.^^^NRV OF PRlHCej^ JUL y^, ^EOi OG/C.U SEW ,■# i\ CANDID REASONS FOR RENOUNCING THE PRINCIPLES OF ANTIPiEDOBAPTISM. ALSO, AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING A SHORT METHOD WITH THE BAPTISTS. BY PETER EDWARDS, Several years Pastor of a Baptist Church, at Portsea, Hants, I THIRD AMERICAN EDITIOK. ALBANY : PRINTED FOR WHITING, BACKUS & WHITING. 7 1804. TO THE CHURCH AND CONGREGATION jMeet'ing /iV iriii7'E\y ROTF^ rourr^Ej^ /{jkts. DEARLY BELOVED, AFTER officiatino-aiTions: voii, as Pastor and Min- ister, between ten and eleven years, it seemed natural to address you in a publication intended to account for that change of seiiLinient in me, w hicli has proved the occasion of oiu' sepai'ation. Two eminent writers, Mr. Booth and Dr. Williams, ha\e both contributed to tliis : The latter has my ac- knowledgments ; the former my animad^'crsions. As Mr. B. had no design to discover the fallacy of the Bap- tist 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. I ha^^e presented the whole scheme to the reader in the same point of view in ^vhich it Vviis exhibited to my ov.n mhid. In composing it I have endeavoured to avoid e-\'ery thing foreign and bitter ; that, as the truth has been my object, I ^^•ished to say nothing that should divert the atten- tion of the reader from it. \\'ishing that you and I may grow in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, I remain, in the same esteem and lo^e, Yours, in our common Lord, PETER EDWARDS. PoRTSEA, Jan. 12, 1795. CONTENTS. Page I. An Introduction, wherein the Question is fairly stated, 5 II. The Arguments of the Baptists against Infant Baptism : 1 . From the Want of express Precept, 8cc. 9 2. From their Want of Faith and Repentance, 16 ill. Arguments in favor of Infant Baptism : 1. From the Institution of their Membership, 24 2. From the Continuance of that Institution, 28 IV. A Scheme of the whole Controversy, 51 y. Remarks on that Scheme ; wherein the only Argument of Mr. Booth against the Continuance of Infant Membership is refuted, 55 yi. An Appendix, in whicli the whole system of the Bap- tists is overthrown by Consequences, 62 VII. The Mode of Baptism ; wherein the Force of the Term, the Circumstances, and Allusions, are con- sidered, ' 8 3 VIII. The Practical Use of Paedobaptism, 9S IvIOTE. — In the English Edition there were a number of Greek words, which, for want of a Greek Type, are now printed in Italics. |C7* Wherever i. e. occur in this work, they mean, that is^ and e. ^, for cxamhk. THE INTRODUCTION : CONTAINING A FAIR STATEMENT OF THE INQUIRY. 7'HESIS 1. Ike only thing which, in any dispute, should cnp;apc our attention, is this : ''What is truth?" And he ^vho wishes to find it, will endeavour to adopt that plan which will bring him soonest to that he seeks. There are two thiiigs, in all matters of controversy, Vvhich greatly facili- tates our search : First, that we set aside all tl>o.se things about which we are agreed, and fix our attention to that only on which a dilTerence of opinion may fail ; an.d, sec- ondly, that this difterence be stated in a manner the most plain and simple. To either of Vvhich, no person who seeks the truth can form the least objection. "THESIS II, As this inquiiy lies betvreen those v/ho pass imder the denomination of Pxdobaptists and Antipasdobaptists, it will be proper, in order to ascertain wherein they diiFer on the subject of baptism, to give the sentiments of each. Antip^edobaptists consider those persons as meet subjects of baptism, ^\ ho are supposed to possess frdth in Christ, and those only. Pccdobaptists agree witji them in this, that believers are proper subjects of baptism ; but den}' that such only ai^e proper subjects. They think, that/ to- gether V. ith such believing adults who have not yet been baptized, their infants have a riglit to baptism as well as their parents. I have lately con^^ersed ^\ ith many Baptists, who h.new so little of the sentiment of their brethren, that they su]:)- posed adult baptism was entirely rejected ])y Pccdobaptists ; and when I endeavoured, from their confessions of faith, e wrong ? Bap, Must not infant baptism be WTong, if believers' baptism be right ? Pado. No more than believers' baptism must be wrong, if infant baptism be right. Would you think I had prov- ed that infants would be lost, by proving that believing Jidults w ould be saved ? Bap. Certainly I should not. P^do. Why? Bap. Because the question w^ould be only about inflmts ; and vre cannot infer the loss of an infant from the salva- tion of a believing adult. Picdo. Very true. Then that which proves infant bap- tism wrong, must not be the same that proves adult bap- tism to be right. Bap. I grant it, and think there is sufficient proof against it beside. Pcedo. This is the very point. You produce your proof against it, and I will produce mine for it. If your proof be found stronger against, than mine for, you have truth on your side ; if not, the truth is on mine. Bap, Nothing can be more fair ; and I am willing to put it to the test. CHAPTER I. tins CHAPTER WILL CONTAIN ARGUMENTS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM.-.OF THESE, THERE ARE TWO ONLY ; FOR W^ATEV- ER MAY BE URGED, WILL FALL UNDER ONE OR OTHER OF THESE. ARGUMENT I. I A Person ivho has a right to a positive institute must be exhresslu men-^ ttonedas haroing that right ; but infants are not so mentionecL ther,- Jore they have not tliat right. As the whole force of this argument turns upon the words exiDress and exphcit, which Baptist writers commonly use, the reader, in order to iorm a just opinion upon the subject, should clearly under- stand their import. 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 inference, anaiony and implication. And when the Baptists say there is no express command for infant baptism, they mean there is no command ' m so many words,' as ' thou shalt baptize infants, or somethin- equivalent. This being premised, I say ofthe argument, it is assuming'—contracted— false. It is very assuming, because it seems to dictate to the ever-blt^sed God in what manner he ought to speak to his creatures. Since it is no where con- tained in his word, and he knows best how to communicate his mind to men, it litt.e becomes such creatures as we are, to lay down rules by whicn he sha proceed. To such who thus assume, it may prop- erly be said, " Who hath known tlie mind of the Lord .? or who hath been his counsellor ?" For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things : 1 o wJiom be glory for ever. Amen. _ It IS very contracted, because it supposes we cannct understand what Ood says, but when he speaks to us in one particular way. Certain It IS chat the most important things are set forth in Scripture, in many . different ways ; and we may come at the truth bv an indirect, as cer- tainly as by a direct expression : .. g. When {he Apostle says he was caught up into the third heaven, I certainlv know there is a first ^ut ^ l^? ' '''''^^' ^ "" '"^'''''' ^^^^ '^^ expressly of any such thin^ . ! But what IS most material, I affirm that * B 10 ARGUMEjYTS JGJIJVST It 15 very false : Because (to wave other instances, and fix on on« only) a subject is admitted to a positive institute, and that admission is according to truth, and so held and practised by all, who use Chris- tian rites ; when yet there is no express law or example 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, v/Iio 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 fxt subjects of bap- tism — that they are capable of religious advantages — that they ha.ve 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, he. they are ad- mitted by something, which is not express lav/ or example. But the argument I am opposing says, " A person who has a right to posi- tive institutes, must be expressly mentioned as having thsit 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 shovv^ the fallacy of the Baptist system at large, I will undertake, in the sequel, to prove that, upon the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however c|ualified, can have no riglit v/hatever to the Lord's table. There is no express command or example for infant baptism ! This being a favorite argument with Baptists, and the case of women, in this respect, being the same as that of infants, they will not suffer an instance, so fatal to their system, to pass by, without making an ef- fort to overturn it. They know very well, I mean the thinking part, especially those who write, that they cannot maintain this argument against infants, without producing and explicit warrant for female com- munion. They therefore afPinii, that the Scriptures afford such a war- rant, and that it is found in 1 Cor. xi. 28. " Let a man \_A}ithropos'\ examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread," &c. It is certain- ly here, or no where. I have known many who took this for an ex- press word fpr women. I did so myself for some years, till Mr. Booth's attempt to prove it convinced me of the contrary. 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.'* [Andres kaigunaikes.^ But I ask, is Anthropos an express word for a woman ? Mr. Booth affirms it is. Take it in his own words, vol. ii. page 73. "In regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we reply by demanding. Does not Paul, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred supper ? Does not the term An- throjios^ there used, often stand as a name of our species, without re- gard to sex ? Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for un- derstanding it thus in that passage ? V/hen the sexes are distinguish- ed and opposed, the v/ord for a man is not Anthropos^ but Aneer'* This is all about the vv^ord, except a quotation, which is not material. The r«i(4er is desired to observe, that, as Mr. B. has undertaken to LyPA.V T BAPTISM. \ \ f)rocince an explicit warrant for female communion, he can derive no help from analogy, or inference, or any thing of that kind. The v/ords he brings for proof must contain their own unequivocal evidence, in- dependent of every other consideration. If this be not the case, his explicit warrant is a mere fiction. Now for the explicit warrant. Mr. B. says, " Does not Pai^.l, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a re- ception of the sacred supper?" True. " Does not the term Anthro- pos^ there used, often stand as a name of our species, without regard to sex ?" True again. Observe this, often stand ! Not always. Does Mr. B. take this for an explicit warrant ? What a demonstration I 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 lexi- cographer, i. c. 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 An- throjios 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 evident by this single consid- eration, that a boy, who reads his Greek testament, may meet with the v/ord 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 m.ale 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 v/oman ? If the word ' man' be often used for a name of our species, as well as Anthroposj then one is just as explicit a word for a woman as the other ; and so Mr. B. miglit as well have fixed on the English v/ord for an explicit one, as the Greek. But had he done this, it would have ruined his book ; and he has only escaped under the covert of a Greek term. If then, it cannot be known from the word itself, that females are intend- ed, it matters not, in what other way we know it, the Baptist argu- ment is entirely ruined and lost. But Mr. B. in the next sentence, v/ill urge the matter further, and boldly affirm, that, " When the sexes are distinguished and opposed, tlie word for a man is not Anthrojios^ but Afieer" I know not what Mr. B. expected to prove by this assertion ; for if it were true, I see not how it is to help him in respect to his explicit warrant ; but as it is false, it cannot help him in any form, except it he to make him more cautious in future. This assertion, if it proceeded from ignor- ance, is, 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 instanc- es ; 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-Testament. Gen. ii. 24. " Therefore shall a man \^Anthrofios'] leave his farther and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife." Gen. xxvi. 11. "And A- binjelech charged all his people saying. He that toucheth this xnai\ £ J JRG UMEjY TS AGjUKST [Anthrojioit'l or his wift; shall surely be put to death." Gen. xxxiv. 14. " And Simeon luid Levi, the brethren of Dinah, said, We cannot do this thinj;, to give our sister to one \_Aniliropo] that is imcircumcised." Deut. xx. 7. " And what man IJnthroJiOs] is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her ?" Deut. xvii. 5. " Then shalt thou bring forth that man, \_A71throJ10n'] or that "WOMAN." Jer. xliv. 7. '^ Wherefore commit ye this great evil a- gainst your souls, to cut off from you man ^^Anthrojioii] and womak, child and suckling ?" For other instances in the Sept. see Gen. ii. 18. Lev. xix. 20. Num. xxv. 8. Deut. xxi. 15 — 22. 30. Esther, iv. 11. Matt. xix. 10. " His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man \_Anthropou] be so M'ith his wife, it is not good to marry.** Matt. xix. 3. " The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him. Is it lawful for a man \_Anthropo'] to put away his WIFE for every cause ?" Mark, x. 7. " For this cause shall a man \_Anthropos'] leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife." 1 Cor. vii. 1. " Now concerning the things v/hereof ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man \_Anthropo'] not to touch a Avoman." Matt. xix. 5. " For this cause shall a man \_A}ithropos^^ leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wifeJ" Rev. ix. 7, 8. " And their faces were as the faces of men \_A?2t/iroJwn'] ; and they had hair as the hair of luomcn.'''' Eph. v. 31. " For this cause shall a man \_A7Hhropos'] leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his ivifcJ'* See like- •wise 1 Cor. vii. 1. Matt. xix. 5. Eph. v. 31. Rev. ix. 7, 8. After I had collected some of these instances, which I have here set down, I mentioned the sentence of Mr. 13. and likewise the instanc- es which lay against it, to a Piaptist minister, who happened to be at my house. He thereupon took the Greek Testament, and read those places to which I directed him. When he had done this, he was greatly surprised at the incautiousness of Mr. B. and at the sa.me time made the best apology for him, which the case v/ould admit of. I then observed, that, had Mr. B. affirmed that Aneer was more commonly used to distinguish the sexes than Ardlircfios^ he ■^vould have been right. Yes, said he, but that Avould not have an- swered Mr B's. purpose. Which indeed was very true ; for he, liaving all through his book insisted that infants should not be babtiz- cd, because there was no express warrant for it, was compelled, by his own reasoning, to bring forward an explicit warrant for female com- munion. And when he comes to prove that there is such a /'arrant in Scripture for female right to the Lord's supper, he first of all falls upon presumptive proof, " Does not the term Anthrojios often stand ?cs a name of our species ?" As if he had said. If this word often stand as a name of our species, I presume it is possible it may so stand in this text. In the next place he falls upon inferential proof, and sets a lexicographer and common sense to infer (for they could do no ether) that so it must mean in the text. And lastly, to make it still ■worse, he falls upon an evident falsehood, when he says, that, when the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not Jlnihrofiofi^ but Anter. This is all Mr. B. is pleased to give the reader, instead of an explicit warrant, presumption, inference, and falsehood :^ IjvfjjY t bap risM. \% and if either he, or any cf his readers can satisfy themselves with such an explicit warrant as this, they canneither of them be esteemed very nice in tliis article. But, to set Mr. B. ar.d his explicit warrant in a clear point of light, the reader has only to contemplate those two facts, which have just passed under his eye ; namely, that Anthropos is often used as a name of our species, as IVIr. B. affirms ; and like^vise that it is often used to distinguish one sex from the other. Now with these two facts in view, \xnz. Aiithrojws is often used as a name of our species, and often it is not so used] if a question ])e started concerning its meaning in any text, let it be 1 Cor. xi. 28, the reader will see at or^ce that it is no explicit word, because he will stand in need of a third thing, to determine in what sense it is used there ; v.'hcrcas, if the vv'ord were explicit, noth- ing else would be necessary to fix the sense. Nov/ as the facts v/eigh on both sides, often against oftex, and as the reader wants a third thing to settle the import of the word in tliis text, I ask, What is this third thing ? Lexicographers and common sense, says Mr. B. Nay, no ambiguity. Sir, we are now talking of explicitness. 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 term.s what it is. Is it what you speak of in the latter part of tlie defence, viz. ' that women have the same pre-requi- sites as men, and that male and female are one in Christ ?' Very j^ood. — Proceed. — Therefore — I say go on, do not be afraid, this v,i\\ bring you cafe to your conclusion ; for it is only analogy and in- ference. Inference and analogy ! and upon a positive institute too ! I cannot bear the terms ; I v.ould nmch rather call them lexicograph- ers and common sense ; for were I to call them inference and analo- gy it would ruin my whole book. It is very true, Mr. B. ; but at tiie same time, is it not 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 in the world does it sig- nify by what name we call this third thing ? For whether 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 institute) it comes still to the same thing ; it shows that this is no ex- plicit word for females, and consequently as there is no other, this ar ^ gument 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 m hole 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 compli- ment 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 ai)le 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 Pxdobaptists do reason difierently on positive institutes : that the former invariably insist upon ^4 'jiRGUME.YTS AGAIK^T express proof, vrhile the latter admit the force of inferential reason- ini^. It is 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 Ijc a little varied, and they reason on positive institutes precisely in the ^same v/ay. I have taken the liberty, in time past, to ask Pjcdobaptists -vvhy they baptized their infarts ? One has told me, that infants Avere cir- cumcised, and therefore should now be baptized ; inferring their bap- tism from circumcision. 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 hearing this the Baptists smile, and think it very foolish reasoning. I have also taken the liberty to ask Baptists, why they admitted ivomen to the Lord's table ? One informed me, that women were partakers of the grace of God ; inferring their right to communi- cate from theii' grace. Another told me, that v/omen had been bap- tized ; and inferred their right to the supper fiom their baptism. A third gave me to understand, that women did eat of the paschal lamb, and from thence inferred their right to the Lord's table. A fourth told me that women were creatures of God as well as men ; and so inferred their right from their creation. These Baptists did all infer, and, as Mr. B. says of Psedobaptists, not feeding the ground on which they stood, they agreed in one conclusion, but did not agree in the premises from which it should be drawn. It may perhaps be said, that these persons did not possess logical exactness ; that they were not aware of the im.propriety of demand- ing plain, express, imequivocal proof; and then, as it suite.d their convenience, flying directly to inference, implication, and analogy ; and that too on a positive ordinance. I grant they v/ere plain per- sons, and did not see the inconsistencey of this conduct. Well, we will betake ourselves to men of skill, to those who are acquainted with logical precision ; and then let us see how they act in this busi- ness. What think you of Mr. Booth, as a man of erudition and logical attainment ? Does Mr. B. say you employ inferential reason- ing on a positive institute ? Nothing in the Morld more certain. What ! Mr. B. ; he who has written so many hundred pages with a view to expose it ! Yes, that identical Mr. B. to the reproach of all consistency, does, in that very work, M-hen sad necessity comj^els, even deal in this same inferential reasoning. I \\ ill not evidence this now, since I have promised to notice his whole defence of Avomen in a more proper place. All I am concerned to do in this place, is to show that this argu- ment of the Baptists is false. The argument is this : " A person ivho has a right to a positive institute, must be expressly mentioned as having that right ; but infants are not so mentioned, &:c." That the argument is false, appears from these facts : I. The Scriptures do not countenance it. For as it is not proved by any part of the word of God, being neither set down in the "words, nor yet in the sen^e of holy writ, and therefore a fiction, in- lvfjjvt baptism. li vented by men to support a particular opinion ; so it stands directly against God's holy word. And this is evident from hence ; that' though women are expressly said to have been baptized, they arc nev- er said to have received the Lord's supper. The Scriptures, there- fore, in plain opposition to this false argument, leave us to conclude their rif^ht to the Lord's supper from their baptism, together with other grounds. Thus it has no support from Scripture. II. The Baptists themselves do not countenai^ice it ; for though they have written whole books on the strength of it, they are com- pelled to desert it, and to desert it the moment the subject is varied. For after they have vapoured ever so long, and ever so loud, about ••' no express lavr— .no explicit v^'-arrant for infant baptism — infant bap- tism is no where mentioned in Scripture ;" let any one put it upon them to prove the right of women to tlie supper, and I will answer for it he will hear no more of express law on that head. He will hnd that all this hollow sound, vvhich signifies nothing, will die away, and each will shift for himself the best way he can, and fly for aid to anal- ogy and inference. Women, they say, may be gracious. — Women were baptized — Women did eat of the paschal lamb — .Women are creatures of God, as well as men, and tl-ierefore, — Tlicrefore what ? \y\\y therefore they should receive the Lord's supper. What now is become of their express law ? It is deserted, completely deserted ; nor will they adopt it again till infant baptism is resumed. — ^The Bap- tists, therefore, do not countenance it. III. Mr. Booth himself does not countenance it ; I m.ean, not always countenance it : For tliough he has demanded explicit proof lor infant baptism, and has contended that if such proof cannot be ad- duced, the baptism of infants must be Vv rong, yet, vvlien he comes to produce an explicit warrant for female communion, he is content. —Nay, stop — I cannot say he is content-— but he is compelled to fly- to presuming — to implication — to analogy — to inference — to make out an explicit warrant ! All this we engage to prove, and to make a proper use of in the sequal. And I cannot help observing, that if female communion cannot be supported on the principle of this argu- ment, liov/ idle a thing it is to forge a rule to operate against infants ©Illy. Finally, as this argument militates against female communion, as well as infant baptism, they must either both be wrong, or the argu- ment itself must be false. That the argumerit is false, is suft^iciently evident, as it not only has no support from Scripture, but lies direct- ly against it ; and from what I have observed, in many recent con- versations, I do not suppose there is a single Baptist in the kingdom that v/ill even dare to stick to it. For after they had urged this argu- ment upon me, I have turned the question from infant ba})tism to fe- male comimunion, and I do not recollect one, either minister or pri- vate person, but has, in little more than a quarter of an hour, entire- ly given up the argument. And if Mr. B. should think proper to take up his pen once more on this subject, I ha.ve not a doubt but I should be able to compel even him, as well as many of his brethren, to relinquish it as a false argument ; and I hope he will take up \os pen once again, ioid vindicate his defence of female communicn. ^&. JRCUMEjXTS agalyst I have been the longer on this argument, because, as it is very fre- quently urged, so it contains precisely one half of the Baptist strength. This argument, therefore, being destroyed, just half their strength is gone. And if any one should be inclined to cry out, " There is no explicit example — there is no express law for infant baptism, &c.'* any person has it in his power to quiet him almost in an instant, should he only ask him to produce his explicit law, &c. for female commun- ion. — Thus much for this bad argument ; and I pass to the other. ARGUMENT II. The Scrifitui'cs veqidre faith and repentance as requisite to Baptism ; but as infants cannot have these^ they are not proper subjects of baptism. — Infants^ say the Baptists^ canriot believe^ cannot repent ; and none should be bapuizecl ivithout faith ^ is'c. X HE most expeditious way of destroying this argument would be this. They say the Scriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptism. I ask, Of whom ? The ansv/er must be. Of adults ; for the Scriptures never require them of infants, in order to any thing. Then fi-une the argument thus : — The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults, in order to baptism. — Now you see infants are gone, they have nothing to do with the argument ; or if they must be brought in, the argument will run thus : — The Scrip- tures require faith and repentance of adults, in order to baptism ; but as INFANTS cannot have these, tliey are unfit subjects of that or- dinance. Now it is a glaring sophism ; with adults in one proposi- tion, and infants in the other. Were I only to leave the argument thus, and say no more upon it, it would not be possible to save it from perdition ; but since it is the only remaining half of the Baptist strength, I will examine it more at la.rge. In order to judge of the real w^orth of an argument, I lay down this rule : " Every argument that will prove against an evident truth ; or, which is the same thing, every argument which will support a falsehood, is clearly a bad argument." This rule is self-evident ; for that must needs be false which tends to prove a falsehood. I will proceed by this rule, and attempt to show^, I. That this ar- gument is entirely fallacious. II. Point out wherein its fallacy con- sists. I. Of the fallacy of this argument. The principle of it is, that infants are excluded from baptism, because something is said of bap- tism w^hich vvill not agree to infants. To see therefore the tendency of this argument, whether it will prove on the side of truth or error, I will try its operations on these four subjects. 1. On the circumcision of infants. — That infants v/ere circumcised, is a fact. — That they v\^ere circumcised by the express command of God, is a proof of right. — .They were actually circumcised, and it was right they should i)e so. — Therefore that they were proper sub- jects of that institute, is an evident truth. Now on this truth I mean to try the argument^ to sc^ if it will prove for, or against it. LYFJjYT bap J'ISM. 1 7 Circumcision, as it was a solemn entering into the Church of God, did fix an obU;^ation on tlie circumcised to conform to the lay/s and ordinances of that church* Hence that speech, Acts xv. 24. " Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law ;" which would have been just, if circumcision had not been abolished. The Apostle says, Gal. v. 3, " Every man v*'ho is circumcised, is a debtor to do the whole law." His meaning is, if circumcision be in force, so must its obligation too. And Rom. ii. 35, lie says, " Circumcision proliteth if thou keep the law ; but, if thou be a breaker of the lav.^ thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." The sum of this is, he that was circum- cised became a debtor ; if he kept the law to vfhich he was bound, his circumcision would profit ; but if he violated it, his circumcision be- came a nullity. Now I ask, Did it agree to an infant to become a de]:)tor ? Did it agree to an infant to break or keep the law ? Mr. Booth shall answer both. To the first he says, vol. ii. page 151, " Infants are not capa- ble of contracting either Avith God or man. TJiat, to suppose any such thing, itisuits the understanding and feelings of mankind. For, as Bishop Sanderson observes, " In personal obligaiions no man is bound without his own consent." To the other he ansvrers, "" The minds of mere infants are not capable of comparing theh* own conduct with the rule of duty ; they have, properly spcaldng, no conscience at all." Infants therefore could not become debtors ; they could not keep the law. Very well. Then it is clear there was som.ething said of cir- cumcision v/hich did no more agree to infiints, than if it had been said, Repent, and be baptized. In this respect baptism and circumcision are upon a level ; for there is something said concerning both, which v/ill by no means agree to infants. Infants, on the one hand, can neither believe ncr repent ; and these are connected with baptism ; and on the other hand, inflmts cannot become debtors, they cannot keep the lavv' ; and these are con- nected v.'ith circumcision. And then if we say as the Baptists do, that infants, since they cannot believe or repent, must not be baptized, because faith and repentance are connected vv^ith baptism ; we muct say likewise, infants cannot become debtors, they cannot keep the law ; and because these are connected with circumcision, they must not be circumcised. And then it follows that this argument, by pro^ ing a- gainst a knov^Ti truth, appears af:illacious argument. But it may be said, circumcision of infants was commanded of God, and was therefore certainly right. To tliis I answer, that that is the very principle on vrhich I proceed, and it is that very thing which proves fatal to this argumen.t ; for the circumcision of infants being an evident truth, and tiie argument before us proving against it, it is a plain demonstration of its absurdity and fidlacy. Now if this argu- ment be such, that had it been used by a Jew in the land of Canaan, it would have proved against an ordinance of Cod, I would fain know, if its nature can in any measure be changed, merely on its being used by a Baptist, and in a different climate ? 1 proceed to try it, 2. On the baptism of Jesus Christ. The baptism of Christ is a known fact ; and that he was a fit subject, is an acknowledged truth. .It is likevrise certain, that, as he was no sinner, hs could hav^ no rei« C 1 8 ARGUMLJ^TS AGALXST pentilTice ; r.nd siPxCe he needed no salvation from sin, he could not have t!ie feitih of God's elect ; that is, he could not h.ave that faith Vs'hich- the Scriptures require to baptism. Now the tendency of this an^'Uinent i:>eing to prove that those wlio cannot have failh and repentance are unfit subjects of baptism ; and Scviptiirc informinji; \is that our Lord Jesus was baptized, who could have neither, the dilemma thercfoie will be this ; either the baptism of Christ was wrong, or else this argument is false. It is impossible to suppose the first, that the baptism of Christ was ^,vix>n'^ ; we must therefore aHirm tiie last, that this argument is false : Because that argument must be false which proves against an evident truth. Again, when it is said in the argument, that the Scviptiu^es require faith and repentance, in order to baptism ; I ask, Do they require them of ^W or of some only ? If it is said, they are required of all ; theUj as before noled, it proves against the baptism of Jesus Christ. If it be said, they require them of some only ; then the argument has no force : For, in that case, it would run thus — Faith and repen- tajice are required only of some, in order to baptism : And now the consequent will be, tliat some may be baptized without tiiem. And nothing wou.ld remain then, but t]:iat it be determined, who should be baptized without faith, and who with. View it which way we will, the argument is miserably bad. The Baptists however, in this ca,se, fiy to its relief by saying, " tliat Je- sus Christ, on account of the dignity of his person, v-as exempted from this rule." Hov/ this will mend the matter I see not ; for now it is acknovviedged to be a rule which \A\\ admit of exception. And then I have only to ask, how many exceptions does it admit, and what are they ? Neither would it be better to say, that Christ was baptized to set us an example. For then v/e should have an example of one, v>-ho beinp; incapable of faith and repentance, v/as baptized with- out tliem. And in this viev/ his example will weigh in favor of infant baptism. I will try it again, 3. On the salvation of infants. That Inllmts may be the subjects cf salvation^ is universally admitted ; that those, who die in infancy, are actually glorifiedj is also granted : And yet there is some- thing said concerning salvation, v/hich Avill by no means agree to in- fants—*" He that believeth shall be saved ; he tliat believeth not shall be damned," 8vc. What shall we say in this case ? Why, the same as befc?'e. If in- fants must not be baptized, because something is said of baptism, which does not agree to infants ; then, by the san^e rule, infants must not be saved, because something is said of salvation, wliich does not agree to infants. And then, the same consequence again foilo"^v's, that this argument, by proving against an acknowledged truth, proves itself to be fallacious. And now, since it falls in v/ith my present design, and may serve. to relieve and inform the reader, I will present him with two speci- mens of reasoning on the same text : one of which concludes against infant baptism and the other for it. The reader may adopt that which pleases him best. The first specimen shall be that of IMr. S, vol. ii. page 309, where ? IjVFJ.YT baptism. 