DUKE UNIV ERST re DIVINITY SCHOOL LIBRARY GIFT OF Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2023 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/candidreasonsfor01 edwa CANDID REASONS I FOR RENOUNCING THE PRINCIPLES OF ANTI-PADOBAPTISM. ALSO, A SHORT METHOD WITH THE BAPTISTS. BY PETER EDWARDS, SEVERAL YEARS PASTOR OF A BAPTIST CHURCH AT PORTSEA, HANTS. PHILADELPHIA : PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. . Yred aI IVAL, uv ; " 4 * aE fi j in res 1 oF bea Vi mw AN Leal a | wort. oki 10. ¢@ , T 30 i sy ia Bi 1. A eas) Pe ee LA. aie ’ oa «lh iV. sS | tie Gy. cr na J CxXEC CONTENTS. Page. I. Introduction,—the Question stated, - - 7 Il. Arguments of the Baptists against Infant Bap- tism, - : e : P - 15 If. Arguments in favour of Infant Baptism, - 48 IV. A Scheme of the Controversy on Infant Bap- tism, - - - - - - 108 V. A Short Method with the Baptists, - - 133 VI. A Case submitted to the consideration of the Baptists, - - - - - 180 VII. The Mode of Baptism; the Force of the Term, the Circumstances and Allusions con- sidered, - - - - - 181 VIII. The practical Use of Pedobaptism, - - 215 ee ee. Ae a rs fy a ‘'g ; wo J > . 7 P ’ ‘ , ed ; \ “ } n y , ? 4 fj 4 , ai 3 } re a Bit 5 908 sa raise P as - i. ae paren’ ate hs, pat aie a any ei- °°" - eer - . lai od xf Yo noikerstiento wal | te oo . “a seit sym'h edt | ‘ ae 4 ial itA bata mE - ; * ‘. : “ dit - - orebentdei et w 7 4 ij ; n J emer J ; * , sis c ‘ TO THE CHURCH AND CONGREGATION MEETING IN WHITES’ ROW, PORTSEA, HANTS. ‘DEARLY BELOVED, AFTER Officiating among you, as Pastor and Minister, between ten and eleven years, it seemed natural to address you in a publi- cation intended to account for that change of sentiment in me, which has proved the occa- sion of our separation. Two eminent writers, Mr. Booth and Dr. Williams, have both contributed to this. The latter has my acknowledgments; the _former my animadversions. As Mr. Booth had no design to discover the fallacy of the Baptist scheme, I thought it proper to show in what way his book has operated, and is likely still to operate, contrary to the design of the author. 1 Vv vi I have presented the whole scheme to the reader in the same point of view in which it was exhibited to my own mind. In com- posing it, I have endeavoured to avoid every thing foreign and bitter; that as the truth has been my object, I wished to say nothing that should divert the attention of the reader from it. Wishing that you and I may grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, I remain, in the same esteem and love, Yours, in our common Lord, PETER EDWARDS. Portssa, January 12, 1795. INTRODUCTION. A FAIR STATEMENT OF THE INQUIRY.’ t THESIS I. Tue only thing which, in any dispute, should engage our attention, is this: “ What is truth?” And he who wishes to find it, will endeavour to adopt that plan which will bring him soon- est to what he seeks. There are two things, in all matters of controversy, which greatly facilitate our search: First, that we set aside all those things about which we are agreed, and fix our attention to that only on which a difference of opinion may arise ; and second- ly, that this difference be stated in a manner the most plain and simple. To either of these, no person who seeks the truth can form the least objection. THESIS II. As this inquiry lies between those who pass under the denomination of Pedobap- tists and Antipzdobaptists, it will be proper, in order to ascertain wherein they differ on the subject of baptism, to give the sentiments of each. Antipzedobaptists consider those per- 8 INTRODUCTION. sons as meet subjects of baptism, who are sup- posed to possess faith in Christ, and those only. Pedobaptists agree with them in this, that believers are proper subjects of bap- tism ; but deny that such only are proper sub- jects. They think, that, together with such believing adults who have not yet been bap- tized, their infants have a right to baptism as well as their parents. I have lately conversed with many Bap- tists, who knew so little of the sentiments of their brethren, that they supposed adult bap- tism was entirely rejected by Padobaptists ; and when I endeavoured, from their confes- sions of faith, &c. to convince my Baptist friends that they held adult baptism as well as themselves, some believed and marveled, but others remained in doubt. THESIS III. From this view of the sentiments of each, it appears that both parties are agreed on the article of adult baptism, which must there- fore be set aside as a matter entirely out of dispute ; for it can answer no good purpose for one to prove what the other will not de- ny. Now, seeing they are