% THE BAPTISM of V b ETIE VI^KS , By Immersion, Proved from the Scriptures, and vindi- cated againft the Attacks of a late Ar- gument between an Anabaptist and a Methodist. By P H T L I p/h U G H E S. I Pet. I. 1 8. Redeemed— from ycur vain Conveffation received by ‘Tradition from your Fathers. Ifai. 29. 16. Surely your turning of . Things upfde dovuK fall be ejieemed as the Potter' s Clay, To teach all nations what of him they learn’d And his falvation ! them who fliall believe Baptifing in the profluent ftream. Milton, Printed for the AUTHOR, M, DCC,LXXXrV. J T RE To the Christian RE My Friend, and Brother in Chrifl, F O ^our edification and information the follow- ing Iheets were penned. As you have been made a partaker of the divine nature, you have a difpofition to follow the Lamb whetherfoever he goeih', fo that you want not a defire to do, but only a knowledge of the will of our fupream Law-giver. The defign of this therefore, is to direft, confirm and eftablifh you in one of tlje precious ordinances of our moft adorable Redeemer, viz. Believers Baptifin by Immer- Jion. Some years ago, there was publifned in Virgi- nia z ks'ies of dialogues between Mr. Script uri/i, and Mr. Traditioniji ; which was intended as an elucidation of the fubjefts and mode of baptifm, by.an anonymus authdr. Some time after this there came out a piece publiihed by a member of the church of England, in- titled, An- Argument between an Anabaptijl and a Metho- dijl ; which was defigned as an anfwer to the former. How far this late author has fucceeded in his attempt, is Ithe fubjedl of our prefent enquiry. It feems he was draged into the controverfy by the importunity of friends, having no ambition to commence an author ; efpecially confidering the meannefs of the piece, and the difficulty of replying- to it with chriftian decency and temper : He alfo cbnfidered (as he tells us) what the wife man fays, Pro. 26. Anfwer not a fool accor- ding to his folly, left thou alfo he like him. By which words [ ] words (fays he) I underllood, that It is often bed to anfwer things of a trifling nature, by fiUnce and con- tempt.” * What pity it is this author ever changed his mind ! had he taken the wife man’s advice and* an- fwered the dialogue with a profound filence, it is thought by many who even hold with Infant Baptifm, that he would have contributed much more towards fupporting that caufe, than he has in all the abundance he has faid. However, upon a view of the bext verfe, “ Anfwtr a fool according to his follf leaji he be --wife in his onvn conceit f he was ftimulated to the onfet, and indeed he has fo literally anfwered a fool acccrding to his folly^ that however much folly he might find in the dialogues referred to, he has furnijhed out a fuftcient quantity in the argument to turn the fcale in his own favour. However, he tells us he had fomething good in his intention, which was at lead to “mortify the pride of his antagonift.” § I fuppofe by deiedling, confound- ing and confuting all his arguments. But I am made al- molf to defpair of this good being done, efpecially when I fee the mofl: weighty arguments (far from be- ing anfwered) pafled over by the moll pitiful e-vafons or trifling equivocations. Yet it is aimoll enough to force a fmile, from even gravity itfelf, to fee what a duji he beats up round about him. Behold him en- tering the field of controverfy like Goliath of Gath, having one to bear his ihield going before him, f ai^d fufliciently teftifying his difdain for his opponents ! hear how he boafts of his military prowefs and {kill ! ‘ ‘ My principal bufinefs (fays he ) has been to drag them out of their fubterfuges ; to oblige them to rally their forces that we might Jee their jirength, and the numbers they talk of.” This piece of generalfhip fucceeds it feems and pro- mifes a certain victory. Let us attend to the confe- quence. “ By this manoeuvre the voeaknejs of our enemies ^ vuas foon dijeovered ; and fighting them vjith their own j weapons, they were fo galled, that they were glad to get i tff in the btfl manner they could.” f That is, as he re- j iates I * See pre. p. 9. § See pre. p. 10. | f See letter to the publiflier prefixed J Pre. p. 12. | j I fates the matter ; but we pofitively deny that any fuch conqueft has been -obtained as yet; and for him to aflert that victory has declared on his fide, and that his enemies are obliged to make a (hameful retreat, is but a mere gafconade. He has not made us lo very fick 1( as he fuppofes ; and though he fo far furpafles us in generaljhip, we confide in our New-Tejiament troops, who are^all volunteers, none of them being prefled into the fervice. We are now ready to open a fecond cam- paign. — Our army is in the higheft fpirits — neither have we hid from his prefence, nor fled from^his fcrokes — nor do we feel or fear what he has done or can do. Our ftandards are yet hoifted in the field, and .there is not one amongft us who feels the fmalleft inclination of ftriking to this formidable hero. Nay, fo far from that, we have again rallied our forces and are deter- mined not to retreat till we have (thro’ divine alfift- ance) levelled his fortifications to the ground, rout- ed him from his ftrong hold, and fully difeovered to the world his weaknefs, and the vanity of all his boaftings. This champion feems chiefly to value him- felf for anfwering the Anabaptifts (as he call us) “ in their own way * whith, as he intimates, could not be cfFeftsd without “ moving often from place to place, backward and forward f \ condefeending far, grovel- fooping low,’’' and “ raking in the dirt” X if this be anfwering them in their own way, it muft be ac- knowledged he has done it to purpofe, as it may ap- pear to the judicious. And, perhaps, the accurate reader will fee that he has moved without much regularity ; condefeended to grovel confiderably, and fooped fo low as to be engaged in very dirty work. The argument referred to fo evidently carries its own confutation with it in the wilful mifreprefentations, falfe .charges, and grofs abfurdities with which it abounds, that it feemed almoft needlefs to reply ; however, to filence his vain boaftings, and for the fake of thofe who are truly defirous of knowing and doing their duty to^ [ vl ] their dear Redeemer, and who perhaps have never clofely atitended to what the fcriptures fay on this fub- jeft, leil thefe Khould be mifled by the fophifms and falfe gloffes this dialogue, I have attempted a re- ply ; and I think it a duty which I owe to God my Redeemer, and the Ixjuls of mankind, to vindicate the truths of the gofpelt under Peter’s miniftry, were commanded by him to repent and be baptized, Afts 2. ^8 u gladly receiving the vsord, of falvation by Chrid, were added to it, v. 41 ; and continued fted- fad in the apodles dodrine and fellowlhip, v 42 • which proves them to be adult perfons j nor do we read of any one infant being baptized while this truly pri- xnnive church fubfided. ^ ^ 2. The fecond primitive church we read of was that at Samaria; for that there was a church there is evident from Ads 9. 31, which feems to have been planted by themtnidry of Philip; the original members of which were men and vsomen, who were baptized after believed the gofpel preached by Philip, AEts^. \z ■ Af- ter they believed Philip preached the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jefus Chrijl, they vsere baptized both men and vsomen. Had it been cudomary ■f^or the apodles to have baptized infants, here would have been a very proper place to have mentioned it; pf were fo particular as to fay men and vtomen : lin from pradifing infui: fprink- Img, that fhe does not everi countenance it. Nor is ‘“^‘imation given of it in any thing that 1 faid relative to this truly primitive church, t P* to. 3 - ( 24 ) . 3- The third chuich recorded, is that at Ce/area, of svhofe baptifm we have a particular account, Ails lo. 47. 