19 Ije adopts the remarks of Mr. Chambers : " Vs'hat t'r.ey [the German Baptists] chiefly supported their great doctrine on, was those words of our Savior: 'He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.' As none but adults arc capable of belie vins^^tliey argued tliat no oth- ers are capable of baptism." — If these had gone one step further, their argument would have been lost. e.g. As none but adults are capable of believing, none but adults are capable of being saved. This with the Baptists is a favorite text; and they an^ue«lipon it from the order of the words : If, say tlicy, faith g-oes before baptism, then infants must not be baptized, because they have no faith. The other is that cfDr. Walker, out of his Modest Plea, page 17'9. His words are these : " If none must be baptized but he that believes, because believing is set first; then none mus:t be saved but he that is baptized, because baptizing is set first. And then, what better argument <'an be made for infant baptism ? They nmst be baptized if we will have them saved ; because they cannot be saved without being baptiz- ed ; for baptizing goes before saving. And yet from the same text, and by the same way of arguing, it may be proved, that no infimts at-e saved, but those that believe ; because believing is set before saving: And not only so, but v^^hereas it is net said, he that believeth not shall not be baptized ; it is said, he that believeth not shall be damned." The difference between the reasoning of these tv;o, lies in this : The Baptists reason on a part of the text only, and the Doctor rea- soned on the whole. And to show how miserably flillacious the rea- soning of the Baptists is, I will lay down a plan of their logic on this text, which will proiiuce more conchisions than there are principal words in that part of the verse. The place is, Mark, xvi. 16. " He that believeth, and is l^aptized, shall be saved." Novi^ as the Bap- tists reason from the order of the words, I will mark them v/ith fig- 1 2 3 ures — believeth — ^baptized — saved. The logic is as ibiiows : Take th« first and second-— believeth— ^ baptized — .and say with the Baptists — 1. None are to be baptized but such as believe, because believing 1 2 must be before baptizing. — " Belie vetli" — '^ baptized. This will conclude against infant baptism. Next take the first and third— believeth— saved— and say in the same way : 2d. None are to be saved but such as believe, because believing 1 3 must be before saving. — " Believeth" — " saved." This concludes against infant salvation. Now take tiie second and tliird-^baptized — saved — and argue in the same manner : 3. None are to be saved but sucli as are baptized, because baptiz* 2 3 ing must go before saving. — " Baptized" — " saved." This win conclude on the side of infant baptism, they must be bap- tized, or they cannot be saved. As Dr. Walker reasons. Lastly, take all three — believeth — baptized — saved — and say : 4, None are to be saved but such as believe and are baptized, be- m JRGUME^fTS AGAIjVST 1 eause believing iind baptizing must be before saving. — " Beiieveth" — 2 ' 3 « baptized"—" saved." Tins concludes aqainst the salvation of believers in Jesus Christ, if they have not been baptized. And so upon the principle of the Bap- tists, it concludes against the salvation of all Predobaptists. All these conclusions, arising* from the same v^^ay of reasoning, may serve as a specimen to show the fallacious mode of arguing against in- fant baptism, adopted by the Baptists. Let it be tried once more, 4. On the temporal subsistence of infants. As the reader may per- ceive the drift of the reasoning, on these instances, I will use but few words on the present one. Now that infants should be supported, not only Scripture, but Nature itself teaches. And yet, if we form the Baptist argument, on a few places of Scripture, it may be proved, in opposition to Nature and Scripture both, that infants should actually be left to starve, Vv'e have nothing to do but to mention the texts, and apply their reasoning to them. Isaiah, i. 19. " If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.'' 2. Thess. iii. 10. " If any v/oukl not work, neither should he eat." Take the first, and say with the Baptists in another case : Willingness and obedience are required of those who are to eat the good of the land ; but since infants can neither will nor ol>ey, they must not eat the good of the land. — In the same way let the other be taken : Ke that will not work, neither shall he eat ; infants cannot will to v/ork, then infants must not eat. This argument, in v/hatever way it is viewed, proves against the truth. Is it a truth that infants should subsist ? This argument proves against it. Is it a truth that infants may be saved ? This argu- ment will prove the contrary. Was Christ rightly baptized ? Ac- cording to this argument it could not be. Were infants proper sub- jects of circumcision ? This argument will prove they v^ere not. — Then, if it invariably supports a falsehood, we are compelled to say it is a false argument. II. I will point out v/herein this fallacy consits. As tliis argu- ment, notwithstanding it is false, is used by the Baptists in general, both learned and unlearned, I Vvill attempt to lay open its fallacy ; and thereby put those persons upon their guard, who may be in dan- ger of being seduced by it. The judicious reader may have observ- ed, that I slightly hinted, at the outset, Avherein its fault consisted ; but to make it yet more evident what that fault is, of Avhich it is guilty, I will take the liberty of saying a fev/ words more. That particular rule, against v/hich this argument offends, is this : *' JVuii debet plus esse in conciusionc quam erat inpremissis. Ratio mavJfesta cst^ quia condusio educenda est ex premissis.'^^ That is, '' There should not be more in the conclusion than v/as in the premises. The reason is plain, because the conclusion is to be drawn from the premises.'* We will try to make this plain, by - examples both of triie and falsu reasoning. 1. In the Baptist way of reasoning. — When the Scriptures say, <* Repent and be baptized i" and; ^' If thou believest thou mayest/* IKFAX T BAP TISM. 2 f £cc. they address only sinful adults ; and then, an argument formed upon them should reach no farther than adults of the same description. But the Baptists form their fallacious argument on these passages, by bringing infants into the conclusion, who, as they are not addressed, are not at all concerned in the premises. This will appear plain by- three instances on the Baptist plan. The Baptist argument runs thus : The Scriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptism ; but infants have not faith and repen- tance ; therefore they are not to be baptized. Now as the Scriptures require faith and repentance only of adults, we must place that word in the argument, and then it wiil stand in this form : The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to baptism ; but in- fants cannot have these: Therefore infants are not fit subjects of baptism. In the samev^ay, we may form the two following instan- ces, ~oiz. The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to salvation ; but infants cannot have these : Therefore infants cannot be saved. Again, He, [an adult] who will not work, neither should he eat ; but an infant cannot will to work, therefore an infant should not eat.— The reader may perceive, that by placing the word adults in one proposition, and infants in the other (which "makes it a sophism) there are three things proved in the same way, viz. That infants cannot be saved — that infants should not eat — that infants should not be baptized. And so, for the same reason, that an infant can-? not be saved, thrd an infant should not eat ; it will follow, that an infant should not be baptized. For all these are equally true, and supported by the same reasoning. And it is in the same way, that this argument proves against the baptism of Christ, and the circum- cision of infants. We will now view these three instances, 2. In the Pxdobaptist way of reasoning. — We wiil place the same word in each proposition, thus : The Scriptures require faith and re- pentance of adults in order to baptism ; but some adults have no faith, no repentance ; therefore some adults are not to be baptized. Again, The Scriptures require faith and repentance of adults in order to salvation ; but some adults do not believe nor repent ; therefore some adults will not be saved. Once more — He [an adult] who will not work, neither should he eat ; but some adult v/iil not work ; therefore some adult should not eat.^ — Now by placing the w^ord adult in each proposition, v/ithout which it would be a sophistical argu- ment, the reader may see, that as infants can have no place in either, there is nothing to forbid their support, their salvation, or their bap- tism. They only prove, that an idle adult should not be supported ; that an impenitent adult will not be saved ; and, that he has no right at all to baptism. Once more. — As I have notliing in view, so much as truth, I have a great desire to make this matter plain to the meanest capacity. For if I am clearly understood in this part, my end, on the present argu- ment, is attained ; and Avhat I have before advanced upon it will be, in a great measure, useless. The reader, therefore, is desired to ob- serve, that the design of this argument is to conclude against the bap- tism of infants. Then, as infants are to be m the conclusion, they must also be in the premise 3 j for the rule says, 'H^ie^e should not ^'i ARGUME^rrS AGALYST be more in the conclusion than Avas in the premises ; because the con- clusion is to be drawn from the premises." Now to make the argument of the Baptists consistent with itself, we must place infants in the premises as well as in the conclusion ; and then the arg'ument will stand thus : The Scriptures require faith and repentaricc of infants in order to baptism ; but infants have not faith, Sec. ; therefore infants are not to be baptized. The reader may dis- cern an agreement, in the parts of the argument, with each other ; it lias infants in each part, as well in the premises, as in the conclusion. But, then, the fallacy of it is more sti-Jkingly evident than before : For the error, which before crept unto the middle, docs here stand in froiit ; it is in this proposition, the Scriptures require faith and re- pentance of infants in order to baptism, winch is not true ; for infants are never required to repent or believe ii) order either to Ixiptism or salvation. Whereas before, wlien it was said the Scriptures requii'c faith and repentance of adults in order to baptism ; liut infants have not faith, Sec. the error consisted in putting in the vrord ' infants,' who have no conc;ern at all in the requirement. By placing one thing in the premises, and another in the conclu- sion, which is done by the Baptists, in this argument, we may be able to evince any absurdity, however glaring. This being the manner of the Baptist ai'gument, nothing more is necessary to take oifits force against infants, ])Ut to make the premises and conclusion to correspond with each otlier. That is, while it continues to be a sophism, it proves against infants ; but it ceases to prove against them, as soon as it is made a good argument, e. g. Faith aiid repentance are required of adults in order to baptism ; but infants have not these : Therefore infants are not to be baptized. This is nothing more than a pure sophism, and, as such, it concludes against infants ; but all its force against infants is set aside by making it good, thus: Faith and re- pentance are required in adults in order to baptism ; but some adults liave not faith and repentance : 1'herefore some adults are not to be baptized, The reader may see, that now it is a fair argument, all its force against infants is gone. Having said thus much on the fallacy of thi;? argument, I shall only add one specimen of its mcyde of operation ; andt]:£t is a speci- men, in which it will conclude two contrary ways, on one place of Scripture, Rom, ii. 25. " For circum.cision verily profiteth, if thou keep the lav/: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcisioa." Now the Baptist argument, on the first member of tliis text, v/iil Qperate thus : Circumcision verily profiteth, if tiiou keep the law ; but infants could not keep the law : Therefore their circumcision must be unprofitable, that is, as no circumcision, a m^re nullity ; and this refiects on the wisdom of God. But if we form the same argu- 2nent on tiie other member, it will be no nullity neither, for thus it will run : If thou be a breaker of the law, tliy circumcision is made uncircumcision : But infimts could not break the law ; therefore their circumcision could not be made uncircumcision, /. c. a nullity. Such is this Baptist argument, that it will prove infa'.it circumcision IQ be IXFJ.VT BJPTISM. is ^oiiiclhino^ or notlnng-, accordinpj to that part of the text on Avhicii il is formed ; and it is therefore evidently no more tluin a sophism. I have endeavored to make the reader see, not only tliat this ari)rehend me; if so, I would advise him to read it rejxjatedly, and uiJi serious attention ; for I am not without hope, that even the most common capacity, with due attention, will cle;iiiy comprehend my me-iniiiii;. On the other hand, I have no doubt, but many will readily enter irito the method, and see v/hat a fallacious argument is made use of to support an opinion I am compelled to desert. Tliese two arp;un-ients beini); taken away, a Baptist has nothing lef^ to place at^-air.sl infant baptism. I have not met with a single jxirson, vv lio, \vhen desired to produce the strongest argumeuts against infant ■>, cjuld advance any thing more than what is contrancd in these tv/o. ^V'hilc 1 thought it right ;o oppose the baptism of iniants, I made use ( T them against it, but when they appeared, as they really are, very cironcous and bad, I gave them up ; and from that time have never been able to preach a baptizing sermon. I saw that the whole strength of a Baptist was gone. By the removal of these tv/o arguments, thus much is gained ; thiit wiiatever can be advanced, on the ])art of inlar.ts, will stand with un- diminished force. For it will now avail nothing to say, vrith tht; first argument, there is no express law for infant baptism ; nor will it be of any use to aiiirm, according to the second, that infaiits have no f.uth, no repentance : Because the arguments themselves being faila- cious, whatever may be urged from them, v/ill be entirely devoid oi force against infant baptism. Having now imished what I intended on the arguments, on one side, I proceed to those on the other. I am vv'ell persuaded, that the Scriptures cannot favor both sides ; and had the arguments against infant baptism been good, lam convinced that nothing in the; word of God would have given it any countenance. But since the trutlj must be either for or againct the baptism of infants, and the argu- ments against being futile, it is certain the truth must lie on the oili- er side. CHAPTER II. CONTAINING ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE OF INFANT BAPTISM. Infant baptism is to be proved, in the same way, as female com- munion. In the case of female communion, all the Baptists I have ever conversed with, on that subject, make use of inference and an- alogy ; and, though in them it is ridiculous, they are not able to prove it in any other way. And this method is even adopted by Mr. Booth, as I shall more plainly evince in another place ; though glaringly in- consistent v/ith his own principles. As I am now to advance proof in favour of infant baptism, the simple method I mean to adopt v/ill be the following. In the first place, it is a fact acknov/ledged by the ]3aptists themselves, that in- fants were at an early period constituted members of the church of God. In the next place, I shall pi'oduce proof, that they have a right to be so now ; and that the constitution of God by which they were m.ade members, has not been altered to this day. In the last place, I shall lay dovm this dilemma, which will conclude the whole business, namely : As infants by a divine and unaltered constitution have a right to be received as church members, they must be receiv- ed either with baptism or without it. If they are not to be received without baptism, then, the consequent is, that they must be baptized, because they must be received. 1 nov/ request the reader's attention to each of these in their order. ARGUMENT I. God Ims constituted in his Church the membership, of infants^ and admil- ted them to it by a religious rite. IN this argument it is proper to take notice of two pans. I. The church-membership of infants. — A church is a society that stands in special relation to God, being instituted for religious purpos- es. When the persons composing tliis society appear openly in such relation to Crod, it is called a visible church ; and of such an one I now speak. The relation, between God and this society, is formed by God himself, by declaring he is, and will be their God. This de- claration of God which constituted that relation, v/hich indeed did exist from the beginning, had an equal regard to adults and infants ; ^' I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." And hence both young and old, who had been duly entered, were consid- ered as children of lire c- ciiunt and the kingdom? that is, of tlie JRGUMEjVTS OjY the 5IDE OP, tjfc. §5 church. The ri£>iiL of circumcision beiiif; pcrrormed, the circumcised was presented lo the Lord ; which is the mode oT expression lo signiiy H puhiic enterinj^- into church-felloyvship. The case as noAv stated, is, I suppose, comitioilly ftdmittcd. It iS granted by Baptists, who are tlie inoiit likely of any to d-.^y it^ that infants were members of the Jevvisli church. Mr. Booth grants it, vol. ii." 224: So docG Mr. Kcach, (iold refmed, pag;'i 1 13. *' That ''hildren were admitted liiembers cf the Je'.visli church is gfanted.'" And indeed it is not possible to deny this, without denying that a-* dults themselves vvere members, which would be tha same as denying; that God had a church in the world. Infants^ therefore, \ycre con- stituted by God himseii^ inerabers of his own visible church. II. Inllmts, in order to visible memberships were the subjects of £l relig-ious rite. That circumcision was a religious rite, is as easily proved, as that baptisiil and the Lord's strpper are such. Mr. Bootli, in this case, is in a strait betwixt two ; he is not willinri; flatly to deny it, i>or yet can he prevail on himself to r-cknovrkdge it. He is very' tender upon the subject, as if he sav/ some formidable consequence lurking beneath it; See what he says, vol. ii. 250. *' Baptism is ail appointment purely religiousj and intended for purposes entirely spir- itual : B'lt circumcision, besides the spiritual instructicn suggested by it, was a sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction, and a token of interest in thoj^e temporal blessing^ that were promised to Abraham." Nov/ can any Thing soul teH from whence Mr. B. had fdl this r Was it from tlie Koi'an, or Talmud ? To she^T he never took his notion from the Bible, I will set the Bible against him^ aiid him against {l.-^Boottu It Vv'as a token of interest in temporal blessings* -^Bibic. It v.'as a token of the covenant between God and Abraiiam^ lo be a God to him and his seed.-^2iC>?//, It vras a aign of carnal des-< cent. — B:blc. It v^'as a sign of circumcision, L c. of the heart and spirit. — ^Booth. It v/as a mark of national distirjclion.'-«r?V'/^* It v»-as a seal of the righteousness of faithir Nowcompare Mr. B. with fact. Booth. It vras a token of interest hi temporal blessings. — Fact* Many had the interest without tl>e tokei>, and many had the token without the interest. — Booth. It was a mark of national distinction. ^^^Fact. Many other nations had the same markv So it v/as a dis-* tinction which did not distinguish--^5/:>6;/'^ It wa^- a sign of carnal descent. — FacL All Ahraham's male servant 3,- and many proselytes, vrere circumcised. Either these were descerided f^om Abraham, or Mr. B'y. sign was, as one calls it, a sign of a lie.-^See what the loveoT hypothesis can do 1 Could any man have given a poorer account of circumcision than Mr. B. has done ? But was it not, after all, a truly religious insttlule ? ?>Ir. B. is not willing to deny this a-togethcr. Pie seems to grants at least by im- plication, tiiat it V, as half a religious rite^ *• IJaplism," says he, *' is an appointmerit purely religi^ms, ftlsm, for teai* that analogy should prove the destruction of his scheme. . Mr. B. in his preface says, non tali auxilio^ ?icc dcfensorlbus istis. This is to intimate to the reader, that a good cause does not need a bad defence. Now, if we are to form a judgment of the cause he has undertaken to support, from the means lie makes use of to sup- port it, we cannot suppose the cause he has taken in hund^ is any- other than a very bad one. I question if the most carnal Jew, ihat ever sat in the region of darkness, and shadow of death, could have given a more frigid, degrading account of an institution of God than he has done. According to him, it was only a sign of cai'nal descent — a mark of national distinction — a token of interest in temporal bless- ings — it had a political aspect — it was performed with political views — and (not knowing very well what to do with it, he introduces a learned word, and says) it was adapted to an ecclesiastlco-political constitution. Thus he. But one thing he forgot — he has not given all this the sanction of the sacred text. Indeed, if it agree to any- thing in the Bible, it agrees best of all to the circumcision of those poor Shechemites, who vrere first deceived, and then destroyed by the sons of Jacob. Gen. xxxiv. These two parts of the proposition being evinced ; namely, 1 . The church membership of infants ; and, 2. Their admission to it by a religious rite ; the whole proposition w^hich I undertake to maintain, and to lay as a ground-work, from which to conclude the baptism of infants, is this ; God Ims constituted in his church the membership of infants, and has admitted them to it by a religious rite. Before I pass to the next argument, I will make a remark on each mrt. I. From this fact, we learn so much of the mind of God, as to be able to conclude, that there is nothing, in a state of infancy, incom- patible with church membership. The reason is evident ; for had there been any thing unsuitable in such a practice, God, who is an infinit'jiy wise judge of decency and fitness, would never have ordain- ed it. This conduct of the infinitely wise God, and the practice of about two thousand years, stand in direct repugnancy to the weak prejudice of Baptists ; who, from the sentiments they have adopted, are led to suppose that there is nothing in nature more ridiculous, than the idea of infimts being church members. This is one instance of human depravity ; whereby the weakness of man sets itself up against the wisdom of God : And as this is the more to be admired in those persons, who in other respects are desirous of submitting to the whole will of God ; so it serves to show, what a very unhappy influence the admission of an erroneous sentiment may gain over the mind. II. It appears from this part of the divine conduct, in plain oppo- sition to the views of Baptists, that the ignorance, and want of i'liith, inseparable from a state of infancy, are no impediments to the administration of a religious ordinance : And this truth should be the more regarded by us, as it stands supported by the high authority of God ; and is as a thousand arguments against all those pleas which 4.re (k-awn from tlie incapacity of infants. For while we see tho^..e *9 JRG'JMJi^Vl'S GjY the SIDE CF declared fit subjects of a relig^ious ordinance, who could know nothing of its nature or use ; with what prudence cr piety can any man pre- sume to affirm, that infants are incapable of such an ordinance ? But if aiw one should take so much authority on himself, as to arbitrate p,gainst the /visdom of Ciod, he would do ^vcll to consider, that Gotl ^§ tru^'j and pvery man a liar? /. c. that judges differently. ARGUMENT II, Qy^^ church meinherdiiii of inftmls ivas never net a-nde by God or man ; but continues inforce^ Undi^r the scmctiQwf Gvd^ to the preseJit day. THE force of thio and the preceding argument, taken tog-ether* jinay be comprehended by any man of common reasoning; powers. Every onp knows, that what was once done, and never undone, mmst of course remain the sam.e : And, tliat what was once granted, and never revoked, must ne«;ds continue as a grant. There can be no fallacy in all this, Thece arguments, therefore, being fairly m.aintain- ed, will carry us forward to a dilcmjna ; and that dilemma will bring us home to the conclusion, In good theory, the proof of this argument should not lie upon the Paedoboptist, Tor if I aiTirm, and prove, that God did settle a cer- tain plan respecting church members, and another should come and jiffirm that that plan was now altered ; it should lie on him to pro- duce his proof that such an alteration has taken place ; and the reason is, that whatever God has established should be supposed to con- tinue, though we coidd bring no proof of its continuance, unless we are plainly told that he lias ordered it otherwise. And then, since there is not a single text in Scripture to prove that the church mem" bership of infants is annulled, this argument should remain in force with- out further proof. — However, I will wave tl is privilege, v/hich I might justly claim, and proceed to evince the argument I have laid down. There was only one point of time, in v/hich it is even supposed the church membership of infants v/as set aside ; and that was, when the Gentiles were taken into a visible church state. In tiiat period several institutions did cease, and some new ones were ordained. Our only question is, whether the ch\irch memberslup of infants did cease at the sam.e time, It is evident that the mere change or cessation of institutes could work no change uppn membership, any more tlian a man's having liis clotlies changed can produce a change upon the man. All institutes, whether typical or ratifying, that is, all insti- tutes of every kind, are to be considered, in respect to church mem- bers, as means of grace, and nourishmicnts for faith, respecting Christ the mediator, and the unsearchable riches of Christ ; and then a change taking place in these tilings, will, in itself, produce no miOre ?ilteration in the members of the church, than a change in a man's diet will destroy the identity of the man. I am now to prove that the church memibership of infants, ^ hicli Jiaving been crdaiuedof God, was never annulled, but carried forwai^i IXFJjXT baptism. 2? jiilo the Gentile church ; and so consequently is in force at the pres- ent time. And this I shall proceed to do, From Scripture viev/s of God'r, dispensation towards the Gentiles. , Much lifjht might be thrown upon this subject, by considerinf:^ those prophecies of the Old Testament which relate to the culliiig- in of the Gentiles. This Dr. Williams has done to great advantage : but my design being brevity, I shall conilne myself to passages on that subject in the New Testament. I. Matt. xxi. 43. "Therefore I say ur.to you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." The plain meaning of this passage is, tl;at as in times past, the Church of God, which is his kinp;dom, was limited to Judea ; so, in future he would ha,ve a church in the Gentile world. The taking of the kingdom from the Jews, and giving it to the Gentiles, de- notes, 1. The ceasing of a re^^-ular church state among the Jews. And this actually took place, by the dcLtruction of seme, and the disper- sion of others, who did not receive the Lord Jesus Christ as sent of jGcd ; while those who did receive him, Avere at length removed from Judea, and by degrees lost the name of Jew, in that of Christian, Rom. xi. 12. 2. The setting up of a regular church state among the Gentiles. This, as the cessation of the clmrch among the Jews, was gradually brought about. For the Gentiles who camie over to Christ, joining themselves to the Jewish church, became in tim-e the larger part. So that by the increase of the Gentiles, and the breaking oif of the wortJi.Iess branches anipng the Jev^s, nothing remained but an entire jG entile church, 3. The sameness of the church state among the Gentiles, v,ith that among the Jev/s. For taking av/ay and giving cannot import a change in the thing taken and given ; but a transfer, the passing of a thing from one to the other. The kingdom given to the Gentiles v»as tne same that was taken from the Jevrs : For all that was taken from the Jevrs was given to the Gentiles. Now, if we would know what was to be tlie church state among the Gentiles, we have only to learn v/hat it had been among tlie Jews : For in both cases the church state was the same. And then, as it has before been proved, and admitted by Baptists, that the church ^'ate among the Jews con- sisted in the membership of adults and infants, the church state among the Gentiles must consist of adults and infants too : Because the same that was taken from the Jews was given to the G entiles - And so it apfjears from God's dispensation to the Gentiles, that the cliinch membership of infants v/as not set aside. — I will anticipate two objections in this place, which may be urged on each of the pas- sages I shall alledge. 1 . It may be said, tliat in this way of viewing the subject, all the ordinances and rituals of tlie Jevvish churcii must be adopted by the Gentile. To this I ansv/er, that these things were not of the essence of a church state ; but oijy m.eans of grace, and helps to faith for the time being. Neither were these taken and given, but P4inuUt*d ; they 3® JRGUMEjYTS O.Y THE SIDE OF -w'ere not transferred but abolished. Rituals are to a church, as diet or ornament are to a man ; let the diet be changed, and the orna- tnents removed, the essence of the man will be still the same. So tlie state and essence of the church of God, before these rituals were ordained, and wJjile they were in force, and alter their abolition, was, and is, and must be the same. This will be handled more fully in smother place. 2. If any should say, it does not appear that women in the Jewish chuiTh were admitted to an initiatin<^ right ; and if so, there is a dif- ference between the present church and the Jewish : I observe in an- swer, tJiat this difference does not imply a removing or changing of -any thing ; but merely that of adding. That whereas the church state among the Jews included males both adult and infant ; so to the Gentile chiu'ch, together with these, there is, by the express order of God, the superaddition of females. I would observe further, that the addition of females seems to mc to be very favorable to the argument I am upon ; because it is a new provision aimexed to an old law. Now an alteration made in a law, gives an addition firmness to all those parts which are not altered. And the reason is, it supposes that all the unaltered pails are perfectly agreeable to the legislator's mind. And so v.hen the Lord expressly took away the partition between Jew and Gentile, and male and fe^ male ; and passed over infants without making the least alteration in their case, he thereby gave a superadded confirmation, that the church membership of infants, which had been before established, was in every respect agreeable to his will. II. Rom. xi. 23, 24. "And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in again : For God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree ; how- much more shall these which be the natural branches, be grafted into their ov/n olive tree ?'* 1. The olive tree is to denote a visible church state. 2. The Jews are said to be natural branches, because they descended from> Abraham, to whom the promise was made, " I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed." 3. The Gentiles were brought into the same church state, irom wliich the Jews were broken off. 4. Tlie Apostle suggesteth, that the Jews will again be grafted into their own olive tree. From whence, with a view to my purpose, I would notice, 1. The future state of the Jews, who, he says, if they abide not in unbelief, shall be grafted in again. Grafting m again is the brhig- ing of a person or thing into the same condition in which it was be- fore. So the grafting in again of the Jews, is putting them into the same church state in which they were lx;fore they were broken off. What was their church state before they were broken off? 1 answer, as before proved, that it consisted of the memliership of adults and infants. Why then, if it before consisted of adults and infants, it will again consist of the same : Because grafting in again is the placing of persons so grafted, in their former state. And that is in flict the same state, in A^hich they would have continued, if they had never LVFJ.y T hAP TISM. S 1 been broken off. That Is, if it had not been for their unbelief, (for which they were cut off) they would have continued, both they and their influits, as members of the church of God. So when it shall please God to o-ive them faith, tliey will be reinstated, /. e. they and their infants will be members of the Church of God again. In compliance with this idea, I will just turn aside to observe, that, it is natural for one error to lead on to another ; and that this is not more evident in any, than it is in the Baptists. They grant that in- fants M^ere members of the Jev/ish church ; and this from them is a very considerable concession. But a concession like this, leads to a consequence horribly alarming to their system. For if infants were ouce members of the church of God ; then, it is evident, they were capable of such membership ; and then the question will l>e, when did they cease to be members ? and why are they not so now ? To remove this difficulty, the Baptists have recourse to this expe- dient. For as they cannot show trom any place of Scripture, tJiat infants are expressly set aside from church membership ; they fall to degrading the Jewish church, its membership and institutions : And when they have done, there is hardly any church or institution left. What was the Jev/ish church ? IMr. Booth, vol. ii. 2 j2. " It was an ecclesiastico-political constitution." What was the membership of it ? Mr. B. page 251. " An obedient subject of their civil govern- nient," and a complete member of their church state, were the same thing." What was the church institute ? Mr. B. page 250, Sec. " It was a sign of carnal descent, a mark of national distinction, it had a political as]3ect, and was performed with political views." I wish I had a good casuist at my elbow, to explain what kind of church this could be. For had I been Mr. B. I would, to save trouble, have fair- ly denied that it was any church at all. And to say the truth of hini, he has fairly done all tliis. Now, it is a desperate cause, that leads a man to fr-ll upon the very church of God. But this is done to shew that there is so great a dif- ference betvreen the church that now is, and that ^vLich once was, (or rather never was) that though infants were members of the one, they have no right, no capacity, to be members of the other. This is one shift to ward off the consequence I have mentioned. But now we want another shift, to escape the consequence that is yet to come. " And they, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in again." Grafting in again is the bringing of persons or things into th.eir fonner condition. Now, if the former Jewish cliurch stiite was all political, as Mr. B. will have it ; then the conse- quent will be, that when the Jews shall confess the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe with their heart, that God raised him from the dead, kc. and shall in consequence be reingrafted into their own olive tree ; thev >vill be all political again ! A mere ecclesiastico-political constitution ! wherein an obedierjt subject of civil government, and a complete mem- ber of a church, will be the same thing ! — Well, when this shall lalvc place, infant clmrch membership may come about again. But I retiun from this digression to notice, 2. The present state of the Gentiles. It appears from tlie text that the church 8tat(^. isj the same to the Gentiles, ws it liadbeen to the 32 jiRGUMEXTS OjY THE SIDE OF Jews, and as it Vvill be to the Jews, in some future period, when i^ shall please God to i^raft them in again. And the reason of this is, because each in their turn beloni^ to the same olive tree, /. e. the visi-* ble cliurch state. And therefore, as iiitantsmade a part of the church before the Jews were cut off, and will again make a part, when they shall be reingrafted ; they must likewise make a part amon;^ me Gen-' tiles : Because the same olive tree i. c. church state, must confer the same privilege" on all who shall be in it. This truth will receive additional confirmation, and the contrary error v/ill be more evident, if we consider, that since infants were once members among the Jews ; and when their reiugrafting shall take place, will be so again; so, if among the Gentiles they are deemed improper subjects of membership, and, in consequence of that, are universally rejected, two things will foilov/ : 1. There will be, in the m.ean time, a very unhandsome schism in the ecclesiastical chain. For though infants were found members in the first ages of the churchj and will be so in the last, there will be none to fiil up the middle. And, 2. There vi^ill also be, in future time, a very unpleasant dis- cordancy. For when the Jews shall be grafted in again, they will adopt their old practice of receiving infants to membership ; while the Gentiles, denying they have any such right, will persist in shutting them out ; and all this, as some suppose, in the spiritual reign cf Christ. III. Rom. xi. \7i " And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; boast not thyself against the branches." 