baptilm biinj^ us into each of thefe, and one of them, as the Bap- tills fay, is an allufion to the .node of baptizing', then, for the fame rcafon, fo mud the other two. Ihat is, his life mud allude to the mode, fo mud his death, and fo mud his burial : And the rcafon is, becaufe b:\ptllm unites us to him in each of th.fe. And if all thefe arc to allude to the mode, 1 diould be glad to h.iow, what kind of mode it mud at lad be, which is to bear a refemblancc to everyone. The life of Chrid was action, his ' ath was a crucifixion, hi>v burial was the inclofmg of his body in a cavity of the rock. The mode, therefore, mud be three-fold ; it mud reprc 'cnt adion, crucifixion, anJ inclofing in a rock ; be- caufe, to purfue the notion of ti.e Baptids, his lite, death, and burial, mud all have an allufion to the mode of baptifm. There is no feci, I fhould fuppofe, that ufe a mode or baptifm to v.hich all thele will agree. The Romanids ufe fait, oil, and fpittle ; but whe- ther t!.cy intend an allufion to the life of Chrid, I cannot take upon me to affirm. Yet, as they mult have fome allufion, the fait may allude to his lite of teaching ; the fpittle to his life of miracles ; and the oil to his life of munificence. The clergy of the ehurrh of England ufe the fign of the crofs ; rnd this is to alkulc to the crucifixion of Chrid. TIic Baptills ufe imnierfion ; and this is to allude {(■ the burial of Chrid. Now, if we could unite 7. 4'- J t all fion to our Lord' when each is i: \:,u !c in point of alh'V-n fi.ient in Hliudi'.. to the life and bui ..i. cient in alhidiii" v but not to the Lunai. or DAPiisM. 169 all thefe in one, we fhoulJ have a tolerable allu- death, and burial ; but .rately, thcr:.- is a deficiency The I''.n;;Iini cler|:;y me de- to the crucifixion ; hut not The llonianifts arc ijcli- tu 1 ic Vdc and crucifixion ; 'I'iii- Bap'ilts too are defi- cient in alludinj: to the bu'ial only; but not 10 I* the life and crucilixion. I know not whether liiele different communities take their tlocumcnt IVoin this part of holy writ ; but certainly tiicy have >lie fame ground if they chufe to reafon in tin, fame way. But as the liaptilis avowedly do this, and ]■ are at the fame time fo delicient in t!ie bufme's of allufion, it would become them to fet about a re- form in the mode of their baptifm ; it being at preicnt wanting in two articles, 17;:. the life and crucifixion, /. c. the fign of the crofs, and fait, kc. That the abfurdity of fuppofmg an allufx^i in this place to the mode of baptifm may appear in a [ Hill Itronger light, I would obferve, that what the Apodle calls, in ver. 3, a being baptized into the ileath of (ihriff, he expreifes in ver. 5, by being plained together in the likenefs of his death. This will be evident to any one who examines the place. Nov if any man is difpofed, after the method of the JJaptills, tc pick up allufions to the mode .. f baptifm, here are two topics ready at hand, and he may take both, or either, as he pleafes. It is ufual with the Baptiils, when contending- for i" e mode of baptifm, to alfirm that the Apodle calls baptifm a burial ; and hence they infer that inimerfion inulf be the mode. This, however, is nftirniing what is not true ; for the Apoflle never, in !l ;| J *7o OF THE MODI. ill any c f his wriilntTs, calls " baptifm a burial." But Oil rhe comv-n^, he iloes in this veric evidently fpcak of it uiuicr the notion oi" olanting ; and fays We are planted in the likenels ot 'lis death. Ha ]■ thcn,_ upon the Baptilt plan, are two allufions— planting, and crucifixion. There arc none, 1 be- lieve, who make planting an allulion to the mode oi' baplifm ; but fhould this be attempted bv anv they will have this one advantage which the Bap- tiris are deilitute of; and that is, that whereas baptifm is no-where called a burial, it is in this place plainly called a planting. Now, if we luppofe ;i perfon re^Joning upon the plan of the Baptifts, he v/ill fay, that as the Apoftie calls baptifm a plant- ing, he muit allude to thj mode in v hich that or- tlinance was adminificred ; and every one, who is at all acquainted with the ar^ of planting, will eafily guefs what kind of mode that mud be, to which it allude-;. Were this only adopted, and it may be adopted with greater advantage than the Baptill plan, ve fhould probably hear of fome conteiition about the mode of baptifm, between thofewho imm;;rfe and thofc who only plant : And in this cafe I can clearly fee that vidoVy will crown the nlanters. There is in th(^ fame way another allufion in this verie tu the mode of baptifm ; I have mentioned it bciere, but do it again on acoouwt ot its fupcrior evidence to that allufion of r'le Baptills. The Apolile fays, \ve are planted, that is baptixed, in the likenefs ot his death. Now taking this for an al- Jufion to the inov'e of Ixipnfm, the argument for theli;;n of tiic cr^fs will be incomj)arably llron^cr than that of the Br.pMifs for innnerfion. I fay in- vor.iparn.blv (l;oij.j,^i ; hn whereas it is only laid in > .