48. After Peter had preached Jefus Chrift to ihem, and the Holy Gbojl had fallen upon them ivho heard the n-vord, they were then commanded by him to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Here you may obferve that there was a hearing of the ’word ; a receiving of the Holy Ghoft, and a pofiti’ve cotnmand, before baptifm. Learn, ■farther, that our receiving of the Spirit of God is fo far from being an argument againll our being baptized with water, that it is the principal thing which qualifies us for it, and furni.fhes out an argument why we ought £0 do it. So no infant baptifm here. 4. The fourth church was that at Philippi, (which was the chief city of that part of Macedonia) the foun- dation of which feems to have been laid in the two ■families of Lydia and the goaler. And that there were no infants in this church, fee what the apollle •fays to them, Phil. i. i. faints in Chrift Jefus-, who were made fo by -xi’sr/f had begun in them, V. 6 ; who abound in lo’ve, v. g ; who prayed for the apollle, V. 19. Nothing of which can be faid of in- fants. And whether there were any children baptized "in thefe two families, I fliall hereafter confider : So that it does not appear infant baptifm obtained in this church : and indeed 1 defpair of finding it in one New Tellament primative -church. However, fortunerfa- vours the brave ; we will therefore continue our fearch as far as we have [cripture ground to tread on, that we may find it if it is to be found. 5. Our next fearch lhall be in the church at Corinth, of which it is faid, i Cor. 11. 2. 'That they had kept the ordinances as they ’were delivered to them. And who thefe were that had kept the ordinances of the Lord, Paul himfelf tells you, 1 Cor. i. 2. The church of God fanc- tified in Chrif JeJus — called to be faints. And how thefe Corinthians came to be manifellly fanctified and to f faints, we are told Afls 18. 8. And Ctijpus the chief ru- ler of the fynagegue, believed on the Lord vcith all his houfe ; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and ewere 'hapti%ed. Thefe Paul calls the church of God; the faints at Corinth., And he tells us he himfelf baptiz- ed Crifpus and G«ius, and the houjhold of Stephanus., which were the firll fruits of the golpel in Achaia, and that they addidled themfelves to the miniilry of the faints, I Cor. i6. 15. Rut no tidings of infant baptifm yet : For the Corinthians hoard and believed before they were baptized. 6. The next church we have an account of is the church of Ephe/us, which feems to have originated from thofe twelve men we read of in the 19 th of Adis, who believed. Nor have we any hint of any infant being ever received into it. 7. The church of Rome, whofe faith was Jpoken of throughout the vuhole fworldf^ota, 1. 8, thefe, before they were baptized were made dead to hn, Rom. 6. 2 ; and then to reprefent it, were buried by baptifm, v. 4, 8.1 have alfo confidered the church at Colojfe, and find, that after they had been circumcifed with the cir- cumcifioh made without. hands, in the putting ofi*, in the work oi regeneration, the body of.fin-— it is then added— ‘lor’//?' him in baptifm. Col. z. ii. 12. I have likewife made diligent fearch throughout Gala~ tia and EheJ/alonka, the feven Churches that vuere in Afia, together with Judea and Jeru/alem, and the region round about Enon and Jordon, and can find no perfon that ever heard of infant baptifm in that age of the world ; front whence I conclude that it is of a more recent original. This author is, therefore, fo far from having the pri- mitive churches on his fide, that there is not one that fpeaks for him ; but all with united voice cry out “ /«- •fant baptijm is not here.” But it feems he has “ The concurrent teftimonies of ancient councils,” &c. what councils thefe were he has not told us, and I am certain that it is not countenanced by any council of the apollles and primitive chriftians. For, I. We read of a council, A£ls 1. 15, which confifted .of one hundred and twenty difciples ; I have read over C tbiir , . ( 26 ) ioeir proceedings, but can find no a£l made for, nor any thing faid about, infant baptifm. 2. Another we have an account of A£t 2. i ; where they (the apoftles and difciples of Chrill) all came to- gether with one accord in one place. I have particu- larly confidered the bufinefs of that day, and can find no mention made of ihfant baptifm : but I underftand from the moil authentiek records, that a principal fpeaker in the houfe made this proclamation, “ Repent and be baptised emery one of you j" which founds much like the voice of a Baptift. From which I conclude, that this was of our opinion, and not his. 3. A third and honourable council was held at Jeru- falcm, Adis. 15. 6 ; Where it is faid the apoftles and elders came together to confider fcnne matters of im- portance, one of which was Circumcifion, a very fit and proper time and place to have declared it if, (as fome fay) baptifm was to fuceed in the room of cir- cumcifion; but inftead of that, not one fingle fentence is faid about it. So that in all the epifths, preachings and councils of the apoftles, there is not the leaft ac- count of infant baptifm. And had we not then much better abide by what thofe more ancient fathers, Peter, Paul, (ames, John, Jude, &c. have left upon record ? But this, he fays, is fpeaking contemptibly of the ancient fathers, and rejedlingtheirauthority, (P. 11.) What, becaufe we pre- fer Peter, Paul, &c. before them ! I imagine we have not much to fear from the fentence of a proteftant ju- ry ; as it vyould be eafy to produce twice twelve divines who have given it as their fentiment, that the fcrip- ture is our only rule, and a Juficient one. According to this author, if we rejedl the authority of thefe fa- thers, we muft rejedl Peter, Paul, &c. * why lb t be- caufe as far down as 330 years after our Lord’s alTen- fion “ they determined what books were to be ac- counted canonical, as being the compofition of the apoftles.” But I hope we may grant them equal to that talk, and put great confidence in their care and fde- * P. IS, * liiy, without- putting them upon a level with the infpi- red penmen, as he feems to do, when he telis us, if he did not think the authority of thefe fathers was to be depended upon, he mujl rejeSi Peter, Paul, &c. He fays it is ridiculous in the author of the dia- logues to fay that etrror is never to be the more refpeft- ed for having a grey head, f Pray how is this ridiculous ? Why is ancient error to be more refpefted than modern ? does Origeh’s grey head make his ridiculous interpreta- tion of Matt. 19. 12. or his doftrine of z general jail- delivery from hell, more rejpedable ? Or why may he hot take Augujiine's and other of the fathers word for the damnation of unbaptixed infants, ^s well as for the baptizing them ? efpecially fince Dr. Wall Ihews that it was their general opinion that baptifm was necejfary to falvation ; (fee Wall’s' Hift. of in. bap.) But “ how ridiculous is it, fays he, when he is indebted to thefe . "vtsy grey heads fot all knowledge he Has of Peter, Paul, dec. and of their writings.” * I thought we were indebted to Luke for fome knowledge of them, who has given us the only ads of the apoftles, that can be depended on, as is generally confefTed, And I believe we are principally indebted to the watchful Providence of God, which has preferved their writings, both before the times of thefe fathers as well as in later ages when the darknefs of Popery fptead itfelf over the' chriflian world. I fhall be excufed for fubjoining a pertinent remark of the celebrated Dr. Watts. \\ “ Shall we judge of mat- “ ters of the chriftian faith by the fathers or primitive “ writers for three or four hundred years after Chrift ? “ But they often contVadidled one another, and themfelves “ too ; and what is worfe, they fometimes contradided the feripture itfelf. Now in all thefe different and contrary fentiments in religion, which of the ancients muft we “ believe ; for we cannot believe them all ?” He afks,t may not a thing be actually, proved hy ira~ dition ? 1 anfwer, doubtlefs it may. Yet he makes his Anabaptif fay there can be no proof from that. Here ■and t P. Ji, * ibid (] Logtek p, 225. f P. 10. ( 28 ) and in feveral other places, he infinuates, that we will believe nothing but what is in the fcripture. At this rate, we muft look upon all hiflorical relations to he falje pr at lead incredible ; — but this is a Jlandtr of his own and no principle of ours. Well, but “ if a thing can be proved by tradition, can you delire any other proof ?”