1. The olive trecj as before noted, is the visible church state. 2. The branches are members of the visible church. 3. Some of these were broken off, and some remained. 4. The Gentiles who Were called of God, were united to this remnant, for they were graft- ed in among them. From this viev/ of the passage I draw these three conclusions : 1. That there was no discontinuance of the ancient church state ; In its essence, it remained the same £^3 it had always been. That this is a true conclusion appears from hence ; the text informs us tliat some of the branches '..ere b.-oken off ; and if only some, then not all ; and that remnant, continuiiig in their former state, constituted tlie still existhig church of God. And then it follows, that as the church state continued as before, the memi>ership of infants must like- Wise continue : Because the membership cf iniants was a part of that church state. And this is the reason, thai no new regulation, respect- ing infants, was made, or was necessary to be made ; for all, who knew Vk'hat God had ordained respecthig membersliip, knew very well what to do vviih their inliints, withoiit any farther information on that subject. This is the first conclusion, \iz. that the ancient church state vv^as net dissolved v, hen the Gentiles Vf ere called in. — And hence it follows, 2. That the bringing in of the Gentiles did not constitute a nev/ church. This passage informs us, that Avhen the Gentiles were called in, they became members of the church ah-eady constituted j " They IXFJM T BAP TIS3L .33 w6re graued la aiTiong them," and so become one body,- one fold ; that " with them tliey mig^ht partake of the root and fatness of tha Olive tree." The firr.t Gentiles of whose caUing we read, are caid to have been added to the church } but there w^s no church exiith)gtt> which they could be added, but the ancient Jewish church, of w):iich all the Apostles and disciples of o\u^ Lord were members. If the; Gentiles, tlicefore, were added to the old church, oi*, as the text has it, were grafted in among them, and with them did partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree ; then it is evident, that the anciert church continued to exist, and no new one was fcjrmed at t'le calling in of the Gentiles. And then I conclude, 3. Thnt infants were in a state of membership, jn that very church to which the Gentiles were joined, And this must certainly be true ; because they were grafted into that clnirch, ^f which infants are, by the Baptists themselves, granted to have been members. Andthen^ it is plain that infants made a part of that church, c-AW.d by some the Gospel church, tjie pure churcii cf primitive apostolic times. This conclusion must needs be admitted, unless any one will affirm, that the ancient church state was entirely dissolved ; or else, that the Gentiles were not united to this ancient church. And to affirm either of these, will be to afiirm against the word of God in general, and this text in particular. And herein the cause of the Baptists is ruined bot'n M^ays ; for if they maintain, that the old church was dissolved, and the Gentiles formed into a new one, their cause is ruined, l»y maintaining against the word of God, But if they grant that the Jewish church continued, and that the Gentiles were grafted in among them, wliich is the real truth ; then their cause is ruined that vray. For then, as infants were in church fellowship, in what is called the primitive apostolic church., -it foHov/s, that those societies, who admit inf[U)ts to fellowship, act agreeable to the apostolic pattern ; and consequently all those societies, v/ho refuse to admit them, are in an error. IV. Eph. ii. 14. " For he is our peace, who hath made bdth on^, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us." 1. The terms [both and us] in this place, mean Jews and Gen- tiles. 2. A partition is that which separates one society or family from another. 3. It is said to have been broken dov/n, by Jesus Christ, who is called o ir pea::e, because he made peace, by the blood of his cross. 4. The breaking dov/n of a partition wall, brings the two societies^ or families, into one. — From this passage, the vei'y same conclusions must be drawn, as from the precediujj- ; \i That the Jewish church continued as before, and w?.s net dissolv- ed at the calling in of the C.ientile:-. ; and the reason is, the taking down of a paHition implies no *:iis30iUth)nGrany society. 2. That the Gentiles were not formed into a newcliuich : Recause the brepking down of a partition united them to the Jewish church, and " made both one." 3. The infaP-ts were in actual membership, in that church to which the Gentiles were united : Because adults and infants being in fellow- ship auiong the Jews, the removal of tiie partition brought adults and infants hito unljn wltii the Gentiles. — Aiid thtjn, the point is Z 34 jrgumejXTs o?r the side of ckarly gained, namely, that infants hold the same place among the Gentiles as they heM before among the Jews. I again affirm, that the point is evidently carried, unless one of these tliree things can be maintained : I. That God excluded infants before the partition was taken do^Mi ; or, 2. at the time it was taken dov/n ; or, 3. at some time after. For if one or other of these can- not be supported, then infants retain their right to church member- ship to this day. — .Can any one maintain the first ; that God exclud- ed infants before the partition wall Avas broken down ? — Upon what period will he fix ? — And by what scripture will he support it ? — Will any one affirm the third ; that God excluded them after the partition was taken down ? — I suppose not. For that would be granting that the Gentiles continued sometime, i. e. till the exclusion tooli place in fellowship, in that church in which infants were mem- bers. And then, I might ask again, in what time did the expulsion take place ? And where is it recorded in the word of God ? — But I suppose, that he who contends for such an exclusion, will affirm the second ; that infants v/ere excluded at the time the partition wall was broken down. If so, I ask, who did exclude them ? And how was it done ? It could not be done by the mere taking down of the par- tition wall ; for the taking down the partition unites those who before Avere separate, but does not exclude any. But if they were excluded, it must be done either expressly or im- plicitly. The first is not true ; for there is no express exclusion of infants in all the Scriptures. And the second "will not do for a Bap- tist ; for, as he will not admit implicit proof on the side of infants, so neither can he urge implicit proof against them. — But let him take the advantage of implication ; and say, that infants are excluded from church mem.bership, by all those places which require faith and repentance, &;c. in order to baptism. To this I reply, that these places of Scripture can no more exclude infants from membership, than they exclude them from glory. And the fallacy of all this has been already fully evinced, when the second argument against infant baptism was considered : And to that part, for his satisfaction, I re- fer the reader. — .If then they were not excluded before the partition was taken down, nor at the time, nor at any time since, they were not excluded at all. And then the consequence will be, that infants, according to the will of God, are possessed of a right to church-fel- lov/ship under the present dispensation, and to the present day. By these four passages, all relating to God's dispensation towards the Gentiles, it appears, that the church membership of infants was left undisturbed, and was carried forward into the Gentile church ; where it continues still the same as when first instituted. And the importance of this fact, in the present enquiry, is so very considera- ble, that whoever admits it, must be compelled to admit the right of infanty to baptism, as a necessary consequence. Now, that God did ordain their church membership has already been evinced, and grant- ed by Bapthits ; and that to the present day, it has never been annul- led, is what I am engaged to prove. I will, therefore, in addition to these four scriptures, which of themselves clearly prove the fact, bring forwai-d a variety of evidence, which serve to corroborate this important truth. I^'FJ^rT baptism. ss 1 . There is in the New Testament no law whatever to set aside the primitive right of infants to church membership. If a law could be found, in the New Testament, to repeal that which had been established in the Old, I grant freely, that all that has been said on the four places of scripture, would signify nothing. But if no such law exist, the reasoning on the preceding passages will not only remain untouched, but will acquire a livelier force from that very fact. — I need not prove to a Baptist, that the New Testament contains no law by which infant membership is prohibited ; he readily grants it ; but adds in reply, that there was no necessity that such a law should be framed. Let us examine the thought. If indeed nothing had been done respecting infa.nts, tliis answer would have been a good one ; but when the church membership of infants is considered as an ancient establishment, the answer is nothing to the purpose. For as the case in reality stood, the want of a law to set aside infant membership, left it in its original state, to continue dov/n to the end of time. And how could it be otherwise ? For who in this world Vvas to alter it ? It came do^\^l to Gentile times, in all the force an establishment can be supposed to have, or need to have, in order to its continuance. It had the precept of God — It had the par- tiality of parents — It had the practice of near two thousand years. If such an institution as this needed no law to set it aside, which is what the Baptists atlirm ; the true reason must be, because it was not the design of God it should be set aside. And what could have been a greater proof of the design of God to perpetuate it, than taking no measures to stop its progress ? So that he, who grants that no such law was made, does in effect admit, that it is now a standing or- dinance in the church of God to receive infants to membership. And then he must grant too, that they should be baptized ; because there is no other way of receiving them. But though a Baptist admits there is no express law against their membership and baptism ; yet he affirms that the requirement of faith and repentance does of itself exclude infants. This is the purport of the Baptist's second argument against infants, which I have prov- ed to be a mere sophism. For when faith and repentance are requir- ed, in order either to baptism or salvation ; a very easy distinction will make it plain, that infants are not excluded in either case. And this distinction is easy and obvious to every person. 1 . It was a very easy one to a Jew. For while he kne\y that in- fants w^ere received into the church by circumcision, he likewise knew that every adult Avho was circumcised, put himself under immediate obligation to confess his sins, to bring his sacrifice, and to conform to all the laws of that church. He was very sensible an infant could not do this ; and yet he saw it right to circumcise the infant. So when he heard of faith, and repentance, and confession of sin, respect- mg baptism, as a medium of entering into the church ; he had noth- ing to do, but to use the same distinction, and all would be plain and easy as before. 2. The distinction is easy to a Pxdobaptist. For he knows, that if the person be an adult, he must discover a disposition suited to the nature and design of tJie ordinance ; but he knows, at the same tira-c;, 56 jlRGUME.YTS OjV THE SIDE OF that this vras never designed to effect an infant, and that it can be no bar to his baptism, or blessedness. 3. This distinction is easy to a Baptist. For notwithstanding- he is well persuaded, that he who believeth not shall not be saved ; yet lie knows an ii^fant may be saved, though an infant do not believe. All this to him is easy and natural, and nothing in the world more plain. If this be so easy a distinction, it may be asked, why cannot a Baptist carry it to baptism us well as to any thing else ? I answer, lie can if he please ; for it arises from no defect of understanding that 'i\G does no; do it ;— rbut it is a.n unpleasant thing to employ ja distincr tion, so as to destroy one's own sentiments. In thort, it is only considering, that an infant is not an adult, and that an adult is not an infant, than which notliing can i?e more easy j an4 then the requirement of faith and repentance is no more a law against the nietnbership and baptism of infants, than it it agaiitst their salvation.- — All I meant here was to ailirm that there is ro law, in the New Testament, to over-rule the church membersliip of infants ; and this is a corroborntinp; evidence, that their membership, which had been divinely instituted, continues the same down to the present time. 2. The Jews, at large, had no apprehension cf the exclusion cf infants ; they neither oi)pose nor approve, which tliey doubtless would have done, if j^uch ah exclusion had taken place. This is a circumstance which merits particular attention, and has no small iiiflucnce on the present question. For as every material alterafion in old customs is apt to stir up some opposition ; so, had such a change as this been introduced, by which the infant ofEf.pring V/'ould have been put baclj^ from their former place in tlie church of God, it must have furnished occasion to a variety of animadversions : Some, perhaps, might have been for it, while many would have cp- i^csed the new plan. That this would have happened had such a rev- olution taken place, will appear more certain, if we consider the na- ture of such a change, and the persons who would have lelt themselves iiurt by its introduction. •1. As to the change itself, it had a tendancy to affect in a very sensible part. And this is a clear case, whether we consider — the tencjer age of the subjects — or their number — or the privilege to which they were admitted — or the length of time through which the practice had been carried — or lastly, the divine authority which gave rise to that practice, Flere is a practice of two thousand years standi ing. — The privilege vras that of admitting infants to membership in the church of God — these iniants formed a number in Israel exceed- ingly great.— And this practice did not take its rise from some dark verbal or written tradition ; but stood supported by the lively oracles of God. Such was the custom which the Baptists suppose was an- nulled about this time. 2. On the other hand, if we take into consideration the character pf those persons among whom this custom had prevailed, and among whom it is supposed to have ceased, we shall have sufficient reason to ihink it impossible that a custom of this nature should be abrogated, and they not oppose a single word. As to their character, it is cer- tain, that, a few only excepted, they \vt;re upon the whole the deadly iXFAXT BAPTISM. 5?r ^nernies of Christ and liie doctrine. They ^vere strongly attached to the forms and ceremonies of reli:^ion. They would wran^ie for a rite^ ,cjuarrel for a last, and almost fight for a new moon. Every one knows what disturbance they mad.^ in the church of God, about such things as these. Now is it possible, that such a change could be brought about, and among such a people, in a manner so still and silent, that in all the New Testament we do not read, that tliey ever said a word about it, for or against ? No priest nor publican ; no pharisee, lawyer, ci' libertine ; neither pious nor profane, neither zealous, moderate, or lukc-warm, in all :he !and of Israel, oppose a single sentence, or ask a reason why. — . But tince this must have been a change so remarkable ; and they, a- mong -"vhom it is supposed to have happened, not the most- modest ; iiov/ came they to be so silent, so shy ? What m.ade them so passive, so p'2ace-?ble, s^o complying ? Nothing, — They were neither comply- ing, passive, nor peaceable, nor slow to speak, nor sIoav to wrath, Avhen any old foims were invaded ; but they were very much so about the change in question : And the tnie reason of it is, it never took place, r— There is another evidence, that the church membership of infants was never annulled by God or man ; and that is this : o. Our Lord and his Apostles take special notice of infants, and> instead of excluding them, they speak of them as still possessing a right to membership in the church of God. The notice taken of infants, by our Lord and his Apostles, I call special ; because it is not such as God takes of his creatures in a Avay of common providence ; as the giving of food to a stranger, the satis- fying the desire of every living thing, or hearing the cry of a young raven when he calls upon him. Such notice as this God takes of all his creatures. But that v/hich I now mean relates to matters of an- other nature, religious matters, the things of the kingdom of God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. The passages I shall bring are not in- tended to prove any new institution respecting infants, for nothing of this kind took place : but as their church meml^ership had been long settled, I only mean to shov/ that our Lord speaks of them, under that idea, as tbe acIbers of the church of God. 3. Our Lord speaks thus, to induce them to pay a proper re- gard to children. " The least among you shall become great, there- fore receive this child in my name." Receiving may respect the first act of recognizing a person a member of a church ; or all subsequent acts, by which we treat them as such. Our Lord's expression is ap- plicable to both, and enjoins both on his disciples. — This is one in- stance of special notice taken of infants, in wluch they are considered as holding a place in the church of God. Mark X. 14. "But wiien Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suifer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not : For of such is the kingdom of God.'* The persons who were brought, are said by Mark to have been young children ; our Lord calls them little children, and Luke calls them infants. There can be no doubt but they were such as were irk an infantile state. The design, for which they were brought, is said to be, that he should put his hands on them, and pray. Some of the Baptists A'?^/?//05e they were diseased children, and were brought to our Lord to be healed ; but of this there is nothing said. It is m.ost likely they were brought to receive the benediction of Christ. Mark x. 16. That this passage regards infants, as continuing in a state of church membership, which is ail I produce it for, will appear by considering of whom our Lord spake, and what he spake of them. 1. Of whom he spake. There can be very little difficulty on this 'part of the subject, as we are plainly told wliat the persons were who were brought to him, and of whom it is evident he spake. Some of the Baptists remarking upon the phrase ton toiou;on of such, or of such like, affirm that our Lord meant adults of a child-like disposition, and that of these, and not of the infants, he said. Of such is the kingdom of God. This construction, which indeed has nothing to support it, will appear very uncouth, when we consider these words of our Lord, as a reason for bringing and permitting the little children to come to him : Suffer them to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of God. But this exposition, besides that it makes our Lord speak ob- scurely, represents him as giving a reason quite distant from the sub- ject he was upon. For whereas a reason for coming should be taken from those wIiq are to come, and not from others ; this exposition makes. our lyord say, Suffer ;//fir to come, because those belong to the. kingdom. To say, adults belong to the kingdom of God, is no good reason for bringing infants to Christ. It is a much better one to say, suffer these little children to come, because these little children, and fathers likK them, belong to the kingdom of God. But if it be said, others belong to the kingdom of God, because they are like infaiuf^t then infants must belong to the kingdom of God because they are like them. The truth is, our Lord evidently speaks of infants as he had done before, in the preceding passage. 2. \Vhat he spake of them : Of such is the kingdom of God ; that is, such belong to the kingdom. Our enquiry is, what kingdom did our Lord mean ? was it the church, or a state of glory ? If the Lord meant the church, then he has asserted what I contend for, that in- fants were spoken of by him, as members of the church ; and, there- fore, the fact is established. But the Baptists in general understand this of a state of glory, and allow infants to belong to that, but deny that they belong to the church. This, indeed, is granting the great- er, and denying the less ; and therefore an argument may be taken, from what they grant, to destroy what they deny ; that is, an argu- ment a majoi'-c ad mimis. If infants belong to a state of glory, which is the greater ; then much more do they belong to a church state, which is the less. Besides, as the institution of a church is a dispell-" sation of God, which leads to glory ; it is absurd to grant persons a: place \W glory, and at the same time deny them a place in that dis- pensation which leads to it. Though to affirm, that our Lord, by the kingdom of God, intend- ed a state of glory, does not militate against, but rather concludes for the church membership of infants ; there are some considerations which serve to evince, that our Lord intended the church on earth ch.efly, if not only ; for I have some doubt v/hether he did not in- tend both, though the church more particularly. It is to be observed, in the first place, that these w^ords, " of such is the kingdom of God," were spoken to the Apostles, as a reason for their suffering, and a rebuke for their hindering little children to come unto him. Now it is ahvays more natural, when we intend to reason with, or rebuke any person, to fix upon that as a reason, which is most familiur to him. Tiie Apostles v/ere well acquainted with the membership of infants in the church, as a practice wdiich had prevailed in their na- tion for many centuries ; whereas they could know but little of the state of infants with respect to glory. Now as the reason, why these little children should be suffered to come, was, that they belonged to the kingdom of God ; and as this was designed, at the same time, as a rebuke, it nmst be evident, that our Lord intended that idea of tlio kingdom with which they were most familiar. For had it been meant of a state of glory, the Apostles might very well have pleaded ignor- ance ; but they could not be ignorant that infants belonged to the church, and therefore the reproof could not come home to them, but under that idea. For in that they acted contrary to a principle they knew in keephig those, who belonged to the church, from the church's Head. It may further be remarked, that it is highly reasonable to con- clude, that our Lord intended the same reason, for infants coming to him, as he had urged to others, for tlieir receiving them. Others were to receive infants in his name ; aiid v/ith this to enforce it, that whosoever received them in his name, received him, £cc. Tliis ex* prcssion denotes ?. relation to hiir-self, a5 il" he had said, R-cceive thsrn, JJ^FJNT BAPTISM: ^% because they belong to me, receive them as yoii would ar disciple.— < This is a reason that has respect to present relation ; and if it be natural to suppose, thiit our Lord .ajives a similar reason for their comini^ to him, the khigdom of God will not mean a future stal^ of blessedness, but; a present church state, to whicli they belong. Mere-* over, it may be said with much more truth of infants in (general ; and it is of such our Lord speaks, that they belong to a church on earth, than to a state of glory : Because many may belong to the form- er who do not belonr\- to the latter. And whereas it cannot be said of infants, as such, that they belong to a state of glory, ibr then all would be saved, because all have been infants ; but it could be said of infants, as infants, where our Lord was, that they belonged to th» cliurch on earth. I only introduce this to show, that our Lord, in saying. Of sUch isi the kingdom of God, did recognize infants as church-members. — • And against this sense of the kingdom, as meaning the church, the Baptists bring only one objection, viz. the incapacity of infants.— But this is removed by the practice of many centuries ; which shows that God does not judge of incapacity, after the manner of men. — < What our Lord said, as it proves the membership of infants, which is ail I brought it for, so it is no more tlian what was familiar to tiie whole nation. Acts ii. 38, 39. "Then Peter said unto them. Repent and be bap- tized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, «ven as many as the Lord our God shall call." As this passage is only brought forward to show, that infants are fepoken of in the Nev/ Testament, as church-members, agreeable to the ancient dispensation of God ; I shall confme myself to these three conclusions. L Th:t the plira::c, '-to you, and to your children," intends adults tmd inranlz. IL That this promise must comprehend adults and infants, wher- ever it comes, even as long as God shali continue his v,6rd to us. in. That infants are placed hi the same relation to baptism, asthef *vcre of old to circumcision. These I shall now proceed to evince ; and in the first place I affirm, I. That the phrase. To you and toyoitr children) intends adults and infants. This may be proved by considering, 1. The resemblance between this promise, and that in Gen. xvii* 7, " To be a God unto thee, and unto thy seed after thee.** The resemblance between these two lies in two things ; 1 * Each stands con- nected with an ordinance, by wliich. persons were to be admitted into church-fellov ship ; the one by circumcision, t'le other by baptism. Both agree in phraseology, the one is, " to tliee, tnd to thy seed ;'* the other is, "to you, and to your children.*' Now every oue knows that the word seed means children ; ana that children means seed ; and that tliey are precisely tiie same. From tJiese two strongly re- sembling features, viz. their connexion with a similar ordinance, and the sameness of the phrasec/lc^y, I iiifir, that tht subjects expresse4 i2 JRGUMEXTS OX THE SIDE OF in each, are the very same. And as it is certain that parents and in- fants were intended by the one ; it must be equally certain that both are intended by the other. 2. The sense, in Avliich the speaker must have understood the sen- tence hi question. The promise is, to you and to your children. In order to know this, we must consider who the speaker was, and from what source he leceived his religious knowledge. The Apostle, It is evident, was a Jew, and brought up in the Jewish church. He knew the practice of that church, with respect to those who were ad- mitted to be its members. He knew, that he himself had been ad- 7T\itted in infancy, and that it was the ordinary practice of the church to admit infants to membership. And he likewise knew, that in this they acted on the authority of that place, where God promises to Abraham, "to be a God unto him, and to his seed." Now if the Apostle knew all this \ in v/hat sense could he understand tiie terni children, as distinguished from their parents? I have said, that tekna^ children, and fijierma^ seed, mean the same thing. And as the Apostle well knev/, that the term seed intended infants, though not mere in- fants only ; and tiiat infants were circumcised, and received into the church, as being the seed ;. what elsv-i could he understand, by the term children, when mentioned with their parents ? Those who v/ill have the Apostle to mean, by the term «^hildren, adult posterity only, have this infelicity attending them, that they understand the term dif- ferently from all other men ; and this absurdity, that they attribute to the AjXistle a sense of the word, which to him must have been the. most unfamiliar and forced. And, thorefore, that sense of the word for which they contend, is the most unlikely of all to be the true one, because it is utterly improbable that a person should use a word in that sense which to him, and to all the world beside, was altogether unfa- miliar, 3. In what sense his hearers must have understood him, when he said, " The promise is to you, and to your children," The context informs us, that many of St. Peter*s hearers, as he. himself was, were Jev/s. They had been accustomed for many hun- dred years to receive infants, by circumcision, into the church ; and this they did, as before observed, because God had promised to be a God to Abraham, and to his seed. They had understood this prom- ise, to mean parents and their infant offspring ; and this idea was be- come fcimiliar by the practice of many centuries. What then must have been their views, when one oftheir own community says to them, *' The promise is to you, and to your children ?" If their practice of receiving infants v/as founded on a promise exactly similar, as it cer- tainly was; how could they possibly understand him, but as meaning the same thing, since he himself used the same mode of speech ? This must have been the case, unless we admit tliis absurdity, that they un- derstood him in a sense to which they had never been accustomed. . How idle a thing it is, in a Baptist, to come with a lexicon in his hand, and a criticism in his head, to inform us that tekna^ children, means posteiity ! Certainly it does, and so means the youngest in- fants. The verb tikto^ from which it comes, signifies, to bring forth, ?', €. the oflspring;. Aiid are not infants of that number ? But the l^rFJ^rT baptism. 43 Baptistjs will have it that tekna^ children, in this place, means only- adult posterity. And, if so, the Jews, to whom he spoke, unless they understood him in a way in which it was morally impossible they should, would infallibly have understood him wroni^. Certainly all men, when acting freely, will understand Mords in that way which is most familiar to them ; and nothing could be more familiar to the Jews, than to miderstand such a speech as Peter's to mean adults and in- fants. So that if the Jews, the awakened Jews, had apprehended the Apostle to mean only adults, Avhen he said, " To you and to your children ;" they must have h; d an undei'standing of such a pccidiar construction, as to make that sense of a word, which to them was to- tally unnatural and forced, to become- familliar and easy. We should more certainly come at the truth, if, instead of idly crit- icising, we could faiK--y ourselves Jews, and in the habit of circum- cising infants, and receiving them into the church. And then, could we imagine one of our o\vii nation and religion, to address us in the very language of Peter in this text, " The promise is to you and yqur children ;" let us ask ourselves, as in the sight of God, v/hethcr we could ever suppose him to mean adult posterity only ? Or if, instead of putting ourselves in the situation of Jews, we should suppose the Apos

