ytia^ 
 
 r^^i 
 
 
 Ck i^. 
 
7; 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ■a 
 CL 
 
 
 *^r 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 . -»w 
 
 (0 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 .? 
 
 Q. 
 
 1 
 
 ^4 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 1 
 
 *■*• 
 
 IE 
 
 ■ 
 
 i- h) 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 "^ 
 
 
 
 M- 
 
 
 'crj a 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 5 
 
 1 
 
 e; 
 
 (D 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^' 
 
 IZi 
 
 £ 
 
 .t^ 
 
 <6> M 
 
 I'j 
 
 
 ^ rt 
 
 (/> 
 
 1- 
 
 
 S 
 
 <3 
 
 Ol 
 
 >> 
 
 S 
 ^ 
 
 
 -0 
 
 Q) 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 >« 
 
 <u 
 
 
 e-^ 
 
 
 
 
 g 
 
 ^ 
 
 qI 
 
 
 \ ! 
 
 sees. 
 
 u v^ 
 
 II N?I Antigua Street I 
 ' J3ni.Mii '" 
 
 'If? 
 


 f %*■-* 
 
 
 ^^s .^^>'K *<*»^ 
 
 
 
/^Iz/ l^crCc€aan/£^ 
 
 n77- ^/^- Sq 
 
A N 
 
 HUMBLE ESSAY 
 
 ON 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 WITH 
 
 TWO LETTERS 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Rev. STEPHEN ADDINGTON, 
 
 CONCERNING THE 
 
 SUBJECTS AND MODE 
 O F 
 
 BAPTISM. 
 
 By D A N ' T A Y L O R. 
 
 *' j4s ive muft take beed that nve do not add the Fancies 
 »fMen to our ai'vine Religion f/o aue Jhould take equal Cart 
 that ave do not curtail the J^ppointments o/'Christ." 
 
 Dr. Watts' J Humhle Attempt, Page 62. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed by J W. P a s h a M, Black-Fiiars; And Sold by 
 G. Keith. Cracechjrch Sret; E. and C. Dillv, Pcultrj t 
 T, VAI.i.A^Cf4 ChcipfiJ';; and J. Matkivvs, Scrand. 
 
 tt'CCC.LSXVil, 
 
 fU 
 
A Nf 
 
 HUMBLK ESSAXv 
 
 ON > -^ 
 
 CHRISTIAN EAP:JI8^^1: 
 
 ••~r,r;--:3> 
 
 OFFERED TO THE 
 
 CONSIDERATION OF UPRIGHT INQUIRERS, 
 
 Concerning the Subjefts, and proper Manner of 
 ADMINISTERING, THIS ORDINANCE. 
 
 By DAN TAYLOR. 
 
 The SECOND EDITION, Correaed. 
 
 If the Truth is at any 'time Jhaken or uncertain, it behoves the 
 Priijis cf God, ivho nvouU obfewe the dl-jine Commands^ 
 to look back to the di'vine evangelic Origin, and apoJloUc 
 Tradition. 
 
 Cypr. Epift. «</ Pomp. co«/rrt Steph. pag. 195, 
 
 To teach all Nations nvhat of him they learn" d 
 And his Salyaimi : them luho Jhall belit've 
 
 Baptizing in the [r of uent Stream 
 
 Milt. B. xii. L, 44.0. 
 
 L O N D O 2>I: 
 
 Printed by J. W. Pasham, Black-Friars; 
 And fold by G. Keith, Gracechurch Street ; E. and 
 C. DiLLY, Poultry; T. Vallance, Chespfide; 
 and J. Matthews, Strand. 
 
 MDCCLXXVII* 
 

 ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 T O T H E *^t^] '^' 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 THIS trad: was written and pub- 
 lifhed nine years ago; and the 
 firft impreffion of it was fold off foon 
 after it's publication, fo that there has not 
 been one copy unfold, that I know of, 
 for many years ; though there have been 
 many demands for it. My fettled reluc- 
 tance to meddle in controveriy, and my 
 various other concerns have hitherto pre- 
 vailed with me not to revife it for a fe- 
 cond edition. But the late agitation of 
 the fubjed:, with the advice of friends, 
 have prevailed with me to fuifer it, a 
 fecond time, to fee light. I trufi: it is 
 not dictated by malevolence and bitter- 
 nefs of fpirit. Thefe can do no good, 
 but much harm. I have ventured to 
 fubjoin my name to this fecond edition. 
 I am afluredly perfuaded that the doc- 
 A 2 trine 
 
( iv ) 
 
 trine of believers baptifm Is founded in 
 the word of eternal truth, and that it is 
 a matter g^ no fmall importance. Yet, 
 I hope, if any one fhould think it worth 
 his while to animadvert on this fmall 
 trad with meeknefs of fpirit, 1 fhall be 
 willing to attend to what he advances, 
 and to retradt whatever he fhall difprove. I 
 pray God that truth and peace may reign 
 more and more, and that every tradition of 
 men, may be banifhed from the chriflian 
 world! The Stri<5lures on Mr. Addins:- 
 ton's Sum?nary are thought to b^:; a pro- 
 per Supplement, as the reader will be 
 able to refer to this tradl with eafe, and 
 at no great expence ; and it is fuppofed, 
 \vill here find a fufF> icnt anfwer to the 
 objections he offers againfl the practice 
 herein vindicated. Should any one 
 chufe to confider it more largely, I wiih 
 the bleihng of God may accompany his 
 labors. 
 
 Hirst, Wadsvvorth, 
 June 24, 1777. 
 
 D. T, 
 
^^•■.■^■♦ q^-r" ■,:-'.'■■'■■:,' . ' ■ ' , ^ ^^ 
 
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 CTHS defign of this Effiy is meniiened in the bt^giri" 
 •^ nivg of it, and hinted at in the title-page ; to 
 tuhich the reader is intreated to attend. It is very /a- 
 mentable indeed, thai the church of Chrift hath fa long 
 heen diflrefjed and torn by angry quarrels and contenti- 
 ons ; and the author foould he very for ry to do any thing 
 by which thefe are likely to be increafed or continued. Yet 
 if providence calls him (which he juppojes to be the cafe 
 at prejent,) to defend any f rt of what, he thinks is gof- 
 pel truth or duty, he is perfuaded the chara£ier he 
 bears, and obligations he is under to the hUfjid Redeemer, 
 and to precious fouls, demand it of him. He is very 
 ce\ *ain this is bajl done., not by irritating the pajfions^ 
 It ■ convincing the judgments of thofe who are other wife 
 Thinded. He has therefore been fiudious to avoid the 
 former, how deficient foever he tnay have been in the lat- 
 ter J and hopes none will find any juji caufe of offence 
 in the following pages. The chief requcjl he would 
 make to the reader is, that he would impartially exO" 
 mine the fcriptures with regard to the ordinance of 
 baptifm, and regard this pamphlet, as far as will be 
 found confijlent vjith them; but no farther . He hat 
 kng thought, andjlill thinks, that would every one, ac- 
 cording to Lis ability, a£i thus, and not take things from 
 others without examination, it would greatly tend to the 
 promotion both of truth and peace* And 1 what 
 A 3 would 
 
( vi ) 
 
 would we not give, •what would ive not fufFer, to prO' 
 mote thefe ? He knows the doSirim and pradice of be- 
 'Iievers baptifm h contrary to the carnal mind ; yet 
 ihisy he imagines, is no ■pi' oof oj its being unfcriptural i 
 hut rather the contrary. For the carnal mind is not 
 fubje(S to the law of God, nor indeed can be. He 
 remembers a time when he was very willing to embrace 
 this ordinance j hut he is very confcious, that it was 
 not hecaufe he could not find it recommended in the hihle^ 
 hut becaufe it tvas contrary to the difpofition of all ihofe^ 
 except one, among whom he laboured., as well as mojl of 
 thofe with whom he then was, or ever had been, ac 
 quainted. He would therefore gladly have found argw 
 ments againji it, Jirong enough to overturn it* With 
 this view, he read fever al authors on the contrary fide. 
 But he afks leave to fay^ that he met with nothing in 
 them, towards, xvhat he^ could call fcripture-prcof of 
 the validity of infant-baptifm : all he met with was 
 mortifying difappointment. Being confcious he had to do 
 with a heart-fearching God, he was determined to a£l 
 uprightly. He therefore procured the reading of a 
 pamphlet or two written in vindication of believers 
 baptifm, which much confirmed him in the fenfe he had 
 hefore put on the fcriptures in reading them. Though 
 contrary to his friends, therefore, he ventured to Jiand 
 up as an advocate for it. His reafons for fo doings 
 may he learnt, from the following pages, which he re" 
 commends to the candid, and prays that a divine blejjing 
 may attend them, while he fubfcribes himfelf a lover of 
 truth and peace, and, to the utmofi of his power, afer-. 
 vant of all who love our Lord Jefus Chrift in fin- 
 cerity. 
 
 Jan, 21, 1768. AN 
 

 
 AN %,<6;%^^ 
 
 H U M B L E E S S A Y; '^^ 
 
 THOUGH it appears fo very clear 
 that the baptifm of believers is re- 
 commended in fcripture, both by- 
 precept and precedent, yet many, who, as 
 appears by this their conduct, do not fuffi- 
 cienrly regard that facred book, deride thofe 
 who praiftife it. Hereby fome fincereChriftians 
 who would follow the lamb whitherfoever he 
 goeth^ are often confufed in their ideas, and 
 diftrelTed in their minds, if not mifguided in 
 their pradlice. It may be allowed, that very 
 much cannot well be laid, more than has be- 
 fore been faid on this fubjeft ; yet it is lioped, 
 that could a few thoughts, in eafy and fami- 
 liar language, fuited to the capacities of com- 
 mon readers, be once more offered to view, it 
 might, under the blefiing of God, have a 
 happy tendency to difcover the error of thofe 
 vain perfons, who, alas ! delight in reproach- 
 ing what they know little of ; to fatisfy fome 
 inquiringfouls,and eftablifh fome weak minds, 
 with regard to this ordinance. With this 
 view the following remarks are humbly, and 
 in the fpirit of meeknefs, fubmitted to con- 
 fideration. 
 
 A 4 I. As 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 I. As baptifm is an ordinance of To great 
 importance, and fo univerfally allowed to be 
 enjoined us in the oracles of truth, it muft be 
 the indjfpenfible duty of both minifters and 
 people, impariiallyto examine what is meant 
 by it, and to whom it ought to be adminiller- 
 fd. — Of minifters, left they be found guilty of 
 changing the ordinance of God,* and of teach- 
 ing j'cr do^rines of God^ the commandments of 
 ;>?(?/7.'f and of the people, left x.]\(i'w fear to- 
 ivards God^ he taught 7nerely by maris precept. § 
 
 II. The fcriptures are ^perfe£l'\, rule, and 
 they are our only \\ rule of judgment concern- 
 ing truth and falfnood, right and wrong, in 
 all matters of religion, whether refpediing 
 faith or pradice. We may not be allowed, 
 under any pretence whatever, to follow any 
 raan, or ir.eii, in the world, farther than they 
 derive from, and fomid upon, thefe, fo far 
 as we can judge, all they teach to others, and 
 obferve themfelves. 
 
 III. We learn from this blefted book, that 
 there is but one haptifn ** belonging to the 
 church of Chrift. Now this one baptifm., is 
 either dipping or fprinkling, or fome kind of 
 aift that includes both thefe. That dipping 
 and fprinkling are two diftin(ft and different 
 a<fls, is indifpurable ; and how thefe two dif- 
 ferent acts, can be but one haptifm., I cannot 
 yet difcover. Now if they cannot, there are 
 
 * Ifal. xxlv. 5. f Mark vii. 7, 
 
 § Ifai. xxix. 13. X 2 Tim. iii. 15., 16, 17, 
 
 II Ifai. viii. 20. ** Ephef. iv. 5. 
 
 either 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 either two baptifms, or one of thefe is no 
 baptifm. That there are not two baptifms is 
 evident : that immerfion is proper baptilm I 
 believe none will deny : but if fo, the con- 
 fequence nnift be, that fprinkling is no bap- 
 tifm. Should it be faid, as it fometimes has 
 been, that to baptize fignifies to walh, in ge- 
 neral, (which feems quite deftitute of proof) 
 it muft be replied, that fprinkling is not wafli- 
 ing. I fuppofe no man of Judgment and 
 candor, will fay the word |3a7rTj(^w properly 
 means to fprinkle-, and if not, fprinkling 
 cannot be baptifm.* It is poflible this may 
 be clearer by adding, 
 
 IV. Whatever is not implied ir» the 
 import of the word our hord made ufe of, 
 when he gave the commifTion to baptize j and 
 whatever did not attend the obfervance of 
 that commiffion, among the difciples, cannot 
 now belong to the adminiftration of that or- 
 dinance. On the other hand, whatever is 
 the prccife import of the word our Lord ufed, 
 and whatever was the pradice of the apcjiks^ 
 in obedience to our Lord's commiffion, this, 
 and no other, can be the proper way of ad- 
 
 * It may be proper here to obferve, tbat Magnus evi- 
 dently fats wafliing in oppofition to perfufion, which is 
 nearer to wafhing than fprinkling is; when, writing to 
 Cyprian, he afks whether thcfe who {non loii Jtiit, fed 
 
 ■ ferfufi) had not been wafhed, but had water pouied upon 
 
 ■ them, might be efteemed lawful chriltians. Jjpud^ ^yp'"' 
 Epiji. 76. pag. 211. And I own, I have often wonder- 
 ed how any can fay that baptifm is walhing, and yet pre- 
 tend that they baptize, when they only ufe afperfion. 
 
 A 5 minifleriiig 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 miniftering the ordinance. None of us can 
 deny this, who allow that our Lord ufed fuch 
 words as were fuited to convey to us a full 
 and exa6l idea of his meaning, and that the 
 apojlles afted in Ibidt obedience to them. 
 
 V. It clearly appears, both from the fenfe 
 in which the facred penmen ufe the fame 
 •word, from the conftant pra6tice of John and 
 of the apcjiles^ and from fome other circum- 
 ftances, that the ordinance of baptifm never 
 was, nor can be properly adminiftered any 
 other way than by immerfion. The fenfe of 
 the word (3«7rTi^w, which is rendered to baptizCy 
 proves this. 1 am pcriuaded there is no paf* 
 fage in the facred oracles, in which it can fairly 
 be interpreted, as fignifying tOj^mH^, nor 
 to wafh any other way than by dipping. The 
 feventy ufe it twice -* once in a literal fenfe, 
 
 as 
 
 • BaTrli^iw is only ufed twice by the feventy ; but /5a7rla>, 
 of which ^aTrlt^wis known to be a derivative, many times, 
 And tho' I think them nearly fynonimous, yet becaufe 
 fome feem unwilling to allow it, and for the fake of 
 brevity, I pafs them by. Yet I believe every place 
 where the v/ord is found, if duly examined, would tend 
 to prove the validity oi immerjiun. The reader may con- 
 fult the following paffages, where fome branch of tho . 
 word is found. Ex.yM. 22. Z^-z;. iv. 16, 17. ix. 9, 
 xiv. 6, 16, 51. Numb.xix. 18. Deut. xxxiii. 24. Jojh, 
 iii. 15. Ruth- ii. 14. 1 Sam.'xiv. 27. 2 Kin.vm. 15. 
 ^o^ix. 31. P/^/. Ixviii. 23. jE'ss;-^. xxiii. 15. Dan.'w. 
 33. v, 21. In all thefe places, except three, (viz. P/1 
 Ixviii. 23. Dan. iv. 33. v. 21.) we have the word hl\2f 
 in the Hebrew. And in thefe three, we have the rtrong 
 and expreffive word, ^n», percujjit, intinxit, imnifrjit ; and 
 the Chaldse word, r^V intinxitt immsrfUy &c. wliich, whea 
 
 compared 
 
( II ) 
 
 as 2 Kin. v. 14. and once in a metaphorical ; 
 Sislfa. xxi. 4. The former is tranflated dip j 
 which is the known and conftant fenfe of the 
 hebrew word there ufed, and needs no com- 
 ment.* The latter place is by our tranflators, 
 according to the hebrew, rendered fearfulnefs 
 flffrighted me. The feventy^ in order, as it 
 feems to exprefs the deep calamity about to 
 come upon Babylon for her finjufmg the ftrong 
 word, which, in the new Teftament denotes 
 Chriftian baptifm, read it iniqiiity overwhelms^ 
 ox Jinks, or plunges -{- me, i. e. into deep for- 
 row or diftrefs. How ftrongly this proves 
 that the word. properly means to dip or to 
 immerfe^ I think any one may fee, who un- 
 derftands what we mean by faying a perfon 
 is overwhelmed with fear, or funk in forrow : 
 efpecially if he remembers that our bielfed 
 .Redeer,ier*s prodigious fufferings are expreffed 
 by the word here ufed by the feveniy. I know 
 not whether it can be of any ufe even to the 
 msji ignorant reader, to cite the places in the 
 new Tefiament where the ordinance of baptifm 
 is meationed, and this fame v/ord ufed. If 
 it will, he may confuit the following. Mat. 
 iii. 6, II, 13, 14, 16. xxviii. 19. Mark i. 
 
 compared with 2 Kin. v. 14. is, I think, a very confider- 
 able proof, lirfl-, that ButiIu and (icciP.it,u are pretty near 
 fynonymous. 2dly, Thac the proper ien^e. of paiPntu is 
 to dip. We have the word ^xii^.u vn. tiie new Teltament, 
 ix\ Luke xvi. 24. John xiii. 26 Rev. xiyi. 13. From 
 which places, we may learn its proper fenfe, if we had lio 
 other means of knowing- ir. 
 
 7ltD, intinxit, demerjit^ immerjit. Bu?:tof/, in voce. 
 
 4> 5-> ^3 9* 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 4, 5»8,9. xv:. 16. Luke'iu. 7, 12, 21. vii, 
 29, 30. 7-'-''' ^^^" 22, 23, iv. i. 2. X. 40. 
 yi^iJ?j i. 5. ii. 38, 41. viii. 12, 13, 16, 36, 3S. 
 ix. iS. X. 47, 48. xi. 16. xvi. 15, 2'^. xviii. 
 8. xix. 3,4, 5. xxii. 16. Kcm.s'i. 3. i Or. 
 i. 13, 14, 15, 16. 6^j/. iii. 27. One would 
 rhink en impartial reader, when he meets with 
 thele paff.iges, and finds the fame v.*ord here 
 Vifed, which in the old T'eftcjiunt is tranfiated 
 dip^ muft think it, at leaft, very probable, 
 that this is the meaning of the word here too. 
 x\nd as this conclufion is quite natural in it- 
 felf, fo, I doubt not, it will be abundantly 
 confirmed by a candid and impartial exami- 
 nation of ever,- pafTage in the new Teftament, 
 where this word occurs*. 
 
 VI. In feme places the fime word is 
 i:fed in reference to Jevrilh cuftoms ; by at- 
 tending to which, v/e may be afTiiled in judg- 
 ing of the import of the word, and the pro- 
 per manner of aiminiitering the ordinance. 
 They areM^r. vii. 4. Luke xi. 58. Hel. ix. \o. 
 \u the firft of thefe, the claufe exaft thcyivajb 
 — in the Greek is, except they baptize-, upon 
 which claufe, a very judicious and juftly ce- 
 lebrated critic remarks -7, that " ,3it3-7.^£o^ai 
 
 • That prophane wriiers conrtaridy ufed the word 
 ^i-rl.^y in this fenfe, fee Dr. Calebs Refiedions on Dr. 
 jrr.lPs HiiloT)- of Infant Bapaim. Letter 3d. I cculd 
 wim that learned gentleman had wTitten that valuable 
 beck with a iirtle more modefh. 
 
 f Bizn in loc, and compare his note on MaUtb. iii. 1 1 . 
 Ani lee alfo to the fame purpofe, the no:es cf the learned 
 Tjr. Ha^mind^ aid Jiuiiuit and Erajhui'% Puraphrafe in loc. 
 
 " here. 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 *' here, is more than ;);^£j3i/i7rT£<j'; for the former 
 " fceJis to refpedt the whole body, the latter 
 *' only the hands. Nor does |3aTT»(^f»v fignify 
 " to wafli, except by confequence, for it pro- 
 *' perly lignifies to immerfe,* &c. Which re- 
 mark may, 1 think, be confirmed, and it will 
 appear that the wafhing here mentioned, was 
 certainly dipping, by obferving, i. That the 
 Greek word is very different from viTrfoiJocif 
 nfed ver. 3, to fignify walhing the hands. 2. 
 That it is plain from the books oi Leviticus 
 and Numbers^ that the Jews did adually dip 
 or bathe themfelves in water, when ceremoni- 
 ally unclean ; and even by divine appoint- 
 inent. Now they fuppofed, or pretended 
 themfelves thus unclean, when they had been 
 at the market or court. 3. As this was one of 
 their fuperftitions, it is very unreafonable to 
 fuppofe that the fuperftition which excited 
 "them to it, would not alfo lead them to do rt 
 in the common manner, authorifed by their 
 law. 4. In the fame verfe mention is made of 
 the zvp.Jhings (in the Greeks hc^ptffms) of cups ^ 
 brazen vcjl'ls, and tables^ or couches. Now it 
 is exprefsly commanded, that when any vef- 
 fel, &:c. is unclean, it fhall be put into the 
 water. Lev. xi. 32. The fe^-enty read it — 
 JJja II be DIPPED in the ivater^ and Mr. Ainf- 
 worth has clearly fhewn from Maimonides^ on 
 this text, that, " Wherefoever the law fpeaks 
 *' of wafhing a perlbn's fiefli, or cloaths, or 
 " any veffel for uncleannefs, it is done no 
 ^* Other way than by dipping." Other learned 
 
 men 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 men have (hewn evidently that the Jews ac- 
 tually immerfed themfelves in water, when 
 they had been at the market, and did in the 
 fame manner dip their veflels, when they 
 efteemed them unclean *. When thefe things 
 are impartially attended to, this text muft 
 appear an inconteftible proof, that the word 
 in queftion, in this place, properly fignifies to 
 dip. This will help us to underftand, Luke 
 xi. 38. where we are told the Pharifee mar- 
 'veiled that our Lord had not waJJjed (in the 
 Greek baptized) before dinner. And two of 
 the writers jull referred to -f, have Ihewn that 
 the more fupcrftitioui Jcws^ (of which fort 
 this Pharifee letms to be one) really dipped 
 their whole body in water, even before dinner j 
 and the other Jews dipped their hands, in or" 
 der to walh them ; which indeed is the com- 
 mon manner of wafhing the hands even to this 
 day. This text therefore, muft be an addi- 
 tional proof that the word |3x7r]*^w, fignifies 
 to dip', and confequently that baptifin cannot 
 be adminiftered by fprinkling. The third 
 text mentioned, is Heb. ix. 10. where the 
 apoftle fpeaks ct divers vjafJoings (in the Greek 
 baptifms or bathivgs) clearly poiiiting to the 
 various occafions on which the Jews ufed to 
 dip themieives, their velTels, &c. in v/ater, 
 mentioned above. Alfo the different perfons, 
 
 • See Ahifworth on Le'v. xi. ■52. xv. 5. Dr. G;7/'s 
 Reply to Mr. Clark, p. 71 — 73. and Dr. GaWi Reflec- 
 tions, p. 159 — 167. 
 
 f Dr. Gill and Dr. Gale^ ut fiqra, 
 
 as 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 as priejis^ levites, and common Ifraelites^ who, 
 on thefe occafions, purified themfelvesi of 
 which we read fo much in the Jewifh law, and 
 which the Jewiih writers affert to have been 
 pra6tifed by them*. 
 
 VII. In fome places the fame word is 
 iifed figuratively J but thefe may affift us in 
 examining its ienfe. As Matt, xx, 22, 23. 
 Luke xii. 50. Luke iii. 1 6. J^s i. 5. i Cor, 
 X. 2. 
 
 The two firfl of thefe texts fpeak of our 
 bleffed Lord's, fufferings, which he calls a bap- 
 tifm-, the reafon and force of which, will ap- 
 pear, by confidering how very great thefe 
 fufferings were, and how common it is to fay, 
 a perfon in great trouble, is plunged in for-, 
 row, or overwhelmed with diftrefs. And this 
 manner of fpeaking is quite agreeable to fcrip- 
 ture, compare Pfalm. Ixix. 2. Now thefe dif- 
 trelfes of our Lord are evidently called a bap- 
 tifm, becaufe, as a perfon, when baptized by 
 John and the apofiles^ was plunged into the 
 water, and conlequently overflowed with ir, 
 fo our Lord^2LS^ as it were, overwhelmed and 
 overflowed with, and plunged into, diftrelTes, 
 or forrows, for us poor finners. Any one muft 
 fee, that fprinkling a little water on the face» 
 can be no reprefentation at all, of fuch unpa- 
 
 • See many places in Lev. xv. xvi. xvii. xlx. &c. 
 Amj'vjotth on Le'v. xi. 32. xv. 5, 1 1. Dr. Light foot on. 
 the Temple, chap. 37. Tedl. i. %\x John Flayer's Hif- 
 tory of Cold Bathing, p. 4. Dr. Gill againll Mr. Clark, 
 and Dr. Whitby in loc. 
 
 raliekd 
 
( i6 ) 
 
 ralleled fiifferings. But if our Lord's words 
 be true, they are repreltnted by baptirm; and 
 it will therefore neceffarily follow, that fprink- 
 ling is not baptifm. 
 
 Liihm. 1 6. jIHs i 5. vv'here the baptifm 
 of the Holy Ghofb is mentioned, point to 
 that exceeding large eifufion of fpiritual giftd\ 
 mentioned yl^ts ii. 2 — 5, at which time, the 
 f acred hijiorian informs us, the fcund filled the 
 hoitfezvhere theywere Jilting \ coniequently they 
 were furrounded with it, and, as it vv-ere, ini- 
 meried in the midft of Jt, as a perfon, when 
 baptized, is furrour^ded with, and imm.erfed in 
 ^the water, a7id -were filled with the Holy Ghojl^ 
 ver. 4. Thefe ftrong expreiTions feem intirely 
 to loie their force and energy, when compared 
 with fprinkling\ but clearly retain it, when 
 compared to immerfion. The laft of thefe 
 •texts is, 1 Cor. x. 2. — baptized unto Mofes, 
 in the cloud and in the lea-, referring to the 
 fituation of the IJraelites mihc Red Sea., men- 
 tioned Exod. xiv. 19 — 23. where we are in- 
 formed that the waters were a wall to them on 
 both fides ; and it appears the cloud v/as over 
 them. But at the fame time, they went over 
 on dry ground -y and that part of the cloud 
 which was over them, was bright and gavi 
 light to them, while it was dark to the Egypti- 
 ans., V. 20. Thefe things {hew that there was 
 no water poured or fprinkled on them, either 
 from the cloud or fea. To which it may be 
 added, that, had this been the cafe, it could 
 not have been faid, with truth or propriety^ 
 
 (as 
 
( '7 ) 
 
 (as It Is here) that they were baptized /V, it 
 muft ratlier have been faid from^ or hy^ the 
 cloud and fea. Nor can it fairly be all<ed, 
 " Were they dipt in the cioud?" for anyone 
 can fee, they were as much dip as fprhikled in 
 the cloud ; and the text does not fimfly fay, 
 they were baptized in the cloud \ but in the 
 cloud, and in the fea ; becaufe, being be- 
 tween, and below, the walls of the fea, and 
 covered with the cloud, they were, as it were, 
 immerfed, or buried, in, or under, both-, and 
 fo reprefented a perfon who is, according to 
 the apcjlle\ language, buried with Chrijl in 
 baptifm *, alluding, as moft, if not all, com- 
 mentators of note, acknowledge, to the " an- 
 *^ cient manner of baptizing by immerfion." 
 And indeed fprinkling has no refemblance of 
 a burial. The words of the apoflle, there- 
 fore, compared with the palTage to which they 
 refer, are an additional proof, that the word 
 |3«7r7i<^w properly fignifies to dip or immerfc, 
 and confequently that baptifm is not properly 
 adminifterej:], but by immerfion. And this 
 truth is confirmed by the general concefTion 
 of commentators, I have juft now mentioned. 
 Surely the ancient way of baptizing, namely, 
 the way of our Lord and his apoftles, is the 
 
 * Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12. Sir John Fkyer fays, that 
 the French King\ baptifteries, built in the time of Clodo' 
 njcus, in all which they ufed immerfion, had fteps, by 
 which they defccnded as into a fepulchre ; becaufe, adds 
 he, it is faid we are buried with Chriil in bfifi'Jrn, Hift. 
 of Cold Baths, p. 55. 
 
 trn5 
 
( i8 ; 
 
 true way •, and why fhould we chufe, or at- 
 tempt to defend one different from it ? Allow- 
 ing that fprinkling is one method of baptizing, 
 (than which, I firmly believe, nothing is more 
 contrary to truth) yet furely the method that 
 was attended to by our bleffed and adorable 
 Majier^ which is, on all hands, allowed to be 
 immerfion, may be fufficient for us his un- 
 worthy fervants. And I cannot but fland 
 amazed, that every real lover of the dear i?^- 
 deemsr,({uppoik there were two methods) does 
 not long, yea, is not determined, to obferve that 
 which he knows his dear Saviour obferved be- 
 fore him. 
 
 VIII. The places where John and Philip 
 baptized, and their going into, and coming cut 
 of, the water, would prove, if it were difputed, 
 that they baptized by immerfton. The mul- 
 titudes were baptized in the river of Jordan *\ 
 and our Lord, in (or into) Jcrdc.yi -j-. John 
 baptized in Enon, for this very reafon, becaufe 
 there was much water there\. This furely 
 could not have been the reafon of John's bap- 
 tizing here, had fprinkling been baptifm, as 
 well as immerfionj fince any place, capable of 
 
 • Mark i- 5. 
 
 •J- Verfep. ek tov lof Jaf^Ji*. When the fe words are read, 
 one would wonder that any fhould think of taking advan- 
 tage at the ambiguity of the prepofuion 0.7:0. Ifjcfus 
 was baptized into Jordan, he muft needs come out of it. 
 