^ ^ or BAPTISM. 171 the fourth verfe. We are buried with him by bap- tifm ; it i.s faid in this verfe. We are planted [bap- tized] in the lii^enefs of his death: Th-jre is no- thing about fimihtude mentioned in their alhinon; but here the word " Hkenels" is actuaHv uled! The argument, therefore, in favour of the'h;,ai ok' the crofs, will, in the Baptid way of arguino', far outweigh that in favour of immerrion. And how- much fojver the Baptifts may defpiie that cere- mony, it_ is evidently better founded in this contcft than tlieir own. So that if their argun-ent from this place be good for immerfion, the other is far better for the figa of the crofs.— U]X)n the whole, the examination of this place convinces me of no- thing fo much as this, that both the Baptifts in gener?l,and myfelf in particular, have been carried away with the mere found of a word, even to the neglect of the ki\is and fcope of the truth of God. 2. Leaving, therefore, the whimfical interpret- ation of the Baptilts to itfelf, it may be obferved, in order that we may the better enter into the Apolfle's defign, that when he fays, " we are buried with him, by baptifm,"' he makes baptifm to be the inftrumental caufe of burial. This will appear plain by alking this queflion ; By what are we buried with him ? The anfwer is. By baptifm. And indeed baptifm is made the inftrumental caufe in each cafe. If we alk, How are we brought into Jefus Chrid .? Ani'wer-By baptifm : " Baptized into jefus Chrill." TIow arc we brought into his death? An'wer— By bapiifm: Baptized into his death, llo-v arc we brought into his burial? Anfwer— By baptifm. " Buried with him by bapiilm." H therefore the union in life, death. and IT2 OF THE MODE and burial, be_ brought about by baptifm, then baptifiii is the innruiuentai caufe of th und then the verv idea of allufi IS union: on IS entirely loft, our view under the and they prefent thenifelves to notion of caufe and ell^e^. Baptilni is made tht caule, and union in the life, death, and burial the eileet. ,. ' Now this being the cafe, indead of h un aitcr ailufions by which baptifm will be any th or noticing ; wc inuit attend to that ting y tfiing equacy or propDrtDii m the caufe, by vir.ae of which th Eilccl is to lie r,r ,.lnrr,l '^rhis adcquucy is not ;Ct is i) ornKiilv in out war dl UCC'U. >aniil; 1. IS and the H no more th \\h ^li is au emblem, II n an emblem, c-f the baptihn of oly Spirit ; but merely in the baptifm of the 1 C oly Spirit, of which the other is an embleui. or, ii. 1,3. It i^;, indeed, the nature and di fign of boih to bring pcrfons into uni rhrill ; but t'icn, tl le on with jefus union will be only of the lame kind with the baptifm. If the baptifm be that of the Holy Spirit, it brings al)out an in- ternal, vital union with Jefus Chrill ; but if it be ly an outwiird baptifm, the union will only be vifible and external. But as the outward baptilm is an emblem of the inward and vival, the judgment of charity prefumes, nnlefs there be good proof to the contiary, that they who voluntarily receive the lonner, are alfo poifelled of the latter. It is according to this judgment c addrelks the Romans: He 1 fons to be reallv baiuized mcnt of charity the Apoftlc 'ip|)oles baptized per- into jt.'fus Chrifl ; and then, by virtue of that union thev live. they are buried, th.ey are raifed with Chrid in newi th( :y di( 1l:S 01 life agani, atul wa Ik 11 which the Apodlc exprcfles in the'e emphatic words ^-Ou okl OF BAPTISM. ^7?, old man is cniclfied n-ith him, that the body oi lln might be deflroyed, that henceforth we fhould not ferve fin — Dead indeed unto fin, but alive unto God through Jefus Chrift our Lord — Like as C'hriit was railed from the dead, by the glory of ; the leather, even lb we alfo fhould walk in newnefs I of life. The fcope of the Apoftle is to fhow the vital influence of union with Chriif, of which bap- tifni is the emblem. And as foon as any one en- fters fairly into the Apoftle's fcope, the infignificant idea of allufion to a mode of baptifm dilappears, and, to ufe Mr. B.'s phrafe, hides its impertinent IB head.