ersons soever it may, it must come to them and to their children ; because the promise must be the same wherever God shall send it. I ^ave already proved that the words [you and children] mean adults and infants ; and both beirii^ in the promise, it must therefore belong \o each : To you adults and to your infants, who are present ; to you adults, who are afar ofi', and to your infants ; to as many adults as the Lord our God shall call, and their infants. That this is true may be proved by considering the essence or nature of the promise. ' There are two things which enter into the essence of a promise : It must contain some good — -it must be m^de to some person or persons. That these two belong to the esserice of a promise appears by this, that if either be taken away, there can be no promise- — e. g. I will be a God to thee and to thy seed ; the good in this promise is God him- self — the persons v/ere Abraham and his seed. If the good be taken away, it will then be no promise ; I will—to thee and to thy seed. The case will be the same if the persons are taken away ; I will be a God — in either case it is no promise. So when a promise is made to different persons, one person i^as essential to the promise as the other - — e. g. I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed ; the promise is as much to the seed as to Abrah:\m, and as much to Abraham as to the seed ; because both are essential to the promise. Now the Apostle, expressing the essence or nature of the promise in the text, as it respects tlie objects, says, " The promise is to you and to your children." Both parts, therefore, belong to the promise ; it is essential to the promise that it be-— to you ;— it is likewise cssen^ tial to it tiud it be to your children. And the case being so, we can- not take avi^ay either part without violatinp; the essence of the promise. We have no more right to say, The promice is to you, but not to your children, than the promise is to your children, but not to you ; for as it was the design of God that the promise should be to both, it -was his design that it should be to their children as truly as to them- selves. And so the promise must be to Peter's hearers and their chil- dren — ^to all that are afar off, and to their children — to as many as the Lord our God shall call, and to their children ; and the reason is, both enter into the essence of the promise. So when God said, *' I will be a God unto thee and to thy seed," it would apply, in the same form, '< to thee and to thy seed," to every man and every gen- eration of men of the offspring of Abraham, us long as the promise %vas in force. Mr. Booth objects to this, in vol. ii. p. $55^ and ?:ays, "These ■words [as many as the Lord our God sludl call] are, as plamly as possible, a limiting clause, and extend a restrictive force to the term children, as much as to the pronoun you, or to that descriptive lan- guage, " all that are afar oif." To this I reply, that the Apostle him- self did riot make use of that limit which Mr. B. says is so plain ; fpr the Apostle actually spoke to thoge who, in Mr. 3's. sense, were IjYFAjYT baptism. 45 ^already awakened and called ; and then, as plainly as possible, dis- tinguishes between them and their children. Now if the Apostle ad- dressed those who were already called, and extended the promise be- yond them, even to their children, then the promise was not limited to the called. But this the Apostle actually did as plainly as words could express it ; for he spoke to those who were pricked in their heart, and said, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" To these he said, " The promise is unto you" — and, instead of confining it to them only, he extends it to their children also ; and so passes over that limit which Mr. B. is pleased to lay down. And as the Apostle ex- tends the promise beyond the called in the first clause, we must follow his example, and extend it beyond the called in the last clause — thus the promise is to as many as the Lord our God shall call, and to their children : And then Mr. B's. limiting clause v/ill be nothing more than a very lame evasion. Notwithstanding this, there is some truth in Mr. B's. idea respect- ing the limiting clause, though he himself, by misapplication, has done violence to that truth. That clause, " to as many as the Lord pur God shall call," is really a limithig clause, but not in that way Mr. B. supposes. This, like every other promise, has t\\-o limits, and these two are fixed by tvvo limiting clauses : One limit determines how wide the promise shall extend ; the other how far it is to run— • the one is a limit of latitude, the other of longitude. The limit of latitude extends to parents and children — that of longitude reaches down " to as many as the Lord cur God shall call." And as there is a perfect harmony between these two, there is no need to destroy the one in order to preserve the other ; for both limits being settled and fixed, that of latitude, which extends to parents and children, must contmue firm, till, through successive ages, it comes down to that of longitude, which reaches to as many as the Lord our God shall call ; that is, as long as God shall continue to call, the promise shall pertain to parents and children. Mr. B. therefore, was very right in making this a limiting clause, for so it really is ; but he v.ay very wrong when, instead of preserving both, he set one limit to destroy the other. And as it often falls out that those, who do violence to the spirit of a text, are led to utter some rash expression against tlie letter of it, just so it has fallen out in Mr. B's. cai:.e. He has violated one limit in the text, and has so expressed himself as to exceed ail limits of truth. In vol. ii. p. 354, he has said, " There js nothing said about the promise respecting any besides those who were then awakened." Ti.ose, who were av/aken- ed, are distinguished by the pronoun '^ you ;" and it is certain some- thing is said about the promise respecting them. But, says Mr. B. *' There is nothing said about the })romiae respecting any besides." Tvlr. B. should not have said this with the text before his eyes. He should first have erased that clause of it, '' and to your children," and not have let it stand to stare him in tlie face, and convict him of false- hood. As something was said about tlie promise respecUng those who Avere awakened, and their children both, he might as weil have denied it respecting the awakened, as to deny it respecting their chil- dren : But it is often the fate of those who oppose truth, to lose truth, and modestv to-^etlier. 45 ARGUME^'TS OjV THE SIDE OF When any dispute happens on a place of Scripture, and it cannot be settled from the context, the best way is to pass to a similar place, and observe (if there be any plain indications) in what manner that was understood, and what practice took place upon it. That passage to which the text bears the strongest resemblance, is Genesis xvii. 7. *' I will establish my covenant — to be a God unto thee and to thy seed." There is no place in Scripture so like the text as this ; they are both worded in the same way — " to thee and to thy seed" — to you and to your children : They are both connected with a religious ordinance. By seed, which is the same as children, was meant an infant of eight days old and upwards ; and because a promise is made to the seed, an infant becomes the subject of a religious ordinance. Now, if the language of the text be similar, and if it be connected with a religious ordinance as that was, what better comment can be made upon it than what that passage suggests ? Why should not the ideas be alike, if the language and circumstances be so ? The reason why a comparing of Scripture with Scripture assists the un- derstanding, is this : When God uses the same kind of language in two places of Scripture, and the circumstances are alike, it is plain he means to be understood as intending similar things. This is so sure a rule of interpretation, that we are not afraid of venturing our ever- lasting interests upon it. And, by adopting it in this instance, the result will be clearly this : That the Holy Ghost, by the phrase, *' you and your children," meant adults and infants ; that these are placed together in the same promise ; and that the promise, thus made to adults and infants, is connected with baptism. — And from hence it may be proved, III. That infants are placed in the same relation to baptism, as they were of old to circumcision. Let any one compare the two places together, viz. Gen. xvii. 7, 9, 10, and this now before us, and he will see that parents and chil- dren are united, m each promise, in the sam^e v/ay — there the promise is, " to thee and to thy seed" — here it is, " to you and to your chil- dren ;" — that the promise, in each place, is connected with a re- ligious ordinance : In Genesis it is connected with circumcision — in this text with baptism ; — that, in both places, the ordinance is made to result from the promise — the one is set dov.n as a reason for the other; Gen, xvii. 9. " Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore ;" that is, because God had given a promise. So here, " Repent, and let every one of you, of yours, be baptized, for iga?^, because) the^rom- ise is to you and to your children :" Infants, tlierefore, in this passage, are placed in the same relation to baptism as they were anciently to circumcision. This being so, I reason thus : When a positive institute is connected with a promise all, who are contained in the promise, have a right to the institute. I think any one may be compelled to grant this, as it is certainly an undeniable truth ; for if parents must, therefore, be circumcised because they are included in the promise, then, as infants are also included in the prom- ise, they too must be circumcised. All this is evinced by the his- tory of ciicumciston, and is indeed a self-evident case ; because if a promise give a right to an institute, the institute must belong to all IJ^FJ.VT BAPTISM. Kt who are interested in the promise. And, therefore, we may reason thus : If parents must be baptized because the promise belont^s to them, tlien must their infants be baptized, because the promise is to them also. This mode of reasoning is the more certain, as it is con- firmed, beyond all doubt, by tiie divine procedure ; for if you ask, Who were to be circumcised? the reply is, Those to whom the prom- ise was made. If you inquire again, To whom was the promise made ? we answer, to adults and infants. Again, if you ask. Who are to be baptized ? the answer is, Those to whom the promise was made.— • But to Avhom is it made ? The Apostle says, " To you and to your children." Now what proof more direct can be made or desired for infant baptism. P>om these premises the result is plainly this : That as infants stand in this ter.t, in the same relation to baptism as they did to cir- cumcision, their light to the one must be the same as it was to the oth- er. The case in both instances, stands fairly thus : The promise con- nects itself with the ordinance ; that with circumcision — this with bap- tism. It also connects two parties together, infants and parents, and imitesthem both to that ordinance with which itself is connected. It is by virtue of the union of the promise with the ordinance that those who have an interest in the one have a right to the other ; ai:»d when two parties, parents and children, are interested in the same promise, lUidthe promise gives a right to the ordinance, it gives the same right to both the parties who are interested in it. And hence, as parents and children are interested in the promise, the right of the children to the «rdinance is the same as that of parents. I produce these three passages only to show that special notice is taken of infants, and that they are spoken of agreeable to the idea of their church membership. In Luke ix. 47, 48, our Lord pro- poses them for reception in his name, and thereby owns them as visi- bly lelated to himself. He indicates that tlie reception was to be of the same kind as that which might be claimed by his own disciples ; and that receiving them, as visibly related to himself, /. e. in his name, was showing a proper respect to him, and to his Father who sent him : ** Whosoever shall receive this child inra.yname, receivcth me; and whosoever shall receive me, receiveth him that sent me," Sec. In Mark x. 14, our Lord explicitly declares what was the ground of that reception, by expressing their visible relation to the church, and so to himself; — "Of such is the kingdom of God;" as such they were to be brought to him, and no one was to forbid them to come. — In Acts ii. 38, 39, infants are placed in the same relation to baptism as they were before to circumcision. The Apostle unites them Avitii their parents in the promise, and connects that promise with baptism, thereby copying the divine pattern in Genesis, xvii. and allotting them the same station, with respect to baptism, as they had before with re- gard to circumcision. In each of these cases infants are spoken of agreeable to that con- stitution of God, by which they were admitted to church membership, and to a religious ordinance. And this being all that my argument requires, I shall proceed to notice one thing more, viz. IV'. The historical account of the baptism of households as record- ed IR the Scripture. '43 JRGVMEjYTS OJV TLIE SIDE OF The instances of this kind are three : The family of Lydla, Acta xvi. 15; the family of the jailer, Acts xvi. 33; and that of Ste^ phanus, I Cor. i. 16. The case of the jailer and his faiiiily is thus described : " And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his, straightway- And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his honse, ee^alliasato fiarifjiki jiejiisteukoa to Thtto. He rejoiced domestically, believing in God ; 2. e. he^ believing* in God, rejoiced over his family. Now as the household of the jailer is expressed by the phrase, " all his, or all of his," it explains the term Oiko%^ household, or fam.ily, which is used in the two other instances : So then, to baptize a man's house-* hold is to baptize all his. This may serve as a pattern of primitive practice—he and all his were baptized. But whether all believed, or v/ere capable of believing, is not said, no mention being made of any one's faith but his own. And though I do not consider this historic account as having force enough of itself to evince the baptism of in- fants, yet there are two considerations which give it weight on that side. ( 1 .) Its agreement with that practice, in which we are sure infants were included ; I mean the practice of Abraham, and the Jews) with respect to circumcision. This agreement may be considered, 1. In the principle which led to the practice. Circumcision was fovmded on this promise of God, " I will — ^be a God unto thee, and to thy seed.'* Baptism proceeds on this that the promise is to you and to your chil- dren: And in this they are both alike. 2. In the practice itself. — When Abraham received circumcision, his household were circum- cised with him : So the jailer, when he was baptized, all his were baptized likewise. Nov/, when we discern two cases alike in princi- ple and pi-actice ; and are sure, that infants were included in the one ; we then very naturally are led to conclude, that infants must be intend- ed in the other. (2.) Its concordance with the hypothesis of infant baptism. Such accounts as these, have a favorable aspect on the sentiments of Pxdo-* baptists ; because on their plan, provided they were placed in the same circumstances as the Apostles were, whose lot it was to preach the Gospel where Christ had not been named ; cases of a like nature would very frequently occur. Whereas, on the plan of the Baptists, if placed in similar circumstances, though we might hear of various persons baptized on a profession of faith ; we should not expect to hear of the baptizing of households ; or, that any man, and all his, were baptized straightway. And indeed, the very idea of bap- tising households, and of a man, and all his, being baptized at the same time, does so naturally fall in with the views of P^dopabtists, that I am inclined to think it passes with the common people, instead of a hundred arguments. For though they do not reason by mood and figure, neither do they confine themselves to logical accuracy, in any form ; yet they have logic enough to see, that the baptizing of a man, and all his, and likewise of this and the other household, is by no means agreealjle to the plan, and that it has no resemblance to the^ practice of the Baptists. LVr.tYT BJPTI2M. 49 It is in this "way I consider these accounts of baptiziiifj as having; weight in the present inquiry. Here are facts recorded, relative to baptizing ; I take these facts, and connpare them v. ith the proceedings of different baptizers ; and I fnul they will not a-^-ree to one class, but very well v/ith the other ; I, therefore, am led to conclude that Uiat class of baptizers agiee best to tl;e primitive practice, to whom these facts Vviil best agree. For, as the practice of the ApoiUes hds no affinity with that of the Baptists, it is very reai:onabie to hifer that their views of the subject could not be \he same. This being the last corroborating argument I mean to bring, I will collect the force of the v/hoie into one viev/. The whole defence of infants rests on tv/o arguments : — 1. That God did constitute in his church the membership of iiiiants, and admitted them to it by a relig- ious ordinance. — 2. That the liglit of infants to church membership was never taken away : The consequence of which is, that their riglit to membership continues to the present moment. The first of these arguments is granted by the Baptists themselves. The ether I have evinced from five topics : 1. From God's dispensation towards the Gentiles, in forming them into a church state. 2. That God never did, by aiiy law, take away that right which had been before granted to irifants. 3. That none of the Jews had any apprehension of tliC rejection of infants, which they must have had, if infants had been rejected. 4. That Jesus Christ spake of them as visibly belonging to the church, and to himself, as the head of the church : And that th€> Apostle Peter placed them in the same relation to baptism, as they had been before to circumcision. 5. That tiie Apostle Paul, in baptizing whole families, acted agretable to, arid so evinced the validity of, all the preceding argumen ts . The evident result of the whole is, that infants, according to di- vine appointment, have a right to church membership, to the present hour. Then, tlie only question that remains, arid by answering of which, I shall be brought to the close of the inquiry, is this : liavo infants (any infants, for I take them indelmitely) any right to chris- tian baptism ? To this I reply, 1 . That those persons which have a right to be members, should certainly be admitted to mem.bership ; i. e. solemnly recognized. And Vaq reason is, because every cne should have his right. 2. If persons, wiio have a right to be mem- bers, should be received to memberohip ; then, they are to be received, either without baptism, or vvith it. 1 suppose none will say they are to be received without baptism ; for then, if one may be so received, so may ail, and thus baptism will be excluded. I expect no opposition from a Baptist in this place. For if the right of infants to member- ship be once evinced, the oppositioii of a Baptist is over. And there- fore, if he be able to do any thing in this controversy, it must be done before it comes to this. On the other hand, if no person is to be received to membership v/ltiiout baptism ; then every one, who sliould be received, m.ust of necessity be baptized. And so the concluson of the whole yrAi be this : Since infants, therefore, have a riglit to membership, and all v/ho have such right must be received as members, and none should be received without being baptized ; then it follows, that as infants have a right to be received, they must also have a right to be baptized ;• because thev cannot be received v/itliout baptism. G CHAPTER III. JlIaving advanced what I judged essential on both sides, I will now, agreeable to my design, give the reader a scheme of the v/hole. By this scheme the reader will be able to discover what is common to bothsides, and what is the neat force of each. It was in this way, the subject presented itself to my mind, when I was led a second time to take it under consideration. And I persuade myself, that, by adopting this method, the reader will be more capable of judging, in this contro- verted question, which side of the two is the stronger, and consequently which is the true one. I will place the v/hole on one page, that the read- er may have it at once under his eye. I shall place those Scriptin-es, that weigh equal on both sides, at the top of the page ; and the argu- ment against infant baptism in one column, and those for their baptism in the other. I do this, because I know of no method more fair, or more calculated to lead to the truth, as it is in Jesus. SCHEME OF THE COJVTROFERSY, U'c, i5i A Scheme of the Controverfy on Baptifm. I. Those places of Scripture which are common to both sides, viz. Baptists and Paidobaptists. Matt. iii. 6. " And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." iVIark, xvi. 16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Acts, ii. 41. " Then they that g-Iadly received his word, were baptized." Acts, viii. 27. " And Philip said, if thou beiievest with all thine heart, thou anaycst," Sec. }\\ B. The places, and others of the same kind, as they prove the baptism of an adult to be r'v^hU are expressive of the sentiment of Baptists and Pxdobaptists with respect to an adult subject : For both think it right to baptize an adult. And as they prove equally on both iiides, they cannot be urged by either party against the other. II. Those arguments, which are peculiar to each, compared. jY, B. The question is not of adults, in this both are agreed : But *' Arc infants to be baptized ?" .drguments agaitfit Trfant Bajiiis7n. 1. Whoever has a right to a positive ordinance must be ex- pressly mentioned, as having that ric>'ht ; but infants are not so men- tioned, with respect to baptism ; Therefore infants are not to be baptized. 2. The Scriptures require faith and repentance, in ordei- to bap- tism ; but infants have not faith ov repentance : Tiierefore infants are not proper subjects of bap- tism. Ar'^uments for Ivfant Bajitism, 1. God has constituted in his church the membership of infants, and admitted them to it by a re- ligious rite. 2. The church membership of infants was never set aside, by God or man : and consequently continues in force to the present day. .A/*. B, The Baptists admit the first. The other is, by a variety of evidence, clearly evinced. Coroll. ds God has constituted infants church members^ they should be received to member shifi^ because God has constituted it. Dilemma. — Since infants must be received to membershiji ; they must be received without baptism, or with it : But none must be received with^ out buldism : and, therefore, as in- fants must be received, they must of nccesisity be bajitiztd. 52 SCHEME OF THE COA'TROVERSY I shall now only make a few remarks, on the sclicnie ci the con- troversy, and so conclude this part of the subject. 1, At the topof ti>e pa?;e, I have cited some passap:es of Scripture which support the sentiment of both parties, that is, the propriety of bapdzinii; an adult professing- £\ith, See. These, and such like Scrip- tures, which for want of room I have not set dov/n, prove as much on one side as on the other : And, tlierefore, I have said they are com- mon to both parties. Pvly desij^n in piacini^ them at the head of the scheme, is to detect an error incident to Baptists in general ; namely, a supposition that such texts prove only en their side, and against the seritiments of Padobaptists. I ha'e observed this error, in every Bap- tist with whom I have conversed, both before and since niy present sentiments have been known. I once asked a v/orthy Baptist minis- ter, wliat he thought were tlie strongest arguments against Picdo- baptists ? Hq immediately had recourse to such passages as are set down in the scheme. I told him, that these were so far from being the strongest, thai they were no arguments at all against Pxdobap- tists ; but rather proved on their side, in common v/ith Baptists. IMy friend wondering at this, I observed, that Pcedobaptists as well as Baptists held adult baptism ; and as these passages cnly prove adult baptism, they prove nothing more than what is lield by both. When I had made the matter suBlcicntly plain, cur conversation on this sub- ject ended. He, however, called on me the next day, and said, I am really surprised at what you said yesteidriVj and could- hardly sleep for thinking of it. The error I am guarding ngainsf;, is that of claiming an exclusive right to those Scriptures, which do not exclusively belong to them. It is by means of this common error, that the Baptist cause is main- tained ; for it gives it tlie appearance of strength, w]\en in reality it has none. Pvlr. Booth sliall come forward as an example, since he is as deeply tinctured v/ith this error as any of his brethren. In vol. ii. p. 415, he says, "" The Baptists have no creed of subterfuge to evade the force of any argument formed upon it [I Cor, vii. 14-,] is plain, I humbly conceive, from the preceding rejections. No, while they have both precept and example on their side," c^c.—- Both precept and example on their side ! Tliis looks very formidable indeed ; but let us examine the phrase. Fray, INIr. Booth, what do you mean by the Baptists' side ? Do you mean adult baptism i if you mean this, it is only passing a deception upon the reader ; for you must know that Paidobaptists liave no dispute with you upon that subject. You certainly know that they both hold and practise adult baptism ?3 vvcll as you, and that what you call your side is no more your's than it is their's. But do you mean the denial Cf infant baptism? This you shcula mean when you distinguish your side from their's ; for herein it is that you and Psedobaptists take dllierent sides, seeijig thoy aftirm, and you deny, that infants are fit subjects of baptism. If so, then you aHirm thi t Eapasts have both precept and example for the denial of infynt baptism, ^/hich is indeed properly your side. No, Sir, very far from it ; you have neither precept nor example, on your side, i\i all the word of God. You have nothing in the world on your side, as you are pleased to call it, but tv/o poor sophisms, i. c. a prjr of I O.V BAPTISM. 53 bad, very bad arguments, which I have placed togetlier in one col- mnn. But the truth is, when you speak in so lofty a tone of the Bap- tists' side, as having* both precept and example, you only mean that adult baptism has tliese. Pray, Sir, do you and Paidobaptists take opposite sides on the article of adult baptism ? If not, why is it your side so peculiarly ? Yon have said in this quotation that the Baptists have no need of subterfuge : Ciood Sir, what is a sublerhige ? Is it an evasion — a deception ? Why do you call that your side exclusively, which is no more your side than it is the side of the Pxdobaptists ? Was it because your own real side [the denial of iniant baptism] was weak? And did you wish, by a dextrous shift, to make it pass for strong ? Pr.iy Mr. B. is not this a subterfuge ? It is very extraordi- nary that you should fiy to a subterfuge, and in that very place too where you say the Baptists do not need any. And v/hereas most dis- putants make use of subterfuges only when they actually need them, \ou mr^st be a genius of a very peculiar cast indeed, to make use of a subterfuge, when, as you yourself say, there is in reality no need of any such thing. By this the reader may perceive hov; necessary it is to keep these things clear in his own mind, if he v/ishes to form a judgment on this subject according to truth ; for though the Baptist side has in reality no strength at all, yet it accpiires the appearance of it from the mis- representation v.'hich I have endeavored to expose. I have, therefore, been the more desirous of placing this matter in a fair light ; because, though frequently called to speak on the subject, I was not for some years aware of the deception. Let the reader keep in view those Scriptures at the top of the Scheme, which weigh equally on both sides, while 1 pass to the two columns, where the arguments of both are placed in opposition to each other ; and by comparing these, v/e shall see which is the stronger, arid therefore, v/hicii is the true side of the question. 2. If the reader will turn to the Scheme, he will see, on the left column, what is the neat strength of the Baptist side, and what argu- ments they produce against the baptism of infants. I have there set down two argmnents which are urged by Baptists : The one taken from a vvant of express precept or example to. baptize in- fants ; the other from their want of capacity to believe and repent, Sec. These two are tiie only arguments they can produce ; and if they are not good, they have nothing good to urge. Witli respect to the first, that there is no express command or example for bap- tizing infants, the same is true respecting female communion ; and so this argum.ent, if it were good, vvould have a double effect: It would exclude infants from baptism, and females from the Lord's supper. And then the Baptists would be right in refusing to baptize iriiants, but, at the same time, they would be v»rong in admitting females to the Lord's supper ; but on the contrary, if v. omen have a right to the Lord's table, though there be no express law or example for their ad- mission, then the argumerit is lyood for nothing. I shall say more \ipon t-ins wliQTi I ccme to examine Mr. B's. defence of female com- munion. U' :iCHEM£ OF Tin: COS^rTROyrni^Y As to tlie other ar^jument, T nietin that taken from the incapacit/ <>i inl"«,:;is to believe and repent, it io ncthinjj more than a sophisnri. I have discovered its fallacy by apply inrtjg' more into the conclusion than was in the premises : Ali this the reader may observe by recurrin^^ to the pjo.ce where it is ex- uinined. The c(msequen«ii; is, thai the Baptists have nothing to place a;^-ains: infant baptism but two misound, sophistical, deceitful argu- ments. Tills is the sum total of the Baptist side ; but if any Bapti^^t think he .s able either to maintain these two arg'uments. or to produce any thing better, I seriously invite him to the task. o. On the opposite coiunui I have placed the ar^-uments for irif^nt baptism. Then* order is the most simple, and the whole consists of three parts : 1. That God formed a church on earth, and constitut- ed infants members of that church :- — :2. That the membership of in- jlmVs, from that time to this, has never been set aside by any order of God ; consequently it still remains : — -3. Tliat as infants have a di- vine riglit to membership, tl\ey must be received as members ; and as tney must noi be received v.ithout being; baptized, they must be bap- lized in order to be received. Tnese are the ari;uments in one column, v/hich are to be compared with tnose two on the Baptist side in the other ; and by comparinj^ them to:j;ethcr, the reader may see on vv'hich side tlie evidence ]n-e- ponder^tes, and constfjuentiy on which side tiie truth actually lies. There are three parts c/a the right column, which link into each oth- er) and form a stronv^- cliain of evidence, to be placed in opposition to Ivro fcdsc sopiiistical argun-ients, which constitute the wdioie force on the Baptist side ; that is, there is sornethhig to be placed af^ainst nothing — substantial evidence against a pair of sophisms : And this is to be (Xont^ that the reader may see which has the stronger sid<', and vvlrich the true. As iar as concerns myself, 1 only ;-ay i have, ;xfter many supplications for tlie best teaching, examined, compared, and decided, and am well satisiicd with the decision : The reader, il' h.e be a man tearing God, will go and do likewise. — So nmch for tl'.e comparison ; a lev/ v/ords on thv' evidence, by itself, v.ili hnish this part of the business. The nature of this proof, on tiie side of infants, is such, that Ba]> iists can on]/ attack it in one part : e.g. If I aTirm, as iij the first part, that God did constitute infant members of his church, the Baptiits j^rant they were once church niembers. if I affirm, as in the thirtl, ihut every one who has a right to be a church member, has a right to he baptized, they are compeded to grant that too. So there remains Lut one point on whicii a Baptist can form an attack, and that is the ?>ceond p-art, \»herein i say, tiiat the church membership of iniants iiaving been onc6 an institadon of God, it was never set aside eithei- by God iniincdiately, or by any man acting under the authority of God.. I'iuii is the point then that decides the question. — I will spend 'p. few words in vindicatin:^ t'' i^ turning njin; ar„-ain3t the ar^W!n::7itiiv}. ud hj::i;;ian ri^ade use of bv Mr. Dccth. ' 'SM. ■ .> In nvippoit of tMs I have arg-iTcd from five topics : Coci's mel'ioc! •<\ actii>i^ in brliijnnf^ the GcDtiJes into a church state ; — there never v.is a la\y of God to set their members'! ip aside ; — the vTev.s, iiv ' hrist's* time, h?.d no appreiicnsion of any such thing ; — Christ f:]^oke of infants as actually bfch}nc^in{; to the church, and his Apostle pl.iccd them in the same relation tf> baptism as they had been in to circunicis- ion ; — and St. Pan!, in conformity to this srhcme, baptized familicc, ]>artic'.\ktr(y the jailei' and iuX his straight vay. Iiach of these is al- ready set forth., vrA evinced in its proper j^hice. But what do tiic Baptists place ac^ainst this evidence ? Mr. Booth., in answering Dr. Williams on this subject, does neither produce one Scripture to prove that the church members-iip of infants, -which he grants to have existed once, vras ever set aside, nor docs he answer those Scrii)t^;res v.'hich the Doctor ha.d alledged to evince the con-' tinuancc of their membership. What then does Prlr. B. do t WJic-^ ever v, ill be at the pains to read liis books, will iind hi':« mode of reas- oning to be of this kind. He instances a variety cf things belong-ing to the Jewish ch.urch, such as its being national — its priesthood — its tithes — its various purifications — its holy places, holy garments. Sec. ; and then argues m.ost erroneously, that as these things are done away, the membership of iiifants must he done avray toe. This, I say, is the mode or his arguing, and indeed the only argument he brings, as may be seen by any one who rends his works with care. Now tliis- reasoning of his is guilty of a very egregious aljsurdity, and a very material error in point of chronology. I. A very egregious absru'dity. Mr. B. seems to consider the va- rious rites, Sec. of the Jewish church as being so incorporated and in- terwoven vrith the iTiembers of that church, that the rites and they become essentially the same ; and then, if the rites be taken away, he fancies that the very essoinee of the church is so destroyed cr alter- ed, that infant membership is gone of coiu'se. Let any one v. eigli Mr. B's. reasoning in vol. ii. p. ST, and understand him on any other than this absurd principle if he can. " An A^postle," says hf>, " hag- taug-ht us, that tlie ancient priesthood being changed, there is ti?j\g of necessity a change also in the law. That is, as Dr. Owen explaiiis- it, the whole law of comjnandments contained in ordinances, rr the whole law of Moses, so far as It was a rule of worship and o]>edience imto the cimrch ; for that law it is that follov/cth tlie I'ates of the priesthood." Very well. That law was changed, whicli Avas a nile of wors'nip and obedience to the cliurch ; but what has this to do with changing the church ? Is a church changed because the rule, Mhich directed its worship, is changed ? I wonder much why Dr. Owen ii here introduced, unless it be to pass off an absurdity under the sanc- tion of a great name ; as nothing can be more contraiy to what ?»ir. B. is going to say thaii this quotation from the Doctor. Now see Ivir. B's. curious reasoning. " We m.ay therefore adopt (he siiould have said, corrupt) the sacred writer's principle cf reason- ing, and say, the constitution of tlie visible church being manife':tly and essentially altered, the law, relating to qualiScations for commun- ion in it, must cf necessity be changed. Consecpiently no valid in- ference can be drawn from the membership of infants^ under the for- 56 SCHEME OF THE CO.YTROVERSY nier dispensation, to a similarity of externa] privilege under the new covenant." Now in what way could the constitution of the church be essentially altered by a change in the law of ordinances, unless up- on that absurd idea that the ordinances and members were so com- pounded and incorporated v/iLh each other, as to form, in this incor- porated state, the very essence of the church ? One thing we may remark in this quotation, which is that Mr. B. grants infants to have been church members under the former dispen- sation. This is granting my first argum.ent for infant baptism ; there is only one more to be maintained, viz. That the membership cf in- fants has never been annulled ; and this being evinced, the opposition cf a Baptist is at an end, since he cannot by any means deny the con- clusion. And now the whole debate is brought into this narrow limit — has the, church membership of infants at any time been set aside, or has it not ? I have advanced five argum.ents to* prove it never ha-s been set aside. Mr. B. says it has. If you ask him to prove it, he tells you " the constitution of the visible church is manifestly and essentially altered." If you ask him how he proves this essential al- teration ? he tells you that tithes, and purifications, and priesthocd, and other things of this kind belonging to the Mosaic code, are changed or taken away ; and then most absurdly infers, that infant membership is taken away too : As if a member cf a church and a Mosaic rite had been the same ; as if iniant membership, which was long before Moses, had been nothing mere than a Mosaic rite. But let us observe how grandly he reasons down infant membership. " We may, therefore," says he, " adopt the sacred writer's principle of reasoning, and say." — I have been at some pains to inform myself respecting this sentence — whether Mr. B. meant to imitate the Apos- tle's phraseology, or to reason after the same method, or to reason from the Apostle's datum or principle, viz. " the priesthood being changed." I was at length inclined to view the latter as his meaning ; because it seemed too trivial to tell the reader in that pompous way, *' We may adopt the sacred writer's principle of reasoning," when nothing more was meant but imitation of phraseology. For the same reason I thought he could not mean an imitation of the Apostle's method, for that would be only saying, he should lay down a datum as the Apostle had done, and then drav/ an inference as the Apostle did. All this is very well, and sccundein artem ; but then he might as well have told the reader that he v/ould adopt Aristotle's principle cf reasoning as the sacred v/riter's. For if Mr. B. only meant that he would lay down a datum or principle to begin with, and then proceed to infer, it can signify nothing to any man living unless his datum be a true one. And if this be all, he need not have introduced it v/ith such pomp as " the sacred writer's principle of reasoning ;" for what other would any person adept unless he were an ideot ? This, as well as tjie other, being too trifling to be Mr. B's. meaningf, I therefore concluded he meant to adopt the Apostle's datum, viz. " The priest- hood being changed," and from thence to drav/ an inference against infimts. 1 was the m.ore inclined to think he intended this, since lie had just cited the Apostle's Avords and Dr. Owen's explanation of them ; and this being done, he immediately proceeds to adopt. O.V BJPTISM. 