-f- This Jirikes wide. We may certainly pay a proper re- gard to human teflimony, without making it in whole or in part the rule of our faith and praftice in matters of religion. Such fcripturijis, and fuch only, we delire to be. And now after a long traditional esccurfton we are* brought to the fcriptures again. He alTures us,§ Peter, Paul, &c. are the very men he will abide by ; and" feems willing to give it up, if they have left any thing upon record againft infant baptifm. The Baptifts are rea- dy to acknowledge they can hnd nothing upon record againjl it, and that for a very obvious reafon, becaufe there is nothing left upon record about it. In this re- fpeft it is on a looting with a deal of other Romijh trum- pery, that the apofles^wtie utter ftrangers to. But he agrees to quit his PapHiical Jirong hold, and promifes to retract “ if his practice be not countenanced hy them, and by Jefus Chrijl the father of the chriftian church.” On this ground then we are ready to meet him, and 'pro- mife, in our turn, that if he can prove that Jefus Chrifl or his apoflles ever prafliled or required it, we will give up the point. But does he prove this ?” No he imme- diately the way and does not fo much as attempt it. Inp,.i 5 . he blames Scripturift for, what he calls, a mifquotation, “ If God- fathers, &c. abfolutely promiled that the child fhall renounce the devil, &c. it would be very abfurd indeed.” Well, however abfurd it may be, they are guilty of it, if there be any fenfe in the church- es calling them furetles, or any truth in what the child is taught to fay, viz. “ They did promife and vow three things in my name, lirft, that I Ihould re- jiounce the devil, &c.” what then are we to think of this i P. 10. § P. 12. ( Z9 . ) this gentleman’s denial of this ? “ You know they do not, they cannot promife any fuch thing” Why, by a pedantic parade of a few grammatical terms he undertakes to fetch olF both himfelf arid the fureties very handily. “ The word, fays he, is [hould of the potential or fubjunflive mood, which implies a con- tingency.” If this contingency is to be applyed to thefe what-d’-ye-call-em’s, (for it feems we are not to denominate them promifes) one would imagine ma^ or might would have been ufed, if it was---as he fays, they only exprefs the duty of the children, I do not fee how duty is a contingency — beiides, in that cafe, mu^ or ought would probably have been ufed.— But to fet this gentleman right, as Jhould is the preter tenfe of the auxiliary Jhall, it was impoffible for the children to- relate the affair as a paft- tranfaftion, and not make falfe concord, without ufing Jhould ; however abfo- lute the promifes were. A fimilar inftance or two will make it plain. When the apollle Paul, Afts 26. 22, 23. fpeaks of thof© things which the prophets and Mofes did fay Jhould come, that Chrift Jhould feffer, and that he Jhould be the firft that Jhould rife from the dead, znA Jhould (hew light to the Gentiles,” are all thefe important fooulds fo- in the potential or fub- junftive mood as to imply a contingency ? Or, in the time of the late ejlablijhment, when the wjlry in the name of the inhabitants of Bath parifh received the rellor thereof as their jpiriiual guide, had the quef- tion been put to that ^vd. gentleman, “ what did the veftry promije you at your induftion ?” would it not have been a proper reply, “ they did promife that I Ihould receive i6ooolb. of tobacco as the reward of my minifterial labours, befides the other perquilites. Now if any perfon who profeffed to be learned in law had (on fueh a fuppofition) undertaken to clear the veflry from any abfolute engagement, by faying, “ If they promifed you Jhall receive, &c. it would be very ab- furd indeed ; but you know they did not ; they cannot promije any fuch thing ; the word is Jhould in the po- tential or fubjundive mood, and implies a contingen- C 5 cy , . , ( 3 ° ) cy perhaps it would have made him acquainted with a mood different from either of thefe. Let us now fee whether his logic will fpeed better than his grammar. Scripturiji’s argument, to prove that Chriji and his apofilts were all Baptijis, is'faid by this expert lo- gician to be a Jophifm of that kind which the learned call Jgnoratio Elenchi, or a miilake of the queilion ||. Pray how has he mijlaken the queftion ? “ Why, fays he, the queftion in debate is not whether the apollles and pri- mitive chriftians were baptized, or whether they did baptize, but whether they were for or againft the bap- tizing of infants.” Now, it will be evident to any per- fon who will fee with his own eyes, and not judge of Scripturift' s arguments by the mutilated quotations made^ by this writer, that the queftion is fo fir from being miftaken, that it is exprefsly put in Traditioniji's mouth, and Scripturift gives it a dire£t anfwer, by obferving what the fcriptures fay concerning John’s baptizing our Saviour and the multitudes ; from whence he infers that his manner of baptizing was much more Jimilar to our pradlice than to theirs who praftife baby Jprinkling. If this be not a very pretty argument, it is a tolerable convincing one ; fo he may keep Ignoratio Elenchi to him- felf, and we Ihall fee that he takes frequent occafton to make ufe of it in this controverfy. He next gives us a tafte of his ikill in a mefs of chopt logic. “ By chopping logic after the manner of your author, I could as well prove that a man is a goofe, an afs, or any creature you pleafe.” For my part I ftiould not be pleafed at all to fee my own fpe- cies undergo the brutal transformation ; but though 1 am inclined to think it impoffible to demonjirate by any argument that a man is a brute of any kind, yet 1 con- fefs I have heard that there is a manner of arguing that ,.will denominate a man a goofe or an afs ; and I wonder this author was not afraid to mention the names of thofe animals in particular, left fome man of a penetrating judgment fhould take occafton from his manner of rea- foning to rank him among them. P. 17. fohtii C 31 ) , Johns baptifm both with regard to the fubjefts and mode, is fuch aninfuperable difficulty in his way, that he not only protefts againft being John’s difciple, * which nobody has perfwaded him to, but boldly pro- nounces his baptifm invalid, f and declares that his baptifm and the chriftian baptifm is not the fame. § Whereas John's baptifm was from heaven ;• — he was fent to prepare the way of the Lord— He required repentance, and faith in Chrift as prerequifities — and when the rifen Jefus gave his apoftles a commiffion to teach and baptize, we have no account of any altera- tion with reference to the fubjefts or mode— all whicn confpire to prove that John’s baptifm, and that admi- niftered by the appftles, were ellentially the fame. Add to this what Mr. Poo/ obferves ; (Annotations on the place :) “ Unlefs John’s baptifm and the apoftles were the fame, ChriJI and his members (the church) are not baptized with the fame baptifm.” But this author fup- pofcs he has pofitive fcripturc proof to the contrary. Let us attend to it. “In the 19th of Adis we read of fomo who had been baptized with John’s baptifm — but this would not ^o— John’s baptifm was not looked upon to be malid, and therefore baptifm was repeated on thofe certain difciples which the apoflle found at Ephefus.” Now all the difficulty in this paffage, by which he ’ fuppofes, no doubt, he has fufficiently puzzled us, arifes from imagining thofe twelve men were rehaptized by the order of Paul-, whereas, if we confider the 5th verfe as a continuation of Paul’s fpeech, and not the words of Luke the hiftorian, the difficulty vanilhes r Paul afks thefe men, who had not heard of the extra- ordinary gifts of the fpirit, “ Into what were ye bap-- tized?” they anfwer, “Into John’s baptifm;” upon which he declares his hearty acquiefcence therein; "John •verily baptized •with the baptifm of repentance, faying unto the people that they fhould believe on bimwbo fhould come af- ter him, that is, on Chrtfl Jefus ; niuben they heard this, proceeds the Ipeaking Bill to the twelve men, when *P. 40. t P. iS, § P, 16. (. 32 ) ^hen the ytws heard this from the mouth of they ’uiere baptized in the name of the Lord Jefus. Af- ter which Luke informs us, that Paul laid his hands on them, i. e. as baptized pcrfoiis, that the gifts of the Jpirit might be imparted to them. This author dcubt- Jcfs is not ignorant that this is agreeable to the expofi- tion of Beza, Pool, and divers other learned Pedo-“ Baptirts. Let us now fee how we can fuftain his attack upori his own ground, by fuppoftng thofe twelve men were baptized onjer again by Paul'% order. Upon that fup- pJlition, it does not appear they were baptized again, becaufe ‘John’& baptifm was invalid, as he alTerts •, but becaufe it was not properly adminiftered. Unto nuhal nvere ye baptized ? fays Paul. They reply, unto John' i baptifm, “ that is, as I take it, (fays Mr. Henry on the place) “ They were baptized in the name of John •, “ not by John himfelf, he was far enough from any “ fuch thing ; but by fome weak well-meaning difci- “ pie of his, that ignorantly kept up his name as they “ head of a party, retaining the fpirit and notion of “ thofe difciples of his, that were jealous of the growth “of Chrift’s intereft, and complained to him of it. John 3. 