 X John iii. 23. That voxrx TroAAa denotes dihr^e quan- 
 i'tty of water, fee Dr. Doddridge in loc. That John dip- 
 fed tht perfons in it, is allowed and afferted both by P//- 
 <atcr and Dr. Whitby in loc, 
 
 being 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 being inhabited, will afford water fufficient for 
 fprinkling vaft numbers. It mufl: therefore 
 intimate, not only that John dipped thefe per- 
 fons, but that no other method would anfwer 
 his end : confequently that fprinkling is not 
 proper baptifm. Philip alfo baptized the Eu- 
 nuchf in a certain water, into which they Jirji 
 both went down, both Philip and the Eunuch. 
 A fufficient proof that the Eunuch was baptized 
 by immerfton *. 
 
 IX. Many very learned men, both of 
 former and later ages, and even many of thofe, 
 who have admitted of fprinkling, (wonderful 
 and aftonifhing as it is to tell!) have allowed* 
 yea, afferted and maintained, that this is the 
 proper import of the word, and the moft pro- 
 per and fcriptural way of adminiftering the 
 ordinance. To cite their words here would 
 be too tedious. The authors referred to in 
 the margin f, have done it at large : and 
 
 jf J(f^s viii. 38. ** It would be very unnatural," fays 
 the learned and pious Dr. Doddridge, " to fuppofe that 
 '* they ivent dowun to the ivater, merely that Phili/i might 
 *' take up a little 'water in his hand, to pour on the Eunuch, 
 ** A perfon of his dignity had, no doubt, many 'vejjels in 
 ** his baggage, on fuch a journey, through fo defart a 
 ** country ; a precaution abfolutely neceflary for travellers 
 *' in thofe parts, and never omitted by them." See Dr. 
 Shanv^s Tra'vels, Pref. p. 4. Dr. Doddridge in loc. 
 
 f Stennet\ Anfwer to Rujfen, p. 145 — 189. Rees 
 againft Walker, p. 138—142. Foot'?, little praftical 
 Difcourfe on Baptifm, p. 9—12. WalV% Hift. of Inf. 
 Bapt. Part If. p. 370—374, 3d edit. Gale\ Reflexions 
 on Waif 5 Hift. p. 191—194. Z)rf«<ym's Treatife on 
 Baptifm, p. 192 — 204. 
 
 have 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 haveihevvn, ihat TertulliaH, B^z:^, Cbryfojiom, 
 Amhrofe^ Latl&ntius^ Anfclm^ Be-rnard^ Aqui- 
 y^as^ Cch'iry Zarjohius^ Alexander de HalySy 
 Grotiits^ Keckermaf?, Dnille^ McruSy EftiuSy 
 CurceU<£i'.5^ Limb or ch, the AJfer/ihly cf Di-vinesy 
 Mede^ Bifiicp Taylor^ Bifhop BunieS, Arch' 
 hiffycp I'llktfony Bifliop Fowler^ Dr. Barrow, 
 Dr. Ca'-jSy Dr. Toii^erfcn, Dr. Whitby ^ Sir 
 Norton KnaU'hbull^ Dr. Clarky and many 
 others, have, Tome of them dlerted, the pro- 
 per meaning of the word is to dip •, others of 
 them have iliewn that the apoftles and piimi- 
 tive church, adminiftered this ordinance by 
 dippiYig J and that dipping beft fuits the ex- 
 prefTions and allufions of fcripture, where 
 baptifm is mentioned or referred to. That 
 thefe are unexceptionable evidences in the pre- 
 fent cafe, few will doubt; and what thefe 
 writers unanimoufly maintain, is fo univer- 
 fally allowed by men oi learning, judgment, 
 impartiality and candor, that we need not 
 wonder to hear that learned preceptor, Monf. 
 Bojfuet. Bifhop oi Meaux^ aflert *, that, " To 
 *' baptize, fignifies to plunge, as is granted by 
 *' all the v/orld ;" nor to fee him, with fo 
 much v/armth and eloquence, prove, that dip- 
 ping is both agreeable to fcripture, and to the 
 common pra(flice of the church for 1 300 years. 
 Nor to hear his learned opponent fo ingenu- 
 ouily acknowledge the v/eight and force of 
 his argum.ents, and confefs that, *' If fprink- 
 " ling deftroys not the fubfVance of baptifm, 
 • Ciied by Ivlr. Sunnef, p. 174. 
 
 « yet 
 
C 21 ) 
 
 '* yet it alters it, and in fome fort corrupts it; 
 " it is a deftft (fays he) which fpoiis its lawful 
 " form *." But \ afk leave, wich fubniiflion, 
 to mention one thing, which is, indeed, very 
 wonderful to me, viz. that chofe, who at this 
 day, allow the fame with the gentlemen now 
 mentioned, can yet be fatisfied to adminiller an 
 ordinance of Cbrifi, or encourage the admi- 
 niftration of it, in a way different from the 
 apoftles, the primitive church, and the fenfe 
 of the words, in which the great lawgiver 
 gave the commiflion. This, I think, is one 
 of the m.ofl: marvellous things, and inexpli- 
 cable myfteries, 1 remember to have feen or 
 heard of, among thofe who profefs an impar- 
 tial regard to th-e ivord of God, 
 
 X. The objedions fome have made 
 againft this, feem to have no great weight in 
 them. Some fay, Peter and Jolm could not 
 have dipped fo many in fo fliort a time. But 
 I. We know not how long John was in bap- 
 tizing them. 2. They might immerfe very 
 near as foon zs, fprinkle them ; fince the fame 
 form of words is ufed in botii. 3. It is not 
 faid that thofe baptized A^s ii. 37 — 41. were 
 all baptized by Peter f ; nor all in one day, 
 
 as 
 
 • Ihi^, p. 186. THs opponent is faid to be Monf. <ie 
 ia Roqiie, then paftor of the reformed church at Rcan iii 
 Normandy, They were engaged in a controverfy con- 
 cerning the Lorcf 5 Supper, and the Bilhop only mentions 
 Baptifm by way of collateral argument. See Stennet, 
 p. 173— J89. 
 
 t If the account given us by fome of our Englijh hif- 
 lovians^ be to be credited, viz, that Aujiiuy (or as others 
 
 fay, 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 as fome have objefted. Nor is it reafonablc 
 to fuppofe, that the eleven apoftles, and fe- 
 venty difciples, who were all minifters, would 
 all leave this work to Peter : and they, all en- 
 gaging in it, would but have about '^6 or 37 
 a-piece, to baptize, which would but take up 
 a very little part of a day. Nor could there, 
 as others have objedied, be any difficulty in 
 procuring proper garments for fo many : be- 
 cauie they had only to procure each one for 
 himfelf ; and if one can procure one proper 
 garment, a thouiand garments may, with 
 equal eafe, be procured by a thoufand perfons. 
 Befides, as a learned author * has obferved, 
 bathing was fo common among the Jews^ 
 that we cannot think they would be without 
 proper garments for the purpofe. It feems 
 equally void of force, to fay, " The jailor 
 ** could not be dipt in his houfein the night, 
 " A5fs xvi. ^■^n and'therefore muft needs be 
 *' fprinkled." For ift. It is not uncommon 
 for perfons to bathe in their houfes; efpeci- 
 ally in cafes of importance. 2d, It is not 
 probable that the jailor was baptized in his 
 houfe, but the contrary. It is faid, vcr. 34. 
 he brought Paul and Silas into his houfe, after 
 his baptifm; which clearly implies, that at 
 haptifm they were not in it. Independent of 
 
 fay, Paulhms, who lived a few years after him) in the 
 beginning of the 7th century, baptized 10,000 in one 
 day in the river SivaJe, it would furc be no hard matter 
 for the apoille Peter to baptize 3000. S&t Fuller's Ch. 
 Hift. p. 66. 
 
 * Mr. Stcnnet againft Rufev, p. 1 23.] 
 
 Others^ 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 others, therefore, this is at lead, a very pro- 
 bable proof that the jailor was dipt. Nor 
 can I doubt, from what has been faid before, 
 that he aflnally was dipt, if he was baptized. 
 To fay, there is danger oUfijuring the healthy 
 in baptizing by immerfion^ feems not only too 
 much like reflecfling on the wifdom and good- 
 nefs of Chrijty the great lawgiver and injlitu- 
 tor of the ordinance ; but alfo contrary to 
 the truths derived from daily obfervation, and 
 conftant experience. It is well known, cold 
 bathing is prefcribed as a remedy again ft a 
 great many diforders; and in general, it has 
 a tendency to promote, rather than impair the 
 health. Hence a celebrated knight, and ve- 
 ry learned /)^j[y?c/tf«, has ventured to fore- tell, 
 that " The inhabitants of England will re- 
 '* turn again to this true old useful mode 
 '* (i. e. baptifm by immerfion) when they are 
 ** more acquainted with the ufefulnefs oi cold 
 *' baths. *" 
 
 Nor 
 
 • Hlft. of Cold Baths, p. 25, So, 81. It is really 
 amazing that any one of underftandino;, fhould be weak 
 enough to talk of danger in the pradlice of immerfion, 
 Virgil evidently thought otherwife, when he fays, 
 
 Durum a ftirpe genus ; natos ad flumina primum 
 Deferimus, fsevoque gelu duramus et undis. 
 
 ^neid \x% 6oz: 
 In Englijhi to this effed. 
 Stout are our offspring, even from the womb \ 
 Whom, to the rivers, we i.onvey, when born. 
 And there we harden lii tiiv; icy ftream, 
 
 '^ndlthink any impartial man will lay afide this objeflion, 
 
 wheii 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 Nor fhall we fpeak more to the purpofe at 
 all, in facing, " This is more dangerous in 
 " thefe cold countries, than it was in thofe 
 *' hot ones, in whicli our Lcrd and his apcjiles 
 " travelled and L.boured." Becaufe ilV, 
 This is one of thofe (all) nations fur which 
 our Lord inllituted this ordinance : and if 
 fprifxkling is not baptilm, as, from wh.t has 
 been faia, I think it clear that it is nor, we 
 ought not to change an ordinance of Chriji 
 for a human tradition, whatever be our fitu- 
 ation ; but leave ourfelves in the hands of 
 him, who requires us to prove ourfelves his 
 friends^ by doing '■j:hatjoe"cer he commands us*, 
 2d, Countries much colder than this of ours, 
 as Mufcoiy, Livonia, SiC. are well known to 
 baptize by immerfion to this prefent time-|-. 
 A fufficient proof that there is no danger in 
 this practice, from the coldnefs of the coun- 
 try. 3d, This country is furely no colder now 
 than it was two centuries ago, till which 
 time (as we fhall (hew prefently) baptifm by 
 immerfion was certainly the conftant practice 
 in this nation. 4th, The great^-6v/?rM« men- 
 tioned before, has faid enough to Ihew, that 
 immerfion is more natural and proper, and 
 
 when he has read and confidered, what Sir John F/oyer, 
 and Dr. Bayvard have written on the ufefulnefs of Cold 
 Baths. Compare ah'b Wall's Hid. of Inf. Bapt. part 2. p. 
 350—380. * 
 
 • John XV. 14. 
 
 t ftoyirs Hift. of Cold Baths, p. I*, 13, 14. JTall^s 
 Hii^. part z. p. 375. 
 
 Ids 
 
{ ^'S ) 
 
 kTs dangerous in cold^ than in hoi countries*. 
 Thefe things fully prove, that the coldnefs 
 6f the country can by 'no means be an argu- 
 ment againft the pra6tice of immerfion. 
 
 XL Some reader may pofTibly aflc, 
 from this view of things, *' How then came 
 *•■ the pra(5lice oi fprinkling to be fo cuftoma- 
 " ry, if the fcriptures are fo full and clear 
 *' againft it ?" It may be proper to fill a 
 page with a fliort anfwer, by obferving. 
 
 First. Tho' many corruptions did really pre- 
 vail in the church, foon after the apoftles time, 
 yet fprinkling inftead of immerfion, docs not 
 Appear to be one of the firft. We have many 
 tlear proofs from the writers of thofe times, 
 that they baptized by immerjion -f, but not a 
 hint concefning/>^lwn>/^ ot fprinkling^ tillpretty 
 far in the third century. Novatus, t)therwifc 
 Novatianl^^ who flouriflied about A. D. 251, 
 is the firft inftance that can be produced, (as 
 will, on all hands, be allowed) of any, who 
 had water poured on them inftead of immer- 
 
 • Hift. of Cold Baths, p^ ns. 
 
 •f- Vid. Barnab. Epift. cath. cap. 1 1. p. 69, */o. Oxfft 
 t.d. 1685. Herm^ Paft. 1. i. Vif. 3, § 2. ad fin. Lib. 
 tjufdem. 7, p. 25. L. 3. S'rmil 9. § 16. Oxon Ed. 1685. 
 JuJl.Mart. Apcl. in Opera, p. 93, 94. Colon. 1686. Tert* 
 deBapt. ffi^. 2. i«Opera, p. 224. f/?/-. 4. p. 225, cap. 13. 
 229. De refurrecl. r«/r. 47 . firm. apud. Cypr.EplJ}. 75. p. 
 202, 204. aliojque multos, 
 
 X The learned know what critics have faid about the 
 name of this perfon, whether it was No-vatus or N:-va- 
 iian. The curious reader may fee the arguments on both 
 fides colleded together, in Dr. Lardner's Credibility of 
 the Gofpel Hiflory, part 2. vol. 5. p. 365 — 37?., 
 
 B fion; 
 
{ 26 ) 
 
 fion ; and this only in danger, as they fup- 
 poied, of immediate death *. 
 
 Secondly. But though Novatus^ now 
 likely to die, fatisfied himfelf with per- 
 fufion, inflead of immerfion, as others in 
 the fame or like condition, afterwards did ; 
 yet it is clear, the church then, did not ellcem 
 this valid baptlfrnj for when Cornelius bifliop 
 oi Rome., mentions this matter toi^^^;Z(;j-,bi{liop 
 oi Antioch^ he fays, " He was baptized by 
 " pcrrfufion, as he lay in his bed, if it 'may be 
 *' called baptifm"'\- A plain intimation that he 
 doubted whether it could properly be fo call- 
 ed or not. And afterwards J he fays, that all the 
 clergy and a great many of the laity, withftood 
 his ordination to the minifierial office ',- " For, 
 ** fay they, it is not lawful for any one bap- 
 *' tized by perfufion, in his bed, in time of 
 *' ficknefs, to be admitted to the office of the 
 " miniftry." Which we can never think 
 they would have faid, had they efteemed this 
 
 * Co>'«. Epift. adFah. zipud Eu/eh. H. E. L. 6. xc. 43. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 X Sir John Floyer, when vindicating, or urging, the 
 frz.€L\ce oi i^nmerjicnm baptifmy obferves that, " When 
 " Chriftianity was firft planted, the bath ftrudures, (i. e. 
 •* of the Greeks and Romans) were turned into temples, 
 " and the />//«««/ or cold baths, were called baptilleria 
 *' by P//;z)', junior, and in them they baptized frequently.'* 
 Hijf. cfColdBathi, p. 63. Theie Balnea' or oaths, are 
 mentioned by Suetonius {'vif. Aug. cap, 76, 85, 94.) and 
 Others ; and the curious reader may find a more particular 
 account of them in Dr. /'«//fr's Antiquities of Greece, vol, 
 2. p. 370— 373> and fliU more clrcumftancial, '\n Dao 
 vet's Diftionary of GiCik and Roman Antiq. on the word 
 £alttcee, 
 
 proper 
 
C 27 ) 
 
 proper baptifm. And this is dill further clear 
 from the fcruples which Magnus mentions to 
 Cyprian^ when he inquires whether thole who 
 have not been wafhed in the water, but onl/ 
 had it poured on them, can be clleemed (/c'- 
 gitiyni Chrifiiani) lawful Chriftians*. One 
 cannot think fuch a queftion would have been 
 prupofed, had the pradice been thought apof' 
 tolic, or been then approved in the church. 
 
 Thirdly. Magnus propofing this fcruple, 
 Cyprian^ the JirJ}^ and only perfon that we know 
 of atthattime,v/hofpoke infavour of pouring, 
 attempts rather to excufe than defend ihe prac- 
 tice i for what he fays hardly looks like a de-r 
 fence; but is rather a proof to jue, that he 
 doubted whether it could be defended or 
 no. He only fpeaks of it, as what God 
 may be plealed to allozv of, or indulge as a 
 compendium or abridgment of baptifm, (divi- 
 ne compendia are his words.) Sir John Floyer^ 
 has an expreflfion concerning t\\eRomiJh churchy 
 which I alk leave here to recite, *' Thq 
 " church of Rome, fays he, hath drawn fhorc 
 " compendiums of both facraments. In the 
 " eucharift they ufe only the wafer, — and in- 
 " ftead of immerfion they introduce afper- 
 " fion -f." Here it is evident, he, like Cy- 
 prian thought fprinkling only an abridgment of 
 baptifm. Cyprian cxcufes this abridgment^ 
 only in a cafe of urgent necelfity. And he 
 does nor plead even in favour of this allowance^ 
 
 * Cvp. Epift. yS. p. 211. Paris 1632. 
 t Hift. of Cold Baths, p. 15. 
 
 B 2 aay 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 any command of our Lord^ or his apojlles, or 
 any example of either ; or any pafTage of the 
 new Tejlament^ which fo much as favours, or 
 admits of, fuch a practice: or the extenfive 
 fcnfeof the word |3*7r1j^w, or even any ufage 
 of the church, at or before his writing this 
 €piftle. He mentions a pafTage or two, indeed, 
 in the old Tejlament ; but it is clear they have 
 not the lead relation to baptifm*. 
 
 XII. However, from this weak be- 
 ginning, this practice did prevail in the church \ 
 and was afterward admitted, yet, only in ex^ 
 traordinary ccfes^ when very weak, confined 
 to their beds or the like : and this only by 
 fome perfons. Hence, as Dr. Gale well ob- 
 ferves-[-, Cc;^h:;;/;;iV the Great, though old, and, 
 being taken witli a nt of fuknefs, likely to 
 die; could not be content with it, but was 
 baptized by Eu'cbius bifnop of Nicomfdia m 
 the ufual way :];, i. e by immrrfion. Dr. Wall 
 infers, (though I think, not with fufficient evi- 
 tlence) from the words of Gtnnadhis^^ that it 
 began to be indifferent in Frcrice^ whether im- 
 merfion or perfufion was iilcd, fo foon as the 
 
 • Tlie paflages he nenticns, are Numh. vui. 7. xix# 
 19. Eztk. xxxix 25. f Re/Ud. p. 209. 
 
 X \il. Ctr.Jiant, 1. 4. C 62. 
 
 § Gtnnadius was biihop of Mar/eilUs in France, and 
 fiouriihed about the end of x^t fifth ctntur-i ; — his words 
 are, " The perlon to be baptized, afcer his confeiEon, 
 •' \yas either wetted witn the water or plunged into it.** 
 Which words I think might have been ufed, if perfufion 
 had only been uJmitted in fome cafes ; though it had not 
 ijeen efteemed quite indifferent whether was practifec** 
 See BtJ/iiet'% words redied, p. 1 6. 
 
 fifth 
 
C 29 ) 
 
 fifth century : but owns he is the firfl: writer 
 who fpeaks of it as indifferent. He Ihews 
 clearly that immerfion was mod common in 
 Italy about A. D. 1260, and in Germany, at 
 1 1 20. But it feems by the words of the coun- 
 cil of Cslogn, in 1536, to be then elleemed 
 more indifferent, and the church of Mentz. 
 l)ref erred pour mg A. D. 1551. Yet fo to pout" 
 as to wet both the head and fhoulders*. In the 
 year 816, it leems fome in £;7g-/^«^ attempted 
 to introduce the practice of pouring ; but by a 
 council held in that year, under Kenulph king of 
 the Mercians, it isenjoined, that they Jhall not pour 
 water on the infants, but fh all always dip them 
 in the fontf. Dipping was the common way 
 in England nboiK 1422, and continued fo un- 
 til 1 the reign of Queen Elizabeth, as both Sir 
 John Floyer, and Dr. IVall (as well as others) 
 do affert, and fuffiiciently prove at largej j 
 and none can fairly deny. So that, as Mr, 
 i^^^j juftly obferves§, till this time, the whole 
 nation confided of Baptijis,'i. e. they had all 
 been baptized by immerjion. Sir John Floyer 
 fhews, it appears to have continued ftill longer 
 m Wales \\. However, about this time pouring 
 began to prevail in England. It had been al- 
 lowedyin cafe of fuch weaknefs as that the child 
 
 • See fTalPs Hift. of Inf. Bapt. part 2. p. 360. 
 
 f Fuller's Church Hiftory of Britain, b. 2. p. 109, and 
 Wall's Hiftory, part 2. p. 362. 
 
 X Wall's Hitt. part 2. p. 364—367. Flojer's Hift. of 
 Cold Baths, letter 3d. 
 
 § Rees VLt (u^ra., p. 180, 181. 
 
 a Hift. of Cold Baths, p. 14, 87,, 
 
 B g was> 
 
( 30 ) 
 
 vras not able to bear dipping, lii the offices of 
 the church oi England^ for public baptifm^dhout 
 50 years before j and " It being allowed, 
 *' fays Dr. Wall*, to weak children (though 
 •' ftrong enough to be brought to church) to 
 *' be baptized by affufion, many fond ladies 
 •* and gentlewGmen^;y?, and then by degrees, 
 '* the common people, would obtain the fa- 
 " vour of the priejl to let their children pafs 
 *' fcr weak children." Thus, as he afterwards 
 obferves f , " The inclinations of the people, 
 *' backed with the authorities of three men 
 *' of note j:, who now encouraged it, carried 
 *' the practice againft the nihricy And I afk 
 leave to add, evidently agai^ift the Jmpiure too. 
 The evidence in favour of imnicrjiony and 
 'againft c.Jperfion, arifing from this ingenuous 
 acknowledgment of fo learned a divine, may 
 be confirmed by the aflertion of the learned 
 knight §, before mentioned ; w ho fays, that, 
 ** in king Jameses time, when the people grew 
 *' pcevifti with all ancient ceremonies,through 
 " the love of novelty, and the nicenefs of 
 -" parents, and the pretence of modefty, they 
 *' laid afide immerfibn, which never was ab- 
 *' rogated by any canon, but is rtill recom-' 
 " mended by the prefentr«^r/Vof our church, 
 *' which orders the child to be dipped dif- 
 " erectly and warily. 
 
 • Hift. part 2. p. 365. f lb. p, 366, 
 
 X Cal'vin, liJu/iulus and Dr. trhitaker. 
 § FJojer's Hift. of C. B. p. 6j* 
 
 XIII. 
 
t 3f T 
 
 XIII. It may be proper to note three 
 things here, by the way. 
 
 First. Thatfprinklingfrom thefingersends, 
 the way now commonly ul'ed, did not obtain, 
 even fo late as A. D. 1600, the time above- 
 mentioned; nor until above forty years after. 
 It was only beginning, fays Dr. fFall, at 1645, 
 now about 123 years ago. Until then, after 
 clipping was very near laid afide, pouring out 
 of the hand, out of a ladle, or the like, was 
 the common pradice*. The plain fcripture 
 method being forf.)ok, it is no wonder the 
 fancies and carnal inclinations of men fhould 
 turn from one thing to another. And fhould 
 any one ufe any other methods, 1 cannot fee 
 how thofe who ufe this^ can pretend to oppofe 
 them in it; becaufe they are clearly both alike 
 unfcriptural. I am loth to offend any one of 
 God's creatures, efpecially his minillers ; but 
 in treating of divine matters, we belt mani- 
 feft our r^«/ love, by an open-hearted endea- 
 vour, to reduce one another from pernicious 
 errors. I therefore add, 1 believe there is not 
 a perfon in the world, who would not allow, 
 at leaft upon a little clofe confideraiion, that 
 there is as much plain fcripture for fprinkling 
 the feet or toes, or any other part, and calling 
 that baptifm •, as there is for fprinkling the 
 face and calling that fo. And indeed fincc 
 the plain fcripture method of immcrfion is 
 forfaken, it matters not what be turned to, 
 
 • IVall's Hill, part 2 p. 360, l6-j^ 
 
 B 4 ^c& 
 
( S2 ) 
 
 fince we can. turn to nothing but what is un* 
 fcriptural, until that be turned to again. 
 
 Secondly. The pracftice either of pouringor 
 fprinkling has by no means, ever prevailed all 
 over the Chriftian world -y nor any part of it, but 
 fo much as does own, or has owned, the ufurped 
 power of the Pope •, and fo received it frorn 
 him and his adherents. Thofe two eminent 
 and learned writers of the ejlahlijhed church 
 before- mentioned. Sir John Floyer and Dr, 
 IVall^ as well as others, have made this fully 
 evident. " All other Chriftians in the world, 
 " fays Dr. JVall^ i. e. all in Afia^ Africa, and 
 ** about a third. ^2^noi Europe^ in which third 
 *' part are comprehended the Chrillians of 
 *' Gracia^ Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, Rafcia^ 
 " Walachia, Moldavia, Ruffia, Nigra, Mojcovy., 
 ** ^f." do, aad ever did, ordinarily, baptize 
 hy immerjton *, 
 
 Thirdly. We have no reafon to doubt, but 
 have confiderablc evidence, allcircumftances, 
 being confidered, that there have been fome in 
 all ages of Chrijiianity, c(pQc\z\\y in and aboU:t 
 the vallies of Piedmont, who have both coa- 
 ftantly baptized by imraerfion, and have bap.- 
 tized none but believers -f-. 
 
 XIV. Since this change of immerfion 
 into fprinkling, many learned writers, and 
 fome even of the clergy of the ejiahlijbed churchy 
 
 * Hift. of Inf. Bapt. part 2. p. 368, 376, 377. 
 • f See and compare ^ff J again ft ^fl/i^r, p. 189 — 202. 
 Gill's Reply to C/ar^, p. 30, 3 I, 109, 110. Brandt'^ liilK 
 of the Reform, p. 1 2. 
 
 have 
 
( 33 ) 
 
 have lamented it, and endeavoured to retrievs 
 the life of immerfion^ as being more agreeable 
 to the original word |3a7rlif«, the expreffions 
 of fcriplure^ and the practice of the primitive 
 church. Thcfe are Sotus, Mr. Rogers, Bilhop 
 Taylor, Sir Norton Knatchhull, Dr. Towerforiy 
 Dr. IVhithy, ^c. * who plead ftrenuoufly for 
 the reviving of this practice, except in cafes 
 of necelTuy. And 1 muft own, how any ne- 
 ceffity can warrant our ading contrary to, or 
 different from, Chrijl and his apoftles, I can- 
 not yet difcern. T hefe things are well enough 
 known by perfons of reading,, and will be 
 owned by perfons of candor. Nor are they 
 mentioned as proofs of the validity of im- 
 merfion, and invalidity of afperfion j butonly 
 as human evidences in favour of it, and for 
 the fake of fome perfons of lefs knowledge 
 and underftanding in thefe matters, whofeera 
 to think that the praftice of immerfion in 
 baptifm is but lately become ulual. Whereas, 
 the truth is, it is but lately laid afide for afper- 
 fion. Yet we appeal to the word of God alone, 
 as theteft of truth, and wilh no fupport for 
 our practice, if that does not fupport it, but 
 fhall be willing, yea glad and determined to 
 lay it afide, if it is not authorized there. On 
 tlie other hand, the authority of God's word 
 is fufficient, (hould all the world act contrary. 
 I aflc leave, by way of remark on what has 
 been faid, to propofe to the impartial reader 
 three queftions,. i. Is it not clear from thefe 
 
 * WalhUi^. part 2; p. 370 — 374.. 
 
 B 5, thing?,. 
 
'( 34 ) 
 
 things, that the practice offpYinkling is found- 
 ed, chiffly at lead, in the inclinations of men, 
 rather than the word of God ? 2. Is in not evi- 
 dent that if any of us praflife, and infifl: on 
 fprinkling as the proper way of baptizing, we 
 oppofe both the vjord ef God^ and the coniiant 
 vfage of the church, almoft in all ages and 
 nations, at lead until a few centuries ago? 3. 
 Is it not much better zn^ fafer^ to follow the 
 plain exprefllons and examples of fcripture, 
 than the inclinations or pradice of any n-»an 
 or men in the world ? It is before Gcd that we 
 are to appear hereafter; and therefore we 
 fliould adt as before God here. 
 
 Secondly. Who are ih^ proper fiihje5Is of 
 this facred ordinance .'' To whom fhould it be 
 adminiftered ? To infants or believers? 
 
 Anfw. A good way to know our duty in 
 any poirit, is to underftand the words in which 
 that duty is enjoined. Minifters of the gof- 
 pel have but one commiffion in the whole book 
 of God, with regard to this ordinance. To 
 this commiffion let us return again, and in- 
 quire who are to be baptized : for we niufl: 
 furely all confefs that only thofe to whom the 
 words Will fairly expend, are [he proper liib- 
 jefts of baprifm. It is exprefl: Matt, xxviii. ' 
 IQ, 20. Go ye therefore and teach nil nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father^ and 
 tf the Son^ and cf the Holy Ghojl^ teaching 
 them to ohferve all things "johaifoever I have 
 commanded yen, I take the pUin meaning of 
 
 thefe 
 
C 35 ) 
 
 thefe words to be, " Go and teach, not ia 
 .** ']udea only, but in all other countries,, 
 *' where you fhall have opportunity, what I 
 *' have done and fuffered for a ruined world 
 *' and tlie blefilngs to be enjoyed through 
 *' what I have done and fuffered, and the abfo- 
 ** lute niictiT^xy of repenii^nce towards GoDf and 
 " failb 7)1 ME in order to falvation. Baptize 
 ** all who receive this gofpel, and appear cor- 
 *' dially to embrace your teftimony; and then 
 " in'lrufl them in all the parts of pradical 
 '* religion, whereby they may honour me and 
 " n-:y Father in the world, by living in all 
 " hcliiiefs and rigliteoufnefs of life." Com- 
 pare Aiark xvi. i 6. Luke xxiv. 47. yl^s xxvi, 
 18 — 21. Heb. vi. 1, 2 This is fo very na- 
 tural and fair a fenfe of the words, and, in 
 fubftance, fo generally embraced by judicious 
 and learned expojitors, that it is wonderful 
 any Hiould give the words another turn, in 
 Older to vindicate infant-haptifm ixom them. 
 Nor does it feem kfs wonderful, that any who 
 admit this fenfe of them, fhould yet think 
 this text to admit of that praflice. I would 
 venture to attempt a reply to a few arguments 
 oPered with one or the other of thefe views. 
 One is by a cricicifm on the Creek word 
 pccQnlfuTaTt, tranllared tenchy v. 19. which 
 is to this effcrt ** 1 he word means to difciple 
 •* or make dtjctples^ and the words baptizing 
 " them, aic explanatory of it, and fhew the 
 *' way by which we are to make difcipks, i. e. 
 