57 The Apostle docs indeed say, " The priesthood betnr; changed, there is made of necessity a chwir^e also of the law." The priesthood implied servants of the church to minister in holy thiiiifs ; the la\v was a commandment contained in ordinances, and was, as Dv. Owen 5iaid, a rule of worship ai,d obedience to the church. The piiests who were to n)inister, and the law, which was to reeulatc, were both chang-ed : The law was changed in consequence of a cliange in the priesthood. Well, and v/hat then ? Why, according to Mr. B. the argument will run thus : The priests wjre changed, and the rule of worship was chang-ed, therefore the churcii was essentially altered, therefore infants were excluded. — Is not this a good inference, the priests were changed, therefore infants were excommunicated ? It might have been so if the priests had all been infants ; but even then it would only have concluded against infant priests. Every argument Mr. B. has brought against the continuance of infant cliurch mem- bership is of the same kind — tithes, puriiications, lioly places, ^c. and of these the reader may take which he pleases.; and infer accord- ingly. Tithes are abrogated, therefore inumts are excluded. Puri- fications are set aside, therefore infants are shut out. Holy phices, Sec. are no more, therefore — not so fast — if Mr. B. is to make good his conclusion against the perpetuity of infant membership from that datum of the Apostle, "• The priesthood being changed," let him have the liberty of wording liis own arguiiient — I have no cbjecti&ii to this — let him proceed. " The constitution of the visible cliurch being essentially altered" — Stop — Pray, Sir, is this the Apostle's principle of reasoning ? Do you, by that sentence, mean the same as is expressed by the Apos- tle, " The priesthood being ciianged r" If you do, I will not con- tend for a word — Proceed — '"'• The constitution of the visible church [that is, the priesthood] being essentially altered or changed, the law, relating to qualiacations for comniunion in it [that is, in the priest- hood] must of necessity be changed : Consecjuently [because the priesthood is changed] no valid inference can be drav/n from the membership of infants [that is, in the priesthood] under the former dispensation, to a similarity of external privilege under the new cove- nant." Bejie conclusuin est a clato scripioris nacri ! And an excellent argument it is against ail those who mean to bring up their infants to be Jewish priests. Ah^ aliqids error latet I Islw B. did not mean to concIn.de so : He is disputing against infant baptism, and not against inla:U priesthood. Very well ; but then he must have a very different datum. He is certainly at liberty to dispute and conclude as he pleases, only let him do it fairly. I certainly supposed he was reasoning from the sacred v/riter's principle — " The priesthood being changed ;" he had just quoted it, and set Dr. Owen to expla'n it, and said, " We may adopt it:" But that principle, as to infants, only concludes against an infant priesthood, which was not the thing he intended. Priests, we said, were servants to minister to the church in holy things ; and if so, tliere is a wide difference bctv/een the priest! lood being changed, and the constitution of the visible church (namely, the mem!3er.i that constitute it) being essentially altered. The same may H 53 SCHEME OF THE COXTROVERSY be s'lid of all tlie instances mentioned by Mr. B. ; these mi,5ht rJi be clia-oi'-ed or al3rogat2d, and yet no essential alteration take place in the church, that is, in tlie members of it I am very suspicious that Mr. B. to make out a better conclusion, meant to pass it upon the reader^ that the Apostle's expression, " the {iricsthood bc-lug changed" and thcit cf his, ''''the consiituUo7i ofthevidhlc church being- e.'^sentiaUy cdicred^'' were of the same import, and conveyed precisely the same idea. If t:;is was really his design, it is not much to his honor ; it mufet pro- ceed from a greater love to hypothesis than to truth, or, as I rather think, it arose from that absuixl idea which he &eem.s to cnteilain — that the priesthood, rites, and ordinances, which were given to the church, were essentially the same with that church to which they were given. And it is on this absurd principle that his opposition to the continuance of infant membership is carried on ; he turns tlie priesthood into a church, and every institute into an infant, and theu contemplates the change of the one, and the removal of the other. In the change of priesthood he sees nothing but an essential change in the church, and fancies the removal of institutes to be the removal of infants. And now he Mi]! adopt tlie principle of the sacred v/riter ; —The priesthood is changed, therefore the church is essentially al- tered ; this institute is taken away, there goes an infant ; that institute is abrogated, there goes another iniiint ; and nov/ all the institutes are gone, and now all the infants are gone ; and then, says he, " no valid inference can be dra\vn from the membership of infants under the former dispensation, to a similarity of external privilege under the new co'/enant." — \Ve vv^ili nov/ leave IMr. B. in possession of his ab- surdity, and take notice of, II. A very m.aterial error in point of chronolcgy. With respect to chronology, most persons know that fi-om the time of Abraham to that cf instituting the priesthood. Mosaic rites, S^c. we may reck- on about four hundred years. During this space of time, the church in which infants were members, was not national ; it had no levitical priesthood, there was no institution of tithes, nor was the Mosaic code of rites yet formed. Ail we know of the church is, that its members consisted of a-dults and infants, v/ho were initiated by the same rite ; that sacriiices were offered ; and, it is probable, that the father of the family, or some respectable person, did officiate in their assem- blies as a priest. Here is a congregational church, a simple worship, and some creditable officiating priest. If we carry our views forward, we shall see that church, which at first was congregational, become a national church ; the worship that v/as once simple, under the direction of the Mosaic code ; and instead of a priest ciiosen by the people, a regular priesthood is ordahied of God. Now whether we view the congregational or national ibi-m, the simple or complex worship, the irregular or regular priesthood, "we see no alteration in the constitution of the church, much less an essential one, as it respected the members of v/hich it was composed. If, therefore, the passing from congregational to national, from a sim- ple to a complex worship, from an irregular to a regular priesthood, produced no essential alteration in the church members, then should «y[i this be reversed, should there be a clian^e from national to congre- OA' BJPTISM. 59 gational, from a complex to a sim])le worship, from a rcp;uiar to an h-regular priestliood ? Every man in his senses must see tJ. U this can no more alter the esse.'ice of the clijrch than the other did. Ail this is plain enough to any man except Mr. B. ; for, accord- ing to Jiis mode of reasoning, there must have been, from tlie beg-in- iiir.g, I know not how many essential alterations in the conr,dti5tiGnof the visible church : For if, as he will have it, a chaiigc of priesthood made one essential change, then the institution of the same priesthood must have made another — so there were tv\'o changes. And, not to say any thing of the changes from Adam to Abraham, wliat became of the essence of tlie church when the functions of this priesthood, dur- ing the captivity, were suspended? For if the changing of priest- hood did essentially alter the church, the institution of priestliood must Iiave done the same ; and then its suspension during the captivity, and its restoration at the close of it, must have made two more ; be- cause, according to Mr. B's. viev,' of things, a ch.ange of priestliood essentially alters the church. Such is the absurd idea he entertains concernine: the church of the living: God. I observe that Mr. E. in opposing the continuance of infant mem- bership, takes care not to go too far back ; the period of Mosaic rites suits him best, and there he fixes : For this ?rra, as he vainly supposes, furnishes him with weapons which he docs not sparingly use, especially against a dissenting minir'.ter. Here he iinds not only infant membership, but a national church, a priesthood, tithes, and in- stitutes of various kinds. Nov^, says Mr. B. when reasoning with a dissenting minister, (for we must know that these weapons of his would be esteemed by a clergyman as rotten wood) now, says he, " If you will plead for the continuarice of infant membership, which I grant to have existed, you must also admit a national church ; you must '^all yourself a priest, and wear holy garments, and turn your commun- ion-table into an altar, and demand tithes, and call your meeting a holy place." But why all tl-'s ? Because, says he, all these things belonged to the same dispensation as infant mem^bership did ; and so if you take one, you must even take all, and then you vrill have a tol- erable body of Judaism. Now before we rob Mr. B. of this miserable weapon, I v/ould just observe that this argument of his, which is the only one lie has got, is what is called ar^unicnitian ad honiincm ; and, though often used, it is one of the weakest that can be adopted. It is calculated to make an impression on some mien, v/hose sentiments may be of a peculiar cast ; but if the same be turned against others who arc of a different sentiment, it is of no force at all : — e.g. IVir. B's. argument has the ap- pearance of strength, if used against a dissenting miriister ; because he may reject the idea of a national church, priesthood, tlie right of tithes, Sec. ; but if the same be urged against a clergyman who admits these, all its ibrce is gone — it is even good for nothing. Tins argu- ment derives all its force from the sentiments of the person against whom it is used ; it may be very strong against one man, and very we ik against anothef ; it v/ill serve to support error as well as trutli, and, tiierefore, when it is a solitary argument, no dependance who.tG.y-' er c^n be placed upon it. I do nt-Jt mt-an to ciiscavd the I'se of it in all cajvs — I grant it may answ ' ; &0 SCHEME GF THE CGjXTRQVERSY but tills I say, it should never l-^e a man's only jirgiiment ; for that man's cause iiiustbe miserably poor indeed v/hich depends en one sc'- itary argument that will either protect truth or falsehood. Just such is the case of Mr. B. in oppohing the continuance of infant meniber- sliip ; and I wish him to consider seriously Avhelher such kind of reas- oni.'ifj is fit to stand against a plan of God. Now, weak as this ars^ument is in itself, there is one thing in r>Ir. B's. case which makes it still worse ; he is indebted for the use of it to a very capital absurdity. As he is not able to prove an essential jilteration in the constitution of the church, he most absurdly suppos- es, or seems to suppose, that members and religious institutes do be- long to, and equally constitute the essence of the church of God ; for what else but such an, absurd idea could induce him to affirm that the church was essentially altered, and so infants cut oft", merely because the institutes of the church v/ere abrogated ? Now, though this argu- ment of his is so exceedingly weak, and the principle on which it is built so very absurd, tliat no one need be under any apprehension, sltould it remain quietly in his possession, I mean, notwithstanding, to take the liberty of changing liis place, and flzdng him in that station, wliere he shall feel himself totally deprived of its assistance. Mr. B. must certainly know that the national form of the church, the institution of the priesthood, tithes, and other Mosaic ordinances, were of a much later date than infant church membership. I take the liberty, therefore, of changing Mr. B's. standing, and putting him as far back as the patriarchal age, the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Ja- cob. And now having placed Mr. B. among the patriarchs, I wish him to take a view of their ecclesiastical an'Jrs, and to indulge me at the same time with a little free conversation on that subject. Now, Sir, what do you perceive in this age of the church ? Here you see the venerable patriarchs, obedient to the divine order, admit- tm^ infants to church membership. But on the otiier hand, you see here no national church, no instituted priesthood, no lav/ of titles, nor indeed any Mosaic rites. Your favorite argument against the con- tinuance of infont membership, derived from a national church, the le- vitical priesthood, tithes, £cc. is, by falling back about the space of three hundred years, fairly and irrecoverably lost. You liad formed so close a connexion between infant membership, a national church, a priesthood, tithes, and Mosaic rites ; as if they all rose into existence at the same time, and were all to expire together. But here they stand entirely apart ; infant membership is in no alliance wi<"h a na- tional church., is totally unconnected with Icvitical priesthood, and has nothing at all to do with Mosaic institutes. The close union you fancied existed between these does here vanish away. And nov,-, Sir, what will you do with a dissenting minister in this case ? Your argu- Tncntum ad hominem^ the only argument ycu had, is lost. Lost, did I say ? — Nay, now I think of it, it is not lost neither. Oh no 1 so far from it, that I believe I can put you in a way where- by you may manage your matters to far greater advantage. For though, by putting you back to the patriarchal age, I deprive you of tliose topics with which you have been able to combat a dissenting minister, viz. a national church, an instituted priesthocd. Mosaic rites, &c. J yet all is not lost, ycu vvill here fnid topics, which, if managed vvllli dexterity, v/lli make no inconsiderable im]i\'ession on a clergy- man. You observe, Sir, that inftint membership hus nothing to do with a national church, priesthood, tithes, &cc. ; and then, should any clergyman rise to defend the continuance of infant membership, you nray say to him, INiy good Sir, if you insist upon infant church membership now, which I myself grant to have existed hi the times of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob ; pray observe the consequence ; you must relinquish the idea of a national church, you must cease to call yourself a priest, you must lay aside your holy garments, and finally, you must give up all your tithes. For, if you Aviil be a patriarchal professor in infant membership, you must be so in every thing else. If you vrili conform to the patriarchs in one particular ; in the name of consistency and common honesty, I ask, v/hy are you not a con- formist in every particular ? You see, Mr. B, that this is argumeiitiim ad hounuem against a cler- p;yman v/ith a witness, and will mxake him fed according to its im-pcrt- ance ; for certainly it will bring him into as great a diiliculty as your other argument of the same kind brought Dr. Wiliiams. — Well, what a happy invention ! Here is an expedient, by which you will be able to annoy either a clerical, or a ncii-con opponent. Before, when you fixed your station among the Mosaic rites, you could only act with advantage against a non-con ; but now, if you only step back three hundred yea.rs, you miay employ your artillery as successfully against a clerical antagonist. And thus by stepping backward or forv/ard, according to the cast of your adversary, which is a thing easily done, you will have it in your pov>'er to urge something against all comers. This is one of the best inventions in the world for your cause ; for as you stand forth as a great disputant against infant m.em^bership, it is probable yovi will meet v/ith antagonists of all kinds. This expedi- ent, like the two edges of a svrord, or the two horns of a dilemma, v>qil enable you to meet an adversary at all points. Sliould you at- tack a dissenting minister, be sure you fix upon Mosaic rites ; but if a clergyman should prove an antagonist, you know your cue, quit that station, and fall back to the patriarchal age ; and so by humour- ing the business, you will be a match for both. Excuse my officious- ness in suggcMing any tiling, especially to you, who are so well versed in all the turns of disputation ; i only do it because this thought seem- ed to escape you. Candid Reader, I have now dene with this part of the subject, and have only to say, that of ali the miserable oppositions that were ever set up against an ordinance of God, I mean infant membersh.ip in its perpetuity, I think there never was a more miserable opposition than this. The Baptists grant infant church membership to liave ex- isted once. I have aliirmed that it still exists ; and this being proved, tile opposition of a Baptist is at an end. I have argued from five dif- ferent topics in proof of the perpetuity of infant membership. Mr. B. who denies this, urges ag-ainst it one solitary argument ; and th.at even the weakest of all arguments, the argv.intiiium ad hominrin ; and this same solitary v/eak argument is founded on a gross absurdity ; and finally, by removing Mr. B. from the Mosaic ritjs to the patriarchal age, this solitary, absind arg\micnt vanishes like a ghost, arid utterly forsakes him. A P P E N D I X. A SHORT METHOD WITH THE BArTIT^TS. I T is a certain fa.ct, th?-t when any sentiment is false, it will appear the more glaringly so the more it is examined, and the farther it is dra%vn out. I have been very attentive to the tendency of J/Ir. Booth's reasoning, and have pledged myself more than once to take some notice of it. When a vv^riter does not wish to be prolix in an- swering a large work, it is best, if he think the v/ork erroneous, to pitch upon some prominent parts, in which tlie fallacy of the anther is sufficiently palpable to run down and ruin his whole syLtem. I will adopt this method v/ith Mr. B's. performance, wherein he expresses the sentiments, and pursues the reasoning of the Baptists in general. It is his second edition of Pssdobaptism examined, to which my at- tention will be chiefly directed, as that subject, on which I shall more directly animadvert, is not handled in the answer to Dr. Williams, the doctor, in his piece, having urged notliing upon it : And indeed it does not signify which of Mr. B's. books is cpiot^id, so far as I shall notice him. The sentiment of the Baptists, respecting a fit suoject of the bap- tismal ordinance, divides itself into two parts : They affirm that be- lieving adults are fit subjects of baptism ; — they deny that baptism should be administered to infants. When supporting what they af- firm, the subject runs very smoothly : and no man that I know, ex- cept perhaps a Quaker, will deny the conclusion. For my own part, I am as v/eli persuaded that a believing adult is a fit s>ibject for bap- tism as ever I was in my life ; and I neither have, nor mean to say, one word against it. This is the common sentiment of Baptists and Pxdobaptists, and is not, as Mr. B. falsely and boastingly calls it, the Baptists' side. As far, therefore, as the proof of adult baptism goes, it is all very well, and exceedingly plain from Scripture, and is ad- mitted, without dispute, by both parties. But v/hen the Baptists are brought to answer for their negative part, viz. infants are not to be baptized, their difficulties instantly com- mence, and the mode they adopt of conducting the debate, drives them into such extremities, as ruin the cause they mean to carry, e. g. Is an infant to be bciptized ? No, says a Baptist. Why ? Because baptism, says he, being a positive ordinance, no one can be deemed a proper subject of it but by virtue of some plain, express command of God. This idc/. of express command they raise so excessively high, that sure enough they have done the business of infants in cutting tiien7 off from baptism ; but, at the same time, and by the same pro- J SHORT METHOD, tjfc\ eS cess, ^ breach is made in famale communion, and women are cut off from the Lord's table.— This is the Ih'st thing that rises out of their system, and which Avill co-operate with others to ruin it. I undertake to prove that, accordinj^ to the principles and reasoninj^s of the I3ap- tists, a woman, however quaiiiied, can have no right at all to the I-crd's supper. Again, the Baptists, in order to patch their system, and p^ivc it th.e appearance of consistency, arc under tlie necessity of maintainini^ the rifrht of females to the Lord's table, upon the same principle en which they oppose infant baptism ; but \rheh they set about this, they make a shiit to lose their principle, are transformed into Pjc- dobaptists, reason by analogy and inierence, and fall into }>revaricatiori and self-contradiction, the moat miserable. — This is t!ic second thing-. I, therefore, undertake to shov/, that the Baptists, in proving against ini'ants, and in defending female communion, do shift their ground, contradict them.seives, and prevaricate most pitifully. Further, Avhen an argument is urged against tJie Baptists from the membership of infants in the ancient churcli, and their being, all in- fants as they v/ere, the subjects of a religious rii.-e, the liaptists do not deny the fact of their membership ; but, in order to evade the conse- quence, they lay violent hands on the church, the membership, and the instituted religious rite, and in this way they endeavour to effect their escape. — This is the third thing. I, therefore, undertake to prove that, according to their principles and reasonings, the ever blessed God had no church in this world for at least lifteen hundred years. There is another thing I thought of introducing against the Bap- tists in this way ; but as I know not hcv/ they v/ill answer it, (since Mr. B. has said nothing about it, though it was in a work v/hich he himself has noticed) I intend now to put it in another part in the form of a query, which I shall submit to any Baptist who may think proper to write on the subject. Here are, therefore, three tilings that arise out of tlie baptist sys- tem, and which, if fairly evinced, are suHlcient to ruin that sysiem cut of v/hich they arise ; 1. That, according to the principles and reasoning of the Baptists, a v.oman, however qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord's table. 2. That the Baptists, in opposing infant baptism, and defending female communion, do sliifi tlieir ground, contradict themselves, I'Jid prevaricate most pitifully. 3. That, according to their principles and mode of reasoning, God had no church in this world for at least fifteen hundred years. These things I undertake to make out from the worl:s of that ven- erable champion on the Baptist side, the Rev. Mr. Abraham Bootli. I will begin v.ith the first of these, viz. That, according to tlie ])ri\iciples, £cc. cf the Baptists, no woman, ho\\ever quaiifed, cau have any right to the Lord's table. But before I proceed to the proof, it v/ill be necessary to observe to the reader, that baptism and the Lord's supper are both considered by Mr. B. as positive ordinan- ces, which X vrill not dispute witli him^ but do grant them to be such. €4 J SHORT METHOD The reader, therefore, will remark, that as Mr. B's. reasoning, by which he opposes infant baptism, is founded upon tliis, that baptism is a positive institute ; the same reasoning is also applicable to the Lord's supper, because that is likewise a positive rite. This Mr. B. will not deny, nor can he deny it, without overturning his oami system. Then, as the institutes are both positive, and the same reasoning will apply to both, I undertake to prove, 1. That, according to the principles and reasonings of the Bap- tists, a v.'oman, however oualilied, can have no right at all to the Lord's supper. That I may make this matter as plain as possible to the reader, it will be needful to set down various topics from which female right to the Lord's supper may be, or is at any time evinced. I say then if Avomen have a right to the Lord's table, that right must be proved from some or all of the following considerations, viz. From their be- ing in the favor of God^ — from their fitness for such ail ordinance as godly persons — fromi the benefit it may be to them — from their church membership — from their baptism — or, lastly, from some express pre- cept or example in the vrord of God. Let us form each of these into a question. Qi'c^.tion 1. Can the right of a v/omanto the Lord's table be proved from their interest in God's favor ? JnsTjer. Mr. Booth says, No. Vol. ii. p. 227, " But supposing ii were clearly evinced that all the children of believers are interested in the covenant of grace, it would not certainly foliov*' tliat they are entitled to baptism. For baptism, being a branch of positive v/orship, [and so the Lord's supper] depends entirdy on the sovereign Avill of its author ; which will, revealed in positive precepts, or by apostolic examples, is the orJij rule of its a.dministration." — " So far is it from being a fact, that an interest in tlie new covenant, and a title to posi- tive institutes, [baptism and the Lord's supper] may be inferred the one from the other." Page 228. " All reasoning from data of a mor- al kind is v/ide of the mark." A^'ote. No interest in tlie covenant of grace, or the new covenant, however clearly evinced, can give any right to a positive institute, i. e. either to baptism or the Lord's supper. Then a woman, being in the covenant of grace, or in God's fa.vor, har no right on that account to the Lord's supper ; for all this depends only on positive precept or ex- ample. Qu?stio?i 2. Can the right of females be provod fi'om their suitable- ness to that ordinance as godly persons ? Answer. Mr. Booth aiTirms it caimot. Vol. 1. p. 227. "But when our divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a positive command, says, ' It shall be so ;' or, when speaking by an apostolic example, he declares, ' It is thus,' all our own reasonings about^//2^ss, expediency, or utility, nuist hide their impertinent heads." Vol. ii. p. 228. *-This being the case, we may safely conclude that all reasoning from data of a moral kind, and the supposed fitness of things, is wide of the m.ark." Vol. ii. p. 389. "But were we to admit the great Vi . tringa's presumptions as facts, viz. That the infants of believing par- ents are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, p. 377, yet v/hile positive ap- WITH THE BAPTISTS. 65 poiiitments are under the direction of positive laws, it •would not fol- low that such children should be baptized. J\otc, Our being; sanctified, and thereby possessing a fitness for a positive institute, gives us no right at all to that institute, be it what it may. No right to any institute, according to IVIr. ]]. can be in- ferred from sanctification of the Spirit ; and all our reasoning from fitness, or su.pposed fitness, is altogether impertiUvMit, and must hide its impertinent head. So no woman, Mr. li. being judge, has a right to the Lord's table on account of her being a sanctified or godly per- son. Quefttion 3. Can the riglit of females to the Lord's table be proved from the benefit or usefulness of that ordinance to them ? Answer. Mr. Booth denies that it can. Vol. i. p. 23. " Seeing baptism [and t'le Lord's supper too] is as really and entirely a posi- tive institution as any that were given to the chosen tribes, we can- not with safety infer either the mode, or the subject of it, from any thing short of a precept, or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance." ^^^ol. i. p. 227. " \Vhen our divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a positive command, says, ' It shall be so,' or, when speaking by an apostolic example, he declares, * Iti is thus,' all our own reasonings about fitness, expediency, or utility^ must hide their impertinent heads." Mac. To reason from the utility or benefit of TuI institute is quite an impertinent thing ; so that wc cannot say, the Lord's supper may be useful to females, therefore females should be admitted to the Lord's supper : For, as Mr. B. affirms, we cannot with safety infer either mode or subject from any thing short of precept, or precedent, recorded in Scriptvu'e, and relating to the very ordinance. Questhn 4. Can this riglit of females be proved from their c'mrch membership r Ansu-cr. Mr. B. says it cannot. Vol. i. p. 22. " Nor does it ap- pear from the records of the Old Testament, that when Jehovah ap- poirited any branch of ritual worship, he left either the subjects of it, or the mode of administration, to be inferred by the people, from the relation in which they stood to himself, or from general moral pre- cepts, or from any branch of moral v/orship." In the answer to Dr. Williams, p. 441, Mr. B. says, " But had our author proved that infants are born members of the visible church, it would not thence have been inferrible, independent of a divine precept, or an apostolic example, that it is our duty to baptize tiiem. For as baptism is a positive institute," Sec. jVottf. Mr. Booth says we cannot infer the right of a subject as to positive ordinance from the relation he stands in to God, not even from church membership ; consecjuently the membership of a female gives her no right to the Lord's table. Qw'stion 5. Can the right of females to the supper be proved from their baptism ? Aufswer. No, says Mr. Booth. Vol. i. p. 22. "Nor does it ap- pear from the records of the Old Testament, that when Jehovah ap- pointed any branch of ritual worship, he left either the subjects of it, or the mode of administration, to be inferred by the people, from I 66 ^4 SHORT METHOD the relation in which they stood to himself, or from general moral precepts, nor yet from any other ivell-knoivn positive rite." Pag-e 23. *' We cannot with safety infer either the mode, or the subject of it [a positive ordinance] from any thing- short of a precept or a prece- dent, recorded in Scripture, and relating- to that very ordinance." This is the burden of Mr. B's. song-. jYjte. Baptism is a well-known positive right; and Mr. B. denies that the mode or subject of one rite could be inferred from another, consequently baptism can infer no rig-ht to the Lord's supper : For, upon Mr. B's. word, we cannot infer either mode or subject from any thing short of precept or example relating to that very ordinance. Now as the right of females to the Lord's table cannot, upon the prin- ciples of tlie Baptists, be proved from any of the preceding topics, there remains nothing to screen them from that consequence which I am now fastening upon them, but some express command or explicit example. I come in the last place, to inquire. Question 6. Can the right of women to the Lord's table be proved from any express law or example in holy scripture ? Answer. Here Mr. B. affirms — and I deny. It v^^i.ll be necessary here to give tlie reader a complete view of Mr. B's. defence of female communion. This defence is very short, but on his principles, it is the most curious, most diverting, most mean, that (I think) v/as ever offered to the public. It is in vol. ii. p. 73, 74, and is as follows : " In regard to the siipposed want of an explicit w^ari-ant for adn\it- ling women to the holy table, we reply by demanding : Does not Paul, when he says, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat, enjoin a reception of the sacred supper? — 1. Does not the term (mthrojios, there used, often stand as a name of our species, without regard to sex? — 2. Have v>^e not the authority of lexicographers, aiid, which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for un.der- standint^ it thus in this passage ? — 3. When the sexes are distin- guished and opposed, the word for a man is not anthropos, but aneer. This distinction is very strongly marked in that celebrated saying of Thales ; the Grecian sage was thankful to fortune that he was antlira- pos^ one of the human species, and not a beast — ^that he was aneer^ a man, and not a woman. — 4. liesides, when the Apostle delivered to the church at Corinth what he had received of the Lord, did he not deliver a command — a conrmand to the whole church, consisting of women as well as men ? W^hen he further says. We, being many, are one bread and one ix>dy ; for we are all partakers of that one bread ; does he not spci'.k of women as well as of men ? — 5. Again, are there any pre-requisites for the holy supper, of which women are not equal- ly capable as men ? — 6. And are iiot n.ale and female one in Christ ?'* This is the whole of the defence, and I confess I have been often di- verted in reading it ; I thought it a curiosity as it came from the pen of Mr. B. M^ho is so great an enemy to all inference and arjalogy re- specting positive institiitcs 1 The v/hoie of this dcftnce I have divided into six parts, and these, for the sake of greater plainness, are distinguished by strokes and figures. Mr. B. in these six parts, aims at three distinct arguments : rr/27/ THE BAPTISTS. 67 The first is taken from the v/oid cmirojios, ir.an, which inciudts the three first parts ;" the second is taken froi>i Faiil's addrebs to the clivirch as a body, and takes in the fourth part; the third is from the condition and quaiihcation of females, and couiprehends the two last paiti. Since Mr. B. offers this defence to the public as proving an explicit V. arrant for female communion ; we must, therefore, first of all lay down the precise idea of the term explicit. Explicit denotes tliat Vv hich is direct, open, and plain ; and which im.mediately strikes the mind without reasoning upon it; e. g-. Act3 viii. 12. ** They were baptized, both men and women.'' Here the reader instantly dis- cerns both sexes, without inferring from any otI)er pLice. And hence the term explicit is opposed to implication, i, e. any thing included under a general word. And it is likewise opposed to inference, i. e. proof drawn from some other place. An explicit warrant, therefore, is such as strikes at once ; and precludes the necessity of implication, reasoning, or inferring from some other topic. Such a warrant Mr. 13. insists upon for infant baptism ; and this brings him under ti:-e ne- cessity of producing the same for female communion. Which if he be unable to do, all he has said against hifants will literally stand for nothing, and iils bpoks on that subject will be even worse than v/aste paper. — Now fcr the explicit warrant for female communion. 1. Vv"e begin with the argument from the v.ord anthro/^os, man, concerning which Mr. B. says three things to evince an explicit war- rant. And first, Does not the term anihrojios, man, often stand as a name of our species witiiout regard to sex ? What a lame set-out to- wards an explicit warrant ! Often stand as a name of our species ! That's admirable on our side ! This is wha.t the learned call presump- tive evidence, and this is what Mr. B. produces towards an explicit warrant. Does he think presumptive and explicit are the same ? AVhatever advantage Mr. B. may wish to take, yet 1 would not grant tills v/ere I in his place, lest some rxdobaptist shovdd take an advan- tage of it too. This presumptive mode of arguing on a positive in- stitute will not do Mr. B. inucii ciedlt ; he must certainly put on a Ijctter appearance than this. Well then, in the second place; "Have we not," says Mr. B. " the authority of lexicographers, and, Vvhich is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that pas- sage ?" 