— Thus much for the Baptill allufion. I ihall next notice, n. The Paidobaptifl: allufion. According to tliii;, the mode communicating the grace of the Holy Spirit to the foul, and that of applying the baptifiaal water to the body, arc viewed as correfpondiug with each other. The confiderations which lead to this, are fuch as follow : — i. They boih agree in name. The influences of the Holy Spirit on the foul are called " baptlim," and fo likewife is the extern;:l application of warer. The term baptifm, when ufed to cxprefs the influences of the Holy Spirit, takes in both his extraordinary and laving influences. Ads, i. 5. J C^or. xii. 13. And as thcie havefome- timcs taken place in the fame perfons, the term " baptize" has been ufed to exprefs bt-th, AcKs, x. 44— 46. compared with Ads, \i. 16 — 18. 2. They are often alio '-^f - 1 in Scripture. How commonly do we read fiicii ,'.ords as thefe ; " I indeed have baptized \o\\ with water ; but he fliall baptize vou with thy Mo!y Ghofl." The leader will ImJ this form of , .ech in the following places : Mat. ''i. 1 1. Mark, i. 8. Luke, iii. 16. John, i. jj. Acts, 1. c. — I? -A 'I 174 OF THE MODE 5.— xi. 16. 3. Their mode of communication is exprefled in the fiime way: " I baptize you, i, uJc.?,, with water, but he fhall baptize you ty v:,vjy.oci ay^o>, with the Holy Ghoft." And this is done in all the places, only with this difference, that Luke omits the propofition in one member, and there it is underftood.— 4. Baptifm with water, is an em- blem of baptifm with the Holy Ghofl. The appli- cation of water to the body, as noting the putting away the filth of the flefh, ihadows forth the int fluence of the Holy Spirit, which being imparted to the foul, produces the anfwer of a good con- f( icnce towards God. Now, if thefe two pafs under the fame name ; if both are frequently united in Scripture ; if the nnc be an emblem of the other ; and, if the mode of communication in each baptifm be expreffed in «hc fame way ; then, the way to arrive at a clear view of the mode of outward baptifm, is to obferve in what manner the baptifm of the Holy Spirit is defcribed. This will lead i\:, to confult a lexicon ol a very fuperi(.)r kind, a lexicon worth more than five hundred; and what is more, it is the plain, unlettered man's lexicon, and its title is, " The lively onicles of God." The article we are to feek for is the term baptize. How does this lexicon dcfiiie baptizare, to baptize ? Ani\\er—B:i/>iizjre e/i fifpcrvenirc, illabi, cfrhidcre—\ih\\n\v, to bap- tizt; is—*' to come upon," Ads, i. 5.— to fhed forth, Acfs, ii. 33.-10 fall upon, Acls, x'. j c — to pour out. Ads, ii. 1 7.— x. 45. That is, ia"this baptilm the grace of the Holy Spirit comes upon — falls upon — is flied forth -is poured our, namely. on the foul. This is the account this le of the v^ord " baptize. xicon iiives i Mr. OF BAPTISM. ^75 Mr. Booth, inflcad of paying a due attention to this Lexicon, has adopted a method vuiich, uhen properly adverted to, will do no credit to him or his bo(;k. J lis profeffed defign is to prove that the term " baptize" means immerfion, immerfion only, and nothing elfe. But how does he do it ? Why, he quotes a number of authors, who, as he himlelffays, undeiflood the term to mean immer- fion, pourmg, and fprinkling ; and thefe quota- tions he calls conceilions. Concellions of what ? Ihat the word meant immerfion only ? Jf fo, he made them concede what they never did concede, and what they had no thought of concedin referring to tot.m.n.; Mark, i. 8,9.; Luke,iii. i6,%i, ^2.; and feveral other places. Mr. B., in anfwer [vhi^h^'K^'^'v" ^"' ''^"^' P'^^S^'^ °f Scripture to ^vhIch he refers, regard that copious and extra- ordmary einif.on [etfufion, /. .. pouring out] of and fiilt dilciples of our Lord foon after his afcen- non mto heaven.'' The truth is, the terra " bap- ti^e when apphcd to the Holy Spirit, is ufed to denote both nis extraordinary and ordinary in- fluences, even thofe by which the nn^nd is renew- ed and united to Chrifl; and io baptifm by a^u- ZVn nf'.Tf 'T'^'"' ^'"^^'^"^ «^^h^ communi- cation of thefe influences, more efpeciaily as the mode of application is expreiTed in th. fame way and the one is fairly an emblem of the other. But Mr B. does not fcem willing to admit that one baptdrn IS an emblem of the other :-I fay feem wilhng," fori proteft I do not know,' hough I have bis book before my eyes, and have looked at it half an hour, wheLr' h^ means "o admit or deny u That which fcems the moft evident is, he wiflies, by any means, to get rid of . lole u, put It out of fight, forget it himfelf, ad make hi, readcT do fo too ; but then how is of hi3 old impartial fncnds, ihe Qiiakers. He uggeils that our viewing water bapiifm as an em- bl^m of the baptifm of the Holy Spirit, will ope- larc: againlf ns perpetuity. To evince this he ^^ latro. I? 8 OF rur. MODE introduces the