 " by 
 
( 3<5 ) 
 
 " by baptifrn." Others chufe to fay, " k 
 *' fignifies to make difciples in general, or by 
 " any means, and baptifm is one way of 
 *' making difciples j therefore we are to make 
 " dilciples of the adult by teachingy but of 
 " infants by baptizing ihem." This, I think, 
 is the bell and ftrungelt light, in which this 
 argument can be placed. 
 
 Anf. I. It is evident this is different from, 
 and even contrary to, the known and acknow- 
 ledged fcnfe of the words, in the beft critics 
 and commentators, ("as thofc who are acquaint- 
 ed with critics and commentators, well know) 
 and plainly to ferve a turn, which cannot fo 
 well be fervcd by allowing the words their 
 natural fignification.* And I believe there 
 will never be a paffage produced, in which 
 the words can fairly be interpreted to fignify 
 making difciples or profelytes, any other way 
 than by teaching. 2. They who objefl this, 
 allow tliat we fhould teach the aduli^ before we 
 baptize them : and this is the chief text they 
 produce in proof of it. But it is evident, 
 if this text will admit of the fenfe the objec- 
 
 * That this is the chief end of this criticifm, the 
 learned and impartial reader (and it is pity the un- 
 learned Ihould be aireded with it) may ha\x a very 
 afFecling proof, by confuking and compraring (befides 
 many ethers) thofe two truly valuable authors, Tur~ 
 refine. Injiit. Theol. Pars 2. ^^Jl. '4' 9- P'^^!' 3- ^^ft- 
 1, 8. Sluejl. 204. and Geriard. Harm. HiJi.Enjang. in 
 lee. Would any one fee this argument particularly dif- 
 cufleJ, />o and contra, fee G^/^'s Refled. p. 245—322. 
 \l mT$ Defence, p. 1 7 7 — 3 1 1. 
 
 tion 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 tion gives it, it cannot prove even this. Foi? 
 if, according to this text we can profelyte by 
 baptifniy or by any means befide teachings wc 
 have liberty to baptize the moft profligate and 
 ignorant of mankind. But as I believe few 
 will allow of this pradice, they cannot plead 
 fairly for this fenfe of this text. I add 3dly, 
 If it will admit of this fenfe, given in the ob- 
 jedlion, how can we vindicate the apojlles and 
 their praftice? We well know iheyjirji taught, 
 and the-n baptized. Now we believe, they un- 
 derftood, and a6ted according to this commif- 
 fion. Hence their prajflice will be a good 
 comment upon it. If then it does not necefr 
 farily enjoin teaching before baptifm, this 
 practice was without foundation. On the 
 other hand, if the apoftles did, according to 
 this commiflion, teach any before they bap- 
 tized them, this commiffion cannot admit of 
 baptifm before teaching; confequently, not 
 of the baptifm of infants. 
 
 Fourthly. 1 can think of no imaginable 
 fenfe, in which either an infant or an adult per* 
 fon^ can be made a difciple of Chrifi, while 
 untaught, whether baptized ox no : and fliould 
 be very glad, if any one would tell, me in 
 what fenfe a baptized infant can be fo called, 
 more properly than one unbaptized. Ought 
 they to be taught afterward ? So ought the 
 unbapiized, aflfoon as capable ot it. Have they 
 a right to this teaching ? No more than the 
 unbaptized. Do they, when they come to 
 years, profefs. to be dilciples of Chrift ? Their 
 
 profel^ 
 
( 3S ) 
 
 jfirofcflTion is either real and fincere, and fuch 
 as proves them to be fucii, or it is not. If 
 it is, they ought now to be baptized* If it 
 is not, they have not been made difciples by 
 their baptifm. Nor can there be any oppor- 
 tunity for a baptized child to be taught, more 
 than one unbaptized. They can fure hear, and 
 read, and be taught their catechifms, or the 
 like, every way as well, un baptized, as 
 baptized. Nay, I venture to add farther, 
 if there is any difference, the tmhapiized 
 child^ is more likely to be diligent in this : 
 for alas! we find, by unhappy experience, and 
 cor.ftant obftrvation, that perlons who are 
 told they wtrre bapiized in their infancy, do 
 naturally place fome hope of their falvation on 
 this i and imagine they are in a better ftate 
 than others, becaufe of it •, though it be 
 every way fo contrary to the word of Gcd. I 
 think it not pofTible for enligktmed men, who 
 have been accuftomed to converfe with others, 
 living and dying, on this fubjed, to doubt, 
 that thoufands go fecure to deftrudtion, from 
 this confiderativ)n. I do not fay they are 
 taught this ; yet how can it be otherwife while 
 one tells them they are regenerated in their 
 baptifm -, another that they are born in, or • 
 under the covenant of grace j and that bap- 
 tifm is a feai of that covenant to them -, a 
 third, that biptifm brings them into this co- 
 venant, and the like : all t- vidently contrary 
 to fcr*pture, and I afis. leave to fay, I fear too 
 paturally leading to eternal deflrudlion. I 
 
 caniiQC 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 cannot but fear it will, one day be found fo j 
 for how natural it is to fay, if they are born 
 again, they fliall certainly be faved : and if 
 thty are in the covenant of grace, how is ic 
 poffible they fhould perifh ? l"o all which we 
 may add, there cannot pofTibly be any obliga- 
 tioH upon d.ny minijhr or dny parent, to inlliucb 
 a baptized child more than one unbaptized. 
 
 Fifthly, There is in us all, by nature, not 
 only an ignorance of, but an averfioi to, 
 both the duties and do6trines of Ch ijiianily, 
 which ignorance and avcrfion, mult be, in 
 fome meafure-, removed before we c^n be 
 difciplesof Chri(i\ fince we can;TOt be hisdif- 
 ciples, and yet be ignorant of, and averf? to 
 him and his ways. That bapifm has no fuch 
 aITe6l upon the mind, as to difpel this igno- 
 rance and averfion, daily obfrrvation evinces'. 
 Bur it is evident the miniftrv of the word is 
 defigntd, and calculated, under the influences 
 of the blejfed Sp'n'it^ to etTed this, compare 
 Rom. X. 13, 14, 15. yi^s Kxvl. 18, 19, 20. 
 Jam. i. 18. I PeL i. 22, 23. Th-refore it 
 Connot be that any fhould be made difciples 
 by baptifm. 
 
 Sixihly. We have obferved before, that the 
 Cipojiks followed another meth >d, in making 
 difciples, than by biprizing them : as did ahb 
 both our Lr.rd and John the Baptiji. Jefus it 
 is laid, made and baptized (\. t by his apofiks\ 
 for himfclf baptized none, 1:;; 2.) more dif- 
 ciples than Jthn (i. e.- than J >hn made and 
 baptized) Whence ic is evident^ :hat they 
 
 mads 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 made them dil'ciples h^fort they baptized themC 
 And that this was the conftant practice of 
 the apcjiks afterwards the hillory of their A^i 
 fhews. See Alls ch. ii. viii. x. xvi. xv;ii. 
 Al! which proves that difciples were not, at th it 
 time, made by baptifm : and by a natural and 
 infeparable consequence, that the ccmmiffion 
 of which we now [peak, docs not admit of 
 infant baptifm. 
 
 Seventhly. Though I think what has been 
 faid, enough to juftify the fcnfe of the words . 
 firft given, and, by confequence, to prove- 
 the invalidity of infant -baptifm ; yet 1 may be 
 al'oved to add, that tne followers of the 
 apofiks^ the primitive fathers^ appear to have 
 underftocd and obferved, this text in this fcnfe. 
 The paffages before referred to in them , to prove 
 that they baptized by immerfion, will, many 
 of them, prove that the fubjecls of this im- 
 merfion v^trc believers -, efpeciaily the pafTages 
 cited from Barnabas^ Hertnas^ J'^ftin hlartyr^ 
 and Tertuilian. And JuJiinAhrtyr's wel 1 k nowQ. 
 words plainly enough fbew, that ir was net 
 their cuflom to baptize any others-, which, for- 
 the reader's fatisfaction, 1 would here recite. 
 They are in what is called his fecond* apolo- 
 gy for the Chriftians to the emperor ji. Pius, 
 to whom he is profefifedly giving a circunifla}!- 
 tial accoimt iji the manners and ceremonies of 
 the Chrifiians in general, at that time, about 
 A. D. 150* And therefore it is unre&fonabl* 
 
 • It 15 called bis feccndx bat Eufihiusi Dufrcy and 
 Others, fu£f ofe i; was his ur£». 
 
< 41 ) 
 
 to fuppofe he would omit infant-haptifm^ had 
 k been then in ufe. His words are *, " Left 
 we fhould appear to aft deceitfully, or preva- 
 ricate, in this relation, we will (hew in what 
 manner we, when renewed by Chrijiy devoted 
 ourfelves to God. As many as are perfuad- 
 ed that the things fpoke and taught by us are 
 true, and promife to live accordingly, are di- 
 reded to pray unto God, and to imj^-lorc, with 
 falling, the pardon of their pafl fins, while 
 we fall: and pray together v;ith them. Then 
 we bring them where there is water, and they 
 are regenerated with the fame kind of rege- 
 neration with which we ourfelves were re- 
 generated ; for they are walhvd in water in the 
 name of the Father^ i^c^ Thcfe art his words, 
 "and i dtfire the reader to remember, ill. That 
 this is an aecount of the Chrijlians in general; 
 2d, That he profefles to give an impartial ac- 
 count ; and not to prevaricate, or deal unfair- 
 ly. Therefore had infant -hapt'ijm been, at 
 that time, in ufe among Chrijlians^ he feems 
 to have been under indifpenfible obligation 
 to mention it., Yet he mentions none, as 
 being baptized among them, but fuch as firft 
 were perfuaded, believed, promifed, &c. I can- 
 not think, therefore, but this is a clear and 
 full evidence, fo far as a negative can be evi^- 
 dent, that infant- baptifm. was not now in ufe in 
 the church : but that their conftant praftice 
 was firft to teach, and then to baptize j. and, 
 
 • Q^era ejus, pag. g^. Colon Ed, 1686. 
 
 COnfC' 
 
( 42 ) 
 
 confequently that they underflood not the 
 (Gmmjjfiony to 7i\Ji\\or\\t infant -baptifm* . 
 
 Some feem fenJGible this mull be the fenfe 
 of the words, and therefore intimate, that 
 *' They do not relate to infants, but only to 
 the adult." Anfw. This fcems an acknow- 
 ledgment that infant- baptifm cannot be vindi- 
 cated from this text; for if it can, it muft 
 relate to more than the adult. And if it can- 
 not, we (hould either produce fome othtrcom- 
 miffion, in which infant -haptifm is authorized, 
 to which I think we fliall none of us pretend, 
 or own and vindicate the baprifm of beheverSy 
 the one baptifm enjoined m this commijjion. For 
 I hope none of us will proceed in any work, 
 or adminifter any ordinance, without a com- 
 miflion from God, the great law -giver. And 
 I think it feems a foul refleflion upon the wif- 
 dom and love of Chrift Jcfus, to fay it is his 
 will that we (hould baptize infants, and yet 
 has only given us one commiffion with regard 
 to this ordinance, which does not extend to 
 them. Sure no srood man would leave his 
 fervants to labour under fuch perj)lexuy and 
 darknefs in a matter of fo great importance. 
 
 • The reader Is defired to obferve, that the queftion 
 is not whether the Fathers mention the pradlice of bap- 
 tizing believers, as common at that day This is owned 
 pn al] hands- Dr. JVali himfelf fays, a hundred pafTagcs 
 may be produced in a day's time, which prove this. Dc» 
 fence of Hi ft. of Inf. Bap. p. 235. The queftion is whe- 
 ther they baptized any infants, fo foon as Jnftin'i time. 
 I think the above quotation, fhews they did not. 
 
 One 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 One would wonder to find it faid, " We 
 are to bapcize all naiions; infants are a part of 
 all nations : therefore infants are to be bap- 
 tiztd." The words cannot be taken in the 
 mod extenfive fenfe ; for if fo, we muft bap- 
 tize all Jews, Turks, and Pagans, which are a 
 part of all nations. If we lay they muft firft 
 Reconverted, we fee m to give up the p')int j 
 for hence it is argued that none are to be bap- 
 tized before converfion. If we do not thus 
 extend it, we muft ufe fome means to fix its 
 limits ; and the beft I can think of^ is to*' make 
 it equally extenfive with the fore-gbingclaufe-, 
 and fo baptize none who are not 'firft taught-, 
 which will prove that thcfe words admit noit 
 of infant'baptifm. 
 
 Others again, who allow that fenfe of the 
 text, we now plead lor, yet fay, '* Thecom«^ 
 rniflion cannot be againft infant-baplifm \ be- 
 taufe, had the words been fpoke to JeiviJJo prd' 
 fhels-f go teach all nations, circumajing thtm 
 in the name of the God of Ifrael, teaching, 
 &c. they would certainly have circunicifed 
 infants." But to this, iiis eafy to reply » »'. 
 That it is nc»t enough to fiy the comwjjion is 
 not AGAINST irfant-baptifm-y if it is nor clear- 
 ly /(?r it, unlds we can find another conimtffwn^ 
 there can be no authority for it in fcripture. 2f. 
 If the words of themfclve,'^, prove this prac- 
 tice, we netd not recur to circumcifion, or 
 any other inlUtution \ but fairly prove* it from 
 them, as they ftand. 3. Ifrhele words, fim- 
 ply of themlelves, being firft fpoke to the Jew- 
 
 ijh 
 
( 44 } 
 
 ijh prophets^ would clearly have taught th-em 
 to circumcife their infants ; then, of na- 
 tural confequence, it will be eafy to prove /»- 
 fant-baptifm from them now. Bur the objec- 
 tion implies that tnfant-baptifm, cannot fair- 
 ly be proved from them as they ftand, without 
 Ibme other circumftances, gathered elfe- 
 where: for if they will, as is juft now faid,. 
 why do we recur to circumcilion ? Thtjew- 
 iJh prophets then, muft have wanted fome 
 other confiderations or inftrudlions, to war- 
 rant their circumcifton of infants j and confe- 
 quently, fo do we, to warrant our baptizmg 
 of them. 4. The Jews had a plain and ex- 
 prefs command for circumcifing infants, and 
 if, beficle that exprefs command, fuch a coni' 
 mijfion as that we now fpeak of, had been 
 given them, it may be granted, they would 
 certainly have circumcifcd, infants. But 
 then, if what is faid above is true, they 
 would not have done it by virtue of this ge- 
 neral cvmmi£ion\ but of that exprefs com^ 
 mand. Now, as we have no fuch exprefs 
 command, their cafe and ours, is by no 
 means paralieL 
 
 Fifth, Perhaps they who objecft this, do 
 it from the fuppofition that baptifm fucceeds 
 circuracifion. Now that baptifm does not 
 come in the room of circumcifion,. after all 
 that hath been faid about it^ is, I think, evi- 
 dent from the following hints, i. Neither 
 our Lord nor John the Baptijiy nor the apojllesy 
 ever hinted that it does, that we find, to any 
 
 ojf 
 
( 45 ) 
 
 of thofe whom they baptized, when they 
 baptized them : which I think very ftrange, 
 had this been the cafe. 2. The only pafTige 
 produced in favour of this fentiment, Teems 
 to be exprefs againft it. Col, ii. 11, 12. 
 Which lure is evident trom this one confide- 
 ration, that the circumcifion there mentioned 
 is fa id to be made without hands : baptifm is 
 no more adminillred without hands, than the 
 'Jewilh circumcifion was. It is much more 
 agreeable to the exprefllons here ufed, as 
 well as to the whole tenor of fcriprure, to ex- 
 plain it of what the fame apojik elfe^here calls 
 the circumcifion of the heart. Rom. ii. 29. i. c. 
 the renewing of the mind, which always fliould 
 be, and undoubtedly, in the apoflles\\tx\c^ al» 
 ways was, followed with baptifm, as they are 
 liere placed. 3. In many things, it is evident 
 "we have no regard to circumcifion, in admi- 
 niftering the ordinance of baptifm, why then 
 fhould we in baptizing intants j* We do not 
 baptize precifely on the 8th day •, we bap- 
 tize females as well as maleSy &c. which are 
 contrary to the prad:ice of the Jews in cir- 
 cumcifion. 1 cannot fee how one fucceeds the 
 othtr, unlefs we are either to obferve the for- 
 mer in all things, or rtiew where the fcripture 
 allows us to make a difference. Should it 
 be laid, " The Lord did not mention thefe 
 circumftances, when he enjoined baptifm ^ 
 "therefore we do not obferve them j" we al- 
 low too much by confequence; i. e. that 
 we are only, in adminiftering this ordinance, 
 
 to 
 
( 46 ) 
 
 to reg-rd what is exprtft in the inftitutlon of 
 it; and conltqusfitly, as no mention is made 
 o{ infants, we are not to bapiize them. We 
 feem thtrcfore necefTirily reduced to this di- 
 lemma. Either we mult itrlclly regard the 
 wordsof inftitutionjor we mult (tridlly regard 
 the inftitution of circumcifion ; or fhew that 
 Chijijefus when he inftitutcd baprifm, gave us 
 liberty in Ibme cafes to deviate from the man- 
 ner of the'jt'vtj in circumcifionj but enjoined 
 a regard to it in other cafes, or own tnat we 
 afl by no inftitution ac all. The reader may 
 chufe his part; I would take the ftrft, and 
 have a ftrid regard co the words of the infti- 
 tution, expreft in the ccmmiffion, and fo bap- 
 tize none bur thofe who are taught. I hope I 
 fhall be excufed in this iliort digreflion. 4. 
 Their being both in ufe at the fame time, three 
 years, at Icaft, before our Lord's death, and 
 baptifm anfwering its own proper end, before 
 circumcifion was abolifhed, mufl, I think, 
 after all, remain an unanfwerable argument 
 ^gainil the one fuGceeding the other. 5. Be- 
 fides, it fee ms the apofiles had a very good op- 
 portunity of rrientioning this matter, when 
 the di0ention happened at Antioch^ between 
 the Jewijh and Gentile converts, concerning 
 the neceflity of circumcifion, mentioned A£ts 
 XV. I think it very improbable,, that this 
 diflention would ever have taken place, had 
 baptifm been fubft'ituted in the room of cir- 
 cumcifion. 'p or had this been the cafe, 
 furely the Jewifi converts muft have been 
 
 informed 
 
( 47 : 
 
 informed of it, at their embracing of Ci^r//^ 
 tianih. And if fo, one cannot think they 
 would make any attempts to rev'.ve a cere- 
 mony, which they had nectflarily acknow- 
 ledged the abolition of, at their embracing 
 of that new Teftament ordinance. On the 
 other hand, one can think of no argument 
 fo efftrclual to convince the Jews and eftablifh 
 and fatisfy the minds of the Gentiles^ as to re- 
 mind them that the ordinance of baptlfm, 
 which they had all embraced, fuperfeded the 
 necedlty of clrcumciiion. But nothing any 
 way relative tothis,is heard from them-, which 
 appears to me a very weighty confideration 
 in oppofirion to the argument ^ov infant bap- 
 tifm^ taken from its fucceflion to circumci- 
 fion. 6. Nor are we helped at all, that I caa 
 fee, by faying, that ** The children of be- 
 lievers are in the co'venant of grace ^^'w^ax^itvc 
 parents ; and that baptifm is to them a feal 
 of this covenant now^ as circumcifion was, 
 under the mofaic difpenfation.'* Becaufe, 
 
 Firft^ The covenant to which circumci/ion 
 belonged, does not by any means appear to be 
 i^xoy^^x\'^ ^t covenant of grace. It had many 
 temporal bleflings, on God\ part, to be be- 
 llowed on Abraham^ with whom it was made, 
 which cannot in any wife belong to the cove- 
 nant of grace. As a numerous pofterity, kings 
 to come from his loins, a fettled habitation 
 for his pofterity in the land of Canaan, &c. 
 Gen. xvii. Thefe are all quite different blef- 
 fmgs froth thofe contained in the covenant of 
 
 grace^ 
 
( 48 ) 
 
 p'ace, mentioned /f(?^. viii. lo, ii, 12. It may 
 be allowed, I think, that fpiritual blelnngs 
 alfo, were contained in the Ahrahamic ccz-e- 
 uant ; but th-en the apcjile teaches us, thefe 
 bleilings were not derived to his natural^ but 
 jpirittiipl feed, i. e. all "jjho belie-'ce^ are of faith, 
 &c. whether Jews or Gentiles. See RGm. iv* 
 9, 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 16. ix. 6, 7, 8, 27* 
 <3ul. iii. 7, 9, 29. 
 
 Secondly^ Neither circumcifion nor baptifm 
 are ever called feals of any covenant, in ail the 
 bible, and much lefs feals of the covenant of 
 grace. Nor can I fee with what propriety 
 that name can be given to either of them. 
 Nor indeed, can I yet be well latisfied what di- 
 vines have meant, or do mean, in calling 
 them fo. If it be meant that they fliuc up 
 the fubjects of them from all c-hers, as the 
 property uf God alone, in this piritual fenfe; 
 or th"t they fet fome mark en the fubjects of 
 them, which {hews they are, in this knfc^ 
 none but God's •, or that they demonftrate 
 and afcertain to the perfon himfclf, his own 
 intereft, in this covenant \ furely nothing can 
 be more contrary to fcripture, than to call it 
 9.feal of the covenant of grace, in any of thefe 
 fenfes.* Could any of thefe be faid of I/b- 
 r/ia e I &nd Efau, and multitudes of others, who 
 were circumcifed. Or oi Simcji Magus ^ and 
 many other apoflates and deceivers, who 
 
 * See more ufes of a feal, in Dr. Sibks's Fountain 
 Sealed, p. 131 — 141. But thole mentioned above are 
 poft applicable to this fubject* 
 
 have 
 
( 49 ) 
 
 have been baptized ? If not, how can either 
 circumcifion or baptifm be called feals of the 
 covenant of grace ? 
 
 'Thirdly, It is not being in any covsr.ant^ any- 
 more than beingborn of 2Lny parents whatever, 
 that cangive any perfon a title to any ordinance, 
 or authorize any to adminifi:er it to them. 
 Nothing can do this properly fpeaking, but 
 the command of God. Now if the blefled God, 
 gives a command to adminifier any ordinance, 
 the chief things to be regarded are, the man- 
 ner of adminiftering that ordinance, and the 
 characters of thofe to whom it mull be ad- 
 miniftered. Thefe characfters alone can con- 
 fticute any perfon a proper fubjedt of the or^ 
 dinance. Thefe characfters, in the cafe of ^/r- 
 airndfioHy are thus expreflfed. He that is eight 
 days old., horn in the houfe^ or bought with mo~ 
 7tey of any Jiranger. Gen. xvii. 12, 13. But 
 in the ne-w Tcjlament, we have nothing of this 
 kind in the cafe of baptifm. There I can find 
 no authority to baptize any but thofe who are 
 taught., repent., believe^ &'c. Now as we fliall 
 not pretend intirely to regard the inftitution 
 of circumcifion, in adminiftering baptifm ; 
 and fo baptize only males, — precifely on the 
 eighth day, — and our fervants, whether con- 
 verted or no ; and as none pretend that our 
 Lord gave licence to omit thefe, and yet fol- 
 low circumcifion in adminiftering baptifm, it 
 muft be proper to regard the plain words of 
 inftitution only, and fo firft teach, and then 
 baptize thofe who are taught. 
 
 C Fourthly^ 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 Fourthly, I might add, the obje(fl:ion, fi p- 
 pofes that circumcifion was limited to the 
 children of believers^ i. e. pious Jeivs^ ore:le 
 I do not fee the force of it. Now this is 
 quite contrary to plain matter of facl, as I 
 think every attentive reader of the old Tejla- 
 ment muil fee. The children of "j^icked Jews^ 
 had the fame right to circumcifion as thoie of 
 pons Jeivs. If then the children of bclicvtrs 
 cnl)\ mull: be baptized, this is another in- 
 ftance in v.'hich thefe two inftitutions differ; 
 and confequently another argument that the 
 one cannot fucceed the other. 
 
 Fifthly, 1 delire I may not offend any feri- 
 ousChriilian, or pious brother in the miniftry, 
 if I crave leave to fay farther, I think two 
 circumftances fhew, that what is contained 
 in the objedion, is not of much weight, 
 even with thofe who make ufe of it. i. 
 That many, if not all of them, baptize, as 
 they call it, the children of thofe, in whom 
 there is no appearance of faith. 2. When 
 thofe who were born of wicked parents, and 
 were, what they call, baptized in their infancy, 
 come to join with them in church-felloivjhip, 
 they do not re- baptize them. Now, allow- 
 ing that fprinkling is baptifm ; I would fay- 
 this baptifm of unbeliever's children, is ei- 
 ther valid and authorized by fcripture, or it is 
 not. If it is not, how can thefe our brethren 
 adminifler it, or receive thofe into chiirch-fel- 
 JoirJJjip who have had no other baptifm .^ If it 
 is, then why do they talk of believers children 
 
 having 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 having a right to this ordinance, fmce, by 
 this conceiTion, they allow, that the childrenf 
 of unbelievers have the lame right ? From all 
 thefe things it appears evident to me, that 
 neither circumcifion nor any thing elfe, can: 
 warrant our baptizing any but believers. 
 
 Some others have thought, there is another 
 way, better than this, to account for the 
 fiience of fcripture, about infani-haptifmy 
 and yet maintain the validity of tlie pradice. 
 *' Becaufe, fay they, the Jews were wont to 
 baptize profelytes, and their children •, which 
 pra6lice the difciples were acquainted with, 
 and therefore would naturally infer that the 
 children of converted parents ought to be bap- 
 tized now^ under the gcfpel-difpenfation^ with- 
 out ourLord's making exprefs mention of it."' 
 As this is, by fome, efteemed the beft ar- 
 gument for infant'haptifi-n* I aflc leave to 
 colle<5l a few circumftances relating to this 
 pra(5lice of baptizing profelytes^ among the 
 Jcws^ and the evidence we have of ic, with 
 a few remarks. 
 
 ift. Allowing that there really was fuch a 
 practice among the Jews, and this of divine 
 appointment, it is very natural to fi^ppofe 
 that if our blefTed Lord defigned we fhould 
 follow them at all, he would either have us 
 follow them in every thing relating to this 
 pradice, or he would tell us wherein we 
 
 * Dr. Hammond (3.y^ the foundation of infant-haptrfm 
 is far better laid in this praftice than in circumcifion. 
 See Rui ut /upra^ p. 29. Gale p. 335, 353, 
 
 C 2 ought 
 
( 52 ) 
 ^ught to deviate from them. I can fee no 
 method of reafoning r7om their praiftice to 
 our's, (either in this cafe or in circumcifion) 
 which will not take in ail the circumfiances 
 relating to their practice, except Chrift had 
 forbidden it, and mentioned feme that are 
 to be excluded. I can find no circumftance 
 mentioned as excluded in the commijficn. It 
 therefore fecms quite neceflary, either to fol- 
 low them in every thing, or in nothing. I 
 would mention feveral things which I fup- 
 pofe few, who ufe this argument, imitate 
 them in ; and the curious reader, m.ay exa- 
 mine the writings of thofe who have treated 
 more largely of this practice for more.* i. 
 They fay that after the Jews^tx^ once bap- 
 tized, at their appearing before the Lord, 
 Ex. xix. lo. none of their offspring were ever 
 to be baptized afcer wards. And the fame 
 of heathen profelytes ; the children they had, 
 wnen baptized, fay they, might be baptized 
 at their parents requefti but not any who 
 were born afterwards : for all born after the 
 bapiifm of their parents, were cfteem.ed born 
 clean. 2. All males under thirteen years, and 
 one day old ; and all females under twelve 
 years and one day old, were baptized at the 
 requeft of their parents, thofe above that 
 age, at their own requeft. 3. If a vvoman 
 
 • Light/. Horae Hebraicae in Matt. iii. 6. Wall'i In- 
 troduaion to Hifl. of Inf. Bapt. and fmaller extradls ia 
 jiinjivorih on Gen. xvii. Light/. Harm, of N. Teil. 
 §9. Cradockh Harm, of 4 Evang. ch. i. 4 2*1. ch* 
 
 VI. § CI, &c. 
 
 was 
 
C 53 J 
 
 was baptized when with child, her child was 
 not baptized again : this baptifm of the mo- 
 ther ierved for both. 4. I remember no 
 hint of any of them who were baptized any 
 other way than by r,nmerfiGn. Now if their 
 baptifm is followed by us in any thing, why 
 not in all thefe things ? I may add, this bap- 
 tifm was after circumcifion, and therefore if 
 Chrijiian baptifm fucceeds the Jewijhy it can- 
 not furcly fucceed circumcifion too. 
 
 2dly, if they had fiich a pradlice, it was 
 not enjoined them by the Lord ; but was a 
 tradition of their own ; as 1 think all Chrif- 
 tian writers will allow. Now we know how 
 much our Lord fpoke againft their traditions, 
 efpecially thole of baptifms. See Mark vii. 
 and we cannot think he would approve of 
 this, while he difapproved of others, and not 
 intorm us of it. Now we have no informa- 
 tion of this ; and therefore, allowing they 
 had fuch a tradition, it is unreafonable to 
 fuppofe our Lord (hould defig)i to have it 
 imitated in a gofpel-inftitiition. But 
 
 gdty, There is great reafon to believe they 
 had no fuch cuftom of baptizing profelytes 
 und'^r the old Teftament difpenfation as is 
 pleaded for. Becaufe, as feveral * have ob- 
 ferved, " It is not mentioned in fcripure^ 
 nor in the apochrypha^ nor in Jofephus, who 
 wrote particularly of the antiquities, cuftoms 
 
 * Dr. Gale's Refiec. p. 270, 271. Dr. G/V/'s Inf. 
 Bapt. a part and pillar of poperj^, p. 3S, 39. Rees 
 agdrm Walker, p. 21. 
 