1 Cor. xi. 28. Tiie authority of lexicographers! and com- mon sense ! Here is help for the learned, and the unlearned, that both may be able, after consultation had, to pick out an explicit war- lant ! For my own part 1 do not much like the labour of turning over lexicographers at the best of times, and especially for an expli-r cit warraiU ; i. e a, warraiu that sLiikes the mind at once. I rather tiiink M. B. if he wirihcd people to labour for that which should be had v^^ilhout any labour at all, should have sent his inquirers to com- mentators as well as to lexicographers, to know hovv the Apostle used tlie word in question. But suppose we depend on the autiiority of these lexicographers, it may still be proper to ask, how it is they know in vv^hat numner the Apostle used this word I Do they know by analogy, or by Inferring from other premises ? Ah ! Mr. B. ! I fear 68 J SHORT METHOD these gentry would betray you. And to give you your due, you do not seem to place much coniidence in them ; for you say, that the au- thority of common sense is incomparably more. Common sense! Hardiy one in hve hundred is able to consult a lexicographer, and therefore Mr. B. in order to make his explicit warrant explicit, furnishes help to the unlearned. Well, common sense, since it pleases iVIr. B. though you do not understand Greek, to submit to your determination, whether anthropos be an explicit word for a woman ; and so, whether there be any explicit warrant for female communion : I will take the liberty of asking a few ques- tions. Do you know what Mr. B. means to prove from 1 Cor. xi. 28, Let a man, anthropos^ examine himself, &:c. ? Yes, he means to prove an explicit warrant for female communion. Very well. What is an explicit warrant ? It is that, the sense of which you instantly perceive, witliout the necessity of reasoning upon it or inferring it from some other part. Can a warrant be deemed explicit, if it be not founded on explicit words ? ('ertainly not, for the words constitute the warrant. If the word mithidjws^ man, be used sometimes for a male infant of eight days old, John, vii. 22, 23, and perhaps a hundred times in the New Testament, for a male adult only ; and nine- teen times in the Septuagint and Nev/ Testament, to distinguish the male from the female when both are named ; would you, eifter all this, consider it as an explicit word for a woman ? No, it is impossible. Mr. B, says, he has your authority for understanding it, as a name of our species, i. e. comprehending male and female, in this place ; but if this word be not an explicit Avord for a wcnian, how do you know that v/omen as well as men are included in it ? I conclude it from this, tliat women as well as men were baptized, that they were re- ceived into tlie church ; and therefore must be implied in this word. — So, so I You conclude it by ana,logy, implication, and inference I These are fine materials for an explicit warrant. Cito in cdlam abi^ and take your authoj-lty with you lest Mr. B. should Hog you in his next publication for talking so much like a Pxdobaptist. But if the authority of lexicographers and common sense will not bring the business home, Mr. 13. is determined to make use of his own authority. He has no other way of preserving the credit of his book ; and, therefore, he will even risk his ovm reputation ratlier than lose his explicit w^arrant. He ventures in the third part to say, that, '*• when the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not anthrd'-ios but anctr'' This is Mr. B's. own, and he himself is accountable for it. The assertion is made use of to give a color to his explicit warrant ; and it was, no doubt, the necessity of his case that drove him to this. He had prer:sed the Piedobaptists, through a great part ot his 875 pages, to produce an explicit warrant for infant baptism ; and having thereby forged a chain for himself, he is now en- tangled in his turn. It is sufficient for me, in this place, to say, that this assertion of Mr. B. is utterly false. I have already presented the reader with nineteen instances out of the Septuagint and New -Testa- ment, which lie directly against him. Mr. B. in order to pass off this assertion of his with a better grace, has given us a quotation, though jiot at all to the point, from Diogenes, out of his life cf Thales. WITH THE BAPTISTS. 60 What I have to say respecting the quotation is this, that had Diogen- es, or any one else, affirmed the same as Mr. B. (which he has not, nor Thales neither,) I would have linked them togetlier as two false Avitnesses. And I say farther, it seems a marvellous thing, that Mr. B. should be so well acquainted with Thales, and his biographer Di- ogenes ; and at the same time so excessively ignorant of his own Bible. This is Mr. B's. first argument to prove an explicit warrimt ; and the parts of which it is composed are three. It is said, indeed, "a three-fold cord is not easily broken." But Solomon did not mean such a cord as Mr. B's. ; his is what people commonly call a rope of sand, which will by no means endure stretching. Here we have, in this part, a presumption to begin with ; and next, implication and in- ference ; and lastly, a broad falsehood to close the whole. This is Mr. B's. method ofmaldng up an explicit warrant ! And every one knows, that when presumption takes the lead, it is no wonder if falsehood should bring up the rear. 2. I come now to take notice of his second argument, taken from Paul's address to the church as a body ; and which takes in the fourth part of his defence of female communion. His words are these : " Besides, when the Apostle delivered to the church at Corinth what he had received of the Lord ; did he not deliver a command — a com- mand to the whole church, consisting of women as well as men ?'* When he further says, " We being many, are one bread and one body ; for we are all partakers of that one bread ; does he not speak of wo- men as well as men r" This is IMr. B's. way of producing an explicit warrant ; did he not deliver a command to the whole church, consist- ing of women as well as men ? and did he not speak of women as well as men ? It was Mr. B's. place to show by explicit words, that he did speak of women as well as men ; but since he has only proposed his questions, and has not himself afhrmed any tiling, he seems willing to tlirow the work of inferring oft' irom himself upon the reader. Mr. B. is an artful disputant, he knev/ that reasoning by inference, which he had so often exploded, would be highly unbecoming in him ; and there- fore, to avoid that, he puts it into the form of a question, as if he would say, I leave you, my reader, to draw the inference. If by the command in this argument, Mr. B. means these words, " Let a man examine himself," kc. he had spoken upon it in his v/ay before ; and if it had contained any explicit warrant for female com- munion, it was certainly in his power to show it : Tliere could, there- fore, be no necessity to produce it again, and especially in the obscure manner he has done. But if that be the command he intends, I defy him to show one explicit word for female communion in any part of it. He has, indeed, in what he thought fit to advance upon it, ventured a presumption, an inference, and a lalseliood ; of all which I have spoken sufficiently already. But I rather think he means some other command, because he in- troduces it with the v/ord, "besides," as if intending some fresh mat- ter. And if so, I know no more than the pen in my hand, what command it is he drives at. But be it what it may, he asks, whether it was not to women as well as men? And I, on the other hand, de- ci-.ij-e I neither knov/ what it v/as, nor to whom it was directed. It 70 J SHORT ynrrnoD certainly was his duly lo have specified what the coinmr.M'! v/as ; and if it was a conimand to receive the Lord's supper, he should Uicn have proved that females were as explicitly named therein as males. Does Mr. B. think, that, after all he has said about express commands, he liimstlfis to take any thing for granted ; or to foim a conclusion by a guess ? It must be absurd in a man like him, Vvl^.o, v/hen he pretends to produce an explicit warrant, talks to his reader about some un- kriown command ; and then, instead of specifying what this command was, and showing that women were expressly named tlierein ; leaves him, in the best way he x:an, to conjecture the whole. Mr. B. having e:rpressed himself plainly on the first argument, did thereby lay himself open to detection, and it became an easy business to expose him for his presumptive argum.ent, his inference, and his falsehood ; but he has saved himself from that in his second argu- ment merely by the obscurity of his language. Saved himself, did 1 say, by the o]:jscurity of his language ? No, far from it. A ma.n ren- ders himself sufltciently ridiculous, who comes full of his e:;plicit warrant for female communion, and then says to his reader. Did not the Apostle deliver a command to women as well as lo men ? And did he not cp^^ak to women as well as to men ? When it was his business to show that he did, and to bring explicit words to prove it. o. I advert lastly to Mr. B's. third argument, which is taken from the condition and cjualification of females ; and compreher^ds the two last parts. Thus he expresses himself: *' Again, are there any pre- requisites for the holy supper of which v.^cmen are not equally capable as men ?'* And are not male and female one in Christ ?• — I have no reason to complain of the ambiguity of this argument any more I ban that of the hrst ; it is sufficiently plain, that even he that runs may read it. I shall, therefore, only briefly observe upon it, that The mode of reasoning, which Mr. B. has openly adopted in this place, as that of analogy. The analogy lies ]>etween the male and the female, thus : Thai the one has the same pre-recpsisite for the Lord's table as the other, a.nd both the one arjd the other are in Je- sus Christ. From hence arises an inference : If both have the same relation to Christ, and the sanic pre-requisitcs for tiic holy supper, then the female must, by just consequence, ha^e the same right to the holy supper as the male. Welf said, Mr. B. 1 This is so neat, that I could almost fmd in my heart to forget that explicit warrant which you had spoken of some time ago. Now you talk like a logical mar; — and a generous man too ; for your last is better jy far than your first. It must be much better to be thus open, than to hazard your reputation by any thing forced, or any thing talse. You see what a good thing it is to have .analogy and inference ready at hand, and how admirably adapted they are to help at a dead lift. ^Ve should not despise any help, as we knov/ not how soon we may need it ; and, to give you your due, you have been neither too proud nor too stubborn to make use of this. You may be the more easily excused for what you have said aguinit analogy p.nd inference, for as you are a Baptist, what you have said was a mat- ter of consistency ; but now you are become a patron of female ccm- munionf the case is altered, and you are altered vrith it. But, at the \ WITH THE BAPTIST!^. 7t name time, tliis Is no more than what all the Eaptlr:t'^, with whom I have ever conversed on the subject, have done ; and if it will be uny comlbit to you in this case, I can tell you, with great certainty, that I have met with many of your fraternity who have been as great chan^-elin^s in this business as yourself. At present I only blame you for this, tliat under the colour of explicit proof, you shoidd intro- duce, and endeavom* to pass oif, nothing- better, l)ut something far worse, than hiferential reasoning. I would just remark on wdiat Mr. B. has advanced in support of his explicit warrant, that the defence he has set up carries in-»it its own conviction. I mean with respect to the number of particulars — the ' ■inner in which they are proposed^ and the matter of which they .isist. Nc>\7 it is the nature of an explicit warrant to show itself instantlv to the mind of the reader ; and its own evideiice is the stron;^est it can have : Tlie consec^uence is, that he who really produces one, nei- ther can, nor does he need, to streng-tlien it by any reasons he can ad- vance, e. r;. ^Vere I called upon to produce an explicit wan-ant for L^male baptism, I would only ailed ge those words in Acts, viii, 12, " They were baptized both men and wTjmcn." These wcrds strike the mind at once, and no reasoning wdiatever can add any thing to ilieir strength or evidence ; but Mr. B. by introducing six particulars, -'lows plainly that neither of them is explicit, and that it is not in his ) ;ver to produce a.ny explicit warrant at all : For had any one of these ocen explicit for female communion, he might very well have thrown away all the rest. In this view there is another thing remarkable in his defence, and tliat is, tliat every sentence but one runs in the form of a c[uestion to the reader. Instead of advancing his explicit proof, Mr. B. comes to tlie reader ?>/ forma panlicris^ with his petition in his mouth, as if he Ttld say, O generous reader, grant me what I ask, or — my cause is 'wiiCv I I have been drivin.g against infant baptism with all m.y might, }"ing out. No explicit warrant, no explicit warrant for inlant b:..p- ^ni in ail the w^ord of God ! And now, as I am called upoii fnyself to give an explicit warrant for female communion, I beseech thee, in- fhilgent reader, to admit my presumption, falsehood, implication, inference, and analogy, for explicit proof, and thus in pity save my sinking reputation : And your petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever . I said that every sentence in this defence but one was put in the form of a question. Now what is still more remarkable is this, that that one sentence, wh.ich is the only aflirmative in the w^hole de- fence, should be tlie very falsehood against which I have already pro- duced nineteen instances. If we pass from the number of parts which are contained in this i'etice, a!id tlie manner in which they are presented to the reader, and come to the matter of it, we may say of that, that there is not a single article in it but v/hat is either false, or presumptive, or inference, or analogy, or hnplication. Every part is reducible to one or other of these ; and there is not one explicit word for female communion iougiiout the whole. Such a delt^nce as this would not have dor.c -ry vrell in the hands of a Fc^idobaptist ; but wlien adopted by a 73 J SHORT METHOD Baptist, it is ridiculous in himself, and an insufferable abuse of, and a builesquc upon, his reader. In short, there is no explicit warrant to be had. Now to the point. I was to prove that, according to the princi- ples and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can have no right at all to the Lord's supper. We have seen, on the one hand, that it is not possible to produce an explicit warrant for female communion, and, on the other, Mr. B. affirms that they should not be admitted without one ; the result, therefore, is, that, accord- ing to Mr. B's. mode of reasoning, no woman has any right at all to communicate at the Lord's table : And as Mr. B. agrees with Bap- tists in general in this point, the same is true of the principles and reasonings of them all. — This is the first consequence which I under- took to m.ake good against the Baptists, and from v/hich they have only two ways of clearing themselves. They must either give up their mode of reasoning against infants, or, if they do not choose this, they must produce the same express proof for female communion as they require for infant baptism. As Mr. B. has plainly asserted that there can be no argument for female communion but such as is founded on positive precept or ex- ample, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance, it lies upon him to come forward and produce his warrant, or give up female communion. If I were to answer his book, I would turn the enquiry from infant baptism to female communian, and then put it upon him to m.ake good his conclusion for the right of females upon the very same principles which he employs against infants. And I do now in good earnest put this upon him, and heartily invite him to the task, being verily persuaded that if this subject were thoroughly sifted, it would be the speediest method of adjusting the debate. When I had compared what Mr. B. had said against infants with what he has said in defence of women, I have been ready to su.spect that he designed his book should operate on the Pxdobaptist side ; for, when speaking against infant baptism, he carries his demand of express, unequivocal, and explicit proof so high, and enlarges upon it so much, as if, by making it exceedingly remarkable, he wished some one to compare the whole with his defence of female communion, and perceived that the moment this was done, the cause of the Baptists would fall. And had Mr. B. been a person whose character for in- tegrity was not known, it would have been a matter of some difficul- ty with me to determine whether he did not design, in a covert way, to run doAvn the Baptists' side ? But knowing him to be a man of good reputation, I readily acquit him of this ; yet I think, at the same time, that his book, though writteJi on the Baptist side, v/ill do more towards overturning the Baptist sentiment than any one that has been Avritten for many centuries. Thus much for the first consequence, viz. that, according to the reasonings of the Baptists, no woman has any more right to the Lord's supper than an infant has to baptism. But they, not liking this con- sequence, are induced to set up a defence of female communion on the ground of express warrant ; and in doing this, they prevaricate, dis- card their own principle, reason by analogy and inference, and fall in- triTFT THE BAPTIST^: M to setf'conlraclifctldn : This is the second consequciide 1 haVe before mientioned, and which I will now plainly evince. Mr. Bootli) in vol. ii. p. 509, expresses his stirprise at the incon* sistency of Pa:dobapti^As with each other. "But is it not," says he, " I appeal to the reader, is it not a very singular phxnomenon in th*; religious worlds that so many denominations of Frote^itants should ail a;^ree in one general conclusion, and yet diflcr to such an extreme about the premises v»dicnce it should be hiferred ?" I'othiS I Only say, if it be a very singular phxnomenon for a number of persons to be in- consistent with each other^ it must be a more singular one still for one man to diiTcr from himr.elf. ^Ve will take a view of Mr. B. in a dou- ble capacity — as a patron of female communion, and as an opposer of infar.t baptism. Mr. B's. defence of female com.munion does not take up one cleat* page ; the falsehood, and the quotation made use of to set it off, make up more than one third of the defence ; so there are oidy nineteen lines remaining : I will, therefore, select some passages from his op* position to infant baptism, and place them against what he has ad- vanced, in tliese nineteen lines, in defence of female communion. I do this to show that a Baptist cannot maintain that ground on Vv^hich he opposes infant baptism— that he is compelled to desert his own principle, and does actually prevaricate, and contradict himself; from which) as v^ell as from other topics, it will appear, that the cause of the Baptists is a lost cause. I shall now^ introduce Mr. B. in his double capacity. I. When Mr. B, is an oppoSer of infant baptism, he spcaketh oi\ this wise: Vol. ii. p. 223. " This being the c:.se, ^ve may safelv conclude that all reasoning from data of a moral kind, and tlie suppos- ed fitness of things, is wide of the mark/' Vol. i. p. 227. " Bnt wheil our divine Lord, addressing his disciples in a positive comrmand, says< * It shall be so,' or v.hen, speaking by an apostolic example, he declares, ' It is thus,' all our ov/n reasonings dhontjltiicss e^ipcdiency, or utility, must hide their imipertlnent heads." But when JMr. B. becomes a defender of female communion, he expresseth himself thus : Vol. ii. p. TS, 74. " In regard to the sup- posed want of an explicit warrant for admitting Women to the holy table, we reply by demanding- — ^Are there any pre-requisitcs for the holy supper, of vrhich women are not equally capable as men ;" Thus Mr. B. He only asks the cpiestion, and leaves the infeience to the reader. This is artfully done, for fear he should seem to prove a right to a positive institute by inference. The reader is desired to observe that Mr. B. in opposing infant baptism, will adm.it of no reasoning from moral data, or the supposed fitness of things, and says that all such reasoning is wide of the mark. And he likev/ise says, " that all cur reasonings about fitness — must hide their impertinent heads." But, in defendirig female communion, he asks, " Are there any pre-requisites for the holy supper, of which women are not equally capable as men '*." Here Mr. B. the patron of female communion, adopts the same reasoning which Mr. B. the opposer of infant baptism, had declared to be Vv ide of the mark. As the patron of females he will reason from the fitnesB of thines — "are 'M: ^ SHORT METHOD there any pre-reqiilsites for the holy supper, of which women are not equally capable as men ?" As the opposcr of infants, he insisted that all such reasonino-s should hide their impertinent heads. If the pat- ron offe:nales and the opposcr of inf;mts he the same person, he must be guilty of a miserable prevarication ; for he attempts to pass off that reasoninp' uix>n others, which he himself declares to be wide of the mark ; and will needs brin^ those heads of reasoning to light, which he bi'ands with the naine of impertinent, and says that their imperti- nent heads must be hid. This in and out proceeding of the patron of females and op;x)scr of inflmts, I submit to the judginent of the reader, and leave tiie patron and opposer to settle tlie matter the best way he can. II. Again, IVIr. B. when opposing infant baptism, says, vol. i. p. 23, " Seeing baptism is really and entirely a positive institution, we cannot with safety infer either the mode or the subject of it from any thing short of a precept, or a precedent, recorded in Scripture, and relating to that very ordinance." Vol. ii. p. 227. " Baptism, being a branch of positive w^orship, depends entirely on the sovereign will of its Author ; which will, revealed in positive precepts, or by apostolic examples, is the only rule of its administration." And in vol. ii. p. 44, he says, " The inquirer has nothing to do but open the New Tes- tament, and consult a few express commands and plain examples, and consider the natural and proper sense of the words, and then, without the aid of cominentators, or the help of critical acumen, he may de- cide on the question before him." A little after he speaks of express commands and express examples, which is his uniform mode of ex- pression v/hen opposing infants. But when Mr. B. comes to defend female communion, he express- es himself thus : Vol. ii. p. 73. " In regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we re- ply by demanding — Dots not the term anthrofios^ there used, often stand as a name of our species without regard to sex ? Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, which is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that pass- age ? When the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not anthrofios but aneer.'* The reader is requested to notice, that Mr. B. as an opposer of infant baptism, contends for precept, positive precept, express com- mands, or express examples, and says, in his index, that the law of mstitutes must be express. Sec. ; but, as a defender of female com- munion, he takes up with an ambiguous word, a mere presumptive proof — "Does not," says he, "the term anthropos often stand as a name of our species ?" and this presumption he attempts to strength- en by a falsehood, of which I have already spoken. As an opposer of infants he says the inquirer may decide the question without the aid of commentators, or the help of critical acumen; but, as a pat- ron of females, he fii-st furnishes his reader with an ambiguous word, and then sends him to lexicographers to have it manufactured into a positive one. Since it was not in Mr. B's. power to form a positive precept out of an ambiguous word, without the aid of a little infer- ence, he vei-y artfully throws it into the hands of lexicographers and WITH THE BAPTISTS. 7S rnnnnon sense to effect this business for him. And one cannot suffi- ciently admire hoAV tenacious he is oi" express precept Avhen an oppcser of infants, while at the same time, as the patrons of females, he is so very complying, that he can even admit presumptive evidence to pass for an explicit warrant. III. Further, Mr. B. in opposinr^ infont baptism, expresses him- self thus: Vol. i. p. 22. "Nor does it appear from the records of the Old Testament, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritu- al worship, he left either the subject of it, or the mode of adminis- tration, to be inferred by the people from the relation in which they stood to himself, or from general moral precepts, or fiv>m any branch of his moral worship, nor yet from any other v.ell-knov.n positive lite ; but he gave them special directions relating to the very case." In vol. ii. p. 227, he says, " But supposing it were clearly evinced that all the children of believers are interested in the covenant of grace, it would not certainly follow that they are entitled to baptism ; for bap- tism, being a branch of positive worship, depends entirely on the sovereign will of its Author, which will, revealed in positive precepts, cr by apostolic examples, is the only rule of its administration.'' And in the same page he says, " So far is it from being a fact, that an in- terest in the nev/ covenant, and a title to positive institutes may be in- ferred the one from the other." But in proving the right of women to the Lord's table, he says, vol. ii. p. 73, 74, " In regard to the supposed want of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, we reply" by demand- ing—Are not male and female one in Christ ?" As if he should say, if a female be in Christ, which is the same as being in the covenant of grace, she must have a right to a positive institute. Here is a/t and inference together 1 The art appears in this, that Mr. B. would not be seen to draw the inference himself, but leaves that to a Pxdobaptist, who is more accustomed to that kind of work. But leaving Mr. B's. piece of art in shunning to draw the infer- ence, I would desire the reader to attend him once more in his dou- ble capacity. In that of an opposer of infants he affirms, that a right to a positive ordinance is not to be inferred from the relation we stand in to God ; when a patron of females, he will infer their right to the Lord's supper from their being one in Christ ^ith males. As an op- poser of infants, he insists that an interest in the covenant of grace, though clearly evinced, gives no claim to an instituted rite ; as a pat- ron of fem.ales, he contends that if a woman be interested in Christ, she has therefore a right to such an institute . As an opposer, he de- clares it is far from being a fact, that an interest in the new covenant, and a title to positive institutes, may be inferred the one from the oth- er ; as a patron, he will do that which is so far from being a fact : He infers the one from the other, the right from the interest — are not male and female one in Christ ? fie is very inflexible as an opposer, and very pliant as a patron. Subjecta viutata sunt^ et ille cum iUia. So that, however the opposer of infants may diffi^r in his mode of reason- ing from Pxdobaptists, the patron of females finds it necessary to reason in the same way. It is pity the patron and opposer do not agree, as it would certainly Ije for the credit of both to settle on some ijniform modeof lof^ic. f<5 •A SIIORl' METHOD Before I turn from tliis phzcp.omenon in the relir^ious world, I would iust glctiice at Mr. E's. defence cf female couiinunion by itself. Mr. B. should have made tiiis a, distinct chapter^, andsliould have placed a title at the head of it ; but as he has net done this, I \';iU take the lib- erty of doing it for him : and the reader may observe, in the mean time, how the chapter and title will agree, Mr. B. begins his de- fence in these words ; " In regp^rd to the supposed v^ant of an explicit warrant for admitting women to the holy table, v/e reply,'' &:c. This will furnish with a title, which Viill run thus : The Ri^ht of ll'oiusn to the LorcTs Tabk.^ founded on exjiiicit Warrant. N. B. An explicit warrant for females is one where];'! their sex is specified, and ^ opposed to all iinphcation, analogy, and inference.— I'low for tiie Chapter, *' Does not Paul, when he says, ' Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat,' enjoin a reception of the sacred supper ? Does not the term anthro/ios, there used, rfien stand as a name of our species with- out regard co sex ?" [This is presumptive proof,] '* Have we not the authority of lexicographers, and, v/hich is incomparably more, the sanction of common sense, for understanding it thus in that pas^- sage r" [This is inference.] " VVhen the sexes are distinguished and opposed, the word for a man is not antkrojios but aneer'"' [This is false.] " When the Apostle delivered to the church at Corinth what he had received of the Lord, did he not deliver a command — a conir- mand to the whole church, consisting of women as v/ell as men V [This at best is implication or presumption.] " When he further sayjj, We, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partak- ers of that one bread, does he not speak of women as well as of men ?" [This is the same as before ; and Mr. Pierce would have said, " In- •lants," as v/ell as men and women.] " Again, are there any pre^ requisites for the hcly supper, cf which women are not equally capa- ble as men ?" [This is analogy and inference together.] " And are not male and female one in Christ ?" [This is ^\^^^o%J and inference again.] The reader will observe that the Title promises an explicit war- rant, that is, a warrant in which the sex is specified, and which itunds opposed to implication, analogy, and inference ; but the Chapter pro- duces nothing explicit, the whole being nothing more than a com- pound of presumption, falsehood, implication, analogy, and inference. Thus it appears how the Title and Chapter agree, or rather, disagree ; 5ind that Mr. B. himself is one of the most wonderful phjsnomena ivhich the religious world has afforded. The whole of Mr. B's. conduct in this affair brings to mind a pas^ sage of Mr. Alsop, which Mr. B. has quoted in vol. ii. p. 507. *' The reader will learn at least how impossible it is for error to be con- sonant to itself. As the two milestones grind one anotlier &s well a^ the grain, and as the extrenie vices oppose each other as v.ell as the in- termediate virtue that lies betv/een them, so have all errors this fate, (and it is the best quality they are guilty of) that they duel one anoth^ cr with the same heat that they oppose the triith," Mr, B's. tAvo WITH THE BAPTISTS. 77 RilU-stones are his opposition to infant baptism, and his defence of iemale communion. These two militant parts, like the two mill- stones, do operate in hostile mode, and rub, and chafe, and grind each oth^ir, as well as infant baptism, which lies between. And it is cer- tainly the best property Mr. B's. book is possessed of, that it exhibits the author in his double capacity, not only as militating against the baptism of infants, but as duelling and battering himself with the same heat with which he opposes that. Three short reflections on this con- duct of Mr. B. and one apology, will iinish this part of the subject. I. There is something in this conduct very luifair. No man should bind a burden on otheri;, which he himself v/ould not touch with one of his fingers. Can it be deemed an upright proceeding in Mr. B. to cry down all resoning by analogy and inference on a positive insti- tute, and alter that use the same reasoning, and even worse, liimself ? Can it be considered fair to demand, repeatedly and loudly to demand, special, express, and explicit proof, and then put off the reader with presumption, inference, and analogy ? Certainly he should do as he would be done by ; but if this conduct of his be fair, I know not what is otherwise. II. There is something in this conduct very impolitic. After Mr. L. had demanded positive, express, and explicit proof, and had run down all proof by analogy and inference, he should, if he had had but a little policy, have kept that defence of female communion entire- ly out of sight. It was not crafty in him, though there is a spice of it in the defence itself, to suffer that to go abroad, which, wlien set against wdiat he had said in opposition to infant baptism, would run dov>^n and ruin the whole. Kad I been he, and wished rny other ar- gument to stand, I would have taken that defence, and thrown it into the hre. III. There is something in this conduct very unfortunate. It is a sad case that a book should be so v/ritten, that one part shall rise up against and ruin the other. Mr. B. Sampson-like, when opposing in- f.int baptism, thinks he can carry gates and bars and every thing else away ; but when he defends female communion, Sampson-like again, he becomes like another man, that is a Pjcdobaptist : For he reasons, infers, and proves, (set aside his falsehood and presumption) in the ve- ry same way. In one tiling, however, he differs, and herein he is un- fortunate, that instead of killing tlie Philistines, to wit, the arguments of Pr;dobaptists, he falls to combating himself, and destroys his own. What shall v/e say to these things ? I reply, tiiat with respect to myself I say thus much : that as he is unfair, 1 would dislike him ; as he is impoliiic, I would excuse him ; as he is unfortunate, I v.culd piiy him ; and, under all these views, I would make the best apology for him which the nature of the case will admit. Since it is evident that Mr. B. demands express, positive, and explicit proof with respect to the mode and subject of an instituted rite, and as it is equally evident that lie hiuiself reasons on such & rite by im- plication, analogy, and inference, the apology I make for him, and it is the best I can make, is this : That he understood explicit proof, wliich he had so much insisted on, and proof- by inference, which he himself adopted, to mean precisely the same thing, so that when any 78 -i ^MORT METHOD ihino- was p!"oved by Infci-eijcc, Sec. that proof "vvas considered by him us express and explicit. This, I say, is the best apology I can make for those repugnancies, or (if this apology he admitted) seeminc^ re- pugnancies, I find in his bo(.'k. But, methinks, I hear some Pxdo- baptist say, if this apoloijy be good, it will indeed reconc'le some of his inconsistencies, but then he will, at the same time, stand in need of another ; for if express proof and proof by inference be the same thing, I should be glad to know why lie wrote his book at all. To this I can only say, that I have no other apology to make ; ataiem ha.' bet^ let him apologize for himself. Leaving Mr. B. or any one else, to manage these prevarications, S;c. the best v/ay he can, I pass to the third consequence, namely, That, according to the principles and reasonings cf the Baptists, God had no church in this w^orld at least for fifteen hundred years. The way in which the Baptists are driven into this consequence is this : When it is urged against them that infants were constituted church members, and were, by the Lord himself, deemed fit sub- jects of a religious rite, they, in order to avoid a consequence w hich would bear hard on their arguments, endeavor to reduce this church into a mere civil society ; and as they cannot deny the mem- bership of inflmts, they try to escape by destroying the church. Now as this is a necessary consequent of their principle, it will serve to dis- cover the error of that principle of which it is a consequent. Mr. B. in trying to effect his escape in this way, has used a lan- guage, which, if true, will prove that God for many centuries had no church at all in this world. This is Mr. B's. expedient, but it is a desperate one. In vol. ii. p. 252, he calls the then existing church, an ^' ecclesiastico-political constitution." By this compound Avord he seems to consider the church under the notion of an amphibious society; partly civil, and partly reUgious. And he might have like- wise considered, that, as nothing in nature differs more than policy among men, and piety tov/ards God, they must be viewed in all bodies of men, whether large or small, as things totally and at all times distinct. But this Mr. B's. system would not admit. Now in a large body, as the Jews for instance, all laws pertaining to human society, as such, were civil laws ; and all laws, though in tlie same code wlitii' the others, relating to the worship of God, were, properly speai-.iiic", ecclesiastical laws. So with respect to men, when they are u'iced in promoting order and mutual security, they are to be considered as a political state ; but if some or all of these profess piety towards God, and unite in his worship, they are to be viewed as a visible church. And though all the inhabitants of Judea belonged to the state, it will rtot follow that all belonged to the visible church. There Avere with- out doubt some excommunicated persons, some who voluntarily vvilh- drew, and there might be many, who came unto the land of Israel, that did not join themselves to the Lord. There was, tlierefore, no just reason why Mr. B. should confound things, which in their own nature are and ever must be separate. Neither, is it probable he would have done it, if he had not I.^een compelled by his opposition to the Qontinuance of infant membership, IVITH THE BAPTISTS. 79 Thoiif^h Mr. T>. by the phrase ccclcsiastico-polltlcal constitution, lias confounded the church and state, the one beint^ a kingdom of this \sor)d, the other tiie kingdom of Christ ; yet as something of churcli still mn.kes its appearance, the consequence cliarged on Baptist princi- ples may not seem to be clearly evinced. 