26.” To manifell the impropriety of fuch a conduft, Paul faid nnte them, John verily baptized vith the baptifm of repentance, faying unto the people, that they fhould believe on him that fhould come after him, that is on Chrift Jefus. That is, he was fo far from baptizing in kis own name, that he required faith in, and baptized them unto, the’ Mefjtah. When they heard this, being confcious they had not been thus baptized. Phey were baptized in the name of the Lord ]ejus. Upon either of thefe expofitions, we fee how little' reafon this author had to propofehis vaunting queftion. Have I not proved my affertion ? * as there is a mani- feft agreement between ]ohn's baptifm and that admi- niftered by the apofles, and it appears they are for fub- ftance the-fame. h It may be pi;oper to obferve here, that taking this pafiage in the latter fenfe, it teaches us this important leflbn, viz, That where there is a principal defed in the adminiftration of baptifm, it muft be repeated ; which applies ftrongly to infant fprinkling, which is a manifeft perverlion of the fubjeSs and mode. And if it be faid the cafes are not limilar, becaufe baptifm is adminillered to infants in the name of the Trinity. I- anfwer, it is fo much the worfe, becaufe it is a taking, the najne of the Lord in 'vain. The Baptifts therefore have fufficient warrant for baptizing fuch over again. I cannot eafily conceive the ground of this gentle- man’s violent antipathy to.John, unlefs it be that he fees his baptifm correfponds fo little with his own antifcrip- tural praftice. Though to colour it over, he raifes an outcry againft the validity of that baptifm which Chrifl the great head of the church condefcended to fubmit to. Well, one would think he was very ftaunch for Cbrif- tian baptifm in diftinction from, yea-in oppofition to JenviJh baptifm i but the tide foonr turns, and he fug- gefts that the apoftles having received a general com- miffion from our Saviour to baptize, were to regulate their condudt in reference thereto, by the Jewilh cuf- tom of baptizing profelytes j concerning which he ' twice fays, “ It cannot be denied that it was a cuftom for them to baptize the infant children of Profelytes.” * But it can be denied, and has been'- denied by many learned Pedo- baptifts, and has been unanfwerably con- futed by Ur. Gill, in a dilTertation on the fubjeft. And had fuch a cuftom pre_yailcd among the Jews, how came their rulers to fay to John, ‘‘ vshy baptixef thou' ■then, if thou be not tha^ Chrift, nor Elias, neither that prophet,” John i. zj. But why does he fay it can’tbedeniedthatitwas acufom, &c. docs henotknowit behooved him to fay, “ it cannot be denied that Gcii'rr- guired the Jews, &c.” Could he demonftrate ever lo clearly that there was fuch a cuftom, I defy him, or any other perfon to (hew the place in the word of God,, where he reiuired the Jews under that oeconomy to bap- \ J T / trzt Pro/eljtes cr their children. Now had it prevailed as' a cuftom without the fandlion of divine authority, it maft have been no more than a tradition of the elders, which our Saviour was fo far from countenancing, that he declares, concerning the Jev;s and their traditi- ons, ■ “ In vain do they worlhlp me, teaching for doc- “ trines the commandments of men,” Mark. 7. 7. Now how c®n this writer fuppofe the apoftles would ihape their praftice by what our Saviour fo feverely condemns, rather than by John’s baptifm, which hfe himfelf confirmed and graced by his own glorious ex* ample I — this is building infant baptilm on a bog in- deed ! It has been alledged that infant baptifm is a Popifii invention. No, fays this author, it is an old JewifK cullom continued. And how has he mended the mat- ter ? For my part I fliould think it as chrifian a bap- tifm if received from the council of Carthage, as from a corrupted Sanhedrim. But if the Jews baptized their pro- felytes, they afterwards received a more valid and chrif- tian baptifm, as in the cafe of the' Eunuch, who was no doubt a profelyte, yet not with Handing propofed bap- tifm to Philip, and was baptized by him, for ought ap- pears, in the very manner we praftice ; and we fhall cfteemitour duty to Purfue the fame method, with re- gard to thofe who have from tradition been fprinkled in their infancy. He fays,f “ He knows of no end Our baptifm an- fwers but to introduce envy, ftrife, contentions, bitter- nefs, clamour and diffenfion.” — A Romifo prieft might have ufed the fame argument againft the reformation'. And had the reformers bought peace at the expenfe of truth, they might have refted where they were. If our holding the truth, and vindicating it, be the occafioni of exciting thefe evil difpofitions in the hearts of thofe who are enemies to it, we are by no means the culpa- ble caufe, and rather than recede, we chufe that the firife fhould continue. From- f. P, i 8i • From what follows,^ it is evident that his deiign is to reprefent us in the moll horrid light that his envj) and bitternefs could ruggell. The truth having deferred him, he calls in Hander to his affiftance.— •“ But by what we can gather from the temper and fpirit of the Ana- ^aptills, we have two much reafon to fear, if ever they get llrong enough, we lhall fee a /word and feel it two.”~That is, we Ihould fall upon them and murder them. This might have been taken for an unchrijiian cenfure, if it had not dropt from the pen of a perfon profeffing perfeSiion. Human eftablilhments, which the Pedo-Baptills are ve^ry fond of, is what we abominate, and have borne open telliniony againft, even when we have had it in our power to ellablilh our religion ; as in Khode-IJland Government. He knows it is contrary to our principles and practice to endeavour to force men into our focieties by the fzvord or bayonet, or to enlighten their minds by immuring them in the dark ’walls of a prifon. Belides, if we were aiming to get llrong e- nough, by being fuperior in numbers, to compafs the diabolical defign he charges us with, our conllant con- duit would manifell our folly ; as it would be quite in- confillent with our interell, to any who Ihould propofe to join our community, efpecially if they were able to bear Arms. It is, however very natural to judge others by ourfelves ; and I need not inform him what denomination of chrillians that was, that a few years ago imprifoned the Baptijis ; apd who often made them fee their /words, and fometimes feel the weight of their nvhipj ; the man in black fometimes heading the mob to fee the work well done. This he knows is no guefs- ’work. Yet all this is very well ! we have nothing to fear from thefe lamb~like, meek-hearted creatures ! The Anabaptijis only are to be feared ! I Well, the BaptiHs are not_j'f/ flrong enough to conquer the infant fprinklers by the carnal ’weapon, if they were wicked enough to attempt it; yet notwithftanding their fuperior numbers, and human advantages, we are de- termined, with the/wW of the fpirit in our hands, ne- ver *P. 10. I ■ ^ ( 36 ) tver to deTert the caufe of facred truth, or ihun the pole- mic warfare. Outnumbers, are numbers of feripture texts, in which we put great confidence ! — “ Methodifl, That is eafier faid than proved. I faid before, and will maintain it, that yOu have neither precept nor ex- ample for your praftice.”— O wonderful proof! who can ftand before fuch mafterly reafoning ! I the Rec- tor of Bath, faid—rl wonder all the Baptills in America are not convinced by it ! 1 faid before, and I mcill main- tain it. — This/, it feems, is to do the Baptift’s bufi- nefs. But I can affure him his bare fay foes and pofitive affertions will not be taken for abfolute demonftrations, unlefs he prove his infallibility. ^But what makes much againft him is, he cannot get Chriji or any of his apofiles to vouch for him. Nay, they abundantly teftify the contrary ; and that we have both precept and example, 1 have proved, and will prove. ^ Firll, We have the example of Chriji, the great head of the fhurch, who was bapuxedof ]obnin Jordan, Mark 1.9. And Jefus when he was baptized went up llraight- ,way out of the water, Matthew 3. 18. Again, We have the example of the apoftles, who never baptized any until they profefled faith in Chrift. Thus runs the commiffion ; “ Go teach all nations, bap- •tizing them, Matthew 28. 19. And that they always afted up to their commiffion, their conftant praftice Ihews. Repent and he baptized every one of you, Afts 2. 