 C 2 and 
 
( 54 ) 
 
 and ioertmomes of the Jews ; nor in Philo- 
 yud<£U5^ who wrote a little before him, botli 
 which authors might have been expected to 
 meiition this pradice, had there been any 
 fuch in ufe, at, or before that time." The 
 evidence produced in favour of it, is from 
 the Gemara of the Jews^ * a work wrote at 
 
 * For the fake of the lefs-knowing-reader, note here, 
 that the Gemara is the comment, as theMifnais the text, 
 of the Jeivrjh work called the Talmud; which gives an 
 account of the religious ceremonies of the Jeivs. There 
 are tv\o of thefe ; one called the Jervfalem Talmud, 33 
 written by the y^qw of Judea ; the other the Bahylonijh 
 Talmjid, as written by the 'J civs in Babylonia. The for- 
 mer, according to Dr. Bray, Buxtorf, and fome others, 
 followed by Dr. Gale and Mr. Rees, was written about 
 A. D. 230. But Dr. Prideaux fuppofes it not compleat- 
 ed until about A. D. 300. The latter about A. L?. 506, 
 (and it feems F. Mcnnus maintains it to be ilill later, 
 about the 7th century.) Both thefe Gemaras are faid to 
 fpeak o^jenxijh bapcifm oiprofelytes ; and Dr. ^<2// would 
 have it, by a paflage from Selderiy that the Mi/na menti- 
 ons it too : but Dr. Gill fhews that the pafTage has not 
 a tittle concerning it ; and fays he is content to rifque 
 his reputation for Jeivijh learning, (which we know, is 
 not fmall) if a paflage be produced either from the 
 Balyloiiijh or Jeru/akm Mi/na, that mentions it. See 
 Prid.Qonn. b. v. p. 463 — 473, 10th Edit. Gale^s Re- 
 flec. p. 326. Rees, p. 17 — 29. ff all's Hift. Introduc. p. 
 79. GiH's Inf. Bapt. apart and pillar of popery, p. 39. 
 And that very valuable Scripture DiSlionary publilhed 
 1759, in 3 vols, oftavo ; worthy to be recommended to 
 every young ftudent in divinity, and to all who would 
 acquire a knowledge of the chronology, geography, and 
 hiftory of the bible. N. B. It is a judicious extradl from 
 Mujebius, yerom, Calmef, XJper, Prideaux, Shuckford, 
 Baronius, bir 1/aac Neiuten, Maundrell, Whithy, Wells ^ 
 Arhuthnott &c. &C. See it on the words Gemara,Mi/na, 
 Talmud. 
 
 fooneft 
 
( 55 ) 
 
 foonefl, not until about A. D. 230, but ac- 
 cording to others, not until A. D. 300. Ac 
 which time they might eafily take for granted 
 what was not true, as to ceremonies that had or 
 iiad not been in ufe fo long before this time 
 as 1600 or 1700 years-, the time when this 
 ceremony is laid to take its rife. Efpecially 
 as this work was not compiled from any 
 writings, but from cral tradition^ handed 
 down from one to another-, which, confider- 
 ing the length of time, the whimfical fpirit 
 of the Jews in general, the talmudical writers 
 in particular, and the little account made of 
 their writings -, makes it very evident, that we 
 have no folid authority to believe they had 
 any fuch praftice, at the time pretended to. 
 Thefe things beingjput together, it is v/onder- 
 ful that this, at beft, luppofed tradition, fhould 
 be culUd a. I'q/is for infrji.^-daptifm; and 1 mufl 
 fay, I fcarcely know what could be faid more 
 cffedually to prove that it has no bafis at all, 
 except in the inventions of men. From thi-fe 
 things, I think it is evident, that we muft 
 cither allow infant-baptifyn is authorized by 
 the commifTion, or defpair of finding it any 
 where elfe. To this therefore we return 
 again. And if any thing is needful, befides 
 what has been faid, in order to fix its fenfe, 
 1 think it may be done by confidering the 
 words themfelves — the parallel pafTage — the 
 condu6l of thofe who obeyed it, and fome 
 things faid concerning the ordinance. 
 
 C 4 I. The 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 ' I. The words themfelves. We have fhewn 
 ■ah-eady, the words all nations cannot, and are 
 not pretended, to include every individual of 
 mankind; and the objedtions anfwered above, 
 imply, that they do not of the.nfelves, natu- 
 rally teach us to baptize infants. In order 
 then, to have further fatisfadion, if it may 
 be, may we not, from what has been faid on 
 this text, realbn thus ? All expofitors, and 
 all others, for what I know, do allow and 
 maintain, that the adult muft be taught, be- 
 iore they are bapcized : now the text makes 
 no ditlindions, nor fpeaks of two different 
 kinds of fubjefts, nor of methods in the mi- 
 niiterial v/ork of teaching and baptizing. If 
 then we baptize before teachirg, according to 
 this univerfaUy allcwed fenfe of the text, it is 
 plain, we a6l without warrant. But when we 
 teach before we baptize, we ad precifely ac- 
 cording to what all men allow to be the natu- 
 ral ienfe of our Lord's words. Again, all 
 men allow that the apofiles v;ere, and other 
 minillers are, commanded, in this text, to do 
 what they are able, in making difciples to Chrift 
 in all nations. Now we muft either make them 
 difciples after^ or by, or before baptifm. Not 
 after •, for that would be, not only to invert 
 the order of the vv^ords, but to oppofe the 
 imiverial Ienfe of mankind concerning them. 
 And I think it is proved above, that none 
 are, or can be made difciples of Chrift by 
 baptifm. It muft then be before baptifm : 
 3.nd: Uacb muft fix the limits of baptize, and 
 
 we 
 
(57 ) 
 
 we muft baptize none but thofe who are firft 
 taught, unlefs we deviate from this our only 
 commifTion. 
 
 2. This is confirmed by the parallel paf- 
 fage, Mark xvi. 15, 16. where what Mat- 
 thew calls teaching, is called preaching the 
 gofpeU — and this before, and in order to faith } 
 and faith before haptifm. I think any one 
 muft fee and acknowledge that the people 
 now called Baptifts, do proceed cxadtly ac- 
 cording to the order pointed out in thefe tw^o 
 pallages. 
 
 3. The method of thofe who taught and 
 baptized, both before and after the commifTion 
 v/as given, proves the fame. We cannot find, 
 that John ever baptized any, not even though 
 they had Abraham to their father, who did 
 not repent, confefs their fins, &c. Both he 
 and the apoftles, as we have feen before, firft 
 made them difciples, and then baptized them, 
 compare Matt. iii. Mark. i. Luke iii. John iv. 
 12. Thofe baptized Aofsn. 41. were fuch as 
 gladly received the word-, not them and their 
 children too. Thofe baptized A£Js viii. 12. 
 were only fuch as believed Philip, preaching 
 the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the 
 name of Jefus. We are particularly informed 
 they were men and ivoraen j but not a word 
 of their children with them. Nothing could 
 have beerf more eafy, more natural, or more 
 agreeable to the manner of the facred hifiori- 
 ans, than to have added — and children — had 
 there been any then baptized. Thofe baptized 
 
 ■ C 5 A^h 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 AHsTi. 48. werefuch 2i^ fpake with tongues and 
 glmfied God, v. 46. The houfholds mention- 
 ed as baptized, were of the fame kind. It 
 is evident enough that Lydia's houfhold are 
 called brethren, and are fuch as the apojiles 
 could comfort by their miniftrations, A£is xvi. 
 « 5, 40. The jailor's houfhold were fuch as 
 had firft the word of the Lord fpoke to them, 
 and rejoiced, believing in God y A6ls xvi. 32, 33, 
 34. The houfhold of Crifpus were fuch as 
 Mieved in the Lord, y/^j xviii. 8. And the 
 houfhold of Stephanas were the firji-frtiits of 
 Achaia, i. e. the firfl perlbns converted there, 
 and addicted thetnf elves to the mini f try of the 
 faints, I Cor. i. 16. xvi. 15. Whatever he 
 meant by that word, it cannot be applied to 
 infants. All thefe houfholds, theretore, are 
 nor, as fome feem to have fuppofed, inftances 
 of the baptifm of infants-, but proofs of the 
 baptifm of believers. 
 
 4. Some things faid concerning this ordi- 
 nance, prove it cannot belong to infants. 
 They were to baptize in, or into, * the name 
 \. e. into a profelTion of the dodrine, or belief 
 of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghofi. Now 
 
 • Ek to cvof**. This phrafe has been fuppofed to fig- 
 nify by the authority of the Father, Sec. And it is true 
 we baptize by diuine authority : and this is pretty agree- 
 able to ourEnglilh phrafe — in the name of: — but I hum- 
 bly conceive it is by no means agreeable to the original 
 words. Compare i Sam. xxv. 9. Ezra v. 1. Septuag. 
 John V. 25. Markyiw'u 17. Greek. That the phrafe here, 
 has the fenfe given it above, may appear by the like Greek 
 phrafe, Rem, vi. 3. i Cor, i. 13, 15. x. 2. Gal. iii. 27. 
 
 I cannot 
 
( 59 ) 
 
 I cannot Imagine how a baptized infant makes 
 profefllon of doftrine, faith, or any thing of 
 the like kind, more than one unbaptized. 
 But when a perlbn is converted, and then bap- 
 tized, as a proof that he determines hcnce- 
 .forth to own God as his only Lord and law- 
 giver-, and to maintain, in faith and pra6tice, 
 a continual regard to the facred three, it is 
 eafy to fee how agreeable it is to thefe words, 
 and how flrongly fuch an expreflion militates 
 againft the baptifm of infants; fmce it is not 
 poflible that infants Ihonld, in this fenfe, be 
 baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and 
 Holy Ghoji; and confequently, if this is the 
 fenfe, as I believe will generally be allowed, 
 it is not polnble that this commiffion Ihould 
 -authorize, nor even tolerate infant- ba^tifm. 
 To the fame purpofe we are told, by the 
 Gpojile^ that as many as (i. e. every one who) 
 were baptized at Rome and Galatia, were 
 baptized into his death, and had put on Chrijl, 
 Rom, vi. 3. Gal. iii. 27. Now as the apoftle 
 here, not only fpeaks of baptifm in general, 
 but exprefsly of all who had been baptized 
 among them; and as thefe words cannot be 
 applied to infants, it appears a fubftantial 
 proof that there was no fuch pra(ftiGe ife 
 infant- baptifn in thefe churches; and confe- 
 quently there ought to be no fuch praftice 
 in any churches of Chrifi at this day. This 
 argument is the more confiderable, as thefe 
 churches had now been a good while planted; 
 
 that 
 
( Co ) 
 
 that at Rome* efpecial])', about fifteen years : 
 in vvhicih time there mult have been children 
 born and baptized, had they uied any fuch 
 pradlice. Again, the ^poMe Peter calls l>apli/m, 
 the anfiver cf a gcod confcicnce towards Godjf 
 Whatever might be faid in a critical manner, 
 on this text, I believe none will ever be i?ble 
 to vindicate fuch an expofition of it, as does 
 not imply that the ordinance is to be attended 
 to from a confcioufnefs of its being a duty, in 
 the perfon to whom it is to be adminillered. 
 Now infants can have no fuch confcioufnefs; 
 and therefore cannot be the proper fubiedts 
 of that baptifm which is the anfujcr of a gcod 
 confcicnce towards Ccd. 
 
 There are two or three other fcriptures a- 
 bout which fome weaker readers feem per- 
 plexed, by hearing what fome others have 
 laid upon them. It is faid, thsy brought ycting 
 children to Chriji that he fijcu'd touch theni^ i^c. 
 Matt. XIX. 13, 14. Mark x. 12 — 17. Lukexv'ui. 
 15, 18. But itfliould be obferved, i. That, 
 there is not a word about baptifm in thefe 
 places. 2. We are alfured, our Lord bap- 
 tized none : therefore they could not be 
 brought to him to be baptized by him, fee 
 John iv. 2. 3. The evangelifts tell us plainly 
 v;hat they v/ere brought for, and what our 
 Lord did for them. They were brought, fay 
 
 * The church of Rome is fuppofed to have been planted 
 about A. D. 43. and the epiftle written about A, D. 
 57 or 58. 
 
 f I Pa. m. 21. 
 
 the/ 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 they, that he Jhouhi touch them^ — put his hands 
 on them and pray. And they inform us, he did 
 lb. 4. As to tiiofe NVordK, of ftich is the king- 
 dom of Heaven \ — though I doubt not, all in- 
 fants, dying in infancy, will be laved; yet tlie 
 plain meaning of the words, feems to be, that 
 thofe who are humbled and fenfible of their 
 own weaknefs and helplefihefs, and ^Ki become 
 dependant and teachable as little children, 
 fhall have a place in the church below, and 
 the kingdom of glory above, compare Matt. 
 xviii. 2 — 7. And it feems our Lord chofe 
 to manifeft his love and regard to fuch fenfi.- 
 ble, humble, teachable iouls, by receiving 
 thefe little ones, who are, in this fenfe, fo like 
 his fainis. I would take this opportunity to 
 obferve, that I cannot fee the leall lliadow of 
 realbn for that common objedion, " That we 
 are churlifli towards infants, and make their 
 privileges fewer under the gofpel, than they 
 were under the law." Whatever they were 
 under the law, it is certain there cannot pofli- 
 bly be one gofpel-privilege mentioned, to 
 w^hich a baptized infant is entitled, more than 
 one unbaptized. And indeed fuppofe there 
 could, unlefs infant-baptifm be enjoined in 
 fcripture, the refle6lion would not affedt us, 
 but the hleffed Redeemer^ who has given us no 
 warrant to baptize them. 
 
 The other, and I think the only other text, 
 neceflary to be mentioned here, is i Cor. vii. 
 1 4. For the unbelieving hufhand is fan^ijied^ 
 6ic. elfe were y cur children unclean., hut novQ are 
 
 they 
 
( 62 ) 
 
 they holy. The chief thing needful in opening 
 this text, is, to underftand the v/ord holy. 
 And I think we may very well fix the fenfe 
 of this word, and may fee that the text has 
 not the moft diftant regard or relation to in- 
 fant-baptijm^ by obierving, 
 
 I. What was here the defign of the apojlle. 
 It was fimply to (hew, that when one parry 
 of a married couple was converted, and the 
 other remained in unbelief, it was Hill the 
 duty of the believer to abide w^ith the unbe- 
 liever, 'uer. 12, 13. That the hufband fhould 
 not put away his wife; nor the vjMq put away * 
 her hujhand. Now it was neceflary he fhould 
 fpeak of fuch 2i fan^fification, as would be per- 
 tinent to his defign, and to the fubjedt he is 
 upon; and therefore of fuch a fandification 
 as would manifefl that the hufband and wife 
 ought to abide togeihcr. To fpeak of any 
 other fandtification, v/ould have been to wan- 
 der quite avv^ay from his fubjedt. 
 
 2dly. It would neither be pertinent to the 
 {ipojlle^s defign, to fpeak of real, inward y2?/7^z- 
 fication^ or any fort of outward, reputedy^w^^/- 
 jication^ nor is it agreeable to the letter and 
 expreflion of the text, to underftand him in 
 
 • The Greek word «^«£t« is the fame in both verfes ; 
 and Dr. Doddridge (after Dr. Lardner) obferves from "Jo- 
 fepkus, that though it was not allowed in the Jenvijh law, 
 that ivomen might divorce their hufijands, yet it was 
 praftifed ; they probably having learnt it of the Romax 
 'women, who are known in this age to have praftifed it 
 in the moft fcanJalous n-.anner. Fafn. Exfof. on Mark 
 a, 12. vid. & Jujt. Mart. Apol. page 42. 
 
 this 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 this fenfe. Not pertinent to his defign—^ 
 fmce it is his delign, not to fliew whether 
 they are to abide together, after the unbe- 
 liever is really fanSiified (after which he can- 
 not be an unbeliever) but while he or ilie, re- 
 mains a heathen, and in unbelief. And it is 
 not either real, or ve^mtd fan^ltfication in any 
 religious lenfe that would any way oblige them 
 to abide together; except they had voluntarily 
 efpoufed each other, and upon fuch efpoufal, 
 been legally united in the relacion of man and 
 wife by the marriage contract. On the other 
 hand, if they are fo united, '* In virtue of this 
 " UNION, as a valuable author ""obferves*, 
 *' they (i. e. the man and wife) become each 
 " other's property." Confequently, without 
 fuch a fandtification as that now mentioned 
 whether reputed or reaU they are under the 
 llrongeft obligations to abide with each other, 
 that can be. It is not polTible that fuch a 
 fandification can any way ftrengrhen the obli- 
 gation at all: it could not therefore be to the 
 
 apofile'% purpofe to mention it. Nor is it 
 
 agreeable to the letter and exprcfiion of the 
 text. Becaufe he fays, this landlification is 
 hy the believer \ whereas, if, it is rf^/ fandifi* 
 cation, it is by the Spirit of God \ finc^ it is his 
 prerogative alone^ to fancStify the heart. If it 
 is a reputed {din^\?iC2Li\on^ (I own, I do not well 
 underftand the phrafe as ufed in this cafe, and 
 
 * The Rev. Mr. F^a?»'s complete Duty of Mcin, p. 342, 
 An excellent family-book, 
 
 much 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 much lefs, do I fee its propriety) as fome feem 
 to think, * it fliould rather have been faid 
 — fandiified by the hufband's or wW't's faith^ 
 than by the hiifband or wife. Befides, the 
 fandification here fpoke of, is confident with 
 the peribn's being an unbeliever, which cha- 
 racter he ftiil bears, though, in the apofile's 
 fenfe fandlified. He cannot therefore fpeak 
 of real, inward fancftification. And as to 
 reputed fanflification, I can find no founda- 
 tion, either for the expreffion, or idea (if I 
 form any proper notion of the idea fixed to 
 it) in any part of the new Teftament. Let 
 me jnft add, the apojtle does not fay, the 
 MARRIAGE RELATION is fanclified, but the 
 UNBELIEVING PERSON is fandlified, by the 
 hulband or wife. We obferve upon the 
 whole then, " It is fanftification, not of the 
 ** conjugal relation, but xht unbelie'ving per/on, 
 *' — yet the perfon fandified remains an un- 
 " believer, — not effeded by the Spirit ofGod^ 
 ** nor by t^i^heli everts faith, — nor by the be- 
 *' litver's faith in conjunction with the blefping 
 " of Gcd : hwtfir.tply by th^ believer. It is a 
 " fanCbification that obliges the believer and 
 " unbeliever to live together, as man and 
 ** wife." Hence I obferve, 
 
 3dly. That as, for the reafons above of- 
 fered, no fanflification yet mentioned, can be 
 .intended by the apofile, fo I can think of none, 
 fo agreeable to the defign, letter, and con- 
 
 • Vid. Be^a, Diodale, Henry ^ Jun,.tLRA Tremel. in loc. 
 
 neCtion 
 
( 65 ) 
 
 neftion of the v;ords, as set apart to he in- 
 tirely the btliever^s property^ by the one cfpoufing 
 and contra^ing with the other, at the time, 
 when they chole each other, for hufband and 
 v/ife. As if P^w/had faid, " Let not the be- 
 liever difmifs or divorce the unbeliever; for, 
 remember you have formerly chofe and fet 
 apart each other, from all other perfons in the 
 world, to be each other's fole property, as 
 man and wife; and therefore as your relation 
 to each other, depends, not on your being 
 converted or unconverted, fmee this was not 
 mentioned in the engagement; but your rela- 
 tion and the obligations confequent upon it, 
 depend wholly on this contract, it cannot be 
 diflblved now, by one being converted, which 
 w.;s never taken into the queftion at firlt; 
 bur you remain in the fame relation and un- 
 der the fame obligation, that you ever did: 
 therefore, let not the hufband put away his 
 wife," &c. 
 
 If any thing, befides what is faid above, is 
 requifite, to juftify this fenfe of the words, 
 let it be obferved, i. That this fenfe feems 
 fo fair, natural and eafy, that fome emi- 
 nent divines *, who have yet been advocates 
 for infant haptifm, feem to take the words in 
 this fenfe, or in one very near to it. Though 
 I muft confeis, they have not fpoke fo clearly 
 on it, as that J can fully fatisfy myfelf, what 
 
 * Calvin, Melanilon, Dr. Doddridge in loc. Dr. 
 W, Goa^e on DomeiHc Duties, p. 112. 2d edition. 
 
 idea 
 
C ^6 ) 
 
 idea they fix to the ^ovd fariilify. 2. Some 
 have obfervcd that the jewi/h Rabhi>7S in their 
 writings, life the word fanb'tify^ (i. c. the fy- 
 -nonymous Hebrew word, ti/Tp,! to denote the 
 "3(51 of marriage^ or of confecration in marriage*. 
 -I thini<:, I cannot yet fully confent, that the 
 cpojlle^ here, hy fan tlify^ means precifely the 
 fame as efpoufe; but rather that x.\\\s> fanoiifica' 
 Hon is the effect of the one perfon efpoufing 
 the other ; or that they djd in the ad, and at 
 the time, of efpoufmg br marrying each 
 other, fet apart each other, by that a<5t, from 
 all other perfons in the world, to be, as man 
 and wife, the fole property of each other, fo 
 long as both continue in life. But it would 
 be very natural fgr the Rabbins f to fneak in 
 
 the 
 
 • Dr. Gale*s Ref. p. 518. Dr. G///'s Expof. in loc. 
 
 \ I am ready to imagine, it was in fome luch way, 
 that the ancient Chriftions were led to call baptifm 
 regeneration. Perfons were then ufually baptized when 
 they were converted and embraced the gofpel ; hence 
 after fome time, it would be very natural to call baptized 
 perfons regenerated or enlightened, as fome have fhewn 
 they did; becaufe, if they refufed to be baptized, it 
 would be an evidence to then, of thofe perfons who did 
 fo, being unregenerate. If they embraced this defpifed- 
 ordinance, efpecially in thofe times of darknefs and per- 
 fecution, it would be a proof, at leaft, fomewhat conli- 
 derable, that the peifons who did fo, were converted. 
 And hence from this ufe of the words baptifm and regene- 
 ration, as a multitude of other errors and corruptions 
 prevailed, I think they would be led to fappofe that a 
 perfon was regenerated in, or by, the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm. Hence after a time, they would be naturally led to 
 caH baptifm regeneration ; and {0, as perfons were fatis- 
 
 fied 
 
( 67 ; 
 
 die manner above-mentioned, and call mar- 
 riage, Tandification, as being that a<ft in which 
 every perlon is fandtified or fet apart, in the 
 fenle above given, by and for, tlie perfcn who 
 efpoufes him or her. And it would Hill be 
 more natural, to call a hufband or wife, fanc- 
 tihed or fet apart, to, or by, the other party, 
 becaufe no one could come into that rela- 
 tion, but at the fame time, be, in this fenfe, 
 fandlified. Now though fancflify do not mean 
 precifely the fame as efpoufe, yet the ufe of 
 the word among the Rabbins.^ in the fenfe 
 above-mentioned, is, I think, a confirmation 
 
 lied none could be faved without regeneration, they 
 would conclude none could be faved without baptifm, 
 and trom hence, woum pleau i6r, anu criu.Ca*v"C'i!r tC in- 
 troduce the baptifm of infants. As this is a conjedlure 
 that does not much affeiSl the argument, I fhall not be 
 much concerned, if it be difapproved, and even refuted. 
 But I mull own, the more I think on this fubjeft, and the 
 more I am led to imagine, that things were brought to 
 what they arc brought to, in fome fuch way as this. As 
 to the ufe of the v/oi6. fanSiify among the Ralbins, above 
 mentioned, I think, Buxtorf's words cited by Dr. Gale^ 
 do not prove that they ufed it in any fenfe different from 
 that I have ventured to give it. His words are, apud 
 Rabbinos prteterea Wip JytiechJochice dicitur de conjecratione 
 fpovfee ad conjugium, " concerning the confecration of the 
 bride, at, or in marriage." Now there muft be as evi- 
 dent ground of diflinftion between what is done in, or by 
 marriage, and the acl of marriage itfelf, as between the 
 effeft and the caufe. So that if they really do mean the 
 aft of marriage by this word ir>np, I (hould rather think 
 they do it by a common trope, a meton) my of the eficft, 
 than that this is the proper fenfe of the apcftk here. 
 Efpecially as the fenfe I plead for,, is fo natural and com- 
 mon. 
 
 of 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 of the fcnfe we give to fan^ify in the text. 
 However, 
 
 3dly. It is very evident that the word has 
 this fenfe very commonly, in other parts of 
 fcripture, I mean to set ap.art to a particu- 
 lar ule, whether civil or facred, and whether 
 by God or man. We have the Englijh v.'crd 
 fo uled, in many phces-, the Greeks by the 
 feptuag'mt fcill ofmer ; but the Hebrew much 
 more than either. I venture to give a fev/ init 
 ftances. It is clearly in this fenfe that the 
 Lord calls the Medes ("^Ji^lpl^) \(\s fanSlified oneSy 
 i. e. thofe he has chofen and fet apart to be 
 his inftruments in deilroying Babjlon, Jfa, 
 xiii. 3. And that the enemies of Judah are 
 encouraged 10 prepare zvar (Heb. HDH'^/D lltnp 
 fanctify war) agai'njl her^ Jer. vi. 4. i. e. to 
 feparace themfelves from other engagements, 
 and prepare to march aguinfl:, to affault, take, 
 and fubdue her. And that \.\\q prophet^ when 
 pleading with the Lord, Jer. xii. 3. fays con- 
 cerning the \w\Qktd^ prepare them (Hcb.'0!tn\>T\y 
 fept. tt,yvi(yov ot.\}ro^)(;,) fan^ify them for the day of 
 Jlattghter^ i. e. do thou, or rather, thou cer- 
 tainly wilt, fet apart and appoint them to de- 
 ftruciion, mifery, and woe. Alfo that the 
 Lord, fpeaking oi Babylon., {2i^^^prepare (Heb. 
 Wl\).>fept. cx,yioc(7y,Ti.,fan3fify) the nations againji 
 her., which is explained in the next claufe by 
 calling together again ^ her the kingdoms o^i 
 Ararat., Minni, and Afljchenax., &c. Jer. li. 27. 
 And the prophet Joel fays, fan3ify a fajl, 
 (Heb. 0^'S "lli^lp fepi' ayixa-xTi vrsuxi/,) Joel 
 
 i. 14. 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 i. 14. i. e. feparate and kt apart a time for 
 that folemn work. Aifo the prophet Zepha- 
 niah fays, concerning Judah^ whom the Lord 
 determined to chaftife, 'The Lord hath pre- 
 pared a jacrijice^ he hath hid (Heb. ^ipjlyfept. 
 viyixKi^ he hath fan5fificd) his gtiefts^ i. e. hath 
 let apart and appointed tlie Egyptians and 
 'Chaldeans to afTault, take and flay the men of 
 Judah, and to rejoice over them, as perfons 
 rejoice when invited to, and entertained at a 
 fealt; fee alfo Jer. i. 5. Exod. xiii. 2. Neh. 
 iii. I. Mic. iii. 5. Joel ii. 15, t6, &c. In all 
 which places, it is evident, the word fan^ify 
 means to fet apart or appoint to fome parti- 
 cular life or work. 
 
 "What then is meant by the word holy? 
 Now are they (i. e. your children) holy. In 
 order to underiiand this word, let us obferve, 
 I. This holinefs in the children is not the ti- 
 {tdc of the, parents faith, but of the unbe- 
 liever's fanftification •, as it is indifputable, if 
 we do but read the words. And it is quite 
 marvellous that any one fhould talk of chil- 
 dren being holy through or by their parents 
 faith from thefe words. There is not, that I 
 can fee, an appearance of it in the text. Nor 
 would it be at all to the apoftle's purpofe to 
 fay what effed:s the faith of the parent had 
 upon the children; fince this could no way, 
 that I can perceive, flrengthen, nor demon- 
 ftrate, the obligation of the parents to abide 
 together, the point he has in view. If we can 
 form any idea of the fenfe of a paflage from 
 
 the 
 
( 70 ) 
 
 the words of It, we muft believe that this ho- 
 linefs of the children arifes from the fanftifi- 
 cation of the unbeliever by the believer. £//>, 
 fays he, i. e. if the unbeliever was notfandli- 
 fied by the believer, your children were unclean\ 
 hut no-w^ fince the unbeliever is fanftified by 
 the believer, they are holy. 
 
 2. This holincfs therefore, muft be of the 
 fame nature in the children, with the fan^iii- 
 cation of the unbelieving parent, which is the 
 caufe of it. We know that " in fubjeds of 
 the Tame kind and nature, like caiifes will have 
 like effe5ls" is a firft principle, and a funda- 
 mental maxim in all inquiries both in the 
 world of nature and grace. This univerfaUy, 
 allowed maxim, feems necefTirily to prove 
 that we cannot fuppofe the holinefs of the 
 children, to be at ail different in kind, from 
 the fan6tification of the unbelieving parent ; 
 and confcquently, that if this holinefs gives a 
 title to got pel ordinances, the unbelieving, 
 parent muft have the firft title to them. Be- 
 fides, if this holinefs gives ciiildren a right to 
 haptifm, it muft needs give them a right to 
 the Lord's Supper ; for it muft, I think be 
 without controverfy admitted, that whatever 
 gives a right to the one, muft entitle to the 
 other. 
 
 3. It is very evident I think, from the very 
 genius of the go/pel difpenfation, and from the 
 tenor of the 7iew "Teji-awent, that no fort of 
 federal or reputed holinefs, can give any title 
 to gofpel ordinances of any kind, and that no j 
 
 fuch ^ 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 fLi<:h holinefs could pofllLly arife from the 
 fanctification of the unbeliever we have men- 
 tioned above, nor even from the faith of the 
 believer. Thefe things, if 1 miftake not, 
 have generally been iuppofed and taken for 
 granted, rather than proved: v^hereas they 
 are the points chiefly neceffary to be deter- 
 mined by fair reafoning, and evident Icripture 
 proof, or elfe we can by no means argue from 
 them in favour of infant baptifm. 
 