so far of one mind, (I speak of the subject, not of the mode,) the difference between them con- eerns infants only; and the simple question which remains to be decided, is this, Are in- fants fit subjects of baptism, or are they not? On this question the whole turns. The Peedo- baptists affirm, and Antipeedobaptists deny. INTRODUCTION. ' 9 THESIS Iv. The simple question being as I have now stated it, Are infants fit subjects of baptism, or are they not? it will clearly follow, that all those places which relate to believers’ bap- tism, can prove nothing on the side of Bap- ' tists; and the reason is, they have no rela- tion to the question. To illustrate this, I ask a Baptist, Is an infant a fit subject of bap- tism? No,sayshe. Wherefore? Because the Scriptures say, Repent and be baptized—If thou believest, thou mayest—lI interpose, and say, Your answer is not in point. I asked, Is an infant a fit subject of baptism? You an- swer by telling me that a penitent adult is such. But as I asked no question concern- ing an adult, the answer is nothing at all to the purpose. If I should ask whether an in- fant were a creature of the rational kind, would it be a good answer, if any person should say, that adults were of that descrip- tion? No answer can be good, if it does not directly relate to the question proposed; for then, properly speaking, it is no answer to the question. And therefore, if I ask whether an infant is a proper subject of baptism, and an- other should bring twenty places to prove the propriety of baptizing adults; as all this would be nothing to the question, so no- thing would be proved thereby, either for or against. E We may from hence estimate the strength 10 INTRODUCTION. of each party, as they respect one another. The Pedobaptist has just so much strength against a Baptist, as his arguments weigh on the affirmative, and no more; and the Baptist has no more strength against him, but as his arguments weigh on the negative. Whatever arguments a Baptist may bring, to evince in- fant baptism to be wrong, whether they be many or few, good or bad, it is all his strength; he has not a grain more on his side. For as it lies on neither of these to prove adult baptism, (it being a thing pro- fessed and used by both,and therefore being no subject of dispute) those arguments that prove it, can have no place here. This being carefully observed, we shall see which of these has the fairest pretensions to truth. THESIS V. Whatever may, in reality, be the force of argument on either side, respecting this ques- tion, there can be no doubt but that side is the true one, on which the arguments are found to preponderate. If the arguments for infant baptism are stronger than any that can be produced against it, then infant bap- tism must be right; and so the easy and sure way of coming to a decision is, to collect the arguments on both sides, try their validity, and compare them together. This, in the fear of God, I shall endeavour to do. First, I will set down the arguments against infant baptism, and examine them as I proceed ; INTRODUCTION, ll and then those which make for it; and after that, I will compare them together in oppo- site columns. By this process, which is the fairest I am acquainted with, we shall see whether Baptists or Pedobaptists have the truth on their side. The whole import of these propositions is—that both parties agree about adult bap- tism—that when a Baptist has proved adult baptism, he has proved nothing against a Pedobaptist—that the only question being this, Are infants fit subjects of baptism, or are they not? it is evident that those pass- ages of Scripture, which prove adult baptism, will not answer this question—and, that ar- guments for and against being compared, that side is the true one, on which they pre- ponderate. If any thing can make this matter plainer, and I wish it to be made plain, perhaps the introduction of a short familiar dialogue may do it. We will therefore suppose a conversa- tion between a Baptist and a Pedobaptist ; the Baptist speaking as follows: * Bap. 1 wonder very much you should not agree with me in sentiment, respecting the subjects of baptism. Pzxdo. There is nothing in this to wonder at, since we all see but in part: it is our hap- piness to believe to the saving of the soul. Bap. That which makes me wonder is this, that the sentiment I hold is so clearly revealed in Scripture. Pzdo, What sentiment is that you hold, 12 INTRODUCTION. and which you say is so clearly revealed in Scripture ? Bap. 1 hold: what is commonly called be- lievers’ baptism ; or, that it is right to baptize a person professing faith in Christ. Pedo. If that be your sentiment, I grant it is clearly revealed; but in this we are agreed, it is my sentiment as well as yours. Bap. But this is not the whole of my senti- ment. I meant to have said, that it is wrong to baptize infants. Pezdo. Then you and I differ only about infants ? Bap. Vf you grant adult baptism to be right, it is only about infants we differ. Pzxdo. I do grant it. And then do you mean to say, that it is clearly revealed in Scripture, that it is wrong to baptize infants ? Bap. 1 do mean to say that. Pzdo. How do you prove it? Bap. I prove it by Acts viii. 37. “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.”’ Pezxdo. You have indeed proved believers’ baptism to be right; but I asked you, how you proved infant baptism to be wrong? Bap. Must not infant baptism be wrong, if believers’ baptism be right? Pzdo. No more than believers’ baptism must be wrong, if infant baptism be right. Would you think I had proved that infants would be lost, by proving that believing adults would be saved? Bap. Certainly I should not. . Pedo, Why? NTRODUCTION. zS Bap. Because the! question would be only about infants; and we cannot infer the loss of an infant from the salvation of a believing adult. Pzdo. Very true. Then that which proves infant baptism wrong, must not be the same that proves adult baptism to be right. Bap. 1 grant it, and think there is suffi- cient proof against it beside. Pzxdo. This is the very point. You pro- duce your proof against it, and I will pro- duce mine for it. If your proof be found stronger against, than mine for, you have the truth on your side; if not, the truth is on mine. Bap. Nothing can be more fair; and Iam willing to put it to the test. a - +o ee {4 | whe . ‘he ‘2 : ot OMI «Hay Be a 4 ‘ He: Beh son pa é val ~jitan %. avait. ak Any woe me: : rt slay L made busy 190M ie tw tire Aine. . ‘ vs 5 : ‘A { “wee Ric 5 i —_ es a : Par Aes INFANT BAPTISM. CHAPTER I. ARGUMENTS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. ARGUMENT I. A person who has a right to a positive institution must be ex- pressly mentioned as having that right; but infants are not so mentioned, therefore they have not that right. | As the whole force of this argument turns upon the words express and explicit, which Baptist writers commonly use, the reader, in order to form a just opinion upon the subject, should clearly understand their, im- port. And since I shall often have occasion to use them, the reader will meet with an explanation of the term explicit in another place. At present it will be sufficient to say, that both these terms stand opposed to infer- ence, analogy, and implication. And when the Baptists say there is no express command for infant baptism, they mean there is no command “in so many words,” as “thou shalt baptize infants,” or something equiva- 15 16 ARGUMENTS AGAINST lent. This being premised, I say of the argu- ment, it is assuming, contracted, false. It is very assuming, because it seems to dictate to the ever-blessed God in what manner he ought to speak to his creatures. Since it is no where contained in his word, and he knows best how to communicate his mind to men, it little becomes such creatures as we are, to lay down rules by which he shall pro- ceed. To such who thus assume, it may pro- perly be said, “ Who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor ? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.”’ It is very contracted, because it supposes we cannot understand what God says, but when he speaks to us in one particular way. Certain it is that the most important things are set forth in Scripture, in many different ways; and we may come at the truth by an indirect, as certainly as by a direct expres- sion: e. g. When the apostle says he was “ caught up into the third heaven,” I certainly know, there is a first and a second, though I no where had read expressly of any such thing. But what is most material, I affirm that It is very false, because (to wave other instances, and fix on one only) a subject is admitted to a positive institution, and that ad- . mission is according to truth, and so held and practised by all, who use Christian rites; when yet there is no express law or example INFANT BAPTISM. 