Qiiakcrs as reafonlng In the follow- in,*; manner : " Water baptifni was divinely ap- pointed, and continued in force till the death ot Chriil ; but as tliat rite had lor its object the de- fcent ot the Holy Spirit and his divine influences, no fooner \v;is tlie proniifcd Spirit vouchlaicd to our Lord's dil'ciples, tium the obligation to regard water baptihn eniiicly ccaied. For bapiiliu in vyater bciig only an emblem of the promifcd liap- tifm in the Holy S])irit, why fiiould the foiaxr be continued atter the latter has taken place i" This, he lays, or KuncMiing like it, if he i;ii(i.akc not, is rhj (^ipkcrs' princijial argument ; and, for aught hj pLTCt-ivcs, it is equally forcible with that of his opponer.':. I cop.k'.'^ [ ■,\v\ no*: fulTiciently verfed in the Quaker^' uv)Jl: ol vcvA\ ning to know whetlier IMr. B. l\:\i, done ihcni julliec. He firft niakei; them fay that bayitiiiu eontimicd till liie I'l^j'th of Chrift, and then that t!)e obligation to regard it ceal(,d when the prcimifed Sjjirit was vorchii.fed : So there are 'wu periods for the expiration ol'bap- tiin"!. But 1 have no difpuic wiih tlie Oiuikcrs :. 1 kr. )\v they ..re onl) brought in here a.s a l)iin(i, tiiat Air. B., bv getting behind tl;e;u, nu'ilit \\idi- drav, iuore (ai:!' . I am perfuaded lie tloes not 2ppro\e '"'"tr.eir argument — he only wanted to get 3 id o: the aliulu^n, and he has got rid of it ; but n is in the k;:ne wav a., the (~i-:;kers "vt ri J of the two crdnKa'.ee^; : Nay, far worfe , fe.r w hcrea-' it'icy do this oy argumenis which they deem good, but Mr. B. has dotie bv fuch reafordny as he hnulclf vov;'vl be al!;.u;:ed ;o acioj.t. 'Ihi^ i^ Mr- B.'b milerable V, ;y of getting rid tif the aituii'jn, -.;.;. by giving the leader a Quaker's argument. 1 will liu'.vudve.t to \ih other fiiift, by whi Ji, 2. IJC CI BAI'TlilM. 179 1'^ I: i. r ii- , 2. He attempts to make the allufion a.^ree with uumeriion. ^ The mode, as I huv. bcfor? laid of commiui.catins t'^e inHucnce of the Holy Spirit is in ^Scnpture expreffed by comi.i. upon-fallinjj upon- ncdd.n,, forth -pourin, our; and th"f nod. ot communication IS expreC.ly called bap- i:<:.M:;. Nou- MJnle moft perfon. have conlidered the b^^jtihu of the Holy Spirit as favouring affu ^K>i., Mr B will undertake to Hiow that it is ex- prelnve of that idea for which he contends, name- ly inimernon. This is an attempt in which f could w.fl, hnu much iurcefs; for if he can make " appear th.u pouring out, and immerfing into, are ine Kune thing, then nehh.r will he have any rca on to -onip ain of thoie tliat pour, nor will hole who pour have any reafon to complain of hnn. I fear it will prove a hard talk ; I J us hear him however. }Ju''f' Sr-, ?'' ^'' ^^''''''''' "f " '-^^ ^-learical hath fo called becaufe the electrical Ihiid fur- rounds the patient" ^Vell, and wiiat then? 1 his philofophical document reminds me of the acred iiitonan's language, where, narrating the tact under conl.d.iatioii, thus he fpeaks : * And ^vhen tne day of I'entecolt was fullv come, they were ai with one accord in one pla. J. And fud- '•^•n'v there came a found jrom ficaven as of a J'li'mi,, nnohty wind, and it tn.Lt'o all the nous;. wiiKKE tiu^v Wii^t sitiino. And there -Pi;-ue(i eu:o them clovrn tongues like as of lire, and It lat upon each of them, ^ind thev were al nlled wnh the lioly Glioit.' Now, lavs he, if ne bngua,e of medical eleetriciry he iuit, it ck ;:. 7; ^"i^^-^';^-^^' '' ^-^^ns hi^^hlv rational, to nndeHca;:a this language of inlpir.tion as cxJrei: '-'ve of tnat idea [immerhonj lor which we con. ^' - tend l8o OF THE MODE tend. Was the Holy Spirit poured out, did the Holy Spirit fall upon the Apoitles and others ar that memorable time ? It was in fuch a manner and to fuch a degree, that they were, Wke a pa- tient in the eleftric bath, as if immerfed in it." This eledric bath is a pretty fancy, a happv invention for Mr. B ; it is well he did not live before it was found out, for then what a tine thought would have been loit. Ttiough the Holy Spirit fell upon, was poured out, yet, fays he, it was in fuch l manner and to fuch a degree, that they were like a pati..'nt in the electric bath, as if immerfed in it, that is, immerfed in the Holy Spirit. Mod perfons, I fuppofe, when they read of the Holy Spirit falling upon any one, under- fland it to mean the influence of that Spirit com- ing upon the foul ; but Mr. B. fpeaks as if the Holy Ghoft, or his inilucnce, fell on the outfide of the Apoftles, and fo furrounded their bodies: like an eledric bath. And to Ihow he intended this, he has put thefe words in large capitals, it ** FILLED ALL THE HOUSE WHERE THEY V/ERii SITTING." Then they