 4. It is clear from the maxim mentioned 
 above, from the nature of things, ns well as 
 from fcripture, tliat no holineJs can arife from 
 the matrimonial fandificauion of the unbe- 
 lieving parent, but a kgidmaje holiriefs. q. d. 
 " It muft be allowed that you ought to abide 
 together, though one reir-ain in unbeL'ef, fmce 
 you are under the fame obligations to each 
 other ftill; for if you had not legally efpoufed 
 and married, and thereby fimdified or fet 
 apart each other, it would naturally follow 
 that your children are unclean, or children 
 born in uncleannefs; but now it is on all 
 hands allowed, that by virtue of the marriage, 
 contradt, your children are lawful, legitimate 
 children; whence it muft follow, that your 
 engagements remain inviolate, for thofe thus 
 joined together, cannot be put afunder, MatL 
 xix. 6. and that you cannot be feparated from 
 each other, on any religious account.'* 
 
 5. Though it be granted that this fenfe of 
 the word is fomewhat uncommon, yet, as 
 was long fince obierved, by an eminent 
 
 writer 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 Writer among the reformers, the cc?mexic7t re- 
 quires it "* ; and this is not the only place irt 
 which we are obliged to take words in an 
 uncommon fenfe, by the fcape and con- 
 nexion of the paffage in which they are 
 found -j-, and I venture to propofe it to the 
 accurate reader whether the ufe of tiytar^sj, in 
 the former part of the verfe, to denote matri- 
 monial fanftification, is not altogether fuffi- 
 cient to juftify the fenfe of (ay<«) holy, which 
 we now plead for ? And the apofde evidently 
 iifes the kindred word («-)/» *(r/!>t,o?) fandiification 
 in a like fenfe, i 'Thef. iv. 3,4. which much- 
 confirms th? interpretation we give of i Cor, 
 vii. 14. Befides, as thepious Mr. i^^^-j* julily 
 obferves, " The ufual diitinelion in all civi- 
 lized nations, between children born in mar- 
 riage, and out of marriage, has always been 
 that of dean and unclean : therefore it is no 
 wonder the apofile in this place fpeaking of 
 marriage, (not of baptifm) fhould conform 
 himfelf to the common mode of fpeech, in 
 calling children clean or unclean^ holy or unholy.^ 
 according as their parents either kept toge- 
 
 * " Connexio autem argumenti haec eft. Si non 
 placeret confuetudo conjugalis, filii veflri efTent rpurii,.& 
 catenas immundi, a^aSapo/. At filii veftii non funt 
 fpurii, ergo confuetudo conjugalis Deo placet." Me- 
 ianSion in loc 
 
 •f We have feveral inftances of this ; as *]3"ias Job 
 i. II. and ii. 5. nwnpn, //ij/". iv. 14. t^ovaixv, iCor, 
 xi. 10, &c. 
 
 * Animadverfions On Dr. Rygehfs Difcourfe of Inf. 
 Bapt. p. 243. 
 
 cannot 
 
( n ) 
 
 ther in the honourable ftatc of matrimony, 
 or parted at pleafure, as Dnclean people ufe to 
 •do, after they have lived together in a vile 
 nianncr for feme time. And indeed, fays 
 •he, holy matrimony is a known phrafe in the 
 EngUftd tongvie." Thefe confiderations, I 
 think, make it very evident, that the fenfe wc 
 •give to this paflage is no v/ay abfurd, but 
 quite eafy, natural and fcriptural; yea, I 
 cannot but apprehend, the only natural and 
 fcriptural one that can be given to it. I aflc 
 -the reader's pardon, if 1 have been too prolix, 
 on a text fo often brought into this contro- 
 verfy. Though I apprehend it has no rela- 
 tion to it, yet. i fuppoled this enlargement ne- 
 ceffary, in order, if pofllble, to do fomething 
 towards fettling its lenfe. 
 
 Remarks on fame Taffnges in the Father?. 
 
 THE moft material and important of thefc 
 paiTages neceffary to be here mentioned, are 
 thofe which follow *. Let it firft be obferved, 
 that we need not recite any paffages in favour 
 of believer's baptifm, that is, to prove that 
 baptifm was adminiftered to believers in the 
 primi'iive ages of Cbrijiianity, This is on all 
 
 • Some other paffages have been cited ; b»it I think, 
 few at this day, will think them of much weight in fa- 
 \-our of infant baptifm ; but if any do, tliey may read 
 Dr. Gah\ Reflexions. Letters nth, 12th, 13th, Dr. 
 ~G/7/'s Infant Uaptifm, an Innovation, and others. 
 
 D hands 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 hands allowed. Obferve r-lfc, that ?.ll allow 
 infant baytifm to obcain, at leafb, in Africa^ in 
 the time oi Cyprian^ who was ordained Bifhcp 
 oi Carthage^ about A. D. 248. but it is dil- 
 plited whether it obtained before. Origen 
 flourifhed about A. D. 250, and is owned by 
 our brethren, the ■picdohaptijis^ to be the firfi 
 perlon we know of, who fpoke exprefij in fa- 
 vour of it. But, for reafons to be after- 
 w^ards mentioned, it is doubted whether he 
 did f^x^ali in favour of it or no : or rather, it 
 is believed he did not. Yet fome think it 
 may be inferred from the exprefhons ot fome 
 who wrote before him: chiefly from Ji'ftin 
 Martyr and Irenaus. One pafTsge in each. 
 In the former of thefe, we havt mentioned a 
 paffage already, thai I think, proves the con- 
 trary, (fee page 32,) from the iame apology, 
 p. 62, the following pafTage has been cited 
 to prove that infants were baptized in his 
 day, viz. -" Several perfons, fays he, among 
 us of both fexesj of fixtv or fevcnty years of 
 
 age, (ot £x TT^iJ'wi/ suoc^->^i£jj/,(rau to: Xpifu) who 
 
 were difcipled to Chrilh or inftinded in 
 ChrilV, in or from their childhood, do flill 
 coniinue uncorrupted." The argument on 
 this palfage is to this effect •, *' They were 
 difcipled to Chrift in ♦•heir cfiildho«-d, which 
 nnuft inckide baptifm -, consequently they 
 were baptized in childhood.'* yhfiv. i. 
 Thofe who argue thus, allow that*the word 
 tt«&»}i£uw, on which the argument is founded, 
 moft naturally and moft generally fignifies to 
 
 maks 
 
( IS ) 
 
 make dilciples by teaching \ confeqiiendy it is 
 more probable it does lo here, than the con- 
 trary, 2. We have faid before, and endea- 
 voured to prove, that the wiovdjlri^ly means 
 to make dirciples by teaching; and believe it 
 is never ufea to denote making difciples ex- 
 clufive of teaching. Now until a paiTage can 
 be produced, which proves the contrary, 
 which, we may be fure, would have, been 
 e'er now if it could have been, it is quite rea- 
 fonable that we ftill infift on it. 3. 'Timothy 
 knew the fcripture from his childhood, and 
 many fmce him have been inftrudled and con- 
 verted in their childhood •, and the words of 
 Jujli',1 evidently mean no more. 4. Though 
 baptifm is not mentioned in the paiTage, nor 
 does Juftin leem at all to have it in view, yec 
 we may allow that thole v;ho are \\\w^inftrii^ed 
 in Chriji^ ought to be baptized, whether old 
 or young •, fince it is not a perfon's age, but 
 his llate, as being converted or unconverted, 
 that conftitutes him a fubjecl of that ordi- 
 nance. This paiTuge therefore, can pofTibly 
 be no proof that infant -baptifm was in ufe, in 
 the days of Jujlin Martyr. 
 
 Iren/4:us wrote about A. D. 180, his 
 words pitraded on this occafion, are, " He 
 (Chjriit) came to fave all. {qui per eum renaf- 
 cunttirin Deura^ infantes^<£ parvulos^ i^c.) who 
 by him are born again unto God, infants, and 
 little ones, and children, and young men and 
 old men." The argument on this paffage, in 
 favour of infant-haptifm, is to this effe6t; 
 D 2 "To 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 " To be born again in Iren.fus^ means to be 
 baptized i infants, as well as )Oung men. &:c. 
 were thus born ag;ain: therctcre infants were 
 baptized." Anfwer i. It is well known that 
 Ibmc learned men, and even {o\\\tpa:dcbaptiji:^ 
 lor reafons not relating to (^^p///?;/, hive ftiev/n 
 that there is reafon to believe the chapter in 
 which thefe words are found is fpuriou?, and 
 not the workof /rf;7.?«j at all.* 2. it is like- 
 wife well known that, fuppofe the chapter to 
 be his, it is only a tranilation of his work by 
 another hand, and this tranflation a very bar- 
 barous one, as learned men, in general de- 
 clare-f. 3. It deferves confideration that In- 
 n^eus might ufe the word, tranflated infantes^ 
 rather in a proper, than a vulgar fenfe. Now 
 in a proper fenfe, the ftate of infancy extends 
 to the age of feven years j and many have been 
 converted before that age. Monlieur Danet 
 extends it x.q> fourteen \. And Dr. Gale^ after 
 Mr. Dodivell^ (who is alfo followed herein by 
 Mr. IVhiflon) has offered very probable argu- 
 ments, to prove that Iren^us himielf extended 
 it to ten^. The laws of England call all per- 
 fons infants who are under the age of t-j;enty' 
 one. Hence it is evident, that every argument 
 founded on Irenaus\ ufc of this word, muft 
 
 * See GaWs Refleft. p. 465, 476. Kees'% Animad- 
 y'crfions on Dr. Ridgley, p. 258, 259. 
 
 f See, among others, Dupin in Irenaus, and Dr. 
 Gale, p. 476 — 480. 
 
 X Diftionary oi Greek and Roman Antiq. on tke v.ord$ 
 wi'/^w'&nd Balnea. 
 
 § G>j/*'s Reflea. p. 50.', WalV% Def. p. 351, 352. 
 
 be 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 be very precarious. The word ufed by the? 
 apoftle Paul to Timothy^ 2 T'im. iii. 15. which 
 our trandators have rendered child^ is very 
 properly tranflated zx\inf<int\ and perhaps no 
 word can be fourKi more proper to iranflate ic 
 by than infans; here ufed by the tranflator of 
 Iren^eus. Several have tranflated the words of 
 Piitfli from h/fiincy.-* But 'Timothy could never 
 be fuch an infant at the time Paul refers tOy 
 as we mean in our vulgar ufe of the word^. 
 Few baptift-minijlers would be backward ta 
 baptize fuch an infant as he was, vvjien he 
 kne"j:} the holy fcriptiires tvhich were able to make 
 him 'wife unto frdvation. Should it therefore 
 be granted that by renafcuntur is meant lap" 
 tized^ it can never be im.proved into an argu- 
 ment, that infant-baptifm^ as now pradifed, 
 was in ufe in the time oi' Irenaus. 4. Though 
 tJie fathers pretty commonly in after times-t 
 ufed the word regeneration for haptifni^ yet it 
 muft be owned, I thitik, that Irendeiis did fome- 
 times, if not always, ufe this word in a diffe- 
 rent fenfe, ,and confequently,, /.^^ might do fo 
 here. And many learned men fuppofe, that 
 this manner of fpeakingdid not obtain in the 
 church fo early as the im\z oi lrenaus.-\ To 
 which we may add, 6. That 1 think two 
 things in henaus'^ manner of fpeaking, fliew;, 
 
 * A'ide Vulg. lot. and Dr. Doddridge in loc. and- 
 Leigh. cik. fic. ?nd Faf, Itx. in verb. Bp(poj. 
 
 t Compare fWf's Px.eflea. p. 489—498. Gill's Inf. 
 Ikiptifm an Innj/aLion. Doddridge on Regenerationi 
 BoltlcrigL to Preface, p, 10, 11. 3d edit. 
 
 D 3 this. 
 
( 7S ) 
 
 this could not be his meaning here. He fays 
 they are regenerated by Chriji to God. But 1 
 can neither lee truth nor fenfe in faying per- 
 
 ibns are baptized by Chrift to God. He 
 
 lays too, that Chrid came to fave all thele, 
 •who are renafcuntur. Now it can by no means 
 be admiited, either that Clirill laves all who 
 are baptized^ or that he laves no other. Who- 
 ever has been prevailed on to admit the latter, 
 I believe none were ever unguarded enough to 
 allert the former. 
 
 But take {renafamttir) regenerated in the 
 plain fcripture fenfe, for renewing of the mind, 
 and we make the good father fpeuk a very im- 
 portant, awful, and afFefting truth; fince, how 
 dreadfully foever it is difregarded, it is clear 
 beyond all pofTible room for difpute, (and let 
 all unregenerate fmners confider it!) ihat all 
 who are thus born again, will be laved by 
 Chrift; but all others will inevitably and eter- 
 nally perifh. But from thefe things it is ma- 
 nifefi:, there is no proof in this paflage of Ire^ 
 fi^:fs, that I'iifant-baptifm was pradiled in his 
 day. 
 
 'fertullian lived ; nd wrote htxoxtOrigen. He 
 was pYtfoyttr at Carthage in Africa^ and flou-. 
 rifhed about the year 200. But he (peaks 
 ,exprelsly againfc infant-baptifm.- After argu- 
 ing upon it a whil^^, he infei-s thus, " There- 
 fore let them come, lays he, (namely, to be bap- 
 tized) when they are grown up; let them come, 
 when they undern:and; w^hen they are inftrudl- 
 ed whither it is that they come; let them be 
 
 made 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 made Chriftians when they can know Chrifl-,, 
 &c*.''* From iience, it is with great proba- 
 bility ilippofsd ihdii infiint-bcipiifra began about 
 this time to be moved for in Africa^ which 
 'TertuUian leeing, began to oppofe itj fince no 
 hint concerning it, nor reference to it, untill 
 his tiiiie, can be prodviced. 
 
 0"r'gen, be ore mentioned^ who fioiirifiied a- 
 bout 2-50, is the firit writer pretended 'O fpeak 
 expreil/ in favour of this practice. And what 
 is cited from hi*? work, mentions it as the 
 ufage of the church, and an apollollc tradition, 
 
 * Veniant ergo, dum adolefcunt ; veniant dum difcunt, 
 dum quo veniant doceniur; f;,u\tChriftiani cumChriflum 
 noiTe potucrint, Tert. de. bn.v cap. iS. I well know 
 what hns been f;ud con; ernin^ die claufe (fi non tam ne- 
 ^^JJ) found in Pafftelrr/s^i coition of TprfuliiaK, and, ai's 
 he owns, taken from G''x>i<fiis, becaafe he thought. k, 
 moderated the opinion ofTerti'llictn, with regard to in- 
 fant-haptifm From this cliufe, it has been inlimatci 
 that TcnulUan allowed of irfant-bapfim, in danger of 
 death, ^cc. But fome learned padobaptijis., as well as 
 antipcedohaptijis, have faid fo much to iliew the imper- , 
 tinency and impropriety of this claufe, that I believe few 
 perfons of judgment, «7zu, will think thefe to be TertuU 
 lian'% words ; or that it is necelfary, any more fhould here 
 be fiid concerning them. See Gfl/i?'3 Refleft, p. 511. 
 and G/i's Inf Bapt. an innovation. I may farther add, 
 I think ic can be no prot f that infant baptij'm was now in 
 ule, becaufe 7V/7«/.V/»'z wrote againJ.it It is enoufh if 
 it now be<>an to be inoved for ; fince we have obferved 
 before, p.^ge 23, it was publicly decreed by the council 
 in 8:6, that dippin;- fhould be al-voays ufed in bap,tifm. 
 Now none, I imagine will fay that afperfion was thea 
 praftifcd in England; but only began to be moved for. 
 And for the fa.me reafon for v/hich the council might 
 then publicly cppofe it, when only moved for, Tertuliian 
 might write againil it. 
 
 B 4 But 
 
(80 ) 
 
 But there is great reafon to believe, thefe were 
 not Origen^s words j becaufe, i. "What is cited 
 to this purpofe, is only from the latin tranfla- 
 tion of his works, fome of which were tranfla- 
 ted by Jersm and RiiffinuSy who flouriihed 
 about 140 years after. But they took fo 
 much liberty to add, leave out, or alter, what 
 they pleafed, that the learned in general de- 
 clare, thefe tranflations are not to be truftsfd, 
 becaufe in reading them, we know not whe- 
 ther we read the works of Origen or his tranfla- 
 tors*. Nothing is produced from hh greek 
 works that feems to favour t!ic pradice. 
 That learned and honourable writer, Sir Peter 
 (afterward. Lord chief juftice) King, has in- 
 deed produced a pafiage from Origen's Com- 
 ment on Mait. xviii. 10. which is fuppofed to 
 Jpeak of the baptifm of little ones;+ but Ori- 
 gin fays, they are iuch little ones, as, dejire as 
 new born babes, thejincere milk of the word^dcc^ 
 which is an evidence of the baptifm of believ' 
 trs at that time-, but has nothing to do with 
 infants. 2. A learned writer, has produced 
 two paflages from Origen\ Greek works which 
 fpeak dir€(5lly for believer'*^ baptifm, and even 
 fo as to exclude that of infants: § which one 
 could not have expected, had the pallage 
 
 • Vide Dupin in Origen and Ruffimis, Ga/e^s Refieft. 
 tetter 13. Gill's Inf. B«pt. an Innovadon, p. 24 — 27. 
 Lardner^s Credib. part 2. vol. 3. p. ?io, &c. 
 
 f Inquiry concerning the Cociiitudon, &c. of the 
 Chriftian Church, part 2, p. 58. 
 
 X JVaWs Hifl. V. I . p. 64. Gaie\ Reflea. p. 5 20. 
 
 4 Dr. Gill uc fupra, p, 2S, 29. 
 
 above 
 
( «I ) 
 
 above mentioned, as cited in favour of iiifant 
 baptijm been his own. And the fame author 
 obferves, * " that no writer before or after 
 Origen, till the times of Jerom and HujjinuSy 
 ever fpoke of vifant-ha-pttfm^ as the ufage of 
 the churchy or an apoftolic tradition j nor did 
 even Cyprian^ who came afcer him, and plead- 
 ed for it, ever quote Origen as laying this; 
 nor does Aufiin^ who long after, pleaded for 
 the pradice as apoftolic, ever appeal to Ori- 
 gen\ teftimony ot it." All thefe things make 
 it very probable, that thefe words never came 
 fron^ Origen but his tranflators. Cyprian, Bp. 
 of Carthage^ who flourillied about 20 years 
 after clearly fpeaks in favour of it. One 
 Fidus, having fome fcruples about the time of 
 adminiftering it to an infant, i. e. whether be- 
 fore the 8th day, or precifely on that day, af- 
 ter the manner of circumci/icn {which by the 
 ^ay, I think, proves that it had not been of 
 long ftanding m the church.) Il vvas confider- 
 ed of in a council of fixty-fix bifhops, who 
 concluded it may be adm.niHt^rt-d at any age-, 
 of which Cyprian gives Fidiis an account.-f 
 At this time, therefore, it is clear enough that 
 infant-haptifm did prevail in Africa \ and fo 
 dd infant' communion,'^ and many oiher in^ 
 ventions of men,§ which the prefeat padobap' 
 
 f Ibid, p. 27. 
 
 X Cypr. Epift. 59, p. 137. Tamel. ed.. 
 • Vid. Cypr, de lapfis, p 244. 
 
 t See fome of thefe n:entioned by Tertullian, de CO- 
 i^ua militis, c. 3, 4. p. 101, 102. 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 tijts, efpecjally among the proteftants, do noc 
 at all admit of. Yet 1 believe one might vtn- 
 tvire to fay, and ic would be eafy to prove, 
 that we have as much authority for them, 
 both from fcripture and aniiquity as for the 
 baptizing of infants. 
 
 It may, perhaps, be of ufe to fome reader, if 
 we here mention the ftare of the cont/overfy, 
 and the chief point in dlipute between us and 
 our brethren, the p^dfhahtifis\ in order, as 
 far as may be, under a divine bleiTing, to pre- 
 vent, or put an end to, vain J!^ngling\ that 
 none of us ior the future, may Ipend precious 
 time in attempting to prove what needs no 
 proof, or be weak enough to deny what every 
 boay of JLidgmenc and candor will allow. So 
 far as lean apprehend, the following particulars 
 will point it ojt. i. It is not dr.puted whe- 
 ther ihe fcripLures, and antiquity, at leaft for 
 the firit fix centuries, fpcak of fome who were 
 ba "^tized atter believing. This is allowed on 
 both fides. 2. I\^or v/r.ether baptifm be pro- 
 perly adminiftered by immerfion; and may be 
 vindicated bt.th by fcriprure and antiquity. 
 This is equa'jy clear and univerfally allowed. 
 3. Nor whether all infants ought to be bap- 
 tized. 1 believe none will plead for this. I 
 mufc own, I fear we have not been accuftomed 
 to fpeak very intelligibly on this head; yet I 
 think none will attempt to vindicste the bap- 
 tizing of ell infants; nor of any, but thofe 
 born tif believing parents. 4. Nor is it dif- 
 putcd whether thofe who have never been, pro- 
 perly 
 
( 8j ) 
 
 perly baptized before, ought to be baptized 
 upon their believing in the Lord Jelus Chrift. 
 It is allowed on both fides, that they ought. 
 5. Nor whether we have any expit-rs precept 
 or precedent in fcripture, or the vvi iters of the 
 two firfu centuries, for baptizing in; ants. I 
 believe none will pretend we have fo ir.uch as 
 one. 6. Nor whetner we have any cxprefs 
 account in fcripture, or the wiit-.ngs of the 
 tv;o hift ccntviries, of any being iprinkle<^ 
 and that fprinkling called bapufm. I b.'.t.cve 
 none will pretend that there is one inttance 
 of it. 7. 5^or whether infani-hapifni d;d pre- 
 vail and get ground in the churr li, in the 
 third and roliowing centuries. Both parties 
 .a-llow that this was the cafe. But, 8. Ihe 
 points in debate, and to be determined, are, 
 whether there be any pailage in fcripture 
 from which it is necelTarily inferred that bap- 
 tifm ought to be adn->:n;iiered to the infants 
 of believers, and whether f^)rinkling is proper 
 baptifm*. For, thole who bapuze infants, 
 
 own 
 
 • When thfffe two poiats are determined, it v/ill be 
 eaf;/ to decide, \vlieJ>(vr or nf> wt oi!o;ht to baptize thofe 
 perfoiis upon their be- ieving in Chrift, wiio niive only 
 been fprink led in their inFaricy; iince it iecr.i.. cvtr to 
 have been ailictled and unconteiled pnn>;iple in the church, 
 that no unbaptized perfon tan be sJmktc 1 to the Loro'^s 
 Supper, or tlleemed a regular chur-l futmbrr. rie. for 
 proof of this, befides numberlcfs other writers, "Jvjim 
 Martyr: Apol. p. f)-}^ 98. B^. Pear/on on tb . Creed, 
 P- 337' 33*^> 339» 3+3' loth edit. LorJ kn-y - in- 
 quiry, &c. part 2, p. 56. Dr. Wall's Hid. "vol. 2, 
 p. 4.49. Now as we are aifuredly perfuaded that no one 
 
 has 
 
( ^4 ) 
 
 own that tliey do it not from a plain and or- 
 prd's fcripture; but from infere>ices drawil" 
 from iome paflages. And I afk leave to fay, 
 I think, thoft inferences fhould be very evi- 
 dent, and quite inconteltible, orelfe we Ihould 
 not venture to found any practice upon them, 
 elpecially a practice which caufes another to 
 be let afide, which is founded upon plain and 
 exprefs fcripture, as the baptifm of believers 
 moft evidently is. However, thofe on the c- 
 ther fide, do alTert that thofe inferences are 
 not juft, nor fairly drawn from thofe fcrip' 
 tures; that they are evidencly con«-rary to our 
 Lord's commifiion, and the practice oi John 
 the baptiji^ and of the apcjlles. Whether have 
 the better fide of the argument, and the bet- 
 ter foundation for their praclice; and whether 
 proceed more I'afely, the reader muft judge,. 
 If thefe few pages fhall be any way helprul to 
 him in pafTing this judgment, fo that any up- 
 right enquirer is inilrudVed, any weak mind 
 cilablifned, any article of divine truth let in. 
 a fcripture light. I would give the glory to 
 the bleffed God, to whom I recommena both 
 them and the reader, when 1 have offered a 
 few words to thofe fbrange and unaccountable- 
 perfons, who prcfefs to be followers and fer- 
 vants of the Lord Jefis, yet own the truth of 
 
 has any fcripture authority to baptize infants, anu that 
 fprinkiing is ;;ot baptifm, nor has any relation to it, it 
 is qui;:e unreafon.;bIe to accuic Ua o." unchi-ritablene^s for 
 admitcirg none to church-idiovvlh p until baptized by 
 iaiaierlion. 
 
 what 
 
( S5 ) 
 
 what is above faid, and that believer's baptifm 
 is agreeable to fcripture, but live in the neg- 
 letl of it, notvvithfianding. Their chief ob- 
 J€<5ti()ns are fuch as follow. 
 
 1. " We have been baptized with the holy 
 (pirit, and therefore need jiot be baptized in 
 v/ater." . The Rev. Mr, Wejlef% remarkable 
 exprelTions may be an anfwer to this*"; com- 
 menting on Peter s> words, ran any -man forbid 
 ivater that thefe JJjould not be baptized^ who 
 have received the holy Gbojl, he fays, " He 
 does not fay, they have the baptifm of the 
 fpirit, therefore they do not need baptilm with 
 v/ater. Butjuft the contrary: if they have re- 
 ceived the fpirit, then baptize them with wa- 
 ter. How eafily is this queftion decided, if 
 
 '^we will take the word of God for our judge? 
 Either men have received the Holy Ghoil or 
 not. If they have not, repent faith God, and 
 be baptized t and ye Jhall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghojl. If they have, if they are already 
 
 y baptized with the Holy Ghofl:, then ivbo can 
 forbid water?" I hope thole who regard this 
 eminent gentleman in other things, will alio 
 regard him in this note: and will confider how 
 evidently and diredly they contradidt, not 
 only iVlr. Wefley^ but the apoille Peter himfelf, 
 when they make the baptifm of the fpirit (al- 
 lowing the propriety of the phrafe) an objed:i- 
 on againll their being baptized with water. 
 
 2. But fay thefe perfons, " It Is a fmall mat- 
 ter, and fignifies little or nothing whether we 
 
 • Note on Acis x. 47. 
 
 attend 
 
< S6 ) 
 
 attend to it or not." This is not a place to 
 conficier tht? importance of this divine inititu- 
 tion at large: but let me afic the!e men-, do 
 they confider how they difiionour the great 
 and blefied God, by intimating that he hath 
 given a co.-nmand ^o fmall and infignificant, 
 that it matters little whether they attend to it 
 or not ? Will an earthly mailer be fo treated 
 by a fervant, who is only his fellow-creature? 
 If it is but a fmall matter, yet they allow it as 
 a fmall matter-, confequently the negledl of it 
 muft be a fmall fm. But can they be fatisfi- 
 cd, or do they imagine the Lord will be pleaf- 
 ed, that they fliould live in the practice of a 
 Imali fin ? Do they not remember, that Chrifl 
 calls it a pa t of righteoufnefs ? * And do they 
 elteem it a fmall matter whether they be fol- ' 
 lowers of Chriil, and whether they fulfill all 
 righteoufnefs or no? Have they not heard 
 that the Lord efteems a negle6t of this ordi- 
 nance, a rcjetim^ of the coiinfel of God ugahjl 
 tkemfehes? Luke vii. 30. And is this a 
 fmall matter? Do they not know that omifli- 
 bn of known duty, is a rebellion which God 
 efteems as the fin of witchcraft-, and zfiubborn- 
 nefs that is as iniquity and idolatry? i Sahi. xv. 
 22, 23. And do they efteem this a fmall mat- 
 ter? May the good Lord open the eyes of 
 thefe poor creaturen, and give them to fee 
 their delufion and their fin, that they r,iay re- 
 cover tbemfelves from thefnare of thedrctl^ 'wbo^ 
 fo far, as thib is the language of thejr hearts, 
 
 . • Matt. ill. 15. 
 
 with 
 
( S7 ) 
 
 with regard to any known duty, are mod evi- 
 dently. lL.d captive ij him at his will I 2 Tim. 
 ii. 26. Let me leave with them the words of 
 liim whom they pretend to Terve, IVhy call ye 
 me Lord^ Lo: d, and do not the tlin^ that I fay ? 
 Luke vi. 46. And addrefi each of them in the 
 language oi Ananias^ to one whofe rehgion did 
 not lie all in outward appearance, and empty 
 flafh, but in fubjeclion of the whole heart to 
 the will of God, without which, all pretence 
 to rehgion is a vain dream, a mere nothing, 
 and all luppofed elevations, only the delufions 
 of-ijatan-, to one, who did not place his reli- 
 gion in thefe, it v/as faid, A5fs xxii. 16. A 
 rife and be baptized^ and ivafh away thy Cms^ cal- 
 ling upon the name of the Lord^ even the ado- 
 I RABLE JESUS, to whom with the Father, and 
 Holy Ghost, one unchangeable God, be 
 endlefs praife, and unreferved' obedience. 
 Aipen. .^.. . . ' 
 
 E R R A T A. 
 
 Page 20, ref. aliifque locis, read Stennett. P. 36, note, 
 I. 4. r. comparing; 1. 7, r. Queft. 20. 4. P. 58. 1- 15. 
 r. be. P. 68. 1. 30, r. call. 
 
STRICTURES 
 
 O N T H E 
 
 Rev. STEPHEN ADDINGTON's 
 
 LATE 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 CHRISTIAN MINISTER'S 
 REASONS 
 
 FOR 
 
 BAPTIZING INFANTS, 
 
 AND FOR 
 
 ADMINISTERING the ORDINANCE by 
 SPRINKLING OR POURING of WATER. 
 