17 to support it, in all the word of God. It is the case of women, to which I allude, and their admission to the Lord’s table. I acknowledge it is right to admit them, and so do all, who use the Lord’s Supper; but as to express law or example, there is no such thing in Scripture. If it be said, that women are fit subjects of baptism—that they are capable of religious advantages—that they have a right to church-membership, and therefore a right to the Lord’s Supper, I grant it—And then the argument is false; for if women are admitted because they are fit subjects of baptism, &c. they are admitted by something, which is not express law or ex- ample. But the argument I am opposing says, “A person who has a right to positive institutions, must be expressly mentioned as having that right.””, Now, if women are not so mentioned with respect to the Supper, the practice of admitting them is wrong, or this argument is false. This argument indeed is false; the practice is by no means wrong. And to show the fallacy of the Baptist sys- tem at large, I will undertake, in the sequel, to prove that, upon the principles and reason- ings of the Baptists,a woman, however quali- fied, can have no right whatever to the Lord’s table. « There is no express command or exam- ple for infant baptism !”? This being a fa- vourite argument with Baptists, and the case of women, in this respect, being the same as that of infants, they will not suffer an in- 2 * 18 ARGUMENTS AGAINST stance, so fatal to their system, to pass by without making an effort to overturn it. The know very well, I mean the thinking part, es- pecially those who write, that they cannot maintain this argument against infants, with- out producing an explicit warrant for female communion. They therefore affirm, that the Scriptures afford such a warrant, and that it is found in 1 Cor. xi. 28. “Let a man [.2n- thropos] examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, &c.’’ It is certainly here, or nowhere. I have known many who took this for an express word for women. I did so myself for some years, till Mr. Booth’s at- tempt to prove it convinced me of the con- trary. An express word, in the present case, must be one that specifies the sex; as Acts viii. 12, “they were baptized, both men and women.” [.4ndres kai gunaikes.| But I ask, is Anthropos an express word for a woman ? Mr. Booth affirms it is. Take it in his own words, vol. ii. p. 73. “In regard to the sup- posed want of an explicit warrant for admit- ting women to the holy table, we reply by demanding, does not Paul, when he says, Let aman examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper ? Does not the term Anthropos, there used, often stand as a name of our species, with- out regard to sex ? Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incompara- bly more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that passage ? When INFANT BAPTISM. 19 the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not -2nthropos, but Aneer.”’ This is all about the word, except a quotation, which is not material. The reader is desired to observe, that, as Mr. B. has undertaken to produce an explicit warrant for female communion, he can derive no help from analogy, or inference, or any thing of that kind. The words he brings for proof must contain their own unequivocal evidence, independent of every other con- ‘sideration. If this be not the case, his expli- cit warrant is a mere fiction. Now for the explicit warrant. Mr. B. says, « Does not Paul, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred Supper? True. “Does not the term nthropos, there used, often stand as the name of our species, with- out regard to sex?”? True again. Observe this, orTeN stTanD! Notalways. Does Mr. B. take this for an explicit warrant ? What a demonstration! And how full to the point! But Mr. B. says it stands so in the text. How does he know it? Why he has two evidences of this; a lexicographer, 7. e. a dictionary maker, and common sense. Common sense,. he says, is the best of the two. However, I will take them together, and proceed to ask, How do they know that the term 2nthropos stands in this text as a name of our species? They must know it either from the word itself, or from some other ground. That they cannot know it from the word itself, is evi- 20 ARGUMENTS AGAINST dent by this single consideration, that a boy, who reads his Greek Testament, may meet with the word a hundred times, where the female sex can by no means be intended ; nay, he may find it used several times, though Mr. B. could not, to distinguish the male from the female. Where then is its explicitness? _ He says it is often used as a name of our species. And is not our English word “ man” used in the same way? Would Mr. B. take that to be an explicit word for a woman? If the word “man” be often used for a name of our species, as well as nthropos, then one is just as explicit a word for a woman as the other ; and so Mr. B. might as well have fixed on the English word for an explicit one, as the Greek But had he done this, it would have ruined his book; and he has only es- caped under the cover of a Greek term. If then, it cannot be known from the word it- self, that females are intended, it matters not, in what other way we may know it, the Baptist argument is entirely ruined and lost. But Mr. B. in the next sentence, will urge the matter further, and boldly affirm, that, «When the sexes are distinguished and op- posed, the word for aman is not Anthropos, but Aneer.”