were immerfed in fome- thing which filled the houle ; I alk, what was that fomething ? In Englifli it is expreHed by the pro- noun " it" — it filled the houfe j the Greek has ik> pronoun. Well, what is the antecedent to " it :" I anfwer, the word " found.'' The found, whicii wa;; as a rufliing mighty wind, filled all the houi'c where they weie fiiting. The word in the Greek is ^'yj^i an echo, a reverberating found, I\Ir. B.'s elech'ic bath was, after all, nothing more than oix echo. He has been very filent about this electric fiuid ; either he did not know what it was, or he was not coirpluilant enough to tell ui. The lol>, however, is not great j we have fouiid h cut without liir.i. 15 6"- OP BAPTISM. |8| him It was an echo the. that filled all the houfe; and the Apoftlcs, being immerfed in ;;"",'-'•" ^^"■'■"""^^:;lj^y '^e echo Hke a patient in an cicu,,.: bath. This is tl>e beauty of llicking c o . o the pnmary meanin.^ of th ■ term, as Mr ". call. It ; and fo tenacious is he of his primary nnmered fo they are but immerfed in fomething. lo be oapt:zed by the Holy Spirit is to receive hs influence on the heart and mind ; but this bap, t.i.n, .c^orJmg to Mr. B., is to have the bodv furroundcd by an echo. Is then the influa.ce oV the Sp.nt falling upon the heart, and a reverbe- ranng lound lurrounding the body, the fame th . d.ffer ] He laid once that an obedient fub,.d of the civil government and a complete church, member were the fame thing ; does he think too mo e than an echo?- So much for the elearif hah and the Quakers' argument ! Thefe a^e Mr. B. . two miierable fhifts, by which he would tVfm I'f ''Sunicnu from the Holy Spirit's bap. t.lm in favour of aiiuhon ; and mifcrable ones they are as ever made their appearance in pubHc. ^ 1 fhal now clofe what I mean to fay on the mode, by co leQing the particulars, ai -1 placing ^enun one view. The v.rd ^^.^X^: uled L th^ odn .nee means wafhing only, but not any ode of ^y,(lnn.: It means neither dipoing, pour- m^s'of ^^^'";;'''^"^'^.' ^^ theie are only SiftLnt IT r ?' ^'u- ^^'P'^^^^S- They, there- or , .ho lay that the word rantifm [fprinkling] s not the fame a. baptifm, fay nothing but what ^ vcn- nout ; for ranti^e differs fVom baptize. as the manner of domg differs from the thing ^ 3 done : IMAGE EVALUATSON TEST TARGET (MT-3) // L^ 5' fe i-p. i/s 1.0 I.I IM lilM IIIIIM 2.0 i.8 1 1.25 II u i/s 1 •4 6" ». p^^ m '<^i / -^.^ &> ^ Photographit Sciences Corporation ^ ^^ <^ r^N ^ % -b- *r^. 23 WEST MAIN STREfcT WEBSTER, NY )4$80 (716) 873-4S03 % Is lS2 OF THE MODE done : And the fame is true of Imnierfion and pouring. Yet, at the fame time, it mufl be ob- ferved that the word baptifm is ufed in Kcrij)ture where pouriug and fprini<.ling are evidently in- tended ; while it cannot be proved that it is ever ufed cither in the New Teftamcnt or ia the Septu- agint where imrnerfion took piare. 'Ihe New Teflament 1 have examined ; I will here juft no- tice the two places where it occurs in tlie Septu- agint. 2 Kings, v. 14. xa» xaT£c:i Nc.i;W.c^ x;6i£o.-:r, Iktocto IV TO lopay.i^r, — And Naanian went down and baptized in Jordan, The Englifii has it " dipped," and this is the only place where baptize is tranf- lated " dip ;" but whether there was an imrner- fion of the v.'hole body, or any part of it, is aho- gether uncertain. All we can be certrdn of i?, that the prophet ordered him to wafn, his fervant advifed him to wafh, and he went down, and i^xz/liffa-To y.y-T'.: to oruot. EAidai:, baptized according to the word of Eli(ha. Now there arc two rcafons which induce fome to think he applied water to one part of his body only: i. As he expected the prophet to Rrike his hand over the place, and recover the leper, they conclude he was leprous only in one part of his bodv, mid that the water was applied to that part. 2. The com.nand to wafn Yeven times, they comider as referring to that part of the law of cleaniing in which the- leper is oak red to be fprinkled ; but, f(^r my own part, I think it imp(^iliblc to lay in what manner he baptized. 'I'ht.- other is merely fi';unuive, ex- preliive of a ienfe of Cod's anger, and occurs hi Ifaiah, xxi. 4. -'-y-^ " ^.(.v-t.-c .u« o.-. :.-•'. 