3^. Hhen they that gladly received his nuord voere bap- tized, V. ^l. But vuhen they believed, Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, they voere baptized both men and voomen, Adis 8. 12, Can any man forbid water that thefe Jhould not be baptized who have received the Holy Ghoji? Adis 10. 47. And he commanded them to be bap- tized in the name of the Lord, v. 48. And he faid, fee here is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip faid. If thou believeft with all thine heart thou may- ef. And he faid, I believe that Jefus Chrift is the Jon of God, And they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him, Adis 8. 36, 37, 38. And now why tarriejl thou ? Arife and be baptixed, Adis 2Z- i6. Now let any one compare thefe fcriptures with both our praftices, in relerence to baptifm, and judge who comes neareft to the primitive fiandard. He takes a fpeechlejs infant, and fprinkles a few drops of water in its face, upon which it is fo highly offended, that it is carried off fcreaming and crying !-^We take the pro- fejftng believer who voluntarily goes down into the wa- ter and is buried with Chrift in baptifm, upon which he goes on his way rejoicing. Yea, let any impartial per- fon, upon this fhort review of the fcripture account of the fubjeds and mode, fay, whether a man muft not have a front of brafs, to fly in the face of fo much plain fcripture, and roundly affert that we have neither /re- cept nor example for our praSlice ? And now, it feems, we are likely to have his plain fcripture proof for infant fprinkling. The Anabaptill wifhes he would fliew him where infants were ever bap- tized. “ That, fays the Methodifl, is not hard to doT-— Yet defparing to find it in the New Teftament, (w'here chriilian baptifm is only to beibund) he goes back to Mofes and produces a paffage which was written up- wards of looo years before chriilian baptifm was ever known or heard of in the world. * “ Look here, fays he, in the IZth chapter of Exodus Ay, look here, all ye inhabitants of the earth, and be convinced ! look here, all ye Anabaptifts, and be con- futed ! fx hundred thoufand Ifraeliles nxent out of Egypt on foot, befides children nxiho could not go on foot — and they vjere all baptized utito Mofes in the cloud and in the fea-— Now here you can’t deny that infants were baptized ; and. they were baptized by fprinkling too, and that is more.” Neither can he deny that their focks and herds came out with them, and were all baptized at the fame time and in the fame manner. And now he has a proof for the baptizng his goofe, or afs, or any other creature, ef- pccially when he adds that convincing argument, where is any thing left upon record againft it. He feems to imagine this cloud was full of water and jthat the Ifraelites were fprinkled by the water which D fell * P. 19, 20. . ( 38 ) fell from it. Now if they were catched in the rain, ’tis probable the mothers covered the tender babes to preferve them from the falling Jfocvoer, inftead of hold- ing them out in it, and if fo where is his infant bap-- tifm ? But how could it enter the brains of this writer to im- agine this to be a rainy cloud, formed of watery par- ticles exhaled, and floating in the air; when the fcrip- ture rcprefents it as a miraculous cloird, in which the Lord went before them. Exodus 13, 21. todireft their marches, Num. 9. 17. It was a cloud for a covering by day, and was a fire by night to give thein light ; Pfa. 105. J9. And as it was night when the Ifraelites made their paflage, had they been fprinkled with fal- ling drops from this flaming cloud, it would doubtlefs have been a baptijm of fire with a witnefs. It is granted the apoflle by a figurative form of fpeech makes this palTage bear an allufion to baptifm ; and we conceive the circumflances make greatly in our fa- vour in refped of the mode ; tho’ we confefs it is quite ridiculous to imagine they either plunged themfilves or one another in the cloud, or that the fea mud overvjhelm them in order to their immerfion. The faft is, the waters flood eredt on each fide Uks vcalls, and the cloud hung over them ; fo that being at the bottom of the fea, encom- - pafi'ed by the lofty waters and the fufpended cloud, they were baptized, i. e. furrounded by and, as it were, immerfed in the cloud and in the /e«. It is obfervable, that they are not faid to be baptized fimply hn the cloud or fea ; but in the cloud and 'm the fea, which can con- filt only with the above interpretation : for upon the fuppofition of their being fprinkled, it fhould have been by the cloud, &c. For it feems this author does not fup- pofe them to have been in the cloud ; and to fay they were fprinkled in the cloud and in the fea, carries its own confutation with it. * u^na. But how will you prove that infants are to be baptized now “ Metho. The anus probandi muji alviaa lie vfonrny Jhoulders/’ — why, in the name of common fenfe, • P. 20. fenfe, if his JhouUers were unequal to the iurJctt, did he under take it : — “ Bur, I mean I, am to prove every “ thing and you nothing.” — What does he want us to help him out at the dead lift ? Indeed he ha's reafon to complain, for the Baptift has put as hard a talk upon him as ever a poor Ifraelite had by the moll fevere talk mailer in Egypt. However, he fays, * “ Ehe right of infants to the ordinance of baptijm is fo clear, that it is HQ hard matter to prove it.'’ Why then did he not give the proof and fettle the Controverfy ?— But, fee, it is at hand ! Do, reader, at- tend to it ! “ But, 1 — VVe have had fo many of Mr. i’s proofs already that f am quite tired of them. “ But 1 infill”.— What pity it is that he could not fay Peter or Paul infills. But let us have it. “ But I in- fill upon it that as they are in poffffon of their right, or what almoll nine tenths of the church of CAr?}? oelie've to be their right, it lies upon you to prove that their right is not good, before they can legally be turned out of pollelli’n.” This right is the very point in difpute; and he oH'trs no proqt for it. “ O yes ! nim-tenths of “ the church of Chfift belie-ve if ;”'--that is, all who be- lieve infants have a right to baptifm, bblieve they have a right to it ; their polTefiion of baptifm is therefor legal. — Majierly reajoning ! O yt Papifs I there is o danger, it feems, of your being legally difpojfjfu of your Icrip'ure'efs ceremonies, while you continue the majority in Chrillendom t As for hrs having tenths on his fide, I Ihould not I have difputed that pcinl with him if he had laid nine- teersrtxcentieths. Numb r is no proof of right in matters j of religion. Elijah only remains a prophet of the Lord, when the prophets of Baal are 4J0 men. The world wanders after the beaft ; and what is highly efeem- ed among men /r often abomination with God. And inllead of its lying upon us to prove that their right is not good § he Ihould have produced feripture record for their right. I.et him (hew, if he esn, any claule in the laft will and iedament of ]efus Chrifl the King of Zion, and Head of 1 * P. 20. 21. § P. 20, 21. ( 4 ° ) of theehiirch, where he has Ordered the truflees of his will to admit any to baptifm till they profefs faith m him. But they are in pofTeflion ! — and though the old fay- ing, pcjfejfjion is tle-v!n point s cf the lanv, is extending the matter far enough in all cohfcience ; yet few before this gentleman, p'erhaps, ever thought of making it all in all. The compatifon he brings, J concerning cutting him out of a farm, that he can trace a right to no higher than his giand-father, is no doubt very apropo to in- fant baptifm, but the application muft be fatal to his caufe ; for does he not know that if he can’t produce the records oi his country to prove his right, he may be legally turned out of pcfeflion ? Befides, by his way of rcafoning from it, he might defraud his neighbour ogt of his plantation, or any other article of property he has, if firft he has but ftrength enough to take forcible poj. JtJJion of it. Thus,-'he takes his child and puts him in pojfeffton of his neighbour’s plantation, and keeps him there for feme time ; he and all his friends proclaim it abroad, that it is his fon’s right hecaufe he js in pof- fefllon of it. - His neighbour produces the moll ancient and authentick records to prove his title to be good, but this will not do ; he maintains the right of his child, by faying, he is in poffejjtonof itf and has been for feme time, and nine-tenths of his friends fay his title is good ; and unlefs his neighbour can produce fome aa which exprejly fays, his fon fhal! not peflefs fuch a plantation,, he has an