? I know not what Mr. B. expect- ed to prove by this assertion; forif it were true, I see not how it is to help him in re- spect to his explicit warrant ; but asit is false, it cannot help him in any form, except it be to make him more cautious in future. This assertion, if it proceeded from ignorance, is, / INFANT BAPTISM. gZ1 in a reader and writer like Mr. B. far too bad; if it did not proceed from ignorance, it is far worse. I am willing to suppose the former, and acquit him of the latter. Against this assertion of Mr. B. I will now place nineteen instances; in every one of which there is a distinction and opposition of the sexes, and the word for a man is not Aneer, but Anthropos. Some of these are in the Septuagint, and others in the New Tes- tament. Gen. ii. 24,“ Therefore shall a man [-4nthropos] leave his father and his mother, and cleave unto his wife.”? Gen. xxvi. 11. « And Abimelech charged all his people, say- ing, He that toucheth this man [2nthropou] or his wife, shall surely be put to death.” Gen. xxxiv. 14. “And Simeon and Levi, the brethren of Dinah, said, We cannot do this thing, to give our sisTER to one [.4nthropo| that is uncircumcised.”? Deut. xx. 7, “« And what man [.2nthropos] is there that hath be- trothed a wife, and hath not taken her?’ Deut. xvii. 5. “Then shalt thou bring forth that man, [2nthropon] or that woman.” Jer. xliv. 7. “ Wherefore commit ye this great evil against your souls, to cut off from you man [nthropon] and woman, child and suck- ling ?”’ For other instances in the Septuagint see Gen. ii. 18; Lev. xix. 20; Num. xxv. 8; Deut. xxi. 15—xxii. 30; Esther iv. 11. Matt. xix. 10. “ His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man [-4nthropow] be so with his wirx, it is not good to marry.” Matt. xix. 3. “The Pharisees also came unto 22 ARGUMENTS AGAINST him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man [&nthropo] to put away his wire for every cause ?”? Mark x. 7. “ For this cause shall a man [2&nthropos] leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.’’ 1 Cor. vii. 1. “ Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, it is good fora man [Anthropo] not to touch a woman.” Matt. xix. 5. “For_this cause shall a man [-4nthropos] leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.”’ Rev. ix. 7, 8. “ And. their faces were as the faces of men [.4nthro- ‘pon ;| and they had hair as the hair of 2wo- men.’ Eph. v. 31. “For this cause shall a man [4nthropos] leave his father and mo- ther, and shall be joined unto his ewizfe.”” After I had collected some of these in- stances, which I have here set down, I men- tioned the sentence of Mr. B. and likewise the instances which lay against it, to a Bap- tist minister, who happened to be at my house. He thereupon took the Greek Tes- tament, and read those places to which I di- rected him. When he had done this, he was greatly surprised at the incautiousness of Mr. B. and at the same time, made the best apo- logy for him, which the case would adimit of. I then observed, that, had Mr. B. affirm- ed that Aneer was more commonly used to distinguish the sexes, than Anthropos, he would have been right. Yes, said he, but that would not have answered Mr. B.’s pur- pose. Which indeed was very true; for he, having all through his book insisted that in- INFANT BAPTISM. 23 fants should not be baptized, because there was no express warrant for it, was compelled, by his own reasoning, to bring forward an explict warrant for female communion. And when he comes to prove that there is such a warrant in Scripture for female right to the Lord’s Supper, he first of all falls upon pre- sumptive proof, “ Does not the term Anthro- pos often stand as a name of our species ?”” As if he had said, If this word often stands as a name of our species, I presume it is possible it may so standin this text. In the next place he falls upon inferential proof, and sets a lexi- cographer and common sense to infer (for they could do no other) that so it must mean in the text. And lastly, to make it still worse, he makes an evident mistake, when he says, that, when the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not An- thropos, but ~Zneer. This is all Mr. B. is pleased to give the reader, instead of an explicit