 IN TWO LETTERS TO THE AUTHOR. 
 By D A N TAYLOR. 
 
 Benuare Jeji any Man fpoil yoa, through Philofophy, and 
 vain Deceit, after the Tradition of Men, after the Rh- 
 diments of the World, and not after Chriji. Col. ii. S. 
 
 LONDON : Printed by J. W. Pasham, Black-Frif.rs j 
 
 And Sold by G. Keith, Gracechurch Street; E. and C. Dii.tY, 
 
 Poultryj T. Vai.lance, Cheapfide; and J. Mathews, 
 
 Strand, 1777. 
 
f 
 
 ( i ) 
 
 STRICTURES 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Rev. Mr. Addmgtotis Summary, &c. 
 
 LETTER I. 
 
 Reverend SIR^ 
 
 AS my EJfay on Baptifm is now a fecond 
 time in the prefs, notwithftanding my 
 fettled averfion to controverfy, I have lo far 
 yielded to the folicitations of thofe I ought 
 to refpedt, as to prefent you with a few ftric- 
 tures on your late Summary. 1 hope you will 
 read them with candor, and if they, in con- 
 nediion with what my Eflay contains, fhall 
 give any light to the fubjeA in debate, 1 truft 
 you will make that ufe of it which may natu- 
 rally be expeded from a ferious upright mi- 
 nifter of Jefus Chrift, who defires to " ap- 
 " prove himfelf to God" as fuch, and who 
 is earneftly intent upon *' keeping the or- 
 A 2 " dinances 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 " dinances as they are delivered unto us" in 
 ■the word of truth. 
 
 Your former publication, intitled, " The 
 '* Chriftian Miniiler's Reaibns, &c." was put 
 inro my hands, foon after its appearance, 
 %viih an earneft requeft that I would make 
 fome remarks upon it. But my great 
 -difmclination to difpute, my various avo- 
 cations, and my hopes that it would be un- 
 dertaken by fome abler hand^ appeared fuf- 
 ficient reafons for refufmg compliance with 
 that requeft. Compliance therefore I did re- 
 fufe. But I rejoice to fee that the tafk has 
 been undertaken, and nobly executed, by the 
 good Dr. Sten/teft. His work, however, though 
 in my opinion excellent, iv^ too large for the 
 lower clafs of readers. Ir the Humhk Ejfay^ 
 with the few following remarks, Ihould be 
 thought in any degree worthy to fupply his 
 lack of fervice for the lowed of the people, 
 to prevent the pernicious confequences which 
 I am fully perluaded your late performarxes 
 are calculated to produce, I fnall think my;* 
 felf happy in having prefented them to the 
 world, i Ihould be very forr)', my good Sir, 
 to g;ive you any realbnabls caufe of diiguft ; 
 vet I hope you will pleafe to excufe i: if I do 
 not fill my paper with fuperfiuous compli- 
 ments. You are, for what I knov/, an ufeful 
 miniiler ; but you need not be re.minded that 
 you are capable of being mift-ken. And 
 miflaken I am perfuaded you are, and that 
 in a matter of coniiderable moment. My 
 
 reafon 
 
( 5 ) 
 
 realbn for this perfuafion will be learnt from? 
 my Humble EJJay^ and from the enfuing re- 
 marks on your Summary, 
 
 To me I confefs there appears fomething 
 fingular, and very defedlive in your delcrip- 
 tion of Chriflian Baptifm. " It is an ordi- 
 *' nance in which water is adminiftered, &c.'* 
 I beg you would favor us with an explica- 
 cation of it — a proof of its propriety — and a 
 demonilration that this is an adequate account 
 of the ordinance. I, at prefent, take it- for 
 granted, as a matter that has often been fully 
 proved, that baptifm is immerfion, and that 
 Chrijlian Bapnfm is the immerfion of that 
 perfon in water, who gives credible evidence 
 that he believes in Jefus Chrift'-'. You inform 
 us, " it fignifies the putting on of Chriit— 
 and fpiritual purity, &c." But thefe exprcfr 
 iions again are vague and indeterminate. Do 
 you mean that the ordinance, or the minifrer, 
 or parent, fignifies herein to tlie child, that 
 he has put on Chrifl, or ought to put him 
 on ? That he is, or ought to be thus fpiritu- 
 ally pure? How can this be done to an in- 
 fant?' Do you mean that the perfon bap- 
 tized fignifies that he has put on Chrift, and 
 is fpiritually pure ? Neither can this be ap- 
 plicable to infants. The palTages you refer 
 
 •/ * See Dr. 5/f««^//'s Letters on Baplifm, Vol. i. N. 2. 
 4. and Hupible EfTay. on ChrilUan Baptifm, 2d Edit. 
 p. I— 17. 
 
 A3 to 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 to have plainly this latter fenfe*, and confe- 
 quently they moft evidently oppofe the prac- 
 tife of infant haptifm. 
 
 *' By baptiiVn," you tell us, " thofe who 
 " have been baptized are avowed the nomi- 
 " nal dilciplcs of Chrift." Pray, good Sir, 
 who avows intants the nominal difciples of 
 Chrift by baptifm ? Do minifters ? Do pa- 
 rents ? By what authority r Pleafe to in- 
 form us, with proper evidence, wherein a 
 baptized infant is a difciple of Chrift, either 
 nominal or real, more than one who is un- 
 baptized. '* The ordinance," you fay, " is a 
 •' fign of internal fanclihcation, and is in- 
 ** tended to remind us of the neceffity of it." 
 But if we admit this, baptifm cannot anfwer 
 thefe purpofes to infants. They can have 
 no idea of a fign. They are not poflelTed of 
 internal fantlification •, nor are they capable 
 of being reminded how neceflary it is. But, 
 admitting the juftnefs of your account of bap- 
 tifm, it is obvious there is a peculiar pro- 
 priety in adminiftering the ordinance to be- 
 lievers. 
 
 We have the happinefs of agreeing with you^ 
 Sir, that baptifm is a " ftanding ordinance, 
 and ought to ** be continued throughout all 
 " ages if" but cannot fo cordially aflent that 
 it fignifies *' the influences of the Spirit," or 
 is defigned for that end, unlefs vou can fhew 
 us v;here this is written in the fcnptures. In 
 
 ♦ C«/. iii. 27. iC^r.xii. 13. f Summary, p. 6. 
 
 the 
 
C 7 ) 
 
 the fame page you tell your reader that thofe 
 who adminifter baptifm by plunging, " ge- 
 ** nerally confine it to adults." Ought you 
 not rather to have faid, to thofe who appear 
 to repent, and believe in Jefus ? For you 
 know we are not concerned about the age, 
 but the fpiritual ftate of thofe we baptize. 
 
 You fay truly that " the Scripture ex- 
 " prefsly declares, there is but one baptifm;'* 
 and your inference from this apoflolic por- 
 tion is alfo true, that "the fecond waftiing 
 " of a perfon who has been once baptized, 
 " can by no means be properly called bap- 
 ** tifm." (I fuppofe you meanChriftian bap- 
 tifm). If it can be proved that the fprinkling 
 of an infant's face with water is proper Chrif- 
 tian baptifm, it is certainly wrong to baptize 
 them again. But I never yet faw this proved, 
 nor ever expert to fee it proved. On the con- 
 trary, if it be evident that the only baptifm 
 authorized in Scripture, is the immerfion of 
 believers in water, it muft follow from your 
 own reafoning, and it is a manifeft truth, that 
 the fprinkling of infants is not proper Chrif- 
 tian baptifm. 
 
 You fuppofe it improbable that our Lord 
 fhould impofe the praftice of immerfion on 
 his difciples, becaufe of the indecency, burden • 
 fomenefs, frightfulnefs, and hurtfulnefs of it. 
 But, furely, Sir, you cannot be fo much a 
 ftranger to mankind, as not to know that 
 cold bathing is now become fo common, fo 
 much applauded, and fo generally beneficial, 
 A 4 that 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 that all your prudent and thoughtful readers, 
 will require feme evidence of what you here 
 infinuate, before they can poffibly believe 
 that there is, any thing " indecent, burthen- 
 *' fome, terrifying, or hurtful" in the practice 
 agairift which you mihtate*. 
 
 You next would perfuade your readers 
 that the word |3«7r7jfw does not fignify to dip 
 or -plunge^ though that this is it's proper im- 
 port, has been fo often fully Ihewn by fome, 
 and confefTed byothers, even of thePoedobap- 
 tills themfelves ; yea, though the l)eft critics 
 generally give this fenfe of itj though the beft 
 ancient Greek writers conllantly ufed the 
 word in this fenfe, and though no man can 
 produce a fair evidence of this idea being ex- 
 cluded from it, in one fmgle inftance in their 
 writings-f . In order, however, to accomplilh 
 your defign, you refer to three places of 
 Scripture J. With what fuccefs, a little clofe 
 
 • " The iifual methods of baptizing by immerfion 
 " might not, perhaps, 1 800 years ago, be ofFenfive in 
 *• Judea, nor can we fay that it would difguft the un- 
 ** cultivated and uncloathed inhabitants of the South of 
 " Africa even now." Mr. AddingtorCs Chrillian Minif- 
 ter's Reafons, &c. p. 13. ** If Mr. A. had ever been 
 •* at Bath, Southampton, Sec. he would have known, 
 *' that for men and women properly cloathed, to bathe 
 *' promifcuoufly, and in public, is not confidered as 
 •* indecent, by people in general, in this ifland." Dr. 
 Sten/jet's Anfwer, vol. 1. p. 31, 32. 
 
 f See this proved at large by Dr. Gale. Remarks on 
 }FaU, letter 111, &c. 
 
 J Dan, V, 2 1. I Cor. x. 2. He6. ix. 10. 
 
 attention 
 
, ( 5 
 
 attention : will difcover. You firft mention 
 the cafe of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. v. 2 1 . He, 
 you inform us, when fprinkled with the dew 
 of Heaven, is laid (in the .Greek tranflation) 
 to have been baptized by it* ? But where 
 'is-the projf, Sir, that our Jingl.ifli word w^/, 
 .or the Greek word i^(pn is defigned.to repre- 
 fent the defcent of the dew? The text itlelf 
 has nothing like it. Rather the word def- 
 cribes the itace of Nebuchadnezzar's body, 
 ;Who, by lying abroad in the open air, was, 
 as.it were,, immerfed in the dew. To de- 
 monftrate the propriety of this application of 
 the word, and interpretation of the text, I 
 afk leave to propofe the following queries. 
 It is not well known, by every perfon of fenfe 
 and learning, that. in the countries Vv^here 
 ..Nebuchadnezzar's dominions lay, and in all 
 countjries iri the - fame latitude, the dews are 
 rvery abundant ? God, has wifely and gra- 
 cioufly fo ordered it, as a fupply of moifture 
 to thofe hot countries j and by which they 
 are remarkably fertile. It is not evident, 
 ..that as Nebuchadnezzar laid abroad with the 
 beafts in the open fields, he would hereby be 
 very wet as if htj had' been immerfed in wa- 
 ter ? Wpuld it not have been very low, and 
 have greatly enfeebled the flrong and pic- 
 turefque language made ufe of in this (.\q(- 
 ^ription,jrif ti)p, Fx,opheL, h^djonly meant to 
 te^hus th^t tji'^jdp^^^^f^xjnkled Nebuchadnez- 
 
 "**' Page 8.' 
 
 A 5 zar ? 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 zar ? Is it not reafonable to imagine that in 
 fuch a defcription as this, the inlpired pen- 
 man would Life fuch a word that moft natu- 
 rally conveyed the idea of that remarkable 
 quantity of dew with which Nebuchadnez- 
 zar's body was wet ? Could any word more 
 naturally convey this idea than one which 
 denoted immerfion ? Can any words be 
 produced which more flrongly and more na- 
 turally convey the idea of immerfion, thah 
 the Chaldee word pniDJJ, and the Greek word 
 iSafn, here ufed by the Prophet Daniel, and 
 thefeventy? Will any man deny, that t\te 
 Chaldee word here ufed by Daniel properly 
 conveys the idea of immerfion ? Is it rea- 
 fonable to fuppofe that the feventy did not 
 underftand the import of this Chaldee word ? 
 Mull we not then fuppofe that they have 
 tranflated it by a Greek word of like import ? 
 Is it not evident therefore, to' any upright 
 and candid reader, that this text is fo far 
 from affording an argument to prove that 
 baptifm may be adminiftered by fprinkling, 
 that it very clearly proves the contrary ? — 
 Concerning the Ifraelites, you fay that 
 *' fprinkled by the fall of rain from the 
 " clouds, and the dalhing of the waves, 
 " &c." they " are faid to have been baptized 
 '* unto Mofes." But pray. Sir, where did 
 you obtain this extraordinary intelligence, 
 that they were thus fprinkled by the fall 
 of rain. When your authority for this af- 
 ertion is produced, what you fay may be 
 
 attended 
 
( " ) 
 
 attended to. *TiIl then I leave it with the 
 impartial reader, for the fake of brevity*^ 
 and pafs on. 
 
 That the various wafhings or baptifms of 
 the Jew.>, mentioned Heb. ix. lo. were 
 *• many," or any of them, " performed by 
 *' fprinkling," is equally deftitute of proof, 
 and cannot rationally be admitted. Not one 
 of your readers cjn find any evidence of it 
 in the pafTages from which you fay " it ap- 
 " pears-f." 
 
 " It has been thought by fome, that John 
 ** baptized our Lord, and others, and that 
 Philip " baptized the Eunuch in this way," 
 {i.e. by immerfion). This, Sir, is a great truth. 
 It has been thought \o by fome ; or rather 
 many •, all Chriflians, except a very few of 
 late, have been fully allured of itj:. No 
 man who has not arrived at an extraordinary 
 degree of effrontery can deny that bapifm was 
 aciminiftered " in this way," in the firft age, 
 and many ages after. If there be any faith 
 in hiftory, any meaning in words, or any 
 method of underftanding the plaineft and 
 fimpleft narrations that ever were penned, 
 this was certainly the cafe. " The very word 
 " baptize fignifies to dip ; and it is certain 
 " that the rite of dipping was obferved of 
 
 • See "Exod. xtv. 19 — 23. and Humble EfTay, p. 17, 
 f " It appears," Mr. A. fays, " from L€<v. viii. xi. 
 ** xiv. 14 firft verfes, and other places, p. 8. 
 X See Humble Efl'ay. 
 
 " the 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 *' the ancient church*." " Baptifm was wont 
 *' to be adminiftered in the time of Chrift 
 *' and his Apoftles, not by Iprinkling but by 
 '' immerfionf ." There is no room for think- 
 ing in the cafe. Sir-, it is as certain thatbap- 
 tilm was thus adminiftered in the apoftolic 
 and many following ages, by the Chrillian 
 church in general, as it is certain that it ever 
 were adminiftered at all. 
 
 " The force of the argument, taken from 
 *' the expreftion of his baptizing in Jordan, 
 " depends entirely on our Englifh tranfla- 
 " tion of the Greek prepofition J." — No, Sir, 
 not entirely ; but on what every one will al- 
 low to be the natural fignification of that pre- 
 pofition, in fuch a cGnne^ion^ together with 
 the proper fenfe of the word baptize. 1 be- 
 lieve yairfelf will not pretend, nor any man 
 elfe, that the Greek words do not fairly and 
 naturally Cgnify, that they zuere baptized in 
 the -water -, nor will you pretend to find any 
 other prepofition in the Greek tongue that 
 more naiuraily and more evidently conveys 
 this idea. This interpretation therefore 
 being confirmed by the native and genuine 
 import of the word (3a7r7i(^w, and by many 
 clear hiftorical fadts, related in the New 
 Teftc^menc, with thegreateft fimplicity, muft: 
 be a fufrjcicnt warrant for the Baptifts and 
 for everv man to affert, that John plunged 
 our Lord and others in the river Jordan. 
 
 • Cuhin. t Maflricbt, J Page 9. 
 
 That 
 
( *3 ) 
 
 That prepofition, you tell us, " might 
 
 •*' properly have been rendered at Jordan," 
 
 Suppofe we admit this with refpc<5l to iv, can 
 
 you. Sir, furnifh us with clear proof that 
 
 iK Tov lop^xvnv^y may properly be rendered a,t 
 
 Jordan ? — " Though he," (John), " took his 
 
 " diiciples to the river, ir is no where faid 
 
 " that he plunged any of them in it." Yes, 
 
 Sir J when it is faid he baptized them in it. 
 
 For " it is acknovvledged by all the world, 
 
 ' that to baptize^ fignifies to plunge ^.^ 
 
 ' Baptifm is immerfton^ and was formerly 
 
 ' celebrated according to the force and 
 
 ' meaning of that word J." " The word 
 
 ' baptize fignifies to ^z^y." " It properly 
 
 ' denotes im:nerfion for the fake of dipping §.'* 
 
 ' The propriety of the word, as well as the 
 
 ' places chofen for the adminiftration of the 
 
 ' ordinance, and the ir any allufions of the 
 
 ' Apofiles to it, which cannot be referred 
 
 ' to fprinkling, (hews that it was the cuftom 
 
 ' to adminifter it by plunging^ and not by 
 
 ' pouring of water**." "• The manner of 
 
 baptizing was to plunge, or dip into the 
 
 ' water, as even the word ^onr'i^in/ itfelf 
 
 ' plainly enough fhewst-j-." — In Jdiort, if 
 
 words have any determinate ideas included in 
 
 them, it is fo evident that John plunged his 
 
 Difciples, that it will not admit oi a fair dif- 
 
 pute. 
 
 • Mark i 9. t Bp.' Bajjuef. 1 Salmafiuu 
 
 II Calvitu § Eeza. ** -Qrotiits, If Cajuubon, 
 
 You 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 You ftrangely millake yourfelf refpe(5Hng 
 the Jewifh pried. Lev. xiv. 4 — 8. who, you 
 fay, " was ordered to take the leprous to a 
 " running water, only to Iprinkle the water 
 •' upon them." The bird was to be killed 
 over the running water, and the man to wa(h 
 himfelf in it. — As to your conjedlure with 
 regard to thofe whom John baptized in 
 Jordan and Enon, it is too fanciful to deferve 
 a reply. — Your play upon the Greek prepofi- 
 tion otTFo* can never ferve your purpofe, un- 
 lefs you can prove that baptifm is not immer- 
 fion, and that this prepoficion does not natu- 
 rally denote our Lord's coming out of the wa- 
 ter, and that ft?, in Mp.rk i. 9. does not pro- 
 perly fignify inlo ; which it is certain you will 
 never be able to do, nor any man^ elfe. 
 
 Are you not very confcious. Sir, of mifre- 
 prefentation, or great inattention, in the cafe 
 of Philip and the F.unuch ? Do the BaptiiU 
 fay, that " he muft have been immerfed in the 
 ** water, becaufe it is faid he went into if, 
 ** and came out of it?" 1 hope not. Surely 
 they have fenfe enough to know that a man 
 may go into the water, and come out of it, 
 and not be immerfed in it. Rather they fay,- 
 becaufe both Philip and the Eunuch went into 
 the water, and then, when they were both in 
 it, Philip baptized the Eunuch. The word 
 baptize fignifies immerfe ; and it Philip only 
 fprinkled the Eunuch, why (hould they both 
 have the trouble of going into the water, 
 
 • Page 10. 
 
 when 
 
C 15 ) 
 
 when it might have been as eafily, and much 
 more conveniently performed, without it ? 
 But — " what is faid of one, is faid of both ; 
 " they, (the exprefllons) afiert the immer- 
 " fion of both, or of neither." — How, Sir? 
 do they aiTcrt that the Eunuch baptized Philip, 
 after they were both gone down into the wa- 
 ter* ? Do they not aflert, that Philip baptized 
 the Eunuch after they were both gone down 
 into the water? When this is confidered, and 
 replied to, your next paragraph will, perhaps, 
 require an anfwer. 'Till then, it is unne- 
 ceHary. 
 
 But on the following one -f-, I afk leave to 
 enquire, where do you read that " Saul was 
 " baptized in the houfe of Judas," or, that 
 " the kinfmen and friends of Cornelivis were 
 " baptized in his houfe ?" This, Sir, is the 
 invention of man, not the truth of God. But 
 if it were aflerted in fcripture, you certainly 
 are fenfible it could be no proof that thefe 
 perfons were not immerfed. You nuilt know 
 that private baths, as well as public ones, 
 were lo common among the Jews, and Gen- 
 tiles too J, that it is a great pity you llsould 
 fo far debafe yourfelf, both in point of learn- 
 ing and probity, as to talk of there not being 
 " a tub in eitherof their houfes." — With the 
 
 • SeeJ-^sv'm. 38, 39, f Page 11. 
 
 t " It is ftrange that the ufe of bathing, as a part of 
 ** dief, is left. With the Romans and Grecians, it was 
 •< as ufual as eating or fleeping." Lord Bacon's. Nat. 
 Hill. cent. viii. experiment 740. See alfo Humble 
 ffTay, p. 26, and the notes there. 
 
 like 
 
( i6 ; 
 
 like ungrounded affurance, you intimate that 
 the jailor and his family were baptized in his 
 houfe, without the leaft warrant from the fa- 
 credtext-, nay, even though the text men- 
 tions their going into his houfe, after the or- 
 dinance was adminiftered. — Much like the 
 former is your next argument from A^s ii. 
 41 *. It is not faid thofe three thoufand were 
 " all baptized in one day." — If it were, there 
 is no good reafon to believe they were " all 
 ^'' baptized by the twelve Apoftles," fince the 
 feventy difciples, who were preachers, and 
 who baptized at other times, were then at 
 Jerufalem. — And had even this been the cafe, 
 where is the impolTibility, in a place fo full 
 of baths, pools, and lavers, as Jerufalem was, 
 of one man baptizing 250 perfons in a day's 
 time. Men have often performed much 
 harder talks than this would have been ;; and 
 pray, where is the great difference, as to 
 time, between immerfion and fprinkling ?. 
 . If you can give any fcripture proof that the 
 fprinkling of the blood of Jefus, or the pouri- 
 ing down of the Holy Ghoft are alluded to; 
 ^nd reprefenred in the moderof baptifm, yout 
 next two paragraphs (hall be attended to-, till 
 then, the confiderate reader will think a reply- 
 to them unneceflary. By what mode of ar- 
 gument will you prove, Sir, that verfe 13, of 
 .Heb. ix. is an explication of verfe 10? Un- 
 kfs this is proved, (which will nqt, 1 think^ 
 
 Pai^e 12. 
 
 hb 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 eafy, however confidently afTerted,) it will 
 flill be mod natural to explain divers i^ajhings^ 
 (Gr. baptifms) as refcring to the various 
 bathings of priefts, levites and people, and 
 the different ends and purpofes of I'uch bath- 
 ings, as they are explained by Spencer^ Gro- 
 this^: Whithy and others*. Thele few brief 
 hints may, 1 think, be fufHcient, as to what is 
 material in the firft part of your Summary. 
 How you may approve of them, I cannot 
 tell. Be that as it will, I wifli every needful 
 blefTing to attend you, ^s a man, and as a 
 minifter, and am. 
 
 Reverend Sir, 
 
 Your ready fervant, 
 
 Wrfl^ for Jefus' fake. 
 
 >/y.4, 1777. 
 
 DAN TAYLOR. 
 
 * Vide Spencer de Lcgibus Hebraeoram, V. li. p. 
 1004. quarto edit. Grotius and Whitty in loc, and 
 Poll Synopfii, in loc. 
 
 LETTER 
 
( 18 ) 
 LETTER ir. 
 
 Reverend SIR, 
 
 'T'H AT baptifm is to be adminiflercd to 
 •^ fuch as are converted — to chriftianity I 
 have the plcafure to agree with you in be- 
 lieving and aflerting ; but that it ought to be 
 adminiftered " to the infant offspring of Chrif- 
 " tian believers*." I cannot fee how to grant, 
 without contradicting the word of truth. My 
 reafons are given more at large in the Humble 
 EJfay^ to which I venture again to refer the 
 reader, and fhall here only take notice of 
 what is advanced in your Summary, and not 
 particularly confidered there. 
 
 When Chriftian parents " dedicate their 
 " children,'* or whatever they pofTefs, " to 
 ** God," in a fcriptural manner, he certainly 
 will " gracioudy accept of fuch dedication-," 
 but how this can have any relation to baptifm, 
 unkfs he have appointed that they fhall be de- 
 dicated to him in that ordinance, I confefs I 
 am not able to imagine. — That the children 
 of believers may and do enjoy fome blefTings 
 in confequence of their parents faith, I will 
 not deny -, but neither does this feem to have 
 conne(5tion with that facred inititution. 
 
 • Page 15. 
 
 I wi(h 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 1 wifh, Sir, that you would explain to us 
 a little more clearly what you fuppofc that 
 covenant is which the blefled God makes with 
 believers, and in what fenfe, and how far, 
 he makes the fame covenant with their infant- 
 offspring, *Till this be done, all difpute a- 
 bout it with refped. to baptifm, feems to me 
 like throwing diift in the air to prevent per- 
 fons difcerning the plain path in which they 
 ought to walk. Having, however, elfcwhere 
 faid what I think needful on the fubjeft*, I 
 here only add, that it is very certain neither 
 covenants nor any thing clfe befides the di- 
 vine appointment, can lay a proper founda- 
 tion for determining who are tlie fubjeds of 
 baptifm. — Another queftion 1 truil you will 
 permit me to afk : How can it be made ap- 
 pear that thofe who baptize their infants 
 ** devote or dedicate them to God," more 
 than thofe who do not-f .'' The companion 
 which Jefus manifefted to children is evident, 
 and it is fweet and delightful to think of it. 
 It is alfo very certain (and O, that it were 
 more ferioufly thought of!) that none can 
 enter into the kingdom of Heaven who are 
 not born again. Nor am I at prefent inclined 
 to difpute whether infants " are capable of 
 " the new-birth, in the fcripture-fenfe of that 
 phrafe i becaufe that queftion feems to me to 
 have no connecfcion with the fubjects of bap- 
 tifm, which you call " the appointed fign 
 
 • See Humble Effay, p. 47, Src. f See p. i6, &c, 
 
 " of 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 " of it* ," (/. e. of the new birth). But I 
 fhould be glad to be informed in what fen fe 
 you underftand that bapciiin is a '* fign of 
 *.' the new birth." It may then be confi- 
 dered whether infants are capabre of attend- 
 ing to that ordinance in a Icripture way or 
 not. By the bye, however, the queftion is 
 not what infants are capable of, but whether 
 ourLo.'-d has authoriled us to baptize them. 
 If he have, they are certainly " proper fub- 
 " jefts" of baptifm. Otherwife, ' it is cer- 
 tain they are not. 
 
 It is very amazing to me, and I think, to 
 many others, that you fhould refer to Rom, 
 xi. 1 6, as a pafTage which " authorizes infant 
 *' baptifm." Excufe me, Sir, in faying that 
 I greatly wonder a minifter of thegolpei is 
 not afhamed of a caufe which ftands in need 
 of fupports fo far fetched,' and fo feeble aS 
 this and fome others you make ufe of. Can 
 you think that branches here, intends the in- 
 fant offspring ^. Can any man imagine that 
 it would be to the Apoftle's purpofe to have 
 any regard to baptilm in this text \ Where 
 can the evidence be that the word " holy" is 
 ** ufed to exprefs either a privilege, oraqtia- 
 *' lification for privileges .'"' or that one of 
 thefe privileges is baptilm, or a fcripture- 
 right to it. \i thefe things cannot be proved, 
 the reader is only amufed with words. Your 
 work and mine, -Sir, is to inftrudt mankind, 
 
 * Page 17. 
 
 and 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 and not to throw dull in their eyes, hi order 
 that we may play with them undifcerned. 
 
 1 have ellewhere given my thoughts on 
 I Cor. vii. 14. * But I here beg leave to afk. 
 Sir, by what mode of argument you will mak^ 
 it appear that " the queftion upon which the 
 *' Apoftle gives his opinion was, whether, if a 
 " Chriftian man or woman married an un be- 
 " liever, their offspring were not to be confi- 
 *' dered and treated as a Chriftian offspring-j-?'* 
 Certainly, nothing is more clear from the 
 Apoftle's reafoning, than that this is not the 
 queftion. Your remark upon this text, that 
 " Paul pronounces the children of unbelievers 
 " unclean, and thofe of believers holy," is 
 alfo a ftrange and unaccountable overfight; 
 If words have any meaning, Paul pronounces 
 thofe children holy^ one of vv'hofe parents is 
 fandified by the other, even though one pa-' 
 rent ftill continue an unbeliever. 
 
 As my thoughts on circumcifion, the A- 
 brahamic covenant, &c. are given aUb In the 
 Humble Elfay^, I pafs this over here. Only 
 1 muft fay, it is fomewhat remarkable that 
 you have not given us all the promifes of 
 God to Abraham. Why, Sir, did you pick 
 out the 7th verfe of Gen. xvii. || and omit the 
 6ch and 8th ? Had you given us a full ac- 
 count of this covenant, the reader might have 
 judged for himfelf at firft fight, whether the 
 
 * See Humble EfTay, p. 62 — 73. f Page 18. 
 
 X See Humble liflay, p. 4^, &c. || Page 19, 
 
 read Gen. xvii. 5 — 10. 
 