undoubted right and title to it : And thus, by fetting the man to prove a negative, he has cut him out of his plantation. Having been fome time in the wildernefs, w'C are a- gain led to the red-fea* where we are told that “ Ms- fes was a type of Chrill, and that parents and their chil- dren were initiated into the religion of Mofts, and put themfelves and their little ones under his government and diredlion by baptifm;” And then fays,t “ fn this very thing the likenefs between Mofes and Chrijl prin- cipally X P. 20. * P. 21. t P* 22. tipally ccnfifts.” — But when or where did Mofes take them under his government, and initiate them into his religion by baptifm ? this furely could not be their bap- tifm.in the reJ-Jta ; for they were under the government and diredion of Mofes fome time before they came there. That the apoflle,when he fpeaks of the Ifraeiites be- ing baptized unto Mofes in the cloud and in the_/?a, al- ludes to baptifm, I have granted ; and that Pedohaptifs and Jntipedobaptifs have frequently argued from it for their refpedive modes, is notorious from their contro- verfial writings ; but 1 believe this gentleman has the honour ci being the firji who ever brought it to deter- mine the Juhjeds cf the ordinance; but with him it is 7 s very plain argument. Yet, methinks, this very plain argument, as he fondly terms it, conies with a very ill grace from one who makes fo little of \ohr^s baptifm, and’ fo poliiively denies its validity. Did he not confider, that this baptifm to Moles, up- wards of one thoufand years before, mufl; be as antiquat~ ed and invalid as ]ohn’s', and that,, we could eafily re- tort upon him, “ Then's nothing to me, 1 am not Mojes's difciplePl and if I was, it would puzzle you to prove that he had any eosnmijjton to baptize, or that he ever baptized any one ; or that the ordinance of baptifm was in- ifituted ; or that the Ifraeiites went down into the fea on purpofe to get their children baptized. Yet with an air of felf confidence he enquires hovo Chrifl is like unto Mo^ fes, according to A£ts 3. 22, if children are not initiat- ed into his leligion; yea, he infinuates, that if Chriji had excluded infants from baptifm, the ]evjs would have had to have difowned, and rejeiled him as the MtJJiah. And having his head full of the idea of infants being both baptized unto Mofes and unto Chrifl, he concludes by declaring, “ In this very thing the between Chrif zni Mofes principally confi!ls.”*>-- Amazing ! that infant baptifm fhould conflitute the principal likenefs between Mofes and Chrifl, and yet that every Pedobaptift commentator that I have confulted, (.though fome of them have hit on fome very ftriking C V likencfTes ) * P. 22, liknefles) fhould be fo blind to this principal one, as to- tally to overlook it. Upon the whole, his main fcripture for infant fprinkling proves nothing of that for which he advanced it, and he is as far to feek as ever. And now the engagement appears to be more dole and fevere! He drags the Anabaptift from his entrench- ment, and gets a fevere blow for his p2\ns.—-/inabaptij}. “ Well, don't the fcriptures fay, repent and he baptiz,ed , believe and be baptized F Nova hovo can infants either re- pent or believe -Mtthodi ft. Y\& upon it! you have broke my head fadly the firfl ftroke.|| What ! give the ftrli ftroke which is half the battle, and yet aft only upon the defenfive, and keep out of the way of his lirokes ! J It feems he is a bad marks-man and overjhoots himftlf yet he gives him a broken head and makes him cry fie upon it /’’—By his own confelTion he is fadly hurt and vaorfe feared. But it feems the deadly ’laound is quickly healed. Well, upon a recovery from the flroke, one would reafonably expeft a direSi anf-wer to the quellion ; but inftead of that he pitifully turns it off by a fophiftical conclufion, which he fancies muft be drawn from the denial of baptifm to infants, becaufe they have not the prerequifites of repentance and faith, viz. that devils will be faved, and infants damned, becaufe thnfe believe, and thefe cannot repent. But we are not at all affefted. bv his falle reafoning, becaufe we know the declara- tions of the gofpel are not addreffed to infants who can- not underftand them ; or to devils whofe angelica! na- ture Chrift never adumed. And if, becaufe God faves infants without repentance, we muft baptize them with- out it, the conclufion equally follows, that if God re- fiifes to fave a devil though he believes, iS'e might alfo refufe to admit to baptifm an unbapiized man or wo- man who believes alfo. But furely God never intended that his fevereign methods of difpenfing his grace fhould be the rule to direft us in the adminiftration of his ordinances. Befides, his conclufion as naturally follows from his principles as from curs. Dees he ad- mit II P. 22. J Pre. p. xii. mit infants to the Lord's Supper ? No. Well, wfiat does he require of perfons who come to the Lord's Supper?.— Anfwer, “ To examine themfelves whether they npent -.-have a lively /«///&, ” &c. Now he knows the fcrip- tures fay, “ He that believeth (ball be faved, and he “ that believeth not lhall be damned. And again, “ Except ye repent ye Jhall perijh. Thus (lands the arga- ‘‘ ment.--*y^// that believe Jhall be faved ; but the devils be- lieve, (Jam. z, \<^.) therefore the devils Jhall be faved. ‘ ‘ And with refpedl to infants, thus (lands the argument. ^‘-..All voho do not repent and believe Jhall be damned. In- feints neither repent nor believe, (for want of which he “ will not admit them to the Lord’s Supper) therefore “ all infants Jhall be damned. Nay, don’t Hart ! This “ conclufion as dearly follows from the premifes as “ yours, Mr. Impartial Enquirer himlelf being judge.” But though he had not particularly confedered this before, “ I hope he will be afhamed of the abfurdity of fuch “ an argument for the future.”§/ Says the Metho. J “ If you would read your Bible, you would fee that faith and repentance were as much required to circumdfion as to baptifm.” I have read it all over and I am fure it is not in mine. I can find in no part of it where repentance and faith are; required .in order to circu.mcifion. And as he has faid it, I call upon him to prove it. We find no fuch prerequifites e- ven in Abraham’s numerous family, whofe circumci- fion was doubtiefs exadly agreeable to the divine infti- tulion. It was God's Jojiiive command, not their faith in the GeV of Ifrael, that gave them a right. * Neither does the paffage he quotes, Exo. 12. 48. make any thing for his purpofe, feeing there is not a word faid concerning repentance or faith, but only a command for the fir anger fojourned among them to have his males circumcifed^before they were to be admitted to the paiTover. And let him (hew us God's command for baptizing infants, and we will no longer difpute their right. We § P. 23. t ibid. * P. 24. We come next to the commifiion, Matt. 28. ig. Go ye therefore and teach all nations baptizing thenr, &c. which he renders Go profelyte or difeiph all mtions baptizing them, &c. from whence hx concludes they arc to be made difciples by baptifm. Now Scripturill having afierted that either way it comes to the fame ; becaufe jefus firlt difciples and then baptized them, 'John 4. 1 ; and that it would be an odd jert of a dif- ciple that ihould be made without teaching, (dial. p. , 29.) This gentleman fuppofes he did not underftand the meaning of the word difeiple ; and having been a fchoolmafter, undertakes to give a definition of it. “ I thought every body knew that a difeiple is one who is put under the care of a mafier to be taught — every child fent to fchool is a difeiple of the mailer to whom he is fent.” — f “ The fchool-mafter tries how many fcholars he can get by folicitir.g parents to fend their children tahirn,— and calls them, his difciples the very hour they are brought into his fchool, though they do not know a letter in a book.” I would be glad to know of this ingenious gentleman, when he was a tutor, how many of thefe jcung difciples of eight da>s, a month, or fix months old, be had in his Ichool ? Had a woman brought her infant in her arms, and addrelTed him thu-s, “ fir, ] underftand you have opened a fchool for the inftruftion of children ; and as I am defirous to have my child taught and inftrufted,. pleafe to take it as a difeiple of yoursd’’ Meihinks, on that fuppo.ficion, I fee him ftruck with amazement, and at a lofs to determine whether the woman is compos men- tis or whether fhe defigns to mock him ! doubtiefs, he would have been aftiamed to receive fuch a difeiple into his fchool for the purpofe of teaching it. Yet he is for crewdiugyari into the church of Chrift, to be taught the fublime myfieries of the gojpel, as he would be afhamed to receive into a fchool to teach xht alphabet. The original word matheteufate, according to Dr. Whitbey * and other learned men, fignifies to make proje- lytes t P. * Matheteueien hi ere. is to preach the gofple to ' all iytes by teaching, and therefore is fomething dillinct from baptifm, and ought by no nreans to be confounded therewith. That infants neither are, nor can be Chrifi's difdples or fcholars, is evident from the difcriminating charac- ters he himfelf gives of them. If ye continue in my nuord then. are ye my di/ciples indeed, John 8. 