6- — And lin baptizes mc ; meaning the punii'Iunent due to fin, which h exprelTed bypourirg outungcr, lury, ^.c.oa a pel fon. From thefc premifes the unforced eonclu- fioa I Or BAPTISM, 183 £on Is this : 'i hat, en the one hanci, as the word bap- tize is expreliive of no particular mode, nothing can be concUuJed from it in favour of one more than another; fo, on the other hand, as the word has c rtaiiily been ufcd for pouring and fpnnkliu,;, v.j.iic there is no proof of its ever being ur.'d u\ bcriprure for immerfion, it doe^ more natural'y aflbciate itfelf with afiuiion and afperfion. AViih regard to the circumflances of baptifm, they atfbrd no certain proof on either fide. W^e can do no more than prefume, and this may be done on both fides : There is pre- fumpiion for ajid againit, and fancy, as it may happen to favour any one fide, will form th-^^ con- clufion ; but as the circumilanccs carry us no farther than prefunii^tion, no certain conclufion <:an be formed either for immerfion or againft it. The allufions, I obferved, were of two kinds ; the one I have called the Baptift allufion, the other the Ptc iobaptifl allufion. The Baptiil allu- fion is entirely founded in miltake, and that through a non-atieution to the defign and fcope of the Apoftlc ■, for in the fame way as the Baptifts make an allufion to immerfion, the context will turnilli allufions to other modes : And difputants, were thev To inclined, might plead with nWe ad- s'antage for the fign of the crofs, ike. than the IBaptills can for immerfion. The Psdobaptift allufion confifts in this : They confider the two baptifms, the material and the fpiritual, as being the one a Ihadov.- or figure of the other, and the mode of the material as refembling that of the fpiritual. And, therefore, as divine influence ia fpirituai baptifm is faid to come upon — fall upon — to be^ filed forth— poured out, and as material baptifm is to be a lignificant emblem of this, the ^^ 4 allufion f 184 OF THE USE OF allufion is decidedly in favour of pourln? and fprinkling. And that this is the true ftatp of the matter appears by this : Thar the Scriptures com- monly join material and fpiritunl baptifni tocc- ther as counterparts of each other, and cxprefs them by the fame wor ], and defcribe them, as to their modr in the fame way. The confequencc then is, that as the baptifm of the Spirit is pour- ing, fliedding, Sec, and as the baptifm of water IS to reprefent that, and is defciibed, as to ita mode, in the fame way, that mode mu/l of necef- fity be pouring or fprinkUng. OF THE USE OF INFANT BAPTISA.. AS T have often heard it ailied, What is the ufe of infant baptifm ? I think it ncceifary, before I conclude, to fay fomething in anfwer to that queftion. With regard to the ufe of baptifm, I confidcr it in the light of a mean of grace, and I view it in the fime way when applied to infants. 1 do not fuppofe that infants, properly fpeaking, receive any prefent benefit by being baptized' but that this is defigned the more to 'engage the attention of parents and others to the riling -cne- ration. I view infants, when baptized, under the notion of perfons entered into a fchool ; and, therefore, I confidcr parents, pallors, deacons! and church-meinbefs at large, as brou-ht under an additional obligation to inflruft ihoic children who are become fcholars, as they become able to learn, in the peculiar truths of the religion of Chriit. INFANT BAPTISM. jg Chrift. Viewing the matter in this li^ht, it af- Ws an nnportancc exceedingly grand; and in- fam buptihn IS .ar rroni being that unmeaning th ng which It appe.u-s to be, when the views are extended no farther than helplefs infancy We may illuftrate this by taking a view of cir- cumcifion. Circumcifion brought perfons under an obhgation of conforming to the revealed will of Ooa; he who was circi^mcifed became a debtor- And as this was the nature of the inftitute, the obligation devolved on all who received it.' But forafmuch as perfons cannot aclually conform before they are brought to underltand; and, S order that they may underftand, the; muft ie taught we are therefore, to confider circum- cifed infants as ftandingin the place of fcholars or uifcples to be mdruacd in that fyftem to x^.nch they were bound to conform. If then circumci- fion brought an obligation on fome to learn, it muft, at the fame time, bring an obligation on others to teach ; becaufe ufually perfons do n.^ learn without being taught: And hence parent pnefts, and people, came under their refpedive degrees of obhgation to fee the rifing generation mltruaed in that religion into which fhey were initiated as Icholars or difciples. When I con- lider this divine inftitute as calculated to fix the attention of the people on their riilng ofFsprinff vvith refpca to their inftruclion in tht- things ?f Ood I cannot luiiicicntly achnire that pooi hea- heu.fJi notion of circumcirion which Mr. Booth has fomewhere picked up, > r rather invented him- lelf, than wmch, I am pcrfuaded, the moll igno- rant Jew never entertained a niea t It is for want of viewing the matte'r in this way, that an inUitute, admmlltcrcd to an