 Abrahamic 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 Abrahamic covenant, and the covenant of 
 grace be the fame. We may, however, ap- 
 peal to your own expreffions, even when you 
 are fhewing the famenefs of thefe two cove- 
 nants. " The land of Canaan promifed in 
 one, was a type of a better country, viz. a 
 heavenly one promifed in the other*." Now, 
 my good Sir, is the type and antitype the 
 fame ? Is Canaan the fame with Heaven ? 
 And can that be the fame covenant which 
 promiles only an earthly Canaan with that 
 which promifes an heavenly one ? Confe- 
 quently, muil it not be a great ablurdity to 
 argue the praflice of infant baptifm from that 
 of circumcifion ? " The inltitutions and pri- 
 *' vileges of the Mofaic ritual were national 
 *' and temporary, but the covenant of grace 
 *' made with believers in Chrift, is perfonal 
 ** and everlafting," Here, again, Sir, I 
 have the great pleafure of agreeing with you. 
 But then, were not thefe " inltitutions and 
 *' privileges of the Mofaic ritual" included 
 in the Abrahamic covenant ? And was not 
 circumcifion one of thefe inftitutions ? Can 
 circum.cifion then be properly faid to belong 
 to the covenant of grace ? The plain truth 
 is, fpiritual and eternal blefiings were pro- 
 mifed to Abraham as a believer ; yet they 
 were not derived to all his natural pofterity, 
 but are enjoyed to the end of time by all true 
 believers; who are therefore called the child- 
 
 • Page 19. 
 
 ren 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 ren of Abraham*. Now thefe prornifes and 
 circumcifion were not necefiarily Gonne(5led. 
 Many were circumcifed who had never any 
 intereft in thefe proniifes, nor were fuppofed 
 to have. Otherwile all the carnal Jews, as^ 
 they were circumcifed, would have been 
 laved ; which, furely, no man in his fenfes 
 will aflert. It muft therefore be a glaring 
 impropriety to fpeak of circumcifion as " a 
 " feal of the covenant of grace." From 
 thefe confiderations it is evident that the rea- 
 fonings in the 22d page of your Summary are 
 totally without foundation. 
 
 That " baptifm comes in the room of cir- 
 cumcifion " can never be proved. It is never- 
 intimated in fcripture. 1 here are many con- 
 vincing arguments againft iff, which, if you 
 think it practicable, I wifh you would under- 
 take to anfwer. It cannot be that the Apof- 
 tle " fpeaks of baptifm as the circumcifion 
 " of Chrift, Coin. ii. J unlefs baptifm Idc 
 adminiftered without hands. The refemblance 
 you mention between baptifm and circumci- 
 fion evidently fails \\. There is no place of 
 fcripture where baptifm is appointed to be 
 adminiftered " to thofe who were converted, 
 *' and to their houlholds." It is granted that 
 the Apoftles did, in fome inftances, baptize 
 houfholds. But thofe very inftances fhew 
 
 * See Rom. iv. 13, 14, 16, 24. Gal. iil. 29. 
 t See Humble Effay, p. 44, 45, 46. Dr. Sttnnett^s 
 Letters, No. ix. 
 
 X Page 23. fj Page 23. 
 
 that 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 that fuch houfholds were converted j or, at 
 leaft, the accounts of them make it very pro- 
 bable. — The circumcifed Jew, and baptized 
 Chriftian were not " taught to look upon 
 " themlelves as feparated from the world, as 
 *' holy unto the Lord" in the fame fenfe^ as 
 muft be evident to every reader of the Bible. 
 Nor was circumcifion " a token of the co- 
 " venant of grace" to infants, as we have 
 fhewn above. In thefe things. Sir, you have 
 taken for granted what you ought to prove ; 
 but the proof is beyond the power of any 
 man living. My thoughts on the commiflion, 
 are given in another place *. 
 
 If any of the baptifts object, as you fay 
 " it is objedled, that children are not ex- 
 >' prefsly mentioned in thefe inftru6tions of 
 ." our Lord to his minifters," I confefs I think 
 it is weak in thofe baptifts. But I know of 
 no baptifts who mention this as an argument 
 lufficient to invalidate the authority upon 
 which this pracflice is founded. It is, indeed, 
 aflerted on their fide, and granted on the 
 oppoiite fide, that there is no exprefs men- 
 tion of it in our Lord's inftrudions. But if 
 any thing in thofe inftrudions will fairly ex- 
 tend to infants, we ought to difpute againft 
 it no longer. But we infift upon it that the 
 practice is contrary to the clear and obvious 
 meaning of thofe inftru6lions ; and there is 
 not one juft rule of interpretation by which 
 
 * Humble EfTay, p. 36, Uc. 
 
 they 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 they can be proved to be included in tlio e 
 JnftrucStions. You muil be fenfible to argile 
 from hence, that we have no authority to 
 '* baptize women, or even men," becaufe 
 *' neither are exprefsly mentioned in the 
 ** command," is vtry unfair. You know 
 " we muft baptize fomebody. You and all 
 men will allow that the commifTion autho- 
 rizes the baptifm of believers ; that we read 
 exprefsly of believers being baptized in obe- 
 dience to the commiflion, and thefe believers 
 are exprefsly faid to be hfb men and "jjomm^* 
 Now, Sir, if you or any other man, can pro- 
 duce this evidence in favor of infant baptifm^ 
 we give up the point. But you are conlcious, 
 all confiderate men are confcious that this 
 evidence cannot be produced in favor of in- 
 fant baptifm. My thoughts on what your 
 next paragraph contains are given elfewheref". 
 As to what you fay on A^s'ii. 38, 39. it is; 
 iiifficient to obferve here, that you and all 
 men of underftanding muft allow, that the 
 Englifh word children and the Greek word 
 rfKvo*?, fignify pofterity\ and that the pro- 
 unife is fo limitted to'^thofe whom GodJI^allcall^ 
 that infants cannot be included : and then, 
 that this limitation muft be admitted, other- 
 wife all the pofterity of believing Abraham 
 would be faved, which is an abfurdity that 
 no man can admit, but one who is non com* 
 pos mentis. By the bye, however, if your 
 
 f See J^^s viii. xvlii. &c. f Hiimble Eflay, p. 43, 44 
 B fenf^ 
 
( 26 3 
 
 fenfe of the text were eflablinied, it is impof- 
 fible that the praftice of infant baptifm fhould 
 be vindicated from it. — Nor does this infer 
 any limitation of faving fpiritual " privileges 
 " under the gofpel, more than under the 
 " law*." Such privileges never were in- 
 difcriminately granted to the children of 
 believers, either under the law, or the gofpel, 
 as is evident from what is obferved above. 
 Your diftinflion between is, was, and Jhall 
 be, is unneceflary and ufelefs upon this eX" 
 plication of the text. ■''■- 
 
 As to the inutility or hurtfulv.efs of infant 
 baptifm, canvafied with a view to cfbablifh 
 or refute the notion of it'^ being of divine au- 
 thority f, I look upon thefe topics to open 
 a field for ufelefs fquabble, in which he who 
 has the moll fruitful invention will probably 
 come off conqueror. If the practice be of 
 divine authority, it is certainly ufeful. If 
 not, it muft be unprofitable, and even hurt- 
 ful. — That '^ Chrill has no where com- 
 
 * Page 26. 
 
 f I fpeak thus becaufe I freely grant, that when a 
 praftjce is once fhcwn to be unfcriptural, the hurtful- 
 nefs of it may properly be demonllrated, in order to 
 cxpofe the fiJly notion of its being a matter of indiffer- 
 ence, and to deter weak perfons from giving into it. 
 In this view, I wifh fnccefs to attend every judicious at- 
 tempt to demonftrate the hurtfulnefs of /«/««/ (^rt/Ziy'w,^ 
 which is, I arn confident, one of ihe moft pernicious 
 human traditions, that ever proceeded from the corrupt' 
 heart of man, or deformed the bsauriful order of a gof- 
 pel church. . ^ 
 
 " manded 
 
" manded infant baptifm," is certainly a 
 llrong objeftion againil it, if it be eoiifidercd 
 as a poficive inftitution of Chriftianity ; be- 
 Caufe ifClirift have not commanded it, it is 
 not his inftitution; and confequently it is an 
 invention of men. But that Jefus lliould 
 fay, " in i'o many words, Let infants be 
 " baptized," is not neceflary, if it can be 
 proved that the commilTion which he gave 
 his Apoftles, plainly extends to infants; or 
 that they certainly baptized infants in obedi- 
 ence to that commiflion. But if one or the 
 other of thefe cannot be proved, it is moil 
 certain that the pradtice has no foundation in 
 fcripture. 
 
 That thofe fcriptural exprefllons in which 
 faith and repentance are required previous to 
 baptifm, " are little to the purpole for which 
 ** they are produced*,'' ought to be proved 
 as well as aflerted. You very truly fay, that 
 " faith and repentance are required of adult- 
 *' converts from heathenifm, &c." You are 
 right alfo in faying, " that ;the Apoflles bap-' 
 ** tized adults is very certain ;" and if they 
 required faith and repentance by divine au- 
 thority of thefe adults, it is very natural ta 
 *' conclude that they did not afterwards bap- 
 ♦' tize their children," unlefs fome pafTage 
 ©f fcripture can be produced by which they 
 were authorifed to require faith and repen- 
 tance of thefe adult converts, and to baptize 
 
 • Page 29,' 
 
 B 2 their 
 
( 2S ) 
 
 their children without fuch requirement 5 and 
 fuch a paffage cannot be produced. You 
 mull certainly be out in attempting to inva- 
 lidate this kind of reafoning by faying, " We 
 *' might with equal reafon fay that children 
 ** were not circumciied becaufe their parents 
 *' were." Why, my good Sir> certainly no 
 one is filly enough to reafon thus j " Children^ 
 " were not baptized becaufe their parents 
 *' were." Children might be baptized, and 
 their parents too, if the Lord had command* 
 ed it. And you know it is exprefsly record- 
 ed in fcripture, that children were circum- 
 cifed, but it is not recorded there that chil- 
 dren were baptized. Befides, we never read, 
 that 1 know of, that either faith or repent- 
 ance was required of thofe adults who were 
 circumcifed. But you yourfelf grant thac 
 faith and repentance were required of adult 
 converts in order to baptifm. So that you fee, 
 the cafes are quite different. 
 
 I think your remarks upon laws, cuftoms, 
 kgacy, and deeds of gitt, are much more 
 fanciiul than folid. It is granted, " a tefta- 
 •* tor fays in his will, I give this eftate to 
 •* fuch a one and his heirs* i" and this efta- 
 blillies the title of the heirs to the eftate. But 
 then, the blefled God never fays, " Let fuch 
 *' perlons be baptized and their children.'* 
 If this were faid, the title of children to the 
 ordinance of baptifrn> would be equally clear 
 
 • Page 3o»« 
 
( ^9 1 
 
 and firm. Nor does the Lord ever *' fay to 
 " his people" with refped to fpiritual and 
 eternal happinefs, " 1 will be a God to you, 
 *' and your lecd." I will venture to affirm. 
 Sir, though you hang {o much upon it, that 
 the fentiment Itfelf, and every attempt ta 
 eltablifli it, are big with abfurdity, and with 
 miichief to the fouls of men. And yet, if 
 this fen-timent could be eftablifhed as it can- 
 not,, it would never furnifh out a fubftantial 
 argument in favor of infant baptifm. " If 
 *' faith and repentance had been indifpenfable 
 •' prerequifites to baptifm." Nay, my dea? 
 Sir, you have juft now granted that *•' they 
 " werepre-requifites in adult-converts." And 
 if this was of divine authority, as I believe 
 no one will deny, then they were certainly 
 indifpenfable pre-requifites. But if they were, 
 *'• our Lord himfelf on one account, and Si- 
 " mon on another, would have been im- 
 " proper fubjeClis for the ordinance." Our 
 Lord, you know, was the great inllitutor 
 and pattern of the ordinance, and therefore 
 out of the quefcion. You will grant it was 
 proper that he fhould be our example in the 
 -Other inftitution, the Lord's fupper. Yet I 
 truft, you will not deny that faith and re- 
 pentance are indifpenfable pre-req.uifites to 
 that ordinance. Suppofe Simon was an im- 
 proper fubje6tj that proves nothing. He 
 appeared to be a proper one when the ordi- 
 nance was adminiftered ; and many others 
 have been admitted to both ordinances upon 
 13 3 a ere- 
 
C 30 ) 
 
 a credible evidence of faith and repentance, 
 who have afterwards manifefted themfelves to 
 be very different to what th^y appeared at 
 firft. 
 
 If you, or any other can make it appear 
 that our Saviour did really authorize his; 
 Apoftles to baptize any without faith and re- 
 pentance, or that the Apoftles did baptize 
 any whom they knew to be without, your 
 pradlice will then appear to have fome foun- 
 dation, and your 31ft page will demand our 
 attention. Till then we muft pafs it by. 
 *' Propriety, capacity, figns, tokens, &c." 
 with regard to the foundation of the ordinance 
 nov/ in queilion, have nothing to do with 
 fcripture -, and therefore we have nothing to 
 do with them. 
 
 You afl<, " Has not baptifm been generally 
 " adminiftered to children in the feveral ages 
 " of the church*." I anfwer, no. Sir, it 
 has not. Not in the Erft or fecond ages of 
 the church. No man ever proved, or will 
 ever be able to prove that it has-f. As to Dr. 
 Lightfooi's reafon for the filence of fcripture*. 
 refpedting infant-baptifm, I pafs it over here, 
 having confidered the argum.ent from profe- 
 lite baptifm elfewherej. 
 
 It is evident the houlholds you mention da 
 not fupply one lingle inllance of infant- bap- 
 
 • Page 31. 
 
 f See, on this fabjeft. Humble EfTay, p. 73, &C« 
 Dr. Stei.nett^h Letters, v. 2. No. 15. and Others, 
 t See Humble EfTay, p. 5 if &e* 
 
 tifni. 
 
( 3' ) 
 
 tifm, or one fair argument to fupport the 
 pra(ftice of it, not even with your ingenious 
 management of what is related concerning 
 them. On the houfhold of Lydia, you juftly 
 obferve, " we read nothing of the faith or 
 " ages, (<^^^ rather) of any one of her family." 
 How then, my good Sir, will you prove- 
 there were infants in it ? If you cannot do 
 this, it cannot be imagined to afford an ar- 
 gument in favor of infant baptifm. You 
 mull know there are multitudes of houfholds 
 in which are no infants, and every circum- 
 ftance in the hiftory of Lydia and her houf- 
 hold, renders it probable that her's was one 
 of this kind. Equally void of evidence in 
 your favor, is the houfhold of Stephanas, 
 1 Cor. I. i6. So alfo is that of the Jailor, even 
 with your extraordinary criticifm upon it. 
 By what method of argument, or rules of 
 grammar or criticifm, Sir, do you difprove 
 the common tranflation of Trxvomi, with all 
 kis houfe ; and by what authority do you fup- 
 port the contrary one, /// (or over) all bis 
 houfe \ in oppofition to the generality of the 
 bell critics and commentators ^ And yet, 
 could you fupport this tranflation, ar^d dif- 
 prove the other, to which I hope, you will 
 never pretend, yet even in that cafe, yoa 
 have no evidence that any infants were in the 
 Jailor's family, and confequently no founda- 
 tion for the practice of infant baptifm. Is it 
 not then very flrange. Sir, that you fhould 
 oppofe Dr. Lightfoot^ and fo many other 
 
 pcedobflptifts. 
 
( 52 > 
 
 poedobaptitb, by aflerting that " the New 
 " Teftament is not filent upon this he:d ?'* 
 Pray, Sir, where is the paffagc in which in- 
 fant baptifni is mentioned? Multitudes, I 
 am perluaded, even of pcedobaptifts, muft 
 be afhamed of fuch an affertion as this. I will 
 conclude the argument by a few words from? 
 two or three writers out of many in proof of 
 what I fay, who are of your own fide,, 
 ftrange as it is to think of! 
 ^./' Poedobaptifm, in the two firft centu- 
 " ries after Chrill, was unknown, but ir> 
 " the third and fourth was approved of by 
 *' a few, began to prevail in the fifth and 
 ** fr.bfequent ages j and therefore this rite is. 
 " indeed obferved by us as an ancient cuf- 
 *' torn, but not as an apoftolical tradition." — 
 CurcelUus, DifTert. Secund. de peccat. orig, 
 
 §56. 
 
 "In the two firft ages no one received bap- 
 '* tifm, unlefs he who, having been inftrudt- 
 *' ed in the faith, and imbued with the doc- 
 " trine of Chrift, was able to teftify that h^ 
 *' believed." — Suicer. Thefaur. EccL fub 
 voce Zvvcc^ig. 
 
 *' None were baptized of old, but thofe 
 »* who were of age, who not only underflood 
 " what the myftery of the water meant, but 
 '* defired the fame.'* — Ludovicus Fives^ 
 Comment in Auguft. Lib. i. cap. 27. 
 
 " It is againil the perpetual analogy of 
 " Chrifl's doftrine to baptize infants-, for 
 ♦' befides that Chrift never gave any precept 
 
 to 
 
( 33 > 
 
 " to baptize them, nor ever himfelf, noT 
 " his ApoH'ies, that appears, did baptize 
 ** any of them, — all that either he or his* 
 *' Apoftles faid concerning it, requires inch 
 " previous diipofitions to baptifm, of which 
 " infants are not capable, and thefe are 
 *' faith and repentance." — Bpr Taylor on 
 Proph. p. 239. 
 
 You know. Sir, and every man of read* 
 ing knows, that thefc are but a very few out 
 of many poedobaptills, who freely confefs that 
 theycanfind no authority for, oraccount of, in* 
 fant baptifm in the feriptures. I iKall only re-' 
 fer to one more, who is yet living •, an author 
 whom 1 well know, and whom I have long 
 efteemed. His words are thefe, fpeaking ot 
 the apoftolic times, and pradice. ** Nor was 
 *f baptifm itfelf the firft declaration of their 
 *^ being Chriftians, for none was admitted to 
 ** baptifm, much lefs to the fupper of the 
 *' Lord, without a previous confefTion of 
 *-'. faith in the Lord Jefus Chrift, as is ma- 
 " nifeft in the inftance of Philip and the £««• 
 *^ nuch, Cornelius the Gentile, the Jailor, &c.'* 
 — Rev. Mr. T. Knight , Amyntas and Phile- 
 tus, p. 210, 211. 
 
 I cannot but think. Sir, that thefe authors, 
 were they all now living, would fmile at a man 
 who fhould affert that "the New Tefta- 
 ** ment is not filent upon this head," infant-, 
 baptifm. Every man who has carefully read 
 the New Teftament, if he have any tender- 
 nefs of confcience, or regard for truth, muft 
 
 confels 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 confefs^ I apprehend^ that it knows nothing 
 aboiu the matter. It dots not Teem to have 
 come into the thoughts of any perfon con- 
 cerned in It, nor of any perlbn that lived till 
 a confiderable time after it was finifhed. 
 
 I afl-c your pardon, Sir, if I prefume fa 
 far as to offer you a word or two of advice, 
 which, if attended to, will, I think, be of 
 fervice to yoiirfeif and your readers, (hould 
 you think proper to refume this controverfyr 
 or to take up any other. 1 give it fo far as 
 I know, with due refped to your perfon and 
 charadcr. 
 
 I advife you then, my dear Sir, to read the 
 pafTages of Icripture carefully over, which 
 relate to the fubjedk you are upon : and try 
 to be impartial, and to diveft yourfelf ot pre- 
 judice. Confider yourlelf m the fight of 
 that God who trieth the reins and heart, and 
 to whom we muft quickly give an account 
 of all our thoughts, words and works. 
 
 Do not be pofitive in alTerting without evi- 
 dence, nor take things for granted without 
 proof •, efpecially the things which you know 
 are denied by your opponents. This often 
 vinncceffarily prolongs the debate, and excites, 
 a difpofition, not the ' moft happy, or moft 
 honourable to the Chriftian character ; and is, 
 in fhort, unfair, and unv/orthy a minilltr of 
 Jefus Chrift. 
 
 Donotleadyourreaderstoimagirie that your 
 opponents fay fuch things as you know they: 
 do not fay ; nor rep relent your adverfaries 
 
 knowingly* 
 
( 35 ) 
 
 knowingly, in an unjnll: light. Make Matt, 
 vii. 12. Your rule in your treatment of o- 
 thers. This is honourable and like a man. 
 Do not confound the argument, and darken 
 the judgment by noife and declamation, or 
 far-fetched remarks j nor put off your read- 
 ers with polTibilities, or even probabilities, in 
 the place of certainty and pofitive evidence; 
 nor impofe upon the ignorant with unmean- 
 ing or equivocal phrafes. But let the world 
 fee that you are willing to be thoroughly 
 known, and efteem it an honor to be fct 
 right, if you are wrong. 
 
 You fee, my good Sir, I ufe the fame fa- 
 miliarity I- would do if I had the honor, and 
 the great pleafure of your company in my own 
 parlour. 1 have imagined, however, that 
 thefe advices were very needful, v/hile I have 
 run over your Summary^ though to avoid of- 
 fence, 1 have feldom feemed to obferve it. 
 May you, and may I, and may all who bear 
 the facred chara<5ter of minifters, be daily 
 learning more and more, to imitate the blefled 
 Jefus, our only hope, and to be more and 
 more his meek and upright followers, under 
 the enlivening confideration that he fpiiled 
 for us his precious blood, and hath left us 
 An example, that we (hould follow bis fteps ! 
 This is the conftant prayer of. 
 Reverend and dear Sir, 
 Your affedtionate brother. 
 And ready fervant, for Jefus* fake, 
 DAN TAYLOR, 
 ///>/, in Wadfivorth^ 
 July 12, 1777. 
 
ERRATA.. 
 
 Pages, note, I. n, read Stennett's. P. 9, I. 16 and 
 23, r. Is It. P. 10. 1. , ,, r. ratov* P. 17. 1. ,, r. bet&(y. 
 P. 21. I. 9. dele not. P. 30. 1. 27, r. profelyte. 
 
BOOKS publifhed by the fame Author, 
 and fold by W. Edwards, Bookfeller, 
 in Halifax. 
 
 I./npHE Neceflity of Searching the 
 Scriptuies. A Sermon. Price 2d. 
 
 II. The Faithful and Wife Steward. A 
 Sermon addrefled to Young Miniflers 
 at an Affociation. Price 6d. 
 
 III. The Mourning Penitent comforted. 
 The Subftance of two Sermons, occa- 
 fioned by the Death of the Author's 
 Children. Price 4d. 
 
 IV. The Scriptural Account of the Way 
 of Salvation, in two Parts. Price is. 
 
 V. Fundamentals of Religion in Faith 
 and Practice. The Subltance of Fifty 
 Sermons, Price 3s. bound. 
 
 VI. The Duty of a Gofpel-Minifter ex- 
 plained and enforced. A Sermon de- 
 livered at Great Tarmoiith^ in Norfolk^ 
 Jan. 9, ^'j'JS^ at the Ordination of the 
 Rev. Mr. Benjamin Worjhp. 
 
A 
 
 COMPENDIOUS VIEW 
 
 OF tH E 
 
 NATURE and IMPORTANCE 
 
 O P 
 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, 
 
 FOR THE USE OF PLAIN CHRISTIANS. 
 
 Occafioned by the late and prefent Controverfies on 
 that Subjed. 
 
 By D. ^T A Y L O R. 
 
 AJkfor the Old Paths — and lualk therein. 
 
 Jeremiah. 
 
 the second edition, corrected. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. BUCKLAND, PATER-NOSTER ROW, 
 
 W. ASH, LITTLE TOWER STREET, J. MARSOM, 
 ^ HIGH HOLBORN, T. SCOLLICK, CItV 
 
 ROAD, AND W. BUTTON, NEWING- 
 TON CAUSEY. M,DCC,LXXXIX. 
 
 [Price Two-pence.] 
 
[ 3 ] 
 
 A COMPENDIOUS VIEW, dec. 
 
 COMMON chriftians cannot tnter far into the 
 intricate parts of a controverfy. With thefe 
 they are often confounded ; and thoagh they are 
 frequently no more than the appendages of thefub- 
 jcM in difpute, yet they perplex the weak reader, 
 till he is ready to forget the main queftion, which, 
 when carefully attended to, is generally plain and 
 eafy. This, I think, is in fome meafure, the cafe, 
 with regard to the controverfy on ChrijHan bap- 
 tifm. I have long thought fo ; and my mind was 
 peculiarly (truck with this apprehenfion, by read- 
 ing a late pamphlet on the fubjeft. This gave 
 birth to the fraall publication now put into the 
 hands of the reader. The defign of it is to ftate the 
 nature and importance of baptifm in an eafy light ; 
 and to colleft what appears to be effential to the 
 controverfy into a narrow, compafs. How far this 
 defign is accomplifhed, the reader will judge for 
 hiinfelf. 
 
 That baptifm is an ordinance of Jefus Chrift is 
 agreed on all hands; and therefore to fuppofe 
 that it does not deferve and demand our ferious and 
 diligent attention cannot but be an affront to the 
 Lord of Glory, the acknowledged atithorofit. — 
 That it is an inftitution of the New Teftament is 
 A 2 equally 
 
[ 4 ] 
 
 ~ef|Ually certain ; and therefore we muft dire6lly 
 advert to what that infalHble and infinitely preci- 
 ous book teaches concerning it. To do this, with 
 as much brevity as poflible, has often been ufeful 
 on various fubje£h ; and may poffihly not be un- 
 profitable on the prefent occafion ; efpecially to 
 thofe fimple, upright minds, who finccrely defire 
 to know their duty, and to perform it, that they 
 may " ftand complete and perfeft in all the will 
 of God." Col. iv. 12. Which is certainly the 
 defire of every real Chrifilan. 
 
 I confefs myfelf a Baptifl; for confcience fake. 
 But it is no part of my defign to be engaged »n 
 difputation with any man on that head. I can- 
 not but apprehend, however, that if any man who 
 praBifes the fprinkling of infants, fhould choofe 
 totakethefamemethod, on ihat fideofthequefiion, 
 and in the fame compendious and fimple manner, 
 ftatc the evidence which he apprehends, the New 
 Teflament gives in favour of that praftice, the 
 plain reader would, perhaps, fee with eafe, the line 
 of his duty ; and then he may a6t as he hopes to 
 give up his account to God ; who will foon 
 *' bring to judgment every work, with every fe- 
 cret thing, whether it be good or evil." Ecclef. 
 xii. 14. 
 
 In the mean time, far from condemning thofe 
 who choofe to controvert the point in all its ex- 
 tent, I fincerely wifh the divine benedi6fion to 
 reft on all who, on either fide of the queftion, are 
 endeavouring to " fpeak the truth in love." 
 
 Oueflion I. Who are the perfons to whom 
 the ordinance of baptifm ought to be adminifter- 
 -ed .? 
 
 Anfwer. 
 
[ 5 ] 
 
 Arif',s'er. On all other fubjec^S' we think it faf- 
 c!t to confult the precepts and examples which 
 rolatc to them. This is confededly the fafell, moll 
 natural, and moll unexceptionable method, on the 
 fubjett now in hand. We therefore make the 
 folTowing obfervations. 
 
 1. John is the firft perfon of whom we read in 
 fcripture, who admlniftered baptilm to his difci- 
 ples. He is therefore emphatically called " John 
 
 . the baptift." 
 
 2. A few months before our Saviour began his 
 miniftry, John " preached in the wildernefs of 
 Judea;" and the people whom he baptized were 
 fuch as " Gonfelied their fins." Mat. iii. i,6. 
 Mar. i. 5. Nor do we find that he baptized any 
 others, except our blefied Redeemer, who " knew 
 no fin." Thefe could not be infants. If infaitis 
 had any fins to confefs, they are notable to con- 
 fefs them. 
 
 3. When our Saviour was baptized he was not 
 an infant. He " began to be about thirty years 
 of a^e." Luke iii. 23. He was therefore an ex- 
 ample of adult b;<ptifm; but not ot infant baptilm. 
 
 4. After his baptlfm, our Saviout began to 
 preach; and he " made and baptized more difci- 
 ples than John." John iv. 1. This exprelFion 
 clearl\ intimates that ihefe people were 7)iade dif- 
 ciplr.s firll, Bnd then baptize!. Bat can an infant 
 <be made a difciple ot Clirii; ? Certainly not. Yet 
 this expreffion was ufed with the utmofl propriety 
 of thofe who were convr.rted by our Lord's minif- 
 try. OurLord therefore baptized converted per fons; 
 but we cannot find that he baptized one infuut. 
 
 ^. Before our Saviour afcended into heaven, 
 A3 he 
 
[ « ] 
 
 he gave his apoflles this commiffion, «' Go teach 
 all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of" the Son, and of the Holv Ghoft." 
 Mat. xxviii. 19.— It is certain the phrafe all na- 
 tions, does not neceflarily include infants, (fee 1 
 Chron. xiv, 17. 2 Chron. xxxii. 23. Pfal. Ixxii. 
 11, 17. Mat. xxiv.^ 9. AQ.S xiv. 16. Rev. xiv. 8. 
 &c. &c), the commiflion clearly fignifies " teach 
 them firll, and then baptize them." — It is certain 
 this had been our Lord's method — and we fhall 
 foon find that the apoiUes fo underftood it, and 
 praftif«l accordingly. This commifTion, there- 
 fore, cannot be fuppofed to authorize the baptiz- 
 ing of infants, but of thofe who are taught. 
 : 6. At Jerufalem, many were " pricked to the 
 heart," by the preaching of Peter. Afls li. Thefe 
 " faid unto Peter, and to the reft of the apoflles, 
 Men and brethren, what (hall we do ? Peter an- 
 fwered,- Repent, and be baptized every one of you 
 — Then they that glad/y received the word were 
 baptized." Ver. 37,38,41. It is evident thefe 
 were not infants. 
 
 7. " Philip went down to Samaria, and preach- 
 ed Chrift to them. — And when they believed Phi- 
 lip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom 
 of God, and the name of Jefus Chrifl, they were 
 baptized, both men and v/omen." A<Ss viii. ^, 12. 
 infants could not believe thefe things. They 
 could not, therefore, be here included. 
 
 8. To.vards the end of the fame chapter, we 
 read ofihebaptifm of the EthiopianEimuch. Ver. 
 3^ — 40. It is certain he was not an infant. 
 
 9. In the ninth chapter of the A61.S, the con- 
 verlion and baptifm of Saul, afterwards Paul the 
 
 Apoflle,, 
 
C 7 ] 
 
 Apoftle, are related ; and in the twenty-fecond 
 chapter, he informs the multitude that when he 
 was converted, Ananias laid to him, " arife and be 
 baptized." Ver. 16. 
 
 10. We read, in the tenth chapter, that Peter 
 preached at Cefaria ; and " the Holy Ghoft fell 
 on all them which heard the word.", Ver. ^^. 
 On which Peter faid, " Can any man forbid wa- 
 ter, that thefe fhould not be baptized, who have 
 received the Holy Ghoft as well as we ? And he 
 commanded them to be baptized in the name of 
 the Lord." Ver. 47, 48. Here thofe wlio were 
 baptized, had firft " heard the word, and received, 
 the Holy Ghoft." Not infants ; but believers. 
 