31. Whofo- ever doth not bear bis crofs and come after me, cannot be my diftiple, Luke 14. 27. Whofoever he be of you that forjaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my difciple, V. 31. They alfo love one another, John 13. 3J* And bear much fruit, chap. 15. 8. The true meaning of the commillion appears thefe- fore upon the very face of it. Go teach or difciple stW na- tions, baptizing them, &c. teaching them to obferve all things, &c. from which it is evident, tho(e whom they were to baptize, were to be fuch as were capable of being taught both before and after baptifm ; which is fo far from being a vain tautology or fenfelefs repetition, as this author afferts, * (a fine complement to our learn- ed tranflators ! ) that it fecures both the truth and fenfe at the fame time. . But to underftand it according to this author, that they were to ire made difciples by baptifm, is to make the Holy Ghoft chargeable with a vain tautology indeed ; for then it mull mean. Go bap~ tiz.e all nations, baptizing them, ifc. What pretty JenJe is this ? We all “ nations, and to engage them to believe it. in order to “ profeffion of that faith by baptifm ; as ferns ap- '^parent ( I. ) from the parallel commiffion, Mark 16. 15. “ Go preach the gofpel to every creature ; he that be- “ lieveth and is baptized (hall be faved. ( z. ) From “ the feripture notion of a difciple, that being Jlill the fame as a dejtre any one to tell me how the “ apojiles could MhTmTZVEiit, make a difciple of an “ Heathen, or unbelieving without being Mathetai “ or teachers o/" them, or whether theywerenot fent to preach to “ them that could hear, fffc.”-.- Whitby’s note on Matt. 28. i9 * P. 26. , ' ( 46 ) We fee then how little this text couhtenantes infant baptifm : efpecially when we confider that the com- mand to teacher make difciples is equally exten five with the command to baptize them, and refpedls the very fame perfons. All nations are to taught previoufly to their' being baptized, and ,if he has the art of teaching the infants in them, he flrall have the honour of baptizing them ; and as foon as he opens his fchool, I will per- fwade all the Baptifts to fend their infants to him that they may be taught and baptized. - .But we are told, J that the apoftlss “ commiflion* led them out among the lieathens who never heard of Chfift — ^therefore it was ncceifary they lliould be taught,”' &c. But did it not firft lead them among the Je-us who were not Heathens ? and did they not re- quire the fame Qualifications from both Jews and Gen- tiles i or was there the leaf!: difference made between any ? When John preached in the wildernefs of Judea, he rejefted all from his baptifm who did not profefa faith in the Mefliah, and bring forth fruits meet for re- pentance, Mat. 3. When 'the apoltles baptized 3000 in Jerufalem, they only received and baptized thofe who had ghdly- recei fcurity • P, 4. f ibid. . ( ) fturity and little credit. 1 never heard of any perfoii' named Sanders, who publiihed his travels, and • perhaps he only had heard of one Sandy's, and miflook the name for Sanders from the fimilarity of found. And it is but charity to him to fuppofe he has only heard of Charles Thompfon. I have now before me the travels of the late Charles Thompfon, efq; and as I fuppofe he is the gen- tleman this author means, it is but juftice to him to quote the paflage from his travels, however hard it may bear upon the credit of this author, for mifreprefenting him, to fay no worfe, as he has done. “ We came — fays Mr. Thompfon, to the fountain, “ where they tell «r-that Philip baptized the Ethiopian ‘'Eunuch-, bat tvjo reaCons induce me to believe, that “ this is not the place. Firft, the road is very deep and “craggy, andi fcarce pajjable for a man on horfeback ; “ and appears to be much lefs fofor a chariottfazb as the “ Eunuch rode in, or any wheel-carriage whatfoever. “ Secondly, the fpring is very fhallow and inconfidera- “ ble, fcarce affording water enough to reach ones an- “ cles ; and therefore cannot reajonahly be fuppofed to be “ the place where Philip and the Eunuch went both into “ the vjater, according to the fcripture account of the “ matter; unlefs we may conjefture that the bapti/m in “ quejiion was performed in a bafon or refervoir at fome “ diftance below this fountain, where the little rill that “ flows from it is at prefent received.” Vol. 3d. p. 312; But let us attend to what the fcriptures fay.— they went down both into the water. But fays this author “They went down out of the chariot, and they might (land in the water.” I fuppofe by this he means to infinuate, that they might go down and Hand in the water for the conveniency of getting water to pour or fprinkle upon the Eunuch. But fays Dr. Doddridge, “ It would be “ very unnatural to fuppofe, that they went down fo “ the water merely that Philip might take up a little wa- “ ter in his hand to pour on the Eunuch ; a perfon of his “ dignity had, no doubt, many vejfels in his baggage, on “ fuch a journey thro’ fo defert a country ; a precaution “ abfolutely neceffary for travellers in thofe parts, and never never omitted by them.” — Doddrige’s note oa Afts. ! j 8. 38. , ^ But what was done is plainly told us, Ads 8. 38. w 39. And they ’went donun both (not only’out of the chariot but) into the ’water. And ’when they ’were come up out of j' the ’water, If they had not gone down into it, it ■ could not have been faid that they came up out of it. | And Philip baptized or dipped him ; not rantized or j fpiinkled him. — This was Calvin’s opinion, who on 1 the text fays, hie perfpecimus, &cc:. Here we fee, what i was the manner of baptizing with the ancients, for ? they plunged the whole body into water.”' And that i the original Greek word baptize, to hdipxizc, lignifies to dip, plunge, or overwhelm, is the opinion of eve- ry Greek Lexicographer of note ; and not only thefe, but commentators, and the greateft criticks in the ori^ ginal languages, always render the word baptizo, be- ing a Greek word--- in its firH and primary fenfe, by merge immergo, to dip, or plunge into, and never by perfundo or afpergo, to pour or fprinkle. And this acknowledgement has been repeatedly made by the Pe- dobaptilts themfelves ; and altho’ they practife the contrary, yet fo clear is the tfuth that they freely own it. It is therefore as ^reat a folecifm in language to call fprinkling a mode of baptifm, as this author does, * as to call it a mode of bathing or wafhing the body in water.— Romans 6. 4. Buried ’with him by baptifm, looks with fuch an ill afpeft on his notion of Iprink- ling, that he labours to fet^fide its evidence. “ It is not, fays he, a literal but a metaphorical expreffion-— tlierefore nothing can be proved from it.” But if the metaphor is founded on an alluiion to a real fa£l then in nfe, to wit, the putting perfons under water in bap- tjfm, and raifing them out of it, as thofe who fprink- led infants generally confefs ; then it proves all we want proved, viz. what was the primiti’ve praiiice, yhich is what we wifh to conform to. But if the expreflion was taken literally, fays he. ( 6o ) it would make as much 6r more for fprinkling or pour- ing as for plunging : for, in burying, the body is not pluged through the fubftance of the earth, but the earth is fprinkled or poured upon it.” * Such piti- ful Huff fcarcely deferves notice. What perfon would conceive a body to be buried, if it had only a few grains of fand fprinkled on its face. And we know that it is an eafy matter to bury perfons in baptifmal water without having recourfe to fprinkling or pouring, A He fays f he is fatisfied that the apoftles fprinkled thofe whom they baptized—-becaufe the 3000 and 5000 mentioned in Afts muji ha’vc ieen fprinkled. Why mull they } “ Good reafons have been aligned for their be- ing fprinkled, 'by many writers, but I would only add this, (which I fuppofe is the bell thefe wri- ters have furnilhed him with) Mr. Fuller tells us, there were no watermills atjerufalem, becaufe there was no Hream large enough to drive them. They had none but the gentle waters of Siloam ; fo that the nature of the place as well as the number of the baptized, ren- ders it plain enough that they were fprinkled.” 