infant, ap! pears / lu OF THE rjSE OF pears tIcHcuIous to any. When the attention is fixed on the infant only, whether it be a circum- cifed or a bapti:^ed infant, without confidenng any thing further, we may well fay, as the Bap- tifts do, \ v'^hat can an infant know ? What can an inf;i::r do ? Wliat pfe can it be to an infant ? In fiicti a cafe, it is very true, it would be a difJi- cult thing to dilcern any wlidnm in the adniini- ftration of an inllitute of any kind to an infant. And I remember once converfing wit a a Baptiil: upon infant bapiifm, who, nnionq other things, obfcrved wliat a fiily thing it was to baptize an infant. A:> i perceived his vlcvvs extended no farther t\:iii liclplefs infancy, I aiked him, whe- ther, ifhehadfeen it done, he noukl not have thou;^,ht it a very filly thing to circumciie an infant ? " 'I hai I hiouid indeed," iaid he, " in- deed I u-ould ;" thefe, as w li as I can recoi- led", were his very words. But wiien, on the contrary, our views tnke in t!ie grand dcfign of €:nga;;ing the attention the more fixedly to the riling race, all the fuppofcd fillinefs vanifhcs awav, and it appears a plan woriwy the wifdom arid kindnefs of Gcd. matter com- mifiion given to the Apoflles by the rifeu Saviour refpefting the Gentile nations, Matt, xxviii. i8, 19, 20. " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go yc therefore, and, [ji-y-^ivTEvjcu^^ difciple all nations, bapti:iing them in the name of the Fa'iier, and of the Son, and of the Holv Ghoii ; JidaTxotT::, teaching tlieni to ohferve all things whatfoever I have commanded you, &c.** Here we have the whole plan jult as I have fet it down in the cafe of circumcilion : They are fent to I was led more particularly to vilw the ma in this point of 1 ght, by confidering that cc IMFANT BAPTISVI. 187 to ma!:c d.faplcs [fcholars] ; for difdptilus in ^ Lata., aiul Icholar in tiic^lifh, arc juft the fame j uiey are to enter fuch as arc made fcholars by bapnfm ; they arc to inltriict thefe fcholars in the t inigs of Chriil, ill order that thev may obfcrv- tlieni. Our blclfcd Lord, bv making ufe of the ^vords u.=c, and o.^xt:-K,C\,;^ teaching, carries our vien-s immediately to fj-o^hrxi^ cllfclpuli kholzr,, and ..:/.. -....0,, pracepiores\ kliooimafters ; and thus we are prefented with a Chnlhan (chool with Ichokirs and maders. According to this view of the fubjeclj and to this our Lord's words naturally lead us, there appears not only a .c^randcur of defign, but like- wile an exacl fymmeiry in the ditierent difpenfe- tions ol God— 1 mean thnt attention to the rifin? ollspnng, which had Hjown itfelf in a former di^ penlaiion, and, no djubt, in all. !t is to be ob- feryed that our Lord ^ki a term, a fchool term, which will agree to an infnt as well as an adult- ior the word v.«5..,-, a fcholar, of which the word Died by our Lord is the theme, does not necelTa- rily intend pM-evious learning nor prcfent learn- J':g, but only learning in defiQu. We call thofe kholars who have done learnimv, and fo we do thofe who are now at their itudies, and Jo hkewifc thofe who have not yet begun to l tefl me how a child of fix weeks old -ould be a keeper of the charge of the fanduary? Certain'y he could ro oiheruifc be called a keeper but as one defi-m- ed and appointed to that fc-vice. Jril s^'w} the lame propriety an iniant, who, bv" circumcifion or baj)tifin, was or is puhliclv entered into a reli- gious fchooi, may tic called a diiciplc in a religi- ous lenfe. And it is a very general ,-^pinion that infants are aftually {o called in Afts, xv. 10 "Why tempt ye God to put a .'oke (ui the reck of the difciples r" That infams arc called difci- pies will appear plain if we efk, On whofe neck was this yoke to have come ? Jlvery one knows, who knows the manner of Mofes refneaing cir- cumcifion, that it would have come on aduits, but chiefly on infants ; and then it is evident that as part of thofc, on wlioin the yoke would have come, were infants, it is as evident thrt thofe in- fants were called difciples : But whetlier this be fo or not, the word made ufe of by our Lord will a-ree 10 infants as well as adults. The Apoftles arc to make difciples— that is all i^x^-.r,x,cx^i imports. But ftill the queftion is, how are they to make them ? I anfwer, by teach- ing ; for neither adult nor infant can be'made a iJilciple without. And herein the Baptills are very right, and lagreewiih them, that adults and infants mule be made difciples by teaching, or t^2y will not be made {o at all. But then how can an infant be niade a difciple by teaching r I reply, not diredl) but indirettlv ; that is, the parents, being won' ever bv teaching to embrace the INFANT BAPTISM. 