 11. Paul and his companions went to Philippi ; 
 and "a certain woman, named Lydia — was bap- 
 tized, and her houfhold." A6fs xvi. 14, 1^. 
 Whether this v/oman had a huft)and, or children^ 
 or of v/hom her family confifled, \ye are not 
 informed. We can only conje61:ure from circunr- 
 flances. All men know that there are many fa- 
 milies in which there are no iniants ; and that of 
 Lydia might be one cf thofc. There is no ac- 
 count of her hufband or cliildren. It is natural 
 to conclude tha% at leaft, her hufband \\'ould have 
 been mentioned if fhe had one ; and ihat the houf- 
 hold would have been called /lis, not hers. This 
 is iifual on other occafions. It is therefore very 
 probable that ftie had neither huftjand nor child. 
 Her family appears to conhft of perfons who are 
 called brethren, and were comforted by the Apof- 
 tles. . Ver. 40. Thele e.xprehions are not appli- 
 cable to infants. At any rate, this is an inftance 
 of believers' baptilin : but affords no evidence in 
 favour of infant baptifm. 12. At 
 
C « ] 
 
 12. At Philippi another houfhold was bapti^. 
 ed ; that of the Jailor. Paul and Silas " fpake 
 the ^v'ord of the Lord to him, and to all that were 
 in I114 hourc ; and he — was baptized, and all his 
 ftraightwav'i — and rejoiced, believing in God, wiili 
 all his houfe." Atts xvi. 31 — ^34. Such expref- 
 fions are incompatible with the ftate of infancy. 
 The apofllcs could not, with any propriety, " fpeak 
 the word of the Lord " to infants. Nor could in- 
 fants " believe and rejoice in God." This houf- 
 hoid then, affords a ilriking inftance of the baptihn 
 of behevers ; but no evidence of infant baptifm. 
 
 13. Paul preached at Gcrinth eighteen months; 
 in which period " many oi the Corinthians hear- 
 ing, believed, and were baptized." Atls xviii. 8, 
 11. They firft heard; then believed, and were 
 baptized. So that thofe baptized at Corinth were 
 believers, not infants. 
 
 14. la 1 Cor. i. 16. Paid fays he "baptized the 
 houlhold of Stephanas." Concerning this houf- 
 hold we only knov/ that it was " the firil fruits of 
 Achaia;" and that they had " addifted themfelves 
 (o the miniifry of the faints." 1 Cor. xvi. 15. — ■ 
 This, however underllood, cannot be applied to 
 infants. 
 
 P'romthefe obfervations we fairly, and even ne- 
 cefTarily conclude — that baptifm is an ordinance 
 of Jefus Chriff — that believers, and believers with, 
 out exception, are the fubjefts of it. — ^That we 
 have not found a hint that gives authority to bap- 
 tize infants — Not a \vord concerning baptizing 
 believers, atid their children. It would appear 
 a great defefl in the facred liiftorv, that it has not 
 recorded the baptizing of infants, if any fuch thing 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 waspra£llfecl. On other occafionSjWhencliildren are 
 concerned with their parents, they are mentioned 
 witli them- (See Mat. xv. 38, &c.j Canwefup- 
 pofe it would not have been fo here ? But no fuch 
 thing is mentioned, nor can fairly be inferred from 
 any one paffage in the whole New Teflaraent. 
 The conclufion ,is, we have no authority to be- 
 lieve that any fuch thing was praftifed. 
 
 It is of no confequence to fay " the firft chrifli- 
 ans were Jews and heathens, who embraced a new 
 rehgion ; but now, fmce chriftianity is the religion 
 of our country, the faith of the parent gives his 
 child a right to the ordinance of baptifm." Becaufe 
 it is certain we have no fuch inftruftions as thefe in 
 fcripture — It is alfo certain that if the parent's 
 faith give any fuch right to his children at this day, 
 it gave them this right in the days of the apoltles. 
 If it had, in the days of the apoffles, given this 
 right to children, furely the lacred writers would 
 have mentioned it ; and they would have inform- 
 ed us, that on this principle, they baptized the 
 children of believers. But of this we have no in- 
 timation in any part of fcripture. Much lefs can 
 we fuppofe that the name of chriftian gives any 
 fuch right ; though this mull' be fuppofed and 
 proved, before we can plead for the baptizing of 
 ali infents in a chriftian country on that founda- 
 tion.J 
 
 That we ought not to baptize infants, and that 
 believers ought to be baptized ivight be evinced 
 much iHore largely : But thefe few pages are de- 
 ligned for the plaineft chriftians; and it is fuffici- 
 ent for thefe to remember that we have no com- 
 mand to baptize infants, nor any example of it in 
 A 5 all 
 
[ 10 ] 
 
 all the fcriptures. On the other hand, we have 
 both exprefs commands and examples, not a fevv^ 
 to v/arrant the baptifm of believers. 
 
 Oueft. II. What is Clirijiian baptifm? Is it 
 fprinkling, or immerfton ? 
 
 Anf. It has been, and Hill is, very generally 
 acknowledged by learned and candid men, that 
 baptifm is vmner/ion, and that to baptize is to im^ 
 merje. The defign of this little piece forbids me 
 to cite many authorities^. If the reader wifli to- 
 examine the truth of what I have afferted, I do, 
 with great pleafure, refer him to Mr. Booth's P^~ 
 dobaptifm Examined, Second Edition; and fhall. 
 here only quote the words of a fevy, whofe judg- 
 ment cannot be difputed ; and who could not be 
 under the power of prejudice in favour of believ- 
 ers baptifm. 
 
 " Baptifm is immerfion ; and was adminiflered 
 in ancient times according to the force and mean- 
 ing of the word." Salmaslus.. 
 
 " The word baptize fignifies to immerfe.^' 
 
 Calvin. 
 
 " Chrift commanded us to be baptized ; by 
 which word it is certain immerjion is fignified." 
 
 Hospinian, and Beza. 
 
 " The aft of baptizing is the immerfion of be- 
 lievers in water. This exprefles the force of the 
 word. Thus alfo it was performed by Chriff and 
 his apoftles." Vitringa. 
 
 " In England of kte years, I ever thought the 
 parfon baptized his own Jingers, rather than the ' 
 child." _ SSLDEN. 
 
 " To baptize fignifies to plunge, as is granted 
 by alltke world. Bp. Bossuet. 
 
 My 
 
[ 11 ] 
 
 My reader is not fuppoled to be a critic in tlie 
 learned languages. But he can read his New Tef- 
 taraent, and judge whether the accounts of bap- 
 tifm givH^n in that infallible book are more agree- 
 able to the notion and. practice oi fprinkling, or of 
 immerfum. In order to this, we make the follow- 
 ing remarks.. 
 
 1. John baptized In the river Jordan. Mat. iii* 
 6. Mar. i.. g, 9. Do perfons ufe to fprinklc- 
 others in a river ? Would a man appear wile who 
 went into a river to fprinklc another ? Can we 
 think that John would aftfo imprudently? But if 
 heim}nerfed\hG people al! is clear,wife and natural. 
 
 2. " John was baptizing in Enon — bccaufe 
 there was much zcater there ?" John iii. 23. Ob- 
 ferve the reafon ; I' becau/e there was much water 
 there." Is this reafon fatisfaftory if he fprinkled 
 the people? Would that require 772//f/^ water? — 
 Would not one fingle Ipring, or faiall rivulet be- 
 fufficient ? But the reafon is a good one, if he z'/ra- 
 nierfed the people. He then wanted much water. 
 There Avas much water at Enon ; and therefore 
 he baptized at that place. It is theiefore natural 
 to conclude that John mwcr/eJ the people ; and 
 tliat to baptize is to immirfe. 
 
 3. Our Saviour was baptized in the fame fa- 
 mous river. Mat. iii. 1^3 — 17. Mar. i. 9. Would 
 he htjpriiikled in a river ? li he were wimerfed, a 
 river was quite convenient, and proper fc>r the 
 purpofe. But if he were fprinkled, we fliould 
 think it would have been performed in any place, 
 in a parlor, a hall, a kitchen, a fynagogue, the tem- 
 ple, any where, rather than in a river.. Common 
 fenfe, and all hiflory will confirm this.. I think 
 .no man can produce an in fiance from anv hiflory, 
 
 A 6 ■ of. 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 ofpeople going into a river to be fprlnkled, nor 
 was it ever fuppofed, that I know of, unlefs in the 
 cafe of Jefus and his difciples, and thofe of John 
 the Baptifl:. Can we imagine that they would be 
 fo remarkably fingiilar ; and, without n«-cefl]ty, 
 a6l, in tliis inftance, contrar}' to all other men ? 
 
 4. When Chrifi; was baptized, " he went up out 
 of the water;" a further proof that he had been 
 in the water; and therefore, a further evidence 
 that baptifm is immerfion. 
 
 ^. As Philip and the Eunuch " went on their 
 way, they came to a certain water ;" — and " he 
 commanded the chariot to ftand ftill ; and they 
 went down both into the water ; both Philip and 
 the Eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when 
 they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of 
 the Lord caught away Philip." 
 
 If baptifm had been fprinkling, why was not the 
 Eunuch baptized till they came to ihh certain wa- 
 ter? If a balon of wvter could not have been ob- 
 tained in the way almofl any where, it is a well 
 known fa6l that perfons of dignity in thofe defart 
 countries, always took water along with them in 
 their baggage. A fmall quantity of this would, 
 have been fufficient lor the purpofe of fprinkling. 
 
 When they were come to this certain ivater, 
 they both went down info it ; and then Philip bap- 
 tized the Eunuch. Here a plain reader will afk 
 as before. Why did they both go down into the 
 water? Was it prudent if the Eunuch was only 
 Jprinkled? Would two wife men go into a water' 
 for fuch a purpofe ? If fprinkling were baptifm, 
 would ■ ot Philip have fprinkled the Eunuch ? and 
 can we fuppofe that, in thefe circumftances, Phi- 
 lip 
 
[ 13 ] 
 
 lip would have gone into the water to have done 
 
 this? ^ , . - 
 
 6. The word is fometimes ufed in a figurative 
 fenfe. Let us refer to thefe pafTages. 
 
 Our Saviour fays, ♦' I have a bamfm to be 
 babtized with." Luke xii. 50. That here, and in 
 Mat. XX. 22, our Lord refers to his lufFenngs is 
 allowed on all hands. But why does he call thefe 
 fufFerlngs a baptifm ? The anfwer which divines 
 agree to crive, and which is" very obvious, is, be- 
 caufehe^'was, as it were, overwhelmed with his 
 fufferings, as a perfon, when baptized, is over- 
 whelmed 'or covered with the water. They ex- 
 plain it to this purpofe. " I have a moft dreadful 
 baptifm to be baptized with, and know that I (hall 
 fhortly be bathed, as it were, in blood, and plunge 
 ed in the moft overwhelming diftrefs." Thus we 
 frequently fay that a perfon in great trouble is 
 overwhelmed' with grief, immerled in calamity, 
 
 and fo on. . . , r rr • r 
 
 Now was there any thmg m the fufterings of 
 ourbleffed Redeemer which rekmhled/prinkiing? 
 If not, thefe words contain a certain proof that 
 fprinkl'ing is not baptifm. Was there any thing 
 which reiembled ivunerfion ? There certainly was. 
 ■ He niicrht truly f^^y " I a^^ <^^"^^ ''"'^^ ^^^P waters, 
 where The floods overflow me." Pfal. Ixix. 2. _ If 
 immerfion be baptifm there is a firiking propriety 
 in the expreffions, but if fprinkling be baptifm 
 there is no propriety, becaufe no refemblance. 
 
 Before our Lord afcended into heaven, he made 
 a famous promife to his difciples. '• Ye Ihali be 
 baptized with the Holy Ghoft not many days 
 hence.'" Aas i. 5. This promife was fulfilled 
 
 about 
 
[ H ] 
 
 about ten days after; and the hiRory of its fuIfiK 
 ment is this. '* There came a found from heaven, 
 as of a rufhing mighty wind; and it filled all the 
 houfe where they were htting. — and they were 
 filled with the Holy Ghofh" Atls ii, 2, 4. This 
 is called a baptizing^ Does the ftate of the difci.- 
 ples at this lime refemble the ftate ot a perfon^ 
 fprinkled with a few drops of water ? Certainly 
 not. Does it then refemble the. ftate of a perfon im- 
 merfed? Would it be improper to fay the difciples 
 were immerfed in the Holy Ghoft ? It filled the 
 houfe. They wctx^JiUed, furroundcd, covered with 
 it. It was evidently a refen)blance of immerfion ; 
 and tlie paffage affords a foiid proof that baptifiu 
 is imtner/ton. 
 
 Confider another paffage. 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. — 
 " All our fathers were under the cloud, and all 
 paffed through tiie Tea ; and were all baptized unto 
 Mofes, in the cloud and in the feaJ' The apofHe 
 refers to the flate of the Ifraelites, Exod. xiv. 21, 
 22. A bright cloud was over them. Thefea be- 
 
 o 
 
 came dry land ; and they went into the midfl of 
 it on dry ground. The waters were a wall to 
 them on both fides. In this fituation they furren- 
 dered themfelves to the direftion of Mofes, who, 
 by divine appointment, was engaged to condu£l 
 them to the promifed land. 
 
 A'lofes was an eminent type of Chnft, as a pro- 
 phet and lawgiver; AQs iii. 22, 23. and as the 
 peoj)le furrendered themfelves to the condu6l of 
 Mofes, fo a true believer, in the ordinance of bap- 
 tifm, humbly and confidently farrenders himfelf to 
 Ghrifl, as the teacher and head of the Church, to 
 be conduced to heaven in the way of univerfai 
 hoJinefs. 
 
 Confider 
 
[ »5 ] 
 
 Confider the filiiation of the Ifraelites. They^ 
 were in the rdidjl of the fca ; and the cloud over 
 them. Thus they refembled. a perfon immerfed- 
 or covered in the water, when he is baptized^ 
 But there is nothing in the relation which can-in- 
 duce us to conceive that fprinkling is baptifm. 
 
 Believers are " buried with Chrill in baptifm." 
 Rom. \n. 4. Cok ii. 12. It is, I think, generally 
 allowed on all hands, that " theapoftle liere alludes 
 to the ancient manner of baptizing by ifnmer/ion.'' 
 Nor is it eafy, in any other way, to- account for 
 the expreffion. That immerfion refcnibles a bu>- 
 rial, none will deny ; but will this be afferted of 
 fprinkling ? If not, the apoftle cannot here allude 
 to fprinkling. Coniequently not fprinkling, but 
 immerfion is chriftian bsptifm. 
 
 The plain reader then will judge whether thefe- 
 pafTagesdo not confirm whai fo many ligarned mert 
 on both fides have alfertcd; that " baptifm is imnier^ 
 fion" He will alfo judge whether it be not, from 
 hence evident, that tliofe who have onlv been 
 fprinkled have not been baptized ; and whether 
 the baptilhs be not abufed when they are called 
 yi//(5fbaptiib. 
 
 Queft. III. Is not baptifm a Handing ordinance 
 ot Chri/l ; as neceffary to be obferved now as in 
 the primitive ages ? 
 
 Anf. Yes; Chrlflians in general- have thought 
 ix fo, in all ages.; and infifted on the neceflity of 
 it ; and this juftly, for the following reafons. 
 
 1. It \vas not only praciifed by John the bap- 
 tift, but alfo by our Saviour and his apoftles, both 
 before and after our Lord's refurreflion; and was 
 adminiftered both to converted Jews and Gentiles^ 
 
 by 
 
[ 16 ] 
 
 by our Lord's direftlon. This we have feen al- 
 ready. Nor is there any intimation in fcripture, 
 that it {hould ever be laid afide, either in the apof- 
 toHc, or in any future age. 
 
 2. The promife annexed to the commiflion of 
 our Saviour plainly intimates the permanent du- 
 ration oi the ordinance. " Lo, I am with yoti 
 always, even to the end of the world." Mat. 
 xxviii. 19, .20. 
 
 3. It is connefted with duties, both of minif- 
 ters and people which are-jevidently of equal im- 
 portance noii\ as they formerly were. Nor have 
 v;edie leaft intimation that thefe duties and baptifm 
 fHould ever he feparaied, or the connexion be- 
 tween them diffolved. With rcfpeft to minillers, it 
 is connefted with teaching and preaching the,goJpeL 
 Mat xxviii. 19. Mar. xvi. 15, 16. As it re- 
 fpefts hearers, it is conne6^ed with believing and 
 repentance. This is plain from the preceding quo- 
 tations. Now teaching, preaching the gofpel, be- 
 lieving and repentance, are all necefTary in every 
 age; and therefore fo is baptifm, which is con- 
 nefted with them, unlels we liad feme intimation 
 that this connetlion fhould be dilfolved ; which 
 we have not. 
 
 4. Baptifm anfwers all the purpofes at this day 
 which it anfwered in the firft age of chriftianity ; 
 and thefe are needful vozo as they were then. A 
 fenfible writer, (Mr. Jenkins) in a little piece, en- 
 titled " The Beauty of Believers Baptifm " has 
 recounted thefe various ends of baptifm. Whe- 
 ther we fully agree with him in hU he aflerts, or 
 no, it cannot be denied, thatbapiifmaniwersraa??)/ 
 of the purpofes which he has mentioned. It is evi- 
 dent 
 
[ ^7 ] 
 
 dent alfo that thefe always continue the fame, 
 and are always neceffary. This affords an Incon- 
 leilible proof of the perpetuity of chriflian bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 Qucft. IV. Although we allow that baptifm is 
 imnitrjion^ and that believers were immerfed in the 
 firft ages, by divine appointment; yet, is there 
 any harm in changing the praftice, fo far as to ad- 
 minifler it to infants, and io fpnnkle rather than 
 immerfe ? 
 
 Anf. It is certainly wrong, for the following 
 reafons. 
 
 1. We find no intimation in fcripture that any 
 fuch change fhould ever be made. Such a change 
 is therefore the contrivance of man, and cannot 
 be pleafing to the great head of the church, who 
 moft juflly requires that we " do whatfoever he 
 commands us." John xv. 14. 
 
 2. The chriltian difpenfation is the lafl difpen- 
 fation given to men. Every difpenfation has its 
 peculiar pofitive inflitutions. A change of ordi- 
 nances fuppofes a change in the difpenfations to 
 which the ordinances refpetUvely belong. Believ- 
 ers' Baptifm is both peculiar and fuitable to the 
 chriflian difpenfation ; and tally anfwers the pur- 
 pofes for which baptifm was defigned. Infant 
 baptifm is neither appointed in the chriflian direc- 
 tory, nor can it anfwer the purpofes of chriflian 
 baptifm.. This, I think is clear from the Pallages 
 before cited. Now as there is no new difpenfation 
 fmcethatof Chrill, there can be no toundationfor a« 
 change of ordinances. Confequently, the fprink- 
 ling of infantSjinAead of the immerfion of belie v-. 
 
 ers. 
 
[ i8 ] 
 
 ers, admitting that to be chriflian baptifin, cannot 
 ivith impunity, be introduced. 
 
 3 Tiie fcripture is our only rule in matters of 
 religion. This is allowed in other parts of religi- 
 on, and if fo, why net in this ? On this principle 
 we are reformed from popery. W' hy have we left 
 that corrupt church, if it be lawful to change any 
 part or mean of religion ? What right have we to 
 make a change in thisinftance m.ore than in others ? 
 Chriflian baptifm is one part of the counfel of 
 God; and the counfel of God ought to ftand. 
 
 4. To make a change in a divine inHitution, is 
 virtuajly to call in queflion the wifdom of God, 
 who appointed it. For if we make a change, we 
 pretend it is for the better. Is not this, in effect, 
 to fay, that we have found out a better way than 
 God has appointed ; and confequently we are wi- 
 fer than he ? 
 
 5. To make a change in a divire inflituiion, i«, 
 in efFecf, to ajfum-e an authority which belongs to 
 none but God, who, alone has a right to direff in 
 matters of religion. If we a6l as we pleafe, we 
 are putting our lelves in the place of God Almigh- 
 ty, or fetting ourfelves in oppofition to him. If 
 another command me and I obey his commands, 
 without a divine warrant, I evit^ently call that man 
 my inafttr on tarth, and fubniit to him, as though 
 be were my Maker. 
 
 6. If we change a facred ordinance, we aher 
 or annul the uefign of it. Ordinances are means 
 to anfwer certain ends. But when an ordinance 
 is changed, the ends defigned cannot be anfwered ; 
 becaufe the different practice is not adapted to 
 theaccomplifhraent of them. We might exem, 
 
 plify 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 plify tliis »obfervation, by many inftances. But 
 the objeft now before us calls us to apply it to 
 chriilian baptifm ; and our intended brevity re- 
 quires the confinemeut oi it to that ordinance. It 
 clearly appears to me from Rom vi. 4, 5. Col. 
 ii. 12. 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, that chriilian baptifm 
 was, befides other i^eafcns, defigned to be a ftand- 
 ing reprefentation of the bui'ial and refiirrcflion of 
 Chrift, and a profeffion of our death to fm, and 
 recovery to holinefs. But fprinkling a child with 
 water neither does, nor can pofTibly anfwer thefe 
 ends. This argument will apply to alraoft every 
 facred inftitution, whether moral or pofitive. To 
 change an ordinance, therefore, is, fo far, to de- 
 feat the defign of the blelled God, who appoint- 
 ed it, and to change the ordinance of baptifm 
 from immerfmg a believer to fprinkling an infant, 
 is to defeat the defign of God in appointing that 
 ordinance. 
 
 7. To change the ordinance of baptifm from 
 the immerfion of believers to the fprinkling of in- 
 fants is to annihilate the ordinance itfelf. No in- 
 llance can be produced, in which, either by pre- 
 cept or example, the fcriptures authorize the fprink- 
 ling of infants. If fprinkling were baptifm, no in- 
 flance can be produced, from fcripture, of infants 
 being the fubjefts of it. If infants were the fub- 
 je£ls of it, no valid authority can be produced in 
 proof that baptizing [igniHes /pri filling. Nowthere 
 is only one baptism ; and therefore, where the 
 pra61ice of fprinkling infants is adopted, chriilian 
 baptifm, which is quite a different thing, is totally 
 loll. 
 
 8. Ta 
 
[ 20 J 
 
 8. To change an ordinance is^ to betray the truft 
 which God has rcpored in his church. The 
 church is " the pillar and ground of the truth." — 
 I Tim. iii. 15, The truth is a facred depofitum 
 committed to the church to be kept and maintain- 
 ed againll all oppolition. Phil. i. x/, 27. 2 Tim. 
 i. 13. ii. 2. Jude 3. &c. If we give up or alter 
 any part of the will or counjel of God, we atl de- 
 ceitfully and treacherou^y in the truft ^vhich he 
 has repofed in us. 
 
 9. To change a divine ordinance is reprefented 
 in fcripture, as a crime of great enormiiv. Paul 
 commends the Corinthians, bccaufe they " kept 
 the ordinances as he had deliverer' them " to 
 that church. 1 Cor. xi. 2. Awtul tiireatenings 
 are denounced by the prophet Ifaiah, xxiv. ^5, 
 and one of the crimes on account ot which the 
 threatenings are denounced is, " thev h^vc chang- 
 ed the ordinance." AVhatever ordinance is in- 
 tended, the lefTon we are taught is that to change 
 an ordinance is a great fin. When two of the 
 fons of Aaron made a change in one fingle cir- 
 Gumft^nce, in the offering ot incenfc, " there went 
 put fire from the Lo.d, and devoured them." — . 
 For, faith Jehovah, " I will be fanfttified in them 
 that come nigh me, and before all the people I 
 will be glorified." Lev. x. 1,2, 3. This palfage 
 is fufficient to make one tremble at the thought of 
 altering, in anv degree, a facred inftitution, or of 
 conforming to fuch an alteration, when it is made 
 by any man. or number ot men in the world. 
 
 Queif. V. What necejfity is there that believers 
 fljould be baptized ? 
 
 Anr 
 
[ 21 ] 
 
 Anf. Though baptifm does not •' wafli away 
 original fin^" nor make any one " a member of 
 Chrifl:, a child of God, and an inheritor of the king- 
 dom of heaven," nor •' bring any one into the co- 
 venant of grace," nor is it " a feal oi the covenant 
 of grace," asfomehave incautioullyafferted ; yet it 
 is of great importance, and cannot be neglefted 
 with impunity, for the following reafons. 
 
 1. To fuppofe it an indifferent thing is to de- 
 grade the author of it, the Lord of glory, as an 
 indifferent perfon. If baptifm be a trifle, the 
 bie'lTed Jefus who obferved and enjoined it is 
 a trijler. All duties derive their import- 
 ance, in one view, from the authority and dig- 
 nity of him who appointed them. To diminifh 
 the importance of a duty, is, fo far, to degrade him 
 who made it a duty. If the leafl command of 
 parents, or mafteis of families be treated with in- 
 difference, the flight terminates on the mafter him- 
 felf. Shall Jefus be thus flighted ? God forbid ! 
 
 2. Baptifm is one part of righleoiifnefs. Mat. 
 iii- ig. It cannot then be negleded without 
 guilt. Mat. v. 19. It becomes all the followers 
 of Chrifl, as it became Chrill himfelf to " fulfil 
 all righteoufnefs." 
 
 3. It is the duty of believers to be baptized, in 
 order to a£l confiftently with their profefTion. — 
 " Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the 
 things which I fay," is our Saviour's Query. Luke 
 vi. 14. We all ought to put this Query to our 
 own cpnfciences. 
 
 4. Baptifm is enjoined by the fame authority, 
 by which other duties are enjoined. It is there- 
 fore, in this refpeft, of equal importance with all 
 
 other 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 Other duties. So the apoflle James argues on ano- 
 ther occafion. He that faid «' Do not commit 
 aduheiy, faid alfo Do not kill," James ii. ii. 
 On the fame principle we may argue on this head. 
 He that faid " Pray without ceafing — Do this in 
 remembrance of me," faid alfo " Repent and 
 be baptized — Arife and be baptized." If our Sa- 
 viour be worthy of regard in any thing, he ought 
 to be regarded in ever}' thing. 
 
 5. Jefus is our example : and he was baptized, 
 not when he was an infant, but when adult; and 
 was immtrjed, not Jprinkled. This is evident on 
 the face of fcripturc, and few have been hardy 
 enough to deny it. To imitate Chrift in the imi- 
 table parts of his conduft, is the fummit of a 
 chriftian's ambition. 
 
 6. Baptifmis fo plain a duty that profeffingchrif- 
 tians have ^^wtfra//)' acknowledged the necefTity of 
 it. Now there is but one b.aptism. The 
 fprinkling of infants can never be proved to be 
 chriflian baptifm. Both the a6tions and fubjefts 
 are efientiallv different. This we have feen above. 
 If believers be not baptized, then, %ve entirely lofe 
 one of Chriil's inftitutions. Would any chriftian 
 wifla that one oi the words of Chrift fhould fall 
 to the ground? It follows that though baptifm is 
 not of that importance which many have afferted, 
 both in the eftablifhed church, and among the 
 proteflant diffenters, yet it is by tar too important 
 to be neglected by any fer\-ant of Jefus Chrift. 
 
 7. The primitive chriftians, fo far as we can 
 learn, uniformly attended to this ordinance. No 
 inftance can be produced of any who were con- 
 vened, 
 
[ ^3 J 
 
 V'erte^, in the apoftolic age, and were not baptized. 
 We are bound by the fame authority, are under the 
 fame obligations, and have the fame rule as they. 
 We are accountable to the fupreme judge, as well 
 as they ; and ought to follow their example in this, 
 as in other parts of duty, 
 
 8. Baptifm is " the anfwer of a good confclence 
 towards God." i Pet. iii. 21. We cannot pretend 
 to be chriftians, without a good confcience ; nor 
 to have in ourfelves, nor give to othets, any fub- 
 ifantial proof of our converfion to Chrift, unlefs 
 we aft in fuch a manner as correfponds with a good 
 ■confcience. But we cannot pretend to this, in the 
 allowed negleft of baptifm, or any other known 
 duty. Under this convi6iion, it is the evident d*i- 
 -ty of every believer, to make a cordial furrender 
 of himfelf to the Lord Jefus Chrift, in the oi'di- 
 nance of baptifm, according to his appointment 
 and example. 
 
 9. To negleft John's baptifm was " rejefting 
 the counfel of God." Luke vii. 30.- As the bap- 
 tifm ol Chrift, is, at leafl:, of equal importance M'ith 
 that of John, no believer ought to negle6t it, left 
 he be found guilty of thefajxie crime. 
 
 10. Jefus Chrift has given it as the charafler- 
 iftic ot his Jnends, that they " do whatfoever he 
 commands them." John xv. 14 Every believer, 
 therefore, ought to fhew himfelf a friend of the 
 Lord Jefus, by wiiverfal obedience. If the bap- 
 tifm of believers be one part of his commands, as 
 we have feen above that it is, we ought to pra6iife 
 that, as well as every other command. 
 
 May 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 May the divine bleffing accompany the reading 
 ofthisfmall performance; and may the name ot^ 
 our God have all the glory ! Amen. 
 
 N I S. 
 
 Lately Publifhed by the fame Author, and Sold 
 by J. BucKLAND,Pater-nofterRow; W.Ash, 
 Little Tower Street; J. Marsom, High Hol- 
 born ; T. Scollick, City Road; and W. 
 Button, Newington Caufey, 
 
 The ETERNITY of FUTURE PUNISHMENT 
 Afferied and Improved. Price Six-pence. 
 
 The INTERPOSITION of PROVIDENCE in 
 the Late Recovery of His Majefty King 
 George the Third, lUuftrated and Im- 
 proved. Price Six-pence. 
 
WBbt 
 
 
 ■m 
 
 i.^mt 
 
 fc^ 
 
 
 '^^' 
 
 ms^.j: 
 
 
 '\A 
 
 ^M 
 
 
 J5?^.^?-l.. 
 
 I 
 
 - i