'Tis true he seems to grant two parts, the political and ecclesiastical ; but if we look more narrow- ly into his book the ecclesiastical part disappears, and nothing will re- main but the political only. In vol. ii. p. 251, Mr. B. has these emphatic words, "To be an obedient subject of their [the Jews] civil government, and a complete member of their church state, were the same thing." Every one knows, that a civil government, be it where it may, is conversant about present things, it is a government among [^elves'] citizens tus such, and is designed to regulate their worldly concerns. An obedi- ent suljject of such a government, is one who quietly and clieerfully submits to its regidations, and seeks the peace and security of that community to wliich he belongs. Now Mr. B. assures us tliat such v.'as the nature of things among tlic Jews, that " an obedient subject of the civil government, and a complete member of the cliurch state, M-ere the same." If this were so it must be because the civil govern- ment was nothing less than the church ; and the church was nothing more than the civil government ; that is, they were both the same thing. It signifies nothing by wiiat name we call this commvmity, whether a national church, or an ccclesiastico-political constitution ; it means no more at last than a civil govcrnmxnt : For, as Mr. E. in- forms us, there was nothing more required in a complete member of what he calls the church, than his being an obedient subject of tlie civil government. Now as this, whatever it was, could be no church of God, and as it is not supposed there v/as a church of a higher na- ture in any other part; it will follow, that, according to Mr. IVs. prin- ciples, God had for many centuries no such thing as a church, properly so called, in this world. What a dreadful ecclcsia^cide in this same Mr. B. ! And when v/e consider that all this results from principle, and is carried on by regular logical process ; what a horrid principle must that be which leads ii man to destroy the very church of God 1 Though I have been a Bap- tist myself for several years, I never till lately discerned this shocking consequence of the Baptist sentiment. And I am much indebted to Mr, B. for an insight intothis, as well as other consequences which ne- cessarily result from the Baptist scheme. And I have no doubt but his book, when nicely examined, will do more good this way than any thing which has hitherto been written on the subject. As Mr. B. to preserve his system, has laid violent hands on the an- cient church of God ; we cannot suppose that that which was con- nected with it could possibly escape. He that could reduce the church into a civil govenxment, will not think it much to manufacture a reli- gious institute into a political rite. What v/as circumcision ? Ac- cording to Mr. B's. Talmud, "it was a sign of camal descent, a mark of national distinction, and a token of interest in temporal blessings." Here indeed is a good match ; a civil institute, and a civil govern- ment ! Now, though there is iiot a vrord of truth in all this; yet this 153 Ji SHORT METHOD honor Mr. B. shall have, and it is an honor I cannot al\vays give hini;^ that in this he is actually consistent with himself: He has secularized the church and the institute together. I will not nov/ contend with Mr. B. whether he has given a true account of the ancient church, and its members ; it is sufficient for my present purpose to take notice of what he has aHimied. Yet I could wish, should he v/rite again upon the subject (as I hope he will,) to see a fuller account of that church, the com]plete mcrr.bcrs of which were only obedient subjects of the civil government. I have never, in my small reading, met with a definition of a church like this ; it is enough for me now that Mr. B. has. My business is not to dispute, but to take it upon his word. I only say, that if such a church did ever exist, whatever it was, it could be no church of God. And as there was no better church, i. c. a civil government^ in any other part ; there was not, on Mr. B's. principles, for many centuries, a church of God, properly so called, in all the world. " An obedient subject of their civil government, and a complete member of their church state, we:^ the same thing." The same thing ! If, then, the complete member was no more than an obedi- ent subject ; the church state could be no more than a civil govern- ment : For, according to Mr. B. they were precisely the same thing. What might be the reason of all this ? Mr. B. shall inform us himself; it was, " because by treating Jehovah as their political sovereign, they avowed him as the true God.'* As it is not my business in this place to oppose any thing Mr. B. says, I shall only take the liberty to ex- plain. What is apolitical sovereign ? He is one Vvho reigns over oth- ers in civil things ; that is, he governs and regulates the aflTairs of this present v/orld. This is the reason then, that an obedient sub- ject of civil government, and a complete church -member, were the same thing ; because all that God had to do with them was, as a po- litical sovereign, to regulate the affairs of the present world. But where v/ould have been the harm of supposing the ever-blessed Jehovah to have been more, infinitely more, than apolitical sovereign I And that he gave his word and ordinances to lead the faith of Christ ? That he sent his prophets to bear witness, that through his name whosoever believed in him should receive remission of sins ? That he formed a people for himself, to shew foith his praise ? Where, I say, would have been the harm of supposing this ? None at all in reality ; the harm would only have been to Mr. B's. system. For had Jeho- vah been a religious sovereign, he would have had a religious commu- nity, and that community would have been a religious church, i. e. a church professing godliness ; and then, an obedient subject of civil government would not have been a complete member ; and then, their institute would have been a religious institute ; and then — what then ? And then Mr. B's. system would have gone to ruin. But he, wisely foreseeing this, takes measures to secularize the whole. He begins at the head, and goes down to the institute. Jehovah must be a po- litical sovereign, that the church may be political ; the church must be political, that the memiiership may be so too ; the m.embership must be political, that the institute may be political also. So all was political J a political sovereign, a political church, a political mem- tVlTH THE BJPTISTS. 81 ber, anci a i7oiitical institute. And now Mr. B. has gained l/is point ; for sure enouph there can be no analogy between a church and r.o church ; and consequently no argument can be drawn in favor of in- fant membership from a church which never was, to a church that now exists. Yes, he has gained liis point, he has run down iiifant baptism ; but, at the same time, lie has eradicated the cliurch of God. Nay, he v/as under the necessity of eradicating^ the churh of God, that infant baptism might be run down. This has given me a notion of infant baptism far different from what 1 ever had. And, if I could say, chat any one thing has satisfied my mind respecting it more than another, it has been this : I saw that infant baptism could by no means be overthrovvn, v/iUiout overthrov.'ing the cliurch of God. Arid for this conviction I am indebted to that very book, on which I have taken the liberty to animadvert. Nothing, therefore, in nature can be plainer than this consequence, that the system of Mr. B. has subverted the chuit:h of God. These are the three consequences which rise out of the Baptist sys- tem, and which, I have said, will operate to ruin that system out of which they arise : Namely, 1. That according to the principles and reasonings of the Baptists, a woman, however qualified, can I;avc no right to the Lord's table. 2. That the Baptists, in opposing iniant baptism., and defending fe- male commur.ion, do vary their mode of reasonhig, contradict them- selves, and prevaricate most wretchedly. 3. That, according to their principles and reasonings, God had no ehurch in this world for many centuries. I shall nov,' close the Appendix by an appeal to the reader ; and thi'? I mean to do in three questions. 1 . Are these consequences real ? To answer this question I need only appeal to the Appendix itself. There the reader may s;atisfy himself respecting their reality. As to the first, it is there evident, that tliere is no explici'. command for female communion ; and, accord- ing to the Baptist system, they are not to communicate vithout : The consequence is, that they iiave no right to communicate at all. With regard to the second, I have placed r\lr. B's. defence of female ccm- 3ni;nion against his opposition to infant baptism ; and v/hat repugnan- cy, prevarication, and seir-contrauicticn, are discoverable in th.ese two, I have presented to the reader, 'i'he third speaks openly for itself, that the besl church in the woiid for many centuries Vvas nothing else but a civil go/ernment. t?. Do tiiese consequences rise cut of the Baptist system ? For an answer to this I might refer the reader to tlie former part of the Ap- pendix ; where he may see in what way they actually do arise out of their system . Their system destroys the rl-^hit of females to the Lord's sui)per, by demandln^c< explicit proof for infant baptism ; because there is no such proof for ieinale communion, 'i'heir attempt to prove the right of females to commune, involves the in in the most mean prevarication and self-contradiction. And in overthrowing the argu- ment for infant baptism taken from t-.ie memi^ership of infants in God's ancient church, they overtlirow the very church itself. In this wav, these horrid consequences owq their birth to tliat bad system. L 32 A SHORT METHOD, is-V. 3. Are such consequences as these wliich rise out oF the Baptist system, suiTicient to ruin that system out of which they rise ? To this I ansv-^er, that if any consequences are sufficient to ruin a system, theje are they. It is a rule in reasoning, that that argument which proves too much destroys itself. The same is also true of a system ; the system that proves too much must follow the fate of its kindred argument, and prove its own destruction. This system, it is true, proves against inHmt baptism ; but there it does not stop, it carries its force stiil farther, it proves against female communion, and against the existence of God's c]iurch : and to complete the whole, it proves against the author who patronizes it. So that if infant baptism fall, they all fall together ; female communion falls, the church of God fails, the author himself, Mr. B. falls, and all by the same fatal sys- tem. For if this system make infant baptism a nulity, it makes fe- male communion a nulity too ; and turns the church itself into a civil government, and turns the patron of it into a self-contradictor.-— This, if any thing can be, is proving- too much ; and, therefore, that system which is productive of such consequences, must itself be de^ stroyed by the consequences it produces. And I appeal to the con- science of any reader whether these consequences have not been prov- ed, and whether they are not sufficient to destroy any system. I call this a short ndethod with the Baptists, because, whatever course they may take, it will serve to ruin their scheme. If, on the one hand, these consequences are suffered to remain as they do now in Mr. B's. book, their scheme will be ruined this way. For that sys- tem can have no pretension at all to truth, which in its consequences inilitates against female communion, and the very existence of the church of God ; and moreover exhibits the patron of it under the shape of a shifter, prevaricator, and self-contradictor. But if, on the other hand, they alter their mode of defence so as to avoid these conse- quences, their scheme will be ruined that way : For then, they will lose those very arguments by which they endeavor to support it. So that let a Baptist, Mr. B. for instance, take which way he will, his scheme will either be overwhelmed with its ov/n consequences, or it will fall for want of arguments. Thus much I say at present concerning the Appendix : And shall now commit it into the hands of God, the eternal patron of truth, and to every reader's judgment and conscience in Iiis sight. A CASE SUBMITTED TO THE CONSIDER ATION OF BAPTISTS. B, EFORE I enter on the Mode of Baptism, I would take the lib- erty of proposing to my Baptist friends a plain case ; not so much a case of conscience as a case of criticism. That on which this case is founded is as follows : It is well known that under the present dis- pensation there are tv/o instituted ordinances ; the one in Scripture is t^xpressed by the term dci/nion^ a supper, the other by bajithma^ bap- tism. The proper and obvious meaning of ^j//:;?c77 is a feast or a com- mon meal, Markvi. 2 1 ; John xxi. 22 ; the proper meaning of bufnisina is said to be the immersion of the whole body. The case then is this : If, because the proper meaning of the term hujitisma^ baptism, is the immersion of the whole body, a person, who. is not immersed, cannot be said to have been baptized, since nothing short of immer- sion amounts to the full import of the word baptism. If this be true, I should be glad to knov,' that as ddjinon^ a supper, properly means a feast or a common meal, whether a person who, in the use of that or- dinance, takes only a peace of bread of half an inch square, and drinks a table-spoon full of wine, which is neither a feast nor a com- iiion meal, and so does not come up to the proper meaning of the word, can be said to have received the Lord's supper ? Mr. Booth, I presume, sa^v this in Mr. Piries' book, but has not .^:en any notice of it ; I therefore request some Baptist friend to turn -bis attention to it. OF THE MODE OF BAPTISM. It appears to me, from the following circumstance, that the Baptists are not so tenacious of the mode as of the subject of baptism. I had been convinced more than four years ago, in reading Dr. Wil- liams' book, that immersion was not essential to bajitism ; and though I preached since that period several baptizing sermons without say- ing a word about the mode, I never heard of any of our 13aptist friends that ever observed that omission ; whereas, on the contrary, had I insisted on the mode, and omitted the subject, I have not a doubt but they would luive noticed i); in the first sermon : And I re- member some years back to have heard a\ Baptist minister say, that the mode of baptism, by immersion only, did not appear equally plain as the subject. Indeed I am persuaded that if it can be made plain to the Baptists that it is wrong to reject an infant, they will soon give up the idea of immersion only ; and it is for this reason that 1 have been the more diR'jse on the subject, and shall now be short on the mode, 84 OF THE MODE All our knov.'Iedge of the maimer of baptizJDJj must, at this dis- tance of time from the first institution, be collected from the word " baptize," the circumstances of baptism, and the allusions of Scrip- ture to that ordinance : These three I will endeavour to examine im- partially, confining myself to Scripture, and the word made use of in the institute. The question, on vrhich this examination is to pro- ceed, is this ; Is immersion essential to baptism ? or, in other v/oids, Is there no baptism but v/hat is by immersion ? I shall begin the in- quiry with that precise term which the Scriptures always use when this ordinance is spoken of, namely, baptizo^ and examine those places in \yhich it occurs either as a novm or a verb, v/here the ordinance is not intended. There is a word coramonly introduced into this debate, viz. bajito^ though it is never used in Scripture, respecting this ordinance ; and this being the fact, I see no great propriety in bringing it into the debate at all ; for let it mean what it may, it can signify nothing to the question in hand unless it had been used by the inspired writers to ex- press this ordinance. I do not, however, shun this term because it ■would be unfavorable to my sentiment, but because I judge it best to examine that vvord, and that only, which the Holy Ghost, when speak- ing of this ordinance, has thought proper to adopt. Neveitheless, that I may not omit it altogether, I would say thus much of the term ba/ito^ that it is a term of such latitude, that he who shall attempt to prove, from its use in various authors, an absolute and total immersion, v.-ill find he has undertaken that which he can never fairly perform. Of the truth of this assertion I would give the plain reader a taste in the following instances. The term bafito then is used to express, 1. The throwing of a person into the mire. Job ix. 31, en rajio me ebafisas. Thou shalt plunge, baptize, or make me foul in the mire. 2. A partial dipping. Matt. xxvi. 23, O embapms met emou en to trublio teen chcira. He that dippeth, baptizeth his hand with me in the dish, 3. A stained garmr;nt. Rev. xl.w. IZ^ imatkn Bcbammcno7i aunati. A vesture dipped, baptized, stained with blood. 4. A human body wet with tlic dew. Dan. iv. 33, afio ton drosoTi toil ouranou to. soma autou ebcjilie. His body was wet, baptized by or from the dew of heaven. 5. The coloring a lake with the blood of a frog. Homer, cbaji-^ tcto de aimaii limne. The lake was baptized, colored, or stained with blood. 6. The smearing of the face with colors or washes. Aristophanes, baptomenos batrachciois. He baptized, smeared [his face] with tavrny "washes ; speaking of Magnes, the comedian, who used to color his face instead of using a mask. 7. The staining of the hand by pressing a substance, Aristotle , Thlibomenos de bajitei teen cheira. Being pressed, it baptizes, stains the liand. So various is the use of the term bapto, that we can only view it as meaning lo wet or stain, and that by whatever mode the nature of the thing to be wetted or stained may require. And I can truly say i' ( OF BATTr^M. 85 have often been heartily sick and sorry Avhen I have observed persons of rminence Ibr learniiuv, especially Dr. Gale, laboring, in opposition to the very instances which they themselves had produced, to prove that this term intended immersion, total immersion, ar-d nothing else. But as this word is never used with respect to the ordinance in ques- tion, and can thererore give us no information concerninij the mode oC it, i shall immediately dismiss it without further notice. I come now to consider the term baptizo^ vrhich is the only term made use of to express this ordinance, and this I shall do by settinj^ dov/n those places where it is used as a verb or a noun wlien the ordi- nance is not intended. These places are as follov/s : Keb. ix. 10. '' Which stood in meats and drink and divers washinc^ — diajihoroishafi- thwois, divers baptisms." Mark, vii. 4. " And when they came from the market, except they v/ash, mec daptiwntai, except they bap- tize, they eat not. And many otlier things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing, baptimous^ baptisms of cups and pots, brazen vessels and of tables." Luke, xi. 38. " And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled th.at he had not first washed, eba/:- tisthee^ baptized, before dinner." The word, in these instances, is used, 1. For those various ablutions among the Jews, by sprinkling, pouring, SvC. 2. For a custom among the Pharisees of washing before meals. 3. For a superstitious washing cf housshokl furniture, cups, pots. Sec With these instances in viev/ I would propose to the reader two questions : I. Is the v/ord baptize used in these instances to express immersion only ? The reader may observe that the very first instance proves it is not. The Apostle plainly expresses the Jewish ablutions by the term " baptism ;" and any man, by looking into his Bible, and reading the account of the Jewish service, may see what kind of baptisms these were. Mr. Booth himsel/', in his ansv/er to Dr. Williams, p. 347, will grant for the sake of argument, that the Apostle uses the term baptisms in this place to denote pouring and sprinkling as well as immersion ; nor does he, in v/hc-.t he has advanced on the subject, de- ny this to have been the fact ; and indeed a man must be very defec- tive in point of modesty who will even attempt to deny this. Well then, if the word baptism is not used in these instances, as it is cer- tain it is not, to express immersion only, I ask, in the next place — Is it used to express any immersion at all ? I will apply this question to each of the instances ; I. The Apostle speaks of the Jevrish service, and says it stood in " divers beptisms." I ask whether immersion of the vrhcle body was any part of that service ? It is clear that the Apostle, by the word " baptisms," intended sprinkling and pouring ; but I believe it is not clear from any part of the Jewish service, that any one vi^as or- dered to immerse himself, or be immersed by another. If this, hovr- ever, can be proved, it mu^t then be granted that tiie Apostle uses the word " baptisms" to denote immersion as well as pouring and sprink* ling ; but if this cannot be proved, it will tiien be c^ ident tliat no im mersiioa at ail ia intended by the v/ord baptisms. 86 Oir THE MODE 2. I will apply the question to Ihe second ca^c — the biipllzin^ be- fore rneals. It is said, " that v/hen they conie from market, except lliey baptize they eat not ;*' and " the Pharisee niarvelled that oin' Lord did not baptize (that is, himself) before dinner." I ask, Is there any inrmersion at ail here ? The Pharisee marvelled that our Lord did not baptize himself before dinner — did he marvel that he did not immerse himself? The Pharisees, when they came from market, except ihey baptize, [themselves] they eat not — did they too immerse them- selves every time they came from a market ? I know it is not an impose sible case, but I am askin;^ whether it is at all a probable thing r And if it be not, then it is improbable that the word baptize in these places should intend any immersion at all. Perhaps some one will say that nothing; more is intended than the washing of hands, as this is agree- able to the tradition of the elders mentioned in Matt. xv. 2 ; and it is v.'-eil known that we dip our hands in order to wash them. Suppos- ing this to be the fact, I reply, that if we dip our hands in order to baptize' [wash] them, then it is certain, that dipping and baptizing [washing] are different things ; — that baptizing [washing] is the end and dipping a mean to tliat end ; — that we only dip so much of our hands as may be necessary to b?^ptize [wash] them ; — and that our dipping the hands in orc.er to baptize them depends entirely on cir- cumstances ; e. g. If I baptize [wash] my hands in a bason, I di]) so much of them as may be necessary to baptize them ; but if I baptize [wash] them at a cock, I do not dip them at all — I only receive the vater as it falls, and baptize [wash] them v.'ithout dipping. And it signifies nothing to us how they baptize [washed] their hands, wheth- er in a bason or at a cock ; for the word " baptize" does not express the manner of doing, or v/hether by immersion or afiusion, but only the thing done, namely, " washing." 3. I now carry the question to the third case — the superstitious baptizing [washing] of household furniture, cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables. Cups, //o^fc.'w— -these, it. appears from the name, \7ere drinking vessels ; pots, orrs/a/— those vessels out of which wine or water was poured, pitchers or flaggons. Brazen vessels, chalkia — were, it is probable, for culinary uses, for boiling. Tables, klijud — some take this word as it is here rendered, others think it means those fccats or benches on which they sat at meals ; and these are sometimes r.-dlled '' ucti^'' beds, perhaps from the leaning posture then in use. The Jews, our Lord observes, held and practised the baptizing of these ; now v/e ask, Does the word baptize in this place express any immersion ? These things, it is plain, were baptized [washed] ; but how they ^vere ba'ptized, no creature living can determine. One thing, how- ever, may be remarked, which is, that all these articles might very conveniently be baptized [washed] by ])oin'ing, Sec. while, on the contrary, it would have been very inconvenient, and even improper, to baptize [wash] otiiers, ~oiz. the brazen vessels and tables, by im- mersion. It is, 1 believe, a general opinion that some of these things v^'ere bajjtized by dipj/irjg — as the cups and pots, and that ethers '^vtre baptizL-d [^i^ashcdj by pouring, sprinkiing, ac. And hence OF BAPTISM K/ i-QCiny learned men have considered the word baptize as CJ^prcssinfij all these modes. In this, however, they appear to me to have been -mistaken ; for the word baptize [wash,] thouii;h it has been applied to ' all modes of washinn;, is not properly expressive of any mode, but iii- I tends only the washing itself, wiiich may be done by either. } The conclusion, therefore, from these instances is tiiis : It is evi- I dent that the word baptize does not intend immersion only ; the va- ; rious sprinklings, pourings, Sec among the Jews are plainly called j "baptisms.** Nay, farther, it is not certain that there was any im- mersion at all hi cither of the baptisms [washiness] before us ; and it ■ is very certain that whether these persons and things were baptized by ') immersion, aspersion, or aflusion, the word baptize docs not express \ either of the modes by which any person or thing was washed, but only the washing itself. And though there has been much dispute a- bout the word " baptize," some alurming it to mean iininersioii only, others aspersion and affusion as v/eli as immersion, yet, ])roperiy speak- ing, it means neither of them. It has indeed been used for all thti modes of washing — sprinkling, pouring and immersing; whereas it does not express the one nor the other, but washing only ; and this may be doac in cither of the modes : And, therefore^ Av]v-n Ave read of any person or thing behig baptized, we cannot coji.clude fvomL the v/ord itself whether it was done by aifusion, aspersion or im- mersion. A3 tiie word " baptize," which means simply to wash, does not de- termine the mode in wliich persons should receive baptism, I will at- tend in the next place, to the circnnistances of that ordinance. Thosa I mean to consider are, first. The placerx where baptism v/as adminis- ^ tered, and, secondly, The preparations for baptism. I I. The places chosen for this ordinance vrere, among others, the river Jordan, and Enon, near Salim., where it is said, tlicre were many waters. This is a circumstance that appears to v/eigh on tlie side ^f immersion ; and if we give it that weight in the scale of reason, ifor v^'hichthe Baptists contend, it will amount to this—it is aprcsum]> tive, but not a certain proof of immersion. That it is a presump- tive proof appears by this — th?ct here was, as far as we know, a lair opportunity for immersion ; that it is no more than a presiimptive proof is evident from hence — that all this might be and yet no im-i mersion. If we say they baptized in or at a river, therefore they bap^ tized by immersion, this would be a good consequence if it were im^ possible to baptize at or in a river in any other way : But since a pel - son can baptize in or at a river by affusion as well as immersion, we can only draw a conclusion in favour of immersion by an act of the fan- cy. However let it be a proof of the presumptive kind, and itcanv.ct possibly be any thing more. Nosv as it is tne nature of presumptive proof to admit of ir.crcase or diminu.tion, tins, like all proof of the same kind, may be Incrtab- cd or diminished. That on the one hand, which serves to increase the presumption on the side of innnersion, is tlrls : That of all who administer baptism, tiiere are none at this time (as far as I know) that baptize in or at a river, but such as use immersion. It may indeed be «aid that all this nutv be uccouuled f^:r: Trie case of Jo!:n ditVered 88 OF THE MODE very mnch from our's : he had vast congregalivons and many to bap* tize, and no house lit to contain them: So that his choosing a river, liioii(?h he had baptized by afTusion, would in his case, have been, on the whole, the wisest plan. And although persons who baptize by affusion, do not now go to a river, yet v/ere they circumstanced with respect to their congregations and accommodations, as JohnM^as, they would, in their choice of place, act in the same manner as he did. Something like this, I suppose, might be said ; but I was willing to give the presumption all its force. On the other hand, the presumption may be diminished by observ- ing, first, that there were many baptizings which do not appear to have taken place at or in any river — as that of Paul, of the jailer, of Cornelius, of those of Samaria, and of the three thousand. And, secondly, there is another thing : It cannot be proved v.ith certainty that even those who were baptized in or at Jordan, Enon, £cc. were — -I will not say totally immersed, but that they vrerc so much as in the water at all. Whoever is acquainted with the indeterminate sense of tlie prepositions en m,* ek, and f?/?o, on which this proof must depend, will be very sensible of this. These occur in the following scriptures : Matt. iii. 6. *' They were baptized of isim, en to lordanee^ in Jordan ;" — en means not only *' in," but " nigh, near, at, by," Sec. Acts vii. 38. "They went down both, cis to udor, into the water;" but 4:is besides " into," often means " towards, near," Sec. Matt. iii. 16. "And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway, a/o toil uddtos^ out of the water." Acts viii. 39. " And v/hen they were come up, ck touudatos^ cut of the water ;" — a/.o and ek very often sig- nify " from." So that whereas it is read in our translation — in Jordan, into the water, out of the v;ater, it will read as well in the Greek — at Jordan, to the water, from the water. This is a truth beyond all dispute, and wellknov/n to every one who is at all conversant with the Greek. And whoever duly considers this will easily be persuaded that it is ut- terly impossible to prove that any one who is said in Scripture to have been baptized, was so much as in the water at all, or that he even wet the sole of his foot. 2. The other circumstance relates to a preparation for the ordinance. Every one who has been accustomed to baptize by immersion, must certainly know, that it is necessary, v/ith respect to decency and safe- ty, to change the dresses, and to have separate apartments for men and v/omen. This is evidently necessary, v»1iether v/e baptize in a river, or in a baptistry. Now it is certain, that altliough -»/e read of m.any baptizings, there is not the least intimation given, either of changing the dress, or of any suitable accommodation for the differ- ent sexes. I'his, though a circumstance that weighs against immer- sion, I consider as being, like the other, only of the j.resumptive kind. For, no doubt, it would be very illogical to say, we read of no change of dress, or separate apartments for baptizing, therefore there was no immersion. * John XX. 4,5, came first f) [e/y] the cepiikhre — Y^t went he not ia. From v.hich it is evident that eis signities to as well as i.ito : and therefore to i^retcnd to \ determine the mode cf ba;)ti5Tn from the sigrii^xcation of that wori is tririi»ig. OF BAPTISM. 37 This presumption, like the other, may he made vU'Dii^-tr or vreaker. It may be made weaker in tl.is vay ; that thoiii^h we read of no changing- of garments, or any separate apartmerits, yet there might have been both ; as many tilings might be done of wliich the Scrip- tures take no notice. ()ji the other side, the preiiumptiou may be made stronger, by observing that there are otlier ca:ies in which men- tion is made of garments, where thiM'e could i)e no more necessity of mentioning tliem, than in the case of ba})tism ; supposing ba])'cism to have been performed by inmiersion. To instance only in tv/o cases ; when our I.ord washed his disciples' feet, it is said, he laid aside his garments. And Luke, speaking of those who stoned Stephen, says, " they laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul." Now if the Scriptures take notice of the putting off of gar- ments for the purpose of washing feet, and stoning a man to death ; how comes it to pass, that as thousands, upon supposition they were baptized by immersion, must entirely have changed their garments, or have done vvorse, the Scriptures should not drop a single hint about it ? Botii these presumptions may be tossed and turned, and streiigtliencd and weakened, just as fancy may dictate ; whereas, when all is said and done, they are no more than prei^umptions still. And when v.c have only presumption in the premises, we can have nothing more than prc- svuuption in tb.e conclusion. To conclude this part respecting tl:e circumstances ci baptism : I will only say, vre have here a goodiy combat ; presumption contending with presumption. One presumption says, that as they sometimes made use of a river for baptizing, it is likely they baptized by immer- sion. The other presumption answers, thvit since it does not appear, that the sexes were decently accommodated for immersion, or that there was any changing of garments, it is tlierefore likely they did not immerse. That presumption replies, that the sexes might be very decently accommodated with change of dress, and separate apart- ments, though the Scriptures shoukl notice neither. This presuujp- tion aiBrms, that persons might be baptized in or at a river, and yet no immersion after all. Now instead of determining which of these presumptions is tlie stronger ; we may learn thus much from the circumsiances of baptism, and indeed it is all we can learn ; and that is, that it is utterly impos- sible to determine, from any information they give, whether baptized persons were immersed or not. Nay, so far are circumstances from settling this point, that we cannot be certain there was a single per- ■ son of all the baptized, v/ho went into the water even ankle deep. This is the true state of facts as they strike me, and all beyond this is the flight of fancy. Since neither the term " baptize," nor yet the circmnstanccs of baptism, determine any thing concerning the mode, whether it is im- mersion or affusion ; I shall in the next place consider the allusions to that ordinance. I know not whether 1 speak accm-ately when I call them allusions ; but the consecpience either way is not material, as every one v»ill easily lUKk-rstand v/hat I intend. Now tiiese allusions tcing of two kinds, I v.iii, for the liuke of distinction, and without iVl V 00 Ox- :c^ MODE Miv dcsij^n of offence, ciiil one the " Baptist allusion," and the other, the '- Pi-^dobapt'.st alhision." — I begin Math, I. The Baptist allusion. The re?cdei' will find this in Rom. vi. 4. " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into d'eathi," ied to express the inihience of the Holy Spirit, takes in both his extraor- dinary and saving' inQuences, Acts, i. 5, 1 Cor. xii. 13. And as these have sometimes taken place in the same persons, the term " !;ap- tize" has been used to express both. Acts, x. 44 — 4G, compared with Acts, xi. 16 — 18. 2. They are often associated in Scripture. How commonly do we read such words as these : " I. indeed have baptized you with water ; but he shall baptize you with the Holy- Ghost." The reader will find this form of speech in the followintj places: Matt. iii. 11. Mark, i. 8. Luke, iii. 16. John, i. oo. Acts, i. 5. — xi. 16. 3. Their mode of communication is expressed in the same way : '• I baptize you, cniidati^ with v»'ater, but he shall baptize you, en pneumaii agioy with the Holy Ghost." And this is done in all the places, only with this difference, that Luke omits the preposition in one meml^er, and there it is understood. 