189 he ruth they prefent their Jnfants to the Chrif nan ichool to be trained ,n> in the lame tZh a thus they become dilciple . . , Td L oV'""* ;.^y a faf|, and call a iolemn anfm^bW to .a^he" jne brealts But hou- u he to aaembie them? per . J aniucr i:c knows nothin- at all about i> X tX'r'^f f'"™' •" ''^ brou^™ to-- gctncr Dy the Jound of a trumpet, feeinS thpv pl} , I.n the fame way as inrants are made difci pie. by teachmg. But how is that ? Kverv one = well as men are made dilciples by tea "in ,' Wlby thefounJolatiumpet ' o.hetaf:4Htt^ a baby. Ihmgs wh;ch are little in themfcLs h^ h imp;rt ^ H '" -'^f' baptized.-What does It miport I He is received into dilciplcihin ; .. t« bea fcholar in a Chriftian Ichool. Sa^tr;l'2 views into the department of parent; rlU/ cleacpns,andaMnbu-s, and lilK't,J:i!|::5 language \ "/ / \ 190 OF THE Vr,r. OF Ian,^^ua;;-eof thi'^inllit'!tion. " i^l (111% paflors, nnd people, pray inr vis ; during our tender iniaucv, pray tor us. And when i.iafured bv ;i;^c, caulc tlir doctrine which you prcjicl's, to din]) upon us m the rain, to diiUl as dew, ;; . ilie Uwnll min upon the ten- der herb, and ;i ; (hov.ers upo!- lie ;j;r.us. \Vatch over us witii united ei!rc, and hrin;^ us up in the nurture and adnioiiitiou of tlu- Lord." It is a dilpeniation rrar.d and meiciiul, which is calcu- lated more ijowerfuily to turn tlie alcention of men, to the cor.c-'rns c4" th •(■..• who arc riiir.g into lile, and po'lin;^ into eierniiy. There is one i>uilt ;::n;)no; others in the Baptill fyftem, that ir [.luees the rilln'j,- i^eneration lo cn- T'rely out of Wvhl. 1 do not mean, that the B;)])- Uih tbemftlves do tliis, lor tiieir conducl in this refped is mucii better than their IVItem j but their lyitem places them out of ri;:i"iit. And in thi:--, it diilers from all the tiifpenfations of God, ofv. uicli we Irave any panicalar kno\vled;;;e ; whlcii alone would lead to a prefuinption, that it is not of God. To what I b.avc fald concerniii'T tlie vSc of infant h^ptlfm. under tlie idea of an inllitution fuited to dJii'.v the attentien more povveriidly to the immortal i onccrns of the rifmc; generation (ai\l he muft be \ .'ry inattentive to hutiiaii nature, who does no: iee a beauty and bleiVednels infuch a contrivance); there is no objedion that can be brougiit by a Jinptiit, but may be retcrted. He iray lay. Can- not all this be done v/ii'iout baptizing infants? Reiiirt: I'.mriot nun be built up in faith and love, with',.;;: citiier b'A;)tiim or the Lord's fupper : — Are not ma-jy ba})tized iulants as dcftitute of real re- ligion as others ? Ret.- tiiied adui:s, as duiiiiutv: ,1 /i:ul are not many bap ns Arc of r elision as heathens r INFANT DAl., Ichoohuailers, tpL iv. . .^ Th^J ,h, aJehttledd-c.pes; and parents who brin.thcir fnldreu to baptihn, l.hould conlider thetr.lelve as 'ound m coniciencc to lee thcnx fonh-.ond ' to h.s lociety at all appointed fcafor. . That a f the members IhouM vatch over them, v.i^h t^a^ J-^l'-oit, l.c^hoU flould be a ch.:c!: bufinj, re-ulated (^ \ 191 or THE USE Of INFANT BAPTISM. regulated in the manner of Join- acmrding to (he wifdom of each Chrifliun fociety. For as the in- font IS received by the church as a dilciple in its bajptifm, the church becomes bound to regard that infant as fuch ; and to lee that it is treated as a fcholar of Chrift. To all this, it is phiin, the idea of diftipiefhip leads ; and in this view it becomes greatly important, as its ttndcncv is to draw the cares and prayeis of the whole Chrillian church towards the rifmg generation. There are many fpecial ules conncded with this grand leading icea, which the limic of this efTay vill not permit me to mention. I cannrt fay how far the leading idea itfcif is attended to by thofc who adopt infant baptifm ; it it be not, it is fo much the more to be lamented, that in this as well as in other things the fpirit of an inftirute is not followed up to its proper fcope. It is fullieient notwithftanding to my prefent purpofe, in fhowing the ufefulnefs of an ordinance, if there be a natu- ral fnnefs, in the ordinance Iifelf, to promote the great end I have mentioned. /\nd as every fyftem we embrace is likely to imprefs our .ninds accord- Jng to its nature; that fyftem mud be eminently good and ufeful, which is calculated moll of all, to bring the rifmg generation, and their everlafting concerns, to our mind ; to hold them up perpetu- ally before our eyes; and to fix them habitually upon our hearts.— All this the admiflion of infants by baptifm to a ftate of difciplefhip in the chuich ot God, is endently calculated tc, do; and herein i judge its main ufefulnefs confifts. TflE END.