warrant—presumption, inference, and mistake; and if either he, or any of his readers, can satisfy themselves with such an explicit warrant as this, they can neither of them be esteemed very nice in this article. But, to set Mr. B. and his explicit warrant ina clear point of light, the reader-has only to contemplate those two facts which have just passed under his eye; namely, that 4n- thropos is often used as a name of our species, as Mr. B. affirms; and likewise that it is often used to distinguish one sex from the other. Now with these two facts in view [viz. An< 24 ARGUMENTS AGAINST thropos is often used as a name of our species, and often it is not so used,] if a question be started concerning its meaning in any text, let it be 1 Cor. xi. 28, the reader will see at once that it is no explicit word, because he will stand in need of a third thing, to deter- mine in what sense it is used there; whereas, if the word were explicit, nothing else would be necessary to fix the sense. Now as the facts weigh on both sides, orreNn against OFTEN, and as the reader wants a third thing to settle the import of the word in this text, I ask, what is this third thing? Lexicogra- phers and common sense, says Mr. B. Nay, no ambiguity, sir, we are now talking of ex- plicitness Why did you not say, analogy and inference? Shocking! What! give up the cause at once! But what, I say again, is this third thing? Is Mr. B. afraid of telling? I wish, however, he would write again, and say in plain terms what itis. Is it what you speak of in the latter part of the defence, viz. “ that women have the same pre-requisites as men, and that male and female are one in Christ??? Very good.—Proceed.—Therefore —I say, go on, do not be afraid, this will bring you safe to your conclusion; for it is only analogy and inference. Inference and analogy ! and upon a positive institution too ! T cannot bear the terms; I would much rather eall them lexicographers and common sense ; for were I to call them inference and analogy, it would ruin my whole book. It is very true, Mr. B.; but at the same time, is it not INFANT BAPTISM. 25 better your book should be ruined by plain dealing, than that your reputation should seem to be stained by acting an artful part? But after all, here is a third thing wanting to settle the meaning of this ambiguous word. And what does it signify by what name we call this third thing? For whe- ther we name it analogy, or inference, or lexicographer, or common sense (which two last are Mr. B.’s names, as he could not bear the others on a positive institution,) it comes still to the same thing; it shows that this is no explicit word for females, and consequently, as there is no other, this argu- ment is ruined. What I have now animadverted upon is all Mr. B. says, that can even pretend to evince an explicit warrant. But since the whole of it, upon his principles, is as curious a defence of female right to the Lord’s table as ever was presented to the public, I will pay him the compliment of surveying it, and taking it to pieces,in due time and place. In the mean time I do not blame Mr. B. for not being able to produce an explicit warrant for women; it is what no man is able to do; but I do blame him for using such reasoning as he has done, and then passing it upon the public under the colour of explicit proof. It is a common opinion that Baptists and Pedobaptists do reason differently on posi- tive institutions ; that the former invariably in- sist upon express proof, while the latter ad- mit the force of inferential reasoning. It is 3 26 ARGUMENTS AGAINST true they profess to reason differently, and they actually do sometimes; but then it is only according to the mood they may be in, and the matter they may have in hand. Let the matter of debate be a little varied, and they reason on positive institutions precisely in the same way. I have taken the liberty in time past, to ask Pedobaptists why they baptized their infants? One has told me, that infants were circumcised, and therefore should now be baptized; inferring their baptism from cir- cumcision, Another has told me, that our Lord took infants into his arms, and blessed them, and said they were of the kingdom of heaven; so inferring their baptism from the language and conduct of Christ. At hear- ing this, the Baptists smile, and think it very foolish reasoning. I have also taken the liberty to ask Bap- tists, why they admitted women to the Lord’s table? One informed me that women were partakers of the grace of God; inferring their right to communicate from their grace. An- other told me, that women had been baptiz-— ed; and inferred their right to the supper from their baptism.