1 can- not reply to this better than in the words of the author of the plain account of the ordinance of baptifm, p. 29, “ We who are fo little uled to walking the whole bo- “ dy, either in a common or religious way, are apt to wonder, where, and how, fuch prodigious numbers, “ as are mentioned in the New Tellament to be bap- “ tized, could be accommodated if they were immerged in water. But it needs only to be confidered, the “ principal feene of baptifm lay in a country where “ immerjton was quite familiar, and muft, by the very “ laws of their religion, come into daily ufe through “ all parts of the land ; and then the wonder willceale. “ For, as bilhop Patrick obferves, “ There are fo “ many walkings preferibed [in the law of Mofes] “ that it is reafonable to believe, there were not only “ at 'Jerufalem, and in all other|f//;>r, but in every of the two facraments of the Old Tef- tament. However, enough (I will not fay truth) his dropped from his pen, to fhew that he did not look upon baptifm to fucceed in the room of circumcifion, as ac- cording to him it maO. fu'ceed \a the place of projylitt baptifm among the Jevvs,f and the baptifm of the chil- dren unto Mofes in the cloud and in the fea || We are § told that the ancient Waldenfes, Albigen- fes and Petrabrulians, held with infant baptifm, and were Epifcopalians ; and that he has lately read the hif- tory of them, and can’t find any fuch error among them as that of denying infant baptifm. No wonder he fhould fee nothing of this in a martyrology, written by a Pedo- baptif, and abridged by Mr. Wefey ; but if he had read their own confefiions or faith, he might have found it very readily, and that they only baptized upon profef- ^on of faith. This Dr. Gill has demonftrated, from their own and others writings, in his anfwer to the di- vine right of infant baptifm, p. 38. Speaking of the Waldenfes, he fays, “ By their ancient confeffions of faith and writings, which have been publifhed, in “ oneofthefe, bearing date A. D. 1120, the 12th and 13th articles run thus.* We do believe that the facra- ments are figns of the holy thing, or vifible forms “ of the invifible grace ; accounting it good that the faithful fometimes ufe thefaid figns, or vifible forms, if it may be done. However, we believe and hold, “ that the above idiid faithful may be faved without re- “ ceivingthe figns aforefaid, in cafe they have no place, “ or any means to ufe them.” And in another ancient confeffion of faith without a date, the 7th article runs thus. t P. 27. {| P. at. § P. 47, 48. * Morland’s his. &c. b. 1. chap. 4. p. 34 thus. “ We believe that in the facrament of baptifm, “ water is the vifible and external fign, which repre- “ fents unto us that which' (by the iavilible virtue of “ God operating) is within us ; natnely, the renova* “ tion of the fpirit, and the mortification ofsur raem- bers in Jefas Chrifl: ; by which alfo we are received “ into the holy congregation of the people of God, “ there protefting and declaring openly our faith and “ amendment of life.” From hence it is plain, that thefe people were for admi- niftering baptifm to none but thefaithful \ and that none were received into the congregation of the people of God till they profelTed faith and amendment of Life, &c.— Befides thefe, a number of other'paffages are quoted by the doftor to confirm, the fame truth, which would be too tedious to tranferibe. He fe'ems to be very unwilling to allow tliat the Bap- tift miniftry was ever blell of God, either at or Itnce the reformation ; and in order to weaken the caufe of believers baptifm, he endeavous to hold os up in as contemptable a light as he can, hnd makes ule of every mean artifice to fupply the place of feripture and argu- ment. The Baptills, he fays,f hung as a dead weight upon the Ikirts of the reformation, — and that there is no clear account of our left till about 235 years ago.— And afics if the reformation from Popery was brought ,, about by the Anabaptills, &c ? — But let me alk him if the reformation was brought about by Methodifts or Arminians ? Not at all. — Men who held with the doc- trines of free and efiicacious grace were raifed up for that purpofe. He ought to have confidered, before he mentioned the reformation, how far he has di/Tented from it ; and how great enemies he and his people are to the doftrines which God bleft to effedt this glorious event ; for it is evident to all who are acquaint- ed with the principles of the reformers, that they op- pofed and ftrove to reform the world as much from the principles of the Methodifts as any thing <- hatever : So that inftead of joining in with and carrying on the reformation t P. 48. I f - ( 66 ) reformation as it was begun, they have turned about and are ftriving to dragg their hearers back into the fame Popifh tenets and doftrines which the Worthy ^ Reformers bore a faithful tcftimony againft. And fuppoling the Baptift church was but 235 years of age, that is a great deal older than the feft of the Methodills IS ; lo,that if there is any honour due to old age we are intitled to it.-r-But we are able to prove that there were many brave champions for the truth long before the time he refers to, who held with and praftifed believers baptifm. However, the feriptures are fufficient to de- termine our judgment and pradtice in this matter ; by which I would have every lover of the truth to abide. He fays, f “ Many pious people believe the Bap- tifts to hang as a dead weight on the Ikirts of trtje re- ligion at the prelent day — they have met with too great fuccefs — and have beguiled numbers”— but how does this comport with his continuing a mere mo- rality-preacher, till brother Harris went into his parifli and let him an example of preaching evangelical doc- trine; or with the account he gives of a Stir of religi- on about 3^ miles out of his parilh, in a letter to the fociety for promoting chriftian knowledge, in which, though the Baptifts were the inftruments, he feemswell enough inclined to have gone olF with the honour of it himfelf. Another thing which this author cannot well digefl: is, that thofe preachers who oppofe infant fprinkling have not read their Bible through fince they left fchool.” J Surely this author forgot that he has made his appearance under the charadler of a Methodift, or elfe he n^er would have given that hint, for fear of giving occalion for the application of the old proverb, Phyfeian heal thyjelf. When the Methodills begin to run mad, in confequence of having too much learning, then, and not till then, need the Baptifts qaake for fear.--- However, we have read it enough to know that infant baptifm is not there, nor can this author prove it from thence. Nitherhas he anfwered the objedtions, or ‘5 t p. 48. : p. 48- ( ) . . or confuted the arguments of Scripturift againfl: infant, and for believers baptifm ; but in numbers of places mifquoted and mifreprefented them. And now, chriilian reader, 1 hope you will im- partially weigh what I have written in defence of the baptifm of believers by immerfion. Say not that it is an indifferent thing. Whatever may be faid of lome opi- nionSf merely Jpeculatiw, yet furely no gofpeUduty can properly be fo termed. Will you "call Chrift Lord! Lord! and ijot do the things which he fays ? Will you call yourfelf his difciple, and not do nuhatjoever he com- mands you ? Will you profefs to be his follo’wer, and not nuM in his Heps i Would you enjoy a comfortable Jenfe of the divine prefence ? feek it in the way of uni- nserfal obedience. Take Chriffs yoke upon you and learn of him, for he is meek and lowley, and you fhall find refi unto your foul. Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lard Jefus, that great Shepherd of the Iheep, through the blood of the everlalling covenant, make you perfedt in every good work to do his will ; Work- ing in you that which is well pleafing in his fight, through Jefus Chrift ; to whom be glory for ever and ever, amen. FINIS. .. H .s '*' ■» S' <1 j’ 3 i ;■ . r :'-' . - ♦ -s' 3 , , . M ••• s . ‘ :r 3 y \ » j» ' .' > 'I# .ffc' ’ffisi) > * ■*#’ *' -j'r j.; f ( I f "^in riT; ill ,'^'* • t^':< .y J'j-,4^ w ■ ,' .>.3n^(;)« .a