4. Baptism with water, is an emblem of baptism wilh the Holy Ghost. The application of water to the body, as noting the putting avv'ay the filth of the ilesh, shadows forth tlie inHueiice of the Holy Spirit, which being impart- ed to the soul, produces the answer of a good conscience tov*-ards God. Now, if these two pass under the same name ; if both are fre- quently united in Scripture ; if the one be an emblem of the other ; and, if the mode of commvmication in each baptism be expressed in the same way ; then, tl:e way to arrive at a clear view of the mode of outward baptism, is to observe in what manner the baptism of the Holy Spirit is described. This v\'iil lead us to consult a laxicon of a very superior kind, a lexicon worth more than five liundrcd ; and v.hat is more, it is the plain, unlettered man's lexicon, and its title is, '' The lively oracles of God." The article we are to seek for is the term baptize. How does this lexicon define baptizare, to baptize ? Answer — Baptizare tf>t f>ujiervenire^ iilabi^ cffuKckrc — plainly, to i)ap- tlze is — " to come upon," Acts, i. 5. — to shed forth. Acts, ii. oo. — to fall upon. Acts, xi. 15. — to pour out, Acts, ii. IT. — x. ^5. That is, in this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit comes upon — falls upon — is shed forth — is poured out, namely, on the soul. This is the account this lexicon gives of the word "baptize." Mr. Booth, instead of paying a due attention'^ to this lexicon, has^ adopted a method which, when properly adverted to, will do no credit to him or his book. His professed design is to prove that tho term " bapLize*' mean3 immersion, immersion only, and notljing* else. But how does lie do it ? Wliv, he quotes a number of authors, vlio, as he himself says, understood the term to mean immersion, pouring, and sprinkling ; and these quotations he calls concessions. Conces- sions of v.hat ? That the word meant immersion only ? If so, he made them concede what they never did concede, and what they had no tho'oght of concedijig. If they made no concession, as he ac- 9i OF THji Monn: knovvledges they did not, that the term baptize signified iminersiou only, what honesty could there be in prodacini:^ them at ail? Pvlr. B*3. tdeiit is quotation, and therefore he must quote ; but, at the same time, it is a shame to abuse the living op the dead, and it is a bad ciuise that requires it : For wliat else is it but abusing- an author, >vhen he is introduced as ^-ranting that which in iuct he never did grant ? But had Mr. B. consulted, as he oug-h.t, tlxc lexicon I am speak- ing of, it might have freed him from the necesriity of using that litl.Ie art v/hich one cannot obsevve in a disputant with any degree of plea- sure. The authors he has consulted, if they had been all on his side, (and I question whether any one was besides the Quaker.s) could on- ly have tcld him hew men understood the word ; but this lexicon ivculd have showed him bow God himself uses it: And if we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. I ask, What does God witness concerning the term baptize ? Ansv»-.er— From the passages before cited it is evident he witnerjses this — that the term strictly and properly means to v^^ash, to purify. VVliat does God wit- ness concerning the mode of applying the purific m.atter ? Answer — It comes upon, falls upon, is shed forth, is poured out,— Vv'hy then, as water baptism is an emblem of this, and as the mode of applica- tion in both cases is expressed in the same way, we have a witness on the side of pouring and sprinkling in baptism infinitely more certain than that of all the lexicographers and critics in the world. What are ?»Ir. B's. eighty abused critics, even suppose they had all been on his side, thougji I doubtv/hether hehadoneoutof the eighty; and even suppose he had eight hundred m.ore, vvdiat. I say, are all these when compared to the all-wise God expounding and defning his own words ? Mr. B. has a Talmud of his own, in v/hJch he studies circumcision; and ill-treated critics, with whom he impcses on the public in the article of baptism ; and though perhaps he may not yet be ashamed of his Talmud, or his treatment, I believe the time will come vvheu he will be ashamed of both. Notwithstanding the Scriptures, when speaking of the Ijaptism of the Holy Spirit, make use of the phrases — come upon — fall upon — shed forth — poured out, Mr. B. to evade the force of this as it re- spects the mode of baptizing, has recourse to two miserable shifts. In one case he Avould set aside the allusion to the mode, and in the"' other he would make it agree with immersion ; and as these are some- what curious, I cannot very vrell close the subject without takii:»g notice ©f them. 1. To set aside the allusion he takes the following course in his answer to Dr. W^illiams. Page 341, he says, "Dr. W. argues in favour of pouring and of sprinkling from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Thus he speaks : I scruple not to assert it, there is no ob- ject whatever in all the New Testament so frequently and so explicitly signified by baptism as tliese divine inlluences ;" relerring to Matt. iii. 11. ; Mark, i. 8, 9.; Luke, iii. 16, 21, 22 ; and several other places. ]Mr. B. in answer, says, p. 342, " But those passages of Scripture to which he refers, regard that copious and e:itraordinary clfusion [effusion, i. e. pouring out] of the lioly Spirit which was OF BJPT^. :. "■ received by the Apv0stle<5 and ^rst diRciplcs of or.r Lord soon i;A;i ajs a:^censi'3n 'into lieaAcn." The truth is, the term "baptize," whej* applied to the Holy Spirit, is us-d lo denote both his extraordina rv and ordinary influences, even those by vrhicli the mind is renewed r>iu united to Christ : luid so baptism by aiTuslon is tlie most expressi^vc' emblem or the commimication of these influences, more especially las the mode of application is expressed in the same way, and the one is. fairly an emblem of the other. But Mr. B. does not seem willing to admit that one baptism is tfli emblem of the other : — I say, " seem willing," for I protest I do nc^ know, thoui^h I have his book before my eyes, and have looked at il liaif an hour, whether he means to admit or deny it. That which seems the most evident is, he wislies, by any means, to get rid of it, lose it, put it out of sight, forget it himself, and make his reader do so too ; butihen how is this to be done ? Done i why, by the assist- ance of his old impartial friends the Quakers. He suggests that cur vievving v/.v»er baptism as an emblem of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, will operate against its pevpetui\:y. To evince this he intra- duces the Quakers as reasoning in the following manner : " Water baptism vras divinely appointed, eaid continued in force till the death of Christ ; but as that rite had for its object the descent of the Holy Spirit and his divine infiuences, no sooner was the promised Spint vouchsafed to our Lord's disciples, than the obligation to regard wa- ter baptism entirely ceased. For baptism in water being only an em- blem of the promised baptism in the Holy Spirit, wliy should the for- mer be continued after the latter has taken place i" This, he says* or something like it, if he mistake not, is the Quakers' principal ar- gument ; and, for aught he perceives, it is equ^iily forcible v/ith that of his opponent. I confess I am not suaiciently versed in tlie Quakers' mode of re:^- soning to know v/hether Mr. B. has done them justice. He lirst makes them say that baptism continued till the death of Christ, and then tllat the obligation to regard it ceased v, heii the promised Spirit was vouchsafed : So tnere are two periods for the expiration of bap- tism. But I have no dispute vvith tlie C^iakers ; I know they are only brought in here as a blind, that Mr. B. by getting behind them, might withdraw more easily. I am persuaded he does not aj)prove of their argument— he only wanted to get rid of the allusion, and he has got rid of it ; but it is in the same way as the Quakei-s get rid of the two ordinances : Nay, far worse ; for vvhereas they do this by argu- ments which they deem good, but Mr. B. has done it by sucli reason- ing as he himself would be ashamed to adopt. Tiiis is Mr. B's. miserable way of getting rid of the allusion, viz. by giving the readei* a Quaker's argument. I will nov/ adveit to his other shift, by v.hich, 2. He attempts to m^ike the allusion agree v^ith immersion. The mode, as I have before said, of communicating the inJluence of tiie Holy Spirit is in Scripture expressed by coming upon — Liiling upon — shedding forth — pouring out, and this mode of communication is expressly called baptizin-^. Now whilst most persons have considered il:e baptism of the Holy Spirit as favouriir^ atfusionj Mr. B. Vtiii wsx- 5Ct OF THE MODS ' dertake to show that it is expressive of that idea for wliich he contendi^j - amely, immersion. This is an attempt in which I could wish him p- ich success ; for if he can make it appear that pouring out, and i^^\ nersing into, are the same thing, then neither v/ili he have any i*^ .son to complain of those that pour, nor will those who pour have '^^■^ / reason to complain of him. I fear it will prove a hard task j let ^is hear him however. In vol. i. p. 101, he speaks of " an electrical bath so called be- cause the electrical fluid surrounds the patient." Well, and what then ? " This philosophical document reminds me of the sacred his- torian's language, Vv^here, narrating the fact under consideration, thus he speaks : ' And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all v\^ith one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from Heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all THE HOUSE WHERE THEY WERE SITTING. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like asof hre, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all hlled v.ith the Holy Ghost.' Now, says he, if the language of medical electricity be just, it cannot be absurd, nay, it seems highly rational, to understand this language of inspiration as expressive of that idea [immersion] for vrhich we contend. Was the Holy Spirit poured out ? Did the Holy Spirit fall upon the Apostles and others at that memorable time ? It was in such a manner and to such a degree, that they were, like a patient in the electric bath, as if immersed in it." This electric bath is a pretty fancy, a happy invention for Mr. B. ; it is well he did not live before it was found out, for then what a fine thought would have been lost. Though the Holy Spirit fell upon, was poured out, yet, says he, it was in such a manner and to such a degree, that they were like a patient in the electric bath, as if immers- ed in it, that is, immersed in the Holy Spirit. Most persons, I sup- pose, when they read of the Holy Spirit failing upon any one, under- stand it to mean the influence of the Spirit coming upon the soul ; but Mr. B. speaks as if the Holy Ghost, or his influence, fell on the outside of the Apostles, and so surrounded their bodies like an electric bath. And to shov/ he intended this, he has put these words in large capitals, " it filled all the house where they were sit- ting." Then they were immersed in something which filled the house ; I ask, what was that something ? In English it is expressed by the pronoun " it"— it filled the house ; the Greek has no pronoun. Vv^ell, what is the antecedent to '' it" ? I answer, the v/ord " sound." The sound, which was as a rushing mighty wind, filled all the house where they wtire sitting. The Avordin the Greek is eechos, an echo, a reverberating sound. Mv. B's. electric bath was, after all, nothing more than an echo. He has been very silent about this electric fluid ; either he did not knov/ what it was, or he was not complaisant enough to tell us. The loss, however, is not great ; we have found it out without him. It was an echo then that filled all the house ; and the Apos- tles, being immersed in sound, were surrounded by the echo like a patient in an electric ]>ath. This is the beauty of sticking close to the primary mcianingof theterm, as Mr. B. calls it; and so tenacious is he of his primary meaning, that he does not care in what people are imme;rsed, so they are but immersed in something. OF BJPTTSJk, 9? To bfe baptized by the Holy Spirit is to receive his infiuerxce on the iieart and mind ; but this baptism, according- to Mr. B. is to have tl\e body surrounded by an eclio; Is then the influence of the Spirit fall- ing upon the heart, and a reverberating sound surrounding^ the body, the same thing- ? Mr. B. is a dreadlV.! ccnfounder of things that differ ! He said once that an obedient subject of the civil government and a complete church member were the same thing ; doss he think too that the im'luence of the Holy Ghost is nothing more than an echo I — So mucli for the electric bath and the Quaker's argument I These are Mr. B's.t'.vo miserable shifts, by which he v/ould evade the argument from the Holy Spirit's baptism in liivoiir of axTusion ; and miserable ones they are as ever made their appearance in public. I shall now close v. hat I mean to say on the mode, by collecting the particulars and placing them in one view. The v/ord dafifizo, used for this ordinemce, means v/aohing only, but not any mode of washing : It means neither dipping, pouring, nor sprinkling ; for these are only dif- ferent ways of washing, 2. i'. baptizing* TheV) therefore, who say that the word rantism [sprinkling] is not the same as baptisni, say nothing but what is very right; for rantize differs from baptize, as the man- ner of doing diifers from the thing done : And the same is true of immersion and pouring. Yet, at the same time, it must be observed that the v,'ord baptism is iJsed in Scripture where pouring and sprink- Ttng are evidently intended; while it cannot be proved that it is ever ii«ied either in the Nevv^ Testament or in the Septuagint where immer- sion took place. The New Testament I have examined; I will here just notice the two places vdiere it occurs in the "Septuagint. 2 Kings, V. 14, /:g2 katcbee A^ainian kai cbaji'iaato en to Jorc^rt'Wff— And Naaman went down and baptized in Jordan. The English has it " dipped," and this is the only place where baptize is translated "dip ;" but whether there was an immersion of the whole body, or any part of it, is altogether uncertain. All we can be certain of is, that the proph- et ordered him to wash, his servant advised him to wash, and he went down, and ebafitisato kata to reema Elisaic^ baptized according to the word of EHsha. Nov; there are two reasons which induce some to think he applied water to one part of his body only : 1 . As he ex- pected the prophet to strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper, they conclude he was leprous only in one part of his body, and that the water was applied to that part. 2. The command to wash seven times, they consider as refL^rring to that part of the la^v of cleansing in which the leper is ordered to be sprinkled ; but, for my own part, I think it impossible to say in what manner he baptized. The other is merely figurative, expressive of a sense of God's anger, and occurs in Isaiah xxi. 4, kai ee anomia mc baptizd — And sin bap- tizes me ; meaning the punishment due to sin, which is expressed by povaing out anger, fury. See. on a person. I'rom these premises tlie unforced conclusion is this : That, on tlie one hand, as the word bap- tize is expressive of no particular mode, nothing can be concluded from it in favor of one m.ore than another ; so, on the other hand, as the word has certainly been used for pouring and sprinkling, while there is no proof of its ever being used in Scripture for immersion, it <^oes niore naturally ascociate it'^eif with affusion and aspersion. With N 98 OF THE USE OF l-egard to tlve circumstances of baptism, they afTord no certain proof on cilhcr side. Vvc can do no more than presume, and this may ht done on both sides : There is presumption for and against, and fancy, as it may happen to favor any one side, will form the conclusion ; but as the circumstances carry us no farther than presumption, no certain conchision can be formed cither for immersion or against it. The al- lusions, I observed, were of two kinds ; the one I have called the Baptist allusion, the other the Pa:dobaptist allusion. The Baptist al- lusion is entirely founded in mistake, and that through a non-attention to the design and scope of the Apostle ; for in the same v/ay as the Baptists make an alhision to immersion, the context will furnish al-^ lusions to. other modes : and disputants, v/ere they so inclined, might plead with more advantage for the sign of the cross, kc. than the Baptists can for immersion. The Pzcdobaptists, allusion consists 'v\ this : They consider the two baptisms, the material a^id the spiritual, f.s being the one a sliadow or figure of the other, and the mode of the material as reseuibling tliut of the spiritual. And, therefore, as di- vine influence in spiritual baptism is said to come upon — fall upon — to be shed forth — ^jDoured out, and as material baptism is to be a signifi- cant emblem of tliis, tlie allusion is decidedly in favor of pouring and sprinkling. And that this is the true state of the matter appears by this : That the Scriptures commonly join material and spiritual bap- tism together as counterparts of each other, and express them by the same word, ai;d describe them, as to their mode, in the same way. The consequence then is, that as the baptism of the Spirit is pouring, sheddin?:- S^ic. aud as the baptism of water is to represent that, and is described, as to its mode, in the same way, that mcK.le must of ne* cessity be pourin<^ or sprlnkiing. OF THE USE OF INFANT BAPTISM! As I have often heard it asked, What is the use of infant bap- tism ? I think it necessary, before I conclude, to say something in an- swer to that question. With regard to the use of baptism, I consider it in the light of a mean of grace, and I view it in the same way when applied to infants. I do not suppose that infants, properly speaking, receive arty present benefit by being baptized, but that this is designed the more to engage the attention of parents and others to the rising generation. I vieAV infants, when baptized, under the notion of persons entered into a school ; and therefore, I consider parents, pastors, deacons, and church-members, at large, as brought under an additional obligation to instruct those children who are become schol- ars, as they become able to learn, in the peculiar truths of the reli- gion of Christ. Viewing the matter in this light, it assumes an im- portance exceedingly grand ; and infant baptism is fitr from being that unmeaning thing, which it appears to be, when the views arc extended no farther than helpless infancy. LYFAJ^ T BAP TISM. 9 Q We may illustrate this by tuklniJja view of circumcision. Circum- rision brought persons under an oljlii^-ation of conforming- to the re- vealed -svili of God ; he who was circumcised became a debtor : And as this Avas the natiu'e of the institute, the oblii^ation devolved on all who received it. But forasmucli as persons cannot actually conform before they are brought to understand, and, in order that they may 4mderstand, they must be taught, we are, therefore, to consider cir- cumcised infants as standini:; in the place of scholars or disciples to be instructed in that system to which they were boimd to conform. If then circumcision brought an obligation on some to leani, it must, at the same time, bring an obligation on others to teach ; because u- sually persons do not learn without being taught : and hence parents, priests, and people, came under their respective degrees of obligation to see the rising generation instructed in th.at religion into \\\\\q\\ they were initiated as scholars or disciples. When I consider this divine in- stitute as calculated to fix the attention of the people on their risinj^ r.fl^spring, with respect to their instruction in the things of God, I tannot sufnciently admire that poor heathenish notion of circumciiiion which Mr. Booth has somewhere picked up, or rather invented him- self, than wliich, I am persuaded, the most ignomnt Jew never enter- tained a meaner. It is for want of viewing the matter in this way, that an institute, administered to an infant, appears ridiculous to any. When the at- tention is fixed on the infant only, whether it be a circumxised or a baptized infant, without considering any thing further, v/e may well say, as the Baptists do. What can an infant know ? 'What can an infant do ? What use can it be to an infant ? In such a case, it is very true, it would be a dlfiicult thing to discern any wisdom in the administra- tion of an institute of any kind to an infant. And I remember once conversing with a Baptist upon infant baptism, who, among other things, observed what a silly thing it v/as to baptize an infant. As I perceived his views extended no farther than helpless intancy, I asked him, whether, if he had seen it done, he would not have thought it a very silly thing to circumcise an infant ? " That I should indeed," said he, *' indeed I should ;" these, as well as I can recollect, v, ere his very words. But when, on the contrary, our views take in the grand design of engaging the attention the more fixedly to the rising i-ace, all the supposed silliness vanishes away, and it appears a plan wor- thy the wisdom and kindness of God. I was led more particularly to vicAV the matter in this point of light, by considering that commission given to the Apostles ijy the risen Saviour respecting the Gentile nations. Matt, xxviii. 18, 19, 20, *' All power is given unto me in heaven and in earih. Go ye there- fore, and, matheetcumtr^ disciple all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; didas- kontes, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- manded yuu," 8cc. Here we have the whole plan just as I have set it down in the case of circumcision : They are sent to. make disciples [scholars ;] for diacifiulus in Latin, and scholar in English, are just tl;e same ; they are to enter such as are made scholars by baptism ; they arc to instruct these scholars in the things of Ghrist, in order IQQ OF THE USE OF that they may observe them. Our blessed Lord, by making use of the words mathecteusate^ make disciples, and dida-'.kontes^ teaching', car-> ries our views immediately to mathcctai^ disci/iuli, scholars, and dkdafjka-* loi^ firdsceptGrea^ schcoim?.sters ; and thus we are presented with a Christian school with scliolars and masters. According to this viev/ of the subject, and to this our Lord's vrords naturally lead us, there appears not only a grandeur of design, but likewise an exact symmetry in the difTerent dispensations of God — I mean that attention to the rising offspring, which had shown itself in a former dispensation, and, no doubt, in all. It is to be observed that our Lord uses a term, a school term, v.diich will agree to an in- fant as well as an adult ; for the word rnathsdecsy a scholar, of which the word used by our Lord is the theme, does not necessarily intend previous lecirning nor present learning, bvit only learning in design. We call those scholars who have done learning, and so we do those who are now at their studies, and so likewise those v.dio have not yet begun to learn, provided they a.re entered for that purpose ; so that the idea of learning does not necessarily annex itself to the term ma" theeiees^ scholar, any farther than to denote a person who is entered. into a school with a view to learn. But here it may be asked, What propriety can there be in callinr^ a person a disciple or scholar v/ho is yet incapable of learning ? I re- ply, he is properly so called, because he is entered wiih that design. e.g. Numbers, iii. 28. " In the number of ail the males, frcm a month old and upwards, were eight thousand and six hundred, keepincy the chare;e of the sanctury." Can any body tell me how a child of six weeks old could be a keeper of the chai"ge of the sanctuary ? Ccr-f tainly he could no otherwise be called a keeper but as one designed and appointed to that service. Just with the same propriety an in- fant, who, by circumcision oj- baptism, was or is publicly entered into a religious school, may be called a disciple in a religious sense. And it is a very general opinion tliat infants are actually so called in Acts^ XV. 10. " Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the dis- ciples i" That infants are called disciples will appear plain if we ask. On whose neck was this yoke to have come ? Every one knows, who knows the m.anner of Moses respecting circumcision, that it would have come on adults, but chiefiy on infants : and then it is evident that as part of those, on whom the yoke would have ccAiie, were in- fants, it is as evident that those infants v;ere called disciples : But ■whether this be so or not, the word made use of by our Lord will a<>-ree to infants as well as adults. The Apostles are to make disciples — that is all moJhecteitsate im- ports. But still the question is, how are tliey to make theur ? I answer, by teaching ; for neither adult nor infant can be made a disciple v, ith- out. And herein the Baptists are very right, and I agree with them, that adults and infants must be made disciples by teaching, or they will not be made so at all. But then how can an infant be made a dis- ciple by teaching ? I reply, not directly but indirectly ; that is, the pa- rents, being won over by teaching to embrace the truth, they present their infants to the Christian school to be trained up in the same truth ; and thus they become disciples, f . ^. Joel is to staictify i* LyFJXT BAPTISM. 101 fast, andccill a solemn assembly, to slather the people, elders, children, and those that suck the breasts. But how is he to assemble tiieni ? He is to blow a trumpet in Zioii. But what docs a suckini^ child know about the sound of a trumpet ? I answer, he knows nothing at all about it. How then are sucking*- children to be broui^ht to- gether by the souiid of a trumpet, seehig they know notliint>- of the trumpet or its sound ? 1 reply, In the same way as infants arc made disciples by teaching. But how is tliat ? Every one knows how it is who knows any tiling ; and this I have already explained. If the trumpet had not been sounded, the sucklings would not have beeij collected, and if tlie men were not taught, infants would not becom.c disciples : So then infants as v/ell as men Lire made disciples by teaci^* ing, as elders and sucking cliildren are brought to the fiist by the sound of a trumpet. Viewing baptism as introducing infants into a visible state of dis- cipleshjp, we are to consider others as teachers and overlookers of these disciples : And then the usefulness of such an institute will dis- play itself before us. AVe see an infant baptized.— If cur vievrs ter* rainate there, alas, what is it ? Infant sprinkling only, the baptism of a baby. Things v;,diich are little in themselves, become great by their connexion with, and relation to others. We see an infaiU baptized. What does it import ? He is received into discipleship, i. e. to be a scholar in a Christian school. Now carry your views into the depart- ment of parents, pastors, deacons, and members ; and listen to the silent language of this institution. " Parents, pastors, and people, pray fcr us ; during our tender infancy, pray for us. And when matured by age, cause the doctrine which you profess, to drop upon lis as the rain, to distil as dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as showers upon the grass. Watch over us with united care, and bring us up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." It is a dispensation grand and merciful, v/hich is calculated more povrerfully to turn the attention of men, to the concerns of those who are rising into life, and posting into eternity. There is one fault among others in the Baptist system, that it places .the rishig generation so entirely out of sight. I do not mean, that the Baptists themselves do this, for their conduct in this respect is :nuch better than their system ; but their system places them out of fcigfit. And in this, it differs from ail the dispensations of God, of V, liich v/e have any particular knowledge ; which alone v/ould lead to a presumption, that it is not of God. To what I have said concerning the use of infant baptism, under the idea of an institution suited to draw tlie attention more powerfully to the immortal concerns of the rising generation (and he must be very inattentive to human nature, who does not see a beauty and blessedrjess in such a contrivance ;) there is no cbjecticn that can be brought by a Baptist, but may be retorted. He may say. Cannot all this be done without baptizing infants ? Retort : Cannot men be built up in faith and love, without either baptism or the Lord's sup- per ? — Are not many baptized infai"it3 as destitute cf real religion as others ? Ret. — And are not many baptized adults, as destitute of religion a^ beathen.-5 I — Axe not many unbaptizcd infants brought up 103 OF THE USE OF, b*f. in Chvistian !:no-vvlcd^i;e equally as 'vvcll as the bi^ptizecl ones ? Het.-~9 And are not many, wi:o have not been baptized in adult age, as gra- cious and holy as those who have ? In this way every objection wliich can be brou;^ht may easily be retorted on the bringcr. But the truth is, that the enjoymeiit of ordinances is to be con^ sidered only as a mean of grace ; they are well suited as ordinances to impress the mind ; but then, it is very certain, they effect nothing, unless God is pleased to give tne. increase. The possession of the word of God, the enjoyment of preacliii^g, baptism, the Lord's sup- per, are good things in themselves, though many are never the better for them ; but we are to estimate tnese things not by the advantage which some receive, but by their own suitableness to promote, as means, some great ends. When we consider infants under the notion of disciples, or scholars, the idea suggests to us a noble kind of discipline in the church of God. It suggests, that all those infants v»^ho are baptized, should be formed, g.s they become capable, into societies, for the purpose of Christian instruction ; And so every church should have its school. That there should be in churches, not only fioimertai., pastors, but didufikaloi^ school- fnasters, Eph. iv. 11. That the minister, and other fit persons, should preside over these little disciples ; and parei ts who bring their children to baptism, should consider themselves as bound in conscience to see them forth -coming to this society at all appointed seasons. That all the members should watch over them, v.'ith respect to their morals, and likevdse their Christian learning. In short, the whole should be a churcli business, regulated in the manner of doing accord- ing to the wisdom of each Cliristian society. For as the infant is re- reived by the church as a disciple in its baptism, the church becomes bound to regard that infant as such ; and to see that it is treated as a scholar of Christ. To all this, it is plain, the idea of discipleship leads ; and in this view it becomes greatly important, as its tendency IS to draw the cares and prayers of the whole Christian chuich towards the rising generation. There are many special uses connected with this grand leading idea, which the limit of this essay will not permit nie to mention. I can- liot say how far the leading idea itself is attended to by those who iido])t infant baptism ; if it be not, it is so much the more to be la- mented, that in this as well as in other things the spirit of an institute is not followed up to its proper scope. It is sufficient notwithstand- ing to my present purpose, in showing the usefulness of an ordinance, if there be a natural fitness, in the ordinance itself, to promote the great end I have mentioned. And as every system Vv e embrace is likely to impress our minds according to its nature ; that system must he eminently good and useful, which is calculated most of all, to bring the rising generation, and their everlasting concerns, to our mind ; to hold them up perpetually before our eyes ; and to fix them habitually upon our hearts. — All this the admission of infants by bap- tism to a state of discipleship in tlie church of God, is evidently cal- culated to do ; 2.nd herein I judge its main usefulness consists. Rffoccliois and Recommendations of the ahove Work, hy the Englijh Reviewers of Keligioiis Fublications. It is perhaps inipnssihle to review- a book of a controversial nature, vithout giv'if.g OjTeace to oae siue or other of the question ; even though the greare^t care jYiay be lakt-a to oirend neither : And besides, it is more than probable, that an honest yevk^ver may have an opinion of his own on the subject. However, keeping that out of sight, as far as possible, we shall endeavour to give a just i-epresti\tai:ion^of the reasons here assigned for renouncing the T>rinc]ples of Antr- pxdobap.isin. The writer seenns to be thvorcughly accjuainttd with the natur<^ and extent of his subject, and to have a clear view of all the consequences tliar ina-v arise from the various arguments urged either for or against infant baiJtism : and has certainly given a new turn to the controversy, wliile he has brought for- } ward some now, and much iiT).por"ant matter, in such a form, as undoubted]/ t-alls for fhe vei^' Fcrious attention of those gen'lei^ien vv-ho oppose infant baptisirj. He wrives with great perspicuity, and reasons with nuich furce, ahd with r.o little effect. He fairly statv^s th -ise interesting points, which are erually admitted on both sides. — Such as these ; that the baptism of believing adults is right and projier — that every individual, -vho believes, may and aught to be baptized — that infants are not capable of believing. The question then is not concerninr; the bapcism of adults, nor the baptism of Ulierers, nor yet whether infants are tapable ( J faith ; for in thcje markers all are agreed ; 1^: the q;>estion is selelv this, Are vfants to be baptized, or :.ot ? That our common readers, for who.se benefit we chieHy write, may understand this statement of the sui^ject, and our author's 7iiode of reasoning, we shall set before them the following specimen. The Eaptibts say, The Scriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptism, ^Ir. Edv.-ards says, Granted freely. The Baptists alurm. That infants have \\o faitlx I or repentance. Mr. Edwards answers. Granted freely. The Baptists then, urge, I That infan'-s, therefore, are not proper subjects of bapti-im. Mr. Edv.ards denies this assertion and rejects it, because no one ever urged ba])rism on the faitli of in- fantry, and because the faith of infants enters not at all into the question : And^ were it necessary, Mr. Edvv ards would further illustruie the subject in the follow- ing manner : — The Baptists attack the Jews, and say, The Sci-ipturcs required faith m order to c'rcumcision. The Jt.v answers. Granted freely. I'hcn the Eaptii'a say, Buc male infants of eight days eld had not faith. The Jew an5:,wers ag^in, Granted freely. The Baptists then go on, and say, Male infants of eight days old, therefore, were not proper subjects of circumcision. The Jew answers wiih ardour, and justly too ; I deny that assertion, because rione ever rested circunu;is- ion on tl?e faith of an infant eight days old, nor does the faith of iufanto at all cii- ter into tiie question. Here then it evidently appears, that, if neither circumcision ,nor baptism was ever grounded on the faith uf infants, the arguments for or against the right of infants to these ordinances must be drawn from sources that have - Jio-.hing to do with their faith. 'I'he que;,tion therefore is. Are infants to be baptized or not ? The Baptists sa. . No ; and then assign their reasons : All of whicii Mr. Edw^ards ruduces to two : Fir,t, That a person, ivho has a right to a positi'je institute, must be expressly ?^?e;?- tioied, as having that right ,• but inj'unts art not so mentioned, and therefore have hi.i • right. This argujuent Mr. Edwards considers as a mere assumption ; — as allowed by any class of men, — nor ov/ned by tlie Baptists then^selves, as of uay real force, in admitting women to the Lord's Supper. Here some things arc introduced, respecting the controversy as utanaged by Mr. Booth, which Cci'tjiiUy require an explicit answer. Tiieir second argu r.'oa': is, — That the Scriptures require faith and repentance as it- efiiisite to baptiftni t but as i'firts cannot have tlese, they are nut proper subjects , t xa